felf, as an eye-witneffe, who had been prefent at almost every thing, related by him in his hiftorie.

7. It is faid: "The three epiftles of St. John do ever suppose, the "Gospel of St. John to have been written long before, and to be well "known by thofe to whom he wrote. And they are written with a conftant view and regard to the contents of the fame Gospel." That is an argument (x) of Mr. Whifton, which, with what he adds by way of confirmation, is referred to the reader's confideration.

8. Some have argued for an early date of this Gospel, or at least, that it was writ before the Revelation. which was seen in Patmos, because (y) it is faid at the begining of that book, ch. i. 1. 2. . . . Who bare record of the word of God, and of the teftimonie of Jefus Chrift, and of all things, which he faw. They fuppofe, that therein St. John refers to his Gospel, and what he had writ in it. But to me the most reasonable account of those words appears to be that, which (z) was given formerly: That they are most properly understood of that very book, the Revelation, and the things contained in it. The writer there fays, very pertinently, in his introduction, that in that book he had discharged the office, affigned him having therein faithfully recorded the word of God, received from Jefus Chrift, and all the vifions, which he had seen.

9. Once more, it is argued from infcriptions, at the end of this Gofpel, in divers manufcripts, that it was writ before the deftruction of Jerufalem: it being there said, that this Gospel was writ in the time of Nero, at thirty years, or about two and thirty years after our Saviour's afcenfion. Upon these infifted (a) Mr. Wetflein in a paffage quoted from him fome while ago. Upon them likewife infifts (b) Mr. Lampe.

For my own part, I lay not any ftreffe at all upon these inscriptions, at the end of Greek, or Arabic, or other manuscripts of the New Testament, writ in the ninth, or tenth centurie, or later. They () are of

f(x) See his Commentarie upon St. John's three Catholic Epifles. p. 8. Sc..

no

) Ipfum porro audiamus Evangeliftam idem non obfcure, uti nobis videtur, fubindicantem, quando Apoc. i. 2. fe ita circumfcribit: as ipagróeno: Tòv λóyor Tÿ bee... Et verfu 9... Plurimi optimi interpretes in eo confentiunt, quod in his verbis ad Evangelium refpiciatur, licet in modo demonftrandi differant &c. Lamp. Prol. I. 2. cap. 2. §. viii.

(x) See Vol. iv. p. 703.

(a) See before p. 387.

(6) Accedit multarum gloffarum et verfionum in id confenfus, quod fub Nerone Evangelium fit exaratum. Licet enim authoritates hæ fequioris ævi fint, ob earum tamen frequentiam et harmoniam valde eft credibile, quod in antiquiori traditione fundatæ fint... Id tamen obfervavi difcrimen, ut quæ dam numero rotundo XXX poft Chrifti adfcenfionem, aliæ XXXII nominent. Lampe ibid. 1. 2. cap. 2. num. xii. Vid, et num. xiv.

(c) Neque ordo, qui nunc receptus eft epiftolarum, fequitur ordinem temporis, neque antiqua funt illa, quæ fub finem funt addita, ad fignificandum, unde et per quos miffæ funt... et illæ in fine annotatiunculæ feræ funt, ex conjectura, aut tenui fama. Grot. Comm. in loca quædam. N. T. fub in. Tom. 3. P. 457.

no authority. For there is no proof, that this account was derived from the teftimonie, or tradition of ancient authors. The early date of the Gospels was popular. Some having without reafon determined the time of writing the other Gofpels at eight, or ten, or fifteen years after our Lord's afcenfion, pitched upon the year 30. or 32. for the time of St. John's Gofpel. But it was done upon no other ground and foundation, but mere fanfie and conjecture.

X. It is upon the two first mentioned arguments, that I

chiefly relye. However, there are objections, which de- Objections.

ferve to be confidered.

