Attempt to illustrate Jude, ver. 9. Letter I. "Some have thought the first and third chapters genuine, but from the difference of style have doubted the second." That the genuineness of these Epistles was disputed may be admitted; nor is it at all wonderful that, in collecting the books and settling the canon of the New Testament, a dispute should arise respecting the genuineness of some of those books: dispute naturally leads to investigation, and investigation to the discovery of the truth. The fact, however, is, that the dispute terminated in favour of their genuineness, as is clear from their being received into the canon of the New-Testament Scriptures. Are then the authors of the Improved Version prepared to shew that that decision was not made upon clear and satisfactory evidence that those books were the genuine productions of those persons whose names they bear? Secondly, the authors of the Improved Version state, respecting the Epistle of Jude, that "it is commonly believed to have been written by Judas, otherwise called Lebbeus and Thaddeus, the son of Alpheus, the brother of James the Less, and first cousin to our Lord." If it was, indeed, written by him, (and this, according to them, is the common belief,) then is the Epistle not only genuine, but also of apostolical authority, and this must establish both those points; for he was one of the twelve Apostles of our Lord. ↑ Thirdly, on 2 Peter ii. 4, they observe, that that passage "is the most doubtful portion of the Epistle," and that "by those who admit the genuineness of the Epistle, this chapter is supposed to have been a quotation from some ancient apocryphal book." They add, "The Epistle of Jude is supposed to allude to, or to quote from, the same apocryphal work." On the parallel passage in Jude, ver. 6, they say, "Perhaps the writer may refer to some fanciful account of a fall of angels contained in the apocryphal book which lay before him." That there ever existed, before the 601 writing of these Epistles, such a fanciful account of a fall of angels, or such an apocryphal book as that here supposed, out of which these writers made their quotations, there is not a shadow of evidence, or a pretence of evidence, much less is there any proof of the assertion, that Jude had this apocryphal book lying before him when he wrote his Epistle. The whole rests upon the perhaps, the suppositions or the assertions of these authors; or upon the suppositions of others which they have adopted. But what weight can their suppositions or those of any other man have in the decision of a question of this nature? That the writers of these Epistles in the passages under our consideration refer to the Jewish Scriptures, and not to some fanciful account in a supposed apocryphal book, I shall endeavour to shew by the following arguments: First, the authors of these Epistles, in the parts alluded to, are warning the Christians to whom they wrote, against false teachers, by whom they would be in danger of being seduced from the faith of the gospel. Peter says, "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them." And of them he adds, "Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." Jude gives a similar description of them: "For," says he, "there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained" (before written) " to this condemnation; ungodly men turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord" (dεσñoτy, the word used also by Peter, "the only sovereign") 66 God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." They then set before them various instances of the judgments of God in the punishment of persons of this description recorded in the Old-Testament Scriptures. Peter mentions first, the angels that sinned, whom God did not spare-then of the destruction of the old world, which also he See Note at the beginning of the says God did not spare-and then the Epistle. + See Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18. ↑ Note in loco. VOL. XVII. overthrow of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which, he says, were made an example unto those that after 4 H should live ungodly, and on which he makes the following observation: "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." He then refers to the history of Balaam, and compares the men of whom he is speaking with him, who, he says, Have forsaken the right way, and gone astray, following the way of Bafaam, the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness." Jude introduces his enumeration of the judgments of God in the punishment of the wicked, by saying," I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this." First, he reminds them, "How that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them which believed not." In the next place, he reminds them of the angels which kept not their first estate. Did he then mean to remind them of a fabulous story about angels, which had no foundation in truth, which he had (as is supposed) taken out of a spurious apocryphal book, a story with which they were probably wholly unacquainted? And what could a story of the fall of angels have to do with the writer's subject, as