G O S 



GOSHGOSBINK, a Moravian fettlement in Pcniifyl- 

 vania, iitu^ited on Alleghany river, about 15 miles above 

 fort Franklin. 



GOSIR, a town of Arabia, in Hadramaut, near the 

 coaft ; 75 miles S.Vv'. of Kefchim. 



GOSLING, a town of Aultria ; 1 2 miles S.E. of Bava- 

 rian Waidhoven. 



GOSLINGS, the name given to young geefe. 



GOSPEL, a hiftory of the life, aclion-s death, refurrec- 

 tion, afcenfion, and doiftrine of Jefiis Chriil. 



The word is Saxon, and of the lame import with tlie Latin 

 term evans^l'utr., or the Grtek ,u-Ayyi>M, which figuiiies glad 

 tidings, ov good news ; the hillory of our Saviour being the 



G O S 



of feme Catholic Chriftians in Egypt, before either of the 

 four canonical gofpel; new received. The (irft Chniban 

 writer who cites it is Clemens Alcxandnnus, who, however, 

 i-ejcfts it, though fome have fuppofed that a paflage in the 

 fecond epiftle ct Clemer.s Romanus tJ the Corinthiant is 

 taken from this gofpel. It is mentioned by Origcn, Jcroni, 

 and Epiphanius among apocryphal books. Many mcdena 

 writers, as Erafmus, Grctius, Grabe, MjIIs, fnppofo, ihst 

 it is referred to in the ititrodufticn to St. Luke's gofpel, 

 and therefore that it was prior to his ; and Dupin and F. 

 Simon tliink, that though it is net oi the iime authority 

 with the four canonical gofpels, it ought not to be rejeftod. 

 Mr. Jones is of opinion, that it was compofed by feme very 



" Eve" has been mentioned by fevcral modern writers, but 

 only by Epiphanius among the ancients ; it was, withotrt 

 doii!)l, a forgery of the Gnoftics. The gofpel of the 

 " Hebrews" was the fame with that of the Nazare;;e5. 



is mentioned by Ireneeus and Epiphanius as peculiar to oi.e 

 of the moil monftrous and ineonfillent feels that ever 

 affumed the Chriftian name. The falfe gofpe's of " Lucia- 

 nus," who Vv'as a famous critic and martyr under Diocleilan, 

 were, hke thofe lall -mentioned, corrupted, interpolated copies 

 not mentioned by any writer before Jerom, who places it of our prefent gofpels. -The gofpel oi " Matthias," of w^hich 

 antong the apocryphal pieces of the New Tetlament. there are now no remains, is mentioned by feveral of the 



beft^hiflory ever publillied to mankind. This hillory is early heretics to fupport their doariwes of ccUbacy and 

 contained in the writings of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. abftemioufnefs, and very probably by thofe of Egypt ; and 

 Luke, and St. Jch:i, who from thence are called Evan- Br. Lardner thinks that it was noc written before the third 

 gelills'. (See each of thefe articles.) The Chriilian church century. The gofpel of the '^ Ebionifes" was either alto- 

 never acknowledged any more than thefe four gofpels as gether, or very nearly, the gofpel of the Nazarenes. Tlie 

 canonical; notwithllanding which, feveral apocryphal gcf- gofpel of the " Encratites" has been mentioned by Fabricius 

 pels are handed down to us, and others are entirely loft. and fome others, but there is reafon for doubting wliether 



We fnall here fubioin the titles of fome of the principal an;r gofpel was ever called by this name. ^ The gofpel of 

 of thefe apocryphal gofpels, as we lind them in .Tones's 

 Canon, and Lardner's Works, with remarks that will ferve 

 to enable us to dillinguiih them from oin- four gofpels, the 

 authenticity of v.hieh is evinced under other articles in thifi 

 work. (See Bisle, Caxox, and Te.stamfnt.) Several The gofpels of" Hefychuis" were fome interpellated copies 

 of thefe fpurious gofpels arc mentioned in the decree, of our received gofpels. The .gofpel of " Judas Ifcariot" 

 aferibed to pope Gelafuis, in the council of Rome, A. D. ' . . t t- 



494, which pronounced tliem to be apocryphal. The gof- 

 pel of "Andrew the Apollle," is only mentioned in tins 

 decree. No fragments of it are extant, nor are there any 

 tellinionies concerning it. The gofpel of " Apelles" is 

 not mentioned by any writer before Jerom, who places it 

 antong the apocryphal pieces of the New Tetlament. 



