is noted, that eight perfons only were faved, though, in neither place does the fubject require that the number fhould be particularly fpecified. Now it is true that St. Peter was not the only Apoftle, who knew how many perfons were faved in the ark: but he only, who by habit had acquired a familiarity with the fubject, would afcertain the precife number, where his argument did not depend upon it.

3. The author of the firft Epiftle had read St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, as I have fhewn in the second fection of the preceding chapter: and the author of the fecond Epiftle fpeaks in exprefs terms, ch. iii. 15. 16. of the Epiftles of St. Paul. Now no other writer of the New Teftament has quoted from the New Teftament: confequently we have in thefe Epiftles a criterion, from which we may judge that they were written by the fame author.

Before I confider the arguments which are derived from the ftyle of thefe Epiftles, I must observe that feveral commentators have, on the contrary, contended that the style is very different, and hence have inferred that they were written by different authors. Jerom likewife, in his treatife on Illuftrious Men, fays that on this very account it was believed, that the fecond Epiftle was not written by St. Peter. Now I will not deny that the ftyle of the fecond, Epiftle in fome places, efpecially in the fecond chapter, is fomewhat different from the style of the first Epiftle: but if they agree in other places, thefe exceptions will not prove, that the Epiftles were not written by the fame author. It is extremely difficult to form from a fingle Epiftle fo complete a judgement of the author's ftyle and manner, as to enable us to pronounce with certainty, that he was not the author of another Epiftle, which is afcribed to him. The ftyle of the fame writer is not always the fame at every period of his life, efpecially when he compofes, not in his native, but in a foreign language. Let us examine however in what the difference between these Epiftles confifts.

Camerarius,

Camerarius, in his note on 1 Pet. v. 12. fays of the firft Epiftle, Hoc diffimulandum non putavimus, hanc epiftolam bonis et fignificantibus verbis refertam, atque adeo ipfam compofitionem ejufmodi effe, quæ, ut in neglectione hujus ftudii, præclara videri poffit; ut dili genter et accurate iftam epiftolam perfcriptam effe appareat. But of the fecond Epiftle he fays in his note on 2 Pet. i. 3. Sunt autem in hac epiftola et verba, et figuræ fermonis ejufmodi in plerifque locis, ut fententia ambigua atque obfcura reddatur, magis quam ufpiam alibi in fcriptis apoftolicis. Now every one will allow that on this fubject Camerarius was a competent judge, and I readily grant that he had fome foundation for his cenfure of the fecond Epiftle, in the place where he has given it, namely in ch. i. 1-7. But he has carried the matter too far in adding in plerifque locis,' and in extending his cenfure to the whole Epiftle. For after the 12th verfe of ch. i. to the end of the Epiftle, the words are very intelligible, and very properly chofen: and in refpect to the structure of the periods, the paffage * ch. ii. 4-10. is more judiciously arranged and is better rounded, than any fentence of the fame length in the first Epiftle. If there is any obfcurity in it, this must be afcribed partly to our own want of knowledge, because, the erroneous doctrines combated in the fecond chapter are not fufficiently understood, and partly to the cir cumftance, that the author has not given us to underftand, till toward the clofe of the Epiftle, that he wrote against the deniers of a day of judgement. But this very circumftance affords a ftrong argument, that both Epiftles were written by the fame author: for in the first Epiftle likewise the purport of it is not declared before the end of the laft chapter', fo that the demonftration precedes the propofition, whence this Epiftle alfo was not thoroughly understood even by Camerarius, though he thought it perfectly intelligible.

With

* This paffage ends with the word xara@goverṛas ver. 10.—Toxunra begins a new fentence.

1 Ch. v. 13. VOL. IV.

Ꮓ

i.

With respect to the paffage in the fecond Epistle, ch.

