{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_41362/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_41362","id":"gutenberg_41362","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41362","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. John -- Commentaries","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Sermons, English"],"text":"THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.\n\n[Illustration: Publisher's Mark]\n\n\n\n\n  THE\n  GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.\n\n\n  A Series of Discourses.\n\n  By\n  FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE, M.A.,\n  PROFESSOR OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.\n\n  \"Johannes redet schlecht und einf\u00e4ltig wie ein Kind, und lauten seine\n  Worte (wie die Weltweisen sie ansehen) recht kindisch. Es ist aber\n  eine solche Majest\u00e4t drunter verborgen, die kein Mensch, so hoch er\n  auch erleuchtet ist, erforschen noch ausreden kann.\"--LUTHER,\n  _Auslegung des Evangel_. _Johannis_, 1, 5.\n\n\n  NEW EDITION.\n\n  London:\n  MACMILLAN AND CO.\n\n  1882.\n\n  [_The Right of Translation and Reproduction is Reserved._]\n\n\n\n\nLondon: R. CLAY, SONS, AND TAYLOR BREAD STREET HILL, E.C.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.\n\n\nA valued friend, to whose judgment on a critical question I shall\nalways defer, has sent me the following observations upon certain\npassages in the 11th and 16th Discourses of this volume. I have made\nno alterations in the text.\n\n\n_John_ v. 3, 4.\n\nIt is implied at page 143 that certain \"honest and earnest men\" are\nunwilling to believe that St. John wrote the verse relating to angelic\ninterposition in the cures wrought by the pool of Bethesda, merely\nbecause they consider the doctrine unworthy of him. It may be so: but\nit is at least possible to assent fully to the doctrine, and yet\nreject the verse, along with the last clause of the preceding verse,\non purely outward and critical grounds. Of the six most important\nGreek MSS. two (and those, perhaps, the best) omit the whole\npassage, \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd--\u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, two the clause,\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd--\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, and two the verse,\n\u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2--\u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9: not more than one or two\ntolerable Greek MSS. support the received reading. Of important early\nversions three omit the whole passage (including the recently\ndiscovered \"Curetonian\" Syriac, probably the earliest and most\nimportant of all), another (and two MSS. of a second) omits the verse,\nand two others omit or obelize part of the verse. Of early patristic\nevidence there is hardly any either way. Origen's commentary between\niv. 54 and viii. 19 is unfortunately lost. Tertullian in one place\nshows an acquaintance with the belief about the angel, and probably\nwith the whole passage. With this exception, the passage appears to be\nknown in either form to no Father previous to St. Ambrose, no Greek\nFather previous to St. Chrysostom: they and their successors follow\nthe common text. The only important early authority in its favour is\nthe Old Latin version, (with which must be taken Tertullian;) and yet\n_its_ MSS. differ surprisingly in the details of the verse, presenting\nit for the most part in a shorter form than the Greek MSS., which\nlikewise differ considerably among themselves. In short, all the\nfamiliar phenomena of interpolation are present in the most flagrant\nshape. In all probability the passage was added by degrees in the\nsecond century in the Western Church, and passed over to the East in\nthe fourth century.\n\n\n_John_ vii. 53-viii. 11.\n\nAt page 229 \"some of the Fathers\" are said to have \"disliked the moral\nof\" the story of the woman taken in adultery, and therefore to have\nbeen \"glad to believe it not genuine.\" It is needless to go into the\noverwhelming critical evidence against its genuineness,--a matter\nquite distinct from its truth and authority. But surely the charge\nhere made is founded on an oversight. The earlier Fathers (with the\ndoubtful exception of Eusebius, who has been reasonably supposed to\nallude to the same incident, as recorded by Papias, and in the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews) nowhere refer to the narrative, apparently\nfor the simple reason that it was entirely unknown to them. Origen's\ncommentary on this part of the chapter is lost; but in a minute\nrecapitulation, included in his remarks on verse 22, he passes at once\nwithout observation from vii. 52 to viii. 12. St. Chrysostom and St.\nCyril ignore the passage in the same manner. There is really no reason\nwhatever to suspect fraud here. St. Ambrose warns his readers of the\ndanger of reading the story carelessly (_otiosis auribus_), but does\nnot appear to doubt its genuineness. St. Augustine, arguing against an\nexcessive rigour on the part of injured husbands, rebukes certain\npersons (_modic\u00e6 fidei vel potius inimicis ver\u00e6 fidei_), who, as he\nfancied, banished it from their MSS. because it seemed to be more\nlenient to women than to their guilty selves. St. Jerome states that\nit was found in many Greek and Latin MSS., and proceeds to rest an\nargument upon it. Surely these three Fathers, if any, would have been\n\"glad to believe it not genuine.\"\n\nBoth passages are pretty fully discussed by Dr. Tregelles (_Account of\nthe printed Text of the Greek New Testament_, pp. 236-246), with the\nhelp of some evidence not before accessible.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nI made many attempts to write a commentary on the Gospel of St. John.\nAll of them proved abortive; though each of them made me more alive to\nthe duty of endeavouring to impart to others some of the lessons which\nI had received from it. At length I was convinced that unless I\nstudied the Gospel first of all with reference to my own congregation,\nand used it as a lesson-book for them, I never should be able to\nexpress what was in my mind to men whom I did not know. Critics, I\ndoubt not, will know excellent reasons why a book of Scripture cannot\nbe satisfactorily expounded in pulpit discourses. I certainly shall\nnot dispute their opinion. No one is more aware than myself that I\nhave not satisfactorily expounded _this_ book of Scripture. I have not\nhoped to do that. But I believe I may have given my hearers and my\nreaders some encouragement to seek a better Expositor of it than I or\nany much wiser teacher can be. If a few have been led by my words to\nhope for that guidance, and to place themselves under it, I trust they\nwill ask for themselves and for me, that we may never desert it for\nany other, least of all for our own.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n  DISCOURSE I.\n                                                                    PAGE\n\n  ST. JOHN I. 1.--_In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was\n  with God, and the Word was God._\n\n  The Ages of the Church--St. John the Theologian--Accounts of him\n  in the first Three Evangelists--His Jewish feelings--The opening\n  Sentence of the Gospel--What Psalmists and Prophets mean when\n  they speak of the Word of God--How Alexandrian Jews spoke of\n  the Living Word--Confused opinions at the end of the First Century--\n  How the opening of this Gospel meets them                            1\n\n\n  DISCOURSE II.\n\n  ST. JOHN I. 14.--_And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us_,\n  (_and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the\n  Father_,) _full of grace and truth._\n\n  The same subject continued--How the Living Word was implied in\n  all the teaching of the Old Testament--The Word, the Creator of\n  the World--The Word enlightening human beings--The testimony\n  of John to Him in this character                                    15\n\n\n  DISCOURSE III.\n\n  ST. JOHN I. 29.--_The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him,\n  and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the\n  world._\n\n  John the Baptist an Old Testament teacher--How St. John the Evangelist\n  learnt his wisdom from him--His dialogue with the Pharisees--Wherein\n  the Jews were wrong in their apprehension of the Christ--How John's\n  message concerning Him that was before him met these confusions--His\n  testimony to his own disciples concerning the Lamb of God           28\n\n\n  DISCOURSE IV.\n\n  ST. JOHN I. 46.--_And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any\n  good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and\n  see._\n\n  The same subject continued--The Scape-Goat and the Lamb--Why\n  the last is a more satisfactory image than the first--The Lamb\n  identified with the Man--The Spirit and the Dove--John's Disciples\n  following Jesus--Nathanael confessing the Man of Nazareth to\n  be the Son of God--What was promised him hereafter                  43\n\n\n  DISCOURSE V.\n\n  ST. JOHN II. 11.-_This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of\n  Galilee, and manifested forth His glory; and His disciples believed\n  on Him._\n\n  Miracles and Signs--The change from the desert to the feast--The\n  dialogue between Mary and her Son--Effects of the Sign upon those\n  who had not, and those who had, believed Jesus to be the Christ--\n  Christ giving His blessing to Marriage--Christ the spring of Life\n  and Joy--The beginning of Signs--Object of St. John in recording\n  them--Their message to us                                           57\n\n\n  DISCOURSE VI.\n\n  ST. JOHN II. 16.-_Take these things hence; make not my Father's\n  house an house of merchandise._\n\n  Difference between St. John and the other Evangelists in reference\n  to Galilee and Jerusalem--The Two Purifications of the Temple--\n  Jewish feelings respecting the Temple, easily understood by\n  Englishmen--The Temple-Market--The impression of our Lord's Zeal on\n  the minds of the Disciples--The Words '_My Father's House_'--The\n  Temple raised in three days--Double senses                          72\n\n\n  DISCOURSE VII.\n\n  ST. JOHN III. 3.--_Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily,\n  I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the\n  kingdom of God._\n\n  Effects of the signs at the Passover on the crowd--Their impression\n  on Nicodemus the Pharisee--Seeing the Kingdom of God--The New\n  Birth--The perplexity of the Pharisee--The Spirit and the Wind--\n  Earthly Things and Heavenly Things--The Son of Man from Heaven\n  and in Heaven--The Brazen Serpent--Consciousness not the basis\n  of God's Kingdom--The Will of God                                   85\n\n\n  DISCOURSE VIII.\n\n  ST. JOHN III. 30.--_He must increase; I must decrease._\n\n  Return to John the Baptist--What John's Disciples say of the new\n  Teacher--John's answer--The Gift from above--The Royal Bridegroom--\n  The friend of the Bridegroom--The joy of John in his insignificance--\n  The Earthly and the Heavenly Speech--How the Divine Testimony is\n  received--The Difficulty of believing in God--The new Revelation\n  of the Father and the Son--The Wrath of God                        101\n\n\n  DISCOURSE IX.\n\n  ST. JOHN IV. 10.--_Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou\n  knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give\n  me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of Him, and He would have\n  given thee living water._\n\n  Water a Sign of Purification and a Sign of Life--Jesus in Samaria--\n  The Gift of God--The Well of Life within--The woman revealed\n  to herself--The Place of Worship and the Object of Worship--\n  Spiritual and superstitious tendencies of the Samaritans--Christ\n  declaring Himself to the woman                                     115\n\n\n  DISCOURSE X.\n\n  ST. JOHN IV. 48.--_Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs\n  and wonders, ye will not believe._\n\n  The woman's Message to her countrymen--'_Is not this the Christ?_'--\n  Wonder of the disciples--The Reapers and the Harvest--What\n  rewards Christ promises--The Samaritan Faith--The Galil\u00e6an\n  Faith--How the Nobleman's Faith was affected by the Cure of his\n  Son                                                                 128\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XI.\n\n  ST. JOHN V. 16-18.--_And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus,\n  because He had done these things on the sabbath-day. But Jesus\n  answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore\n  the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He had not only broken\n  the sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself\n  equal with God._\n\n  Jesus at Jerusalem--The Pool--The Angel--Whether the story interferes\n  with Science--Records of Angels in the Old Testament--How\n  the cure of the Man concerned the doctrine respecting Angels--The\n  Sabbath-day--How the Pharisee regarded all the commandments--Reasons\n  of their conflict with Jesus respecting this commandment--'_My\n  Father worketh hitherto, and I work_'                              141\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XII.\n\n  ST. JOHN V. 43.--_I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive\n  me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive._\n\n  The charge against Jesus of making Himself equal with God--How\n  Jesus refuses to exalt Himself--How He discovers the true Idea of\n  Godhead--The Son quickening the dead--All judgment committed\n  to the Son--The Light which that Language throws upon our\n  Experiences--The Son ruling and judging in the unseen World--The\n  Testimony of John--The Testimony of the Father--The Scriptures\n  and the Word                                                       156\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XIII.\n\n  ST. JOHN VI. 35.--_And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life:\n  he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me\n  shall never thirst._\n\n  Jesus feeding the multitude--The Prophet and the King--Jesus\n  walking on the Sea--Use of that Sign--The crowd seeking Jesus--The\n  Bread of Life--The Son of Man and the Father--The Manna\n  falling from Heaven--'_My Father giveth you the Bread_'--The Will\n  of the Father--Christ promised to the Race and to each Man         172\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XIV.\n\n  ST. JOHN VI. 62.--_What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend\n  up where He was before?_\n\n  How to give thanks for a Peace--How the Nation of Israel was taught\n  that it did not live by Bread alone--How Jesus interpreted that\n  Language--The Teaching of the Father--'_The Bread that I will give\n  is my Flesh_'--Whether St. John was speaking of the Lord's Supper--\n  Spiritual Eating not metaphorical Eating--How the History of\n  the Church explains the Words, '_Except ye eat the Flesh of the\n  Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no Life in you_'--How\n  the Ascension is connected with these words--The Faith of Peter--The\n  Unbelief of Judas--How connected with this subject--Its\n  relation to modern events--Christianity and Mahometanism           186\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XV.\n\n  ST. JOHN VII. 37-39.--_In the last day, that great day of the feast,\n  Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto\n  me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said,\n  out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake\n  He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive: for\n  the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet\n  glorified._)\n\n  Meaning of the Feast of Tabernacles--Why the brethren of our Lord\n  wished Him to go to Jerusalem--The Jewish World--Christ teaching\n  in the Temple--Doing God's Will and knowing His Doctrine--The\n  Sabbath-day and Circumcision--In what Sense Christ's Life was\n  mysterious, in what Sense open--'_Ye shall seek me, and not find\n  me_'--The Gift of the Holy Ghost                                   209\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XVI.\n\n  ST. JOHN VIII. 29.--_And He that sent me is with me: the Father\n  hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please\n  Him._\n\n  Bethlehem and Nazareth--The division in the Sanhedrim--The Story\n  of the Woman taken in Adultery--Jesus declaring Himself the Light\n  of the World--The Two Witnesses--The Descent and the Ascent--The\n  Answer to the Question, '_Who art Thou?_'--The Son of Man\n  lifted up--How St. John preaches the Trinity                       226\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XVII.\n\n  ST. JOHN VIII. 43.--_Why do ye not understand my speech? even\n  because ye cannot hear my word._\n\n  The repelling and attracting Power of Christ's Words concerning\n  His Father--The Promise of Truth--The Promise of Freedom--The\n  Servant in the House and the Son--Abraham's Seed--The Desire to\n  murder the Prince of Life--The claim of God as a Father--The\n  charge of being children of the Devil--The Speech and the Word--The\n  Temporal and the Eternal--'_Before Abraham was, I am_'             240\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XVIII.\n\n  ST. JOHN IX. 39.--_And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into\n  this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which\n  see might be made blind._\n\n  How the story of the Blind Man is connected with the previous\n  discourse--Final causes of bodily disease--The obligation upon Jesus\n  to work--Process of the cure--The debates in the Synagogue--The\n  Doctors and the Beggar--His arguments and their answer--What\n  his blindness had done for him--The Revelation of the Son of God   259\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XIX.\n\n  ST. JOHN X. 27-29.--_My sheep hear my voice, and I know them,\n  and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they\n  shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my\n  and. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no\n  man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand._\n\n  The Mount of Olives--The sight of the Sheepfold--The Wicket-Gate--\n  Why the Pharisees could not understand the symbol--St. John's\n  Parables--The robbers and murderers who claimed to be Christs\n  in the Old Time--Application to Modern Times--How is it true\n  that the Sheep did not hear them--The Good Shepherd and the\n  Hirelings--Communion between the Shepherd and the Sheep--Communion\n  between Christ and His Father--The other Sheep--Why Jesus did not\n  say, 'I am the Christ'--'_My Father is greater than all_'--'_I and\n  my Father are one_'--'_I have said, Ye are gods_'                  274\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XX.\n\n  ST. JOHN XI. 25.--_Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and\n  the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall\n  he live._\n\n  Jesus and the Disciples again in the Wilderness--The common feeling\n  respecting the Resurrection of Lazarus, the true one--The Sisters\n  and the Brother--The Message concerning Lazarus--The hours of\n  Night and Day--Our Friend sleepeth--How the Two Sisters endure\n  their Comforters--The Resurrection in the Last Day--'_I am the\n  Resurrection, and the Life_'--The Groaning of Jesus--The Glory of\n  God--Lazarus returning to his Home--Resurrection not a Break in\n  a Man's History--The Renewal of Family Bonds--Deliverance from\n  Unbelief        300\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XXI.\n\n  ST. JOHN XI. 49, 50.--_And one of them, named Caiaphas, being\n  the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing a\n  all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should\n  die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not._\n\n  Why the Sadducees did not wish to stone Jesus--The Prophecy of\n  Caiaphas--The Romans and the Cross--The Feast at Bethany--The\n  Box of Ointment--Its Effect on Judas--Jerusalem during the\n  Passover--When the Disciples learnt the meaning of Christ's\n  Entry into the City--The Greeks at the Feast--The Seed falling\n  into the Ground and dying--The Moment of Agony--The Son of Man\n  drawing all Men to Him--'_Who is this Son of Man?_'--How that\n  Question is asked and answered in our day                          321\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XXII.\n\n  ST. JOHN XII. 44-50, and XIII. 1.--_Jesus cried and said, He that\n  believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on Him that sent me. And\n  he that seeth me, seeth Him that sent me. I am come a light into the\n  world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.\n  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not; for\n  I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that\n  rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him:\n  the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last\n  day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me,\n  He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should\n  speak. And I know that His commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever\n  I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. Now\n  before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that His hour was\n  come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having\n  loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end._\n\n  The last Signs to the Jewish people--How Isaiah had explained their\n  inefficacy--The Glory of Men and the Glory of God--The Words\n  which closed Christ's public Ministry--The Last Supper--The\n  Washing of the Feet--What had to be washed away--Why the feet\n  only had to be washed--Christ's Example--How one Man can purify\n  another--The Disciple not above his Master--'_He that receiveth\n  you receiveth Me_'--The trouble of Spirit--The Disciple whom Jesus\n  loved--'_That thou doest, do quickly_'--The Son of Man glorified--\n  The New Commandment--The prophecy of denial                        341\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XXIII.\n\n  ST. JOHN XIV. 25, 26.--_These things have I spoken unto you, being\n  yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,\n  whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things,\n  and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said\n  unto you._\n\n  The two causes of Trouble--The double support under them--Why\n  Jesus did not speak of dying--The message concerning a Father's\n  House--Jesus the Way--To what the Way leads--'_Have I been\n  so long time with you, and hast thou not known me?_'--The greater\n  Works--Praying in the Name of Jesus--The promise of the Comforter--\n  Loving and obeying--How the Disciples learnt their need\n  of a Spirit--The gift of the Spirit the gift of Peace--The Prince\n  of this World--The love of the Father to the World                 365\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XXIV.\n\n  ST. JOHN XV. 1.--_I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman._\n\n  Allusions to vines in the old Scripture--The interpretation of them\n  here--'_Abide in me_'--Ground of the union of the Disciples to\n  Christ--The gift of Joy--Servants and friends--The command to\n  love--The world's hatred a hatred of God                           383\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XXV.\n\n  ST. JOHN XVI. 1.--_These things have I spoken unto you, that ye\n  should not be offended._\n\n  Effect of Christ's words upon His Disciples when they met with\n  persecutions--Method of His education--The conviction of the world\n  by the Spirit--The Spirit not speaking of Himself, but of the Son\n  and the Father--'_A little while and ye shall not see me_'--The\n  birth of the Man into the world--The Apostles' belief--The world\n  overcome                                                           396\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XXVI.\n\n  ST. JOHN XVII. 1.--_These words spake Jesus, and lifted up His\n  eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy\n  Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee._\n\n  Words, their power and their weakness--How to connect Christ's\n  prayer with other prayers--'_Glorify thy Son, that thy Son may\n  glorify thee_'--The gift of eternal life--The order of the\n  prayer--The part of it which refers to the Disciples--'_I pray\n  not for the world_'--The son of perdition--Truth and sanctity--\n  '_That they all may be one_'--The world which has not known\n  the Father                                                         411\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XXVII.\n\n  ST. JOHN XIX. 37.--_And again another scripture saith, They shall\n  look on Him whom they have pierced._\n\n  Arrangement of our services in Passion Week--Agreement of St.\n  John with the other Evangelists--Why all dwell upon the arraignment\n  of Jesus--Peculiarities of St. John--The night-scene with the\n  officers--Jesus before the High Priest--The dread of defilement--Jesus\n  before Pilate--'_Art thou a king?_'--'_Behold the man!_'--'_Whence\n  art thou?_'--'_We have no king but C\u00e6sar_'--The title on the cross--\n  Rending the garment--The Son and the Mother--'_A bone shall not\n  be broken_'--'_They shall look on Him whom they have pierced_'--\n  Nicodemus at the sepulchre                                         424\n\n\n  DISCOURSE XXVIII.\n\n  ST. JOHN XX. 30, 31.--_And many other signs truly did Jesus in\n  the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book:\n  but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the\n  Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life\n  through His name._\n\n  Reasons why St. John should record the history of the Resurrection\n  carefully--How far he or the other Evangelists cared to produce\n  evidences--Peter and John at the sepulchre--How John could find\n  in the Scripture that Jesus should rise again--Appearance of the\n  angels--Differences of the Evangelists--Jesus speaking to Mary--'_I\n  am not yet ascended_'--'_Peace be unto you_'--The commission to bind\n  and loose--Thomas the Doubter--The conclusion of the narrative--The\n  resumption of it--The Apostles returning to their nets--Jesus\n  on the shore--The fish and the bread--'_Simon, lovest thou\n  me?_'--The two Apostles--John tarrying till Christ came--The\n  things which Jesus did, and is doing, and will do                  443\n\n\n\n\nNOTES.\n\n\n  NOTE I.--On Barn's theory of the Gospels                           469\n\n  NOTE II.--On the construing of the 3d, 4th, and 9th verses of the\n  1st chapter                                                        475\n\n  NOTE III.--On Origen's notion of St. John's Gospel in connexion\n  with the knowledge attributed to John the Baptist                  477\n\n  NOTE IV.--On the relation of the words, '_The Lamb of God_,' to\n  the Passover, and to the passage in the 53d chapter of Isaiah      479\n\n  NOTE V.--On the objections to a revision of the Scriptures         481\n\n  NOTE VI.--Extract from Gregory of Nyssa      484\n\n  NOTE VII.--On the resurrection of the body and the judgment-day      484\n\n  NOTE VIII.--Comparison of the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount\n  with that in the 8th chapter of St. John                           488\n\n  NOTE IX.--On the doctrine of Atonement--Scotch and English\n  divinity        492\n\n  NOTE X.--On corporate holiness                                     498\n\n  NOTE XI.--A translation of John viii. 2                            501\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE I.\n\nTHE JEWISH FISHERMAN, THE CHRISTIAN DIVINE.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, Septuagesima Sunday, January 20, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN I. 1.\n\n_In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the\nWord was God._\n\n\nAn eminent man, who died not long since in Germany, was wont to divide\nthe life of the Church into three periods. That before the Reformation\nhe called the Petrine; the three centuries since the Reformation, the\nPauline; one he maintained was at hand, which would last to the end of\nthis dispensation--that he named the Johannine. The classification is\nperhaps too ingenious to be true; and there are many reasons why we\nought not to treat all the years before the sixteenth century as\nbelonging to the same division. Nevertheless, there is something in\nthe observation concerning St. John which has commended itself to\nminds of a very different order from his who put it into this shape.\nSome have supposed that St. John is to displace the earlier writers of\nthe New Testament, because his teaching is more profound, or more\ncharitable, or more simple than theirs. Some suppose that he was\nespecially appointed to explain, unfold, bring out into their fullest\nlight, all that previous Prophets and Apostles had presented under\ndifferent aspects, in forms suitable to their own times and\ncircumstances. Wide as this difference is, both may agree that the\nwritings of St. John, much as they may have been studied hitherto,\ndeserve a fresh and a more earnest study. Both may hope that if they\nhave been intended for the illumination of our days, the meaning of\nthem may come forth to us with greater clearness than it did to our\nforefathers; not because we are wiser than they, but because a larger\nexperience, perhaps an experience of more intense doubt and ignorance,\nmay make us more ready to welcome the divine interpreter, and less\neager to anticipate his discoveries by the conclusions which ask to be\ncorrected by them.\n\nThere are three books in our canon which we attribute to St. John,\nbesides the two short letters to Gaius and the Elect Lady. Of these,\nhis Gospel appears to me a perfect summary of _Christian Theology_,\nhis First Epistle of _Christian Ethics_, his Apocalypse of _Christian\nPolitics_. I do not despair of seeing even this last book come forth,\nout of the hands of soothsayers and prognosticators, as a real\nlesson-book respecting the dealings of God with the nations,\nrespecting the method and the issues of His righteous government. The\ncraving there is in the minds of men for a faithful history of the\npast, which shall be also a faithful guide to the future, will surely\nbe satisfied some day; this book may teach us how it shall be\nsatisfied. It requires even less faith to expect that when we are\ntired of speculations about the maxims and principles of morality,\nwhich do not make our morality better, while yet their very failure\nconvinces us that there are principles which we did not create and\nwhich must bind us, we may turn to an old and simple document, which\nsets forth the commandment that has life--which tells us what the end\nof our existence is, what has deranged it, how each man may recover\nall that he has lost, and be what he was created to be.\n\nI had thought at first that these Bible ethics might be more suitable\nto a congregation of men, busy in the world and valuing higher maxims\nonly as they can test them by their application to its daily\noccasions, than what I have called by the more imposing name of\nTheology. I should have acted upon that thought if I had believed that\nSt. John's theology was of that stamp which has made the word\nagreeable to schoolmen, offensive to those who would turn words into\nacts. If theology is a collection of dry husks, the granaries which\ncontain those husks will be set on fire, and nothing will quench the\nfire till they be consumed. It is just because I find in St. John the\ngrain which those husks sometimes conceal, for which they are\nsometimes a substitute; it is just because theology in his Gospel\noffers itself to us as a living root, out of which all living powers,\nliving thoughts, living acts may develop themselves; it is just\nbecause there is nothing in him that is abstract, because that which\nis deep and eternal proves itself to be deep and eternal by entering\ninto all the relations of time, by manifesting itself in all the\ncommon doings of men; it is therefore, I believe, that he makes his\nappeal, not to the man of technicalities, not to the school doctor,\nbut to the simple wayfarer, and at the same time to the man of science\nwho does not forget that he is a man and who expects to ascertain\nprinciples only by the honest method of experiment.\n\nTo all such, I am sure, the careful study of the fourth Gospel will\nprove of unspeakable worth and interest. A preacher may do much to\nhinder such study; he may also do something to promote it. He will\nhinder it if he seeks to make texts give out a sense which he has\nfirst put into them. He will hinder it if he seeks to stifle any\ndoubts which the words themselves may excite; any that are suggested\nby the contradictions of the world, and the perplexities of the\nreader's own mind. He will hinder it if he breaks the continuity of\nthe narration by taking a passage here and there to inculcate a\nparticular moral, without considering how it is related to the\npassages that precede and that follow it and to the general scope of\nthe Evangelist. He may promote it so far as he believes that he is a\nfellow-learner with those whom he is teaching; so far as he is\nconvinced that the words of the Evangelist are clearer and diviner\nthan any which he, of his own wit or by the help of inferior books,\ncan put in their place; so far as he desires that his own eyes, and\nthose of all students, may be purged that they may see what is\nactually in the words; so far as he believes that there is One who is\nabove the words, above the writer of them, to whom they point, and\nfrom whom all the wisdom that is in them comes; so far as he trusts\nfor himself, and encourages all to trust, that this Teacher wills us\nto come to the knowledge of His truth, and will withhold no help that\nwe need in the pursuit of it. Beseeching the Holy Spirit of God to\nkeep alive this temper in your minds and in mine, I would begin the\nexamination of St. John's Gospel to-day, desiring, if God permit, that\nwe may go through with it to the end.\n\nWhen I talk of St. John as a Theologian, I adopt the title which was\ngiven to him at a very early time. In our own day that title has\nawakened a suspicion about the genuineness of this Gospel. He is\nspoken of by the other Evangelists as a fisherman mending his father's\nnets; as one of two Apostles whom our Lord called Sons of Thunder; as\ngiving some warrant for that designation by desiring to call fire from\nheaven upon a Samaritan village; as showing signs of a special\nambition by his prayer that he himself and his brother might sit one\non Christ's right hand and one on His left in His kingdom; as\nexhibiting the sectarian and exclusive temper of his nation, by\nforbidding a man to cast out devils in Christ's name who did not\nfollow with His Apostles. Was there anything in these early\ncharacteristics to prepare one for expecting that he would be the\ndivine, not of a Jewish synagogue but of a Christian Church? True, he\nis spoken of as being present on the Mount of Transfiguration, and in\nthe Garden of Gethsemane. On both occasions his eyes were heavy, like\nthose of the other disciples, with the sight of glory and the sight of\nsuffering. When others forsook and fled, he did so likewise. In the\nActs of the Apostles he appears, no doubt, in a conspicuous position,\nbut it is still expressly as a Jewish Apostle. If he is joined with\nSt. Peter in healing the sick man, it is when they are going up to the\nTemple at the hour of prayer. He endures the reproaches and the\nscourges of the Sanhedrim. But after the preaching of the Gospel to\nthe Gentiles, we hear no more of him; he vanishes out of sight. St.\nPaul calls him one of the Apostles of the Circumcision, but alludes to\nhim no further. When we meet with him again, not in the sacred record\nbut in the mist of ecclesiastical traditions, there are reports of him\nas adhering to the Jewish observance of the Passover, as in some sense\nrepresenting the dignity of the high-priest. How could we suppose from\nsuch intimations that he would open a Gospel with the words I read to\nyou in the text, words which seem to intimate an acquaintance with\nheathen speculation, even with a high philosophy? Does that language\nbelong at all to the simplicity of the first century? Is it not much\nmore in accordance with the spirit of the next age, when plain\nnarratives were combining themselves with curious speculations, and\nChristian teachers were introducing what they had learnt in the porch\nor the academy among the doctrines and the exhortations which had been\nuttered to fishermen on the lake of Tiberias or to the crowds who were\ngathered round the mount?\n\nFrom what I said of my reasons for selecting this Gospel as a subject\nfor discourses in the pulpit, you will anticipate part of the answer\nwhich I should give to these suggestions. If the Gospel is what those\nwho make them, say that it is, they are right. If its theology is of\nan abstract, artificial character, compounded of elements drawn from\nall heterogeneous sources, let it be attributed to an age--I do not\ndetermine whether the second century was or was not such an age--in\nwhich an artificial habit of mind prevailed, in which system-building\nhad become a profession. If there are _no_ traces of such a\ndisposition in the fourth Gospel,--if it is, in its language, in the\nconstruction of its sentences, in the style of its narrative, the\nsimplest of all the Gospels,--then we may have good cause to think\nthat it savours more of the fisherman to whom it has been for so many\nages ascribed, than of the learned convert from some Gentile school,\nthe ingenious blender of Jewish and Gentile dogmas, whom critics of\nthis age have imagined to be its manufacturer.\n\nI do not, however, desire to avoid a part of the inquiry which these\nremarks may not seem at first to meet. All the accounts of St. John\nin the New Testament, all that we can guess of him from other sources,\ncertainly lead us to think of him as one whose mind had been cast in\nthe Hebrew mould, who had learnt the lore of a child of Abraham, who\nhad not, in the same sense that St. Paul did, thrown himself among the\ninhabitants of the Greek cities, and become as '_one without law, that\nhe might gain those that are without law_.' St. John's position in the\ncity of Ephesus, during his latter years, does not affect the opinion\nthat he was essentially a Jew. Jerusalem had fallen, or was about to\nfall; nowhere, perhaps, would he be more likely to find a colony of\nmen attached to the customs of his forefathers than in that city.\nConfessedly, he had no part in founding its Church or converting its\nGentile inhabitants; that had been St. Paul's work. And we may admit\nwithout scruple the evidence, imperfect though it be, that St. John in\nthat city did preserve some of the characteristics of his childhood\nand of his education, even when the world to which those strictly\nbelonged was passing away.\n\nHow do these admissions affect our belief that he was the writer of\nthe sentences which introduce the Gospel that bears his name? I\nbelieve they strengthen that belief exceedingly. I can conceive\nnothing more thoroughly Hebrew than these sentences. I pass over the\nresemblance, which will strike you all upon this day,[1] between these\nverses and those at the commencement of the Book of Genesis; though\nthe correspondence between their style and the style of Moses, is one\nof those internal correspondences which we feel the more strongly the\nmore we reflect. But I would beg you to notice the essential\n_difference_ between this kind of writing and that of any person who\nhad been brought up in any school of philosophy whatsoever, whether\none purely Greek, or where Greek and Hebrew elements were mixed as\nthey were at Alexandria. Would you expect in such a person the broad,\nsimple, assertive tone, '_In the beginning was the Word, and the Word\nwas with God, and the Word was God_'? Would not the _true_ philosopher\ntry to vindicate his name by proving that he was a _seeker_ after\nwisdom? Would not the _false_ philosopher, if he were ever so much\ninclined to dogmatise, at least produce some plausible arguments in\nsupport of any statements which he advanced? Where, but in the\nwritings of the Old and New Testament, do you meet with such an\nadventurous proclamation as this? Where, even in the Books of the Old\nand New Testament, do you meet with one that is quite a parallel to\nit?\n\n[1] Septuagesima Sunday, when the first chapter of Genesis is read.\nSchleiermacher, who is not likely to exaggerate the resemblance of the\nNew Testament to the Old, dwells on this point. See \"Homilien \u00fcber das\nEvangelium Johannis;\" edited after his death by Sydow.\n\nAnd then look at the contents of the sentence. What have you been\nhearing of, all through the Psalms and the Prophets, but of God's\nword, which was to give Joshua courage, which David delighted in and\nfed upon, which was a fire in the heart of Jeremiah? On the surface of\nthe Bible this language encounters you. I mean, that your eye cannot\nwander over a page without being arrested by expressions of the kind;\nyou become so familiar with it that you forget the peculiarity of it.\nBut if you stop for a moment to think, you will perceive that whenever\nthe word of God is spoken of, something most vital and most inward is\nintended. It is a quick, penetrating power, entering into the man,\naffecting his heart and his reins, standing out in the sharpest\ncontrast to the idols which speak to the eye. The 'word of God' is the\nfavourite expression in the writers of the Old Testament, because they\nare testifying of an invisible Lord who speaks to man's spirit;\nbecause they are denouncing all attempts to make the objects of men's\nsenses into their lords. How frightful, then, to an old Prophet would\nhave been the thought of confounding the mere letters of a book, which\ncould be seen, handled, copied out, with the words of the Lord! No\ndoubt these words might have characters found for them; they might be\nhanded down in these characters from age to age: it would be a\nglorious witness of their enduring quality if they were so. But it\nwould remain unalterably true, that as words coming forth from the\nmouth of God, and not to return to Him void, they addressed themselves\nto the wills, hearts, consciences of men; into these only could they\nenter.\n\nWhence did they proceed? Solomon, the wise king, had spoken of a\ndivine Wisdom, from which his was derived. He had spoken of that\nWisdom as brought up with God--as His counsellor--as an object to be\nsought for, embraced, loved by men. The Prophets had spoken of the\nWord of God coming to them. The Word ruled them, searched them, judged\nthem. They were not the speakers; the Word was the speaker. Could such\nlanguage be uttered continually in the ears of earnest men and be\ndisregarded? It was not disregarded; it moulded the very heart of all\ntrue Israelites. But soon it was forced upon them in another way.\nAfter the Babylonian captivity, they were brought into contact with\nheathens; they were obliged to learn what heathens had been thinking\nof. Elsewhere they heard of great mythological conceptions, of the\nLion, the Eagle, the Ox, the Man, which represent different aspects of\nthe Divinity. But in the city of Alexandria they heard how Greek\nsages, in their struggle to get rid of mythological fancies, had\nspoken of a Logos or Reason in themselves, which lifted them above\nthemselves. It was strangely connected with the power of speech; it\npointed to the very source of speech and thought. It was often\ndescribed as an eye, blinded in most, and yet of which those in whom\nit was open could only say, 'It makes us know what the privilege is of\nbeing men, what the responsibility. Now we are sure that man has\nsomething to do with the Divinity, as all the traditions of our\nfathers tell us that he has. But what he has to do with the Divinity,\nwho can inform us? for the traditions only bewilder us when they try\nto explain.' Was it strange that a Jew should say to himself, 'Why, my\noracles have been telling me from the very first of a Word that speaks\nto men, a Word of God; a Word that withdraws them from the idolatry of\nsense, and the pursuit of sensible things; a Word that has taught them\nhow to rule themselves; a Word that has taught them how they may seek\nafter their Creator, and hold converse with Him.' Men of cultivation\nas well as of honesty might be easily overwhelmed by this twofold\ndiscovery; they might vacillate between their Gentile lore and their\nJewish; they might mix them sometimes confusedly together; they might\nresort to allegories for the sake of explaining the connexion, which\nthe simpler student of either would reject as unsatisfactory and\nfrivolous.\n\nThese descriptions apply, in some measure, to those commentaries on\nthe Old Testament which are contained in the Apocryphal books called\n'The Wisdom of Solomon,' and 'Ecclesiasticus.' The characteristic of\nthese books is their recognition of a divine Wisdom, which the\nwriters sometimes speak of as if it were abstract, quite as often as\nif it were personal and substantial. These modes of speech are\nconfessedly derived from the Scriptures. They speak of no history but\nthe Hebrew history; probably they were acquainted with no other. Still\nit is probable that they were holding intercourse with Gentiles,\nperhaps were explaining the Hebrew books to them. But all the\npeculiarities I have mentioned became far more marked and definite in\nPhilo the Alexandrian, who was an old man when he went on an embassy\nfrom the Alexandrian Jews to Caligula. In him the idea of a divine\nWord, who unites God and man, and holds converse with the spirit of\nman, becomes the ground of all his thoughts. Every book in the Bible\nspeaks to him of such a Being. The belief in Him alone explains to him\nthe life of patriarchs, lawgivers, prophets. Yet he admits that such a\nBeing must also have been the source of all wisdom to Gentile\nphilosophers. It is his privilege, as a Jew, to explain to them their\nown conceptions of such a Being. Moses could declare that that was\nwhich Plato felt must be.\n\nAll must see, if we had not positive evidence of the fact, how much\nsuch thoughts, coming forth at such a time, must have affected Jews,\nmay have affected Gentiles. Yet Philo wrote avowedly for the learned.\nHe wished to put himself at a distance from all others. It was a\nsatisfaction to him that he could, by the use of dark allegories, keep\nthe profane vulgar at a distance. How, then, could his thoughts blend\nwith those of the men who came preaching that One who was called a\ncarpenter's son, One who had chosen fishermen as His disciples, was\nthe King of men and the Son of God? '_To the poor the gospel is_\n_preached_,' was the maxim which they were to exhibit in their lessons\nand their lives. How could such doctrines as Philo's be addressed to\nthe poor?\n\nAnd yet the disciples were obliged to speak of Jesus as the Son of Man\nwho sowed the word in men's hearts, which sprang up and bore fruit,\nthirty and sixty and an hundredfold. They were obliged to speak of\nJesus, the Son of Man, as opening a kingdom of heaven which was within\nmen. They were obliged to speak of that kingdom as the kingdom of His\nFather. They were obliged to say that the Son of Man had opened it to\nall, because He was also the Son of God. They were obliged to say that\nthey could only testify of this kingdom because He had given them the\nSpirit of His Father. And when St. Paul learnt that he, the Hebrew of\nthe Hebrews, was called to be the Apostle of the Gentiles, it was '_by\na revelation of the Son of God in him_' Whom he was '_to preach to the\nGentiles_.' To the Corinthians, among whom he had determined to know\nnothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, he still spoke of Jesus\nChrist as the '_Wisdom of God_' and the '_Power of God_.' To the\nEphesians he spoke of their having '_been chosen in Him before the\nfoundation of the world, that they might be holy, and without blame\nbefore Him in love_.'\n\nWhat was the consequence? Jews said, 'You are exalting a man into the\nplace of God; you are denying the words which you were taught on your\nmother's knee, \"_The Lord our God is one Lord_.\"' Gentiles said, 'You\nare robbing us of the belief we have had of friendly beings of another\nworld, who have sympathised with ours, who have had loving converse\nwith sages and heroes, who have mixed with us as men among men.'\nPhilosophers said, 'What has your teaching to do with all those\nglimpses of light in the reason which wise men have spoken of, which\nthey have been sure that they received?' Disciples of Philo asked,\n'What has this human Teacher of yours to do with that Word of God whom\nour master discovered in all the history of the Old Testament?'\nDisciples of John the Baptist (still numerous, and probably much\nconnected with the Alexandrian teachers, as in the instance of\nApollos) said, 'Our master preached repentance and turning to the\nliving God. You say he spoke also of a Teacher who was to come after\nhim. Do you mean that he wished us to turn away from the living God to\nthis future Teacher?' Christian men began to ask themselves whether\nJesus Christ was not the Son of God, _because_ He was born in a\nwonderful manner of the Virgin? They began to dream of Him as a\ndemigod, or a superior angel, half human, half divine. Other\nChristians began to boast that they were sons of God _only_ because\nthey were baptized men, and that their sonship was a sentence upon all\nthe world before them and around them. A cloud of opinions--vapours\ngathered from all quarters--was floating about in the world; was\nnowhere, perhaps, denser than in the great emporium of Ephesus. A\ngreat convulsion was at hand. St. Paul had said a great _apostasy_ was\nat hand.\n\nThen, if we may believe the tradition of centuries, spoke out the old\nman of Ephesus, the Galilean fisherman, the Son of Thunder,--he whose\nbrother had been taken by an early death to the right hand of his\nMaster,--he who was himself to linger till the end of the age,--the\npassionate Jew, who had desired fire to come from heaven;--then spake\nhe who had been on the Mount, and in the Garden, and at the Last\nSupper: '_In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,\nand the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All\nthings were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made that\nwas made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men; and the\nlight shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. There\nwas a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a\nwitness, to bear witness of the light. He was not that light, but was\nsent to bear witness of that light. That was the true light which\nlighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world,\nand the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came\nunto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received\nHim, to them gave He power to become the sons of God; which were born\nnot of flesh, nor of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God._'\n\nExcept at the close of the first century, when the Old Testament age\nwas passing into the New, I conceive these verses could not have been\nwritten. Except by the most earnest of Jews, the most simple of\nChristian Apostles, I believe they could not have been written. But if\nthey are, as they are sometimes supposed to be, merely a doctrinal\nproem to an actual Gospel, I admit they must have proceeded from some\none else. I hope to show you hereafter that they explain every\nnarrative which follows, as every narrative which follows illustrates\nthem. I hope you will find that the whole Gospel is a Theology just as\nmuch as these verses; because it is a Gospel to mankind, a Gospel to\nthe conscience of each man, from God and concerning God.\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE II.\n\nTHE WORD THE LIGHT OF MEN.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 1st Sunday in Lent, February 10, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN I. 14.\n\n     _And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we\n     beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the\n     Father, full of grace and truth._\n\n\nWhen I spoke to you last, I proposed to examine St. John's Gospel\ncarefully and in order. It was impossible not to pause earnestly upon\nthe opening sentence, '_In the beginning was the Word, and the Word\nwas with God, and the Word was God_.' What does that text say to us?\n'It declares,' some will answer eagerly and decisively, 'the divinity\nof our Lord Jesus Christ.' Be it so; but the name _Jesus Christ_ is\nnot introduced till the seventeenth verse of the chapter. If we are\nsitting at the feet of an Apostle or Evangelist, we cannot change his\nmethod for a method of our own. The writers of the other Gospels start\nfrom the birth of Jesus, or from the preaching of John the Baptist. We\ncannot understand them unless we go with them to Bethlehem or to the\nwilderness. St. John leads us back to the beginning of all things. We\ncannot understand him, if we assume events that were to take place in\nthe fulness of the time.\n\nActing upon this principle, I reminded you that the expression 'word\nof God' is one of continual recurrence as well as of most solemn\nimport in the books of the Old Testament. I could not find that, in\nits lowest sense, it ever meant less than a message from the invisible\nGod to the mind and spirit of man. The assertion that God speaks to\nmen by His word, and that men are capable of hearing that word, was\nthe great testimony for the truth which was implied in heathen\nsuperstitions, the great testimony against these superstitions.\nIdolaters were not mistaken in thinking that they needed intercourse\nwith that which was higher than themselves; they _were_ mistaken in\nseeking, in the heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water\nunder the earth, for Him who was nearer to them than He was to all the\nthings He had made, who was the Lord of their hearts and reins. The\nmore you study the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, the more you\nmeditate the earliest and simplest book of the Bible--that which tells\nof the Voice which spoke to Adam in the garden, of the Voice which\ncalled Abram to go forth whither he knew not--the more, I am\npersuaded, you will feel that this is the most characteristic\npeculiarity of these records, that which connects them with each\nother, that which has given them their power over mankind.\n\nNevertheless, the life of the men who were said to receive these\ncommunications was eminently practical and manly. They did not pore\nover their own thoughts; they went forth and did the work which was\ngiven them to do, feeding flocks, bringing up children, fighting\nenemies. It is evident that their belief in the invisible did not in\nthe least interfere with their business in this visible world. That\nthey were to till and subdue by the same charter which assured them\nthat they were God's servants, and that His word was directing them.\nWhile they kept their faith in the unseen Teacher, the firmament over\ntheir heads became a clear daily and nightly witness respecting Him\nand themselves. The stars told them what their seed should be; the\nsun, going forth as a bridegroom out of his chamber, carried the\nmessage of _their_ God into all lands. It was when the faith in the\ninvisible grew weak, that they bowed their heads and worshipped the\nforms which once testified to them of their greater nobleness and\nsublimer origin. And with this came another idolatry, in its essence\ngrander, in its results baser. The man felt that beings of his own\nkind had more power over him than all the hosts of heaven. He did\nhomage to their goodness, their wisdom, their beneficence, their\nstrength. He confessed the king, and was raised to a higher sense of\nhis own freedom and kingship. The king became a giant and a tyrant;\n_he_ became a dwarf and a slave. What should raise men out of either\noppression? What should set them free from the yoke which creatures\nbelow their own kind and of their own kind had imposed upon them? The\nJew was taught that the Lord God was his King; that He broke the yoke\nof the Pharaoh and of the Pharaoh's gods; that He claimed the most\nabject slaves as His servants. The Israelite was brought under an\norder which had this foundation. In the strength of it, kings were to\nreign and decree judgment; they were to preserve the people from\nlapsing into the idolatry which would destroy their obedience and\ntheir freedom. They were to reign by the word of the Lord.\n\nBut what was this word of God which held men back who had fierce\ninclinations in their hearts, and who had swords to execute them in\ntheir hands? It could not be a statute; that had no such power. It\ncould not be a set of moral maxims; they had no such power. It could\nnot be a promise, or a threat, about the world that is, or the world\nto come; neither had such power. The Prophet, living amidst the signs\nof decay and ruin in his own polity, amidst the earthquakes which were\nshaking all nations, under the overwhelming power of empires that\nsought to put out the life of nations, began to attach another and\ndeeper sense to the word of God, not incompatible with the older use,\nbut involved in it; not a metaphor or allegory deduced from it, but a\nhigher truth lying behind it. The Word of God came to him, spoke to\nhim in the very depths of his heart. He spoke to it, sympathised with\nit. But dared he say _it_ any longer? No; in some wonderful manner\nthis Word must be a Friend, a Person; One who could work with him,\nreprove him, illuminate him. This Word must be the Teacher, the\nFriend, the King of Israel. This Word must one day prove Himself to be\nthe Lord of the whole earth. Awful discovery! which makes him tremble,\nand yet which makes him bold; which sometimes draws forth from him the\ncry, '_Woe is me! for I am an unclean man, and I dwell among a people\nof unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of\nHosts_;' which again gives him all his hope both for himself and for\nhis people. At every step of his own experience and of his nation's\nexperience, new visions unfolded themselves out of this vision. It\nmust be that all those various objects in nature which men were\nworshipping, that all the living order of nature in which those things\nwere comprehended, proceeded from this living Word. It must be that\nall the races of men, all their politics, were under His guidance and\ngovernment. It must be that all the light that had entered into any\nman's heart had come from Him. It must be that the darkness which was\nin any man's heart had come from rebellion against Him.\n\nIn various ways and in different measures this truth was unveiling\nitself to the Prophets of old: I have had other opportunities of\npointing out to you the steps of its manifestation. When I quoted the\nfirst fourteen verses of St. John's Gospel, at the close of my last\nsermon, I wished to show you that he had gathered up into one distinct\nstatement, one full revelation, that which it had taken ages to spell\nout. I wished you to feel that there was, in one sense, no novelty in\nhis proclamation, because he was saying that which was implied in all\nthe past history and literature of his people; yet that there was, in\nanother sense, the most important novelty, because that which had been\nimplied could now for the first time be expressed. I hinted to you\nthat in this case, as in every case, the expression did not come, till\nall the doubts which called for the expression had been awakened, and\nhad become clamorous. In fact, these doubts were leading Jews,\nheathens, disciples of Jesus, very near indeed to the gulf of atheism.\nWas there an absolute Being dwelling in His own perfection? Was there\na Word who uttered His mind? How was this duality compatible with the\nunity of the divine nature? Here was the first grand difficulty, one\nwhich did not more exercise the Jew, who had lived to proclaim that\nunity as the primary truth of the universe, than the Gentile\nphilosopher who had arrived at it as a final result, as an escape from\nthe polytheism which the vulgar must still be left to believe in. St.\nJohn uses no such phrases as unity or duality. We have the broad, old,\nsimple Hebrew language, the language for human beings, not for\nspeculators. We hear of a living God, not of a notion. And this God\nis, as the old record had said, a Creator. Men had been asking in all\ncountries how is the world related to God? Did He make it as an\nartificer makes a dead instrument? Did it flow from Him as a thought\nflows from the meditative man? Or is it self-made? Is God Himself a\npart of it, merely the spring of its movements? St. John answers,\n'_The world was made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made\nthat was made. In Him was life._' It was no dead instrument turned\nforth by a mechanist. It was no part of Himself. It was no order\nmoving by itself without Him. It was a world of living, productive\nforces, governed by a Person. His own life was quickening the\nmovements of His creatures; His own wisdom was directing them. The\nphilosophical puzzle is met by words which, I think, you will find are\nadapted to the physical science of the nineteenth century, as much as\nthey were to the theological doubts of the first century; which show\nwhere theology and physical science meet, how they are distinguished,\nhow they are reconciled. And yet the language is still the child's\nlanguage, the fisherman's language. It is Moses, not Plato, who is\nrevived in the Ephesian teacher.\n\nThen come verses which meet the troubles of the heart and conscience\nof man, as those meet the troubles of his intellect,--which speak to\nhim of himself, as those speak of the world. How simple they are! How\nentirely they accord with what I have been showing you were the\nthoughts of old Patriarchs and Prophets! And yet what worlds of\nspeculation they encounter! what theories about the conscience they\ncome in contact with! what webs of mythology they unravel! Above all,\nhow they explain the thoughts of those who cannot reason, and yet are\nsubject to those laws about which all reasoning is conversant! '_In\nHim was life, and the life was the light of men: and the light shineth\nin darkness, and the darkness does not take it down into itself._'\nWhat have not those words been to men, who have been for years trying\nto reconcile the contradictory phenomena of their own spirits! 'Word\nof God, thy light has been shining in me, flashing into my heart,\ndiscovering the dark places and passages there! The darkness tries to\ncomprehend, to hide, to quench thy light! Thanks be to Thee, it\ncannot.'\n\nThe transition appears great from this sentence--so general, yet so\nindividual,--concerning the beginning of the world and the latest days\nof it--to the words, '_There was a man sent from God, whose name was\nJohn_.' No doubt we are reminded by the change that the writer\nbelonged to a particular age--to an age in which there were many\ndisciples of John the Baptist still alive, who were inclined to claim\nfor him the very highest honour that could belong to a divine\nmessenger.[2] The Apostle was especially likely to know what followers\nof the Baptist would say and feel respecting him, since he had\nprobably been one of them. But he does not forget the subject with\nwhich he was occupied before, when he turns to his old master and to\nthose who were paying him an extravagant homage. He introduces John\nthat he may declare what every man sent from God in the former times\nhad done,--what every such man in that time, in all time to come, must\ndo: '_The same came for a witness, that he might bear witness of the\nLight, that all men through him might believe_.' 'You who listened to\nJohn, if there are any of you yet on earth, what was the effect of\nhis speech, his look, his baptism upon you? I will tell you what it\nwas upon me. As he said \"_Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at\nhand_,\" my darkness was revealed to me. That darkness was discovered\nby the divine light of which he spoke. He came to bear witness of this\nlight, that you and I might believe in it.' Here was one mighty,\nunspeakable cause of gratitude to him. But, '_He was not that Light,\nbut was sent that he might witness of the Light_.' So was it with John\npreaching by the side of Jordan. Was the saying less true of Jeremiah\npreaching beside the temple that was to be desolate, of Ezekiel\npreaching by the river Chebar? Was it less true of St. Peter on the\nday of Pentecost, of St. Paul at Antioch? Was it less true of Bernard,\nof Francis of Assisi, of Luther, of any man who in later days has\nawakened men out of a slumber of death? What can be said of each\nexcept this: '_The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the\nLight_'? What would each have said of himself but this: '_I am not\nthat Light, but am come that I may bear witness of that Light_'?\n\n[2] There could be few, if any, such left in the century to which the\nGospel is assigned by those who deny it to St. John.\n\nThe Apostle says this; but he has something greater and deeper to say.\nHe says, '_That was the true Light which lighteth every man that\ncometh into the world_.' 'We may have felt, when we heard the preacher\nin the wilderness, as if there were some new light shining then for\nthe first time into our hearts. We may have supposed it was kindled by\nthe speaker. But no star arose in the firmament at his bidding; that\nwhich struck us with such wonder had been with us from our birth. When\nany man comes into this order of ours, he finds the Word there.' '_He\nwas in the world, and the world was made by Him and the world knew Him\nnot._' Think of all the strange dreams of immortality that have\nvisited human beings; their sense of a law of right and wrong; their\nacknowledgment of powers which assert the right and avenge the wrong!\nThink how these great facts of humanity have affected the condition of\nmen in every region of the world,--how politics, legislation, civil\nsociety, have been shaped by them! Think of the confusions respecting\nimmortality, respecting the boundaries of right and wrong, respecting\nthe justice and injustice of the invisible kings and judges whose\npower has been confessed and feared! Think of the superstitions,\noppressions, slaveries, that have grown out of these confusions! And\nthen read once again this sentence, '_He was in the world_'--He from\nwhom light came--'_and the world was made by Him, and the world knew\nHim not_.' See if you have not there the clear, scientific explanation\nof these strange facts; the universal law which tells you how they\ncould exist together. See if that scientific explanation, that\nuniversal law, is not brought to an experimental test; so that every\nman, every child may know, from that which has passed in himself, what\nit means. '_He came unto His own, and His own received Him not._' The\nlight came into men's hearts, as into its proper native\ndwelling-place. The Word from whom that light issued asserted His\nright over all the feelings, instincts, impulses, determinations of\nthese hearts, as over His own rightful domestics and subjects. But the\nlight was repelled; the rightful Ruler was treated as an intruder by\nthese domestics and subjects. There was anarchy and rebellion, where\nthere should have been subordination and harmony. A usurper had\nreduced those into slavery who would not have the service which is\nfreedom. '_But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to_\n_become sons of God; which were born, not of flesh, nor of blood, nor\nof the will of man, but of God._' The last words seemed to speak of an\norder subverted, of a creation which had lost its centre. These\ndeclare that the order was preserved; that the centre still proved its\npower to attract, and to retain in their orbits, the bodies which were\nintended to move around it. There were those that confessed the Light;\nthere were those that entertained it, that sought to walk in it. There\nwere those who submitted themselves to the government of their true\nRuler. And they attained the stature of men; they learnt themselves,\nthey manifested to others whence they had come, what was their\nparentage. '_To them gave He power to become sons of God._' They were\nsons of men, born to the same condition as others of their kind; but\nHe made them know that in their inmost being they were not born of\nearthly or human seed, but had their life from above, from Him who\nliveth and abideth for ever.\n\nUp to this point, I conceive, the Evangelist has not even touched upon\nany principle or fact specially belonging to the Christian theology,\nto the new dispensation. He has been unfolding the principle of the\nold. He has been discoursing of that law and government under which\nall had lived, whether they were prophets or people, whether they were\ntrue prophets or false, whether they were Gentiles or Jews. He has\nclaimed the high prerogative of a Jew, the prerogative of interpreting\nthe condition of mankind; of declaring in what relation those stood to\nGod who had been ignorant of their relation, or who had seen it dimly,\nor had denied it. Even when he speaks of John, it is as the Prophet of\nthe old world; as winding up the witness which previous Prophets had\nborne to the Word, from which all the light that was in them had\nstreamed out. He says nothing yet of any future Teacher to whom John\npointed. And, as we shall see hereafter, when he does come, in due\norder, to the part of John's teaching in which he spoke of One whose\nshoe's latchet he was not worthy to unloose, it is that he may quote\nthe memorable language, '_He that cometh after me is preferred before\nme; for He was before me. And of His fulness have all we received, and\ngrace answering to grace._' You cannot hear that fragment of a divine\ndiscourse without perceiving that the object of the Evangelist is to\ncarry us into the past before he speaks of the future; that he regards\nthe especial grandeur of the new time as this, that it reveals that\nwhich had been of old, that which had been from the beginning. But it\nwas absolutely necessary to the coherency and continuity of the\nApostle's statement that he should not introduce these words of the\nBaptist--wonderfully as they illustrate the account of his mission\nwhich had been given previously--till he had first made that\nannouncement which is contained in the text: '_And the Word was made\nflesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of\nthe only-begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth_.'\n\nThis, my brethren, I regard not as the text of my sermon, but of St.\nJohn's Gospel. I conceive that Gospel is nothing more nor less than\nthe setting forth how Jesus Christ proved Himself in human flesh to be\nthat Word of God in whom was life, and whose life was the light of\nmen, who had been in the world, and by whom the world was made, and\nwhom the world knew not; how in that flesh He manifested forth the\nglory as of the only-begotten of the Father; how He manifested the\nfulness of grace and truth. It is because the theology of St. John\ncomes forth in these human facts that I affirmed it to be a theology\nnot merely different from the systematic school theology, but the\ngreat deliverance from it. I should, therefore, be departing from my\nobject and belying my professions, if instead of waiting for the\ngradual discovery of the meaning of these words in St. John's story, I\nbegan with thrusting my own meaning into them. All I ought to do,--and\nthis I must do, for the very purpose of showing you how strict and\nbeautiful the Apostle's method is, and how much wrong we do to\nourselves and him when we forsake it,--is to point out, very shortly,\nthe connexion which I trace between this verse and the one that\nimmediately precedes it.\n\nThe Evangelist had said of those who received the Word, '_to them,\ngave He power to become the sons of God_.' A new expression--to a\ncertain extent, a new thought--is brought before us here. We had heard\nof the Word as One in whom is life; we had heard that His life was the\nlight of men. All the language concerning Him had been such as\napplies--not to an abstraction, not to an essence, but--to a Person.\nBut now it is said that those who accept His government, who are\npenetrated by His light, acquire a _power_ which they had not before.\nThey discover a _relation_ which had been hidden from them. It was the\ngreatest of all their earthly blessings that they had fathers\naccording to the flesh. A higher blessing is conferred upon them now;\nthey can act as if they had a heavenly Father. _As if_ they had a\nheavenly Father! But are they never to know certainly whether they\nhave or not? Is the power of becoming sons not to be associated with\nthe clear consciousness that this is their proper and original state?\n'_The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us._' He became a man among\nmen. We beheld Him, and we know that He was--what He told us that He\nwas--not an independent Being, but a Son. He was not merely a Light of\nlights. We are sure that He was the ground of all human sonship; that\nHe was the only-begotten of a Father. That higher, more blessed, more\nperfect name thenceforth mingled itself with all our thoughts of that\nGod whom no man hath seen or can see; it turned our thoughts into\ntrust and worship. The Absolute Truth and Goodness shone forth through\nHim. The only-Begotten revealed Him who had been from the beginning.\nHe opened a new dispensation, because He made us know that God who had\nbeen speaking to us in the old.\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE III.\n\nTHE TEACHING OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 2d Sunday in Lent, February 17, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN I. 29.\n\n_The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the\nLamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world._\n\n\nJohn the Baptist is represented throughout this chapter as speaking of\nOne who had been before him, though He was coming after him. This is\nthe burden of his discourse. It has been asked by the bold critics of\nanother country, whether such language does not presume a belief in\nthe preexistence of our Lord, which might belong to one of his\napostles, but could scarcely belong to his forerunner. English divines\nordinarily reply, that the question is one which cannot be\nentertained. 'How can we dispute the right of the Divine Wisdom to\nmake a special revelation of this doctrine to one person or to\nanother?'\n\nThis may be the right method of treating such an objection; but if the\nremarks which I made in my two last sermons were true, we are not\nunder any necessity of resorting to it. I endeavoured to show you that\nthe principle which St. John asserts in the opening verses of his\nGospel, was far from being characteristically a doctrine of the New\nTestament. It belongs to the Old. It is involved in the words, acts,\nlives of the Jewish Prophets. It could not indeed be enunciated by\nthem as it is enunciated by the beloved disciple. There is a largeness\nin it which could not be fully realized till the barrier between Jews\nand Gentiles had been broken down. Still it was as a Jew--as an\ninterpreter of the Jewish records--that the writer of the fourth\nGospel spoke of the Word of God. He was not using new language, which\nwould have startled his hearers. He was expressing, in simple and\nfamiliar language, what others of his countrymen had hidden from the\nvulgar under learned phrases and dark conceits. Why is it difficult to\nbelieve that, in doing so, he was recording some of the lessons which\nhe had first received from the preacher in the wilderness? Was it\nstrange that he, the last of the Prophets, should utter in more\ndistinct terms that which all the Prophets before him had been\nimperfectly uttering? External evidence would be in favour of such a\nsupposition. The Baptist was a contemporary of teachers who\nnotoriously spoke of the light in men's hearts and of the Word from\nwhom it issued. Many of _his_ disciples became, we know, afterwards\nblended with _their_ disciples. There was, however, one all-important\ndistinction between him and them. He spoke to the hearts of the\nmultitude,--to the publicans and the soldiers; they spoke to students.\nHe appealed to those who were conscious of folly and sin; they spoke\nof the illumination which was granted to the righteous and the wise.\nAnd that is just the difference which we have recognised between the\nstatements of the Apostle, the disciple of the Baptist, and those\nAlexandrian teachers whom some suppose him to have imitated. It is not\nonly that his style is simple and childlike. Throughout he speaks of\nthe light as making men aware of the _darkness_ that is in them.\nThroughout he speaks of the light as lightening _all_ men.\n\nAre these reports of the Baptist inconsistent with those which we\nderive from the other Evangelists? Are we not told that he came to\nlevel the hills, and exalt the valleys? Are we not told that he bade\nhis countrymen not say within themselves that they had Abraham to\ntheir father, because God was able of the stones to raise up children\nto Abraham? What finer commentary can we find on these announcements\nthan the words, '_He testified of the true Light, which lighteth every\nman that cometh into the world_'?\n\nStill the reader of St. John's Gospel will continue to ask himself,\n'Is not the lesson which I am taught here, in some sense or other, a\nmore advanced lesson than that which was imparted even by the first\nEvangelists,--_\u00e0 fortiori_, than that which was imparted before the\nday of Pentecost, before the resurrection, the death, even the\npreaching, of Jesus Christ?' I think, my brethren, that there is a\nconfusion latent in this word '_advanced_'--a confusion which besets\nother studies as well as theological. We speak of Bacon's discovery of\nthe true method of physical investigation, as the greatest step in\nadvance which it was possible for the man of science to take. But in\nanother sense that discovery involved a retrogression. The schoolman,\nwho had proceeded with the greatest satisfaction to himself in\nbuilding a tower of speculations respecting nature, is stopped in his\nwork and bidden to look back to his foundations. Classifications and\ngeneralizations, which had appeared convenient and indispensable, are\ndisallowed, because they hinder direct intercourse with the facts.\nAnd the laborious collector of facts, though he is commended for his\ndiligence, is told that every one of them must be submitted to tests\nbefore we can know what it is worth. Is it not true, in this and in\nall similar instances, that the greatest progress consists in the\nassertion and elucidation of first principles; that when they are\nasserted and elucidated, all faithful effort is seen to have been\ndirected to the search for them,--all unfaithful, self-seeking\nefforts, to the construction of systems on hypothetical sand?\n\nApplying this remark to the case before us, I conceive we may freely\nsay, as some of the early Fathers said, that St. John's Gospel is the\nmost spiritual and divine of all the Gospels. And we may maintain its\nclaim to that honour, by showing that it leads us to a grand primary\ntruth, affecting all human beings, capable of being apprehended by\nthose who have least of what is called culture, capable of making\nitself manifest to the consciences of the most guilty. Does not his\nGospel, _for this reason_, establish the truth of the other Gospels\nand Epistles, which had been unfolding the ways of God to men? May it\nnot, for the same reason, have brought a number of false gospels to\nthe test, and have scattered a number of windy theories and popular\nsystems, which, under philosophical or theological pretences, were\nseparating God from His creatures? Nor can I find anything\ninconsistent with reason and probability--or with the doctrine of\nScripture that the Spirit of God brings back to the remembrance of\nthose whom He is teaching the lessons they received, the states of\nmind they passed through in days long past--in the supposition that\nthe Apostle owed his clear perception of this universal truth, in a\ngreat measure, to the vividness with which the experiences of his\nyouth were revived in him; the sixty or seventy wonderful years which\nhad passed over his head since he stood by the Jordan, and saw the\nshaggy form and awful eye of him who first spoke to him of a kingdom\nof heaven, helping him to take in the meaning of the words which\nseized and possessed him then, though he was not able to seize and\npossess them.\n\nI have been anxious to make these observations, because it seems to me\nthat the passage of St. John's Gospel of which I am to speak to-day\nwill be utterly obscure to us--nay, that the whole Gospel will be\nobscure--if we forget them. St. John can in nowise separate the idea\nof the Baptist from that of a witness concerning the Light, a\nmessenger to declare the divine Word that in Him all men might\nbelieve. This he considers the fundamental, radical meaning of his\nmission, apart from which his baptism of repentance had no sense or\npurpose whatever. But to identify _a man_ as connected with this\nteaching--as the subject of it--this was the difficulty. To do this\nthe Baptist needed a special, formal revelation, accompanied by an\noutward sign. The baptism of Jesus, and the visible token that the\nSpirit was given Him, are said to have been the assurance which was\nrequired. While he was without it, he was a preacher of the Word who\nwas with God and was God. He was a preacher of a light of men. He was\nannouncing, as the prophets of old had announced, that a day of the\nLord was at hand; that there would be a manifestation of the light.\nThenceforth he began to mingle his previous message with announcements\nconcerning _the Word made flesh_. These announcements are not repeated\nas if they were parts of a continuous discourse, like his words to the\ncrowds that had flocked to him from every part of Palestine. They\ncome forth as if they were the effect of sudden intuitions--lightning\nflashes which must often have been followed by periods of dimness and\ndarkness. John knew that a crisis was at hand which would try the\nhearts of all men. He knew that he was sent by God to speak to their\nhearts of Him, as being the same now that He had been in the days of\ntheir fathers. He knew that whatever good was awaiting his countrymen\nmust come from a fuller revelation of God. This was the preparation,\nthe only possible preparation in his own mind, for the recognition of\nJesus as the Christ,--the only way in which he could prepare his\ncountrymen for _such_ a Christ.\n\nWe are all aware--we dwell upon the assertion--that the Jews were at\nthis time expecting a Christ, but that their expectations were of a\nwrong kind; that they pointed to a deliverer different in most\nrespects from the One who had been promised them. We cannot, perhaps,\nexaggerate this error, but we may make considerable mistakes when we\ntry to state in what it consisted. We sometimes say that the Jews were\nlooking for a great _Prince_. Undoubtedly they were. If they read the\nProphets, they must have looked for a king. The other Evangelists say\nthat Jesus proved Himself to be a King, and so fulfilled the words of\nthe Prophets. We shall find that St John says the same. 'Yes,' we go\non, 'a King in a certain sense, but not a _temporal_ king' What! is\nnot our Lord said to have been born in the days of Herod--to have been\nbaptized when He was about thirty years old--to have been tempted\nforty days--to have kept annual feasts--to have risen the third\nday--to have tarried forty days among His disciples after the\nresurrection? All the acts which are recorded of Him in the Gospels\nwere acts done in time. 'Yes,' we resume, 'if you define temporal in\nthis exact manner. But the Jews thought He was to be an \"_earthly_\"\nking.' And were not all the powers by which He showed Himself to be a\nking, exercised upon earth for the sons of earth, for the removal of\nthe plagues and diseases to which earth is liable? We make another\nexperiment. We say, they supposed that He was to be a _Jewish_ king.\nCould they suppose otherwise? Was not David to have an heir to his\nthrone? Do not the Evangelists take pains to speak of their Master as\nthe Son of David?\n\nThe Jews of that time cannot be fairly condemned on these grounds; and\nyet our conviction that they were under some grievous mistake, gains\nstrength from all we read of them--nay, from our very failures to\ndefine the quality of it. May not St. John himself explain the error\nwhich had caused him such unspeakable sorrow, better than we can? Have\nwe not the explanation here?\n\nThe Jews looked for one who was _coming_ to be a leader and deliverer.\nHe might come with the manifest tokens of royalty. He might come as\none of the old prophets had come. It was not impossible that he might\nbe born in some humble station, for David had been a shepherd. It was\nprobable that he would be born in a lowly _village_, for Bethlehem was\nassociated with the name of David. He _might_ be this John, for his\ncoarse food and raiment certainly did not show him not to be an\nElijah, or an Isaiah, or a Daniel. And John had given this proof of\npower, that he was drawing multitudes to hear discourses that had no\napparent charm--that were stern and terrible. It was not at all\nimpossible, nay, it might be presumed, that when the Christ came, He\nwould introduce some new ordinance, or give a new force to one\nalready in use. The river of Jordan had a sacred historical\nimportance; to wash men in that might denote that he was preparing\nIsraelites for conquests like those of Joshua. No doubt, other signs\nmight be added to this in due time; there would probably be strange\nappearances in the heavens,--some of the tokens which had accompanied\nthe rare visits of angels that are recorded in the Old Testament. For\nwho could tell whether the Christ might not _be_ an angel, the\nvisitant from another region? Who could tell whether He might not be\nan old seer returning to the earth again? There were all these\npossibilities. One was stronger in this mind, and one in that. Which\nwas the truest, the scribes hoped in due time to discover, by studying\nthe letter of the divine oracles, and ascertaining what particulars of\ntime and place were indicated in them as necessary conditions of the\ndeliverer.\n\nWhat was there faulty in such speculations? What was there to complain\nof in the test which was applied to ascertain their worth? St. John\nsuggests _this_ answer to us. They were expecting one that should come\nafter all prophets, not one that had been before all. They were\nlooking for a son of David, a prophet, an angel; they were not looking\nfor One who had been with God, and was God. They were looking for one\nwhom they should recognise with their eyes; they were not looking for\nOne whose light had been always shining in their hearts. They were\nlooking for a king who should reign over men; they did not think that\nthat King must be One who had from the beginning been the Light of\nmen. They thought of one who should be born into the world; they did\nnot think that He who was to be born into the world was One who was\nin the world, and by whom the world was made, though the world knew\nHim not.\n\nIt was precisely to bring this information, in the only way in which\nit could be brought to any human being, that we are told the man John\nwas sent from God. And because the whole mind of the Prophet was\npossessed with this conviction, he was able to receive the\ncommunication which told him that a Man, without any signs of royalty,\nwithout any signs of prophetical dignity, One who had apparently been\nborn and brought up in Galilee, One who had given no proof that He\npossessed any power of commanding the services of multitudes or of\nindividuals,--was that Christ in whom all the characteristics of King\nand Prophet were to meet. This Man, he says, this carpenter's son, was\nHe of whom I spake, '_He that cometh after me is preferred before me;\nfor He was before me_.' Possibly a better translation of the last\nclause might be found, but the one we have is good enough; it conveys\nthe sense of the original, though it be a little diluted. The next\nverse, as I said last Sunday, is naturally connected with this. Both,\nI believe, must be taken as part of John's witness. Here is that\ndivine Word of God, out of whom all grace has issued. Each right and\ntrue man has had some grace, denoting him to be of divine origin. In\nHim dwelt that fulness of grace and glory, of which these were the\nscattered rays. Then the Evangelist comments upon this witness, and\nconnects it with what he had said in the fifteenth verse. '_For the\nlaw was given through Moses, but the grace and the truth became\nthrough Jesus Christ._' Outward law, literal commands, tables of\nstone, had been given through a mere man, a mere servant or messenger.\nBut all the grace and the truth, which were the essence of the law,\nwhich could not be expressed in letters, but only in the lives and\nacts of human beings,--these became parts of any man's character\nthrough Jesus Christ. For these belonged to the nature of God\nHimself,--these constituted His being. In Himself they could not be\nseen: '_No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which\nis in the bosom of the Father_.' He it is who in all ages has brought\nforth the divine perfection, in distinct qualities, and has exhibited\nthem to men, and in men.\n\nSo far we have the testimony of John, originally addressed, it would\nappear, to his own disciples--now illustrated and expounded by the\nmatured wisdom of one of them. Next we have the record of John, '_when\nthe Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask Him, Who art\nthou_?' They had a right to know. A new pretender had started up.\nSlight as his credentials seemed to be, the people were crowding about\nhim. He was baptizing, not Gentiles, but Jews; he was treating the\nmost religious and exalted as if they were impure, as if they needed\nthe same cleansing as those needed who had not been born in the\ncovenant. What did it all mean? The messengers must get some clear\ndistinct satisfaction on this point before they returned to their\nmasters. '_And he confessed, and denied not, but confessed, I am not\nthe Christ._' The questioners must have been surprised. If he did not\nactually claim a title which so many had claimed, they might have\nexpected a little hesitation. He might have left the point open; he\nmight have allowed his scholars to assert the dignity for him. There\nwas another possibility. Malachi had said that an Elijah would come.\nJohn certainly had few marks of grandeur about him; but he dwelt in a\ndesert; he did not fear the face of kings; he could have denounced\nAhab and Jezebel, as he afterwards denounced Herod and Herodias. He\nevidently understood the question literally, for the messengers\nintended it literally. They supposed that Elijah had been carried away\ninto some invisible region, and that from thence he himself would\ndescend. Seeing, therefore, that John was not one who trafficked with\nwords in a double sense, or who would convey a falsehood in the terms\nof truth, he answered to this demand also, '_I am not_.' But Isaiah,\nJeremiah, all the Jewish seers, had not only spoken of a great\nConqueror,--they had spoken also of a Sufferer. A few might try to\nidentify the characters. The prevailing opinion among the Jews was of\ncourse then, as it is now, that they were separated,--one description\ndenoted a King, the other a Prophet. If he was not a King, was he that\nProphet? And again he answered, '_No_.'\n\nThe messengers have exhausted their guesses; they begin to be\nprovoked. It will not do to go back merely with a set of negatives.\n'_Then said they, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them\nthat sent us: What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of\none crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as\nsaid the prophet Esaias._' You see how carefully he associates his\nmessage with that of the old prophets; how confident he is that he is\npreparing a way just as they were; how sure he is that it is the way\nof the Lord--that wonderful road between the unseen Being and the\nheart of His creatures, of which they had one and all spoken. So far\nhe was using language which belongs to every psalmist and every\nprophet. In adopting the words in the 40th chapter of Isaiah, as the\ndescription of his calling and his work, he proved more distinctly\nthat he was '_sent to bear_ _witness of the Light, that all men\nthrough Him might believe_.' For the burden of that chapter is, that\nJerusalem should lift up her voice, and say to the cities of Judah,\n'_Behold your God_;' and it is the beginning of a series of\nprophetical inspirations, in which the Jew is represented as holding\nup the true image of God to all nations, that the images which they\nhad made of Him might be confounded. John was preparing the way, then,\nfor a declaration or manifestation of God; he was clearing away the\nthorns and briers which blocked up the path between the Word of God\nand the conscience of man.\n\nSt. John significantly intimates how little language of this kind\ncould be intelligible to the Jewish emissaries, for he adds, '_They\nthat were sent were of the Pharisees_.' Very characteristically they\nrelieved themselves of the embarrassment which the Scripture always\ncaused them, when it could not be measured by lines and rules, when it\nappealed to the hearts of living men, by asking, '_Why baptizest thou,\nthen, if thou art not the Christ, neither Elias, neither that\nProphet_?' They had an excuse for urging that demand. It was an\naudacious thing for a man to practise such a rite, to press it upon\nall, to speak of it as a baptism for repentance and the sending away\nof sins, if he had not some divine authority for what he was doing.\nYet he had produced none. And now he refused all the titles which\nwould seem to have been the warrants for such an innovation. Nor does\nhe tell the Pharisees when or how he received his commission. His\nanswer is, '_I baptize with water: but in the midst of you there\nstandeth One whom ye know not; He it is who, coming after me, was\npreferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy that I\nshould unloose_.' More is not said here. The messengers are not told\nwhat this Person who is in the midst of them would do, which John\ncould not do; that announcement is reserved for another occasion. The\nthought which he still dwells upon is, that there is a mysterious\nBeing in the midst of them, their Lord and his; One who has power to\ncommand, One whom he is bound to obey. By speaking of the latchet of\nthe sandal, he clearly intimates that this Person is among them in a\nvisible form. But neither in that form, nor in His own proper nature,\ndo they know Him. They would know Him as little if they were told His\nname, if He stood out before them, even if He exhibited His power to\nthem, as they did then. I am warranted in believing that _this_ is the\nsense of the words; for we shall find how continually our Lord resorts\nto the same phrase in His conversations with the Jews, and assures\nthem that though they saw Him, they _knew_ Him not.\n\nWe have now reached the words of the text. They are carefully\nseparated by the Evangelist from the discourse with the Pharisees.\n'_These things_,' he says, '_were done, in Bethabara, beyond Jordan,\nwhere John was baptizing_. _The next day John seeth Jesus coming to\nhim, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of\nthe world._' But though the sentence formed no part of that discourse,\nit is immediately joined to the words which have recurred so often:\n'_This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a Man which is preferred\nbefore me; for He was before me._'\n\nIt is evident, then, I think, that we shall never enter into the force\nof this wonderful sentence, which has exercised more power over\neighteen centuries, than perhaps any which was ever spoken or written,\nif we take it apart from the context of John the Baptist's life and of\nhis preaching. All have felt that the preacher must have meant those\nto behold the Taker-away of sin, who had come confessing their sins,\nand to whom he had spoken of the remission of sins; that upon others\nthe words must have fallen as dull, dead words, in which they had no\ninterest. Is it not equally true that the words, '_sin of the world_,'\nmust have been connected by them with what they had heard of One who\nwas in the world, and whom the world knew not? and with what they had\nheard of a light which lighteneth every man who came into the world,\nand of a darkness that had not comprehended it? I do not mean that\nthis discovery to each man of his own darkness, this perception of a\nlight near him which he had resisted, this conviction in each man that\nhis sin _was_ the sin of the world, were of themselves sufficient to\nunfold the infinite mystery which lay in the Baptist's words. I say of\nthem, what I said of the verse, '_The Word was made flesh, and dwelt\namong us, (and we beheld his glory, as of the only-begotten of the\nFather) full of grace and truth_;' all this Gospel is written to\nexpound them. We must decipher them by degrees, as the Apostle and\nEvangelist himself deciphered them; he will lead us along with him, if\nwe are content to follow. And do not let us be chary and timid in the\ndemands we make upon him. Let us endure no half explanations that rob\nus of any portion of the meaning which must be hid in such an\nutterance. Let us have no imperfect substitute for any syllable of it.\nFor the sake of our own inmost being, for the sake of our brethren, we\nwant the whole meaning in its fullest strength. If we are told that\nthere is One who takes away _sin_, we must not be content that He\nshould be shown to take away some accident or consequence of sin. If\nHe is said to take away the sin of the _world_, we must not be told\nthat the world is a metaphor for a few individuals. We must ask why\nHe who takes away sin is called a _Lamb_,--why he is called the Lamb\nof _God_? If a lamb is associated in our minds with innocence and\npurity, we must learn how that idea is fulfilled in _this_ Lamb. If it\nwas connected in the mind of every Jew with the sacrifice of the\nPaschal feast, we must ask how this Lamb includes whatever is\nexpressed in that sacrifice and that feast? I do not anticipate St.\nJohn's answers to these demands; but as he has himself excited them, I\nam sure he will prove himself to be an honest and a God-inspired man,\nby telling us how they were satisfied for him, how they may be for us.\n\nOne thing more he must tell us also, and may God open our hearts to\nreceive his instruction! John the Baptist says, that he had come\nbaptizing with water, in order that He might be manifested to Israel\nwho would baptize with the Spirit. Here is evidently the turning-point\nof the two dispensations; here the teaching of John melts away into\nthe teaching of Jesus; here the witness of the servant is changed for\nthe witness of the Son. Seeing, then, that St. John takes so much\npains to mark this transition; seeing that the office of Christ, as\nthe Baptizer with the Spirit, is evidently that which he will\nespecially dwell upon in the after portions of his Gospel,--let us not\ndoubt, but earnestly believe, that what we have heard respecting the\nWord will be a preparation for this more especially Christian lore,\nprovided we have not only heard with our outward ear, but have\nsuffered the light which is shining now, as it shone of old, to\npenetrate our consciences and hearts, and to turn them from their own\ndarkness to the God who dwelleth in perfect light, in whom is no\ndarkness at all.\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE IV.\n\nTHE LAMB OF GOD AND THE SON OF GOD.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 3d Sunday in Lent, February 24, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN I. 46.\n\n_And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of\nNazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see._\n\n\nI made no attempt to explain the verse which I took for my text last\nSunday. I merely endeavoured to show you how it was connected with\nthose which preceded it. I was sure that it would receive abundance of\nlight from those which come after it. A series of ages, I said, had\nconfessed the force of the words. We must take care that we do not\nallow the strength of any one of them to evaporate in our hands.\n\nSome have been surprised that John should speak of a _Lamb_ who\nbeareth or taketh away the sin of the world. Was there not another\nimage which would present itself more naturally to a subject and a\nstudent of the law of Moses? Might not the scapegoat, upon whose head\nthe priest's hands were laid, over whose head the sins of the people\nwere confessed, be said more strictly to bear away sins than the\nPaschal Lamb? Did not the scenery by which John was surrounded far\nmore naturally recal the animal who went away into a land not\ninhabited? Why should the man whose food was locusts and wild honey go\nto a feast for his emblem? Why should the preacher in the wilderness\nthink of the _Paschal_ feast, which belonged to the city and the\nfamily?\n\nA modern preacher would attach great weight to these considerations.\nAs a rhetorician, he would be careful to choose the topics which are\nmost likely to impress his immediate audience. There can be little\ndoubt that among (what he would call) the types of the Old Testament,\nthe scapegoat would seem to him far the most impressive. I am not\ndrawing too much upon your reverence for the man who was 'more than a\nprophet,' if I ask you to believe that he may have had reasons, almost\nas good, for his course. Some of these we may see more clearly\nhereafter; one of them, I think, we may divine now. The disciples whom\nJohn was addressing had heard his call to repentance, had received his\nbaptism of repentance. They had the sense of a sin close to\nthemselves, _in_ themselves. To men who have this awakened\nconsciousness, sin presents itself as a present burden; as such, the\nmost ignorant, the most simple, feel it and speak of it. We often\nfancy that the conscience of poor men only responds to palpable\npictures of future torments. Multitudes of religious tracts and books,\nRomish and Protestant, are composed upon this calculation; they are\nwritten _for_ the people. There is one English religious book written\n_by_ a man of the people, by one who had endured all possible\nanticipations of future misery himself, the habits of whose school\nwould have led him to press them as the most powerful motives upon\nothers. The genius of the book has been confessed of late years by\nscholars; its power has been felt by peasants in this land, and in\nall lands into the language of which it has been translated, almost\nsince it issued from the writer's gaol. To what is the _Pilgrims\nProgress_ indebted for this influence? Certainly to the strength with\nwhich the feeling of evil, as an actual load too heavy to be borne, is\nbrought home to its readers. It is the man groaning with the burden\nupon his back, whom rich and poor sympathise with, whom each\nrecognises as of his own kindred, who is suffering something which is\nincommunicable, and yet which every other man is suffering from, or\nhas suffered from, or should suffer from. So it is with the tinkers\nand ploughmen of England, when they are aroused out of their sensual\nsleep; so it was with the fishermen and publicans who were gathered\nabout the Jordan. They knew they had a burden, an actual burden, upon\nthem. John's baptism had given them a pledge and witness that it might\nbe taken from them. Already it seemed to be lightened; sometimes they\ncould think they were free from it. How could they be delivered from\nit altogether? To confess themselves to God was an infinite relief;\nthey rose up happier men. But did the confession really ascend to God?\nWas it possible in deed and truth to approach Him? Was there nothing\nto intercept the communion? Was there any one who could interpret them\nto Him, and Him to them? Was there any one who knew what they were\nfeeling? Was there any one who could bear the burden that was crushing\nthem, not into an uninhabited land, but into the very presence of God?\nFor was not this burden, after all, a sense of separation from a Being\nto whom they ought to be united, apart from whom they could not live?\nHad not the light which had come from Him into their hearts brought\nthis discovery with it? The scapegoat contained, no doubt, a deep\nlesson to those who pondered it well; but it was not _this_ lesson--it\nwas not one which those could take in who were feeling sin as an\ninward torment pressing upon their hearts. The Paschal _Lamb_ spoke of\na deliverance from bondage; it spoke of a deliverance as coming from\nGod; it spoke of an offering to God. The thoughts which the name\nsuggested might not be distinct; they might be hard to reconcile with\neach other. But the cravings which it met, though importunate, were\nalso apparently contradictory. It awakened hopes; the satisfaction of\nthem might come hereafter.\n\nBut if John had merely spoken of an animal, let it have what\nassociations with Jewish or with human feeling it might--let it be the\naptest symbol in the world--the impression upon disciples who had been\nstirred in the inmost depths of their souls as his had been, would\nhave been a very faint one. It was because he pointed to an actual\nMan, and said of Him, '_Behold the Lamb of God_,' that he spoke with\npower. Those who were suffering from a burden might desire to cast it\nupon God, might doubt if any one but He could sustain it. But who\ncould understand their grief, who could feel its pressure, except a\nMan? All their sympathies and wishes pointed to a Man. Yet hitherto\nJohn had discoursed of a Light and of a Word. To that message their\nhearts had replied. It was that which had effected all the change\nwithin them. Was he now altering the tone of his preaching? Was he\nbeginning to tell them of some one of whom they had not heard before?\nHe removes that suspicion at once. The old sentence recurs again, but\nwith a variation: '_This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a_ MAN\n_which is preferred before me; for He was before me_.' He goes on:\n'_And I knew Him not_.' This assurance jars with some of the\nthoughts which pictures that are dear to us have awakened in our\nminds. We can hardly separate the infant Christ from the infant\nBaptist. We feel as if the reverence expressed in the words, '_His\nshoe's latchet I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose_,' had begun\nin the earliest years of their sojourn upon earth, and had been\nmaturing ever since. I rather fancy we weaken the effect which we\nmight derive from the artist's symbols, by endeavouring to give them\nan historical value to which they can certainly make no pretension. It\nis not that these pictorial traditions are based upon passages in the\nother Evangelists, and that they are only at variance with St. John.\nSt. Luke speaks of Jesus as being taken by His parents into Galilee\nafter His circumcision. He speaks of John being in the deserts until\nthe day of his showing to Israel. St. Matthew interposes the flight\ninto Egypt between our Lord's nativity and His dwelling at Nazareth.\nBoth surely favour, rather than contradict, the strictest\ninterpretation of the saying, '_I knew Him not_.' I do not say that we\nare absolutely obliged to adopt that strictest interpretation. But we\nare, I conceive, obliged to conclude that no external acquaintance or\nrelationship had the least effect upon John's knowledge of Jesus, in\nthat character in which He was revealed to him at His baptism. The\nApostle is evidently very anxious to impress us with _this_\nconviction. Few as are the words of his old Master which he reports,\nthese are emphatically repeated. It belongs, I think, to the very\ndesign of this Gospel, to show us that John came to testify, first, of\nthe Light of the world, then of that Light as manifested. '_That He\nshould be manifested to Israel_,' he says in the next verse,\n'_therefore am I come baptizing with water_.' That He might be\nrevealed as what He is; that through His flesh the glory as of the\nonly-begotten of the Father might shine forth; that the inward eye of\nmen might be purged to behold Him in His true character and in His\ntrue relation to them,--this has been the end of my preaching, and of\nthe outward rite that accompanied it.\n\n'_And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from\nheaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him not: but He\nthat sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom\nthou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same\nis He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record\nthat this is the Son of God._' That there should be an outward sign\nvisible to the eye, a Dove lighting upon the head of a Man,--that\nthere should be a Voice speaking to Him,--this is a great scandal to\nmany readers and critics in our day. 'Are not these,' they say, 'the\nordinary tokens of mythical narratives? Are they not what always\nawaken our suspicion in the records of the Old World or of the Middle\nAges?' Yes, brethren, in the Old World and in the Middle Ages, men\nalike felt the need of outward signs to testify of inward realities.\nThey felt it because they _were_ men, separated from each other by\nplace, by customs, by language, by religion,--but alike in being men;\nalike in their conviction that there must be an outward world which\nthey could see, and an inward world which they could not see. It is\nequally true that in the Old World and in the Middle Ages, the\nsensible thing was confounded with the spiritual, the sign was\nsubstituted for the thing signified; and that hence arose all kinds of\nsuperstition and idolatry. It is true, also, that in those days and in\nlater days--in _these_ days most especially--people create for\nthemselves a middle world, neither sensible nor spiritual, in which\nthere are no signs, because there is nothing to be signified; in which\nthere are only forms and abstractions of the intellect, some of which\nare distinguished as religious forms, some as ethical or\nphilosophical, pleasant to the vanity of those who have need of\nnothing, and can keep themselves alive by talking and disputing, but\nvague, unreal, utterly tormenting to men who are seeking a home and a\nfather. St. John does not dwell in this limbo of vanity. He is _like_\nthe writers of legends, in so far as he assumes that there are signs,\nand that there are realities which correspond to the signs. He tells\nus that when God was about to reveal the greatest of all realities to\nthe spirits of men, He vouchsafed a sign of it which was discernible\nby the eye. He is _unlike_ the writers of those legends, in so far\nforth as they rested in signs, or forgot in the signs that which they\ndenoted. The Dove is to him the sign of a Spirit, which would enable\nHim in whom it dwelt without measure, to rule his own senses and the\nworld of sense. The Voice was a witness that a Man who had flesh and\nblood was really and actually the Son of God.\n\nJohn the Baptist has still more to declare concerning signs, and that\nwhich they signify. He had baptized with _water_. The water had spoken\nin language clearer than any which can be put into letters, of\ncleansing, of purification. Those who had received it had come to it\nbecause they were sure that they needed the blessing of which it\ntestified. They had come because they believed, more or less clearly,\nthat God had ordained the rite, and that He alone could bestow the\nblessing. But the preaching of repentance for the remission of sins\nhad made them aware that the evil was in a region which the water\ncould not reach. Had it, then, been all a delusion? Was this rite, new\nat least for Jews, a mere phantasy, less powerful even than the rite\nof circumcision which had not prevented them from being treacherous to\neach other, and from blaspheming the name of God? Was the stern\nspeaker of truth a mere mocker, trifling with the consciences which he\nhad himself aroused? If his baptism was from himself, he was. If it\nwas bearing witness of One who had come to men in past days, and given\nthem power to become sons of God, the baptism was good because it was\nHis sign and instrument. But the sign of what? Surely the sign of some\nprocess that was taking place in the spirits of men. And if so, would\nnot that process be declared whensoever He was declared? Would not the\nbaptism thenceforth be the assurance that a power adequate to the\npurification of that which was defiled, to the restoration of that\nwhich was decayed--adequate to the renewal of the whole man--was\nbestowed by Him who had in all times given those who received Him\npower to become sons of God? '_Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit\ndescending, the same is He which shall baptize with the Holy Ghost._'\n\n'_Again, the next day after, John stood, and two of his disciples, and\nlooking upon Jesus as He walked, he said, Behold the Lamb of God._'\nThe words, '_which taketh away the sin of the world_,' are not\nrepeated, at least not in the best manuscripts. They had been spoken\nonce. Now the Lamb of God had been connected with a new and higher\nname. John had borne record that this was the _Son_ of God. All the\ndignity and wonder of the former title were attached to Him still.\nThere was an awe about _this_ which must have made the disciples\nwonder, but yet which attracted them. '_They heard him speak, and\nthey followed Jesus._' The story of their intercourse is most simple.\nThere is no mysterious concealment; there are no surprising incidents.