or, according to Dodwell and Cave, in 71 or 72, or fo late as the year 90, which is the opinion of Mill, I confefs, that I am unable to determine, at least from any certain data. The expreffion in the last time,' which occurs, ver. 18. as well as in 2 Pet. iii. 3. is too indeterminate to warrant any conclufion respecting the date of this Epiftle. For, though on the one hand, it may refer to the approaching deftruction of Jerufalem, it may, on the other hand, refer to a later period, and denote the close of the Apoftolic age: for in the first Epistle of St. John a fimilar expreffion occurs, which must be taken in this latter fenfe. The inference therefore, that the Epiftle of St. Jude was written before the deftruction of Jerufalem, which fome commentators have deduced from the above-mentioned expreffion, on the fuppofition, that it alluded to that event then approaching, is very precarious, because it is drawn from premifes, which are themselves uncertain. However there is fome reafon to believe, on other grounds, that this Epiftle was not written after the deftruction of Jerufalem. For as the author has mentioned, ver. 5-8. feveral well-known inftances of God's juftice, in punishing finners, which St. Peter had already quoted in his fecond Epiftle to the fame purpose, he would probably, if Jerufalem had been already deftroyed, at the time when he wrote, have not neglected to add to his other examples this most remarkable inftance of divine vengeance, efpecially as Christ himself had foretold it. I faid in the preceding paragraph, that the Epistle of St. Jude was written after the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter. This appears from a comparison of the two Epiftles, which are fo fimilar to each other both in fentiments and in expreffions, as no two Epiftles could well be, unless the author of the one had read the Epiftle of the other. It is evident therefore, that St. Jude borrowed from St. Peter both expreffions and arguments, to which he himself has made fome few additions. n additions. Lardner indeed, though he admits the fimilarity of the two Epiftles, ftill thinks it a matter of doubt, whether St. Jude had ever feen the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter. Lardner's reafon is, that if St. Jude had formed a defign of writing, and had met with an Epistle of one of the Apostles, very fuitable to his own thoughts and intentions, he would have forborne to write. To this argument I answer: 1. If the Epiftle of St. Jude was infpired by the Holy Ghoft, as Lardner admits, the Holy Ghoft certainly knew, while he was dictating the Epiftle to St. Jude, that an Epiftle of St. Peter, of a like import, already exifted. And if the Holy Ghoft, notwithftanding this knowledge, ftill thought, that an Epistle of St. Jude was not unneceffary, why fhall we fuppofe, that St. Jude himfelf would have been prevented from writing by the fame knowledge. On the other hand, if the Epiftle of St. Jude is not genuine, but is a forgery in his name, there is no improbability in the fuppofition, that the author derived his materials from an Epiftle of St. Peter, in the fame manner, as the perfon, who forged the Epiftle to the Laodiceans in the name of St. Paul, copied from Apoftolic writings. " 2. The fecond Epiftle of St. Peter was addreffed to the inhabitants of fome particular countries: but the addrefs of St. Jude's Epiftle is general. St. Jude therefore might think it neceffary to repeat for general ufe, what St. Peter had written only to certain communities. 3. The Epiftle of St. Jude is not a bare copy of the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter: for in the former, not only feveral thoughts are more completely unravelled than in the latter, but feveral additions are made to what St. Peter had faid, for instance in ver 4, 5. 9-16. n Supplement, Vol. III. p. 352. AA 3 SECT. SECT. III. Of the canonical authority of this Epifile: and firft of the external evidence in its favour. USEBIUS, in his Catalogue of the books of the E New Teftament places the Epiftle of St. Jude among the αντιλεγόμενα, in company with the Epiftle of St. James, the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, and the fecond and third of St. John. But Origen, who lived in the third century, though he fpeaks in dubious terms of the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, has feveral times quoted the Epiftle of St. Jude, and has spoken of it as an Epiftle, on which he entertained no doubt. In his Commentary on St. Matthew, when he comes to Ch. xiii. 55. where James, Jofes, Simon, and Jude, are mentioned, he fays, ' Jude wrote an Epistle, of few lines indeed, but full of the powerful words of the heavenly grace, who, at the beginning fays, "Jude the fervant of Jefus Chrift and brother of James." This is a very clear and unequivocal declaration of Origen's opinion: and it is the more remarkable, because he