there the latter part of his life, and principally at Ephesus. He planted churches at Smyrna, Pergamos, Laodicea, and many other places; and by his activity and success in propagating the Gospel, he is supposed to have incurred the displeasure of Domitian, who banished him to Patmos at the end of his reign. He himself tells us, that he "was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testi mony of Jesus Christ;" and Irenæus, speaking of the vision, which he had there, says, "It is not very long ago that it was seen, being but a little before our time, at the latter end of Domitian's reign(a)." Upon Nerva's succeeding to the empire in the year 96, John returned to Ephesus, and died there at an advanced age, in the third year of Trajan's reign, A. D. 100. It is generally believed that John was the youngest of the twelve Apostles, and that he survived all the rest. An opinion has prevailed that he was, by order of Domitian, thrown into a caldron of boiling oil at Rome, before the gate called Porta Latina, and that he came out unhurt; but in examining into the foundation of this account, we find that it rests almost entirely upon the authority of Tertullian (b); and since it is not mentioned

(a) Lib. 5. cap. 34.

(b) De Præscript. cap. 36. This story is also mentioned from Tertullian by Jerome, in Matt. cap. 20.

mentioned by Irenæus, Origen, and others, who have related the sufferings of the Apostles, it seems to deserve but little credit.

II. THERE are manifest allusions to this Gospel in Hermas, and in some epistles of Ignatius, which are allowed to be genuine by most critics, and also in Justin Martyr; but no one of these fathers names the Gospel itself. The first who mentions it is Irenæus; and it is also expressly named by Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Epi-phanius, Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom. The genuineness, indeed, of St. John's Gospel has always been unanimously admitted by the Christian church.

III. It is universally agreed that St. John published his Gospel in Asia; and that when he wrote it, he had seen the other three Gospels (c); it is, therefore, not only valuable in itself, but also as a tacit confirmation of the other three, with none of which it disagrees in any material point.

IV. THE

(c) Cum legisset (scilicet Joannes) Matthæi, Marci, et Lucæ, volumina, probaverit quidem textum historiæ, et vera eos dixisse firmaverit. Hieron, de Vir. Illust. Eus. H. E, lib.3. cap. 24.

IV. THE learned are much divided concerning the time of the publication of this Gospel, some placing it rather before, and others considerably after, the destruction of Jerusalem. I am inclined to accede to the opinion of those who contend for the year 97; and my reason is, that this late date, exclusive of the authorities which support it, is favoured by the contents and design of the Gospel itself. It is evident that the Evangelist considers those, to whom he addresses his Gospel, as but little acquainted with Jewish customs and names; for in relating the first miracle of our Saviour, performed at Cana, in Galilee, he says, "And there were set there six water pots, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews (d)." He twice calls the passover, "the passover of the Jews (e);" and in giving an account of our Saviour's interview with the Samaritan woman, he adds, "for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans (f)." He tells his Readers that Rabbi signifies Teacher (g), and Messiah, Christ (h). Explanations of this kind were observed in the two preceding Gospels;

(d) John, c. 2. v.6.

(e) John, c. 2. v. 13. c. 11, v. 55.

(f) John, c. 4. Ve 9.

(h) John, c. 1. v. 41.

(g) John, c. I. v. 38,

but

but in this they are more marked, and occur much more frequently; the reason of which may be, that when St. 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.

V. THE immediate design of St. John in writing his Gospel, as we are assured by Irenæus (i), Jerome (k), and others, was to refute

the

(i) Lib. I. cap. 23. lib. 3. cap. II. In this last pas. sage he expressly says, that John aimed, by his Gospel, to extirpate the error which had been sown in the minds of men by Cerinthus, and the Nicolaitans, auferre eum, qui a Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibus, errorem, et multo prius ab his qui dicuntur Nicolaitæ.

(k) Jerome says, "John, last of all the rest, wrote his Gospel, being entreated so to do by the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics, and especially the then new-sprung up opinions of the Ebionites, who affirm

the Gnostics, Cerinthians, Ebionites, and other heretics; whose tenets, though they branched out into a variety of subjects, all originated from erroneous opinions concerning the person of Christ and the creation of the world. These points had been scarcely touched upon by the other Evangelists, though they had faithfully recorded all the leading facts of our Saviour's life, and his admirable precepts for the regulation of our moral conduct. St. John therefore undertook, at the request of the true believers in Asia, to write what Clement of Alexandria (1) called a spiritual Gospel; and accordingly we find in it more of doctrine, and less of historical narrative (m), than in any of the others. He

chiefly

affirm that Christ had no being before Mary, for which reason he thought it needful to discourse concerning his divine nativity also." De Script. Eccl. Joan.

(1) Eus. H. E. lib. 6. cap. 14.

(m) In St. John's Gospel there is no account of our Saviour's nativity, of his baptism by John, of his temptation in the wilderness, of the appointment of the twelve Apostles, or of their mission during our Saviour's lifetime. Very little is said of the journies of our Saviour, recorded by the other Evangelists; nor does St. John record the predictions of our Saviour relative to the destruction of Jerusalem, or the institution of baptism, or of the Lord's supper. May we not conclude from the omission of so many things of great importance, particu

larly