Apelles was a difciple of Marcion, flourilhed about the mofc celebrated writers among the ancients, -viz. Origen, 



year of Chrifl I So, and is fflppofed to have fCrmed this Eufebius, Ambrofe, and Jerom; but they all reprefent it 



<rofpel out of the true and genuine gofpels for the ufe of as apocryphal. The gofpel of "Marcion" is taken notice 



nis followers at the clofe of the fecond century. Tlic of by TertwUian and Epiphanius, but it appears to have 



gofpel, " according to the twelve apollles," is mentioned been oiie of our own golpels, mutilated and altered ; pro- 



by Orit^en, Ambrofe, and Jerom, but they unanimoufly bably that of St. Luke, from v.hieh he took away entirely 



concur m rejefting it, and in exprefsly afferting that tht the two liril chapters, and many other parts, inferting many 



church receives only four gofpels. Jerom fuppofes this to things of his own, with a view to favour the opinions he had 



have been the fame with the gofpel according to the Naza- adopted. The gofpel of the " Nazarenes" or "Hebrews" 



renes The gofjicl " according to St. Barnabas" is not is the moft famous of all the ancient gofpels. Some have 



poticedby any of the Chriilian writers of the lirll four cen- fuppofed that St. Paul refers to this gofpel. Gal. i. 6. It 



tuiies ; nor do there feem to be any fragments extant, that is cited by Ignatius, as fome have luppofed, by Clemens 



unquellionably belong to it. Mr. Jones apprehends that Alexandrinus, by Origen, by Eufebius, ty Epiphanius, by 



this was merely lome interpolated corrupted gofpel of St. Jerom ; and it is mentioned by Bede, Sixtus Senenlis, Laro- 



Matthcw. The gofpel of " Bartholomew" is mentioned aius, Cafanbon, Grotius, F. Simon, Dupin, Grabe, Toland, 



by Jerum as apocryplial, and Jones, for reafons which he Nye, Richard Mill, Fabricius, Mangey, and other modern 



alletre.-s, inclines to think, tiiat it was the fame with the writers. However it is alleged, that this gofpel was never 



gofpel of St. Matth.vv, ufed by the Hebrews or Nazarenes. received by any primitive writer as canonical, nor was it 



M. Daille is of opinion that it was forged but a very little time cited or appealed to, as of any authority, by any one writer 



before Gelafuis. The gofpel of " Batihdes" is named by of the iirft four centuries ; and moreover that it was compofed 



Origen, Ambrofe, and Jerum, am.ong the apocryphal books out of St. Matthew's and the other authentic gofpels, with 



of the New Tetlament ; but no fragments of it remain, additions of fome other things received by oral tradition. 



The gofpel of " Cerinthus" is mentioned only by Epipha- It is allowed, that it was an early compofure, and Mr. 



nius in comiedion with an expolition of the iirft words of Jones fays, that it was undoubtedly extant in the beginning 



St. Luke's gofpel, as many other Chriftian writers notice 

 the apocryphal books ; and it feems probable, from the 

 iimilarity of the opinions adopted by Cerinthus and the 

 Eblonites, that the gofpel of Cerinthus and his followers 



of the fecond century, and fecms to have been made by fome 

 converted Jews, to favour their notion of blending judaifm 

 and chriilianity together. "As many millakes," fays Dr. 

 Lardner, " have been entertained about the " goipel ac- 



was no other than the Ebionlte or Nazaiene gofpel, i. e. the cording to the Hebrews," it may not be unfeaionable to 

 gofpel of St. Matthew corrupted and interpolated, in He- obferve here, that probably it was an Hebrew tranilation of 

 brew. The gofpel "according to the Egyptians," was one St. Matthew's original Greek gofpel, with additions from 

 of the moft celebrated apocryphal books, and fuppofed even the other gofpels ; to which polilbly might be added fome 

 by feveral modern critics to have been a fsithful compofure Lnv particulars received by tradition from the early Jewifli 



believers." 



