iv. On Wednesday, or the fourth day of Passion-week, the chief priests | by Saint Luke in more animated language than is used by consult to kill Christ. (xxii. 1-3.) sv. On Thursday, or the fifth day of Passion-week, Judas covenants to betray Christ (xxii. 4-5); and Christ sends two disciples to prepare the Passover. (7-13.) evening of Passion-week, § vi. On the Passover day-that is, from Thursday evening to Friday (c) During the night, Christ having been conducted to the high-priest's (d) At day-break on Friday morning, Christ is tried before the Sanliedrin (xxii. 66-71.); from whose tribunal, (e) On Friday morning, 1. he is delivered first to Pilate (xxiii. 1-7.), who sends him to Herod (8-12.); by whom he is again sent to Pilate, and is by him condemned to be crucified. (13-25)-2. Christ's discourse to the women of Jerusalem as he was led forth to be cru cified. (26-31.) The transactions of the third hour.-The crucifixion; Christ's garments divided; the inscription on the cross; his address to the penitent robber. (xxiii. 32-43.) (g) From the sixth to the ninth hour.-The preternatural darkness, rending of the veil; death of Christ, and its concomitant circuinstances. (xxiii. 44-49.) (h) Between the ninth hour and sunset, Jesus Christ is interred by SECT. 5. Transactions after Christ's resurrection on Easter -11.) 1 fi. Christ's resurrection testified to the woman by the angel. (xxiv. Peter. (xxiv. 12-35.) 36-49.) SECT. 6. The ascension of Christ, and the apostles' return to The plan of classifying events, adopted by Luke, has been followed by Livy, Plutarch, and other profane historical writers. Thus Suetonius, after exhibiting a brief summary of the life of Augustus, previous to his acquiring the sovereign power, announces his intention of recording the subsequent events of his life, not in order of time, but arranging them into distinct classes; and then proceeds to give an account of his wars, honours, legislation, discipline, and private life. In like manner, Florus intimates that he would not observe the strict order of time; but in order that the things, which he should relate, might the better appear, he would relate them distinctly and separately.2 either of the rest (xi. 53.): “They began vehemently to press him with questions on many points." And, on another occasion, speaking of the same people, he says, that they were filled with madness. (vi. 11.) Lastly, in the moral instructions given by our Lord, and recorded by this evangelist, especially in the parables, no one has surpassed him in uniting affecting sweetness of manner with genuine simplicity, particularly in the parables of the benevolent Samaritan and the penitent prodigal.3 SECTION V. ON THE GOSPEL BY SAINT JOHN. I. Title.-II. Author.-III. Date.-IV. Genuineness and authenticity of this Gospel, particularly of ch. xxi., and ch. vii. 53., and viii. 11-1.-V. Its occasion and design.-Account of the tenets of Cerinthus.-Analysis of its contents.—VI. The Gospel of John, a supplement to the other three.—VII. Observations on its style. I. THE TITLE of this Gospel varies greatly in the manuIn the Codex Vaticanus it scripts, editions, and versions. is simply aura laavvy, according to John; in many other MSS. and editions, Evy To xxтα I wavvy, the Gospel according to John, or ro xare Iwery (agor) Evayur, the Gospel according to (Saint) John; in the Codex Bezæ, Agxera Eviggerlov KRTL Ivy, the Gospel according to John beginneth. To omit minor variations in manuscripts of less ancient date,-in the Syriac titled, "The Holy Gospel, the preaching of St. John, which version, in Bishop Walton's Polyglott, this Gospel is enhe delivered in Greek, and published at Ephesus:" in the Arabic version it is "The Gospel of St. John the son of Zebedee, one of the twelve apostles, which he wrote in Greek by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit;" and in the Persian version, "The Gospel of John, one of the twelve apostles, which was spoken in the Greek-Roman tongue at Ephesus." 11. John, the evangelist and apostle, was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of the town of Bethsaida, on the sea of Galilee, and the younger brother of James the elder. His mother's name was Salome. Zebedee, though a fisherman, appears to have been in good circumstances; for the evangelical history informs us that he was the owner of a vessel, and had hired servants. (Mark i. 20.) And therefore we have no reason to imagine that his children were altogether illiterate, as some critics have imagined them to have been, from a misinterpretation of Acts iv. 13., where the terms appμar and dra, in our version rendered unlearned and ignorant men, simply denote persons in private stations of life, who were neither rabbis nor magistrates, and such as had not studied in the schools of the Pharisees, and consequently were ignorant of the rabbinical learning and traditions of the Jews. John and his brother James were, doubtless, well acquainted with the Scriptures of the Old Testament, having not only read them, but heard them publicly explained in the synagogues; and, in common with the other Jews, they entertained the expectation of the Messiah, and that his kingdom would be a temporal one. It is not impossible, though it cannot be affirmed with certainty, that John had been a disciple of John the Baptist, before he became a disciple of Christ. At least, the circumstantial account, which he has given in ch. i. 37-41. of the two disciples who followed Christ, might induce us to suppose that he was one of the two. It is, however, certain that he had both seen and heard our Saviour, and had witnessed some of his miracles, particularly