OF THE TWO LAST EPISTLES OF ST, JOHN,

J

N the fourth century, when Eufebius wrote his Ecclefaftical Hiftory, the fecond and third Epiftles of St. John were not reckoned among the oxy, but were in the number of the avriksyoueva, or books received by fome, and rejected by others. Nor have they been admitted into the ancient Syriac verfion, which is the eftablished 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 person, who wrote the first, that is, by St. John the Apostle. Nor is it easy to comprehend what could have induced an impoftor to forge two fuch Epiftles, or what advantage he could have proposed by the introduction of them. For they contain nothing, which had not been already faid in the firft Epistle, except commendation or cenfure either of unnamed perfons, or of Demetrius and Diotrephes, of whom no one knows what they were. They could not have been forged during St. John's life, for the impofture 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 promise at the end of each Epiftle, that he would fhortly pay a vifit to those, to whom the Epiftles were addressed.

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 asked, 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 addrefs, 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 himself John, nor affumes the title of an Apoftle: but names himself fimply the elder,' (gorgos). Now St. John might with the same propriety call himself abregos, as St. Peter has called himself surgeoCuTegos; and after the death of St. Peter, the title ageCurages 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 aperturegos, 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 fuppofed 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 Apostle was the author, drawn from a comparison of St. John's amiable character with an apparently fevere precept delivered in the fecond Epistle, ver. 1o, 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

I Pet. v. I.

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 fenfibly felt the violation of these rites than himself. Hence it is inferred that he was not the author, at least of the second Epistle.

If the paffage juft quoted be detached from the rest 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, as to remove all difficulty. The Greek expreffon χαίρειν αὐτῷ ufed in the original, does not denote an ordinary falutation, fuch as we make to indifferent perfons, when we meet them in the street, 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 λαμβάνειν αυτον εις οικίαν, και χαίρειν αυτῷ ver. 1o. is comprifed in the fingle phrafe xaige aury in the 11th verse. Now it must be obferved, that among the primitive Christians, it was the cuftom to receive all travelling brethren, and to entertain them during their ftay, which was fometimes done at the expence of the whole community by perfons appointed for that purpose. That the third Epiftle relates to the reception and entertainment of travelling Chriftians, efpecially of thofe who travelled to preach the Gofpel, 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. 52-54.

عليكم

The Arabic falutations which fignifies Peace be

with you, is used between Mohammedans, but not between Moham medans and Chriftians.

false 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 refuse him admittance, unless 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 Christianity, and I receive and protect him, I take part in the propagation of his errors.

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

THE

HESE two Epiftles 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 Christians, engaged in the propagation of Chriftianity, 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 clofe of each Epiftle, in which St. John promises 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 suppose, that Caius, to whom the third Epistle 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 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 recommended. Now if this were the fecond Epiftle, we Thould certainly find in it those 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 Epistle 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 thefe two Epiftles were written at a time, when St. John was no longer young, appears from the title • weerburegos, which he has given himfelf 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 ftrictly fpeaking, the elder or father of the church: and even before St. Peter's death, he might have called himfelf wperCoregos with the fame propriety, as St. Peter has called himfelf συμπρεσβυτερος 4. 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, fo 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 promised, as he did in each of them, that he would foon undertake

extant.

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

* Pet. v. I.