CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY GIFT OF Alfred C. Barnes Date Due OUN- SW^Jp- ftA5u«,. " JU^(M: PRINTED IN U. 5. A. (Of NO. 23233 Cornell University Library BS2777 .G56 Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. olln 3 1924 029 294 794 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924029294794 BY THE SAME AUTHOR. In crown 8vo, price 5s., EXEGETICAL STUDIES. Careful and valuable pieces of work.' — Spectator. Candid, truth-loving, devout-minded men will be both instructed and pleased by studies so scholarly, frank, and practical.' — Baptist Magazine- In crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d., THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES: BEma THE Baibd Lectubes fok 1879. ' It has seldom fallen to our lot to read a book which we think is entitled to such unqualified praise as the one now before us. Dr. Gloag has displayed consummate ability.' — London Quarterly Review. In demy 8vo, price 12s., INTRODUCTION TO THE PAULINE EPISTLES. ' A work of uncommon merit. He must be a singularly accomplished divine to whose library this book is not a welcome and valuable addition.' — Watchman. In Two Volumes 8vo, price 21a., ^ A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTAEY ON THE ACTS OP THE APOSTLES. ' I have found it unsurpassed by any similar work in the English language.' H. B. Haokbtt, D.D. In paper cover, 6d. ; cloth 8d. (Bible-Clasa Primer Series), LIFE OP PAUL, ' This little book could not well be surpassed.'— 2>at/2/ Bevieui. In crown 8vo, price 3s., THE PRIMEVAL WORLD. A Tbbatisb on thb Ebi.ations of GboLogt to Tkbology. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. INTRODUCTION TO THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. BY PATON J. GLOAG, D.D, MINISTER OF 0ALA8HISLS, AUTHOR OF 'AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PAULINE BPISTLBS,' 'A COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,' ' EXBGETICAL STUDIES,' 'MESSIANIC PROPHECY : BEING THE BAIRD LECTURES FOR 1879,' ETC. EDINBUKGH: T. & T. CLAEK, 38 GEOKGE STEEET. MDCCCLXX^VII. 3. s^7 PRINTED BY MOEEISON AND GIBB, FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, . DUBLIN, . NEW TOEK, HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. GEO. HEEBEET. SCEIBNEK AND WELFOED. 'LVC. X Jjut-r-^ ^3-i^-^^ i>:^ PREFACE. THIS work is intended to form a companion volume to the Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, published about twelve years ago. It does not purport to treat of the Catholic Epistles critically or exegeticallj', to explain their meaning, or to give any commentary on their contents. It does not belong to the class of " Commentaries," but to that of " Introductions to the New Testament." It discusses topics appropriate to such Introductions, such as the authenticity of the Epistles, their authorship, the readers to whom they are addressed, the design or intention of the writings, the peculi- arities which belong, to them, and the time when and the place from which they were written. To each Epistle there are also attached dissertations or appendices referring to certain special difficulties, disputed questions, apostolic customs, or, as in the case of the Epistle of Jude, to apocryphal writings there referred to. Several of these dissertations, it is admitted, are not very relevant, if the work be considered as an Introduction in a restricted sense ; but they are all on points of theological interest and importance, and have a certain connection with the subject treated of. Some of them, as for example the dissertations on the escha- tology of St. Peter and on the Book of Enoch, may be thought to be drawn out to undue length ; but the intention was to treat the .subjects as fully as possible, so that each dissertation may be considered as complete in itself. A list of the most important books read or consulted in writing this work has been appended, with references to the editions in my possession ; so that the quotations made from them may be referred to and verified. In translations from Vi PREFACE. the German, references have been generally made to the original when possible, as well as to the English version. After the book was completed, several recent works of importance came under my notice ; these have been carefully read and consulted, and such references as were thought desirable have been made in notes, as they could not without much inconvenience be incorporated into the body of the work. Four of these deserve special mention : Holzmann's Einleitung in das neue Testament, 1885 ; Spitta's Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas, 1885; Mangold's edition of Bleek's EinleituTbg in das neue Testament, vierte Auflage, 1886 ; and Weiss' Zehrhmh der Einleitung in das neue Testament, 1886. Introductions to the New Testament are rare in England. The only important books of the kind with which I am acquainted, are the works of the Eev. T. Hartwell Home, Dr. Samuel Davidson, and Professor Salmon. Home's Intro- duction to the Scriptures is a repository of information with regard to biblical criticism in general ; but the part of it which consists of a proper introduction to the different books of the New Testament is meagre and defective. A new and more valuable edition of this work has been published by Tregelles. The work has, however, in a great measure become antiquated. Dr. Davidson has two Introductions : the one entitled Introduction to the New Testament, published in 1848 ; and the other entitled Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, published in 1868 ; and a second edition, considerably altered, published in 1882. These, it need not be said, are both works of the highest interest and importance, but they can with no propriety be considered to be recensions of the same work ; they proceed from very different stand- points. In the first work Dr. Davidson belongs to the positive critical school ; while in the second work he is in close relation to the Tubingen school. Nor do I consider that the second work supersedes the first ; for although Dr. David- son has modified several of his opinions, yet the reasons by which he supports his former opinions are of great force, and sometimes appear to me to be even more convincing than those for their alteration. Whilst differing from several PEEFACE. Vll I of his later views, I have always treated them with that respect which his vast erudition demands. Of course Dr. Davidson's present views are to be found in the last edition of his Introduction to the Study of the Mew Testament ; whilst many of the opinions advanced in the former work are no longer held by him. Professor Salmon's work, entitled Intro- duction to the New Testament, published in 1885, is an expan- sion of his lectures as regius professor of divinity in the University of Dublin., It is a work of considerable learning, showing much knowledge of Hellenistic Greek : his opinions are expressed with decision and perspicuity ; but it may be questioned whether he always estimates adequately the objec- tions of his opponents. Professor Salmon belongs to the positive school of exegetes, and maintains throughout the traditionary opinions. There are also English translations of important German Introductions ; of these two call for special attention on account of their excellence, fulness, and erudition, Bleek's Introduction to the Nmo Testament, and Eeuss' History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament. There are frequent references in this work to the so- , called Tubingen school. This is a phrase to be taken in a somewhat wide sense, but is designed to embrace all those theologians who have been influenced more or less by the celebrated Dr. F. C. Baur of Tubingen. Some may consider these references antiquated and an anachronism ; as, according to their opinion, the influence of the Tiibingen school is now almost extinct in Germany. I wish it were so ; but on the contrary, similar views are very prevalent, although they may not be so pronounced as those of Baur. So long as such, eminent theologians as Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Keim, Holtzmann, Hausrath, and Lipsius — who, though differing in some points from each other, may be considered as belonging to the same school of theological thought — survive and influence theology, it cannot be said that the Tubingen school is extinct, or has even lost much of its power. The eminence of these theologians demands that their opinions be listened to with respect. I have had considerable difiiculty in determining the age of the writings of the apostolic Fathers. This point has been Vm PREFACE. carefully exaipined, although I have not thought it necessary to state in the notes the process by which the conclusions were arrived at. I merely state in the text what seems to me the most probable date, differing sometimes from that adopted by the best recognised authorities. After much consideration I have come to the conclusion that the newly- discovered work, the DidacM, is, with the possible exception of the Epistle of Clemens Eomanus, the oldest of the post- apostolic documents, and was written some time between A.D, 80 and a.d. 100. I have seldom referred to the Ignatian Epistles, as, notwithstanding all that has been written about them, I consider their authenticity still involved in uncertainty, and their value in biblical criticism to be unimportant. The quotations from the Fathers are in general taken from Kirch- hofer's Quellensammlung ; and for the translation I am indebted to Clark's Ante-Nicene Fathers, except where I thought the translation defective. In the quotations from Scripture no uniform plan has been followed; in general I have quoted from the Authorized Version, except where there is a decided improvement in the Eevised Version, or where extreme exactness is required ; occasionally the Greek has been translated independently of both versions. The substance of some of the articles and dissertations has already appeared in various periodicals ; and I may refer to an article on the Book of Enoch in the British and Foreign Review, and to articles on the early Syriac versions and on St. Peter's residence in Eome in the Monthly Itderpreter. Free use has also been made in the dissertation on the eschatology of Peter of an exposition on " the spirits in prison " (1 Pet. iii. 18-20), which appeared in my Exegetical Studies, published in 1884. I have pleasure in acknowledging my obligations to the Eev. W. P. Paterson, B.D., for verifying my references and for various important and valuable suggestions. COlSTTEIfTS. GENERAL INTRODUCTION. PAGE I. The Term Catholic— Use of the Term by the Fathers— lour Views of its Meaning. II. Authors of the Catholic Epistles— Apostles and Apostolic Men — Their Relation to the Pauline Epistles, and to each other — Types of Doctrine. III. Number and Order of the Catholic Epistles. IV. Interpretation of the Catholic Epistles- Necessity of Candour and a Religious Spirit. V. Authenticity of the Catholic Epistles — The External Evidence — Catalogues of the Catholic Epistles— Versions — The Syriac— The Old Latin— Quota- tations from the Fathers — Internal Evidence, .... 1-22 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. I. The Authenticity of the Epistle — Dubiety concerning it — External Evidence — Internal Evidence — By whom disputed — Examination of Objections. II. The Author of the Epistle — Not James, the son of Zebedee — James, the Lord's brother— Three Opinions con- cerning him. : 1. James, the son of Alphseus. 2. James, the son of Joseph by a previous Marriage. 3. James, the son of Mary and Joseph — Result of the Investigation — ^Notices of James in Scrip- ture and in Ecclesiastical History. III. The Readers of the Epistle — Not Christians in general or Jews in general — Addressed to Jewish Christians — After history of the Jewish Christians — The EbionitesandNazarenes. IV. The Design of the Epistle — ItsEthical Design — The Absence of Doctrine — Contents of the Epistle — Its Style and Language. V. The Time and Place of Writing — Com- mentaries; Dissertation I. : The Pauline and Jacobean Views of Justification. Different Views — Methods of Reconciliation — Dif- ferent Views of Faith — Peculiar Characteristics of Paul and James -^No Contradiction between them. Dissertation II. : Besem- blances in the Epistles of James. To the Sermon on the Mount — To the Epistles of Paul— To the Epistle to the Hebrews— To the First Epistle of Peter — To the Apocrypha. Dissertation III. : The Anointing of the Sick. Anointing used as a Religious Ceremony — Use of Anointing in the Primitive Church — Rise and Development of Extreme Unction — Observance in the Greek Church — The Miraculous Gift of Healing, 23-108 I THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. I. The Authenticity of the Epistle — External Evidence — Internal Evi- dence — Reminiscences of Christ — By whom disputed— Objections CONTENTS. stated and examined — 1. Dependence on Paul. 2. The want of Definiteness. 3. Impossibility of Peter being in Babylon. II. The Author of the Epistle — Notices of Peter in Scripture and in Eccle- siastical History — Legends concerning Peter. III. The Readers of the Epistle — Not Jewish Christians or Jewish Proselytes — Ad- dressed to Christians in general — The Circle of Churches —Condition of these Churches. IV. The Design of the Epistle — Its design to con- firm and comfort Believers— Its Contents— Its Style and Language — Its Peculiarities. V. The Time and Placeof Writing— Indications of Time — The Place supposed to be Rome — According to others, Babylon on the Euphrates — Commentaries. Dissertation I. : Peter's Residence in Some. Opinion that Peter was in Rome — By whom adopted — Testimonies of the Fathers — Opinion that Peter was never in Rome — Argument from Paul's Epistles— Argument from Peter's Residence in Babj'lon — Supposed origin of the Tradi- tion in Peter's Encounter with Simon Magus — Result of the Examination— Period of Peter's Roman Residence — Literature on the Subject. Dissertation II. : Petrine Theology. Relation of Christianity to Judaism — The Nature of Sin — The Christology of Peter — The Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost — The Eschatology of Peter — Review of Peter's System. Dissertation III. : The Eschatology of Peter. Eschatology a peculiarity in Peter's Writ- ings — Derivation of Sheol and Hades — Christ's Descent into Hell. 1. Preaching to the Spirits in Prison, 1 Pet. iii. 18-20 — Opinions of those who hold an actual Descent into Hades — The Spirits of the Just — Those who repented at the Deluge — Disobe- dient Spirits in Hades — Opinions of those who deny the actual Descent into Hades— Preaching of the Apostles — Preaching in Spirit by Noah. 2. The Preaching to the Dead, 1 Pet. iv. 6 — Not the spiritually Dead — ^Two Views of the Passage — The Gospel preached in their Lifetime to those who are now dead — The Gospel preached to the Dead in Hades — History of Opinions — The Fathers— The Medisevalists— The Reformers — Recent Views — Con- ditional Immortality — Universalism — The Intei-mediate State a State of Probation — Mystery of the Future State, . . . 109-203 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 1. The Authenticity of the Epistle — A purely historical Inquiry — ^Ex- ternal Evidence — Internal Evidence — Characteristics of Peter — Coincidences with Peter's Speeches in the Acts — Smilarity in Style and Sentiment to 1 Peter — Superiority to the Writings of the Fathers — By whom disputed — Objections stated and examined. 1. Difference in Style from 1 Peter. 2. Difference in Sentiment. 3. Solicitude of the Author to make himself known as Peter. 4. Mention of Paul's Epistles. 5. Mention of the Hjjly Mount. 6. Use of the Epistle of Jude. 7. Acquaintance with the Writ- ings of Josephus. II. The Readers of the Epistle — The same as those of the First Epistle. III. The Design of the Epistle- Character of the Heretical Teachers — Contents of the Epistle — CONTENTS. XI Knowledge the Keynote of the Epistle— Its Language. IV. The Time and Place of Writing— Indications of Time in the Epistle- Place of Composition — Commentaries. Dissertation : Edation lie- tween 2 Peter and Jude. Resemblances between these two Epistles — Supposition that both Authors wrote independently — Supposi- tion that both borrowed from the same Document — Supposition that Jude borrowed from Peter — Supposition that Peter borrowed from Jude— Examples of like Resemblances, . . . .204-255 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. I. The Authenticity of the Epistle— External Evidence— Internal Evi- dence — Resemblances to John's; Gospel^— Impress of John's Charac- ter — By whom disputed — Objections stated and examined : 1. The Feebleness of the Epistle ; 2. Its Post- Apostolic Views ; 3. The Epistle Montanistic. II. The Author of the Epistle— Kotices of John in Scripture — Notices in Ecclesiastical History — Banish- ment to Patmos — Residence in Ephesus^Legends concerning John. III. The Readers of the Epistle — Supposed to be a Treatise — Supposed to be addressed to the Parthians — ^Addressed to the Asiatic Churches — Condition of these Churches. IV. The Design of the Epistle — Supposed Relation to the Gospel — ^Polemical Design : Character of the Heretical Teachers — Ethical Design' — Different Opinions as to the Arrangement of the Epistle — Its Contents — Its Style — Its Characteristics — Its Profoundity. V. The Time and Place of "Writing— After the Destruction of Jeru- salem — Indications of a late Date — Place of Composition^ Commentaries. Dissertation I. : The Heavenly Witnesses. Critical Examination of 1 John v. 7, 8 — External Evidence — The Manu- scripts — The Versions — The Greek and Latin Fathers — Supposed References to the Passage in the "Writings of Tertullian and Cyprian — Internal Evidence — Context supposed to be in favour of the Passage — Required by grammatical Construction — Omitted by a Homoeoteleuton — General Result of the Examination-^Origin of the Latin Gloss — The History of the Text. Dissertation II. ; Onosticism as referred to in John's Epistle. Spread of Gnosticism in the Second Century — Its Nature, Origin, and Sources — Principles common to Gnosticism — Antithesis between God and Matter — The Demiurgus or Creator — The Docetic Nature of Christ — Ethical Tendency of Gnosticism — Notices of Gnosticism in the New Testament — Docetism opposed by John — Account of Cerinthus — His Views of Creation — His Christology — His Chiliastic Eschatology — Opposition of John to him — ^Effects of Gnosticism on Christianity — Modern Gnosticism, . . . 256-321 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN. L The Authenticity of the Epistle — External Evidence — Internal Evidence — Resemblances to the First Epistle — By whom disputed — Consideration of Objections. II. The Author of the Epistle — XU CONTENTS. Asoribed to John the Presbyter — The Statement of Papiag — On the Title Preshyter. III. The Person addressed — Not a Church —Different Opinions— The Lady Electa— The Elect Kyria— The Elect Lady. IV. The Design and Contents of the Epistle. V. The Time and Place of Writing — Commentaries, .... 322-338 . THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN. The Authenticity of the Epistle — External Evidence — Internal Evidence — Objections of Baur and HUgenfeld. II. The Person addressed — On Gaius. III. The Design of the Epistle — On Diotrephes — On Demetrius — The Keoeption of travelling Evange- lists — Lost Epistle of John — Contents of the Epistle. IV. The Time and Place of Writing 339-350 THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. I, The Authenticity of the Epistle — External Evidence — Internal Evidence — By whom disputed — Objections stated and examined: I. Professes to be PostrApostolical ; 2. Apocryphal References. II. The Author of the Epistle — Not Jude the Apostle, nor Judas, surnamed Barsabas, but Jude the Brother of the Lord — Notices of Jude in Scripture and in Ecclesiastical Tradition — Account of Hegesippus concerning Jude's Grandchildren. III. The Readers of the Epistle — Addressed to Christians in general — Supposed to be specially addressed to Jewish Christians — Different Localities assigned. IV. The Design of the Epistle — Opinions concerning the Persons described — Contents of the Epistle — Its Style and Character — Its Peculiarity. V. The Time and Place of Writing — Commentaries. Dissertation I. : The Assumption of Moses. Jude supposed to quote from it — References to the Assumption of Moses by the Fathers and Jewish Writers — Discovery of the Book by Ceriani — Its Contents — Its Authorship — Its Age — Its Relation to the Epistle of Jude — Different Opinions — Result of the Investigation — Literature on the Subject. Dis- sertation II. : The Booh of Enoch. Supposed Quotation by Jude from it — References to the Book of Enoch by the Fathers and Jewish Writers — Discovery of the Book of Enoch by Bruce — Translations of it — Its Language — Its Contents — Opinions con- cerning its Authorship — Views of Dillmann, Ewald, and Sohtlrer — Opinions concerning its Age — View of Dillmann — View of Volkmar — The Messianic Statements — Its Relation to the Prophecies of Daniel — The Character of the Book — The Reference to it by Jude — Different Opinions as to Jude's Information — Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch — Extensive Literature referring to it, . 351-408 LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO. Abbott's Articles on Second Peter, in Expositor. Yol. iii. Second Series. Alexander (Bishop) On the Epistles of John, in Speaker's Commentary. Alford's Greek Testament. Vol. iv. Second Edition, 1862. Ante-Nicene Library. Edinburgh, 1867-1872. Bassett On the Epistles of James. London, 1876. Baur's Apostel Paulus. Zweite Auflage. Leipzig, 1861. Translated by Eev. W. Menzies. London, 1875. Baur's Kirchengeschiehte der drei ersten Jahrhunderte. Dritte Auflage. Translated by Rev. W. Menzies. London, 1878. Bengal's Gnomon Novi Testamenti. Editio tertia. Tubingen, 1850. Translated by Fletcher. Edinburgh, 1859. Beyschlag's Brief des Jacobus. Gottingen, 1882. Bigg's Bampton Lectures for 1886. Oxford, 1886. Bingham's Christian Antiquities. London (Reeves & Turner), 1878. Bleek's Introduction to the N. T. Translated by Urwick. Edinburgh, 1869. Braune On the Epistles of John, in Jjange's Commentary, BrUokner's Petrus, Judas, und Jakobus. Leipzig, 1868. Burgess' Tracts on the Divinity of Christ. London, 1820. Burton's Bampton Lectures for 1829. Oxford, 1829. Calvin's Commentaries : The Catholic Epistles : The Catholic Translation Society. Cassiodori Opera. Geneva, 1650. Cook On First Peter, in Speaker's Commentary. Credner's Einleitung in das neue Testament. Halle, 1836. Cureton's Syriac Gospels. London, 1858. Davidson's Biblical Criticism. Edinburgh, 1852. Davidson's Introduction to the N. T. London, 1849. Davidson's Introduction to the Study of the N. T. London, 1868. Second Edition. London, 1882. Deane's Article on the Assumption of Moses, in the Monthly Interpreter. Vol. i. De "Wette's Einleitung N. T. Sechste Ausgabe. Berlin, 1860. Translation. Boston, 1858. Dillmann's Das Bnch Henoch. Leipzig, 1863. Domer's Entwieklungsgeschiohte der Lehre von der Person Christi. Berlin, 1851. Translated by Dr. L. Alexander. Edinburgh, 1884. Drummond's Jewish Messiah. London, 1877. Diisterdieck's Johanneische Briefe. Gottingen, 1852. Ebrard On John's Gospel. Translated. Edinburgh, 1860. XIV LIST OF WORKS KEFERRED TO. Eichhorn's Einleitimg in das N. T. Leipzig, 1804. Encyclopedia Britannioa. Ninth Edition. Erdmann's Brief des Jakobus. Berlin, 1881. Ensebii Historia Ecclesiastica. Ewald's Abhandlung liber des Buch Henoch Entstehiing, etc. Gottingen, 1854. Ewald's Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Sechster Band. Zweite Ausgabe. Gottingen, 1858. Translation, "Histoiy of Israel." VoL vii. London, 1885, and Vol. viii. 1886. Ewald's Jakobus Sendsohreiben. Gottingen, 1870. Ewald's Sieben Sendschreiben. Gottingen, 1870. Fabricius' Codex Pseudepigraphus V. T. Hamburgh, 1722. Farrar's Eternal Hope. London, 1878. Farrar's Early Days of Christianity. London, 1882. Farrar's Mercy and Judgment. London, 1881. Foster's Three Heavenly Witnesses. London, 1867. Fritzsche's Libri Veteri.s Teatamenti Pseudepigraphii selecti. Leipzig, 1871. Frohschammer's Eomance of Bomanism. Traiislated by Eev. W. Hastie. Edinburgh, 1878. FronmUUer On the Epistles of Peter and Jude, in Lange's Commentary. Gieseler's Church History.' Translated by Dr. Samuel Davidson. Edinburgh, • 1846. Gloag'a Exegetical Studies. Edinburgh, 1884. Guericke's Neutestamentliche Isagogik. Dritte Auflage. Leipzig, 1868. Haupt On the First Epistle of John. Translation. Edinburgh, 1879. Hausrath's NeTy Testament Times. Translation. London, 1878. Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie. Zweite Auflage. Hilgenfeld's Einleitung in das !N. T. Leipzig, 1878. Hilgenfeld's Evangelium und die Briefe Johannis. Halle, 1869. Hofmanu's Schriftbeweis. Nordlingen, 1882. Hofmann : der erste Brief Petri. Nbrdlingen, 1875. Holtzmann's Einleitung in das N. T. Freiburg, 1885. Home's Introduction to the Scriptures. Tenth Edition. London, 1875. Horsley's Works. London, 1830. Hug's Introduction to the N. T. Translation. London, 1827. Huther's Brief des Jakobus. Dritte Auilage. Gdttingen, 1870. Translation. Edinburgh, 1882. Huther's Briefe des Petrus und Brief des Judas. Vierte Auflage. Gottingen. Translation. Edinburgh, 1881. Huther's Epistles of John. Translation. Edinburgh, 1882. Jones on the Canon. Oxford Edition, 1827. Keil's Briefe des Petrus und Judas. Leipzig, 1883. Keim's Jesus of Nazara. Translation. London, 1876-1883. Kern's Der Brief Jakobi. Tflbingen, 1838. Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung. Zurich, 1842. Kitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature. Third Edition. Edinburgh, 1869. Kbstlin's Lehrbegriff des Evangeliuras und der Briefe Johannis. Berlin, 1840. Kuenen's Religion of Israel. Translation. London, 1875. Kurtz, History of the Christian Church. Translation. Edinburgh, 1860. Lange On the Epistle of JSmes, in Lange's Commentary. Lardner's Works. Quarto Edition. London, 1815. Laurence's Book of Enoch. Third Edition. Oxford, 1838. LIST OF WORKS EEFERRED TO. XV Lechler's Das apostolische Zeitalter. Zweite Auflage. Stuttgart, 1857. Trans- lation of the Third Edition. By A. J. K. Davidson. Edinburgh, 1886. Lightfoot's St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. Second Edition. London, 1866. Lightfoot's St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians. First Edition. London, 1875. Lightfoot's (Dr. John) "Works. Edited by Pitman. London, 1825. Lipsius' Die Quellen der rbmischen Petrus Sage. Kiel, 1872. Lipsius' Apostelgeschichteu und Apostellegenden. Braunschweig, 1883. Lilcke's John's Epistles. Translation. Edinburgh, 1837. Liieke's Eiuleitung in die Offenbamng Johannis. Gottingen, 1832. Lumby's Articles on the Epistles of Peter, in Expositor. Vol. iv. First Series. Lumby On Second Peter and Jude, in Speaker's Commentary. Mangold's Edition of Bleek's Einleitung in das N. T. Vierte Axiflage. Berlin, 1886. Hansel's Gnostic Heresies. London, 1875. Marsh's (Bishop) Lectures. London, 1838. MayerhoiFs Petrinische Schriften. Hamburg, 1835. Miohaelis, Introduction to the New Testament. Edited by Marsh. Second- Edition. London, 1802. Murray's Enoch restitutus. London, 1836. Keander's Church History. Bohn's Edition. Neander's Planting of Christianity. Bohn's Edition. Neander On the Epistle of James. Translation. Edinburgh, 1871. Oehler's Theology of the Old Testament. Translation. Edinburgh, 1875. Pearson On the Creed. Pfleiderer's Paulinism. Translation. London, 1877. Plummer On the Epistles of John. Cambridge Bible for Schools. Plummer On Second Peter and Jude. Bishop EUicott's Commentary. Plumptre On the Epistle of James. Cambridge Bible for Schools. Phimptre On the Epistles of Peter and Jude. Cambridge Bible for Schools. Plumptre On the Spirits In Prison. London, 1884. Porson's Letters to Travis. London, 1790. Pusey's Lectures on Daniel. Third Edition. Oxford, 1876. Pusey, What is of Faith as to Everlasting Punishment? Third Edition. London, 1880. Eawlinson's Bampton Lectures for 1859. London, 1859. Kenan's Hibbert Lectures for 1880. Reuss' History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age. Translation. London, 1872. Kenss' Geschichte der heiligen Schriften K. T. Vierte Ausgabe. Braunschweig. Translation. Edinburgh, 1884. Kitschl's Altkatholische Kirche. Bonn, 1857. Bow's Jesus of the Evangelists. Loudon, 1865. Salmon's Introduction to the N. T. London, 1885. Schaff's Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology. Edinburgh, 1883. Schaflfs History of the Christian Church. Edinburgh, 1869. SchafPs Oldest Church Manual. Edinburgh, 1883. Schegg's Jakobus der Bruder des Herm und sein Brief. MUnchen, 1883. Schmid's Biblical Theology of the N. T. Translation. Edinburgh, 1882. xvi LIST OF WORKS KEFERKED TO. Schmidt's Lehrgehalt des Jakobus Briefes. Leipzig, 1869. Schodde, The Book of Enoch. Translated. Andover, 1882. Schotte's Briefs des Petrus uad Judas. Erlangen, 1861. Schurer's Jewish People in the Time of Christ. Jranslation. Edinburgh, 1885, 1886. Scott On the Epistle of James, in the Speaker's Commentary. Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T. First Edition. Cam- bridge, 1861. Third Edition. Cambridge, 1883. Sherlock On the Authenticity of Second Peter. Sherlock's. Discourses. Vol. iv. Oxford, 1812. Smith's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. Spitta, Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas. Halle, 1885. Stanley's Jewish Church. Vol. iii. Second Edition. London, 1877. Stanley's Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic Age. Third Edition. London, 1874. Steiger On First Peter. Translation. Clark's Biblical Cabinet. Stier On Epistle of James. Translation. Edinburgh, 1871. Volkmar's Moae Himmelfahrt. Leipzig, 1867. Warfield On the Genuineness of Second Peter. South Presbyterian Eeview of America, 1883. Weiss' Petrinische Lehrbegriff. Berlin, 1855. Weiss' Biblical Theology of the N. T. Translation. Edinburgh, 1882. Weiss' Einleitung in das N. T. Berlin, 1881. Westcott On the Epistles of John. London, 1883. Westcott On the Canon of the N. T. Second Edition. Loudon, 1866. Westcott and Hort's N. T. in Greek. Cambridge, 1881. White's Life in Christ. Third Edition. London, 1880. Wieseler's Chronologic deS apostolischen Zsitalter. GSttingen, 1848. Wiesinger's Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, und Judas. Konigsberg, 1854. Winer's Biblisches Worterbuch. . Leipzig, 1833. Wiseman's (Cardinal) Essays on various Subjects. London, 1853. Wolfs Briefe Johannis. Leipzig, 1881. Wordsworth's Greek Testament : The General Epistles. London, 1875. Zeller's Apostelgesohiohte. Stuttgart, 1854. Translation. Loudon, 1875. THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. GENERAL INTEODUCTION. I. ON THE TEEM CATHOLIC. THE group of seven Epistles, treated of in the present work, is named the Catholic Epistles {eTnaToXaX KadoXiKal). They form a distinct and important class among the books of the E"ew Testament. The term catholic (Ka9o\iK6<;), by which they are designated, is com- pounded of KUTo, and o\oiv InrTiiXii' Triv »a^«X/xrl» Tut xmrri^ui/ a^iyrm. ' Contra Oelsum, i. 63 : Tiypxtrrai Tt l» tJ Bapvx^x xahtlix^ tTitToX^ x.r.k. ' 0pp. torn. iv. p. 549 : Quomodo etiam quod Judas apostolus in epistola catholics dicit, A 2 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. the work of some holy and inspired man. But I do not so easily consent that this was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, who is the author of the Gospel, and of the Catholic Epistle that bears his name."^ It is not, however, until the fourth century that we find this epithet employed to designate the group of Epistles. In this sense it first occurs in Eusebius, who applies it to the seven Epistles, but in such a manner as to show that it had .already become the ordinary appellation of these Epistles. " These accounts," he observes, " are given con- cerning James, who is said to have written the first of the Catholic Epistles. Not many, indeed, of the ancients have mentioned it, and not even that called the Epistle of Jude, which is also one of the seven so-called Catholic Epistles.'" And in another part of his history he observes : " Clement (of Alexandria), in the work called Hypotyposes, has given us abridged accounts of all the canonical writings, not even omitting those that are disputed, I mean the Book of Jude and the other Catholic Epistles."* It is also to be observed that the term catholic is never applied by the Fathers to any of the other books of Scripture, to any of the Epistles of • Paul, or even to the Epistle to the Hebrews.* It is admitted that the word catholic denotes universal or general ; but the precise reference of the adjective is disputed. It may refer to the authority of the writings, and in that case either (1) to their general acceptance as scripture (canonicity), or (2) to their conformity with generally received doctrine (orthodoxy). Or the reference may be to the nature of the Epistles, and in that case either (3) to the character of the authorship (general or joint apostolic authorship), or (4) to the description of the persons addressed (general or circular Epistles). 1. Some, applying the epithet to the authority of the Epistles, suppose that it is synonymous with canonical, and is used to denote those Epistles which were universally recog- ' Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 25. "■' ii. 23. ' vi. 14. * The term catholic was not applied to the Epistle to the Hebrews, because it was included among the Epistles of Paul. ON THE TERM CATHOLIC. 3 nised in the Christian Church. This is the opinion adopted by Michaelis, Eichhorn, Benson, and Home, and, in point of fact, we find that in the Latin Church this group of Epistles is called Epistolce Canonicce. The following account is given by Michaelis of the origin of this term. At first the word KaOoXiKo^ was employed by Origen with reference to the First Epistle of Peter and the First Epistle of John, to distinguish them as canonical and undisputed from the other five Epistles which were disputed. But as in process of time the doubts concerning these five Epistles gradually diminished, and at length disappeared, and as these five were written in the same manuscripts with the other two, the title became at last a common appellation for all these Epistles.' It is asserted that the term is used in this sense by Eusebius, as when he says : " As to that work, which is ascribed to Peter, called 'The Acts' and the 'Gospel according to Peter,' and that called ' The Preaching and the Revelations of Peter,' we know nothing of their being handed down as catholic writings ; since neither among the ancient nor the ecclesiastical writers of our own day has there been one that has appealed to testi- mony taken from them."^ Eusebius here certainly uses the term in the sense of authoritative, though not in the precise sense of canonical or universally received.* But even if we suppose that in the passage cited the word denotes " univer- sally received," yet the term is not here applied by Eusebius to a special class of writings, but to the books of Scripture in general ; he speaks not of catholic Epistles, but of catholic writings (ypa^wp). And that canonical was not the original meaning of the term is evident from the fact that Epistles which are not canonical have received this name. Thus, as already remarked, Origen calls the Epistle of Barnabas a Catholic Epistle, and Eusebius speaks of the Epistles of Dionysius of Alexandria, addressed to the Lacedemonians and Athenians, as Catholic Epistles. " He was," he says, " useful > Michaelis' Introduction to the N. T., translated by Marsh, vol. vi. p. 270. 2 Hist. Ecel. iii. 3. ' Kirchhofer supposes that Eusebius here uses the term catholic in the sense of being publicly read in the churches, but without any reference to the recog- nised genuineness of the writings. — Quellensammlung, p. 257. 4 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. to all in the Catholic Epistles that he addressed to the Churches."' 2. Others modify this view, and apply the term catholic, not to the canonicity, but to the orthodoxy of the writings. They regard the word as opposed to heretical, and as used to denote those Epistles whose doctrine and teaching were of universal authority, and in harmony with the teaching of the catholic or universal Church. This is the opinion adopted by Salmeron, Cornelius a Lapide, and Schmidt. But it is evident that such a meaning imparts no characteristic distinction to these Epistles ; it is equally applicable to the other writings of the New Testament. The Epistles of Paul are in the above sense no less catholic than those Epistles to which this name is restricted. And if this be the case, no reason can be assigned why it should be exclusively used of these seven Epistles. And that there is no contrast between catholic and heretical is evident from the words of Eusebius, who employs the term catholic of an Epistle which he distinctly affirms to be heretical. Speaking of an Epistle written by Themison, who appears to have been a disciple of Montanus, he uses these words : " Themison dared to imitate the apostles by drawing up a certain catholic Epistle, to instruct those who had a better faith than himself." ^ 3. According to the third hypothesis, catholic is a technical term, used to distinguish these Epistles from the Epistles of Paul, denoting the Epistles of all the apostles, or, to speak more correctly, of the apostles in common. This opinion was first advanced by Hug, and adopted by Schlqiermacher. " The ancients," observes Hug, " never applied the term catholic to other acknowledged and undoubted books of the New Testa- ment, which certainly must have belonged to them, if it designated the idea of that which was generally acknow- ledged. It is a technical expression for one class of biblical writings, which possesses it exclusively, and communicates it to no other — namely, for that class which comprised in itself the didactic compositions of all the apostles collectively, with the exception of Paul (KaOoXiKm, i e. kuOoXov koI avXk^^Brjv). When the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles constituted 1 Euseb. Hist. Ecd. iv. 28. ^ v. 18. ON THE TEKM CATHOLIC. 5 one peculiar division, the works of Paul another, there still remained writings of different authors, which likewise formed a collection of themselves, and to which some name must be given. It might most aptly be called the common collection {KadoXiKov avvray/jbo) of the apostles, and the writings which comprised it Koivai and kaOoXiKal, which are commonly used by the Greeks as synonymous. Our seven Epistles are catholic, or Epistles of all the apostles, who are authors."^ But such a use of the word KaOoXiKo^, as denoting "all the apo^les," is never found in any ecclesiastical writer; and although the name may in process of time have lost its original meaning, and come to be used as a mere technical appellation, yet this was evidently not its primary sense. And besides, as already remarked, the epithet is applied by Origen to the Epistle of Barnabas, and by Eusebius to the Epistles of Dionysius, and even to the heretical Epistle of Themison. 