belongs: Michael the Archangel, fays he, when contending with the Devil about the Body of Mofes, durft not bring against him a railing accufation, but faid, the Lord rebuke thee, v. 9. These Inftances fhew that St. Jude did not merely tran fcribe St. Peter, but had recourse to the Original it felf, where thefe Inftances ftood recorded, and that he took from thence fuch circumstances, as he thought proper to fet thofe Inftances in their full light.

If we compare the different manners of expreffing the fame thing in the two Epiftles, we fhall hardly imagine that St. Peter and St. Jude had the fame language before them to transcribe. 'Tis much more probable that they both translated from fome old Hebrew Book: and this will account for the difference of language between them, and the great agreement in their Images and Ideas. Here the Author compares the 6 verfe of St. Peter with the 7 of St. Jude, the To with the 8, and the 12 with the 10.

In thefe Inftances the language of St. Jude is much plainer than that of St. Peter, and reprefents the meaning common to both Epistles much more intelligibly. And whoever will examine the two Epiftles carefully, will find more instances of this kind, where the fentiments and notions are the fame, and the manners of expreffion very different. From whence can this agreement and difagreement proceed at the fame time? Had one of the Apoftles tranfcribed the other, or had both copied from the fame Greek Author, the language of one Epiftle would probably have anfwered more nearly to the language of the other; but the fentiments and notions of the two Epiftles are fo much the fame, that we must needs fuppofe the two Writers to follow one and

the fame copy. Wherefore if we fuppofe this Copy to have been in the Jewish language, and that each of the two Apoftles tranflated for himfelf, this will account as well for their difference as their agreement.

The matter, common to the two Epiftles, was without doubt taken from an old Jewish Author by one or both of thofe Apoftles. That St. Jude had an old Book before him, and did not merely transcribe St. Peter, is evident; for, he exprefsly quotes Enoch, meaning either a Book under that title, or, which is more probable, fome antient Book of Jewish Traditions, in which fome Prophecies of Enoch were recorded. St. Jude, by telling us whence he had his defcription of the falfe Prophets, has informed us at the fame time, whence S. Peter had the materials of the fecond 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 quotes the Prophecy of Noah, of which St. Jude fays nothing. Suppofing St. Jude to be a mere Transcriber of St. Peter, 'tis no eafy thing to account for this variation; efpecially, confidering that the Prophecy referred to by St. Jude, under the name of Enoch, is one and the fame, relating to the deftruction of the old World. But if we fuppofe that the two Apoftles used an antient Jewish Book, in which the Prophecies of Enoch and Noah, relating to the Deluge, were recorded; 'tis eafy to fee how the Prophe

B 4

Prophecy comes to be afcribed to Noah by St. Peter, and to Enoch by St. Jude.

This may ferve to account for the different ftyle in the two Epiftles of St. Peter, which was obferved by the Antients, and alfo for the difference of ftyle in the fecond Epiftle it felf; for, the ftyle of the second Chapter in that Epiftle differs as much from that of the two other Chapters, as from that of the firft Epiftle. When a man expreffes his own fentiments, he writes in his own proper ftyle; but when he tranflates, he naturally follows the Genius of the Original, and adopts the figures and metaphors of his Author. The Eaftern languages abound in high fwelling ways of expreffion; and one may find in this fingle Chapter of St. Peter more refemblance of this manner, than in any other part of the New Teftament; which (fays the Author) is a further confirmation of the account he has given.

Afterwards the Author proceeds to refolve another difficulty concerning the fecond Epiftle afcribed to St. Peter. It is an old objection t against the authority of St. Jude's Epiftle, that he quotes the fpurious Book of Enoch; and for this very reafon that Epiftle was placed among the doubtful by the Antients. But the fame objection may be raised against the fecond Epistle, that bears the name of St. Peter.

In anfwer to that difficulty, our Author makes the following obfervations. Tis no wonder, fays he, that fome antient Chriftians, who took t for granted, that St. Jude quoted the fame Book which they had by the name of Enoch,

† Vid. Hieron. Catal. Script, Escl

made

made it an objection against the authority of his Epiftle. For that Book was a mere Romance, and full of the idle inventions of Hellenistic Jews. But it does not appear that this fpurious Book was extant in the days of the Apostles; nor is there any proof that St. Jude quotes a Book called Enoch. It is more likely that he quoted fome antient Book containing the Traditions of the Jewish Church, and probably many things relating to other antient Patriarchs, as well as to Enoch. That Book has been loft long ago, and we can give no account of it: we know only that it was not a Canonical Book of the Jews. But if it contained a good defcription of the antient falfe Prophets, why might not St. Peter and St. Jude make use of that defcription, as well as St. Paul quote Heathen Poets? St. Peter plainly makes no other ufe of it, and therefore cannot be faid to countenance the authority of the Book in queftion. 'Tis true that St. Jude goes farther, and quotes a Prophecy out of it, as being an authentic one. But, not to say that it might be an authentic Prophecy, was it ever made an objection against the authority of the fecond Epiftle of St. Paul to Timothy, that he quotes fome antient Apocryphal Book for the tory of Jannes and Jambres? Or, is it any diminution to the authority of the Gospel, that our Saviour (as many learned men think) quotes another fuch Book, under the title of the Wif dom of God t, and appeals to it, as containing antient 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?

† Luke xi. 49.

The

The Author fees no inconvenience in fuppofing that St. Jude had before him at the fame time the Epiftle of St. Peter, as well as the old Jewish Book, which contained the defcription of the antient falfe Prophets, and the Prophecy of Enoch concerning them. If fome paffages prove that he had St. Peter's Epiftle, his quoting of Enoch fhews that he had the other. In follow

ing the old Book, and enlarging from thence the Inftances made ufe of by St. Peter, and expreffing in words of his own the fentiments of the original Author, without confining himself to the Verfion of St. Peter, he did no more than is natural to do in the like cafe.

Our Author concludes with a conjecture to fhew that the agreement between the Epiftles of St. Peter and St. Jude may be also afcribed to their writing from a common Flan, which had been communicated before to the Churches, and which contained Inftructions drawn up by the body of the Apostles about the new falfe Teachers. I fhall not enlarge upon that conjecture, because the Author has fufficiently made out already what he undertook to prove.

I have given the fubftance of his Differtation, He has very well proved that St. Peter is the Author of the fecond Epiftle afcribed to him, notwithstanding the difference of style between the first Epistle, and part of the fecond. He has also very well cleared St. Jude from the imputation of being a Plagiary; which would be no fmall fault in an Apoftle. It seems to me that St. Jude took the hint from St. Peter, and improved it; but there is a vaft difference between taking a hint, and being a downright pilferer. I am of opinion that the Reverend Dean

of