this a futeable idea of Chriftianity, that a man Omnia praecepi, atque animo mecum ante peregi. Virg. Aen. 6. v. 105. And fince your Chaplain fays he cannot tell how many Pref p. 4. I expreft it. If the dispute be about matters of fact, Ubi fupra. L numerous, Pref. page 5. numerous, this they call a fhow of reading, or borrow'd Learning [ as he has done more than once or twice] endeavoring to depreciate what they cannot difprove, and fanctifying their illiberal fcurrility with the name of ZEAL: for of all men they are the most bitter and foulmouth'd against an adversary, which the Popish Jefuits commend as meritorious, and which the Proteftant Jefuits practife as if it were fo; meaning by these laft, fuch as act like the firft. In a word, he cou'd not fuccede better, if he had purposely intended his book for a Commentary on thofe 12 artifices, us'd by corrupt Clergymen; and therfore I earnestly recommend the reading of the one to all who have read the other. Confcious of his unjustifiable proceding, and perhaps dreading your Lordship's displeasure, he promises that if his ZEAL hath betray'd him to fay any bitter thing, unworthy of a Chriftian or a Clergyman [I thought till now that all Clergymen look'd upon themselves to be Chriftians] be fhall very readily retract it. I am not the man that will defire it,I affure him; as firmly believing he wou'd maintain he was not bitter enough, and that the fharpeft ftile is moft worthy the character of a Clergyman. I know the authorities produc'd for fanctify'd invectives by fuch as the Doctor, and I willingly confent they fhou'd cite JEROM against VIGILANTIUs; with fome other Fathers, in comparison of whom fishwomen are referv'd: but I can by no means approve their abufing the names of the Apostles, who either excufe the exceffes into which they unwarily fell; or had that difcerning of fpirits and extraordinary commiffion, to which no man now dares pretend. III. I SHOU'D onely mispend your Lordship's time and my own, by infifting any longer on Dr. MANGE Y's character of me, or his lan guage guage towards me, which I have folely mention'd for example-fake; being perfuaded that his opinion neither has, nor ever will weigh a grain with any man, whose judgement I value. How mean foever my parts or attaintments may be, I have learnt this good leffon from an antient fage; that 3 Iought to esteem that to be great learning, which enables me to bear with the unpoliteness of the ignorant. But as the Doctor has no right to explain my meaning, whom of all men I wou'd not chufe for it, who's fo unhappy in explaining his own, witness his Plain notions of the Trinity: fo much less ought he or any man be fuffer'd to falfify public writings, any more than to counterfeit the public coin; and by a notorious falfhood to represent a man doing that, which is not only contrary to his intention, but likewise to the Laws. The very title of his book against me is an impofture. Remarks upon NAZARENUS, wherin the falfity of Mr. TOLAND'S Mahometan GOSPEL, and his mifreprefentation of Mahometan fentiments in respect of Chriftianity, are set forth; &c. The falfity of Mr. TOLAND's Mahometan Gospel, quoth a? Who wou'd not imagine after this, if a stranger to NAZAREN US, but that I had afferted the truth of that Gospel? which I have been fo farr from doing, that I mift no opportunity of detecting the forgery. At first he was very loath, it feems, to believe fuch a thing of me. The Mr. Page 31 TOLAND's name, fays he, was wrote in red letters in front, I could not even then fufpect him to be either fo weak or wicked, as to affert in earnest this Mahometan Gofpel. And have I been fo weak or 3 Μεγάλην παιδειαν νομίζε, δι ̓ ἣν δυνηση φερειν αγνοουν Toy aπaidevolar. Demophil, Sentent. Pythagor. fo wicked, as either in jeft or in earnest to do it? If he's not able to bring any paffage to this purpofe, or looking in the leaft that way, I need not inform your Lordship what to call him, nor how to treat him. Again, The author of NAZAPage 10. RENUS has offer'd fo weak proofs for his Gospel of BARNABAS, that one wou'd fufpect, that he meant not so much to prove this true, as to make it probable that all the reft were falfe or uncertain. But ftill I ask where I have offer'd any proof for the truth of it? and whether his imputeing fuch a thing to me against all evidence, be a good proof that he has more refpect for the four Gofpels, than I have for that of BARNABAS? A true or canonical Gospel I have not dreamt of making it, nor fo much as even the work of BA RNABAS, whom I no where affirm to have writNazarenus, ten a Gospel; but that among the numerous GOSPage 6. PELS handed about in the primitive Church, and pronounc'd apocryphal by the majority of Chriftians, there was one attributed to BARNABAS. You fee I difcours'd of apocryphal books, which are many of 'em fpecify'd in the margin of that paffage; where I do not fay that a Gospel was written by BARNABAS, but that one was anciently attributed to him, than which there is nothing more undeniable. Speaking afterwards of the discovery of a Gospel fo call'd, I do not fay, we have at length found out the Gospel of BARNABAS, but the Gospel father'd of old upon BARNABAS, and that not in its original purity. What can there be more decifive, or what cou'd be lefs ambiguoufly expreft? As I have carefully read all the publish'd apocryphal pieces, going under the names of the Apoftles, or of their companions and immediate fucceffors, I have with feveral others, who were at the fame pains, form'd fuch an idea of them; Ibid. 21. page as as to guess pritty near by the ftile and contents at the time of writing them, over and above the prefumtive evidence arifing from the first time we find them mention'd. After the most leifurely perufal of the book in question, I conclude it was originally a Chriftian forgery, like the Gospels of JAMES, of the Infancy of JESUS, and of NICODEMUS, which you know are ftill extant intire: but, as I remark'd in NAZARENUS, that MAHOMET and the Mahome- Page 21 tan writers make much ufe of fuch apocryphal &c. pieces; fo this has been remarkably interpolated by fome Mahometan, which is a pious fraud that I wish were confin'd to thofe onely of that fect. After this mature examination I cou'd fafely fay, that this Gospel might in the main be the Page 61. antient Gospel of BARNABAS: tho the Mahometan Interpolations were too palpable not to be eafily diftinguifh'd. I spoke to the fame purpose before, and thence concluded, that the Gofpel of BAR- Page 9. NABAS was not yet extinct, as all Chriftian writers had hitherto imagin'd. But what Gospel of BARNABAS? not one written by himself, fince we have no evidence that he left any fuch monument: but the Gospel that was antiently attributed to him, father'd upon him, and forg'd under his name, which are the expreffions I fo often use; fuppofing withall, that BARNA BA S's differing from PAUL, and quitting his company, did probably give a handle to IMPOSTORS of fram- Page 34. ing a Gofpel in his name. As I cou'd not be more express, My Lord, fo the following remark appears not to have been made at random. Here Page 15 you have not onely a new Gospel, but also a true one, if you believe the Mahometans. But how boneft foever they may be reprefented, this is a topic where none are to be credited without the utmoft caution; fince, tho every GOSPEL forbids lying, L 3 get |