'there are extant commentaries of Symmachus in which 'he endeavours to support the fore-mentioned heresy, from the gospel according to Matthew. These, together with Symmachus's other translations of the scripture, Origen had, as he informs us, from one Juliana: who, he says likewise, received those books from Symmachus himself." Valesius contends, that the words above cited ought to be thus translated: There are still extant commentaries of Symmachus, in which, disputing strongly against Mat'thew's gospel, he seems to confirm the foresaid heresy.' He does not deny that the Ebionites received St. Matthew's gospel: but he says, their gospel of Matthew was corrupted and mutilated; and he supposes, therefore, that in this work Symmachus disputed against our authentic genuine gospel of St. Matthew.

6

But Valesius has made few converts to this opinion; most other learned men understanding this passage agreeably to the version which I have given of it. And in favour of this sense it has been alleged, that this passage was so translated by Rufinus, and was so understood in the same manner by Jerom: not to insist here on Nicephorus Callisti, Suidas, or others, who have taken it in this sense. It is possible, indeed, that the gospel according to Matthew, used by Symmachus, varied in some things from our gospel; but how far, or in what particulars, we cannot so much as pretend to make a conjecture: though if Symmachus was of that branch of the Ebionites, which said that

Ταυτα δε ὁ Ωριγενης μετα και αλλων εις τας γραφας ερμηνειών του Συμμαχε, σημαίνει παρα Ιελιανης τινος ειληφέναι ἡν και φησι παρ' αυτου Συμμάχου τας Biẞrove diadržao0a. Eus. H. E. 1. vi. cap. 17.

* The original words are εν οἷς δοκει-κρατύνειν : which have been generally understood by modern interpreters, as if Eusebius only said, that Symmachus seems to confirm the foresaid heresy,' supradictam hæresin adstruere videtur.' Montfauçon has a learned observation upon the force of the Greek word; and corrects this interpretation: Cum sexcentis exemplis probetur To doku, maxime apud scriptores ecclesiasticos, non minuere affirmationem; quâ de re vide onomasticum nostrum ad Athanasii opera, in voce SOKE. Prælimin. in Origenis Hexapla, p. 83.

y Ad locum Eusebii.

Vid. Hody, ibid. 585, 586. Fabric. Bibl. Gr. T. ii. p. 338, 339. Ittigius in Dissertat. de Haresiarchis, p. 72. Tillemont, Mem. Ecc. T. ii. P. i. Les Ebionites, p. 198; and note 2. Montfauçon, Præliminaria in Origenis Hexapla, p. 13.

Eusebii verba sic vertit Rufinus: Sed et commentarios quosdam Symmachus conscripsit, in quibus conatur de evangelio secundum Matthæum auctoritatem suæ hæreseos confirmare. Apud Hodium, ibid.

b Aquila scilicet Pontici Proselyti, et Theodotionis Ebionæi, et Symmachi ejusdem dogmatis, qui in evangelium quoque kara Maratov scripsit commentarios, de quo et suum dogma confirmare conatur. De V. I. Origen.

cap. 54.

Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary, (as Eusebius seems to hint, and Theodoret expressly says,) it might be suspected that he did not receive the first chapter of St. Matthew's gospel. If this work of Symmachus were now extant, it would be a curiosity. It would, in all probability, give us a great deal of light into the notions of the Ebionites, and satisfy us how far the gospel of Matthew, which they used, was genuine or corrupted; and what respect they had for the other gospels; and how far they owned the authority of Paul, or the other twelve apostles of Christ.

6

d

Eusebius adds: These, [commentaries,] together with Symmachus's other translations [or interpretations] of the scriptures, Origen had, as he informs us, from Juliana.' By these other translations' Hody understands some comments, or expositions of the scripture, different from the Greek version of the Old Testament made by Symmachus: but he owns, at the same time, that Rufinus understood these words of the version. They are so understood likewise by Cave, and Dodwell, and others. I think this sense cannot be well disputed: especially, if we consider that there were two editions of the version of Symmachus: though if there were but one edition of that version, the words of Eusebius, taken in connection with what precedes, could not be understood, in my opinion, of any thing but the version which Symmachus had made of the Old Testa

ment.

:

Hody thinks that Symmachus was not only an interpreter of the Old Testament, but likewise an expositor of the New and that not barely on account of his commentaries upon the gospel of St. Matthew, mentioned by Eusebius, but for some exposition of St. Paul's epistles. This supposition is founded upon a passage of Agobardus, bishop of Lyons in the beginning of the ninth century. I shall put the passage in the margin; but I apprehend no certain • De Hær. Fab. 1. ii. cap. 1.

