stand upon the same ground with Josephus as a simple historian; and the infidel is as truly bound to harmonize Josephus with Luke as is the Christian to reconcile Luke with Josephus.

The view which Dr. Davidson takes of John's Gospel is, that it was written not for a distinct polemical purpose, nor merely to supplement the three Gospels already extant, but with the general design of extending and establishing the faith as it is in Jesus. His object was didactic; but at the same time the composition of his Gospel was effected by his own subjective views and experience, while these in turn were influenced by the state of religion and of philosophy in Asia Minor. Dr. Davidson, however, does not allow the same prominence to the reflective idiosyncrasy of John which is given to it by Neander in his History of the Planting and Training of the Churches. In his opinion, "a large proportion of what is termed John's speculation and mysticism, should be placed to the account of theologians who view his writings through the false medium of their own capricious philosophy." There is much truth in this remark; yet we can not regard the fine distinction which Neander makes between Paul and John as altogether fanciful. Indeed Dr. Davidson, in his remarks on the prologue to this Gospel, partly admits the speculative and spiritual tendency of the Apostle John, though he would strip it entirely of an artificial character.

"The prologue of the Gospel obviously presents an allusion to the gnosis of John's day. The commencement of it appears to have a class of men in view who, by peculiar speculations, threatened to corrupt pure Christianity. The leading idea of it is therefore antignostic. The ever-existing Logos, the only-begotten of the Father, became incarnate, and sojourned truly among men. In His person, the human and divine are inseparably united. To Him the revelations of Deity in the world must be referred as their source. He has always been the Divine Light, to which the darkness of the world is opposed, and by which it is overcome. If we regard the prologue as giving the key-note to the entire Gospel, it may be affirmed that the tendency of the work was to counteract indirectly the false gnosis then current. But perhaps this is too strong an assertion to apply to the introduction, since a reference to such speculations is only apparent in it. An antignostic spirit pervades the Gospel, not because John's design was to furnish a direct antidote to it, but because his object was so general as naturally to include it. He purposed to write a Gospel consisting of history and doctrine, which should promote and strengthen faith in Christ as the Son of God, showing the animating principles and consolations of that faith in their holy power of love. In doing so, he did not entirely overlook the speculations which mistook the nature of true faith, and were therefore injurious to Christianity; but he did not intend to refute them specially. The character of his Gospel, we repeat, is not polemic. It is only apologetic. All the polemics of it appear in the mild form of narrative and statement a narrative of great facts, a statement of sublime utterances, that disprove all religious error; though their antithesis to the current error of that day is more discernible. We believe that he had certain mental tendencies in his view in the prologue, and probably in other parts of the Gospel; but these did not constitute the chief motive for writing it. They were subordinate to a more comprehensive design, and largely absorbed in it."-p. 330.

The distinction thus elaborately drawn appears to be rather a distinction in words than in fact. The motive of Dr. Davidson in insisting upon it at such length is to counteract the tendency of certain German critics to impute to John's Gospel a character of artificiality which is inconsistent with the humble origin and the limited acquirements of its author. "The more Alexandrian culture is attributed to him-the more evidence of an artificial disposition of materials can be discovered the greater is the improbability of a fisherman having composed it. . . . It is quite preposterous to introduce into his work a very high degree of reflectiveness; or the prosecution of an object so formally minute as a highly cultivated rhetorician of modern times would exhibit." But humble as was the origin of most of the Apostles, there were yet in that little company marked differences in personal character and in mental qualities; and why may not the Holy Spirit, in inspiring one and another to prepare a permanent record of the life and doctrines of Christ, have selected them with reference to the varieties of their mental constitution and their personal experience, and with reference also to different phases or developments of Christian doctrine in the church? All that we should be disposed to contend for on this point is conceded by Dr. Davidson in his remarks on the mode of narration in John's Gospel, where he seems to drop for a while his special antagonism to the school of Baur. These remarks embody so just and admirable a criticism upon the Gospel that we shall quote them entire.

