brethren was to preach the gospel to the Gentiles without charge; that
he had in a former letter, commended them to the church where Gaius
resided; but that Diotrephes had hindered their reception, and
persecuted those who favored them.

Short as these epistles are, then, each of them contains weighty
instruction--the first, in reference to ill-timed kindness and
liberality towards the teachers of error; the second, concerning the
character and conduct of those who love to have the preeminence, and the
abhorrence in which they ought to be held by all who love the purity and
peace of the churches.

IV. EPISTLE OF JUDE.

18. The writer of this epistle styles himself "the servant of Jesus
Christ, and brother of James." Chap. 1:1. This James is undoubtedly the
same man who held so conspicuous a place in the church at Jerusalem, and
was the author of the epistle which bears his name. Whether Jude was an
apostle, or an apostolic man, like Mark and Luke, depends upon the
question respecting the relation which his brother James held to Christ,
concerning which see the introduction to the epistle of James. In either
case the canonical authority of the epistle holds good. The close
relation between this epistle and the second chapter of Peter's second
epistle has already been noticed. See above, No. 13. It was probably
anterior in time to that epistle, but not separated from it by a great
number of years. If we may infer anything from the abundant use made by
the writer of Jewish history and tradition, the persons addressed are
Jewish Christians.

19. Eusebius classes this epistle also among the disputed writings
(Hist. Eccl., 2. 23; 3. 25), yet the testimonies to its genuineness are
ample--the Muratorian canon, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
Jerome, etc.

It was objected to this epistle in ancient times that the writer
quotes from the apocryphal book of Enoch (verses 14, 15). To
this it may be answered--(1) that, if this be the case, Jude
does not sanction the book of Enoch as a whole, but only this
particular tradition embodied in it; (2) that the writer of the
book of Enoch manifestly made use of a current tradition, and
that, for anything that appears to the contrary, Jude may have
availed himself of the same tradition, independently of the book
of Enoch. That an inspired writer should refer to a traditional
history not recorded in the Old Testament ought not to give