apostles, have in their epistles omitted to take that title, and have called themselves simply, servants of Jesus Christ. Thus, in Paul's epistle to the Philippians, chap. i. 1. we have Paul and Timothy servants of Jesus Christ. And in the epistle to Philemon, Paul a Prisoner for Jesus Christ, without any addition. Also, in the inscription of the epistles to the Thessalonians, we have Paul and Silvanus and Timothy to the church of the Thessalonians, without any designation whatever. In like nanner James in his epistle, chap. i. 1. calls himself simply, a servant of Jesus Christ. Yet no one, on account of the omission of the word apostle in these epistles, ever doubted of the apostleship, either of Paul, or of James. Farther, in the first epistle of John, the writer, neither in the inscription nor in any other part of his letter, hath called himself an apostle, or so much as mentioned his own name. Yet, by his manner of writing, he hath made himself known so fully, that his epistle, from the very first, hath been universally acknowledged as John's, and respected as a writing divinely inspired. Why then should Judas be thought no apostle, or his epistle be reckoned an uninspired writing, merely because he hath not called himself an apostle, but only a servant of Jesus Christ.

If, in this epistle, there had been any thing inconsistent with the true Christian doctrine, or any thing tending to reconcile the practice of sin with the hope of salvation, there would have been the justest reason for calling the apostelship of its author in question. But instead of this, its professed design, as shall be shewed by and by, was to condemn the erroneous doctrines, which, in the first age, were propagated by corrupt teachers for the purpose of encouraging their disciples in their licentious courses; and to make those, to whom this letter was written, sensible of the obligation which their Christian profession laid on them, resolutely to maintain the faith, and constantly to follow the holy practice, enjoined by the gospel.

Grocius, however, fancying that the author of this epistle wsa not Judas the apostle, but another person of the same name who lived in the time of the emperor Adrian, and who was the fifteenth bishop of Jerusalem, hath boldly affirmed that the words, and brother of James, are an interpolation; and that the true reading is, Judas a servant of Jesus Christ, to them who are sanctified, &c. But as he hath not produced so much as a shadow of authority from ancient MS. or from the fathers, in support of his any emendation, it deserves not the least regard; and should not

have been mentioned, had it not been to make the reader sensible, how little the opinion of the greatest critics is to be regarded, when they have a favourite notion to maintain, or wish to make themselves conspicuous by the novelty or singularity of their pretended discoveries.

From the inscription, therefore, of this epistle, I think it certain that it was written by Judas the apostle; and that it is an inspired writing of equal authority with the epistles of the other apostles, which by all are acknowledged to be inspired and canonical.

II. The genuineness of this epistle, is established likewise by the matters contained in it, which in every respect are suitable to the character of an inspired apostle of Christ. For, as was already observed, the writer's design in it was to characterize and condemn the heretical teachers, who in that age endeavoured by a variety of base arts to make disciples, and to reprobate the impious doctrines which they taught for the sake of advantage, and to enforce the practice of holiness on all who professed the gospel. In short, there is no error taught, nor evil practice enjoined, for the sake of which any impostor could be moved to impose a forgery of this kind on the world.

To invalidate this branch of the proof of the authenticity of the epistle of Jude, it hath been objected both anciently and in modern times, that the writer of it hath quoted the apocryphal book entitled Enoch and thereby hath put that book on an equality with the canonical books of the Old Testament. But to this objection learned men have replied, that it is by no means certain that Jude quoted any book whatever. He only says, ver. 14. Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied even concerning these men, saying, Behold the Lord cometh with his holy myriads, &c.-Besides, we have no good evidence that in Jude's time there was any book extant entitled Henoch, or Henoch's prophecy. In the second and third centuries indeed, a book with that title was handed about among the Christians. But it seems to have been forged, on occasion of the mention that is made of Enoch's prophecy in the epistle of Jude; and was universally rejected as a manifest forgery. In the apostolical writings, there are a variety of ancient facts mentioned or alluded to, which are not recorded in the Jewish scriptures; such as, The sin and punishment of the evil angels, 2 Pet. ii. 4. and their confinement in everlasting chains under darkness to the judgment of the great day, Jude ver. 6. The prophecy of Enoch

1

concerning the judgment and punishment of the wicked, Jude ver. 14.-Noah's preaching righteousness to the antediluvians, 2 Pet. ii. 5.-Abraham's seeing Christ's day and being glad, mentioned by Christ himself, John viii. 56.-Lot's being vexed with the filthy discourse of the wicked Sodomites, 2. Pet. ii. 7. -The emblematical purpose for which Moses slew the Egyptian who strove with the Israelite, Acts vii. 25.-The names of Pharoah's magicians who contended with Moses, 2 Tim. iii. 8.— Moses' exclamation on the mount, when terrified by what he saw, Heb. xii. 21.-The emblematical meaning of the tabernacles and of their services, explained, Heb. ix. 8, 9.-All which ancient facts are mentioned by the inspired writers, as things universally known and acknowledged.It is no objection to the truth of these things, that they are not recorded in the books of the Old Testament. For it is reasonable to be. lieve, that the writers of these books have not recorded all the revelations which God made to mankind in ancient times: nor all the circumstances of the revelations which they have recorded. As little have they related all the interesting incidents of the lives of the persons whose history they have given. This is certain with respect to Moses. For he hath omitted the revelation by which sacrifice was appointed, and yet that it was appointed of God is evident from Moses himself, who tells us that God had respect to Abel and to his offering. Likewise he hath omitted the discovery, which was made.to Abraham, of the purpose for which God ordered him to sacrifice his son. Yet, that such a discovery was made to him we learn from Christ himself, who tells us that Abraham saw his day and was glad.-Wherefore, the revelations and facts mentioned in the New Testament may all have happened; and, though not recorded in the Old, may have been preserved by tradition. Nay it is reasonable to think, that at the time the ancient revelations where made, somewhat of their meaning was also discovered, whereby posterity were led to agree in their interpretation of these very obscure oracles. On any other supposition, that uniformity of interpretation, which took place from the beginning, can hardly be accounted for.

