5. 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 Pussion-week,

vi. On the Passover-day.—that is, from Thursday evening to Friday (a) In the evening, Christ eats the Passover; institutes the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; discourses on humility; and foretells his being betrayed by Judas, his abandonment by his disciples, and (b) Towards night, after eating the Passover with his apostles, Jesus goes to the Mount of Olives; where, after being some time in an agony, he is apprehended. (xxii. 39-53.)

Peter's denial of him. (xxii. 14-38.)

(c) During the night, Christ having been conducted to the high-priest's house (whither Peter followed and denied him), is derided. (xxii. 51 -65.)

(d) At day-break on Friday morning, Christ is tried before the Sanhedrin (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 condeinned to be crucified. (13-25.)-2. Christ's discourse to the women of Jerusalem as he was led forth to be crucified. (26-31.)

(f) 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 circumstances xxiii. 44-49.)

(h) Between the ninth hour and sunset, Jesus Christ is interred by
Joseph of Arimathea. (xxiii. 50-56.)

SECT. 5. Transactions after Christ's resurrection on Easter
Day.

$i. Christ's resurrection testified to the woman by the angel. (xxiv. 1 $ii. Christ appears to two disciples in their way to Emmaus, and also to 5 iii. His appearance to the apostles, and his instructions to them. (xxiv.

Peter. (xxiv. 12-35.)'

36-49.)

SECT. 6. The ascension of Christ, and the apostles' return to
Jerusalem. (xxiv. 50-52.)

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

VIII. If Paul had not informed us (Col. iv. 14.) that Luke was by profession 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 verdict in the narrative part of his work. Thus he calls the Pharisees up, lovers of money (xvi. 14.); and in distinguishing Judas Iscariot from the other Judas, he uses the phrase is a vero corns, who also proved a traitor. (vi. 16.) Matthew (x. 4.) and Mark (iii. 19.) express the same sentiment 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. 59. edit. Bipont. This historian as pursued the same method in his life of Cæsar. Flori, Hist. Rom. lib. ii. c. 19. VOL. II.

2 R

| by Saint Luke in more animated language than is used by
him with questions on many points."
either of the rest (xi. 53.): "They began vehemently to press
And, on another occa-
sion, speaking of the same people, he says, that they were
filled with madness. (vi. 11.) Lastly, in the moral instruc-
tions given by our Lord, and recorded by this evangelist,
especially in the parables, no one has surpassed him in unit-
ing 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 manu In the Codex Vaticanus it scripts, editions, and versions. is simply azra larm, according to John; in many other MSS. and editions, Euzges To Hara wavy, the Gospel according to John, or to nara leeray (agor) Ever, the Gospel according to (Saint) John; in the Codex Beza, Agra Egg Ivy, the Gospel according to John beginneth. To omit minor variations in manuscripts of less ancient date,-in the Syriac version, in Bishop Walton's Polyglott, this Gospel is entitled, "The Holy Gospel, the preaching of St. John, which he 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 Zebe dee, 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 apμar and r, in our version rendered unlearned and ignorunt 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.*

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, SchoTest. vol. ii pp. 213–220. Bp. Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. part i. pp. 28– 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 261. Rumpai, Comm. Crit. in Libros Nov. Test. pp. 81. 88. Bishop Cleaver's Discourse on the Style of St. Luke's Gospel, in his Sermons, pp. 209–224. Svu. Oxford, 1503.

he thinks are three degrees in the call of Saint John to be a follower of 4 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 Prolegoin. cap. ii. pp 17-21.

