C Η Α Ρ. ΧΙΙΙ.

The Revelation of Cerinthus not the fame with the Revelation of St. John, but compiled out of it; on which Account the Canonical Revelation was fo long of doubtful Authority.

Numb. XI. The REVELATION of CERINTHUS.

HIS Apocryphal piece is only mentioned by Caius, or Gaius, a learned Prefbyter of Rome, in his difputation against Proclus. The fragment is preserved by Eufebius, out of whom I fhall here transcribe it.

Hence it is evident that Caius knew of fome book under the title of The Revelation, which pretended to inspiration, as being dictated by angels, and wrote by Cerinthus, as some great Apostle; for I think nothing more just than Valefius's tranflation of thole words 'Ως ὑπὸ ̓Αποςόλα μεγάλο γεγραμμένων, α

Se tanquam a magno Apoftolo confcriptas, for otherwife it will not be poffible to make any sense of the fentence. Dr. Grabe indeed imagines, that Caius afcribed the Revelation of St. John to Cerinthus in the fore-cited paffage, and meant no other than that this Canonical book was published by Cerinthus under the name of St. John. But the fragment which Caius produces does moft evidently demonftrate the contrary, because the contents of it, viz. Chrift's reigning on earth, the Jews then enjoying carnal lufts and pleasures, and spending a thousand years in nuptial merriments, are no where found in the Revelation of St. John. It is true indeed (as that learned antiquary obferves), Dionyfius Alexandrinus b intimates, that it was the opinion of fome, that no Apoftle nor holy ecclefiaftical writer wrote the Revelation called St. John's, but that Cerin-· thus forged it, and, the better to propagate his notions and gain credit to his fancies, prefixed the name of John to it. He might have added too, that the hereticks called Alogi were of this opinion but all this will not prove what he contends for, that The Revelations of St. John and Cerinthus were the fame book; for befides what has been already obferved out of the fragment of Caius to prove them diftinct, it is evident Dionyfius Alexandrinus looked upon them as fuch too; for though he endeavours to prove (what I hope hereafter to confute) that the Revelation under the name of John the Divine, or Apostle, was not wrote by him, but fome other John, yet he declares his belief of it as the work ἁγίῳ τινος καὶ θεοπνεύσου, of fome holy and inspired writer; whereas he had a little before condemned the pretended Revelation of Cerinthus, and his doctrine which he calls Herefy, and accordingly produces the following fpecimen of his Revelations, as well deferving to be exploded. See Eufeb. Hift. Ecclefiaft. 1. 7. c. 25.

λείαν, καὶ ὧν αὐτὸς ὠρέγετο, φιλοσώματος ὢν καὶ πάνυ σαρHixòs, ÉV TÉTOIS Övergooλe ἔσεσθαι, γαςρὸς καὶ ταῖς ὑπὸ γαςέρα πλησμοναῖς, τα τέςι σιτίοις, καὶ ποτοῖς, καὶ γάμοις, καὶ δι ̓ ὧν εὐφημότερον ταῦτα ᾠήθη περιεῖσθαι, ἑορταῖς καὶ θυσίαις καὶ ἱερείων σφαγαῖς.

ων

nai

he extravagantly fancied, there βhould be an enjoyment of thofe lufts of the flesh, to which himfelf was excefively inclined

and addicted, viz. abundant provifions for the belly and the parts—i. c. with meats and drinks, and marriages, for the better accomplimbing of which defigns there fould be feafte ings, and banquetings, and killing of facrifices.

Such a book was the Revelation of Cerinthus, fufficiently different from that under the name of St. John now in the Canon, and undoubtedly to be efteemed Apocryphal, by Prop. IV, V, VI, VIII, and IX.

If it should be yet urged, that it is very strange, that not only the Alogians, but others who lived before Dionyfius of Alexandria, and confequently very near the time of St. John, fhould afcribe his Book of Revelations to Cerinthus, as its author, I fhall only now answer,

First, That we have very rong reason to presume the Revelation, now reputed Canonical, was really wrote by him whofe name it bears.

