invisibility of the Father in an absolute manner; apart even from the fact that what is spoken of here is not a mere seeing of God in a general kind of way, but a seeing of God as He is (and it is upon this that the stress is laid),-apart from these considerations, what is asserted here is not merely that we shall see Him, but also, and indeed principally, that we shall be like Him. But Scripture nowhere declares that we shall be like God. The likeness to God, which it demands of us, cannot be meant here; for, in demanding that of us, it❘ regards such God-likeness as something that we are not first to acquire in the future. On the other hand, it declares, in the plainest terms, that we are to became like Christ (as regards condition; Rom. viii. 16, 17, 29 f.; Col. iii. 3, 4; 2 Cor. iii. 18; John xvii. 24). The assumption, however, that we shall one day become like Christ rests upon the further assumption that we shall see Him as He is; and our guarantee for the latter is His own promise (John xvii. 24, xii. 26, xiv. 3).

That, therefore, which John impresses so urgently upon his beloved readers is to reflect on the fact that as yet they possess their divine sonship only in a very imperfect manner, and not to forget that in all its fulness it still lies in the future. They must, therefore, continually turn their eyes towards the future. It is certainly of the utmost importance for us that we confidently regard our present condition as that of an already real divine sonship. For without this our relation to God cannot be one that is intimate and joyous. But it would be equally dangerous for the Christian to believe that he already possessed divine sonship in all its completeness; for in that case he would not esteem divine sonship so highly as he ought. Meanwhile he only tastes the first-fruits. Upon the vivid comprehension, by means of Christian hope, of this contrast between fulness of life in the present and the life in the future depends the peculiar and characteristic Christian note, to which our life must be attuned. Upon this also depends the combination, so unintelligible to the world, of the deepest humility and the most daring exaltation, of sorrow and joy, in the life of the Christian. The future heavenly condition of the Christian is already actually in existence; only it has not yet been apprehended by him. How certain the Christian is of his future possession. It is an object of knowledge, and not merely of faith and hope; and that in virtue of his indissoluble vital

connexion with Christ. For in virtue of this connexion he is certain that, when he has reached the goal of his development, he will share in the condition of his Redeemer. It is a genuine and characteristic Christian mood, to which expression is given here. The Christian walks in the visible order of things with the distinct consciousness of belonging to an invisible order. He is aware that only the covering upon his eyes prevents him from apprehending this higher order of things. The fact, however, that he does not see it occasions in him no doubt as to its reality; but he derives the darkness, which is over him, from the veiling of his own eye by his sensuous nature.

The Christian, however, cannot conceive of a real blessedness without the perfect vision of his Redeemer, with which every riddle is solved for

And such a perfect, not merely approximate, but absolutely real ("as He is "), i.e. immediate, beholding of Christ is, from the nature of the case, only possible to those who participate with Him in His condition. Standing outside His glory (John xvii. 24; 2 Cor. iii. 18) the Christian could only have an approximate, because not an experimental, notion of it. From the fact that we shall be like Christ, the thought of our divine sonship obtains a literalness, a strength and fulness, whereby alone it can have its full practical force. It is a literal expression, like all other Christian expressions. We are God's children in the same sense as Christ is; we really inherit with Him, so surely as we are His brethren. His glory, and consequently ours also, we cannot conceive too highly. But, of course, it is only if the glory of Christ stands vividly before our soul that the thought of our divine sonship can have so elevating an effect upon us.

