V. Synopsis of its contents.-VI. Observations on this | fewer than seven allusions to it," which Dr. Lardner thinks Epistle. 1. CONSIDERABLE doubts have existed respecting the author of this Epistle. Two apostles of the name of James are mentioned in the New Testament. The first was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman upon the lake of Galilee, and the brother of the evangelist John; and as he is uniformly mentioned by the evangelists before John (except in Luke ix. 28.), he is supposed to have been the elder of the two. As he was put to death by Herod Agrippa, A. D. 44 (Acts xii.), it is evident that he was not the author of the Epistle which bears the name of James, because it contains passages which refer to a later period, viz. v. 1-8., which intimates the then immediately approaching destruction of Jerusalem, and the subversion of the Jewish polity. The other James was the son of Alpheus or Cleopas; he is called the brother or near relation of our Lord (Gal. i. 18, 19.), and is also generally termed "the Less," partly to distinguish him from the other James, and probably, also, because he was lower in stature. That he was an apostle, is evident from various passages in the New Testament, though it does not appear when his designation to this office took place. He was honoured by Jesus Christ with a separate interview soon after his resurrection. (1 Cor. xv. 7.) He was distinguished as one of the apostles of the circumcision (Acts i. 13.); and soon after the death of Stephen, A. D. 34, he seems to have been appointed president or bishop of the Christian church at Jerusalem, to have dwelt in that city, and to have presided at the council of the apostles, which was convened there A. D. 49. On account of his distinguished piety and sanctity, he was surnamed "the Just." But, notwithstanding the high opinion that was generally entertained of his character, his life was prematurely terminated by martyrdom, according to the account of Hegesippus, an ecclesiastical historian, who flourished towards the close of the second century. Having made a public declaration of his faith in Christ, the Scribes and Pharisees excited a tumult among the Jews, which began at the temple: or at least they availed themselves of a general disturbance, however it might have originated, and demanded of James an explicit and public declaration of his sentiments concerning the character of Christ. The apostle, standing on an eminence or battlement of the temple, whence he could be heard by the assembled multitude, avowed his faith, and maintained his opinion, that Jesus was the Messiah. The Jews were exasperated, and precipitated him from the battlement where he was standing; and as he was not killed by the fall, they began to cast stones at him. The holy apostle, kneeling down, prayed to God to forgive his murderers, one of whom at length struck him with a long pole, which terminated his life. According to Hegesippus, this event took place about the time of the passover A. D. 62. At this time the procurator Festus is supposed to have been dead, and his successor Albinus had not arrived; so that the province was left without a governor. Such a season left the Jews at liberty to gratify their licentious and turbulent passions; and from their known character and sentiments about this time, they were very likely to embrace the opportunity. We may therefore date the apostle's death about the time assigned by Hegesippus, viz. A. D. 62, in which year it is placed by most learned men, who are agreed in dating the Epistle of James in the year 61.2 II. A considerable diversity of opinion has prevailed respecting the canonical authority of this Epistle; but though Michaelis and some other modern critics are undecided on this subject, we apprehend that there is sufficient evidence to prove that it was written in the apostolic age. Clement of Rome has alluded to it twice. Hermas has not 1 Hegesippus, cited by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 23. Eusebius also quotes a passage from Josephus, that is no longer extant in his works, in which the Jewish historian considers the miseries which shortly after overwhelmed his countrymen as a judgment for their murder of James, whom he calls a inost righteous person. The genuineness of Josephus's testimony has been questioned, so that no reliance can be placed upon it. Origen and Jerome cite it as authentic, and they are followed by Bishop Pearson, who has defended its genuineness. Dr. Doddridge considers the testimony of Josephus as unworthy of credit; and Dr. Benson thinks that both the accounts of Josephus and Hegesippus are extremely dubious. Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 468-502.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 368334. Dr. Benson's History of Saint James, prefixed to his Paraphrase, pp. It is well known that the venerable Martin Luther, in the earlier part of the Reformation, spoke rather in a slighting manner of this Epistle, which he called straminea epistola, a strawy epistle, and excluded it at first from the sacred canon on account of its supposed contradiction of Saint Paul concerning the doctrine of justification by faith; but more mature experience and deeper research induced him subsequently to retract his opinion. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 44. ; 4to. vol. i. p. 301. 1-13. 2d edit. Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 273-292. sufficient to prove the antiquity of this Epistle. It is classed by Eusebius among the Αντιλεγόμεναι, or writings concerning whose authenticity the ancients were not unanimous, though the majority was in favour of them. This Epistle was quoted as genuine by Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, and most of the subsequent ecclesiastical writers: and it is found in all the catalogues of the canonical books of Scripture, which were published by the general and provincial councils. But the most decisive proof of its canonical authority is, that the Epistle of James is inserted in the Syriac version of the New Testament, executed at the close of the first or early in the second century, in which the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the book of Revelation are omitted. This, Dr. Macknight truly remarks, is an argument of great weight; for certainly the Jewish believers, to whom that Epistle was addressed and delivered, were much better judges of its authenticity than the converted Gentiles to whom it was not sent, and who had perhaps no opportunity of being acquainted with it until long after it was written. III. Commentators and critics are by no means agreed concerning the persons to whom this Epistle was addressed. Beza, Cave, Scott, Fabricius, Bishop Tomline, and others, are of opinion that it was addressed to the believing Jews who were dispersed all over the world. Grotius and Dr. Wall think that it was written to all the people of Israel living out of Judæa. Michaelis considers it certain that James wrote to persons already converted from Judaism to Christianity; but at the same time he believes, as the apostle was highly respected by the Jews in general, that he wished and designed that it should also be read by the unbelieving Jews, and that this design and intention had some influence on the choice of his materials. Dr. Benson is of opinion that this Epistle was addressed to the converted Jews out of Palestine; but Whitby, Lardner, and after them Macknight, think it was written to the whole Jewish nation, both within and without Judæa, whether believers or not. This opinion is grounded on some expressions in the first ten verses of the fourth chapter, and in the first five verses of the fifth chapter, which they suppose to be applicable to unbelievers only. It is true that in the fifth chapter the apostle alludes to the then impending destruction of Jerusalem, and the miseries which soon after befell the unbelieving Jews; but we think, with Bishop Tomline, that in these passages the apostle alludes merely to the great corruptions into which the Hebrew Christians had fallen at that time. It does not appear probable that James would write part of his Epistle to believers, and part to unbelievers, without any mention or notice of that distinction. It should also be remembered, that this Epistle contains no general arguments for the truth of Christianity, nor any reproof of those who refused to embrace the Gospel; and, therefore, though Bishop Tomline admits that the inscription" to the twelve tribes that are scattered abroad" might comprehend both unbelieving and believing Jews, yet he is of opinion that it was intended for the believing Jews only, and that Saint James did not expressly make the discrimination, because neither he nor any other apostle ever thought of writing to any but Christian converts. The object of the apostolical Epistles," he further observes, "was to confirm, and not to convert; to correct what was amiss in those who did believe, and not in those who did not believe. The sense of the above inscription seems to be limited to the believing Jews by what follows almost immediately, The trial of your faith worketh patience." (i. 3.) And again, My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.' (ii. 1.) These passages could not be addressed to unbelievers."6 IV. The design of the apostle James, in writing this Epistle, we may collect, from a consideration of its contents, to be as follows: First, to prevent the Jewish Christians from falling into the vices which abounded among the Jews; such as pride in prosperity, impatience under poverty, or any other afflic tion; unworthy thoughts of God, and more particularly the looking upon him as the author of moral evil; a valuing themselves on their faith, knowledge, or right opinion, without a virtuous practice; a very criminal partiality for the rich, and a contempt for the poor; an affectation of being doctors or teachers; indulging passion and rash anger, envy and uncharitableness, strife and contention; abusing the Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 58-60.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 309, 310. Bishop Tomline's Eleinents of Christian Theology, p. 472. noble faculty of speech, and being guilty of the vices of the | VI. This Epistle of James is one of the most pathetic and tongue, such as cursing and swearing, slander and backbiting, instructive in the New Testament. Its style possesses all and all rash and unguarded speeches whatever. So, likewise, that beautiful and elegant simplicity which so eminently he wrote to caution them against covetuousness and sensual- characterizes the sacred writers. Having been written with ity, distrusting the divine goodness, neglecting prayer, or the design of refuting particular errors which had been praying with wrong views, and the want of a due sense of introduced among the Jewish Christians, it is not so replete their constant and immediate dependence upon God. with the peculiar doctrines of Christianity as the Epistles Secondly, to set the Jewish Christians right as to the doc- of Paul, or indeed as the other apostolical Epistles; but it trine of justification by faith. For as they were not to be contains an admirable summary of those practical duties justified by the law, but by the method proposed in the Gos- which are incumbent on all believers, and which it