that performed at Cana in Galilee. (ii. 1—11.) John has not recorded his own call to the apostleship; but we learn from the other three evangelists that it took place when he and James were fishing upon the sea of Galilee.1 VIII. If Paul had not informed us (Col. iv. 14.) that Luke was by profession a physician, and consequently a man of letters, his writings would have sufficiently evinced that he had had a liberal education; for although his Gospel presents as many Hebraisms, perhaps, as any of the sacred writings, yet his language contains more numerous Græcisms, than that of any other writer of the New Testament. The style of this evangelist is pure, copious, and flowing, and bears a considerable resemblance to that of his great master Paul. Many of his words and expressions are exactly parallel to those which are to be found in the best classic authors; and several eminent critics have long since pointed out the singular skill and propriety with which Luke has named and described the various diseases which he had occasion to notice. As an instance of his copiousness, Dr. Campbell has remarked, that each of the evangelists has a number of words which are used by none of the rest: but in Luke's Gospel, the number of such words as are used in none of the other Gospels, is greater than that of the peculiar words found in all the other three Gospels, put together; and that the terms peculiar to Luke are for the most part long and compound words. There is also more of composition in his sentences than is found in the other three Gospels, and consequently less simplicity. Of this we have an example in the first sentence, which occupies not less than four verses. Further, Luke seems to approach nearer to the manner of other historians, in giving what may be called his own ver- lia in Nov. Test. vol. ii. pp. 3-6. Kuinoel, Comment. in Libros Hist. Nov. Dr. Campbell on the Gospels, vol. ii. pp. 126-129. Rosenmüller, Schodict in the narrative part of his work. Thus he calls the Test. vol. ii. pp. 213–220. Bp. Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. part i. pp. 228--Pharisees paupa, lovers of money (xvi. 14.); and in distin-271. Pritii, Introd. ad Nov. Test. pp. 181-195. Viser, Herm. Sacr. Nov. Test. pars i. PP. 333-339. pars ii. pp. 205-209. 221, et seq 264. Rumpæi, guishing Judas Iscariot from the other Judas, he uses the Comm. Crit. in Libros Nov. Test. pp. 81. 83. Bishop Cleaver's Discourse phrase is nevero moderns, who also proved a traitor. (vi. 16.) on the Style of St. Luke's Gospel, in his Sermons, pp. 209–224. 8vo. OxMatthew (x. 4.) and Mark (iii. 19.) express the same senti- ford, 1808. ment in milder language,-who delivered him up. Again, the attempt made by the Pharisees, to extort from our Lord what might prove matter of accusation against him, is expressed 1 Suetonius in Augusto, c. ix. (al. xii.) p. 58. edit. Bipont. This historian has pursued the same method in his life of Cæsar. 2 Flori, Hist. Rom. lib. ii. c. 19. VOL. II. 2 R he thinks are three degrees in the call of Saint John to be a follower of Matt. iv. 21, 22. Mark i. 19, 20. Luke v. 1-10. Lampe has marked what Christ, viz. 1. His call to the discipleship (John i. 37-42.), after which he continued to follow his business for a short time; 2. His call to be one of the immediate companions of Christ (Matt. iv. 21, 22.); and, 3. His call to the apostleship, when the surnaine of Boanerges was given to him and his brother. Lampe, Comment. in Evangelium Johannis Prolegom. cap. ii. pp. 17-21. And Mark, in enumerating the twelve apostles (iii. 17.), when he mentions James and John, says that our Lord "sarnamed them Boanerges, which is, sons of thunder," from which appellation we are not to suppose that they were of particularly fierce and ungovernable tempers (as Dr. Cave has conjectured); but, as Dr. Lardner and others have observed, it is rather to be considered as prophetically representing the resolution and courage with which they would openly and boldly declare the great truths of the Gospel when fully acquainted with them. How appropriate this title was, the Acts of the Apostles and the writings of John abundantly show.2 From the time when John and his brother received their immediate call from Christ, they became his constant attendants; they heard his discourses, and beheld his miracles; and, after previous instruction, both public and private, they were honoured with a selection and appointment to be of the number of the apostles. in the year 68; Dr. Owen in 69; Michaelis in 70. But Chrysostom and Epiphanius, among the ancient fathers, and Dr. Mill, Fabricius, Le Clerc, and Bishop Tomline, among the moderns, refer its date, with greater probability, to the year 97, Mr. Jones to the year 98, and Bertholdt to the last decad of the first century. The principal argument for its early date is derived from John v. 2., where the apostle says, "Now there is at Jerusalem, by the sheep-market, a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches." From these words it is urged, that Jerusalem was standing when they were written; and that if they had been written after the destruction of Jerusalem, the evangelist would have used the past tense instead of the present, and would have said, There was at Jerusalem a pool, &c. But this argument is more specious than forcible; for, though Jerusalem was demolished, it does not necessarily follow that the pool of Bethesda was dried up. On the contrary, there are much What the age of John was at this time, his history does stronger reasons for supposing that it escaped the general denot precisely ascertain. Some have conjectured that he was vastation; for, when