תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

only a few remarks upon 1 Pet. V. 13. The (s) church that is at Babylon, clelied together with you, saluteth you. And so does Mark, my son.

The word church is not in the original, but is inserted in the translation. The fame word is supplied in (t) Oecumenius, and (u) in the Latin, and other ancient versions, with the approbation of (x) Grotius, and many others. But Mill (y) in his notes upon this text, where he understands the word Babylon literally, of a city of that name in Egypt, argues, that thereby is intended St. Peter's wife, or fome honourable Christian 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 for, we are to understand Peter's own son, 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 first wife, mentioned Luke iv. 38. by whom he had Mark, being dead.

But

(4) Ασπάζεται υμάς ή έν βαβυλώνα συνεκλεκτή, και μάρκος ο υιός με. (1) Ασπάζεται υμάς ή έν βαβυλων εκκλησία συνεκλεκτή.

(u). Exnncia præfigunt Lin. [in margine, manu recentiori :] Oecamen. Vulg. Syr. Arab. Æthiop. ex interpretamento. Mill. in loc.

4x) Ad vocem oven ext, 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 segregata. Grot. in loc.

(y) Nempe pro indubitato sumitur, ecclefiam Babyloniorum hic intelligi. Atqui vero, fi de ecclesia hic fermo, quum nulla ejus mentio facta fit in præcedentibus, aperte dixisset Petrus ixxansia iv Buburi... Mihi quidem vehemens fufpicio est, per tùy in Babuawno ovvendixt", intelligi hic Petri uxorem, fidei fimul fusceptæ, vitæ, laborum, fociam : quæ Babylone Ægyptiacâ tunc, cum hæc fcriberentur, egerit. . . . Si dicas, illud i ly BzGiness denotare potins feminam aliquam, quæ fixam fedem habuerit in Babylone, nihil equidem repugno. Elton in Bubunūn five uxor Petri, five etiam opulenta quædam ac illuftri lace 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 translators, 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 Christians, to whom the epistle was written. And then the reading of the words will be : She who is your fellow-Christian at Babylon saluteth you."

(a) Similem errarunt errorem, qui quem filium suum hic loci nominavit Petrus, eum non naturalem ejus fuiffe filium, sed spiritualem arbitrati funt.... Maneat nunc, Petrum de filio fibi ex conjuge nato loqui : quem facile ex hoc iplo loco cognofcimus fuisse focium paternorum itinerum, et fimul cuvegger is meri. Heum. ubi fupr. p. 110.

(0) Relinquitur igitur, ut itatuamus, loqui Apostolum de uxore fua, Babylone nata, ac tum, cum ibi versaretur Petrus, una cum aliis utriusque sexus Judæis in ecclefiam Christi traducta. Hoc enim fibi volunt hæc verba ; o un Ecceave GOVEX)ext. ... Quis nunc non videat, Petrum hanc reo@utev, fingulari haud dubie pietate et prudentia conspicuam, duxisse in matrimonium, comitemque postea habuisse facrorum itinerum ? Ex quo fequitur, priorem uxorem, cujus Lucæ iv. 38. mentio, e quâ susceperat Marcum, fuiffe exftinctam. Heum, ibid. p. 112. 113.

Wall. p. 357;

[ocr errors]

Put it appears to me very unlikely, that St. Peter [hould send salutations to the Christians of several countreys from a woman, not named by him. Beza says well; that (c) St. Peter omits the noun, church, as is often done with regard to words of common use. What was the sense of Chriftians in former times, appears from Oecumenius, and the versions taken notice of above. The fame sense appears in (d) the Consplexions of Caffiodorius, and (c) the Exposition of Bede.

With regard to St. Mark, Oecumenius says, " that (f) Peter calls him his. fon according to the spirit, not according to the flesh, Him he permitted to write the Gospel. But fome, as he adds, have presumed to call Mark son of Peter according to the flesh, arguing from Luke's historie, in the Acts of the Apostles: where Peter, having been delivered out of prifun by an angel, is said to have come to the house of Marie, the mother of John, whoje. Jurname was. Mark, as (8) 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 fupposed Mark, the Evangelist, to have been the same as John, jurnamed Mark.

And I would also farther observe here, by the way, that (b) Oecumenius computes Silvanus, by whom St. Peter sent this epistle, and who is mentioned ch. v, 12. to be the fame, who is several times mentioned by St. Paul in his epistles, particularly 1 Theil. 1. I. 2 Thell ji. 1.” Who likewise, very probably, is the same as Silas, often mentioned in the Acts.

