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. Lightfoot, Basnage, Beausobre, Dr. Cave, Wetstein, Drs. Benson and A. Clarke, think that Peter intended Babylon in Assyria; Michaelis, that it was Babylon in Mesopotamia, or rather Seleucia on the Tigris. And Grotius, Drs. Whitby, Lardner, Macknight, and Hales, Bishop Tomline, and all the learned of the Romish communion, are of opinion that by Babylon Peter meant, figuratively, Rome, which city is called Babylon by the apostle John. (Rev. xvii. xviii.) 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. Eusebius1 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,2 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 Chaldea: 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 asso 1 Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 15. 2 De Viris Illust. c. 8. ciate of Paul in most of the churches which he had planted. And though he was not at Rome with the apostle when he wrote his 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 antient Syriac version of the New Testament was made in his time, and probably by his authority, for the use of the Oriental churches.1 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 written 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. As Saint 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. On 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 society. And, finally, as their character and conduct were liable to be aspersed and misrepresented by their enemies, they are exhorted to lead a holy life, that they might stop the mouths of their enemies, put their calumnia 1 Lardner, 8vo. vol. v. p. 272.; 4to. vol. iii. p. 55. Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 30. tors to shame, and win others over to their religion, by their holy and Christian 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.) Servants to their masters (16-25.), Husbands to their wives. (iii. 1—13.) 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 afflictions 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.) VI. As the design of this Epistle is excellent, so its excellence, in the judgment of the best critics, does not fall short of its design. Erasmus pronounces it to be worthy of the prince of the apostles, and adds that it is sparing in words, but full of sense. That great critic, Joseph Scaliger, calls it majestic ; and Ostervald1 says that the first Epistle of Peter is one of the finest books in the New Testament, that the second is written with great strength and majesty, and that both of them evidently show their divine origin. Every part, indeed, of Saint Peter's writing indicates a mind that felt the power of the doctrines he delivered, and a soul that glowed with the most ardent zeal for the spread of the Gospel. His style expresses the noble vehemence and fervour of his spirit, his perfect knowledge of the Gospel, and his strong assurance of the truth and certainty of its doctrines. He writes with the authority of the first man in the college of the apostles. Little solicitous about the choice or harmonious disposition of words, bis thoughts and his heart were absorbed with the grand truths which he was divinely commissioned to proclaim, and the indispensable obligation of Christians to adorn their profession by a holy life. Hence, in his first Epistle, he writes with such energy and rapidity of style, that we can scarcely perceive the pauses of his discourse, or the distinction of his periods. And in his 1 Nov. Test. pp. 276. 281. edit. Neufchatel, 1772. folio. second Epistle he exposes with holy indignation and vehemence the abandoned principles and practices of those false teachers and false prophets, who in those early times sprang up in the Christian church, and disseminated their pernicious tenets with so much art and cunning. His prophetic description of the general conflagration, and of the end of all terrestrial things (2 Pet. iii. 8-12.), is very awful, and was evidently described so minutely and circumstantially, in order to induce us to prepare for it. We see the planetary heavens, and this our earth enveloped in the devouring flames: we hear the groans of an expiring world, and the crash of nature tumbling into universal ruin. How solemn and affecting is this practical inference! (2 Pet. iii. 11.) "Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness." The meanest soul and lowest imagination cannot think of that time, and the awful descriptions of it, which we meet with in this place, and in several other passages of Holy Writ, without the greatest emotion and the deepest impressions.1 SECTION IV. ON THE SECOND GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER. I. Its genuineness and canonical authority.—II. Date. — III. Scope, and synopsis of its contents. I. SOME doubts were entertained by the primitive churches respecting the authenticity of this Epistle, which has been received as the genuine production of Saint Peter ever since the 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 century, yet in the fourth and following centuries it was acknowledged by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, the council of Laodicea, Epiphanius, Jerome, Rufinus, Augustine, and all subsequent writers. Eusebius places it among the Αντιλεγομεναι Γραφαι, or books whose canonical authority was doubted by some, though mentioned and approved by most of the antients, but he plainly distinguishes it from such as were confessedly spurious. He also relates from the tradition of his pre 1 Blackwall's Sacred Classics, vol. i. pp. 302–304. Pritii Introd. ad Nov. Test. pp. 79-89. Macknight's Preface to 1 Peter. Benson's History of Saint Peter and his first Epistle, pp. 137-159. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 562-583.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 414-425. Dr. Hales's Analysis, vol. ii. book ii. pp. 1144-1147. Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 315–346. 2 Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 45.; 4to. vol. i. p. 302. 3 Ibid. evo. vol. ii. p. 61.; 4to. vol. i. p. 311. 4 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 126.; 4to. vol. ii. p. 347. 5 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 186.; 4to. vol. i. p. 381. Hist. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 25. 7 Clerici, Hist. Eccl. p. 442. note. decessors, that, though it was not acknowledged as part of the New Testament, yet, because to many it seemed useful, it was diligently read together with the other Scriptures. On this statement of Eusebius, Le Clerc forcibly remarks, that if it had not been St. Peter's it would not have seemed useful to any man of tolerable prudence, seeing the writer in many places pretends to be Saint Peter himself: for it would be noxious on account of its being a forgery, as well as unpardonable in any man to forge another man's name, or pretend to be the person he is not. After a diligent comparison of the first Epistle with that which is ascribed to Peter as the second, Michaelis pronounces the agreement between them to be such, that, if the second was not written by Saint Peter, as well as the first, the person who forged it not only possessed the power of imitation in a very unusual degree, but understood likewise the design of the first Epistle, with which the antients do not appear to have been acquainted. Now, if this be true, the supposition that the second Epistle was not written by St. Peter himself involves a contradiction. Nor is it credible, that a pious impostor of the first or second century should have imitated Saint Peter so successfully as to betray no 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 very 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 laid to the second Epistle of Saint 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 Saint Jude will be hardly urged as an argument against it: for no doubt can be made, that the second Epistle of Saint Peter was, in respect to the Epistle of Saint 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 Saint 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 Saint 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 Saint Peter.2 1 Ibid. lib. 3. c. 3. 2 Michaelis, vol. iv. p. 350. |