Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

argues, if Diotrephes had been a corrupter of the true Christian doctrine, it would have been the duty of the apostle to caution Christians against familiar converse with him, in like manner as he does in the tenth and eleventh verses of his second epistle. Moreover, in that case, the apostle would have signified his errors, and would have directed men to beware of the leaven of Diotrephes. But this he has not done. He only reproves his pride, want of hospitality, and a perverse contempt, not of the apostle's doctrine, but of his direction for receiving strangers. He also quotes - Calovius, as speaking to the like purpose.

And the late Mr. Mosheim, who, as I suppose, had not seen Dr. Heumann's Dissertation, and gives a very different account of this epistle in several respects, allows, that • Diotrephes was not a heretic. So likewise argued Mr. Lampe before either of them.

But I cannot say that Dr. Heumann has proved Diotrephes not to have been a bishop. For I think, that every thing said of him in this epistle implies his being president, or chief director of things in the church to which Caius belonged. However, we will consider his arguments.

In the first place he says, the principal reason why learned men have thought Diotrephes to be a bishop, is because they have understood those words at ver. 10, “ and casteth them out of the church,” of excommunication. But those words, he says, are capable of another sense. They seem rather to mean, that by ill treatment he forced those strangers to leave the church, to which they had applied for relief, and to go elsewhere.

But granting this interpretation to be right, Diotrephes might nevertheless be a bishop. For that ill treatment might be owing to an abuse of his episcopal power and authority.

Again, says Dr. Heumann, the fault of Diotrephes lay in seeking pre-eminence; which shews he was not a bishop: for then he would have had pre-eminence. Nor does a man seek what he has already.

But I cannot perceive that observation to be very material. For a bishop may shew improper love of power and pre-eminence by arbitrary proceedings in the society over which he presides, and by an arrogant behaviour toward neighbouring bishops or superintendents, his equals, and, perhaps, in some respects, his superiors.

Finally, not to take notice of any other arguments of this kind, Dr. Heumann thinks, that? Erasmus 'novæ heresis auctorem' vocat in Faraphrasi. Ac nicâsse scribatur pios exules. Verum infra docebimus, 'ejicere ita jam olim sensit Beda—Verum recte Buddeus hanc sen- ex ecclesia,' hic non esse excommunicare, atque adeo affingi tentiam respuit. Quod si enim corruptor doctrinæ apostolicæ Diotrephi excommunicationem judicio præcipiti. Ib. 303. fuisset Diotrephes, apostoli fuisset avocare Christianos a fami- · Ac vel verbum Q12.OTPWTeuwy demonstrat nobis, eum liari cum ipso consuetudine; id quod fecit hæreticis in se- haud fuisse episcopum : episcopus enim est ó WPWTEUTUY - in cundæ suæ epistolæ versu decimo et undecimo. Fuisset item ecclesiâ. Atqui quod quis jam habet, non expetit. Ib. p. apostoli, notare ipsius errores, et, ut a fermento Diotrephis 303, 304. caveatur, præcipere. Jam vero id non facit, sed superbiam Jam cum clarissime cognoscamus, nec hæreticum, nec duntaxat ejus notat, et inhospitalitatem, et protervam non episcopum, nec presbyterum, nec ethnicum scilicet reipublicæ doctrinæ Joannis, sed præcepti ejus de liberalitate in pios exules rectorem, fuisse Diotrephen, via satis aperta est ad personrm exercendâ, contentionem. Ib. p. 302, 303.

ejus inveniendain. Statim enim mentem nostram hæc subit * Etiam Calovius ad h. 1. hac de causâ negat Diotrephen quæstio: An forte fuit illius ecclesiæ diaconus, hoc est, bonofuisse hæreticum. “Si hæreticus fuisset,' inquit, 'gravius rum ecclesiasticorum administrator ? Hoc enim officium certis sine dubio acturus adversus eum, et Caium, aliosque, de se- hominibus jam initio Christianæ Ecclesiæ demandatum fuisse, ductione ipsius cavendâ moniturus fuisset Joannes. Quod ex Act. vi. notuni est. Ac sane facilis nunc et perspicuus nobis argumentum accepit a Coruelio a Lapide, cujus pene omnes videtur totus hic locus noster. Præerat scilicet ærario eccle. sunt annotationes, quas ad hanc Joannis epistolam exhibet siastico Diotrephes. Erat ejus pauperibus inde erogare pecuCalovius. Heuman. ib. p. 303 note (2).

nias. Advenas autem fratres ideo non sublevabat, quod vix Nullam igitur Diotrephes religionis dogmatibus injuriam ecclesiæ illius pauperibus alendis satis videretur suppetere. Id inferebat, sed iniquus tantum erat, et ultra modum rigidus causatus, alio discedere, aliorum auxilium implorare, jubebat : dignitatis suæ custos. Moshem. de Reb. Christianur. p. imo, dum nihil ipsis suppeditabat, cogebat hoc ipso eos ex 77,5 176, 177.