4. The fourth theory is that the term was selected in refer- ence to the persons to whom the Epistles were addressed. In this sense the word is synonymous with exegetical or circular, and is used to denote those Epistles which are not, like those of Paul, addressed to particular Churches or individuals, but to a number of Churches or to Christians in general. This is the view adopted by Leontius Byzanticus, Oecumenius, Grotius, Credner, Neudecker, De Wette, Bleek, Holtzmann, and in general by the majority of theologians. "They are called catholic," observes Leontius, "inasmuch as they were not written to one nation, as Paul's, but generally to all."" " These Epistles," says Oecumenius, " are called catholic, equivalent to circular. For the company of such disciples of the Lord does not address these Epistles to one nation or city separately, as Paul to the Eomans or Corinthians, but to the faithful generally ; either to the Jews of the dispersion, as Peter does, or even to all Christians who hold the same faith." * To this opinion we subscribe. It suits the general ' Hug's Introduction to the Writings of the New Testament, vol. ii. pp. 537, 538 ; translated from the German by the Eev. D. G. Wait, LL.D., 1827. ^ De se(di», c. 2. ' Proleg. in Epist. Jacobi : xxioXixai A.EygrTai ciStm cUn) !y»;'»Xi«. 6 GENEKAL INTEODUCTION. character of the address of, these Epistles, though this has been disputed. It is applicable to the Epistle of the Council of Jerusalem, so called by Clement of Alexandria, as this was a circular Epistle addressed to several Churches in different countries. And in this sense the Epistle of Barnabas is called by Origen a catholic Epistle. In short, this sense appears to be the meaning of the term as employed by the Fathers in reference to epistolary writings down to the time of Eusebius. To this view it is, however, objected that the term so employed is not characteristic of all these Epistles, but is only applicable to three out of the seven, namely, to the Second Epistle of Peter, the First Epistle of John, and the Epistle of Jude. The Epistle of James, it is pointed out, is not catholic or universal, but is limited to " the twelve tribes who are scattered abroad " (Jas. i. 1). The First Epistle of Peter is not addressed to the Church in general, but to " the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Pet. i. 1). And the Second and Third Epistles of John are not even addressed to a particular Church, but to private individuals (2 John 1) ; the former to " the elect lady and her children," and the latter to " the well-beloved Gains " (3 John 1). But this objection is of no great weight. The Epistle of James is decidedly circular in its inscription ; and if it was written at a very early period, when the Church was chiefly composed of Jewish converts, before Paul's mission to the Gentiles, — as we shall afterwards endeavour to prove, — - then it is catholic in its address. The First Epistle of Peter was addressed to a large circle of Churches in five countries, and may well be considered as encyclical. And though the Second and Third Epistles of John were addressed to private individuals, and were therefore in this sense not catholic, they were attached to the larger Epistle, and may have been considered as an Appendix to it. Besides, it was the opinion of many of the Fathers that " the elect lady " (eKXeKTf) Kvpia), to whom the Second Epistle of John was addressed, was an appellation to denote the Christian Church, so that this Epistle was regarded by them as catholic. The result of the investigation may be summed up in few THE AUTHORS OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 7 words. The title catholic was first employed to denote those Epistles which were not addressed to any particular individual or Church, but to the Church in general, or at least to. a wide circle of readers. In this sense the term was first applied by Origen to the First Epistle of Peter and the First Epistle of John. Afterwards, but before the time of Eusebius, it was used to denote the whole seven Epistles as being descriptive of their nature, the Second and Third Epistles of John being considered as an appendix to the First. In process of time it became a technibal term, used to designate that group of Epistles, as distinguished from the other three groups of writings in the New Testament, namely, the Gospels and the Acts, the Pauline Epistles, including the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, and thus lost in a measure its primary meaning; but it does not appear to have been ever used in the sense in which Hug employs it, as " the writings of all the apostles." After this it was used, chiefly in the Latin Church, as synonymous with canonical. Junilius, in the sixth century (a.d. 550), appears to have been the first who employed the term in this sense.^ These, however, were secondary . uses which did not occur until after the time of Eusebius. n. THE AUTHOKS OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. The seven Catholic Epistles are ascribed to four authors — - one to James, two to Peter, three to John, and one to Jude. Two of these are undoubtedly apostles, indeed the two chief apostles of our Lord, — Peter and John, who in the Acts of the Apostles are usually conjoined. This has been seldom dis- puted. The genuineness of the Epistles themselves has been questioned, but it has seldom been questioned that the persons to whom they have been ascribed, rightly or wrongly, are the apostles Peter and John.^ On the other hand, the apostolic character of the other two authors has been questioned. ^ De pnrtibua legis divince, i. 6. So also Cassiodorus (a.d. 556), De insUtutione divina/rum literarium, chap. viii. On the other hand, Jerome, in hislist of canonical books, mentions these Epistles separately, and not under any common name. » The Second and Third Epistles of John were ascribed by several writers to John the Presbyter. See below. 8 GENERAL INTKODUCTION. Some suppose them to be of the number of the Twelve — ■ James the son of Alphseus, and Judas the brother of James (Acts i. 13). Others regard James as the Lord's brother and a different person from James the son of Alphseus, and Jude, who calls himself "the brother of James" (Jude 1), as a different person from Judas the apostle. The determination of these questions is reserved until we examine the special Epistles. The Catholic Epistles possess a peculiar importance among the writings of the New Testament.^ Without them there ■would be a want of completeness, in the sacred writings. They bear a similar relation to the Epistles of Paul that the Gospel of John bears to the Synoptics ; they form the neces- sary compliment to Pauline theology. Had we only the Epistles of Paul, Christianity would have a tendency to assume a purely Pauline form, and so far would be one-sided. We require other forms of Christianity, — the Jacobean, the Petrine, and the Johannine, — as exhibited in the Catholic Epistles, to impart to it its due proportion. The pre-eminence of faith as the only instrument of our salvation, according to Paul, is saved from abuse by the teaching of James concerning the importance of good works. The supposed conflict between the views of Paul and Peter, as regards Gentile and Jewish Christianity, is refuted by a careful study of the similarity of the views of Peter in his First Epistle with those of Paul, especially as these are exhibited in the Epistle to the Ephesians. And the objective side of Christian doctrine, as given chiefly by Paul, is supplemented by the subjective side, as given chiefly by John. Not that we mean that there is any modification of Pauline Christianity, but rather that a completeness or fulness is imparted to it by the Catholic Epistles. Points of doctrine and practice, on which Paul dwells only incidentally, are in these Epistles brought into prominence. Far less do we mean that there is any opposi- 1 We do not here enter into any minute discussion on the relation of the Catholic Epistles to Biblical theology, but we would refer our readers to Neander's Planting ; Schmid's Biblical Theology of the N. T. ; Weiss' Biblical Theology oftlie N. T. ; Immer's Theologie des if. T. ; Farrar's Early Days of Christianity. There are, besides, important monographs of the theology of the different New Testament writers. THE AUTHORS OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 9 tion or antagonism in these Epistles to the views of Paul, The only appearance of opposition is between the doctrine of justification as taught by Paul and that doctrine as taught by James ; but we shall afterwards endeavour to prove that this opposition is only verbal and apparent, that there is a real harmony amid seeming antagonism, and that these writers merely regard this doctrine from different points of view.^ There is also a close relation between several of these Epistles to each other — a relation so close and peculiar that we reserve it for future investigation." We would merely observe at present that the Epistle of James and the First Epistle of Peter closely resemble each other in their contents, and that this resemblance is often not merely in ideas, but in words. There is a still greater and closer resemblance between the Epistle of Jude and the second chapter of the Second Epistle of Peter ; the train of thought, the examples used for illustration, and often the words are the same, so that we might almost suppose that the one writer borrowed from the other. It has often been observed that in the epistolary writings of the different apostles there are peculiar types of doctrine ; Paul has been called the apostle of faith, James the apostle of works, Peter the apostle of hope, and John the apostle of love. And there is a certain degree of truth in this : the writings of each of these authors are thus characterized, with the possible exception of the Epistles of Peter, in which it does not appear that hope is invested with such a peculiar prominence as to be regarded as a characteristic mark. Other points of differ- ence have been noted. Viewed with regard to the distinction between Jews and Gentiles, Paul is the apostle of Gentile Christianity, James the apostle of Jewish Christianity, Peter is intermediate, and forms the connecting link between the doctrine of Paul and that of James, and John is the apostle of universal Christianity. Viewed ecclesiastically, Peter may be regarded as the apostle of the medieval Church, Paul as the apostle of the Protestant Church, and John as the apostle of ' See dissertation oa the Pauline and Jacobean views of justification, mfra. 2 See dissertations on the "Keferences in the Epistle of James," and the " Eelatiou between Second Peter and Jude," infra. 10 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. the Church of the future. Paul represents Christian scholasti- cism; James, Christian activity; and John, Christian mysticism. And so also Lange has observed that each of these sacred writers stands in a peculiar relation to Christianity, as the fulfilment of different phases of Old Testament revelation. James teaches Christianity as the fulfilment of the law of the Old Testament, hence " the royal law of love," " the law of liberty ;" Peter as the fulfilment of the theocracy of the Old Testament, hence the real kingdom of God, " the royal priest- hood ; " Paul as the fulfilment of the old covenant, and of the sacraments of the Old Testament, hence " the new covenant," " the true circumcision," and " the true passover ; " and John as the fulfilment of the symbolism of the Old Testament, hence " the true light," " the true life," and " the true love." ^ Thus do these apostles mutually support and supplement each other, and their v^ritings constitute a full development of the religion of Christ. Of Him do the glorious company of the apostles bear witness. " To disown these phases," observes Nitzsch, " in favour of a one-sided dogmatism, is to abandon that completeness and solidity which these modes of contem- plating the Christian faith impart, while they reciprocally complete one another ; it is to slight that by which Scripture truth maintains its elevation above all conflicting systems." * III. NUMBER AND ORDER OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. The Catholic Epistles in the Greek and Latin Churches are seven in number. In the Syrian Churches only three are in- serted in the canon, namely, the Epistle of James, the First Epistle of Peter, and the First Epistle of John ; the other four are regarded as apocryphal. The order of these seven Epistles in our English Bible is as follows : the Epistle of James, the two Epistles of Peter, the three Epistles of John, and the Epistle of Jude. This is the usual order observed in the chief manuscripts, versions, and scriptural catalogues. It is apparently adopted by ' Lange'a Bibelwerk: Der Brief des Jahohus, p. 3 [E. Tr. pp. 5, 6]. ' Quoted in Neander's Planting, vol. i. p. 414, Bohn's edition. See also on this subject, Farrar's Early Days of Christianity, vol, i. pp. 99, 100. INTERPRETATION OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 1 1 Eusebius, who expressly mentions the Epistle of James as " the first of the Catholic Epistles ; " ^ and it is observed in the catalogues of the Council of Laodicea, Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Jerome. Other arrangements, however, occur. In the Apostolical Constitutions and in the canon of the Third Council of Carthage the order is : two Epistles of Peter, three of John, one of James, and one of Jude. Eufinus, in his Symlolum Apostolorum, enumerates them as follows : " Two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, one of James the brother of the Lord and apostle, one of Jude, three of John." Augustine, in his work on Christian Doctrine, gives them under the following arrangement : two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude, and one ,of James. The arrangement given in the German Bible is peculiar. There we find the latter books of the New Testament placed in the following order: the First aiid Second Epistles of Peter, the First, Second, and Third Epistles of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, and the Eevelation of John. Such an arrangement, so far as we are aware, is found in no other catalogue ancient or modem : in all other lists the Catholic Epistles are kept as' a class distinct by themselves. It seems to have arisen from the peculiar views of Luther, who placed those books about which he was doubtful at the end of the New Testament, regarding them as canonical -in a secondary sense. In the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament the Catholic Epistles do not follow the Epistle to the Hebrews as they do in our English Bible, but are placed between the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles.^ They occupy this place in the Greek Testaments of Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. IV. INTERPRETATION OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. With regard to the interpretation of the Catholic Epistles, we have little more to advance than what was written in our 1 Hist. Ecd. ii. 23. " In the Codex Sinaiticus (S), however, they immediately precede the Apdcalypse and come after the Pauline Epistles. 12 GENERAL INTEODUCTION. former treatise on the interpretation of the Pauline Epistles.* Although these Epistles may be inspired, yet to discover their meaning the ordinary rules of imterpretation, which are employed in the translation of any other ancient work, must be adopted. First of all, we must obtain a pure text, and this, owing to the abundance of manuscripts, and to ^the labours of such distinguished critics as Lachmann, Tisohendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort, may be considered as to all intents accomplished. An almost universal consensus of opinion has been arrived at with regard to the disputed passages in the First Epistle of John.^ The next task is to obtain the true sense of the words ; and distinguished scholars have made the peculiar dialect of Greek, contained in the New Testament generally, and in these Epistles in particular, their special study, so that the exact meaning of the words may now be regarded as ascertained. These are, however, only the preliminary steps to a true interpretation. We may possess a pure text, and know the import of the separate words, and yet not be able to understand the precise sense which the sacred writer intends to convey: as may be seen in the celebrated passage in the First Epistle of Peter concerning Christ's descent into Hades (1 Pet. iii. 18-20). We must therefore study the peculiar style of each writer, and endeavour to ascertain the train of thought pursued by him. And for this purpose we must make each Epistle a separate study, and endeavour to put ourselves into the circumstances of the author when he wrote that Epistle, and, as far as possible, into the circumstances of those to whom the Epistle was written. For example, our interpretation of the Epistle of James will differ according as we regard the persons to whom the Epistle was addressed as Christians in general, whether Jews or Gentiles, or as Jewish Christians, or as Jews in general, whether believers or unbelievers ; all which views have been adopted by different commentators, giving rise to a variety of interpretations. It is unnecessary to consider how far the element of inspiration modifies our interpretation of these Epistles. On this subject we have nothing to add to our former exposi- ' PnvUne ilpistkf, pp. 52-64. ^ 1 John ii. 23, v. 7, 8, INTEKPRETATION OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 13 tion.' But, whatever opinion of inspiration we adopt, we must in our interpretation exercise a candid and honest spirit. The truth, and the truth only, ought to be the great object of our pursuit: all other considerations must yield to this. Hence we must come to the study of these Epistles without any undue prepossession. It is impossible to read them without some prepossession ; but we must guard against allowing the opinions which we have formed to exercise an undue influ- ence. We must derive our opinions from Scripture, and beware of forcing Scripture to suit our opinions. Tfiere is, we believe, a divine harmony in the books of the New Testament, because we regard them as all inspired by one Spirit; but there must be no wresting of the words of Scripture to pro- duce this harmony. For example, the statements of Paul and James concerning justification are apparently opposite; and although we believe that the opposition is only apparent, and that there is a real harmony in their views, yet this harmony must not be sought for by forcing the statements of Paul into an agreement with those of James, or conversely : but by a patient and careful study of the meaning of the terms which they employ, and of the different views of the opponents against whom each wrote. Whatever theory of reconcilia- tion is adopted, it must answer the statements of both writers ; if no theory of reconciliation can thus be obtained, we must confess our ignorance and suspend our judgment.^ " We must not," remarks Luther, " make God's word mean what we wish ; we must not bend it, but allow it to bend us, and give it the honour of being better than we can make jt, so that we must let it stand." It is especially necessary that we should come to the study of these Epistles in a religious spirit. The word of God can only be truly understood by the spiritual mind. Just as the masterpieces of poetry can only be appreciated by those who are endowed with a poetic spirit ; as the paintings of the great artists can only be fully understood by those who are artistic ; as the oVatorios of our great composers can only be relished by those who have an ear for music ; as the profound 1 Pauline Epis^es, pp. 56-64. 2 See dissertation on the Pauline and Jacobean views of justification, infra. 14 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. treatises of mathematics can only be mastered by those who have a mathematical mind; as the systems of metaphysics can only be comprehended by those who have a philosophic spirit : so the holy and spiritual truths of the Scriptures can only be fully realized and understood by those who are them- selves holy and spiritual. V. AUTHENTICITY OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. The external and internal evidences of each of these Epistles will be examined when we consider them separately. It may be generally stated that the evidence in favour of most of them is not so strong or convincing as that in favour of the Pauline Epistles.* The reason of this is not difficult to discover. These Epistles, were directed to no particular Church, and therefore on no particular Church was the responsi- bility laid of preserving, them. All of them have been more or less impugned. The Tiibingen school, as represented by Baur, Schwegler, and Hilgenfeld, have rejected all the Epistles. Schleiermacher and Eitschl challenge the authenticity of the Epistle of James, and Luther's opposition to it, arising from his subjective views, is well known. De Wette called in question the First Epistle of Peter, and Bretsohneider the First Epistle of John ; whilst the other four Epistles — the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of John, and the Epistle of Jude— are ranked by Eusebius among the antilegomena, or disputed books," are omitted in the Peshito,' and are called in question by numerous theologians both in this country and in Germany. The various objections, which have been adduced, will be stated and examined when we come to examine the authenticity of each Epistle. ' The First Epistle of Peter and the First Epistle of John are as strongly attested as most of the Pauline Epistles, ' Hiat. Eccl. iii. 25. » The name given to the earliest Syriac version, as it has come down to us ; the epithet, as commonly interpreted, means The. Simple, It was not until the revival of letters that the Peshito became known to the theologians of Europe. Manuscripts were brought from the East, and from them the Syriac editions of the Scriptures were printed ; the first edition being published by Widmanstadt at Vienna in 1565. AUTHENTICITY OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 15 The external evidence in favour of the Catholic Epistles as a class is founded on the catalogues of these Epistles, the various versions, and the quotations from the Fathers. The first catalogue that contains any reference to the Catholic Epistles is the Muratorian canon.^ This celebrated fragment is by most competent critics supposed to belong to the second century, and may be proximately assigned to A.D. 170. Its genuineness has been generally acknowledged. The following is the reference in it to the Catholic Epistles : " The Epistle of Jude, however, and the three Epistles of John, who has been mentioned above, are received in the Catholic (Church) ;" or as has been suggested, " are received among the Catholic (Epistles)."* There is no mention of the Epistle of James, nor of the First and Second Epistles of Peter, and an Epistle of John is omitted. But the Muratorian canon is a fragment; there is in it, in another place, a reference to the First Epistle of John; ^ and the probability is that the other Catholic Epistles were also mentioned, as the Epistle of Jude and two Epistles of John (probably the Second and Third),* inferior in point of importance to the Epistles of James and the Epistles of Peter, are named. In the catalogue of Eusebius (a.d. 325) the First Epistle of Peter and the First Epistle of John are placed among the cfioXoyovfieva, or those apostolic writings which were undisputed ; whilst the other five Epistles are classed among the avriXer/ofieva or disputed writings. " Among the disputed books," he observes, " although they are well known and approved by many, are reputed those called the. Epistles of James and Jude, also the Second Epistle of Peter, and those called the Second and Third of John, whether they are by the evangelist or some other of the same name."* Subsequently to the time of Eusebius the whole ' So Called, because first published by Muratori in 1740. It was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan. It is a manuscript of the seventh century, in the Latin language, but is supposed to be a translation from the Greek. It is a fragment, mutilated both at the beginning and at the end. A transcript of it is given by Westcott in his Canon oftlie New Testament, pp. 466-480. Most eminent scholars place its date not later than 170 or 180. " Epistola sane Judee et superscripti Johanuis duas in catholica habentur. ' Quid ergo mirum si Johannes tara constanter singula etiam in Epistolis suis proferat dicens in semetipso : Quae vidimus oculis nostris, etc. * As the context tends to show. ' Hist. Ecd. iii, 25. 16 GENERAL IKTEODUCTION. seven Epistles were admitted into the canon, and are men- tioned in the various ecclesiastical catalogues, whether promuU gated by the Councils of the Church, or given in the works of the celebrated Fathers. Thus they are contained in the catalogue of Athanasius (a.d. 330), the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363), Apostolical Constitutions (a.d. 370), Jerome (a.d. 390), Augustine (a.d. 395), the Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), and the authoritative catalogue of Pope Innocent I. (A.D. 405).^ Of the versions the earliest is the Syriac. Although the date assigned to this translation by Jones and Michaelis, toward the close of the first or at the beginning of the second 'century,' is too early, yet there are good reasons for fixing the date of the Syriac version as early as the middle of the second century (a.d. 150).^ This version, at least as it has been transmitted to us in the form of the Peshito, omits the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, as well as the Apocalypse, and thus is a witness for the genuineness of only three of the Catholic Epistles. Eecent discoveries made in Syriac manuscripts have led several eminent critics to consider that the Peshito is not the original form of the Syriac, but a revised version. Cureton, in 1858, published a Syriac manuscript containing fragments of the Gospels found in a Syrian monastery in the valley of the Natron lakes.* This Syriac manuscript was found to be a different version from the Peshito, and to contain mq,rks of high antiquity. Many of the most distinguished critics, ■■ Kirohhofer's Quellenaafnmlung, pp. 1-26 ; Westoott on The Canon, pp. 481-520, second edition. ^ Jones' Canon of the New Testament, vol. i. pp. 81-107. Michaelis, Introduc- tion to the N. T., translated by Marsh, vol. ii. pp. 29-89. ' The early age of the Syriac version appears to be proved from the discovery which has Utely been njade of Ephrsem's commentary on the Diatessaron of Tatian. According- to Professor Zahn, Tatian wrote his Diatessaron in Syriac, and used as the basis of his work the Curetonian Syriac. Now Tatian was a disciple of Justin Martyr, and therefore must have flourished about a.d. 160 ; and hence we cannot assign a later date to the Syriac version than a.d. 150. See two articles by Professor Wace in the Expositor for 1882. * The work is entitled Bemaina of a very ancient Recension of the Four Oospela in Syriac, hitherto unknown in Europe. AUTHE>fTICITY OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. .17 among whom is to be ranked Ewald, Alford,^ Tregelles, Hort, and apparently Bleek, consider this version as older than the Peshito ; an opinion which has been controverted by Scrivener and other textual critics.'' All, however, agree that the two versions do not represent two separate recensions, but that the one is taken from the other. Cureton has shown that although there is a marked difference in some places between the text of the Peshito and that of these Syriac fragments, yet that the general similarity and agreement between the two is so great as to preclude the possibility of their having been two altogether distinct and independent versions.'" And this is not only admitted but asserted by Scrivener, though he considers the Curetonian to be derived from the Peshito. " Any one," he observes, " who shall compare the verses we have cited from them in parallel columns, will readily admit that the two translations have a common origin, whatever that may be ; many other passages, though not perhaps of equal length, might be named where the resemblance is closer still ; where for twenty words together the Peshito and the Curetonian shall be positively identical, although the Syriac idiom would admit other words and another order just as naturally as that actually employed." * Now those who main- tain that the Curetonian is prior to the Peshito, and that they are not independent versions, draw the inference that the Peshito is a revised edition of a more ancient Syriac version, of which the Curetonian manuscript is a fragment. According to them, the Peshito bears the same relation to the ancient Syriac as the Vulgate does to the Old Latin.* 1 Alford remarks of the Curetonian Syriac : " Perhaps the earliest and the most important of all the versions." ^ Scrivener's Introduction to the Gritic}sm of the N. T., p. 244 ; third edition, p. 321. " Cureton's Syriac Gospels, p. 67. ' ScTiveaev's Introdiiction to the Criticism qftlie N. T., p. 238 ; third edition, p. 321. ' See on this point Westcott and Hort's Greek TeMament, vol. ii. p. 84. They come to the conclusion that the Peshito is "a Syriac Vulgate, answering to the Latin Vulgate ;" that "an Old Syriac must have existed as well as an Old Latin." The authoritative revision they consider to have taken place either in the latter part of the third or in the fourth century. B 18 GENEEAL INTKODVCTION. It has been maintained that there is evidence that the original Syriac, of which the Peshito is only a revised edition, contained the omitted books ; in short, that as there was a revision of the Syriac text which resulted in the Peshito, there was also a revision of the Syriac canon, which resulted in the omission of four of the Catholic Epistles. The opinion that the omitted books were originally contained in the Syriac was first advanced by Hug. He supposes that the Peshito formerly contained all the omitted books, and that these books gradually fell out before the sixth centuiy. The reason which he assigns for this opinion is, that Ephrtem Syrus quotes from them. " Let me be pardoned for persisting in the asser- tion that Ephrsem read in some version the disputed Epistles and the Apocalypse which he frequently quotes." ^ The same supposition has been made by Hilgenfeld. "The old Syriac version," he observes, " as it has come down to us, or the Peshito, recognises only three of the Catholic Epistles, and omits the Apocalypse of John ; but EphrEem certainly made use of these writings in an older Syriac tralnslation." "Ephrsem, the oldest witness of this version (the Peshito), has read these (omitted) writings in Syriac, and their exclusion is conceivable as an act of Antiochene theology." ^ The chief argument in proof of the assertion of the existence of the four Catholic Epistles, omitted in the Peshito, in the original unrevised Syriac version, is the fact that Ephrsem Syrus quotes from these omitted books; and as Ephrsem wrote in Syriac, it is supposed that in doing so he used a Syriac version. Now, with the exception of 2 Pet. iii. 10, "The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night," and which may as well be considered as a quotation from 1 Thess. v. 2, and a doubtful reference to 2 Pet. iii. 7, the quotations of Ephrsem from the omitted Catholic Epistles are found only in the Greek translations of his works, and ^ Hug's Introduction to the N. T., vol. i. pp. 348-351, translation. 2 Hilgenfeld's Mnleitung in das iieue Testament, pp. 122, 804. This view is also maintained by Professor Wariield of Alleghany, in an able article on the Canonicity of Second Peter, in the Southern Presbyterian Revifw of America/ 1882. See also on this subject, Liicke on The Epistles of John, pp. 300, 301, translation. AUTHENTICITY OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 19 are on this account somewhat doubtful.^ But even admitting that Ephraem quoted from these omitted Epistles, how can it be prayed that he quoted from a Syriac version, and did not rather translate from the Greek ? To this it is replied that Ephrsem was ignorant of the Greek language, and could only converse in it through an interpreter.^ But although Ephrajm could not converse in Greek, it by no means follows that he could not read the Scriptures in Greek, and could not employ that language for critical purposes. It cannot be supposed that being so long resident in the learned city of Edessa, and exercising such a powerful influence on the Syriae Churches, he was wholly ignorant of Greek. His attention must have been directed to the acquirement of that language in which the New Testament was originally written.' It has further been asserted that the early Syrian writers possessed the rejected books. Theophilus of Antioch had Second Peter and the Apocalypse, Malchion had Jude, and Pamphilus had the Apocalypse and apparently also the whole Catholic Epistles.* How far these Fathers can be regarded as Syrian writers is doubtful ; Antioch, where Theophilus and Malchion resided, was a Greek city ; and Csesarea, the abode of Pamphilus, was the Eoman capital of Judea, and also Greek. Unless it can be proved that these Fathers wrote in Syriac, whereas it is certain that they wrote in Greek, no argument can be derived from their writings as to the state of the Syriac version in their day. The Greek-Syriac Church must not be confounded with the native Syriac Church, which used the Syriac version. ' See Lardner's Worhs, quarto edition, vol. ii. p. 483. "How far," observes Lardner, "they are to be relied upon as genuine and unoorrapted maj' be hard to say. I rather think, it cannot be depended on, that Ephrsem is here truly represented. For my own part, I must own that I prefer the Syriac works much before the Greek, which at best are translations only, in which, too, the translator may have inserted some of his own sentiments." " The Greek writ- ings," observes Tregelles, "which bear the name of Ephrsem, come to us with very doubtful credentials.'' * Gregory of Nyssa, in his life of Ephrsem, informs us that when Ephrsem paid a visit to Basil, the celebrated bishop of Csesarea, he conversed with him by means of an interpreter. ' For a discussion on Ephrsem's knowledge of Greek, see the article "Ephrsem," by Dean Smith, in Smith's Difitionai-y of Christian Biography. * So Warfield, in the article above referred to. 20 GENERAL INTEODUCTION. The testimony of Eplirsem Syrus, therefore, is not sufficient to prove that the original Syriac version or early Peshito con- tained these Epistles which are now omitted. Granted that the Pesl^ito is a revised edition, yet this is no proof that the original Syriac perhaps contained the omitted books. The only remains which we have of it are fragments of the Gospels contained in the Curetonian manuscript ; we have no information as to the other writings of the New Testament. And besides, if these books were formerly in the Syriac canon, it is highly improbable that they should be omitted in any subsequent critical revision,* and that at a time when they were almost universally acknowledged in the Greek and Latin Churches. "Had these books,'' observes Bleek, "formed part of the authorized Syriac version from the outset down to the time of Ephrsem Syrus and after, we should be utterly unable to explain how it came to pass that they were afterwards excluded, at a time when their authority as canonical was established in the Christian Church.'" The next version in order of time and importance is the Old Latin, the so-called Veius Latina. The date assigned by competent critics to this version is a.d. 170.* It is supposed that it was made, not for the Church of Eome, which was at first Greek, but for the iise of Christians in Northern Africa, whose capital was Carthage. The manuscripts of the Old Latin which contain the Catholic Epistles are very few ; indeed the Epistle of James is the only Epistle which is found entire. That Epistle is contained in the Codex Corbeiensis. A few verses of Third John are found in the Codex Bezse, and fragments of James and First Peter are ^ I am not aware of any instance of the omission of canonical books in the critical revision of any version. Luther, although he doubted the genuineness of some books, yet did not omit them in his canon, but translated them and marked them with a note. The First Epistle of Clemens Romanus, though found in the Codex Alexandrinus, and sometimes read in the churches, never formed part of the canon. See Lightfoot's C/e»len( of Rome, p. 11. ^ Bleek's Introduction to the N. T., vol. ii. p. 338. See also Liicke on The Epiatlea of St. John, pp. 300, 301, English translation ; and on the whole sub- ject, an article on the " Early Syriac Versions " in the Monthly Interpreter, vol. i. pp. 424-435. ' TertuUian alludes to the existence of a Latin, version. AUTHENTICITY OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 2 1 contained in the Codex Bobbiensis.' There is also a remark- able manuscript preserved in the monastery of the Santa Croce at Eome, entitled Speculum Av^ustini. The manuscript, however, is not earlier than the eighth century. It consists of a classified list of extracts from both Testaments, the quota- tions being from the Old Latin. This manuscript contains fragments of James, First and Second Peter, First and Second John, and Jude. It is peculiarly interesting as containing the celebrated passage of " the heavenly witnesses " (1 John V. 7, 8). Its value has been very differently estimated by competent critics.^ The quotations of the Fathers from the Catholic Epistles are not numerous, though there are several references in their writings. Clemens Alexandrinus (a.T). 190) is said by Eusebius to have given abridged accounts of all the canonical writings, not even omitting those that are disputed, as the Book of Jude and the other Catholic Epistles.^ "TertuUian (ad. 200) quotes from the Epistle of Jude as apostolic and authoritative.'* Origen (a.d. 230) received the First Epistle of Peter and the First Epistle Of John as undoubtedly genuine,* and in the Latin translation of his works makes mention of the Epistle of Jude.* Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 245) makes mention pf the First Epistle of John.' It is admitted that the quotations of the Fathers from these Epistles are few in number and somewhat distant in time, but they are not fewer or more distant than are the quota- tions taken from classical writers. Canon Eawlinson has shown that it is a very rare occurrence for classical works to be distinctly quoted, or for their authors to be mentioned by name within a century of the time of their publication. Herodotus is quoted but once in the century which followed the composition of his history, and only once in the next ' Davidson's Biblical Criticism, vol. ii. p. 247. Hilgenfeld's Eialeiiung in das Jf. T., p. 801. Westoott, On the Ganon, p. 226. ' Davidson's Biblical Criticism, vol. ii. p. 410. Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T., p. 258; 3rd edition, p. 345. Wiseman's Essays on Various Subjects, vol. i. jj. 12 ff. ' Euseb. Hist. Ecel. vi. 14. •• De Oaltufam. c. 3. ' Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 25. * 0pp. torn. iv. p. 549. ' Euseb. Hist. Ecd. vii. 25. 