After all then, we must conclude with Origen, that St. Jude derived his account of the difpute between Michael and the devil about the body of Mofes, from an apocryphal book. And I know no other method of vindicating the quotation, than by furposing that St. Jude confidered the whole ftory; not as a real fact, which either he himself believed, or which he required his readers to believe, but merely as an inftructive fable, which ferved to illuftrate the doctrine, which he himself inculcated, namely, that we ought not to fpeak evil of dignities. With this view he might quote from the Affumption of Mofes the converfation of Michael, as an example of diffidence worthy of imitation, without intending to affert that the story was true, or that the book from which he quoted was of divine authority. This is the only vindication, of which in my opinion St. Jude's quotation is capable: but whether it be a fatisfactory one, I leave to be determined by the reader.

To the doctrine, which St. Jude inculcates by this quotation, that we ought not to fpeak evil of dignities, not even of the fallen angels, but that we fhould leave judgment to God, I have no objection. And I really think, that they tranfgrefs the bounds of propriety, who make it their bufinefs either in the pulpit or in their writings, to reprefent the devil as an object of deteftation, fince, notwithstanding his fall, he is ftill a being of a fuperior order. This reminds me of a certain Oriental fect, which Niebuhr met with in the neighbourhood of the river Zab in Affyria, and which for the fame reason as that, which I have juft affigned, will not fuffer any one to speak evil of the devil. It is faid that many of this fect are to be found alfo in feveral places on this fide of the Tigris, efpecially on mount Singar. Whether they are Chriftians, or Jews, or Mohammedans is uncertain. They call themselves Jefideans*, and Dauafin'; and relate that the founder of their fect was a very holy perfon, named Shaich Ade. Now, as Addus, the Apostle

يزيد

1

! Perhaps from prudentes.

Apostle of the Syrians, preached the Gofpel in those very countries, in which the Jefideans refide, and Adæus has been fuppofed by fome critics to have been the author of our Epiftle, curiofity is naturally excited to know fomething more of this fect, especially whether they maintain other unufual doctrines, which are delivered in this Epistle.

Laftly, befide the quotation, which St. Jude has made in the 9th verfe, relative to the dispute between Michael and the devil, he has another quotation ver. 14, 15 likewise from an apocryphal book, called the Prophecies of Enoch,' or, if not from any written work, from oral tradition. Now, fhould it be granted that Enoch was a prophet, though it is not certain that he was, yet as none of his prophecies are recorded in the Old Teñament, no one could poffibly know what they were.

It

is manifeft therefore that the book, called The Prophecies of Enoch,' was a mere Jewith forgery, and that too a very unfortunate one, fince in all human probability the use of letters was unknown in the time of Enoch, and confequently he could not have left behind him any written prophecies. It is true that an infpired writer might have known through the medium of divine information, what Enoch had prophefied, without having recourse to any written work on this fubject. But St. Jude, in the place where he fpeaks of Enoch's prophecies, does not fpeak of them as prophecies which had been made known to him by a particular revelation; on the contrary, he speaks of them in fuch a manner, as implies that his readers were already acquainted with them. Lardner has taken great pains to vindicate this quotation of St. Jude: and as I am unable to fay more in its defence than he has done, I must refer the reader to what he has faid in his Supplement to the Credibility of the Gofpel History, Vol. III. p. 338-343.

m What is related of them in Niebuhr's Travels, Vol. II. p. 344348. deferves particularly to be examined, though it did not occur to Niebuhr to compare their tenets with the Epiftle of St. Jude.

SECT.

SECT. V.

Refult of the inquiry inftituted in the preceding fections; and the question in debate brought to a final iffue.

ROM the account, which has been already given,

FRO

it appears, that we have very little reafon for placing the Epiftle of St. Jude among the facred writings. If the ancient church had decided pofitively in its favour, this decifion would not convince me that the Epistle of St. Jude was infpired": but the ancient church is fo divided on this fubject, that whoever is guided by it must at least fufpect, or rather reject the Epiftle of St. Jude, And if we are directed in our judgment by the contents of the Epiftle, we fhall have ftill no inducement to believe that it is a facred and divine work.

