« ZurückWeiter »
• stood Moses. This is not found in the public scriptures, but in a secret book, entitled Jannes • and Jambres. For which reason some have been so daring, as to argue against that epistle
of Timothy, though in vain.' For certain such an objection could be of little weight against so well attested a writing as St. Paul's second epistle to Timothy. Nor ought it to weigh much in this case.
I might conclude here. But for the sake of some, shall add the two following observations.
1. It is not certain that St. Jude cites any book. He only says, that“ “ Enoch prophesied, saying, The Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints.” Which might be words of a prophecy, preserved by tradition, and inserted occasionally in divers writings. Nor is there good evidence, that in St. Jude's time there was extant any book entitled Enoch, or Enoch's Prophecies, though there was such a book in the hands of Christians in the second and third centuries. Moreover St. Jude might ascribe to Enoch what it is reasonable to believe was the import of his prophecy.
I transcribe here an observation, which I have met with : St. Jude in his epistle, from • the circumstances of the men and the manners of the people to whom Enoch preached,
what might be the sum of Enoch's preaching, in this sort. “Behold the Lord cometh.” • How? As at the giving of the law, “ with thousands of his angels, to give judgment against • all men, and to rebuke all the ungodly among them of all their wicked deeds, which they • have ungodly committed, and of all their cruel speakings, which wicked sinners have spoken •
against him." Upon which words the Greeks, not knowing the course of the Hebrews in • their feigned speeches, imagined, that Enoch left a book of his preaching behind him.'
Grotius has somewhat to the like purpose.
And J. H. Heidegger approved of this manner of interpretation. He supposes St. Jude to refer to the words of Moses. Gen. v. 22 and 24; “ And Enoch walked with God." Cocceius, also, as'cited by Witsius, argued not very differently, though Witsius did not fully ap
I shall add a thought or two confirming that method of interpretation. St. Peter, 2 ep. ii. 5, calls Noah, “a preacher of righteousness:” referring, I suppose, to the history in Genesis, though it is not expressly said there. And at ver. 7, 8, he says of Lot, that “ he was vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: and that dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, he vexed his righteous soul from day to day, with their unlawful deeds.” These things are not expressly said in the book of Genesis. Nevertheless I make no question but the apostle
prove of it.
* Verum quidquid et vetustis patribus et recentioribus qui- Judæis contumacibus imminebat, referre commode potuit. busdam videatur, non potest ullo mihi pacto probari, Judam Id. ib. ad ver. 15. Apostolum ex libro scripto temporibus ejus extante, tritâque • Distinguendum accurate est inter fundamentum propheprophetiâ suum illud vaticinium deprompsisse. Nam primo tiæ, et ejus formulam. Fundamentum quod attinet, est illud id Judas non testatur. Qui simpliciter habet, w poe@yTEUCE. totam εγγραφον.
-Alterum est, quod scriptum reperitur, Prophetiam scriptis ab eo consignatam esse non dicit. J. H. • Enochum cum Deo ambulàsse.' Ex eo Judæ proclive fuit Heidegger. Hist. Patr. Exercita. x. de Prophetiâ Enocbi. sect. conficere Enochum non pro se tantum quæsivisse Deum, sed v. tom. I. p. 271.
etiam alios proposito terrore ultimi judicii ab impietate et inAt neque dicit Judas Henochum ita scripsisse ; neque in justitiâ deterruisse : neque potuisse cum Deo ambulare, vel libro, qui Henochi dicitur, prophetiæ hujus vel vola vel vesti- pii viri officio defungi, nisi judicium Domini venturi cum gium reperitur. Imo credibile est, Judæ ætate suppositium myriadibus angelorum hominibus suæ ætatis annuntiaret. hunc librum ne quidem in rerum naturâ fuisse, sed a putido Cum igitur non potuerit non loqui de judicio Domini superet portentoso nescio quo Cabbalistâ Græcanico, vel ab hære. ve:turo impiis, et ii, de quibus S. Judas loquitur, sint ultimi tico, et sciolo aliquo Christum professo, sub Henochi nomine temporis, conficit, Enochum diu ante diluvium de iis propheprocusum esse. Witsius in ep. Jud. num. xli.
