and of what He did for us by " Saviour:" and without the former, or both titles, He never appears.

21. Another objection has been found in the apparent anxiety of the Writer to shew that he is the Apostle Peter, thereby betraying that he was not that Apostle. But here again, we may surely say just as fairly, that this is in manifest consistency with the character and design of the Epistle, which cautions against, and stigmatizes, false teachers. Thus we find St. Paul, in those Epistles where his object is the same, most strongly asserting his Apostleship, and his personal qualification as a teacher and ruler of the church. Were the Epistle genuine, this is just what we might expect.

22. The supposed objection, that in the reference to an apostolic command, ch. iii. 2, the Writer seems to sever himself from the Apostles, loses all weight by the reflection, that the words most naturally mean, as explained in the note on the passage, the Apostles who preached to you, much as in 1 Pet. i. 12: the Writer himself forming one only of that class, and thus preferring to specify it as a class. Besides, I submit that such an objection is suicidal, when connected with that last mentioned. If the object of the (apocryphal) Writer was, elaborately to represent himself as St. Peter, how can the same view of the Epistle be consistent in finding in it a proof, by his own deliberate shewing, that he is not an Apostle? Forgers surely do not thus designedly overthrow their own fabrics.

But

23. The last objection which I shall notice is, the reference to St. Paul's Epistles, in ch. iii. 15, 16, as indicating a later date than is consistent with the genuineness of our Epistle. They are there evidently adduced as existing in some number: and as forming part of the recognized Scriptures. No doubt, these undeniable phænomena of our Epistle are worthy of serious consideration; and they present to us, I am free to confess, a difficulty almost insuperable, if the common traditions respecting the end of St. Peter's life are to be received as matters of fact. we are not bound by those traditions, though inclined to retain them in deference to ancient testimonies: we are at all events free to assume as great a latitude in their dates as the phænomena of the sacred writings seem to require. All therefore that we can say of this reference to the writings of St. Paul, is that, believing on other grounds this Epistle to be written by St. Peter, this seems to require for it a later date than is consistent with the usually received traditions of his death, and that our reception of such traditions must be modified accordingly.

24. At the same time it must be borne in mind, that it is an entirely unwarranted assumption, to understand by "all Epistles" here, an entire collection of St. Paul's Epistles as we now have them, seeing that the

9 See also note on Jude 17, 18.

words can only represent as many of them as the Writer had seen1: and that it is equally unjustifiable to gather from what follows, that the sacred canon of the New Test. was at that time settled. Those words cannot imply more, than that there were certain writings by Christian teachers, which were reckoned as on a level with the Old Test. Scriptures, and called by the same name (see note there). And that that was the case, even in the traditional lifetime of St. Peter, it would be surely unreasonable to deny.

25. The diversity of style in the two Epistles has been frequently alleged. But on going through all that has been said, I own I cannot regard it, considerable as it undoubtedly is, as any more than can well be accounted for by the total diversity of subject and mood in the two Epistles, and by the interweaving into this second one of copious reminiscences from another Epistle. Some of the differences we have already spoken of, when treating of the titles and names of our Lord appearing in the two Epistles; and have found them amply accounted for by the above reasons. The same might be said of the terms used for the coming of our Lord," revelation" and "revealing" in the first Epistle, "presence," "day of the Lord," "day of judgment" in this: the same again of the prevalence of "hope" in the former Epistle, and of "knowledge" in this. Some of the objections adduced on this head are without foundation in fact, e. g. that which Davidson admits, that whereas "in the first Epistle the Writer makes considerable use of the Old Test., incorporating its sentiments and diction into his own composition; in the second there is hardly a reference to the Jewish Scriptures." What then are we to say of ch. i. 19-21; ii. 1, 5, 6, 7 f., 15 f., 22; iii. 2, 4, 5 f., 8, 13? May not it be said that although the second Epistle, from the nature of the case, does not require so many references to the newbegetting word, yet the mind of the Writer was equally full of its facts and sentiments?

26. Some of the points of resemblance between the two Epistles have been very fairly stated by Davidson and by Brückner: and the latter writer has corrected the over-statements of Dietlein. Of these coincidences, “virtue," as applied to God, has been already noticed. Others

1 See note on the place.

2 See Jerome, above, par. 12.

3 Davidson, p. 433, treats this answer as insufficient, "because the phraseology is not confined to that part of the Epistle which is directed against the false teachers, and the Epistle was not wholly or chiefly written to threaten the enemies of the truth with the dreadful day of the Lord. It was the writer's object to establish and comfort, as well as to terrify." But surely we may fairly say, that the spirit in which the Writer set himself to compose his Epistle, which is evident from the ruling tone of it being warning and denunciatory, would of necessity modify the terms in which he introduced those doctrines and expectations which formed the ground of his exhortation or prophecy.

are,

without blemish and without spot," 1 Pet. i. 19, compared with "without spot and blameless,” 2 Pet. iii. 14; which is the more striking from its independence in the connexion, being used in an entirely different reference. The sound of these two words again occurs in the midst of the adaptation from St. Jude, ii. 13. Other similarities there are which cannot be represented to the English reader, but will be found in the corresponding part of the Prolegomena to my Greek Testament.

27. It may be allowed us to remark some notes of genuineness which are found in our Epistle, which, though at first sight of small import, and lying beneath the surface, yet possess considerable interest. In ch. i. 17, 18, we have a reference to the presence of the Writer at the transfiguration of our Lord. It is a remarkable coincidence, that close to that reference, and in the verses leading on to it, two words should occur, both of which are connected with the narrative of the Transfiguration in the Gospels. In ver. 13 we have as long as I am in this tabernacle:" let us remember that it was Peter who at the Transfiguration said, “Let us make three tabernacles." In ver. 15, "after my departure (exodus).” At the Transfiguration Moses and Elias "spoke of His decease (exodus) which He should accomplish at Jerusalem."

