extraordinary in him, and our Lord avows himself to her as the Messiah who is called Christ (4: 25, 26); and many more believe that he is the Christ, the Saviour of the world (4: 42).

While in Jerusalem the second time, he heals the man who was waiting in vain at the pool of Bethesda. When the Jews blamed him for the miracle on account of the violation of the Sabbath, he asserted that his power was the power of God committed to him, that God was his Father, he his Son, his commissioned agent and judge of the world, of whom Moses spake (Chap. 5). After his return he wrought the miracle of the loaves, which caused the people to regard him as the promised prophet, and to wish to make him king of Israel (6: 14, 15). On the following day he asserts that he is the bread of life, which came down from heaven (6: 35 seq.), he who was with the Father and came from the Father; and Simon declares: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God (6: 69).

On occasion of the feast of tabernacles, Jesus again visits Jerusalem, and openly rebukes the people for seeking his life. Some of the people declare him to be the Christ, and say that Christ himself could not do more miracles than he (7: 11-37). On the last day of the feast he is again regarded as the Prophet and the Christ, and a learned discussion arises with regard to this topic (7: 37-53).

If we proceed thus to consider in their order all the conversations and acts of Jesus which John has introduced into his book, we shall almost invariably find that their subject and purport are either that Jesus is the Son of God, or that he is the Christ, or both (8: 12-59. 9: 1-35 and 38. 10: 1-24. 10: 24-42: 11: 1–27. 12: 13-20. 12: 20-34. 12: 44, 45, 49). The promises and consolations in chapters 14-18, exhibit the relation between the Father and the Son, the divine origin of Jesus, his dignity as Messiah and as ruler and judge of the world. Even in the history of the passion he, as well as Matthew, aims to render the Messianic character of Jesus evident by comparison of the prophe cies concerning him (19: 24, 28, 36, 37).

The whole structure of the book, therefore, and the judicious choice of all its component parts,' lead us to a conclusion in regard to the object of its author, the same as that which he clearly states at the close of his work, viz. that it was to prove Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God (20: 31).

$50.

A dogmatic work of such extent, occupied about so few positions, must have been rendered necessary by the circumstances of the time; and we might conjecture that the aim of the writer in this fulness and accumulation of proof was probably polemical, or in other words apologetical.

This point, however, is placed beyond a doubt by John's first Epistle, which, as we shall see hereafter, was written with the same purpose, in the same circumstances, and at the same time, as the Gospel. At

1 The same observation has been made and well pursued by Prof. Paulus. "Comment. Theol. Historiam Cerinthi ad finem Johanneorum in N. T. libellorum illustrature." Jenæ. 1795. 8vo. p. 157 seq.

that period certain persons apostatized from Christianity, of which they were probably never sincere professors (1 John 2: 19), who perverted the doctrines of Christianity (2: 18), broached false opinions, were

svoris, heretics and deceivers (2: 22. 4: 1, 2, 3), and denied that Jesus was the Christ and the Son of God (2: 22. 4: 1, 2, 3, 15, 16. 5:5, 20). These men awakened in the breast of the Apostle anxiety for the preservation of pure doctrine and the peace of the Christian churches under his care, and gave occasion to his productions.

$51.

Still, however, those against whom John's Gospel was directed, are not yet brought definitely before us. According to ancient history there were many in the time of the Apostle, who maintained in different systems the position that Jesus was not the Christ, the Son of God; and this in those very churches to which he had devoted especial pains, and in whose midst he had resolved to dwell.

In this respect they were all dangerous, however they might differ on other points. The heresy was the same under various forms, and in his work the Apostle certainly had in his eye all the systems which were chargeable with this heresy, without according a flattering distinction to any particular one. We need not then inquire whether this book was directed against Cerinthus, when it is proved that he lived in these days and in this region, maintained this opinion, and moreover acquired celebrity as a teacher. It was directed against all who aimed by this tenet (with whatever theories or accessary ideas connected), to mislead the Christians for whose benefit John wrote.

It is not to be denied that according to the positive declarations of history, Cerinthus was a contemporary of the Apostle, and abode in the region in which the latter taught and labored in the cause of the Gospel; and that the heresy we have mentioned constituted a part of his system. At the same time, too, appeared the Nicolaitans, who caused much corruption in the churches and called for all the vigilance of the Apostle. In respect to this particular tenet, as well as many others, they coincided with Cerinthus.

Even had we no historical evidence as to this matter, if Irenæus, Jerome, and Epiphanius had not expressly mentioned Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans as heretics whose influence John intended to counteract, still the authentic expression of his sentiments relative to certain heresies which is found in his first Epistle, compared with the plan and contents of the Gospel and the general history of the time, would direct us to these persons as certainly as definite historical information.

