( 90 )

a fallacious Version. For 'OpAc^/i^V here, has tthe fame Force with buSidQrpcov above, and Origen meant only to fay, that Peter left but one Epistletiniversally allowed to be his, which is also theSense of Valesms's Latin Translation here. Whenhe fays further, \<?u 5 ^ bdj-'ipyy, he does notbarely make a Concession, as our Author’s Transla-tion represents it, who therefore artfully places an&c. at the End of the cited Words, as if Origen proceeded to argue upon this Concession; whereasin Reality, the Sense of that Ancient ends there.Those Words therefore, instead of being a Conces-fan, are Origen ' s Advice and Opinion, that the se-cond Epistle should likewise be received as St. Pe-ter's. When he adds fatp&a.xxis) D, he does notinsinuate, that the Genuineness of that Epistle wasdoubted by himself, but by others. Just as in thefame Place, having affirmed that John wrote anEpistle , he adds, ' r E^u q Z Ah

d : srccvjet; <pa.cri ywitr'usc etvcu rauraq, i. e. Admit alfcthe second and the third to be his. For all do nothold these to be genuine. Origen therefore, whenrescued from the partial Management of our Au-thor, proves a Witness for this second Epistle of Peter , not an Adversary. But this will appearmore fully hereafter. I

After this follows an Observation, “ That the" Book de Antichrifto, which goes under theName" of Hippolytus, and frequently cites this second" Epistle is a spurious Piece .” Who fays to thecontrary, or pretends to build the Genuineness ofSt. Peter's second Epistle , on the Credit of that :Piece? But our Adversary will every now and thengive himself the Pleasure of a mock Viclory.

Then