4 Cum dicit μετα των αλλων έρμηνειών, ' cum aliis interpretationibus, perspicuum est intelligi non translationem; quod putavit Rufinus, sed expositiones quasdam scripturarum. Rufinus postrema ea sic vertit: Hæc ipse Origines cum interpretatione ipsius Symmachi scribit se apud Julianam quandam reperisse.' Hod. ibid. p. 587.

e Hist. Lit. P. i. P. 64.

et Fabric. Bibl. Gr. T. ii. p. 339.

f Dissert. Iren. iv. c. 40. Vid. 8 Sic Hieronymus in

Jer. 32. et in Nahum, c. 3. ab Hodio laudatus, ibid. p. 586.

Symmachum non modo ut interpretem V. Testamenti, verum etiam ut expositorem Novi, commemorare videtur Agobardus. Epist. ad Fredegisum, cap. xi. [conferatur cap. ix.] Hæc omnia idcirco dicimus, ut appareat, • quia quam injuste a vobis criminamur, cum dicitis nos reprehensores apostolorum et divinarum scripturarum esse tam injuste; vel potius, multo injus

conclusion can be founded upon it. Fabricius thinks that Agobardus refers to nothing else but the version of the Old Testament.

m

Hody supposes likewise, that' Jerom speaks of some work of Symmachus written in the Latin tongue. Fabricius apprehends, that Jerom's words are not to be understood of Symmachus. This is a matter of no great consequence; but Hody's seems to be the most natural interpretation of Jerom. If this were a clear point, it would be an additional argument of the abilities and diligence of this Ebionite; who then would be reckoned a master of more languages, than the most learned generally were at that time.

CHAP. XXIX.

SUPPOSITITIOUS WRITINGS OF THE SECOND CENTURY.

I. The Acts of Paul and Thecla. II. The Sibylline Oracles. III. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. IV. The Recognitions. V. The Clementine Homilies. VI. The Clementine Epitome. VII. Remarks upon the three last pieces. VIII. The Conclusion of the second Century.

THERE were, before the end of the second century, several writings composed and published under the names of eminent persons, to whom they do not really belong; as 'tius, quoscunque interpretes atque expositores coæquatis apostolis et evangelistis; cum Symmachum, et Paulum, et Didymum, et Joannem unâ defensione indifferentique laude dignos ducitis.' Respicere videtur ad expositionem epistolarum Paulinarum ab eo conscriptam. Hodius, ibid. p. 587.

Neque Agobardum vel catenarum compositores aliud opus Symmachi quam Versionem Bibliorum respicere existimo, quemadmodum Hodius ipse probe animadvertit Symmachum inter Latinos patres quandoque referri, quod Latini ecclesiæ doctores ejus translatione usi fuerunt. Fabric. Bibl. Gr. I. iii. cap. 12. T. ii. p. 349. k Ibid. p. 587.

Symmachus igitur pro eo quod [Ps. cxxxv.] est in Græco repotov, in Hebræo Segula, expressit aperov, id est ; egregium' vel præcipuum:' pro quo verbo, in alio volumine, Latino sermone utens, ' peculiarem' interpretatus est. Hieron. Comm. in Ep. ad Tit. c. 2.

Sed videtur Hieronymus loqui de Latino veteri interprete, qui in alio volumine,' h. e. non in Psalmis, sed in alio libro Biblico περίσσιον reddiderit 'peculiarem.' Fabric. ibid. p. 339.

is generally allowed. I need not inquire what were the views of the authors of these works. Some might design thereby the advancement of the christian religion in general; others might intend to recommend, together with that, some particular notions and sentiments which they had entertained. Whatever were the views of the authors, I have thought the writings themselves might be of some use to us at this time. If in these pieces, published under borrowed names, the main facts and principles of the New Testament are asserted; this may be esteemed an additional confirmation of the truth of the christian doctrine, beside what is afforded in the genuine writings of this early age. For this reason I have made some extracts out of divers supposititious pieces, and here propose them to the reader's consideration.

