THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.

SECTION FIRST.

THE STUDY WHICH IT CLAIMS.

341. This scripture claims more than any other an attentive study of its characteristics and its history; for, notwithstanding the beauty of doctrine and the apostolic majesty which distinguish it, it is, of the five controverted epistles, that which modern adversaries have most vigorously attacked, not only on account of what is deficient in its historic proofs, but especially on account of the homage that it pays so decidedly to the epistles of Paul, under the double relation of their authenticity and their inspiration.

Moreover, it must be granted that in all times men of learning have given their verdict in favour of it and against it. Against it, because, of the five antilegomena, it is that which presents in its favour the fewest testimonies of the fathers during the two first centuries of the Church; and for it, because, at the same time, of the five antilegomena, it is that of which the internal characteristics attest most undeniably its apostolic authenticity, so that, when persons are disposed to reject it, they are obliged to do it on suppositions so strange that they amount to a “moral impossibility,” (as Louis Bonnet has so well said, in his Commentary on the New Testament,)¹ — “an impossibility (he adds) which, in every unprejudiced judge, produces a conviction so vivid and so firm, that we do not hesitate to assert that, among all the books of the New Testament which have been controverted at certain times, there is not one whose authenticity is so certain as the Second Epistle of Peter.”

This has latterly been the opinion of many of the most distinguished critics of Germany;² and we have very recently seen the learned Guericke, who, in his Beiträge, (p. 175,) had formerly expressed his doubts of its authenticity, nobly and repeatedly retract those doubts in his “Introduction” of 1854.³

SECTION SECOND.

THE EPISTLE AFFIRMS THAT IT WAS WRITTEN BY PETER.

342. It must first of all be well observed that the author declares himself to be “a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ,” just as the author of the preceding epistle calls himself “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ.” He repeats this assertion from one end to the other, directly and indirectly, and under all forms. He attests also that it is written to the same class of persons to whom the first had been addressed, that is to say, “to the elect among the Israelites of the dispersion, (ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς,)” scattered as strangers through the different provinces of Asia Minor. “This second epistle, beloved,’ he says, “I now write unto you,” (iii. 1;) and he avers that he was one of the eyewitnesses of the Lord’s transfiguration on the holy mountain, when “there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” He says, moreover, that “the time of his departure is at hand,” the moment had arrived for “putting off his tabernacle,” (i. 13,) as the Lord Jesus Christ himself “had shewn him,’ — (14) — that same Jesus who, a little after He had risen from the dead, had pointed out by what death he should glorify God, (John xxi. 14, 19.) He thought it “meet in both epistles,” he adds, “to stir up the pure minds” of his brethren of the dispersion, by way of remembrance. He foresees that his letter will be universally read, and, in the expectation of his approaching end, he will “endeavour that, after his decease, they might have these things continually in their remembrance, and be established in the present truth,” (i. 15, 12.) At the same time he pronounces a eulogium on “all the epistles of his beloved brother Paul.” They were already all written, even including the Epistle to the Hebrews, (Heb. iii, 15, 16,) though Paul was not yet departed; for the two apostles were destined to die in the same year, and under the same persecution. Paul, he said, “had written according to the wisdom given unto him;” woe to those who “wrested” his words; it would be “to their own destruction.” In a word, we here see the author addressing his brethren with all the elevation of an apostle, who knew he was on the point of giving up his life for his Master, and of appearing before Him. He exhorts them to “account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation,’ and to “prepare for the great day of His coming,” “looking for” and “hasting” by their prayers “the coming of the day of God,” when the heavens, being on fire, shall be “dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat;” yet, according to his promise, they were to expect “a new heaven and a new earth in which dwelleth righteousness,” (iii. 13.)

SECTION THIRD.

THE MAJESTIC CHARACTER OF THIS EPISTLE STRONGLY CONFIRMS THIS TESTIMONY.