1. Obj. Chryfoftom was of opinion, that St. John did not write, till after the deftruction of Jerufalen. For in a homilie upon Matth. xxiv. he fays: "John (d) writes not of any of these things, left it thould be "thought, that he took an advantage from the event. For he was "living a good while after the deftruction of Jerufalem. But the other "Evangelifts, who died before the deftruction of Jerufalem, and faw "none of those things, record these predictions."

To which I answer, that St. John's omitting our Saviour's predictions concerning the deftruction of Jerufalem, which are recorded by the other Evangelifts, is no proof, that he did not write, untill after they were fulfilled. For if he wrote at the time fuppofed by us, when that event was near; it is very likely, that he would omit thefe predictions: efpecially, having obferved, that they were fufficiently recorded already. And we plainly fee, that it is not St. John's method, to repeat what had been recorded before. However, he has inferted in his Gofpel divers expreffions, containing warnings and intimations of the miferies coming upon the Jewith People, if they did not receive the Lord Jefus as the Meffiah. John the Baptift may be supposed to intend this in words, recorded John iii. 36. Our Lord intimates it in his difcourse with Nicodemus. iii. 18. 19. and upon divers other occafions, already taken notice of by us, in this Gospel. ch. viii. 12. 21. 24. ix. 39. 41. xii. 35. 36.

2. Obj. Mr. Whiston in (e) his Short View of the Harmonie of the Evangelifts, fays, "that St. John ufeth the Roman or Julian begining of the day in his Gofpel, the fame that we ufe at prefent, and reckons the hours from midnight and noon. He refers to John i. 39. xix. 14. and xx. 19. Which he reckons an argument, that St. John wrote his Gofpel long after the deftruction of Jerufalem, and the period of the Jewish polity, at Ephefus, a place remote from Judea, and under the Roman government.'

ner.

To which I anfwer 1. It does not appear to me, that St. John computes the hours of the day after the Roman, but after the Jewish man2. Suppofing St. John to have used the Roman method of computation, it does not follow, that he wrote after the deftruction of Ferufalem, and the period of the Jewish polity. We allow, that St. John's Gospel was writ at Ephesus, at a distance from Judea. And, if he thought fit, he might use the Roman way of reckoning, efpecially, when the period

period of the Jewish commonwealth was near, though not quite accomplished.

Thus I have endeavoured to folve this objection. What was Mr. Whifton's own folution, I do not know. But I fuppofe, that he afterwards overcame this difficulty. For in his later writings he maintains a very different fentiment concerning the date of St. John's Gospel, pleading, that it was writ about the year of Chrift 63. a good while before the deftruction of ferufalem. So he argues in his Effay upon the Apoftolical Conftitutions, publifhed, in 1711. and in his Commentarie upon St. John's Epiftles, published in 1719. His Harmonie of the four Evangelifts was printed at Cambridge in the year 1702.

3. Obj. It is farther objected, that many ancient writers fpeak of a late date of St. John's Gospel, and that he wrote with a design to confute divers heretics: who cannot be fuppofed to have appeared, till after the deftruction of Jerufalem, and the overthrow of the Jewish People.

To which I answer, that this may have been owing to a mistaken apprehenfion. Many heretics, they faw, might be confuted by St. John's Golpel. Therefore they concluded, that he did not write, till after they had appeared in the world: whilft the truth might be no more than this, that fuch and fuch heretics might be confuted out of his Gospel though they had not appeared in the world, till long after. Paulinus fays, "that (f) in the begining of St. John's Gospel all here"tics are confuted, particularly, Arius, Sabellius, Photinus, Marchion, "and the Manicheans." And in Mr. Wetstein's preface to St. John's Gospel, writ not long ago, in our time, are thefe expreffions. Having before quoted Irenaeus, he adds: "Which (g) if they be compared "with thofe things, which Carpocrates, Menander, Cerdo, Saturninus, "Bafilides, Valentin, and Marchion, have faid of angels, and æons: • among whom were Charis Grace, Alethea Truth, Monogenes Only "begotten, Logos Word, Zoe Life: it must be manifeft, that John fo "oppofed his doctrine to them, as to ufe the forms of expreffion, re"ceived by them." Surely, this is very incautious, and inaccurate. Muft it not be fo, to fay, that St. John oppofed thofe heretics, most of which are heretics of the fecond centurie? If St. John's gofpel be genuine, it must have been writ before the end of the first centurie. Yea, Mr. Wetstein fays, it was writ at about two and thirty years after Christ's afcenfion. How then could St. John oppofe them, or write against them, but in the way of prophecie, or prevention? But to say, he oppofed his doctrine to them, or wrote against them, does not feem very proper. And if the ancient writers speak not more accuratly, than this Jearned modern; an argument taken from them, upon this head, cannot be of much weight.