Vespasian ordered the city to be demolishthen twenty-two years old; others that he was about twenty-ed, he permitted some things to remain for the use of the garfive or twenty-six years of age; and others again think that rison which was to be stationed there; and he would naturally he was about the age of our Saviour. Dr. Lardner is of leave this bathing-place, fitted up with recesses or porticoes opinion that none of the apostles were much under the age for shade and shelter, that he might not deprive the soldiers of thirty, when they were appointed to that important office. of a grateful refreshment. Now, since the evangelist's Whatever his age might have been, John seems to have been proposition may simply regard Bethesda, we cannot be certhe youngest of the twelve, and (if we may judge from tain that it looks further, or has any view to the state of Jehis writings) to have possessed a temper singularly mild, rusalem. The argument, therefore, which is deduced from amiable, and affectionate. He was eminently the object of the above passage in favour of an early date, is inconclusive. our Lord's regard and confidence; and was, on various occa- But, besides this argument, we have strong evidence from sions, admitted to free and intimate intercourse with him, so the contents and design of the Gospel itself, that it was not that he was characterized as "the disciple whom Jesus written until the year 97. It is evident, as Bishop Tomline loved." (John xiii. 23.) Hence we find him present at has forcibly remarked, that the evangelist considers those to several scenes, to which most of the other disciples were whom he addresses his Gospel as but little acquainted with not admitted. He was an eye-witness, in company with Jewish customs and names; for he gives various explanaonly Peter and James, to the resurrection of Jairus's daughter tions which would be unnecessary, if the persons for whom to life, to our Saviour's transfiguration on the mount, and to he wrote were conversant with the usages of the Jews." his agony in the garden. John repaid this attention by the Similar explanations occur in the Gospels of Mark and Luke; most sincere attachment to his master; for, though, in com- but in this of John they are more marked, and occur more mon with the other apostles, he had betrayed a culpable frequently. The reason of which may be, that when John timidity in forsaking him during his last conflict, yet he wrote, many more Gentiles, and of more distant countries, afterwards recovered his firmness, and was the only apostle had been converted to Christianity; and it was now become who followed Christ to the place of his crucifixion. He necessary to explain to the Christian church, thus extended, was also present at the several appearances of our Saviour many circumstances which needed no explanation while its after his resurrection, and has given his testimony to the members belonged only to the neighbourhood of Judæa, and truth of that miraculous fact; and these circumstances, while the Jewish polity was still in existence. It is reasontogether with his intercourse with the mother of Christ able to suppose that the feasts and other peculiarities of the (whom our Saviour had commended to his care) (xix. 26, Jews would be bat little understood by the Gentiles of Asia 27.), qualified him, better than any other writer, to give a Minor, thirty years after the destruction of Jerusalem. circumstantial and authentic history of Jesus Christ. In one of our Saviour's interviews with his apostles, after his resurrection, he prophetically told this evangelist that he would survive the destruction of Jerusalem, and intimated, not obscurely, that Peter would suffer crucifixion, but that he would die a natural death. (xxi. 18-24.) After the ascension of Christ, and the effusion of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, John became one of the chief apostles of the circumcision, and exercised his ministry at Jerusalem and its vicinity, in the manner and with the success related in the Acts of the Apostles. He was present at the council held in that city (Acts xv.) about the year 49 or 50. Until this time he probably remained in Judæa, and had not travelled into any foreign countries. From ecclesiastical history we learn, that after the death of Mary, the mother of Christ, John proceeded to Asia Minor, where he founded and presided over seven churches in as many cities, but resided chiefly at Ephesus. Thence he was banished to the Isle of Patmos towards the close of Domitian's reign, where he wrote his Revelation. (Rev. i. 9.) On his liberation from exile, by the accession of Nerva to the imperial throne, John returned to Ephesus, where he wrote his Gospel and Epistles, and died in the hundredth year of his age, about the year of Christ 100, and in the third year of the reign of the emperor Trajan. III. The precise time when this Gospel was written has not been ascertained, though it is generally agreed that John composed it at Ephesus. Basnage and Lampe suppose it to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem; and, in conformity with their opinion, Dr. Lardner fixes its date 1 Cave's Life of St. James the Great, § 5. p. 142. * Lampe, Comment. in Evangelium Johannis Prolegom. cap. i. pp. 21-30. See particularly Acts ii. iv. 1-22. and viii. 5-26. Lardner's Works, Svo. vol. vi. pp. 156-170.; 410. vol. iii. pp. 212–220. Michaelis, vol. iii. part i. pp. 272–271. Lampe, Proleg. in Joan. Evangel pp. 31-102. Jones on the Canon, vol. iii. pp. 101-110. IV. The Gospel by John has been universally received as genuine. The circumstantiality of its details proves that the book was