Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

The volume now in the reader's hands completes a work which I began sixteen years ago, entitled " Expository Thoughts on the Gospels." By the good hand of God that work is now finished. For this I desire to be deeply thankful. " Better is the end of a thing than the beginning of it." (Eccles. vii. 8.)

In concluding that portion of the work which is devoted to St. John's Gospel, I think it right to make a few prefatory remarks about the " Kotes. " They occupy so large a part of my three volumes on St. John, that my readers may not unreasonably expect me to give some account of them. Filling up, as they do, at least two-thirds of the woTk, and necessarily increasing its cost, they require some defence and explanation. Questions such as these will naturally arise in some minds, — " What are these notes? What is their object? What is their doctrinal tone? What helps have been used in preparing them?" — These questions I propose to answer.

(1) My object in writing these notes on St. John's Gospel is soon stated. I have tried to explain, in simple language, everything in the text which needs explanation, and to bring all available light to bear on every verse in the book. In trying to attain this object, I have given not only my own thoughts and opinions, but also the results of a patient study of about seventy Commentators, both ancient and modern, of almost every Church and school in Christendom. I have endeavored to handle every subject raised by the text, however high and deep, and to meet the requirements of every class of readers, whether educated or uneducated. I have evaded no hard passage, and turned away from no difficulty. I am very sensible that I have often failed to hit the mark, and I have not been ashamed in many places to confess my ignorance. Competent critics will probably detect in the work not a few errors and mistakes. I lay no claim to infallibility. But I can honestly say that I have never handled the Word partially or deceitfully, and have done my best to show *' the thing as it is." (Job xxvi. 3.) Some controverted points I have ventured to discuss in annotations of more than ordinary length, and of these a list will be found appended to this concluding volume. On the whole I cannot help hoping, that, in spite of many deficiencies, the notes will be found a help to thoughtful readers of St. John's Gospel.

(2) The doctrinal tone of the notes, I must frankly avow, is thoroughly and unmistakably evangelical. After patiently studying St. John's Gospel for twelve years, with much thought, much labor, much examination of the writings of others, and, I hope I may add, with some earnest prayers, my theological opinions are what they were when I began to write. In these twelve years I trust I have learned many things: but I can truly say that I have seen no reason to alter my views of doctrine. My conviction is firm and decided, that the theology of that religious school in the Church of England, which, rightly or wrongly, is called Evangelical, is thoroughly Scriptural, and a theology of which no Christian man need be ashamed.

I freely confess that, with increasing years and experience, I have learned to think more kindly and charitably than I once did, of theologians who belong to other schools than my own. I am more and more convinced every year I live, that there are many Christians whose hearts are right in the sight of God, while their heads are very wrong. I am more and more convinced, that the differences between schools of religious thought are frequently more nominal than real, more verbal than actual, and that many of them would melt away and disappear, if men would only define the terms and words they use with logical accuracy. But, for all this, I cannot shrink from saying, as in the sight of God, that at present I know no theology which appears to me so thoroughly in accordance with Scripture as Evangelical theology. In the belief of this I have written my notes on St. John, and in the faith of this I hope to die. With the Bible only in my hands, I find difficulties in the systems of non-Evangelical schools, which to ray mind appear insuperable.

(3) Concerning the Commentators I have consulted, m preparing my notes on St. John, I wish to make a few remarks for the benefit of my younger readers, and of those who have not access to large libraries. I see no reason to alter the opinions which I expressed seven years ago, in the Preface to my first volume. After patiently studying Cyril, Chrysostom, Augustine, and Theophylact, for twelve years, it is my deliberate conviction that their Commentaries on the Gospels are often overrated and overpraised, and that those who lead young students of theology to expect to find "all wisdom " in the Fathers, are neither wise nor kind. After an equally patient examination of the modern German Commentators, Tittman, Tholuck, Olshausen, Stier, and Hengstenberg, T am obliged to say that I leave them with a feeling of disappointment. About them also I raise a warning cry for the benefit of young students. I advise them not to expect too much.

Writers like Hengstenberg and Stier are well worth reading; but I cannot say that any modern German Commentators seem to me to deserve the extravagant commendation which is often bestowed on them. In fact I have a strong suspicion that many praise German theology without having read it!

For throwing light on the meaning of the text of St. John, and for raising just and beautiful thoughts out of it, my opinion is distinct and decided, that there are no Commentaries equal to those of the Continental divines who lived immediately after the Protestant Reformation. Unfortunately they wrote in Latin, which few persons care to read; and their books are, generally, huge, lumbering folios, which few care to handle. Moreover, they are sometimes defective in verbal criticism, and were, most of them, more familiar with Latin than Greek. But taking them for all in all, as Expositors and Elucidators of God's Word, in my judgment, there is nothing like them. The man who has carefully read the expositions of Brentius, Bullinger, Gualter, Musculus, and Gerhard, will find that later Commentaries rarely contain any good thoughts which are not to be found in these five writers, and that they say many excellent things which have not occurred to later writers at all. Why these great Expositors are so totally ignored and neglected in the nineteenth century, I do not pretend to explain. Some modern theologians seem not even to be aware that such Commentators as Brentius, Musculus, and Gerhard, ever existed! But the fact is one which reflects little credit on our times.

I shall say little or nothing about the works of British Commentators. This is a department of theological literature in which, I must plainly say, I do not think my fellow-countrymen shine. With rare exceptions, they appear to me to fall below the level of their reputation. I shall therefore content myself with naming a few Commentaries, which appear to me more than ordinarily useful and suggestive, and which I have seldom consulted in vain. — Rollock on John is excellent; and it is a great pity that the whole work is not translated, instead of lying buried in Latin. — Hutcheson is always good; but his value is sadly marred by his interminable divisions, uses, applications, and inferences. — Matthew Henry is generally rich in pious thoughts and pleasing illustrations, and sometimes exhibits more learning and acquaintance with books, than he is commonly credited with. — Poole's " Annotations " are sound, clear, and sensible; and, taking him for all in all, I place him at the head of English Commentators on the whole Bible. — Alford and "Wordsworth have done good service to the Church by their works on the Greek Testament, and I know none at present that I can sooner recommend to a student of the original. But they both say, occasionally, things with which I cannot agree, and they often seem to me to leave important texts very scantily expounded, or entirely unnoticed.* A fuller and more satisfactory commentary on the Greek Testament appears to me to be still wanted. — Burgon's " Plain Commentary on the Gospels " is an excellent, suggestive, and devout work. But I cannot agree with him, when he touches such subjects as the Church, the Sacraments, and the Ministry. — ^In fact, the conclusion I arrive at, after a diligent examination of many Commentators, is always one and the same. I trust none of them unreservedly, and I expect nowhere to find perfection. All must be read with caution. They are good helps, but they are not infallible. They are useful assistants, but

