« ZurückWeiter »
hearers, and that Mark here mentioned is the evangelist. Nor is this contradicted by Cosmas, but confirmed by him. For he expressly says, that • Mark, the second evangelist, wrote his 'gospel at Rome by the direction of Peter.'
They • who reject this interpretation, affect to slight Papias : whereas there is no good reason for it. 'If he said so, certainly his testimony would be of some value. But we do not clearly perceive that this was in Papias. However, it is said by Eusebius. It was then a common opinion. Nor did he know of a better.
Others insinuate likewise, that the reason why Jerom was willing to confound Rome with Babylon, was, that he was out of humour with the people of Rome; which seems to me to be groundless. Jerom only transcribes what he had found in Eusebius. They who reject the accounts of those two learned ancients should by all means produce some evidence that Peter was in Mesopotamia. We have good assurance that St. Mark's gospel was written at Rome, and that Peter preached and suffered martyrdom there. His two epistles therefore, probably, were written in the same city, a short time before the period of his life.
Mill varies. In his note upon the place he is for Babylon in Egypt. But in his Prolegomena * he is for Rome, and argues well enough for that opinion. I suppose that to be his final determination.
It inay be best for me now to conclude this argument with a part of Whitby's note upon 1 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 afterwards so generally prevailed (as we learn from Eusebius, Jerom, and Ecumenius) * that I subscribe to the note at the end of this epistle, sypan ato Pauns, “ it was written at • 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 uncertain 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 confessedly resided, ..church history is copious in giving an account of his successors in those sees. But who can • shew 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 it meet, aslong 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 shewed 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, a P. 51, and 179.
s Romæ eam scriptam fuisse, notant ex traditione Veterum o Quod si, ut Rufinus interpretatur, teste Papià nititur, in- Eusebius, Hieronymus in Catalogo, et alii permulti
. Hanc firmo sane tibicine fultum est. . Nec temere ad tropum in enim Babylonis nomine designatam voluit Petrus, ceu com. nominibus urbium aut regionum est recurrendum, nisi ubi muni tum temporis apud Judæos suos appellatione : quæ propria vocis significatio locum habere non potest. Wetsten. quidem et in hunc usque diem apud eos obtinet. Abarbinel, N. T. tom. II. p. 697.
aliique recentiores Judæi, commentantes in prophetias de C'est une imagination de Papias, que les anciens ont Babylone, ad Romam istas referunt; quod, sicut a Babyloniis adopté avec trop de facilité, et que S. Jerome auroit rejettée olim in servitutem redacti fuerint, ita postea jam a Romanis, avec mépris, si, dans la mauvaise humeur où il étoit contre &c. Proleg. num. 59, 60. Rome, il n'eût été bien aise de la confondre avec Babylone. Beaus. Hist. Manich. I. 2. ch. 3. T. I. p. 181.
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 steadfastness, 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 1 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 Ecumenius, and in the Latin, and other ancient versions, with the approbation of " 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 Babylon, where he then was. Which conjecture is countenanced by ' Wall. Dr. Heumann proceeds farther. First, he says, that by “ Mark my son,
“ Mark my son,” we are to understand Peter's own son, which he had by his wife. And then by “ elected together with 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 Ecumenius, 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, Ecumenius says, “ that " Peter calls him “ his son ” according " to the spirit, not according 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 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 sựrnamed Mark. * Ασπαζεται υμας η εν Βαβυλωνι συνεκλεκτη, και Μαρκος ο . “ will be : « She who is your fellow-Christian at Babylon,
saluteth you." Wall, p. 357. • Ασπαζεται υμας η εν Βαβυλωνι εκκλησια συνεκλεκτη. 8 Similem errârunt errorem, qui quem ' filium suum' hic o Exxayoia præfigunt Lin. [in margine. manu recentiori :] loci nominavit Petrus, eum non naturalemi ejus fuisse filium, Ecumen. Vulg. Syr. Arab. Æthiop. ex interpretamento Mill. sed spiritualem arbitrati sunt. -Maneat nunc, Petrum de in loc.