22 GENEKAL INTRODUCTION. century. The first distinct quotation from Thucydides is about two centuries after his death. Livy is only quoted by Quinctilian a century after he wrote. And Tacitus, though mentioned as a writer by the younger Pliny, is first cited by Tertullian nearly a century after his death.^ If on authority, such as above, the genuineness of Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, and Tacitus are maintained, we have the like and even greater authority arising from quotations in favour of the Catholic Epistles, with the possible exception of the Second Epistle of Peter.^ The internal evidences in favour of the Catholic Epistles are various. These are derived from the peculiar dialect of G-reek in which the Epistles are written, from the nature of their contents, from the simplicitj' of their form, and from their resemblance to other remains of the same writers — as, for example, the resemblance of Peter's Epistles to his speeches as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, and of John's Epistles to his Gospel. It has also been affirmed that the marked superiority of these Epistles to the writings of the Apostolic Fathers wlio lived nearest their times, as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clemens Romanus, the Ignatian Epistles, the Epistle of Polycarp, and the Shepherd of Hernias, is a strong proof of their inspiration and genuineness.* How far this superiority is founded on fact, and how far, if admitted, it is a proof of genuineness, will be afterwards considered. • Kawlinson's Bampton Lectures for 1859, pp. 199, 460. It is observed that the first six hooks of the Annals of Tacitus are known to us only through a single manuscript discovered in the fifteenth centnry, and are not distinctly alluded to hy any writer until the first half of the fifteenth century. Salmon's Introduction to the N. T., p. 6. * See, however, the remarks on the genuineness of this Epistle, infra. ' Farrar's Early Days of Christianity, vol. i. p. 101. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. IN a special introduction to the Catholic Epistles, there are five points which merit consideration with regard to each Epistle : first, its authenticity ; secondly, its author ; thirdly, its readers ; fourthly, its design and contents ; fifthly, the time and place of writing. Any difficulties, specialities, or controversial questions arising from the Epistles are discussed in separate dissertations. I. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. In the early Church there was a certain degree of dubiety concerning the authenticity of the Epistle of James. It is classed by Eusebius among the Antilegomena, or disputed writings of the New Testament. "Among the disputed books," he observes, " although they are well known and approved by many, are to be reckoned the Epistles of James and Jude." ^ And in another place, when writing about James, the Lord's brother, he remarks : " These accounts are given concerning James, who is said to have written the first of the Catholic Epistles ; but it is to be observed that it is considered spurious. Not many of the ancients have men- tioned it, nor that called the Epistle of Jude, which is also one of the seven so-called Catholic Epistles. Nevertheless we know that these, with the rest, are publicly used in most of the churches," ^ It does not appear that Eusebius shared in ' ffist. Ecd. iii. 25. ^ Und. ii. 23. 23 24 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. tliese doubts, for, as will afterwards be seen, he expressly quotes the Epistle of James as sacred Scripture ; he merely states the opinion of others. The Epistle did not obtain universal acceptance until the beginning of the fifth century ; for Jerome (a.d. 390) remarks concerning it: "James, the Lord's brother, surnamed The Just, wrote only one Epistle, which is among the seven Catholic Epistles ; which is said to have been published by another in his name, but gradually in process of time it obtained authority." ^ It is not difificult to account for this dubiety in the early Church. Considerable uncertainty prevailed regarding the identity of the author, and consequently regarding his authority as an inspired writer. The Epistle was written to Jewish Christians, who, by reason of the views of the Ebionites,^ were regarded with suspicion during the first two centuries ; nor was it, like the Epistles of Paul, addressed to any particular Church or person, on whom the responsibility of its preservation might rest. And its contents excited suspicion; the Epistle appeared to conflict with the views of Paul concerning justification, and it was considered to be defective with regard to the peculiar facts and doctrines of Christianity. But, as has been remarked, these difficulties in the way of its reception increased the value of the ancient testimonies in its favour. Although, for the above reasons, dubiety existed in the ancient Church concerning the authenticity of this Epistle, the external testimonies in its favour are neither few nor unim- portant. The First Epistle of Peter has with some plausibility been advanced as a testimony in favour of this Epistle, on account of certain resemblances between these Epistles ; but we do not at present place any stress on this, because both the reality of these resemblances' and the priority of the Epistle of James have been questioned. Numerous apparent references or allusions ' Oaial. Script, ecclen. cap. 2. " Many of the Jewish Christians, in the second century, separated from the Catholic Church, and formed the heretical sect of the Ebionites. Their views were somewhat similar to those Judaizers who opposed Paul. See below. ' The resemblances between the Epistle of James and the First Epistle of Peter are discussed in a dissertation on the " References in the Epistle of James ; " and it is there maintained that the First Epistle of Peter is a testimony in Javour of the authenticity of the Epistle of James. THE ACTHKNTICITY OF THE EPISTtE. 25 have been adduced from the Epistle of Clemens Eomanus (a.d, 95) which are by no means unimportant. ' Thus Abraham is called "the friend of God" (chap, x., comp. Jas. ii. 23) ; it is said that Eahab was saved by faith and hospitality (chap, xii., comp. Jas. ii. 25) ; reference is made to the sacrifice of Isaac (chap, xxxi., comp. Jas. ii. 2 1) ; the rare word Sii|rw;y;oj {double-minded) is employed (chap, xxiii., comp. Jas. i. 8) ; and the quotation, " God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble," found in the Epistle of James, is used (chap, xxx., comp. Jas. iv. 6). Hermas (A.D. 110) appears to refer to the Epistle of James when he writes : " If ye resist the devil, he will be conquered, and flee from you in disgrace"^ (comp. Jas. iv. 7). This Epistle is contained in the ancient Syriac (a.d. 150), although that version omits four of the Catholic Epistles. The following passage from Irenceus (A.D. 180) contains an evident reference to it : " That man is not justified by these things, but that they were given as a sign to the people, this fact shows that Abraham himself, without circumcision and without observance of Sabbaths, believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, and he was called the Friend of God."^ The Epistle was in all probability found in the Old Latin version (a.d. 170), as it is con- tained in the Codex Corbeiensis. Clemens Alexandrinus (a.d. 190), according to Eusebius, gave abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures, not omitting those that are dis- puted — the Epistle of Jude and the other Catholic Epistles ; ' and Cassiodorus informs us that one of the Epistles com- mented on by Clement was the Epistle of James.* Hippolytus ^ Jifand, xii. 5 *. lotv tw avrirT^s atiToy (Sja^sXov), viX9ih)s ^iv^irttt awi ffou KXTi/irxi/'/'Wf. Several other resemblances to this Epistle are found in the works of Hermas, as Mand. ii. 2, ix. 1, xi. 5, 9, xii. 1, 6. See Charteris, Canonicity, pp^ 293-295. Credner's Einleitung, p. 15. ^ Adv. Hcer. iv. 16. 2 : Ipse Abraham credidit Deo et reputatum est illi ad justitiam, et amicus Dei vooatus est. Clemens Alexandrinus also calls Abraham by this appellation: "Abraham is found to have been expressly called the Friend (of God)." Strom, ii. 5. ^ Euseb. Hist. JEccl. vi. 14 : Ui^aittrai hviy^ffus ftnTt rks avriktya/iivus vrxfiy.6m, rhv'laula xat vks Xet^as JcotioXixas iTtffToXets, * Instit. divin. Script, cap. viii, : In epistolis autem canonicis Clemens Alex- andrinus i. e. in epistola sancti Petri primaj sancti Joannis prima et secunda et Jacobi attico sermone declaravit. 26 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. (a.d. 230), in a treatise concerning the end of the woiid, quotes from this Epistle : " For judgment is without mercy to him that has showed no mercy "^ (comp. Jas. ii. 13). Origen (a.d. 230) directly ascribes the Epistle to James: " For though it is called faith, if it be without works it is dead, as we read in the Epistle attributed to James." ^ And again : " As in James, As the body without the spirit is dead." ' And the quotations from this Epistle are numerous in the Latin version of his works. And Eusebius (a.d. 325), although he classes the Epistle among the Antilegomena, yet acknowledges its genuineness, as when he says : " For the holy apostle says. Is any among you afflicted ? let him pray. Is any merry ? let him sing psalms " * (Jas. v. 1 3). And again : " Since the Scripture says. Speak not evil, brethren, one of another, lest ye fall itito condemnation"' (Jas. iv. 11). Such is the external evidence which we possess in favour of this Epistle. On the other hand, it is to be observed that it is not found in the Muratorian canon, though, on account of the fragmentary nature of that manuscript, no great import- ance can be attached to the omission : nor is it referred to by Tertullian, for we cannot put stress on certain supposed allusions to it in his works given by Kirchhofer.^ Although traces of it are found at a very early period, yet Origen is the first Father who expressly attributes the Epistle to James. But the strongest external testimony in its favour is its insertion in the Syriac version, and its early reception by the Syrian Church. "We shall afterwards see that it was to the Syrian Church that this Epistle was chiefly addressed : most ^ Hippol., ed. Lagarde, p. 122 ; n yotp xplffts aviXwe ifrt ru ftii irtm'etvrt sX\bs, The genuineness of this treatise of Hippolytus is doubtful. 2 Comm. in Joann. 0pp. iv. p. 306 : i.iyDT«i «i> trims, x^pU J> ipyait Tuy;^ivri, ttxpa 'vrrif i rtuairn, us in Tj fipo/titf 'ItcKsi^ii/ irirraX^ uniyvufliv, ^ Selecta in Psalm, 0pp. ii. p. 6'14 ; ais rapx Ma»«j3^, Sv^ip Si ri uZfta x'^pis ^vtvfAares viKpon im. * In Psal. : ^tyu yeuv a Upas urimXas' K«x«r«^sr rts U ifiTv ; vrptrtv^ivSv tl6v[n7 Tis ; •^^ay.k^ra/, '•' Ibid. : r'is ypxftit ktyiuetis' Mn KarakaXuTt ikknkut dSiXfii, "»« ftii itti Kpiiriv ^iffnrt. • Quellemsammlimj, p. 263. TertuUiau calls Abraham "the friend of God," Adv. JvdcBOB, c. 2. But this had already become a familiar appellation. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 27 of the Christian Jews of the dispersion belonged to it, and therefore its recognition by that Church is an important evidence in its favour. It is repeatedly quoted by Ephrsem Syrus and other Syrian writers. •The internal evidence in favour of this Epistle is, we con- sider, even stronger than the external. The simple designation of the writer : " James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ," is a proof of genuineness. Were it a forgery, other titles would be attached to impart to it authority ; as " James the apostle," " James the bishop of Jerusalem," " James the Lord's brother," or even, as he is styled in the apocryphal writings, "James the brother of God" (aSeX^odeios;). The character of the Epistle corresponds with what we know of James the Lord's brother, conservative in his views regarding the Mosaic law, and so strict in his conduct as to merit the title " The Just ; " as, for example, his view of the gospel as the perfect law of liberty, his abhorrence of all pre- tence, and his demand that faith should approve itself by works. But, above all, the contents of the Epistle, so pure and lofty, so exalted above the writings of heathen moralists, so pervaded with the spirit of Christ's teaching, place it at an immense distance from all non-apostolic writings, and its perusal cannot fail to impress us with a sense of its inspiration. " The authenticity of this Epistle," observes Bleek, " is vouched for by its entire character and contents, which bring before us a man who, along with stedfast faith in Jesus as the Christ, and a firm hope in His return in glory, had above all at heart the moral side of the gospel, which he treated (unlike Paul, for instance) rather as a new law, the cast of his piety giving more of a legal hue to Christianity. Such a man, judging from all the historical accounts we have of him, we should suppose James the Lord's brother to have been." ^ In recent times the Epistle of James has been called in question by many theologians. Luther's attack upon it is well known ; he repeatedly questioned its genuineness, and always regarded it unfavourably. "The Epistle of James," he observes, "is a mere Epistle of straw compared with these writings (that is, those of John, Peter, and Paul), for it ■" Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament, E. Tr. vol. ii. p. 15P. 28 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. contains nothing of the Gospel." * " To express my opinion upon it, without prejudice to any one, I regard it as the work of no apostle, for the following reason, that in direct opposition to Paul and all Scripture it ascribes justification to works. This James does no more than insist on the law and its works, and he mixes one thing with another so confusedly, that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man who had caught up some sayings of the disciples of the apostles, and put them on paper." " The objections of Luther are not critical, but entirely subjective ; the reason why he rejected the Epistle was because it appeared to him to con- flict with his fundamental doctrine of justification by faith.^ Several of the Eeformers, and even some Roman Catholic writers, shared in his doubts. Cardinal Cajetan, Erasmus, the Magdeburg Centuriators, Grotius, and Wetstein have disputed the genuineness of this Epistle. Among recent writers it has been called in question by De Wette, who thought it incomprehensible that James should have attained to such a use of the Greek language ; * by Schleiermacher,® who asserted that its teaching savoured of Ebionite Chris- tianity ; and by Holtzmann, who, among other reasons, objected to the supposed use of the apocryphal writings.® Baur, Schwegler, Hilgenfeld, and other theologians of the Tubingen school, suppose that it was written with the pur- pose of reconciling Pauline and Petrine Christianity ; on this ' Preface to the N'. T. 1522 : Eine rechte stroherne Epistel, denn sie docli keine evangelische Art an ihr hat. It must, however, be remembered that Luther does not make this statement absolutely, but only in comparison with the writings of Paul, John, and Peter ; a fact which is often forgotten when these rash words of Luther are repeated. See Hare's Vindication of LiUher, pp. 215-217. ' Preface to the Epistles of James and Jude. ' Calvin, on the other hand, it would seem,' with a view to these objections of Luther, observes : ' ' There are also at this day some who do "not think it entitled to authority. I am, however, inclined to receive it without con- troversy, because I see no just cause for rejecting it." Preface to the Epistle of James. * That there is no ground for this objection of De Wette will be seen when we consider the language of the Epistle. ' In his Einleitung in das y. T. , herausgegeben von Wolde. ° Holtzmann's Einleitung in das N. T., p. 482. The Epistle of James has also been called in question by Weizsaoker and Hausrath. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 29 account there is no mention, on the one hand, of circumcision and tlie other rites of Judaism ; and, on the other hand, the authority of the moral law is specially insisted on. The following are the chief internal or subjective objections that have been urged against this Epistle. 1. It is affirmed to be in direct opposition to Paul's doctrine of justification by faith, as it teaches justification by works. This was the great, if not the sole reason that caused Luther to call in question the genuineness of this Epistle. " It proclaims the righteousness of works in contradiction to Paul and all other Scripture, An explanation of such right- eousness of works may be found ; but that the Epistle adduces the saying of Moses, which speaks only of Abraham's faith and not of his works, in favour of works cannot be defended." ^ This objection we propose minutely to examine afterwards ; ^ meantime, it is only necessary to say that while there is undoubtedly an apparent opposition, yet we believe and maintain that there is no real opposition, and that the views of these two writers on justification are not antagonistic. 2. De Wette, Schwegler, Holtzmann, and others object that the Epistle bears internal marks of a late origin. It is affirmed that the author of the Epistle borrowed words and phrases from the Epistles of Paul, and that the illustration of Eahab receiving the spies is taken from the Epistle to the Hebrews ; so that this Epistle must be regarded as post- apostolic* The resemblances between the Epistle of James and the Epistles of Paul are few and unimportant : the most important arose out of the Jewish training of the two writers, both being deeply versed in the Scriptures of the Old Testa- ment. The example of Abraham must readily have presented itself to every Jewish mind ; * that of Eahab is more difficult to account for, but was a remarkable incident in the history * Preface to the Epistle of James. ' See dissertation on the Pauline and Jacobean views of justification. ' De Wette's Mnleitwig in das N. T., sechste Ausgabe, p. 371. So Schwegler urges as an objection against the Epistle, its acquaintance with the Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Gospel to the Hebrews (?). * See Lightfoot's Commentary on the Oalatians": dissertation on the faith of Abraham, third edition, pp. 156-163. 30 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. of the Jewish people. And even although there were some reasons for the objection, which we do not admit, yet it would only prove that the Epistle was written after these writings, not that it was post-apostolic' 3. The absence of Christian doctrine is another objection. It is affirmed that the essential doctrines of Christianity, such as the atonement by the death of Christ, His resurrection, the influences of the Spirit, the resurrection of the dead, etc., are wanting in this Epistle.^ And certainly it must be admitted that there is a comparative want of Christian doctrine, the reason of which we shall afterwards consider ; but there is no want of Christian precept ; the Epistle is practical rather than doctrinal ; and there is no Epistle which is so deeply imbued with the teaching of Christ as displayed to us in the Sermon on the Mount. "This short Epistle of James," observes Eeuss, "alone contains more reminiscences of the discourses of Jesus than all the other writings of the New Testament put together." " 4. Wetstein, Holtzmann,^ and others object to this Epistle, that it exhibits an acquaintance witli the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, as is seen in its references to the Wisdom of Solomon and the Book of Ecclesiasticus.- We shall after- wards examine into the truth of this assertion.* But in the meantime we would only remark, that admitting its truth, granting that there are references to, and even quotations from, these apocryphal books, as many divines who assert the genuineness of this Epistle affirm," we cannot possibly see what objection can arise from this fact to the genuineness of the Epistle. James might freely quote from these apocryphal books, with which, as a Jew, he must have been acquainted. ■^ Thus Luther objects that the Epistle makes "no mention of the sufferings, the resun-eotion, and the Spirit of Christ. " " Keuss' Oeschkhte der keiligen Schri/ten N. T., p. 132, vierte Ausgabe [E. Tr. p. l40].- ' Thus Holtzmann remarks: "The author in ir. 6 cites the LXX. and has an Old Testament before him which, besides the canonical books, contains also the Apocrypha." Einleitung m das N. T., p. 482. * See references in the Epistle of James to the Apocrypha, in/ra. * Notably Dean Plumptre, THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE. 31 11. THE AUTHOK OF THE EPISTLE. The author designates himself " James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." This name ('la/cm/Sos) is common to many in the New Testament ; but there are especially three distinguished men bearing this name to whom this Epistle has been ascribed. 1. James the son of Zebedee, the brother of John, one of the three favoured apostles of Jesus. 2. James the son of Alphaus, called also James the Less, another of the twelve apostles. 3. James " the Lord's brother," who is generally regarded as identical with James the bishop of Jerusalem. By many the last two are regarded as the same person. The Epistle has been attributed to James the son of Zebedee. This opinion appears to have been adopted by Michaelis,^ and has recently been ingeniously supported by Bassett in his Commentary on the Epistle of James.^ The external evidence in its favour is of the most meagre descrip- tion. A manuscript of the Old Italic version, the Codex Corbeiensis, belonging to the ninth century, states, in the subscription, that the Epistle was written by James the son of Zebedee.^ And in the early printed editions of the Peshito the same statement is made ; but it is unknown to what manuscript authority the editors appealed.* The manu- scripts of the Peshito have simply, either in the superscription or in the subscription, " The Epistle of James the apostle." In the edition of Widmanstadt, the first printed edition of the Peshito, it is stated in Syriac that "the three Epistles (James, First Peter, and First John) were written by the three apostles who were witnesses to the revelation of the Lord when He was transfigured on Mount Tabor, and who saw ' Michaelis, Introduction to the 2f. T., translated by Bp. Marsh, vol. vi. p. 277 ff. = Bassett's Catholic Ej^istU of St. James, pp. i.-xxxvi. s Explicit Epistola Jacobi filii ZebediEi. * Bassett himself observes: "The assertion, so freely made by Grotius and Pole and later writers, that the Peshito Syriac assigned this Epistle expressly to James the son of Zebedee, appears to be without any foundation so far as the authority of MSS. is concerned, and must have been derived from this general title to the three Catholic Epistles in these early editions of the printed text." 32 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. Moses and Elias speaking with Him." * And a similar state- ment is made in the subscription to these Epistles in the edition of Tremellius : " "The three Epistles of the blessed apostles, before whose eyes our Lord was transfigured, namely, James, Peter, and John." The internal reasons for the authorship of James the son of Zebedee — such as the supposed improbability that one who was so highly favoured by our Lord should have passed away without leaving any written memorial of his teaching, the coincidences between the contents of this Epistle and the circumstances in the life of this apostle, the supposed reference to the transfiguration, the resemblances to the Sermon on the Mount — are of no weight. They are either too vague in their character, or are equally applicable to the other two who bear the name of James. We do not indeed consider the early death of the son of Zebedee (a.d. 44) as opposed to his being the author of this Epistle ; but we really know little about him, whereas there is another James, whose character we do know, and which corresponds in a remarkable degree with the character- istics of this Epistle. The opinion that the author was James the son of Zebedee does not appear to have been entertained by any of the Fathers ; indeed, Jerome asserts that he greatly errs who considers that this James was the brother of John.' James the Lord's brother has been almost universally regarded as the author of this Epistle. He stands out promi- nently in the Acts of the Apostles ; he appears to have been the acknowledged head of the Church of Jerusalem, and hence has received the title of " Bishop of Jerusalem." If not an apostle, he was one of the most eminent leaders of the primitive Church ; he presided at the Council of Jerusalem ; and was regarded by Paul as one of the pillars of the Church (Gal. ii. 9). There have been several opinions entertained regarding the 1 This statement was prefixed as a special title to the Catholic Epistles immediately before that of James ; and as Widmanstadt printed from a MS. brought by Moses of Mardin, it may be presumed that he took what he found in that MS. ; but the statement is not repeated by Schaaf and the later editors, probably because it is destitute of manuscript authority. It is not in the Arabic version from the Peshito. ' The edition of Tremellins was published in Hebrew characters in 1569. ' Comm. in Ep. ad Oal, i. 19. See Erdmann, Der Brief dea Jakobw, p. 3. THE AUTHOE OF THE EPISTLE. 33 personality of this James. Of these there are three which have been maintained by high authorities in the Christian Church, and which have received their names from their authors or chief supporters. These are — the Hieronymiau view, which regards James not as an actual brother, but as a full cousin of our Lord (the most of those who hold this view identifying him with James the sonof Alphseus); the Epiphanian, which regards him as a half-brother of our Lord, being the son of Joseph, but not of Mary ; and the Helvidian, which considers him as a full brother, being the son of Mary and Joseph. It has been maintained that James the son of Alphaeus and James the brother of the Lord are identical. According to this view, the word brethren is used in an extended sense for cousins. The line of argument by which this opinion is maintained is as follows : — We are informed in the Gospels that the brethren of Jesus were James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas (Matt. xiii. 55 ; Mark vi. 3). Now a James and a Joses are mentioned as the sons of Mary the wife of Clopas, and the sister of the mother of Jesus (John.xix. 25 com- pared with Matt, xxvii. 56 ; Mark xv. 40). It is further affirmed that Clopas is the same name as Alphseus,^ Alphseus being the Hebrew name ('fliri), and Clopas being a different mode of expressing the Hebrew letters in Greek characters (K\Q)Tra?) ; and hence James the son of Alphseus is the same as the above-mentioned James the son of Clopas and Mary, and the cousin of our Lord. Further, in the apostolic list given by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, Judas is called " the brother of James" (Acts i. 13). Hence the sons of Alphseus, or Clopas, and Mary, the sister of the Virgin, are James, and Judas, and Joses, being the names of three of the breithren of Jesus ; so that in order to identify them we have only to suppose that the word brethren or brothers is used in an enlarged sense so as to include cousins. This opinion, which appears to have been first definitively brought forward by Jerome, and hence called the Hieronymian,^ was supported by the authority 1 See "Winer's WSrterbuch : Alphseus. * Gated. Script, eccl. ch. 2: Jacobus qui appellator frater Domini, ut nonnuUi existimant, Joseph ex alia uxore, ut autem mihi yidetur Marise sororis matris Domini filius. C 34 THK EPISTLE OF JAMES. of Augustine, and has been embraced by Calvin, Pearson, Doddridge, Herder, Schneckenburger, Gieseler, Theile, Hug, Eaumgarten, Guericke, Hengstenberg, Keil, Philippi, Mansel, EUicott, Wordsworth, Tregelles, and Dean Scott, in his expo- sition of the Epistle of James in the SpeaJcer's Commentary. But although this opinion is so highly supported, yet it labours under so many and such great difficulties, that we are constrained to relinquish it as untenable. It is built on a series of assumptions, each of which is doubtful, and it is liable to several grave objections. 1. It is arbitrary to assume that the word brethren here signifies cousins. The word brethren is frequently used, in Scripture in a metaphorical sense, but without any danger of misconception ; ^ but there is nothing in the narrative here to suggest such an extended and meta- phorical sense, nor is there any instance in the New Testa- ment where the word is used in the sense of cousins. If the so-called brethren of Jesus were only cousins, we would have expected the word aveyjrioi and not dSeX^ot. The objection is equally strong, with regard to those who are called our Lord's sisters (Matt. xiii. 56). 2. It is doubtful if Mary the wife of Clopas was the sister of the Virgin. The words of the evan- gelist are : " Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother and His mother's sister, Mary, the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John xix. 25). The probability is that there were four women, here mentioned in pairs, and that the sister of our Lord's mother was not Mary the wife of Clopas, but Salome the mother of John, who, we know, also stood by the cross (Matt.xxvi. 56).^ This avoids the improbability of two sisters being called by the same name. 3. It is more than doubtful if Clopas and Alphseus are the same name. Alphgeus is Semitic, and is to be referred to 's^k or isfsn, and rendered into Greek characters can only be 'A\.ti Is here used in a wide sense, and not as restncted to the Twelve ; being applied in the Acts of the Apostles not only to Paul, but also to Barnabas (Acts xiv. 14). 40 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. and that he had a residence in Jerusalem. As Dr. Bushnell remarks : "Why Jesus committed Mary to John, and not to the four brothers, it is not difficult to guess ; for John has a home, as they certainly have not, and are not likely soon to have." ^ James the Lord's brother is frequently mentioned in Scrip- ture. Like the other brethren of our Lord, he was at first unbelieving (John vii. 4), but appears to have been converted by a special appearance of our Lord to him after His resur- rection (1 Cor. XV. 7). From the very first, probably on account of his high moral character and his relationship to Jesus, he occupied a distinguished position in the Christian Church. When Peter was miraculously delivered from prison, he ordered that special intelligence should be sent to James : " Go show these things to James and to the brethren " (Acts xii. 7). James presided at the council of Jerusalem, and pronounced the decree of the assembled Church (Acts XV. 19). To him, as the head of the Church of Jerusalem, Paul on his last journey to that city repaired with the offerings of the Gentiles (Acts xxi. 2 0). In the Epistle to the Galatians Paul gives, him the honom-able appellation of the Lord's brother (Gal. i. 19), and ranks him along with Peter and John among the pillars or leaders of the Church (Gal. ii. 19). Mention is made of certain who came from James who found fault with Peter for his free intercourse with the Gentile converts (Gal. ii. 21). And in the short Epistle of Jude the writer commends himself to his readers as " Jude the brother of James " (Jude 1). ^ The interestiiig question ooneei'nmg the personality of James the Lord's brother is discussed more or less fully in Winer's Biblisches WOrterbuch, article "Jacobus," Lange's Life of Christ, vol. i. 421-437, Clark's translation. Neander's Planting, vol. i. 350-354. Schaffs Apostolic History, vol. ii. 35-38 ; and in his Das Verlialtniss de.s Jahobus Bruders des Herrn zu Jak. Alphei, Berlin 1842. Alford's Oreek Testament, introduction to the Epistle of James. Lardner's Works, vol. iii. 368-384. Davidson's IntrodiKtion to the Study of the If. T., 1st ed. vol. i. 281-284 ; 2nd ed. vol. i. 304-309. Lightfoot's Commen- tary on the Epistle to the Oalatitms : dissertation, " The Brethren of the Lord." Herzog-Plitt's Eeal-EncyMop&die, article "Jacobus," by Sieffert. Schegg's Jakobus der Bruder des Hemi. Fan'ar's Early Days qf Christianity, vol. i. p. 489 if. Wiesinger's Der Brief des Jakobus, Introduction, pp. 1-12. Holtz- inann, "Jacobus deV Gerechte und seine Kamensbruder, " in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 1880, Nr. 2. Gloag's Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, vol. i. pp. 422-429. Weiss' Einkitung in das N. T., pp. 387-396. THE AUTHOK OF THE EPISTLE. 41 The Lord's brother occupied a prominent position in tlie traditions of the Church. The same general character is given to him : he is described as a man of legal strictness, universally esteemed, who earned for himself the title of " The Just," and who continued to the last an observer of the Mosaic law. A long and interesting account of his character and martyrdom, written by Hegesippus, who lived about the middle of the second century, is preserved by Eusebius.^ He informs us that to distinguish him fiom others of the same name he was called The Just, and Oblias, which signifies " the bulwark of the people." He lived as a Nazarite. He was consecrated from his mother's womb ; he drank neither wine nor strong drink, and no razor came upon his head. He was in the habit of entering the temple alone, and was often found on his knees interceding for the forgiveness of his people, so that his knees became as hard as camels' in conse- quence of his habitual supplication and kneeling before God. He was put to death by the fanatical Jews a few years before the destruction of Jerusalem. " Thus," concludes Hegesippus, "he suffered martyrdom, and they buried him on the spot where his tombstone still remains near the temple. He was a faithful witness to the Jews and to the Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. Immediately after this, Vespasian invaded and took Jerusalem." ^ Josephus, in a remarkable passage, gives a similar account of the martyrdom of James. He was put to death by the high priest Ananus, during a vacancy in the Eoman procuratorship, after the death of Festus, and before the arrival of Albinus. " Ananus,'' he writes, " assembled the Sanhedrim, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who is called Christ, whose name was James, and some of his companions ; and when he had formed the accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."* > Hint. Ecd. ii. 23. 2 Although the narrative of Hegesippus is partially mythical, yet the main features appear to be founded on fact. It may be regarded as a certain fact that James was martyred at the temple by the fanatical Jews shortly before the fall of their city. See Lechler's ApoHtolic and Post-apostolic Times, translated from the 3rd edition, vol. i. pp. 59-66. 1886. * Ant. XX. 9. 1. The narrative of Josephus has without good reason been suspected by Credner, and recently by Schiirer and Sieffert ; it is inserted by 42 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. According to this account, James was martyred in the year 63, shortly before the commencement of the Jewish war. In the Clementine Homilies and other apocryphal writings, Jamea occupies a conspicuous place, and is exalted above all the apostles. Peter is represented as addressing him as " the lord and bishop of the holy Church ;"^ and Clement addresses him as the "bishop of bishops (eTr/o-KOTro? eTna-Kcireov) who rules Jerusalem, the holy Church of the Hebrews." '^ In the Apostolic Constitutions it is affirmed that he was appointed bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord Himself and His apostles.' Eusebius informs us of the tradition that James received the dignity of the episcopate at Jerusalem from the Saviour Himself, and that his episcopal seat, which was preserved until the present time, was held in veneration by his succes- sors.* In the Liturgy of James he is called dSe\f des Jakobus, p. 42 Ii'. Hofmann's Schriftbeweis, vol. i. pp. S56-563. W. Schmidt's Der Lehrgehalt des Jacobus Briefes, p. 167 ff. Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. p. .555 ff. Lechler's Das apostolische Zeitalter, p. 252 ff. Huther's Brit/ des Jakobus, p. 143 ff. Mangold's edition of Block's EinUituitg, pp. 709-712. Neander's Planting of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 15 ff. Lanrence's Bampton Lectures for 1804, Lect. v. and vi. Farrar's JUarly Days of Christianity, chaji. xxiii. (St. Paul and St. James on Faith and Works). Schafl"s Popula/r Com- mentary, vol. iv. p. 123 ff. THE PAULINE AND JACOBEAN VIEWS OF JUSTIFICATION. 65 (Gal. ii. 1 6). And to the Ephesians he writes : " For by grace are ye saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God : not of works, lest any man should boast " (Eph. ii. 8, 9). — James, on the other hand, affirms that faith must be combined with works to render it justifying : " What doth it profit, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works ? can that faith save him ? ^ Faith, if it have not works, is dead, being alone. Wilt thou know, vain man, that faith without works is dead ? Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (Jas. ii. 14, 17, 20, 24, 26). And this apparent antagonism is strikingly displayed in the instance of the justification of Abraham, which both adduce as confirming or illustrating their respective statements. Paul ascribes the justification of Abraham to his faith : " If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness " (Eom. iv. 2, 3). Whereas James ascribes the justification of Abraham to his works : " Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" (Jas. ii. 21). The one seems to exclude works entirely in the matter of justification ; the other appears to assert that works are as essential to our justification as faith. In short, these writers appear to be establishing two opposite doctrines : the one, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith ; the other, the Eomish doctrine of the merit of good works.^ Accordingly, some suppose that there is not only an apparent, but a real contradiction between the views of these writers, so that the one affirms what the other denies : Paul maintaining the doctrine of justification by faith, and James ' Sevised Version. So ought the words : /th Si!»«t«< « ^Ims rSrxi aMv -, to he rendered. The article must receive its full force : literally, " Can the faith save him ! " that is, the particular faith which such a man possesses. Faith certainly does save ; but not the faith to which James alludes. 2 This apparent opposition in doctrine is clearly seen hy comparing the respective statements of James and Paul : ?| cfyut hxanurxi attpans, »«< 'ix Ix irlrTsus /litsv (Jas. ii. 24) ; and : i.i>yi%S/tsSa nut trlfrii hxxntirixi Mfum, x^f's ifym tijiov (Rom. iii. 28). E 06 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. the doctrine of justification by works. According to them, James wrote for the express purpose of opposing Paul, or at least of entering his dissent from the views maintained by that apostle. Luther, as is well known, supposed that the views of James were opposed to those of Paul;^ and in recent times this opinion has been adopted by Baur, Schwegler, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, Kauch, Davidson {Introduction to tlie Study of the N. T.), and to some extent by Hug.