of the ancient writers, whose accounts I shall produce, according to my usual method; i. e. the time in which they lived. It is mentioned, 1. By Serapion, in a treatise which he wrote concerning this Gospel of Peter; of which we have the following account preserved by Eusebius ". Ἕτερός τε συντεταγμένος αὐτῷ λόγος περὶ τοῦ λεγομένου κατὰ Πέτρον Εὐαγγελίου, ὃν πεποίηται ἀπελέγχων τὰ ψευδῶς ἐν αὐτῷ εἰρημένα, διά τινας ἐν τῇ κατὰ Ῥωσσὸν παροικία, προφάσει τῆς εἰρημένης γραφῆς εἰς ἑτεροδόξους διδασκαλίας ἀποκείλαντας. Αφ ̓ ἧς εὔλογον βραχείας παραθέσθαι λέξεις, δι' ὧν ἣν εἶχε περὶ τοῦ βιο βλίου γνώμην προτίθησιν, οὕτω γράφων. Ἡμεῖς γὰρ, ἀδελφοί, καὶ Πέτρον καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀποστόλους ἀποδεχόμεθα ὡς Χριστόν. Τὰ δὲ ὀνόματι αὐτῶν ψευδεπί γραφα ὡς ἔμπειροι παραιτούμεθα, γινώσκοντες ὅτι τὰ τοιαῦτα οὐ παρελάβομεν. Ἐγὼ γὰρ γενόμενος παρ' ὑμῖν, ὑπενόουν τοὺς πάντας ὀρθῇ πίστει προσφέρεσθαι, καὶ μὴ διελθὼν τὸ ὑπ ̓ αὐτῶν προφερόμενον ὀνόματι Πέτρου Εὐαγ γέλιον, εἶπον, ὅτι εἰ τοῦτό ἐστι μόνον τὸ δοκοῦν ὑμῖν παρέχειν μι κροψυχίαν, ἀναγινωσκέσθω. Νῦν δὲ μαθὼν, ὅτι αἱρέσει τινὶ ὁ νοῦς αὐτῶν ἐνεφώλευεν, ἐκ τῶν λεχθέν των μοι, σπουδάσω πάλιν γενέσθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς· ὥστε, ἀδελφοὶ, προσδοκᾶτέ με ἐν τάχει. Ἡμεῖς δὲ, ἀδελφοὶ, καταλαβόμενοι ὁποίας ἦν αἱρέσεως ὁ Μαρκιανὸς, καὶ ἑαυ There is another treatise of his, which he wrote concerning the Gospel entitled, according to Peter, with design to confute some false assertions in it, on account of some in the parish of Rossus, who, through the occasion of the said scripture, fell into some erroneous doctrines. It may not be improper to produce some few passages of it, in which he declares what his sentiments were of that book. He writes thus: "We, brethren, do receive Peter "and the other apostles even as « Christ; but the spurious pieces "under their names, as well know"ing them, we reject, having good "evidence that we have received no such things. For when I was 66 σε among you, I supposed that all "were believers of the true doc« trine; and so not reading over "the book which they brought 66 66 me, under the title of The Gros pel of Peter, I said, If this be "the only occasion of your con“ tention, let the book be read. “But now perceiving, by what "I am told, that they had some "secret heresy in their minds, (viz. which they had a mind to 66 66 support by this book,) I will speedily make another visit to " Hist. Eccl. 1. 6. c. 12. 66 τῷ ἐναντιοῦτο, μὴ νοῶν ἃ ἐλάλει, you. But we, brethren, know "what the heresy of Marcianus "is, who is not consistent with « himself, not understanding "what he said, as you may per"ceive by what has been written "to you. For we prevailed over "those others, who make use of "this Gospel, i. e. over those who were his [viz. Marcianus's] 66 66 successors, whom we call Do cetas, (for they have in their "scheme of doctrine a great va σε riety of sentiments,) and hav ing borrowed [the said Gospel] “ of them to peruse, found out "many things rightly spoken of 66 our Saviour, and others as bad, "which I have subjoined to this Epistle.” So far Serapion *. By the same b. He places it among the books forged by the heretics under the apostles' names, not received nor cited by any ecclesiastical writer, but to be rejected as impious and absurd. See the place at large above, Chap. XXI. No. XXXIII. 5. By Jerome, in the Life of Peterc. Libri autem ejus, e quibus unus 6. By the samed, in Alium de Evangelio, quod sub Petri nomine fertur, librum composuit, ad Rhosensem Cilicia ecclesiam, quæ in hæresin ex ejus lectione diverterat. But those [other] books [called Peter's], among which one is his Acts, another his Gospel-are reckoned among the apocryphal scriptures. the Life of Serapion. 7. By Gelasius, in his Decree, Evangelia nomine Petri apostoli apocrypha. He composed also another book, concerning the Gospel which is carried about under the name of Peter, inscribed to the church of Rossus in Cilicia, who by the reading of that book had fallen into heresy. according to some editions. The Gospels under the name of Peter the apostle are apocryphal. From these passages it is not difficult to come to a determination concerning this book; only it seems necessary first to observe, that though I have recited here the passage of Tertullian, in which the Gospel of Mark appears formerly to have been called the Gospel of Peter, yet it is by no means to be confounded with, or taken for the same with the apocryphal book now under consideration. I was obliged here to mention the passage of Tertullian, because my design obliges me to produce every place where there is any such mention; but it would be madness hence to infer, that these two books d Id. in Serap. b Id. 1. 