343. That this scripture was indeed the work of an inspired apostle is powerfully attested by its whole character — by the majesty of the thoughts, by the purity of its doctrines, and by their profound harmony with the whole assemblage of the divine communications. From the beginning to the end the epistle reveals one of the twelve at the termination of his labours. It breathes throughout the apostolic spirit — an authority in the language — a sober grandeur in the imagery — a controlled but tender and solemn earnestness in its warnings — a calm elevation, vigorous, and sometimes sublime, in its denunciations of the future. The day of Christ comes on in spite of delays; let them flee, then, the corruption which reigns in the world through lust; let them give all diligence to holiness of life; let the Church hold itself ready, by a holy conversation, not to be consumed by fire with the world. What comprehensiveness and what awful particularity in his description of the last conflagration at the end of all things, — the earth and the heavens enveloped in flames — the elements melted and confounded in order that the new heavens and the new earth, the dwelling-place of righteousness, may emerge from this universal ruin! And with what power does he conduet us to his solemn conclusion: — ‘“Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness?” “Ye therefore, beloved, beware lest ye fall from your own steadfastness; but grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” “In omnibus epistolae partibus,” Calvin has said, “spiritus Christi majestas se exert,”⁴

344. It must, then, be clearly understood, that to decide on calling into doubt the authenticity of this epistle, as many have done, involves not only giving the lie to all the historical traditions which have transmitted it to us as Peter’s, but forces us to find, either in the epistle, or in the monuments of history, reasons strong enough to admit such bold suppositions as the following: —

It must, first of all, be imagined that a scripture so serious, so profoundly conformed to the analogy of faith, and so immensely superior, in all its characteristics, to all the uninspired productions of the same, and the following age, could be the work, we do not say of an ordinary, unknown man, but of a detestable forger, capable of heaping falsehood upon falsehood, and of carrying his blasphemy so far as to give himself out to be the author of the first epistle which the Holy Spirit had already dictated to the apostle St Peter, so far as to fabricate the counterfeit of a second epistle, and to introduce it as Divine into the churches of God.

It must be also admitted, that the author, having composed false prophecies, a new, Balaam, a new Ananias lying to the Holy Spirit, presented them as received from on high; all the while exhorting men to holiness of life, and recalling, with rare pathos, the terrible judgments of God against the ancient false prophets, and announcing His terrible judgments to come against false teachers! (2 Pet. ii 3.) “Their judgment lingereth not,’ he exclaims, “and their damnation slumbereth not!” More than this, he would even speak of his approaching end. He had been “shewn” it, he says, by Jesus Christ himself; and this thought had not aroused his conscience. He had beheld with his own eyes the transfiguration of Christ; he waits without fear for His speedy return; and dares to pronounce those memorable words — “We have not followed cunningly-devised fables in making known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ!!”

But, still further, it must be admitted that such a man had been, nevertheless, so superior to all the forgers who, in succession, dared to give the Church supposititious writings, that, while these have always betrayed themselves by confusion of ideas, by poverty of materials, and by servilely borrowing facts from the inspired books, and likewise by unlucky details and manifest errors, nothing of the sort appears in this epistle. Everything is great, true, holy, serious, harmonious. And, after an examination that has lasted eighteen centuries, it is manifestly impossible to find anything in it which does not agree with facts and with Scripture. E

In the third chapter, you meet with sublime instructions on an important and quite novel subject, which, nevertheless, are entirely conformed to the harmony of the Christian faith.

It must, then, be supposed that this wretched pretender, capable of such blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, knew how to compose an epistle, which, by its unity, its unction, and all its other excellences, shews itself far superior to all other uninspired writings of the same century, (as its opponents admit,) like the Alps towering above the adjacent. hillocks. And when we speak thus, we do not compare it only with the apocryphal writings, or the supposititious works of Barnabas and Hermas, and the spurious epistles of Ignatius, but even with those of a Polycarp or a Clement, For we are able to detect errors of fact or of doctrine even in these pious productions. In the Second Epistle of Peter there is nothing of the kind.

Lastly, another admission must be made. It must be acknowledged that this impostor had seized better than any of the ancient fathers the object and true meaning of the First Epistle of Peter. For, when you compare it attentively with the second, mark is by Michaelis,) you will find their agreement such, that, if’ Peter himself was not the writer of both, you will be obliged to attribute to the impious forger of the second an understanding of the first, which the ancient fathers themselves do not appear to have attained.

In a word, good sense, history, logic, and conscience, equally revolt against the supposition which would make the second epistle the work of an impostor.

SECTION FOURTH.

THE OBSTACLES TO ITS ACCEPTANCE,

345. Yet, no doubt, it will be asked, how it came to pass that this second epistle, so holy and so majestic, was at first received by only a part of the churches, and that others hesitated, a longer or shorter time, to introduce it into the inspired volume of the New Testament. This delay, we answer, may be explained by two reasons — the one internal, the other external. The internal, relating to style, is pointed out by Jerome. The external is supplied us by history. We shall speak first of the former.

SECTION FIFTH,

ITS STYLE.