Exxiyoias, ex illâ ecclesiâ, excedere, atque ita erat exóan2.49 · De causâ rixæ et contentionis inter Diotrephen et Joan- AUT85 EX TY,5 Exxarrias. Erant, qui exulibus bis ex ærario dari nem in diversa abeunt interpretes. Bartholomæus Petri :

Bartholomæus Petri: aliquid volebant. Verum non audiebat hos providus scilicet • Credibile est,' inquit, ' fuisse quempiam ex illis Judæis titulo cconomus, sed suam sequi sententiain cupiebat cæteros Christenus Christianis, qui Christi fidem ita suscipiendam putabant, tianos omnes. Atque ita erat QiAOT.PUTEUUY (sive, ut Petrus ut simul seryaretur lex caremonialis Mosis.'

Sed optime loquitur, xamax"pısuur) autwr. Quid ? Tam prudens et justus observat Calovius, si Joannes id innuisset, quod tum sine dubio sibi videbatur æconomus, ut nė Joannis quidem Apostoli præacturus adversus eumdem, et Caium aliosque, de seductione cepto morem gereret, ratus scilicet, eum, si' hic esset, ærariique ipsius cavendâ moniturus esset. Nullius sane dogmatis, sed rationes haberet cognitas, aliter sensurum. Bonum doctorem factorum tantum perversorum, Diotrephes incusatur. Lamp. esse Joannem, non negabat: bonum eum ess: æconomum, pruProl. I. 1. cap. 7. sect. xiv.

dentemque in politicis rebus consiliatorem, id vero negabat. Alii igitur Diotrephen fuisse illius ecclesiæ episcopum Imo eo temeritatis provehebat, ut ludic a maledicta eftutiret crediderunt, hoc potissimum usi argumento, quod excommu- in virum sanctissimum, et fortasse ' senem' appellaret, cætera

VOL. III.

3 K

Diotrephes was deacon, and had the charge of the stock or treasure of the church to which he belonged, and therefore he was not bishop.

But neither do I see the force of this argument. For Diotrephes might have the disposal of the church-stock, and yet be bishop. For in ancient times it was a part of the bishop's office and care, to see that the revenues of the church were managed and disposed to the best adyantage. This appears from - Justin Martyr, and 6. Cyprian. They who desire to see more proofs, may consult · Bingham. Since then we allow Diotrephes to have had a right to concern himself in the disposal of the church-stock, it need not affect Dr. Heumann's main argument, whether he was bishop or deacon.

To me, then, it seems, that Diotrephes was bishop in this church, and that Caius was a man in a private station, of good substance, and a liberal disposition. St. John says, ver. 9. “ I wrote unto the church:” or rather + I would have written unto the church, and at the same time to Diotrephes: “ but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence, receiveth us not.For that reason St. John sent this letter to Caius.

Let us now consider what was the case to which St. John refers in this epistle, and what was the fault of Diotrephes. Concerning this there have been various sentiments of learned men. Grotius supposed these strangers here spoken of to be believing Jews, whom Diotrephes, a Gentile would not receive, because they were Jews, or because they were for joining the rites of the law with Christianity. To the like purpose' Le Clerc, and : Beausobre. This opinion is much disliked by “ Dr. Heumann. Mr. Mosheim · likewise argues against it, as an opinion quite destitute of foundation in antiquity,

Others think that Diotrephes was a Jew, and zealous for the law, and that he would receive these strangers, converts from among the Gentiles, because they did not take upon them the observation of the rites and ceremonies of the law of Moses. This opinion is mentioned by * Lampe. But he argues well against it.

And indeed both these opinions were confuted before, when we shewed that Diotrephes was not a heretic, or that there is no reason to think him so.

