a 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 And Beausobre says, the place may be so understood. Dr. Heumann blames him for not saying that it ought to be so understood. с b 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 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.' d e 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 persuaserunt, describi his verbis illud pœnæ ecclesiastica genus, quod excommunicatio vocari solet. Facile quidem poterat hic error agnosci. Nam primo, Caium, id, quod fieri nolebat Diotrephes, facientem, ab ipso non fuisse excommunicatum, in propatulo est. Sed age, rem totam intueamur propius. Initio igitur considerandum, quosnam ecclesiâ ejecerit Diotrephes. Ab omnibus, si Beausobrium excipimus, hoc refertur ad propinquius, Tes Beλoueves, hoc est, eos, qui volebant exules hospitio excipere. Cum vero jam graves attulimus causas, cur non credi possit hos excommunicatione ejecisse ecclesiâ, sequitur, ut statuamus, hæc verba, εx Tys Exxanoias exbaλλei, pertinere ad remotius, ad fratres exules. His scilicet, dum nec ipse ex ærario aliquid impertiebat, et aliis quoque, ut nihil ipsis darent, suadebat ac persuadebat, hoc ipso migrare eos cogebat alio, atque ita e suâ expellebat ecclesia.' Non erat igitur nostro loco necesse excommunicationem tribuere Diotrephi. Sed satis evidens est, id eum effecisse, quod omissam priorum exulum receptionem necessario consequebatur, ut videlicet exirent ecclesiâ, aliamque peterent, opum pariter et misericordiæ abundantiorem.Apparet hinc etiam facile, cum volentes exulum misereri xwλEUELY hic dicitur Diotrephes, non credi eum debere id vetuisse pro imperio, sed allatis duntaxat causis, cur fieri id non oportebat, multos ab hoc pietatis officio revocâsse.Atque hoc ipsum nos admonet, verbo, xa, non necessario significari, omnes illos exules reverâ abire coactos, sed id etiam recte usurpari de conatu Diotrephis id efficiendi. Heuman. ibid. p. 310-313. Les chasse de l'église. Cela se peut rapporter ou aux frères, ou à ceux qui les reçoivent, ou aux uns et aux autres. Sur ver. 10. Hic enim in Gallicâ suâ N. T. versione animadvertit, hæc verba etiam ad remotius referri posse, hoc est, ad fratres exules. Debebat vero indulgere meditationi, nec id relinquere dubium et incertum. Heum. ib. p. 311. note (p). « Υπερ τε ονόματος αυτε εξήλθον id est, a Judza ejecti sunt per Judæos incredulos ob Christum. Grot. ad ver. 7. * Unde colligimus, peregrinos hos, quorum causam Joannes tam impense egit, fuisse Judæos ex Palæstinâ cum eo profugos, qui pro se aliisque, per totalem regionis illius devastationem ad summam egestatem redactis, opem ecclesiarum Asiæ florentium implorabant. Lamp. Proleg. 1. 1. c. 7 num, xvi. have no certain assurance. contrary. However I may add: that neither does any one else know the VI. Concerning the time of writing these two epistles, nothing can be said with certainty. Mill placeth them about the same time with the first, in 91 or 92. b Whiston likewise sup a poseth 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. I. His History. II. Testimonies to the Genuineness of the Epistle. III. To whom it was sent. IV. The Time when it was written. d I. THE writer describes himself in this manner at the beginning of the epistle. ch. i. ver. 1. "Jude 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 Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James." e 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. 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 a Proleg. num. 151. See above, p. 428. b As before, p. 427. 4 Ιέδας, Ιησε Χρισε δέλος, αδελφός δε Ιακωβ8. upon St. Matthew, Vol. II. p. 176. Witsii Comm. in ep. Judæ. num. ii. Cave's Life of St. Jude, in English. Dr. Benson's Preface to this epistle, sect i. them, he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father. And I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot: Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered, and said unto him: If a man love me, he will keep my words. And my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." This disciple still had the common prejudice concerning the kingdom of the Messiah. And he asks our Saviour with surprise, how he could speak of manifesting himself to a few only, when he was