I give these of course, in each case, with a valeat quantum, and do not say that, even taken collectively, they amount to a proof of identity of authorship. It will, however, I think, be admitted that they at least shew that the Second Epistle that bears St Peter's name comes from one who lived at the same time and in the same atmosphere of thought as the First, that he was familiar with the same writings and used the same words and phrases. I am unwilling to lay stress on the bare fact that the writer affirms that he was a witness of the Transfiguration and heard the voice from heaven (2 Pet. i. 16, 17); for that, on the assumption of personated authorship, would be part of the personation. But it is, I think, a matter for consideration that here also, in this dwelling on personal reminiscences of the Gospel history, the writer of the Second Epistle stands on the same footing as the writer of the First. For he too speaks of his position as "a witness of the sufferings of Christ" (1 Pet. v. 1), and paints the scene of those sufferings (1 Pet. ii. 21-24) no less vividly than the writer of the Second Epistle paints that of the glory of the Transfiguration. And there is, it may be added, a kind of naturalness, almost if not altogether beyond the reach of art, in the way in which, by a subtle yet perfectly intelligible association of ideas, the recollection of that scene leads to thoughts and words like the "tabernacle” and “decease,” which had actually been associated with it. There is, if I mistake not, a like naturalness in the reference to our Lord's prediction of the manner of the Apostle's death (John xxi. 18) (not recorded, it will be remembered, in any of the first three Gospels), in 2 Pet. i. 14, as compared with the exhortation in 1 Pet. v. 2, which reproduces the command to “feed the flock of God,” which must have been associated inseparably with that prediction in the Apostle's memory (John xxi. 15—17).

I

It remains to enquire whether the admitted difference in thought and style can be adequately explained on the hypothesis of identity of authorship. I venture to think that that explanation is found in the singular parallelism between the second chapter of this Epistle and the Epistle of St Jude. That parallelism is so striking that it is impossible to resist the conclusion that one writer used the materials furnished him by the other, or that both derived them from some common source. Reserving the discussion of these alternatives for the Introduction to the Epistle of St Jude, I will assume here that the latter Epistle was the earlier of the two. What the facts before us suggest is then as follows. The First Epistle had been written and sent off by Silvanus. When he wrote it the Apostle was thinking chiefly of the persecutions which were pressing on the Asiatic Churches, and he dwells naturally on the truths which were the ground of hope and comfort for the sufferers, on the conduct which would be the best apologia when they stood before the tribunal of the magistrate or in the forum domesticum of the family, face to face with their accusers. Soon afterwards, other tidings come, which are more alarming and speak of other dangers. He hears of teachers like those described in the Pastoral Epistles, "departing from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, having their conscience seared as with a redhot iron" (1 Tim. iv. 1,2), destitute of the truth, looking on the profession of godliness as a means of making money (1 Tim. vi. 5), covetous, boasters, proud, without natural affection,..."lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God" (2 Tim. iii. 1-7), boasting of "a science (gnosis) falsely so called” (1 Tim. vi. 20). In addition to these there are mockers both within and without the Church, who, holding that the Resurrection is past already (2 Tim. ii. 18), held also as a natural consequence that there was to be no Second Advent of the Lord to judge the quick and the dead (2 Pet. iii. 1—4), and scoffed at the promise of His coming. The Epistle of St Jude is placed in his hands as giving a description of these teachers. It is not an improbable supposition that it may have been sent to him by James, the brother of the Lord, with whom, as his brother Apostle of the Circumcision, he would 6

Peter & Jude

naturally be in communication, or even that Jude himself may have been the bearer of his own letter. He is, if one may venture so to speak, startled and horror-stricken at the picture thus brought before him. He must write once more to the Asiatic Churches, warning them against this new form of evil, and throwing all the weight of his authority into the scale of those who were contending for the faith, for purity, for holiness, for the hope of the Resurrection to eternal life. It would not be enough merely to pass on the letter of St Jude. His own name was better known, and would carry greater weight with it. It is a small point, but one which, as far as it goes, falls in with the view thus suggested, that the form of the Apostle's name in the Second Epistle (Symeon) is that which appears in the record in Acts xv. 14, as used by St James and current in the Church of Jerusalem. If the disciple who brought the letter of St Jude came from that Church, and was employed by St Peter as an amanuensis, what was more natural than that he should employ that form?