\n'_Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek\nye? They said unto Him, Rabbi, (which is, being interpreted, Master,)\nwhere dwellest Thou? He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and\nsaw where He dwelt, and abode with Him that day; for it was about the\ntenth hour._' What is there in such a record to detain us for an\ninstant? Only _this_, brethren; it is the beginning of the history of\nChristendom, of the whole new world. This meeting of these two\nmen--one of whose names we do not know, the other whom we do know to\nhave been a Galil\u00e6an fisherman--with Jesus of Nazareth is the first\nstep in a movement which has in some way or other changed the life,\npolity, relations of mankind. If it is so, we may consider with\nourselves, in some quiet hour, _why_ it is so? Perhaps we may find\nsome other explanation than that which St. John gives--that the Man to\nwhom these disciples came was the Light of men, and that He proved, by\ncontact with those who had least light of their own, that He was\n_their_ Light. Or perhaps we may find that interpretation, on the\nwhole, the best: and then we shall not seek further, but lay that to\nheart.\n\nThe three next verses bring us a step further in the history; they are\nstill of the same character. '_One of the two which heard John speak,\nand followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first findeth\nhis own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias,\nwhich is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus.\nAnd when Jesus beheld him, He said, Thou art Simon, the son of Jona:\nthou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone._'\nWe found how hard it was for the Pharisees to make out a conception of\nthe Christ, though they pored continually over the Scriptures, and had\na series of interpreters to assist in divining the sense of them. And\nhere this unlettered fisherman--unlettered probably in the strictest\nsense--boldly tells his brother that he has found the Christ. He is\nsure that he has. He can bid him come and see whether it is a mistake.\n'What fanatical confidence!' every scribe would have exclaimed--nay,\ndid exclaim--as soon as he learnt what these fishermen were believing.\nShould not most of us say the same if we spoke our minds? For what had\nAndrew to convince him? He had seen none of the miracles upon which we\nsay the evidence of Christ's mission rests. We may be sure that he had\nnot heard Jesus say that He was the Christ; for He scarcely ever did\nsay so. And on what, then, was his faith grounded, that faith which\nEngland has accepted for somewhat more than a thousand years? I do not\nknow, unless the Light of the world made him feel that He was the\nLight of the world--unless the King of men made him feel that He was\nhis King. But I also do not know, brethren, upon what your faith and\nmine is founded--on what the faith of all the men that have believed\nduring the last eighteen hundred years has been founded--upon what the\norder and civilization of all the earth has been founded, except it be\nupon that same revelation of a Light and of a King, which made Andrew\nsay these words to his brother Simon.\n\nAnd now He who has received this name from a disciple, bestows a name\nupon a disciple: '_Thou art Simon; thou shalt be called a Stone_.' The\ncreatures were brought to the first Adam, that he might say what was\nthe name of each. If this was the second Adam, He could say to any\none of His human creatures, 'That is thy name; understand by it what\nis the work I have given thee to do.' Simon Peter, after many\nperplexities and falls, did learn fully the meaning and force of his\nnew name. He declared to the Jews at Pentecost, he declared to\nCornelius the heathen, that Jesus had been proved to be both Lord and\nChrist. A society of Jews and Gentiles grew up which recognised Jesus\nas its Corner-stone. Lest they should fancy that he or any mere man\ncould be a rock or resting-place for them, he wrote an Epistle\nspecially to show that his Master is the Corner-stone, elect,\nprecious, on which men are builded together a spiritual house; that\nsuch a spiritual house cannot be overthrown; that any spiritual house\nwhich is built on any weaker foundation, which has any other stone or\nrock, must be destroyed.\n\n'_The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth\nPhilip, and saith unto him, Follow me. Now Philip was of Bethsaida,\nthe city of Andrew and Peter. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto\nhim, We have found Him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets,\ndid write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph._' Philip does not go\nin search of the Lamb of God, as those did who heard John speak. Jesus\nis said to find him, and to speak the words, 'Follow me,' which he\nobeys. The effect is the same as in the former case--only Philip is,\nperhaps, a little more courageous: he speaks confidently of this as\nthe Person to whom all the holy men of old were pointing. He speaks so\neven while he makes the offensive announcement, 'He is Jesus of\n_Nazareth_, the son of Joseph.' From what place the new teacher came,\nwas nothing to the young disciple. He had proved Himself to him to be\nthe King over his heart. Whose son He was called was nothing. In the\nmost living sense He must be what John had called Him--the Son of God.\nHereafter doubts and questions might arise upon these points; the\nProphet's words respecting the city of David might have to be\nreconciled with this apparently Galil\u00e6an origin of the new Teacher;\nexplanations might be given respecting His parentage. For Philip all\nthis was premature and unnecessary. The deepest knowledge must come\nfirst; the other would follow when it was wanted.\n\nThe same truth forces itself upon us still more mightily in the answer\nof Nathanael to his friend: '_Nathanael said to Philip, Can there any\ngood thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see_.\n_Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and saith of him, Behold an\nIsraelite indeed, in whom is no guile! Nathanael saith unto Him,\nWhence knowest thou me? Jesus saith unto Him, Before that Philip\ncalled thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee. Nathanael\nanswered and saith unto Him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art\nthe King of Israel._'\n\nNathanael, who was apparently a Galil\u00e6an, might not have the same\nprejudice against Nazareth which would have been natural in an\ninhabitant of Jud\u00e6a. But there is another prejudice, often hinted at\nby our Lord, which is quite as hard to overcome. Can a prophet appear\nin _our_ neighbourhood, close to us? Must he not come upon us from\nsome more sacred region? The Galil\u00e6ans, who were despised by others,\nmust have learnt to despise themselves. All their habits of mind must\nhave prepared them to expect that Jerusalem, or some place near it,\nwould be the seat and birthplace of the great King. There was,\ntherefore, at least as much ground for doubt and unbelief in this\nman's mind as in that of any learned scribe. Nevertheless he comes,\nand he is hailed a genuine Israelite, an Israelite without guile. The\nfirst title might seem only to claim the dweller in any part of\nPalestine as of the same stock, a true child of Jacob; but that which\nis joined to it marks out the man himself as a wrestler with God--one\nwho had sought to purge his soul from deceptions--one who believed\nthat God desired truth in his inward parts, and would make him to know\nwisdom secretly. It was a wonderful commendation; but what was the\nwarrant for it? Till then Nathanael supposed that his face had not\nbeen known to the speaker; how much less his heart. _Had_ they met for\nthe first time? Had he never sat and kneeled beneath the fig-tree, the\nfavourite place of secret devotion to the pious Israelite? Had he\nnever wrestled for light to himself, for blessings to his country? for\nthe scattering of its worst enemies--which were also his\nown--covetousness, pride, falsehood? for the revelation of its\npromised Deliverer? '_There, before Philip called thee, I saw\nthee_;--I had conversed with thee.' Nathanael heard and wondered;\nthere was no more debating within him about Galilee or Jud\u00e6a, Nazareth\nor Bethlehem. A flood of light was poured into his soul, not through\nchinks and apertures in the prophetical oracles, but from the clear\nheaven where God dwelt. 'Rabbi, Thou art He whom I have sought after\nwith cries and tears, that none but Thou hast known of. Thou hast\noften been with me before. I behold Thee now. Thou art the Son of God;\nthou art the King of Israel.'\n\nAnd then came a promise and assurance of a mightier blessing, of a\nfuller revelation hereafter to him, and to multitudes unborn,\n'_Because I said, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou?\nThou shalt see greater things than these. And He saith unto him,\nVerily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open,\nand the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man_.'\n\n'Faithful and true Israelite! the vision to thy progenitor who first\nbore that name shall be substantiated for thee, and for those who\ntrust in me in lonely hours, through clouds and darkness, as thou hast\ndone. The ladder set upon earth and reaching to heaven,--the ladder\nupon which the angels of God ascended and descended,--is a ladder for\nthee and for all. For the Son of Man, who joins earth to heaven, the\nseen to the unseen, God and Man in one, He is with you; through Him\nyour spirits may arise to God,--through Him God's Spirit shall come\ndown upon you.'\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE V.\n\nTHE MARRIAGE FEAST.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 4th Sunday in Lent, March 2, 1856.]\n\nJOHN II. 11.\n\n_This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and\nmanifested forth His glory; and His disciples believed on Him._\n\n\nThe word '_Miracles_,' which our translators have adopted in this\nverse, gives little trouble to a reader. He thinks of some singular,\nglaring effect, which makes men wonder, and which they can refer to no\nknown principle. That effect he calls a miracle. To produce\nastonishment is the immediate object of him who works it; to convince\nthose who see it, and those who are told of it afterwards, that he is\nnot subject to ordinary laws, and has the power of setting laws aside,\nis his ultimate object.\n\nSuch thoughts, I say, are suggested naturally enough by the word\nMiracle. It is otherwise with the word '_Sign_' (\u03a3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd), which St.\nJohn uses himself. That word is simpler in sound than the other, but\nit gives rise to a longer and more troublesome inquiry. Outward\ndisplay, the excitement of wonder, departure from rule, have no\nnecessary or natural connexion with it. The name drives us to the\nquestion, 'A sign of what?' And all these qualities--supposing they\nwere present in the sign--would not help us to answer the question. In\nthe case before us, the act of turning water into wine--in which the\nmiracle is supposed to consist--cannot be separated from the other\nparts of the narrative: together they constitute the sign. And to find\nthe signification of the sign, we must have recourse to the first\nchapter of the Gospel; we must ask St. John himself to tell us why he\nhas introduced it, and how it bears upon the subject of the history.\n\n'_On the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the\nmother of Jesus was there._' On the third day, no doubt, after the\nevents which we were speaking of last Sunday. What were those events?\nA preacher who had drawn crowds by his word, who had attached to him\nsome devoted disciples, had spoken of One mightier than he, who was\ncoming after him, but had been before him. He had pointed to a certain\nman. He had said of Him, '_Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away\nthe sin of the world_.' He had said that he came baptizing with water,\non purpose that this person might be manifested to Israel as the Son\nof God, who would baptize with the Holy Ghost. Two of those who heard\nthese words, we are told, followed Jesus. They invited others, saying\nthat they had found the Christ. One or two more Jesus Himself called\nto come after Him.\n\nWhat expectations were these men likely to form of their new Master?\nAll their deepest impressions had been received from John. Would not\nHe whom John declared to be greater than himself exhibit all His\ncharacteristics in a higher degree? They had first seen Jesus in the\ndesert. Might not that be His favourite home? Would not He be more of\na solitary, more of an ascetic, than His predecessor? Would not He,\nwhose origin was said to be heavenly, be more withdrawn from the\nthings of earth, than the man who said he was not worthy to unloose\nthe latchet of His sandal? This was a reasonable supposition. There\nwas another, which would strike many as even more reasonable. The\nChrist was associated with thoughts of royalty. He might be the very\nreverse of John; not one who could converse familiarly with disciples;\nnot one who could speak words of friendly admonition to publicans and\nsoldiers; but one who would walk aloft, asserting the dignity of His\ndescent, claiming to rule the people, impatient of even seeming to\nbelong to them.\n\nOn the third day came a sign which showed how far either of these\nexpectations corresponded to the truth. There was a marriage in Cana\nof Galilee, and Jesus was sitting there beside His mother. This is the\nappearance He made to those disciples who had heard Him described by\nsuch magnificent titles,--to those disciples who had learnt to look\nupon the desert life, the life that is withdrawn from all family\nrelations and sympathies, as the specially holy and prophetical life.\nAnd yet it is clearly no august regal marriage which is taking place\nat Cana. A homely, rustic wedding,--one in which there is feasting and\nmerriment, but no pomp. To this He is bidden; and those fishermen who\nhad joined Him are bidden too. They are called His disciples. They had\nbut lately seen Him or known Him, but they are already fast bound to\nHim. As His disciples they go with Him, not into a far-off desert, but\nto a wedding-feast in a little town.\n\nHere is surely the sign of a change,--a change the very reverse,\nperhaps, of what we were looking for. We are coming nearer to the\ncommon earth, to those bonds which connect the inhabitants of earth\nwith each other, to those which touch all earthly feelings and earthly\ninterests. The next incident surely does not weaken this impression.\nThe wine at the feast is said to have failed. We might easily have\nformed some vague notion of a festival that was different from all\nothers, marked by no vulgar events; at least we might have wished that\nthese should be kept out of sight--that we should not be informed of\nthem. St. John, the divine, the theologian, does not indulge us in\nthis wish. He is determined that we should understand it to have been\nan ordinary wedding-feast, at which men drank as at others. '_The\nmother of Jesus saith unto Him, They have no wine._' Whatever meaning\nwe may discover in the words when we know who spoke them and to whom\nthey were spoken, they are plain words, the announcement of the\nplainest fact. Some interpreters suppose that Mary only intended to\nsay, 'Let us withdraw, that the deficiency may not be apparent.' I\nlike their honesty, their determination to find the simplest sense\nthey can; but if we consider what _must_ have been the intercourse\nbetween Mary and her Son for so many years; if we remember that a\ncrisis had come in His life, which must have appeared to her the\nfulfilment of all her expectations concerning Him; if we remember that\nHe was now gathering about Him a set of disciples; it surely is most\nreasonable to suppose that these words expressed her desire that He\nshould, and her belief that He would, put forth some unwonted power\nwhich had been latent in Him hitherto. The old Scriptures told how\nElisha had used his divine powers for the relief of ordinary\nnecessities,--to heal, for instance, the waters which might have\npoisoned the sons of the prophets. Was it strange that a devout reader\nof these Scriptures should think that her Son might prove He had\ndivine endowments in like manner? It belongs to the very nature of a\nwoman, to the finest part of her nature, to think that power is best\nexerted in individual cases, for individual needs. What we are apt to\nregard as too mean and minute occasions for a divine might, she\nmeasures by a wiser and more loving rule. The distinctions of little\nand large are forgotten, as they ought to be, when the Eternal is in\nquestion. The most blessed of women ought to have exhibited this\ntendency in its highest degree. In doing so, she was not degrading Him\nwhom she loved and reverenced most; she was judging rightly for what\nends His powers on earth would nearly always be put forth.\n\nBut yet there _was_ a weakness in this feminine eagerness. There was a\nthought that a mere circumstance or necessity could determine the\nexercise of an internal energy. And this is what He appears to rebuke\nin the next sentence. '_Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour\nis not yet come._' A comparison of this passage with one in the\nseventh chapter of our Gospel, in which Jesus uses a similar\nexpression to His brethren when they urged Him to go up to the feast\nat Jerusalem that He might make Himself known openly, shows that He\ndesigned to tell His mother that no events or outward motives could\ndecide when it was right for Him to do a work,--that the Spirit which\nHe had received without measure was regulating His acts--that He must\nbe always doing His Father's business. Such an intimation, conveyed to\nthe one who in all this world knew Him best, who had most inward\nsympathy with Him, was no discouragement to her faith,--rather was\ncertain to awaken it. The power would come forth, not in obedience to\nher call, but to a more lofty, more divine, impulse. She could say,\ntherefore, to the servants, without hesitation or anxiety,\n'_Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it_.'\n\nI believe, my brethren, that all these passages in the story just as\nmuch belong to the sign, are quite as essential elements of it, as\nanything which follows. Nothing can be more simple or brief than the\npassage which comes next. '_There were set there six water-pots of\nstone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two\nor three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water-pots\nwith water. And they filled them up to the brim. And He saith unto\nthem, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they\nbare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was\nmade wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew\nthe water knew:) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and\nsaith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine;\nand when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast\nkept the good wine until now._' It cannot have escaped you how\ncarefully St. John informs us that not even the ruler of the feast,\nthe taster of the wine himself, knew whence the wine came; he merely\nmakes an idle, merry observation about it. Most of those who sat round\nhim were probably just as ignorant and as little concerned about the\nmatter as he was. The servants may have wondered at what they saw; but\ntheir wonder had so little to do with the intention of the act that\nthe Apostle does not stop to notice it. Very little, then, of the\nnotion which we affix--honestly and etymologically affix--to the word\n_miracle_ has any application here. There was no effort to produce\nsurprise; if surprise was produced, it led to no conviction. Not one\nof those who tasted the water that was made wine, _simply on that\nground_ believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God.\n\nWhat, then, was signified by this act? What force lay in it? I can\nonly beg St. John to tell us. He says, '_This beginning of signs did\nJesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth His glory; and His\ndisciples believed on Him_.' What glory did He manifest? In all\nfairness and reason, we must again consult the writer of the words\nabout the sense which he puts upon them. He had said, '_And the Word\nwas made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the\nglory as of the only-begotten of the Father,) full of grace and\ntruth_.' I said, when we met with this passage in the last chapter,\nthat it was evidently the text of the whole Gospel. The Gospel would\neither show how the Word made flesh manifested His glory to those\namong whom He dwelt, and how that glory was as of the only-begotten\nSon full of grace and truth, or it would fail of its purpose, it would\nbelie its name. Of the Word it has been said before, '_that all things\nwere made by Him: that in Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of\nmen_.' The manifestation of His glory, we might surely then expect,\nwould include a manifestation of Him as one who exercised creative\npower, as one in whom the Life that quickens all things dwells\ninexhaustibly. One might expect that this Life, if it was exhibited\nupon _things_, would still be in some very remarkable sense an\nillumination of _men_. But one would be certain that that illumination\n_could_ not be outward to the eye. As life is internal, as all its\nmovements and operations are secret, though its effects are so\npalpable; so the Light which proceeds from this Life--that which is\nemphatically the Light of _men_, as distinguished from mere\nanimals--must be light penetrating into the inner being, filling the\nheart, reason, and conscience, scattering darkness in _them_,\npreparing _them_ hereafter,--since the Light is not put into any one\nto be hid under a bushel, but to be set upon a candlestick,--to show\nforth what had so marvellously affected and changed them, to the\nworld.\n\nNow, if we consider the sign in Cana of Galilee with these thoughts in\nour minds,--which we have not invented for ourselves, but derived\nstraight from the Evangelist,--I cannot doubt that all its different\naspects will come out very harmoniously before us.\n\nThe first aspect of it is that which is brought before us in our own\nMarriage Service. Christ is said to have 'adorned and beautified the\nholy estate of matrimony with His presence and first miracle that He\nwrought in Cana of Galilee.' This has been the conclusion at which the\nreason of the most thoughtful men has arrived, and to which the\ninstinctive feeling in all has responded. If Jesus was the Word made\nflesh, if the order of the world was established by Him, then His acts\nupon earth would be done for the purpose of vindicating this order. By\nthem He would claim it as His. By them He would say that it did not\nbelong to the evil one. Marriage, as one of the fundamental parts of\nthis order, as one of the earliest institutes of humanity, as one that\nhad suffered most from abuse, would be one of the first over which He\nwould assert His dominion. And because the ordinance is one in which\nall are interested, we should look for the assertion to come in some\ndistinct and yet very general way; not, I mean, in a broad\nproclamation, or in a maxim which is forgotten speedily or frittered\naway in the application to each individual instance; not again in some\ncase clothed with circumstances that take it out of the common range\nof cases, not the wedding of a king or of a saint, but one of which\nevery peasant as well as every king might say, 'This tells me to whom\n_I_ must look to bless my wedlock, because He is the Author of it.'\n\nThen, again, that part of the story which refers to the mother of\nJesus becomes, I think, clearer when we contemplate it in this light.\nRomanists are puzzled by it, Protestants exult in it, because it seems\nto put a kind of slight upon the Virgin. But Protestants and Romanists\nagree that Jesus had a divine Father and a human mother. If this act\nwas one of the manifestations of Him as the Son of God, can anything\nbe more natural or consistent than that it should be introduced by\nwords which declare that He could not be in subjection to any earthly\nauthority, while yet the act itself was an act of ministry to even the\ncommonest necessities of the sons of earth? Is not this apparent\ncontradiction the accomplishment of His work, the exhibition of Him in\nHis complete character? He will _not_ be the servant of His creatures,\nnot even of His mother; He obeys the Will, which all are created to\nobey. He _will_ be the servant of His creatures: He is come into the\nworld for that end. He is doing the will of His Father when He is\nstooping to the lowest of all.\n\nBut if this be our judgment of two parts of the sign, it must, I\nthink, greatly modify, if not alter altogether, the apprehensions\nwhich we have formed of the third part, that which concerns the\nturning of the water into wine. We cannot regard the main\ncharacteristic of the marriage and the marriage-feast as being their\ncommonness, their similarity to what is going on in every part of the\nworld--to what is going on among ourselves; and then make the essence\nof that which our Lord did at the feast consist in its uncommonness,\nin its unlikeness to everything that is done elsewhere--to everything\nthat is done among ourselves. We must abandon one habit of feeling or\nthe other. Which we shall abandon depends, it seems to me, upon the\nstrength or the weakness of our faith in St. John's assertion, that in\nHim who sat at that feast was life and that all things were made by\nHim. If we take those words literally, if we suppose the Evangelist to\nmean what he says, then we must assume that what happened then was but\nan instance of the working of a universal law. We shall conclude that\nall living processes--be they slow or rapid, be they carried on in the\nwomb of nature or through the intervention of human art--have their\nfirst power and principle in Him, that without Him nothing could\nbecome that does become. Such a belief undoubtedly carries us into\ngreat depths and heights. It increases the wonder with which we regard\nevery dynamical discovery. But it does not interfere with any\ndiscovery. It gives solemnity and awfulness to the investigations of\nscience. It forbids trifling in them. It stimulates courage and hope\nin them. It makes all superstitious dread of them sinful. The Word,\nwho is the Light of men, will Himself teach those who seek humbly and\ndiligently to enter into those operations of life of which He is the\nfirst Mover.\n\nBut there are other thoughts connected with this word _Life_, which it\nis impossible to sever from it in any case, and which suggest\nthemselves more directly than any others when the subject is a\nwedding-feast and the turning of water into wine. Life has a relation\nto joy, which is as close as the relation of death to sadness. Our\nminds become confused upon this point. We talk of the burden of life.\nWe talk of death as delivering us from this burden. But these are\ncareless expressions, against which the conscience of man rebels. The\nScripture is in harmony with the conscience. It speaks of our carrying\nabout with us a burden of _death_ from which we need to be delivered.\nIf it ever speaks of the moment of departure from the world as a\nmoment of deliverance, it is because, as the poet says, 'Death itself\nthere dies.' In creating the wine, then, which is said in the old\nScriptures to make glad the heart of man, which had been a symbol of\njoy as well as of life to the heathen--the symbol of high inspirations\neven when it was actually acknowledged to be the cause of the lowest\nanimal degradation--the Son of Man was claiming to be the Giver of all\njoy, to be the Redeemer of all joy, even in its humblest earthliest\nforms, from that which had made it base and inhuman. In what sense the\nSource of Joy was also the Man of Sorrows, St. John will tell us in\ndue time. There is something which binds this very story of the feast\nat Cana to His deepest sorrow. Mary has not appeared before in this\nGospel; she never appears again till we meet her beside the cross. She\nknew that a sword was to pierce through her soul, at the very time\nwhen she was asking her Son to prove Himself the Lord of nature and\nthe Giver of delights to man. One work did not interfere with the\nother. He could not be really the Word made flesh unless He fulfilled\nboth.\n\nAnd now, then, we may understand why we are told so expressly in the\ntext that '_He manifested forth His glory, and that His disciples\nbelieved on Him_.' Who were these disciples? One of them must have\nbeen that Andrew who told his own brother Simon, '_We have found the\nChrist_.' One would have been that Philip who said to Nathanael, '_We\nhave found Him of whom Moses in the law, and the Prophets, did\nwrite_.' One would have been that Nathanael who said, '_Rabbi, thou\nart the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel_.' Not one of these\nhad received a sign or a miracle to impart to them these convictions.\nThe witness of John concerning the Light, met by the witness in their\nown hearts, the manifestation to those hearts that Jesus was the Light\nof whom they had heard,--this was their preparation for the\nmarriage-feast and for what passed there. Because they _had_\nacknowledged Jesus and _had_ become His disciples, with a feeble,\nimperfect, confused knowledge of course, but with a desire of the\nknowledge which they should receive from continual converse with Him;\n_therefore_ the sign of the water being made into wine had a meaning\nfor them which it had not for others; _therefore_ it was to them a\nmanifestation of His glory; _therefore_ it gave them a belief in Him,\nas answering to John's testimony, which they had not had before. An\noutward exercise of power strengthened their belief in a power which\nlay entirely beyond the region of their senses. They were sure that a\nsign had been given them that He who blesses marriage, He through whom\nall things live, He from whom all men derive their light and joy, was\nactually dwelling among them.\n\nI have been the more careful in considering this subject, my brethren,\nbecause St. John records it as the _beginning_ of the signs which\nJesus did. It is not recorded in the other Evangelists. It is told\nhere as if the whole scene had come back to the mind of the old\nApostle; as if he had been at that feast, and felt himself transported\nthere again from his chamber at Ephesus. I think there must have been\na reason why that day was brought again to his remembrance, why he was\nenabled to describe it so briefly yet with such distinctness. People\nin that age, as we know from St. Paul's Epistles, as we might have\nguessed if we had not this decisive information, were prone to set\ngreat store by the powers which had been bestowed upon the Church to\nmanifest the presence of the Holy Spirit within it. From magnifying\nthe powers, they had passed, by a natural process, to magnify the\noutward effects of these powers; then, to exult in them because they\nwere strange and peculiar. St. Paul had urged the Corinthians to\nremember that all gifts were bestowed for use, and not for show; that\nit was better to speak five words which could be understood and might\nbe profitable, than to speak a thousand words in an unknown tongue,\nunless it were interpreted. In spite of these exhortations, the _sign_\nwas no doubt gradually losing itself in the _miracle_. The unseen\nPresence, which could not be recollected without a sense of awful\nresponsibility, was far less thought of than the display which could\nbe made in the eyes of the ignorant. Whenever such a temper begins to\nprevail, we may be sure that tricks, impostures, lies in the name of\nChrist and of God, will spread rapidly; the spirit of falsehood will\ncreep into the heart which has confessed its allegiance to the Spirit\nof truth. Ephesus, we know from the Acts of the Apostles, had been a\nfavourite home of the magician and the enchanter. In the first fervour\nof their belief in Him who is the way and the truth and the life, the\nChristians had burnt their books and abjured their lying trade. But\nSt. Paul, as he told the elders of the city, dreaded that after his\ndeparture grievous wolves might come in among them. There was no\nsheep's clothing these wolves were more likely to wear than this.\nReverence for Christ's miracles might be made an excuse for practising\nall old heathen arts and enchantments in His name. How suitable a work\nfor the aged disciple of Christ to lay his axe to the root of this\ndeception! How fitting a thing was it for him to say, 'You talk of the\nmiracles of the Christ. I remember the first of them all. I remember\nwhat it taught me then, what it teaches me still. It was not an\nenchantment; it was not a wonderment. It was a sign of His presence in\nwhom is all grace and truth, who was manifested that He might put down\nall falsehoods whatsoever, and who will put them down at the last.'\n\nIt was the beginning of signs. I do not say that our examination of it\nwill save us from the trouble of examining each new sign as it comes\nbefore us. By rigorously adhering to that name, as St. John does, we\nassume that each has a signification of its own. We shall find them\nall very different from this in their circumstances, in some of their\ninternal characteristics. But I believe that if we follow out the line\nof thought into which I have endeavoured to lead you this afternoon,\nand if we make St. John's first chapter the expounder of his object in\nevery subsequent narrative, we shall be delivered from innumerable\ndifficulties by which the study of miracles generally, and of each\nparticular miracle is beset. To those who tell us that a Church which\ncan work miracles is a true Church--to those who speak of miracles\ndone with a serious purpose in former days, or of miracles done for\nthe amusement of men that crave for some new thing in our days--we may\nmake the same answer. The Scriptures teach us to care for no miracles\nexcept so far as they are signs. Of what are your miracles signs? Do\nthey signify that the Word who was made flesh is not continually\nacting in the affairs of men now? If so, they contradict those signs\nwhich we confess to be true signs, those which have signified to us\nand to our forefathers that all life is in Him, that all light is from\nHim. Or _do_ they say this? Then they say what every marriage is\nsaying just as clearly; what our ordinary food and wine, what the\ngrowth of trees and flowers, what the plough of the husbandman and the\nlaboratory of the chemist are such pledges of as your miracles can\nnever be. God may perform wonders to break the chains of sense, to\nmake us aware that He is always at work. We are sure that He will not\nenact wonders to rivet the chains of sense upon us, to turn away our\nthoughts from Him to some low earthly agent. Only a wicked and\nadulterous generation seeks for such wonders, for such signs. The\nsigns which will be given to it, if it does not repent, are signs of\nfire and of blood, the slaughter of the first-born, the cry in the\nTemple, 'Let us depart.' But if we receive the beginning of signs\nwhich Christ gave us in Cana of Galilee, all common things will become\nsacraments of His presence. The husband and the wife will confess that\nHe has united them. We shall receive the water and the wine both as\nHis gifts. He will drink the new wine with those who come at His\nbidding to give thanks for the blood which He poured out for the\nredemption of the world.\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE VI.\n\nTHE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 5th Sunday in Lent, March 9, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN II. 16.\n\n_Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of\nmerchandise._\n\n\nThe first three Gospels have been sometimes called the _Galil\u00e6an_\nGospels; the fourth, the _Jerusalem_ Gospel. The distinction would be\na very false one, if it implied that our Lord's relation to Jerusalem\nwas not present to the minds of the earlier Evangelists, or that St.\nJohn overlooked His relation to Galilee. In the ninth chapter of St.\nLuke's Gospel, we are told that Jesus set His face to go to Jerusalem.\nAll the chapters which follow refer to events which took place in that\njourney, and contain discourses relating to the end of it, and to the\ncity itself. In the thirteenth, we hear of His sending a message to\nHerod, that a prophet could not perish out of Jerusalem; in the\nnineteenth, of His looking down upon Jerusalem and weeping over it.\nThe climax of the narrative, not only of St. Luke, but of St. Matthew\nand of St. Mark, is the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, to be hailed as\na king, to die as a malefactor. On the other hand, St. John presents\nhis Master to us in the midst of Galil\u00e6an disciples. He carefully\nomits any allusion to the birth at Bethlehem; he records the first\nmanifestation of His power and nature as given at Cana.\n\nBut though these observations show how easily the supposed difference\nbetween these narratives may be exaggerated and perverted, they do not\nprove it not to exist. We have no hint in the first three Evangelists\nof Christ's presence at any of the Jerusalem feasts, between that in\nHis twelfth year and that which preceded His crucifixion. The scene of\nthe most memorable acts and discourses recorded in St. John, is laid\nat Passover, Tabernacle, Dedication feasts, to which He had come up\nfrom Galilee. The three Evangelists speak of Him continually as\nteaching in the synagogues; only at the close of His ministry as\nteaching in the Temple. The second manifestation of our Lord spoken of\nby St. John is when He drove out of the Temple those who were selling\nand buying in it.\n\nThis narrative is the most signal instance of discrepancy between St.\nJohn and the other Evangelists which we shall meet with in our whole\ncourse. An act similar, in nearly every particular, to that which our\nGospel appears to connect with the period immediately after Christ's\nbaptism--before the Baptist's imprisonment--is said in the others to\nhave been performed when He was about to keep the last passover. 'May\nnot these reports,' it has been asked, 'refer to the same transaction?\nNeed we suppose that St. John troubled himself about chronology? May\nnot his recollections of events at which he was present have been\nunited by some other thread than one of years or days? Oftentimes we\nmay have observed how a word evokes a train of slumbering thoughts.\nWhy may not he who had just been speaking of the first _sign_ which\nJesus did, have been led on by that name to the question of the Jews\nin the eighteenth verse, \"_What sign shewest Thou that Thou doest\nthese things?_\"'\n\nSuch a method of removing a grave difficulty might be reasonable\nenough. But is there a grave difficulty--is there any difficulty--to\nbe removed? There is no internal improbability in the supposition that\nour Lord inaugurated His ministry by one act of purification, and\nwound it up by another. If we accept the one Evangelist as an\nauthority for the first, the three for the second, we gain, I think,\nwhat more than compensates us for an apparent repetition. We acquire a\ndeeper sense of the meaning of the Temple, of the relation in which it\nstood to the Jews, to mankind, and to Christ. We understand better\nwhat the three Evangelists mean when they say that the disciples\nthought that the destruction of the Temple must be the end of the age,\nof their world; what St. John means when he speaks of the temple which\nwould be destroyed and raised again.\n\nSome commentators upon the Scriptures, who really wish to understand\nthem, but who feel entangled by the habits and notions of their own\ntime, lament that they cannot reproduce the state of feeling which\nbelonged to the Jew when he gazed upon his temple, or entered within\nits precincts. 'What help,' they say, 'lies in the descriptions of the\nmost accurate and lively travellers? What should we gain by beholding\nthem with our own eyes? We need to annihilate time as well as space.\nThe mind of the people who gazed eighteen hundred years ago upon these\nspots will not come back to us merely because we are able to receive a\ntolerably correct impression of the spots themselves.'\n\nI confess, my brethren, that I am quite unable to sympathise with\nthese complaints. I do not think it requires any effort of\nimagination to realize the state of mind of an ordinary Jew, as he\nwalked through the city of David, or stood upon the holy hill, in the\ndays of Herod and of Pilate. If we realize the state of mind of an\nordinary citizen of London, walking in our streets, or entering the\nAbbey which contains the sepulchres of our kings and poets, we shall\nnot need any other aid to bridge over the chasm which divides us.\nOccupation with everything that is before us, with the news of the\nhour, with the private business which we have most in hand,\nindifference and torpidity about the past,--these would be our general\ncharacteristics. They may be varied by our greater or less interest in\narchitecture--our desire to maintain or confute some architectural\ntheory--by national pride, if we should be making our buildings known\nto foreigners--by a certain painful sense that we ought to put our\nminds into a sentimental attitude. Do you suppose the case would have\nbeen different with the Jews? Do you suppose there was any charm in\nthe outside of the Temple, which forced a sensual money-getting race\ninto a more elevated or more serene habit of feeling than that which\nwe drop into? Do you suppose that their sacred traditions, their\nglorious history, their divine calling, must have broken the charm of\ncustom for them, or have lifted the incubus of the world from their\nhearts? If you do, you adopt a notion which the Scriptures confute in\nevery line. They never tell us that the gravitation of the Jewish soul\nto earth was less strong than that of other men. They never represent\nthe Jew as wanting one bad and base tendency which belongs to you and\nme. The evidence which the Bible has produced of its veracity to\npeople of all conditions, in all countries, the most unlike outwardly\nto those of whom it speaks, is this, that it shows us creatures in all\n_inward_ respects like ourselves, as little capable of being moved by\npresent signs or by records of the past, out of chillness and death,\nas we are.\n\nAccordingly, what spectacle is it which the passage I am considering\nbrings before us? The spectacle of no appalling crime, of none of\nthose hideous and revolting acts which we know from the Jewish\nhistorian were perpetrated at the time, and in which the religious\nsect of the day had its full share. It is a spectacle which had become\nfamiliar to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, which every Pharisee had\ncontinually before his eyes when he went into the Temple to\npray,--most glaringly, it is probable, during the most sacred\nfestivals. Within, the priests offered the regular sacrifices;\nwithout, in another part of the house, there was a market for sheep\nand oxen; there were seats for the money-dealer. The practice was so\nregular, so sanctioned by prescription, that no one thought anything\nof it. The pious Jew was no more scandalized by it than the pious\nEnglishman is scandalized by reading an advertisement for the sale of\na living. If we have distinctions which satisfy our consciences\nbetween the disposing of an actual cure of souls and of the right to\nendow another with such a cure,--if a line, sometimes invisible to the\nnaked eye, separates the sin of Simony from deeds which laymen may\nlawfully do, and by which clergymen may lawfully benefit,--the people\nof Jerusalem had distinctions just as recognised, quite as capable of\nbeing defended in argument. The _holy_ place might not be approached\nby any profane feet; that was sacred indeed to the Lord. But the outer\ncourt--why might not that be left for ordinary traffic? Perhaps the\nseparation of the priests from the mere throng of worshippers--above\nall, from the Gentile who might be found among them--was better marked\nby the concession of this privilege. At all events, it was a privilege\nguaranteed by usage to the trader. If it was disturbed, would he not\nprobably become disgusted with his country's sanctuary altogether?\nMight he not betake himself to some Roman temple,--to a worship which\nwas more associated with amusement, if not with business?\n\nI do not know that this calculation was altogether a wrong one. I do\nnot suppose that if the Sanhedrim had chosen or had been permitted by\nits masters to prohibit these markets, any moral benefit would have\nbeen gained for the nation. For what had made the Temple holy and dear\nto any Jew of that day or of former days? Not its situation, not its\nhaving been built by the wise king, not its having been restored after\nthe captivity, not the goodly stones with which Herod had adorned it.\nNo! but the sense of an invisible glory; the belief that God--whom no\nman had seen at any time--had been pleased to meet His people there.\nCould any Jewish laws restore this conviction when it had departed?\nCould regulations to protect a certain enclosure from pollution give\nrise to anything, except despicable subterfuges, except the vilest\nhypocrisy, when the only ground and warrant for these regulations was\nforgotten, when those who would have made them as little confessed the\nDivine presence as those whom they would have excluded. For this--this\nwas the secret of the Jewish desecration of the Temple. The priests\nwho ministered at the inner shrine did not, for the most part, believe\nin the Divine presence more than the people who sold sheep and oxen\nwithout. A trade was going on in both places. There it was a traffic\nwith God; here it was a traffic among men. The awe of One who dwelt\nwith them, who revealed Himself to them, whose righteousness was their\nstrength, had been exchanged for the fear of One who might call them\nto account for their treacheries to each other if they withheld their\ncustomary and toilsome services from Him.\n\nThe preacher in the wilderness had been taught that, when a nation has\nreached such a condition of rottenness as this, it is not enough to\nlop off withered branches; the axe must be laid to the root. When the\nScribes and Pharisees came to him, he told them to bring forth fruits\nof repentance, fruits which would show themselves in the Temple as\nwell as the market. But he did not visit either the Temple or the\nmarket. Jesus concerned Himself with both. '_He went into the Temple,\nand found them that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of\nmoney sitting. And when He had made a scourge of small cords, He drove\nthem all out of the Temple, and the sheep and the oxen; and poured out\nthe changers' money, and overthrew the tables._'\n\nSome who read this story say, that it offends their notion of our\nLord's dignity. Could He, with His own hand, chastise these traders?\nSome say, it offends their notion of His benignity. Could the\nAll-Merciful exhibit such wrath against a tolerated, perhaps an\nunconscious, profaneness? Before we consider these opinions, it may be\nwell to hear what the disciples felt, when they saw Him with the\nscourge by whom they had sat at the feast, whom they had hailed as the\nGiver of the marriage blessing, as the Inspirer of joy. '_They\nremembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me\nup._' These words came unbidden into their minds. His look, His\nvoice, expressed all that they had ever heard of the vehement\nearnestness with which kings and prophets of old had felt the\npollutions of God's Temple, and had sought to purge it of them. Josiah\nand Ezekiel revived in Him. He had forgotten Himself. He was possessed\nby the spirit that possessed the men of old. There was a fire burning\nin Him that could not be quenched, till it had consumed all the chaff\nfrom the threshing-floor.\n\nSuch was their impression at the moment. Looking back upon it after\nall later events had interpreted it, St. John felt that this was a\nmanifestation of grace and truth, as much as the making the water\nwine, or the healing the sick. For he had learnt that a gracious Being\nmust be intolerant of that which is ungracious, that a true Being must\nseek to destroy falsehood--that falsehood most which is nearest the\nheart of a nation, the altar of God. He felt that this wrath must have\nreached its highest point in the most gracious, most true Being, in\nHim from whom all had received their portions of grace and truth. He\nfelt that this wrath must have been least restrained in Him by any\nthoughts of what would look well in the eyes of men. What were all the\nnotions which he had formed about dignity or comeliness? The Word made\nflesh was making it manifest that every punishment of every wrong doer\nwas administered by Him; that whatever agents He may employ to purify\nhis Church, to inflict vengeance upon those who have defiled it, the\nrod is really in His hand,--that it is He who directs and measures\nevery blow.\n\nBut St. John saw more in the act than this. He had said in his former\nchapter, not only, '_We beheld Him who was full of grace and truth,\nHim of whose fulness we had all received_,' but '_We beheld His\nglory, as the glory of the only-begotten of the Father_.' He teaches\nus to recognise a manifestation of _this_ glory, also, in the driving\nthe money-changers out of the Temple. '_Jesus said to them that sold\ndoves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of\nmerchandise._'\n\nThe zeal which devoured Jesus was surely a zeal for the house of that\nGod to whom Solomon had prayed, '_Lord, wilt thou in very deed dwell\nupon earth?_' It was for the house of that God whom kings and prophets\nhad worshipped between the cherubim. But which of these had dared to\nuse the language which He used? Which of them had ever said, 'It is\nthe house of _my Father_'? It was a _new_ name,--a wonderful and awful\nname. And yet the whole force of the testimony which Christ bore for\nthe old building--for the house in which their fathers worshipped--lay\nin this name. If that house was not to be a house of merchandise--if\nit was ever to be that again which holy men had believed and found it\nto be--this new name must remove its debasement, this new revelation\nmust restore its greatness. No other could suffice to undo the\nhypocrisy of the priests, because that hypocrisy came from their\nthinking that the house was theirs--from not believing that there was\nany relation between themselves and Him to whom they offered their\nworship and their sacrifices. If there was a man who could call it 'my\nFather's house,' heaven and earth were not at the distance they\nthought and hoped,--their Judge was very near. On the other hand, no\nrevelation but this could have brought the outer court once more into\nunion with the inner court, could have made both parts of the house of\nGod. For the reason why the people traded in that court, and felt they\nhad no business anywhere else, was that they had no belief that God\ncared for them, or that there was any fellowship between them and Him,\nexcept through those priests who were the barriers to all fellowship.\nIf Jesus of Nazareth, the poor man, one of them, could say, 'It is my\nFather's house,' the publican might feel then,--even the Gentile might\nfeel afterwards,--that there was a house for him; not a place for\nselling sheep and oxen, and changing money, but a refuge from the\nweariness of merchandise, from the haggling and lying of the world, in\nthe presence and heart of a Friend who giveth to all liberally, of One\nwho is altogether righteous and true.\n\nIn after days we shall find the Jews felt the boldness of this\nlanguage, and made it their principal charge against Jesus that He\ndared to use it. On this occasion it seems to have fallen dead upon\ntheir ears. Their question is not, '_What sign shewest thou seeing_'\nthou sayest this, but '_seeing thou doest these things_?' They meant\nnothing more, I suppose, than, 'Why dost thou, a mere Galil\u00e6an\nstranger, take upon thee to drive out these oxen? A prophet might do\nit--perhaps even a zealot, if he was a Levite, and claimed the honours\nof his ancestor Phinehas, might do it--but what sign canst thou\nproduce that such an office belongs to thee?' I do not find more in\n_their_ demand than this; but the answer of our Lord refers to His\nprevious words as well as to theirs. He could not give them a sign\nthat He had a right to cleanse the Temple, which would not also be a\nsign that He had a right, in the strictest sense, to call the Temple\n'His Father's house.' You must recollect that this was the claim He\nhad to make good, if you would understand Him when He says, '_Destroy\nthis temple, and in three days I will raise it up_.'\n\nThe sentence was, of course, enigmatical. The Jews regarded it simply\nas the language of a fanatic or a madman. '_Forty and six years_,'\nthey said, '_was this Temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in\nthree days?_' St. John evidently indicates that it was not much more\nintelligible to him and to his fellow-disciples, when they first heard\nit, than to their countrymen. But he says a time came when they did\nunderstand it. '_He spake of the temple of His body. When therefore He\nwas risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said\nthis unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word that\nJesus had said._'\n\nAre we to suppose that the _third_ day of the resurrection was the key\nwhich unlocked our Lord's meaning? No doubt that was an outward help\nin the discovery of it; but it would have been a most imperfect help,\nif they had not attached a meaning to the resurrection which had\nnothing to do with days or years. By raising Jesus from the dead, God\ndeclared Him to be His Son. This was St. Paul's language to the\nRomans,--this was the very substance of his preaching. By raising Him\nfrom the dead, He declared that in Him all the building fitly framed\ntogether grew to be an holy temple in the Lord. This was his language\nto those Ephesians among whom the son of Zebedee was now dwelling. It\nwas the resurrection, then, which taught the disciples that the body\nof Christ was that real temple of God, of which all stone temples had\nbeen the symbols,--that in this only the fulness of God dwelt,--that\nin this the prayer of Solomon, that God, whom the heaven of heavens\ncould not contain, would dwell with men upon earth, could be actually\nfulfilled. Some critics say there is an awkwardness in supposing that\nour Lord pointed to His own body when He spoke of destroying the\nTemple; and that if He did not, the Evangelist would seem to charge\nHim with using words in a double sense,--so deceiving His hearers. I\ndo not see why we should imagine Him to have pointed to His body; why\nHis eyes may not have been fixed on the building which He had called\nHis 'Father's house.' He did mean, that, if they destroyed _that_\nhouse,--if their money-worship, falsehood, hypocrisy, brought it to\nutter ruin, and it was at last given up to Roman soldiers,--there was\na house not made with hands, which was all that Solomon's, in the very\nbest and noblest conception of it, had tried to be. He meant certainly\nmore than this. He meant that they might and would try to destroy the\noutward fabric of _this_ more glorious temple; but that in three days\nthe dead body would come back from the tomb, and be proclaimed to the\nworld as God's own everlasting habitation. You may call this a double\nsense of words, if you like; but by _such_ double senses deceptions\nare not caused or promoted--they are cleared away. The Jew was\nlabouring under a terrible deception; he was practising a continual\nequivocation. The Temple of the Lord was a sacred place to him,--he\ngloried in possessing it; yet he did not in his heart believe that God\nwas meeting His creatures, holding any intercourse with them, caring\nfor them. The building itself, therefore, acquired a reverence in his\nmind which was apart from reverence to God, nay, fatal to that\nreverence. God was absorbed in the Temple. The inward thought of the\npriest was, that if it perished God would perish. Hence arose infinite\ncontradictions in his practice, alternations of scrupulosity and\nprofaneness. Now the money-changer is permitted to sit within it,--now\na cry is raised that a Stephen speaks evil words against the holy\nplace, and must be stoned. There was but one way of breaking down\nthis habit of mind: it was to affirm and prove that the Temple was\nnot a fiction,--that the belief of the elder men respecting it was not\na fiction,--that God and man were not divided,--that the prophecy of\ntheir complete fellowship was not an idle prophecy leading to\nnothing,--that men might draw nigh to God, as to a father, on the holy\nhill of Zion; because there was an only-begotten Son, whose body was\nfilled with that Spirit which would raise it out of the grave.\n\nNo; our Lord did not deceive the Jews when He gave them the fullest,\ntruest sense of their own Scriptures, of their own calling and\nhistory. If any words, any acts could have undeceived them, they would\nhave been His. Alas! when money-worship has reached the vitals of a\nnation, when it has entered into the house of God, the very words and\nacts of the Son of God may not purge it of its delusions,--they may\ntake their shape and colour from these delusions. May God avert the\n_omen_ from our land, from our Church! May He enable us to believe\nthat every building in which He permits us to worship Him, and to\npresent before Him the finished sacrifice of Christ, is indeed the\nhouse of our Father, because of His Father! May every chastisement He\nsends to us, individually or nationally, be viewed by us as a scourge\nwith which He is cleansing His temple of them that sell and them that\nbuy in it,--of our corrupt traffickings with our own consciences and\nwith Him! May He help us to believe in Christ's incarnation and\npassion, that we may attain to the full glory of His resurrection, and\nmay find in it the proof that His body was the temple of the Holy\nGhost, and that ours are to be temples holy and acceptable unto Him!\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE VII.\n\nTHE NEW BIRTH.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, Palm Sunday, March 16, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN III. 3.\n\n_Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,\nExcept a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God._\n\n\nIt is undoubtedly right to connect the beginning of this chapter with\nthe latter verses of the preceding one. '_Now when He was in Jerusalem\nat the passover, in the feast, many believed in His name, when they\nsaw the miracles which He did. But Jesus did not commit Himself unto\nthem, because He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify\nof man: for He knew what was in man._' I must ask you here, as\neverywhere else in St. John, to substitute the word _signs_ for\n_miracles_. Our unfortunate adoption of this last word--which cannot\nbe referred, as some of our careless translations may be, to the\nfollowing of the Vulgate, for it has _signs_--has sadly weakened and\nperplexed the Evangelist's statements. _Here_, for instance, he does\nnot tell us _what_ the acts of Christ were which were done at the\npassover. He does not say whether He healed the sick, or cast out\ndevils. He fixes our attention on this point,--that the acts were\nreceived by many of those who were gathered at the feast as signs.\n'_They believed on His name._' The word _name_, in every part of\nScripture, expresses that which is invisible. It is the contrast to an\nidol, or that which may be seen. Even idolaters recognised the _name_\nof the god as that which was expressed by the outward image, as that\nwhich only the mind could recognise. We cannot, then, give less force\nto the phrase, '_They believed on His name_,' than this,--they\nconfessed a power within Him which put forth these outward\nmanifestations of itself. We should not try to be more definite when\nwe are describing the vague feelings of a people. One moment they\nmight think, '_Some_ divine power is at work in Him; He is _a_\nProphet.' At another, 'He is _the_ Deliverer, the King we are looking\nfor.' The passover was a time at which such opinions were most likely\nto be discussed, when parties were most likely to be formed about any\nnew leader. The words which follow, '_But Jesus did not commit Himself\nto them_,' indicate, I think, that such a party was ready to gather\nitself round Him. He did not covet their support. He did not show the\nleast desire to make use of their services, as one claiming to be the\nChrist might have done. But the language was capable of another sense.\nIt might denote the caution of a chieftain who was waiting till he had\nsounded the dispositions of his followers, till he had assurance from\nsome competent witnesses of their fidelity. The notion of such\nprudence in One who came to give His life for the world, of such need\nof information in Him whose life was the light of men, was utterly\nrevolting. St. John adds, that the reason of His not committing\nHimself to this party was, '_that He knew all men, and needed not that\nany should testify concerning Man: for He knew what was in Man_.' They\nwere not to discern and choose Him; He was to discern and choose\nthem. He was not a King that a faction was to set up; He was the\noriginal Lord of men--ruling them not as a stranger, not as one who is\nseparate from them, but as one possessing the most intimate knowledge\nof that which is distinct and peculiar in each man, and of _the_ man\nthat is in all.\n\nThat there should be many in the crowd at the passover--many of the\nignorant expectants of a Christ--who thought that Jesus had given\nsufficient signs of His right to the name, is not surprising. They\nmight be all the more willing to recognise Him, because He seemed to\nbe of their class. But these signs had affected some to whom the\nthought of a Galil\u00e6an peasant must have been utterly scandalous.\n'_There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the\nJews: the same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we\nknow that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these\nsigns which thou doest, except God were with him._' The words express\nmore than an individual opinion. Nicodemus must have been conversing\nwith other members of the Sanhedrim. A suspicion that a new\n_Teacher_--perhaps a Prophet--with some unusual powers, had appeared,\nmight be diffusing itself through the body. _Whence_ the powers were\nderived, whether the prophet was true or false, were still questions\nto be asked. It was a further question whether the Prophet had any\nclaim to be considered the Christ. The people might easily arrive at\nthat conclusion; a ruler would be disposed to reject it. Yet it might\nbe the true one. Nicodemus would evidently like to know. He could not\ntake the rash step of putting himself under the banner of one who\nmight lead him to rebellion; but he would ascertain the fact\nprivately, if he could.\n\nThe reply meets the thought in the heart of the speaker, not the words\nhe had uttered. 'You wish to know whether I am about to set up a\nkingdom. \"_Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born\nagain, he cannot see the kingdom of God._\"' The phrase 'kingdom of\nGod,' or 'kingdom of heaven,' is one which is continually recurring in\nthe first three Evangelists; it may be said to be nearly their most\ncharacteristic phrase. It is not characteristic of St. John; he uses\nit rarely. But if we want a commentary upon every passage in Matthew,\nMark, and Luke, in which it is to be found; if we want to know why we\nhear of it in connexion with the parables,--why the Gospel which the\nApostles were to preach is called the Gospel of this kingdom,--I\nshould point you to this verse and to the conversation which follows\nit. Nicodemus was expecting, in some way or other, to _see_ the\nkingdom of God. Signs were to show who the divine King was; He would\npresent Himself in such wise to His people, that they should have no\ndoubt of Him and His authority. All this he thought would be granted\nby God, if He fulfilled His promises, and raised up the Son of David\nto sit upon David's throne. Was the hope a wrong one? Could less than\na clear demonstration be a warrant for accepting any being clothed in\nhuman flesh as the divine Prince and Deliverer? Verily, nothing less.\nThey must see the kingdom of God. It must reveal itself to them with\nan evidence which they could not gainsay. It must lay hold upon them\nas its subjects, _de facto_ and _de jure_, with a compulsion not\nweaker but mightier than that with which the Roman empire had laid\nhold of them. The arguments of the Christ must be as decisive in their\nown kind as the arguments of the C\u00e6sar.\n\nBut were they of the same kind? Our Lord says, '_Verily, verily, I\nsay unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom\nof God_.' This language does not occur for the first time in our\nGospel. We heard before that the divine Word '_came to His own, and\nHis own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He\npower to become the sons of God; which were born not of flesh, nor of\nblood, nor of the will of man, but of God._' Here is the announcement\nof another kind of birth from that which we call the natural birth.\nAnd yet it is not a portentous, _un_natural birth. If the doctrine\nwhich is the foundation of this Gospel is true; if the Word that was\nwith God and was God is Creator of men; if His life is the light of\nmen; those who entertained His light, those who did not refuse to be\npenetrated by His life, became what they were meant to be: they\nfulfilled the purpose of Him who called them into existence. The power\nwhich He gave them to become sons of God was a power to become _men_,\nin the true sense of that word--to rise above the condition of\nanimals.\n\nWhen, therefore, our Lord tells Nicodemus that only those who were\nborn again, or born from above (there is a justification for each\nrendering--\u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, perhaps, unites the force of both), can see the\nkingdom of God, He tells him that the vision of the true state of\nman,--of that order which is intended for men,--is only given to those\nwho receive the Light which lighteneth all men. Theirs is the nobler,\nbetter birth--the divine birth; and theirs is the power of perceiving\nthat kingdom which surrounds all men, to which all are subject, but\nwhich, being the kingdom of God, and not the kingdom of the C\u00e6sar,\ndoes not act upon men through material armies, and tax-gatherers at\nthe receipt of custom,--does not manifest its power and majesty to\nthe outward eye. This kingdom is over the man himself, not over his\naccidents and circumstances; he must be a man, not a creature of these\naccidents and circumstances, in order to see it; and that capacity of\nbeing a man he must derive not from flesh and blood, but from the\nFather of his spirit.\n\nThis conversation by night must have been remembered and recorded by\nNicodemus himself. As he repeated it to St. John,--probably long after\nthat day when he came with spices to anoint the body of Jesus in the\ntomb,--the words which had been spoken to him, and the words which he\nhad spoken, must have come fresh to his memory; the meaning of the\none, the deep ignorance of the other, seen by the light that fell upon\nthem from the experiences and the revelations of after years. As he\nwas an honest man, he did not suppress or soften his own answer to the\n'_Verily, verily_,' of Christ. '_How can a man be born when he is old?\nCan he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?_' In\ntruth, he had no cause to be ashamed of himself for having stated his\ndifficulty in that rough way. To veil it under seemly phrases would\nhave been no evidence of enlightenment.\n\nThe Jewish doctors, it is said, not uncommonly described the Gentile\nas one who became a little child, who began his life anew, when he was\nreceived by baptism into the privileges of their outer court. If so,\nNicodemus must have been familiar with the expression; but it must\nhave been to him, and to most who availed themselves of it, a mere\nfigure of rhetoric--one of those counters which pass among religious\npeople, which have a certain value at first, but which become at\nlength so depreciated that they serve no purpose but to impose on\nthose who take and those who give them. However little Nicodemus might\nknow of Jesus, he did know that He was not resorting to figures of\nrhetoric--that if He spoke of a birth, He meant a birth; and he must\nhave perceived that what He said did not apply to sinners of the\nGentiles, but to him, the religious ruler of the Jews. It was,\ntherefore, a good and healthy sign, a proof of the power of the new\nTeacher, that he forgot the conventionalisms of the Sanhedrim, and\nspoke out coarsely and naturally, as a peasant might have done. Our\nLord, surely, passed this judgment upon him; for, instead of rebuking\nhim for his question, He meets it in the most direct manner possible:\n'_Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be\nborn of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of\nGod._' The object of Nicodemus in coming to ask Him about His kingdom,\nis still kept prominently forward; but there is a noticeable change in\nour Lord's words. He had spoken of _seeing_ the kingdom of God; He now\nspeaks of _entering_ into it. Each expression may, unquestionably\ndoes, involve the other; still they are distinct. To _see_ a kingdom,\nis to have an apprehension of its reality and of its nature; to\n_enter_ into a kingdom, is to become a subject of it. And then the\nthought forces itself upon us, 'How can any one choose to become a\nsubject of God's kingdom? _Is_ he not a subject of it necessarily? If\nGod is the King of kings and Lord of lords, can he escape out of His\nkingdom? Is he not bound by the laws of it, whether he likes them or\nno?' We cannot state this difficulty to ourselves too frequently; we\ncannot meditate upon it too earnestly. Our consciences tell us that we\n_are_ the subjects of God's kingdom; that its laws do bind us; that\nthey avenge themselves upon us when we break them. But our consciences\ntell us, also, that there is rebellion in us against that which holds\nus so fast, which executes its decrees so certainly. This is the\ncontradiction, it exists--it is a fact, _the_ fact, of our lives. No\ntheories can get rid of it. But who shall tell us _how_ to get rid of\nit? Before we can understand what could remove it, before we can even\nask with any seriousness to have it removed, we must know and feel how\ndeep the contradiction is. Suppose the government of God should be a\ngovernment over our wills, rebellion in those very wills must be the\nmost fearful we can conceive of. And the entering into the kingdom of\nGod must import the return of the spirit of man to its allegiance,--the\nclaim of a voluntary spiritual being to be under the will with which\nit is its misery to be at strife. John had come preaching, '_the\nkingdom of God is at hand_,' calling men to repentance, baptizing with\nwater, proclaiming One who would baptize with the Holy Ghost. When\nJesus says to Nicodemus, '_Except a man be born of water and of the\nSpirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God_,' He takes up the\nteaching of his forerunner, He expounds his act, He announces the\nfulfilment of his promise. The being baptized with water, He declares\nto be the act of submission to the Father of spirits,--the sign which\na man gives that he accepts His government, that he surrenders himself\nto it. It is a surrender,--that is the only word we can find,--a\nconfession by the human will of its impotency. It must be guided,\ngoverned, inspired, or it can do nothing, it can only struggle against\nits blessedness. The acceptance, therefore, of this water-sign, by a\ncreature conscious of his own irregular strivings, of his separation\nfrom God, is the expression of a desire that God would act upon his\nwill, would raise it to its proper condition, would quicken it to the\nacts and impulses which belong to it,--in other words, would baptize\nit with the Spirit.\n\nWe see, then, how water and the Spirit are connected with the entrance\ninto the kingdom of God,--the kingdom over the spirit of man. Our Lord\ngoes on to explain that He had used the word _birth_ in its relation\nto both, not carelessly, but strictly. '_That which is born of the\nflesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit._' One\nis as true and actual a birth as the other. The coming forth of the\nfleshly creature into light, its beginning to breathe, the voice which\naccompanies that breathing, are not more undoubted facts--very\nmysterious facts _they_ must appear to all who reflect upon them--than\nthe coming forth of a spirit out of its darkness, than the sense of\nlight which startles it, than its breathings, than its cry.\n\nI have introduced this thought concerning breath and the voice of the\nnew-born child, because it seems to me to connect itself with the\nwords which follow, and to remove a confusion which our translation of\nthem has introduced into our minds: '_Marvel not that I said unto\nthee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and\nthou hearest the sound thereof but canst not tell whence it cometh, or\nwhither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit._' The\nphilological objections to this rendering of the words are very\nnumerous. In the first place, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, not \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, is the\nproper word for _wind_. But suppose, by reducing the wind to a faint\nlow breathing, we escape from that objection, there is the second,\nthat \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 is used twice in the same sentence in different senses.\nYet this is a slight fault compared with the next. We actually\nattribute _will_ to the wind; it blows where it listeth, \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9. After this flagrant departure from all scriptural and\nspiritual analogy, it is scarcely necessary to mention another, which\nis, nevertheless, not unimportant, and is of the same kind. \u03a6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74 is\nthe articulate voice of a living being; it is here changed into a\nnatural sound. Now, wherever violence is done to the truth of\nlanguage, I believe more or less of violence is done to some higher\ntruth. What need have we to introduce the sighing and soughing of the\nwind, in order to make our Lord's explanation more clear and forcible,\nif we understand Him to say,--'All the breathings of God's Spirit are\nfree, not fixed and fettered by material or mechanical conditions. You\nhear His voice continually; but whence the Spirit comes, whither it is\ngoing, you know not. And so it is with him that is born of the Spirit.\nThe process of birth cannot be perceived by you; you hear the voice\nwhich indicates birth, you see the signs and tokens of life; but how\nthe spiritual being came to be what he is, you know not.' If we take\nthis to be what our Lord told Nicodemus, and what He is telling us,\nare we not to learn that, at every moment of the day, the Spirit of\nthe eternal God is moving around us, speaking to us, acting upon us;\nbut that His mightiest operation, that which alone fulfils His purpose\ntowards us, is when He enables us to become the willing servants and\nchildren of our Father in heaven?\n\n'_How can these things be?_' asked the doctor of the Sanhedrim, in a\nbewilderment which many of us can well understand. It was, indeed, a\nstrange new world into which he was transported; it seemed to him a\nworld of dreams, because he had been himself so much amidst dreams,\nbecause he had known so little of realities. '_Art thou a master of\nIsrael_,' was the rejoinder, '_and knowest not these things?_' 'What\nhast thou been learning all thy life? what hast thou been teaching thy\ncountrymen? Hast thou not been reading of an unseen God, who holds\nconverse with men,--of a God of the spirits of all flesh? Hast thou\nnot believed that this God is a living God, as He was when He appeared\nto Moses in the bush? when He touched the lips of Isaiah with fire in\nthe Temple? Hast thou not understood that He is thy God, as much as He\nwas the God of any Israelite to whom the commandments were spoken on\nthe Mount? Hast thou not bidden the people of Israel of this day to\nbelieve that He is _their_ God?' '_Verily, I say unto you, That which\nwe have known, we speak; that which we have seen, we testify._' 'This\nis the characteristic of every true teacher, of every called prophet.\nThis has been the characteristic of John; this is mine. We do not\nspeak things that we have learnt by report--things that have been\ntransmitted to us; we speak the truths with which we have been brought\nface to face.' '_And ye receive not our testimony._' 'These things we\ntell you of, because they are about you, because you are created to\nknow them, and have fellowship with them. And you turn away from them\nin search of things that are at a distance from you--of formalities\nand trifles which you call by lofty names, which give rise to endless\ndisputings, but which do not concern you as human beings in the\nleast.' '_And if I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not,\nhow shall ye believe if I tell you of the heavenly things?_' 'If these\nthings which have to do with your daily lives, which bear upon your\nordinary business, which you can test by the experience of your\nfailures and your sins,--if _these_ seem to you incredible, how will\nit be if I speak to you of God Himself, of His purposes, of His\nnature?'\n\nHis words imply that He has a right to speak of these things also,\nthat He is _able_ to speak of them. On what ground could a power so\namazing rest? He goes on to declare the ground of it: '_For no man\nhath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even\nthe Son of Man which is in heaven_.' Of all paradoxes, this appears to\nbe the greatest. And yet if the heart of this ruler--if the heart of\nany man--has been delivered from the oppressive fears and\nsuperstitions that connect themselves with the thoughts of a distant\nheaven in _space_, which looks coldly and drearily down upon earth--of\na distant heaven in _time_, which stands aloof from all human\nsympathies; if ever the belief in heaven has been regarded as a spring\nof hope and energy to the sons of men; if ever they have learnt not to\nthink of earth as a place in which they were to cozen and lie for\nthreescore years and ten, and heaven as a place to which some might\nescape, if they made compensations to the Ruler of it for the evils\nwhich they had done in the other region of His government; that\ndeliverance, those better and nobler thoughts have come from the\nparadox which is uttered in this verse. Poor people--utterly\nbewildered by all they have heard from divines and masters in Israel\nabout heaven, and the way in which they are to obtain heaven--have\ntaken this sentence home to their hearts,--that the Son of Man, He who\nsuffered for them and with them on earth, is He who has ascended into\nheaven, and who is always in heaven. They have entered into the\nkingdom of heaven with those spirits which were born of the divine\nSpirit, as they entered into the kingdom of earth when they were born\nof the flesh; they have seen the kingdom with the spiritual eye which\nGod has opened, as clearly as they have seen the trees and flowers of\nearth with the fleshly eye which He has opened.\n\nHow He opens that eye, and what He reveals to it when it is opened,\nthe next words will tell us. '_And as Moses lifted up the serpent\nin the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up: that\nwhosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.\nFor God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that\nwhosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting\nlife. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world;\nbut that the world through Him might be saved._'\n\nHow can I introduce such a passage as this at the close of a sermon?\nBecause I would not allow my sense of the immense worth and importance\nof every clause, of every word, of which it consists, to hinder you\nfrom tracing the method of our Lord's discourse. The question about\nthe kingdom of God lay at the threshold of the dialogue. Here He\ndeclares how He is to claim His kingdom, to what throne He is to be\nraised, that all men might confess Him as their King. Jesus might have\nspoken of the exaltation of David or of Solomon as the pattern of His\nown. He goes back to an older and sublimer event in Jewish history.\nThe brazen serpent to which the eyes of those were turned who had been\nbitten by the serpents in the wilderness, the common life-giving,\nlife-restoring object,--this was the sign which He chose of that\ndominion which should stretch from sea to sea, which should reach to\nthe lowest depths, and work the mightiest deliverance. 'You would know\nif I am a King. You will see me lifted upon a cross: there you may\nlearn what I am. Whoso sees the Son of Man, his Lord and King\nthere,--whoso believes and trusts Him there,--will rise up indeed a\nnew man, will be saved from the plague which is destroying him, will\nawaken to health and freedom. He will not perish in his wretched,\nselfish isolation; he will have that life which is the common life of\nall.'\n\nAnd why? He will see there the love of God to him and to the world.\nThe only-begotten Son upon that cross will declare Him as He has\nalways declared Him; but the revelation will be immeasurably fuller\nand clearer than it has ever been. He from whom men have turned as\ntheir enemy, as plotting _their_ destruction, as pledged to destroy\nthe world, will be manifested as their Saviour and its Saviour. That\nwhich has been the curse and misery and death of man, his separation\nfrom God, his hatred of God, will cease for those who believe that in\nthis Son of Man He is making known what He wills, what He is. They\nwill have that eternal life of trust and love which is His own life.\n\nAnd therefore He goes on: '_He that believeth on Him is not condemned:\nbut he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not\nbelieved in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. And this is the\ncondemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved\ndarkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every\none that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light,\nlest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to\nthe light, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought\nin God._' The belief that Jesus does by His cross manifest the tender\nlove of God to mankind, that in Him God's whole will and mind and\npurpose are revealed to men,--this takes away the condemnation from\ntheir consciences; this restores them to trust and liberty and hope.\nAnd therefore, conversely, _not_ to believe this, is to have a sense\nof alienation and distance from God, to feel that there is an abyss\nbetween us and Him which has never been closed--an abyss into which we\nare casting our sacrifices and works of devotion, in the dream that it\nmay at last be filled up; while all our efforts, being efforts of\ndiscontent and distrust, efforts to conciliate a foe, widen and deepen\nit. Our Lord pronounces this unbelief to be its own all-sufficing\npunishment. 'The light is there; you do not love it; you fly from it.\nWhat worse state can there be than that? You hug the evil deeds from\nwhich you might be delivered. You choose the evil which is contrary to\nthe being and nature of the blessed God in whose image you are made.\nWhat torment can there be so great as that?'\n\nI spoke of the new birth, or the birth from above, by which men are\nmade capable of seeing the kingdom of God, as one of which those may\nbecome conscious who are conscious of a rebellious will, and who would\nfain submit to their rightful Ruler. This latter part of the dialogue\nconfirms and enlarges that statement. He who is bitten with serpents\nmay turn to the brazen serpent; he who has been alienated from God may\nbecome at peace with Him. But our Lord's words also discover to us\nanother truth, different from this, nowise inconsistent with it. They\nshow us that our consciousness is not in any sense the foundation of\nGod's kingdom, that His love is the foundation of it. They make us\nunderstand that the revelation of that Love is in very deed the\nreconciliation and regeneration of the world; that we may claim all as\nincluded in that reconciliation and regeneration; that our baptism of\nwater and the Spirit, while it gives all warrant for conscious\nrepentance and faith, must comprehend the unconscious, must declare\nupon what their consciousness is to stand. They _are_ sons of God.\nGod's Spirit is given them, that they may grow into the knowledge of\ntheir sonship, that they may be able to live in conformity with it.\n\nThe conclusion of this memorable discourse also takes off all the edge\nwhich has been given to those words, in the earlier part of it, in\nwhich it is said, '_the Spirit breathes where He wills_.' I have\ntreated that language as expressing the entire freedom of His\noperations, His independence on material agents as well as on the will\nof the creature. But if any one concludes that the Spirit does not\nwill that all men should believe and come to the knowledge of the\ntruth, he must deny that He is the Spirit of that God who sent not His\nSon to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be\nsaved.\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE VIII.\n\nTHE BRIDEGROOM AND THE BRIDEGROOM'S FRIEND.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, Easter Sunday, March 23, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN III. 30.\n\n_He must increase; I must decrease._\n\n\nWe have seen, in the first chapter of this Gospel, how much the work\nand office of John the Baptist are connected with all the deepest\nthoughts and announcements of the Apostle. The more we study him, the\nmore probable, I think, the old tradition of the Church, that he was a\ndisciple of the Baptist, must appear to us,--the more we shall\nunderstand the cause of his anxiety to point out the exact relation\nbetween his two teachers.\n\nI have endeavoured to show you that it is not the _superiority_ of the\nChrist to the forerunner which he chiefly dwells upon. That difference\nhad been sufficiently brought out by the earlier evangelists. He\ninsists that the superiority of the Christ rested on His _priority_;\nthat the later in order of manifestation was the first in order of\nbeing; that of His fulness John and all previous prophets had\nreceived; that of Him, as the Word of God, as the Light of men, they\nhad all borne witness. Whether Jesus was or was not the Word made\nflesh,--whether He did or did not prove that in Him was the Life of\nall things, and that He was the Light of men,--are questions which the\nEvangelist undertakes to resolve for us in the course of his\nnarrative. Upon that point the Baptist may at times have had a strong\nconviction; at times he might be doubtful. But that there was such a\nWord of God, such a Light of men, and that He would make Himself\nmanifest, this was the groundwork of his prophecy; by this\nproclamation he proved himself to be of the same class with Isaiah and\nEzekiel; by this he showed that a kingdom of heaven must be at hand,\nin which the least might be greater than he.\n\nHow our Lord spoke to a ruler of the Jews concerning that kingdom, and\nthe qualifications for entering into it and seeing it--how he\nconnected it with a birth by water and by the Spirit--we have heard in\nthe first part of this chapter. The narrative which occupies the\nremainder of it carries us back to John. Not long after the passover\nat which the conversation with Nicodemus took place, Jesus, we are\ntold, went with His disciples into the country part of Jud\u00e6a--the land\nof Jud\u00e6a being here set in contrast, not with Galilee, but with the\ncity of Jerusalem, at which He had been during the feast. '_There He\ntarried with them and baptized._' This expression is used loosely; it\nis qualified in the next chapter. '_Jesus_,' it is said, '_Himself\nbaptized not, but His disciples_.' Still it was regarded, to all\nintents and purposes, as His baptism. It was naturally compared with\nthat of John; for he was still at large, and was '_baptizing in \u00c6non,\nnear to Salim, where there was much water_.' Perhaps the numbers that\nwent out to him had diminished; but it is obvious from the context\nthat he was still an object of attraction to many; '_they came to\nhim, and were baptized_.'\n\n'_Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and a\nJew_' (the plural is evidently quite out of place) '_about\npurification_.' We need not inquire into the nature of this dispute,\nseeing that the Apostle tells us no more of it. Before that time, and\never since, the subject of purification has given rise to thousands of\nquestions, all bearing more or less directly upon the relation between\noutward acts and the inner man,--what the former can or cannot do to\nmake the other better. Such questions were certain to be awakened by a\nbaptism with water, and a preaching of repentance such as John's; any\nof them may have suggested to his disciples the thought whether there\nwas some greater virtue in that of Jesus, or whether He were merely a\nrival and imitator of the elder teacher. With surprise and perplexity,\nand something of the indignation which was natural in men jealous for\nthe honour of a beloved teacher, '_they came unto John, and said unto\nhim, Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond Jordan, and to whom thou\nbarest witness, behold the same baptizeth, and all men come unto\nHim_.'\n\nThere was probably a pause before John gave his answer. The news which\nhe heard may have stirred up strange thoughts and doubts within him,\nnot in a moment to be quelled. Was his work over? Was he to have no\nmore power over men? Was he no longer a witness for God? The magician\nsays, when the fabric of his vision is dissolved--\n\n    'Now my spells are all o'erthrown,\n    And what strength I have's my own;\n    Which is most faint.'\n\nA mournful conclusion, and yet one to which many a man of high genius\nhas been brought, and out of which, perhaps, in the end he has derived\nvery precious lessons. Was this to be the result of the _prophet's_\nmeditation also? No! it comes forth in quite other words, which were a\nreply both to the questionings in his own soul, and the shallower\nperplexities and speculations of his disciples. '_A man can receive\nnothing, except it be given him from above._' As if he had said: 'You\nneed not be careful of my fame. If I have ever spoken a word which has\nentered into you, and shown you your ownselves, and has made you\ntruer, better men, that word was given me by the Lord of your spirit\nand mine; He enabled you to take it in. Out of the bosom of God, where\nthat Word is whose life is the light of men, did these quickening,\nilluminating words proceed. Just so far as my words have led you to\nturn to _that_ Word who is always with you, and who has promised that\nHe will come and manifest Himself to you,--just so far have they been\nwholesome and effectual. \"_You yourselves bear me witness, that I said\nI am not the Christ, but that I am sent before Him._\" As I never\npretended to be that unseen Light, which I told you was struggling\nwith your darkness, so--you know it well--I never pretended to be the\nChrist, the Anointed One, the King of Israel. For my message was that\nthis Christ must be that Light of the world, that Word made flesh. I\ntold you that He alone would baptize with the Spirit, because He alone\nwould be fully baptized with the Spirit. I am sent before Him,--sent,\nas I said, to baptize with water, that so He might be made known to\nIsrael who has the higher baptism.' And then, as if he were caught\naway by a new and diviner inspiration, as if the very meaning of that\nword, Christ the anointed, were revealed to him,--as if, in the light\nof that meaning, a thousand old songs and symbols were interpreting\nthemselves to him,--he goes on, '_He that hath the bride is the\nbridegroom_.' The vision of a king was before him; of a king, the\ndirect contrast to the tyrants of the earth. In place of a Deioces,\nhidden in the recesses of some Median palace--in place of a Tiberius,\ngoverning the world by spies--he sees One '_who is fairer than the\nsons of men, upon whose lips grace is poured, whose sword is on His\nthigh, and who rides on in truth and righteousness_.' He sees Him\ncoming to woo and claim His bride, '_whose beauty He greatly desires,\nwho is all-glorious within, whose clothing is of wrought gold_.' Such\na Bridegroom all the prophets had, in one form of speech or another,\nbeen discoursing of. They had proved that they were dealing in no\nmetaphors--pouring out no Oriental rhapsodies; for their revelation of\nHim had been connected with the homeliest exhortations to domestic\nunion and purity; they had affirmed the relation of the particular\nhusband and wife to have its foundation in this higher relation; they\nhad treated all breaches of the marriage-vow as indications and\nresults of the adultery of the race to its unseen Husband. And though\nthe race meant in their minds Israel; though the people whom God had\nchosen, and with whom He had made a covenant, were those whom they\ntaught to regard themselves as united in this eternal bond, of which\ncovenants were but the outward expression, which existed long before\nAbraham or Noah; yet their language was always too large for even\nthese limitations--was continually breaking through them. The King who\nwas to reign over the Gentiles must be represented as their Husband;\nwhensoever He should be revealed as the glory of His people Israel, He\nwould certainly be revealed as the Light to lighten all the nations;\nthat is to say, whensoever he appeared as the Christ of God, He would\ncertainly appear as the Bridegroom of Humanity.\n\nTo speak of Him, then, by this name, was not, as some would make out,\nto anticipate the discoveries of New Testament Apostles. It was\nexpressly to endorse and unfold the discoveries that had been made to\nOld Testament Prophets. It is only when he speaks of his own office in\nrelation to this Bridegroom, that John looks at all beyond the\nprevious teachers of his land; and then, that he may make their office\nalso more intelligible.\n\n'_The friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him,\nrejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy\ntherefore is fulfilled._' I know scarcely any words in all the\nScriptures which have a deeper and diviner music in them than these,\nor which more express all that a Christian minister and a Christian\nman should wish to understand and feel; and should hope that some day\nhe may understand and feel as he who first spoke them did. That may\nseem to us a high ambition; we ought to consider it a poor ambition.\nAfter eighteen hundred years we should be able to understand _better_,\nto feel _more_ intensely than John did, that all the joy which is\nintended for a human being--nay, in the strict sense, which is\npossible for a human being--comes from hearing this Bridegroom's\nvoice. I do believe, brethren, that by sore experience, shameful\nexperience, those of us who have had fewest saintly aspirations may\nlearn that lesson. We have listened for the echoes of our own voices;\nwe have longed to know what impression they made; we have tried to\nfeast on the outward praise or the inward consciousness of their power\nor sweetness. Has it not been very miserable, unsatisfying food? has\nnot the day's gluttony brought nausea and disgust on the morrow? Has\nnot the gratification of that vanity gradually formed in us a craving,\nwhich no indulgence could appease, which every disappointment made\nintolerable? How much better has it been, if we have striven to take\ndelight in the words and deeds of other men, to feel the praises of\nthem as our own! 'As our own! Then we still are intended to connect\nwhat is outside of us with ourselves; we must, in some sort, refer\nthem to a standard within us?' Here is the puzzle; one always\nrecurring; one infinitely more tormenting in the practice of life than\nit ever can be in speculation; one that affects all our judgments of\nour fellow-men; one that never deserts us when we are alone. It never\ncan be set at rest till we confess a Lord, from whom all that is good\nand dear and worthy to be admired in any human being is derived--a\nroot of all mutual understanding and genial sympathy--a centre of life\nand joy. If we think that there is a Bridegroom who is ever bestowing\nHis own treasures and loveliness upon the creatures who were formed\nafter His likeness, whose nature He has taken, who is ever drawing\nthose creatures out of their own narrow and dark prison-houses, to\ncome and claim their rights as spirits, and to share with Him the free\nair and light in which He dwells, then we may begin to claim the place\nof His friends, and in our own hearts, as well as in those who have\nbeen most estranged from us, to hear Him speaking. That speech will\nnot be monotonous; we shall know why it is said in the Apocalypse to\nbe as the sound of many waters. In the accents of humiliation and\npenitence, in the accents of thanksgiving and praise, in the\nconfessions upon sick-beds, in the laugh of children, in the stillness\nof the churchyard, in the noise of cities, in the cries upon the\ncross, in the message, He is risen,--we shall hear the Bridegroom's\nvoice. It testifies that He has come and is coming to us and to all.\nOur joy is fulfilled only if we learn to welcome Him, and to bid our\nbrethren welcome Him also.\n\nAnd therefore John proceeds, most consistently and harmoniously: '_He\nmust increase; I must decrease_.' If the words had been spoken only of\na new teacher who was baptizing more disciples than he, there would be\na sadness and a kind of murmur in them, however they might denote a\nnecessary submission. But when it is the Bridegroom of his own spirit,\nthe divine Lord, from whom alone he had received light, in whom alone\nhe could see light, who was to increase, the '_I must decrease_' is\nnot a qualification of the joy he had claimed as the Bridegroom's\nfriend, but a principal part of it. How many a one has felt the misery\nof a self; has longed to become absorbed in the universe--to be\nnothing! It was a wish which a holy man such as John was did not dare\nto cherish, and yet which must have haunted him more than most. To\nhave a glimpse of _this_ annihilation; to see that it was possible to\nbecome less and less, while He in whom he was bound up, in whom was\nthe spring of his life and joy, grew greater and greater; to feel that\nhe might find his own personality in another;--was not this the\nconsummation to which God had always been leading him? Was not this,\ntoo, the very meaning and explanation of the work in which he had been\nengaged? The Word, the Light of men, of whom he had told his\ncountrymen, needed no longer his witness; for He was coming forth\nHimself to witness of that Father with whom He had dwelt eternally, to\ntell mankind of Him.\n\nThis higher testimony, this newer and grander revelation, is the\nsubject of the verses which follow: '_He that cometh from above is\nabove all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the\nearth: He that cometh from heaven is above all. And what He hath seen\nand heard, that He testifieth; and no man receiveth His testimony._'\n\nJohn had said before, that a man receives nothing but what is given\nhim from heaven. He does not recal that language, but affirms it anew,\nwhen he says that every man in himself, every child of Adam, though a\nliving soul, is '_yet of the earth, and speaketh of the earth_.' He is\ntied to earthly measures and standards. If he applies even the\nfaculties which he has derived from heaven to judge of heaven, he\nreduces it to the level of earth. But there is One who cometh from\nabove, One who is above all, One who draws His light from the Fountain\nof light, One whose light in us is not a part of our darkness, but a\ndivine power to scatter it. He testifies of that which He has seen and\nheard, of the heavenly things, of the will and nature and purpose of\nGod. '_And no man receiveth His testimony._' Strange that John should\nsay that! What he had heard from his disciples was that Jesus was\nbaptizing, and '_that all men came to Him_.' We are not told that he\ndoubted their information; we are not told that he had any different\ninformation from more trustworthy sources. And yet he confidently\naffirms that His testimony is not received. Why? Because he was not\nspeaking of what had happened in the few days or weeks since Jesus\ncame to Jordan to fulfil all righteousness, but of the four thousand\nyears during which He had come to His own, and His own had received\nHim not. That testimony which He had borne as the invisible Word of\nGod He was bearing still, now that He was made flesh and dwelling\namong men. It was mightier in degree; it was not different in kind. It\nwas still a testimony to the heart, to the inner man, and must be\nentertained or rejected there. What, therefore, the Baptist could say\nof the past, on the warrant of so long an experience, he could say\nsurely of the present. The darkness would fight against the light. No\nman of himself, without an operation from above, without a higher\nbaptism than that of water, whether administered by John or by Christ,\nwould believe that which the Son of God came to tell him.\n\nThat this limitation to the expression '_no man_' is involved in the\nvery nature of the Baptist's discourse, is evident from the next\nverse: '_He that hath received His testimony hath set to his seal that\nGod is true_.' But what need of a limitation? Why should he have made\na large assertion in one sentence, which is to be modified or\ncontradicted in the next? The answer is contained in the words\nthemselves: '_He who receives this testimony sets to his seal that God\nis true_.' The Christ comes to baptize men with the Spirit, that they\nmay receive that which of themselves they are both reluctant and\nunable to receive. The man who accepts that testimony, confesses his\nown reluctance and inability. He believes God to be strong and true,\nthough he is weak and lying. And his mind becomes stamped with the\nimpression of God's truth. The Spirit of God raises him above himself\nto know Him. It was necessary, then, to make the one assertion in\n_its_ breadth and fulness, that the other might not lose any of its\nbreadth and fulness. It was necessary that no man should suppose\nhimself capable of entering into the mind and kingdom of God--that all\nmen might know that God was not deceiving them, when He promised to\nbestow that capacity upon them.\n\n'_For_,' John continues, '_He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of\nGod: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him_.' He speaks\nthe words of God. If He proclaimed a doctrine, a theory, a scheme of\nthe universe--that might be taken in,--if some thought ill of it,\nothers would embrace it. But He comes speaking the words of\nGod--revealing the mind of the Eternal Being--showing forth Him who is\ntruth and who is love. How can we grasp such a manifestation as this?\nWhat have our poor beggarly conceits to do with the idea of a Goodness\nwithout bounds? Let us understand it well, brethren. The Jews rejected\nthe testimony of Christ, because it was the testimony concerning such\na God as this. The difficulty of all difficulties, whatever we may\nfancy, is to believe in _God_, in a _living_ and _true_ God, in a God\nwho loves His creatures. It is a difficulty which no arguments can\nremove; a difficulty which the progress of ages does not diminish in\nthe least, but makes stronger; a difficulty which is often most\noverpowering to the most religious men. The logician says, 'The\nunderstanding is finite; you cannot bring the Infinite within its\nrange.' The philosopher of advanced civilization says, 'The belief in\nGod was for little children; science is for us. Physical science does\nnot reveal God; our worship of humanity dispenses with Him.' Religious\nmen see evil all about them and within them. They can conceive of a\npunisher and avenger of evil; they can conceive that this punisher and\navenger, if he has motive and compensation sufficient, may exempt some\nfrom the destruction which he has decreed for the majority. They\ncannot believe in Love.\n\nThe logician is right. St. John said, eighteen hundred years ago, that\nthe Light had shined in the darkness, and the darkness had not\ncomprehended it. If we think only of our understanding, if we refuse\nto believe that there is a Word always illuminating it, we think only\nof the darkness, and we may say boldly, 'It can know nothing of God;\nwe have nothing to do with Him.' The modern philosopher of advanced\ncivilization is right. We cannot discover God in the world; we cannot\ndiscover in the world anything higher than ourselves. If there is no\nBridegroom of humanity, who witnesses to it of a Father, and binds it\nto a Father, we can only worship the world, or worship humanity--that\nis to say, worship ourselves. The religious man who exalts evil into\nthe throne of the universe is right. All the witnesses of the\nconscience that there is a God infinitely good,--all the witnesses of\nthe heart that man is made to be in conformity with that infinite\nGood, and can be satisfied with nothing else--are simply mockeries and\ndelusions, which it is the business of the disciple and minister of\nChrist to trample upon, to confute with words taken out of the Bible,\ntill he has succeeded in making young men profligates and atheists,\nold men worldlings and hypocrites,--if there has not been in the world\nan only-begotten Son full of grace and truth, who has come forth from\nthe Father to testify of the Father, and to whom the Father has given\nHis Spirit without measure, that He might baptize with it all who\nreceive His testimony, all who believe that God is true, not\nfalse--good, not evil.\n\nTo this subject the last and most memorable words of this whole\nchapter refer, those in which John the Baptist looks into the promised\nland which he was not to enter, in which he winds up the old\ndispensation, in which he introduces the new. '_The Father loveth the\nSon, and hath given all things into His hand. He that believeth on the\nSon of God hath everlasting life: he that believeth not the Son of\nGod hath not life; but the wrath of God abideth on him._' Henceforth\nwe shall hear no longer of a prophet discoursing of a Word who has\ncome to him, and from whom his light and the light of all men has been\nderived. We shall find _that_ Word discoursing as a Son concerning a\nFather, conversing with a Father, showing forth a Father. We are to\nhear how this testimony is received, especially how it is received by\nthe most religious portion of the Jewish people. We are to learn that,\nthough their opposition to Jesus took many forms, there was one dark\nroot of all their hostility and hatred. They could not bear to hear\nChrist speak of a Father--of a Father who loved the world. Whenever\nthey thought of God, a dark image of wrath was present to them; that\nwrath abode upon them, settled in them. How was it possible for them,\nthen, to see in Jesus the perfect image of the Father,--in His wrath\nagainst all baseness and vileness and hypocrisy, the true Divine wrath\nwhich is the expression of the deepest love,--in His sympathy with\npublicans and sinners, the self-same love? How was it possible for\nthem to see in the Son lifted on the cross, the King whom prophets and\nholy men had desired, the Son of God in whom dwelt the fulness of the\nFather, because the fulness of love, bodily? And, therefore, the wrath\nwhich they had invoked upon all others, and cherished in their own\nhearts, came upon them to the uttermost. They rejected their King and\nBridegroom, and all the national and spiritual life which had\nproceeded from Him perished inevitably.\n\nI have come back to the subject of which I was speaking last Sunday.\nAll Christian preaching should return continually to the Cross. It can\nnever find any other object so central or so glorious. But the death\nof Christ and His resurrection are inseparable. I have been preaching\nyou an Easter sermon to-day. For, if you think of Easter as apostles\nand martyrs thought of it, you will think of it as the witness that\nthe Bridegroom of humanity has presented and justified humanity before\nHis Father. You will pray for the Spirit of the Father and the Son,\nthat you, believing in that justification, may rise with Him to\nnewness of life. And you will join to these prayers another, that each\nof us, when the hour comes in which strength and heart fail, may be\nable to say with joy, '_I must decrease, that He may increase_.' All\nthat belongs to my own poor and selfish nature must decay and perish,\nthat He, my Lord and Saviour, may be exalted,--that I and all His\nredeemed may see our own blessedness and glory only and for ever in\nHim.\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE IX.\n\nTHE WATER OF LIFE.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, Sunday after Easter, March 30, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN IV. 10.\n\n     _Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift\n     of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink,\n     thou wouldst have asked of Him, and He would have given thee\n     living water._\n\n\nThe dispute between John's disciples and the Jew, of which I spoke\nlast Sunday, was about purification. Apparently, John's answer to\nthem, when they came to tell him that Jesus was baptizing, and that\nall men were coming to Him, had little reference to this subject.\n_Really_ his words threw the greatest light upon it. He did not say\nwhether the baptism of Jesus had a more purifying effect upon those\nwho received it than his baptism. But he spoke of another gift which\nJesus, if He was indeed the Son of God, would confer upon those who\nbelieved in Him. '_He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life;\nand he that believeth not the Son of God shall not see life._' It was\na mighty thing for men to be purified, to have corruptions removed\nfrom them. But corruption is the consequence of death. Where\ncorruption is, death must have entered. He who is the source and\nspring of life, He who can restore life, must have in Himself the very\nprinciple and power of purification. All instruments of purification\nmust derive their virtue from Him. He must be _the_ Purifier.\n\nAccordingly it is to this quality of the divine Word, or Son, that St.\nJohn has from the first directed our thoughts. '_In Him was life, and\nthe life was the light of men_:' this is the starting-point of his\nGospel. The sign in Cana of Galilee was the sign that Jesus was the\ncommunicator of life. His discourse with Nicodemus turned altogether\nupon the life from above which the Spirit of God would confer upon\nmen, and which would enable them to see the kingdom of God. The\nprimary announcement of the forerunner, therefore, respecting the Word\nmade flesh, '_He shall baptize with the Holy Ghost_,' whatever more it\nmight mean, could mean nothing less than this: 'He shall not merely\ncleanse away defilements; He shall impart the life which those\ndefilements obstruct and seek to extinguish.' John did not say for a\nmoment that water should not be the sign of entrance into the kingdom\nthat was at hand--that it should not be Christ's sign, as it had been\nhis sign;--but he said that it should be the sign, not merely of\nrepentance and remission of sins, but of a higher and eternal _life_.\n\nWas this an unusual and arbitrary application of the symbol? Surely\nnot. Water, when it is applied outwardly, suggests only the thought of\npurification. Water, when it is taken inwardly, immediately suggests\nthe thought of life. And this, therefore, is the point of connexion\nbetween the discourse of John with his disciples, which occupied us\nlast Sunday, and the discourse of Jesus with the woman of Samaria,\nwhich is to occupy us to-day. The Evangelist points out the relation\nbetween the two subjects in his own mind and in the history, by the\nfirst words of the fourth chapter: '_When therefore the Lord knew how\nthe Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples\nthan John, (though Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples,) He\nleft Jud\u00e6a, and came again into Galilee_.' What the disciples of the\nBaptist had angrily conjectured, the Pharisees would of course take\nfor granted. They would assume that John and Jesus were rival\nteachers, and that one was supplanting the other. The thought of this\nmight become the thought of Christ's own disciples: if it did, they\nwould utterly misunderstand the work of their Master, and His relation\nto the preacher of repentance. Was not this a reason for leaving\nJud\u00e6a, and going into Galilee?\n\n'_And He must needs go through Samaria._' That was the most natural\nroad. He might no doubt have avoided it; there was an inward and moral\nnecessity why He should not. If He was setting up a kingdom in the\nwhole land, portions of it which had been most separated from the rest\nmust be claimed as belonging to it.\n\n'_Then cometh He to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to\nthe parcel of ground which Jacob gave to his son Joseph._' This\ncountry was connected with the oldest traditions relating to the\ncommonwealth of Israel,--to the period before the giving of the Law,\nwhen the life of the fathers of the nation was entirely domestic and\npastoral. In these traditions was the link between one part of the\npeople and the other. The local associations with the events recorded\nin the Book of Genesis were witnesses that the rocks had once been\nunited, however rudely they had in later times been rent asunder.