Jew. But then there is not the least evidence that this spurious book was extant in the days of the Apostles; nor indeed any kind of proof that St. Jude quotes a book called Enoch: it is more likely that he quoted some ancient book containing the traditions of the Jewish church, which has been long since lost, and probably contained many things relating to other ancient patriarchs and prophets as well as to Enoch; the loss of which was miserably supplied by forging books under the names of the patriarchs. To this we owe the Life of Adam, the Book of Seth, the Testaments of the Patriarchs, and many others of the like nature, which were spread abroad in very early days of the church.

What the true ancient book was which St. Jude quoted, by whom penned, or what authority it had in the Jewish church, no mortal can tell this only we know, it was not among their canonical books. But let the book be supposed to have been of as little authority as you please, yet if it contained a good description of the ancient false prophets, why might not St. Peter and St. Jude make use of that description as well as St. Paul quote heathen poets? St. Peter plainly makes no other use of it, and therefore stands clear of countenancing the authority of the book: St. Jude goes farther, and quotes a prophecy out of it, as being an authentic one; and can you tell that it was not an authentic prophecy? I am sure the prophecy itself, as reported in St. Jude's epistle, was well founded, and was duly accomplished, and is in truth but the very prophecy which came from God to Noah; and very probably had been communicated before to Enoch, and by him to the old world. Was it ever made an objection against the authority of St. Paul's second epistle to Timothy, that he quotes some ancient apocryphal book for the story of Jannes and Jambres? Or is it any diminution to the authority of the gospel that our Saviour (as many learned think) quotes another such book under the title of the Wisdom of God," and appeals to it as containing ancient prophecies? If not, how comes it to be an objection against St. Jude's epistle that he quotes a prophecy of Enoch from the like authority?

For these reasons little regard is due to the objection of the ancients against the authority of St. Jude's epistle : they supposed their spurious extravagant book Enoch to be the book quoted by St. Jude; and they reasoned on this supposition; for which in the mean time there was not the least appearance of proof or evidence; and the epistle itself was universally received in the churches notwithstanding this piece of criticism, as we are informed by St. Jerome, in the passage before quoted.

There are indeed some notions in which these two epistles agree, and which could not possibly be drawn from any ancient Jewish book ; for these notions, of which I now speak, are Christian notions peculiar to the times of the gospel.

The passages which show this agreement, are these chiefly which follow :

2 Peter ii.

Ver. 1. Ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, οι τινες παρεισάξουσιν αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας, καὶ τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι.

Ver. 13. Σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι, ἐντρυφῶντες ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις αὑτῶν, συνευωχούμενοι ὑμῖν.

Ch. iii. 2. 3. Μνησθῆναι τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν, καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀποστύλων ἡμῶν ἐντολῆς τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Σωτῆρος Τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες, ὅτι ἐλεύσονται· ἐπ' ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐμπαῖκται, κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας αὑτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι.

Jude.

Ver. 4. Παρεισέδυσαν γάρ τις νες ἄνθρωποι,—ἀσεβεῖς, τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριν μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν, καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσ πότην Θεὸν καὶ Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι.

Ver. 12. Οὗτοί εἰσιν ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες, συνευωχούμενοι.

Ver. 17. 18. 'Yueis dè, ayaπητοὶ, μνήσθητε τῶν ῥηματῶν τῶν προειρημένων ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἐν ἐσχάτῳ χρόνῳ ἔσονται ἐμπαῖκται, κατὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι τῶν ἀσεβειῶν.

In the first of these passages the παρεισέδυσαν of St. Jude has a plain resemblance and reference to the παρεισάξουσιν of St. Peter; both words are formed on the same notion, and are

6

meant to describe the craft and subtle insinuation of the new false teachers. The turning Xápiv eis àσéλyeιav' in St. Jude answers the aipéoets åñwdeías in St. Peter; and for the rest, the passages are nearly the same, and refer to gospel

notions.

If the second passage of St. Peter be read, as it ought to be, according to the Alexandrian Manuscript, which has ȧyárais instead of årárais, it agrees exactly with St. Jude's; and the feasts peculiar to Christians are meant in both places. The third passage relates to the Apostles of Christ; and it is the principal passage to incline one to think that St. Jude had St. Peter's epistle before him; for he seems to take what is proper to his own purpose, and the subject of his epistle; and to leave that which has a peculiar reference to the former part of St. Peter's epistle, and to which there is nothing in his own to answer. St. Peter in the first chapter of this second epistle, and likewise in his first epistle, tells the Christians of the ancient prophecies, foreshowing the deliverance near at hand: he warns them likewise against the 'new false teachers' in this second epistle therefore collecting the purpose of his epistles, he says that he wrote to them to remind them, 1. of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets' 2. and of the command of the Apostles, which command respected the scoffers in the last days. But St. Jude, who had said nothing of the ancient prophecies, and had spent his whole epistle in describing the iniquity of the false teachers, reminds them only of the words spoken by the Apostles of Christ Jesus,' who had, together with the doctrine delivered to them, forewarned them that there should be mockers in the last time.'