The manner in which the writer of the Second Epistle deals with that of St Jude is in exact agreement with this hypothesis, and the hypothesis explains phenomena that would otherwise. present considerable difficulty. He adapts it, as it were, to the use not only of the Hellenistic Jews, but of the proselytes from Heathenism, and even the uncircumcised converts, whom he was anxious to reach. He will not put a stumbling-block in their way, by referring to the tradition of the nature of the fall of the angels as being like in kind to the sin of the Cities of the Plain, which was found in the apocryphal Book of Enoch, and was not found (except in a passage very variously interpreted, Gen. vi. 4) in any Canonical Scripture. For a like reason, he turns from the tradition or legend of the dispute of Michael and Satan about the body of Moses (Jude, verse 9), and so generalises the statement that it more naturally refers to the history of Joshua the son of Jozedek, in Zech. iii. 1—5, and does not reproduce the quotation from the Book of Enoch (Jude, verse 14), which might have seemed so well suited to his purpose. With the characteristic tendency, shewn in the First Epistle, to dwell on the history of Noah, he adds that to the list of St Jude's

warning examples (2 Pet. ii. 5). He expands the few words in which St Jude speaks of the "mockers" of the last days (Jude, verse 18), so as to bring before his readers the special form of mockery of which he had heard as current among them (2 Pet. iii. 1-10).

On these grounds then, (1) of an adequate amount of agreement as to thought and language between the two Epistles, and (2) of an adequate explanation of the differences that must be admitted to present themselves on a comparison, I am disposed to think that there is enough to turn the scale in favour of the later acceptance of the Second Epistle by the Church at large, as against the earlier doubts. It may be added finally, that these doubts themselves, and the consequent delay in the acceptance, were what might have been expected under the circumstances of the case. A time of persecution necessarily interrupted the free communication of one Church with another. It was not easy for an encyclical letter to be read publicly in the meetings of the Churches to which it was addressed, when those meetings could not be held without the danger of violence and outrage. Nor must we forget that the false teachers who were condemned by the Epistle had an interest in suppressing it as far as that suppression lay within their power. They would disclaim its authority. It would not be strange that they should throw doubts on its authorship, and that those doubts should gain a certain degree of currency and be reproduced even by those who had not the same motive for suggesting them.

It remains that we should give a short outline of the contents of the Epistle.

ANALYSIS OF THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST PETER.

Chap. I. The Apostle addresses those in the Asiatic Churches who were sharers with him in the same precious faith (1, 2). On the strength of God's gracious gifts to them, he calls on them to go on, in the might of God's promises and their fellowship in the Divine Nature, from one grace of character to another (3-7). Such progress is the condition of knowledge. Without it there is mental blindness and short

sightedness (8, 9), and they cannot make their calling and election sure (10, 11). The sense of this dependence of knowledge on practice makes the writer anxious to remind them of what they already knew. Life was passing away, and the end would come quickly; and therefore he would not delay to provide for his departure (12-15). He could speak with full confidence, for he had seen the excellent glory and heard the voice from Heaven on the Holy Mount (16—18). But even a surer attestation than that was to be found in the abiding presence of the Prophetic Word, the same now as it was of old, making the words of the men of God not their own words, but those of the Holy Ghost (19-21). Chap. II. As there had been false prophets before, so are there false teachers now, denying the Lord that bought them, making proselytes as a means of gain (1—3). The history of the past shews that God's judgment is against such men. They shall perish as the angels that sinned did; as did the world of the ungodly in the Flood; as did the cities of the Plain (4-8). Yet in each of these cases those that remained faithful were saved, and so shall it be now (9). The vices that most characterised these false teachers were their impurity, their selfassertion, their railing, their wanton and luxurious living, their covetousness (10-14), reproducing in all these points the character of Balaam (15, 16). Waterless wells and tempest-driven clouds, these were the fit symbols of these boasters of liberty who were slaves of corruption (17-19). Whatever knowledge they had once had of Christ did but aggravate their guilt, and their last days were worse than the first. It had been better for them never to have known the truth than to have known it and then returned, like the unclean beasts of the proverb, to their uncleanness (20-22).

Chap. III. The Apostle, reminding his readers of his previous letter, bids them keep in remembrance what they had heard from the Apostles and prophets of the Church as to the Coming of the Lord (1, 2). They would meet scoffers who taunted them with the delay of that Coming (3, 4). They would do well to remember that the world had perished once before by water (5, 6), and therefore that it was not impossible that it might be destroyed hereafter by fire (5—7). Whatever delay there might be was but the proof of the long-suffering of God, with whom a thousand years were as one day, giving men more time for repentance (8, 9). Sooner or later the end will come, but it will not be one of mere destruction, but will usher in the new heaven and the new