It has been of late a common opinion among learned men, that ' St. John here speaks of some, particularly Jews, who had gone out into the world to propagate the Christian religion. Who had acted upon a generous and disinterested principle, refusing to take any thing from those among whom they laboured, and whom they had converted to the Christian faith. And they think that St. John commends Caius for encouraging such teachers, and blames Diotrephes for not receiving and helping them. But that opinion appears to me without foundation. For I see nothing that should lead us to think preachers here spoken of, but only strangers in want.

Ver. 5. « Beloved,” says St. John to Caius, " thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to

ot

d

quidem summe venerabilem, sed hoc certe in genere

· deli

quos beneficiis et amore ecclesiæ excludebat. Diotrephen rum. Ib. p. 306, 307.

nempe suspicantur origine fuisse Ethnicum, illos vero, quos • Oi EUTOPBYTES 8xas Bol.Querol, mata apoasperly fXa50s recipere nolebat, Judæos. Ex quo efficiunt, insitum Ethniτην εαυτό, ο βέλεται διδωσι και το συλλεγομενον παρα τω corum animis contemptum Judæorum tantam apud eum προεξωτι αποτιθεται, και αυτος επικαρει ορφανοις τε και χηραις potuisse, ut sanctissimum amoris preceptum violaret. In hac

XAI TOS Wageridmuoss 801 Çevois. %. i. Apol. 2. p. 99. A. conjectura, ut verum fatear, nihil est, quo moveri queat aliPar. 1636.

quis consideratus et rerum Christianarum non imperitus. bet stipendia ejus episcopo dispensante perciperent. Nam, ut omittam, omnibus eam præsidiis destitutam esse, si Cypr. ep. 41. al. 38.

nomen Diotrephis excipias, quod Græcum est, ut taceam, • Antiquities of the Christ. Church. B. I. ch. iv. sect 6. nusquam aliquid memoriæ proditum extare, unde pateat, tam

Scripsissem forsitan ecclesiæ. Vulgat. Vid. et Cleric. immani Judæorum odio et despicientiâ Christianos ex Græcis H. E. A. D. 92. num. ii. Vid. et Grot. in loc.

flagrâsse, ut in fratribus eos habere nollent, et omni amoris • Is vero ex illo erat hominum genere, qui Judæos, quam- fructu spoliarent, &c. Moshem. De Reb. Christian. ante quam Christum professos, si legis ritus observabant, (quod in Const. M. p. 175. Judæa Christiani faciebant ad hæc usque tempora, ut Sul- See before, p. 433. notec picius nos docet), ad suos coetus non admittebant. Grot. in Tertiam epistolam scripsit Gaio cuidam-Hominis libeep. 3. ver. 9.

ralitatem laudat, qui præcones quosdam evangelicos, e Judæa Nolebat autem Christianos circumcisos ab incircumcisis, gente, qui a Gentilibus nihil accipere voluerant, opibus suis seu Gentilibus, in ecclesiam admitti. Cleric. ib.

adjuvisset. Cleric. ubi supr. & Son nom est Grec. Ce qui fait juger, qu'il étoit Payen Diotrephen duplici noinine S. Joannes objurgat: primum d'origine; et c'est peut-être pour cela qu'il ne vouloit pas ideo, quod imperium sibi arrogaret in ecclesiâ deinde qu'on reçut les Chrétiers d'entre les Juifs, fort méprisés par propterea quod durum se ac inhumanum fratribus bene de les Gentils. Préf. sur ii. et iii. ep. de S. Jean. p. 585. Voyez religione Christianâ promeritis exhiberet. Egressi erant aussi la remarque sur l'ep. iii. ver. 9.

quidam ex cætu, cujus

membrum Diotrephes erat, ad propa, h Heuman. ubi sup. p. 303. note (a).

gandam inter vicinas gentes religionem Christianam, &c. i Eam (causam) viri docti quærunt in conditione eorum, Moshem. ib. p. 175.

[ocr errors]

note upon

he brethren, and to strangers :" that is, to the members of the church to which he belonged, and to strangers who came to the city where he dwelt: whom he had received civilly, and courteously, and relieved generously if they were in want.'

Ver. 6. “ Which have borne witness of thy charity before the church.” Some such persons, or some members of that church, had been at the place where St. John resided. And before • the church they declared his good temper and liberality.' “ Whom if thou bring forward on • their journey, after a godly sort, thou shalt do well." * And it will be very commendable in ' you, if after this any other such persons should come to your city, you shall act in a like • manner to them also, receiving them kindly, and forwarding them in their way. This will be • very becoming your Christian profession.'

