connexion shows the sentiment to be, Revere and

trust in Christ, as your refuge from the malice and injuries of men.' The passage is a citation from the Old Testament,18 there spoken of Jehovah; and in another part of this Epistle of Peter, as also in that of Paul to the Romans, applied to Christ.19

IV. "Symeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus "Christ, unto those who have obtained a faith equally "valuable with ours, in the righteousness of our God "and Saviour Jesus Christ.—" 20

18 See Vol. I. pp. 371–377. 19 Chap. ii. 1. Rom. ix. 33. 20 2 Pet. i. 1. Though Pott, as might be expected, prefers the separated form, he deems the construction so doubtful, that he thinks it incumbent upon him to print the text without any punctuation.

If the authority of this Second Epistle should be questioned by any of my readers, I beg their attention to Pott's Prolegomena, and to the following observations with which Bertholdt concludes his long and exact examination of the question. "About the middle of the fourth century, this Epistle, together with the other (antilegomena) books which had been doubted," [James, Jude, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation,] was received into the N. T. Canon. The grounds on which that general reception rested, are indeed to us unknown; but, in a period when so many parties among Christians were maintaining the bitterest contentions against each other, it would have been impossible, without raising up contradiction and opposition, to effect the admission as genuine of those books, and among them this Second Epistle of Peter. We are therefore now justified in maintaining the position: for, though we cannot adduce many positive grounds for the genuineness of this Epistle, yet, as Simon Peter is named in the inscription as its author, as he is several times notified in its context, and as the reasons which have been alleged against its genuineness are destitute of all validity, I must declare my concurrence with Nitzsche, Pott, Storr, Augusti, Dahl, Flatt, and others, in declaring Peter to have been really the author of this Epistle." Einleitung, vol. vi. p. 3123.

De Wette, the celebrated Antisupernaturalist, formerly of Berlin, now of Basle, has published (Lehrbuch der Einleit. in d. N. T. Berlin, 1826, p. 327,) his strong inclination, at least, to the negative; and no man is better qualified to urge objections with plausibility

That, in the just construction of this passage, the words God and Saviour refer to the same object, has been observed by many interpreters both ancient and recent, and cannot but be known to any one who is but moderately versed in Greek. This observation has, within the last twenty years been urged with great force by Mr. Granville Sharp, by Dean Wordsworth, and by Dr. Middleton, the first Bishop of Calcutta." The Calm Inquirer treats it and force but it appears to me that he adopts a wrong principle with regard to the nature and application of internal evidence ; making or exaggerating difficulties, under that head of consideration, which are either destitute of foundation, or are capable of being satisfactorily accounted for; and then arguing from dubious premises with a very unwarrantable confidence.

Dr. Olshausen has a long and learned Dissertation on this question, of which a translation, by the Rev. B. B. Edwards, is given in the Biblical Repository, vol. viii. pp. 88-146, 342-373. The affirmative evidence appears to me sufficient to satisfy every reasonable mind; though, as an exhibition of the German temperament, the author at last sits down oppressed by some morbid hesitation. "We affirm this only, that the spuriousness of the Epistle cannot be shown by convincing arguments, in the manner that the genuineness of the Gospels and other books of the N. T. may be satisfactorily established, even in the view of an unfriendly critic, by witnesses and documents in all respects worthy of credit." In fact, he too much yields to difficulties, though the positive evidence far outweighs them; and there are cases, in philological criticism as well as natural science, in which difficulties appear, according to our present knowledge, insolvable, but the proofs of fact stand undeniable.

21 Sharp's Remarks on the Use of the Definite Article in the N.T. Third ed. 1803. Wordsworth's Six Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq. 1802. Middleton's Doctrine of the Greek Article, pp. 81-94, &c. 1808. On the other side are, Six more Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq. under the burlesque name of Gregory Blunt, Esq. 1803; a work distinguished for its unbecoming levity, and its sarcastic insolence to one of the worthiest and most amiable of men: Winstanley's Vindication of Certain Passages of the Common Version, &c. 1807 : and an able and learned, but to my humble apprehension, very far

with high disdain, and he utters the grossly unjust insinuation, that this is the last hold of those who maintain the Deity of Christ.22

