APPENDIX, No. II.

and

A VARIETY of texts may be produced both from the Old and New Testament in confirmation of the signification I have given to the word is. "The Lord shall be king over all the earth; in that day there shall be one Lord, and his name one *." "Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us +?" "Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yea, of the Gentiles also; seeing it is one God which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith ‡.” "There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, through all, and in you all §.” "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth for there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all." "For both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one ¶." In the neuter gender we find it more than once expressed at length, έν και το αυτό, 66 one and the same thing **.' "One and the same spirit ++.” I have the more insisted upon this, because it enables us to clear up some passages otherwise obscure; as in St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians ‡‡, "Now a mediator is not

* Zech. xiv. 9. § Eph. iv. 4.

** 1 Cor. xi. 5.

Saviour, who will have

As it is Again †,

a mediator of one; but God is one." That is, Moses is not the mediator of one common covenant to Jews and Gentiles; but God is one and the same God to all people. said "there is the same Lord over all." « When Rebecca had conceived by one, &c.” the meaning is, having offspring by one and the same husband, and so far all equally entitled to the promises made to Isaac. For though Jacob and Esau both sprang from Isaac, to whom the promises were made; yet of these God did, by his especial will, choose Jacob, from whom Christ should derive his human descent.

APPENDIX, No. III.

Of the beloved Disciple.

Ην δε ανακειμενος εἷς των μαθητων αυτου εν τῳ κολπῳ του Ιησου, ὃν ηγαπα ὁ Ιησους †.

Ιησούς ουν ιδων την μητέρα, και τον μαθητήν παρεστώτα, ὃν ηγαπα δ.

(Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνη) τρεχει ουν, και έρχεται προς Σίμωνα Πετρον, και προς τον αλλον μαθητην, ὃν εφίλει ὁ Ιησους |.

Λεγει ουν ὁ μαθητης εκείνος, ὃν ηγαπα ὁ Ιησους, τῳ Πετρῳ, ὁ κύριος εστι 4.

Ο Πετρος βλεπει τον μαθητην, ὃν ηγαπα ὁ Ιησους, ακολουθουντα, ὡς και ανέπεσεν εν τῳ δειπνῳ επι το στηθος αυτου

The above are all the passages in which mention is made of the "disciple whom Jesus loved." There is no doubt of this being St. John; and the expression has been supposed to indicate that he enjoyed, in a degree above the other Apostles, the love of Christ, so that in later times he is frequently called "the beloved disciple." That he was admitted to greater familiarity, than some others, may be inferred from his being present at the transfiguration, and some other scenes; but so likewise was Peter, and so was James. These three were in some sort distinguished above the rest, and, as St. Paul says *, "seemed to be pillars," and might therefore with some reason be called the beloved disciples; but there is no reason, that I am aware of, for supposing St. John to have been beloved beyond the other two. And had that been the case, and had it constituted a well known designation of this Apostle then, as it has done since, we might have expected to see it noticed also by some other of the writers of the New Testament, and perhaps by any other rather than St. John. For such is his modesty and reserve, that he seems studiously to avoid any mention of his own name, even in his epistles. And in the same spirit he has suppressed also the name of his mother Salome among the women who went to pay the last offices to the body of Jesus in the sepulchre, though we know by the testimony of the other Evangelists that she was there ↑. But in fact may not the appellation of "the disciple whom Jesus loved," have a very different signification? a signification more in accordance with the modest character of St.

* Gal. ii. 9.

See Matt. xxvii. 56. Mark xvi. 6.

John, and (may I add?) more suitable to the divine character of our Saviour; for, as Barrow justly observes*, "God maketh no arbitrary or groundless discriminations. He neither loveth and favoreth, nor loatheth and discountenanceth any person unaccountably. Impartiality is a divine attribute and perfection of God." But, according to the common acceptation, the expression is hardly elevated above the idea of "a favorite." I would therefore understand it to mean, 66 one of the disciples whom, unworthy as he was, Jesus deigned to love." And if we would know the nature of this love, hear the Apostle's own explanation; "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him: herein is love, not that we loved him, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins t." So likewise St. Paul; "the life, which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me t."

Now, St. Paul would have been the last person to arrogate to himself any superior claim to the love of Christ. He calls himself "the least of the Apostles, who was not worthy to be called an Apostle." But in proportion to his sense of his own unworthiness, so was the sense of his obligation to his Saviour, who had vouchsafed to extend his love to him.

But if it be objected, that the prefixing of the article does still point it out as a distinctive character of St. John, I

*Vol. iii. Serm. 38. fol.

† 1 John iv. 9.

‡ Gal. ii. 20.

would observe, that, where it first occurs, it is not said "the disciple," but "one of the disciples." And the subsequent passages, all relating to the crucifixion, or resurrection, which quickly followed the occasion upon which the expression is first used, probably have reference to that text of John *, and to that only. Therefore in one of these passages it is added, "which also leaned on his breast at supper." But what need of this, unless to explain what otherwise might not have been understood? Thereby tying down the application to the particular time when it was first mentioned. I would propose then to interpret the four last of the five passages, in which alone the expression is found, as pointing out "him who had before been called the disciple whom Jesus loved;" loved as his Saviour and Redeemer, who was the propitiation for his sins; in that term the Apostle acknowledging at once his own unworthiness, and the infinite goodness of Christ.

In treating this subject, it ought to be born in remembrance that the word ayan, and its derivatives, or synonyms, is so frequently used by St. John, as to constitute a marked feature of his style. In his first epistle and fourth chapter, it occurs fifteen times in the space of six verses. And in his Gospel, only a few verses anterior to the first occasion on which it is appropriated to St. John, we fin it applied to all the Apostles without distinction," having loved his own that were in the world, he loved them to the end t." That is, He continued to regard them as the peculiar objects of his care, and by his example to inculcate

* John xiii. 23.

+ Ibid. xiii. 1.