with the other Scriptures (Hist.  Eccl., 3. 3); that among the writings which are disputed, yet known to many, are the epistles current as those of James and Jude, and the second epistle of Peter (Hist.  Eccl., 3. 25).

Jerome says that Peter “wrote two epistles that are called catholic, of which the second is denied by most persons on account of its disagreement in style with the first.”  Scrip.  Eccl., 1.  But he himself received the epistle, and explained the difference in style and character and structure of words by the assumption that Peter used different interpreters in the composition of the two epistles (Epist. 120 ad Hedib., chap. 11); and from his time onward the epistle was generally regarded as a part of the New Testament.

The reader who wishes to investigate farther the question of external testimonies will find them all given in Davidson’s Introduct. to New Test.; and Alford’s Commentary, Introduction to 2 Peter.  We simply repeat the remark already made (Chap. 6, No. 3) that although the universal and undisputed reception of a book by all the early churches cannot be explained except on the assumption of its genuineness, its non-reception by some is no conclusive argument against it.  It may have remained (as seems to have been peculiarly the case with some of the catholic epistles) for a considerable period in obscurity.  When it began to be more extensively known, the general reception and use of it would be a slow process both from the difficulty of communication in ancient as compared with modern times, and especially from the slowness and hesitancy with which the churches of one region received anything new that came from another region.  Chap. 2, No. 5.  Jerome does indeed mention the objection from the difference of style between this epistle and the first of Peter; but it is doubtful whether in this matter he speaks for the early churches generally.  The obscurity in which the epistle had remained, partly at least because it was not addressed to the guardianship of any particular church, seems to have been the chief ground of doubt.

The internal testimony for and against the genuineness of this epistle has been discussed at great length by many writers.  The reader will find good summaries of them in the two works above referred to, also in the critical commentaries generally and the modern Bible dictionaries.  If one would come to true results in this field of investigation it is important that he begin with true principles.  There are what may be called staple peculiarities, which mark the style of one writer as compared with that of another—­that of John, for example, in contrast with that of Paul.  We cannot conceive of these as being wanting.  But then we must allow to one and the same writer a considerable range of variation in style and diction, dependent partly on difference of subject matter, and partly on varying frames of mind of