punishment £or their sins" (' Adv. Hrer.,' x. 30). Origen, who died A.O. 253, was certainly acquainted with both the Epistles of St. Peter. He is quoted by Eusebius (' Hist. Eccl.,' vi. 26) as saying, "Peter has left ona acknowledged Epistle: let it be granted that he left; also a second, for this is disputed." In the' Homilies,' which wa have only in the Latin translation of Rufinus, he thrice mentions tha Second Epistle: "Peter sounds forth with the two trumpets of his Epistles" (Hom. vii. on Joshua); "And again Peter says, Ye have been made partakers of the Divine nature" (Hom. iv. on Leviticus); "As the Scripture saith in a certain place, A dmnb animal, answering with human voice, forbade the madness of the prophet " (Hom. xiii. on Numbers). But there are no quotations from the Epistle in his extant Greek works, and he twice speaks o.f the First Epistle as the Catholic Epistle of Peter. Firmilian, Bishop of the Cappadocian Cmsarea (about A.D. 270), has a clear allusion to this Epistle. He speaks of "Peter and Paul, the blessed apostles, . . . who execrated heretics in their Epistles, and warned us to avoid them." There is no passage in the First Epistle of St. Peter to which these words can refer. Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem accepted all the seven Catholic Epistles as canonical. .After the time of Eusebius the Epistle seems to have been generally received. Doubts were occasionally expressed, as by Gregory of Nazianzen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who is said to have rejected both Epistles. Jerome writes, in a. well-known passage, "Scripsit (Petrus) duas epistolas quro Catholicw nominantur, quarum secunda a plerisque ejus esse negatur propter stili cum priore dissonantiam." In another place, however, he explains the dnierence of style by supposing that the apostle had used dnierent interpreters. He contributed largely to the general acceptance of the Epistle by including it in his own Latin translation; and from his time the doubts of its authenticity seem to have rapidly disappeared. The Epistle is not in the Peschito, or Old Syriac, Version, but it was received by Ephrem Syrus, and is contained in the Philoxenian, or Later Syriac. It is not in the Old Latin, which was used before the time of Jerome. It is not mentioned in the Muratorian Canon; but that fragment omits also the First Epistle, which wo.s universally accepted. The Second Epistle of St. Peter was recognized as canonical by the Councils of Laodicma 1 (about A.O. 366), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397). Laodicma, we must remember, was one of the Churches of that Roman province of Asia to which ( a.mong other countries of Asia Minor) St. Peter's Epistles were addressed. It is probable that a much larger amount of ancient testimony than we now possess was within the reach of the Fathers of these Councils. They appear to have exercised great care and discrimina- tion. They excluded some writings from the canon which had been read 1 'J'h11 l\uLhonticity of the co.talogue of the sacred hooks in the sixtieth canon of thia
Oouncil is very doubtful ;(see Dr. Westcott, • On the Canon of the New Testo.ment,' p.4SS). INTRODUC'l'ION TO
in Churches and classed with the Scriptures, as the' First Epistle of Clement' and the 'Epistle of Barnabas.' We cannot but believe that they had the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the performance of their difficult and momentous duty. We attach, therefore, very great weight to their judg- ment. .At the same time, it must be admitted that, apart from their authority, the e;r,ternal evidence for our Epistle, though considerable, cannot be regarded as entirely convincing,
2. Internal Evidence. We come next to the evidence which may be derived from the Epistle itself. It has been urged against its genuineness: (1) That the writer labours to identify himself with the apostle in a manner forced and unna- tural. (2) That the reference to St. Paul in eh. iii. 15, 16 is not such as might be expected from St. Peter. (8) That, as Jerome had long ago remarked, there is a striking stili dissonantia between the two Epistles. ( 4) That the key-note of" the Epistle and its leading thoughts differ widely from those of the First Epistle. (5) That the relation between the second chapter and the Epistle of St. Jude is perplexing, and suggests doubts as to the apostolic authority of the writers. (6) That the resemblances between this Epistle and certain passages in Josephus is so close as to show that the writer must have been acquainted with works which were not published till after the death of St. Peter. It will be convenient to discuss these points in order. (1) The writer of the Epistle calls himself "Symeon Peter, a. servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ." In eh. i. 14 he refers to the Lord's pro- phecy concerning the death of St. Peter in John xxi. 18, 19. In vers. 16--18 of the same chapter he tells his readers that he wa.s one of the witnesses of the Transfiguration, and heard the voice that wa.s borne from heaven: he calls the scene of that great sight "the holy mount." In eh. iii. 1 he :refers to the First Epistle ; a.nd in eh. iii. 2, according to the received text, he again asserts his apostleship. It ha.a been urged that the double name, Symeon Peter, betrays an anxiety on the part of the writer to identify himself with the a.postle; the apostle would simply say Peter, as he does in the First Epistle. But, on the other hand, it is altogether improbable that an imitator would vary the form of address. An unknown Christian, wishing to assume the personality of the great apostle, would not begin at once with a change so unnecessary, so sure to excite questionings. A man uses his own name with a certain freedom : sometimes he writes it in full; sometimes he uses initials; sometimes, if he has several names, he omits some of them. The variation, if it surprises DB a. little in the apostle, would surprise us ma.eh more in the case of an imitator. It is rather, as far as it goes, a point in favour of the aut,henticity of the Epistle. The reference in eh. i. 14 to the interview with our Lord described iu THE SECOND EPISTUJ GENERAL OF PETER.