an unlawful religion they could be tortured or executed to satisfy the popular thirst for vengeance. Several of those who were first arrested, says Tacitus, "confessed." What was the nature of this confession? Surely not that they were guilty of arson but that they were Christians. The number of victims was extremely large (ingens multitudo), including, according to Clement of Rome, matrons, girls and slaves. Now it is obviously impossible that all of these could have been legally proved guilty of arson, and Tacitus says that they were charged not so much with arson as with "hatred to the human race." This probably refers to their religious views, which made Christians run counter to all the religious ideas, the social festivities, and the moral standard of the times. So also Suetonius in his account of the Neronian persecution says that Christians were punished as votaries of a new and pestilent superstition.

In the light of this evidence for the persecution of Christians both before and during the reign of Nero, we must now consider whether the allusions to persecution in 1 Peter necessarily imply that the Neronian persecution was in progress or even demand a later date.

In i. 6, 7 St Peter describes his readers as having been put to grief for the time being, if so it must needs be, by manifold trials which are a testing of their faith. The keywords of this passage however ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς and δοκίμιον τῆς πίστεως are apparently borrowed from St James, who probably died in 62 A.D. and therefore wrote before the outbreak of the Neronian persecution. Therefore as borrowed by St Peter the words need not imply any persecution organized by the state.

Similarly in iv. 12 the phrase "fiery trial" (úpwσis) is a metaphor from the refining of gold, like dokiμov in i. 7, and does not necessarily refer to death by burning such as was inflicted by Nero.

In ii. 19 Christian slaves are described as suffering unjustly at the hands of capricious masters, but here "suffering" is defined as being "buffeted."

In iii. 14 the possible contingency (ei kaì máσxoite) of suffering for righteousness' sake is regarded as a blessed thing-with an evident allusion to our Lord's words Mt. v. 10. But such suffering is regarded as by no means inevitable. It may be

I PETER

d

averted by a zealous devotion to what is good (iii. 13). If Christians only maintain a good conscience by persistent good conduct those who revile them will be shamed into silence (iii. 16). Suffering for righteousness' sake therefore is only an uncertain contingency, expressed by the optative which is very rare in the N.T., ei καì áσxote, "supposing that you should be called upon to suffer," "if God's will should require that of you” (ei Séλoɩ iii. 17). In ii. 12 Christians are described as being spoken against as evil-doers or malefactors (kakoтolí), but the spectacle of their good deeds will cause their heathen neighbours to glorify God in "the day of visitation" (see note on ii. 12).

In iii. 9 They are not to requite evil for evil or reviling for reviling.

In iv. 4 Men revile Christians and regard them as fanatics for refusing to join in the profligate excesses of the day.

In iv. 14 It is a blessed thing to suffer reproach in the name of Christ.

In iv. 19 Any who suffer according to the will of God are bidden to commit their lives by doing good to the safe keeping of God as a faithful Creator who may be trusted to guard His own handiwork.

None of the above passages necessarily imply any organized persecution conducted by the state. They might be used of the insults, abuse, social boycotting, unjust accusations, and rough usage such as Christian converts in a heathen country have constantly had to endure. There are however other passages to which Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 280-281, 290-295) appeals as clearly pointing to organized official per

secution.

(a) In iii. 15, in a passage dealing with suffering for righteousness' sake, Christians are bidden to be "always ready to give an answer (amoλoyía) to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you." This, says Ramsay, implies persecution after trial and question. Now it is quite true that ȧnoλoyía is used of a legal defence in Acts xxv. 16 and 2 Tim. iv. 16, and such legal defence might be included in St Peter's use of the word. But the words deí "at any time" and Tavrí "to any person" imply that the reference is more general, and ảπoλoyía is used in a non-legal sense in Acts xxii. 1 and 1 Cor. ix. 3 and

most probably in Phil. i. 7, 16, though the last passage might possibly refer to St Paul's first trial. It can hardly therefore be assumed that St Peter is necessarily referring to legal trials. His language may well mean that Christians are always to be ready to shew their colours and give a reason for their hope when any opponent challenges them, cf. Col. iv. 6 "that ye may know how to answer each one."

(b) Again in iv. 14-16 Ramsay (p. 292) argues that "the words 'Let none of you suffer as a murderer or as a thief (sic)....... but if (a man suffer) as a Christian let him glorify God in this name' have no satisfactory meaning, unless those to whom they are addressed are liable to execution: the verb in the second clause is understood from the preceding clause and must have the same sense"; and (p. 281) he argues from this same passage that Christians suffer for the Name pure and simple, which, according to his theory, was not the case in the reign of Nero. He would therefore date the Epistle about 75-80 A.D. (cf. p. xlvi). In this case the Petrine authorship can only be maintained by supposing that St Peter's life was prolonged beyond the reign of Nero. Again (p. 293) Ramsay argues that "in the Roman Empire the right of capital punishment belonged only to a small number of high officials. No Asian Christian was liable to suffer death except through the action of the governor of his province. If therefore the Christians are liable to suffer unto death, persecution by the state must be in process."

