66

" which salvation the prophets have inquired, and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come " unto you"."

66

66

Had the man who wrote this, or had he not, I ask, associated with the divine Person, who in the Gospel of St. Matthew is reported to have thus expressed himself: "For

66

verily I say unto you, that many prophets "and righteous men have desired to see "those things which ye see, and have not

66

66

seen them, and to hear those things which

ye hear, and have not heard them "?" Again, in the historical works of the New Testament we find our Saviour thus speaking on the subject of Jewish traditions: "In vain do they worship me, "teaching for doctrines the commandments

66

66

of men: for, laying aside the command"ment of God, ye hold the tradition of men." And in this Epistle of St. Peter we read the following passage: "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed

66

m 1 Pet. i. 9, 10.

n St. Matt. xiii. 17.

• St. Mark vii. 7, 8.

L

"with corruptible things, as silver and gold, "from your vain conversation received by "tradition from your fathers, but with the "precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb "without blemish and without spot "." I think it clear, therefore, that the Jewish converts were the persons particularly addressed, but addressed in terms which equally interest the Christians of every age and nation, as the ten commandments, which were first given to the Jews, are equally binding on all Christian people.

you

I touch but one point more contained in this Epistle: "The Church that is at Babylon, "elected together with you, saluteth q" It is contended by the adherents of papal supremacy, that as ancient Babylon was then a ruin, some other great and idolatrous city, which the writer dared not name, must have been meant; Rome, for example: therefore we have Scripture authority at least for Peter's presence at Rome. No, we answer; the whole is invention and supposition, without reason or probability.

P 1 Pet. i. 18, 19.

1 Pet. v. 13.

Is it credible that the writer would have introduced so unimportant a circumstance as a mere Christian salutation, and have shrouded it in fiction, danger being consequent on the declaration of the open truth? St. Paul has no such fear. He, when writing from Rome to the Philippians, says: "All "the saints salute you, chiefly they that are "of Cæsar's household'." Nor was either the Asiatic Babylon so desolate at the time of the Apostles as to be without inhabitants, and more particularly Jewish converts, or the Asiatic Babylon the only town of that name from whence St. Peter might have written his Epistle'.

r Phil. iv. 22.

For the Egyptian Babylon, see Ptol. Lib. iv. and Strabo, Lib. xvii. Pliny, and Stephanus Byzantinus. The Asiatic Babylon might have possessed a considerable population according to the account of Strabo. It declined after the building of Seleucia, and the latter became the chief city; so that to the ancient Babylon might be applied the words of a comic poet, spoken of Megalopolis in Arcadia:

Ερημία μεγάλη ἐστὶν ἡ Μεγάλη πόλις *.

But Josephus speaks of the Asiatic Babylon as containing * Strabo, Lib. xvi. p. 738. sub fin.

The address of the second Epistle, to which I now proceed, is much more comprehensive than that of the first, and, therefore, much more congenial to the great Apostle's mind at the closing scene of life: "Simon Peter, a servant and an Apostle of "Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained "like precious faith with us," that is, to converts of every race and country, “grace "and peace be multiplied." There are, however, some peculiarities with respect to this Epistle of which I must not omit the mention. There was an early period of the Church, antecedent to the fourth century, during which it was not everywhere received as canonical, nor was it universally ascribed to St. Peter. The propositions, however, which I have stated, must be understood in their strictest and most literal sense. When it is said that the Epistle was not everywhere received, it is of course meant that it was very generally received: and with re

many Jews in the time of Herod". From hence, therefore, it is most probable that the Epistle of St. Peter was dated.

Lib. xv. c. 2.

spect to the second proposition, it must be observed, that they who did not ascribe the Epistle to St. Peter ascribed it to some one of Apostolic authority; and on account of its utility it was by them read and studied *.

At its first appearance there was no doubt either that it was of Apostolic origin and authority, or that St. Peter was the author; for a writer coeval with the Apostles frequently" alludes to it in the portion of his works which still remains. That writer, whom I have before cited, is thus mentioned by

Irenæus and Eusebius: the words of the latter are: μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐσπουδάσθη γραφών *. This writer, who, according to Cave, finished his history A.D. 325, only gives it as hearsay, that some had not esteemed the second Epistle of St. Peter canonical: τὴν δὲ φερομένην αὐτοῦ δευτέραν οὐκ ἐνδιάθηκον μὲν εἶναι παρειλήφαμεν. For the word ἐνδιάθηκον, see Suicer.

"Four times. The use of the verb κρívш in 2 Pet. ii. 6. seems to confirm the common reading retained by Wotton in his edition of St. Clement, who is speaking of the same event, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, τñç περιχώρου πάσης κριθείσης διὰ πυρὸς καὶ θείου †.

* Lib. iii. c. 3.

† St. Clem. c. 11.