tâsse. — Porro quod formulam attinet prophetiæ, cujus funO Alii denique verisimilius arbitrantur, habuisse Judam ex damentum ita in Scripturis ostendimus, illam ex iis verbis notâ et confessà eo tempore traditione, quam veram esse Spi- contexuit Judas, in quorum virtute eam latere per guys! ritu magistro cognovit, dignamque judicavit, quam suâ hac EVEUUATIXYN, 'intelligentiam spiritualem,' probe scivit. Heid. epistolâ consecraret æternitati.
Cui sententiæ ego quoque
ubi supra. num. x. p. 277. hactenus acquiesco. Wits. ubi supr. num. xli. p. 503.
i Celeberrimus Coccejus conjectat Judam ex historià Mo« The General Review of the Holy Scriptures, p. 39, by slïca collegisse. Nam, inquit, prophetâsse Henochum, Thomas Hayne, London, 1640, folio.
• satis coustat ex sacris literis. Anibulavit enim cum Deo. d Solebant Rabbini et angelis et magnis hominibus tribuere Ergo cum Deo fecit, defectoribus se opposuit, verbis sine ea verba, quæ verisimiliter dicere potuerunt. Tale illud quod dubio in Spiritu Sancto dictis, et opere.Porro Judas talia de Enocho habebimus, et illud quod Heb. xii. 21. et Actor. • Henochum prophetâsse testatur, quæ optime et pathetice ei vii, 26, &c. Grot. ad S. Jud. ver. 9.
'attribuuntur in prosopopæÏâ.' Quæ quidem non male mihi Solebant, ut modo dixi, Rabbini et angelis et viris magnis animadversa videntur; attamen non validuin satis firmamentum tribuere ea dicta, quæ dixisse poterant. Id. ad ver. 14. continere, cui Judæ allegatio commode inædificetur. Nam
Quod tunc Enoch aut dixit, aut dicere potuit, imminente Judas formulam prophetiæ Henocho adscribit, quæ ex Mose diluvio, idem Judas ad ingentem illam internecionem, quæ disci non potest. Wits, ib. num. xli. p. 502, et 303.
refers to what is there said, and deduceth these things thence, and not from an apocryphal, or any writing whatever.
There is no necessity therefore to suppose, that St. Jude quoted a book called Enoch, or • Enoch’s prophecies.'
2. Allowing St. Jude to quote such a book, he gives it no authority. It was no canonical book of the Jews. That is certain. Consequently, if there was such a book among them, it was apocryphal. But though it was so, there might be in it some right things. These St. Jude might take, without approving the whole of it. To this purpose - Jerom has argued largely, and very well, in his commentary upon the epistle to Titus, upon occasion of St.
Paul's quotation of Epimenides. Tit. i. 12. And Cave says, “It is no more strange, that St. Jude should • quote an apocryphal book, than that St. Paul should put down Jannes and Jambres for the : two magicians of Pharaoh that opposed Moses. Which he must either derive from tradition, i or fetch from some uncanonical author of those times, there being no mention of their names o in Moses' relation of that matter.'
As I have said so much about this text, I am induced to take notice of some other like things in this epistle.
Says St. Jude, ver. 8 and 9. “ Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael, the archangel
, when contending with the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not [chose not] to bring against him a railing accusation, but said: The Lord rebuke thee."
Origen, in the third century, supposed, that « St. Jude might refer to a book, called the Assumption, or Ascension of Moses, though it was not a book of authority. But indeed, there is no good reason to think, that there was any such book extant in the time of St. Jude. It is more probable that it was forged afterwards. Some therefore have imagined, that St. Jude took this passage from some more valuable Hebrew author, of whom however we have no knowledge.
