« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
or chief director of things in the church to which Caius belonged. However, we will consider his arguIlientS. 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 8 fault of Diotrephes lay in seeking pre-eminence; which shows 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 show 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 superintendants, 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 " Diotrephes was deacon,
* Alii igitur Diotrephen fuisse illius ecclesiæ episcopum crediderunt, hoc potissimum usi argumento, quod excommunicàsse scribatur pios exules. Verum infra docebimus, ‘ejicere execclesiá, hic non esse excommunicare, atque adeo affingi Diotrephi excommunicationem judicio praecipiti. Ib. 303.
& Ac vel verbum pi\otrporavov demonstrat nobis, eum haud fuisse episcopum ; episcopus enim est à Trparsvay in ecclesiá. Atqui quod quis jam habet, non expetit. Ib. p. 303, 304.
* Jam cum clarissime cognoscamus, nec hareticum, nec episcopum, nec presbyterum, nec ethnicum Scilicct reipublicae rectorem, fuisse Diotrephen, via Satis aperta estad personam ejus inveniendam. Statim enim mentem nostrum haec subit quaestio : An forte fuit illius ecclesiae diaconus, hoc est, bonorum ecclesiasticorum administrator Hoc enim officium certis hominibus jam initio christianae ecclesiæ demandatum fuisse, ex Act. vi. notum est. Ac same facilis nunc et perspicuus nobis videtur totus hic locus noster. Praeerat scilicet aerario ecclesiastico Diotrephes. Erat ejus pauperibus inde erogare pecunias. Advenas autem fratres ideo non sublevabat, quod vix ecclesiae illius pauperibus alendis satis videretur suppetere. Id causatus, alio discedere, aliorum auxilium implorare, jubebat: imo, dum nihil ipsis suppeditabat, cogebat hoc ipso eos sk tric skk\mataç, ex illà ecclesiá, excedere, atque ita erat Sk8a)\\ov avrag sk rmg ekk}\matag. Erant, qui exulibus his ex ærario dari aliquid volebant. Verum non audiebat hos providus, scilicet Oeconomus, sed suam sequi sententiam cupiebat casteros christianos omnes. Atque ita erat
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 advantage. This appears from Justin Martyr, and * 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 churchstock, 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
pixotrpwrevov (sive, ut Petrus loguitur, karakuptsvov) avrov. Quid 2 Tam prudens et justus sibi videbatur Ceconomus, ut ne Joannis quidem apostoli praecepto morem gereret, ratus Scilicet, eum, si hic esset, aerariique rationes haberet cognitas, aliter sensurum. Bonum doctorem esse Joannem, non negabat: bonum eum esse Oeconomum, prudentemque in politicis rebus consillatorem, id vero negabat. Imo eo temeritatis provehcbat, ut ludicra maledicta effutiret in virum sanctissimum, et fortasse “senem' appellaret, caetera quidem summe venerabilem, sed hoc certe in genere “delirum.’ Ib. p. 306, 307. ' 'Ol evtropavric 6s kat (38Aouevo kara trooatpeow ékas oc rmv savre, & 32Attav Čičwou kat ro ovX\syopsvov trapa Top Tposswrt awort0srat, kat avroc strukapet 0ppavoug rs kat xmpaig-kai roug TapsTiênuoug sov ćevotc. K. A. Apol. 2. p. 99. A. Par. 1636. *—et stipendia ejus episcopo dispensante perciperent. Cypr. ep. 41. al. 38. | Antiquities of the Christ. Church. B. I. ch. iv. sect. 6. " Scripsissem forsitan ecclesiæ. Vulgat. Wid. et Cleric. H. E. A. D. 92. num. ii. Wid. et Grot. in loc. " Is vero exillo erat hominum genere, qui Judaeos, quanquam Christum professos, si legis ritus observabant, (quod in Judaea christiani faciebant ad haecusque tempora, ut Sulpicius nos docet,) ad suos coetus non admittebant. Grot. in ep. 3. ver, 9.
