denied it virtually by maintaining principles, which are inconfiftent with it. For they believed in a metemplychofis, and afferted, that the fouls of men would tranfmigrate from their prefent bodies, in which they were confined as it were in a prifon, into other fucceffive bodies, till at last they would return to the fource from which they had derived their origin. They maintained therefore a general restoration of the fouls of men, and confequently could not believe in the doctrine, that there would be a general judgment, at which the fouls of the wicked would be condemned to eternal punishment. If they admitted the influence of an evil spirit on the fouls of the wicked, as fome of the Manicheans did, ftill this influence was only temporary, was exerted only in an intermediate state, and in order to produce amendment, that all men might be finally happy. However it was not inconfiftent with the Gnoftic principles, to fuppose, that the fallen angels, who according to their own fyftem were the caufe of all the evil in the world, and were wholly incapable of amendment, were at prefent in a ftate of mifery, and would receive ftill greater punishment hereafter. It is certain that the Manicheans fuppofed fo', though they believed that the fouls of men, with the exception only of the perfecutors of the truth, would be perfectly happy: and though Manes, the founder of this fect, lived long after St. Peter, yet he was not the inventor of his whole fyftem, for he had adopted many tenets which had been maintained by the Gnoftics.

The other difficulty is, that: St. Peter's adverfaries denied, that the world would one day be deftroyed by a general conflagration, and we have no authority for fay ing, that this was denied by the Gnoftics. On the contrary the Manicheans admitted this doctrine, and it is perfectly confonant to the fyftem of the Gnostics. For, as on the one hand they, who maintained the eternity of the world, argued from the wildom and the perfection of the Creator, the Gnoftics on the other

1

• Beaufobre Hift. des Manichéens. Liv. viii. ch.

hand, who afferted that the world was created by a being, who had neither wifdom nor benevolence, might reasonably conclude, that it was fo imperfect, as to be incapable of eternal duration. However, as the dif ferent fects of the Gnoftics maintained fuch different principles, it is not impoffible that fome of them believed in the eternity of the world, fince their notions of its imperfection did not neceffarily imply a ceffation of

durationR.

Laftly, fome of the Gnoftics had a fevere, others a loose fyftem of morality. And that St. Peter's adverfaries belonged, not to the firft, but to the fecond clafs, is evident from what he fays against them in the fecond chapter.

CHA P. XXIX.

OF THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE".

SECT. I.

Of the author of this Epiftle, whether he was an Apostle, called Jude, or whether he was Jude the brother-in-law of Jesus.

IN

the first fection of the twenty-fixth chapter I have ftated at large the various opinions, which have been entertained relative to the James and the Jude, whom

the

Philo, who was contemporary with St. Peter, wrote a treatise, De incorruptibilitate mundi, in which he defended a doctrine contrary to that delivered by St. Peter. But Philo was not a Gnoftic: nor was he one of thofe fcoffers,' of whom St. Peter complains.

Though the Epifle of St. Jude is placed the last among the Catholic Epiftles, I introduce it here immediately after the fecond Epistle of St. Peter, on account of the great resemblance, which these two Epiftles bear to each other.

the Evangelifts call brothers of Jefus. To that fection therefore I muft refer the reader, because the queftion, which was there examined, has very material influence on the decifion of our prefent queftion. If, according to one of the opinions ftated in the section juft mentioned, James and Jude, whom the Evangelifts call brothers of Jefus, were in fact only cousins, or relations, and were fons, not of Jofeph, but of Alphæus, thefe two perfons were the fame as the two brothers James and Jude, who were Apoftles. And in this cafe Jude, the author of our Epiftle, was the fame as the Apostle Jude, the brother of James, who was son of Alphæus : or, at leaft, if the Epiftle be a forgery, it was a forgery in his name. On the other hand, if the James and the Jude, whom the Evangelifts call brothers of Jefus, were not the two brothers of this name, who were Apostles, but were the fons of Jofeph, the reputed father of Jefus, we have then two different perfons of the name of Jude, either of which might have written this Epiftle. And in this cafe we have to examine, whether the Epistle was written by an Apoftle of the name of Jude, or by Jude the brother-in-law of Christ.

The author of the Epiftle himself has affumed neither the title of Apoftle of Jefus Chrift, nor of brother of Jefus Chrift, but calls himself only Jude the fervant. of Jefus Chrift, and brother of James.' Now as the author diftinguishes himself by the title

Matth. xiii. 55. Mark vi. 3.

brother of James,'

In our prefent inquiry.there is also another question involved, relative to Adæus, or Thaddeus, the Apostle of the Syrians, as will appear in the fequel.

