,ion (Luke iv. 6). Christ speaks of him as "the prince (llpx.,,) of this ·or\,\"- 11 term which is mode even more explicit in the Epistles of Paul, where he is " ru'.or or the darkness of tho world" (Eph. vi. 12; 2 Cor.;iv. 4; F,ph. ii. 2; 1 Tim. i. 20); iH prince of death (Heb. ii. 11-16) and roaring lion (1 Pet. v. 8). Thoma (loc. cit., pp. 202-205) endeavours to make out a fundamental difference b tween the J ohannine 0
teaching and the rest of the New Testament in this-that the only region of operation assigned to "the prince of this world" is the human spirit (even the human spirit of Jesus himself), not the bodies of men, or the world as such, or the heavens or the abode of spirits; that we have no "possession" of the bodies of men, no diseases entrusted to bis manipulation, but rather that the evil mind of the traitor and the mental trouble of the Master himself is the only region of his activity and the sole indication of the devil's nearness or presence. There is no reference in John to "pos- session," but observe also that there is no reference to "leprosy," nor to the "isme of blood," nor to" dropsy," nor to" fever," which evil diseases our Lord healed in Galilee; but we learn that he did work many signs and works, the nature of wbi~~ i9 not portrayed (eh. ii. 23; iv. 45, 48; v. 36; xx. 30). The absence from John's narra- tive of a specific reference to healing those possessed with devils may not indicate any metaphysical difference. In 1 John iii. 8 we are told that" he was manifested to destroy the works of the devil." We should be going too far, therefore, to say that John ignores them. The very phrase, "prince of this world," gives the flat denial to the inference drawn by the Tiibingen school. The references to the devil under this title are comparatively few. In eh. xiv. 30 "the prince of this world cometh, and findeth nothing in Christ." In eh. xii. 31 he is cast out of the earth by the submission of the Son of God; and eh. xvi. 8, 11, because he is judged, the Comforter will convict the world of judgment. . We learn from Christ that "he abode not in the truth;" and when "he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own'' (eh. viii. 44); so that some hint is given of the mysterious event elsewhere referred to, that when the prince of this world began to be, he wa.s not evil, but became so in the exercise of his own free will. Thoma. rejects Hilgenfeld's supposed discovery that the Johannine writer refers to the demiurge of the Gnostic Valentinus as the father of the devil (see sect. VIII. C. 3, and notes on eh. viii. 44). The future of the devil himself is not touched upon in the Gospel; but the ultimate consecration of the world, and the expulsion from the world, and the final condemnation of the prince of the world, are firmly promised and predicted. As Reuss admits (' Theo!. Chret.,' ii. 474), there is no indication that John emphasized a fundamental, irresponsible, or inevitable evil, or referrf'd t:J.e existence of evil to the decrees of fate or Divine predestination. In every case the fault lies in the will of the moral agent, and is tke consequence of the rejection of advantage and of slight offered to opportunity. 3. The Johannine teaching concerning the SALVATION of the world. This compre- hensive subject embraces: (1) The Person of the Saviour. (2) The nature of the salva• tion effected by him, as (a) Life, (b) Light, (c) Love. (3) The means adopted by him to accomplish the end proposed: (a) his own life (or example); (b) his revelation of the truth (light of men); (c) his love, in giving himself unto death, laying down his life for his sheep; ( d) his bestowment of the Spirit-the true coming of himself to indi- viduals aud to the Church. (4) The method of human appropriation-faith, recon- ciliation, love. (1) The Saviour himself. The Johanniue teaching concerning the Godhead has embraced the main features of his Divine-human Person, which was at one and the same time the highest representation of ideal manhood, of God's conception of man, and the most perfect and exhaustive revelation of the Divine nature of the heart of the Father. '!'he ultimate end of the Incarnation may well have been wider than the redemption or salvation of the world. It m[l.y be, and it has been supposed to include (even if man had never sinned), the fullest self-manifestation of the eternal God in 11 nature intended from its first inception to bear the full weight of the Divine glory (see Dr. Westcott's important essay on "The Gospel of the Creation:" 'Appendix to Commentary on the Epistles of St. John'). Whether it were so or uot, the Go,:pel describes the (proximate) eud of the Incarnation and of the sending of the Son of God into the wo·ld as nothing less than the salvation of the world of men. He came (no~ cxi INTRODUCTION TO