Ver. 7. “ Because that for his name's sake they went forth taking nothing of the Gentiles."

We learn from Bede, that a there were in ancient times two interpretations of these words. · For the name of Christ they went forth to preach the gospel. Or for the faith of Christ, and • the profession of his name they had left their native country, or had been expelled from it.' This is the sense for which Dr. Heumann contends, and therefore often calls these strangers exiles.

He supposeth these strangers to have been Gentile converts, who had forsaken their native country, or had been driven out of it, destitute of all things.

However this place may be understood partly otherwise: That we, who are Christians 'ought to help these strangers in their difficulty, especially because they have not sought for • relief among unbelieving Gentiles : though some even of them might have been disposed to give them assistance.' Grotius explains the place in that manner. The same sense is likewise in Estius. Whosed

this text I shall now transcribe at large, it being well suited to illustrate this epistle. Ver. 8. “ We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellow-helpers to the truth.” • It should be an allowed maxim, that we are to show kindness to such: otherwise we do not act the part of Christians, who ought to encourage those who have a zeal for truth.'

Ver. 9. “ I wrote to the church.” Or, “ I should have written to the church," and therein to Diotrephes. “But Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not. • I know he would not pay a regard to my directions.'

Ver. 10. “ Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds, which he does.” That is, I • * will remind him of his actions, and reprove and admonish him, in order to his amendment, of • which I do not despair.' Prating against us with malicious words.” He proceeded so far, as to speak of the apostle in a petulant manner. Perhaps, he said, that though St. John did well in giving out general rules for the practice of piety; yet he had no right to intermeddle in particular cases, concerning which every one should judge for himself. “ Ănd not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church." • Nor is that all. For he not only refuses to receive and entertain • these brethren, but he also discourages those who would relieve and entertain them. And thus • he obligeth these strangers to leave your church, and

go elsewhere.' a Duabus autem ex causis pro nomine Domini sunt pro- an de gentibus ad fidem Christi jam conversis accipiendum fecti, aut ad prædicandum videlicet nomen ejus proprie sponte sit, an de nondum conversis. Et uterque sensus suâ nititur venientes, aut propter nominis sancti fidem et confessionem a probabilitate. Illo modo sensus est, quod hi, quamvis annuncivibus seu contribulibus suis patriâ expulsi. Bed. in 3. tiâssent, et deinceps forent annuntiaturi gentibus evangelium Joann. Ep.

seu fidem Christi, essentque jam complures gentilium eorum 6. Nam exules illi Christiani e patriâ suà cum egressi sunt, prædicatione conversi, nihil tamen ab iis exigere, vel accipero nihil quidquam suorum bonorum acceperunt ab hostibus suis voluerint necessariæ sustentationis, hac scilicet de causâ, Ethnicis, sed coacti sunt abire sine ullo vita subsidio. Heuman. ne quod offendiculum darent evangelio Christi. - De ubi supr. p. 327

gentibus autem non conversis si sermo sit, tunc significatur, • Μηδεν λαμβανοντες απο τιων εθνων.. -In manuscripto ano quod isti peregrini, quamvis egerent, quâcumque ianium ex των εθνικων.- -Potuerant in ista calamitate adjuvari misericor- causâ, nihil tamen ab hujusmodi gentilibus accipere, nedum dia TWY EEW, 'extraneorum. Sed maluerunt omnia Christianis petere, voluerint; ne ii scandalizarentur, et longius a Chrisdebere. Grot. ad ver. 7. ' Nos ergo. Nos Christiani ubique tianâ religione averterentur. Dixissent enim : Ecce nulla est locorum οφειλομεν απολαμβανειν ---Manuscriptus, υπολαμ

-Manuscriptus, uTorano caritas inter Christianos—Utraque expositio bene probaGAVEK T018T85: id vero est, opitulari. Id. ad ver. 8. bilis est. Nec satis liquet, utra sit præferenda. Est. in 3.

d Quod ait Apostolus, 'istos profectos pro nomine Jesu Joan. ver. 7. Christi,' potest bifariam exponi, ait Beda, videlicet, aut ut e Certe nihil aliud sibi vult Apostolus, quam se more suo prædicaturi evangelium ejus sponte sint profecti ad Gentiles mollissimum, placidissimumque in modum admoniturum esse convertendos, aut ut pter fidem et confessionem nominis Diotrephen peccati sui, rectamque eum revocaturum in viam. Christi per contribules suos patriâ fuerint expulsi. Similiter, Heum. ib. p. 309. quod sequitur, nihil accipientes a gentibus,' ambiguum est,

