art of the
discussion with the following words from the same author: "Our
general conclusion from all that has preceded must be in favor
of the genuineness and canonicity of this second epistle;
acknowledging at the same time, that the subject is not without
considerable difficulty. That difficulty however is lightened
for us by observing that on the one hand, it is common to this
epistle with some others of those called catholic, and several
of the later writings of the New Testament; and on the other,
that no difference can be imagined more markedly distinctive,
than that which separates all those writings from even the
earliest and best of the post-apostolic period. Our epistle is
one of those latter fruits of the great outpouring of the Spirit
on the apostles, which, not being intrusted to the custody of
any one church or individual, required some considerable time to
become generally known; which when known, were suspected,
bearing, as they necessarily did traces of their late origin,
and notes of polemical argument; but of which as apostolic and
inspired writings, there never was, when once they became known,
any general doubt; and which, as the sacred canon became fixed,
acquired, and have since maintained, their due and providential
place among the books of the New Testament."

13. The _object_ of the present epistle is to warn believers against
being led away with the error of the wicked so as to fall from their own
steadfastness. Chap. 3:17. It contains accordingly extended notices of
the gross errors in doctrine and morals which, as we know from the New
Testament, abounded in the Christian church near the close of the
apostolic period. The second chapter, which is occupied with a vivid
description of the false teachers that had "crept in unawares" (chap.
2:1; Jude 4), is very peculiar in its contents; and its agreement with
the epistle of Jude is of such a character as leads to the inference
that the two writings are somehow connected with each other. It has been
supposed that both writers drew from a common source unknown to us. More
probable is the opinion that one of them had in view the words of the
other. A comparison of the two writings will perhaps lead to the belief
that Jude's was the original, though on this point biblical scholars
differ. It matters not to us whether, under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit, Peter em