ance, and self-abasement-in the midst of a discourse levelled distinctly against pride, ambition, selfishness-John addresses him, not more in his own behalf, than in the name of the rest, and in a manner, which seems to expect approbation, not to be afraid of censure complaining of some stranger who had usurped the privileges, belonging as they thought to them alone. This circumstance must prove very clearly that neither the influence of authority, the most acknowledged-nor the meaning of language, the most simple and positive-nor the sense of duty, the most unquestionable nor the fervour of attachment, the most sincere-nor the strength of faith, the most undoubting-nor the possession of miraculous power, however preternatural -could as yet effectually renovate and transform the Apostles, or eradicate from them that principle of self-love, which is the root and spring of every malicious, and worldly, feeling. This was reserved for the powerful energy of Christian charity, which is the offspring of Christian holiness, and both in its cause, and in its effect, is the gift of divine grace only. We may observe, however, that the prohibition of these disputes is more strong and emphatic, in the later, than in the earlier, cases of their occurrence— which, also, was naturally to be expected.

DISSERTATION XV.

On the supplementary relation of John vii-xi. 54. to the three first Gospels.

THAT they, who are called in the Gospels the 'Adɛxpoì of Christ, were living, at this period of the Gospel-history, in Capernaum, as well as he, may very probably be collected from what was related elsewhere a. It is true that, at the visit to Nazareth, soon after that occurrence, some of his relations are spoken of, under the same denomination, as still resident there b: but these, it should be distinctly observed, are only his sisters—the names of his brethren, indeed, are also alluded to, as the names of persons well known in Nazareth; but they are not alluded to as living, or as present, in Nazareth at the time. There is no proof that the sisters of our Lord, whatever we may understand by that name, were living at Capernaum; and, for ought which appears to the contrary, they might all be married, or all be settled, in Nazareth.

The Gospel of St. John, then, which, after the close of chapter vi. and the general statement contained in vii. 1. resumes the thread of the account with the conversation between our Lord and these his brethren, vii. 3-9. and at a time when the feast of Tabernacles was just at hand, resumes it either with the return of Jesus to Capernaum, Matt. xvii. 24. Mark ix. 33. Luke ix. 46-or with his residence there, subsequent to the return, and before the arrival of the feast. The same conclusion is deducible from the use of the terms μετάβηθι ἐντεῦθεν—which being stated, and intended to be received, anλs can be understood, as in other cases of the like kind, only of Capernaum: not to say that our Lord's brethren, who as yet did not believe in him themselves, nor, consequently, attend upon him, as his disb Matt. xiii. 55.

a Matt. xii. 46. Mark iii. 21. 31. Luke viii. 19. 56. Mark vi. 3. John vii. 2.

ciples, wheresoever he went, were so likely to meet him in no place, as in this-the common residence of them all.

This being the state of the case, it is my object in the present Dissertation to complete in part what was left unfinished, at the close of the eighth-by shewing that, as St. John resumes the Gospel-history where the former Evangelists had, for a time, suspended it, and, consequently, in this instance, as well as in others, has written with a view to supply the omissions of his predecessors, so he continues it down to the time where they had resumed it again; and, therefore, has so supplied those omissions, that what he has added of his own is an exact measure of what was deficient in them. The antecedent probability of such a supplement was no where greater, than here; for no where in the former Gospels was there a larger omission, or more room for supplementary matter, than here; the chasm, in the continuity of their accounts, amounting in all of them to four months, and in two of them to almost six.

First, then; that Judæa and Jerusalem are what the brethren of our Lord mean when they talk of the world, and of his shewing himself unto the world, must be too evident to require any proof; or if it did, the proof would be supplied by the answer of our Lord; which shews that he understood their words of a specific admonition to go up to the approaching feast. The ultimate cause of the admonition, we have seen elsewhere d, was the fact of his continued absence from Jerusalem, for the last eighteen months—a fact, which could not be unknown to his brethren, and, if they themselves were ignorant of its motive, might naturally excite their surprize. The time of the conversation in question, then, we may conclude, would be about the usual time of setting out from Galilee to attend the feast of Tabernacles; that is, three days at least before the tenth of Tisri, the day of the fast, and of the atonement; to attend upon which was as much a matter of obligation, as to be present for the whole of the feast which ensuede.

a Vol. ii. Diss. viii. 233. 234.

