Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

14.— [About... midst of...feast.~] This would be about the fourth day of the week, as the feast lasted seven days. Some who consider the feast of tabernacles a type of Christ's incarnation, think this circumstance is typical of our Lord's earthly ministry lasting three years and a half, answering to the three days and a half during which our Lord taught publicly here in Jerusalem. I doubt myself whether the circ lmstance is typical at all. If the feast of tabernacles is typical, I believe it points to the second advent of Christ much more than to the first.

[Jesus went up...temple.'] This means the outer court of the temple, where pious Jews were in the habit of assembling in order to hear the doctors of the law and others, and to discuss religious subjects. This is the place where our Lord was, when Joseph and Mary found Him, at twelve years of age, "in the temple." (Luke ii. 46.) It was probably a large open court yard, with piazzas or verandas around it, for shelter against heat and cold.

[Taught."] What our Lord taught we are not told. Expositions of Scripture, as Luke iv. 17 — 21, and such lessons as those contained in the Sermon on the Mount, and the parables, were most likely the kind of things that He "taught" first, on such occasions as this. It admits of doubt whether He taught such deep things as those contained in the 5th and 6th chapters of St. John, unless publicly attacked, or put on His defence.

Alford thinks this was " the first time " that our Lord "taught publicly at Jerusalem." Yet this seems at least questionable when we consider the 2nd and 5th chapters of John.

15. — [The Jews marvelled.] The wisdom and knowledge of Scripture which our Lord showed must have been the principal cause of wonder. Yet, we may well believe, there was something wonderful in His manner and style of speaking.

[How knoweth this man letters?] The word rendered " letters " here, must probably be taken in the sense of " learning." It is so used in Acts xxvi. 24. In John v. 47 it is rendered "writings." In 2 Tim. iii. 11 it is "Scriptures." The original idea is a " written character," a letter of an alphabet. It is thus used in Luke xxiii. 38 of the inscription on the cross, written " in letters of Greek," etc.

[Having never learned.] The Jews must have meant by this, that our Lord had never attended any of the great theological schools which the Scribes and Pharisees kept up in Jerusalem, — to which St. Paul refers, when he says, he was " brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel." (Acts xxii. 3.) They did not of course mean that any one brought up at Nazareth must necessarily have been totally ignorant. That our Lord could read and write is clear from Luke iv. 16, and John viii. 6. But the Jerusalem Jews, in their pride aud self-conceit, set down any one as comparatively ignorant who had uot been trained in their great metropolitan schools. People are very apt to condemn any one as " ignorant " who disagrees with them in religion.

According to Tholuck, it was a nils of the Talmud, " that no man could appear as a teacher, who had not for some years been

\G.—[M(j doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.] Our Lord meant by these words, " My doctrine is not mine only. The teaching that I am proclaiming is not a thing of my own private invention, and the product of my own isolated mind. It is the doctrine of my Father who sent me. It deserves attention because it is His message. He that despiseth it, despiseth not only me, but Him whose messenger I am." — The great truth of His own inseparable and mysterious union with God the Father, is here once more pointed at. It is like, " I can of my own self do nothing," (John v. 30,) and "as my Father hath taught me I speak these things," (John viii. 28,) and " I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me He gave me commandment what I should say and what I should speak." (John xii. 49.)

Some think that our Lord only meant, " The sense of Scripture which I give is not my own, but the sense in which God at first gave it." But this is a very meagre view of the sentence, though an Arian or Socinian may like it.

Cyril remarks: "In saying that He was sent by the Father, He does not show Himself inferior to the Father. For this mission is not that of a servant, though it might be called so, as He 1 took on Him the form of a servant.' But He is < sent,' as a word is out of the mind, or a sunbeam out of the sun."

Augustine remarks: " This sentence undoeth the Sabellian heresy. The Sabellians have dared to say that the Son is the same as the Father: the names two, the reality one. If the names were two, and the reality one, it would not be said, ' My doctrine is not mine.' If Thy doctrine be not Thine, Lord, whose is it, unless there be another whose it may be?"

Hengstenberg thinks that our Lord had in view the famous prophecy of Moses in which God says of Messiah,—" I will put my words in his mouth." (Deut. xviii. 18.)