And Mark, in enumerating the twelve apostles (iii. 17.), in the year 68; Dr. Owen in 69; Michaelis in 70. But when he mentiors James and John, says that our Lord "sur- Chrysostom and Epiphanius, among the ancient fathers, and named them Beanerges, which is, sons of thunder," from Dr. Mill, Fabricius, Le Clerc, and Bishop Tomline, among which appellation we are not to suppose that they were of the moderns, refer its date, with greater probability, to the particularly fierce and ungovernable tempers (as Dr. Cave year 97, Mr. Jones to the year 98, and Berthold to the last has conjectured); but, as Dr. Lardner and others have ob- decad of the first century. The principal argument for its served, it is rather to be considered as prophetically represent- early date is derived from John v. 2., where the apostle says, ing the resolution and courage with which they would openly" Now there is at Jerusalem, by the sheep-market, a pool, which and boldly declare the great truths of the Gospel when fully is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.' acquainted with them. How appropriate this title was, the From these words it is urged, that Jerusalem was standing Acts of the Apostles and the writings of John abundantly when they were written; and that if they had been written show.2 From the time when John and his brother received after the destruction of Jerusalem, the evangelist would have their immediate call from Christ, they became his constant used the past tense instead of the present, and would have attendants; they heard his discourses, and beheld his mira- said, There was at Jerusalem a pool, &c. But this argument cles; and, after previous instruction, both public and private, is more specious than forcible; for, though Jerusalem was they were honoured with a selection and appointment to be demolished, it does not necessarily follow that the pool of of the number of the apostles. Bethesda was dried up. On the contrary, there are much stronger reasons for supposing that it escaped the general devastation; for, when Vespasian ordered the city to be demolished, he permitted some things to remain for the use of the garrison which was to be stationed there; and he would naturally leave this bathing-place, fitted up with recesses or porticoes for shade and shelter, that he might not deprive the soldiers of a grateful refreshment. Now, since the evangelist's proposition may simply regard Bethesda, we cannot be cer tain that it looks further, or has any view to the state of Je rusalem. The argument, therefore, which is deduced from the above passage in favour of an early date, is inconclusive. But, besides this argument, we have strong evidence from the contents and design of the Gospel itself, that it was not written until the year 97. It is evident, as Bishop Tomline has forcibly remarked, that the evangelist considers those to whom he addresses his Gospel as but little acquainted with Jewish customs and names; for he gives various explanations which would be unnecessary, the persons for whom he wrote were conversant with the usages of the Jews." Similar explanations occur in the Gospels of Mark and Luke; but in this of John they are more marked, and occur more frequently. The reason of which may be, that when John wrote, many more Gentiles, and of more distant countries, had been converted to Christianity; and it was now become necessary to explain to the Christian church, thus extended, many circumstances which needed no explanation while its members belonged only to the neighbourhood of Judæa, and while the Jewish polity was still in existence. It is reasonable to suppose that the feasts and other peculiarities of the Jews would be but little understood by the Gentiles of Asia Minor, thirty years after the destruction of Jerusalem.

What the age of John was at this time, his history does not precisely ascertain. Some have conjectured that he was then twenty-two years old; others that he was about twentyfive or twenty-six years of age; and others again think that he was about the age of our Saviour. Dr. Lardner is of opinion that none of the apostles were much under the age of thirty, when they were appointed to that important office. Whatever his age might have been, John seems to have been the youngest of the twelve, and (if we may judge from his writings) to have possessed a temper singularly mild, amiable, and affectionate. He was eminently the object of our Lord's regard and confidence; and was, on various occasions, admitted to free and intimate intercourse with him, so that he was characterized as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." (John xiii. 23.) Hence we find him present at several scenes, to which most of the other disciples were not admitted. He was an eye-witness, in company with only Peter and James, to the resurrection of Jairus's daughter to life, to our Saviour's transfiguration on the mount, and to his agony in the garden. John repaid this attention by the most sincere attachment to his master; for, though, in common with the other apostles, he had betrayed a culpable timidity in forsaking him during his last conflict, yet he afterwards recovered his firmness, and was the only apostle who followed Christ to the place of his crucifixion. He was also present at the several appearances of our Saviour after his resurrection, and has given his testimony to the truth of that miraculous fact; and these circumstances, together with his intercourse with the mother of Christ (whom our Saviour had commended to his care) (xix. 26, 27.), qualified him, better than any other writer, to give a circumstantial and authentic history of Jesus Christ.

In one of our Saviour's interviews with his apostles, after nis 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

Cave's Life of St. James the Great, § 5. p. 142.

Lampe, Comment. in Evangelium Johannis Prolegom. cap. i. pp. 21-30. 3 See particularly Acts iii. iv. 1-22. and viii. 5-26.

4 Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 156-170.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 212-220. Michaels, vol. ii. part i. pp. 273-271. Lampe, Proleg. in Joan. Evangel pp. 81-102. Jones on the Canon, vol. iii. PF. 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 heurer 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,12 Irenæus,13 Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch,15 Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Ammonius,18 Origen, 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. 5 i.

6 Dr. Townson's Works, vol. i. p. 224. This conjecture is confirmed by

the fact, that Vespasian soon after erected magnificent public baths at Rome. Suetonius in Vespasiano, c. vil.

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. ii. pp. 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. i. p. 355.
12 Ibid. Svo. vol. ii. p. 150.; 4to. vol. i. p. 361.
13 Ibid. Svo. vol. ii. p. 161.; 4to. vol. i. p. 357.

14 Ibid. Svo. vol. ii. p. 183.; 4to, vol. i. p. 379.

15 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. p. 193.; 4to. vol. i. p. 351.

