mercy which said to Moses, "Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the LORD to gaze, and many of them perish." (Exod. xix. 21.) "For our GoD is a consuming fire." (Heb. xii. 29.)

1

10. Passages in Scripture on the other side explained. There is one passage in Holy Scriptures, which has occurred to me as at first sight appearing contrary to the whole of this argument, where in the Book of Proverbs it is said, "Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets, she crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates, in the city she uttereth her words, saying." But, on a little consideration, it will be seen to fall in with, and confirm the view we have taken. For of this whole description in the Book of Proverbs, Bishop Butler has remarked, that it may be questioned, whether it was most intended as applicable to prudence in our temporal affairs, or to that wisdom, which is purely religious and heavenly. To him, therefore, who was a beginner, or who had not yet entered into the school of CHRIST, it would speak of this temporal wisdom; the higher sense would be to him a secret, concealed under the other, as by the veil; but to the heavenly-minded it would open the higher meaning, the deeper treasures of divine Wisdom. So that it would really appear the same as that Wisdom, of which it is said in another place, that she walks at first in difficult and trying ways, and not showing her secrets, but to those whom she hath proved and found worthy. "She goeth about seeking such as are worthy of her, showing herself favourably unto them in the ways, and meeting them in every thought." (Wisdom xi.) And of course the passage from the Book of Proverbs means, that there is no one living but to whom Wisdom speaks, a voice that tells him of something better, which he ought to do, than what he does, which the very nature of probation implies; but until he follows this first voice, the higher and better Wisdom is hid from him. But, however this may be, we know it was said of Him who was Wisdom itself, and "the light that lighteth every one that cometh into the world," "that He should not cry nor lift up His voice in the street."

1 Law, in his Serious Call, quotes this from the Book of Proverbs in the same way; viz. as the call of Wisdom to those that are without.

Another passage has been suggested to the writer, as appearing to militate against some of the foregoing inferences,—the expression of our LORD'S, "compel them to come in, that My house may be full." But the meaning of that parable seems to be that, on the Jews refusing the Gospel, the Gentiles would be forced to enter, that the Church throughout the world might be full. And it rather therefore seems to imply the mode of God's dealing with the world at present (which will be noticed afterwards), contrary to all His former dispensations, when all men are as it were forced to come in. While, at the same time, of the spiritual kingdom it may be always "that the violent take it by force."

Another expression is also to be explained; the Jews say, (John vii. 27.) "We know this man whence He is, but when CHRIST cometh, no man knoweth whence He is. Then cried JESUS in the Temple, as He taught, saying, Ye know me, and ye know whence I am." This might seem at first contrary to the view here taken. But in reconciling this passage with that in the following chapter, where our LORD says, (chap. viii. 19.) "Ye neither know me, nor my FATHER; if ye had known me, ye should have known my FATHER," Origen shows in his Commentary, that the former alludes to our LORD's human nature, to which the Jews were referring, but the latter to His Divinity.

11. Confirmed by the analogy of God's present dealings with mankind.

The whole history of this, the ALMIGHTY'S mode of revealing Himself, is the circumstance which has been matter of offence to the unbeliever, asking for a sign. And perhaps it is different to preconceived expectations, such as we might have been led to form of ourselves: for instance, we might have thought, that the evidence of the Resurrection would have been more public, and the like. It is therefore, as in solving all other difficulties in the history of revelation, very satisfactory to show, how remarkably consistent all this is with what we see in the analogy of God's Providence, in our own experience of His dealing with us in His moral government, which we discern, as now going on.

A good man, however illiterate, has his faith established by a daily accumulating weight of evidence, which may perhaps be considered as equivalent to the testimony of the senses in the case of any of our LORD's miracles. A weight of evidence which is perfectly unknown to the infidel and thoughtless, however intellectually superior; it is the path of the just brightening in the clearness of his faith to the perfect day.

It seems as if this kind of evidence might be considered as joined on to the former (as being in our case the substitution for it, and yet acting in a similar manner upon this point), by that singular fact, which Origen mentions, (against Celsus, p. 5.) that the traces (or steps) of those miracles were still remaining in his day among those, who lived according to the precepts of the word of God. So that the moral evidence, which a good man ordinarily has, arose at that time to the more sensible evidence of miracles, in the same manner as good persons were admitted to a closer and more intimate knowledge of our LORD's works, and the manifestation of Himself.

