mable benefit. In this way his object manifestly influences his plan. He might have given himself the delight of pouring forth streams of information, which he alone possessed, to a community ardently thirsting for it. But such prodigality would have obscured rather than strengthened his argument: he therefore rigidly limits himself in order to produce the desired effect.

The effect is twofold: (1) to create a belief that Jesus is the Christ; (2) to create a belief that Jesus is the Son of God. The first truth is primarily for the Jew; the second is primarily for the Gentile; then both are for all united. The first truth leads the Jew to become a Christian; the second raises the Gentile above the barriers of Jewish exclusiveness; the two together bring eternal life to both.

To the Jews the Evangelist would prove that Jesus, the Man who had been known to them personally or historically by that name, is the Christ, the Messiah for whom they had been looking, in whom all types and prophecies have been fulfilled, to whom therefore the fullest allegiance is due. To the Gentiles the Evangelist would prove that this same Jesus, of whom they also have heard, is the Son of God, the Only God, theirs as well as His, the Universal Father, their Father as well as His; whose Son's mission, therefore, must be coextensive with His Father's family and kingdom. Long before the promise was made to Abraham 'all things came into being through Him' (i. 3): if therefore the Jews had a claim on the Christ, the Gentiles had a still older claim on the Son of God.

These two great truths, that Jesus is the Christ, and that Jesus is the Son of God, being recognised and believed, the blessed result follows that believers have life in His name, i.e. in Him as revealed to them in the character which His name implies. There is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free; but Christ is all and in all; all are one in Christ Jesus (Col. iii. 11; Gal. iii. 28). There is no need to look for any additional object over and above that which the Evangelist himself states; although this is frequently done. Thus from the time of Irenaeus (Haer.

III. xi.) it has been common to say that S. John wrote his Gospel against Cerinthus and other heretics. By clearly teaching the main truths of the Gospel S. John necessarily refutes errors; and it is possible that here and there some particular form of error was in his mind when he wrote: but the refutation of error is not his object in writing. If his Gospel is not a Life of Christ, still less is it a polemical treatise.

Again, from the time of Eusebius (H. E. III. xxiv. 11) and earlier it has been maintained that S. John wrote to supplement the Synoptists, recording what had not been recorded by them. No doubt he does supplement them to a large extent, especially as regards the ministry in Judæa: but it does not follow from this that he wrote in order to supplement them. Where something not recorded by them would suit his purpose equally well he would naturally prefer it; but he has no hesitation in retelling what has already been told by one, two, or even all three of them, if he requires it for the object which he has in view (see introductory note to chap. vi.).

ii. The Plan.

In no Gospel is the plan so manifest as in the Fourth. Perhaps we may say of the others that they scarcely have a plan. We may divide and subdivide them for our own convenience; but there is no clear evidence that the three Evangelists had any definite scheme before them in putting together the fragments of Gospel history which they have preserved for us. It is quite otherwise with the Fourth Evangelist. The different scenes from the life of Jesus Christ which he puts before us, are not only carefully selected but carefully arranged, leading up step by step to the conclusion expressed in the confession of S. Thomas, 'My Lord and my God.' But if there is a development of faith and love on the one side in those who accept and follow Jesus, so also there is a development of unbelief and hatred on the other in those who reject and persecute Him. 'The Word became flesh;' but, in as much as He was not generally recognised and welcomed, His presence in the world necessarily involved a separation and a conflict; a separation

of light from darkness, truth from falsehood, good from evil, life from death, and a conflict between the two. It is the critical episodes in that conflict round the person of the Incarnate Word that the Evangelist places before us one by one. These various episodes taken one by one go far to shew,— taken all together and combined with the issue of the conflict irrefragably prove, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.' The main outlines of the plan are these :

I. THE PROLOGUE OR INTRODUCTION (i. 1—18).

I.

2.

The Word in His own Nature (i. 1—5).

His revelation to men and rejection by them

(i. 6—13).

3. His revelation of the Father (i. 14-18).

II. FIRST MAIN DIVISION. CHRIST'S MINISTRY, OR HIS REVELATION OF HIMSElf to the World (i. 19—xii. 50).

(The work has become a Conflict). 4. among mixed multitudes (v.-xi.).

III. SECOND MAIN DIVISION. THE ISSUES OF CHRIST'S MINISTRY,

OR HIS REVELATION OF HIMSELF TO HIS DISCIPLES

(xiii.-xx.).

d. The inner Glorification of Christ in His last Dis

courses (xiii.-xvii.).

1. His love in humiliation (xiii. 1—30).

2.

His love in keeping His own (xiii. 31 -xv. 27).

e.

3.

4.

The promise of the Comforter and of His return (xvi.).

The prayer of the High-Priest (xvii.).

The outer Glorification of Christ in His Passion

(xviii., xix.).

I. The betrayal (xviii. 1—11).

2.

The ecclesiastical and civil trials (xviii. 12xix. 16).

3. The crucifixion and burial (xix. 17—42).

f. The Resurrection (xx.).

I. The manifestation to Mary Magdalene (1—18).

2.

The manifestation to the ten (19—23).

3. The manifestation to S. Thomas with the ten

Here again, only a few leading points can be noticed: the subject is capable of almost indefinite expansion.

I. From the time of Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 190) this Gospel has been distinguished as a 'SPIRITUAL GOSPEL' (Eus. H. E. vI. xiv. 7). The Synoptists give us mainly the external acts of Jesus Christ: S. John lays before us glimpses of the inner life and spirit of the Son of God. Their narrative is chiefly composed of His manifold and ceaseless dealings with men: in S. John we have rather His tranquil and unbroken union with His Father. The heavenly element which forms the background of the first three Gospels is the atmosphere of the Fourth.

It is quite in harmony with this characteristic of the Gospel that it should contain such a much larger proportion of Christ's

words than we find in the others: discourses here form the principal part, especially in the latter half of the Gospel. Not even in the Sermon on the Mount do we learn so much of 'the spirit of Christ' as in the discourses recorded by S. John. And what is true of the central figure is true also of the numerous characters which give such life and definiteness to S. John's narrative: they also make themselves known to us by what they say rather than by what they do. And this suggests to us a second characteristic.

2. No Gospel is so rich in TYPICAL but thoroughly REAL AND LIFELIKE GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS as the Fourth. They are sketched, or rather by their words are made to sketch themselves, with a vividness and precision which, as already observed, is almost proof that the Evangelist was an eyewitness of what he records.

Among the groups we have the disciples strangely misunderstanding Christ (iv. 33, xi. 12) yet firmly believing on Him (xvi. 30); His brethren, dictating a policy to Him and not believing on Him (vii. 3—5); John's disciples, with their jealousy for the honour of their master (iii. 26); the Samaritans, proud to believe from their own experience rather than on the testimony of a woman (iv. 42); the multitude, sometimes thinking Jesus possessed, sometimes thinking Him the Christ (vii. 20, 26, 41); the Jews, claiming to be Abraham's seed and seeking to kill the Messiah (viii. 33, 37, 40); the Pharisees, haughtily asking, 'Hath any one of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on Him?' (vii. 48) and 'are we also blind?' (ix. 40); the chief priests, professing to fear that Christ's success will be fatal to the national existence (xi. 48), and declaring to Pilate that they have no king but Caesar (xix. 15). In the sketching of these groups nothing is more conclusive evidence of the Evangelist being contemporary with his narrative than the way in which the conflict and fluctuations between belief and unbelief among the multitude and 'the Jews' is indicated.

The types of individual character are still more varied, and as in the case of the groups they exemplify both sides in the great conflict, as well as those who wavered between the two.