346. Jerome,⁵ though regarding the epistle as canonical himself, tells us that the majority of those who, in the first ages, denied that it was Peter’s, alleged, as a reason, the dissimilarity of its style to that of the apostle in-the first, (a plerisque ejus esse negatur, propter styli cwm priore dissonantiam.) And even in the 120th of his letters, the father, for this reason, goes so far as to think that Peter made use of different interpreters to translate his two epistles into Greek, (ex quo intelligimus, pro necessitate rerum, dwersis eum usum interpretibus.) But this ‘objection, which also struck Calvin,⁶ in the sixteenth century, and which Salmasius⁷ reproduced in the seventeenth, as many others have done in our day, is not, after all, of much weight. First of all, because a serious examination of the two epistles destroys it, by shewing that it is not founded on fact, as may be seen in Guericke’s Introduction, (1854.) The two epistles, carefully compared, reveal, in fact, more points of agreement than of difference. And, besides, we may remark, in general, that nothing is more arbitrary or uncertain than such arguments founded on style; because the same author, according to subjects and circumstances, may, in this respect, greatly differ at one time from what he shews himself to be at another.

It is very true that Peter, in his second chapter, when he foretells to the churches the surreptitious intrusion of false teachers who denied their Redeemer, “who privily shall bring in damnable heresies; . . . . by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of,” (ii. 1-3,) it is very true that Peter there rises above his ordinary style, and gives vent to his indignation in the energetic and figurative language of the ancient prophets. But this cannot be a legitimate objection against the authenticity of the book, as will be seen immediately, because it applies, after all, only to the second chapter; and we might with equal reason predict that the author of this portion is not the author of the first chapter, nor of the third; for we can maintain that, this portion excepted, the style is the same in the one epistle as in the other.

SECTION SIXTH.

ITS HISTORY.

347. There is, as we have said, another reason, purely historical, which explains to us why this second epistle was at first received only by. a part of the churches. It is the state in which the apostle and the Jewish Christians of Asia found themselves at the period when it was addressed to them. When Peter wrote from Rome to the Jewish Christians of the dispersion, he was, as he  said, at the point of “putting off his mortal tabernacle,’ and being offered up for Jesus Christ, as Jesus Christ himself had “shewed” him. This was in the year 65; so that this scripture reached the Israelitish Christians when Peter, already a martyr, was no longer among the living to give by his presence the same pledge for it which the first had; and when Paul also was no longer on earth to support by his testimony the scripture of his “beloved brother,” (2 Pet. iii, 15.) The two apostles had: just given up their lives for Jesus Christ, with a multitude of Christians who were sacrificed in Rome. The conflagration of the city by Nero took place on the 19th of July 64; and very soon after that frightful persecution began, so vividly described by Tacitus in the fifth book of his Annals: “At first those were seized who confessed themselves Christians, and then (on their deposition) an immense multitude, who were convicted less of the. charge of incendiarism than of hatred to the human race. Covered with the skins of wild beasts, they were devoured by dogs; they were fastened to crosses, their bodies were covered with pitch, and then set on fire to serve as torches by night. Nero offered his own gardens for the spectacle,” (Ann., xv.) It was during these days of desolation that Paul and Peter disappeared from the Church militant, and that the second epistle of the latter, written so short a time before his death, (2 Pet. i 14,) went from Rome to the East, in quest of the Israelitish believers. But in what state did it find them? In trouble and flight. On May 14, in the year 66, Floris, who for two years had reduced the people to the depths of despair, had begun, by the massacre in the market-place, that terrible and final war by which Jerusalem was soon to fall. The Jewish believers fled to the mountains. Menaced, pursued, wandering, they carried with them in their flight their sacred Scriptures, their Peshito version, which already contained, besides the four Gospels and the Acts, the Epistle of James, (written before the year 62,) the first of John, the first of Peter, and all ‘Paul’s epistles, it even comprised the Epistle to the Hebrews; but it could not, on account of the time, contain either the Apocalypse, written thirty years later, or the Epistle of Jude, or the two short ones of John, or even the Second Epistle of Peter. Scarcely had this arrived in the East from Rome when the news of the bloody death of the two apostles soon followed it; and we can understand that, during these tempestuous days, the Christians would have little leisure to give to their mutual communications on this important subject sufficient time to insure unanimity. Hence we must expect to meet with the three following facts: — First, that the adoption of this second epistle would be immediate in. some churches, especially among the Jewish Christians of the dispersion; secondly, that its successive admission into the other churches would be slow; and, thirdly, that its definitive acceptance throughout the Christian world would be late. All this actually came to pass; and this we shall proceed to demonstrate, beginning with the third fact.

