lefs exposed to the importunities of the Jewish zealots, who maintained, that no man could be faved without the observance of the Levitical law. Now these exhortations and affurances could come from no one with greater propriety than from St. Peter, who was the first, that made a Chriftian convert of an uncircumcifed Jewish profelyte P, and at the Apoftolic council in Jerufalem, where he defended the rights of the heathens, had alleged this converfion as a proof, that the uncircumcifed, as well as the circumcised, were entitled to divine favour 9.

The motive, which induced St. Peter to write to Jewish profelytes, then become converts to Chriftianity, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Afia, and Bithynia, it is difficult at prefent to affign, because we have not fufficient hiftorical data. Perhaps Sylvanus, who carried this Epistle, had occafion to travel through these countries, and St. Peter embraced this opportunity of writing to the Chriftians, who refided in thofe places, through which Silvanus's route would lead him. If this fuppofition be true, the reason is obvious, why St. Peter first mentions Pontus. For this was the first Grecian colony, in which Sylvanus arrived, after he had left St. Peter in Babylon; for in Mefopotamia, through which he had to travel in his way to Pontus, Syriac was the common language, and therefore a Greek Epiftle would have been of no use to the Mefopotamian Chriftians.

Cornelius, Acts x.

• Acts xv. 7, 8, 9.

SECT. II.

Before St. Peter wrote this Epiftle, he appears to have read St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans.

COMPARISON of 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14. with Rom. xiii. 1-5. will fhew, either that St. Peter had read St. Paul's Epiftle to the Romans, or St. Paul the first Epistle of St. Peter.

ACOMPARISON will

St. Paul fays, Rom. xiii. 1. wasa Jux Exciα15 TEGεχεσαις ὑποτασσεσθω. The expreffion εξεσίαις υπερεχεσαις is in general falfely understood, being ufually tranflated higher powers,' as if inferior powers, or inferior magiftrates had not likewife a right to command obedience, But this was certainly not St. Paul's meaning; and I have no doubt, that he used Ex in the fenfe of protego,' and that he intended to exprefs, Let every man be obedient to the power, which protects him.' Now this is a rule, which is founded on equity, and is univerfally applicable, whether that power had been acquired juftly or unjustly, Obedience and protection are reciprocal: and as long as we enjoy the latter, we are bound to perform the former. Even in the cafe of conqueft, the conqueror, as long as he protects us, has a right to command our obedience: and we muft either quit the country, or submit to his laws. The fame equitable rule, though not ufually found in fyftems of morality, is given by St. Peter, ch. ii. 13. ὑποταγητε βασιλεί, ὡς ὑπερεχοντι. Further, St. Paul fays, Rom. xiii. 3. where he speaks of the authority of magiftrates, το αγαθόν ποιεί, και έξεις επαινον εξ αυτής : and

in

When regix fignifies protego,' fome fuch word as digian or Ar is understood. The former is fupplied by Jofephus, Antiquit, VI. 2. 2. παρακαλει τον θεον, ὑπερεχειν αυτών την δεξιαν εν τη προς Παλαίτινες μαχη

in like manner St. Peter, ch. ii. 14. describes magiftrates as being conftituted, s εις επαινον αγαθοποιων. This is likewife an agreement in an affertion, which, though perfectly true, is not common: for magiftrates do not ufually beftow commendations, but fimply acquit or condemn, and the greatest praife, which a man can have in this refpect is, never to have appeared before them. Laftly, St. Paul, Rom. xiii. 4. defcribes a magiftrate as being εκδικος εις οργην τῷ το κακον πράσσοντι : St. Peter, ch. ii. 14. fays of the fame, that he is appointed εις εκδίκησιν κακοποιων

This remarkable agreement, in the compafs of two verfes, affords fufficient proof, that either St. Peter had read St. Paul's Epiftle to the Romans, or St. Paul the first Epistle of St. Peter. But the latter is not probable, because St. Paul's writings fo abound with original thoughts, that he hardly derived any of his materials from St. Peter. I conclude therefore, that the former is true: and this conclufion is confirmed by what St. Peter fays in his fecond Epiftle, ch. iii. 15, 16. where he speaks of the contents of St. Paul's Epiftles in general. Further, St. Peter's ftyle, though it has many peculiarities, comes nearer to the ftyle of St. Paul, than that of any other writer of the New TeftaNow no one can fuppofe, that the writings

ment.

