will not oppofe; for I have been informed of the fact from grave and credible witneffes. Ifidore Hifpalenfis relates the fame story, with several other particular circumstances, too trifling to be mentioned. Ephraim Theopolitanus, Bishop of Antioch, about the year of Chrift, 510, endeavours to prove, that St. John never died, but was tranflated, as Enoch and Elijah. I will add no more, but that the fame opinion feems to have been received in the feveral fucceeding ages of Christianity. Georgius Trapezuntius, a learned writer, though late, has wrote five whole treatifes, which he dedicates to the Pope, with defign to prove that St. John never did die. I fhall think it fufficient to refer the reader to the ingenious tract. Hence it came to pass, that feveral impoftors have profeffed themselves to be this Apoftle; one particularly in the time of Martinus, about the year 400, and another in Queen Elizabeth's time, who was afterwards burnt at Thouloufe in France, as we are told by Beza.

CHA P. XIV.

St. John's Gofpel wrote against the Hereticks, viz. the Cerinthians and Ebionites, who denied our Saviour's Divinity; as also to enlarge the Gospel Hiftory. It was wrote after the year of Chrift XCVII. An Objection to this answered. Other mifcellaneous Remarks.

CONCE

ONCERNING St. John's Gofpel, whatever appears to me confiderable, I fhall lay down in the following obfervations.

a De vit. et obit. Prophet. et Sanctor. inter Orthodox. Vol. I. P. 598.

b Refponf. ad Anatol. Scholaft. Quæft. apud Phot. Cod. 229.

Inter Orthodoxogr. Vol. II.

p. 1231.

d Vid. Sever. Sulpit. de vita Martin. inter Orthodoxogr. Vol. I.

P. 556.

Annot. in Joann, xxi. 21.

I. St. John feems to have had two particular defigns in the writing of his Gospel, viz. the confuting of certain Hereticks, and fupplying the defects of the history of Chrift in the other Gospels.

1. St. John wrote his Gospel with the intent, or defign, of confuting certain Hereticks of that early age, who denied the divinity of our Saviour. This is largely attefted by the antients. Irenæus tells us, "That the Evangelift defigned by "his Gospel to confute the errors, which Cerinthus had in"fufed into the minds of the people, and had been infused by "those who were called Nicolaitans; and to convince them, "that there was one God, who made all things by his WORD, "and not, as they imagined, ONE who was the Creator, and "ANOTHER Who was the Father of the Lord (Jesus); ONE "who was the Son of the Creator, and ANOTHER who was "the Chrift, who continued impaffible, and defcended upon "Jefus the Son of the Creator, &c." Epiphanius proves, St. John's Gospel could not be written by Cerinthus, because it was wrote againft him. Jerome is moft particular, and informs us, "That when St. John was in Afia, where then "arofe the Herefies of Ebion and Cerinthus, and others, who "denied that Chrift was come in the flesh, i. e. denied his di"vine nature, whom he in his Epiftle calls Antichrifts, and "St. Paul frequently condemns in his Epiftles, he was forced "by almost all the Bifhops of Afia, and the deputations of many other churches, to write more plainly concerning the divinity of our Saviour, and to foar aloft in a discourse on "the WORD, not more bold than happy." Whence we are told in Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, that when he was folicited by the brethren to write, he anfwered, he would not do it, unless a publick day of fafting and prayer was appointed to implore God's affiftance; which being done, and the folemnity being honoured with a fatisfactory revelation from God, he broke forth into those words, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, &c. To the fame purpofe Auftin faith,

'

a Adv. Hæref. lib. 3. c. II. Hæref. 51. §. 4. & 12. Præfat. in Comment. in Matt.

d

See the fame. Catal. Vir. Illuftr.
in Joann.

Præf. in Tra&t. in Joann.

this Evangelift wrote concerning the co-eternal divinity of Christ against the Hereticks; and the fame Father has in feveral places obferved, that he above the rest of the Apostles has afferted Chrift's equality with the Father; and while they are content to give an account of Chrift's miracles and moral precepts, he rather chose to relate those things which pertained to our Saviour's divinity a.

2. St. John wrote his Gospel with intent to fupply the defects of our Saviour's history in the other three Gospels; for whereas they fay little of that part of our Saviour's life, which preceded the imprisonment of John the Baptift, he has inferted it in his Gospel. This is related by Eufebius", Jerome, &c. though the author of the antient book of Hypotyposes, under the name of Clemens Alexandrinus, affigns this reason fomewhat differently, viz. John obferving that in the other Gofpels τὰ σωματικά-δεδήλωται, i. e. The things pertaining to our Lord's human nature were wrote; he, infpired by the Holy Ghost, at the request of his friends, compofed avevμatixòr svayynov, i. e. a spiritual Gospel, or an account of our Saviour's divinity. To the fame purpose we read in Epiphanius, that the other Gospels had fo fully related the affair of Chrift's incarnation, and the things which he did as incarnate, that he judged it needless to write the fame, and therefore wrote his Gospel against Ebion, Cerinthus, Marcion, &c. who affirmed, that Chrift had no being before he was born of Mary.

