( 101 )

“ not allow the second Epistle to be Peter 's, by“ Reason of the great Disparity of Style, theMan-" net and Structure being so vastly different.

“ Which is too plain to be denied, fays Dr. Mills ."Here the Annotator has made one English Testi­ mony out of two Latin Paflages in Jerom, thatlye in different Writings of that Father. The for-mer of these is most to the Purpose, because itcontains Jerom’s own Judgment concerning thisEpistle and its Author, which therefore our Adver-sary has curtail’d, out of a Consciousness, that itmakes expresty against him. There serom fays ofthe two Epistles, Stylo inter Je & Characlere dis-crepant, they differ in Style and Manner. Butthen he does not stop here, much less does he giveup the Second Epistle on the Score of this Dispa-rity : On the other Hand, he accounts for it in sucha Manner as still supposes the Apostle Peter tohave been Author of them both. For he imme-diately adds, Ex quo intelligimus pro necessitate Re-rum diverfis eum ujiim Interpretibus. i. e. Fromwhence we perceive that the Necessity of St. Pe-ter’s Affairs required him to use different Interpre-ters in those two Epistles. Jerom therefore tookit for granted, that Peter was equally the Author of the two Epistles that go under his Name, andthat the Diversity of Style arose from the differentHands he employed to express his Sentiments inproper Greek Language. From which Rea-son our Author has taken Care entirely to con-ceal this Part from his Readers, adding only thosepopular Prejudices against the Second Epistle of St.Peter , set down by Jerom in his Catalogue ofWriters, where, as his Manner is, he barely de-livers