207 to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." (John v. 21, 26; x. 17, 18.) From these testimonies it appears that, even in his mediatorial character, a life-giving power was possessed by our Lord, and that in virtue of this authority he both laid down and resumed his own life; the resurrection as well as the sacrifice forming a part of the commission received of the Father. But this gives the subject an aspect wholly different from that suggested by the above query of Mr. Stuart; and though it were admitted that in itself the resurrection is an evidence only of this delegated power, it seems not less obvious that to no one but a divine person incarnate could such authority be intrusted. (See CHAP. IV., sect. iii., note (K), below.)

66

Mr. S., indeed, grants the resurrection to have "proved that the claims of Jesus were allowed to be just and true.” This concession, however, he neutralizes, by adding, "One of these claims was, that he was the Son of God; but this was only one among many others. How then could the whole force of the evidence to be drawn from the resurrection concentre in this sole point?" To this it is replied, that the claim of our Lord to be the Son of God, as brought into question at the time of his trial and crucifixion, was not "one among many others." On the contrary, it stood altogether alone, it was the sole subject of dispute, the great truth in confirmation of which he submitted to die. Nor was it, at any time, in what appears to be Mr. Stuart's sense, one among many others." It was the doctrine in which all the claims of Jesus were comprised. Be it admitted that, in the Jewish acceptation, he was the Son of God, and nothing august in attribute, or office, or authority, could be denied him. It is therefore easy to perceive why "the whole force of the evidence to be drawn from the resurrection" should "concentre in this sole point." Supposing the resurrection not to have proved this, it proved nothing appropriate to the case. This was the point in dispute, and this was the point which, once decided, set every other at rest. We cannot, therefore, desire any thing more conclusive against Mr. S. than his own admission, that by the miracle of the resurrection the claims of Jesus were demonstrated to be "just and true."

Several authorities which it was designed to annex to this

note, must for the sake of brevity be omitted. I beg to refer the reader, however, to Tertullian; Adv. Prax., c. xxvii., p. 660; Origen; In Joan., Tom. iv., p. 165; Wolf, Macknight, Wells, Hammond, Bloomfield, Tholuck, and Watson, in loc. Of the entire exposition of the passage by the last named eminent theologian, it is not easy to speak in too high terms. See also Schleusner in voc. πvɛõμa, No. 10; Bates's Harmony of the Divine Attributes, chap. xx., p. 314; Sherlock on the Divinity of Christ, chap. i., pp. 9—27; and Holden's Scrip. Test., chap. viii., sect. iv. In addition to these references, I cannot but remark that, in the text which has given rise to this protracted dissertation, so evident is the assertion of our Lord's two natures, as to be admitted by those expositors whom the Socinians are most anxious to claim for their own; such as Grotius, Locke, and Dr. John Taylor. Mr. Wakefield himself explains “Son of God" as signifying a divine character, though he is careful to destroy the force of this admission by the gloss, "a teacher divinely commissioned." The testimony of Dr. Carpenter, as cited by Abp. Magee, (Atonement, vol. iii., p. 44,) is yet more decisive. "Jesus," he 66. says, was of the race of David as to his natural descent; and if he had not been so he could not have been the Messiah: but he was more, he was the Son of God." (Unitar. the Doct., &c., p. 234.) What precise sense this writer affixes to the title I am unable to say; nor is it of great consequence to ascertain.

CHAPTER IV.

THE WRITINGS OF ST. JOHN.

SECTION I.

REMARKS UPON THE SCOPE AND SPIRIT OF THE WRITINGS OF ST. JOHN.

ONE of the first impressions derived from a minute examination of the Gospel according to St. John, is of its incompleteness as an historical memoir of our Saviour's life. It omits the record of the genealogy of Jesus, the birth of John the Baptist, the immaculate conception, the announcement to the shepherds, the epiphany to the Magi and their homage, the flight into Egypt, the temptation in the wilderness, with by far the larger portion of the events which took place in Galilee. It gives no complete account of the annunciation at the baptism; makes no mention of the transfiguration and its accompanying testimony; says nothing of the designation and mission of the twelve Apostles; merely refers, without narrating the fact, to the institution of the Eucharist; does not record even the most remarkable instances of the ejection of evil spirits; and almost entirely passes over the incidents at the trial of our Lord before the Sanhedrim.

For authenticating the claims of Christ, the references to his miracles are in this Gospel singularly frequent.*

* E. g. iii. 2; v. 36; vii. 31; ix. 16; x. 21, 25, 37, 38; xi. 45, 47; xiv. 10; xv. 24, &c.

This species of evidence is, in fact, almost constantly cited. Of all the Evangelists, and perhaps of all the disciples, St. John was the most intimate friend of our Lord; and beyond every other person was competent to be the historian of such transactions. Yet of the miracles which took place before the resurrection he narrates but seven; a smaller number than occurs in the first three chapters of the Gospel according to St. Mark.

Nothing, therefore, it is apprehended, can be more clear than that the book before us was not intended as a complete memoir of the history of Christ. A second conclusion not less obvious is that, at the period of its composition, authentic records sufficiently copious were already in existence. Upon this admission alone can we account for the allusions of our Evangelist to incidents in the life of John the Baptist; to the virgin mother; to the disciples: and, above all, thus only could there be any force in the argument derived from the miracles of our Lord. In all these cases the existence of satisfactory narratives on their several subjects is presupposed.

It is equally evident, that the persons for whose use the Gospel of St. John was primarily intended were in possession of the previously composed records, and that of this fact the Evangelist was aware. To any others, many parts of the work under consideration would have been unintelligible; and it cannot be supposed that such a mode of composition could have been adopted, except with distinct reference to the known circumstances of the individuals whose special instruction was thus contemplated.

* John ii. 1-11; iv. 46–54; v. 5—9; vi. 2-13, 16-21; ix. 1-7; xi. 1-44. Even of these several appear to be recorded principally, if not solely, to render the discourses immediately subsequent intelligible.

+ John iii. 22-24; ii. 1; xix. 25-27; i. 40, et al. freq.

We may advance a step further. Even from the foregoing heads of evidence, thus cursorily suggested, there is nothing unwarrantable in the inference that the Gospel of St. John was intended for communities professedly Christian. This, however, it is presumed, is put beyond doubt by the characteristic circumstance that this Evangelist is eminently the narrator of our Lord's discourses. The general purpose of the entire composition is to show what Christ said of himself, and to illustrate his person and claims from his own testimony. But this would have been absurd, had not the parties addressed already, to a certain degree, admitted his divine mission, and his exalted prophetical functions. Even in ordinary cases it is not common for the testimony of an individual respecting himself to be received with implicit reliance. The hesitation, of course, is materially increased in proportion to the claim upon submission involved in any such representations. And since, in the instance before us, the dignity described, and the deference demanded, far transcend all rights merely human, and are altogether peculiar and without parallel; in order to their credibility, it was necessary that He, in whose teachings they were embodied, should have been regarded as one whose words were eminently and infallibly the words of truth. Otherwise, the doctrines to be inculcated would have been more safely intrusted to some one or more of those numerous arguments of which the subjects were readily susceptible. It will follow, that those for whose instruction this portion of holy Scripture was originally intended were fully persuaded of our Lord's Messiahship. Since thus alone could his testimony respecting himself have secured the requisite credence, they must have recognised him as the Christ, the Sent of God.

In several examples, St. John refers to Jewish localities in the past tense. Thus, of Bethany it is said, that it was nigh unto Jerusalem." In like manner he speaks