written by a hearer and eye-witness of the discourses and transactions it records; and, consequently, could not be written long afterwards by a Platonic Christian, as it has been recently asserted, contrary to all evidence. But, besides this incontestable internal evidence, we have the external and uninterrupted testimony of the ancient fathers of the Christian church. His Gospel is alluded to, once by Clement of Rome, and once by Barnabas; and four times by Ignatius bishop of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the evange list, and had conversed familiarly with several of the apostles.10 It was also received by Justin Martyr," Tatian, the churches of Vienne and Lyons, Irenæus, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch,15 Clement of Alexandria,16 Tertullian," Ammonius,18 Origen,19 Eusebius, Epiphanius, Augustine, Chrysostom, and, in short, by all subsequent writers of the ancient Christian church. The Alogi or Alogians, a sect which is said to have existed in the second century, are reported to See Josephus de Bell. Jud. lib. iii. c. i. §i. the 13 fact, that Vespasian soon after erected magnificent public baths at Rome. Dr. Townson's Works, vol. i. p. 224. This conjecture is confirmed by Suetonius in Vespasiano, c. vii. pp. See particularly John i. 38. 41., ii. 6. 13., iv. 9., and xi. 55. Elements of Christ. Theol vol. i. pp. 335. Jones on the Canon, vol. iii. 113-116. See Jones on the Canon, vol. iii. pp. 117, 118. 10 Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 120, 121.; 4to. vol.i. p. 344. 11 Ibid. Svo. vol. ii. p. 139. ; 4to. vol. 1. p. 355. 12 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 150.; 4to. vol. i. p. 361. 14 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 183.; 4to. vol. i. p. 379. 16 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 212. 220.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 395, 399. 1 lbid. Svo. vol. ii. p. 256.; 4to. vol. i. p. 419. 18 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 414-417.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 503-505. 19 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 469, 470.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 533, 534. 20 Ibid. Svo. vol. iv. pp. 225-227.; 4to. vol. ii. pp. 368, 369. 21 See their several testimonies in Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 187 -190.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 227, 228. have rejected this Gospel, as well as the rest of John's writings; but we have no information concerning these Alogi, on which any dependance can be placed for, in strictness, we have no account of them except the later and uncertain accounts of Philaster and Epiphanius; Irenæus, Eusebius, and other ancient writers before them, being totally silent concerning the Alogi. The probability, therefore, is, that there never was any such heresy,' the seventh verse of John viii., where or has the article r prefixed. He that is without sin among you, let him first cast THE [not a stone, as in our authorized version] STONE at her; TON AIOON ET AUTO Bear. The allusion, Bishop Middleton remarks, is to the particular manner of stoning, which required that one of the witnesses (for two at the least were necessary, see Deut. xvii. 6.) should throw the stone, which was to serve as a signal to the by-standers to complete the punishment. There is therefore strict propriety in calling this stone TON or, in order to distinguish it from other stones. It is not probable that an interpolator would have been thus exact in his phraseology, or would have adverted to this apparently trifling circumstance; especially since the expression of a TV is not elsewhere found in the New Testament. A few manuscripts (Griesbach and Schulz specify eleven) omit the article: but this, Dr. M. is of opinion, only proves that the copyists knew not what to make of it; and that, had they undertaken to interpolate the pas sage, they would have done it less skilfully than did the present interpolater, supposing we must consider the passage to be spurious. Upon a review therefore of the whole evidence respecting this disputed clause, we may safely conclude that it preponderates in favour of its genuineness. V. The design of St. John in writing his Gospel was "to convey to the Christian world just and adequate notions of the real nature, character, and office of that great Teacher, who came to instruct and redeem mankind. For this purpose, he studiously selected, for his narrative, those passages of our Saviour's life, which most clearly displayed his divine power and authority: and those of his discourses, in which he spoke most plainly of his own nature, and of the efficacy of his death, as an atonement for the sins of the world. The object, which this evangelist had in view, is very clearly stated in chap. xx. verse 31. It was not to accumulate as many instances as possible of the miraculous power exerted by Jesus; but only those, which most distinctly illustrated his peculiar office and nature: Many other signs truly did Jesus, in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But THESE are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name. This expression seems to prove, that those persons are wrong, who suppose that St. John wrote his Gospel, merely to supply the defects and omissions of the other Évangelists. The real difference between them is, that they wrote a history of our Saviour's life; but St. John, of his person and office." With such decisive testimonies to the genuineness of John's Gospel, it is not a little surprising, that an eminent critic on the continent should have asserted that his