about to set up an universal monarchy in great power and splendour? Our Lord tells him (what he might have known before) that his kingdom, as Messiah, was spiritual, a kingdom of truth and righteousness: and that the blessings and privileges of it were peculiar to good men, who obeyed the precepts of true religion, which had been taught by him. Such would be accepted, and approved by himself, and by his heavenly Father, in whose name he had spoken. This they would all know, when he should come again among them, after his resurrec tion, and when the gift of the Spirit should be bestowed upon them, and others his followers. As there is little said of Jude in the history of our Saviour before his resurrection, so St. Luke in the Acts has inserted nothing particularly concerning him after it. However it is unquestionable, that he partook of the plentiful effusion of the Holy Ghost at the pentecost next after our Lord's ascension: and that he joined with the other apostles in bearing an open testimony to our Lord's resurrection at Jerusalem: and that he had a share with them in the reproaches and other sufferings, which they endured upon that account. It may be also reasonably supposed, that for a while he preached the gospel in several parts of the land of Israel, and wrought miracles in the name of Christ. But what they were, we cannot say, because they are not recorded by St. Luke, nor any other credible historian near the time. As his life seems to have been prolonged, it may be also reckoned very likely, that he afterwards left Judea, and went abroad, preaching the gospel to Jews and Gentiles in other countries. But we have no account of his travels that can be relied on. Some have said, that he preached in Arabia, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia: and that he suffered martyrdom in this last mentioned country. But of these things there remains not any credible history. Indeed, it may be questioned, whether St. Jude was a martyr. It was formerly observed by1 us, that Heracleon, a learned Valentinian, as cited by Clement of Alexandria, reckons among apostles, who had not died by martyrdom, Matthew, Philip, Thomas, and Levi. And it was then said, that by Levi, Heracleon probably meant Lebbeus, that is, Judas. Which is allowed by Dodwell, and some other learned writers, to whom we then referred. Nor does Jerom, in his article of St. Jude, in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, say any thing of his having died a martyr. с d f Jerom, in his commentary upon the tenth chapter of St. Matthew, where is the catalogue of the apostles, says, that the apostle Thaddeus, called by the evangelist Luke, "Jude the brother of James," was sent to Edessa to Agbarus king of Osröene. But Eusebius, in his account of that affair says, that Thomas, one of the twelve, sent to Edessa, Thaddeus, one of Christ's seventy disciples, to preach the gospel in those countries.' And in the preceding chapter, where he speaks of Christ's seventy disciples, he reckons Thaddeus, who went to Edessa, one of them. Whence it came to pass, that Jerom called him an apostle, and reckoned him one of the twelve, is not easy to say. But I imagine, that what he says in his commentary upon St. Matthew, is an inaccuracy, owing to his writing in haste. This conjecture receives confirmation hence, that in the article of St. Jude, in the catalogue above-mentioned, he says nothing of that journey. h Before I proceed any farther, I must take notice of a Dissertation of the learned Theodore Hasæus: in which he argues, that Judas, called Lebbeus, and Thaddeus, is the same as Levi, of whose call St. Mark, ch. ii. 13-17, and St. Luke, ch. v. 27-32. give an account. e H. E. 1. i. cap. 13. p. 32. Vid. Vales. Annot. in loc. p. 21. Theodori Hasæi de Levi a Christo ad Apostolatum vocato ad loca Marci ii. 14. seq. Luc. v. 27. seq. Disquisitio, quâ eum non, ut vulgo putatur, Matthæum, sed Judam Thaddæum esse ostenditur. Ap. Biblioth. Brem. Cl. v. Fascic, iii. num. vi. p. 475, &c. Bremæ. 