and he has taken no notice in the whole chapter of the fecond Epistle of St. Peter, in which it is faid, that this change will be effected by fire. He ufes indeed the expreffion a new heaven and a new earth' which occurs. in this Epiftle, but he quotes it from Ifaiah, and not from St. Peter'. Though Origen does not pofitively deny a general conflagration, he does not pofitively grant. it: and it is obvious, that the new heaven and the new earth, of which he fpeaks, might denote, in his opinion, nothing more than an improvement of their present state, and not a totally new world, which should rife out of the ruins of the old. Origen's principles therefore appear to differ from the doctrine delivered by St. Peter on this fubject in his fecond Epiftle: and this is probably the reafon, why he efteemed this Epiftle lefs than the Epistle of St. Jude. One of them he thought it neceffary to retain, because thefe are the only two Epiftles, in which the hiftory of the rebellious angels is recorded, and this hiflory was at that time of very great importance.

After the time of Eufebius, the Epiftle of St. Jude was received both by the Greek and by the Latin church: but it does not enter into my plan, to appeal to the decifion of councils, or to the fentiments of ecclefiaftical writers, who lived in the fifth and following

centuries.

The ancient Syrian church did not receive it: at leaft it has no place in the old Syriac verfion, any more than the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, and the two laft Epiftles of St. John. What later Syrian writers have thought of it, I know not: nor has Haffencamp in his Remarks on the first edition of this Introduction been able to produce paffages from Syrian authors, as decidedly in favour of this Epiftle, as he has done in favour of the other Epiftles, which are not contained in the old Syriac verfion.

Efaias quoque, cum per prophetiam dixit, quia erit cœlum povum, et terra nova,' fimilem fuggerit intellectum,

SECT. IV.

The fame question examined from internal evidence.

T appears from the preceding fection, that the external evidence is more in favour of this Epiftle than againft it but if we examine its contents, we fall find, that there is lefs reafon to believe it to be a work of divine authority, than Origen fuppofed. However not every objection, which has been made to it, is unanfwerable.

The very first objection, for inftance, which is made to ver. 6, 7. may be easily removed. It has been faid, that in the exprefion ὁμοιον τατοις τρόπον, ver. 7. the pronoun Tarois refers to ayysas, ver. 6. Now if this were true, the author of our Epiftle would fay, that Sodom and Gomorrha, and other neighbouring cities, committed fornication, in the fame manner as the fallen angels, and would thus appear to relate, as a real fact, the fable of the angels committing fornication with the daughters of men. But there is no neceffity for referring THTOIS to ayyeλ85, fince it may be referred, without violating the grammatical conftruction, to Zodoua, which is a neuter plural, and had been used at the beginning of ver. 7. Or it may relate to the falfe teachers, mentioned in the next verfe, whom the author of this Epiftle exprefsly compares with the inhabitants of Sodom, on account of their licentious behaviour.

But it is much more difficult to vindicate the ninth verfe, in which the Archangel Michael is faid to have difputed with the devil about the body of Mofes, The whole hiftory of this difpute, which has the appearance of a Jewish fable, it is not very easy at prefent

Herder, in his Efay on the two Epiftles of St. James and St. Jude, p. 81, 82. aflerts, that this story was derived by St. Jude, not

from

fent to difcover, because the book, from which it is fuppofed to have been taken by the author of our Epiftle, is no longer extant: but I will here put together fuch fcattered accounts of it, as I have been able to collect.

Origen, found in a Jewish Greek book, called the 'Affumption of Mofes,' which was extant in his time, though it is now loft, this very ftory related concerning the difpute of the Archangel Michael with the devil about the body of Mofes. And from a comparifon of the relation in this book with St. Jude's quotation, he was thoroughly perfuaded, that it was the book, from which St. Jude quoted. This he afferts without the leaft hefitation and in confequence of this perfuafion he himfelf has quoted the Affumption of Mofes, as a work of authority, in proof of the temptation of Adam and Eve by the devil. But as he has quoted it merely for this purpose, he has given us only an imperfect account of what this book contained, relative to the difpute about the body of Mofes. One circumftance however he has mentioned, which is not found in the Epiftle of St. Jude, namely, that Michael reproached the devil with having poffeffed the ferpent, which feduced Eve. In what manner this circumitance is connected with the difpute about the body of Mofes will appear from the following confideration. The Jews imagined, the perfon of Mofes was fo holy, that God could find no reafon for permitting him to die and that nothing, but the fin committed by

Adam

from a Jewish legend but from a Zoroaftric doctrine in the Zend Avelta. Now whether the paffage, which Herder, who every where difcovers Zoroastric doctrines, has quoted from the Zend-Avesta, or the well-known Jewith legend, is beft adapted to the place in question, I think no man will long hefitate in determining. But even if Herder's opinion were true, no advantage could accrue from it to the Epistle of St. Jude; for what he has quoted from the Zend-Avella is certainly a fable, nor can he himself fuppofe it to be otherwife.

