Various reasons, indeed, have been assigned, why this Epistle was not earlier acknowledged as the writing of Saint Peter. Jerome informs us that the difference of style between this and the former Epistle was in his day the principal cause of its authenticity being disputed; and the same objection has been adopted by Salmasius and other modern writers. But this remarkable difference in style is confined to the second chapter of the second Epistle. No objection, however, can be drawn from this circumstance: for the subject of that chapter is different from the rest of Saint Peter's writings, and nothing is so well known as that different subjects suggest different styles. Further, when a person expresses his own sentiments, he writes in his own proper style, whatever that may be but when he translates from another, he naturally follows the genius of the original, and adopts the figures and metaphors of the author before him. Saint Peter, when describing the character of some flagitious impostors, feels an indignation which he cannot suppress: it breaks out, therefore, in the bold and animated figures of some antient Hebrew writer, who had left behind him a description of the false prophets of his own, or perhaps of earlier times.1

To these considerations we may add, that, being written a short time before the apostle's martyrdom, and not having been so publicly avowed by him, and clearly known to be his, the scrupulous caution of the church hesitated about admitting it into the second canon, until internal evidence convinced the most competent judges that it was fully entitled to that high distinction. And since this Epistle, having passed through so severe and accurate a scrutiny, was received as genuine by those who were in those early times most capable of deciding, and who have given sufficient evidence of their care and capacity for judging of its authenticity, and since it has been transmitted to us in every manuscript and antient version (the Syriac excepted), we have every satisfactory external proof that the second Epistle of Saint Peter is the undoubted production of that holy and zealous apostle. Let us now briefly consider the internal evidence for its authenticity.

1. The writer styles himself Symeon Peter (i. 1. Gr.); from which circumstance we conclude that this Epistle was written by the apostle Peter. Should it be objected that the apostle's name was Simon, not Simeon, Dr. Macknight replies, that, though his name was commonly written Simon in Greek, yet its Hebrew form was Simeon; and so it is written in the Old Testament history of Jacob's sons, and so Peter is expressly termed in Acts xv. 14. (Gr.) It has further been objected, that in the first Epistle, which is unquestionably genuine, he has styled himself simply Peter, and not Simon Peter.

But

1 Such is the opinion of Bishop Sherlock, which has been generally adopted. Bishop Tomline, however, deems this conjecture very improbable, and accounts for the difference of style in the second chapter of this Epistle by supposing that the apostle's pen was guided by a higher degree of inspiration than when writing in a didactic manner, and that he wrote with the animation and energy of the prophetic style: but his lordship does not think that there is any thing, either in phrase or sentiment, which is inconsistent with the acknowledged writings of Saint Peter. Elements of Christian Theology, vol. i. p. 490.

it is worthy of observation, that Saint Luke has called this apostle Simon Peter, and that Saint John has given him that name not less than seventeen times in his Gospel, perhaps (Dr. Macknight thinks) to show that he was the author of the Epistle which begins with Symeon Peter, a servant and an apostle, &c. The same eminent critic is further of opinion, that though Peter's surname only is mentioned in the inscription of the first letter, because he was sufficiently known by it, yet he might, for the greater dignity, insert his name complete in the second Epistle; because he intended authoritatively to rebuke the false teachers who had already arisen, or might thereafter arise. Since, therefore, Symeon Peter is the same as Simon Peter, no objection can be raised against the authenticity of this Epistle on account of the name; neither does it afford any countenance to the opinion of Grotius, that this Epistle was written by Simeon bishop of Jerusalem, who succeeded James the Lord's brother, -an opinion that is not only destitute of all authority from antiquity, but is also inconsistent with the whole tenor of the Epistle itself.

2. There are several incidental allusions to particular circumstances in this Epistle, which answer to no other person but Peter. Thus, the writer of it testifies that he must shortly put off his tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus had shown him. (2 Pet. i. 14.) Now Christ foretold or showed this to none of his apostles besides Peter. (John xxi. 19.) Again, the writer of this Epistle was with Christ upon the mount at his transfiguration, beheld his majesty, and heard the voice of the Father, from heaven, when he was with Christ on the holy mount. (2 Pet. i. 16-18.) Now there were only three of Christ's apostles permitted to witness this transfiguration (Mat. xvii. 1, 2.), viz. Peter, James, and John. The Epistle in question, therefore, must be written by one of them, and consequently must be of apostolical authority; but as it never was ascribed to James or John, nor is there any reason for attributing it to them, it follows that this Epistle is the production of Peter. Once more, the author of it calls this his second Epistle (iii. 1.), and intimates that he wrote both his letters to the same persons, viz. the believing Hebrews. Compare 1 Pet. i. 1. 2 Pet. i. 1. with 2 Pet. iii. 1, 2. Consequently, as the authenticity of the first Epistle was never disputed, the second was unquestionably written by the same person, viz. Peter.