an instance of the punishment of ungodly men and seducers? Jude reminds them in the next place of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, which, he says, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. And then, having described those ungodly men of whom he speaks as defiling the flesh, despising dominion, blaspheming (or, as Peter expresses it, who were not afraid to blaspheme) dignities, he reminds them of the contest between Michael the archangel and the Devil, contrasting their conduct with that of Michael. He also refers to the history of Cain, and of Balaam, and of Core, saying, "Wo unto them! for they" (the ungodly men of whom he is speaking) "have gone in the way of Cain, and run greedily after the error of Balaam, for reward, and perished, or will perish in the gainsaying of Core." Now, is it possible to conceive that these writers, in referring to a series of facts recorded in their own Scriptures, and with which they were well acquainted, should introduce and incorporate with those facts a fabulous story from an apocryphal book? Nothing, surely, can be more incredible than such a supposition, even supposing the Epistles were proved not to be genuine. Secondly, the authors of the Improved Version, after having pronounced the passage respecting the angels that sinned, in 2 Peter ii. 4, to be the most doubtful portion in the Epistle, and after having repeatedly thrown out the supposition that it, with the parallel passage in Jude, was quoted from an apocryphal book, have themselves, with the most glaring inconsistency, attempted to explain those passages as having no relation to angels; and they have also attempted to prove that they are a plain, direct allusion to a portion of the Jewish history, in which, I conceive, they have been completely successful. Their exposition is as follows. 2 Pet. ii. 4, Note: "If God spared not the messengers who had sinned, i. e. the spies who were sent to explore the land of Canaan, &c.; see Simpson's Essays, p. 205, &c." Jude 6: "And the angels who kept not their first state." Note on the passage: "Or the messengers who watched not duly over their own principality, but de serted their proper habitation, he kept with perpetual chains under darkness, (punished them with judicial blindness of mind,) unto the judgment of a great day, i. e. when they were destroyed by a plague; alluding to the falsehood and punishment of the spies, Numbers xiv. See Simpson's Essays, p. 210." But the allusion would have been still more apparent, and their interpretation more firmly established, had they, or had the authors of the Received Version, rendered the Greek Teç ayɛλes, the spies, as the latter have rendered it, James ii. 25, and as they themselves have explained it in 2 Peter ii. 4. A little more attention would probably have convinced the authors of the Improved Version, that the passage in Jude respecting Michael and the Devil, also is taken from one of the Jewish prophets, and not from a fabulous apocryphal book. Which leads me to observe, Thirdly, that that passage in Jude Attempt to illustrate Jude, ver. 9. Letter I. contains in it not merely an allusion to a passage in the prophecy of Zechariah, but also an express quotation from it," But said, The Lord rebuke thee." Peter also, treating on the same subject, and in the same connexion,+ evidently refers to the same passage in the prophet: “Where as," says he, "angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord." It may be further observed, that in the Septuagint Version, although in general it retains the Hebrew word Satan, yet in this passage of the prophet, renders it Diabolos, Devil, from which Jude seems to have adopted the word. Besides this, the authors of the Improved Version tell us, that " some suppose a reference in this passage (Jude 9) to Zech. iii. 1-3. Newcome." If this allusion is clearly established, the prophecy of Zechariah will serve as a key to unlock the meaning of that mysterious passage of Jude; and if the observations I have made have any solidity in them, they may tend, in some measure, to remove the suspicions which have been entertained respecting the genuineness of the Epis, tle of Jude, and of the second chapter of the second Epistle of Peter, and especially those passages in them which are supposed to be the most doubtful. The question may be asked, What has given rise to this doubt, and why has so much pains been taken to discredit these accounts, and to induce the belief that they are fanciful and spurious? The authors of the Improved Version have furnished us with an answer to the question; they say, in note on Jude 6, "Perhaps, however, the writer may refer to some fanciful account of a full of angels contained in the apocryphal book which lay before him, without meaning to avouch for that fact any more than for the incident mentioned ver. 9."§ And again, in note on 2 Peter ii. 4, "If the common interpretation be admitted, it will not establish the po 603 pular doctrine concerning fallen angels. For, 1, The Epistle itself is of doubtful authority. 2. From the change of style this is the most doubtful portion of the Epistle. 