« 前へ次へ »
Mahometans, who maintain that another, was crucified in his Stead, and that Jesus flipping through the hands of the Jews, preached, afterwards to his Disciples, and then was taken into heaven....."
i... - The last words of this Gospel area, r Jesus being gone (into heaven), the Disciples scattered « themselves into many parts of Israel, and of the rest of the is world, and the truth being hated of Satan was persecuted “ by falsehood, as it ever happens. For certain wicked men, “ under pretence of being Disciples, preached that Jesus was “dead, and not risen again; others preached, that Jesus was
truly dead, and risen again ; others preached, and still “.continue to preach, that Jesus is the Son of God, among « which persons Paul has been deceived. We therefore, acoccording to the measure of our knowledge, do preach to « those who fear God, to the end they may be saved at the « last day of his divine judgment. Amen. The end of the « Gofpel." a--
I believe every impartial reader, upon a bare view of these fragments, will be soon persuaded to conclude this some late Mahometan forgery, and therefore could not be the Gospel under Barnabas's name which is rejected by Pope Gelasius ; nor need I make any farther remarks upon it, or Mr.Toland's unfair conclusions from it. This is very well done by Dr. Mangey; one thing only falls in my way, because it relates to the passage which is above produced out of the Baroccian manuscript. Mr. Toland affirms, he found it almost in terms in this Mahometan Gospel of Prince Eugene; and the sense there in more places than one, which, as he says, made him believe this to be the same with the Gospel anciently attributed to Barnabas, though interpolated. , A strange inference indeed! Because these words are in a Gospel evidently the composure of some late Mahometan, under the name of Barnabas, therefore this Gospel must be as old as Gelasius's time at least; i. e, a hun dred and fifty years, or more, before the Mahometan religion
Mangeyi ona.ong from it. Tharks upon it, o
was known in the world. But, for my part, I cannot but declare my suspicion, that there is no such passage as this in the Italian Gospel; for, had it really been, Mr. Toland would not have omitted that which he thought so much to his purpose; and therefore considering that writer's frequent unfairness in all his writings, and his numerous attempts to impose upon his readers, where he thinks he can safely do it; I do not at all wonder, that Dr. Mangey does with the utmost assurance affirm, that his omitting this passage is a strong presumption that it was not in his copy, and that he has not given so good proofs of his ingenuity or skill in this matter, as to be believed upon his own bare affertion. Mr. Toland cannot think it hard, that any one should believe this charge of the Doctor against him; because in his Answer he has not faid one word to justify himself in this matter, nor to clear his reputation, attacked so severely, and in so tender and valuable a part.
CHA P. IX.
A Conjecture concerning the true Original of the Gospelof Bar
nabas, from a History in the fifth Century. L AVING in the preceding chapter given some account 11 of the Gospel of Barnabas, I shall close it with a con: jecture concerning its true original, which I found upon a known History in the fifth century related by Theodorus Lector”, Nicephorus ", Suidas', and others, to this purpose : « That in the reign of the Emperor Zeno, the relies of Bar“ nabas the Apostle and companion of Paul were found in « Cyprus under a tree called Ceratia d, and upon the breast the « Gospel of Matthew, wrote with Barnabas's own hand, on « account of which the inhabitants of Cyprus prevailed in their
a Collectan. 1. 2. in ipso init.
d I know not how to translate the Greek Κεράτια, and therefore have put the original name.
« conteft with the Bishop of Antioch, that their own metro « polis lhould have an independent Bishop, not subject to the « jurisdiction of Antioch. The book was carried to the Em« peror; and very highly esteemed by him, and put under a « crown in his palace.” Now I say, whether this is a true relation of fact, or otherwise, it seems clearly to intimate to us; what that Gospel was, which went under the name of Barnabas in the time of Pope Gelasius, viz, that it was no other than some interpolated corrupted Gospel of St. Matthew.
If the fact was true, nothing can be more reasonably supposed; than that this book should afterwards be called the Gofpel of Barnabas; because,
1. The book is said to be written with Barnabas's own hand. · 2. It perhaps was a translation of St. Matthew, made by Barnabas into Latin, or the peculiar dialect of Cyprus. The History informs us, that it was laid up in the Emperor's palace, and something read out of it at certain feasons of the year.
