תמונות בעמוד

Jerome says: “ Peter (d) wrote two epistles, called catholic: the le. cond of which is denied by many to be his, because of the difference of the ftile from the former.

And Origen before them, in his Commentaries upon the Gospel of St. Matthew, as cited by (e) Eusebius, says: “ Peter (f) on whom the “ church is built, has left one epistle [universally) acknowledged. Lec “ it be granted, that he also wrote a second. For it is doubted of.”

What those learned writers of the third and fourth centuries say of these two epistles, we have found agreeable to the testimonie of more ancient writers, whom we have consulted. For the first epistle seems to be referred to by (8) Clement of Rome. It is plainly referred to by (6) Polycarp several times. It is also referred to by the (i) Martyrs at Lyons. It was received by (k) Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch. It was quoted (1) by Papias. It is quoted in the remaining writings of (m) Irenæus, (n) Clement of Alexandria, and (0) Tertullian. Consequently, it was all along received. But we do not perceive the second epittle to be quoted by (o) Papias, nor (9) by Irenæus, nor (r) Tertullian, nor (s) Cyprian.

However, both these epistles were generally received in the fourth, and following centuries, by all Christians, except the Syrians. For they were received by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, the Council of Laodicea, Epiphanius, Jerome, Rufin, Auguftin, and others. As may be seen in the alphabetical table, in St. Peter, at the end of the twelfth volume, to which the reader is referred.

Such are the testimonies of ancient writers concerning these two epistles. If we consult the epistles themselves, and endeavor to form a judgement by internal evidence; I suppose, it will appear very probable, that both are of the fame author. And it may seem somewhat strange, that

any of the ancients hesitated about it, who had the two epistles before ti.em. For with regard to some of the most ancient writers, it may be supposed, that the second epistle had not been seen by them, it not having come to their hands together with the first.

The first epistle being allowed to be St. Peter's, we can argue in favour of the other also after this manner. It bears in the inscription the name of the fame Apostle. For so it begins : Simon Peter, a servant, and an Apostle of Jesus Christ. And in ch. i. 14. are these words : Knows ing, that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Chrif has jewed me.' The writer of this epistle may have had a particular revelation concerning the time of his death, not long before writing this. But it is probable, that here is a reference to our Lord's predictions concerning St. Peter's death, and the manner of it, which are recorded in John xxi. 18. 19.


(d) Vol. x. p. 130

(e) H. E. I. 6. cap. 25. p. 227. A. See Vol. iii. p. 236.

(8) See Vol.i. po 97. and 100. (%) Vol.iop. 215.

218. See also p. 192: (i) Vol.i. p. 340.

(k) Vol. ii. p. 434. and 447. (1) Vol. I. p. 242.250.253.

(m) Vol. i. p. 374. (1) Vol.ii. p. 508.

(6) Vol.ii. p. 616. D) Vol. i. p. 250.

(9) Vol. 1. p. 374. 375.381. (n) Vol. ij.p. 617. . . . 622. (s) Vol. iv. p. 829.

From ch. i. 16. 17. 18. it appears, that the writer was one of the disciples, who were with Jesus in the mount, when he was transfigured in a glorious manner. This certainly leads us to Peter, who was there, and whose name the epistle bears in the inscription.

Ch. ii. 1. This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you : in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance : plainly referring to the former epistle, which has been always acknowledged for Peter's, These words are exprefs. But it might have been argued with some degree of probability from ch. i. 12, .... 15. that he had before writto the same persons.

Once more, ch, iii. 15. 16. he calls Paul brother, and otherwise lo speaks of him, and his epistles, as must needs be reckoned most suitable to an Apoftle.

The writer therefore is the Apostle Peter, whose name the epistle bears in the inscription.