Gospel and Epistles exhibit clear evidence, that it was not written by an eyewitness, but was compiled by some Gentile Christian in the beginning of the second century, after the death of the evangelist John, for whom he passed himself. It is also astonishing that, with such testimonies to the genuineness of this Gospel, so distinguished a critic as Grotius should have imagined that the evangelist terminated his history of our Saviour with the twentieth chapter, and that the twenty-first chapter was added after his death by the church at Ephesus. But this opinion is contradicted by the universal consent of manuscripts and versions; for, as this Gospel was published before the evangelist's death, if there had been an edition of it without the twenty-first chapter, it would in all probability have been wanting in some copies. To which we may add that the genuineness of the chapter in question was never doubted by any one of the ancient Christian writers. Finally, the style is precisely the same as that of the rest of his Gospel.3 Some doubts have been entertained concerning the genuineness of the portion of this Gospel comprised between ch. vii. 53. and viii. 1-11. Its authenticity has been questioned by Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Le Clerc, Wetstein, Semler, Schulze, Morus, Haenlein, Paulus, Schmidt, and various other writers who are mentioned by Wolfius, and by Koecher: Griesbach and Schulz have remarked it as a passage which ought probably to be omitted; and its genuineness has been advocated by Drs. Mill and Whitby, Bp. Middleton, Heumann, Michaelis, Storr, Langius, Dettmers, Staeudlin, Kuinoel, and Dr. Bloomfield. The limits necessarily prescribed to this section forbid us to enter into a review of all that has been said on this subject; but it may be permitted to remark that the evidence is in favour of the genuineness of the passage in question. For, though it is not found in several ancient versions, and is not quoted or illustrated by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Nonnus (who wrote commentaries or explanations of this Gospel), nor by Tertullian, or Cyprian, both of whom treat copiously on chastity But, besides this more general design of the evangelist, and adultery, and therefore had abundant opportunity of ci- we are informed by Irenæus, and other ancient writers, that ting it, if it had been extant in their copies; yet it is found there were two especial motives that induced John to comin the greater part of the manuscripts (Griesbach has enume-pose his Gospel. One was, that he might refute the heresies rated more than eighty) that are extant, though with great of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans, who had attempted to cordiversity of readings. If it had not been genuine, how could rupt the Christian doctrine: the other motive was, that he it have found its way into these manuscripts? Moreover, might supply those important events in our Saviour's life, there is nothing in the paragraph in question that militates which the other evangelists had omitted. Respecting the either against the character, sentiments, or conduct of Jesus former of these motives, Irenæus gives us the following Christ; on the contrary, the whole is perfectly consistent account.9 with his meekness, gentleness, and benevolence. To which we may add, that this passage is cited as genuine by Augustine, who assigns the reason why it was omitted by some copyists, viz. fest any offence should be taken by supposing that our Lord suffered a guilty woman to go unpunished. But, in reply to this supposition or objection, we may remark, 1. That, according to his own declaration, he came not into the world to condemn the world (John iii. 17. viii. 15. xii. 47. Luke xii. 14.) and to execute the office of a judge (and it is but reasonable to try him by his own principles, in which no inconsistency can be found); and, 2. Any exercise of judicial authority would have given a direct contradiction to that deference and subordination which he constantly showed and inculcated to the power of the civil magistrate. An additional evidence in favour of the disputed clause is found in ■ Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ix. pp. 515 516.; 4to. vol. iv. pp. 690, 691. Dr. Bretschneider, in his Probabilia de Evangelii et Epistolarum Jo hannis Apostoli Indole, et Origine. 8vo. Lipsia, 1820. In justice to Dr. Bretschneider it must now be stated that, in the preface to the second edi. tion of his Handbuch der Dogmatik (Manual of Dogmatic Theology), he declared himself satisfied concerning the genuineness of this passage. (Jena Literary Gazette for January, 1827, Supplt. No. 1.) The genuineness of the twenty-first chapter of St. John's Gospel is satisfactorily vindicated against the objections of Grotius, and some modern critics, by Professor Weber in his "Authentia capitis ultimi Evangelii Johannis, &c." Halis, 1823, 8vo. Wolfii Curæ Philologicæ, in loc. • Koecheri Analecta, in loc. Staeudlin, Prolusio quà Pericopa de Adulterâ, Joh. vii. 53. viii. 1—11., Veritas et Authentia defenditur. Gottinga, 1806, 4to. "John being desirous to extirpate the errors sown in the minds of men by Cerinthus, and sometime before by those called Nicolaitans, published his Gospel in which he acquaints us that there is one God, who made all things by his word, and not, as they say, one who is the Creator of the world, and another who is the Father of the Lord: one the Son of the Creator, and another the Christ from the supercelestial abodes, who descended upon Jesus the Son of the Creator, but remained impassible, and afterwards fled back to his own pleroma or