Let us carefully note with what peculiar reverence we should receive and study every word that fell from our Lord's lips. When He spoke, He did not speak His own mind only, as one of His Apostles or prophets did. It was God the Father speaking with and through Him. No wonder when we read such expressions as this that St. John calls our Lord " the Word."

17.— [If any man will do his will.~\ The English language here fails to give the full force of the Greek. It is literally, " If any man is willing to do, — has a mind and desire and inclination to do God's will." It is not the simple future of the verb " do." There are two distinct verbs. The stress, therefore, in reading the sentence, must not be laid entirely on " doing" God's will. It is "if any man is willing to do."

[He shall know of the doctrine.] This means he shall know " concerning and about" the doctrine I am proclaiming.

[Whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself] This means " whether the doctrine is from God, as I say it is, — the doctrine of God the Father, which he has commissioned arid sent me to proclaim to man, — or whether I speak from myself, on my own isolated responsibility, without any license or commission." The translation "speak of myself," is unfortunately equivocal. The expression does not mean " about and concerning " myself, but " from" myself.

By "doing the will of God," our Lord must mean, "obeying and performing, as far as in us lies, that will of God which we have expressly declared to us in the word of God." (17th Article.) Such " doing " He declares is the way to knowledge. It is the same idea as the "doing truth" of John iii. 21.

The principle here laid down is one of immense importance. We are taught that clear knowledge depends greatly on honest obedience, and that distinct views of Divine truth cannot be expected, unless we try to practise such things as we know. Living up to our light we shall have more light. Striving to do the few things we know, we shall find the eyes of our understanding enlightened, and shall know more. Did the Jews profess to feel perplexed, and not to know whether our Lord was sent from God? Let them honestly do God's will, and seek knowledge in the path of sincere obedience in such matters as were clear and plain. — So doing they would be guided into all truth, and find their doubts removed.

We learn from these words how greatly they err who profess to be waiting till their mental difficulties are removed before they become decided Christians. They must change their plan. They must understand that knowledge comes through humble obedience as well as through the intellect. Let them begin by honestly doing God's will as far as they know that will, and in so doing they will find their minds enlightened.

We learn, furthermore, that God tests men's sincerity by making obedience part of the process by which religious knowledge is obtained. Are we really willing to do God's will so far as we know it? If we are, God will take care that our knowledge is increased. If we are not willing to do His will, we show clearly that we do not want to be God's servants. Our hearts and not our heads are in fault.

We learn, finally, the great principle on which many will be condemned at the last day. They did not live up to their light. They did not use such knowledge as they possessed, and so were left dark and dead in sins. There is probably not one in a thousand among unconverted people, who does not know far better than he practises. Such men surely, if lost, will have none to blame but themselves!

In interpreting this verse, I believe we must be careful not to lay more meaning on the expression "do His will," than our Lord meant it to bear. I say this because I observe many respectable commentators place such f. very wide and comprehen- give sense upon "doing God's will," that they miss entirely our Lord's purpose in speaking the words. They start with saying, that to " do God's will," we must have faith in Christ, new hearts, grace reigning within us, and the like, and thus represent our Lord as saying in effect, " If any man will become a true believer, and a converted man, he shall ' know of the doctrine,' " etc. I venture to think that such interpretation completely misses the mark, and is going round in a circle. Of course any true believer knows true doctrine. I believe that our Lord's object was simply to encourage the honest-minded, sincere, single-eyed inquirer after truth. To such a man, though at present very ignorant, He says, " If you really have a desire to do God's will, to please Him, and to follow any light He gives you, you will be taught of Him, you will find out the truth. My doctrine may be hid from the wise and prudent, but it is revealed to babes." (Matt. xi. 25.) I hold, in short, that we should take as simple a view as possible of the sentence, "If any man will do His will," and be very careful that we do not mar its usefulness by putting more meaning on it than our Lord intended.

Bishop Hall thus paraphrases the text: "If any man shall,

with a simple and houest heart, yield himself over to do the will of my Father, according to the measure of that he knows, God shall encourage and bless that man with further light; so as he shall fully know whether my doctrine be of God, or of myself."

Burgon remarks: " The perception of truth depends on the practice of virtue. It is a favourite maxim of the present day, that increased knowledge will bring with it growth in godliness. Scripture at all events entirely reverses the process. The way to know of the doctrine whether it be of God, is to do His will." (See John v. 44; viii. 12.)

