But we can go farther, and show on very probable grounds that this was indeed the case.

The very beginning of the second chapter of this second epistle shows that St. Peter had the image of some ancient false prophets before him, in describing the false teachers of his own time: There were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you:' verse 1. If you consider the character he gives of these false teachers, it will appear to be drawn from the description of the old false prophets: such they are,' he tells us, 'as have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam, the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness' verse 15. A very natural thought this, and to be expected in a description of false prophets made by an ancient Jewish writer; but such a one as hardly would have occurred in an original description of the false teachers under the gospel. St. Jude has this comparison, and others of the same kind joined with it: They have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam, and perished in the gainsaying of Core:' verse 11. These are antique figures, and discover the age to which they belong and St. Jude tells us plainly that these false teachers were τáλαι жργεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα, 'described' or 'set forth of old for this condemnation;' and it is very likely that both St. Peter and he had the old description before them, when they gave the character of the false teachers of their own times. St. Jude's epistle is so like the second chapter of St. Peter's second epistle, the figures and images in both are so much the same, as likewise the ancient examples and instances made use of, that it has been commonly thought that St. Jude copied after St. Peter's epistle; and yet the turn of words and expressions are so different; the choice of matter likewise is in part so different, some things being mentioned in one and omitted in the other; that it is much more probable that both copied from the same original, and drew from it according to their own judgments. I will give some instances of this, and leave the rest to the reader's own examination :

St. Peter. Ver. 4. Εἰ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς ἀγγέ λων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλὰ σειραῖς Σόφου ταρταρώσας παρέδωκεν εἰς κρίσιν τετηρημένους.

Ver. 6. Πόλεις Σοδόμων καὶ Γομόρρας τεφρώσας καταστροφή κατέκρινεν, ὑπόδειγμα μελλόντων ἀσεβεῖν τεθεικώς.

Ver. 11. "Αγγελοι ἰσχύϊ καὶ δυνάμει μείζονες ὄντες, οὐ φέρωσι κατ' αὐτῶν παρὰ Κυρίῳ βλάσφημον κρίσιν.

St. Jude.

Ver. 6. 'Αγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν, ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον, εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέ ρας, δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν.

Ver. 7. Ὡς Σόδομα και Γό μοῤῥα, καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις, τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις τρόπον ἐκπορνεύσασαι, καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας.

Ver. 9. Ὁ δὲ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος, ὅτε τῷ διαβόλῳ διακρινόμενος διελέγετο περὶ του Μωσέως σώματος, κ. τ. λ.

St. Peter speaks of the angels that sinned; St. Jude gives an account of their sin, that they kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation.' This account of the angels' sin

is no where else to be found in Scripture, but was, if I may guess, in the old book from which St. Jude transcribed; for it is very unlikely that he should add these circumstances, if he had only St. Peter's ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων before him. The very same difference may be observed in setting forth the example of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is common to both epistles St. Peter speaks only of their judgment and of their being made an example to sinners; St. Jude adds an account of their crime and though as far as the two epistles agree in respect to this instance, the images and ideas are the same, yet the turn of expression is very different. Again, St. Peter, verse 11. in reproof of the presumptuous and self-willed, who speak evil of dignities,' says, that angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusations against them before the Lord;' but here St. Jude has given us the history to which this belongs: Michael the archangel, when contending with the Devil about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the Lord rebuke thee : verse 9. These instances show that St. Jude did not merely

copy from St. Peter, but had recourse to the original itself, where these instances stood recorded, and took from thence such circumstances as he thought proper to set these examples in their full light.

If we compare the different manners of expressing the same thing in the two epistles, we shall hardly imagine that St. Peter and St. Jude had the same language before them to transcribe it is much more probable that they both translated from some old Hebrew book; which will account for the difference of language between them, and the great agreement in their images and ideas. The following instances will make my meaning plain :

2 Peter ii.

Ver. 6. Καὶ πόλεις Σοδόμων καὶ Γομόρρας τεφρώσας καταστροφῇ κατέκρινεν, ὑπόδειγμα μελλόντων ἀσεβεῖν τεθεικώς.

Ver. 10. Μάλιστα δὲ τοὺς ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασ μοῦ πορευομένους, καὶ κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας. Τολμηταί, αὐθάδεις, δόξας οὐ τρέμουσι βλασ φημοῦντες.

Ver. 12. Οὗτοι δὲ, ὡς ἄλογα ζῶα, φυσικά, γεγεννημένα εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ φθοράν, ἐν οἷς ἀγ νοοῦσι βλασφημοῦντες, ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν καταφθαρήσονται.