3. By those who admit the genuineness of the Epistle, this chapter is supposed to have been a quotation from some ancient apocryphal book, and the apostle might not mean to give autho rity to the doctrine. The Epistle of Jude" (they add) "is supposed to allude to, or to quote from, the same apocryphal work." It is here plainly supposed, that if the passages referred to are genuine, they do in fact teach the popular doctrine concerning fallen angels, and, therefore, in order to get rid of the doctrine, it was necessary, in some way, to get rid of those passages in which it was contained; for the suspicion seems to have been lurking in their minds, that unless they were got rid of, that doctrine would be established. This will fully account for the pains they have taken to invalidate the authority of these Epistles, and particularly of the above passages which they contain. Notwithstanding all this, these very same gentlemen confidently assert, that by the angels (the messengers) that sinned, is meant the spies who were sent to explore the land of Canaan, as recorded Numbers xiv., and consequently as having no reference to fallen spiritual beings. Could they believe this, and at the same time seriously believe, what they have so repeatedly stated, that it is a fanciful account of a fall of angels taken out of some ancient apocryphal book, and that too by an apostle; and that he too should gravely insert such an idle tale amongst a number of references to the Jewish Scripture, he himself at the time not believing it, or mean to give authority to the doctrine? If they were satisfied of the truth of their own interpretation, which they give, not as the supposed, but certain meaning of the passage, what cause had they to be afraid that it would countenance a false, although popular doctrine? Could there be any danger that the spies, who were the twelve princes of the tribes of Israel whom Moses sent to explore the land of Canaan, should ever be interpreted to mean apostate spirits, who, in some unknown period, were for their sin and rebellion cast out of heaven, and reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day? SIR, EX JOHN MARSOM. VERY Dissenter must be amused with the controversy now carrying on with regard to what are called the "Peterborough Questions," that is, Eighty-seven Questions for trying the Orthodoxy of Candidates for Orders, and of Curates applying for Licenses. Bishop Marsh must have a great love of asking questions, for he has now drawn up 36 more. These new ones, he says, are to be answered by curates only, but the curates, if they were ordained in his diocese, must have previously answered the 87; so that they will have answered in all 123 questions, drawn up for the explanation of 39 articles, themselves compiled "for avoiding of Diversities of Opinions, and for the establishing of Consent touching True Religion." Where will this end? The Bishop of Peterborough has printed his speech on the discussion of this matter in the House of Lords, and the perusal of it has suggested this letter, in which I wish to call the attention of your readers particularly to this prelate's statement of the doctrine and practice of Toleration within the Church of England. "I hardly know" (he says, in a note to the Speech, pp. 29, 30) "what answer to give, when I am charged with want of Toleration in the use of these questions. Toleration is a term which applies only to Dissenters from the Established Church. It is quite inapplicable to those who profess conformity to the 39 articles, which were pub lished for avoiding diversities of opinions.' Though we can understand, therefore, what is meant by the toleration of Dissenters, when they have perfect liberty to preach their own doctrines in their own places of worship, we involve ourselves in a contradiction, when we speak about the toleration of dissent on the part of those who are bound by Articles ⚫ for the stablishing of consent touching true religion.' But if the toleration, which the Examination Questions are supposed to infringe, denotes the privilege of preaching dissent from the doctrines of the Church, as well in our own pulpits, as in licensed meeting-houses, it is a species of toleration which would shortly end in the destruction of the Church. The foundation, indeed, might thereby be widened; but it would be widened with materials which would soon let down the whole superstructure." This is, at least, a candid confession of intolerance in the internal government of the Church. Happy those that, in search of Christian liberty, have put themselves under the protec tion of English law, which allows such as choose to have churches without Bishops, or Bishops who are not Lords. Dr. Marsh was charged by the petitioner to the House of Lords, with treading in the steps of Archbi shop Laud. He partly admits the charge, and he anticipates hypothetically a fate, which Heaven avert! "Nor is it improbable" (says his Lordship, Speech, p. 33) "that the fate which attended Archbishop Laud would befal the Bishop of Peterbo rough, if the same party should again obtain the ascendancy in the Church.” The manifest temper of the House of Lords on this occasion, must