This book became classical, as promising a First and Second Resurrection, and between them a Thousand Years' reign on Earth of Jesus and his Saints. That is why it was disparaged when Christians became ashamed of that expectation. It also, more than any other Christian book, undertakes to depict to the imagination the delights of a Christian heaven. The effort at spirituality is plausible, but a cessation of toil, pain and sorrow (as in Hebraic death) is the only solid idea in it. In continued life the total absence of pain and want is fatal to the idea of progressiv virtue. There is absolutely nothing to be done. No self-sacrifice is possible. No motiv for any exertion is imaginable, except to increase knowledge and science; so, after all, nothing beyond a Ciceronian heaven is propounded to us. Personal vision of "the Lamb" is in itself not more satisfying than was personal vision of the living Jesus.

Concerning this John we may remark that when Paul wrote to the Galatians, John apparently was still resident in Jerusalem; but afterwards he must hav had long familiarity with the seven churches of Asia to whom he inscribed the book of Apocalypse. Among them he learned to deviate widely from the primitiv creed of Jerusalem, as we see it in James's Epistle. Nevertheless it is not probable that he ever formally sanctioned Paul; for he pointedly upholds only twelve apostles, whereas if Paul's apostleship were admitted, there were thirteen. He also puts into the mouth of Jesus severe words against those who say they ar apostles, and ar not: which seems to strike at Paul.

A few words ar needed concerning Simon, called Cephas in Hebrew, Petros in Greek. No reason appears for doubt, that Jesus gave to Simon the surname Rock, because of his forwardness in avowing that Jesus was the Messiah. Paul never calls him Simon; James in the

"Acts" is made to call him Simeon. In his first and genuine Epistle, he calls himself Petros. The second Epistle, which even by Augustus Neander is judged spurious, opens by the name Simon Petros. The word Simon is Greek, meaning snubnosed. In Galilee this may hav been of Greek origin: but Simeon is clearly Hebrew. Was then the spelling Simon the mistake of men familiar with Greek?

Peter's character as depicted in the Gospels is that of generous ardour unsupported by moral tenacity. Paul also in writing to the Galatians represents him as aiming at the impossible task of pleasing both sides; the error of one amiable, but not strong. He had moved on quite readily in admitting Gentiles into the Church. He could not go along with Paul's vehemence at Antioch, and encountered Paul's severe rebuke; yet he certainly had no desire to impose on Gentiles the ceremonial law. German critics hav disputed the authenticity of even Peter's first Epistle, on the ground (solely, I believe,) of its being too like Paul's doctrin. It however is Paul without Pauline argumentation or Pauline subtleties. It is far more popular and less scholastic than is Paul normally, and seems to come from a tender and sweet nature which would both forgiv Paul's rudeness and be willing to learn of him.

No trace of Rabbinical argument appears in it, though it has what may be thought a Pharisaic doctrin concerning Spirits in Prison (rebel angels?) to whom Christ was supposed to preach the Gospel (iii. 19) by going down into Hades or Gehenna. These ar the angels (or sons of God) in Gen. vi. who through love of women (Jude 6 and 7) kept not their first estate. A peculiar obscurity is in iii. 6, where he speaks of the Gospel as preached to the dead, which whether literal or figurativ is very perplexing.

His most Pauline trait is the com

parison of Baptism to Noah's ark, but the Baptism of which he speaks is not the mere external rite, but the confession of a sincere heart.

It may be objected that nothing in this Epistle denotes the writer ever to have seen and listened to Jesus. But the objection assumes that in those days the business of an apostle was to play the part of an "evangelist," making much of the deeds and words of the living Jesus. It assumes that the practical morality taught by Jesus was more valuable than that of Paul and Peter. Rather, these apostles believed that they had to teach truths and hopes concerning the risen Jesus which he, while alive, did not teach, and that change of circumstances made change of moral exhortation suitable. The perfect virtue of Jesus himself could not be attested by an apostle as though eye or ear were a competent judge; so transcendent a quality could only be inferred by the prophecies concerning Messiah.

The last words of this remarkably beautiful and edifying Epistle send a salutation from the Church in Babylon. No valid reason appears for doubting that he wrote from the historical city of Babylon. The tone of iv. 17 denotes that he saw the destruction of Jerusalem under Vespasian and Titus to impend. He may hav written A.D. 69. In iv. 12 his expectation of the fiery trial (to all Jewish Christians-for it is to these that he writes) attests that the fierce enmity of the Roman Government to Christians was no secret to him. Yet he perseveres in Paul's theory concerning governors (ii. 14) and is most earnest that Christian Jews shall giv no symptom of disloyalty. His modesty in addressing Elders as himself an Elder, and exhorting them not to be lords over God's heritage, is in very pleasing contrast to that of bishops in the following centuries. Whether Peter ever set foot in Italy, is historically quite doubtful.

No well attested fact denotes that he ever held or desired any supremacy in the Church, Jewish or Gentile. The four Gospels accuse him of having three times denied Christ with vehement oaths: but the lead which in Acts i. 15 is conceded to him ungrudgingly, makes this story as improbable as ar the details concerning the motivs of Judas.

The reasons for rejecting as spurious the second Epistle called Peter's, cannot here be fully treated. It is enough to say, that the second chapter is judged to be a mere importation of Jude's Epistle, and Jude writes, looking back to the apostles as an earlier generation: also the third chapter is written after much disappointment had been felt that Christ's second coming was delayed. The excuse for this, that "with the Lord a thousand years "ar as one day" is fatal to all truth, making God a wilful deceiver of men. Such doctrin is self-confuting.

CHAPTER XII.

DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND ITS EFFECT ON
CHRISTIANITY.

UNHAPPILY it was not the Romans alone who hated the Jews. No conquering empire has yet made itself beloved, except that of the Incas in Peru, who (according to Spanish accounts) conquered by that blessed Christian rule, which bids us show greatness by becoming servant of the weaker. To imperial kindness the barbarian heart pays grateful allegiance, as surely as do horses and dogs. But Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes and Persians, Macedonians and Romans, following the doctrin that

Might makes right, and, Woe to the conquered! were hated by those whom they trod down. It is not wonderful, that so too were the Jews during their short term of imperialism. The Hebrew annals frankly inform us how very far was their pious king David from gentleness towards Edom, Ammon and even Moab; how lighthanded also his plundering of Syrian towns. All this comes as it were naturally to one who has proved superior in war.

The tale was repeated by the Jewish power after the marvellous Maccabean successes. These exalted the Jewish spirit everywhere and gave honor to the Jewish name. The successiv kings of Egypt looked on Jews with respect, and (in modern phraseology) admitted them to diplomatic equality. Maccabean princes ruled in Sheba. A million Jews dwelt in Alexandria with nativ autonomy under the Ptolemies. The Romans were glad to make the Jewish power their ally. The sacrosanct head of the Jews, already a Priest-King in fact, dealt with a very high hand towards foreigners, grudging municipal local freedom even to nativ towns, in order to centralize power in Jerusalem. Syrian towns, of which many were conquered, ar not likely to hav had much freedom left to them, though their language was that of Jerusalem. All that is reported of them implies, that at every time they felt themselves to be under a foreign yoke. Jewish dealing with Edomite towns was severer still; for after conquest, circumcision and the whole of the Mosaic ritual was violently imposed. Yet here it may seem that the violence was successful; for, as the descendants of Saxons who had been driven to baptism by the spear of Charlemagne, and Hungarians forcibly converted by St. Stephen, came to pride themselves on their Christianity, so (in two generations perhaps) were these Edomites proud of their Judaism,