filio sibi ex conjuge nato loqui; quem facile ex hoc ipso loco a Ad vocem cuvex/extn, et Syrus, et Arabs, et Latinus, cognoscimus fuisse socium paternorum itinerum, et simul addunt nomen ecclesiæ, recte. Nam et ad ecclesiam scribit, QUYEP/OV Ev Xp15o. Heum. ubi supr. p. 110. et 'hæc, et illa, pariter Deo electa, id est, a mundo segregata. Relinquitur igitur, ut statuamus, loqui Apostolum de Grot. in loc.
uxore suâ, Babylone natâ, ac tum, cum ibi versaretur Petrus, e Nempe pro indubitato sumitur, ecclesiam Babyloniorum unâ cum aliis utriusque sexûs Judæis in ecclesiam Christi hic intelligi. Atqui vero, si de ecclesiâ bic serino, quum mulla traductå. Hoc enim sibi volunt hæc verba: v sy B2602.00% ejus mentio facta sit in præcedentibus, aperte dixisset Petrus συνεκλεκτη - Quis nunc non videat, Petrum hanc xeov7%), enxinola xy Babulwn. Mihi quidem vehemens suspicio singulari haud dubie pietate et prudentiâ conspicuam, duxisse est, per την εν Βαβυλωνι συνεκλεκτην, intelligi hic Petri in matrimoniuin, comitemique postea habuisse sacrorom itine-. uxorem, fidei simul susceptæ, vitæ, laborum, sociam; quæ rum? Ex quo sequitur, priorem uxorem, cujus Lucæ iv. 38, Babylone Ægyptiaca tunc, cum hæc scriberentur, egerit mentio, e quâ susceperat Marcum, fuisse exstinctam, Heum. Si dicas, illud , ey Babuawn denotare potius feminam aliquam, ibid. p. 112, 113. quæ fixam sedem habuerit in Babylone, nihil equidem re- Ecclesiæ nomen omittit, ut in vocabulis communi usu pugno. Esto y Ev Baburwv sive uxor Petri, sive etiam opu- tritis fieri solet. Bez. lenta quædam ac illustri loco pata femina apud Babylonios, k Salutationes quoque ecclesiæ, quam de Babylonia, id est, quæ Apostolum hospitio exceperit; certe nihil hoc loco de de seculi istius confusione, dicit electam, et Marci filii sui lià ecclesia Babyloniorum. Mill. in loc.
institutione transmittens. Cassiod. in loc. f. The word “ church" is not in the Greek, but put in Expos. in 1 Pet. cap. v. by the translators, as understood in the Greek.Dr. Mill η Μαρκον δε υίον κατα πνευμα καλεί, αλλ' 8 κατα σαρκα. ' thinks it to mean Peter's wife, who, being now at Babylon @cum. T. II. p. 526, A. ' with her husband, did salute those Christians to whom the
-ως εις την εαυτ8 οικιαν επανελθέντα, και την νομιμην epistle was written. And then the reading of the words outuyor. Ib. B.
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.
Ecumenius 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, and of his zeal for promoting true religion.
THE THREE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN.
1. Their genuineness shewn from Testimony and internal Characters. II. The time of writing
the first of these Epistles. 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 liave also observed what is needful concerning the gospel written by him. We are now to consider his epistles.