SECTION SEVENTH.

THE DEFINITIVE ASSENT OF ALL THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES WAS LATE.

348, That this assent was late has been explained above in our 54th proposition, where we have shewn that it dates only from the Council of Nice, in 325. It was from this epoch, without any public deliberation on the point, or any decree, (Prop. 53;) but by the free action of the fraternal concurrence of so many eminent men, that this scripture, by a tacit, by universal consent, entered into the canon of all the churches both in the East and West, All those differences in regard to the antilegomena ceased in the main body of the churches at. the close of the council, (Prop. 54.) All the eleven or twelve authentic catalogues of the fourth century that have come down to us (Prop. 56) alike contain it; that of Athanasius, (65;) that of Epiphanius, (68;) that of Jerome, (71;) that of Rufinus, (75;) that of Augustin, Civks:) that of the forty-four bishops assembled at Carthage, (91;) that of Cyril, (59;) that of the Council of Laodicea, and of the bishops of all Asia Minor, (87;) that of Gregory of Nazianzus, (60;) that of Amphilochius, (61;) and that of Philastrius of Brescia, (62:) And we shall be able to name, in the same century, the celebrated Ephrem, the Syrian, who cites this Second Epistle of Peter in his Syriac and in his Greek writings;⁸ also Didymus of Alexandria, his contemporary, who, in his principal work, De Trinitate, re covered in 1769, marks it as one of the Catholic Epistles, and attributes it expressly to Peter.

SECTION EIGHTH.

THE SUCCESSIVE ASSENT HAS BEEN SLOW.

349. In the second place, that the successive assent has been slow is equally shewn by the monuments of antiquity prior to the Council of Nice. For example, in 324 — that is, only a year before the council was held — we hear Eusebius, in the third book of his history, giving us an account of the ancient pastors of the Church, (τῶν πάλαι πρεσβυτέρων;) and, according to them, putting this epistle in the number of the antilegomena, which, he says, were doubted by many, but were, at the same time, acknowledged by a great number, (νγνωρίμων δ’ οὐν ὅμως τοῖς πολλοῖς;) — acknowledged, he says elsewhere, by the majority of ecclesiastical authors, (ὅμως δὲ παρὰ πλείστοις τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν γυγιιωσκομένας.)

Again, in another passage in the third chapter of the same book, he says, “As to Peter, an epistle of his, which is called the first, is universally received,” (ἀνωμολογηται.) Also, the ancient teachers, or pastors, (οἱ πάλαι πρεσβύτεροι) have made frequent use of it in their writings, as an uncontroverted scripture, (ὡς ἀναμφιλεκτῳ .... κατακέχρηνται.) But as to that of his which is said to be the second, on the one hand, (μέν) we have not yet learned (παρειλήφαμεν) whether it should be definitely inserted in the New Testament, (literally, intestamentised, ἐνδιαθηκον;) and, on the other hand, (ὅμως δὲ,) as it has appeared to a great number (πολλοῖς) to be useful, it has been the object of the same serious regard as the other scriptures, (μετὰ τῶν ἁλλῶν ἐσπουδάσθη γρᾱφῶυ.)

Valesius⁹ (Henri de Valois) translates this passage: — “Studiose lectita est una cum reliquis Sacrae Scripturae libris,” — “It has been carefully and habitually read with the other books of Sacred Scripture.”

And as to those doubts of some, mentioned by Eusebius, Calvin¹⁰ says they ought not to deter us from the use of this epistle; for Eusebius does not tell us who they were who doubted. “We owe them, therefore,” he adds, “no more deference than to unknown persons; while Eusebius adds, that it was received everywhere without controversy.” “Quandoquidem a quibus mota sit haec quaestio subticet, non plus illis deferre necesse esset quam hominibus ignotis. Et postea subjicit passim sine controversiâ fursse receptam.”

We may clearly see, then, that, according to the opinion of Eusebius, the progressive assent given to this epistle, before the Council of Nice, had been slow, as we have said. As for himself, this father received it; and a great number of the churches were equally anxious (ἐσπουδάσθη) to add it to the anagnosis with the other scriptures. But, from all these facts, it cannot be concluded, says Eusebius, that it was decidedly made a part of the sacred volume. But this was effected in the following year.

