they were, both one, the loss is not greatly to be regretted.* They are not quoted or alluded to by the early Fathers, with the respect due to the canonical Scriptures, either because they bore, on the face of them, evident marks of forgery, or because they were written by persons whose names were unknown, or who were authors of no credit.

We come now to the Apocryphal books of the New Testament, as they are called, which are still extant. These were, a little more than a century ago, collected and published by the learned Fabricius, and such of them as are attributed, by any writer of the first four centuries, to Jesus Christ, his Apostles, or their companions, are inserted in the work now under notice, which is a compilation chiefly from Fabricius, Jones, and Archbishop Wake, though made in a spirit very different from that which animated them.

The first piece in the volume is called the "Gospel of the Birth of Mary." This, which is an exceedingly trifling and silly production, is traced to the second century, and is supposed to have been a forgery of Seleucus, or Lucius, a disciple of Marcion, and a noted writer of spurious books. It was esteemed by some heretics, as the Gnostics and Manicheans, who made use of it, but was never regarded by Christians generally, as of any sort of authority. It is first mentioned, we believe, by Epiphanius, a writer of the fourth century, who expressly pronounces it an impudent forgery. It is also mentioned, and condemned as spurious by Augustine and some later writers. The copy now in existence differs from the original copy. It was taken from the works of Jerome. Prefixed to it, as it there stands, is a letter purporting to have been sent by Chromatius and Heliodorus to Jerome, requesting him to translate the work from the original Hebrew. This letter is generally considered by the learned, as supposititious, as also the answer, and a third, which forms a sort of preface to the work, both of which have been attributed to Jerome. From these we learn that it had been ascribed to Matthew, the Evangelist; but the fact is, says the writer, it is the production of a certain Manichean, by the name of Seleucus, who also wrote,

* The possession of this might throw some light on the very perplexing question concerning the original language of Matthew's Gospel. † Codex Apocr. Nov. Test.

under an assumed name, a book called the Acts of the Apostles. There must be a trifling mistake here, for the work was in existence before the Manicheans appeared as a

sect.

But it contained some notions afterwards adopted by the Manicheans, and, as we have said, they were fond of quoting the book, a circumstance which might very naturally lead the writer of the letter, whoever he was, to call the author a Manichean.

Next follows the "Protevangelion," or Gospel of James, a forgery, as is supposed, by the same author, and of a similar character, containing, in fact, the substance of the work just mentioned, with some additions. Jones conjectures, with some degree of probability, that they were originally one work. The remark in the prefatory notice to the "Protevangelion," or First Gospel, in the present publication, that the expressions used by the ancient Fathers, "indicate that it had obtained a very general credit in the Christian world," is unfounded. We have no evidence that it ever obtained such credit, and much to the contrary. It appears to have been always set down as a spurious book. That some alleged facts contained in it, as the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the circumstance that Joseph had been married, and had children by a former wife, called by the Evangelists the brethren of Jesus, were generally credited by the Fathers, only proves that they formed part of the current tradition. As such, they would very naturally be embodied in a fictitious writing, and would help rather to promote than to obstruct the design of the author. The work was first made known in Europe by Postellus, who "brought it from the Levant, translated it into Latin, and sent it to Oporinus, a printer at Basil, where Bibliander meeting with it, caused it to be printed in 1552." The assertion of Postellus, that it was publicly read and acknowledged as genuine in the Oriental churches in the sixteenth century, would, if true, have no weight. We must have some proof that it was generally received, and treated with respect as a production of James, by the early Christians, before we could be expected to regard it with any manner of deference, even admitting that the character of the writing itself were not sufficient to demonstrate, that it could never have been the work of an Apostle.

The "Protevangelion " is followed by the "First Gospel

of the Infancy of Jesus Christ." The origin of this is uncertain. It has been attributed to the Ebionites, to the Nestorians, among whom it is said to have been in use late in the sixteenth century, and to the Gnostics. Irenæus seems to refer to it as among the spurious and apocryphal books, and attributes it to a sect of the Gnostics called Marcosians. We believe that he is the only writer, during the first four centuries, who alludes to the work, and this fact alone would be sufficient to show that it had no claim to a place among the sacred writings.* If, as it would seem, the original existed in the second century, it must have been greatly interpolated, for parts of it bear evident marks of a later hand. Dr. Mill supposes that Lucius, before mentioned, was concerned in altering it, and in fact the book has passed with some, for his. It was translated by Henry Sike, Professor of the Oriental languages at Cambridge, and published at Utretcht in 1697.

The next piece, called the "Second Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ," or, "Thomas's Gospel," is a mere fragment. Jeremiah Jones, who transcribed it, as he says, out of " Cotelerius's notes on the Constitutions of the Apostles," conjectures that it was originally the same with the preceding. The ancient Fathers mention a Gospel according to Thomas among the spurious Gospels. Whether this be a fragment of the same is uncertain. At all events, it was not a work of esteem among the ancient Christians, and if it was not a part of "Thomas's Gospel," just mentioned, no account of it has been transmitted to us.

