truth and genuineness so amply justify. Indeed, it is on its internal evidence, almost entirely, that its great defense must be founded,—since the historical testimonies, (by common confession of theologians,) will not afford that satisfaction to the investigator, which is desirable on subjects of this nature; and though ancient usage and its long-established possession of a place in the inspired code may be called up in its support, still there will be occasion for the aid of internal reasons, to maintain a positive decision as to its authenticity. And this sort of evidence, an examination by the rigid standards of modern critical theology proves abundantly sufficient for the effort to which it is summoned; for though it has been said, that since the ancients themselves were in doubt, the moderns cannot expect to arrive at certainty, because it is impossible to get more historical information on the subject, in the nineteenth century, than ecclesiastical writers had within reach in the third and fourth centuries; still, when the question of the authenticity of the work is to be decided by an examination of its contents, the means of ascertaining the truth are by no means proportioned to the antiquity of the criticism. In the early ages of Christianity, the science of faithfully investigating truth hardly had an existence; and such has been the progress of improvement in this department of knowledge, under the labors of modern theologians, that the writers of the nineteenth century may justly be considered as possessed of far more extensive and certain means of settling the character of this epistle by internal evidence, than were within the knowledge of those Christian fathers who lived fourteen hundred years ago. The great objection against the epistle in the fourth century, was an alleged dissimilarity of style between this and the former epistle. Now, there can be no doubt whatever that modern Biblical scholars have vastly greater means for judging of a rhetorical question of this kind, than the Christian fathers of the fourth century, of whom those who were Grecians were really less scientifically acquainted with their own language, and no more qualified for a comparison of this kind, than those who live in an age when the principles of criticism are so much better understood. With all these superior lights, the results of the most accurate modern investigations have been decidedly favorable to the authenticity of the second epistle ascribed to Peter, and the most rigid comparisons of its style with that of the former, have brought out proofs triumphantly satisfactory of its identity of origin with that,—proofs