350. The great Athanasius, already so celebrated at this very period, received it without hesitation. We find it cited many times in his writings; in his first Dialogue on the Trinity; in his second Discourse against the Arians; in the thirty-ninth epistle; in the Synopsis of Holy Scripture. “The Second Epistle of Peter,” he says, “has been so named by him who wrote it; for Peter, in order to instruct the Jews of the dispersion, who had been converted to Christianity, addressed this letter to them.” “This,” he writes again, “is what Peter said, (ὃ ἔλεγεν ὁ Πετρὸς,) — “Thus to us have been given great and precious promises, that by them ye might become partakers of the Divine nature.”

351, And if we go back a hundred years before Athanasius, as far as the learned and pious Origen, in the first half of the third century, we find abundant confirmation of the same fact, and in the most significant manner. This eminent man, born in 185, and so profoundly versed in the religious literature of the two first centuries, received our epistle, and often took pleasure in citing it as a portion of our sacred Scriptures, and as a second epistle of the apostle. He names it without any reservation, and even quotes several of the most noted passages in it, either in those of his Greek works which have come down to us, or in those of which we have only a Latin translation, as may be seen in his Greek Commentary¹¹ on Matthew, and (on two occasions) in his Greek Dialogue¹² “On the True Faith;”’ as also in the Latin version of his book “On Principles,”¹³ (περὶ ἀρχῶν;) of his Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans;¹⁴ of his eighth homily, already cited, (Prop. 40,) on Joshua, on Leviticus,¹⁵ on Numbers, and on Exodus.

And if we take care to distinguish here his Greek citations from the Latin, it is because the latter have been said to be less worthy of our confidence, on account of the liberties Rufinus, his translator, has taken with them. But Rufinus has done this only in certain writings, where he wished to conceal some mystical errors of Origen, and where there is no reference to the Second Epistle of Peter. Moreover, Origen, in the passages here noted, is not content with naming this epistle as Peter’s; he quotes important sentences word for word, as may be seen in the notes. “It is written,” he says, “by Peter the apostle, ‘According to the wisdom which has been given to my brother Paul, κατὰ τὴν σοφίαν, φησίν τὴν δεδομένην τῷ αδελφῷ μου Παύλῳ.’ It is written, he says again, (quoting 2 Pet. ii, 19, Homil. xii.) ‘Of whom a man is overcome, of the same he is brought in bondage.’ And Peter says, in his epistle, (Et Petrus in epistolâ suâ dicit,) ‘Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God.’ And Peter also says, (Et item Petrus dicit,) ‘You are made partakers of the Divine nature” And the scripture, in one place, says, ‘The dumb beast, speaking with a man’s voice, forbade the madness of the prophet,” (Homil. xiii.)

It has been unfairly objected, that, in quoting in Greek the First Epistle of Peter, Origen simply calls it the catholic epistle, (ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ ἐπιστολῇ) as if he only admitted one of them. This difficulty is reduced to nothing, when we see that elsewhere (in his Commentary on the Romans, i. 8) he uses absolutely the same terms to designate the Second Epistle of Peter, (Et Petrus in epistolâ suâ dicit,) “Gratia” . . . . &c., (2 Pet. i. 2.)

This great teacher, then, found, in his incessant study of Christian antiquities, satisfactory reasons for fully receiving this Second Epistle of Peter, though Origen says elsewhere (so at least he is reported to have said in Eusebius, vi. 25) that this epistle, though received by himself, was controverted by others. In a work now lost — an exposition of the Gospel of John — Origen, according to Eusebius, says, “Peter has left us one epistle which is universally acknowledged, (ὁμολογουμένην;) but let us admit a second, for it is controverted, (ἔστω δὲ καὶ δευτέραν, ἀμφιβάλλεται (γὰρ.)”

Thus, then, from all the testimonies of Origen combined, including even the last, which yet does not seem entirely in accordance with the nine or ten other quotations from this father, — from all these combined testimonies we must infer that the general acceptance, according to Origen, of the Second Epistle of Peter, was slow.