Vecumenius there calls Silvanus a most faithful man, zealous for the progrese of the gospel. Indeed all must be sensible, that he was an excellent man, who from generous principles attended the Apostles of Christ in the journeys undertaken by them, in the service of the gospel. His deputation from the Apostles, and Elders, and church of Jerusalem, with their letter to the Chriftians at Antioch, is very honourable to him. Aas xv. 27. 32. His stay there, and Paul's choosing him for his companion in his travels, when he and Barnabas fcparated, farther assure us of his just sentiments concerning the freedom of the Gentils from the yoke of the law, and of his zeal for promoting true religion.

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

(d) Salutationes quoque ccclefiæ, quam de Babylonia, id eft, de feculi iftius, confusione, dicit electam, et Marci filii sui pia institutione transmittens. Caffiod. in loc.

(e) Expof. in 1 Petr. cap. v.

(f) Μάρκον δε υιόν κατά πνεύμα καλεί, αλλ' και κατά σάρκα. Occum. T. 2. P. 526. A.

(g)... ώς εις τον εαυτό- οικίαν επανελθόντα, και την νομίμην σύζυγον. Ιδ. Β.

(3) Πισός υπερβαλλόντως ο σιλουανός ούτος, και περί το κήρυγμα ευθύμως αγωνιζό. μενος, είχε και παύλος αυτε μνημ. γένει, και συνεργών αυτών μετα τιμοθέα εν. ταϊς έπιςολαις παραλαμβάνω. Παύλος λέγων και σιλουανός και τιμόθεος. Oecum. ib. P. 525. D.

Снд Р.

$

CH A P. XX.

The three Epistles of St. John.

I

I. Their Genuinnesse Mewn from Testimonie, and internal Characters. II.

The Time of writing the first of these Epistles. III. The People, to whom it was fent. IV. Observations upon the second Epiftle. V. upon the third. VI. The Time, when they were writ.

I. HAVE already writ the historie of St. John, one Their Ge. nuinnelse.

of Christ's twelve Apostles, and an' Evangelist. I hare

also observed what is needfull concerning the Gospel, writ by him. We are now to consider his Epistles,

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

St. John's first epistle 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 second. epistles are quoted by Irenæus. 375. They were also received by Clement of Alexandria. ii. 473. 509, SII. 512. And says Origen: '“ John, beside the Gospel, and Revelation, has left us an epistle of a few lines. Grant also a second and a third. For all do not allow these to be genuine." Vol. jii. 236. Dionyfius, of Alexandria, receives John's first epiftle, which he calls his Catholic Epistle, : inf 150an xadonixń. He likewise mentions the other two, as afcribed to him. Vol. iv. 672. . . 1674. The first epistle was received by Cyprian, and, probably, the other two likewise. p. 832. • • . 836. The second epistle is quoted by Alexander, -Bp. of Alexandria. Vol. vii. 250. Eufebius says: “Beside his Gospel, his first epistle is universally acknowledged by those of the present time, and by the ancients : but the other two are contradicted : " that is, doubted of by some. Vol. viii. 95. See also p. 96. 97. and 157. 158. All the three epiftles were received by Athanasíus. p. 227. by Cyril, of Jerusalem. 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 lait were doubted of by some 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 those authors, who received the same canon of the New Testament, that we do. They are in the Alexandrian manuscript. Yol. xi. p. 240. All three are also in the catalogues of Gregorie Nazianzen. "ix. 133. and of Amphilochius. p. 148. But this last observes, that some 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 Expon. tion of the second epistle, says: “Some (a) have thought this, and the fol

"lowing

(a) Quidam putant, hanc et fequentem epistolam non esse Joannis Apoftoli

, Ice

“lowing epistle not to have been writ by John the Apostle, but by ano“ ther, a Presbyter of the same name, whose sepulchre is still shewn at “ Ephesus; whom also Papias mentions in his writings. But now it is “the general consent of the Church, that John the Apostle wrote also “ these two epiftles : forasmuch as there is a great agreement of doctrine « and stile between these and his first epistle, and there is also a “ like zeal against heretics.” They who are desirous to see more quotations of ancient writers, may consult the Table of principal matters, in the twelfth Volume, in St. John, Catholic Epiftles, and Authers, who had the same canon of the N. Ť. with that, which is now generally received. Which article may be found under Canon of the scriptures of the N. T.

All the three epistles are now generally received as St. John's in these parts of the world. And with good reason, as seems to me. Said Origen: He has also left an epistle of a very few lines. Grant also a second, and a third.” That is very right. One epistle 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 short, and resemble the first in sentiment, phrase, and manner of writing, as is well observed by (6) Mill. And of the second epistle, which consists of only thirteen of our verses, eight may be found in the first, either in sense, or expression. The title of Elder at the begining of these two epistles, affords no just exception. It (c) is a very honourable character, well becoming John as Apoftle, and now in years, residing in Asia, as superintendent of all the churches in that country. . And St. Peter speaks of himself in the same character, in his epistle universally acknowledged. ch. v. I. Dr. Heumann supposeth, that (d) here is a reference to St. John's

great

fed cujufdam presbyteri Joannis, cujus fepulchrum ufque hodie monstratur in Epheso. Cujus etiam Papias, auditor Apostolorum, et in Hierapoli Episcopus, in opusculis fuis fæpe meminit. Sed nunc generalis Eccleliz consensus 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.