* As examples of what I mean, I refer the reader to Wordsworth on John xvii. 4-20, very scantily expounded, in my judgment; and to Alford on John x. 27, 28, not expounded at all I they are not the pillar of cloud and fire. I advise my younger readers to remember that. Use your own judgment prayerfully and diligently. Use commentaries; but be a slave to none. Call no man master.*

It only remains for me now to express my regret, that the completion of my "Expository Thoughts on the Gospels " has been so long delayed. The delay has arisen from causes entirely beyond my control. The work was first begun in a little quiet parish of three hundred people, and then brought to a standstill by heavy domestic affliction. It has been resumed, and carried on, amidst many interruptions, in an isolated rural parish of 1,300 souls, in which, after coming into residence, I found a parsonage had to be repaired, large schools had to be built, and a huge old dilapidated church had to be restored. In the face of these difficulties and distractions, I can only wonder that I have been enabled to finish my work on St. John at all.

The book is now sent forth, with a deep conviction in the author's mind, that it contains many defects, inaccuracies, and blemishes, but with an earnest desire and prayer that it may help some readers to a better understanding of one of the most interesting portions of Holy Scripture. I never felt more persuaded than I do in the present day of the truth of the old saying, " Ignorance of Scripture is the root of all error." If I can lessen that ignorance a little I shall be very thankful.

The concluding paragraph of Dean Alford's " Prolegomena " to his " Commentary on the Book of Revela-

* A full list of Commentators, whom I have consulted, more or less, in preparing my notes on St. John, will be found in the preface to my first volume. From that list the following authors were omitted, — Hengstenberg on "John," Manton, Newton, Burgess, and Traill, on the " 17th chapter of John," and Bishop Andrews' Sermons.

tion," so thoroughly expresses my own feelings, on completing my work on St. John's Gospel, that I make no excuse for inserting it here, with the omission of a few words: —

" I have now only to commend to my gracious God and Father this feeble attempt to explain a most glorious portion of His revealed Scripture. I do it with hnmble thankfi/lness, but with a sense of utter weakness before the power of His word, and of inability to sound the depth even of its simplest sentence. May he spare the hand which has been put forward to touch the ark! May He, for Christ's sake, forgive all rashness, all perverseness, all uncharitableness, which may be found in this book! And may He sanctify it to the use of His Church: its truth, if any, for teaching; its manifold defects for warning."

1 Now before the feast of the passover, -when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;

had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God and went to God;

4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.

5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.

The passage we have now read begins one of the most interesting portions of St. John's Gospel. For five consecutive chapters we find the Evangelist recording matters which are not mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. We can never be thankful enough that the Holy Ghost has caused them to be written for our learning! In every age the contents of these chapters have been justly regarded as one of the most precious parts of the Bible. They have been the meat and drink, the strength and comfort of all true-hearted Christians. Let us ever approach them with peculiar reverence. The place whereon we stand is holy ground.

We learn, for one thing, from these verses, what patie7tt and continuing love there is in Chrlst'^s heart towards His 2')eople. It is written that " having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them untc the end." Knowing perfectly well that they were about to forsake Him shamefully in a very few hours, in full view of their approaching display of weakness and infirmity, our blessed Master did not cease to have loving thoughts of His disciples. He was not weary of them: He loved them to the last.

The love of Christ to sinners is the very essence and marrow of the Gospel. That He should love us at all, and care for our souls, — that He should love us before we love Him, or even know anything about Him, — that He should love us so much as to come into the world to save us, take our nature on Him, bear our sins, and die for us on the cross, — all this is wonderful indeed! It is a kind of love to which there is nothino: like amonor men. The narrow selfishness of human nature cannot fully comprehend it. It is one of those things which *3ven the angels of God "desire to look into." It is a truth which Christian preachers and teachers should proclaim incessantly, and never be weary of proclaiming.

But the love of Christ to saints is no less wonderful, in its way, than His love to sinners, though far less considered. That He should bear with all their countless infirmities from grace to glory, — that He should never be tired of their endless inconsistencies and petty provocations,— that He should go on forgiving and forgetting incessantly, and never.be provoked to cast them oflf and give them up, — all this is marvellous indeed! No mother watching over the waywardness of her feeble babe, in the days of its infancy, has her patience so thoroughly tried, as the patience of Christ is tried by Christians. Yet His longsuflfering is infinite. His com- passions are a well that is never exhausted. His love is " a love that passeth knowledge."

Let no man be afraid of beginning with Christ, if he desires to be saved. The chief of sinners may come to Him with boldness, and trust Him for pardon with confidence. This loving Saviour is One who delights to "receive sinners." (Luke xv. 2.) Let no man be afraid of going on with Christ after he has once come to Him and believed. Let him not fancy that Christ will cast him off because of failures, and dismiss him into his former hopelessness on account of infirmities. Such thoughts are entirely unwarranted by anything in the Scriptures. Jesus will never reject any servant because of feeble service and weak performance. Those whom He receives He always keeps. Those whom He loves at first He loves at last. His promise shall never be broken, and it is for saints as well as sinners: " Him that cometh unto Me I will in no wise cast out." (John vi. 37.)

We learn, for another thing, from these verses, what deep corruption may sometimes he found in the heart of a great professor of religion. It is written that " the devil put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray Christ."

This Judas, we must always remember, was one of the twelve Apostles. He had been chosen by Christ Himself, at the same time with Peter, James, John, and their companions. ■ For three years he had walked in Christ's society, had seen His miracles, had heard His preaching, had experienced many proofs of His lovingkindness. He had even preached himself and wrought miracles in Christ's name; and when our Lord sent out Plis disciples two and two, Judas Iscariot no doubt must have been one of some couple that was sent. Yet here we see this very man possessed by the devil, and rushing headlong to destruction.

On all the coasts of England there is nofsuch a beacon to warn sailors of danger as Judas Iscariot is to warn Christians. He shows us what length a man may go in religious profession, and yet turn out a rotten hypocrite at last, and prove never to have been converted. He shows us the uselessness of the highest privileges, unless we have a heart to value them and turn them to good account. Privileges alone without grace save nobody, and will only make hell deeper. He shows us the uselessness of mere head-knowledge. To know things with our brains, and be able to talk and preach and speak to others, is no proof that our own feet are in the way of peace. These are terrible lessons: but they are true.