like purpose ° Le Clerc, and P Beausobre. This opinion is much disliked by ' Dr. Heumann. Mr. Mosheim ' likewise argues against it, as an opiniom quite destitute offoundation in antiquity. Others think that Diotrephes was a Jew, and zealous for the law, and that he would not 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 showed that Diotrephes was not a heretic, or that there is no reasom 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 christiam 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
° Nolebat autem christianos circumcisos ab incircumcisis, seu Gentilibus, in ecclesiam admitti. Cleric. ib. P Son mom est Grec. Ce qui fait juger, qu'il étoit Payen d'origine ; et c'est peut-être pour cela qu'il ne vouloit pas qu'on recut Chrétiens d'entre les Juifs, fort méprisés par les Gentils. Préf. sur ii. et iii. ep. de S. Jean. p. 585. Voyez aussi la remarque sur l'ep. ii. ver 9. “ Heuman. ubi sup. p. 303. note (a). * Eam (causam) viri docti quærunt in conditione eorum, quos beneficiis et amore ecclesiæ excludebat. Diotrephen nempe suspicantur origine fuisse Ethnicum, illos vero, quos recipere nolebat, Judæos. Ex quo efficiunt, insitum Ethnicorum animis contemptum Judæorum tantum apud eum potuisse, ut sanctissimum amoris præceptum violaret. In hac conjecturâ, ut verum fatear, nihil est quo moveri queat aliquis consideratus et rerum christianarum non imperitus. Nam, ut omittam, omnibus eam præsidiis destitutam esse, si nomen Diotrephis excipias, quod Græcum est—ut taceam, nusquam aliquid memoriæ proditum extare, unde pateat, tam immani Judæorum odio et despicientiâ christianos ex Græcis flagrâsse, ut in fratribus eos habere nollent, et omni amoris fructu spoliarent, &c. Moshem. De Reb. Christian. ante Const. M. p. 175. * See before, p. 290, note e. * Tertiam epistolam scripsit Gaio cuidam—Hominis liberalitatem laudat, qui præcones quosdam evangelicos, e Judæâ gente, qui a Gentilibus nihil accipere voluerant, opibus suis adjuvisset. Cleric. ubi supr. Diotrephen duplici nomine S. Joannes objurgat : primum ideo, quod imperium sibi arrogaret in ecclesiâ——deinde propterea quod durum se ac inhumanum fratribus bene de religione christianâ promeritis exhiberet. Egressi erant quidam ex coetu, cujus membrum Diotrephes erat, ad propagandum inter vicinas gentes religionem christianam, &c. Moshem. ib. p. 175.
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 the 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.” Wer. 6, “Which have borne witness of thy character 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 forward‘ing 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 " 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 V 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
" Duabus autem ex causis pro nomine Domini Sunt profecti, aut ad praedicandum videlicet nomen ejus proprie sponte venientes, aut propter nominis sanctifidem et confessionem a civibus seu contribubibus suis patrià expulsi. Bed. in 3. Joann. Ep.
" Nam exules illi christiani e patrià suâ cum egressi sunt, nihil quidquam suorum bonorum acceperunt ab hostibus suis Ethnicis, sed coacti sunt abire sine ullo vitae subsidio. Heumann. ubi Supr. p. 327.
* Mmöev \aps3avovreg atro row 80www. In manuscripto atro row 80Vukov. ——Potuerant in istä calamitate adjuvari misericordia row show, “extraneorum.'
sense is likewise in Estius. Whose * note upon this text I shall now transcribe at large, it being well suited to illustrate this epistle. Wer. 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 re‘gard to my directions.” Wer. 10, “Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds, which he does.” That is, ‘ I y 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. “And 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 re
Sed maluerint omnia christianis debere. Grot. ad ver, 7. ‘Nos ergo.' Nos christiani ubique locorum opetoopsv aroMaps3avstv.—Manuscriptus, ViroMap6avety rotareg : id vero est, opitulari. Id. ad ver, 8. * Quod ait apostolus, ‘istos profectos pro nomine Jesu Christi,' potest bifariam exponi, ait Beda, videlicet, autut praedicaturi evangelium ejus sponte sint profecti ad Gentiles convertendos, autut propter fiden et confessionem nominis Christi per contribules suos patrià fuerint expulsi. Similiter, quod sequitur, “nihil accipientes agentibus,' ambiguum est, an de gentibus ad fidem Christi jam conversis accipiendum sit, an de nondum conversis. Et uterque sensus suá mititur probabilitate. Illo modo sensus est, quod hi, quamvis annuntiãssent, et deinceps forent annuntiaturi gentibus evangelium seu fidem Christi, essentaue jam complures gentilium eorum praedicatione conversi, nihil tamen ab iis exigere, velaccipere voluerint necessariae sustentationis, hac Scilicet de causã, ne quod offendiculum darent evangelio Christi—De gentibus autem non conversis si sermo sit, tunc significatur, quod isti peregrini, quamvis egerent, quâcumque tantum ex causã, nihil tamen ab hujusmodigentilibus accipere, nedum petere, voluerint; me ii Scandalizarentur, et longius a christianá religione averterentur. Dixissent enim: Ecce nulla est caritas inter christianos—Utraque expositio bene probabilis est. Nec satis liquet, utra sit praeferenda. Est. in 3. Joan, ver, 7. & Certe nihil aliud sibi vult apostolus, quam se more suo molissimum, placidissimumque in modum admoniturum esse Diotrephen peccati Sui, rectamgue eum revocaturum in viam. Heum. ib. p. 309.