I. The Acts, or Travels, of Paul and Thecla have been a already shown not to be a work of the apostle Paul, but of some weak presbyter of Asia, and never to have had any authority in the church of Christ. It is not certainly known when they were composed: it may be however reckoned probable, that they were written in the latter part of the first, or the beginning of the second century.

b

There is still extant a book with that title, both in Greek and Latin, published by the late Doctor Grabe from manuscripts in the Bodleian Library. That learned man supposes it to be the work itself of the fore-mentioned presbyter, with only some few interpolations. That there are interpolations, cannot be well disputed; even allowing it to be, for the main part, the ancient piece published under this title. The Old Latin version appears to me more sincere and uncorrupt than the Greek copy; but I think them both to have been oftener interpolated than Grabe supposed, and in things of great consequence.

I shall take a few passages of this book, containing, as I suppose, allusions, or imitations of some parts of the New Testament.

1. And in the first place I observe, that in this book Onesiphorus and Titus are introduced, as admirers and friends of the apostle Paul; and Demas, Hermogenes, Alexander the coppersmith, are represented as his pre

a

Chap. 27. num. xxii.

c

b Tandem etiamsi concedatur antiqua Acta Thecla quibusdam in locis interpolata esse, nihilominus ipsa in lucem edere operæ pretium existimavi, quia paucissima sunt quæ in suspicionem corruptionis trahi queant, eaque haud magni momenti. Grabe, Spicil. T. i. p. 94. At the beginning of these Acts,

in the Greek copy, Demas and Hermogenes only are mentioned, which last is called a coppersmith. Αναβαινοντος τω Παύλω εις Ικόνιον εγενήθησαν

tended friends, but real enemies: and, whereas St. Paul, 2 Tim. ii. 17, speaks of some, particularly Hymeneus and Philetus, "who concerning the truth have erred, saying, That the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some;" so here these enemies of the apostle, Demas and Hermogenes, are brought in saying, That they will show that the resurrection, which Paul says is to be, is already past ['made'] in the children which they have, and that they have risen by knowing the truth.' I put down now two or three other passages.

e

2. Paul is said to have preached at Iconium, in the house of Onesiphorus, in this manner: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God," Matth. v. 8. "Blessed are they who shall keep the flesh undefiled, for they shall be the temples of God.- -Blessed are they who have wives, as though they had none, for they shall become angels of God," I Cor. vii. 29. "Blessed are they that receive the wisdom of Jesus Christ, for they shall be called the sons of the Highest," Luke vi. 35. "Blessed are they who for the love of Christ forsake the fashion of this world, for they shall judge angels, and shall be placed at the right hand of Christ, and shall not see a severe day of judgment," 1 Cor. vii. 31; vi. 3.

In the old Latin version this last sentence is divided, as it were, into two; for after the sitting at the right hand of Christ,' or God, it is added, Blessed are the merciful, for they shall not see a severe day of judgment:' which is equivalent to those words, Matth. v. 7, "they shall obtain mercy." And divers other expressions are here put into the mouth of Paul, which, though different from our Lord's Beatitudes in St. Matthew and St. Luke, are a plain imitation of them; as some of these, which I have here put down, are exactly the same.

3. Paul is brought before the Roman governor at Ico

αυτῳ συνοδοιποροι Δημας και Ερμογένης ὁ χαλκευς, ὑποκρίσεως γέμοντες. Spicil. p. 93. In the Latin version Alexander the coppersmith' is joined with the other two: Facti sunt ei comites Demas, Ermogenes, Alexander ærarius, repleti simulatione. Ibid. p. 120.

e

4 Και ήμεις διδαξομεν, ὅτι ἡν λεγει ουτος αναςασιν γενεσθαι, ηδη γεγονεν εφ' οἷς ἔχομεν τεκνοις, και ανεπημεν, Θεον επιγνοντες. p. 101. init. Confer Ver. Lat. p. 122. Μακάριοι οἱ καθαροι τῇ καρδίᾳ, ότι αυτοί τον Θεον όψονται. Μακάριοι οἱ άγνην την σαρκα τηρήσαντες, ότι αυτοί ναοί Θεα γενησονται.--Μακάριοι οἱ ἔχοντες γυναικας ὡς μη έχοντες, ότι αυτοί αγγελοι Θεου γενήσονται -Μακάριοι οἱ σοφίαν λαβοντες Ιησου Χριτου, ότι αυτοι υίοι ύψισε κληθήσονται.-Μακάριοι οἱ δι' αγαπην Χρισε εξελθοντες το σχήματος του κοσμο, ότι αυτοί αγγελος κρινουσιν, και εν δεξια του Χριτου καθησονται, και εκ οψονται ήμεραν κρίσεως πικραν. Ibid. p. 97.

'Beati misericordes, quoniam ipsi non videbunt diem judicii amarum. p. 121.