1829.] the grossly absurd legend of Leviathan and Behemoth; which is found also in the Apocryphal 2 Esdras vi. 49-52. This story represents two monsters, as created on the fifth day, too large for the ocean to hold them both. One, therefore, Behemoth, was placed in the wilderness; the other, Leviathan, was killed, and salted in the great sea: and there, it seems, they are to remain till the Millennium, when they will be dress ed to form a feast for the elect, to celebrate the coming of the Messiah! The same legend was inserted in the Talmud, about the fifth century. (Baba Bathra, p. 74, c. 2.) BOOK IV. (Chapter lxiv. to lxxii.) Noah's Vision of the Flood. This appears to have originally constituted a perfectly distinct apocryphal tract. At the close occurs the following :-"After this he gave me passage:the signs of all the secret things in the book of my great grandfather Enoch, and in the parables which had been given to him; inserting them for me among the words of The Book of Parables." It seems to have been from a mistaken view of this passage, that some transcriber has inserted the Vision of Noah itself, in "The Book of Parables of Enoch." [Book iii.] Dr. Laurence has very judiciously detached it, and placed it at the end of his volume. BOOK V. (Chapters lxxi. to lxxxi.) "The Book of the Revolutions of the Luminaries of Heaven." An account of the length of the year; the motions of the sun and moon; the quarters from which the winds blow, with their respective qualities; and other particulars. Of this book we shall have occasion to give a inore detailed account below, in proof that it was not written before the Christian era. BOOK VI. (Chapters lxxxii. to xci.) "Enoch's Visions of the Flood, of the corrupt Deeds of the Watchers, and of the History of the Jews." The wicked angels are said to have descended in the form of falling" stars;" with manifest allusion to Jude 13.-"wandering stars." And this is an additional proof, that this Book VII. (Chapters xcii. to civ.) The book of "The Plant of Righteousness;" containing the Prophecy of the Ten Weeks. This book impiously pretends to be a revelation derived from "the tablets of heaven" (xcii. 3, ciii. 1), and to be copied from "the writings and impressions above in heaven." (cv. 23.) We meet with precisely the same astrological phraseology in other Apocryphal pieces of the early ages the church. of The pseudo-Enoch, pretending to have learned his oracular lessons from these celestial characters, proceeds to foretel the great events in the history of the world, from the creation to the consummation of all things; assuming its duration to be ten periods of seven hundred years each, or seven thousand years altogether, accorda well-known Rabbinical ing to tradition. We shall recur to this, by and bye, somewhat in detail, as containing incontestible evidence that this pseudo-prophecy was not written earlier than the second century. Book VIII. (Chapter cv. verses 1-20.) The Book of the Birth of Noah. Book IX. (Chapter cv. verses 21 -27.) The Book of the Blessings of the Righteous. After having perused even this very general and imperfect abstract of the contents of THE BOOK (or rather BOOKS) OF ENOCH, our readers will not be inclined to judge very favourably of this ancient work, nor to believe that the Apostle Jude could have given countenance to such a composition, by solemnly quoting any portion of it. But, before we express our own sentiments more fully, let us see what have been the opinions of various writers, both ancient and modern, on the subject. We shall begin with the very highest authority which has been attributed to this book, and gradually descend to the lowest point in the scale; at which, we freely confess, our own estimate of its character is deliberately settled. In a very early period,-in the same century in which this book 'was fabricated, (as we shall hereafter shew), it had so completely imposed upon the Christian church, as to be esteemed by many persons an inspired composition. Tertullian, who cites it about the year 200, zealously maintains that the Holy Spirit uttered predictions by the most ancient prophet Enoch," in this book. "Hæc igitur ab initio prævideas Spiritus Sanctus etiam ostia in superstitionem versura, præcecinit per antiquissimum Prophetam Henoch." (Tertul. de Idolat. c. 15.) He grounds his conclusion on the unproved assertion that it was quoted by St. Jude; and though he admits (what is very important to be observed), that it was not re. ceived into the Hebrew canon in his day, he attempts to account for this fact by the unworthy imputation, that the Jews rejected it because it testifies of Christ. It seems that the Book of Enoch was pretty generally believed to be Scripture by the church in his time; a fact which may shew how cautious we should be in admitting the testimony of early Christian writers to the authenticity of any book professing to belong to the Old Testament, when their testimony opposes the evidence of the Jews themselves. On the subject of the Old-Testament canon, the Jews were the proper, and the accredited witnesses, in the His language is, "Scio Scripturam Enoch, qui hunc ordinem angelis dedit, non recipi a quibusdam." (Tertul. de Cultu Foem. lib. i. c. 3.) This appears to imply, that those who rejected it were a minority. time of our Lord and his Apostles; nor have they, since that period, rejected any inspired writing which they then acknowledged. If once we desert this position, the arguments of the Romish and of the Greek church, will be found invincible against the Protestant canon. Dr. Laurence thinks there is no