SERMON IX.

THE SACRAMENTAL CHARACTER OF ST. JOHN'S

TEACHING.

St. John the Evangelist's Day.

ST. JOHN XXI. 23.

AND THERE ARE ALSO MANY OTHER THINGS WHICH JESUS DID, THE WHICH, IF THEY SHOULD BE WRITTEN EVERY ONE, I SUPPOSE THAT EVEN THE WORLD ITSELF COULD NOT

CONTAIN THE BOOKS THAT SHOULD BE WRITTEN.

FROM these words it would appear, not only as reason might infer, that much, both of what our LORD did and taught was omitted of necessity by the Holy Evangelists, but that St. John in particular composed his account under the present and pressing sense (if one may so speak,) of a superabundance of materials. Under such circumstances the mind naturally goes in search of some principle of selection, by which one miracle, or parable, or discourse should be inserted, and ninety-nine others pretermitted. Nor will it suffice to shut up an inquiry of this nature with the reply, that what he wrote, he wrote under the immediate guidance and inspiration of GOD's Holy SPIRIT; for this of course is only to say that he was directed to write

upon the very highest principle of wisdom, and makes us the more certain that such does exist, if only we can succeed in discovering it. Indeed, the fact is ordinarily assumed, and we are told that St. John had two special objects in view in writing his gospel; first, to supply things omitted by the earlier Evangelists, and secondly, to combat certain heresies concerning our LORD's Nature and Person, which had then crept into the Church. But it can scarcely be thought, I apprehend, by any one, that this is an adequate method of accounting for the peculiarities of this writer; or at least its want of completeness may be an excuse for inquiring if some deeper and more satisfactory solution is not to be found.

The inquiry is surely well befitting this day, which the Church consecrates to the memory of St. John. Of the other three who are associated with him in the high prerogative of recording the message of Divine Mercy, which is embodied in the Incarnation, Nativity, Life, Death, and Glorification of the REDEEMer, we know but little. One only, beside himself, so much as enjoyed the privilege of attending immediately upon the LORD's Person; and of him we are told absolutely nothing beyond the bare fact of his previous occupation, which certainly was not of a nature either to warrant the expectation of any peculiar sympathy or confidence beyond what the LORD was graciously pleased to vouchsafe to all the twelve alike, or of any peculiar intellectual or personal aptitude for the scientific treatment of theology. Accordingly we find St. Matthew's Gospel to contain a bare record of words and facts, not even chronologically arranged, and bearing so little appearance of a complete and systematic treatise that it breaks off without mention of our

LORD'S Ascension. The history of St. John would certainly lead us to expect that his Gospel would be marked by other characteristics. Tradition informs us that he was called to the knowledge and service of CHRIST at an earlier age than any other Apostle; and we know that his life was extended to a much later period. And what, of course, is still more to the purpose, he was distinguished by the special regard and favour of his Divine Master. It was no mere arbitrary selection, we may be well assured, that caused JESUS to love St. John above the rest of those whom HE called to be with HIM. HE Who knows what is in man, recognised in him peculiar qualifications for the reception, and exposition of Divine Truth. This is strikingly witnessed in the tradition of the Church; first, in the place which it has assigned his day in this little cluster of festivals immediately associated with the LORD's Nativity, which we may take to imply that fortitude, spiritual knowledge, and simplicity, the qualities severally typified by these festivals, are those by which He is most honoured in His saints. And secondly, and more pointedly in reference to our present subject, the honoured title which it has accorded him, Iwavvns & Beoλoyos, "St. John the Divine," Ιωαννης Θεολόγος, is a distinction clearly refering to an admitted superiority in the "knowledge of Divine things," which is the well known definition of Theology.

But before proceeding to the proposed inquiry, it will be necessary to fix its limits. All that has been at present spoken of is the Gospel which bears his name. But if any other of his writings are to be found capable of being classed with the Gospel, it is manifestly desirable that they should be included. The visions which he was permitted to see, which are

known under the name of the Apocalypse, or Revelation, bear, it is evident, no affinity to his Gospel ; and the second and third epistles both, from their brevity, and from the temporary private occasions on which they were composed, must also be excluded. The first epistle, however, on every ground, should be comprehended, being both ample in size and general in its application; that is, not addressed, like the greater number of St. Paul's, to any particular individual or Church. In point of fact, it does not seem in any sense to deserve the title of an Epistle. The commencement resembles very nearly the commencement of the same writer's Gospel. And the latter part is a practical address founded upon it. We might conceive it almost to be a kind of sermon of general application preached by the Apostle. On all these grounds then, I say, it is entitled to come under consideration when we are endeavouring to ascertain after what method, he of the inspired writers, who seems to have possessed the highest qualifications, was directed to "divide the Word of Truth."

It has been already remarked that the Gospel and first Epistle begin with words of very similar import. In both instances the Apostle commences with describing the Nature of the Incarnate SAVIOUR. First, he insists upon the fact of His eternal Existence and Divine Attributes. In the Epistle, HE is spoken of as That "Which was from the beginning:" in the Gospel, it is more fully and dogmatically stated ; "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with GOD, and the WORD was GOD. All things were made by HIM, and without HIM was not any thing made that was made. In HIM was Light, and the Life was the Light of men. This was the true Light which lighteth every man that

cometh into the world." Next, the great fact of the Incarnation is with equal precision determined. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled of the Word of Life (for the Life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that Eternal Life, which was with the FATHER and was manifested unto us), that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you." Such is the Apostle's language in the Epistle; and very similar is what we read in the Gospel. "The WORD was made Flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory-the glory as of the only-begotten of the FATHER, full of grace and truth." And then he proceeds to strengthen his own testimony by that of others-that, viz., of John the Baptist declaring HIM superior to himself, the witness vouchsafed by the Voice of the FATHER speaking from Heaven at His Baptism, and, lastly, the testimony of His own acts, shown first in the knowledge of men's hearts in choosing His Apostles, and the first miracle He wrought at Cana of Galilee, and the cleansing of the temple from those things which defiled it. This concludes what appears to be the first division of the Gospel and Epistle; and it may well, I think, be suggested as a subject of consideration, whether the existence of these plain unimpassioned dogmatic statements, at the commencement of both St. John's treatises, does not seem to intimate that there is an use in mere theological definitions beyond what we are in the habit of comprehending. It may be affirmed, I think without fear of contradiction, that if actual heresies are not found to exist at the present day in respect to those great mysteries which are involved in