698 PETER all (c. ii.); and it reasserts the reality of the Second Coming, resting it upon the reality of the supernatural evidence of the First Coming (i. 16-18). The correspondence between this epistle, especially c. ii., and that of Jude is too strong to be a mere coincidence. It was at one time supposed to be the original which Jude imitated (so Semler and Michaelis, and more recently Luthardt and Hofmann), but the preponderance of opinion in modern times is in favour of the opposite view (not only by those who question the authenticity of this epistle but by some also of those who maintain it, e.g., Weiss). A leading argument in favour of the latter hypothesis is that 2 Peter ii. 13-17 is an amplification (and some main tain also a misapplication) of Jude 11, 12, and that 2 Peter ii. 11 requires Jude 9 for its explanation. An equally well marked correspondence has recently been pointed out between this epistle and Josephus, and the balance of prob ability is in favour of the priority of the latter. 1 The differences of style which distinguish the second from the first epistle have been noted since the time of Jerome (De Vir. Illustr., c. 1, and Eput. ad Hedib., c. 11). They are sometimes explained on the ground of the epistles having had different purposes, or having been written at different times ; they are more commonly used as indica tions of a difference of authorship ; and, although the argu ment from differences of style in comparatively short documents cannot be held to be decisive where the external evidence in their favour is strong, such is not the case with this epistle. The external evidence for it is singularly weak ; there are no certain traces of it earlier than the 3d century, when Origen (ap. Euseb., //. E., vi. 25), who is the first to mention it, also mentions that it was questioned. It is not included in either the Muratorian Fragment or the Peshito-Syriac (though it is in the later Philoxenian). Eusebius (//. E., iii. 3) ranks it among the disputed books (antileyomeiKi), and Jerome, although he included it in his translation (which fact probably accounts for its general acceptance in the Western churches), mentions that many rejected it. These doubts of early writers, which were revived by Erasmus and Calvin, have been shared by a large proportion of those who have written on the book in modern times ; at the same time it cannot be said that there is a consensus of opinion against it. The best editions of both the epistles are those in the comment aries of De Wette and Meyer, as revised the former by Bruckner and the latter by Huther (this has been translated, with the rest of Meyer s Commentary, into English) ; there is a convenient short English commentary by Dean Plurnptre in the Cambridge Bible for Schools. For the doctrinal and other questions which arise out of the two epistles reference may be made, in addition to the works mentioned in the course of the article, to Weiss, "Die petrinische Frage," in Stitd. u. Krit., 1865, p. 619; Grimm, "Das Problem d. ersten Petrusbr.," ibid., 1872, p. 657; Schmid, New Tes- Cament Theology, translated in Clark s Foreign Theological Library ; Messner, Die Lehreder Apostd, 1856; Farrar, Early Days of Christ ianity, vol. i. pp. 121, 174 ; and Sieffert, s,v. "Petrus," in Herzog- Plitt s Real-Eiicyklopadie, 2d ed. vol. xi. (E. HA.) PETER OF BLOIS, otherwise known as PETRUS BLESENSIS, a writer of the 12th century, was born at Blois in France about the year 1 1 20. He studied theology at Paris, where one of his teachers was John of Salisbury, who exercised a considerable influence over him ; he afterwards resided for .some time as a student of law at Bologna. He was then appointed preceptor to William II. of Sicily, and in 1167 made keeper of the privy seal (sigillifer) ; political occur rences, however, compelled his return in the following year to France, whence he was invited into England by Henry II., who made him his private secretary. About 1176 he withdrew from court and entered the household of Richard, archbishop of Canterbury, whose chancellor he became. 1 Abbott, in the Expositor, 1882, p. 49, and Farrar, The Early Days of Christianity, vol. i. p. 190. This office he also held under Baldwin, Richard s successor, by whom he was sent to Rome in 1187 to support his cause in the controversy with the monks of Canterbury. Peter died about 1200. His writings, which cover all the fields of intellectual activity then accessible, show him to have been one of the most widely and deeply learned men of his age. They include a number of allegorizing sermons and edifying tracts, a hortatory address, De Jeresolymitana peregrinatione accclcranda, a discourse Contra pc.r- fidiam Judfeorum, and, most interesting for its bearing on the political and ecclesiastical history of his time, a collection of 183 letters to Henry II., as well as to various popes, prelates, and scholars, including his old master John of Salisbury. The best edition of his works is that of Pierre de Goussaiuville, Paris, 1667, fol. PETER THE HERMIT, the apostle of the first crusade, Avas born of good family, it is supposed, in the diocese of Amiens about the year 1050. His early history is obscure, but he appears to have seen some military service under the counts of Boulogne before his withdrawal from the world as a hermit. His crusading zeal originated in a pilgrimage he made to the Holy Sepulchre shortly before 1094, in which year he began to preach in the transalpine countries the immediate deliverance of Jerusalem from the infidel (see CRUSADES, vol. vi. p. 623 s<j.). After the failure of the expedition headed by him in 1096, he founded and became first prior of the abbey of Neuf- moustier at Huy in the diocese of Liege, where he died on 7th July 1115. PETER I., ALEXEIEVICH, surnamed THE GREAT (1672- 1725), czar of Russia, was born at Moscow on llth June 1672. His mother, Natalia Xarishkina, was the second wife of the czar Alexis. He was taught reading and writing, and the limited range of subjects which then con stituted education in Russia, by the deacon Nikita Zotoff. He came to the throne in the year 1682, on the death of his elder brother Feodore ; there was another brother, Ivan, who was six years his senior, but he was weak both in body and mind. Feodore therefore had wished Peter to succeed him, but Sophia, his sister, a woman of strong character and great ambition, was desirous that Ivan should rule, so that she might be proclaimed regent and in reality exercise the sovereignty. She therefore fomented a revolt of the " streltzi," or native militia, and the result was a compromise, whereby Ivan and Peter were to reign jointly. On the death of Ivan in 1696 Peter became sole ruler, and punished Sophia by incarcerating her for life in the Devichi monastery, where she died in 1704. With the aid of Lefort, a Swiss adventurer, and other foreigners, Peter commenced his remarkable reforms, for which see RUSSIA. Here nothing more than a brief sum mary of the leading events of his life is given. In the year 1696 he besieged and took Azoff, his great object being to give Russia a seaboard. In 1697 he made his first Continental tour, on which occasion he worked at the dockyards of Zaandam and Deptford. On leaving Eng land he took with him many ingenious men who wished to try their fortunes in a new country, among them Perry the engineer, who has left us an interesting account of Russia at that time. From England Peter went to Vienna, w r here he studied the tactics of the imperial army, then enjoying a great reputation throughout Europe, and w r as meditating a visit to Italy when he heard of a revolt of the streltzi, fomented by the partisans of the old regime, in consequence of which he hurried back to Moscow, and on his arrival punished the rebels with the greatest severity. In the year 1700 he joined Poland and Denmark against Sweden. Although defeated at Narva the same year, he pursued his plans unremittingly, and in 1709 won the battle of Poltava, after which Charles, the Swedish king, became a fugitive in Turkey. In 1703 the foundations of St Petersburg were laid. Peter had married in 1689