enforces pel, and that method was said to be by faith without the works in a manner equally elegant and affectionate.1 of the law; they, some of them, weakly, and others, perhaps, wilfully, perverted that discovery; and were for understanding, by faith, a bare assent to the truth of the Gospel, without that living, fruitful, and evangelical faith, which "worketh by love," and is required of all that would be saved. Thirdly, to intimate unto such of them as laboured under sickness or any bodily disorders occasioned by their crimes, that if they were penitent, they might hope for a miraculous cure. Fourthly, another and a principal reason of Saint James's writing this Epistle to the Jewish Christians at this time was, to prevent their being impatient under their present persecutions or dark prospects; and to support and comfort them, by assuring them that the coming of the Lord was at hand. It is evident from the Acts of the Apostles, and many of the Epistles, that most of the persecutions which befell the Christians arose from the unbelieving Jews. Now, as their destruction was approaching swiftly, the evils, which the Christians suffered from them, were as swiftly drawing to an end. And it was highly proper for Saint James to put them in mind of these things; for the prospect of a speedy deliverance is one of the greatest motives to patience under any calamity. V. Conformably with this design, the Epistle divides itself into three parts, exclusive of the introduction (i. 1.); viz. PART I. contains Exhortations, 1. To joyful patience under trials. (i. 2—4.) 1. SECTION III. ON THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER. Account of the apostle Peter.-II. Genuineness and ca nonical authority of this Epistle.-III. To whom written.IV. Of the place whence it was sent.-Dute.-V. Its design and contents.-VI. Observations on the style of Saint Peter's two Epistles. I. SIMON, surnamed Cephas or Peter, which appellation signifies a stone or rock, was the son of Jonas or Jonah, and was born at Bethsaida, on the coast of the sea of Galilee. He had a brother, called Andrew, and they jointly pursued the occupation of fishermen on that lake. These two brothers were hearers of John the Baptist; from whose express testimony, and their own personal conversation with Jesus Christ, they were fully convinced that he was the Messiah (John i. 35-42.); and from this time it is probable that they had frequent intercourse with our Saviour, and were witnesses of some of the miracles wrought by him, particularly that performed at Cana in Galilee. (John ii. 1, 2.) Both Peter and Andrew seem to have followed their trade, until Jesus Christ called them to "follow him," and promised to make them both "fishers of men." (Matt. iv. 18, 19. Mark i. 17. 2. To ask wisdom of God, in faith, and with an unwavering Luke v. 10.) From this time they became his companions, mind. (5—8.) 3. To humility. (9-11.) 4. To constancy under temptations, in which part of the Epis- PART II. censures and condemns, 1. Undue respect of persons in their religious assemblies, which is contrary to the law of love. (ii. 1-9.) It is then shown that the wilful transgression of one commandment violates the whole law of God. (10-12.) 2. Their mistaken notions of justification by faith without works; these mistakes are corrected and illustrated by the examples of Abraham and Rahab. (ii. 13—26.) 3. The affectation of being doctors or teachers of their religion; for as all are offenders, more or less, so vices in such a station would be the more aggravated. (iii. 1, 2.) Hence the apostle takes occasion to show the fatal effects of an unbridled tongue, together with the difficulty and duty of governing it (3-12.); and contrasts in a most beautiful manner the nature and effects of earthly and heavenly wisdom. (13-18.) 4. Those who indulge their lusts and passions. (iv. 1-5.) 5. The proud, who are exhorted to repentance and submission to God. (6-10.) 6. Censoriousness and detraction; annexed are exhortations to immediate and constant dependence upon God, enforced by considerations of the shortness and uncertainty of the present life. (11—17.) 7. Those who placed undue reliance upon their riches. (v. 1-6.) PART III. contains Exhortations and Cautions; viz. 1. An exhortation to patience and meekness under trials, in the hope of a speedy deliverance. (v. 7-11.) 2. A caution against swearing, and an admonition to prayer and praise. (12, 13.) 3. Concerning visiting the sick, and the efficacy of prayer. (14-18.) 4. An encouragement to attempt the conversion of sinners, and the recovery of their offending brethren. (19, 20.) and when he completed the number of his apostles, they were included among them. Peter, in particular, was honoured with his master's intimacy, together with James and John. With them Peter was present, when our Lord restored the daughter of Jairus to life (Mark v. 37. Luke viii. 51.); when he was transfigured on the mount (Matt. xvii. 1, Mark ix. 2. Luke ix. 28.), and during his agony in the garden (Matt. xxvi. 36-56. Mark xiv. 32-42.); and on various other occasions Peter received peculiar marks of his Master's confidence. At the time when Peter was called to the apostleship, he was married and seems to have removed, in consequence, from Bethsaida to Capernaum, where his wife's family resided. It appears also that when our Lord left Nazareth, and came and dwelt at Capernaum (Matt. iv. 13.), he took up his occasional residence at Peter's house, whither the people resorted to him.2 In the evangelical history of this apostle, the distinguishing features in his character are very signally portrayed; and it in no small degree enhances the credibility of the