So that we are here led to that observation, which Wall placed at the head of his notes upon this second epistle. “ It is, says (1) he, a good “ proof of the cautiousnesle of the ancient Christians in receiving any " book for canonical, that they not only rejected all those pieces forged “ by heretics, under the names of Apottles : . .. but also; if any good “ book affirmed by some men, or by fome churches, to have been writ“ ten, and sent by some Apostle, were offered to them, they would not, « till fully fatisfied of the fact, receive it into their canon.' He adds: " There is more hazard in denying this to be Peter's, than there is in « denying fome other books to be of that author, to whom they are by “ tradition aferibed. For they, if they be not of that Apostle, to whoin " they are imputed, yet may be of some other Apostle, or apoftolical

But this author is either the Apostle, or else by secting his naine, and by other circumstances, he does designedly personate him. « Which no man of piety and truth would do. And then he concludes: “This epistle being written by him but a little before his death, “ ch. i. 14. and perhaps no more than one copy sent; it might be a good a while, before a number of copies, well attested, came abroad to the “ generality of the Christian churches."

What has been just said is sufficient to confute the opinion advanced by Grotius, that (u) this second epistle was writ by Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem after. James, the Lord's brother. Indeed that opinion cannot be admitted. It is destitute of all authority from antiquity, and is in. consistent with the whole tenour of the epistle itself, or at least with many things in it. As has been well observed by (x) Vitringa, and has been now shewn by us. Jerome, in his article of St. Peter, in his book of Illustrious Men, as

already (t) Critical Notes upon the N. T.9:358 359.

(u) Scriptorem autem hujus epiftolæ arbitror esse Simeonem, Episcopum poft Jacobi mortem Hierofolymis, ejufdemque Jacobi, cujus epiftolam habemus, successorem et imitatorem, &c. Grot. in 2 ep. S. Petri.

(*) Verum quacumque etiam fpecie se commendet conjectatio hxc Grotiana, hactenus animum inducere non potui, ut eam probem. Epistola Petri pofterior talis est, ut fcripta cenferi nequeat ab impostore. Et enim gravis, et sancto viro dignifama. Quod fi ita elt, certifime Petro erit vindicanda,



already seen, says: '« Peter (y) wrote two epistles called catholic: the second of which was by many denied to be his, because of it's differing in stile from the former.” Of (z) this he speaks likewise in his epistle to Hedibia. Basnage (a) says, he is not able to discern such difference of Atile in the two epistles. However, Dr. Sherlock, now Bishop of London, has largely treated of this point in his Dissertation concerning the authority of the second epistle of St. Peter. Who observes, p. 203. “ that the first and third of the three chapters, into which the epistle is now divided, agree in stile with the first epistle. The only difference is in the second chapter, the Itile of which is no more like to that of the other, two, than it is to that of the first epiftle. The occasion of this difference seems to be this, that in the second chapter there is a description of the false prophets and teachers, who infested the Church, and perverted the doctrines of the gospel. Some ancient Jewish writer had left behind him a description of the false prophets of his own, or perhaps earlier times. Which description is applied both by St. Peter and St. Jude to the false teachers of their own times.” It is added by his Lordship, p. 204. “St. Jerome supposed, and others have followed his opinion, that St. Peter made use of different interpreters, to express his sense in his two epistles. But had that been the case, the difference of stile would have appeared in the whole, and not in one part of it only. Which is the present case. And I see no reason to think, that St. Peter did not write both his epistles himself.”

That is the account, which his Lordship gives of the difference of the ftile. Which all will allow to be ingenious, whether they admit it to be right, or not. For some may think, that (b) all this difference of Atile arises from the subject treated of in the second chapter.

I conclude therefore, that the two epistles, generally ascribed to the Apostle Peter, are indeed his.

Mr. Ostervald, of Neufchatel, speaking of the first of these epistles, says : « It contains very weighty instructions, and is one of the finest books of the New Testament." Of the second he says: “It is a molt excellent epistle, as well as the foregoing, and is writ with great strength and majesty."


quia præter præfationem, non temere rejiciendam, alia per hanc epistolam sparsa funt, quæ perfonam Petri nobis digito quasi monstrant, ut cap. i. 18. iii. 15. Vitring. Olfervat. Sacr. l. 4. cap. 9. num. xlii.