"The Gospel bears the stamp of originality. Individuality of character belongs to it. The narratives are marked by simplicity, vividness, and life. The descriptions are drawn from the heart of one who had seen and heard what he presents, with no common interest. Without aiming at ornament or effect, the work abounds in story which makes a more striking and durable impression on the mind than the cold manner of one whose soul had not been penetrated by the divine presence of the person delineated. Taken as a whole, the Gospel presents an unity and completeness betokening one author; and although that author possessed little dialectic skill, even had it been required for such a writing, yet the life-like scenes presented are highly graphic because of their truthful simplicity. The leading ideas of the Gospel are among the greatest that can possibly exercise a human spirit; yet they are clothed withal in a plain garb. No attempt to be eloquent in setting them forth, is visible: they are eloquently enunciated just because they are the natural emanation of a heart impregnated with their sanctifying influence. The Apostle appears to have had little talent for vivid description of outward objects; yet his mode of delineating facts in the evangelical history has all the reality and effect of the graphic, because of the subduing artlessness belonging to it. He seems however to have excelled in natural reflectiveness, if we may form a conclusion from the discourses of Jesus, in connection with the ideas appended to them, as elaborated apparently in the mind of the writer. He was not fitted for consecutive reasoning, like Paul; but for calm contemplation. He was not formed by nature for conducting lengthened processes of argumentation, linked together with metaphysical acuteness; but at the same time, his mind was deeply reflective, comprehensive in its range, able to bring

together scattered materials, and to weave them into a web of wonderful, though inartificial texture. In short, his mode of narration is characterized by simplicity and tenderness, combining to produce an impression of power superior to any thing that could have been effected by graphic elaborateness. He is graphic because he is natural.

"Much has been written concerning the mysticism of John, as it appears in the Gospel. Without entering at length into a consideration of the point, it may be stated generally, that it has been too largely assigned to the philosophy of the period. Alexandrian theosophy has been investigated to little purpose, in order to account for what is termed the mysticism of John. The ideas respecting Deity developed in the work; the inadequacy of language to describe relations in the Godhead apart from metaphor, the sublimity of the subject being too vast to find a fitting vehicle of human material; those spiritual connections of which the writer speaks which are necessarily obscure to the finite understanding; and a cognate, allegorical spirit pervading many of the Jewish writings, will serve to explain the shadowy dimness encircling some portions of the Gospel. Perhaps the writer's mental temperament led him to adventure occasionally into the region of uncreated spirit, as he meditated on the wondrous person of the Redeemer, and the still more marvelous though partial revealings of His essential nature which he designed to make in the days of his flesh. The abstract spirituality of the leading ideas, as expressed in the prominent terms of the Gospel, must be regarded as the main source of that mystic coloring, which some critics have greatly exaggerated. Who can presume to look into the pavilion of the uncreated glory, without being dazzled and bewildered? Or who may apprehend and lucidly express the secret relations of Father, Son and Spirit ?"-pp. 336, 339.

With reference to the date of the Gospel of John, Dr. Davidson inclines to the view that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. But if such were the fact, it is almost incredible that there should be no allusion in it to that sublime confirmation of the Savior's prophecy. So striking a proof of his divine mission could not have been passed over in silence by one who was laboring to establish his divinity. Moreover, the oft-quoted expression in Chap. v, v. 2, where the pool of Bethesda is spoken of in the present tense (for) just as it was in the time of Christ, having (zovou) five porches,-precisely the language to describe a then existing fact,-presents a serious if not an insurmountable objection to this view.

The Gospel of John is destined, we believe, to a much higher appreciation from the church, as the era of polemics shall give place to an era of more elevated spiritual experience. It has always been esteemed above the other Gospels for its spiritual tone and its subjective character. Chrysostom and Augustine extol it as being the very spirit of Christ. Luther speaks of it as "the only real Gospel, the leading, living one, that should be preferred by far to the others. John records mainly the discourses of Christ in his own words, from which we learn truth and life as taught by himself. The rest dwell at length upon his works." Calvin calls it the key to the evangelical history. The writings of the other evangelists abound in the external evidences of the divinity of the Savior. The Gospel of John pre

sents those spiritual evidences that address themselves to the believer's consciousness and cause him to know Christ as his friend and his Redeemer. The writings of Paul partake throughout of the argumentative and polemical character of the epistle to the Romans, and hence these were the most potent weapons in the hands of the Reformers. The writings of John are didactic and spiritual, and hence these will minister to the advancing spiritual life of the church.