\nThere, especially, was the simplest and most faithful token of\npatriarchal times--a _well_. It was believed to have been dug by\nJacob. It brought the name of the head of all the tribes, and the\nlikeness of his mode of existence to their own, before those who could\nread no letters, and had little in their own thoughts to tell them\nthat they were members of a chosen race.\n\n'_Jesus therefore, being wearied with His journey, sat thus on the\nwell: and it was about the sixth hour. There cometh a woman of Samaria\nto draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. (For His\ndisciples were gone away into the city to buy meat.)_' Such a request\nfrom a weary and thirsty traveller would not commonly have been\nrefused by a woman of Palestine; and certainly we have no reason to\nthink, from the Gospels, that a Samaritan was likely to be less\nfriendly or courteous than one of the Southern people. It is not\nprobable that the woman meant to refuse. But she thought she had a\nright, on behalf of her country, to trifle a little with the pride of\na Jew, who, in a difficulty, would ask a favour of those whom he\ndespised, though he would not hold any intercourse with them, or meet\nthem upon fair terms. '_How is it_,' said she, '_that thou, being a\nJew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? For the Jews\nhave no dealings_' (do not traffic) '_with the Samaritans_.'\n\nThat word, '_have no traffic or dealing_,' seems to explain the first\npart of our Lord's answer. '_If thou knewest the_ GIFT _of God, and\nwho it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldst have\nasked of Him, and He would have given thee living water._' She had\ncome day after day to draw water at that well. Had she never known\nthat that water was a _gift_ of God? Had no thirst on a hot day, or no\nfailure of the spring, taught her that? Was water a thing to traffic\nin? Did not she recollect that it was a man, and not merely a Jew,\nwho was saying, '_Give me to drink_'? Did she never think of the gift\nof water as something very free and universal? This lesson was\ncontained in the opening of the sentence; and the look and the voice\nof the Stranger had, perhaps, already carried it home in some degree\nto the woman's conscience. But the speech suddenly took another turn.\nThere might be an exchange of gifts here also. '_If thou knewest who\nit is that saith to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldst have asked of\nHim, and He would have given thee living water._'\n\nThe words conveyed no immediate sense to her mind as to the nature of\nthe gift which was spoken of. But her answer shows that the presence\nof the Stranger had not been without its effect. She speaks with less\nlevity than before, with something of doubt, if not of awe,--'_Sir,\nthou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: whence then hast\nthou that living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, who\ngave us the well, and drank of it himself, and his children, and his\ncattle?_' I am far from supposing that this question indicates any\nsuspicion in her mind that He _was_ greater than their father, or that\nHe could know the country and where to find its secret springs as\nJacob did. But that very reference to Jacob showed that the feelings\nof the woman were becoming more serious than they had been. The petty\ndisputes of Jews and Samaritans were giving place to those\nremembrances of the past which make all common spots sacred, and\nennoble even the vulgarest minds. Her well, that well at which she had\nso often filled her pitcher, was the one out of which, eighteen\nhundred years before, the patriarch had drunk, and his children, and\nhis cattle. It was a step in her education, a preparation for the\nwords which follow.\n\n'_Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water\nshall thirst again: but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall\ngive him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him,\nshall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life._'\nI do not say that our version of this passage is in itself an\nincorrect one; nothing is harder than to find the most suitable\nequivalents for the words which are rendered here '_never_' and\n'_everlasting_:' but it would, I conceive, have been most desirable,\nby some means or other, to make the reader feel (which scarcely any\nreader of our translation does feel) that the two clauses answer to\neach other,--that \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1, follows 'shall not thirst,' and\nthat the adjective, \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, is that which qualifies 'life.' I shall\nmake no further use of this observation,--for there is enough in this\npassage to occupy us without any reference to it; but I could not pass\nit over because the word 'life,' which is the cardinal one of the\npassage, and I might say of the dialogue, must be considerably\naffected by that which accompanies it. I am far more anxious, however,\nthat you should consider how our Lord describes the difference between\nthe water of Jacob's well and that which He would give. '_The water\nwhich I shall give him shall become in him a fountain of water\nspringing up into everlasting life._' The woman had wondered where He\nwould go to discover a fountain deeper and more abundant than that\nwhich Jacob had bequeathed. The answer is, '_He that drinketh of this\nwater shall thirst again_.' 'He must come, as you do, to fetch water\ncontinually. The supply of to-day will be no supply for to-morrow. But\nwhat if each man should have the spring in himself? What if it should\nbe a spring ever renewed, kept alive by Him who first opened it?' 'A\nstrange thought,' you will say, 'to set before an ignorant woman!\nWhat could she understand about springs or fountains within?' Very\nlittle at first, if we believe the Evangelist. Her reply is just what\nwe might expect it to be. She relapses into the sort of banter with\nwhich she had begun the conversation. The gravity which she had\nexhibited for a moment has disappeared: '_Sir, give me this water,\nthat I thirst not, neither come hither to draw_.' A sufficient proof,\nmost would say, if they dared, that this kind of mystical discourse\nwas very little adapted to the comprehension of such a person as she\nwas. But, my brethren, if we say this, we must say more. We must say\nthat the whole Gospel of St. John--the simplest, as I have said\nalready, in language and construction, of all the Gospels, that which\nLuther was wont to designate the child's Gospel--is unsuitable to\nsimple people, and must be reconstructed according to our notions of\nsimplicity. For that Gospel begins from the principle that Christ, the\nliving Word of God, is the life and light of men, the life and light\nof all men. If that is true, it must have been the work of the Son of\nMan, of the Word made flesh, to let all manner of people know that He\nwas the source and spring of their life,--that apart from Him they had\nnone. Now, life must be inward; it cannot come to a man from the world\nwhich is about him. That may be full of signs and tokens of the life\nhe wants. Each well, each drop of rain, may testify of it. But it must\nspring up within him. Whatever is enduring, whatever he wants to\nsatisfy the infinite thirst within him, must be there.\n\nYou say, an ignorant woman could not enter into such a mystery as\nthis. But there were mysteries that she could enter into. '_Jesus said\nunto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither._' It was a curious\nand startling break in the conversation. What had it to do with\nJacob's well, or with the living water which she could not find there?\nVery much indeed. '_The woman said, I have no husband. Jesus answered\nand said, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: for thou hast had\nfive husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that\nsaidst thou truly._' Here were facts concerning her past and her\npresent history; here was a revelation of something that concerned her\nown very self. With _this_ there was no trifling. It was not of\nJacob's well, or of another well, that the Stranger was discoursing\nnow. He was speaking of _her_,--He was telling her what she was. '_In\nHim was life, and the life was the light of men._' She confessed it in\nher way,--'_Sir, I perceive thou art a prophet_.' All was not quite\nright with her;--He knew it, and He made her know it. She had offended\nthe Power above,--perhaps He could tell her, also, how she might\nappease Him. Her fathers might have taught her wrongly. She would like\nto know. She would rather like, moreover, to make the discourse more\ngeneral, less personal. A wish for truth, and a fear of it, light and\ndarkness, in her, as in all of us, fought for the mastery. She said,\n'_Our fathers worshipped in this mountain_,'--this venerable\nGerizim,--'_and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought\nto worship_.' Whether or not she would have been ready at the bidding\nof a Jewish prophet to repair her errors, and earn the favour of God\nby giving up her Samaritan faith, and becoming a proselyte of the\nTemple, she had not perhaps asked herself; how much she would have\ngained by the exchange, our Lord's words in another Gospel, about\nthose who became proselytes from heathenism, may partly tell us. But\nHe who had sat by the well did not ask this proof of her desire for\nreformation. '_Woman_,' He said, '_believe me, the hour cometh when ye\nshall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the\nFather_.' All she had asked--all that most Samaritans or Jews would\nhave disputed about--was _where_ they ought to worship. The thought\nupon which Jesus fixes her mind, is the Being to be worshipped. That\nnew name, which John said the Son was come to reveal, is now\nproclaimed in the ears of a separatist and a sinner. He speaks not of\nthe God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, but of the _Father_. Such a\nname the woman might or might not have heard, as one of the names of\nHim who dwelt on Gerizim. At all events, it would be but one of\nthem--one that would be lost amidst the various titles by which He was\ninvoked--carrying no special significance to the mind of the\nworshipper. Still, far down in that mind there was that which\nresponded to the word Father, which would awake up at the sound when\nit came from lips that felt all the power and reality of it. She who\nhad had five husbands, had had a father. To feel that the God of the\ndistant hill had anything to do with that human relation, was the dawn\nof a new day to her. The sun was rising in her heart, if there were\never so many clouds concealing it.\n\nI have said that our Lord was drawing the woman's thoughts from the\n_place_ of worship to the _object_ of worship. He goes on, in the next\nverse, to tell her that ignorance of this object was the special\nignorance of the Samaritan: '_Ye worship ye know not what_.' And then\nHe introduces words that have startled many, especially in this\nconnexion: '_We know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews_.'\n'Could He,' it has been asked, 'claim this dignity for His own\nnation, at the very moment when He seemed to be breaking down all\ndistinctions of nations? And _did_ the Jew know what he worshipped?\nDid not Jesus Himself say, \"_Ye know neither me nor the Father_?\"' I\napprehend, brethren, that the assertion of this, as the great calamity\nof the Samaritan--that he knew not what he worshipped--is abundantly\nborne out by history. It was in all times a country of superstitions,\nthe early home of Baal-worshippers, the later home of enchanters and\nfanatics, and of sects putting forward pretensions to all kinds of\nspiritual powers, appealing to great necessities in the human mind,\nalways leading it astray from its centre. The hard, cold Jew was not\nhalf so much open to _these_ impressions. The sects in his land were\ndry and formal, bound together by certain notions about the law.\nBecoming more and more selfish, measuring everything by rules of\nprofit and loss, he grew at last to be a mere worshipper of Mammon.\nHow was it possible, then, for him to know Christ and the Father? But\nin his debasement, he still preserved the shadow of the blessing which\nhad been conferred upon his race, and which his neighbour, though\nfreer and more open-minded, had lost. He still clung to a distinct\nobject of adoration. He was a protestant against the worship of\nspiritual phantasies. This poor shadow showed what the substance was\nwhich the Jew had inherited, and which was his distinction among all\nnations. Salvation was to go forth from his land. And salvation, so\nour Lord teaches us, consists in knowing what we worship; for that\nknowledge saves men from slavery to the world's idols, and to the\nidols of their own hearts, which is their great curse and misery.\n\nBut if this is salvation, it could not be salvation to worship in the\ntemple of Jerusalem any more than in the temple of Gerizim. If this\nsalvation was to go forth _from_ the Jews, it could not be limited\n_to_ them. Therefore He proceeds--'_The hour cometh, and now is, when\nthe true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth:\nfor the Father seeketh such to worship Him_.' Here was a proclamation\nwhich, in a wonderful manner, combined the truth that had been\npartially revealed to the Samaritan, and the truth which still\nsubsisted, though commonly hidden, distorted, even inverted, among the\nJews. The confused sense of a spiritual worship, of men being spirits,\nwas that which gave the magicians among the Samaritans all their\npower. They did acknowledge some invisible presence and influence\nacting upon them, and capable of producing wonderful effects, though\nthey did not know what they worshipped. The Jew bowed down before a\nBeing mightier than himself, who could lay down laws for him, who\nwould execute those laws upon him. But he turned that Being into a\nselfish tyrant. A double transformation! The tyrant is revealed as a\nFather. The enchantments are supplanted by a Spirit proceeding from\nthat Father, a Spirit of truth. Men are not to climb up to that Father\nby their offerings on Mount Moriah or Mount Gerizim, by their\nsacrifices or by their enchantments. The Father is seeking _them_. He\ngives them His true Spirit to make them true worshippers. They must\nnot wish to draw Him down to them; He would draw them up to Him.\n\n'_For God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in\nspirit and in truth._' In those first words there was, as will be\nevident from what I have said, much that was in harmony with Samaritan\nfeeling,--even with the feeling of an ordinary Samaritan like this\nwoman. She had heard of spirits; she thought more about spirits than a\nJew would have done. She did not speculate about them, but supposed\nthat they might appear to her, or have some influence over her. But\nthen came that other part of the sentence, which went to the very root\nof the tricks and superstitions with which she and her countrymen were\nfamiliar; '_they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in\ntruth_.' The Spirit of truth--_that_ must enter into you, _that_ must\ngovern you, _that_ must reform your life. A message this meant for the\nuniverse,--going to the very root of all religion and all philosophy,\nand yet bearing straight upon the conscience of that woman of Sychar\nwho had come to draw water at Jacob's well.\n\nPerhaps there is nothing that strikes us more in this conversation,\nwhich is so very direct and consistent in its purpose, and yet which\nfollows all the windings of the human heart, beginning from '_Give me\nto drink_,' and ending with a revelation of the nature of God;\nperhaps, I say, there is nothing more remarkable in it all than the\nresult of it. You expect to see the woman bowing before the mysterious\nForeigner, expressing her astonishment at his high doctrine, lamenting\nthat she had spoken to Him so uncourteously. Not at all. She says, '_I\nknow that when Messias cometh, He shall tell us all things_.' 'Our\npeople speak of One who is to be sent from God, of a Messias. I\nsuppose, if these things are true about God being a Spirit, and about\nour having a Spirit of truth, He will tell us. We shall know as much\nof these things as we can know.' Evidently this part of the\nconversation has not yet taken hold of her. The part about herself\nhas. 'The Messias will tell us all things; but this Jew has told me of\nmyself; He has seen what I am.' And therefore, when Jesus answers,\n'_I that speak unto thee am He_,'--so making a more direct profession\nof His name and dignity to this Samaritan than He had made in\nJerusalem,--He surely meant to fix this impression on her mind: 'Yes,\nthis is the test of Messiahship. Look for no other. Do not ask for\nsome outward signs to tell you when He is coming, or what He can do. I\nthat speak unto _thee_--I that lay bare _thy_ heart--am He. That is\nthe proof of my kingship over human beings; that is the proof of my\nbeing sent from God. I know what is in thee--the wrong of thy outward\nlife, the evil of thy inward life. I know thy deepest necessities. I\nknow thy want of a new spring of life within, of water of which thou\nmayest drink, and not thirst again. Thou needest that. All Samaritans,\nall Jews, all men and women who shall live, all nations and\ngenerations to come, will need it. I can give it them. For I can give\nthem that Spirit of truth which the Father desires them to have, that\nthey may know Him and worship Him.'\n\nLord, evermore give us this Spirit, that we thirst not, nor seek to\ndraw the water of life, which is only in Thee, from the wells of\nearth!\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE X.\n\nTHE REWARDS OF LABOUR, AND THE KINDS OF FAITH.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 2d Sunday after Easter, April 6, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN IV. 48.\n\n_Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will\nnot believe._\n\n\nDistance of time is not always unfavourable to accurate recollection.\nWe often remember a friend's words better, years after they were\nspoken, than the next day; because we understand them better, because\nwe see how one of them rose out of another. So, I imagine, it must\nhave been with the woman of Sychar. If she had repeated the dialogue\nwith Jesus to her neighbours, as soon as she returned to her city, she\nwould probably have misrepresented it. Short as it was, she would have\nmistaken words, she would have changed the order of them. A time will\nhave come when she would be sure of what He had said, and of what she\nhad said,--when she could say confidently to those who were collecting\nHis words, 'This is what He told me--this, and nothing else.'\n\nAt first she seems to have been too full of one part of the Stranger's\nspeech to care about the rest. She did not say, 'I have received\nstrange lessons from this Jewish prophet about God being a Spirit, and\nabout the water of life;' she expressed far more simply the effect of\nthis speech upon her: '_He told me all that ever I did_.' Was this\nexaggerated language? At first we are inclined to say so; then,\nperhaps, to justify her by resorting to some awkward hypothesis of our\nLord having said many things to her which the Evangelist has omitted.\nThe experience and conscience of human beings justify her far better.\nOne who repeats to us all the passages of our history ever so\naccurately, does not tell us all that ever we did. A single flash of\nlight may make the whole past visible to us, and show us that it is\n_our_ past. Thus was it with her. Her inmost self was revealed to the\nStranger. And, what was wonderful, she did not wish to escape from His\ngaze. Awful as it was, she was attracted, not repelled by it. She had\nthe comfort,--the greatest almost that we can experience,--of feeling\nthat she had no longer anything to hide,--that there was One who knew\nthoroughly all that was wrong and all that was right in her. For Jesus\nhad given her a sense of there being a right in her which she had\nnever had before. She could not have explained how it came to pass;\nshe was an ignorant peasant;--but it was so. The Stranger's speech had\nraised her to a new level. She had never seen the evil in herself as\nshe had seen it now; but she had never so much risen out of the evil.\nWhen do we rise out of our evil but when the truth is told us, and we\nlike to hear it?\n\nAnd therefore she said, '_Is not this the Christ?_' 'Can it be any one\nelse? And must He not be the Christ for you, my fellow-citizens, as He\nis for me? Must He not know all that you ever did, as He knows all\nthat I ever did?' It was the right sermon. They acknowledged at once\nthat it was such a Christ they wanted; not one who could tell them\nabout all things in the world, but who could tell them all things that\never _they_ did. He who had that power might or might not be such a\nChrist as scribes and doctors talked of; He might or might not have\nthe marks by which they discerned the coming King and Deliverer. But\nHe was the Christ for poor people who hewed wood and drew water, who\nwere human beings, and who had committed sins. These were the proofs\nof His mission to them. He must give these; they asked no others.\n\nThe Apostle could have been no ear-witness of the conversation with\nthe woman. But he describes with such vividness, the impression made\nupon the disciples who returned when she was departing, that it is\ndifficult to suppose he was not one of them. '_And upon this came His\ndisciples, and marvelled that He talked with the woman: yet no man\nsaid, What seekest Thou? or, Why talkest Thou with her?_' The sense of\nastonishment which they all felt,--the look which showed to each how\nthe other was sharing it with him, and yet the awe which restrained\nthem from questioning Him,--the confidence that He had some great\npurpose, though they knew not what it was; all this came back to the\nold man as clearly as if he were then by the well of Sychar, not\namidst the merchandise of Ephesus. And so, by a single instance, he\nmakes clearer to us than he could by a multitude of explanations, what\nmust have been continually in the minds of the disciples, when they\nstood in that presence, and heard words spoken and saw acts done which\nthey could not sound with their plummets, and which called forth faith\nin Him because they could not.\n\nBut though this was so, they had no dread of speaking to Him about\ncommon earthly necessities. They knew that He had sat down weary on\nthe well; they knew that He hungered and thirsted. He had sent them to\nbuy food, and they could say, '_Master, eat_,' without any doubt that\nHe would partake of it just as any of them did. Probably He took what\nthey offered Him, even while He said, '_I have meat to eat which ye\nknow not of_.' They had so little suspicion that He would ever work a\nmiracle for His own support,--they were so inwardly certain that He\nwould not,--that they said at once to each other, '_Hath any man\nbrought Him ought to eat?_' No. He had waited for their coming. The\nravens had carried no nourishment to Him; He had not commanded the\nstones to become bread. There must have been a special joy, an\nunwonted radiance in His face as He answered, '_My meat is to do the\nwill of Him that sent me, and to finish His work_.' He had that spring\nof life within Him, of which He had spoken to the woman, from which\nlife might flow forth to her and to all. And yet He speaks of it as\nnot an original fountain, even in Him. There was One from whom He was\nsent. The satisfaction of doing His will, of accomplishing his\npurpose,--this was His food; this was the sustaining principle within\nHim. St. John has taught us already, and will teach us more completely\nhereafter, that the relation of the Son to a Father, with all the\ntrust, obedience, communion which it implies, is the subject of the\nnew revelation. To be doing the will of Him that sent Him, to be in\nperfect sympathy with the will which is at the root of the universe,\nto be fulfilling the purposes of this will,--this Christ affirms to be\nmeat to Him in a double sense; meat, as that which keeps up the\nstrength of the man--meat, as that which gratifies and satisfies his\ndesires.\n\nOne may feel there is great general force in such a sentiment as\nthis; but what is its _special_ application to the story we are\nreading? Had His interview with the woman supplied Him with what could\nbe called meat in either of these senses? What was there to sustain\nHim, what was there to delight Him, in her way of receiving His words?\n\nThe answer is given in the following passage: '_Say ye not, There are\nyet four months, and then cometh the harvest? Behold, I say unto you,\nLift up your eyes and look on the fields, for they are white already\nunto the harvest. And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth\nfruit unto life eternal; that both he that soweth and he that reapeth\nmay rejoice together. And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and\nanother reapeth. I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no\nlabour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours._'\n\nMany who have gathered crowds about them, who have produced a marked\nimpression upon those crowds, have said, and said truly, that such\nsuccess was meat and drink to them. If it did not feed their vanity,\nbut sustained them because it showed them they were doing God's will\nand finishing His work, they may have understood something of Christ's\nmeaning. But the secret food He partook of certainly came from no\nsudden success that followed His words. First, He met with a woman who\nhad in general answered Him with levity; then a few people of her own\nrank came at her call. How little would such honours satisfy the\nambition of some eloquent disciple of Christ, who has the power of\ninfluencing thousands! Could it satisfy Him who came to found a\nkingdom of which there was to be no end? Yes; for in these first\nsheaves He could see the certain pledges of a nation's, of a world's,\ningathering. The corn-fields which the disciples saw about them would\nnot be reaped for four months; yet the harvest would appear, because\nthe seed had been sown. These men whom He saw coming showed Him that\nthe other harvest was nearer still. The fields were white already for\nthat harvest; the disciples themselves would be reapers in it. He had\nsent them, and they would receive the wages of reapers. What wages? He\nhad already told them that His own wages were to do the will of God,\nand to finish His work. Did they want better? They would gather in\nfruit,--the fruit of all His work and travail, of all God's\nrevelations of Himself from age to age, of all the toil of patriarchs,\nkings, prophets. These had laboured,--they were entering into their\nlabours. They were come in at the end of a period when all things were\nhastening to their consummation. They would have the reward which all\nthese men had longed for,--the reward of seeing God's full revelation\nof Himself, of opening the spring of eternal life of which all might\ndrink together. The divisions of time had nothing to do with an\neternal blessing. The sower and the reaper would rejoice together. Why\nmight not Jacob, who had given the well, and the newest Samaritan\nconvert who drank of it, share in those pleasures which are at the\nright hand of Him, who is, and was, and is to come?\n\nI have only given you a hint or two which may assist you in tracing\nout the sense of these great words. The Apostles did not enter into\nthem for many years,--not till they had begun to reap the harvest of\nwhich He spoke, not till they had learnt that some of the wages of the\nreapers were persecution and disappointment. So they understood by\ndegrees how unsatisfactory all promises were but those which He had\ngiven them; how miserable a thing it was to hope for any reward but\nthat which had been and is His reward. I suppose we must be trained to\nunderstand Christ's doctrine in the same school. Till we have been\nunder His discipline we shall have the temper of hirelings, counting\nHis work a hardship, expecting to be paid hereafter for consenting to\ndo it. Or else we shall look for instant harvests,--for mighty effects\nto follow at once from the things that we speak,--for those fruits\nwhich least manifest the calm, patient, loving will of God, and\ntherefore bring no true and inward satisfaction to the spirit of a\nman. We must learn to see in the seed that same eternal life which is\nin the perfect flower and fruit--to believe that God will bring the\none out of the other; otherwise we shall have much excitement and much\nweariness, but no food which can support us, no joy which will connect\nus with the ages that are past and the ages to come. That will not be\ngiven to us till we see, in God's revelation of Himself to one sinner,\nthe token of His love to the world.\n\nThe whole doctrine concerning the rewards for obedience, which has\nbeen the subject of so many wearisome folios by philosophers and\ndivines, is contained, I think, in these eight verses, and may be\ndrawn out of them for daily use by any who think that the Apostle has\na higher wisdom than can be found in his commentators, or in their own\nspeculations. The remainder of the chapter contains, in a form as\nsimple and as available, the solution of another problem which has\nexercised the wits of schoolmen and the hearts of wayfarers. Who has\nnot been tormented with questions and answers about the nature,\nconditions, kinds, of belief,--about the force of testimony which\nproduces it,--about the organ which exercises it,--about the security\nor the insecurity of the person who has it or who wants it? On all\nthese points St. John gives us no dissertations. But he tells us a\nshort story about certain Samaritans, and then another rather longer\nstory about a certain Galil\u00e6an, which I think may supply the place of\nmany dissertations.\n\nThe first is contained in these verses: '_And many of the Samaritans\nof that city believed on Him for the saying of the woman, which\ntestified, He told me all that ever I did. So when the Samaritans were\ncome unto Him, they besought Him that He would tarry with them: and He\nabode there two days. And many more believed because of His own word,\nand said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying,\nfor we have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the\nChrist, the Saviour of the world._'\n\nSuppose this was translated into school phraseology about implicit and\nexplicit faith,--suppose each of these terms was laboriously\nexplained,--all the different opinions of Fathers, Medi\u00e6val Doctors,\nReforming Doctors, Modern Doctors respecting each compared, weighed,\nadjusted,--how much learning we should possess! how much the Apostle's\ndoctrine would expand in our hands,--how much we should expand in our\nown estimation! But supposing we had actually to find out what belief\nis in our own case, to trace the history of its progress, how thankful\nwe should be to any one who would translate back the learned language\ninto the language of the Gospel, who would let us hear what these\nSamaritans--vulgar people of our own flesh and blood--said about their\nbelief and its growth!\n\nThe first stage of it we have considered already. What the woman told\nthem had a great effect upon their minds, because she spake of what\nshe knew, and not of what she did not know. If she had said, 'He\nexplained the prophecies to me,'--who would have cared? What judge was\nshe of the prophecies, and what judges would they be? If she had said,\n'He wrought a miracle in my sight,'--there had been enchanters enough\namong them, who had imposed upon much wiser people than she was. Her\nfellow-citizens, if they were not very curious, would not have\ndeserted their common business for such an announcement as that. But,\n'_He told me all that ever I did_;' then she spoke from her\nexperience. Whether she were wise or silly, a good woman or a bad,\nthat was worth listening to; there were signs of truth about that.\n\nThey came and heard Him themselves. And then He told each of them what\n_he_ had done, showed him to himself, made him feel that he was in the\npresence of a Light. The Light entered into the separate hearts, and\nshowed them their dark passages. And yet it was a common Light; it\ngave them a sense of fellowship they had never had before; it gave\nthem a sense of being men, which they had never had before. And,\nmoreover, it was a Light which scattered confusions, ignorances,\nfalsehoods, that had been dwelling undisturbed within them, or that\nhad only been disturbed by what they felt must have been a ray of this\nsame Light. _And_ therefore, without asking the opinion of any wise\nman whatsoever, these bold peasants said out frankly and broadly, '_We\nhave heard Him ourselves, and_ know _that this is indeed the Christ,\nthe Saviour of the world_.'\n\nI cannot tell whether this faith of the Samaritans is what one class\nof modern divines would call _saving_ faith. I should imagine not. For\nthese poor men said they knew Jesus to be the Saviour of the _world_;\nand it seems to be put forward as the characteristic of saving faith,\nthat men should believe a Saviour for themselves who is not a Saviour\nfor the world. And, certainly, their belief had not that groundwork\nwhich another class of divines tells us is the only one upon which the\nclaims of a Christ can rest. He had done no sign or wonder before\nthem; He had only discoursed with them. On this topic, that other\nstory to which I alluded may possibly throw some light.\n\nIt is introduced by the words, '_Now after two days He departed\nthence, and went into Galilee_.' He was going into Galilee before. A\nstrange reason is given for His spending so short a time among the\npeople who had met Him so cordially. '_For Jesus Himself testified,\nthat a prophet hath no honour in his own country._' He did not count\nit good to stay where He had honour. The Galil\u00e6ans were His kinsfolk\nand neighbours, bound to Him by human, and therefore by divine, ties.\n_There_ was the token that He was to labour among them. More respect\nHe might find elsewhere,--that was not what He came into the world to\nlook for. His followers often judge differently about this matter. It\nmay be that here, as elsewhere, we should act more safely if we\nthought that He had left us an example that we should walk in His\nfootsteps.\n\n'_Then when He was come into Galilee, the Galil\u00e6ans received Him,\nhaving seen all the things that He did at Jerusalem at the feast: for\nthey also went unto the feast._' They had, then, what we are wont to\nregard as the right foundation of faith; they had the outward\nevidence, while the Samaritans were only receiving Him on the\ntestimony of their consciences. '_So Jesus came again into Cana of\nGalilee, where He made the water wine. And there was a certain\nnobleman_,'--(a person, probably, belonging to the household of Herod\nAntipas,)--'_whose son was sick at Capernaum. When he heard that Jesus\nwas come out of Judea into Galilee, he went unto Him, and besought Him\nthat He would come down, and heal his son. Then said Jesus unto him,\nExcept ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe._' Apparently His\njudgment of these two kinds of belief was different from ours. That\nwhich we think weak and groundless, caused Him inward joy. It was meat\nupon which He could sustain Himself; it showed Him that the Samaritan\nfields were white already to the harvest. On the contrary, that stable\nbelief, which rested upon signs and wonders, gave Him little pleasure;\nrather it called forth a rebuke. The nobleman did not answer the\nrebuke: '_He saith unto Him, Sir, come down ere my child die_.' This\nwas not the response of a man's conscience to one who had discovered\nhis evil. It was not the kind of trust of the Samaritan woman or the\nSamaritan man; but it was good honest trust, nevertheless. If the\nnobleman had been hitherto a mere observer of signs, he was now\nsomething more. He was a parent seeking help for his boy. He was a man\nwho, in the sight and under the pressure of death, turns to One who\ncan give life. Jesus at once confesses the change which His own\ndiscipline has wrought in him. '_He saith unto him, Go thy way; thy\nson liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto\nhim, and he went his way._'\n\nTwo steps we have traced in the history of his mind. A third remains.\n'_As he was now going down, his servants met him, and told him,\nsaying, Thy son liveth. Then enquired he of them the time when he\nbegan to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour\nthe fever left him. So the father knew that it was at the same hour\nin the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself\nbelieved, and his whole house._'\n\nHere we have, no doubt, the account of a sign, and of its effect upon\nthe persons toward whom it was exhibited. St. John himself connects it\nwith the sign in Cana of Galilee. He appears to wish that we should\nregard both as specimens of Galil\u00e6an signs in distinction from\nJerusalem signs. We may, therefore, apply here the principles which we\ndiscovered with reference to the marriage-feast. There it seemed that\nthe lesson which was taught belonged to all marriage-feasts,--to all\nthe outward signs of life and joy,--to those mysterious powers by\nwhich, in any country or in any age, physical transformations are\neffected. In this one instance Jesus was revealed as giving the\nblessing which seals the marriage-vow, wherever it is made,--as\neverywhere the Inspirer of gladness,--as ruling all the energies of\nnature. The circumstances in the Capernaum story are much changed; it\ntouches more nearly on the funeral than on the bridal. But in one, as\nmuch as in the other, Christ is revealed as the Word of Life. In one,\nas much as in the other, human relationships are beautified and\nhallowed by Christ; the relation of the husband there, of the father\nhere. One, as much as the other, applies to England as well as to\nGalilee. And what was said there of the faith that followed the sign,\nis even more strikingly developed here. '_He manifested forth His\nglory, and His disciples_'--those who had already confessed Him to be\nthe Christ upon another ground--'_believed in Him_.' It was a\ndiscovery to them of His inward power. It deepened a conviction that\nhad been imparted to them already. The Capernaum nobleman had already\nbelieved in Christ, with the belief of one who wants help, and thinks\nhe has found the person who is able and willing to bestow it. The\nsign unfolds that faith, and makes it more profound. The man becomes\nnot more a seeker of marvels, but less. He desires no longer, casual,\nflitting exercises of power; he bows to power as inward, continual,\nmoral. He is always in the presence of Him who spoke the word at the\nseventh hour. At every moment, he and his son and all his household\nare receiving fresh life from Him. To know Him, to be in fellowship\nwith Him, to be doing His will--which is the will of Him who sent Him:\nthis he finds to be eternal life.\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XI.\n\nTHE POOL OF BETHESDA.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 3d Sunday after Easter, April 13, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN V. 16-18.\n\n     _And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, because He had\n     done these things on the sabbath-day. But Jesus answered\n     them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the\n     Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He had not only\n     broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father,\n     making Himself equal with God._\n\n\nThe scene changes again at the opening of this chapter. '_After these\nthings there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to\nJerusalem._' What feast it was, the harmonists may settle; as St. John\nhas not told us, I am content to dwell upon the fact, which he\nevidently thought of great importance, that Jesus did go up to the\nfeasts, and that His acts had a special reference to the state of mind\nwhich He found among the inhabitants of the capital; above all, among\nits religious teachers.\n\n'_Now there is at Jerusalem, by the sheep-market, a pool which is\ncalled in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches._' Jerusalem\nmight or might not have been compassed with Roman armies when St. John\nwrote. I do not know that its independence or its capture would affect\nthe position of the pool or the sheep-market; they might be still\njust what they had been when the Apostle knew them. Perhaps the pool\nwas no longer visited as in former days; perhaps the tradition of its\nvirtues still drew to it people from the country round. At all events,\nthe sight which had been before his eyes thirty or forty years before,\nwas not one which he would forget. It is not one which we need much\neffort of imagination to bring before ourselves.\n\n'_In these_' porches '_lay a multitude of sick folk, of blind, halt,\nwithered, waiting for the moving of the waters_.' If we look at the\nseparate figures in the picture, they belong as much to the West as to\nthe East--to the nineteenth century as to the first. Nor can any\nfrequenters of an English or German spa consider the motive which\nbrought together so many of different ages and with different\nailments, a strange or an obsolete one. Even the notion that at\ncertain times the water would possess a virtue which at other times it\nwould want, may be justified by modern experience, perhaps may be\nexplained by modern science.\n\nBut experience and science, it will be said, are both set at nought by\nthe announcement in the next verse: '_For an angel went down at a\ncertain season, and troubled the water: whosoever, therefore, first\nafter the troubling of the water stepped in, was made whole of\nwhatsoever disease he had_.' Here a reason is given for the virtues of\nthe pool;--not, it will be said, a medical reason; not one which can\nconnect the waters of this pool with those which intelligent people\nfrequent for qualities which are, on fair evidence, known or believed\nto be in them;--but rather one which connects them with the holy wells\nwhich in the villages of England, Wales, and Ireland, are supposed to\nhave received a blessing from some local saint. To find St. John\nadopting or endorsing such legends, causes no pain to those who assume\nhim and his brother Apostles to be the propagators of superstition;\nignorant Jews, who were steeped in all the prejudices of their\ncountrymen, and who added to them some of their own invention. There\nare some who, with a general respect for him and them, can yet give\nhim credit for following the traditions of his country when they were\never so vulgar and false; excusing him on the plea that he knew\nnothing of physics, and that his business was not with them. There are\nmen of a better and nobler stamp, who, though they do not claim for\nhim any acquaintance with natural science, yet are sure that he lived\nto scatter delusions, not to foster them; and that he would not have\nbeen permitted by the Spirit of truth to claim for lies the name of\nHim who came to bear witness of the truth. I do not wonder that some\nof these honest and earnest men should have been able to persuade\nthemselves that the verse I have just quoted has nothing to do with\nthe general narrative of the cure at Bethesda; but has crept into the\ntext from the gloss of some writer who understood Jewish opinions, not\nthe mind of St. John.\n\nI respect the motives of these interpreters, but I think their\nconclusion is a rash and a wrong one. I am convinced that the words\nwhich they would omit are a vital part of the narrative, and that our\nLord's act loses very much of its meaning if we overlook them. I am\nequally convinced that these words contradict no truth of science;\nthat, if taken by themselves, they do not meddle with it, and are only\nsupposed to meddle with it through a logical confusion, from which,\nfor the sake of science and of our own intellectual clearness, it is\nwell that we should be delivered; that, if taken in conjunction with\nthe whole story, they help to scatter a superstition which was very\ninjurious to the Jewish people, and is equally injurious to people in\nthis day.\n\nWhat St. John affirms is, that a certain invisible angel or\nminister--an intelligence, as we are wont to speak--was the instrument\nof making the water of the Pool of Bethesda beneficial to the persons\nwho went down into it. He accounts, in this way, for its operation\nbeing more useful at one time than another. That assertion, you say,\ninterferes with the doctrine that there were certain properties in the\nwater itself which affected the condition of human beings. How does it\ninterfere? You hold that the vaccine matter has in itself the property\nof counteracting the virus of the small-pox. But you hold also that\nthe intelligence of Jenner had something to do with making this\nvaccine matter available for the actual cure of patients afflicted by\nthe small-pox; you hold that the intelligence of different medical men\nhas something to do with bringing the preventive power to bear on\nparticular cases. You know this for a fact; but physical science tells\nyou nothing of the way in which the intelligence cooperates with the\nnatural agent. The notion that it does is an excusable fallacy; yet it\nis a fallacy. _In no instance whatever can the mere study of physics\nhelp you to determine anything respecting moral or intellectual\nforces; though at every turn the study of physics compels you to the\nacknowledgment of such forces._ It will save us from innumerable\nconfusions, if we take this proposition in the length and breadth of\nit. Through neglect of it, the physician and the metaphysician are\nperpetually stumbling against each other, when they might be the\ngreatest helpers to each other.\n\nBut, it will be said, that notion of an angel which connects it with\nthe intelligence in a man, is a modern one, not the one which we\nshould naturally derive from the Old Testament. I think, if we study\nthose passages in the Old Testament which refer to angels, we shall\nfind that it is exactly _this_ notion which is the result of them, and\nthat any other is a modern one, either derived directly from heathen\nsources, or from a mixture of heathen feelings with the lore of the\nNew Testament. In the patriarchal times, we hear of angels appearing\nto Abraham to tell him of blessings which were coming upon his\ndescendants; of angels seen by Jacob in a vision, of one who wrestled\nwith him till the break of day. The stories leave upon us the\nimpression that there are beings who minister to the unseen Lord of\nthe whole earth; who are interested in the well-doing of men; who are\ndifferent from men, but not so different as to be incapable of\nconverse with them--not so different that they may not present\nthemselves even to the human senses. The effect of those visions and\nrevelations was to take away from the old shepherds the feeling that\nthey were merely surrounded by natural forms or by animal existences\nwhich were beneath them; that there was a world near them, though not\nvisible to them, which might have fellowship with them, and which\nelevated them above their flocks and herds. In the next age,--the age\nof legal and national life,--there are intimations of an angel going\nwith the people through the wilderness; angels admonish warriors that\nthey should be courageous in fighting the battles of the Lord; angels\nremind the people of their departures from the law of God; angels\narouse humble men to deliver their people from idolatry and from\nslavery. Here the lessons respecting the nature and work of angels are\nnot changed, but expanded. These messengers communicate more with the\nspirit of men, present themselves more rarely to the eye. They are\nwitnesses of a permanent divine order, belonging not to the\nindividuals to whom they come, but to their race; of an order from\nwhich they have departed, and into which it is the Divine will that\nthey should be brought back. In the regal period, the war or the\npestilence,--the direction of natural agencies to the punishment of\nhuman crime,--is referred to angels. The effect of _this_ teaching\nupon the thoughtful Jew was, that he could never suppose himself the\nmere sport of outward influences of earth, or of air, or of fire. All\nthese had a purpose; all were directed by the wisdom of Him who had\nentered into covenant with the nation. In the Book of Psalms, which\nillustrates this period, He is said to '_make His angels spirits, His\nministers a flame of fire_.' All natural powers are felt to be angels\nof God, because they are under the direction of an intelligent and\nrighteous Ruler. In the Books of the Prophets, before the captivity,\nthe angel is not lost sight of; but the Word of God who comes to the\nProphet, more and more gathers up all powers and ministries into\nHimself, while the human teacher to whom he speaks is himself treated\nas a messenger of the Most High,--as no less His angel than any\ncreature who has not the weeds of mortality. In the Prophets, after\nthe captivity, new functions are assigned to angels. They watch over\ndifferent lands; provinces of the earth are committed to them by the\nLord of all;--it is hinted that some of them may have failed in their\ntrust, as human sovereigns fail in theirs. These lessons seem\nespecially appropriate to the time when the Jew was to feel his\nconnexion with other nations, and to find that each of them supposed\nitself to be governed by some divine king or demigod.\n\nIs not the doctrine of this chapter entirely consistent with the\nlessons which St. John had learnt from his fathers? Those lessons, I\nhave urged, can neither be confuted nor confirmed by physical science.\nBut the analogy which we derive from our ordinary experience is all in\nfavour of them. It is a shock to the conscience and reason of man to\nfeel that he is indebted to moral agents,--to spiritual agents,--in a\nvery great degree, for the health and comfort which he enjoys here;\nbut that the whole world which lies beyond his ken is only peopled\nwith physical forces which act upon him blindly and care nothing for\nhim. Men never have been able to persuade themselves of this. The\n_people_ have always held the opposite faith. Surely it is time to ask\nourselves whether that faith must be merely set at nought,--whether\nits manifest falsehoods and mistakes do not conceal precious\ntruths,--whether those truths can be at variance with any\nothers,--whether we are not bound to bring them into light, as the\nonly means of dislodging the errors to which they have given\ncountenance, and also of overthrowing some of those idols of the cave\nwhich the student worships no less ignominiously than the multitude\nworships the idols of the market-place? I believe St. John tells us\nhow his Master did this work at the Pool of Bethesda: '_A certain man\nwas there which had had an infirmity thirty and eight years. When\nJesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that\ncase, He saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole? The impotent man\nanswered Him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put\nme into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before\nme. Jesus saith to him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. And\nimmediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed and walked._'\n\nThis was a sign indeed,--a sign addressed to a man who had been\nwaiting day after day, perhaps year after year, for some outward\naccident to make him well,--that health and disease are dependent upon\nno accidents; that the power of life is an inward power; that there is\nOne in whom it dwells; that He in whom it dwells is near to the\nweakest, the most helpless, even the most sinful. It would seem, from\nthe words which our Lord spoke to this man afterwards, '_Go, and sin\nno more, lest a worse thing come upon thee_,' as if He had selected a\nman in whom all these conditions met, who was the oldest and most\npowerless of all the sufferers there, and had brought the sufferings\nupon himself by his misdoings. The demonstration, therefore, was\ncomplete. Men--the very lowest men--are not the dependants upon\noutward things, no, nor upon the visitations of angels. Such\nvisitations may be appointed; but there is One who has a right to call\nHimself a Son--One in whom the mind and purpose of the Lord of angels\nis expressed--One who fulfils, not occasionally but continually, His\npurposes of health and restoration to men--One who is the Son of\nMan--who has sympathy with men, and can take away their infirmities,\nbecause He knows them, enters into them, suffers them.\n\nThus this cure is bringing us to the point to which St. John has been\nbringing us in all the previous passages of his Gospel. This sign at\nthe Pool of Bethesda, like all the other signs we have been\nconsidering, reveals to us the Word who is the Source of life and\nhealth to all creatures. We are led from the messenger, visible or\ninvisible, to Him who was with God and was God. We are led from the\nmere friends or helpers of man to that Word made flesh, the Son of\nMan. We are led finally to a Son who has come to reveal a Father.\n\nI have chosen my text from the latter part of the chapter, because it\nbrings _this_ subject so directly before us, and because I believe\nthat in doing so it gives us the real moral and explanation of the\nnarrative of which I have just been speaking. Two cures are recorded\nby St. John as done by our Lord in the city of Jerusalem: one is that\nat the Pool of Bethesda; the other, that of the blind man at the Pool\nof Siloam. They are very different in their incidents and their\nobject: the latter we shall have to consider attentively hereafter.\nBut they have this in common,--both were wrought on the Sabbath-day.\nIn both cases, St. John fixes our thoughts upon this point; in both,\nthis circumstance is the cause of the bitterest indignation against\nJesus; here it is said to be the motive of a conspiracy against him.\n'_Immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked:\nand on the same day was the sabbath. The Jews therefore said unto him\nthat was cured, It is the sabbath-day: it is not lawful for thee to\ncarry thy bed. He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said\nunto me, Take up thy bed, and walk. Then asked they him, What man is\nthat which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk? And he that was\nhealed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed Himself away, a\nmultitude being in that place. Afterward Jesus findeth him in the\ntemple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more,\nlest a worse thing come unto thee. The man departed, and told the Jews\nthat it was Jesus which had made him whole. And therefore did the Jews\npersecute Jesus, and sought to slay Him, because He had done these\nthings on the sabbath-day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh\nhitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him\nbecause He not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God\nwas His Father, making Himself equal with God._'\n\nTwo points present themselves to us here, and demand some earnest\nconsideration. The first is, Why should the Sabbath-day have been\nespecially chosen by our Lord for these acts of healing? The second\nis, What connexion was there in the Jewish mind, or in our Lord's own\nwords, between the charge of breaking the Sabbath and the charge of\ncalling God His Father?\n\nThe belief in angels had a good effect upon the people of the Jews, in\nso far as it led them to believe that the Most High cared for them\nindividually as well as nationally,--that He Himself, and not some\noutward thing, was the Author of their blessings, the Restorer of\ntheir health. It was perverted to a bad use by the people, in so far\nas it led them to depend upon accidental interferences, not upon a\ncontinual living Helper. How Christ's sign brought out the good,\ncounteracted the evil, of this faith, I have endeavoured to show you.\nBut the belief of angels and spirits, which distinguished the\nPharisees from the opposing sect, had most of the mischief, little of\nthe truth, which clung to it among the crowd whom they despised. The\ntenet, that angels had interfered and might interfere, did not make\nthem think that God was concerned for His creatures,--that He loved\nthem. It only suggested the thought that there were certain persons\nand certain places that might receive favours which were withheld from\nothers. It did not bring them to believe that any union between God\nand man existed or was possible. Rather angels were the dispensers of\nthose laws, and the executors of those punishments, which marked the\nseparation between God and His creatures, and the wrath of God against\nthem. God was the Author of statutes which had been written in tables\nof stone, and could not be changed. God was the Judge and Condemner of\nthose who broke these statutes. God might dispense with the punctual\nfulfilment of them, or accept sacrifices as a compensation for the\nbreach of them, in the case of His favourites. But one claim to be\nsuch favourites would be the rigorous enforcement of them, as His\ncommandments, against the nation generally, and the ignorant,\nmiserable, sinful portion of it particularly.\n\nWas not this zeal for the laws and ordinances of the Most High a good\nzeal? Did not Christ come to fulfil the law?--did He wish to set it\naside? Consider, my brethren, what the law was. I do not speak of any\nspiritual interpretation of it; I refer merely to the letter of the\nTen Commandments. They begin with these words, '_I am the Lord thy\nGod, which brought thee out of the house of bondage_.' The zeal of the\nPharisees for the law of God forgot this foundation of the law\naltogether. They did not tell the Israelite that the Lord was _his_\nGod; they did not proclaim the Lord as a Deliverer from bondage, but\nas the Author of bondage. Therefore, _every_ commandment was denied in\nits very essence. The first said, '_Thou shalt worship the\nLord_,'--that is, the Lord the Deliverer, the Lord _thy_ God,--'_and\nHim only shalt thou serve_.' But the Pharisee worshipped any god\nrather than this only God; worshipped a god who was directly the\nreverse of this only God. Everything in heaven or earth or under the\nearth--money, the meanest thing of all--was more an object of worship\nto him than this only God. He could not help taking His name in vain.\nEvery time he pronounced it he took it in vain; he substituted another\nname for that of the only God; he cherished another name in his\nheart.\n\nBut then came the command to keep the Sabbath-day. Here, at all\nevents, he could be strict to the letter; that he could keep as God\nhad wished it to be kept. What! when that commandment says, 'Man shall\nrest because God rests; man shall work because God works?' What! when\nthe commandment announced the Sabbath-day as a blessing to the\nman-servant, and the maid-servant, and the cattle? A Pharisee construe\nthis commandment literally? A Pharisee keep this commandment strictly?\nImpossible. There was none which he must distort more, in which he\nmust suppress more vital words, which he must more habitually disobey.\nThe denial of the sentence which introduces the commandments--the\ndetermination to regard the Lord as a forger of chains, when He\ndeclares Himself to be the breaker of them--necessarily led to a\ngreater and grosser violation of this statute and ordinance of the\nLord than of all the rest.\n\nAnd yet there were obvious reasons why the Pharisee should take his\nstand on the fourth commandment rather than on any other. As our Lord\ntells him elsewhere, he made it part of his religion to set aside the\nhonour of fathers and mothers. To bear false witness against a\nneighbour, if he was not a religious man, not one of their sect, was a\nmerit rather than a crime. Covetousness is spoken of in the Gospels as\nthe very principle of their acts towards men and towards God.\nAnd--without inquiring how far they were guilty of secret treasons\nagainst life, against marriage, against property--since the enforcing\nof punishments on open crimes, which disturbed the peace of society,\nwas taken out of their hands, there was no way left them of\nsignalizing their care for what they called God's law and God's\nhonour, but by a pitiless rigour in enforcing the customs and\ntraditions which had connected themselves with the Sabbath-day, the\nreason and the purpose of the day having been forgotten.\n\nHere was the ground which the Jewish teachers had chosen for the\nexhibition of their morality and religion; it was on this ground that\nJesus encountered them. To the first question, then, I answer, that He\nselected the Sabbath-day above other days for healing the sick,\nbecause He came to vindicate the law and make it honourable; because\nit had been made dishonourable, and the whole sense of it destroyed,\nby the notion of the Pharisees that it proceeded from an arbitrary\nBeing, who had made it to coerce His creatures, and not from a loving\nBeing who had formed them in His image, and desired that they should\nbe sharers of His blessedness; because, unless the day of the rest\ncould be reclaimed from their perversions, and restored to its right\nplace and dignity in God's gracious economy, the law never could be a\nschoolmaster to bring men to Christ the Son of Man, but must always be\na hard taskmaster to keep them from Him. It was not a single point of\ntruth which was involved in this controversy--least of all the\nquestion, whether a commandment might be relaxed in one particular.\nThe whole truth of the old covenant was involved in it; the whole life\nand work of the Son of Man was involved in it; the purpose for which\nthe Son of God had taken flesh was involved in it.\n\nThe other Evangelists make these assertions sufficiently clear. They\ntell us how Christ claimed to be the Lord of the Sabbath, because\n'_the sabbath was made for man_;' and, because He was the '_Son of\nMan_;' how He was more angered at the hardness of heart which\ndisplayed itself in the apparent zeal of the Pharisees for the\nSabbath, than at all their other exhibitions of the same hardness;\nhow the Jewish rulers met His divine anger with theirs, and decided\nthat the only adequate answer to the demand, '_Is it right to do good\non the sabbath-day, or to do evil?_' must be a conspiracy to put Him\nto death. St. John could not say more on these points. But there was a\nsubject which it was his especial office to handle. He shows us how\nJesus made the defence of the fourth commandment, in its letter and\nits spirit, a means of asserting His own relation to God. '_My Father\nworketh hitherto, and I work._' Man was bidden to work because God\nworked. Had GOD ceased to work, then, on the day of rest? Was He not\nnourishing the earth, and causing it to bring forth and bud on that\nday? Was He suspending His labours for His creatures on that day? The\nargument, like those about the ox and the ass falling into the pit,\nwas broad, simple, direct; one of those which men who have lost their\nlife, their humanity, their godliness, in their books, are tormented\nby hearing; one which opens the deepest abysses of thought and\nconsolation to those who are seeking for a living God, for a Father of\ntheir spirits. But such seekers cannot be content with a command to\nwork because God works, to rest because God rests,--they must know how\nthe command can be obeyed. They must know on what foundation the\ncommand stands. If there is a Son of Man who can say, 'I work because\nHe works; I do as my Father does;' He may give the sons of men power\nto work and power to rest. His union to them and to God is the\nfoundation of both.\n\nI have replied, then, to our second question as well as to the first.\nI have showed you how the act by which Christ, in the judgment of the\nJews, broke the Sabbath-day, naturally led to what was in their\njudgment an act of blasphemy. It was not that He dispensed with a law\nof God because He was the Son of God. It was not that He put a new\nsense into the law of God because He was the Son of God. It was that\nHe could interpret the law of God fully. It was that He could\naccomplish the law fully. It was that He could unfold the Gospel which\nwas hidden in the law. It was that He could show in what God's rest\nconsists, by showing in what His own rest consisted; what God's work\nwas, by the works which He did Himself in the might of God's Spirit.\nAnd thus, by one sign, He declared that men are not the servants of\nangels, and that they are the children of a Father.\n\nO brethren, may those to whom God has given a better and a nobler\nSabbath, which commemorates God's rest in the risen Son of Man and Son\nof God, never forget the truth which He taught the Jewish people\nrespecting their Sabbath, or repeat the Jewish sin by making it a mere\nlegal day instead of His day!\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XII.\n\nTHE SON DOING THE FATHER'S WORK.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 4th Sunday after Easter, April 20, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN V. 43.\n\n_I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another\nshall come in his own name, him ye will receive._\n\n\nI spoke to you last week upon these words,--'_Therefore the Jews\nsought to kill Jesus, because He not only had broken the sabbath, but\nsaid also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God_.' I\ntried to ascertain what connexion there was in their minds between\nthese two offences; I tried also to show you how their feelings\nrespecting the Sabbath-day were involved in their general feelings\nrespecting the Law and respecting the dominion of angels. If there was\na Son who was higher than angels, who could express the very mind of\nGod--if that Son was actually in the nature of man--all their thoughts\nof God and of man must be changed; they must regard Him whom they\nworshipped as something else than a mere lawgiver, removed to an\nimmeasurable distance from His creatures, only holding occasional\nintercourse with them through beings of a different order from their\nown. They must look upon human beings,--that is to say, not only upon\nthemselves, but upon publicans and heathens, upon those whom they\nregarded as utterly cut off from God,--as standing in a very near and\nclose relation with Him. This, therefore, was the most horrible of all\nconceptions to them, one which struck at the root of their pride, of\nthat which they called their faith. They might suspect Jesus before,\nthey might despise Him; but the moment He called God His Father,\nsuspicion and contempt gave way to hatred. It was clear enough why He\nwas setting institutions at nought; it was clear enough why He claimed\nto heal sick men, whom the ministrations of angels could not heal. By\nHis words and His acts He was bringing God and man into the most\ndangerous proximity. He, '_being a man, was making Himself equal with\nGod_.'\n\nThis last charge I did not dwell upon; I reserved it for our\nconsideration to-day. The discourse of our Lord which follows in this\nchapter has reference to it. No words throw more light upon it than\nthose which I have taken as my text from one of the latest verses. The\nanswer to the charge begins in the nineteenth verse. '_Then answered\nJesus, and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can\ndo nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do: for what things\nsoever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise._' You will feel at\nonce that this sentence is the expansion of that plea which Jesus put\nforth for the cure which He had wrought on the day of rest,--'_My\nFather worketh hitherto, and I work_.' But, I think, you will feel\nalso how wonderfully it meets the other more awful accusation, that He\nwas raising Himself to a level with God. If it had been true, it would\nnot have been a new charge. '_Ye shall be as gods_,' was the first\ntemptation presented to human beings,--the temptation to which they\nyielded. The ambition had never ceased in any age or in any man.\nJesus would have been but the Person who exhibited it in its highest\npower, who expressed it with the greatest boldness. But if the\ndoctrine which St. John asserts at the beginning of his Gospel, which\nhe has been working out in every passage of it since, is a sound one;\nif there is a Word who was with God and was God; if that Word was made\nflesh, and the glory of the Only-begotten of the Father shone forth in\nHim; then Jesus was the one Person in the world to whom this charge\ndid not apply; the one Person in whom there was no ambition of making\nHimself equal with God. And this is what He declares here: 'You think\nI am exalting myself; on the contrary, this proclamation which I am\nmaking of a Father, this claim which I am putting forth to be His Son,\nis the abdication of all independent greatness, the denial that I am\nanything in myself. I can do _nothing of myself but what I see the\nFather do_.'\n\nHere is the new revelation, the discovery of the real ground upon\nwhich all things stand,--the will of a Father commanding, the will of\na Son submitting. Here is that idea of Godhead which men had been\nseeking for,--if haply they might feel after it and find it,--in which\nthey had been living and moving and having their being, yet which they\nhad always been rebelling against and contradicting, and which every\nthought and act of self-will and pride had been putting at a distance\nfrom them. The lowliest of all, He who was called the '_carpenter's\nson_,' was able to speak it out, to translate it into language, as His\nwhole life translated it into act. And this union of wills, this\ninward substantial Unity, He declares to have its basis in love, the\nunderground of Deity,--'_For the Father_ LOVETH _the Son, and sheweth\nHim all things that Himself doeth_.'\n\nWe must not forget that all this bears reference to the primary\nsubject of the discourse. He had been working on the Sabbath-day. That\nwork He justifies as His Father's work, because it was a work of love,\ndone to fulfil that mind of the Father which He knew, with which He\nwas in sympathy. Now He goes on, '_And He will shew Him greater works\nthan these, that ye may marvel_.' The work of healing was His Father's\nwork. In quickening the sick man beside the Pool of Bethesda, He had\nmanifested a part of His will and power towards His creatures. There\nwould be a more august display of that will and power; '_For as the\nFather raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son\nquickeneth whom He will_.' Since the whole passage refers to one of\nthe signs which Jesus did, it is surely most natural to take this also\nas referring to another of those signs. Jesus would not only cure a\nsick man, He would raise a dead man. As the cure of the sick man was\nan exhibition in a single instance of all the restoring,\nhealth-giving, life-giving influences which were at work through the\nuniverse; as its intent was to lead men to trace all these, not to\nchance, not to a dead law, not to their own merits, but to a Father\nwho directs the operations which look most accidental, from whose mind\nlaw has issued, who alone enables men to work in harmony with His law;\nso, by raising a man from the dead, He would show what was continually\ngoing on in the unseen world; what the Father was doing there with\nthose who were lost to the sight of their fellows, and who seemed to\nperish. '_The Son would quicken whom He would._' He would take an\ninstance here and there to illustrate the general course of His\nFather's government. He would break the bonds of the grave for the\nwidow's son, or the brother of Martha and Mary, that man might\nunderstand how little these chains could bind the whole universe of\nhuman beings, if the Father pleased to set them free.\n\nBut the thought of resurrection was associated in the Jewish mind, as\nit was in the heathen mind and as it is in ours, with the thought of\nJudgment. How could He speak of raising the dead, without speaking of\na judgment through which the dead would have to pass? He anticipates\nthe objection, and does much more than answer it. '_For the Father_,'\nHe says, '_judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the\nSon; that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the\nFather. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which\nhath sent Him._' These words have been much used in theological\nargumentation. I am far from saying that they have not been used\nfairly. But I have warned you already, that if we wish to understand\nSt. John, we must follow his course of thought, not eagerly snatch at\nsentences which may serve a temporary purpose. On this ground I\nrefused to take the first words of his Gospel as a dogmatical\nassertion of the divinity of Jesus. I said we must begin, as he began,\nat the beginning. We must wait till he spoke to us of Jesus of\nNazareth, and declared His nature to us. Then we should learn much\nmore of His divinity than if we were in haste to get proofs of it. For\nare we not learners, who want to be told what divinity is and what\nhumanity is? Have we not need to sit at the Apostle's feet, that he\nmay instruct us in those things which it is most needful for us to\nknow? Is there not a danger of our fancying that we know all\nalready--of our taking his divine words merely to confirm propositions\nof ours, into the sense and power of which we have never entered?\n\nI would apply this rule in the present case. St. John has told us that\nin the Word who was with God was life, and that His life was the light\nof men. We have found him illustrating this language in various\nways,--beginning from John the Baptist, as the witness of the light,\nafterwards telling us how Jesus spoke to Nicodemus of this being the\ncondemnation, '_that light was come into the world, and men loved\ndarkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil_.' In both\nthese passages, in the last especially, and in those which I have not\nrecalled to your memory, the Word or Son of God is described as a\nJudge; as One who discovers the thoughts and intents of the heart; as\nOne whom the man confesses to be His Lord and King, whether he shrinks\nback from His clear light, or asks that he may be penetrated by it. In\nstrict consistency with this teaching, our Lord here declares the\noffice of a Judge to be implied in the relation of the divine Son to\nmen. In doing so, He clears away confusions that have darkened the\nconscience and disturbed the practice of all men. We think of the\njudgment of God. It is sometimes a terrible thought; it is more\ncommonly a vague, misty thought. It never has been an effectual one in\nmaking men inwardly or even outwardly better, till they could connect\nit with some human judgment,--till they could attribute to some being\nof their own race, even though he were a frail being liable to error,\nthe function of pronouncing upon their deeds and upon their\ncharacters. Why has it been so? Because '_the Father judgeth no man,\nbut hath committed all judgment unto the Son_.' Because by an eternal,\nirreversible law, involved in the very nature of God and the nature of\nman, we cannot bring ourselves face to face with the absolute Being.\nOur consciences tremble at His name; they do not, they cannot, bring\ntheir secrets directly into His light. Until they acknowledge One\nclose to themselves, One who knows what is going on within them; until\nthey acknowledge a Word, a Christ, who is nigh to them and not afar\noff; there is no distinction in their minds. Good thoughts and evil\nthoughts lie huddled together. Good deeds and bad deeds are only\nknown, apart from each other, by some results which they may happen to\nproduce. It is when the man has started like a guilty thing surprised,\nat the presence of One who brings back to him past passages of his\nexistence; who tells him all that ever he did; who shows him that his\nacts, his petty words, are not lost in the sum of all the acts that\nhave been done and the words that have been spoken since the\ncreation-day, but have all been recorded; it is when the man\nunderstands that He who keeps the record is the dearest Friend he has,\nthe One who has been guiding him, watching over him, restraining him\nfrom evil, urging him to good from his birth onward; it is when he\nunderstands that the Reprover can give him remission of his sins, can\nendue him with a new life;--it is then that he can believe, and\nrejoice in the belief, that there is a judgment of God--a judgment for\nthe whole universe. For it is then that he honours the Son even as he\nhonours the Father. It is then that he confesses these testimonies in\nhis own heart to be the echoes of the Voice which gave commandment to\nthe sea, and fixed its bounds that it should not pass, and ordained\nlaws for all the generations of men. It is then that the Will which\ngoverns him is felt to be the Will of a Father. He honours it, and\nbows to it, and delights in it, because he honours and bows to and\ndelights in the will of the Son whom He hath sent.\n\nIn the words which follow, our translators have exhibited an instance\nof the timidity which I have had occasion sometimes to notice before.\n'_Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and\nbelieveth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not\ncome into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life._' There\ncan be no good reason why the word \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 should be rendered\n_judgment_ in the 22d verse, and _condemnation_ in the 24th. But from\na fear, I suppose, lest the one should seem to contradict the\nother,--lest the Son should be thought not to execute the judgment\nthat had been committed to Him,--they were unfaithful to the letter,\nperhaps even more unfaithful to the spirit, of the passage. To make\nthe language fit their notion of the sense, they were forced to change\nthe tense of '_come_,'--to make it '_shall not come_,' instead of\n'_doth not come_.' Those who cannot venture these outrages upon the\ntext, must be content to accept the statement of it simply; that there\nis an eternal life in the Son of God,--that eternal life which was\nspoken of in the dialogue with the woman of Sychar; that those who\nhear His voice speaking to them in their hearts, and receive Him as\nthe Witness and Manifestation of the eternal God, enter into that\nlife; that they _do_ not come into judgment. The light does not scare\nthem, but invites them. They fly to it as a deliverance, not from it\nlest it should consume them.\n\nThen the next passage becomes far more intelligible. It is not a mere\nrepetition of what has gone before; it enlarges and expands the\ndoctrine we have heard, and applies it to the future as well as to the\npresent. '_Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now\nis, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they\nthat hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in Himself; so hath\nHe given to the Son to have life in Himself; and hath given Him\nauthority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of Man.\nMarvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are\nin their graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that\nhave done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done\nevil, unto the resurrection of judgment._' There can be no doubt that\nwhen the Jews spoke either of resurrection or of judgment, they meant\nmerely a resurrection and a judgment after death. Jesus teaches us\nthat we can know nothing of a resurrection or a judgment after death,\nunless we connect it with the Son of God, in whom men may believe and\nrise to newness of life here,--with the Son of God who speaks to us\nand judges us here. When we acknowledge Him as the Word in whom is\nlife,--when we confess that His life is our light,--then we shall go\non to acknowledge how both His life-giving power and His judging power\nextend over the whole universe, over the dead as well as the quick;\nthen we shall understand that those who are in their graves are as\nlittle beyond the reach of His voice, as little without the sphere of\nHis light, as those who are walking upon the earth. So much is\ninvolved in the very idea of a Son who is one with the Father. If we\nbelieve that the Father hath life in Himself, we must believe that\nthere is a life in the Son which corresponds with that. If we believe\nthat all thoughts, and acts, past and present, are open to the Father,\nwe must believe that they are open to the Son. And, as I said before,\nthe scrutiny of our own hearts and spirits must be in the Son of Man.\nWe can know nothing of God's scrutiny, except through Him who is in\ncontact with us, and knows all the throbs and pulses of our spirits.\nHow dark are all our thoughts of the tomb, till we believe this! How\nhorrible its abysses seem, when we think of them as out of the circle\nof all the laws and relations which exist among us upon earth! What a\nsunlight there is upon it--what flowers spring from the sods about\nit--when we believe that the Son of God and the Son of Man rules there\nas here; that those who have tried to catch the sound of His voice\nhere, recognise it more clearly and fully in the unseen world; that\nthose who have done evil, because they have refused to listen to it,\nhave still Him, and no other than Him, for their Judge!\n\nIt is perilling the sense of the whole chapter, to separate this\npassage concerning life and judgment from that concerning the Father\nand the Son, which introduced it. Our Lord points out, still more\nclearly than He has yet done, the relation between the two subjects,\nin the next verse. '_I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I\njudge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but\nthe will of the Father who hath sent me._' They had said, '_He called\nGod His Father, making Himself equal unto God._' He answers, 'When I\nspeak of a Father, I signify that I can of mine own self _do nothing_.\nI do not raise myself to the rank of King or Judge over men; I give up\nall independent power of judgment. I claim to obey a Will, to be\ngoverned by it. And because that Will is the righteous and perfect\nWill, my judgment is right. The moment I boasted that I could judge\naccording to the hearing of my ears, that moment my judgment would be\nwrong. I should be denying my Sonship; I should become false.' And as\nHe could not judge others except by hearing His Father's judgment, by\nfollowing His Will, so neither could He judge Himself. '_If I bear\nwitness of myself, my witness is not true._' The Jews had asked Him\nalready--asked Him more emphatically afterwards--to tell them if He\nwas the Christ. Why could He not give the answer? Because it would not\nhave been an answer. It would not have shown Him to be a Son; it would\nhave led them to think of Him as another person altogether than that\nwhich He was. He therefore refers to the words which had been spoken\nby the preacher in the wilderness. '_There is another that beareth\nwitness of me; and I know that the witness which he beareth of me is\ntrue. Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness of the truth._' John had\nborne witness of a Word who was with God, of a Son of God, of a Lamb\nof God. John had borne witness of a light shining in the darkness,\nwhich the darkness did not comprehend. This was the true witness of\nChrist; to this He could appeal, because it was a witness not to the\near, but to the heart,--because it was the witness of one who did not\nclaim honour for himself,--and therefore was the fit herald of a\nChrist who should come in the name of His Father, not in His own name.\n\nJohn's testimony being of this character was not the testimony of man,\nthough it came through a man. Jesus, therefore, does not contradict\nhis former words when He adds, '_I receive not testimony from man: but\nthese things I say, that ye might be saved. He was a burning and a\nshining lamp_;' (our translators have lost the distinction between the\nvessel containing the light, and the light itself,--a distinction\nwhich St. John has carefully preserved;) '_and ye were willing for a\nseason to rejoice in his light. But I have a greater witness than\nthat of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish,\nthe same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath\nsent me._' John's lamp was one which God had kindled and filled with\nhis light, that they might be saved from their darkness; for a while\nit had played about them, and they had felt a kind of joy in the\nthought that God had not forgotten them. But Christ's works,--that\nlatest work, especially, which He had done on the Sabbath-day, to show\nhow and for what end His Father worked on that day,--these contained\nwitnesses of a filial power, a filial obedience, a filial\ncommunion,--a witness to the hearts of suffering men,--which the words\nof the Baptist, quick and penetrating as they were, did not contain.\n\nHe goes on: '_And the Father Himself which hath sent me, He beareth\nwitness of me. Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen\nHis shape._' 'In these acts of mine--these wonderful acts--as well as\nin my ordinary discourse, in my daily deeds and works, a Father is\nspeaking to you, a Father is testifying of Himself to you. He is an\ninvisible Being. It is not by visible appearances, by sounds and by\nshapes, that He communicates with you; it is by His Word.' Could it be\nnecessary to say this to a people who were called out of all nations\nto know the unseen God, to protest against idols; to a people who had\nthe law and the Prophets; to a people who were proud of their calling,\nproud of their law; who detested idols; who wrote out the Scriptures\ncontinually, reverenced them, declared them to be the very words of\nGod?\n\nYes, brethren! it was necessary for this people. Jesus declares why it\nwas necessary. '_And ye have not His Word abiding in you: for whom He\nhath sent, Him ye believe not. Search the Scriptures; for in them\nye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.\nAnd ye will not come unto me, that ye may have life._' I think that\nthe late learned Bishop of Limerick and others, who have maintained\nthat the verb \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b5, in the 39th verse, would better be translated\nby the present tense of the indicative than by the imperative, have\nproduced sound arguments for their opinion, and that the context is\nall in favour of it. But if the previous verse and those which follow\nbe heeded, I am quite willing to adopt our version; the sense will be\nradically the same; and any who think that they cannot enforce the\nduty of studying the Bible, if they are deprived of this precept, may\nretain it as a motto for their sermons. What the Word of God is in St.\nJohn's Gospel, we have not now to learn; he has been teaching us from\nthe first verse of it onwards. How that Word must abide in men, if\nthey are to have any light; how the rejection of it is the choice of\ndarkness, he has also been telling us, not once, but continually.\nThose who will not have the Word of God abiding in them, must shut out\nthe invisible world, must become the slaves of the visible world. They\nmay not have idols of wood and stone; but they must have idols.\nBesides the grosser idolatry of money,--to which, as a nation, they\nwill be driven by the want of any spiritual object,--their religious\nmen will fall into the worship of _letters_. The letters of the book\nwhich testify of a living God, will receive the homage which the only\nGod claims in this book for Himself. This was the condition of the\nJewish people,--especially of the Jewish teachers,--when our Lord came\namong them in the flesh. '_They searched the Scriptures; for in them\nthey thought they had life._' And those Scriptures they made the\nexcuses for rejecting Him in whom life dwelt,--the living Word of God.\nThis charge our Lord brings against them here and elsewhere. That he\nwished them to search the Scriptures which testified of Him, no one, I\nsuppose, doubts. That He commanded them to do so in this place, I am\nnot at all anxious to dispute. And oh! how rejoiced should I be if we\nEnglish Christians, heirs of Jewish privileges, felt that command as\nindeed addressed to ourselves! if we were ready to obey it! if,\ninstead of talking about the Bible as the only religion of\nProtestants, writing its name upon banners, declaring that we are\nready to die for it, we would indeed search into its treasures,\nbecause it testifies of Him in whom alone we can have life!\n\nI do, indeed, desire that we should take the lesson contained in these\nawful sentences home to ourselves. For I do feel that the danger of\nthe Jews in this case, as in that of which I spoke to you last Sunday,\nis precisely our danger; that we are likely not to search the\nScriptures, because they bear witness of the Word of God, but to turn\nthem into idols, because we have not the Word of God abiding in us.\nAnd I feel as if our Lord had laid bare the inmost root of our\ndisease, as He does of the Jewish disease, in the verses which follow:\n'_I receive not honour from men. But I know you, that ye have not the\nlove of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me\nnot: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How\ncan ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the\nhonour that cometh from God only?_'\n\nHe begins with asserting this as His distinction, that He seeks His\nglory from the only God (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6), not from\nman. He concludes with asking how they can believe Him, when they seek\nhonour from each other, not from this only God. And who is this only\nGod of whom He sought glory? He has told us before,--the God who loved\nthe world, and gave His Son, that through Him it might be saved. That\nlove He reflected; of that love, in His words and deeds, He testified.\nNo such love was in them. They did not feel their want of it; they did\nnot seek it where it was to be found. They flattered each other; they\nlived upon each other's praises. And the consequence was, that they\ndid not believe in One who denied Himself, who abjured all praises,\nwho said that He could do nothing but what He saw His Father do. Such\na Being was incomprehensible to them. They _could_ not believe in Him.\nThey must take Him to be a blasphemer and a devil. Let us remember it\nand tremble. When religious men open 'a benefit club of mutual\nflattery,' and live upon the allowances that are doled out from it,\nthey must deny the Father and the Son.\n\nThere are still some sentences left in this chapter which must not be\npassed over. '_Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father:\nthere is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had\nye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But\nif ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?_'\nHowever little of the _love_ of God there might be in the men to whom\nJesus spoke, there was a conscience which responded to what He said.\nTheir conscience said there must be a Father,--we _ought_ to be His\nchildren. If so, and if this man were not a blasphemer, but the Son of\nGod, might He not charge them before His Father for their denial of\nHim? The thought was a natural one. How eagerly a teacher who came in\nhis own name would have profited by the terror it excited! How\ncontinually the ministers of Jesus Christ _have_ said to unbelievers,\n'What! dare you question His mission? If He should be what we say He\nis, how certainly He will accuse you to the Father for your rejection\nof Him.' Jesus Himself declares that this is not His office--that He\nis not, and never can be, the accuser. The law in which they gloried,\nin which they trusted, that was accusing them,--that was telling them\nhow they had resisted the God of love,--that was telling them that\nthey needed a Person to unite them to God; an elder Brother, in whom\nthey might meet and behold their Father. Moses the lawgiver was\nwriting of this Advocate and Brother. But if those letters of his were\nboasted of and worshipped, not believed, how could they believe the\nquickening, life-giving words, which are written not in tables of\nstone, but in fleshly tables of the heart, by the Son of Man?\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XIII.\n\nTHE BREAD FROM HEAVEN.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 5th Sunday after Easter, April 27, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN VI. 35.\n\n_And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to\nme shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never\nthirst._\n\n\nIn general, the signs or miracles of Christ which St. John records are\nnot the same with those which the other Evangelists have recorded. The\nexceptions are found in this chapter. Here, as in St. Matthew, St.\nMark, and St. Luke, we have a narrative of the feeding of the five\nthousand; here, as in St. Matthew and St. Mark, we have the narrative\nof Jesus walking on the sea. There is no doubt that the events\ndescribed in all the Gospels are the same. In time, place, numbers,\nand in most of the circumstances, they exactly correspond. The\nvariations in St. John, however, are very instructive as to his own\ndesign. We may learn from them why he repeats his predecessors, as\nwell as why he so commonly introduces topics which they have not\ntouched.\n\n'_After these things, Jesus went over the Sea of Galilee, which is the\nSea of Tiberias. And a great multitude followed Him, because they\nsaw His miracles which He did on them that were diseased. And Jesus\nwent up into a mountain, and there He sat with His disciples. And the\nPassover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh._' The addition to the story\nis in the last verse. It has puzzled the harmonists. It does occasion\nserious difficulties in the chronology of this Gospel. Yet I hesitate\nto call it an interpolation. The Jerusalem feasts are continually\npresent to the mind of St. John. Even when he leads us into Samaria\nand Galilee, we are never allowed to forget them. I own, however, that\nthis notice of the Passover does not prepare us for a visit to the\ncity; and that it is quite unnecessary as an introduction to the\nfollowing discourse, which, as we all know, was suggested by an event\nwhich took place near Capernaum.\n\n'_When Jesus then lifted up His eyes, and saw a great crowd come to\nHim, He saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may\neat? And this He said to prove him: for He Himself knew what He would\ndo. Philip answered Him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not\nsufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little. One of\nHis disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto Him, There is\na lad here which hath five barley-loaves, and two small fishes: but\nwhat are they among so many?_' The force of the sign is often, as I\nsaid before, to be discerned in these incidents, quite as much as in\nwhat we call the miraculous part of it. We see how our Lord uses\nevents as an education of His disciples; how part of an event serves\nto bring out the character of one man, part of another. And what was\ntrue then, according to the doctrine that goes through the book, is\ntrue always. As the Teacher does not change--as, in essentials, the\nlearner of the West is not different from the learner of the\nEast--the same method of discipline belongs to both. We may\nunderstand, from the specimens of it which St. John gives us, how our\nthoughts are awakened--how we are made conscious of doubts, that they\nmay be satisfied.\n\nSt. John follows strictly the former Evangelists till the 14th verse.\nThere the effect of the sign upon the multitude is given in words\nwhich we have not elsewhere. '_Then those men, when they had seen the\nmiracle which Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that Prophet which\nshould come into the world. When Jesus therefore perceived that they\nwould come and take Him by force to make him a king, He departed again\ninto a mountain Himself alone._' Two names are brought together which\nare quite distinct, but which have mingled with each other in all the\nworld's history. 'He is a _Prophet_; God has sent Him.' That is the\nnatural feeling of a crowd which has been conscious of a wonderful\npower exerted on its own behalf. Then comes another:--'How shall _we_\nexalt this Prophet? How shall we show our sense of His might, and our\ngratitude for His benefits? Let us make Him our _King_. None is so\nworthy to reign over us. He may not be willing to put Himself at our\nhead; why should not we take the matter into our own hands?' It was no\nnew thing. Many a champion had arisen before in Galilee to rid the\npeople of their oppressors. Each had come in the name of God. The\ndesert was the ordinary scene of their exploits. Was it not the very\nplace for an insurrection in favour of this Galil\u00e6an Prophet to begin?\nIf some compulsion were used, the mysterious power which had fed them\nwould, of course, be ready to support His own claims.\n\nUnless we remember this wild excitement among men who had been hungry\nand who had eaten, and the voice of command with which He sent them\naway to their houses--the kingly might coming forth in His resolution\nthat _they_ should not make Him a king--we can scarcely enter into the\nstillness and awfulness of that night-scene which is brought before us\nin the following verses:--'_And when even was now come, the disciples\nwent down unto the sea, and entered into a ship, and went over the sea\ntoward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.\nAnd the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew. So when they\nhad rowed about five-and-twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus\nwalking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were\nafraid. But He saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid. Then they\nwillingly received Him into the ship: and immediately the ship was at\nthe land whither they went._'\n\nI believe the conscience of men has received the right impression from\nthis story. It has come to them in dark oppressive hours as the\nwitness of a Presence that had been with them, though they knew it\nnot,--of a calm power in which they might trust. This might not be\ntheir notion of a miracle. If they had been asked to define its nature\nand its purpose, they would carefully limit it to the time in which\nJesus dwelt on earth; they would say it was a departure from the laws\nof nature to attest His divine mission. They would explain away the\nfaith they had expressed unawares; they would say they had only been\nmaking a moral or personal improvement of the incident. No, brethren,\nit is not so. They discovered the true meaning of the sign at first.\nThe other is the cold intellectual _mis_interpretation of it. They\nfeel in their hearts that it is _not_ a violation of the laws of\nnature, for the Son of Man to prove that the elements are not man's\nmasters. They feel that when He raised up His disciples' hearts to\ntrust in Him, He was teaching poor, weak, ignorant men the true law of\n_their_ being, and thereby teaching them to reverence and not to\ndespise the laws which He had imposed on the winds and on the waves.\nThey feel that the whole beautiful narrative is not an argumentative\nassertion of a divine mission which can confute disputants, but the\npractical manifestation of a divine kinghood to meet the cravings and\nnecessities of human beings. What does a debater care for '_It is I;\nbe not afraid_?' What else does a man tossed about in a tempest care\nfor? The words were not spoken to Scribes and Pharisees, and were not\nheard by them. They were spoken to fishermen out in a boat at night;\nand by such they have been heard ever since.\n\nSt. John tells us this in the next paragraph. If we attach the modern\nnotion to miracles, we shall, of course, conclude that so singular a\nwitness of the Messiahship of Jesus must at once have been declared to\nthose who were hesitating about it, and half ready to believe it. The\noccasion for announcing it was given. '_The day following, when the\npeople which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was\nnone other boat there, save that one whereinto His disciples were\nentered, and that Jesus went not with His disciples into the boat, but\nthat His disciples were gone away alone; (howbeit there came other\nboats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread,\nafter that the Lord had given thanks): when the people therefore saw\nthat Jesus was not there, neither His disciples, they also took\nshipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus. And when they had\nfound Him on the other side of the sea, they said unto Him_, _Rabbi,\nwhen camest Thou hither?_' Here were the excitement and astonishment\nall ready. These people had said the day before,--'_This is of a truth\nthat prophet which should come into the world_.' What strength would\nthat conviction gain, if they heard that He did not cross the lake as\nother men crossed it! He says nothing of this. '_Jesus answered them\nand said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me not because ye\nsaw signs, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled._'\nThey did seek Him because they had seen _miracles_ or _wonders_; for\nit was a wonder that they had eaten and been filled; it was one which\nmight be repeated. But they did not seek Him because they saw _signs_.\nThe signs had not told them who He was; they had not come because they\nwanted Him, but because they wanted something which He could give\nthem. He did not then announce any other sign of His power; it could\nhave done them no good. But He proceeded to draw out the signification\nof the first sign; to show them what there was in it beyond the\nsatisfaction of their immediate hunger.\n\nHere, even more than in the case of the woman at the well, we may\nwonder at the deep mysteries which He revealed to what we should call\nignorant sensual people. That they were a crowd of such people, St.\nJohn tells us plainly. And yet to what Jerusalem doctors had He spoken\nof a Bread of Life--of a bread of which a man might eat and not die?\nBut let us begin where He begins. Each sentence, each clause, even\neach word, that He addressed to this rabble at Capernaum, is meant for\nthe ears and hearts of the wisest among us. '_Labour not for the meat\nwhich perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting\nlife, which the Son of Man shall give unto you: for Him hath God the\nFather sealed._'\n\nTo the woman of Sychar He spoke of water, for she had come to draw\nwater. To these Galil\u00e6ans He spoke of bread, for they had been eating\nof the loaves. Neither to one nor the other would He speak of the\nspiritual gift without speaking of the sensible gift,--without making\nthem feel that that also was from God. He addresses the people of\nCapernaum as men working for their food ordinarily, though for once\nthey had received it without working for it: and He bids them believe\nthat there is another nobler work which is appointed for them,--a\nwork, however, which does not prevent the fruit of it from being a\ngift. They were earning, by the sweat of their brow, a food which\nsustained their lives from day to day,--God endowing them with both\nthe power to toil and the reward of toil. They might toil for a bread\nthat would sustain another different kind of life in them,--a life not\nof hours and instants, but eternal. This bread, He says, the Son of\nMan will give. After what I said last Sunday of His use of this\ntitle,--of His assertion that the Son of Man must be the judge of men,\nmust be the life-giver to men,--I have no need to dwell upon it here.\nI would only lead you to notice how exactly this application of it\naccords with that in the dialogue at Jerusalem, and yet how suitable\nit is to the Galil\u00e6ans whom He is teaching. In both cases we find men\nbrought directly into contact with One who knows them, who reads their\nhearts, who is the source and the standard of all that is human in\nthem. In both, this Son of Man leads them to a Father from whom He has\nproceeded, from whose life His is derived, who has given Him His\nauthority, whose will He has come to do. The words, we saw, were most\nprovoking to the Pharisees of the holy city. Their inhumanity made it\nimpossible for them to enter into the revelation of a Son of Man;\ntheir sense of distance from God, and their conception of Him as a\nmere Lawgiver, made the name of Father monstrous and incredible. With\nthese ignorant labourers it was otherwise. A Son of Man,--a King who\nwas yet a Brother,--they secretly longed for; half their wild acts\nwere done in the struggle to find such a one. The thought of God was\nmore terrible;--oftentimes they would have wished to hide themselves\nfrom Him under any hills and mountains; oftentimes they might have\nbeen glad to be told that there was no such Being. But there was that\nin them which owned Him as the Giver of all that they had; as worthy\nof the trust which their fathers put in Him; as associated with the\ngraves of their parents and the faces of their children. To hear Him\ncalled a Father,--however little they might understand in what sense\nHe could be a Father,--to hear that there was One whom He had sealed\nas a giver of Life to men,--this answered to some of the dreams which\nthey had dreamed in their happiest hours: to some of the necessities\nwhich had been awakened within them in their saddest hours.\n\nBut these were vague, half-realized thoughts. The word 'labour,' or\n'work,' was familiar to them. Jesus meant, they thought, that God\nwould not give them anything which they did not earn. '_What shall we\ndo_,' said one, who was the spokesman of the rest, '_that we may work\nthe works of God_?' As often happens, the language was accurate beyond\nthe conscious intention of the person who used it. He desired to know\nwhat work they should work _for_ God, whereas it was really a work\n_of_ God that was demanded. '_Jesus answered, This is the work of God,\nthat ye believe on Him whom He hath sent._' God was working upon\nthem; He was calling them to trust their King and their Friend; to\ngive up their hearts to the Lord of their hearts--to Him who could\nalone quicken them to any good and fruitful work.\n\nOf course, they understood by the expression, '_Him whom He hath\nsent_,' that Jesus was claiming to be Messiah,--the sent from Heaven.\n'_They said therefore unto Him, What sign shewest Thou then, that we\nmay see, and believe Thee? What dost Thou work? Our fathers did eat\nmanna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven\nto eat._'\n\nJesus had fed them in the desert when they were fainting. That was a\nstrange and great act, no doubt, worthy of a Prophet, perhaps of a\nKing. But the manna had actually dropped from heaven out of the\nclouds. If He came from Heaven, would He have merely taken the bread\nin His hands and blessed it? Would there not have been a sign like\nthat which showed Moses to be indeed the messenger of God? Would there\nbe no appearance in the sky? It was the question of people whose minds\nwere perplexed about Heaven, and who, happily, had not found out\nseemly phrases in which to veil their perplexity. A material heaven--a\nheaven of sky and clouds--was what they saw and confessed. They had a\ndim vision of something beyond this. Their hearts yearned for a Heaven\nas calm as that upon which their eyes gazed; as full of light, as\nproductive of life, but yet altogether different from that. What it\nwas, where it was, they could not tell. Do you think we should have\nhelped them if we had talked to them about an intellectual Heaven or a\nsubjective Heaven? Do you think such nonsense can be of much help to\nourselves?\n\n'_Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses\ngave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true\nbread from heaven. For the bread of God is He which cometh down from\nheaven, and giveth life unto the world._' They had a feeling that, in\nsome way, the manna was a gift from above. They had an equally strong\nfeeling that, in some way or other, it came to them from Moses. The\nimpressions were confused; yet each was right in itself. The records\nin the Book of Exodus encouraged each. Those records taught them to\nregard the water which started from the rock, when it was struck by\nthe rod, as bestowed by an unseen Giver. If the manna was found upon\nthe trees, that book would teach them that it was just as much a gift\nas if it fell from the clouds. Our Lord brings this sense out of the\nold story. '_Moses_,' He said, '_gave you not that bread from\nheaven_.' And then He pronounces the higher Name--the new Name, the\nName which He had come to reveal--'_My Father_.' It was He who gave\n_that_ bread in the wilderness, and it was He who was giving them,\nthen and there, '_the true bread from heaven_.' What that Bread is, He\ngoes on to explain. It is a _Person_ whom they want to connect Heaven\nwith earth,--themselves with God. The glory they gave to Moses showed\nthey needed a Man to bring God nearer to them. Their eagerness to\nassert that the manna came from Heaven, showed that this was not\nenough for them--there must be a direct connexion between them and the\nhigher world into which Moses ascended; their food must denote it. The\nname of Father told them that it was even so. That Name turned the\nmaterial heaven into a spiritual Heaven, more real than the material\nheaven--a Heaven from which the best good could come, not to lawgivers\nor prophets, but to hungry Galil\u00e6ans; for they could not really enter\ninto that name of Father without acknowledging a Son who came to them\nas their Brother. They could not receive Him in these characters\nwithout believing that He had come to bring life--common life and the\nhighest life--not to a few select men, but to the world.\n\n'_Then said they unto Him, Lord, evermore give us this bread._' The\nparallel words to this, in the dialogue with the woman of Samaria,\nwere spoken, I thought, with the levity which characterised her till\nshe discovered that Jesus knew all things that ever she did. I do not\nperceive a similar levity in these words. The people may have taken in\nvery little of His meaning; but I think they were serious and awed.\nAnd surely the words in which our Lord answers them are very different\nindeed from those which He spoke to the woman; very different, also,\nfrom those in which He spoke afterwards to people who had none of her\nfrankness, and who had a crust of intellectual and spiritual pride to\nbreak through. Before I quote His words, I will explain why I think\nthat they wind up one division of this chapter, and that the remainder\nof it, though a continuation of the subject, introduces us to new\ntopics and new persons.\n\nIt is evident that the conversation commences on the border of the\nLake of Tiberias, with the people who had just crossed and found Jesus\nthere. But it is said in the 59th verse--'_These things said Jesus in\nthe synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum_.' There must be a break,\ntherefore, somewhere. I can have no doubt that it occurs at the 41st\nverse. In it we are told that the Jews murmured at Him. The word\n_Jews_ we have not met with before; the moment it occurs, the\ncharacter of the narrative changes. Instead of the simple, confused\nobservations of a crowd, '_which did eat of the loaves and were\nfilled_,' we have murmurs and reasonings of such men as were sure to\nbe found in the synagogues--men who represented the sentiments of the\nScribes and Pharisees of Jerusalem. They are evidently, I conceive,\ndiscussing a strange phrase which had been reported to them as having\nproceeded from the lips of the Nazarene teacher. All the controversies\nwhich have been raised about this chapter, arise directly out of the\nlatter part of it. I shall not enter upon any of them to-day. We shall\nbe far better qualified to consider them, if we dwell for a few\nmoments upon that wonderful Gospel to the poor which is contained in\nthe reply to their half-unconscious prayer--'_Lord, evermore give us\nthis bread_.'\n\n'You ask me to give it to you: it is given already. The Father has\ngiven _Me_ to His creatures. I spoke of a Son of Man whom the Father\nhad sealed. _I_, that Son of Man, _am that bread of life_. But how can\nsuch bread be eaten? _He that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and He\nthat believeth on Me shall never thirst._' If coming to Him was going\nto Him on their feet, they had done that already; if believing on Him\nwas acknowledging Him as the Prophet that should come into the world,\nthey had already fed on Him in the sense that He intended. Yet it was\nclear that their hunger was not satisfied--that it was only beginning\nto be excited. He goes on--'_But I have said unto you, That ye also\nhave seen Me, and believe not_.' If Jesus was merely a Prophet of\nNazareth, who could be shown by visible miracles to be sent from God,\nthe distinction of seeing and believing is incomprehensible. Let a\nsufficient amount of probative evidence be addressed to the eye, the\nact of believing must follow. But if He was the Word who had in all\ntimes been the Light of men; if those who judged by the sight of their\neyes had resisted this Light, and become idolaters; if those who\nreceived it, received it into their hearts, and so rose to the stature\nof Sons of God;--then it was certain that He would speak to another\norgan than the eye, or than any of the senses; as much when He stood\nbefore them in an actual body, and spoke with fleshly lips, as when He\nwas only their invisible Teacher and Reprover. It must be their faith,\nnot their sight, which must now, as ever, see Him and answer to Him.\nThey might touch Him, and yet not come to Him.