The Letter of Abgarus, king of Edessa, to Jesus Christ, and the Letter of Jesus in reply, which follow, are not mentioned by any writer before the time of Eusebius, the historian, who professes to have obtained them from the archives of the city of Edessa. The whole story carries, on the

* With regard to the assertion of Ahmed Ibn Idris, a Mohammedan writer, that it was "used by some Christians," of his time, “as the other four Gospels," we would simply observe, that, if true, it proves nothing as to the character and genuineness of the work. It was read, as before observed, by the Nestorians of Malabar, and these, or others of the sect, are probably the Christians referred to by this writer. The book, say the learned, was also used by the compilers of the Koran.

+ Hist. Eccles. L. 1. c. 13.

VOL. XIV. - N. S. VOL. IX. NO. I.

3

face of it, the air of fable, and the account of the preaching of Thaddeus, which accompanies the Letters, and which was derived from the same source, contains expressions which were not in use till long after the date assigned for their origin. They were evidently unknown to the Apostles and first Christians, and the authority of Eusebius was insufficient to procure them any thing like a general reception among Christians of the fourth century. They are expressly mentioned as apocryphal, in a decree attributed to the council holden at Rome, under Pope Gelasius, near the end of the fifth century. There can be no question of their spurious

ness.

We next come to the "Gospel of Nicodemus," formerly called the "Acts of Pontius Pilate." This cannot be traced to an earlier period than the middle, or latter end of the third century, when the sect of the Tessarescaidecatites, or Quartodecimans, as Epiphanius informs us, made use of it in support of their doctrine about the time of keeping Easter. It was evidently a forgery, and the occasion of it may have been this. The earlier Christians evidently supposed, with or without reason, that Pontius Pilate conveyed to the Roman emperor, Tiberius, some account of our Saviour's crucifixion. It was customary, it seems, for the governors of the several provinces to transmit to Rome notices of remarkable occurrences and transactions within their province. These were called the Acts of the governors. The "Acts of Pilate" are repeatedly appealed to, as in existence, by the early Fathers, as Justin Martyr and Tertullian, in their Apologies for Christianity, addressed to the Roman Emperor and Senate. They are mentioned also by Eusebius. The original Acts, however, were never produced. But the supposed fact of their existence, furnished the hint to some Christian writer to forge a book under the same title. Such forgeries, miscalled pious frauds, are known to have been common at the period alluded

to.

The name of Nicodemus seems to have been afterwards added, because he makes a prominent figure in the book. Such is the account, or rather the conjecture of the learned, concerning the origin of the piece. It is attributed, with much appearance of probability, to Lucius, or Leucius, called also Charinus, the noted forger before mentioned. Nothing needs be added to show that it is a worthless piece.

We have next the Apostles' Creed, in two forms, as it stood in the year 600, and as it now stands in the English "Book of Common Prayer." This requires no comment, as it is well known not to have been the production of the Apostles, or of the Apostolic age, and is, consequently, of no authority. In its shorter and more ancient form it reads thus.

"I believe in God the Father Almighty; And in Jesus Christ his only begotten Son, our Lord; Who was born of the Holy Ghost and Virgin Mary, And was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was buried; And the third day rose again from the dead, Ascended into Heaven, sitteth on the right hand of the Father; Whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead; And in the Holy Ghost; The Holy Church; The remission of sins; And the resurrection of the flesh, Amen."

But even this form is not very ancient, for it differs somewhat from the summaries of faith left us by different writers before the council of Nice, though it resembles them in its character of very great simplicity. The most material alteration the creed has undergone, since the form just quoted was in use, it will be perceived, is the addition of the clause "descended into hell," which is not found in the more ancient copies.

Then follows an "Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans," a short piece of only nineteen verses. It appears that there early existed a writing under this title, which is said to have been used by Marcion; but all the ancient Christians who mention it, pronounce it spurious. The present Epistle seems not to be the same, and if not, we have no account of it whatever, by any of the old writers. It is evidently a forgery, taken, for the most part, from St. Paul's genuine Epistles. What has served greatly to embarrass critics on the subject, is, that St. Paul himself, Col. iv. 16, appears to allude to a letter written by him to the Laodiceans; and several learned men among the moderns have supposed, that the "Epistle to the Ephesians" was known also by the title of the "Epistle to the Laodiceans." We cannot at present enter into a discussion of these points. However they may be disposed of, it is obvious, as we have said, that the short piece under consideration has no claims to be regarded as a genuine production of the Apostle. It would be difficult to explain the ground of the esteem in which it