the maffacre in Seleucia, fuch of them, as were on good terms with the heathen inhabitants, did not return again to Babylonia. At any rate this, account of Jofephus clearly thews, that even after the maffacre, the number of Jews in this country was very confiderable: and fo far from proving what Pearfon afferts, that there were no Jews remaining in the province of Babylonia, when St. Peter wrote, it proves the very reverfe. Befides, as St. Peter, at least according to my calculation, wrote his first Epiftle twenty years after this maffacre, the Jewish population in Babylonia, however greatly it might have fuffered, muft, in the mean time, have acquired an augmentation. Laftiy, it must be obferved that in this whole hiftory, no mention whatever is made of any misfortunes, which befel the Jews in the city of Babylon on the Euphrates: and therefore the opinion, that St. Peter wrote his firft Epiftle there, would not be affected, even if it could be fhewn, that the Jews in Seleucia, Ctefiphon, Nifibis, and Nehardea were wholly extirpated.

The fecond argument in favour of a myftical interpretation of the word Babylon, is, that almost all the ancient fathers have explained it in this manner, and have afferted that St. Peter used it, to denote Rome. But we must recollect, that an affertion of this kind, is not teftimony to a fact, but mere matter of opinion, in which the ancients were as liable to mistake, as we are. Nor is it true, that all the ancient ecclefiaftical writers have ascribed to the word Babylon a mystical meaning: for though the Greek and Latin fathers commonly understand Rome, yet the Syriac and Arabic writers understand it literally, as denoting a town in the Eaft. And, if we are to be guided by opinion, an oriental writer is furely as good authority on the prefent queftion, as an European.

The third objection, on which Lardner particularly infifts, is, that in the accounts, which we have on record relative to St. Peter's hiftory, no mention is made of a journey to Babylon. Now this argument would prove nothing, even if our knowledge of St. Peter's life and VOL. IV. transactions

Y

tranfactions were more perfect than it really is. Let us fuppofe an inftance of fome eminent man in modern times, in the hiftory of whofe life no mention is made, that during his travels he paid a vifit to Vienna: but that among his letters to his friends, one of them, notwithstanding the filence of his biographer, is dated from Vienna. In this cafe, unless we had reafon to fuppofe, either that the whole Epiftle was a forgery, or that the author had used a falfe date, we fhould immediately conclude on the bare authority of this fingle Epiftle, that he had actually been at Vienna; and we fhould hardly think of a myftical or fpiritual Vienna. Lardner himself has argued in this very manner, with respect to St. Paul, though St. Paul's history is infinitely better known, than that of St. Peter: and has inferred from the fingle paffage, Tit. i. 5. for this caufe left I thee in Crete,' that Sr. Paul made a voyage to Crete in the year 56, though this voyage is mentioned neither by St. Luke, nor by any other hiftorian. No reafon therefore can be affigned why we should refufe to argue in the fame manner, with respect to St. Peter. In fact, Lardner's argument could no where have been more unfortunately applied, than in the prefent inftance. From the time of the Apostolic council at Jerufalem', in the year 49, at which St Peter was prefent, till the time of his arrival in Rome, which Lardner acknowledges was not before 63, there is an interval of fourteen years, during which we have no hiftory of him what foever". How then can we form a judgement of his tranfactions during this period, except from his own writings? And how can the filence of history in respect to his journey to Babylon afford an argument that he never was there, in contradiction to

his

Acts xv. After this chapter, the name of St. Peter does not once occur in the Acts of the Apoitles.

་

Lardner himself fays, in his Supplement, Vol. III. Ch. xviii. Sect. 4. we have no where any very diftin&t account of this Apoftle's travels. And foon afterwards he fays, The books of the New Teftament afford no light for determining, where St. Peter was for feveral years after that."

1

his own Epiftle, when the real fact is, we have no history. at all of St. Peter during this period? We cannot therefore talk of its filence in respect to any one particular tranfaction, fince every tranfaction of St. Peter throughout the whole of this interval is left unrecorded. Lardner indeed conjectures, as the Epiftle is addreffed to the inhabitants of Pontus, Galatia, &c. that St. Peter spent a part of this time in thefe countries, though he denies that St. Peter ever was in Babylon, whence the Epiftle is dated. Now this mode of arguing is nearly the fame, as if I concluded from a letter dated from Vienna, and addreffed to a perfon in Venice, that the writer of that letter had been in Venice, but not, that he ever was at Vienna. Lardner fuppofes alfo, that St. Peter spent a part of this time in Jerufalem. Now it is impoffible for us to determine, what ftay St. Peter made in Jerufalem after the holding of the Apoftolic council, or whether he remained at all there. But this I think is certain, that he was not at Jerufalem, when St. Paul returned thither for the last time, fince St. Luke makes particular mention of St. James, and defcribes him as the head of the Christian community in Jerufalem, but fays nothing of St. Peter, whom he would hardly have paffed over in total filence, if St. Peter had been there. Now St. Paul's laft vifit to Jerufalem happened in the year 60: and fince I' have fhewn in the third fection of this chapter, that the first Epiftle of St. Peter was written about this time, it is not at all improbable, that St. Peter, who was abfent from Jerufalem, was then engaged in preaching the Gospel to the Babylonians.

