it is by many supposed to be a more simple and superficial mode of instruction than that which is usually adopted. Now it is very true that it may be made simple and superficial enough, and we have no manner of doubt that it is because it has been treated too much in this way it has fallen into such general disfavour, and by consequence into such general disuse. But if the work of exposition is gone about in the right spirit-if, instead of being attempted in a loose, unstudied, and hasty style, it is taken up under a proper sense of its true nature and importance, so far from being found an easy exercise, it will be felt to require much more care, reflection, and precision, than are needed in the preparation of more popular discourses.

Without presuming to think that we shall be able to conduct the present Course of Lectures in the style and spirit to which we have thus adverted, we may at least venture to say, that we are fully alive to the duty and necessity of aiming at it; and that we shall endeavour, through the aid and blessing of God, to present the lessons contained in this deeply-interesting portion of Scripture in the manner that we think best fitted to promote the spiritual edification of those who may from time to time come forth to hear us.

Before proceeding to consider the text, there is one circumstance, affecting the general character of the Epistle, which calls for some explanation—and that is, the close resemblance which exists between it and the second chapter of the Second Epistle of Peter. Indeed the leading thoughts are so nearly alike, that it looks as if Jude had heard that chapter read, and had been stirred up by a divine impulse to re-write and reiterate its lessons in another form, in order to enforce still farther the powerful and impressive exhortations which the great Apostle of the Circumcision had already sounded in the ears of the Church. But this resemblance does not extend to the leading thoughts alone: it runs through the entire substance of their matter, and pervades very observably the structure of their respective styles. Their strain of argument is precisely the same-their historical references are the same their figurative illustrations the samethe characters they are describing and denouncing the same -and in some instances the very words they make use of are identically the same. But, with this close and remarkable similarity, there are still some points of distinction between them.

Jude, if we may venture to say so, presents the subject in a more compact and connected form-leaves out several parenthetical allusions and exhortations introduced by Peter, and closes with a special and beautiful address to believers, not to be found in that part of Peter's Epistle which he evidently had in his eye. Without entering into any speculation, with the view of accounting for the resemblance to which we have thus been necessarily led to refer, we shall content ourselves by saying, that we are fully satisfied with the evidences which go to prove the genuineness and authenticity of the Chapter before us. Our time will not allow us to adduce these evidences in detail; but we consider it proper to state, in one word, that although the inspiration of this Epistle has been questioned by some considerable writers, its title to the place which it occupies in the sacred canon has been established by the general consent of the Church in all ages. With these preliminary observations, we proceed to the exposition of the Text:

66

Verses 1st and 2d-" 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: Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.”

Such is the preface or inscription prefixed to the Epistle, in which the writer states first his name, his office, and his best known relative connection. His name was Jude, or Judas. Our Lord had two Apostles so called. One of them was the wretched traitor that betrayed him - the miserable Iscariot-the son of perdition; whose memory is consigned to the execration of all ages, and who has rendered the very name which he bore a hissing and a reproach! It was, however, an honourable name in Israel, and had descended, through many generations, from Judah, the lineal progenitor of our Lord. The publication of this Epistle, besides the many advantages which the Church has derived from it, has been of this incidental benefit to its author, that it has saved him from the possibility of being mistaken, as he might otherwise have been, even in his own day, and, still more probably, in later ages, for the unhappy man, who, bearing the same name, and holding the same position, might very readily be confounded with him.

With his name, he also refers to his office-he calls himself a servant of Jesus Christ." By the Evangelists he is spoken of

66

as one of the brothers of our Lord, and it is known that he was his near kinsman, according to the flesh. We mention the fact for the purpose of pointing out the faith and spiritual-mindedness of the Apostle. So fully did he realise the personal and official dignity of his Master, that he lost sight of the earthly relationship which existed between them; insomuch that he did not venture to allude to a circumstance which he must otherwise have regarded as so great an honour, but simply spoke of himself as a servant of Jesus Christ." He was evidently accustomed to look upon Christ not as his relative, but as his Lord; not as bound to him by the natural ties of consanguinity, but as the God-man, who was exalted far above all principality and power, and "to whom every knee must bow, of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth." What is it but the influence of earthly-mindedness that makes the Roman Catholics ascribe so much influence to the Virgin Mary, because of her human connection with the Redeemer ? Their whole system of doctrine and devotion bearing on this point is based on the merest dregs of materialism. It tends to degrade and carnalise the sublimest mysteries of our faith, and to lower the Redeemer practically, just as much as he is lowered by the Arians and Socinians theoretically. The latter wish to make it out that Christ is a mere creature,—that is their theory. The former, admitting his Godhead, regard him and approach him as if he were nothing more than a creature,—that is their practice. In one word, the Papists are in their worship what the Socinians are in their creed.

