Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

43. — [The day following.] This is the fourth successive day which is specially named by St. John, and its events described. The first contained John the Baptisfs reply to the priests and Levites, — the second, his public announcement of our Lord as the Lamb of God, — the third, the calling of Andrew and his companion, and Peter, — the fourth describes the calling of Philip and Nathanael.

[ Would go fo7'th.'] The Greek word rendered " would," signifieg that our Lord " willed or had a will."

{Findeth Philip.'] It does not appear where Philip was when Jesus called him. He must either have been at Bethabara, among John's hearers, — or at some place ou the road from Bethabara to Galilee, — or at his own native place, Bethsaida. The last ia perhaps the most probable idea

[Follow me.] This simple sentence describe? the direct quick* ening voice of an almighty Saviour. It is evident that the power of the Holy Ghost accompanied our Lord's words, and that as soon as they were spoken, Philip, like Matthew the publican, arose, left all, and became a disciple. In conversion God acta as a sovereign. One is called in one way, and another in another..RoUock observes on this verse, " This teaches us that Christ ia able to call any one whom He pleases into the kingdom of heaven, without the ministry either of angel or man."

44. — [Philip... of Bethsaida city Andrew Peter ^ This verse seems to make it probable that Piiihp's conversion and calling took place at Bethsaida. Andrew and Peter having been converted and become companions of Jesus on His way to Galilee, •would appear to have taken Him to their own native place, Bethsaida.

i5 — [ We have found Mm.] Philip, like his fellow-citizen, Andrew, seems to have expected the appearance of Messiah.

Chrysostom remarks, " Seest thou what a thoughtful mind he had, how assiduously he meditates on the writings of Moses, and expected the advent? The expression, 'we have found,' belongs always to those who are in some way seeking."

[IIim....3foses....prophets did ivrite.] Here, as in the case of Andrew, we should notice the famiharity with the general contents of Scripture which a poor Jew like Phihp possessed. He thoroughly understood that " Moses and the prophets" held forth the promise of a coming Kedeemer, and that a better Priest, Prophet, and King were foretold in their writings. " The Old Testament," as the Church of England Article wisely declares, "is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old Testament and New, everlasting lile is offered to mankind by Christ." We must beware, in these latter days, of despising the Old Testament. It is one by-path to infidelity.

[Jesus of Nazarei'h...son of Joseph.] Philip here describes our Lord according to the common report about Him, and in all probability according to his own present knowledge. His heart was at present better than his head. The miraculous conception of Christ was hidden from him. Yet it is not unworthy of remark, that this ignorant account of our Lord was very likely the cause of Nathanael's doubt and prejudice, exhibited in the next verse. The mistakes of young converts are often mighty stumbling-blocks in the way of other people's souls. We must not, however, despise Philip because of his mistake. Eollock remarks,

" I had rather a man should stammer and babble about Christ, providing he does it sincerely and from his heart, and has before i him as an object the glory of Grod and salvation of men, than say many things eloquently about Christ, for ostentation and vain glory."

x6. — [Can any good thing...come...Nazareth?] This question shows the low estimate in which Nazareth, where our Lord had been brought up, was held. It was an obscure town in a corner of Q-alilee, not far from the borders of the province, and its reputation seems to have been very bad. Nathanael could not remember anj prophecy about Messiah coming out of jSTazareth. and at once stumbled at the idea of Him whom "Moses and the prophets" had desoribed, belonging to such a contemptible place.

The condescension of our Lord in living thirty years in such a place as Nazareth, is strongly brought out by Nathan ael's question.

Augustine, Cyril, Origen, and others thought that the sentence before us ought not to be interpreted as a question, but as a simp'.e affirmation, " Some good thing may come out of Nazareth." Wycliffe's version also takes this vievs^. The sentence would then be the expression of a calm and unprejudiced mind, acknowledging the possibihty of good coming from Nazareth. Musculus thinks it possible, in this view of the expression, that Nathanael might have had in his mind the remarkable prophetical saying quoted in St. Matthew, " He shall be called a Nazarenel" The judgment of the great majority of interpreters agrees with our own translation, that it is a question, and not an assertion; and it is by far the more probable view of the text.

l^Come and see.] How common this expression was among the Jewish religious teachers has been already noticed. Philip's wisdom in not arguing and reasoning with Nathanael, should be observed. Ford gives a good quotation from Adam, " Little good comes by disputing. Pride is generally at the bottom of it, and not charity or love of truth; and it is seldom managed with decency or candour enough to produce any good effect. Let fall a word in season, and wait in patience till the rain drops on it from heaven."

47. — \_In whom is no guile] It is very likely that in using this expression our Lord referred to the 32nd Psalm, where the character of the godly man is described. He is not only one whose iniquities are forgiven, but one '' in whose lips there is no guile." The expression imphes a true heart, a really converted man, a genuine son of Abraham by faith, as well as a son according to the flesh.

Hutcheson observes, " The true mark of a true Israelite m spirit, is not sinlessness or perfection, but sincerity."

48. — [ Whence Jcnowest thou me?] This question implies Nathanael's surprise that Jesus should exhibit any knowledge of his character.

[When...under.. Jig-tree I saw thee.] The common opinion about this expression is, that Nathanael was praying or holding (:ommunion with God under the fig-tree. It may be so. We are told nothing about it, and are entirely left to conjecture. If it ftad been good for us to know, it would have been told us. Sufficient for us to understand that when Nathanael thought he was alone and no eye upon him, the Lord Jesus, by His divine power of seeing and knowing all things, was perfectly acquainted with all that Nathanael said, thought, and did. His " eyes are in every place." (Prov. xv. 3.)

Chrysostom and Theophylact think that the expression only refers to the conversation between Philip and Nathanael about Jesus, which had taken place under a fig-tree. Grrotius takes the same view.

Grill mentions a tradition in the Syriac dictionary, "that Nathanael's mother had laid him under a fig-tree when the infants were slain at Bethlehem by Herod," (Matt, ii, 16,) and that our Lord showed His perfect knowledge by referring to this fact.

Heinsius thinks there is a reference to the prophecy of Zechariah, '' In that day ye shall call every man his neighbour, under the vine and under the fig-tree," (Zech. iii. 10,) and that hence Nathanael drew the inference that Messiah's days were come, and Messiah before him.

