but if I will, that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ?" If by Christ's coming be here intended the overthrow of Jerusalem, as many think, it may be supposed reasonable by some to expect, that St. John should have taken some notice of it here, if he wrote after that event. Nevertheless, I humbly apprehend, that this is not an argument of much weight. I do not think, that as an evangelist he was obliged to give an account of the fulfilment of Christ's prediction, though he had been a witness of it.

6. "This is the disciple that testifieth these things, and wrote these things. And we know that his testimony is true." By these last words Mr. Lampe supposed to be meant some Jews, then living in Asia, who were eye-witnesses of our Lord, and his ministry: which might well be, if St. John's gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem but would not be reckoned likely, if it was written not before the year of the vulgar epoch 97, or 98. They who confirm the testimony of another, ought to have the same certain knowledge of the thing testified, as he who speaks, or writes. But after the destruction of Jerusalem, it is not reasonable to think, there were many to bear witness to things done forty or fifty years before. These Jews, eye-witnesses of our Lord, Mr. Lampe supposeth to have been believers of that nation, who accompanied John into Asia, when he left Judea.

I have thought it proper, not to omit this argument of that learned writer: but it depends upon his interpretation of this verse; which is not certain. For some have supposed, that it is the church of Ephesus, which here speaks: and others think it to be St. John himself. The change of number and person, of we for I, is no valid objection. So 1 John i, 1-5, "That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes."-3 epist. 12, “ Yea, and we also bear record, and ye know that our record is true." And St. Paul, 1 Thess. ii. 18, " Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us. Chrysostom and Theophylacts understood St. John

99

Ibid. 1. 2. cap. 2. num. ix.

66

d Et scimus.'] Loquitur

ecclesia Ephesina. Scimus,' aiunt, fide dignum,' ex vitæ scilicet puritate, et miraculis ab eo editis. Grot, in loc. eThe evangelist had 'said before, ch. xix. 35. "He knoweth, that he says true." Here in this 'place he changeth the person, saying: "We know, that his testimony is 'true.' Lightfoot upon John xxi. 24. Vol. II. p. 627. See likewise Whitby, L'Enfant, and Doddridge upon the place.

-Και πασι δε παρην, και εδε

Και οίδα, φησιν, ότι αληθηετιν ὁ λέγει. σαυρόμενες απολιμπάνετο, και την μητέρα ανεχειριθη. Chrys. hom. 88. al. 87. T. VIII. p. 588. C. D. E.

* Και οίδα, φησιν, ότι αληθη λεγει,

6

to speak here of himself, as an eye-witness, who had been present at almost every thing related by him in his history. 7. It is said: The three epistles of St. John do ever suppose the gospel of St. John to have been written long before, and to be well known by those to whom he wrote. And they are written with a constant view and regard to 'the contents of the same gospel.' That is an argument" of Mr. Whiston, which, with what he adds by way of confirmation, is referred to the reader's consideration.

8. Some have argued for an early date of this gospel, or at least, that it was written before the Revelation, which was seen in Patmos, because it is said at the beginning of that book, ch. i. 1, 2, "Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things which he saw." They suppose, that therein St. John refers to his gospel, and what he had written in it. But to me the most reasonable account of those words appears to be that which k was given formerly: that they are most properly understood of that very book, the Revelation and the things contained in it. The writer there says very pertinently, in his introduction, that in that book he had discharged the office assigned him having therein faithfully recorded the word of God, received from Jesus Christ, and all the visions which he had seen.

9. Once more it is argued from inscriptions, at the end of this gospel, in divers manuscripts, that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem: it being there said, that this gospel was written in the time of Nero, at thirty years, or about two and thirty years after our Saviour's ascension. Upon these insisted' Mr. Wetstein in a passage quoted from him some while ago. Upon them likewise insists Mr. Lampe.

