doctrine of the Spirit. 838 11-‘, the resurrection of Lazarus would serve this purpose too. For the Spirit is the source of life (§w-ru<u'rra-rov, Philo calls it, Creation, 7) ; and, therefore, just as the doctrine of the living water is preceded by the miracle of the water changed into wine, and the doctrine of bread by the miracle of bread, ‘ and the doctrine of the supersession of the intermittent sabbath by the continuous loving activity of the Father and the Son (v. 17) is preceded by the miracle of sabbath- healing vouchsafed to the man to whom the intermittent spring was useless, and the doctrine of the Light of the world is preceded by the miracle of giving light to the blind, so is it natural, and, as it were, proportionate, that the doctrine of the quickening Spirit (qf. vi. 63, To 7i1'£f'}.L(i éa-rt -5 §(oo1rol.oi:'v) should be preceded by some miracle of quickening the dead.‘ The anointing and the triumphal entry into Jerusalem having been discussed above, we pass to the last discourses (xii. 20 to xvii. 26). The last discourses in the synoptists treat of the second coming of Jesus in the clouds of heaven, and of the day of udgment ; the last discourses in the Fourth Gospel treat rather of the continuous and increased presence of Jesus in the hearts of the disciples, of the re- proving or judgment of the world by the Holy Spirit, and generally of the function of the Spirit in the church. In other words, the Fourth Gospel exhibits in a spiritualized form that which the synoptists set forth through material imagery. The promise of the future presence of Christ had been expressed by the synoptists in the legacy of His body and blood, which Christ is described as bequeathing to His disciples. The Fourth Gospel, which omits this incident (possibly as being already sufliciently known and receiving suflicient attention), lays more stress on the presence of the Spirit as Christ’s substitute. It is important to observe that both the synoptic account of the last supper, and the last discourses in the Fourth Gospel, are founded on one and the same basis of historical fact, viz., that Christ approached death with the expressed conviction that His work would not be frustrated by it, but that He would remain for ever a living power in the hearts of His disciples. There is also, even in the Gospel of St Mark, an intima- tion that His disciples were to be aided by a “Holy Spirit,” which should speak for them before princes and kings: “And when they lead you away, betraying you, take no forethought what ye shall speak, neither rehearse it; but whatsoever shall be given to you in that hour, this speak: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy ;S'pz°7-it ” (Mk. xiii. 11). To the same effect Jesus speaks in the parallel passage of Luke (xxi. 14, 15), bidding His disciples not to rehearse their defence (7rpop.e)xe'rEiv u’L1ro)toy170i7'vaL), for He will give them “ a mouth and wisdom,” which their adversaries shall not be able to gainsay. Thus, even from our earliest Gospel, it would seem that to those unlettered Galilean peasants, diffi- dent (as Moses had been before them) of the sufficiency of their rhetoric to plead their cause before the bar of the great ones of the earth, a promise had been made of a “ mouth ” that should plead for them. The Holy Spirit was to be their Advo- cate. It is not likely that Jesus should have uttered these two expressions (quoted above) and no more, about the Spirit which was to be His substitute. Therefore, if the author of the Fourth Gospel had access to any apostolic sayings and 1 The complete discussion of this, the crowning “sign" in the Fourth Gospel, is not adapted for these pages. It would require a close examination of Lu. xvi. 20-31, together with Lightfoot’s (Ilorw Jlebraica) comment on “ Lazarus." On this point see also Viinsche, 1Veuc Bt'1'lrZi._'/e zur I-.'rlc'i1I-lr:r1m_q rler ]'.'L'an_r/elien, p. 467; and com- pare Philo on the meaning of liliezer (Lazarus) in Who is the llcirf ll, 12. The greater part of Origen's connneutary on this portion of the Fourth Gospel has unfortunately perished; but some light may be thrown on it by a study of his Cmnm. in Er. Jnrzmz., xxviii. 5, 6, 9, as well as by Augustine, In Joann. 1:'ran_r;. Trart., 49. The reasons usually alleged for the omission of this “e-ign" by the synoptists would also require careful consideration. GOSPELS [FOURTH GOSPEL. traditions that illustrated the teaching of Christ during the last two or three days before His death, we might naturally expect to find in these traditions something more about the Spirit which was to be the Advocate of the disciples when pleading without their Master before the sanhedrin, and before princes and kings. Accordingly, finding in the last discourses of the Fourth Gospel an ampler doctrine on this subject, we have no ground, (L priori, for regarding it with suspicion. True, the doctrine is set forth here, as elsewhere, in the peculiar language of the writer, so that we are abso- lutely certain that we have not the exact words uttered by Jesus; but this need not hinder us from accepting the thoughts as the thoughts of Jesus, if we can throughout trace the synoptic doctrine. In the synoptists Jesus pre- dicts that He will “ rise again ” ; obviously the letter of this prediction, though important, implies a still more important spiritual meaning beneath it. For this prediction would not have been satisfied by any amount of literal fulfil- ment if J esns had merely walked from His grave and ex- hibited Himself alive, by tangible as well as ocular proof, to thousands of curious observers, hostile as well as friendly, unless He had at the same time poured a new influence or influent spirit into the hearts of those to whom He manifested Himself. It is characteristic of our evangelist that he realized (1) that the essence of the resurrection of Christ consists in His spiritual resurrection and intensified presence in the hearts of His disciples; that this resur- rection, triumphing over death, and making death the stepping-stone to a more active life, is as much in accord- ance with law, as is the growth of the corn of wheat which (xii. 24), “ except it fall into the ground and die, abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” This law—illustrated daily by the increased influence of the dead upon the living, no less than by the fruitful death of the “ corn of wheat ”—a law so simple a11d yet so profound, like all the other laws emmciated by Jesus, can hardly have proceeded from any other than from Jesus Ilimself. The spiritual depth of the doctrine, and the similarity which it bears to the synoptic prediction (in spite of the difi"ercnce of outward form), furnish strong arguments that, in the last discourses of the Fourth Gospel, we have much of our Lord's own teaching, though modified by the medium through which it is conveyed to us. The doctrine of the Spirit, regarded not now as the purify- ing element in conjunction with water, but as the Advocate or Paraclete—being the highest and most esoteric doctrine of nll—is reserved for the inner circle of His disciples. First, therefore, it is necessary to bring to an end the doctrine of Jesus to the outside world; and the battle between light and darkness, between Jesus and the Pharisees, ends with a recapitnlation and conclusion of the doctrine of light. The Gentile world, appearing on the stage in the person of some inquiring Greeks, stretches out her hand to the Messiah (xii. 20) ; a voice from heaven attests His glory (xii. 28). The Son of God pronounces the fall of the evil one, and, almost in the same word, His own victorious death (xii. 31, 32). Then the light is hidden from the rebellious nation (xii. 36); the evangelist pronounces against them the sentence of Con- demnation, that they are blinded because they loved dark- ness more than light, and the praise of men more than the praise of God; and for the last time the voice of Jesus is heard, as it were from behind a cloud, warning those whom He has left in darkness that in rejecting Him they have rejected the Father also (xii. 37-50). The esoteric doctrine begins with a parable of action, in which the Lord, by washing the feet of His disciples, teaches them humility. Two classes of heretics seem aimed at in this parable,——those who reject the washing of
Jesus, to whom Jesus replies, “If I wash thee not, thou