Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

22. — [Came Jesus...mto...land ofJudcea.] Some have thought, from this expression, that the conversation between Christ and Nicodemus did not take place in Jerusalem or Judaea, but in Galilee. Others have thought that a long interval must be supposed to have elapsed betvv^een the conversation and the events wliich are here narrated. — I can agree with neither view. — I believe the true explanation is, that "the land" here spoken of means the rural part or territory of Judaea, in contradistinction to the capital town of the territory, Jerusalem. The meaning will then be, that Jesus left the city and went into the country districts. The expression, " Thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judaea," is similar. (Matt. ii. 6.)

[He tarried.] The Greek word so rendered signifies a lengthened stay. It is translated in other places "continued" or "abode." It is note-worthy that many of the events of our Lord's ministry in Jerusalem and the surrounding district, are evidently not recorded in any of the Gospels.

[And baptized.] That our Lord did not baptize with His own hands, but left the ordinance to be administered by His disci[>les, as work inferior to that of preaching, we may learn firom the next chapter. (John iv. 2.)

nar.ces by h's ministers, accordinj^ to His institution, is as His own work. The disciples' baptizing is called His baptizing."

The questions have often been raised, "In what name was this baptism administered?" " Was it a baptism that needed tj be repeated after the day of Pentecost?" — The most probab'e answer to the first question is, that it was a baptism in the name of Jesus, upon profession of belief that he was the Messiali. The most probable answer to the second question is, that it was certainly not a baptism that required repetition. To suppose that a baptism, administered by our Lord's disciples, under our Lord's own eye, and by our Lord's own command, was not as effectual and profitable an ordinance as any baptism that was ever afterwards administered, is a most improbable supposition.

It may be remarked here, that there is no ground for the common idea, that it is absolutely necessary that baptism should be administered in the name of the Trinity, in order to be a valid and Christian baptism. In three cases recorded in the Acts we are expressly told that baptism was administered in the name of Jesus Christ, and no mention is made of all three Persons in the Trinity. (See Acts ii. 38; viii. 37; x. 48.) In all these cases, however, it will be remembered, baptism in the name of Christ was practically baptism in the name of the Trinity. It was confession of faith in Him whom the Father sent, and who was the giver of the Holy Q-host.

As a general rule in the Church of Christ, no doubt, baptism ought to be in the name of the Trinity. (Matt, xxviii. 19.) But that our Lord's disciples, in the place now before us, did not baptize in the name of the Trinity is pretty certain, and that baptism in the name of Jesus is vaHd Christian baptism seems clear from the places referred to in Acts.

Hutcheson remarks, that " Christ's own bodily presence, filled with the Spirit without measure, did not take away the use of external ordinances," such as baptism. The Quaker's opinion, that we need no external ordinances under the Gospel, is hard to reconcile with such a text as this.

23. — [John also was baptizing.] We can hardly doubt that John baptized all who came to him, at this period of his ministry, in the name of Jesus, upon confession of faith that Jesus was the Messiah. It seems most improbable that after publicly pointing out Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God, and the promised Saviour, he would be content to baptize with the baptism of repentance, which he had administered before Christ appeared. In short, John's baptism at tiiis period, and the baptism administered by Christ's disciples, must have been precisely the same.

Catholics, and those who agree with them, that there was an essential diflference between John's baptism and Christian baptism, seems to me entirely destitute of foundation. I agree A\ilh Brentius, Lightfoot, and most of the Protestant commentators, that John's baptism and Christian baptism differed only in circumstantials, but were the same in substance, and tliat a person baptized by John the Baptist had no need to be re baptized after the day of Pentecost. — Unless we take this view, I cannot see any evidence that Peter, and Andrew, and James, and John ever received Christian baptism at all. There is not a single word in the Grospel to show that they were ever baptized again after leaving John the Baptist's company, and becoming Chris' 'a disciples. Moreover, we are expressly told that " Jesus himself baptized not." (John iv. 2.) The only baptism that the first apostles received appears to have been John the Baptist's baptism. This fact seems to me to prove irresistibly, that John's baptism was essentially of equal value with Christian baptism, and that a person baptized by John had no need to be baptized again.

The well-known passage in Acts, (Acts xix. 1 — 6,) which is always quoted in opposition to the view I maintain, does not appear to me at all conclusive and decisive upon the question now before us. — For one thing, the persons described in that passage as having only been baptized with John's baptism, seem to have been ignorant of the first principles of Christianity. They said, "we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." That expression shows pretty clearly that they had not been hearers of John the Baptist, who frequently spoke of the Holy Ghost, (Matt. iii. 11,) and had not been baptized by John himself — It is most probable that they were inhabitants of Ephesus, who had only heard Apollos preaching, and knew even less than their teacher. Whether St. Paul might not think it needful to administer baptism to such ignorant disciples as these, who could give no intelligent account of Christianity, is a question I would not undertake to decide. — But beside this, it is by no means certain that these disciples were really baptized again with water at all. Brentius holds that the words, "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," mean the baptism of the Spirit. Streso maintains that the words are the concluding sentence of St. Paul's address to these ignorant men. I cannot say that either of these last views is altogether satisfactory. All I say is, that I would infinitely rather adopt either of them, than hold such a monstrous opinion as the Romish one, that John's baptism was not Christian baptism at all, and needed to be repeated. The difficulties in the way of this last view appear to me far greater than the difl&culties in the way of the one which I support. To say that the first five apostles never received any Christian baptism at all is really preposterous. To assert that Christ Himself baptized them is tc ct^bert what tht Bible never even hints at. There is not a shadow of proof that Jesus ever baptized a single person. I see no escape from the conclusion that Andrew, John, Peter, Philip, and Nathanael either received John's baptism or no baptism at all.

Whatever men may think about John's baptism before the time when our Lord appeared, they will never prove that the baptism he administered in the text before us was not Christian baptism. To suppose that John would go on administering an ordinance which he knew was imperfect, while Christian baptism was being administered by Christ's disciples a few miles off, is simply absurd.

l^non near to Salim.] It is not certainly known where this place was. The probability is that it was somewhere in Judaea. In the list of the cities given to the tribe of Juda, we find together " Shilhim and Ain." (Josh. xv. 32.) It is very possible that these two may be the ''^non and Salim" now before us. The changes which proper names undergo in passing from one language to another, every one knows, are very great.

[Because there was much wateri] It is frequently assumed from this expression, that John's baptism was immersion and not sprinkling, and that on this account a great supply of water was absolutely needful. It may perhaps have been so. The point is one of no importance. That immersion, however, is necessary to the validity of baptism, and that sprinkling alone is not sufficient, are points that can never be demonstrated from Scripture. So long as water is used, it seems to be left a matter of indifference whether the person baptized is dipped or sprinkled. I should find it very hard to believe that the three thou?and baptized on the day of Pentecost, or the jailor and his family, bapiized at midnight in the Phihppian prison, were all immersed. The Church of England wisely allows either mode of applying wa er to be used. To suppose that dipping is forbidden to English Churchmen is mere ignorance.

[They came...l)aptized.] This is an elliptical sentence. "We are not told who are meant by " they." It is like " men," in Matt. V. 15, and means generally " people."

24..— [John... not yet..prison^ John's diUgence in his Master's work is here pointed out. He doubtless knew that his ministry was fulfilled when Christ appeared, and that the time of his own departure, and violent death under Herod's hands, was at hand. Yet he worked on to the very last. "Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord when he cometh shall find so doing." (Matt xxiv. 46.)

God's providence, in order to prevent any distraction in people's minds between him and Christ.

25. — [There arose...quefition... disciples...Jews...purifying.'] The nature and partimlnrs of this dispute must be left to conjecture. We can only form an idea of it from the context. It seems probable that it was a dispute between the unbelieving Jews and the disciples of John the Baptist, about the comparative value of the two baptisms which were being administered in Judea, viz., John's baptism and Christ's. — Which was the most puiifying? Which was the most efficacious? Which was the most valuable of the two? — The Jews probably taunted John's disciples wiih the dechne of their master's popularity. John's disciple^, in ignorant zeal and heat for their master, probably contended that no new teacher's baptism could possibly be more purifying and valuable than their own master's.

