On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
Gospel of the Birth of Mary . " "In the primitive ages /* says he , €€ there was a gospel extant bearing this name attributed to St . Matthew , and received as genuine and authentic by several of the aticient Christian sects . It is to
x be found in the works of Jerome , a father of the church , who flourished in the fourth century , from whence the present translation is made . His contemporaries , Epiphaaius , Bishop of Salamis , and Austin , also mention a Gospel under this title / ' Now , from all this , the reader would naturally
conclude that Jerome ; Epiphamus and Austin received it as a genuine work of St . Matthew . And yet , in reference to this very work , Jerome ( or at least the writer of this part of the works attributed to Jerome ) says , " The truth is , this book was published by
a certain disciple of the Manichees , named Seleucus , ( who also composed a spurious history of the Acts of the Apostles , ) and it rather tends to the ruin than the interest of religion . "
Epiphanius expressly includes the Proteuangelion ( which is little more than a transcript of this Gospel ) amongst " the most impudent forgeries of the Gnostics . " And the way in which Austin mentions it is as follows : €€ As
to what Faustus urges from the book entitled , €€ The Nativity of Mary / ' it is of no manner of authority with me , because it is not canonical . " The rest
of the note in this place only proves that , like other spurious pieces , this pretended Gospel has been very freely interpolated to suit different purposes . We may just remark another instance of disingenuousness . The titlepage , in a style of imitation not without
its meaning , very pompously announces these pieces as € * translated from the original tongues ; " when the fact is , that several of them are only translations of translations , and that the first
nine pieces are , without acknowledgment , reprinted word for word from the work we have before mentioned , namely , A new Method of settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament , by Rev . Jer . Jones , and the
rest are taken from Archbishop Wake ' s " Apostolic Fathers . " As neither of these works is out of print , we cannot agree with this Editor in the opinion that he has rendered any service to the theological student or the ecclesiastical antiquary . That which he has here
Untitled Article
presented to them in a garbled and confused form , was already accessible in those volumes in as correct * form as learning and sound judgment could supply . The whole originality of the book " consists in the arrangement of chapters and verses , together with the running-titles , framed to wound or
gratify the feelings , according as these happen to be constituted . As a specimen , take the following : " Christ Kills his Schoolmaster ; " " Blessed Thief ' s Story ; " " Christ at Play ;" " Gathers spilt Water ? ' " Kills a Play-fellow . " It is unnecessary to enter iftto a more detailed examination of this
work . We think that enough has been stated to prove that the intention is insidious , and the execution flimsy and insufficient . But as this unnecessary republication has been made of
pieces that h&ve long been consigned to neglect , it may not be improper to state in what light they ought justly to be regarded , and what aspect they bear upon the truth and credibility of the New Testament .
That a number of spurious pieces , containing foolish and ridiculous statements , should have been composed at an early period , and should have been partially received , is a thing so likely to have occurred in regard to a subject so generally interesting as Christianity ,
that it need excite no surprise , and cannot occasion any real discredit except to the authors of such writings . In particular , it seems highly probable that any accounts of the infancy of Jesus , of which we have so few particulars in the New Testament , would
be eagerly received , and , without any very rigorous examination , credited . It appears from the preface to St . Luke ' s Gospel , that many , even at that early period , had undertaken to write
histories of Jesus Christ and his Apostles . The variety of pieces in circulation ultimately found their just estimation , according to the evidences which accompanied them of genuineness and credibility : and this was the only way in which the canon of the New
Testament was formed . No restriction was attempted by the apostles upon the liberty which every one had of compossing writings which he might conceive calculated to edify the church ; they laid claim to no monopoly of inspiration y nor did they form any list or
Untitled Article
40 Review . —The Apocryphal New Testament .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1821, page 40, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2496/page/40/
-