"was among them one tent maker, even Paul; and one huf"bandman, intending perhaps St. Jude. For Hegefippus, as "quoted by Eufebius, writes, That when Domitian made en"quiries after the pofterity of David, some grandsons of Jude called "the Lord's brother, were brought before him. Being asked con"cerning their possessions and fubftance, they assured him, that they "had only fo many acres of land, out of the improvement of which "they both paid him tribute, and maintained themselves with their "own hard labour. The truth of what they faid was confirmed by "the callousness of their hands," &c. On this paffage Lardner's remarks are," Hence fome may argue that St. Jude himself had: "been an hufbandman. And from this account, if it may be "relied upon, we learn, that this apostle was married and had "children." Lardner on the Canon, vol. iii. chap. xxi.

P. 325.

If Judas the apostle was the fame perfon with Judas the author of the epiftle, he lived to a great age. And his life being thus prolonged, we may suppose that after preaching the gospel and confirming it by miracles, he went into other countries for the fame purpose.-Lardner tells us, fome have said that Jude preached in Arabia, Syria, Mefopotamia and Perfia; and that he fuffered martyrdom in the laft mentioned country. But these things are not supported by any well attested history. With respect to his being a martyr, it may be doubted; because none of the ancients have mentioned his having fuffered martyrdom. It is therefore generally believed that he died a natural death.-Jerome in his commentary on Matt. x. 35. fays, "That "the apostle Thaddeus, called by the evangelift Luke Judas "the brother of James, was fent to Edeffa to Agbarus King of "Ofroëne."-Eufebius, Eccl. Hift. L. i. c. 13. fays, Thomas, one of the twelve, fent to Edeffa Thaddeus one of Christ's feventy difciples, to preach the gospel in these countries.

SECT. II. Shewing that the Epiftle of Jude, was written by Judas the Apofile, confequently that it is an inspired Writing.

I. In the infcription of this epiftle, the writer ftyles himself, Ιέδας Ιησε Χρισε δέλος, αδελφος δε Ιακοβα, Judas a fervant of Jefus

Chrift,

Chrift, and brother of James. By these two characters, the author of this epistle hath shewed himself to be an apoftle. For, 1. His name Judas, is precifely the fame with that of the apoftle Judas. 2. His defignation is the fame, and brother of James. If it be objected that Judas, the writer of the epiftle, hath not called himself an apostle, but only a fervant of Jesus Chrift, the answer is, Firft, As there was another apoftle named Judas, to have called himself an apofile, was no distinction at all. Whereas by ftyling himself the brother of James, he hath made himself known to all who are acquainted with the catalogues of the apoftles given by the evangelifts, to be a different perfon from Judas the traitor, and hath as effectually declared himself to be an apostle, as if he had exprefsly affumed that title. Befides, by calling himself the brother of James, he hath afferted his relation to Chrift, as his coufin-german, (fee Pref. to James, fect. 1. paragr. 1.) and thereby hath fecured to himfelf whatever respect was due to him on account of that honourable relation. Secondly, Some others who were undoubtedly apostles, have in their epiftles omitted to take that title, and have called themfelves fimply, fervants of Jefus Chrift. Thus, in Paul's epistle to the Philippians, chap. i. 1. we have Paul and Timothy fervants of Jefus Chrift. And in the epiftle to Philemon, Paul a prifoner for Jefus Chrift, without any addition. Also, in the infcription of the epiftles to the Theffalonians, we have Paul and Silvanus and Timothy to the church of the Theffalonians, without any defignation whatever. In like manner James in his epiftle, chap. i. 1. calls himself fimply, a fervant of Jefus Chrift. Yet no one, on account of the omiffion of the word apostle in thefe epiftles, ever doubted of the apoftleship, either of Paul, or of James. Farther, in the first epiftle of John, the writer, neither in the inscription nor in any other part of his letter, hath called himself an apoftle, or fo much as mentioned his own name. Yet, by his manner of writing, he hath made himfelf known fo fully, that his epiftle, from the very first, hath been univerfally acknowledged as John's, and respected as a writing divinely inspired. Why then fhould Judas be thought no apostle, or his epiftle be reckoned an uninspired writing, merely because he hath not called himself an apostle, but only a fervant Jefus Chrift.

