But the Doctor did not confider, that the relative particle qui, where it occurs in the second place, requires the fubftantive libellus, meaning a diftinct book, to be before it as well as in 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 fome fuch particle inferted: fo that instead of tranflating 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 muft fee to be an abfurd way of speaking; it is very naturally, and according to plain conftruction, to be tranflated thus, The book which is called the Shepherd or Hermas, that (book) which is called the Two Ways, &c. Befides, had Ruffin defigned to have expreffed the three titles of one book, he would have inferted the particle vel before Dua Via, as well as before Judicium Petri. To add no more of this, there is another question moved by Pamelius a, Whether the words Dux Viæ may not belong to Judicium Petri, as a different title of that book? To which I only answer, that the particle vel feems to make it more probable it did (though upon what account it was fo intitled, is not poffible for us now to guess), than, as Mr. Fabritius fuppofes, that it was a diftinct title of a different book from either; viz. either the feventh Book of the Apoftolical Conftitutions, or the laft Part of the Epiftle 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 plaufible than the former, viz. That it was the fame with the Preaching of Peter. What he offers feems fo ingenious, that I shall give it the reader as exactly as I can. As to the Judgment of Peter, fays he, mentioned by Ruffin and Jerome, I doubt Ruffin meeting in fome Greek books with the word na contractedly written for Kaguya, thought it was defigned for Kpiua, and fo tranflated it in Latin Judicium; and Jerome following Ruffin, without due confideration looked upon it as a distinct book from the Preaching of Peter, when it was really the fame. This feems very plaufible; but

a Annot. in Ruffin. Expofit. Symbol. Apoftol. in loc.

↳ Loc. jam cit.

'VOL. I.

Ꮓ

I have

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.

Firft, It is highly improbable Ruffin should be guilty of fuch a mistake; for befides that he was fo much acquainted with the antient books, as appears by the many writings of his own, which are now extant, and the many Latin tranflations which he made of others, (viz. Jofephus, Eufebius, Origen, Bafil, Gregory Nazianzen, &c.) the Preaching of Peter was a book mentioned by feveral writers, and particularly by Eufebius a, 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. Befides, it seems to me very improbable, that he should thus read xgia for κήρυγμα, becaule although κήρυγμα fometimes thould be fo contractedly written, as Dr. Grabe supposes, viz. xpa, Ruffin could never imagine any fcribe would make that contraction to stand for the word pipe, and that for this plain reason, that he would be as long in writing the contraction xp with the line on top, or longer, than in writing the word at length κρίμα.

Secondly, If we fuppofe 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 Illuftrium till about the year 392, or afterwards; before which time there were fuch fierce contentions between him and Ruffin, that make it very unlikely he should tranfcribe the blunders of his books. But to fay no more, in the very nature of the thing it can scarce be imagined that Jerome fhould thus follow Ruffin; and therefore, feeing 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 diftinct book.

a Hift. Eccl. 1.

3.

c. 3.

Thirdly,

Thirdly, Dr. Mill has a conjecture much less probable than the former, concerning this Judgment of Peter, viz. that it was the very fame with the Revelation of Peter (of which hereafter, Numb. LIII.) and as it was firft called Apocalypfis by the Greeks, afterwards being by the Latins tranflated, was called by them Judicium, or Judgment, because it treated of the Judgments of God denounced against, and shortly to be inflicted upon, the Jews. But against this I urge,

1. That it does not appear, that the Revelation was written on this fubject.

2. If it really was, the title, Judicium Petri, would not have been given to it by any one who understood the Latin tongue; for though the word judgment be used in this sense in our language, viz. for the fame idea as vengeance from God, yet in this antient time the word judicium was feldom or never used in this fenfe. Befides, if it had, the book must have been intitled, Judicia Dei, and not Judicium Petri, viz. the Judgments of God, not the Judgment of Peter. But of this enough.

CHA P. XXXIII.

The Preaching of Peter and Paul. An antient Epiftle under the Name of Peter to James, relating to it, produced at length in Greek and English. Several large Fragments and Teftimonies of the Antients concerning it.

Numb. LII. The PREACHING of PETER and PAUL: Or, The DOCTRINE of PETER.

THE reafon of thefe different titles has in part been already affigned above, where I have proved that the Preaching of Paul and Peter were the titles of one and the fame booka.

See above, Chap. XXX. Numb. XLV.

As for the title here given it, viz. the Doctrine of Peter, it will fo clearly appear to belong to it in the fequel of this Differtation, that I shall say no more concerning it here.

This book is not only a very antient one, but has been of very confiderable repute, generally fuppofed to have been cited by some of the oldest Fathers, as Heracleon, Clemens, Theodotus, &c. and therefore requires much care in the difcuffing it and indeed of all the Apocrypha of the New Teftament, there is none, the confideration of which is attended with greater difficulties than this, except the Gospel of the Egyptians and the Nazarenes. The writers who have mentioned it, are as follow, viz.

I. The author of the Epiftle under the name of Peter to James.

This, though unquestionably a forgery, yet feems to be a very early one of fome Ebionite; and because the Epistle itself does wholly relate to this book of the Preaching of Peter, and has been supposed by some to have been a Preface to it a, I fhall think it not improper to infert it all, with an English tranflation, here; though, were it not for this reason, it ought more properly to have been deferred to the third Part of this work. Wherefore I fhall not here enter into large critical enquiries concerning it, only make fuch few remarks as shall be neceffary to the forming a better judgment concerning the Apocryphal book we have now under confideration, viz. the Preaching of Peter.

endeavour to regulate the difagreements of the Scriptures;

a Cotelerius tranflates it Eandem normam de unitate Dei et vita infti.