28. We have also very noticeable coincidences of another kind. Compare, among them, the use of "godliness," ch. i. 3, 6, 7, with Acts iii. 12, where, in Peter's speech, it is only found, except in the Pastoral Epistles: "lawless deeds," ch. ii. 8, with "by lawless hands," Acts ii. 23: "godly,” ch. ii. 9, with Acts x. 2, 7, an account doubtless derived from St. Peter, -the only places where the word occurs in the New Test.: “being punished," ibid., with Acts iv. 21, another Petrine account, and also the only places where the Greek word occurs: "the day of the Lord," ch. iii. 10, with the citation Acts ii. 20, where only it occurs, except 1 Thess. v. 21. Such things are not to be despised, in estimating the probability of our Epistle being a supposititious document.

29. Our general conclusion from all that has preceded must be in favour of the genuineness and canonicity of this second Epistle: acknowledging at the same time, that the subject is not without considerable difficulty. That difficulty however is lightened for us by observing that on the one hand, it is common to this Epistle with some others of those called Catholic, and several of the later writings of the New Testament: and on the other, that no difference can be imagined more markedly distinctive, than that which separates all these writings from even the earliest and best of the post-apostolic period. Our Epistle is one of those latter fruits of the great outpouring of the Spirit on the Apostles, which, not being entrusted to the custody of any one church or individual, required some considerable time to become generally known which when known, were suspected, bearing as they necessarily did traces of their late origin, and notes of polemical argument:

but of which, as apostolic and inspired writings, there never was, when once they became known, any general doubt; and which, as the sacred Canon became fixed, acquired, and have since maintained, their due and providential place among the books of the New Testament.

SECTION V.

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING.

1. These can only be set down conjecturally, in accordance with views and considerations previously advanced. Assuming the genuineness of the Epistle, St. Peter wrote it in his old age, when he was expecting his death'. This, agreeably to what was said on the first Epistle, would be somewhere about the year 68 A.D., and the place of writing would be Rome, or somewhere on the journey thither from the East.

2. But all this is far too uncertain, and too much beset with chronological difficulties, to be regarded as any thing more than a hypothetical corollary, contingent on our accepting the tradition of St. Peter's Roman martyrdom.

3. Several matters, which have formed the subject of sections in our other chapters, such as the character and style of the Epistle, have been already incidentally discussed.

CHAPTER XIX.

1 JOHN.

SECTION I.

ITS AUTHORSHIP.

well

1. THE internal testimony furnished by this Epistle to its Author being the same with the Author of the fourth Gospel is, it may be thought, incontrovertible. To maintain a diversity of Authorship would betray the very perverseness and exaggeration of that school of criticism which refuses to believe, be evidence never so strong.

This inference is not made from the word "shortly," in ch. i. 14 (see note there), but from the general spirit of that passage.

2. It will be well however not to assume this identity, but to proceed in the same way as we have done with the other books of the New Testament, establishing the Authorship by external ecclesiastical testimony.

Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, writes: "For every one who confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist." Seeing that this contains a plain allusion to 1 John iv. 3, and that Polycarp was the disciple of St. John, it has ever been regarded as an indirect testimony to the genuineness, and so to the Authorship of our Epistle.

3. It is said of Papias by Eusebius, "The same (Papias) uses testimonies from the former Epistle of John, and in like manner from that of Peter." And be it remembered that Irenæus says of Papias that he was "a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp."

4. Irenæus frequently quotes this Epistle, as Eusebius asserts of him. In his work against heresies, after citing John xx. 31, with the words, "as John the disciple of the Lord confirms, saying," . . . . he proceeds, "For which reason also in his Epistle he thus testified to us: 'Little children, it is the last time,' &c." (1 John ii. 18 ff.). Again,

he says, "Whom both the Lord forewarned us to beware of, and His disciple John in the forementioned Epistle ordered us to shun, saying, 'Many seducers are gone out,' &c." (2 John 7, 8: so that "in the forementioned Epistle" seems to be a lapse of memory): "And again in his Epistle he says, 'Many false prophets are gone out,' &c." (1 John iv. 1-3).

And just after, he proceeds, "Wherefore again in his Epistle he says, 'Every one who believeth that Jesus is the Christ, hath been begotten of God,' &c." (1 John v. 1).

5. Clement of Alexandria repeatedly refers to our Epistle as written by St. John. In one place he says: "Moreover John, in his greater Epistle, seems to teach different degrees of sin, in these words: ‘If any man see his brother sinning,' &c." (1 John v. 16).

In another he quotes 1 John i. 6 f. with "John says in his Epistle." And similarly in other places.

6. Tertullian says, "As John the Apostle, who says that antichrists had already gone forth into the world, spirits precursors of antichrist, denying that Christ has come in the flesh, and breaking up Jesus" (1 John iv. 1 ff.). "And again: "That which we have seen,' says John, which we have heard,' &c." (1 John i. 1). And so in several other places citing ch. ii. 22; iv. 2; v. 1; i. 7.

7. Cyprian writes: "John the Apostle also, mindful of the commandment, afterwards writes in his Epistle: 'In this we understand that we know Him, if we keep His commandments,' &c." (ch. ii. 3, 4). And he cites also ch. ii. 15-17; i. 8; ii. 6.