Wordsworth remarks upon the word '' purifying," that St. John never uses the word " baptism," and never calls John the Baptist by his common surname " the Baptist." He says " John was no longer the Baptist, when St. John wrote. His baptism had passed away."

Musculus, on this verse, observes the excessive readiness of men in every age to raise questions, controversies, and persecutions about ceremonies of merely human institution, while about faith, and hope, and love, and humility, and patience, and mortification of the flesh, and renewal of the Spirit, they exhibit no zeal at all.

Controversies about baptism certainly appear to be among the oldest and most mischievous by which the Church has been plagued.

26. — [They came unto JoJin^ &cl] The language of the whole verse seems intended to show that John's disciples were jealous for their master's ministry, and that its declining popularity, in consequence of our Lord's appearance in Judsea as a public teacher, was a cause of annoyance to them. The ver^e is an instructive instance of that littleness and party spirit which are?o painfully common among Christians when one minister's popularity is interfered with by the appearance of another.

[He...u-ith thee....thou harest witness.] This expression shows the publicity and notoriety of John's testimony to our Lord as the Messiah and the Lamb of God. It was testimony not borne privately in a corner, but in the hearing and full knowledge of all John's disciples. It would seem to have had very little effect on their minds. The words fell on their ears, but went no further.

surpiise and partly complaint. In any case it show^s how little the balk of John's disciples understood that Jesus was really the Messiah promised in the prophecies. If they hid und-rstoo 1 it, they would surely neither have been surprised nor annoyed at Him for baptizing and becoming popular. They would rather have expected it and rejoiced at it. It is one among many proofs that ministers may be loved by their hearers, and may tell them the truth faithfully, and yet be utterly unable to make their hearers undei stand or believe. Few are like Andrew, and "follow Jesus," when their minister says, "Behold the Lamb." The most are as though they did not hear at all.

[All men come to him.] These words must doubtless be taken with qualification. The expression, "al men," only means, " many persons." We know as a fact that not all men came to Christ. Moreover, we must remember, that out of those who did come to Christ, very few believed. John says in his reply to his disciples, "No man receiveth his testimony." — Allowance must be made for the irritation under which John's disciples spoke. When men are vexed in spirit, by seeing their own party diminishing, they are often tempted to use exaggerated and incorrect expressions.

Hutcheson remarks on this verse, that " Carnal emulation is

an old and great sin in the Church, and even among professors; it being the foul fruit of a carnal temper to look on the success of one man's gifts as the debasing of another's who is faithful, and to count the thriving of G-od's work in one minister's hand the disgracing of another who is not so much flocked to."

Cyril remarks on this verse, how admirably God can bring good out of apparent evil. Here, as in many cases, a carnal and unkind saying of John's disciples gives occasion to John's admirable testimony about Christ.

27. — [John answered....a man can receive nothing, &c.] This sentence is the statement of a general truth in religion. Success, promotion, and growth of influence are gifts which God keeps entirely in His own hands. If one faithful minister's popularity wanes, while another's popularity and influence over men's hearts increase, the thing is of God, and we must submit to His appointment. (Psalm Ixxv. 6.)

The application of the sentence is not to Christ, as Chrysostom thought, but to John the Baptist himself, as Augustine thought. They are meant to imply, " I cannot command continued success in my ministry. I can only receive what God gives me. If He thinks fit to give any one more acceptance with men than myself, I cannot prevent it, and have no right to complain. All success is of God. All that I have had, at any period of my ministry, has been received, and none deserved." — To apply the sentence to our Lord, seems to me an unsatisfactory iaterpreta'ioa, and derogatory to the dignity of Christ's minis'ry. Those who take this view, would probably prefer the marginal reading of the word "receive," and would render it, "No man can take to himself anything." The sentence would then be like St, Paul's words to the Hebrews, " No man taketh this honour unro himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (Heb. v. 4.) But the translation, " receive," and the application to John the Baptist, appear to me more agreeable to the context, and the general spirit of John's reply. And although the word, a " man," ought not to have much s:ress laid upon it, I cannot help thinking that John uses it intentionally, in order to point to himself. "A mere man like me can receive nothing but what is given him from heaven."

Lightfoot thinks that the Greek word rendered " receive " means " perceive," or "apprehend," and that John meant, " I see by this instance of yourselves, that no man can learn or understand anything, unless it be given him from heaven." He re'jards the sentence as John's rebuke to his disciples for incredulity and stupidity. I doubt myself whether the Greek word will bear the sense Lightfoot would put on it.

The expression " from heaven," is equivalent to saying " from God." See Dan. iv. 26; Luke xv. 21.

The whole verse is a most useful antidote to that jealousy which sometimes springs up in a minister's mind, when he sees a brother's ministry prospering more than his own.

28, — [le yourselves hear me witness^....! said, c&c] John here reminds his disciples that he had repeatedly told them that he was not the Christ, and that he was only a forerunner sent before Him. They ought to have remembered this. If they had done so, they would not have been surprised at the rise and progress of Christ's ministry, but would rather have expected Him 10 outshine and surpass their master, as a matter of course.

The verse is an instructive illustration of the forgetfulness of heareis. John's testimony to the dignity of Christ and His superiority to himself had been constantly repeated. But it had been all thrown away on his disciples, and when Christ began to receive greater honours than their master, and their own party began to grow smaller than that of Christ's disciples, they were offended. People soon forget what they do not like.

29. — [^He that hath....bride....hridegroom, (fee] In this verse John the Baptist explains the relative positions occupied by himself and Christ by a famihar illustration. In tracing it out, it is of great importance not to press the points of resemblance too far. Tho illustration is one which specially requires to be handled wilti reverence, decency, and discretion.

The "bride," in the ver^e, signifies the whole company of believers, the Lamb's wile. (Rev. xxi. 9.) The " bridegroom " ia the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The "friend of the bridegroom'' means John the Baptist, and all other faithful ministers of Christ. According to the marriage-customs of the Jews, there were certain persons called the bridegroom's /rienc^s, who were the means of communication between him and the bride before the marriage. Their duty was simply to set forwatd and promote the bridegroom's interests, and to remove all obstacles, as far as possible, to a speedy union of the parties. To accomplish this end and promote a thoroughly good understanding between the bride an I brid groom was their sole office. If they saw the bridegroom's suit prospering, and at last saw him received favourably and gladly by the bride, their end was accomplished and their work was done. To all this John the Baptist makes allusion in the verse now before us. He tells his disciples that his sole work was to set forward and promote a good understanding between Christ and men. If he saw that work prosperiiig he was thankful and would rejoice, even though the result was that his own personal importance was diminished. He would have his disciples know that the growing popularity of Christ which oflfended them, was the very thing which he longed to see. He had no greater joy than to hear of the voice of Christ, the bridegroom, being listened to by believers, the bride. It was the very thing for which he had been preaching and ministering, His " joy was fulfilled."

The word " hath " means " possesses as his own." Possession of the bride, as " bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh," is the peculiar prerogative of the bridegroom. (Gen. ii. 23.) With this his friends have nothing to do.

The expression " standeth," must probably not be pressed too far. • Some think that it is taken from the position occupied by the bridegroom's friends on the day when the bridegroom was first formally introduced to the bride. They stood at a respectful distance and looked on. The expression certainly implies inferiority. St. Paul says that the Jewish priests ^^ stand" daily ministering, but Christ ^'sat down" on the right hand of God. (Heb. X. 12.)

The expression *' heareth the bridegroom's voice," like the last, is one that must not be pressed too far. It is a part of the drapery of the illustration. When report was brought to John the Baptist, that Jesus Christ's ministry was accepted by some, and that He found favour with many disciples, then was fulfilled what is here miant. John ''heard the bridegroom's voice," and saw the successful progress of his mission, and seeing and hearing this "rejoiced."

The whole verse is a most instructive picture of a true minister's work and character. He is a friend of Christ, and is ordained in order to promote a union between Christ and souls. (2 Cor. ii. 2.) He must rigidly adhere to that office, and must never take to himself that which does not belong to him. The minister who allows honour to be given to himself which only belongs to Jesus, and exalts his own office into that of a mediator and priest, is treacherously usurping a position which is not his but his Master's. The professing Christian who treats ministers as if they were priests and mediators, is dishonouring Jesus Christ, and basely giving that honour to the Bridegroom's friends which belongs exclusively to the Bridegroom Himself.