Hengstenberg remarks: " Whosoever would lead souls to Christ should not tarry long about the specious arguments with which the natural man seeks to disguise the hateful perversion of his state of will, but should above all things try to excite willingness to do the will of God."

18. — [He that speaketh of himself, etc.'] In this verse, as in the preceding verses, " He that speaketh of himself" would be more literally rendered "speaketh from himself." The verse contains a general principle, applicable not only to our Lord's ow'.i case, but to teachers of religion in every age. The meaning seems to be as follows: — " He that undertakes on his own responsibility, and without being sent by God, to speak to men about religion, will naturally seek to advance his own importance, and get honour for himself. Speaking from himself, he will speak for himself, and try to exalt himself. He, on the contrary, who is a true messenger of God, and in whom there is no dishonesty or unrighteousness, will always seek first the glory of the God who sent him." In Fhort, it is one mark of a man being a true servant of God, and really commissioned by our Father in heaven, that he ever seeks his Master's glory more than his own.

The principle here laid down is a very valuable one. By it we may test the pretensious of many false teachers of religion, and prove them to be unsound guides. There is a curious tendency in every system of heresy, or unsound religion, to make its ministers magnify themselves, their authority, their importance, and their office. It may be seen in Eomanism and Brahminism to a remarkable extent.

Alford's remark, however, is very true, that in the highest and strictest sense, " the latter part of the sentence is only true of the Holy One Himself, and that owing to human infirmity, purity of motive is no sure guarantee for correctness of doctrine; " and therefore in the end of the verse it is not said, " he who seeketh God's glory," but "he who seeketh His glory that sent Him " — specially indicating Christ Himself.

Burgon thinks that " true " is a word used intentionally, in contrast with the expression, " He deceiveth the people."

19.— [Did not Moses give you the law?] Our Lord here appeals to the well-known reverence with which all Jews regarded Moses and the law. But it is highly probable that He had in view the practice of publicly reading the law of Moses to the people during the seven days of the feast of tabernacles, which was observed once in every seven years at that feast, (l)eut. xxxi. 10.) If, as is possible, this was one of the seventh years in which the law was so read, there would be a singular significance and aptuess in His appeal. "This very day you have been hearing that law, which you profess to honour so much. But do you honour it in your lives? "

[None of you keepeth the laiv, etc.] This would be more literally rendered, " none of you doeth the law." It is the same word that is used in the expression, " if any man will do His will," (v. 17.) The meaning seems to be, " You reject me and my doctrine, and profess to be zealous for the honour of Moses and the law. And yet none of you really obey the law in heart and in spirit. For instance: why do you seek to kill me? You are full of hatred of me, and want to put me to death unjustly, in the face of the sixth commandment. This is not keeping the law."

20.— [The people answered and said, etc.] It seems probable that those who said this were the common people, the multitude of Jews gathered from all parts of the world, to many of whom our Lord was a stranger. We can hardly suppose that the rulers and kf.ders of Jerusalem would have spoken in this way.

The expression " Thou hast a devil," may possibly be a repetition of the old charge, that our Lord wrought His miracles by Beelzebub, and was in league with the devil, as John viii. 48. In that sense it would be the strongest form of reproach, blasphemy, and contempt. But considering who the speakers were, it is more likely that it simply means, " Thou art beside Thyself, and mad." (So John x. 20.)

The expression, " who goeth about to kill Thee," can easily be understood, if we suppose the speakers to be the common people, and not the rulers. The common people probably knew nothing about the intention of the rulers to put Jesus to death, and would think Him beside himself to say that any one wanted to kill Him.

21. — [Jesus answered...! have done one work.'] Our Lord can only refer here to the miracle He had wrought on a former occasion at the pool of Bethesda. (Ch. v. 1, etc.) This was at present the only great miracle that had been publicly performed in Jerusalem: and from its having led to our Lord being brought before the Sanhedrim, or great council of the Jews, and to His defence made before them, it would be a miracle that all would know.

[Ye all marvel.] This strong present tense seems to mean, "ye are all still wondering," not only at the greatness of the miracle, but also at my working it on the Sabbath day. Schleusner maintains that the Greek word rendered "marvel" means here, "ye are indignant, ye take amiss." He thinks the word is used in this sense in Mark vi. 6; John v. 28; and Galat. i. 6.