3. c. 25. VOL. I. e Catal. Vir. illustr. in Petro. U were the same, seeing all the writers, who mention this Gospel of Peter, have rejected it as spurious, but every one of them agree in the receiving of St. Mark's Gospel as canonical; which could never have happened, had they been the same book. But not to leave the reader, who is unacquainted with these things, in the dark, as to the reason of Mark's Gospel being called by the name of Peter, I observe, that this was occasioned by the universally prevailing opinion among the first Christians, that St. Mark, being the companion of Peter, wrote the Gospel now extant under his name, from the mouth of Peter, or from what he heard him preach at Rome. This is attested by Papias, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Jerome, and many others, as I have elsewhere observed, and endeavoured to prove their tradition to be true in this matter, from some internal evidences in the Gospel. See my Vindication of St. Matthew's Gospel, against Mr. Whiston, Chap. VI. From all this it is plain, the Gospel of Peter, now under discussion, was another book than that of St. Mark. By whom it was forged, is not very certain: Dr. Grabe, and after him Dr. Millf, suppose it to have been made by Leucius, whom they reckon to have been a heretic of the second century: but in this they seem mistaken, because, as I have above proved, Chap. XXI. Leucius did not live till the latter end of the third, or beginning of the fourth century; whereas this Gospel appears to have been extant in the second century, by the book which Serapion wrote concerning it, who was bishop of Antioch in the eleventh year of the emperor Commodus, i. e. in the year of Christ 190, as is plain from the Chronicon of Eusebius, and Jerome's Account of his Life, above cited. That therefore which seems to me most probable, concerning the original of this book, is, that it was a composure of those ancient heretics, in the second century, called the Docetæ, from Soxeiv to appear, because they believed and taught that the sufferings of Jesus Christ were not real, but only in appearances. For of these heretics, Serapion says, he borrowed this book, (if I rightly understand Eusebius,) and in it he observed several erroneous notions concerning Christ, which no one can • Spicileg. Patr. tom. 1. p. 58. f Prolegom. in Nov. Test. §. 337. 8 Vid. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 3. p. 465. et lib. 7. p. 765. CHAP. XXXI. Gospel of Peter the same as that of Basilides. 291 reasonably doubt were these of Christ's not real, but apparent sufferings, after reading the passage. Mr. Dodwell, though he interprets the Greek of Eusebius somewhat differently, nevertheless concludes the same from them, viz. that this Gospel was forged by the Docetæ h; and if this be true, I would offer it here as a conjecture, that perhaps the Gospel of Basilides, of which I have above treated, Chap. XI. No. IX. was the very same either in the whole, or in a great measure at least, with this apocryphal Gospel under the name of Peter; and this I am the rather inclined to believe, First, Because these Docetæ were a branch of the Gnosticks; and of these Basilides was the head and founder. Basilides a quo Gnostici, says Eusebius in his Chronicon ad Ann. Christi 136; i. e. "from Basilides proceeded the Gnosticks.” Secondly, Because the Docete arose much about the same time that Basilides and his opinions became known in the world. The Docetæ, as appears from their being mentioned by Serapion, must at least have been formed into a sect before the end of the second century, and very probably before the middle of it; for Serapion disputed against those of this sect, who were (as he calls them) the diάdoxo, the successors of Marcianus, who was one of these Docetæ. Now Serapion living, as has been above proved, in the year 190, and there having been some successions of these heretics between Marcianus and Serapion, it necessarily follows, that these heretics must have arose at least before the year 150, i. e. before the middle of this century. Besides, it is commonly supposed from those words of Clemens Alexandrinus i, in which he calls Julius Cassianus ἐξάρχων τῆς Δοκήσεως, that he was the first founder of these Doceta; and if so, it will follow that they were somewhat earlier; for then Marcianus must also have been one of his successors. I conclude, therefore, that these Docetæ arose very early in the second century, and consequently about the undoubted time in which Basilides and his tenets became most famous. Thirdly, Because Basilides and his disciples affirmed, that Christ was not really a man in flesh, but only appeared to be so; and accordingly was not really crucified, but, while he h Dodwell. Dissert. in Iren. IV. §. 36. p. 364. i Strom. lib. 3. p. 465. |