posed to build ¢abernacles for their abode. The repeated use of the word otnpifw, stablish, and its derivatives (i. 12; iii. 17; ii. 14; ili. 16) is also suggestive, in view of the admonition of Jesus to Peter by the same word—strengthen thy brethren (Luke xxii. 32). ‘
There is the same retrospective character in both epistles. In both the writer teaches that prophecy does not carry its own interpretation ; in both he alludes to the small number saved from the flood; both have the same sentiments on the nature and right use of Christian liberty, and on the value of prophecy ; in both dpery, virtue, is attributed to God, a use of the word occurring nowhere else in the New Testament.
The style of both epistles is vigorous rather than elegant, strong, and sometimes rough, the work of a plain, practical man, and of an observer rather than a reasoner, whose thoughts do not follow each other in logical sequence. The fervid spirit of the writer appears in his habit of massing epithets, and repeating his thoughts in nearly the same words and forms (see, for in- stance, 1 Pet. 1.4; ii. 4,11; 1.19; ii.9. Also, i.7, and iv. 12; i. 13, and iv. 7, v.83 i. 14, and ii. 11, iv. 2; ii. 15, and iii. 1,16; ii, 19, and iii. 14, iv. 14.- 2 Pet. i) 4, 8,17; ii. 10, 11, 12-15; iii. 15). Professor Ezra Abbot has brought out some remark- able correspondences between this epistle and the writings of Josephus, and maintains that the author of the letter is largely dependent upon the Jewish historian (Hzposctor, 2d series, ili., 49). The second epistle of Peter cannot be studied apart from