תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

that countrey? We just now observed paffages of Origen, Epiphanius, Grégorie Nazianzen, Jerome, Chryfoftom, relating to St. Peter's travels. But none have mentioned Babylon, as a place, where he traveled, and preached the gospel.

Says Mr. Beaufobre: "As (z) Peter was the Apoftle of the Jews "fcattered abroad among the Gentils, St. James having ftayed in Judea, " he went to Babylon, where a great number of the Ifraelites had re"mained." But may I not take the liberty to ask a queftion, and fay: Who affigned to thefe Apoftles those several provinces, with fuch limitations? St. James ftaid in Judea. It is allowed. We are certain of it from the hiftoire in the Acts. Nevertheless he did not confine his regards to the Jews in the land of Ifrael. For he wrote an epiftle, addreffed to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. And if Peter alfo was an Apostle, chiefly, of the circumcifion; it was not of thofe only, who were in Gentil countreys, but of thofe likewife, who were in Judea where, as I apprehend, he spent the greatest part of his life, even after our Saviour's afcenfion.

Mr. Beaufobre fays, "Peter went to Babylon, where a great number of Ifraelites had remained." That is, he imagined, that he did fo. And it was fit for him fo to do. As Bafnage, in a paffage (a) cited not long ago, fays: "There was a multitude of Jews in Affyria, where was Babylon. Nor could he any where more fuccefsfully execute his apoftolical commiffion." And because we imagine, that Peter might very fitly preach the gospel in Affyria, we conclude, that he went thither. But fuch reafonings, if calmly confidered, are of no weight. It would be much better to allege fome ancient teftimonies, in behalf of St. Peter's Journey into Affyria, or Parthia.

Mr. Wetftein thinks, that St. Peter's first epistle was writ in the countrey of Babylon, in Mefopotamia. As there is fomewhat new in his argument, I place below (b) a large part of it. In particular, he fays, that

when

Negant enim, Petrum Romæ fuiffe: quod teftatur antiquitas. Affirmant autem Babylone fuiffe, vel in Ægypto, vel in Chaldæa. Quod nulla prodit Eft. in Pet. v. 13.

historia.

[ocr errors]

(z) Comme il étoit l'Apôtre des Juifs difperfez parmi les Payens, S. Jacques étant demueré en Judèe, il alla à Babylone, et dans les provinces voifines, ou il étoit resté un bon nombre d'Ifraelites. Hijt, de Manich. 1. 2. ch. 3. T. i. p. 181.

[ocr errors]

(a) See p. 452. note (x).

(b) Cur Babylon in Italia potius, aut Ægypto, quam in Mefopotamia, fit quærenda, caufam non video. Veteres quidem Romam intelligunt. . . . Quod recentiores obfervant, Babylonem proprie dictam, quo tempore Petrus hæc fcribebat, habitatam non fuiffe, verum eft, At (præterquam quod et Stephano Byzantino et Lucano conftat, etiam Seleuciam eo tempore nomine Babylonis fuiffe appellatam,) poffumus Babylonem interpretari non urbem, fed totam regionem. . . . Huic obfervationi addo aliam, quæ licet mihi nunc primum in mentem venerit, fuum tamen apud me pondus habet. Nimirum bi de pluribus vel provinciis vel urbibus loquimur, vel ubi ad plures fcribimus, ordini naturæ convenientius et fimplicius videtur, ut incipiamus non ab

when a perfon writes to the people of feveral cities, or countreys, it is natural to begin with that which is nearest to him. So does Paul. Col. iv. 3. and St. John in Patmos. Rev. i. and ii. The like order, fays he, is alfo accurately obferved by St. Peter, if he wrote from Mefopotamia, not if we suppose him to have writ from Italie, or Egypt.

[ocr errors]

But fuch obfervations, though ingenious and plausible, are not demonstrative and decifive, even when they are juft and right. Which can not be faid of this. For fuppofing St. Peter to have been in Mefopotamia, the countrey, nearest to him, would be Cappadocia, as lying more eastward, and more fouthward, than the two first named Certainly Pontus and Galatia were farther off from Mefopotamia, than Cappadocia. The truth is St. Peter begins at the north, and fo goes round. And that way of beginning does as well fuit Rome, as Babylon, fo far as I can fee.

