with the profession of the writer, that he was an Apostle?

1. The representation which it gives of the person of our Lord is some proof of

the mother of the Lord, and she was committed to his care. He is the only disciple mentioned, beside the women; and therefore the only one to whom, according to the narrative, the testimony concerning this. Though quite consistent with the the death of Jesus could be referred. The picture drawn by the other Evangelists, it name of the disciple whom Jesus loved, to is different. The incidents added to the whose care Mary was entrusted, could not life of Christ, by the apocryphal Gospels be unknown, and would surely be given, if are plainly human inventions; and the the writer and this disciple were not the views they offer of his character only obsame person. In three other passages scure and disfigure it. But wherein this mention is made of the disciple whom Gospel differs from the writings of the other Jesus loved, and in all there is the same Evangelists, it is only by the more intiproof that the writer refers to himself, ac- mate and complete knowledge which it cepting the description given to him by shows. The writer says that he beheld his brethren. The name could not be the glory of Christ,* and his work maniomitted from ignorance, and the use of a fests this; for the portrait could be drawn description instead of a proper name when only by one who beheld the Divine origithe names of the other Apostles are given, nal. Think of his sympathy with family would be unnatural and unaccountable, if joys at the wedding feast, and with family the writer were not himself the disciple sorrows at the funeral of a friend; of his whom Jesus loved. He to whom Peter compassion in removing sickness, and supspoke in the Last Supper, who ran with plying food; and of his exercise of miracuPeter to the tomb, and who was the first lous power only as a means for promoting to recognize the Lord, when again with that faith which releases from sin, and gives Peter in the boat, could not be an unknown new life to the soul. Remember his pridisciple. The description and the associa- mary regard for Jews, and his equal love tion point only to St. John.* This is ad- of Gentiles, his human weakness and mitted by adverse critics. One of the tenderness, sitting wearied at the well, most learned says: "It is plain that the weeping with the mourners, troubled by the author meant his work to be taken for the wickedness of a disciple; and then his DiApostle's. It was composed in a way to vine dignity, when meekly remonstrating convey the impression that it proceeded with an enraged people, and calmly reprovfrom an Apostle especially beloved by ing unjust judges. Consider his diligence the Master, and admitted to his secret in active service, his prudence in avoiding thoughts." Then we say, it is what it pro-needless danger, his readiness to suffer fesses to be. Such indications of an as- when the time came, his constant acknowlsumed personality are unparalleled. One edgment of dependence on the Father who so truthful as this writer, so full of faith sent Him, whose work He did, whose glory and reverence, could not falsely pretend to He sought, to whose will He submitted; be an eye-witness, and to be the Apostle and then the declaration of his authority John. It is quite impossible. The last over all mankind, to teach, to govern, and two verses of the book do not appear to to save. Observe his solitariness, as sepahave been written by the Evangelist. rate from sinners, above the comprehenThey give, with a change of number and sion and sympathy of his disciples, alone person, the testimony of a contemporary in a world of darkness, and disorder, and who deemed it enough to say that the wrong; and then his confidence that the writer of the Gospel was the beloved dis-light which came from Him would enciple, and that his testimony was true.

II.

Does the character of the work agree

xiii, 24; xx. 2; xxi. 7. The association is the

same in the other two passages, and the absence of the description is easily explained. The companion of Andrew is not separately referred to, and the companion of Peter, when they went together to the palace, is appropriately described as an acquaintance of the High Priest (i. 41; xviii 16). Additional confirmation may be found in the absence of the distinguishing title, the Baptist, when the prophet John is mentioned in the description of Salome,

his mother, as the sister of Mary and in the position of the sons of Zebedee, after the other Apostles (xix. 25; xxi. 2).

lighten the world; that his disciples. in the strength imparted by Him, would overcome the world; that they would all be raised by Him to the glory of the sons of God; that his self-sacrificing love would draw all hearts to Him in willing subjection; that by purity and patience He should accomplish the Father's purpose, being the Lamb of God, to take away the sins of the world. Could the portrait, of which this is a feeble outline, be given by any but an Apostle? It is the only sup

i. 14.

plement to the other Gospels which does | ferred to, there is perfect agreement, not dishonour Christ. It alone declares but entire independence. The differences more fully the glory of the Lord.

