The objections, as Jerome remarks, were based on difference of style, and we admit that there is ground for suspicion on the point. Still no doubter or impugner who placed the epistle among the avrac-Acceva gives any historical ground for his hos tility. No one of old is ever brought forward as having denied it in his own name, or in the name of any early church, to be Peter's. If the apostolic fathers do not quote it, it can only be inferred either that it was not in universal circulation, or that they had no occasion to make any use of it. Their silence would not warrant the assertion that the epistle was not in the canon during their period, and for half a century afterwards. The earliest impugners never speak of it as a book recently admitted into the canon, or admitted on insufficient evidence or authority. One objection of this nature would have been palpable and decisive. It may be added that there appears to be no probable motive for a forgery. Neither personal ambi tion nor ecclesiastical pretensions are in any way forwarded by the epistle. There is nothing in it that an apostle might not have written, nothing that comes into direct conflict with Peter's modes of thought, either as recorded in the Acts or as . • found in the first epistle. No little circumstantial evidence can be adduced in its favour, and its early appearance in the canon is an element of proof which cannot be easily turned aside.
There are points of similarity in style between it and the first epistle. The salutation in both epistles is the same, and there are peculiar words common to both, though found also in other parts of the N. T. Both epistles refer to ancient prophecy (r Pet. i. 16 • 2 Pet. i. 20, 21) ; both use dpen, as applicable to God (I Pet. ii. 9 ; 2 Pet. i. 3) ; and both have et7r6Oe•ts (I Pet. 111. 21 ; 2 Pet. 1. 14), which occurs nowhere else in the N. T. ; ewacrrpopg) is a favourite term (I Pet. i. 15, 17, 18 ; ii. 12 , iii. I, 2, 16 ; 2 Pet. ii. 7-18 ; iii. I I) ; the verb brorreliew in I Pet. ii. 12, iii. 20, corresponds to the noun ggrorrns (2 Pet. i. 16) ; the peculiar collocation dairaos scat (I Pet. i. 19) has an echo of itself (2 Pet. ii. 13 ; 14) ; grew-aural ig.14.aprias (I Pet. iv. 1) is not unlike cbcaragralicrous ey.taprias-, etc. (2 Pet. ii. 14). We have also, as in the first epistle, the intervention of several words between the article and its substantive (2 Pet. i. 4 ; ii. 7 ; iii. 2). The frequent use of EY in a quali fying clause is common to both epistles (2 Pet. i. 4 ; ii. 3 ; iii. io). The recurrence of similar terms marks the second epistle, but it is not with out all parallel in the first. Thus, 2 Pet. i. 3, 4, SeSwpgyavgis, Scii(Lpggrat ; ii. 7, 8, SiKasos, three times ; ii. 12, 00opar, 1r rg 00oki rcaracIsOapijoov rat. So, too, in 1 Pet. iii. I, 2, civaarpocbijs, dva o-rpo0) ; and ii. 17, rtgaare, rtp/.Eire, etc. Then too, as in the first epistle, there are resemblances to the speeches of Peter as given in the Acts. Comp. ill.cepa Kuplou (iii. 10) with Acts ii. 20 the phrase occurring elsewhere only in 1 Thess. v. 24 ; (i. I), with 0.axe (Acts i. 17) ; ei'icre pciav (i. 6), with Acts iii. 12 ; and docPcis (ii, 9), with Acts x. 2-7 ; tcoXa.Obelvous do. with Acts iv. 21 —an account which Peter probably furnished. We have likewise an apparent characteristic in the double gentives (2 Pet. iii. 2 ; Acts v. 32).
