« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
and argues well enough for that opinion. I suppose that to be his final determination. It may be best for me now to conclude this argument with a part of Whitby's note upon I Pet. v. 13, which is very agreeable also to the note of Estius upon the same text. “That Babylon, is figuratively here put for Rome, “is an opinion so early delivered by Papias, and which af‘terwards so generally prevailed,(as we learn from Eusebius, “Jerom, and CEcumenius,) that I subscribe to the note at ‘the end of this epistle, compaon aro 'Pwpoys, “it was written ‘ from Rome,” styled also “Babylon” by the author of the * Revelations, ch. xvii. and xviii. For the apostle, at the ‘time of writing it, must be at Rome, figuratively, or at “some city, properly called Babylon. Now as it is uncer‘tain whether St. Peter ever was at Babylon in Chaldea, “ or in Egypt, and improbable that he made any considerable ‘stay there : so it is very improbable he should do it when * near his end. At Rome and Antioch, where he confess‘edly resided, church history is copious in giving an ac‘ count of his successors in those sees. But who can show “any thing of this nature, with reference to either of those ‘Babylons? &c. &c.’ IV. The only thing remaining to be observed by us is the time of writing these two epistles. Which I think to be the year 63, or 64, or at the latest 65. I suppose Paul to have left Rome in the spring of the year 63. St. Peter was not then come thither. If he had been there, he would have been mentioned by St. Paul in some of his epistles, written near the end of his imprisonment at Rome. However, not very long after St. Paul was gone, St. Peter might come thither. Here, I suppose, he preached for a while freely, and with great success. And it appears to me probable, that both these epistles were written at Rome, not long before the apostle's death. That he was old, and near his end, when he wrote the second epistle, is apparent from ch. i. 14. And that the first epistle to the same christians had not been written long before, may be argued from the apology which he makes for writing this second epistle to them ; ch. i. ver. 13–15, “Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. Yea, I think
latione: quae quidem et in hunc usque diem apud eos obtinet. Abarbinel, aliique recentiores.Judaei, commentantes in prophetias de Babylone, ad Roman istas referunt; quod, sicut a Babyloniis olim in servitutem redacti fuerint, ita postea jam a Romanis, &c. Proleg, num. 59, 60.
it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by way of remembrance. Knowing, that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ has showed me. Moreover, I will endeavour, that you may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.” It is not unlikely, that soon after the apostle had sent away Silvanus with the first epistle, some came from those countries to Rome, where was a frequent and general resort from all parts, bringing him informations concerning the state of religion among them : which induced him to write a second time for the establishment of the christians, among whom he had laboured. And he might well hope that his last words, and dying testimony to the doctrine, which he had received from Christ, and had taught for many years with unshaken stedfastness, would be of great weight with them. V. I have now gone through the four inquiries proposed at the beginning of this article. I shall here add only a few remarks upon I Pet. v. 13, “The " church that is at Babylon, elected 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 same word is supplied in " OEcumenius, and P in the Latin, and other ancient versions, with the approbation of 1 Grotius, and many others. But Mill" 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 some honourable christian woman, of the city of Baby
" Aaraćerat plac à év Bağv\ovt ovvek\scrm, kat Mapkog 6 viog us.
° Ao tračeral tipag of Ev Basłv\ovi čkkAmoud ovvek\skrm.
P Ekk\mata praefigunt Lin. [margine. manu recentiori: ] CEcumen. Vulg. Syr. Arab. AEthiop. ex interpretamento Mill. in loc.
* Ad vocem avvsk\skrm, et Syrus, et Arabs, et Latinus, addunt nomen ecclesiae, recte. Nam et ad ecclesiam scribit, et haec, et illa, pariter Deo electa, id est, a mundo segregata. Grot. in loc.
* Nempe pro indubitato sumitur, ecclesiam Babyloniorum hic intelligi. Atqui vero, side ecclesiá hic sermo, quum nulla ejus mentio facta sit in praecedentibus, aperte dixisset Petrus skk\mata evKağvXavi. Mihi quidem vehemens suspicio est, per rmv sv BasłvXavi ovvsk)\skrmy, intelligi hic Petri uxorem, fidei simul susceptae, vitae, laborum, sociam; quae Babylone, Ægyptiacá tunc, cum hapc scriberentur, egerit.—Si dicas, illud j sv Basłv\ovt denotare potius feminam aliquam, quae fixam sedem habuerit in Babylone, nihil equidem repugno. Esto j sv Bağv\ovt sive uxor Petri, sive etiam opulenta quædam ac illustri loco nata femina apud Babylonios, quae apostolum hospitio exceperit; certe nihil hoc loco de ecclesiá Babyloniorum. Mill. in loc.