(9) Scripsit duas epistolas, quæ catholicæ nominantur : quarum fecunda a plerisque ejus esse negatur, propter itili cum priore dissonantiam. De V. i. cap.i.

(2) Habebat ergo Titum interpretem, ficut et beatus Petrus Marcum: cujus Evangelium Petro narrante, et illo scribente, compofitum est. Denique et duæ epiftolæ, quæ feruntur Petri, ftilo inter se et charactere discrepant, structurâque verborum. Ex quo intelligimus, pro necesitate rerum divertis eum usum interpretibus. Ad Hedib. Qu. xi. T. 4. P. 1. p. 183. al. ep. 150.

(a) Nos stili discrimen deprehendere non poffumus. Neque continet alis quid, quod Apoftolo fit indignum. Bafnag. Â. 63. num. i.

(6) Concerning this fee more hereafter in the Remarks upon St. Jude's epifle. chap. xxi. near the end.

Certainly, these epistles, and the discourses of Petet recorded in the A&s, together with the effects of them, are monuments of a divine infpiration, and of the fulfilment of the promise, which Christ made to him, when he saw him, and his brother Andrew employed in their trade, and casting a net into the sea : Follow me, said he, and I will make you fishers of men. Matt. iv. 18. To whom fent.

II. Concerning the persons, to whom these epistles

were fent, there have been different opinions among both ancients and moderns.

Eusebius (c) speaking of St. Peter's first epistle, as universally acknows ledged, says: “It is inscribed by him to the Hebrews, scattered through, out Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.” They who are desirous to know Jerome's opinion, may consider what is transcribed from him Vol. x. p. 130....133. For he does not seem to me to have any fettled judgement about the persons, to whom Peter wrote. Didymus, of Alexandria, supposed, (d) St. Peter's first epistle to have been sent to Jews scattered abroad in several countreys. To the same purpose Oecumenius, not only in his argument of the epistle referred to by me (e) formerly, but also in his commentaric (f) upon the begining of the cpistle.

Among the moderns not a few are of the same opinion, as Beza and Grotius in their notes upon the first verse of the first epistle, and Mill (8) in his Prolegomena. Cave says, St. Peter's (h) two epistles were writ chiefly to Jewith Christians. Tillemont, speaking of the first epiftle, says, it (i) 'is addressed particularly to the converted Jews, in those countreys, but it speaks also to the Gentils, who had embraced the faith.

But though some of the ancients, as just seen, say, that St. Peter wrote to the believers of the circumcision, we have in the course of this work observed divers others, who say, he wrote to Gentils : as (k) the Author of the Calling of the Gentils, by some supposed to be Prosper of Aquitain: the (1) Author of the Divine Promises and Predictions: (m) Junilius. Caffiodorius in one place (n) speaks of Peter's writing to the Gentils, in another (0) to believing Jews. Augustin has twice faid, that (0) Peter wrote to Gentils. In like manner another author (9) in a sermon joyned with his works, who may be supposed to have been his disciple. Gregorie the i. Bishop of Rome, expresseth himself, as if he thought, that


(c) See Vol. viii. p. 103. (d) See Vol. ix. p. 173

(c) Vol. xi. p. 414. f) Τοίς εκ περιτομης ουτος επισέλλες, ως μακάριος Ιάκωβος" αλλ' εκείνος αορίσες σάσι τοίς υπό την οικεμένην κατοικούσαν αδαίοις οαεδήποτε ουσιν. Ουτος δε αφοισμένως τους κλίμασ. σόντε, κ. λ. Oecum. T. 2. p. 482. C. D.

(3) Num. 6o. (b) Reliquit poft fe epistolas duas, Judæis Christianis præcipue inscriptas. H. L. T. i. p. 5.