If, in this epistle, there had been any thing inconfiftent with the true Christian doctrine, or any thing tending to reconcile the practice of fin with the hope of falvation, there would have been the justest reason for calling the apostleship of its author in queftion. But instead of this, its profeffed defign, as shall be fhewed 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 difciples in their licentious courses; and to make thofe, to whom this letter was written, fenfible of the obligation which their Chriftian profeffion laid on them, refolutely to maintain the faith, and constantly to follow the holy practice, enjoined by the gospel.

Grotius, however, fancying that the author of this epiîtle was not Judas the apostle, but another person of the fame name who lived in the time of the emperor Adrian, and who was the fif teenth bishop of Jerusalem, hath boldly affirmed that the words, and brother of James, are an interpolation; and that the true reading is, Judas a fervant of Jefus Chrift, to them who are fanctified, &c. But as he hath not produced so much as a shadow of authority from any ancient MS. or from the fathers, in support of his emendation, it deferves not the leaft regard; and should not have been mentioned, had it not been to make the reader fenfible, how little the opinion of the greatest critics is to be regarded, when they have a favourite notion to maintain, or wifh to make themselves confpicuous by the novelty or fingularity of their pretended discoveries.

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

II. The genuineness of this epiftle, is established likewise by the matters contained in it, which in every refpect are fuitable to the character of an inspired apostle of Chrift. For, as was already observed, the writer's defign in it was to characterize and condemn the heretical teachers, who in that age endeavoured by a variety of bafe arts to make difciples, and to reprobate the impious doctrines which they taught for the fake

of advantage, and to enforce the practice of holiness on all who profeffed the gofpel. In fhort, there is no error taught, nor evil practice enjoined, for the fake of which any impostor could be moved to impofe a forgery of this kind on the world.

To invalidate this branch of the proof of the authenticity of the epiftle 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 Teftament. 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, prophefied even concerning these men, faying, 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 Chriftians. But it seems to have been forged, on occafion of the mention that is made of Enoch's prophecy in the epiftle of Jude; and was univerfally rejected as a manifeft forgery.-In the apoftolical writings, there are a variety of ancient facts mentioned or alluded to, which are not recorded in the Jewish fcriptures; fuch as, The fin and punishment of the evil angels, 2 Pet. ii. 4. and their confinement in everlafting chains under darknefs to the judgment of the great day, Jude ver. 6.-The prophecy of Enoch concerning the judgment and punishment of the wicked, Jude, ver. 14.-Noah's preaching righteousness to the antediluvians, 2 Pet. ii. 5.-Abraham's feeing Chrift's day and being glad, mentioned by Christ himself, John viii. 56.-Lot's being vexed with the filthy difcourfe of the wicked Sodomites, 2 Pet. ii. 7. -The emblematical purpose for which Mofes flew the Egyptian who ftrove with the Ifraelite, Acts vii. 25.-The names of Pharoah's magicians who contended with Mofes, 2 Tim. iii. 8.Mofes' exclamation on the mount, when terrified by what he faw, Heb. xii. 21.-The emblematical meaning of the tabernacles and of their fervices, explained, Heb. ix. 8, 9.-All which ancient facts are mentioned by the inspired writers, as things univerfally known and acknowledged.—It is no ob

jection

jection to the truth of these things, that they are not recorded in the books of the Old Teftament. For it is reafonable to believe, that the writers of these books have not recorded all the revelations which God made to mankind in ancient times : nor all the circumftances of the revelations which they have recorded. As little have they related all the interesting incidents of the lives of the perfons whofe history they have given. This is certain with respect to Moses. For he hath omitted the revelation by which facrifice was appointed, and yet that it was appointed of God is evident from Mofes himself, who tells us that God had refpect to Abel and to his offering. Likewise he hath omitted the discovery, which was made to Abraham, of the purpofe for which God ordered him to facrifice his fon. Yet, that fuch a discovery was made to him we learn from Christ himself, who tells us that Abraham faw his day and was glad.-Wherefore, the revelations and facts mentioned in the New Teftament may all have happened; and, though not recorded in the Old, may have been preferved by tradition. Nay it is reasonable to think, that at the time the ancient revelations were made, fomewhat of their meaning was alfo discovered, whereby pofterity were led to agree in their interpretation of these very obfcure oracles. On any other fuppofition, 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 fome explications not mentioned, it is natural to think that these things would be verbally published to the ancients, who confidering 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 inferted in books, as ancient traditions which were well anthenticated. And the Spirit of God, who infpired the evangelifts and apoftles, may have directed them to mention these traditions in their writings, and to allude to them, VOL. VI.

N

to