τετετι πληροφορηθείς έγραψα, ά εγραψα, άτε πασι παρων, και τοις έργοις, και τοις λόγοις, και τοις πάθεσι, και τοις μετά την αναςασιν. Αγαπητος γαρ ημην, και ουκ απελιμπανομην, ώτε παῤῥησιαζομαι, και περι εμαυτε λέγω, ότι αληθεύω. Theophyl. in Jo. tom. I. p. 847. See his Commentary

upon St. John's three Catholic Epistles, p. 8, &c.

Ipsum porro audiamus evangelistam idem non obscure, uti nobis videtur, subindicantem, quando Apoc. i. 2. se ita circumscribit, og eμaprvonte tov λoγον το θες - -Et versu 9.--Plurimi optimi interpretes in eo consentiunt, quod in his verbis ad evangelium respiciatur, licet in modo demonstrandi differant, &c. Lamp. Prol. 1. 2. cap. 2. sect. viii.

* See Vol. ii. p. 708.

1 See before, p. 431.

m Accedit multarum glossarum et versionum in id consensus, quod sub Nerone evangelium sit exaratum. Licet enim auctoritates hæ sequioris ævi sint, ob earum tamen frequentiam et harmoniam valde est credibile, quod in antiquiori traditione fundatæ sint--Id tamen observavi discrimen, ut quædam numero rotundo xxx. post Christi adscensionem, aliæ xxxii. nominent. Lampe, ibid. 1. 2. cap. 2. num. xii. Vid. et num. xiv.

For my own part I lay not any stress at all upon these inscriptions, at the end of Greek, or Arabic, or other manuscripts of the New Testament, written in the ninth or tenth century, or later. They" are of no authority for there is no proof that this account was derived from the testimony or tradition of ancient authors. The early date of the gospels was popular. Some having without reason determined the time of writing the other gospels at eight, or ten, or fifteen years after our Lord's ascension, pitched upon the year 30, or 32, for the time of St. John's gospel: but it was done upon no other ground and foundation, but mere fancy and conjecture.

X. It is upon the two first-mentioned arguments that I chiefly rely. However, there are objections, which deserve to be considered.

1. Obj. Chrysostom was of opinion, that St. John did not write till after the destruction of Jerusalem. For in a homily upon Matt. xxiv. he says, ' John writes not of any ' of these things, lest it should be thought, that he took an 'advantage from the event. For he was living a good while 'after the destruction of Jerusalem. But the other evangelists, who died before the destruction of Jerusalem, and saw none of those things, record these predictions.'

To which I answer, that St. John's omitting our Saviour's predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, which are recorded by the other evangelists, is no proof that he did not write until after they were fulfilled.

For if he

wrote at the time supposed by us, when that event was near, it is very likely, that he would omit these predictions: especially, having observed, that they were sufficiently recorded already. And we plainly see, that it is not St. John's method to repeat what had been recorded before. However, he has inserted in his gospel divers expressions, containing warnings and intimations of the miseries coming upon the Jewish people, if they did not receive the Lord Jesus as the Messiah. John the Baptist may be supposed to intend this in words recorded, John iii. 36. Our Lord intimates it in his discourse with Nicodemus, ch. iii. 18, 19, and upon divers other occasions, already taken notice of by us in this gospel, ch. viii. 12, 21, 24; ch. ix. 39–41; ch. xii. 35, 36. 2. Obj. Mr. Whiston, in P his Short View of the Harmony

n

Neque ordo, qui nunc receptus est epistolarum, sequitur ordinem temporis, neque antiqua sunt illa, quæ sub finem sunt addita, ad significandum, unde et per quos missæ sunt.——et illæ in fine annotatiunculæ seræ sunt, ex conjecturâ, aut tenui famâ. Grot. Comm. in loca quædam N. T. sub in. tom. III. p. 457. • See Vol. iv. p. 543. P P. 115, 116.

1

of the evangelists, says, that St. John useth the Roman or Julian beginning of the day in his gospel, the same that we use at present, 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 gospel long after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the period of the Jewish polity at Ephesus, a place remote from Judea, ' and under the Roman government.'