^ Baur is comparatively moderate in his views. He supposes that the Epistle of James was written by some unknown author about the beginning of the second century, with a conciliatory design of mediating between the views of Paul and those of the Judaizing Christians. " The doctrine of this Epistle," he observes, " must be considered as intended to correct Paul. But what we have here is no longer the original harsh and rigid opposition of Judaism to Christianity, as we meet it in the Epistles of Paul ; the opposition has softened down, the harsher demands of the law are now departed from. There is nothing here to remind us of the Judaeo-Christianity of James, a man whom we know from Gal. ii. to have been impregnated with all the obstinacy of traditionary Judaism, and to have been the uncompromising upholder of every Jewish institu- tion, even of circumcision. . . . The main point is now to maintain Judaism on its spiritual side as the religion of practical conduct or moral action."* Others, however, and ^ "Many," he observes, "have endeavoured to reconcile the Epistles of James and Paul. Philip Melancthon refers to it in his Apology, but not with earnest- ness ; for ' faith justifies,' and ' faith does not justify,' are plain contradictions." Quoted by Huther from Luther's Table Talk, Flochmann's edition, vol. Ixii. p. 127. " Hug, in his Introduction to the New Testament, contradicts himself. In one place he says: "The Epistle of James was therefore written inten- tionally against Paul, and against the doctrine that faith effects justification and divine grace in man" (vol. ii. p. 557); whilst in another place he says: "If James attacked the erroneous interpretations which they (the Jews) made of Paul and his proofs, can it be laid to his charge that he was one who did not comprehend or understand Paul ? James did not raise himself up against Paul." '■'Each, on his side, has seen and judged correctly, and neither assails the notions and representations, nor disparages the doctrine of the other " (vol. ii. p. 583), "We have not been able to compare these statements with the original, and are inclined to suspect that the translation is faulty. ■'' Baur's Apostel Pwulus, vol. ii. p. 338 [E. Tr. vol. ii. pp. 309, 311]. THE PAULINE AND JACOBEAN VIEWS OF JUSTIFICATION. 67 especially the disciples of Baur, go much farther, and affirm that ill this Epistle Jewish Christianity, as taught by the apostles of the circumcision, finds its full expression in oppo- sition to Gentile Christianitj' as taught by Paul ; in short, that the doctrinal systems of these two writers (James and Paul) are in sharp antagonism, and that two distinct phases of Christianity were taught in the apostolic Church. Dr. Davidson, who may be considered the English representative of the Tubingen school, remarks : " The Pauline doctrine of justification is combated in this Epistle. Doubtless it had been abused by many. James opposes the thing itself, not its abuse. Instead of attacking erroneous interpretations which the Jewish converts deduced from Paul's writings, h^ attacks the real doctrine. The Pauline doctrine of justifica- tion was unacceptable to Jewish Christians, whose modes of thinking could not be readily reconciled to it." ^ If this were the case, if there were not only an apparent but an actual contradiction, if there were two gospels, — the one " the gospel of the circumcision" as taught by James, and the other " the gospel of the uncircumcision'' as taught by Paul, — this discovery would seriously impair the authority of Scripture, and shake the very foundations of Christianity.^ Others affirm that there is no contradiction in the views of Paul and James ; that the difference is one of expression only ; that the one sacred writer supplements the other, and that thus there is a fuller development of Christian doctrine. Such was the view adopted by Calvin^ and the Reformed Church; and the same opinion has in modern times been ' Davidson's Introduction to the Stvdy of the New Testament, vol. i. (Ist edition) pp. 293, 294. Dr. Davidson does not enter into any examination of this difference of view, but merely asserts that the contradiction is self-evident. " It is," he observes, " unnecessary to show that the doctrine of justification by faith which Paul preached, and that of justification by works which James sets forth, are irreconcilable " (p. 29£). But in his hit.roduction to the New Testament, vol. iii. p. 330, he asserts that "James's doctrine of justification by works, and Paul's by faith, are quite reconcilable." Credner, although he defends the genuineness of the Epistle, yet supposes that the view^ of Paul are combated in it. Mnleitung, p. 601. ' Of course there is another alternative, supposing the contradiction preyed, namely, that the Epistle of James is uncanonical. ' Calvin in Jacobi Ep. ii. 21. 68 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. maintained by Feander, Hofmann/ Wiesinger, Lange, Heng- stenberg, Philippi, Bleek, Huther, Theile, Beyschlag, Sieffert, Eeuss,^ Ei'dmann, Guericke, Sohaff, Bruckner;^ and among English theologians by Alford, Plumptre, Bishop Lightfoot, Dean Scott, Salmon, and Earrar. According to some of these theologians, James wrote for the purpose of correcting the perversions which had been made of Paul's doctrine; but according to most of them, the Epistle was written without any reference to the views of Paul. The Epistle is by most conceived to have been an earlier phase of Christianity than that which was afterwards developed by the great apostle of the Gentiles ; and the terms justification, faith and works are considered not to have been taken from the Pauline Epistles, but to be technical terms employed by Jewish writers.* There is a third class of theologians who adopt a middle view. They suppose that there is a certain diversity of doc- trine in the writings of Paul and James, but that this does not exclude a higher unity. The sacred writers view the doctrine of justification in different lights and from different standpoints, and hence the diversity of expression ; but there underlies this diversity of expression a harmonizing principle, or at least the points of deviation in the statements of these writers are unimportant. Such are the views adopted by Kern, Woldemar Schmidt, Ch, E. Schmid, Weizsacker, Lechler,* ' For Hofmann's peculiar views, see his Schri/tbevieis, vol. i. p. 556 If. 2 "The two apostles," observes Eeuss, " are on totally different grounds, not opposed to each other ; and this the less, as there are plenty of passages to be found in Paul where he speaks just as James does." Oenchichte d. heU. Schri/t. N. T. p. 133. ' Bruckner's views are not clear ; in one part of his commentary he asserts that there is a reconciling principle between the views of Paul and James, whilst in another part he would appear to assert that Luther and others have correctly recognised a contradiction between James and Paul. Bri^ dee Jakobus, p. 239. * See on this point Lightfoot's Commentary on the Oalatians: " On the faith of Abraham," p. 156 £F. 3rd edition. Weber, Alt-palastlnische Theologie. ° Lechler observes ; " We recognise an opposition between the statements of these two writers ; but, at the same time, we are convinced that this is only subordinate and unessential, whilst the points of agreement between these two doctrinal statements are much more important than the points of difference." Daa apostoliache Zeitalier, p. 256, zweite Auflage [E. Tr. of 3rd edition, vol. ii. p. 218]. THE PAULINE AND JACOBEAN VIEWS OF JUSTIFICATION. 69 and Delitzsch.^ Thus Kern observes : " The relation between Paul and James with reference to this doctrinal point is clear. With Paul faith, because it justifies, is the source of good works ; with James faith, because it is the source of good works, and proves in them its own vitality, is the faith that justifies. With Paul, justification is conditioned by faith, or justification and faith are both present in the man who is justified by faith, and works proceed from justification by faith. With James, justification is conditioned by the moral conduct produced by faith ; justification proceeds from works in which faith proves itself a living faith." ^ And still more clearly Woldemar Schmidt thus states the points of difference : " 1. According to James, faith is only made perfect by works ; but according to Paul, faith, even without works, as the self-surrender of the man to God's grace in Christ, as the apprehension of the atonement accomplished in the death of Christ, is perfect faith. 2. According to James, therefore, justification is conditioned by faith and works ; but according to Paul, a man is justified by faith without the works of the law." ^ Similarly also Ch. P. Schmid observes : " The deepest ground of difference between them is that James looks upon faith without works as dead, and that Paul most fully recog- ' Delitzaoh almost goes the length of asserting that the view of James is opposed to that of Paul, and does not admit of reconciliation. " In Paul's system," he says, " irittrn and iixxmrn precede ifyx, while for James vUtis and ifyx precede iixxiuris. Paul knows of no works pleasing to God before justifica- tion ; James makes justification depend on antecedent good works." He adds : "In comparing the doctrines of each with the other, we must not forget that James the Lord's brother was not an apostle, and acknowledge that his most precious Epistle is on this doctrine of justification one-sided." Commentary on the. Ep. to the Hebrews, vol. ii. pp. 273, 274, E. Tr. " Kern's Jakdbia-Brief, p. 47. ^ Schmidt's Lehrgehalt des Jacobtis-Briefes, p. 182. Along with these two points of difference Schmidt mentions the three following points of agreement: — 1. Both recognise the same idea in justification ; with both, justification is a judi- cial act of God, in which God declares the sinner as righteous. 2. Both consider faith, so far as it is living, as combined with works ; according to James, works serve for the completion of faith ; according to Paul, for the evidence of faith. 3. Both deny entirely a justification by works. James, as well as Paul, refers salvation exclusively to the grace of God (i. 17, Hftiiix), recognising regeneration as the creative act of God in man (i. 18). We would recommend this work of Schmidt to the theological student as thes most suggestive work we have met with on the theology of James. 70 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. nises the vitality of faith in itself, even before it has produced works, that it may be and is a principle of life so far as it embraces Christ, and exactly so far a condition of justifica^ tion, apart from the fact whether it has been developed in works." ' Various methods of interpretation have been adopted to reconcile the apparent discrepancy in the views of Paul and James. These methods differ according to the different meanings attached to the three principal terms — justification, works, and faith. Some, as Calvin, Calovius, and in recent times Michaelis, Hofmann, Thiersch, Wiesinger, Lange, and Philippi, suppose that the word justification is employed in different senses by the two apostles. Thus Calvin observes: "We must take notice of the twofold meaning of the word justified; Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God ; James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men." ^ According to this view, Paul speaks of justification by faith in the sight of God, whilst James speaks of justification by works in the sight of man ; the one referring to the justification of our persons, the other rather to the justification of our faith. Paul speaks of justification properly so called — the declaration of righteous- ness by God ; James speaks of the manifestation or proof of that declaration. But it is evident from an attentive perusal of the passage that James speaks of justification in the sight of God : he is discussing the condition of the professed believer, not before men or before the Church, but before God ; and thus he uses the term justification in the same sense as Paul does. To speak of justification in the sight of man, would be to assign a meaning to the term which it never has in the writings either of Paul or of James. ' Sohmid's Biblical Theology of the New Testament, p. 346, E. Tr. ' Jacobi Ep. ii. 21. Similarly Lange observes that the tenn hxitimt is nsed hy Paul to describe an act " which transpires solely between God and the sinner in the tribunal of his consciousness;" but by James as "the declaration of righteousness in the consciousness of the theocratic congregation. " Commentary on James, p. 85, E. Tr. Similarly Michaelis, Introduction to the N. T., by Marsh, vol. vi. p. 305. Hofmann's Schr\ftheiceis, vol. j. p. 560 ff. Wiesinger on Jas. ii. 21. THE PAULINE AND JACOBEAN VIEWS OF JUSTIFICATION. 1i Hengstenberg rightly recognises that the term Sikuiovv has with Paul and James the same meaning ; but he supposes that justification is a gradual process, and that Paul speaks of the commencement of justification which is by faith only, and James of the continuance or development of justification which is by faith confirmed or made perfect by works. As faith must prove and perfect itself by works, so justification is not imparted to man at once, but gradually ; it is conditioned by the increase of faith, and the stages of justification correspond to the stages of our faith.^ But this is to adopt the Eomish notion of justification, and to confoimd it with sanctification. According to this view, our justification would be ultimately assigned to our works, which is in evident contradiction with the doctrine of Paul. Besides, it is to be observed that according to James, works do not perfect our justification or advance it from an imperfect to a more perfect stage, but make perfect our faith, which as a subjective feeling is capable of increase. Even justification at the last judgment is not more perfect than that by which God in this life absolves the sinner from his sins ; his forgiveness is already complete, and he is already in a saved condition. Huther, on the other hand, distinguishes between justifica- tion and salvation. He supposes that Paul intends a restora- tion to the favour of God, a full forgiveness, which is bestowed in this life whenever a man believes on Christ ; whereas James intends the complete realization of this forgiveness, and that in all its fulness, by the bestowal of salvation at the day of judgment. "James," he observes, "has in view the justi- fication that places believers at the last judgment in the full enjoyment of salvation ; whereas Paul denotes by SiKaiovaBat, the justification that even here in this world puts believers in a gracious relation toward God." ^ This opinion has also 1 "Brief des Jakobiis"in the Evang. Kirchenz. 1866, Nos. 93, 94. Heng- stenberg affirms : " If by faith is understood genuine living faith, and by works genuine works proceeding from faith, justification by faith and justification by works can be taught without contradiction." This is evidently erroneous, because the justification of which Paul speaks is the cause, and in no sense the effect of works. 2 Huther's Der Brief des JaJcobus, p. 145, dritte Auflage [E. Tr. p. 142]. 72 THE EPISTLE OK JAMES. been adopted by Dean Scott/ According to this view, Paul by justification denotes that act of God by which forgive- ness is adjudged to the sinner for the sake of Christ ; and James, that act of God by which the believer is justified or acquitted at the day of judgment. James, it is asserted, uses the word justified {BiKaiovv) in the sense of saved (o-wfetv), as when he says : " What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith and have not works ? Can that faith save him ? " (Jas. ii. 14). And in this sense the term is also used by our Lord when He says, with evident reference to the day of judgment : " By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned " (Matt. xii. 37). Now, if this be the true meaning of the language of James, certainly there is not the slightest differ- ence between his view and that of Paul ; for whilst Paul always asserts that we shall be justified by faith, he is no less emphatic in declaring that we shall be judged by our works (2 Cor. V. 10). But the theory is untenable. The whole argument of James, and his use of the present SiKaiovTui (Jas. ii. 24), prove that he is speaking not of acquittal in the next world, but of justification in this life. Besides, the example of Abraham's justification, which was certainly in this life, is a refutation of the above opinion.^ A second class of theologians, as Theophylact, Oecumenius, and in recent times Knapp and Gebser, affirm that whilst the justification, about which the sacred writers discourse, is the same, namely, a declaration of righteousness in the sight of God, the works, Which Paul excludes from justification, and which James combines with faith in justification, are different. Among this class there is a variety of views. Some consider that Paul speaks of works wrought in obedience ^ Dean Scott in the Speaker's Commentary. " James's subject," he ohserves, "is not so myiah. justification, as it is judgment by works." ° Huther endeavours to remove the objection to his view, derived from Abra- ham's justifloation, by remarking : " When James appeals to what happened to Abraham there is nothing unsuitable, for why should not that which God has done in a definite instance be regarded as a type and testimony of what He shall do at the future judgment? Moreover, this is completely appropriate, since to Abraham, by the address to him after the offering of Isaac, the promise which was before made to his faith was rendered uncliangeably firm at the close of his theocratic life." Der Brief des Jdkohw, y. 140. THE PAULINE AND JACOBEAN VIEWS OF JUSTIFICATION. VS to the ceremonial law, whilst James speaks of works done in obedience to the moral law. Others think that Paul speaks of the works of the law {ep^a rov vo/iov), which were unneces- sary for justification, and James of the works of faith (epya Tjj? TTiffTew?), which were necessary. Others assert that Paul speaks of the works of the unregenerate done in an un- converted state, and James of the works of believers done iii a state of grace. And undoubtedly there is a difference in their use of the term works. The works, of which Paul speaks, are legal works done without faith ; whereas the works, of which James speaks, are evangelical works which arise from faith. But this cannot be the true solution of the difficulty, Paul excludes from his idea of justification not merely legal, but evangelical works ; according to him, by no works whatever can a man be justified, Besides, evangelical works presuppose the previous existence of justifying faith,-and can only be done by a man who is already in a state of justification ; they do not precede, but follow justification. A third class of theologians think that the faith, about which tliese sacred writers discourse, describes two different conceptions. Paul speaks of genuine faith, an active prin- ciple which manifests its reality by works, the consent of the will to the truths of the gospel ; whereas James speaks of a mere speculative, inoperative faith, the assent of the understauding, a dead faith which is unaccompanied by works. This is the opinion which is adopted by most of those theo- logians who consider that there is a real harmony between the statements of Paul and James concerning justification; and it is on the lines of this opinion that we consider the true solution of the question is to be obtained. In any solution we must not forget the peculiar character- istics of Paul and James, and the difference in their rela- tions and characters. They stand in different relations to the law of Moses. Paul regarded the Mosaic law as abolished ; and although he himself kept it and occasionally joined in its ceremonies, yet he does not appear to have been a strict observer of the law ; he felt himself freed from its restrictions, and lived as a Gentile among the Gentiles. James, on the other hand, continued to the last a strict 74 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. observer of the law of Moses ; he was regular in his attend- ance as a worshipper in the temple ; and whilst he taught that the Gentiles were freed from 'the Mosaic law, he appears to have considered that the Jews were under no obligation to separate themselves from the religion of their fathers.^ Hence Paul would regard Christianity as the deliverance frbm the law ; James would look upon it as the transfiguration of the law. The circumstances of their conversions also neces- sarily affected their views and characters. Paul was suddenly arrested and converted to the faith ; a mighty crisis convulsed his soul; in three days he was transformed from a bitter persecutor to an ardent defender of Christianity. James, on the contrary, was gradually won over to the faith ; with him the Spirit of the Lord was not in the earthquake, but in the still small voice ; no sudden revolution appears to have taken place in his personal history ; when he became a Christian there was no marked change in his outward conduct ; the moral law became to him " the perfect law of liberty " (Jas. i. 25), Besides, their characters were different Paul was ardent and zealous, he required faith in Christ as essen- tial to salvation ; James was calm and collected, he demanded holiness of all those who professed to be Christians. Paul was eminently doctrinal, and therefore faith occupied a pro- minent place in his theology ; James was eminently practical, and therefore works occupied a prominent place in his teach- ing. Both agreed in ascribing justification to faith, and both asserted that the faith which justifies must be active ; but they contemplated the subject from different points of view, and accordingly there is a difference in their expressions where there is no difference in their opinions. " James would hardly assert with Paul that a man is justified by faith withoT.it the works of the law, because he regarded faith as only efficacious when it is productive of works ; and Paul would hardly assert with James that by works a man is justified and not by faith only, because he admitted of ^ James even seems to indicate that if Paul had " taught the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs" (Acts xxi. 21), he would have acted imprudently. THE PAULINE AND JACOBEAN VIEWS OF JUSTIFICATION. 7o no other kind of faith than one that was living and aetive." ^ We mnst also attend to the difference of design in their discussions. They are arguing with different persons, and combating different errors. Paul is arguing against those who supposed that they could be justified by their works. His opponents were self-righteous Pharisees, who trusted in their own righteousness, and looked upon the observance of the law as the ground of their acceptance with God. He tells them that the only ground of justification by the law is perfect obedience, and that as this was unattainable, the law, instead of justifying, condemns them. On this ground he affirms that " by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight" (Eom. iii. 20). He hence infers that the only method of justification is by faith in the righteous- ness of Christ. " Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law " (Eom. iii. 28). But by faith he evidently means genuine faith — not a mere profession of belief — not a passive assent of the understanding, but an active principle, such a faith as involves reliance on Christ, and leads a man to act as he belie ves^a faith which, as he elsewhere says, " works by love " (Gal. v. 6). James, on the other hand, is arguing against those professing Christians who supposed that they were justified by a bare orthodox profession. His opponents were those Jewish Christians who prided themselves on their external privileges, and considered that the mere profession of Christianity would ensure their justification. He tells them that the mere assent to the truths of Christianity will save no man ; that faith if destitute of works is spurious and useless ; and that, unless it be productive and living, it will be unavailing. The question which James discusses is not whether a man is justified partly by works and partly by faith, but whether a man who professes to be justified by faith, but whose faith is unaccompanied by good works, is really in a justified state. Faith alone justifies the sinner, but it must be a true faith, a faith which is proved, or rather - SchafPs Poptilar Commentary on the N. T. , vol. iv. 124 : The Epistle of James, by the author. 76 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. proves itself, to be genuine by good works. And therefore on this ground James affirms : " Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (Jas. ii. 24). Thus the designs of these two writers are different. Paul opposes Pharisaical legalism, the error of those who trusted for salvation to their works ; James opposes Pharisaical antinomianism, the error of those who trusted to their reli- gious knowledge and speculative faith. Paul and James view justification from different stand- points. Paul discusses the question how a guilty sinner may be justified before God ; James teaches us that no man living in sin can be justified whatever his profession may be. Paul answers the question of the awakened sinner, " What must I do to be. saved ? " James exhorts professing Christians to walk worthy of their calling. Paul, arguing with Pharisaical legalists, shows the worthlessness of their works ; James, arguing with Pharisaical formalists, shows the worthlessness of their faith. Paul views justification from the divine stand- point, and teaches that God will only justify us by faith in the merits of His Son ; James views it from the human standpoint, and teaches that the faith which justifies must be active and embody itself in good works. Hence the true solution of the difficulty is that James and Paul employ the term faith in different senses ; the former gives it a wider meaning than the latter. The faith to which Paul ascribes justification is represented by him as an active principle — a faith which not only supposes the assent of the understanding to the revelation of the gospel, but an acting upon that assent ; in short, a reception of the gospel, an exercise of the will as well as of the understanding. Faith must prove that it is real, living, and sincere, by putting in practice the truths which it believes. And hence the apostle, in the same passage in which he excludes works from any concern in our justification, asserts their importance aud indispensable obligation. " By grace are ye saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of > God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them " THE PAULINE AND JACOBEAN VIEWS OF JUSTIFICATION. 77 (Eph. ii. 8-10). In the matter of justification Paul knows no other kind of faith than that which is genuine and active ; an inactive faith is with him not faith, but faithlessness. His writings abound with precepts addressed to those who believe, thus connecting the faith which justifies with obedience to the law of God (Tit. iii. 8). It is by this faith, productive of works, that Paul says we are justified ; and in this he is per- fectly at one with James, who lays great stress on good works as a necessary accompaniment of saving faith. James uses the- term faith in a somewhat different sense. Whilst with Paul the term is limited to genuine and active faith, James uses it in a more general acceptation, so as to include theoretical as well as active faith. He speaks not only of genuine faith, — a firm confidence in God as the hearer of prayer (Jas. i. 6), — but also of. a faith which is dead and unproductive, and consequently incapable of justifying. He compares such a faith to an inactive love which expends itself in good words and kind wishes, but never proceeds to works of benevolence (Jas. ii. 14-17). As this love is of no value, so neither is the faith of him who professes to believe the gospel, and yet does not walk up to his pro- fession. James compares such a faith to that 'which the devils possess : " Thou believest that there is one God ; thou doest well : the devils also believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, vain man, that faith without w6rks is dead " (Jas. ii. 19, 20). It is to this dead, inactive faith that James denies justification ; it is wholly -unproductive ; it cannot profit. And indeed, on one occasion, Paul uses faith in the same sense, and in as strong language as James denies to it any saving or justifying efficacy : " Though I have all faith, so that I could rem.ove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing " (1 Cor. 'xiii. 2). The faith which justifies is a faith which worketh by love — this is the doctrine of Paul ; not a faith which is destitute of love — this is the doctrine of James.* We shall now proceed to test our solution by the example of Abraham's justification, Which both Paul and James adduce 1 See excursus "James and Paul" in my commentarj' on the Epistle of James in SchalTs Popular Gommentary, vol. iv. pp. 123-125. 78 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. in support of their views, especially as here the difference in their expressions is conspicuous. Paul assigns the justifica- tion of Abraham to that faith which he displayed when it was revealed to him that he should have a son. " What saith the Scripture ? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness " (Eom. iv. 3, 5). Faith, then, and not works, was the efficient cause of his justification ; Abraham simply believed the testimony of God, and that was counted to him for righteousness. James takes a different view of the matter ; he appears to assign Abraham's justification to that great proof which he gave of his obedience when he offered up Isaac. " Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac, his son, upon the altar ? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect ? And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him fo;r righteousness" (J as. ii. 21-'23), Abraham's real justifica- tion in the sight of God occurred twenty years before his offering up Isaac ; God, who sees the hearts of men, saw that his faith was genuine ; but his offering up Isaac was an outward manifestation of the truth and reality of his faith ; thereby the declaration, which was made to him so ■many years before, received its fulfilment and confirmation. His justification was complete and certain whenever his faith was counted to him for righteousness ; but its truth was con- firmed by his works. It is to be observed that James does not say that by works Abraham's justification was made per- fect, but that his faith was so perfected. Faith co-operated witli his works, his works flowed from his faith — without faith they would never have been wrought, and thus by works his faith was made perfect — proved to be that genuinp faith to which the promises of the gospel are annexed. If his faith had not been active, it would not have beeri justifying. There are two distinct parts in the doctrine of justifica; EESEMBLANCES IN THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 79 tion : the one, that a man is justified by faith in the merits of Christ, and the other, that the faith which justifies must be active. Paul dwells chiefly on the first part, and James on the second ; so that, . instead of a contradiction in their views, there is a development of the truth.^ " The relation between these two apostles, as well their difference as their agreement," observes Schaff, " may be thus stated : James proceeds from without inward, from phenomenon to principle, from periphery to centre, from the fruit to the tree. Paul, on the contrary, proceeds from within outward, from principle to phenomenon, from centre to circumference, from the root to the blossom and the fruit." ^ DISSEETATION II. EESEMBLANCES IN THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. The Epistle of James forms the link of connection between the Jewish and the Christian Church. Writing exclusively to Jewish Christians, James was led to express himself according to Jewish modes of thought. But this arose not merely from the circumstances of those whom he addressed, but also from the idiosyncrasy of the writer ; for, as we have already had occasion to remark, James, when he became a Christian, did. not cease to be a Jew ; he resided in Jerusalem; attended the worship of the temple, and practised the rites and ceremonies of Judaism. Besides, he wrote his Epistle at a very early stage of the development of Christianity, when Christians were hardly distinguished from the Jews, and were regarded as a Jewish sect. By James, at the period when he wrote, Christianity would be regarded as a development of Judaism ; the Mosaic law was not so much abolished as trans- * Since writing the above, I have found the same view expressed by Man- gold in his edition of Bleek's Introduction: "Both are agreed that faith justifies, and that it must prove and perfect itself by works. Paul emphasizes the first proposition, and James brings prominently forward the second." Einkitung, p. 710. * ScliaSTs History of the Apostolic Age, vol. ii. p. 328. 80 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. figured. We have in this Epistle primitive Christianity in a more peculiar sense than in any of the other writings of the New Testament: the teaching of Christ rather than the teaching concerning Christ. We meet here with what may be called, in a true and unobjectionable sense, Jewish Christianity in its purest and original forni.^ There is no book of the New Testament which is so pervaded with the spirit of the Old. James writes rather like a Jewish prophet than a Christian apostle. And yet notwithstanding there is no book which contains fewer quotations from the Old Testa- ment : the spirit is preserved, but not the letter. There are only two passages which can be considered as references : the one is a direct quotation, and the other a somewhat doubtful allusion. In the one James gives the words as a citation : "Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble " (Jas. iv. 6). The quotation is from the Book of Proverbs, and follows not the , original Hebrew, but the Septuagint version,* which is easily accounted for by the fact that the Epistle was written in Greek, and addressed to the Hellenists or Greek Jews. The Septuagint here differs materially from the Hebrew, where the words are : " Surely he scorneth scorners, but he giveth grace to the lowly '' (Prov. iii. 34). The other passage is : " He shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins'' (Jas. v. 20);^ where it is possible there may be an allusion to another passage from the Proverbs : " Love covereth all sins " * (Prov. X. 12). . But whilst there are only these two referijhces in the Epistle of James to the Old Testament, expositors have dis- covered, or think they have discovered, numerous references or resemblances to the books of the New Testament, especially to our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, to the Pauline Epistles, 1 There are some excellent remarks on this subject in Beyschlag's Der Brief dea Jacobus, pp. 16-18. ^ In the Septuagint the words are : xv^ns utrtptt^avatt avTiram) „ vii. 7-12. i. 9 „ V. -3. i. 20 jj „ V. 22. ii. 13 J, „ vi. 14, 15, V. 7. ii. 14- ■16 ,, „ vii. 21-23. iii. 17, 18 ») „ V. 9. iv. 4 ,^ „ vi. 24. iv. 10 J, „ V. 3, 4. iv. 11 J, „ yii. 1, 2. V. 2 . ,, „ vi. 19. V. 10 „ v. 12. V. 12 »» „ V. 33-37. For a different and even longer list, see Erdmann's Jacobus, p. 29i 82 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. larity. But these points of resemblance are by no means confined to the Sermon on the Mount ; these are the most numerous only because that Sermon contains the most con- siderable collection of the words of Jesus in the synoptic Gospels ; they extend to the other sayings of Christ scattered throughout the Gospels ; and although chiefly found in the Gospel of Matthew, are not restricted to it. We subjoin a list in parallel columns of those passages in which the resemblances are the most striking : — Be ye doers of the word, and not Blessed are they that hear the word hearers only, deceiving your own of God and keep it. — Luke xi. 28. selves. — Jas. i. 22. If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scriptures, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well. — Jas. ii. 8. Can the fig-tree bear olive berries? either a vine, figs ? — Jas. iii. 12. Your riches are corrupted, your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver is cankered. — Jas. V. 2, 3. But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath ; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay: lest ye fall into con- demnation. — Jas. V. 12. And the second is like unto it» Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. — Matt. xxii. 39. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?— Matt. vii. 16. Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt.^— Matt. vi. 19. But I say unto you, Swear not at all : neither by heaven ; for it is God's throne : nor by the earth ; for it is His footstool. . . . But -let your com- munication be. Yea, yea ; Nay, nay : for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. — Matt. v. 34-37. From these examples it is evident that there are references to, or reminiscences of, the words of Christ, and that they are not confined to the Sermon on the Mount. But these simi- larities are not so clear and decided, or so plain and direct, as to warrant us regarding the passages as quotations. They are too independent in form, and too free in the terms employed, to be referred to a direct connection with the Sermon on the Mount.^ The only one which seems a direct citation ^ The nearest resemblance to the Epistle of James is the Didach^, or ' ' Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," probably the most ancient post-apostolio document, assigned by the most learned authorities to a.d. 70-100. Its teaching, espe- cially i)i the doctrine of "The Two Ways," agrees with that of James ; as Dr. Schaff observes ; " These writings represent the early Jewish-Christian type of teaching before the universalism and liberalism of the great Apostle of the RESEMBLANCES IN THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 83 is the prohibition against swearing. Hence, then, these resemblances do not prove that the Sermon on the Mount was written before the Epistle of James, nor do they militate against the early date which we have assigned to this Epistle. Even admitting that the Gospel of Matthew may have been written at an early period, even before the Epistle of James, there is no evidence from the similarities in these writings to show that the author of the Epistle ever saw the Gospel. The teaching of Christ would be diffused among Christians before it was committed to writing. There was an oral before there was a written Gospel. It is probable that the early preaching of the apostles was composed of the sayings of our Lord and of records of His actions. And this is perfectly sufficient to account for the coincidences between the Epistle of James and the synoptic Gospels.