stances. * 'These accounts,' we are told by the author of Supernatural Religion,' are in complete contradiction to ' each other, and both cannot be true.'t For our own part we confess our utter inability to see any discrepancy between the two accounts. On the contrary, we contend that the later incident would be difficult of comprehension apart from the earlier. To whatever extent St. John may have been a follower of Christ during the earlier portion of His Judæan ministry, there is no intimation given in the narrative that either he or St. Andrew abandoned from that time forth their ordinary occupations. Again, whilst there is no intimation given in the fourth Gospel that St. Peter became a constant attendant upon Christ from the time of his first call on the banks of the Jordan, it is clear, from the whole tenour of the Synoptical narrative, that he was no stranger to Christ at the time of the second call by the Sea of Galilee. The manner in which he addressed our Lord,‡ his ready compliance with the request to thrust out his boat from the shore, his willing relinquishment of his work that he might listen to Christ's words, and the readiness with which he and his three companions forsook all that they had-all these circumstances are in striking accordance with the account given by the fourth Evangelist of the earlier introduction to Christ; and the two accounts, so far from presenting even the semblance of contradiction, mutually explain and corroborate each other.

It appears to us altogether superfluous to enter upon a refu-tation of the arguments adduced by the author of 'Super'natural Religion' in proof of his assertion that the writer of the fourth Gospel studiously elevates himself above the Apostle Peter.' Some of the alleged instances are too puerile to require, or even to admit of refutation. If the writer of the fourth Gospel was, as he declares, known to the high priest, and St. Peter was not known to him, we can discern no traces of a desire for self-elevation in the simple record of the fact that the one was the means of procuring admission into the palace for the other. Still less are we able to discover indications of self-exaltation in the incidental remark-so natural in the narrative of an eye-witness, so inexplicable on any other supposition-that the writer being, as all antiquity testifies, considerably younger than St. Peter, outran him on the morning of the Resurrection. But we forbear. But we forbear. We will not prejudge

* St. Matt. iv. 18, 22; St. Mark i. 16, 20; St. Luke v. 1, 11. † Vol. ii. p. 425.

VOL. CXLV. NO. CCXCVII.

St. Luke v. 5.

the cause in support of which such inferences have been drawn from such premisses.

An objection of real interest and importance to the genuineness of the fourth Gospel is based upon the alleged incompatibility between it and the Synoptic Gospels in their respective accounts of the birth of Christ, and of His personal character and claims. Now no careful student of the Gospel history can be insensible of the fact that there is a certain amount of truth in the statements which have been advanced on these points, alike by those who have maintained the authenticity of the fourth Gospel as opposed to that of the Synoptic Gospels, and by those who have defended the Synoptic Gospels at the expense of the fourth Gospel. Canon Westcott, in his admirable Introduction to the Study of the Gospels,' has pointed out, in language indicative alike of the acute critic and the sound theologian, the character of this difference, and has shown also the necessity of the full recognition of the contrast between the narratives of the Synoptists and the fourth Gospel as the condition of the right understanding of their essential harmony. In the opinion of the author of 'Supernatural Religion,' on the contrary, the difference between them is one which admits of no explanation; and he boldly asserts that the historical truth of the one or of the other must of necessity be rejected. Our space will not admit of our following him through the entire list of alleged inconsistencies; and we must be content with the examination of so many of the most plausible amongst them as will enable our readers to appreciate their argumentative weight.

First, our author alleges that whilst two of the Synoptists relate the circumstances of the birth of Jesus, and give some history of his family and origin, the fourth Gospel, ignoring all this, introduces the Great Teacher at once as the Logos who from the beginning was with God, and was himself God." The answer to this assertion is that it betrays the writer's ignorance of the contents alike of the Synoptic Gospels and of the fourth Gospel, inasmuch as whilst the latter refers repeatedly to our Lord's mother and brethren, and contains allusions to His reputed father,† and also to the reputed and the real place of His birth, thus distinctly recognising His proper humanity, the second of the Synoptists, on the other hand, proclaims with equal distinctness the doctrine of His Godhead by beginning his Gospel with the distinct annunciation of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.' Moreover, the *Vol. ii. p. 450. † vi. 42. i. 46; iv. 44; vii. 42.

Synoptists distinctly recognise the divine attestation of our Lord's Sonship at His baptism and at His transfiguration, and they refer to His knowledge of the secrets of all hearts, and to His power to forgive sins.

6

Again, according to the author of Supernatural Religion,' 'the fourth Evangelist knows nothing of the Baptism.' It is almost incredible that anyone who has read the fourth Gospel should venture on such an assertion. It is perfectly true, indeed, that the fourth Gospel does not contain an historical account of the Baptism as we find it recorded by the Synoptists. But this is in precise accordance with the method observed in regard to other of the chief incidents in our Lord's history, to which the writer makes more or less direct allusion, as to events well known and certainly believed, but which, on that very account, it did not fall within his design formally to rehearse. It is thus that we find no direct mention of the Transfiguration, but we find the Evangelist, as one of the three chosen witnesses, referring to it in words which naturally recall those of St. Peter's allusion to the same event,* And 'we beheld His glory.'† Again, we find no account in the fourth Gospel of the agony in the garden of Gethsemane, but whereas the Synoptists record the prayer, O my Father, if 'it be possible, let this cup pass from Me, nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt, the fourth Evangelist represents our Lord as addressing Peter immediately afterwards in these words: The cup which my Father hath given Me, shall I "not drink it?' § So, again, in regard to the Ascension. The fourth Evangelist does not record the event, but he represents our Lord in chapter vi. 62 as addressing His disciples in the words- What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before;' whilst in chapter xx. 17, we find Him sending this message by Mary Magdalene to 'His brethren I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God.' In precisely the same manner, whilst we find no direct account of the Baptism in the fourth Gospel, we find unequivocal allusion to it; for whilst the Synoptists tell us that at the baptism of Christ in the Jordan, the Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him,' the fourth Evangelist represents the Baptist

* 2 Peter i. 17.

