October, 1879, and was published in the following year with several additions and corrections. Dr. Abbot is well-known as one of the greatest critical scholars of his day. Everything which proceeded from his pen was from the hand of a master. His learning was universally acknowledged not only in America, but throughout Europe. In appreciation of it he was offered the degree of D.D. by the University of Edinburgh at its tercentenary (1884), but died before the date of its celebration. Dr. Sanday thus speaks of his learning: "For clearness, accuracy, and precision of detail I do not think that he can have had a rival on either side of the Atlantic, but it was evident that they were qualities which were moral as well as intellectual. My sense of his loss is compounded of gratitude and admiration, and of the deepest regret that such a career should be closed." This essay, entitled "The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel: External Evidences," bears ample proof of the learning, the accurate scholarship, the impartiality, and the minuteness of detail of its learned author. It is the most complete investigation of this part of the subject, and has influenced the views both of the supporters and the opponents of the Johannean authorship.

Dr. Abbot commences his investigation by adverting to several objections formerly insisted upon, but which are now to be regarded as answered. Of these he mentions three. The first is that which lay at the foundation of the views of the older Tübingen school, the antagonism between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, namely, the assertion that John, being one of the Apostles of the circumcision, could not have written the Fourth Gospel, which savours of Gentile Christianity. This statement has now been abandoned by the modern disciples of that school, and it is admitted that such an antagonism has been greatly exaggerated, and that we know nothing concerning the theological position of John which justifies us in assuming that he could not have written this Gospel. The second is the Paschal controversy. It has been asserted that John's celebration of Easter on the 14th Nisan is in contradiction to the statement contained in his Gospel. But it has now been proved, and is generally admitted, that the day adopted by John and the Christians of Asia had no reference to the day of Christ's death, but to the Jewish Passover, in whatever day of the week it happened. And the third point is the assertion of Baur, Schwegler, and the early Tübingen school, that the Fourth Gospel was written somewhere between the years A.D. 160 and A.D. 170. This statement has now been completely disproved, and is relinquished by all Biblical scholars.

Having thus paved the way by showing the progress which has already been made, Dr. Abbot proceeds to consider the external evidences in favour of the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel. His argument is fourfold. 1. The general reception of the four Gospels as genuine among Christians in the last quarter of the second century. 2. The inclusion of the Fourth Gospel in the Apostolical Memoirs of Christ appealed to by Justin Martyr. 3. Its use by the various Gnostic sects. 4. The attestation appended to the book itself.

The first point, the general reception of the four Gospels before the close of the second century, is a fact which cannot be questioned. The great authority here is Irenæus (A.D. 180), the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John. Irenæus not only repeatedly asserts the existence of the four Gospels which we now possess, but makes special mention of the Fourth Gospel. Tischendorf informs us that there are in the works of Irenæus eighty direct quotations from John's Gospel. The four Gospels were at that period recognized by the Christian Church throughout the Roman Empire as sacred books, and consequently must have been for a considerable time in existence in order that such a universal recognition might be formed.

The second point, the inclusion of the Fourth Gospel in the Apostolical Memoirs

appealed to by Justin Martyr, is dwelt upon at great length by Dr. Abbot; it occupies more than thirty pages. Justin (A.D. 147), in his two Apologies, makes frequent mention of the Memoirs or Memorabilia of the Apostles. He informs us that these were constantly read in the Church on the Lord's Day, with the writings of the prophets. Now, the question is, Was the Fourth Gospel included in these Memoirs, or were they restricted to the Synoptic Gospels? Dr. Abbot minutely examines the writings of Justin, and, with much acuteness and force of argument, proves that the Fourth Gospel was undoubtedly included that there are references to it and quotations from it which are unmistakable. This is a point which is now generally admitted even by negative critics; after a long contention to the contrary, they are constrained to acknowledge that Justin did recognize the Fourth Gospel; in short, that the Memoirs of the Apostles comprised the four Gospels as we now possess them. This is admitted by Hilgenfeld, the greatest living representative of the Tübingen school, by Keim, and Thoma. Thus another important step has been made in proof of the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel : it was regarded as a sacred book in the middle of the second century.

