from those general similarities of language or idea which often occur casually in cotemporary or nearly cotemporary writings. For instance, the general doctrine of the Logos, -its proceeding from the Father, its creative function, its unity and equality, and at the same time diversity and subordination to the Father, are common to the gospel, to the Montanism of the second century, and to the Platonising Apologists. Justin speaks of the Logos "Monogenes," of its incarnation, etc.; and there are several expressions of the same kind in Tatian and Athenagoras. But this no more proves quotation than do the similar expressions in Philo; and the passage in Justin's Apology (i. 61) resembling John iii. 3, 5, appears to be derived by him, as well as the author of the Clementines, from an older gospel now deemed apocryphal. Indeed, the marked difference of idea and expression in passages referring to one and the same subject is in itself a proof that Justin was ignorant of the fourth gospel;1 and it may reasonably be asked why, in these cases of assumed citation, no express reference to apostolical authority occurs; why the allusion is only to current sayings or "eipnμeva,” and why the sense intended by the evangelist is not adhered to ?2 The "testimonies" supposed to have been recently discovered, and by some received so triumphantly, turn out to be equally inconclusive. That in the "Philosophoumena" leaves us uncertain whether Basilides himself be referred to, or only his followers, who certainly, as well as the Valentinians, made eager use of the fourth gospel on its appear

1 Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 184. Justin's ignorance of the fourth gospel is clearly indicated by his omitting any allusion to it on occasions where it would have been obviously important to have made one; as in Trypho, ch. 100, where, although industriously collecting all the known utterances of Jesus illustrating his relation to the Father and the doctrine of the Logos, he discovers only Matt. xi. 27; xvi. 16. Luke i. 35, and ix. 22. In Trypho, ch. 111, although making the O. T. Passover a type of Christ, he adheres to the synoptical account as to the day; and it is remarkable how in ch. 40 the tpyical resemblance is made out, omitting altogether the lance-thrust on which the fourth gospel lays so much stress.

2 As, for instance, in Ignat. Phil. 7.

ance;1 and the garbled citation at the end of the Clementines lately published by Dressel, would only prove that about A.D. 160, the time of the probable origin of the gospel, the work, though not received as apostolical, was found sufficiently suitable and acceptable to be quoted even by writers opposed to its general doctrine. The later essays of Baur, Volkmar, and Hilgenfeld thoroughly expose the sophistical attempts of Lücke, Hase, Weisse, Weisacker, Ewald, etc., to escape the difficulty of the subject. And it may be asked why the Montanists made no reference to the fourth gospel in their controversies with the Church about the Paraclete; why no allusion occurs in the course of the dispute to a work ostensibly sanctioning a leading doctrine, when at the same time constant reference is made to the Apocalypse in regard to the less important matter of chiliasm? The fact is that the Apocalypse lost credit with the Church in consequence of the advantage it gave to its opponents in these very disputes; while in the meantime the gospel grew in popularity, as adapting the very notions, such as those of the "second coming" and the Paraclete, which had before encouraged the disorders of individual fanaticism, to the promotion of Catholic interests.

Let us next ask whether it be likely, from what we otherwise know of the apostle, that he wrote the gospel, The earliest historical notice of him is in the second chapter of Galatians, where he appears as one of the apostolic leaders or "pillars," in more or less open antipathy and hostility to St. Paul. Then we have allusions to a trying contention of St. Paul with certain "adversaries" and "beasts" at Ephesus,3 followed, as appears from documents preserved in Eusebius, by the victory and triumphant installation of John on the contested arena as hierarch of Asiatic Christendom.4 Then we find him re

1 See Baur, in the Tüb. Theol. Jahrbucher, xii. pp. 148–151. 2 See Volkmar : "Ein neu entdecktes Zeugniss," etc. Jour. 13, 3, p. 458.

Euseb., H. E., v. 24; also iii. 23 and 31.

Tüb. Theol.,

31 Cor. xv. 32; xvi. 9.

ferred to by the Asiatic presbyters1 as chief authority on millenarianism, and as the consistently millenarian author of the Apocalypse, which contains (as may now be confidently asserted) so many covert insinuations against St. Paul. But the doctrine of the gospel is decidedly antimillenarian and anti-Jewish; Pauline ideas are the very basis of it; whereas the Apocalypse is replete with Jewish feeling and eschatological imagery, of which in the gospel no vestige occurs. The two writings imply fundamentally distinct theories; so that it has become an admitted axiom that, though perhaps in a certain sense geographically allied, their authors must be different.3 The national prejudice and externalism of one are incompatible with the spiritualism and universalism of the other; and the tradition authenticating the Apocalypse being stronger than that for the gospel, even orthodoxy, when confronted with unanswerable facts, should be content to waive its sympathetic feelings. Nor is there anything to countenance the notion that the Apocalyptic writer underwent a mental transformation, converting the rancour of the visionary pamphleteer into the calm transcendentalism of the evangelist. St. John must have been already sixty years of age at the time of the composition of the Apocalypse; and, so far as we collect from tradition, he remained consistently true to the bigotry and intolerance of Judaism. Hence in the gospels the epithet "Boanerges" is given to the ambitious candidate for apostolic precedency, who so far mistook the real character of Christianity as to invoke fire from heaven upon the Samaritan cities, and wanted to prohibit the beneficial ministry of those who were not of his own party. On the other hand, it is very remarkable that the evangelist, however anxious to asseverate the truth of what he states, does

