“The Preaching of Paul” was less known, and even of less account, than the other. Judge Waite says (p. 229) that it “was referred to by Lactantius and others, and was generally known in the second century.” But he furnishes no evidence of it, and Lactantius died about A.D. 325. As to its contents, Judge Waite only says that “It contained references to the Sybilline writings; also to the fire in Jordan at the time of the baptism of Jesus.” There is no good reason to suppose that it was _extant_ when Justin wrote; and most certainly, it was never received by the churches generally. Eusebius does not seem to have known anything of it, unless to reject it as spurious. He says (Book III., c. 25): “Among the spurious, must be numbered both the books called ‘The Acts of Paul,’ and that called ‘Pastor,’ and ‘The Revelation of Peter.’” Eusebius also is equally pronounced against the production called the “Gospel according to Peter.” That this “Gospel” was referred to by Justin in the passage before considered (_vide_ c. 4), is the fact _to be proved_. The first _mention_ of it, was by Serapion[11], who became Bishop of Antioch A.D. 191, fifty years after Justin wrote. He found a few copies of it among his flock, which he replaced, substituting Mark’s Gospel for it, for the reason that he found in it “many things superadded to the sound faith of our Saviour; and some also attached, that are foreign to it.” This _bishop_ seems to have had no knowledge of its existence till that time. It favored the Docetæ, from some of whom it had come into his parish. The pretence that Tertullian referred to it, and intended to assert that in his day the Gospel of Mark was understood to have this Gospel of Peter for its original, has nothing to rest upon but another perversion of Tertullian’s meaning. The passage relied upon is here given with such words in italics as must be _supplied_ to warrant the use which has been attempted to be made of it: “The Gospel which Mark published is affirmed to be” _what is known as_ “Peter’s” _Gospel_, “whose interpreter Mark was.” This forced construction, would make Mark the interpreter, _not_ of Peter, but of the heretical work at some time known by some as _Peter’s Gospel_. Not Strauss himself, nor even the author of “The Supernatural,” so interpreted Tertullian. What Tertullian wrote was, that “The Gospel which Mark published is affirmed to be Peter’s; whose interpreter Mark was.” Marcion mutilated Luke’s Gospel, and Judge Waite says, “Tertullian called him _a hound_.” If any one in his day had perverted his language as to Mark’s Gospel, so as to make it endorse the work which Serapion (who was a cotemporary of Tertullian) suppressed as heretical, Tertullian would not have been likely to have used a _less_ expressive word than that which he applied to Marcion. Tertullian simply meant, as Papias had written, and the church believed, that Mark was Peter’s _interpreter_, and in _that_ sense Mark’s Gospel was Peter’s Gospel.