The third point is the use of the Gospel by the various Gnostic sects. This has recently been proved from the discovery of the Philosophouma, or the Refutation of all Heretics, by Hippolytus. This work, which contains references of the early Gnostics to the books of the New Testament, enlarges the sphere of the external evidences. Hippolytus tells us that both Basilides (A.D. 125) and Valentinus (A.D. 140) made use of expressions occurring in John's Gospel. This brings the composition of the Fourth Gospel up to the first quarter of the second century.

The fourth point is the attestation appended to the Gospel itself, and found in all the Greek manuscripts and versions which have come down to us. At the close of the Gospel we have the following anonymous attestation :-"This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true." On this Dr. Abbot remarks: "We manifestly have either a real or a forged attestation to the truth and genuineness of the Gospel. Suppose the Gospel written by an anonymous forger of the middle of the second century, what possible credit could he suppose would be given by an anonymous attestation like this? A forger with such a purpose would have named his pretended authority, and have represented the attestation as formally and solemnly given. The attestation as it stands clearly supposes that the author (or authors) of it was known to those who first received the copy of the Gospel containing it."

Thus the external evidences in proof of the Johannean authorship of the Fourth Gospel are strong, indeed they could hardly be stronger, and it is not too much to affirm that they equal in weight the evidences in proof of the genuineness of any other book of the New Testament, and surpass the evidences in favour of any classical writing. Recent discoveries of ancient documents, as, for example, the full text of the Clementine Homilies, the Diatessaron of Tatian, and the Philosophouma of Hippolytus, the more rigid examination of the writings of the Fathers, especially Justin Martyr, as here made by Dr. Abbot, and the references to the Fourth Gospel in the early Gnostic writers, have constrained the opponents of the Johannean authorship of the Fourth Gospel to shift their ground, and to attribute to that Gospel a more ancient date than they formerly assigned. Baur and Schwegler have fixed the date A.D. 160-170, and Volkmar A.D. 188; Zeller and Scholten go back to A.D. 180; Hilgenfeld, constrained to admit the use of the Gospel by Justin Martyr, to A.D. 130; Schenkel between the years A.D. 115 and A.D. 120; and Keim in the beginning of the second century, A.D. 100-107, though in his last edition he returns to A.D. 130. But if

a date has to be assigned so near the death of John, when so many of his contemporaries were alive, it is impossible that it could be a forgery.

The second essay, the shortest and the least important of the three, is by Dr. Peabody, Professor of Christian Ethics in Harvard College. It is designed to supplement the essay of Dr. Abbot. Dr. Abbot intended to write a second work on the internal evidences of John's Gospel, but was prevented by death, and this task was accordingly undertaken by his fellow-professor in the same university. As we have already remarked, Dr. Peabody, like Dr. Abbot, is a Unitarian, and therefore an impartial witness. He observes: “In treating the internal tokens of authorship of the Fourth Gospel, I determined to consult no authority except the Gospel itself, and my essay is the result of a close and careful study of the Gospel. This study has so far modified my opinion that, while I previously believed that John wrote that Gospel, I now feel sure that no one but John could have written it."