The expression " this my joy is fulfilled," is a very instructive one for ministers. It shows that the truest happiness of a minister should consist in Christ's voice being heard by souls. " Now we live," says St. Paul, " if ye stand fast in the Lord." (1 Thess. iii. 8,) &c.

It deserves notice that when our Lord at another period of His ministry expressly speaks of Himself as " the bridegroom," in His reply to the disciples of John the Baptist (Matt. ix. 15), He seems purposely to remind them of tbeir master's words.

Musculus, on this verse, observes, " The day of the Lord will

declare what kind of zeal that is in our Popish bishops, who profess to be influenced by zeal for the love of the church, which is Christ's bride, against Christ's enemies. The day will declare whether a zeal which makes them shed innocent blood and persecute the members of Christ, is the zeal of true friends of the Bridegroom, or of treacherous suitors of the bride."

30. — [He must increase...!...decrease.] In this sentence John the Baptist tells his complaining disciples that it is right and proper and necessary that Christ should grow in dignity, and that he himself should be less thought of. He was only the servant; Christ was the Master. He was only the forerunner and ambassador, Christ was the King. He was only the morning star; Christ was the Sun. The idea implied appears to be that of the stars gradually fading away, as the sun rises, after the break of day. The stars do not really perish or really become less, bat they pale and become invisible before the superior brightness of the great centre of light. The sun does not really become larger, or really increase in brightness, but it becomes more fully visible, and occupies a position in which it more completely fills our vision. So was it with John the Baptist and Christ. — Every faithful minister ought to be like-minded with John. He must be content to be less thought of by his beheving hearers, in pro* portion as they grow in knowledge and faith, and se( Christ Himself more clearly. As churches decay and fall awaj, they think less of Christ and more of their ministers. As churches revive and receive spiritual life, they think less of ministers and more of Christ. To a decaying church the sun is going down, and the stars are beginning to appear. To a reviving church the stars are waning, and the sun appearing.

31. — [IIe...cometh...ahove... above 021.1 -^"^ ^^^^ sentence John Ihe Baptist asserts the infinite superiority of Christ over himself oi any other child of Adam, whatever office he may fill. Christ is " from above." He is not merely man, but Cod. He came from heaven when He took our nature on Him, and was born. As God, He is as far above all His ministers and servants as the Creator is above the creature. He is " far above all principality, and power, and every name that can be named." He is " Head over ail things to the church," and richly deserves all the honour, and dignity, and respect, and reverence that man can give. (Ephes. i. 21, 22.)

[He that is of the earth... earthly...speaketh...earth.] In this sentence John the Baptist expresses in strong language the comparative inferiority to Christ of himself or of any other minister. " All who like me," he seems to say, " are only men, mere dust and clay, descended from a father who was made out of the dust of the ground^ are comparatively earthly. The weakness and feebleness of our origin pervade all our doings. By nature eaj-thly, our works are earthly, and our speaking and preaching earthly." — In short, there will be a savour of humanity about the ministry of every one who is naturally engendered of the seed of Adam.

The difficulty that some see in John the Baptist calling his own ministry " earthly," is quite needlessly raised. It is evident that he calls it so " comparatively." Compared to the teaching of Scribes and Pharisees it was not earthly but heavenly. Compared to the teaching of Him who came from heaven it was earthly. A candle compared to darkness is light. But the same candle compared to the sun is a poor dim spark.

[He that cometh...heaven...above aV.'\ Tliis sentence is only a repetition of the beginning of the verse. It is a second assertion of Christ's greatness and superiority over any mere man, in order to impress the matter more deeply on those who heard it. " Mark what I tell you," John the Baptist seems to say to his disciples, "I repeat emphatically that Christ having come from heaven, and being by nature God as well as man, is far above me and all othei- ministers, who are only men and nothing more."

Some think, as Erasmus, Bengel, Wetstein, Olshausen, and Tholuck, that John the Baptist's words end with the verse preceding the one now before us, and that the words "He that Cometh from above" begin the comment of John toe EvangeHst. I cannot for a moment admit this idea to be correct. I see no necessity for it. The whole passage runs on naturally, a.^ the language of John the Baptist, to the end of the chapter, i see nothing unsuitable to John the Baptist in the concluding verses. They contain no truth which he was not likely to know. I sec nothing gained by this idea. It throws no new light on the passage, and is an awkward break which would never occur to a simple reader of the Bible.

32. — [W}iat...seen..Jieard...testiJiefh.'\ In this sentence John the Baptist shows the divinity of Christ, and His consequent superiority over himself in another point of view. He says that Christ bears witness to truths which he has " seen and heard." He ia not like mere human ministers who only declare what they have been taught by the Holy Spirit, and inspired to communicate to others. As G-od, He declares with authority truths which Ho had seen, and heard, and known from all eternity with the Father. (John 7. 19, 30; viii. 38.)

Some draw a distinction between what our Lord has seen ana what He has heard. They think that what Christ has " seen,' means what He has seen as one with Grod the Father in essence, and what Christ has " heaid," means what He has heard as a distinct person in the Trinity. — Or else they think that what Christ has " seen," means what He has seen with the Father as Grod, and what He has " heard," what He has heard from the Father as man. — I doubt the correctness of either view. I think it more probable that the expression '' seen and heard," is only a proverbial way of signifying perfect knowledge, such as a person has intuitively or at first hand.

Euthymius thinks, that the expression " seen and heard," was purposely used, because of the weakness of John's hearers; and that such expressions were necessar}', in order to give such hearers any adequate idea of Christ's divine nature.

The word " testifieth " deserves notice, as an expression peculiarly characteristic of Christ's ministry. He told Pilate, "I came into the world that I should bear witness unto the truth." (John xviii. 27.)

\And no man receiveth his testimony.] The expression "no man " in this sentence, must evidently, from the following verses, be taken with qualification. It must mean " very few." Andrew, Peter, Philip, and others, had received Christ's testimony. The sentence seems intended to rebuke the complaint uttered by John's disciples, " All men come unto him." John seems to say, " However many persons come to hear Je3us, you will yet see that very few believe on him. Great as he is, and deserving c/f far more reverence than myself, you have yet to learn, that e\ei he is really beheved on by few'. The crowds who follow him are. unhappily, not true believers. The temporary popularity Avhich attends his ministry, is as worthless as that which attended my own."

Pearce thinks, that the Greek word rendered "and," would have been better translated, " and yet," as in John vii. 19, and ix. 30.

The notion of Augustine's, that "no man," in this sentence means, " none of the wicked," seems very untenable and unsatisfactory.

33. — [He hath received, &c.'\ In this verse John shows the great importance of receiving Christ's testimony. So far from being offended by the crowd which attended Christ's ministry. John's disciples should be thankful that so many heard Him, and that Bome few received His teaching into their hearts.

[Hath set to his seal.'] This expression is peculiar, and found nowhere else in the New Testament, in the same sense. Of course it does not mean any literal sealing. It only means, ''hath formally declared his belief, — hath publicly professed his conviction," — just as a man puts his seal to a document, as a testimony that he consents to its contents. In ancient days, when few comparatively could w^rite, to afl&x a seal to a paper, was a more common mode of expressing assent to it, than to sign a name. — The sentence is equivalent to saying, " He that receives Christ's testimony, has set down his name as one who beUeves that God is true."

[That Ood is true.] These words may be taken two ways. According to some they mean, "He that receives Christ, declares his belief, that it is the true God who has sent Christ; and that Christ is no impostor, but the Messiah, whom the true God of the Old Testament prophets promised to send." — According to others they mean, " He that receives Christ, declares his belief, that God is true to his word, and has kept the promise that he made to Adam, Abraham, and David." That the Greek word rendered " true," will bear this last meaning, seems proved by the expression, " Let God be true, but every man a liar." (Rom. iii. 4.) Either view makes good sense and good divinity; but on the whole, I prefer the second one. It seems to me strongly confirmed by the expression in St. John's 1st Epistle: "He that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believetb not the record that Ged gave of his Son." (1 John v. 10.)