Befide all this, there offers an argument, which appears to me decifive. If the Affyrian Babylon was not now fubject to the Romans, but to (c) the Parthians: which I fuppofe to be allowed by all: it cannot ie the place, intended by St. Peter. For the people, to whom he writes, were fubject to the Romans. And at the time of writing this epistle he must have been within the territories of the fame Empire. L ep. ii. 13. 14. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's fake: whether it be to the king, or rather Emperour, as formerly (d) fhewn, as jupreme: or unto Governours fent, (from Rome,) by him, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well. Again, ver. 17. Hrnor the King or rather, the Emperour. If S. eter had not now been within the Roman territories, he would have been led to express himself in a different manner, when he enforced obedience to the Roman Emperour.

This argument appears to me very obvious. And yet I do not know, that it has ever been thought of by any before. Which makes me almoft fufpect the validity of it: though I cannot difcern, where the cefect lies.

St. Peter requires fubjection to Governours, fent by the Emperour: undoubtedly, meaning from Rome. I fuppofe, that way of tpeaking might be properly used in any part of the Empire. But it might have a special propriety, if the writer was then at Rome. Where indeed, in all probability, Peter then was.

4. So that we are now come to the fourth opinion concerning the date of this epiftle. Which is, that by Babylon St. Peter figuratively means Kome.

ab ea, quæ loquentibus vel fcribentibus eft remotiffima, fed proxima. Hunc ordinem fervavit Paulus Col. iv. 13. et Joannes ex Patmo. Apoc. i. et ii. Hunc ordinem accurate fervavit etiam Petrus, fi fcripfit ex Mefopotamia, minime autem, fi vel ex Ægypto, vel ex Italia, eum fcripfiffe exiftimemus. Wetstein, in 2 Pet. v. 13. Tom. 2. p. 697. 698.

(c) Vid. Strat. l. 16. p. 1081, in al. p. 745.

(d) See the firft Part of this Work. Book i. ch. 2. §. xi. near the end. Or p. 176. of the third edition.

Rome. This is the opinion of (e) Grotius, and (f) Whitby, and (g) Valefius, and all the learned writers of the Roman communion in general.

These have, confeffedly, in their favour, the teftimonie of antiquity. Which is no fmall advantage.

Eufebius having given an account of St. Mark's Gospel, and of it's having been writ at the requeft of St. Peter's hearers at Rome, adds: "And (b) it is faid, that Peter mentions this Mark in his firft epiftle, "which, they fay, he wrote at Rome: and that himself calls that city "Babylon figuratively in those words: the church that is at Babylon falutes "you, as does Mark my fon."

This interpretation fome fuppofe Eufebius to afcribe to Papias. But (i) Spanheim denies it. And perhaps it is not certain. Whether Papias faid fo, or not, it was the prevailing opinion in the time of Eufebius.

Jerome in his book of Illuftrious Men, in his article of St. Mark, transcribes the just cited paflage of Eufebius, but exprefleth himself more pofitively. "Peter (k) makes mention of this Mark in his first epi-* ftle, figuratively denoting Rome by the name of Babylon. The church which is at Babylon, elected together with you, faluteth you, as does Mark my fon."

Bede

(e) De Babylone diffident veteres et novi interpretes. Veteres Romam interpretantur, ubi Petrum fuiffe nemo verus Chriftianus dubitabit. Novi Babylonem in Chaldæa. Ego veteribus affentior. Nam quod Romam' Babylonem vocavit, non in hoc tantum ferviit, ut fi deprehenderetur epiftola, non poffet inde fciri, quibus in locis viveret. Verum etiam. Congruentias plurimas inter Babylonem et Romam vide Orofii ii. 2. 3. 4. Grot. ad 1 Pet. v. 13.

(f) See him upon 1 Pet. v. 13.

