met by the supposition that the apostle had become in a great measure estranged from his earlier associations, and spoke or wrote much more with reference to the controversies of his time, than as an historian.

The chief objections of Bretschneider are:-The unsuitableness of the discourses of Jesus, the Baptist, and the Jews, and their extreme difference of character from those in the earlier Gospels:-Stories entirely fictitious, or an admixture of the fictitious with real incidents, such as show that he was neither a companion of Jesus, nor an eye-witness :-Ignorance of the geography, customs, and modes of thought of Judea, to such an extent as to show that the writer was not even a native of Palestine; for instance, Sychar for Sichem, iv. 5-7 (this seems however satisfactorily answered by Credner); Bethany beyond Jordan, i. 28, in the best manuscripts as approved by Griesbach, and not Bethabara, which is a spurious emendation; Enon spoken of as a town, whilst it probably meant only fountains, iii. 23; Siloam falsely translated sent, ix. 7; the high priesthood apparently considered annual, xi. 49-52; the passover-supper placed a day wrong, if the other three are right, which difference might be explained by supposing the writer ignorant of the Jewish mode of beginning the day at 6 o'clock in the evening. The Gospel generally appears framed so as to meet the objections which are found in the mouths of Celsus, Trypho, and other opponents in the second century. The Apocalypse does not appear to be by the same writer as the Gospel, and moreover is not itself proved to be by John. The first epistle is from the same writer as the Gospel; but the testimony from Papias, Polycarp, Irenæus, &c., is not sufficiently clear to prove that this was John, in the face of the above difficulties. The apparent quotations from the Gospel in Hermas, Ignatius, &c., might only be quotations from the same traditions.

Part of these objections, it is obvious, might be answered at the expense of the evangelist's historical fidelity. With respect to Judaisms, it will perhaps be thought by the students of Lightfoot and Schoettgen that there are more of these latent than Bretschneider admits; at any rate that the writer exhibits many remarkable resemblances to the writers in the Talmud, although there might be in him a larger proportion of Hellenisms and Alexandrianisms. The similar passages in the Fathers do generally, considering the peculiar style of the fourth Gospel, and of the first Epistle of John, bear the appearance of quotations or recollections from these scriptures, and thus prove at least so much, that they were writings of authority from nearly the beginning of the second century. See especially Polycarp, iii. 1-3; Hermas, Simil. ix. v. 117; Comm. iii. 2; Ignatius to Magnes. iii. 2. The geographical and historical objections are difficult to dispose of, except by supposing that the Gospel, as we have it, was not written by the apostle himself, but is rather a collection of his discourses or writings made by some follower, disciple, or some member of his church, who in endeavouring to connect and embellish, has made mistakes.

But the many apparent realities, not borrowed from the other three, yet agreeing with the history preserved in them (which part of the subject is not considered by Bretschneider), form perhaps the most important reason for concluding that this Gospel originated in great part from, if not actually written by, the apostle.

CHAPTER VII.

ON THE RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION OF CHRIST.

I. PETER and the other apostles were dismayed for a time by the death of Jesus; but having become persuaded that he was the Messiah, and having abandoned all for his cause, they comforted themselves with the belief that he was taken up into heaven like Moses and Elias, and would soon appear again to fulfil his promises and restore the throne of Israel. They determined then to maintain their society; and having assembled in an upper chamber those of the disciples who had not yet dispersed themselves, they agreed to preach that their Master was risen from the dead. "Wherefore of these

men which have companied with us, all the time that the • Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection."-Acts i. 21, 22.

The resurrection of the dead was a stirring question at that time, and was part of the creeds of both the Pharisees and Essenes. The doctrine, therefore, that Jesus had risen from the dead, in a spiritual sense at least, would easily be admitted by the mass of the people, and, indeed, cannot be disputed by persons of any age believing in the immortality of the soul.

