ページの画像
PDF
ePub

Numb. XLVII. The REVELATION, or

ANABATICON of PAUL.

[ocr errors]

HAVE given this book these two different titles, because

I find it went under both among the antients; though it has been thought by several learned men, that they were the titles of two different books. How true this is, I shall enquire, after I have first produced the places where it is mentioned by the antients. These are,

1. Epiphanius a, who gives us the following account of it:

speaking concerning the ridiculous feet of the Caianites b,

and an absurd book of their tenets, adds ; Πάλιν δε άλλο συνταγματιον That they forged befides anwhástrou óvópate Ilcú- other book, under the name of λα τα απoσόλα άρρητεργίας

Paul the Apostle, full of things

which it was not lawful to έμπλεον, και και οι Γνωνικοί

utter ; which they who are λεγόμενοι χρώνται, ο 'Ανα

called the Gnosticks also use, βατικόν Παύλα καλάσι, την which they intitle The Anaπρόφασιν ευρόντες από τα λέ

baticon of Paul; taking the yesu Tòv drósorov dvoc Econxé. occafion (of the forgery) from ναι έως τρίτα έρανέ, και ακη that saying of the Apostle, κοέναι άρρητα ρήματα & εκ that he ascended up into the εξόν ανθρώπω λαλήσαι. Και

third heaven, and heard things ταύτα, φασίν, έςί τα άρρητα

which it was not lawful for men to utter.

And these, say ρήματα. .

they, are the things. 2. Auftin', speaking of the different attainments of some

good men in knowledge, adds; Quidam fpiritualium ad ea Some Chriftians arrived to pervenerunt, quæ non licet the knowledge of those things homini loqui ; qua occasione which cannot be uttered: on

Hæref. 38. §. 2. 6. Concerning these monstrous hereticks, see above, Chap. XX.

Numb. XXVIII.

c Tractat. xcviii. in Joan. in ipso extremo. T. Opp. 9.

vani quidam Apocalypfin Pau- which occafion fome vain perli, quam fana non recipit ec- fons, with a moft ridiculous clefia, nefcio quibus fabulis impudence, forged (a book plenam ftultissima præsump- intitled) The Revelation of tione finxerunt, dicentes hanc Paul, which the true Church elle unde dixerat raptum se

doth not receive; it being fuiffe in tertium cælum, et filled with I know not what illic audiffe ineffabilia verba, fort of strange stories; prequæ non licet homini loqui. tending that it was on account Utcunque illorum tolerabilis of the things contained in this eflet audacia, si se audisse dix- book, that he said he was taken iffet, quæ adhuc non licet ho- up into the third heavens, and mini loqui; cum vero dixerit there heard unutterable words, quæ non licet homini loqui; which it was not lawful for a ifti qui funt, qui hæc audeant man to speak. Their impuimpudenter et infeliciter lo

dence had indeed been tole-
rable, if he had said that he
heard things which it was not
lawful as yet for a
utter; but fince he speaks (ab-
folutely) of things which it
was not lawful at all to utter,
what strange sort of persons
must they be, who would thus
impudently blunder ?

qui ?

man to

3. Gelafius, in his Decree. Revelatio, quæ appellatur The Revelation under the Pauli Apostoli Apocrypha. name of Paul the Apostle, is

Apocryphal.

These are all the places within my limited time, in which this book is mentioned ; though it was in being fome ages after, as I shall shew presently. I have joined these places together, as supposing the Anabaticon of Paul mentioned by Epiphanius, and the Revelation of Paul mentioned by Austin and Pope Gelafius, to be only one and the same book, under two different (and indeed scarce different) titles. I confess, most

of

[ocr errors]