fulness." This testimony of Irenæus has been opposed by Lampe, Lardner, Tittmann, Kuinöel, and adopted by Buddeus, Michaelis, Moldenhawer, Mosheim, Bishop Tomline, Dr. Owen, and other later divines. The principal objections against the declaration of Irenæus may be reduced to the two following: viz. 1. That Irenæus is at variance with himself: for in another passage he says, "as John the disciple of our Lord assures us, saying, But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye Kuinöel, Comment. in Libros Nov. Test, Historicos, pp. 379-396. Tittmanni Commentarius in Evang. Johannis, pp. 318-322. Bishop Middleton's Doctrine of the Greek Article, on John viii. 7. Griesbachii et Schulzii Nov. Test. tom. i. pp. 555, 556. Bloomfield's Annotations, vol. iii. pp. 275--284., in which Dr. B. has given a copious statement of the evidence for and against this section of St. John's Gospel. Bp. Bloomfield's Lectures on the Gospel of St. John, pp. 4, 5, might have life through his name; foreseeing these blasphemous notions that divide the Lord, so far as it is in their power." Now, if Irenæus here meant to say, that John only foresaw the errors, which were propagated by Cerinthus and the Gnostics, it must appear very extraordinary that he should say, in the passage above quoted, that John wrote against the errors which had been propagated by Cerinthus. But the contradiction is only apparent; for providens, the expression of Irenæus, does not signify "foreseeing," but guarding against. The latter passage, therefore, when properly explained, does not confute but confirm the former. Besides, as Paul, in his first Epistle to Timothy, speaks of Gnostic errors, it is evident that they must have been propagated long before John wrote his Gospel. 2. The second argument, relied upon by those learned men who dissent from the common opinion, is, that the early fathers, in their catalogues of heretics, for the most part place Cerinthus after Carpocrates, who unquestionably lived and taught in the second century. This circumstance would cer tainly possess considerable weight, if it appeared that the early fathers had paid due attention to the regular order of time in their enumeration of heretics: but, instead of this, we know the fact to be, that the names of heretics are set down by Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement, and others, at random, and without paying any regard to the times in which they lived. "But even if Irenæus had not asserted that St. John wrote his Gospel against the Gnostics, and particularly against Cerinthus, the contents of the Gospel itself would lead to this conclusion. The speeches of Christ, which John has recorded, are selected with a totally different view from that of the three first evangelists, who have given such as are of a moral nature; whereas those which are given by John are chiefly dogmatical, and relate to Christ's divinity, the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, the supernatural assistance to be communicated to the apostles, and other subjects of a like import. In the very choice of his expressions, such as light, life,' &c. he had in view the philosophy of the Gnostics, who used or rather abused these terms. That the first fourteen verses of John's Gospel are merely historical, and contain only a short account of Christ's history before his appearance on earth, is a supposition devoid of all probability. On the contrary, it is evident that they are purely doctrinal, and that they were introduced with a polemical view, in order to confute errors, which prevailed at that time respecting the person of Jesus Christ. Unless John had an adversary to combat who made particular use of the words light, and life,' he would not have thought it necessary after having described the Creator of all things, to add, that in him was life, and the life was the light of men, or to assert that John the Baptist was not that light. The very meaning of the word light,' would be extremely dubious, unless it were determined by its particular application in the oriental Gnosis. For without the supposition, that John had to combat with an adversary who used this word in a particular sense, it might be applied to any divine instructor, who by his doctrines enlightened mankind. Further, the positions contained in the first fourteen verses are antitheses to positions maintained by the Gnostics, who used the words yes, Zoon, peas, Morogerns, pμ, &c. as technical terms of their philosophy. Lastly, the speeches of Christ, which St. John has selected, are such as confirm the positions laid down in the first chapter of his Gospel; and therefore we must conclude that his principal object throughout the whole of his Gospel was to confute the errors of the Gnostics."2 In addition to the preceding arguments and proofs, there is one circumstance highly worthy of remark, which greatly strengthens the testimony of Irenæus as to the object of John in writing his Gospel; viz. that he delivered it within a century after that Gospel was written. Now, as Irenæus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was personally acquainted with the evangelist, he consequently had the best means of procuring information on this subject. The evidence of a credible writer of the second century, uncontradicted by contemporary writers, or by those who lived in the following century, is surely preferable to the conjectures offered by critics of the eighteenth or nineteenth century. In order to understand 1 Quemadmodum Joannes Domini discipulus confirmat, dicens, "Hæc autem scripta sunt, ut credatis quoniam Jesus est filius Dei, et ut credentes, vitam æternam habeatis in nomine ejus;" providens has blasphemas regulas, que dividunt Dominum quantum ex ipsis attinet. Advers. Hæres. lib. iii. c. 16. 