Lev. xvi. 29-end. xxiii. 27-32.

The reply of our Lord f does not-as it has been falsely represented-assert that he should not go up to the feast at all, but merely that he should not go up yet; and he assigns a sufficient reason for delaying his attendance, in the danger to which he would be exposed by going up too openly, or too soon. He suffered his brethren, therefore, and, perhaps, even his Apostles, to set out at the usual time before him; and when all had been some while gone, he set out, and arrived, himself οὐ φανερῶς, ἀλλ ̓ ὡς ἐν κρυπτῷδ. Neither, then, his departure, nor his arrival, would be known except to those whom he might have apprized in confidence of his intentions—that is, as we may presume, only the Twelve.

The feast of Tabernacles began on the fifteenth of Tisri, and lasted from thence, for eight days in all, to the twentysecond inclusivelyh. Yet, Deut. xvi. 13-15. Lev. xxiii. 40-42. Neh. viii. 18. Ezek. xlv. 25. the feast as such is specified as a feast of seven days only, and the dwelling in booths, peculiar to it, is similarly also restricted. We must consider, therefore, the feast as such to have extended only from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of the month, inclusively; and the Jews, as we shall see by and by, always understood it accordingly. The middle day between these extremes would, consequently, be the eighteenth-and, ...τῆς ἑορτῆς μεσούσης i, our Lord first appeared in the temple: a description, however, which is not so determinate as critically to denote the middle day exactly, but also either the day before that, the seventeenth, or the day after it, the nineteenth; though, perhaps, one of those days it must denote.

We may suppose, then, our Lord would set out from Capernaum about the fourteenth of Tisri, and arrive in Jerusalem about the sixteenth. In the mean while, there would be abundance of time, since the tenth of the same month, or even earlier, as well as, apparently, some cause, for those reasonings, discourses, and conjectures, of the

g vii. 10.

f John vii. 8. 12-35. 2 Chron. vii. 8-10.

h Lev. xxiii. 34. 39. Numb. xxix. i vii. 14.

people, concerning either the character of Christ, or the probability of his attendance, which are summarily related, John vii. 11-13.

Secondly, from this time forward there is no evidence to be discovered of more than, perhaps, three distinct days in the course of proceedings-two of them consecutive, the last day of the feast, the twenty-first of Tisri, and the day after that, or the twenty-second. The third, I shall endeavour to prove, was probably the nineteenth.

For first, to judge from the practice of our Saviour, at other times, when he resorted to the temple for the purpose of teaching, as at vii. 14. he resorted thither about the usual period of the morning service—that is, before πρ—and passed the remainder of the day in the temple. The course of proceedings from vii. 14. will consequently begin about this period of the day—and what follows, as far as vii. 29. is so connected with vii. 14. and the rest, that all must have belonged to the same occasion. The same thing is true of vii. 30. as specifying a fact, the natural consequence of vii. 29; that our Lord's enemies would have seized upon him on the spot, but that his hour was not yet come.

With regard, however, to vii. 31. this connection is not so apparent. In conjunction with vii. 32. it merely accounts for the fact why the Pharisees sent officers to apprehend Jesus: a measure which, being produced by the observations of the multitude, vii. 31. could not have precededhowever soon it might have followed on-those observations. And these in particular might be the effect of that day's teaching, vii. 14. or the effect of any day's teaching, posterior to it—and it would still be equally true that they were made, as reported at vii. 31. They might, then, have been made on some other day of our Lord's appearing in public, and not on the first day of all—and it is some confirmation of the conjecture, that they contain a reference to miracles as performed, and still a performing, before the eyes of the observers. Now there is no proof that miracles were performed on the day of the appearance in public