are correctly reported. There is a plain difference of style between Pope's translation of the Iliad and Cowper's, even in passages where the Homeric thought is fairly reproduced by both. The same may be said of Prof. Torrey's translation of Neander's "History of the Christian Religion and Church," when compared with any other translation that I have seen. Many years ago the writer of this Introduction was associated with a friend in translating Perthes' "Life of Chrysostom." The first half of the volume was translated by the writer, and the second half by his friend; and the former did not feel himself flattered by observing that the second part was said by competent critics to "be done into better English than the first, though the sense of the original appeared to be reproduced with equal fidelity in both." From such instances it appears that a translation may closely resemble the translator's style and yet be faithful to the meaning of the original. Hence, if it were certain that John had given his own style to his Master's discourses, it would not follow that any part of the thought, or any particular illustration, ascribed to Jesus, was contributed by John; it would not follow that we have in the Fourth Gospel an unreliable report of the Lord's teaching. It might in fact be just as reliable as any of the "common places" preserved in the other Gospels; for they too must be regarded as versions of the more popular and striking parts of his teaching.

In the second place, the memory of John appears to have been singularly tenacious. As we have already seen, his narrative is remarkable for its accuracy in the representation of accompanying circumstances. Times and events were so deeply engraved on his memory that years could not erase them. There is no one of the Evangelists, not even Mark (virtually Peter), for whom events and the occasions of them had a profounder significance, no one who saw in them more clearly the purpose and hand of God. Plainly then he must have pondered these things in his heart, as he did the words of his Master. Yet they do not seem to have been transfigured by the action of his imagination. They retained their simple and real character, although subject, for more than half a century, to the influence of his brooding meditation. This fact deserves consideration. For it is scarcely probable that John gave more earnest heed, in the first instance, to any thing else than he gave to the words of Jesus. And, other things being equal, it is a law of the mind, that the closer the attention in the first instance, the better the memory ever after. If then his memory of events, occasions, and circumstances was singularly exact, there is much reason to suppose that it was equally clear and firm in its hold on the teaching which fell from the lips of his gracious Lord, and which must have made a deep impression on his mind. And if his brooding over events, and his growing apprehension of their meaning, did not change his view of them as objective realities, it would be somewhat surprising to find that his meditation on the words of Christ, and his growing insight into their meaning, unconsciously modified his recollection of those words as objective realities. Nor is this remark at all affected by the view we entertain of the help afforded by inspiration to the apostle. Whatever may be the true explanation of his vigorous memory, it is very certain that he possessed it, so far as scenes and events are concerned, and therefore probable that he possessed it, so far as the teaching of his Lord is concerned. And this raises a certain presumption against the theory proposed, and moves us to ask whether the phenomenon in question can be accounted for in any other way.

Is it then too much to assume, (1) that, beyond any other disciple of Jesus, John had a profoundly loving and spiritual nature, and that by reason of such a nature he was peculiarly susceptible to the influence of his Lord's words when they related to the Lord's person, or to the higher and mystical aspects of Christian truth? (2) That this extra

ordinary susceptibility to the sayings and sermons of Jesus which related to the Saviour's own person, or to the more vital and spiritual aspects of religion, led him to recall such sayings and sermons with peculiar interest, to meditate upon them with intense satisfaction, to use them frequently in his preaching, and thus to keep them ever fresh and distinct in his memory? And (3) that all this tended to bring the loving disciple's style. of thought and of expression into closer and closer accord with a certain part of his Master's teaching, so that in fact his language was unconsciously modeled after that part of Christ's language which was dearest to his heart and oftenest on his tongue?

In favor of these assumptions is the fact that they recognize in the Founder of our religion One greater than any or all of his disciples. They represent his spiritual being as large enough, many-sided enough, to match and move and inspire the capacities of every man with whom he had to do. Yet they are also consistent with the view that each one of his twelve disciples had some eminent qualification for the work of an apostle,1 some single faculty lifting him above the dead level of mediocrity and giving promise of valuable service in a certain direction, but they insist that no one of them equaled his Master, even in the faculty which had led to his selection as an apostle. And this estimate of Jesus agrees with his definite claims to pre-eminence in knowledge and authority, with his disciples' recognition of those claims and life-long devotion to his service, and with the place which many modern scholars give to his person and influence.

