seemed to be so, another was crucified in his stead. This appears by Irenæus and Epiphanius's account of this heretic, in the places cited at the bottom of the pagek. Now that these were also the principles of the Docetæ, is sufficiently evident; and even from their very name: from which so universal agreement, both in respect of time and tenets, I offer it as probable at least, that the Gospel of Basilides, and the Gospel of Peter, i. e. the Gospel of the Docetæ, was one and the same book. Fourthly, To all this I add, that Basilides's Gospel seems to have consisted of many tomes, or distinct books; which probably are those twenty-four mentioned by Agrippa Castor: (see above, Chap. XI. No. IX.) and accordingly in the Decree of pope Gelasius, we find this Gospel under the name of Peter recited in the plural number, Evangelia nomine apostoli Petri apocrypha. "The Gospels" (or various books of the Gospel)" under the name of Peter are apocryphal.". Whatever original be ascribed to this book, we have the justest reason to reject it as spurious and apocryphal, by Prop. IV. V. VI. as also, if the foundation of the foregoing conjecture be just, by Prop. VIII. as containing things certainly known to be false, and contrary to the whole design of Christianity. Nor need we at all be moved by what Dr. Mill1 (who is ever too fond of the apocryphal books, as was Dr. Grabe, whom he follows) urges, that this Gospel was publicly read by the Christians; there being no more foundation for this too rash and unguarded assertion, than that Serapion, to prevent an uneasiness and contention in one particular church, told the people, whom he imagined all well established in the faith, that they might read the book; though himself afterwards, when he had perused it, declared against it, as an heretical book. Nor would it be at all more material to object, that Origen, in the passage above, has appealed to this book; for it is plain by the passage, 1. That Origen himself never saw it; for he does not himself cite it, only proposes a history which he had heard some others took out of it, and knew not himself whether it was in this, or the book of James. 'k Iren. adv. Hæres. 1. 1. c. 33. Epiphan. Hæres. 24. 1 Prolegom. in Nov. Test. §. 336. 2. He himself did not credit either the book or the tradition taken out of it; hence he uses the word opμáμevol, to denote the rashness of those who regarded it. 3. He several times declares, he only received the four Gospels, which we now receive. See above, Chap. XXVIII. Thus I have endeavoured to make the best inquiry I could into this Gospel of Peter, which I shall now leave; only observing, how much too hasty Mr. Whiston was, when he asserted this book "as probably in some sense a sacred book m." CHAP. XXXII. The Judgment of Peter. Dr. Cave's opinion, that it was the same with the Shepherd of Hermas, confuted. Dr. Grabe's ingenious conjecture, that it was the same with the Preaching of Peter, disproved. Dr. Mill's opinion, that it was the same with the Revelation of Peter, refuted. No. LI. The Judgment of Peter. Of this book we have not any mention till the latter end of the fourth century, by Jerome and Ruffin. 1. By Jerome ", in his Life of Peter. Libri autem ejus, e quibus unus Actorum ejus inscribitur, alius Evangelii, tertius Prædicationis, quartus Apocalypseos, quintus Judicii, inter apocryphas scripturas reputantur. But those [other] books, called Peter's, among which one is his Acts, another his Gospel, a third his Preaching, a fourth his Revelation, a fifth his Judgment, are reputed among the apocryphal scriptures. 2. By Ruffin, in his Exposition of the Apostles' Creed. After an enumeration of the canonical books. Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non canonici, sed ecclesiastici, a majoribus appellati sunt, ut est Sapientia Salomonis, &c. In Novo vero Testamento libellus, qui dicitur Pastoris sive Hermatis, qui appellatur Duæ Viæ, vel Judicium Pe m It must be observed, that there are other books which were not called by our forefathers canonical, but ecclesiastical; such as the Wisdom of Solomon, &c. in the Old Testament. But in the New Testament, the little book which is called The Shepherd, or Her• Inter Opp. Cypriani. §. 36. p. 575. Essay on the Constitutions, p. 24. n Catal. Vir. illustr. in Petro. tri; quæ legi quidem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam. mas; that which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter, which they would have to be read in the churches, but not to be urged as of any authority in confirming matters of faith. There being nothing more said of this book, it requires but little pains to prove it apocryphal: it appears manifestly to have been such by Prop, IV. and V; and though "some "would have it read in the churches," as Ruffin says, “yet it 66 was never judged of canonical authority," as he expressly tells us, but only read as an ecclesiastical book, i. e. as the apocrypha of the Old Testament and the Homilies are appointed to be read in England now; and so may very well be judged apocryphal also by Prop. VI. Among later writers, I have not met with any thing said of this book, only that our three learned doctors in England (whom I have so often mentioned in the preceding chapters) have formed three several and very distinct judgments concerning this book; neither of which seems to have any great appearance of truth. Dr. Cave P understands Ruffin, as making it the same with the Shepherd of Hermas. Dr. Grabe 9 supposes it the same with the Preaching of Peter, and