Let us never be surprised if we see hypocrisy and false profession among Christians in modern days. There is nothing new in it, nothing peculiar, nothing that did not happen even among Christ's own immediate followers, and under Christ's own eyes. Bad money is a strong proof that there is good coin somewhere. Hypocrisy is a strong indirect evidence that there is such a thing as true religion.

Above all, let us pray daily that our own Christianity may at any rate be genuine, sincere, real and true. Our faith may be feeble, our hope dim, our knowledge small, our failures frequent, our faults many. But at all events let us be real and true. Let us be able to say with poor, weak, erring Peter, "Thou, Lord, who knowest all things, knowest that I love Thee." (John xxi. IV.)

There are peculiarities in St. Jolui's narrative of the end of our Lord's life on earth, which seem to require a few introduc-

A careful reader of the four Gospels can hardly fail to remark that in St. John's account of the last six days of our Lord's ministry, many things mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are entirely omitted.

The parables of the two sons, — of the householder who let out a vineyard, — of the wedding garment, — of the ten virgins, — of the talents, — of the sheep and goats, are left out. The second cleansing of the temple, — the cursing of the barren figtree, — the public discussion with the chief priests and elders about John's baptism, — the silencing of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the lawyers, — the public denunciation to the multitude of the Scribes and Pharisees, — all these interesting matters are found in the first three Gospels, but passed over in silence in the fourth. We cannot doubt that there were wise reasons.

But the most striking thing in St. John's narrative at this point, is the entire absence of our Lord's famous prophecy upon the Mount of Olives, and of the institution of the Lord's Supper. Both these deeply interesting portions of our Lord's last doings before His crucifixion, which are most fully given in the three Gospels, are completely omitted in the fourth.

The reason of these tAvo remarkable omissions we are left to conjecture, " God giveth no account of His matters." If we once admit that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, we need not doubt that the Gospel writers were equally guided and directed by the Holy Ghost, both in the things they omitted and the things they recorded. Nevertheless a few remarks on the subject may be interesting to some readers.

(a) Concerning the omission of the prophecy on the Mount of Olives, I venture the following conjecture. I think it is partly accounted for by the time when St. John's Gospel was given to the Church. That must have been very near the taking of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, and the complete overthrow of the Jewish ceremonial. Now if St. John had just at this crisis inserted anew this prophecy in his Gospel, it would have confirmed the erroneous notion which many have always held, that it refers only to the destruction of Jerusalem, and does not extend to the second advent of Christ, and the end of the world. His marked silence about it would be a testimony against the misapplication of the prophecy. The second reason of the omission, I think, is the striking fact that the writer of the fourth Gospel was inspired to write the Book of Revelation. No wonder, therefore, that he was directed to pass over our Lord's prophecy, when he was about to write at a later date the most striking prophetical book in the Bible.

(6) Concerning the omission of the Lord's Supper, I venture the following conjecture. I think it was specially intended to be a witness forever against the growing tendency of Christians to make an idol of the sacraments. Even from the beginning there seems to have been a disposition in the Cliurch to malie Cliristianitv a religion of forms and ceremonies rather than of heart, and to exalt outward ordinances to a place which God never meant them to fill. Against this teaching St. John was raised up to testify. The mere fact that in his Gospel he leaves out the Lord's Supper altogether, and does not even name it, is strong proof that the Lord's Supper cannot be, as many tell us, the first, foremost, chief, and principal thing in Christianity. Its perfect silence about it can never be reconciled with this favorite theory. It is a most conspicuous silence, which the modern advocates of the so-called sacramental system, can never get over or explain away. If the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper really is the first and chief thing in Christianity, why does St. John tell us nothing about it? To that question I can only see one answer: it is because it is not a primary, but a secondary thing, in Christ's religion.

The reason assigned for the omission by many commentators, viz., that St. Jolm thought it needless to repeat the account of the institution, after it had been recorded by three evangelists and St. Paul, appears to me entirely insufficient.

I. — [Now hefo7'e...passover.] We should observe that the feast of the passover is always carefully mentioned by each Gospel writer, as the precise time of tlie year when Jesus was crucified. It was ordered of God that it should be at this particular time, for two good reasons., For one thing, the passover lamb was the most striking and remarkable type in the whole Jewish ceremonial of Christ Himself, and the history of the passover of Christ's work of redemption. For another thing, it secured the greatest assembly of Israelites to be eye-witnesses of our Lord's crucifixion. At no time of the Jewish year were so many Jews gathered at Jerusalem. Anything that happened at the passover would be reported by Jewish worshippers, on returning home, all over the civilized world. For these two reasons " the Lamb of God " was slain at this feast, in spite of the priests, who said, " Not on the feast day."

Let us remember that one of the few dates we know for certainty of the events in our Lord's life, is the time of His crucifixion. Of the time of His birth and baptism we know nothing. But that he died at Easter, we may be quite sure.

[When Jesus kneio... hour...come.] Let us note that our Lord knew perfectly beforehand when and how He should suffer. This, whatever we may think, is a great addition to sutiering. Our ignorance of things before us is a great blessing. Our I^ord saw the cross clearly before Him, and walked straiglit up to it. His death was not a surprise to Him, but a voluntary, foreknown thing.

epoken of here. It is taking a journey — a going from one place to anotlier. In the case of our Lord, it was a return to His Father's house, and a going home, after finishing the work He came to do. So a believer's death, in a lower sense, is going home.

Calvin observes, " This definition of death belongs to the •whole body of the Church. It is to the saints a passage to the Father, an inlet to eternal life."

[^Having loved Ms oicn... world...loved...end.'] The meaning of this seems to be, " Having always loved His own disciples, and having given many proofs of his singular affection, He now, before leaving them alone like orphans in the world, gave one more striking proof of His love by washing their feet, and thus on the last evening before His death, showed that He loved them to the very end of His ministry, and was not weary of them."

He knew perfectly that th^y were going to forsake Him and act like cowards, but that did not prevent Him loving them., with all their weakness, to the very end.

He knew perfectly that He was about to suffer within twentyfour hours, but the knowledge and foresight of it did not ab sorb His thoughts so as to make Him forget His little flock of followers. Saints, when they are dying, often ask to be left alone and let alone; Christ, on the trial of His crucifixion, thought of others, and loved His disciples to the end.

The love of Christ to Christians who really believe on Him, is a great depth. " It passeth knowledge." It is something that our poor corrupt nature cannot fully comprehend or meas ure.

