Another indication of fourth century opinion is the inclusion of 2 Peter in the catalogues of GRecory ΝΑΖΙΑΝΖΕΝ (d. 391), CyrIL oF JERUSALEM (d. 386), and Aruanastius (d. 373). One catalogue which is contained in the CopExX CLAROMONTANUS (sixth century), and re- garded by Tischendorf and Westcott as earlier than the fourth cen- tury, recognises seven Catholic Epistles, together with the Shepherd of Hermas, Acts of Paul, and Apocalypse of Peter. On the other hand, in the list of AmpHiLocuius, Bishop of Iconium (c. 380), only one Epistle of Peter is recognised. We have already seen that the Syriac-speaking churches unanimously rejected 2 Peter, and con- siderable importance is to be attached to the fact that Curysostom acknowledges only the Catholic Epistles, and that THEODORE oF MopsugstiA describes five Epistles, among which is 2 Peter, as ‘‘mediae auctoritatis”. “Since Chrysostom’s expositions, at any
rate, were addressed to popular audiences, the rejection of the Epistle by the great teachers in question must have reflected the usage of the Antiochene Church in general.” (Chase, of. cit., iii. 805.)
If we pass in review the evidence afforded by the usage of the fourth century in regard to this Epistle, we find that there was a considerable prevailing feeling of doubt as to the Petrine authorship, along with instances of definite rejection. It is, however, specially significant, in view of the modern tendency to depreciate the Epistle, that it seems to have gained a place in the Canon by virtue of its contents and its useful opposition to the doctrines of false teachers.
Third Century —Metuoptus, a bishop of Lycia at the end of the third century, who suffered in the Diocletian persecution, explicitly quotes 2 Peter iii. 8 in the fragment De Resurrectione. Zahn (Gesch. Kan., |. i. p. 313) has collected some passages in the same treatise which seem to echo 2 Peter iii. 10-13, and while in these the thought, rather than the language, recalls 2 Peter, there seems no reason to doubt the reference. Methodius regards the Apocalypse of Peter also as inspired (Comm.; Virg., ii. b). A further pre- sumption in favour of the use by Methodius of 2 Peter is found in the DiaLocug ΟΕ ADAMANTIUS, written probably in the later years of Constantine, which makes large use of the works of Methodius. In this work 2 Peter is quoted. ΕΙΕΜΙΙΠΙΑΝ, bishop of Cesarea in Cappa- docia, evidently refers to 2 Peter in a letter to Cyprian (No. 75). His words are: ‘‘ Stephanus adhuc etiam infamans Petrum et Paulum beatos apostolos . . . qui in epistolis suis haereticos exse- crati sunt, et ut eos evitemus monuerunt’’. The allusion to heretics applies only to 2 Peter.
We come now to the evidence of ΟΕΙΟΕΝ. In his extant Greek works there is a reference to 2 Peter of a somewhat ambiguous kind. “Peter left one recognised Epistle, and perhaps a second; for it is disputed ” (Πέτρος δέ. . . µίαν ἐπιστολὴν ὁμολογουμένην καταλέλοιπεν * ἔστω δὲ καὶ δευτέραν : ἀμφιβάλλεται γάρ); (quoted Eusebius, H. Ε., VI. xxv. 8). In the Latin translation of his works by Rufinus there are some passages expressly quoting 2 Peter, e.g., 2 Peter, i. 4, “ad participa- tionem capiendam divinae naturae sicut Petrus Apostolus edocuit”’ (Ep. ad Rom. iv. 9. Ed. Lomm., vi. 302). 2 Peter, i. 2, “ Petrus in epistola sua dicit. Gratia uobis et pax multiplicatur in recognitione Dei” (2b., viii. 6. Ed. Lomm., vii. 234). 2 Peter, ii. 19, “Scio enim scriptum esse, quia unusquisque a quo vincitur huic et servus addicitur” (¢n Exod. xii. 4. Ed. Lomm., ix. p. 149). Also in a passage which contains an allegorical use of the trumpet blasts before Jericho, it is written, “ Petrus etiam duabus epistolarum