danger of Tertullian's opinion being defended in modern times: but he is mistaken; for it is adopted (not only by the Abyssinian church, but) by two English clergymen *, Mr. Oxlee and Mr. Butt. Mr. Oxlee's "Three Letters," afford abundant proof of the deep attention he has paid to Biblical, and particularly Rabbinical, literature; and when we express our decided disapprobation of his sentiments, we beg to be understood as confining our remark to the fourteen pages which he has devoted to the Book of Enoch. (pp. 107-119.) "I differ," he says, "from your Grace, and others, in so highly exalting the character of the work," as to maintain that "we are bound to infer that the whole of the Book, as well as the simple passage cited [by St. Jude], is equally to be received for Holy Scripture...... Nor can I imagine with what colour of propriety any one could presume to reprehend me for thus implicitly relying on his Apostolic authority." (pp.106, 107.) With the good sense, however, which becomes a man of real learning, he acknowledges that this conclusion depends upon its being "satisfactorily proved to have descended to us, in its form and substance, much the same as it existed in the hands ed a Dissertation at Paris, in which he In 1713, the Rev. M. Macé publishmaintained the inspiration of the few fragments of the Book of Enoch which were known at that time. Fabricius, in noticing this absurd dissertation, remarks, that he" did not think M. Macé's arguments worthy of notice; because no Jew at any time acknowledged the genuineness of the Book of Enoch; and because scarcely a Christian could be found who had ever given the slightest credit" to this forgery. Fabricius, Cod. Pseudep. Vet. Test. tom. II. p. 84. Edit. Hamburgi. 1741. 1829.] Review of Works on the Book of Enoch. of the Apostle." This being granted, it would not be easy to deny the claim which he institutes for it," as entitled to a place in the sacred canon, equally with the Epistle of St. Jude itself." (p. 105.) Mr. Butt adopts the same dangerous sentiments; but his pamphlet is neither convincing nor scholar-like. "Are we sure," he asks, "that all such inspired writings as the Jews possessed have had fair play, and not been suppressed, or branded with ignominious names, and their genuineness called in question...... The Book of Enoch may be intend. ed by the Holy Spirit as an amplification and commentary on the first chapters of Genesis." (Butt, p. 13.) He seems, indeed, for a moment to shrink from attributing this foolish composition to the Spirit of Truth; for he adds, "I have not been arguing that the Book of Enoch is inspired, but that it may be in spired" (p. 15): but, becoming bolder as he proceeds, he says, "Let us beware how we take away from the words of the book of this prophecy. I assert, that St. Jude could not have been deceived respecting the real author of this book (p. 19); "we are not so little concerned in this book as we may fancy" (p. 53); "I cannot but conclude the book could not have been written before the first advent without inspiration;"" the present age takes as much away from the words of the Book of Life, as any age ever added unto them ...... Enoch,' saith St. Jude,-not an impostor, but very Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these;' and whoso dare contradict this assertion, contradicts not ME, but the Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ." (p. 76.) But all this is nothing to the purpose. No person, who has a due veneration for the inspired Scriptures, thinks of denying that St. Jude has quoted a real prophecy of the real Enoch. But the point on which we demand proof, is, the assertion that St. Jude quotes that book which Tertullian 423 believed to have been written by nesis, because EYA is found in EYAYуɛλov, and EVA in EVAngelium (p. 51); the promise of salvation being thus plainly associated with the name of the first mother. He inclines to think that crib is derived from cherub, boat and Kiẞwros from ki-bait, ♫ (p. 89). His style is not more chaste than his etymology is judicious. “Enoch," he says, "was condemned by that law, the hope of which was ire, the menace of which was fire, and the holiness of which was crystal." (p. 55.) "French Gallionism, or sovereign indifference and scepticism to wards all truth, is striking multitudes in this nation with the palsy of the understanding." (p. 78). We refrain from reasoningwith an author who can write and print passages like these. Another class of writers seems to regard the Book of Enoch as holding a sort of middle place, between an undoubtedly inspired, and a merely human work; a composition of ambiguous character; to be venerated on the very account of the uncertainty and the mystery which envelop its age and author. It is probable that Irenæus thus regarded it, in the decline of century II.; for though he does not call it Scripture, yet he quotes it in a manner which shews that he believed the fabulous narrative of Enoch's embassy to the angelswatchers (Irenæi Opp. p. 319, Edit. Grabe). But Origen goes much further. Writing, in the first part of century III., (only a few years after Tertullian) he tells us, that "in the churches the books of Enoch were not altogether considered as Divine;" and in perfect consistency with this opinion, he himself quotes Enoch....legatione ad angelos fungebatur, et translatus est." Irenæus, adv. Hæreses, lib. v. c. 30., p. 319. edit. Grabe, Oxon. 1702. θεια τα + Εν ταις εκκλησίαις ου πάνυ φερεται ὡς επιγεγραμμένα του Ενωχ Βιβλια Orig. cont. Cels. lib. v. 54. tom. p. 619. edit Delarue, Paris. 