Augustine sees an allegory in the fig-tree, and gravely says,

" that as Adam and Eve, when they had sinned, made themselves aprons of fig-leaves, fig-leaves must signify sins. Nathanael therefore being under the fig-tree, signifies being under the shadow of death! "

i9. — [Thou art... Son of God...King of Israel] These words are the outburst of a heart convinced at once that Jesus was the Messiah. They are a noble confession that our Lord was that divine Person who was promised to come into the world to redeem sinners, and that King who was prophesied of as the future Gatherer and Ruler of the tribes of Israel. Whether Nathanael clearly understood the nature of our Lord's kingdom at this time, may be reasonably doubted. But that he saw, like Peter, that He was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed, we cannot doubt. Tho restoring of the kingdom to Israel was a subject which we know from other pa siges of Scripture, was one of the last which the first disciples were able to understand aright. (Acts i. 6.)

The history of Nathanael's calling at this point should be compared with that of the woman of Samaria, in the fourth chapter of this G^ospel. It is striking to observe that a discovery and conviction of our Lord's perfect knowledge of the most secret things, was in both cases the turning point.

It should not be forgotten, that the title " King of Israel," was one which our Lord never refused during His ministry, though He never took to Himself His great power and actually reigned.

The angc4 Gabriel foretold that, the " Lord God would give unto Him the throne of His father David, and that He would lei n over the house of Jacob, and that of His kingdom there would be no end." (Luke i. 32, 33.) When the wise men came from the East, they inquired for him who was born " Kinir of th Jews." (Matt. ii. 2.) When our Lord was crucified, the title over His head was, " King of the Jews." All this shall yet be literally true. Christ shall yet be King in Zion, and reign over the gathered and restored tribes of Israel at His second coming. And then the words of Nathanael shall be seen completely fulfilled He shall be acknowledged by all ai the " Son of God, and King of Israel."

50. — [Believest thou?] It admits of a question whether this expression would not be bet'er rendered, as it might be with perfect gramma* ical correctness, "thou believest." It would then be very like our Lord's words to Thomas, " Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed." (John xx. 29.) The sense would be, " Because I said I saw thee under the fig-tree thou believest. It is well. Great is thy faith. But I tell thee for thy comfort and encouragement, that thou shalt one day see far greater proofs of my divinity and Messiahship than these." Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, and Cranmer's versions, all render the expression as an atiirmation, and not as a question. Aretius maintains the same view.

61.— [Verily J verily I say.] This expression is peculiar to St. John's Gospel, and very remarkable. It is the word which is familiar to all Christians, " Amen," twice repeated. It is found twentyfive times in this G-ospe', always at the beginning of a sentence, and always used by Christ. In every place it implies a very solemn, emphatic assertion of some great truth, or heart-searching fact. No other writer in the New Testament, except St. John, ever gives the double "Amen."

[Hereafter... ye shall see...heaven...angels...Son of man.] This prediction is very remarkable. It should be carefully observed, that it is i.ot addressed to Nathanael alone. The preceding verse says, "thou shalt see." The present verse says, " ye shall see," — that is, " thou and all my other disciples."

About the true meaning of the prediction, commentators differ exceedingly. Arguing, as nearly all do, that the words plainly refer to Jacob's vision of the ladder reaching from heaven to earth, (Gen. xxviii. 12,) they disagree about the way in which the prediction is fulfilled.

Some think, as Stier, that the predicion must be interpreted figuratively, and that it was fulfilled when our Lord was upon earth. They think it only means that Nathanael and the other disciplots would see a still fuller revelation of Christ and t!:e

Gospel by and bye. They would see a figurative fulfilment of Jacob's vision, and a way opened from earth to heaven for all true IsraeUtes or believers. They would see still greater proofs, in the shape of miracles and signs, that Jesus was the bon of God, Heaven, ir. a spiritual sense shut by the sin of the first Adam, would be opened by the obedience of the second Adam. " The heavenly ladder," says Bonaventura, quoted by Calovius, " was broken in Adam and repaired in Christ." — According to this view, '" the angels of Grod " in the text mean nothing in particular, which, to say the least, seems a very loose and unsati factory explanation.

Others think, as Rollock, that the prediction must be interpreted literally, and that it was fulfilled while our Lord was on earth. They think it was accomplished when our Lord was transfigured, — when an angel appeared in the garden of Gethsemane, — and when our Lord ascended on the Mount of Olives. Tills view also seems very unsatisfiictory. The transfiguration and the agony in the garden, were not seen by Nathanael at all. There is nothing whatever said about angels appearing, either at the transfiguration or the ascension. And as to "angels. ascending and descending," there is nothing at any period of the Gospel history at all answering to the expression.

The only true and satisfactory view, I behove, is that which makes the whole prediction apply to events which are still future. Our Lord spoke of His second coming and kingdom. When He comes the second time to take His great power and reign, the words of this text shall be literally fulfilled. His believing people shall see heaven open, and a constant communication kept up between heaven and earth, — the tabernacle of God with men, and the angels visibly ministering to the King of Israel, and King of all the earth.

The context confirms me in this view of the text. Nathanael believed Jesus to be the Messiah, when he was lowly and poor. Jesus rewards his faith by assuring him that, lowly as He now seems. He shall one day come in the clouds of heaven and reign as a King,

I am further confirmed by the striking likeness between our Lord's words here, and those He addressed to the chief priests, in the day that He was arraigned as a prisoner before them. "Hereafter ye Aall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Matt, xxvi, 64.)

I am aware that son:e maintain, in opposition to the view I support, that the Greek word rendered " hereafter," must mean " from henceforth, i. e immediately after the present time, and ever hereafter," and does not imply a distant event. In reply, I would have it specially noted, that the Greek word here translated " hereafter," is the very same that is used b}^ our Lord in the solemn words, just quoted, which he addressed to the chief priests when He was arraigned. (Matt. xxvi. 69.) In that case, there cannot be any reasonable doubt that He spoke of a far distant event and time. I believe, that in like manner. He speaks of a far distant event and time in this place.

As to the nature of Christ's future kingdom, and the intercourse which shall then be kept up by angels between earth and heaven, this is not the place to speak. I only remark, that the words before us will probably receive a far more real and literal accomplishment than many of us are expecting.