fays nothing of the Epistle of St. James, though the paffage Matth. xiii, 55. afforded him as good an opportunity of fpeaking of this Epiftle, as it did of the Epiftle of St. Jude. Nay, Origen carries his veneration for the Epiftle of St. Jude fo far, that in his treatife De principiis, Lib. III. cap. 2. he quotes an apocryphal book called, The Affumption of Mofes, • Hift. Ecclef. Lib. III. c. 25. Ρ Ιεδας εγραψεν επισολήν, ολιγόειχον μεν, πεπληρωμένην δε των της Έρανια χάριτος ερρωμένων λόγων, ὅσις εν τῷ προοιμιῳ ειςηκεν Ιεδας, Ιησε Χρισε δελος, αδελφος δε Ιακωβ8. Other quotations from Origen, of a like import, may be seen in Lardner's Supplement, Vol. III. p. 332, 333. and in his Credibility, P. II. Vol. III. Ch. xxviii, Mofes, as a work of authority, because a paffage from this book had been quoted by St. Jude. In one inftance however, in his Commentary on St. Matthew, Origen fpeaks in lefs pofitive terms, for he there fays, If any one receive the Epiftle of St. Jude', &c.' Tertullian, in whofe works Lardner could difcover no quotation from the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, defcribes the Epiftle of St. Jude as the work of an Apostle for in his treatise De cultu feminarum, c. 3. he fays, Hence it is, that Enoch is quoted by the Apostle Jude.' Clement of Alexandria, in whofe works likewise Lardner could find no quotation from the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, has three times quoted the Epiftle of St. Jude', without expreffing any doubt whatfoever. It appears then, that the three ancient fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen, as far as we may judge from their writings, which are now extant, preferred the Epiftle of St. Jude to the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter. However I think it not impoffible, that, if all the writings of these authors were now extant, paffages might be found in them, which would turn the fcale in favour of the latter: and it may be owing to mere accident, that in thofe parts of their works, which have defcended to us, more paffages, in which they speak decidedly of the Epiftle of St. Jude, are to be found, than fuch as are favourable to the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter. For I really cannot comprehend how any impartial man, who has to choose between these two Epiftles, which are very fimilar to each other, can prefer the former to the latter, or receive the Epiftle of St. Jude, the contents of which labour under great difficulties, and at the fame time confider as dubious, or even reject, the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, the contents of which labour under no fuch • Ει δε και την Ιεδα προσοιτο τις επισολήν. • See Lardner's Supplement, Vol. III. p. 326-328. fuch difficulties. Whoever acts in this manner must have fome prejudice against one or more of the doćtrines delivered in the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter. Now that Origen, and likewife his preceptor Clement, had fuch a prejudice, I will endeavour to fhew in the following parágraph'. One of St. Peter's doctrines, in his fecond Epiftle, ch. iii. was, that the world would be finally destroyed. This is abfolutely denied by Philo, in his treatise de incorruptibilitate mundi: and I think, that Origen, who was an Alexandrine writer, as well as Philo, entertained the fame notions. At least, what he has written" on Matth. xxiv. 29, 30. amounts to this, that the violent diffolution of the world, there defcribed, is a matter replete with difficulty, and to be left to the faith of the weak and the unphilofophical. In his treatise De principiis, Lib. I. cap. 6. where we might expect to find his real fentiments in refpect to a day of judgement and a diffolution of the world, he cautiously avoids the giving of any decifive opinion on this fubject, and fays, that he argues only, and does not determine". That the world will undergo a change, he admits without referve, though not, that it will be totally annihilated, for which indeed no rational man will contend. But the manner, in which this change is to take place, is that, which he leaves undetermined, and What I am now going to fay, I fubmit to the decifion of those, who are better acquainted wirh the works of Origen than myfelf: and I fhall be ready to retract my opinion, as foon as paffages fhall be produced, which fhew, that my fufpicions are without foundation. " Commentariorum feries in Matthæum, Sect. 48, 49. Tom. III. p. 865, 866. ed. Benedict. W Quæ quidem a nobis cum magno metu et cautela dicentur, difcutientibus magis ac pertractantibus, quam pro certo ac definito ftatuentibus. Indicatum namque a nobis in fuperioribus eft, quæ fint, de quibus manifefto dogmate terminandum fit:- nunc autem difputandi fpecie, magis quam definiendi, prout poffumus, exercemus, Sect. 1. Tom. I p. 69. * Immutationem qualitatis, et habitus transformationem, Sect. 4. |