nature, not yet thoroughly penetrated by the Divine, might still at times disturb and mar his exertions by its peculiar failings, yet the power of the divine principle of life within him, his love and fidelity to the Lord, were too great to be repressed by those corrupt tendencies, when the essential interests of the kingdom of God were at stake. The effect sudden impressions is shown in his conduct at Antioch (ante, p. 210), but the subsequent history proves that, although Peter might be hurried by the power of a sudden impression to act in a way which involved a practical denial of principles which he had formerly avowed, yet he could not be seduced to be permanently unfaithful to these principles in his capacity of Christian teacher, and so to lay the foundation of a lasting opposition to Paul. On the contrary, he willingly allowed himself to be set right by Paul, and, for the future, continued firmly united to him in the bond of apostolic fellowship.'

From Peter's ardent zeal, and from what we know of his successful efforts for spreading the kingdom of God till the conversion of Cornelius, we may infer that, during that period

1 We can by no means agree in the opinion expressed by a distinguished young theologian, Professor Elevert of Zurich, in his Essay on Inspiration in the Studien der evangelischen Geistlichkeit Würtembergs, vol. iii. p. 72, that the old distinction for securing the idea of inspiration between vitium conversationis and error doctrinæ is wholly untenable, and therefore, the possibility of a mixture of error in the teaching of the apostles must be allowed. When Peter, in consequence of a sudden over-hastiness or weakness, suffered himself to be misled in reference to his Jewish fellow-believers, and to act in a manner which corresponded rather to the prejudices of others, than to his own better views, such a sudden practical error by no means justifies us in the conclusion, that his own knowledge of Christian truth had been eclipsed, and that his sounder views had entirely vanished. The most we could infer would be, that at this instant, when overpowered by impressions from without, he had no clear perception of the principles on which he was acting. Had he indeed not repented of this sudden false step arising from the fear of man,-had he hardened himself in this moral delinquency, a permanent obscuration of Christian consciousness must have been the consequence, and, as the history of many similar instances of backsliding exemplifies, a practical denial of the truth would have been followed by a theoretical one; but this could never come to pass in an individual in whom the spirit of Christ had attained such a preponderance over the selfish principle. And thus we are not at liberty to suppose, that Peter allowed the act into which he had been hurried by the power of a sudden temptation, to establish itself in his teaching, and so far to prevent or obscure his perception of Christian truth.

1

of his life respecting which we have no information, he extended still further the circle of his operations for the propagation of the gospel. As he is not mentioned in the Acts later than the account of the deliberations at Jerusalem recorded in the 15th chapter, it seems probable that the scene of his subsequent labours lay at a distance from that city. According to an ancient tradition,' Peter published the gospel to the Jews scattered through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. But this account has most probably been derived only from a misunderstanding of the superscription of his first epistle.3 This epistle of Peter leads us rather to suppose, that the scene of his labours was in the Parthian empire, for as he sends salutations from his wife in Babylon,* this naturally supports the conclusion, that he himself was in that neighbourhood. And in itself, it is by no means improbable that Peter, whose ministrations related particularly to the descendants of the Jews, betook himself to a region where so many Jews were scattered; and what we know of the early spread of Christianity in those parts, serves to confirm the opinion. Yet the fact that Peter exercised his ministry at a late period in the countries composing the Parthian empire, by no means renders it impossible that he laboured earlier in Lesser Asia. Still it contradicts this supposition that, in the Pauline epistles, in which a fair opportunity was given to touch upon such a relation, we find no trace of Peter's residing in the circle of Paul's labours; this, however, we do not adduce as perfectly decisive evidence. But we must attach

greater weight to the fact, that, in this epistle of Peter, there is no reference to his own earlier presence among the churches to whom it is addressed, though the object of this epistle must have especially required him to remind them of what they had heard from his own lips.

1 What Paul says in 1 Cor. ix. 5, of the travels of the apostles, and of Peter's taking his wife with him, agrees with 1 Peter v. 13.

2 See Origen, t. iii. in Genes. Eusebius, iii.

3 Origen's expression is very doubtful; keкnpuxévaι čolkev.

By a most unnatural interpretation, this has been supposed to mean an inconsiderable town in Egypt, a goúgiov égvμvòv at that time, Strabo, xvii. 1, although this small town existed as late as the fifth century; see Hist. Lausiac. c. 25. The opinion of the ancients is perfectly arbitrary, that, under this name, Rome was meant; and there is nothing against our supposing that an inhabited portion of the immense Babylon was still left.

It appears then, that, after Peter had found a suitable field of exertion in the Parthian empire, he wrote to the churches founded by Paul and his assistants in Asia, an epistle, which is the only memorial preserved to us of his later labours. All the marks of its date unite in placing it in the last part of the apostolic age, in the period subsequent to Paul's first confinement. We find Silvanus, one of Paul's early fellow-labourers, in direct communication with Peter, which agrees very well with our never meeting with the former as Paul's companion after his last journey to Jerusalem. The Christian churches to whom the epistle is directed, appear to us exposed to such persecutions as first arose about this period. The Christians were now persecuted as Christians, and according to those popular opinions of which Nero took advantage, were looked upon and treated as "evil-doers," (KaкоTOLOì, malefici). By the seriousness and strictness of their daily conduct, and their withdrawal from the public shows and other licentious amusements, they rendered themselves obnoxious to the hatred of the heathen populace; 1 Peter iv. 4, 5; and if we reflect on the circumstances in which these churches were placed during Paul's first confinement, the design of the epistle will at once be apparent. As these churches had to combat with persecutions from without, so they were internally disturbed by those heretical tendencies of which we have spoken in a former chapter. Since the propagators of these errors accused Paul of falsifying the original Christian doctrine, and had appealed to the authority of the elder apostles in behalf of the continued obligation of the Mosaic law, Peter availed himself of the opportunity for addressing these churches, in order to establish them in the conviction, that the doctrine announced to them by Paul and his disciples and companions, of whom Silvanus was one, was genuine Christianity. These churches consisted for the most part of those who had been previously heathens, for such, in several passages, he supposes his readers to be; ii. 10; iv. 3. The superscription of the epistle is not inconsistent with this fact; for as Peter, by his training and peculiar sphere of labour, was apt to develop Christian truths in Old Testament images and comparisons, he transferred the name of diaσñoрà to the true church of God scattered among the heathen.

In reference to the internal and external circumstances of

the churches, the object of this hortatory composition is twofold; partly to ground them more firmly in the consciousness, that the source of happiness and the foundation of the everlasting kingdom of God was contained in that faith in the Redeemer which had been announced to them and received by them into their hearts,—that the doctrine announced to them was indeed the everlasting, unchangeable word of God, and hence they were to aim at appropriating, with child-like simplicity, the pure simple doctrine of the gospel delivered to them from the beginning, and thus continually advance to Christian maturity; and partly it was the apostle's design to exhort them to maintain their steadfastness in the faith under all persecutions, and a corresponding course of conduct by which they would shine forth in the midst of the corrupt heathen world, and refute the false accusations against Christianity and its professors.

Both these objects are pointed out by the apostle at the close of the epistle, when he says, "The faithful brother Silvanus is the bearer to you of this a short epistle considering what I would gladly say to you, and which I have written for your encouragement, and to testify that it is the true grace of God, in the firm possession of which you stand by faith." The unassuming manner in which the writer of

1 Grace, the grace of redemption, a description of the whole contents of the gospel.

2 The words may be certainly taken to mean, that Silvanus was the writer of the epistle, dictated by Peter, either in Aramaic or Greek; but in this case, a salutation from Silvanus would probably have been added, especially since he must have been well known to these churches. The possibility of the interpretation which I have adopted, is evident from the phraseology which is adopted in the subscriptions of the Pauline epistles; and the use of the aorist, eygaya allowing for the epistolary style of the ancients, can prove nothing against it. It also shows at once the design of the commendatory epithet, "a faithful brother." The words &s λoyisoμai, may indeed relate to what goes before, for this verb is used by Paul in Rom. viii. 18; Rom. iii. 28; 2 Cor. xi. 5, to denote a subjective conviction, without the accessory idea of any uncertainty in holding it. Peter might also wish to mark the subjective of his own judgment, for it was precisely the peculiar authority of Peter, to which many opposers of the Pauline school appealed. But if λovicoua is referred to what follows, it is equally a mark of subjective judgment or feeling. That which he wrote was to Peter, in relation to what he had in his heart to say to the churches, only a little. Yet had he intended to express that sentiment, he would rather have said δι ̓ ὀλίγων ὡς λογίζομαι.

this epistle calls himself simply an eye-witness of the sufferings of Christ, and represents himself to the presbyters of the churches to whom it is addressed, as one of their number, one of the number of Christian overseers, bears with it the impress of the apostolic spirit.

But such marks of genuine apostolic origin and character are by no means visible in the second epistle extant under Peter's name; many traces of a contrary kind are to be found in it, many marks of its apocryphal origin; and as it is slightly supported by external evidence, we have made no use of it as a source of information for the biography of the apostle.'

1 The principal marks of the spuriousness of this epistle, are the difference of the whole character and style compared with the first, and the use here made of the epistle of Jude, which is partly copied and partly imitated. The author assumes, that he is writing to the same churches as those to whom the First Epistle of Peter is addressed, and yet what he says of his relation to his readers, is at variance with that assumption, for, according to the Second Epistle, they must have been persons who had been personally instructed by the apostle Peter, and with whom he stood in a close personal connexion, yet this was a relation in which the churches to whom the First Epistle was addressed could not stand. The solicitude with which he endeavours to make himself known as the apostle Peter, betrays an apocryphal writer. The allusion to the words of Christ, John xxi. 18, in i. 14, is brought forward in an unsuitable manner. In order to distinguish himself as a credible witness of the life of Christ, he appeals to the phenomena at the transfiguration. But it certainly is not natural to suppose that one of the apostles should select and bring forward from the whole life of Christ, of which they had been eye-witnesses, this insulated fact, which was less essentially connected with that which was the central point and object of his appearance; the apostles were rather accustomed to claim credit as witnesses of the sufferings and resurrection of Christ. Also the designation of the mountain on which the transfiguration occurred as "the holy mount," betrays a later origin, since we cannot suppose that the mountain usually so denominated, Mount Zion, was intended. Among the circumstances that excite suspicion, is the manner in which the same false teachers, who, in the Epistle of Jude, are described as actually existing, are here represented with prophetic warning, as about to appear. The doubts respecting the second coming of Christ, occasioned by the expectation of the occurrence of that event, in the first age of the church, and the disappointment of that expectation, leads us to recognise a later period. What is said of the origin of the world from water, and its destruction by fire, does not correspond to the simplicity and practical spirit of the apostolic doctrine, but rather indicates the spirit of a later age, mingling much that was foreign with the religious interest. The mode of citing the Pauline epistles, confirms also the suspicion against the genuineness of this epistle. A passage from Rom. ii. 4, is cited in iii. 15, as if this epistle were