which are manifest in every part show 2. The special aim of this Gospel is a that the writer never copied from the further proof of its apostolic origin. The other evangelists, and never cared for congeneral design is declared at the close of sistency with them. But in these differthe twentieth chapter; and this is the ences there are no contradictions. They same for all the Gospels. The peculiarity have been often asserted, but never proved. of this book is, that it is evidently intended Inferences from the various accounts are to produce that form of Christian faith contrary, and this is all. But that plauswhich must first have been received by an ible inferences from partial evidence should Apostle, and which in Christians of after be disproved by further evidence is the times may be generally attributed, more or common experience of every day; it is so less, to the influence of this book. A lov-in all judicial, scientific, and historical ining trust in the person of Jesus Christ is vestigations. That St. John should give the characteristic of the writer, and the his testimony, independently of the other promotion of this faith appears to be his Evangelists, is what might be expected of constant aim. All that is recorded serves him; but that any Christian writer of a to declare and illustrate the character of later age should compose a work merely the Son of God, as coming from the Fath- from fancy or tradition, sometimes relater to draw men to Himself by love and ing the same and sometimes different things, goodness. Evidently, the writer of this aud that the accounts should fit into one book had a strong personal affection for another so that there should be no real Jesus Christ; and so had the other Apos- inconsistency, but perfect harmony - this tles, with one exception. Whatever their is a supposition on every account unreadeficiencies and faults, they loved and sonable. The agreement of narratives that trusted Him; not his words, nor his works, are independent, but complementary, is so much as Himself. The other Evangel- among the surest proofs of genuineness. ists relate discourses which refer to de- Even more conclusive is the evidence aftails of duty, and the diversities of men's forded by the consistency of independent condition; but, according to this Evangel- delineations of character, when that charist, the knowledge of Christ comprehends acter is absolutely unique. No accident or the principles of all duty, and is sufficient skill could produce the formal difference for all classes. Faith in Him renders other and essential agreement which we see motives to right conduct of less import- when the representation of Jesus Christ ance. They are the lower teaching which here given is compared with that of the others can give who are not Apostles. other Gospels. There is the same combiThe holy love of the Saviour of the world nation of the natural and supernatural, is here shown, as only an Apostle could the national and the universal, the human declare it a love, Divine and human, and the Divine. sympathizing with human joys and sorrow 3, but ever seeking to remove sin; patiently enduring the opposition of men, in the assurance of an appointed service, according to the will and for the glory of the Father. The other Gospels give more fully the earthly life of our Lord; here the results of this knowledge are declared as the consequences of the past and the effects of the present life of Him who is ever the same, exalted above the heavens, but present by his Spirit, the power of an endless life, in the hearts of all who know

and love Him.

3. The peculiar relation of the fourth Gospel to the other three is additional evidence of its authenticity. That it came after the others is universally allowed; but that it belongs to the age of the Apostles appears from the similarity of its style, statements, and spirit. Where the events related in the other Gospels are re

4. That this work was not written, as some suppose, in the middle of the second century, appears from the entire absence of all marks of that time. Can it be sup posed that the writer carefully abstained from using the terms and alluding to the opinions of his own age—that he removed himself altogether from its influence, so that there should be no sign of the thoughts and practices of men around him? No truthful person would aim at this, and the most skilful would fail. Every literary production, treating of matters of great present personal interest, is sure to betray itself, if not genuine, by manifesting the spirit of its age, by supporting or opposing, directly or indirectly, the views and sentiments of the time. There is an immense difference between the books of the New Testament and all the Christian literature of the next century. Now the Gospel of St. John has all

the characteristics of the one class and of other countries and times avoid difficult none of the other. The second century and dangerous details, or they are sure to was distinguished from the first by meta- be exposed by the inconsistencies and inphysical discussions respecting the nature accuracies which always mark traditionary of Christ, by the unsettled claims of legends and literary impostures. The hoschurch officers, and by the peculiar efficacy tile criticisms to which this Gospel has attributed to the sacraments. Of these been subjected, make more manifest its controversies there is in this Gospel no truth. sign. The many strange speculations of the second century respecting the mysteries of the Divine Nature are not referred to in any way. The teaching of this Gospel is evidently prior to the heresies which then arose, and to the forms of expression then adopted by many orthodox writers. The reading in the epistle, "The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit," is shown to belong to a later age by the use of unscriptural correlatives. And so the reading in the introduction of the Gospel, "The only begotten God," is manifestly the phraseology of the Fathers. Nothing like it is to be found in the writings of St. John, or anywhere in the New Testament or the Old.*

The organization of the Church, and the authority of its officers, were in the second century subjects of much interest, and became in the following the occasions of much controversy. Here they are not referred to. The Apostles are described as witnesses for Christ; this was their glory; and it is said that the results of their ministry, when they received the Spirit of Christ, would be like his-the sins of some being removed, and the sins of others retained. This is all that is said of Church government.†

As little reference is made to the sacraments. Neither the institution of Christian baptism nor of the Communion service is noticed. There are two figurative passages often appealed to as showing the peculiar nature and necessity of these rites; but the proof depends entirely on the incongruous interpretation of metaphors. The statements of the third and sixth chapters, whatever their sense, certainly are not such as a writer of the second century would introduce, not if he wished to support the doctrines of spiritual birth by the water of baptism, and of spiritual sustenance by the bread of priestly consecration; nor if he wished to oppose these opinions

Lastly, there are none of the mistakes respecting places, seasons and persons, which might be expected in a writer of the second century. They who invent tales