Some have thought that the sentence may mean, "He that receives Christ, declares his belief, that Christ is the true God."

ai.d tliat it is parallel to 1 John v. 20, " This is the true God/' — But I do not- think the Greek words will admit of the interpretation. If they would, the Greek fathers would never have overlooked this text in writing against the Arians. Maldonatus seems to favour this opinion, and says that Cyril holds it. But it certainly does not clearly appear in Cyril's commentary on the place.

Si. — [He ivhom God hath sent] In this verse John the Baptist shows the dignity of Christ, and His superiority over all other teachers, by another striking declaration about Him. He begins by giving Him the well-known epithet which was peculiarly applied to Messiah, " He whom God hath sent, the sent One, — the One whom God has sent into the world according to promise."

[Spea/teth the words of God.] This sentence means that Christ's words were not the words of a mere man, like John himself or one of the prophets. They were nothing less than the words of God. He who heard them heard nothing less than God speaking. The unity of the Father and the Son is so close that he who hears the teaching of the Son hears the teaching of the Father also. (Compare John vii. 16; v. 19; xiv. 10, 11; viii. 28; xii. 49.) When John the Baptist spoke, he spoke merely human words, however true, and good, and scriptural. But when Christ?poke, He spoke divine words, even the words of God

Himself. As Quesnel says, ''He spoke by the Holy Ghost, who is His own Spirit, who inseparably dwelleth in Him, and by the possession of whose fulness He receives His unction and consecration."

Theophylact remarks on this sentence and others like it in St. Swim's Gospels, that we must not suppose that Christ needed to be taught by God the Father what to speak, because whatever ♦^'•c Father knows the Son also knows, as consubstantial with Him. So also when we read of the Son being " sent," we must think of Him as a ray sent from the sun, which is not in reality separate from the sun, but a part of the sun itself.

Some think that the expression, " speaketh the words of God," in this place, has special reference to the promise given to Moses about Messiah, " I will put my words in His mouth." (Deut. xviii. 18.)

[For God giveth not... Spirit hy measure... Htm.] The expression "by measure," in this sentence, means "partially, — scantily, — stintedly, — in small degree." It is the opposite to "fully, — completely,— in unmeasured abundance." Thus we read in Ezekiel's descriptic n of a time of scarcity at Jerusalem, " They shall drink water by measure." (Ezek. iv. 16.)

The whole sentence is peculiar, and requires careful interpietation. The object of John the Baptist is to show once more the infinite superiority of the Lord Jesus over himself or any other man. To all others, even to the most eminent prophets and apostles, God gives the Holy Spirit " by measure," Their gifts and graces are both imperfect. As St Paul says, they " know in part and prophesy in part." (1 Cor. xiii. 9.) But with Him whom Grod hath sent, it is very different. To Him the Holy Ghost is given without measure, in infinite fulness and completeness. In His human nature the gifts and graces of the Spirit are present without the sUghtest shadow of imperfection. As man, Jesus of Nazareth was anointed with the Holy Ghost, and fitted for His ofi&ce as our Priest, and Prophet, and King, in a way and degree never granted to any other man. (Acts x. 38.)

All this is undoubtedly true, but it is not, in my opinion, the whole truth of the sentence. I believe that John the Baptist points not only to our Lord's human nature but to His divinity. I believe his meaning to be, " He whom God hath sent, is One far above prophets and ministers, to whom the Spirit is only given by measure. He is One who is Himself very God. In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. He is One who, as a Person in the Trinity, is eternally and ineffably united with God the Holy Spirit. From Him the Holy Spirit proceeds as well as from the Father, and is the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of the Son. As God, it is impossible that He can be separated from the Holy Spirit. To Him therefore the Spirit is not given by measure, as if He were only a man. He is God as well as man, and as such He needeth not that the Spirit should be given to Him. He has the Spirit without measure, because in the divine essence, He, and the Spirit, and the Father, are One, and undivided."

I am incHned to hold the view just stated, because of the verse which follows. The object cf John the Baptist, in this last testimony to Christ, appears to be to lead his disciples step by step to the highest view of Messiah's dignity. He would have them recognize in Him One who was very God as well as very man. The view of the sentence before us which is commonly adopted, appears to me of an unsafe tendency. That the Spirit was given to our Lord as man, and given without measure, is doubtless true. But we must be very careful that we never forget a truth of no less importance. That truth is, that our Lord Jesus Christ never ceased to be God as well as man, and that as God He was never separate from the Spirit, As Henry says, " The Spirit dwelt in Him, not as in a vessd, but as in a fountain, as iu a bottomless ocean."

It deserves remark, that the concluding words of the verse, " unto Him," are not found in the original Greek. This has led some to maintain that the second clause of the verse is only a general statement, " God is not a God who gives the Spirit by mea ure." But all the best commentat(jrs, from Augustine downwards, hold the view of our translators, that it is Christ who is signified, and that " unto Him" ought to be supplied in any translation,

Chemnitius thinks that this verse specially refers to Isaiah xi. 2, where it is predicted that the seven-fold gifts of the Spirit shall rest on Messiah.

35. — {The Father hveth...Son...given alL.hand.'] There is something, at first sight, abrupt and elliptical in this verse. The full meaning of it, I beheve to be as follows. " He whom God hath sent is One far above me or any other prophet. He is the eternal Son of God, whom the Father loved from all eternity, and into whose hands all things concerning man's salvation have been given and committed by an everlasting covenant. He is no mere man, as you, my disciples, ignorantly suppose. He is the Son, of whom it is written, ' Kiss the Son lest He be angry, and so ye perish from the way.' He is the Son to whom the Father has snid, *I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.' (Psalm ii. 7 — 9.) Instead of being jealous of his present popularity, you should serve Him with fear, and rejoice before Him with trembling."

The " love of the Father toward the Son," here spoken of, is a subject far too deep for man to fathom. It is an expression graciously accommodated to man's feeble understanding, and intended to signify that most intimate and inetfable union which exists between the First and Second Persons in the blessed Trinity, and the entire approbation and complacency wiih which the Father regards the work of redemption undertaken by the Son. It is that love to which our Lord refers in the words, " Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world," (John xvii. 24,) and which the Father expressly asserted at the beginning of the Son's earthly ministry, " This is mj beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matt. iii. 17.)

When it says that " the Father hath given all things into the Son's hand," we must understand that mediatorial kingdom which in the eternal counsels of the Trinity has been appointed to Christ. By the terms of the everlasting covenant, the Father has given to the Son power over all flesh, to quicken whom He will — to justify, to sanctify, to keep, and to glorify His people, — to judge, and finally punish the wicked and unbelieving, — and at last to take to Himself a kingdom over all the world, and put down every enemy under His teet. These are the " all things/' of which cfoiin speaks. Christ, he would have us know, has the keys of death and hell in His hand, and to Him a' one men must go, if they want anything for their souls.

Calvin observes on this verse, " The love here spoken of is

that peculiar love of God, which beginning with ihe Son flowa from Him to all the creatures. For that love, with which, embracing His Son, He embraces us also in Him, leads Him to communicate all His benefits to us by His hand."

Quesnel remarks, " God loved the prophets as His servants, out He loves Christ as His only Son, and communicates Himself to Him in proportion to His love." — " The prophets had only particular commissions, limited to a certain time and certain purposes; but Christ has full power given Him as the general disposer of all His Father's works, the executor of His designs, the head of His Church, the universal High Priest of good things to come, the steward and disposer of all His graces."

Chemnitius, on this verse, remarks the infinite wisdom and love of God in giving the management of our souPs affairs into Christ's hand. We are all naturally so weak and feeble, that h anything was left in our hands we should never be saved. We should lose al', even sooner than Adam did in Paradi-e. But Christ will take care of all committed to His charge, and our wisdom is to commit all things to Him, as St. Paul did. (2 Tim. L12.)

ije.— [-Se that heUeveth...Son...Jiath..Mfe.] In this verse John the Baptist concludes his testimony to Christ, by a solemn decla ation of the unspeakable importance of believins: on Him. Wiiether his disciples would receive it or not," he tells them that life or death, heaven or hell, all turned on believing in this Jesub vv^io had " been with him beyond Jordan."

The excellence of faith should be noted here. Like his divine Master, John teaches that " believing on the Son," is the principal thing in saving religion. Believing is the way to heaven, and not believing the way to hell.