Especially does this estimate accord with the tone of the Fourth Gospel in speaking of Jesus. If John, as we have shown, was the writer of that Gospel, he certainly believed that Jesus had unparalleled knowledge of God and man, and also that, by union with Jesus, he himself had come into possession of new spiritual truth and life. Notice the following expressions: "But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men, and because he needed not that any one should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man" (John 2: 24, 25. Rev. Ver). "Of his fulness we all received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses: grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (1:16, 17. Rev. Ver). "Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are 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. Rev. Ver). It is perfectly evident that the author of such testimonies looked up to Jesus with reverence as well as love, counting him Master even though he were also Friend, and prizing his words as a legacy no less precious and divine than his works. How susceptible, impressible, plastic, his soul was to the influence of Christ may be partly inferred from his writings; and in view of their tone and testimony it is reasonable to assume that his habits of thinking and speaking must have been greatly influenced by those of his Lord, but especially by the discourses of Jesus that satisfied the deepest tendencies of his own spirit. These it is, that he has preserved in his Gospel. For the time came, in the history and ferment of Christian inquiry, when the churches were in need of that part of the Lord's instruction which had been welcomed with the greatest satisfaction by the soul of John, and which could be put on record in the best manner by him. He therefore, in obedience to the call of Providence, wrote his Gospel and gave it to the churches.

But though it is in itself credible, and indeed probable, that John's style was greatly influenced by that part of his Master's teaching which was peculiarly adapted to his

1 Save Judas Iscariot, who appears to have had no moral qualification for the apostleship. But it was known to Jesus from the beginning that this unworthy disciple would at last betray him to his foes (see Notes on 6: 64, 70, 71; 13: 11, 18) and then perish, before entering upon the proper work of an apostle.

spiritual nature, this explanation of the resemblance between his style and that of Jesus in the discourses recorded by him, cannot be accepted unless satisfactory answers can be given to the following questions, viz.: (1) Is there any reason to suppose that the discourses reported by John were identical with discourses reported in other language by the Synoptists? For if there were reason to suppose this, the probability that John's record has been colored by his own thought and style, rather than his style derived from that of Christ, would be very strong, and the explanation proposed would deserve little favor. But the question may be confidently answered in the negative, leaving the explanation undisturbed. (2) Do the persons addressed in the discourses of John's Gospel furnish any argument against this explanation? The answer to this question should be carefully made. For if the persons addressed in the discourses of the Fourth Gospel were the same, and in the same mental condition, as those addressed by the discourses of the other Gospels, the change of style would be surprising and an argument against the theory; but if they were different, there may be no argument from this source against the theory, inasmuch as difference of hearers might account for difference of manner in addressing them. Now it will be found, upon close examination, that the words of Jesus reported by John were, most of them at least, addressed to hearers who differed in important respects from those to whom his words in the first three Gospels were addressed. Let the record of John be read with an eye to this difference as accounting for its character.

This record first gives the words of Jesus to Andrew and John, as they were following him, viz. What seck ye? and next, his response to their question: "Rabbi, where abidest thou?" Come, and ye shall see. Then follow in rapid succession his saying to Peter: Thou art Simon, the son of John; thou shalt be called Peter; his commendation of Nathanael: Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile; his answer to Nathanael's question: "Whence knowest thou me?" Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee; and his response to Nathanael's confession of him as the Son of God, the King of Israel: Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou? Thou shalt see greater things than these. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the hea en opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. Only this last verse can be called Johannean, and this does not differ in tone or spirit from Christ's response to a similar confession of Peter, as recorded by Matthew (16: 16-19). In both instances it was called forth by the spiritual attitude of the person addressed.

Three brief remarks of Jesus at the marriage in Cana of Galilee are preserved by John; one to his mother: Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come; and two to the servants: Fill the water-pots with water, and, Draw out now, and bear unto the ruler of the feast. But none of these remarks would strike a reader as peculiar if found in the Synoptic Gospels. In John's account of Christ's purifying the Temple, the only sayings attributed to Jesus are two, viz. Take these things hence; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise; and, Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up; both of which find support as to fact and style in the other Gospels. (See Matt. 21: 13; Mark 14: 58). And it is noticeable that when John, as in these instances, gives any sayings of Christ to which reference is made in the earlier Gospels, the character of his report agrees with their reference.

Passing on to the third chapter, and the Lord's conversation with Nicodemus, we meet for the first time with a type of thought and expression rarely appearing in the Synoptical Gospels. But it is also true that the person addressed differs from any one

66

addressed by Jesus in the discourses of the first three Gospels. For Nicodemus was "a ruler of the Jews," that is, probably, a member of the Sanhedrin (7: 50). He was also called by Jesus in this conversation, if it is correctly reported, the teacher of Israel (Rev. Ver.), meaning at least one who belonged to the learned class in the Council, an expounder of the law. Besides, and this is a chief point, he was evidently a thoughtful man, fully persuaded by miracles or "signs" wrought in Jerusalem, that Jesus was a teacher come from God," and half-convinced, it is probable, that he was the expected Messiah. Well might the Lord, in a quiet, confidential interview, turn the eye of such an inquirer to the necessity of a radical inward change, of his entering upon a new spiritual life, as indispensable to real discipleship. This was clearly the one thing that Nicodemus needed to know, and there is no solid ground for doubting that he was in a state of mind to profit by it more than he would have profited by any other teaching. Still further, if the words of Jesus close with the fifteenth verse, it is worthy of remark that they abound in figurative language. The spirit of parables is in them. Thus we have the figure of a new birth as expressive of the moral change experienced by those who enter truly upon the service of Christ, the figure of the wind moving unseen as an emblem of the Holy Spirit renewing the hearts of men, and the figure of the brazen serpent lifted up in the wilderness as a symbol of the Lord himself to be lifted up as an object of saving faith. To say that the Jesus of the Synoptical Gospels could not have conversed in this manner with such a man, would be to speak unadvisedly.

