d But the books under the name of Peter, of which one is entitled his Acts, another his Gospel,-a fourth his Revelation, are reckoned among the Apocryphal Scriptures. This is all that is to be found among the antients relating to this book: there is not much said of it by the moderns; only Dr. Grabe would by no means have it reckoned an heretical book, but compofed by the orthodox Chriftians, and no more liable to fufpicion of herefy on account of its strange doctrines, than the Revelation of John, and therefore that we should not be too free in our conjectures about such antient obfcure prophecies. The truth is, which I have often thought, this learned Doctor had very much the fame opinion of these books, and fome, if not all thofe, cf our prefent Canon. Mr. Toland would have it efteemed as valuable as feven books of our prefent Canon, (Tee the place above, Chap. XXXIV. Numb. 5.) by more than a parity of reafon, i, e. there are better arguments for this book than thofe. Mr. Whitona alfo recommends it as a facred book. The fubftance, and indeed the whole that is urged for the book is, that it was made use of by Clemens and Theodotus, not rejected by Eufebius, but said to be read in all the Churches of Paleftine. I hall confider each of thefe diftinctly, and then proceed to determine concerning the book. I. As to Clement's using this book, I observe, that this is founded wholly upon that place of Eufebius, above produced, Numb. 1. viz. where he says, that Clemens Alexandrinus in his Hypotyposes wrote fome short notes or commentaries upon all the parts of Scripture, not omitting the controverted books, and among thefe The Revelation of Peter. But to this I answer, 1. That it does not follow, that this book was of any authority, because Clemens did write fome short notes upon it. This he might do in the fame manner as feveral learned men have wrote notes upon the Apocrypha of the Old Teftament. 2. Thofe Hypotypofes, or this book of Notes upon the whole Scripture, under the name of Clemens, were not really his, but the compofure of fome impious Heretick. The book itself is now quite loft, and only fome few fragments of it preferved by Eufebius and Photius ; but yet I think we want not evidence to make it appear to have been the work not of Clemens, but of a quite different person, from the account the learned Photius gives of it. He fays, it was indeed an attempt to explain all the parts of Scripture; and though fometimes he expounded justly, yet in other things his interpretations were impious and fabulous: he afferts matter to be eternal, makes Chrift a creature, holds the tranfmigration of fouls, and that there were great numbers of furprising worlds before Adam was made; Effay on the Conftit. p. 24. c. 1, 9, 15. l. 6. c. 14. c Cod. cix. Bb3 that that the Angels had commerce with women, and children by them; that Christ was not flesh, but appeared to be fo, with a thousand other fuch blafphemies and fooleries, &c. On the account of which this book is not only defpifed by the excellent Photius, but rejected. And indeed any one, who has read the works of Clemens Alexandrinus, will eafily perceive the whole of this book contrary to the true Clemens, and his principles; which is also observed by Photius, cod. cxi. For speaking of his books, called Stromata, he remarks, that though they are not in all refpects found, yet they are not like the Hypotypoles, which πρὸς πολλὰ τῶν ἐκεῖ διαμάχεται, contain many things directly oppofite to these. After reading this, I made no question with myself, but thefe commentaries afcribed to Clemens were a fpurious piece; and was not a little confirmed therein, when I obferved that great mafter of books, Photius, had entertained the fame fufpicion, and feems inclined to believe these commentaries were made by τινὸς ἑτέρῳ τὸ αὐτὸ πρόσωπον ὑποκριθέντος, by Jome other perfon pretending to be Clemens; upon which Andreas Schottus, his Scholiaft, notes, that his conjecture' feems probable, because the other parts of the works of Clemens contain found doctrine. I fhall take it therefore for proved, that thefe Hypotypofes, or Notes upon the Epiftles, were not written by Clemens, but fome filly Heretick; to all which I will fubjoin a conjecture, which I cannot but think probable, viz. That those short notes, which are published by Dr. Fell, under the name of Clemens Alexandrinus, upon the first Epistle of Peter, the Epiftle of Jude, the first and fecond Epiftles of John, were part of these old Hypotyposes, that went under the name of Clemens, which, if it be right, we fhall be able to form another very good argument against them, viz. that Caffiodorus, who tranflated them into Latin, fays, he found them fo heterodox, that he thought proper to exclude a very large part of them from his tranflation. If then the book of Hypotypofes was not really wrote by Clemens, it is