Dr. Mill the same with the Revelation of Peter; from either of which it was certainly a distinct book. 1. As to Dr. Cave's opinion, though I confess it was very easy for any one to fall into it, it plainly appears to have been founded on a too careless reading of Ruffin's words. Libellus, qui dicitur Pastoris sive Hermatis, qui appellatur Duæ Viæ, vel Judicium Petri, quæ legi quidem in ecclesiis voluerunt, &c. which according to him must be pointed and translated thus: The little book which is called, the Shepherd or Hermas, which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; as though these were only several titles of the same book. But the doctor did not consider, that the relative particle qui, where it occurs in the second place, requires the substantive libellus, meaning a distinct book, to be before it as well as in Prolegom. in Nov. Testam. §. 136. P Hist. Liter. in Petro, p. 5. the first place; and that if it did not, either it and the word appellatur must be both quite useless, or else there must have been an etiam, or some such particle inserted: so that instead of translating it, as he would have it, The book which is called the Shepherd or Hermas, which is called the Two Ways, &c. which every one must see to be an absurd way of speaking; it is very naturally, and according to plain construction, to be translated thus, The book which is called the Shepherd or Hermas, that [book] which is called the Two Ways, &c. Besides, had Ruffin designed to have expressed the three titles of one book, he would have inserted the particle vel before Duæ Viæ as well as before Judicium Petri. To add no more of this, there is another question moved by Pameliuss, Whether the words Duæ Viæ may not belong to Judicium Petri, as a different title of that book? To which I only answer, that the par ticle vel seems to make it more probable it did, (though upon what account it was so entitled, is not possible for us now to guess,) than, as Mr. Fabritius supposes, that it was a distinct title of a different book from either; viz. either the seventh book of the Apostolical Constitutions, or the last part of the Epistle of Barnabas; into one of which this book of the Two Ways was taken. 2. Dr. Grabe's conjecture concerning the Judgment of Peter is much more plausible than the former, viz. That it was the same with the Preaching of Peter. What he offers seems so ingenious, that I shall give it the reader as exactly as I can. "As to the Judgment of Peter," says he, " mentioned by Ruffin " and Jerome, I doubt Ruffin meeting in some Greek books "with the word ea contractedly written for xýpuyua, thought "it was designed for xpíue, and so translated it in Latin judi"cium; and Jerome following Ruffin, without due considera❝tion looked upon it as a distinct book from the Preaching of Peter, when it was really the same t." This seems very plausible; but I have to oppose to it, that it is very improbable Ruffin should be guilty of such a mistake, or, if he was, that Jerome should follow him in it. 66 First, It is highly improbable Ruffin should be guilty of t Loc. jam cit. • Annot. in Ruffin. Exposit. Symbol. Apostol. in loc. such a mistake; for besides that he was so much acquainted with the ancient books, as appears by the many writings of his own, which are now extant, and the many Latin translations which he made of others, (viz. Josephus, Eusebius, Origen, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, &c.) the Preaching of Peter was a book mentioned by several writers, and particularly by Eusebius ", whom he translated into Latin, and whose history he continued to his time; and therefore it is not likely he should mistake any other name for this, especially when it was a name that he had never known nor heard before. Besides, it seems to me very improbable, that he should thus read xgíua for xnρυγμα, because although κήρυγμα sometimes should be so contractedly written, as Dr. Grabe supposes, viz. xp, Ruffin could never imagine any scribe would make that contraction to stand for the word xgíua, and that for this plain reason, that he would be as long in writing the contraction nga with the line on top, or longer, than in writing the word at length xpíμa. Secondly, If we suppose Ruffin to have made this mistake, it is no way probable that Jerome should follow him in it; for Jerome did not write his Catalogus Virorum illustrium till about the year 392, or afterwards; before which time there were such fierce contentions between him and Ruffin, that make it very unlikely he should transcribe the blunders of his books. But to say no more, in the very nature of the thing it can scarce be imagined that Jerome should thus follow Ruffin; and therefore, seeing Ruffin and Jerome both speak of a book called the Judgment of Peter, and Jerome speaks of the Judgment and Preaching of Peter so very distinctly as in the place above, calling one the third, the other the fifth under Peter's name, I conclude this Judgment to have been really a distinct book. Thirdly, Dr. Mill has a conjecture much less probable than the former, concerning this Judgment of Peter, viz. that it was the very same with the Revelation of Peter (of which hereafter, No. LIII.) and as it was first called Apocalypsis by the Greeks, afterwards being by the Latins translated, was called by them, Judicium, or Judgment, because it treated of the Judgment of God denounced against, and shortly to be inflicted upon, the Jews. But against this I urge, " Hist. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 3. |