But after all that has been advanced by the learned and adroit writers who have exerted their talents to decry this argument, they cannot deny that the construction pleaded for is according to the regular and proper use of the language; and that the instances of deviation from it which their industry has brought forwards, are exceptions from the ordinary course, and are of rare occurrence. Dr. Middleton contends that all the exceptions are such in appearance only, and may be accounted for on principles, not assumed to serve the purpose, but rational and necessary. This position, his opponents, of course, labour to overthrow. Yet a gentleman who has a right to be esteemed among the most learned of the Unitarians does not scruple to declare, that this "Doctrine of the Greek Article maintains its triumphs unopposed, and that nothing has yet been done with effect against it:" and that learned writer further says; "Affectation of contempt for the argument has been assumed; but it is evidently assumed for want of better resource, and never has affectation been more misplaced."23

from impartial and convincing, critique on Bishop Middleton's book in the Monthly Review, May, June, July, and August, 1810, vol. lxii. N. S.

22 Page 230.

23 Dr. Charles Lloydd, in the Monthly Repository, May, 1816. Though Dr. Lloydd admits the soundness of the doctrine itself, on the use of the article, he assures us that he can demonstrate the application of it to the proof of the Deity of Christ, to be erroneous. For private reasons, however, which are satisfactory to his own mind,

Without taking upon myself to profess the removal of all the difficulties which hang upon this question, (though, indeed, they are of no very formidable kind,) I feel it to be consonant with candour and the strictest truth to assert, that the ordinary, just, and unbiassed construction of this and some similar passages produces the interpretation which I have adopted; that, had this been a case in which theological controversy was not concerned, it is morally certain that no person would ever have disputed the construction, or wished to change it; that the only semblance of argument which has been yet brought against it, proceeds on the assumption that, in this application, it would express a falsehood, an impossibility-an assumption which I humbly think a just antagonist would not make, and which can only arise in any upright mind from that vulgar misconception of the doctrine under consideration, which regards it as a humanizing of the Deity or a deifying of the humanity; and, therefore, that this construction he has hitherto declined to give the public an opportunity of judging what force may be in his arguments.

The Monthly Repos. Reviewer perhaps possesses a knowledge of Dr. Lloydd's prescription. While he admits the general validity of the Rule, he conceives that all the cases (which will be treated as they occur,) come into an excepted class: "Words which are, strictly speaking, attributives, when frequently applied to an individual person or object eminently possessing the attribute, may become truly of the nature of names of substances and proper names, and so may be excluded from the operation of the rule." P. 84. To my apprehension, the ground pleaded for this exemption is not proved. I intreat every competent and impartial scholar to give his attention to the question; and I especially request his study of Bishop Middleton's Chap. III. § iv. 2, and Chap. IV. I request also attention to what may be offered upon this question in subsequent parts of this Volume, referring to passages of the Apostle Paul.

of the clause is entitled to great attention, as a collateral argument, and in unison with the many direct evidences in favour of the doctrine.

It is scarcely necessary to remind the reader, that in verse 2, where a distinction of persons is intended, the article is repeated; "The knowledge of God, "and of Jesus our Lord:"24 but that, in verse 11, where such a distinction is not intended, the article is omitted, according to the well-known and undeniable rule: "The eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour, "Jesus Christ."25

V. " Among you there will be false teachers, who "will artfully bring in destructive opinions, even denying Him that redeemed them to be the So'vereign, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." -Ungodly men, perverting the grace of our God "into impurity, and denying our only Sovereign and "Lord Jesus Christ."26

66

24 Εν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ̓Ιησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν.

25 Τὴν αἰώνιον βασιλείαν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ Σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

26

Chap. ii. 1. It seems to be, at least, the probable construction to take τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς to designate the subject, and δεσπότην to be the predicate, elva being understood, as it is very often. Jude 4. Oɛov, God, is omitted from what appears sufficient evidence. See Griesbach, Vater, and Scholz. Yet the word is found in the Syriac, which Version, however, of this Ep., and 2 Pet., 2 and 3 John, and Rev., is not earlier than the sixth century. A more important authority is a passage in the Synodical Epistle, written A. D. 269, relative to Paul of Samosata; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 30. There Firmilian is said to have been deceived (ὑπ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ καὶ τὸν Θεὸν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ Κύριον αρνουμένου) “ by him who had denied his own God and Lord." The allusion to Jude 4, is probable; but we cannot say, certain. Dr. Routh regards this passage as affording some support to the common reading; as he does also the phrase of Caius (who flourished at the beginning of the third century,) or some