III.

of this, "for," he adds, "He was before me." LECT. Now, in point of time and appearance in the world, Christ was after the Baptist: these words therefore plainly prove that He had an existence before He appeared on earth as man.

The Evangelist, having just given us in few words the substance of the Baptist's testimony, takes up again the subject of which he had been speaking above. There Christ, the Incarnate Word, was said to be "full of grace and truth:" and here the Evangelist resumes the subject, adding, "and of His fulness have all we received, and grace for grace." In Christ, as in a treasure-house, there is a rich store of grace and truth, out of which He gives freely to all who apply to Him earnestly, whether Jews or Gentiles. He gives "grace for grace," the grace of the New Testament in the room of that of the Old Testament; as the Evangelist proceeds to explain, " for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ":" the

grace" of the Gospel as contrasted with the sterner character of the Law; and the "truth," as being the substance of its types and shadows. For the one could only give the command, but the other supplies motives and strength to keep it. The one could only shew in figure, what the other exhibits in fact, the means whereby we may obtain pardon where the command has unhappily been broken.

Not that the Law was altogether destitute of those features which are so prominent in the Gospel; but

b The original word here is remarkable; it is not éyévero but v, as in ver. 1. He existed. The expressions too which in our version have each the same rendering" before me," in the original are ěμжроσlév μov and πρŵτós μου, the former expressive of dignity, the latter of time. e In the 14th ver. d See ch. vi. 45-47. vii. 19.

III.

LECT. the object of the Evangelist is to shew men the superiority of the one to the other, Christ greater than Moses. So the Lord gives "grace for grace," one grace upon another, "ever growing supplies of grace," according to that His divine rule, " he that hath to him shall be given." Again, "He says," (it has been well observed,) "the Law was given, but grace came, because the one was sent by a servant, the other was brought by the Son"."

These two verses have thus a close and beautiful connexion with the fourteenth verse above, and the superiority of the Gospel to the Law is further shewn in the verse which follows. Christ has expounded God, in His gracious attributes, more fully and clearly to us than Moses could. Why? Because Christ has seen Him whom no man, not Moses even, "hath seen, nor can see;" for He is God's only begotten Son, they are only God's faithful servants. And the perfect intimacy of the Son with the Father, and the consequent superiority of His knowledge to that of Moses or any mere man, is indicated in the words, which is in the bosom of the Father."

66

e Wordsworth.

f "Coronat autem in nobis Deus dona misericordiæ suæ: sed si in ea gratia quam primam accepimus, perseveranter ambulemus." Aug. in Jo. Tr. iii. 10.

"Lex.... languorem ostendebat, non auferebat: sed illi præparabat medico venturo cum gratia et veritate." Ibid. 14.

"Opponit autem Legi gratiam et Veritatem, quoniam Lex moralis morbum indicabat, quem sanat Christus: et ceremonialis duntaxat adumbrabat quod Christus re-ipsa præstat. Itaque Legi morali opponitur Gratia, ceremoniali Veritas, id est signo res ipsa, sive umbræ corpus." Beza.

g Wordsworth. See Heb. iii. 5, 6.

h" the peculiar name of Jehovah in the Old Testament, as written in the Septuagint, and therefore as familiar to the Jews, and to St. John, who was a Jew. So that it may very well be doubted whether the phrase

III.

The sight of God here spoken of does not refer LECT. to mere bodily vision, though in that sense also what is here said is true: for when Moses was permitted to see some partial appearance of God, to have some short glimpse of His glory, it was expressly said to him, "Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me, and live." But it refers to that intimate acquaintance with God which no mere man ever had, and which "the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father," alone can have. And so our Lord Himself says, further on in this same Gospel, "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father" and in another place, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save He which is of God, He hath seen the Father." What then it concerns us to know of God, that Christ hath declared and set forth to us in His Gospel. What attention therefore, what implicit credit, should we give to the statements which Christ makes to us therein! The statement of an eye-witness amongst men is ever accounted the most satisfactory. Those who are most closely connected with an individual, are justly considered to know most about that individual. And, "if we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater."

We have next, John the Baptist's formal testimony concerning Christ and concerning himself. He had previously borne testimony of Christ to his disciples and to the people. Now he bears a

which is in the bosom of the Father,' gives it its full force, and whether the ever existent in the bosom of the Father is not the idea meant to be conveyed." Blunt on "The Duties of the Parish Priest," p. 52.

i Exodus xxxiii. 20.

с

kch. x. 15. and vi. 46.

LECT. formal and official testimony before the rulers of
III. Israel. Observe the emphatic character of the

testimony, "he confessed, and denied not." In
two ways he asserted what he himself was; by
direct statement, and by negation. He stated
what he was, and what he was not. He affirmed
what he was, and said "No" to its contrary.
Thus he confessed, and denied not.
He gave
twofold testimony: and his confession or testi-
mony was this, "I am not the Christ." Not He
who was now expected of the people.

this

Then, in answer to their questions, he stated, first, that he was not Elias. The Jews, from a too literal interpretation of a passage in the prophet Malachi', expected Elias, that is Elijah, to return from heaven, and dwell again upon the earth. But though the Baptist indeed came "in the spirit and power" of Elias, yet he came not in the person of Elias. He was indeed " the Elias that was for to come," though not the Elias they had expected.

Then again, from the misunderstanding of a passage in the book of Deuteronomy, the Jews expected some particular prophet to arise. In answer to their question, John told them he was not that prophet. And having stated who and what he was not, he finally informed them who and what he was. In him they might see the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy, "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord"."

The Evangelist informs us, that those who asked these questions were of the Pharisees, in order to

1 ch. iv. 5.

ch. xviii. 15. 18.

nch. xl. 3.

III.

prepare us for what follows. The Pharisees were LECT. a sect of the Jews, who were most particular about all the ceremonies, washings, and purifications of the Law. They were themselves in the habit of baptizing Gentiles who embraced their religion: but they considered that the power of baptizing Jews was one confined to the times of the Messiah, whose forerunners, the prophets, they imagined, would be raised to life for that purpose. When therefore John declared that he was not any one of the old prophets returned to life, they express surprise that he should do that which, according to their traditions, the prophets alone were to do.

In his reply, the Baptist does not enter into their nice distinctions, or attempt to combat their vain traditions. He simply endeavours to draw off their thoughts from himself to a greater than he; to lead them from the servant to the Master; from the harbinger and herald, who went before, to the great King who should follow after using a proverbial expression, which at once shewed the vast difference between the two, and marked the humility of the Baptist, in feeling that he was not worthy even to stand in the capacity of servant to the Son of God.

The Evangelist notes the place where the Baptist

• See Wall, Hist. of Infant Baptism, vol. i. pp. 24. 43, 44. Oxford ed. P Contrary to the idea of Chrysostom, the common reading of his day, Bethany, would seem to be more correct than the common reading of our day, Bethabara. See Alford ad loc. The Evangelist adds this note, "beyond Jordan," to distinguish this Bethany from the Bethany of Martha and her sister and Lazarus, the only one which was present to the mind of Chrysostom. It could not, he knew, be that, and he knew not of any other.