It is also to be borne in mind that the epistle asserts itself to have been written by the apostle Peter, and distinctly identifies its writer with the author of the first epistle—' This epistle now, a second, I write unto you, in both which I stir up' —averring also to some extent identity of purpose. It is not anonymous, like the epistle to the He. brews, but definitely claims as its author Peter the apostle. Nay, the writer affirms that he was an eye-witness of the transfiguration, and heard ' the voice from the excellent glory.' He uses, more over, two terms in speaking of this event, which belong to the account of it in the gospels ; comp. i. 13, orolvAtcars, with his own words 0701YaS rpeis ; also in 15, eEo5ov, in reference to his own death—the same wordbeing employed to denote Christ's death, rip noSov this being the theme of conver sation on the part of Moses and Elias (Luke ix. 31).
Ullmann supposes the reference in the words Siscasov Se iryoi.31.4as Sicielpew (i. 13) to be to Mark's gospel said to have been composed on Peter's authority ; but the allusion seems to be to the paragraph im mediately under his hand. It would have been a profane and daring imposture for any one to per sonate an apostle, and deliver to the churches a letter in his name, with so marked a reference to one of the most memorable circumstances and glories in the apostle's life. A forgery so glaring could make no pretence to inspiration,—to be a product of the Spirit of Truth. The inspiration of the epistle is thus bound up with the question of its authorship, so that if it is not the work of Peter it must be rejected altogether from the canon.
There are serious difficulties, however, in the way of its reception ; and these are usually said to be difference of style, difference of doctrine, and the marked correspondence of portions of the epistle with that of Jude. Yet Gaussen makes the astounding statement — ' The two epistles when carefully compared reveal more points of agreement than difference,' but he has not taken the trouble of noting them (On the Canon, p. 359). The employment of cis is different in the second epistle from the first. There, though it occurs other wise, it is generally employed in comparisons, and its frequency makes it a characteristic of the style ; but it occurs much more rarely in the second epistle, and usually, though not always, with a different meaningand purpose. The use of raXt£ after a nega tive clause and introducing a positive one, is com mon in the first epistle, and but rare in the second. There are many dire Neybaeva in the second epistle. The first and second epistles differ also in the use of Xparbs. In the first epistle X. stands in the majority of instances without the article and by itself, either simply I. X. or X. I. ; but in the second epistle it has usually some predicates attached to it (i. I, 2, 8 ; ii, 14-16). The name Bets occurs nearly forty times in the first epistle, but only seven times in the second. Again, KOp4or is applied to Christ only once in the first epistle (i. 3), but in the second epistle it is a common adjunct to other names of the Saviour. In the first epistle it means the Father in all cases but one (ii. 3), but in the second epistle it denotes the Son, in harmony with Peter's own declaration (Acts ii. 36 ; x. 36). The epithet crcanjp, so often applied to Christ in the second epistle, is not found in the first. The second coming of our Lord is also expressed differently in the two epistles, daroviXilts, or its verb, being used in the first epistle (i. 5, 7, 13 ; iv. 13; v. I) ; or it is called TO ratos (v. 7); or xp6vot laxarot (1. 20). But in the second epistle it is called ihapa xplaeon (ii. 9), vapouola (iii. 4), iyzepa. Kuplov 10), *I.J.gpa °ea (iii. 12). These are certainly marked diversities, and it is difficult to offer any explanation of them. It may, however, be replied, that with the sacred writers the divine names are not used, as with us, without any prominent or distinctive application. In the first epistle the Redeemer's names are his common ones, the fa miliar ones in the mouths of all believers—for the writer brings into prominence the oneness of be lievers with him in suffering and glory ; with him still as Jesus wearing his human name and his human nature with all its sympathies ; or as the Christ who, as the Father's servant, obeyed, suffered, and was crowned, the Spirit that anointed him still being the unction from the Holy One' to all his people. In the second epistle the writer has in view persons who are heretics, rebellious, dis solute, false teachers ; and in warning them his mind naturally looks to the authority and lordship of the Saviour, which it was so awful to contemn and so vain to oppose. If the last day be set in different colours in the two epistles, the difference may be accounted for on the same principle ; for to those suffering under trial it shines afar as the hope that sustains them, but to those who are per verse it presents itself as the time of reckoning which should alarm them into believing submis sion.