those who lived nearer to the time when the books were written. This he urges against this book, and faith, that it was not delivered as Canonical, and that no ecclefiaftical writer has taken any teftimonies out of it. But in this, says Mr. Toland, Eufebius is mistaken; for the contrary appears by the ţestimonies marked in the catalogue, which any body may compare with the originals. Valefius", and after him Father Simon, Dr. Grabe, and others, go farther, and charge Eufebius with contradicting himself; because himself, fay they, in another place (viz. that above, Numb. 1.) owns, that Clemens Alexandrinus cited it in the book of his Hypotypofes. Simon indeed attempts to say something in favour of Eufebius, adding, that perhaps Eufebius only intended, that no ecclefiaftical author had quoted thefe books as divine and Canonical. And herein he is followed by Mr. Richardson, in his Answer to Mr. Toland, p. 75. But this is not likely, and, I must confess, is no other than what we commonly call, begging the question. Dr. Grabe accounts for it thus, viz. that Eufebius in the beginning of his book had not fufficiently acquainted himself with thofe things, and therefore said, no ecclefiaftical writer had cited this book; but, upon farther enquiry into the old books, he found his mistake, and so owned what before he denied. But this is a very precarious and groundless fuppofition; inafmuch as it is certain that Eufebius had read the works of Clemens Alexandrinus, and made large ufe even of the Hypotypofes under his name, before he had wrote this third book, where he says, that no ecclefiaftical writer took teftimonies out of this book under the name of Peter. Befides, had Eufebius thus in the fixth book perceived the mistake he was guilty of in the third book (which Dr. Grabe supposes he did), it was easy for him to have corrected it, by erafing what he had wrote falfely in the former place; but he not having done this, I conclude he was of the fame mind, when he wrote both books. And though upon this hypothefis it may be thought, that Eusebius is chargeable with contradiction to himself; yet, with fubmiffion to these learned men, I think the charge moft unjustly laid; for though he fays, no ecclefiaftical writer has taken teftimonies out of the Revelation of Peter in one place, he does not fay that Clemens Alexandrinus did take teftimonies out of it in another all that he fays, is, that he wrote fome Short notes upon it (επιτετμημένας διηγήσεις πεποίηται), which is a very different thing from μαρτυριαῖς συνεχρήσατο, i. e. taking teftimonies out of it, or appealing to it as of any authority. Had the learned writers above-named obferved this, I am perfuaded Eufebius had not been fufpected of a contradiction; after all which I may fairly conclude, there is nothing to be gathered from Eufebius for the credit or authority of the Revelation of Peter. C IV. The last thing urged for this Revelation is, that Sozomen, a writer of the fifth century, fays, it was read in fome churches of Paleftine once yearly, viz. the day of Christ's Pasfion. Mr. Toland refers to this place of Sozomen in his Catalogue; and Dr. Grabe concludes from it, that it was not a book of the Hereticks, elfe it would not have thus been read. But inasmuch as Sozomen does not mention what fort of churches thefe were, whether of the Hereticks, or Catholicks; it is most reasonable to conclude the former, not only because of the known heterodoxy of the book, but because Sozomen in the very fame place tells us, that it was rejected by the antients univerfally, as a fpurious piece. e Thus I have largely confidered this Revelation that went under the name of Peter: whether it was a prophetick book concerning the miferable ftate of the Jews, and the state of the Church to the time of Antichrift, as Dr. Grabe and Dr. Mill fuppofe, I fhall not now enquire; only observe, that it was certainly Apocryphal by Prop. IV, V, and VI. I add also the IXth, as it contained things ludicrous and trifling, fabulous and filly relations; of which fort thofe are, produced above, Numb. 2, 3. concerning abortive children, the milk of women producing animals, &c. a Hift. Eccl. 1. 7. c. 19. d Lib. cit. p. 74. e Proleg. in Nov. Test. §. 