differences pertains to the localities in which Christ is said to have fulfilled his ministry. If a reader had the first three Gospels only, he would be apt to conclude that Jesus did very little teaching in Jerusalem before his final visit to that city-a visit which, after two or three days of public service, was terminated by his arrest and trial and crucifixion. A microscopic scrutiny might reveal to him a few traces of the Lord's earlier presence and influence there (Matt. 23: 37; Luke 13: 34; 10: 38, 39), but even such scrutiny would not discover any trace of a previous ministry of Jesus in the province of Judea, or in that of Samaria. According to these Gospels, Galilee appears to have been the almost exclusive theatre of the Saviour's ministry. But, on the other hand, the Fourth Gospel represents the Lord as going up to Jerusalem at a passover which occurred soon after his baptism, as expelling the money-changers from his Father's house, as doing signs for several days in the holy city, and as continuing his ministry for a considerable period, perhaps for months, in the province of Judea. (See "Outlines of the Life of Christ," by E. R. Condor, pp. 62-4); also as preaching two days, with remarkable effect, in Sychar, near the ancient Shechem, on his way through Samaria to Galilee; then, at the next passover, as returning from Galilee to Jerusalem (John 5: 1), where he healed the infirm man on the Sabbath and afterwards boldly preached to the Jews; and as coming once more after a long period of service in Galilee, to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles, six months before his death, that he might remain there off and on, teaching and doing wonderful works for another indefinite time; and finally, as returning, after an absence in Ephraim, through Jericho, to spend the last days of his public life in the holy city.

It would then be not far from correct to say that the first three Gospels appear to assign about sixty-four out of sixty-five parts of the Saviour's public ministry to Galilee and its neighborhood, while the Fourth Gospel appears to assign not far from one hundred and seventeen out of one hundred and sixty-nine parts to Galilee, and perhaps fifty-two parts to other regions, especially Judea. The difference is striking. But it is a difference, not a contradiction. And there is no evidence that the writer of the Fourth Gospel was conscious of any difference requiring explanation between his Gospel and the first three; for had he been conscious of such a difference, he would have given the requisite explanation, as was his custom in other instances where explanation was needful. These are the facts: A great difference; a difference that involves no contradiction; a difference that was unperceived, or, at least, unfelt by the writer; in other words, a harmony in diversity which is remarkable and apparently unsought. How then can these facts be most naturally accounted for? By supposing that the Fourth Gospel was written by John, a personal attendant of Jesus, or by supposing that it was written by a falsarius of the second century? It does not appear to be at all improbable that a perfectly honest writer, as John is presumed to have been, who is relating what he has seen or heard, should fearlessly put down events as he remembers them, being sure that it is his duty as a first witness to declare the truth without change, and equally sure that the truth which he declares cannot be inconsistent with any other truth. This, I say, would be a natural state of mind in a conscientious writer, who was relating what he distinctly remembered seeing or hearing. And if, in this state of mind, he should intentionally omit much that he remembered, either because it had been already put in writing by others, or because a complete record would be too voluminous for use, he would do this without feeling it necessary to adjust his own narrative, minutely, to other narratives; he would simply omit what his plan required him to omit, and describe the rest as he remembered it. Α

sense of reality would control his pen. But this could not be the case with a falsarius of the second century. In his own mind he could not be as independent of the Synoptic Gospels as the writer of the Fourth Gospel appears to have been. He could not have assigned so large a part of the Saviour's public ministry to new places, without feeling that there was great danger of contradicting the well known and approved Gospels. In a word, it seems quite improbable that he would have ventured to differ in this respect so widely from the Synoptists; improbable that, having ventured to do this, he would have escaped the danger of actual contradiction between his record and theirs; and improbable, if he accomplished this at all, that he could have done it, without betraying the slightest apprehension of the danger to which he was exposed, or the slightest attempt to adjust his narrative to theirs, or the slightest wish to correct what he might regard as inaccurate in their narratives. It is clear to me, therefore, that the difference between the Fourth Gospel and the other three, as to the localities of Christ's ministry, is best accounted for by ascribing the last of the Gospels to John.

Another difference relates to the duration of our Lord's ministry. If we had the first three Gospels only, we should probably think that the period from Christ's baptism to his crucifixion comprised about one year and a third; but with the Fourth Gospel in our hands, we should probably infer that this period comprised three years and a third. Even if it could be shown that the feast of the Jews, spoken of in John 5: 1, was not the passover, the Fourth Gospel would prove that the public life of Jesus filled a period of two years and a third. Now this difference between the first three Gospels and the fourth, is readily explained if the fourth was written by an apostle, familiar with the public life of Christ. For such a writer would see no difficulty in the case. It would probably never occur to him that any of his readers might be puzzled to ascertain which of the Jewish feasts he meant in John 5: 1, or that there could ever be any difficulty in reconciling his account of the duration of Christ's ministry with that of the Synoptical writers. The very clearness and certainty of his knowledge would prevent explanation. But it would have been far otherwise with a Christian of the second century in attempting to write as an eye-witness concerning events that he knew only by report, or that he imagined for a purpose. Too much boldness would have led to contradiction between his story and the earlier documents; while too much caution would have betrayed itself in minute adjustment or explanation. Marvelous indeed would have been the genius of any man of the second century, who could have written the Fourth Gospel! I do not hesitate to say that he would have been far greater than any of the apostles, and the task which he performed far more difficult than any that has been achieved by writers of history or of story since the world was.