Dr. Peabody's argument is as follows:-"I think we shall find in the Fourth Gospel abundant evidence that it was written by a native of Judæa, by a Hebrew then living remote from Palestine, by a resident of Ephesus, before or not long after the close of the first Christian century, by a person familiarly conversant with the events recorded, and by an old man." He places great stress on the fact that the Gospel is anonymous. If it were a forgery, the name of John would have been affixed in order to give it authority, as is the case with the spurious works of the first two centuries. The points stated by Dr. Peabody are illustrated at length, and at least their probability is made out. He affirms that the references to incipient Gnosticism in the prologue receives elucidation from the encounter with Cerinthus at Ephesus as stated by the Fathers. The proofs that it was written by an old man are seen by the writer's readiness to recall minute circumstances in his early life, as the precise hour when he first met with Jesus, the number of water-pots at the marriage at Cana, the minuteness of the details in the visit to Samaria, the circumstances of the last supper, all which remind us of the memory of old age, which recall in their minuteness the circumstances of youth and early manhood, The life-like descriptions given in the Fourth Gospel are proofs that we have the testimony of an eye-witness. "Of the four Gospels," observes Dr. Peabody, "those of Matthew and Luke read to me like an oft-repeated story written down. In that of Mark I can detect the Petrine element; and yet I can see how his words flowed with somewhat less freedom and fervour from another's pen than they would from his own. But in the Fourth Gospel I feel sure that the eyes which saw, the ears that heard, and the hand that wrote belonged to the same man: and, if so, that man must have been John."

The third essay is by the late Bishop Lightfoot. It was delivered as one of a series of lectures on the evidence of Christianity in St. George's Hall, Liverpool, in 1871. It was not then published along with the other lectures, because Bishop Lightfoot considered the subject inadequately treated in a single lecture. Eighteen years passed, and it was rumoured that the lecturer was not sure of his ground. To refute this false surmise he published the lecture in three articles in the Expositor for 1890. "The present publication," he observes, "is my answer to this rumour. I give it after eighteen years exactly in the same form in which it was originally written with the exception of a few verbal alterations. Looking over it again after this long lapse of time, I have nothing to withdraw. Additional study has only strengthened my conviction that this narrative of St. John could not have been written by any one but an eye-witness." Dr. Lightfoot is generally esteemed as one of the most learned English theologians of the present century, and as surpassed in critical acumen and clearness of argument by none of the great critics of Germany.

This essay on the internal evidence of the Johannean authorship fully justifies this opinion. It is well that it has been taken from the pages of a magazine, and by being included in this work rendered more accessible and permanent.

Dr. Lightfoot clears the way by demonstrating against Baur that the Fourth Gospel could not possibly have been written toward the middle of the second century, on account of its omissions. There were at that time three great controversies in the Christian Church which an author writing a supposititious life of Jesus could not possibly have passed over. The one was the dispute concerning the episcopate, so prominently brought forward in the Epistles of Ignatius: and yet there is no allusion to it in the Gospel of John; no recognition of the episcopal government of the Church. The second was the controversy occasioned by the Gnostic heresies, especially the theories of emanations. Now, although there are probable allusions to Gnosticism in the Fourth Gospel, and undoubted references to it in the First Epistle assigned to John, yet it is very incipient Gnosticism, as it appeared before the close of the first century, not Gnosticism as it was afterwards developed there is an absolute silence on emanations and aeons, which could not have been the case were the Gospel written in the middle of the second century. And a third point of dispute was the great Paschal controversy, which, although insignificant as it appears to us, nearly rent the Christian Church in two about the middle of the second century. To this point, also, there is no reference, although there was ample opportunity to refer to it, did the controversy exist at the time of the composition of this Gospel. "We might," observes Bishop Lightfoot, "take in succession the distinctive ecclesiastical controversies of the second century, and show how the writer of the Fourth Gospel holds aloof from them all; certainly a strange and almost incredible fact, if this writer lived about the middle of the century and as a romancer was not restrained by those obligations of fact which fetter the truthful historian, who is himself a contemporary of the events recorded."

Dr. Lightfoot's argument is similar to the well-known argument of Luthardt: that the writer of the Fourth Gospel was a Jew, that he was not a Hellenistic but a Palestinian Jew, that he was an eye-witness of most of the facts which he relates, that he wrote at a distance both in place and time from the scenes which he records, and that he could have been none other than the Apostle John. These points he makes out with a wealth of illustration and a force of argument which is most convincing, and appears to us almost irresistible. Of course, in a mere notice of this work we cannot follow the writer into the details of his argument.

