read, he might hope to receive an intuitive percep→ tion of the contents of the Book in the angel's hand. We would thus explain the words at the beginning of the second Sura: "There" or "That is the Book." We can hardly consider it as doubtful that this passage, with the words following, “in which there is no doubt," was placed at the beginning of the Korân in order to indicate thereby that this Book, though not compiled till after Mahomed's death, contains a continuous infallible revelation, every alteration of the record of which, as in the Apocalypse, is prohibited at God's command.

The Messianic doctrine in the Korân is certainly not an imitation of the doctrine on the double Messiah in the Revelation of John, which doctrine can be proved to agree in essential points with that of Cerinthus as transmitted by Irenæus. According to the latter, the Jewish gnostic Cerinthus was by the Apostle John called at Ephesus "an enemy of the truth," and in his Epistle, John designated as a liar that contemporary of his who promulgated the anti-Christian doctrine according to which Jesus was distinguished from Christ, as in the Apocalypse and also according to the doctrine of Cerinthus. Of none other than of him the promulgation of such a doctrine in the apostolic age can be proved, so that, without the confirmatory testimony of the presbyter Caius and of Bishop Dionysius, Cerinthus, we submit, must be regarded as the "John" of the Apocalypse. According to the doctrine of the

1 "Der Doppel-Messias in der Johannes-Apocalypse,” in “Die Ueberlieferung," ii. 118-130.

apostles at Jerusalem and of Mahomed, Jesus was the Christ as the anointed man, not as the incarnate Angel-Messiah born by a virgin, nor as the man united with the celestial Christ by the Holy Spirit, that is, with the first among angels. These conceptions of an Angel-Messiah, or a double Messiah, were not recognized by the Massôra, by Jesus, by the twelve apostles, or by Mahomed.

In the Korân Jesus the Messiah is distinguished from angels, not only physically, but spiritually. As Jesus is in the Gospel distinguished from the angel Gabriel who announces Messiah's birth, so in the Korân Mahomed is distinguished from the angel Gabriel who announces his apostleship. The apostle was in no wise dependent on Gabriel or any other angel; he received his guidance directly from God. Thus also the Apostle John opposes-as we assert the implied Cerinthian conception of an Angel-Messiah as the spiritual guide of the human Messiah. He refers his readers to the unction from him who is holy," as already received directly, without any mediation of an angel. That unction which excludes all other teachers, since it teaches all things, being truth and no lie, the unction through which God anointed Jesus, is the innate Word which is able to heal the soul, and through which a spiritual communion with God can be established. In perfect harmony with this apostolic doctrine, it is stated in the Korân that God himself "aided" and "strengthened" Jesus "with the Holy Spirit." Had Mahomed's Christian informants not been so careful in following the pre-Paulinic doctrine only,

they might have been misled, by the Paulinic Gospel after Luke, into the belief that an angel "strengthened" Jesus on the Mount of Olives.'

Everything points to the conclusion that Mahomed's Ebionite informants pursued the object to take their stand on the recognized Hebrew tradition and on the aboriginal or non-Paulinic Christianity taught by Jesus. We find in the Korân not the least reference to the Paulinic doctrines on the premundane personal existence of Christ, who yet is not the creator of the world, on his atoning sacrificial death by the blood of his cross, nor to the doctrine that the Spirit of promise did not descend till after this sacrificial death, and exclusively for the believers in the same; nor to the resurrection of Jesus on the third day according to the Scriptures, as the exact fulfilment of a prophecy by Moses.

Because Paul had connected with the crucifixion of Jesus the doctrine of his sacrificial death, that is, the reconciliation thereby effected between God and humanity, for this reason Mahomed seems to have denied the crucifixion of Jesus, as this was likewise done by other opposers of Paul. Although the antiPauline author of the Apocalypse in one passage refers to the crucifixion of "our Lord" at Jerusalem, he brings that event in no connection with the celestial Christ. This entirely agrees with the doctrine of Cerinthus, according to which Christ was not crucified with Jesus, but left him before

1 Luke xxii. 43; 1 John ii. 20; comp. Isa. liv. 13; Jer. xxxi. 31-34.

his suffering. The words in the Korân on the crucifixion exclude every distinction between Jesus and Christ. God said to Jesus: "I will make thee die and take thee up again to me, and will clear thee of those who misbelieve; and I will make those who follow thee above those who misbelieve [Christians above Jews] at the Day of Judgment; and then to me is your return, and I will decide between you concerning that wherein ye disagree.” In another passage the crucifixion of Jesus is absolutely denied. The misbelievers said: "Verily we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of God; yet they did not kill him, but a similitude was made for them."

Like the Paulinian doctrine on the resurrection of Jesus as fulfilment of a Mosaic prophecy—a supposition excluded by the first three gospels-the Paulinic doctrine on a personal return of Christ to the earth is not recorded in the Korân. In it no reference is found to the words of Jesus which can be shown to form the historical basis for the dogmatic enlargements leading to the doctrine on his

1 Sur. iii. 47, 48, iv. 156. A similar conception was promulgated by the earliest gnostics, Cerinthus, Basilides (" Iren. hær.," i. 4), Carpocrates, and others.

2 In the writings of the apostolic Fathers, excepting two doubtful passages in the Epistles of Ignatius (Magn. xi.; Smyrn. iii.), as also in those of Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria, there is no reference to a second coming of Christ, which Justin develops by figurative explanations of passages in the Old Testament, not by words of Christ or his apostles. The Fourth Gospel knows no distinction between a coming of Christ in lowliness and in glory.

personal return in glory. Mahomed's friends may, however, have communicated to him the words recorded in Matthew's Gospel, according to which already Jesus would have gathered together the children of Jerusalem, if they had willed it; their house would be left unto them desolate, and they would not see him until they had welcomed the time of Messianic fulfilment in the unexplained words of the Psalmist and Seer: "Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord." As already observed, we consider it probable that Jesus has referred these words of the 118th Psalm to the promised prophet in the spirit and power of Elias, who should therefore come in the name or Spirit of the Lord, to reconcile Jews and Christians. If so, the time of Elias would be that to which Jesus referred when Israel would (spiritually) see him, the time of the fulfilment of all Messianic prophecies. The partial non-fulfilment of these, especially the acknowledged fact that Elias had not come, was the cause why the Jews did not as a nation recognize in Jesus the promised Messiah, that is, the bringer in of the promised new and spiritual covenant.'

We venture to submit the following explanation of this mystery. The gathering of united Jews and peoples of other nations in the promised land, to which prophecies refer, will be contemporaneous with the seeing or spiritual beholding, with the recognizing of Jesus as Messiah, as the Sower who

1 Matt. xxiii. 37-39; Ps. cxviii. 22-26. We refer verses 22 and 23 to the first and personal-verse 26 to a second and spiritual coming of Christ in the time of Elias.