have shaken Dr. Marsh's confidence in his own proceedings; and it seems probable that in future Parliaments, Bishops will have something else to do than to defend and justify new tests of orthodoxy. SIR, THE CANTABRIGIENSIS. Warminster, July 8, 1822. HERE is a letter preserved of the Emperor Adrian's, which reflects much on the Christians of Alexandria in his time, as worshipers of the god Serapis. It is preserved by Flavius Vopiscus in his Life of Saturninus, a writer who flourished within two cen turies of this emperor. The letter is as follows, addressed from Egypt to his brother-in-law, Servian, at that time Consul in Rome : "Adrian Emperor to Servianus Consul, health. "You gave me great commenda tions of Egypt, my dear Servian; I have studied the nation well, and have discovered nothing but levity, caprice, inconstancy and a readiness to change with every wind. The Emperor Adrian's Letter on the Christians of Alexandria. "The worshipers of Serapis are the Christians, and even the pontiffs of their religion worship Serapis. There is not a chief of a synagogue or priest of the Christians, who is not either an astrologer, soothsayer or empiric. Even the patriarch of the Jews, when he comes into Egypt, is constrained to offer incense to Christ or to Serapis. They are a most inconsiderate, seditious race. The city of Alexandria is rich and powerful, with a great trade producing plenty. Nobody is idle there. Some blow glass; others make paper. Many are employed in the linen manufacture and ready-made garments. All follow some trade or other, however infirm in hands or feet, or even blind. "All of them, whether Jews or Christians, acknowledge but one God; that is, their interest. I wish to my soul that this city (the first in Egypt for its grandeur and riches) had better inhabitants. "I have granted them all that they desired. I have restored to them their ancient privileges, yet they have treated me with contempt in refusing honours to my adopted son Verus, and you know what they have said of Antoninus. All the punishment I wish them, is to feed themselves with the chickens hatched with their own filthy dung," &c. &c. This is a heavy charge brought against the early Christians of Alexandria, by so great and sensible a man as the Emperor Adrian, and must have been founded on some known facts, and requires, for the credit of Christianity, that this odious accusation should be repelled. This great Emperor travelling with great state throughout the whole Roinan Empire, was received with great state and pomp every where; sacrifices and divine honours were paid him, and all the pompous rites of Heathen superstition. Alexandria was principally occupied by Jews and Christians, who could not conscientiously join in these impious ceremonies, nor be present on such occasions. Neither could they at other times frequent the public theatres, nor attend at the consecrations of images and the imperial standards. They, therefore, devoted their whole attention to trade and com 605 merce, and not incurring any great expenses in their way of living, they grew very rich, which often brought persecutions on them, and confisca tion of property, as was the case with the Jews in England under our Plantagenet princes. Adrian, therefore, not receiving those attentions and divine honours from them, of which he was very fond, it created a great disgust towards them. Why he calls them worshipers of Serapis is, that the god Serapis had a most pompous temple dedicated to him in that quarter of the city where it stood, which was called from it, the Serapian. Here stood the famous image of that god of the merchants, brought hither from Sinope, one of the greatest commercial cities in the time of the Ptolemies, one of whom seeing the high respect paid to it, thought the obtaining of this image to adorn his growing city, would be the surest way to promote its wealth and prosperity; for this deity was esteemed as the patron of trade and commerce, and had temples erected to him in after times in most of the principal seaports to which the merchants traded. A very beautiful temple to this deity stands at this time at Puteoli, now Puzzuoli, near Naples, though in ruins. Besides, the military oath was full of idolatry, and the worshiping of the standard and ensigns of war, and the attendant pompous sacrifices, were not to be dispensed with by the soldiery, which is the reason so few Christians could become soldiers. Those who refused to sacrifice to the Emperor, were by the Roman laws forbid to hold any dignity in the state, as appears by the Pandects, and from this Roman law our Test Act is supposed to have been adopted. Herodian, in his history of his own times, mentions the entrance of the Emperor Caracalla into Alexandria: "As soon as he entered the city with his whole army, he went first to the great Temple, where he sacrificed many hecatombs, and loaded the altars with incense. Thence he proceeded to Alexander's monument, where he pulled off his purple robe, his diamond rings, his belt studded with precious stones, and all his valuable articles, which he offers at the hero's shrine." The Heathen inhabitants of Alex. |