But we find another proof of the strength of apostolic faith in the language of Jude, when he designates himself "a servant of Jesus Christ." A servant of whom ?-of One who bore the form of a servant himself! who lived in poverty, and died amid circumstances of the deepest humiliation and disgrace;-One who was branded as an impostor, condemned as a blasphemer, and hung up as a malefactor!-One whom public opinion had reprobated and denounced as the vilest of characters, and whom public indignation had taken and crucified between two thieves! To call themselves

the compeers of such a one would, on natural principles, have required some courage; to call themselves his friends would have required still more; but to call themselves his "servants" implied, in their case, a most signal and remarkable degree of faith. Removed as we are from the scenes and circumstances which they

personally witnessed, and accustomed as we also are, and have been, to contemplate the essential dignity and glory of Christ, we can scarcely form a clear enough conception of the strength of belief which the Apostles and primitive disciples thus displayed. While the voice of the vast majority—the stream and strength of what we call public opinion (which, in our day, is the sole guide with many, and which weighs very much with most)—held their Master in utter contempt, and regarded him as the worst and meanest of men, such and so victorious was their faith, that they reckoned it an honour to be ranked as his servants.

Having thus referred to his official character, the Apostle goes on to state, that he was the "brother of James." This James was one of the most favoured and intimate friends of Christ. Peter, and John, and he, seem to have enjoyed his confidence to a much greater extent than the rest of his disciples. They were specially selected to be the witnesses of his transfiguration. They were also those whom he took with him in the season of his agony to the Garden of Gethsemane. The peculiar friendship which their Master manifested towards them they seem to have felt and reciprocated in their turn. Thus, when He was refused admittance into one of the villages of the Samaritans, James and John were so indignant at the insult offered him, that, in the warmth of their unregulated zeal, they were for calling down fire from heaven to consume the bigoted inhabitants; and again, when our Lord was apprehended by Judas and his band, Peter rushed forward with impetuous affection, determined to fight in his defence. From these circumstances it is evident, that there was a kind or degree of personal attachment existing between our Lord and these three followers, such as does not appear to have existed between himself and any of the others. It would be curious to trace the reason of this; but, as it is not a matter of much spiritual importance, we hasten to observe, that James does not appear to have had such eminent qualities-or, at all events, such marked features of character—as his two illustrious compeers; for while Peter and John maintain their prominence on other occasions, and appear in connexion with all the leading events in the Saviour's life, he is never referred to, except on the occasions to which we have alluded. This fact might seem to warrant the inference that he was admitted to the special intimacy of his Master more from his relationship to him (for he was, like Jude, his cousin-german)

than from any recommendations, personal or official, that he possessed. But, in opposition to this view, there is ample evidence to prove that James was a man of the most striking and distinguished qualities; and that he occupied a position of the highest influence among his cotemporaries. He was the first bishop, or pastor, or presbyter, of Jerusalem, which was then the central seat of Christianity-the capital and metropolis of the Apostolic Church. This circumstance of itself shows the eminent light in which he was regarded. Besides this, he was known among the body of primitive believers by the noble designation of "James the Just;" and Paul, when speaking of the three great "pillars" of the Christian party-that is, of Peter, John, and James-mentions the last first, as if he had some pretensions to be considered the foremost of them all. Such, moreover, was the veneration in which he was held, even by the bigoted unbelievers of his time, that Josephus records it as one of the causes of the destruction of Jerusalem, "that St. James was martyred in it." From the traditionary accounts preserved of him, it seems that this holy apostle was a man of grave, cautious, reserved dispositions; with a somewhat stern temper, and a firm, decided, practical turn of mind; and you will have no difficulty in observing that these peculiarities of character are very distinctly stamped on the epistle which bears his name. On the whole, we have reason to believe that James, in point of character, parts, and personal influence, was one of the most distinguished men and ministers of his day; and hence Jude, for the purpose of making it more clearly known who he himself was, and also, doubtless, from a feeling of affectionate reverence for his eminent relative, takes occasion to state that he was the brother of James."

66

Having thus introduced himself to the notice of the reader, by mentioning his name, his office, and his connexion with the well-known pastor of Jerusalem, he then proceeds to describe those for whom the epistle was designed. It is addressed "to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called."

The word "sanctified" is commonly used in Scripture in a twofold sense. It is sometimes employed to express the idea of separation, which, under the Old Testament, was the typical act which denoted sanctification, as it intimated that the object selected and segregated was withdrawn from a common,