Secondly, That from the foregoing account it seems very probable, that the Revelation of Cerinthus was compiled out of that of St. John, with the addition of many trifling fancies, and perhaps the omiffion of fome things not so agreeable to the fentiments of that heretick. This I am the rather inclined to think; because,

1. This was a practice very common with the hereticks of thofe early times of the Church, viz. to alter the genuine records of Christianity, and to accommodate them to their own impious fentiments, retaining only so much of the true writing, as would enable them with the greater confidence to impofe their spurious pieces upon the world. See above in this part, Chap. I. Obferv. II. This has been already proved to be fact as to the

Gofpel

Gofpel of Bartholomew and Barnabas, and will appear hereafter to be true of the Gospel of the Ebionites, Nazarenes, Marcion, Peter, and others.

2. Because this has been proved to be the cafe in respect of the Gospel of Cerinthus in the preceding chapter, viz. that it was an interpolated and corrupted copy of St. Matthew; and it is not strange the fame person should be guilty of the fame practice with the Revelation of St. John.

3. Because, fuppofing the Revelation of St. John to be genuine, there can be no other caufe more probable affigned, why it should have been by fo many attributed to Cerinthus. Upon this hypothefis of his altering it fo much, it is not ftrange if it was by his followers afcribed to him as its author, and fo by others; and fo this being known, at length even the genuine book of St. John came, by fome weaker perfons, who had not compared both, to be afcribed to that heretick. This will yet seem farther probable, if we confider the mysteriousnefs of St. John's book, which is fuch as would be a very likely means to give force to the common report of its being rather wrote by Cerinthus than St. John, especially if we add this farther confideration of its being wrote in a style very different from those commonly received and acknowledged. Coroll. Hence we may give at least a probable account, why the Revelation of St. John was fo long of doubtful authority in the Church, viz. because it was unhappily interpolated by Cerinthus immediately after its firft being published, and fo by many attributed to him. That this was the plain reason why the Alogians rejected it, Epiphanius expressly tells us, and may fairly be concluded of others from what has been faid. Something like this is the conjecture of Grotius concerning this matter, with whose words (because of the just reputation of the man) I will finish this chapter b. I fuppofe, fays he, the reason why there have been doubts concerning the author and authority of this book, among others (there given), is, because what we read in it of the refurrection, of the thoufand years, of Gog and Magog, agrees in found with the Jewish ▸ Annct. in Titul. Apocalypf.

Loc. jam cit.

books;

books; and though they are here in a different sense, yet were perverted by Cerinthus, and some Christians, who judaized too much into a plain Jewish sense. But of this more hereafter.

CHA P. XIV.

Books under the Name of Chrift. None of this fort mentioned till St. Auftin's Time. A malicious Miftake of Mr. Toland detected. An Epistle of Chrift to Peter and Paul proved out of St. Auftin to be a ridiculous Forgery. Another Book attributed to Chrift. Concerning the Magick of Chrift.

HE Books, which fall next in courfe under confidera

THE

tion, are those attributed to our Saviour Jefus Chrift, which before I come particularly to confider, I would premise, that I have not found any mention of fuch within the limits of my time, i. e. in any writers of the first four centuries, befides by Austin, except the Epistle of Chrift to Abgarus, which is ftill extant, and to be examined in the next part of this work. It is true indeed, in later ages, many fuch forgeries are known to have been; fome of which are ftill extant, but fo ridiculous and trifling, as not to deserve any mention or regard. Mr. Fabritius has been at the pains (though to little purpose) to collect them in his Codex Apocryphus Novi Teftamenti, where p. 308, &c. he who has a mind may fee a more particular account. I return to what is more material: it does not appear that our Saviour ever wrote any book or letter whatsoever, except what he wrote with his finger on the ground*, whilft the Jews were accufing the adulterous woman to him; concerning which writing I think it as needless to form any new conjecture of my own, as it would be trifling to give the reader the elaborate difcourfes of Sixtus Senenfis b, Fabritius, and others. Mr. Toland indeed in his Catalogue (Amyntor, p. 20.) under the title of Books reported to be written by Cod. Apoc. N. T. Pars 1.

a

John viii. 6.

Bibliothec. San&t. lib. 2. p. 70. P. 315.