The " presentness" of the salvation which is in Christ should be here noted. Again, like his divine Master, John teaches that a believer " hath" everlasting life. Pardon, peace, and a title to heaven are at once and immediately a man's possession, the very moment that he lays his sins on Jesus, and puts his trust in Him.

[Re that believeth not...not see life] The Greek word here rendered "believ3th not," is quite different from the one translated "beheveth" at the beginning of the verse. It means somethiig much stronger than " not trusting." It would be more hterally rendered " He that does not obey, or is disobedient to." It is the same word so rendered in Rom. ii. 8; x. 21; 1 Pet. ii. 8; iii. 1. 20.

The expression, " shall not see life," must of course mean, " shall not see life, if he continues impenitent and unbelieving, and dies in that state." The phrase " to see life," most probably means "to taste, enter, enjoy, possess life," and must not be literally interpreted as seeing either with bodily or mental eyes

[Tlie lurath of God abideth on him.] This concluding sentence of John the Baptist's testimony, is again very like his Master's teaching, " He that believeth not is condemned already." The meaning of the sentence is, that so long as a man is not a believer in Christ, the just wrath of Grod hangs over him, and he is under the curse of God's broken law. We are all by nature born in sin, and children of wrath; and our sins are all upon us, unpardoned, unforgiven, and untaken away, until that day when we believe on the Son of God and are made children of grace.

The sentence is a very instructive one, and especially SO in the present day. I see in it an unanswerable reply to some grievous errors which are very prevalent in some quarters.

(a.) It condemns the notion, upheld by some, that under the Gospel there is no more anger in God, and that he is only love, mercy, and compassion, and nothing else. Here we are plainly told of " the wrath of God." It is clear that God hates sin. There is a hell. God can be angry. Sinners ought to be afraid.

(h.) It condemns the notion, maintained by some, that the elect are justified from all eternity, or justified before they believe. Here we are plainly told that if a man believe not on the Son, God's wrath abideth on him. We know nothing of any one's justification until he beheves. Those whom God predestinates, God calls and justifies in due season. But there is no justification until there is faith.

(c.) It condemns the modern idea, that Christ by His death, justified all mankind, and removed God's wrath from the whole seed of Adam; and that all men and women are justified in reality, though they do not know it, and will all finally be saved. This idea sounds very amiable, but is flatly contrary to the text before us. Hei-e we are plainly told, that until a man '' believeth on the Son of God, the wrath of God abideth on him."

{d.) Finally, it condemns the weak and false charity of those who say, that preachers of the Gospel should never speak of God's wrath, and should never mention hell. Here we find that the last words of one of Christ's best servants consist of a solemn declaration of the danger of unbeUef. "The wrath of

God" is John's last thought. To warn men of God's wrath, and of their danger of hell, is not harshness, but true charity. Many will go to hell, because their ministers never told them about hell.

In leaving the passage, the variety of expressions used by John the Baptist concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, is very worthy of notice. He calls Him the Christ, — the bridegroom, — Him that cometh from above, — Him that testifieth what He hath seen and heard, — Him whom God hath sent, — Him who has the Spirit without measure, — Him whom the Father loves, — Him into whose hands all things are given, — Him in- whom to believe ia everlasting life. To talk of John the Baptist's knowledge of divine things as meagre and scanty, in the face of such a passage as thi-;, is, to say the h ast, not wise, and argues a very slight acquaintance with Scripture. To suppose, as some do, that the man who had such clear views oi our Lord's nature and ofl&ce, could afterwards doubt whether Jesus was the Christ, is to suppose what is grossly improbable. The message that John sent to Jesus when he was in prison, was for the sake of his disciples, and not for his own satisfaction. (Matt. xi. 3, &c.)

1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

3 He left Judaea, and departed again into GaUlee.

4 And he must needs go through Samaria.

5 Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.

6 Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.

There are two sayings in these verses which deserve particular notice. They throw light on two subjects in religion, on which clear and well defined opinions are of great importance.

We should observe, for one thing, what is said about haptism. We read that " Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples."

The expression here used is a very remarkable one. In reading it we seem irresistibly led to one instructive con- elusion. That conclusion is, that baptism is not the principal part of Christianity, and that to baptize is not the principal work for which Christian ministei'S are ordained. Frequently we read of our Lord preaching and praying. Once we read of His administering the Lord's supper. But we have not a single instance recorded of His ever baptizing any one. And here we are distinctly told, that it was a subordinate work, which He left to others. Jesus " himself baptized not, but his disciples."

The lesson is one of peculiar importance in the present day. Baptism, as a sacrament ordained by Christ Himself, is an honourable ordinance, and ought never to be lightly esteemed in the churches. It cannot be neglected or despised without great sin. When rightly used, with faith and prayer, it is calculated to convey the highest blessings. But baptism was never meant to be exalted to the position which many now-a-days assign to it in religion. It does not act as a charm. It does not necessarily convey the grace of the Holy Ghost. The benefit of it depends greatly on the manner in which it is used. The doctrine taught, and the language employed about it, in some quarters, are utterly inconsistent with the fact announced in the text. If baptism was all that some say it is, we should never have been told, that " Jesus himself baptized not.'*

Let it be a settled principle in our minds that the first and chief business of the Church of Christ is to preach the Gospel. The words of St. Paul ought to be constantly remembered, — " Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." (1 Cor. i. 17.) When the Gospel of Christ is faithfully and fully preached we need not fear that the sacraments will be undervalued. Baptism and the Lord's supper will always be most truly reverenced in those churches where the truth as it is in Jesus is most fully taught and known.

We should observe, for another thing, in this passage, what is said about our JOord^s human nature. We read that Jesus was " weaned with his journey."

We learn from this, as well as many other expressions in the Gospels, that our Lord had a body exactly like our own. When " the Word became flesh," He took on Him a nature like our own in all things, sin only excepted. Like ourselves. He grew from infancy to youth, and from youth to man's estate. Like ourselves. He hungered, thirsted, felt pain, and needed sleep. He was liable to every sinless infirmity to which we are liable. In all things His body was framed like our own.

The truth before us is full of comtort for all who are true Christians. He to whom sinners are bid to come for pardon and peace, is one who is man as well as God. He had a real human nature when He was upon earth. He took a real human nature with Him, when He ascended up into heaven. We have at tbe right hand of God a High Priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, because He has suffered Himself being tempted. When we cry to Him in the hour of bodily pain and weakness. He knows well what we mean. When our prayers and praises are feeble through bodily weariness. He can understand our condition. He knows our frame. He has learned by experience what it is to be a man. To say that the Virgin Mary, or any one else, can feel more sympathy for us than Christ, is ignorance no less than blasphemy. The man Christ Jesus can enter fully into everything that belongs to man's condition. The poor, the sick, and the suffering, have in heaven One who is not only an almighty Saviour, but a most feeling Friend.

The servant of Christ should grasp firmly this great truth, that there are two perfect and complete natures in the one Person whom he serves. The Lord Jesus, in whom the Gospel bids us believe, is, without doubt, almighty God, —equal to the Father in all things, and able to save to the uttermost all those that come unto God by Him. But that same Jesus is no less certainly perfect man, — able to sympathize with man in all his bodily sufferings, and acquainted by experience with all that man's body has to endure. Power and sympathy are marvellously combined in Him- who died for us on the cross. Because He is God we may repose the weight of our souls upon Him with unhesitating confidence. He is mighty to save. — Because He is man, we may speak to Him with freedom, about the many trials to which flesh is heir. He knows the heart of a man. — Here is rest for the weary! Here is good news! Our Redeemer is man as well as God, and God as well as man. He that believeth on Him, has everything that a child of Adam can possibly require, either for safety or for peace.

