Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion | Page 8

the Son, and he to whom soever the Son will
reveal him. Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I
will give you rest'? This one passage, they assert, covers the
characteristic teaching of the Fourth Gospel, and hitherto they have not
been answered. Again, our author says very positively that the
Synoptics clearly represent the ministry of Jesus as having been limited
to a single year, and his preaching is confined to Galilee and Jerusalem,
where his career culminates at the fatal Passover;' thus contrasting with
the Fourth Gospel, which 'distributes the teaching of Jesus between
Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend at least over three
years, and refers to three Passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem.' [16:1]
Why then does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such
passages as Matt. xxiii. 37 (comp. Luke xiii. 34), 'O, Jerusalem,
Jerusalem,... how often would I have gathered thy children together'?
Here the expression 'how often,' it is contended, obliges us to postulate
other visits, probably several visits, to Jerusalem, which are not
recorded in the Synoptic Gospels themselves. And it may be suggested
also that the twice-repeated notice of time in the context of St Luke, 'I
do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected,'
'I must walk to-day and to-morrow and the day following,' points to the

very duration of our Lord's ministry, as indicated by the Fourth Gospel
[16:2]. If so, the coincidence is the more remarkable, because it does
not appear that St Luke himself, while recording these prophetic words,
was aware of their full historical import. But whatever may be thought
of this last point, the contention of 'apologetic' writers is that here, as
elsewhere, the Fourth Gospel supplies the key to historical difficulties
in the Synoptic narratives, which are not unlocked in the course of
those narratives themselves, and this fact increases their confidence in
its value as an authentic record [16:3].
Again: he refers several times to the Paschal controversy of the second
century as bearing on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. On one
occasion he devotes two whole pages to it. [17:1] Why then does he not
mention that 'apologetic' writers altogether deny what he states to be
absolutely certain; maintaining on the contrary that the Christian
Passover, celebrated by the Asiatic Churches on the 14th Nisan,
commemorated not the Institution of the Lord's Supper, but, as it
naturally would, the Sacrifice on the Cross, and asserting that the main
dispute between the Asiatic and Roman Churches had reference to the
question whether the commemoration should take place always on the
14th Nisan (irrespective of the day of the week) or always on a Friday?
Thus, they claim the Paschal controversy as a witness on their own side.
This view may be right or wrong; but inasmuch as any person might
read the unusually full account of the controversy in Eusebius from
beginning to end, without a suspicion that the alternative of the 14th or
15th Nisan, as the day of the Crucifixion, entered into the dispute at all,
the onus probandi rests with our author, and his stout assertions were
certainly needed to supply the place of arguments. [17:2]
The same reticence or ignorance respecting the arguments of
'apologetic' writers is noticeable also when he deals with the historical
and geographical allusions in the Fourth Gospel. If by any chance he
condescends to discuss a question, he takes care to fasten on the least
likely solution of 'apologists' (e.g. the identification of Sychar and
Shechem), [17:3] omitting altogether to notice others [18:1]. But as a
rule, he betrays no knowledge whatever of his adversaries' arguments.
One instance will suffice to illustrate his mode of procedure. Referring

to the interpretation of Siloam as 'sent,' in John ix. 7, he stigmatizes this
as 'a distinct error,' because the word signifies 'a spring, a fountain, a
flow of water;' and he adds that 'a foreigner with a slight knowledge of
the language is misled by the superficial analogy of sound [18:2].' Does
he not know (his Gesenius will teach him this) that Siloam signifies a
fountain, or rather, an aqueduct, a conduit, like the Latin emissarium,
because it is derived from the Hebrew shalach 'to send'? and if he does
know it, why has he left his readers entirely in the dark on this subject?
As the word is much disguised in its Greek dress (Siloam for Shiloach),
the knowledge of its derivation is not unimportant, and 'apologists'
claim to have this item of evidence transferred to their side of the
account. Any one disposed to retaliate upon our author for his habitual
reticence would find in these volumes, ready made for his purpose, a
large assortment of convenient phrases ranging from 'discreet