almost every verse presents some indication, more or less strong, that Peter wrote with the epistle of Jude before him.

The same result has been reached independently by the consideration of the other elements in the remarkable likeness between the two epistles, of the probable authority of the two writers, of their different address, and of the general character of their epistles. The inference in each case may not be decisive in itself; but there is strength in the combination. When it is once admitted that the two epistles could not have been written independently of each other, an admission to which we are irresistibly forced, it is, of course, admitted at the same time, either that they were written conjointly, or else that one must have been written after the other, and with reference to the other. The former theory no one appears to advocate, and the question is thus brought within narrow limits. Neither epistle refers directly to the other; there is no reliable historic evidence; and the greatest possible interval between them is altogether too short to have wrought any perceptible change in the language. The question of priority must depend, therefore, for its solution, upon such indications of originality as may be observed in the one, and such appearances of an opposite character as may be found in the other.

These points have now been discussed at length. In conclusion, it may suffice to say, that the style of Peter is ornate, and at times almost artificial; that of Jude is simple, compact and direct. The style of Peter is well suited to paraphrase and amplification, while that of Jude has too much nerve and vigor for an epitome. In the language of the rhetoricians, Jude's skill is conspicuous in invention, Peter's in composition. Fulness of thought and rapidity of illustration are peculiarly characteristic of the epistle of the former. The epistle of Jude, on its face, bears no appearance of having been wrought out from the epis tle of Peter; on the other hand, there are indications of Peter's having written with the epistle of Jude before him. There are many matters in second Peter of which there is not the slightest trace in Jude; but, with the exception of a few passages for the omission of which a reason can easily be imagined, there is nothing in Jude which is not also found substantially in second Peter. The illustrations throughout favor the supposition that those of Jude were first written, those of Peter formed from them. The connection of the parts is clear and compact in Jude; in second

Peter the language often becomes involved, as if the writer were moulding his epistle upon the former work of Jude; and, as often as he wandered away in paraphrase and amplification, sought to return to the point at which he had departed from his model. Finally, the details of the language, almost everywhere, present Peter as polishing, ornamenting and amplifying the straightfor ward, inartificial language of Jude.

These facts are believed to be the result of a fair comparison of the epistles. Any one can test them for himself. It must be left to the judgment of the reader to decide to how much weight they are entitled. To the mind of the writer they are quite sufficient to establish the priority of the epistle of Jude.

In concluding this Article, however, it may not be amiss to allude to some of the consequences which flow from the admission of the priority of the epistle of Jude; consequences of sufficient importance to justify the labor of the investigation.

In the first place, we obtain, at once, a fixed limit below which the date of this epistle cannot be carried. The time of Peter's death is known with sufficient certainty, and, as his second epistle (of course, assuming its genuineness) must have been written before then, its date cannot be later than A. D. 67 or 68, and must be placed several years earlier still, if Cave's determination of the death of Peter to A. D. 64 be admitted. Taking the latest date, however, it follows that the epistle of Jude must have been written before A. D. 68. As its matter shows it to have been written sometime after the general diffusion of the Gospel, we thus obtain such narrow limits within which to fix its date, that, by assigning it to the year of our Lord 65, we cannot be very far wrong.

The step thus gained is important in many ways. It is a help to the solution of the much vexed question concerning the prophecy of Enoch contained in verses 14 and 15. For the "Book of Enoch," from which Jude has been often supposed to have quoted, is assigned by many, perhaps most, critics, to a later date. It would not be difficult, indeed, to prove that this apocryphal book is a composition of a period later than any possible date of the epistle of Jude; but it is satisfactory to know that, even if we admit the arguments of those who refer its publication to the close of the first century, we are still safe in maintaining that it cannot possibly have been quoted by Jude.

Passing by other uses to be made of the determination of this

question, such as its bearing upon the genuineness and authority of the epistle of Jude, we are struck with the insight hereby given into the state of the Christian church within less than twoscore years of its foundation. From the other epistles of the same period we learn, it is true, essentially the same facts; but here we look upon them from a different point of view, and, as it were, through the mind of another inspired writer. We find here the full verification of our Saviour's parables of the wheat and the tares, of the net gathering fish, good and bad; and we are certain that the church must have made great progress, before it could have been exposed to the dangers here mentioned, and before wicked men could have thought it worth their while surreptitiously to enter the Christian fold. We learn, too, how very short a time was necessary for the growth of corruptions in Christian doctrine, and how, from the earliest period, a certain fixed body of truth had been established, a "faith once delivered to the saints," to be earnestly contended for, as it is, without improvement and without change.