(i) Il l'addresse particulierement aux Juifs convertis dans toutes ces provinces, quoiqu'elle parle aussi aux Gentils qui avoient embrassé la foy. S. Pierres art. 33. Mem. T.i. (1) Vol. xi. p. 136.

(1) P. 139. (m) P. 297. 299.

in) Vol. xi. p. 308. (0) P. 313

Volo *. • 248. (9) The fame.

(r) St. Peter's epistles were sent to all Christians in general, both Jews. and Gentils, in the countreys mentioned at the begining of the first epistle. Bede, in his prologue to the seven catholic epistles, largely cited by us formerly, says, that ) St. Peter's epistles were sent to such as had been profelyted from Gentilism to Judaism, and after that were converted to the Christian Religion. He speaks again to the like purpose at the begining of his Exposition of St. Peter's first epistle. But the Greek word, rendered by us frangers, is not equivalent to profelytes : as was observed long ago by (s) Oecumenius upon the place, and since by (1) Basnage.

Mr. Wetstein argues from divers texts, that (u) the first epistle was fent to Gentils. Mr. Hallett in his learned Introduction to the epiftle to the Hebrews, observes : “Some, says he, go upon the supposition, that St. Peter's epistles were written to Jews. But it seems to me abundantly more natural to suppose, that they were written to Gentil Chriftians, if we consider many passages of the epistles themselves.” Where (*) he proceeds to allege many passages, and, in my opinion, very pertinently. Some of which will be also alleged by me by and by,

Dr. Sykes (y) has lately declared himself in favour of the same sentiment, and argued well for it.

Mr. Barnage supposed, that (z) St. Peter's epistles were writ to Jews and Gentils, chielly the former.


483. D.

[ocr errors]

(r) Vol. xi. p. 353• 35.4.

(1) The fame. p. 388. (6) Σημαινει δε το όνομα του ταυιον τα προσηλυτα κ. λ. Οccum, Vol. 2. p.

(t) Fallitur egregie Beda. . . . A qua fe fententia revocasset, fi vocem a Petro adhibitam, imidros, attendiffet, quâ religionis profelytus numquam designatur. Basn, An. 57. n. iv.:

(u) Ad eos, qui ex Gentibus electi sunt, ut Christo et veritati obedirent. Cap. i. 8. 18. 21. 22. ii. 10. iv. 3. Wetsten. N. T. Tom. 2. p. 681.

(a) See his Introduction. p. 23. 25.

(y) “ This epistle of St. Peter, says he, was writ to the strangers scattered through several parts of the Lesser Afa. And it is plain, that he meant by them Gentils converted in those parts of the world to Christ. He does not mean Jews, but such as were elect, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. Such, of whole salvation the Prophets inquired, who prophesied of the grace that fould come unto them, ch. i. ver. 10. such, for whom Christ was manifested in these last times. ver. 20. such as were aaòs eis sportónoiv, an acquired people, who had not obtained mercy: ch. ii. 9. 10. as sheep going aftray, but now returned. ver. 25. as men, who in the time past of their life had wrought the will of the Gentils. iv. 3. These are marks Tufficient to describe the people, to whom St. Peter wrote. ... The Gentils were now begotten in Chrift to a lively hope. They were become now what the Jews formerly were, a chosen generatión, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people. &c." The Scripture do&rine of the Redemption of Man by Jesus Chrift. Ch. iii. fed. 252. p. 62. 63. See likewise ch. v. num. 832: p. 306. 307.

(z) Ut nostra fert opinio, ad utrosque scripta est, præcipue tamen ad Judæos, qui sub apoftolatum Petri ceciderant. Ad gentes quoque epistolam scriptam fuiffe, ex his explorate percipitur: Qui quondam eratis non populus, nunc eflis populus Dei.'I ep. ii. 10. Quæ Ethnicorum præcipue funt. . . Præterea Ethnicorum idololatria his perftriugitur: Incefimus in nefariis idolorum cultibus. is. 3. Basr. ann. 57. num. iv.

« הקודםהמשך »