3. By virtue of this book, which received its virtue from Barnabas, the Cyprians carried their point against the claim of the Bishop of Antioch for superintendency. All which laid together seems to intimate very plainly, that this book would afterwards be called by the name of Barnabas, which was really St. Matthew's Gospel.
Nor does the cafe alter, if we fuppofe this a fiction of the priests of Cyprus; for if the book really was a forgery, all the same things are supposed, and though they really did not find the relicts of Barnabas, yet some book they certainly produced, and then all that was said in the former case may as well be said here, and the same reasons be assigned, why this Gospel of St. Matthew, pretended to be found upon the breast of Barnabas, should go under the name of Barnabas, as if it had been really found there.
That which confirms me in the preceding conjecture is, that we have no mention at all of any such Gospel before this • I regard not Sigebertus's single story, that the book was Hebrew.
to intime for superin point aga;
time; but immediately after, Pope Gelasius mentions and condemns it a. · Since the first writing of this chapter, I have the pleasure to observe, Dr. Mangey has a conjecture very near the same with this of mine 6. But I think his opinion lies under this difficulty, that it supposes the book pretended to be found on Barnabas's breast, to be really St. Matthew's Gospel (for some book there must be produced), and yet the very same which was afterwards condemned in the Council at Rome by the Decree attributed to Gelasius, under the name of Barnabas, as Apocryphal. But to say no more of this Gospel; whatever it was, it is certain it never was a Canonical book, by Prop, IV, V, VI.
A Book under the Name of Bartholomew, mentioned by the supo
posed Dionysius the Areopagite, proved Spurious. The Gospel of Bartholomew: it seems to have been the same which was
found by Pantænus in the Indies in the second Century, and i no other than the Gospel of the Nazarenes.
Numb. VII. A Book attributed to BARTHOLOMEW
THAT there was formerly such a book, I gather from
that antient book which goes under the name of Dionyfius the Areopagite, who is in sacred History related to have been one of St. Paul's converts at Athens €. The passage I refer to is that in the begining of his first book of Mystical Divinity .
: The Emperor Zeno reigned (including his exile) from the year of Christ 474, to the year 491. Gelasius's Decree is commonly dated in the year 494.
• Remarks on Nazaren, c. 3. p. 14, 15.
c Act. xvii. 34.
Ούτω γεν ο θείος Βαρθολο- Thedivine Bartholomew hath waños anos, xai wokasio.cov spoken to this purpose ; viz. θεολογίαν είναι, και έλα:. That divinity is both copious:
and concise; that the Gospel σην, και το ευαγγέλιον σλατύ
; is both broad and large, and xai véya, xai au-Jos OUNTET“, also short. renuévov.. jinsi
It may perhaps be imagined by some, as the the old Greek fcholiast of Dionysius thought, that this was not a citation out of any book of Bartholomew, but only a sentence of his preserved by tradition : but this seems very improbable, because the author of the books, which are now extant under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, lived at fo great a distance from the Apostles' time. The learned Daille has largely a demonstrated the spuriousness of the book, even to the satisfaction of his great adversary Bishop Pearson', and, I think, of all learned men; though that prelate disapproves of Monsieur Daille's making the writer so very late as the year 520, and has made it evident that he wrote about the same time as Eusebius ; and therefore this passage becomes considerable here, falling within the fourth century. But whichsoever of these periods we affix to this pretended Dionyfius, it is hardly probable such a passage should be preserved in memory so long; and therefore either this author forged this sentence out of his own brain, which he ascribed to Bartholomew, and found it in no book, which Mr. Daille supposes', or else he took it out of some piece, said to be the writing of that Apoftle. Sixtus Senensis ", Dr. Grabe, and some others, suppose it to be taken out of the book entitled The Gospel of Bartholomew, concerning which opinion I am not able to determine ; nor indeed is it of any great account, whence the author of so gross a forgery made his citations; I shall only observe, that the language of the fragment is no way like the language of the Apostolick age ; for
* De Pseudepig. Dionyf. Areo. pag. lib. I.
Vindic. Ignat. Epistol. Par. 1. cap, 10. in init,
c Lib. cit. c. 27. in init.