It is worthy of remark that Nathanael calls our Lord " the Son of Gro^l." Jesus in His prediction tells him he shall see angels ascending and descending on the " Son of man." He whom Nathanael now saw as a man, would yet appear as man glorified in the heavenly kingdom. He would even then be G-od-man. The expression " Son of man," here first used by St. •John, seems derived, as Chemnitius says, from Daniel's words in a prophecy about Messiah. (Dan. vii. 13, 14.) It is never applied to our Lord by any but Himself, except by Stephen. (Acts vii. 56.) Lightfoot thinks that " it is used so often by our Saviour about Himself, as intimating that he is the second Adam, the true seed of the woman."

In leaving this passage, the question naturally arises, Who was Nathanael? How is it that we hear so little afterwards of so good a man and so clear-sighted a believer?

Some think, as Augustine and others, that Nathanael was purposely not placed among our Lord's immediate companions and apostles, because he was a man of learning and knowledge, lest any should say that our Lord chose learned men to be His first ministers. I can see nothing in this argument. There is no evidence to my own mind that Nathanael was more leai-ned than other Jews of humble birth, in our Lord's time. Moreover he was a friend of Philip, one of our Lord's apostles, and most probably a man of similar position and attainments. — In fact we are told elsewhere that he lived at " Cana of Galilee." (John xxi. 1.)

Some think, because Nathanael lived at Cana, that he was the same person as the apostle Simon the Canaanite, (Matt. x. 4; Mark iii. 18.)

Some think, that he was Stephen the martyr, because Stephen saw the hear 3ns opened in vision. (Acts vii. 56.)

The most probable opinion to my own mind is, that Nathanae! was the apostle who is called elsewhere Bartholomew, and who, hke others of the apostles, had two names. In favour of this opinion there are three remarkable facts. The first is, that in three lists of the twelve apostles out of four, the names of Philip and Bartholomew are always found together. (Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 14.) — The second is, that Nathanael is specially mentioned after our Lord's ascension as a companion of Peter, Thomas, James, John, and two other disciples. — The third is, that St. John never once mentions the name of Bartholomew in his Grospel. — The objection that Nathanael's name is never mentioned by Matthew, Mark, or Luke, is of no weight. No one of the three, it may be replied, tells us that Peter was called Cephas. Only Matthew gives Jude, the brother of James, the name of Lebbaeus.

The point happily is not one of any particular importance. I only say that the conjectural probabihty that Nathanael was an apostle, and was the same as Bartholomew, seems to me very strong and well founded.

In leaving this chapter the observation of Aretius is worth quoting. He remarks that the chapter is singularly rich in names or epithets applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. He numbers up the following twenty-one. 1. The Word. 2. God. 3. Life. 4. Light. 5. The true light. 6. The only begotten of the Father. 7. Full of grace and truth. 8. Jesus Christ. 9. The only begotten Son. 10. The Lord. 11. The Lamb of God. 12. Jesus. 13. A Man. 14. The Son of God. 15. Rabbi. 16. Teacher. 17. Messiah. 18. Christ. 19. The Son of Joseph. 20. The King of Israel. 21. The Son of man.

1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

4 Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

6 His mother saith unto the ser-

6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the gov-

9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

10 And saith unto him, Every

man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men hava well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus iu Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples beUeved on him.

These verses describe a miracle which should always possess a special interest in the eyes of a true Christian. It is the first, in order of time, of the many mighty works which Jesus did, when He was upon earth. We are distinctly told, " This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee." — Like every other miracle which St. John was inspired to record, it is related with great minuteness and particularity. And, like every other miracle in St. John's Gospel, it is rich in spiritual lessons.

We learn, firstly, from these verses, how honourable in the sight of Christ is the estate of matrimony. To be present at a " marriage" was almost the first public act of our Lord's earthly ministry.

Marriage is not a sacrament, as the Church of Rome asserts. It is simply a state of life ordained by God for man's benefit. But it is a state which ought never to be spoken of with levity, or regarded with disrespect. The Prayerbook service has well described it, as " an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, and signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church." Society is never in a healthy condition, and true religion never flourishes in that land where the marriage tie is lightly esteemed. They who lightly esteem it have not the mind of Christ. He who " beautified and adorned the estate of matrimony by His presence and first miracle that He wrought in Cana of Galilee," is One who is always of one mind.

" Marriage," snys the Holy Ghost by St. Panl, " is hon ourable in all." (Heb. xiii. 4.)

One thing, however, ought not to be forgotten. Marriage is a step which so seriously affects the temporal happiness and spiritual welfare of two immortal sonls, that it ought never to be taken in hand " unadvisedly, lightly, wantonly, and without due consideration." To be truly happy, it should be undertaken "reverently, discreetly, soberly, and in the fear of God." Christ's blessing and presence are essential to a happy w^edding. The marriage at which there is no place for Christ and His disciples, is not one that can justly be expected to prosper.

We learn, secondly, from these verses, that there are times when it is lawful to be merry and rejoice. Our Lord Himself sanctioned a wedding-feast by His own presence. He did not refuse to be a guest at " a marriage in Cana of Galilee." "A feast," it is written, "is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry." (Eccles. x. 19.) Our Lord, in the passage before us, countenances both the feast and the use of wine.

True religion was never meant to make men melancholy. On the contrary, it was intended to increase real joy and happiness among men. The servant of Christ unquestionably ought to have nothing to do with races, balls, theatres, and such-like amusements, which tend to frivolity and dissipation, if not to sin. But he has no right to hand over innocent recreations and family gatherings to the devil and the world. The Christian who withdraws entirely from the society of his fellow-men, and walks the earth with a face as melancholy as if he was always attending a funeral, does injury to the cause of the Gospel. A cheerful, kindly spirit is a great recommendation to a believer. It is a positive nusfortune to Christianity when a Christian cannot smUe. A merry heart, and a readiness to take part in all innocent mirth, are gifts of inestimable value. They go far to soften prejudices, to take up stumbling-blocks out of the way, and to make way for Christ and the Gospel.