The regard shewn 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. i. p. 332, is quoted by Papias, p. 338, 340, 341, and is referred to by the martyrs of Lyons, p. 362. His first and second epistles are quoted by Irenæus, p. 370, 371. They were also received by Clement of Alexandria, p. 395, 403. And, says Origen, John, beside the Gospel and Revelation, has left us an epistle • of a few lines. Grant also å second and a third. For all do not allow these to be genuine,' p. 532. Dionysius, of Alexandria, receives John's first epistle, which he calls his catholic Epistle, 8 MERIGON zabodusen. He likewise mentions the other two, as ascribed to him, Vol. i. P: 635. The first epistle was received by Cyprian, and probably, the other two likewise, Vol. ii. p. 25, 26. The second epistle is quoted by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, Vol. ii. 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, p. 370. See also p. 384. All the three epistles were received by Athanasius, p. 400, by Cyril of Jerusalem, p. 410, by the council of Laodicea, p. 415, by Epiphanius, p. 417, 419. All three were received by Jeroin, Vol. ii. p. 548, but the two last were doubted of by some in his time, p. 553. All three were received by Rufinus, p. 573, by the third council of Carthage, p. 575, by Augustine, p. 579, 587, 588, and by all those authors who received the same canon of the New Testament that we do. They are in the Alexandrian manuscript, this Vol. p. 45. All three are also in the catalogues of Gregory Nazianzen, Vol. ii. p. 470, and of Amphilochius, p. 473. But this last observes, that some received one of them only. And indeed it is acknowledged, that but one epistle of St. John is received by the Syrian churches, p, 482, 483, 488. Nor were any more received by Chrysostom, p. 602. 607. Venerable Bede, near the beginning of the eighth century, in his Exposition of the second epistle, says, · Some have
• Πισος υπερκαλλοντως ο Σιλουανος ουτος, και σερι το κη- • Quidam putant, hanc et sequentem epistolam non esse ρυγμα ευθυμως αγωνιζομενος, ευγε και Παυλος αυτο μνημονεύει, Joannis Apostoli, sed cujusdam presbyteri Joannis, cujus και συνεργον αυτον μετα Τιμοθεά εν ταις επιςολαις παραλαμ- epulcrum usque hodie monstratur in Ephes0. Cujus etiam Caves Nav205, deywv, xai Elaquavos xa. Tipogeos. cum. Papias, auditor Apostolorum, et in Hierapoli Episcopus, in b. p. 525. D.
opusculis suis sæpe meminit. Sed nunc generalis Ecclesiæ
* thought this and the following epistle not to have been written by John the apostle, but by • another, a presbyter of the same name, whose sepulchre is still shewn at Ephesus, whom also
Papias mentions in his writings. But now it is the general consent of the church, that John • the apostle wrote also these two epistles: forasmuch as there is a great agreement of doctrine
and style between these and his first epistle, and there is also a like zeal against heretics.' They who are desirous to see more quotations of ancient writers, may consult the table of principal matters in the last volume, in St. John, Catholic Epistles, and Authors, who had the same canon of the N. T. with that which is now generally received: which article may be found under Canon of the scriptures of the N. T.
All the three epistles are now generally received as St. John's in these parts of the world: And with good reason, as seems to me. Said Origen: he has also left an epistle of a very • few lines. Grant also has a second and a third.' That is very right. . One epistle was received by all, as certainly genuine. And it is not worth the while to contend about the other two, when they are so very short, and resemble the first in sentiment, phrase, and manner of writing, as is well observed by · Mill. And of the second epistle, which consists of only thirteen of our verses, eight may be found in the first, either in sense or expression. The title of elder, at the beginning of these two epistles, affords no just exception. It is a very honourable character, well becoming John as an apostle, and now in years, residing in Asia, as superintendent of all the churches in that country. And St. Peter speaks of himself in the same character, in his epistle universally acknowledged, ch. v. 1.
Dr. Heumann supposeth, that “ here is a reference to St. John's great age, at the time of his writing these two epistles. And he thinks that St. John was then as well known by that title as by his name.
The elder therefore is as much, as if he had said, the aged apostle. And he refers to Wolfius, and others, who had before said the same, or what is to the like purpose.
The want of a name at the beginning is no objection. It is rather an argument that they are his : that being agreeable to St. John, who prefixes not his name to that epistle, which is unquestionably his.
And say Beausobre and Lenfant in their preface to the second and third epistles: • It is. certain, that the writer of the third epistle speaks with an authority, which the bishop of a particular church could not pretend to, and could not suit John the elder, even supposing him to have been bishop of the church of Ephesus, as the pretended apostolical constitutions say he ' was appointed by John the apostle. For if Diotrephes was bishop of one of the churches of Asia, as is reckoned, the bishop of Ephesus had no right to say to him, as the writer of this epistle does, ver. 10, “ If I come, I will remember his deeds which he does.” That language, and the visits made to the churches, denote a man, who had a more general jurisdiction, than • that of a bishop, and can only suit St. John the apostle.'