It seems probable that the original belief among the apostles was merely that Christ had been raised from the dead in an invisible or spiritual manner; for where we can arrive at Peter's own words, viz., in his Epistle, he speaks of Christ as being "put to death in the flesh, but made alive in

the spirit.” 1 Pet. iii. 18,* θανατωθεις μεν σαρκι, ζωοποιηθείς δε τῳ πνευματι.† That the last phrase signifies a mode of operation invisible to human eyes appears from the following clause, which describes Jesus as preaching, also in the spirit, Evq, to the spirits in prison.

But some of the disciples soon added to this idea of an invisible or spiritual resurrection, that Jesus had appeared to many in a bodily form. In the book of Acts, the apostles are frequently made to profess themselves "witnesses, μapτυρες, of the resurrection of Jesus." But as the word does not signify, of necessity, an eye-witness, but rather an assertor or testifier, this declaration of the apostles may mean only that they believed, and were ready to assert, that he was risen. That they had actually seen him alive since his supposed resurrection, is quite a distinct assertion, and not included in the former. And it is this latter point which it chiefly concerns us to examine. First, let us collect all the testimonies concerning the resurrection found in the book of Acts, which, it must be remembered, is not from the pen of an apostle, but of Luke, who does not tell us that he was present at the earlier transactions which he relates.

Acts i. 22, Of these men must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Acts ii. 24, Whom God hath raised up. 32, This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

The genuineness of the first Epistle of Peter seems to be very well established. (See Lardner, vol. vi. p. 254.) But, of the second, Eusebius said that it was not received in ancient times, but was read, because it appeared to many to be useful. And to the sceptical, ch. i. 14, affords suspicion of its spuriousness.

+ The received translation is, "in the flesh-by the spirit;" but it does not appear why the preposition should be changed. 1 Pet. iv. 6, seems to be a parallel place, and shows that the insertion of the article does not give a different sense to vevμati. "By the Spirit," (Matt. iv. 1,) is iπO

του πνεύματος.

Acts iii. 15, And killed the Prince of Life, whom God hath raised up, whereof we are witnesses.

Acts iv. 1, 2, The Sadducees came upon them, being grieved that they taught through Jesus the resurrection of the dead.

10, Whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead.

20, For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

33. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

Acts v. 17, Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him (which was the sect of the Sadducees), and were filled with indignation.

Acts v. 30, The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts x. 40, 41, Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly. Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he was risen from the dead.-Peter's speech.

Acts xiii. 30-37, But God raised him from the dead. And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people

For David was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: but he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.Paul's speech at Antioch in Pisidia.

Acts xvii. 18, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange Gods, because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. Acts xvii. 31, Whereof he hath given assurance to all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Acts xxiii. 6, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; of the hope and resurrection of the dead am I called in question.

Acts xxiv. 21, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.

Acts xxv. 19, They had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.

Acts xxvi. 8, Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead? 22, 23, I continue unto this day, witnessing—that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead.

For,

In only one of these speeches is Peter made to say that the witnesses had seen Jesus. (x. 40, 41.) And here we have little reason to think that we have Peter's exact words. at the distance of about forty years at which Luke wrote, he could only have a general impression of the purport of the apostles' early discourses; and since by that time the stories of the re-appearance of Jesus had grown into general repute, and were believed by Luke himself, it was natural for him to mingle his own and the popular belief in his report. All that the apostles had said concerning the resurrection, although applicable at first only to an invisible and supposed resurrection, would, in consequence of the prevalence of the stories. alluded to, come to be understood as attesting a bodily reappearance. The distinction between the two kinds of assertion might easily be overlooked, and the one, when reported at second-hand and from hearsay, be changed into the other. It has been seen in the case of Gamaliel, that Luke allowed himself to fill up what he considered suitable speeches for his personages; we are therefore on surer ground when quoting the apostles' own writings.

In Peter's first Epistle, all the testimonies are these—

I. 3, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which, according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away. 20, 21, Who (Christ) was pre-ordained