1721. He supposeth, that St. Matthew, ch. ix. 9-13. gives an account of his own call to be an apostle, and that St. Mark and St. Luke give an account of the call of another publican, named Levi, or Lebbeus, or Judas. Upon which I observe: 1. That is a very forced interpretation. The whole history, and all the circumstances of it, shew, that one and the same person is spoken of by all the three evangelists. And the coherence renders it indubitable. The same things precede and follow in those several evangelists; as may be perceived by any one, who compares them. b a 2. So far as we can find, it has been the opinion of the most ancient and learned Christian writers, that Matthew and Levi are two names of one and the same man. So thought Eusebius. So likewise Jerom in several places of his works: which shews it was his settled opinion and that he never hesitated about it. The compiler of the Apostolical Constitutions says the same expressly. Victor of Antioch, in his commentary upon St. Mark, says, that Mark and Luke, when they give an account of his call at the receipt of custom, designedly use a name by which he was not so well known as that of Matthew. Jerom speaks to the like purpose in a passage, already transcribed. It is very likely, that Victor had seen that observation in more ancient writers and possibly in Origen, in whose preface to his commentary upon the epistle to the Romans, as we now have it in Latin only, is somewhat equivalent. However, he plainly says, that Matthew and Levi are only two names of one and the same man. 3. Hasæus argues, that Levi is never said in the gospels to have been also called Matthew, nor is Matthew said to be otherwise called Levi. To which I answer, there was no necessity that we should be told this. It is allowed, that Thaddeus, and Lebbeus, and Judas, are names of one and the same apostle. And it was also so understood by ancient Christians: some of whom I have quoted below. Nevertheless St. Luke has never told us, that Judas was surnamed Thaddeus, or Lebbeus. Nor has St. Matthew, or St. Mark said, that Thaddeus, or Lebbeus was also called Judas. These observations, as seems to me, are sufficient to confirm the common opinion. However I will add a thought or two of less moment. 4. St. Matthew, in the catalogue of the apostles, placeth himself in this manner, ch. x. 3. "and Matthew the publican: na Marbaros O TEλwns. May it not be hence argued with probability, that he was the only publican among the apostles, and that there was no other? 5. If we were to form a conjecture concerning the employment, that was followed by Jude, before he was an apostle, it would be that of an husbandman. In the Apostolical Constitutions the apostles are made to say: Some of us are fishermen, others tent-makers, others husbandUndoubtedly several of the apostles were fishermen. But by the latter part of the sentence no more may be meant, than that there was among them one tent maker, even Paul, and one husbandman, intending, perhaps, St. Jude. For Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, • Vid. Dem. Ev. 1. 3. cap. v. p. 119, &c. cited in this work Vol. ii. p. 367, &c. b Primus omnium Matthæus est Publicanus cognomento Levi, qui evangelium in Judæâ Hebræo sermone edidit. Hieron. Prol. in Matt. T. IV. in citat supra Vol. ii. p. 550. Cæteri evangelistæ propter verecundiam et honorem Matthæi noluerant eum nomine appellare vulgato, sed dixerunt Levi. Duplici quippe vocabulo fuit. Id. in Matt. cap. x. tom. IV. P. I. p. 30. Matthæus, qui et Levi, ex Publicano Apostolus. De V. I. cap. 3. • Περί δε αναγνωςων εγω Ματθαιος, ο και Λευις, ὁ ποτε τελωνής, διατασσομαι. Const. Ap. 1. 8. c. 22. d Est autem Levi hic idem omnino cum Evangelistâ Matthæo. Et quidem Marcus et Lucas nomen, quod illi familiare erat, primævâ appellatione obnubunt, &c. Victor in S. Marc. ap. Bib. PP. Lugd. T. IV. p. 375. B. Citat. Vol. ii. hujus operis p. 550. e See note b ' Prima nobis quæstio de nomine ipsius Pauli videtur exsurgere, cur is qui Saulus dictus est in Actibus Apostolorum, nunc Paulus dicatur.Invenimus igitur in scripturis ali -sed quantos binis, alios etiam ternis usos esse nominibus.