But it may perhaps be asserted that John meant to ascribe the six following verses also to Jesus, that these verses contain a much smaller proportion of figurative language than was generally used by him, and that they seem to be an explanation, repetition, and expansion of thoughts already expressed. From these considerations it is inferred that John has here put his own words into the mouth of Jesus. On the other hand it may be said that explanation, iteration, expansion, are more or less characteristic of every wise teacher, especially in the freedom of conversation; and, further, that the expansion of these verses is in perfect keeping with the germinal thoughts previously uttered. There is, then, no conclusive evidence that these verses could not have been spoken by Jesus; yet it is equally true that there is no conclusive evidence of John's intention to ascribe them to Jesus. Only this may be strongly affirmed, that the difference between Christ's style and thought in conversation with Nicodemus, and his style and thought in many discourses of the Synoptical Gospels, may be accounted for without ascribing it to John the Evangelist. It is sufficiently explained as a result of adapting truth to the mind of the hearer.

The next passage to be noticed is Christ's conversation with a Samaritan woman at Jacob's well. Of this conversation it may be remarked that it was held with one person only, that her spiritual condition was evidently divined by the Lord, that apt and free use was made of illustration, and that the truth gradually imparted appears to have been suited to the woman's spiritual state. To be sure, our knowledge of this woman is restricted to what may be learned from the narrative in question. But this at least may be inferred from it, that she was neither stupid nor thoughtless. She had a bright intellect, a ready wit, and a conscience still alive. Indeed, she was better prepared to receive the truth than were many of the Jews; and, perceiving this, the great Teacher gave himself earnestly and skillfully to the task of infusing it into her soul. The first hint of his religious mission was given in the words, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith unto thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. And the next was similar, continuing the same metaphor:

Every one that drinketh of this water shall thirst again: but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up unto eternal life (Rev. Ver.). This use of imagery taken from objects at hand and familiar, is characteristic of the Christ of the Synoptists. Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God doth so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? (comp. Luke 10: 41, 42, and 14: 7-24; Matt. 7: 28-30. Rev. Ver.). Is there not the same divine skill and insight revealed in both passages? The same matchless use of natural objects in conveying religious truth? Do the writings of John, any more than those of Matthew, prove that he, the disciple, could have put such teaching into his Master's lips? Jesus now approaches the woman's conscience. Go, call thy husband, and come hither; and, in answer to her evasive reply, says, Thou saidst well, I have no husband: for thou hast had fire husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband (Rev. Ver.). The woman, perceiving from this reply that he was a prophet, introduces the mooted question as to the proper place of worship, and he responds: Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye worship the Father. Ye worship that which ye know not: we worship that which we know : for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers. God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth (Rev. Ver.). Thereupon the woman expressed her belief that the coming Messiah would explain and settle all things now in debate between the Jews and Samaritans, and Jesus saith unto her plainly: I that speak unto thee, am he. Can any one affirm that a word of this is far-fetched or improbable ? That what Christ is here reported to have said was any less fitting than what he said, according to Luke, in his own village Nazareth, To-day hath this Scripture been fulfilled in your ears? Or what he said at the ruler's table, according to Luke 14 : 7-24? Plainly, the woman was better prepared to hear his final word than were his neighbors in Galilee to hear what he said to them. She was a part of the field which he looked upon as white already for the harvest, while the people of Nazareth promptly rejected him when he spoke of mercy for the Gentiles, though a moment before they had wondered at the words of grace which fell from his lips. The Samaritans were better prepared to hear spiritual truth than most of the Jews, and it is quite probable that no one of them was more conscious of needing divine grace, and so in a more suitable moral condition to welcome such truth, than the woman whom Christ met at the well. On the whole, therefore, this conversation bears internal evidence of being truly reported. It is Christ-like, rather than Johannean.

And the same is equally true of the language which he is said to have employed in speaking to his disciples on their return from the city. There is nothing like it in the known writings of John, so figurative and yet so condensed. My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish his work. Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh the harvest ? behold, I say unto you: Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields, that they are white already unto harvest. He that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal; that he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together. For herein is the saying true, One soweth and another reapeth. I sent you to reap that whereon ye have not laboured; others have laboured and ye are entered into their labour (Rev. Ver.). Thus speaks the Christ of John to his disciples, and in every