ing to Clement, St. John, observing that in the other Gospels those things were related which concern the humanity of Christ, wrote a spiritual Gospel, in order to explain at full length the divinity of Christ. Now this made a part of St. John's design, but not the whole of it: for his object was not to prove the divinity of Christ in general, but to prove it in opposition to the tenets of a particular sect, Eusebius on the contrary relates, that St. John's intention was to supply what his predecessors had omitted concerning the first part of Christ's ministry, their accounts having been chiefly confined to the last year. But this is not probable: for St. John in his account even of the latter part of Christ's ministry, especially of the celebration of the Lord's supper, has related facts and speeches of the utmost importance, which are not recorded by the three first Evangelists. In short, I cannot be persuaded that the materials contained in St. John's Gospel, in addition to those contained in the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, whether they respect the former or the latter part of Christ's ministry, were intended by St. John as a mere historical supplement. That it was not his design to record even all the miracles, which Christ had performed, is evident from what he himself says, ch. xx. 30. xxi. 25. and therefore, though his Gospel contains a considerable quantity of very important matter, of which no mention is made in the three first Gospels, yet this matter was introduced with a different view, from that of merely supplying the defects of his predecessors. If this had been his sole, or even his principal object, he would not have passed over in silence the whole history of Christ's early life, of which, as I observed in the preceding section, he had the best opportunity of procuring information: nor would he have neglected to confirm by his own testimony the account of Christ's transfiguration on the mount, his agony in the garden, and other important events, at which St. John was present, but St, Matthew was not. However it is far from my intentions to assert, that St. John intended no part of his Gospel as a supplement to the preceding Gospels: I mean only that this was not his sole or his principal object. A very different opinion from that of Clement and Eusebius has been advanced by Lampe, and defended by Lardner. According to this opinion, St. John's principal object was to convince the unbelieving Jews, and, in case they refused their assent, to prove to them the justice of the divine punishment which awaited them, on the ground that they had ample means of conviction. But it is very improbable that St. John's view was so confined: and therefore, as the Apostle himself has no where given the smallest intimation that this was his particular object, I can see no reason for supposing it. If his Gospel had been directed against the Jews in particular, he would hardly have omitted Christs prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, and his lamentation over the impending fate of that devoted city. It is true that St. John says, ch. xx. 31. 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.' But the purport expressed in this passage was the general purport of all the Evangelists, not that of St. John alone: nor does it appear from any thing which St. John had said, that in writing this sentence he had in view the Jews in particular. Many other extracts are made by Lardner from St. John's Gospel, which, I grant, are applicable to the Jews only but extracts of the very same kind might be made from the three other Gospels, and therefore if they prove any thing, they will prove too much. Besides, if many other passages were contained in St. John's Gospel, which were applicable to the Jews, and to the Jews only, we could not argue from them to the inain In the Prolegomena to his Commentary. Supplement, Vol. I. p. 393-419. object of the Apostle in writing his Gospel. The passage quoted by Lardner from John xii. 37-43. appears especially to favour his opinion. But if in this particular passage St. John's attention was directed against the Jews, we must not therefore conclude the same of the whole Gospel. However, I much doubt whether St. John, even in this instance, intended to write against the Jews, in the sense which Lardner means: for it seems to be nothing more than an answer to an objection founded on the Jewish rejection of Christ's miracles. The Apostle had probably heard the following argument brought against the truth of the evangelical history: If so many miracles had been performed, as is pretended, and that too in so public a manner, it is inconceivable how the Jews could refuse to believe, after they had seen those miracles with their own eyes. If it were true that a person really dead was restored to life in the presence of many witnesses, and in a village, which was only a mile and an half from Jerusalem, it must have been known to the whole city; and the ne-. cessary consequence would have been, that the Jews would have acknowledged the person, who could perform such miracles, to be the Messiah, whom they expected. But since the contrary is true, the wonders related by Christ's disciples are entitled to no credit.' An objection of this kind St. John probably intended to answer, when he wrote the passage in question. He admits that the incredulity of the Jews might afford just matter of surprize: but he denies that any inference can be deduced from it, prejudicial to the credibility of the Gospel history. For the prophets had foretold that their eyes would be blinded, and their hearts hardened and therefore as they were incapable of conviction, their rejection of Jesus could afford no proof that he was not the Messiah. St. John however adds that many were really convinced in their hearts, and that only the fear of expulsion from the synagogue deterred them from an open confession. SECTION III. St. John wrote his Gospel to confute the Errors of IRENEUS, the earliest writer, who has made any mention of St. John's design in writing his Gospel, has given the following account in his third book against Heresies, ch. xi. Hanc fidem annuntians Joannes Domini discipulus, volens per Evangelii annuntiationem auferre eum, qui a Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibus, errorem, et multo prius ab his qui dicuntur, Nicolaitæ, qui sunt vulsio ejus, quæ falso cognominatur scientia, et confunderet eos, et suaderet, quoniam unus Deus, qui omnia fecit per verbum suum; et non, quemadmodum illi dicunt, alterum quidem fabricatorem, alium autem Patrem Domini.' Jerom likewise in his treatise of illustrious men, asserts, that St. John wrote against Cerinthus. Now, setting aside the assertion of Jerom, which I will consider only as private opinion, I think the account given by Irenæus of sufficient weight to prove that St. John wrote against Cerinthus, notwithstanding the conjectures, which may be made to the contrary. For Irenæus is not only the most ancient writer on this subject, but was a disciple of Polycarp, who was personally acquainted with St. John. Consequently Irenæus had the very best means of information on this subject. Lardner has quoted another passage from the works of Irenæus, which appears to be at variance with the passage quoted in the preceding paragraph. Namely, in the sixteenth chapter of the third book against heresies Irenæus says, 'Quemadmodum Joannes Domini discipulus confirmat dicens, "Hæc autem scripta sunt ut credatis quoniam Jesus est filius Dei, et ut Supplement, Vol. I. p. 383. credentes vitam æternam habeatis in nomine ejus :" providens has blasphemas regulas, quæ dividunt Dominum, quantum ex ipsis attinet, ex altera et altera substantia dicentes eum factum.' Now if Irenæus here meant to say, that St. 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 quoted in the preceding paragraph, that St. John wrote against the errors, which had been propagated by Cerinthus. But the contradiction is only apparent for providens signifies here, not foreseeing' but guarding aguinst.' The latter passage therefore, when properly explained, does not confute but confirm the former. Besides, St. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy speaks of Gnostic errors; and therefore they must have been propagated long before St. John wrote his Gospel. 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 St. 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 St. 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 fourteen first verses of St. 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 respect |