\n\nBut He proceeds:--'_All that the Father giveth to Me shall come to Me;\nand him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out_.' The apparent\nadvantage of being on earth at the time of His appearing--of being in\nthe streets in which He walked, of sitting with Him, of conversing\nwith Him--would be nothing. All these privileges might belong to those\nwho would reject Him, hate Him, betray Him. But all that the Father of\nspirits gives to Him--all that yields to the Father's will--shall\nconfess Him as its true Lord; and him that so cometh, in one place or\nanother, in one age or another, He will not thrust away. '_For I came\ndown from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that\nsent Me._' 'I have not come forth to save some choice favourites of\nMine, but to fulfil the will of Him who created the universe--of that\nFather to whom I said your spirits are yielding when they turn to Me.'\n\n'_And this is the Father's will which hath sent Me, that of all which\nHe hath given Me I should lose nothing out of it (\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f43\n\u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03c9 \u1f10\u03be \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6), but should\nraise it up at the last day._' I dare not paraphrase these words. They\nare too large and too deep for any conception I can form of them. The\nadjective and the pronoun, you will perceive, are in the neuter, as if\nthe promise was to include not only humanity, but all that is related\nto humanity--the body through which the spirit speaks and acts--the\nwhole frame of nature, which has shared man's decay and death. The\nfinal day cannot come till all that the Father has redeemed is raised\nto its proper life. But yet the neuter could not satisfy the intention\nof Jesus. He was speaking to distinct persons; He must add--'_And this\nis the will of Him that sent Me, that every one that seeth the Son,\nand believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him\nup at the last day._'\n\nThus we are brought back to the original proposition; only it has\ngained immeasurably in strength and fulness. To each man in that crowd\nwho had eaten of the loaves and been filled, and had followed Christ\nfor no better reason than that,--to each man upon whom His light\nshined in the days before His incarnation,--to each man who has been\nborn into the world since,--to each ignorant peasant of this land,--to\nevery miserable dweller in the streets and alleys of this city,--to\neach one of us who may have been tempted by wealth, luxury, false\nphilosophy, false religion, to seek some food that cannot nourish us,\ndoes He say: 'It is the will of My Father that this man should triumph\nover all the enemies that are drawing him down into death, and that he\nshould be raised up at the last day by the might of Him who died and\nrose again; that he should enter into that eternal life of\nrighteousness and truth, which was with the Father, and which has been\nmanifested to us in His only-begotten Son.'\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XIV.\n\nTHE TRUE LIFE OF NATIONS AND OF MAN.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, Sunday after Ascension (Thanksgiving-day), May 4,\n1856.]\n\nST. JOHN VI. 62.\n\n_What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was\nbefore?_\n\n\nOn this day the order of our Services would lead me to speak of our\nLord's Ascension. On this day the Queen commands us to give thanks for\nthe restoration of Peace. My text will tell you that I need not break\nthe order of my discourses on St. John, if I desire to speak on the\nChurch Festival. I believe there are lessons in the passage which\nwould naturally come under our notice this afternoon, that belong\nequally to the National Festival. As long as we think of the Peace\nwithout any reference to God,--we mean by Peace, the Treaty of Peace;\nwe question whether such and such articles in it are commensurate with\nthe cost and success of the war,--whether boundary lines are fairly\nand wisely drawn,--whether new concessions might not have been\nobtained by a longer struggle? Or perhaps we mean by Peace merely the\ncessation of those hostilities by which all the nations that have\ntaken part in them are more or less exhausted. Or perhaps we identify\nit with the material prosperity of the classes which have money,--a\nprosperity that seems to some closely connected with social and\nintellectual progress, if not the source of it. All these subjects\ndeserve our most serious consideration. I believe that a\nThanksgiving-day is to increase the earnestness with which we reflect\non them, to take away the looseness and levity of our thoughts\nrespecting them. But it must do this by opening to us another view of\nPeace,--not as based upon treaties and conventions,--not as being\nsustained by these; but as deriving its ultimate strength from the\nmind and will of Him who rules the universe, its subordinate security\nfrom our conformity to His mind and will. Such a day teaches us to\nlook upon Peace not merely as the end of a war, but as the normal\nstate of a Christian and human society; a state which is interrupted\nby the lusts that war in our members,--the interruption being most\nterrible when it exhibits itself in internal strifes and hatreds. Such\na day calls upon us to reflect that what, in the dialect of the\nmoney-market, is called prosperity, is not one of those symptoms of\nPeace which we are to rest in with confidence,--not one which we are\never to contemplate without trembling. For it does not mean the growth\nand vital energy of the whole body, but an unnatural swelling and\nbloating of certain portions of the body. It often leads to ignoble\naims, frantic speculations, systematic fraud,--to everything that\ndestroys the force of a people, and makes it a silly, gambling,\nslavish people. It compels wise men frequently to regard war, with all\nits horrors, as an inevitable punishment; nay, even as a positive\nblessing. Therefore such a day as this obliges us to seek diligently\nfor the springs of the moral life of societies,--for the secret of\ntheir inward peace and coherency.\n\nThe Lawgiver of the Jewish people had told them that all the\ndiscipline they passed through in the wilderness had been to teach\nthem that '_man does not live by bread alone, but that by every word\nwhich proceedeth out of the mouth of God, doth man live_.' He was\nspeaking to them as the members of a _nation_. He was telling them\nthat the endurance of their national polity from age to age would\ndepend not upon material bread, but upon another kind of nourishment\nand strength which it would derive from an unseen Presence. The lesson\nwas repeated by every prophet, ratified by the darkest and the\nbrightest passages of Jewish history. They were a wise and\nunderstanding people, strong and united,--however poor in numbers and\nphysical appliances,--just so far as they believed in a One God, who\nwatched over them, in whom they might confide. They were a\ncontemptible people, essentially weak, full of elements of strife and\ndissolution,--however numerous they were, however rich,--when numbers\nand riches became the objects of their worship, when the righteous and\nliving King was forgotten. Do you think that this, which is _the_\nmaxim of the Old Testament, is forgotten in the New? Do you think that\nJesus introduced a new law which set this law aside,--a law that had\nreference to individuals merely, and not to societies? I believe that\nthe great misery and sin of the Jews, in the time when our Lord\nappeared among them in the flesh, was that they had lost the feeling\nof national unity,--that they had become mere covetous individuals,\nherding together in sects, knit to each other by opinions and\nantipathies, not by the sense of a common origin, a common country, a\ncommon Lord. Jesus came to gather together the lost sheep of the house\nof Israel under their true Shepherd. Jesus claimed publicans and\nsinners as part of the same nation, as heirs of the same covenant with\nthe most devout. Jesus was in continual conflict with the sects,\nbecause they were substituting a self-seeking religion for the faith\nof Israelites. It is true that He was unfolding the faith of\nIsraelites into a human and universal faith; but in doing so, He was\nestablishing, not undermining, that which sustained the nation, and\nmust sustain every nation.\n\nWhen, therefore, He answered those who spoke to Him of the manna which\ntheir fathers ate in the wilderness, by telling them of the true Bread\nwhich came down from Heaven, He was, I conceive, expounding the words\nof Moses,--those which He had used in His own temptation. He was\nshowing that neither the life of Israel nor the life of humanity can\nbe sustained by earthly bread; that both demand another food; that He\ncould tell them what that food was, whence it came, how it might be\nreceived. By keeping this thought in our minds through the latter part\nof this wonderful discourse, I believe we shall do something to rescue\nit from the fangs of systematisers and controversialists, as well as\nto deduce needful instruction from it for England on this day.\n\nThe 40th verse of this chapter appears, as I observed last Sunday, to\nclose our Lord's dialogue with the people who had crossed the lake to\nsee Him, because they had eaten of the loaves on the previous day. An\ninterval has passed before the 41st verse. Then we hear of certain\nJews who were _murmuring_ at the words, '_I am the bread that came\ndown from heaven_.' These Jews, I conjectured, were Scribes belonging\nto the synagogue of Capernaum,--men who had caught the notions and\nhabits of the Scribes in the capital, and yet could avail themselves\nof the local prejudices of Galil\u00e6ans. Their temper is clearly\nindicated in the 42d verse:--'_And they said, Is not this Jesus the\nson of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that He\nsaith, I came down from heaven?_' The difficulty about Heaven, of\nwhich I spoke last week, was really not less for the Scribe than for\nthe peasant,--only the one could talk learnedly about a second, or\nthird, or seventh heaven, while the other, more honestly and more\nwisely, did not pretend to know about anything but the actual\nfirmament which was over his head. Yet the consciousness which man has\nof some better heaven than this, was indicated by the confused\nexperiments of the former to conceive one, and dwelt in the heart of\nthe latter, awaiting some divine touch to call it forth. The spring\nwas touched when our Lord spoke of a Father; the new heaven which the\nspirit of man in each man craves for, is contained in that name; where\nthe Father is, it is. If we demand a more accurate definition, we may\ntry our skill in framing it,--God's revelation will not help us. For\nthat revelation does not cheat us with formulas when we are in want of\nrealities; does not give us stones when we ask for bread.\n\nJesus, therefore, told the cavillers just what He had told the crowd.\n'_Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the\nFather which hath sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the\nlast day._' All their reasonings and debatings would not bring them\nnearer to Heaven or to Him, than the feet and the eyes of the people\nwho had eaten of the loaves had brought them. The Father of spirits\nmust draw their spirits to Him who was the source of their life and\nlight, whom He had sent to raise their spirits out of their darkness\nand death; when they were drawn, when they did embrace Him as their\ndeliverer and friend, no death of the body, no darkness of the grave,\nshould have power over them; He will raise them up to the fulness of\nlife in the last day.\n\nWas this new doctrine? '_Was it not written in their Prophets, Ye\nshall be all taught of God?_' Was it not the very promise,--the\nhighest promise,--to the people of God's covenant, to those who were\ncircumcised and withdrawn from fleshly idols, that they should hear\nHis voice speaking to them? What did that promise imply but that God\nwas a Father who was educating the creatures who are formed in His\nimage to know that image? '_Every man therefore that hath heard and\nlearnt of the Father, cometh unto Me._' 'He comes to Me as that Word\nwho was in the beginning with the Father,--as that Word who has been,\nand is, and will be always, the light of men.'\n\n'_Not_--He goes on--_that any man hath seen the Father, save He which\nis of God, He hath seen the Father_.' It is not that any man has had a\nvision of Him who, by a thousand mysterious influences, is every hour\nacting upon him, and whom he has either obeyed or resisted; only He\nwho is of God--only the Son, who has come forth from the Father--has\nhad this vision; only He has entered into that Love which has been\nguiding the universe, and penetrating into the hearts of human beings.\n\nThis doctrine respecting the Father and the Son, which we have been\ntracing through every passage of this Gospel--which we have found to\nlie beneath all its other announcements--is the necessary preparation\nfor the answer which He makes to the murmurers:--'_Verily, verily, I\nsay unto you, He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life. I am that\nbread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and\nare dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man\nmay eat thereof, and not die. And the bread which I will give is My\nflesh, which I will give for the life of the world._'\n\nThis contrast between these two kinds of life has gone with us through\nthis discourse, as well as through all our Lord's previous discourses:\nwe ought by this time to be sufficiently familiar with it. The eternal\nlife we have found is the life of the spirit; the life which is\nsupported by material bread is the life of the flesh. Faith or belief\nis here, as elsewhere, described to be the proper act and exercise of\nthe spirit, as feeding upon bread is the natural act or exercise of\nthe flesh. That which is presented to the spirit must be as real as\nthat which is presented to the flesh. The spirit cannot provide its\nown nourishment; faith cannot create its own object. Jesus says, '_He\nthat believeth hath eternal life_.' He adds, '_I am that bread of\nlife_.' 'I am the Word of Life to man at all times, whether he knows\nit or not--whether he desires a heavenly life, or is content with an\nearthly life. And as your fathers received manna from God to sustain\nthe life of that body which was to die at its appointed season, I, the\nWord of Life, have come from God to sustain the life of the spirit--to\nkeep that from perishing, to give it the immortality which He intended\nfor it. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven; I am that\nWord, in whom is life, made flesh. If any man acknowledge Me as that\nWord of Life--if his spirit participates of that life which is in\nMe--he shall live for ever; and this flesh which I have taken, which I\nhave united to My living and eternal substance, I will give for the\nlife of the world.'\n\nI keep closely to the letter of the Evangelist. I dare not depart from\nit; and I dare not seek the interpretation of it anywhere but in\nhimself. There are a hundred scholastical interpretations of the\nreason why the Son of God was made Man--why His death was necessary\nfor the deliverance of men. Those who think these explanations better\nthan St. John's may make what use they can of them. I find in St. John\nall that I want--infinitely more than I can embrace. I will try, with\nGod's help, to learn what the Spirit is saying to us by him before I\nlook elsewhere.\n\nWhen He says, '_The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will\ngive for the life of the world_,' does He speak of His death on the\ncross? Does He speak of some mysterious life which He will communicate\nto those who truly believe in Him? Does He speak of that Sacrament\nwhich we believe that He has commanded us to receive? You know how\nthese questions have been debated in all times--how they are debated\nnow. Perhaps we are on the point of a tremendous conflict on this very\nsubject--a conflict which, however slight in its beginnings, may in\nits issues be more serious and practical than the one from which we\nhave just escaped. Do not, therefore, let us evade the question, or\nany of the great moral difficulties which are involved in it. Do not\nlet us strive to discover a poor unsatisfactory compromise upon it. Do\nnot let us treat with contempt or indifference any of the earnest\nfeelings which are enlisted on one side or another of it. One man or\nanother may be condemned; there may be shouts of party triumph, or\ngroans of defeat. What are all these when the question is about the\nlife of the world, the life of eternity--about that which is to be\nwhen we are all standing together before an all-righteous Judge, to\nanswer for the idle words we have spoken against each other, and for\nour mockeries of His Name? If we are giving thanks to God for peace,\nin the Name of God let us be labouring for peace--such peace as He\nonly can give us!\n\nLet us be sure, then, that when Christ speaks of giving His flesh, He\ndoes mean, as all have supposed Him to mean, that He would give up His\nbody to die upon the cross. Let us be sure that, when He speaks of\ngiving His flesh for the life of any, He must speak of a real, hidden,\ndivine life, such as he has been speaking of throughout. Let us be\nsure, lastly, that when He speaks of giving up His flesh for the life\nof the world, He must mean that the blessing which He would confer by\ngiving up His flesh would be one for mankind--for the whole earth--not\nfor a little portion of mankind,--not for a few inhabitants of the\nearth. Whether I can grasp these truths or not, I must acknowledge\nthem all to be true, if I acknowledge the Gospel to be true; I must\nbelieve that God understands them, if I do not. And this is what I\nmean when I come to the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. I\ndo come to give thanks there that in Him is the life of the world, and\nthat He gave His flesh for the life of the world. I do not want a\nseparate life either here or hereafter. I come to renounce that\nseparate life, to disclaim it, to say what a wretch I have been for\npretending to have it, for trying to create it. I come to say that I\nfind a separate life to be a detestable and damnable life--another\nname for death. I come to say, that if God leaves me to that separate\nlife, I know that I am doomed to the second death,--the eternal death;\nbut that I understand that the Son of God, by sacrificing Himself, has\ngiven me a share and a property in another life--the common life, the\nuniversal life which is in Him; and that, understanding this, I have\ncome to give God thanks for it--thanks for myself, thanks for my\nbrethren, thanks for the universe; and I have come to pray that,\nthrough His Son, He will deliver me, and my brethren, and the universe\nfrom that separate and selfish life which is the cause of all our woes\nand miseries, spiritual and fleshly, inward and outward.\n\nIn this way, brethren, I reconcile the faith in that sacrifice which\nwas made once for all--the full sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction\nfor the sins of the whole world--with that faith in each man to which\nChrist promises eternal life. In this way, I believe that the\nSacrament of the Lord's Supper explains and justifies both truths, not\nbecause there is some strange mingling in the elements of a body which\nmust be received,--whether there is a spiritual organ to receive it or\nnot,--but because it testifies to man of the eternal Lord of his\nspirit--of the Word who is his life, of the Word who was made flesh\nfor the life of the world. I regard that Sacrament as looking backward\nto the beginning, onward to the end of all things--as speaking of Him\nfrom whom all things have proceeded, and in whom all shall be gathered\nup, whether things in heaven or things in earth. I do not think St.\nJohn had anything new to tell us respecting the Lord's Supper: it was\nalready adopted in all the churches. Though he dwells so much on the\nlast passover, he does not record again the breaking of the bread and\nthe pouring out of the wine. He had a different task. He had to show\nwhy that act was not a formal religious ceremony, the badge of a\nprofession; he had to show the eternal law upon which it rested--the\nground there is for it in the relations of God and man. If you ask\nme, then, whether he is speaking of the Eucharist here,--I should\nsay, 'No.' If you ask me where I can learn the meaning of the\nEucharist,--I should say, 'Nowhere so well as here; for here I find\nthe very signification of the sign. Here I may discover what the\nEucharist has been to Christendom--what it has been to each man who\nhas desired to be one of the great Christendom family--what it may be\nas a means of binding that family together--how it may become a bond\nto nations which are as yet lying beyond the circle of that family.'\n\nBut, first, we must learn how hard it is to acknowledge either the\nsign or its signification. '_The Jews therefore strove among\nthemselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?_' That\nstrife which began in the synagogue of Capernaum has gone on, in every\nnation of the modern world in which the name of Christ has been\nproclaimed, even to this day. Some think they can quiet their own\nminds, and settle all debate, by saying, 'Of course, the eating is\nmetaphorical.' But I do not find that the use of that phrase has\nbrought much contentment to any living soul. I do not think that any\nman's _spirit_ can be satisfied with the bare imagination of a feast\nany more than his _body_. When vain men feed upon praises,--when angry\nmen feed upon the acts which provoke them to rage,--when men who have\nreceived kindnesses feed on these kindnesses,--when earnest patriots\nfeed upon the deeds that have been done by those who have saved their\ncountry,--you may, if you please, call this fantastic, imaginary,\nmetaphorical feeding. I know that the results are real; that the vain\nman does vain acts, and acquires a vain character; that the angry man\ndoes acts of revenge, and becomes in spirit, if not openly, a\nmurderer; that all gentle acts come from that upon which the grateful\nman has nourished himself--all that is most blessed to mankind, from\nthe courage and self-denial which the lover of his country has\ncultivated in himself. These skilful intellectual explanations of\nfacts--the haughty and self-complacent formula, 'This only means'--may\nserve very well the purposes of those who write books; for those who\nhave to live and die, they are good for nothing. They take for granted\nthat which the conscience of mankind denies,--that which every\nlanguage on the face of the earth denies,--that the words which\nrepresent acts of the senses, needs of the senses, the satisfaction of\nthe senses, do not also represent acts of the spirit, needs of the\nspirit, the satisfaction of the spirit. They introduce an unreal\nmiddle world between the senses and the spirit--a world of shadows,\nfrom which the most absolute materialism is a deliverance; because\nthat, at least, is honest, and because against that there must be a\nre-action.\n\nThe mere animal people, who had eaten of the loaves and were filled,\ndid not strive and fight as these intellectual people of the synagogue\ndid. They wanted actual food; they had real hunger, if the deeper and\nnobler hunger had not yet been awakened in them. To them Christ could\noffer Himself as the Bread of Life. He does so also to these; but it\nis in sterner and more terrible language. '_Then Jesus said unto them,\nVerily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of\nman, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my\nflesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him\nup at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink\nindeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in\nme, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the\nFather: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is\nthat bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat\nmanna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.\nThese things said He in the synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum._'\n\nOur Lord does not argue with these men. He makes an assertion,\nappealing to the after-history of the world for the confirmation or\nrefutation of it. I believe the history of Christendom, from beginning\nto end, is nothing else than a commentary on these words; that we may\nread it by the light of them. Immediately after the age of the\nApostles, if not in the age of the Apostles, there arose sects which\naffirmed Christ to be a spiritual being, an emanation from God, but\nwhich utterly denied that He was the Word made flesh,--which were\nutterly scandalized at the notion that He actually and literally died\nupon the cross. The leaders of these sects were, many of them, very\nable men; they had perceived some high principles of the Gospel,--they\nhad perceived the relation of those principles to the doctrines that\nwere current both in Jewish and Heathen schools. They were not put\ndown by the persecutions of their brethren, for they existed before\nthe Church could persecute,--when it was the object of persecution.\nThey were not in themselves offensive to the Roman empire, for they\nwere like the religious or philosophical sects which it always\ntolerated; they were not politically dangerous. And yet these sects\ncame to nothing. They had no cohesion,--they had no relation to\nhumanity; in our Lord's simpler and higher language, '_they had no\nlife in them_;' for though they dwelt upon His spiritual nature, they\ndid not feed upon His flesh and drink His blood.\n\nLook on through all the centuries which follow. You find divisions,\nhatreds, secularity, hypocrisy in the Church; you find strifes about\nits doctrines,--about the relation of its ministers to each\nother,--about its relation to civil governments,--about its\nsacraments. What is it that has held this strange divided body\ntogether? What is it that enables us to say there has been such a\nthing as Christianity in the world,--that it has had an influence upon\nthe civilization and order of the world? I can find but one answer. I\ndo discover through all these ages the recognition of a Son of Man who\nactually took human flesh and blood,--who actually offered up that\nflesh, and poured out that blood upon the Cross. I do find that there\nhas been here a common centre of life to all these ages,--something\nthat has held them together in spite of their divisions and\nhatreds,--something that has been stronger than the division of\ncastes, and classes, and sects, of the lord and the serf, of the\nprelate and the beggar. I do find the Cross the source of all that was\nnoble, chivalrous, self-denying in the Middle Ages,--of all that was\nnot base, tyrannical, superstitious. I do find the flesh and blood of\nChrist the strength of the Reformers, the bond of Protestants, the\nspring of all in them that has not been sectarian, disputatious,\nselfish, hateful. I cannot explain this in any other way than by\nbelieving that this flesh and blood of the Son of Man has been a\ndivine food and drink, which has been ministered by God, in ways I\nknow not, to Christian society, to Christian men, through all these\ntimes. I cannot but believe that there is a spiritual and eternal life\nin that flesh and blood which has given them this quickening power. I\ncannot account for that quickening power by any faith, or wisdom, or\nvirtue which I see in Roman Catholics or Protestants,--in the members\nof one nation or Church or another. Whatever faith, or wisdom, or\nvirtue, I do discern in them,--and, thank God, there is no corner of\nthe earth, no moment of history, in which they may not be seen by\nthose whose eyes are open,--I must trace to a higher source. I can\nfind the only interpretation of it in the words,--'_As the living\nFather hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me,\neven he shall live by me_.' I must refer the Bread itself which has\ncome down from heaven, and all the life of faith, and hope, and love\nthat it has sustained, not to the creature, but to the Creator; not to\nthe child, but to the living Father. I must suppose that He has been\ndrawing men into the state for which He created them; that He has been\nproving that they were originally formed in His Son; that to be\nseparated from the Son of Man is an unnatural, inhuman condition: that\nevery good and blessed fruit which has grown on the soil of human\nnature, has been produced from union with Him.\n\nIt is the next passage which contains the words that I have chosen for\nmy text. '_Many therefore of His disciples, when they had heard this,\nsaid, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in\nHimself that His disciples murmured at it, He said unto them, Doth\nthis offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up\nwhere He was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh\nprofiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit,\nand they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For\nJesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who\nshould betray Him. And He said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man\ncan come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father._'\n\nWhy does the allusion to the Ascension occur here? What has it to do\nwith the previous discourse? I think brethren, that here again the\nhistory of Christendom is the interpreter of the words of Christ. It\nhas been a '_hard saying_,' that we must eat the flesh and drink the\nblood of Christ, in order that we may have life in us. To make that\n'_hard saying_' easier to the understanding, easier to the flesh,\nvarious devices have been resorted to. One has been that to which I\nalluded just now, of representing the saying as only metaphorical.\nAnother has been that of supposing that we may eat the flesh and drink\nthe blood of Christ, provided He descends into the bread and wine of\nthe Eucharist, and transmutes them into His body and blood. I call\nthis hypothesis an experiment to make the words which were hard,\neasier to the carnal understanding. I fully admit that there has been\na Nemesis of that understanding. That which was framed to aid its\nconceptions, has become the most intolerable bondage to it. Decrees\nmust compel it, under awful penalties, to accept the explanation which\nits impatience craved for. And what has been the consequence? The\nblessed and elevating mystery which this week speaks of, has been\npractically lost sight of. The ascended Christ, at the right hand of\nthe Father, has been thought at a hopeless and incredible distance\nfrom the suppliant upon earth. The glorified Humanity has been\nentirely overshadowed by the thought of the cradle at Bethlehem. One\nvast section of Christendom has acknowledged the words,--'_Except ye\neat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life\nin you_.' But it has denied that other sentence which proceeded from\nthe same lips,--'_It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh\nprofiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you_, _they are\nspirit, and they are life_.' The spirit in man is as impatient of\nthose fetters that bind it to the earth, as the carnal understanding\nis of all that is not of the earth, earthy. The message which Christ\nbrings from the living Father to that spirit is,--'I can raise you\nabove the earth; I can enable you to share those treasures of wisdom,\nand righteousness, and love which are the treasures of the kingdom of\nheaven. I can make you partakers of that Divine Humanity which I have\nredeemed and exalted to the Father's right hand.' And our gospel to\nthe spirit of man is; Either you must feed metaphorically upon\nChrist's flesh and blood, or you must force yourselves to think that\nHe is come down again into lower and baser conditions than those which\nHe took when He 'did not abhor the Virgin's womb!'\n\nBut,--as the last words of the passage I have quoted remind us,--no\npower of man can awaken in us that faith, however greatly we may want\nit, which thus ascends to Christ, and dwells with Him where He is. It\nmust be given us of the Father. That mighty drawing, which has been\nspoken of so often in this chapter, must lift individuals, must lift\nnations, out of the death of notions and opinions, into the life and\nfreedom which the Son of Man came to bring them. Is that a reason for\ndespondency, brethren? Is it not a reason for all hope? If we had\nnothing better to look for, than that the disciples of Christ, of one\nChurch or another, should discover the meaning of His words, the power\nof His life, the last verses of this chapter would cause us the\ndeepest despondency. '_From that time many of His disciples went back,\nand walked no more with Him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye\nalso go away? Then Simon Peter answered Him, Lord, to whom shall we\ngo? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure\nthat Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered\nthem, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He\nspake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should\nbetray Him, being one of the twelve._'\n\nThose sentences which declared what is the very life of the Church,\ndrove back the first disciples from Christ. They could believe in a\nprophet,--they could believe in any notions or doctrines; they could\nnot believe in a Divine Word who would give His flesh for the life of\nthe world. There is a sadness, a human sadness, in our Lord's question\nto His own apostles, which proves that even they might have been\nstaggered by the thought that they must eat His flesh and drink His\nblood, and that even they might desert Him. And though Peter's answer\nwas a noble one, because it showed that he would cling to his Master,\nin spite of all ignorance and confusion,--because it showed that he\ntrusted in Him as a Person, and that he was sure there was eternal\nlife in Him, however little he might understand the way in which that\nlife was to be received,--yet the allusion to Judas, at the close of\nall, has in it a depth of sorrow and of meaning which no one can\nfathom. It is quite evident, I think, that the sin of Judas is in some\nway connected by our Lord with unbelief in that lesson which He had\nbeen teaching in the synagogue of Capernaum. But how could that\nunbelief convert him into a devil? I answer with trembling. Judas is\nrepresented elsewhere as a covetous man. In following Christ, he was\nseeking not Christ but himself. He could believe in One who would give\n_him_ a place in the Church below or the Church above. He could not\nbelieve in a Son of Man who came to give life to the _world_. But a\nperson who has lived with Christ, and been a minister and an apostle\nof Christ, and yet sinks into a separate selfish existence, answers to\nthe Scripture definition and idea of a devil.\n\nIf the early disciples deserted Christ,--if His own apostle betrayed\nHim--because He said that He would in very deed prove Himself to be\nthe Son of Man, by pouring out His blood for men, and by feeding the\nspirit of man, why may not His latest disciples forsake Him; why may\nnot His priests now betray Him because they, too, desire a Christ for\nthemselves, and not for the universe? But if our trust is not in them,\nbut in the living Father, we shall see all things working together for\nthe manifestation of the Son in this His true and proper\ncharacter,--for the discovery of Him to all nations as the source of\ntheir highest life. The war which we have just passed through has\nbrought us, the most exclusive of nations, into strange proximity with\nnations with which we have had no previous sympathy. We have fought\nside by side with one which was called for ages our natural enemy; we\nhave fought for one who has been regarded as the enemy of Christendom.\nThe alliance will have done us harm, if it has made us value our\nposition as Englishmen less,--if it has made us understand less the\nposition which our fathers in the seventeenth century occupied, when\nthey struggled against Louis XIV. for Protestantism and for national\nlife. It will have done us good, if it has made us feel that our\nfathers were fighting against a tyranny which was hostile to\nProtestantism and nationality because it was hostile to\nhumanity,--that there is a Son of Man who is Lord of Frenchmen as\nwell as Englishmen, whom both in their creeds confess, whom both in\ntheir acts are continually denying, for whom each is disposed to set\nup some other Lord. Our struggle in behalf of Turkey will have done us\nharm, if it has led us to think less than our fathers did of that\nwhich divides the Crescent from the Cross,--the symbol of mere power,\nand the symbol of strength perfected in weakness. It will have done us\ngood, if it has taught us that we are bound to resist injustice and\nwrong as much when it is done to Mahometans as Christians,--if it\nleads us to remember that the Son of Man gave His flesh for the life\nof the world,--for Mahometans, therefore, as well as for Christians.\n\nA phrase has gone forth, and has become almost proverbial among us,\nwhich was spoken by one who was our enemy--spoken, we thought, with no\nhonest intention, but one which has been recognised as containing a\nreasonable prophecy. It concerned the sickness and coming death of\nthat empire for which we have been fighting. If sickness has\novertaken, if death is to overtake, that once vigorous kingdom, this,\nI believe, is the explanation:--It bore at one time a strong and\nterrible witness for a living God, a Ruler of men, a Destroyer of\nidols;--God endued it with strength to bear that witness. It bore no\nwitness for a Son of God and a Son of Man. It put humanity at a\nhopeless distance from God. Therefore seeds of weakness were latent in\nit when it was mightiest. They were certain to develop themselves in\nit more and more. They were certain at last to make its belief in God\nineffectual, because it denied Him to be a Father. To adopt the modes\nof European civilization--to tolerate enemies of the prophet--may\ndelay or may hasten the dissolution which has been foretold Certainly\nthere is not in any of these things a power to restore life. Would the\nacceptance of Christianity restore it? If Christianity is taken up\njust as these changes have been taken up, as part of a new system--as\nthe condition of admission into fellowship with more powerful states,\nI can conceive nothing so worthless, so detestable. The old Mahometan\nfanaticism is worthy of reverence; for it was real and honest. _This_\nprofession of Christ would be a pretence and a mockery. The faith in\nJesus which the Moslem does cherish is better than this;--he does\nconfess Him as a great, though an inferior, Prophet. This would be to\ndegrade Him into the head of a rival sect, which it is convenient for\nstate purposes to make supreme.\n\nBut how can we teach them to regard Jesus in any other light than\nthis? The first step to such a consummation is, to see that we do not\ndegrade Him to this level ourselves. Let our Christianity be something\nmore than a surface thing--more than an exclusive thing--more than a\nparticular form of opinion; then those that are without our circle may\nfeel its power, because then it will be a power. We need not, as some\nfancy, reduce the Gospel into a set of moral maxims, that we may meet\nthe believers in the Koran on a common ground. By taking that course,\nwe enter into a foolish competition with the Koran; we do set up our\nreligion against the Mahometan religion, and so insult the prejudices\nof those who profess it. We need not bring proofs that Mahomet was an\nimpostor, or that Jesus was the Messiah. But starting from that which\nis the strong and vital truth of Mahometanism--proclaiming mightily an\nunseen God and a living God--we may go on to declare that which is the\nspecially Christian truth,--that this God is united to His creatures\nin a Son; that this Son has taken man's flesh, and has given His\nflesh for the life of the world. The deepest mystery of our faith is\nthe most universal; when we are most Christian, we are most human.\nOnly we must not stop short at the Incarnation; we must go on to the\nAscension;--so we do justice to the Mahometan demand that we should\nnot exalt manhood above Godhead; so we escape the danger which\nMahometans too justly imputed to Christians, that they turned the\nflesh of Christ into an object of idolatry;--when Christ Himself said,\n'_It is the spirit which quickeneth_.'\n\nThere is a design of establishing an English Church at Constantinople.\nIf it is accomplished, God grant that the Gospel which is preached\nthere may be the same which has been preached already by English lips\nand English hands in the hospital at Scutari! God grant that we may\nnot seek there or here to set up an English religion,--for that cannot\nbe the religion of Jesus Christ; that must be a denial of the Son of\nMan! If we fulfil the obligations which our Church lays upon us, we\nshall tell all men that there is a life for them in Him who died for\nall. We shall show the Turks that we hold the Second Commandment as\nsacred as Mahomet held it; that we are Islamites, confessing the will\nof God to be the only foundation of all the acts and energies of man.\nWe shall show the Greeks that we regard the Son of Man as the one\nuniversal Bishop of His Church. We shall show the Latins that we are\nmembers of a one Holy Catholic Church, to which all nations belong,\nand which, by its unity, is to testify of the Unity of the Father and\nthe Son in one blessed Spirit. And so we shall vindicate our own\nposition as Englishmen; so the Church which we build on a foreign\nshore will prove that the countrymen whose bones lie on that shore\nhave not died in vain. They will have fallen in war that there might\nbe the sacrament of a true and eternal peace between the nations. And\nwhensoever the bread is eaten and the wine is drunk which testifies\nthat the Son of Man has given His body and His blood for the life of\nman, their thanksgivings will be joined with those of the Church\nmilitant, for the sacrifice and oblation that was once made for\nall,--their prayers will rise with those of their brethren to the\nFather of spirits--through Him who has ascended on high, leading\ncaptivity captive--that all tyranny, and oppressions, and wars, may\ncease for ever upon that earth which He has redeemed.\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XV.\n\nTHE FEAST OF TABERNACLES.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, Whit-Sunday, May 11, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN VII. 37-39.\n\n     _In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood\n     and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me\n     and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath\n     said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.\n     (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on\n     him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given;\n     because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)_\n\n\nIf the words in the last chapter--'_the Passover, a feast of the Jews,\nwas at hand_'--are genuine, it would seem as if Jesus did not go up to\nthat feast, or to the Pentecost which must have followed it. At all\nevents, nothing is recorded of any visits to Jerusalem; and the\ninference from the opening of this chapter clearly is, that '_He did\nnot walk in Jewry_' from the time that the Jews had sought to kill Him\nat the feast spoken of in the fifth chapter.\n\nI did not think it was necessary to make guesses respecting the name\nof that feast. What _this_ was the Apostle has told us. I have no\ndoubt that he wished us to remember why it was instituted; what it\nshould have meant to them who were celebrating it; what it did mean to\nHim whom they had sought to kill, because He had said, '_God was His\nFather_.' It said to the Jews who were living then,--'Your fathers\ndwelt in tabernacles in the wilderness; they had no houses which they\ncould transmit to their children, as you have. But the unseen God went\nin a tabernacle before them. That was the secret of their strength;\nthat bound them together as a nation, before they had conquered a\nsingle walled town of Canaan. Your houses are as little stable as\ntheirs were. If _your_ national strength and union consist in your\nwalled cities, the Romans in a year may lay them all waste. But the\nliving God dwells with you as He did with your fathers. The Romans\ncannot take that Presence from you. _You_ may forget it; _you_ may\ndisbelieve in it: then the tabernacle of God will not cease to be with\nmen,--but it will cease to be with _you_; _you_ will not be His\nstewards or witnesses any longer.'\n\nEven we can feel that there was this significance in the festival;\nevents which, we know, were soon to happen, reveal it to us, if the\nLaw and the Prophets do not. How much more than we can divine or dream\nof must He have seen in it! But the persons who were about them, His\nown kinsfolk, had no such thoughts. To them the feast was an unusual\ngathering of men together,--the occasion which one who professed to be\na prophet or leader of the people should take for showing Himself to\nthem. '_Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren\ntherefore said unto Him, Depart hence, and go into Jud\u00e6a, that thy\ndisciples also may see the works that thou doest._'\n\nLooking at this advice from the point of view which we commonly take,\nwe should speak of it as most sensible. We suppose that Christ wrought\nHis signs to convince the unbelieving Jews of His mission; what more\nstrange than that He should not take pains to display them? Looking\nat the advice from his point of view, St. John says, '_For neither did\nHis brethren believe in Him_.' They expected Him to make a startling\nexhibition of His power to the eye. They did not _believe_ in\nHim,--for faith rests upon that which is not seen; it confesses an\ninward, vital power.\n\nThe words, '_show thyself to the world_,' were doubtless used by these\nbrethren of Christ in a very broad, vulgar sense. Jerusalem was the\ngreat world to them; there all Jews met; there were the learned men\nwho decided what others were to think and believe; there were the\nrulers of the people. But they had used the right word. A Mantuan,\nspeaking of great Rome, and wondering what he should do there, would\nnot have been more correct in calling _that_ the world, than these\nGalil\u00e6ans were in giving the name to the city of David. The Italian\nmetropolis might, in one sense, be the centre of the world's\ngovernment and the world's wickedness; the C\u00e6sar might be the world's\ngod. But a society which was organized on the confession of a living\nand true God--which had retained its organization, and believed in\n_that_ instead of in Him--is more exactly the world, in the sense in\nwhich the world is opposed to God, than the Roman society, or any\nother existing at that time, could possibly be. Jesus, therefore,\nadopts the expression of His kinsmen in answering them. '_Then Jesus\nsaid unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.\nThe world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it,\nthat the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up\nyet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When He had\nsaid these words unto them, He abode still in Galilee._'\n\nThere is a greater sense of loneliness and oppression in this\nlanguage, than in any which we have met with thus far,--the loneliness\nwhich comes from being altogether misunderstood; the oppression which\ncomes from a work to be fulfilled, which those whom it was meant to\nbless would abhor. The Son of Man feels all the difference between\nthose '_whose time was alway ready_,'--who could go up to the feasts\nwhenever it pleased them, merely with the expectation of meeting\nfriends, and mixing in a crowd,--and Him who had the straitening\nconsciousness of a message which He must bear, of a baptism which He\nmust be baptized with. And the Son of God feels that He is to bear\nwitness of a Father to a world which was created by Him, and did not\nknow Him--which longed to rid itself of the sense of His\nPresence--which conceived of Him as a tyrant and an enemy. The world\ncannot hate those who fancy that the business of a divine Prophet is\nto persuade it to admire him and follow him. The world must hate those\nwho tell it that the Creator of all good and truth is close to\nit,--that it has no good apart from that Creator,--that its works will\nalways be evil while it is not owning Him. The world must hate Him in\nwhom the glory of the central and eternal Good and Truth shone forth\nas in an '_only-begotten Son, full of grace and truth_.'\n\n'_But when His brethren were gone up, then went He also up unto the\nfeast, not openly, but as it were in secret. Then the Jews sought Him\nat the feast, and said, Where is He? And there was much murmuring\namong the people concerning Him: for some said, He is a good man:\nothers said, Nay; but He deceiveth the people. Howbeit no man spake\nopenly of Him for fear of the Jews._'\n\nWe are carried at once into the bustle of the feast. Two or three\nlines give a clearer and livelier impression of the feelings of the\ncrowds who were assembled at it, than the longest description could\nhave given. They wonder if the Teacher from Galilee is there, or is\ncoming. There are various thoughts about Him. 'He has done many kind\nacts; surely He is a good man.' So says this man and that, as they\ntalk in the streets. 'Yes; but the multitude,--the ignorant people,\nwho are expecting a king,--what strange, dangerous notions He is\nfilling them with! Can you doubt that He is plotting to be their\nchief?' So others whisper, correcting the charitable judgments of\ntheir neighbours. But it is a hum of voices. There is a fear of\nsomething, the people do not well know of what. It is a fear of the\nJews, the Apostle says. Each fears the other. There is a concentrated\nJewish feeling in the Sanhedrim, among the rulers, which all tremble\nat. Till that has been pronounced--above all, while there is a\nsuspicion that it will come forth in condemnation--it is not wise for\nany to commit themselves. Brethren, do we not _know_ that this is a\ntrue story? Must it not have happened in Jerusalem then; for would it\nnot happen in London now?\n\n'_Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and\ntaught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters,\nhaving never learned? Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is\nnot mine, but His that sent me._'\n\nHe went up to the feast in secret; but He goes into the Temple openly.\nHe has as little wish to hide His doctrine as He has to display\nHimself. His testimony is to the world. It is borne at this time to a\nletter-worshipping world,--to a world which believed that certain\nletters had come long ago from God, but which utterly disbelieved\nthat God could hold converse with men in their day. Such people have\nlost all sense of the meaning of letters. They are no longer the\nblessed media of intercourse between soul and soul, witnesses of\nspiritual communication; they are dead things, to be committed to\nmemory, to be learnt most readily by those to whom they express least.\nHow natural their wonder was that He who spoke with authority,--He who\nuttered living words, and adopted all the living symbols of nature to\nillustrate them,--should know letters, when there was no evidence that\nHe had gone to any school! And though a scribe may have first spoken\nof His ignorance, it is quite probable that the crowd will quickly\nhave caught the phrase, and have manifested the same astonishment that\none of themselves should dare to teach them. The answer is in\naccordance with all that He has said before. There is a fountain\nwithin, from which His words flow. They are not His own. He speaks\nwhat He has heard. He is a Messenger from the Unseen; He is a\nMessenger to human beings. He can make Himself understood by them; He\ncan prove His commission to them. And this is the way He will prove\nit. '_If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine,\nwhether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh\nof himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh His glory that\nsent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. Did not\nMoses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye\nabout to kill me?_'\n\nI have taken these three verses together. I believe we lose the force\nof the first, if we separate it from the other two. Oftentimes we hear\nthe first clause of the 17th verse quoted without the second. By that\nviolent proceeding this meaning is extracted from our Lord's\nwords,--that if a man keeps God's commandments, he arrives at a\ncorrect apprehension of doctrinal propositions: an assertion which is\nsurely not always borne out by evidence, and which is likely to\nproduce quite as much self-righteousness as humility. Nay, it leads to\nfar more doubt than satisfaction. The question is raised, whether A,\nor B, or C keeps God's commandments best, and therefore which may be\ntrusted best as an expositor of doctrine. The unknown is to be\nascertained by the more unknown: for who, except the Judge of all, can\nanswer this question? Who would attempt to answer it that reverenced\nChrist's words,--'_Judge not, that ye be not judged_?'\n\nOur Lord most carefully guarded His sentence against this\nconstruction. Our translators have honestly and righteously preserved\nthe singular phrase,--'_If any man will_ (or wills to) _do His will_.'\nSupposing a man really recognises a will as higher than his own, and\nwishes, above all things, to be conformed to that will, then Christ's\nwords about _His_ coming to do a Father's will,--His whole doctrine,\nwhich is grounded upon His relation to His Father, and His fulfilment\nof His will,--must become by degrees intelligible to that man. He may\nbe confused about phrases, he may blunder in his statements, but he\nwill enter into the meaning of the teaching; there will be a continual\ninterpretation of it in his own thoughts and acts. For self-glorying,\nself-seeking, self-will is that which he will be continually dreading\nin himself, from which he will be continually flying in himself. He\nwill know that that has been and is the cause of all falsehood in his\nwords, his deeds, his thoughts; and therefore he will acknowledge\nthat One in whom there is no such self-seeking, self-glorying,\nself-willing, who was entirely seeking the glory of another, and doing\nthe will of another, must be true altogether, must be right\naltogether,--that there can be no falsehood, no wrong in Him.\n\nHere is our Lord's famous test, which has never been\nsuperseded,--which has never failed in the case of any generation or\nof any man. Jesus applies it at once to those who were about Him. They\nhad a law,--they boasted of a law. But did they bow to the law, as\nexpressing the will of One higher than themselves? No; it was a\ndocument which they could call _theirs_, which belonged to them--not a\npower which was to rule them; therefore this law which forbade killing\nwas to be the very excuse for killing. They went about to kill Jesus,\nout of love to the law. A more tremendous illustration of a\nprinciple--tremendous, because its force has not been spent in\neighteen centuries--cannot be conceived. It is possible to make God's\ncommandments an occasion for boasting over others, for self-glorying;\nand so it is possible to make God's law a perpetual barrier between us\nand all knowledge of His will--even a reason for resisting it in our\nacts.\n\nPerhaps the people at large were not aware that there had been any\nplot to kill Jesus at the former feast; for '_the multitude answered,\nThou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee_?' Without apparently\nheeding the interruption--addressing Himself to those who _did_ know\nwhat had happened at the Pool of Bethesda, and what charge had been\nbrought against Him for healing on the Sabbath-day--'_Jesus answered\nand said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses\ntherefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but\nof the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath-day circumcise a man. If a\nman on the sabbath-day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses\nshould not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man\nevery whit whole on the sabbath-day? Judge not according to the\nappearance, but judge righteous judgment._'\n\nHe was enforcing in these words what He had said at the other feast.\nThe feeling of the Jews about the Fourth Commandment illustrated their\nfeeling about the whole law. They were glorying in it as _their_\nday,--they were not receiving it as _God's_ day; and, therefore, they\nwere not perceiving the will of God in reference to that day. Nay,\nthey were contradicting the very customs which they were themselves\npractising. They believed they were obeying Moses when they\ncircumcised a man on the Sabbath-day; they believed they should be\nbreaking the law if they failed to do so. Circumcision was the sign of\na covenant which God had made with their fathers before He gave them\nthe law--a covenant of grace and blessing. And yet so much were they\nmisled by mere appearances, that they thought it an actual sin to make\na man whole on the Sabbath-day. The act which inflicted pain must\nplease God; that which gave health must offend Him!\n\nThere is more in the contradiction which He thus brought home to their\nminds than it is possible to express by any commentary upon His words.\nThis misunderstanding of the very meaning of all God's dealings with\nthem--this degradation of the law into a cruel letter--of the covenant\ninto the mere sign or form of the covenant--was that proof of inward\nradical atheism (nay, as we shall find in the next chapter, of\nsomething worse than atheism) which our Lord was convicting them of\nin His discourses, which they were hereafter to manifest by the\nwickedest deeds that had ever been done upon the earth. But, besides\nthis witness against them, He was giving a lesson to all ages and to\nall teachers respecting the duty and the method of piercing through\nthe outward shell of an institution into the principle which is\nembodied in it--respecting the danger and the sin of omitting to do\nthis through any affected reverence for the institution itself. In the\ntwo pregnant instances of the Sabbath-day and of circumcision, He\nshowed that if, in any case whatever, we judge according to\nappearances, instead of seeking for the meaning and purport of the\ndivine signs, we shall be likely to repeat the sin of the Jews, and to\ndeny God when we fancy we are honouring Him most.\n\n'_Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this He whom they seek\nto kill? But, lo, He speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto Him.\nDo the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we\nknow this man whence He is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth\nwhence He is._'\n\nThese inhabitants of Jerusalem were likely to know more of the anger\nwhich Jesus had provoked by His cure, than the mere multitude which\nwas collected from all quarters. They knew that their rulers had\nsought to kill Him. Their wonder was, that He should be allowed to go\nat large, and should show so little fear of any mischiefs that might\nbefal Him. They thought that some change must have taken place in the\nsentiments of the Sanhedrim. Could they have discovered that He was\nnot an impostor and blasphemer--that He was the very King they were\nlooking for? Surely that was impossible. They knew exactly from whence\nthis Man had sprung, where He dwelt, who were His kindred; but who\ncould declare the generation of the Christ? When He came, no one would\nbe able to say from what region He came. There would be a mystery\nabout Him, which would sever Him from all other beings.\n\nThere was a mixture of error and truth in this thought. Jesus\ndistinguished them in the following words:--'_Then cried Jesus in the\ntemple as He taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am:\nand I am not come of myself, but He that sent me is true, whom ye know\nnot. But I know Him: for I am from Him, and He hath sent me._' There\nwas, in one sense, no mystery about Him; all was simple, natural,\nopen. He affected no reserve; He disclaimed no human relationships. He\nwalked with fishermen; He did not avoid the company of rulers; He ate\nand drank with publicans or with Pharisees. The absence of strangeness\nand singularity was what was most characteristic of Him. He was like\nall other men; He did nothing to raise Himself above them. Where,\nthen, was the mystery? He was not come of Himself. That God who had\ndwelt in the Tabernacle, who had guided them through the\nwilderness--that God who, they said, dwelt in that Temple, whom they\nwere celebrating in that feast--was with Him, was speaking by Him. Of\nHim He was bearing witness. They did not know that Being, because He\nwas true. Their falsehood kept them from Him; there was no sympathy\nbetween them. But He knew Him; He was from Him; His truth He was come\nto show forth.\n\nThere was something in these words very like those which had called\nforth their first indignation against them--'_My Father worketh, and I\nwork_.' Perhaps they thought He was again speaking blasphemy; perhaps\nthey were only indignant at His discovery of their untruth. At all\nevents, we are told they sought to take Him. Some out of the crowd,\nit would appear--not officials, for they are spoken of afterwards--gave\nsigns of an intention to seize Him; '_but no man laid hands on Him,\nbecause His hour was not yet come_.' The Apostle keeps us in mind that\nan hour was to come when they would have their way; and that, when it\ndid come, the will of the Lord of all would be more fully manifested\nthan it was now in restraining them.\n\n'_And many of the people believed on Him, and said, When Christ\ncometh, will He do more miracles than these which this man hath done?\nThe Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning\nHim; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take\nHim._'\n\nThe desire to treat Jesus with violence seems to have been confined to\na few. But what are we to think of those many who are said to have\nbelieved on Him? What kind of belief was it? I do not know that we can\nanswer any question of this kind, except as St. John answers it. He\ncalls the sentiment of these people _belief_. We have a right,\ntherefore, to assume that a spiritual power was acting on their minds,\nand that they confessed it. The visible signs spoke to them of that\nwhich was invisible. On the other hand, we are told that they talked\nof the number of signs which the Christ might be expected to work.\nThis was the gossip of men upon whom His words had taken no mighty or\nsecure hold. Those who can deliberate how much evidence ought to\nconvince them, have never yet surrendered themselves to the full force\nof a conviction. But the chief priests and Pharisees were not the\nleast competent to judge what were deep and what were superficial\nimpressions. All murmurs and questionings sounded dangerous; they\nought to be suppressed, if it were possible We have heard of their\nplotting against Jesus; but it is the first time that we have been\ntold of any messengers being sent formally from the Sanhedrim to take\nHim. He appears to have received it as the foretaste of that\napprehension which would take place at another feast; for--'_Then said\nJesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto\nHim that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I\nam, thither ye cannot come._' I connect these words with the\nappearance of the messengers; I look upon them, therefore, as a\nprophecy of His death. But the further we read, the more we shall find\nthat the language in which He speaks in this Gospel of His departure\nout of the world, is at least as applicable to His ascension as to His\npassion. His going is always a return. He is here for a little while;\nthen He must be with Him from whom He came. I beseech you, do not pass\nover these expressions as if they were commonplaces, or as if you were\nsure you understood them. They are as difficult to us who keep the\nfestival of the Ascension every year--who say every day, '_I believe\nthat Jesus ascended on high_'--as they were to those who heard them\nfirst. Nay, unless we seize strongly the first words of this\nGospel--unless we believe that the '_Word was with God, and was God_,'\nand that Jesus was the '_Word made flesh_'--I believe they may be\noften more difficult; that our familiarity with the mere name and\nnotion of an ascent into heaven may make us less able to feel than\nthey were, '_that no man hath ascended into heaven save He which came\ndown from heaven, even the Son of Man that is in heaven_.'\n\nThe guesses of the Jews respecting our Lord's meaning, when He said\nthey should seek Him but not find Him, were wide of the mark--were as\noutward and material as we should expect them to be. Yet there is in\nthem one of those curious anticipations of the truth--one of those\nunconscious prophecies which sometimes occur in the language of the\nmost thoughtless or evil men.\n\n'_Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will He go, that we\nshall not find Him? will He go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles,\nand teach the Gentiles? What manner of saying is this that He said, Ye\nshall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye\ncannot come?_'\n\nHe had broken down the barriers between different classes of\nIsraelites--between Galil\u00e6ans, Samaritans, and Jews. Why might not He\ncarry His designs further? Why might He not go to the dispersed tribes\nin heathen lands? Why might He not preach to the heathens themselves?\nThey were right: this would be the effect of His going away. This was\na part, a great part, of what He meant by it. And it is not till we\nrealize _this_ sense of the words--till we regard the Ascension as the\nredemption and glorification of Humanity at the right hand of God, and\ntherefore as the necessary step to a Gospel which should include the\ndispersed among the Gentiles, and the Gentiles themselves--that we\nperceive how it bears upon that great passage which I took as the text\nof this sermon:--'_In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus\nstood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and\ndrink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his\nbelly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake He of the\nSpirit, which they that believe on Him should receive: for the Holy\nGhost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified._)'\n\nThe passage through the wilderness was commemorated by the whole of\nthis festival. This great day of it would seem to have been\nespecially devoted to the striking of the rock, and perhaps to the\ncelebration of those wells by which the thirst of the pilgrims was\nquenched. That same truth, therefore, which had been taught the woman\nof Samaria, as she brought her own single pitcher to Jacob's well,\ncould here be drawn out of the history of the nation. A whole host had\ncried for water. God had told His servant, the shepherd of the people,\nwhere it was to be found. God had shown them that He causes the\nsprings to flow from the hills; that He cared for the cattle who drank\nof them; that He cared more for the wants of the creatures whom He had\nmade in His image, and redeemed from the oppressor.\n\nProphets and holy men had discovered--all men had in some measure\ndiscovered--that there are cravings which no fountains on earth can\nsatisfy. The Jewish nation existed to declare that in God Himself is\nthe fountain of life; that the spirit can only find its life in Him.\nJohn the Baptist had said that He who had been before Him, and was\ncoming after Him, would baptize with the Holy Spirit. And now He who\nhad declared that He was sent from the Father, and was a short time\nwith them, and would return to Him, declares that whoever believed on\nHim should not only be satisfied out of the fulness of God Himself,\nbut '_that from him should flow rivers of living water_;' that he\nshould receive only to give; that his blessing should be to\ncommunicate, because that is the blessing of the divine nature, of\nwhich he is admitted to participate.\n\nHad these words stood by themselves, we might interpret them as they\nare so often interpreted of the individual believer. We might\nsay,--'These are the choice gifts, the peculiar treasures, which\nChrist bestows upon His most favoured servants,--upon them whose\nfaith is the most simple and the most full.' There is a true, a most\nimportant, meaning in such language; and we should have no right to\ncomplain of any one who deduced it, and it alone, from our Lord's\ndiscourse at the Tabernacle, if His own beloved disciple had not gone\nout of his way to point out another signification of that discourse,\nnot inconsistent with this, but certainly far wider and deeper, and, I\nconceive, most necessary to save this from a perilous abuse. When he\ntells us that He spoke this of the Spirit, '_which was not yet given,\nbecause that Jesus was not yet glorified_,' he evidently connects the\nfulfilment of the promise with one of the acts which Christ was to do\nfor mankind. The Spirit had before spoken by the Prophets; when He was\nexalted on high, '_the tabernacle of God was indeed to be with men,\nand He was to dwell among them, and to be their Father, and they were\nto be His children_.' No doubt a man must have faith in Jesus before\nrivers of living water can flow from him which shall bless human\nbeings and make the world fruitful. But it must be faith in Him as the\nHead of man, as the Redeemer of the race; it must be faith which\nraises the man above self-seeking and self-glorying; it must be faith\nthat refers its own origin to this very Spirit, which He gives because\nHe is glorified.\n\nSuch a faith, Jesus taught the Jews at the feast of Tabernacles, was\nimplied in those services and thanksgivings in which they were\nengaged. If they understood the dealings of God with their fathers,\nthis was the blessing to which they must look forward; if they were\ncontent with less, all that had been given them would be taken from\nthem. Such a faith, brethren, is for us who are keeping another feast\nto-day. Call that the Christian Pentecost, if you will; but it\nsubstantiates _this_ promise. Christ ascended on high; Christ poured\nout His Spirit upon fishermen and tent-makers. Out of them flowed\nrivers of living water that have made the earth glad. A family\ngathered out of all kindreds and nations was declared to be the\nTabernacle of God, in which He would dwell. So Whitsuntide testifies.\nBut, oh! if it should be kept by us as the Tabernacle feast was kept\nby the Jews; if there should be the same self-seeking, hardness,\nAtheism, in us, as there was in them; what can we expect but that\nthese words will be spoken to our nation and to the whole\nChurch?--'_Yet a little while I am with you, and then I go away. And\nye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and whither I go, ye cannot\ncome._'\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XVI.\n\nTHE TRUE WITNESS OF CHRIST.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, Trinity Sunday, May 18, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN VIII. 29.\n\n_And He that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone;\nfor I do always those things that please Him._\n\n\nThe belief which was expressed in the question,--'_When Christ cometh,\nwill He do more miracles than this man doeth?_' appeared not to be a\nvery stable belief. The effect of the words which Jesus spoke on the\nlast day of the feast must have been greater, if not more lasting.\n'_Many of the people_ (the crowd) _therefore, when they heard this\nsaying_ (these words), _said, This is the Prophet; others said, This\nis the Christ_.' There was no sign, no outward indication of His\npower. There was an appeal to a thirst in men's spirits; there was a\npromise that those spirits should drink, and that living waters should\nflow from them. Those who discovered _the_ Prophet--the representative\nof all prophets--in the one who spoke thus to their hearts, were\nconfessing a Divine and living Word. Those who discovered the Christ\nin the person who made this promise had learnt, by some means or\nother, that the Christ is He who is anointed with the Spirit that He\nmay bestow the Spirit.\n\n'_But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the\nscripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of\nthe town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among\nthe people because of Him._' As I hinted before, the occurrence of\nthis schism is no unimportant incident in St. John's Gospel. Much of\nthe meaning of the narrative turns upon the question which produced\nit. Was the Christ to prove His right to the homage of His subjects by\nestablishing His lineal descent from David, by showing that He was\nborn in the place from which Micah had intimated that the Shepherd of\nIsrael would come? Or was He at once to address Himself to the\nconscience of human beings? Was He to claim a sovereignty over them by\nan elder title? Were Scribes and Pharisees to bow down when they had\nsatisfied their understandings, by spelling over texts, that Jesus\npossessed certain outward marks and tokens which were described in\nthose texts? Or were publicans and sinners to hear that there was One\nwho could give them the bread and water of life; that they might own\nHim, and eat, and drink, and live? Some will say that the first three\nEvangelists maintain the one doctrine, the fourth Gospel the other. To\nme it seems that St. Matthew and St. Luke, who give our Lord's\ngenealogies from Abraham or from Adam, rest as little upon those\ngenealogies as St. Mark or St. John, in whom they are not found; that\nall alike appeal to a different kind of evidence from this,--to that\nevidence which Pharisees and Scribes could not understand, '_because\nthey had not repented at the preaching of John_,'--because they had\nnot come to that living Lord, of whom the Scriptures testified, but\n'_thought they had life in them_.' But I do not doubt that in St.\nJohn's day, Christians had begun to dwell on the evidence of\ngenealogies and of outward marvels, as the Jews had dwelt upon them;\nthat this was a time of infinite peril to those Christians, and to the\nsociety of which they were members; that it was an especial function\nof the beloved disciple to show, not only that the craving for this\nevidence was not healthy, but that it was a principal cause of the\nrejection of Jesus by the people of God's ancient covenant.\n\nThis truth is strongly brought out in the last verses of the 7th\nchapter.\n\n'_And some of them would have taken Him; but no man laid hands on Him.\nThen came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they\nsaid unto them, Why have ye not brought Him? The officers answered,\nNever man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are\nye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed\non Him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. Nicodemus\nsaith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,)\nDoth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he\ndoeth? They answered and said unto Him, Art thou also of Galilee?\nSearch, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. And every man\nwent unto his own house._'\n\nAll here is wonderfully living and characteristic. The faint effort of\nthe officers to execute the command of their masters; the awe which\nheld them back; their simple confession of the power which they found\nin the words of Jesus; the surprise of the Sanhedrim that the\ninfection should have reached even their servants; their terror lest\nthere might be traitors in the camp,--lest any Pharisee or lawyer\n(probably some eyes were turned on Nicodemus) should have been\ncarried away by the impulse to which the crowd, naturally enough, had\nyielded; their scorn of the people, as wretched, 'accursed,' men\nutterly ignorant of the law;--who does not feel as if he were present\nin that convocation of doctors?--as if he were looking at their\nperplexed and angry faces?--as if he were hearing their contemptuous\nwords? But the debate turns ultimately on the impossibility of a\nGalil\u00e6an Christ. Nicodemus timidly suggests that those who boast of\nthe law, and call the people cursed for not knowing it, should adhere\nto the law in their treatment of an accused person. He is at once put\ndown by the demand,--'_Art thou of Galilee?_' All arguments of\nconscience, even the formalities of law,--so much more precious than\nsuch arguments,--are nothing, unless, after searching and looking, he\ncan find that a prophet could come out of Galilee. Whether he did\nsearch and look we are not told; but we are told that he found a\nprophet in the tomb of Joseph, if he failed to satisfy himself about\nHis coming from Nazareth.\n\nThen follows the story of the woman taken in adultery. That story has\napproved itself to the conscience of Christendom. I feel it to be most\ndear and venerable. Some of the Fathers disliked the moral of it, and\ntherefore were glad to believe it not genuine. I wish I were as sure\nthat their conclusion was wrong, as that their reason for wishing the\nstory away was unsound. But impartial critics seem to be agreed that\nthere is not sufficient justification for retaining it, at least in\nthis place. I dare not dispute their authority on a question\nrespecting the weight and value of MSS. I dare not allow affection for\nthe passage to interfere when truth is at stake. Thoughtful students\nmaintain that the story belongs to this Gospel, though they cannot\ntell to what part of the book it should be transferred. Were it a\nquestion of internal evidence simply, I should say that it does not\nseem to me an interpolated fragment _here_; that it supplies a link\nbetween thoughts which otherwise it is less easy to connect. If the\nstory is withdrawn, the 8th chapter opens with the words,--'_Then\nspake Jesus again, I am the Light of the world: he that followeth me\nshall not walk in darkness_.' Perhaps I may be deceived by habit and\nold association; but I feel as if these words explained how it was\nthat, when Christ said, '_Let him that is without sin cast the first\nstone_,' the '_accusers went out one by one_.' I see in them also an\nanswer to the charge that He was tolerating sin when He said, '_Go,\nand sin no more_.' They show that the sharpest judgment upon sin is\nexercised by Him who delivers from it. And the story appears to unite\nthat exposure of the law-worshippers--who punished breakers of the\nlaw, but did not keep the law--which we found in the last chapter,\nwith the revelation of a Will, working in us that we may keep the law\nin the fullest sense of it, which we shall find in this. Nevertheless,\nI am afraid of using these pleas. If the story is genuine, it will\ndefend itself; if not, the divine Oracles can do without it. The more\nsacred we consider them, the more we must be sure that God would have\nus receive them in purity, and that He will take better care of them\nthan we can.\n\nWhatever be the introduction to the words, '_I am the Light of the\nworld: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness_,' we perceive\nat once that they are in harmony with all that we have been reading in\nSt. John. But we ought also to perceive that they are not mere\nrepetitions of the sentences in the opening of the Gospel, and in the\nthird chapter. The Light of the world comes forth here detecting,\nindeed, and manifesting the darkness in each man, but with a promise\nand assurance that it will prove itself mightier than the darkness.\nThe Word made flesh says to the man who sees nothing but mists all\naround him, 'I can bring you into the clear sunshine.' He says to the\nman whose breath is stifled, whose limbs have suffered as much from\nthe atmosphere he has dwelt in as his eyes, 'I am the Light of\nLife'--that which illuminates, quickens. There is certainly a progress\nand an order in all our Lord's teachings, whether we can trace it or\nnot. The words on the last day of the feast, which could not be\nfulfilled till Christ was glorified, seem to make the conversation\nupon which we are now entering necessary. We want to know how the\nWater of Life is connected with the Light of Life; we want to know\nwhence the Light and the Life are both derived. The answer of the\nPharisees to our Lord's words--'_Thou bearest record of thyself; thy\nrecord is not true_'--leads us on in this path of discovery.\n\nThis answer was no doubt suggested by a recollection of that which He\nhad said Himself at the former feast (John v. 31). They thought they\nwere confuting Him out of His own mouth; for surely to call Himself\nthe Light of the world was as great a pretension as to call Himself\nthe Christ. Could His own testimony be accepted for one assertion more\nthan for the other? It was an all-important inquiry. The more\nearnestly the Pharisees pursued it--the more determined they were not\nto be content with any half solution of it--the better. If they had\nbeen in earnest, they would have been compelled to ask themselves--'And\nwhat evidence _can_ we have that will satisfy us whether such a claim\nas this is well-founded or not? What _can_ convince us whether one\nwho says he is our Light, and the Light of the world, is uttering the\nmost profound truth, or the most portentous falsehood?' They would\nthen have been driven to plain facts. They must have considered how\nthe sun proves itself to be a light to any man, or a light to all men;\nand what comfort there would be in learning from books that that is\nthe function which it ought to perform, the blessing which men ought\nto receive from it. They were not in earnest; they would not grapple\nwith facts. Facts were for that cursed people which did not know the\nlaw. What had doctors to do with such common things as the sun? What\nhad the sun to do with the letters which they copied out? Something,\nperhaps, with the letter of that 19th Psalm, which begins with the\nlight in the firmament, and ends with the law that enlightens the\nheart. But that was metaphorical language, poetical language--very\nbeautiful, and sacred, and divine--but to be treated as if it meant\nnothing.\n\nTo this test, however, our Lord, who preached a Gospel to men, was\nbringing His own assertions, His own character, His own office. He did\nnot, like those Prophets and Christs who bore witness of themselves,\nproduce evidence to show how much He was above human beings. He did\nnot, like the doctors of the law, judge and condemn. But He came\nspeaking of a Father from whom He had proceeded, and to whom He was\nreturning. He came speaking to men's consciences, making them judges\nof themselves. Either he had come from a Father, or He had not. If He\nhad, that Father would bear witness of Him; that Father would show\nwhether He knew Him, and was testifying truly of Him. It was not Jesus\nof Nazareth saying, 'I am the Christ;' it was a Father speaking of a\nSon, a Son of a Father, to beings who could not live without either. I\nhave translated, as nearly as my poor language can, His mighty words.\nRead them and meditate upon them till you find depths in them of which\nI have only caught the faintest glimpse.\n\n'_The Pharisees therefore said unto Him, Thou bearest record of\nthyself; thy record is not true. Jesus answered and said unto them,\nThough I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know\nwhence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and\nwhither I go. Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I\njudge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father\nthat sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of\ntwo men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father\nthat sent me beareth witness of me._'\n\nEverything, you will perceive, turns upon this relation of a Son to a\nFather--upon their eternal distinctness, upon their eternal unity. The\nword '_Father_' was now, as before, that which at once confused the\nJews, and filled them with horror. '_They said therefore to Him, Where\nis thy Father?_' 'What dost Thou mean? Dost Thou mean that the God\nthere in those heavens is Thy Father?' No! Surely the _Jupiter\ntonans_, whom they worshipped under the name of the Jehovah the God of\nAbraham, was _not_ the Father of whom He spake. He said therefore,\n'_Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye would have\nknown my Father also_.' It was a fuller, bolder assertion than was\ncontained in the words, '_My Father worketh, and I work_.' It affirmed\nthat they could know the Father of all in a Man; that they could not\nknow Him except in a man. This was the answer to their '_Where?_' This\noverthrew their notion of Godhead--the frightful intellectual idol to\nwhich they were bowing down. But if He had spoken blasphemy before, He\nhad spoken it more clearly and terribly now. St. John felt this; for\nhe thinks it necessary to explain why Jesus was not stoned for using\nsuch language:--'_These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as He\ntaught in the temple: and no man laid hands on Him; for His hour was\nnot yet come_.'\n\nThen He repeats the words which He spoke before at the feast, but with\nan addition which deepens their force. '_Then said Jesus again unto\nthem, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins:\nwhither I go, ye cannot come._'\n\nHe would go away from them, and they could not follow Him. But how is\nthat departure and that incapacity connected with their dying in sin?\nI believe the sense will become clearer as we read on in the chapter;\nbut we shall not understand what follows, if we leave this question\nunconsidered. Throughout He has been teaching that the coming to Him\nwith the feet, that the seeing Him with the eyes, was not that coming\nand that seeing which could do them any good, which could make them\ntruer men. That belief which is not dependent upon sight--that belief\nwhich was in Him as the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever--that\nbelief which would be in Him when He had gone away from the\nworld--that, and that only, would raise them above themselves, would\nunite them to the Father, would make them partakers of His true and\neternal life. Sin, the separation from God, must be the state of their\nspirits,--those spirits must gravitate to earth, and claim their\nportion with the flesh,--unless they could look upwards, and assert\ntheir share in their Lord's ascension, in His victory over the grave\nand hell.\n\nThe next verses will show, I think, that this is the force of the one\nupon which I have been commenting.\n\n'_Then said the Jews, Will He kill Himself? because He saith, Whither\nI go, ye cannot come. And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am\nfrom above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said\ntherefore unto you, That ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe\nnot that I am He, ye shall die in your sins._'\n\nThe Jews did not now suppose that He was going to the dispersed among\nthe Gentiles. They perceived that His words pointed to a departure out\nof the world. 'But how could He know that He was going to leave it?\nWould He take the matter into His own hands? Did He mean that\ndisappointment and anger at their rejection of Him would drive Him to\nself-murder?' The suggestion was not a serious one; merely the mock of\nsome priest, thrown out for the sake of degrading Him in the minds of\nthe people. Our Lord's words are not an answer to it, but an\nexposition of the sentence which had provoked it, and of the cause\nwhich had made that sentence unintelligible to them. They _could_ only\nthink of leaving the world as a _descent_, by one means or another,\ninto the grave. The idea of an _ascent_, of a return of a spirit to\nits proper home, was utterly strange to them. This was a proof that\nthey needed one to come from above, that they might be delivered from\ntheir downward, earthbound nature. This was a proof that they needed\none who was not of this world to come, who might lift them above it;\nthat they, too, might find their way to their Father's house. If they\nwould not believe in Him as such a Messenger from the Father, as such\na deliverer from the world, they must become the victims of sin, the\nheirs of death.\n\n'_They said therefore to Him, Who art thou?_' 'What kind of being dost\nthou claim to be, who pronouncest judgment upon us,--who tellest us\nthat we are to die in our sins?' There is a mixture, it seems to me,\nof indignation and of curiosity in the question. They want Him to tell\nthem what He is, and what His right is to censure them and prophesy\ndeath to them. The reply, according to our translators, was, '_The\nsame which I said unto you from the beginning_.' I do not suppose they\nwere satisfied with this rendering themselves, or that any one ever\nhas been. \u039b\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd is more properly to speak than to say. \u039b\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6 must\nbe the present tense, not the past. Yet I do not think we can better\ntheir version by giving, as some have done, a mystical force to the\nwords \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd; as if that was a name which Christ claimed for\nHimself. Some of the Gnostics, and some of the Fathers, no doubt,\nsupposed that Christ is called The Beginning in the first chapter of\nthis Gospel, as He is, undoubtedly, in the first chapter of the\nApocalypse. But, were that so, I do not see what room there would be\nfor this meaning here, or how the sentence could be construed if we\nintroduced it. If we follow the order of the words, we may perhaps\npreserve the grammar of the sentence, and its connexion with the\nverses which follow, without deviating very widely from the\nsignification which it conveyed to the minds of King James's\ntranslators. '_That in the beginning of which I am speaking to you. I\nhave many things to speak and to judge concerning you. But He that\nsent me is true; and the things which I have heard from Him, those I\nspeak to the world._' The answer may be either a direct one to the\nquestion, '_Who art thou?_' 'I have always been that Light of the\nworld of which I am speaking now;' or the emphasis may be on the word\n'_speak_.' 'I am not speaking to you any different words from those\nwhich I have been always speaking to you. I am not pronouncing any\njudgment upon you which you have not heard pronounced in your\nconsciences long ago. There are many dark spots in those consciences\nwhich I must bring to light; many harder speeches still which you must\nhear from me. I am come from a true Being; from Him who is true. I\nspeak to the world that which I know to be His mind and will.' 'They\ndid not understand,' says the Apostle, (this was their misery,) 'that\nit was the mind and will of a Father He was proclaiming to them; that\nit was from Him who loved them they were shrinking and turning away.'\n\n'_They understood not that He spake to them of the Father. Then said\nJesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, then shall ye\nknow that I am He, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father\nhath taught me, I speak these things._'\n\nAs He speaks of _their_ lifting up the Son of Man, it is clear that He\nmeans here what He meant in the conversation with Nicodemus. '_As\nMoses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so was the Son of Man\nto be lifted up._' They would be the means of raising Him to that\nthrone. They would place Him on that cross which should declare in\nletters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, 'This is the King!' But as He\nadds _then ye shall know_, it is clear also that He must allude to the\nevents which would succeed the crucifixion, and not to it merely. The\ncross would say, 'This is the Son of Man; one with all men.' The\nresurrection and ascension would say, 'This is the Son of God; one\nwith the Father.' The Cross would afterwards be felt to gather the\nwhole message into itself, to be the witness of the love of the\nFather to the world; of the eternal union of the Son with the Father;\nof the might of that Spirit which dwells in them, and proceeds from\nthem, to bind all things into one. But what I said before applies also\nhere. When Christ speaks of His departure from the world, the idea of\nascension, of a return to the glory which He had with the Father\nbefore the worlds were, is always coming forth through the darkness of\nthe passion.\n\nAnd even that idea is not sufficient, unless this be added to\nit:--'_And He that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me\nalone; for I do always those things that please Him_.'\n\nHis going to the Father is not enough without the assurance of His\ncontinual abiding in the Father. No change of place or circumstance,\nno progress in the world's history, no development of the Divine\npurpose, must interfere with the calm belief of a unity of the Father\nand the Son in the Spirit, which was in the beginning, is now, and\never shall be, world without end.\n\nIt is of this unity, brethren, that this day testifies; which is\ntherefore a more wonderful and glorious day than that which testifies\nof the ascension of the Son to the right hand of the Father, or of the\ndescent of the Spirit to fill the earth and the hearts of men with\nrivers of living water. But we can know little of the depth and\nsweetness of this day, if we forget how Christ revealed the mystery of\nit; how He both said and proved that to know Him is to know the\nFather! For that blessed doctrine, upon which Fathers and Reformers\nlived and died, we are fast substituting one which seems to put the\nSon at an infinite distance from the Father; which seems to make the\nwill of the Son not the revelation of the Father's will, but the\ncontrast to it. Nay, our orthodoxy--so strangely like what would have\nbeen called heresy in other days--is even daring to affirm that we may\nbelieve anything dark or malignant respecting the character of the\nFather, if only _we_ gather from the Bible that that is its testimony\nconcerning Him. Frightful contradiction! to set up a book against Him\nwhom we believe to be its author! to say that a book, which is from\nfirst to last a denunciation of false and cruel gods, may possibly\nproclaim to us a false and cruel God, and that we should be bound to\naccept its message if it did! Gracious Father, deliver thy Church from\ndoctrines which teach us that we are not to hallow thy name above all\nbooks and letters which thou in thy mercy hast bestowed upon us!\nDeliver us from those who teach us that we can see Thee anywhere\nexcept in thy Only-begotten Son; or that, if Thou art revealed in Him,\nThou canst be anything but Light without darkness, Truth without\nfalsehood, Love without cruelty. Teach us to hate all counterfeits of\nThee; all notions of Thee which are derived from our darkness, our\nfalsehood, our cruelty. Teach us to worship the Eternal Trinity, the\nOne God of perfect charity blessed for ever. AMEN.\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XVII.\n\nTHE TWO FATHERS.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, First Sunday after Trinity, May 25, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN VIII. 43.\n\n_Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my\nword._\n\n\nThose words of which I spoke to you last Sunday seem to have taken a\nsudden hold of some who listened to them. '_While He was speaking\nthese things, many believed on Him._' When we recollect what those\nwords were, we may at first wonder at this impression. He spoke of\n'_the Father being always with Him; of His doing always those things\nwhich pleased the Father_.' Was not His discourse concerning a Father\nthat which provoked His hearers most; that which shocked some of them\nmost? Undoubtedly. And yet, if He spoke truly, if He did come to bear\nwitness of a Father, if the Father did bear witness of Him, this must\nhave been the discourse which _attracted_ His hearers most--which had\nmost power over them. The revelation of a man who was always in the\npresence of God, who delighted in Him, in whom He delighted, was the\nrevelation which the heart and conscience of every man was waiting\nfor. The heart and conscience might be closed against it by sensual\nindulgence, still more by spiritual pride; but it could break through\nboth; it could prove itself true by overcoming both.\n\nIn this case, then, as in like cases which have occurred before, I\nshould be very loth to explain away St. John's words,--to criticise\nthe quality of the faith which he attributes to these hearers of our\nLord. If we say, as some people would, that it was mere head faith, I\ndo not think we shall make our own minds clearer; I am sure we shall\nbe in great danger of denying the facts which the Apostle reports to\nus. Our Lord's words did not appeal to the understanding; they were\nnot argumentative; we cannot account for their influence by any\nprocesses of logic. So far as one can judge from a very simple\nstatement, they went straight to the heart; the faith which they\ncalled forth was a faith of the heart.\n\nDoes it appear, then, that the men who thus believed in Christ were\nsatisfactory to Him? Let us follow the narrative. It will tell us all\nupon that subject that we need to know.\n\n'_Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, If ye continue\nin my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the\ntruth, and the truth shall make you free._'\n\nThis expression, '_If ye continue or abide in my word_,' denotes very\nclearly, I think, that they had not merely listened to a _saying_\nwhich went forth from His lips, and been affected by it; that they had\nconfessed the force of a _word_, which entered into them as light\nenters into the eye, as heat makes itself felt through the body. And\nif they traced this word to its source; if they acknowledged the\nliving Word from whom it flowed; if they turned to Him as to one who\nwas near them and with them,--not for a moment, but always; if they\ntrusted in Him, and not in themselves; then they should be--what?\nsaints? divines? doctors? No; but what is much better than any of the\nthree,--what all the three should wish to be raised into,--_disciples_.\nThey will then be learners, learners sitting continually at the feet of\nthe true Teacher.\n\nAnd this shall be the result of that daily, hourly learning, of that\nchange from the condition of men who know everything to the condition\nof men who know nothing. '_They shall know the_ TRUTH.' The Word shall\nguide them, counsel them, encourage them, scourge them. He shall\nprepare them to see that which is. He shall lead them away from\nfleeting shadows to the eternal Substance, to Him who changes not.\nHere is a promise, the highest that the highest Being can make to man;\nfor it is the promise of sharing His own nature, of dwelling with Him\nand in Him. And there is another appended to it, which, though not\ngreater in itself, comes nearer to human experience; commends itself\nmore directly to our sense of oppression and misery. '_The truth shall\nmake you free._' Truth and liberty are inseparable companions; neither\ncan live long apart from the other. The bondage to appearances, the\nbondage to death, the bondage to the unseen horrors which haunt the\nconscience,--how shall this be broken? Our Lord says, '_The truth\nshall make you free_.' 'If you abide in my word,--if you adhere to me\nas the Lord of your spirit, you shall come to know Him who is truth,\nand He shall break every chain from your neck; He shall give you the\nfreedom of the sons of God.'\n\nHowever unintelligible His other words may have been to them, surely\nthis magnificent promise will have looked most inviting to the Jews;\nto those, at least, of them who were not vehemently prepossessed\nagainst the speaker, who did not count Him an impostor. The next\nsentence seems to say that it was not so. '_They answered Him, We be\nAbraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou,\nYe shall be made free?_' Who were they who said this? We should\ncertainly gather from the previous passage,--'_those Jews who had\nbelieved on Him_.' At any rate, St. John takes no pains to distinguish\nthem from the rest. If they were not the only objectors to our Lord's\nwords, they must have joined in the objection. There is deep\ninstruction in the thought that they did. The voice of Jesus had\nreached them. It had not merely floated about them, but had penetrated\nwithin them. He stood before them who did always the things that\npleased His Father. The first sense of having discovered the Divine\nMan must have been one of delight,--the greatest, keenest delight\nwhich they had ever experienced. Then this Divine Man points upwards\nto a truth in which He Himself is believing and resting. He says He\ncan make them inheritors of that. But at the same moment He looks down\ninto them. He detects a hollowness within them,--a quailing at the\nthought of this truth,--a secret dislike of it--a preference for that\nwhich is hostile to it. They are conscious of a chill. The keen\npleasure has been succeeded by a pain as keen. The hope which He holds\nout to them they cannot grasp. The evil which He has laid bare is near\nand present. Their pride is awakened; they think of the glory of their\ndescent; they cannot bear to be spoken of as slaves.\n\nWe often treat their words as a mere outrageous contradiction of fact.\nThey had been in bondage, we say, to Babylonians and Persians; they\n_were_ in bondage to the Romans; they complained of the yoke; it was\nfretting them continually. How monstrous to say, 'We have never been\nin bondage!' I believe that in speaking so we are not doing them\njustice, and that we are likely to miss the force of our Lord's answer\nto them. A modern Roman, in the sight of French or Austrian bayonets,\nmight deny indignantly that he was a slave. He might say, 'I belong to\nthe city which has ruled the world. I am one of those citizens whom it\nwas a shame and wickedness to beat with rods. How dare you speak to me\nas if I were like an American Negro, liable to be bought and sold, at\nthe mercy of an owner or a driver?' We should not be astonished, I\nthink, at such language. We should understand it, and not feel\nourselves justified in replying to it by referring to a foreign\ntyranny, which may be all the more galling to him because he loathes\nthe name of bondsman. And there was another sense in which a Jew might\naffirm that he, being a son of Abraham, had never been in bondage. As\nour Lord had spoken of truth, He might think of his privilege not to\nbe the servant of any false god. \u03a4\u03af\u03bd\u03b9 may serve for this sense as well\nas for the other. He would exclaim indignantly, 'The truth shall make\nus free? To what abomination,--to what lying idol have we ever yielded\nourselves?'\n\nOur Lord does not complain of them for affixing too strong a meaning\nto the word bondage. He does not appeal to the places for the receipt\nof custom, as proofs that the seed of Abraham had lost their\nindependence. But He convicts them of having fallen into a slavery,\ndomestic, personal, abject. He says that this slavery, though it may\nhave caused their subjection to the Romans, would not be removed or\nabated if that were to cease. And, further, He affirms that slavery\nto a false god--that which lies beneath all idolatry--might be more\njustly attributed to the seed of Abraham than to any descendants of\nHam.\n\nThe first of these allegations is contained in the words which contain\nalso the justification of His assurance that He can break their\nfetters, and give them a higher liberty than they had ever attained or\ndreamed of. '_Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin\nis the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for\never: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you\nfree, ye shall be free indeed._' It is common to quote the first of\nthese verses without the second. Preachers tell their hearers that\nthey have committed sin, and are therefore the servants of sin. They\nsay nothing of the Son who abideth in the house into which sin has\nintruded itself. I believe, brethren, that by making this separation,\nwe put the sense of Scripture, as well as the honesty of our minds, in\nthe utmost peril. I might use stronger language,--I might say we all\nbut destroy both. We try to conceive of evil apart from good, of\ndisobedience apart from obedience. We cannot do it. God's eternal law\nwill not let us do it. If you want me to understand the corruption and\ndepravity of my nature, you must tell me from what it is drawing me\naside. You do me an infinite injury, if you tell me that sin is close\nto me, unless you tell me also that the great Enemy of Sin is close to\nme, and that I am violently tearing myself from Him when I give myself\nover to it. It is possible, no doubt, to find, in the height or the\ndepth, another sense for these words than this, as it is possible to\nfind another sense for any words, if the one which is nearest and most\nobvious should for some reason be disagreeable to us. And I am\ncertain, brethren, that we shall all seek for some new, ingenious, and\nelaborate interpretation, or shall embrace it when it is presented to\nus--I am certain that we shall call the literal interpretation\nmystical, and shall persuade ourselves that the one we have put in the\nplace of it is literal--unless we perceive that it corresponds both\nwith the context of the New Testament and with our own necessities. I\ncall upon you to see whether what I am saying is not true of each one\nof us. Let each man ask himself, 'Is not the sin of which Christ\nspeaks, with me? Is not the Son of whom He speaks, with me? Has not\nthe usurper of the house separated me from the Lord of the house? Is\nnot the Lord of the house ready to put down the usurper, and to make\nme free indeed?'\n\nThe next words have led some to suppose that our Lord cannot have been\nspeaking to those Jews who believed on Him:--'_I know that ye are\nAbraham's seed; yet ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place\nin you_.' These, it will be said, were not the men who were seeking to\nkill Him; they had confessed His authority; His word, it is admitted,\nhad made its power felt by them. I will not evade the objection by\nsaying, that so far as these men took their stand upon their position\nas Abraham's children, so far it might fairly be said to them: 'You\nsee what Abraham's children do; their parentage does not save them\nfrom this crime.' I believe that is _not_ the meaning of the charge,\nor at any rate that it is only one very small part of the meaning. I\nthink our Lord was speaking to the consciences of those whom He\naddressed of a sin of which _they_ had been guilty. I think that if\nthose consciences had been aroused to _confess_ His power--in some\nmeasure to own His goodness--they will have been more ready than any\nother to own the charge; and if they did not own it, to be stung by\nit. They had not participated, it is probable, in the plots of the\nScribes and Pharisees to put Jesus to death. They might not then, they\nmight not afterwards, take up a stone to cast at Him. But why were\nthose plots conceived? why were those stones raised? To get rid of a\nJudge and a Reprover; to put out a light which was shining into the\nheart, and making its darkness visible; to destroy the Son of Man, the\nKing of man; that each man might be his own king--might live\nundisturbed by any obligations to his fellow-men; to destroy the Son\nof God,--the witness of God's truth and God's love; that men might\nclaim the inheritance as theirs,--that they might take credit to\nthemselves for all goodness and truth, and give themselves no credit\nfor their wickedness and lies. Now, did not each one of those to whom\nJesus spoke, know inwardly that he had sought to put out the light\nthat was shining into him,--to kill his Judge and Reprover? The living\nWord was there,--the Son was claiming to be the Lord of the house. But\nHe was not allowed His place there. A certain sense there was of His\npresence. Certain acts of homage were rendered to Him. But He was not\npermitted to reign. They would find a divided allegiance more and more\nimpossible. The good Lord or the evil must be absolute. The one who\nwas rejected must be slain.\n\nAt each turn, this conversation becomes more profound and awful. The\nnext verse leads us into a depth into which we may well tremble to\nlook, and yet from which it is most unsafe to turn away:--'_I speak\nthat which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have\nseen with your father_.' Jesus had spoken of His Father as the root of\nall His loving acts,--of the wisdom, and truth, and love which were\nexpressed in His words and in Himself. If there is a root to which all\ngood that appears in a human life can be referred, must there not be a\nsource to which all evil is referred? Can it be the same? If healing,\nrestoration, life, are from the Father of Jesus, from what father come\nmurderous thoughts,--the wish to destroy the Son of Man?\n\nTo fly from any thought which presses closely upon the conscience to\nsome external truism,--even if it is one which has been proved to be\ninapplicable,--is the ordinary desire of us all. '_They answered and\nsaid unto Him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye\nwere Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye\nseek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have\nheard of God: this did not Abraham._' The question is about the\npaternity of certain purposes in their minds. These purposes were near\nto them, to their very selves. They determined their acts and their\nhabits. Did they take _these_ by descent from the father of the\nfaithful? Were these his progeny? Of course, they would have answered,\nas many of us would have answered, 'That is using words in a double\nsense. You mean one kind of fatherhood, we mean another.' No! it was\nthey who were guilty of this duplicity. They were calling Abraham\ntheir father, in the notion that they were deriving some _spiritual_\nprivileges from him. If they only intended that they could trace up\ntheir pedigree, according to the flesh, to him, let them say that\nfrankly to themselves. It was just what our Lord was urging them, in\nthis part of His conversation, to do. But if he was their parent in\nany other sense, then let them remember what he was, what he did. The\nliving and true God spake to him, and called him. He heard the voice;\nhe yielded to it. That same voice was speaking to them. He was\n'_telling them the truth_;' and therefore '_they sought to kill Him_.'\n\nHe repeats, then, the former words,--'_Ye do the deeds of your\nfather_.' And now they ventured what sounds a bold defence:--'_Then\nsaid they to Him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father,\neven God_.' Had they not a right to say so? Were they not almost\nquoting the words of Malachi? What is more, were they not using the\nvery words of Jesus? Had He not spoken to publicans and sinners,--to\nthe very outcasts of the people,--of a Father who was seeking to bring\nhome the prodigal son, as the shepherd went after the lost sheep?\nWould He deny to any Israelite the right to claim God as his Father?\nWhat had He taken flesh for, but that He might assert that claim, not\nfor Israelites only, but for men? Alas! brethren, we can understand\ntoo well what the Jews understood when they used this language, '_We\nhave one Father, even God_,' because we are continually using the like\nourselves. How commonly do we say, 'Oh, yes; in a general sense, all\nof us are God's children.' That general sense is _no_ sense. The word\n'children' is used to signify _creatures_. We say men are His, as we\nsay the cattle are His. In fact, we attach nearly as little\nsignificance to creation as to fatherhood. How can we, when we think\nof God as a mere ultimate explanation of our existence and the\nexistence of the universe; when the idea of a Father of _spirits_--of\none who has to do first of all with us, because we are spiritual,\nvoluntary beings--is almost banished from our minds? To say that God\nis our Father, or any man's Father, when we conceive of Him as a\ndistant power,--who ceases to be imaginary only when He puts forth His\nwrath,--is to practise a deception upon ourselves. It is a commoner\ndeception with us than with the Jews, because Jesus has taught us to\nsay, '_Our Father, which art in heaven_;' and every little Christendom\nchild learns the words, and, thanks be to God, takes in something of\ntheir inward living sense. But when we become men, that sense which\nshould have grown brighter and clearer with every day's joy and\nsorrow, has become utterly clouded by the world's mists, till the\nvision at last fades almost entirely. Then one here and there seizes\nthe force of the word, discovers that he has really, and not in name,\na Father, to whom he can pour out his whole heart. For a while he\nlongs to persuade all that they have the same Father,--that they may\ncast their burdens upon Him too. He finds a few who understand him.\nThey associate together; they speak of themselves as believers; they\nbegin to think that they are God's children, because they believe that\nthey are. Their ardour to convince men generally that they have a\nFather, becomes changed into an ardour to bring men into _their_\nsociety. As that passion increases, other lower and baser passions\nincrease with it. 'The believer' contracts more and more of those\nhabits which are of the earth, earthy. He contracts, oftentimes, a\nbitterness and a malice which are not of the earth, but come from\nbeneath. These he gives himself credit for as springing from his zeal\nfor religion, or he merely pities himself for them as the remains of\nindwelling sin. He has not courage to say, 'These spring from another\nfather, not from the Father in heaven. So far as I identify myself\nwith them, I become the child of a father in hell.' But he goes on\nassuming he is God's child. He tells other men that they are only\nchildren in the secondary signification; that is to say, he cherishes\nin them the most dangerous of all falsehoods. He prevents them from\nturning to their true Father, and seeking of Him a true and divine\nlife.