But to me it is apparent, that St. Jude refers to the vision in Zech. iii. 1-3. 66 And he shewed me Joshua the high-priest, standing before the angel of the Lord,” and “Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord” (that is, “ the angel of the Lord,” before mentioned] " said unto Satan: The Lord rebuke thee.” And what follows. The text of St. Jude is parallel with 2 Pet. ii. 11, “ Whereas angels, which are greater in power, bring not railing accusation before the Lord.” Here also is a plain reference to the vision in Zechariah. The thing itself, and that circumstance, “ before the Lord,” answering to the expression in Zechariah, “standing before the Lord,” or “ before the angel of the Lord,” put it, as seems to me, beyond question.
Campegius Vitringa · has some curious observations upon this text of St. Jude. Instead of “ the body of Moses,” he would read “ the body of Joshua.” That is ingenious. Nevertheless the common reading may be right, and may be explained very agreeably to the passage of Zechariah. For, according to an interpretation of that vision, formerly f taken from Ephrem the Syrian, Joshua, the high-priest, there denotes the Jewish people. "Whom St. Jude might call “ the body of Moses," "as Christians are called “the body of Christ” by St. Paul.
.. Qui autem dicunt totum librum debere sequi eum qui owuatus, et hodiernam lectionem esse a manu imperitioris libri parte usus sit, videntur mihi et apocryphum Enochi, de bibliographi, qui, cum nihil in Scripturis memorabile legisset quo Apostolus Judas in epistolâ suâ testimonium posuit, inter corpore Josuæ,' sed contra ex Historia Sacrâ intellexisEcclesiæ scripturas recipere, et multa alia, quae Apostolus set, quid circa corpus Mosis' singulare accidisset, nec interea Paulus de reconditis est loquutus. Possumus enim hoc argu- de loco Zachariæ cogitaret, Josuæ nomen in illud Mosis commento dicere : quia apud Athenienses ignotum Deum colere mutavit. Sed quam certum est, Judam his verbis respexisse se dixit, quem illi in arâ annotaverant, debere Paulum et cæ- locum illum Zachariæ, tam quoque certum est, non scripsisse, tera, quæ in arâ scripta fuerant, sequi, et ea quæ Athenienses Michaëlem disputâsse cum Diabolo de corpore Mosis.faciebant facere, quia cum Atheniensibus in culturâ ignoti Dei Imo ex eadem ratione liquidissime patet, Judam, quæ hic ex parte consenserat. Hieron. in Tit. T. IV. p. 421. b' Life of St. Jude, in English, p. 205.
habet de corpore Mosis,' non desumpsisse ex apocrypho
aliquo Judaïci ingenii, in quo hanc fabulam offendisset. "Re• Michaël autem 8X ETOA uno e, non ' sustinuit,' non induxit spexit Judas, ut jam dixi, ad locum Zachariæ, et inde recte animum, impingere illi notam maledicti, id est, ultionem male- evicit, Satanæ, potentissimi angeli, ab ipso principe angelorum dicendo sumere. Non quod timuerit diabolum, sed quod ex Michaële in judicio in ipsum proferendo magnam habitam decoro omnia agere voluerit. Wits. Comm. in Ep. Judae esse rationem: ac proin multo minus potestates' et 'glorias,' ver. 9. p. 480.
hoc est, potentissimos principes, licet malos, nobisque adverd See Vol. i. p. 541. a citation from Origen's books of Principles.
sos, a nobis esse vilipendendos. Campeg. Vitring. Observ. • Probabile nobis videtur, Judam scripsisse wepe T8 1x08
Sacr. l. 4. cap. ix. n. 35. g. 1003, 1004.
1 Cor. xii. 20, 25, 27; Eph. i. 23, and iv. 12, 16; Col. i. 18. The same interpretation was proposed some while ago, and well supported in a Dissertation of a learned writer, who was not acquainted with Ephrem."