II. That may suffice for shewing the genuineness of the three epistles. Let us now make some remarks upon each of them, beginning with the first. Concerning which there are two inquiries that may be proper: the time when, and the persons to whom it was written.
Grotius thought this epistle to have been written in Patmos before the destruction of Jerusalem. Hammond and Whitby likewise were of opinion, that it was written before that consensus habet, quod has quoque epistolas Joannes Apostolus narius fuerit, omnibusque provinciæ Asiaticæ ecclesiis præsescripserit, quia reverâ multam verborum et fidei siinilitudi- derit. Mill. Ibid. num. 153, 154. Vid. et Lampe Prolegom. nein cum primâ ejus epistolâ ostendunt, et simili zelo detes- in Joan. 1. i. cap. 7. num. viii. tantur hæreticos. Bed. Exp. in 2 ep. Joan.
c Deinde articulo é docet Joannes, nomen hoc sibi eum * Epistolas autem istas habere auctorem Joannem-ex nemine commune esse, adeoque viso T8 TOPEDEUTEpe titulo staeo plane constat, quod in istis omnibus eadem passim sint tim scriptorem harum literarum agnovisse. Nihil proinde Yorquata, idem genus et character dictionis. Secundæ, certe
restat, quam ut statuamus, a Joanne isto titulo indicari ætatem on yosn8, (neque enim continet ultra tredecim versus ex suam provectissimam, morisque tum fuisse, eum appellitari hodiernis nostris) octo quidem versiculorum cum sensus, tum honoris ac reverentiæ causâ · Senem,' 'sive Seniorem,' vel ipsæ groeis, exstant in epistolâ primâ. —Epistola autem ter- etiam · Senem Apostolum.' Græca proinde hæc, 'O lipsca tia, ejusdem omnino coloris ac characteris cum secundâ, per EUTECOs Taiw, melius reddi Latine non possunt, quam hoc oninia sapit Joannem Apostolum. Mill. Proleg. num. 153. modo : Grandævus Apostolus salutem dicit Caio.
• Quod aliqui Joanni cuidam alteri, Presbytero vulgo dicto, man. Comm. in Joan. Ep. iii. ap. Nov. Syllog. Diss. P. i. p. adscriptas velint has duas epistolas, ii neutiquam vident, quam 279, 280. fortiter contra ipsos militet illud ο πρεσβύτερος κατ' εξοχην: u Puto autem scriptam, ut alibi dixi, ex Patmo hanc epistoquod privato homini, vel etiam Episcopo, haudquaquam con- lam, non multo ante excidium Hierosolymitanum. Grot. Pr. veniatimo vero Apostolo nostro peculiariter adaptatum in 1 ep. Joan. e accommodatum erat : utpote qui jam plusquam nonage
great calamity befel the Jewish nation. Dr. Benson * is inclined to place it in the year of our Lord 68, of Nero 14, that is, after the Jewish war was broke out, and not long before the destruction of Jerusalem, Mill, and Le Clerc, ` who follows him, place this epistle in the year 91, or 92. Basnage d speaks of this epistle at the year 98, and Baronius • at the year 99. Beausobre and Lenfant" in their preface to this epistle express themselves after this manner :
Although we cannot say any thing certain concerning the time when St. John wrote this • epistle, we may be satisfied, that it was near the end of the first century, when the apostle was
far advanced in age.” Du Pin' says, it is not known, when it was written, but most probably, near the end of the apostle's life. Mr. Whiston thought this, and the other two epistles of St. John, to have been written not long after each other, about the year of Christ 82, or 83. Mr. Lampe supposeth this first epistle to have been written after the Jewish war, before St. John's exile in Patmos, and, probably, some good while before it. Consequently, he and Mr. Whiston do not differ greatly about the time of this epistle.
I must likewise say, though the exact time is not known, I am of opinion, it was not written, till after the Jewish war was over. My reason is, that the arguments alleged for proving it to leave been written sooner are not satisfactory. And in examining them, perhaps, some things may occur, affording hints of a later date.