[ocr errors]

(g) Romam Petrus figurate Babylonem vocavit, vel ob magnitudinem et potentiam, vel propter impietatem. Poteft etiam alia ratio hujus cognominis afferri, quod fcilicet ut Babylonii Judæos in fervitutem redegerant, fic Romani tunc Judæos ditioni fuæ fubjeciffent. Sunt qui in dicta Petri epiftola Babylonis nomine non Romam, fed Babylonem ipfam, quæ caput fuit Affyriorum, defignari contendunt. Verum hi omnium veterum patrum teftimonio refelluntur. Valef. Annot. ad Eufeb. H. E. 1. 2. c. 15. 33.

Ρ· δε τῷ δὲ μάρκα μνημονευσιν τὸν πέτρον ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ ἐπιστολῆ, ἣν καὶ συντάξαν

(4) φασὶν ἐπ ̓ αὐτῆς ρώμης σημαίνειν τε τετ' αυτὸν τὴν πόλιν τροπικώτερον βαβυλῶνα, προσειπόντα δια τότων. Ασπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή, καὶ μάρκος ὁ ενός με. Euf. Η. Ε. l. 2. c. 15.

(i) Atqui primus omnium Eufebius narrationi de Marco hæc fubjungit: Effe, qui dicerent Romam figurate Babylonem appellari... Nec tamen Papia ipfi adfcribi eam interpretationem, quicquid vulgo fentiant, Valefio ipfo verba hæc a prioribus fejungente, fupra demonftratum eft. Vid. P. 3. num. xii. Spanheim. Diff. de fia Profea. Petri ad Rom. Part. iv. num. ii. Tom. 2. p. 375.

(4) Meminit hujus Marci et Petrus in epiftola prima, fub nomine Babylonis figuraliter Romam fignificans: falutat vos que in Babylone eft, coëlecta, et Marcus filius meus. De 1. I. cap. viii.

Bede (1) by Babylon underflood Rome, as did (m) Oecumenius. However, it may be here properly recollected, that (n) formerly we faw an author, Cofmas of Alexandría, in the fixth centurie, who hereby feems to have understood Babylon in Affyria.

This opinion concerning the place of writing this epiftle is much confirmed by the general tradition of the ancients, that St. Mark's Gospel was writ at Rome, at the request of Peter's hearers, and that Mark here mentioned is the Evangelift. Nor is this contradicted by Cofmas, but confirmed by him. For he exprefsly fays, "that (0) Mark, the second Evangelift, wrote his Gospel at Rome by the direction of

Peter."

They (p) who reject this interpretation, affect to flight Papias: whereas there is no good reason for it. If he faid fo, certainly his teftimonie would be of fome value. But we do not clearly perceive, that this was in Papias. However, it is faid by Eufebius. It was then a common opinion. Nor did he know of a better.

Others infinuate likewife, that (q) the reafon, why Jerome was willing to confound Rome with Babylon, was, that he was out of humour with the people of Rome. Which feems to me to be groundless. Jerome only tranfcribes, what he had found in Eufebius. They who reject the accounts of those two learned ancients fhould by all means produce some evidence, that Peter was in Mefopotamia. We have good affurance, that St. Mark's Gofpel was writ at Rome, and that Peter preached, and fuffered martyrdom there. His two epiftles therefore, probably, were writ in the fame city, a fhort time before the period of his life.

Mill varies. In his note upon the place he is for Babylon in Egypt. But in his Prolegomena (r) he is for Rome, and argues well

enough

() Babylonem typice Romam dicit, videlicet propter confufionem multiplicis idololatriæ. &c. Bed, expof. Pet. v. 13.

(η) Βαβυλῶνα δὲ τὴν ῥώμην διὰ τὸ περιφανὲς καλεῖ, ὁ καὶ Βαβυλῶν πολλῷ χρόνῳ ἔσχηκε. xnx. Oecum. in loc. Tom. 2. p. 526. A.

(n) See Vol. xi. p. 275. and 283.

