ページの画像
PDF
ePub

ferent books, not only because of this passage of Gelafius, but because the Periods or Travels never went under the name of Peter, but Clemens ; whereas the Acts always did. But in this he is mistaken, the Travels being as expressly attributed to Peter, in the place now. cited of Athanafius, as the Afts can be any where else; fo that, for ought I am able yet to fee to the contrary, these Aets of Peter, and the Travels of Peter, written by Clemens, were the same book; and so being now extant, do not fall any farther under consideration here, but must be referred to their proper place in the next volume.

Numb. XLIX. The DOCTRINE of PETER.

[ocr errors]

HIS has been clearly proved by Dr. Cave a and Dr.

Grabe, to be the same book with that intitled, The Preaching of Peter; and therefore shall be considered there, Numb. LII. and the place of Origen, where it is mentioned, produced.

Numb. L. The GOSPEL of PETER.

[ocr errors]

HIS Apocryphal Gospel has been taken notice of by

many of the antient 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 c. Ετερός

τε συντεταγμένα αυ- There is another treatife of το λόγος περί τα λεγομένα his, which he wrote concernrata Térgov Euaylenia, öv ing the Gospel

, intitled, acσεποίηται απελέγχων τα ψευ

cording to Peter, with design

to confute some false afferδως εν αυτώ ειρημένα, δια τι

tions in it, on

account of

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

ωα

thus :

νας εν τη κατά Ρωσσον σαρ

some in the parish of Roffus, οικία, προφάσει της ειρη- who, through the occafion μένης γραφής εις ετεροδόξες of the faid Scripture, fell in

to some erroneous doctrines. διδασκαλίας αποκείλαντας.

It may not be improper to 'Αφ' ής εύλογον βραχείας produce some few passages of ραθέσθαι λέξας, δι' ών ήν it, in which he declares what είχε περί τα βιβλία γνώμην his fentiments were of that προτίθησιν, έτω γράφων. book. . He

writes Ημείς γαρ, αδελφοί, και Πέ " We, brethren, do receive τρον και τις άλλες αποςόλες

« Peter and the other Αpof

« tles even as Chrift; but αποδεχόμεθα ως Χρισόν. Τα

" the spurious pieces under δε ονόματι αυτών ψευδεπίγρα

their names, as well knowφα ως έμπειροι αραιτέμεθα,

ing them, we reject, having γινώσκοντες ότι τα τοιαύτα και

good evidence that we have σαρελάβομεν. 'Εγώ γαρ γε « received no such things. For νόμενο παρ' υμίν, υπενίαν.

6 when I was among you,

I τες πάντας ορθή σίσει προσ

« fuppofed that all were be

« lievers of the true docφέρεσθαι, και μη διελθων το

« trine; and 1o not reading υπ' αυτών προφερόμενον ονό

over the book which they ματι Πέτρα Ευα/γέλιον, είπον,

« brought me, under the title ότι εί τετο ει μόνον το δοκών « of the Gospel of Peter, I υμίν παρέχαν μικροψυχίαν, « faid, If this be the only ocαναγινωσκέσθω. Νύν δε

μά

« cafion of your contention, , θων, ότι αιρέσα τινί ο νες αυ

« let the book be read. But των ενεφώλευεν, εκ των λεχ

110w perceiving, by what θέντων μοι, σπεδάσω πάλιν

“ I am told, that they had

some secret heresy in their γενέσθαι προς υμάς" ώςε,

« minds (viz. which they had αδελφοί, προσδοκάτέ με εν a mind to support by this ταχει. Ημείς δε, αδελφοί, « book), I will fpeedily make καταλαβόμενοι οποίας ήν αι « another visit to you. But ρέσεως ο Μαρκιανός, και εαυ we, brethren, know what το ήναντιέτο, μη νοων & ελά

« the herefy of Marcianus is, " who is not consistent with « himfelf, not underftanding

λα,

were

λει, ά μαθήσεσθε εξ ών υμίν

« what he said, as you may εγράφη. Έδυνήθημεν γαρ. “ perceive by what has been παρ' άλλων των ασκησάντων