The subject no doubt is a difficult and delicate one. On no point of Christian practice is it so hard to hit the mean between that which is lawful and that which is unlawful, between that which is right and that which is wi'ong. It is very hard indeed to be both merry and wise. High spirits soon degenerate into levity. Acceptance of many invitations to feasts soon leads to waste of time, and begets leanness of soul. Frequent eating and drinking at other men's tables, soon lowers a Christian's tone of rehgion. Going often into company is a heavy strain on spirituality of heart. Here, if anywhere, God's children have need to be on their guard. Each must know his own strength and natural temperament, and act accordingly. One believer can go without risk where another cannot. Happy is he who can use his Christian liberty without abusing it! It is possible to be sorely wounded in soul at marriage feasts and the tables of friends.

One golden rule on the subject may be laid down, the use of which will save us much trouble. Let us take care that we always go to feasts in the spirit of our divine Master, and that we never go where He would not have gone. Like Him, let us endeavour to be always " about our Father's business." (Luke ii. 49.) Like Him, let us willingly promote joy and gladness, but let us strive that it may be sinless joy, if not joy in the Lord. Let us endeavour to bring the salt of grace into every company, and to drop the word in season in every ear we address. Much good may be done in society by giving a healthy tone to conversation. Let us never be ashamed to show our colours, and to make men see whose we are and whom we serve. "We may well say, ''Who is sufficient for these things?" But if Christ went to a marriage feast in Cana there is surely something that Christians can do on similar occasions. Let them only remember that if they go where their Master went, they must go in their Master's spirit.

We learn lastly, from these verses, the Ahnighty poioer of our Lord Jesus Christ. "We are told of a miracle which He wrought at the marriage feast, when the wine failed, By a mere act of will He changed water into wine, and so supplied the need of all the guests.

The manner in which the miracle was worked deserves especial notice. We are not told of any outward visible action which preceded or accompanied it. It is not said that He touched the waterpots containing the water that was made wine. It is not said that He commanded the water to change its qualities, or that He prayed to His Father in Heaven. He simply willed the change, and it took place. We read of no prophet or apostle in the Bible who ever worked a miracle after this fashion. He who could do such a mighty work, in such a manner, was nothing less than very God.

It is a comfortable thought that the same almighty power of will which our Lord here displayed is still exercised on behalf of His believing people. They have no need of His bodily presence to maintain their cause. They have no reason to be cast down because they cannot see Him with their eyes interceding for them, or touch Him with their hands, that they may cling to Him for safety. If He " wills " their salvation and the daily supply of all their spiritual need, they are as safe and well provided for as if they saw Him standing by them. Christ's will is as mighty and effectual as Christ's deed. The will of Him who could say to the Father, " I will that they whom thou hast given me be with me where I am," is a will that has all power in heaven and earth, and must prevail. (John xvii. 24.)

Happy are those who, like the disciples, believe on Him by whom this miracle was wrought. A greater marriage feast than that of Cana will one day be held, when Christ Himself will be the bridegroom and believers will be the bride. A greater glory will one day be manifested, when Jesus shall take to Himself His great power and reign. Blessed will they be in that day who are called to the narriage supper of the Lamb! (Rev. xix. 9.)

1. — [The third day.} The question naturally arises, " What day was this? From what day was it the third?" The most probable answer is, that it was the third day after the last event described in the preceding chapter, the third day after Nathanael was brought to Jesus and became a disciple. The meaning therefore is, " The third day after the conversation between Jesus and Nathanael."

[A marriage in Oana.] Let it be remembered, that we are told elsewhere that Nathanael was an inhabitant of Cana. (John xxi. 2.) This makes it far from improbable, that Nathanael, after he became a disciple, invited our Lord to visit the place where he lived. Cana is a place not mentioned in the Old Testament. Robinson, in his Biblical Researches, says it was a village about three hours' journey from Nazareth.

[The mother of Jesus was there.] We must suppose that the Virgin Mary was in some way connected with the bride or bridegroom, and was therefore present at the marriage and assisting in the arrangements of the feast. Without some such supposition it is difficult to understand her speaking to the servants, as she afterwards does.

The absence of Joseph's name, both here and in other places where the mother of our Lord is mentioned in the Gospels and Acts, has induced most commentators to think that Joseph was dead when our Lord began His public ministry. Tlie point is one of which we know nothing except by conjecture. It deserves notice, however, that the Jews of Capernaum speak of Jesus as " the?on of Joseph, whose fathei^ and mother we know^ (John vi. 42) IP it had been profitable to us to know more about Jo>eph, we should have been told more. The Roman Catholic Church has already given him a superstitious reverence, upon the authority of tradition, and withput the slightest warrant of Scripture. What would have not been said about Joseph by the Romish Churo,h, if he had been more prominently mentioned in God's Word?

Lighlfool points out that a comparison of Mark iii. 18, Mark vi. 3, and John xix. 25, makes it exceedingly probable that the Virgin Mary's sister, called elsewhere Mary, the wife of Clcophas or Alfheus, and all her family, lived at Cana. He observes, that in the list of our Lord's " brethren " or cousins we find the following names, — James, Joses, Juda, and Simon. Of these he thinks that James, Juda, and Simon were apostles. James tt e apostle is expressly called " the brother of our Lord," and the son of Alpheus, and Jude is expressly called brother of this James (Gal. i. 19; Jude 1.) The remaining brother, Simon, he think was the apostle who is called Simon the Canaanite. This, Lightfoot argues, is a proof that his father and mother lived at Cana; and hence he concludes that this marriage feast was in the house of Alpheus. That Alpheus and Cleophas were th-e same person is a general and well-founded opinion.

2. — [Jesus was called.,.disciples.'] Our Lord was doubtless invited as the Virgin Mary's son. His disciples were invited as His friends and companions. We cannot, of course, suppose, at so early a period of our Lord's ministry, that He was recognized as a religious teacher, or those with Him as disciples of a new faith. The disciples here spoken of must be the five mentioned in the last chapter, viz., Andrew and his companion, (probably John.) Simon Peter, Philip, and Nathanael.

{To the marriage^ We know nothing about the names of the bride and bridegroom. There is a legend among Romish writers that the bridegroom was John the apostle, and that though married, John left wife and home at once, in order to become Christ's disciple! The whole story is utterly destitute of Scriptural foundation, and a tissue of improbabilities. Baronius conjectures that the bridegroom was Simon the Canaanite, but witliout any proof worth mentioning.