lon, where he then was. Which conjecture is countenanced by Wall. Dr. Heumann proceeds farther. First, he says, that by “Mark my son,” we are to understand Peter's own son, which he had by his wife. And " then by “elected together with you,” is to be understood an excellent Jewish woman of Babylon in Assyria, whom, with many others, Peter had there converted to the christian faith, and afterwards married: his first wife, mentioned, Luke iv. 38, by whom he had Mark, being dead. But it appears to me very unlikely that St. Peter should send salutations to the christians of several countries from a woman, not named by him. Beza says well, that " St. Peter omits the noun “church,” as is often done with regard to words of common use. What was the sense of christians in former times, appears from CEcumenius, and the versions taken notice of above. The same sense appears in " the Complexions of Cassiodorius, and * the Exposition of Bede. With regard to St. Mark, OEcumenius says, “that y Peter ‘ calls him “his son” according to the spirit, not accord‘ing to the flesh. Him he permitted to write the gospel. “But some, as he adds, have presumed to call Mark ‘son of Peter according to the flesh, arguing from Luke's ‘ history, in the Acts of the Apostles: where Peter, having
* “The word “church” is not in the Greek, but put 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 salute those 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.” Wall, p. 357.
* Similem errãrunt errorem, qui quem “filium suum' hic loci nominavit Petrus, eum non naturalem ejus fuisse filium, sed spiritualem arbitrati sunt. Maneat nunc, Petrum de filio Sibi ex conjuge natologui; quem facile ex hoc ipso loco cognoscimus fuisse Socium paternorum itinerum, et simul ovvspyov čv Xptsp. Heum. ubi Supr. p. 110.
"Relinquitur igitur, ut statuamus, loqui apostolum de uxore suá, Babylone natà, actum, cum ibi versaretur Petrus, ună cum aliis utriusque sexãs Judaeis in ecclesiam Christi traductä. Hoc enim Sibi volunt hac verba: ) ev BaćvXwvi ovvskM&Krm. Quis, nunc non videat, Petrum hanc vsopvrov, singulari haud dubie pietate et prudentiã conspicuam, duxissein matrimonium, comitemque postea habuisse sacrorum itinerum? Ex quo sequitur, priorem uxorem, cujus Luca, iv. 38, mentio, e quá Susceperat Marcum, fuisse extinctam. Heum. ibid. p. 112, 113.
" Ecclesiae nomen omittit ut in vocabulis communi usu tritis fieri solet. Bez. " Salutationes quoque ecclesiae, quam de Babylonià, idest, de seculiistius confusione, dicit electam, et Marci filiisui piā institutione transmittens. Cassiod. in loc. * Expos. in 1 Pet. cap. v.
* Mapkov 6s viov cara rvevua kaket, a\\' a kara gapka. CEcum. T. II. p. 526. A.
VOLe VI, T
‘ been delivered out of prison by an angel, is said to have * “come to the house of Mary, the mother of John, whose ‘surname was Mark,” as * 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 supposed Mark the evangelist to have been the same as John, surnamed Mark.
And I would also farther observe here, by the way, ‘that (Ecumenius * computes Silvanus, by whom St. Peter “sent this epistle, and who is mentioned, chap. v. 12, to be * the same who is several times mentioned by St. Paul in ‘ his epistles, particularly 1 Thess. i. 1. 2 Thess. ii. 1.’ Who likewise, very probably, is the same as Silas, often mentioned in the Acts.
OEcumenius there calls Silvanus “a most faithful man, zealous for the progress 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 journies 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 christians at Antioch, is very honourable to him. Acts xv. 27, 32. His stay there, and Paul’s choosing him for his companion in his travels, when he and Barnabas separated, farther assure us of his just sentiments concerning the freedom of the Gentiles from the yoke of the law, . of his zeal for promoting true religion.
* IItsog intreps?a)\\ovrwg o XiXowavoc otirog, kat Trept to kmpvyua ev6vuwg ayovićopievog, etye Kav IIavXog avre uvmuovevel, kat ovvspyov avrov pusra Tipo088 &v raig striso}\atc trapa)\aps3avet IIav\og, Aeywv, kal XiXowavog kat Tipo
0sog. OEcum. ib. p. 525. D.
THE THREE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN.
1. Their genuineness shown from testimony and internal characters.... II. The time of writing the first of these ‘pistles. III. The people to whom it was sent. IV. Observations upon the second epistle. V. Upon the third. VI. The time when they were written.
I. I HAVE already written the history of St. John, one of Christ's twelve apostles, and an evangelist. I have also observed what is needful concerning the gospel written by him. We are now to consider his epistles. The regard shown to them by the ancients, may be soon 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. ii. p. 108, is quoted by Papias, p. 119, 123, 125, and is referred to by the martyrs of Lyons, p. 164. His first and second epistles are quoted by Irenaeus, p. 180. They were also received by Clement of Alexandria, p. 225, 242. 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, p. 495. Dionysius of Alexandria receives John's first epistle, which he calls his catholic epistle, e i entatoxn is ka00Mkm. He likewise mentions the other two, as ascribed to him, p. 694. The first epistle was received by Cyprian, and, probably, the other two likewise, vol. iii. p. 45–47. The second epistle is quoted by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, p. 568. Eusebius 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. iv. p. 96, 97. See also p. 124, 125. All the three epistles were received by Athanasius, p. 155, by Cyril of Jerusalem, p. 173, by the council of Laodicea, p. 182, by Epiphanius, p. 187, 190. All three were received by Jerom, p. o but the two last were doubtT