Once more. St. Jude says, ver. 6. “ And the angels, which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” To which there is a parallel place in 2 Pet. ii. 4. The learned writer, above quoted, observes, that neither here have these apostles a reference to any Jewish apocryphal book: but to some text of sacred scripture, or of the Old Testament. But he then deferred shewing the place. Nor do I know that these texts ever came in his way afterwards. I wish they had. For I also am much inclined to believe, that in all these places the apostles referred to passages of the Old Testament.
This may assist us in forming a judgment concerning the opinion of the bishop of London, that St. Jude in his epistle, and St. Peter in the second chapter of his second epistle, copied, or imitated some Hebrew writer, who had left behind him a description of the false prophets of his own, or former times. Which indeed is ingenious, and plausible. Nevertheless I think, such conjectures ought not to be presently received as certain.' St. Peter, and St. Jude, and all the Christians in general of their time, had before them the scriptures of the Old Testament. Many of the cases referred to by these apostles are evidently found there, such as Cain, Korah, Balaam, the people of Sodom. And why should not the other instances be taken thence likewise? If they are, I presume, the argument would be more forcible with all, than otherwise it would have been. Nor does the resemblance of style in St. Peter and Jude afford a conclusive argument that they both borrowed from some one Jewish author. The similitude of the subject might produce a resemblance of style. The design of St. Peter and St. Jude was to condemn some loose and erroneous Christians, and to caution others against them. When speaking of the same sort of persons, their style and figures of speech would have a great agreement. And certainly I think that the apostles needed not any other assistance in confuting and exposing corrupt Christians, than their own inspiration, and an acquaintance with the ancient scriptures of the Jewish church.
III. We are now to consider to whom this epistle was sent.
Witsius says, it was written to all Christians every where, but especially to Christians converted from Judaism : forasmuch as St. Jude refers to Jewish writings and traditions. Moreover he wrote to the same Christians to whom Peter wrote, who were such as had been Jews. To the like purpose. Estius.
Hammond says, the epistle was written to the Jews scattered abroad, who believed the Christian religion, to secure them against the errors of the Gnostics.
Dr. Benson 5 thinks that St. Jude wrote to Jewish Christians, as his brother James had done, and most probably, to the Jews of the western dispersion.
Let us now observe the inscription of the epistle in the writer's own words. “ Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called,” ver. 1. And ver. 3, “ Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation: it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you, that ye should earnestly contend for the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints."
* See Bib. Raisonnée, tom. XXXI. P. II. art. i. p. 243 etiam traditionibus, desumpta sunt. Videnturque prorsus -269.
iidem esse cum illis, quos Petrus posteriore suâ epistola com• Quid Petrus et Judas per alterum illud exemplum pellat. Wits. Comment. in ep. Jud. sect. viii. p. 460. gelorum, qui ' peccaverunt, principio et domicilio suo dere- e Porro verisimile est, ad eosdem scriptam esse, ad
quos licto,' intenderint, et ad quam partem Historiæ Sacræ respex- scripsit B. Petrus, id est, ad eos præcipue, qui ex circumcisione erint, (ad Historiam enin Sacram respexisse certum est) nunc crediderant. Id ipsum indicant illa verba versùs 5. • Comprætermitto, aliâ forsitan occasione commodiore indicandum. ' monere autem vos volo, scientes semel omnia.' Nam id Id. ib. num. 35.
aptissime Judæis dicitur, a prima ætate imbutis cognitione See his Dissertation concerning the authority of the historiæ sacræ. Est. Argum. in Ep. Jud. second epistle of St. Peter. And here in this Volume, p.416. Videtur autem, sicut epistolæ. Jacobi et Petri, scripta
• Epistola hæc Christianis quidem universim, et potissimum fuisse ad Judæos dispersionis, Christianam Religionem amHebræis scripta est. li quibus scripta est epistola, illis desig- plexos, ut confirmarentur contra pravas doctrinas Gnosticonantur epithetis, quæ sine Gentium distinctione Christianis rum, qui tunc temporis exorti sunt. Hammond. Admonit. omnibus competunt; quamvis credibile sit, potissimum eos in ep. Judæ. Ex versione Clerici. spectari, qui ex Israëlitis in Christo crediderant. lis enim & Preface to this ep. sect. ii. p. 446. See also his parasæpiuscule argumentis utitur, quæ ex Judæorum libris, vel phrase of ver. 1.