Stating the opinions of Cerinthus in conformity with the philosophy of those times, we have the following system. There is one God over all; he is most perfect unity, and could not therefore operate on matter and be the Creator of the world. From him emanated certain extreme

1 Iren. Adv. Hær. Lib. III. c. 9. "Hanc fidem annuntians Domini discipuJus volens per Evangelii annuntiationem auferre eum, qui a Cerintho inseminatus est hominibus errorem, et multo prius ab his, qui dicuntur Nicolaitæ . . . . sic inchoavit. . . . In principio etc. Hieron. Script. Eccl. V. Joannis. Epiphan. Hær. LXIX.

ly pure and perfect natures (invisibilia et innominabilia), who augmented their number by propagation, and gradually decreased in spirituality, becoming more and more material, so as to retain but a slight connexion with the One, Eternal Being. These, from the increasing grossness of their nature, were able to operate upon matter and mould it into form. A being of the latter order, one who knew nothing at all of the pure Eternal spirit, was the Creator of the world; hence came evil and the imperfection of creation.-Such was the solution of a problem which has occasioned the most various theories on the part of the philosophers of these and former days.

As a philosopher, he found it difficult to admit that Jesus was born of a virgin, and maintained that he was begotten and born like the rest of mankind, according to the usual laws of nature; but that as a man he was superior to all his fellow-men in wisdom and mental greatness.

On the other hand, that he might in some way accord to Jesus the distinction of a higher origin, which his actions clearly evinced, he asserted that one of the spiritual natures we have mentioned, viz. the Christ, united himself to Jesus in the form of a dove at his baptism. On this account he possessed henceforth the power of producing superhuman effects, and likewise of acquainting mankind with the true eternal Deity, who had hitherto remained unknown to them because he had not revealed himself by any operation.

This Christ, as an immaterial being of exalted origin (e superioribus Christus), being one of the purer kinds of spirits, was from his nature not susceptible of material affections, of suffering and pain. He therefore at the commencement of the passion resumed his existence separately from Jesus, abandoned him to pain and death, and soared upwards to heaven from whence he came. Cerinthus distinguished Jesus and Christ, Jesus and the Son of God, as beings of different nature and dignity.2

The Nicolaitans held similar doctrines in regard to the Supreme Deity and his relation to mankind, and an inferior spirit who was the Creator of the world. Among the subaltern orders of spirits, they considered the most distinguished to be the only-begotten, the uovoYevns (whose existence, however, had a beginning), and the loyos, who

1 Iren. L. III. c. 11. "Eam conditionem, quæ est secundum nos, non a primo Deo factam, sed a virtute aliquâ valde deorsum subjectâ, et abscissâ ab eorum communicatione, quæ sunt invisibilia et innominabilia." L. 1. c. 26. "A virtute quâdam valde separatâ . . . . et ignorante eum, qui est super omnia, Deum."

2 The old reading of 1 John 4: 3, mentioned by Socrates (H. E. L. VII. c. 32), expresses this distinction very well. He testifies that it was read ev tois nаλαιοῖς ἀντιγράφοις thus: πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ λύει τὸν ̓Ιησοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ is to be understood) in Deoĩ ovn ¿otɩ. This reading, he further says, the old interpreters (oi nalaioì ¿qunveis) even admitted to be the correct one. We find it in Irenæus still (L. III c. 16. n. 8.), "Et omnis spiritus, qui solvit Jesum, non est ex Deo as also in Tertullian and several writers who follow the old Latin version; but no Greek Mss. of the Catholic Epistles, which represent the text of that early period, now contain it. There is internal evidence, however, in favor of this reading; for it is the most obscure and difficult, and manifests profound thought, while the present reading: πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολόγει τὸν ̓Ιησοῦν, ἐκ Toi dɛov ovx joti, is suspicious from its being synonymous with the preceding clause.

was an immediate descendant of the only-begotten. History is silent as to what other tenets they held in regard to these beings.

Christ belongs to the number of beings sprung from God; Jesus, however, is a son of the Creator of the world, with whom Christ united himself at his baptism, and whom he abandoned at his passion.2

$52.

At the commencement of his book the Evangelist gives great prominence to the assertion that Jesus is the light and the life (1: 4, 5, 9); and in the progress of his narrative, his attention is frequently, and according to his custom systematically, directed to these two positions, 3: 19-22. 5: 24, 35. 8: 12. 9: 5. 12: 35, 36 and 46. 6: 35 and 48. 6: 51-60. 10: 28. 9: 25, 26. 14: 6. 17: 3.

