it is a remarkable one; it seems rather as if the name of Peter had suggested the use of this unaccustomed expression to denote his decease: how little it has been considered a usual or probable term is shown by its having been doubted whether Irenæus might not mean only departure from Rome. In connection with the evidence on this subject it should be remembered that Irenæus and Polycarp were two persons, who connected in their own lives and teaching the apostolic age with the close of the second century. 66 The Syriac version of the oration of Melito of Sardis to Antoninus Cæsar has recently been published by the Rev. W. Cureton in his Spicilegium Syriacum:" this apology supplies us with a notice of this Epistle intermediate in point of time between Polycarp and Irenæus. Melito uses the sequence of statements and illustrations so that the coincidence of what he says with 2 Pet. iii. 5, 6., and 10—12., could not be deemed accidental. "At another time there was a flood of waters, and the just were preserved in an ark of wood by the ordinance of God. So also it will be at the last time; there shall be a flood of fire, and the earth shall be burnt up . . . . and the just shall be delivered from the fury, like their fellows in the ark from the waters of the deluge."1 Theophilus, in the latter part of the second century, seems to have used this Epistle ; the following words ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ φαίνων ὥσπερ λύχνος ἐν οἰκήματι συνεχομένῳ deserve comparison with 2 Pet. i. 19.; and οἱ δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι πνευματοφόροι πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ πродηται YεVÓμevoɩ with 2 Pet. i. 21. Such then are the early notices of this Epistle, or of what may seem to be allusions to it. In the former part of the fourth century this Epistle was, as we learn from Eusebius 2, "known and acknowledged by most," together with the other disputed Epistles. From the fourth century, and onwards, the genuineness of this Epistle was more discussed on internal than on external grounds: the principal points to which attention was directed were the difference of style in this Epistle from the first, and the resemblance of part of the second chapter to the Epistle of Jude. Now as to the first point, on which some have always rested, and which was a known ground of doubt up to and at the time even of the Reformation, it must always be remembered that the subject forms the style, unless indeed the latter is wholly artificial. A work may be known occasionally to be written by a particular author, or may be judged to be an imitation of his style and manner, from the 1 [Spicilegium Syriacum: containing remains of Bardesan, Meliton, Ambrose, and Mara bar Serapion: now first edited with an English translation, and notes by the Rev. William Cureton, M.A. F.R.S., Chaplain in ordinary to the Queen, Rector of St. Margaret's, and Canon of Westminster, MDCCCLV. (Sec for the above passage the Syriac text near the close, and for the translation, p. 51.)] 2 [Mr. Westcott says, "Though Eusebius has made use of the Epistle of St. James in many places, yet I am not aware that he ever quotes the Epistle of St. Jude, the second Epistle of St. Peter, or the two shorter Epistles of St. John." (On the Canon, p. 489.) But Eusebius appears to me to use the words of 2 Pet., where he says, dedwpnuévn Oelq kal παραδοξοποιῷ δυνάμει (H. E. iii. 24.). Compare τῆς θείας δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν καὶ εὐσέβειαν δεδωρημένης, 2 Pet. i. 3.] expressions, the arrangement, and the kind of illustrations and mode of reasoning; and when there are particulars which would not be imitated, or they appear in such a manner as to be clearly undesigned, the identification may be regarded as very certain. But when a person is writing at a different time and on other subjects, it would be strange to expect uniformity of mere style. As well might stern and solemn rebuke be couched in the language of gentle entreaty. If Peter preaching in the Acts, if his addresses to Ananias and Sapphira, and to Simon Magus, and his answer before the council of the Jews, be compared with the different parts of this Epistle, they will be found to be more in accordance with it as to style than they are to the first Epistle, the genuineness of which is incontrovertible. But though the style of these two Epistles is different, in some particular points there are resemblances, as will be shown in connection with what may be alleged as internal evidence. That the Epistle of Jude is used by the writer of this Epistle seems to be now the more general opinion rather than vice versâ: this seems to be well-grounded, for in 2 Peter there is a certain amplification and illustration of what they had in common. But the use of the Epistle of Jude is no argument against the genuineness or the authority of this. Nor there can be no reason why one inspired writer should not use the same language which had been employed by another; to deny this would be to limit the acting of the Holy Ghost in the inspiration of the writers of Scripture, and to affirm that he might not do that which may be done by all human authors. And farther, this very use of the Epistle of Jude is a strong evidence that 2 Peter is genuine; for would a forger have been likely to make his work differ so much from the rest of the New Testament books as would be the case if he introduced so much of another Epistle