only a few remarks upon 1 Pet. v. 13. The (s) church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, faluteth you. And fo does Mark, my fon.

The word church is not in the original, but is inferted in the translation. The fame word is supplied in (t) Oecumenius, and (u) in the Latin, and other ancient verfions, with the approbation of (x) Grotius, and many others. But Mill (y) in his notes upon this text, where he underftands the word Babylon literally, of a city of that name in Egypt, argues, that thereby is intended St. Peter's wife, or fome honourable" Chriftian woman, of the city of Babylon, where he then was. Which conjecture is countenanced by (z) Wall.

Dr. Heumand proceeds farther. First, he says, that (a) by Mark my fox, we are to understand Peter's own fon, which he had by his wife. And (b) then by elected together with you, is to be understood, an excelJent Jewish woman of Babylon in Affyria, whom, with many others, Peter had there converted to the Chriftian faith, and afterwards married: his firft wife, mentioned Luke iv. 38. by whom he had Mark, being

dead.

(1) Ασπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν βαβυλῶν συνεκλεκτή, καὶ μάρκος ο υιός με. (1) Ασπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν βαβυλῶν ἐκκλησία συνεκλεκτή.

But

(u). Exxλnoia præfigunt Lin. [in margine, manu recentiori:] Oecumen. Vulg. Syr. Arab. Ethiop. ex interpretamento. Mill. in loc.

(x) Ad vocem GUVERλEXT, et Syrus, et Arabs, et Latinus, addunt nomen ecclefiæ, recte. Nam et ad ecclefiam fcribit, et hæc, et illa, pariter Deo clecta, id est, a mundo fegregata. Grot. in loc.

() Nempe pro indubitato fumitur, ecclefiam Babyloniorum hic intelligi. Atqui vero, fi de ecclefia hic fermo, quum nulla ejus mentio facta fit in præcedentibus, aperte dixiffet Petrus ixxλnsía iv Babudā. . . . Mihi quidem vehemens fufpicio eft, per τὴν ἐν βαβυλῶν συνεκλεκτὴν, intelligi hic Petri uxorem, fidei fimul fufceptæ, vitæ, laborum, fociam: quæ Babylone Egyptiacâ tunc, cum hæc fcriberentur, egerit. . . . Si dicas, illud Babuhan denotare potius feminam aliquam, quæ fixam fedem habuerit in Babylone, nihil equidem repugno. Efton Babuhan five uxor Petri, five etiam opulenta quædam ac illuftri loco nata femina apud Babylonios, quæ Apoftolum hofpitio exceperit: certe nihil hoc loco de ecclefia Babyloniorum. Mill. in loc.

() "The word church is not in the Greek, but put in by the tranflators, as understood in the Greek.... Dr. Mill thinks it to mean Peter's wife, who being now at Babylon with her husband, did falute thofe Chriftians, to whom the epiftle was written. And then the reading of the words will be: She who is your fellow-Chriflian at Babylon faluteth you." Wall. p. 357.

(a) Similem errarunt errorem, qui quem filium fuum hic loci nominavit Petrus, eum non naturalem ejus fuiffe filium, fed fpiritualem arbitrati funt.... Maneat nunc, Petrum de filio fibi ex conjuge nato loqui: quem facile ex hoc ipfo loco cognofcimus fuiffe focium paternorum itinerum, et fimul curi¡yòr ir X. Heum. ubi fupr. p. 110.

...

(4) Relinquitur igitur, ut ftatuamus, loqui Apoftolum de uxore fua, Babylone nata, ac tum, cum ibi verfaretur Petrus, una cum aliis utriufque fexus Judæis in ecclefiam Chrifti traducta. Hoc enim fibi volunt hæc verba; Babuλwи QUVEX EXTÝ. . . . Quis nunc non videat, Petrum hanc vócutor, fingulari haud dubie pietate et prudentia confpicuam, duxiffe in matrimonium, comitemque poftea habuiffe facrorum itinerum? Ex quo fequitur, priorem uxorem, cujus Luce iv. 38. mentio, e quâ fufceperat Marcum, fuiffe exftinétam. Heum. ibid. p. 112. 113.