of

There are other inftances of agreement between the Epistle to the Romans and the first Epistle of St. Peter, though they are not fo decifive as the preceding. St. Peter, ch. i. 21. tpeaks of faith, as being a belief, that God raised Chrift from the dead:" and the fame explanation is given by St. Paul, Rom. iv. 24. x. 9. St. Paul defcribes at large, Rom. vi. the nature and effects of baptifm, and fhews, that we obtain by it a participation of the benefits of Chrift's refurrection and St. Peter alio fays, though in more concife terms, ch. iii. 20. that baptifm faves us through the refurrection of Chrift. What St. Peter fays, ch. iv. 10, 11. is the fame as what St. Paul fays more tully, Rom. xii. 3-8. The following paffages may likewise be compared, 1 Pet. i. 2. 14. 22. with Rom. i. 5. vi. 16.-1 Pet. i. 7. with Rom. ii. 6.-1 Pet. i. 14. with Rom. xii. 2.-1 Pet. i. 18, with Rom, i. 11.-and 1 Pet. ii. 2. Ayxor with Rom, xii. 1.

of St. Peter had any influence on the Greek ftyle of a man, who was born at Tarfus: but the reverse of this fuppofition is not at all improbable.

SECT. III.

Of the time, when this Epiftle was written.

F St. Peter, as I have endeavoured to fhew in the preceding fection, had read St. Paul's Epiftle to the Romans before he wrote his first Epistle, it was written after St. Paul's journey from Corinth to Jerufalem, described in Acts xx. xxi. for the Epiftle to the Romans was written from Corinth. How much later than the time of this journey the firit Epiftle of St. Peter was written, it is very difficult, for want of fufficient data, to determine. The Epistle itself has hardly any marks, which can guide us in deciding the year of its compofition; and we know nothing of the hiftory of St. Peter from the time of the Apoftolic council in Jerufalem, Acts xv. which is the laft place, where St. Luke mentions him, till his arrival many years afterwards in Rome, where, according to the accounts of ecclefiaftical writers, he fuffered martyrdom. However, a comparison of the first with the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter will enable us to form at least an opinion on this fubject. St. Peter fays in his fecond Epiftle, ch. iii. 1. Tauтny ηδη, αγαπητοι, δευτεραν ύμιν γραφω επιςολήν, whence we may conclude, that his firft Epiftle was written to the fame perfons as the fecond. But if the fecond Epiftle was written fifteen or twenty years after the first, they, who received the one, were not the fame perfons, as they, who received the other; and we might rather expect, that in this cafe. St. Peter would have called

his

his firft Epiftle, an Epiftle, which he had written to their fathers. It appears then, that the interval between the dates of the two Epiftles could not have been very great; and, as the fecond Epiftle was written fhortly before St. Peter's death', we may infer, that the first Epistle was written, either not long before, or not long after, the year 60.

I was formerly of opinion, that this Epiftle was written much earlier; but as I now perceive, that the arguments, on which I grounded it, are erroneous, I think it my duty to point out their weakness, left others fhould fall into the fame mistake. I supposed, that this Epistle was written about the time of the Apoftolic council in Jerufalem, mentioned in Acts xv. for the two following reasons: first, because both this Epistle was written, and that council was held with the fame view, namely, to calm the uneafinefs of the uncircumcifed and fecondly, because Silas, who was one of the perfons, which carried to Antioch the decree of the Apoftolic council", is fuppofed to be the fame as Silvanus, who carried the firft Epiftle of St. Peter" to the Christians in Pontus, Cappadocia, &c. But these reafons are unfatisfactory. For St. Peter dates his Epiftle from Babylon, and therefore we cannot fuppofe, that it was written at Jerufalem, without afcribing to the word Babylon a myftical fenfe, of which it is hardly capable. Befides, even if it be granted, that Silas and Silvanus are one and the fame perfon, yet Silas could not have taken with him St. Peter's firft Epiftle at the time, when he carried from Jerufalem the decree of the Apoftolic council. For when he carried St. Peter's first Epiftle, his route was through Pontus, Cappadocia, Galatia, Afia, and Bithynia: but when Silas went from Jerufalem with the decree of the Apoftolic council, he went first to Antioch, where he ftaid fome time, and then

* See 2 Pet. i. 13, 14, 15. ■ Pet. v. 12.

• Afts xv. 23.27.32.

* 1 Pet. v. 13.