Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

As to the latter, viz. the monks using it, and being delighted with it, it is much weaker than the former. The argument stands fairly thus: the monks of the fourth century were much delighted with the Revelation of Paul, therefore it was made then they used it, therefore they forged it. Sozomen indeed relates a fabulous account of this Revelation "being found in "the time of Theodosius the emperor, in a marble chest, hid "under ground at the house of St. Paul, at Tarsus in Cilicia, "to which they were directed by God;" but he adds, "that "he was assured by a presbyter of Tarsus, who was very old, "that this was not fact; but he supposed the book forged by "the heretics." He further says, "it was a book much com"mended by the monkse;" but there is nothing in this story that will prove it a forgery of that time; for the book may be supposed extant long before, but by this artifice of the monks imposed upon the world, as more valuable and extraordinary.

The Anabaticon therefore, and the Revelation of Paul, being one and the same book, it only remains now, that I endeavour to prove it apocryphal: and that it is so, is evident by Prop. IV. V. and VI. I add also, by Prop. VIII. as the whole design of it was contrary to a known and undoubted fact. 2 Cor. xii. 4. &c. St. Paul there says, he heard unutterable words (ἄῤῥητα ῥήματα ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι) which it was not in the power of any man to declare: which if it be true, (as the book itself supposes,) then they attempted in writing what was utterly impossible to be wrote, and so unhappily blundered, as that the whole design of their work was a mere contradiction to the title. (See Austin above.)

Tertullian f has a passage in his Book against the Heretics, which (if my judgment do not much fail me) may be very justly applied to this Revelation of Paul; and if it may, will afford a good argument to prove it apocryphal. He is treating concerning the harmony of the apostles' doctrines; and then adds 5,

Sed et si in tertium usque cœlum ereptus Paulus, et in paradisum delatus, audiit quædam illic; non possunt videri ea fuisse, quæ il

• Hist. Eccles. 1. vii. c. 19.

Yea, and though Paul was taken up to the third heavens, and being brought into paradise, heard some certain things there, they f De Præscript. adv. Hæret. c. 24. Loc. cit.

lum in aliam doctrinam instructiorem præstarent; cum ita fuerit conditio eorum, ut nulli hominum proderentur. Quod si ad alicujus conscientiam manavit nescio quid illud, et hoc se aliqua hæresis sequi affirmat, aut Paulus secreti proditi reus est, aut et alius postea in paradisum ereptus debet ostendi, cui permissum sit eloqui quæ Paulo mutire non licuit.

cannot be thought such, as would
make him capable of preaching
any new doctrines; seeing they
were of that sort, that they could
not be revealed or communicated
to any man. But if any one ima-
gine he have the knowledge of
these strange revelations, and there
be any sort of heretics, who declare
they will be governed by them,
[let them consider,] that. either
Paul must have been guilty of
betraying the secret committed
to him, or else they must pro-
duce some other person, who has
since been taken up to paradise,
who had permission to speak
those things freely, of which St.
Paul durst not utter a word.

Nothing can be more probable, than that these words have a reference to the written Revelations we are treating of. It is certain by the passage, that there were some who pretended to know what St. Paul saw in the third heavens, and that there were a peculiar sort of heretics, who governed themselves according to them. How little different this is from what Epiphanius above says of the Gnosticks and Caianites, every unprejudiced reader will acknowledge, who compares the places. In this interpretation I have the satisfaction to agree with Pamelius h, who remarks on these words of Tertullian thus: "You see there have been some who affirmed they both knew "and read in a writing of St. Paul's own, the secrets he heard "in heaven; affirming that he both preached them, and com"mitted them to writing." This learned writer afterwards cites the place of Epiphanius concerning the Anabaticon, that of Austin and Gelasius concerning the Revelation, as all speaking of one and the same book.

Upon the whole then, it is evident it was a spurious piece; and that as neither Paul did nor could write it, so neither could any one else give any true account of what that book pre

h Annot. in loc. Tertull.

66

66

tended to. I only add, that Dionysius Alexandrinus, a noted writer early in the third century, assures usi, Пaúλov dià täv ἐπιστολῶν ὑποφῄναντός τι καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀποκαλύψεων αὐτοῦ, ἃς οὐκ ἐνέyрave xal' aúτás. That "though Paul in his Epistles has made some mention of his revelations, yet he never committed "them to writing;" and that as Mr. Du Pin says, the "Egyp"tians boast of having this Revelation by them to this very day k:" so Dr. Grabe1 tells us of a manuscript in the library of Merton college in Oxford, entitled thus, The Revelation of Paul, (containing what passed) in those three days; when upon his being called and converted by Christ, he fell upon the ground, and saw nothing; being an account of the revelations he had from St. Michael, concerning the various and dreadful punishments of purgatory and hell, and who it was that first prevailed upon the Lord to grant rest to the souls in purgatory on every Lord's day afterwards, to the end of the world. But neither of these were the old Revelation, of which I have been treating, but much later forgeries.

CHAP. XXXI.

The Acts of Peter; or, the Travels of Peter, and the Recognitions of Clemens, differing titles of the same book now extant. The Preaching and Doctrine of Peter the same book. The Gospel of Peter. Mark's Gospel formerly ascribed to Peter; and the reasons of it. Peter's Gospel not composed by Leucius, as Dr. Grabe and Dr. Mill suppose, but a forgery of the heretics called Docetæ, and perhaps the same as the Gospel of Basilides. This proved probable by several arguments.