22. — [Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision.] There is a difficulty in this verse in the expression we translate " therefore." It is literally, "on this account, — for this reason,— on account of this." It is not easy to say how the expression conies in, and with what it is connected. (1) Some, as Theophylact, Beza, Poole, Whitby, Hammond, Maldonatus, Pearce, Doddridge, Bloomfield, Olshausen, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, and Stier, propose to alter the stopping, and to connect it with the end of the preceding verse, — "ye all marvel because of this one work." (Compare Mark vi. 6.) But it is doubtful whether the Greek language will fairly admit this. — (2) Some would connect "therefore" with "are ye angry," in the following verse: — " Are you really angry with me on account of this one work, when you yourselves break the Sabbath, in a sense, by circumcising on the Sabbath day?" — But this connection seems very distant indeed. — (3) Some, as Grotius, Calovius, Jansenius, and Webster, think the expression altogether elliptical, and would fill up the sense after " therefore," by supposing some such connection as this:— " On account of this work and your anger at it, let me remind you of your own practice about circumcision." (See Matt, xviii. 22; xii. 30; Luke xii. 22.)—

(4) Some, fis Chemnitius, Musculus, and De Dieu, interpret "therefore" as "because," and make the sentence mean, " Because Moses gave you circumcision, you circumcise a man on the Sabbath day," etc. But it seems a violent strain to make the Greek word we render "therefore" mean "because."— (5) Some, finally, as Alford, Burgon, Barradius, Toletus, and Lyranus, would connect "therefore" with the middle of this verse, and would have it mean, " For this reason Moses gave you circumcision, viz., not because it was an ordinance appointed first by him, but because it was given to the fathers," — i. c, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This last is perhaps as tenable a view as any. But it is undeniably a difficulty, and must remain so. Adopting this view, the whole verse may be paraphrased as follows: — " Moses, whose name and law you highly reverence, gave you among other things the ordinance of circumcision. He gave it, remember, for this reason: because it was an old ordinance, handed down to him by your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and not an ordinance first communicated to him like the Levitical law. Now you, in obedience to the ordinance of circumcision, which ought to be administered on the eighth day after a child's birth, think it no breach of the fourth commandment to circumcise a child on the Sabbath day. In fact, you postpone the law of the Sabbath to the law of circumcision. You admit that a work of piety and necessity may be clone on the Sabbath day. You admit that the fourth commandment which was given on Mount Sinai was not so important as the older law of circumcision."

Burgon shows that " therefore " is used just in the same way as here, at the beginning of a sentence, and pointing forward, in John v. 16, 18; viii. 47; x. 17; xii. 18, 39.

We should note how here, as elsewhere, our Lord refers to Moses as a real person, and to the Old Testament history as real true history.

23. — [If a man, etc.'] The argument in this verse is as follows: — " Even among yourselves you circumcise a child on the Sabbath day, when it happens to be the eighth day after his birth, in order that the law of circumcision, which your great lawgiver, Moses, sanctioned and re-ordained, should not be broken. You thus admit the whole principle that there is some work which may be done on the Sabbath day. Is it then just and fair to be angry with me, because I have done a far greater work to a mau on the Sabbath, than the work of circumcision? I have not wounded his body by circumcision, but made him perfectly whole. I have not done a purifying work to one particular part of him, but have restored his whole body to health and strength. I have not done a work of necessity to one single member only, but a work of necessity and benefit to the whole man."

I cannot see any ground for the idea suggested by Alford, that our Lord implies in this verse, that the law of the Sabbath is a mere Judaical practice and comparatively a modern crdinance, and that as such it properly gave way to the older and higher law of circumcision, which was "of the fathers." — It might be replied, firstly, that the Sabbath is so far from being a Jndaical institution, that it is actually olclerthan circumcision, and was appointed in Paradise. — It might be replied, secondly, that our Lord seems purposely to guard against the idea by speaking of circumcision as " given by Moses," and as a part of "the law of Moses." In fact, He does this twice with such curious particularity, that one might think He meant to guard against any one wresting this passage into an argument against the perpetual obligation of the Sabbath day. He is pleased for the occasion to speak both of circumcision and the SabT)ath as part of " the law of Moses." He did this purposely, because the minds of His hearers were full of Moses and the law at this particular period. And His argument amounts to this, that if they themselves allowed the Mosaic law of the Sabbath must give way in a case of necessity to the Mosaic law of circumcision, they admitted that some works might be done on the Sabbath day; and therefore His work of healing an entire man on the Sabbath day could not be condemned as sinful.