The laft argument in favour of the opinion that the Babylon, where St. Peter wrote, was not Babylon properly fo called, is derived from ch. ii. 13. where St. Peter commands obedience to the king,' and from ch. ii. 17. where he fays, honour the king.' Hence Lardner concludes,

Acts xxii. xxiii.

Supplement, Vol. III. Ch. xix. § 3. n. 3. This argument is

peculiar to Lardner.

concludes, that St. Peter muft have written in a place, which was fubject to the fame king or emperor, as the people to which he fent his Epiftle. But these were fubject to the Roman emperor; whereas Babylon with its whole territory was then fubject not to the Romans, but to the Parthians, and therefore according to Lardner could not have been the place, where St. Peter wrote. Now this argument refts on a fuppofition, which is contradicted by the common ufage of every language: the expreffion the king' in a letter from a perfon in one country to a perfon in another country, may according to circumstances denote the king, to which the reader is fubject, as well as the king, to which the writer is fubject.

It appears then, that the arguments, which have been alleged, to fhew that St. Peter did not write his first Epistle in the country of Babylonia, are devoid of foundation and confequently the notion of a myftical Babylon, as denoting either Jerufalem or Rome, lofes its whole fupport. For in itfelf the notion is highly improbable, and therefore the bare poffibility, that St. Peter took a journey to Babylon properly fo called, renders it inadmiffible. The plain language of epiftolary writing does not admit of the figures of poetry: and though it would be very allowable in a poem written in honour of Göttingen to ftyle it another Athens, yet if a profeffor of this University, fhould in a letter written from Göttingen, date it Athens, it would be a greater piece of pedantry, than ever was laid to the charge of the learned. In like

manner,

y For the fame reafon the opinion that St. Peter meant a small town in Egypt, of the name of Babylon, lofes likewife its fupport: for, if there is no ground for the fuppofition, that St. Peter did not write either in the neighbourhood of the Tigris or of the Euphrates, we can have no authority for the conjecture, that he wrote in an infignificant town in Egypt. Indeed, very few have adopted it, except the Coptic Chriftians, who believe that St. Peter wrote this Epistle in Egypt, becaufe he fends a falutation from St. Mark, whom they claim as their Apostle and patron. See Wanleb nouvelle relation d' un voyage fait en Egypte, p. 132. and p. 118. of his manufcript preferved in the library of the University of Gottingen.

manner, though a figurative ufe of the word Babylon is not unfuitable to the animated and poetical language of the Apocalypfe, yet St. Peter in a plain and unadorned Epiftle would hardly have called the place, where he wrote, by any other appellation than that, which literally and properly belonged to it".

SECT. VI.

Of the contents, and the defign of this Epifle.

Thimfelt,

HE object of this Epiftle is affigned by St. Peter ch. v. 12. where he fays, I have written briefly, exhorting, and teftifying, that this is the true grace of God, wherein ye ftand.' But I have fhewn in the firft fection of this chapter, that the perfons, to whom he wrote, were uncircumcifed Jewish profelytes,. who had received the Chriftian faith. St. Peter wrote therefore to convince his readers, that, though they were of gentile origin, and had not been circumcifed, they food in the grace of God, as well as the Jewish and, circumcifed converts to Chriftianity.

The manner, in which St. Peter has treated this queftion, is very different from that of St. Paul. For he has

not

* Whoever wishes to know what commentators have defended the myftical interpretation of the word Babylon may confult Lardner's Supplement, Vol. ill. Ch. xix.. Lardner himself has defended this, interpretation, and alfo Mofheim, in his preface to Walther's Expofition of the Epittle. It was likewife adopted by moit of the Greek and Latin fathers, and is ftill received by moft members of the church of Rome, because they confider St. Peter as their head, and therefore feek for arguments to prove, that he spent fome time among them. Hardouin explains Babylon of Jerufalem: and according to Affeman (Bib. Or. T. III. P. II. p. 7.) it was the opinion of certain Syrians, that St. Peter wrote his firft Epistle, not only in Jerufalem, but in the very room, where the Apoftles firft received the gifts of the Holy Ghost.