rome, in substance, testifies to the same set of facts as does the fragment of Muratori. But the Gospel itself must state the purpose of the writer. He declares it to be threefold. "These things are written [1] that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, [2] the Son of God; [3] and that believing ye may have life in his name (John xx. 31). While the occasion, then, may have been the solicitations of disciples and bishops, the object was not so much to supplement the writings of other evangelists, or to confute the errors of Cerinthus, as to give positive evidence concerning the Christ, in order to establish faith in the hearts of believers. "Every thing in the book from Prologue to Epilogue is selected in view of this aim. Narratives, miracles, discourses, and doctrine all converge about this one point, Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." Finally, let us consider: VI. THE PRESENT ASPECTS OF THE CONTROVERSY. The last word concerning the Fourth Gospel has by no means been spoken. Recent years with their discoveries and investigations have brought to light much additional evidence in favor of this Gospel and nothing against it. Belief in the Johannine authorship is constantly being strengthened, owing to the fact that the date is now pushed back so perilously near the close of the first century. Those who are still disposed to deny the authorship to the Apostle, feel more kindly toward the opinion which connects the Gospel with some companion or disciple of John; in short, that there is at least a good Johannine tradition as its basis. It is also admitted that the differences which were urged as existing between the Fourth Gospel and the synoptics, have, in many cases, been overstated. Schürer and Weizsäcker alike admit the residence of the Apostle John in Asia Minor. Weizsäcker regards the proof of this as unshaken. Schürer believes there is no good ground for confusing the Apostle John with any other John. On the part of those who have held, and who still hold, that the author was the Apostle John, there are not a few who concede a certain subjective element in the discourses, claiming that the Apostle did not reproduce them as spoken by the Lord, but as they appeared to the disciple after the lapse of many years. Others there are who do not think it improbable that our Gospel is a translation into Greek from an original Aramaic MS. by the Apostle. Still others favor an original MS. by the Apostle, but afterwards rewritten or edited by some member of his school. Archdeacon Watkins expresses this as his opinion: "The key to the Fourth Gospel lies in translation, or, if this term has acquired too narrow a meaning, transmutation, re-formation, growth; nor need we shrink from the true sense of the terms, development and evolution. I mean translation of language from Aramaic to Greek; translation in time extending over more than half a century, the writer passing from young manhood to mature old age; translation in place from Palestine to Ephesus; translation in outward moulds of thought from the simplicity of Jewish fishermen and peasants, or the ritual of Pharisees and priests, to the technicalities of a people who had formed for a century the meeting-ground, and in part the union, of the philosophies of the East and West."1 But this translation, or transformation, Dr. Watkins believes was wrought in the Apostle himself, not through editors or redactors of the Gospel. Perhaps the most significant of recent utterances is that of Dr. Paul Rohrbach, in a discussion concerning the Gospel according to Mark and the Canon of the Four Gospels. After reviewing the questions under discussion, he concludes as follows: "If the main premises are correct, then our synoptic Gospels belong to the time even before the year 90, and were 1 Bampton Lectures (1890), p. 426. together in Asia Minor. The Johannine Gospel cannot have come into existence considerably later. I am glad to agree in this acknowledgment with Professor Harnack and with Professor Zahn; and also in the other acknowledgment that the canon of our four Gospels followed close upon the edition of the Fourth Gospel in Asia Minor. It was more than two generations until it made its way throughout the entire Church."1 That the two schools, or groups of critics-the so-called destructives, and the orthodox-are coming together on many points cannot be denied. Whether they shall approach each other sufficiently to see eye to eye, depends very much upon. the discoveries of the future. If some of the investigations now under way, prove to yield the results which they promise, that happy day may not be so very far removed. In closing this discussion, which of necessity has been a very long one-yet numerous points of interest and importance have been wholly omitted-it may be well to give in brief the conclusions at which we have arrived. 1. The history of the controversy shows a constant change of base on the part of the hostile critics. (1) Disagreement of the New Testament writings; (2) Myth; (3) Tendency writings; (4) Partition; (5) Derivation. Each theory in turn advocated by a considerable school, but each demolished by its successor. 2. By a chain of evidence the Fourth Gospel can be traced back to the opening years of the second century in its actual use and circulation. Allowing time sufficient for multiplying copies and placing them in general currency, we are constrained to place the date of this Gospel late in the first century. 3. In absence of proof to the contrary, the statement of Irenæus, that "John put forth his Gospel while he abode in Ephesus in Asia," is accepted. 4. The constant and unquestioned acceptance by the church, 1 Der Schluss des Markusevangeliums, etc. (Georg Nauck, Berlin, 1894), p. 66. for over sixteen centuries, of the Fourth Gospel; the manifest evidences of care which the early churches exercised in forming the canon of New Testament writings; the indirect and the direct proof of the Gospel itself; and the failure of the opposition to agree upon any one man who could have written the Gospel, or to produce any proof for any hypothesis advanced, all induce us to accept the Apostle John as the author; this until credible proof to the contrary is produced. 5. The author's own declaration: "These are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name," is taken as sufficient proof concerning the author's object in writing the Gospel. 6. There is at present a tendency among hostile critics to admit much that has been claimed for the Fourth Gospel in regard to date and place of composition, and also to assign its origin to Johannine tradition. Likewise, the orthodox critics, in some instances, admit that a subjective element exists in the author's version of the discourses attributed to Christ, in the Gospel, while some believe it was originally written in Aramaic. ARTICLE II. WILLIAM WORDSWORTH. BY PROFESSOR THEODORE W. HUNT, PH. D. IT is not our purpose to present, in this discussion, the biographical details of the life of Wordsworth, save in so far as they are inseparably connected with his literary work. In a true sense, his poetry is his best biography. Not only is "The Prelude" autobiographical, but "The Excursion" and many of the shorter poems are substantially so. We may thus proceed at once, to the subject in hand as embraced in three distinct topics of interest. I. HIS THEORY OF POETRY. This was peculiarly his own, called for, in part, by the special character of the time and, mainly, by the instincts and demands of his own nature. He alludes, once and again, to the urgent necessity that existed in English poetry for new canons of criticism and new methods of expression. He thus takes special pains to review the history of English verse, and calls attention to the false taste which had prevailed among the ablest writers of the day. He dwells upon the fact that by such erroneous standards Spenser and Shakespeare and Milton had largely lost their hold upon the public mind, while such inferior names as those of Halifax, Browne, Sheffield, and Philipps had found a place of honor in Johnson's "Lives of the English Poets." Not even in the opening of the romantic era, in the days of Cowper, did he succeed in discovering what he regarded as the essentials of poetry. It was in place, therefore, for him |