sacred historians, that they have blended without disguise several traits of his precipitance and presumption, with the honourable testimony which the narration of facts affords to the sincerity of his attachment to Christ, and the fervour of his zeal in the cause of his blessed Master. His ardour and forwardness are apparent on many occasions. He is the first to reply to all questions proposed by our Lord to the whole collective body of disciples, of which we have a memorable instance in Matt. xvi. 13-16. He hesitates not to rebuke our Lord himself, when he first announced his future sufferings. The ardour of his spirit is strikingly evinced in his venturing to walk on the sea to meet his Master (Matt. xiv. 28-31.); and still more decisively in his conduct towards the high-priest's servant, whom he smote with his sword, and whose right ear he cut off, when the Jewish officers were about to apprehend our Lord. His presumption and selfconfidence sufficiently appear in his solemn asseverations that he would never abandon his Master (Matt. xxvi. 33.); Benson's Preface to Saint James, pp. 14-20. Macknight's Preface, sect. 2-4. Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 292-314. Pritii, Introd. ad Nov. Test pp. 67-79. Harwood's Introd. to the New Test. vol. i. pp. 216-220. Heidegger, Enchirid. Bibl. pp. 612-617. Janssens, Hermeneutique Sacrée, tom. ii. pp. 68-72. See also Hug's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 519-584. a Luke iv. 40. Matt. viii. 16. xvii. 24-27. Mark i. 32. 34. Matt. xxvi. 51--54. Mark xiv. 46, 47. Luke xxii. 50, 51. John xviii. 10, 11 and his weakness, in his subsequent denial of Christ: for, though Peter followed him afar off to the high-priest's palace, when all the other disciples forsook him and fled, yet he thrice disowned him, each time under circumstances of peculiar aggravation. It does not appear that Peter followed Christ any further; probably remorse and shame prevented him from attending the crucifixion, as we find Saint John did. On the day of Christ's resurrection, after appearing to Mary Magdalen and some other women, the next person to whom he showed himself was Peter. On another occasion (John xxi.) our Lord afforded him an opportunity of thrice professng his love for him, and charged him to feed the flock of Christ with fidelity and tenderness. After our Saviour's ascension, Peter took an active part in the affairs of the infant church. It was he who proposed the election of a successor to the traitor Judas (Acts i. 1526.), and on the ensuing day of Pentecost he preached Christ so effectually, that three thousand souls were added to the church. (Acts ii. 14-41.) We next find him, in company with John, healing a lame man at the gate of the temple, which was followed by an address to the people, many of whom were convinced and embraced the Gospel. (Acts iii.) He was next imprisoned, brought before the sanhedrin, threatened and dismissed. (iv.) After the death of Ananias and Sapphira, whose fraud Peter detected and reprehended (v.), Peter and John preached successively at Samaria (viii.), and performed various miracles. (ix. x.) During his apostolical travels in Judæa, Samaria, and Galilee, he converted Cornelius the Roman centurion, the first Gentile convert who was admitted into the church without circumcision, or any. injunction to comply with the Mosaic observances (x.); and, on his return to Jerusalem, he satisfied the Jewish Christians that God had granted repentance unto life to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. (xi. 18.) Soon after this, being apprehended by Herod Agrippa, A. D. 44, who designed to put him to death, Peter was miraculously delivered by an angel. (xii.) In the apostolic council held at Jerusalem, A. D. 49, Peter took an active part, declaring his opinion most explicitly, that the yoke of the ceremonial law ought not to be imposed on the Gentiles (Acts xv. 7-11.) From this time Peter is not mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, nor have we any certain information respecting his subsequent labours. It appears, however, that he afterwards preached at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11.); and from his inscribing his first Epistle to the Hebrew Christians dispersed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor, and Bithynia (1 Pet. i. 1, 2.), he is supposed to have preached in those countries. At length he arrived at Rome, in the course of the year 63,2 subsequently to Paul's departure from that city, during the reign of the emperor Nero; and, after preaching the Gospel for some time, he was crucified there with his head downwards. Clement of Alexandria adds, from an ancient tradition current in his time, that Peter's wife suffered martyrdom a short time before him.3 were scattered through the countries mentioned in the inscription; while Lord Barrington and Dr. Benson think that it was written to proselytes of the gate; and Michaelis is of opinion, that it was directed to the Jews, that is, to those native heathens in Pontus, &c. who were first proselytes to Judaism, and then were converted to Christianity. But Estius, Whitby, Pott, Lardner, Macknight, and Bishop Tomline, think that it was written to Christians in general, whether Jews or Gentiles, residing in the countries above noticed. In this diversity of opinion, the only rule of determination must be the inscription, together with such other circumstances as may be collected from the apostolical history or the Epistle itself. The inscription runs thus: Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. (1 Pet. i. 1.) That the persons here addressed were believing Jews, and not believing Gentiles, we apprehend will appear from the following considerations: 1. We learn from Acts ii. 5. 