DISSERTATION I. The Authority of the Second Epistle of THE occafion I had, in the firft of the foregoing Difcourfes, to confider and compare together the two Epiftles of St. Peter, led me to inquire into the grounds and reasons of the ancient doubt concerning the authority and genuineness of the fecond Epiftle. It will be worth while to examine the fact, and state it fairly; which will enable us to judge whether this doubt is well founded or no. “That The learned Grotius, in his Annotations on this Epiftle, obferves, "That many of the ancients were " of opinion that this was not an epiftle of St. Peter "the Apostle, induced thereunto by the difference of style between this and the first Epistle, (acknow ledged by Eufebius and Jerom,) and by this Epi"ftle's having been rejected by many churches." Huetius a reports the cafe more accurately, and tells us, that this fecond Epiftle was " inter dubias collo cata ab aliquibus-propter ftyli cum priore difcrepantiam ;""reckoned doubtful by fome, because Demonftratio Evang. p. 21. K "the ftyle of it was different from that of the firft Epiftle." This is the truth of the cafe, and this the only reason to be found in antiquity of the doubt concerning this Epiftle. Grotius's fecond reafon," that this Epiftle was not received in many "churches," is too ftrongly expreffed, and not fufficiently warranted. Origen is the firft, as far as appears, who mentions the doubt about this Epistle: "St. Peter," he tells us, left one Epiftle confeffedly "his; perhaps too a fecond; for of this there is "doubt." Eufebius informs us, "That there never "was any doubt of St. Peter's first Epistle: but as "to the fecond, the tradition was, that it was not "canonical: nevertheless appearing to many (or to "the generality) to be a useful piece, it was ufed "jointly with the other Scriptures." That this fecond Epiftle was received and used by the church in Eufebius's time, appears I think from this very paffage: he fays it was " used with the other Scrip"tures," and that all the ground there was to doubt of its authority, was an ancient tradition, which probably was no other than the authority and report of Origen, before cited. That this doubt ever affected whole churches, or that there were churches which rejected this Epiftle, does not appear: if this had been the cafe, it would have been a ftronger objection against the authority of the Epiftle than the Ο Πετρὸς μίαν ἐπιτολὴν ὁμολογουμένην καταλέλοιπεν, ἔσω δὲ καὶ Sevтéçar aμpicánra yap. Origen. apud Eufeb. lib. vi. cap. 25. • Τὴν δὲ φερομένην αὐτοῦ δευτέραν, οὐκ ἐνδιάθετον μὲν εἶναι παρει λήφαμεν· ὅμως δὲ πολλοῖς χρήσιμος φανεῖσα, μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐσπουSáodn ypaçãv. Lib. iii. cap. 3. vide cap, 25. ancient fufpicion, and more worthy of the hiftorian's notice. What fubmiffion is due to the doubts of antiquity, when we have only the doubt tranfmitted to us, without the reasons upon which it was grounded, I need not inquire; but furely, when we have the reasons of the doubt preferved, we have a very good right to judge and inquire for ourfelves. And this happens to be the cafe here: St. Jerom takes notice of this doubt, and tells us the reafon of it: "the "fecond Epiftle," fays he, " is rejected by many, (or by most, a plerifque,) because it differs in style from "the first d." The whole doubt, you fee, is founded upon a piece of criticism, ftarted at first probably by fome man of learning and figure, and followed implicitly by others. The ufage and authority of the church, for aught that appears to the contrary, were on the fide of the Epiftle, and prevailed at last against the learned obfervation: which was the very cafe of St. Jude's Epistle, which, for a like reafon, was rejected by many, but the general authority of the church prevailed to establish it; "autoritatem vetuftate "et ufu meruit, et inter fanctas Scripturas compa << rature. That there is a difference in the ftyle of the first and fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, is allowed; but it is not such a difference as ought to create any doubt of the genuineness of the Epiftle. One reason is, be Quarum fecunda a plerifque rejicitur, propter ftyli cum priore diffonantiam. Catal. Script. Ecclef. Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccl. cause this difference of ftyle does not run through the whole Epistle, but affects only one part of it; another reafon is, that this difference may be more probably accounted for, than by fuppofing the second Epistle to come from another hand than the first. in The second Epiftle is divided into three chapters ; the first and the third ftand clear of this difficulty, agreeing very well with the ftyle of the first Epistle. The second chapter is full of bold figures, and abounds pompous words and expreffions: it is a description of the false prophets and teachers, who infefted the church, and perverted the doctrines of the Gofpel; and it seems to be an extract from some ancient Jewifh writer, who had left behind him a description of the falfe prophets of his own, or perhaps earlier times; which defcription is applied, both by St. Peter and St. Jude, to the falfe teachers of their own times. If this be the cafe, where is the wonder, that a paffage transcribed from another author, and inferted into this second Epiftle, fhould differ in ftyle from St. Peter's firft Epiftle? efpecially, confidering that the ftyle of this paffage differs as much from all the reft of this fecond Epiftle, as it does from the firft. St. Jerom fuppofed, and others have followed his opinion, that St. Peter made ufe of different interpreters to exprefs his fenfe in his two Epiftles; but had this been the cafe, the difference of style would have appeared in the whole Epistle, and not in one part of it only, which is the prefent ftate: and I fee no reason to think that St. Peter did not write both the Epiftles himself. f Epift. ad Hedibiam quæst, 2. Eftius, Calmet, &c. Were this nothing but a conjecture, yet so reafonable an one it is, that the doubt raised againft. this fecond Epiftle, merely from this difference of ftyle, could hardly ftand before it. But we can go further, and fhew, upon very probable grounds, that this was indeed the case. The very beginning of the fecond chapter of this fecond Epiftle fhews that St. Peter had the image of fome ancient false prophets before him, in describing the falfe teachers of his own time: There were false prophets also among the people, even as there fhall be falfe teachers among you, ver. 1. If you confider the character he gives of these false teachers, it will appear to be drawn from the defcription of the old falfe prophets; fuch they are, he tells us, as have forfaken the right way, and are gone aftray, following the way of Balaam the fon of Bofor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness, ver. 15. A very natural thought this, and to be expected in a description of false prophets made by an ancient Jewish writer; but fuch an one as hardly would have occurred in an original description of the falfe teachers under the Gofpel. St. Jude has this comparison, and others of the fame kind joined with it: They have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam, and perished in the gainfaying of Core, ver. 11. These are antique figures, and discover the age to which they belong. And St. Jude tells us plainly, that thefe falfe teachers were πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς TOUTO Tò upíμa, described or fset forth of old for this condemnation; and it is very likely that both St. Peter and he had the old description before them, when they gave the character of the false teachers of their |