Изображения страниц

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. 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 Abga‘rus 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. Before I proceed any farther, I must take notice of a T)issertation of the learned Theodore Hasaeus : 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. 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, show, that one and the same person is spoken of by all the three evangelists.

* Diss. Iren. i. num. xxiv.

* Thaddaeum apostolum, ecclesiastica tradit historia missum Edessan ad Abgarum regem Osroenae, qui, ab evangelistà Lucă, Judas Jacobi dicitur. In Matt. T. IV. p. 35. in.

& H. E. l. i. cap. 13. p. 32. * Cap. 12, p. 31. A.

* Vid. Wales, Annot. in loc. p. 21.

* Theodori Hasāei de Levi a Christo ad apostolatum vocato: ad loca Marci ii. 14. seq. Luc. v. 27. seq. Disquisitio. Quâ eum non, ut vulgo putatur, Matthaeum, Sed Judam Thaddaeum esse ostenditur. Ap. Biblioth. Brem. Cl. v. Fascic. iii. num. vi. p. 475, &c. Bremas. 1721.

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. 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 shows 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 P transcribed. It is very likely, that Victor had seen that observation in more ancient writers: and possibly in Origen, in 4 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. Hasaeus 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

* Vid. Dem. Ev. 1. 3. cap. v. p. 119, &c. cited in this work, Vol. iv. p. 91, &c. " Primus omnium Matthaeus est Publicanus cognomento Levi, qui evangelium in Judaea Hebræo sermone edidit. Hieron. Prol. in Matt. T. IV. in citat. Supra, Vol. iv. ch. cxiv. num. vii. Caeteri evangelistae propter verecundiamet honorem Matthaei nolueranteum nomine appellare vulgato, sed dixerunt Levi. Duplici quippe vocabulo fuit. ld, in Matt. cap. x. tom. IV. P. I. p. 30. Matthaeus, qui et Levi, ex Publicano Apostolus. De V. I. cap. 3. " IIept 6s avayvostov eyo Mar0atoc, o kat Asvig, à Tore rowvng, 6taraqcopat. Const. Ap. l. 8. c. 22. * Est autem Levi hic idem omnino cum evangelistà Matthaeo. Et quidem Marcus et Lucas nomen, quod illi familiare erat, primaevå appellatione obnubunt, &c. Victor in S. Marc. ap. Bib. PP. Lugd. T. IV. p. 375. B. citat. Vol. ii. hujus operis, ch. clxxii. P See note m. * Prima nobis quaestio de nomine ipsius Pauli videtur exsurgere, cur is qui Saulus dictus est in Actibus Apostolorum, nunc Paulus dicatur.- Invenimus igitur in scripturis aliquantos binis, alios etiam termis uses esse nominibus. Sed nec evangelia quidem hunc renuunt morem. Nam et Matthaus ipse refert de se, quod, cum transiret Jesus, invenit quendam sedentem ad telonium, nomine Matthaeum. Lucas vero de eodem dicit, quia, cum transiret Jesus, quendam widit publicanum, nomine Levi, &c. Origen. in ep. ad Rom. tom. II. p. 458. Basil. * Nam observabam, Matthaeum nunquam dici Levin, vel Levin vicissim appellari Matthaeum, &c. Has. ubi supra, p. 477.

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 :” cat Matěatos o Textowns. 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 hus‘ bandmen.” Undoubtedly 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 tentmaker, even Paul, and one husbandman, intending, perhaps, St. Jude. For Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, writes, ‘that " when Domitian made inquiries after the posterity ‘ of David, some grandsons of Jude, called the Lord's bro‘ther, 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 improve‘ment 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,

* Thaddaeum apostolum——qui ab evangelistă Lucă Judas Jacobi dicitur, et alibi appellatur Lebbaeus, quod interpretatur corculus. Credendumque est eum fuisse trinominem; sicut Simon, Petrus, et filii Zebedaei, Boanerges, ex firmitate et magnitudine fidei, nominati sunt. Hieron. in Matt. x. T. IV. p. 35. in.

Hv Yap Érepoc Iabaç o As83atoc, č, cat strucAmfletc 9ačğatoc, Öv Iakoğa pmatv swat 6 Askaç, Aeywv, Isèaç Iakobs. Chrys. in Matt. hom. 32. [al. 33.] tom.

VII. p. 369. -
Vid. et Hesychii Quaestiones. Diff. xiv. ap. Coteler. Monum. Gr. tom.
III. p. 11. * Vid. Cav. H. L. in S. Juda.

[ocr errors]

‘of what kind it was, and when it would appear, they an“swered, 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 accord‘ing to his works. The men being mean, and their princi‘ples harmless, they were dismissed.’ 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 apotle 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 showing 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 Y among the con‘tradicted, but yet well known to the most, [or approved ‘ by many, I 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 Irenaeus, 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 who were contradicted. I mean the epistle of Jude, and the other catholic epistles. 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

[ocr errors]

are notes upon the epistle of Jude : in which is an observation concerning the modesty of the writer: “that y Jude * who wrote a catholic epistle, did not style himself at the ‘ beginning of it, brother of the Lord, though he was relat‘ed to him, but “Jude the servant of Jesus Christ, and ‘ brother of James.” ” Which observation serves to show 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 VerSé. 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 walked in the way of Cain, and run greedily in the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.”—Jude, ver. 5, 6, and 11. In his Stromata, Clement writes to this purpose: “Of" ‘these, and the like heretics, I think, Jude spoke propheti‘ cally in his epistle:’ “Likewise also these dreamers,” and what follows, to “And their mouth speaketh great swelling words:” that is, from ver. 8, to ver. I6. And that manner of quoting shows, that the epistle was in the hands of many people, or of all christians in general, to be consulted by them.

7. Judas, qui catholicam scripsit epistolam, frater filiorum Joseph, extans valde religiosus, quum sciret propinquitatem Domini, non tamen dixit, se ipsum fratrem ejus esse. Sed quid dixit? “Jacobus, servus Jesu Christi,’ utpote Domini, “frater autem. Jacobi. Adumbrat. in epist. Judae. p. 1007. ed. Oxon. * Paed. l. 3. p. 239.

3. ôsopotg aidiotç bro Çopov ayptov [al. &ywv") ayys).ov rernpmkev.

* Esri rerov, othai, kal Tov šuowy aipeosov trpoonrikoç Isèav sv rp sorts oxy supmkevar 'Ogowe pleurot kat erot svvirviałopsvot & Yap irsp rp axmósio striðaxAbov. čwg, kat ro sopa avrov \a)\et Ürepoyka. Strom. l. 3. p. 431. A. B.


« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »