inftance, the word soλoyia (Theology) was in that early time unknown, and did not, till of a long time after, come in use in the Church, and as the word oλóyos being conftantly used in this book under the name of Dionyfius, does fufficiently demonftrate it to be a forgery of times much later than those of the true Dionyfius of Athens a; fo à fortiori does the word oλoyía prove this writing under the name of Bartholomew to be much later than the time wherein the true Bartholomew lived. It is therefore to be judged Apocryphal by Prop. X, XII. as well as by Prop. IV, V, VI.

Numb. VIII. The GOSPEL of BARTHOLOMEW.

This is mentioned,

1. By Jerome: Many have endeavoured, fays he, without the grace and fpirit of God, to fet forth Gospels, among which is that under the name of Bartholomew.

2. By Pope Gelafius: The Gospel under the name of Bartholomew the Apostle, is Apocryphal. There is not any other exprefs mention, that I know, of this book; fo that it is evidently to be reckoned among the Apocryphal ones, by Prop. IV, V, VI.

There are not any fragments extant of this book, unless, as I am inclined to think, it was the very fame with the Gofpel of St. Matthew, which the Hebrews or Nazarenes made ufe of. The reafon of my conjecture is, the account we have both from Eufebius d and Jerome, viz. That Pantanus, being fent by Demetrius Bishop of Alexandria to preach the Gospel to the Indians, at the request of their ambassadors, when be came among them, found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve Apostles, had preached the Gospel among them before, according to the Gospel of St. Matthew, which he left there in Hebrew characters; and, as Jerome adds, brought it back with him to

Alexandria. Now this, I say, seems to me to have been the book afterwards called The Gospel of Bartholomew, only that it had suffered many interpolations and additions. For it cannot be thought improbable, that thofe who heard St. Bartholomew preach over and explain this Gospel to them, should, after his departure, rather call it by his name, whom they knew, than the name of Matthew, whom they knew not. Befides, if we may crédit Nicephorus, he affures us, that Bartholomew dictated the Gospel of Matthew to them out of his memory, and did not bring it along with him; and, if fo, it is very improbable they fhould call it by any other name besides his.

Nor is there room to object, that it cannot be supposed this book fhould be among the Indians without any title: for,

1. If Nicephorus's relation be true, there would be no neceffity of a title; his dictating it to them was fufficient to entitle it. But,

2. If we fay he brought it with him to the Indies, it is not at all strange it should be left without a title. Bartholomew himself knew who the author was, and fo perhaps did not write any. But I need not fly to any conjectures in the matter; I dare affert, and undertake to prove, that the present titles of our four Gospels, as well as many other antient books, were not prefixed to them by their authors b. As to the titles of the Gofpels, all I offer at present is, the exact likeness or uniformity of their titles, the difference that is between the Greek and Latin copies in this respect, and the difference of the old Syriack Verfion from both.

Hence it seems probable, this Gospel of Bartholomew was that of Matthew, which he left, and Pantænus found in the Indies: I add, it received many interpolations and additions, fome few perhaps by Bartholomew himself (by way of commentary or illuftrating notes, which afterwards crept into the text), but more, and of a different fort, by others; otherwife Jerome and Gelafius would not have condemned it as Apo

a Hiftor. Eccl. 1. 4. c. 32.

He who has a mind may fee

this proved by Father Simon, Crit. History of the New Teft. chap. 2.

cryphal,

cryphal. And, if I may be allowed to guefs, I would offer it as probable, that when Pantænus brought it to Alexandria, it had at length inferted into it the interpolations of the Hebrew Gofpel of St. Matthew, which the Judaizing Chriftians there made ufe of. Two things make this conjecture more probable, viz.

1. Because it was in Hebrew characters, and fo of courfe falling into the hands of the Jewish converts, it cannot be thought but they would endeavour to make it as like their own Hebrew copy of St. Matthew as they could, otherwise their own must have been cenfured as a fpurious and Apocryphal piece.