To prevent mistakes on this fubje&t, it is neceflary to obferve, that in the lift of the twelve Apostles given by St. Matthew, ch. x. 2-4. and St. Mark, ch. iii. 16-19 the name of Jude, a brother of James, who was fon of Alphæus, does not occur. It occurs however in both of the lifts which are given by St. Luke, in his Gofpel, ch. vi. 16. and in the Acts, ch. i. 15.: for in both places we find Idas lazybu, by which is meant Iudas adiapus Iaxwe. And though St. Matthew and St. Mark have not mentioned this Apoflie by the name of Iudas, they have ftill mentioned him, but under a different name. St. Mark ch. iii. 18. calls him addios, and St. Matthew, th. x. 3. names him Λεββαίος, ο επικληθείς Θαόόπιος,

James,' and this was a common name among the Jews, he undoubtedly meant fome eminent perfon of this name, who was well known at the time when he wrote, or the title brother of James' would have been no mark of diftinction. We may infer therefore, that the author of this Epiftle, was brother either of the Apostle James, the fon of Alphæus, or of James called the brother of Jefus, or of both, if they were one and the fame perfon.

The first question to be asked therefore is, Was the author of this Epiftle the Apoftle Jude, who was brother of James the fon of Alphæus. Now I have already obferved, that this question must be answered in the affirmative, if James and Jude, who were called brothers of Jefus, were the fame as the two brothers, James and Jude, who were Apoftles. And it may be anfwered in the affirmative, even if they were different perfons: for Jude, the author of our Epiftle, had in either cafe a brother of the name of James, and therefore might in either cafe call himself, Jude the brother of James.' I fay the queftion may be anfwered in the affirmative, even if the Apoftle Jude was a different perfon from Jude called the brother of Jefus. But whether it ought, in this cafe, to be answered in the affirmative, is another matter: and I really believe, that it ought not. For, if the Jude, who wrote this Epiftle, had been himself an Apostle, and brother of an Apostle, he would hardly have called himfelf, in an Epiftle written to Chriftians, fimply Jude the brother of James' without adding the title Apostle. It is true, that the Apostle Jude, who was brother of James, is called by St. Luke fimply Iadat Ianua: but St. Luke gives him this title merely to diftinguith him from another Apoftle of this name, who was called Ifcariot. Now the author of this Epiftle could have no motive for diftinguishing himfelf from Judas licariot, who had hanged himself many years before this Epiftle was written. The name of Jude was very common among the Jews, and therefore the author of this Epiftle wifhed to dif

tinguish

tinguish himself from other perfons, who were fo called. But James was likewife a very common name; and therefore, if the author had been an Apoftle, he furely would have preferred an appellation, which would have removed all doubt, to an appellation, which left it at least uncertain, whether he was an Apoftle or not, I grant, that the omiffion of this title does not neceffarily prove, that the author of our Epiftle was not an Apoftle: for St. Paul has omitted it in four of his Epiftles. But St. Paul was fufficiently known without this title: whereas the author of the Epiftle in queftion felt the neceffity of a diftinguishing appellation, as appears from the very title, which he has given himself of brother of James.' Befides, at the time, when this Epiftle was written, only one Apoftle, of the name of James, was then alive, for the elder James, the fon of Zebedee, had been beheaded many years before. If then the author of our Epiftle had only given to his brother James the title of Apostle, he would thus likewise have clearly afcertained who he himself was. But, fince he has no more given to his brother, than to himself, the title of Apoftle, I think it highly probable, that neither of them were Apostles.

The next question to be asked therefore is, Was the Jude, who wrote our Epiftle, the fame perfon, as the Jude, whom the Evangelifts call brother of Jefus, and who, according to the opinion, which I think the moft defenfible, was in this fenfe brother of Jefus,' that he was fon of Jofeph by a former wife, and therefore not own brother, but only brother in law of Jefus. Now that our Epiftle was written by a perfon of this description, appears to me highly probable. And on this fuppofition we may affign the reafon, why the author called himself brother of James:' for if he was the brother in law of Jefus, his brother James was the

perfon,

In the Epistle to the Philippians, in both Epiftles to the Theffalonians, and in that to Philemon.

a See Ch. xxvi. Sect. 1.