There is one point which we have not seen adverted to by any other writer--the peculiarity in the manner in which the Jewish sects are mentioned in this Gospel. In the Synoptics the adversaries of our Lord are represented as the Pharisees and Sadducees; but in the Fourth Gospel the Sadducees are not once mentioned. Now this omission is most satisfactorily accounted for. The author of the Fourth Gospel speaks of the chief priests and Pharisees. Now, we learn both from the Acts of the Apostles and from Josephus that the chief priests belonged to the Sadducean party. They were the aristocracy of Judæa, and to them the chief offices of the Jewish Church were assigned. Being less patriotic than the Pharisees, they were peculiarly favoured by the Romans. So that the chief priests and Pharisees in the Fourth Gospel are an equivalent phrase to the Sadducees and the Pharisees in the Synoptics; therefore, far from there being an incongruity, there is a real coincidence.

Such are the contents of this book. It is the work of three writers eminent for their learning and ability, and constitutes the best defence of the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel which we possess. It is admitted that there are some internal

difficulties that have not been removed, but from the satisfactory solution of many problems we can patiently wait for the solution of others, being persuaded that we only require further light to place the subject beyond doubt and debate. Perhaps the day is not far distant when the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel will be no more a disputed question, but when scholars, constrained by the force of argument and indisputable evidence, will acknowledge its Johannean origin. The external evidences, as shown by Dr. Abbot in his unrivalled treatise, amount almost to demonstration; and the internal evidences, as shown especially by Bishop Lightfoot, though perhaps not so convincing, are strong and cogent. We strongly recommend this book to all students of Biblical criticism, and to those especially who are perplexed on this question, as they will find in it the solution of many of their doubts, if not a firm foundation on which to stand. P. J. GLOAG, D.D.

THE SOTERIOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By WILLIAM PORCHER DU BOSE, M.A., S.T.D., Professor of Exegesis in the University of the South. Macmillan & Co.

THIS is a very able book. It teems with thought; but its central idea is held so well in hand that there is a sense of unity throughout. Prof. Du Bose discusses the nature and process of salvation in so broad and comprehensive a manner that his treatment includes a consideration of all the chief regions of New Testament thought. He lifts the subject at once by regarding the nature of salvation itself in the light of man's capacities and destinies; so that when he deals with deliverance from sin, he views this in its relation to future potentialities as well as in its relation to present visible evils. The unifying thread that runs through the whole book, and gives it a certain distinct individuality as well as a harmonious unity, is the special view the writer takes of the relation of Christ to the Christian. Christ is not merely our representative or our substitute; much less is He only our example. He represents what we shall be through His own living union with us. Prof. Du Bose carefully connects the different parts of the work of Christ, which have often been treated too separately, as though each were complete in itself. He fully accepts the Protestant view of justification as the reckoning of a sinful man just; but he goes on to inquire why it should be possible for this to be attached to faith in Christ, and not to some relation to the law, seeing that even in the former case it is not on grounds of absolute justice, but on account of the mercy of God that it is allowed. His answer is that the faith in Christ is itself the root and promise of the real righteousness, the accomplishment of which is seen in Christ, who is what we will become. When we have faith in Him, His righteousness is already reckoned to us, because it will be in us in the future. In a similar way the writer connects the ideas of reconciliation and redemption. Reconciliation or atonement stands for our being brought into friendly relations with God, who is necessarily angry with sin, because of His holiness and also on account of His love. But the very act of reconciliation is also an act of redemption which delivers us from the enslaving power of sin, and this fact is to be taken into account in considering the reconciliation of God with a sinner. A similar connection between what Christ does for us, and what He does in us, is brought out in the discussion on the Incarnation. The Son of God is incarnate historically in the human life which began with the birth from the Holy Ghost, in order that He may become incarnate in the whole Church. Thus again the earthly, visible experience of Christ represents the future experience of Christians. Here, however, there is a difference, because this re-incarnation is in the Church as a whole. Again, the sacrifice of Christ is representative of our death to sin, and His resurrection of our rising to the