Изображения страниц

bears in the inscription the name of the same apostle. For so it begins: “Simon Peter, a servant, and an apostle of Jesus Christ.” And in ch. i. 14, are these words : “ Knowing, that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ has showed 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. From ch. i. 16–18, 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. iii. 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 express. But it might have been argued with some degree of probability from ch. i. 12–15, that he had before written to the same persons. Once more, ch. iii. 15, 16, he calls Paul brother, and otherwise so speaks of him and his epistles, as must needs be reckoned most suitable to an apostle. 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' he, “a good proof of the cautiousness 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 apostles: but also, if any ‘good book affirmed by some men, or by some churches, ‘to have been written and sent by some apostle, were “offered to them, they would not, till fully satisfied 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 some other books to be of that author, to whom ‘they are by tradition ascribed. For they, if they be not “of that apostle, to whom they are imputed, yet may be of “some other apostle, or apostolical man. But this author is ‘either the apostle, or else by setting his name, and by “other circumstances, he does designedly personate him ; ‘which no man of piety and truth would do.’ And then

* Critical Notes upon the N. T. p. 358, 359.

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 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 " this second epistle was written 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 inconsistent with the whole tenor of the epistle itself, or at least with many things in it. As has been well observed by V Vitringa, and has been now shown by us. Jerom, in his article of St. Peter, in his book of Illustrious Men, as already seen, says: “Peter " wrote two epistles, ‘ called catholic : the second of which was by many denied ‘to be his, because of its differing in style from the former.” Of this he speaks likewise in his epistle to Hedibia. Basnage y says, he is not able to discern such difference of style in the two epistles. However, Dr. Sherlock, now bishop of London, has largely treated of this point in his T)issertation 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 this epistle is now ‘ divided, agree in style with the first epistle. The only ‘ difference is in the second chapter, the style of which is * no more like to that of the other two, than it is to that of ‘the first epistle. The occasion of this difference seems to ‘ be this, that in the second chapter there is a description

" Scriptorem autem hujus epistolae arbitror esse Simeonem, episcopum post Jacobi mortem Hierosolymis, ejusdemdue Jacobi, cujus epistolam habemus, successorem et imitatorem, &c. Grot. in 2. ep. S. Petri.

* Verum quâcumque etiam speciese commendet conjectatio hac Grotiana, hactenus animum inducere non potui, ut eam probem. Epistola Petri posterior talis est, ut scripta censeri nequeat ab impostore. Est enim gravis, et sancto viro dignissima. Quod si ita est, certissime Petro erit vindicanda, quia praeter praefationem, non temere rejiciendam, alia per hanc epistolam sparsa sunt, quae personam Petri nobis digito quasi monstrant, ut cap. i. 18. iii. 15. Vitring. Observat. Sacr. l. 4. cap. 9. num. xlii.

" Scripsit duas epistolas, quae catholicæ nominantur: quarum secunda a plerisque ejus esse negatur, propter styli cum priore dissonantiam. De V. I. cap. i. * Habebat ergo Titum interpretem, sicut et beatus Petrus Marcum; cujus evangelium, Petro narrante, et illo scribente, compositum est. Denique et dual epistolæ, qua: feruntur Petri stylo inter se et charactere discrepant, structurâque verborum. Ex quo intelligimus, pro necessitate rerum diversis eum usum interpretibus. Ad Hedib. Qu. xi. T. IV. P. I. p. 183. al. ep. 150. 9 Nos styli discrimen deprehendere non possumus. Neque continet aliquid, quod apostolo sit indignum. Basnag. A. 63. num. iii.

V Q L. V. I. S

‘ 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. Jerom 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 “style would have appeared in the whole, and not in one ‘part of it only : which is the present case. And 1 see no ‘ reason to think that St. Peter did not write both his epis‘tles himself.” This is the account which his Lordship gives of the difference of the style, which all will allow to be ingenious, whether they admit it to be right, or not. For some may think, that * all this difference of style 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 most excellent epistle, as ‘well as the foregoing, and is written with great strength ‘ and majesty.’ Certainly, these epistles, and the discourses of Peter recorded in the Acts, together with the effects of them, are monuments of a divine inspiration, 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. 19. II. Concerning the persons to whom these epistles were sent, there have been different opinions among both ancients and moderns. Eusebius," speaking of St. Peter's first epistle, as universally acknowledged, says: ‘It is inscribed by him to the “Hebrews, “scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappa‘docia, Asia, and Bithynia.” ” They who were desirous to know Jerom's opinion, may consider what is transcribed from him, Vol. iv. ch. cxiv. num. viii. 7. For he does not seem to me to have any settled judgment about

* Concerning this, see more hereafter in the remarks upon St. Jude's epistle, chap. xxi, near the end. * See Vol. iv. p. 99.