† St. John i. 14.

St. Matt. xxvi. 39. Cf. St. Mark xiv. 36; St. Luke xxii. 42.

§ xviii. 11.

St. Luke iii. 22. Cf. St. Matt. iii. 16; St. Mark i. 10.

as bearing record, saying, 'I saw the Spirit descending from 'heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him.'*

6

We

Again, the Synoptists,' says the author of Supernatural Religion,' clearly represent the ministry of Jesus as having 'been limited to a single year, and his preaching as confined 'to Galilee and Jerusalem, when his career culminates at the 'fatal Passover. The fourth Gospel distributes the teaching of Jesus between Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, and makes ' it extend at least over three years, and refers to three Passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem.'† It might suffice, in reply to this objection, to challenge the writer to produce any evidence whatever of the assertion which he has so confidently advanced respecting the limitation of our Lord's earthly ministry by the Synoptists to the space of one year. are very far, however, from finding ourselves under the necessity of being content with this reply. We freely admit that a conclusion such as that at which the author of Supernatural Religion' has arrived, may very naturally be formed by superficial readers of the Synoptic Gospels, inasmuch as by far the greater portion of the events related by the Synoptists are confessedly comprised within the last year of our Lord's public ministry. We contend, however, that when carefully examined, the narratives of the Synoptists are not only consistent with the longer duration of that ministry, but are unintelligible upon any other supposition. We have no need to appeal to the words of our Lord as recorded by St. Luke, 'I must walk to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following,'‡ although it may be fairly argued that a ministry extending over three literal or three symbolical days appears to be indicated in these words; and that a day may be symbolically used here, as elsewhere, to represent a year. Neither need we attach much weight to the fact that immediately upon the commencement of our Lord's ministry, according to the views assigned by the impugners of the fourth Gospel to the Synoptists, and consequently before our Lord could have become known in Judæa, we find captious Pharisees and doctors of the law assembled at Capernaum, who had come not only out of every town of Galilee, but also out of Judæa and Jerusalem.§ It would obviously be impracticable to comprise within our pre

i. 32. Even writers such as Hilgenfeld are constrained to recognise this unequivocal allusion to the baptism. Historisch-Kritische 'Einleitung in das Neue Testament,' p. 719.

† Vol. ii. p. 451.

xiii. 33.

§ Cf St. Matt. ix. 1; St. Mark ii.; St. Luke v. 17.

scribed limits any extensive inquiry into the chronology of our Lord's ministry, even were the materials with which we have to deal of a more precise and determinate character than they actually are. It must suffice for our present purpose to observe that whilst the Synoptists relate at length one visit to Jerusalem at the close of our Lord's ministry, their narratives contain indications, more or less direct, that that visit had been preceded by others. Of these indications the following will suffice. We read in St. Matthew iv. 25, of the multitudes who followed' our Lord throughout the various regions of Galilee from Jerusalem and from Judæa.' Again, the whole history of the family of Bethany implies that our Lord had visited that place previously to the raising of Lazarus. One of these visits is expressly recorded in St. Luke x. 38-42; and it is not unworthy of notice, when we recall to mind the local colouring of our Lord's teaching, that the scene of the preceding parable that of the good Samaritan-is laid between Jerusalem and Jericho. Once more, whilst the Synoptists, as well as the writer of the fourth Gospel, make mention of Joseph of Arimathea as a disciple of Christ, and also of the ready compliance with Christ's request respecting the use of the upper room in Jerusalem, as though the owner of that room was no stranger to our Lord, the supposition of the Judæan ministry of Christ affords at once a reasonable and a sufficient explanation of the implied facts that these and other inhabitants of Judæa had been already brought into contact with Him. But perhaps the most decisive indications which the Synoptists afford of the extent of the Judæan ministry are to be found (1) in St. Luke iv. 44, where, according to the best authorities, we should read, 'He preached in the synagogues of Judæa,' and (2) in the final lament over the doomed city of Jerusalem, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye < would not.'*

6

We have thus briefly glanced at some of the most plausible arguments urged by the author of Supernatural Re'ligion 'in proof of the utter discrepancy between the Synoptic

St. Matt. xxiii. 37. Cf. St. Luke xix. 42. We say, 'perhaps,' because it is possible that the reference is to the invitations of the Old Testament prophets. The context does not appear to us to favour this view. Moreover, this interpretation involves such a recognition of our Lord's pre-existence, on the part of one of the Synoptists, as will not find acceptance with the negative critics, whose only resource is to dispute the genuineness of the passage.