6. By the samee.

That which he calls in this passage the Doctrine of Peter, is undoubtedly the same with the Preaching; as will appear in the following part of this discourse. His words are;

7. By the anonymous author of a book, concerning rebaptization in Cyprian's time f.

dispositionem, postremo in urbe, quasi tunc primum invicem sibi esse cognitos. Et quædam alia hujuscemodi, absurde ac turpiter conficta. Quæ omnia in librum illum invenies congesta.

pel at Jerusalem, and some dispute) did afterwards meet in the city, utterly unknown to each other before. And some other things of this sort foolishly and basely forged. All which you will find heaped together in that book.

8. By Lactantius, lib. 4. c. 21. Magister aperuit illis omnia, quæ Petrus et Paulus Romæ prædicaverunt; et ea prædicatio in memoriam scripta permansit: in qua cum multa alia mira, tum etiam hoc futurum esse dixerunt; ut post breve tempus immitteret Deus regem, qui expugnaret Judæos, et civitates eorum solo adæquaret, ipsos autem fame sitique confectos obsideret. Tum fore, ut corporibus suorum vescerentur, et consumerent se invicem ; postremo ut capti venirent in manus hostium, et in conspectu suo vexari acerbissime conjuges suas cernerent, violari ac prostitui virgines, diripi pueros, allidi parvulos, omnia denique igne ferroque vastari, captivos in perpetuum terris suis exterminari, eo quod exultaverint super amantissimum et probatissimum Dei Filium.

The Master (Christ) explained all things to them, which Peter and Paul did preach at Rome; and that preaching being committed to writing, that it might not be forgot, continues [until now]. In which, with many other strange things, they also have predicted the following things, viz. That after a short time God would send a king, who should wage war against the Jews, and destroy their city to the ground, and besiege them, till they were worn out with hunger and thirst; then it should come to pass, that they should feed upon their own bodies, and destroy one another, and at last become captives in the hands of their enemies; and that they should see the great distress of their wives, their young women prostituted and debauched, their children torn in

pieces, and their little ones dashed in pieces; in a word, all things destroyed by fire and sword, and themselves for ever banished from their own country, because they despised the most loving and excellent Son of God.

9. By Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 3.

Τό τε λεγόμενον αὐτοῦ κήρυγμα — οὐδ ̓ ὅλως ἐν καθολικοῖς ἴσμεν παραδεδομένον, ὅτι μήτε ἀρχαίων, μήτε τῶν καθ ̓ ἡμᾶς τις εκκλησια

But that which is called The Preaching of Peter is not by any means to be esteemed canonical, inasmuch as none of the ancients,

στικὸς συγγραφεὺς ταῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ συνεχρήσατο μαρτυρίαις.

10. By Jerome, Catal. Libri autem ejus, e quibus unus Actorum ejus inscribitur, alius Evangelii, tertius Prædicationis -inter apocryphas scripturas reputantur.

nor any of our ecclesiastical
writers have taken testimonies
out of it.

Vir. illustr. in Petro.
But those [other] books called
his, among
which one is his Acts,
another his Gospel, a third his
Preaching-are reckoned among
apocryphal scriptures.

CHAP. XXXIV.

The sentiments of later writers concerning the Preaching of Peter. It has been generally very highly esteemed, but upon very weak reasons. The Doctrine of Peter the same as the Preaching of Peter. It was apocryphal, being never cited with any authority. An account of Heracleon and Theodotus, two ancient heretics, and their principles. It contained several things false; as that Christ was a sinner, and that the law of Moses was of everlasting obligation, &c. A conjecture concerning the Epistle of Peter to James. The Preaching of Peter apocryphal, because it makes Peter and Paul appeal to the Sibylline Oracles for the confirmation of Christianity. An account of the Sibyls' Prophecies. They were in a great measure the forgeries of Christians. Paul and Peter did not cite them.

