SECT. I. Of the Authenticity of John's Three Epiftles.

THE internal evidence of the authenticity of the three epiftles commonly afcribed to John, having been explained in the preface to the firft epiftle, fect. 2. this fection shall be employed in setting before the reader what is called the external evidence, arifing from the teftimony of contemporary, and of fucceeding authors, who speak of thefe epiftles as written by John the apostle.

Lardner on the Canon, vol. iii. p. 262. hath fhewed, That the first epistle of John is referred to by Polycarp, and by the martyrs of Lyons;-That his first and fecond epiftles are quoted by Irenæus, and were received by Clemens of Alexandria ;-That Origen faith, "John, befide the Gospel and Re" velation, hath left us an epistle of a few lines: Grant also a VOL. VI. "" fecond

K

"fecond and third: For all do not allow these to be genuine;" -That Dionyfius of Alexandria received John's first epistle, which he calls his Catholic epiftle; and likewife mentions the other two as afscribed to him.-That the first epistle was received by Cyprian.—And that the fecond is cited by Alexander bishop of Alexandria.

Eufebius's teftimony to the first epistle of John hath been already mentioned in his own words, pref. to James, fect. 2. paragr. 2. In bearing that testimony, Eufebius infinuateth that fome afcribed the fecond and third epiftles to another person of the name of John, called the Elder, of whom he speaks, lib. iii. c. 39.Jerome likewise hath mentioned this John in his catalogue.-And Grotius, on a circumstance mentioned by Bede, in a paffage to be produced immediately, hath afcribed the fecond and third epiftles to him, in oppofition to the teftimony of the earliest and beft Chriftian writers.

All the three epistles were received by Athanafius, by Cyril of Jerusalem, by the council of Laodicea, by Epiphanius, and by Jerome. But the fecond and third were doubted by fome in Jerome's time.-All the three were received by Ruffin, by the third council of Carthage, by Auguftine, and by all those authors who received the fame Canon of the New Testament which we do.-All the three are in the Alexandrian MS. and in the catalogue of Gregory Nazianzen, and of Amphilochius, who obferves that some received only one of them. -The Syrian churches received only the firft. See Pref. to James, fect. 2. paragr. 3. Nor did Chryfoftom receive any other.

Bede, in the beginning of the eighth century, wrote thus in his expofition of the fecond epiftle: "Some have thought this " and the following epiftle not to have been written by John "the apostle, but by another, a prefbyter of the same name, "whose fepulchre is still feen at Ephefus: whom also Papias " mentions in his writings. But now it is the general confent " of the church, that John the apoftle wrote also these two "epiftles, forafmuch as there is a great agreement of the "doctrine and ftyle between these and his first epiftle. And "there is also a like zeal against heretics."

Mill, in his Prolegomena, No. 153. obferves, that the second and third epiftles of John, refemble the firft in fentiment, phrafeology, and manner of expreffing things.-The resemblance in the sentiments and phrafeology may be seen by comparing 2 Epiftle ver. 5. with 1 Epiftle ii. 8.-and ver. 6. with 1 Epift. v. 3.--and ver. 7. with 1 Epift. v. 5.-and 3 Epift. ver. 12. with John xix. 35.-Of John's peculiar manner of expreffing things, 2 Epift. ver. 7.-and 3 Epift. ver. 11. are examples.Mill farther obferves, that of the 2d Epiftle which confifts only of 13 verses, 8 may be found in the firft, either in fense, or in expreffion. See Whitby's pref. to 2 John.

The title of elder, which the writer of the fecond and third epiftles hath taken, is no reason for thinking that they were not written by John the apoftle. For, elder, denotes that the perfon fo called was of long standing in the Christian faith, and had perfevered through a long courfe of years in that faith, notwithstanding the many perfecutions to which all who professed the gospel were expofed in the firft age. It was therefore an appellation of great dignity, and entitled the perfon to whom it belonged, to the highest respect from all the difciples of Chrift. For which reason it was affumed by the apoftle Peter. 1 Pet. v. 1.-Heuman gives it as his opinion, that in the title of elder, there is a reference to John's great age, when he wrote these epistles, and that he was as well known by the title of elder, as by his proper name; so that elder, was the fame as if he had faid, the aged opoftle. The circumftance that the writer of these epistles hath not mentioned his own name, is agreeable to John's manner, who neither hath mentioned his name in his golpel, nor in the first epistle, which is unquestionably his. Befides, it may have been a point of prudence in the writer of these epiftles to conceal himself, under the appellation of the elder, from his enemies into whofe hands these epiftles might come.

Beaufobre and L'Enfant, in their preface to the second and third epiftles, take notice that the writer of the third epistle fpeaks with an authority, which the bishop of a particular church could not pretend to, "and which did not suit John the prefbyter, even fuppofing him to have been bishop of the "church of Ephefus, as the pretended Apoftolical Constitu

tions fay he was appointed by John the apostle. For if "C Diotrephes was bishop of one of the churches of Afia, as is "reckoned, the bishop of Ephefus had no right to say to him,

as the writer of this epiftle doth, 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 2 more "general jurifdiction, than that of a bishop, and can only fuit "St. John the apoftle." This threatening, therefore, is an internal proof that the third epiftle belongs to John, who by his miraculous powers, as an apostle, was able to punish Diotrephes for his infolent carriage toward the members of his church, and toward the apostle himself.

SECT. II. Of the Perfon to whom John wrote his Second Epifile.

The infcription of this epiftle is, Εκλεκτη κυρια; which hath been translated and interpreted differently, both by the ancients and the moderns.-Some fancying Eclecta to be a proper name, have translated the infcription thus; To the Lady Eclecta. Accordingly in the Adumbrations of Clemens Alexandr. this epiftle is faid to have been written to a Babylonian woman, or virgin, named Eclecta. Among the moderns, Wolf and Wetstein are of the fame opinion as to the name of this woman.— -But Heuman and Benson contend that her name was Kuqız, Kyria, and tranflate the infcription thus, To the elect Kyria.-Oecumenius in his prologue faith, "He calls her Elect, either from "her name, or on account of the excellence of her virtue." And, in his commentary on the beginning of the epiftle, he faith, "John did not fcruple to write to a faithful woman, for as "much as in Chrift Jefus there is neither male nor female.". On the other hand, Caffiodorius among the ancients, thought a particular church was meant by the apostle: And of the moderns, Whitby and Whiston were of the fame opinion; for they fay, this epiftle was not written to a particular lady, but to a particular church: And Whifton mentions the church of Philadelphia; but Whitby that of Jerufalem, the mother of all the churches. Our English translation expreffes the commonly received opinion concerning this matter; which Mill also, and

9

Wall,