One argument is taken from ch. ii. 18, “it is the last time," or hour : meaning, as some interpreters think, the last hour of the Jewish state and constitution. Nevertheless, there k are learned men, who do not assent to that interpretation. Grotius himself owns, that the phrase is sometimes used concerning the world, or mankind in general, as well as the Jews. And Mr. Lampe, who supposeth the phrase to relate to the divine judgment upon the Jewish people, says, it " might be used not only at the time when it was inflicting, but also after it was accomplished. Which he supposes to be meant by those expressions, ch. ii. 8, “the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth :” (though Wolfius thinks no such thing there intended.] And therefore, he says, he does not acquiesce in the reasons alleged by Grotius and Hammond, to prove that this epistle was written before that event.
Let me add here also a part of Wall's note upon ch. ii. 18, which to me appears not amiss. • The saying of St. John, “it is the last time,” is spoken as a great many such sayings of St. • Paul, and the other apostles, had been, according to the general charge given by Christ to * the apostles, and to all other Christians, to live in a continual expectation of the judgment.
They that interpret it otherwise, of the destruction of Jerusalem, as Grotius, and Hammond, • are forced to suppose this epistle to have been written just before that destruction, about the ' year 69.-Nor are St. John's words here like those of any one that was foretelling that • event: but rather of one that was speaking of the present state of the Christian religion.'
Again, it is argued, that ' the apostle might refer to the calamities of the Jewish people in those words, ch. ii. 17. “ The world passeth away and the lust thereof.” But those are only general expressions, representing the uncertainty of all earthly things. And therefore afford not any argument, that the apostle had therein a regard to affairs in Judea. For, if he had, his expressions would have been more distinct and particular. · Preface to St. John's first Epistle, sect. iv.
m Alii maturius, aut brevi ante, aut saltem circa excidiuin b Proleg. num. 148 – 150.
Hierosolymitanum scriptum esse existimant, qui nobis maxime CH. E. an. 91. num. i.
d Ann. 98. num. iv. ad verisimilitudinem accedere videntur. Probabile enim est, e Ann. 99. num. vii-x.
per sogatny wpar intelligi tempus judicii divini in Judæos. | Diss. Prelim. I. 2. ch. 2. sect. xi.
cap. ii. 18. ejusque consummationem spectare verba cap. ii. 8. 6 Commentary upon St. John's three Catholic Epistles, Lampe Prol. 1. 1.c. 7. n. iv. p. 106.
sed non video, quomodo imminens illud judicium h Acquiescimus igitur hactenus in judicio clarissimi Ensii argumentum esse possit, quo Apostolus ad inculcandum et de Canone N. T. p. 270. Scriptæ tamen creduntur Joannis urgendum amorem mutuum uti voluerit. Tenebræ omnino epistolæ ante exilium in Patmum insulam. Neque est ratio, inferunt pristinam et Judæorum et Gentilium conditionem, ob quam non statueremus, eas diu ante illud tempus fuisse con- qer quam non solum erroribus, sed et vitiis ita erant immersi, scriptas. Lampe Prol. cap. 7. num. iv. note (h).
ut viol cxotes appellari potuerint. Wolf. Curæ in 1 Jo. ii. 8. i. Ultima hora' (id est, ultimum tempus), ubi ad Judæos • Grotius et Hammondus ante excidium Hierosolymitanum sermo est, significat tempus, proximum excidio urbis, ac tem- scriptam esse suspicantur; quod tamen loca adducta non pli, et reipublicæ Judæorum. Grot. annot. in 1 ep. Jo. ii. 18. evincunt. Licet enim excidium illud in actum datuni esset,
k Vid. Wolff. Prolegom. in 1 ep. Joann. p. 243, 244. Conf. dici tamen etiamnum poterat, quod hora illa ultima venerit. eund. ad i. ep. cap. ii. ver. 18.
Id. ib. note (h). I Nomen, · horæ extremæ modo totum humanum genus P Unde etiam per ' mundum transeuntem cum suis cupidirespicit, modo populum Judaïcum, ex quo erant Apostoli, et • tatibus' ad idem excidium Reipublicæ. Judaïcæ respicere non pauci Christianorum. Grot. in loca quædam N. T. de Evangelista potuit. Lampe ib. p. 106. Antichristo : speciatim in 1 ep. Jo. cap, ii. Opp. tom. III.