It would seem from his procedure in the selection of facts for his purpose, that the sacred writer had also in mind such persons as denied that Jesus was the light and the life, or, to speak without a figure, that he was the moral renovator and teacher of the world, to whom belonged the praise of having conducted them from their errors to the path of truth and happiness. There were several points which he was desirous of establishing; that Jesus was the Christ, that he was the Son of God, and that those who believed in him would have life through this discipleship (20: 31), ὅτι ὁ ̓Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχετε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ.

Nor is it difficult to conjecture the person to whom some gave precedence before our Lord as the enlightener of the world and author of the doctrines which conferred life on men. It was John the Baptist. When at the outset of his book the author announces the doctrine that

1 For the benefit of those who see in the Logos nothing but Philo's doctrine and the Alexandrian philosophy, I refer them to Dr. Neander, who has clearly exhibited Philo's doctrine on this point, in such a manner as no other writer has. "Entwicklung der gnostischen Systeme." Berlin 1818. p. 1-28. "Elemente der Gnosis im Philo." This learned man evinces in many passages of his work his conviction, that the origin of these opinions lies farther back than Philo's time, and that an oriental theosophy, was shaped, in the Jewish and other nations, into various systems, which became known in the time of Christianity under the name of Gnostic systems.

2 From some appearances, not so strongly marked, however, as to be perfectly decisive, we might be disposed to include likewise among those opposed by John's works such teachers as denied Christ a material body, attributing to him only an apparent one, and consequently making his passion only apparent, viz. the Docet, who denied: ̓Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα. 1 Εp. 4. 2. 2 Ep. 7. We might likewise make the passage in the Gospel, 19: 34-38, in which John avers that blood and water really issued from his side, refer to this sect. These passages, however, are susceptible of a different interpretation. ̓Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα or ἐρχόμενον may be understood as meaning that Jesus was not merely united with Christ at his baptism, but entered the world as Christ and was born as such. Storr Ueber den Zweck der evangelisch. Geschichte Johannis und der Briefe," § 21. There exists, therefore, no necessity nor even probability of his referring to them. Had he intended to attack this sect, he would not have alluded to them so cursorily in but two passages, and those doubtful. The tenet enforced by the Gospel and the first Epistle is, that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God. The Docete were so far from denying this, that they even strenuously maintained that the true and real, contained or enveloped in the apparent, was the Christ, the Son of God.

the Logos is the light which shineth in darkness, he subjoins, John came to bear witness of the light. This is plain, and nothing more was necessary. But the writer feels a deep-rooted anxiety in regard to this point, and expressly repeats this declaration a second time in an antithesis, and the first member of this antithesis again for the third time: "The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light. That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1: 7, 8, 9).

The Evangelist has also selected discourses of Jesus which contain declarations of his superiority to John, and he introduces confessions of John himself, which state the pre-existence of Jesus, his unequalled dignity as teacher and as the author of life and happiness to man, and his own inferiority, as being but a disciple and messenger (1: 15. 1: 20 -31. 3: 26-36. 5: 34-37. 10: 41).

We find, too, that in this region and in Ephesus, the city which the Evangelist had selected for his residence, there were men in Nero's time who did not know of any other baptism than John's, had become his disciples through it, and had heard nothing of the Holy Ghost; för Paul afterwards laid his hands on certain men of this description, and baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus, imparting to them the Holy Ghost, so that they spoke with tongues (Acts 19: 1-8). They were certainly not the only such persons of their time; and many may have been more pertinacious in their preference for their teacher, and less flexible in their opinions.

To such, probably, the Evangelist had reference in introducing those passages which exhibit John as not daring to compare his baptism, viz. the baptism by water, with the baptism with water and with the Holy Ghost (1:33. 3: 26--30). So likewise the observation in relation to the gifts of the Spirit (7: 39), which contains an explanation for those who were not, rather than those who were, believers; the exalted representation of regeneration by water and the Spirit (3: 3—12); and all that Jesus says respecting the Comforter and the Holy Ghost, which was to be poured out on his disciples after he was ascended to heaven (14: 16, 17. 14: 26. 15: 26. 16: 7—15).

$ 53.

The procedure of the Evangelist in carrying his plan into execution is remarkably singular, and a problem which we are bound to solve. There is much considerateness and deliberate system apparent, even in minutiæ, in respect to the arrangement of the book and the choice of facts for a particular purpose; and yet the author has totally neglected the most valid proofs of his positions. This was not by any means because circumstances denied him an intimate acquaintance with them; for the occurrences alluded to were such as he must have been well acquainted with, on account of his presence and participation, and such as must have been fastened forever in the minds of all who witnessed them, on account of their grand, supernatural, and astonishing char

acter.

Could he have passed over such important facts, if they had not al