- 8 Nami observabam, Matthæum nunquam dici Levin, vel Levin vicissim appellari Matthæum, &c. Has. ubi supra. P. 477. Thaddaeum Apostolum-qui ab Evangelistâ Lucâ Judas Jacobi dicitur, et alibi appellatur Lebbæus, quod interpretatur corculus. Credendumque est eum fuisse trinominem; sicut Simon, Petrus, et filii Zebedæi, Boanerges, ex firmitate et magnitudine fidei nominati sunt. Hieron. in Matt. x. T. IV. p. 35. in. Ην γαρ έτερος Ιωδας ο Λεββαίος, ὁ και επικληθεις Θαδδαίος, ὁν Ιακωβο φησιν ειναι ὁ Λεκας, λεγων, Ιεδας Ιακωβο. Chrys. in Matt. hom. 32. al. 33. tom. VII. p. 369. Vid. et Hesychii Quæstiones. Diff. xiv. ap. Coteler. Monum. Gr. tom. III. p. 11. Vid. Cay. H. L. in S. Juda. a writes, that when Domitian made inquiries after the posterity of David, some grandsons of Jude, called the Lord's brother, were brought before him. Being asked concerning their possessions and substance, they assured him, that they had only so 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 said was confirmed by the callousness of their hands. Being asked concerning Christ, and his kingdom, of what kind it was, and when it would appear, they answered, that it was not worldly and earthly, but heavenly and angelical: that it would be manifested at the end of the world: when coming in great glory he would judge the living and the dead, and render to every man according to his works. The men being mean, and their principles harmless, they were dismissed.' 6 Hence some may argue, that St. Jude himself had been an husbandman. And from this account, if it may be relied upon, we learn, that this apostle was married, and had children. That may suffice for the history of St. Jude. II. In the next place I am to observe the evidences of the genuineness, and canonical authority of the epistle ascribed to him. Somewhat relating to this point has been already said in the fifteenth chapter, concerning the Catholic epistles in general. To which chapter therefore the reader is referred, though I may here transcribe some things from it, for shewing the authority of this epistle in particular. It should be remembered, that Eusebius having enumerated the books of scripture, universally received from the beginning, and among them the first epistle of Peter, and the first epistle of John, he adds: And among the contradicted, but yet well known to the most [or approved by many] are that called the epistle of James, and that of Jude, and the second of Peter, and the 'second and third of John.' So that in his time this epistle was well known, and received by many, though not by all. This epistle is no where expressly cited by Irenæus, who wrote about the year of Christ 178. Whether he has at all referred to it, was considered formerly. And the reader is referred to what was then said. Clement of Alexandria flourished about the year 194. Eusebius giving an account of his works, says that in his Institutions, Clement had given explications of all the canonical scriptures, not omitting those which are contradicted. I mean the epistle of Jude, and the other catholic epistles.' с That work, entitled Institutions, is lost. But we have in Latin a small treatise or fragment, called Adumbrations, supposed to be translated from the Institutions. Here are notes upon the epistle of Jude: in which is an observation concerning the modesty of the writer: that Jude who wrote a catholic epistle, did not style himself at the beginning of it, brother of the Lord, though he was related to him, but "Jude the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James." Which observation serves to shew whom Clement took to be the writer of this epistle. He supposed him to be one of them, who are called the Lord's brethren. Matt. xiii. 55. Mark vi. 3. and an apostle. See Luke vi. 16. In that Adumbration follow brief remarks upon almost every verse of the epistle, except the last, or twenty-fifth verse. It might be observed likewise, that in that place Clement declares his opinion concerning those called the Lord's brethren, that they were children of Joseph. This epistle is also quoted expressly by Clement in two of his works, which remain entire, the Pedagogue or Instructor, and the Stromata, or Miscellanies. In the Pedagogue he speaks to this purpose: "I will that ye should know," says Jude, “that God having once saved the people out of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them that believed not. And the angels, which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day." And afterwards, he emphatically describes the characters of those who are judged. "Woe unto them, for they have |