Sixthly, The fame character feems juftly to be fixed upon the book from that paffage cited by Clemens Alexandrinus twice (viz. Chap. XXXIII. Numb. I. and Numb. II.) and by Theodotus, Numb. 4. where Chrift is called the Nopos, the Law, which feems to be upon no other account than to establish the Ebionite fcheme of the everlasting obligation of the Law, which has been fhewn to be the intent of this book. Apocryphal therefore by Prop. VIII. evi Seventhly, The Author of the book about Rebaptisation (above, Chap. XXXIII. Numb. 7.) has observed a very dent contradiction in it, viz. After the two Apoftles Peter and Paul had conferred together, and disputed at Jerufalem, they afterwards met in the fame city as much unknown to each other, as if they had never seen each other before. This feems either to argue, that both the Apostles had memories exceeding treacherous, or else fomething (as the anonymous Author fays) very abfurd, i. e. contradictious to itself, and therefore what proves it Apocryphal by Prop. VII. Eighthly, The paffage (Numb. IV. out of Clemens Alexandrinus, above, Chap. XXXIII.) in which is Chrift's command to his Apostles, not to go out into the world to preach the Gospel, till after the expiration of twelve years, will also prove it Apocryphal. For though there be another teftimony to this tradition, viz. Apollonius, a writer of the second centurya, yet it seems very contrary, not only to the defign of the Christian Religion, which was intended to be as diffufive as poffible, without any diftinction of perfons or nations, but also to the exprefs teftimonies of feveral of the books now received; as where our Saviour tells the woman of Samaria, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor at Ferufalem, worship the Father, &c. Joh. iv. 21. where he tells his Difciples, the Gospel was to be preached to all the world, Matt. xxiv. 14. and actually commands them, without any limitation as to time, to go forth and preach the Gospel to every creature, and to all nations, Mar. xvi. 15. Mat. xxviii. 18. Befides, if Chrift did give his Apostles any such command, if the Hiftory of the Acts of the Apostles by Luke be true, they were disobedient to it; for it is certain that in much less time Peter had his vifion, Churches were planted in Samaria, Antioch, &c. by the preaching of the Apostles: and therefore, after so much evidence, I may venture to affert this a spurious account of Chrift; and confequently this Preaching, which contained it, alfo fpurious. I confefs indeed, the Latin translator of Clemens has given these words another turn, and putting no point after the word åμ¤gría, but a full period after the word "rn, makes the paffage to speak thus, He that will repent and believe on God through my name, his fins fhall be pardoned after twelve years. But this is more abfurd and foolish than the former, and therefore I have chofen to follow Dr. Cave's punctuation and translation a. Laftly, I might argue this book not to have been the composure of Peter and Paul, from the great difference there is in the ftyle of it from the known style of those two facred writers, and fo prove it Apocryphal by Prop. XI. but this I fhall leave to the judgment and discretion of the reader, having said so much concerning the various forts of styles under that Propofition. What remains farther is, that I add something concerning the manner in which Clemens and Lactantius have cited this book. As to the latter, though he indeed produces a paffage out of it, he does not cite it as of any authority, nor in the leaft intimate that it was wrote by thofe Apostles. As to the former, though he indeed cite it several times, which has been made the great argument to support its authority, I fhall think it sufficient to obferve, 1. That he never does cite it as Scripture, or under that name. 2. That it does not follow from a bare citation of it, that he a Hift. Liter. in Petro. judged judged it to be the work of thofe Apoftles. Why might he not cite it as an Ecclefiaftical book? I have above proved, that he did in like manner cite a paffage out of the Gospel of the Hebrews, which yet himself rejected as not Canonical; but 3. Suppose he did really appeal to it as a genuine book, it will be a moft abfurd inference, that therefore it was Canonical; it is at most but the teftimony of one fingle Father against the express teftimony of many others as good and proper judges as himself, as well as against a great many strọng arguments of its fpuriousness. But 4. To speak what I really think; fince it is certain the first Chriftians did forge feveral pious books to gain credit to Christianity, as for instance, the Verfes of the Sibylls, &c. out of the same principle I suspect Clemens made use of this book under the name of Peter, juft in the same manner as he has very often in his works taken testimonies against the Pagans out of the fpurious Verses of the Sibylls. See p. 17, 32, 41, 223, 304, 323, 601, 604, 636, &c. Upon the whole, I conclude this Preaching of Peter to have been the forgery of fome Ebionites in the beginning of the second century, and contained things vastly different from any thing that ever the Apoftles preached; that it paffed under various changes, fuffered many interpolations, and was a moft filly and impious imposture. VOL. 1. Bb CHAP. CHAP. XXXVI. The Revelation of Peter fuppofed by Dr. Grabe equal to the Revelation of John; by Mr. Toland, as preferable to Seven Books of our prefent Ganon; by Mr. Whifton, to have been a facred Book. Their Opinion of it groundless; for Clemens Alexandrinus never cited it. The Book of Hypotypofes not written by Clemens, but another; proved out of Photius. A conjecture concerning the Hypotypofes fupported out of Caffiodorus. The Excerpta Theodoti not made by Clemens. The Contents of thefe Eclogues, or Excerpta; and their Contrariety to the known Doctrines of Clemens. They were not Part of the Hypotypofes, as Mr. Valefius fuppofes, nor Part of the Stromata. This fully proved. The Preaching of Peter not esteemed by Eufebius. He does not contradict himfelf in Relation to that Book, as has been generally supposed. A Method of clearing him. Numb. LIII. The REVELATION OF PETER. BESIDES the a Book ESIDES the Gospel, Acts, Judgment, and Preaching, I observe there was also extant formerly a Book called, The Revelation of Peter. The antient writers who have mentioned it are as follow; viz. 1. Clemens Alexandrinus 2. There was a book formerly extant under his name, but now loft, entitled, The Hypotypofes of Clemens; and in this he made ufe of the Revelation of Peter, as Eufebius informs us". Ἐν δὲ ταῖς Ὑποτυπώσεσι πάσης τῆς ἐνδιαθήκε γραφής ἐπιτετμημένας πεποίηται διηγήσεις, μήδε τὰς ἀντιλεγο * Lib. Hypotypos. In the books of his called Hypotypofes, he has wrote fome βhort Commentaries upon all the books of Scripture, not Hift. Ecclef. l. 6. c. 14. omitting |