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. If so, the coincidence is the more
remarkable because it does not appear that St. Luke himself, while
wording these prophetic words, was aware of their full historical
import." [27:1]

Now it might have struck Dr. Lightfoot that if anyone making an enquiry
into the reality of Divine Revelation were obliged, in order to escape
charges of want of candour, fulness, and impartiality, or insinuations
of ignorance, to reproduce and refute all apologetic arguments like
this, the duration of modern life would scarcely suffice for the task;
and "if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world
itself could not contain all the books that should be written." It is
very right that anyone believing it valid should advance this or any
other reasoning in reply to objections, or in support of opinions; but
is it not somewhat unreasonable vehemently to condemn a writer for not
exhausting himself, and his readers, by discussing pleas which are not
only unsound in themselves, but irrelevant to the direct purpose of his
work? I have only advanced objections against the Johannine authorship
of the fourth Gospel, which seem to me unrefuted by any of the
explanations offered.

Let me now turn to more important instances. Dr. Lightfoot asks: "Why,
when he is endeavouring to minimise, if not deny, the Hebraic character
of the fourth Gospel, does he wholly ignore the investigations of
Luthardt and others, which (as 'apologists' venture to think) show that