Another difference relates to the miracles of Jesus. As to those recorded in the Fourth Gospel, four remarks may be made: 1. That, with two exceptions, they are not the same as those described in the other Gospels. The two exceptions are Christ's walking on the sea and his feeding the five thousand. 2. That several of them are singularly conclusive when studied as evidences of divine power. Such are the changing of water into wine, the feeding of the five thousand with five loaves and two small fishes, the giving of sight to one who had been born blind, the raising to life of one who had been dead four days, and, perhaps, the healing of the nobleman's son from a distance. But the same cannot be said of the other two, viz.: walking upon the sea, and helping the disciples to take an extraordinary draught of fishes. Hence, six out of the eight miracles recorded in the Fourth Gospel may be pronounced remarkable even as miracles, affording the strongest proof possible, from such a source, of supernatural

power wielded by Christ. 3. That they seem to have been selected for narration, because of their fitness to beget faith in Christ in the minds of those who believed the record. For not without a measure of reason has the Fourth Gospel been described by certain scholars as a Tendenzschrift; i. e., a treatise composed with a definite aim, or to accomplish a given purpose. The writer himself authorizes this view of his work : "So also did Jesus many other signs before the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye may have life in his name" (20: 30, 31.) A better statement of the object which moved the writer of this Gospel to select for insertion the particular miracles which are described in it, need not be sought. 4. That with the miracles are also related their obvious consequences. Indeed, the consequences are so manifestly important as to furnish an ample justification of the miracles. A thoughtful reader will observe the words of the Evangelist in John 2: 23: "Many believed in his name, beholding his signs which he did" (Rev. Ver.); and the similar words of Nicodemus, 3: 2: "We know that thou art a Teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs which thou doest, except God be with him"; also, the kindred statement of the Evangelist respecting the miracle at Cana, 2: 11: "This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed on him" (Rev. Ver.); and his notice of the consequence of Christ's next miracle in Galilee, namely, the faith of the nobleman (Barkós) and his house, ch. 4: 53: "The father knew therefore that it was in the same hour in which Jesus said unto him: Thy son lives; and he himself believed, and all his house" (Bible Union Version). More at length are the consequences of the cure of the infirm man in Jerusalem described in the fifth chapter of this Gospel, as well as the consequences of feeding the five thousand, in the sixth chapter, the consequences of giving sight to the man who was born blind, in the ninth chapter, and the consequences of raising Lazarus to life again, in the eleventh chapter. The Fourth Gospel differs then from the first three in the four respects mentioned, in the particular miracles which it describes, in the greatness of these miracles, in their eminent fitness to inspire belief on the name of Jesus, the Son of God, and in their important consequences at the time. Not that the miracles of the earlier Gospels are entirely wanting in the three characteristics last named, but that these characteristics are more distinct and pronounced in the miracles of the Fourth Gospel. It is a difference of degree only, yet a difference so clearly marked as to need explanation.

What bearing, then, has the difference in question on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel? Is it best explained by considering the writer an apostle who selected his materials without fear from the life of Christ with which he was familiar, or by considering him a post-apostolic Christian, who shaped or invented materials to suit his purpose? Unless there is something really incredible in the miracles of the Fourth Gospel, something which compels us to assign them to the realm of fable, I see no good reason for supposing that an apostle may not have chosen to insert just these, and no others, in his narrative. Writing after the Synoptical Gospels had come into use, and writing for a definite and Christian purpose, it is easy to believe that he may have chosen them, chiefly because they were fitted to accomplish the object of his Gospel, but also because most of them were not recorded in existing Gospels. But I cannot see how a wise and good man of the second century could have learned or invented the simple, but perfect, story of these miracles, unrecorded by the other Evangelists; nor can I easily believe that the Fourth Gospel was written by any man who was not both

wise and good. It does not bear the marks of folly or of craft. It seems a very bold and straightforward writing, and, looking simply at its record of miracles, I think the probabilities are as ten to one in favor of its Johannean authorship.

Before leaving this point we may recur to the object of the Fourth Gospel, as declared by the author himself, viz.: to lead its readers to "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing" they "might have life in his name." Assuming the truth of this statement, can we doubt the sincerity of the author's faith in Christ as the Saviour of men? If not, and we admit the sincerity of his Christian faith, can we doubt his belief of the truth of what he was writing? Could he, being an honest believer in Jesus on grounds satisfactory to his own powerful mind, resort to fictions of the most extraordinary kind in persuading others to share his faith? Could the man who truly honored the Saviour, and desired to have others honor him, ascribe to him, falsely, such words as, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," or such a prayer to the Father as this: "Sanctify them in the truth, thy word is truth?" (Revised Version.) There is a psychological absurdity involved in this view. But if we assume that the author of the Fourth Gospel did not himself truly believe in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God and the Saviour of men, and did not seriously aim to lead others to this belief, how shall we explain the moral and spiritual elevation of this Gospel? "By their fruits ye shall know them." An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. But here certainly is good fruit.