Put it appears to me very unlikely, that St. Peter fhould fend falutations to the Chriftians of feveral countreys from a woman, not named by him. Beza fays well, that (c) St. Peter omits the noun, church, as is often done with regard to words of common ufe. What was the fenfe of Chriftians in former times, appears from Oecumenius, and the verfions taken notice of above. The fame fense The fame fenfe appears in (d) the Complexions of Caffiodorius, and (e) the Expofition of Bede.

With regard to St, Mark, Oecumenius fays, "that (f) Peter calls him his fon according to the fpirit, not according to the flesh. Him he permitted to write the Gospel. But fome, as he adds, have prefumed to call Mark fon of Peter according to the flesh, arguing from Luke's hiftorie, in the Acts of the Apostles: where Peter, having been delivered out of prifon by an angel, is faid to have come to the house of Marie, the mother of John, whoje Jurname was Mark, as (g) if he had then gone to his own house, and his lawful wife."

That is a wrong deduction from the words of Acts xii, 12. But we hence perceive, that those people fuppofed Mark, the Evangelift, to have been the fame as John, furnamed Mark.

And I would alfo farther obferve here, by the way, "that (b) Oecumenius computes Silvanus, by whom St. Peter fent this epiftle, and who is mentioned ch. v. 12. to be the fame, who is several times mentioned by St. Paul in his epiftles, particularly 1 Theff. i. 1. 2 Theff. ii. 1." Who likewife, very probably, is the fame as Silas, often mentioned in the

Acts.

I

Oecumenius there calls Silvanus a most faithful man, zealous for the progreffe of the gospel. Indeed all must be fenfible, that he was an excellent man, who from generous principles attended the Apostles of Chrift in the journeys undertaken by them, in the fervice of the gospel. His deputation from the Apostles, and Elders, and church of Jerufalem, with their letter to the Chriftians at Antioch, is very honourable to him. Acts xv. 27. 32. His ftay there, and Paul's choofing him for his companion. in his travels, when he and Barnabas feparated, farther affure us of his juft fentiments concerning the freedom of the Gentils from the yoke of the law, and of his zeal for promoting true religion.

(c) Ecclefiæ nomen omittit, ut in vocabulis communi ufu tritis fieri folet. Bez.

(d) Salutationes quoque ecclefiæ, quam de Babylonia, id eft, de feculi iftius, confufione, dicit electam, et Marci filii fui pia inftitutione tranfmittens. Caffiod. in loc.

(e) Expof. in Petr. cap. v.

(f) Μάρκον δὲ ὑιὲν κατὰ πνεῦμα καλεῖ, ἀλλ ̓ ὁ κατὰ σάρκα. Oecum. Τ. 2. p. 526. A.

...

(g) ὡς εἰς τὴν ἑαυτῷ οικίαν ἐπανελθόντα, καὶ τὴν νομίμην σύζυγον. I. Β. (β) Πισὸς ὑπερβαλλόντως ὁ σιλουανὸς οὗτος, καὶ περὶ τὸ κήρυγμα ἐυθύμως αγωνιζότ μενος, εἶχε καὶ ταῦλος αντε μνημνέυει, καὶ συνεργὸν αὐτὸν μετα τιμοθές ἐν ταῖς ἐπις λαῖς παραλαμβάνει. Παύλος λέγων καὶ σιλουανὸς καὶ τιμόθεος. Oecum. ib. p. 525. D.

CHAP.

CHA P. XX.

The three Epistles of St. John.

I. Their Genuinneffe fhewn from Teftimonie, and internal Characters. II. The Time of writing the first of thefe Epiftles. III. The People, to whom it was fent. IV. Obfervations upon the fecond Epiftle. V. upon the third. VI. The Time, when they were writ.

Their Genuinnefe

I.

I

HAVE already writ the hiftorie of St. John, one of Chrift's twelve Apoftles, and an Evangelift. I have alfo obferved what is needfull concerning the Gospel, writ by him. We are now to confider his Epiftles.

The regard fhewn to them by the ancients, may be foon perceived by recollecting briefly what has been largely alleged by us from them in the feveral volumes of this work.

that is?