^ We have endeavoured to prove that this Epistle was written at a very early period, when the Church was chiefly composed of Jewish Christians, before the great controversy concerning circumcision arose, and probably before Paul's mission to the Gentiles. The words of Christ would then be fresh and vivid to the minds of the disciples, and hence James reminds his readers of the sayings of the Lord, and presses them on their attention and practice ; and, just because this Epistle was the earliest writing of the New Testament, it is most pervaded with the teaching of Christ. Indeed, the moral teaching of the Epistle of James resembles in a remarkable manner our Lord's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. This is seen not so much from any striking resemblance in words, as from the spirit which per- vades both. There is in both a similar absence of doctrinal statements and a preponderance of the ethical element. Both writings insist chiefly on the moral precepts of the law, whilst Gentiles had penetrated the Church" {The oldest Church Manual, p. 26). The Didachfe also abounds with reminiscences of the words of Christ as given in Matthew's Gospel ; in the Didachfe these are generally supposed to he references to the written Gospel ; but Lechler supposes that, as in the case of the Epistle of James, they may be taten from the- oral Gospel as preached by the apostles {Urkunden/unde zur Qeschichte des Gliristlichen Alterthums, -p. 17). ^ See Weiss' Einleitung in das N. T., p. 407, where the same remark is made. So also Beyschlag, Brief des Jahohus, p. 17. 84 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. the ceremonial precepts, including circumcision and the other rites of Judaism, are in a great measure passed by.^ Both insist, not so much on the performance of external duties, as on the spirituality of the law. Both dwell on the law of love as the fulfilment of the moral law. Both regard sin as having its seat in the heart, and manifesting itself outwardly from within. In both the blessing is pronounced ou the poor in spirit, on the merciful, on those who mourn, and on those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake. According to the Sermon on the Mount, God is the source of all good, who causeth His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust ; according to the Epistle, He is the Father of lights from w^hom cometh every good and perfect gift. According to the Sermon on the Mount, the law is elevated and spiritualized ; according to the Epistle, it is the perfect law of liberty, the word of truth by which Christians are begotten, the implanted word which is able to save our souls. According to the Sermon on the Mount, the impossi- bility of serving both God and the world is strongly asserted ; according to the Epistle, the friendship of the world is declared to be enmity with God. According to the Sermon on the Mount, we must not judge others, lest we ourselves be judged ; -according to the Epistle, he that speaketh evil of his brother speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law. By the Sermon on the Mount, we are warned against the profession of religion without the practice of it, against calling Christ " Lord, Lord," without doing the things which He commands ; by the Epistle, the doing of the word is emphasized above the mere hearing of it. In the Sermon on the Mount, the rich are warned of the danger to which their riches expose them ; in the Epistle, the judgments of God are denounced against those who make an unlawful use of their riches, and who thus heap treasure together for the last days. In short, the teaching of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount is embodied in this Epistle." ' The same remarks apply to the doctrine of "The Two Ways"' in the Diilaohi, though the Didaohi comes far behind the spuituality and elevation of the teaching of James. • One may judge of the extent to which the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount pervades the Epistle of James from the following quotation from RESEMBLANCES IN THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 8o II. Some expositors suppose that there are references in the Epistle of James to the Epistles of Paul, and especially to his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, where the doctrine of justification is discussed. Of course, if this be the case, the early date of the Epistle must be relinquished, and we must either assign to it a later date or call in question its authen- ticity. That the Pauline writings are presupposed by our Epistle, is maintained by Hug, Baur, Schwegler, De Wette, Kern, Wiesinger, Holtzmann, Dr. Davidson {Introduction to the Study of the N. T.), and generally by all those who consider the Epistle of James either as an attack on Paul's view of justifica- tion, or as a correction of the perversion of it. Thus Wiesinger, who considers the Epistle of James written with a design to correct the erroneous views entertained of Paul's doctrine, observes that " any unbiassed writer will see in chapters i. 3, iv. 1, 12, allusions to Eom. v. 3, vi. 13, vii. 23, viii. 7, xiv. 4." ^ And Dr. Davidson gives the following list of parallelisms, or, as he expresses it, of " borrowed Pauline ideas and words : " " The phrase the transgressor of the law is both in Eom. ii. 25, 27, and Jas. ii. 11; the single term transgressor being used absolutely in Gal. ii. 18 and Jas. ii. 9; to fulfil the law is Schmid's Biblical Theology of the N. T., pp. 365, 366 : "Among these points of similarity are : the joy in temptation (Jas. i. 2 ; Matt. v. 12) ; prayer for wisdom (Jas. i. 5 ; Matt. vii. 7, 11) ; God's liberal and loving giving (Jas. i. 5 ; Matt. vii. 11) ; the warning against wrath (Jas. i 19, 20 ; Matt. v. 22) ; the com- mendation of gentleness (Jas. i. 21, iii. 13 ; Matt. v. 4) ; the earnest injunction to be doers of the divine word (Jas. i. 22 ; Matt. vii. 24, 26) ; the taming of the tongue (Jas. i. 26 ; Matt. v. 22) ; the utterance, that the poor are heirs of the kingdom (Jas. ii. 5 ; Matt. v. 3) ; the royal law of loVe (Jas. ii. 8 ; Matt. vii. 12) ; mercy in connection with God's judgment (Jas. ii. 13 ; Matt. v. 7, 9, 13), and the judgment on the unmerciful (Jas. ii. 13 ; Matt. vii. 2) ; the tree and its fruits (Jas. iii. 12 ; Matt. vii. 16) ; the importance of peaceableness (Jas. iii. 18 ; Matt. V. 9) ; a true prayer being heard (expressed negatively, Jas. iv. 3 ; posi- tively. Matt. vii. 8) ; the friendship of the world is enmity to God (Jas. iv. 4 ; Matt. vi. 24) ; the purification of the heart (Jas. iv. 8 ; Matt. v. 8) ; mourning for sin (Jas. iv. 9 ; Matt. v. 4) ; judgment of brethren (Jas. iv. 11, 12 ; Matt. vii. 1-3) ; dependence on God (Jas. iv. 13-16 ; Matt. vi. 25) ; the perish- ableness of earthly treasures (Jas. v. 2, 3 ; Matt. vi. 19, 20) ; the unresisting spirit of the righteous (Jas. v. 6 ; , Matt. v. 39-42) ; the expectation of our Lord's second coming (Jas. v. 7-9 ; Matt. viL 21-23) ; the persecution of the prophets'(Jas. v. 10 ; Matt. v. 12) ; and the warning against oaths (Jas. v. 12 ; Matt. V. 33-37)." ' Wiesinger's Brief des Jacobus, p. 37. 86 THE EHSTLE OF JAMES, alike in Eom. ii. 27 and Jas. ii. 8 ; doer of the law, hearer of the law, are common to Kom. ii. 13 and Jas. iv. 11, etc, ; fruit of righteousness is found in Phil, i. 1 1 and Jas. iiL 18; he not deceived is in 1 Cor. vi. 9, xv, 33, Gal. vi. 7, and Jas. i. 16 ; hut some one will say is common to 1 Cor. xv. 35 and Jas. ii. 18 ; the word entire is in 1 Thess. v. 23 ; the term memhers in Jas. iii. 6, ivi 1, is frequent in Paul's Epistles to the Eomans and Corinthians ; the verb translated deceiving in Jas. i. 22 is in Col. ii. 4 ; and the word of God is termed the perfect law of liberty in Jas. i. 25, a phrase apparently- derived from Paul's ideas of freedom. The apostle of the Gentiles was the first to bring the idea of law over into the department of Christianity in connection with freedom of conscience ; and James applies it to the word of God, because such transference has been made." ^ A similar list of resem- blances is given us by Baur ^ and Holtzmann.' And, besides these verbal phrases, it is strongly insisted on that the theological terms justification, faith, and works, and the argument built upon them, have reference to Paul's doctrine of justification as expounded in his Epistles to the Eomans and Galatians. Every careful reader must see that the examples adduced by Dr. Davidson as resemblances are some of them faint, others fanciful, and others familiar phrases. That both Paul and James censure the hearing of the word without the doing, only proves that this prac|;ical error was general. The terms " transgressors " and " members," and the phrases " be not deceived " and " some one will say,'' are too common to admit of any inference from them. Liberty, as applied to the law, is used in a very different sense by Paul and James ; when used by Paul, it denotes freedom from the ceremonial law ; whereas, when James speaks of ," the perfect law of liberty," he denotes the word of truth, the gospel of Christ, " the moral law transfigured by love." * The only passages where ' Davidson's Introduction to the Study of the New Teatament, vol. i. pp. 290, 291 ; 2nd ed. vol. i. p. 817. 2 Baur's Apoatel Paulva, vol. ii. p. 335, note [E. Tr. vol. ii. p. 308]. 2 Holtzmann's Mnleitung, p. 480. * For the difference in the views of Paul and James concerning ixtuhpix as applied to the law, see Biiickner's Jakobua, p. 198. EESEMBLANCES IN THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 87 there is a remarkable resemblance in the language of these two writers, and which, strange to say, are not adverted to by Dr. Davidson, are Jas. i. 3, wliere James says : " The trying of your faith worketh patience " {ro BoKifitov vfiwv t^? Trto-rea)? Karepyd^erai virofiovjjv) ; and Rom. v. 3, 4, where Paul says : " Tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience " (ij &\iyJfK virofjiovTjv Karepyd^erai,' rj Se vTrofiovrj SoKtfir/v) ; but even here the idea is not the same : according to James, it is experience {SoKifiiov) that produces patience (yTro/iovi]) ; whereas according to Paul, it is the reverse, it is patience (vTroiiovrj) which produces experience (Soxtfiij). As regards the em- ployment of the theological terms — justification, faith, and works, and the citation of the instance of Abraham by both writers in illustration of their argument, we have already shown that the coincidence can be quite naturally explained, apart from the theory of mutual dependence.^ Even Baur observes : " As for the use made of the example of Abraham, this, as De Wette remarks, cannot be held to prove that James was referring to Paul's Epistles to the Galatians and the Eomans." * In short, we fail to see in the writings of these apostles any indications that would cause us to believe or suspect that the one borrowed from the other ; the few resemblances between them are what we would expect from authors writing on similar subjects ; whereas the differences both in thought and diction are many and striking. " The conceptions," observes Eeuss, " forms of speech, characteristic words, and proofs of the views of Christian truth current in the apostolic age, have not, as has been objected, been learned from writings only, but have come from living intercourse and the scriptural proofs from the Old Testament, which had been long in use for this purpose." And again he observes : " The numerous cases of use of the Pauline Epistles, of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of the Gospel of the Hebrews, of Hermas, of Philo, exist only in the imagination of the critics." ^ ^ See dissertation on the Pauline and Jacobean views of Justification. " Apoatd Paulus, vol. ii. 33,5. * Eeuss' Geschichte aer keill'jen Schriften N. T., pp. 134, 136 [E. Tr. pp. 142, 143.] 88 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. III. The example of Eahab, referred to both by James and by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, has led to the assertion that there is a reference by James to the Epistle to the Hebrews. James asks : " Was not Eahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?" (Jas. ii. 25); whilst in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is written : " By faith the harlot Eahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace" (Heb. xi. 31). This opinion is especially insisted upon by Hilgenfeld,* who adduces other supposed resemblances to the Epistle to the Hebrews. " The author," he observes, " is acquainted not only with the Epistles of Paul, but with the Epistle to the Hebrews, which was written after the death of Paul. In contrast to dead works (Heb. vi. 1, 9, 14), James speaks of a dead faith (Jas. ii. 17, 20, 26). In Heb. xi. 17 f., Abraham's offering up Isaac is adduced in favour of justification by faith, whilst in Jas. ii. 21 it is urged, in favour of justification by works. In Heb. xi. 31 the harlot Eahab is an example of justifica- tion by faith, whilst in Jas. ii. 25 she is an example of justi- fication by works. In Heb. xii. 1 1 there is the expression Ka/37ro? elpTjviKOi ZiKaw Plumptre on The Epistle, of James, pp. 32, 33. According to Holtzmann, Ecclesiasticus is referred to fifteen times and the Book of Wisdom five times ; but he gives no list of parallel passages. Mrdeitung, p. 482. On the other hand, the relation of the Epistle of James to the Book of Wisdom is so slight that the Rev. W. Deane, in his commentary on the Wisdom of Splomon, does not even allude to it. 94 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man. — Jas. iii. 2. Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth !— Jas. iii. 5. Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life ? It is even a vapour, that ap- penreth for a little time, and then vanislieth away. — Jas. iv. 14. He that ruleth his tongue shall live without strife. There is one that slippeth in his speech, but not from his heart, and who is he that hath not offended with his tongue ? — Ecolus. xix. 6, 16. Many have fallen by the edge of the sword ; but not so many as have fallen by the tongue. — Ecclus. xxviii. 18. And our names shall be forgotten in time, and no man shall have our works in remembrance, and our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and shall be dispersed as a mist that is driven away with the beams of the sun, and overcome with the heat thereof. — Wisd. ii. 4.1 These examples are the best that we can find, and certainly they show that the resemblances between this Epistle and the apocryphal books are extremely faint, and that the references of James to them are imaginary. Certain simi- larities are unavoidable in all writings which treat upon ethical subjects, and especially, as in the present case, where the authors were Jews, whose minds moved in the same circle of thought. Indeed, applying the same criterion, it might be asserted that almost every ethical book had references to the Apocrypha, for similar coincidences would be found. We consider that there is no trace of any knowledge by James of the apociyphal writers : indeed, there are more obvious traces of such knowledge in other books of the New Testament.' It is not improbable that James may have read them, but there is no proof that he employed them in the composition of his Epistle.* Quotations from, and references to, the Apocrypha would certainly affect neither the authenticity of the Epistle nor its value and inspiration, as some critics maintain ; but we merely affirm, that it is not demonstrated that such quotations and references occur, ' It will be observed that some of those examples differ from those given by Dt-an Plumptre. ' As, for example, Heh. xi. 25 is in all probability an allusion to the martyrdom of the widow and her seven sons recorded in the Second Book of Maccabees! ' See Weiss' MnUitung, p. 407. THE ANOINTING OF THE SICK. 95 DISSERTATION III. THE ANOINTING OF THE SICK. Among the many passages of interest in this Epistle of James there is one which merits special consideration, as having given rise to numerous opinions regarding its inter- pretation, and to various ceremonial practices in the early Church, which ultimately culminated and took definite shape in the sacrament of extreme unction in the Eomish Church : we allude to the passage regarding the anointing of the sick : " Is any among you sick ? Let him call for the elders of the ChurcB, and let. them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord : and the prayer of faith shall save the siek, and the Lord shall raise him up ; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him" (Jas. v. 14, 15).^ The medicinal use of oil was exceedingly common in the East, especially in the case of wounds. Thus, in our Lord's parable, the good Samaritan is represented as pouring into the wounds of the traveller wine and oil (Luke x. 34) ; Isaiah, in describing the wretchedness of his people, represents them as full of wounds and bruises which have not been closed, neither bound up, nor mollified with ointment (Isa. i. 6) ; and Josephus informs us that Herod the Great in his last illness was bathed in a vessel full of oil, and that by means of this remedy his life was for a short period prolonged.'' We are also informed that among the Eabbis it was a question of casuistry whether it was lawful to anoint the sick on the Sabbath : a question which the distinguished Eabbi Simeon decided in the affirmative.' E"ow it is supposed that it is to ' There is no difficulty in the exegesis of the passage. The elders are evidently the presbyters or office-bearers of the Church. The Lord is most probably Christ, in whose name miracles of healing were performed. The verb iritu is often used in the New Testament of bodily healing (Matt. ix. 21,' 22, etc.). The last clause admits of the translation, "even if (»a») he have com- mitted sins, it shall be forgiven him." So Huther, Lange, etc. * Joseph. Antiq. xvli. 6. 5 ; Bell. Jud. i. 33. 5. See also Pliny, Hint. Nat. xxxi. 47. Winer's Biilischen WSrterhuch, article "Oel." 3 Dr. John Lightfoct's Works, vol. iii. p. 315. 96 THB EPISTLE OF JAMES. this custom of anointing with oil as a medicinal remedy that James here refers. This ordinary medicinal remedy was to be applied to the sick man with a view to recovery ; and it was enjoined to be administered in the name of the Lord, because the divine blessing was to be implored on the means employed ; and there was good ground to hope for restoration to health, resulting from the use of proper remedies, and given in answer to believing prayer. "The prayer of faith shall save the sick," that is, restore him to health.^ But the great objection to this view is that it is contrary to the whole spirit of the passage. The whole description leaves the impression that this anointing with oil was a religious service, and that the recovery of the sick was not the result of natural means, but a supernatural effect resulting from the prayer of faith.^ If the anointing were a mere medicinal remedy, it would have been performed by the physician rather than by the elders of the Church. In the Jewish law, anointing with oil was much employed in religious ceremonies. Oil formed a principal part of all the meat-offerings of the Jews (Lev. ii. 1-9 ; Num. xxviii. 12). All their sacred things — the tabernacle and all its contents, the altar of burnt-offering, the holy laver, and all the vessels of the sanctuary — were anointed with oil (Ex. xl. 9-11). This was the emblem of consecration : by this ceremony these articles were separated from a common, and devoted to a sacred use. But especially were persons, who were solemnly set apart for some special religious service, consecrated by being anointed with oil. Aaron the high priest was thus solemnly set apart as the appointed medium between God an(jl the people (Ex, xxix. 7) ; and it would appear that the oil was used in such profusion that his whole body, or at least his sacred vestments, were thus anointed (Ps. cxxxiii. 2). So also it is probable that every subsequent high priest was thus consecrated to his office (Lev. xvi. .32). Kings, as being the vicegerents of God, and thus occupying a. religious office, were consecrated with holy oil, and hence were called the ' So Basaett, Epistle of James, p. 78. See also Korn's Brief JmoU, p. 232. Huther's Jakobua, p. 223. ' See Wiesinger's Jakobns, p. 202. THE ANOINTING OF THE SICK. 97 " Lord's anointed " (1 Sam. xxiv. 6 ; Ps. ii. 2). We have also the example of a prophet being so consecrated, when Elijah anointed Elisha as his successor in the prophetic office (1 Kings xix. 16). Hence, also, originated the term Messiah or the Anointed, the usual designation of the great future Deliverer of Israel. The oil of consecration was the emblem of the Holy Spirit, by whom the Messiah was anointed for the performance of the functions of His divine office : " The Spirit of the Lord God was upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me " (Isa. Ix. 1). The only example of anointing in the case of sickness was on the recovery of the leper; but here also it was not a medicinal remedy, but a religious rite, intimating that the future life of the recovered leper was to be consecrated to the Lord (Lev. xiv. 15—18). Dr. John Lightfoot informs us that among the Jews anoint- ing was used along with certain superstitious rites in the case of sickness. Here the anointing with oil was not a m'edicinal remedy, but a religious ceremony degraded by superstition. The Jerusalem Talmud says : " the charmer putteth oil on the head of the man whom he charmeth." And hence Light- foot supposes that it was to rescue the wholesome practice of anointing the sick from superstition, that James directs the Jewish Christians as to the proper method of performing this rite. " This being," he observes, " a common, wretched custom to anoint some that were sick, and to use charming with the anointing, this apostle directs them better ; namely, to call the elders or ministers of the Church to come to the sick, and to add to the medicinal anointing of him their fervent prayers for him, far more valuable and comfortable than all charming and enchanting, as well as far more warrantable and Christian." ^ Anointing with oil was also much used as a religious rite among the early Christians.^ We have numerous traces of such a custom in the writings of the Fathers. Catechumens, ^ Dr. John Lightfoot's Worlcs, vol. iii. p. 316. ^ On unction as a religious rite in the Christian Church, see Bingham's Christian Antiquities, Herzog's Meal-EncyJclopadie, and a valuable article on " Unction," by the Rev. 'William Scudamore, in Smith's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. G 98 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. before they were regularly admitted into the Church by baptism, were anointed. Thus we are informed in the Apostolic Constitutions, that after the catechumen had made a confession of his faith, and previous to his baptism, he was anointed with -oil.^ But especially anointing formed an important part in the administration of baptism, which, in the early Church, was not the simple rite of sprinkling with water, as with us, but was accompanied with a great number of ceremonies.^ Thus Tertullian observes : " When we have issued from the font, we are thoroughly anointed with the blessed unction, a practice derived from the old procedure wherein, on entering the priesthood, men were wont to be anointed with oil from a horn, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses. Thus, too, in our case, the unction runs down our flesh carnally, but profits spiritually, in the same way as the act of baptism itself is carnal, in that we are plunged in water ; the effect, spiritual, in that we are freed from sins." ' And in another passage he thus mentions the different rites employed in baptism : " The flesh is washed, that the soul may be cleansed ; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated ; the flesh is signed by the cross, that the soul may be fortified ; the flesh is shadowed by the imposition of hands, that the soul may be illuminated by the Spirit ; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be nourished in God." * And so also Cyprian says : " It is necessary that he should be anointed who is baptized, so that having received the chrism, that is, the anointing, he may be anointed of God and have in him the grace of Christ. The baptized are anointed with oil sanctified on the altar." ^ ' Apost. Const, vil. 22 and vii. 41. Auoording to the Oonstihitions, the rite of anointing was also administered after baptism: "After this, when the (priest) has baptized him in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he shall anoint him with ointment " (vii. 43). ' No mention is made in the Didache of tlie application of oil at baptism, which is a presumption that its use did not commence until the middle of the second century, and that it was not of apostolic origin. " De Bapt. chap. vii. See also Clementine Beeognilions, iii. 67. * JJe Eesurr, chap. viii. " Ep, Ixix., Oxford ed. Ep. Ixx. In the Greek Church infants are anointed wirti oil at baptism, aooompanied with the words : " This child is baptized with the oil of gladness." THE ANOINTING OF THE SICK. 99^ Heretics, also, when they retracted and returned to the Church, if they had formerly been baptized, were not rebaptized, but were anointed with oil.^ And as in the case of the Jewish religion, so among the early Christians, the sacred vessels employed in worship were consecrated by being anointed. It was also the custom in the East, at least among the Jews, to anoint the dead. We have allusions to this cus- tom in the case of our Lord. When Mary, the sister of Lazarus, anointed our Lord immediately before His passion. He commended the action, saying, " In that she hath poured this ointment upon my body, she did it for my burial" (Matt. xxvi. 12). And after His death and burial we are informed that " Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome had bought sweet spices that they might come and anoint Him" (Mark xvi. 1). This anointing of the dead was probably a species of embalming ; but still we learn from the Fathers that it was a religious rite, as perhaps was also the case with embalming, being an emblem of the resurrection. The body by being anointed was con- secrated ; it was devoted to the Lord ; it was consigned to the grave in the hope of the resurrection. This religious rite is mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus, who, adverting to the anointing of our Lord, gives the following mystical inter- pretation : " The oil (eXaiov) is the Lord Himself, from whom comes the mercy (eX.eo?) which reaches us ; for the dead are anointed." ^ We learn from Irenaeus that certain Gnostic heretics anointed persons at the point of death as a charm to defend them against evil spirits, which practice may be regarded as a species of extreme unction : " Others still there are who continue to redeem persons, even up to the moment of death, by placing on their heads oil and water, using at the same time certain invocations that the persons referred to may become incapable of being seized or seen by the principalities and powers, and that their inner man may ascend on high in an invisible manner, as if their body were left among the created things in this world, whilst their soul is sent for- ■" Cyprian, Ep. Ixix. 'Poedag. ii. 8. See also TertuUian, De Besurr. 27. 100 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. ward to the Demiurge." ^ By anointing those at the point of death these Gnostic heretics supposed that whilst the body was left in the earth, the soul was rescued from evil spirits, and introduced into the presence of the Demiurge or the world's Creator.^ But although anointing was so extensively employed as a religious rite in the early Church, and especially in the administmtion of baptism, yet, except in the solitary instance of these Gnostic heretics, alluded to by Ireuaeus, there is no trace in the writings of the Fathers of the first three cen- turies of its being employed in reference to the sick ; there is mention of the anointing of the dead, but no mention of the anointing of the sick. And yet it is to this that James alludes in his Epistle ; nay, it would seem that he lays it as an injunc- tion on the sick man to send for the elders of the Church, in order that they should anoint him with oil and pray over him. And even in our Lord's lifetime there is mention of this anointing of the sick in order to their recovery. We i-ead that the disciples, whom our Lord sent endowed with the miraculous powers of healing, " anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them" (Mark vi. 13), Whether the disciples did this of their own accord or by the injunc- tion of Christ we cannot tell. When, then, we think on the practice of the disciples in the days of our Lord and on the injunction of the apostle, we cannot suppose that the religious rite of anointing the sick was unpractised in the early Church, even although there are no discoverable refer- ences to it in the writings of the early Fathers.' Certain it !s that toward the close of the fourth century it was employed in the Christian Church. The oil used was consecrated oil, that is, oil that had been solemnly blessed, and set apart by the presbyters of the Church for sacred purposes. Thus we are informed that oil was taken from the lamps in the ' Ireuaeus, Hoar. i. 21. 5. * On this custom of the Gnostics, see Neander's Church History, vol. ii. p. 165. ' The first ascertainable mention of it is by Ephraem Syrus (a.d. 370) : 'Eav eiitov»/*iuv ^XttpSv aXlifrit iXeti^ r«v xa/jLvovTa ; *' If ii\ dlscharce of thy office thou anointest the sick with oil." Quoted in Bengel's Oitomon, in toco. THE ANOINTING OF THE SICK. 101 churches to anoint the sick. We meet with frequent traces of this religious rite in the writers of the sixth and seventh centuries. Thus Cfesarius of Aries (a.d. 502) says: "Let him who is sick receive the body and blood of Christ, and then let him anoint his body ; " and in an epidemic he recommends a person to " anoint both himself and his family with the consecrated oil." ^ And St. Eligius (a.d. 640) says : "Let him faithfully seek the blessed oil from the Church wherewith to anoint his body in the name of Christ." ' The first intimation which we have of the rite as a sacra- ment is contained in the letter of Innocent I. to Decentius, bishop of Eugubium (a.d. 416), where it is spoken of as a kind of sacrament {genus sacramenti)? Decentius wrote to Innocent I. to ask his opinion on two points, whether the sick ought to be anointed with chrism,* that is, with con- secrated oil, and whether this oil might be used not merely by the bishops and presbyters, but by Christians in general. To this question Innocent replies, that the words of James refer only to the faithful who, were sick, and that they are to be anointed with the consecrated oil which had been blessed by the bishop ; but that this oil might be used not merely by bishops and presbyters, but by all Christians both for them- selves and their friends. Here we have certainly the germs of the sacrament of extreme unction, but as yet far removed from the Eomish doctrine and practice.® ' Serm. 66, § 3, and Serm. 89, § S. ^ Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities, vol. ii. p. 2004. From these testimonies it would appear that at first the sick man anointed himself, and did not require the intervention of others. ' The genuineness of this Epistle has heen called in question. * The chrism or consecrated oil used by the Eomish Church is not simple olive oil, but olive oil mixed with balsam, designed to typify the union of the sacerdotal and the regal functions. In the Greek Church it is said that thirty-six different kinds of aromatics are used to form the sacred cliiism. ' According to Kurtz, Innocent represented this custom as a sacrament in- tended for the spiritual benefit of the sick. But he adds, " centuries inter- vened before it was generally introduced as the sacrwment of extreme unction. " History of the Christian Church, vol. i. p. 241, E. Tr. According to Innocent; the rite might bo performed by Christians in general, and not by the presbyters of the Church exclusively. 102 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. Soon, however, the practice of anointing with oil was restricted to the bishops' and presbyters of the Church ; and, indefed, for this restriction there appeared to be some authority ; for James ex^pressly enjoins the sick man to send for the elders of the Church. At first anointing was employed with a view to restoration to health ; and this is certainly- the obvious meaning of the words of James and_of the rite as practised by the disciples of Christ. When, however, the rite failed to bestow health on the sick man, it was regarded as emblema- tical of spiritual blessings ; the saving" of the sick (o-wcret tov Kd/jLvovra) was looked upon as referring not to bodily recovery, but to spiritual salvation. Hence the rite came to be regarded as a sacrament. According to Cornelius a Lapide, it had all the characteristics of a sacrament ; it was instituted by Christ in the command given to His disciples; the outward sign employed was the use of holy oil iu the anointing of the sick ; the things signified were the salvation of the soul and the forgiveness of sins ; and the sacramental words were contained in the prayer of faitL^ Hence in the twelfth century the expressions extreme or last unction (extrema uneiio), and the sacrament of the dying (sacra- menfum exeuntium), occur. Thomas Aquinas developed at length the sacramental nature of the rite ; Peter the Lom- bard gave it the fifth place among the seven sacraments ; and at length the Council of Trent authoritatively decreed it to be one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, on the ground that it was recommended (suggested) by Christ in the Gospel of Mark and commended and promulgated by James : ^ " Whosoever shall affirm that extreme unction is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord and published by the blessed Apostle James, but only a ceremony received from the Fathers or a human invention, let him be accursed." And it pronounces a similar anathema ' Oratio fldei, id est, saoramentum et forma saoramentalis extremse unctionis, salvabit infirmmn, hoc eat, oonferet ei gratiam qua salvetur anima. Quoted by Alford, Oreek Testament, vol. iv. p. 326. ^ Instituta est hseo unotio infirmorum tanquam vere et propiie sacramentnm, a. Christo Domino nostro apud Marcnm quidem iiisinuatum, per Jacobum eommendatum et promtilgatiim. Oonc. Trid. Sess. xiv. See Schwegg's Jakohus, p. !i55 if. THE ANOINTING OF THE SICK. 103 upon all those who call in question its sacramental efficacy : " Whosoever shall affirm that the sacred unction of the sick does not confer grace, nor forgive sin, nor relieve the sick, but that its power has ceased, as if the gift of healing existed only in past ages, let him be accursed." The oil employed in extreme unction is olive oil mixed with balsam ; it is blessed by the bishop on what is called Maunday Thursday,^ and delivered to the parochial clergy to be used by them during the course of the year. ' As the sacrament is now administered, extreme unction is per- formed on persons, who apparently are hopelessly sick, with a view to prepare them for death ; the idea of recovery from sickness is now ignored.^ When recovery is despaired of, the priest administers to the patient the holy communion, and afterwards the sacrament of extreme unction. He anoints with the sacred oil the organs of the five senses — the eyes, the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the hands, and feet, using at each anointing the following words : " By this holy unction and through His great mercy Almighty God forgive thee whatever sins thou hast committed by sight " (or hearing, smell, taste, and touch).* The anointing is supposed to represent the grace of God poured into the soul, so that the dying man is prepared to enter into the eternal world. The uses or purposes intended by extreme unction are variously stated. Thus the Synod of Pavia (a.d. 850) calls the rite " a healthful sacrament of which one must partake by faith, in order thereby to secure forgiveness of sins and restoration to health.'' The original design of anointing the sick, — restoration to health, — however, gradually disappeared, and an entirely spiritual efficacy was ascribed to the rite * — ■ ^ The Thursday of the passion week, so called with reference to the words of our Lord, " Mandatum novum do vobis, ut diligatis invicem " (John xiii. 34). ^ The Council of Trent decreed that the anointing is not to take place except when recovery is not to be looke^ for : qui tarn periculose decumbnnt ut in exitu vitae constituti videantur. ' Per hanc saeram unctionem, et suam piissimam misericordiam indulgent tibi Deus quiequid peecaste, per visum, anditum, olfactum, gustum et taotum. ♦ The Council of Mayenee (A.D. 847) limited its administration to those who wore on the point of death. 104 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. restoration to spiritual health ; it was viewed as designed for the benefit, not of the body, but of the soul : " It saves the sick." " The Lord shall raise him up." " If the man have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." According to the catechism of the Church of Eome, two benefits result from the observance of this sacrament : it removes the guilt of all venal sins, not possessing sufficient efficacy for the forgiveness of mortal sins ; and it removes all spiritual infirmity resulting from sin, and all the other remains of sin. And, according to the decrees of the Council of Trent, it confers the pardon of any faults that may previously have been unexpiated, and it removes the remains of sin ; it strengthens the soul, and enables it the better to bear up under pain, and more success- fully to resist the assaults of the devil. The Eomish Church appeals for the observance of extreme unction to the authority of Christ as implied Jn Mark xvi. 13, and to the authority of the apostles as implied in Jas. v. 14, 15. With regard to the authority of Christ this is a mere conjec- ture ; and even if Christ did enjoin the anointing of the sick, it was conjoined with their miraculous recovery, and not with their death. And with regard to the authority of the apostles, the practice is a manifest perversion of the words of James. The anointing which he recommends has reference not so much to spiritual as to bodily healing. It is adminis- tered with a view to recovery from sickness ; not, as is the practice of the Eomanists, when humanly speaking all hope of recovery is over. This is the obvious meaning of the words of the apostle : " And the prayer of faith shall save the sick " — that is, shall restore him to health ; for it follows : " And the Lord shall raise him up " — namely, from his bed of sickness. It is indeed added : " And if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." This addition is designed to show the extension of the promise even to the case of those who have committed sins ; these sins shall be forgiven them. The sins are here regarded as the cause of the sickness. The causal connection between moral evil and disease is one of the most obvious phenomena of human life, and in the apostolic age appears to have been illustrated even more strikingly than now; then it would appear that sickness was often THE ANOINTING OF THE SICK. 105 inflicted by God as the direct punishment for sin.' In such a case the removal of the sickness would be the removal of the punishment, and a proof of forgiveness. Cardinal Cajetan himself admits that the words of James do not speak of the sacrament of extreme unction.^ The Greek Church have also founded on these words of James one of their sacraments, which they call Ev'xpMiov or "Ayiov eXaiov — prayer -oil or the holy oil; but it bears little resemblance to the extreme unction of the Eomish Church. It is not administered in anticipation of death, but in all cases of sickness. The idea of restoration to health, as taught by James, is preserved, though the rite is regarded as productive chiefly of spiritual benefit to the sick. It is defined as "a sacrament in which the body is anointed with oil, God's grace is invoked op the sick to heal him of spiritual and bodily infirmities." ' The Greek ritual properly requires seven priests to perform the rite ; and the number must not be less than three, because James uses the plural : " If any is sick among you, let him send for the elders of the Church." In the Anglican Church the rite was at first retained, as the Eomish customs were only gradually abolished; but it was pui'ified from the errors of extreme unction, and employed in accordance with the design stated in the words of James. Thus, in the first prayer-book of Edward VI., it is stated that if any sick person desire it, he might be anointed with oil, accompanied with the prayer that "our heavenly Father vouchsafe for His great mercy, if it be His blessed will, to restore thee thy bodily health." The rite, however, soon disappeared from the ritual of the English Church. The words of James refer to the miraculous gifts which were present in the apostolic Church, and especially to the miraculous gift of healing (^dpur/j,a laiiarcav). We learn from the First Epistle to the Corinthians that the gift of healing ' Thus it is said concerning those who profaned the Lord's Supper among the Corinthians : ' ' For this cause many are weak and sickly among yon, and many sleep " (1 Cor. xi. 30). See also 1 Cor. v. 5. ^ HsBC verba non loquuntur de saoramentali unctione extremse unctionis. Quoted in Wordsworth's Greek Testament, in loco. ' In general, this sacrament is administered in the church, and only in extreme cases in private houses. 106 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. was conferred by the Spirit upon many of the early Christians (1 Cor. xil 9) ; and from the practice of the disciples of Christ that they combined the anointing of oil with the exer- cise of that gift (Mark vi. 13). Of course, we cannot suppose that this miraculous gift of healing was a permanent power to be exercised on all occasions; for if so, there would have been neither sickness nor death in the primitive Church; but it was conditioned by the will of God, and the result was deter- mined according to His pleasure. Paul undoubtedly pos- sessed and exercised the gift of healing, as in the case of the cripple at Lystra (Acts xiv. 8—1 0) ; but Epaphroditus, one of his fellow-companions, was sick unto death (Phil. ii. 27); he had, to leave Trophimus at Miletum sick, without laying his hands on him that he might recover (2 Tim. iv. 20) ; nor could he cure himself of the thorn in the flesh (2 Cor. xii. 7—9). In the performance of a miracle there must have been a peculiar impulse of the Spirit — a faith which causes a man to feel that he was called upon to effect a work of healing. Hence, then, we give what we believe is the meaning of the passage : the elders of the Church being sent for, anointed the sick man with oil in the name of the Lord, and by the prayer of faith miraculously restored him to health. Oil was •employed as an external symbol, in a similar manner as our Lord in His miracles sometimes made use of external signs (Mark vii. 33 ; John ix. 1). " The anointing," observes Meyer, " is to be looked upon as the conductor of the super- natural healing power, analogous to the laying on of hands, so that the faith was the causa apprehendens, the miraculous power the causa efficiens, and the oil was the medians, there- fore without independent power of healing, and not even necessary, when the way of immediate operation was, probably in accordance with the susceptibility of the persons concerned, adopted by the healer." ■^ These external signs would be of special use in arresting the attention of those who were to be cured, and of exciting faith within them ; for it would appear that faith was necessary, not only in the person whoi performed the miracle, but also in the person cured (Acts xiv. 9). Oil, as we have seen, had a sacred import among the Jews, ' On The Gospel of Mark, p. 94, translation. THE ANOINTING OF THE SICK. 107 being the emblem of consecration, and perhaps was here employed to denote that the person cured was consecrated to the Lord. One great objection to this meaning of the passage is that it would imply that the gift of healing was inherent in the elders of the Church. The sick man was enjoined to call, not for those favoured Christians on whom the gift of healing was conferred, but for the presbyters. To this objection it has been answered, that it is most probable that those who were most highly endowed with miraculous gifts would be selected as presbyters. Still, however, we cannot suppose that all the presbyters were thus endowed. It is possible that these miraculous gifts were not so much conferred on indi- viduals, to be exercised according to their pleasure, as on the Church ; they were a sacred deposit committed to the Chris- tian Church as a body, and were exercised by the presbyters as the representatives of the Church.^ And further, it is to be observed that although the promise of recovery is here stated as unconditional, yet, as we have remarked above, we must consider it as conditioned by the will of God ; but under what conditions the anointing of the sick was exercised we cannot determine.^ And further, as the miraculous gift of healing has now been withdrawn from the Church, so this rite of anointing, having lost its purpose in the recovery of the sick, is now no longer serviceable to the Church, and thus should cease to be observed ; its retention tending only to superstition. " Whatever," observes Bishop Wordsworth, " was instituted by Christ or by His apostles, under His guidance and that of the Holy Ghost, for the purpose of conveying grace to the soul, and for the attainment of ever- lasting gloiy, is of perpetual and universal obligation ; for all men need grace, and all men desire glory. But things which were practised and prescribed by Christ and His apostles are not of perpetual obligation, unless they are con- • "James," observes Neander, "regards the presbyters as organs, acting in the name of the Church." Commentary on the Epistle of James, p. 120. " "Every one," observes Bishop Burnet, "that was sick was not to be anointed, unless an authority and motion from Christ had been secretly given for doing it ; but every one that was anointed was certainly healed." On the Thirty-Nine Articles. 108 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. ducive to an eud which is of perpetual necessity, namely, to the bestowal of spiritual grace to the soul, and to its ever- lasting salvation. If such is not their character, they are mutable, and may be omitted or foregone by the Christian Church, according to the wisdom and discretion with which God has endued her." ^ 1 Wordsworth's Oreeh Testament : the Catholic Epistles, p. 33. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. I. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. THE First Epistle of Peter is as strongly attested by external evidence as any other writing of the New Testament; it has been transmitted to us by an unbroken chain of testi- mony from the apostolic times. Hardly any writing is so frequently quoted by the early Fathers. Eusebius expressly mentions it among the ofioXoyovfievai or universally acknow- ledged books of the New Testament.^ Eenatn, no partial judge, observes : " This First Epistle of Peter is one of the writings of the New Testament which are most anciently and most unanimously cited as authentic."^ And even De Wette, although he questioned the authenticity of the Epistle on purely subjective grounds, yet admits that some of the apostolic Fathers knew and used it, and that " it is supported by the whole mass of ancient ecclesiastical authorities." " The testimonies," he observes, "of the most important Fathers down to Eusebius, who reckons it among the universally accepted writings, support it ; and, if we set aside its omission in the ancient catalogue of Muratori, and its rejection by the Paulicians, there is no opposition to it." ' The earliest testimony in its favour is the Second Epistle of Peter, which, whether genuine or not, is generally admitted to be a document of a very early date. In that Epistle the author designates his writing as his " Second Epistle " (2 Pet. '^ Mist, Eccl, iii. 25 : »ls X^ns rviv ^tpefitivnv 'lueiwov Tforipuv, kk} a/ieieas riiv Ylirpao xvpwrtav inffToXfiv, * Antichrist, p. 7. ' Eirdeitmg in das N". T., p. 385, E. Tr. p. 345. The rejection of the Epistle for dogmatic reasons hy the Paulicians, who arose in the seventh century, is no objection. 109 110 THE FIKST EPISTLE OF PETEK. iii. ly A passage occurs in the Didachfe (a.d. 70-100) which is by many regarded as an allusion or quotation from this Epistle: "Abstain from fleshly and bodily lusts " (1 Pet. ii. 11).^ Eusebius informs us that Poly carp (a.d. 116)^ in his Epistle to the Philippians makes use of certain testimonies taken from the First Epistle of Peter.* Polycarp does not name Peter as the author of the Epistle, but we have only to glance at his Epistle to the Philippians to see that his quotations from it are direct and numerous. Thus in the first chapter he writes : " In whom though now ye see him not, ye believe, and believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory (1 Pet. i. 8) ; into which joy many desire to enter ; " ^ in the second chapter: "Wherefore, girding up your loins (1 Pet. i. 13), serve the Lord in fear and truth, as those who have forsaken the vain, empty talk and error of the multitude, and believed in Him who raised up Jesus from the dead, and gave Him glory (1 Pet. i. 21), and a throne at His right hand;"* and in the eighth chapter : " Let us continually persevere and in the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ, who bore our sins in His own body on the tree (1 Pet. ii. 24), who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth (1 Pet. ii. 22), but who endured all things that we might live in Him."' Eusebius also informs us that Papias (a.d. 116) "made use of testimonies from the First Epistle of John and likewise from that of Peter."* In the Epistle to Diognetus (a.d. 150) we have the following reference : " He delivered up His own Son a ransom for us, the holy for the transgressors, the innocent. ^ Didach6 i. 4 ; avs^ov rm auftKtKuv Kul ffufiariKm ivtSv/Jbtuv. " The date of the Epistle of Polycarp is disputed. There is reference in it to the martyrdom of Ignatius, which, according to the best authorities, occurred A.D. 115. ■" Hist. Eed. ir. U. ^ A.d Philip, C. 1 : us av ou* tSavns ETEK. general character of its contents and aims ; the want of any literary or theological characteristics bearing the impress of individuality; and the want of any close connection and evolution of thought.^ These subjective reasons are strained and without weight. The absence of any special occasion, if admitted, is no objection ; to comfort believers in trial, and to exhort them to perseverance and stedfastness, were in themselves sufficient reasons. So far from there being no special peculiarities in the Epistle it is full of them, and in particular its statements regarding "the last things" have given rise to more speculations on the future life than perhaps any other book of the New Testament. And the Epistle, being entirely hortative, did not admit of that close connec- tion of thought which is discernible in the Epistles of Paul. All such subjective reasons, even admitting their truth, are of no value when set against the strong external evidence in favour of the Epistle. If the Epistle has been strongly attested to have been written by Peter, no reasonable objection can be founded on any arbitrary opinion about the nature of its contents, so far as these do not directly contradict the opinions of the apostle as elsewhere ascertained. And besides, as we have already shown, the internal evidence is not against, but in favour of the authenticity of the Epistle. 3. Another objection is the improbability, or rather the impossibility, of the residence of Peter in Babylon. The Epistle professes to have been written from Babylon : " The Church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you" (1 Pet. V. 13). Now it is asserted that it is very improbable that Peter would go beyond the limits of the Eoman Empire into the kingdom of Parthia, to which Babylon belonged ; and that as he wrote this Epistle in the midst of the persecution under Nero, it is impossible that he could have journeyed in so short a period to Eome, where he suffered martyrdom during the same persecution. Thus Schwegler, as another objection, adduces the " impossibility, on the assumption of the Epistle having been composed in Babylon, of harmonizing the Neronian persecution, presupposed ^ See Huther's Der erste Brief dea Apostel Petrtts, pp. 36, 37, -vierte Auflage. Schwegler's Das Nachapostoliache Zeitalter, vol, ii. p. 7. THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE. 121 in the Epistle, with the martyrdom of Peter at Eome during that persecution." ^ Now, in answer to this objection, it is to be observed that its whole force depends on three disputed assumptions ; first, that by Babylon is meant the celebrated city on the banks of the Euphrates, and not imperial Eome ; secondly, that the persecution to which Peter refers was the persecution under Nero, and not the general trials to which Christians in the early ages were exposed from the heathen ; and thirdly, that Peter suffered martyrdom at Eome during the Neronian persecution, and not at a time and in a locality which are undetermined. We shall afterwards particularly examine these three points; but meanwhile would remark that whilst an uncertainty rests on Babylon as denominat- ing the city on the Euphrates, and on the fact of Peter's martyrdom at Eome, yet, granting that the preponderance of evidence is in favour of these points, there is no evidence whatever for the second assumption, that in the trials and sufferings mentioned in the Epistle there is an allusion to the persecution under Nero ; and, consequently, if a sufiBcient interval be supposed to elapse between the writing of this Epistle and the death of the apostle, the fancied contradiction, in the supposition that he might have written the Epistle at Babylon and died as a martyr at Eome, disappears." II. Peter, the author of this Epistle, is familiar to every reader of the Gospels and of the Acts of the Apostles. He was a native of Bethsaida on the Sea of Galilee ; his father's name was Jonas {'It6va. patience to all the sufferings to which they will be inevitably exposed, and in this respect they must follow the example of their divine Lord and Master (chap. ii.). In all the relations of life they must show themselves examples of holiness ; the same rules apply to the man and to the woman, to husbands and to wives. Their best defence against their enemies will be their forbearance toward them and the holiness of their lives ; and if called upott to suffer for righteousness' sake, they ought to esteem it an honour and a privilege, it being better to suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing. Christ Himself suffered for sins ; but though put to death in ^ Pfleiderer's PauUnkm, vol. ii. p. 150. 136 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. the flesli He was quickened in the spirit, in which He preached to the disobedient spirits before the flood (chap. iii.). As, then, Christ had suffered for them in the flesh, so it becomes them to arm themselves with the Spirit of Christ. They had ah-eady lived too long to the lusts of the flesh; the past must now be abandoned. Judgment was at hand, and therefore they must be sober and watchful unto prayer. They must be armed and prepared ; the fiery trial which is to try them was near : they must be made partakers of the sufferings of Christ ; but this to them should be the cause of joy and not of dismay (chap. iv.). The apostle next proceeds to address the elders of the Church, and exhorts them to feed the flock of Christ ; he admonishes the younger among them to submit to the elder, and all to be humble, sober, and watchful. He then concludes his Epistle with a doxology; he recommends to them Silvanus as the bearer of the Epistle, and sends salutations from Mark and from the Church, or, as others think, from a female disciple at Babylon (chap. v.). The style of the Epistle is suited to its hortatory design ; it is earnest and pressing, warm and' affectionate. The whole Epistle being designed to comfort and strengthen believers under the sufferings to which they were exposed, the apostle especially dwells upon the sufferings of Christ, as at once their example and encouragement. There is nothing of de- spondency in the Epistle; on the contrary, its character is sanguine ; it looks forward to a happy issue out of all these trials, and holds out the eternal glory to which thej' are called by Jesus Christ (1 Pet. v. 10). "This Epistle," observes Erasmus, " is full of apostolic authority and dignity, sparing in words and fertile in thought." With regard to its diction there is a certain want of logical connection; the writer appears to be hurried on by the thoughts which suc- cessively suggest themselves. Alford observes that " the word o5i» occurs only in connection with imperatives intro- ducing practical inferences ; on and Biort only as substantiat- ing motives to Christian practice by Scripture citation or by sacred facts; yap mostly in similar connections. The link between one idea and another is found not in any progress of unfolding thought or argument, but in the last word of the TEE DESIGN AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 137 foregoing sentence, which is taken up and followed out in the new one." ^ Baronius supposes that the Epistle was originally written in Aramaic ; and Bertholdt thinks that it is a translation into Greek by Silvanus or Mark. But for these opinions there is no foundation. The numerous quotations from the Old Testament are taken from the Septuagint, and not from the original Hebrew. It is not improbable that Silvanus acted as Peter's amanuensis, but there is nothing to indicate that he was the translator.^ The country of Galilee, of which Peter was a native, was bilingual ; without doubt Peter was early accustomed to speak Greek as well as Aramaic, and his subsequent intercourse with the Greeks would improve his knowledge of their language. There is nothing incredible or surprising in the fact that the Galilean apostles, James, Peter, and John, could write Greek.^ The Epistle, far from being dependent on the thoughts of others, as some afBrm, is full of marked peculiarities. Peter has with some reason been styled "the Apostle of Hope." This has indeed been somewhat exaggerated, but still hope may be regarded as the keynote of the Epistle.* It com- mences with blessing God that He had called its readers unto a lively hope ; it holds forth the rewards of the faithful as their comfort and support amid the trials of life ; it speaks of the salvation of their souls as the end of their faith ; it describes them as but strangers and pilgrims in this world ; it looks forward to the appearance of Jesus Christ as at hand, and alludes to the hope that is in them. The apostle is con- tinually looking forward to the future ; the • present is dark and gloomy, but the future is full of hope. Another peculiarity is that the Epistle, more than any other writing of the New Testament, bears upon it the impress of the Old Testament. Not only are there proportionately more quota- ' Alford's Qreeh Testament, vol. iv., Prolegomena, pp. 137, 138. For remarks on the style and diction of the Epistle, see Davidson's Introduction to the Stvdy oftlie N. T., vol. i. pp. 432-434 (2nd ed. vol. i. pp. 526, 527). ' So Sohenkel, Vhrintusbild, p. 48. ' See MayerhoflF's Petrinische Schriften, p. 136. ' So Mayerhoif and Weiss. Weiss calls Peter, Der Apostel der Hoflfnung. Der Petrinische Lehrbegrif, p. 25. 138 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. tions from the Old Testament, but much of the phraseology of the Epistle is Old Testament phraseology. Christians are the heirs to the privileges of God's ancient people ; they are a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people ; their ■works are spiritual sacrifices ; once they were not a people, but now they are the people of God. There are also, both in this and in the Second Epistle, frequent references to the prophecies of the Old Testament as predicting the sufferings and glory of Christ, and foreshadowing the salvation which is revealed in the gospel (1 Pet. i. 10-12; 2 Pet. i. 19-21). And a further peculiarity of this Epistle, as of the Second, is its eschatology. There are in it statements regarding a future life, disclosures of the unseen world which distinguish it from the other writings of the New Testament, such as Christ preaching in spirit to the spirits in prison (1 Pet. iii. 18—20), and the preaching of the gospel to the dead (1 Pet. iv. 6).^ V. TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. Various dates have been assigned to this Epistle. Weiss and Fronmtiller I'ank it among the earliest writings of the New Testament,, and suppose it to be written about the year 53 or 54.* Michaelis, Steiger, Guericke, Brlickner,* Wieseler, Davidson {Introduction to N. T.), Alford, and Cook, supposing that the trials alluded to did not point to the Neronian perse- cution, think that it was written before that event, between the years 60-63. Hug, Neander, Thiersch, De Wette, and Mayerhoff, adopting the opinion that the apostle alludes to. the persecution under Nero, suppose that it was written toward the close of the year 64, when that persecution was raging. Eichhorn, Credner, Schott, Bleek, SiefFert, Wiesinger, Huther, and Farrar think that it was written when the Church was suffering from the after-effects of that persecution, between the years 65-67. And, as already mentioned, the Tubingen ■■ See infra, "Dissertation on the Eschatology of Peter." ^ Weias's Biblical Theology of the N. T., vol. i. p. 163 ff. Einleitung in dax N. T., p. 434. Fronmtiller in Lange's Bibelwerk, p. 9. ' Briickner supposes that the Epistle was written during the later activity of Paul, but before his imprisonment in Jerusalem. TIME ASD PLACE OF WRITING. ] 39 school^ affirm that it was written about the year 112, during the persecution under Trajan. In the Epistle itself there are few indications of time. The gospel was already diffused in the countries of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, and time must be allowed for this extension of Christianity. Silvanus is men- tioned as the bearer of this Epistle (1 Pet. v. 13);^ and if he is the same as the companion of Paul, the Epistle must have been written after Paul's second missionary journey (a.d. 54), because it was not until then that Silvanus left him. If there are in the Epistle references to Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, as many suppose, it must have been written after that Epistle (a.d. 6 3) ; but if, as we believe, these references are imaginaryi this argument is baseless. An argument has been drawn from the presence of Mark (1 Pet. v. 13). It is generally supposed that this is the same as John, whose sur- name was Mark, who accompanied Paul on his first missionary journey. Now, Mark was with Paul when he wrote the Colossians (Col. iv. 10) during his first Eoman imprisonment (a.d. C3), but was absent from Eome during Paul's second Eoman imprisonment (a.d. 6 7) ; for, writing to Timothy, the apostle says : " Take Mark, and bring him with you : for he is profitable to me for the ministry" (2 Tim. iv. 11). Hence it is supposed that in the interval (A.D. 63-67) Mark may have been with Peter. But no inference can be drawn from this, for it might as reasonably be argued that Mark was with Peter during the interval between ' Paul's first missionary journey, when Mark left him, and Paul's first Eoman imprison- ment (a.d. 46-63) ; and indeed this is more probable, as according to tradition Mark is regarded rather as the disciple of Peter than of Paul.* Another argument has been drawn ' So Baur, Pfleiderer, Lipsius, Keim, Holtzmann, Schwegler, and Hilgenfeld. Zeller goes the length of supposing that it was written in the reign of Hadrian. Dr. Davidson, in his Introduction, to the Study of the N. T., vol. i. p. 427, fixes the date between a.d. 75 and 80; but in his second edition of that work he adopts the opinion of Baur, that it was written in the reign of Trajan, perhaps A.D. 113 (vol. i. p. 524). ^ Or the words may denote that Silvanus was Peter's amanuensis. ' According to ecclesiastical tradition, Mark journeyed with Peter as his interpreter, and it was chiefly at Peter's dictation, or on the information given 140 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. fi^om the improbability that Peter would have written to Paul's converts in Galatia and Proconsular Asia during that apostle's lifetime, or at least before his imprisonment, and whilst he was at liberty to take the personal superintendence of those Churches which he had founded. But not much can be made of this alleged improbability ; it is a mere gratuitous supposition; the apostles must have been free to write to whom they pleased. Taking aU the circumstances of the case into consideration, giving time for the diffusion of the gospel probably by Peter and Silvanus in the countries mentioned, although it is admitted that there are slight grounds for a definite decision, we would assign the year 59 or 60 as the date of this Epistle. But if there is an uncertainty regarding the date of this Epistle, there is still greater uncertainty regarding the place of writing. In the Epistle that place is denominated Babylon (1 Pet. V. 13) ; but there is a variety of opinion as to what is to be understood by this name. The following opinions may be rejected, as too plainly erroneous to merit examination. Harduin and Semler suppose that Babylon is a figurative designation of Jerusalem. Michaelis thinks that Seleucia is meant, as that city is sometimes, though, as he himself admits, rarely, called Babylon.^ Calovius, Le Clerc, Pearson, Pott, and Burton suppc^e that Babylon in Egypt is meant, on the ground that Mark, who was with Peter, was the founder of the Church of Alexandria ; but the Egyptian Babylon was not a city, but a military fort.^ There are two opinions which merit consideration. The first is that Babylon is a metaphorical designation of Eome — the successor of Babylon as the grand centre of power and vice. This opinion is maintained, not only by almost all Eoman Catholic, but by numerous Protestant theologians. It has been adopted by Grotius, Lardner, Whitby, Macknight, Dietleiu, Olshausen, Wiesinger, Hitzig, Sieffert, Thiersch, Schott, Hofmann, Hengstenberg, Baur, Ewald, Schaff, Home, by Peter, that he wrote the Gospel which bears his name. Eusebius, Hint. Ecd. iii. 39 ; Irenseus, Hcer. iii. 10, 6. ' Michaelis, Introduction to the N. T., by Marsh, vol. vi. p. 331. 2 Sirabo, xvii. I. TIME AND PLACE OF WKITISG. 141 Davidson, Salmon, Cook, and Farrar.^ The testimony of antiquity is in its favour. Eome was then in the Christian Church known by the name of Babylon, and is so called in the Apocalypse (Eev. xiv, 8, xvii. 5, 18), Eusebius, in a passage where he apparently gives the opinion of Clemens Alexandrinus and Papias, observes : " Peter makes mention of Mark in the First Epistle, which he is also said to have composed at the same city of Eome, and that he shows this fact by an unusual metaphor, Babylon ; thus, ' The Church at Babylon elected together with you saluteth you.' " ^ So also Jerome observes : " Peter mentions this Mark in his First Epistle, figuratively denoting Eome by the name of Babylon;"^ and Oecumenius : " He calls Eome Babylon on account of the pre-eminence which of old had belonged to Babylon."* So also the subscription to the Epistle in several ancient manu- scripts mentions Eome: e'ypd Assuming that the Babylon mentioned in 1 Pet. v. 13 is Bdbylon on the Euphrates. ^ Wiesinger's Der erste Epistel das Petrus, pp. 11, 12. ' See also Bleek's Introduction to the N. T., vol. ii. p. 161. Lardner's Worh rol. iii. p. 405, quarto edition,. 160 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETEE. Bom gewesen, and especially by Lipsius in the work frequently alluded to, Die Quellen der romischen Petrus-Sage. It is also more or less discussed on the same side by Mayerhofif in his Pctrinische Schriften, by Winer in the article " Petrus " in his Mblisches Bealworterbuch, and by De Wette in his Einleitung in das N. T. The affirmative side of the question has been advocated by Qredner in his Hinleitung in das N. T., by Ewald in his GeschichU des Volkes Israel, by Sieffert in his article " Petrus " in Herzog's Encyhlcypadie, by Huther in his Commentary on Peter, by Schott in his Der erste Brief Petri, by Keil in his Commentar uber die Briefe des Petrus, by Hilgenfeld in his Einleitung in das N. T., by Olshausen in his Bomerbrief, by Wieseler in his Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalter, by Schaff in his History of the Apostolic Church, by Penan in his Hibbert Lectures, and by Windischmann in his Vindicice Petrince. DISSERTATION II. THE PETEINE THEOLOGY. The type of Christian doctrine elaborated by Peter is the connecting link between the theology of James and that of Paul. In its ethical statements this First Epistle of Peter resembles the Epistle of James, whilst in its doctrinal state- ments it resembles the Epistles of Paul. This arises partly from the idiosyncrasy of the writer ; as a Hebrew Christian, Peter was different from Paul, who was a Hellenist, and, unlike James, he had travelled much in Gentile countries. And it arises partly from the class of readers to whom he wrote ; Peter wrote to mixed churches, composed of Jews and Gentiles ; James, to Jewish Christians ; and Paul, chiefly to Gentile Christians, Peter resembles James in dwelling on the Old Testament, the spirit of which pervades the writings of both ; and in the practical character of his Epistle, aiming not so much at the instruction of his readers in Christian doctrine, as at the inculcation of Christian duty and the formation of THE PETEINE THEOLOGY. 161, a Christian character. But in both respects a difference is observable between them ; whilst James regards Christianity as the development of Judaism, being " the perfect law " (Jas. i. 25), Peter looks upon it as the realization of Judaism, being the fulfilment of prophecy ; and whilst in the Epistle of James there is a comparative absence of the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, Peter draws his motives from such Christian topics as the sufferings, the resurrection, and the glory of Christ. On the other hand, in his doctrinal state- ments Peljer resembles Paul.^ Some, indeed, have unwarrant- ably exaggerated the degree of resemblance, affirming that Peter's Epistle is but modified Paulinism. Thus Pfleiderer calls it " a popularized, and for that very reason a diluted and faded Paulinism." ^ Both Paul and Peter place the greatest stress on the sufferings of Christ, and regard them as procuring for us a deliverance from sin. But, when closely examitied, there is in this Epistle little trace of a direct influence of Paul. It will be seen that whilst both apostles assert the supreme importance of the sufferings of Christ, they view them in a somewhat different light. iThey emphasize different results arising from these sufferings. Peter never once alludes to Paul's fundamental doctrine of justification by faith ; and whilst Paul dwells chiefly on the legal, Peter dwells chiefly on the moral efficacy of the death of Christ.^ To the differences apparent in these sacred writers, we owe a fulness of Christian truth which we should not otherwise possess ; and in the absence of all discrepancy, we have a proof that they all wrote under the inspiration of one Spirit. Before discussing the theology of Peter, it is further necessary to observe that this First Epistle — to which we restrict our remarks — was addressed to believers. Those to ' For the Pauline character of the doctrine of this Petrine Eiiistle, drawn out into details, see especially Davidson's Introduction to the, Study of the JV. T.^ vol. i. pp. 510, 511, 2nd edition ; and Eeuss' History of Christian Theology in the 'Apostolic Age, vol. ii. pp. 265-267, E. Tr. 2 Pfleiderer's Paulinism, vol. ii. p. 162, E. Tr. See also Baiir's N. T. Theol., p. 287. ' For the relation of Peter to James and Paul, and the distinctions between them, see remarks in Lechler's Das apostolische Zeitalter, p. 260 f. [E. Tr. of the 3rd edition, vol. ii. pp. 246-249] ; and Schmid's Biblical Theology of the New Testament, p. 409 f. L 162 THE FIEST EPISTLE OF PETEE. whom the apostle wrote were already instructed in the faith, nor, so far as is apparent from the Epistle, were they disturbed by the errors of false teachers,^ like many of the churches to which Paul wrote. Peter's object in writing was not to impart to them further instruction in Christian doctrine, but to comfort and support them under the persecutions to which they were exposed. Hence the Epistle is not dogmatic, but horta,tory. But still the hortatory and ethical teaching reposes on a definite system of Christian dogma, in which the apostle finds the sole spring of a Christian life. I. Belatiooi of Christianity to Judaism. In adverting to the peculiarities of this Epistle, we re* marked that the whole Epistle, more than any other writing of the New Testament, bears upon it the impress of the Old Testament. Its theology might almost be described as a study of the new in its relations to the ancient economy.^ The death of Christ is described as that of " a lamb without spot," with an evident reference to the paschal lamb, and Christ Himself is described as " the corner-stone " of His spiritual temple, with an allusion to the prophecies of Isaiah. But especially is Christianity regarded as the fulfilment of pro- phecy.* This view pervades not only the writings, but the oral teaching of the apostle. On this point chiefly be dwells in his discourses transmitted to us in the Acts of the Apostles. " All the prophets," he observes, " from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days" (Acts iii. 2-4). And in his Epistle he observes that the Spirit of Christ was in the apostles, " testifying before- hand of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow" (chap. i. 10-12). All the leading facts of the Gospel liistory — the sufferings and the resurrection of Christ, and His exaltation to the right hand of God, are regarded by Peter as , ? There is a remarkable difTerenoe in this point between the First and Second Epistles of Peter. * See Leohler's Dan wpo/ttoUsche Zeitalter, p. 189 [E. Tr. vol. ii. p. 156]. ■ ' " Peter," observes Dorner, "sees in Christianity the fulfilling of Old Testa- ment prophecy," JEhitwicUungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Piraon Christi, voK i. p. lOS, zweite Auflage. Sohmid's Biblical Tlieology, p. 376. THE PETEINE THEOLOGY. 163 the fulfilment of prophecy ; in short, according to him, the Old Testament is a propliecy. of the Gospel. Christianity is the development of Judaism, only in the sense ' of being its fulfilment : so that there is truth in Dr. Schaff' s remark : " Christianity, according to Peter, does not exist for the sake of Judaism, nor as a product of it; rather is Judaism a product of Christianity." ^ Nor is Christianity merely the fulfilnietU of prophecy, but it is, according to Peter, the realitation of Judaism. What Judaism was in idea, Christianity is in reality.^ The Jews never attained to the ideal set before them, of being the theo- cratic people of God ; they were throughout their whole history a disobedient and rebellious people ; but this ideal is realized in believers. Hence the Old Testament descriptions of the Jewish people are applied by Peter to Christians. They are the elect nation, chosen out of all the nations of the world (chap. L 2). They are the lively stohes, built up into a living temple, dedicated to the worship of God (chap, ii. 4). Their actions are spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ (chap. ii. 5). They are a royal priesthood, in whom the kingly and priestly offices of Judaism are combined (chap. ii. 9). They are a chosen generation, a holy nation, a peculiar people — what Israel was to God in idea, they are in reality (chap. ii. 9, 10). They are God's spiritual offspring — the true Israel of God. And yet, notwithstanding the Hebrew dress of the Epistle, there is not the slightest trace of Jewish legalism, nothing resembling those opinions which have been , attributed by the Tubingen school to Peter^ as the apostle of the circumcision. There is no mention of circumcision or the other rites of Judaism ; the Jewish law is not once alluded to ; the word vo/ioii does not even occur.^ On the contrary, whilst Christians occupy the place of the Jews, the Jews themselves, as they continued unbelieving, are rejected. They are the disobedient people unto whom ^ Schaffs History of the Apostolic Church, vol. ii. pp. 329, 330. ' For the development of this statement, see Weiss' Dir petrinische Lehrhc griff, p. 116. "The 0. T.," observes Domer, "in its highest functions is a product of that which is the principle of Christiauitv." 3 See Pfleiderer's Paulinism, vol. ii. pp. 148, 149. 