1. — [When therefore the Lord Tcneiv, <&c.] The connection between this chapter and the last will be found at the 25th verse of the last chapter. The controversy between John's disciples and the Jews was the means of calling pubHc attention to our Lord's ministry. It became a subject of common conversation, and attracted the notice of the principal religious teachers of the Jews, viz., the Pharisees. They had already been disturbed by the ministry of John the Baptist, and the crowds which attended it. (John i. 19—28.) The deputation which they sent to John had been distinctly told by him that One greater than himself w'^s about to appear. When therefore " the Pharisees heard" mat Jesus was actually baptizing more disciples, and attracting more attention than John, we can well imagine that their minds would be even more disturbed than before. A vague uncomtortable feeUng would arise in their hearts, that this mysterious person, who had cast out of the temple the buyers and sellers in so miraculous a manner, and was now baptizing so many disciples, might possibly be -the Christ. And then would come the attendant feeling, that if this was the Christ, He was not the Christ tliey either expected or wanted. The result of both feehngs would probably be a bitter enmity against our Lord, and a secret determination, if possible, to settle all doubta by putting Hun to death.

In what manner our Lord '' knew '* what the Pharisees had heard, we need not be careful to inquire. Possibly He knew it from information obtained by His disciples. We can hardly doubt that some of them kept up intercourse with their old master, John the Baptist, and so learned what was going on at ^non. — It is more probable that He knew it from His omniscience as God. We are frequently told that " He knew the thoughts " of His enemies, and acted and spoke accordingly. It is good for us all to remember that nothing is spoken, talked of, or reported among men, however secretly, which Christ does not know.

2. — {^Though Jesus himself baptized not. c&c] The fact that our Lord did not actually administer baptism with His own hands, is only mentioned here in the Gospels, and is noteworthy. It shows, at any rate, that what is done by Christ's ministers, at Christ's command, in the administration of ordinances, is regarded as done by Christ Himself. The preceding verse says that " Jesus baptized," while the present one says, that He '^ baptized not."

Lightfoot remarks, "It is ordinary, bath in Scripture phrase and in other language, to speak of a thing as done by a man himself, which is done by another at his appointment. So Pharaoh's daughter is said to 'nurse Moses,' and Solomon is said to 'build the temple and his own house.' So David ' took Saul's spear and cruse,' meaning Abishai by David's appointment," (1 Sam, xxvi. 12.)

The reasons assigned for our Lord's not administering baptism with His own hands, are various. Lightfoot mentions four.

2. Because it might have been taken as a thing somewhat improper for Christ to baptize in His own name. 3. Because the baptizing tliat was most proper for Christ to use, w^as not with Avater, but with the Holy Ghost. 4. Because he would prevent all quarrels and disputes among men about their baptism, which might have risen if some had been baptized by Christ, and others only by His disciples.''

To these reasons we may add another of considerable importance. Oar Lord would show us that the effect and benefit of baptism do not depend on the person w^ho administers it. We carniot doubt that Judas Iscariot baptized some. The intention of the minister does not affect the vahdity of the sacrament.

One thing seems abundantly clear, and that is, that baptism is not an ordinance of primary, but of subordinate importance in Christianity. The high-flown and extravagant language used by some divines about the sacrament of baptism and its effects, is quite irreconcilable with the text before us, as well as with the general teaching of Scripture. (See Acts x. 48; 1 Cor. i. 17.)

3. — [He Itft Jvdoea^ &c.'\ The context of the preceding verses seems to sLowthat this movement was intended to avciu the vlesicrns of the Pharisees against our Lord. If he had rcmaiue I in Judaea, He would have been cut off, and pat to death before the appointed time. He therefore withdrew into the province of Galilee, where He was further off from Jerusalem, and where His ministry would attract less public notice.

Our Lord's conduct on this occasion shows us that it is not obligatory on a Christian to await danger to life and person, when he sees it coming, and that it is not cowardice to use ai' reasonable means to avoid it. We are not to court martyrdom, or needlessly to throw our lives awav. There is a time for all things, — a time to live and work, as well as a time to suffer and to die. Whether some of the primitive martj'-rs would have acted as our Lord did here may be questioned. Their zeal for martyrdom seems sometimes to have paitaken of the character of fanaticism.

i. — [He must needs go through Samaria.'] Many pious and profitable remarks have been made on this expression. It ha<* been thought to teach that our Lord went purposely, and out of the regular road, in order to save the soul of the Samaritan woman. It admits of grave question whether this opinion is well-founded. — There was no other way by which a person could conveniently go from Judaea to Galilee, excepting through Samaria. — The" expression, therefore, is probably nothing more than a natural introduction to the story of the Samaritan woman. The first in the train of circumstances which led to her conversion, was the circumstance that Jesus was obligeil to pass through Samaria, on His journey towards Gahlee. This accounted for His meeting with a Samaritan woman.

5. — [Then cometh....city....called Sychar.] The common opinion is, that the city here spoken of is the same as Siehem or Shechem. (Gen. xxxiii. 18, 19.) Few places in Palestine, afcer Jerusalem, have had so much of Bible history connected with them. Here God first appeared to Abraham. (Gen. xii. 6.) Here Jacob dwelt when he first relurned from Padan-aram, and heie the disgraceful history of Dinah, and the consequent murder (-f the Shechemites took place. (Gen. xxxiv. 2, &c.) Here Jo.^epli's bretliren fed their flocks when Jacob sent him to them, little thinking he would never see him again for many years. (Gen. xxxvii. 12.) Here, when Israel took possess' on of the land of Canaan, was one of the cities of refuge. (Josh. xx. 7,8.) Here Joshua gathered all the tribes when he addressed them for the last time. (Josh, xxiv 1.) Here the bones of Joseph were buried, and all the patriarchs were interred. (Josh. xxiv. 32; Acts, vii. 16.) Here the principal events in the history of Abimelech took place. (Judges ix. 1, &c.) Here Rehoboam met the tribes of Israel after

Solomor's death, and jrave the answer which rent his kingdoir, in two. (1 Kings, xii. 1.) Here Jeroboam first dwelt, when he was made king of Israel. (1 Kings xii. 25.) And finally, close bv Shechem was the city of Samaria itself, and the two hills of Ebal and Gerizini, where tlie solemn blessings and cur-ings were recited, after Israel entered Canaan. (Josh. viii. 33.) A more interesting neighbourhood it is difficult to imagine. Whichever way the eye of a wearied traveller looked, he would see something to remind him of Israel's history.

It is only fair to say that one of the latest travellers in Pales tine (Dr. Thomson, author of " The Land and the Book,") doubts whether Sychar and Shechem really were the same place. He grounds his doubt on the fact that the well now called Jacob's well is two miles from the ruins of Shechem, and that close to these ruins are beautiful fountains of water. He thinks it highly improbable that a woman of Shechem would go two miles to draw water, if she could find it close by. He therefore thinks it more likely that a place now called Aschar, which is close to Jacob's well, must be the ancient Sychar, and that Sychar and Shechem were two different places.

The subject is one on which it is impossible to attain a conclusive decision. Whether the ruins now called the ruins of Shechem are really on the site of ancient Shechem, — whether the well now called Jacob's well is really the well spoken of in this chapter, — whether ancient Shechem may not have been nearer the well than it now appears, — are all points on which, after eighteen hundred years have passed away, it is impossible to fpeak positively. It ought, however, to be remembered, that the opinion of most competent judges is almost entirely against Dr. Thomson's theory. Moreover, it is worth noticing that the Samaritan woman's words, '' Neither come hither to draw," seem to imply that she had to come some distance to Jacob's well when she drew water.

[A^ea7\...pa7xel....ground....Jacol),... Joseph.] The ground here spoken of seems to consist of two parts. One part was bought by Jacob of Hamor, Shechem's father, for a hundred pieces of silver. (Gen. xxxiii. 29.) The other seems to have been his by conquest, when his sons slew the Shechemites for dishonouring Dinah. (Gen. xxxiv. 28, and xlviii. 22.)

Let it be carefully noted that St. John here speaks of Jacob and Joseph and the events of their lives, as if the history contained in Genesis was all simple matter of fact. It is always so in the New Testament. The modern theory, that the histories of the Old Testament are only fables, destitute of any foundation in fact, is a mere baseless invention, without a single respectabla argument to be adduced in its favour.

