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.)

VI. This Epistle of James is one of the most pathetic and instructive in the New Testament. Its style possesses all that beautiful and elegant simplicity which so eminently characterises the sacred writers. Having been written with the design of refuting particular errors which had been introduced among the Jewish Christians, it is not so replete with the peculiar doctrines of Christianity as the Epistles of Paul, or indeed as the other apostolical Epistles; but it contains an admirable summary of those practical duties which are incumbent. on all believers, and which it enforces in a manner equally elegant and affectionate.1

Benson's Preface to Saint James, pp. 14-20. Macknight's Freface, 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, Herméneutique Sacrée, tom. ii. pp. 68-72. See also Hug's Introduction, in loc.

CHAP. XXVI.

ON THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER.

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.; Luke v. 10.) From this time they became his companions, 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.1 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

But see as to this, and on the juxta-position of Bethsaida and Capernaum, and their true localities, a paper by S. P. Tregelles in the Cambridge Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology for June 1856.

2 Luke iv. 40.; Matt. vii. 16., xvii. 24-27.; Mark i. 32. 34.

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 self-confidence sufficiently appear in his solemn asseverations that he would never abandon his Master (Matt. xxvi. 33.); 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.2 It does not appear that Peter followed Christ any further; probably remorse and shame prevented him from attending the crucifixion, as we find St. 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 professing 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. 15-26.), 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

1 Matt. xxvi. 51-54.; Matt. xiv. 46, 47.; Luke xxii. 50, 51.; John xviii. 10, 11. 2 Matt. xxvi. 69-75.; Mark xiv. 66-72.; Luke xxii. 54-(2.; John xviii. 15—18. 26, 27.

he arrived at Rome, not before the year 63', 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 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.2

II. The genuineness and canonical authority of the first Epistle of Peter have never been disputed, except by recent subjective criticism. It is repeatedly distinctly quoted by Polycarp 3; Papias also, as we learn from Eusebius, cited testimonies from it; and it is once cited in the Epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons. It was quoted by name by Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian; and Eusebius informs us that it was universally acknowledged to be the production of St. Peter in the fourth century 5, since which time its authenticity has never been questioned on grounds of evidence.

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 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 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 dispersed in those countries.

We have seen (p. 495. suprà,) that St. Paul quitted Rome in the early part of A. D. 63, at which time it is evident that St. Peter had not arrived there; for if these two eminent servants of Christ had met in that city, Peter would have been mentioned by St. Paul in some of the Epistles, which he wrote thence, towards the close of his imprisonment.

* Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 509-561.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 388-414. Scaliger, Salmasius, Frederick Spanheim, and others, have denied that St. Peter was ever at Rome; but the contrary opinion has been advocated 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.

3 Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 98, 99.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 331, 332. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 152.; 4to. vol. i. p. 362.

Ibid. 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 562, 563.; 4to. vol. iii. p. 415.

2. Peter had the ministry of the circumcision peculiarly committed to him. (Gal. ii. 8.) It is, therefore, more probable that he wrote to Jews than to Gentiles.

3. The persons to whom the apostle writes are termed Strangers, scattered, Пapezioni; 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, an holy nation, a peculiar people (1 Pet. ii. 9.), which are the terms used conditionally of the Jewish people (Exod. xix. 6.), now applied to the spiritual portion of them.

On these grounds we conclude that this Epistle was addressed to the dispersed Hebrew Christians.

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. 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.

Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 15.

De Viris Illust. c. 8.