3. where Camerarius complains, and not wholly without foundation, of obfcurity, it may be obferved that Alberti's remarks on it have rendered it lefs obfcure than it appeared to Camerarius, and that the difficulty, which attends it, is owing to the two following causes.

t. To the reading dia dons xai agens, which is that of our common printed editions, and for which Camerarius did not know that there was a better. But fince his

time, it has been discovered that very good authorities, inftead of this reading, have dia doen xas apeтn. Now if we adopt the latter reading, and conftrue in the following manner, through the knowledge of God in his glory, we fhall no longer have reafon to complain of obfcurity. 2. To the circumftance, that the fame word agern is ufed, ver. 3. and ver. 5. in two different fenfes, and that its common meaning virtue' is applicable in neither place. But this very word is ufed likewife in the first Epiftle in a peculiar fenfe, though few commentators have observed it; and confequently the obfcurity, which attends agern, 2 Pet. i. 3. is rather an argument, that both Epiitles were written by the fame perfon. In 2 Pet. i. 5. this favourite word of St. Peter fignifies

αρετη,

glory; and ver. 5. it denotes courage,' especially that kind of courage, which must attend the faith of a true Chriftian, but which at the fame time must be accompanied with knowledge, that they, who poffefs it, may not become undaunted martyrs of error and prejudice.

Thus, in answering the objections, which have been made to the style of the fecond Epistle, I have likewise fhewn fome inftances of agreement with that of the first. To thiefe may be added the following.

1. The fentences in the fecond Epiftle are feldom fluent and well rounded, but have the fame extenfion as thofe in the first.

2. Avas-gon, the word fo peculiar to the first Epistle, occurs likewife in the fecond", though not fo frequently

- Ch. ii. 7. iii. 11.

as

as in the former. find in the second Epiftle repetitions of the fame word, which betray a poverty of language: for inftance xεπιχο enyew, ch. i. 5. II. σdaw, ch. i. 10. 15.

On the other hand we sometimes

From what has been faid in the courte of this fection, it appears, that even the fecond chapter of the fecond Epiftle has some resemblance, both in its ftyle and its contents, to the firft Epiftle. This is particularly to be noted, because even the advocates for the fecond Epiftle have in general granted, that the ftyle of this chapter is not the ufual ftyle of St. Peter. Bifhop Sherlock for inftance acknowledges it: nor, though I contend that there is fome fimilarity, as in ver 5. 7., will I affert that there is no difference. But it will not therefore follow that the whole Epiftle was not written by St. Peter: and if it is allowable to draw a conclufion from one or two pages, it will be no other than this, that the fecond chapter is fpurious, because the ftyle of it is faid to be as different from the first and third chapters, as it is from the firft Epiftle. This conclufion however no one will draw, who has examined the connexion of the whole Epiftle". In fact the difference in queftion is rather of a negative kind for though I am unable to discover any remarkable agreement in ftyle between the first Epistle and the fecond chapter of the fecond Epiftle, I do not perceive any remarkable difference. This fecond chapter has indeed feveral words, which are unufual in other parts of the New Testament: but the fame may be faid of the first Epistle. And fome of the expreffions, which to us appear extraordinary, were borrowed perhaps from the Gnoftics, whofe doctrines are here confuted: for it is not unusual, in combating the opinions of a particular fect, to adopt their peculiar terms. Thus in 2 Pet. ii. 17. the Gnoftics are called clouds agitated by a tempeft and we know that the Manicheans, who had many doctrines in common with the Gnoftics, taught that there were five good, and five bad elements, and that

One

This fubject will be particularly examined in the last section of this chapter,

one of the latter was called tempeft. In like manner, they frequently fpeak of darkness under the name of Zopos, which occurs more than once in this chapter. The Epiftle of St. Jude has a ftill greater number of unusual figurative expreffions; and it is not impoffible, that these alfo were borrowed from the Gnoftics.

Of the time, when this Epiftle was written.

HE fecond Epiftle of St. Peter must have been

Twritten only a thort tinte before his death: for he

fays, ch. i. 14. fhortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jefus Chrift hath fhewed me.' St. Peter here alludes to his converfation with Chrift after the refurrection, recorded in John xxi. 18-22. where Chrift had foretold his death in the following words, when thou fhalt be old, thou fhall stretch forth thy hands, and another fhall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldeft not.' Hence St. Peter might very easily conclude, that he would not furvive the coming of Chrift to judge Jerufalem. But Chrift has declared that Jerufalem would be deftroyed before, one generation paffed away. St. Peter therefore after a lapfe of thirty years, that is in the year 64, neceffarily confidered his death, as an event not far distant.

་

On the place, where this Epiftle was written I fay nothing for it is wholly uncertain, whether St. Peter wrote it before, or after his arrival in Rome.

• Beaufobre Hift. des Manichéens. Tom. II. p. 300, 301.

SECT.