Montanus (viz. the year of Chrift CLXXIV. according to the Chronicon of Eufebius), because Apollonius, who wrote against the Montanists, and against Themifon, wrote his book but forty years after the Montanift herefy firft began (as himself fays). Besides, it seems very probable (as Valefius has well obferved") from feveral parts of this fragment of Apollonius, that he wrote against the Montanifts, while Montanus and his mad prophets were yet alive; nor does his faying he wrote forty years after the rife of the Montanists at all contradict this; for if we fuppofe Montanus to have been about thirty years old, when he began his heresy, he would not have been above feventy, when Apollonius wrote against him; from which it is evident, this catholick Epiftle was forged in imitation of the Apofties, at the rife of Montanifm, confequently, as Apollonius fays, to fupport that ridiculous fcheme, and therefore a book falfely pretending to inspiration. So that however this Epiftle was esteemed by the Chriftians of that sect, it must certainly be Apocryphal by Prop. IV, V, and VI. as alfo by Prop. VIII. as containing things contrary to known truths, and deftructive of the first principles of Chriftżanity; as will appear to any one who will be at the pains to read the account given of this fect by Apollinaris Hierapolitanus, Apollonius, Serapion, Epiphanius, and many others of the antients; and to thofe who will not, if they confider that Montanus pretended to deal much with a dæmon, by whose influence he fell into strange ecftatick fits and raptures, which he afterwards communicated to two fhe-prophets, who, as all his

a

Apud Eufeb. loc. cit.

b Annot. in loc. cit. Eufeb. I obferve, that Epiphanius, expofing the Montanifts, because their pretended prophecies were not accomplifhed, (Hær. 48. §. 2.) adds, that from the time of their being given cut to the time of his writing, which, fays he, was in the twelfth year of Valentinian and Gratian, there had paled ἔτη πλείω ἢ ἐλάσσω διακόσια ἐννενήκοντα, i. e. about 290 years: but in this either Epiphanius was mistaken, or his copies are corrupt; for the twelfth year of Valentinian

followers taught by him, acknowledged him to be the Paraclete, or Comforter promised by our Saviour. (John xiv. 16.) In this he was followed by Terebinthus, afterwards called Manes, the head or father of the Manichees, who called himself the Paraclete promised by our Saviour, as St. Cyrila, Epiphanius", and many others affure us; and this I mention by the by, to propose, for farther difcuffion, an opinion which I have long had, that the Mahometan fcheme was very much founded upon, or gathered from, the impious, ridiculous tenets of the Montanifts, or Manichees, or both; feeing it is a thing certain and well known, that Mahomet's followers, among other titles, give him that of Paraclete, which is the Greek word used by St. John for the Comforter, made Arabick, as Dean Prideaux has well obferved, and not taken from any word in that language, which fignifies famous, or illuftrious, as Mr. Toland, with as much ignorance as malice, fuggefts. It is true, the Mahometans pretend, that the very name of Mahomet, both here, and in other places of the Gofpel, was exprefsly mentioned, but that the Chriftians, out of malice, have blotted it out, and corrupted thofe holy writings; and that at Paris there is a copy of thefe Gofpels, without thefe corruptions, in which the coming of Mahomet is foretold in feveral places, with his name exprefsly mentioned in them: but nothing can be more ridiculous than Mr. Toland's account of this matter, viz. that the Mahometans maintain that the original was Periclyte, fignifying famous, i. e. in Arabick, Mohammed, and not Paraclete; for befides, that there is no word like that in Arabick, which fignifies famous, and answers to Mohammed (which Dr. Mangey challenges him to prove, and he durft not attempt, but intolerably fhuffles over in his anfwer), the fact is notoriously false; the Mahometans, as has been said, laying their charge, in this refpect, in another and more confiftent manner, than he, with all his fkill, was able to do for them.

a Catech. vi. c. 14.

b Hæref. 66. §. 12.
Life of Mahomet, in the end.

d Nazaren. p. 13.

See Dean Prideaux's Life of

Mahomet, in the end,

f Remarks on Nazarenus, c. 6. P. 35.

Mangoneutes, p. 181.

But

But though Mr. Toland be fo wretchedly mistaken here, yet he again repeats his invidious infinuation, p. 16. The Musfulmans accufe our Gofpels of corruption in the 16th and 26th verfes of the fourteenth chapter of John. But why Gospels? as though the accufation extended to all the four; when it only, at most, affects the Gospel of John? The fact in short is no more than this. Mahomet in the fixty-first chapter of his Alcoran hath these words: " Remember that Jefus the fon of "Mary faid to the children of Ifrael: I am the messenger of "God; he hath fent me to confirm the Old Teftament, and to « declare unto you, that there fhall come after me a prophet, whofe name shall be Mahomet." On this account his followers found it neceffary to charge corruption on our Gofpels in the manner abovesaid a.

I hope this digreffion may not be unserviceable, nor the hint above-mentioned of the agreement between the Mahometans and Montanists.

CHA P. XL.

The Acts of Thomas. Not the fame with those made by Leucius Charinus, but much older. A Manufcript in the French King's Library under the Title of the Acts of Thomas. Another under the fame Title in the Bodleian at Oxford. The Gofpel of Thomas. There were undoubtedly two Gofpels under this Name. The Revelation of Thomas. Books under his Name.

Numb. LXIV. The ACTS of THOMAS.

THESE Apocryphal Acts are mentioned by several of the

antients, particularly,

• Thus well reasons the learned Dean in the place cited.

There appears no small difficulty in determining exactly concerning these Acts. It is certain that there was a book of Acts of the Apostles, of which I have above treated, Chap. XXI. composed by Leucius Charinus, containing the Acts not only of Peter, John, Andrew, and Paul, but alfo of Tho mas ; and hence Mr. Fabritius ', Dr Mill ', &c. have thought

the Acts of Thomas, wherever they are mentioned, to be the fame book; but herein I fuppofe they are mistaken, because thefe Acts of Thomas are mentioned by Epiphanius, as being used by fome fects of the Gnoflicks, viz. the Encratites and Apoftolicks, who arose from Tatian in the fecond century, even before Irenæus, and confequently lang before the time of Leucius, who lived (as has been proved) in the latter end of the third, or beginning of the fourth century. And though I have above faid, Chap. V. Numb. 1. that it is probable the Encratites and Manichees made use of the fame Acts, whence it would seem to follow, that they were the fame with those made by Leucius, because his were in great request among the Manichees ; yet this difficulty is eafily anfwered, by fuppofing that Leucius, who was a Manichee, did so largely interpolate them, or fa much alter them, that they were afterwards called by his name. They are however plainly Apocryphal by Prop. IV, V, and VI. There are indeed fome large accounts of Thomas in Auftin's works, which are thought to be taken out of these Acts; but inasmuch as these Acts are not exprefsly mentioned, they do not properly fall under my confideration; but may perhaps be produced in a more convenient place in the next volume, where I fhall confider these Acts as a book now extant, seeing Father Simon affirms, there is fuch a book in the French King's Library, and Dr. Grabe b fays that he met with it in our Bodleian.

Numb. LXV. The GOSPEL of THOMAS.

HERE is at this day extant a Gospel under the name of Thomas, otherwife intitled The Gofpel of the Infancy of our Saviour, which I fhall in the next part of this work infert; but it being very uncertain whether it be the fame with this antient one, I fhall here produce the places where this is mentioned within my time, without any regard to that. It is mentioned,

Lib. adv. Adimant. Manich. t. 6. c. 17. contr. Fauft. Manich.

lib. 22. c. 79.

• Spicileg. Patr. t. 1. p. 324.