expressed as being with God before His birth, John iii. 13, vi. 38, 46, 51 (cf. vers. 33, 35, 41, 42, 50, 58), vii. 28, 29, viii. 23, xvi. 28, as a being already actual, not merely arising, before Abraham (viii. 58), most completely, with allusion also to sameness of nature and fellowship with God, John xvii. 5, 24; already in John vi. 46, vii. 28, 29, Jesus derives His fellowship with God from His original being with God, and alludes to the same cause of His oneness of nature with God in John v. 26. Elsewhere He speaks of this oneness of nature with God (x. 30, 38, xiv. 9, 10, xvi. 15), and of His community of life and love with God (v. 17, 19, 20, iv. 34, viii. 29, x. 15, 17, 18, xiii. 31, 32, xv. 9, 10, xvi. 32, xvii. 1-4), of both together (Matt. xi. 27), first in reference to the present, partly also to the future in His exaltation; but the inference from this being of Jesus in time to a similar pretemporal being is obvious of itself, and becomes necessary when we combine these sayings of Jesus with those in which He expressly affirms of Himself a premundane existence (in John xvii. 1-5 a saying of the latter kind directly follows on one of the former). Thus we may say generally that the line of thought given in vers. 1, 2 is taken altogether from the sayings of Jesus, only that the Evangelist here combines together what is distributed among different discourses of Jesus. In particular we must notice the predicate "God," which the Evangelist gives to Jesus in His pretemporal being, and the name "Word," by which he designates Him. As to the former, it undoubtedly has a precedent in the address of a disciple to Jesus, related by the Evangelist John, during His intercourse with the disciples on earth, which address Jesus accepted without opposition, and so confirmed (xx. 28); only with the difference that Thomas acknowledges the present Jesus, in consequence of the appearance of the Risen One, as a revelation of His glory as Lord and God, while the Evangelist from this fact infers the Godhead of Jesus Christ also in His pretemporal being and eternal nature-certainly a just and necessary inference, inasmuch as the thought of one not originally God becoming God would be inconceivable, according to the entire doctrine of the Old and New Testaments. On the other hand, Jesus nowhere applies the name "Word" to Himself; it occurs in application to Christ only in the Johannine writings, according to Church tradition. Yet Jesus calls Himself, not merely Son of Man, but also “Son of God" (most commonly in John's Gospel, especially in this form, that "of God" follows as supplement from the context, but also in other Gospels-Matt. xi. 27, in the parables -xxi. 27, 38, xxii. 2, again, xxviii. 19, and often on the lips of others, but acknowledged by Jesus Himself, in the voice of God—iii. 17, xvii. 5, the confession of men— xiv. 33, xvi. 16, the high priest's question-xxvi. 63, the word of the tempter-iv. 3, 6; again, also, in substance already-Luke ii. 49). And, although a special relation to God, oneness of nature, fellowship of a unique kind, is not expressed in all passages where this designation occurs, especially not everywhere that it occurs on the lips of other men, yet it has this sense in many passages by the context (especially often in John's Gospel, iii. 16-18, v. 19-23, 25, 26, vi. 40, x. 36, xvii. 1-3, especially where the epithet "only-begotten" stands, like iii. 16, 18, and also Matt. xi. 27, xxviii. 19) ; and if this meaning is undoubted in many passages, it is also probable in the others, where sayings of Jesus are in question. In this sense, "Son of God" denotes the perfect image of God, which has proceeded, or, more correctly, is eternally proceeding, from God's nature, and points, therefore, to oneness of nature, perfect community of life, but also to a Being distinct from God, in whom God projects His nature out of, and is in contrast with, Himself. And so the name "Son of God," in this sense, contains some of the thoughts expressed in the designation "Word"; it denotes the inner relation of nature presupposed in the expression "Word." But the name "Son" does not in itself affirm the relation to the world implied in "Word," His position as

Mediator of all Divine revelation to the world. Yet this implication lying in "Word" has its precedent in the discourses of Jesus (John v. 19, 20, xiv. 6, 9, xvii. 2, 3; Matt. xi. 27). Thus, the Evangelist, in the phrase "Word," merely combines different thoughts in the discourses of Jesus.

