CHAP. XXXII.

OF THE TWO LAST EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN.

IN

SECT. I..

Of the canonical authority of thefe two Epiftles.

N the fourth century, when Eufebius wrote his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, the fecond and third Epiftles of St. John were not reckoned among the poλoyguera, but were in the number of the Tayoμeva, or books received by fome, and rejected by others. Nor have they been admitted into the ancient Syriac verfion, which is the established verfion of the Syrian churches. Yet they are fo fimilar to the firft Epiftle, both in the thoughts, and in the ftyle, that in my opinion, they were certainly written by the fame perfon, who wrote the first, that is, by St. John the Apoftle. Nor is it eafy to comprehend what could have induced an impoftor to forge two fuch Epiftles, or what advantage he could have propofed by the introduction of them. For they contain nothing, which had not been already faid in the firft Epiftle, except commendation or cenfure either of unnamed perfons, or of Demetrius and Diotre phes, of whom no one knows what they were. They could not have been forged during St. John's life, for the imposture must have been immediately detected: and, if they had been forged after his death, it is not very probable that the impoftor would have made the pretended author promife at the end of each Epiftle, that he would thortly pay a vifit to thofe, to whom the Epiftles were addreffed.

The reason, why these two Epiftles were not univerfally admitted, in the early ages of Chriftianity, into the collection of writings called the New Teftament, has not

+

been

been hitherto ascertained. It may be afked, whether they were written after the canon was already formed: or whether it was thought unneceffary to retain two Epiftles, which were of a confined and perfonal nature: or whether the address, with which each of them begins, Occafioned the fuppofition that they were not written by St. John the Apostle.

The laft mentioned caufe appears to me the most probable. The author neither calls himfelf John, nor affumes the title of an Apoftle: but names himself fimply the elder,' (@geoburgos). Now St. John might with the fame propriety call himself weerburgos, as St. Peter has called himself ouμngerCUTEgos; and after the συμπρεσβύτερος death of St. Peter, the title geoCuTegos might have been applied exclufively to St. John, who was the only Apoftle then living, confequently the oldeft Chriftian, and therefore, literally the elder and father of the whole church. But fince the feniors of each Chriftian community were likewife called wgEGCUTEgo, it was imagined that the author of these two Epiftles was not an Apostle, but a fenior or prefbyter of fome Chriftian community. And, as there lived at Ephefus, at the fame time with St. John the Apoftle, another John, who had the office of fenior or prefbyter in the Ephefian church, it was supposed that this John, and not the Apostle, was the author of these two Epiftles. But whoever afcribed them to John the Prefbyter could not receive them as a part of the facred canon.

In modern times, an objection has been made to the opinion, that St. John the Apoftle was the author, drawn from a comparifon of St. John's amiable character with an apparently fevere precept delivered in the fecond Epiftle, ver. 10, 11. Here the author fays, If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither greet him: for he that greeteth him is partaker of his evil deeds.' Now it is afferted that St. John the Apoftle,whofe'writings are replete with precepts of love and charity, would hardly have given the uncharitable command to refufe the rites of hofpitality

z 1 Pet. v. 1.

pitality to all thofe, who differed from us in religious opinions and that this command in particular would have come with great impropriety from St. John, fince no man more fentibly felt the violation of thefe rites than himself. Hence it is inferred that he was not the author, at least of the fecond Epistle.

