( -07 )

who, if you will believe our Author, mentions“Jude as a Writing, whose Authority was not| owned. An Expression implying, that it was uni-versally rejected, which Origen does not affirm.His Words import no more than that the Autho-rity of Jude's Epistle was not universally owned,j ’E< o, says he, ^ r '\ioa. ’sy^ocroiTV rig iphrig-oxluj c(Jl-tw t i nrz*) rip Xoyu> 24^ i. e. They that admitthe Epistle of Jude may see, &c. after which he; cites the 6 th Verse of this Chapter. ’E* Si Tig hereis not hypothetical, but the same as 'lg or eV<j dv.So that Origen plainly supposes, directly contraryto the Representation given by our Adversery, thatJude was a Writing whose Authority was owned. by some. And that Origen himself was of this

’ Number, is evident from what he fays, p. 2.2.Z. of

his Comment on St. Matthew . Jude, lays he,wrote an Epistle of few Lines indeed, but full of’, the wholsome Words of heavenly Grace, &c. A gree-f able hereto are the Passages from his Homilies onGeness and Jofiua produced by Dr. Mills, in whichthat Father expressly and absolutely reckons Judeand James among the Canonical Writers of theNew Testament . But tho’ our Author read allthis in Dr. Mills, it made no Impression. He ispleased, in his Notes on the second Epistle of Sr.Peter, to reproach the ancient Fathers with a Ca-nonical Pase and a Canonical Discernment. Andit must be owned that he himself stands quite clear* of this Imputation ; for both his Pose and hisDiscernment are persectly Uncanonical. He has a. thorough Relisil and a quick Eye for every Thing1 that disparages a Canonical Book; But Testimonies{ in Favour of such Pieces, tho' lying plain before

P 2. him,