Numb. XLVII. The REVELATION, or
ANABATICON of PAUL.

HAVE given this book these two different titles, because I find it went under both among the antients; though it has been thought by feveral learned men, that they were the titles of two different books. How true this is, I fhall enquire, after I have first produced the places where it is mentioned by the antients. Thefe are,

That they forged befides another book, under the name of Paul the Apofile, full of things

1. Epiphanius 3, who gives us the following account of it: fpeaking concerning the ridiculous fect of the Caianites, and an abfurd book of their tenets, adds ; Πάλιν δὲ ἄλλο συνταγμάτιον πλάτζεσιν ἐξ ὀνόματα Παύλα τῇ ἀποςόλα αῤῥητεργίας ἔμπλεον, ᾧ καὶ οἱ Γνωςικοί λεγόμενοι χρῶνται, ὃ ̓Αναβατικὸν Παύλο καλᾶσι, τὴν πρόφασιν ευρόντες ἀπὸ τὰ λέγειν τὸν ἀπόςολον αναβεβηκέναι ἕως τρίτω έρανε, καὶ ἀκηκοίναι ἄῤῥητα ῥήματα ἃ ἐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι. Καὶ ταῦτα, φασὶν, ἐςὶ τὰ ἄῤῥητα ρήματα.

el

which it was not lawful to utter; which they who are called the Gnofticks also use, which they intitle The Anabaticon of Paul; taking the occafion (of the forgery) from that faying of the Apoftle, that he afcended up into the third heaven, and heard things which it was not lawful for men to utter. And there, fay they, are the things.

different attainments of fome

2. Auftin ', fpeaking of the good men in knowledge, adds ; Quidam fpiritualium ad ea pervenerunt, quæ non licet homini loqui ; qua occafione

3. Hæref. 38. §. 2.

b Concerning thefe monftrous hereticks, fee above, Chap. ΧΧ.

Some Chriftians arrived to the knowledge of those things which cannot be uttered: on

Numb. XXVIII.

• Tractat. xcviii. in Joan. inipfo extremo. T. Opp. 9. vani

3. Gelafius, in his Decree.

Revelatio, quæ appellatur The Revelation under the

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 fhall fhew presently. I have joined these places together, as fuppofing the Anabaticon of Paul mentioned by Epiphanius, and the Revelation of Paul mentioned by Auftin and Pope Gelafius, to be only one and the fame book, under two different (and indeed scarce different) titles. I confess, most

d

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

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

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 And this I argue,

First, From the confideration that the defign, occafion of writing, as well as the main fubject of the Anabaticon and the Revelation were the fame. This will appear by a comparison of Epiphanius and Auftin together".

Epiphanius concerning the Anabaticon of Paul. The occafion of this forgery was St. Paul's faying, He afcended into the third heavens, and heard things which it was not lawful to utter.

The contents of this book were the unutterable things which Paul heard in the third heavens. xal Tauta, Qacir, &c.

St. Auftin concerning the

Revelation of Paul.

The occafion of this Revelation was, that fome Christians had arrived to the knowledge of things which it was not lawful to utter.

That he means Paul, is plain by what follows.

This book pretended to give an account of those things which St. Paul heard, and faid, were unutterable.

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

Secondly, The titles Anabaticon and Apocalypfis were both adjufted; the former denoting Paul's afcent and the vifions 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 difcovered. So that if we were to translate these two titles into English, one might not unjustly do it thus: The Hiftory of St. Paul's Ascent into the third Heavens; or, An Account of the Visions and Revelations which he had there.

This may fuffice to prove these only two different titles of

See the places above in this Chapter.

one

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

All that is urged to prove them diftinct 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 fecond century; and whereas the former contained the principles of the Gnofticks, the latter contained the rules of the Monaflick 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 diftinct books, and then proving they are so by that fuppofition. Befides, if the filence 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 Gofpel, are not either of them mentioned by name till near three hundred years after Chrift. As to the latter, viz. the Monks ufing 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 Theodofius the Emperor, in a marble chest, hid under ground at the house of St. Paul, at Tarfus in Cilicia, to which they were directed by God; but he adds, that he was affured by a Prefbyter of Tarfus, who was very old, that this was not fact; but he fuppofed the book forged by the Hereticks. He farther fays, it was a book much commended by the Monks ; but

с

Hift. Ecclef. I. vii. c. 19.

there