The marginal reading, " without breaking the law of Moses," instead of "that the law of Moses should not be broken," appears to me inadmissible and unnecessary. It is inadmissible, because it is a forced and unnatural interpretation of the Greek words. It is unnecessary, because our Lord is evidently speaking of circumcision as part of " the law of Moses."

The idea of some commentators, as Trapp, Rollock, Plutcheson, Beza, and Stier, that " every whit whole " means 11 wholeness" of soul as well as body, and implies conversion of heart as well as restoration to entire health and strength of the physical man, appears to me unlikely and far-fetched. It is a pious thought, but not apparently in our Lord's mind. Moreover, it is not quite certain that the man healed at Bethesdawas healed in soul as well as body. There is no clear proof of it.

2\.— [Judge not according to the appearance, etc.'] The sense of this verse mu»t. be sought in connection with the subject of which our lord has just been speaking. The Jews had condemned our Lord and denounced Him as a sinner against the fourth commandment, because He had done a work on the Sabbath day. Our Lord refers to this and says,—" Judge not the deed I did according to the appearance. I did a work on the Sabbath unquestionably. But what kind of a work was it? It was an act of necessity and mercy, and therefore an act as lawful to be clone as circumcision, which you yourselves perform on the Sabbath clay. In appearance the Sabbath was broken. In reality it was not broken at all. Judge fair and just and righteous judgment. Do not hastily condemn an action, such as this, without looking below the surface."

There is perhaps a reference here to Isaiah's prophecy about Messiah, "lie shall not judge after the sight of His eyesl" (Isa. xi. 3.)

The principle here laid down is one of vast importance. Nothing is so common as to judge too favourably or too unfavourably of characters and actions, from merely looking at the outward appearance of things. We are apt to form hasty opinions of others, either for good or evil, on very insufficient grounds. We pronounce some men to be good and others to be bad, — some to be godly and others to be ungodly, without anything but appearance to aid our decision. We should do well to remember our blindness, and to keep in mind this text. The bad are not always so bad, nor the good so good as. they appear. A potsherd may be covered over with gilding, and look bright outside. A nugget of gold may be covered with dirt, and look worthless rubbish. One man's work may look good at first, and yet turn out, by and by, to have been done from the basest motives. Another man's work may look very questionable at first, and yet at last may prove Christ-like and truly godly. From rashly "judging by appearances" may the Lord deliver us!

Whether our Lord meant "judge not persons," or "judge not actions," according to appearance, is a point on which commentators do not agree. If we take the application to be to "persons," the sentence means, " Do not hastily suppose that Moses and I are at variance, and that, therefore, I must be wrong, because Moses, the great lawgiver, must be right." But it seems far simpler and more natural to apply the expression to "actions," — "Judge not the thing done by the appearance only. Look below the surface and weigh it justly.'*

25 Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he whom they seok to kill?

2G But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do tho rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?

27 Ilowbcit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence ho is.

28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but ho that sent me is true, whom yo know not.

29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent mo.

30 Thon they sought to tako him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.

31 And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will ho do more miracles than these which this man hath done?

32 IT The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to tako him

33 Then said Jesus unto them, Yet

A little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me.

34 Yo shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither yo cannot come.

35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we

shall not find him? will he go unto tho dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

36 What maimer of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am thither ye cannot come?

We see in these verses, the obstinate blindness of the unbelieving Jews. We find them defending their denial of onr Lord's Messiahship, by saying, " We know this man whence He is: but when Christ cometh no man knoweth whence He is." And yet in both these assertions they were wrong!

They were wrong in saying that they "knew whence our Lord came." They meant no doubt to say that He was born at Nazareth, and belonged to Nazareth, and was therefore a Galilean. Yet the fact was, that our Lord was born at Bethlehem, that He belonged legally to the tribe of Judah, and that His mother and Joseph were of the house and lineage of David. It is incredible to suppose that the Jews could not have found this out, if they had honestly searched and inquired. It is notorious that pedigrees, genealogies, and family histories were most carefully kept by the Jewish nation. Their ignorance was without excuse.