9. that there were at the feast of Pentecost, waiting at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven, dwellers in Judæa, Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia. Whence it is evident that there were Jews dis 3. The persons to whom the apostle writes are termed Stran gers, scattered, Пana; which word properly denotes strangers from another country. Such were the Jews, who, through persecution in Judæa, fled into foreign countries; whereas believing Gentiles were rather called Proselytes. (Acts ii. 10.) 4. They are said to be redeemed from their vain conversation received by tradition from their fathers (1 Pet. i. 18.): in which description the apostle plainly refers to the traditions of the Jewish rabbins and elders. 5. The persons to whom Peter writes are styled A chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people (1 Pet. ii. 9.), which are the praises of the Jewish people (Exod. xix. 6.), and are in no respect applicable to the Gentiles. On these grounds we conclude that this Epistle was addressed to those dispersed Hebrew Christians, afflicted in their dispersion, to whom the apostles James and Paul had respectively addressed their Epistles. IV. It appears from 1 Pet. v. 12, 13. that this Epistle was written from Babylon, and sent to the Jews by "Silvanus, a faithful brother;" but whether Babylon is to be understood here, literally, or mystically, as the city of the same name in Mesopotamia or Egypt, or rather Rome, or Jerusalem, has been long and warmly contested by the learned. Bishop Pearson, Mill, and Le Clerc, are of opinion, that the apostle speaks of Babylon in Egypt. Erasmus, Drusius, Beza, Dr. II. The genuineness and canonical authority of the first Lightfoot, Basnage, Beausobre, Dr. Cave, Wetstein, Drs. Epistle of Peter have never been disputed. It appears to be Benson and A. Clarke, think that Peter intended Babylon in twice referred to by Clement of Rome; it is twelve times Assyria; Michaelis, that it was Babylon in Mesopotamia, or distinctly quoted by Polycarp, and is once cited in the Epistle rather Seleucia on the Tigris. And Grotius, Drs. Whitby, of the churches of Vienna and Lyons. It was received by Lardner, Macknight, and Hales, Bishop Tomline and all the Theophilus bishop of Antioch, and quoted by Papias, Ire-learned of the Romish communion, are of opinion that by næus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian; and Eusebius Babylon Peter meant, figuratively, Rome, which city is called informs us that it was universally acknowledged to be the Babylon by the apostle John. (Rev. xvii. xviii.) production of Saint Peter in the fourth century, since which time its authenticity has never been questioned. 5 III. Concerning the persons to whom this Epistle was sent, different opinions have prevailed; Beza, Grotius, Cave, Mill, Tillemont, Dr. Hales, Rosenmüller, Hug, and others, suppose that it was addressed to the Jewish Christians who 15-18. 26, 27. Matt. xxvi. 69-75. Mark xiv. 66–72. Luke xxii. 54-62. John xviii. We have seen (p. 325. supra) that Saint Paul quitted Rome in the early part of A. D. 63, at which time it is evident that Saint Peter had not arrived there; for if these two eminent servants of Christ had met in that city, Peter would have been mentioned by Saint Paul in some of the Epistles, which he wrote thence, towards the close of his imprisonment. 3 Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 509–561.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 388-414. Scaliger, Salmasius, Frederick Spanheim, and others, have denied that Saint Peter was ever at Rome; but the contrary opinion has been advo. cated by Cave, Bishop Pearson, Le Clerc, Basnage, and particularly by Dr. Lardner, who has clearly shown that Peter never was bishop of Rome. The pretended primacy of Peter, on which the Romanists insist so much, has been unanswerably refuted by Dr. Barrow in his Treatise on the Pope's Supremacy, forming vol. i. of the folio edition of his works. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 44.; 4to. vol. i. p. 302. • Ibid. Svo. vol. ii. pp. 98, 99.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 331, 332. Ibid. Svo. vol. ii. p. 152.; 4to. vol. i. p. 362. * Ibid. 8vo vol. vi. pp. 562, 563.; 4to. vol. iii. p. 415. VOL. II. 2Z From a careful examination of the evidence adduced for the literal meaning of the word Babylon, and of the evidence for its figurative or mystical application to Rome, we think that the latter was intended, and for the following reasons:— 1. This opinion is confirmed by the general testimony of antiquity, which, Dr. Lardner remarks, is of no small weight. Eusebius relates, on the authority of Clement of Alexandria and Papias bishop of Jerusalem, that Mark's Gospel was written at the request of Peter's hearers in Rome; and that "Peter makes mention of Mark in his first Epistle, which was written at Rome itself. And that he (Peter) signifies this, calling that city figuratively Babylon, in these words, The church which is at Babylon, elected jointly with you, saluteth you. And so doth Mark my son." This passage of Eusebius is transcribed by Jerome, who adds positively, that "Peter mentions this Mark in his first Epistle, figuratively denoting Rome by the name of Babylon; the church which is at Babylon," &c. Ecumenius, Bede, and other fathers, also understand Rome by Babylon. It is generally thought that Peter and John gave to Rome the name of Babylon, figuratively to signify that it would resemble Babylon in its idolatry, and in its opposition to and persecution of the church of God; and that, like Babylon, it will be utterly destroyed. But these things the inspired writers did not think fit to say plainly concerning Rome, for a reason which every reader may understand. 