into it? The modern subjective feeling of many scholars is that this Epistle is not genuine: this is an opinion which is not easy to discuss, when tangible reasons are not assigned. Bunsen does not go so far as many of his countrymen; he does not reject this Epistle altogether, but he regards the first eleven verses of the first chapter and the doxology at the end of the third to be a genuine Epistle written before that which we call the first of Peter, and that it is alluded to there (chap. v. 12.), where he does not consider eypaya as relating to that Epistle itself. It is not easy to discuss these theories, of which many more might be just as easily suggested. Other modes of mutilating this Epistle had been previously proposed, but for none of them is there any authority. The Epistle comes to us as one; this point is proved by the MSS. and early versions, and the diplomatic [In illustration of this I may mention, that I formed a decided judgment that "The Restoration of Belief" was the work of Isaac Taylor after reading the earlier parts, though I had no intimation or suggestion who the writer might be prior to the appearance of the author's name in the advertisement of the completed work. The style, form of sentences, kind of reasoning, &c. in that work exhibit clear traces of those points in which it is clear that Isaac Taylor would not be intentionally imitated.] transmission must be deemed as so far of importance on the question of its genuineness. It was adopted and used as part of a collection of books at and before the time of our oldest codices. We must gather up the scattered early notices, which, though not so ample as those of other New Testament books, are, I judge, sufficient; and we must look at the Epistle itself, and say whether it is not what it claims to be, and what those who knew it in early times owned it to be, a document containing that apostolic teaching that no impostor could or would have devised. He who has studied the teaching and sentiments falsely ascribed to Peter in the Clementines, will be able most fully to apprehend from how different a source must this writing have proceeded.] Let us now briefly consider the internal indications of the authorship. 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 it is worthy of observation, that St. Luke has called this apostle Simon Peter, and that St. 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 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, 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 (Matt. xvii. 1, 2.), viz. Peter, James, and John. The Epistle in question, therefore, must claim to be written by one of them, and, consequently, to 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. and 2 Pet. i. 1. with 2 Pet. iii. 1, 2. Consequently, as the authenticity of the first Epistle was never disputed, the second identifies itself as 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, in which an apostolical place is decidedly claimed. 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 apostasy, together with exhortations to a godly life, and condemnations of sin, delivered with an earnestness and feeling which make it improbable in the extreme that the author would have imposed a forged writing upon the world: and thus it is not to be believed that he was personating the apostle.1 5. Lastly, there are certain resemblances of style 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 αναστροφή, conversation or behaviour, which is so peculiar to the first Epistle, likewise occurs in the second3, 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 has sufficient testimony to be regarded as 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 should make a mock of Christ's second coming, and who should seek to set it at nought as though it were a vain hope; which having asserted and described, and illustrated by the judgment of the universal deluge, 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 [Few moral arguments in favour of this Epistle can be stronger than those derived from the prediction (chap. iii.) that scoffers should come walking after their own lusts, saying, "Where is the promise of His coming?" men who are willingly ignorant that the old world was destroyed by the water of the flood.] 32 Pet. ii. 7., iii. 11. 2 See 1 Pet. i. 15, 18., ii, 12., iii. 1, 2. 10. RR VOL. IV. 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.), and the testimony of prophecy. 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 foretells, 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 St. 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 CHAP. XXVIII. ON THE FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF JOHN. 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 Polycarp3, 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.io A still more decisive testimony is the fact that it is found in the Syriac version of the New Testament, which omits some of those books '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. "Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 61.; 4to. vol. i. p. 311. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 99.; 4to. vol. i. p. 332. 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. Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 227.; 4to. vol. i. p. 403. 10 Ibid. 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 584, 585.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 525, 526. |