\n\nThese Jews qualified the assertion, that they were all God's children,\neven in the lowest, most unreal, sense of that word. These were so who\n'_were not born of fornication_.' Children not born in lawful wedlock\nthey seem to have thought of as having some dark, infernal parentage.\nIt must have been most startling to them when the words at last came\nforth which appeared to fix that parentage upon themselves.\n\n'_Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for\nI proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but He\nsent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot\nhear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your\nfather ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not\nin the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a\nlie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.\nAnd because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you\nconvinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe\nme? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not,\nbecause ye are not of God._'\n\nThe Jews were proud of not worshipping false gods. The true God, then,\nwhat was He? The moment truth confronted them, they shrunk from it.\nThey were proud of not worshipping evil gods. The good God, then, what\nwas He? The moment goodness confronted them, they hated it, and wished\nto extinguish it. They shrunk from the Man who did not speak His own\nwords, but God's. They hated the Man who did not show forth His own\ngoodness, but God's. Whence came this mind in them, this will, this\nspirit? Jesus tells them plainly. 'There is a mind, a will, a spirit,\nwhich from the beginning has been a man-slayer--has compassed the\ndestruction of the man in each man. There is a mind, a will, a spirit,\nwho has been from the beginning a liar, who would not stand in the\ntruth.'\n\nI know well--we all know--what use has been made, and is made, and\nwill be made, of this expression, '_from the beginning_.' 'So, then,'\nthe objector exclaims, 'there is a second god, another creator, coming\ninto existence with the good God. If this is not Manich\u00e6ism, what is?'\nThe answer is simply an appeal to the words as they appear on the face\nof the book,--'_He stood not in the truth_.' There was, then, a truth\nto stand in; there was a truth to revolt from. The name 'murderer'\nimplies a life to be taken away; the name 'liar' implies a\ncontradiction of that which IS. Yes; it implies that the evil spirit\nis this, and _only_ this; it implies that the murderer is the author\nof _no_ life; it implies that the liar has called nothing that _is_\ninto existence. You ask, 'What is Manich\u00e6ism _but_ this?' I answer,\n'It is exactly the reverse of this. It affirms that the evil power\n_does_ produce some life; that some part of creation may be ascribed\nto him.' And those who shrink from speaking of '_him_'--those who will\nnot admit a devil at all--do, unawares, let this Manich\u00e6ism\ncontinually into their thoughts, into their acts, into their words.\nThey may talk of universal benevolence, but facts are too strong for\nthem. They meet evil everywhere; they meet it in themselves. They do\nnot like to say,--'It is an evil will to which I am yielding up my\nwill. Because men are obeying this evil will, therefore there is\nmisery and ugliness in this blessed and beautiful world.' They try to\nescape from that confession. They talk of evil in nature, of evil in\nthemselves. Unawares, they have introduced it among the works of the\ngood God. They have either made Him answerable for it, or they have\nsaid that there is some creator besides Him. The last alternative is\nvery dreadful; but the former is, it seems to me, infinitely more\ndreadful. In accepting what our Lord said to the Jews in this\ndiscourse, I escape from both. I am able solemnly and habitually to\ndeny that any insect or blade of grass is the devil's work; I am able\nto regard the whole universe as very good, even as it was when it came\nforth at the call of the divine Word; I am able to declare that\nhumanity, standing in that divine Word, is still made in the image of\nGod, as He declared that it was; and that there is no one faculty of\nthe human soul, no one sense of the human body, which is not good, and\nblessed, and holy in God's sight. I am able, at the same time, to look\nfacts in the face, and confess that sin has entered into the world,\nand death by sin; that there has been from the beginning of man's\nexistence on this earth, and that there still is, a murderer, who is\nseeking to sever him from his proper life: that there has been from\nthe beginning of man's existence upon earth, and that there still is,\na liar, who is seeking to persuade men that God is not all good; that\nHe is not all true; that He is not the Father of their spirits; that\nit is not His will that they should know Him, and be like Him. I can\nadmit that this liar has been listened to, and is listened to; and\nthat men may enter into such communion with him--may become so\npenetrated with his false and mendacious spirit, that they shall\nbecome in very deed his children, entirely fashioned into his\nlikeness, understanding no lessons but his. Our Lord speaks of the\nJewish people--of the most religious part of them especially--as\nhaving passed, or as rapidly passing, into this condition. He\ndeclares, in the words which I have taken as my text--and which\nembody, I think, some of the deepest lessons of the chapter--that they\ncould not '_understand His speech_;' that that sounded strange,\nmonstrous, deranged to them, because they '_could not hear His\nword_'--because their hearts and consciences were closed against that\nwhich was every moment knocking and craving for admission there. They\ndid '_not hear God's words, because they were not of God_'--because\ntheir whole minds and wills were given up to another God, because they\nhad become Devil-worshippers.\n\n'_Then answered the Jews, and said unto Him, Say we not well that thou\nart a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Jesus answered, I have not a devil;\nbut I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. And I seek not mine\nown glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth._'\n\nIt is certainly most unfortunate that our translators--who had just\nrendered \u0394\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 by Devil, in our Lord's discourse--should take the\nsame word for \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, in the discourse of the Jews. I need not say\nthat they did not mean what He meant, or anything like what He meant.\nThey called Him a Samaritan,--evidently alluding to the Samaritan\npassion for enchanters. He was a possessed man, like one of those who\nappeared so often among the worshippers on Gerizim, and drew so many\ndisciples after them. The reply of Jesus is, that He had not a d\u00e6mon;\nthat He was speaking the words of no subordinate spirit or angel; that\nHe was '_honouring His Father_'--Him whom they called their God, the\nFather of spirits. He did not seek His own glory, as those did who\ncame boasting that they were possessed by a spirit or d\u00e6mon, of which\nno others could partake. He came seeking His Father's glory, promising\nto make all partakers of His Spirit.\n\nThe next words are only a part of this promise. '_Verily, verily, I\nsay unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death._' Why\nthe translators, who have been careful in adhering to the common\nrendering of \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 thus far, should suddenly have forsaken it here,\nand dilute it into 'saying,' I cannot conjecture. Certainly they have\ndone much to make the whole passage unintelligible by that wilfulness.\n_He_ has taken pains to distinguish the _speech_ or _saying_ which\nenters the ear from the _word_ which is lodged in the heart, and is to\nbe cherished there. That His word brings life, because in Him the\nDivine Word is Life, He has asserted again and again. When the man\nloses his hold on that word, death overtakes him; if he hold it fast,\nhe is united to that which is stronger than death; and he shall not\ntaste of death. When it comes to his soul and body, he shall defy it.\nHe shall rise above it, and they shall be raised with him.\n\n'_Then said the Jews unto Him, Now we know that thou hast a devil.\nAbraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my\nsaying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our\nfather Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest\nthou thyself? Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is\nnothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that He is\nyour God: yet ye have not known Him; but I know Him: and if I should\nsay, I know Him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know Him,\nand keep His saying._'\n\nThe sense of eternity, of a relation to the eternal God,--to a Father\nof spirits, had almost forsaken these Jews. The sense of time,--of a\nseries or succession of years,--had displaced every other in their\nminds; they could contemplate nothing, except under conditions of\ntime. To the mere trader,--to him who lives in calculating when so\nmuch money will become due--any conditions, except those of time, seem\nimpossible. He laughs at those who hint at any other. But the\nreverence for ancestry,--the affection that binds us to a family and a\nnation, does not belong to time. It brings past and present into\nclosest proximity; it leaps over distinctions of costume and\ncircumstance, to claim affinity with the inmost heart of those who\nlived generations ago. For all family feeling, and all national\nfeeling, has its root in a living God; therefore it defies death; it\ntreats death as only belonging to the individual.\n\nThe Jews _knew_ that Jesus had a d\u00e6mon, because He spoke of men who\nbelieved His word not tasting of death. For Abraham to them was dead;\nthe prophets were dead. They had no sense of a life which united them\nto Abraham and the prophets; they did not really confess a God who was\na God of the living and not of the dead. Jesus probes this state of\nmind to the quick. He tells them first, that it is their want of\nknowledge of God which makes what He says incredible to them,--the\nlying, atheistical temper which they were cultivating under the name\nof religion. Because He knows God,--because He keeps His\nword,--because He lives in communion with the truth, therefore His\nspeech seems to them that of a possessed man.\n\nBut he was to seem to them worse than a possessed man before the\ndialogue ended.\n\n'_Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was\nglad. Then said the Jews unto Him, Thou art not yet fifty years old,\nand hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I\nsay unto you, Before Abraham was, I am._'\n\nThe Jews, I said, were utterly entangled in thoughts of time. It was\nnecessary to break these bonds at once and violently asunder. The Word\nwho had been in the beginning with God, who was the Light of men,\ndeclares that He conversed with Abraham; that Abraham heard His voice;\nthat Abraham saw His light; that this was the source of all his\ngladness. This was the reason why men in after days, who had heard the\nsame voice, who had seen the same light, could rejoice with\nAbraham,--could feel that years did not sever those whom God had made\none. The ears that were dull of hearing, the obtuse mammonized hearts,\nwere proof against this paradox; it excited only a grin. Then came the\nother words,--'_Before Abraham was, I am_.' They were too familiar,\ntoo awful, not to arouse even those who were most petrified by\nworldliness and pride. The name which had been spoken in the bush had\nbeen spoken to them! The Man who stood before them was calling Himself\nthe '_I Am_.' A flash of light broke in upon them. He _had_ meant\nthis. The blasphemy was now open.\n\n'_Then took they up stones to cast at Him: but Jesus hid Himself, and\nwent out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed\nby._'\n\nAnd oh, brethren, may the meaning of those words flash upon us too!\nMay they come to us not as dull sounds, but as if they proceeded fresh\nfrom Him who spoke them then! They do proceed from Him. Each day and\nhour He repeats them to us. When all schemes of human policy crack\nand crumble; when we discover the utter weakness of the leaders and\nteachers we have trusted most; when we begin to suspect that the world\nis given over to the spirit of murder and lies; He says to us, 'The\nfoundations of the universe are not built on rottenness: whatever\nfades away and perishes, I AM.'\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XVIII.\n\nTHE LIGHT OF THE EYE, AND THE LIGHT OF THE SPIRIT.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 2d Sunday after Trinity, June 1, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN IX. 39.\n\n_And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they\nwhich see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind._\n\n\nThe reading of the last verse of the 8th chapter, which our version\nhas adopted, connects it directly with the first verse of the 9th.\n'_Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the\nmidst of them, and so passed by_ (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc6\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2). _And as He\npassed by_ (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd), _He saw a man blind from his birth_.'\nPossibly the former verse ought to end at the word '_temple_.' But if\nwe lose that link between the incidents recorded in the two chapters,\nthe internal relation between them will remain as strong as ever. The\ndiscourse of Jesus, which we have been considering on the two last\nSundays, began with the sentence, '_I am the light of the world_.'\nEvery subsequent passage unfolded itself out of this opening one. The\nstory which forms the subject of this chapter is introduced by the\nsame announcement. Can we doubt that the words and the act had the\nsame origin and the same object? Can we safely sever what Christ has\njoined together?\n\nI am aware of the motive which induces us to sever them. I have had\noccasion to speak of it more than once already, and to acknowledge\nthat an honest feeling is lurking in it. We are afraid of confounding\nwhat is sensible with what is spiritual. We are afraid of using light\nin two senses, and of fancying that they are the same. I complain of\nno desire to be religiously accurate in the use of language.\nScrupulosity in this matter is far less dangerous than indifference.\nWe are in continual peril of falling into confusions and\nequivocations; let all our faculties be awake to the risk,--let them\nall watch against it. But they will not be awake, they will not watch,\nunless they do homage to the fact, that light has been used, is used,\nmust be used, in every dialect in which men express their thoughts, to\ndenote that which the eye receives, and that which the mind\nreceives,--the great energy of the eye, the great energy of the mind.\nInstead of repining at this fact, as if it were a hindrance to our\nperceptions of truth,--instead of labouring to reconstruct speech\naccording to some scheme of ours,--instead of fancying that we have\ndone a good work when we have got a scholastical or technical phrase\nsubstituted for a popular one,--let us earnestly meditate upon the\nprinciple which is latent under these forms of discourse, from which\nwe cannot emancipate ourselves. Let us thankfully accept them as\nproofs that the sensible world and the spiritual, though entirely\ndistinct, are related; and that the last is not closed any more than\nthe first against the wayfarer and the child. This, at all events, is\nthe doctrine which goes through Scripture, and which has made its\nwords so mighty to those who can understand no others--so full of\nrelief and discovery to those who do not wish to be separate from\ntheir kind, and who have convinced themselves that the deepest truths\nmust be the commonest. Such is the doctrine implied in every parable\nof our Lord; such, above all, is the doctrine of St. John, who does\nnot report many parables, but who takes us into the inmost heart of\nthem, and shows us the divine law which is involved in the use of\nthem.\n\nI find an unspeakable blessing in following the order of St. John's\nnarrative. It is the true order of human life. After we have listened\nto the divinest discourse, there is a sense of vacancy in the heart.\nWe feel as if we were out of communion with the business and misery of\nthe world,--as if the words had not proved themselves till they could\nbe brought into collision and conflict with these. When we are in the\nmidst of action, we want to know that it is not merely mechanical\naction,--that it is in conformity with some principle, and springs out\nof a principle. When Jesus has finished His discourse with the Jews,\nby assuming a name which lies beneath all discourse,--when they have\nfinished their arguments by taking up stones to cast at Him,--He meets\na man blind from his birth. He proceeds at once to do him good. But\nbefore He can enter upon that work, He must encounter a metaphysical\ndoubt which has occurred to the fishermen who are walking with Him. A\nmetaphysical doubt to fishermen! Yes; and if you go into the garrets\nand cellars of London, you will have metaphysical doubts presented to\nyou by men immeasurably more ignorant than those fishermen were, even\nbefore Jesus called them; the very doubts which the schools are\noccupied with, only taking a living, practical form. Unless you can\ncause men not to be metaphysical beings--that is to say, unless you\ncan take from them all which separates them from the beasts that\nperish--they must have these doubts. Thanks be to God, He awakens\nthem! And thanks be to God, He, and not priests and doctors, must\nsatisfy them for every creature whom He has made in His image!\n\nThe doubt which troubled the disciples is one that has exercised all\ngenerations--none more than our own. '_Master, who did sin, this man,\nor his parents, that he was born blind?_' 'He came into the world\nunder this curse. Was it for some sin he committed in another world,\nin some older state of existence? or is this an illustration of the\ndoctrine, asserted in the second commandment? Are the sins of the\nfather and mother visited on the child?' The former hypothesis has\nalways connected itself closely with the sense of immortality in man.\n'Am I merely to be hereafter? Does not the future imply a past? Do not\nshadows of that past pursue me? Can I interpret the facts of memory if\nI deny its existence?' The second doctrine is not more asserted in the\nlaw than it is justified by experience. The facts from which it is\ndeduced belong to physiology as much at least as to theology. Every\none who thinks of hereditary sickness and insanity confesses them and\ntrembles.\n\n'_Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but\nthat the works of God should be made manifest in him._'\n\nA dogmatist who ventured, on the strength of this answer, to say that\nthe bodily condition of this particular man, or of any man, had not\nbeen affected by the misdoings of his parents,--who should venture\neven to pronounce the other opinion respecting a pre-existent state a\nfalse and heretical one,--would speedily find himself at fault. To be\nconsistent, he must take the sentence according to the letter of it,\nand say that the parents of this man had not sinned at all before he\nwas born. One who really reverences our Lord's words will not trifle\nwith them after this fashion. He will seek from them actual guidance\nfor his own life, not an excuse for suppressing evidence or condemning\nthe conclusions of other men. And if this is his object, he will not\nbe disappointed. In a single case He gives us the hint of a law which\nis applicable to all cases. That law remains true, whatever may be the\ntruth respecting our own sins or the sins of our parents. That law is\none which reveals the mind of God, and removes all dark surmises\nrespecting His government of the world. That law is one which we may\nuse for the regulation of our own conduct.\n\nThe disciples were speculating about final causes. They would not have\nunderstood what any one meant who had told them they were doing so;\nthey were doing it nevertheless. Jesus met them with the _most_ final\ncause. 'I can give you a better reason for this man's blindness than\nthose you have imagined. His blindness will be a means of showing\nforth the power and purpose of God. He will learn himself, he will be\na teacher to the world through this blindness, whence light comes, who\nis the Father of light.'\n\nIt was not the mere announcement of a principle. Every principle He\ndelivered embodied itself in an act. He added immediately: '_I must\nwork the works of Him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh,\nwhen no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of\nthe world_.' He declares that what He was going to do He must do. He\ndid not choose His own way. When He was most exercising power, He was\nobeying a power,--'_He was working the works of Him that sent Him._'\nAnd every such work was a revelation. It showed forth the Will and the\nMind that had been creating and ruling all things. That Will was\nproving itself to be a Will of absolute goodness,--that Mind, a light\nin which is no darkness. But there is a sorrow for Him who is about to\nimpart joy. His countrymen had taken up stones to cast at Him. He has\na vision of a time when they would have their way. The light for a\nwhile would be quenched. But as long as He was in the world, He must\nilluminate it. Here, again, we have the feelings of the Man, the\npresentiments of the Sufferer--not drawn out, but just indicated--that\nwe may have a glimpse into the heart from which they came. They cannot\nbe divided from the divine truth He is enunciating; they are the media\nthrough which that truth is exhibited to us. The Word is indeed made\nflesh; it is in the Son of Man that we know the Son of God.\n\n'_When He had thus spoken, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the\nspittle, and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, and\nsaid unto him, Go, wash in the Pool of Siloam (which is by\ninterpretation, Sent). He went therefore, and washed, and came\nseeing._'\n\nEvery one has remarked that this cure is distinguished from most\nothers that are recorded in the Gospels, by the careful use in it of\nintermediate agencies. He does not merely speak the word, and the man\nis healed. There is a process of healing. And I think you must confess\nthat the use of these agencies is a part of the sign to which St. John\nwishes to draw our attention. If Christ's other signs testified that\nthere is an invisible power at work in all the springs of our\nlife,--that there is a Fountain of life from which those springs are\ncontinually refreshed and renewed,--did not this sign testify that\nthere is a potency and virtue in the very commonest things; that God\nhas stored all nature with instruments for the blessing and healing of\nHis creatures? The mere miracle-worker who draws glory to himself\nwishes to dispense with these things, lest he should be confounded\nwith the ordinary physician. The great Physician, who works because\nHis Father works, who comes to show what He is doing in His world,\nputs an honour upon earth and water as well as upon all art which has\ntrue observation and knowledge for its basis. He only distinguishes\nHimself from other healers by showing that the source of their wisdom\nand renovating power is in Him. We have put our faith and our science\nat an immeasurable distance from each other. May not the separation\nlead to the ruin of both?\n\nBut we are not allowed to lose ourselves amidst these general\ncharacteristics of this cure. The words, '_He came seeing_,' remind us\nthat one special malady is brought before us; that we have to do, not\nwith a sick man, but with a blind man; and that it is as the Restorer\nof sight that the Lord of man is declaring Himself to us. That object\nis kept before us as we proceed in the story. '_The neighbours\ntherefore, and they that before had seen him that he was blind, said,\nIs not this he that sat and begged? Some said, This is he: others\nsaid, He is like him: but he said, I am he. Therefore said they unto\nhim, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said, A man that is\ncalled Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said to me, Go to\nthe Pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received\nsight. Then said they unto him, Where is He? He answered, I know\nnot._' I do not introduce this passage for the sake of commenting upon\nit (a commentary would be very superfluous and out of place), but that\nwe may be reminded continually how this theologian--he who has been\nsupposed to be writing a learned, dogmatical treatise, he who has been\nsupposed to live in an age in which plain facts had been forgotten in\nprofound speculations--tells a story. We feel at once that to talk\nabout its dramatical character is to spoil its effect. It is\ndramatical, as every childlike narrative is dramatical. The people who\nwere alive at the time speak to us because they actually presented\nthemselves to the writer as living beings, and because he did not want\nto thrust himself into their places. I do not say that these qualities\nbelong only to a divine teacher. They belong, in their measure, to\nevery simple narrator and poet. But they certainly do not belong to\nthe builder up of a system; and they are precisely the gifts which we\nshould expect would be imparted to one who had seen and handled the\nWord of life, and was bearing a message concerning Him to his\nbrethren.\n\n'_They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind. And it\nwas the sabbath-day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.\nThen again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight.\nHe said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do\nsee. Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God,\nbecause he keepeth not the sabbath-day. Others said, How can a man\nthat is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among\nthem._'\n\nI observed before, that the only two acts of healing which are\nrecorded in this Gospel, as done by our Lord in Jerusalem, were done\non the Sabbath-day. In the story of the man at the Pool of Bethesda,\nthis was the most prominent circumstance; the subsequent discourse\nbore upon it; the strongest, and to the Jews the most offensive,\nproclamation by Jesus of God as His Father, arose out of it; the\npurpose to kill Him was first suggested by it. Apparently what He said\nthen, and had said since at the feast of Tabernacles, was not quite\nlost even upon the Pharisees. There were some in this particular\nsynagogue, if not in the Sanhedrim, who thought that to do a good act\non a Saturday might not be a sin against God. The next verses show\nthat they were a strong enough minority to force their fellows into a\nfurther inquiry respecting the fact of the cure. '_They say unto the\nblind man again, What sayest thou of Him, that He hath opened thine\neyes? He said, He is a prophet. But the Jews did not believe\nconcerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until\nthey called the parents of him that had received his sight. And they\nasked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? How\nthen doth he now see? His parents answered them and said, We know that\nthis is our son, and that he was born blind: but by what means he now\nseeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of\nage; ask him; he shall speak for himself. These words spake his\nparents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed\nalready, that if any man did confess that He was Christ, he should be\nput out of the synagogue. Therefore said his parents, He is of age;\nask him._'\n\nThe answer of the man, that He who healed him was a prophet, was the\nsimplest of all forms of expressing his belief that he had been\nbrought into contact with a Person who was higher than himself, who\nwas sent from God. This passage would show, if it stood alone, how\nlittle even the commonest Israelite identified the prophet with the\nmere predicter of events. Foretelling had surely no direct connexion\nwith opening the eyes; but one who could do that was naturally felt to\nbe the bringer of a message and a blessing from another and a better\nregion. These words, as we have seen before, lay very near to the\nothers, '_He is the Christ_;' only in the last the king was blended\nwith the prophet, the Son of David with the successor of Elijah. It is\nprobable that the rulers of the synagogue would draw a much sharper\ndistinction between the names than the people did. The belief in Him\nas a Prophet might be tolerated; those who owned Him as Christ were\ninterfering with the authority of the priests or of Rome. Positive\nexclusion from worship and fellowship, therefore, might be restricted\nto that. The parents of the blind man feared, that he had approached\nthe borders of offence. If they made a false step, it might be passed;\ntherefore it was prudent to keep as nearly as possible to the mere\nfact of his blindness. Perhaps they had no opinion about the Person\nwho had healed their son. If they had, is it worth while to run risks\nfor an _opinion_? A _belief_ is another thing altogether. If a man has\n_that_, he must run risks for it. His belief makes this demand upon\nhim, and perishes if the demand is not complied with.\n\n'_Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him,\nGive God the praise: we know that this Man is a sinner._' The two\nparties had probably come to a compromise. The cure was to be admitted\nas good; it was to be ascribed respectfully and devoutly to God; only\nthe instrument of it must be declared to be evil. It was, of course,\nassumed that such an adjustment would be satisfactory to the beggar;\nhe would not rebel against the authority of his betters. Nor did he.\n'_He answered and said, Whether He be a sinner or no, I know not: one\nthing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see._' Was not his as\nfair an adjustment as theirs? He left them all their probable\nconclusions, all their traditional wisdom. He vindicated to himself\nonly his pin-point of personal experience. No! it was not fair; the\ndoctors demurred to it, as they had a right to do. Theirs was a\nfantastical airy possession, which every hour might diminish; he was\nstanding on solid ground; every day he might add something to that\nground. Nothing frets men like a discovery of this kind. The rulers of\nthe synagogue showed their irritation by repeating their question.\n'_Then said they to him again, What did He to thee? how opened He\nthine eyes?_' The beggar became bolder as the doctors became feebler.\n'_He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear:\nwherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? Then\nthey reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses'\ndisciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we\nknow not from whence he is._' Their self-complacency has returned. Of\nsuch people as this blind beggar did the disciples of Jesus consist!\n_They_ had a law and a history. Moses had been sent to them from God\nfourteen hundred years before. About his mission there could be no\ndoubt; they had it in the book. What help had they to determine the\npretensions of the new Teacher, but His own words? The beggar thought\nthey must have some means of finding out what He was, if they were\nlearned men and guides of the people. '_The man answered and said unto\nthem, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence\nhe is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God\nheareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth\nHis will, him He heareth. Since the world began was it not heard that\nany man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this Man were\nnot of God, he could do nothing._' It was very simple, childish\nlogic,--the logic of a man who had convinced himself that God was\nliving then, and was ruling the world then as in the days of old. He\nhad done what the synagogue bade him. He had given God the glory. He\nhad confessed a good God, who cared for him an outcast. Jesus had\nbrought him to that confession, and therefore he could not, at the\nbidding of any synagogue, call Him a sinner. There was only one safe\nand conclusive reply to a man who spoke as he did. '_They answered and\nsaid unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach\nus? And they cast him out._'\n\nA strange process had been going on in this man, one worthy of all\nstudy. The world of flowers and trees, of earth and sky, and of human\nfaces, had burst upon him; a vision too wonderful to take in, which\nmight have crushed him with its strangeness and its excess of beauty.\nBut with that had come another vision, for which his hours of darkness\nhad not been unfitting but perhaps preparing him,--the sense of a\nloving Power near him, sympathising with him, caring to restore him;\nthe assurance that this Power must be His who made the trees and\nflowers, the sky and earth, and had stamped on the human face an\nexpression that was not of the earth. This sense, this confidence,\ncame to him not suddenly, but gradually, by a discipline scarcely less\nhard than that to which he had been subjected hitherto. It came to\nhim, in part, through that strange conflict with creatures of his own\nflesh and blood,--with men of whom he had asked alms and whom he\nreverenced as his masters,--into which he was brought almost as soon\nas he could look into their countenances. It came through their denial\nof facts, of which he felt as sure as he was of the existence of those\nthings which he had begun to see. It came to him with a feeling of his\nown duty, of his own power, to declare that God did not forget\nbeggars, and that the man who had raised him out of misery must be\nfrom God. But this inner revelation was not overwhelming like the\noutward,--it was sustaining. The man who could look upon sun and stars\nfound that he was more than they. God was nearer to the beggar than to\nthem. A light was shining into him which did not come from them. Was\nit not a light which would go with him and cheer him, whatever\nsynagogue cast him out; yes, if sun and stars were to disappear for\never?\n\nHe had been under a marvellous education. It was not completed.\n'_Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him,\nHe said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? And he said,\nWho is He, Lord, that I might believe on Him? And Jesus said unto him,\nThou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee. And he\nsaid, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him._'\n\nAn incomprehensible, incredible record, if all that we have been\nhearing of a Life-giver and a Light of the world is untrue; if all\ncommunications come to human beings from without; if the Son of God is\nonly revealed to us in letters; if there is not a conscience in man to\nwhich He manifests Himself. But how consistent and harmonious and\nconsolatory a story is it, if this Gospel is indeed what it professes\nto be, if it does not mock us with idle sounds when it tells us of One\nwho was with the Father before all worlds, whose light always shined\nin the darkness, which did not comprehend it, who came into the world\nto show men of this Father, and to restore them to fellowship with\nHim! How the narrative concerning this beggar, and the way in which\nthe Son of God led him to the knowledge of Himself, becomes then a\nnarrative for each of us! We need not trace any outward sorrow that\nhas been ordained for us to the sin of our parents or to sins of our\nown done in some former state. Accepting in either case the\npunishment, we may refer it to the will of a Father, that through it\nwe may perceive how the blank in our sensible perceptions and in our\nhearts may be filled,--that through it we may be led to the Son, the\nLife-giver and Light of the world. The like calamities in our brethren\nare to be the instruments through which we convey to them a message\nconcerning the same Son. If we claim them as opportunities for showing\nforth God's healing power; if we own the science and the art which are\nneedful for the exercise of that power as His gifts; if we thus work\nHis works,--others will find, we shall find more and more, that the\nriddle of the world has a solution,--that Christ has solved it.\n\nAnd what is true of outward sorrows--of the want of sight, the\ngreatest of all--is true also of moral evils, of the moral blindness\nfrom which they spring and in which they terminate. Our Lord's words,\nthose I took for my text, lead us into the heart of this mystery also;\nthey explain some of the greatest contradictions in our own lives, and\nin the world's life. '_And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into\nthis world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see\nmight be made blind._'\n\nHow is He come into the world for judgment when He came not to judge\nthe world, but to save it? He has answered the question before. He\nanswers it more fully here. What we want to be saved from is our\ndarkness. We can only be saved from it by His light. That light brings\nus into judgment. It distinguishes--it condemns! It distinguishes\nbetween that in us which seeks light, and that in us which flies from\nlight. It does not condemn us for being dark; it condemns us for not\nowning our darkness. It does not condemn us for not having a power and\nvirtue in us to escape from the darkness; but for refusing to\nentertain the light which would raise us out of it. Our eyes are not\nformed to create light, but to receive it; if they will close\nthemselves to that which is always seeking to open them and illuminate\nthem, _that_ is the sentence--that is the condemnation. The blind\nbeggar washes in the Pool of Siloam, and comes seeing. He hears of the\nSon of God, and says, '_Lord, who is He that I might believe on Him_?'\nThe Pharisee grudges eyesight to the beggar,--denies that God may work\ngood on His own Sabbath-day. He is satisfied with his power of seeing;\nand the light that would open God's glorious kingdom to him puts out\nthe eyes that he had.\n\nDear brethren, may Christ give us honesty and courage to confess our\nblindness, that we may turn to Him who can make us see! May He deliver\nus from all conceit of our own illumination, lest we should become\nhopelessly dark!\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XIX.\n\nTHE SHEPHERD AND THE SHEEP.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 3d Sunday after Trinity, June 8, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN X. 27-29.\n\n     _My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow\n     me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never\n     perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My\n     Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man\n     is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand._\n\n\nA recent traveller in the Holy Land, who has looked on all its\nlocalities with honest and reverent eyes, and has enabled his readers\nto see them almost as clearly as himself, has suggested that the Mount\nof Olivet was the scene of the conversation, in which Jesus declared\nHimself as the Son of God to the man whose eyes He had opened. The man\nwhom He had healed at the Pool of Bethesda He found in the Temple; but\nan excommunicated Israelite would not have been allowed to enter those\nprecincts. If we suppose our Lord to have met him on that other ground\nwhich He visited so often, the interview may have been secret. And the\nwords, '_For judgment am I come into the world_,' which are so evident\na commentary upon it, may have been addressed to persons, His\ndisciples and others, whom He joined afterwards. Then it will appear\nhow the concluding verses of the 9th chapter may have formed part of\nthe same dialogue with the opening verses of the 10th,--how much\ncloser a relation there is between them outwardly and inwardly than we\nat first perceive.\n\n'_And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they\nwhich see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.\nAnd some of the Pharisees which were with Him heard these words, and\nsaid unto Him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were\nblind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your\nsin remaineth._'\n\nThese Pharisees may have fallen in by chance with Jesus and His\ndisciples as they walked down the mount, or may have come expressly to\ncatch Him in His words. They must have heard that He had spoken of\nblind leaders of the blind. They knew, at all events, that His\nstrongest language had been directed against them,--the guides of the\npeople,--those to whom the humble Israelites turned for light and\nteaching. The question, '_Are we blind also_?' may have been asked in\nrecollection of these former passages between them, or in mere scorn\nthat a Galil\u00e6an who had learnt no letters should presume to judge\nthem. The answer struck at the principle of the Pharisaic character.\n'Alas! if you only felt that you were as blind as any of those whom\nyou are professing to teach and show the right way, there would be no\ncomplaint to make of you. You would turn to the Source of light; you\nwould allow the light that lighteth every man to illuminate you. \"_But\nnow ye say, We see._\" You are satisfied with the light that is in\nyourselves. You think that you have a light that does not belong to\nthese poor wretches who know not the law. \"_Therefore your sin\nremaineth._\" You stumble, and you cause those whom you guide to\nstumble.'\n\nIf this conversation took place at eventide, on the slope of the hill,\nno spectacle (as the traveller to whom I have referred remarks) would\nbe more likely to meet the eyes of our Lord and these Pharisees than\nthat of a flock of sheep, gathered from the different pastures in\nwhich they had been wandering, and entering, one by one, through a\nlittle wicket-gate into their resting-place for the night,--the\nshepherd, as was and is the custom in that country, going through it\nbefore them, and leading them in. There may have been a pause after\nthe words on which I have just commented,--then Jesus may have said,\npointing to the sheepfold: '_Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that\nentereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some\nother way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in\nby the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth;\nand the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name,\nand leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he\ngoeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.\nAnd a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they\nknow not the voice of strangers._' As if He had said, 'Look there; see\nhow that shepherd is behaving. The sheep are not going through one\ndoor, and he through another. Of any one who took another nearer way\nyou would say at once, not, \"He is doing so because he is a man and is\nwiser than the sheep,\" but simply, \"He is not the shepherd; the sheep\ndo not belong to him; he is come to steal them, and to kill them.\" The\nsign of the shepherd--that which the porter at the gate owns at\nonce--is, that he goes _with_ the sheep. But it is not only the porter\nthat makes this distinction. The sheep know their own shepherd as well\nas he does. They do not in the least confound his voice with those of\nother men. Whether he is, as now, leading them in for the night, or\nleading them out in the morning, still it is the same. He knows each\nof them; each of them knows him. He leads them because he does not\nstand aloof from them.'\n\n'_This parable_,' says St. John, '_Jesus spake to them: but they\nunderstood not what things they were which He spake unto them_.' They\ndid not feel the application of it; they did not see what shepherds\nand sheepfolds had to do with them. They could hardly have given a\ngreater proof how little they understood the things which were written\nin the books they prized most,--how their worship of the divine letter\nhad destroyed all commerce between their minds and the realities which\nit is setting forth. For is not the Old Testament, from first to last,\na book about shepherds? Was not Abraham a shepherd,--Moses a\nshepherd,--David a shepherd? Is not the shepherd of sheep, throughout,\nconnected with the Shepherd of men? That name belongs to Greek poetry\nas much as to Hebrew; it is found as often in Homer as in Isaiah; it\nis the most universal and human of all emblems. But the Hebrew seers\nare the great and consistent expounders of it; they carry it from the\nlowest ground to the highest. '_The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not\nwant_,' is the song of the individual Israelite. '_He shall feed His\nflock like a shepherd: He shall gather His lambs in His arms, and\ncarry them in His bosom; and shall gently lead those that are with\nyoung_,' contains the highest vision which the Prophet could see of\nthe Divine care over his nation. And no applications of this language\nare so numerous as those which are directed against '_the shepherds of\nIsrael who feed themselves, and will not feed the flock_.'\n\nThese passages might have occurred to those who knew them so well as\nthe Pharisees. But they were divine texts merely,--they never\nconnected themselves with the sheep and the shepherds that wandered\nover the hills in their day. The sheep would sell for so much in the\nmarket; the shepherds were hired for so much by the day or the week.\nThere was no other measure of their worth. Clever teachers might,\nperhaps, resort to them occasionally for rhetorical illustrations.\nSecular and vulgar things might be converted, as the phrase is, to the\nservice of religion. But it would always be felt that they _were_ in\nthemselves secular and vulgar things. God had nothing to do with them\ntill they had been reclaimed. Thus the faith that all creation is\ndivine,--that all occupations are divine,--that God has written His\nmind and purpose both upon the natural and the civil order of the\nworld, had disappeared. Men no longer walked the earth as a holy\nplace, filled with the presence of their Lord God; it had become\nutterly separated from Him,--sold and sacrificed to Mammon. Then came\nthe Son of Man, interpreting the world which He had made, and which\nknew Him not; drawing forth out of it treasures new and old;\ndeciphering the hieroglyphics which wise men had perceived in every\nrock and cave, in every tree, and in every grain of sand; showing that\nin Himself was to be found the solution of that sphynx-riddle by which\nall ages had been tormented.\n\nBut even His parables might be turned to an evil use. It might be\nsupposed that we can only reach the kingdom of heaven through the\nforms of earth; that they are not the likenesses of the invisible\nsubstances, but that the invisible substances are the likenesses of\nthem. This danger is of such continual recurrence, it belongs so\nessentially to the idolatrous nature which is in us all, that it must\nhave exhibited itself in the Christian Church before St. John wrote.\nLong allegories--which seem invented rather to hide the truth from\ncommon eyes than to bring it forth that it might be a possession for\nthe wayfarer--began to be produced immediately after the apostolical\nage, if not within it. Nothing like them is to be found in this\nGospel. Those parts of our Lord's teaching in which the parable was\nnot used are brought into most prominence. Yet the parable is\njustified; all His acts are shown to be signs. And a proverb\n(\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1) is introduced here and there, which enables us to\nunderstand in what the worth of these natural likenesses consists, and\nhow much the divine art which draws out the spiritual truth that is\nlatent in them differs from the elaborate artifice of the allegorizer.\n\n'_Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I\nam the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and\nrobbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door; by me if any\nman enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find\npasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to\ndestroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have\nit more abundantly._'\n\nThe formal interpreter of parables would at once decide, that the most\nimportant object in the picture which is presented to the eye, must\nrepresent Christ the Son of Man. The supposition is a natural one;\nperhaps it may ultimately prove to be true. But our Lord's first words\nseem to confute it. His conversation with the Pharisees leads Him to\nspeak of the gate through which both the sheep and the shepherd enter\ninto the fold, before He speaks of the shepherd. And that gate, He\nsays, is Himself. All kings, prophets, priests, teachers, had brought\nlight and life into the minds of men,--had served to bind men into\none,--just so far as they had confessed a light and life from which\ntheirs was derived, just so far as they had identified themselves with\nthe people. And all that had come claiming to be the sources of life\nand light,--to have an independent authority,--to have a right to\nrule, because they were in themselves stronger, or wiser, or better\nthan others, had been thieves and robbers, the tyrants and destroyers\nof the earth. There is no commentary on history, the history of the\nwhole world, ancient and modern, so grand as this,--so perfectly able\nto abide the test of facts. Every prophet, and monarch, and priest of\nthe Jews brought strength and freedom into his land, while he was the\nwitness of an invisible Prophet, and Monarch, and Priest higher than\nhimself, living then, one day to be made manifest. Every prophet,\nmonarch, and priest was the cause of superstition, idolatry, and\nslavery to his land, when he exalted himself,--when he strove to prove\nthat he had some rights of his own which were not conferred on him for\nthe sake of his race,--which were not conferred that he might be a\nwitness of the glory belonging to his race.\n\nIf we read Pagan history and literature by the light of Scripture, we\nshould find abundance of proofs that the maxim is equally true and\nsatisfactory with reference to them; that every Greek or Roman patriot\nand sage, whom we ought to love, and whom only a heartless,\natheistical religion can hinder us from loving, did good and was good,\nso far as he did not seek his own glory,--so far as he did not\nattribute his wisdom and power to himself,--so far as he was in\ncommunion, amidst whatever confusions, with the Light that lighteneth\nevery man; and that every oppressor and invader of freedom, whose\ncharacter it is our duty to hate, was so because he came in his own\nname, claiming to be a king, a Christ, a god. With tenfold momentum do\nthe words bear upon the ages since the incarnation, and declare to\nevery priest, pope, emperor, philosopher, and master of a sect or\nschool,--'In so far as thou hast assumed to be the Son of Man,--in so\nfar as thou hast set thyself to be something when thou art\nnothing,--in so far as thou hast claimed to have light, which has not\ncome from the Fountain of light,--and power, which is not imparted by\nthe righteous Power,--so far thou hast been a _thief and a robber,\ncaring for nothing but to steal, and to kill, and to destroy_.'\n\nBut if in this sense it is true now, and has been true always, that\nChrist is the only Door through which any man enters, whose designs\ntowards human beings are good and not murderous; can it be equally\ntrue that '_the sheep did not hear_' the voices of false prophets, of\nusurping tyrants, who climbed up some other way? How then have they\nprevailed so mightily? Dare we say that no true men have given heed to\nthem? Dare we judge all that have yielded to impostors,--all that have\nwelcomed them as deliverers? Shall we not certainly be judged if we\ndo?\n\nAssuredly we shall. And, therefore, let us proceed to judge ourselves\nfirst, and at once. _We_ have listened to impostors,--have we not?\n_We_ have been beguiled by men who we thought were to give us life,\nand really took life from us. Well, but was there nothing in us which\nrefused to hear these teachers,--to follow these guides? Was there no\ninward protest against them? Where some strong external evidence, some\nevil fruits in ourselves, showed that a pernicious juice had issued\nfrom the tree, did we not feel that we might have known it\nbefore--that if we had been true to the light which was shining into\nus, we should have known it? And, even when the enchantment was\nstrongest upon us, was there no crying for another guide,--no bleating\nafter a better shepherd? Here, then, is the confirmation of our Lord's\nsentence; we need go no further to understand what He means. Something\nin us did follow the strange voice, but the _sheep_--the true man in\nus--did not. That could make no answer to the counterfeit voice; that\ndetected the thief in the shepherd's dress; that was certain that\nthere must be one who had a right to command, and whom it could obey.\n\nI say again, this sheep is the '_true man in us_.' Each of us in\nhimself knows that it is; we may know it also by the echo which the\nhistory of our race makes to the witness in our consciences. Why have\nthe oppressors of mankind been so short-lived? How is it that, though\nthere may be a succession of lies, each lie wears itself out in a\ngeneration,--in much less than a generation? How is it that what seems\nfor a while the weakest possible testimony against it waxes stronger\nand louder, till at last the world gives into it, and the lie and the\nliar are indignantly trampled underfoot? How is it, but because the\nspirit of humanity does not and cannot hear the voices of those who\nbreak into the fold by the wrong way? How is it, but because all their\ntemporary power is only derived from the tones of the true Shepherd,\nwhich they are able to mimic? How is it, but because they bear\nwitness, by their reign and by their downfal, that they do not rule\nthe earth, and that He does?\n\nYes, brethren, '_He who comes, that His sheep might have life, and\nthat they might have it more abundantly_,' does not teach us to talk\nof ourselves as His sheep, and of other men as having no part in Him.\nThis is the teaching of robbers and destroyers,--of those who would\nsever us from our kind,--of those who would persuade us that it is a\nprivilege to have a selfish, separate life,--to have selfish, separate\nrewards. This selfish, separate life is what Christ promises to save\nus from. The wide, free pastures into which He would lead us, are\nthose upon which we can only graze, because we are portions of a\nflock; the fold into which He would bring us is for those whom He has\nredeemed from their separate errings and strayings to rest together in\nHim. We cannot, therefore, make a more deadly misapplication of this\ndiscourse, than when we turn it into an excuse for drawing lines of\nseparation between those for whom Christ has died. While we draw\n_these_ lines, we never shall discover the deep line in ourselves\nbetween that which can only follow the Deliverer, and that which can\nonly follow the destroyer.\n\n'_I am the good Shepherd: the good shepherd giveth His life for the\nsheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the\nsheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and\nfleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The\nhireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the\nsheep._'\n\nYou will say, 'The image is changed. Christ was the wicket-gate; but\nnow He has become the person who passes through that gate.' Yes, and\nif you have followed the course of the thought; if you have seen why\nHe is described as the door through which shepherd and sheep must\nenter in,--why the shepherds of Israel are reproved when they will not\npass through that door,--you will see the necessity of the double\nimage. You will feel that He whom all shepherds are bound to\nacknowledge, if they would have the sheep hear them, must be Himself,\nin the highest sense, _the_ Shepherd. And the test that He is this\nShepherd, explains the perpetual worth and significance of the other\nsymbol. '_He gives His life for the sheep._' The false shepherds wish\nto find out a way for themselves, which is not the way that the sheep\ntake. They do not like the thought of stooping--beings of another and\nhigher race as they are--to the conditions of these silly creatures.\n_He_ identifies Himself with them. They have to die. _He_ dies. That\nis the first and obvious view of the sentence; and it is the one to\nwhich we come back at last, as the deepest and most wonderful of all.\nBut before we can take it in its full force, we must recal the old\nsentence, '_In Him was life_;' and the other which He has just\nuttered, '_I am come that they might have life more abundantly_.' The\nproperty of death is, that it is solitary and incommunicable; the\nproperty of life is, that it must be communicated,--that from him in\nwhom it dwells most it must be poured forth most. He in whom the\nsource of life is, from whom all the streams of it have issued, comes\ninto the world to encounter death, which appears to have got the\nmastery,--to claim them whom He has created capable of life, for life.\nBut how can He give life? How can He overcome death? He must _give up_\nlife. He must die. The highest life is the life that sacrifices\nitself. All older shepherds had shown that it was. For their country\nand their brethren they had poured out their life; _that_ men had\nreceived as the proof that they were from God,--that they were\nquickened by Him. The good Shepherd, the Shepherd of shepherds,\njustifies the belief. He shows that they had done what they did by\ninspiration from Him. He shows that, in this instance also,--in this\ninstance especially,--they were receiving of His fulness, and grace\nfor grace. The Word takes flesh and blood, because the children are\npartakers of flesh and blood. The Shepherd dies, because the sheep\ndie.\n\nThus, the doctrine which He has been preaching to the Pharisees is\nbrought out in all its power. They claimed to be shepherds of the\npeople, because they were above them,--because they did not share\ntheir weakness and blindness. His claim to be the Shepherd of the\npeople was, that He would not be above them; that He would bear what\nthey bore, and sink as low as they had sunk. And this not from some\ngreat effort,--in virtue of some arrangement,--but because He had the\nmost intimate and original sympathy with them, because they had always\nbeen His, and because He had made Himself one with them in all things.\nThis is the contrast which He draws between the good shepherd and the\nhireling. The one shepherd does his work because he looks to be paid\nfor it. He feels altogether aloof from his sheep. He regards them as\nbeings of a different nature from his own. He is to be very great and\ncondescending to them. He is to fold them carefully at night,--to do\nall needful services for them by day; not because he cares for them,\nbut because he has sold his work for so much, and he may lose his\nwages if he commits any serious oversight. And this motive serves him\nwell enough till some great danger threatens the sheep, till the wolf\nbreaks into the fold. Then the hireling feels rightly that life is\nmore precious than money; it is wiser to lose his pay than to run the\nrisk of being devoured.\n\nFrom whom do these hireling shepherds expect their wages? I do not\nthink it signifies much whether they expect them from man or from\nGod,--in this world or in another. The temper is the same; the result\nwhich our Lord prophesies must be the same. For he who does his work\nin hope of getting a reward hereafter for what he has done, will, in\ngeneral, regard God as an uncertain, capricious Being, whom it is very\nhard to please, who may punish as well as reward. Therefore he will\npause before he will risk death for the sake of his work. Death may\nbring him into the presence of the Being whom he dreads. Death may\nsurprise him before he has done all that he ought to have done. If\nthere is nothing better in us than this expectation, we shall never\nthrow away ourselves as soldiers do on the battle-field; we shall,\nperhaps, give ourselves credit for being better and holier than they\nare, because we do not.\n\nBut are we not to serve the sheep from a sense of duty to God? Are we\nonly to serve them from certain feelings of affection for them? Let us\nhear what our Lord tells us of Himself, then we shall know better what\nwe are to be.\n\n'_I am the good Shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As\nthe Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my\nlife for the sheep._'\n\nThere are heights and depths in these verses which no man may look\ninto; but the principle which is declared in them is needful for the\ndaily practice of life, profound as it is. Christ declares that He\nknows His sheep. He opposes this knowledge to the motives and feelings\nof the hireling. Let us think of _these_. _We_ can describe them to\nyou; for, brethren, which of us may not say,--should not say,--in\ndust and ashes: 'They have been mine. I have felt cold and estranged\nfrom those I was seeking to guide; out of communion with their fears,\ntheir sorrows, their doubts, their temptations; ready to reprove the\nrich for being rich, and the poor for being poor, the tradesman for\nhis basenesses, the lawyer for his; ready to condemn all the sins\nwhich I had no mind to commit; but not knowing them individually, not\nbearing their burdens, not feeling them as my own. And, therefore,\nwhen the wolf has come, which is always ready to divide the flock,--to\nrend them from each other,--to take away the life that should unite\nthem,--I have not been ready to encounter him. How much less should I\nhave been ready if he had come in the form of some terrible\npersecution, scattering them hither and thither!' We know the\nhireling's mind all too well; that we do not learn from report. And\noh! that we might understand something of that other mind which is\nopposed to it,--of that which is expressed in the words, '_I know my\nsheep, and am known of mine_!' If you would think rightly of the Son\nof Man, think of the Person who knows thoroughly everything that each\none of you is feeling, and cannot utter to others or to\nhimself,--every temptation from riches, from poverty, from solitude,\nfrom society, from gifts of intellect, from the want of them, from the\ngladness of the spirit, from the barrenness and dreariness of it, from\nthe warmth of affection and from the drying up of affection, from the\nanguish of doubt and the dulness of indifference, from the whirlwind\nof passion and the calm which succeeds it, from the vile thoughts\nwhich spring out of fleshly appetites and indulgences, from the\ndarker, more terrible, suggestions which are presented to the inner\nwill. Believe that He knows all these, that He knows _you_. And then\nbelieve this also, that all He knows is through intense, inmost\nsympathy, not with the evil that is assaulting you, but with you who\nare assaulted by it. Believe that knowledge, in this the Scriptural\nsense of it,--the human as well as the divine sense of it,--is\nabsolutely inseparable from sympathy.\n\nBut it is added, and '_am known of mine_.' I am sure we should fix our\nminds upon those words which express His knowledge before we come to\nthese, else they will either drive us to despair, or lead us to great\npresumption. When we have done this, we may say that the highest\nknowledge of Christ which any, the holiest, man, has attained,--that\nwhich we attribute to an \u00e0 Kempis or to a Leighton,--is what is meant\nfor the sheep of Christ,--their proper characteristic. But having said\nthis, we should also say that every apprehension, which any man\nstruggling with ever so much of evil, ever so much overcome by it, has\nof a higher and better life, of a Divine Teacher and Reprover, is part\nof this knowledge,--is in kind like theirs. We should say that to be\nabsolutely without this knowledge is a dreadful possibility, which is\nthreatening every one of us,--which those who are most occupied with\ndivine mysteries must often feel to be near to themselves--but which\nis a reprobate condition, one into which we have no right to suppose\nthat any person has sunk, so long as he has any perception of that\nwhich is good and true,--any, the faintest, desire to lay hold of it.\nTruly, the voice of him who was a liar and murderer from the beginning\nis speaking to us and in us all,--is tempting us all down into death.\nBut the voice of the true Shepherd is also speaking to us, inviting\nus, claiming us as His sheep. And there is not one who has not at\ntimes heard that voice,--who has not been sure that he had a right to\nfollow it, and that no man or devil had a right to say, 'Thou art not\nHis; thou hast not a claim on Him; and He does not desire thee to\nfollow Him.'\n\nBrethren, if shepherds and sheep made more of an effort to understand\neach other,--if the shepherds were more sure that they could enter\ninto all that is drawing the sheep astray, because the same evil is in\nthemselves,--if the sheep thought that they might give the shepherds\ncredit for knowing all that is worst in them, not as judges, but as\nfellow-sinners and fellow-sufferers,--we should each and all of us\nhave more communion with the Chief Shepherd. Those who guide would be\ndriven, by the sense of their own ignorance and coldness, to seek for\nlight and warmth from Him; those who are guided would feel that the\npastor on earth did not intercept their communication with the\nheavenly Pastor, but existed to show them what He is, and how near He\nis to them. All has gone wrong in ourselves from our losing this\nfellowship with each other,--from our forgetting that the Highest of\nall was the lowest of all,--that He proved His right to rule us by\nbecoming one of us, and one with us.\n\nAnd yet there is a deeper error still at the root of our selfishness\nand want of sympathy. We do not confess the ground of Christ's own\nsympathy, of His own sacrifice. He declares to us here that His\nknowledge of the sheep, and the knowledge which the sheep have of Him,\nrests upon the Father's knowledge of Him and His knowledge of the\nFather. He has been telling us the same thing in previous discourses.\nThis union of the Father with the Son,--this dependence of the Son\nupon the Father,--has been the mystery which the whole Gospel has been\ndiscovering to us. Those words, in which He tells us that this\nrelation is at the basis of our relation to Him and to each other,--of\nall our social and spiritual sympathies,--do but carry us one step\nfurther in the revelation. Those words, in which He tells us that He\nlays down His life for the sheep, because He is one with His Father,\ndo but bring out more fully that love of the Father, of which His life\nand death were testimonies; a love to which He yielded Himself in\nsimple obedience, when He gave the greatest proof He could give of\nlove to the sheep.\n\nThis is the answer to the question which was asked before, whether\nduty to God is not as good and powerful a motive as love to man? Yes,\nbrethren, a more powerful motive, a deeper and safer ground to stand\nupon, if we accept what our Lord says here. He boasts of no love to\nman as dwelling in Himself,--it is all derived from His Father. He\nmerely submits to His will, merely fulfils it. And because that will\nis a will of absolute love, the mere submission to it,--the mere\nconsenting that it should be accomplished upon Him and in\nHim,--involved the most perfect love to men,--the most entire\ncommunion with them,--the dying for them. He says this expressly in\nthe 17th and 18th verses, though there is one interposed between them\nand that which I last quoted, which it would be shameful indeed to\npass over. '_And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them\nalso I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be\none fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because\nI lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from\nme, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I\nhave power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my\nFather._'\n\nOur translators have carelessly substituted _fold_ for _flock_ in the\nlast clause of the first of these verses. But most readers, I think,\nhave of themselves restored the true reading, and perceived that the\nGentiles were not to be brought into the Jewish fold, but to form one\nflock with the Jews after the temporary enclosure of their fold had\nbeen broken down. Perhaps they have been more puzzled to understand\nwhy what we describe as the calling in of the Gentiles should be\nspoken of in connexion with Christ's laying down His life. The second,\nmodern theology represents as an event necessary for the salvation of\nindividual men; the first, as an event connected with the outward\neconomy of the world. And so, modern theology is out of harmony with\nthe language of the Scriptures to which it appeals. For that\nrepresents the death of Christ as the uniting power which breaks down\nthe barrier between man and man,--as the deliverance of each man from\nthe selfishness which sets him apart from his fellows, and apart from\nHis Father in heaven. If it is this, it is surely nothing strange to\nspeak of the union of the two different classes into which the world\nwas divided as the mighty effect of the death of Christ. If it is\nthis, the calling in of the Gentiles belongs not to outward history,\nbut to the most inward and spiritual part of God's dispensation. The\nrecognition of Christ's other sheep as His sheep,--the acknowledgment\nof the heathen as having been always His, no less than those who had\nbeen called out to be a blessing to all the families of the\nearth,--was the mightiest witness that the Brother and Lord of man had\nmet the wolf who was destroying the fold, had redeemed all from death\nby sharing their death.\n\nIt was the witness, too, of that other profound truth which the 17th\nverse announces, that there was a Man in whom the Father was\nperfectly satisfied, and that the ground of His satisfaction was that\nthis Man entirely loved men--entirely gave Himself up for men. He\ncould be satisfied with nothing less than this; for nothing less than\nthis was the expression of His own mind and will. In no act of less\nlove than this could His love declare itself. The thought is so\nwonderful, the mystery is so deep, that men have shrunk from it as\nincredible, and have invented any reason to account for Christ's death\nbut that which He gives Himself. That an entirely voluntary act should\nbe yet the fulfilment of a commandment,--that the highest power of\ngiving away life and taking it should be realized in the most perfect\nobedience; this idea clashes so much with our natural pride and\nself-glorification, that we would rather think Christ died because He\nwas _not_ one with the Father,--that it was not the Father's love that\nwas satisfied, but His wrath and fury,--than accept a statement which\nshows us that His thoughts are not as our thoughts or His ways as our\nways; that He is not made after our image, though He would have us\nconformed to His. But seeing that all our morality, all our relations\nto one another, depend upon the question, what He is and what He has\nmade us to be, we must ask for strength to cast away the schemes and\ntheories of man's devising, and to receive simply, as little children,\nthe teaching of Him who is the brightness of the Father's glory, our\nBrother and our Judge.\n\n'_There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these\nsayings. And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear\nye Him? Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil.\nCan a devil open the eyes of the blind?_'\n\nI do not know whether the Jews who held these different opinions were\nthe Pharisees to whom He originally spoke, or whether His sayings were\nreported to those who were gathered at the feast of Dedication. The\nopinions themselves are exactly what one would expect that such\nsayings would call forth. 'How can you listen to a madman, a demoniac,\nwho says that He shall lay down His life and take it again,--who\ndenounces our teachers, and calls Himself the good Shepherd?' This is\nthe language of the respectable citizen of Jerusalem, the\nrepresentative of the feeling of the Jewish religious world. 'But do\nwe not want a Shepherd who shall guide us to something better? Are we\nsatisfied with our present state? May not He who can give sight to the\nblind be the Light of men, as He says that He is?' These would be the\ncautious suggestions of those in whom some cravings had been awakened,\nwhich the teachers of the day could not stifle.\n\nWe may suppose that the former party would press this argument upon\nthe others; 'But if He is the Christ, why has He not courage to call\nHimself by _that_ name? Why does He adopt these phrases, \"Shepherd,\"\n\"Light of the world,\" \"Son of Man,\" which we do not understand,\ninstead of that with which we are familiar, the purport of which we\nknow?' Of some such suggestion the question in the following verses\nmay have been the fruit: '_And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the\ndedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in\nSolomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about Him, and said unto\nHim, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell\nus plainly._' The demand seemed most reasonable, '_Tell us plainly_.'\nWhat an honest sound there is in those words! What can be better than\nplain speaking? Why should He who denounced all lies have shrunk from\nit? The question is not a new one. To have said, '_I am the Christ_,'\nwould have been to deceive them, unless He showed them what the Christ\nwas, unless He made them understand that He was in nearly all respects\nunlike the Christ they had imagined for themselves. 'May we not then,\nafter His example, avoid direct answers? May we not use expressions\nwhich people call ambiguous?' Yes, if the answers we give are more\nperilous to ourselves than those we avoid, as His were; if the\nexpressions that are _called_ ambiguous bring the hearers more face to\nface with facts, than those which are called straight. This is our\nLord's example. Let all who dare follow it.\n\n'_Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that\nI do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not,\nbecause ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my\nvoice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them\neternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck\nthem out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than\nall; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and\nmy Father are one._'\n\nHe had told them that He had come from the Father; He had testified by\nacts what His Father was. He had shown them that the Father was\nworking for them on common days and Sabbath-days to bless them. This\nact had begotten no faith in them; would the words, '_I am the\nChrist_,' beget faith in them? Neither words nor acts, so long as they\nwere not seeking as sheep for the true Shepherd. He had said to them\nbefore, that instead of looking for a shepherd who should point the\nway to them and the humblest Israelite,--who should fold them\ntogether,--they were aspiring to be independent shepherds; they were\nrefusing to enter by the same door as the sheep. Those who were\nsheep,--those who needed a shepherd,--would own His voice. They did\nnot want Him to tell them that He was the Christ. A sure and divine\ninstinct would tell them, that He who gave up Himself, He who entered\ninto their death, must be the guide they were created to follow,--that\nthere could be no other. And He would justify their confidence. They\nwere longing for life,--for the life of spirits,--for the life of God;\nnothing less would satisfy them. He would give them that life,--that\neternal life of love, in which He had dwelt with the Father. They were\nsurrounded by enemies who were seeking to rob them of life, to draw\nthem into death. He was stronger than these enemies. They should not\nperish; neither man nor devil should take them out of His hands. The\neternal will which He came to fulfil was on their side. _The Father\nwho gave them to Him was greater than all._ Those who were seeking to\nseparate them from their Lord and Shepherd were at war with this\nFather; for He had owned them, they were His.\n\nTo this mighty declaration all His discourse concerning the sheep and\nthe shepherd has been tending; but at the ground of it lies a mightier\nstill: '_I and my Father are one_.' All that He has been teaching is\nwithout foundation, if it has not this foundation. The unity of the\nFather and the Son is the only ground of the unity between the\nshepherd and the sheep; undermine one, and you undermine both. And\nwhen I say this, I mean you undermine all unity among men, all the\norder and principles of human society. For if these do not rest upon\ncertain temporary conventions; if they have not been devised to\nfacilitate the exchange of commodities, and the operations of the\nmoney market; if there is not a lie at the root of all fellowship and\nall government, which will be detected one day, and which popular rage\nor the swords of armed men will cut in pieces;--we must recognise, at\nlast, the spiritual constitution of men in one Head and Shepherd, who\nrules those wills which every other power has failed and shall fail to\nrule. We must recognise it. The existence of a Christendom either\nmeans _this_,--either affirms that such a constitution is, and that\nnational unity and family unity imply it, and depend upon it;--or it\nmeans nothing, and will dissolve into a collection of sects and\nparties, which will become so intolerable to men, and so hateful to\nGod, that He will sweep them from His earth. Do you think sects would\nlast now for an hour, if there was not in the heart of each of them a\nwitness for a fellowship, which combinations and shibboleths did not\ncreate, and which, thanks be to God, they cannot destroy? The true\nShepherd makes His voice to be heard, through all the noise and\nclatter of earthly shepherds; the sheep hear that voice, and know that\nit is calling them to follow Him into a common fold where all may rest\nand dwell together. And when once they understand that still deeper\nmessage which He is uttering here, and which the old creeds of\nChristendom are repeating to us, '_I and my Father are one_;' whenever\nthey understand that the unity of the Church and the unity of mankind\ndepends on this eternal distinction and unity in God Himself, and not\nupon the authority or decrees of any mortal pastor, the sects will\ncrumble to pieces, and there will be, in very deed, '_one flock and\none Shepherd_.'\n\nBut, that we may enter thoroughly and deeply into the meaning of these\nwords, we should meditate earnestly upon those which followed them,\nthose especially in which our Lord justified what the Jews declared to\nbe blasphemy. '_Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus\nanswered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for\nwhich of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered Him, saying,\nFor a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that\nthou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not\nwritten in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto\nwhom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye\nof Him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou\nblasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the\nworks of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not\nme, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father\nis in me, and I in Him._'\n\nWe are eager to quote these words of Jesus, as a proof that He is God.\nI fear that, very often, we only mean, _that He took to Himself the\nname of God_. We associate with that name a certain idea of power and\nabsoluteness; we believe that He vindicated that power and\nabsoluteness to Himself. No, brethren. He came--if we may believe His\nown words--to show us what God is; to deliver us from our crude,\nearthly, dark notions of Him; to prevent us from identifying His\nnature with mere power and sovereignty, as the heathens did, as the\nJews in that day were doing. He came to show us the Father. Instead,\ntherefore, of eagerly grasping at the divine name, and appropriating\nit to Himself, the method which He takes of proving His unity with the\nFather is, to humble Himself, to identify Himself with men, to refuse\nto be separate from them. 'You charge me with calling myself God.\n\"_But did not he call them gods, to whom the word of God came?_\"' We\nare startled at the defence. We ask ourselves whether He was not\nabandoning the very claim which He had put forward; whether He was not\nallowing others to share the incommunicable glory with Him? No! but He\nwas showing that a dignity and a glory had been put upon men by the\nword of God itself, which proved that there must be a Son of Man who\nwas indeed the Son of God.\n\nIt was not only heathen sages who had spoken of man's divine\nfaculties, divine origin, divine destiny. The Scriptures had called\nthose whom God had set over men, gods. Psalmists, who were most\njealous for the honour of Jehovah, had not feared to use the language.\nProphets could not maintain the truth of their own mission--could not\ndeclare that the word of God was speaking by them and in them--without\nfalling into it. There _was_ the greatest peril of men becoming\nLucifers,--of their setting themselves up in the place of God. It is\nthe very danger of which Christ has been speaking in this\ndiscourse,--the temptation into which kings, prophets, priests,--even\nteachers who pretended to no inspiration, who merely stood on the\nground of their traditional greatness, or of men's preference for\nthem,--had fallen. Nor was there any deliverance from such\npretensions, and from the robberies and murders which were the\nconsequence of them, unless One came who did not exalt Himself, who\ndid the works of His Father, who simply glorified Him. Such a One\ncould justify all the high words that had ever been spoken of our\nrace, and yet could lay low the pride of those who had aspired to be\nthe lords of it. He could show what the true man is; and, in doing so,\ncould show what the true God is. By putting Himself into the position\nof the lowest of the sheep, by enduring the death to which each one of\nthe sheep had been subjected, He could prove that the glory of man is\nto serve; He could show that the true sons of God had been the true\nservants of men; He could show that the perfect servant of all must be\n_the_ Son of God. All titles, honours, dignities among men, had\nderived their virtue and efficacy from Him. Their virtue and efficacy\nlay in His Sonship. He was content to be a Son, to be nothing else\nthan a Son. So He showed forth His eternal consubstantial union with\nthe Father. If God is merely absolute Power, then all this Christian\ntheology is a dream and a falsehood,--then there is no Son of God or\nSon of Man, in any real sense of the words. But if God is absolute\nLove, then He who died for the sheep must be His perfect image and\nlikeness, the '_only-begotten, full of grace and truth_;' then to\nseparate Him from the Father, to seek for the Father in any but Him,\nmust lead to the denial of both, ultimately to the glorification of an\nevil spirit, a being of absolute selfishness, in place of both. From\nwhich frightful consummation, brethren, may the Father, the Son, and\nthe Spirit, the one God, whose name is Love, preserve us and His whole\nChurch!\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XX.\n\nTHE RAISING OF LAZARUS.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 4th Sunday after Trinity, June 15th, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN XI. 25.\n\n_Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that\nbelieveth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live._\n\n\nThe words, '_I and my Father are one_;' '_The Father is in me and I in\nHim_,' which were spoken in the porch of the Temple at the feast of\nDedication, had the same effect as the words, '_Before Abraham was, I\nam_,' which were spoken after the feast of Tabernacles. In both cases\nthe Jews sought to take Jesus that they might stone Him; in both Jesus\nescaped out of their hands. On the last occasion we are told whither\nHe retired: '_He went away again beyond Jordan into the place where\nJohn at first baptized, and there He abode_.' The disciples who had\nbeen with Him in the crowd of the city found themselves in the lonely\nplace where they had first heard Him proclaimed as the Lamb of God.\nSince that time there had been a whirl of new thoughts and strange\nhopes in their minds. The kingdom of God had appeared to be indeed at\nhand; they had seen their Master exercising the powers of it; they had\nexercised those powers themselves. Some day His throne would be\nestablished; they should sit beside Him. The vision had passed away;\nthey were the companions of a fugitive; they were in the desert where\nthey had first learned, not that they were princes to sit and judge,\nbut sinners wanting a Deliverer.\n\nI cannot doubt that He who was educating them, not only by His speech\nbut by all His acts, had devised this lesson for them, that it was\njust what they needed at that time. How often do we all need just such\na discipline; the return to some old haunt that some past experience\nhas hallowed; the return to that experience which we seem to have left\nfar behind us, that we may compare it with what we have gone through\nsince! How good it would be for us if when circumstances take us back\nto the past, we believed that the Son of Man had ordered those\ncircumstances, and was Himself with us to draw the blessing out of\nthem!\n\nOthers beside the disciples were profiting, the Evangelist tells us,\nby this choice of a place. '_And many resorted unto Him, and said,\nJohn did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this Man were\ntrue._' They had perhaps contrasted John the preacher in the\nwilderness, with Jesus who ate with publicans and sinners; John, who\nsaid, Repent, with Jesus, who opened the eyes of the blind. Now they\nwere reminded of the likeness between them. Jesus drew them away from\nearthly things, as John had done. Jesus made them conscious of a light\nshining into them, as John had done. Only what John had said was true.\nThey needed a baptism of the Spirit, that the baptism for the\nremission of sins might not be in vain. They needed a Lamb of God and\na Son of God, who should do for them what no miracles could do. Was He\nnot here? '_And many believed on Him there._'\n\nI can conceive no diviner introduction than this to the story of the\nraising of Lazarus. It prepares us to understand that what we are\nabout to hear of, is not one of those signs which Jesus rebuked His\ncountrymen as sinful and adulterous for desiring; not one of those\nwonders which draw men away from the invisible to the visible,--from\nthe object of faith to an object of sight; but just the reverse of\nthis,--a witness that what _John spake of Jesus was true_,--a witness\nthat in Him was Life, and that this Life always had been, was then,\nand always would be, the Life as well as the Light of men. With what\ncare the story is related so that it shall leave this impression on\nour minds--how all those incidents contribute to it which would have\nbeen passed over by a reporter of miracles, nay, which would have been\nrejected by him as commonplace, and therefore as interfering with his\nobject--I shall hope to point out as we proceed. And I would\nthankfully acknowledge at the outset, that, on the whole, the mind of\nChristendom has responded to the intention of the divine narrator;\nthat whatever scholars and divines may have made of the story, the\npeople have apprehended its human and domestic characteristics, and\nhave refused to be cheated of its application to themselves under the\npretext that it would serve better as an evidence for Christianity if\nits meaning were limited to one age. I am still more thankful that the\nChurch, by adopting the words of my text into her Burial Service, has\nsanctified this rebellion. An attempt, therefore, to discover the\nexact meaning of the Evangelist will not introduce novelties, but will\ndeepen old faith. And I cannot help feeling that unless we do seek to\ndeepen that faith, unless we are willing to learn again from St. John\nsome of the lessons which we may think we know very perfectly, or\nhave left behind us in our nurseries, we shall find that we have less\nof belief than many Jews and many heathens had before our Lord came in\nthe flesh.\n\n'_Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of\nMary and her sister Martha. (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord\nwith ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus\nwas sick.)_' The story of Mary and the alabaster box of ointment has\nnot yet been told by our Evangelist. But he had too distinct and high\nan object to care for preserving the conventional proprieties of a\nnarrator. He never pretended to be giving those who read him their\nfirst information about the events that happened while our Lord was\nupon earth. Their memories, he knew, were stored with these events.\nWhat they wanted was to see further into the meaning of them; to see\nhow they exhibited the life of the Son of Man and the Son of God. He\nwill tell us afterwards what is the context and significance of Mary's\nact. Here he assumes that it was known at Ephesus,--as it was to be\nknown wherever the Gospel was preached,--and he uses it to identify\nLazarus. But how could Lazarus need to be identified? Must not his\nname and his fame have been spread as widely as his sister's? Was any\nother more likely to be preserved in the first century, by tradition,\nif not by record? The answer is contained in the narrative. Lazarus,\nas a man who had been in a grave and had come forth out of it, might\nbe spoken of then as he is spoken of now. A glorious halo might\nsurround him. It would be shocking to connect him with ordinary\nfeelings and interests. A like halo would encircle her head who had\nanointed the Lord's body for the burial. Men would refuse to look upon\nher as one of the common children of earth. It was just this which\nJohn dared to do, which it was essential to his purpose that he should\ndo. He would have us know that Mary dwelt in the little town of\nBethany; that she had a sister Martha; that Lazarus was her brother.\nThe story is stripped of its fantastical ornaments. The hero and\nheroine have passed into the brother and sister. If they have to do\nwith an unseen world, it is not with a world of dreams, but of\nrealities; not with a heaven that scorns the earth, but with a heaven\nthat has entered into fellowship with earth.\n\n'_Therefore his sisters sent unto Him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom\nthou lovest is sick._' The man who was healed at the Pool of Bethesda,\nthe blind man who was sent to wash in the Pool of Siloam, were merely\nsuffering Jews; the bread at Capernaum was given to five thousand men\ngathered indiscriminately; the nobleman of Capernaum seems to have\nheard for the first time of Jesus; the guests at the marriage-feast\nmay have been His neighbours, or even His kinsmen, but we are not told\nthat they were. This message is the first which directly appeals to\nthe private affection of the Son of Man, which calls Him to help a\nfriend because he is a friend. The words which follow of our Lord and\nof His Apostle are worthy of all study in reference to this point.\n'_When Jesus heard that, He said, This sickness is not unto death, but\nfor the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.\nNow Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. When He had heard\ntherefore that he was sick, He abode two days still in the same place\nwhere He was._' He had a work to do. This was the first thought of\nall. The sickness was to glorify God, just as the blindness of the man\nto whom He restored sight was to glorify God. The Son of God who had\nbeen revealed as the Light of the world, was to be revealed as the\nRestorer of life. Death was not to be conqueror here, any more than\ndarkness there. All other thoughts must give way to this. Yet '_Jesus\nloved Martha and her sister, and Lazarus_.' The individual sympathy\nwas not crushed by the universal, but grew and expanded in the light\nand warmth of it. He did respond to the message in His inmost heart.\nThe love which it assumed to be there--the love for that particular\nman--was there. And in spite of it, yea, because of it, He continued\nin the desert, and made no sign of moving towards Bethany. These\nsentences enable us to enter into the Divine humanity of Jesus, as a\nthousand prelections and discourses would not enable us to enter into\nit. They do not present to us first the Divine side of His life, and\nthen the human, as if they were opposing aspects of the same Being.\nThey make us feel that the one is the only medium through which we can\nbehold the other.\n\n'_Then after that He saith to His disciples, Let us go into Jud\u00e6a\nagain. His disciples say unto Him, Master, the Jews of late sought to\nstone thee; and goest thou thither again? Jesus answered, Are there\nnot twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth\nnot, because he seeth the light of the world. But if a man walk in the\nnight, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him._' I suppose\nmany persons have asked themselves, 'What does this sentence mean just\nhere? why was it introduced?' I do not know that we, who are living\neasy and comfortable lives, can quite solve the question. But many a\npatriot and confessor, who has been concealing himself from the anger\nof those whom he wished to bless, has, I doubt not, learnt the meaning\nof the sentence, and has felt the support of it. If he tried to rush\nforth into danger, merely in obedience to some instinct or passion of\nhis own, he was walking in the night, and was sure to stumble. If he\nheard a voice in his conscience bidding him go and do some work for\nGod,--go and aid some suffering friend,--he would be walking in a\ntrack of light; it signified not what enemies might be awaiting him,\nwhat stones might be cast at him, he could move on fearlessly and\nsafely. The sun was in the heavens,--the stones would miss until his\nhour was come. If it was come, the sooner they struck the better.\n\n'_These things said He: and after that He saith unto them, Our friend\nLazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. Then\nsaid His disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. Howbeit Jesus\nspake of his death: but they thought that He had spoken of taking of\nrest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. And\nI am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may\nbelieve; nevertheless let us go unto him. Then said Thomas, which is\ncalled Didymus, unto his fellow-disciples, Let us also go, that we may\ndie with him._' These words, '_Our friend sleepeth_,' recal what was\nsaid, in the other Gospels, of the daughter of Jairus; and they point\nonwards to the language of the Epistles to the Thessalonians and to\nthe Corinthians, concerning those that are fallen asleep in Jesus. Our\nLord is evidently teaching His disciples a new language; a language\ndrawn from nature and experience; one which had mixed itself with\nother forms of speech in the dialect of all nations; but yet which was\nnot easy for them to learn, and which we understand very imperfectly\nyet. It might not help them much then, but it helped them afterwards,\nthat He did not speak merely of a man having fallen asleep, but of\n'_our friend_' sleeping. They might not have seen Lazarus for weeks\nor months, or heard any tidings of him. All the outward tokens by\nwhich the existence of friendship is ascertained, might have ceased.\nThey might never meet again. Would, therefore, the name lose its\nmeaning or its power? What limit would you fix for that meaning or\nthat power? Surely there is something immortal about the name; it\nprepares us for understanding how thin the thread is which separates\ndeath from taking of rest in sleep. The words, '_I go to awake him out\nof sleep_,' could, of course, convey little sense till the event\ninterpreted them. But the expression, '_Nevertheless let us go to\nhim_,' must have had a strange sound. 'Go to one who was already\ndead,--what could that mean? What did it all mean?' Thomas, the\ngreatest doubter among them, assuredly could not tell. But he was\nwilling to die with his Master; and that was the best preparation for\nunderstanding whatever He had to teach.\n\n'_Then when Jesus came, He found that he had lain in the grave four\ndays already._' The commentator takes this opportunity of saying a\nword about Eastern customs, and the need of a burial immediately after\ndeath. Does he suppose that that necessity makes the story less near\nand dear to the sorrower of the West? The longer he is permitted to\nlook at a face which appears often as if it had lost its\nrestlessness,--not its beauty or its life,--the more dark and terrible\nmust be the grave which is to hide it from him altogether, the more\nearnestly he must ask, Can light ever penetrate into that darkness? It\nis because the story of Lazarus has been believed to meet this\nquestion; because it comes into contact with the fact which speaks\nmost directly to the senses and to the imagination of every one of us,\nthat we cling to it when the topics of ordinary consolation are\nwearisome, unintelligible, even hateful, to us.\n\nBy such topics the sisters of Lazarus were tormented; for St. John\nsays,--'_Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs\noff: and many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them\nconcerning their brother_.' They endure the visitation impatiently or\npatiently, according to their different dispositions. '_Then Martha,\nas soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met Him: but Mary\nsat still in the house._' The impulse of the first is to find a Friend\nto whom she can dare to make complaints, because she trusts Him; the\nother retreats into herself, and, perhaps, finds that same Friend\nthere, teaching her another kind of lore than that which the\nwell-meaning comforters are pouring into her ear.\n\n'_Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my\nbrother had not died._' It is the language of reproach; but it is the\nkind of reproach which has faith and confidence for the ground of\nit,--which comes from a longing that the person who is the object of\nit should clear himself, and prove that he has not failed in the\noffice of friendship, however he may have seemed to do so. And then,\nas if His face had already answered the uneasy suspicion which her\nwords had expressed--had given her a hope of some unknown,\ninconceivable blessing--she adds, '_But I know that even now,\nwhatsoever thou shalt ask of God, God will give it thee. Jesus saith\nunto her, Thy brother shall rise again._' The words sound grand and\nglorious; they were really disappointing. What else she thought He\nmight ask of God she could not say; but it was not _this_. She had\nheard often of a resurrection; the Jews, who had come to Bethany, had,\nno doubt, been telling her many good discourses of the elders\nconcerning it. Ages hence he would, she thought, awake out of the\ndust; in the meantime, the light in their house had been quenched; he\nwas gone from them. She said, '_I know that he shall rise again in the\nresurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the\nresurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were\ndead, yet shall he live._' If He intended to give back Lazarus to her\nat once, could He not have told her so? Might He not have said, 'In\nthy special case, for my love to Lazarus and Mary and thee, I am about\nto break through ordinary laws, and to raise a body out of the\ngrave,--not at the last day, but now.' Why not? Because, if He had\nsaid so, He would have contradicted His own words, His own acts, the\nwhole tenor of His life. He did not come into the world to show\nspecial favours, but to assert and manifest universal truth. He did\nnot come into the world to break God's laws, but to establish them,\nand to show forth the will which was at the foundation of them.\nTherefore, instead of limiting Martha's words about a resurrection in\nthe last day, He expanded her words,--He uttered what was a _more_\ngeneral proposition than that one,--not bounded to a certain moment in\nthe future, but extending over the present and the past. The\nresurrection in the last day,--vague and loose as Martha's thoughts\nwere about it,--was still practically bounded by the feeling which\noccupied her soul in that hour. 'I know that _my brother_ shall rise\nagain,' did not mean very much to her; the rising of any besides her\nbrother meant nothing. But '_I am the resurrection and the life_,'\nwere words that applied to herself as much as to Lazarus,--to her\nsister as much as to either. She could not apprehend them, even in the\nslightest degree, without feeling that they were spoken of _human_\nbeings,--not merely of that being who had been lying in the grave four\ndays. And yet how immeasurably more they met her own case, her own\nsorrow, than the others! '_I am the resurrection and the life._' 'You\nhave a Friend, an almighty Friend, who restores life, who is the Giver\nof life. Do not task your poor, feeble, sorrow-stricken fancy to\nconceive of some distant world-gathering. There may be such a one;\nbut, if you are to know anything of it, know Me first. Trust in an\nactual person; leave yourself and the world to Him.' And He went on:\n'_He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and\nwhosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die_.' I do not say\nthat she could understand this, or that we can. But I am sure she did\nunderstand that she was meant to believe in Him--to rest in Him; and\nthat this belief and this rest might be exercised, not only by those\nwho could look into His countenance and hear sounds coming from His\nlips, but by those who were out of sight,--who had passed into the\nunseen world. The dead might hear His word speaking to them. The dead\nmight believe in Him. The dead might be quickened by that word and\nthat faith. Therefore, when He asked her the question, '_Believest\nthou this?_'--though she could not dare to say, 'I believe it all; I\ntake it in just as Thou hast spoken it,'--she could say, '_Yea, Lord:\nI believe that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come\ninto the world_.' She could trust absolutely, unreservedly in Himself,\nwhatever His language might or might not import.\n\n'_And when she had so said, she went her way, and called Mary her\nsister secretly, saying, The Master is come, and calleth for thee. As\nsoon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came to Him._'\nMartha went into a presence which she felt to be dear, with a\nconfidence that she should be welcome, with a certain sense that she\nhad a right to speak; Mary must wait in silence and awe till she had\nsome intimation that He was seeking for her. This difference of\ncharacters is as marked in the nineteenth century as in the first; it\naffects all the common subordinate relations of life; it reaches to\nthe highest and most divine. Each has its own worth, and its own\ntemptations. We have no business to disparage either; for Christ has\nimparted both, and has made each a way to Himself.\n\n'_Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place\nwhere Martha met Him. The Jews then which were with her in the house,\nand comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and\nwent out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep\nthere. Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw Him, she fell\ndown at His feet, saying, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother\nhad not died._'\n\nThe good-natured comforters can give their victim no peace,--even the\ngrave is not too sacred a place for their persecutions; her only\nsafety is where her sister had sought it and found it. The words Mary\nuses are the same as Martha's; they are the simplest expressions of\nthe thought which must have been in both of them,--the thought which\neach must have understood the other to be vexed with, if nothing was\nspoken,--the thought which Martha will have been able to utter, and\nwhich Mary will probably have kept closed within her till that moment.\nAnd is there anything in that thought to make a chasm between the\nhousehold in Bethany, and any English household in the nineteenth\ncentury? Is not the feeling the very same, in the heart of every one\nwho has lost a friend or brother? 'He might have been saved; Christ\nmight have ordered this differently. In this and in that case He did;\nwhy not in mine?'\n\n'_When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping\nwhich came with her, He groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, and\nsaid, Where have ye laid him? They said unto Him, Lord, come and see.\nJesus wept. Then said the Jews, Behold how He loved him! And some of\nthem said, Could not this Man, which opened the eyes of the blind,\nhave caused that even this man should not have died?_' The strength of\nthese words, which has been so great for those who have taken them\nsimply and naturally, has often been diluted. 'What need had He to\nweep, seeing that He was about to remove the cause for weeping?' But\nwhat if that grief of Mary was in kind the grief of every sister that\nhad lost a brother, since death entered into the world,--of every\nsister who shall lose one, till death be finally swallowed up in\nvictory? What if the grief of those about her, though less earnest,\nyet was at least a testimony that each of us has a share and a right\nin that which any other is afflicted with? Would the Son of Man, who\nhad taken man's flesh, who had entered into man's sorrows, sympathise\nless with her who was beside Him then, because He knew the depth and\ncause of her grief better than she knew it herself; because He knew\nthat it could not be cured by the smile of a brother, or the pressure\nof his hand, if that were granted her again; because He knew in\nHimself the mystery of the death of every man, and was to bear it\nHimself for every man? Surely it would have been a woful thing for us,\nand for the world, if He had not groaned in spirit at the sight of\nthat cave, merely because Lazarus was to come out of it; if He had not\nwept when He saw Mary and the Jews weep, merely because a sudden joy\nwas to succeed their tears! And was it not a cause for groaning, that\nthose who saw how minute, and tender, and personal His affection was\nfor this one man, should take so poor a measure of His love as to\nsuppose that He cared for him, and not for them,--for Mary and Martha,\nand not for every human sorrower,--that He might from partiality have\ncaused that this man should not have died, but had no power of\ndelivering all from death?\n\n'_Jesus therefore again groaning in Himself cometh to the grave. It\nwas a cave, and a stone lay upon it. Jesus said, Take ye away the\nstone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto Him, Lord,\nby this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days. Jesus saith\nunto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou\nshouldest see the glory of God?_'\n\nHe had said to her, '_Thy brother shall rise again_.' He changes the\nlanguage now, that He may convey a deeper sense. It was God's glory\nthat was to be revealed in that act. Hereafter she would know how much\nmore it concerned her, and her sister, and her brother, that Jesus\nshould manifest that, than that He should have caused her brother not\nto have gone into the grave, or to come forth from it again.\n\n'_Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was\nlaid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee\nthat thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but\nbecause of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe\nthat thou hast sent me. And when He thus had spoken, He cried with a_\n_loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth,\nbound hand and foot with grave-clothes; and his face was bound about\nwith a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go._'\n\nThe thanksgiving to His Father for the power which He felt He had been\nendued with to finish that work, unfolds the mystery of His life; the\nsense of filial dependence and trust that was at the root of it; the\npressure of human misery and death which turned His confidence into\ncries and groans for deliverance and help; the quickening energy which\nanswered the cry; because, as He tells us so often, He was not doing\nHis own will, but the will of Him who sent Him. This time it was\nneedful that the cry should be heard by others. They must be taught\nthat He was not exercising some rare and unwonted privilege to serve a\npartial end,--that He could bid Lazarus come forth, because He was in\nthe beginning, is now, and ever shall be, the resurrection and the\nlife.\n\nSt. John, who has told us the story with such care and minuteness,\ndoes not stop for an instant to comment upon it, or to utter any\nexpressions of astonishment; he merely tells us: '_Then many of the\nJews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did,\nbelieved on Him. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees,\nand told them what things Jesus had done._'\n\nCould he have spoken otherwise, brethren? Did he not wish us to\nconsider this act as the sign of a truth, as the exercise of a power,\nwhich circumstances cannot affect, which is proving its vitality from\nage to age? Why should he comment? Why should he wonder? The\ncommentary was to be in the history of the world; the wonder was to\nbe renewed in the case of every brother, whom Christian hands were to\nlay in the grave, 'earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust,' in\nsure and certain hope that Christ is '_the resurrection and the life,\nand that whosoever believeth in Him, though he were dead, yet should\nhe live_.' When we think of the return of Lazarus to his house at\nBethany, it is not with an unmixed delight. We ask whether he could\nhave welcomed the world's confusions which he had escaped? whether the\nthought must not have haunted him, that after a little while he should\nbe in the same cave again? These are questions which it may be well\nfor us to consider; though, perhaps, they are not different in kind\nfrom those which arise when any one who has been on the borders of the\nunseen world, who has taken leave of kinsfolk and friends, who has had\nglimpses of another country, suddenly recovers, and has to adapt\nhimself once more--for a time probably with a strange sense of\nawkwardness and incoherency--to the business and intercourse of the\nearth. In one case as in the other, I conceive there is but this\nsolution of the difficulty. The man must be glad to be placed where it\npleases Christ that he should be placed. He will not certainly be\nnearer Him by complaining of his destiny, or by not desiring exactly\nthe work which has been given him to do. If he has dreamed of a heaven\nabove where he shall be under some other law than that, or where his\nwill must not be in conformity with that law, the dream will never be\nrealized. So, doubtless, Lazarus was taught by his discipline. And\nthis may have been to him, if he could take it in, a greater comfort\nthan even his appearance again beside the old hearth,--a compensation\nfor all he might suffer then or afterwards,--that through him\nmultitudes unborn were to learn the meaning of their own death, the\nsecret of their own life, and who is the Friend that interprets them\nboth. To each man who has been near the grave, and has come back to\never such commonplace duties, something of the same blessing may be\ngiven. He may think of One who hallows the common feast as well as the\ngrave, who binds both worlds together.\n\nTo the question--\n\n    \"Where wast thou, brother, those four days?\n    There lives no record of reply,\n    Which telling us what it is to die,\n    Had surely added praise to praise.\"\n\nSo we think very naturally. And yet, if we reflect, we shall perceive\nthat those four days can only have been a part of the education of\nLazarus,--that they cannot have been separate from all his previous\nand all his later experience.\n\nThe first cry of life, when he came out of the womb, as much testified\nof One in whom is life, who is the Source of life, as the look with\nwhich he greeted his sisters or his Lord, when he was commanded to\ncome out of the grave. The opening of every sense to take in the\nsights and sounds of the world around him,--the opening of every\naffection which apprehended his human relations,--testified of the\nsame living Word. The revival of past acts and scenes in the\nmemory,--the awakening of the conscience, which bound those acts and\nscenes to his own individual self,--declared that there is One who not\nonly gives life, but brings it back, who is the resurrection as well\nas the life. As the years of manhood brought him into converse with\nbeings of his own race, whom he must meet on equal terms, whom he must\nrecognise as having powers, affections, and responsibilities like his\nown,--as creatures looking before and after like himself,--he had a\nwitness that there must be a common life, a common resurrection. As\nintercourse with Jesus gradually brought him to the knowledge of One\nwho was a friend, and more than a friend,--a Master to whom he could\nsubmit,--an inspirer of strange thoughts,--a deliverer from infinite\nperplexities,--the discerner of mysteries which eye could not see, or\near hear; there was a more and more direct witness to his heart and\nreason: 'Thou hast found the Christ. Thou hast found the resurrection\nand the life.'