1 In Irenæus v. 33.

2 See e.g. ch. v. 25.

3 See Lücke, Offenbar., ed. 1852, p. 747; De Wette, Lehrbuch der Einleitung, ed. 1848, p. 388, sec. 189.

4 Mark ix. 38; Luke ix. 49.

not give himself out as eye-witness, but only refers to the testimony of a third person as eye-witness, who was perfectly willing and able to tell the truth; referring, no doubt, to the forms of attestation (μapтupia Inσov) given in Revelations (i. 7) a fact which he evidently considered of the highest importance (xix. 37). The eye-witness is not said to have himself written anything, but only to be the unimpeachable authority on whose evidence the written account depends; and though certainly a writer may in many cases allowably speak of himself in the third person, it would be entirely inappropriate, if intending to represent himself as eye-witness, to say, "he who saw bare record," instead of, "I saw, and now testify what I saw ;" thus awkwardly appealing to his own past attestation, as if he were not himself present to renew and to confirm it.2 It seems inconceivable that a writer who in the Apocalypse repeatedly refers to himself by name, should here, where so anxious to convince, affect an indirect style of address and a superfluous incognito, when his object would have been better answered by standing openly forward in his proper person. Nor can the suppression of the name be ascribed to a modesty which does not appear to have belonged to the apostle's character,3 nor indeed to that of any one who should have so constantly made himself individually prominent as "the beloved disciple;" a designation, which, however appropriate in the mouth of his master or of a third person, makes an entirely different impression when supposed to be uttered by himself. The

Ch. xix. 35; comp. xx. 30.

2 Comp. ch. i. 34 and 1 John i. 2; iv. 14. 3 Matt. xx. 21, 22.

See Baur's Christenthum v. Kirche, vol. i., p. 133; Hilgenfeld in the Tübingen Jahrbücher, vol. xvi., p. 532; and Volkmar in the Zeitschrift fur wiss. Theologie, iii., 3, p. 293. The evangelist to a certain extent undoubtedly identifies himself with the illustrious head of Asiatic Christianity, as speaking in his spirit, and with his authority: but there is no personal identification; and Dr. Steiz, in the Theol. Stud. und Krit., 1859, p. 497, fails to establish that "ekeivos" (ch. xix. 35) means the first person singular. The passages referred to by Meyer, as ch. i. 14, or xxi. 24, refer, like the

author puts forth his work anonymously, in full reliance on the force of the unanswerable internal evidence it addresses to the sympathies of congenial souls; speaking of himself not as an apostle, but only as one of the general Christian body,' any one of whom might be said to have spiritually seen the glory" brought home by means of faith to their own convictions. And even when at a later time it seemed desirable to assert the direct apostolic authorship of this noble product of Christian inspiration, and in this view to superadd the words "ypayas Tavтa" in a polemical appendix to “ μαρτυρων περι τουτων,” the actual writer still stands apart from the alleged apostolic "witness," the disciple who "wrote" is pointedly separated from the "we" believing his testimony, and there is no such identification of them as is claimed in the Apocalypse.

The Passover Controversy.

And there is yet another point which is still more seriously menacing to the authenticity of the gospel. First adverted to in this relation by Bretschneider, it was afterwards more fully developed by Schwegler in his work on "Montanism," (p. 191). In the disputes about Passover observance which agitated the second century, so little thought of now, but then considered of such vital importance as to have occasioned the disruption of Christendom, the Eastern Christians appealed to the synoptical gospels present one, to the general Christian consciousness; just as Luke, who was certainly no eye-witness, speaks of the fulfilment of the gospel facts" among us." The words "ó éшρaкws μеμаρтνрnke" may have been suggested by the usual Johannean formula " Mapтupia Inood" (see Apoc. i. 5, iii. 14, xx. 4; 1 John i. 1, 3; v. 9, 10). Comp. Weisse, Evangelienfrage, p. 61; Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol., vol. ii., p. 414; and Paschastreit, p. 152, note. The appeal sometimes made to "Presbyter John," is justly termed by Volkmar a silly (geistesleere) expedient.

1 Ch. i. 14, 16. There is here no contrast between the writer and the community addressed, as in 1 John i. 1-3.

2 John xxi. 24. The twenty-first chapter is generally admitted to be a later addition to the gospel, which terminates naturally with the twentieth chapter. See Tübingen Journal, vol. x., 205. Baur, Evangelien, pp. 235, 321.