1733. Η «Ως εν τῳ Ενωχ γεγραπται, ει τῷ φίλον παραδέχεσθαι ὡς ἁγιον το Βιβλιον. Orig. in Johan. vi. 25. tom. iv. p. 142. edit. Delarue, Paris. 1733. . Enoch as deserving of high credit, and as an authority at his reader's service, "if he like to receive the book as holy." Unfeigned as is our respect for the fathers, we cannot but express our disapprobation of this absurd opinion, that any book can have an intermediate character; poised in equilibrio, like Mohammed's coffin, according to vulgar belief, and occupying a place which can neither be said to be on earth nor in heaven. We refer our readers to some excellent remarks on this subject in the present Bishop of Peterborough's "Comparative View of the Churches of England and Rome." (p. 81, et seq. 2d edit.) We may trace up to the writings of Origen, and to his unsettled opinion as to the spurious pieces of his age, the mischievous distinction which was made by some learned Romanists, before the Council of Trent, between the proto-canonical, and the deuterocanonical books of Scripture. Not a few modern Protestants (especially in the Lutheran Church) have fallen into a kindred error in the manner in which they are accustomed to speak of Apocryphal writings in general. The distinction between what is divine and what is human, should be broadly and distinctly maintained: we cannot admit a claim for any border region-any debateable ground *. The Reformers were very decisive upon the distinction which it is so important to observe between human and that some very ancient Apocryphal books divine writings. Although they allowed might be read in the churches for edification, they were most careful in setting up a barrier to separate them from the inspired Scriptures. See the admirable French Protestant Bible (Olivetan's), Preface to the Apocrypha, in the first 1535; which was adopted in Matthews' 1539, and all subsequent impressions, till Bible, 1537, in Cranmer's great Bible, this important distinction was made the subject of an express article (the sixth of the Anglican Church) in 1562. Hooker's language, in reference to this matter, is the due estimation of heavenly truth deeminently "judicious:" "Inasmuch as pendeth wholly on the known and ap By far the greater number of biblical critics gives up the point of the inspiration, and even of the authenticity, of the Book of Enoch. Such writers allow that it is an Apocryphal production; but they maintain that it was nevertheless quoted by St. Jude. This was the opinion of that eminent father St. Jerome, and it is adopted by the present Archbishop of Cashel. But here a difficulty of no trifling magnitude presents itself. How is it possible-it may well be askedthat an inspired Apostle should quote an avowedly spurious book, and either have been himself deceived as to its author, or at least have contributed to the delusion of the church in succeeding ages, by expressly ascribing it to "Enoch, the seventh from Adam?" So serious is this difficulty, that it has led to one or other of the following pernicious, but necessary, conclusions; either that the Epistle of Jude is itself Apocryphal, or that the Book of Enoch is undoubtedly both genuine and inspired. Granting the premises, we see not how any candid mind can deny the lamentable inference. St. Jerome informs us, that, even in his day*, many rejected the Epistle of Jude because it cites the Book of Enoch, which is Apocryphal;" and this was one of the reasons which induced Luther, and some other Reformers, for a time, to decline admitting it into the New-Testament canon. The reasoning of such objectors was just, and can be refuted only by denying that the Epistle of Jude cites the PseudoEnoch. It is astonishing that St. Jerome should have made this in cautious admission of an Apocryphal quotation by an inspired writer: he was inconsistent with himself in doing so; for, in another part of his works, he zealously and even vehemently opposed Origen and others who did the very same thing in their explanation of a passage in Isaiah (Hieron. Epist. 101. ad Pammachium, et in Libro 17. in Esai. Ixiv. 4): nor could he advert without a praise-worthy indignation to those who "introduced Apocryphal nonsense and idle stories into the church," by asserting that the sacred writers ever quoted a spurious scripture. But, if the other horn of the dilemma be preferred, and if we must admit (without prejudice to the inspiration of St. Jude) that he actually cited the existing Book of Enoch, then we fully agree with Tertullian, with Mr. Oxlee, and with Mr. Butt, that its claim to genuineness, and consequently to inspiration cannot be impugned. We agree, also, with them, that the solution of this difficulty which was proposed by St. Jerome (and which is adopted, we deeply regret to say, by so learned a writer as the Archbishop of Cashel), is unworthy of so great a name, or rather is a miserable evasion. The explanation, which appears to us so insufficient, is as follows: That St. Jude might quote a single passage, without giving authority to the whole Book of Enoch; just as St. Paul quoted the heathen poets, Aratus (Acts xvii. 28), Menander (1 Cor. xv. 33), and Epimenides (Titus i. 12), without sanctioning all that they wrote. It will be readily admitted, that an inspired, as well as any other author, might quote from a merely human writing, as much as suited his purpose, without approving the whole of the work. But the case before us is widely different. The hypothesis which we reject, assumes, that the Book of Enoch was extant in the time of St. Jude: it must admit, also (for we have internal evidence of the fact), that the book pretends 3 K |