supposed to have meant to speak with exactness of any thing so unimportant, "the line of thirty cubits that did compass it round about," 1 Kings vii. 23, may have passed under the brim,-concerning which see ver. 24.

E. A.

REPLY TO UNJUST CENSURES UPON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

IN perusing "The Modern Martyr," by the author of a series of popular religious tracts, entitled, "The Evangelical Rambler," I was grieved to observe the following misrepresentations of our venerable church, especially as the writer professes to have kept his pages free from "the leaven of a sectarian bigotry."

"The Church of England," he says, "is a human institution, founded on human authority, supported by human laws, and whose emoluments and rewards are derived from the honours and wealth of the world and though it incorporate in its Articles, its Homilies and its Liturgy, the essential doctrines of Christianity, yet it does not absolutely require its members to be spiritually-minded men." Again: "If I inquire from the oracles of inspiration, what description of men should be employed in the public service of the church of Christ, I am told that they should be good men, full of faith and the Holy Ghost, ardently attached to the Lord Jesus, zealous and devoted to his service, &c.......But does the Church of England require these essential qualifications in the men whom she consecrates to the work of the ministry?" Let her answer for herself in the very first question which she puts to all candidates for holy orders-"Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost,

to take upon you this office and ministration, to serve God for the promoting of his glory and the edifying of his people ?" Can any thing be more solemn and heartsearching than this inquiry, and the whole of the service? It is quite irrelevant to allege, in reply, that the church is indifferent to the spiritual qualifications of her ministers, because unworthy persons thrust themselves into the pastoral office. Rather is it one among many instances of human imperfection, that the best-contrived systems of discipline are too often impeded by human infirmity. Would not a person who could hypocritically answer the questions in our ordination service, give an account of his conversion, and profess a devotedness to God as is required among the Dissenters, if it were likely to further his worldly interests, though he had neither experienced the one, nor felt the other.

The author of the work alluded to, declares that his first objection against the church is, "because she does not absolutely require the essential qualifications of a NewTestament minister, in her candidates for holy orders." Happy, therefore, shall I feel, to remove so serious a scruple; for which purpose, I should think it sufficient to recommend him to read with attention, the affectionate and serious charge given to priests at their ordination; in which the bishop says, "Consider how studious ye ought to be in reading and learning the Scriptures, and in framing the manner, both of yourselves and of those that specially pertain unto you, according to the rule of the same Scriptures;" and then let him candidly ask, whether our church does not absolutely require the essential qualifications of a New-Testament minister in her candidates for holy orders?

CLERICUS.

1. The Book of Enoch the Prophet: an Apocryphal Production, supposed to have been lost for Ages; but discovered, at the Close of the last Century, in Abyssinia; now first translated from an Ethiopic MS., in the Bodleian Library. By RICHARD LAURENCE, LL.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew. [Now Archbishop of Cashel.] Oxford. 1821. 8vo. pp. xlviii. and 214.

2. Three Letters to the Lord Archbishop of Cashel, on the recent Apocryphal Publications of his Grace, &c. &c. By the Rev. JOHN OXLEE, Curate of Stonegrave. York. 1827. 8vo. pp.

144.

3. The Genuineness of the Book of Enoch investigated. By the Rev. J. M. BUTT, M.A., Vicar of East Garston, Berks. London. 1827. 8vo. pp. 92.

FROM the second century of the Christian æra, down to the present day, great difference of opinion has existed among Biblical scholars with regard to a passage in the Epistle of St. Jude (verses 14, 15), which records a prophecy of "ENOCH, the seventh from Adam." This very remarkable passage has given occasion to the inquiries; whether the Apostle cited this prophecy from some book, extant in his time, bearing the name of "ENOCH," and whether, on the supposition of his having quoted such a book, he must be considered as having cited an apocryphal or a genuine work.