the persons to whom Peter wrote. Didymus of Alexandria supposed " St. Peter's first epistle to have been sent to Jews scattered abroad in several countries; to the same purpose (Ecumenius, not only in his argument of the epistle, referred to by me" formerly, but also in his commentary " upon the beginning of the epistle. 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" in his Prolegomena. Cave says, St. Peter's two epistles were written chiefly to Jewish christians. Tillemont, speaking of the first epistle, says it ś is addressed particularly to the converted Jews in those countries, but it speaks also to the Gentiles, 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 Gentiles: as " the author of the Calling of the Gentiles, by some supposed to be Prosper of Aquitain : the author of the Divine Promises and Predictions," Junilius, Cassiodorius in one place speaks of Peter's writing to the Gentiles, in another" to believing Jews. Augustime has twice said, that " Peter wrote to Gentiles. In like manner another author 9 in a sermon joined with his works, who may be supposed to have been his disciple. Gregory, P the first bishop of Rome, expresseth himself as if he thought that St. Peter's epistles were sent to all christians in general, both Jews and Gentiles, in the countries mentioned at the beginning of the first epistle. Bede, in his prologue to the seven catholic epistles, largely cited by us formerly, says, that's St. Peter's epistles were sent to such as had been proselyted from gentilism to judaism, and after that were converted to the christian religion. He speaks again to the like purpose at the beginning of his Exposition of St. Peter's first epistle. But the Greek

to P. 303. c P. 156. * Totc ex repuroping oirog striott, &c & Hakaptoc Iakw80c axN skewoc atoptrog tract rotg titro rmv ourceptevny karoukovou, Isèatouc Tračmotors ovow. Oürog 8s apoptopsvog roug k\pact IIovre, k. A. CEcum. T. ii. p. 482. C. D. ° Num. 60. * Reliquit postse epistolas duas, Judaeis christianis praecipue inscriptas. H. L. T. I. p. 5. * Il l'addresse particulièrement aux Juifs convertis dans toutes ces provinces, quoigu'elle, parle aussi aux Gentils qui avoient embrassé la foi. S.

Pierre art. 33. Mem. T. I. * Vol. v. p. 38.
i P. 39. k P. 107. | P. 111.
m P. 113. " Vol. iv. p. 510. ° The same,
P Vol. v. p. 130. 2 q P. 145.

word, rendered by us “strangers,” is not equivalent to proselytes: as was observed long ago by OEcumenius upon the place, and since by * Basmage. Mr. Wetstein argues from divers texts, that ‘ the first epistle was sent to Gentiles. Mr. Hallet in his learned Introduction to the epistle 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 Gentile ‘ christians, 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. Basnage supposed that " St. Peter's epistles were written to Jews and Gentiles, chiefly the former. To me it seems, that St. Peter's epistles were sent to all christians in general, Jews and Gentiles, living in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia: the greatest part of whom must have been converted by Paul, and had

* >muatvst 3s ro ovoua ow ravrov rp irpoonAvrp, c. A. CEcum. Vol. II. p. . D. * Fallitur egregie Beda.--—A quâ se sententiá revocasset, si vocem a Petro adhibitam, striðmuog, attendisset, quá religionis proselytus nunquam designatur. Basn. ann. 57. m. iv. * Ad eos, quiex Gentibus electi sunt, ut Christo et veritati obedirent. Cap. i. 8, 18, 21, 22. ii. 10. iv. 3. Wetsten. N. T. tom. II. p. 681. * See his introduction, p. 23–25. * “This epistle of St. Peter,’ says he, “was written to the strangers scattered ‘through several parts of the Lesser Asia. And it is plain, that he meant by “ them Gentiles 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 whose salvation the prophets inquired, who prophe“sied of the grace that should come unto them,” ch. i. ver. 10; such, “for * whom Christ was manifested in these last times,” ver. 20; such as were Xaog “sic Tspitroumov, an acquired people, who had not obtained mercy, ch. ii. 9, * 10; “as sheep going astray, but now returned,” ver, 25; as men, “who in ‘the time past of their life had wrought the will of the Gentiles,” iv. 3." These are marks sufficient to describe the people to whom St. Peter wrote. —The Gentiles were “now begotten in Christ to a lively hope.” They were become now what Jews formerly were, “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people,” &c. The Scripture Doctrine of the Redemption of Man by Jesus Christ, ch. iii. Sect. 252. p. 62, 63; see likewise ch. v. num. 832. p. 306, 307. " Ut nostra fert opinio, ad utrosque scripta est, praecipue tamen ad Judaeos, quisub apostolatum Petri ceciderant. Ad gentes quoque epistolam scriptam fuisse, ex his explorate percipitur: “Qui quondam eratis non populus, nunc estis populus Dei,' 1 ep. ii. 10. Quae Ethnicorum praecipue sunt. Praeterea Ethnicorum idolatria his perstringitur: ‘Incessimus in nefariis idolorum cultibus, iv. 3. Basn. ann. 57. num. iv.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »