3. Silvanus or Silas, the bearer, was the faithful brother, or associate 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 hither soon after, and have been sent by Paul and Peter jointly, to con firm 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 ancient 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.

[The editor may here express his deliberate judgment that this Epistle was written from the ancient Babylon in Chaldæa. So, too, Dr. Davidson (Introd. iii. 366.), who states the evidence pretty fully for the different opinions, and Dr. Wordsworth "On the Canon."]

If 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 [if written at Rome].

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 calumniators 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.

1 Lardner, 8vo. vol. v. p. 272.; 4to. vol. iii. p. 55. Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 30.

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.)
ii. To a particular discharge of their several duties, as
Dutiful subjects to their sovereign. (13—15).

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 Ostervald' 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 Peter's writings 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. Little solicitous about the choice or harmonious disposition of words, his 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 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

Nouv. Test. pp. 276. 281. edit. Neufchatel, 1772. folio.

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. 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 description 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.'

CHAP. XXVII.

ON THE SECOND GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER.

3

I. THIS Epistle has been received as the genuine production of Peter ever since the fourth century2, except by the Syrian church, who have it not as part of their old version, though some of their writers have used and cited it. In the fourth and following centuries, it was acknowledged by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Jerome, Rufinus, Augustine, and all subsequent writers. Eusebius places it among the Αντιλεγόμεναι Γραφαί, or books whose canonical authority was doubted by some, but he plainly distinguishes it from such as were confessedly spurious. He also relates, from the tradition of his predecessors, 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 Peter's it would not have seemed useful to any man of tolerable prudence,

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 St. 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. See also Hug's Introduction, vol. ii. §§ 166–171.

The second Epistle of Peter was placed among the disputed writings of the New Testament by Origen. (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. vi. c. 25.) It is natural to suppose, that if, from incidental causes, the second Epistle of Peter did not become known so early as the first, some churches, which had for a length of time been accustomed to read only one Epistle of Peter, might hesitate to receive another. Suspicion might also have arisen against the genuineness of this Epistle, from the fact that it was brought from Asia Minor, the abode of the Montanists, who were accused of a disposition to fabricate new writings. (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. lib. vi. c. 20.) More especially may this have been the case, as the passage, 2 Pet. ii. 20., could be urged in vindication of the rigour of the Montanistic discipline: or, the departure of the Christians in Asia Minor from the customary mode of celebrating the Easter solemnities, may have produced in the Eastern and Western Christians an indisposition to receive this book. Schmucker's Biblical Theology, vol. i. p. 122., where various writers are enumerated who have vindicated the genuineness of this Epistle.

3 Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 25.

4 Ibid. lib. iii. c. 8.

seeing the writer in many places pretends to be Peter himself; for it would be noxious on account of its being a forgery, as well as unpardonable in any man to forge another's name, or pretend to be the person he is not.i

[The second Epistle of Peter demands a very particular attention, because it must at once be admitted that the quantity of evidence in its favour, in the early centuries, is less than that which we possess with regard to any of the other writings of the New Testament. This resulted in part from its having been but little known.

"The Catholic Epistles were not formed into a collected volume at an early period: they were only known and used individually. Two only of these writings stand in Eusebius's catalogue of books universally acknowledged.

And thus it was a considerable time before these seven writings passed as a whole from the condition of individual use and acknowledgment into the sphere of recognised church use. And even of those two of the Catholic Epistles which were universally acknowledged, we find that the first Epistle of Peter was in some regions but little used. Nothing can be more certain than the manner in which it was acknowledged by Tertullian; and yet in the writings of the African presbyter, we find but once a passage quoted from it: had we not this one portion of his works, we might have judged either that he did not know of that Epistle, or that he did not own its authority. So little can we, in the case of the Catholic Epistles, argue from the silence of some writers of the first three centuries.

Origen, in the former part of the third century, mentions definitely that such an Epistle as the second of Peter was known, but still he mentions that it was doubted by some (ἔστω δὲ καὶ δευτέραν· ἀμφιBáλλeraι yáp. Ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 25.). In the same age, Firmilianus, bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia, in writing to Cyprian of Carthage, accuses the bishop of Rome of "abusing the holy apostles Peter and Paul, who in their Epistles have execrated heretics, and admonished us to avoid them." ("Adhuc infamans Petrum et Paulum beatos apostolos, quasi hoc ipsi tradiderint: qui in epistolis suis hæreticos execrati sunt, et ut eos evitemus, monuerunt." Epist. Cypr. 75.) It is this Epistle alone that can be intended in connection with the name of Peter. Now the second of Peter professes to be addressed to the same persons to whom the first had been. (chap. iii. 1.) One of the countries mentioned in the salutation of the former is Cappadocia, and to that very region did Firmilianus belong. We thus get, in the third century, our decisive testimony as to this Epistle, from the very region where it ought to have been best known, the part to which we should most naturally turn in search of

conclusive evidence.

We learn from Eusebius, that Clement of Alexandria commented on the Catholic Epistles, both those which were universally owned, and those that were opposed by some: hence, it seems probable that he was acquainted with this Epistle, since this is one to which by

Clerici, Hist. Eccl. p. 442. note.

2 Tregelles's

"Historic Evidence." p. 54.

that expression Eusebius was accustomed to allude. It belongs, of necessity, to an age prior to that of Firmilianus and Origen, and thus it must have been in circulation in the time of Clement of Alexandria.

There are, in the extant works of still earlier writers, such coincidences of expression and thought as seem to exhibit an acquaintance with this Epistle; and indirect as these testimonies may seem, it must be borne in mind that a Christian teacher who uses the statements of a writing claiming to be authoritative, so far shows that he admits and enforces that claim.

Clement of Rome (1 Cor. xi.) thus writes: :- "On account of hospitality and godliness, Lot was delivered out of Sodom, when all the region round about was condemned with fire and brimstone. The Lord made it manifest that He doth not forsake those who trust in Him; but those who turn to other ways, He appoints to punishment." Let this, as to the connection of words and thoughts, be compared with 2 Pet. ii. 6-9.: "Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; and delivered just Lot.... The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." It certainly looks as if the one passage were in the mind of the writer of the other.

In 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16. the writer speaks of Paul and his Epistles, which he wrote according to the wisdom given to him; in the Epistle of Polycarp (ch. iii.) there is a passage in which the words and thoughts seem to be moulded on what is there found. 2 Pet. Καθὼς καὶ ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος κατὰ τὴν δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ σοφίαν ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν, ὡς καὶ ἐν πασαῖς ἐπιστολαῖς λαλῶν κ. τ. λ. Polyc. Οὔτε γὰρ ἐγὼ οὔτε ἄλλος ὅμοιος ἐμοὶ δύναται κατακολουθῆσαι τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου καὶ ἐνδόξου Παύλου· ὃς γενόμενος, ἐν ὑμῖν κατὰ πρόσωπον τῶν τότε ἀνθρώπων ἐδίδαξεν. . . ὃς καὶ ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολάς κ.τ.λ. It looks as though Polycarp alluded to something well known as a statement, and this is found in this Epistle alone.1

Irenæus, in the latter part of the second century, uses an expression about St. Peter, which in this Epistle he employs with regard to himself. 2 Pet. i. 15. σπουδάσω δὲ καὶ ἑκάστοτε ἔχειν ὑμᾶς μετὰ τὴν ἐμὴν ἔξοδον τὴν τούτων μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι. Irenæus (C. H. iii. 1.) after speaking of the preaching of Peter and Paul, adds, μerà de Tην TOUTWV Codov; Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, wrote down the things which he had taught. If this be a mere coincidence,

[It is right to add, that the Rev. B. F. Westcott, to whom this seeming connection was pointed out, remarks on it in a foot-note to a passage stating that in the first period of his inquiry respecting the Canon (i. e. up to A. D. 170) “no trace has been found of the existence of the second Epistle of Peter," in the following manner: "One coincidence has been pointed out to me which deserves notice. The language of the well-known reference to St. Paul in Polycarp's Epistle (c. 3.) bears considerable resemblance to the corresponding passage in 2 Pet. iii. 15. (oopía, èrioтoλaí), but in the absence of all other evidence it is impossible to insist on this." (On the Canon of the New Testament, p. 367.) But still each apparent allusion must rest on its own ground, and the evidence furnished by each sepa. rately and by all combinedly, must be considered. We do find single allusions to books which must have been well known.]