Ver. 3. From the greatness of God's love toward us unfolded in vers. 1 and 2, love manifested in the divine sonship bestowed upon us, John now expressly derives the summons to earnestness in the work of sanctification. Such an expectation and hope, he says, must, wherever it really exists, become a strong impulse to holiness. This inner necessity is implied in the expression "every one." Purification is to be understood here in the sense of a specially high degree of purity; for while "to be pure" denotes the same moral condition as "to be righteous," it does so from the point of view of perfect freedom from the stain of sin, complete separation from fellowship with it (i. 5;

1 Pet. i. 25); whereas "being righteous" is conformity to the demands of the law in virtue of one's conduct corresponding to it. The main stress lies upon the clause, "even as He is pure." Every one, says John, who has such a hope, purifies himself, and, that too, not merely superficially, but in the same absolute manner as Christ is pure. The cogency of this assertion depends upon the premiss, which is here taken for granted, that conformity in respect of moral condition is the necessary presupposition of conformity in respect of state of existence (Matt. v. 8; Heb. xii. 14). John apprehends this demand more strictly than is usually done. He admits as really Christian only that which aims at the absolute perfection of purity, and which is satisfied with no

other purity than that which is like the purity of the Redeemer Himself. From the nature of the case, any moral strictness that is more indulgent is incompatible with Christian sanctification. The latter proceeds entirely from our being laid hold of by the ethical image of the Redeemer. That in this image, which makes such a peculiarly strong impression upon us, is just this stainless purity. Elsewhere we meet ethical phenomena which command our reverence; but there is always some shadow or other along with their light. In none of them do we discover perfect human virtue; and only perfect virtue can lay hold of and inspire a noble human heart. The Christian, accordingly, in working out his sanctification can only set before himself that perfect goal.

MR. BUSSELL, going straight to the root of the matter, points out that the views which I have ventured to put forward with regard to the structure and interrelation of the Gospels, really resolve themselves into the question of the correctness or incorrectness of a definition. After quoting the following definition: "Documents I. and II. (John and Matthew) represent a complete history in two volumes. Document III. (Mark) is a fresh and expanded edition of selected portions of Document II. (Matthew). Document IV. cannot be better described than in terms suggested by the preface of the writer (Luke), as a supplemental and explanatory treatise" (Historic Relation of the Gospels, p. 54). Mr. Bussell says: "Such is, briefly and clearly expressed, the whole sum and substance of Mr. Halcombe's several treatises on this subject, the result of his twelve years' labours, and of his patient analysis. Nothing can be added to the statement save by way of comment, explanation, or illustration" (THE ExPOSITORY TIMES, April 1892, p. 352).

This definition, then, is what I have to establish.

Of the numerous proofs of its correctness which might be adduced, I will deal with the three which

II.

are at once the most comprehensive, the most easily stated in a few words, and the most easily verified.

I.

This definition applies with equal exactness (a) to the Gospels considered in their entirety; (b) to as many component fourfold sections (or periods common to four writers) as the Gospels can be divided into; (c) to every one of the fourfold narratives; (d) to every fourfold statement. Thus, whereas the construction indicated by the definition is so remarkable that no reasonable person would expect that it could occur twice by accident, it does, as a matter of fact, occur in every one of forty available instances. (See Table annexed.)

Between all these areas of observation there is virtually no difference save from one cause. Where subject-matter suitable to St. John's avowed object in writing predominates, there his record is the longest. Where more distinctly historical matter predominates, there the Synoptic records. are the longest. It is to this latter cause that the section embracing the Galilean ministry mainly owes its exceptional character. But the actual

construction of this section is in principle identical with that of every other section. It is true it exhibits a wholly exceptional amount of threefold repetition, but this is merely a matter of detail, turning upon the purposes for which repetition is used.

Parenthetically I may point out that it is to the intensely abnormal Synoptic half of this section that modern criticism has virtually limited its investigations. Yet, in no one particular has this section, even in its entirety, the smallest claim to be regarded as more authoritative than any one of the other thirteen sections.

The late Archbishop Thomson thought that all attempts to solve the problem presented by the Gospels ought to be abandoned. His chief reason

for this opinion was, that every successive writer was able to prove every preceding writer wrong. (Introduction to Speaker's Com. on the Gospels, p. lii.)

May not the reason for the remarkable fact here stated be, that each successive theorist has based his theory on the one abnormal section of the Gospel history, and left his critics thirteen normal sections out of which to refute it?