(0) See Vol. xi. p. 267, and the first volume of this Supplement. p. 178. (p) Quod fi, ut Rufinus interpretatur, tefte Papia nititur, infirmo fane tibicine fultum eft. Nec temere ad tropum in nominibus urbium aut regionum eft recurrendum, nifi ubi propria vocis fignificatio locum habere non poteft. Wetstein. N. T. Tom. 2. p. 697.

(2) C'eft une imagination de Papias, que les anciens ont adopté avec trop de facilité, et que S. Jerome auroit rejettée avec mepris, fi dans la mauvaife humeur ou il étoit contre Rome, il n'eût été bien aife de la confondre avec Babylone. Beauf. Hift. Manich. 1. 2. ch. 3. T. i. p. 181.

(r) Romæ eam fcriptam fuiffe notant ex traditione. Veterum Eufebius, Hieronymus in Catalogo, et alii permulti. Hanc enim Babylonis nomine defignatam voluit Petrus, ceu communi tum temporis apud Judæos fuos appellatione. Quæ quidem et in hunc ufque diem apud eos obtinet. Abarbinel, aliique recentiores Judæi, commentantes in prophetias de Babylone, ad Romam iftas referunt: quod ficut a Babyloniis olim in fervitutem redacti fucrint, ita poftea jam a Romanis. &c. Proleg. num. 59. 60.

enough for that opinion. I fuppofe, that to be his final determi

nation.

It may be beft for me now to conclude this argument with a part of Whitby's note upon 1 Pet. v, 13. which is very agreeable alfo to the note of Eftius upon the fame text. "That Babylon is figuratively here put "for Rome, is an opinion fo early delivered by Papias, and which after"wards fo generally prevailed, (as we learn from Eufebius, Jerome, and "Oecumenius,) that I fubfcribe to the note at the end of this epistle, « iyęápn åñò gŵuns, it was written from Rome, ftiled alfo Babylon by the "author of the Revelations. ch. xvii. and xviii. For the Apoftle, at the ❝ time of writing it, must be at Rome, figuratively, or at fome city, pro"perly, called Babylon. Now as it is uncertain, whether St. Peter ever "was at Babylon in Chaldea, or in Egypt, and improbable, that he "made any confiderable ftay there: fo it is very improbable, he "should do it, when near his end. At Rome, and Antioch, where "he confeffedly refided, church-historie is copious in giving an ac"count of his fucceffors in thofe Sees. But who can fhew any "thing of this nature, with reference to either of those Babylons? " &c. &c."

IV. The only thing remaining to be obferved by us is the Their Time. time of writing these two epiftles. Which I think to be the year 63. or 64. or at the latest 65. I fuppofe, Paul to have left Rome in the fpring of the year 63. St. Peter was not then come thither. If he had been there, he would have been mentioned by St. Paul in fome of his epiftles, writ near the end of his imprisonment at Rome. However, not very long after St. Paul was gone, St. Peter might come thither. Here, I fuppofe, he preached for a while freely, and with great fucceffe. And it appears to me probable, that both thefe epiftles were writ at Rome, not long before the Apoftle's death.

That he was old, and near his end, when he wrote the fecond epiftle, is apparent from Ch. i. 14. And that the first epistle to the fame Chriftians had not been writ long before, may be argued from the apologie, which he makes for writing this fecond epiftle to them. ch. i. ver. 13. ... 15. Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the prefent truth. Yea I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to ftir you up by way of remembrance. Knowing, that fhortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jefus Chrift has fhewed me. Moreover, I will endeavour, that you may be able after my deceafe to have these things always in remembrance.

It is not unlikely, that foon after the Apoftle had fent away Silvanus with the first epiftle, fome came from thofe countreys to Rome, where was a frequent and general refort from all parts, bringing him informations concerning the itate of religion among them. Which induced him to write a second time for the establishment of the Chriftians, among whom he had labored. And he might well hope, that his laft words, and dying teftimonie to the doctrine, which he had received from Chrift, and had taught for many years with unfhaken stedfaftneffe, would be of great weight with them.

V. I have now gone through the four inquiries, propofed at the begining of this article. I fhall here add.

Remarks upon 1 Pet. v. 13.

only

« הקודםהמשך »