St. John's first epiftle is referred to by Polycarp. Vol. i. p. 118. is quoted by Papias. 242. 250. 253 and is referred to by the Martyrs of Lyons. 340. His first and fecond epiftles are quoted by Irenæus. 375They were alfo received by Clement of Alexandria. ii. 473. 509. 511. 512. And fays Origen: "John, befide the Gofpel, and Revelation, has left us an epiftle of a few lines. Grant also a second and a third. For all do not allow thefe to be genuine." Vol. iii. 236. Dionyfius, of Alexandria, receives John's firft epiftle, which he calls his Catholic Epiftle, ὗ ἡ ἐπιστολὴ ἡ καθολική. He likewife mentions the other two, as afcribed to him. Vol. iv. 672...674. The first epiftle was received by Cyprian, and, probably, the other two likewise. p. 832. . . . 836. The fecond epiftle is quoted by Alexander, Bp. of Alexandria. Vol. vii. 250. Eufebius fays: "Befide his Gofpel, his firft epiftle is univerfally acknowledged by thofe of the prefent time, and by the ancients: but the other two are contradicted: doubted of by fome. Vol. viii. 95. See alfo p. 96. 97. and 157. 158. All the three epiftles were received by Athanafius. p. 227. by Cyril, of Jerufalem. p. 270, by the Council of Laodicea. p. 292. by Epiphanius. p. 304. 310. All three were received by Jerome. Vol. x. 77. but the two laft were doubted of by fome in his time. p. 99. 100. All three were received by Rufin. p. 187. by the third Council of Carthage. p. 194. by Auguftin. p. 211.248. and by all thofe authors, who received the fame canon of the New Teftament, that we do. They are in the Alexandrian manufcript. Vol. xi. p. 24c. All three are also in the catalogues of Gregorie Nazianzén. ix. 133. and of Amphilochius. p. 148. But this laft obferves, that fome received one of them only. And indeed, it is acknowledged, that but one epistle of St. John is received by the Syrian churches. Vol. ix. 191... 196. 217. Nor were any more received by Chryfoftom. Vol. x. 313. 337... 339. Venerable Bede, near the begining of the eighth centurie, in his Expot tion of the second epiftle, fays: "Some (a) have thought this, and the fol"lowing

(a) Quidam putant, hanc et fequentem epiftolam non effe Joannis Apoftoli,

"lowing epistle not to have been writ by John the Apostle, but by ano"ther, a Prefbyter of the fame name, whofe fepulchre is ftill fhewn at "Ephefus; whom alfo Papias mentions in his writings. But now it is "the general confent of the Church, that John the Apostle wrote also "these two epiftles: forafmuch as there is a great agreement of doctrine "and ftile between thefe and his first epiftle, and there is also a "like zeal against heretics." They who are defirous to fee more quotations of ancient writers, may confult the Table of principal matters, in the twelfth Volume, in St. John, Catholic Epiftles, and Authors, who had the fame canon of the N. T. with that, which is now generally received. Which article may be found under Canon of the fcriptures of the N. T.

All the three epiftles are now generally received as St. John's in these parts of the world. And with good reason, as feems to me. Said Origen: "He has alfo left an epiftle of a very few lines. Grant alfo a fecond, and a third." That is very right. One epiftle was received by all, as certainly genuine. And it is not worth the while to contend about the other two, when they are so very fhort, and resemble the firft in fentiment, phrase, and manner of writing, as is well obferved by (b) Mill. And of the second epiftle, which confifts of only thirteen of our verses, eight may be found in the firft, either in fenfe, or expreffion. The title of Elder at the begining of these two epiftles, affords no juft exception. It (c) is a very honourable character, well becoming John as Apoftle, and now in years, refiding in Afia, as fuperintendent of all the churches in that country. And St. Peter fpeaks of himself in the same character, in his epiftle univerfally acknowledged.

ch. v. I.

Dr. Heumann fuppofeth, that (d) here is a reference to St. John's

great

fed cujufdam prefbyteri Joannis, cujus fepulchrum ufque hodie monftratur in Ephefo. Cujus etiam Papias, auditor Apoftolorum, et in Hierapoli Epifcopus, in opufculis fuis fæpe meminit. Sed nunc generalis Ecclefiæ confenfus habet, quod has quoque epiftolas Joannes Apoftolus fcripferit, quia revera multam verborum et fidei fimilitudinem cum prima ejus epiftola oftendunt, et fimili zelo deteftantur hæreticos. Bed. Exp. in 2 ep. Joan.

