THE FAMILY EXPOSITOR; OR, A PARAPHRASE ON THE SECOND CATHOLIC EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE PETER; WITH CRITICAL NOTES, AND A PRACTICAL IMPROVEMENT A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE PARAPHRASE AND NOTES ON THE SECOND CATHOLIC EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. THERE were some in the primitive church, who called in question the genuineness and authority of this epistle, though it expressly claims St. Peter for its author, and contains very strong internal characters of its authenticity. But this being no proper or convenient place to enter largely into the argument, if any are desirous of seeing it truly and accurately represented, as far as it depends upon the testimonies of the Christian fathers, they may consult the second part of Dr. Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel History. As to the internal evidence, there are some general observations, which having made already in the Introduction to the epistle of James, I think it unnecessary to repeat, though they are very applicable to the present occasion. But it is fit to observe, in particular, that the author of this epistle hath some allusions or appeals to facts and circumstances as relative to himself, which evidently refer to St. Peter; and that besides, there is a remarkable coincidence between the sentiments of this and of the former epistle; insomuch that it is extremely probable, it was the production of the same author, intending to confirm the doctrine he had already advanced, in opposition to the scruples of honest men, and the objections of designing ones. St. Jerom, acquainting us with the dispute which had been raised concerning the author and authority of this epistle, informs us at the same time, that it was owing to a remarkable difference of style, in this and the former unquestionably genuine epistle of St. Peter. But the truth is, there is, properly speaking, no difference of style between the two epistles, but only between the former epistle, and a part of this, namely, the second chapter; which indeed is as different from the style of the remainder of this, as it is from that of the whole former epistle. The fact therefore seems to be; (as the learned bishop of London, Dr. Sherlock, supposes, in his first dissertation, at the end of his discourses on prophecy, which is well worth the reader's perusal ;) I say, the fact seems to be, that the apostle in the second chapter of this epistle, describing the character of such seducers and false teachers, as endangered the faith of the Christian converts, adopts the language and sentiments of some Jewish author, containing a very strong description, in the eastern manner, of the character and conduct of some false prophets of that, or earlier ages. And as St. Jude hath likewise described these false teachers as well as St. Peter, and there is a remarkable similitude in some respects, and variation in others, between the account of these two apostles, it appears extremely probable, that they both took the principal features of their descriptions from the same author. And if this be a just account, the foundation of all the doubts concerning the genuineness of this epistle, is exceeding feeble; and no other reasonable conclusion can be drawn from them, except the singular caution of the primitive Christians, what writings they honoured with the veneration due to the oracles of God. This epistle was very probably written about the year 67; which was six years after the date of the former. For the apostle speaks of his death as very near at hand: I think it meet, saith he, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance : knowing that shortly I |