The expression, " His own," applied to believers, is very note worthy. They are Christ's peculiar property, given to Him by the Father, and His own special care as members of His body. Tittman's idea that " His own "means all mankind, is preposterous and weak, and ignores the privileges of believers.

The expression, " which were in the world," is another great depth. Believers are not in heaven yet, and find it out to their cost. They are in a cold, unkind, persecuting world. Let them take comfort in the thought, that Jesus knows and remembers it. " I know thy works and where thou dwellesl." (Rev. ii. 13.)

Theophylact thinks that our Lord purposely deferred this act of washing the disciples' feet to the last evening of His ministry, in order to leave in their minds a pleasant impression of His love and condescension.

Melancthon shows that the three greatest marks of pity and compassion are (1) to tolerate the wicked for a season; (2) to abstain from exposing their sins as long as possible; (3) to warn them plainly and gently before leaving them for ever All this appears in our Lord's dealing with Judas in this chapter.

2. — [A?i.d supper being ended.'] These words would have been more literally rendered, " while supper was going on," or, " supper being in progress." That this is the true meaning seems clear from the twenty-sixth verse. If supper had really been ended, we should not have heard of a sop being given out of the dish, etc.

It is only fair to say that Scaliger and other learned men insist that the Jews had more than one supper at the passover, — • one a legal one, strictly according to ritual; the other a social one. They think these two suppers are both in this chapter. Gerhard gives this opinion at length. Whitby seems to lean to this view, and maintains that our Lord twice pointed out Judas as the traitor, — once privately and once publicly.

Let it be noted that our Lord^s' ministry ended with a supper, — that the last ordinance He appointed was a supper, — that one promise He has left to a believer is, " I will come and sup with him " (Rev. iii. 20), — and that the first thing that will take place at His second advent will be the marriage supper of the Lamb. All point to the same great truth, — the close union, familiarity, and comfortable intimacy between Christ and His people. It is a thing far too little known.

What supper this was we are not told, and are left to conjecture. It is a point on which opinions widely differ.

Some, as Lightfoot, think that the supper was the same that took place at Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, two days before the passover. Rollock also thinks it was not the passover.

Others think it was the ordinary passover supper, which our Lord was eating with His disciples the night before His crucifixion. This certainly, in my judgment, seems the more probable view.

One thing at any rate is pretty clear. It was not the institution of the Lord's Supper. It seems highly improbable that the washing of the disciples' feet would take place after the Lord's Supper. That blessed ordinance appears to come in after the twentieth verse. Brentius stands alone in maintaining that it was the Lord's Supper.

[The devil... put.. heart.'] This does not mean that Judas now for the first time left the faith, and became an apostate. Our Lord long before had spoken of him as one that " was a dcvil." (John vi. 70.) But it means that now at length the devil suggested into the heart of this unhappy man the atrocious idea of betraying his Master. It was the last and final heading ud of his apostasy.

The personality of Satan, and his old character as the father of all wickedness, are forcibly brought out here.

The word rendered " put " is literally " cast." This graphically describes the way in which Satan works. He casts into the heart of those he tempts the seeds of evil. The heart is tlie seed plot which he sows. Suggestion is one of his chief weapons. The sin of man consists in opening his heart to the suggestion; giving it a place, and letting it sink down. This is obvious in the first temptation of Eve in the garden of Eden.

Tittman's idea that the expression is only a " popular form of speaking," is utterly untenable, and cannot be reconciled wiih the general teaching of the Bible about the devil.

[Judas Iscariot, Simon's son.] Here, as in three other places, the false apostle is called emphatically " Simon's son." Doubtless this was to mark him out as not the Judas who was brother of James and son of Alphgeus. Who this Simon was we do not know. (See note on John vi. 71.)

[To betray him.] There seems no need for regarding Judas'g betrayal of his Master as anything but the wicked act of a wicked man, who loved money more than his soul. The theory that he was a high-minded, impatient disciple, who wished his Master no harm, but desired to hasten His kingdom, and expected Him to work a miracle, and save Himself at the last, is ingenious, but lacks foundation. Our Lord's word applied to him, " a devil," and the word of St. John, " a thief," appear to me to overturn the theory altogether. Judas betrayed Jesus because he loved money better than His Master. He probably did not realize the full consequence of his act. But this is often the case with wicked men.

3. — [Jesus, knowing that the Father, etc.] The reason why this verse comes in here is not very plain. Why are we told that Jesus " washed His disciples' feet," knowing all these wonderful things? What is the special point and object of the sentence?

Some think that the words mean that our Lord knew the end of His ministry was at hand, that all His work was accomplished, that the Father had now committed to Him all power in heaven and earth, and that having come from God, He was about to return to God very shortly. Knowing this. He seized the last opportunity that remained to give His disciples a practical example of love and humility. He knew that His time was short, and that He must give the lesson this night, if it was to be given at all.

Others, as Chrysostom, Augustine, and Zwingle, think that the object of the words is to show the extent and depth of our Lord's infinite condescension and love to His disciples. With a full knowledge that the Father had committed all power into His hands, that He had been from eternity with God, and wa3 going back to God, — knowing all the dignity and majesty of His person and oifice, He yet condescended to perform tlie most menial oifice, and to minister like a servant to His disciples.

Either view is good sense and good divinity, and admissible as a fair interpretation of the words. For myself I prefer the latter view.

Theophylact points out that to argue our Lord's inferiority to the Father from the expression, " Delivered all things into His hand," is unfair. He justly remarks that you might as •well infer the Father's inferiority to the Son from the expression in Corinthians, " When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to the Father."

Bernard remarks that " Jesus came from God, not leaving Him, and went to God, not leaving us."

4. — [He riseth from supper, etc.] The minuteness with which every action of our Lord is related here is very striking. No less than seven distinct things are named, — rising, laying aside garments, taking a towel, girding Himself, pouring water into a bason, washing and wiping. This very particularity stamps the whole transaction with reality, and is the natural language of an astonished and admiring eye-witness.

The " laying aside garments " of course only means the laying aside the long, loose, outer garment which people in the East always wear, and which must be laid aside if any bodily exertion is used.

The " girding Himself " refers to the well-known practice of tying tightly round the person any loose garment before taking any action requiring bodily exertion. A good servant is said to have " his loins girded and his lamp burning," ready for any errand or duty.

The likeness between our Lord's action here and the words in Luke xii. 37, are very striking: " He shall gird Himself — serve them," etc.

Jansenius remarks, that the " rising " here mentioned seems like a clear proof that this supper could not be the paschal supper. That was to be eaten standing.