(6) Epistolas autem iftas habere auctorem Joannem .i. ex eo plane conftat, quod in iltis omnibus eadem passim sint vonu atx, idem genus et character dictionis.

Secundæ, certe órsyasixo, (neque enim continet ultra tredecim versus ex hodiernis noftris,) octo quidem versiculorum cum sensus, tum ipfa ģño 15, exstant in epistola prima. Epistola autem tertia, ejufdem omnino coloris ac characteris cum fecunda, per omnia fapit Joannem Apoftolum. Mill. Proleg. num. 153.

(c) Quod aliqui Joanni cuidam alteri, Presbytero vulgo dicto, adfcriptas volunt has duas epistolas, ii neutiquum vident, quam fortiter contra illos milie tet illud • agrobóticos xar' goxha: quique privato homini, vel etiam Epilcopo, haudquaquam conveniat. . . . Imo vero Apostolo noftro peculiariter adaptatum et accommodatum erat : utpote qui jam nonagenarius fuerit, omnibusque provinciæ Aliæ ecclefiis præsiderit. Mill. Ibid. num. 153. 154. Vid. et Lampe Prolegom. in Joan. l. i. cap. 7. num. viii. (d) Deinde articulo Ô docet Joannes, nomen hoc sibi cum nemine commune

ellt,

[ocr errors]

great age, at the time of his writing these two epiftles. And he thinks, that St. John was then as well known by that title, as by his name. I ne Elder therefore is as much, as if he had said: The aged A poftle. And me refers to Wolfius, and others, who had before said the fame, or wbat is to the like purpose.

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

And say Beaufobre and Lenfant- in their preface to the second and third epifties : « 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 supposing him to have “ been Bifhop of the church of Ephesus, as the pretended Apoftolical “ Constitutions fay he was appointed by John the Apostle. For if « Diotrephes was Bishop of one of the churches of Afia, as is reckoned, " the Bishop of Ephesus had no right to say to him, as the writer of this « epistle does ver. 10. If I come, I will remember his deeds which he dors. « That language, and the visits made to the churches, denote a man, « who had a more general jurisdiction, than that of a Bishop, and can « only fuit St. John the Apostle.”

II. That may suffice for shewing the genuinnesle of the The Time of three epistles. Let us now make fome remarks upon each writing the fors Epistle.

of them, begining with the first. Concerning which there

are two inquiries, that may be proper: the time when, and the persons to whom it was writ.

Grotius thought this (e) epiftle to have been writ in Patmos, before the destruction of Jerusalem. Hammond and Whitby likewise were of opinion, that it was writ, before that great calamity befell the Jewith nation. Dr. Benson (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 de. struction of Jerusalem. Mill (g), and Le Clerc (h) who follows him, place this epistle in the year 91. or 92. Bafnage (i) speaks of this epiftle at the year 98. and Baronius (k) at the year 99. Beaufobre and Lenfant in their preface to this epistle express themselves after this manner : "Al. * though we cannot say any thing certain concerning the time, when St. “ John wrote this epiitle : we may be satisfied, that it was near the end of

" the

elle, adeoque viso ti meeskutiny titulo ftatim scriptorem harum literarum agnovisse. . . . Nihil proinde reftat, quam ut 'statuamus, a Joanne ifto titulo indicari ætatém fuam provectiflimam, morisque tum fuiffe, eum appellitari honoris ac reverentiæ caussa Senem, five Seniorem, vel etiam Senem Ajaltulum,

... Græca proinde hæc, o ügiobítegos Taiw, melius reddi Latine non poí. funt, quam hoc modo: Grandevus Apostolus ialutem dicit Caio. ... Heimar. Comm. in Joan. Ep. iii. ap. Nov. Syllog. Dili p.i. P. 279. 280.

(e) Puto autem scriptam, ut alibi dixi, ex Patino hanc epistolam, non multo ante excidium Hierofolymitanum. Gror. Pr. in i epi Foani

(f) Preface to St. John's fir epiftle. .iv.
() Proleg. num. 148. 130.
() H. E, an. 91. num. i.
i) Arn, 98. num. iv.
(). Ann. 99. num. vii.

[ocr errors]

.

« הקודםהמשך »