you, after my departure, may always hold these things in your memory." All which seems to imply an anticipated death, of which he was reminded by the course of natural decay, and by the remembrance of the parting prophecy of his Master, and not by anything very imminently dangerous or threatening in his external circumstances, at the time of writing. This was the last important work of his adventurous and devoted life; and his allusions to the solemn scenes of future judgment were therefore most solemnly appropriate. Those to whom he wrote could expect to see his face no more, and his whole epistle is in a strain accordant with these circumstances, dwelling particularly on the awful realities of a coming day of doom.
The first epistle of Peter has always been received as authentic, ever since the apostolic writings were first collected, nor has there ever been a single doubt expressed by any theologian, that it was what it pretended to be; but in regard to the epistle just mentioned as his second, and now commonly so received, there has been as much earnest discussion as concerning any other book in the sacred canon, excepting, perhaps, the epistle to the Hebrews and John's Revelation. The weight of historical testimony is certainly rather against its authenticity, since all the early Fathers who explicitly mention it, speak of it as a work of very doubtful character. In the first list of the sacred writings that is recorded, this is not put among those generally acknowledged as of divine authority, but among those whose truth was disputed. Still, quotations from it are found in the writings of the Fathers, in the first, second and third centuries, by whom it is mentioned approvingly, although not specified as inspired or of divine authority. But even as late as the end of the fourth century there were still many who denied it to be Peter's, on account of supposed differences of style observable between this and the former epistle, which was acknowledged to be his. The Syrian Christians continued to reject it from their canon for some time after; for in the old Syriac version, executed as early as A. D. 200, this alone, of all books that are now considered a part of the New Testament, is not contained, though it was regarded by many among them as a good book, and is quoted in the writings of one of the Syrian Fathers, with respect. After this period, however, these objections were soon forgotten, and from the fifth century downwards, it has been universally adopted into the authentic canon, and regarded with that reverence which its internal evidences of