The use of the present tense all through this description ia noteworthy. It brings the whole transaction before us like a picture,

Hengstenberg says here, " Jesus had seated himself at the table, and Peter probably enjoyed the honor of washing His feet. After this he, with the other disciples, sat down also at table, expecting that tlie younger would spontaneously assume the function of feet-washer for all the rest. But pride evoked pride. The younger Apostles, following a quick impulse,

seated themselves also at table. Thus a situation of deep embarrassment resulted in murmuring and contest. Who would be the first to rise up again? Jesus put an end to the embarrassment, hy rising from supper and washing the feet of His disci-

ples." This is possible; but it is only conjecture. 6 — [After that he poureth water, etc., etc.] Wonderful as all this transaction seems, and no doubt is, when we remember who our Lord was, one thing must never be forgotten. The actions here described would not seem nearly so strange to the disciples as they do to us. They were simply the courteous actions of a host who desired to show the utmost degree of hospitable attention to the guests. Thus Abraham washed the feet of the three angelic messengers. (Gen. xviii. 4. So also 1 Sam. xxv. 41.) In a hot country like Palestine, where people wore no stockings, and the heat was very scorching to the skin, frequent washing of the feet was an absolute necessity, and to wash the feet of guests was a common piece of hospitality. It is one mark of a deserving widow, that she has " washed the saints' feet." (1 Tim. v. 10.) The real wonder was that such a Master, on such a solemn occasion, should do such a condescending act to such weak disciples. It was not so much the action as the doer of it, that was remarkable.

After all tLere was a touching fitness in our Lord's choice of an instructive action on this solemn occasion. He knew that He was leaving His disciples, like poor feeble travellers, in a weary, wicked world. He would therefore wash their feet before parting, and strengthen and refresh them for their journey.

It will be observed that the work was not left unfinished and half-done. Like a perfect servant, our Lord " wiped " the feet as well as " washed " them.

6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?

7 Jesus aus-wered and said unto him, What I do thou kuowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.

8 Peter saith unto him, tliou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

9 Simon Peter saith to him. Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.

10 Jesus saith unto him, He that is washed ueedeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

11 For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he. Ye are not all clean.

12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?

13 Ye call me Master and Lord; and ye say well; for so I am.

14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.

15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

- The verses we have now read conclude the story of our Lord's washing the feet of His disciples, the nighu before He was crucified. It is a story full of touching interest, which for some wise reason no Evangelist records except St. John. The wonderful condescension of Christ, in doing such a menial action, can hardly fail to strike any reader. The mere fact that the Master should wash the feet of the servants might well fill us with surprise. But the circumstances and sayings which arose out of the action are just as interesting as the action itself. Let us see what they were.

We should notice, firstly, the hasty ignorance of the Apostle Peter. One moment we find him refusing to allow his Master to do such a servile work as He is about to do:—" Dost thou wash my feet?" "Thou shalt never wash my feet." — Another moment we find him rushing with characteristic impetuosity into the other extreme: — " Lord, wash not my feet only, but my hands and my head." But throughout the transaction we find him unable to take in the real meaning of what his eyes behold. He sees, but he does not understand.

Let us gather from Peter's conduct that a man may have plenty of faith and love, and yet be sadly destitute of clear knowledge. "We must not set down men as graceless and godless because they are dull, and stupid, and blundering in their religion. The heart may often be quite right when the head is quite wrong. We must make allowances for the corruption of the understanding as well as of the will. We must not be surprised to find that the brains as well as the afiections of Adam's children have been hurt by the fall. It is a humbling lesson, and one seldom fully learned except by long experience. But the longer we live the more true shall we find it, that a believer, like Peter, may make many mistakes and lack understanding, and yet, like Pe-

Even at our best estate we shall find that many of Christ's dealings with us are hard to understand in this life. The " why " and " wherefore " of many a providence will often puzzle and perplex us quite as much as the washing puzzled Peter. The wisdom, and fitness, and necessity of many a thing will often be hidden from our eyes. But at times like these we must remember the IMaster's words, and fall back upon them: — " What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter." There came days, long after Christ had left the world, when Peter saw the full meaning of all that happened on the memorable night before the crucifixion. Even so there will be a day when every dark page in our life's history will be explained, and when, as we stand with Christ in glory, we shall know all.

We should notice, secondly, in this passage, the plain practical lesson which lies upon its surface. That lesson is read out to us by our Lord. He says, " I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you."

Humility is evidently one part of the lesson. If the only-begotten Son of God, the King of kings, did not think it beneath Him to do the humblest work of a servant, there is nothing which His disciples should think themselves too great or too good to do. No sin is so offensive to God, and so injurious to the soul as pride. No grace is so commended, both by precept and example, as humility. " Be clothed with humility." " He that humbleth himself shall be exalted." — " Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him tlie form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself." (1 Pet. v. 5; Luke xviii. 14; Phil. ii. 5 — 8.) Well would it be for the Church if this very simple truth was more remembered, and real humility was not so sadly rare. Perhaps there is no sight so displeasing in God's eyes as a self-conceited, self-satisfied, self-contented, stuck-up professor of religion. Alas, it is a sight only too common! Yet the words which St. John here records have never been repealed. They will be a swift witness against many at the last day, except they repent.

Lo>i e is manifestly the other part of the great practical lesson. Our Lord would have us love others so much that we should delight to do anything which can promote their happiness. We ought to rejoice in doing kindnesses, even in little things. We ought to count it a pleasure to lessen sorrow and multiply joy, even when it costs us some self-sacrifice and self-denial. We ought to love every child of Adam so well, that if in the least trifle we can do anything to make him more happy and comfortable, we should be glad to do it. This was the mind of the Master, and this the ruling principle of His conduct upon earth. There are but few who walk in His steps, it may be feared; but these few are men and women after His own heart.

The lesson before us may seem a very simple one; but its importance can never be overrated. Humility and love are precisely the graces which the men of the world can understand, if they do not comprehend doctrines. They are graces about which there is no mystery, and they are within reach of all classes. The poorest and most ignorant Christian can every day find occasion for practicing love and humility. Tlien if we would do good to the world, and make our calling and election sure, let no man forget our Lord's example in this passage. Like Him, let us be humble and loving towards all.

We should notice, lastly, in this passage, the deep spiritual lessons whicJi, lie beneath its surface. They are three in number, and lie at the veryroot of religion, though we can only touch them briefly.

For one thing, we learn that all need to be washed by Christ. " If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in Me." No man or woman can be saved unless his sins are washed away in Christ's precious blood. Nothing else can make us clean or acceptable before God. We must be " washed, sanctified, and justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor. vi. 11.) Christ must wash us, if we are ever to sit down with saints in glory. Then let us take heed that we apply to Him by faith, wash and become clean. They only are washed who believe.

