8 Be sober, be vigilant ; (7) because your adversary the devil is walking about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may swallow up.

9 Him resist, steadfast in the faith,' knowing that the same KINDS of sufferings are accomplished in your brethren who are in the world.

10 And may the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after ye have suffered a little,' (autos, 65.) himself make you complete, support, strengthen, settle you.

11 (AUT) To him BE the glory,' and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

12 (A) By Silvanus,' a faithful brother as I conclude,? I have written to rou in few words, exhorting rou, and strongly testifying that this is the true grace of God in which ye stand.

13 The CHURCH WHICH IS at Babylon, elected jointly with you, and Mark3 my son salute you.

14 Salute one another with a kiss of love. (See Rom. xvi. 16. note 1.) Peace to you all who ARE in Christ Jesus. Amen.

being reduced to want by the persecution they were suffering, and of their being tempted thereby to renounce the gospel, the apostle exhorted them to be only moderately solicitous to avoid these dangers, and to cast their anxious care on God.

Ver. 8. Be sober, be vigilant.This advice the apostle had given before, chap. iv. 7. (See note 2. there). But he enforces it here by a new reason, That the devil is going about seeking whom he may swallow up: So the word * literally signifies; being used concerning solids as well as liquids. It strongly expresses the insatiable rage of the enemy of mankind to hinder their salvation, and the danger we are in from his devices. For he sometimes attacks the people of God in person, though not visible; and sometimes by his ministers, the other evil spirits who are in league with him; and sometimes by wicked men his subjects, whom he instigates to tempt them by the terror of persecution. This account of the devil's malice is given with great propriety by Peter, to whom our Lord said, 'Simon, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee. Peter likewise had good reason, as Doddridge observes, to recommend watchfulness, since he had fallen so shamefully himself, notwithstanding this warning from his Master.-Benson by the devil understands the unbelieving Jews, who persecuted the Christians with great fury.

Ver. 9. Him resist, steadfast in the faith.]-To shew the efficacy of faith in enabling us to resist temptation, Paul calls it a shield, Eph. vi. 16. wherewith the fiery darts of the wicked one,' &c.

Ver. 10. After ye have suffered a little.]-St. Peter calls the suf ferings of the first Christians you, a little, either in respect of time or of degree, or perhaps in respect of both; because, compared with the joys of heaven, the sufferings of this life are both light and momentary.

Ver. 11. To him be the glory, &c.]-By this doxology Peter expressed his firm persuasion, that the devil hath no title to any honour from men, nor any dominion in the universe, nor power to tempt men, but by permission from God.

Ver. 12.-1. By Silvanus, a faithful brother.]-If Silvanus by whom this letter was sent, is, as Oecumenius supposes, the person of that name who joined Paul in writing the epistles to the Thessalonians, he is the Silas who is called, Acts xv. 22. 'a chief man among the brethren,' and ver. 32. a prophet;' and being Paul's constant companion in travel, after the defection of John Mark, he no doubt assisted in planting churches in Galatia and the other countries of the Lesser Asia mentioned in the inscription: so, being well known to the brethren in these parts, he was a fit person to carry this letter. He is called here by Peter'a faithful brother.' And without doubt he must have been an excellent person, and very zealous in the cause of the gospel, who attended Paul in so many painful journeys undertaken for the service of Christ, and who on this occasion was willing to go into Pontus, Galatia, &c. with Peter's epistle to the churches in these widely extended countries. Probably, after Paul's

death, Silas attached himself to Peter as his assistant, and reckoned himself much honoured by this commission to carry the apostle's letter into the Lesser Asia, which he executed faithfully.

2. A faithful brother as I conclude.]-Peter having become intimately acquainted with Silvanus only since Paul's death, 'he concluded him to be a faithful brother,' from his having so long jointly laboured with Paul in the work of the gospel.

3. And strongly testifying.-According to Bengelis, the preposition in the word, is used to signty hat Peter added his testimony to that of Paul and Silas, concerning the truth of the gospel which they preached to the Galatians, &c. But I think the meaning is simply, that Peter testified concerning the gospel which had been preached to the Galatians, that it is the true gospel; consequently, that the rites of the law were not necessary to salvation.