Let it be noted, that the presence of Jesus, and His disciples, and the Virgin Mary at a marriage, is a significant fact, which stands out in strong contrast to the Patristic and Roman Catholic doctrine, of the imperfection of the state of marriage compared to that of celibacy. " Forbidding to marry " is a doctrine of Antichrist, not of Christ. (1 Tim. iv. 3.)

The Roman Catholic argument, that Christ, by His presence, made marriage a sacrament, is utterly worthless. Dyke remarks that we might ns well call feasts and burials sacraments, because Christ was pre-^ent at them. He says, " There is required a word

of institution to make a sacrair.ent. Let the Papists show any such word here used. And if Christ did make marriaj,e a sacrament, why do they call it a work of the flesh? Are saciaments works of the fle.sh? "

The suggestion of some modern writers, that our Lord's presence at a marriage feast condemns those Christians who decline to go to such amusements as balls, and routs, and dancing-parties, has no weight in it at all. The objects for which people meet together at a marriage feast and at a ball are widely different. The one is a mere irrehgious assembly for pleasure and recreation of a very questionable tendency, entailing late hours, and ministering to worldliness, levity, and the love of display. The other is a gathering of friends to witness the most important step in life that two persons can take, and a gathering closely connected with a religious ceremony.

3. — [ When they wanted ivine.'] The Greek words so rendered mean literally, " Wine having failed." This circumstance probably shows the poor and humble condition of those to whose marriage Jesus was invited. His acquaintances and those of His mother were not wealthy persons.

It throws light on this expression, and indeed on the whole story, to remember that a marriage feast among the Jews was often an affair of several days' duration, and an occasion when many were invited. Consequently it entailed not only much expense, but a considerable consumption of food and wine. Thus Samson's marriage feast lasted seven days. (Judges xv. 10—18.) Thus the marriage fea^t described in the par,.ble of the King's Son, was a feast which large numbers were invited to attend. (Matt. xxii. 2, &c.) This being the case, we may well understand that in the feasts of those who were not wealthy the wine might soon run short, without there having been any excess of drinking. So it seems to have happened in the case before us.

[^TTie mother of Jesus.... saith.... no wine.] This little sentence has given rise to various and strange interpretations.

Some have thought, as Bengel. that Mary suggested to our Lord that it was time for Him and His disciples to depart and leave the feast, in order to spare the feelings of the bride and bridegr >om, and to avoid exposing their poverty.

Some have thought, as Calvin, that she wished our Lord to occupy the minds of the guests by profitable discourse, and so to take off their attention from the deficiency of wine.

By far the most reasonable and probable idea is, that Mary conjectured that our Lord might in some way supply the deficiency of wine. How it would be done she could not tell. There is not the slightest ground for supposing that our Lord had ever worked a miracle up to this time. But it wculd be foolish to suppose that Mary did not remember well all the miraculous I ireumstances of our Lord's birth, and all the words spoken before by the angel Gabriel concerning Him. — "We cannot doubt, that altho jgh our Lord had lived a quiet li'e at Nazareth for thirty \ ears, and done no miracles, His motlier must have observed in Him a per''ection of word and deed utterly unlike the behaviour of common men. — We cannot doubt that she was aware of all the events of the la?t few weeks, — our Lord's baptism by John, John's public proclamation of JELim as the Messiah, and the gatheiini^ around Jesr.s of a small knot of disciples. — Remembering all these thing-, we surely need not wonder that Marv'a expectations were greatly raised. She looJ<:ed for her Son speedily doing some great mir:icle. She was in daily expectation that He would prove Himself the Messiah by some mighty act. And it was under these feelings that she turned to Him, saying, " They have no wine." It is as though she said, — " Surely the time is come for declaring thyself. Manifest thy power, as I have long expected thee to do, by providing a supply of wine."

The argument which the Roman Catholics draw from this expression in favour of the Virgin Mary's intercession in heaven for sinners, and the consequent lawfulness of praying to her, is utterly worthless, and most unhappy. For one thing, it does not follow, because the petitions of living saints are heard upon earth, that the petitions of dead saints in heaven. are effectual. For another thing, it is an unfortunate fact, that this petition, the only one that we ever find addressed to our Lord by the Virgin Mary, brought from Him an immediate rebuke! Men must be in great straits for an argument when they can reason in this way in defence of the invocation of saints!

^Melancthon, Chemnitius, and others, think that this want of wine at the marriage feast is purposely mentioned in order to remind married persons, or those who intend marriage, that matrimony brings with it cares as well as comforts, and specially cares from poverty. They that marry do well, and with Christ's blessmg will have happiness. But they must not expect to escape " trouble in the flesh " from the very day of marriage. (1 Cor. vii. 28.)

i. — [Jesus saith, Woman, what, &c., <fec.] This remarkable verse has naturally attracted great attention. In interpreting it, it is very important to avoid the extremes into which some Protestants and nearly all Roman Cathohc writers have fallen, in their interpretations.

On the one side we must not lay too much stress on the expression " Woman." It is surely a mistake to suppose, as. Calvin and (t'ners suggest, that it conveys any reproof, or is anywise inconsistent with reverence and respect. The very same expression was used by our Lord when He addressed His mother for the last time on the cross, and aflfectionatedy commended her to John's care. He said, " Woman, behold thy son." (John xix. 26.) The Yirgm Mary was an erring woman, hke all other believing women, but we must not lay more blame on her than Scripture warrants.

On the other side, it is useless to deny that our Lord's words were intended, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius say, to be a rebuke to Mary. She erred here, perhaps from aflfectionate desire to bring honour to her Son, as she erred on other occasions. The words before us were meant to remind her, that she must henceforth leave our Lord to choose His own times and modes of acting.- The season of subjection to her and Joseph was over. The season of his public ministry had at length begun. In carrjing on that ministry, she must not presume to suggest to Him. The utter contrariety of this verse to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church about the Virgin Mary is too palpable to be explained away. She was not without error and sin, as Romish writers have dared to assert, and was not meant to be prayed to and adored. If our Lord would not allow His mother even to suggest to Him the working of a miracle, we may well suppose that aU Roman Catholic prayers to the Virgin Mary, and especially prayers entreating her to " command her Son," are most offensive and blasphemous in His eyes.

The Greek expression, rendered "what have I to do Avith thee," would be translated literally, "what to me and thee?" It is an elliptical expression, of which the full meaning probably is, "What is there in common to me and thee? " " My thoughts," as Bengel says, " are one thing, and thine another." — It is the same phrase that is used in an interrogative form in Matt. viii. 29; Mark i. 24, v. 7; Luke viii 28; and in an imperative form in Matt, xxvii. 19.

[Mine hour is not yet come.] The simplest and most reasonable view of these words is to refer them to Christ's "hour" or time for working a miracle. It is like the expression, " my time is not yet full come." (John vii. 8.) Our Lord did not tell Mary that He would not work a miracle. But He would have her know that she roust not expect Him to do mighty works to please His relatives after the flesh. He would only work a miracle, upon this or any other occasion, when the fitting season f3r it, the time appointed in God's counsel, had arrived.

There is a curious idea maintained by Augustine, Wordsworth, and others, that our Lord here referred to the hour of His crucifixion, and that He meant, " My hour is not yet come for recog nizing thee and honouring thee publicly as my mother, but 1 shall do it one day on the cross." This however seems a very far-fetched and improbable application of the words.

L. — [His mother saUh.,.do it] Two tilings are very noteworthy in this verse. One is the meekness v^^ith which the Yiigin Mary submitted to the gentle rebuke which came from our Lord's mouth, in the last verse. The other is the firm faith which she still exhibited in our Lord's power to work a miracle in order to supply the lack of wine, and in the probability of His working it.

Dyke observes, " The direction which Mary gives to the ser vants belongs to us all. We must perform simple obedience to Christ in all things; His sayings mu^t be our doings. No reasoning of the matter must there be, no inquiry, as into men's commandments and speeches; but this must suffice, ' Christ hath said it.' This is the bhnd obedience which Jesuits yield to their superiors, but it is the obedience that belongs to Christ. Many will do something that Christ says, but not whatsoever He says."

It is not, perhaps going too far to say, that after observing her Son's perfect life and perfect wisdom during tliirty years at Nazareth, Mary spoke the words before us with special confidence, and with a greater depth of meaning than appears on the surface of the sentence. — "Whatsoever He says deserves attention. Whatsoever He says, do it." — At any rate the verse contains a deep practical lesson for the whole Church of Christ. Whatsoever Christ says, let us obey and do.

G. —[Six water-pots....after the manner....Jews.] St. John mentions these details in describing the miracle, with a special reference to Gentile readers. He meant them to understand that there was nothing remarkable in the circumstance that there were six large water-pots of stone in the place where the feast was held. The peculiar customs of the Jews about ceremonial washings and purifyings, made it necessary to have a large supply of water at hand. The words of St. Mark throw light on the verse before us: — " The Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders," &c. (Mark vii. 3, &c.) The presence of the six water-pots, therefore, could not arise from coUusion or pre-arrangement. It was a natural consequence of Jewish habits in our Lord's times.

[Two or three firlins apiece.] Many fooHsh and unprofitable r^-niarks have been built on this expression, as to the very large quantity of wine w^hich our Lord must have created when the miracle we are considering was wrought. It might suffice to reply that there is much uncertainty about th5 precise quantity of liquid which the ancient measure, which we here render " firkins," contained. But the best and safest answer is, that we must not measure the demands of a Jewish marriage feast, which perhaps lasted several days, and included a large number of guests, by the feasts of our own times.

7. — [J£sus saith....fll the water-pots, dc] The remark is frequently made Dy commentators on this verse, \vith much propriety, that these simple words describe the duty of all who woik for Christ, and especially of ministers and teachers. They aie to hear Christ's voice, and do as He tells them, and then leave the result to Him. Duties are ours. Events are God's. It is ours to fill the water-pots. It is Christ's to make the water wine.

[Up to the hrim.] This circumstance is no doubt mentioned in order to show that there was no room left for trick, jugglery, or imposture. What was put into the water-pots was water, and only water, and they were so filled that nothing could be infused, or mingled with their contents.

8. — [And he saith...draw out now.] It was at this moment, no doubt, that the miracle took place. By an act of will our Lord changed the contents of the water-pots. That which was poured in was water. That which was drawn out was wine. To Him who created the vine and made it bear grapes at the first, the change was perfectly easy. He who could create matter out of nothing, could much more easily change one kind of matter into another.

[The governor of the feast.] Thi& person appears to have been one who presided at large entertainments like that before us, and superintended all the proceedings. The Greek word so rendered, is precisely the same as that translated " ruler of the feast," in the following verse. The presence of such a person at feasts was a well-known custom among the Greeks and Eomans.

9. — [Tasted... wine... Ten ew not whence it was.] The testimony of the ruler of the feast is specially adduced, in order to show the reality of the miracle. He knew nothing of what had been done to the water-pots. He had not seen the water poured in by our Lord's command. There was no collusion or conspiracy between him and the servants, much less between him and our Lord. Hence the value of his testimony. He not only testifies that the liquid which a few minutes before was water was now wine, but that it was also wine of more than common goodness and strength, — not wine mixed with water, but pure, good wine.

Let the word " tasted " be carefully noticed in this place. It supplies a strong incidental argument against the Romish doctrine of transubsfantiation. The occasion before us is the only known occasion on which our Lord changed one liquid into another. When He did so change it, the reality of the change was at once proved by the "taste." Why is it then that in ihe oretended change of the sacramental wine in the Lord's Supper into Christ's blood the change cannot be detected by the senses? Why does the wine after consecration tasle Hke wine, jus' as it did before? — These are questions which the Roman Caihohcs rannot satisfactorily answer. The pretended change of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper is a complete delusion. It is contradicted by the senses of every communicant. The bread after consecration is still bread, and the wine is still wine. That which contradicts our senses we are nowhere required in God's Word to beHeve.

10, — {Every man at the heginning, d;c.] The words in this sentence must not be pressed too closely, in order to bring out of them a spiritual meaning. The ruler of the feast makes a general remark about the way in which banquets were usually managed. The ordinary custom was to bring the best wine first, and the inferior wine last. But the wine before him, drawn from the water-pots, was so singularly good, that the custom of this day seemed reversed. The verse is a strong incidental testimony to the reality and greatness of our Lord's miracle. Not only did He change water into wine, but into wine so singularly good as to excite remark and attention.