2 Michaelis, vol. iii, part i. p. 280. the design and arrangement of John's Gospel, it will be necessary to take a brief review of the tenets of Cerinthus, in opposition to which the evangelist purposely wrote it. This will not only reflect considerable light on particular passages, but make the whole appear a complete work, regular, clear, and conclusive. Cerinthus was by birth a Jew, who lived at the close of the first century: having studied literature and philosophy at Alexandria, he attempted at length to form a new and singular system of doctrine and discipline, by a monstrous combination of the doctrines of Jesus Christ with the opinions and errors of the Jews and Gnostics. From the latter he borrowed their Plerōma or fulness, their Æons or spirits, their Demiurgus or creator of the visible world, &c. and so modified and tempered these fictions as to give them an air of Judaism, which must have considerably favoured the progress of his heresy. He taught that the most high God was utterly unknown before the appearance of Christ, and dwelt in a remote heaven called IAHPOMA (Pleroma) with the chief spirits or ons-That this supreme God first generated an only begotten SoN, MONOTENEZ, who again begat the word, AOгOZ, which was inferior to the first-born. That CHRIST was a still lower æon, though far superior to some othersThat there were two higher æons, distinct from Christ; one called ZH, or LIFE, and the other, or the LIGHT-That from the ons again proceeded inferior orders of spirits, and particularly one Demiurgus, who created this visible world out of eternal matter-That this Demiurgus was ignorant of the supreme God, and much lower than the Eons, which were wholly invisible-That he was, however, the peculiar God and protector of the Israelites, and sent Moses to them; whose laws were to be of perpetual obligation-That Jesus was a mere man of the most illustrious sanctity and justice, the real son of Joseph and Mary-That the on Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove when he was baptized, revealed to him the unknown father, and empowered him to work miracles-That the Eon, LIGHT, entered John the Baptist in the same manner, and therefore that John was in some respects preferable to Christ-That Jesus, after his union with Christ, opposed himself with vigour to the God of the Jews, at whose instigation he was seized and crucified by the Hebrew chiefs, and that when Jesus was taken captive, and came to suffer, Christ ascended up on high, so that the man Jesus alone was subject to the pains of an ignomini ous death-That Christ will one day return upon earth, and, renewing his former union with the man Jesus, will reign in Palestine a thousand years, during which his disciples will enjoy the most exquisite sensual delights.4 Bearing these dogmas in mind, we shall find that Saint John's Gospel is divided into three parts; viz. PART I. contains Doctrines laid down in Opposition to those of Cerinthus. (John i. 1-18.) The doctrines laid down in the first part, as contra-positions to the tenets of Cerinthus, may be reduced to the following heads, in which the evangelist asserts, 1. That Christ is the Logos or Word of God. 2. That the Logos and Monogenes are not distinct beings, but one and the same person. (1. 14.) 3. That Christ or the Logos is not an inferior Æon, but God. (i. 1.) 4. That he perfectly knew the supreme God, being always with him in the Pleroma. (i. 18.) 5. That he is not to be distinguished from the Demiurgus; for he is the creator of the whole world. (i. 3, 10.) 6. That life and light are not particular and separate spirits, but the 7. That no particular Eon entered into John the Baptist by the name 9. That the Jews were not the peculiar people of an inferior God, such pp. 278, 279. Tittmanni Meletemata Sacra in Evangelium Johannis, pp 14-24. Kuinöel, Comment. in Hist. Libros Nov. Test. vol. iii. pp. 42 et seq. Mosheim's Commentaries, vol. i. pp. 337-347. Dr. Lardner's Works 8vo. vol. ix. pp. 325-327.; 4to. vol. iv. pp. 567-569. Dr. Owen's Observa tions on the Four Gospels, pp. 88-92. To this learned writer we are chiefly indebted for the preceding observations. The sentiments of Basilides, of Alexandria (who was nearly contemporary with Cerinthus), concerning the Logos, were not very unlike the tenets of that hæresiarch. Mr. Townsend has given an abstract of them in his New Testament, arranged in chronological order, &c. vol. i. pp. 19-21. Unus et idem ostenditur Logos et Monogenes, et Zoe et Phos, et Soter et Christus filius Dei, et hic idem incarnatus pro nobis. Iren. lib. i. c Lampe, Prolegom. in Johannis Evangelium, vol. i. p. 179. et seq. Bud deus de Ecclesia Apostolica, p. 412. et seq. Mosheim's Commentaries on the Affairs of Christians, vol. i. pp. 337 338. note. Michaelis, vol. iii. part i. | i. § 20. as the Demiurgus: but of Christ himself, the only begotten Son of God. (i. 11.) 10. That in the fulness of time the Son of God took upon him human nature, and became man. (i. 14.) 11. That he abolished the law of Moses, which was only the shadow of good things to come, and in its stead introduced the substance, or the very things signified by it. (i. 17.) And lastly, 12. That the Jew has no more right in this divine person, and the pri. vileges conferred through him, than the Gentile; for whoever believes in him, becomes thereby a child of God, and is entitled by that adoption to a glorious inheritance. (i. 12, 13.) These propositions being settled, the Evangelist proceeds in PART II. To deliver the Proofs of these Doctrines in an Historical Manner (i. 19.