Long afterwards, we find the Apostle stationed until the day of his death in Asia Minor, as head of the churches in that region. Polycrates bishop of Ephesus, in the second century, writing to the Roman bishop, Victor, asserts that John, who lay in the Lord's bosom, was among (rà μeyáλa orоixeia) the primary elements of the Church in Asia, and died in Ephesus. Euseb. H. E. iii. 31; v. 24. S. Irenæus assumes as a well-known fact, that the Apostle lived many years in Ephesus, namely, into the reign of Trajan, ii. 39; iii. 1. 3. And the tradition is unhesitatingly propagated by S. Clem. Alex. (q. div. salv. 42. See Eus. H. E. iii. 23.) Origen, (Eus. H. E. iii. 1.) Eusebius, (H. E. iii. 23. &c.) and Jerome (in Gal. vi. and de Vir. Eccl. 9.) Now this could not be before, or during, S. Paul's circuits in Asia Minor, i. e. before A. D. 55: nor before the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, A. D. 58: nor before the Epistles to Timothy A. D. 58-65: for in all these writings not a trace occurs of S. John's presence in Asia Minor. It is also a natural supposition, that after S. Paul's decease, while Timothy presided over the church of Ephesus, S. John as yet was not settled in that city. But after the martyrdom of Timothy, which is placed by the martyrologies in the reign of Domitian, we find S. John acting as head of the Church in Asia Minor. Thus according to the Apostolical Constitutions, (vii. 46.) a certain John was appointed Timothy's successor in the see of Ephesus. Thus it appears that S. John's presidency in Asia cannot be dated much earlier than the destruction of Jerusalem, which it may however have preceded by a year or two, inasmuch as the date of Timothy's martyrdom is not certainly known.

154. Now it seems to be generally acknowledged by the ancients, that S. John's gospel was delivered to the Church during the years which he spent in Ephesus. He is said by S. Clem. Alex. and S. Irenæus to have lived into the reign of Trajan, which began A. D. 98. Eusebius (in Chron.) supposes him still alive in the 3rd year of this reign, A. D. 100: S. Jerome assigns his decease to that or the following year: the Paschal Chronicle places it 72 years after the Ascension, in our chronology A. D. 101. At what time during this period of more than 30 years (A. D. 70-100) his gospel was written, is a question which cannot be determined by internal or scriptural

evidence. The passage, chap. v. 2, in which S. John speaks of the pool of Bethesda with its porches, as though it were still to be seen, ἔστι δε ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις, κ.τ.λ. is easily explained as a lively reminiscence of the locality as it used to be; besides, the pool with its porches may have survived the destruction of Jerusalem. We must have recourse then to tradition. According to Theophylact, the gospel was written 32 years after the Ascension = A. D. 61, in our chronology. I am inclined to combine this notice with the tradition preserved by S. Hippolytus, de rii Apostolis, that S. John composed his gospel during his exile in Patmos, or rather, as we find it in the Synopsis 8. Scripturæ ascribed to S. Athanasius, that he there first dictated it in a kind of outline, and subsequently delivered it to the church of Ephesus by the hands of Gaius. It is true, this account of the matter assumes S. John's authorship of the Apocalypse: an assumption which, after all that has been written on the other side, I see no need to call in question. But the inquiry as it relates to the authorship of that book must be reserved for a later portion of this work, being mixed up with considerations respecting the scope and structure of Prophecy and the economy of its fulfilments, which remain to be explained when we shall have brought the strictly chronological investigation to an end.

THE EPISTLES OF S. JOHN.

$155. "Or the time and place of their composition, ecclesiastical history," says Lücke, "affords no sure information, scarcely a conjecture even. And on this point they are themselves so silent, that even modern criticism with all its penetration has not succeeded in eliciting from them any satisfactory reply."

"As to the time, thus much only seems certain, that the first epistle was written after the gospel. The reference to the gospel, the presumption that it was already in the hands of the reader or as some say, was accompanied by the epistle, is too plainly expressed in i. 1-4. to be mistaken. As a general rule, the shorter, condensed expression of one and the same writer, especially where the idea is peculiar to him, always implies posteriority in time:

that greater fulness of expression which attends the first development and shaping of the idea, marks what is earlier. By this rule, the abbreviated formula of this epistle in respect of the Λόγος, i. 1, 2. ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν--must have been written at a later period than the more copious and intelligible expressions of the gospel, i. 1. ff. So the formula 1. Χ. ἐν σαρκὶ éλŋλvo. iv. 2. comp. gosp. i. 14. whole epistle is based upon a view of the person and life of Jesus Christ, which we find expounded only in the gospel, and lastly, that the epistle is interwoven with reminiscences and allusions to Christ's discourses in the gospel, nothing is more probable than that the epistle was written after the gospel."

If to this we add, that the

“From ii. 18. έσχάτη ὥρα ἐστιν many commentators infer that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem: so Grotius, Hammond, Michaelis: while others, as Baronius, Basnage, Mill, Le Clerc, from the same expression infer just the contrary."

I must leave the question undecided for myself, inclining to the opinion that it was written before, but very shortly before, the destruction of Jerusalem.