Vers. 3, 4. Jesus Himself nowhere speaks of the mediation of Creation and Providence by Himself; this is only taught by John and Paul, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Yet in John v. 17 Jesus presents His own working in the world in parallel with God's continuous working from creation, justifying this (vers. 19 ff.) by affirming of Himself a doing at present which is conditioned by a showing on God's part (by the context a showing which gives, communicates). But this Divine showing and giving, imparted to Him, He applies to all God's works, affirming it as to the present and still more the future, to the effect that God has given Him works which imply power over the whole world, and are of critical import for the whole worldgiving life and judgment. Also in Matt. xi. 27, xxviii. 18, He testifies that power is given Him over all things. Thus He ascribes to Himself—partially for the present, perfectly for the future-a position in relation to the world from which the world's creation and preservation by Him may be justly inferred. When again in ver. 4 life and light are ascribed to the eternal Word in the widest sense, with this are to be compared the sayings in which Jesus describes Himself as the Life (xi. 25, xiv. 6), the Bread of Life (vi. 35, 48, 51), He through whom life is given to believers (v. 24, vi. 40, x. 28, xi. 25, 26, xvii. 3) calls Himself the Light (iii. 19, xii. 35, 36, 49), the Light of the World (viii. 12, ix. 5). But in these sayings the subject is primarily the giving of salvation through the Incarnate One. And thus, here also, we can only reach the thought of a general mediation of light and life to all men, life to all creation through Him, by inference, as a necessary postulate of this gift of salvation.

Vers. 5-13. Here the revelation of the eternal Word as light in the world after the entrance of sin, is described with its result. Outside the saying (John viii. 56), in which Jesus intimates that the revelation of God to Abraham came through Himself, we find nowhere a saying of Jesus containing a reference to His position as Mediator of the entire Divine revelation in the history of mankind, especially of God's people, in the past. He merely says directly that He is the sole Mediator of Divine revelation and salvation in the present, in the Johannine sayings, and also in many passages of the other Gospels, of which Matt. xi. 28-30 is an example. But from this mediatorial position of Jesus in the present the Evangelist can rightly draw an inference to the universal position of Christ as Mediator of God's whole revelation in history. The account of the result of this revelation is similar in character (v. 5, 10, 11); nonreception generally on the part of the world, and especially of God's people with the exception of a minority, vers. 12, 13 (see Matt. xi. 16-19, xxiii. 34-37, cf. John viii. 21-24; Matt. xxi. 33-43, xxii. 2-14, xxiii. 38, 39; John iii. 19-21, cf. Matt. vii. 13, 14).

Let us glance now at the gift of adoption, which, according to vers. 12, 13, is imparted to those who receive the light of revelation, or, as is now said, 'believe in the name of Jesus Christ-an adoption based on birth from God, which must, therefore, include community of nature with God. For this we find a precedent in the sayings of Jesus, when on the one hand He teaches the necessity of a birth from above or anew, and in any case by the Spirit of God (John iii. 3, 5, 6, 7, cf. èk Оeoû elvaι John viii. 47), and on the other hand speaks of Divine adoption. The latter, once in Matt. v. 9, cf. ver. 45 (with the phrase "sons," whereas in the present passage and 1 John iii. 1, 2 "children"), where Jesus describes by this predicate the honourable position connected with Divine fellowship, of course also assuming likeness of nature to God, but without doing more than intimate how this likeness arose. In another passage, where

He speaks of sons, according to the context sons of God (also "sons," not "children") (John viii. 35, 36), He emphasizes freedom as a sign of sonship (so also Matt. xvii. 25, 26, and as to substance in the parable, Luke xv. 11 ff., vers. 19, 21, 22, here also the honourable position). In the saying in John viii. He specially emphasizes a free in contrast with a servile relation to God (as in xv. 14, 15, the free in contrast with a servile relation of the disciples to Himself by the phrase "friends"). In John viii. (vers. 36 and 31, 32) He points to the way in which this free state of adoption is attained; this freedom is given by Him, who is the Son of God, Kar' ¿¿oxǹ”, and through His Word, in which the Divine truth acts on believers. But this state of child or son is not here expressly traced back by Jesus to the new birth from God, as little as in John iii. 3, 5, 6, 7, adoption is derived from the new birth; in viii. 42, 47, Jesus merely alludes to the fact that likeness of nature to God assumes an origin from God, and is its invariable mark. Here also it is clear that the Evangelist combines into one whole different thoughts uttered by Jesus separately.

Vers. 14-18. Here we see, in the first place, that the saying, "The Word was made flesh," is nowhere found on Christ's lips in similar terms. But its content is on the one hand implied in the above-quoted sayings of Jesus about His pre-existence, and on the other assumed in the announcements of the genuine human nature of Jesus, which run through all the Gospels, and are specially prominent in John's Gospel, and intimated also in the words in which Jesus ascribes flesh to Himself (in the narrower sense, John vi. 51, 53-55; in the more comprehensive = human nature as to soul and body, Matt. xxvi. 41). The brief, formal combination, however, as found here, is peculiar to the Evangelist. Again, the revelation of the glory of Jesus Christ as God's Son to His disciples is stated in sayings of Jesus, like John i. 49-51, xiv. 7-11; Matt. xvi. 27 in substance; in closest harmony of expression, in John xi. 40, xvii. 22. Yet in most of these passages (except Matt. xvi. 27; John xvii. 22) the allusion is primarily to the revelation of God through Him, not to the revelation of His own glory (although the two are substantially one); in both the other passages also the turn of expression is somewhat different. And thus, here also, the brief, formal statement of the thoughts uttered in those passages is to be ascribed to the Evangelist, who merely reproduces the impression substantially common to all the apostles and evangelists. As relates, next, to the description of the Divine nature revealed in Jesus Christ as grace and truth, it is peculiar to the Evangelist in this comprehensive phrase. Grace, in the New Testament sense, as Divine favour condescending not merely to men, especially sinners, but also receiving them without merit of theirs into fellowship with God, and abundantly blessing them, is an idea which Jesus did not use, but which was only developed among the apostles and other New Testament writers, and among them was a leading thought; less in John (only again Rev. i. 4), who, in his Epistles, instead of this, speaks of God's love; but the more in Paul, also in Peter, James, in the Hebrews, and in Luke. But the import of this idea in substance is already contained in the saying of Jesus, John iii. 16, 17; the discourse, Matt. v. 3-12, especially vers. 3, 4, 6; chap. ix. 12, 13, xviii. 11, 14; Luke ix. 56, xix. 10; the parables, Luke xv.; the narrative, Luke xviii. 10-14; although there it is not χάρις that is spoken of, but ἱλασθῆναι. On the other hand, that truth is in Jesus in the comprehensive sense here understood, in which John also often uses the idea elsewhere, that in Him not only a subjectively true revelation of God, corresponding to His nature, but also an objectively real, not typical, one is given, Jesus Himself asserts in several sayings, especially John iv. 23, 24, viii. 32, xiv. 6, cf. also xvi. 17, xvi. 13, xvii. 17, xviii. 37. Here and there also Jesus points to a contrast between the Old Testament and the New Testament revelation in regard to grace,

John iii. 17 (tacitly), Luke ix. 55, 56 (expressly); in regard to truth, John iv. 23, 24. But the comprehensive description of the New Testament revelation given in Christ and its contrast with the Qld Testament one by the ideas of grace and truth is, as said before, first given by the Evangelist. The statement, finally, in ver. 18, has in its first part, in which it describes the unique relation of the Son of God to the Father in regard of knowledge of God, as a precedent under a negative aspect not only the entire Old Testament, but also the statement of Jesus in John v. 37, and under the negative and positive the saying of Jesus in John vi. 46. But in its second part, where, on the ground of this, it means to assert the perfection of the revelation made in Christ, it is an inference of the Evangelist, implied indeed in the case, already tacitly intimated by Jesus Himself, John vi. 46, in the present context also resting on the entire previous exposition, and summing it up.