Were we to reason merely à priori, we should not hesitate to say that it is incredible that St. Jude cited a book then extant claiming to be the prophecies of Enoch; for, had it been genuine, the Divine Spirit would not surely have suffered his own word to be afterwards lost; and had it been Apocryphal, the inspired Apostle would not have CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 331..

stamped it with his authority, and have declared it to have been the production of "Enoch, the seventh from Adam." Indeed, the language of St. Jude by no means implies that he quoted from any book whatever, professing to be written by Enoch (a circumstance which most writers on this controverted subject have mistaken); and hence some persons have come to the highly improbable conclusion, that the prophetic words attributed to Enoch were revealed to the Apostle by immediate revelation. But this conclusion is not more improbable than it is unnecessary. There is yet another source from which this insulated passage might have been derived; namely, an authentic tradition. There is nothing to forbid, but much to establish, the Supposition, that some historical facts omitted in the Hebrew Scriptures were handed down by the uninspired authors of the Jewish nation. Although it is true that, in the most ancient remains of Hebrew literature, history is so obscured by fable as to be an altogether uncertain guide, yet some truth doubtless exists in this mass of fiction. This observation may be applied with still greater force to the Jewish records which existed in the Apo stolic age. We know, indeed, from the highest authority, that the Jewish doctors of that period had "made the word of God of none effect by their traditions;" but still their uninspired records must have contained some authentic narratives. From such a source, we may rationally suppose that St. Jude gathered the traditional antediluvian pro phecy of Enoch, under the direction of that infallible Spirit who preserved the inspired writers from error, and guided them into all truth. We conclude, therefore, that the Apostle did NOT quote from any book extant in his day

31

purporting to have been written by

Enoch.

This conclusion is built on an hypothesis both easy and natural; and it saves us from some very serious difficulties, or rather gets rid of some very dangerous consequences, to which we shall advert in a future page. The advocates for the opposite opinion, it must be admitted, are numerous and respectable. Those of the early fathers who have adverted at all to the subject, and by far the greater number of Biblical critics in modern times, maintain that St. Jude had actually before him a book extant under the name of ENOCH, from which he made the quotation under discussion. Nay, we are required to believe that the very book which the Apostle quoted is still in existence; and that it was the same (abating the spoliations of time) with that identical volume which now lies under our eye! A critical examination of a book professedly written by the seventh man from Adam-the only book which has survived the Flood!-might seem to fall more appropriately within the province of "The RETROSPECTIVE Review," than of our publication. However, to be serious, we propose to demonstrate, not only that this piece is Apocryphal, as is admitted by Dr. (now Archbishop) Laurence; but that it was composed in a later period than that which closed the canon of the New Testament, a point in which he is not disposed to acquiesce.

The summary decision of some of the early fathers, (adopted, we regret to say, by the learned prelate whom we have just named, and by Mr. Oxlee), that the date of the Book of Enoch must be prior to the Apostolic age, because it is quoted by St. Jude, will appear to be altogether inconclusive, even from what we have already advanced. In fact, we have not a particle of evidence, that a book, bearing the name of Enoch as its author, was known to the church before the

latter part of the second century. Dr. Laurence has, indeed, pointed out several quotations from Enoch in the Zohar (Laurence, pp. 21, 22), and Mr. Oxlee has added several more from the same source (Oxlee, pp. 108, 109); so that if the antiquity which some writers have claimed for this cabalistic work could be established, the date of the Book of Enoch would necessarily be carried back beyond the age of the Mishna; that is, beyond the early part of the second century; but Mr. Oxlee has given abundant proof that the Sepher Zohar itself is comparatively a modern work *. It may, then, be confidently stated, that the earliest notice of the Book of Enoch, is a quotation inade from it by Irenæus, towards the close of century II. It was well known to Tertullian, at the beginning of century III.; to Origen, a little later; and to Anatolius, Bishop of Laodicea, in the middle of the same period. It was still extant (probably only in Greek), in century VIII., at the close of which a long quotation was made from it by George (surnamed Syncellus), a monk of Constantinople. From that time it disappears; and all that was known of it at the close of the last century, is comprised in the insignificant fragments preserved

ment in the text, we take this opportunity * That we may not interrupt the arguof stating in a note, that Mr. Oxlee's criticisms on this subject (pp. 11-26) are most ably conducted. He clearly proves that the Zohar could not have been written earlier than century IV., from the names it contains of the Talmudic doctors; nor than century VII. or VIII., from its citing the Jerusalem Targum; quoting the Sepher Raziel. He maintains nor than century X. or XI., from its (on the authority of the Sepher Jeuchasin, Constantinople, 1566) that the Zohar was the composition of Rabbi Moses, of Leon, It has been who flourished about 1293.