\n\nWhen one looks at the subject in this way, I am not sure whether one\ncares so much to know what passed in those four days. Let death and\nthe grave claim their rights and keep their secrets, as long as they\ncan. They were to assert a higher right than they asserted over this\nman of Bethany. Within a few days they were to claim dominion over Him\nwho said, '_I am the resurrection and the life_;' they were to try\nwhether they could not hold Him as their thrall for ever. If they\nsucceeded, it does not much concern us what has happened elsewhere in\nthe universe; there is one thick impenetrable cloud over it all. If\nthey failed, life must have fuller and more perfect dominion in the\nunseen region than it has in ours. Nothing which seems to die here can\nbe under the sway of death there. And Christ, by raising one poor man\nbefore He was raised Himself, testified that death shall have no\npower, that the grave shall have no power, to extinguish one faculty\nof the soul, one sense of the body, in any creature whose nature He\nhas taken.\n\nBrethren, here is the doctrine of the resurrection of the spirit and\nof the body taught in Christ's own manner, not in words, but in an\nact. And here, too, is that doctrine of a general resurrection at the\nlast day, which Martha had learnt from the Pharisees,--which,\nseparated from the words, '_I am the resurrection and the life_,' is\nthe hardest and most unpractical of all opinions,--which, united to\nthem, as it is in the Burial Service of our Church, is the most\nconsolatory. A particular resurrection for individual men, without a\ngeneral resurrection of our race, without such a restitution of all\nthings as has been spoken of by prophets since the world began, would\nbe utterly unsatisfactory, because it would not set forth the glory of\nGod and the love of God. The general resurrection in Scripture is\ndescribed in various forms of speech, all answering to deep human\nnecessities. It is spoken of as a revelation of the Son of God; it is\nspoken of as a revelation or unveiling of the sons of God in Him; it\nis spoken of as a gathering together in Him of all things in heaven\nand all in earth.\n\nI cannot read this story without feeling that, among those things in\nheaven and earth that are so to be restored, the sympathies and\naffections of the family are some of the chief. I know not why St.\nJohn should have dwelt so much upon the sorrow of the sisters of\nLazarus, and upon Christ's feeling for them, if he had not meant us to\nunderstand this. Martha, I suppose, thought before she came to Jesus,\nthat her brother would ascend some time or other on angels' wings into\na place somewhere above the stars; but that all the threads which,\nfrom their childhood upwards, had been winding round them and binding\nthem to each other, should be broken; that the associations of home\nshould cease for ever. I am sure she learnt a different lesson after\nshe had seen her brother again, and had understood the declaration,\n'_I am the resurrection and the life_.' Then she will have known that\nif, in the resurrection, 'they neither marry nor are given in\nmarriage,'--if no fresh ties are formed like those which bind us\ntogether on earth,--yet that the old relationships, the old\naffections, are to have a new and higher life. What is sown in\ncorruption is raised in incorruption; what is sown in weakness is\nraised in strength; what is sown a natural relationship is raised a\nspiritual. But in this case, as in every other, the change does not\nalter the substance of that which has been, only brings it forth in\nits might and purity.\n\nTowards this resurrection all creation is groaning and travailing. And\nthat groan which burst from Christ at the grave of Lazarus, was the\nexpression of His sympathy in that groan of His creatures; even as His\nown travail hour, in the garden, on the cross, in the tomb of Joseph,\nshowed that the path of the Shepherd is the same as that of the sheep,\nto victory and rest. Why cannot we enter into His sufferings? why\ncannot we look forward hopefully to His triumph? There are some\nfearful words in the text I have taken to-day--fearful in the midst of\nall their consolation--which explain the secret. It is said, '_He\nthat_ BELIEVETH _in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live_.' Do\nwe not feel sometimes as if all power of believing in anything that is\ngreat and noble were departing from us? Do we not feel as if to\nbelieve in Him who is goodness and truth, were the hardest effort of\nall? Does it not appear as if a second death were coming upon us,--a\ndeath of all energy, of all trust, of all power to look beyond\nourselves? Oh, if this numbness and coldness have overtaken us, or\nshould overtake us,--if we should be tempted to sit down in it and\nsink to sleep,--let the cry which awakened Lazarus awake us. Let us be\nsure that He who is the resurrection and the life is saying to each of\nus, however deep the cave in which he is buried, '_Come forth!_'\nhowever stifling the grave-clothes with which he is bound, '_Loose\nhim, and let him go!_'\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XXI.\n\nTHE DEATH FOR ALL NATIONS.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 5th Sunday after Trinity, June 22, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN XI. 49, 50.\n\n     _And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that\n     same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor\n     consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should\n     die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not._\n\n\nWe naturally ask ourselves why Caiaphas should have taken this tone in\nspeaking to his colleagues in the Sanhedrim? What did he wish them to\ndo which they had not shown themselves ready to do? Had they not sent\nofficers to take Jesus? Had they not encouraged the impulse of some\namongst His hearers to stone him, if they had not issued a formal\ndecree that He should be stoned? The explanation lies, I think, in the\nfact that Caiaphas was a Sadducee. It might be straining the words,\n'_Then gathered the chief priests_ AND _the Pharisees a council_,' to\nconclude from them that the priests in general were not Pharisees. But\nthere are other good reasons for thinking that the accession of\nCaiaphas to the office of High Priest marks the commencement of a\nSadducean ascendency. Now, the views of these schools respecting\nJesus, however they might ultimately coincide, must have been\ndetermined by their other opinions. The Sadducees will have been much\nmore disposed to regard Him as a fanatic than as a blasphemer; they\nwill have dreaded His doctrine much less than the belief of His\nkingship among the multitude; consequently, they may have thought the\nexperiment of putting Him to death by stoning very unwise. It was\nmaking a trial of their native jurisdiction which was, at least,\nhazardous; it might lead both to a tumult among their countrymen, and\nto interference from their masters. In the council which was held\nafter the raising of Lazarus, it is evident that the indignation\nagainst Jesus for '_making Himself equal with God_,'--even the\nindignation at a Galil\u00e6an for pretending to be a prophet--has been\nmerged in the fear, lest if '_they let Him alone, the Romans should\ndestroy both their place and nation_.' Caiaphas takes advantage of the\nfeeling, by whomsoever it may have been expressed, to state and defend\nhis own policy. '_Ye know nothing at all_'--'you who are trying to\npunish Him by your own laws. You do not consider that if we are in the\ndanger you apprehend, \"_it is expedient that one man should die for\nthe people_:\" that we should give Him up to the Romans, as a rebel\nagainst them; gulping down our scruples about our dignity and our\nreluctance to ask aid from the C\u00e6sar for crushing an enemy, rather\nthan that \"_the whole nation_\" should \"_perish_,\" through our\nobstinacy in maintaining an ancient and doubtful privilege.'\n\nThis was genuine Sadducean language,--precisely what one would expect\nto come from such a mouth. But it was also triumphant language. The\nPharisee must yield to it, or else forego the gratification of his own\nchief desire. He might very much have preferred to assert Jewish law.\nHe might have been willing to run some risk in enforcing it. To do\notherwise was to stoop to the maxims of a sect which he detested. But\na compromise was the only possible course. By adopting it, he could\nensure a general agreement among the rulers in bringing about the\ndeath of Jesus at the next Passover. And there would be some\ncompensation. The death would be more ignominious than the national\ncustoms would have made it. We are told, therefore, that '_from that\nday forth they took counsel to put Him to death_.' There was now no\ndivision, either about the end or the means. Pilate was to be the\njudge; the death they were to aim at was the death of the Cross.\n\nSuch, I suppose, was what Caiaphas himself understood by the words,\n'_It is expedient for us that one man should die for the nation, and\nthat the whole nation perish not_.' A narrow meaning enough,--one in\nwhich there was nothing of patriotism, in the vulgarest sense of that\nword. Caiaphas would save his nation by binding the chains of foreign\ndomination more strictly upon it; he would put on a new badge of\nslavery, that it might be permitted to exist. But then, as now, men\nutter words--made, as they think, to fit an occasion--intended to\nexpress only some paltry device of their minds--which are pregnant\nwith a signification that ages unborn will confess and wonder at. St.\nJohn does not say to his Ephesian readers or to us,--'_We_ can see\nanother force in the words of the High Priest than that which he put\non them; _we_ can translate them in our way and to our use.' But he\nsays, 'There _was_ that force in them always.' Caiaphas had not the\npower to contract his speech to the dimensions of his wit. '_Being\nhigh priest that year, he prophesied._' The grandeur of the office,\nwhich had witnessed the relation of God to His people for fourteen\nhundred years, manifested itself through the poor creature, who could\nlook no further than the expediency of the moment; to whom the past\nand the future were as nothing. He who believed in no angel or spirit\nwas compelled to be the spokesman of the Divine Word, even when he was\nplotting His death. Strange and awful reflection! And yet so it must\nbe,--so experience shows us continually that it is. Our words are not\nour own,--we are not lords over them, whatever we may think. Is it not\nwell for us to ask who is Lord over them; how such terrible\ninstruments--so immeasurably more terrible than swords or rifles--may\nbe used lawfully, for the protection, and not the destruction, of our\nbrethren; how we may be the willing, and not merely, like Caiaphas,\nthe unconscious, proclaimers of a Divine purpose; how we may execute\nit by obeying it, not by the crimes which strive, vainly, to defeat\nit?\n\nCaiaphas prophesied, says St. John, that '_Jesus should die for that\nnation; and not for that nation only, but that also He should gather\ntogether in one the children of God which were scattered abroad_.' It\nis not chiefly the form of the High Priest's sentence which suggests\nthis thought to him; he does not play upon the words of it. The\nproposition, that Jesus should not be tried for violating Jewish law,\nbut should be given up as a treasonable subject of Rome, involved the\nbreaking down of barriers between the nations. The cross was\nemphatically a message to mankind,--to all tribes and races within the\ncircle of the empire that had appointed this punishment for rebels and\nslaves. It is a thought which possessed the minds of all the\napostles,--of none more than St. John. The cross was to do what the\neagle had tried to do. It was to bind men in one society. I shall not\ndwell upon the words that announce that doctrine here, because it\nforms the most prominent subject in the following chapter of which I\nam going to speak. We shall find, I think, that every discourse and\nnarrative in it is penetrated with the idea of crucifixion. So it\nbecomes the suitable close to the records of our Lord's public\nministry,--the right preface to those private interviews of which St.\nJohn is the only historian.\n\nWe are now arrived at the point in which the narratives of the\ndifferent Evangelists coincide. All the others lead us from Galilee to\nJerusalem at this Passover. St. John, who has taken us so often to\nJerusalem at other feasts before, yet prepares us, by many significant\nintimations, to feel the special grandeur of the present.\n\n'_Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went\nthence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called\nEphraim, and there continued with His disciples. And the Jews'\npassover was nigh at hand; and many went out of the country up to\nJerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves. Then sought they\nfor Jesus, and spake among themselves, as they stood in the temple,\nWhat think ye, that He will not come to the feast? Now both the chief\npriests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man\nknew where He were, he should shew it, that they might take Him._'\n\nHe had walked the twelve hours of the day, and no stone had reached\nHim. But the night was closing in. The Jews were about to take the\ngreat step of confessing C\u00e6sar to be the only king; therefore _the_\nKing must prepare to be the Sacrifice.\n\nThe story which follows connects the two characters together:--'_Then\nJesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was\nwhich had been dead, whom He raised from the dead. There they made Him\na supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat\nat the table with Him._'\n\nI spoke, last Sunday, of the domestic tone which pervades the history\nof the resurrection of Lazarus; how St. John refused to regard death\nexcept as the breaking of a family bond--resurrection except as the\nrenewal of it. The same tone is preserved here. The family feast is\nthe resurrection feast; it is the union of the several limbs of a body\nwhich had been torn asunder. There is no change of relation or of\nsympathy; the old ways of expressing it are retained. Only service has\nbeen ennobled. He who sits at meat, and she who serves, are brother\nand sister. For there is a Guest at the table whose life has been a\nservice, and yet whose acts are all kingly. The awe of Lazarus, who\nhas known the secrets of the grave, does not interrupt fellowship; for\nHe must know them better, and He is with them, sharing in their\ngladness. 'And what is He? Is He only the elder brother of one\nhousehold? May He not be the elder brother of all households? Has He\nonly done acts of mysterious grace and power for us? May He not be the\nRuler everywhere--over the whole earth, and over those who are in the\nregion from which Lazarus has come back?'\n\nSuch thoughts may have been in the minds of both sisters. Martha\ncannot express them save by fulfilling her simple household duties;\nthey are done for Him. He can translate them into heavenly ministries.\nMary must find some other way to utter what is working in her\nheart,--what no words can give expression to. '_Then took Mary a pound\nof ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus,\nand wiped His feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the\nodour of the ointment. Then saith one of His disciples, Judas\nIscariot, Simon's son, which should betray Him, Why was not this\nointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?_' Mary\nwas probably puzzled by this question. She could not the least have\ndefended her act, or even have explained what she meant by it. She had\nheard of the anointing of kings, and of the anointing in tombs. The\nthought of royalty and of burial would become associated in her mind.\nBut why she should have done this thing,--why she had not reserved the\nmoney for those who needed it,--she could not have told. Judas may\nhave seemed to her a prudent and religious man for rebuking her. And\nthe other Evangelists say that he was not alone in the complaint. The\nApostles generally seem to have agreed in it, and felt its\nreasonableness.\n\nLater knowledge led St. John to say, '_This he said, not that he cared\nfor the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare\nwhat was put therein_.' But at the time he may have shared the feeling\nof the others. The covetousness of the betrayer may have been quite\nconcealed by his judicious charity; Mary's act may have been measured\nby his rules. If it were so, John and his fellows showed that there\nwas in them that mind which was rapidly becoming the only mind in\nJudas. It _might_ become victorious in them; it _might_ be overcome in\nhim. This perhaps was a very critical moment in their lives. Mary's\nact was essentially a woman's act. No man would be commended for it; a\nman who imitated it would not be doing what he could, but attempting\nawkwardly to do what he could not. To rough men, therefore, it was a\ntrial to understand her and sympathise with her. They had need to pass\nthrough many hard processes themselves--to be purged of the covetous\nspirit,--to be under the guidance of a Spirit who was not yet\ngiven,--before they could enter into the worth of services which they\nwere not called to perform, before they could judge them by their\norigin, not by their immediate results, before they could see what a\nforce love may put into symbols, and how that force may be felt from\ngeneration to generation by the humble and meek, whom words and\nnotions affect very little.\n\nBut there was one who knew Mary's meaning not only better than they\nknew it, but better than she knew it. '_Then said Jesus, Let her\nalone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor\nalways ye have with you; but me ye have not always._' What the day of\nHis burying was, must have been unintelligible to the disciples\ngenerally; but the reference to it, and to a time when He should not\nbe with them, may have had a solemnising effect upon them; they will\nhave been less ready to judge, more inclined to honour those whom He\nhonoured. Mary may have divined a little more of His meaning. The\nthought of His burial might perplex her. But it could not cause her\ndespair. She knew that a body which had lain in the grave four days\nhad been safe there. Surely some anointing, better than hers, would\nkeep His body if it was laid in any tomb. In her the instinct of love\nmade the thought of death and sacrifice, however wonderful, not\nincredible. On Judas it is evident that the sight of Mary's devotion\nhad a withering effect. First, it led him to hypocritical professions\nabout the poor, that he might persuade himself he had some benevolent\nfeelings; then, when Christ drove him from this ground,--when he was\nreminded that he might always help the poor if he chose,--a conscious\nhatred against goodness began to unfold itself in him. He went away\nfrom that feast a traitor in heart, prepared to accomplish the\nprophecy that Jesus had uttered concerning Himself. He was to be\npresent at one more feast,--to take one more sop,--then all would be\ndark within him.\n\nThe Evangelist leaves a strong impression upon our minds of the hurry\nand confusion in Jerusalem at that feast; the curiosity of the people\nto see Jesus and to see Lazarus; the questionings of the council\nwhether the excitement could be removed without the death of both; the\nhalf-formed thought, which might soon take shape and lead to some act,\nthat perhaps the king was among them after all. And then follows the\nstory of the entrance into Jerusalem, which is told at less length\nthan in the other Evangelists; but to which there are two additions\nthat are worthy of note. St. John quotes, as St. Matthew has done, the\nprophecy of Zechariah:--'_Thy king cometh, meek, and sitting upon an\nass_:' and then adds, '_These things understood not His disciples at\nthe first: but when He was risen from the dead, then remembered they\nthat these things were written of Him, and that they had done these\nthings unto Him_.' The illumination of his own mind, and of the minds\nof his fellow Apostles, respecting the sense and connexion of the\nScriptures,--how they learned to connect with Him the descriptions of\na King reigning in righteousness, which the Old Testament\ncontained,--how the resurrection from the dead identified Him as the\nfulfiller of them,--how it linked His relation to God with His\nrelation to man,--this we learn more clearly from St. John than from\nall the other apostolical writings. _They_ take the matter, in a\ncertain degree, for granted; he enables us to see the process of it. I\nhave spoken of this subject in considering the passage,--'_The zeal of\nthine house hath eaten me up._' The more we meditate upon it, the\nmore, I believe, we shall be able to trace lines of thought running\nthrough the Old Testament, by which the formal critic is puzzled,--the\nmore we shall find how little the word written in letters could\nprofit, if the Living Word did not expound it to the heart and\nreason,--the more we shall be sure that the laws which governed men in\nthe old time are those which govern us; that we must have the same\nTeacher as they had; or that while we seem to know everything we shall\nknow nothing.\n\nThe other addition is this:--'_The Pharisees therefore said among\nthemselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is\ngone after Him_.' The words may indicate a doubt whether the new\nscheme which Caiaphas had devised was likely to succeed so well as\ntheir own; whether the feeling of the people for the Christ would not\nprove stronger than their submission to the Romans; whether it was not\nbetter, therefore, to accuse Him of breaking a law which the multitude\ndid regard as sacred and Divine, however little they might understand\nit. At any rate, they show how much men, who have lost all sympathy\nwith truth, are apt to overrate the power of mere numbers, and to\nunderrate the effects of one simple, humble, brave act. The crowds\nthat shouted 'Hosanna!' alarmed the Pharisees. Yet, in a few days, the\ntemper of those crowds was changed; they could cry that Barabbas might\nbe released, and Jesus crucified. The mere coming into Jerusalem\nroyally, yet without the outward signs of royalty, was nothing in\ntheir eyes. Yet therein lay the real effective message to their city;\nthat was the hour of its visitation; that has been received by\ngenerations of men, in the most cultivated nations of the earth, as\nthe warning of its doom.\n\n'_And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at\nthe feast: the same came therefore to Philip, which was of\nBethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see\nJesus. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip\ntell Jesus._' The event seemed to the disciples a little one. They\nwere used to see Greek proselytes at the great festivals; it was not\nstrange that some of them should have heard of the Teacher from\nGalilee; or that, if they had heard of Him, they should wish to judge\nof Him for themselves. Coming with such feelings, to perform what must\nhave seemed to them so easy a request, how they must have been\nastonished to see the emotion which it caused their Lord, and to hear\nHim answer them thus:--'_The hour is come, that the Son of man should\nbe glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat\nfall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it\nbringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and\nhe that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.\nIf any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall\nalso my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.\nNow is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from\nthis hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour._'\n\nIt is impossible, if we are not utterly loose in our mode of\ninterpretation, not to connect these words with the Greeks who had\ncome to the feast, whether we suppose that they were present and heard\nthem, or that the answer was simply addressed to Philip and Andrew.\nAnd then the questions arise,--Why should this be such an hour of\ntrouble and of glory? How should the appearance of a few strangers\nhave led to a discussion respecting the falling of wheat into the\nground, and its death,--respecting the saving of life and the losing\nit? You will remember that when our Lord spoke of those other sheep\nHe had, which were not of the Jewish fold, and whom also He must\nbring, He connected the formation of the one flock with the death of\nthe one Shepherd. He signified clearly that the union could take place\nonly upon this condition. The assertion is in strict harmony with the\ncomment of the Apostle upon the words of Caiaphas to which I have\nalluded already. The death upon the cross was to take place that He\nmight gather together in one those scattered children of God. If you\nturn from St. John to St. Paul,--from this Gospel to the Epistle to\nthe Ephesians,--you will find the breaking down of the middle wall of\npartition between Jews and Greeks is said to be effected '_in the body\nof Christ's flesh, through death_;' that He is said to have '_nailed\nthe enmity to His cross_.' If you reflect on these passages, you will\nperceive (as I said in my discourse on the 10th of John) that what we\nsometimes speak of very lightly, as if it were only an accident of the\nNew Testament,--the calling in of the Gentiles--the unfolding of a\nuniversal society out of the Jewish national society,--is treated by\nour Lord Himself, and by His Apostles, as that wonderful event to\nwhich all God's purposes, from the beginning of the world, had been\ntending. You will perceive that they looked upon this reunion, or\nreconciliation, as unveiling a deep mystery--the deepest mystery of\nall--in the relations of God to man, in the being of God Himself.\nWithout sacrifice,--so the Jews had been taught from the beginning of\ntheir history,--so the other nations had believed just in proportion\nas they _were_ nations,--without sacrifice, there could be no unity\namong the members of a race. Sacrifice must bind them to God.\nSacrifice must bind them to each other. This great political and\nDivine truth had been confirmed by the human conscience, even when it\nprotested most against some of the inferences which priestcraft had\ndeduced from it. Only he who can give up himself--so the heart of\nmankind testified--is a patriot; only he obeys the laws; only he can\nsave his country when it is falling. There had been then a sure\nconviction expressed by prophets and holy men, planted deep in men's\nhearts, that any larger union--any union which should be between all\nnations, which should really be for mankind--must involve a mightier\nand more transcendent sacrifice; a sacrifice in which there should be\nno blemish. As the conscience was awakened by God's teaching more and\nmore clearly to perceive that all resistance to God lies in the\nsetting up of self--that this is the great barrier between Him and His\nrevolted creatures--it began to be understood that the atonement of\nman with man must have its basis in an atonement of God with man, and\nthat the same sacrifice was needed for both. One thing yet remained to\nbe learnt, the most wonderful lesson of all; and yet of which God had\nbeen giving the elements, line upon line, precept upon precept, from\nthe beginning. Could sacrifice originate in God? Could it be made, not\nfirst _to_ Him, but first _by_ Him? Could the sacrifices of men be the\neffect, not the cause, of His love and free grace to them? All our\nLord's discourses concerning Himself and His Father,--concerning His\nown acts as being merely the fulfilment of His Father's\nwill,--concerning the love which the Father had to Him because He laid\ndown His life for the sheep,--had been bringing these mysteries to\nlight; had been preparing the humble and meek to confess, with wonder\nand contrition, that in every selfish act they had been fighting\nagainst the unselfish God,--that in every self-sacrificing act they\nhad been merely yielding to Him,--merely submitting to die, according\nto the law of His Eternal Being, which He had created men to show\nforth. And so far as they had any glimpses of the accomplishment of\nGod's promises,--that He would bring all into one,--that the Gentiles\nshould wait for His law,--that He would be a Father of all the\nfamilies of the earth, and that they should be His children,--so far\nthey had the vision of a transcendent and Divine sacrifice.\n\nThere was One, at least, who lived in the assurance that God's will\nwould be done in earth as in heaven, and whose soul was straitened\ntill that will was accomplished. To His inward eye, the Greeks, who\nhad come to claim their share in Jewish privileges and Jewish\nknowledge, and who wished to see Him, represented all those who should\nbelieve in Him, when His Apostles should go forth to baptize the\nnations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy\nGhost. They represented the human race of which He was the head, which\nshould be at last gathered together in Him. How emphatically, then,\ndid that moment speak to Him of the glory of the Son of Man,--of the\nend of His travail for the race of which He was the brother! It was\nthe sign of that coming victory and glory. But how could He see that\nfinal issue, and not feel in Himself all the conflict which was to\nprecede it? There was to be a mighty harvest: but the seed, from which\nit was to spring, must '_first fall into the ground and die, else it\nwould abide alone_; it would give birth to nothing.' Yes! that was the\nlaw; He knew it, He realized it in His own inmost being, that He\nmight bring the world under it. He who would not give up his life,\nmust lose his life; he who was content to cast it away, to surrender\nit wholly, should have the Life which is in God,--the eternal\nlife--the life of truth and love, which cannot be destroyed. 'If any\nman \"_serve me_,\" if he call himself after my name, let him go along\nwith me in this path of sacrifice; let him be content to die with me;\nthen where I am, he shall be; he shall share the presence and the love\nwhich are my joy and my reward; \"_him shall my Father honour_.\"' But\nthen comes the agony. The death He called upon others to die with Him,\nHe must taste in its bitterness. He must tread the winepress alone. He\n_was_ treading it at that very moment. The sense of the glory of the\nSon of Man--of the work that He would achieve for humanity--brings on\nthe unutterable sorrow. The whole man sinks within Him,--He can only\nsay, '_Father, save me from this hour_.' And yet He adds, '_For this\ncause came I to this hour_.' It is not often that these actual signs\nof the struggle within Him are declared to us. How wise and necessary\nthat we should have only rare and occasional discoveries of it! But of\nwhat unspeakable worth have these discoveries been to the hearts of\nsufferers in every age! The agony must be passed through; the\ndeath-struggle--which is most tremendous after the vision of coming\ngood has been the brightest. But the sting of solitude, which is the\nsharpest of all, is taken out of it. Christ has cried, '_Save me from\nthis hour_.' Christ has Himself said, 'That all He had passed through\nbefore, had been to prepare Him for that hour.' And Christ changed\nthis cry into another. '_Father, glorify thy name. Then came there\na voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will\nglorify it again. The people, therefore, that stood by, and heard it,\nsaid that it thundered: others said, an Angel spake to Him. Jesus\nanswered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your\nsakes. Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the prince of this\nworld be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw\nall men unto me. This He said, signifying by what death He should\ndie._'\n\nI have heard speculations about this voice from heaven. It seems to me\nthat St. John's words, taking them just as they stand, convey a much\nclearer impression to our minds than all commentaries upon them. There\nis a sound. The people take it for thunder. Some, seeing perhaps a\nsudden radiance in His countenance, think that an angel has brought\nHim strength and consolation. He hears in it the voice of His\nFather,--the sure witness that that name has been glorified, and shall\nbe glorified. To Him the mere voice, the outward sound, is nothing.\n'_That came for their sakes._' It was the outward witness to them of\nthe reality of that which He received into His heart. And surely the\nmessage has done its work. The struggle is over. He can see victory in\nHis death. Sentence is passed on the tyrant of the world,--the\nDestroyer of the world. The trial-hour of the Son of Man is the hour\nof his defeat and overthrow. '_And I, if I be lifted up from the\nearth, will draw all men unto me._'\n\n'_I will draw all men unto me._' How can we explain these words?\nFirst, let us listen to those which followed them, and then let us\nconsider how far we dare explain them. '_The people answered him, We\nhave heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how\nsayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?\nThen Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you.\nWalk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that\nwalketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have light,\nbelieve in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These\nthings said Jesus, and departed, and did hide Himself from them._'\n\nYes, brethren, we must either take those words, '_I, if I be lifted\nup, will draw all men unto me_,' as they stand, trying to learn a\nlittle of what they mean from the past history of the world, waiting\nfor God to explain them to us more perfectly in the future; we must\neither confess that there are depths in God's purposes of love which\nno creature has sounded, heights which no creature has reached, but of\nwhich the Cross gives us the fullest glimpse we are capable of; we\nmust either do this, or we must ask just as the Jews did,--'_Who is\nthis Son of man?_' They could dream of a Christ who should exalt the\nchosen people, who should set them over their enemies. They could\nanticipate with a kind of faith the coming of such a Christ, and they\ncould be sure that when He came He would abide for ever. But one who\nidentified Himself with men, they would not, could not confess. I use\nboth phrases, for the Bible uses them; St. John uses them at the close\nof this chapter. There is a hardness of heart, an inhumanity, which\nmakes it _impossible_ for men, for the most apparently religious men,\nto receive Jesus as the Son of Man. And therefore it is _impossible_\nfor them really to receive Him as the Son of God, as revealing the\nmind and character of His Father in heaven. And the Atonement of\nheaven and earth, of God and man; the Atonement through a sacrifice\nmade once for all; the Atonement by the blood of One who has taken the\nmanhood into God,--who has raised, purified, redeemed, glorified the\nearthly nature by joining it to the Divine,--is changed into a cold,\nformal arrangement for delivering certain men from the punishment of a\nsin which has itself not been purged away. For sin is no longer that\nroot of bitterness, that selfishness, which has poisoned the universe,\nand poisons the hearts of each one of us--that deadly thing which\nbetrays Christ, and which divides us from the Father; sin becomes the\nviolation of an arbitrary rule, drawing after it the endurance of an\narbitrary and infinite penalty. Those who boast of their religion\nthink they can have a Christ who is not a Son of Man; a God who is\ntheir Father, and not the Father of men in Christ; a Spirit who\nsanctifies them, but who does not dwell in the Church,--who is not the\nwitness of a fellowship for all creatures whatever who bear the nature\nwhich Christ bore, who die the death which Christ died. Nay, the cross\nof Christ--of Him who gave up Himself--is actually so presented to\nmen, that they suppose it is the instrument by which self-seeking men\nmay secure the greatest amount of selfish rewards! Then other men, who\nknow that such a scheme must be subversive of all pure morality,\nabandon the Gospel of God for what they call the Gospel of humanity.\nThey fancy there can be a society of men without a Shepherd who dies\nfor them; without a Father who loves Him because He dies. And the\nworld begins to be divided between those who deny a Son of Man,\nbecause they think only of a salvation for themselves, and those who\ndeny Him, because they worship the body of which we declare Him to be\nthe Head instead of Him.\n\nBrethren, this division will not last. The Pharisees and Sadducees,\nmuch as they hated one another, came to understand that they had a\ncommon enemy when Christ walked the earth. They will do so again. The\ncreeds of the Catholic Church, all our prayers and thanksgivings, bear\nwitness that there is a Son of Man,--that He died for mankind, and\nthat He lives for mankind. Do you not think there will be a\ncombination against these? Do you think their antiquity will save\nthem? Or do you think there is a heart in our people to say,--'These\nwitnesses are dearer to us than our lives. Life would be nothing to us\nwithout them.' I dare not trust to such a feeling. I know that the cry\nof 'Hosanna' may be followed very soon by the cry of 'Crucify.' And we\nhave dealt so unfaithfully with these witnesses, they have been such\ndead letters to us, that I dare not hope the people know the worth of\nthem. Oh that they may not be tolerated any longer because they are\nregarded as doing no harm! Oh that they may become real torments to\nthose who deny a Son of Man,--real messengers of life to those who\nseek for one! And to you brethren, I say,--or rather Christ\nsays,--'_Walk in the light while you have the light, that ye may be\nthe children of the light_.' Cling to these prayers, and\nthanksgivings, and sacraments, while you have them. Bind the meaning\nof them to your hearts. Live it out in your families. Serve Christ in\nyour daily tasks. Follow Him in simple, hearty, self-sacrifice. And\nthen, when the dark hour comes, and the open witnesses of Him\ndisappear, and even two or three are scarcely gathered together in His\nname, you may await the time of His full revelation; the time which\nshall show that He died indeed to gather into one all the children of\nGod who are scattered throughout this divided world; the men of every\nage, tongue, clime, colour, opinion; that by the might of His cross He\nhas drawn all to Himself.\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XXII.\n\nTHE WORLD AND THE DISCIPLES.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 6th Sunday after Trinity, June 29, 1856 (St.\nPeter's-day).]\n\nST. JOHN XII. 44-50, and XIII. 1.\n\n     _Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth\n     not on me, but on Him that sent me. And he that seeth me\n     seeth Him that sent me. I am come a light into the world,\n     that whomsoever believeth on me should not abide in\n     darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I\n     judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to\n     save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my\n     words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have\n     spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have\n     not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave\n     me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should\n     speak. And I know that His commandment is life everlasting:\n     whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto\n     me, so I speak. Now before the feast of the Passover, when\n     Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart out\n     of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which\n     were in the world, He loved them unto the end._\n\n\nI said, in my last sermon, that we were approaching the end of our\nLord's public ministry. The verses which I have just read to you are\nthose which close it. I have connected them with the opening of the\n13th chapter, because I wish you to mark the transition from this part\nof St. John's Gospel to that which records Christ's private interviews\nwith the disciples. Hitherto the Apostles have had _less_ prominence\nin St. John's Gospel than in the others. We have had narratives of\ndiscourses with Nicodemus, with the woman of Samaria, with the Jews at\nthe feast, with the Galil\u00e6ans at Capernaum, with the blind man, with\nMary and Martha,--only now and then, (chiefly to introduce these\ndialogues or to link them together,) with the Twelve. The contrast,\ntherefore, in him is far more marked than in St. Matthew, St. Mark, or\nSt. Luke, between the Paschal supper and all that goes before it. And\nsince inferences have been drawn from this contrast which I think are\nnot true, I am anxious that you should feel how the words to the\nmultitude, and the words to the chosen few, are connected, and in what\nthe difference between them consists.\n\nI must begin with some words which occur before those I have read to\nyou:--'_But though He had done so many miracles before them, yet they\nbelieved not on Him: that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be\nfulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to\nwhom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not\nbelieve, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes,\nand hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes,\nnor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal\nthem. These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of\nHim._' St. John speaks here of the signs which Jesus did, as he has\nspoken of them from the first. They were signs of a divine presence, a\ndivine power, a divine goodness. They were mighty, in so far as they\nrevealed His presence, and power, and goodness. They were utterly\nineffectual to any who esteemed them for their own sakes,--who merely\nwondered at them. These signs, he tells us now, had not produced\nbelief. Was it to be expected that they would? Had not an old Prophet,\nwho spoke the word of God, testified that they would not? Had he not\ncomplained for his predecessors, for himself, for all that should come\nafter him, that the report of the care of God for men would be\nbelieved by very few; that only by very few would it be felt that the\narm of a living God was stretched forth? And Isaiah, so the Apostle\ngoes on, has not merely told us the effect which he witnessed, but has\nlaid bare the cause. The inner eye which should see the divine arm is\nblinded, the heart which should take in the tidings of goodness and\nlove is hardened: this was the reason why men with all outward\nadvantages,--with a law, and a history, and a covenant,--chosen out of\nall nations to know God and be witnesses of Him, made all these\nprivileges the very excuse for not turning to God, for not receiving\nHis healing virtue.\n\nBut this is not the whole explanation. We must not forget that St.\nJohn says,--'HE _hath blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts_.'\nWe must not dare to cancel these words, because we may find them\ndifficult. St. John himself interprets them in the next verse. He\nreminds us that Isaiah spake these words when he had the vision of the\nKing who was sitting upon a throne and filling the temple with His\nglory. 'That,' he intimates, 'was a vision of the true Lord of the\nnation, of that same Ruler who now that He was called Jesus of\nNazareth was rejected, just as He had been in the days of old when He\nwas revealing Himself to His subjects in personal and in national\njudgments.' In both cases it was the goodness, the beauty, the glory,\nwhich blinded the eyes and hardened the hearts. We know it is so.\nExperience tells us that goodness has this effect upon minds in a\ncertain condition. The bad that was in them it makes worse. The sight\nof love awakens and deepens hatred. If we believe and are sure that\nlove has another power than this, that it is stronger than hatred, and\ncan overcome hatred, let us cherish that faith. St. John certainly\nwill not discourage us in it. No one demands it of us so much. But we\nmust arrive at it, not through the denial of any facts, only through\nthe fullest and frankest acknowledgment of them. This blinding,\ndestructive effect of goodness and love upon the evil will, is a fact\nwhich we are bound to confess, and to tremble. It will force itself\nupon us, it will explain itself to us in ourselves, if we pretend to\ndispute it. If we own the danger, God will reveal to us the arm which\ncan avert it; He will enable us to take in the mighty report of that\npower and love which can subdue all enemies.\n\nThe next words are also of the Evangelist. They contain partly a\nlimitation of the former, partly an illustration of them.\n'_Nevertheless among the chief rulers many believed on Him; but\nbecause of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be\nput out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than\nthe praise of God._' Only two verses before, the word which we render\n_praise_ here had been rendered _glory_. I do not know why the\nconnexion should not have been kept up for the English reader, seeing\nthat it must certainly have been present to the mind of the Apostle. A\nvision of glory, he seems to say, did dawn upon the hearts of these\nrulers. It was not the notion of an outward Christ which presented\nitself to them. There came to their inmost consciences the sense of a\nKing who was over them, of a Word who was enlightening them. But there\nrose up beside this vision another which seemed to be nearer,--the\nvision of human glory, human reputation, respectability in the class\nto which they belonged, the smile and good opinion of the Pharisee,\nthe comfort of being called members of the synagogue. Brethren, which\nof us does not understand how this image might displace and banish the\nother,--how the hearts of these poor rulers, because they were like\nours, might reject the noble to fondle and embrace the vile? Let us\nsubmit to be judged ourselves by the Apostle's words, instead of\njudging others. And let us ask that what we believe with our hearts we\nmay confess with our lips; knowing that there is no condition so\nmiserable as that of those who are enemies both to God and to His\nenemies; knowing that such must be, above all, enemies to themselves.\n\nHere is the remedy against this state of mind:--'_Jesus cried and\nsaid, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on Him that\nsent me. And he that seeth me, seeth Him that sent me. I am come a\nlight into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide\nin darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge\nhim not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He\nthat rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth\nhim: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last\nday. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He\ngave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And\nI know that His commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak\ntherefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak._'\n\nThis was the summary of all that He had been teaching hitherto. Yet\nwith what new force must it have come upon those who were halting\nbetween Jesus and the Pharisees, who were convinced that He was the\ntrue leader, and yet clung to the leaders of their sect! 'Belief in me\nis not belief in a chief of your choice. It is belief in the God of\nAbraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the Father of your spirits. In me\nyou see Him. I find you in darkness, ignorance of yourselves, of your\nrelation to each other, of your relation to God. I am come a Light\ninto the world,--a Light to show you what you are, where you are, what\nyou have to do with your fellows, what you have to do with Him apart\nfrom whom you have no life. You _can_ refuse that Light; you can treat\nwhat I say as vain babbling, as coming from the inspiration of an evil\nspirit. I judge you not. I have come not to judge the world, but to\nsave it out of its darkness; to bring it back to God. But the word\nthat I speak, which is echoed in your consciences, which is testifying\nof God in them, that word will judge you in the last day; that will\ntell you who has been with you, who has been binding you to Himself\nwhen you have been tearing yourselves away. For I have not been\nuttering a word out of my own heart; I have not been setting up my own\nwill. I have been obeying my Father's will, fulfilling His\ncommandments. And I know that His commandment is life eternal. I know\nthat it is life in itself, and that its effect is life. These words\nwhich I speak, do themselves issue from that Fountain of life; they\nare the words of the living Father; therefore, they are living and\nlife-giving words.'\n\nIf we consider well the force of this parting testimony to the Jewish\nworld, we shall be prepared to understand the words:--'_Now before the\nfeast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour was come that He\nshould depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own\nwhich were in the world, He loved them unto the end_.'\n\nThe Jewish sects had refused to believe in a Father. They had refused\nto believe in a Son of Man. They had refused to believe in a Lord of\ntheir own hearts. For a Father they had substituted a lawgiver, who\nhated all Gentiles, and to whom Jews could only look up with terror,\nnot with confidence. For a Son of Man they had substituted their sect\nand its leaders. For a Lord over their hearts they had substituted the\nnotion of an outward Christ, who was to be identified by certain\nparticulars of place and time, which must be ascertained by studying\nthe letters of a book. The hour was come when all these contradictions\nwould reach their highest point, when the sects would combine to show\nwhat was the real point of their agreement; to Whom they were equally\nopposed. The feast of the Passover was to be the crisis which would\nreveal the dark thoughts that were in them; which would show what they\nwere, and what Jesus was. He knew that the moment was come when the\nquestion was to be decided, whether men have a Father, or are orphans;\nwhether they have a living Head, or are the loose, broken limbs of a\nbody which has none; whether they are to be governed as horses and\nmules are governed, by bit and bridle, or as spirits are governed, by\na higher Spirit. He had chosen His Apostles to testify to their own\nnation, and to all nations, of Him and of His Father. He had held them\ntogether by His own love, when there was that in the world, and that\nin themselves, which would have separated them. Had anything happened\nto break this bond between them and Him? If He left the world, if He\nreturned to His Father, would it be broken?\n\nThese were the questions which that Passover-night was to answer.\nPerhaps you will think that as I have spoken so much of Christ's love\nto the world, of Christ as the Son of Man, I may shrink from what\nseems the exclusive tone of this sentence: '_He loved_ His own; _He\nloved_ them _to the end_.' Shrink from it! No, brethren, I would do\nthe utmost to bring forth the full force of these words; to impress\ntheir meaning upon you. I would have you observe how carefully we are\ntold that these disciples were chosen by Him; that His love to them\ndid not depend upon their faith, but their faith upon His love. I\nwould have you observe how this love was manifested to them all as a\nbody--to one and another of them individually; how they were taught\nthat it was only this love which was sustaining them then, or could\nsustain them afterwards. Unless we do that, we shall never understand\nhow they were witnesses against that religious world out of which they\nwere called,--that world of sects and parties,--that world where all\nwere choosing for themselves, and none were acknowledging a loving\nWill which was ruling them; where all were striving for their own\nviews and opinions, and none were confessing their relations to each\nother; where each was fighting for ascendency, and none was content to\nbe a servant. We shall never understand how these Apostles were\nwitnesses for the original calling of their nation, how they really\nrepresented the tribes in which God had put His name, and through\nwhich all the families of the earth were to be blessed. We shall never\nunderstand what that Church was which they were to bring out of these\ntwelve tribes to be a witness to the world what its relation to God\nwas, and how, by forgetting that relation, it had sunk into a poor,\ndark, divided, selfish world.\n\nIf we look upon His last supper as the special education of the\nApostles for that work which they had to do in the world, we shall\nprize the part of this Gospel upon which we are now entering; we shall\nperceive how all the discourses of our Lord that are recorded in the\nother Evangelists, from the time that they left their fathers' ships,\nor the receipt of custom, till the time that He entered with them into\nJerusalem, find their fullest illustration, their deepest root, in the\ndialogues and in the prayer which St. John has reported to us; we\nshall perceive how the institution of the Eucharist--which, as I said\nwhen I was speaking of the discourse at Capernaum, it was no part of\nSt. John's function to announce--is more perfectly explained, both in\nits principle and its effects, by these specially sacramental\ninterviews, than it is in any other part of the New Testament. And we\nshall begin to enter--it can be but the beginning of a lesson which\nmust last to our life's end--into the purport of that sign which,\nwhether it preceded or followed the giving the bread and the pouring\nout of the wine, teaches us how they are to be received.\n\n'_And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of\nJudas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him; Jesus knowing that the\nFather had given all things into His hands, and that He was come from\nGod, and went to God; He riseth from supper, and laid aside His\ngarments; and took a towel, and girded Himself. After that He poureth\nwater into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe\nthem with the towel wherewith He was girded._'\n\nTwo hints are given to us which may assist us in entering into the\nmeaning of this act, though, at first, they seem as if they had little\nconnexion with it. First, St. John speaks of what had taken place and\nwas taking place in the mind of Judas; secondly, of the knowledge\nwhich was in the mind of Jesus, that He was come from His Father and\nwas going to Him. What has the condition of the betrayer's heart to do\nwith this washing? We are to learn, I apprehend, that the very\ncorruption which was in _that_ heart,--the very evil which had ripened\ninto the darkest of all purposes there,--was that from which all the\ndisciples had need to be cleansed. Whatever else the washing\nsymbolized, it certainly imported the existence of _this_ defilement,\nand that there was One who could remove it. Who could take the deep\nstain of covetousness, of selfishness, away from the heart of man,\naway from a human society? Only He who had come from the Father of\nlove, that He might enter into the strictest and closest fellowship\nwith human beings in their lowest estate, in all their peculiar and\nindividual misery. Only He, who was going to the Father, that He might\nunite all in Himself. And He, knowing that He had come for this end,\nand was going away that He might accomplish it fully, He gives a\npledge to the disciples that when He was seemingly absent from them,\nHe would always be with them to do this work for them. He would be\nalways near them to cleanse them from that pride and selfishness which\nwould hinder them from being at one with each other, and from showing\nforth His mind to the world.\n\n'_Then cometh He to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto Him, Lord, dost\nthou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou\nknowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith unto Him,\nThou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not,\nthou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, not my\nfeet only, but also my hands and my head._'\n\nOn St. Peter's-day you will not suppose that I could pass over these\nwords; they illustrate so strikingly, as other parts of this chapter\ndo, the character of him whom we are commemorating. They illustrate\nthe particular education to which he was subjected; the education\nwhich is needed for the impatient and self-confident man, who must be\nkept waiting, that his eagerness to know, which is in itself a\nblessing, may not become a curse; who must often have the very\nthoughts and convictions which are most honest and appear most\nindisputable, turned upside down, that he may not exult in them as\n_his_ thoughts and _his_ convictions, and so change the truth that is\nin them into falsehood. But the lesson, though peculiarly applicable\nto him, is a universal one, and shows the universal worth of Christ's\nsign. It is true of all symbols, that we can know little of them at\nfirst. The experience of life interprets them. And it is the hardest\nthing for all of us to believe that the Highest must wait upon the\nlowest; that it is not humility, but pride, to refuse the service.\nWonderful thought to take in! God must stoop, or man cannot stoop. We\nmust set ourselves up as gods, unless we believe that God's glory is\nshown in doing the lowest offices of a man.\n\nBut why was not Peter right in that other prayer of his,--'_Not my\nfeet only, but also my hands and my head_?' Did he not want a thorough\ncleansing? Does not each of us want it? The question is one which\nrequires the most careful answer. If the Bible did not give it in the\nmost express terms, we should be utterly at a loss where to find it.\nBut from first to last the Jewish nation is spoken of as a pure and\nholy nation by those lawgivers and prophets who complain of its\nmembers for being stiff-necked and rebellious. There is nothing which\nthe prophets are so earnest in as in persuading their countrymen that\nthey are the people of God's covenant, and are therefore a holy\npeople; that they are _forgetting_ His covenant, and _so_ are making\nthemselves unholy. They call upon the people to repent and turn to\nGod, and then He will restore them, He will purify them; the hearts\nwhich are red as scarlet, shall become as white as wool. The Jewish\nsects did not in the least understand this truth. They looked for an\nindividual holiness, an individual cleanness, apart from the holiness\nof their nation. Each member of them wanted a holiness of his own; he\nregarded his race as unholy. He did not repent of the sins which kept\nhim from sharing in the holiness which they all had in God.\n\nNow our Lord was educating _His_ disciples out of this falsehood into\nwhich their age had fallen, this falsehood which was so natural to\nevery one of them. He came to show them on what ground the holiness of\ntheir nation stood. It had been called and chosen in Him. It was His\nrighteousness, and not the righteousness of its individual members,\nwhich justified the titles that had been bestowed upon it. These\nmembers were righteous only so far as they rose out of themselves; as\nthey submitted to the righteousness of God. It was, therefore, His\nfirst lesson to His disciples that, as a body, they were clean and\nholy because He had called them and they were complete in Him.\n\n'_Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his\nfeet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For He\nknew who should betray Him; therefore said He, Ye are not all clean._'\n\nThey were clean as a body, as a family. Each had need to be purified\nfrom his own individual selfishness which kept him apart from the\nfamily, which kept him from claiming the common righteousness of his\nLord. But they were not all clean. There was one who had wrapt\nhimself up in his individual nature,--one solitary, selfish being, who\nwould have nothing to do with the family,--who would have nothing to\ndo with the common Lord, the Son of Man; one who had sold his heart to\nthe divider, to the spirit of selfishness and evil. I do not know\nanything which illustrates more clearly the sense in which the\nApostles, as a body, were clean than this terrible exception; or\nanything which explains more clearly what need they would have for\nthat daily cleansing of the feet of which He had given them a pledge.\n\n'_So after He had washed their feet, and had taken His garments, and\nwas set down again, He said unto them, Know ye what I have done to\nyou? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I\nthen, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to\nwash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye\nshould do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The\nservant is not greater than his Lord; neither He that is sent greater\nthan He that sent Him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do\nthem._'\n\nIn the last century, preachers were wont to speak continually of our\nLord as an example. In our time there has been a kind of revolt\nagainst that phrase as a hard and even as an unpractical one. 'It is\nvery well,' we say, 'to have an example; but can we follow it? Christ\nis divine, and we are human. No doubt He was human, too, in a sense;\nbut then surely His divinity helped His humanity, so as to put all His\nacts at an immeasurable distance from ours.' I believe there is a\ngenuine feeling at the bottom of this complaint. I believe it is a\nvery wearisome and a very useless thing to talk to men about examples,\nunless you can show how that he who exhibits the example has some\nconnexion with them, and some power over them. But, on the other hand,\nwe are bound to inquire what has been the effect of example upon the\nworld, how the men whom we meet with that are better than ourselves\noperate upon us, how it is that we can be impressed by the records of\nmen who have departed. Christ's divinity is not a hindrance to our\nunderstanding the might of His example; it rather explains to us the\nwhole doctrine and law of example. Are not that doctrine and law to be\nfound in this passage? If He were not the Master and Lord, if the\ndisciples did not say well in calling Him so, then His act would have\nbeen a solitary one, belonging to Himself, one which they could not\nimitate; but if He were their Lord in the highest sense of the word,\nin that sense which John has been setting forth to us throughout his\nGospel,--if He were the Word in whom they had been created, the Word\nwho was their life and their light, the Word from whom every energy of\ntheir spirits was derived,--then everything which dwelt in Him could\ndescend upon them; whatever shone forth in Him could be reflected in\nthem. And this would take place, not by their raising themselves to\ncontemplate a lofty ideal, but by their submitting to a gracious and\nloving Will. The Highest of all showed Himself to them in washing\ntheir feet. All they had to do was not to think themselves greater\nthan He, not to think that unworthy of the disciple which was not\nunworthy of the Lord.\n\nThe difficulty to the formal divine is no doubt this:--'If cleansing\nthe feet symbolizes the removing of defilements from the inner man, is\nnot that Christ's work alone? Can the disciple follow His example in\ndoing that work?' Our consciences tell us that he can. We do know that\nwe may receive purification from one another, that the tenderness,\nand love, and patience of one man act in a marvellous way upon\nanother, when those qualities seem the furthest from him, when he most\nconfesses that they do not belong to him. We do not set ourselves\ndeliberately to follow examples. The examples get the mastery over us;\nthere is a life in the men who exhibit them which awakens life in us.\nThese are facts not to be gainsaid for the sake of any system. Upon\nthem have been built theories about the righteousness of the saints,\nand the transference of one man's righteousness to another, which are,\nno doubt, very immoral and ungodly. But St. Paul's words, which are\nthe plea for these theories, '_I fill up in my body the sufferings of\nChrist_,' are both moral and godly. For they are grounded upon the\nidea which St. John is setting forth here: that Christ, the Divine\nSufferer, is the source of all purification and of all life; and that\nall men, in their proper spheres, may share His sufferings, and\ntransmit and communicate the purification and life that flow from them\nto their fellows. All difficulties about example are capable of that\nsolution. If we are members of one body, if He is the Head, why should\nnot there be a continual circulation of life from each member of the\nbody to every other? How can the departure of men out of this world\nhinder that circulation, or cause us who are here to feel it less? May\nnot their power have become greater as the mortal fetters have been\ntaken from them? May not we feel it more?\n\nThat is a strange announcement,--'_The disciple is not above His\nmaster_,'--to be introduced by a '_Verily_;' and yet the longer the\nApostles lived, the more they understood what need they had to be told\nthis truth, and told it with such solemnity. What follows reminds us\nthat a commonplace in words may become a paradox in action, and that\nwe never experience either the difficulty of a divine sentence, or the\npower of it, till we put it in practice. All the crimes of Churchmen\nfrom that hour to this, all their cowardice, their arrogance, their\nbaseness, their violence, have had this one root: the servants of\nChrist have believed themselves greater than Christ; they have counted\nit a shame and disgrace to do what He did, to endure what He endured.\nHere has been the cause of their powerlessness; the very secret of His\npower has been wanting in them. They have put forth the mock power\nwhich His real power has come into the world to crush and subdue. Does\nnot the Christian power--the Church's power--_begin_ when it has been\nbrought to work _with_ this power of Him who humbled Himself, and not\nagainst it? Do we want another ground for believing that those who\nhave completely washed their robes and made them white from every\nstain of selfishness in the blood of the Lamb, must be mightier than\nthey were here? Do we want another explanation of the fact, that those\nwords of theirs which spoke out the true mind of Christ in them, live\nand are fruitful for generations after their names, and all the\nefforts they made to magnify their own names, have been forgotten?\n\n'_I spake not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the\nScripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted\nup his heel against me. Now I tell you before it come, that, when it\nis come to pass, ye may believe that I am He. Verily, verily, I say\nunto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he\nthat receiveth me receiveth Him that sent me. When Jesus had thus\nsaid, He was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily,\nverily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me._'\n\nHow are these verses connected with those that went before them? how\nare they connected with each other? Sometimes the thought comes to\nus,--'Can we trace the processes of that Mind in that hour? Must not\nHis words spring out of depths into which our eyes can never look?\nMust they not follow each other in an order which is altogether unlike\nthat of other men?' So far as such a doubt leads to reverence,--so far\nas it makes us distrust our own perceptions, eager to learn from\nothers, certain that we can but see the smallest portion of that which\nis in Him, I would cherish it. So far as it puts Christ at a distance\nfrom us, as it tempts us to think that He was not the Son of Man\nfeeling perfectly as a man,--that He did not mean that the things He\nsaid to us should be apprehended by us, and that He will not help us\nto apprehend them,--so far I would eschew it, and cast it off; because\nit is fatal to all sincere reverence and sincere humility.\n\nI think He says plainly,--'I am not speaking to you all when I bid you\nwash each other's feet. There is a sympathy with my mind implied in\nthat act. There is a submission to me, as one who has chosen you,\nimplied in it. That sympathy, that submission, one of you has shaken\noff. He sits at my feast; He has disclaimed me. But I tell you to do\nas I have done, that you may know hereafter what the secret of the\npower you exert over men is. If they receive you, they will be\nreceiving me; if they receive me, they will be receiving my Father.'\nDoes it seem to you that such an assurance was likely to counteract\nthe humbling lesson which He had just given? I do not wonder that any\nshould entertain that opinion, because it is undoubtedly true that men\nmay give themselves intolerable airs on the strength of their being\nmessengers of the Most High; may curse and excommunicate all who do\nnot receive _their_ decrees and confess _their_ dignity, under\npretence that they are setting Christ at nought. It is true also, and\nthe records of the world establish the truth, that none have been so\nfree from pretension, that none have borne such insults, and been so\nready to die that men might not be cursed and excommunicated, as those\nwho have given themselves up to speak a word which they were sure was\nnot theirs, who have felt that they had no goodness or love of their\nown to show forth, but that the Son of God was showing forth His love\nto sinners through them, even as the Father showed His love to men\nthrough the Son. There needed a '_Verily_' to confirm this sentence as\nwell as the other. They are, in fact, parts of the same sentence. The\ndisciple will think himself above his Master as long as he thinks\nhimself separate from his Master; when that thought ceases, he must\naccept our Lord's language in the length and breadth of it: '_He that\nreceiveth you receiveth me_.' Dare he be an insolent, usurping,\npersecuting priest, unless he inwardly denies that the meek, suffering\nJesus, who washed His disciples' feet, is in him?\n\nAnd is it wonderful that the 'trouble of spirit' which St. John speaks\nof, should have mixed itself with this thought, and that the image of\nthe betrayer, which had been appearing from time to time during this\ndiscourse in the background, should now rise fully and terribly before\nHim? 'There is one who chooses to be separate from me! one who will\nstand in his own name! one who will cast me his Lord, and friend, and\nreprover, away! He is one of you,--one of those whom I have sent forth\nas a messenger in my Father's name and mine.' Jesus has spoken of the\nScripture being fulfilled in the act of Judas. It was a Scripture\nwhich David felt had been fulfilled in his own case. A friend who had\neaten of _his_ bread had lifted up his heel. It had been fulfilled in\na thousand cases before David, and since. But this was _the_\nfulfilment; this contained the essence of all treacheries that had\nbeen and that were to be; this explained the principle and author of\nthem. If there is a Son of Man, one in whom all human feelings,\nsympathies, affections, reach their highest point, one from whom they\nhave been derived, one in whom they reflect perfectly that God of whom\nHe is the image, then the betrayer of that Son of Man exhibits _the_\nrevolt against these feelings, affections, and sympathies, _the_\nstrife against this love, in which every false friend may read the\nground and the possible consummation of his own baseness. Men,\ngenerally, have confessed this remark to be true, and have embodied it\neven in their careless forms of speech; therefore they ought to\nconfess, also, that whatever pain and inward anguish any have\nexperienced from the insincerity of those who have eaten their bread\nand lifted up the heel against them, must have been undergone by Jesus\nwith an intensity proportioned to the intensity of His love. Surely\nthis reflection, if we follow it out, may help us more to such an\napprehension of His sufferings, as it is permitted and possible for us\nto have, than any phrases of pompous rhetoric which put Him at a\ndistance from us, and make us suppose that He did not bear our griefs\nand carry _our_ sins.\n\n'_Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom\nJesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask\nwho it should be of whom He spake. He then lying on Jesus' breast\nsaith unto Him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I\nshall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when He had dipped the\nsop, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon._'\n\nSt. John has not spoken of himself hitherto. Why does he introduce\nhimself now? When I was quoting, in my first sermon, the accounts\nwhich are given of him by the other Evangelists, I did not refer to\nthe name by which he has described himself. Do we not sometimes think\nthat it was a kind of indelicacy and presumption in an Apostle to\nclaim it? Was it not setting himself above the others? Would it not\nhave been better that he should have let them give him the title? Are\nnot those which they do give him less honourable? I do not wish to\nevade any of these inquiries. Let it be remembered that St. John was\nwriting in the full knowledge that he had been described as a Son of\nThunder, that his ambition and his desire to call down fire had been\nrecorded. These signs of what he was, of what he had shown himself to\nbe, could not be separated from him; they were fixed upon him\nindelibly. None, therefore, could say that he was an object of\nChrist's affection because he had shown a gentler disposition than his\nfellows. Could they say, then, that the love of Christ was a partial\nlove, that it was not directed to mankind, that it was not the\nexpression of a universal love? St. John is the especial witness\nagainst these heresies. He declares that God loved the world; and\nChrist came to do His Father's will in saving it. What, then, might\nbe--what has been--the effect of the name, '_the disciple whom Jesus\nloved_,' upon the Church? It has been felt that the story of Judas\nneeded this foil. The dark, solitary, separate man must be brought\ninto direct contrast to a man who lives only on trust. We understand\nby the disciple who leant on Jesus' bosom what his condition was who\nwent out into the night. At the same time, we must not be allowed to\nfancy that the love came forth from John. He could only be the\nreceiver of it. If he ever fancied himself the disciple who loved\nJesus, and not '_the disciple whom Jesus loved_,' he would be\nmagnifying himself, he would be claiming to be better than his\nbrethren. As it is, he can only regard it as part of Christ's\nmanifestation of the divine character that this peculiar affection\nshould be displayed to him. In the world of nature the distinctness of\neach thing is necessary to the harmony of the whole. Can it be\notherwise in the world of human beings? Are they to be merged, now or\nhereafter, in one great chaos of being? Must not each form, each\nperson, be brought out fully and brightly when the mists that prevent\nus from seeing the perfect unity have been scattered? Personal\naffections, gradations of sympathy, attachments and affinities between\nthis human being and that, are the barriers which sever the true life\nof man from that Pantheistical absorption which is another name for\ndeath. Should not we expect there to be a witness for these, a\nrestoration of them to their proper unselfish ground, in the acts and\nthe life of the Word made flesh?\n\n'_And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him,\nThat thou doest, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for what\nintent He spake this unto him. For some of them thought, because Judas\nhad the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we\nhave need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to\nthe poor. He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it\nwas night._'\n\nThough I have spoken of St. John as the contrast to Judas, the\ncontrast must not be regarded in this sense,--that love was withheld\nfrom Judas. We are occupied with that awful mystery of a human will\nand its relation to the divine will, where every step is perilous,\nrespecting which the truest statements must wear the appearance of\ncontradictions. But it has been the belief of all earnest men of all\nschools that the sop given to Judas was a last love-token, and that\nthe entrance of Satan into him, after it had been received, expresses\nthat last defiance of love, that utter abandonment to the spirit of\nselfishness, which precedes the commission of the greatest conceivable\ncrime. After that perdition has come, the Lord speaks words to the man\nwhich he can understand, and he only. They may mean nothing to the\nbystanders; they may be capable of the most frivolous construction. To\nhim they testify,--'There is one who knows thy heart; who knows thee.\nHe restrains thee no longer. Nay, He bids thee be quick. It is to be;\nthou hast decreed it. Go and do thy new master's bidding faithfully.\nThen it will be seen whether he or I shall prevail at last.'\n\nAnd as Judas goes out into the night, a new hymn rises to heaven, and\na new commandment is given on earth. '_Now is the Son of man\nglorified, and God is glorified in Him. If God be glorified in Him,\nGod shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall straightway glorify\nHim. Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek\nme: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now\nI say to you. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one\nanother; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this\nshall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to\nanother._'\n\nDoes it not sound tremendous that the Son of Man is exalted, in the\nvoluntary exile of a human being from the society of his fellow-men,\nfrom all communion with his Lord? It is tremendous; but must it not be\nso? Is not the spirit of selfishness that which has destroyed human\nsociety, that which wars against the Son of Man, that which declares\nthat man shall not show forth the image of the perfect and unselfish\nGod? Must it not, shall it not be cast forth utterly from the Church\nof God? And ought not all humanity, all nature, to join in the Song of\npraise of the Great High Priest, that Judas did go out into the night\nto achieve that purpose, to bring about that death, by which God was\nglorified in His Son, and which led to the glorification of the Son in\nHimself?\n\nPerhaps the other portion of the passage seems to you plain enough.\n'The command to the disciples to love one another--that sounds so\nbeautiful! there is nothing in that to which every heart must not\nrespond.' Brethren, I will tell you plainly: I find far greater\ndifficulty in this commandment than in all the rest of the discourse.\nThe Church has been trying to construe it for eighteen hundred years,\nand has succeeded miserably ill. I will go further. I will say that,\nif it is a mere precept written in letters in a book, it is the\ncruelest precept that was ever uttered. Men say so when they are\nhonest: they say, 'Tell us to do anything but this. We will give, if\nit is necessary, ten thousand rivers of oil, the first-born of our\nbody for the sin of our soul. But do not tell us to love. That we can\ndo in obedience to no statute, from dread of no punishment.' Even so.\nIf God demands that we should bring this offering to Him or perish, we\nmust perish. But if He says, 'My name and nature is love; my Son has\nmanifested my name and nature to you: you are created in Him; you are\ncreated to obey Him: you need not resist Him: His Spirit shall be\nwith you that you may do His will as He has done mine,'--then the\nprecept is not cruel, but blessed and divine. For then in the\ncommandment is life--life for those who first heard it, life for us.\nHe was going away from them where they could not follow Him, that He\nmight make it effectual for those who never saw Him, but over whom He\nreigns the same Son of Man, the same Son of God, to-day and for ever.\n\n'_Simon Peter said unto Him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered\nHim, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now: but thou shalt follow\nme afterwards. Peter said unto Him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee\nnow? I will lay down my life for thy sake. Jesus answered him, Wilt\nthou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee,\nThe cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice._'\n\nThis is the commentary on the new commandment and on the whole\ndiscourse. Let St. Peter's-day fix it deeply in our hearts. Where lay\nhis error? Why was it inevitable that he should fall? He thought he\nloved. He fancied his love would stand him in some stead. That\ndelusion must be thoroughly purged away from him. The washing of the\nfeet did not cleanse him as long as he gave himself credit for\npossessing that which was God's own possession, which none can enter\ninto till he gives up himself. The prophecy to Peter, fearful as it\nwas to him, fearful as it should be to every one of us, is yet the\ninduction to the words, '_Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe\nin God, believe also in me_,' and to all the depths of consolation\nwhich Christ opened to His disciples in His Paschal discourses.\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XXIII.\n\nTHE FATHER'S HOUSE.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 8th Sunday after Trinity, July 13, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN XIV. 25, 26.\n\n     _These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with\n     you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the\n     Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things,\n     and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have\n     said unto you._\n\n\nThe words to St. Peter, with which the 13th chapter closes, must have\nbeen a cause of dismay and confusion to all the disciples as well as\nto him. But it was not the only cause. The words, '_Whither I go, ye\ncannot follow me_,' had called forth his passionate question, and the\nexpression of his readiness to lay down his life. They were terrible\nenough in themselves, even without reference to betrayal and denial.\nThey must have mixed with the prophecies of both. He spoke of going\naway. He must mean that a death, a violent death, was awaiting Him.\nWhy He did not say so plainly they could not tell. The darkness of the\nlanguage added to the gloom of their spirits.\n\nThen He spake again, '_Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in\nGod, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it\nwere not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.\nAnd if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and\nreceive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. And\nwhither I go ye know, and the way ye know._'\n\nHe addresses Himself here to all the causes of their trouble. The\nfirst was the deepest; for they had been told that a love which they\nsupposed nothing could shake would be shaken to its foundations. They\nhad believed in themselves; that belief would be found to rest upon\nthe sand. The refuge was in another kind of belief altogether. Our\ntranslation assumes that they had a belief in God already; that it was\nto be fortified by a belief in Jesus. There is a justification for\nthat rendering; perhaps it is the right one. But if we take both verbs\nto be in the imperative, the sense will be good. 'For your faith in\nyour own willingness to follow me substitute a faith in me.' The\nresult of the two constructions is not very different. The disciples\nhad no doubt a faith in God, however feeble a one. It might be made\nfirm and efficient if faith in His Son was joined with it. They wanted\na faith as well in God as in Him. Neither could live without the\nother.\n\nAnd here also is the deliverance from the other source of anxiety. By\nuniting the belief in God to the belief in Him, by no longer accepting\nthe first as a tradition from their fathers, the second as belonging\nespecially to themselves, by perceiving that the one is involved in\nthe other, they would enter into the mystery of His speech respecting\nHis own departure; they would see that it was not wilfully obscure;\nthey would know what hindered them from following them, and how they\nmight follow Him. He could not talk of going to the grave--that would\nconvey altogether a false impression about Him and themselves. He had\nnot come out of the grave; that had not been His original home; and\nto His original home He was returning. There was no other mode of\nspeaking: He was going to His Father's house. And that was their house\ntoo. He was not entering it to claim it for Himself, but for them.\nThere were dwellings in it for them all; if not so, He '_would have\ntold them_.'\n\nWhy would He have told them? Because He had been continually speaking\nto them of a Father who had sent Him, of a Father whom they were to\nknow, of a Father who was drawing them towards Him. If there was no\nissue of His mission; if He had done all His work by merely giving\nthem a glimpse of a divine kingdom; if they and He were not to rest in\nit together; would He not have scattered the false hopes which they\nwere beginning to form, which His own language had kindled?\n\nYes, brethren! that awful dream which shook the heart of the German\npoet,--the dream of Christ coming into the world with the message,\n'There is no God. You have no Father,' must have been realized, if He\ndid not come with the other message, 'I can declare to you the name of\nyour God. You have a Father. I am come to lead you to Him.' He himself\nshows us that this is the alternative. 'I would have told you,--I\nwould have sent you to tell the world,--that all the thoughts it has\never entertained of an intercourse between earth and heaven, of a\nladder by which man may ascend to God, are lying thoughts, inspired by\nthe spirit of lies; unless I could have said, \"There is a Father's\nhouse; there are many mansions in it; and I am going to prepare a\nplace for you.\"' Oh! let us consider it well. Our Christianity must\neither sweep away all that has sustained the life and hopes of human\ncreatures to this hour; it must become the most inhuman, the most\nnarrow, the most God-denying system that the world has yet seen; it\nmust prepare the way for a general atheism; or it must proclaim a Son\nof Man who unites mankind to God, who is a way by which the spirit of\nevery man may ascend to the Father who is seeking it.\n\nHe had a right then to say, '_Whither I go ye know_;' for the\nknowledge of a Father was that which He had been all along imparting\nto them. It was that which the whole heart of humanity, expressing\nitself through songs, myths, forms of worship, had been aiming at.\nDoctors might have crushed it out of their hearts; peasants could not.\nAnd had not the disciples heard of a way to God? What had John the\nBaptist come for but to prepare such a way? What had the call to\nrepentance, what had the message concerning a kingdom of heaven at\nhand, and a Word who is the light of men, been, but an opening of this\nway?\n\nThe difficulty was to connect this way with that by which Jesus said\nHe was going. Thomas gave utterance to the difficulty with singular\nfrankness. '_Thomas saith unto Him, Lord, we know not whither thou\ngoest; and how can we know the way?_'\n\nWould that we were all as honest in asking questions as he was; then\nwe should be prepared to receive the answer. '_Jesus saith unto him, I\nam the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the\nFather, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father\nalso: and from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him._'\n\nAre you so familiar with the first of these verses that it leaves no\nimpression upon you? Connect it with the second, from which, in\ngeneral, it is widely disjoined, and you will see how much of its\nmeaning we have all still to learn. We think of a way to _heaven_.\nChrist, we say, is that way. Even so. But the old question which we\nsaw was so intensely puzzling to the people of Capernaum--which is not\nless so to us--recurs at each step, 'What is heaven?' Jesus answers by\nsaying that He is the way to the Father. '_No man cometh to the Father\nbut by me._' So the words, '_I am the truth_,' acquire an infinite\nsignificance. Christ is the way to the eternal truth, which makes\nfree. He is both the way and the truth, because He is one with the\nFather, who is that eternal truth. And the words, '_I am the life_,'\nare but the same, proceeding from His own lips, which we heard before\nfrom the lips of His Evangelist--'_In the Word was life_.' They are\nbut the gathering up of all the signs which have manifested Him as the\nLife-giver to the bodies of men,--as Giver of a divine and eternal\nlife to their spirits. But if we forget that Christ's work is to bring\nmen to their Father; and that He is distinct from the Father, as well\nas one with the Father: if we exchange this evangelical statement for\nsome miserable one of our own, about 'the happiness of a future\nstate,' the announcement of Christ as the way and the truth becomes a\nmere self-contradiction.\n\nOur Lord's teaching was not in vain. One of the disciples perceived\nthat to know the Father was all in all,--that he wanted nothing but\nthis. '_Philip saith unto Him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it\nsufficeth us._'\n\nWe are now, surely, ready for the reply, wonderful as it is: '_Jesus\nsaith unto Him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou\nnot known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and\nhow sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?_'\n\nThe revelation of the Father in the Son was then the revelation of\nthe kingdom of heaven; it was the revelation of God Himself. There\ncould be no higher. It was a revelation to that which was highest in\nman, to that which really constitutes the man. And for the man really\nto enter into the knowledge and communion of God, to be able to pass\nout of the fetters and limitations of mortality into this blessedness,\nthis eternal life, must be the consummation of all that Jesus came to\ndo.\n\nHe therefore adds: '_Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and\nthe Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of\nmyself: but the Father that dwelleth in me He doeth the works. Believe\nme that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me\nfor the very works' sake._'\n\nPerhaps, when the question took this form, Philip might be startled.\nHe might say to himself, 'Do I believe this? Is this what I mean?' And\nhe might, for a while, be at a loss for the answer. But he could not\nsay, 'I do not believe it,' without saying, 'I do not believe this,\nand this, and this, which I have heard Jesus say, and seen Jesus do.'\nHowever he might wonder at the strangeness and awfulness of the truth,\nyet he had been led into it most carefully and gradually. It had\nseemed to come out of himself; to be implied in his acts, and\nthoughts, and intuitions. It was not like something new which had been\ngiven him, but something very old, which he had now for the first time\nbeen able to recognise. And his Teacher still deals with him in the\nsame gentle, even method. 'Believe this,' He says, 'on its own ground,\non its own evidence, because it explains to you what would be else\ninexplicable in yourself and in others. Or else believe it for the\nvery works' sake. That, too, is a legitimate process,--for some\nminds, the easiest and most natural. The works lead back to the\nWorker. The laws and principles in His mind lead back to the original\nof them in the mind of the Father.\n\nThe works lead back to the Worker. They would do so even when Jesus\nwas no longer the visible instrument in effecting them. '_Verily,\nverily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do\nshall he do also. And greater works than these shall he do; because I\ngo to the Father._' St. Luke says, in the beginning of the Acts of the\nApostles, that he had written before a treatise of all that Jesus\n_began_ both to do and to teach. He intimates that he is now going to\ncontinue that treatise, to show how much more Jesus did and taught,\nafter He ascended into heaven, than when He was on earth. Here, in the\nmost solemn manner, Jesus makes the same assertion to His disciples.\nThe works that He did upon earth were only the beginning of what He\nwould do--the signs, as St. John has expressed it so constantly, of a\npower to be more completely exerted, of a purpose to be fulfilled. His\nreturning to the Father is to be the crisis and commencement of a new\nlife to the world,--the pledge that all the influences for health and\nrenovation which the Son of Man had put forth, instead of being\nexhausted, were to go on proving their vigour and winning their\nvictories from generation to generation.\n\nIn the next verse He assigns the reason: '_And whatsoever ye shall ask\nin my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the\nSon. If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it._' He had\ntaught them to pray, saying, '_Our Father_.' No doubt they had done as\nHe had bidden them. And the thought, 'He taught us so to speak,' must\nhave been a mighty help when the effort was hardest, when it seemed\nmost impossible to conceive that they had a Father. But to pray _in\nHis name_, what a new world was opened to them, if they might do that!\nIf there was One who did bind them all together, One in whom they were\none, what an emphasis was there in that word, 'Our!' If this Son of\nMan were indeed the Son of God, what life, what reality there was in\nthe word 'Father!' It was not that the prayer wanted its virtue till\nthe name of Christ was openly, formally introduced into it. If that\nhad been so, His own prayer must have been unfit for the Apostles and\nfor us. All prayer that had ever ascended to God had ascended in His\nname. The Word was with God; the Word was the light of men. All things\nwere created by Him, and in Him. When He had taught His spiritual\ncreatures to feel they had need of a Father of their spirits, He had\nawakened in them the impulse to pray. The Father of those spirits was\nseeking such to worship Him, and owned their worship as that of\nchildren made in His image, unable to live apart from Him. In the\nMediator, He could meet those to whom He had thus given power to\nbecome sons of God; He could own them as the spokesmen of humanity.\nBut now it could be declared in what name men had prayed; how it was\nthat the spirits in them answered to each other; in whom God had\nlooked upon them, and been satisfied. No such revelation had yet been\nmade, no such assurance had been given, that every beggar who desired\nthat God's will might be done on earth as it is in heaven, was praying\nfor that which Christ Himself must certainly accomplish. He goes on,\n'_If ye love me, keep my commandments_.' The Apostles thought, as we\nsaw last Sunday, that they could suffer for Christ because they loved\nHim. They were right in believing that love is the ground of all\naction and of all suffering, but they were utterly wrong in supposing\nthat their own love could be the ground of either. If this love were\nin any degree an effort of their own, if it were not God's love\nworking in them, it would prove, as He had warned Peter that it would,\nthe weakest of all things; before the cock crowed, it might be found\ngood for nothing. But if they loved Him, let them keep His\ncommandments; let them submit themselves to the will of One in whom\nlove dwells perfectly, from whom it flows forth freely. '_And I will\npray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may\nabide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth, whom the world\ncannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him. But ye\nknow Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you._'\n\nThis promise, I believe, is the characteristical one of those Paschal\nconversations; it is that which distinguishes them from our Lord's\ndiscourses to the multitude. It is most important, therefore, to\nobserve how the subject is introduced, and how it is connected with\nthe passages we have just been considering. The new commandment, which\nwe find in the previous chapter, had been, '_Love one another, as I\nhave loved you_;' which was further expounded by the words, '_As I\nhave washed your feet, you ought to wash one another's feet_.' It had\nbeen a social commandment. Each obeyed it in so far as he regarded\nhimself as one of a family, under a Master who was his Elder Brother.\nThe loss of fellowship was the loss of allegiance; the loss of\nallegiance was the loss of fellowship. Since He had given them this\ncommandment, He had been speaking to them of His own union with the\nFather, of His own obedience to the Father. One truth lay beneath the\nother; they must be learnt together. _Their_ union would be the way to\nthe apprehension of this union. _Their_ obedience would enable them to\nenter into this obedience. But, on the other hand, they would find\nunion among themselves impossible till they had a glimpse of the\nfundamental unity; they would find human obedience impossible till\nthey believed that there was a divine obedience.\n\nBut how should they bind these two truths together in their hearts?\nWhat would save them from revolving in a hopeless circle, never\nknowing whether the divine lesson or the human practice must come\nfirst?\n\nBefore they well knew what they wanted, what deliverer they could have\nin their infinite perplexity, He, their Head, would pray the Father,\nand He would give them a Paraclete, one who would be always ready to\nhelp when they called for Him, one who should not be with them to-day\nand gone to-morrow, but with them for ever; not an external Teacher,\nbut a Guide of their spirits; not a Spirit who would obey their\nfancies or notions, but a Spirit of truth, to whom they must yield,\nthat they might be freed from their confusions and falsehoods. This\nSpirit, it is added, '_the world could not receive_.' That world or\norder which does not own a Head, which is made up of sections and\nparties, to which the Word of God comes, and which rejects Him,--such\na world is not capable of a uniting, fusing Spirit, not capable even\nof conceiving how there can be such a Spirit, how He can enter into\nhuman beings with all their different tastes and propensities, all\ntheir contradictions, to mould them into one, how He can give them one\nheart and one soul. But the Apostles did know it. They had the germs\nof unity within them; amidst all their rivalries and discords, they\naspired to be one. The Spirit was dwelling _with_ them even then; He\nshould be _in_ them.\n\nI wish you to observe how every word and every symbolical act of\nChrist has pointed to the disciples as a body, as a family; how all\ncommandments and all promises have reference to them in this\ncharacter; how the difference between them and the world was not that\nthey were individually better than the persons of whom it consisted,\nnot that they had blessings which the world was not intended to be a\npartaker of, but simply that the Son of Man had chosen them, and had\nconstituted them His witnesses to the world. And to those who owned\nHim as the Head of their body, whether they saw Him or not, He would\ncome. '_I will not leave you orphans_,' He says; '_I will come to\nyou_.' If they were left without Him who alone had told them of a\nFather, who was their only bond to a Father, they would be in the\nstrictest sense orphans. These last words took off the rough edge of\nthat sentence which, with all its apparent fulness and richness, must\nhave sounded sorrowful in the ears of the disciples, as if there could\nbe a substitute for Him, another Paraclete. In some wonderful manner\nHe would Himself be among them; in some wonderful manner His Father\nwould be among them. Else why did He speak of orphans? And the next\nwords made His meaning more definite, if not at once more clear, to\nthem: '_Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see\nme. Because I live, ye shall live also._' 'The world, which judges\nonly by sense, which _believes_ nothing, will have no organ by which\nto apprehend me. I shall seem to it to be far away. It will proclaim\nthat it has got rid of me. But you will apprehend me through the\nspirit's organ. Your inner life will rest upon my life. In your own\nselves you will be in contact with me.'\n\n'_At that day_,' He goes on, '_ye shall know that I am in my Father,\nand ye in me, and I in you_.' 'In that day, when you shall begin truly\nto see me, when you shall know me more fully than you have ever known\nme yet, in that day the great mystery of my union with the Father will\ncome out fully before you. It will come forth to explain another\nmystery, which without it would be incredible, that as I am in Him, so\nyou are in me; that as He is in me, so am I in you.'\n\nWe shall find how this mystery, in connexion with the other, becomes\nthe subject of the subsequent discourse, till it finds its fullest\nexpansion and expression in the prayer of the 17th chapter. But it was\nnecessary that He should set before them once again the nature of the\nmystery, and the way to the knowledge of it, lest they should lose\nthemselves in abortive efforts to embrace it. '_He that hath my\ncommandments_,' He says, '_and keepeth them, He it is that loveth me:\nand he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father; and I will love\nhim, and will manifest myself to him_.' The love of the Father for the\nSon, and of the Son for the Father, was the ground of their union. He\nwho would remember Christ's commandments that they should love one\nanother, and would watch over them and cherish them in his heart, he\nwould show his love to Christ; and to him the love of the Father would\nbe manifested, to him the Son would manifest Himself.\n\nThis idea of a secret manifestation which the world could not share\nin, may have seemed merely astonishing to some of the disciples,--may\nhave awakened certain feelings of vanity, as if they would be His\nexclusive favourites, in others of them. Either feeling might have\nbeen in Jude, or both might have been mixed, when he said, '_Lord, how\nis it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the\nworld?_' The answer is one which, if it were taken in, would destroy\nall exclusiveness, but would not diminish wonder: '_Jesus answered and\nsaid unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father\nwill love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.\nHe that loveth me not keepeth not my words: and the word which ye hear\nis not mine, but the Father's which sent me._' If a man loved Christ,\nhe would hold fast those words of His in which He said that God\n'_loved the world, and gave His only-begotten Son for it_;' that God\n'_sent not His Son to condemn the world, but that the world through\nHim might be saved_.' And then, because these words were dear to him,\nand he wished to live in the spirit of them, the Father who loved the\nworld would come and make His abode with him, would impart to him His\nown likeness, and enable him in a measure to enter into His love. But\none who cared nothing for Christ, would not care for these words of\nHis, would not keep them in his heart, would not really believe them,\nwould not desire to have his own mind fashioned in accordance with\nthem. And seeing that Christ's word is not His, but the Father's who\nsent Him, that Father would remain to such a person always hidden and\nunknown.\n\n'_These things_,' He adds, '_have I spoken unto you, being yet present\nwith you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father\nwill send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all\nthings to your remembrance._' It may be hypercritical to complain of\nour translators for rendering \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd by '_being yet present_;' but I\ncannot help thinking that 'remaining,' or 'while I remain with you,'\nwould have diminished the likelihood of a misapprehension which must\nmake much of what He says here and afterwards unintelligible. That He\nwas going away He had told them; only one day longer He would remain\namong them as their visible Teacher. But, assuredly, He declares\nsolemnly that He shall not cease to be present with them; it is the\nexpress object of His conversation to give them that assurance.\nNowhere does it come forth more strongly than in this sentence. What\nHe said to them while they could look into His face, while they could\nsee His lips moving, was but poorly apprehended by them; only a small\nportion of its meaning passed into them. Their real learning would\ncome hereafter,--the vital recollection and understanding of the very\nwords they were listening to then. Did they not feel that they wanted\nsome one to fix the sense in their hearts, before the sounds mingled\nwith the common air? Did they not want an interpreter, who should not\ntranslate one set of phrases by another, but should translate phrases\ninto realities, and should open the spirit to entertain them? Were\nthey not conscious of a hebetude and dulness, which the divinest\nwisdom could not penetrate as long as it remained on the outside of\nthem? Did not the dulness hinder their intercourse with each other?\nDid any know exactly what the other meant? Did they not talk of\ntrifles, because they despaired of breaking through the ice which\nenclosed their neighbour's heart, and had not even learnt the secret\nof thawing their own?\n\nYes; in this way they were taught that they must have a Spirit such as\nHe spoke of, to be with them, not occasionally, but continually; to be\nwith them, not as separate creatures, but as fellow-men; to be the\nInspirer of their memories, their understandings, their affections; to\nbe their Deliverer from shallowness; to be their Guide to that well of\nliving water at the bottom of which truth lies. It was thus that they\nlearnt, however imperfectly, that this Spirit must be a Divine\nPerson,--could not be a mere vague and floating influence. It was thus\nthat they sprung to the conviction, however hard it might be, which\nour Lord had expressed, and which He repeated in another form of words\nhere, that the Spirit must bring Him near to them, must come in His\nname, must bind them together in His name. It was thus they learnt\nthat a Spirit, which did not proceed from a Father and testify of a\nFather, could not be the Spirit of truth or the Spirit of peace.\n\nHe had been described already by one of these names. Our Lord now\nfixed the thoughts of His disciples upon the other. '_Peace I leave\nwith you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I\nunto you._' It was the legacy which they needed above all others. But\nhow could it be received? How can a treasure which all experience\nproclaims to be open to thefts, lessened by a thousand accidents,\ndependent upon mental and bodily temperament,--how can this be\nactually left, not to one, two, or three, upon certain conditions, but\nto a whole body permanently and not capriciously, '_as the world\ngiveth_?' Christ's words imported this; the Apostles must have felt\nthat He was deceiving them if less than this was meant or was\nperformed. Only a Spirit to abide for ever with them; a Paraclete to\nwhom they could have recourse when fightings were most terrible\nwithout; One whom they might find beneath all the wars and fightings\nwithin themselves; one who could unite them to each other, because He\nunited them to the Father;--only such a Spirit could be the gift of\npeace which Christ bestowed; only concerning such a Spirit could He\nhave said, 'This is my peace.'\n\nHe repeats the words He had used a short time before. He said, '_Let\nnot your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid_.' He could utter\nthem now with a new and mightier force; for now, far better than\nbefore, He could remove that cause of trouble, the dread that He was\ngoing away from them. '_Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away,\nand come again unto you. If ye loved me ye would rejoice, because I\nsaid, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I._'\n\nThe explanation of His going is the same as before. It is the return\nto a Father's house,--a house with many mansions,--a house for them as\nfor Him. But, since the promise of the Spirit has been given, He can\nsay, '_I come again unto you_.' 'It is not merely that you will know I\nam in a home which you cannot see, in a home which is out of the reach\nof the tumults and distractions that surround you--a home of peace,\nand truth, and love; it is that here, in the midst of this earth,\npeace and truth and love shall abide with you. It is that I have a\nkingdom in this world; it is that my Spirit will be with you, to\nenable you to make continual inroads upon the world which \"_sees me\nnot, neither knows me_,\" to bring fresh portions of it under my\ngovernment.' This coming again into the regions of earth--coming as a\nking and conqueror, yet still as a fellow-sufferer to bear the cross\nwith His disciples, is a new element of consolation. But it does not\ndisplace the former. The celestial house is still to be the object and\nfinal resting-place of their thoughts and hopes. They were to rejoice\nthat their Lord was there, in His proper and eternal dwelling, united\nas a Son to a Father, doing homage as a Son to a Father, confessing\nthere, as He did on earth, His own glory to be derived from the\nFather. They were to rejoice for His sake, because they loved Him; and\nthat rejoicing for His sake would be the greatest elevation, and the\nhighest satisfaction to themselves. They would look through Christ to\nthe Father; they would see all things issuing from Him, and tending to\ntheir fruition and perfection in Him.\n\n'_And now_,' He concludes, '_I have told you before it come to pass,\nthat, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. Hereafter I will not\ntalk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath\nnothing in me. But that the world may know that I love the Father; and\nas the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go\nhence_.'\n\nThat which was coming to pass, we can have no doubt, was the death of\nthe Son of Man, His ascension, the gift of the Spirit; for of all\nthese He has discoursed, as if they were inseparably connected. Each\nevent would be imperfectly understood till the next came to expound\nit. When the Spirit was given, there would be a flood of light upon\nall the acts of Christ; all the lines of the world's history would be\nseen to be converging towards Him. But an hour of darkness must\nprecede this illumination, an hour in which the living Word, the\nupholder of all things, would be almost silent; the hour, He calls it,\nof the prince of this world, the hour when righteousness would seem to\nbe put down for ever, when the priestly tyrants of Jud\u00e6a, and the\nimperial tyrants of Rome, would seem to have established their\nsupremacy. But their master had _nothing in Jesus_. The cross upon\nwhich they raised Him would stand forth as the perfect opposite of his\nselfishness the perfect manifestation of the Divine love. For the\nworld's sake, that cross would be set up; for the world's sake, He\nspoke these things to His disciples. He would have the world know that\nHe loved the Father, and that He was fulfilling His Father's\ncommandment in dying for it. What a wonderful conclusion to a\ndiscourse which He had addressed to His own, whom He had chosen out of\nthe world! What a wonderful preparation for that discourse concerning\nthe vine and the branches, which He seems to have spoken as He walked\nwith His disciples towards the Garden of Gethsemane!\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XXIV.\n\nTHE VINE AND THE BRANCHES.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 9th Sunday after Trinity, July 20, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN XV. 1.\n\n_I am the true Vine, and my Father is the Husbandman._\n\n\nThe words, '_Arise, let us go hence_,' with which the 14th chapter\nconcludes, have been taken by some to indicate that our Lord was about\nto lead His disciples into a higher region of thought and of hope than\nthey had yet visited. The feeling is a very natural one that\neverything in these conversations must have a sublime sense, that no\nwords can be used in them in their common earthly sense. But it is not\nan altogether healthy feeling. It may lead us to forget that the\ndisciples were sitting in an actual room, at an actual supper; it may\ngive us the notion that we have been transported into some fantastical\nworld. That is a heavy price to pay for a refined or spiritual\ninterpretation. It may make the whole life of the Son of Man\nunintelligible to us.\n\nFrom the beginning of the 13th chapter, our Lord has been preparing\nthem to '_arise and go hence_.' He has been leading them towards that\nFather's house, whither He is going and to which He is the way. We\nmight say that He reaches the mountain summit, in His prayer in the\n17th chapter; yet even that must be said with caution, because His\ndeath and ascension were yet to come, and the Spirit had not yet been\npoured upon them. But though nothing which He ever spoke is deeper, or\nhas had a mightier effect on mankind, than the passage of which I am\nabout to speak, we do not conceive of it rightly if we describe it as\na departure from earthly facts or earthly images. We are about to be\ntold of the discipline which is necessary for those who are upon earth\nfighting, not transfigured, and how the discipline will be\nadministered. The old form of speaking by parables, which the\ndisciples might easily have thought was intended only for the\nmultitude, and might be discarded in the more advanced stages of their\neducation, is resorted to again. The forms of earth are still claimed\nas interpreters of the kingdom of heaven.