For another thing, we learn that even those who are cleansed and forgiven need a daily application to the blood of Christ for daily pardon. We cannot pass through this evil world without defilement. There is not a day in our lives but we fail and come short in many things, and need fresh supplies of mercy. Even " he that is washed needs to wash his feet," and to wash them in the same fountain Avhere he found peace of conscience when he first believed. Then let us daily use that fountain without fear. With the blood of Christ we must begin, and with the blood of Christ we must go on.

Finally, we learn that even those who kept company with Christ, and were baptized with water as His disciples, were " not all " washed from their sin. These words are very solemn, — "Ye are clean: but not all." Then let us take heed to ourselves, and beware of false profession. If even Christ's own disciples are not all cleansed and justified, we have reason to be on our guard. Baptism and Churchman ship are no proof that we are right in the sight of God.

C. — \ Then cometh Jig to Simon Peter i\ Whetlier our Lord began with Simon Peter, is not quite clear from the words before us. The word " then," however, certainly does not mean " then," in the sense of " in order."

Chrysostom and Theophylact hold that Jesus washed Judas Tscariot's feet, and then came to Peter. From the subsequent action of dipping and giving a morsel to Judas, it certainly seems probable that he sat very near our Lord.

Augustine holds that Jesus began with Peter. Bellarmine eagerly grasps at this, and gives it as one of twenty-eight alleged proofs that Peter always had a primacy among the Apostles I

[And Peter saith unto him.'] The word " Peter" is not in the Greek text here, but simply " he," or " that man." Our translators seem to have inserted it to make the meaning plain.

[Lord, dost thou loash my feet f] The English language here fails to give the full emphasis of the Greek. It would be literally rendered, " Dost Thou, of me, wash the feet? " Such an one as Thou art, wash the feet of such an one as I am! It is like John the Baptist's exclamation when our Lord came to his baptism: " Comest thou to me? " (Matt. iii. 14.)

7. — {Jesus ansioered and said, etc.] The famous saying of this verse stretches far beyond the literal application of the words. Primarily, of course, it means, " This action of mine has a meaning which in a few minutes I will explain and you will understand, though at present it may seem to you strange and unsuitable." — But in every age true Christians have seen a higher, deeper, broader meaning in the words, and a pious mind cannot doubt that they were intended to bear that meaning. It supplies the key to many things which we cannot understand in the providential government of the world, in the history of the Church, in the events of our own lives. We must make up our minds to see many things happening which we do not know and understand now, and of which we cannot at present see the wisdom. But we must believe that "we shall know hereafter" the full purposes, the why and wherefore and needs-be, of each and all. It is a golden sentence to store up in our memories. God's eternal counsels, the wisdom of the great Head of the Church, must never be forgotten. All is going on well, even when we think all is going on ill. When we cannot Bee it we must believe. In sickness, sorrow, bereavement, disappointment, we must summon up faith and patience, and hear

Christ saying to us, " What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt kuow hereafter."

Musculus has some happy remarks here on the applicability of this expression to infant baptism, which are most just and true.

8. — [Peter saith... thou...never wash my feet.] Here, again, the English version fails to give the full strength of the Greek words. This sentence would be rendered literally, " Thou shalt never wash my feet for ever," or unto eternity.

We may note here, in Peter's language, that there is such a thing as " a voluntary humility," which runs into extremes.

Hutcheson remarks, " Men may have much seeming humil ity in the matters of God, which is yet but preposterous and sinful, and learned from carnal reason." Rollock compares with Peter's conduct here the Romish worship of saints and angels, under the pretence of deep humility and unworthiness to approach God.

[Jesus ansioered...If 1 wash... not...no part... me.] We need not doubt that this sentence was meant to bear a deep and full meaning, and to reach far beyond the primary application. It would be a very cold and tame exposition to say that our Lord only meant, " Unless thy feet are washed by Me to-night thou art not one of ray disciples." — It means a great deal more. Our Lord seems in eflfect to say, " Thou wilt not be wise to object to the symbolical action which I am performing. Remember no one can be saved, or have any part in Me and my work of redemption, unless I wash away his sins. Except I wash away thy many sins, even thou, Simon Peter, hast no part in Me. I must wash every saved soul, and every saved soul must be washed. Surely, therefore, it does not become thee to object to my doing an instructive and figurative act to thy feet, when I must needs do a far greater work to thy soul.''

The sentence is one of wide, deep, and sweeping application. It is true of every Christian of every rank and position. To each one Christ says, '* If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in Me." It is not enough that we are Churchmen, professed communicants, and the like. The great question for every one is this: " Am I washed and justified? "

The common assertion that this " washing " here spoken of is baptism, seems to me unwarrantable. Our Lord never baptized any one, so far as we can learn from Scripture. Where is it said that He baptized Peter V Moreover, if baptism were meant, the past tense would have been used: " If I had not washed thee, thou wouldst have no part jn Me." The washing here spoken of is something far above baptism.

9. — [Simon Peter saith, etc.] The exclamation of Peter in this verse is highly characteristic of the man. Impulsive, excita- ble, zealous, ardent, witli more love than knowledge, and more feeling than spiritual discernment, lie is horrified at the very idea of " having no part in Christ." Anything rather than that! Not seeing clearly the deep meaning of His Master's words, and still sticking to a carnal, literal interpretation of the word " washing," he cries out that his Master may wash him all over, hands and head as well as feet, if an interest in Christ depends on that.

Great zeal and love are perfectly consistent with great spiritual ignorance and dulness, and great slowness to comprehend spiritual truth.

Rollock remarks that Peter erred as much in one extreme now, as he had erred before in another.

Stie.r remarks that the passionate, strong expression of Peter in this verse, is just the language of a warm-hearted but dullminded disciple, just beginning to understand, as if light had suddenly flash ed on him.

W.— [Jesus saitli to 7dm, He that is washed, etc.] This sentence of our Lord's conveys a latent rebuke of Peter's spiritual dulness. It is as though Jesus said, " The washing of head and hands whereof thou speakest is not needed. Even assuming that a literal washing is all I meant in saying, ' If I wash thee not,' it is well known that he who is washed needs only to wash his feet after a journey, and is accounted clean entirely after such a partial washing. But this is far more true of the washing of pardon and justification. He that is i^ardoned and justified by Me is entirely washed from all his sins, and only needs the daily forgiveness of the daily defilement he contract? in travelling through a sinful world. Once washed, justified and accepted by Me, ye are clean before God: although not all of you. There is one painful exception."

