apparent disagreement with the other three gospels, which the harmonists
have explained in various ways.

The essential point of the above comparison is this: Notwithstanding the
striking difference between the later fourth gospel and the earlier
three, it was at once received by all the churches as of apostolic
authority. Now upon the supposition of its genuineness, both its
peculiar character and its undisputed reception everywhere are easily
explained. John, the bosom disciple of our Lord, wrote with the full
consciousness of his apostolic authority and his competency as a witness
of what he had himself seen and heard. He therefore gave his testimony
in his own independent and original way. How far he may have been
influenced in his selection of materials by a purpose to supply what was
wanting in the earlier gospels, according to an old tradition, it is not
necessary here to inquire; it is sufficient to say that, under the
illumination of the Holy Spirit, he marked out that particular plan
which we have in his gospel, and carried it out in his own peculiar
manner, thus opening to the churches new mines, so to speak, of the
inexhaustible fulness of truth and love contained in him in whom
"dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead bodily." And when this original
gospel, so different in its general plan and style from those that
preceded, made its appearance, the apostolic authority of its author
secured its immediate and universal reception by the churches. All this
is very plain and intelligible.

But upon the supposition that the gospel of John is a spurious
production of the age succeeding that of the apostles, let any one
explain, if he can, how it could have obtained universal and
unquestioned apostolic authority. Its very difference from the earlier
gospels must have provoked inquiry and examination, and these must have
led to its rejection, especially at a time when some who had known the
apostle yet survived; and no one now pretends to assign to it a later
period.

15. We will next consider the relation of the first three gospels to
each other. Here we have remarkable agreements with remarkable
differences. The general plan of all three is the same. It is manifest
also, at first sight, that there lies at the foundation of each a basis
of common matter--common not in substance alone, but to a great extent
in form also. Equally manifest is it that the three evangelists write
independently of each other. Matthew