If the paffage juft quoted be detached from the reft of the Epiftle, and the doctrine, which it contains, be taken in its utmoft latitude, I own that the argument is very fpecious. However it may be explained in fuch a manner, asto remove all difficulty. The Greek expreffian Zarges OUT ufed in the original, does not denote an ordinary falutation, fuch as we make to indifferent perfons, when we meet them in the ftreet, but involves in it a kind of bleffing, like the expreffion, Peace be with thee. And it is evident from the context, that the fubject here relates to the bleffing ufually received, on entering the house of a friend, or an affurance of hearty welcome. For that which is meant by the words λαμβανειν αυτόν εις οικίαν, και χαίρειν αυτῷ ver. 1o. is comprifed in the fingle phrafe xaigi aur in the 11th verse. Now it must be obferved, that among the primitive Christrians, it was the cuftom to receive all travelling brethren, and to entertain them during their ftay, which was fometime done at the expence of the whole community by perfons appointed for that purpofe. That the third Epiftle relates to the reception and entertainment of travelling Chriftians, efpecially of thofe who travelled to preach the Golpel, is evident from ver. 511. But the fecond Epiftle is fo fimilar to the third, that we may conclude the fame of that alfo, in the paffage, which is the fubject of our prefent inquiry. Suppose then that a travelling Chriftian was known to deliver falfe

* See Luke ix. 53-54.

The Arabic falutation which fignifies Peace be with you, is used between Mohammedans, but not between Mohammedans and Chriftians.

falfe doctrines, or to propagate Gnoftic errors, fuch as this, that Jefus was not the fon of God, the question is, Was he entitled to the hofpitable reception ufually given to Chriftian travellers, and was it want of charity to refufe him admittance, unlefs his fituation were fuch, as rendered him an object of compaffion? I think not: for if a miffionary comes into my houfe, who is a falfe teacher of Chriftianity, and I receive and protect him, I take part in the propagation of his errors.

•BIEL

SECT. II.

Of the time, when the fecond and third Epiftles of St. John were written.

TH

HESE two Epifties are fo fimilar, both in their contents and in their expreffions, that they appear to have been written at the fame time, and delivered to the care of the fame perfons, who were probably certain Chriftians, engaged in the propagation of Christianity, and then going to take a journey for that purpose into the country, where the perfons refided, to whom St. John wrote. This opinion derives additional probability from the close of each Epiftle, in which St. John promifes an early vifit, and declares that he has much more to communicate, than that which he has committed to writing.

This promife, if the fecond Epiftle was written, not to an individual but to a whole church, might induce one to fuppofe, that Caius, to whom the third Epiftle is addreffed, was a member of that church. But a careful comparison of the two Epiftles will fhew, that this fuppofition is ungrounded. For St. John's principal object in the third Epiftle is to recommend certain travellers to the hofpitality of Caius: and he fays, ver. 9. I wrote

unto

unto the church, but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not.' Hence it appears that St. John, before he wrote to Caius, had already fent a letter of recommendation to the church of which Caius was a member, but that Diotrephes had. refufed to receive thofe, whom St. John had recom mended. Now if this were the fecond Epiftle, we should certainly find it in thofe recommendations, to which St.. John alludes, and probably fome mention of Diotrephes. But in the fecond Epiftle no mention is made, either of Diotrephes, or of any recommendations whatsoever: confequently it cannot be the Epiftle, to which St. John alludes in the third. However I think it probable that the place, to which the fecond Epiftle was fent, was not far diftant from the place where Caius refided, and that the travelling brethren, whom St. John recommends to Caius, intended to vifit both places.

That these two Epiftles were written at a time, when St. John was no longer young, appears from the title weed CUTEgos, which he has given himself in each of them. But this title will not warrant the conclufion that he was in a very advanced age. From the time of St. Peter's death, which happened in 66, St. John was strictly. fpeaking, the elder or father of the church: and even before St. Peter's death, he might have called himfelf @gerCUTEgos with the fame propriety, as St. Peter has called himself up.TEOCUTEgos. There is no neceffity therefore for affigning to thefe Epiftles fo late a date as 82 or 83, as Whitby has done, and ftill lefs, so very late a date as 91 or 92, which is affigned them by Mill. Befides, if St. John had written thefe Epiftles, when he was upwards of eighty, he would hardly have promiled, as he did in each of, them, that he would foon under

takę

Hence it follows that St. John wrote an Epiftle, which is no longer extant. But fome commentators, who will not admit, that any Epifle could be loft, which was written by an Apoftle, tranflate ava sunnot, 3 John 9. I would have written to the church.'

d 1 Pct. v. I.