It is observable that our definition is simply a definition of the nature of the quadriformity of Gospel construction, on the recognition of which Irenæus insists so strongly. As the quadriformity so defined is conspicuous in every possible area of observation which the Gospels can be made to supply, it follows that Irenæus knew perfectly well what he was about when he used such exceptionally strong language on the subject.

II.

Our definition may be tested in every one of the above forty areas of observation by verbal analyses. In every case these analyses represent a sort of photographic negative of Gospel construction, of which negative the definition supplies the development.

From the annexed summary of analyses it will be seen that in every case, without the faintest suspicion of exception, St. John and St. Matthew divide the historical area, be it large or small, between them; whilst St. Mark and St. Luke always deal with the same side of the subject as St. Matthew. As 97 per cent. of St. John's Gospel is not found in either of the other evangelists, while 97 per cent. of St. Matthew's narrative

is fresh so far as St. John is concerned, they are both essentially original documents. At the same time, there is an occasional concentration of verbal identity between them, amply sufficient to establish their connexion. In St. Mark's edition of St. Matthew there is 51 per cent. of identity accompanied by 49 per cent. of expansion, and a constantly varying amount of abbreviation. In St. Luke the supplemental matter is 80 per cent. in the whole history, and 62 per cent. in an exceptional section. Thus the accuracy of our definition of each Gospel could not well be more completely confirmed.

III.

It will be found that every portion of the Gospel record, even down to its separate clauses and words, is dominated by a principle which may be formulated as follows: "Save for a purpose, there shall be no repetition. But where a later writer requires to deal with a subject already treated by a former, he shall, so far as his purpose of repetition admits, use the ipsissima verba of the earlier writer."

It must be borne in mind that, if the Gospels were composed as successive creeds rather than successive histories (and a good deal might be said. in favour of this view), no principle of construction could well be more simple and natural than that embodied in this formula.

"The confessed crux criticorum of the subject,” to use Mr. Gwilliam's expression, is the obvious difficulty of explaining, by the same theory, both the agreements and differences of the Gospels. But the above formula not only explains both the agreements and differences, it necessarily requires them. It cannot, in fact, be adopted without producing just the very phenomena which distinguish the Gospels from all other documents which the literature of the world has ever known, viz., The sustained and often rapid interchange of dependence and independence; of agreement and variation; of omissions and additions; of abbreviations and expansions. Nor, if used by four modern writers, could the effect of the formula be materially different from what it is in the Gospels. The first two documents would be as nearly as possible original, whilst the character of the other two would be largely influenced by the varying purposes for which repetition might be resorted to, and

would exhibit in a marked form all the necessary phenomena of repetition.

The phenomena of the abnormal section, spoken of above, would seem at first sight to make the rule against repetition an absurd paradox. But to suppose that it really does so, is to confuse an exceptional frequency of repetition with the manner of repetition. The abnormal frequency of repetition is regulated by the number of events which St. Matthew and St. Mark record in a different order, and as to which in his preface St. Luke virtually promises to give the correct order. But in every one of the repeated narratives, without a shadow of exception, the rule of the formula, remarkable as it is, is regularly adhered to. Thus in reality, so far from this abnormal section telling against the correctness of the formula, it is, at least in the manner of repetition, the one part of the Gospel history in which its action is most conspicuously observable.

We have seen that the action of the one principle which dominates all the constructive facts of the Gospels must, whenever and by whomsoever applied, necessarily produce two documents similar to the first and second of our definition, and two others of at least a closely analogous character to the third and fourth of our definition. Thus, for the third time, the accuracy of our definition receives the strongest possible support.

In conclusion, I submit that the teaching of the authorities quoted in my former paper ought to be regarded as an inalienable heritage of the Church; that the correctness of this teaching is demonstrable; and that by no means so well as by establishing its truth can we ever show that the attacks upon the Gospels, which have of late years made such havoc of the faith, are based, not upon evidence, but upon an entire misapprehension of evidence.