6. — [JacoVs well] It is not known how or when this well received its name. In Genesis Ave find mention of Abraham and Isaac diggino: wells, but not of Jacob doing so. All we know about it is what we read in the chapter before us,

A well called Jacob's well is still shown to all travellers in Palestine, near the ruins of Shechem, and is commonly supposed to be one of the oldest and most genuine remains of ancitut times in the Ho'y Land. In fact there seems no reason for disputing the common belief, that it is the veiy identical well at which our Lord sat and held the conversation recorded in thi3 chapter. It is in good preservation, and about thirty yards deep,

[ Wearied with Ms journey^ This expression deserves notice. It shows the reality of our Lord's human nature. He had a body hke our own, subject to all the conditions of flesh and blood. — It shows our Lord's infinite compassion, humility, and condescension, when He became flesh, and came on earth to live and die for our sins. Though He was rich He became poor. He who had made the world, and whose were "the cattle on a thousand hills," was content to be a weary traveller on foot, in order to provide eternal redemption for us. We never read of Jesus travelling in a carriage, and only once of His riding on a beast. — It supplies the poor with the strongest argument for contentment. If Christ was willing to be poor, we may surely be willing to submit to poverty. Men need not be ashamed of poverty, if they have not brought it on themselves by misconduct. It is disgraceful to be profligate and immoral. But it is no sin to be poor. — Finally, it shows believers what a sympathizing Saviour Christ is. He knows what it is to have a weak and weary body. He can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. When our work wearies us, though we are not weary of our work, we may confidently tell Jesus, and ask Him for help. He knows the heart of a weary man.

l^Sat thus on the well.] The general meaning of these words is, that our Lord sat down on the stones, which, according to Eastern custom, formed a wall or battlement round the mouth of the well. The particular meaning of the word " thus " in the sentence, is a point that has perplexed commentators in every age, and will perhaps never be settled.

Some think, as De Dieu, A. Clarke, and Schleusner, that "thus" is a pleonasm, or elegant expletive and redundancy in the Greek original, and that although a Greek would see a meaning in it, as giving a finish to the sentence, it has no special meaning that can be attached to it in the English translation.

as He was," without any regular scat, without looking for any convenient position, without any pride or formality, not upon a throne, not upon a cushion, but simply upon the ground.

Some think, as Doddridge, that " thus " means immediately, and find a parallel for it in Acts xx. 11.

Some think, as Calvin, Lightfoot, Dyke, Bullinger, Beza, Parkhurst, Stier, Alford, and Burgon, that " thus " refers to the weariness just mentioned. Jesus, being wearied, sat down on the well accordingly, after the manner and according to the fashion that any weary person would sit. He was weary, and so He sat on the well.

The question is one that I feel unable to settle. The last meaning seems to me, on the whole, the most probable one, though it fiails to carry complete conviction with it. The use of the word "so," in Acts vii. 8, is somewhat like it. The Greek word for " so " in that case is the same as the one here rendered " thus."

Burgon remarks on this sentence, " that Jacob and Moses each

found his future wife beside a well of water; and here it is seen that One greater than they, their divine Antitype, the Bridegroom takes to Himself His alien spouse, the Samaritan Church, at a well likewise."

Quesnel remarks, " The rest of Jesus Christ is as mysterious and full of kindness and beneficence as His weariness. — It is a great matter for a man to learn how to rest Himself without being idle, and to make his necessary repose subservient to the Glory of God."

'[It ivas about the sixth hour.] What time of the day was this, according to our calculation of time? — By far the most common opinion is, that the sixth hour here means twelve o'clock, the hottest and sultriest time of the day. It is notorious that the ■ Jewish day began at six o'clock in the evening. Our seven o'clock was tlieir one o'clock, and their sixth hour would be our twelve o'clock.

It is however only just and right to say, that some commentators, as Wordsworth and Burgon, maintain strongly that in St. John's Gospel the Jewish mode of reckoning the hours of the day is not observed. They say that, writing later than the other Evangelists, and in Asia Minor, St. John uses the Roman or Asiatic mode of reckoning time, and that the Roman mode w;8 like our own. They say, therefore, that when the disciples f)!• lowed Jesus, (John i. 39,*^) at the tenth hour, it wns ten o'.;lock in the morning, and when the fever left the ruLr's?on at the seventh hour, it was seven o'clock in the evening. (John iv. 52.) They say that when Pilate brought f rih Jesus to the Jews, on the day of the crucifixion, at the sixth hour, (John xix. 14,) it was six o'clock in the morning. And finally, they saw thit when Jesus, in the passage before us, sat wearied on flie well a' the sixth hour, it means six o'clock in t!ie evening. Moreover, they plead in support of their view, that it is inhn't ly more likely that a woman would come to a well to draw water at S'x o'clock in the evening than at twelve o'clock ia the day. In Gen sis it is dis inctly said that the "evening" is the " time that women go out to draw water." (Gen. xxiv. 11.)

These arguments are undoubtedly weighty and ingenious, and the matter is one that admits of doubt. Nevertheless, for several reasons, I am disposed to think that the common view of the question is the correct one, and that the sixth hour in this place means twelve o'clock in the day. I purposely omit the consideration of the other places where St. John mentions hours in his Gospel. None of them seem to me to present any difficulty, except the " sixth hour," in St. John's account of the crucifixion'. That difficulty I shall be prepared to examine in its proper place. I think then that the " sixth hour " in the text before us, means twelve o'clock, for the following reasons:

(a.) It seems exceedingly improbable that St. John would reckon time in a manner different to the other three Gospelwriters.

(J.) It is by no means clear that the Romans did reckon time in our way, and not in the Jewish way. When the Roman poet Horace describes himself as lying late in bed in a morning, he says, " I lie till the fourth hour." He must surely mean ten o'clock, and not four in the afternoon. — When the Roman poet Martial describes the Roman day, he says, " The first and second hours are employed by clients in attending levees, and the third hour exercises the advocates in the law-courts." — He surely cannot mean that Roman law-courts did not open till two o'clock in the afternoon. About the custom of the Asiatics I offer no opinion. It is a doubtful point.

(c.) It is entirely a gratuitous assumption to say that no woman ever came to draw water except in the evening. There must surely be exceptions to every rule. The fact of the woman coming alone, seems of itself to indicate that she came at an unusual hour, and not in the evening.

{d.) Last, but not least, it seems far more probable that our Lord would hold a conversation alone with such a person as the Samaritan woman at twelve o'clock in the day, than at six o'clock in the evening. The conversation was not a very short one. Ihere is little or no twilight in Eastern countries. The night soon comes on. And yet, on the theory I oppose, our Lord ])egins a conversation about six o'clock, and carries it on till the woman is converted. Then the froman goes away to the city and tells the men what has happened, and they all come out to the well to see Jesus. Yet by this time, in all reasonable probability, it would be quite dark, and the night would have begun. And yet, after all this, our Lord says to the disciples, " Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields." (iv. 35.)

This last reason weighs very heavily in my mind,:ii forming a conclusion on the subject. Oar Lord appears to me t) have reached a resting-place for the mid(ile of the day, according to the Eastern custom in travelUng, and to have intended staying by the well for a short time, till the heat of the day was past. The arrival of the Samaritan woman at this hour of the day gave ample time for the conversation, for her rapid return to the city, and for the coming of the inhabitants to the well.

I must say that I see a peculiar beauty and fitness in the mention of the sixth hour, if it means twelve o'clock, which I should not see so strongly if it meant six in the evening. To my eyes there is a special seemliness and propriety in the fact that our Lord held His conversation with such a person as this Samaritan woman at noon day. When He talked to Nicodemus, in the preceding chapter, we are told that it was at night. But when He talked to a woman of impure life, we are carefully told that it was twelve o'clock in the day. I see in this fact a beautiful carefulness to avoid even the appearance of evil, which I should entirely miss if the sixth hour meant six o'clock in the evening. I see even more than this. I see a lesson to all ministers and teachers of the Gospel about the right mode of carrying on the work of trying to do goo-d to souls like that of the Samaritan woman. Like their Master, they must be careful about times and hours, and specially if they work alone. If a man will try to do good to a person like the Samaritan woman, alone and without witnesses, let him take heed that he walks in his Master's footsteps, both as to the time of his proceedings as well as to the message he delivers. — I believe there was a deep meaning in the little sentence, " it was about the sixth hour."

Augustine thinks that "the sixth hour" here was meant to represent, allegorically, the sixth age of the world. He says that the first hour was from Adam to Noah, the second from Noah to Abraham, the third. from Abraham to David, the fcurth from David to the Babylonian captivity, the fifth fronr. the captivity to the baptism of John, and the sixth the time of the Lord Jesus. I can see no foundation lor these things in the text. If such interpretations of Scripture are correct, it is easy to make the Bible mean anything

T There ccmeth a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.