Ver. 13.-1. The church which is in Babylon.]-See Pref. sect. 5. The word church is not in the original. But it is supplied in the Syriac, Vulgate, and other ancient versions, and by Oecumenius. Grotius approves of the addition; and Beza observes very well, that Peter omitted the word church, as is often done with regard to words of common use. But Mill and Wall think the translation should be, 'She who is in Babylon;' and that the apostle meant his own wife; or some honourable woman in that city. Lardner says, it is not probable that Peter would send a salutation to the Christians of so many countries, from a woman not named..

2. Elected jointly with you.]-The apostle, in the beginning of his letter, had called the strangers of the dispersion elected according to the foreknowledge of God: Here he tells them, that the church at Babylon was elected jointly with them,' to be the people of God. 3. And Mark my son.J-Heuman, following the opinion of some of the ancients mentioned by Oecumenius, supposes this Mark to be Peter's own son by his wife. But others are of opinion, that he calls him his son because he had converted him; so that he was his son according to the spirit, and not according to the flesh. This opinion is probable, because Peter was well acquainted with the family of which Mark was a member, as may be gathered from his going immediately to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose surname was Mark,' after he was miraculously brought out of prison by the angel, Acts xii. 12. This John Mark was Barnabas's sister's son, Col. iv. 20. and the person who accompanied Paul and Barnabas as their minister, in their first journey among the idolatrous Gentiles, Acts xiii. 5. But he deserted them in Pamphylia, ver. 13. Afterwards, however, he accompanied Paul in some of his journeys, Col. iv. 10.; and, during his second imprisonment at Rome, the apostle ordered Timothy to bring Mark to Rome, because he was useful to him in the ministry, 2 Tim. iv. 11. See the note on that verse. It is generally believed, that John Mark was the author of the gospel called According to Mark.

PREFACE.

SECT. I. Of the Authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter.

In the Preface to the epistle of James, (sect. 2. initio), and in that to 1 Peter, (sect. 2. initio), the doubts which the ancients entertained concerning the authenticity of five of the seven Catholic epistles, are faithfully declared. But at the same time it is proved, that the doubted epistles were very early known, and well received by many. On this subject it is proper to put the reader in mind, that these epistles were rendered doubtful by a circumstance mentioned in the Gen. Pref. p. 1. namely, that the doubted epistles are omitted in the first Syriac translation of the New Testament, which is supposed to have been made in the second century. But the only conclusion that can be drawn from the omission is, that the author had not seen these epistles, or rather that they were not generally known when he made his version. Now this might easily happen, if, as it is probable, he was a Syrian Jew. For Syria being at a great distance from Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the proconsular Asia and Bithynia, to whose inhabitants the epistles under consideration were originally sent, it would be a considerable time before copies of them were dispersed among the people for whom the Syriac version of the New Testament was made, so that the author might think it useless to translate them.

With respect to the doubts which some entertained of these epistles, after they came to be known, they serve to prove that the ancient Christians were very cautious of receiving any books as canonical, whose authority they were not perfectly assured of. For as Wall, Crit. Notes, vol. iii. p. 358. very well observes, "They not only rejected all the writings forged by heretics under the names of the apostles; but if any good book, affirmed by some man or by some church to have been written and sent by some apostle, was offered to them, they would not, till fully satisfied of the fact, receive it into their canon." Wherefore, though the five epistles above-mentioned were not immediately acknowledged as inspired writings, in the countries at a distance from the churches or persons to whom they were originally sent, it is no proof that they were looked on as forgeries. It only shews that the persons who doubted of them had not received complete and incontestable evidence of their authenticity; just as their being afterwards universally received is a demonstration, that, upon the strictest inquiry, they found them the genuine productions of the apostles of Christ whose names they bear. For the churches to whom these letters were sent, hearing that doubts were entertained concerning them, would no doubt of their own accord, as well as when asked concerning them, declare them to be genuine. And their attestation made public, joined with the marks of authenticity found in the epistles themselves, in time established their authority beyond all possibility of doubt. The truth is, such good opportunity the ancient Christians had to know the truth in this matter, and so well founded their judgment concerning the books of the New Testament was, that, as Lardner observes, no writing which was by them pronounced genuine, hath since their time been found spurious; neither have we at this day the least reason to think any book genuine which they rejected.

Thus much was necessary to be said concerning the five doubted-of epistles in general. With respect to the second epistle of Peter in particular, it remains to point out the marks of authenticity contained in the epistle itself, which, with the attestations of the churches to which it was sent, have fully established its authority.

