« AnteriorContinua »
6. By the same 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; Si vero quis velit nobis proferre But if any one urge against us ex illo libello qui Petri Doctrina testimonies out of that little book appellatur, ubi Salvator videtur which is called, The Doctrine of ad discipulos dicere, Non sit dæ- Peter, wherein our Saviour seems monium incorporeum; primo re- to say to his disciples, That he was spondendum est ei, quod ille liber not an incorporeal spirit, I would inter libros ecclesiasticos non answer to him first, That that habetur, et ostendendum, quod book is not to be reckoned among neque Petri est ea scriptura, ne- the ecclesiastical books, and make que alterius cujusquam qui Spiritu it appear, that it is neither the Dei fuerit inspiratus.
writing of Peter, nor of any other person who was inspired by the
Spirit of God. 7. By the anonymous author of a book, concerning rebapdispositionem, postremo in urbe, pel at Jerusalem, and some disquasi tunc primum invicem sibi pute) did afterwards meet in the esse cognitos. Et quædam alia city, utterly unknown to each hujuscemodi, absurde ac turpiter other before. And some other conficta. Quæ omnia in librum things of this sort foolishly and illum invenies congesta.
tization in Cyprian's time f. Est autem adulterini hujus, imo But the principal foundation of internecini baptismatis, si quis this false and pernicious baptism alius auctor, tum etiam quidam is a book forged by these same heab iisdem ipsis hæreticis propter retics, to support this error, which hunc eundem errorem confictus is called The Preaching of Paul liber, qui inscribitur Pauli (Petri) (or Peter.) In which book, conPrædicatio. In quo libro contra trary to all the scriptures, you omnes scripturas, et de peccato will find Christ (who alone was proprio confitentem invenies Chri- clear of all sin) both confessing stum, qui solus omnino nihil de- his own sin, and being almost un. liquit, et ad accipiendum Johannis willing to receive the baptism of baptisma pene invitum, a matre John, was compelled to it by his sua Maria esse compulsum : Item mother Mary. Also, that when cum baptisaretur, ignem super he was baptized, fire was seen aquam esse visum : (quod in E- upon the river (which is not writvangelio nullo est scriptum) et ten in any one of the Gospels ;) post tanta tempora Petrum et and after some considerable time, Paulum, post conlationem evan- that Peter and Paul (though they gelii in Hierusalem, et mutuam had before had a conference conaltercationem et rerum agendarum cerning the doctrine of the gos
e Præfat. in lib. 1. de Princip. fol. 112.
f Edit. a Rigalt. ad fin. Opp. Cypr.
basely forged. All which you will
find heaped together in that book. 8. By Lactantius, lib. 4. c. 21. Magister aperuit illis omnia, quæ
The Master (Christ) explained Petrus et Paulus Romæ prædica- all things to them, which Peter verunt; et ea prædicatio in me- and Paul did preach at Rome; moriam scripta permansit: in qua and that preaching being commitcum multa alia mira, tum etiam ted to writing, that it might not hoc futurum esse dixerunt; ut be forgot, continues [until now). post breve tempus immitteret In which, with many other strange Deus regem, qui expugnaret Ju things, they also have predicted dæos, et civitates eorum solo ad- the following things, viz. That æquaret, ipsos autem fame sitique after 'a short time God would confectos obsideret. Tum fore, send a king, who should wage war ut corporibus suorum vescerentur, against the Jews, and destroy their et consumerent se invicem; post- city to the ground, and besiege remo ut capti venirent in manus them, till they were worn out with hostium, et in conspectu suo vex- hunger and thirst; then it should ari acerbissime conjuges suas cer- come to pass, that they should
feed nerent, violari ac prostitui vir- upon their own bodies, and destroy gines, diripi pueros, allidi parvu- one another, and at last become los, omnia denique igne ferroque captives in the hands of their enevastari, captivos in perpetuum mies; and that they should see the terris suis exterminari, eo quod great distress of their wives, their exultaverint super amantissimum
young women prostituted and deet probatissimum Dei Filium. bauched, 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. Το τε λεγόμενον αυτού κήρυγμα But that which is called The
- ουδ' άλως εν καθολικούς ισμεν Preaching of Peter is not by any παραδεδομένον, ότι μήτε αρχαίων, means to be esteemed canonical, μήτε των καθ' ημάς τις εκκλησια
inasmuch as none of the ancients,
στικός συγγραφεύς ταϊς εξ αυτού nor any of our ecclesiastical συνεχρήσατο μαρτυρίαις. .
writers have taken testimonies
out of it. 10. By Jerome, Catal. Vir. illustr. in Petro. Libri autem ejus, e quibus unus But those [other] books called Actorum ejus inscribitur, alius his, among which one is his Acts, Evangelii, tertius Prædicationis another his Gospel, a third his -inter apocryphas scripturas re- Preaching-are reckoned among putantur.
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 coneerning 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 Si“ byls.” In another place h, “ It was of authority among the “ ancients, because Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen have 66 cited it.”
2. Cardinal Baronius i 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 writing's, 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. Grabel saith, “ All the fragments of it are perfectly “ 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
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 n. The Seven Books, viz. the Epistle to the
s Biblioth. Sanct. lib. 2. p. 113. ad voc. Sibyl. h Ibid. lib. 2. p. 91. ad voc. Petrus.
Apparat. ad Annal. apud Casaub. Exercit. I. No. XVIII. cont. Baron.
k Histor. Literar. in Petro, p. 5.
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. Millo 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, No. 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 4.
2. As several things seem inserted into the Preaching of Peter which were in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, (viz. that
Prolegom. in Nov. Test. g. 133. p Essay on Constit. p. 24.