« written to you. For we

« prevailed over thofe others, , αυτό τάτο το Ευαγέλιον, τετ

« who make ufe of this Gofέξι σαρα των διαδόχων των

« pel, i. e. over thofe who καταρξαμένων αυτέ, ες Δοκη

his (viz. Marciaτας καλέμεν (τα γαρ πλείονα “ nus's) successors, whom we φρονήματα εκείνων επί της δι « call Docetas (for they have δασκαλίας) χρησάμενοι παρ'

« in their scheme of doctrine αυτών διελθεϊν, και ευρεϊν τα

“ a great variety of fentiμεν πλείονα τα ορθά λόγε τα

“ ments), and having bor

“ rowed (the said Gospel) of ΣωτηρG, τινα δε προσδιες αλ

« them to perufe, found out μένα, α και υπετάξαμεν υμίν. « many things rightly fpoken Και ταύτα μεν τα Σεραπίω- « of our Saviour, and others

as bad, which I have sub

joined to this Epistle." So far Serapion a.

2. By Tertullian 5. Evangelium, quod edidit Mar- The Gofpel, which Mark cus, Petri adfirmatur, cujus published, is affirmed by some interpres Marcus.

to be the Gospel of Peter, whose interpreter Mark was.

3. By Origen . Tες δε αδελφές Ιησά φασί There are fome who fay τινες είναι εκ παραδόσεως ορ- the brethren of Chrift (here μώμενοι τα έπιγεγραμμένα mentioned) wei

mentioned) were the children κατα Πέτρον Ευαγίελία, ή της

of Joseph, by a former wife,

who lived with him before βίβλε Ιακώβε, υιές 'Ιωσήφ εκ Mary; and they are induced

* I imagine there is some defect in the Greek of Eufebius, in the latter part of this paragraph, not only because the translators Ruffin, Christopherson, and Valesius prodi

giously disagree, but because it is
lcarce capable of a just Version.

o Lib. 4. adv. Marcion. c. 5.
. Comment. in Matt. xiii. 55.

προτέρας

1

προτέρας γυναικός συνακηκυί- to this opinion by Iome paf-
ας αυτό προ της Μαρίας. sages in that which is intitled,

The Gospel of Peter, or the

Book of James.

4. By Eusebius a.
Te Malvat' autóv wno- It is evident, that the book
μασμένον Ευαγέλιονintitled,The Gofpel of Peter,-
όλως εν καθολικούς άσμεν πα-

is not by any means to be

esteemed Canonical, inasmuch ραδεδομένον, ότι μήτε αρχαί

as none of the antients, nor ων μήτε των καθ' ημάς τις

any of our Ecclefiaftical writ-
εκκλησιαστικός συγγραφεύς ταϊς

ers, have taken testimonies
εξ αυτά συνεχρήσατο μαρτυ- out of it.
μίαις
. .

By the fame 6.
He places it among the books forged by the Hereticks 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. Numb. XXXIII.

5. By Jerome, in the Life of Peter C.
Libri autem ejus, e quibus But those (other) books (called
unus Actorum ejus inscribi- Peter's), among which one is
tur, alius Evangelii vinter his Acts, another his Gospel
Apocryphas Scripturas repu are reckoned among

the
tantur.

Apocryphal Scriptures.

6. By the fame, in the Life of Serapion.
Alium de Evangelio, quod He composed also another
sub Petri nomine fertur, li- book, concerning the Gospel
brum composuit, ad Rhofen- which is carried about under
fem Ciliciæ Ecclefiam, quæ

the name of Peter, inscribed to
in hæresin ex ejus lectione di the Church of Rossus in Ci-
verterat.

licia, who by the reading of
that book had fallen into he-
resy.

a Hift. Eccl. I. 3. c. 3.
o Id. l. 3. c. 25.

c Catal. vir. illuftr. in Petro.
d Id. in Strap.

1

7. By Gelasius, in his Decree, according to some editions. Evangelia nomine Petri Apof- The Gospels under the name toli Apocrypha.

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 were the same, seeing all the writers, who mention this Gorpel of Peter, have rejected it as fpurious, 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 fame 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 occafioned 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 fome internal evidences in the Gospel. See

See my Vindication of St. Matthew's Gospel, against Mr. Whistoi, 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 a, and after him Dr. Mill TM, suppose it to have been made by Leucius, whom

[ocr errors]

a Spicileg. Patr. tom 1. p. 58.

Prolegom. in Nov. Testam.

. 3373

they

« 前へ次へ »