Ανάληψις το Μωσεως.

De principiis, Lib. III. cap. 2. Et primo quidem in genefi ferpens Evam feduxiffe defcribitur, de quo in Afcenfione Mofis, cujus libelli meminit in Epiftola fua Apoftolus Judas: Michael archangelus, cum diabolo difputans de corpore Moyfi, ait, a diabolo inspiratum ferpentem cauffam extitifle prævaricationis Adæ et Evæ.'

ever.

Adam and Eve in paradife, which brought death into the world, was the caufe, why Mofes did not live for The fame notions they entertained of fome other very holy perfons, for inftance, of Ifai, who, they say, was delivered to the angel of death merely on account of the fins of our firft parents, though he himself did not deferve to die. Now in the difpute between Michael and the devil about Mofes, the devil was the accufer, and demanded the death of Mofes. Michael therefore replied to him, that he himself was the caufe of that fin, which alone could occafion the death of Moses.How very little fuch notions, as thefe, agree either with the Chriftian theology, or with Mofes's own writings, it is unneccffary for me to declare.

Lardner indeed contends that Origen was mistaken in his affertion, that St. Jude quoted from a book called the Affumption of Mofes, and fays, there is reafon to believe, though this book exifted in the time of Origen, that it was not written till after the time of St. Jude. But Lardner affigns no reason for this affertion; and fince he himself never faw the book, and therefore could form nơ judgement of it, I think it very extraordinary, that he fhould venture to contradict fuch an eminent critic as Origen, who had actually feen it, and who lived within two hundred years after the time of St. Jude. If the Affumption of Mofes had not been written before thé fecond century, the age in which Origen's preceptor, Clement of Alexandria lived, it is wholly incredible that Origen, whofe particular talent was criticifm, fhould have fuffered himself to be fo impofed upon, in refpect to the time of its compofition, as to imagine that St. Jude quoted it in the first century.

Nor is Lardner the only perfon who afferts, that St. Jude did not quote from the Affumption of Mofes, for feveral other writers, in order to remove the reproach of a quotation from an apocryphal book, have maintained that this very book, inftead of having been quoted by St. Jude, was a later forgery of fome Chriftian, and that

the paffage in St. Jude's Epiftle relative to Michael and the devil gave rife to the fabrication. Now this is a mere conjecture: and it is a very improbable one, because we know that fimilar, though not the fame accounts, relative to a converfation of Michael and the devil at the death of Mofes, are contained likewife in Hebrew writings of the Jews. But no one can fuppofe that the Jews would fabricate a work, out of compliment to an Epiftle written by a Chriftian author.

Ac

Befide the account given by Origen, there is a paffage in the works of Oecumenius, which likewife contains a part of the story related in the Affumption of Mofes, and which explains the reafon of the difpute, which St. Jude has mentioned concerning Mofes's body. cording to this paffage, Michael was employed in burying Mofes; but, the devil endeavoured to prevent it, by faying that he had murdered an Egyptian, and was therefore unworthy of an honourable burial. Hence it appears, that fome modern writers are mistaken, who have imagined, that in the ancient narrative, the difpute was faid to have arifen from an attempt of the devil to reveal to the Jews the burial place of Mofes, and to incite them to an idolatrous worthip of his body.

There is ftill extant a Jewish book, written, in Hebrew, and entitled, that is, The death of Mofes,' which fome critics, especially De la Rue, fuppose to be the fame work, as that which Origen faw in Greek. Now if it were, this Hebrew book, entitled Phetirath Mofhe, would throw a great light on our prefent inquiry: but I have carefully examined it, and

can

The words of Oecumenius, Tom. II. p. 629. are, 'H de weg! TH Μωυσέως σώματος κρίσις ετιν αυτή λέγεται τον Μιχαήλ τον αρχαγγελον

τη το Μωυσέως ταφη δεδιηκονικεναι. Το δε διάβολε τητο μη καταδέχο μενε αλλ' επιφεροντος έγκλημα για τον τε Αιγυπτιά φονον, ὡς δια τέτο εποχες ούτος Μωυσέως, και μη συγχωρείσθαι τυχειν της εντιμα ταφής. A more full account of this fable is contained in a Greek fcholion on Jude 9. in the Codex Lambecii 34. of which a transcript may be seen in the Orient. Bib. Vol. XXIII. p. 153.

See his note on the above-quoted paffage in Origen de principiis, Lib. III. c. 2.