By these last words most interpreters understand St. John to say, that Diotrephes excommunicated, or cast out of the church, “ the brethren,” members of it, who were for receiving these strangers. But Dr. Heumann says, that · by the persons whom Diotrephes cast out of the church, must be understood these strangers, not the members of the church. For, as plainly appears, Caius was not excommunicated, though he had done what was opposed by Diotrephes. Nor need it be supposed, that all the strangers, here spoken of, were obliged to leave that place, or society. Diotrephes, it is true, discouraged their reception, and some might remove elsewhere. Others of them, however, might continue their abode there, encouraged by Caius, and some other pious members of this church, who did not submit to the reasons, or the orders of Diotrephes.

In this interpretation it is supposed, that “ casting out of the church” refers not to the persons last mentioned, who would receive these strangers, but to “ the strangers,

» whom Diotrephes would not have to be received. And Beausobre says, the place may be so under. stood. Dr. Heumann blames him for not saying that · it ought to be so understood.

There have been various conjectures of learned men concerning the reasons of Diotrephes's conduct, which I do not choose to take notice of now. Dr. Heumann supposeth, that Diotrephes had the disposal of the revenues of the church. There came to the place strangers, who needed relief. But Diotrephes opposed the distribution of any of the common stock, and also discouraged such as were willing to assist them with their own. For all which, as may be supposed, he assigned some reasons. This appears to me to have been the whole of the affair.

But whether these strangers were Jews, or Gentiles, I cannot say. There might be some of both. Grotius and Lampe e think they were Jews, who had been driven out of Palestine, or had been reduced to want

by the general and grievous calamity of that country, and had come into Asia with hopes of relief, and for the sake of a settlement. Heumann, as before seen, says they were Gentiles. For certain they were Christians. And St. John, I think, says, that we ought to receive such, whether they be of Jewish or Gentile stock, “ that we may be fellowhelpers to the truth:” • that we also may serve the interests of truth, for the sake of which these • persons have suffered the loss of all things.'

Ver. 11. “ Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good.” Here the apostle exhorts Caius to persist in his good conduct, and to be upon his guard, not to be influenced by any bad examples.

In the twelfth verse he recommends to him Demetrius, by whom, as may be supposed, this letter was carried.

In the 13th and 14th verses he sends salutations, and speaks again of coming to the place where Caius dwelled, and of “ speaking with him face to face." Which I suppose he did.

And I please myself with the supposition, that his journey was not in vain. I imagine, that Diotrephes submitted, and acquiesced in the advices and admonitions of the apostle. Of this I

a Universi videlicet, qui hanc tractârunt epistolam, sibi Xw.evel hic dicitur Diotrephes, non credi eum debere id persuaserunt, describi his verbis illud pænæ ecclesiasticæ vetuisse pro imperio, sed allatis duntaxat causis, cur fieri id genus, quod excommunicatio vocari solet. Facile quidem non oportebat, multos ab hoc pietatis officio revocâsse.poterat hic error agnosci. Nam primo, Caium, id, quod fieri Atque hoc ipsum nos admonet, verbo, exconnelv, non necesnolebat Diotrephes, facientem, ab ipso non fuisse excommu- sario significari, omnes illos exules reverâ abire coactos, sed id nicatum, in propatulo est. Sed age, rem totam intueamur etiam recte usurpari de conatu Diotrephis id efficiendi. propius. Initio igitur considerandum, quosnam ecclesiâ eje- Heuman. ibid. p. 310-313. cerit Diotrephes. Ab omnibus, si Beausobrium excipimus, u Les chasse de l'église.' Cela se peut rapporter ou aux hoc refertur ad propinquius, ces Barojueves, hoc est, eos, qui frères, ou à ceux qui les reçoivent, ou aux uns et aux autres. volebant exules hospitiv excipere. Cum vero jam graves at