164 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETEK. the precious corner-stone has become a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence (chap. ii. 7). So that the Jews and Christians change places ; in times past Christians were not a people, but now they are the people of God (chap. ii. 1 0). ■ II. The Nature of Sin} According to the theology of Paul, the gospel is a remedy for sin ; he proceeds from the disease to the remedy. Man is guilty, and as such has come under the condemnation of the law, and is exposed to the wrath of God. He cannot justify himself ; the law condemns him, and no subsequent obedience to it can remove his guilt. Thus sin is regarded in a forensic point of view as the transgression of the law, and entailing punishment. Peter, on the other hand, whilst he does not entirely omit this view of sin, regards it chiefly in an ethical point of view, as that which corrupts and pollutes the soul. Like James, he dwells on sin as having its seat in the soul, in the form of evil desires and lusts (eiriOvfitai). These he designates as fleshly lusts, which war against the soul (chap. ii. 11), as in opposition to the higher principles and powers of our nature. These lusts take outward shape and form in vain conversation (/laraia avaarpo^ij, chap. i. 1 8), and show them- selves in all the various branches of sin, against which Peter warns his readers. Before the preaching of the gospel, these sinful lusts and actions arose from ignorance (ayvoia) ; hence he warns his readers against " the former lusts in their ignor- ance " (chap. i. 14). But after the promulgation of the gospel, they become wilful transgressions — disobedience to the gospel. Hence sin not merely polluted the soul, but it exposed to punishment ; there was not only defilement, but guilt ; but still the chief element in sin, according to Peter, is its defiling nature. Whilst James gives the genealogy of sin — lust, sin, and death — Peter dwells upon its existence, and urges his hearers to guard against it. Nor does he omit the mention of the evil one, whom he regards as the great adversary, and, in language similar to that employed by James, he exhorts his '■ See Weiss, Der petrinische Lehrbegrif, p. 173 f. ; Die Lebre vor der Siiiide. THE PETRINE THEOLOGY. IGo readers to be on their guard against his attacks (chap. v. 8, comp. Jas. iv. V). III. Tlie Christology of Peter. The Christology of Peter is not nearly so fully developed as that of Paul and John. Weiss, indeed, goes the length of affirming that Peter dwells almost exclusively on the human nature of Christ ; that he does not mentioii His pre-existence, and that he only alludes to His divinity in connection with His exaltation and session at the right hand of God ; and he considers this Epistle as a remarkable document, forming a transition to a fuller development of Christology in the writings of Paul and John.' But this account is obviously defective. It is true that Peter nowhere calls Christ the Son of God ; ^ but what' is nearly the same, he speaks of " the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ " (chap. i. 3) ; and in the openiiig of his Epistle he mentions the Father, the Spirit, and Jesus Christ as co-operating in our salvation (chap. i. 2). The pre-existence of Christ is, accord- ing to the most reasonable interpretation, asserted when he speaks of the Spirit of Christ as influencing the prophets in their predictions* (chap. i. 11), and of Christ as being fore- ordained before the foundation of the world, but manifested in these last days (chap. i. 20). But especially does Peter frequently emphasize the sinlessness of Christ, both in reference to His character as an example for our imitation, and in refer- ence to the efficacy of those sufferings which He endured for our sakes. " He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth," and thus has left us an example that we should follow His steps (chap. ii. 22); and we are redeemed ".with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish ' See Weiss' Biblical Theology of the New Tesiament, vol. i. p. 226, and Der peirinische Lehrhegriff, pp. 241, 255. ' So also in his discourses Peter speaks of Christ under the Old Testament title as " the Servant of Jehovah," vu7s hm. ' See Huther's Der erate Brief Petri, in loco, and Alford's Oreeh Testament, in loco. Alford explains "the Spirit of Christ ''as " the Spirit which Christ has and gives." Weiss, on the other hand, calls this interpretation in question- [Biblical Theology of the N. T., p. 225), and also Schmid, on the ground that the Spirit proceeds from the exalted Christ. Biblical Theology of the N. T., p. 382. 166 TIIj; FIEST EPISTLE OF PETER. and without spot '' (chap. i. 19). It was because He was the Just One that He could give His life as a sacrifice for the unjust (chap, iii, 18). The exaltation of Christ also occupies a prominent plsice in this Epistle. It is the exalted Christ who is held forth as the object of our faith. He is raised to the highest dignity, and constituted the Lord of the most exalted intelligences. He is gone into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject unto Him (chap. iii. 2 2) ; and He shall again appear in this world as the judge of the quick and the dead (chap. iv. 5). Divine worship is paid to Him, and a doxology, which can only be applied to the Supreme Being, is applied to Him : " To whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever"^ (chap, i v. 11). Thus, then, though not so pro- minently brought forward as in the Epistles of Paul and John, the divinity of Christ is presupposed in this Epistle of Peter. As we have already observed, Peter agrees with Paul in assigning supreme importance in our redemption to the suffer- ings of Christ. The great doctrine which lies at the foundation of Pauline theology is that the death of Christ was an atone- ment for our sins. Christ suffered in our room and stead ; His death was an expiatory sacrifice, by means of which the guilt of our sins was removed, and forgiveness was bestowed upoii all those who believe. Now it has been asserted that this view of the sufferings of Christ is not exhibited in Peter's Epistle. " We find no allusion," observes Pfleiderer, " to a vicarious expiatory sacrifice for the reconciliation of our guilt and for our liberation from the punishment of sin, from the anger of God, from the sentence of death, and from the curse of the law."^ And certainly it must be admitted that the expiatory nature of Christ's sufferings is not so much dwelt upon as their purifying nature. Peter does not insist so much on our deliverance from guilt as on our deliverance from sin. Still there are several passages wherein the doctrine of the ' It is, however, doubtful to whom this ascription of praise is to be applied. It is referred to God by Brnokner, Weiss, Soliott, Huther, and Alford ; and to Christ by Grotiua, Calovius, and Steiger. ' Pfleiderer's PauUnism, vol. ii. p. 152. THE PETEINE THEOLOGY. 167 vicarious. sxifferings of Christ is stated or implied. Thus Peter says : " Christ also once suffered for sin, the just for the unjust (S//cajos iirep aBUmv), to • bring us to God " (chap, iii, 18). It is true that the preposition iirep, for, is different from dvri, instead of , and properly denotes "for the benefit of/' but here the contrast of the just and tlie unjust gives it a substitutionary force ; the just one could only suffer on account of sins for the benefit of the unjust in the way of expiation.-' Thus the death of Christ is the objective ground of our forgiveness. Again, Peter speaks of " the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ " (chap. i. 2) ; the allusion being to the expiatory legal act of sprinkling the blood of the victim as the blood of atonement. So, also, he mentions our being redeemed with the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot (chap. i. 19), a state- ment which implies that the death of Christ was an expiatory sacrifice for our sins, like the sacrifices under the law. And he speaks of Christ bearing our sins in His own body on the tree (chap. ii. 24), so that His sufferings were endured for our sins. In all these passages the expiatory nature of Christ's sufferings is implied. At the same time, it must be admitted that Peter gives still greater prominence to the purifying efficacy of Christ's sufferings, a view which is also directly stated by Paul, when he says that " Christ gave Himself for us, to redeem us from all iniquity, and to purify unto Himself a peculiar people zealous of good works" (Titus ii. 14). As Peter viewed sin chiefly on its ethical side, so he was led to dwell chiefly on the sufferings of Christ as designed to free us from the power of sin and to make us holy.' In most of those passages, where the sufferings of Christ are alluded to, this purpose of them is stated. His readers were redeemed from their vain conversation, received by tradition from their fathers, by the precious blood of Christ (chap. i. 18, 19) ; the death of Christ ' This is admitted by "Weiss. See Der- petrinische Lehrhegrif, pp. 260, 261. Huther observes : " i/Vs» is not in itself equal to &tTl ; but the contrast here drawn between ilxxim and iilxm suggests that in the general relation the more special idea of substitution is implied," in loco. 2 Hence there is no mention in this Epistle of the doctrine of justification. & 168 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. rescued them from the slavery of their sinful life. Christ bore our sins in His own body on the tree, for the express purpose that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness (chap. ii. 24). Thus, then, though there is no discrepancy, yet there is a difference in the views which Peter and Paul respectively take of the sufferings of Christ. Peter regards sin chiefly as a moral evil from which we must be delivered, and the sufferings of Christ as effecting our deliver- ance ; Paul regards sin~ chiefly as the transgression of the law rendering us liable to punishment, and the death of Christ as the expiatory sacrifice on the ground of which our sins are forgiven. Both of these aspects of Christ's sufferings are contained in the writings of these two apostles, but the one gives peculiar emphasis to the one view, and the other to the other view. " Paul," observes Archdeacon Parrar, " dwells most on deliverance from guUt, Peter on deliverance from sin. With Paul the death of Christ is the means of expiation, with Peter it is more prominently a motive of amendment. Paul, in Eom. vi. 1-15, writes like a profound theologian; Peter, in chap. iv. 1-4, is using the language of a practical Christian." ^ Peter regards the sufferings of Christ as affording an example to believers. Christ, by reason of His sinlessness, is our great example ; in all that He has done and suffered, He has left us an example that we should follow His steps, but especially has He afforded us a perfect example for our imitation in the manner in which He endured His sufferings. Certainly His sufferings were something far more thaxi an example, but still this is a quality in them that ought not to be overlooked, and this quality is especially dwelt upon in this Epistle. As Christ suffered for us in the flesh, we are to arm ourselves with the same mind, with the same disposition with which Christ endured His sufferings (chap. iv. 1). " Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example that we should follow His steps : " we must imitate Him in His forbearance toward His enemies, and in His resignation to the will of His heavenly Father (chap. ii. 21-23). If we suffer for vi^ell- doing, we are to derive comfort and encouragement from the 1 Farrar's Early Day a nf Christianity, vol. i. p. 136. THE PETKINE THEOLOGY. 169 fact that Christ in like manner also suffered for our sins, the just for the unjust (chap. iii. 17, 18). We are not to he depressed under our sufferings, but ought rather to take comfort from the thought that we are thus conformed to the example of our Master, and to rejoice inasmuch as we are partakers of Christ's sufferings— actual sharers with Him in sufferings similar to those which He endured (chap. iv. 13). The reason, why the apostle thus dwells so frequently on the sufferings of Christ as an example, is obvious. Those to whom he wrote were then exposed to trials for the sake of Christ ; they were called upon to suffer as Christians, and one great design of this Epistle was to support and comfort them under these trials ; and the apostle could adduce no brighter example for their imitation, and hold out no stronger reason for their consolation under suffering, than the sufferings of Christ ; it was no reproach to them, but a glory, that they were called upon to tread the same path of suffering which was trodden by their Lord. As Peter was writing to believers who were uncontaminated with the errors of Judaistic heretics, faith in Christ is rather presupposed than demanded. It is true that the specific object of saving faith is not defined in this Epistle, and the phrase " faith in Christ " does not occur ; but Christ is throughout the Epistle represented as the supreme and only Saviour, and it is evident that the readers could only be Christians by believing on Christ. So, also, when God is spoken of as the object of faith, it is as He who " raised up Christ from the dead and gave Him glory" (chap. i. 21). On the other hand, faith is much dwelt upon in the sense in ^which it is employed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as con- fidence in God (Heb. xi. 1). It is a firm persuasion that God will fulfil all those precious promises which He has made to believers. Thus with Peter faith is similar to hope ; for hope is but the expectation of the fulfilment of the divine promises, and faith is confidence that these promises will be fulfilled. '* With Peter," observes Eeuss, " the object of faith is identical with that in the Epistle to the Hebrews, namely, things to come ; it is trust in the promises of God, a trust which shall be rewarded by the fulfilment of its hope, if it remains sted- 170 THE FIKST EPISTLF, OF PETER. fast and immovable. It is thus fixed upon God, and is almost a synonym for hope."^ This constitutes Peter the apostle of hope; believers are begotten again into a lively hope (chap. i. 3); they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation (chap. i. 5) ; they are enabled to hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto them at the revelation of Jesus Christ (chap. i. 13); and they are exhorted to give a reason of the hope that is in them (chap. iii. 15). It is also to be observed that Peter lays almost as much stress on the resurrection of Christ as he does on His sufferings and death." He commences his Epistk by render- ing thanks to God that they were begotten again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (chap. i. 3). He speaks of God as having raised up Jesus from the dead (chap. i. 21). And he asserts that we are saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (chap. iii. 21). And the reason of this is obvious ; for although the death of Christ is the primary cause of our salvation, inasmuch as He suffered for our sins, the just for the unjust, yet the resurrec- tion of Christ was the necessary confirmation of the work of redemption. The death of Christ enabled God to forgive. His resurrection enabled man to believe in forgiveness; divine forgiveness was made possible by the former, saving faith on the part of man was made possible by the latter. As long as Christ remained in the grave, there could be no ground for hope that His sufferings were ef&cacious ; but by His resur- rection we are, as Peter says, begotten again unto a lively hope. And so also Paul, whilst he gives prominence to the fact that Christ died for our sins, adds that He rose again for our justification. Besides, the resurrection of Christ was the first stage of His exaltation ; He rose from the dead in order that He might ascend into heaven, and as the exalted Christ promote the salvation of His people. In accordance with the view which Peter takes of the ' History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, yol. ii. p. 268. See also Pfleiderer's Pavlinism, vol. ii. p. 156. " In Peter's discourses in the Acts the same importance is assigned to Christ's resurrection. Acts i. 22, ii. 24-32, iii. 15, iv. 10, jt. 40, 41. THE PETKINE THEOLOGY. 171 sufferings of Christ as our redemption from the power of sin, or with what theologians call " the application of the remedy," lie dwells upon the agency of Christ in His state of exaltation. His resurrection was followed by His ascension and session at God's right hand ; He is constituted the Euler over angels, and authorities, and powers (chap. iii. 22) ; He is the Shepherd and Bishop of the souls of His people (chap. ii. 25), and thus is actively engaged in defending and ruling them ; He shall again appear in this world, when He shall reward His people for their patient endurance of trial (chap. i. 7) ; and He shall be constituted the Judge of the quick and the dead (chap. iv. 5). Everywhere He is the exalted Christ, held out as the object of His people's faith and hope. < IV. Tlie Agency of the Spirit. The work of the Holy Spirit is not overlooked in this Epistle, though it does not occupy the same prominent position as it does in Paul's Epistle to the Eomans. Peter calls Him "the Holy Spirit" (chap. i. 12), "the Spirit of God" (chap. iv. 1.4), and "the Spirit of Christ" (chap. i. 11). His personality and divinity are necessarily implied. In one passage the three divine persons in the Trinity — the Father, the Spirit, and Jesus Christ-^are mentioned together as effecting our salvation. The Father is God, according to whose foreknowledge we are elected ; the Spirit is the Author of our sanctification ; and it is by the blood of Jesus Christ that we are sprinkled (chap. i. 2). The Spirit inspired the prophets, when they testified beforehand of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that, should follow (chap. i. 11). The Spirit assisted the apostles in preaching the gospel, accom- panying their ministrations by a divine agency (chap. i. 12). Through the Spirit believers are enabled to purify their souls in obeying the truth' unto unfeigned love of the brethren (chap. i. 22), so that He is the source of all those holy virtues which actuate believers. The Spirit, as the Spirit of glory and of God, rests on believers (chap. iv. 14), so that they are actuated by His sacred influences. Eegeneration, or the commencement of the spiritual life in 172 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. the soul, is attributed by Peter, as it is by James, to the word of God. " Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God {Bia \cyov 0eov) which liveth and abideth for ever" (chap. i. 23 ; comp. Jas. i. 18).^ By the \6yo^ Oeov we are not to understand the Logos of John, for this is an appellation of Christ entirely restricted to John's writings, but the word preached by the apostles. It receives the epithets " living " and " abiding," inasmuch as it is the word of our salvation — the truth of the gospel. Still the word is not the efficient agent in our regeneration, but only the instrumental cause ; it is " through (Sid) the word of God " that we are born again. The Author of this new birth is God Himself, in virtue of His redeeming mercy (chap. i. 3), and, more specifically considered, the direct agent is the Holy Spirit; we are saved through sanctification of the Spirit (iv dyiaa/iM IIvev/jLaTo<;, chap. i. 2). This union of the agency of the Spirit with the instrumentality of the word in our regeneration, and as that is developed in our sanctification, pervades all Scripture. V. The Eschatology of Peter. As we have already observed, the eschatological views of Peter form the chief peculiarity of this Epistle. There are statements and disclosures regarding the unseen world which are not found elsewhere in Scripture, and which have given rise to much discussion concerning the nature of the future state. Those passages which refer to Christ preaching to the spirits in prison (chap. iii. 18-20), and to the preach- ing of the gospel to the dead (chap. iv. 6), are of such import- ance that they are reserved to form a separate dissertation. Peter looks forward to a future state of blessedness as the great source of comfort and support to his readers exposed to sufferings and persecution.^ The night was dark, but it would be followed by a glorious morning. The Epistle is full of joy ' xiyas is also used for the word in the Epistle of James. Comp. Heb. iv. 12. 2 "Another peculiar feature of the Epistle," observes Alford, "is its constant reference and forward look to the future. . . . Wherever we consult this Epistle, it is always the future to which the exhortations point ; whether we THE PETRINE THEOLOGY. 173 and consolation. There was a world beyond the grave, where believers would be abundantly recompensed for all the suffer- ings they now endured for the sake of religion. They were called to an inheritance, incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away (chap. i. 4). They would receive the end of their faith, even the salvation of their souls (chap. i. 9). When the chief Shepherd shall appear, they would receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away (chap. v. 4). After they had endured temporary sufferings, the God of all grace would make them perfect, and call them to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus (chap. v. 10). Hope is the centre of all his exhortations.^ It is also to be observed that throughout this Epistle sufferings and glory are combined, both in the life of Christ and in that of believers. Sufferings come first, to be suc- ceeded by glory ; the cross and the crown are inseparably united. The prophets testified beforehand of the sufferings of Christ and of the glory that should follow (chap. i. 11). And as was the case with the Master, so is it with His disciples ; they are to rejoice if they are partakers of Christ's sufferings, inasmuch as when His glory shall be revealed they may be glad also with exceeding joy (chap. iv. 13, v. 1, iii. 17, 18).^ Such is a brief statement of Petrine Theology. It is less logical, less dogmatic, less complete, less developed than that of Paul. Let us briefly recapitulate. There is no trace in Peter of an opposition between the law and the gospel. There is no mention of justification by faith. There is no allusion to the resurrection of the dead. Peter look;s upon sin, not so much in a legal aspect as the transgression of the law, but in an ethical aspect as that which depraves the soul : and hence the sufferings of Christ are regarded, not so much as an atonement to satisfy the divine justice, but as the mode of our redemption from the power of sin, and as an example regard the sufferings of Christ Himself as pointing on to future glory, i. Jl, iv. 13 ; or those of His followers, i. 6, 7, 9." (Jreek Testament, vol. iy., rrolegomena, p. 136. ' See lupra: Weiss, Biblical Theology of the N. T., vol. i. p. 243. * Leohler's Das apostoUsche Zeitaiter, p. 175. 174 THE FIKST EPISTLE OF PETER. for our imitation when exposed to suffering. The resurrection of Christ, as much as His death, is the ground of our hope, and hence faith is confidence in God's grace, seen chiefly in the fulfilment of His promises, atid is thus equivalent to hope. Peter does not attain to the fulness which is in Paul, nor to the spirituality which is in John ; there is no mention in his Epistle of the union which subsists between Christ and His people : its object is entirely practical, and hence the higher truths of Christianity are only touched upoiL Besides, we must remember that the Epistle is short compared with the writings of Paul and John, and therefore to expect the same fulness of gospel truth is unreasonable. We conclude with the words of Dr. Schafif, which fitly express the phase of doc- trine as given by Peter: "According to the Petrine type of doctrine, objective Christianity is at once the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, and itself a precious promise ; subjective Christianity is at once faith in the revealed Messiah, and lively hope in His glorious reappearance." ^ DISSEETATION III. ESCIIATOLOGY OF PETER. By eschatology is meant the doctrine {\c 1 ^'^^ i. 20 ; Jude 18), and "the last hour" (iax^'^V ^P<^> 1 John ii. 18), occur frequently in the New Testament, not because the sacred writers supposed that the world was then near its dissolution, but probably because the Jews regarded the age of the Messiah as the last dispensation of religion. But the phrase "the last things" (ta eo-^^Ta) occurs only once, and that in a passage (Matt, xii. 45) which has no reference to the topics included in esijhatology. The "last things," comprised in eschatology, ate generally reckoned as four — ^^death, judgment, heaven, and hell ; but other subjects are also included in systematic 1 Schaifs History of. the Apostolic Church, vol. ii. p. 331, ESCHATOLOGY OF PETER. 175 theology under this division, such as Christ's descent into Hades (descetisus ad inferos),^ the coming of Antichrist, the millennial reign of Christ, the restitution of all things in the new heavens and the new earth, and especially the inter- mediate state, or the condition of the soul in the interval between death and the resurrection. There are both in the speeches and in the Epistles of Peter disclosures of a future state, or at least statements which have been so interpreted, which are not to be foUnd elsewhere in the writings of the New Testament. Especially the condition of souls in Hades, or the nature of the intermediate state, and the descent of Christ into Hades, are, or are supposed to be, alluded to by this apostle. These eschatologieal allusions are peculiar to Peter among the writers of the New Testa- ment, and are to be found in his addresses as well as in his Epistles.'' Thus, in his address to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, he speaks of Christ's soul being in Hades, from which it was delivered by His resurrection (Acts ii. 31). In his First Epistle there is a passage which, according to eminent interpreters, refers to the actions of Christ, when His soul was in Hades, in the interval between His death and resurrection, and affirms that He then went in spirit and preached to the spirits in prison (1 Pet. iii. 18-20). Mention is also made of the gospel being preached to the dead (1 Pet. iv. 6). And in the . Second . Epistle the same peculiarity is found ; the writer dwells upon " the last tilings," the destruc- tion of the world by fire (2 Pet. iii. 5-10), and. the renovation of all things in the new heavens and the new earth (2 Pet. iii. 11). We, however, restrict ourselves to the eschatologieal views promulgated in the First Epistle, taken in combination with the apostle's declaration on the day of Pentecost, which are supposed to refer to the descent of Christ into Hades, and to the end or purpose of that descent. 1 This does not properly belong to eschatology, but to Christology. It, how- ever bears directly upofl the doctrine of the intermediate state and the condition of departed spirits. For this reason we inolade the subject in the department of eschatology. 2 Peter is the only sacred writer, if we exclude certain passages in the Apocalypse, and the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, who directly alludes to the intermediate state. 176 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. The descent of Christ into Hades constitutes one of the articles of the Apostles' Creed: "He descended into hell." This article was incorporated into the Creed at a compara- tively late period. The earliest mention of it is by Eufinus (a.d. 400), who found it in the creed of his Church at Aquileia ; ^ and he tells us that it was not contained in the .Eoman and Oriental creeds. Its original reference was to the burial of Christ, as appears from the fact that the word " buried " was not in the creed of Aquileia, which contained the article, whilst it was in those creeds which wanted it.* In the third article of the Church of England, as first pub- lished in the reign of Edward vi., the doctrine of Christ's descent into Hades was stated with special reference to the words of Peter in this Epistle : " The body of Christ lay in the grave until His resurrection ; but His Spirit, which He gave up, was with the spirits which were detained in prison or in hell, and preached to them, as the place in St. Peter testifieth."' Afterwards, according to Dr. Hey, in deference to Calvin, and in accordance with Calvinistic theology, the article was modified and abbreviated, and the reference to the passage in Peter's Epistle, concerning Christ's preaching to the spirits in prison, was omitted ; and now the third article reads as follows : " As Christ died for us and was buried, so also is it to be believed that He went down into hell." * 1 According to Eufinus, the words of the Creed were : Crucifixus suh Pontio Pilato, descendit in inferna. ' On the history of this article, see Pearson's Exposition of the Creed, Article V., and Bishop Browne's Expositimt of the Thirty -Nine Articles, Article III. " The subject is again stated at greater length in the Church Catechism, published in the same reign : "That He truly died and was truly buried, that by His most sure sacrifice He might pacify His Father's wrath against mankind, and subdue him by His death who had the authority of death, which is the devil ; forasmuch as not only the living but the dead, were they in hell or elsewhere, thpy all felt the power and force of His death, to whom lying in prison, as Peter saith, Christ preached, though dead in body, yet relieved in spirit." * In the Westminster Confession, which is still more in accordance with Calvinistic theology, there is no reference to Christ's descent into hell ; the eighth article merely states that Christ " was crucified and died, was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption." In Article IX. of the Formula Concordia, the descent of Christ into hell is stated merely in general terms ; the mode of descent being asserted to be a mystery. ESCHATOLOGY OF PETEE. 177 Hades is in the Septuagint the translation of the Hebrew Sheol (PiKp or ?KB'). According to Cocceius and Buxtorf, Sheol is derived from ^^f, to ask, the reference being to' its insatiableness (Prov. xxx. 15, 16). But most modern Hebrew scholars now concur with Gesenius and Boettcher in deriving it from an unused Hebrew verb bw, " to le hollow," referring to its supposed subterraneous location, as under the earth. So also the German Ifolle and the English hell are probably of similar derivation, being derived from Hohle, a cavity. Sheol occurs sixty-five times in the Old Testament; thirty- one times it is rendered in the Authorized Version hell, thirty- one times the grave, and three times the pit. "ASrji, the Greek rendering of and substitute for Sheol, is derived from d privative and iSelv, to see; hence that which is not and cannot be seen — the invisible state, the world beyond death. In the New Testament aSijs occurs eleven times ; ^ in ten of these it is translated in the Authorized Version hell, and in one place the grave (1 Cor. xv. 55). The translation hell, a term which is now used to denote the place of future punish- ment, is peculiarly unfortunate, as it is very questionable if Sheol or Hades ever bears that meaning.^ There is no appropriate word in English to denote what is meant by Hades; and it would have beea better to have left it -untranslated, as is done in the Eevised Version.^ As already observed, aSiys is the Greek translation in the Septuagint of the Hebrew Sheol, though on two occasions that word is rendered by 0dvaTo See Exegetical Studies, by author, pp. 252, 263. 2 Bruckner's Katholische Briefe, pp. 75, 76. Hutlier's First Epistle of Peter, p. 183. Weiss' Der petrinische Lehrbegbriff, p. 239. Wiesinger, Die Brief des Petras, p. 230. Eeuss' History of Christian Theology, vol. i. pp. 274, 275. ' Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iv. p. 368, 2nd ed. ' Wordsworth's Oreeh Testament, in loco. 186 THE FIKST EPISTLE OF PETER. criminals, but in custody, as prisoners awaiting their doom." ^ The result of this preaching of Christ in Hades is not told us, but it is usually supposed that many of the disobedient would avail themselves of this new oifer of forgiveness, and would be brought to repentance and to the acceptance of the Saviour ; whilst it may be that others would continue hardened and impenitent, as no limit can be assigned to human depravity. Why this preaching is limited in the text to the disobedient in the time of Noah has been variously explained ; some suppose that this is only specified, being an extreme case, as an example of a like gracious work on all the disobedient in Hades ; ^ others, that the deluge is introduced as a type of the judgment of God ; and others, that it is mentioned with special reference to its baptismal import, to which the apostle immediately alludes. The opinion here advanced is extremely plausible, and gives a good interpretation to the passage; but still two grave objections have been stated. 1. It is said to be inconsistent with the general doctrine of Scripture. If we adopt the above interpretation, it would follow that the condition of the inter- mediate state is not final, that death does not fix our future condition, and that there is repentance beyond the grave ; whereas it is argued, the doctrine of revelation would seem to be that this present life is the only state of probation, and that the future life is a state of retribution : " after death the judgment" (Heb. ix. 27). In accordance, then, with the rule that difficult passages of Scripture are to be interpreted according to the analogy of faith, the above opinion, although in seeming accordance with the sense of the words, is to be rejected. To this it is answered, that the doctrine of the intermediate state is involved in designed obscurity, and the ^ The Speaker's Bible: Canon Cook's Commentary on First Peter, vol. iv. p. 204. In a note lie adds : " It is clear that it (this passage) tells us nothing of the effect of the announcement, and affords no ground for speculation as to the present or future condition of those who now await their judgment in the inter- mediate state, having rejected or not having known the gospel of Christ." But if not for their advjantage, for what purpose did Chiist come and preach to them ? * So Farrar : " If," he observes, "language has any meaning, this language means that Christ, when His spirit descended into the lower world, proclaimed the message of salvation to the once impenitent dead," Early Days of Christianity, vol. i. p. 140. ESCHATOLOGY OF PETEB. 187 assertion of revelation may be that the final state is entered upon at the judgment and not at death. 2. It is argued that there is no mention elsewhere in Scripture of what appears in itself to be a most improbable fact, that Christ after death went to the prison of the disobedient, and there preached the gospel. The article in the Apostles' Creed : " He descended into hell," does not imply this. The Hades into which He descended was not Tartarus, the prison of impenitent spirits, but Paradise, the abode of the spirits of just men made perfect. " To-day," said our Lord to the penitent thief, " shalt thou be with me in Paradise." To this it is answered, that a single scriptural assertion, provided it be sufficiently plain and not contradicted by other inspired statements, is sufficient to establish a doctrine.^' " Isolated ideas," observes Huther, " are to be found expressed here and there in Scrip- ture, and the reconciliation of the idea of a salvation offered to the spirits ev (jtvXaKfj, with the other doctrines of Scripture, can at most be termed a problem difficult of solution ; nor must it be forgotten that the eschatological doctrines compre- hend within them very many problems." ^ 2. There is another class of interpreters who deny that there is any allusion to an actual descent of Christ into Hades. They suppose that the passage does not allude to Christ's preaching in person to the spirits in Hades, but to His preaching in spirit to the disobedient in this world. Those who adopt this opinion differ as to the time when Christ thus preached, and as to the persons to whom He preached. Some suppose that the preaching alluded to is that of the apostles to the unbelieving world. " The spirits in prison " is considered to be a metaphorical phrase to denote either Jews or Gentiles, or both, who were in a state of spiritual bondage; and by Christ's preaching in spirit to them is meant the preaching of the Spirit of Christ through His apostles. The gospel, it is observed, is frequently described ^ Here, however, there is a, begging of the question ; for it is maintained that the assertion is not plain, and that it is at variance with other inspired statements. « Huther'3 Die Epistd des Petrux, p. 178 [E. Tr. p. 181]. 188 THE FIBST EPISTLE OF PETER. as an announcement of deliverance to captives confined in a .dungeon (Isa. xlii. 7, Ixi. 1). And whereas it is objected that there is no mention in the passage of the preaching of the gospel either to Jews or Gentiles, but only to the spirits who were disobedient in the days of Noah, it is replied that these are adduced as a type of the disobedient in all ages ; the preaching of Noah before the flood was a type of the preaching of the apostles before the judgment. This view is adopted by Socinus, Vorstius, Schottgen, Grotius, and Bishop Burnet.^ But it is evident that such an opinion is a mere fancy ; the words are forced into a meaning most unnatural, which is supported by no philological or doctrinal considera- tion, and which one feels must be remote from the true interpretation. Surely to affirm that Christ went in spirit, and preached to the spirits in prison who were disobedient in the days of Noah, would be a most extraordinary method of expressing the simple fact that Christ was preached by the apostles to the Gentiles. A more numerous class of writers suppose that the preach- ing alluded to is that of the Spirit of Christ through Noah to , the disobedient or unbelieving at the time of the deluge, and who are now, in consequence of their disobedience, confined in the prison of Hades. This is the opinion, with somB modifications, adopted by Augustine,^ Thomas Aquinas, Beza, Scaliger, Leighton, Pearson, Barrow ; and in recent times by Besser, Wichelhaus, Schweizer, and Hofmann. Beza thus paraphrases the passage : " Christ, whom I have said to be vivified by the power of the Godhead, formerly, in the days of Noah, when the ark was preparing, going forth, not in a bodily form, but in the self-same power through which He afterwards rose from the dead, and by inspiration whereof the ' "The place of St. Peter, "observes Bishop Burnet, "seems to relate to the - preaching to tlie Oentik world, by virtue of that inspiration which was derived from Christ, which was therefore called His Spirit ; and the spirits in prison were the Gentiles who -were shut up in idolatry as in prison, and so were under the Prince of the power of the air (Eph. ii. 2), who is called the Ood of this world (2 Cor. iv. 4), that is, of the OentUe world : it being one of the ends for which Christ was anointed of His Father to open the prisons to them that were bound " (Isa. Ixi. 1). Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Artides, Article III. ' Ep. 99 ad Euodiam. ESCHATOLOGY OF PETER. 