1. And first it is observable, that the writer styles himself Symeon Peter; from which we conclude that this epistle is the work of the apostle Peter.-If it be objected, that the apostle's name was Simon not Symeon, the answer is, that although in Greek this apostle's name was commonly written Simon, the Hebrew form of it was Symeon; for in the history of Jacob's sons it is so written. Besides, this very apostle is called Evμsar, Symeon, Acts xv. 14.-Next, it is objected, that in the first epistle, which is undoubtedly the apostle Peter's, he styles himself, not Simon Peter, but Peter simply. But I observe, that Luke hath called this apostle Simon Peter, chap. v. 8.; and that John hath given him that name no less than seventeen times in his gospel; perhaps to shew that he was the author of the epistle which begins, Sy. meon Peter, a servant, and an apostle,' &c.-Farther, though in the inscription of the first letter, Peter's sirname only is mentioned, because by it he was sufficiently known, he might in the inscription of the second, for the greater dignity, insert his name complete; because he intended authoritatively to rebuke the false teachers who had already risen, or were to rise. Upon the whole, Symeon Peter being the same with Simon Peter, no objection can be raised against the authenticity of this epistle on account of the name.

2. The writer of this epistle expressly calls himself in the inscription an apostle. He does the same chap. iii. 2.; and in other places he ascribes to himself things which agree to none but to Peter the apostle. For example, chap. i. 14. Knowing that the putting off of my tabernacle is soon to happen, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me;' alluding to John xxi. 19. where we are told that Jesus signified to Peter by what death, when old, he should glorify God.'-Chap. i. 16. this writer affirms, that he was one of the three apostles who were with Jesus at his transfiguration, when by a voice from God he was declared to be his Son the beloved.'Chap. iii. 15. this writer calls Paul his beloved brother,' in allusion no doubt to his having given Paul the right hand of fellowship withal he commends his epistles as scriptures, that is, divinely inspired writings. The writer therefore, having thus repeatedly taken to himself the name an character of an inspired apostle, if he was an impostor, he must have been the most profligate of men. See 1 Peter, Pref. sect. 2. paragr. 2.

6

3. By calling this his Second Epistle, chap. iii. 1. the writer intimates that he had written to them formerly. He insinuates the same thing chap. i. 12-15. and, by so doing, shews himself to be the same Peter who wrote the first epistle. The method which Grotius has taken to elude the force of this presumption, shall be considered afterwards.

4. The matters contained in this epistle are highly worthy of an inspired apostle; for besides a variety of important discoveries, (see sect. v.), all tending to display the perfections of God and the glory of Christ, we find in it exhortations to virtue, and condemnations of vice, delivered with an earnestness and feeling which shew the

author to have been incapable of imposing a forged writing upon the world; and that his sole design in this epistle was to promote the interests of truth and virtue in the world.

II. But in opposition to these internal marks of authenticity, and to the testimony of all the ancient Christian writers since the days of Eusebius, who with one voice have ascribed this second epistle, as well as the first, to the apostle Peter, Salmasius, and other learned moderns have argued, that because its style is different from the style of the first epistle, it must have been written by some impostor who personated the apostle Peter. This objection shall be fully considered immediately. At present suffice it to say in the general, that if this were a writing forged in the name of an apostle by any impostor, we should certainly find some erroneous tenet, or false fact, asserted in it, for the sake of which the forgery was attempted. Yet nothing of that kind appears in the second epistle of Peter; nothing inconsistent with the doctrine taught in the other writings, which by all are acknowledged to be divinely inspired; in a word, nothing unsuitable, but every thing consonant, to the character of an inspired apostle.