2. From the total silence of ecclesiastical history, it is not probable that Peter ever visited Babylon in Chaldæa; and Babylon in Egypt was too small and insignificant to be the subject of consideration. 3. Silvanus or Silas, the bearer, was the faithful brother, or associate of Paul in most of the churches which he had planted. And though he was not at Rome with the apostle when he wrote nis last Epistle to Timothy, he might naturally have come thither soon after; and have been sent by Paul and Peter jointly, to confirm the churches in Asia Minor, &c. which he had assisted in planting. But Silvanus, Paul, and Peter had no connection with Babylon, which lay beyond their district; and, therefore, they were not likely at any time to build upon another's foundation. The Gospel was preached in Persia or Parthia, by the apostle Thaddeus, or Jude, according to Cosmas; and Abulfaragi reckons, that the ancient Syriac version of the New Testament was made in his time, and probably by his authority, for the use of the Oriental churches. 4. The Jews, to whom this Epistle was written, were fond of mystical appellations, especially in their captivities: Edom was a frequent title for their Heathen oppressors; and, as Babylon was the principal scene of their first captivity, it was highly probable that Rome, the principal scene of their second, and which so strongly resembled the former in her "abominations, her idolatries, and persecutions of the saints," should be denominated by the same title. And this argument is corroborated by the similar usage of the Apocalypse, where the mystical application is unquestionable. (Rev. xiv. 8. xvi. 19. xviii. 2., &c.) It is highly probable, indeed, that John borrowed it from Peter; or rather that both derived it, by inspiration, from the prophecy of Isaiah. (xxi. 9.) 5. The second Epistle is generally agreed to have been writen shortly before Peter's death; but a journey from Babylon to Rome (where he unquestionably suffered) must have employed a long time, even by the shortest route that could be taken. And Peter must have passed through Pontus, &c. in his way to Rome, and therefore it would have been unnecessary for him to write. Writing from Rome, indeed, the case was different, as he never expected to see them more. SECT. 3. contains an exhortation to patience, submission, and to holiness of life, enforced, i. By considering the example of Christ. (iii. 14-18.) ii. By reminding them how God punished the disobedient in the days of Noah. (19-22.) iii. By reminding them of the example of Christ, and that by their conversion they became dead to the flesh. (iv. 1-6.) iv. By showing them the approaching destruction of the Jewish polity. (7-11.) v. By showing them that, under the Gospel, they should consider afflic tion as their portion, and as matter of joy. (12—19.) SECT. 4. Directions to the ministers of the churches, and the people, how to behave towards each other. (v. 1—11.) The Conclusion. (v. 12—14.) cellence, in the judgment of the best critics, does not fall scription of it which we meet with in this place, and in SECTION IV. As Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome, A. D. 64 or 65, and we have no evidence that he arrived there before the year 63, we are warranted in dating this Epistle in A. D. 64. V. It appears from the Epistle itself that it was written during a period of general calamity, when the Hebrew Christians were exposed to severe persecutions. The design of this Epistle, therefore, is partly to support them under their afflictions and trials, and also to instruct them how to behave under persecution. It likewise appears from the history of that time, that the Jews were uneasy under the Roman yoke, and that the destruction of their polity was approaching. Ou this account the Christians are exhorted to honour the emperor (Nero), and the presidents whom he sent into the provinces, and to avoid all grounds of being suspected of sedition or other crimes that would violate the peace and welfare of. Its genuineness and canonical authority. — II. Date.— society. And, finally, as their character and conduct were Jiable to be aspersed and misrepresented by their enemies, they are exhorted to lead a holy life, that they might stop the I. SOME doubts were entertained by the primitive churches mouths of their enemies, put their calumniators to shame, respecting the authenticity of this Epistle, which has been and win others over to their religion, by their holy and Chris-received as the genuine production of Peter ever since the tian conversation. The Epistle may be conveniently divided into four sections, exclusive of the introduction and conclusion. The Introduction. (i. 1, 2.) SECT. 1. contains an exhortation of the Jewish Christians to persevere steadfastly in the faith with all patience and cheerfulness, and to maintain a holy conversation, notwithstanding all their sufferings and persecutions. This is enforced by the consideration of the peculiar blessings and privileges which were freely bestowed upon them. (i. 3—25. ii. 1—10.) SECT. 2. comprises an exhortation, i. To a holy conversation in general. (ii. 11, 12.) it. To a particular diseharge of their several duties, as Dutiful subjects to their sovereign. (13-15.) Servants to their masters. (16-25.) Husbands to their wives. (i. 1-13.) 1 Lardner, 8vo. vol. v. p. 272.; 4to. vol. iii. p. 55. Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 30. ON THE SECOND GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER. III. Scope and synopsis of its contents. fourth century, except by the Syrian church, in which it is read as an excellent book, though not of canonical authority. We have, however, the most satisfactory evidence of its genuineness and authenticity. Clement of Rome has three allusions to the second chapter, and one to the third chapter of this Epistle; and it is twice referred to by Hermas, once by Justin Martyr, and also by Athenagoras. Although this Epistle does not appear to be cited by any writer of the third 2 Nouv. Test. pp. 276. 281. edit. Neufchatel, 1772. folio. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii, p. 45.; 4to. vol. i. p. 302. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 126.; 4to. vol. i. p. 347. century,' yet in the fourth and following centuries it was be drawn from this circumstance; for the subject of that acknowledged by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, the coun- chapter is different from the rest of Peter's writings, and cil of Laodicea, Epiphanius, Jerome, Rufinus, Augustine, nothing is so well known as that different subjects suggest and all subsequent writers. Eusebius2 places it among the different styles. Further, when a person expresses his own AVTμ [x, or books whose canonical authority was sentiments, he writes in his own proper style, whatever that doubted by some, though mentioned and approved by most of may be; but when he translates from another, he naturally the ancients, but he plainly distinguishes it from such as were follows the genius of the original, and adopts the figures and confessedly spurious. He also relates,3 from the tradition of metaphors of the author before him. Peter, when describhis predecessors, that, though it was not acknowledged as parting the character of some flagitious impostors, feels an inof the New Testament, yet, because to many it seemed use- dignation which he cannot suppress: it breaks out, therefore, ful, it was diligently read together with the other Scriptures. in the bold and animated figures of some ancient Hebrew On this statement of Eusebius, Le Clerc forcibly remarks, writer, who had left behind him a description of the false that if it had not been Peter's it would not have seemed use- prophets of his own, or, perhaps, of earlier times. ful to any man of tolerable prudence, seeing the writer in To these considerations we may add, that, being written a many places pretends to be Peter himself; for it would be short time before the apostle's martyrdom, and not having been noxious on account of its being a forgery, as well as unpardon- so publicly avowed by him, and clearly known to be his, the able in any man to forge another man's name, or pretend to scrupulous caution of the church hesitated about admitting i be the person he is not. After a diligent comparison of the into the sacred canon, until internal evidence convinced the first Epistle with that which is ascribed to Peter as the most competent judges that it was fully entitled to that high second, Michaelis pronounces the agreement between them to distinction. And since this Epistle, having passed through be such, that, if the second was not written by Peter, as well so severe and accurate a scrutiny, was received as genuine by as the first, the person who forged it not only possessed the those who were in those early times most capable of deciding, power of imitation in a very unusual degree, but understood and who have given sufficient evidence of their care and capalikewise the design of the first Epistle, with which the an- city for judging of its authenticity, and since it has been transcients do not appear to have been acquainted. Now, if this mitted to us in every manuscript and ancient version (the be true, the supposition that the second Epistle was not Syriac excepted),—we have every satisfactory external proof written by Peter himself involves a contradiction. Nor is it that the second Epistle of Peter is the undoubted production credible, that a pious impostor of the first or second century of that holy and zealous apostle. Let us now briefly consider should have imitated Peter so successfully as to betray no the internal evidence for its authenticity. marks of a forgery; for the spurious productions of those ages, which were sent into the world under the name of the apostles, are for the most part very unhappy imitations, and discover evident marks that they were not written by the persons to whom they were ascribed. Other productions of this kind betray their origin by the poverty of their materials, or by the circumstance, that, instead of containing original thoughts, they are nothing more than a rhapsody of sentiments collected from various parts of the Bible, and put together without plan or order. This charge cannot possibly be faid to the second Epistle of Peter, which is so far from containing materials derived from other parts of the Bible, that the third chapter exhibits the discussion of a totally new subject. Its resemblance to the Epistle of Jude will be hardly urged as an argument against it; for there can be no doubt, that the second Epistle of Peter was, in respect to the Epistle of Jude, the original and not the copy. Lastly, it is extremely difficult, even for a man of the greatest talents, to forge a writing in the name of another, without sometimes inserting what the pretended author either would not or could not have said; and to support the imposture in so complete a manner, as not to militate, in a single instance, either against his character, or against the age in which he lived. Now in the second Epistle of Peter, though it has been a subject of examination full seventeen hundred years, nothing has hitherto been discovered