We thus find sameness and difference between the exposition of the Evangelist (vers. 1-18) and the discourses of Jesus in the sense, that the sayings of Jesus contain the grand thoughts, which are further developed in the exposition, or at least the basis on which the exposition is built up. For we have seen how the exposition of the Evangelist combines in definite ideas thoughts contained separately in the sayings of Jesns (vers. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11), and also how the Evangelist expands and generalizes the contents of the sayings by inferences. The Evangelist in his exposition gives nothing absolutely new, not either already said in the discourses of Jesus in another form, or at least justly derivable from them by inference, while he has modified these contents in several respects, further expanding and developing them. We see here a fulfilment of the word of Jesus (John xvi. 12-14), both in the sense that He promised the Spirit to guide the disciples into the whole truth, into that also which He himself cannot yet give them, and in the sense that He foretold that the Spirit shall take of His and announce it to them. The opinion that the Logos-doctrine set forth in this introduction, which is said to have been taken from Philo the latter merely having the same expression, but in an essentially different meaning, so that the Evangelist may at most have borrowed the expression from them that this Logos-doctrine was the leading postulate of the narrative of the life of Jesus given in John's Gospel, so that the discourses of Jesus about His person and work, recounted by the Evangelist, were shaped on this supposition or changed in agreement with it- this opinion is refuted by the result of our investigation. Rather, the discourses of Jesus appear the simpler and fundamental teaching; the exposition of the Evangelist, in whom we recognize the Apostle John, the later and more detailed teaching based thereupon. And it is just the same with the other Apostles and New Testament writers, especially Paul, in relation to the discourses of Jesus, in our opinion even to the Johannine discourses. But in this relation between Jesus Christ and His Apostles is seen on the one hand the humility of Jesus, by which, as in His work on earth and its result in general (John iv. 37, 38, xiv. 12) so especially in His mode of teaching, He set Himself to make a beginning, in many respects imperfect, and to leave the further development to His disciples under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But on the other hand the position and dignity of Jesus in His entire work, even on the side on which it may be compared with the work of the Apostles, therefore apart from the work of redemption belonging to Him alone, remains the higher one, inasmuch as the work of founding, in comparison with the further work of development, is the greater, harder, and more significant work, especially when, as is here the case, the entire substantial content of what is set forth in the further exposition was already given in the work of founding.

NO. VI.-VOL. II.-THE THINKER,

NN

DIVINE PROVIDENCE AND INDEPENDENCE IN THE CREATED WORLD. By A. BREITHAUPT, Gransee. (Beweis d. Glaubens, Aug. and Sept., 1892).—In two papers Herr Breithaupt reviews the entire controversy about the relation of Divine Providence to human freedom and natural law. In the end his own conclusion is a denial of the Divine foreknowledge of contingent events. The question, how the rule of Providence is to be reconciled with freedom in man and natural law, is an old one, which is not to be met only by a simple assertion of faith in both facts; some attempt should be made to solve the difficulty, even if the attempt should fail. There is no need to dwell on the proof that Scripture and religious faith posit both sides of the problem. We are chiefly concerned with the writer's attempt at a solution. He says that the question, how creaturely independence is reconcilable with Providence, presents no difficulty à priori, i.e., apart from the actual world, since the former owes its existence to the latter. The two are not co-ordinate; the Divine is supreme, the human dependent. At the à posteriori standpoint, however, great difficulties emerge. First, the physical question: If Divine Providence and independent forces at the same time produce the actual result, how is the co-operation of the two to be conceived? Secondly, the moral question: How is the reign of sin and suffering to be reconciled with the Providential government of the merciful Almighty God?

The writer discusses other solutions of the problem. Not, however, the determinist, pantheist, and deistic solutions, because the first denies human freedom, one of the assumed factors, the second denies Divine Providence, the third mistakes both.

First, three theories are considered, which differ in detail but agree in principle. The theory of the ancient world excludes the little from the rule of Providence, the Lutheran doctrine of permission excludes the evil. Kreibig, a recent writer, excludes a large, though not exactly defined, area of events, especially the so-called "riddles of providence" in nature and history. The principle of the first is, " Magna Dei curant, parva negligunt." According to the second, God allows the sinfully inclined to fall into sin here there is no active influence, but simply a negative permission. The ancients would not allow the dignity of the Godhead to come into contact with the little; the Lutheran was jealous for the Divine holiness; Kreibig would avert from God all responsibility for the dark sides of nature and history. As to the first, we may well ask, What is great and what is small? Small causes may have vast consequences. Kreibig's view is deistic, the Lutheran idea a mere makeshift. The theories are inconsistent with Scripture and God's attributes. If God is omniscient, He must know all that takes place, also all that will take place hereafter. If God allows events to take place, it is not for want of power or will to prevent. We thus seem to come to a paradox, viz., God wills many things which He does not will. The answer is found in the distinction between God's essential and conditional will. "God wills that the good and useful be done," that is the essential will. God wills that in certain circumstances things take place which He does not will in themselves," this is His conditional will. And the latter is as little opposed to God's righteousness and love as punishment is opposed to a father's love.

The writer next considers the theories of the old Lutheran theologians, who discuss the question chiefly in relation to predestination. As omniscient, God foreknew every natural event, and also the free decisions of individual men. And on the ground of this foreknowledge He has settled from the first the destiny of all individuals, not by His own decree, but from regard to their foreseen faith. On this theory, Herr Breithaupt says God is reduced to a mere administrator. Real government and providence is out of the question. Evil also is included in the