189 prophets spoke, preached to those spirits who now suffer deserved punishment in prison, as having formerly refused to listen to the admonitions of Noah." According to this view, the TTvevfia is not the human spirit of Christ, but His divine Spirit. Christ preached in Spirit, that is, not in His human but in His divine nature ; not personally, as in the days of His flesh, but through the instrumentality of others. The direct preacher was Noah ; and those to whom he preached were the spirits now in prison, who were formerly when in this world disobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah. And the period of preaching was the hundred and twenty years when the ark was preparing ; during all which period the long-suffering of God waited. In like manner, as Peter formerly said that the Spirit of Christ was in the prophets (1 Pet. i. 11), so He was in Noah when ^le preached to the antediluvians. "Every announcement of salvation," observes Hofmann, " which preceded His incarna- tion was a preaching of Christ who had come in Spirit to man, and those who were not obedient to the same fell into a condition similar to criminals who are kept in prison awaiting their doom." ^ The following are the objections which have been brought against such an interpretation : ' — 1. It is opposed to the exe- gesis of the passage. IIvevfiaTi, is used without the article, and is opposed to a-apKi, and therefore can only denote the human spirit of Christ as opposed to His flesh, not the Holy Spirit, nor the divine nature of Christ. To this it has been replied, that aapKv may refer to the human, and irveviiaTi to the divine nature of Christ. " He was put to death in His human nature, but quickened in His divine nature." His human nature {fdp^) rendered Him capable of suffering and death ; His divine natnre (Trvev/ia) was the source and sphere of His eternal life. In a similar manner Paul, in the Epistle to the Eomans, says that " Christ was made of the seed of David ' Hofmann's Der erste Brief Petri, p. 134. See also the Schri/tbeu-eis, ii. 335-341. Mxegetical Studies, pp. 261, 262. 2 Ppr full statements of the objections to this opinion, see Alford's Greek Tentament, vol. iy. pp. 366, 367, and FronmuUer on "First Peter" in Lange's Bibelwtrh, p. 69. 190 THE FIKST EPISTLE OF PETER. according to the flesh (Kara trdpica), but declared to he the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness {kuto, TTvevfia ayima-vv'ij'!," Eom. i. 2, 3)} 2. The words indicate a local transition, the passage of Christ in person from one locality to another : " He went {iropevdek) and preached." To this it has been answered, that a lofial transition is not neces- sarily implied. Thus, as Paul says that Christ came (ikOcav) and preached peace (Eph. ii. 17), the meaning being that He came in Spirit, and preached through His apostles ; so here " He went and preached " admits of a similar explanation. 3. There is no mention of Noah's preaching,^ but merely the statement that those who were disobedient lived in his days. But the allusion to Noah is a difficulty which belongs to both classes of interpretation, and Peter in his Second Epistle expressly calls Noah a preacher of righteousness (2 Pet. ii. 5). 4. The word now^ has to be inserted ; the spirits now in prison, which formerly were disobedient in the time of Noarh.* But to this it has been replied, that the introduction of this explanatory particle offers no violence to the passage, as it is admitted by all that the spirits were then in prison. The words indicate the locality of the spirits at the time Peter wrote. 5. Such a meaning interrupts the sequence of the passage.' 'A-n-ei- Brjoaaiv iroTe separates the time of Christ's preaching from the time of their disobedience ; Christ preached to the spirits who formerly were disobedient. Whereas, according to the above view, they were disobedient when the gospel was • It is opposed to this, however, that this would give to mZ/ta two different meanings in the same passage ; in ver. 18, •rniin.a.n would denote the divine nature or Spirit, whereas in ver. 19 miifcxn signifies disembodied spirits. ' " Not a word is indicated by St. Peter on the very far-off lying allusion to the fact that the Spirit of Christ preached in Noah ; not a word here on the fact that Noah himself preached to his contemporaries." Alford, in loco. ' Nunc in carcere. Beza. * " It cannot be doubted that we thus put force on the apostle's words, and that TuTs E> ^i/Xax^ trtivnafn must denote the local condition of the wEv^ara at the time when the preaching took place." Alford. " The whole passage contains evidently a sequence of events, — Christ suffered for sins, was put to death in the flesh, and quickened in the spirit, went and preached to the spirits in Hades, went into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of God. "The subject, ■X.fitrit, runs through the whole without a hint that we are dealing with historical matter of fact in tine^iv, (xxartiSus, XtitrtmhU, and with recondite figure in ^cfiMs UKfulit." Alford. ESCIIATOLOGY OF PETER. 191 preached. " If," observes Bengel, " he was speaking of preaching by Noah, the word formerly (Trore) would either be altogether omitted, or be joined with the word preached." ^ But to this it has been answered, that the meaning of the passage is that those spirits now in prison were the same as those who were formerly disobedient in the time of Noah. 6. If the clause had stopped with ix^pv^e, and if there had been no reference to the disobedient in the days of Noah, we should have been constrained to adopt the interpretation, that Christ actually went to Hades and preached to disobedient spirits. But to this objection the answer is obvious, that such a refer- ence has been made by the apostle. On the whole, however, the feeling remains that the above interpretation is somewhat far-fetched and somewhat forced.^ The meaning of the passage must be left in uncertainty. It is one of those obscure state- ments of Scripture on which it is impossible to dogmatize, and any inference derived from which must be extremely problematical.* II. 21ie Gospel preaclied to the Dead. The second passage has reference to the preaching of the gospel to the dead ; and literally translated is as follows : " "Who shall give account unto Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For to this end also was the gospel preached to the dead, that they might be judged according to man in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit " (1 Pet. iv. 5, 6).* * Bengel'.s Gnomon of the, New Testament, in loco. Accordingly Hofmann joins ■rai-i with ixiipu^iy, contrary to all linguistic rules. " To express this meaning we would require to read : Christ by the Spirit formerly preached to those who were disobedient in the days of Noah. ' For the literature on the Subject, see the article on " Eschatology " in the Encyclopedia Britannica, by the Kev. A. S. Aylen. Fronmiiller's "Com- mentary on First Peter " in Lange's Bibelwerk. Gloag's Exegetical Studies, xiv. Horsley's Sermon on the Spirits in Prison. Pearson) On the Greed. Plumptre's Spirits in Prison. Schmid's Biblical Theology of the N. T. Steiger's Com- merUary on First Peter. Weiss' Der petrinische Lehrbegriff; and Zezschwitz, Petri ap. de Christi ad inferos descensu sentientia. The subject is also discussed more or less fully in all the chief commentaries on the Epistle. * ''O, eireiuffavffiv Xoyav ru iroi/Aois s^ovti xpivxt Z'^vrets xeti vtxpovs. £/; Tavre ykp xet\ • vixffois lunyytXiff^Ti, *iya, xfiiuffiv fiiv Koira eivfipatrsvs ffecpxty %unv St xarit hoy wta/ietrt. 192 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. The apostle here assigns the reason why Christ can be the righteous Judge of the dead as well as of the living, because the gospel was preached to the dead ; they, as well as the living, had the opportunity of accepting or rejecting it. The dead {veKpoi<;, ver. 6) to whom the gospel was preached must belong to the same category as the dead {veicpov^, ver. 5) whom Christ will judge. Hence, then, the passage cannot possibly apply to the spiritually dead ; the words do not mean that the gospel was preached to the dead in trespasses and sins, — an opinion adopted by Augustine, Oecumenius, Luther, Erasmus, Whitby, Benson, Macknight, and recently by Bishop Wordsworth.^ Dismissing, then, this view as wholly untenable, there are only two other opinions which are admissible, either that the gospel was preached during their lifetime to those who are now dead, or that it was preached in Hades to the dead. A numerous class of theologians suppose that the meaning of the passage is that the gospel had been preached in their lifetime to those who are now dead. This opinion, with some modifications, is adopted by Calvin, Grotius, Bengel,^ Hofmann, Schott, and Keil. The apostle is vindicating the justice of Christ in judging the dead ; and this because the offers of sal- vation had been made to them in their lifetime. They were not dead, but alive, when the gospel was preached to them. With Tischendorf's text. The exegesis is as follows : Tlie apostie is reminding his readers that their persecutors would render an account to Christ, the Judge of the living and the dead, yif, for, evidently assigning a reason for the state- ment that Christ shall judge the dead as well as the living. lU v, r^f Vi^i^upou ^oiffM xpihiffns Si» rrvpos xa) hlov, Tlpoi^Xov irotnireis o diirTOTtls, on reus i\ See also Davidson's P 226 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETEE. addressing them might well employ the general terms con- tained in the inscription; there is no contradiction here to the limitation afterwards stated in the Epistle (2 Pet. iii. 1). 2. It is objected that the circumstances of the readers of the two Epistles are entirely different. The readers of the First Epistle were exposed to persecution, and there is no mention in it of heretical tendencies ; whereas the readers of the Second Epistle were exposed to the errors of false teachers, whilst there is no mention of sufferings for the sake of Christ.^ But if we assume the lapse of a few years between the com- position of these two Epistles, heretical tendencies might easily have sprung up in the interval ; and we know, as a matter of fact, that heresies did in the later days of the apostolic era greatly disturb the Christian Church.^ And although we cannot think that the persecutions of the Chris- tians had ceased, yet the apostle had already written an Epistle to support and comfort his readers under persecu- tion to which he refers them, and now in this Epistle he directs their attention to a new and more pressing evil — the errors of heretical teachers. The difference arose from the occasions of the Epistles ; the design of the one being to comfort Christians under their sufferings, and the design of the other being to exhort them to contend for the faith. 3. It is further maintained that, according to the Second Epistle, the author had preached the gospel to those to whom he wrote, whereas there is no mention of this in the First Epistle. Thus in the Second Epistle he writes : " We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ " (2 Pet. i. 16). "The author," observes Neander, "assumes that he is writing to the same Churches as those to whom the First Epistle of Peter is addressed, yet what he says of his relation to his readers is at variance with that assumption, for Introduction to the Study of the JV. T., vol. ii. p. 491, 1st edition ; vol. ii. p. 458, 2nd editioii. > BrUckner'a Katholische Briefe, p. 122. Huther, Die Brkje des Petrus, p. 328 [E. Tr. p. 276]. * Hence the allusions to heretical teachers, chiefly of a Gnostic character, in Paul's later Epistles, — the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, and the two Epistles to Timothy,— and particularly in the First Epistle of John. THE DESIGN AXD CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 227 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 connection ; yet this was a relation in which the Churches to whom the First Epistle was addressed could not stand." ^ But, in answer to this objection, it is to be observed, on the one hand, that the words on which it is founded may not refer to the apostle's having preached the gospel to his readers, but to what he had made known to them concerning the coming of the Lord in his First Epistle ; and, on the other hand, there is nothing in the First Epistle which would forbid the idea that Peter had previously visited the Churches to which he wrote ; but, on the contrary, as we have seen, there are state- ments which presuppose such a visit. The very fact that Peter addresses these Churches seems to presuppose some special tie between him and them. III. THE DESIGN AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. The author states that his intention in writing was to remind his readers of what had been foretold by the prophets and apostles, that there would arise among them heretical teachers who would seek to pervert their minds from the faith (2 Pet. iii. 1-3). But especially is the object of the Epistle stated in the two last verses : " Ye, therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away by the error of the wicked, fall from your own sted- fastness ; but grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. iii. 17, 18). The design, then, of this Epistle was twofold. First, the apostle wished to warn his readers against the errors of false or heretical teachers. He tells them that their coming had been foretold, he describes their character, he pronounces their doom, and he warns his readers to avoid them. Secondly, the apostle writes for the purpose of exhorting his readers to make progress in holiness. They are to resist those evil practices inculcated by the false teachers, they are to add to their faith all other Christian virtues, they are to confirm themselves in ' Neander's Planting, vol, i. p. 376. 228 THE SKCOND EPISTLE OF PETER. the truth, making their calling and election sure ; they are to keep themselves without spot and blameless until the coming of Christ, and they are to aim at growth in grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. Those who consider the Epistle as spurious have great difficulty in assigning any reason for its composition. Schwegler, who may be regarded as on this point the repre- sentative of the Tubingen school, considers that its design was conciliatory, to reconcile Pauline and Petrine Christianity. In Eome, he thinks, endeavours were made by carrying out a combined Petrinism and Paulinism to realize the idea of the catholic Church ; and accordingly this Epistle was one of the class written with a view " to bring about from the standpoint of Petrinism a final and permanent peace between the opposing views of the followers of Peter and those of Paul." * But the only clause on which he founds this opinion is the verse wherein mention is made of Paul's Epistles (2 Pet. iii. 15).^ There is absolutely nothing to warrant this hypothesis, no reference to the peculiar views of Paul concerning justification, and no mention of the legal ceremonies of the Jewish law.* The false teachers referred to in chap. ii. (y^evSoSiSdaKoXoi, 2 Pet. ii. 1) are to be considered as identical with the scoffers mentioned in chap. iii. (efnraiKTai, 2 Pet. iii. 3).* In all probability they are the same as those mentioned in the Epistle of Jude, as the terms by which they are described are similar. They were not so much outside as inside the Christian Church. They are described as having embraced pernicious en-ors of doctrine ; they denied the Lord that bought them, probably disbelieving in His divine Sonship ; they called in question the second advent of Christ ; they disbelieved in a future judgment, and, probably like the ^ Nachapostolische Zeitalter, vol. i. p. 303. Somewhat similarly Baur, Pfleideier, and Hausrath. " As Heydenreioh remarks : " For this (conciliatory) purpose, the little which chap. iii. says in passing of Paul would not have sufficed ;, if the writer had been chiefiy anxious to show such a union, he would have adapted the construc- tion and contents of the whole Epistle to the conciliatory design." ' For a refutation of this view of Schwegler, see Huther's Die Bri^e des Petrua, pp. 837, 388 [E. Tr. pp. 286, 28 " * Huther considers them as different. THE DESIGN AND COXTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 229 Corinthian heretics, denied the resurrection of the dead. But these doctrinal errors were not mere speculative opinions, but led to vicious practices ; the heretics were immoral in their conduct, they were the slaves of vice, they were entangled in the pollutions of the world, they were filled with self-conceit and presumption, they were irreverent in their words, speak- ing evil of dignities, they were full of lust and covetousness, they endeavoured to seduce others, and it would seem that many of them had apostatized from the faith (2 Pet. ii. 21, 22). In short, they appear to have been practical ' Anti- nomians who acted upon the maxim, " Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound." When, however, we attempt the historical identification of these heretical teachers, we soon meet with difficulties. In all probability we see in their belief and conduct the germs of Gnosticism, which in the second century so greatly dis- turbed the peace and corrupted the purity of the Christian Church.^ As yet the heresy had not formed itself into a system, but consisted generally in the denial of the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ and in vicious practices, which two things are characteristic of most of the Gnostic sects. In short, it was incipient Gnosticism, the same heresy, but not in so developed a form, as that combated by John in his First Epistle. There is a resemblance also between it and the heretical views and practices referred to in the Epistle to the Colossians and in the Second Epistle to Timothy, but it is impossible to identify them, and all attempts to do so have ended in failure. Hug supposes that the heretical teachers were similar to those who infested the Colossian and Ephesian Churches : " They were," he observes, " apparently a branch of that theurgical and magical philosophy which was strikingly distinguished by its pneumatological speculations upon the angels and the spiritual state, and by the inferences which resulted from them."^ Mayerhoff supposes that the persons censured by Paul in the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, and those Corinthians who denied the resurrection of the dead, resembled those heretics against whom Peter warns his ' Ewald's Siehen Sendschreiben des neuen Bundes, p. 105. ° Hug's Introduction to the 2f. T., vol. ii. p. 619. 230 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. readers.' Oecumenius, Michaelis,* Vitringa, Burton,^ and Mansel* consider that the Nicolaitanes, who are identified in the Apocalypse with the followers of Balaam (Eev. ii. 14, 1 5), are here meant, because Peter describes them as following the ways of Balaam (2 Pet. ii. 15). Bertholdt thinks that certain Christian Sadducees who had not relinquished their rationalistic opinions were intended.* And Grotius sup- poses that the Carpocratians were described.* All these are mere suppositions. The heresy had not yet taken definite shape or form ; Gnosticism had not so fully developed itself as when John wrote his First Epistle. The impossibility of identifying the views and practices of the heretical teachers with any of the earlier Gnostic sects, with the Cerinthians, the Mcolaitanes, the Carpocratians, and the Valentinians, is a proof of the early date of the Epistle, showing that it must have been written before these sects had arisen, and conse- quently affords a presumption in favour of its authenticity. Contents. — The Epistle is both admonitory and hortatory, and these two elements pervade it throughout. It may be divided into three parts, nearly corresponding with its three chapters : the first part is an exhortation to progress in the divine life (chap, i.) ; the second part is a warning against heretical teachers (chap, ii.) ; and the third part is a declara- tion of the destruction of the world, and an exhortation to be prepared for that great event (chap. iii.). The apostle, having saluted his readers, prays that grace and peace may abound to them through the knowledge of Christ. They must remember their high and holy calling; they had received great and precious promises; they were made partakers of the divine nature ; they were delivered from the corruptions of the world. They must then make progress in the divine life ; grace must be developed within them ; they must add to their faith all the other virtues of \h% Christian character ; and thus by the exercise of faith and holiness of life they were to make their calling and election sure, that so they ' Mayerhoff's Pctriniache Schriften, pp. 156, 157. ^ Michaells, Introduction to N. T., Marsh's edition, vol. vi. pp. 359-362. ' Burton's Bampton Lectures for 1829, pp. 152, 153. * Hansel's Gnostic Hermes, p. 78. ' Einleittmg, Theil vi. § 672 f. " Annotat. in 2 ep. Petri. THE DESmU AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 231 might receive a joyful entrance into the heavenly kingdom. He was now aged, and his death revealed by his Lord was close at hand ; but he was anxious before his decease earnestly to exhort them to persevere in the faith ; they had not followed cunningly devised fables ; he himself was present at the transfiguration, and heard the Lord Jesus proclaimed by an audible voice from heaven to be the beloved Son of God, and they had the predictions of the prophets on which to rely (chap. i.). Prom exhortation he turns to warning. False teachers had, arisen among them who had introduced damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them, and bringing destruction on themselves and their followers. Their destruction was certain ; the example of the fallen angels, of the world before the flood, and of Sodom and Gomorrah, were all proofs that vengeance followed on the footsteps of crime. These heretical teachers were spots and blemishes in their feasts, a disgrace to their community, the seducers of the unstable, the servants of corruption, the heirs of wrath. If his readers suffered themselves to be seduced by them ; if they were entangled in their errors and overcome, they were in a far more perilous condition than those who had never heard of Christianity, and had never been rescued from the pollutions of the world (chap. ii.). These scoffers, who called in question the advent of the Lord, were not unforeseen ; their coming had been foretold by the holy prophets and by the apostles of the Lord. The advent of Christ might, according to their view, appear to be delayed ; but they must remember the vast difference between time in the eye of the Lord and time in the ideas of man ; one day was with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord was not in reality slack concerning the fulfilment of the promise of His coming. They must exercise patience and perseverance in the practice of a holy life. The day should assuredly come, when as the former world was destroyed by the waters of the deluge, so this present world and all that it contains would be destroyed by fire ; but new heavens and a new earth would spring from the ashes of the old. They must prepare for this solemn day ; the delay was an evidence of God's long-suffering, as Paul had written them. The apostle 232 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. then concludes the Epistle with a brief summary of its object; and enjoins his hearers to avoid tlie errors of the wicked, and to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. As the keynote of the First Epistle is Hope (e^TriV), so the keynote of this Epistle is Knowledge {yvwaK or iirir/voja-ii;). Grace and peace are to be communicated to believers through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord (i, 2) ; they are to add to their faith knowledge (i. 5) ; they are to be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (i. 8) ; they are to escape the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of Christ (ii. 20); and they are to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jssus Christ (iii. 18). And by knowledge here is not to be understood a mere theoretical knowledge of the truths of Christianity or the yvaxTii of -the Gnostics ; but a realization of these truths influencing the practice and leading to holiness of life. Especially did it consist in the acknowledgment of the power and coming {Bvvafj.i<; koX irapovaia) of Christ, in feeling the power of Christ influencing their moral conduct, so that at His advent they might be found of Him in peace without spot and blameless (2 Pet. iii. 14). The second chapter in this Epistle bears so marked a resemblance to the Epistle of Jude, that it is generally agreed that the one sacred writer must have borrowed from the other. It might be omitted without destroying the unity of the Epistle ; and were it not for the unanimous authority of maimscripts and versions, it might be regarded as an inter- polation.^ This peculiarity will afterwards be discussed when we come to consider the relation between the Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude.^ The disclosure concerning the destruction of the world forms another remarkable peculiarity in this Epistle. We are informed that the heavens and the earth, the present constitution of things, will be destroyed by fire. " The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements ^ As Bertholdt has done. 2 See ivfra, Dissertation on the Eelation between Second Peter and Jude. THE DESIGN AXD CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 233 shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (2 Pet. iii. 10). But out of the ruins of the old a new heaven and a new earth will spring into existence, wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Pet. iii, 13). This declaration has been urged as adverse to the authenticity of the Epistle. Thus Neander observes : " What is said of the oi'igin 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." ^ But the statement concerning the origin of the world from water, or rather the previous aqueous condition of the world (2 Pet. iii. 5), is in entire conformity with the account given us of the creation of the world in Genesis (Gen. i. 9). The con- flagration of the world is indeed a new statement or revelation, not elsewhere found in Scripture ;* but it cannot be affirmed to be opposed to the simplicity and practical spirit of the apostolic doctrine, inasmuch as there are many equally wonderful dis- closures in Scripture ; and this revelation concerning the last days is especially in accordance with the characteristic teaching of Peter, who, in both his Epistles, makes disclosures concern- ing the unseen world ; and he does so in a practical spirit, with a view to urge his readers to holiness and to preparation for these solemn events : " Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness"^ (2 Pet. iii. 11). We have already referred to the style of this Epistle. The language in which it was written was undoubtedly Greek. Some, indeed, have attempted to prove that the Epistle was originally written in Aramaic, and that what we now have is a Greek translation from that language.* But- this opinion 1 Neander's Planting, vol. i. p. 376. So also Mayerhoff. ' It is interesting to notice that two modern hypotheses of the end of the world predict its destniction by iire — either through collision with a comet or by its disappearance in the sun. ' On the Petrine doctrine of the destruction of the world, see Weiss' Biblical Theology of the N. T., vol. ii. p. 244 tf. * Advocated by the Eev. E. C. King : Did St. Peter write in Oreelc ? Thottghts and Oriticismg intended to prove the Aramaic origin of the Second Spistle of Peter. Cambridge 1871. 234: THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. has nothing to commend it. The Epistle was not written to Jewish Christians, but to Christians in general. The Greek language was diffused throughout the East, and there is no reason to suppose that Peter, or any of the Galilean apostles, was ignorant of it. For the same reason the tradition, pro- ceeding from Jerome, that Peter dictated his Epistle in Aramaic, and that Mark or some other interpreter translated his words into Greek, is to be rejected. IV. TIME AND PLACE OF WEITING. Those who admit the authenticity of the Epistle all agree that it was written shortly before the death of Peter ; but as they are not agreed when that event took place, they differ as to the precise year when the Epistle was written. Michaelis and Keil, supposing that Peter fell a victim in the great Neronian persecution, think that it was written A.D. 64 ; Schott and Weiss fix on a.d. 6 6 ; Macknight and Bishop Wordsworth on a.d. 67 ; Alford, Plummer, and Warfield on A.D. 68 ; and Koehler on a.d. 69. Those who deny the authorship of Peter differ widely in their opinions concerning the time of composition. Grotius thinks that it was written in the reign of Trajan, by Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem.' Bleek, on account of the comparatively late period when the Epistle was known to the Church, supposes that it was not written before the beginning of the second century, perhaps not before the middle of it.^ Ewald thinks that it was written about A.D. 9 5, twenty years after the publication of the Epistle of Jude, when Jude himself had been long dead, and his Epistle was no longer much heeded, as the writer wished to revive .the de- nunciations of Jude's Epistle against the Gnostics.* Mayerhofif, on account of the emphasis placed on yvma-ii, thinks that the author of the Epistle was a Jewish Christian who lived in Alexandria, and that it was .composed about the middle of the second century.* Credner, arguing from various supposed ' Annotai. in 2 ep. Petri. ' Bleek's Ititroduction to the N'. T., vol. ii. p. 185. ' ^wald's History of Israel, vol. viii. pp. 180, 181. * Mayerhofl's Petrinische Schr\/len, p. 193. TIME AND PLACE OF "WRITING. 235 indications of a late date, observes that the composition of this Epistle is to be placed at the very earliest in the beginning of the second century.^ Hilgenfeld, Hausrath, Mangold, and Holtz- mann, supposing that the Carpocratians are here referred to, place it in the middle of the second century. In Huther's opinion, it would be more appropriate to look upon the Epistle as a production of the first century, inasmuch as the description of the heretics contains no reference to the Gnostics properly so called.^ Davidson places the date of the Epistle about a.d. 170.* And Schwegler, in conformity with the d priori scheme of his school, considers that it was written from Eome toward the close of the second century.* In the Epistle itself, there are few indications of time by which its date might be determined. It was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70), as there is not the slightest reference to that great catastrophe which befell the Jewish nation, and which must have deeply impressed every Jew. It was written shortly before the death of Peter ; as he refers to the approach of his death, and assigns this as one reason for writing (2 Pet. i. 14, 15). , If the tradition of the Church is correct, that Peter perished in the Neronian perse- cution, which perhaps the balance of probabilities favours, then the Epistle must have been written' in the year a.d. 64. But if the tradition is untrustworthy, and Peter's last days are unknown, nothing certain as to its date from this declaration can be determined. Further, we must allow a certain interval of time to have elapsed between the writing of the two Epistles, in order to permit of the growth of heretical tendencies, and the development of evil which the Second Epistle presupposes. If we consider that the First Epistle was written a.d. 59 or a.d. 60, an interval of four years is sufficient for these purposes. We have therefore no difficulty in agreeing with those who assign the date of the Epistle to A.D. 64, the period of the persecution under Nero. The place of composition is also a matter of dispute. ^ Crodner's Einleitung in iV. T., p. 659. ' Huther's Der zweite Brief des Petrus, p. 339 [E. Tr. p. 284]. ' Davidson's New Introduction, vol. ii. p. 502, Ist ed. ; vol. ii. p. 408, 2iid ed. * Sehwegler's Nacliapoatoliache Zeitalter, vol. i. p. 496 ff. 236 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. Mayerlioff, supposing that the Epistle was written by an Alex- andrian Jew, fixes on Alexandria ; an opinion for which there is not the slightest foundation. Others think that it was Babylon on the Euphrates, because the First Epistle was written from that city (1 Pet. v. 13), and because it is very improbable that Peter would travel from Babylon to Eome. But if we are to assume that Peter perished in the Neronian persecution, then we must assign Eome as the place of com- position ; an opinion which is accepted by most commentators. The most important modern commentaries on this Epistle are those of Pott (Gottingen 1810), Dietlein (Berlin 1851), Lillie (New York 1854), Wiesinger (Konigsberg 1862, trans- lated, New York), Fronmtiller (Lange's Bibelwerk, 1862, translated by Mombert, New York 1869), Theodor Schott (Erlangen 1863), Bruckner (dritte Auflage, Leipsic 1865), Ewald {Sieben Sendschreiben des netoen £undes, Gottingen 1870), Huther (vierte Auflage, Gottingen 1877, translated, Edinburgh 1881), Plummer (in the I^ew Testament Commen- tary, edited by Bishop Ellicott), Plumptre (in the Cambridge Series: Cambridge 1880), Lumby (in the Speaker's Com- mentary, 1881), Keil (Leipsic 1883), Spitta (Halle 1885). DISSEETATIOK EELATION BETWEEN SECOND PETER AND JUDE. The second chapter of the Second Epistle of Peter is a section of peculiar difficulty. As has already been remarked, were it not for the indisputable evidence in favour of the integrity of the Epistle, we might regard it as a later inter- polation, as it could be omitted without interfering with the train of thought. It has also been affirmed that it differs in style and diction from the other two chapters of the Epistle, and that it is here that the linguistic differences occur which chiefly distinguish the Second Epistle of Peter from the First.^ But especially is the resemblance between this chapter and ' So Weiss, Huther, etc. ; on the other hand, Spitta ; see infra. EELATION BETWEEN SECOND PETER AND JUDE. 237 the Epistle of Jude remarkaWe ; a resemblance so close that it is now almost universally conceded that there must be an intimate connection between these writings, pointing either to a common source or to a dependence of the one upon the other. And yet this dependence is by no means slavish ; tlie one condenses or expands the ideas of the other, and both are marked by freshness of expression and vigour of thought. If the one sacred writer borrowed from the other, it has not been done mechanically ; the thoughts of the one are so assimilated by the other as to appear quite natural and appropriate. As "Weiss remarks : " In neither have we a slavish dependence or a mere copy, but the correspondence of the one with the other is carried out with literary freedom and licence." ^ The con- sequence of this is that very different opinions have been formed as to which of them is the original ; and for this reason it has been by some considered that the resemblance may be best accounted for by regarding both as paraphrases or imitation^ of the same document.^ The passages in these Epistles related to each other are 2 Pet. ii. 1-iii. 3 and Jude 4-18. The subject treated of in these passages is the same, namely, the character of the false teachers, of an antinomian type, who at that period infested the Christian Church. Although there is some difference here, as Peter alludes to the heretical teachers themselves (2 Pet. ii. 1), and Jude describes the licentiousness of their followers (Jude 4), yet it is generally agreed that the same class of men is referred to. Their character, their maxims, and their vices are the same ; they deny the Lord Jesus; they speak evil of dignities; they are given to covet- ousness, impurity, and pride ; they are vain and impious mockers. Their destiny is the same; they are doomed to sudden judgment; they shall utterly perish in their own corruption. The references to punishment, mentioned in the 1 Quoted by Huther in his Die Briefe des Petnts, p. 308 [E. Tr. p. 256]. * "One thing," observes Dr. Phimmer, "is certain, that whichever author has borrowed, he is no ordinary borrower. He knows how to assimilate foreign material so as to make it thoroughly his own. He remains original even while he appropriates the words and thoughts of another. He controls them, not they him." N, T. Commentary (edited by Bishop Ellicott) onJiide, p. 266. Similarly Wiesinger, Der zweite Brief des Petrus, p. 24. 238 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETEK. Old Testament as descriptive of their doom, are the same ; the fall of the angels, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; and the sin and fate of Balaam. And the illustrations employed to describe their character and destiny are the same; they are clouds or wells without water, spots or hidden rocks' in their feasts of charity, and for them the blackness of dark- ness is reserved for ever. From the following list in parallel columns of the resem- blances between these two writings, using the Eevised Version as more strictly literal, and affording a truer text, it will be seen that the resemblance extends not merely to ideas, illustra- tions, and metaphors, but to words and expressions : ^ — For there are certain men crept in privily {xxfuriii/irxt), even they who were of old set forth unto this con- But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall he false teachers, who shall privily hring in {•rxfuti^mnij destruc- tive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them (TOf ayo^ao*«VTa auTOUs SsiTWflVflV apyovfievet). — 2 Pet. U. 1. For if God spared notangels when they sinned, hut cast them down to hell,' and committed them to pits of darkness {Ts Z,c9iv *) to be reserved unto judgment (si's xfiV(» rufm/iiiisvs), — 2 Pet. ii. 4. And, turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (wflXs/s ^ot^/jcuv *al Te/itappas) into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, having made them an ex- ample {ii^o^wyfia.) unto those that should live ungodly.— 2 Pet. ii. 6. But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of defilement (itrUu ffttpxos iv iveiivptict. ittitiTfiov), and despise dominion {xvpioTviTas KaraippovovyTas), Daring, self-willed, they tremble not to rail at dignities (Sola; . . . ^Xxrfti- piottuTis). — 2 Pet. ii. 10. demnation, ungodly men . . . deny- ing our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (tav ftivov iiffrom* xai tvpioy rt/JMv Itlffouv XpiffTOV apvovfjtevei), — Jude 4. And angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper habi- tation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness {hrfitis i'iiltis iwi Z'f't) unto the judgment (u's xplnv . . . «T)))ijixiv) of the great day. — Jude 6. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah (iSSufia XXI Ti/tafpa,), and the cities about them . . . are set forth as an example (hTy/ia), suffering the punishment of eternal fire.s — Jude 7. Yet in like manner these also in their dreamings defile the flesh {ripxa fuamuri), and set at nought dominion (xvptoTfira ahroZffi), and rail at dignities (Sa^as ^ketffftifiouffiv). — Jude 8. ' See infra. ' Li^ts of parallel passages are given in Credner's EinUUung, pp. 662-664. Davidson's' Introduction to (he Study of the N. T., vol. ii. pp. 438-440, 2nd edition. De Wette's EMeitung, pp. 388-390. Mayerhoffs Mnleitung in die petrinischen Schriften, pp. 171-174. ' Marginal and more correct reading : "cast them down to Tartarus." * Other MSS. read rtipai's Z'f'n • chains of darkness. ' Marginal reading : " As an example of eternal fire, suffering punishment." EELATION BETWEEN SECOND PETER AND JUDE. 239 Whereas angels, though greater in might and power, bring not a railing judgment {tixirfn/tot xpmi) against them before the Lord. — 2 Pet. ii. 11. But these, as creatures withoiit rea- son (