No. XLVIII. The Acts of Peter.. UNDER the name of this apostle I find mention among the ancients of several spurious pieces; and particularly by several of certain Acts; viz.

1. By Eusebius m.

Τόγε μὴν τῶν ἐπικεκλημένων Πέτρου πράξεων— οὐδ ̓ ὅλως ἐν τοῖς i Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. vii. c. 25.

Hist. of the Canon, vol. 2. c. 6.

It is certain, that the book entitled, The Acts of Petermis not

§. 6. p. 130.

1

Spicileg. Patr. t. 1. p. 85. m Hist. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 3.

καθολικοῖς ἴσμεν παραδεδομένον ὅτι μήτε ἀρχαίων μήτε τῶν καθ ̓ ἡμᾶς τις ἐκκλησιαστικὸς συγγραφεὺς ταῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ συνεχρήσατο μαρτυρίαις.

by any means to be reckoned among the canonical books; inasmuch as none of the ancients, nor any of our ecclesiastical writers, have taken testimonies out of it.

2. By Athanasius n.

Τὰ τῆς νέας διαθήκης ἀντιλεγόμενα ταῦτα, περίοδοι Πέτρου παραγεγραμμένα εἰσὶ πάντως καὶ νόθα καὶ ἀπόβλητα, καὶ οὐδὲν τούτων τῶν ἀποκρύφων μάλιστα ἔγ κριτον ἢ ἐπωφελὲς, ἐξαιρέτως τῆς νέας διαθήκης· ἀλλὰ πάντα δίχα τῶν ἀνωτέρω διαληφθέντων καὶ ἐγκριθέντων παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς σου φοῖς, ἀποκρυφῆς μᾶλλον ἢ ἀναγνώσεως ὡς ἀληθῶς ἄξια, τά τε ἄλλα, καὶ αὐτὰ τὰ καλούμενα ἐν αὐτοῖς Εὐαγγέλια, ἐκτὸς τῶν παραδοθέντων ἡμῖν τεσσάρων τούτων. 3. By Jerome in Libri autem ejus, e quibus unus Actorum ejus inscribitur, alius Evangelii, tertius Prædicationis, quartus Apocalypseos, quintus Judicii, inter apocryphas scripturas reputantur.

The apocryphal books of the New Testament are these, The Acts [or Journeys] of Peter, &c. They are all false, spurious, and to be rejected ; none of those apocryphal books of the New Testament have been either approved, or are useful, but they have all been judged apocryphal, i. e. rather to be concealed than read, by the ancient wise men and fathers, which contain any thing contrary to the books above recited; as also all other Gospels besides those four delivered to us. the Life of Peter.

But those [other] books [called] Peter's, among which one is his Acts, another his Gospel, a third his Preaching, a fourth his Revelation, a fifth his Judgment, are reckoned among the apocryphal scriptures.

4. By Epiphaniusq, concerning the Ebionites. Χρῶνται δὲ καὶ ἄλλαις τισὶ βί. βλοις, δῆθεν ταῖς περιόδοις καλουμέναις Πέτρου, ταῖς διὰ Κλή μεντος γραφείσαις, νοθεύσαντες μὲν τὰ ἐν αὐταῖς, ὀλίγα δὲ ἀληθινὰ ἐάσαντες.

" In Synops. versus fin.

• He alludes to his catalogue of the canonical books, which he had be

They make use of some other books, such as those called The Acts [or Journeys] of Peter, wrote by Clemens, in which they have left very little that is true, but inserted many spurious accounts.

fore given.

P Catal. vir. illustr. in Petro.
a Hæres. 30. §. 15.

5. By Gelasius, in his Decree.

Itinerarium nomine Petri apostoli, quod appellatur sancti Clementis libri octo (alii decem) apocryphum.

The Journeys under the name of Peter the apostle, which are called The eight (other copies read ten) Books of Clemens, are apocryphal.

6. By the same, a little after.

The Acts under the name of Peter the apostle are apocryphal.

Actus nomine Petri apostoli apocryphi. Concerning these Acts of Peter it seems very hard to form any certain determination: I have here recited the testimonies of the Acts and Periods, or Travels of Peter, together, as of one book. The latter title undoubtedly belongs to that book now extant, called The Recognitions of Clement; and whether the former also did not, I confess I cannot tell. For though Gelasius does indeed mention them as distinct, yet it is observable, that in the first editions of that pope's Decree there was no such distinction, nor any mention at all of the Acts of Peter. Dr. Grabe supposes them to have been different books, not only because of this passage of Gelasius, but because the Periods or Travels never went under the name of Peter, but Clemens; whereas the Acts always did. But in this he is mistaken, the Travels being as expressly attributed to Peter, in the place now cited of Athanasius, as the Acts can be any where else; so that, for ought I am able yet to see to the contrary, these Acts of Peter, and the Travels of Peter, written by Clemens, were the same book; and so being now extant, do not fall any further under consideration here, but must be referred to their proper place in the next volume.

No. XLIX. The Doctrine of Peter.

THIS has been clearly proved by Dr. Caves and Dr. Grabet, to be the same book with that entitled, The Preaching of Peter; and therefore shall be considered there, No. LII. and the place of Origen, where it is mentioned, produced.

r

N°. L. The Gospel of Peter.

THIS apocryphal Gospel has been taken notice of by many Lib. jam cit. tom. I. p. 56.

Spicileg. Patr. t. 1. p. 78.

Hist. Liter. in Petro, p. 5.

« AnteriorContinua »