In answer to these arguments it may be urged:

(1) That, even if the passage indisputably proved that the penalty of death was inflicted for the Name of Christian pure and simple, it may refer to the Neronian persecution or possibly even to earlier persecution in which provincial magistrates themselves anticipated the policy of Nero towards Christians-or connived at lynch law on the part of the mob.

(2) That, even if "the Name of Christian pure and simple" is implied as a legal charge in this passage, it cannot be proved that the penalty of death was necessarily inflicted.

Of the earlier charges specified "murder" would no doubt be punished with death-but "theft" would surely not incur that penalty ordinarily, while κакоTоlós is too general a term to be

limited to abominable offences or criminal acts necessarily punishable with death and ἀλλοτριο επίσκοπος (which probably refers to tampering with other peoples' concerns-interfering with their families or their trade) can hardly have constituted a capital offence under Roman Law in ordinary cases. It seems therefore by no means a conclusive argument that the word "suffer," as supplied in the second clause, must imply death because it would bear that sense in one of the preceding cases. The balance of probability, so far as this particular passage is concerned, seems to be rather on the other side. Moreover verse 14 speaks of "being reproached in the name of Christ," and this also suggests that the suffering intended does not refer exclusively or even primarily to death. Again, whereas the first three words are coupled together with, implying that they are all legal charges, ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος is separated from them by the repetition of ås, so that it may be intended as a ground of complaint or dislike rather than as a definite legal charge, and in that case it is hardly safe to assume that "the Name of Christian pure and simple" was a definite legal charge.

(c) In v. 8 Christians are bidden to "be sober, be vigilant, because their adversary the devil goeth about seeking to devour." This passage does probably refer chiefly to the temptation to deny their Faith in the hour of danger and persecution, because the next verse speaks of the same experiences of suffering as being accomplished in the Christian brotherhood in the world. This certainly shews that the sufferings of the Asian Christians were not unique but were shared by other Christians elsewhere, but it is hardly sufficient to prove that an organized persecution was in progress affecting the whole Church simultaneously. The word avridikos might be used of Satan as "the accuser of the brethren" before God (Rev. xii. 10) without necessarily implying that Satan is represented by some human prosecutor in an actual legal trial on earth, and the words Teρɩñaтεî Čηтŵν are part of the simile of the prowling lion in search of prey and need not necessarily imply that Christians are being "sought out for trial by Roman officials," as Ramsay suggests (p. 281). If however the words are thus literally interpreted they would merely point to a date before the rescript of Trajan which forbade such search for Christians.

The following conclusions may therefore be suggested:

(1) that the Epistle does not necessarily imply that an official persecution organized by the state was in progress, although some passages would certainly admit of that interpretation;

(2) that if such organized persecution is implied the evidence is not inconsistent with what is known of the Neronian persecution.

Dr Hort (1 Pet. Int. pp. 1 and 3) says that the Epistle “was written during a time of rising persecution to men suffering under it" and he suggests that this was either

(1) the persecution begun by Nero, or (2) a persecution arising out of it, or (3) a persecution in Asia Minor, independent of any known persecution bearing an Emperor's name and perhaps even a little earlier than Nero's persecution, as may be suggested by the language used in the Epistle about the Emperor and his officers.

The Emperor and magistrates are described in language, evidently borrowed from Romans xiii. 1 ff., as God's agents to exact vengeance on evil-doers but for the praise of them that do well. With regard to this point Dr Chase (Hastings' D. of B., vol. iii., p. 785) argues "that a Christian teacher writing from Rome after Nero's attack on the Church to fellowChristians in the provinces should adopt St Paul's language" [which was written when he still regarded the Roman State as the "restraining power" and still looked to the Emperor as the protector of the Church] "only making it more explicit and emphasizing its hopefulness seems inconceivable."

In answer to this argument it might be urged:

(a) That St Peter expressly points his readers to Christ as the example of patience under injustice, and Our Lord recognized the authority of Pilate as being "given him from above," despite the judicial crime in which he was taking part. He also told His followers that they would be brought before rulers and kings for His name's sake, and yet bade them bless and pray for their persecutors.

(b) That later Fathers, who certainly wrote during or after periods of violent persecution, in which the state had shewn the