2. Because the Nazarene Gospel (or the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew) feems at this time to have been more in ufe at Alexandria, than any other part of the world. It is well known, what number of Jews, or Judaizing Chriftians, inhabited that city; and that these used this Hebrew Gofpel, is evident, because it was known to Clemens Alexandrinus, the scholar of the above-mentioned Pantanus, and Origen, the scholar of Clemens, who both dwelt at Alexandria; befides whom, it does not appear that any Christian writer (except Hegefippus) knew any thing of this Gospel, till Jerome. This I offer as a probable conjecture concerning this booka. I know but one thing can be objected, and that is, how Jerome, who faw and read the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes, could fpeak of this Gofpel of Bartholomew as diftinct from it, which he certainly does. To which I think it will be enough to answer, that it is very probable Jerome had never seen any Gospel under Bartholomew's name, but only rejects it, as what he knew was commonly esteemed a fpurious piece.

I have only here to add, that if the foregoing account be juft, Monfieur Daille b is very much mistaken in fuppofing that the Gospel of Bartholomew was forged but a very little time before Gelafius. Nor is his reafon true which he offers,

a Dr. Grabe proposes this conjecture in part, Spicil. Patr. tom. 1.

P. 128.

c. 27.

De Pfeudepig. Dion. Areopag.

.1.

viz. Because it is neither mentioned by Eufebius, Jerome, nor any of the antient writers; for that it was long before mentioned by Jerome in the place above cited, every one may perceive.

CHAP. XI.

The Gospel of Bafilides: his Age and Tenets: bis Twenty-four Books upon the Gospel.

Numb. IX. The GOSPEL of BASILIDES.

ONCERNING this Gofpel we have very little account

CONC

in any Christian Hiftories; it is only just named among the Apocryphal books of the New Testament:

1. By Origen: The Church hath but four Gospels, the hereticks many-Bafilides was fo impudent as to write a Gofpel, and prefix his own name to it.

2. By Ambrofe: Many have attempted to write Gospels, which the Orthodox do not approve Bafilides had the impudence to write ane, which is called The Gofpel according to Bafilides.

3. By Jerome: Many have endeavoured without the grace and fpirit of God to publish Gospels, among which is that of Bafilides, &c.

There are not now any fragments of this Gospel any where extant, nor am I able to make any conjecture concerning it; befides that it was calculated to promote the heterodox sentiments of its author; of which it may not be foreign to my purpose to give the following account.

He was one of the first noted hereticks of the Christian Church, and lived very near the Apostles' times, though the

Ecclefia quatuor habet Evangelia, Hærefes plurima- -Aufus eft Bafilides fcribere Evangelium, & fuo illud nomine titulare. Homil. in Luc. i. 1. in init.

See the paffage at length above, Num. V. in Luc. i.

Præfat. in Comment. in Matth. produced at large above, Num. IV.

precife

precife time of his age has been much difputed by Bishop Pearson against Daille. He was the scholar of Menander, and one of the main authors of the known fect of the Gnofticks, à quo Gnoftici, says Eufebius in his Chronicon. His principal tenets were,

That there was only one being or creature made by God; this being formed the next, and that another, and so on, in a ridiculous feries of Gods or angels proceeding from each other, to the number of 365, each of which created a heaven to answer to the number of the days of the year, over which he prefided. That the angel who prefided in that heaven which is nearest to us, made this earth and its inhabitants; that the angel, or God of the Jews was more obftinate than the reft, and endeavoured to make that people fuperior to all other; at which the angels of other nations being provoked, incited their respective countries to wage war with the Jews; that the unbegotten Father fent his Son, in the shape of a man, to prevent the Jewish tyranny; that he was not really flesh, or a man, but only appeared to be fo; that he did not himself suffer on the cross, but Simon the Cyrenian in his ftead. He denied the refurrection, allowed of the Pythagorean tranfmigration of fouls, of fodomy, and all forts of uncleanness, &c. He that would read more of this fort may confult Irenæus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eufebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, and Auftin' among the antients; Mr. Spanheim (who has obliged the world with a specimen of their images and magical hieroglyphicks, neatly engraved on copper plates 1) and Dr. Grabe among the moderns m.

I have been the more large in reciting the tenets of Bafilides, because it may perhaps be not abfurd to suppose them