Nor let any one be surprised here at the reserve of our tone of speaking in reference to this quotation from Eusebius; for this author betrays in the same*chapter a great doting either of exactness or impartiality, on the subject of the Epistle of Jude. In fact, while he professes to give an account of the opinions of Origen on the canon, he is able, notwithstanding the very numerous and manifest testimonies which Origen bears to Jude, to give us the canon of this father without making any mention of the Epistle of Jude.¹⁶

352. We can give still further confirmation to these conclusions taken from Origen, by another testimony, equally important, of the same century — that of Firmilian. In fact, if we can observe that, in Africa, Cyprian, at least in those of his works which have come down to us, has made no use of the Second Epistle of Peter, (no more than Tertullian before him;) yet we see, by a letter to this holy bishop from the celebrated Firmilian, that, in the same period, our epistle was cited by this learned man, then bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, and very influential in Asia. He flourished in 231. He was a great friend of Origen, who even went to visit him in his distant diocese, and received in his turn a visit from him in Judea. He afterwards writes as follows to Cyprian:¹⁷ — “The blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, have expressed, IN THEIR EPISTLES, their horror of heretics, (in EPISTOLIS SUIS execrats sunt,) and have warned us to avoid them.” We cannot doubt that, in these expressions in reference to Peter, Firmilian had in view our second epistle, since the first does not say a word about heretics, while the other devotes a whole chapter to denouncing against them the terrible judgments of the Lord. The admission of the epistle, we repeat, was therefore slow, though real and progressive

353. And now, if, from the third century, we pass on to the second, and even to the first, still we find the same fact confirmed in the rare monuments of that period. We cannot speak here of the Catalogue of Muratori either on one side or the other, because, as we have seen, (Prop. 10,) that part of the manuscript _which ought to mention Peter is wanting in the fragment. But, in the second century, we find, first of all, Irenæus,¹⁸ who quotes twice the eighth verse of the third chapter. Peter, it is true, is not named; but the father gives his words — For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years, (Η γὰρ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ὡς χίλια ἔτη)” — and what proves it to be a quotation on his part is that Justin Martyr before him, when citing the same words, gives them as taken from Scripture — Συνήκαμεν, he says, καὶ τὸ εἰρημένον — we know also it has been said, a day of the Lord is as a thousand years.¹⁹ Further, we may see, again, in this same century, by an important fact, how much this Second Epistle of Peter was then spread abroad and respected; for Clement of Alexandria wrote an exposition of it. We learn this fact from Eusebius and Photius; from Eusebius, who tells us that Clement, in his Hypotyposes,²⁰ now lost, made abridged expositions of all the canonical scriptures; and also of Photius,²¹ who mentions the commentary of Clement on the epistles of the divine Paul, and on the catholic epistles, (τοῦ θείου Παύλου τῶν ἐπιστολῶν, καὶ τῶν καθολικῶν.) But it is well known that Eusebius and Photius both placed the Second Epistle of Peter among those which they called the Catholic Epistles. “And as to what some have asserted,” says Guericke,²² “that Cassiodorus represented Clement as having commented only on the First Epistle of Peter, it is because they have not examined the words of that author.”

Further, in the same second century, we can, with Lardner, cite Athenagoras, who, on two occasions, seems to allude to the words of our epistle, and Guericke, (Introd., 1854,) who quotes for us a father more ancient than Irenaeus — Theophilus, bishop of Antioch — in whom we find two passages sufficiently clear, referring to 2 Pet. i. 10 and i. 19. Besides, in the first century, we cannot help observing in the apostolic fathers numerous allusions, especially in Clement of Rome, as may be seen by referring to the long extract we have given in our Second Book, particularly in Chapters VII., IX., XL, XXIII, XXXIV. Many others might also be quoted from the Shepherd of Hermas and from the Epistle of Barnabas; but we have abstained hitherto from. appealing to these two books. “No doubt,” says Guericke, “persons may dispute these very palpable citations which we have pointed out in the apostolic fathers; but no impartial person can fail to perceive clear allusions to his second epistle.”²³

Yet all must admit that these quotations will have little weight with decided opponents, because Peter is not expressly named, and because they are not disposed to acknowledge more than accidental resemblances in the thought and language. Besides, it must be understood that, before a book was decidedly admitted into the canon, (entestamente, as Eusebius says,) even those who received it abstained from citing it to others, or cited it with reserve. We prefer, therefore, to appeal to a more significant testimony, and, while concluding once more that the progress of the book among the churches taken collectively was slow, though real, we pass on to our third point.

SECTION NINTH.

THE ASSENT ON THE APPEARANCE OF THE BOOK WAS IMMEDIATE AMONG A PART OF THE CHURCHES.