St. Jude.

Ver. 7. Ὡς Σόδομα και Γό μοῤῥα κ. τ. λ. πρόκεινται δεῖγ μα, πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχου

σαι.

Ver. 3. Ομοίως μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσι, κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσι, δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσι.

Ver. 10. Οὗτοι δὲ ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασι βλασφημοῦσιν· ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς, ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα, ἐπίστανται, ἐν τούτοις φθείρον

ται.

In these instances the language of St. Jude is much plainer and simpler than St. Peter's, and represents the meaning common to both espistles much more intelligibly; and whoever will be at the pains to examine the two epistles carefully, will find more instances of this kind, where the sentiments and notions are the same, and the manners of expression very different. Whence can proceed this agreement and disagreement at once? Had one transcribed the other, or had both copied from the same Greek author, the language of one epistle would

probably have answered more nearly to the language of the other; and yet the sentiments and notions of the two epistles are so much the same, that we must needs suppose the two writers to follow one and the same copy; and if we suppose this copy to have been in the Jewish language, and that each writer translated for himself, this will answer the whole appearance, and account as well for their difference as their agreement. The difference which appears in the parallel places last quoted, may indeed be accounted for on the supposition that St. Jude transcribed from St. Peter. He might intend perhaps to make plain the abstruse passages, and to that end might make choice of a plainer way of expressing himself. But the former passages cannot be thus accounted for, which will appear if we consider farther:

That the subject matter common to these two epistles was without doubt taken from some old Jewish author by one or both of these writers. That St. Jude had the old book before him, and did not merely copy after St. Peter, is evident; for he expressly quotes Enoch, meaning either a book under that name and title, or, which is more probable, some ancient book of Jewish traditions, in which some prophecies of Enoch were recorded. St. Jude, by telling us whence he had his description of the false prophets, has informed us at the same time whence St. Peter had the materials of the second chapter of his second epistle; which is the very same description, with such varieties as have already been observed. It is very remarkable, that notwithstanding this great agreement between the two epistles, St. Peter has an instance not to be found in St. Jude; and St. Jude has another not to be found in St. Peter. Jude quotes the prophecy of Enoch, of which St. Peter says nothing; St. Peter refers to the preaching of Noah, of which St. Jude says nothing. Supposing one to be a mere transcriber of the other, it is hard to account for this variation ; especially considering that the preaching referred to by St. Peter under the name of Noah, and the prophecy referred to by St. Jude under the name of Enoch, relate to one and the same thing, the destruction of the old world. But if you will suppose both Apostles to use an ancient Jewish book, in which the prophecies of Enoch and Noah relating to the flood were

St.

recorded, it is easy to account for the reference to Noah by St. Peter, to Enoch by St. Jude.

This may serve to account for the different styles in St. Peter's two epistles observed of old: I add, and for the difference of style in the second epistle itself; for the style of the second chapter is no more like to that of the other two, than it is to that of the first epistle. When a man expresses his own sentiments, he writes in his own proper style, be it what it will; but when he translates from another, he naturally follows the genius of the original, and adopts the figures and metaphors of the author before him. The eastern languages abound in high swelling ways of expression; and you may find in this one chapter of St. Peter more resemblance of this manner than in any other part of the New Testament; which is a farther confirmation of the account I have given.

But if this will help to clear one difficulty, will it not necessarily subject this second epistle of St. Peter to another? It is an old objection against the authority of St. Jude's epistle that he quotes the spurious book of Enoch; and for this very reason his epistle was placed among the ἀντιλεγομένα, οι doubtful, by the ancients. And is not Peter's second epistle become liable to the very same charge?

I will not trouble the reader with a long account, or any account of the spurious book under the name of Enoch, which made a very early appearance in the Christian church, and is quoted by Irenæus, Origen, and others about the same time. Whoever pleases to know the state of this book, may consult Fabricius in his Codex Pseud. Vet. Test. But,

It is no wonder that some ancient Christians, who took it for granted that St. Jude quoted the same book which they had under the name of Enoch, made it an objection against the authority of his epistle; for this book Enoch was a mere romance, and full of the idle inventions of some Hellenistic

* Judas frater Jacobi parvam, quæ de septem catholicis est, epistolam reliquit. Et quia de libro Enoch, qui apocryphus est, in ea assumit testimonium, à plerisque rejicitur. Tamen auctoritatem vetustate jam et usu meruit, et inter sanctas Scripturas comparatur. Hieron. Catalog. Script. Eccl.