NOTHING is more commonly the occasion of the mistakes, into which learned men have fallen, than a secret resolution to make all things, if possible, agreeable to their former preconceived opinions. This appears very evidently the case, in respect of the false notions many have entertained concerning this apocryphal Preaching of Peter and Paul. It had been a settled opinion that Clemens Alexandrinus cited and highly valued it. On this account a favourable opinion was entertained by many of the book; and by this means later writers stifling, or at least not regarding the obvious evidence that is to be brought against it, have extolled it in a very unjust and unreasonable manner, as I hope plainly to shew; and in order thereto shall first produce their several opinions.

1. Sixtus Senensis discoursing concerning the Sibyls, tells us, that the apostle Paul exhorts his disciples to the reading of the Sibylline Oracles, referring to the place above-cited of Clemens, in the last Chapter, No. IV. whereby though he calls it recondita Scriptura, it is plain he meant the book now under consideration, and believed it to be the very writing of St. Paul; and a little after adds, " And so I, according to the "advice of Paul, shall write some things concerning the Sibyls." In another place h, "It was of authority among the "ancients, because Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen have "cited it."

66

2. Cardinal Baroniusi endeavours to support the credit of this book attributed to Paul, wherein he is made to refer to the Sibyls (see Chap. preced. No. III.) because St. Paul has in some other parts of his writings, now received, taken citations out of the Greek poets.

3. Dr. Cavek, though he looked upon it as spurious, yet supposes both it and the other apocryphal pieces under the name of Peter to have been written either in the apostolic age, or that which was next to it.

4. Dr. Grabe1 saith, "All the fragments of it are perfectly 66 orthodox, and the authors of it catholic Christians, because "Clemens Alexandrinus, and after him other orthodox fa"thers, have frequently cited it;-that it was written soon "after the death of Peter by some of that apostle's disciples, "who wrote down what they had heard him preach, to com"municate it to posterity"And in another place m, by the same weak argument as Baronius, says, "He knows not any "reason why some disciple of the apostles, who heard the "Preaching of Peter and Paul, might not ascribe those cita❝tions out of the Sibylline Oracles to St. Paul, seeing he cites (6 Aratus, Acts xvii. 28.—Why then might not the author of "this Preaching rightly say, that St. Paul made use of the "Sibyls, and other such sort of prophecies ?"

5. Mr. Toland". The Seven Books, viz. the Epistle to the

Biblioth. Sanct. lib. 2. p. 113. ad voc. Sibyl.

h Ibid. lib. 2. p. 91. ad voc. Petrus. i Apparat. ad Annal. apud Casaub. Exercit. I. No. XVIII. cont. Baron.

1

k Histor. Literar. in Petro, p. 5.

Spicileg. Patr. Sæcul. 1. p. 61, 62. m P. 66.

n

Amyntor, p. 56, 57.

Hebrews, that of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation, were a long time doubted by the ancients, particularly by those whom we esteem the soundest part; and yet they are received not without convincing arguments by the moderns: now I say by more than a parity of reason, that the Preaching of Peter and his Revelation (for example) were received by the ancients, and ought not therefore to be rejected by the moderns, if the approbation of the fathers be a proper recommendation of any books.

6. Dr. Mill thinks this Preaching was published not long after Peter's death, containing several moral instructions relating to the worship of God, which were taken from the apostle's mouth, and committed to writing by his disciples; and that such are the fragments of it now remaining.

7. Mr. Whiston P would have it in some sense to be looked upon as one of the sacred books.

Notwithstanding this concurrence of opinions, to elevate the authority of this Preaching of Peter, I am not afraid to assert it a most ridiculous, silly, and impious forgery. To establish which assertion, I observe,

First, That Origen, the anonymous author in Cyprian's time, Eusebius, and Jerome have expressly and plainly rejected it as a spurious and apocryphal piece. This is evident from the places produced in the last chapter, No. VI. VII. IX. X. Nor can there be any doubt concerning this, as to either of them, except that Origen calls it, N°. VI. The Doctrine of Peter, and not The Preaching of Peter: to which I answer, that these two were only different titles for the same book, as is confessed by Dr. Cave and Dr. Grabe, in the places just now cited, and seems evident for these two reasons; viz.

1. That a passage produced by Cotelerius out of the Preaching of Peter is by Damascenus cited out of the Doctrine of Peter 9.

2. As several things seem inserted into the Preaching of Peter which were in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, (viz. that