135. CHAP. CHA P. XXXVII. Other Books under the Name of Peter, viz. The Acts of Peter by Leucius Charinus. The Gospel of Perfection, a Forgery of the Gnofticks. A Conjecture concerning the Reafon of the Title, and the Contents of the Book. The Acts of Philip now extant in the Vatican. The Gospel of Philip. A Fragment of it. Its Contents, and abominable Doctrines. A Mistake of Mr. Du. Pin concerning it. Numb. LIV. Other BOOKS under the NAME of PETER. I HAVE given these, for method fake, a distinct title, because I find them fo mentioned by Pope Innocent I. His words are, Cætera, quæ fub nomine fub nomine Matthæi, five Jacobi minoris, vel fub nomine Petri et Joannis, quæ a quodam Leucio fcripta funt non folum repudianda, verum etiam noveris effe damnanda. But the other books under the name of Matthew, or James the Lefs, or under the name of Peter and John, which were written by one Leucius; know, that they are not only to be rejected, but condemned. There can be no reafon to doubt, but these were the fame with thofe Apocryphal Acts, of which I have largely treated. above, as being forged under the Apostles' names by Leucius Charinus, as will evidently appear from what is faid Chap. XXI. efpecially from the paffage of Photius. Numb. LV. The GOSPEL OF PERFECTION. TH HE moft eminent and known Hereticks among the Chriftians in the firft ages were thofe called the Gnofticks; of whom Irenæus fays, that they forged an infinite In Decret. five Epift. ad Exuper. Epifc. Tholof. c. 7. multitude multitude of fpurious and Apocryphal books1; and Epiphanius ", that they made many Gospels under the names of the Difciples. Among the rest of their forgeries he mentions the Gospel of Perfection in the following manner. It feems not difficult, from the very title of this fpurious book, to conjecture concerning the defign or scheme of it. The Gnofticks, who forged it and used it, pretended to a greater perfection in knowledge and virtue than all others, and from thence took their very name Tvario; Gnoftici propter. excellentiam fapientiæ, fic fe appellatos effe vel appellari debuiffe gloriantur, &c. fays Auftin. de Hæref. t. 6. n. 6. See -alfo Clemens Alexandrinus De Pædagog. 1. 1. c. 6. et Stromat. 1. 2. p. 398. For the fame reason they called themselves xadagoi, wnuparino, &c. pretending to greater fanctity and perfection of life than all befides; making themselves even wifer than the Apostles, and to have found out more perfect doctrines, as Irenæus fays; and hence they were wont to call Peter and the reft of the Apostles imperfect, as we learn from the fame Fatherf; from all which it may perhaps be a just inference, that this Gospel had this title of Perfection, because it a Advers. Hæref. 1. 1. c. 17. b Ead. Hæref. §. 2. Hæref. 26. §. 8. d Vid. Iren. adv. Hæref. 1., 1. C. I. e Adv. Hæref. 1. 3. C. 2. contained contained this their more perfect knowledge and great discoveries, which they had arrived to above even the Apoftles, or any other Chriftians. If this conjecture be juft, it is fufficient to prove it Apocryphal, from the defign of it, by Prop. VIII. But whatever becomes of this conjecture, it was certainly (as Epiphanius calls it) fpurious and fuppofititious, and therefore Apocryphal by Prop. IV, V, and VI. CONC Numb. LVI. The ACTS of PHILIP. ONCERNING these I have met with nothing in the authors of those ages, to which I am confined, befides their being thus mentioned by Pope Gelafius, in his Decree : Actus nomine Philippi apoftoli Apocryphi. b The Acts under the name of Philip the Apostle are Apocryphal. Mr. Fabritius has produced a large fragment of these Acts out of Anaftafius Sinaita, a writer of the seventh century; but this being so much after my time, I shall not tranfcribe it. The fame learned writer in his third tome of additions to the two former acquaints us, that Papebrochius has published fome Acts under the name of Philip, and faw, but did not think fit to publifh, fome other Acts under the name of Philip, which are in a manufcript of the Vatican. There being nothing of them extant in the writers of the first four centuries, I fhall not form any other conjecture concerning them, than that they were probably made either by Leucius Charinus, or were an appendage to his work. Numb. LVII. The GOSPEL of PHILIP. MONG the other forgeries of the Gnofticks, Epiphanius informs us there was one under this name, and adds, that a Cod. Apocr. Nov. Teftam. t. 2. p. 856. Tom. 3. p. 657. • Hæref. 26. §. 13. They |
