ing has undoubtedly no right to a place in the text. That fourth verse the most important Greek and Latin copies are alike without, and most of the early versions. In other MSS. which retain this verse, the obelus which hints suspicion, or the asterisk which marks rejection, is attached to it; while those in which it appears unquestioned belong mostly, as Griesbach shows, to a later recension of the text. And this fourth verse spreads the suspicion of its own spuriousness over the last clause of the verse preceding, which, though it has not so great a body of evidence against it, has yet, in a less degree, the same marks of suspicion about it. Doubtless whatever here is addition, whether only the fourth verse, or the last clause also of the third, found very early its way into the text; we have it as early as Tertullian,—the first witness for its presence. The baptismal angel, a favorite thought with him, was here foreshowed and typified; as, somewhat later, Ambrose saw a prophecy of the descent of the Holy Ghost, consecrating the waters of baptism to the mystical washing away of sin; and Chrysostom and others make frequent use of this verse. At first probably a marginal note, expressing the popular notion of the Jewish Christians concerning the origin of the healing power which from time to time these waters possessed, by degrees it assumed the shape in which now we have it: for there are marks of growth about it, betraying themselves in a great variety of readings, -some copies omitting one part, and some another of the verse-all

* In Jerome's phrase, though not used with reference to this verse, Veru jugulante confossum est.

De Bapt., c. 5: Angelum aquis intervenire, si novum videtur, exemplum futurum præcucurrit. Piscinam Bethsaida angelus interveniens commovebat; observabant qui valetudinem querebantur. Nam si quis prævenerat descendere illuc, queri post lavacrum desinebat. Figura ista medicinæ corporalis spiritalem medicinam canebat, eâ formâ quâ semper carnalia in figurâ spiritalium antecedunt. Proficiente itaque hominibus gratiâ Dei plus aquis et angelo accessit: qui vitia corporis remediabant, nunc spiritum medentur: qui temporalem operabantur salutem, nunc æternam reformant: qui unum semel anno liberabant, nunc quotidie populos conservant. It will be observed that he calls it above, the pool Bethsaida; this is not by accident, for it recurs (Adv. Jud., c. 13) in Augustine, and is still in the Vulgate.

De Spir. Sanct., 1. 1, c. 7: Quid in hoc typo Angelus nisi discensionem Sancti Spiritûs nuntiabat, quæ nostris futura temporibus, aquas sacerdotalibus invocata precibus consecraret? and De Myst., c. 4: Illis Angelus descendebat, tibi Spiritus Sanctus; illis creatura movebatur, tibi Christus operatur ipse Dominus creaturæ.

§ Thus he says (In Joh., Hom. 36): "As there it was not simply the nature of the waters which healed, for then they would have always done so, but when was added the energy of the angel; so with us, it is not simply the water which works, but when it has received the grace of the Spirit, then it washes away all sins."

which is generally the sign of a later addition: thus, little by little, it procured admission into the text, probably at Alexandria first, the birthplace of other similiar additions. There is nothing in the statement itself which might not have found place in St. John. It rests upon that religious view of nature, which in all nature sees something beyond nature, which does not believe that it has discovered causes, when, in fact, it has only traced the sequence of phenomena, and which in all recognizes a going forth of the immediate power of God, invisible agencies of his, whether personal or otherwise, accomplishing his will.*