These expressions, as seems to me, lead us to think, that the epistle was designed for the use of all in general, who had embraced the Christian religion. And if St. Jude writes to the same people, to whom St. Peter wrote, that is a farther argument for this supposition. For that St. Peter wrote to all Christians in general, in the countries named at the beginning of his first epistle, was shewn · formerly.
IV. We now come to the last point, the time of writing this epistle. Here I shall observe the opinions of several.
Dr. Benson's opinion is, “that this epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, • a few weeks, or months, after the second epistle of St. Peter: forasmuch as the state of things, • as represented in both these epistles, is very much the same.'
Mill's conjecture is, that this epistle was written about the year of Christ 90. But, as he says, there are no clear evidences of the exact iime when it was written.
Dodwell, « whom Cave follows, argues, that this epistle was written soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, in the year 71, or 72. But the reasonings of those learned men are far from being conclusive.
Lenfant and Beausobre were of opinion, that 'this epistle may be placed with great probability between the year 70, and the year 75.
Witsius thinks it > was written in this apostle's old age, and in the last age of the apostles of Christ, and when few, or perhaps none of them, were living, besides St. John.
To the like purpose - Estius.
Ecumenius in his note upon ver. 17, 18, of this epistle. - Remember the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: that they told you there should be mockers in the last time.” - Meaning,' says he, by ' Peter in his second epistle, and by Paul in * almost all his epistles. Hence it is evident, that he wrote late, after the decease of the apostles.'
If St. Jude referred here to St. Peter's second epistle, it must be allowed that he had seen it, and wrote after St. Peter: which indeed is the opinion of many. So Ecumenius appears to have thought. So also says * Estius. Dr. Benson expresseth himself after this manner: that? • it seems highly probable, that St. Jude had seen and read the second epistle of St. Peter. For • there are found in St. Jude several similar passages, not only to those in the second chapter of • the second of St. Peter, but also in the other parts of that epistle.' Nevertheless, I must still say, this appears to me doubtful.
to me doubtful. For it seems very unlikely that St. Jude should write so similar an epistle if he had seen St. Peter's. In that case St. Jude would not have thought it needful for him to write at all. If he had formed a design of writing, and had met with an epistle of one of the apostles, very suitable to his own thoughts and intentions, I think he would have forborne to write.
Indeed the great agreement in subject and design between these two epistles affords a strong argument that they were written about the same time. As therefore I have placed the second epistle of St. Peter in the year 64, I am induced to place this epistle of St. Jude in the same year, or soon after, in 65 or 66. For there was exactly the same state of things in the Christian church, or in some part of it, when both these epistles were written.
I do not insist upon the expression, “ in the last time,” which is in ver. 18. Some would understand thereby the last period of the Jewish state and constitution, immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. But I cannot interpret the phrase, “ the last time,” in Jude, or
· See before, p. 417, 418.
risque jam ante vitâ defunctis, ut Petro et Paulo, et Jacobo. b Preface to the epistle of St. Jude, sect. iii. p. 448. Nam Joannes adhuc supererat. Est. ad Jud. ver. 17. < Portasse quidem circa annum vulgaris æræ xc.
Verum 1 --υπο των αποφολων των υπο Πετρε εν τη δευτερα de ipso preciso tempore nihil habenus explorati. Proleg. επιςολη, και υπο Παυλο εν ταση
σχεδον επιςολη. Εκ τοτε δε num. 147.