I see no inconvenience in supposing that St. Jude had as well the epistle of St. Peter as the old Jewish book, which contained the description of the ancient false prophets and the prophecy of Enoch concerning them, before him at the same time. If these last passages prove that he had St. Peter's epistle, his express quoting of Enoch shows that he had the other. In following the old book, and enlarging from thence the instances made use of by St. Peter, and expressing in words of his own the sentiments of the original author, without confining himself

to the version of St. Peter, he did no more than it is natural for any man to do in a like case. But perhaps there may be another account to be given of this agreement between these two epistles, by referring them to some farther common source or original.

St. Jude calls on the Christians to whom he wrote to remember τῶν ῥημάτων προειρημένων ὑπὸ τῶν ̓Αποστόλων τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, “the words which were spoken before of the Apostles of Christ.' They who do not place St. Jude in the number of Apostles, are under no difficulty here; it was natural for one of a lower rank to refer to the authority and predictions of Christ's Apostles. But what must we say for St. Peter, who makes the same appeal, and was undoubtedly an Apostle of Christ himself? Did he think that he had less authority, or was less to be regarded than other Apostles? Or for what reason did he appeal to that authority in others, which he had right to insist on himself? This matter is something mended by our English version, be mindful—of the commandment of us, the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour.' But the order of the words in our Greek copies will not bear this rendering, TV ̓Αποστόλων ἡμῶν: to answer our version, we must read ἡμῶν τῶν ̓Αποστόλων: thus St. Paul often speaks, ἐγὼ Παῦλος, 'I Paul;' but never Пavλos éyò, 'Paul I.' And since there is evidently a dislocation of the word uv in St. Peter, and it must be placed elsewhere, it ought probably to be placed, as St. Jude has placed it, after Kupiov; and then the English version must be thus, the commandment of the Apostles of our Lord and Saviour.'

6

There must be something particular in this case; otherwise for an Apostle to appeal to the authority of Apostles as something superior to his own, is not very natural. But if we suppose that the Apostles had a meeting on this great case of the new false teachers,' and that they gave jointly, by common consent and deliberation, precepts proper to the occasion, to be communicated to all churches, no single Apostle would or could, in this case, call the common injunction 'his commandment,' but would certainly call it, in the language of St. Peter, ⚫ the commandment of the Apostles of our Lord.' St. Paul was an Apostle, yet was it no disparagement to him to carry the de

cree of the Council of Jerusalem to the churches of his planta tion; and in writing or speaking he could not but have called it the decree of the Apostles.' The case might be the same here.

We have some evidence to show that this was the case. That there was such a tradition, at least in the church, is evident from the Apostolical Constitutions; in which there is mention made of a meeting of the Apostles on the very account of these false teachers, so particularly described by St. Peter and St. Jude. In the thirteenth chapter of the sixth book, these false teachers are described to be such as Tоλεμоvσι Xplory kai Mwσei, 'fight against Christ and Moses,' pretending at the same time to value both; and thus the false teachers, mentioned in both epistles, communicated with the church, whilst they corrupted its faith: they were, ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις λádes, spots in the church's feasts:' Jude 12. They are ordered to be expelled in the Apostolical constitutions, that the lambs might be preserved Ἁγιᾶ καὶ ἄσπιλα, ' sound and without spot.' They are represented in the Apostolical Constitutions as the false Christians and false prophets foretold in the gospel; Θεὸν βλασφημοῦντες, καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ καταπατοῦντες; which agrees exactly with St. Jude's account of them, that they had been foretold by the Apostles, and that they denied the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ:' ver. 4.-—and with St. Peter's likewise who bring in damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them :" ii. 1.

At this meeting it is said instructions were given to be communicated to all churches by their respective Apostles and bishops; there were probably then many circular letters sent on this occasion: the second epistle of St. Peter, and St. Jude's epistle, seem to be of this sort; and being drawn on the same occasion, and on the same instructions, it is no wonder they agree so well together.

There are in the epistles themselves some marks which confirm the foregoing account: the very word evroλñs, used by St. Peter when he makes mention of the Apostles' authority, points out some particular and distinguished precept; for he does not seem to refer to the general preaching or doctrines of the Apostles, but to some special command or form of doc