Another difference relates to the parables of Jesus. The Fourth Gospel does not contain the word "parable" (apaßoλ), or any discourse of Jesus that exactly corresponds with the beautiful illustrations of truth which bear that name in the Synoptical Gospels. His representation of himself as the door of the sheepfold, and then as the good shepherd that giveth his life for the sheep, in John 10: 1-17, reminds one of the perfect parables reported by Matthew and Luke, but does not fill the mould in which they are cast. Yet, though there are no perfect parables in the Fourth Gospel, there are many passages which may be said to breathe the spirit of parables. Nature is made to utter the profoundest lessons of religious truth. Jesus represents himself as the way, the truth, and the life, as the light of the world, as the true bread from heaven, as the true vine, and as the king of all those who are of the truth. Moreover, the writer calls some of his sayings "proverbs" ("apoiμai). Now it is easy to believe that Jesus made use of dark sayings (mapouai) as well as of parables (mapaßoλai), and that in some parts of his ministry he employed the former, while in others he employed the latter, skillfully adapting his method of instruction or appeal to the spiritual condition of those addressed. Nor is it difficult to believe that an apostle, who had often listened to both forms of teaching, might be led by his deeper interest in one form than in the other, or by his wish to record the truths which his Lord had taught in that form, but not in the other, to insert in his narrative of Christ's ministry the teaching which had been given in that form. But it is not so credible that a falsarius of the second century could have originated the metaphorical teaching of the Fourth Gospel, or could have received it in so perfect a form through oral tradition, or would have ventured to put so much teaching of this form in his Gospel, without even saying that Jesus sometimes taught in parables.

Another difference is found in the events related.

Perhaps it may be suggested that

a difference of locality and of duration in the ministry of Christ would account for this difference of events, whoever may have been the writer. To some extent it would; but nothing short of an examination of cases will show whether it is or is not a sufficient

explanation of the actual narrative. Take the following instance: The Fourth Gospel not only asserts that Jesus was preaching and making disciples for a considerable period in Judea before the imprisonment of John the Baptist, but also that, by the hands of his first disciples, he was baptizing disciples in that region. Now as the work of Jesus in baptizing led to the debate about purification, to the consequent appeal to John the Baptist, and so to the testimony which he gave in respect to Christ, it evidently fell in with the purpose of the Evangelist to insert the whole story in his Gospel. If the events were actual, there is no reason why an apostle should not have made use of them in his narrative. But I think it far less probable that a writer of the second century, knowing the Lord's ministry through the earlier Gospels or oral tradition, would have been acquainted with these events, if they really occurred, or that he would have dared to relate them without historical warrant. For I need not pause, to show that the writer of this paragraph in the Fourth Gospel (3: 22-30) has come very near, apparently, to a contradiction of the earlier accounts which seem to represent the ministry of Jesus as beginning after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and not in Judea, but in Galilee. Matt. 4: 12, 17, 24; Mark 1: 14, 28; Luke 4: 14. Speaking of seeming contradictions, reference may also be made to the words which this Gospel ascribes to the Baptist: "And I knew him not," etc., (John 1: 31). Would it have been natural for a writer of the second century, familiar with the first three Gospels, to put these words into the mouth of the Baptist? Would he not have inferred just the contrary from Matthew's account of John's words when Christ applied to him for baptism : "I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me" (3: 14)? But, on the other hand, if the writer was one who had heard the Baptist, a great prophet and his revered teacher, utter these words, might he not have recorded them without fear of contradiction? He would not have been carefully and laboriously working up a case, but simply stating what he remembered. But to return from this digression : I do not think it at all probable that there was any Christian in the second century who could have put into the mouth of John the Baptist these beautiful and magnanimous words: "A man can receive nothing, except it have been given him from heaven. Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is made full. He must increase, but I must decrease" (Rev. Ver). If any Christian of the second century originated such a response, I would join with all my heart in calling him the Great Unknown of New Testament writers; but I have an impression that the theory of great unknown writers of Scripture has been stretched to the utmost, and even carried at times beyond the limits of sober reason.

Again, according to the Fourth Gospel, Jesus, when seized and bound in the garden, was "led to Annas first," because "he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high-priest. But the first three Gospels do not mention the fact that Jesus was led to Annas before he was taken to Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. Precisely what was accomplished by leading him to Annas first is not stated in the Fourth Gospel; nor is it perfectly clear how the record of this fact contributed to securing the object sought by the Evangelist in writing this Gospel. We are therefore unable to imagine any reason for the insertion of this statement, if it is not true; and if what is stated was done, who so likely to mention it as one who followed Jesus from the garden that night? Its insertion by a falsarius of the second century would be simply unaccountable; especially as any one who was adjusting his narrative to earlier Gospels must have seen that the introduction