δηλον, ότι εσχατον μετα το παρελθειν τες αποςολος, έγραφε d Diss. Iren. i. num. xiv.
e H. L. in S. Juda. TAUTA. Ecum. T. II. p. 633. D. f On ne se trompera pas en plaçant cette épitre entre les k Convenit argumentum hujus epistolæ cum iis, quæ B. années 70 et 75 de l'ére Chrétienne. Préf, sur l'épitre de Petrus scribit in secundâ epistolá, præsertim capite 2, et initio S. Jude.
tertii. Nam quæ hic scribuntur, adeo eum illis similia sunt, & Tempus scriptæ hujus epistolæ, uti ad postremam Apos- et hujus auctor S. Judas eam non solum legisse videatur, tolorum ætatem referendum est, quod colligitur ex ver. 17, verum etiam, partim contrahendo, partim extendendo, partim ita ad extremam quoque Judæ senectutem pertinet, &c. fisdem vocibus et sententiis utendo, imitatus fuisset. Est. Wits. in Jud. num. ix.
argum. Vid. eund. ad ver. epistolæ 17. Cæterum Apostolis fuit posterior, non omnibus, sed ple- ī Preface to St. Jude, sect iii.
“ the last days,” in St. Peter iii. 3, in so limited a sense. I think that thereby must be meant the days of the Messiah, or the late ages of the world. However, undoubtedly, that exhortation, ver. 17 and 18. “ But, beloved, remember
the words which were spoken before by the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ: that they told you there should be mockers in the last time:" do imply, as Witsius and Estius observe, that it was then the last age of the apostles: when several of them had left the world, and few of them were still surviving. Which well suits the date before mentioned, the year 64, or 65, or 66.
When St. Jude adviseth the Christians to recollect, “ and be mindful of the words of the apostles of Christ,” he may intend their preaching, which these Christians had heard, or the writings of apostles, which they had read, and had in their hands. Such discourses of St. Paul may be seen recorded in Acts xx. 29, 30. And he writes to the like purpose 1 Tim. iv. 1-5, and 2 Tim. iii. and iv. They who suppose that St. Jude had seen and read the second epistle of St. Peter, must think that he refers also to 2 Pet. ch. ïïi. 1-5.
There are some other expressions in this epistle which may deserve to be here taken notice of by us. Ver. 3. “ It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you, that you should earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.” and ver. 5. “ I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this.” These expressions seem to imply, that now some considerable time had passed, since the whole scheme of the Christian doctrine had been published to the world, and since the persons to whom the apostle is writing were first instructed in it.
Upon the whole, as before said, this epistle might be written in the year of Christ 64, or 65,
THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
I. Its Genuineness shewn from Testimony. II. From internal Characters. III. Its Time.
1. We are now come to the last book of the New Testament, the Revelation: about which there have been different sentiments among Christians, many receiving it as the writing of John, the apostle and evangelist, others ascribing it to John a presbyter, others to Cerinthus, and some rejecting it, without knowing to whom it should be ascribed.
I shall therefore here rehearse the testimony of ancient Christians, as it ariseth in several ages.
It is probable that Hermas had read the book of the Revelation, and imitated it. He has many things resembling it, Vol. i. p. 311-313. It is referred to by the martyrs at Lyons, p. 362. There is reason to think it was received by Papias, p. 337–340. Justin martyr, about the year 140, was acquainted with this book, and received it, as written by the apostle John. For in his dialogue with Trypho he expressly says: · And a man from among us, by name John, one of the • apostles of Christ, in the revelation made to him, has prophesied, that the believers in our Christ • shall live a thousand years in Jerusalem, and after that shall be the general, and, in a word, the • eternal resurrection and judgment of all together,' p. 347. To this very passage we suppose Eusebius to refer in his ecclesiastical history, when giving an account of Justin's works, he observes to this purpose: • he also mentions the Revelation of John, expressly calling it the • apostle's.' See the same page, note '. . Among the works of Melito, bishop of Sardis, one of the seven churches of Asia, about the year 177, Eusebius mentions one, entitled, Of the Reve• lation of John,' p. 359. It is very probable, that Melito ascribed this book to the apostle of that name, and esteemed it a book of canonical authority. Irenæus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul, about 178, who in his younger days was acquainted with Polycarp, often quotes this book, as • the Revelation of John, the disciple of the Lord,' p. 371. And in one place he says: • It was