The great practical truth contained in this sentence ought to be carefully noted and treasured up by all believers. Once joined to Christ and cleansed in His blood, they are completely absolved and free from all spot of guilt, and are counted without blame before God. But for all this they need every day, as they walk through this world, to confess their daily failures, and to sue for daily pardon. They require, in short, a daily washing of their feet, over and above the great washing of justification, which is theirs the moment they first believe. He that neglects this daily washing is a very questionable and doubtful ' kind of Christian. Luther remarks pithily, " The devil allows no Christian to reach heaven with clean feet all the way."

The deep mine of meaning which often lies under the surface of our Lord's language is strikingly exemplified in this verse, as well as in the seventli and eighth. There is far more in many of His sayings, we may believe, than has ever yet been discovered.

It is striking to observe that even of His poor, weak, erring disciples Jesus says, " Ye are clean."

Bullinger observes that the words of the Lord's Prayer. " Forgive us our trespasses," are a daily confession of the very thing here mentioned, — viz., the need of daily washing of our feet.

Casaubon remarks that those who come out of a bath, as a matter of constant experience, only need to wash their feet, which, stepping on the ground as they come out, must needs contract some defilement. In Eastern countries, where batliing was very common, all could see the force of this.

Hengstenberg remarks, that " the expression, ' but not all/ was intended to pierce the conscience of Judas, whom the Redeemer did not give up until the last good impulse died within him,"

The common idea that the " washing " here spoken of refers to the baptism, seems to me quite untenable. He that is washed must mean only " washed in a spiritual sense from his sins; " as Psalm li. 4. Hengstenberg's discussion of the point is worth reading.

Burgon observes, " The traitor, Judas, though washed by the hands of Christ Himself, was filthy still."

11. — [For he knew...'betray Jiim, etc.] Our Lord's perfect foreknowledge of His sufferings and the manner of them, and His thorough discernment of the real characters of all His disciples, are alike shown in this verse. He did not suffer because he did not foresee it, and was taken by surprise. He walked up to death knowing every step he was about to tread.

The sentence is an example of the explanatory glosses which are so characteristic of St. John's Gospel.

The Greek words rendered " who should betray Him," are literally, " the person betraying Him," in the past participle.

12. — [So after...was?ied...feet.] After the conversation between our Lord and Peter, the washing seems to have gone on without interruption. The disciples were accustomed to see their Master do things they did not understand, and they submitted in silence.

[And had taken... garments... set down again.'] This refers to His putting on again the long loose outer robe, which was laid aside on performing any action requiring exertion in the East. Then our Lord took His place once more at the table, and commenced a discourse which seems to have ushered in the Lord's Supper. Whether the washing of the feet was meant, among other tilings, to teacli the need of special preparation for that blessed ordinance, is an interesting* thought, and worth consideration. It certainly seems our Lord's last action before He gave the bread and wine.

[He said...know ye what...done.,.you.'] This question was meant to stir up in the disciples' minds inquiry as to the meaning of what they had just seen. Understanding and intelligent perception of all we do in religion, should be sought after and valued by all true Christians. There is no real religion in blind devotion. " What, mean I by this service? " should be the question often impressed on our minds.

13. — [ Ye call me Master and Lord.] These words would be more literally rendered, " Ye call Me, or speak of Me, as the Master and the Lord." The expression seems to show that this was the habitual language of the disciples while our Lord was on earth. So Martha says to Mary, " The Master is come." (John xi. 28.)

[ Ye say icell: for so I am.] The word " so " is not in the Greek. It is simply " for I am." The expression is a beautiful warrant for applying to Jesus especially the appellation " the Lord." He has Himself endorsed it, by the words, " Ye say well."

14. — [If 1 then, your Lord, etc.] The argument of this verse is one which our Lord very frequently uses: " If I do a thing, much more ought ye to do it." Literally rendered the meaning is, " If I, the Person whom ye speak of as * the Lord ' and * the Master,' have washed your feet, and condescended to perform the most menial act of attention to you, ye also ought to feel it a duty to do acts of the same kind for one another, — acte as condescending as washing one another's feet."

The words " Your Lord and Master " in the Greek are literally, " The Lord and the Master."

" Ye ought " is a very strong expression. It is tantamount to Baying, " It is your duty and debt, — ye are under an obligation to do it."

Paley on Evidences, p. 2, ch. iv., has a remarkable passage, showing the close affinity between our Lord's conduct here, and His conduct when taking a little child and putting him in the midst of the disciples. In both he taught humility, that rare grace, by action.

15. — [For 1 havie given you an exam'ple, etc.] " I have, in my own person, given you a pattern of what your own conduct sliould be. The duty I want you to learn is of such vast importance that I have not left it to a general precept, but have given you an example of my meaning."

Of course the question at once rises, — What did our Lord really mean? Did he mean that we all ought literally to do the very same tiling tliat He did? Or did he only mean tliat we are to imitate the spirit of his action?

The Church of Rome, it is well-known, puts a literal sense on our Lord's language. Once every year, about Easter, the head of the Romish Church publicly washes the feet of certain poor persons got ready for the occasion. The absurdity, to say the least, of this view is evident on a moment's reflection.

It seems absurd to take our Lord's words literally, and to suppose tliat the Pope's literal washing of a few feet at Easter can supersede the duty of all Christians to do the same. Yet it is only fair to remember that the Moravians to tliis day take a literal view of those words, and have a custom called " pedilavium."

It is in any case absurd to suppose that our Lord would require His disciples to perform a duty which the young and the feeble would be physically unable to do.

It is inconsistent with the general tenor of our Lord's teach ing to suppose that He would ever attach so much importance to a mere bodily action. " Bodily exercise profiteth little." (1 Tim. iv. 8.) A formal performance of bodily acts of religion is just the easiest thing that can be imposed on people. The thing that is really hard, and yet always required, is the service of the heart.

The true interpretation of the two verses is that which places a spiritual sense on our Lord's words. It is a practical illustration of Matt. XX. 26 — 28. He wished to teach His disciples that they ought to be willing to wait on one another, serve one another, minister to one another, even in the least and lowest things. They should think nothing too low, or humble, or menial to undertake, if they can show love, kindness, and condescension to another. If He, the King of kings, condescended to leave heaven to save souls, and dwell thirty-three years in this sin-defiled world, there is nothing that we should think too lowly to undertake.