They were wrong again in saying " that no man was to know whence Christ came." There was a well-known prophecy, with which their whole nation was familiar, that Christ was to come out of the town of Bethlehem. (Micah v. 2; Matt. ii. 5; John vii. 42.) It is absurd to suppose that they had forgotten this prophecy. But apparently they found it inconvenient to remember it on this occasion. Men's memories are often sadly dependent on their wills.

The Apostle Peter, in a certain place, speaks of some as " willingly ignorant." (2 Pet. iii. 5.) He had good reason to use the expression. It is a sore spiritual disease, and one most painfully common among men. There are thousands in the present day just as blind in their way as the Jews. They shut their eyes against the plainest facts and doctrines of Christianity. They pretend to say that they do not understand, and cannot therefore believe the things that we press on their attention, as needful to salvation. But, alas! in nineteen cases out of twent}T it is a wilful ignorance. They do not believe what they do not like to believe. They will neither read, nor listen, nor search, nor think, nor inquire, honestly after truth. Can any one wonder if such persons are ignorant? Faithful and true is that old proverb, — " There are none so blind as those who will not see."

We see, for another thing, in these verses, the overruling hand of God over all His enemies. We find that the unbelieving Jews " Sought to take our Lord: but no man laid hands on Him, because his hour was not yet come." They had the will to hurt him, but b}r an invisible restraint from above, they had not the power.

There is a mine of deep truth in the woids before us, which deserves close attention. They show us plainly that all our Lord's sufferings were undergone voluntarily, and of His own free will. He did not go to the cross because He could not help it. He did not die because He could not prevent His death. Neither Jew nor Gentile, Pharisee nor Sadducee, Annas nor Caiaphas, Herod nor Pontius Pilate, could have injured our Lord, except power had been given them from above. All that they did was done under control, and by permission. The crucifixion was part of the eternal counsels of the Trinit}^. The passion of our Lord could not begin until the very hour which God had appointed. This is a grea*; mystery. But it is a truth.

The servants of Christ in Q\ery age should treasure up the doctrine before us, and remember it in time of need.

It is " full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to goclly persons." Let such never forget that they live in a world where God overrules all times and events, and where nothing can happen but by God's permission. The very hairs of their heads are all numbered. Sorrow and sickness, and poverty, and persecution, can never touch them, unless God sees fit. They may boldly say to every cross, — " Thou couldst have no power against me, except it were given thee from above." Then let them work on confidently. They are immortal, till their work is done. Let them suffer patiently, if needs be that they suffer. Their "times are in God's hand." (Psl. xxxi. 15.) That hand guides and governs all things here below, and makes no mistakes.

We see lastly, in these verses, the miserable end to which unbelievers may one day come. We find our Lord saying to His enemies, — "Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me; and where I am thither ye cannot come."

We can hardty doubt that these words were meant to have a prophetical sense. Whether our Lord had in view individual cases of unbelief among His hearers, or whether He looked forward to the national remorse which many would feel too late in the final siege of Jerusalem, are points which we cannot perhaps decide. But that many Jews did remember Christ's sayings long after He had ascended into heaven, and did in a way seek Him and wish for Him when it was too late, we may be very sure.

It is far too much forgotten that there is such a thing as finding out truth too late. There may be convictions of sin, discoveries of our own foil}7, desires after peace, anxieties about heaven, fears of hell, — but all too late. The teaching of Scripture on this point is clear and express. It is written in Proverbs, — " Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me." (Prov. ii. 28.) It is written of the foolish virgins in the parable, that when they found the door shut, they knocked in vain, saying, "Lord, Lord, open to us." (Matt. xxxv. 11.) Awful as it may seem, it is possible, by continually resisting light and warnings, to sin away our own souls. It sounds terrible, but it is true.

Let us take heed to ourselves lest we sin after the example of the unbelieving Jew's, and never seek the Lord Jesus as a Saviour till it is too late. The door of mercy is still open. The throne of grace is still waiting for us. Let us give diligence to make sure our interest in Christ, while it is called to-day. Better never have been born than hear the Son of God say at last, " Where I am thither ye cannot come."