JOURNAI. AND PROCEEDINGS. 4! 
John was the author of the Gospel attributed to him, or that it is 
the work of any witness. The eminent position and great authority 
of the Abbe as a biblical critic have caused this book to be received 
in Rome and elsewhere with considerable excitement 
The reader may notice how extensively I have borrowed from 
others. This was purposely done in order to meet the objection 
that I have been putting forth views not in accordance with papers 
published by others, better known in scientific circles—in a land of 
“shams” and ‘‘cant.” We can hardly avoid censure, but who 
cares for such when actuated by the certainty that what is true will 
be established, and what may be erroneous must certainly be 
rejected. 
Extensively as he has already appropriated the views of others, 
the writer cannot refrain from calling attention to a leading article 
in the London (England) Zmes of the 15th April, with the heading 
“Things New and Old.” ‘This paper is credited with engaging only 
the very best writers, antiquarians and scientists, on such a subject. 
_ The following is an extract which I borrow from it: ‘‘ Archzeologi- 
cal research is not, perhaps, always welcomed by those whose 
accepted conclusions it reverses. If it confirms some old traditions, 
it discredits others ; and when such traditions are consecrated in 
venerated religious literature, doubts thrown upon them are apt for 
a time, but only for a time, to be regarded as a slur upon religion 
itself. The code of Khammurabi adds one more to a series of 
discoveries which have proved to every open mind that the ideas, 
religious and secular, of the early Hebrews enshrined for us in the 
‘Old Testament, were not all original, but were largely influenced by 
an older Babylonian civilization. ‘The Biblical accounts of ‘The 
‘Creation and ‘The Deluge’ are shown to be variants of traditions 
common to the Hebrews, with or perhaps borrowed from other na- 
tions of antiquity. The chronology of Archbishop Usher, still 
preserved in the authorized version of the Bible, has been utterly 
discredited by modern discoveries. ‘The days of the Mosaic account 
of the Creation need no longer be understood literally, nor is ‘The 
Fall of Man’ an early attempt to explain the insoluble problem of 
the origin of evil—now received with the pious horror of even half 
a century ago.” Inherited religious prejudice must be dense indeed 