This argument appeared so strong to Grotius, that although, on account of the difference of the sentiments and style observable in the two epistles, he would not allow the second epistle to be Peter's he did not venture to call it the work of an impostor, but supposed it to have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem by Symeon, who succeeded James, our Lord's brother, in the bishopric of Jerusalem. And because the inscription, with the other particulars in the epistle relating to the writer's character, are utterly inconsistent with Grotius's opinion, he uses a method of removing these difficulties, unworthy so learned a critic, and so good a man. Without the least authority from any ancient MSS. or versions, he confidently affirms that the inscription is interpolated, and that originally it was Symeon, a servant of Jesus Christ. -With the same unauthorized boldness he proposes to expunge the words our beloved brother, which precede the word Paul, chap. iii. 15.-And with respect to the words which this writer says he heard coming from the excellent glory, when he was with Jesus on the holy mount, chap. i. 16. Grotius affirms, "that if some more ancient MSS. could be found, it might thence appear, that these words were added in this place, as other words in other places, by those who were willing to have this pass for an epistle of Peter." But I reply, That if the texts of ancient books are to be altered, at the pleasure of every rash critic, for the sake of supporting some groundless conceit, there will be no such thing as the genuine text of any ancient book whatever. Wherefore, if liberties of this kind are not to be taken with profane authors, far less are they to be allowed in settling the text of the books of scripture, whose authority depends on our having, not the conjectural emendations of fanciful critics, but the very words of the inspired authors themselves. With respect to the insinuation, that the author of this epistle wrote the first also, contained in the expression, This second epistle, beloved, I now write to you,' chap. iii. 1. Grotius says, that the two preceding chapters are the first epistle, and that the second epistle begins with the words, This second epistle,' &c. But as in no ancient MS. or version of this epistle is it so divided, and as no author ancient or modern hath spoken of its having been at any time so divided, Grotius's opinion merits no regard.

III. With respect to the objection against the authenticity of the second epistle of Peter, taken from its style being different from the style of the first, it is to be observed, that in the opinion of many learned men this diversity is found only in the second chapter of the second

epistle; the style of the first and third chapters being pretty much akin to the style of the first epistle. Wherefore, if the first and second epistles of Peter are thought to have been written by different authors, because the style of the second epistle differs in one chapter from that of the first, we must think that the second epistle itself was written by two different authors, because the style of its first and third chapters differs from that of the second. Yet no such conclusion ought to be drawn in either case; as it is well known that an author's style is regulated by the subjects of which he treats. If these are grand and interesting, they naturally suggest animated and sublime expressions; such as those in the first and third chapters of the second epistle, in which Peter describes the transfiguration of his Master, with the august circumstances which attend it; also the creation of the world, its past demolition by water, and its future destruction by fire.On the other hand, if the subjects treated of raise an author's indignation and abhorrence, he will use an acrimony of style, expressive of these feelings. Of this kind is the style of the second chapter of the second epistle. For the apostle, whose love to his Master was great, and who had the feeding of Christ's sheep committed to him, regarding the false teachers as the most flagitious of men, wrote that chapter against them with a bitterness which he would not have used in correcting teachers who had erred through simplicity. Moroever, in describing the character, and in foretelling the miserable end of these impostors he adopted the bold figures and lofty expressions peculiar to the eastern writers, as even coming short of what might with truth be said concerning them. -Wherefore, since the diversity of style in the two epistles of Peter can be so well accounted for, even on supposition that they were written by the same author, there is no reason to fancy with Grotius, that the second epistle was written by Symeon bishop of Jerusalem; or with Jerome, that Peter made use of different interpreters for the purpose of turning his Syriac epistle into Greek; or with bishop Sherlock to suppose, that Peter in his second epistle, and Jude in his epistle, copied some ancient Jewish writer, who described the false teachers of their own times, and denounced the judgments of God against them.

SECT. II. Of the Time when the Second Epistle of Peter was written.

WHEN Peter wrote his second epistle, he was old, and near his end: Chap. i. 14. Knowing that the putting off of my tabernacle is soon to happen, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.' Besides, chap. iii. 16. he speaks as if he had then seen all Paul's epistles: As also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, hath written to you, 16. as indeed in all his epistles,' &c. If Peter had seen all Paul's epistles when he wrote this letter, it is probable that Paul was then dead. Nay, it is thought that Paul was dead when Peter wrote his first letter; at least if he wrote it from Rome, as most of the ancient Christian writers testify, (see 1 Peter, Pref. sect. 5.) The reason is, when Paul wrote his second to Timothy from Rome, a short while before his martyrdom, though he mentioned many who were then with him, he spake nothing in that letter of Peter; an omission which, if Peter had been in Rome at that time, could not well have happened. Wherefore, if Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, he must have done it after Paul's death; consequently not sooner than the end of the year 66, or the beginning of the year 67, about three years before the destruction of Jerusalem. For Paul was put to death in the twelfth year of Nero, answering to A. D. 66.

With respect to the second epistle, which, as we have