expreffeth himself after this manner: that it seems highly probable, that St. Jude had feen and read the second epiftle of St. Peter. For there are found in St. Jude feveral fimilar 'paffages, not only to thofe in the fecond chapter of the second of St. Peter, but alfo in the other parts of that epiftle. Nevertheless I muft ftill fay, this appears to me doubtful. For it seems very unlikely, that St. Jude fhould write fo fimilar an epiftle, if he had feen St. Peter's. In that cafe St. Jude would not have thought it needful for him to write at all. If he had formed a design of writing, and had met with an epistle of one of the apostles, very fuitable to his own thoughts and intentions, I think, he would have forborne to write. Indeed the great agreement in fubject and defign between these two epiftles affords a ftrong argument, that they were written about the fame time. As therefore I have placed the fecond epistle of St. Peter in the year 64, I am induced to place this epiftle of St. Jude in the fame year, or soon after, in 65, or 66. For there was exactly the fame ftate of things in the christian church, or in fome part of it, when both these epiftles were written. I do not infift upon the expreffion, in the last time, which is in ver. 18. Some would understand thereby the laft period of the Jewish ftate and conftitution, immediately preceding the deftruction of Jerufalem. But I cannot interpret the phrafe, the last time, in Jude, or the last days, in St. Peter iii. 3. in fo limited a fenfe. I think, that thereby must be meant the days of the Meffiah, or the late ages of the world. However, undoubtedly, that exhortation, ver. 17 and 18. But, beloved, remember ye the words, which were spoken before by the apostles of the Lord Jefus Chrift: that they told you, there Should be mockers in the last time: do imply, as Witfius and Eftius obferve, that it was then the last age of the apoftles: when feveral of them had left the world, and few of them were still surviving. Which well fuits the date, before mentioned, the year 64, or 65, or 66. When St. Jude advifeth the Chriftians to recollect, and be mindful of the words of the apostles of Chrift, he may intend capite 2. et initio tertii. Nam quæ hic fcribuntur, adeo cum illis fimilia funt, et hujus author S. Judas eam non folum legiffe videatur, verum etiam, partim contrahendo, partim extendendo, partim iifdem s Preface their preaching, which thefe Chriftians had heard, or the writings of apoftles, which they had read, and had in their hands. Such difcourfes of St. Paul may be seen recorded in Acts xx. 29, 30. And he writes to the like purpofe 1 Tim. iv. 1-5. and 2 Tim. iii. and iv. They who fuppofe, that St. Jude had feen and read the second epiftle of St. Peter, must think, that he refers alfo to 2 Pet. ch. iii. 1-5. There are fome other expreffions in this epiftle, which may deserve to be here taken notice of by us. Ver. 3. It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you, that you should earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the faints. and ver. 5. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this. Thefe expreffions feem to imply, that now fome confiderable time had paffed, fince the whole fcheme of the christian doctrine had been published to the world, and fince the perfons, to whom the apoftle is writing, were first inftructed in it. Upon the whole, as before faid, this epiftle might be written in the year of Chrift 64, or 65, or 66. I. Its Genuineness shown from Testimony. II. From internal Characters. III. Its Time. I. We are now come to the last book of the New Teftament, the Revelation: about which there have been different fentiments among Chriftians, many receiving it as the writing of John, the apoftle and evangelift, others afcribing it to John a prefbyter, others to Cerinthus, and fome rejecting it, without knowing to whom it should be afcribed. I fhall therefore here rehearse the teftimony of ancient Chriftians, as it arifeth in feveral ages. It is probable, that Hermas had read the book of the Revelation, and imitated it. He has many things refembling it, vol. II. p. 61-64. It is referred to by the martyrs at Lyons, p. 152. There is reafon to think, it was received by Papias, p. 108-114. Juftin Martyr, about the year 140, Sf2 was с was acquainted with this book, and received it, as written by the apostle John. For in his dialogue with Trypho he exprefsly fays: And a man from among us, by name John, one of the apostles of Chrift, in the revelation made to him, has prophefied, that the believers in our Christ shall live a ' thousand years in Jerufalem, and after that shall be the ge'neral, and, in a word, the eternal refurrection and judgment of all together,' p. 126. To this very paffage we suppose Eufebius to refer in his ecclefiaftical hiftory, when giving an account of Juftin's works, he obferves to this purpose: he alfo mentions the Revelation of John, exprefsly calling it 'the apoftle's.' See the fame page, note (a). Among the works of Melito, bifhop of Sardis, one of the feven churches of Afia, about the year 177, Eufebius mentions one, entitled, Of the Revelation of John,' p. 147. It is very probable, that Melito afcribed this book to the apoftle of that name, and efteemed it a book of canonical authority. Irenæus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul, about 178, who in his younger days was acquainted with Polycarp, often quotes this book, as the Revelation of John, the difciple of the Lord,' p. 169. And in one place he fays: It was feen not long ago, but almoft in our age, at the end of the reign of Domitian.' Ibid. And fee p. 155. Theophilus was bifhop of Antioch about 181. Eufebius fpeaking of a work of his against the herefy of Hermogenes, fays, he therein made use of teftimonies, or quoted paffages, from John's Apocalypfe,' vol. II. p. 