\n\nI think it is better, therefore, to take the words in their simplest\nsense,--to suppose that our Lord and His disciples did arise from the\nsupper as He spoke, and that the first object which they saw as they\nwalked towards the Mount of Olives was a _vine_. That tree had been\nthe old lesson-book of Prophets. They had watched its growth; had\nwondered at the life which circulated through its branches; had\nthought of the care which was needful in the choice of a place to\nplant it in; of the incessant vigilance which must be bestowed upon it\nafter it had grown. '_Thou hast brought_,' they said in their songs,\n'_a vine out of Egypt, and planted it_.' '_The house of Israel_,' they\nsaid in their discourses, '_is the Lord's vineyard, and Judah His\npleasant plant_.' Then the question arose, 'Why does it bring forth\nwild grapes? Will it never fill the land?' Which led to the other\ndeeper questions, 'How is it that these comparisons _must_ be true in\nspite of all experience which seems to prove them deceitful? What\nmakes our nation one,--what gives it life, though we seem a mere set\nof loose, wretched, dead sticks, trying to be separate?'\n\nHere was the answer, '_I am the true Vine_.' As the words, '_I am the\ngood Shepherd_,' explained all the previous uses of _that_ symbol, and\nshowed why they were not fictitious, so this sentence interprets all\nthe passages of the Old Testament which connect the life of trees with\nthe life of man. 'You have been told that you were the branches of a\nvine; that God was pruning you, and lopping off dead boughs from you.\nNow, look into the heart of this mystery. In me you have been made\none; from me you have drawn life. _My Father_ Himself has been, and\n_is_, the _Husbandman_. It was over His own Son that He was watching.\nIt was the branches in ME which were not bearing fruit that He was\ntaking away. It was every branch in ME that beareth fruit which He was\npurging, that it might bring forth more fruit.' Here was the\ninterpretation of the unity of the nation; for here is the\ninterpretation of the unity of man. We shall find no wider, or deeper,\nor more practical one. The more we apply it to all the circumstances\nof our lives, and to all the problems of history, the more\nsatisfactory it will appear to us. But first, as always, Christ\nHimself applies it to the persons immediately before Him.\n\n'_Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.\nAbide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself,\nexcept it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I\nam the Vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him,\nthe same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do\nnothing._' The words in the 13th chapter, '_Ye are clean, but not\nall_,' led me to anticipate what I should say about these, '_Ye are\nclean through the word which I have spoken unto you_.' I said that He\ntreated them as a pure and holy body, and that the unclean person was\nhe who would not belong to the body, but chose to dwell in his own\nisolation. What is added to that statement here is, that Christ's word\nwas that which purified them. They had no unity of their own, or\npurity of their own. He spoke to them in their inmost hearts, claimed\nthem as His. That quickening, uniting, purifying word, going forth\nfrom Him, was the source of their life, their purity, their unity.\nWhat they had to do was not to put forth self-willed efforts for the\nsake of making themselves better, or wiser, or more united, but simply\nto abide in Him, to believe that they were His, to act as if they\nwere. I resort to other forms of expression, as if I hoped to make\nthat which He chose clearer; but, in fact, that is immeasurably\nplainer, and fuller, and deeper, than any I can imagine. '_Abide in\nme_' at once recals the natural analogy, while it is in strictness\nappropriate only to the condition of a voluntary being. It implies a\npossible separation, an act of adhesion; and yet it implies that this\nseparation is altogether monstrous and anomalous; that this adhesion\nis merely the refusal to break a cord of love with which God is\nactually binding us. '_Abide in me_' is doubtless a command; but it is\nsupported by the other clause, '_and I in you_.' 'Rest in me as if you\nwere united to me; and a living power shall go forth from me to\nsustain and quicken you. And all this that you may _bear fruit_.' That\npart of the symbol is never for a moment lost sight of. The relation\nof the branch to the stem implies the passage of a productive life\nfrom one into the other. The secret processes within are tending to a\nresult which shall be visible. Christ tells them that they can bear\nnothing, that they will be utterly barren and dry, unless they retain\ntheir attachment to Him, unless He communicates a sap to them\ncontinually. He is not satisfied with the comparison; He again puts\nthe doctrine into a more direct form, as if to assure them that He was\nnot using metaphors, that He was taking the most direct method of\nbringing before them that which was not real but _the_ reality, not\n_a_ fact, but _the_ fact of their existence. '_I am the Vine, ye are\nthe branches._' 'The energies and powers within you, when I quicken\nthem, shall bring forth thoughts, deeds, words, that shall be living,\nand shall spread life. Without me all is dead.'\n\nThe last clause has brought the law home to the disciples themselves;\nbut the former was more general: '_He that abideth in me, and I in\nhim_.' And so is the 6th verse: '_Except a man_' (any one) '_abide in\nme, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and they gather\nthem, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned_.' That 'any\none' gives the sentence a fearful significance. Let us think well of\nit. Have we never felt as if, though no voice had cut us off from the\nfellowship of our brethren, we had cut ourselves off? Have we never\nfelt an internal withering, as if the springs of life in us were all\ndried up? What was the secret of this condition, which we could trace\nto no outward violence? Or do we ask, 'What is the cure? How may that\nseparation be put an end to before it becomes fixed and everlasting?\nHow may that secret withering be arrested before it ends in absolute\ndeath?' The evil is traced to its source when we are told that we have\nnot abided in Him; the remedy lies in that command, and in no other.\nThe dead sticks are gathered into a bundle and burnt. But the sap has\nnot gone out of the Vine; that may still make the bough to sprout and\nbud.\n\nThe next verses take us a step further. '_If ye abide in me, and my\nwords abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done\nunto you. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so\nshall ye be my disciples._' He had said, '_Whatsoever ye shall ask in\nmy name, I will do it_.' He can now give the words, '_in my name_,'\ntheir full force. It is not the name of one who may have power with\nHim to whom they are pleading, but who is far from _them_. It is the\nname of Him in whom they are actually dwelling, in whom they are one.\nAnd His words are the expression of His Father's will. So far, then,\nas those words dwell in them, and ascend up from them in prayer to\nGod, so far they are asking according to His will, and He is doing\nthat will in granting them their petitions. Not merely, as we render\nthe passage, '_It shall be done for you_,' but '_It shall become to\nyou_.' God's will shall work with your will, which it is moulding to\nitself. And so God is glorified in the fruit which you bring forth.\nThe more rich you are in love and good works, the more is He Himself\nmanifested in you, the more are you Christ's disciples.\n\nThus we are brought back to the ultimate ground of this relation\nbetween Christ and human beings. '_As the Father hath loved me, so\nhave I loved you: abide in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye\nshall abide in my love; as I have kept my Father's commandments, and\nabide in His love._' This is the continually recurring burden of this\ndivine song. The love of the Father is at the root of all. The Son can\ndo nothing but in obedience to that. He believes it, obeys it, and so\nlives in it. The law of the disciples' being is the same. They are to\nbelieve in the love which is the manifestation and reflection of this\nlove, to obey it, to live in it.\n\nAnd now another gift is bestowed which we expect less, on this night\nof sorrow, than even that gift of peace of which I spoke last Sunday.\n'_These things have I said unto you, that my joy may remain in you,\nand that your joy may be full_' (or fulfilled). Remember that this was\nspoken after He had been 'troubled in spirit' at the thought of His\nbetrayal, not long before He was to pass through the agony. If any one\nsays to himself,--who has not said it to himself?--'What is joy to me?\nhow can I ever be partaker of that?' let him think thus. 'Christ knew,\nas none of us ever have known or shall know, what the death and\nextinction of all joy means; what it is to be alone; what it is to\nfeel deserted of men and deserted of God. And yet He spoke of His joy,\nand of communicating that joy to the disciples. Whence came it? What\nwas it? How could it be communicated? It was obedience to His Father's\ncommands. It came from His submitting to those commands, though they\nbrought Him to suffering, and desertion, and death. It is communicated\nto men along with that same power of obedience and endurance. His joy\nwas to do a will which He knew to be a loving will, into whatsoever\nheights or depths it might bring Him. That obedience with all its\nconsequences, He says, He will impart to us if we will receive it.'\n\nTherefore He goes on: '_This is my commandment, That ye love one\nanother, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that\na man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do\nwhatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for\nthe servant knoweth not what his Lord doeth. But I have called you\nfriends; for all things which I have heard from my Father, I have made\nknown unto you._'\n\nYou see how earnestly He repeats those words which to many of us have\nsuch a paradoxical sound. 'I _command_ you to love.' 'Just the thing,'\nwe say in our hearts, 'which cannot be commanded, which must come from\nchoice.' 'Just that,' He answers, 'which cannot come from choice,\nwhich must come from submission.' If a loving Being were not the Lord\nof our wills, were not the Lord of the universe, we might make mighty\nefforts to love, supposing we had been taught by some visitant from\nanother region what love was; and every such effort would be a\nrebellious struggle against our Master and our destiny. If there is a\nperfect Love creating and sustaining all things, if men have a Father,\nthen such efforts cannot be rebellious, must be in conformity to this\nlaw: 'Love as I have loved you.' I have said this before, while\ndwelling on another part of this discourse; but I must say it again\nand again, for it is the principle which underlies the whole of it,\nand upon which the distinction that is made here between servants and\nfriends entirely depends. Christ manifests the greatest love which, He\nsays, can be manifested. The love which He manifests is His Father's.\nHe lays down His life in submission to that. They become His friends\nby yielding to that love, by confessing it, by allowing it to have\ndominion over them. He calls them no longer servants, but friends,\nbecause servants only know what they are to do, without knowing why\nthey are to do it; whereas He has told them the very secret of His\nFather's mind, the ground on which His acts and His precepts rest. It\nis not that the friend is less under authority than the servant. It\nis not that the one does what He is bidden, and the other may do what\nhe likes. It is that the friend enters into the very nature of the\ncommand,--that it is a command which is addressed to his will, and\nwhich moulds his will to its own likeness.\n\nIn strict consistency with this language, He goes on: '_Ye have not\nchosen me, but I have chosen you, and have ordained you, that ye\nshould go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain;\nthat whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, He may give it\nyou.'_ All sectarianism, all self-seeking and self-willed religion, is\nbased upon the idea, 'We have chosen Him. By an act of faith, or an\nact of love, we have entered into a relation with Him, which but for\nthat act would not be.' And the whole Gospel turns upon the opposite\nmaxim to this: '_I have chosen you_.' 'You are merely obeying a call.\nYou are merely confessing a relation, with the making of which you had\nnothing to do.' Even when this doctrine of election has taken a narrow\nform,--even when it has been recognised chiefly as exclusive,--it has\nhad a mighty power over the hearts of men. They have given themselves\nup, as they never could do when they thought they had selected their\nown Master, or were going upon errands of their own. But when it takes\nthe form which it has here; when Christ, who has loved them to the\ndeath, commands them to love others as He has loved; when He tells\nthem that He has placed them in their different circumstances that\nthey may go and bring forth fruit,--that fruit being the men whom they\nshall persuade that they too belong to a race for which Christ has\ndied, and which the Father loves;--there cannot be any principle which\nis at once so humbling and so elevating, which so takes away all\nnotion from the disciple that there is any worth in his own deeds or\nwords, which gives him so confident an assurance that God's word,\nspoken through him or through any man, will not return to Him void.\nAnd that, if I am not mistaken, is the reason why the promise, that\nwhatever is asked of the Father in Christ's name shall be granted, is\nagain introduced here with the variation, '_He may give it_,' instead\nof 'I will do it.' A man who feels that he is called to a work, does\nnot therefore feel power to accomplish it. He may feel--as Moses did,\nand as Jeremiah did--an increased feebleness, an utter childishness;\nbut he understands that he may ask the Father, whose will he is called\nto do, that that will may be done; so he wins a strength which is and\nis not his own.\n\nWe wonder to find the command which we have heard so often, delivered\nonce more in the 17th verse. But we presently discover that it is as\nan introduction to a new subject, and that in relation to that subject\nthe old words have a new force. '_These things I command you, that ye\nlove one another. If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me\nbefore it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its\nown: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of\nthe world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word which I\nspake to you, The servant is not greater than his Master. If they have\npersecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my\nword, they will keep yours also._' Here the love which He commands\nthem to have for one another--the love which is His own, and which He\ninspires--is contrasted with the hatred of the world. The one\ndifference which we have already discovered between the world and\nthose whom He chooses out of it, is that they confess a Centre, and\nthat the world confesses none; that they desire to move, each in his\nown orbit, about this Centre, and that the world acknowledges only a\nrevolution of each man about himself. The world, indeed, cannot\nrealize its own principles. It must have companies, parties,\nsects,--bodies acknowledging some principle of cohesion, aspiring\nafter a kind of unity. Still, as a world, this is the description of\nit; and therefore, as a world, it must hate all who say, 'We are a\nsociety bound together, not by any law of our own, not by an election\nof our own, but by God's law and election. And His law is a law of\nsacrifice. He gives up His Son; His Son gives up Himself. We are to\ngive up ourselves in obedience to His Spirit, that we may do His\nwork.'\n\nAs He had so lately called them friends, not servants, we may be\nsurprised that here He gave them the old name again. But the title,\nservant, is not now a dishonourable title for those whom He has called\nfriends. Since the Master became a servant, His friends must be\ncontent to be servants, otherwise they do not know what their Lord\ndoeth; they cannot enter into His mind. With this service, too, they\nmust take the hatred and persecution of the world as part of their\nendowment, as one of the treasures which their Lord shares with them.\nIf it does not hate them, they must always fear that they are not\nloving each other, or loving it as God loves it.\n\n'_But all these things will they do to you for my name's sake, because\nthey know not Him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto\nthem, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.\nHe that hateth me, hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them\nthe works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now_\n_have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But this cometh\nto pass, that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their\nlaw, They hated me without a cause._' These are, perhaps, the most\nterrible words in the Old or New Testament. No descriptions of divine\npunishment which are written anywhere, can come the least into\ncomparison with them for awfulness and horror. This gratuitous\nhatred--this hatred of Christ by men because they hate God, this\nhatred of God because He has manifested and proved Himself to be\nlove--is something which passes all our conceptions, and yet which\nwould not mean anything to us if our consciences did not bear witness\nthat the possibility of it lies in ourselves. And do not let us put\naway that thought, brethren, or the other which is closely akin to it,\nthat such hatred is only possible in a nation which, like the Jewish,\nis full of religious knowledge and of religious profession. There, our\nLord tells us Himself, was a hatred of Him and of His Father which\ncould be found nowhere else,--there, among scribes, and Pharisees, and\nchief priests. Let us ask God, that none of us may say of his brother,\n'This crime may be committed by thee;' but each of himself: 'God be\nmerciful to me a sinner. Keep me by Thy love, abiding in Thy love.\nHelp me to keep Christ's commandment of loving my brother as well as\nThee; else, if I am left to myself, I may sink into such a hell of\nhatred, as would be worse than all other hells that men have ever\nfeared to think of.'\n\nLet us pray this prayer, and then our Lord's last words in this\nchapter will come to us as the most wonderful relief, as the very\nanswer which we long for. '_But when the Comforter shall come, whom I\nwill send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which\nproceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of me: and ye also shall\nbear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning._' To\nhave the Comforter, the Paraclete, with us, this is the security that\nthe spirit of hatred shall not overcome us. To have the Spirit of\ntruth with us, this is the security that we shall not be brought to\nbelieve a lie, or to disbelieve in the God of truth. To have Him\ntestifying of Christ, the Son of Man and the Son of God, is the\nsecurity that we shall abide in Him who has given the greatest proof\nof love that can be given, by laying down His life for His friends. To\nbe able to testify of Him because we have been with Him, even when He\nwas hidden from us, and we did not know how near He was; to testify of\nHim by our words and our deeds; this is the security that He is using\nus for His own gracious purpose, and that He will be glorified in the\nfruits which He will cause us to bring forth.\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XXV.\n\nTHE COMFORTER AND HIS TESTIMONY.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 10th Sunday after Trinity (Morning), July 27, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN XVI. 1.\n\n_These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended._\n\n\nThe things which Jesus had just spoken to the disciples were, that His\ncountrymen '_hated Him without a cause_;' that they '_hated both Him\nand His Father_.' These things were to take away the scandal which it\nwould be to them to find that they made themselves hated by\nproclaiming a Gospel of peace and good will. '_They shall put you out\nof the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you\nwill think that he doeth God service._' It would be a strange result;\nfellowship with their brethren destroyed because they proclaimed the\nground of fellowship; death inflicted upon them because they preached\nthat death was overcome. Might not poor Galil\u00e6ans, conscious of folly\nand sin, often say to themselves: 'We must be wrong; the rulers of the\nland must be wiser than we are. Ought we to turn the world upside down\nfor an opinion of ours?' But '_these things will they do unto you,\nbecause they have not known the Father, nor me_.' 'They have not known\nwhat the Lord and Light of their spirit meant: do you think they can\nknow what you mean? They have hated my character; they have hated God\nin His own essential nature: would you expect them to love you who are\nsent forth to testify what that nature is, and how it has been\nmanifested?'\n\nAll His education had been gradual; no word had been spoken till it\nwas needed. So it is now. '_And these things will they do unto you,\nbecause they have not known the Father, nor me. But these things have\nI told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told\nyou of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning,\nbecause I was with you. But now I go my way to Him that sent me; and\nnone of you asketh me, Whither goest thou?_' His meaning would only be\nentered into fully when the events explained it; but what a difference\nwould it make to them that they could assure themselves then, 'It _is_\nHis meaning! All this He told us of.' And this would be no mere act of\nmemory, at least if memory is only concerned with the past. It would\ndo more than anything else to remove the confusion which beset them,\nwhich His own words seemed almost to increase, as to His absence from\nthem, and His presence with them. He had said that He was going to the\nFather; He had said that His going would be an elevation and a\nblessing to them. He had said that He should come to them. They could\nnot see their way through these apparent inconsistencies. They had\nbegun to ask whither He was going, but they had stopped short in the\ninquiry. The news of His departure possessed them; that was an\nunspeakable weight upon their minds. They scarcely thought that any\nknowledge of the 'where' would materially lighten it.\n\n'_Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I\ngo away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you;\nbut if I depart, I will send Him unto you._' It was the hardest of all\ntruths; the hearts which grief had occupied could afford little room\nfor it. '_It is expedient that I should go away._' Again the doubt\nwill have come back in its full force: 'What compensation can there be\nfor His absence? What new friend can take His place?' Before, the\npromise, however difficult to comprehend, '_I will come to you_,' had\ntaken away some of the bitterness of their anticipations. Now it was\nnecessary that they should face the whole subject; that they should\napprehend the Comforter as a distinct Person from Him who was speaking\nto them; that they should rise by degrees to feel how compatible this\ndistinctness was with perfect unity. We, with our rough blundering\ndogmatism, may think that we can teach these lessons at once; and when\nwe find how difficult it is for men to take them in, because they are\nmen like ourselves--incapable of seeing more than half a truth at a\ntime--may conclude just as rashly that no processes can ever bring any\nbut a few learned and subtle men to such a discovery. But He who knew\nwhat was in man, was content to give His disciples line upon line; to\ngo over the steps of His teaching often again; to make them conscious\nfirst of one need of their spirits, then of another; to present each\nby turns with the satisfaction which it demands; to be indifferent\nabout apparent contradictions, so long as real contradictions were\nescaped. He who knew what was in man was sure that it is not the\ndoctor or the systematizer, but the human being, who wants to be\ninstructed in the distinction of Persons and the unity of Substance;\nthat our minds rest upon the principles to which these opposing words\nare the indices; that the fisherman or the publican feels after them\nwith his heart, and assumes them in his discourse; that he and the\ndoctor may enter into them together, when both are willing to perform\nthe highest demand of science as well as of faith, by becoming little\nchildren.\n\nHere, then, He tells them that His departure out of their sight was\nactually necessary in order that the Paraclete--whom He had spoken of\nas the bond of their union, as their efficient Teacher and\nFriend--should come to them. You would have supposed, perhaps, that He\nwould have gone on to tell them what blessings the coming of this\nParaclete would confer upon _them_, which He would not confer upon the\nworld, since He had said that the world would not receive Him or know\nHim. It may cause us some surprise, then, to read: '_And when He is\ncome, He will reprove the_ WORLD _of sin, and of righteousness, and of\njudgment: of sin, because they believe not on me; of righteousness,\nbecause I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; of judgment, because\nthe prince of this world is judged_.' It is impossible to get rid of\nthis difficulty by any loose interpretation of the word _world_. It is\none of the characteristic and vital words in all this discourse. It is\nused, as I think, with great precision and uniformity throughout St.\nJohn: to evade its force here, is to destroy his meaning altogether.\nOn the other hand, if we will adhere steadfastly to the language as it\nstands, we gain a fresh and brilliant illustration of the work to\nwhich our Lord had destined His disciples, and apart from their\nperformance of which they could look for no blessings to themselves.\nThey were to be witnesses to a world which had forgotten its Centre,\nconcerning that Centre; witnesses to a world which was created by a\nrighteous God, and was meant to show forth His righteousness, in whom\nthis righteousness dwelt, and how it was to be sought after;\nwitnesses to a world which had set up a prince of its own, that his\npower must come to an end, that it had been proved to be weakness.\n\nHow could they fulfil such a mission as this? What could their\narguments or their rhetoric avail to bring home such convictions to a\nsingle Jew or a single idolater, to say nothing of a world of Jews, or\na world of idolaters? By their very nature, such convictions must be\ninward and radical. They could not play about the surface of men's\nhearts, but must penetrate into them. Whence could come this\ndemonstration? Our Lord tells the disciples at once that they are to\ndespair of its ever coming from them, that they are to be sure it will\ncome from the Spirit with which He will endue them. Not they, but He,\nwill convince the world; because, though the world may not receive Him\nneither know Him, it has been formed to receive all quickening life\nfrom Him; it must confess His presence, even if it would hide itself\nfrom His presence. And the disciples were to go forth in this faith;\nin the certainty that wherever they met a man, Jew or Gentile, there\nwas one whose Head was Christ, who owed his life to Christ, who was\nreceiving light from Christ, and who only sinned because he did not\nown this Head, confess this Life, open his conscience and heart to\nthis Light. The Spirit in them would show them this truth concerning\nthemselves, and would only show it to them concerning themselves,\nbecause they were partakers of the nature which every worshipper of\nJupiter or Brahm had as much as they. The disciples were to go forth\nin the certainty that the righteous Man whom they had once seen upon\nearth, in whom they had beheld the grace and truth of the Father, was\nthe same when they saw Him no more. They were to believe in Him as\nthe Lord their righteousness; they were to believe that the\nrighteousness of God was in Him; so they were to rise up righteous\nmen, children bearing the image of their Father. The Spirit within\nthem would give them this faith; the Spirit within them would make\nthem partakers of this righteousness. And that same Spirit would\nconvince the world of this righteousness, would bring this standard\ncontinually before it, would make this standard the real measure of\nits laws, its polity, its customs; the measure of its deflections from\nright and truth. There would be an inward conviction, a continually\ngrowing conviction among men, that nothing short of this could be the\nhuman standard, even when they were setting up another, even when they\nwere pronouncing this to be unattainable, even when they said that\nthey would rather not attain it if they could. The disciples were to\ngo forth in the belief that when the spirit of selfishness seemed\nstrongest in themselves, strongest among their fellows,--when they\nwere most disposed to bow to him and acknowledge him as their\nking,--he was not their king, but a lying usurper, whose pretensions\nChrist had confounded in the wilderness and on the cross, whom they\ncould trample underfoot if they remembered that Christ's Father was\ntheir Father. The Spirit would teach them that this prince of the\nworld was not their prince. He would teach them, therefore, that he\nwas not indeed, and by right, any man's prince, that all might\ndisclaim him, that for the sake of all he had been judged. And the\nSpirit would convince the world also of this, that the untruths to\nwhich it bows down can have only a brief dominion; that that which is,\nmust prevail over that which is not; that all evil lingers on under a\ncurse which has been pronounced, and shall be fully and eternally\nexecuted.\n\nAll this they would learn hereafter; it could only be prophecy to them\nnow. And there were many things which it would be of no avail to utter\neven in prophecy. '_I have yet many things to say to you, but ye\ncannot bear them now. But_,' our Lord goes on, '_when He, the Spirit\nof truth, is come, He shall guide you into all truth_,'--into the\nwhole truth, not merely into scattered fragments of it. For He shall\nhave dominion over your whole being. He shall guide it into that\nfulness which it longs for, the fulness of God Himself. But it shall\nbe still a _guidance_; He will take you by regular steps along the\nroad which leads to this satisfaction. '_For He shall not speak of\nHimself, but what He shall hear that shall He speak, and He shall tell\nyou things to come._' We should not, perhaps, be able to make out the\nforce of the words, '_He shall not speak of Himself_,' if the history\nof the Church and the world had not expounded them. Again and again\nthere have been teachers in the Church who have spoken loudly of an\nilluminating Spirit. They have said that a dispensation of the Spirit\nhad come, which made the old Gospel of Jesus Christ poor and obsolete;\nthey have said that now the Spirit was all that men had to think of or\nbelieve in. So spoke a portion of the Franciscans, in the thirteenth\ncentury; some of the brethren and sisters of the Free Spirit, in the\nfourteenth; some of the Anabaptists, in the sixteenth; some of the\nQuakers, in the seventeenth; so speak not a few who are revolting\nagainst Materialism, without having found any safe standing-ground\nfrom which to oppose it, in our own. The spirit in such men speaks\n'_of itself_.' Such a spirit, our Lord says, is not the Holy Spirit;\nfor He will speak whatsoever things He hears; He will bring to us the\nmessage of a Father, from whom He comes. He will not make us impatient\nof a Lord and Ruler, but desirous of one, eager to give up ourselves\nto His guidance, eager to get rid of our own fancies and conceits, and\nto enter more into fellowship with all men. He will not allow us to be\nsatisfied with our advanced knowledge or great discoveries, but will\nalways be showing us things that _are coming_; giving us an\napprehension of truths that we have not yet reached, though they be\ntruths which are '_the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever_.'\nThat may not be the whole meaning of the words, '_things to come_;'\nthe phrase may intimate that foresight which is given to those who\nstudy principles, meditating on the past, and believing in God. The\nSpirit which our Lord promises is assuredly the Spirit who spoke by\nthe prophets of old, and has spoken by all His servants who have\nhumbled themselves, and sought light and wisdom from above. But these\ntwo senses do not contradict each other; and the first is, I think,\nmore directly suggested by the context. It may also imply that the\nSpirit, who does not speak of Himself, leads men away from that\nincessant poring over the operations and experiences of their inner\nlife, which is unhealthy and morbid, to dwell upon the events which\nare continually unfolding themselves in God's world under His\nprovidence, and teaches them to expect the final issue of those events\nin the complete manifestation and triumph of the Son of God.\n\nThe last meaning would connect the 13th verse with the 14th, '_He\nshall glorify me_.' 'Whenever the Spirit of truth is working most\nenergetically in you, the effect will be that the glory of the\nDeliverer and Head of man becomes more dear to you; that you proclaim\nme more and more earnestly in that character.' '_For He, the\nComforter, shall take of mine, and shall shew it to you._' 'He shall,\nin your hours of deepest gloom and despondency, reveal to you One who\nis above yourselves, One in whom you may forget yourselves, One in\nwhom you may see all that perfection of your nature which it will\ndrive you to despair to seek in yourselves. Not, indeed, that you\ncould be satisfied with even this vision, if it were only the vision\nof a Son of Man, of what is most glorious in humanity.' '_But all\nthings which the Father hath are mine._' 'All the glory of the Godhead\nshines forth in the Manhood; all that original goodness and truth and\nlove which man is created to long for and to show forth.' '_Therefore,\nsaid I, He shall take of mine and shall shew it to you._'\n\nHe has returned to the point from which He started. His going to the\nFather has been the subject of His discourse ever since He met them in\nthe upper room at the feast. That has led Him to speak of the\nComforter who should tell them of His Father; afterwards of His own\neternal union to them, as the root of their fellowship, as the spring\nof their life; then again of the Comforter who should teach them of\nboth Him and the Father, who should make them witnesses of their\neternal unity to men. It is no break in the discourse when He adds,\n'_A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while,\nand ye shall see me, because I go to the Father_.' The words which we\ntranslate '_see_' in the two clauses, are different. I do not know\nthat I can discern the shades of their meaning; but I am sure that\nthere is a reason for the variation, and that it should not be\noverlooked. The word \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 may, perhaps, intimate that for a time\nthey would lose all perception of Him, even an intellectual\nperception; the word \u1f44\u03c8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5, that they should see Him again with the\neyes of the body as well as of the mind, may have cheered the\ndisciples afterwards; at present it added to their confusion. '_Then\nsaid some of His disciples among themselves, What is this that He\nsaith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a\nlittle while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father?\nThey said therefore, What is this that He saith, A little while? we\ncannot tell what He saith._' They are like men awakening out of a\ndream, full of troubles and of joys mixed strangely together. He was\ndeparting from the earth; He was going to the Father; He was to\nprepare a place for them. What did it all mean? They thought He was\nabout to tell them; these words '_a little while_' seem to throw them\nback into more than their old perplexity.\n\n'_Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask Him, and said unto\nthem, Do ye inquire among yourselves of that I said, A little while,\nand ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see\nme?_' He knew that they were desirous to ask Him, because He had\ntaught them to ask. The processes of their minds were under His\nguidance, as well as the issues of the processes. He determined\nnothing for them till He had led them to feel after it. So their\nconversations have become lesson-books for all ages; not resolutions\nof doubts by peremptory decisions, but histories of transactions in\nthe hearts of men like ourselves, whom the Divine Word chose as\ninstances of the method by which He educates us. And the sentences\nwhich follow show us something more of this method, and make us\nunderstand how little even the most celestial food can nourish us if\nit is taken in without being digested.\n\n'_Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but\nthe world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow\nshall be turned into joy. A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow,\nbecause her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the\nchild, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born\ninto the world. And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you\nagain, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from\nyou._'\n\nTheir thoughts of the '_little while_' had been half sad, half\nfrivolous. They supposed that He could at once tell them what He meant\nby telling them how long He would be absent, and in what place and\nunder what circumstances He would meet them again. He presents the\nsubject in an altogether different light; for He tells them that the\nlittle while in which He shall be hidden from them will be an hour of\ntravail and of death, and that the little while of His reappearance\nwill be the hour of the birth of a man into the world. We feel at once\nthat these cannot be metaphors; that if the death of Christ is\nanything, and the resurrection of Christ is anything, this must be\n_the_ language, the most exact and living which Christ Himself could\nspeak, or we could hear, to determine the signification of them. Here,\nas throughout the conversation, our Lord connects the world with His\ndisciples, and at the same time contrasts the one with the other. They\nwill mourn that they have lost a friend; the world will rejoice that\nit has got rid of an enemy. But their ultimate joy must be that a MAN,\n_the_ Man for whom the world has been waiting so long, has been born\ninto it. They can have no joy for themselves which is not a joy for\nmankind, which is not a thanksgiving for its victory. '_And ye now\ntherefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart\nshall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you._' They should see\nHim returning the Conqueror of death, the Conqueror of man's enemy;\nthat should be a joy not dependent upon the sight of their eyes, not\ndependent upon His visible continuance with them; it should be a joy\nof the heart, and it should be a joy which no man could take from\nthem. Their own weakness, or sin, or death, could not, for this joy\nwould raise them above themselves; this would give them an inheritance\nin One in whom was no sin or ignorance, and over whom death had no\npower. The unbelief of others could not, for the fact of His triumph\nwould remain the same whether men confessed it or no.\n\nHe goes on: '_And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily,\nI say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, He will\ngive it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye\nshall receive, that your joy may be full._' This was the secret,\nhalf-understood cause of their grief, as it is one cause of the grief\nof all who are about to lose a friend. We can go to him no more; we\ncan tell him of no more difficulties; we can ask him no more\nquestions. 'But in that day,' He says, 'when you shall see me\nagain,--in that day of full, satisfying joy,--you will not feel this\nwant; you will not be longing to ask that which only concerns\nyourselves; you will feel yourselves bound together in my name, a\nfamily of brothers in an Elder Brother. The vision of a Father will\nopen clearly upon you; and verily whatever you ask Him in my name,--in\nthe name of Him who binds you to one another, and binds you all to the\nFather of heaven and earth,--He will give it you. For you will desire\nthat which He desires, that which I have died and risen again to work\nout, the glory of His name, the coming of His kingdom, the doing of\nHis will. Hitherto you have not entered into this joy. Your thoughts\nhave been narrow, weak, limited to yourselves. When you pray to the\nFather in my name, when you enter into communion with Him, your joy\nwill be full; you will attain the highest blessedness of which man is\ncapable.'\n\n'_These things_,' He continues, '_have I spoken unto you in proverbs:\nbut the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs,\nbut I shall shew you plainly of the Father. At that day ye shall ask\nin my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for\nyou: for the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and\nhave believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father,\nand am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the\nFather._'\n\nThis is the climax of His discourse, one may say of all human\ndiscourse; though prayer, as I think we shall find in the next\nchapter, may take us into a higher region still. He has been speaking\nto them in symbols, proverbs, parables. He has been showing them how\nall nature, how human transactions, how their own lives, all implied a\nkingdom of heaven, were ladders upon which angels were ascending and\ndescending. The ladder would not be thrown down; parables and proverbs\nwould remain everlastingly true. But now His voice could be heard who\nwas at the top of the ladder. The Father, who had been declared\nthrough all subordinate relations, would Himself be revealed. And\nthough all prayers are ascending up to Him, yet His love would be\ndiscovered as itself the fountain of them all. Even the Son, the great\nIntercessor, will not say to them that He will pray for them, if they\ntake prayer to mean anything which is to alter the Father's purpose,\nor augment His love. For of His will His own words are the utterance\nand expression. He came forth from the Father, and is come into the\nworld. He is going back to the Father to unite the world to Him.\n\n'_His disciples said unto Him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and\nspeakest no proverb. Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and\nneedest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou\ncamest forth from God._' It seemed to the disciples as if all clouds\nwere now scattered. They thought the Man was already born into the\nworld. Alas! it was in their own faith they were still in part\nbelieving, not in Him. The travail-hour must be passed through by them\nas by us; that which would scatter all trust in themselves, that which\nwould leave them only God to trust in. '_Jesus answered them, Do ye\nnow believe? Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, in which ye\nshall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone._'\nTheir hour of weakness was at hand. It would be also His. They would\nbe deserted, and He would be deserted. And yet He adds, '_I am not\nalone, because the Father is with me_.' 'Your faith will perish. Even\nI shall cry, \"_My God, why hast thou forsaken me?_\" And yet that\neternal union which I have been declaring to you, which I have come\ninto the world to manifest, will be unshaken. This desertion will make\nit manifest. And because that is unshaken, your union with me will be\nunshaken also. Nothing which I have said to you will prove untrue.\n\"_These things have I spoken unto you, that in me ye might have\npeace. In the world ye shall have tribulation_,\"--that world which\nsurrounds you, and in the evils and faithlessness of which you share.\n\"_But be of good cheer; I have overcome the world._\" Its wars and\ndivisions and hatreds have not vanquished me; I have vanquished them.\nNot the king whom the world has chosen for itself, but the Son whom\nthe Father has set over it, shall reign in it for ever and ever.'\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XXVI.\n\nTHE PRAYER OF THE HIGH PRIEST.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 10th Sunday after Trinity (Afternoon), July 27, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN XVII. 1.\n\n     _These words spake Jesus, and lifted up His eyes to heaven,\n     and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that\n     thy Son also may glorify thee._\n\n\nThe more we enter into our Lord's teaching, the more profound is our\napprehension of the dignity, the awfulness, the divinity of words; the\nmore we confess their insufficiency. If He who was in the beginning\nwith God is the Word, if words have been the expression of His mind,\nthey awaken those thoughts in our minds which they are intended to\nclothe. But if the Word has spoken of Himself as a Son; if He has said\nthat He has come from a Father; if He has promised a Comforter, He has\ntaken us out of the region of words into the heart of the realities\nwhich they represent. It is the Son Himself who reveals the Father:\nwhat could words effect without His Person? The Father Himself, He has\nsaid, draws us to the Son: words would be spoken in vain if there were\nnot that wonderful and loving attraction upon the hearts of the\ncreatures whom He has formed in the image of the Son. The Spirit's\nwork is to produce that inward conviction which words cannot produce,\nto act upon the man himself, to bind those into fellowship whom the\ndiversities of speech and custom have made unintelligible to each\nother, to testify to men of the Father and the Son, as the ground of\nall speech, thought, and being. But here, as throughout this Gospel,\nthe deepest revelation is the commonest and simplest. As we enter into\nthe region of the divine relations, of divine communion, all must\ntremble; none are forbidden to approach. Intellectual differences\ndisappear; here every spirit may find its home.\n\nWe sometimes ask ourselves, as we read the prayer in this chapter--and\nit is good that we should ask ourselves--'Is this the model of our\nprayer? Is Christ giving us an example here that we should follow in\nHis steps? Or does it stand awfully alone, separated from every other\nthat ever has been or can be offered; one which we are to wonder at\nthe more, because so vast a chasm separates it from all our acts and\nefforts of devotion?' I believe that if we have _not_ understood the\nacts and discourses on the Paschal night, there can be but one answer\nto this question. 'The Son of God praying to His Father the night\nbefore His Passion,--how entirely isolated,' we should say, 'must such\nintercourse be from all that ever has been, from all that can be\nconceived of! What blasphemy to connect it, even in thought, with the\npetitions of those who have little to do but to confess their sins,\nand supplicate forgiveness!' But if we have studied these chapters; if\nwe have learnt that when the disciples saw Christ they saw the Father;\nif we have understood that He is the Vine, and they the branches; if\nwe have known what He meant when He told them that they were to ask in\nHis name, that their joy might be full; if we have observed how He\ndistinguishes the disciples from the world, and yet how He teaches\nthem that everything they do is to be done for the world, and as a\nwitness of God's love to the world; then, I think, we shall feel that\nit is the greatest of all contradictions to suppose that this prayer\ndoes not contain in itself the essence and meaning of all prayer, that\nit is not the one which best expresses the wants and longings of every\nman, that it is not the prayer of all the children of God, in all\nplaces and in all ages, because it is the prayer of the only-begotten\nSon of God.\n\n'_These words spake Jesus, and lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said,\nFather, the hour is come._' He had spoken to His disciples of an hour\nof travail, which was to terminate in a new birth for them and for the\nworld. The world knew nothing of this hour; no one of its works or\npleasures was interrupted; that night was like every other night. The\ndisciples had a dull sense of present oppression, a vague presentiment\nof approaching calamity. But they, as little as the world, felt what\nthe sorrow was, still less what joy they had to expect when it was\nover. He knew it all. He knew inwardly that that was the hour to\nfulfil the purpose for which He was come into the world. The life and\ndeath of the world were gathered up into it. The feeling would have\nbeen intolerable if it had been a solitary, separate one; but the\nforesight of it had been given Him by His Father; the sense that the\nhour was come was imparted by Him; His prayer was the acknowledgment\nof that which had been revealed to Him, His filial acceptance of that\nwhich had been prepared for Him. And surely, brethren, all prayer must\nbe this. It is the acknowledging of that, be it sad or joyful, which\nhas been given to us; it is the casting our experience upon Him who\nhas brought us into it, and who understands it, because without Him we\ncannot go through it, or in the least understand it ourselves.\n\nAnd this is the petition which is grounded upon that confession,\n'_Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee_.' Every prayer\nthat had been presented since the creation-day had been a prophecy of\nthis. When the Psalmist cried out of the depths, '_Lord, hear my\nvoice_;' when he said, '_Let not any be offended or confounded because\nof me_;' when he confessed his sin, that God might be justified, and\n_might be clear when He was judged_, he _seemed_ to say, 'Glorify\n_me_, that I may glorify thee;' he _seemed_ to pray, 'Let _me_, David,\nbe brought out of my ignorance and darkness and sin, that thy name may\nbe honoured and not blasphemed.' He did _really_ pray, '_Glorify thy\nSon, that thy Son also may glorify thee_!' He prayed that not he, but\nthat the Son of Man, might be raised and delivered and exalted, in\norder that God's own image might be exalted, and might shine forth\nupon men. When the Son of Man actually in His own person prayed this\nprayer, He was expressing that which was latent and could not be\nexpressed in those earlier petitions; He was bringing them forth into\ntheir full clearness and power; He was actually presenting them in His\nown name to Him who had known and inspired the suppliant.\n\n'_As thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give\neternal life to as many as thou hast given Him._' I do not think that\nwhen we are occupied with the words of our Lord Himself, spoken in\nprayer the night before His crucifixion, we have a right to alter them\nin the slightest degree, for the sake of extracting from them what may\nseem to us a more natural and obvious signification. I am quite aware\nthat our translators would have appeared to themselves and to many of\ntheir readers to be using an uncouth and strange form of speech if\nthey had rendered the words literally, '_That all that which thou hast\ngiven to Him, He may give to them life eternal_.' But I think they\nwere bound to encounter any apparent difficulty of construction,\nrather than to incur the risk of contracting or perverting this sense.\nIt was not a time to ask themselves whether their understandings could\nfully measure or take in the words. If they had faith in Him who spoke\nthem, they should have given them exactly, and left Him to interpret\nthem in His own time to those who had need of them. Christ says that\nHis Father has given Him power over all flesh. He speaks, again, of\nall (_everything_) which His Father had given to Him. And then,\nleaving the neuter, \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd, He uses the masculine plural, _them_,\n\u03b1\u1f54\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, surely that He may denote the universality of the gift, as\nwell as the personality of those on whom it is bestowed. It seems to\nme that we cannot afford to lose either of the truths which He thus\ndeclares, because it requires a violation of the technicalities of\ngrammar, not of its essential laws, to utter them both. I suppose it\nwas only in prayer that even He could have united them; and possibly\nit is only in prayer that we can apprehend them, so that they should\nnot clash with each other.\n\n'_And this is the eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true\nGod, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent._' If these words came upon\nus for the first time, without any preparation, we should perhaps\nthink them very wonderful, but should either pass them over, or try to\nreduce them under some notions or formulas of ours. But in this Gospel\nwe have been most carefully educated into an apprehension of their\nforce; they do not burst upon us suddenly, though they may be both\nmore full and more distinct than any with which we can compare them.\nIn the night dialogue with Nicodemus, by the well with the woman of\nSamaria, in the synagogue at Capernaum after the feast of the five\nloaves, in Jerusalem on the great day of the Feast of Tabernacles, we\nhave been hearing of a life which the Son of Man gives, a life of the\nSpirit, a life which is not of yesterday or to-day, a life of\ncommunion, a life of God. If what was said there was true, this must\nbe true; or rather, this is the truth which throws back a light upon\nthe words concerning the new life, and the '_water of life_,' and the\n'_bread of life_.' This explains the assurance in man that he is born\nto know that which is above himself, and his equally strong assurance\nthat he must be known before he can know. The only true God knows the\ncreature in all his wanderings and ignorance and falsehood, knows him\nin that Son in whom He has created him. When he turns to that God of\ntruth, when he confesses Him and the Son, who is His image and the\nLight of man, then comes the true life, the eternal life, which\nChrist, who has power over all flesh, alone confers upon it.\n\n'_I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which\nthou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine\nown self with the glory which I had with thee before the worlds\nwere._' It is impossible to say anything which will not weaken the\nforce of these words. All I desire is to show you how they fulfil the\nidea, which St. John has been presenting to us from the beginning of\nhis Gospel, of a Word who was with God and was God, of a Son who had\ncome forth from the Father to reveal His grace and truth to men, of a\nSon who was returning to that Father as to His proper home. All is\nconsistent from first to last; all has been divine, and all human. No\nclashing of the one with the other; but the human showing forth the\ndivine as the perfect light from which it has been derived; the human\nleading on to the divine as that in which it is satisfied.\n\nHitherto this prayer has had no special reference to the disciples. He\nhas spoken of His power over all flesh, of eternal life, of the work\nwhich He had accomplished. Now it turns to them: '_I have manifested\nthy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine\nthey were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word_.' We\nhave traced the use of this language through the later discourses of\nthis Gospel, and have seen how entirely they are in harmony with the\ncommencement of it. The disciples are taken out of the narrow\nexclusive sect-world by which they are surrounded, to be a family of\nwitnesses for the Father and the Son; witnesses of that love which the\nworld--and no part of it so much as the religious world in\nJerusalem--was by its acts, its words, its principles, repudiating. To\nthose Jesus had manifested the name of His Father. He had shown them\nwhat He was, and that they belonged to Him. Amidst all their\nconfusions and errors, they had kept firm hold of this word. They had\nyielded to Christ's guidance; believing, when they understood Him\nleast, that there was none else to whom they could go; that He had the\nwords of eternal life. And they had now learnt a deeper lore. They had\nreferred His calling and guidance to the Father. '_Now they have known\nthat all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have\ngiven unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have\nreceived them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and\nthey have believed that thou didst send me._' This had been the design\nof all His discipline. It had been working gradually upon them and in\nthem. But there had been still a clinging to Him as _their_ Master;\nthe vision of a Father had only just dawned upon them. Now in these\nlast discourses they had learnt the mystery of His relation and their\nrelation to the invisible world. Their belief might not be strong\nenough to be proof against all storms, but it had taken root. Their\nposition was that of friends, not servants; they were waiting for the\nComforter to tell them fully of the Father; already they had the sense\nof not being born of flesh, or of blood, or of the will of men, but of\nGod.\n\n'_I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou\nhast given me; for they are thine._' It is not because I wish in the\nleast to evade the force of these words as they stand in our version,\nthat I plead for a more exact rendering: '_I am asking concerning\nthem; not concerning the world do I ask, but concerning those whom\nthou hast given me_.' I believe the impression left on many minds by\nour use of the preposition _for_, is that Christ is indifferent to the\nworld, and only solicitous on behalf of a certain select circle. I do\nnot say that any one will quite put that thought into words. When he\nsees it stated, he will shrink from it. Still it lurks in men's minds,\nand it is very desirable to remove any prop, however feeble and\nunimportant in itself, which may sustain it there. If any one says,\n'But the force of the words lies not in this _for_, but in the\nexpression, \"_whom thou hast given me_,\"' I say at once that, so far\nfrom wishing to make _that_ expression less strong, I would insist\nupon it vehemently, as marking the distinction between a family which\nstands in its calling by God, and a world which attempts to associate\non another ground than that calling, which chooses for itself. Christ\nis here praying concerning those who are to be the lights of this dark\nworld, the salt of this corrupting earth; those who are to teach the\nworld, in Whom it is constituted, the earth, by Whom it has been\ncreated and is kept alive.\n\n'_They are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am\nglorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in\nthe world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own\nname those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are._'\nAll that has been said in the Paschal discourses, concerning the unity\nof the disciples with Him and His unity with the Father, concerning\nthe essential and eternal dependence of the human unity upon the\ndivine, is here translated into prayer. And yet, _translated_ is an\nunsatisfactory word. It rather finds its only root and ground in\nprayer. For what is prayer but that intercourse of the Father with the\nSon, of the family with its Head, which this unity makes possible? And\nwhat is the object and result of all prayer but this, that what is\ntrue in the mind of God may be true in the actual condition of men;\nall the hindrances which self-will has opposed to the divine Will\nbeing finally and for ever taken away?\n\n'_While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those\nthat thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost but the son\nof perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled._' Here, no doubt,\nis an unfathomable abyss; we cannot see down into it; to attempt it,\nis to hazard the loss of our footing. One of those whom the Father has\ngiven to Christ (so the passage seems to say, and we cannot alter the\nterms of it to fit our fancies or wishes) perishes in his own\nselfishness and sin. Jesus says so. He says that that which had been\nwritten of old had come to pass; curses had come upon the man who\nloved cursing; he who had chosen death had been left to die. It is\nterrible to think of. But how infinitely more terrible would this\nfact, and all the facts that are daily occurring in the world's\nhistory, be, if they were not associated with the gift of eternal\nlife, with the cry of the Son to the Holy Father on behalf of all whom\nHe has given Him! What the heights and depths of that prayer are, none\nof us can know. It is enough to know who spoke and who heard, what\nlove is above all and beneath all, how that love has been manifested\nand accomplished on this earth of ours. To dwell in it must be eternal\nlife; to be separated from it must be eternal death.\n\n'_And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that\nthey might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy\nword; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the\nworld, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest\ntake them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the\nevil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world._' The\nidea of men living as children of God, members of Christ's body,\ninheritors of the kingdom of heaven, with a world and a flesh and an\nevil spirit striving against them which they can renounce and can\novercome, is not one which is strange to any of us. It is only too\nfamiliar. We know the sounds so well, and we have repeated them so\noften and so idly, that the words have lost their significance; we\nthink they are words of art, or words of course. Here we have the\nbeginning and ground of them. Throughout, St. John has been speaking\nof a race born, not of flesh, nor of blood, nor of the will of men,\nbut of God. Christ here declares that He has founded such a race upon\nthe earth. He prays His Father to keep it in the world, not to take it\nout of the world; to keep it by His word, His quickening, uniting\nword, which a world that is divided and is seeking death must hate; to\nkeep it in the confession of Him who is not of the world, but is the\nSon of God; to keep it from that evil spirit who would make it\nselfish, divided, hating, and therefore the worst portion of the world\nagainst which it is to bear witness.\n\n'_Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast\nsent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.\nAnd for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be\nsanctified through the truth._' Surely, brethren, there are no words\nthat we need to meditate on more than these: for it cannot be denied\nthat sanctity and truth have become strangely separated among those\nwho call themselves by Christ's name. Oftentimes it would seem as if\nholiness were pursued to the utter denial and dereliction of truth;\nnay, as if it courted an alliance with falsehood. Oftentimes, again,\nit would seem as if men who desired truth and pursued it, regarded it\nas a dead and abstract thing, which has no affinity with the life of\nman, which has no effect in making him purer or better. Nevertheless,\nthe voice has ascended on high, 'Make them holy by truth,' for truth\nonly can make holy. Whatever is contrary to it or mixed with\nfalsehood, must defile and make base. And the prayer has been heard,\nand will be answered completely at last; for the Son of God, who is\nthe way, and the truth, and the life, took our flesh upon Him, and met\nfalsehood in all the forms in which it presents itself in this world,\nand sanctified Himself, and kept Himself from all contact with it,\nonly by the might and energy of truth, only by submitting in all\nthings to His Father, who is the God of truth. And these temptations\nHe underwent, and this battle He fought, for the sake of His\ndisciples, that they also might be sanctified by truth and truth only,\nthat it might be an armour to them on the right hand and on the left,\nthat they might live for it, and die for it.\n\nIn this second part of the prayer, all has had direct reference to the\ndisciples who surrounded Him, whatever ultimate reference it might\nhave to the remotest corner of the universe. But in the third part of\nit, He says expressly: '_Neither pray I for these alone, but for them\nalso which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may\nbe one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may\nbe one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And\nthe glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be\none, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be\nmade perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent\nme, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me._' Here is a prayer for\nthe whole state of Christ's Church militant here on earth from age to\nage; a prayer offered by the Head of that Church to His Father,\noffered on the night before His sacrifice was to be perfected; a\nprayer grounded not upon some wish or high aspiration hard to be\nrealized, but, as He has just said, upon truth, upon the eternal truth\nthat the Father is in Him and He in the Father, and that He is the\nHead of all men and that all live by Him. This glory, He says, He has\ngiven not to those eleven who were sitting about Him then, but to all\neverywhere who should believe in Him through their words. He has put\nthis glory upon them; He has given them the name of Himself, and of\nHis Father, and of the Holy Spirit the Comforter, to be _their_ name,\nthat they might dwell in it and abide in it. And He prays for them,\nthat they may not choose to be divided when He has made them one, that\nthey may not make themselves the curses of the world by sharing in all\nits envies and hatreds, and by pleading God's name as the excuse for\nthem, when He has sent them into the world to be the witnesses that\nHis own Son has declared His love to it, and has gone forth from Him\nto bring it into the circle of His love.\n\nHe began by saying, that eternal life was to know the only true God\nand His Son Jesus Christ; He ends with saying, that this is the glory\nwhich all are created to seek after, and which He has taken flesh that\nthey may attain and possess with Him. '_Father, I will that they also,\nwhom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold\nmy glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the\nfoundation of the world. O righteous Father, the world hath not known\nthee_' (has not known thy righteousness, but has supposed thee to be\naltogether unrighteous like itself; has not known thee by that name of\nFather, but has taken thee to be hard-hearted and grudging like\nitself): '_but I have known thee_,' (known thee as the image of thy\nrighteousness, known thee as thy Son,) '_and these have known that\nthou hast sent me_.' These have seen thy light shining forth through\nme. These have beheld my glory as the glory of an only-begotten Son,\nfull of grace and truth. '_And I have declared unto them thy name, and\nwill declare it_' (to the end of all things): '_that the love\nwherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them_.'\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XXVII.\n\nTHE PASSION.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 11th Sunday after Trinity (Morning), August 3, 1856.]\n\nST. JOHN XIX. 37.\n\n_And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they\nhave pierced._\n\n\nIn our services for the earlier days of Passion Week we read carefully\nand at length the narratives of the first three Evangelists. The\nnarrative of St. John is reserved for Good Friday.\n\nThere is great wisdom, I think, as well as courage in this course. The\ndiversities in these narratives, instead of being concealed from us,\nare forced upon our notice; we are taught that we shall gain insight\ninto the whole purpose of the writers of the Gospels, of God Himself,\nby considering them. We are taught, at the same time, that it is here\nwe are to look for the unity of the Gospels; that all the lines in\nthem have been tending to this point; that we must learn what they\nsignify at the Cross itself. The special honour which is given to St.\nJohn may have been suggested by the name of 'beloved disciple.' But it\nhas, I think, a higher justification. St. John's Gospel takes us into\nthe very heart of the Good Friday mystery. The passages in his\nnarrative of the Passion, which do not occur in the other Gospels,\nthrow back a light upon them, while they explain the special end for\nwhich he wrote. But they do much more. They show us why the death of\nChrist has been, and must be, the centre of the Gospel concerning Him;\nwhy all His discourses, nay, even that prayer I was trying to speak of\nlast Sunday, would be worthless and unmeaning without it. How we\nshould tremble to overlay the record of it with our words! How careful\nthe Evangelists are that we should not be hindered from seeing the\nfacts, and the Person, even by listening to their words! I shall\nattempt little more this morning than to seize those points of the\nnarrative contained in the 18th and 19th chapters of St. John, which\nare different from the narratives in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St.\nLuke. But, that we may feel the force of these differences, it is\nnecessary to say a word respecting their essential agreement.\n\nThis agreement is negative as well as positive. In contemplating the\npassion of our Lord, one class of devout persons have encouraged a\nsentimental habit of mind. They have dwelt upon the seven wounds, upon\nthe crown of thorns, upon the circumstances either of mental or bodily\nanguish which seem to separate this Divine death from every other. A\nsecond class has meditated less upon the suffering and upon the Person\nof the Sufferer; much more upon the effects which the suffering would\nproduce either upon men or upon God I do not condemn these courses;\nnone can tell what good for life or for death may have been extracted\nfrom either. I only say, that the method in the four Gospels is\nequally different from both; and seeing that those who have chosen the\none or the other acknowledge the authority of Scripture as paramount\nand divine, I cannot offend them if I add that the Gospel method is\nsimpler, deeper, and more reverent than theirs, and that probably any\nblessing which they have divided between them will be ultimately\npossessed in fulness by those who follow it.\n\nIn trying to discover what this method is, the reader is likely to be\nstruck with the importance which all the Evangelists attach to the\narraignment of Christ before Caiaphas and before Pontius Pilate.\nPerhaps, if they were honest with themselves, they would confess that\nthey have been surprised at finding so much said upon this part of the\nsubject, so little comparatively of the crucifixion itself. But the\nmore we reflect, the more clearly we shall perceive that in this,\nwhich seems to them the legal portion of the history, the ground is\nlaid for that part of it which is most transcendent and divine, and\nalso which is nearest to the sympathies of all human beings. The\ncharge before the Sanhedrim was, that Jesus claimed to be the Son of\nGod; the charge before the Roman governor was, that Jesus claimed to\nbe a king. To set Him forth in that double character, as the Witness\nof the Father whom Jewish rulers were denying, as the true human King\nwhose power the absolute emperor was counterfeiting and\nusurping,--this was the business of the Evangelists in their records\nof all Christ's discourses and acts. And it was this which gave the\nsignificance to His death. It was _the_ divine death and _the_ human\ndeath, the death which manifested the mind and will of the Father; it\nwas the death in which all men were to see their own. In this respect\nSt. John does not in the least differ from his predecessors. It was\ncertainly not _less_ his purpose than theirs to exhibit the Son of God\nand the Son of Man. What was spoken against Jesus, and what He spoke\nbefore Caiaphas and before Pilate, could not therefore be passed over\nor dwelt upon with less emphasis in the fourth Gospel than in the\nother three. It must be dwelt on with more emphasis. He can tell us\nnothing of Calvary till he has made us understand Who was brought\nthere, and why He was brought.\n\nAnd as in this main characteristic of the other Evangelists St. John\nresembles them, so also he follows them in all the chief incidents\nwhich they record. The night scene when He is apprehended by Judas and\nthe band of officers from the chief priests; St. Peter's attempt to\ndefend Him by cutting off the ear of Malchus; St. Peter's denial; the\ncry of the multitude for Barabbas; the purple robe and the crown of\nthorns; Pilate's efforts to release Him; the inscription on the cross;\nand the burial in the tomb of Joseph; are told as carefully in St.\nJohn as if no previous narratives of them had been known in the\nChurch.\n\nYet under each of these heads points are brought out by St. John to\nwhich there is nothing corresponding in the earlier Evangelists, and\nwhich one feels instinctively would have been out of place in them.\nThe first is this in the story of the apprehension: '_Jesus therefore,\nknowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth, and said\nunto them, Whom seek ye? They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus\nsaith unto them, I am He. And Judas also, which betrayed Him, stood\nwith them. As soon then as He had said unto them, I am He, they went\nbackward, and fell to the ground. Then asked He them again, Whom seek\nye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you\nthat I am He: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: that\nthe saying might be fulfilled, which He spake, Of them which thou\ngavest me have I lost none._'\n\nThe last quotation is taken from the prayer which St. John alone has\ngiven us. But I think the words, '_I am_' which made the officers\nstagger as they drew near with their torches in the dark night to the\nNazarene prophet, have also their interpretation in previous words\nwhich belong exclusively to this Gospel. We are told in the 8th\nchapter that the Jews in the Temple took up stones to cast at Jesus,\nbecause He appeared to them to be claiming the words spoken in the\nbush as if they were spoken of Him. Was there not a recollection of\nthose words as He stood before them now? Did not the clear light of\nrighteousness and truth in His face carry them home to the conscience\nof the officers, and make them feel for a moment that One was using\nthem who had a right to use them, One to whom they owed homage?\n\nThe struggle was soon over; they had been sent to do a work, and they\nwent through it. Then came that other sentence, '_Let these go their\nway_,' which fulfilled, St. John says, the words, '_Of them which thou\ngavest me have I lost none_.' What! we say to ourselves, Were not\nthose words spoken for all time? Did not they refer to a deliverance\nfrom ultimate perdition? Could they be accomplished in the deliverance\nof the eleven Apostles from the immediate peril of being apprehended\nwith their Lord? I answer, the more we become acquainted with the\nletter and with the spirit of St. John's narrative, the more we\nunderstand that he regards every act done by our Lord, to effect ever\nso temporary a redemption, for ever so small a body, or so\ninsignificant an individual, as a sign of what He is, of the work in\nwhich He is always engaged, of the blessing which He has wrought out\nand designs for the universe. If we do not like to take this as a sign\nthat the words of that prayer were uttered on earth and accomplished\nin heaven, we may form what sublime notions we will about Christ's\nredemption, but they will be notions only; they will not belong to\nreality; at best they will point to some good which we expect for\nourselves; they will not glorify Him from whom all good comes.\n\nThe incident of Peter smiting the high-priest's servant follows\nimmediately upon this sentence. The sequence is, I think, significant.\nThe Apostle begins to defend his Master; he does not know that his\nMaster is defending him. Of His disciples He loses none; but '_the cup\nwhich His Father has given Him, He must drink_.' Then the vigorous\nchampion is chilled. He must warm himself at the fire, for it is cold,\nwhile his Master is in the hall before the high-priest; the faces of\nmaid-servants terrify him; he forgets that he was in the garden with\nChrist; he forgets his own violence; and the cock crows. The story is\ntold with peculiar vividness by St. John, but it is the same in\nsubstance with that which the Hebrew Matthew told of the Apostle of\nthe Hebrews; which Mark told of his own kinsman and master, writing\nperhaps from his dictation.\n\nBut the answer of Jesus to the high-priest is found only in St. John.\n'_I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in\nthe temple, whither the Jews always resort, and in secret have I said\nnothing. Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me, what I have said\nunto them: behold, they know what I said._' I do not quote these words\nonly or chiefly because they show that He who when He was reviled\nreviled not again, could answer in a way which the bystanders thought\noffensive to the dignity of the high-priest; so justifying words that\nhave been pronounced unseemly in many of his followers, when they\nhave been brought before priests and rulers; nor because they show how\neasily affected reverence for an administrator of the law may be\njoined with an outrage upon the law itself. I quote them much more\nbecause they occur in that Evangelist, who has been suspected of\nrevealing a secret lore which Christ had kept back from those who\nheard Him in the synagogue and in the Temple. That inference has been\ngrounded upon those Paschal discourses which I have been considering\nlately; discourses especially designed to prepare the disciples for\ndelivering a message to the world; discourses of which the main\ncharacteristic is, that they contain the promise of a Comforter who\nshould deliver them from their narrowness, and who should convince the\nworld. But here is a testimony, coming after those discourses, from\nthe lips of Christ himself, that He had no esoteric lore, that His\ndoctrine may be learnt from that which He spoke openly, and that His\ndisciples are teaching another doctrine than His, if theirs is not one\nwhich can be proclaimed as good news to the universe.\n\nIt is St. John who tells us that the Jews did not '_go into the\njudgment-hall lest they should be defiled, that they might eat the\npassover_.' This most characteristic trait of a religious and godless\nnation ever put upon record, should be thought of by each of us in\nsilence and awe, since every age has brought some terrible repetitions\nof it. What cautions have not inquisitors taken lest they should be\ndefiled! what care have they not used to prepare themselves for\nfeasts, at which their hands were to be dipped deep in blood for the\nhonour of their god! They never fancied that they were copying the\nPharisees of Jerusalem. We wrap ourselves in our Protestantism, and\nthink we are quite secure that we shall not follow them. Alas! there\nis our peril! to dream that there is one evil tendency in Jews or in\nRomanists which is not in us, that there is one crime of theirs which\nwe may not commit!\n\nIt is from St. John that we learn that Pilate would have wished the\npeople to take Jesus, and judge Him according to their own law; and\nthat they, acting in the spirit of the advice of Caiaphas, waived the\nprivilege which perhaps they might have asserted, that He might die\nthe Roman death of the cross, and perish as a traitor against the\nC\u00e6sar. And it is St. John who gives us that dialogue in Pilate's hall,\nof which we are only beginning, after eighteen hundred years, to spell\nout the sense, though during all those eighteen hundred years the\nsense has been declaring itself in wonderful ways. '_Then Pilate\nentered into the judgment-hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto\nHim, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou\nthis thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate\nanswered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have\ndelivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My\nkingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then\nwould my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews:\nbut now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto Him,\nArt thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To\nthis end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I\nshould bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth\nheareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he\nhad said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I\nfind in him no fault at all._'\n\nThe other Evangelists have spoken to us of a kingdom of heaven, a\nkingdom the nature of which might be explained by parables of nature,\nthe powers of which were manifested in acts of healing and blessing to\nmen. It was a kingdom in the strictest sense, a kingdom set up on\nearth to rule over the earth. But it was not of this world. Its\ncapacity of blessing men arose from its not being created by them, or\ndependent upon them. It was God's kingdom, therefore it was as unlike\nas possible to the tyrannies by which the world had tormented itself.\nSt. John had gone in his Gospel to the root of this doctrine. He had\nspoken of a Word by whom the world is created, who is the Source of\nits life, though it knows Him not. He had spoken of this Word as the\nLight of men. He had shown how the Word, being made flesh, proved\nHimself by all His acts and discourses to be the same who had taught\nthe hearts and consciences of men in all ages. He had spoken of this\nWord as setting forth the Father from whom He came. He had said that\nin manifesting Him, he manifested the truth which would make men free.\n\nIn this dialogue all these lessons are gathered up. Jesus will not\ntell Pilate that He is _not_ a king, for that would be to contradict\nall His preaching and all His acts; He will not tell him that He _is_\na king, for how could a poor official and slave of Roman absolutism\nunderstand Him? But He says: '_For this cause was I born, and for this\ncause came I into the world, that I might bear witness_ (to Jews, to\nRomans, to thee) of the truth. And I know that those who seek truth\nand love truth will hear my voice.' This was that 'good confession'\nwhich he witnessed before Pontius Pilate, the ground and pattern of\nall confessions that were to be borne afterwards in the world; all\nthese deriving their virtue from this, all being witnesses of a\nkingdom which is not of the world, but overcomes the world; all being\ntrue because He is the truth.\n\nI have said already that Jesus is represented in all the Gospels as\nwearing the purple robe and the crown of thorns. But the words of\nPilate, when he brought Him forth with these signs of royalty,\n'_Behold the Man!_' occur only in St. John. The answer of the chief\npriests and of the officers was, '_Crucify Him, crucify Him._' Pilate\nsaid, '_Take ye Him, and crucify Him: for I find no fault in Him. The\nJews answered him, We have a law, and by our law He ought to die,\nbecause He made Himself the Son of God_.' These words, like so many of\nwhich he speaks in his Gospel, may have fallen lightly upon St. John's\nears at first; but after that '_Jesus was risen from the dead, then\nwould he have remembered what things were spoken of Him, and what\nthings were done unto Him_.' Then will the sentence, '_Behold the\nMan_,' have seemed to him the most wonderful inspiration which an evil\nruler, who spoke not of himself, was ever visited with. Then the cry,\n'_Crucify Him_,' will indeed have meant, 'Crucify _the_ Man, the Son\nof Man, the Representative of Humanity.' Then the attempt of the chief\npriests to sustain their charge of treason against Rome when that was\nfailing, with the charge which Pilate could not understand, and which\ntherefore made him the more afraid, of treason against God, will have\nappeared to him a startling testimony that they could not crucify the\nSon of Man without crucifying the Son of God.\n\nWhat follows belongs only to St. John. '_Pilate went again into the\njudgment-hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave\nhim no answer._' Pilate may have had a misgiving that he and the\nprisoner were not in their right relations to each other. There was\nsomething in the criminal which judged Him. He shook off the feeling,\nas most would have done, by boasting of his superiority. '_Speakest\nthou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee,\nand have power to release thee?_' No doubt he watched the countenance\nof Jesus, to see if such words did not make Him quail. The calm answer\ncame: '_Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were\ngiven thee from above; therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath\nthe greater sin_.' He did not dispute the authority of the governor or\nof the empire. It was God-given authority. They believed it was their\nown. He told them whence it was derived. The heavier sin lay with\nthose who boasted that they were chosen by the righteous God, and who\nsought the aid of the rulers of the world to put down Right. Pilate\nwas convinced that Jesus was not a rebel, whatever his words about a\nkingdom might mean. '_From thenceforth he sought to release Him: but\nthe Jews cried out, If thou let this man go, thou art not C\u00e6sar's\nfriend. He that maketh himself a king, speaketh against C\u00e6sar._' The\ngovernor had too much Roman sense not to see through this petty\nsacerdotal artifice, this affected reverence for a ruler whom, as\nJews, they hated. '_When he heard that saying_,' probably to indulge\nhis scorn of men who were driving him into an act that he disliked;\nperhaps--though I think there is over-refinement in attributing that\nmotive to him--because he fancied he should have the people on his\nside against the priests--'_He brought Jesus forth, and sat down in\nthe judgment-seat, in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the\nHebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the Passover, and\nabout the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!\nBut they cried out. Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!\nPilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief\npriests answered, We have no king but C\u00e6sar._'\n\nIf Pilate had had a deliberate scheme of policy to extract from a\nturbulent province a solemn recantation of the faith which had kept\nalive its national existence from age to age, he could not have\neffected his purpose more perfectly than he did by this proceeding.\nFor an unusual crowd must have been assembled; it was the feast which\ncelebrated the deliverance of the land from a foreign tyrant, and its\nallegiance to an invisible king. There and then the rulers of the land\nsevered all ties except those which bound them as servants to the\nemperors. If Pilate had been (as indeed he was) a prophet of God, he\ncould not have proclaimed more solemnly and awfully that the Jewish\npeople were thenceforth ineffectual for any moral purpose, as\nwitnesses against human tyranny or human idolatry, and that there is\nno real alternative for any people between the acknowledgment of _the_\nMan as King and the worship of a military tyrant or Man-God. This,\ntherefore, is the crisis in the history of that day and of the world.\n'_Then delivered he Him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they\ntook Jesus and led Him away._'\n\nAll the Evangelists speak of the title on the cross. St. John dwells\nupon it with great emphasis: '_And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on\nthe cross. And the writing was, Jesus of Nazareth the King of the\nJews. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus\nwas crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and\nGreek, and Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate,\nWrite not, The King of the Jews; but that He said, I am King of the\nJews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written._'\n\nIf we have understood the meaning of this Gospel, we shall feel the\nemphasis of the words, '_What I have written, I have written_.' The\nJews had declared, '_We have no king but C\u00e6sar_.' But they cannot\nprevent the servant of C\u00e6sar from declaring, in bitter mockery, to all\nmen who could read Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin, 'This Man, whom they\nhave forced me to put to death as an evil-doer, is their King. Look\nup, and see what kind of a king they have.' The insult was felt by\nthem; they must bear it. And that Hebrew nation has said by the\nprophets and apostles whom it has sent forth, has said by all who have\nbelieved through their word, has said in their own tongue, has said in\nGreek and in Latin to the nations which Alexander vanquished and\ncivilized, to the new world of the West which Julius C\u00e6sar reclaimed\nfrom chaos, 'Our King is your King; to this malefactor you must bow\ndown; by this sign you must conquer, or be conquered.'\n\n'_Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments,\nand made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also His coat: now\nthe coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said\ntherefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it,\nwhose it shall be: that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which saith,\nThey parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast\nlots. These things therefore the soldiers did._' Do you ask how St.\nJohn could speak of that act of the soldiers whilst Jesus was hanging\nthere? Do you ask how he could dwell upon fulfilments of the Scripture\nat such a time? Think a moment! Would anything give you the same\nimpression of horror, if you were standing by an ordinary deathbed, as\nthe sight of men contending for the raiment and goods of him who was\nleaving them? Is there anything so horrible as the thought how much\ndeath is regarded as only an event which gives the survivors a right\nto appropriate the things which the man has no more use for? If we had\nnot been told that it was so when the Prince of the whole earth was\ndying, how much less we should know of the indifference which it is\npossible for human beings to feel! How much less we shall know of what\nHe had to bear! '_These things therefore the soldiers did_,' in the\nsight of the Cross, under the eye of the Son of God. We might in their\nplace have done the same; there was nothing in the mere sight of the\nsuffering to prevent it. '_They parted my raiment among them; for my\nvesture did they cast lots._' Thus a man of the old world, dying in\ndesertion and darkness, expressed a part of his suffering, not a less\nintense part of it than the dryness of the '_throat with thirst, than\nthe melting of the heart like wax_.' And that suffering was all\n_fulfilled_, all raised to its most intense point in Him who gave\nHimself for all, that all might be brought within the power of a love\nwhich they seemed utterly incapable of perceiving. I am sure there is\nimmeasurably more in these words than I can enter into or dream of;\nbut I dare not leave realities for metaphors at such a time. It may be\nlawful to speak of the divisions in Christ's Church as the rending of\nHis seamless robe; they are that, and much more than that; they are\nthe rending of His body and of His heart. But they are too awful, and\nthe Cross is too awful, to permit plays of the fancy. Let us ask God\nto keep us from them, that we may have some faint perception of the\ntruth of His grief, as He entered into the inmost experience of ours.\n\n'_Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's\nsister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus\ntherefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing by, whom He loved,\nHe saith unto His mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith He to the\ndisciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her\nunto his own home. After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now\naccomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.\nNow there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge\nwith vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to His mouth. When\nJesus therefore had received the vinegar, He said, It is finished: and\nHe bowed His head, and gave up the ghost._'\n\nThis is all which St. John tells us of the Cross, and of the words\nthat were spoken upon it. We may think it little; but it has been\nfound enough for tens of thousands of men and women dying on their\nbeds, by the sword, at the stake. When they have doubted, and have\neven been led by religious teachers to doubt, whether human affections\ndid not belong to frail and sinful mortality, the words, '_Woman,\nbehold thy son: son, behold thy mother_,' coming from the Divine lips,\nhave testified to them that selfishness only is accursed, that all\nwhich belongs to love is imperishable. When they have felt the\nintensity of bodily pain, and have felt how little they could obey the\ndreary command to think of their souls; the cry, '_I thirst_,' has\nbound them to Him who knew the fulness of their sorrow, who entered\ninto the wants, not of souls, but of men. And when all sight of the\nfuture has been shut out, and there has been in their minds only the\nsense of evil triumphant and exulting, a voice which no clamour could\ndrown has said to them, '_It is finished_.' 'The battle is fought; the\nvictory is won. A little while, and the hosts which look so mighty\nnow, shall be seen no more for ever.'\n\n'_The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies\nshould not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath-day, (for that\nSabbath-day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be\nbroken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and\nbrake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with\nHim. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that He was dead already,\nthey brake not His legs: but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced\nHis side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that\nsaw it bare record, and his record is true: and He knoweth that he\nsaith true, that ye might believe._'\n\nThat some in St. John's day had begun to deny that Jesus Christ was\ncome in the flesh, nay, that he regarded this denial as _the_\nanti-Christian doctrine, we know from his Epistle. His Gospel is the\nanswer to this denial, because it begins from the divine ground, and\nshows how impossible it is to maintain that ground, unless we believe\nin the Word made flesh. He that saw the water and the blood then bare\nrecord of the fact, the import of which concerned the life of the\nChurch and of every man. If we look at the subject from this point of\nview, we are not obliged to decide whether St. John spoke of the water\nand the blood in a common sense, as a point of evidence, or in a\nsacramental sense, as involving a high mystery. The common sense _is_\nthe sacramental sense; the evidence of Christ's actual relation to our\nnature is the assurance that He cleanses it of its defilement, that He\nendues it with a new and higher life. What more is conveyed by this\nsign, or, rather, what a force it gives to the whole history of the\ncrucifixion, St. John himself must tell us.\n\n'_For these things were done, that the Scripture should be fulfilled,\nA bone of Him shall not be broken. And again another Scripture saith,\nThey shall look on Him whom they pierced._'\n\nTo understand the fulfilments of Scripture of which the Apostle\nspeaks, by merely fitting the words which he quotes to some fact, I\nbelieve to be impossible. There is a fact always answering to the\nwords; but its import, its connexion with the life of our Lord and the\nlife of man, must be ascertained by meditating on the context: that\ncontext being found, not always in the letters of a book, but quite as\noften in a portion of history, or in an institution and the purposes\nfor which it existed. Here is a type instance. The words, '_A bone\nshall not be broken_,' are brought to the Apostle's mind by seeing\nthat the usual custom of breaking the legs of crucified malefactors\nwas not followed in the case of our Lord. But those words recalled to\nhim and to his countrymen the feast of the Passover, and all that is\ndeclared respecting it in the 12th chapter of Exodus. The fulfilment,\nthen, of these words was the fulfilment of the whole Passover service;\nthe translation of the national deliverance which it spoke of into a\ncomplete and universal deliverance; the substitution of the Lamb of\nGod that taketh away the sin of the world, for the lamb whose blood\nwas sprinkled upon the door-posts of the houses that the angel of\ndeath might not touch them.\n\nThe other quotation is even more remarkable; it is taken from the 12th\nchapter of Zechariah. '_And I will pour upon the house of David, and\nupon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of\nsupplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and\nthey shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and\nshall be in bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his\nfirst-born._'\n\nOne fulfilment of Scripture at the Cross was in the rending of the\nvesture by the soldiers, and in the mockery of the priests. The last,\nrepresenting the inward hatred of the Jewish nation, is more fearful\nthan the mere recklessness of the heathen officials. How utterly\noverwhelming it would have been to the Apostle, if he could have\nsupposed that either the recklessness or the hatred was mightier than\nthe divine love which was manifested there! But the pierced side\nrecalled the words of the old prophet. There was a witness in them\nthat even hatred would prove weak at last; that even upon the\ninhabitants of Jerusalem and the house of David a power would come\nfrom that Cross that nothing should resist. It said, 'The will of\neternal Love may be contended with long. It must prevail at last and\nfor ever.'\n\nWith the assurance that Scripture shall yet receive this grand and\ncomplete fulfilment the history of the crucifixion closes. St. John,\nlike the other Evangelists, records the burial in Joseph's tomb. He\nintroduces one particular into their narratives which, for the\nstudents of his Gospel, is full of interest. '_And there came also\nNicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night; and brought a\nmixture of myrrh, and aloes, about an hundred pound weight._'\n\nOn the night of which St. John speaks, Nicodemus had heard the words,\n'_As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the\nSon of Man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in Him should not\nperish, but have everlasting life. For God so loved the world, that He\nsent His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should\nnot perish, but have everlasting life._' As the eyes of the ruler\nturned to the Cross, may there not have come to him a sense of divine,\nunutterable love, stronger than death, which will have made these dark\nwords intelligible? May there not have come to himself, in that hour,\nthe pangs of the second birth of which all his Jewish lore had taught\nhim nothing? May he not have hoped that for the body he was anointing,\nthere would also be a second birth, a resurrection morn?\n\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE XXVIII.\n\nTHE RESURRECTION.\n\n[Lincoln's Inn, 11th Sunday after Trinity (Afternoon), August 3,\n1856.]\n\nST. JOHN XX. 30, 31.\n\n     _And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his\n     disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are\n     written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the\n     Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through\n     his name._\n\n\nThis morning I went through the narrative of our Lord's Passion, which\nis contained in the 18th and 19th chapters of this Gospel. I propose\nto examine, this afternoon, the narrative of the resurrection, and of\nthe events that followed it, which is contained in the 20th and 21st\nchapters.\n\nThose who have formed a vague notion of the fourth Gospel, as the\nGospel _according to the Spirit_, the other three being represented as\nGospels _according to the flesh_, will expect that St. John should\nattach far less importance than his predecessors did to the\nresurrection of our Lord's body out of the grave. They will suppose\nthat he must have sympathised much more in those passages of St.\nPaul's Epistle to the Romans, in which he speaks of our being risen\nwith Christ, than with the 15th chapter of the Epistle to the\nCorinthians, in which he makes that resurrection, which many among\nthem denied, the very centre of his message to mankind.\n\nI hope we have not gone thus far in the study of St. John without\ndiscovering that this conception of his character and purpose is an\nentirely false one. In whatever sense St. John's Gospel is a spiritual\none, he has spoken of Christ's presence at feasts, family and\nnational, of His hunger and fatigue, of His friendship for special\npersons, of actual bodily suffering in the hour of death, at least as\nmuch as any of the four. He takes more, not less, pains than the\nothers, in recording incidents. No plain person ever felt that his\nstory, if it is ever so divine, is not human. I may have made this\nobservation very often, but I will repeat it even to weariness, rather\nthan that it should be forgotten, since upon the recollection of it\ndepends all hope of our understanding the beloved disciple, or of our\ngaining anything from him. It is true that he has carried us back to\nthe beginning of all things, instead of introducing us to the manger\nin Bethlehem, or telling us first of the preaching of John in the\nwilderness. It is true that he has told us of the Word who was with\nGod, before he has used the name of Jesus Christ. It is true that\nthroughout his Gospel he has been presenting to us Jesus Christ as the\nWord of God, the Giver of light and life to men. It is true that this\nhas been his explanation of the signs which Jesus did when He fed the\nmultitude, or healed the sick, or raised the dead. It is true that\nthis has been his explanation of those parables in the natural world,\nby which the Creator of that world revealed to men the mysteries of\nthe kingdom of God. It is true that, by following this method, St.\nJohn interprets to us those names, Son of God and Son of Man, kingdom\nof God, kingdom of heaven, which occur so continually in the previous\nGospels. It is true that he brings out in its fulness their\ndeclaration, that the office of the Christ was to baptize with the\nHoly Spirit, and to deliver men from the spirit of evil. It is true\nthat the Name in which St. Matthew declares that the disciples were to\nbaptize all nations, is unfolded to us by St. John with a distinctness\nand fulness with which it had never been unfolded before.\n\nAnd _therefore_ I think St. John must be even more careful than the\nother Evangelists to speak of the resurrection as a distinct, definite\nevent: to set it before us in language which shall give us no excuse\nfor supposing that he is merely talking of our spiritual nature, or of\nChrist's spiritual nature; in language which shall fix it upon our\nminds as a fact that was accomplished upon this earth. Of evidence, as\nI have remarked to you before, the other Evangelists give us very\nlittle. They assume that it was not possible that the Son of God\nshould be holden by death, that the marvel which angels desired to\nlook into was that He should have submitted to death. Only so far as\nthat conviction took hold of men's minds could they believe in a\nresurrection, though a body of the most incredulous and learned\nwitnesses should conspire to affirm it. St. John cannot have attached\nmore weight to this kind of evidence than they did. His whole Gospel\nhas been showing that it is an evidence which the living Word presents\nto the hearts and consciences of men, that alone produces any\npractical conviction. He must have felt, even more than his\nbrother-disciples did, that the Word of life could not be overcome by\ndeath; that the great contradiction of all, which could only be\nexplained by the truth that the highest life is the life of love, was\nin His undergoing death. He, therefore, more than any one else, must\nhave felt the resurrection to be necessary, to be implied in the\nrelation of Christ to his Father. He has again and again told us that\nthe return of Christ to the Father was that to which He looked forward\nas the return to His natural state and proper home; at the same time\nas the consummation of the work He had done upon earth. He is so\nimpressed with this conviction, it was so much his work to impress us\nwith this conviction, that he will not relate, as St. Luke does, the\nfact of the ascension in the sight of the disciples. _That_ is taken\nfor granted. All that he has written would be unmeaning, if his Master\nwere not gone to the Father to prepare mansions for His disciples. But\nthe victory of the Spirit over the flesh, the proof that He who was\nunited to the Father and united to a mortal body, overcame, in virtue\nof His divine fellowship, his fellowship with dust, and made that body\nfree from its bondage--this must be spoken of as the proper\ntermination of His earthly conflict. For by this He justified fully\nthe feeling of mankind, which all the teaching of Scripture had\nconfirmed, but which no prophet or saint had been able to justify to\nhimself, that death is an intruder into this world of ours; that it is\nnot less an intruder because all have yielded to it, and must yield to\nit; that there is a law of life which is higher than the law of death;\nthat we cannot be satisfied till that law is promulgated and\nvindicated, not for one here and there, but for the whole race in the\nperson of its Head.\n\nWith these thoughts in our minds, let us consider the following\nverses: '_The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when\nit was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away\nfrom the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and\nto the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have\ntaken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not_ where they\nhave laid Him. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple,\nand came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other\ndisciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he\nstooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went\nhe not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the\nsepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was\nabout His head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together\nin a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which\ncame first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they\nknew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. Then\nthe disciples went away again unto their own home._'\n\nThe points wherein this narrative differs from those in the earlier\nGospels, are those which refer to the Apostle himself and to St.\nPeter. There is more, you will perceive, not less, of detail than\nelsewhere. The Apostles look into the sepulchre; they see the linen\nclothes and the napkin. We are told where the napkin is lying. These\nare not points of evidence, in the sense in which we commonly use that\nword. If we repeated them ever so often, or multiplied them ever so\nmuch, they would not establish the fact. They have served a much\nhigher and more practical purpose. They have brought the fact home to\nthe minds of multitudes as a fact. They have taken it out of the\nregion of mist and shadow. They have connected it with a Person. Their\nvery minuteness leads us to think of Him, not of them. They say to us,\nas they said to the Apostles, not 'There is a resurrection,' but '_He_\nis risen.'\n\nBy speaking of himself, St. John is able to make us acquainted with\nthe process of conviction in one mind. He does not indeed, dwell upon\nany mental struggles. He just hints at the dull unbelief with which\nhe began; at the eagerness, more of curiosity than of hope, with which\nhe ran to the sepulchre; at the timidity or awe which hindered him\nfrom going in; at the dawn of faith when he saw the clothes. It is all\nvery simple and childlike. What surprises some of us most is, that he\nshould blame himself for not having known the Scriptures, '_that He\nmust rise again from the dead_.' What Scriptures could have told him\nthis so clearly? Are there any which positively and formally announce\nit to us who read them in this day,--any, at all events, which we\ncould blame a plain wayfarer for not connecting with it? Have not\nlearned men of our own, able and vehement opposers of infidelity,\naffirmed that there are no traces of a belief in a future state among\nthe writers of the Old Testament, nay, urged the absence of such\ntraces as a proof of their divine legation? And has not St. John\nhimself produced evidence enough that those who pored over the\nScriptures most could not identify Jesus as the Person in whom their\nprophecies were to meet? We must go back, I believe, to the language\nof which I have spoken so often, if we would see our way through this\ndifficulty. If the old Scriptures said nothing of a Word of God, of a\ndivine Lord of men's spirits and bodies, it was impossible to conclude\nfrom them that He, or any one, would rise again from the dead. As long\nas St. John was blind to the fact that they _did_ speak of such a One,\nthat they were speaking of Him from beginning to end, that He only\ngave any unity to their histories or their prophecies; so long the\nmost incessant diligence could not enable him to discover in these\nScriptures more than dark hints of a triumph over death,--hints which\nnever could support a practical belief, could never overcome the\nobjections of sense and experience. The moment they found _this_ Word\nspeaking in all the words of the Bible, the moment they believed that\nJesus was the Word made flesh, the Scriptures became full even to\noverflowing with these tidings. Not to see them there was to see there\nonly dead letters.\n\n'_But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept,\nshe stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two angels\nin white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet,\nwhere the body of Jesus had lain. And they say unto her, Woman, why\nweepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my\nLord, and I know not where they have laid Him. And when she had thus\nsaid, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not\nthat it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her Woman, why weepest thou? whom\nseekest thou? She, supposing Him to be the gardener, saith unto Him,\nSir, if thou have borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him,\nand I will take Him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned\nherself, and saith unto Him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus\nsaith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:\nbut go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and\nyour Father; and to my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told\nthe disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these\nthings unto her._'\n\nThere had been differences in the reports of the Evangelists\nrespecting the appearance of the angels to the women. St. Matthew had\nsaid:--'_And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of\nthe Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone\nfrom the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning,\nand his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the keepers did\nshake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto\nthe women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was\ncrucified. He is not here: for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the\nplace where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell His disciples that\nHe is risen from the dead; and, behold, He goeth before you into\nGalilee; there shall ye see Him: lo, I have told you. And they\ndeparted quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did\nrun to bring His disciples word._' St. Mark had said:--'_And very\nearly in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the\nsepulchre at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves,\nWho shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And\nwhen they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was\nvery great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man\nsitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they\nwere affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek\nJesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: He is risen; He is not here:\nbehold the place where they laid Him. But go your way, tell His\ndisciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall\nye see Him, as He said unto you. And they went out quickly, and fled\nfrom the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said\nthey any thing to any man; for they were afraid._' St. Luke had\nsaid:--'_And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And\nthey entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came\nto pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood\nby them in shining garments: and as they were afraid, and bowed down\ntheir faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living\namong the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how He spake\nunto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of Man must be\ndelivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the\nthird day rise again. And they remembered His words, and returned from\nthe sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all\nthe rest._'\n\nI thank God that we belong to a Church which is not afraid to bring\nthese diversities before us, as it does those in the reports of the\nPassion; a Church which believes so strongly in God, that it can leave\nHim to interpret these differences to us without making any awkward\nattempts at reconciliation. Our faith in the Resurrection is not\naffected by them so long as we live upon God's word, and not upon the\nletters of a book. When we change the one for the other, it must\nperish; no arguments or explanations will keep it alive. St. John, in\nsome respects, differs from them all. I think many would have been\nglad if he had differed more widely. There is a dislike in our day, in\nProtestant countries, to any notice of angelical visitations.