But before the question in debate can be brought to a final iffue, we must return to the inquiry inftituted in the first fection of this chapter, relative to the perfon and character of the author. If the Jude, who wrote this Epiftle, was the Apoftle Jude, the brother of the younger Apoftle James, we must place it without further hefitation among the Apoftolic writings, and pronounce it canonical. And in this cafe, we muft either believe in the story of the dispute between Michael and the devil, and in the prophecies of Enoch, or admit that the arguments, which have been alleged against the two quotations in the Epiftle of St. Jude, affect the infallibility of the Apostles themselves. On the other hand, if the author of this Epiftle was not Jude, the Apoftle, but Jude the brother in-law of Jefus, I can fee no reason why we fhould account it canonical, fince the brethren of Jefus not only were not Apoftles, but did not even believe in him during his life time. That St. James, another.

See what was faid on the teftimony of the ancient church to the infpiration of a book of the New Teftament, in the first Volume of this Introduction, ch. iii, fect, 2,

another of Chrift's brethren became afterwards one of the pillars of the church, and was placed on a level with the Apostles, will not warrant us to conclude the fame of his brother Jude, of whom we know nothing more than, that he was a fon of Jofeph by a former wife. But this relationship alone is no argument that he was infpired, and is no reason why his Epiftle, which contains accounts apparently fabulous, and which was fufpected by the ancient church, fhould be received as a rule of faith and manners.

!

I cannot therefore acknowledge that this Epiftle is canonical. And I have really fome doubts whether it be not even a forgery, made in the name of Jude, by fome perfon, who borrowed the chief part of his mâterials from the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, and added fome few of his own.

I

CH AP. ΧΧΧ.

OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN,

SECT. I.

Of the time, when this Epiftle was written°.

T is difficult to determine the precife year, when this Epiftle was written, because our hiftorical accounts are defective on this fubject, and the Epiftle itfelf contains nothing, which can lead to fo exact a determination. Some commentators have afcribed to it fo late a date, as 91, 92, 98, or 99: and Lardner, though he admits that

I do not enter into any inquiry concerning its authenticity, because it has been univerfally admitted from the earliest ages; and the style of it is manifeftly the style of St. John.

that the exact date is not known, is ftill of opinion, that it was written after the deftruction of Jerufalem. The reason, which he gives for this opinion is, that the arguments alleged, for proving it to have been written fooner, are not fatisfactory? Now, if I admit that these premises are true, ftill the inference, which Lardner deduces from them, will not be valid for we muft not argue that, because a demonftration is unfatiffactory, the propofition itself is falfe. The only admiffible conclufion therefore from thefe premises would be, that it is uncertain, whether the Epiftle was written before, or after the deftruction of Jerufalem. Lardner indeed adds, perhaps fome things may occur, affording hints of a later date: but till these things are pointed out, no argument can be grounded on them.'

That feveral of the reafons alleged in favour of the opinion, that this Epiftle was written before the deftruction of Jerufalem, are not fo convincing, when closely examined, as they appear to be at first fight, I will not deny. Grotius appeals to ch. ii. 18. where St. John fays, εσxarn weα 15, by which Grotius understands the laft hour of the existence of the Jewish nation. It is true that taxarn ga cannot denote the laft hour of the existence of the world, which has continued to exift feventeen hundred years after this Epiftle was written : and it is likewife true that fome other explanations of soxarn wea are attended with great difficulty; for inftance, that which is given by Morus, who interprets it of the fourth Monarchy, or the Roman empire, in which the Antichrift was to come. Now it is hardly credible that St. John alluded in this paffage to the prophecy of Daniel, and thence borrowed his computation of time. In the whole New Teftament I know of no clear and indifputable paffage, in which the Roman empire is called the last time:' and in the prefent inftance this expreffion furely cannot denote the Roman empire, becaufe St. John fays, that the coming of the Antichrifts was a token of this last time.' Every one knew, that

• Supplement, Vol. III. p. 270.

the