(f) See Vol. xi. p. 44.

It

(g) Qua fi con parentur cum iis, quae Carpocrates, Menander, Cerdo, Saturninus, Bafilides, Valentinus, et Marcion de angelis et æonibus, inter quos erant Charis, Alethea, Monogenes, Logos, Zoe, item de Chrifto, non vere, fed dozou paffo, tradiderunt: fatis manifeftum erit, Joannem doctrinam fuam illis ita opponere, ut loquendi formulis apud illos receptis utatur. Waft. Teft, Gr. Tom. i. p. 832.

It is the teftimonie of Irenaeus, which ought principally to be regarded by us, upon account of his antiquity, and his having been acquainted with Polycarp in the early part of his life. He fays, as before tranfcribed, "that by the publication of his Gofpel John defigned to root "out the errour that had been fown among men by Cerinthus." But it is obfervable, that in another place, also tranfcribed above, he says: "John foreseeing thofe blafphemous notions, that divide the Lord, so "far as it is in their power," wrote his Gofpel. For this paffage I am indebted to Mr. Whifton, who argues, that St. John's Gospel was writ about the year 63. and before this Apoftle's three epiftles. "Nor, fays (b) he, fhall I need to fupport this obfervation from any other argument, than that from Irenaeus, who fuppofeth this Gofpel, and "St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, ancienter, and thefe epiftles later, than the rife of the herefie of Cerinthus." Referring to the paffage of Irenaeus, before taken notice of by us.

If then we put together the feveral paffages of Irenaeus, he does not contradict the fuppofition of an early date of St. John's Golpel: or, that it was writ before the rife of those herefies, which may be confuted by it.

It may be judged prefumptuous to oppofe the prevailing opinion of learned men, who have fuppofed, that fome heretics were particularly ftruck at in the begining of this Gofpel. Nevertheless Mr. Lampe (i) whom I have often quoted, has prefumed to oppose this opinion, and has largely argued, that St. John did not write against Cerinthus, or other heretics in his Gofpel. And though another learned German (k) has fince writ against Mr. Lampe, I cannot fay, that he has confuted

hiin.

I fhall therefore take the liberty of mentioning fome thoughts relating to this matter, which offer themselves to my mind.

Firft: To me it feems below an Evangelift, to write against heretics in the hiftorie of his Lord and Mafter. Nor do any of the Evangelifts enter into a particular account of things after our Lord's afcenfion. St. John proceeds no farther than his refurrection, and the evidences of it, without particularly mentioning his afcenfion. Nor has St. Matthew proceeded any farther. However, undoubtedly, it is implied in what they write, that our Lord was raised up to an endless life, and to univerfal

(b) Commentarie upon St. John's epistles. p. 8.

(i) Nos ut falva, quam viris magnis, . . . debemus, exiftimatione, libere animi fenfa proferamus, an Evangelio fuo Joannes controverfiam tractare, hæreticofque in Ecclefia fui ævi ullos refutare voluerit, dubitamus admodum. Neque enim id titulus generalis Evangelii libro præfixus admittit, neque id commode per librum ad methodum hiftoriæ compofitum fieri potuit, neque illius rei vel vola vel veftigium ullum apparet: quod tamen et fcriptoribus elenchticis in more conftanti pofitum eft, et e re admodum erat, ut eo certius tela ferirent, et eo evidentius argumentorum patefceret robur. Lampe Prolegom. in Joann. 1. 2. cap. 3. num. xiii. Vid. ib. num. xiv. xv. xvi. et Jeg.

