as in the former. On the other hand we sometimes, find in the second Epistle repetitions of the same word, which betray a poverty of language: for instance Exenyew eh. i. 5. 11. daw, ch. i. 10. 15.

From what has been said in the course of this section, it appears, that even the second chapter of the second Epistle has some resemblance, both in its style and its contents, to the first Epistle. This is particularly to be noted, because even the advocates for the second Epistle have in general granted, that the style of this chapter is not the usual style of St. Peter. Bishop Sherlock for instance acknowledges it: nor, though I contend that there is some similarity, as in ver. 5. 7., will I assert that there is no difference. But it will not therefore follow that the whole Epistle was not written by St. Peter: and if it is allowable to draw a conclusion from one or two pages, it will be no other than this, that the second chapter is spurious, because the style of it is said to be as different from the first and third chapters, as it is from the first Epistle. This conclusion however no one will draw, who has examined the connexion of the whole Epistle". In fact the difference in question is rather of a negative kind: for though I am unable to discover any remarkable agreement in style between the first Epistle and the second chapter of the second Epistle, I do not perceive any remarkable difference. This second chapter has indeed several words, which are unusual in other parts of the New Testament; but the same may be said of the first Epistle. And some of the expressions, which to us appear extraordinary, were borrowed perhaps from the Gnostics, whose doctrines are here confuted for it is not unusual, in combating the opinions of a particular sect, to adopt their peculiar terms. Thus in 2 Pet. ii. 17. the Gnostics are called clouds agitated by a tempest:' and we know that the Manicheans, who had many doctrines in common with the Gnostics, taught that there were five good, and five bad elements, and that one of the This subject will be particularly examined in the last section of this chapter.

latter was called tempest". In like manner, they frequently speak of darkness under the name of Zopos, which occurs more than once in this chapter. The Epistle of St. Jude has a still greater number of unusual figurative expressions; and it is not impossible, that these also were borrowed from the Gnostics.

SECT. II.

OF THE TIME, WHEN THIS EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN. THE second Epistle of St. Peter must have been written only a short time before his death: for he says, ch. i. 14. shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.' St. Peter here alludes to his conversation with Christ after the resurrection, recorded in John xxi. 18—22. where Christ had foretold his death in the following words, when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.' Hence St. Peter might very easily conclude, that he would not survive the coming of Christ to judge Jerusalem. But Christ has declared that Jerusalem would be destroyed before one generation passed away. St. Peter therefore after a lapse of thirty years, that is in the year 64, necessarily considered his death, as an event not far distant.

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

Beausobre Hist. des Manichéens. Tom. II. p. 300, 301.

SECT. III.

OF THE DESIGN OF THIS EPISTLE.

I HAVE already observed in the first section of this chapter, that the second Epistle of St. Peter was addressed to Christians, who were born heathens. The purport of it is chiefly polemical; and it is evident, especially from the last chapter of the Epistle, that St. Peter wrote against certain persons, who, though members of the church, denied the doctrine of a general judgment, and a dissolution of the world". They in

This is not admitted by Wetstein, who contends that the last chapter of this Epistle relates, not to the end of the world, but to the destruction of Jerusalem. That this however is not true, will appear from the following considerations. First, St. Peter represents the fact, for which he argues, as possible, by appealing to the deluge. Now no man would appeal to the deluge, to shew the possibility, that a city may be taken and destroyed: but we may very properly argue, that, as the earth has already undergone a material change, so it may undergo another change equally great. And what St. Peter says, is consonant to the Jewish theology, in which was taught the doctrine, that the earth was destined to suffer two grand revolutions, the one effected by water, the other to be effected by fire. See Joseph. Antiq. I. 3. 3. Secondly, no one could doubt, that Jerusalem would be destroyed, merely because the destruction was deferred longer than he expected, and still less, because all things continued as they were from the beginning of the creation,' ch. iii. 4. This ground of doubt manifestly implies, that the question related to a revolution of the earth. Thirdly, I know of no heretics, who called in question Christ's prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. And, even if there were such, it is hardly credible that St. Peter should write an Epistle to persons, who were born heathens, and lived in the northern parı Asia Minor, to prove an event, with which they had little or no concern. Fourthly, what St. Peter says ch. iii. 8. that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,' is not very applicable to an event, which was to take place within six or seven years after St. Peter wrote. Lastly, if we explain what St. Peter says, as relating to the destruction of Jerusalem, we must take his expressions in a figurative sense; but figurative language, though it is well adapted to a prophecy, such as that which is recorded Matth. xxiv., is not very suitable to a plain doctrinal dissertation, especially to one delivered in the form of an Epistle.

of

ferred that this event, because it had been long delayed, would never take place: to which objection St. Peter replies, by saying; that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day; that the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is long suffering, not willing that any man should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Further, St. Peter argues that, as the earth has already undergone a great revolution at the deluge, another revolution equally great, is not incredible: and that, since the former event was at the time, when it happened, as unexpected, as the latter will be, we ought to believe in God's declaration that the world will one day be totally destroyed. This destruction

St. Peter says, will be effected not by water, as at the deluge, but by fire: the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein shall be burned up.' Now a general conflagration will be more easily admitted by those who are acquainted with the state of the earth, than an universal deluge; for though it may be difficult to comprehend, whence a sufficient quantity of water could be brought to cover the whole earth, yet no one can deny that the bowels of the earth abound with inflammable matter, and that fiery eruptions may spread themselves throughout the surface of the globe.

It must be observed that St. Peter's appeal to the deluge in the time of Noah, implies that the adversaries, whom he combats, admitted that the Mosaic account of it was true, since it would have been useless to have argued from a fact, which they denied. This must be kept in view, because it will assist us in determining who these adversaries were.

The polemical part of this Epistle is not confined wholly to the third or last chapter, for it begins in the second, where St. Peter argues ver. 4-10. from the punishment already inflicted and hereafter to be inflicted on the fallen angels, as well as from the destruction of the antediluvian world, and of Sodom and Gomorrah,

that God is just, and that he will hereafter' punish sinners. This again implies, that the persons, whose opinions St. Peter combats, not only believed the Mosaic history, but likewise the account of the fallen angels, their present banishment from heaven, and the more severe punishment which still awaited them. Hence therefore we have a second criterion, to assist us in determining St. Peter's adversaries.

If we go back to the first chapter, the end of which is closely connected with the beginning of the second, we shall perceive that these false teachers asserted, either that the Christian doctrine was only an instructive fable (μutos σεσOQIOμEvos) or that divine revelation contained contradictions. The latter assertion has been supported by many, who made their philosophy the basis of their faith, and admitted only so much of divine revelation as agreed with their own system. This fundamental error he removes by saying, ch. i. 20. that divine Scripture cannot contradict itself, and ch. xi. 1. that if two prophets disagree, one of them must be a false prophet.

་

Further, St. Peter describes these false teachers ch. ii. 10, 11, 12. as calumniators of the angels, which the Apostle highly censures, even though the calumny should be directed against the fallen angels, since some respect is due to their former greatness and power. St. Peter says; Angels themselves, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord: but these as natural brute beasts made to be taken and destroyed, speak of the things which they understand not.' Here we have a description of these false teachers, which points them out more distinctly than any of the preceding accounts, and shews that they were Gnostics. For though ecclesiastical history furnishes many examples of improper adoration paid to the angels, I know of no sect, which calumniated them, except that of the Gnostics. Now the Gnostics

• See my treatise, De indiciis philosophiæ Gnosticæ tempore LXX. interpretum, et Philonis, § 8. in the second volume of the Syntagma commentationum, p. 266, 267.