Olshausen remarks that "the sententious, parabolical and figurative style prevailing in the first three Gospels, as also the dialectic in the composition of Paul, to a great extent disappear in the language of this evangelist. John's thoughts are characterized by the greatest simplicity, combined with a metaphysical spirituality; they carry in themselves a perspicuity by means of which they are to be apprehended without proceeding from the point of view that reflects the naked idea. Drawn out of the depth of meditation, they are yet far removed from the obscurity and confusion of mysticism; expressed in the simplest language, they unite the profoundness of the genuine mystic element with the clearness and acuteness of the truly scholastic. Where, indeed, the organs of contemplation slumber or are undeveloped, there John's depth, with all his perspicuity, may appear like obscurity; for such a medium of vision, however, the Gospel of John was not written; the synoptical writings are more adapted to it."* As then the believer shall attain to a higher life and enjoy more and more of the inward presence of Christ, and as the church shall approximate more nearly to the unity and the spirituality upon which the Savior dilated in his last discourse and prayer, will the Gospel of John be understood and felt in its original freshness and power. It is important, therefore, that this Gospel of Gospels should be exalted to its proper place, and should be studied with all the helps which sound criticism and ripe experience can furnish.

The first volume of Dr. Davidson's work closes with a valuable chapter on the "Correspondences of the first three Gospels." Volume second embraces the Acts of the Apostles, and several of the Pauline epistles. In the dissertation on the Acts, the authorship and sources of the book, and its credibility, are discussed in a thorough and masterly manner. The argument of Paley from

Introduction to the Gospel of John. This distinguished commentator applies to the beloved disciple the following lines:

Volat avis sine meta,

Quo nec vates nec propheta,

Evolavit altius.

Jam implenda, quam impleta,
Nunquam vidit tot secreta

Purus homo purius.

the undesigned coincidences between Luke's narrative and the epistles of Paul left nothing to be desired on the score of authenticity. But with regard to the authorship and sources of the book, Dr. Davidson has met the speculations of later German critics with an array of learning and argument entirely conclusive. The epistles are introduced with an elaborate essay on the life, character and education of the Apostle Paul. This, though it is less philosophical than Neander's analysis of Paul's character, has more warmth and practical power. The epistles are severally considered with respect to the time, place and object of writing, their integrity and authenticity, and the origin and condition of the church to which each was addressed. In connection with each also, an admirable summary of contents is presented, which will be of great service to ministers in their pulpit expositions. The numerous points of doctrine, discipline and polity which thus pass under review, invite us to a wide field of inquiry and discussion. But our limits forbid any thing more than the bare outline of the work which we have now given. The third volume, which is to complete the New Testament, is in course of preparation and will probably be published during the present year. We hope that some American publisher may be induced to issue the entire work for the benefit of Biblical students in this country. It would command a certain and a permanent market, for there is no work like it accessible to students in the English language. It would advance the ministry in Biblical learning, and fit them to contend intelligently and successfully with the modern phases of infidelity imported from the Fatherland. The rising ministry must prepare themselves to refute such forms of error upon critical, historical and exegetical grounds. This we say, to adopt the language of a contemporary whose orthodoxy is above suspicion, "this we say, with full knowledge that there are those among us who regard the mention of a German name as symptomatic of neology; and who think safety consists in not knowing the dangers of those who have fallen, and in shutting the eyes hard at the first steps of downward tottering in our own land. Dangerous as it is to walk the wards of an hospital, it is nevertheless the only means of arriving at a sound pathology and a preventive regimen."* Dr. Davidson has laid us under obligations in this regard, and we would have the whole theological world reap the benefit of his diligent and successful labors.

Princeton Review, July, 1850.