3. Whoever wrote this Epistle calls Paul his beloved brother (iii. 15, 16.), commends him, and approves the authority of his Epistles, which none but an apostle could venture to affirm.

4. A holy and apostolical spirit breathes throughout the whole of this Epistle; in which we find predictions of things to come, and admonitions against false teachers and apostacy, together with exhortations to a godly life, and condemnations of sin. delivered with an earnestness and feeling which show the author to have been incapable of imposing a forged writing upon the world; and that his sole design in this Epistle was to promote the interests of truth and virtue in the world.

5. Lastly, the style is the same in both Epistles. The sentences in the second Epistle are seldom fluent and well rounded, but they

have the same extension as those in the first. There are also repetitions of the same words, and allusions to the same events. Thus the word avacgopn, conversation or behaviour, which is so peculiar to the first Epistle, likewise occurs in the second, though less frequently than in the former. So the deluge, which is not a common subject in the apostolical Epistles, is mentioned in 1 Pet. iii. 20., and also in 2 Pet. ii. 5.; and in both places the circumstance is noted, that eight persons only were saved, though in neither place does the subject require that the number should be particularly specified. Michaelis observes, that Peter was not the only apostle who knew how many persons were saved in the ark; but he only, who by habit had acquired a familiarity with the subject, would ascertain the precise number, where his argument did not depend upon it.

The result of all these evidences, both external and internal, is, that the second Epistle of Peter is unquestionably the production of that apostle, and claims to be received and studied with the same devout care and attention as the rest of the inspired writings of the New Testament.

II. That Peter was old and near his death, when he wrote this Epistle, is evident from ch. i. 14.; and that it was written soon after the first Epistle, appears from the apology he makes (i. 13. 15.) for writing this second Epistle to the Hebrew Christians. Dr. Lardner thinks it not unlikely that, soon after the apostle had sent away Silvanus with his first letter to the Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor, and Bithynia, some persons came from those countries to Rome (whither there was a frequent and general resort from all parts), who brought him information concerning the state of religion among them. These accounts induced him to write a second time, most probably at the beginning of a. D. 65, in order to establish in the faith the Christians among whom he had laboured.

III. The scope of this Epistle is to confirm the doctrines and instructions delivered in the former; to establish the Hebrew Christians in the truth and profession of the Gospel; to caution them against false teachers, whose tenets and practices he largely describes; and to warn them to disregard those profane scoffers, who made or should make a mock of Christ's coming to judgment; which having asserted and described, he exhorts them to prepare for that event by a holy and unblameable conversation. The Epistle consists of three parts; viz.

PART I. The Introduction. (i. 1, 2.)

PART II. Having stated the blessings to which God had called them, the apostle,

SECT. 1. Exhorts the Christians, who had received these precious gifts, to endeavour to improve in the most substantial graces and virtues. (i. 3-11.)

SECT. 2. To this he incites them.

i. From the firmness of true teachers. (i. 12-21.)

1 See the observations on Saint Peter's style, pp. 421, 422 supra.

2 See 1 Pet. i. 15. 18. ii. 12. iii. 1, 2. 16.

32 Pet. ii. 7. iii. 11.

ii. From the wickedness of false teachers, whose tenets and practices he exposes, and predicts the divine judgments against them. (ii.)

SECT. 3. He guards them against scoffers and impostors, who, he foretels, would ridicule their expectation of Christ's coming. i. By confuting their false assertions. (iii. 1-7.)

ii. By showing the reason why that great day was delayed: and describing its circumstances and consequences, adding suitable exhortations and encouragements to diligence and holiness. (iii. 8-14.)

PART III. The Conclusion, in which the apostle,

SECT. 1. Declares the agreement of his doctrine with that of Saint Paul (iii. 15, 16.)

SECT. 2. And repeats the sum of the Epistle. (iii. 17, 18.)

On account of the similarity of style and subject between the second chapter of this Epistle and that of Jude, Dr. Benson and Michaelis place the latter immediately after the second Epistle of Peter.1

SECTION V.

ON THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF JOHN.

I. Genuineness and canonical authority. II. Date. - III. Of the persons to whom this Epistle was written. - IV. Its occasion and scope.Account of the false teachers whose principles are refuted by the apostle. -V. Synopsis of its contents.-VI. The question concerning the authenticity of the disputed clause in 1 John, v.