In a word, the whole epistle appears in quite a different light, if it be considered as belonging to A. D. 90, or as having been published A. D. 65. And, although its direct teaching is in either case the same, yet the information to be incidentally gained from it depends very much upon whether it was written five-andtwenty years earlier or later.

The earlier date is nearer than the later to what may be called the balance of the various dates adopted by the learned.

ARTICLE VII.

MAN AND HIS FOOD.

By Leonard Withington, D. D., Newbury, Mass.

EATING is one of the lowest enjoyments of a rational being, and yet necessary to our repose and our mental speculations. If a man will not work neither shall he eat; but it is equally clear that, if he does not eat, neither can he work. There is no

character which raises such perfect contempt as a glutton; we despise him more, though he is not a greater sinner, than the drunkard; and when we read in historical record that the great Caesar, the warrior, the conqueror, the orator, the statesman, the only man, as Cato said, that came sober to the subversion of his country, was accustomed, when invited to a feast, to whet his appetite by taking an emetic, we can scarcely believe the story, though so well attested;1 and we come to the conclusion that not all the glories which blazed around his brow, can rescue this part of his character, and certainly this vice, from contempt. The old allegorical poet has given us a picture of gluttony which certainly embodies the common feelings of mankind against it:

"And by his side rode loathsome Gluttony,
Deformed creature on a filthie swyne;
His belly was upblown with luxury,

And eke with fatnesse swollen was his eyne;
And like a crane his necke was long and fyne,
With which he swallowed up excessive feast,
For want whereof poor people oft did pyne:
And all the way, most like a brutish beast,
He spued up his gorge, that all did him deteast.

In greene vine leaves he was ryht fitly clad;
For other clothes he could not wear for heate;
And on his head an yivie garland had,

From under which fast trickled down the sweate.
Still as he rode he somewhat still did eat,
And in his hand did beare a bouzing can,

Of which he sipt so oft, that in his seat

His drunken corse he scarse upholden can;

In shape and life more like a monster then a man.

Unfit he was for any worldly thing,

And eke unhable once to stirre, or go;

Not meet to be of counsell to a king,

Whose mind in meat and drinke is drowned so,

That from his frend he seldom knew his fo;

Full of diseases was his carcas blew,

And a dry dropsie through his flesh did flow,

Which by misdiet daily greater grew:

Such one was Gluttony, the second of that crew."

Faery Queen, B. I. Canto IV. 21–23.

1 Vide Epistolas ad Atticum, 52. Lib. XIII. Unctus est; accubuit; ¿μɛtinýv agebat. Itaque edit et bibit åðɛõs et jucunde, etc. It is more remarkable as Caesar was regarded as a model of Roman temperance. Vini parcissimum ne inimici quidem negaverunt; and Cato said, unum ex omnibus ad evertendam Remp. sobrium accessisse. Suetonius, Vita, c. 53.

But this deformed vice is the abuse of a natural appetite. Take away from the astronomer his food, and he will soon cease to lift his telescope to the stars. The saint, the martyr, the moralist, and the poet, all pursue their sublime occupations through the vigor and animation of the body. In a word, as the sweetest blossom on the highest tree, though it seems to be fed by the very air which it decorates, is nourished by the dirt and manure around the roots of the tree, so the sublimest mind is supplied by the food of the body. Man does not live on bread alone, but, in order to live, he certainly needs bread.

In the Old Testament, food is used as a signal of celestial blessings. "He should have fed thee also with the finest of the wheat and with honey out of the rock should I have satisfied thee." These are not the aliments of savage man. We are instructed in the Bible to pray for our daily bread; we should be abundantly thankful whenever it is given. Nay, we are instructed not to be totally indifferent to the kind of food, for discrimination here is connected with other discrimination, and indicates improvement in the taste. We will not take advantage of Dr. Johnson's remark, who held that he who did not mind his dinner, would scarcely mind anything else. Suffice it to say, that taste in food and taste in dress, science, and literature, always go together. He that feeds grossly will judge grossly; and God himself has promised the finest of the wheat as a reward to obedience, and probably as a means of improvement. "Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh; for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof; whosoever eateth it shall be cut off. And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts (whether it be one of your own country or a stranger), he shall both wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the even, then he shall be clean." Lev. 17: 14, 15. The eleventh chapter of Leviticus is a remarkable chapter. Let any one consider the gier-eagle as the filthy bird is described by naturalists, and then ask why such a walking abomination is forbidden to man.1

When we look over the world, we find every variety in the

66

1 The vultur percnopterus. The appearance of the bird is as horrid as can well be imagined. The face is naked and wrinkled, the eyes large and black, the beak black and crooked, the talons large and extended for prey; and the whole body polluted with filth."- See Natural History of the Bible, by Dr. Har

ris of Dorchester, p. 182.