which is unsuitable either to the apostle or to the apostolic age. We have no reason, therefore to believe that the second Epistle of Peter is spurious, especially as it is difficult to comprehend what motive could have induced a Christian, whether orthodox or heretic, to attempt the fabrication of such an Epistle, and then falsely ascribe it to Peter.5 Various reasons, indeed, have been assigned, why this Epistle was not earlier acknowledged as the writing of Peter. Jerome informs us that the difference of style between this and the former Epistle was in his day the principal cause of its authenticity being disputed; and the same objection has been adopted by Salmasius and other modern writers. But this remarkable difference in style is confined to the second chapter of the second Epistle. No objection, however, can The second Epistle of Peter was first placed among the disputed writings of the New Testament by Origen. (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. vi. c. 25.) It is natural to suppose, that if, from incidental causes, the second Epistle of Peter did not become known so early as the first, some churches, which had for a length of time been accustomed to read only one Epistle of Peter, might hesitate to receive another. Suspicion might also have arisen against the genuineness of this Epistle, from the fact that it was brought from Asia Minor, the abode of the Montanists, who were accused of a disposition to fabricate new writings. (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. lib. vi. c. 20.) More especially may this have been the case, as the passage, 2 Pet. ii. 20., could be urged in vindication of the rigour of the Montanistic discipline: or, the departure of the Christians in Asia Minor from the customary mode of celebrating the Easter solemnities, may have produced in the Eastern and Western Christians an indisposition to receive this book. Schmucker's Biblical Theology, vol. i. p. 122., where various writers are enuinerated who have vindicated the genuineness of this Epistle. 2 Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 25. Clerici, Hist. Eccl. p. 442. note. Ibid. lib. ifi. c. 3. 1. The writer styles himself Symeon Peter (i. 1. Gr.); from which circumstance we conclude that this Epistle was written by the apostle Peter. Should it be objected that the apostle's name was Simon, not Simeon, Dr. Macknight replies, that though his name was commonly written Simon in Greek, yet its Hebrew form was Simeon; and so it is written in the Old Testament history of Jacob's sons, and so Peter is expressly termed in Acts xv. 14. (Gr.) It has further been objected, that in the first Epistle, which is unquestionably genuine, he has styled himself simply Peter, and not Simon Peter. But it is worthy of observation, that Saint Luke has called this apostle Simon Peter, and that Saint John has given him that name not less than seventeen times in his Gospel,-perhaps (Dr. Macknight thinks) to show that he was the author of the Epistle which begins with Symeon Peter, a servant and an apostle, &c. The same eminent critic is further of opinion, that though Peter's surname only is mentioned in the inscription of the first letter, because he was sufficiently known by it, yet he might, for the greater dignity, insert his name complete in the second Epistle, because he intended authoritatively to rebuke the false teachers who had already arisen, or might thereafter arise. Since, therefore, Symeon Peter is the same. as Simon Peter, no objection can be raised against the authenticity of this Epistle on account of the name; neither does it afford any countenance to the opinion of Grotius, that this Epistle was written by Simeon bishop of Jerusalem, who succeeded James the Lord's brother, an opinion that is not only destitute of all authority from antiquity, but is also inconsistent with the whole tenor of the Epistle itself. 2. There are several incidental allusions to particular circumstances in this Epistle which answer to no other person but Peter. Thus, the writer of it testifies that he must shortly put off his tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus had shown him. (2 Pet. i. 14.) Now Christ foretold or showed this to none of his apostles besides Peter. (John xxi. 19.) Again, the writer of this Epistle was with Christ upon the mount at his transfiguration, beheld his majesty, and heard the voice of the Father, from heaven, when he was with Christ, on the holy mount. (2 Pet. i. 16-18.) Now there were only three of Christ's apostles permitted to witness this transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1, 2.), viz. Peter, James, and John. The Epistle in question, therefore, must be written by one of them, and, consequently, must be of apos tolical authority; but as it never was ascribed to James or John, nor is there any reason for attributing it to them, it follows that this Epistle is the production of Peter.-Once more the author of it calls this his second Epistle (iii. 1.) and intimates that he wrote both his letters to the same persons, viz. the believing Such is the opinion of Bishop Sherlock, which has been generally adopted. Bishop Tomline, however, deems this conjecture very improbable, and accounts for the difference of style in the second chapter of this Epistle, by supposing that the apostle's pen was guided by a higher degree of inspiration than when writing in a didactic manner, and that he wrote with the animation and energy of the prophetic style; but he does not think that there is any thing, either in phrase or sentiment, which is inconsistent with the acknowledged writings of Saint Peter. Elements of Christian Theology, vol. i. p. 490. |