§ 156. But to whom was it written? In the title of S. Augustine's tractate it is superscribed ad Parthos, and so in the context of another treatise. Quæst. Er. ii. 39. Idacius Clarus gives it the same title, and according to Griesbach, several latin MSS.: so does Cassiodorus, Inst. Div. litt. Opp. ii. 516, who extends it to the other two; and Bede, multi scriptorum eccles., in quibus est S. Athanasius Alexandrinæ præsul ecclesia, primam Joannis ep. scriptam ad Parthos esse testantur. That S. Athanasius so described it, is not elsewhere on record, and the Greek church nowhere recognizes the superscription. Only one subscription of Ep. 2, in Griesbach Cod. 62, of the 14th or 15th century, has 'Iwavv. 'B. πρos Пápous. The legend of S. John's preaching to the ParΠάρθους. thians may have originated from the superscription merely : nothing of the kind occurs in the earliest and authentic traditions, although S. Jerome, Catal. Script. ix., mentions S. John's preaching in India, which however is not otherwise attested. Hence, and because an epistle written to Parthians, i. e. Parthian Jews, would certainly not have been composed

in Greek, but in Aramaic', modern critics generally reject the Augustinian superscription. Some suppose the error originated in an earlier superscription #pos Taplévous. Michaelis, that it is a gloss intended to explain the frequent terms "light" and "darkness," by the supposition that it was written to Christians familiar with the Persian theology. Hug, that the superscription, Tρos Tapérovs, originally belonged to the second epistle, of which S. Clem. Alex. says, secunda Joannis Ep., quæ ad virgines scripta est, simplicissima est. Fragm. Hypotyp. Potter 1011: whence some copies (only two, however, of the 11th and 13th centuries) have πpos ráp9ous as subscription to the second epistle. Others again have conjectured that ad Parthos is a corruption of ad sparsos.

Lücke, from whom I have copied these remarks on the superscription, attaches the greatest probability to Gieseler's explanation, who supposes that the latin ad Parthos originated in an older subscription of Ep. 1 and 2. 'Iwarvov ToÛ TapOévov. In support of which, he informs us that the superscription of the Apoc. in Cod. 30. Griesbach, has Toù ȧy. érdočoτάτου ἀποστ. καὶ εὐαγγ. παρθένου, κ. τ. λ. and that the title Tapeévos seems to have been very early applied to this apostle. (See Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 7.)

This superscription then being rejected, there remains no other, more probable supposition, than that this epistle and its fellows were addressed to churches over which S. John presided; therefore, since it is pretty clear that the first, at least, was not written long before the destruction of Jerusalem, the churches addressed should be those of Asia Minor.

THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES.

§ 157. At what time these epistles were written we have no information in ancient authors, nor any means of ascertaining. The third, addressed to Gaius (so common a name that it is useless to attempt an identification with any of the persons so named in the N. T.), was evidently a letter commendatory

"See Joseph. de B. J. Proœm. i. 2. The "Wars" was originally written in Aramaic for the ἄνω βάρβαροι, including

Parthian Jews. c. 2. See Fabricius Bibl.
Gr. iv. 17. §2. Havercamp. in l. Also
Michaelis Introd. ii. p. 1228." (Lücke).

of certain brethren, evangelists or missionaries, whom S. John in a previous epistle had commended to the Church at large, ἔγραψά τι τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ (for so Lachmann reads from A. Β. 7. 68. Copt. Sahid.); but, as the event shewed, in vain, for Diotrephes hindered their reception and resisted the authority of the Apostle. Of these missionaries it is said that they went forth (on the work of the ministry) μηδὲν λαμβάνοντες ἀπὸ τῶν ÉOVIKOV: which however does not necessarily imply that they were Jews. The epistle may have been written at a time when the terms έθνη, ἐθνικοί, had become the usual antithesis to Christians as well as Jews: no inference therefore can be drawn from this circumstance.-The Second Epistle I also take to be a letter commendatory (eπ. σUOTATIKŃ), not directly in respect of its contents, but taken in connexion with its presentation by certain persons coming from S. John. In this specific sense I understand the exhortation, "Let us love one another," v. 5: as if he had said, "let us shew our love as in other ways, so by receiving and furthering those who come from us to you and from you to us." And v. 10, the prohibition against harbouring heretics: q. d. "but these are not such, therefore receive them."

$158. But to whom was this Second Epistle addressed? I will state the various opinions in the words of Lücke, and then give my own.

The address of the Second Epistle, ὁ πρ. ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ, was variously interpreted by the ancients themselves. Some understood it of a Christian matron, whose nanie was either 'EKλEKTÝ or Κυρία. "The argument of Ep. ii. in Matthäi, p. 150, and the Synops. S. Script, take Kupia to be the name. Ecumenius and Theophylact think that S. John calls her 'EkλeкTý, either because it was her proper name, or ἀπὸ τῆς περὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν piλoriuías. Others alleging 1 Pet. v. 13, apply it to the Church, or to some particular church. So, seemingly, S. Clem. Alex. Hypotyp.: significat autem electionem Ecclesia Sancto; S. Jerom. Ep. xi. ad Ageruchiam, Scholl. in Mathäi, p. 151. Cassiodor. in Ep. 2. Joannes Senior, quoniam ætate provectus, electæ Domina scribit Ecclesiæ filiisque ejus, quos sacro fonte genuerat. And the latter opinion has its advocates among the moderns: Wolf. Cur. in 2. Ep. 1. Michaelis, Introd. Augusti, Katholische Briefe. iii. 202." Lücke u. s. 348.