That any writer of the second century should be able to give, with perfect acccuracy, a large number of particulars respecting a former age, a different people and country, is one improbability. Then that he should avoid all indications of his own age is another improbability. That, being a truthful Christian, he should wish to conceal his distanc from the events related, and to represent himself as an eyewitness, even the Apostle John, is another separate improbability. That he should give a view of the person of Christ, surpassing in human tenderness and Divine dignity that of the other Evangelists, and more conducive to Christian comfort and improvement than any other book, this is another improbability, That it should differ so much from the other Gospels, and agree so well, is another. But all these combined improbabilities must be accepted, if we take this Gospel to be the composition, honest or dishonest, of any Christian of the second century, or of any one but the Apostle. To all these two further improbabilities must be added—that the writer of such a work should he always in what is called miraculous concealment; and that within thirty or forty years of its composition, it should be received by Christians of distant countries and conflicting parties as of apostolical authority, a work the genuineness of which was above controversy.

The evidences to which we have primarily referred, the profession of the writer, and the confirmations found in his work, are evidenees which all readers can understand and feel. We may therefore consider the common belief of Christians, in all subsequent ages, as resting mainly on this foundation, and declaring its sufficiency. Few could know anything of ancient testimonies; and works supported only by early traditions were soon neglected. The faith that rests merely on tradition can only have the value of the primary authorities, and becomes feebler with the lapse of time. But that which rests on the moral character of a writer and his work becomes firmer the longer it lasts, every generation setting its seal to the judgment of those which preceded. We do not believe merely because of what we see, nor

aration day, and the hour as the sixthnot the sixth, or near to this, but like it, taken for it. The sixth hour was the usual time for closing the courts, and the third the usual time for opening them. But the trial began at dawn-three hours before the usual time—and this was that it might end earlier, because of the coming Sabbath. The dawn had been taken as the third hour, and therefore the third hour was as the sixth; and sentence was pronounced. The narrative of St. John shows that the Crucifixion was in the early part of the day, and proves that he did not put the sentence so late as the middle of the day.*

be said, that the alleged discrepancy arises of the time of Pilate's sentence. Before from taking one meaning of ambiguous describing the close of the judicial proceedterms, moxa and napaokevʼn when another ings, he notices that the day was the prepis equally supported by usage, and better suits the connection. The other evangelists state that the first meal of the Passover festival preceded the Crucifixion, and St. John is supposed to state that it followed. Now St. John states that before the Passover-before the Supper with which the festival began - Jesus gave some peculiar manifestation of his love to the Apostles; and He did this by washing their feet.* After the Supper, He was thought to give direction respecting some other meals and sacrifices of the festival.t The priests who went to Pilate, wishing to share in such services, would not defile themselves by entering the residence of a Gentile. In the New Testament, besides this passage, the expression, "to eat the Passover," occurs only in reference to one event the Last Supper of our Lord. They who ate the lamb on the evening of the first day of the festival were said to eat the Passover. But so it might be said of those who afterwards shared also in the other sacrificial meals of the festival. In the Old Testament other sacrificial meals are called the Passover, and to eat of these is said to be to eat the festival.§ On the preparation day which belonged to the festival - the day before the Sabbath Jesus was condemned and crucified. The testimony of St. John agrees exactly with that of the other Evangelists; for he does not say, as is usually supposed, that the Supper was before the festival, but that the manifestation of the love of Christ was before the festival; and He washed the disciples' feet before the evening meal with which the festival began. His direction was supposed to be for the next morning. In the same day, not in the following, the priests wished to share in the sacrifices of the festival. In the festival, and not before it¶ Barabbas was released, and Jesus condemned.**

---

3. Other ambiguities have given rise to other apparent contradictions. To know a person may denote a general acquaintance, or some particular knowledge. If the statement of the prophet John,† "I knew Him not," be taken in the former sense, it is contrary to the sense of St. Matthew; but if in the latter, it is quite consistent. The prophet had given this testimony," Behold the Lamb of God, who beareth away the sin of the world." Of the design and source of this knowledge he speaks when he says, "I had not known Him, but that He might be manifest to Israel;" and again, "I had not known Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water, He told me."

In some connection Tarpis denote one's native country, but in others the town of one's family. The difficulty of the statement that Jesus went into Galilee, because a prophet has no honour in his own country, is removed by a more correct translation. Jesus went into the country of Galilee, because a prophet has no honour in the town of his family.§

In some connections pó refers to time, but in others to place, in front of, suggesting opposition. The difficulty of the statement, that all who preceded Jesus were thieves and robbers, is removed by the local interpretation which the connection requires. Jesus said, “I am the door for the sheep”—the door of the fold. They who came in front of me"- the door, stopping the way of the sheep" they are thieves and robbers". -even as they who did not enter by the door.||

66

So Epxera may mean either goes or comes,

Mark xv. 25; John xix. 14. Maimonides, quoted by Lightfoot on St. Mark; Horat Sat. i 9, 35; Mart Epig iv 8; Sueton. Claud. 34; Joseph Vit. 51. † i. 31. iii. 14. § iv. 44. # x 1. 8.