PETER
754
PETER
for all the moral exhortations in the body of the
Kpistle. The body of the Epistle may be divided into-
three sections: (a) exhortation to a tmly Cliristiuu
life (i, 13-ii, 10), wlien-in Peter successively exhorts
his readers to holiness in general (13-21), to fraternal
charity in particular (i, 22-ii, 1), to love and desire
of the true doctrine; thus they shall be living stones
in the spiritual house of which Christ is the corner-
stone, they shall be the royal priesthood and the
chosen people of the Lord (2-10). (b) Rules of con-
duct for Christians living among pagans, especially
in time of persecution (ii, 11-v, 19). Let their conduct
be such that the infidels themselves shall he edified
and cease to speak evil of the Christians (11-12).
This general principle is applied in detail in the ex-
hortations relating to obedience to civil rulers (13-17),
the duties of slaves to their masters (18-25), the
mutual duties of husband and wife (iii, 1-7). With
regard to those who, not having the same faith, calum-
niate and persecute the Christians, the latter should
return good for evil, according to the example of
Christ, who though innocent suffered for us, and who
preached the Gospel not only to the living, but also to
the spirits that were in prison (8-22). The Apostle
concludes by repeating his exliortation to sanctity in
general (iv, 1-6), to charity (7-11), to patience and
joy in suffering for Christ (12-19). (c) Some special
recommendations follow (v, 1-11): let the ancients
be careful to feed the flock entrusted to their keeping
(1-4); let the faithful be subject to their pastor (5a);
let all observe humility among themselves (5b) ; let
them be sober and watchful, trusting the Lord (6-11).
In the epilogue the Apostle himself declares that he has employed Sylvanus to write the letter and affirms that the Divine grace possessed by his readers is the true grace (12) ; he addresses to them the salutations of the Church in Rome and those of Mark (13), and gives them his Apostohc blessing.
Second Epistle. — A. Authenticiiy . — In the present state of the controversy over the authenticity it may be affirmed that it is solidly probable, though it is difficult to prove with certainty. (1) Extrinsic argu- ments. — (a) In the first two centuries there is not in the Apostolic Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers, if we except Theophilus of Antioch (180), a single quo- tation properly so called from this Epistle; at most there are some more or less probable allusions in their writings, e. g.,the First Epistle of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, the "Didache", St. Ignatius, the Epistle of Barnabas, the "Pastor" of Hermas, the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, the Dialogue of St. Justin with Trypho, St. Irenaeus, the Clementine "Recognitions", the Actsof Peter", etc. TheEpistle formed part of the ancient Itala, but is not in the Syriac. This proves that the Second Epistle of Peter existed and even had a certain amount of authority. But it is impossible to bring forward with certainty a single explicit testimony in favour of this authen- ticity. The Muratorian Canon presents a mutilated text of I Peter, and Zahin's suggested restoration, which seems very probable, leaves only a doubt with regard to the authenticity of the Second Epistle.
(b) In the Western Church there is no explicit tes- timony in favour of the canonicity and Apostolicity of this EpLstle until the middle of the fourth century. TertuUian and Cjiirian do not mention it, and Momm- sen's Canon (360) still bears traces of the uncertainty among the Churches of the West in this respect. The Eastern Church gave earlier testimony in its behalf. According to Eusebius and Photius, Clement of Alex- andria (d. 215) commented on it, but he seems not to have ranked it with the first. It is found in the two great Egyptian versions (Sahidic and Bohairic). It is probable that Firmilian of Cresarea used it and as- cribed it to St. Peter, as Metnodius of Olympus did explicitly. Eusebius of Ca^sarea (340), while person- ally accepting II Peter as authentic and canonical,
nevertheleijs classes it among the disputed works
{dp LXcyiixem) , at the same time affirming that it was
known by most Christ ians and studied by a large niun-
ber with the other Scriptures. In the Church of
Antioch and Syria at that period it was regarded as
of doubtful authenticity. St. John Chrysostom does
not speak of it, and it is omitted by the Peshitt o. That
the Epistle formerly accepted in that Church (Theoph-
ilus of Antioch) was not yet included in the canon
was probably due to dogmatic reasons.
(c) In the second half of the fourth century these doubts rapidly disappeared in the Chtirchrs of the East owing to the authority of ICuseldiis of C-isarea and the fifty copies of the Script uros (li.slril.ulcd by command of Constantine the tSreat. Didymus of Alexandria, St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzen, the Canon of Laodicea, all regard the letter as authentic. The addi- tion to the text of Didymus, according to which it was the work of a forger, seems to be the error of a copyist. So in the West relations with the East and the author- ity of St. Jerome finally brought about the admission of its authenticity. It was admit led to the Vulgate, and the synod convoked by Pope Damasus in 382 expressly attributes it to St. Peter.
(2) Intrinsic arguments. — If tradition does not ap- pear to furnish an apodictic argument in favour of the authenticity, an examination of the Epistle itself does. The author calls himself Simon Peter, servant and Apostle of Jesus Christ (i, 1), witness of the glorious transfiguration of Christ (i, 16-18); he recalls the prediction of His death which Christ made to him (i, 14); he calls the Apostle Paul his brother, i. e., his colleague in the Apostolate (iii, 15); and he iden- tifies himself with the author of the First Epistle. Therefore the author must necessarily be St. Peter himself or some one who wrote under his name, but nothing in the Epistle forces us to believe the latter. On the other hand there are several indications of its authenticity: the author shows himself to be a Jew, of ardent character, such as the New Testament por- trays St. Peter, while a comparison with the ideas, words, and expressions of the First Epistle affords a further argument in favour of the identity of the author. Such, at least, is the opinion of several critics.
In examining the difficulties raised against the au- thenticity of the Epistle, the following facts should be remembered: (a) This Epistle has been wrongly ac- cused of being imbued with Hellenism, from which it is even farther removed than the writings of Luke and the Epistles of Paul, (b) Likewise the false doctrines which it opposes are not the full-l)l(i\vn ( Inoisticism of the second century, but the budiling Gnosticism as opposed by St. Paul, (c) The difference which some authors claim to find between the doctrine of the two Epistles proves nothing against the authenticity; some others have even maintained that comparison of the doctrines furnishes a new argument in favour of the author's identity. Doubtless there exist undeniable differences, but is an author obliged to confine himself within the same circle of ideas? (d) The difference of style which critics have discovered between the two Epistles is an argument requiring too delicate handling to supply a certain conclusion, and here again some others have drawn from a similarity of style an argu- ment in favour of a unity of authorship. Adniitting that the manner of speaking is not the same in both Epistles, there is, nevertheless, not the slightest diffi- culty, if it be true as St. Jerome has .said (see above under First Epistle), that in the composition of the Epistles St. Peter made use of different interpreters. (e) It is also incorrect to say that this Epistle sup- poses the Epistle of St. Paul to have been already collected (iii, 15-16), for the author does not sav that he knew all the Epistles of St. Paul. That he should have regarded Paul's letters as inspired forms a