Sur ver. 10. tulimus causas, cur non credi possit hos excommunicatione C Hic enim in Gallicâ suâ N. T. versione animadvertit, hæc ejecisse ecclesiâ, sequitur, ut statuamus, hæc verba, ex trs verba etiam ad remotius referri posse, hoc est, ad fratres 7.427,019s exbannel, pertinere ad remotius, ad fratres exules. exules. Debebat vero indulgere meditationi, nec id relinHis scilicet, dum nec ipse ex ærario aliquid impertiebat, et quere dubium et incertum. Heum. ib. p. 311. note (p). aliis quoque, ut nihil ipsis darent, suadebat ac persuadebat, d 'Treg To Ovojlatos auto ', agor. id est, a Judæå ejecti hoc ipso migrare eos cogebat alio, atque ita 'e suâ expellebat sunt per Judæos incredulos ob Christum. Grot, ad ver. 7. ecclesiâ.' Non erat igitur nostro loco necesse excommunica- • Unde colligimus, peregrinos hos, quorum causam Joannes tionem tribuere Diotrephi. Sed satis evidens est, id eum tam impense egit, fuisse Judæos ex Palæstinâ cum eo profueffecisse, quod omissam priorum exulum receptionem neces- gos, qui pro se aliisque, per totalem regionis illius devastasario consequebatur, ut videlicet exirent ecclesiâ, aliamque tionem ad summam egestatem redactis, opem ecclesiarum peterent, opum pariter et misericordiæ abundautiorem. Asiæ florentium implorabant. Lamp. Proleg. l. 1. c. 7 Apparet hinc etiam facile, cum volentes exulum misereri xvi.

num.

have no certain assurance. However I may add: that neither does any one else know the contrary.

VI. Concerning the time of writing these two epistles, nothing can be said with certainty. Mill 4 placeth them about the same time with the first, in 91 or 92. Whiston likewise supposeth that they were all three written about the year 82, or 83. I imagine that St. John was somewhat advanced in age, and that he had resided a good while in Asia, before he wrote any of these epistles. Consequently, I am disposed to think that these two were not written sooner than the first. And as it was before argued, that the first epistle was written about the year 80, these two may be reckoned to have been written between the years 80 and 90.

CHAP. XXI.

ST. JUDE AND HIS EPISTLE.

III. To whom it was sent..

I. His History. II. Testimonies to the Genuineness of the Epistle.

IV. The Time when it was written.

1. THE

He writer describes himself in this manner at the beginning of the epistle. ch. i. ver. 1. “ Juded the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.” Those two characters lead us to think that he was one of those called the Lord's brethren, and that he was an apostle. Our Lord's brethren, as enumerated in Matt. xiii. 55, are “ James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas.” In Mark vi. 3. “ James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon.' *And in the catalogues of the apostles are these. Matt. x. 3. “ James the son of Alpheus, and Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus. Simon the Canaanite.” Mark iii. 18. “ James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Canaanite.” Luke vi. 15, 16. “ James the Son of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.". Acts i. 13. “ James the son of Aspheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James."

Thus he appears to have been sometimes called Judas, at other times Thaddeus, or Lebbeus. As I do not inquire into the meaning and origin of these names, I refer to others. I only

observe, that it was no uncommon thing among the Jews for a man to have different names, as · Simon, sometimes called Simeon, at other times Peter, or Cephas. And Thomas was also called Didymus.

is Jude, servant of Jesus Christ.” He does not thereby deny himself to be an apostle. St. Paul does not always take upon himself that character at the beginning of his epistles. It is wanting in his two epistles to the Thessalonians, in the epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon.. The epistle to the Philippians begins in this manner; “ Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi.”

It follows. “ And brother of James:" meaning James, sometimes called the Lord's brother, and son of Alpheus, one of the twelve apostles. And he does fitly so style himself, as that James was the eldest brother, and was of note among the apostles, after our Saviour's ascension, and in great repute among the Jewish believers. As appears from Acts xii. 17. xv. xxi. 18—25, and Gal. i. 19. ii. 9.

We have no account of Jude's vocation to the apostleship. Nor is there any thing said of him particularly in the gospels, except what is related in John xiv. 21, 22, 23, in the account which that evangelist has given of our Lord's most excellent and affectionate discourses with the disciples a short time before his last sufferings. “ He that hath my commandments, and keepeth

[ocr errors]

* Proleg. num. 151. 6 As before, p. 427.
• See above, p. 428.
d 188as, 1758 Xp158 08205, aden.ços de larw 63.
• See Lightfoot's Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations

upon St. Matthew, Vol. II. p. 176. Witsii Comm. in ep.
Judæ. num. ii. Cave's Life of St. Jude, in English. Dr.
Benson Preface to this epistle, sect i.

« ZurückWeiter »