"354. We say, then, in the third place, that it results equally from the monuments of the first century that the adoption of Peter’s epistle among a great part of the primitive churches, and especially among the Israelitish churches of the dispersion, was immediate. This important fact may be inferred from the unanimity which we have seen was so easily established among the churches of Christendom after these principal teachers, assembled from all parts of the ancient world, had met at Nice in their first general council. How could they have then decided with so much concord and firmness if they had not seen in the monuments of the primitive Church testimonies which are no longer within our reach? How, especially, a hundred years before, could the learned Origen, so jealous for the Scriptures, so versed in the knowledge of antiquities, and living so near the apostolic times, insert this letter in his canon if he had not had satisfactory proofs for it, and if he had not been able to trace it to the first times of Christianity?;

Yet the proof, which after all is only a very powerful presumption, may appear still insufficient to the opponents of the epistle. We have another which seems to us unanswerable — it is the testimony of Jude.

355, Although it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit to communicate its Scriptures to the Church sufficiently late for them to be immediately confided to the guardianship of a Christian people already constituted, that is, to numerous churches already formed by the oral instructions of the apostles, and although the majority of the later received epistles were written very near the moment when their authors disappeared by martyrdom, yet the same Spirit provided that the sacred writers should have time to confirm one another by the testimonies which they mutually bore. Thus, in the same way that Paul bore testimony to Luke, Luke to Paul, John to the three first evangelists, Paul and Peter to James, and Peter himself to “all Paul’s epistles,” (2 Pet. iii. 16,) so the apostle Jude, “a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James,” in his Catholic Epistle, written after the two epistles of Peter, (as may be seen by various marks, &c., as we shall soon point out,) this apostle Jude evidently quotes words taken from the Second Epistle of Peter, while declaring, “that they had been spoken before by one of the apostles of Jesus Christ,’ (ver. 17, 18,) and that the Christian Church ought to “have them in remembrance.” Let us, then, examine attentively both this citation of a passage in Peter and the testimony which Jude bears to it.

356. First of all, here is the citation from Jude²⁴ — “But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before by THE APOSTLES of our Lord Jesus Christ.” And what are these words? According to Jude they are the following: — “How that THEY TOLD YOU there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.” And where did they say this? Evidently in the Second Epistle of Peter, and nowhere else.

For if we search for these words in the New Testament, making use of the Greek text, we shall find them word for word in the third chapter and third verse of the Second Epistle of Peter, who, at the beginning of his letter, styles himself, “Simon Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ;” we shall find them there, and only there.

It is thus, then, that Jude quotes the Epistle of Peter as a scripture already known to the churches for some years, for he says to them, “Remember ye.”

And he quotes it as apostolic, for he says to them, “Remember ye the words which were spoken BEFORE of the APOSTLES of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Let us examine attentively the very words which Peter wrote, (2 Pet. iii. 3,) “Knowing this first,” he says, “that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,” — ὅτι ἐλεύσονται ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν ἘΜΠΑΙΚΤΑῙ, κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι. And let us compare, word for word, these words of Peter with those of Jude, “'The apostles have told you, that in the last time (ἐν ἐσχατῳ χρονῳ) — this is like Peter’s expression, ἐπ’ ἐσχατου τῶν χρονων — there shall be MOCKERS, (ἔσονται ἐμπαῖκται) — this is like Peter’s ἐλεύσονται ἐμπαῖκται — walking (πορευομενοι) — the same as Peter’s πορευόμενοι- — “after their own ungodly lusts, (κατὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίας τῶν ἀσεβειῶν)” — this is like Peter’s κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιθυμίας.

And it deserves notice that the most important word of Jude, that of ἐμπαῖκται, (mockers,) occurs only once in all the writings of the New Testament, namely, in this single passage of the Second Epistle of Peter.

357. Let us add, that to render a still more ample homage to the Epistle of Peter, Jude, in his short chapter, which has only twenty-five verses, appears to cite Peter in ten other passages, (2 Pet. i. 2, ii 1, 4, 6, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18.) And more than this, in his fourth verse he bears testimony to the accomplishment of the prophecy which Simon Peter had made in the first verses of his second chapter; for the one speaks of heresies, future but near at hand; while the other, writing much later, speaks of them as being already before his eyes.

358. This testimony of Jude in favour of Peter appears to us of irresistible force in establishing the high antiquity of the use the first Christians made of his epistle as an apostolic writing; for Jude cites it as a book written aforetime, and which he invites them to remember. And we ought not to forget that the proof drawn from this remarkable testimony does not depend on its inspiration, since it would be sufficient for our argument if Jude, instead of being an apostle, had been only a simple writer of the same age, whose words had come down to us. It is enough that his epistle should be acknowledged as an authentic and contemporary writing; but that it is both the one and the other, even the opponents of the Second Epistle of Peter are obliged to admit, for we shall soon shew by the most ancient of the Latin fathers, (Tertullian,) and by those of the Greek fathers who have most weight in these matters, (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others,) that the Epistle of Jude, which appears to have been written after the death of all the apostles excepting John, was already received in the second century by all the churches of the East and of the West. The Second Epistle of Peter must therefore have been still more ancient, and the numerous resemblances which the two scriptures present cannot serve to establish a prejudice against that of Peter, when once it is proved that it was the most ancient, and that Jude has quoted it.

