of Chrift, his coming, death, cross, sufferings, resurrection, afcenfion, and even his very name. To me it is evident, the prophets here referred to are the fame with thofe mentioned in the foregoing paffage, viz. the Sibylls, Hyftafpes, &c. not only because the prophecy there is of the fame fort with thefe, but because we know of no other prophetick books, containing fuch things. Indeed Dr. Grabe, in his notes at the end of the volume, fuppofes they were taken out of some Apocryphal book of the Old Teftament: but this is plainly a groundless conjecture; if he means any book that pretended to belong to the Canon of the Jews. It is enough to answer, there never appears to have been any fuch book; if otherwife, then there is all imaginable reafon to conclude this Apocryphal Author meant the Sibylls, Hyftafpes, &c. The fact therefore is certain, that both Paul and Peter in this book made ufe of the Sibylls' Oracles, and Hyftafpes, to confirm the truth of Christianity: and who, at first thought, will not condemn this as a falfehood? Could there be any neceffity these Apoftles, who had so much better arguments to convince the world, fhould make use of such abominable methods as these? Befides, it was quite contrary to their practice; we find them, upon all occafions, appealing to the records and prophecies of the Jews to prove Jesus to be the Meffiah; but never, befides here, to any prophets among the Gentiles. In all their writings to the Gentiles, as well as Jews, no mention, no diftant intimation, is to be found of their having feen or heard of any fuch books. I might urge a variety of this fort of arguments, but the matter is so plain, as not to need it; I fhall only urge, that these pretended prophecies were not in being when Peter and Paul lived. The truth is, the Sibylline verses, and the books of Hyftafpes, Mercurius Trismegiftus, &c. which speak fo clearly of Christ, and so highly of the Christian Religion, were no other than the forgeries of fame more pious than honest Chriftians in the first ages, defigned to gain credit to their new Religion. This has been largely proved by many, and is the

a P. 329.

opinion

opinion of Cafaubon a, Daillé », Dr. Cave, Spanheim, Le Clerc, Fabritius, and in a manner all who have wrote of them. And indeed, were there no other arguments to prove them fpurious, befides what may be gathered from the fragment under confideration, it would be fufficient, viz. that they fo very particularly defcribe the hiftory of Christ, his coming, fuffering, refurrection, afcenfion, and even his very name, as others of them do the whole bufinefs of Chriftianity; Omnia hujus generis quo apertiora, eo fieri (says Casaubon) suspectiora. For befides that it is fo improbable a thing in itself, that the Heathens fhould have been favoured with such prodigious difcoveries, greater by far than any in the Law of Mofes, or the Prophets of the Old Teftament; the coming of Christ, his miracles, doctrine, resurrection, afcenfion, fending the Holy Ghost, &c. are always represented in the Scriptures as great discoveries; hence the dispensation of the Gospel is by Paul called a mystery, which had been hid for ages and generations, but now is made manifeft to his faints, to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Chrift, &c. Col. i. 26, 27. But how St. Paul could say this, and believe the writings of Hyftafpes, and the Sibylls' verses, is impoffible to tell. I therefore conclude thefe Oracles to have been a forgery long after Peter and Paul's time, and therefore as they would not, fo they could not appeal to them; and confequently, this Preaching of Peter and Paul was a forgery too, and fo not only Apocryphal by Prop, VIII, as containing things falfe, but also by Prop. X. as containing things later than the time in which the Authors, whofe name it bore, lived. Under this head I would farther obferve, that this fpurious Author makes the Apostle Peter to owe his own belief of Chriftianity to the predictions of these books, (fragment VI. of Clemens Alexandrinus, Chap. preced.) calls them Scripture, and fays, God really appointed them, which are