[ When men have weU drunk.] Foohsh remarks have sometimes been made on this expression, as if our Lord had countenanced excessive drinking on this occasion. For one thing, it may be remarked that the Greek word rendered " have well drunk," does not necessarily imply intoxication. It may be justly interpieted, as Schleusner and Parkhurst observe, "have drunk sufficiently, or drunk freely." — Men who have had enough, are indifferent as to the quality of the wine set before them. For another thing, we must remember that the ruler of the feast was only making a general remark about men's ordinary customs in supplying wine to their guests. There is nothing whatever to show that he was alluding to the guests actually before him.

[Thou hast kept the good wine until noiv.] A good practical remark has often been raised from these words of the ruler of the feast. The world gives its best things, like the best wine, first, and its worst things last. The longer we serve the w^orld, the more disappointing, unsatisfactory, and unsavoury will its gifts prove, Christ, on the other hand, gives His servimts their best things last. They have first the cross, the race, and the battle, and then the rest, the glory, and the crown. Specially will it be found true at his second advent. Then will believers say emphatically, " Thou hast kept the good wine until now." These are pious and useful thoughts. But it may be doubted whether they are more than accommodations.

This is perhaps the proper place to remark, that it seems utterly impossible, on any fair and honest interpretation, to reconcile the passage before us with the leading principles of whs* is commonly called " Teetotalism," If our Lord Jesus Christ actually worked a miracle in order to supply wine at a marriage feast, ic seems to me impossible, by any ingenuity, to prove that drinking wine is sinful. Temperance in all things is one of the fruits of the Spirit. An intemperate man is an unconverted man. Total abstinence from fermented liquors is in many cases most useful and desirable. But to say, as many do say, that to drink any fermented liquor at all is '" a sin," is taking up ground that cannot be maintained in the face of the passage before us, without wresting the plain meaning of Scripture, and charging Christ with abetting sin.

). — [TJiis heginning of miracles, t&c] The plain meaning of this sentence seems to be that this was the first miracle which cur Lord Jesus Christ ever worked. The miracles which some have reported that He worked in His infancy and childhood, are destitute of the slightest foundation in Scripture, and utterly unworthy of credit. Those who wish to see their absurdity will find specimens of them in the preliminary Essay to Trench's Notes on Miracles.

Lightfoot suggests the five following reasons why the miracle now before us was purposely the first that Christ worked. 1. As marriage was the first institution ordained by God, so at a marriage was Christ's first miracle. 2. As Christ had showed Himself miraculous a little while ago by a fast, so He doth now by an extraordinary provision at a fea'>t. When He would not make stones bread, it was not because He could not. 3. He would not make stones into bread to satisfy Satan, but He was willing to turn water into wine to show forth His own glory. 4. The first miracle wrought in the world by man was transformation, (Exod. vii. 9,) and the first miracle wrought by the Son of Man was of the same nature. 5. The first time you hear of John the Baptist, you hear of his strict diet, and so the first time you hear of Christ in His public ministry, you hear of Him at a marriage feast.

\^}fanifested forth his glory.] I am unable to see that those words refer to the expression used in the first chapter, " We beheld his glory." (Jonn i. 14.) I believe the meaniag to be that " by this miracle Jesus now for the first time opened or revealed His glorious and divine power, and His commission to be the Messiah." After thirty years' seclusion at Nazxreth, He now for the first time hfted up the veil which He h id thrown over His divinity in becoming flesh, and revealed so nething of His almighty power and Grodhead.

[His disciples believed on him.] These words cannot of cc urse rcican that Arndew, and John, and Peter, and Philip, and Nathanael now believed on Jesus for the first time. The probable meaning is, that from this time forth they believed more confidently, more implicitly, and more unhesitatingly. From this time they felt thorougly convinced, in spite of much remaining ignorance, that He whom they were following was the Messiah.

I cannot close the note or this wonderful miracle without saying something about the allegorical and typical meanings assigned to it by the fathers and many other commentators. Many see in the miracle an allegorical history of the introduction of the Grospel into the world. Like the marriage feast, the Gospel was an occasion of joy. As at the marriage feast, the personal presence of Jesus was the great feature of the Gospel. The times of the Jewish dispensation were times of deficiency and dim light. The coming of Christ supplied all that was lacking. Revealed religion before Christ was like water. Christ coming into the world turned the water of the old dispensation into wine. The good wine was reserved until the time of Christ. The first miracle wrought by Moses was turning water into blood. The first wrought by Christ was turning water into wine.

These are undoubtedly pious thoughts, and full of truth. I should be sor y to speak harshly of them, or to pronounce decidedly that they may not be legitimately deduced from the miracle. I only venture the remark, that it is far wiser to abstain from allegorical interpretations as a general rule, and to be content with the plain meaning which appears on the surface of Scripture. Once begin allegorizing Scripture, and you never know where you are to stop. You may prove anything, and find anything in the Bible upon the allegorical system, and at last throw open the floodgate to a torrent of wild fanaticism.

The allegorical lessons drawn from this miracle by Augustine, Bernard, and Alcuin, are striking examples of the extremes into M'^hich allegory may run. When such a man as Augustine, for instance, tells us that the two or three firkins mean the two races of men, Jews and Greeks, or the three sons of Noah, — or when he says that the six water-pots in the miracle before us denote six successive prophetical periods in the days between Adam and Christ, one cannot but feel that there is something

wrong. These are his words, "The six water-pots, containing two or three firkins apiece, are six ages, containing the prophecy belonging to all nations, whether as referred to two kinds of men, Jews and Gentiles, as the apostle often says, or to three, on account of the three sons of Noah." The system of inter-

preting Scripture which can lead a good man into such assertions as this, must surely be a dangerous two-edged weapon, and likely to do more harm than good.

That all our Lord's miracles were deeply significant, I do not deny. Tnat all were intended to convey deep spiritual lessons, beside supplying proofs of His divinity, I make no question. All I maintain is that they require reverent and delicate Landling, and that to rush hastily into allegorical interpretations of them, and invest every minute portion of them with a figurative meaning, is an unwise mode of handling Scripture, and eminently calculated to bring the Bible into contempt.

Hardly any commentator has drawn more useful practical lessons Irom this miracle than Melancthon. Those who think lightly of Protestant divinity would do well to compare his commentary on the whole passage with that of Augustine.