359. We must then come to this conclusion with our third point, that is to say, with the fact, that among a great part of the churches, above all, among those of the circumcision, the admission of the Second Epistle of Peter was immediate; slow afterwards, and progressive among the other churches, it became at last universal from the first half of the fourth century.

This was the point to be established. We now proceed to the Epistles of John.

1) Nouveau Testament, dans' son Introduction, tom. ii, Gendve, 1852, p. 701.

2) Besides Guericke, Isagogik, 1854; Dietlein, Der 2 Brief Petri, 1851, pp. 1-74; Thiersch, (1852,) Versammlung, &c.

3) Page 483 — “Der ich hiemit wiederholt retractire.” See his Gesammtgeschichte des N. T,; oder, Neutestamentliche Isagogik, p. 472.

4) Argumentum Epistolae, tom. vii., p. 248. Berolini, 1834.

5) Catal. Script. Eccles., cap. i.

6) “I admire the Divine majesty of the Spirit of Christ in all parts of this epistle,” he says; but yet, while acknowledging its apostolicity, he adopted Jerome’s notion, that it proceeded from Peter, but that he had employed the hand of one of his disciples. “Sic igitur constituo — a Petro fuisse profectam, non quod eam scripserit ipse, sed quod unus aliquis ex discipulis, ipsius mandato, complexus fuerit quae temporum necessitas exigebat.” — N. T. Comment. tom. vii, p. 2438. Berol., 1834.

7) The opinion of Salmasius is reported in Wetstein, ii., 698.

8) See Guericke, Gesammtgesch. des N. T., p. 477, Leipsic, 1854.

9) In his edition of the ecclesiastical historians — Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, &c.

10) In his Argumentum Epistolae, written in 1551.

11) Opp., tom. ii, p. 55, tom. i, p. 323, tom. ii, pp. 164, 38; Kirchhofer, p. 281.

12) He plainly indicates his knowledge of our epistle by saying, Ἀπὸ τὲ τῆς πξώτης ἐπιστολῆς.

13) Origen, Dial., Opp., tom. ii., p. 274, tom. 1, p. 821, where, quoting 2 Pet. iii. 15, he says:- — “It is written elsewhere by Peter the apostle, ‘According to the wisdom given,’ he says, ‘to our brother Paul, (πή δὲ ὑπὸ Πέτξου τοῦ ἀποστοληυ γεγξαμμένον.)” And, again, citing 2 Pet. ii. 19, ‘For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.’”

14) Opp., tom. iv., p. 631. Edit. Bened., 1733-1759; Dela Rue. And Peter says in his epistle, (2 Pet. i. 2,) “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God.” (Et Petrus in Epistolâ suâ dicit, (2 Pet. i. 2,) “Gratia vobis et pax multiplicetur in cognitione Dei.”)

15) Homil, iv. in Levit., (Opp., ii, p. 200,) where he cites 2 Pet, i. 4, “Being made partakers of the Divine nature.”

16) See, further on, Prop. 385,

17) In the Epistles of Cyprian, the 75th.

18) Adv. Haeres., v., 23, 28.

19) Dial. cum Tryph., p. 308, ed. Thirlbü; London, 1722. Tom. i, pars. ii, p. 283, ed. Otto; Jena, 1847,

20) Hist, Eccl., vi. 14. Πάσης γῆς ἕνδάθῆκου γραφῆς ἕτιτετμημὲνας πεποίηται διηγήσεις. Valesius translates it, compendiosam enarrationem.

21) Μυριοβιβλον, (Biblioth.,) cod. 109. Edit. Bekker, p. 89.

22) In his last edition, p. 476. Gesammtgeschichte des N. T.; oder, Neutestamentliche Isagogik. Leipzig, 1854.

23) Ibid., p. 472 — “Doch jedem Unbefangenen unverkennbare Anspielungen.” See also Dietlein, Der 2 Brief Petri; Berlin, 1851, p. 1-71.

24) We have already commented on this passage in the last chapter of our Second Book.