I cannot be too grateful to Mr. Gwilliam, Mr. Bussell, and the Editor of this Journal for their large-minded and generous appreciation of views at once so apparently revolutionary and so opposed to their own. But time runs on, and it is now eight months since Mr. Gwilliam concluded a strong appeal for the examination of this subject with the words: "Mr. Halcombe has taken a position which he has made exceedingly strong. To turn aside from his arguments and treat them as of no account, would evince blind prejudice rather than critical acumen" (THE EXPOSITORY TIMES, April 1892, p. 316). So far, of all those who command the ear of the public, the only person who has even expressed an intention of responding to this appeal is not one of those professionally responsible for the Church's teaching, whether Bishop, Divinity Professor, or leading Theologian, but-the busiest man in the Empire, Mr. Gladstone.

THE LORD'S TEACHING AS TO THE LAW.

II.

2. FROM the relation of our Lord to the law generally, we may now pass to a brief consideration of two of its precepts from which some inferences may be drawn as to the general question, how far His teaching guides us in our choice between the two views. These two precepts are the law of the Sabbath and the enactment relative to divorce the two precepts in regard of which there was an enduring dissidence between the teaching of our blessed Master and the rabbinical teaching of the day. In each of these some glimpses may be obtained of divine guidance in the anxious and difficult questions which the socalled Higher Criticism has forced upon our consideration.

(a) Let us take first the precept relating to the Sabbath, and here select for investigation one passage in which our Lord does seem to treat in a critical manner this distinguishing precept of the Mosaic law. Our Lord's general attitude to questions connected with the Sabbath we know well, but on this we need not dwell in our present inquiry. It may be summed up in the single emphatic declaration made by our Lord when His disciples were censured by the Pharisees for plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath day-the declaration, founded on the relation of the Sabbath to man, that "the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."1 This attitude is maintained throughout. What we have, however, here to notice is not our Lord's authority over the day, but the reasoning which, on one occasion, He was pleased to enter upon in relation to the Sabbath, and the inferences that flow from it in relation to the

1 Mark ii. 28. There is some little doubt as to the reference of the rs. The conclusion would not seem to be drawn from the fact that the Son of Man was the Head of humanity (Meyer, al.), but from the fact that He was the Saviour of man, and so had power even over that which was primarily designed for the spiritual good of man. See Weiss, in loc.

general question before us. Let us recall the circumstances.

At the unnamed festival at Jerusalem, mentioned by St. John in the earlier part of his Gospel,2 an impotent man was healed by our Lord at the Pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath day. The performance of this act of mercy on the Sabbath called out a malignant bitterness in the Jewish party which, when our Lord visited Jerusalem some months afterwards at the Feast of Tabernacles,3 appears to have vented itself anew, and to have called forth from our Lord an appeal to the law of Moses of a profoundly instructive character. He alludes to the known fact that circumcision was performed on the Sabbath when that Sabbath was the eighth day, and in doing so he draws a kind of contrast between the sanctity of the Sabbath and the sanctity of circumcision, and the relation of each to the law of Moses. Our Lord, in fact, here passes a critical judgment upon the relation of circumcision to the Sabbath which, when carefully considered, suggests important and far-reaching inferences. He inferentially confirms the narrative in Genesis as to the origin of circumcision, and its connexion with what may be termed the patriarchal dispensation; He confirms, also, the fact of its incorporation in the law of Moses, and further, by the whole tenor of His argument, implies that the priority of the rite gave it a kind of legislative pre-eminence over the Sabbath. Whenever the eighth day brought the two rites into competition, the Sabbath yielded to circumcision. The rabbinical principle, "circumcisio pellit sabbatum," could actually, in this particular, claim the authority of the Lord Himself.

6

With the inferences which have been drawn from this remarkable passage as to questions connected with the Sabbath, we are not here concerned, but we are closely concerned with the broad fact that our Lord does in this passage set, as it were, His seal on the reality of patriarchal history. Few as are the words, parenthetical as 2 John v. I. 3 Ibid. vii. 2. 4 Ibid. vii. 22. 5 Gen. xvii. 10, xxi. 4. 6 Lev. xii. 3.