8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)

9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no deaUngs with the Samaritans.

10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee. Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

11 The woman saith unto him. Sir, thou hast notliing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that Hving water?

12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and Ms cattle?

13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again;

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting hfe.

15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

16 Jesus saith unto her. Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

IT Tlie woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, 1 have no husband:

18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21 Jesus saith unto her. Woman, beheve me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22 Ye worship ye know not what. we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is 8l Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am Jie.

The history of the Samaritau woman, contained in these verses, is one of the most interesting and instructive paseages in St. John's Gospel. St John has shown us, in the case of Nicodemus, how our Lord dealt with a self-righteous formalist. He now shows us how our Lord dealt with an ignorant, carnal-minded woman, whose moral character was more than ordinarily bad. There are les-

Bons in tLe passage for ministers and teachers, which they would do well to ponder.

We should mark, firstly, the mingled tact and condescen* sion of Christ in dealing icith a careless sinner.

Our Lord was sitting by Jacob's well when a woman of Samaria came thither to draw water. At once He Bays to her, " Give me to drink." He does not wait for her to speak to Him. He does not begin by reproving her sins, though He doubtless knew them. He opens communication by asking a favour. He approaches the woman's mind by the subject of " water," which was naturally uppermost in her thoughts. Simple as this request may seem, it opened a door to spiritual conversation. It threw a bridge across the gulf which lay between her and Him. It led to the conversion of her soul.

Our Lord's conduct in this place should be carefully remembered by all who want to do good to the thoughtless and spiritually ignorant. It is vain to expect that such persons will voluntarily come to us, and begin to seek knowledge. We must begin with them, and go down to them in the spirit of courteous and friendly aggression. It is vain to expect that such persons will be prepared for our instruction, and will at once see and acknowledge the wisdom of all we are doing. We must go to work wisely. We must study the best avenues to their hearts, and the most likely way of arresting their attention. There is a handle to every mind, and our chief aim must be to get hold of it. Above all, we must be kind in manner, and beware of showing that we feel conscious of our own superiority. If we let ignorant people fancy that we think we are doing them a great favour in talking to them about religion, there is little hope of doing good to their souls.

We should mark, secondly, Christ^s readiness to give mercies to careless sinners. He tells the Samaritan woman that if she had asked, " He would have given her living water." He knew the character of the person before Him perfectly well. Yet He says, "If she had asked, He would have given," — He would have given the living water of grace, mercy, and peace.

The infinite willingness of Christ to receive sinners ia a golden truth, which ought to be treasured up in our hearts, and diligently impressed on others. The Lord Jesus is far more ready to hear than we are to pray, and far more ready to give favours than we are to ask them. All day long He stretches out His hands to the disobedient and gainsaying. He has thoughts of pity and compassion towards the vilest of sinners, even when they have no thoughts of Him. He stands waiting to bestow mercy and grace on the worst and most unworthy, if they will only cry to Him. He will never draw back from that well-known promise, "Ask and ye shall receive: seek and ye shall find." The lost will discover at the last day, that they had not because they asked not.

We should mark, thirdly, the priceless excellence of Christ's gifts whe7i compared with the things of this loorld. Our Lord tells the Samaritan woman, " He that drinketh of this water shall thirst again, but he that drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst."

The truth of the principle here laid down may be seen on every side by all who are not blinded by prejudice or love of the world. Thousands of men have every temporal good thing that heart could Avish, and are yet weary and dissatisfied. It is now as it was in David's time,—" There be many that say who will show us any good." (Psalm iv. 6.) Riches, and rank, and place, and power, and learning, and amusements, are utterly unable to fill the soul, He that only drinks of these waters is sure to thirst again. Every Ahab finds a Naboth's vineyard hard I by his palace, and every Haman sees a Mordecai at the \ gate. There is no heart satisfaction in this world, until ♦^^e believe on Christ. Jesus alone can fill up the empty places of our inward man. Jesus alone can give solid, lasting, enduring happiness. The peace that He imparts is a fountain, which, once set flowing within the soul, flows on to all eternity. Its waters may have their ebbing seasons; but they are living waters, and they shall never be completely dried.

We should mark, fourthly, the absolute necessity of conviction of sin before a soul can be converted to God. The Samaritan woman seems to have been comparatively unmoved until our Lord exposed her breach of the seventh commandment. Those heart-searching words, " Go, call thy husband," appear to have pierced her conscience like an arrow. From that moment, however ignorant, she speaks like an earnest, sincere inquirer after truth. And the reason is evident. She felt that her spiritual disease was discovered. For the first time in her life she saw herself.

To bring thoughtless people to this state of mind should be the principal aim of all teachers and ministers of the Gospel. They should carefully copy their Master's example in this place. Till men and women are brought to feel their sinfulness and need, no real good is ever done to their souls. Till a sinner sees himself as God sees him, he will continue careless, trilling, and unmoved. By all means we must labour to convince the unconverted man of sin, to prick his conscience, l;0 open his eyes, to show him himself. To this end we must expound the length arid breadth of God's holy law. To this end we must cien ounce every practice contrary to that law, however fashionable and customary. This is the only way to do good. Never does a soul value the Gospel medicine until it feels its disease. Never does a man see any beauty in C3hri§t as a Saviour, until he discovers that he is himself a lost and ruiued sinner. Ignorance of sin is invariably attended by neglect of Christ.

We should mark, fifthly, the uselessness of any religion which only consists of formality. The Samaritan woman, when awakened to spiritual concern, started questions about the comparative merits of the Samaritan and Jewish modes of w^orshipping God. Our Lord tells her that true and acceptable worship depends not on the place in which it is offered, but on the state of the worshipper's heart. He declares, " The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this place nor at Jerusalem worship the Father." He adds that " the true worshippers shall worship in spirit and in truth."

The principle contained in these sentences can never be loo strongly impressed on j^rofessing Christians. We are all naturally inclined to make religion a mere matter of outward forms and ceremonies, and to attach an excessive importance to our own particular manner of worshipping God. We must beware of this spirit, and especially when w^e first begin to think seriously about our souls. The heart is the principal thing in all our approaches to God. " The Lord looketh on the heart." (1 Sam. xvi. V.) The most gorgeous cathedral-service is offensive in God's sight, if all is gone through coldly, heartlessly, and without grace. The feeblest gathering of three or four poor believers in a cottage to read the Bible and pray, is a more acceptable sight to Him who searches the heart than the fullest congregation which is ever gathered in St. Peter's at Rome.

We should mark, lastly, Chrisfs gracious willingness to reveal Simself to the chief of sinners. He concludes His conversation with the Samaritan woman by telling her openly and unreservedly that He is tho Saviour of the world. "I that speak to thee," He says, "am the Messiah." Nowhere in all the Gospels do we find our Lord making such a full avowal of His nature and office as He does in this place. And this avowal, be it remembered, was made not to learned Scribes, or moral Pharisees, but to one who up to that day had been an ignorant, thoughtless, and immoral person!

Dealings with sinners, such as these, form one of the grand peculiarities of the Gospel. Whatever a man's past life may have been, there is hope and a remedy for him in Christ. If he is only willing to hear Christ's voice and follow Him, Christ is willing to receive him at once as a friend, and to bestow on him the fullest measure of mercy and grace. The Samaritan woman, the penitent thief, the Philip2)ian jailor, the publican Zacchaeus, are all patterns of Christ's readiness to show mercy, and to confer full and immediate pardons. It is His glory that, like a great physician. He will undertake to cure those who are apparently incurable, and that none are too bad for Him to love and heal. Let these things sink down into our hearts. Whatever else we doubt, let us never doubt that Christ's love to sinners passeth knowledge, and that Christ is as willing to receive as He is almighty to save.

What are w^e ourselves? This is the question, after all, which demands our attention. We may have been up to this day careless, thoughtless, sinful as the w^oman whose story we have been reading. But yet there is hope. He who talked with the Samaritan woman at the well is yet living at God's right hand, and never changes. Let us only ask, and He will " give us living water."