\nRomanists, and some who are not Romanists, would denounce the feeling\nas a sign that we are losing all faith in the spiritual world. I am\nnot willing to interpret it so harshly. I think there is a feeling\namongst us that we ought to be connected with the spiritual world now\nas much as in the days of old, and that these reports seem to keep us\nat a distance from it by drawing a line between us and former ages, by\naffirming communications to have been made to them which are not made\nto us. I partly considered this subject when I was speaking of the\nangel who is said to have troubled the Pool of Bethesda; but I must\nrefer to it again, because we all feel, I think, that the angels who\nsang to the shepherds of the Child who was born in Bethlehem, and the\nangels who spake to the women at the tomb of Joseph, must have had a\ndifferent message to deliver from all others. What was the difference?\nSurely this, that they came to tell of a union of earth and heaven, of\nthe spiritual and the visible world in the person of a Man. If there\nwere no such news to bring, we should indeed be left under the\ndominion of angels; for we should not be able to get rid of the\nthought--no nation ever has been able--that we are surrounded by\ninvisible creatures, and that they do in some way communicate with us.\nBut if there was such a truth to be told, should we not be rather\nstartled to find that there was none to tell it? Would not the absence\nof these stories leave a blank, not in our imaginations, but in our\nhearts and in our reason? Was not the appearance of these angels a\nwitness to men that we do not need, as former ages may have done,\nspecial messengers to come from behind a veil which the Son of God has\nrent asunder, but that hosts of such creatures may be working with us,\nand ministering to us, and joining with us, the sinful spirits, who\npresent the sacrifice that was made once for all before the Father of\nspirits?\n\nSt. John tells us, at once, of another apparition to Mary, which was\nimmeasurably more to her than the apparition of any angels. An actual\nhuman form stood before her, the one which she had known best and\nloved best in the world, and yet she took it to be the gardener's. It\nwas not, therefore, that it was too radiant for her to look upon, that\nit had lost the signs and marks that belong to her race. But it was\nnot the figure or the countenance which revealed Him to her. It was\nthe voice calling her by her name, it was the voice which had bidden\nthe seven devils depart out of her, that brought her to own Him as her\nLord.\n\nThen came those wonderful words which contain the deepest and most\nblessed of all truths in the form of the most startling contradiction.\nShe was not to touch Him, _for_ He was not ascended. That which\nappeared to invite intercourse was the bar to it; that which would\nappear to put them at a hopeless distance would be the beginning of a\nfellowship that could not be interrupted. The weak, penitent woman was\nto learn the lesson which the Apostles had been taught at the Paschal\nsupper. He must go to His Father that they might know Him. The private\nand exclusive communion into which they had entered so imperfectly,\nmust be merged in one in which all should share who would take up\ntheir lot as brethren of each other and of Him; for He was to dwell\nwith His Father and their Father, with His God and their God. This was\na risen life indeed; and we see at each turn how a risen life implies\nan ascension.\n\n'_Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when\nthe doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the\nJews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be\nunto you. And when He had so said, He shewed unto them His hands and\nHis side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord._' You\nthink of these as sudden apparitions, glimpses granted and withdrawn,\nof the Teacher who had once walked with them by day and sat with them\nby night; and you think rightly. St. John's words give us that\nimpression of them. But do they give us no other at the same time? Is\nit not the apparition of an actual Person, of an actual human body? He\nmay be seen, and may disappear; but He _is_. We are not among shadows\nmore than we were before. The air is freer, the light is clearer. He\nonly does not tarry in that room where the disciples are assembled for\nfear of the Jews, because they are to learn that wherever two or three\nare assembled in His name, there is He in the midst of them.\n\nAnd consider His words to them. The last time they had met at the\nPaschal supper He had said--'_Peace I leave with you, my peace I give\nto you. And these things I have spoken to you that in me ye might have\npeace._' Since they heard that language, they had known more of\nfightings without and within than in all their lives before. And now\nHe repeats it again, and shows them His hands and His side. Now it\ncomes with power. If there was a moment of intense agonizing\nexcitement, you might have fancied it would have been that. There is\nno excitement. There is perfect quietness in them all; in him who had\nforsaken the Master, in him who had denied Him. He has spoken peace to\nthem, and they are at peace. The beloved disciple can only describe\nwhat he felt, what all felt, in the simplest, calmest words--'_Then\nwere the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord_.'\n\nWhat had happened to them? He with whom they had been at war had\ndeclared Himself at one with them. Christ had brought that message\nfrom the grave. His hands and side assured them of it. Their\nconsciences were absolved. They were freed men.\n\n'_Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath\nsent me, even so send I you. And when He had said this, He breathed on\nthem, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever\nsins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye\nretain, they are retained._'\n\nThe connexion between the two passages is too obvious to be\noverlooked. He had come in His Father's name to bring them peace. He\nsent them forth in His name with the same gift. The Spirit of peace\nshould go with them, that they might execute their commission. The\npierced hands and side, which had been the witness and pledge of it to\nthem, should be the witness and pledge of it to the world. Their\nconscience had been absolved. A chain had been taken from them. They\nshould, in the name of Christ and of His Father, break the chains\nwhich bind the consciences of others. They should remit, or send away,\nthe sins which keep men the prisoners and slaves of an evil and\naccusing spirit, which prevent them from serving their Father in\nheaven. But since it was _consciences_ they were to unbind--since they\nwere carrying a message of peace to voluntary creatures--the liberty\nmight be refused, the rebellion might be persevered in. The very word\nwhich looses becomes then a word to bind. It is a tremendous fact,\nasserted again and again in Scripture, certified by experience. The\nmessage of reconciliation and deliverance holds in an iron gripe those\nspirits which it does not emancipate. They cry out that it has come to\ntorment them; they have a sense of evil which they had not before;\nthey are bound by it as they were not before.\n\nI cannot see _less_ in the words which were spoken that night--or in\nthe commission which was then given to the ministers of Christ--than I\nhave expressed. If you say that I ought to see _more_, I submit\nwillingly to the rebuke. But I deny that it _is_ more to talk of some\npower of the keys being entrusted to the Apostles or their successors,\nif by that power is meant only some outward authority to withdraw the\npunishment for sins, or to enforce it. I cannot, in any case, read\n'punishment,' where I find 'sin' written. I must regard remission of\npunishment as a very poor and miserable substitute for remission of\nsins. If it is said that we cannot imagine ministers who have received\nsuch a power, for that remission of sins must belong to God only, I\nanswer, 'Most assuredly ministers can neither remit sins nor\npunishments in their own name.' If they assume to do either, they\nviolate the charter upon which all their authority rests; they claim\nto be what Christ did not claim to be, to do what He did not claim to\ndo. For He said that He was nothing, and could do nothing without His\nFather. His glory was that He did not come in His own name. But if the\nministers of Christ _do_ confess that they are sent in His name, as He\nwas sent in His Father's name, then I say they can, in His name, speak\nto the conscience and absolve the conscience, not from its punishment\nbut from its sin. And I say that the consciences of thousands and tens\nof thousands have waited in all ages, do wait in our age, to receive\nthis blessing, and have actually received it, and are receiving it.\nAnd I say that when it is spoken to them, and they do not receive it,\nthey bear testimony to the other half of the sentence; they are bound\nmore closely, because they will not be loosed. Therefore I fear it is\nbecause Christ's ministers do not care to exercise His powers, but\nwish to exercise some powers of their own, that they fight so stoutly\nfor these rights to punish or forego punishment, to curse or to take\noff curses, which, when they were most fully acknowledged and produced\nmost terror in the minds of men, were generally very feeble for any\ngood moral purpose, and were very dreadful temptations to tyranny and\nlying in those who exercised them.\n\nI am far, indeed, from saying that absolution consists only in\npreaching the Gospel. The words, '_Peace be to you_,'--the hands and\nthe side,--spake to the consciences of the disciples. At what time\nmore than when we are kneeling and confessing, is the conscience\nlikely to receive the message, 'He pardoneth and absolveth?' What has\nbeen more effectual than the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ\nin carrying home the words to each heart, '_Son, thy sins be forgiven\nthee, rise up and walk_'? And in both these cases it is not merely to\nsingle hearts that the blessing is imparted. The gathering together in\nChrist's name is a witness that we meet as a family just as the\nApostles did; and that, as a family, we want the peace and\nreconciliation which a Father only can send us through His Son. Did we\nunderstand the worth of that _communion_ more, and how all individual\nblessings are associated with it and rise out of it, the power of\n_excommunicating_ would not be something to boast of, or to fight for,\nor to play with. To cut a man off from the Church would then, indeed,\nbe to deliver one who had sold himself to the service of evil to the\nmaster he has chosen, that he may feel the bitterness of his yoke, and\nso may return to his true Lord, and his spirit be saved when that Lord\nappears. But till we know more of that Spirit which Jesus breathed on\nHis disciples, on that first day of the week, we shall be as little\ncompetent to administer censures as we are to testify of\nreconciliation and absolution.\n\n'_But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them\nwhen Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have\nseen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in His hands\nthe print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails,\nand thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe. And after\neight days again His disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then\ncame Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said,\nPeace be unto you. Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger,\nand behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my\nside: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and\nsaid unto Him, My Lord, and my God! Jesus saith unto him, Thomas,\nbecause thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that\nhave not seen, and yet have believed._'\n\nBy one class of readers, Thomas is described as a doubter, impatient\nof all evidence but such as amounts to demonstration. By another\nclass, he is described as a man with the idolatrous tendency which\ninsists upon sensible tokens, because it has no apprehension of that\nwhich is spiritual. By a third, the moral is drawn from his story,\nthat those who forsake the fellowship of their brethren, miss the\npresence of their Lord and the grace of faith. There may be much of\ntruth in each of these observations, and they do not contradict each\nother. We are all, at different times of our lives, greedy for proofs\nthat shall satisfy the logical understanding, and for signs that\naddress themselves to the senses. We have all thought that we should\ngain more by lonely study than by intercourse with our fellows and by\ncommon worship, and have been punished for our pride. But I do not\nthink that Thomas should be accused of asking for too complete a\ndemonstration. He asked for too weak a one. He wished to put his hands\ninto the print of the nails. That would not have convinced him. It was\nanother evidence addressing itself not to his eyes, but to his heart,\nwhich forced him to cry, '_My Lord, and my God_!' And I cannot believe\nthat we have any right to cast stones at those who require outward\ntokens to assist their faith; for Christ vouchsafed to this Apostle\nthe very tokens which he desired. And we ought to remember that we do\nnot bring Christ amongst us, or procure graces from Him, by\nfrequenting the assemblies of His disciples, but that we should go to\nthem because He is there speaking peace, and revealing Himself to\nthose who are willing to be members of a body, and who wish for no\nprivileges which all cannot share with them. Whatever reproof Thomas\nneeded, whatever encouragement we can desire, is gathered in our\nLord's last words to him. If he required the aid of seeing to sustain\nhis belief, it might be afforded him. But faith itself is a higher\nevidence. Things not seen present themselves to it with a force and\ndemonstration as great as that with which the things seen present\nthemselves to the eye. The invisible Person who is the Light of men,\nmakes Himself known to that organ which is created to receive His\nlight. His life, His peace, are as near to us as they were to those to\nwhom He showed Himself alive after His Passion. Our knowledge that He\nis risen may be as certain as theirs, and essentially of the same\nkind.\n\nWith this sign to the unbelieving Apostle, I suppose St. John's\nnarrative originally closed; for he adds immediately: '_And many other\nsigns truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not\nwritten in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe\nthat Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might\nhave life through His name_.'\n\nI have taken these words for my text, because they express with\npeculiar terseness the characteristics of the Gospel as they have come\nout gradually before us. It is a book of _Signs_. Every event that\nhas been recorded has been significant. It has been the index to a\ntruth. These signs have been selected out of _many_ others, all\nbearing the same import. Each of these signs declares--all of them\ntogether declare--that _Jesus is the Son of God_. Their design is to\nawaken _belief_ in Him as the Son of God. Those who have this belief\nhave _life_ through His name. He does not, then, merely compile a\nstory of certain acts; he honours all previous Gospels which do not\nbring forth a collection of stories, but make known a living Person;\nhe desires to remove the confusions which had beset those who believed\nin a Son of God, but not in an actual man; in a man who was not a Son\nof God. He desires that that Son of God should speak to the spirit of\nman, to that in man which exercises faith. He wishes us to feel that\nthe Son of God is the one Source of life, that only through Him as the\nSon of Man can men receive life.\n\nWhen St. John had been enabled to give this perfect explanation of\nwhat he had written, he might well think that his task was done. If he\nhad been an artist instead of an evangelist, he would have been afraid\nto disturb the symmetry of his work by making any additions to it. But\nhe was under other guidance than his own judgment; what it was good\nfor the world to hear, the Spirit within him would not suffer him to\nkeep back. Another vision rose before him, a vision so clear and\nbright, that he knew it could not have been given to him for his own\nsake; men in distant lands and ages were to be blessed by it. He was\nagain by the Lake of Tiberias, amidst old friends. '_There were\ntogether Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana\nin Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of His\ndisciples._' We ask ourselves for what great purpose they were\nassembled there. The very names are for us full of wonder and mystery.\nThose who bore them had been witnesses of the death and resurrection\nof the Son of God. He had breathed on them; as His Father had sent\nHim, He had sent them; they were to loose and to bind. The next verse\nanswers our question: '_Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing.\nThey say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered\ninto a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing_.' We\nthought that when Jesus called them from mending their nets, that\noccupation was for ever abandoned. Who would have dreamed of their\nresuming it now? They had been admitted behind the veil; One from the\ngrave had come back to them. Were they to become common fishermen\nagain? They evidently go into their boats with no misgiving of\nconscience. They set about their toil as freshly and earnestly as\never. _As_ freshly and earnestly? Was there nothing in that lake, and\nin all that had happened to them upon it, which made every labourer\nmore free and joyous? Did not the water speak to them of Him who had\nwalked upon it? Did not the shore beyond tell them of the bread which\nHe had blessed? Was not the still night full of voices that echoed the\nvoice which had said to them, '_Peace be with you; my peace I give to\nyou_'? Had not the curse been taken from the earth and from the labour\nof man, since He had been called 'the carpenter's son,' since He had\nbeen proved to be the Son of God with power?\n\nThere must have been the sense of His presence everywhere; and it was\nnot merely _the sense of a presence_: He was there. '_But when the\nmorning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew\nnot that it was Jesus. Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have\nye any meat? They answered Him, No. And He said unto them, Cast the\nnet on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast\ntherefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of\nfishes._'\n\nThe old sign is given again. They had been taught that He cared for\ntheir craft and blessed it, when they had only a dim notion of Him as\na great Prophet and King. They find that He cares for it and blesses\nit still. The risen Christ is the same as the Christ who told them\nwords, hard to believe, about rejection and crucifixion. Only He does\nnot sit with _them_ in the boat, as if He were caring for one\nparticular band of fishermen. He has chosen them to tell all workers\neverywhere, that He is watching over them, that their work is not a\nbarrier between them and Him, but a means of grace, a road to\nintercourse with Him. '_Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith\nunto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the\nLord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did\ncast himself into the sea. And the other disciples came in a little\nship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred\ncubits,) dragging the net with fishes. As soon then as they were come\nto land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and\nbread. Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now\ncaught. Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great\nfishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so\nmany, yet was not the net broken. Jesus saith unto them, Come and\ndine. And none of the disciples durst ask Him, Who art thou? knowing\nthat it was the Lord. Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth\nthem, and fish likewise._'\n\nWe must not suffer ourselves to be cheated of the blessing which lies\nin this simple and minute narrative, by vulgar efforts of the fancy to\ngive it what is called a spiritual signification. Our spirits want to\nknow that they have a Lord who has shared earthly food, and does not\ndisdain us for partaking it, but who Himself bestows it and blesses\nit. Our spirits do not want to know why the number of fishes caught\nwas one hundred and fifty-three; they cannot live upon meagre,\nchildish analogies about those who were to be caught in the Gospel\nnet. Our Lord had promised His disciples that they should be fishers\nof men, and they were speedily to become so. But He was teaching them\nand us that the higher duty glorifies, instead of degrading, the\nlower; that every business in which men can be engaged is a calling\nand a ministry; that the bread which sustains the eternal life in man\nhallows the bread which sustains the life that is to pass away.\n\nOur Lord did not allow His disciples to forget that grander office to\nwhich He had destined them, while He was putting this honour upon the\none to which for a time they had returned. But instead of taking His\ncomparison from the work of the fisherman, He takes another, with\nwhich His own lessons and the lessons of the old Scriptures had made\nthem quite as familiar.\n\n'_So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of\nJonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord;\nthou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He\nsaith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou\nme? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He\nsaith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time,\nSimon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because He said\nunto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him,\nLord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus\nsaith unto him, Feed my sheep._'\n\nWe are wont to dwell, perhaps, too much upon the thrice-repeated\nquestions to him who had thrice denied. There is a meaning in all such\ncorrespondences; every hint to the conscience is worth something. But\nthe meaning is always subordinate to a higher one; the hint brings a\ntrain of thought, or it fails of its purpose. Peter had boasted of his\nlove; his sore discipline had been to show him how little it was good\nfor, how utterly it must fail. Now he was asked, '_Lovest thou me more\nthan these_?' He had loved Christ just as he had loved other people;\nmore intensely, it might be, but with a love going out from himself.\nHad he learnt yet that he needed One who could bestow love upon him,\nOne in whom he must trust and to whom he must cling, because he was so\npoor in that wherein he had fancied he was rich? Did he love his\nMaster now with this dependent, trusting love, instead of that\nself-confident love? with a love that sought to be always replenished\nfrom the Fountain whence it proceeded, instead of with a love which he\ncould call _his_, and which therefore must continually run dry? Simon\nPeter appears to answer boldly; he does answer humbly. He would have\nsaid in former days, 'I know that I love thee.' He now says, '_Thou\nknowest that I love thee_.' It is an appeal from himself to his\nMaster. It is saying, 'My love is but the fruit of that knowledge\nwhich thou hast taken of me. I love thee so long as thou knowest me,\nand no longer.'\n\nAnd then comes the command which shows that the loving Him more than\nthese implied anything rather than loving these less. He had been told\nat the former supper, that if he loved Christ, he was to keep His\ncommandments. To obey a loving Being is to love Him. His love works in\nthe man who is content to do His will. That love must go forth to His\nsheep. Here, then, was the minister's commission and his power. The\nChief Shepherd had taken care of the sheep, and had died for them; the\nunder shepherd was to do His work for them. So far as he did it, he\nwould feel how scanty and wretched his own love for them was. He could\nnot feed them at all unless he was possessed by his Master's love.\n\nYou see how remarkably these commands are in accordance with the\ndoctrine which our Lord set forth in the conversation which is\nrecorded in the 10th chapter of this Gospel, and also with that\nlanguage which He addressed to the disciples generally, to Peter\nespecially, at the Passover, because he had in the highest degree that\ntrust in his own love which was infecting them all: '_Ye have not\nchosen me; but I have chosen you_.' And you will see how the idea\nwhich is contained in that sentence, is expressed and expounded in the\nwords that follow the command to feed the lambs and the sheep.\n\n'_Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst\nthyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be\nold, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee,\nand carry thee whither thou wouldest not._'\n\nThis doctrine of a divine compulsion acting upon the heart and will of\na man, of a wisdom ordaining every step for him, of a love imposing\nupon him duties which of himself he would be least willing to\nundertake, bearing him on to sufferings from which he would most\nshrink, is the one which St. Peter needed to learn, which every\nminister of Christ and every Christian man must, by one discipline or\nanother, be taught. St. John intimates that his brother-disciple was\nto be led along in the exact path which his Master had trodden before\nhim.\n\n'_This spake He, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And\nwhen He had spoken this, He saith unto him, Follow me._'\n\nBut the Evangelist goes on to show, by another example, that Christ\nprepares the most different lots for different men; that two may be\nstanding close to each other, may be intended during a part of their\nlives to work together, who may in the close of their earthly\npilgrimage be the most remarkable contrasts to each other, though they\nmay be following the same crucified Lord, and one may be bearing as\nheavy a cross as the other.\n\n'_Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved\nfollowing; which also leaned on His breast at supper, and said, Lord,\nwhich is he that betrayeth thee? Peter seeing Him saith to Jesus,\nLord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that\nhe tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went\nthis saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not\ndie: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, if I will\nthat he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?_'\n\nSt. Peter was not to know what was intended for his brother-Apostle;\nthat Apostle was to know as little himself. Some meaning there was in\nthat intimate communion which he had had with his Lord on earth. So\ngreat a gift could not have been bestowed upon him for his own sake;\nit must have been meant to fit him for a work that he had to do in the\nworld. What it was he may have waited long to know. He was not to stay\nin Jerusalem with St. James; he was not to travel to the dispersed\namong the Gentiles with St. Peter; he was not to raise up Churches\namong the Gentiles, like St. Paul. He was to stay upon the earth till\nJerusalem had been trodden down by the Gentiles; till St. James and\nSt. Peter, and all who had been most dear to him, had glorified God by\ntheir deaths; till a Gentile society had seemed about to displace the\nold Hebrew society; till the new Christian Church had been threatened\nby the same discords, the same sins, the same unbelief, which were\nundermining his country and the empire of the world. In some sense he\nwas to tarry till his Lord came. Was he then not to die? That had not\nbeen said. Yet the words had been spoken by Him who did not deceive,\nand they must be fulfilled. _Did_ he not tarry till his Lord came? Was\nHe not revealed in flaming fire, taking vengeance of the unrighteous\nnation, of the evil world? Was He not revealed as the Alpha and Omega,\nthe beginning and the end, as the faithful Witness, as the Prince of\nall the kings of the earth, as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, as the\nSon of Man standing in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, as\nthe Lamb that was slain in the midst of the throne, as the Word of\nGod? Was it not for this revelation that St. John had tarried on\nearth? Was it not that he might declare Who is the foundation of the\nnew heaven and the new earth which should arise out of the wreck of\nthe world that was perishing?\n\nIt appears as if the elders of the Church of Ephesus had added their\nattestation to the Gospel in the words of the 24th verse: '_This is\nthe disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things:\nand we know that his testimony is true_.' I do not profess to decide\nwhether to them or to the Apostle we should ascribe the last verse.\n'_And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if\nthey should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself\ncould not contain the books that should be written. Amen._' Some have\nwished that the verse were omitted altogether, because it seems to\nthem a conclusion scarcely worthy of so divine a record. I accept it\nas a simple and childlike testimony to the truth of which the whole\nGospel has been bearing witness, that the acts of the Son of God do\nnot belong to the few years in which He dwelt visibly upon earth, but\nto all ages from the beginning, when He was '_with God, and was God_,'\neven to the end '_when He shall put down all rule and all authority\nand power, and when the Son also Himself shall be subject to Him, who\nput all things under Him, that God may be all in all_.' I accept it as\na testimony that all the books in the world cannot contain the things\nwhich Jesus has been doing and is doing, in the hearts of human\nbeings, in the world which He made, in the kingdom which He rules. I\naccept it as a warning to us, that we can know nothing of the Book\nwhich explains other books, unless we ask that it may be explained to\nus by Him who is, and was, and ever shall be, the Word of God.\n\n\n\n\nNOTES.\n\n\nDISCOURSE I.\n\nThe scheme of Baur, to which allusion is made in this sermon, is set\nforth in his '_Kritische Untersuchungen \u00fcber die Kanonischen\nEvangelien_.' The part especially relating to St. John is contained\nbetween pages 79 and 389. In the First Part he maintains that there is\na leading thought, a _Hauptidee_, in the Gospel. He traces this out,\nbeginning from the prologue; notices the testimony of the Baptist, the\ncomparison of Jesus with John, the first coming of Jesus into\nJerusalem, the conflict between belief and unbelief in its different\nforms, the signs and works of Christ, the argumentative conflict with\nthe unbelief of the Jews, the raising of Lazarus, the transition to\nthe history of the passion and death, the final crisis of the nation's\nunbelief, the discourses of Jesus with His disciples and the\nsacerdotal prayer, the history of the death and resurrection,--as\ndifferent points and instances in the development of this idea. He\nthen goes on, in the Second Part, to consider the relation of this\nGospel to the synoptical Gospels; maintaining the absence of any\nleading idea in them, and the consequent evidence that, in spite of\nthe historical confusions which he supposes to be in them, there is\nmore mixture in them of simple facts related without a purpose. Next\nhe enters upon the internal probability of the history in St. John.\nThen he considers the relation of the Gospel to the consciousness of\nthe time. Finally, he maintains the identity of the Apostle with the\nauthor of the Apocalypse; dwelling especially upon his sympathies with\nthe feelings of the Christians in Asia Minor respecting the keeping\nof Easter; and regarding the Apocalypse as the work of a Jew\npassionately attached to the traditions of his fathers, and vehemently\nopposed to the spiritual doctrines of St. Paul.\n\nPerhaps I may be allowed to explain in what relation the view I have\ntaken of the Gospels in these Sermons stands to that of this learned\nT\u00fcbingen Professor.\n\n1st. I have maintained, as he has done, that there is a leading idea\nwhich may be traced through the whole of the Gospel; that what is\ncalled the prologue is not an idle introduction to a narrative with\nwhich it has no connexion, but is the key to the meaning of every part\nof it. 'This leading idea' I have further maintained to be the leading\nidea of the whole Bible, to be unfolding itself through all the Law\nand the Prophets, to be that which makes the history of the Jews a\ncoherent history, to be that which makes that history the exposition\nof all histories. Supposing it entirely absent from the mind of any\npeople on the face of the earth, I hold that people not to be a\nnation, but a mere herd of animals, and its records a mere collection\nof fragments, with nothing to bind them together. In proportion as any\npeople has been possessed with this idea, in that proportion has it\nbeen a nation great in itself, one which could interpret the\nconditions and destinies of other nations. That the Jewish people were\nbrought to know that they were under the guidance of a Divine\nWord--their ever-present Teacher, and King, and Judge--is what I mean\nwhen I speak of God calling out that nation, of God ruling it and\neducating it, of God making it a blessing to all the families of the\nearth.\n\n2d. Next, with reference to the synoptical Gospels. It follows, from\nwhat I have said, that if I did not trace any of this 'Hauptidee' in\nthem, I should regard them not as histories, not as Gospels, but as\nthat collection of fragments, partly mythical, partly historical,\nwhich Baur and his school suppose them to be. I have contended, in a\nbook on 'The Unity of the New Testament,' that there is a 'Hauptidee'\nin the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke; that they are not\nbiographies of a certain Man called Jesus of Nazareth, whom His\ndisciples supposed to be endued with supernatural powers, or to be\nactually divine; but that they are the history of the way in which\nthat King, whom the Jewish prophets had been declaring as the\ninvisible Ruler over them, manifested Himself visibly to His subjects,\nand claimed their obedience. By a careful examination of all the\npassages which these Evangelists have in common, by an equally careful\nexamination of their differences, I have endeavoured to show that they\nwere all setting forth this King of men, that each was setting Him\nforth under a distinct aspect. There may be very little of what is\ncalled the higher criticism in such an examination as this. To that I\ndo not aspire. We English may be content to work on in the stupid old\nBaconian method, trying to find out the meaning of facts, and not\nquite indifferent to _this_ fact, that these Gospels have exercised an\ninfluence over eighteen centuries of human beings in different lands,\nwhich it is not very easy to understand how they could have exercised,\nif they had contained a few doubtful records of journeys between\nNazareth and Capernaum, of miracles imagined by superstitious\nwonder-hunters, of discourses some tenth part of which may possibly\nhave proceeded from a Nazarene Prophet. If they set forth a Person who\nhas been, and is now, and will be for ever, the King over men, there\nis at least _an_ explanation of the secret of their power; whether it\nis the right one may be at least worth some consideration.\n\n3d. In the book to which I referred, I carefully abstained from any\ncomparison of the three Gospels with the fourth. I have, throughout\nthat book and this, admitted that they are widely different, and that\nit confuses our impressions of all four to blend them together as the\nHarmonists attempt to do. I have maintained, indeed, that the first\nthree Gospels assert, as distinctly as the fourth, that the King of\nmen whom they are proclaiming was the Son of God. I have maintained\nthat they would not have proved themselves to be the Jews that they\nwere, if they had begun with the records of the life of a Man, seeing\nthat every book of the Old Testament begins with God, and treats of\nmen only as they testify of God or are related to Him. But I have said\nthat in the commencement of the three Gospels, in their incidents, in\ntheir whole framework, there is a marked and characteristic difference\nfrom the fourth, which no faithful expositor can overlook or try to\nexplain away. There can be no doubt about the nature of the\ndifference. The prologue, as Baur truly says, at once denotes it. St.\nMark speaks of Jesus as the Son of God in his opening sentence. The\nuse of the name Word of God, as identical with Son of God, is found in\nSt. John, and perhaps in St. John only. That name belongs, the\nT\u00fcbingen Professor tells us, to the _consciousness_ of the next age.\nOf course, we are liable to make mistakes about the meaning of that\nphrase. It is not a native or natural phrase to us; and some of us are\nnot eager to import it, seeing that our home manufacture of cant is\nquite prolific enough. But if the consciousness of an age is what I\ntake it to be, I have maintained that the first century, even from its\nvery commencement, was the age which showed itself peculiarly\nconscious of the truth which is denoted by the expressions 'Word,'\n'Life,' 'Light,' and all the others which characterise this Gospel.\nThe evidence of this fact is so notorious, that nothing but an\nelaborate theory could force a man of Baur's extraordinary learning to\ncast it aside. Supposing all he says of the absence of Gnosticism in\nthe Christian Church in the first century were as true as I apprehend\nit to be unfounded, would that prove that no such man as Philo ever\nexisted; that chronologers have been mistaken by a hundred years about\nthe date of his birth and his teaching; or that he was a solitary\nphenomenon, a person who exercised no influence, and indicated no\n_consciousness_ in the country and period to which he belonged?\n\n4th. The question, I am aware, when once Philo is mentioned, is how\nfar so learned and accomplished a man could have affected, by his\nthoughts, humble fishermen like the Apostle John? The question is\nraised and answered by two different classes of people. One set is\neager to maintain that what they call the _Logos-idea_ must have been\nderived from a great mystical speculator, and cannot have presented\nitself naturally to an ignorant man. The other is utterly scandalized\nthat an inspired Apostle should be supposed to have anything to do\nwith that which was passing in the minds of his uninspired\ncontemporaries. On the question of simplicity I have spoken at\nconsiderable length. Whether the writer of the fourth Gospel was\nsimple or not, whether his doctrine respecting the Word affected his\nsimplicity, must be ascertained from the book itself, and cannot be\nlearnt from any theories of mine or of any one else. But if I am right\nin thinking that this (so-called) _Logos-idea_ is that which gave\nsimplicity and clearness to the lives of prophets and patriarchs,\nbecause they did not think of it as an idea at all, but believed that\nthey were ploughing, and keeping sheep, and eating and drinking, under\nthe eye of a living Person, then it was surely not an unnatural thing\nthat an Apostle should be taught to bring out that truth in its\nsimplicity which had been mixed with conceits and phantasies. If it is\ninconsistent with our notion of the teaching of the Spirit of God that\nHe should enable a Jewish Apostle--living in a heathen city, amidst\nJews and Heathens who were both confused with thoughts upon this very\nsubject, among Christians who did not know how to connect their\nthoughts of Jesus with the Divine Word--to bring forth a Gospel which\nshould have this special object; I cannot find that it is inconsistent\nwith the promise of the Comforter which our Lord Himself gives us, or\nthat that promise could have been more perfectly fulfilled to His own\ngeneration than by such an illumination of an Apostle's mind and\nmemory. And for those who do not believe that that promise is\nwithdrawn, who think that the Spirit which was given to dwell in the\nChurch dwells in it still, I do not know that there can be a more\ncheering thought than this, that His revelations of Himself were\ngradual to His own Apostles; that He taught those who were nearest to\nthe time of His ascension to present Him as the risen Son of God; that\nHe taught His disciples who lived at the end of the age to see in that\nSon also the living and eternal Word who was before all worlds, who\nwould be manifested as the Centre of all society, as the final\nConqueror of all enemies. For there surely may be a gradual unveiling,\nin the later times also, of Him who has been with us from the\nbeginning; and it may be given to these later ages, when kingdoms are\nfalling down, and ecclesiastical systems are wearing out, and scholars\nare finding nothing solid remaining in heaven and earth except their\nown criticisms and their own conceptions, to see the Word of God\ncoming forth in His living power and majesty as the King of kings and\nLord of lords, the foundation of that heaven and earth wherein\ndwelleth righteousness.\n\n5th. I have touched, in these last words, on Baur's doctrine\nrespecting the identity of the Apostle with the author of the\nApocalypse, and the essential differences between the Apocalypse and\nthe Gospel.\n\nIt is notorious that many in the Alexandrian Church agreed with Baur\nin separating the author of the Apocalypse from the author of the\nGospel; but that they gave the Gospel to St. John, and the Apocalypse\nto some other author. I am quite willing, with the German Professor,\nto consider the Apostle as first of all the 'Apocalyptiker;' to\nbelieve that he was regarded specially in that character by the\nChurches of Asia Minor; and to take the vision of the Son of Man, in\nthe first chapter, as the explanation of that confused tradition\nrespecting John which represents him as in some manner keeping alive\nthe office of the high-priest after its representative in Jerusalem\nhad disappeared. I am most willing, also, to admit that the author of\nthe Apocalypse does regard himself as a true Jew, in contradistinction\nfrom those who called themselves Jews, but did lie and were of the\nsynagogue of Satan. What I contend is, that the writer of the fourth\nGospel is an 'Apocalyptiker,' in the strictest sense of the word; that\nthe unveiling of the Son of God and the Son of Man is the subject of\none book as well as of the other; that the meaning which is given to\nrevelation or unveiling, in both, is not at variance with the meaning\nwhich it bears in St. Paul's Epistles, but is the expansion and\nillustration of that meaning; that the Jews who do lie in the\nApocalypse, as well as in the Gospel, were those who were content with\na visible high-priest, and were not asking as their high-priest for\nHim whose eyes were as a flame of fire, who died and was alive; that\nas the Epistle of the Hebrews, whether written by St. Paul or not,\nexplains the very ground of all St. Paul's Epistles and their unity,\nso the fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse show what is the underground\nof the doctrine of that Epistle, viz. that the High-Priest of the\nuniverse is that Word of God who was with the Father before all\nworlds, in whom men may ascend to His Father and their Father, to His\nGod and their God. I have expressed, in this Sermon, a hope that the\nApocalypse may some day be proved to be a revelation of Jesus Christ,\nthe Son of God, and not of certain dates and mystical numbers,\nbecause I believe that its radical and essential harmony with the\nGospel will be more and more discovered to those who read it, and\nbecause the two books and the Epistle will then, I think, explain to\nus all the former books of the Bible--how they are related to each\nother, how they are related to Him in whom alone God is unveiled to\nman. I have spoken of the Gospel as a book of theology, the Apocalypse\nas a book of politics, not because I believe that these artificial\ndistinctions of ours can represent satisfactorily their different\nobjects, but because I am convinced that theology will be a mere\n_hortus siccus_ for schoolmen to entertain themselves with, till it\nbecomes associated once more with the Life of nations and humanity;\nthat politics will be a mere ground on which despots and democrats,\nand the tools of both, play with the morality and happiness of their\nfellow-beings, till we seek again for the ground of them in the nature\nand purposes of the eternal God.\n\n\nDISCOURSE II.\n\nI have not seen my way to adopt the punctuation of the 3d and 4th\nverses of the 1st chapter, (\u03a7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f15 \u1f11\u03bd. \u1f4d \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 \u1f26\u03bd,) which\nmany of the Fathers approve, which Lachmann has introduced into his text, and\nwhich Mr. Bunsen appears to regard as of very high importance. On the\nquestion of a various reading, I might have deferred to these\nauthorities; on a question of pointing, their judgment is merely that\nof ordinary students. The simplicity of the Apostle's style, it seems\nto me, is violated by the change. Nor am I yet aware what we gain by\nit. Is it the pleonasm in the 1st verse which is objected to? Surely\nwe must strike out half the verses in the Psalms, if we complain of\nsuch pleonasms. I believe we shall find, when we have done so, that\nthe force of that which we have retained has not been increased, but\nweakened. Or is it that the words, 'in Him was life,' are regarded as\na mere commonplace? God give us such commonplaces in exchange for all\nthe rarities and refinements that wise men can present us with! I do\nnot mean that the difference between 'being' and 'becoming' is not\ninvolved in all the doctrine of these verses. No one can read them\nthoughtfully without perceiving it. But need it be thrust upon us in\nthe very terms of school philosophy? Does it not come out much more\nnaturally and truly in the old simple Hebraic forms? Those who suppose\nthese forms to be obsolete for us, cannot suppose them to have been\nobsolete for the writer of the fourth Gospel, unless they accept\nBaur's theory concerning him.\n\nI have also not been induced to depart from our version of the words,\n\u1f29\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u1f41\u03bd, \u1f43 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, in spite\nof the many objections which have, in modern times and in old times,\nbeen raised against it. I do not think that I have what is called a theological\ninterest in defending it. If the light is said to lighten every man, I\ncan ask no more. Give what force you will to the coming into the\nworld, connect it with what clause of the sentence you will, that\nassertion remains good, perhaps even less qualified than it is in our\ntranslation. Moreover, a single text would be a very poor ground on\nwhich to rest such a doctrine. A person who finds it in every line of\nSt. John--nay, implied in the whole Bible--can afford to make a\npresent of one passage to those who find it inconvenient. I contend\nfor the fidelity of our version upon a different ground. If we\nconstrue the words, 'The light which lighteneth every man was coming\ninto the world,' we destroy the order of the Apostle's discourse, and\nwe go near to make him contradict himself. He declares that the Word\nwas in the world, and that the world knew Him not. The coming into it,\nin the sense of being made flesh, is reserved for the 14th verse. My\ngreat object in this Sermon has been to assert this order, and to show\nhow much we mistake the purpose of the Evangelist when we substitute\nanother of our own. Until some rendering of the passage is suggested\nwhich does not involve that great mischief, I must adhere to the one\nwith which we are all familiar.\n\n\nDISCOURSE III.\n\nThe notion of St. John as the teacher who possesses a higher lore than\nthe other writers of the New Testament, which I have considered in\nthis Sermon, may be traced especially to Origen. If the reader is at\nthe pains to consider the opening of his Commentary upon St. John, he\nwill discover in what sense this Gospel seemed to him a kind of\nquintessence of all the previous revelations of God. His own emblem is\ndrawn from the first-fruits of a sacrifice; a better comparison in\nitself, but one which does not make its meaning at once evident to the\nmodern reader. I cannot have any wish to speak disrespectfully or\ndisparagingly of Origen, with whose mysticism some will accuse me of\nhaving only too much sympathy. Yet I cannot help thinking that his\nattempt to distinguish between the spiritual and the sensible Gospel,\nhas been the source of infinite confusions in the study of the\nEvangelist. Its other evil consequences--as cultivating a morbid\ningenuity in seeking for distant analogies, and in destroying the\nforce of plain narratives--have been often dwelt upon. I allude to it\nin connexion with what I have said, in this Sermon and in the eighth,\nof our Lord's forerunner.\n\nEven the most earnest seekers after truth are continually perplexed by\nthe question how John the Baptist could have been a guide into what\nOrigen and his school have taught them to consider the most esoteric\npart of the Christian faith. 'If the least in the kingdom of heaven,'\nthey say, 'was greater than he, how can he have been possessed of a\ndoctrine which even some of the great in the kingdom of heaven seem\nvery imperfectly to have apprehended?' The answer to this question, I\nbelieve, will come to such persons gradually,--at last decisively.\nWhat is called the doctrine of the Logos--the idea of the Logos--may\nhave been seized and possessed by one here and one there, at different\nperiods of the Church. The best of these, like Clemens of Alexandria,\nmay have been driven to it by the necessities of their position, by\ntheir conflict with the false Gnosticism, by the impossibility of\npreaching the Gospel to Heathens without the belief in a universal\nTeacher. They may have been often dazzled with their own light--often\ntempted, if not to glorify themselves upon the possession of it, yet\nto denounce others as carnal or earthly who were without it. I cannot,\nindeed, say that I trace as much scorn of others and exaltation of\ntheir own wisdom in the Alexandrian school, as in that which was most\nopposed to it, in the hard dogmatist of Carthage. But they were\ntempted to make distinctions which interfere, it seems to me, most\ngrievously with all that is truest in their teaching. If the Word is\nthe Teacher and Light of men, as they represented Him to be, the\nvulgarest men must have been under His teaching; the commonest facts,\nthe most simple forms of nature, must be instruments through which His\nlearning is communicated. If the Word has been, as they say, made\nflesh, fleshly things cannot be despicable, but must contain those\nspiritual truths which the wise and prudent who despise them, and\nexult in their own intellectual superiority, cannot find. Therefore\nthe simplest men, the preachers of repentance, those who have brought\na message to the poor,--whether they have talked of the living Word or\nnot,--have borne the best and fullest witness of Him. It is so now; it\nhas been so always. The prophets of old spoke of a Word because they\nwere preachers of repentance. I contend that John the Baptist spoke of\nHim just as they did, only with more clearness, with a stronger\napprehension of His personality. But if John was the messenger of a\nWord made flesh, if the Incarnation is the beginning of a new world,\nthe opening of a new heaven, it must needs be that the least of those\nwho are born into that world, who are permitted to ascend into that\nheaven, is greater than John. If, indeed, he forgets the answer which\nwas given to the disciples when they asked, '_Who is greatest in the\nkingdom of heaven_?' if he begins to exult in his knowledge or in his\nprivileges; if he scorns the world which Christ has redeemed; if he\ndenies that Christ is the Light of the world; he not only puts himself\nbelow John the Baptist, but below every Jew, Mahometan, worshipper of\nJuggernaut; he more openly sets Christ at nought than they do. The\nChristian world may come to this utter denial of its Master; then will\ncome a preacher of repentance,--a preacher of the living Word to\npublicans and sinners,--an Elias to witness of judgments upon Scribes\nand Pharisees, who will make it evident that the deepest lore is also\nthe simplest; that that which is most divine has most power over those\nwho have been most given up to the world, the flesh, and the devil.\n\nTo return for a moment to the Alexandrian divines. I cannot acquit\nClemens of having given encouragement to that esoterical doctrine\nwhich led Origen, it appears to me, into such dangerous refinements.\nBut the spirit of his 'P\u00e6dagogue' is so personal and so practical,\nthat many of the tendencies to which his pupil yielded were\ncounteracted, if not wholly overcome, in him. Above all, there is one\npassage of Origen's Commentary which shows him to have utterly\ndeparted from the principle which goes through all the books of\nClemens. He considers (tom. i. c. 23) why the name Logos should have\nbeen especially chosen as a title of the Saviour. He has been\nextensively followed by persons who would not like to acknowledge that\nthey have learnt anything from him, in this mode of speaking. But it\nis surely fatal to the humble study of St. John. We do not suffer him\nto tell us of the Word, and then to tell us how the Word was made\nflesh, and dwelt among men, and manifested forth His glory. We start\nfrom an assumption and speculation of our own; we chain the Apostle,\nas if he were a Proteus, that we may compel him to give forth, not his\nown oracles, but those which we have put into his mouth. If I could\ninduce but one student of divinity to abandon this perilous and\nirreverent course, I should believe that God had permitted me to be an\ninstrument of some good to His Church.\n\n\nDISCOURSE IV.\n\nMr. Alford has given it as his opinion that the sentence, '_Lamb of\nGod that taketh away the sin of the world_,' does not refer at all to\nthe Paschal feast, but to the words in the 53d chapter of Isaiah. He\nraises the natural objection, of which I have spoken in this\nDiscourse, that the scape-goat bears away sins, but that no such\nassociation is connected with the Lamb except in the words, '_Surely\nHe has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows_.' I do not venture to\naffirm that the words of Isaiah were not in the Baptist's mind when he\nuttered this sentence, or that they did not suggest themselves to the\nminds of the disciples who heard him speak, and who followed Jesus.\nBut supposing that to be the case, why did the Prophet connect the\nlamb that was led to the slaughter, and the sheep that was dumb before\nhis shearers, with the exclamation in the fourth verse? Why did\nIsaiah, as well as John, think of a lamb instead of a goat? We are all\nagreed that the scape-goat was the most obvious image, one specially\nsuggested, to a preacher in the wilderness. Why was it not the one to\nwhich that preacher in the wilderness resorted? Why did he\nindustriously choose another image, which no tradition except that of\none passage in a prophet seemed to justify? Why has all Christendom\naccepted and ratified that selection, the other being thrown quite\ninto the background, only furnishing an occasional simile to divines,\nbeing scarcely brought within the range of our sympathies even by the\nearnestness and genius of an adventurous and devout painter of our own\nday, while the lamb has been the favourite subject of Christian art in\nall ages? Surely these questions require to be considered. The\nPassover, I admit, does not suggest the thought of a sin-bearer. That\nthought is suggested to the conscience by the sense of sin, or rather\nis that sense. But did not the Passover suggest to those who had that\nthought deeply fixed in their own minds and consciences, the sense of\na deliverer? May not John have felt--may not all Christendom have\nfelt--that the sin-bearer must, as I have expressed it in this\nDiscourse, go into the presence of God to deliver us from our burden\nand bondage, not into a land uninhabited?\n\nThe intolerable burden which Luther had felt on his conscience leads\nhim to speak of this verse with intense delight and satisfaction. (See\nWerke, b. vii. p. 1637, u. s. w. Walch.) Starting from his inward\nexperience, he takes it for granted that Isaiah's words were the\nexposition to the Jew of the inadequacy of the legal lamb offered day\nby day, or at the annual feast, to take away sin. St. John's words,\n_in that sense_, become, for him, the interpretation of Isaiah's\nwords, 'Surely the Lamb that was dumb before his shearers hath carried\nour sins.' '_Behold that Lamb of God!_' But it never occurs to him\nthat the Jew could have separated the lamb at the feast from the\nconsciousness of evil, or that it could have suggested any thoughts\nwhich did not point to a deliverer from the evil. On many subjects\nolder writers or modern writers may see further than he does; on\n_this_ no one, I think, is so entitled to bear witness.\n\n\nDISCOURSE V.\n\n_Note 1._\n\nThose who maintain that it is dangerous to attempt any revision of our\npresent translation of the Scriptures are fond of two arguments\nespecially. One is, that the language which would be substituted, in\nalmost every case, for that of the divines in King James's reign would\nbe less simple and popular than theirs; the other is, that no vital or\nfundamental doctrine of our faith is affected by any errors or\ninadvertencies into which they may have fallen.\n\nThese arguments have been illustrated by a large amount of eulogistic\nand vituperative rhetoric; but plain readers would rather that they\nwere brought to some practical test. Here is one. I have urged that we\nshould put _Signs_ in nearly all those verses of St. John in which we\nnow find '_Miracles_.' Is this change likely to affect the simplicity\nof our version, to make its 'language not understanded by the people?'\nIs 'miracle' one of their ordinary, homely, Saxon expressions? Would\nit be exceedingly difficult for a preacher to make his humble\nparishioners understand the use and purpose of 'Signs?'\n\nBut there is the _cui bono_ objection:--'You unsettle a mode of speech\nto which we are accustomed. To what end? Is there anything \"vital\" in\nthe difference?' Vital means, I suppose, if it is rendered into our\nvernacular speech, that which affects life--the life of individuals or\nof societies. I venture to think that this change is important to the\nlife of both. The habit of looking for wonderments, as the decisive\nand overpowering witnesses of Christ, has, it seems to me, been most\nmischievous to the life of the Church, is affecting the life of each\none of us. Those who wish to think and speak of Him as not only born\nat a certain time into the world, but as living before the world, and\nas the founder of it, find themselves perpetually embarrassed by the\nnotion which has worked itself into the minds of our people and of\nourselves, that He established His claim to be an extraordinary person\nby doing extraordinary acts in the towns of Galilee and the city of\nJerusalem, instead of showing by signs what He is and always has been.\nThe Catholic doctrine is more undermined than we are at all aware by\nthe feeling which this deviation from the original has sanctioned and\npromoted. We assume Christ's simple humanity as the ground of our\nthoughts, and then add on to it an indefinite notion of divinity. The\ntruth which was so dear to the earnest Evangelical teachers of the\nlast century, that Christ is to be proclaimed as the Emmanuel, 'God\nwith us,' that the whole Gospel is concerning a living Christ, suffers\nscarcely less from the same cause. And how much the whole argument of\nProtestants with Romanists about _their_ miracles is weakened, and its\npractical effect destroyed, by the use of an expression which (such is\nthe curious Nemesis upon those who, for any cause whatever, trifle\nwith language) we have derived, not from the Vulgate, but from\nTheodore Beza, I fancy some of our professional anti-Romanist orators\nmight discover, if they spent some of the time in studying the\ncontroversy and the history of the Church which they spend in\nconstructing denunciations against the superstitions and apostasy of\ntheir opponents.\n\nI offer these as proofs that in one instance, at all events, 'vital'\nbenefits may be gained by an earnest and sober consideration of our\nexisting translation, and that even deadly mischiefs may be averted by\nit. And I am inclined to think that it is a fair instance. Among those\ndivines who are most earnest for a revision, and would be most\ncompetent to take part in it, there is not one, so far as I am aware,\nwho would not watch with the greatest jealousy over the Saxon\ncharacter of our version, who would wish to substitute for a single\nvenerable phrase a nineteenth century equivalent, who would not\nsacrifice anything excepting truth to the preservation of that which\nis popular and human, who would not expect, as the reward of a\nsteadfast adherence to truth, that the book would become more a book\nfor the English people, and less a book for the schools. And I am\nsatisfied that these honest and learned men may look for\nanother--even, if possible, a higher--reward for their serious\ndevotion to the book which they love and reverence most. Many\ndelusions like that of which I have spoken are perpetuated, I am\npersuaded, through phrases which crept into our version from\ncarelessness,--which have been repeated and turned into arguments by\npulpit rhetoricians,--which often lead honest Englishmen to doubt the\ntruth of the Bible. They will be, in the best sense, defenders of the\nfaith if they rescue the words which the Psalmist speaks of as\npurified seven times in the fire from any earthly dross, and if they\nspoil the trade of those who wish it to be mingled with the genuine\nore.\n\nI will add one word in conclusion. Much is said in our day about\nverbal inspiration. Some accuse their brethren of superstition for\nmaintaining it; some accuse their brethren of infidelity for not\nmaintaining it. I suspect that a common name may cover the most\nopposite feelings and convictions. A believer in verbal inspiration,\nlike Mr. Tregelles--who lives laborious days that he may discover the\npurest text, so that none of the inspired words may fall to the ground\nor be perverted--is one of the noblest witnesses for truth I can\nconceive of. May God give us more and more of such men, and hearts to\nhonour them for their works' sake! On the other hand, those who say\nthey believe in verbal inspiration, whenever they wish to direct the\nwrath of their disciples or of a religious mob against men that are\nmore righteous than themselves, and who then show that they are afraid\nof trying God's words, and freeing them from insincere mixtures, lest\nthe minds of the people should be disturbed, are not exactly those\nwhom one can think of as '_Israelites indeed, in whom is no guile_.'\n\n_Note 2._\n\nMy attention has been called by a friend to a very interesting\ninterpretation of the dialogue between Jesus and the Virgin, which is\ngiven by Gregory of Nyssa, Tom. ii. p. 9, B. c. He makes, it will be\nseen, the words of our Lord interrogative: 'Is not my hour yet\ncome?'--\n\n\u03a4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff4\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03ce\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u03af \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9; \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f21\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f11\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2; \u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f21 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1f72\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b5\u03be\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd;\n\n\nDISCOURSE XII.\n\nI have spoken in this _Sermon_ on two subjects, of which I have spoken\nat some length in my Theological Essays; the 'Resurrection' and the\n'Judgment.' I am not the least anxious to correct any impressions\nwhich my remarks in that book may have made on the minds of religious\ncritics. If they have misunderstood me, nothing which I could say\nwould make me intelligible to them. If they have misinterpreted me\nwithout misunderstanding me, I am not the sufferer. But I shall be\nvery glad if what I have said here should remove any difficulty from\nthe minds of earnest and thoughtful men, some of whom have written\ntheir complaints to me in a most kind and friendly spirit, evidently\nregarding me as a fellow-inquirer after truth, and wishing that we\nshould help each other in the pursuit of it.\n\nI think they will perceive, from what I have said on the\nwords--'_Those that are in their graves shall hear the voice of the\nSon of God, and they that hear shall live_,'--that I am not less\nzealous than they are to assert the absolute identity of the body of\nhumiliation with the body of glory. That truth cannot be asserted in\nstronger language than it is asserted by St. Paul in the 15th chapter\nof the 1st Corinthians, and by our own Burial Service. God forbid\nthat any one should make it weaker! What I affirm is, that we do not\ngain the least strength for this conviction by setting aside St.\nPaul's assertion, that corruption shall not inherit incorruption; and\nthat the Burial Service nowhere gives the slightest hint that what is\ncommitted as earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, shall be\nreunited to constitute that body which we have a sure and certain hope\nwill be raised, and will be made like unto Christ's glorious body.\nThis attempt to identify the corruption of the body with the body, the\neffects of death with the substance which death is unable to destroy,\nI know has the sanction of great and venerable names. Transubstantiation\nand Consubstantiation have also the sanction of names which are most\ndear to the Church. But if Bonaventura and Thomas \u00e0 Kempis cannot bind\nus to the one, or Luther to the other; if we have a right to feel that\nwe partake with them of the sacrament of Christ's risen and glorified\nbody most completely when we forget the theories by which here on\nearth they limited it; we are surely not bound by the rhetoric of\nDonne or of Jeremy Taylor, however much we may reverence them both, to\nadopt what seems to us merely an earthly and sensual explanation of a\nglorious reality, directly interfering with the scriptural account of\nit, and with many of the most practical and consolatory truths which\nflow from it. I do not wish to get rid of any passage in the New\nTestament upon the subject, or to give it a forced construction. I do\nwish that we may look straight at all the passages in it, and not\nallow a conception which we have formed,--a very natural, but it seems\nto me a very low and grovelling conception,--to interfere with the\nfull understanding and reception of them. I would not wish a better\nargument against the popular theory than the eloquent sermon of Donne\nin the support and elucidation of it. Let any one see how utterly\nunrestrained the fancy of a devout and excellent man becomes when it\nenters into this speculation, how entirely it loses sight of all\nscriptural guidance, how it revels amongst the images of the\ncharnel-house. And then let any one ask himself whether this is the\ndoctrine of that divine passage in St. Paul, which reaches indeed from\nearth to heaven, which is not afraid of the lowest objects when it is\nin contact with the highest; yet in which all is clear and awful, as\nif he knew that he was speaking of death and life, of God and man, and\nas if the Spirit who was guiding him abhorred all conceits and\ntrifling. Only imagine Donne's Sermon substituted for the 15th of\nCorinthians, when we meet in the church around the coffin of a friend!\nIt is a very simple test; but I think any one who applies it fairly\nwill know what is the worth of the additions which the fancy, even if\nit is not ordinarily a vulgar fancy, makes to the divine testimony.\n\nPrecisely on the same ground do I protest against the exercises of\nthis same fancy respecting what is called, by a phrase which I have\nnot met with anywhere in Scripture, the intermediate state of\ndisembodied spirits. I am told by a gentleman, who seems to know, that\nthey are placed in the moon, or in one of the fixed stars. Any one who\ncan find consolation in such an opinion, I should be very sorry to\ndeprive of it. But I must say plainly, that we are in a world of life\nand death; and that if we have nothing better than these dreams to\nsustain each other with, we had better hold our peace. In the words of\nour Lord in the 5th chapter of St. John, in the comment upon these\nwords at the tomb of Lazarus, I find what I want, and what I believe\nevery one wants, and more than we shall ever get to the bottom of, if\nwe meditate upon them from this day till the consummation of all\nthings. While I have them I will not, for my part, build up a world of\nfantasies which, seeing that it has no foundation in the nature of\nthings or in the word of God, any physical discovery, any application\nof ordinary logic, may throw down in a moment. _Da nuces puero._ The\nboyhood of the Church, as of individuals, may have innocently occupied\nitself in cracking nuts, and eating the poor kernel in the inside.\n_Our_ faith perishes in such experiments. Let us put away childish\nthings, and try that we may know those blessed things which are freely\ngiven us of God.\n\nThat the declarations respecting a general resurrection at the last\nday are to me of infinite worth, and that they do not at all clash in\nmy mind with the belief which our Lord's words in this chapter appear\nvery distinctly to justify,--that men, at all times and in all ages,\nwho have been in their graves, have heard the voice of the Son of Man\nand have lived; that in their bodies, and not in their spirits only,\nthey have awakened at His call; I think will be evident from what I\nhave said on the resurrection of Lazarus. And this general\nresurrection I connect, as I think all men connect it, with a\njudgment-day. The only question is, whether we are to follow strictly\nthe assertions of the Evangelists, and call that day an unveiling of\nthe Son of Man--a discovery to all, wherever they are, in one part of\nthe universe or another, quick or dead, of Him who is, and always has\nbeen, their King and their Judge, so that every eye shall see Him, and\nthe secrets of all hearts shall be discovered; or whether we shall\nsubstitute for _this_ notion of His advent to judgment, one which\nsupposes a gathering together, in some certain space, of multitudes\nthat never could be gathered together in any space,--one that\nreproduces all the pomp and solemnities of earthly courts of\njustice,--one that supposes Christ not to be the Searcher of hearts,\nnot to be the Light of men, but the mere image and pattern of an\nearthly magistrate. What I call for, is the _strict_ interpretation of\nthe words of Scripture. What I denounce, is an attempt to substitute\nthe forms and conceptions of our own carnal understandings for that\nwhich speaks to a faculty within us which is higher than our\nunderstandings, and which belongs to us all alike. Far from agreeing\nwith those writers, immeasurably superior to me I own in learning and\ninsight, who think that the words of Scripture do not fit the\nconditions of modern times, and that we need to adapt them to our\nstage of civilization, or else to cast them aside, I expect no\ndeliverance from the superstitions by which we are tied and bound,\nfrom the confusions which a corrupt and money-getting civilization has\nintroduced into our thoughts on the meanest and on the highest\nsubjects, but in a return to the more accurate study of those\nScriptural phrases which we use most familiarly, but in the attempt to\nbring our theology to the higher and simpler standard which they set\nbefore us. Earnestly would I implore those friends who have so kindly\ntold me that they would gladly agree with me, in my views respecting\nthe Resurrection and the Judgment, but that they find it\nimpossible--not to trouble themselves about my views at all; to be\nsure that they can only be of use to them, that I can only be of use\nto them, just so far as I can help them to clear their minds of mists\nwhich hinder them from seeing that light which must throw all my\nopinions and those of far wiser men into the shade.\n\n\nDISCOURSES XVI. AND XVII.\n\nA friend, who has kindly looked over the sheets of these Discourses,\nhas intimated to me that though I may have said enough on the simple\nand childlike character of St. John's _narrative_, I have not directly\nencountered an impression which he believes to be very general,--that\nthe _discourses_ of our Lord which are contained in this Gospel, are\nessentially and radically unlike those in the other three. He thinks\nthat this impression may not be felt by the _most_ humble and devout\nreaders of the Gospel; but that it is far from being confined to those\nwho have any knowledge of Baur's opinions, or have even the slightest\nacquaintance with German theology. It forces itself upon every one who\nis only beginning to exercise his faculties of comparison and\ncriticism upon the Scriptures; it is especially likely to affect those\nwho have derived their impressions of them from our ordinary English\ncommentators and pulpit teachers.\n\nMy own experience corroborates this opinion. Earnest men feel this\ndifficulty more than indifferent men. It is, therefore, one which no\nteacher ought to leave unconsidered. But every reader must feel how\nhard it is for one man to put himself exactly in another's point of\nview, and to discern what the inconsistencies are which seem to him\nmost glaring. To speak about tones and habits of writing, so as to\nmake oneself intelligible, so as not to assume canons of criticism\nwhich the objector does not recognise, is possible, but certainly far\nfrom easy. I believe that I can only fulfil my friend's wishes on this\nsubject, with any satisfaction, if I take some special discourse from\none of the first three Gospels,--some one which shall be admitted to\nexhibit their characteristical manner,--and another from St. John,\nwhich shall be admitted to exhibit his manner. For many reasons, I\nthink that the former specimen ought to be taken from St. Matthew. Nor\ncan I have much doubt on which passage of St. Matthew the reader would\nwish me to fix. All would say, 'The Sermon on the Mount exhibits that\npurely ethical tone which we trace in the earlier Gospels. There\nChrist speaks with authority, no doubt, as a king and a lawgiver; but\nit is to proclaim blessings upon the poor in spirit, the merciful, the\npure in heart. There is little of what in modern times we call\ndoctrine. There is no formal theology. It is a code which saint,\nsavage, and sage, may all recognise as divine, whether they conform to\nit or no.'\n\nWhat shall we choose as the parallel discourse to this in St. John? It\nwould be difficult to find any contrast so marked and striking as that\nwhich the 8th chapter offers. The discourse there is argumentative,\nnot hortatory. It is addressed to disputers in Jerusalem, not to\ncrowds about a mountain. Those who hear it do not confess its\nauthority, but canvass every word of it. No passage in St. John is\nmore strictly theological. Here, then, if anywhere, we may expect to\nfind the radical essential dissimilitude which is spoken of. Let us\nsee whether it is there,--whether the opposition which is so manifest\nupon the surface does, or does not, penetrate to the heart's core of\nthe two records.\n\nWe may amuse ourselves for ever with the words ethical, theological,\ndoctrinal. They are evidently mere artificial helps to our\nconceptions. We can never arrive through them at any safe apprehension\nof human thoughts or divine. But it is not difficult, I think, for any\nearnest reader to ascertain what is the cardinal idea,--at all events\nthe cardinal word in the Sermon on the Mount. Let us take a few\npassages of it, that we may be clear on this point. '_Let your light\nso shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify\nyour Father which is in heaven.' 'I say unto you, Love your enemies,\nbless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for\nthem that despitefully use you, and persecute you; that you may be the\nchildren of your Father which is in heaven: for He maketh His sun\nto rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and\non the unjust.' 'Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is\nin heaven is perfect.' 'Take heed that ye do not your alms before men,\nto be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which\nis in heaven.' 'But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know\nwhat thy right hand doeth: that thine alms may be in secret: and thy\nFather which seeth in secret Himself shall reward thee openly.' 'But\nthou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast\nshut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father\nwhich seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.' 'Be not ye therefore\nlike unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of,\nbefore ye ask Him. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father\nwhich art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.' 'For if ye forgive men\ntheir trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if\nye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive\nyour trespasses.' 'But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and\nwash thy face; that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy\nFather which is in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret shall\nreward thee openly.' 'Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not,\nneither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father\nfeedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?' 'Therefore take no\nthought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or,\nWherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the\nGentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of\nthese things.' 'If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts\nunto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven\ngive good things to them that ask Him?' 'Not every one that saith unto\nme, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that\ndoeth the will of my Father which is in heaven._'\n\nI am sure I need not remark that we have not here the mere repetition\nof a name. All the precepts that answer most to the description that\nis given of the Sermon on the Mount, when it is praised for its\nethical qualities, for its beautiful morality, are here made to depend\nupon the fact that those whom He was addressing had a Father in\nheaven, who knew them and desired them to be what He was. This is the\nthread which binds all these precepts together. Take it away, and they\nlose not only their cohesion, but all their practical force; they\nbecome a set of cold, dead, formal letters in a book, which we may\nadmire if we like them, but which have no power over us, which do not\nconcern human beings at all. This is not only a truth, but it is _the_\ntruth which exercises all the charm over those who feel that there is\nany charm in the Sermon on the Mount, however they may account for it,\nor represent it to themselves. A person who has been reading the old\nHebrew Scriptures asks himself,--'What is the change that I experience\nin passing from them to this document? St. Matthew was a Hebrew;\nperhaps he wrote in Hebrew. He says the law is not to pass away; but\nthat every jot and tittle of it is to be fulfilled. Why, then, do I\ncall his book a Gospel? Why does it transport me into a world\naltogether different from that in which I have been dwelling,--from\nthat in which I have had such wonderful revelations of God? Christ\nspeaks to me of a Father; Christ reveals a Father. All other\ndifferences are contained in that. This is the new revelation.'\n\nHaving made this discovery, let us turn to the 8th chapter of St.\nJohn. What is that about? I am afraid of repeating myself; but I will\nrepeat St. John without fear.\n\n'_And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I\nand the Father that sent me.' 'I am one that bear witness of myself,\nand the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. Then said they unto\nHim, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my\nFather: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also?'\n'They understood not that He spake to them of the Father.' 'And He\nthat sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do\nalways those things that please Him.' 'I speak that which I have seen\nwith my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.'\n'Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do\ndishonour me.' 'Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is\nnothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that He is\nyour God._'\n\nThese passages I think I have shown are the cardinal passages here,\nas the others are the cardinal passages there. May I entreat the\nreader, who thinks there is a radical difference between St. Matthew\nand St. John, seriously to meditate upon them? They will show him that\nthere is a difference, a very great difference, between these\nEvangelists. I think they will show him that the difference is of the\nkind which I have endeavoured to indicate in these Sermons, between\none whose function it was to declare to men that they had a Father,\nand one whose function it was to show them how it was possible they\nshould have a Father, by unfolding the unity of the Father and the\nSon.\n\n\nDISCOURSE XIX.\n\nA book has recently been published by Mr. John McLeod Campbell 'On the\nNature of the Atonement.' I cannot feel too thankful to the pious and\nexcellent writer for the light which he has thrown upon this subject;\nfor his exemplary charity to those with whom he is at variance; for\nhis successful effort to reclaim the doctrine from the region of hard\nscholasticism to the region of practical life and holiness; above all,\nfor his vindication of the character of God as a Father, and for his\ndetermination to assert, that likeness to His character, and communion\nwith Him, are the ends which God is seeking for us, and which we are\nto seek from Him. In every one of these respects, I wish to be a\nlearner from Mr. Campbell. Others may criticise him who feel that they\nknow more than he does. I cannot read his book without perceiving how\nlittle I do know of the truths which seem to me the most vital and\ncardinal, and how impossible it is to know more, except by having more\nof the spirit of love, which is the Spirit of God.\n\nIn a book written expressly for Scotland--though admirably fitted to\nenlarge and deepen the thoughts of Englishmen--I cannot wish that he\nshould have followed any other method than that which he has followed.\nHe knows what books are popular among the religious people of his own\nland; and of these he has spoken with singular candour and wisdom. I\nmight, indeed, wish that Calvinists knew something of Calvin as well\nas of Edwards, and that Scotchmen cared more for the broad, bold\nstatements of Knox, than for the modifications of much feebler men in\nthis country. I can say for myself that I have read, with infinite\ndelight, Knox's book on Predestination; finding there the fullest and\nmost vehement assertions of God as an absolutely righteous Being, and\nthe greatest indignation against his opponents for daring to say that\na believer in predestination must think of Him chiefly as a Sovereign.\nKnox would evidently have died rather than have adopted phraseology\nwhich his descendants think that it is heretical to complain of. He\nwould have rejoiced not to limit God's grace in any way; only he could\nnot see how the acknowledgment of it as universal was compatible with\nthe attributing of every good thing to God and nothing to man. As an\nassertor, as a resistor of Arminian denials, we may embrace him and go\nall lengths with him. And I apprehend that even when he was upon\nearth, at all events that now, he would prefer this sympathy to that\nof men who fritter away his positions, and only accept his negations.\n\nNeither Edwards, however, nor Dr. Williams, nor Knox, nor Calvin, have\nmuch influence upon the mind of England in the present day--at all\nevents on the minds of English Episcopalians. Luther, to whose\nCommentary on the Galatians Mr. Campbell has done justice, commands\nour sympathy more. It is the man who speaks to us more than his books.\nI believe if we knew them better, we should find such a man speaking\nin them that we should be scarcely able to make the distinction. He\nwhom we suppose to be the assertor of Justification by Faith, is\nreally the poor stricken monk, overwhelmed by the sense and burden of\nsin; grasping the assurance of forgiveness which comes to him from the\nold Creed; believing that assurance as given by the God who is the\nsubject of the Creed; certain that it cannot mean indulgence for sin,\nthat it must mean deliverance from sin; discovering that it involves\nthe actual possession of righteousness; discovering that he cannot\nhave that righteousness in himself, and must have it in Christ;\nlearning gradually from St. Paul how Christ is made unto us\nrighteousness and is the righteousness of God; knocking down every\nobstacle which stood in the way of the apprehension of this\nrighteousness; preaching the Gospel to men that it is theirs as well\nas his; anathematizing Popes, Councils, Kings, Doctors, Reformers,\nwhoever seem to him to intercept the intercourse between the sinner\nand his Lord. With such a man--in his strength and in his weakness, in\nhis gentleness and in his rage--Englishmen, so far as they are enabled\nto make his acquaintance, feel a cordial interest; they are sure that\nhe was fighting a good fight, even when the smoke of the cannon, or\nhis own single-handed rashness, conceal him from their sight, and make\nhis intentions perplexing to them. And those who have had any fights\nin themselves, and who therefore know that his descriptions are real\nand not imaginary, will heartily approve of Mr. Campbell's judgment in\nputting him foremost among those who have started from the sense of\nevil in themselves, and have been led to believe in an atonement as\nthe only emancipation from it.\n\nIt must not, however, be concealed, that the following of Luther has\nhad an effect in cramping men's study of St. Paul. In another book I\nhave endeavoured to explain how it seems to me that this effect has\nbeen produced. The doctrine of Justification by Faith has been assumed\nto be _the_ Pauline doctrine. Luther said that it was so; and Luther\nsurely entered into St. Paul as no one else has done. Persons who\nfollowed the course of Luther's experience thought that the Epistle to\nthe Romans must begin from the sense of sin, as Luther and as they\nbegan. If it did not appear to do so, then the two first chapters must\nbe treated as prologue, and it must begin with the third. All\nquestions about the relation of Jews and Gentiles must be treated as\naccidental or subordinate to the primary thesis; whatever does not\nconcern that, in the final chapters, must be resolved into practical\nexhortations, introduced, after the manner of a modern sermon, when\nthe doctrinal statement has been concluded. Those who, without this\nexperience, merely desired to elucidate the formal doctrine, of course\nsubjected the Epistle to still more formal treatment. Its human\ncharacter disappeared; and the divinity which was to compensate for\nthat disappearance was of a very dry, hungry, uninspired character\nindeed. Both parties agreed to regard the Epistles to the Romans and\nthe Galatians as the specially Pauline Epistles, because there were\nmost allusions in them to justification by faith; other Epistles were\nto be interpreted mainly by reference to these. Ultimately, Baur, who\nwrote a triumphant vindication of the Lutheran doctrine against\nM\u00f6hler's 'Symbolik,' has discovered that only four of the thirteen\nEpistles can be genuine, because the Pauline diagnostic is wanting in\nthe rest; and that there was a deadly antipathy between St. Paul and\nthe other apostles, because he was asserting that spiritual doctrine\nwhich they were setting at nought.\n\nThe time, therefore, it seemed to me, had come for re-examining this\nquestion about the subject-matter of St. Paul's Epistles, and seeing\nwhether we have a right to limit them as some German Evangelicals have\nbeen inclined to limit them. I contended, in 'The Unity of the New\nTestament,' that the words '_It pleased God to reveal His Son in me,\nthat I might preach Him among the Gentiles_,'--words that occur in the\nEpistle which was dearest to Luther, in the Epistle on which Baur\ngrounds his great argument for an opposition between St. Paul and the\nother apostles; words that contain St. Paul's own account of his\nconversion, and therefore begin from what Lutherans must admit to be\nthe right starting-point of his history,--are the key to the meaning\nof his life and the object of his mission. I attempted to show that,\nif we used this key, the Epistle to the Romans might be read as a\nwhole letter, not be cut into fragments to meet a certain hypothesis;\nand that all the Epistles which Baur would reject become the varied\nand harmonious expositions of a great and divine purpose. Using that\nkey, also, it seemed to me that a most close and intimate relation\nwould appear between the Epistle to the Hebrews and those which bear\nSt. Paul's name on the face of them; and that--whether the old\ntradition or the suspicion of critics respecting that Epistle has the\nstrongest foundation, whether or not it actually proceeded from the\nhand of St. Paul--it does illustrate and fulfil his intention, and is\na transition point between him and the other Apostles, especially\nbetween him and the Apostle St. John.\n\nWhy do I refer to these points here? Because it seems to me that the\ndoctrine of Justification by Faith, either in the practical form in\nwhich it presented itself to Luther, or in the merely dogmatical form\nwhich it assumes in some of his successors, has determined the\nthoughts of a number of Germans, Englishmen, and Scotchmen on the\nsubject of the Atonement; so that their thoughts of the one\nunconsciously and inevitably govern their thoughts of the other. They\nstart from evil, from the conscience of evil in themselves, and then\neither each man asks himself,--'How can I be free from this oppression\nwhich is sitting so heavily upon me?' or the schoolman asks, 'What\ndivine arrangement would meet the necessities of this case?' Of\ncourse, the results of these two inquiries are very different; and Mr.\nCampbell has done an immense service to Christian faith and life by\nbringing forth the former into prominence, and throwing the other into\nthe shade. His book may be read as a great protest of the individual\nconscience against the utter inadequacy of the scholastic arrangements\nto satisfy it; as a solemn assertion,--'This arrangement of yours will\nnot take away my sin; and I must have my sin taken away; this\narrangement of yours does not bring me into fellowship with a\nrighteous and loving God; and I must have that fellowship, or perish.'\nThis is admirable; but if what I have said is true, there is another\nway of contemplating the subject. We need not begin with the sinner;\nwe may begin with God. And so beginning, that which speaks most\ncomfort to the individual man may not be first of all contrived for\nhis justification. God may have reconciled the world unto Himself; God\nmay have atoned Himself with mankind; and the declaration of this\natonement, the setting forth the nature and grounds of it, and all the\ndifferent aspects of it, may be the real subjects of those Epistles,\nin which the individual man has found the secret of his own blessing,\nof his own restoration; but which he mangles and well-nigh destroys\nwhen he reconstructs them upon the basis of his individual\nnecessities, and makes them utter a message which has been first\nsuggested by them.\n\nThe subject belongs to this place, because the words, '_Other sheep I\nhave, which are not of this fold_,' have led me to speak in this\nDiscourse of the calling in of the Gentiles as part of that mystery of\natonement, the great act of which was the Son of Man's laying down His\nlife that He might take it again, the ground of which was the unity of\nthe Father and the Son. Here St. Paul and St. John wonderfully\ncoincide. That which must be thrown into the background by those who\nmerely connect the atonement with individual salvation, becomes most\nprominent for both Apostles; for the one who believed that He was an\nambassador from God to men, telling them that He had reconciled the\nworld unto Himself, and beseeching them to be reconciled to Him; for\nthe other who taught that '_God sent not His Son into the world to\ncondemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved_.' If\nit be asked, then, whether there is no difference between the\ntent-maker of Tarsus and the old man of Ephesus, I should\nanswer--this; that while St. Paul's main work was to set forth the\nfact of atonement, laying its groundwork always in the righteousness\nof God manifested in Christ, and ascending, in the Epistle to the\nEphesians especially, to the purpose which He purposed in Christ\nbefore the worlds were; St. John's calling was to trace this last idea\nto its source in God Himself; to exhibit the original constitution of\nman in the Divine Word; to set forth atonement as the vindication of\nthat constitution, and the vindication of the right of all men to\nenter into it; to set forth the union of the Father with the Son in\none Spirit, as the ground of the reconciliation of man, and of his\nrestoration to the image of his Creator.\n\nTo those, then, who ask me whether I hold the doctrine of the\nAtonement in some unusual and unnatural sense, or do not wish to\nthrust it into a corner, as if the Bible had other more important\nsubjects to treat of, I answer,--My great complaint of the oracles of\nthe English religious world is, that they do give a most unusual and\nunnatural sense to the word Atonement; that they give it a most\ncontracted signification; that they lead their disciples to form a\npoor opinion of its effects; that they do not follow Apostles and\nEvangelists, in connecting it with the whole revelation of God and the\nwhole mystery of man. I answer again,--that they connect it with their\nown faith and their own salvation, not with that cross on which Christ\nwas lifted up that He might draw all men to Him. On many points I\nbelieve I could adopt forms of language usual among Calvinistical\ndivines, to which Mr. Campbell, looking at them from his point of\nview, rightly objects as involving fictions; but I would rather be\nsuspected of rejecting all popular modes of speech on the subject,\neven when I see in them a good and wholesome meaning, than yield for\none instant to those representations of the character and will of God\nwhich must end with us, as they did with the Jews, in the\nidentification of the Father of lights with the Spirit of lies.\n\n\nDISCOURSES XXII. XXIII. AND XXIV.\n\nI have dwelt much in these Sermons upon the fact that our Lord treated\nHis disciples as a body, and as a holy body. Many persons, as soon as\nthey hear remarks of this kind, exclaim--'Oh, yes; we have often heard\nthat doctrine of corporate holiness set forth before. But it seems to\nus the very destruction of personal holiness. It involves every\necclesiastical fiction; Romanism is at the bottom of it.'\n\nWhen statements of this kind are made honestly and earnestly, I am\nglad to hear them. Abhorrence of fictions we should take all pains to\ncultivate in others and in ourselves. Whatever tends to the weakening\nof personal holiness, let it have what logical consistency it may,\nmust be false. And that there is a doctrine about corporate\nChristianity, corporate faith, corporate righteousness, which is open\nto these charges, I, at least, can have no doubt. I should not say\nthat Romanism was at the bottom of it; but rather that it is at the\nbottom of Romanism, in so far as Romanism is an immoral system, and\none that deposes Christ from His rightful dignity.\n\n1. Let me explain myself upon each of these points. To suppose a\nsociety--call it a Church or what you will--constituted holy by an\narbitrary decree of God, its members remaining unholy, I hold to be a\nmost dangerous fiction; one which we cannot too vehemently repudiate,\nas alike condemned by experience, by reason, and by Scripture.\nExperience testifies that when a nation or a Church claims a holiness\nor a righteousness of its own, it becomes practically most unholy and\nunrighteous in all its acts and purposes. Reason declares that it must\nbe so, because righteousness is predicable only of voluntary beings,\nand that to be made righteous by an arrangement is impossible in the\nnature of things. Scripture declares that it must be so, because God\nis holy; and the holiness of man is only possible by the participation\nof His nature. But is it the same thing to assert that God has\nconstituted man holy in His Son; that all unholiness is the result of\nthe selfish desire of men to have something of their own, and not to\nabide in God's order; that a Church is the witness of the true\nconstitution of man in Christ; that every Churchman, therefore, by his\nposition and calling, is bound to say that he is only holy as a member\nof a body, and holy in its Head; that every Churchman who does not say\nthis, who thinks that it is his individual holiness which helps to\nmake up the Church, is setting up himself, and imitating the sin for\nwhich our Lord denounced the Pharisee? Does experience, does reason,\ndoes Scripture, protest against this doctrine? Is not experience in\nfavour of it, inasmuch as it testifies that every true patriot has\nlived and died for his nation, and has renounced himself; that every\ntrue Churchman has lived to claim his own blessings for all men, to\ndeclare that he himself, as an individual, was worthy of none of them?\nIs not reason in favour of this doctrine, seeing that it affirms a\nvoluntary creature to be a mere curse to himself till he confesses a\nlaw which is above himself, and gives up his self-will that he may\nhave a free-will? Is not Scripture affirming, in every line, that God\nhas chosen families, nations, Churches; and that these are holy\nbecause He is holy; and that those who go about to establish a\nholiness or righteousness of their own have not submitted to His\nrighteousness?\n\n2. I have anticipated the answer to the second question. Personal\nholiness is weakened, nay, is destroyed, by everything that could\nlead a man to think that it was fictitious in him, or that God was\nsanctioning a fiction. And therefore it is greatly imperilled by any\nnotions which speak of the individual man having a righteousness\nimputed to him, in consequence of his faith, which is not truly and\nactually his. But this fiction is not the consequence of maintaining\nthe doctrine I am asserting; it becomes inevitable when we deny that\ndoctrine. If by the very law and constitution of His universe God\ncontemplates us as members of a body in His Son, we are bound to\ncontemplate ourselves in the same way. We have a righteousness and\nholiness in Christ. We have no right to deny it; our unrighteousness\nis the very effect of denying it. Imputation of righteousness _then_\nbecomes no fiction. It means only that God beholds us as we are, as we\nhave not learnt or do not choose to behold ourselves. The fiction has\narisen because the truth has been denied.\n\n3. When I speak of a Church, St. Paul tells me to speak of a body. He\npursues the analogy, we all know, into its details; he speaks of head,\nand feet, and hands, of functions assigned to each, of sufferings\npassing from one to another, of a life circulating through the whole.\nEverything here is living and real. You turn the body into a\ncorporation, a certain thing created by enactment, without parts,\nfunctions, life; you attribute to the dead thing what is true of the\nliving thing--to the decapitated trunk what was true of that which\nderives all its strength and virtue from its head; then, indeed, you\nare involved in a series of falsehoods, each more monstrous than the\nlast; or, to speak more modern and courteous language, in a series of\ndevelopments, each preserving a family likeness to its ancestor, the\nvery last and most prodigious being able to prove its descent from the\nnotion out of which they all started. Once suppose it possible for the\nChurch to exist out of Christ, and for humanity to exist out of\nChrist, and a Church which thinks this may impose anything it pleases\nupon those who belong to it. Nothing would be restrained from it which\nit had imagined to do, if its first maxim were _not_ a falsehood, if\nChrist did _not_ reign in spite of the determination of His subjects\nto set up another ruler.\n\n4. I have given an outline of what I believe to be the Romish system;\nand surely it is a system which may obtain a hold over England, as\nwell as over any country in the world. Nay, must it not obtain a hold\nif we have nothing to set up against it but the notion of a Church,\ncompounded of a number of men believing themselves to be holy, and\ndespising others? Romanism is the fearful parody of Christian Unity.\nThis is the absolute denial that any such Unity exists or is possible.\nWhen the Son of God and the Son of Man is manifested, the parody and\nthe denial will perish together.\n\n\nDISCOURSE XXVI.\n\nA friend has suggested to me a punctuation of the 2d verse of the 17th\nchapter, which would enable us to translate it: '_That He should give\nto them all which Thou hast given Him, (even) eternal life_.' This\nversion seems to me at least worthy of serious consideration.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\n  LONDON:\n\n  R. CLAY, SONS, AND TAYLOR,\n\n  BREAD STREET HILL, E.C.\n\n\nMACMILLAN & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.\n\n\nFREDERICK DENISON MAURICE:\n\nHIS LIFE AND LETTERS.\n\nA Memoir, edited by his son, Major FREDERICK MAURICE. With Two\nPortraits: by SAMUEL LAWRANCE, engraved by C. H. JEENS and LOWES\nDICKINSON engraved by FRANCIS HOLL. Two vols. 8vo.\n\n  [_In the press._\n\n\nBy the late =FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE, M.A.=, Professor of Moral\nPhilosophy in the University of Cambridge, &c.\n\n     SOCIAL MORALITY. Twenty-one Lectures delivered in the\n     University of Cambridge. Second and Cheaper Edition. Crown\n     8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._\n\n     THE CONSCIENCE. Lectures on Casuistry, delivered in the\n     University of Cambridge. Second and Cheaper Edition. Crown\n     8vo. 5_s._\n\n     DIALOGUES ON FAMILY WORSHIP. Crown 8vo. 6_s._\n\n     THE PATRIARCHS AND LAWGIVERS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Fourth\n     and Cheaper Edition. This volume contains Discourses on the\n     Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and the beginning of the First\n     Book of Samuel. Crown 8vo. 5_s._\n\n     THE PROPHETS AND KINGS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. New Edition.\n     This volume contains Discourses on Samuel I. and II.; Kings\n     I. and II.; Amos, Joel, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Habakkuk,\n     Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Crown 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._\n\n     THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. A Series of Lectures on\n     the Gospel of St. Luke. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 9_s._\n\n     THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. A Series of Lectures on Christian\n     Ethics. Second and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. 6_s._\n\n     EXPOSITORY SERMONS ON THE PRAYER-BOOK, considered especially\n     in reference to the Romish System; and on the LORD'S PRAYER.\n     New Edition. Crown 8vo. 9_s._\n\n     WHAT IS REVELATION? A Series of Sermons on the Epiphany; to\n     which are added Letters to a Theological Student on the\n     Bampton Lectures of Mr. MANSEL. Crown 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._\n\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.\n\nBy FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE, M.A., (_Continued_).\n\n     SEQUEL TO THE INQUIRY, \"WHAT IS REVELATION?\" Letters in\n     Reply to Mr. Mansel's Examination of \"Strictures on the\n     Bampton Lectures.\" Crown 8vo. 6_s._\n\n     LECTURES ON ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._\n\n     THEOLOGICAL ESSAYS. Third Edition, with new Preface. Crown\n     8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._\n\n     THE DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE DEDUCED FROM THE SCRIPTURES. New\n     Edition. Crown 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._\n\n     MORAL AND METAPHYSICAL PHILOSOPHY. Vol. I. Ancient\n     Philosophy and the First to the Thirteenth Centuries. Vol.\n     II. Fourteenth Century and the French Revolution, with a\n     Glimpse into the Nineteenth Century. Second Edition. Two\n     Vols. 8vo. 25_s._\n\n     THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD, AND THEIR RELATIONS TO\n     CHRISTIANITY. Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo. 5_s._\n\n     ON THE LORD'S PRAYER. Fourth Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._\n\n     ON THE SABBATH DAY; THE CHARACTER OF THE WARRIOR; AND ON THE\n     INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY. Fcap. 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._\n\n     LEARNING AND WORKING. Six Lectures on the Foundation of\n     Colleges for Working Men. Crown 8vo. 5_s._\n\n     LAW'S REMARKS ON THE FABLE OF THE BEES. With an Introduction\n     by F. D. Maurice, M. A. Fcap. 8vo. 4_s._ 6_d._\n\n     THE LORD'S PRAYER, THE CREED, AND THE COMMANDMENTS. A Manual\n     for Parents and Schoolmasters. To which is added the Order\n     of the Scriptures. 18mo, cloth limp. 1_s._\n\n     SERMONS PREACHED IN COUNTRY CHURCHES. Second Edition. Crown\n     8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._\n\n     THE FRIENDSHIP OF BOOKS; AND OTHER LECTURES. Edited, with\n     Preface, by Thomas Hughes, Author of \"Tom Brown's School\n     Days.\" New Edition. Crown 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._\n\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.\n\n\nBy the late JULIUS CHARLES HARE, M.A., Archdeacon of Lewes.\n\n     THE MISSION OF THE COMFORTER. New Edition. Edited, with\n     Notes, by Professor E. H. PLUMPTRE. Crown 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._\n\n     THE VICTORY OF FAITH. Edited by Prof. PLUMPTRE, with\n     Introductory Notices by the late Professor MAURICE and by\n     the late DEAN STANLEY. Crown 8vo. 6_s._ 6_d._\n\n     THE COMMUNION SERVICE FROM THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. WITH\n     SELECT READINGS FROM THE WRITINGS OF THE REV. F. D. MAURICE.\n     Edited by the Right Rev. J. W. COLENSO, D.D., Bishop of\n     Natal. Sixth Edition. 16mo. 2_s._ 6_d._\n\n     GUESSES AT TRUTH. By TWO BROTHERS. 18mo. 4_s._ 6_d._\n     (_Golden Treasury Series._)\n\n\nBy the Rev. J. LLEWLYN DAVIES, M.A., Rector of Christ Church, St.\nMarylebone.\n\n     THE GOSPEL AND MODERN LIFE. With a Preface on a Recent Phase\n     of Deism. Second Edition, to which is added Morality\n     according to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or Three\n     Discourses on the names Eucharist, Sacrifice, and Communion.\n     Extra fcap. 8vo. 6_s._\n\n     WARNINGS AGAINST SUPERSTITION, IN FOUR SERMONS FOR THE DAY.\n     Extra fcap. 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._\n\n     THE CHRISTIAN CALLING. Sermons. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6_s._\n\n\nBy THOMAS HUGHES, Q.C., Author of \"Tom Brown's School Days.\"\n\n     THE OLD CHURCH. WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH IT? Crown 8vo. 6_s._\n\n     THE MANLINESS OF CHRIST. Crown 8vo. 4_s._ 6_d._\n\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.\n\n\nBy R. CHENEVIX TRENCH, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin.\n\n     NOTES ON THE PARABLES OF OUR LORD. Thirteenth Edition,\n     revised. 8vo. 12_s._\n\n     NOTES ON THE MIRACLES OF OUR LORD. Eleventh Edition,\n     revised. 8vo. 12_s._\n\n     SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Ninth Edition, enlarged. 8vo.\n     12_s._\n\n     STUDIES IN THE GOSPELS. Fourth Edition, revised. 8vo. 10_s._\n     6_d._\n\n     SERMONS PREACHED FOR THE MOST PART IN IRELAND. 8vo. 10_s._\n     6_d._\n\n     THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. An Exposition drawn from the\n     writings of St. Augustine, with an Essay on his merits as an\n     Interpreter of Holy Scripture. Fourth Edition, enlarged.\n     8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._\n\n     SHIPWRECKS OF FAITH. Three Sermons preached before the\n     University of Cambridge in May 1867. Fcap. 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._\n\n     COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES IN ASIA.\n     Third Edition, revised. 8vo. 8_s._ 6_d._\n\n     LECTURES ON MEDIEVAL CHURCH HISTORY. Being the Substance of\n     Lectures delivered at Queen's College, London. Second\n     Edition, revised. 8vo. 12_s._\n\n     THE HULSEAN LECTURES FOR 1845 AND 1846, Fifth Edition,\n     revised. 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._\n\n     ON THE AUTHORISED VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Second\n     Edition. 8vo. 7_s._\n\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.\n\n\nBy the Rev. CHARLES KINGSLEY, M.A., Canon of Westminster, &c. In Crown\n8vo. 6_s._ each volume.\n\n     THE WATER OF LIFE, AND OTHER SERMONS. New Edition.\n\n     THE GOSPEL OF THE PENTATEUCH, AND DAVID. New Edition.\n\n     GOOD NEWS OF GOD. Sixth Edition.\n\n     SERMONS FOR THE TIMES. Fourth Edition.\n\n     VILLAGE AND TOWN AND COUNTRY SERMONS. New Edition.\n\n     SERMONS ON NATIONAL SUBJECTS, AND THE KING OF THE EARTH. New\n     Edition.\n\n     DISCIPLINE, AND OTHER SERMONS. New Edition.\n\n     WESTMINSTER SERMONS. New Edition.\n\n     HISTORICAL LECTURES AND ESSAYS.\n\n     SANITARY AND SOCIAL LECTURES AND ESSAYS.\n\n     SCIENTIFIC LECTURES AND ESSAYS.\n\n     LITERARY AND GENERAL LECTURES.\n\n     HEALTH AND EDUCATION. New Edition.\n\n\n     SELECTIONS FROM SOME OF THE WRITINGS OF REV. CHARLES\n     KINGSLEY, M.A. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 6_s._\n\n     OUT OF THE DEEP. Words for the Sorrowful. From the writings\n     of CHARLES KINGSLEY. Extra fcap. 8vo. 3_s._ 6_d._\n\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.\n\n\nBy J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., Bishop of Durham.\n\n     ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. A Revised Text, with\n     Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. Sixth edition,\n     revised. 8vo. 12_s._\n\n     ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. A Revised Text, with\n     Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. Sixth Edition,\n     revised 8vo. 12_s._\n\n     ST. CLEMENT OF ROME. THE TWO EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. A\n     Revised Text, with Introduction and Notes. 8vo. 8_s._ 6_d._\n\n     ST. CLEMENT OF ROME. An Appendix, containing the\n     newly-recovered portions. With Introduction, Notes, and\n     Translations. 8vo. 8_s._ 6_d._\n\n     ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. Second\n     Edition, revised. Crown 8vo. 6_s._\n\n     ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS AND TO PHILEMON. A\n     Revised Text, with Introductions, Notes, and Dissertations.\n     Fifth Edition, revised. 8vo. 12_s._\n\n\nTHE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK.\n\nThe Text revised by B. F. WESTCOTT, D.D., Regins Professor of\nDivinity, Canon of Peterborough, and F. J. A. HORT, DD. Hulsean\nProfessor of Divinity, Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge: late\nFellows of Trinity College, Cambridge. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._\neach.\n\n  VOL I.--Text.      Vol. II.--The Introduction and Appendix.\n\n\nTHE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE QUARTERLY REVIEW.--A REPLY.\n\n     THE REVISERS AND THE GREEK TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By Two\n     Members of the New Testament Company. 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._\n\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.","title":"The Gospel of St. John: A Series of Discourses.: New Edition","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":164427}