Pride, because we possess wealth, rank, position, place, education, or high-breeding, is condemned heavily in this passage. He who would shrink from doing the least kindness to the poorest Christian, has read these verses to little purpose, and does not copy his JNIaster's example.

One caution only we must remember. Let us not suppose that an ostentatious attention to the poor constitutes the whole of obedience to the law of this passage. It is easy work comparatively to care for the poor. We are to be ready to do the least acts of kindness to our equals quite as much as to the poor. There is nothing about temporal poverty in the passage. The disciples were told their duty to " one another." 'This is a very important point. It is much easier and more sel f-satisfying to play the part and do tlie work of a Cliristiau to the poor than to our equals.

How entirely the passage overthrows the claim of mere talking, head-learned professors of sound doctrine, to be accounted true Christians, it is needless to show. Doctrinal orthodoxy, without practical love and humility, is utterly worthless before God.

Bullinger remarks, how singularly full of Christian truth the passage is which ends at this verse. That we are washed clean from all sins, by Christ our Saviour, — that although washed, the remainder of infirmity sticks to us, and obliges us to wash our feet daily, — that the duty of a disciple is to make Christ his example in all things, — these three great lessons stand forth most prominently.

Gurnall observes, " The master here doth not only rule the scholar's book for him; but writes him a copy with his own hand."

16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than liis lord; neither he thtit is sent greater than he that sent him.

17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen; but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that

e.'iteth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

20 Verily, verily, I say unto you. He thatreceiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

If we would understand the full meaning of these verses, we must mark carefully where they stand in the chapter. They follow hard after the remarkable passage in which we read of Christ washing His disciples' feet. They stand in close connection with His solemn command, that the disciples should do as they had seen Him do. Then come the five verses which we have now to consider.

We are taught, for one thing, in these verses, that Christians must never he ashamed of doing anything that Ch-ist has done. We read, " Verily, I say unto you. The servant is not greater than his Lord; neither lie tliat is sent greater than he that sent him."

There seeras little doubt that our Lord's all-seeing eye saw a rising unwillingness in the minds of the Apostles to do such menial things as they had just seen Him do. Puffed up with their old Jewish expectation of thrones and kingdoms in this world, secretly self-satisfied with their own position as our Lord's friends, these poor Galileans were startled at the idea of washing people's feet! They could not bring themselves to believe that Messiah's service entailed work like this. They could not yet take in the grand truth, that true Christian greatness consisted in doing good to others. And hence they needed our Lord's word of warning. If He had humbled Himself to do humbling work, His disciples must not hesitate to do the same.

The lesson is one of which we all need to be reminded. We are all too apt to dislike any work which seems to entail trouble, self-denial, and going down to our inferiors. We are only too ready to depute such work to others, and to excuse ourselves by saying, " It is not in our way." When feelings of this kind arise within us we shall find it good to remember our Lord's words in this passage, no less than our Lord's example. We ought never to think it beneath us to show kindness to the lowest of men. We ought never to hold our hand because the objects of our kindness are ungrateful or unworthy. Such was not the mind of Him who washed the feet of Judas Iscariot as well as Peter. He who in these matters cannot stoop to follow Christ's example, gives little evidence of possessing true love or true humility.

We are taught, for another thing, in these verses, the uselessness of religioits knowledge if not accomjKinied by practice. We read, " If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them." It sounds as if our Lord would warn His disciples that they would never be really hap- py in His service if they were content with a barren head-knowledge of duty, and did not live according to their knowledge.

The lesson is one which deserves the continual remembrance of all professing Christians. Nothing is more common than to hear people saying of doctrine or duty, — "We know it, we know it;" while they sit still in unbelief or disobedience. They actually seem to flatter themselves that there is something creditable and redeeming in knowledge, even when it bears no fruit in heart, character, or life. Yet the truth is precisely the other way. To know what we ought to be, believe, and do, and yet to be unaffected by our knowledge, only adds to our guilt in the sight of God. To know that Christians should be humble and loving, while we continue proud and selfish, will only sink us deeper in the pit, unless we awake and repent. Practice, in short, is the very life of religion. " To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." (James iv. 17.)

Of course we must never despise knowledge. It is in one sense the beginning of Christianity in the soul. So long as we know nothing of sin, or God, or Christ, or grace', or repentance, or faith, or conscience, we are of course nothing better than heathens. But we must not overrate knowledge. It is perfectly valueless unless it produces results in our conduct, and influences our lives, and moves our wills. In fact knowledge without practice does not raise us above the level of the devil. He could say to Jesus, " I know Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of God." The devils, says St. James, " believe and tremble." (James ii. 20.) Satan knows truth, but has no will to obey it, and is miserable. He that would be happy in Christ's service must not only know, but do.

We are taught, for another thing, in these verses, the 2'>erfect knowledge wJdch Christ has of all Ills peoj^le. lie can distinguish between false profession and true grace. The Church may be deceived, and rank men as Apostles who are nothing better than brethren of Judas Lscariot. But Jesus is never deceived, for He can read liearts. And here He declares with peculiar emphasis, " I know whom I have chosen."

This perfect knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ is a very solemn thought, and one which cuts two ways. It ought to fill the hypocrite with alarm, and drive him to repentance. Let him remember that the eyes of the all-seeing Judge already see him through and through, and detect the want of a wedding garment. If he would not be put to shame before assembled worlds, let him cast aside his false profession, and confess his sin before it is too late. Believers, on the other hand, may think of an all-knowing Saviour with comfort. They may remember, when misunderstood and slandered by an evil world, that their Master knows all. He knows that they are true and sincere, however weak and failing. A time is coming when He will confess them before His Father, and bring forth their characters clear and bright as the summer sun at noon-day.

We are taught, finally, in these verses, the true dignity of Chrises disciples. The world may despise and ridicule the Apostles because they care more for works of love and humility than the pursuits of the world. But the Master bids them remember their commission, and not be ashamed. They are God's ambassadors, and have no cause to be cast down. " Yerily, verily," He declares, "He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth Me; and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that Bent Me."

ment. It ought to cheer and hearten all who lay themselves out to do good, and specially to do good to the fallen and the poor. Work of this kind gets little praise from men, and they who give themselves up to it are often regarded as miserable enthusiasts, and meet with much opposition. Let them however work on, and take comfort in the words of Christ which we are now considering. To spend and be spent in trying to do good makes a man far more honorable in the eyes of Jesus than to command armies or amass a fortune. The few who work for God in Christ's way have no cause to be ashamed. Let them not be cast down if the children of the world laugh and sneer and despise them. A day comes when they will hear the words, " Come ye blessed children of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you." (Matt. xxv. 34.)