(b) Epiftolas autem iftas habere auctorem Joannem .:. ex eo plane conftat, quod in iftis omnibus eadem paffim fint vonuara, idem genus et character dictionis. Secundæ, certe orixe, (neque enim continet ultra tredecim verfus ex hodiernis noftris,) octo quidem verficulorum cum fenfus, tum ipfæ hoss, exftant in epiftola prima.... Epiftola autem tertia, ejufdem omnino coloris ac characteris cum fecunda, per omnia fapit Joannem Apoftolum. Mill. Proleg. num. 153.

(c) Quod aliqui Joanni cuidam alteri, Prefbytero vulgo dicto, adfcriptas volunt has duas epiftolas, ii neutiquum vident, quam fortiter contra illos militet illud i @golútegos xat' icoxni: quique privato homini, vel etiam Epifcopo, haudquaquam conveniat.... Imo vero Apoftolo noftro peculiariter adaptatum et accommodatum erat: utpote qui jam nonagenarius fuerit, omnibufque provincie Afiæ ecclefiis præfiderit. Mill. Ibid. num. 153. 154. Vid. et Lampe Prolegom. in Joan. 1. i. cap. 7. num. viii.

(d) Deinde articulo ô docet Joannes, nomen hoc fibi cum nemine commune

effe,

great age, at the time of his writing thefe two epiftles. And he thinks, that St. John was then as well known by that title, as by his name. The Elder therefore is as much, as if he had faid: The aged Apoftle. And re refers to Wolfius, and others, who had before faid the fame, or what is to the like purpose.

The want of a name at the begining is no objection. It is rather an argument, that they are his that being agreeable to St. John, who prefixes not his name, to that epiftle, which is unquestionably his.

And fay Beaufobre and Lenfant in their preface to the fecond and third epiftles: "It is certain, that the writer of the third epiftle speaks with "an authority, which the Bishop of a particular church could not pre"tend to, and could not fuit John the elder, even fuppofing him to have "been Bishop of the church of Ephefus, as the pretended Apoftolical "Constitutions fay he was appointed by John the Apostle. For if " Diotrophes was Bishop of one of the churches of Afia, as is reckoned, "the Bishop of Ephefus had no right to fay to him, as the writer of this "epiftle does ver. 10. If I come, I will remember his deeds which he does. "That language, and the vifits made to the churches, denote a man, "who had a more general jurifdiétion, than that of a Bifhop, and can "only fuit St. John the Apostle."

The Time of writing the firft Epifle.

II. That may fuffice for fhewing the genuinneffe of the three epiftles. Let us now make fome remarks upon each of them, begining with the firft. Concerning which there are two inquiries, that may be proper: the time when, and the perfons to whom it was writ.

Grotius thought this. (e) epiftle to have been writ in Patmos, before the destruction of Jerufalem. Hammond and Whitby likewife were of opinion, that it was writ, before that great calamity befell the Jewish nation. Dr. Benfon (f) is inclined to place it in the year of our Lord 68. of Nero 14. that is, after the Jewith war was broke out, and not long before the deftruction of Jerufalem. Mill (g), and Le Clerc (b) who follows him, place this epiftle in the year 91. or 92. Bafnage (i) fpeaks of this epiftle at the year 98. and Baronius (k) at the year 99. Beaufobre and Lenfant in their preface to this epiftle exprefs themfelves after this manner: "Al"though we cannot fay any thing certain concerning the time, when St. John wrote this epiitle: we may be fatisfied, that it was near the end of

"the

effe, adeoque vifo TT titulo ftatim fcriptorem harum literarum agnoviffe... Nihil proinde reftat, quam ut ftatuamus, a Joanne ifto titulo indicari ætatem feam provectiffimam, morifque tum fuiffe, eum appellitari honoris ac reverentia caufla Senem, five Seniorem, vel etiam Senem Apoftulum. ... Græca proinde hæc, O goirigos Tate, melius reddi Latine non pof funt, quam hoc modo: Grandevus Apoftolus falutem dicit Caio.... Heuman. Comm. in Joan. Ep. iii. ap. Nov. Sylleg. Diff. p. i. P. 279. 280.

(e) Puto autem fcriptam, ut alibi dixi, ex Patino hanc epistolam, non multo ante excidium Hierofolymitanum. Grot, Pr. in 1 ep. Joan.

(f) Preface to St. John's first epifile. §. iv.

(g) Proleg. num. 148.
(b) H. E. an. 91. num. i.
(i) Ann. 98. num, iv

(k). Ann. 99. num, vii.

150.