12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

13 And the Jews' Passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen: and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

1 6 And said unto them that sold doves. Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

11 And his disciples remembered that it was written. The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

18 Then answered the Jews and iaid:mtc him, "What sign shewest thoi. unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? I

The second miracle which our Lord is recorded to have wrought demands our attention in these verses. Like the fii'st miracle at Cana, it is eminently typical and significant

19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

23 Now when he was in Jerusalem, at the Passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knev? what was in man.

ot things yet to come. To attend a marriage feast, and cleanse the temple from profanation were among the first acts of our Lord's ministry at His first coming. To purify the whole visible Church, an4 hold a marriage supper, will be amongst His first acts, when He comes again.

We see, for one thing, in this passage, liow much Christ disapproves all irreverent behaviour in the house of God.

We are told that He drove out of the temple those whom He found selling oxen and sheep and doves within its walls, — that He poured out the changers' money and overthrew their tables, — and that He said to them that sold doves, " take these things hence, make not my Father's house an house of merchandise." On no occasion in our Lord's earthly ministry do we find Him acting so energetically, and exhibiting such righteous indignation, as on the occasion now before us. Nothing seems to have called from Him such a marked display of holy wrath as the gross irreverence which the priests permitted in the temple, notwithstanding all their boasted zeal for God's law. Twice, it will be remembered. He discovered the same profanation of His Father's house going on, within three years, once at the beginning of His ministry and once at the end. Twice we see Him expressing his displeasure in the strongest terms. " The thing is doubled '* in order to impress a lesson more strongly on our minds.

The passage is one that ought to raise deep searchings of heart in many quarters. Are there none who profess and call themselves Christians, behaving every Sunday just as badly as these Jews? Are there none who secretly bring into the house of God their money, their lands, their houses,- their cattle, and a whole train of worldly affairs? Are there none who bring their bodies only into the place of worship, and allow their hearts to wander into the ends of the earth? Are there none who are "almost in all evil, in the midst of the congregation?" (Prov. v. 14.)

These are serious questions! Multitudes, it may be feared, could not give them a satisfactory answer. Christian churclies and chapels, no doubt, are very unlike the Jewish temjile. They are not built after a divine pattern. They have no altars or holy places. Their furniture has no typical meaning. But they are places where God's word is read, and where Christ is specially present. The man who professes to worship in them should surely behave with reverence and respect. The man who brings his worldly matters with him when he professes to worship, is doing that which is evidently most offensive to Christ. The words which Solomon wrote by the Holy Ghost are applicable to all times, " Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God." (Eccles. v. 1.)

We see, for another thing, in this passage, how men may remember words of religious truth long after they are spoken^ and may one day see a meaning in them which at first they did not see.

We are told that our Lord said to the Jews, " Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." St. John informs us distinctly that " He spake of the temple of His body," that he referred to His own resurrection. Yet the meaning of the sentence was not understood by our Lord's disciples at the time that it was spoken. It was not till '' He was risen from the dead," three years after the events here described, that the full significance of the sentence flashed on their hearts. For three years it was a dark and useless saying to them. For three years it lay sleeping in their minds, like a seed in a tomb, and bore no fruit. But at the end. of that time the darkness passed away. Tliey saw the application of their Master's words, and as they saw it were confirmed in their faith. "They remembered that He had said this," and as they remembered " they believed."

It is a comfortable and cheering thought, that the same kind of thing tliat happened to the disciples is often going on at the present day. The sermons that are preached to apparently heedless ears in churches, are not all lost and thrc Tvn away. The instruction that is given in schools and pastoral visits, is not all wasted and forgotten. The texts that are taught by parents to children are not all taught in vain. There is often a resurrection of sermons, and texts, and instruction, after an interval of many years. The good seed sometimes springs up after he that sowed it has been long dead and gone. Let preachers go on preaching, and teachers go on teaching, and parents go on training up children in the way they should go. Let them sow the good seed of Bible truth in faith and patience. Their labour is not in vain in the Lord. Their words are remembered far more than they think, and will yet spring up "after many days." (1 Cor. xv. 58; Eccles. xi. 1.)

"We see, lastly, in this passage, how perfect is our Lord Jesus Ghrisfs knowledge of the human heart.

We are told that when our Lord was at Jerusalem, the first time, He "did not commit Himself" to those who professed belief in Him. He knew that they were not to be depended on. They were astonished at the miracles which they saw Him work. They were even intellectually convinced that He was the Messiah, whom they had long expected. But they were not "disciples indeed." (John viii. 31.) They were not converted, and true believers. Their hearts were not right in the sight of God, though their feelings were excited. Their inward man was not renewed, whatever they might profess with their lips. Our Lord knew that nearly all of them were stony-ground hearers. (Luke viii. 13.) As soon as tribulation or persecution arose because of the word, their so-called faith would probably wither away and come to an end. All this our Lord saw clearly, if others around Him did not. Andrew, and Peter, and John, and Philip, and Nathanael, perhaps wondered that their Master did not receive these seeming believers with open arms. But they could only judge things by the outward appearance. Their Master could read hearts. " He knew what was in man."

The truth now before us, is one which ought to make hypocrites and false professors tremble. They may deceive men, but they cannot deceive Christ. They may wear a cloak of religion, and appear, like whited sepulchres, beautiful in the eyes of men. But the eyes of Christ see their inward rottenness, and the judgment of Christ will surely overtake them, except they repent. Christ is already reading their hearts, and as He reads He is displeased. They are known in heaven, if they are not known on earth, and they will be known at length to their shame, before assembled worlds, if they die unchanged. It is written, " I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead." (Rev. iii. 1.)

But the truth before us has two sides, like the pillar of cloud and fire at the Red sea. (Exod. xiv. 20.) If it looks darkly on hypocrites, it looks brightly on true believers. If it threatens wrath to false professors, it speaks peace to all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. A real Christian may be weak, but he is true. One thing, at any rate, the servant of Christ can say, when cast down by a sense of his own infirmity, or pained by the slander of a lying world. He can say, " Lord, I am a poor sinner, but I am in earnest, I am true. Thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. Thou knowest all hearts, and thou knowest that, weak as my heart is, it is a heart that cleaves to thee." The false Christian shrinks from the eye of an all-seeing Saviour. The true Christian desires his Lord's eye to be on him morning, noon, and night. Ho has notliing to hide.