* Hammond's explanation of this phenomenon, which seems like a leaf borrowed from Dr. Paulus, is very singular, both in itself, and as coming from him. It very early awoke earnest remonstrances on many sides,—see for instance Witsius, in WOLF'S Cura (in loc.) The medicinal virtues of this pool he supposes were derived from the washing in it the carcasses and entrails of the beasts slain for sacrifices. In proof that they were here washed, he quotes Brocardus, a monk of the thirteenth century! whose authority would be nothing, and whose words are these: Intrantibus porrò portam Gregis ad sinistram occurrit piscina probatica, in quâ Nathinæi lavabant hostias quas tradebant sacerdotibus in Templo offerendas: that is, as every one must confess, washed their fleeces before delivering them to be offered by the priests. Some in later times have amended this part of the theory, who, knowing that the sacrifices were washed in the temple and not without it, have supposed that the blood and other animal matter was drained off by conduits into this pool. But to proceed,—the pool, he says, possessed these healing powers only at intervals, because only at their great feasts, and eminently at their Passover, was there slain any such great multitude of beasts as could tinge and warm those waters, and for the time make them a sort of animal bath. The ¿yyɛλoç is not an angel, but a messenger or servant sent down by those who were skilled in the matter to stir the waters, that the grosser and thicker particles, in which the chief medicinal virtue resided, but which as heaviest would have sunk to the bottom, might re-infuse themselves in the waters. The fact that only one each time was healed he explains, that probably the pool was purposely of very limited dimensions, for the concentrating of its virtues, thus giving room for no more than one at a time and thus by evaporation or otherwise its strength was exhausted before place could be made for another. He has here worked out at length a theory which Theophylact makes mention of, although there is no appearance that he himself accepted it, as Hammond affirms. His words are: Είχον δὲ οἱ πολλοὶ ὑπόληψιν, ὅτι καὶ ἀπὸ μόνου τοῦ πλύνεσθαι τὰ ἐντόσθια τῶν ἱερείων δύναμιν τινὰ λαμβάνει θειότεραν τὸ iowo. And after all it seems more than doubtful whether he does not mean that some thought this grace was given to the waters because they were used for washing the altar sacrifices; and not that it was naturally imparted through that washing. Certainly what follows in his exposition seems very nearly to prove this. This explanation has found favor with one, a physician I should imagine, (RICHTER, De Balneo Animali, p. 107, quoted by Winer, Real Wörterbuch, s. v. Bethesda,) whose words are these: Non miror fontem tantâ adhuc virtute animali hostiarum calentem, quippe in proxima loca tempestivè effusum, ut pro pleniori partium miscelâ turbatum triplici maximè infirmorum classi, quorum luculenter genus nervosum laborabat, profuisse; et quia animalis hæc virtus citò cum calore aufugit, et vappam inertem, immo putrem relinquit, iis tantum qui primi ingressi sunt, salutem attulisse.

From among the multitude that are waiting here, Christ singles out one on whom he will show his power;-one only, for he came not now to be the healer of men's bodies, save only as he could link on to this healing the truer healing of their souls and spirits. One construction of the fifth verse would make the poor cripple, the present object of his healing love, to have been actually waiting at the edge of that pool for the "thirty and eight years" which are named; while according to another construction, the thirty-eight years express the age of the man. Neither is right, but rather that which our version gives. The eight and thirty years are the duration, not of his life, but of his malady,while yet it is not implied that he had been expecting his healing from that pool for all that time; though, from his own words, we infer that he had there been waiting for it long. The question, "Wilt thou be made whole?" at first might seem superfluous; for who would not be made whole if he might? and the very presence of this man at the place of healing witnessed for his desire. But the question has its purpose. This impotent man probably had waited so long, and so long waited in vain, that hope was dead or well-nigh dead within him, and the question is asked to awaken in him anew a yearning after the benefit, which the Saviour, compassionating his hopeless case, was about to impart. His heart may have been withered through his long sufferings and the long neglects of his fellow-men; it was something to persuade him that this stranger pitied him, was interested in his case, would help him if he could. So persuading him to believe in his love, he prepared him to believe also in his might. Our Lord was giving him now the faith, which presently he was about to demand of him.

In the man's answer there is not a direct reply to the question, but an explanation why he yet continued in his infirmity. "Right gladly, Sir," he would say, "only I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool." The virtues of the water disappeared so fast, they were so preoccupied, whether from the narrowness of the spot, or from some cause which we know not, by the first comer, that he who through his own infirmity and the lack of all friendly help could never be this first, missed always the blessing; "While I am coming, another steppeth down before me." But the long and weary years of baffled expectation are at length ended: "Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed and walk," and the man believed that power went forth with that

* These thirty and eight years of the man's punishment answering so exactly to the thirty-eight years of Israel's punishment in the wilderness have not unnaturally led many, old and new, (see HENGSTENBERG, Christol., v. 2, p. 568,) to find in this man a type of Israel after the flesh.

word, and making proof, he found that it was even so: "immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed and walked." It is different with him from that other impotent man. (Acts iii. 2.) He, when he was healed, walked and leaped and praised God. (ver. 8.) His infirmity was no chastisement of an especial sin, for he had been "lame from his mother's womb." But this man shall carry his bed, a present memento of his past sin.

