cause this difference of ftyle does not run through the whole Epistle, but affects only one part of it; another reason is, that this difference may be more probably accounted for, than by supposing the second Epiftle to come from another hand than the first. The fecond Epiftle is divided into three chapters; the firft and the third ftand clear of this difficulty, agreeing very well with the ftyle of the firft Epiftle. The fecond chapter is full of bold figures, and abounds in pompous words and expreffions: it is a description of the falfe prophets and teachers, who infefted the church, and perverted the doctrines of the Gospel; and it seems to be an extract from fome ancient Jewifh writer, who had left behind him a description of the false prophets of his own, or perhaps earlier times; which defcription is applied, both by St. Peter and St. Jude, to the falfe teachers of their own times. If this be the cafe, where is the wonder, that a paffage transcribed from another author, and inferted into this fecond Epiftle, fhould differ in ftyle 'from St. Peter's firft Epiftle? especially, confidering that the ftyle of this paffage differs as much from all the reft of this fecond Epiftle, as it does from the firft. St. Jeromf fuppofed, and others have followed his opinion, that St. Peter made use of different interpreters to exprefs his fenfe in his two Epiftles; but had this been the cafe, the difference of ftyle would have appeared in the whole Epiftle, and not in one part of it only, which is the present ftate: and I fee no reason to think that St. Peter did not write both the Epiftles himself. f Epift. ad Hedibiam quæft. 2. Eftius, Calmet, &c. Were this nothing but a conjecture, yet so reasonable an one it is, that the doubt raised against this fecond Epiftle, merely from this difference of ftyle, could hardly stand before it. But we can go further, and fhew, upon very probable grounds, that this was indeed the cafe. The very beginning of the fecond chapter of this fecond Epiftle fhews that St. Peter had the image of fome ancient falfe prophets before him, in describing the falfe teachers of his own time: There were. falfe prophets alfo among the people, even as there Shall be falfe teachers among you, ver. 1. If you confider the character he gives of thefe falfe teachers, it will appear to be drawn from the description of the old false prophets; fuch they are, he tells us, as have forfaken the right way, and are gone aftray, following the way of Balaam the fon of Bofor, who loved the wages of unrighteoufnefs, ver. 15. A very natural thought this, and to be expected in a description of falfe prophets made by an ancient Jewish writer; but, such an one as hardly would have occurred in an original description of the falfe teachers under the Gofpel. St. Jude has this comparison, and others of the fame kind joined with it: They have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam, and perished in the gainfaying of Core, ver. 11. These are antique figures, and difcover the age to which they belong. And St. Jude tells us plainly, that thefe falfe teachers were πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς TOUTO TO xpípa, defcribed or fet forth of old for this condemnation; and it is very likely that both St. Peter and he had the old defcription before them, when they gave the character of the false teachers of their own times. St. Jude's Epiftle is fo like the fecond chapter of St. Peter's fecond Epiftle, the figures and images in both are fo much the fame, as likewise the ancient examples and inftances made use of, that it has been commonly thought that St. Jude copied after St. Peter's Epiftle: and yet the turn of words and expreffions are so different; the choice of matter likewise is in part fo different, fome things being mentioned in one, and omitted in the other; that it is much more probable that both copied from the fame original, and drew from it according to their own judgments. I will give fome inftances of this, and leave the reft to the reader's own examination : St. Jude, ver. 6. Αγγέλες τε τοὺς μὴ τηρή σαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν, ἀλ λὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκης τήριον, εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ημέ ρας, δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν. Ver. 7. Ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα, καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις, τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις τρόπου ἐκπορνεύσασαι, καὶ ἀπελθῆσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας. Ver. 9. Ὁ δὲ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος, ὅτε τῷ διαβόλῳ διακρινόμενος διελέγετο περὶ τῆ Μωσέως σώματος" κ. τ. λ. St. Peter fpeaks of the angels that finned ; St. Jude gives an account of their fin, that they kept not their firft eftate, but left their own habitation. This account of the angels' fin is no where elfe to be found in Scripture; but was, if I may guess, in the old book from which St. Jude tranfcribed: for it is very unlikely that he should add these circumftances, if he had only St. Peter's dyyéλwv äμagrnoávτwv before him. The very fame difference may be observed in setting forth the example of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is common to both Epiftles: St. Peter speaks only of their judgment, and of their being made an example to finners; St. Jude adds an account of their crime. And though, as far as the two Epiftles agree in respect to this inftance, the images and ideas are the fame; yet the turn of expreffion is very different. Again, St. Peter, ver. 11. in reproof of the prefumptuous and self-willed, who speak evil of dignities, fays, That angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accufations against them before the Lord: but here St. Jude has given us the hiftory to which this belongs; Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil about the body of Mofes, durft not bring against him a railing accufation, but faid, The Lord rebuke thee, ver. 9. These inftances fhew that St. Jude did not merely copy from St. Peter, but had recourfe to the original itself, where these instances stood recorded, and took from thence fuch circumstances as he thought proper to fet these examples in their full light. If we compare the different manners of expreffing the fame thing in the two Epiftles, we shall hardly imagine that St. Peter and St. Jude had the fame language before them to transcribe; it is much more probable that they both tranflated from fome old Hebrew book; which will account for the difference of language between them, and the great agreement in their images and ideas. The following inftances will make my meaning plain : 2 Peter ii. ver. 6. Καὶ πόλεις Σοδόμων καὶ Γομόρρας τεφρώσας καταστρο φῇ κατέκρινεν, ὑπόδειγμα μελλόντων ἀσεβεῖν τεθεικώς• Ver. 10. Μάλιστα δὲ τὰς ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμία μια ασμοῦ πορευομένους, καὶ κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας, τολμηται, αυθάδεις, δόξας οὐ τρέμουσι βλασφημοῦντες. Ver. 12. Οὗτοι δὲ, ὡς ἄλογα ζῶα φυσικά, γεγεννημένα εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ φθοραν, ἐν οἷς ἀγνοῦσι βλασφημοῦντες, ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν, καταφθαρήσον ται. In these instances the language of St. Jude is much plainer and fimpler than St. Peter's, and reprefents the meaning common to both Epiftles much more intelligibly; and whoever will be at the pains to examine the two Epiftles carefully, will find more inftances of this kind, where the fentiments and notions are the fame, and the manners of expreffion very different. Whence can proceed this agreement and disagreement at once? Had one transcribed the other, or had both copied from the fame Greek au |