Peter should be represented by two Epistles of so small a size, and that the second of these is, moreover, the most disputed book in the whole New Testament canon. His being thrown into the shade by Paul is rather in accordance with the facts respecting the extension of the church of Christ on earth in the times of the apostles.

As to the first Epistle of Peter, we have before seen that it belongs among the Homologoumena, along with the first Epistle of John. In all Christian antiquity there was no one who doubted the genuineness of the Epistle, or had heard of doubts respecting it. And yet the Epistle (1 Pet. i. 1,) is addressed to Christian churches in Asia Minor, where Christianity early gained great success, and where a lively intercourse was maintained between the individual churches. Here, of necessity, must have arisen soon an opposition to this Epistle, if it had not been known that Peter had sent a circular letter to the churches. Now, the oldest fathers of the church in Asia Minor, Papias and Polycarp, both make use of the Epistle of Peter, as well as that of John, as a genuine apostolic production. This Epistle of Peter does not seem to have made its way to Italy till a late period. At least it is wanting in the very ancient catalogue cited by Muratori, which probably exhibits the canon of the early Roman church. We can infer nothing, however, from this absence against the genuineness of the first Epistle of Peter, since there is not the slightest trace of its having been disputed in the first three centuries. Yet, in modern times, this decided declaration of Christian antiquity has been thought insufficient. An objection has been founded on the circumstance that Peter writes from Babylon, (1 Pet. v. 13,) while history does not relate that he ever was in Babylon; as also upon the fact that he directs the attention of his readers to sufferings and persecutions which they should endure, (1 Pet. i. 6; iii. 16; iv. 12 seq.; v. 10,) referring, as is supposed, to Nero's persecutions, while he himself, it is said, died at Rome during this persecution, and therefore could not have addressed an Epistle from Babylon to those who suffered under it. Both these remarks, however, are easily obviated. As to the first, respecting the city of Babylon, we know too little of the history of Peter to be able to determine in what places he may have been, and in what not; particularly as there were several cities of this name in the ancient world, and it is not specified which is meant in the Epistle. It is to be ob

served, too, that many of the fathers of the church understood the name Babylon to mean mystically the city of Rome, which showed itself the enemy of our Lord in the persecution of the faithful. (Comp. Rev. xviii. 2.) If this exposition be adopted, the second remark also is at once obviated; for, in that case, the Epistle was written by Peter in Rome itself during the persecution, and he gave the believers in Asia Minor christian exhortations in reference to such a grievous period among them. Yet, as this explanation cannot be proved to be correct, we set it aside, and merely observe, that in whatever Babylon Peter may have written his Epistle, his residence there can be easily reconciled with the exhortations which the Epistle contains. For, though these may be referred to the persecution of Nero, they may be understood with equal propriety as referring to any other persecution, since all individual characteristics, which could suit only this first cruel persecution of the church, are entirely wanting. Such general sufferings as these which Peter mentions must be supposed to have been endured by the church everywhere and at all times, as it is always comprehended in the very idea of a believer that he should excite opposition in those who are of a worldly inclination, and thus cause a combat. A more important objection than these two remarks is, that the style and ideas of the first Epistle of Peter exhibit a strong resemblance to the style and ideas of Paul. This cannot be denied, for it is too evident not to be observed; but it does not serve its intended purpose, viz. to deprive Peter of the authorship of the Epistle. Notwithstanding all its similarity to Paul's manner, it still maintains enough of independence and peculiarity to stamp it as the production of a man who thought for himself. As moreover, when Peter wrote this Epistle, he was connected (1 Pet. v. 12,) with the old friend and companion of Paul, Sylvanus, (or, as abbreviated, Silas,) nothing is more easy than to suppose that Peter dictated to the latter, and in all probability in the Hebrew language, which alone seems to have been perfectly familiar to him. In translating into Greek, Sylvanus, who, from long intimacy with Paul, had become very much habituated to his diction, may have adopted many of its characteristics, and thus have been the occasion of the somewhat Pauline colouring which the Epistle possesses.

CHAPTER VIII.

OF THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.