II. St. John's Gospel seems to have been written about the year of Chrift, xCVIII.

The most antient Chriftians have fixed no time of its writing. Irenæus only faith, that it was wrote at Ephefus, during his abode there; but whether it was before his banishment from thence by Domitian to Patmos, or after, he faith not. It is upon many accounts moft probable, that it was written after his return. Epiphanius exprefsly afferts, that he wrote it in his ninetieth year, after his return from Patmos ta Ephesus; though I know not by what strange sort of mistake, he makes it to have been in the reign of the Emperor Claudius, instead of the reign of Nerva, or Trajan; between the first of which and Claudius there intervened the reigns of seven several Emperors, viz. Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vefpafian, Titus, and Domitian. It is plain therefore, St. John did not write his Gospel before the reign of Nerva, i. e. not before the year of Chrift, xcvII. for fooner, he could not return from Patmos; but whether he wrote it in that year immediately after his return, or fome time. later, I shall not enquire. This is, I think, the moft received opinion about the time of St. John's writing his Gofpel; nor is there any, confiderable difference between the later Fathers and Epiphanius on this head. The author of the Martyrdom of Timothy (if I understand his words right), afferts the fame as Epiphanius, viz. that he wrote it after his return from Patmos to Ephefus; and fo does Ifidore Hifpalenfisd. Dorotheus differs only, in saying, that he wrote it during his exileftate in Patmos, and published it afterwards by Gaius at. Ephefus; and this is only one year's difference. There are, indeed fome manuscripts f, and later writers, as Theophylact, &c. who will have this Gospel written much fooner, viz. about the year of Chrift, LXV. viz. thirty two years after our Saviour's afcenfion; but the authority of these is fo small in respect of those above-mentioned, that I need fay no more, had not Mr. Whifton fallen in with their opinion, He of

a Joannes difcipulus Domini edidit Evangelium Ephefi Afie commorans. Adv. Hæref. lib. 3. c. I. b-Loc. jam cit.

Apud Phot. Cod. CCLIV. Inter Orthodoxogr. Vol. I. p. 598.

In Synopf. VOL. III.

I

f Vid. Mill. in Calc. Joan.
8 Præf. in Joan.

n Effay on the Conftit. p. 19. See concerning the time of St. John's writing his Gofpel, Dallæum de Script. Dionyf. Areopag. &c. 1. 1. c. 16.-p. 102, &c.

fers

fers indeed several reasons for it, in which I cannot see the leaft fhew of evidence: the bare propofing them would be a fufficient confutation of them. The moft confiderable of them is the fourth, viz. that John, c. v. ver. 2. Speaks of the pool of Bethesda in the present tense, there is at Jerufalem, and not there was, which better agrees to the time he affigns (as he imagines) before the deftruction of Jerufalem, when that pool and porch were certainly in being, than to the time afterward, when probably both were deftroyed. Dr. Whitby, several years before Mr. Whiston, observed and submitted (though at the expence of a contradiction to what he seemed elfewhere to affert) to the force of this argument; "If, says he, ❝s d, THERE IS, be the true reading, as the consent of almost "all the Greek copies argues; it seems to intimate that Jeru"falem and this pool were then ftanding, when St. John "wrote this Gospel; and therefore, that it was written, as "Theophylact and others fay, before the deftruction of Jeru"falem, and not, as the more antient Fathers thought, long "after."

To this I answer;

b

(1.) That unless John had certainly known the destruction of this particular place at Jerufalem, it was more proper for him to speak in the present time, as fuppofing it still standing, than in the past time, afferting what he knew not. And indeed, who can suppose that John, at the distance which Ephefus was from Jerufalem, should be particularly informed of the destruction of every particular place in the city?

(2.) That in all probability the pool was not filled up, but ftill in the fame ftate after the deftruction of Jerusalem, as before. Pools were of great fervice, and as it probably could anfwer no end for the conquerors to destroy it, fo it would be a prodigious work to fill it up, especially if the accounts, which we have of the feveral ftreams that fed it, may be depended upon. Add to this, that Tertullian fays, this pool loft its virtue after Chrift's time, undoubtedly referring to times after

d