To which I answer, 1. It does not appear to me, that St. John computes the hours of the day after the Roman, but rather after the Jewish manner. 2. Supposing St. John to have used the Roman method of computation, it does not follow, that he wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the period of the Jewish polity. We allow, that St. John's gospel was written at Ephesus, at a distance from Judea. And, if he thought fit, he might use the Roman way of reckoning, especially, when the period of the Jewish commonwealth was near, though not quite accomplished.

Thus I have endeavoured to solve this objection. What was Mr. Whiston's own solution, I do not know : but I sup pose, that he afterwards overcame this difficulty. For in his later writings he maintains a very different sentiment con cerning the date of St. John's gospel, pleading, that it was written about the year of Christ 63, a good while before the destruction of Jerusalem. So he argues in his Essay upon the Apostolical Constitutions, published in 1711, and in his Commentary upon St. John's Epistles, published in 1719. His Harmony of the four Evangelists was printed at Cambridge in the year 1702.

3. Obj. It is farther objected, that many ancient writers speak of a late date of St. John's gospel, and that he wrote with a design to confute divers heretics: who cannot be supposed to have appeared till after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the overthrow of the Jewish people.

To which I answer, that this may have been owing to a mistaken apprehension. Many heretics, they saw, might be confuted by St. John's gospel. Therefore they concluded, that he did not write till after they had appeared in the world: whilst the truth might be no more than this, that such and such heretics might be confuted out of his gospel: though they had not appeared in the world till long after. Paulinus says, that in the beginning of St. John's gospel all heretics are confuted, particularly Arius, Sabellius, Photinus, Marcion, and the Manichees. And in Mr. Wetstein's preface to St. John's gospel, written not long ago,

6

VOL. V.

1 Vol. iv. ch. cxxiv.
2 G

་

6

our time, are these expressions. Having before quoted Irenæus, he adds, Which' if they be compared with those things, which Carpocrates, Menander, Cerdo, Saturninus, Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion, have said of angels and æons: among whom were Charis grace, Alethea truth, Monogenes only-begotten, Logos word, Zoe life: it must be manifest, that John so opposed his doctrine to them, as to use the forms of expression received by them.' Surely, this is very incautious and inaccurate. Must it not be so to say, that St. John opposed those heretics, most of which are heretics of the second century? If St. John's gospel be genuine, it must have been written before the end of the first century. Yea, Mr. Wetstein says, it was written at about two and thirty years after Christ's ascension. How then could St. John oppose them, or write against them, but in the way of prophecy or prevention? But to say, he opposed his doctrine to them, or wrote against them, does not seem very proper. And if the ancient writers speak not more accurately than this learned modern, an argument taken from them, upon this head, cannot be of much weight.

It is the testimony of Irenæus, 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 says, as before transcribed, that by the publi 'cation of his gospel John designed to root out the error 'that had been sown among men by Cerinthus.' But it is observable, that in another place, also transcribed above, he says: John foreseeing those blasphemous notions that di'vide the Lord, so far as it is in their power,' wrote his gospel. For this passage I am indebted to Mr. Whiston, who argues, that St. John's gospel was written about the year 63, and before this apostle's three epistles. Nor,' says he, shall I need to support this observation from any other argument, than that from Irenæus, who supposeth this gospel, and St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, ancienter, and these epistles later, than the rise of the heresy of 'Cerinthus:' referring to the passage of Irenæus, before taken notice of by us.

If then we put together the several passages of Irenæus, he does not contradict the supposition of an early date of

Quæ si comparentur cum iis, quæ Carpocrates, Menander, Cerdo, Saturninus, Basilides, Valentinus, et Marcion de angelis et æonibus, inter quos erant Charis, Alethea, Monogenes, Logos, Zoë, item de Christo, non vere, sed doknσel passo, tradiderunt; satis manifestum erit, Joannem doctrinam suam illis ita opponere, ut loquendi formulis apud illos receptis utatur. Wetst. Test. Gr. tom. I. p. 832. • Commentary upon St. John's Epistles, p. 8.