within the Church, and orthodoxy had become alive to the dangers which threatened the Chris- tian religion from this side. The intellectualists were even strong enough to drive Montanism out of the Church. During the first quarter of the 2nd cent, the gieat Gnostics were outside the Chuich, and the chief danger was that the party of ^iXi; TricTTis, ignorant and superstitious, with material- istic notions of religion and hopes of a coming reign of the saints, might make the position of the Christian philosopher impossible, and drive him into the arms of the Gnostics. Moreover, at the time when the Gospel was written, the inadequacy of both presentations of Christianity was becoming apparent. The primitive revivalism was decaying ; the liopes of a Parousia were growing faint ; while, on the other hand, Docetism and the fantastic schemes of the Gnostic party were visibly tending to discard the Gospel m favour of a barbarized Platonisni. The author of this Gospel interposed his powerful influence to save Christianity from being either swamped in a mythology or subli- mated into a theosophy. 'The Jews' demanded miracles, ' the Greeks ' a philosophy ; this Gospel, like St. Paul, presents both with ' Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God ' (I Co 1--=^). The author addresses himself chiefly to the Faith-party, who most needed teaching. He tries to recall tliem to real history, by subtly spiritualizing the miraculous narratives, to which they attributed too much importance, and brinpng out their ethical and spiritual significance. He never makes the slightest attempt to rationalize a miracle, — on the contrary, the miracles whicli he records are more startling than anything in the Synoptics,— but no stress is laid on any physical portent as momentous , or as evidence.
part from its
in and for itself, or as evidence, apart irom its symbolical value as a type of the Person, work, and office of Christ. This design of spiritualizing the tradition is kept in view throughout ; but it is carrieil out so subtly and quietly that it has often been overlooked.
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
A glance at one of tlie old-fashioned ' Haiiuunies ' of the four Evangelists makes us realize how few of the events of our Lord's life, before the last few days, are recorded by the Synoptists and also by St. John. And even the few common elements are employed ilill'erently, and in ditterent settings. There are notable and irreconcilable differences in the chronology, including, as is well known, a dis- crepancy as to the date of the Crucifixion. The development of Christ's mission is diflerently con- ceived, the Johannine Christ making the most e.xalted claims to equality with the Father near the beginning of His career, and in the presence of His enemies (2'" 6^" 8°* etc.), whereas in the Synoptics the question and answer at Caisarea Philippi are clearly intended to be of crucial importance (Mt le""'- II). The form and substance of the discourses are also very different, the Christ of the Synoptics speaking as a man to men, as a Jew to Jews ; con- veying His message in pithy aphorisms, easily understood and rememliered, and in homely para- bles, adapted to tlie cumprehension of country folk. These discourses are directed rather to bringing men to tlie Father, and to righteousness and con- sistency of life, than to inculcating any doctrines about His own Person ; sometimes He expresses His attachment to the Law, and repudiates any intention of abrogating it. Our Evangelist, on the other hand, represents Jesus as taking part in long polemical disputations with ' the Jews,' who are as much His enemies as they were the enemies of the Christian Church 80 years later ; the parables have disappeared, and tlieir place is taken by ' proverbs ' or symbolic language ; and, above all. His whole teaching is centred upon faith in and devotion to Himself. The emphatic iyiii occurs 15 times in St. Matthew, 117 times in St. John. Many facts to wliich our Evangelist attaches i^rcal iiiiiicirtance are completely stnange to the Syiujptic trailitiun. Such are : the marriage in Cana of Cialilee, with which the public ministry opens ; the conversation with the Samaritan woman ; the healing of the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda ; the incident of the man born blind ; the raising of Lazarus, which in St. John's Gospel appears to have been tlie imme- diate cause of the plot against the life of Jesus ; the washing of the disciples' feet at the Last Supper ; the conversation with Pilate at the trial ; the presence of the beloved disciple and Mary at the Cross ; the appearance to Tliomas after the Resurrection. On the other hand, the writer of the Fourth Gospel omits the genealogy and the birth from a virgin, because it could be of no interest to liim to prove that Jesus (or rather Joseph) was descended from king David, and the Incarnation of the Logos is a far grander coiiiciition than a miraculous birth by the oiiLiatiini of the Holy Ghost; he omits the Baptism of .Icsus, of which notwithstanding he sliows kiiuwlcMlgc, because, again, the true liaptiMii is tlii' liicaiiiatimi of the Logos in Jesus, aii.l al-u pailly, i)( rhaps, liccause he is anxious In discdunti'iKiiicc tlic Ailuptiuuist views of the I'ersou of Cliiist which were prevalent at the time when he wrote ; he omits the Tempta- tion, because it is no part of his plan to exhibit Jesus as experiencing any temptation or weakness ; he omits the Transfiguration, because in liis view the whole life of Christ on earth is a manifestation of His glory, not by visible light but to the spiritual eye ; he omits the institution of the Eucharist, because he has already given his sacramental doctrine in his discourse about the Bread of Life (Jn 6^""), following the miracle of the 5000, and does not wish the truth of the mystical union to be bound up too closely with the participation in an ecclesiastical rite ; he omits the Agonv in the Giirden of Gethsemane, and the cry, ' Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,' because the impression which he