yet farther evidences of its fpurioufnefs, and is fo abfurd, that I cannot but be surprised to obferve Dr. Grabe fo jumping in with that filly writer, as to call them Scripture too; and so according to his example, speaking of it as though it were really St. Peter's, urging us to prove every thing by the Scriptures. Thus I have largely from this inftance proved this book Apocryphal; nor do I know any thing that can be objected against the proof, unless it be what Baronius and the Jaft named writer have faid for the credit of the book, that St. Paul did fometimes make use of testimonies from heathen authors; which, though it be indeed true, yet is very little to the purpose, it being one thing to cite the genuine books of a moral heathen for the fupport of a moral point, and another to make ufe of teftimonies out of forgeries and spurious books, to prove the very foundation of the Christian Revelation; a method, which though however much practised by some of the Fathers, efpecially by Juftin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Lactantius, is both unjust in itself, injurious to truth, and derided by their enemies. And hence we find Celfus objects it to Origena, that they had corrupted the books of the Sibylls, by inferting many things in favour of Christianity; to which Origen gives a very weak answer in my judgment; perhaps, because he would not, or durft not give a better: and in another place Celfus, with an air of wit, banters the Chriftians under the name of Sibyllifts, and even Lactantius owns, that the Pagans were wont to object, that the verses, which the Chriftians cited under the Sibylls' names, were not really theirs, but forged by the Chriftians; and Conftantine the emperor, after he had produced the famous Greek Acroftick concerning Christ, attributed to the Sibyll Erythrea, adds, Οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων επισεσι καὶ ταῦθ', ὁμολογοῦντες Ερυθραίαν γεγενῆσθαι Σιβύλλαν μάντιν ὑποπτεύεσι δέ τινα τῶν τῆς ἡμετέρας θρησκείας, ποιητικῆς μούσης ἐκ ἄμοιξον, τὰ ἔπη ταῦτα πεποιηκέναι, that Many men did not believe it, though they confefs the Sibyll Erythraa to have been really a prophetess, but fuppofe that thofe verfes were made by fome one of

our religion, who had a genius for poetry, &c. I fhall conclude this Chapter with the judgment of St. Auftin in this matter, which not only is a fair intimation of the forgery of the Sibylls, but implies a very strong argument against the Preaching of Peter. Difcourfing against the Jews, he starts this objection: Perhaps it may be said, that the Sibylline prophecies are forged by us; and answers, we have fufficient prophecies without them in the Jewish books: and in the end of the next Chapter, difcourfing of those who arrived to the faving knowledge of Christ, who were not Ifraelites, he mentions only the account in the book of Job, and adds, That whatever prophecies of others (viz. among the Heathens, befides the book of Job) concerning the grace of God through Jefus Christ are produced, may be thought the compofures of the Chriftians; therefore nothing will be more effectual to convince any of the Heathens, or to establish the Christians, if they think rightly, than urging thofe prophecies concerning Chrift, which are in the books of the Jews.

CHAP. XXXV.

The Preaching of Peter proved Apocryphal by other Arguments ; as, viz. that it contained several Contradictions and Falsehoods. Inftances affigned of both. How, Lactantius cites it. How Clemens Alexandrinus cites it, viz. as a pious Forgery of fome Chriftians.

WHAT

7HAT has been already faid may be thought fufficient to prove the spurioufnefs of this Preaching of Peter; but because it has been fo highly efteemed, I fhall fubjoin two or three brief arguments more, viz.

Fifthly, I argue the Preaching of Peter to be Apocryphal, from that paffage in it cited by Heracleon, (produced above, Chap. XXXIII. Numb. 2. and more largely by Clemens

a De Civit. Dei, lib. 18. c. 46, 47.

Alexan

Alexandrinus, in the fame Chapter, Numb. III.) viz. where Peter commands, that God should not be worshipped according to the manner of the Jews, who, fays he, worship angels and archangels, and the month, and the moon, &c. This will afford us an undeniable argument against this book; to make which appear, I obferve, that among the Judaifing Chriftians, even in the Apoftolick age, there was a custom arofe of paying worfhip or homage to the angels. This is fufficiently clear from thofe obfcure words of St. Paul, Col. ii. 18. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility, and worshipping angels, &c. where it is plain by the context he was guarding the Coloffians against the infinuations of the Jews, about the neceffity of their worship, as to holy days, and new moons, c. The foundation of this practice was partly their opinion, that it was too great boldness in a creature to approach to his Creator without fome interceffor, and partly because the Law was given by angels; now this practice the pretended Peter inveighs against, but therein contradicts fome other parts of his book, wherein, as it appears by the Epistle of Peter to James, (Chap. XXXIII. Numb. 1.) the whole of the Ebionite Scheme was contended for. I conclude it therefore Apocryphal by Prop. VII. as it contained contradictions.

Farther, the paffage forbids the worshipping of the month and the moon, as the Jews did, which either means, that the Jews paid idolatrous worship to the moon, as the Heathens did, or else their appointing their feveral feafts by it, as they were appointed to do by the Law of Mofes. If we fuppofe the former, it will prove the book Apocryphal by Prop. VIII. because the Jews about the time of our Saviour were not guilty of any such idolatry; and therefore Peter, who knew them, could not charge them with it if we fay the latter, which is indeed most probable, because it was their known practice, it will no less prove the book Apocryphal, because then it must contradict itself; seeing the design of the book was to support the observation of the Law of Mofes (as appears by the Epistle of Peter to James just now cited), but the defign of this command is to abrogate them: I say therefore, it is to be judged Apocryphal by Prop. VII. as it contained contradictions.

Sixthly,