plain, nothing can be hence gathered for the authority of the Revelation of Peter, which was made ufe of, or noted upon in it. In the end of his edition of that little Tract afcribed to Clemens Alexandrinus, entitled, Quis Dives falvetur? Lib. 1. De Inftitut. Script. divin. apud Rivet. Critic. Sacr, lib. 2. c. 8. II. As II. As to this Revelation being cited in the Eclogues of Theodotus, which are at the end of Clemens Alexandrinus; I think, that as its being cited there will be no credit to it, so the fragment there cited will be of itself fufficient to evidence that it was a most egregiously filly and Apocryphal book. That it will gain no credit by being cited in thefe Eclogues, or Excerpta, is plain; for though they go under the name of Cle mens, yet they are not his, nor is he any farther concerned with them than as a mere abbreviator; if he bad indeed any concern at all with them, which I can hardly persuade myself that he had, when I obferve that the whole defign of these Ecloga is directly oppofite to all the known books of Clemens ; the former being intended to countenance the errors of Valentinus and Bafilides, as is well obferved by Sylburgius, and the learned Archbishop Ufher; but the latter, viz. the genuine works of Clemens, in many places are defigned to confute the errors of those two Hereticks; which is, I think, a convictive argument, either that Clemens had no concern in these Ecloga, or Abridgment of Theodotus, or at leaft that he was no favourer of the doctrines therein contained; and confequently not Clemens Alexandrinus, but Theodotus, and fome Heretick of his mind, cited this Revelation of Peter. And if this be the cafe, I am fure it will add no credit to this book, that it is here cited, in the judgment of any one that will confider the wretched principles of that Heretick above produced, near the beginning of Chap. XXXIV. To which now I add these farther out of the fame Eclogue, That Christ was not only made by the Father, but made flesh at the beginning of the world; that he himself had need of redemption, which he obtained by the defcent of the dove upon him after his baptism; that God the Father fuffered with the Son; yet that the divinity receded from Chrift before his paffion, &c. If fuch an Author be allowed to have cited the Revelation of Peter, it will rather be an evidence against, than for its authority. I must not leave this head, without obferving, that Valefius has imagined In a Manufcript of his, entitled Bibliotheca Theologica, cited by Dr. Cave, Hiftor. Liter. p. 56. с b See especially 1. 3, 4. Annot. in Eufeb. 1. 5. c. II. et 1. 6. c. 14. thefe Excerpta, or Eclogues, to have been part of the Hypotypofes, or Commentaries, of which I treated in the foregoing section; because the fame things were contained in both, and the Revelation of Peter was made use of in both; and because Pantænus, who was the mafter of Clemens, is called by that author of the Eclogues his mafter. To all which I answer, that if it should be true, that these Eclogues were part of the Commentaries, or Hypotypofes, yet nothing can be gathered thence for the credit of the Revelation of Peter, because I have proved even the Hypotypofes not to have been the books of Clemens. Nor are Valefius's arguments of any weight, seeing it is a thing very probable, that these two books might be the work of two other scholars of Pantænus, who had the same principles: befides, there is an unanswerable argument against his opinion, that the Hypotypofes confifted of short notes, or commentaries, upon all the parts of Scripture; but there is not any thing like this to be found in the Eclogues, or Excerpta Theodoti. And hence it follows, that the conjecture of Heinfius, concerning these Hypotypofes, being a part of the last book of the Stromata, is alfo entirely groundless. Upon the whole then I conclude, that as Clemens has no where cited the Revelation of Peter, fo neither is it of any credit to it, that Theodotus, or his abbreviator, did. III. But the main thing that is urged for the Revelation of Peter, is, that Eufebius did not reject it, but places it in the fame class with the Epistle of Jude, and the other catholick Epiftles. This is urged by Dr. Grabe with a great deal of affurance; in which nevertheless he is moft egregiously miftaken, as he is more than once in his judgment on those words of Eufebius; for in both thofe places where he mentions it, he abfolutely rejects it. (See above in this Chapter, Numb. 4. and Numb. 5.) In the first he affirms, that he certainly knew it was not delivered to the Church as a Canonical or catholick book; and in the latter he places it among the worst fort of books, which he calls védes, i. e. fpurious. That which Eufebius made his rule to judge by, (which is indeed the only rule in the cafe) was the teftimony of the antients, i. e. the tradition of thofe |