16 Ibid. Svo. vol. fi. pp. 212. 240.; 4to. vol. 1. pp. 305, 399.

17 Ibid. 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. Svo. vol. ii. pp. 469, 470.; 4to. vol. i. PP. 533, 534

20 Ibid. 8vo. vol. iv. pp. 225-227.; 4to. vol. ii. pp. 268 369.

See their several testimonies in Lardner's Works, evo. vel vi, på at -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.1

the seventh verse of John viii., where has the article prefixed. He that is without sin among you, let him first cas THE [not a stone, as in our authorized version] STONE at her› TON AIOON er' auta beer. The allusion, Bishop Middle ton remarks, is to the particular manner of stoning, which required that one of the witnesses (for two at the leas 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, in order to distinguish it from her 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 exxy 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.

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 V. The design of St. John in writing his Gospel was "to that the genuineness of the chapter in question was never convey to the Christian world just and adequate notions of doubted by any one of the ancient Christian writers. Finally, the real nature, character, and office of that great Teacher the style is precisely the same as that of the rest of his who came to instruct and redeem mankind. For this purpose, Gospel.3 he studiously selected, for his narrative, those passages of Some doubts have been entertained concerning the genuine- our Saviour's life, which most clearly displayed his divine ness of the portion of this Gospel comprised between ch. power and authority: and those of his discourses, in which vii. 53. and viii. 1–11. Its authenticity has been questioned he spoke most plainly of his own nature, and of the efficacy by Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Le Clerc, Wetstein, of his death, as an atonement for the sins of the world. The Semler, Schulze, Morus, Haenlein, Paulus, Schmidt, and object, which this evangelist had in view, is very clearly various other writers who are mentioned by Wolfius, and stated in chap. xx. verse 31. It was not to accumulate as by Koecher: Griesbach and Schulz have remarked it as a many instances as possible of the miraculous power exerte passage which ought probably to be omitted; and its genu- by Jesus; but only those, which most distinctly illustrated ineness has been advocated by Drs. Mill and Whitby, Bp. his peculiar office and nature: Many other signs truly did Miidleton, Heumann, Michaelis, Storr, Langius, Dettmers, Jesus, in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in Staeudlin, Kuinsel, and Dr. Bloomfield. The limits neces- this book. But THESE are written, that ye might believe that sarily prescribed to this section forbid us to enter into a Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye review of all that has been said on this subject; but it may might have life through his name. This expression seems to be permitted to remark that the evidence is in favour of the prove, that those persons are wrong, who suppose that St. genuineness of the passage in question. For, though it is John wrote his Gospel, merely to supply the defects and omis not found in several ancient versions, and is not quoted orsions of the other Evangelists. The real difference between illustrated by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Nonnus (who wrote them is, that they wrote a history of our Saviour's life; but commentaries or explanations of this Gospel), nor by Ter-St. John, of his person and office."8 tullian, 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 cor diversity of readings. If it had not been genuine, how could it have found its way into these manuscripts? Moreover, there is nothing in the paragraph in question that militates either against the character, sentiments, or conduct of Jesus Christ; on the contrary, the whole is perfectly consistent 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. lest 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.ing: viz. Dr. Bretschneider, in his Probabilia de Evangelii et Epistolarum Jo- 1. That Irenæus is at variance with himself: for in anhannis Apostoli Indole, et Origine. Syo. Lipsia, 1820. In justice to Dr. other passage he says, "as John the disciple of our Lord 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 assures us, saying, But these are written, that ye might believe declared himself satisfied concerning the genuineness of this passage. that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye (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 Philologica, in loc.
Koecheri Analecta, in loc.

Staeudlin, Prolusio quà Pericopa de Adulterâ, Joh. vii. 53. viii. 1—11., critas et Authentia defenditur. Gottinga, 1906, 4to.

rupt the Christian doctrine: the other motive was, that he might supply those important events in our Saviour's life. which the other evangelists had omitted. Respecting the former of these motives, Irenæus gives us the following account.9

"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 ac quaints 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 super celestial 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, Kuinoel, 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 follow

Kuinöel, Comment. in Libros Nov. Test, Historicos, pp. 379-396. Titt manni 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. 275–281., 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, • Irenæus adv. Hæres. lib. iii. c. 11.

SECT. 13. Jesus performs a signal miracle, by restoring Lazarus to life, after he had been dead four days,3 in the presence of a large number of people; which was attended with this pecu-whence it came to be used for hospitality in general. Tiin, v. 10.) When liar circumstance, that it was wrought after an express invocation of God, that he would apply it to the confirmation of