Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 10.djvu/853

Rh INTERNAL Evin}-::~:cE.] other by the self-loving Cain, which must needs be at vari- ance when born, “for it is impossible for enemies to dwell for ever torrether.” In precisely the same way does our author illnsotrate the same antagonism by the same person- ality: “Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew be him? Because his own works were evil and his brother’s righteous”; and then, relapsing from the unfamiliar method of personal illustration into his habitual language about principles or elements, he substitutes for Cain the “world,” and for Abel the “ children of God,” and bids his readers “ marvel not if the world hate you.” In this continuous strife between light and darkness the victory is to lie gaineg by f1aith},:—Tbil1t fﬁith sIuppq)r_ted by; witnesses‘ an we rea in tie *pist e at tie o _]ec 0 our victiirious faith is “ He that came through (Sui) water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the (Ev -ri§) water only, but with the water and the blood ; and the Spirit is that which beareth witness, because the Spirit is. truth ; pecaqse they tha; be(:11rlwitness are 1tllI1‘eC,blil1edS]_)11'33 (lor )reati -rb me?/ia an t ie water, anr t ie oo, an t ie three are united so as to make up the one ” (cis -5 2'1» £i0'L_) (1 John V. C-8). Passing over many differences of interpretation, and ask- ing, Vhat is the meaning of the water and the blood? we turn to the Gospel, and, in the account of the cruciﬁxion, we ﬁnd (xix. 34) especial stress laid upon the fact that from the side of Jesus “there came out blood and water; and he that hath seen hath born witness (/iqiap-riipvyxev), and his witness (fiaprvpfa) is gemiine (d)u7i9m§), and he kiiowetli that he saith true, that ye might believe.” In what sense is the “blood ” here to be understood? As nourishing’! or as cleaiisiiig? {almost certainly as cleansing; because. above, 111) this very Efp1Stle,1il2l1(? blooil pf J_esus (lCSfll‘ll.1):E(g.I (i. ag e eansinrr us roin a sin. n errmcr ien ia ie oo signiﬁesoa superior purifying or bfaiptismal influence, we necessarily infer simultaneously that the water signiﬁes an in- ferior baptismal influence. Two puriﬁcations are mentioned in all the four Gospels, an inferior and preparatory, and a slupelrior and Eng: the f0I:[I}11eI‘I is I_tTl1(13 baptism with waper, t ie atter is t e aptisni wit t ie 0 yijpirit or as in 11. iii. 16) with the Holy Spirit and ﬁre (qf. alsd Lu. xii. 49). But the conception of “ baptism with fire,’’— though it is based on the early history of Israel (Num. xxxi. 23), and appears occasionally in the shape of a “ ﬁery trial” of faith,
 * 1: wplll als in the ffi:-ry toplgues of Pe1i:itecost-—ﬂ'as soonksup

p an e )y one 0 we 0'18!‘ concep ions ei ier spriii mg with sacriﬁcial blood, or baptism withithe Spirit. This higher puriﬁcation, or baptism with blood, Jesus brought into the world. He not only came working by means of it (Bid. with gen., as above in the passage quoted,.1 John V. 6), but also, in a certain sense, in it (av). That is to say, He himself underwent the higher baptism with blood as well as the lower purification with water, which He received from John the Baptist. “Can ye be baptized with the baptism wlierewith I shall be baptized?”—He said to the solilislof Zebqdeteb(.Ik. X. 38). 3ig)onI): iln Gethsemage, w ic 1 was t ia aptisin was typi ‘e y u 'e in an exu a- tion of “ sweat. as it v.