7, 8. considered.

I. ALTHOUGH no name is prefixed to this book, its authenticity as a genuine production of the apostle John is unquestionable. It was almost universally received as his composition in the eastern and western churches, and appears to be alluded to by Hermas. It is distinctly cited by Polycarp,3 and in the Epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons, and is declared to be genuine by Papias, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, Athanasius, and all subsequent ecclesiastical writers.10 A still more decisive testimony is the fact that it is found in the Syriac version of the New Testament, executed at the close of the first or very early in the second century, and which contains only those books

1 Pritii Introd. ad Lect. Nov. Test. pp. 90-99. Moldenhawer, Introd. ad Libros Biblicos, pp. 352-355. Heidegger, Enchirid. Bibl. pp. 624-628. Benson on the Catholic Epistles, pp. 321-329. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 562-583.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 414-425. Macknight's Preface to 2 Peter. Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 346-363. 311.

2 Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 61.; 4to. vol. i. p. 3 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 99.; 4to. vol. i. p. 332.

4 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 152.; 4to. vol. i. p. 362.

Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 108, 109. 113.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 337. 340.

6 Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 168.; 4to. vol. i. p. 370.

7 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 227.; 4to. vol. i. p. 403.

8 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 275.; 4to. vol. i. p. 429.

9 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 481.; 4to. vol. i. p. 540.

10 Ibid. 8vo vol. vi. pp. 584, 585.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 525, 526.

of the New Testament, executed at the close of the first or very early in the second century, and which contains only those books of the New Testament, respecting whose authenticity no doubts were ever entertained. But, besides this external proof, we have the strongest internal evidence that this Epistle was written by the apostle John, in the very close analogy of its sentiments and expressions to those of his Gospel. There is also a remarkable peculiarity in the style of this apostle, and particularly in this Epistle. His sentences, considered separately, are exceedingly clear and intelligible; but, when we search for their connection, we frequently meet with greater difficulties than we experience even in the Epistles of Saint Paul. Artless simplicity and benevolence, blended with singular modesty and candour, together with a wonderful sublimity of sentiment, are the characteristics of this Epistle; in which Saint John appears to have delivered his conceptions as they arose in his mind, and in the form of aphorisms, in order that they might produce the greater effect. In his Gospel John does not content himself with simply affirming or denying a thing, but denies its contrary to strengthen his affirmation; and in like manner, to strengthen his denial of a thing, he affirms its contrary. See John i. 20. iii. 36. v. 24. vi. 22. The same manner of expressing things strongly occurs in this Epistle. See ii. 4. 27. and iv. 2, 3. In his Gospel also, Saint John frequently uses the pronoun or oiros, aurn, Touro, this, in order to express things emphatically. See i. 19. iii. 19. vi. 29. 40. 50. and xvii. 3. In the Epistle the same emphatical mode of expression obtains. Compare i. 5. ii. 25. iii. 23. v. 3, 4. 6. and 14.2

II. With regard to the date of this Epistle, there is a considerable diversity of opinion. Drs. Benson, Hales, and others, place it in the year 68; Bishop Tomline in 69; Lampe, after the first Jewish war, and before the apostle's exile in Patmos; Dr. Lardner, A. D. 80, or even later; Mill and Le Clerc, in a. D. 91 or 92; Beausobre, L'Enfant, and Du Pin, at the end of the first century; and Grotius, Hammond, Whitby, Michaelis, and Macknight, place it before the destruction of Jerusalem, but without specifying the precise year. The most probable of these various opinions is that which assigns an early date to this Epistle, viz. before the destruction of Jerusalem and the subversion of the Jewish polity. For,

1. In the first place, the expression in ii. 18. It is the last hour, is more applicable to the last hour or time of the duration of the Jewish state than to any later period, especially as the apostle adds — And as ye have heard that Antichrist is coming, even so now there have been many Antichrists; whence we know that it is the last hour in which passage the apostle evidently alludes to our Lord's prediction concerning the springing up of false Christs, false teachers, and false prophets, before the destruction of Jerusalem. (Matt. xxiv. 5-25.) Some critics, however, contend that the "last time" may allude, not to the destruction of that city, but to the close of the apostolic age.

1 See several instances of this analogy, supra, Vol. I. p. 108. note. 2 Lampe, Commentarius in Evangelium Johannis, tom. i. Prolegomena, p. 104. knight's Preface to 1 John, sect. 2. Langii Hermeneutica Sacra, pars ii. De retatione Epistolarum Johannis, pp. 167-175.