stated that the original bulk of the Zohar was so great, that it would have formed a load for a camel; and that, on the Spaniards plundering Heidelberg in 1620, a copy of it was found in that university, on all the twenty-four Books of the Old Testament, which was as heavy a burden as a stout porter could carry !

was thrown over the work while it remained unknown; and because it enables us to decide with certainty upon its character, as a presumptuous and mischievous fabrication, of a date posterior to the close of the canon even of the New Testament. We shall give a very short account of its contents; and then notice the various opinions which have been entertained of the eredit due to it.

The work which has come down to us, through the Ethiopic version, under the name of "ENOCH," is not a single treatise, but consists of several books. In this respect it accords exactly with the notices given of it by early writers. Origen adverts to it as "The books which are called Enoch." "Plurima in LIBELLIS qui appellantur Enoch secreta continentur et arcana." Orig. Hom. xxviii. in Numeros. Tom. ii. p. 384. edit. Delarue, Paris, 1733. Τα επιγεγραμμενα του Evox BIBAIA. Orig. cent. Cels. lib. v. 54. tom. ii. p. 619.-In the Abyssinian version we find no fewer than seven books, at the least: there are perhaps more, for the tracts which have been blended into one composition are in a state of great confusion and dislocation. Dr. Laurence has thought it expedient to detach some long passages and chapters from the station which they occupy in the Ethiopic copy, and to insert them conjecturally in other places; in doing which, we venture to think he has not acted judiciously. A palpably faulty is better than a conjecturally amended text. It is to be regretted, also, that he has not abandoned the arbitrary divisions of chapters and verses (in which the three MSS. themselves disagree), and that he has not attempted to point out the manifest distinctions of books. We suggest the following outline of these distinct sections.

BOOK I. (Chapters vii. to xiii.) The History of the "Watchers." This is a gross and legendary interpre

tation of Genesis vi. 1-4; in which it is asserted that the giants in the days of Noah were a monstrous progeny, three hundred cubits in height, which sprang from the angels (or watchers) who " kept not their first estate;" but, leaving their spiritual abodes, descended on the earth for the purpose of a corrupt intercourse with the wicked race which then peopled the globe.

Book II. (Chapters xiv. to xxxvi. Chapters i. to vi. seem to be a fragment of this book, misplaced.) "The Book of the Words of Righteousness, and of the Reproof of the Watchers." In this book, Enoch "the scribe of righteousness" is sent to the fallen angels, to rebuke them for their misdeeds. It is in this section that the celebrated passage occurs, which St. Jude has been supposed to have quoted from the Book of Enoch. We subjoin it :

Behold, he cometh Behold, the Lord with ten thousand of cometh with

ten

of his

his saints, to execute thousand judgment upon them, saints, to execute to destroy the wick- judgment upon all, ed, and to reprove and to convince all all the carnal for that are ungodly every thing which among them of all the sinful and un- their ungodly deeds godly have done, and which they have committed against ungodly committed, him.-Enoch, ch. ii. and of all their hard

speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. -Jude 14, 15.

We are astonished that any learned men should have adduced this passage as a proof that the date of the Book of Enoch must be earlier than that of St. Jude's Epistle; since the fabricator of this Apocryphal book would, of course, take care that the prophecy preserved by the Apostle, should form a part of his own spurious work.

Book III. (Chapters xxxvii. to Ixiii., and lxviii., lxix.) "The second Vision of Wisdom;" or "The Words of the Book of Parables.” These parables are said to have been "one hundred and thirteen;" of which only three are preserved. In this book (chap. lix. 7-12) occurs