‘ei'e great drops of blood falling down to the ground ” (Lu. xxii. 44-). But this haptisni was scarcely public enough to be a sufficient fulfilment of the prophecy which predicted that “ In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness” (Zech. xiii. 1). When it became recorrnized that the Lord was this “ fountain,” and that Hisoblood was the cleansing stream then the piercing of His side and the visible emis- sion of, the purifying blbood from the wound became an effective and almost necessary type of the spiritual pi1riﬁca- tion, and the type of the blood of sprinkling, suggested GOSPELS 829 perhaps by Luke in his description of the agony, fell into the background, being supplanted by the more natural type of the pierced side. Such a type would all the more commend itself because, without it, the cruciﬁxion might almost seem incomplete. The mere piercing of the hands and the feet might seem an insufficient fulfilment of the prophecy of the “fountain”; and besides, since crucifixion was generally a lingering death ex- tending over many hours, and since the body of Jesus was taken down on the same day on which it had been attached to the cross (and, according to John, only three or four hours after the commencement of the cruciﬁxion), the record of His death, without the spear wound, might seem to justify the statements of those who maintained that Christ never died at all, and that He was a man only in appear. ance. Therefore, as a proof of His humanity and of the reality of His death and sufferings, no less than as a fulfilment of the prophecy of the “ fountain,” it was natural that the latest Gospel should insert, and that the church should readily accept, the witness through blood as well as water, which is so emphatically related by the author of the Gospel, and here appealed to by the author of the Epistle. But the question remains, What is meant by the con- nexion of the water and the blood with the breath or spirit —“ They that bear witness are three, the breath (or spirit), and the water, and the blood”? Philo may throw light both on the number and on the nature of the witnesses. Only to earthly matters did the rule apply that “in the mouth of two witnesses shall every word be established :” heavenly matters required, so Pliilo teaches, “time wit- iiesses” (éiyiov 3% 7rp&-y/ia SOKL/,tt'Ji€€7'('.ll. Sic‘; Tpuhv ;.u1p-nipwv, 1’osterit_7/ of C'(u'2z,, 27). He also calls attention to the fact that .Ioses declares with apparent inconsistency (1) in Leviticus (xvii. 11) that blood is the essence of life, ('2) in Genesis (ii. 7) that breath is the essence of life; and he reconciles the two statements by assigning to men two kinds of life : (1) the irrational, which they have in common with beasts, which life has for its seat (é’.aXe) blood; the rational, which flows from the fountain of reason (hoyixﬁs 7r1i)/179), which has for its seat breath (or spirit), “ not (mere) air in motion, but a kind of type and impress of that divine power which Moses calls by a name especially ap- propriated to it (xvpfip 61/6/ia-ri), image (of God)” (The Worse pZottz'72_r/, &c., 23). Elsewhere ( Who is the Heir, 11) he says that blood is the essence of the entire soul, but divine spirit (wvefvpa 0:20;») the essence of the dominant part of the soul. On the metaphor of the water also Philo throws light. Water and earth, he says, represent the origin, growth, and maturity of the human body; consequently, he tells us, puriﬁcation by water is that preliminary recog- nition of one’s own nature (“know thyself") which is re- quired from those who aspire to the higher puriﬁcation. Hence puriﬁcation by water, he asserts, was appointed by the law as a preparation for the puriﬁcation by sacriﬁcial blood; and hence the Sacred lVord thought meet that the high priest, whenever he purposed to perform the sacriﬁces ordained by law, should previously sprinkle himself with water and ashes (Dreams, 36, 37; Those 20/£0 oﬁer Sacri:/z'ce, 1, 2 . If now we could ﬁnd in the Gospel narrative of the cruciﬁxion some mention also of the breath or spirit, nothing would remain wanting to make up the triple puri- ﬁcation and triple witness mentioned in the Epistle, of “the spirit and the water and the blood.” Such a men- tion is probably intended in the willing surrender of the “breath” or “ spirit,” which is mentioned (xix. 30) in the Fourth Gospel alone [lIk. e’£e’7rvwo-e, Mat. dgbifxe; Luke (xxiii. 46) who comes nearest to John only describes the intention, not the fact, 7.-apan't9qiai]: “He bowed His head,