190. The book of the Revelation is feveral times quoted by Clement of Alexandria, who flourished about 194, and once in this manner: Such an one, though here on earth he is not honoured with the first feat, fhall fit upon the four and twenty thrones judging the 'people, as John fays in the Revelation,' p. 229. Tertullian, about the year 200, often quotes the Revelation, and fuppofeth it to have been written by St. John, the fame who wrote the first epiftle of John, univerfally received, p. 276, 277. Again; the apostle John in the Apocalypse describes a sharp two-edged fword coming out of the mouth of God,' p. 277. He alfo fays, We have churches, that are difciples of John. For though Marcion rejects the Revelation, the fucceffion of bishops, traced to the original, will affure us, that John is the author:' ibid. by John, undoubtedly, meaning the apostle. From Eufebius we learn, that Apollonius, who wrote against the Montanifts about the year 211, quoted the Reve lation, lation, p. 371. By Caius, about the year 212, it was afcribed to Cerinthus, p. 378, 379. It was received by Hippolytus, about the year 220, p. 412, and by Origen about 230, p. 466— 468. It is often quoted by him. He feems not to have had any doubt about its genuineness. In his commentary upon St. John's gospel, he speaks of it in this manner: Therefore John, the fon of Zebedee, fays in the Revelation, p. 483. See alfo p. 483, 484, and 543. Dionylius, bishop of Alexandria, about the year 247, or fomewhat later, wrote a book against the Millenarians, in which he allows the Revelation to be written by John, a holy and divinely infpired man. But he fays, he cannot eafily 'grant him to be the apoftle, the fon of Zebedee, whofe is the gofpel according to John, and the catholic epiftle,' vol. III. p. 105. He rather thinks it may be the work of John, an elder, who alfo lived at Ephefus, in Afia, as well as the apostle, p. 107. See likewife p. 128, 129, 131. Moreover, it appears from a conference, which Dionyfius had with fome Millenarians, that the Revelation was about the year 240, and before, received by Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, and by many others in that country, p. 68, 103, 104, and that it was in great reputation, p. 128, 129. It was received by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, about 248, and by the church of Rome in his time, p. 175, 176, and by divers Latin authors, whofe hiftory is written in the third volume of this work. As may be feen in the alphabetical Table of principal matters, in the article of the Revelation. The Revelation was received by Novatus, and his followers, p. 245, 246, and by divers other authors, whofe history is written in that volume. It is alfo probable, that it was received by the Manichees, P. 507. It was received by Lactantius, vol. IV. p. 80, and by the Donatifts, p. 102, by the latter Arnobius, about 460, p. 24, and by the Arians, p. 117. In the time of Eufebius, in the former part of the fourth century, it was not received by all. And therefore it is reckoned by him among contradicted books, vol. IV. p. 227. Nevertheless it was generally received, p. 234 and 255. Eufebius himself feems to have hefitated about it. For he fays, It is likely, that the Revelation was feen by John the elder, if not by John the apoftle,' p. 256. It may be reckoned probable, that the critical argument of Dionyfius, of Alexandria Sf3 Alexandria, was of great weight with him, and others of that time. See p. 257, 258. The Revelation was received by Athanafius, p. 283-286, and by Epiphanius, p. 313—316. But we alfo learn from him, that it was not received by all in his time, p. 316, 317. It is not in the catalogue of Cyril of Jerufalem, about 348, and feems, not to have been received by him, p. 300-302. It is also wanting in the catalogue of the council of Laodicea, about 363, p. 309. Nevertheless I do not think, it can be thence concluded, that this book was rejected by the bishops of that council. Their defign feems to have been to mention by name those books only, which should be publicly read. And they might be of opinion, that upon account of its obfcurity, it should not be publicly read, though it was of facred authority. And fome may be of opinion, that this obfervation fhould likewife be applied to Cyril's catalogue juft taken notice of. It The Revelation is not in Gregory Nazianzen's catalogue, vol. IV. p. 408. Nevertheless it feems to have been received by him, p. 409. It is in the catalogue of Amphiiochius. But he fays, it was not received by all, p. 414. is alfo omitted in Ebedjefu's catalogue of the books of fcripture, received by the Syrians, p. 439, 440; nor is it in the ancient Syriac verfion, p. 441. It was received by Jerom, vol. V. p. 32, 33, 41, 44. But he fays, it was rejected by the Greek Christians, p. 50. It was received by Rufin, p. 76, by the third council of Carthage in 397, p. 79, and by Auguftine, p. 86, 104. But it was not received by all in his time, p. 102. It is never quoted by Chryfoftom, and, probably, was not received by him, p. 137. It is in the catalogue of Dionyfius, called the Areopagite, about 490, p. 247. It is in the Alexandrian manufcript, p. 254-256. It was received by Sulpicius Severus, about 401, p. 164, and by J. Damafcenus, p. 316, and by Ecumenius, p. 325, and by many other authors, whofe history is written in the fifth volume. Andrew, bishop of Cæfarea in Cappadocia, at the end of the fifth century, p. 250, and Arethas, bishop of the fame place in the fixth century, wrote commentaries upon it, p. 274. But it was not received by Severian, bishop of Gabala, p. 161; nor, as it feems, by Theodoret, p. 195, 196. Upon the whole it appears, that this book has been generally received in all ages: though fome have doubted of it, or rejected it, particularly, the Syrians, and fome other Chriftians |