of the learned writers that I have seen, who have mentioned any thing of this matter, suppose them to have been two different books. Thus Dr. Cave, enumerating the spurious pieces fathered upon St. Paul ?, first recites the Anabaticon mentioned by Epiphanius, and then, as distinct from it, the Revelation mentioned by Austin : so Du Pin also recites them distinctly b, though in a note at the bottom of the page he seems to think they were the fame. Dr. Grabe not only supposes them different books, but made at very different times, viz. the Anabaticon in the second century, and the Revelation in the latter end of the fourth, between the years 396 and 392. Mr. Spanheim · also, and Father Simon, recite them as two different books. So also (as one would imagine) after these does Mr. Toland, to augment his catalogue f; but nothing can be more humorous than to observe his blunder herein. He first places the Revelation of Paul, and refers to Epiphanius, Hærel. 38. §. 2. which is the place where he mentions the Anabaticon, and then in the next page recites the Anaba. ticon of St. Paul, and refers to the same place of Epiphanius (viz. Hæref. 38. §. 2.); which is, as if he had said, The Anabaticon and Revelation of Paul are two distinct books, and they are so, because Epiphanius mentions but one. Such mistakes, fo frequent, are, to say no worse, unbecoming any man that pretends to learning. I desire Mr. Toland to be more careful and honest in the future attacks he threatens to make upon the Canon. But to leave him. Mr. Fabritius, following Dr. Grabe, supposes the Revelation and Anabaticon books of two different subjects, viz. the latter containing the fancies of the Gnofticks, and the former made not till the end of the fourth century by fome Christian monks, containing the rules of their way of life.

Notwithstanding this so great agreement of learned writers in this matter, I think the contrary opinion most undeniable,

[merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

• Hiftor. Liter. in Paulo, p. 7.

• Hift. of the Canon, Vol. II. Chap. VI. §. 6. p. 129, 130,

Spicileg. Patr. Secul. 1. p. 84, 85.

Histor. Chrift. Secul. I. p. 58.

с

Amyntor. p. 32. & Cod. Apocr. Nov. Teftam. par. 2. p. 945.

-7

viz. that the Anabaticon of Paul mentioned by Epiphanius, and the Revelation mentioned by Austin and Gelafius, were one and the fame book.

And this I argue,

First, From the consideration that the design, occasion of writing, as well as the main subječt of the Anabaticon and the Revelation were the same. This will appear by a comparison of Epiphanius and Austin together.

Epiphanius concerning the St. Auftin concerning the Anabaticon of Paul.

Revelation of Paul. The occasion of this forgery The occasion of this Revelawas St. Paul's saying, He af- tion was, that some Christians cended into the third heavens, had arrived to the knowledge and heard things which it was of things which it was not not lawful to utter.

lawful to utter.

That he means Paul, is

plain by what follows. The contents of this book This book pretended to give were the unutterable things an account of those things which Paul heard in the third which St. Paul heard, and heavens. και ταύτα, φασίν, &c. said, were unutterable. ,

These must be the contents of the same book; agreeable to which,

Secondly, The titles Anabaticon and Apocalypsis were both adjufted; the former denoting Paul's ascent and the visions he had in the third heavens; or, as Mr. Du Pin's English translator renders it, The rapture of Paul : the latter denoting the vifions or revelations, as in that book discovered. So that if we were to translate these two titles into English, one might not unjustly do it thus : The History of St. Paul's Ascent into the third Heavens ; or, An Account of the Visions and Revelations which he had there.

This may suffice to prove these only two different titles of

• See the places above in this Chapter.

one

[ocr errors]

one book ; which difference is very well conjectured a by Dr. Mill to have happened when this book was afterwards transated into Latin.

All that is urged to prove them distinct books is by Dr. Grabe and Mr. Fabritius , viz. that the Revelation is not mentioned till St. Austin, and therefore probably was not made before his time, whereas the Anabaticon was made by the Caianites in the second century; and whereas the former contained the principles of the Gnofticks, the latter contained the rules of the Monastick life. But both these objections are founded upon the most precarious foundation : for as to the first, viz. the books not being mentioned before, it is a plain begging of the question; first supposing them two distinct books, and then proving they are so by that supposition. Besides, if the silence of the writers of the age, in or after which any book be supposed to be made, be a good argument that it was not then made, then must a great number of books be brought many years back ; and particularly what will become of the antiquity of the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and the Gospel of the Egyptians ? which, though Dr. Grabe supposes to be written before St. Luke's Gospel, are not either of them mentioned by name till near three hundred years after Christ. 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 fat; but he supposed the book forged by the Hereticks. He farther says, it was a book much commended by the Monks • ; but

Prolegom. in Nov. Tcstam.

Capite. $. 364.

Hist. Ecclef. I. vii. c. 19.
b Locis fupra allegatis in hoc
Vol. 1.
Y

there

« 前へ次へ »