(k) G. L. Oederus de fcopo Evangelii S. Fo. Ap. certiffime Hærefi Cerinthi et Ebionis oppofiti. Adverfus V. C. Fr. Ad. Lampe. Lipfia 1732.

CH. IX. verfal power in heaven and on earth. St. Mark ch. xvi. 19. and St. Luke xxiv. 50. 51. relate our Saviour's afcenfion to heaven.

This has oftentimes appeared to me exceeding remarkable, that none of the Evangelifts fhould in their Gofpels give an account of the preaching of the Apostles after our Lord's afcenfion, and the defcent of the Holy Ghoft upon them. Take the earliest date of the Gofpels, that can be thought of, or affigned by any all must allow, that before any of them were writ, many miracles had been performed by the Apostles, and many converts muft have been made from among Jews, if not alfo from among Gentils and many promifes of our Lord muft have been accomplished. And we can perceive from their Gofpels, that they had a knowledge of fuch things. Nevertheless there is no particular account of them in any of the Gofpels. St. Mark is the only Evangelift, that has faid any thing in his Gospel of the ministrie of the Apostles. And he enters not into any detail. His whole account is in a few words only, the laft verfe of his Gofpel.

Confidering this method of all the Evangelifts in their hiftories of our Lord and Saviour, it appears to me probable, that though St. John had not writ his Gospel before the year 96. or 97. as fome have fuppofed; he would not have taken notice of heretics, or vouchfafed to argue with them. St. John did not write the hiftorie of the Apostles, as is evident. How then could he take notice of heretics.

Secondly. Another thing of no fmall moment is this. I fee nothing of this kind in the rest of St. John's Gofpel. Why (?) then fhould we imagine, that there is any fuch thing in the introduction? If St. John's Gospel is not writ against heretics, why fhould the begining of it be so? What St. John fays in the introduction, appears to me agreeable to the main defign of his Gofpel, as it has been before largely reprefented. He therein fhews, that Jefus came, and acted by the authority of God, the Creator of the world, the God, and fupreme Lawgiver of the Jewish People. The (m) eternal word, reafon, wifdom, power of God, which is God himself, by which the world had been made, by which he dwelled among the Jews in the tabernacle, and the temple, dwelled,

(1) Ex quibus clare, ut putamus, patet, in prologo compendium contineri rerum, quas Evangelifta toto Evangelio demonftrare volebat, nempe Iefum non tantum effe Filium Dei et redemtorem mundi. Ver. 1. 4. Sed etiam qua talem ita plene in mundo demonftratum effe, ut ab una parte Judæi plane rediti fuerint ávamoλoyntol. ver. 4. . . 11. ab altera autem fideles fufficiens fidei firmamentum acceperint. ver. 12... 18. Lamp. Prol. I. 2. cap. 4. num.

xxv.

(m) Quæris veram hujus nominis interpretationem, de qua variæ exftant eruditorum virorum fententiæ? Non vindico mihi ejus rei arbitrium: tantum, quod hic fentio, modefte, falva diffentientium exiftimatione et amici. tia, profero. Vertendum efe hoc nomien Ratio, vel Sapientia Dei: etfi receptam phrafim Sermonis Dei, in verfione retinendam cenfuerim. . . Conftat cuique, prologum Evangelii legenti, alludere Joannem in toto illo prologo.. ad caput octavum Proverbiorum Salomonis,. . . ut proinde talem eligere oporteat interpretationem, quæ affinis fit voci Sapientia. Vitring. in Apoc. cap. xix. ver. 13. p. 1109.