IN regard to the second Epistle of Peter, its case is very different from that of the first. The former has always been so violently attacked, and suspected on such plausible grounds of not having been written by the apostle Peter, that criticism is encompassed with as much difficulty in relation to it as in relation to any other book of the New Testament. And, moreover, such is the state of the matter, that the critical investigation of this Epistle is of particular importance. For, as we remarked in Chapter I., while, in regard to many writings of the New Testament, e. g. the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second and third Epistles of John,) the question is, not so much whether they are genuine or spurious, as who was their author, in regard to the second Epistle of Peter, the question is, in truth, whether the apostle Peter composed it, or some other Peter, or somebody of another name, who meant no harm, but still purposely endeavoured to deceive his readers into the belief that it was written by Simon Peter, the apostle of our Lord. In the first place, the author of the Epistle not only expressly appropriates Peter's name and title, "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,” (2 Pet. i. 1,) but he also states particulars respecting his own life, which can have been true only of Peter. He says, for instance, "For we have not followed cunningly-devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice, which came from heaven, we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount," (2 Pet. i. 16-18. These words, it is clear, refer to the transfiguration on the mount, (Matt. xvii. 1, seq.) But, besides James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, no one was a spectator of this transfiguration except the Apostle Peter. If, therefore, the Apostle Peter was not the author of this letter, the man. who not only presumed to take upon himself the name of an apostle, but designedly endeavoured to make his readers think

that he was the apostle Peter, must have been a downright shameless impostor; and his production should by no means retain its place in the canon, but it is necessary that it should be at once thrust out of it.

It is for this very reason, viz. because the necessity of which we have spoken has been sensibly felt, that the friends of the work have so zealously prosecuted the investigation respecting it; though certainly not always with due impartiality and coolness. It has been forgotten that in truth very important objections may be urged against the Petrine origin of this second Epistle, and it has been attempted to establish its genuineness as firmly and incontrovertibly as it is possible to establish that of other writings. The best weapon, however, which can be used in defence of God's word, is always truth; and this compels us to admit that it is impossible to attain so firm and certain proof of the genuineness of the second Epistle of Peter, as of that of other books of the New Testament. But certainly the opponents of the Epistle err greatly when they assert that the spuriousness of the Epistle can be fully established. Such an assertion cannot but be denied with all earnestness, even though, as is often the case, it be connected with the opinion, that the Epistle may notwithstanding retain its place in the canon as hitherto, and be cited by preachers of the Gospel in their pulpit instructions. Such lax notions must be resisted with the utmost moral sternness. For, would it not be participating in the fraud of the author of the Epistle, were we to treat it as the genuine production of the Apostle Peter, while we consider it as spurious! If it be really spurious, and can be proved to have gained its place in the canon only through mistake, then let it be removed from the collection of the sacred writings, which from its nature excludes every fraudulent production. Christian truth would not at all suffer by the removal of a single work of so slight extent.

We are convinced, however, that no such step is necessary. The most prominent error in the critical investigation of this Epistle has been, that writers have always striven to prove beyond objection either the genuineness or the spuriousness of the production. It has been forgotten that between these two positions there was a medium, viz., an impossibility of satisfactorily proving either. It cannot seem at all strange that this impossibility should exist in investigations respecting writings of the New Testament, if it be considered for a moment how difficult it often is to determine

respecting the genuineness of a production even shortly after, or at the very time of, its composition, if from any circumstance the decisive points in the investigation have remained concealed. As in regard to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews it is entirely impossible to come to any decided result, so it seems to me probable, that the deficiency of historical evidence makes it impossible to come to a fixed conclusion in regard to the second Epistle of Peter. It is certain there are several circumstances which give rise to reasonable doubts respecting the apostolic origin of the Epistle; still, so much may be adduced, not only in refutation of them, but in the way of positive argument for the Epistle, that these doubts are neutralized. Only, the favourable points do not amount to a complete, objectively valid proof, and therefore a critical investigation of the Epistle does not result exclusively to its advantage. Now this is certainly a very unpleasant result, and one satisfactory to neither party, for men commonly wish every thing to be decided in an absolute manner, and therefore would have the Epistle declared positively either genuine or spurious. But the main object should be the truth, and not an agreeable result; and faithful, impartial examination leads us to the conclusion that in fact no perfect proof is to be obtained in regard to the second Epistle of Peter. This conclusion affords us the advantage, that we may with a good conscience leave the Epistle in its place among the canonical books, since it cannot rightfully be deprived of it until its spuriousness is decisively proved. Now, whether it shall or shall not be used in doctrinal argument, must be left to the judgment of each individual; but at any rate no one can prohibit its use so long as its spuriousness remains unproved.

It is time, however, to consider more closely all that can be urged against the genuineness of the Epistle, and to present therewith the counter considerations which either invalidate the former or argue the apostolic composition of the Epistle. Now the most important circumstance which presents itself against the genuineness of the book is, that it was to such a degree unknown in christian antiquity. Not one of the fathers of the first two centuries mentions the second Epistle of Peter; they all speak of but one Epistle from the hand of this apostle. Nor are there any passages in their writings which must of necessity be citations from it. Those passages which seem like parts of it may be explained either on the score of accidental coincidence