thor, the language of one Epiftle would probably. have answered more nearly to the language of the other; and yet the fentiments and notions of the two, Epiftles are so much the fame, that we must needs suppose the two writers to follow one and the fame copy; and if we fuppofe this copy to have been in the Jewish language, and that each writer translated for himself, this will anfwer the whole appearance, and account as well for their difference as their agreement. The difference, which appears in the parallel places laft quoted, may indeed be accounted for upon, the fuppofition, that St. Jude transcribed from St. Peter, He might intend perhaps to make plain the, abstruse paffages, and to that end might make choice of a plainer way of expreffing himself. But the former paffages cannot be thus accounted for; which will appear, if we confider further:

That the fubject matter common to these two Epiftles was without doubt taken from fome 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 exprefsly quotes Enoch, meaning either a book under. that name and title, or, which is more probable, some ancient book of Jewish traditions, in which fome 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 fecond Epiftle; which is the very fame defcription, with fuch varieties as have already been obferved. It is very remarkable, that, notwithstanding this great agreement between the two Epiftles, St. Peter has an

inftance not to be found in St. Jude; and St. Jude has another not to be found in St. Peter. St. Jude quotes the prophecy of Enoch, of which St. Peter fays nothing; St. Peter refers to the preaching of Noah, of which St. Jude fays nothing. Suppofing one to be a mere transcriber of the other, it is hard to account for this variation; especially, confidering 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 fame thing, the deftruction 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 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 ftyles. in St. Peter's two Epiftles, observed of old: I add, and for the difference of ftyle in the fecond Epiftle itself; for the ftyle 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 expreffes his own fentiments, he writes in his own proper ftyle, be it what it will; but when he tranflates from another, he naturally follows the genius of the original, and adopts the figures and metaphors of the author before him. The Eaftern languages abound in high fwelling ways of expreffion; and you may find in this one chapter of St. Peter more refemblance of this manner than in any other part of the New Teftament; which is a further confirmation of the account I have given.

But if this will help to clear one difficulty, will it

h

not neceffarily fubject this fecond Epiftle of St. Peter to another? It is an old objection against the authority of St. Jude's Epiftle, that he quotes the spurious book of Enoch; and for this very reason his Epiftle was placed among the avriλeyóμeva, or doubtful, by the ancients. And is not Peter's fecond Epiftle become liable to the very fame charge?

I will not trouble the reader with a long account, or any account, of the fpurious 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 fame time. Whoever pleases to know the state of this book, may consult Fabricius in his Codex Pfeud. Vet. Teft. But,

It is no wonder that fome ancient Chriftians, who took it for granted that St. Jude quoted the fame book which they had under the name of Enoch, made it an objection against the authority of his Epiftle. For this book Enoch was a mere romance, and full of the idle inventions of fome Helleniftic Jew. But then there is not the leaft evidence that this fpurious 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 fome ancient book containing the traditions of the Jewish church, which has been long fince loft; and probably contained many things relating to other ancient patriarchs and prophets, as well as to Enoch: the lofs of

Judas frater Jacobi parvam, quæ de feptem catholicis eft, Epiftolam reliquit. Et quia de Libro Enoch, qui Apocryphus eft, in ea affumit teftimonium, à plerifque rejicitur. Tamen autoritatem vetuftate jam et ufu meruit, et inter fanctas Scripturas comparatur. Hieron. Catalog. Script. Eccl.

་་་

which was miferably supplied by forging books, under the names of the patriarchs. To this we owe The Life of Adam, The Book of Seth, The Teftaments 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 falfe prophets, why might not. St. Peter and St. Jude make ufe of that description, as well as St. Paul quote heathen poets? St. Peter plainly makes no other use of it, and therefore ftands clear of countenancing the authority of the book. St. Jude goes further, 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 fure the prophecy itself, as reported in St. Jude's Epiftle, 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 fecond Epiftle to Timothy, that he quotes fome ancient apocryphal book for the ftory of Jannes and Jambres? Or is it any diminution to the authority of the Gospel, that our Saviour (as many learned think) quotes another fuch book, under the title of The Wisdom of God', and appeals to it as contain

i Luke xi. 49.

ing ancient prophecies ? If not, how comes it to be an objection against St. Jude's Epiftle, that he quotes a prophecy of Enoch from the like authority?

For thefe reafons, little regard is due to the objection of the ancients against the authority of St. Jude's Epiftle: they fuppofed their fpurious extravagant book Enoch to be the book quoted by St. Jude; and they reasoned upon this fuppofition; for which, in the mean time, there was not the leaft appearance of proof or evidence; and the Epiftle itself was univerfally received in the churches, notwithftanding this piece of criticifm, as we are informed by St. Jerom, in the paffage before quoted.

There are indeed fome notions in which these two Epiftles agree, and which could not poffibly be drawn from any ancient Jewish book; for thefe notions, of which I now fpeak, are Chriftian notions peculiar to the times of the Gofpel.

The paffages which fhew this agreement are thefe chiefly which follow :