Allowing then, that there were revelations anciently made to mankind which are not recorded, and that the revelations which are recorded were accompanied with some explications not mentioned, it is natural to think that these things would be verbally published to the ancients, who considering them as

matters of importance, would lay them up in their memory, and rehearse them to their children. And they in like manner relating them to their descendants, they were preserved by uninterrupted tradition. Further, these traditional revelations and explications of revelations, after the art of writing became common, may have been inserted in books, as ancient traditions which were well authenticated. And the Spirit of God, who inspired the evangelists and apostles, may have directed them to mention these traditions in their writings, and to allude to them, to make us sensible that many important matters anciently made known by revelation, have been preserved by tradition. And more especially, that the persuasion, which history assureth us hath prevailed in all ages and countries from the most early times, concerning the placability of the Deity, the acceptableness of sacrifice, the existence of the soul after death, the resurrection of the body, the rewards and punishments of the life to come, with other matters of a like kind, was founded on revelations concerning these things, which were made to mankind in the first age, and handed down by tradition. The truth is’ these things being matters which by the utmost effort of their natural faculties men could not discover, the knowledge and bclief of them which prevailed among all nations, whether barbarous or civilized, cannot be accounted for except on the supposition of their being originally discovered by revelation, and spread among all nations by tradition.-Wherefore, in no age or country have mankind been left entirely to the guidance of the light of nature, but have enjoyed the benefit of revelation in a greater or in a less degree.

But to return to the objection formerly mentioned, by which some endeavour to disprove the authenticity of Jude's epistle, founded on the mention which is made in it of Enoch's prophecy. Allowing for a moment, that there was such a book extant in the apostle's days, as that entitled Henoch, or the prophecy of Henoch, and that Jude quoted from it the prophecy under consideration, such a quotation would not lessen the authority of his epistle as an inspired writing, any more than the quotations from the heathen poet Aratus, Acts xvii. 28. and from Menander, 1 Cor. xv. 33. and from Epimenides, Tit. i. 12. have lessened the authority of the history of the Acts, and of Paul's epistles, where these quotations are found. The reason is, if the things contained in these quotations were true in themselves, they might be mentioned by an inspired writer, without

giving authority to the poems from which they were taken.In like manner, if the prophecy ascribed to Enoch concerning the future judgment and punishment of the wicked, was agreeable to the other declarations of God concerning that event, Jude might cite it; because Enoch, who like Noah was a preacher of righteousness, may actually have delivered such a prophecy, though it be not recorded in the Old Testament; and because his quoting it, did not establish the authority of the book from which he took it, if he took it from any book extant in his time.

. Having thus cleared the internal evidence of the epistle of Jude, from the objections which have been raised against it, I shall now set before the reader the external evidence by which the authenticity of that writing is proved. For this purpose I observe, that although the epistle of Jude was doubted of by some in the early ages, yet as soon as it was understood that its author was Judas the brother of James mentioned in the catalogues of the apostles, it was generally received as an apostolical inspired writing, and read publicly in the curches as such. The evidence of these important and decisive facts, I shall set before the reader, as collected and arranged by the learned and impartial Lardner.

And first of all, Lardner acknowledgeth that the epistle of Jude is no where quoted by Irenæus, who wrote about the year 178. But that Eusebius giving an account of the works of Clem. Alexandr, who flourished about the year 194, saith Eccles. Hist. lib. vi. c. 14. initio, "In his institutions he hath "given explications of all the canonical scriptures, not omitting "those which are contradicted, I mean the epistle of Jude, and "the other catholic epistles." Clement's institutions are lost, But we have a small treatise in Latin, called, Adumbrations, supposed to be translated from the institutions. In these adumbrations, there are remarks upon almost every verse of the epistle of Jude, except the last. There, likewise, is the following observation : "Jude, who wrote a catholic epistle, does not style "himself at the beginning of it, Brother of the Lord, though he "was related to him: but Jude the servant of Jesus Christ, and "brother of James." From this it appears, that Clement thought the writer of the epistle under consideration, one of them who are called the Lord's brethren, Matt. xiii. 55. and an apostle.-Farther, verses 5, 6. and 11. of the epistle of Jude, are quoted by Clement in his Pedagogue or instructer. Moreover, in his