But "the Jews," not here the multitude, but some among the spiritual heads of the nation, whom it is very noticeable that St. John continually characterizes by this name, (i. 19; vii. 1; ix. 22; xviii. 12, 14;) find fault with the man for carrying his bed in obedience to Christ's command, their reason being because "the same day" on which the miracle was accomplished "was the Sabbath ;" and the carrying of any burden was one of the expressly prohibited works of that day. Here, indeed, they had apparently an Old Testament ground to go upon, and an interpretation of the Mosaic Law from the lips of a prophet, to justify their interference, and the offence which they took. But the man's bearing of his bed was not a work by itself; it was merely the corollary, or indeed the concluding act, of his healing, that by which he should make proof himself, and give testimony to others of its reality. It was lawful to heal on the Sabbath day; it was lawful then to do that which was immediately involved in and directly followed on the healing. And here lay ultimately the true controversy between Christ and his adversaries, namely, whether it was most lawful to do good on that day, or to leave it undone. (Luke vi. 9.) Starting from the unlawfulness of leaving good undone, he asserted that he was its true keeper, keeping it as God kept it, with the highest beneficent activity, which in his Father's case, as in his own, was identical with deepest rest,—and not, as they accused him of being, its breaker. It was because he had himself "done those things," (see ver. 16,) that the Jews persecuted him, and not for bidding the man to bear his bed, which was a mere accident and consequence involved in what he himself had wrought.* This, however, first attracted their notice; whereupon they "said unto him that was cured, It is the Sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed." Already the pharisaical Jews, starting from passages such as Exod. xxiii. 12; xxxi. 13-17; xxxv. 2, 3; Num. xv. 32-36; Nehem. xiii. 15-22, had laid down such a multitude of prohibitions, and drawn so infinite a number of hair-splitting distinctions, as we shall have occasion to see Luke xiii. 15, 16, that a plain and unlearned man could hardly come to

* Calvin: Non suum modò factum excusat, sed ejus etiam qui grabbatum suum tulit. Erat enim appendix et quasi pars miraculi, quia nihil quàm ejus approbatio erat.

know what was forbidden, and what was permitted. This poor man concerned himself not with these subtle casuistries. He only knew that the man with power to make him whole, the man who had shown compassion to him, had bid him do what he was doing, and he is satisfied with this authority: "He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed and walk."* Surely a good model of an answer, when the world finds fault and is scandalized with what the Christian is doing, contrary to its works and ways, and to the rules which it has laid down!.

For this man, the greater offender, they inquire now, as being the juster object of censure and punishment: “Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed and walk?" The malignity of the questioners, coming out as it does in the very shape in which they put their question, is worthy of note. They do not take up the poor man's words on their most favorable side, and that which plainly would have been the more natural; they do not say, "What man is he that made thee whole?" but, probably, themselves knowing perfectly well, or at least guessing, who his Healer was, yet wishing to undermine any influence which he may have obtained over this simple man,—an influence already perceptible in his finding the authority of Jesus sufficient to justify him in his own eyes for transgressing their commandment, they insinuate by the form of the question that the man could not be from God, who gave a command at which they, the interpreters of God's law, were so greatly aggrieved and offended.t

:

But the man could not point out his benefactor, for he had already withdrawn: "Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place." Many say, as Grotius for instance, because he would avoid os tentation and the applauses of the people: but "a multitude being in that place" may be only mentioned to explain the facility with which he withdrew he mingled with and passed through the crowd, and so was lost from sight in an instant. Were it not that the common people usually took our Lord's part in cases like the present, one might imagine that a menacing crowd under the influence of these chiefs of the Jews had gathered together while this conversation was going forward betwixt the healed cripple and themselves, from the violence of whom the Lord withdrew himself, his hour being not yet come.

Though we cannot of course draw any conclusion from the circum

* Augustine (In Ev. Joh., Tract. 17): Non acciperem jussionem à quo receperam sanitatem?

+ Grotius: En malitiæ ingenium! non dicunt, Quis est qui te sanavit? sed, Quis jussit grabatum tollere! Quærunt non quod mirentur, sed quod calumnientur.