-xx. 29.), as being all expressed or plainly implied in the Discourses and Transactions of Jesus Christ, which may conveniently be divided into eighteen Sections: viz. SECT. 1. John the Baptist himself confesses to the Jewish priests, that he is much inferior to Jesus, refers his own disciples to him, who acknowledge him to be the Messiah, and are confirmed in this faith by the miracle of water converted into wine, at Cana in Galilee. (i. 19.-ii. 11.) SECT. 2. Jesus conducts himself at Jerusalem as the lord of the temple (ii. 12-25.), reveals himself to Nicodemus as the only begotten Son of God; shows the design of his coming into the world, and the necessity of believing in him, (iii. 1—21.) SECT. 3. An additional testimony of John the Baptist to the superiority of Christ, and the excellency of his ordinances. (iii. 22-36.) SECT. 4. Jesus visits the Samaritans, declares himself to be the SECT. 5. By a second miracle, (the curing of a nobleman's dying SECT. 7. To show that he was the end of the law, Jesus substi- : SECT. 8. Jesus reproves the ambition of his kinsmen and going SECT. 10. A woman taken in adultery is brought to Jesus, who SECT. 12. After this he represents himself as the door of the SECT. 13. Jesus performs a signal miracle, by restoring Lazarus to life, after he had been dead four days, in the presence of a large number of people; which was attended with this peculiar circumstance, that it was wrought after an express invocation of God, that he would apply it to the confirmation of 1 Origen. Philocal. c. i. p. 17. ed. Spencer. See a critical examination of this miracle, supra, Vol. I. pp. 104, 105. • Ibid. pp. 105, 106. 317 what our Saviour had taught. (xi. 1-44.) Observe particularly ver. 41, 42. SECT. 14. A brief account of the different effects which this SECT. 17. Christ informs his disciples, in a long discourse, that SECT. 18. After this, Jesus recommends his disciples, and all who should in future ages believe in him, to the Father, in a pathetic and memorable prayer; and at the same time testifies, that not one of his apostles was lost, but Judas Iscariot. (xvii. 1-26.) As this prayer was favourably heard, and the apostles were afterwards endowed with extraordinary powers, it afforded an argument against Cerinthus of the divine authority of the doctrines they taught. SECT. 19. Contains a particular account of our Saviour's passion, adapted to prove that he did not die as a mere man (xviii. 1. xix. 42.); and also of his resurrection, in opposition to those who denied that he was risen. (xx. 1—29.) Si. The apprehension of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. (xviii. 1-11.) § ii. His mock trial before the high-priest, in the house of Caiaphas, and Peter's denial of him there. (xviii. 12-27.) iii. The accusation of Christ before Pilate the Roman governor, who having in vain attempted to rescue him from the envy of the Jews, scourged him, and delivered him to be crucified. (xviii. 28-40. xix. 1-16. former part of the verse.) § iv. Narrative of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. (xix. 16. latter part of the verse, to v. 37.) § v. The burial of Christ by Joseph of Arimathea. (xix. 38-42.) § vi. The resurrection (xx. 1-10.), and Christ's appearances, first to Mary (11-18.), and, secondly, to the disciples on the same day. (19-23.) $ vii. Christ's appearance eight days after to his disciples, Thomas being present. (24-29.) PART III. contains an Account of the Person of the Writer of this Gospel, and of his design in writing it. (xx. 30, 31. xxi.) SECT. 1. Comprises a declaration of the end which Saint John had in view in composing his Gospel; viz. that his readers might be convinced that Jesus is THE CHRIST the Son of God (xx. 31.); and consequently that the tenets and notions of Cerinthus were altogether false and heretical. In this section is related Christ's appearance to his disciples at the sea of Tiberias, and his discourse to the apostle Peter. (xxi. 81-19.) SECT. 2. Relates to the evangelist John himself; `Christ checks Peter's curiosity concerning his death. (xxi. 20-23.) The conclusion. (24, 25.) This section seems to have been added, as a confutation of the opinion entertained by some, that Saint John was not to die:-an opinion which might have weakened his authority, if he had suffered it to pass unrefuted. Besides refuting the errors of Cerinthus and his followers, Michaelis is of opinion that John also had in view to confute the erroneous tenets of the Sabeans, a sect which claimed John the Baptist for its founder. He has adduced a variety of terms and phrases, which he has applied to the explanation of the first fourteen verses of John's Gospel in such a manner as renders his conjecture not improbable. Perhaps we shall not greatly err if we conclude with Rosenmüller, Washing the feet (as we have seen in the early part of this volume) was commonly, in the eastern countries, the first kindness shown to a traveller, who was to be hospitably received (Gen. xviii. 4. xix. 2. xliii. 24.): whence it came to be used for hospitality in general. (1 Tim. v. 10.) When our Saviour therefore washed the feet of his disciples, and taught them to condescend in like manner to their inferiors, it amounted to the same thing as if he had instituted and established the law of hospitality among all his future followers. Now, as strangers are the objects of this law, and not persons who live in the same community, it was indeed, in the strictest sense, a NEW commandment to them, who thought it their duty "to avoid those of another nation." (Acts x. 28.) Michaelis, vol. iii. pp. 285-302. |