At the same time we must not speak as if we considered that a sensible manifestation of the Divine Presence, or Power, appeared to be the highest reward, or crown and end of a good and obedient faith; but rather, perhaps, it may be a help vouchsafed to those, who are desirous to be led on to something better, and require such assistance. Indeed, where St. Peter speaks of the manifestation of our LORD's person, and the hearing of His voice, with both of which he had been so singularly honoured, he speaks of such testimony of the senses, as something less sure than the word of Prophecy, and this latter but as the "light shining in a dark place," compared with "the day-star arising in the heart," whatever this may be explained to be. Add to which, we know that St. John himself had not the earliest sensible and direct evidence of our LORD's Resurrection; and that he needed not this assurance, but had the more especial blessing of having believed, though he had not seen, perhaps a blessing, which was no other than that which belongs to the pure in heart, that they shall see GOD. For, surely, if this blessing of seeing God be one, which, in the manifold application of Scripture, refers to this life, as well

as to the next, we have abundant evidence in the writings of St. John, of its having been singularly fulfilled in him, as well in the habitual turn of his own mind, as in those higher and more divine revelations, to which he was admitted.

It may well be supposed that the disciple who lay upon his LORD's breast, had the fulness of His Divinity (so to speak) disclosed to him in a signal and singular degree. This is obvious throughout his Gospel and Epistles. As Chrysostom says at the commencement of the former, "He beginneth not, like the rest, from below, but from above," so may it be said does he continue throughout. We may suppose him to have remembered, and dwelt upon, in a way to have almost absorbed every other thought, those of his Master's words, which fully showed Him to be the Son of God. And this might be traced, with much interest, to some little particulars, perhaps, in his Gospel, some manifest, but as it were incidental indications, which were such as this Evangelist might alone have noticed; and with these we might compare or contrast some observations respecting St. Peter. It gives a very peculiar interest to the Gospel of St. Mark (which is supposed to have been St. Peter's,) that the very minute, and apparently unimportant remarks, with which it abounds, are many of them respecting our LORD's own personal demeanour. Such as, twice that "He was angry;" that "He was moved with pity;" that "He marvelled;" that "He groaned" on two occasions; that "He loved" the young man; twice that "He took children into flis arms;" that He was "asleep on a pillow." Several observations of this kind occur in a few chapters, where the substance of the account seems often taken from another Gospel; many of them such as, humanly speaking, none but one admitted to a very intimate approach to our LORD's person, as St. Peter was, could have observed. And all this is exactly what we should have supposed of St. Peter during this period, a most earnest watchfulness respecting every shade of expression, which might have appeared on our LORD's countenance, and the most apparently trivial of His actions observed, and remembered. For, when he speaks, in his second Epistle, of their "having been eye-witnesses of His majesty," and "having heard the voice of God bearing testi

mony to Him," he speaks like one, who had felt at the time the need of such confirmation, or at all events was much supported by such Divine attestation. And these casual remarks, which have been mentioned, are indications of a state of mind, in which his eyes were intensely bent on "the Son of Man," while GOD the FATHER was gradually revealing to him that, which “flesh and blood had not told." A blessed and high state of faith and acceptance; but we are supposing it to have been something less than that of St. John. The faith of St. John, needing no manifestation, may be compared to that of Abraham, who, requiring no proof of God's favour, as it is more than once recorded, at the place of his sojourn "builded an altar unto the LORD, and called on His name." Whereas the faith of Jacob required some attestation of the Divine Presence with him: "If God will keep me, and I come again to my father's house, then shall the LORD be my God." To acknowledge the indications of God's presence in the proofs He gives us of His favour, is acceptable to Him, but not to need such sensible proofs would appear to be more so.

But to return from this digression. In addition to all that has been said, it must be remarked, that when our LORD was most exposed to the view of the unbelieving multitude, it was, by the Providence of GoD, at a time when His Divinity was most shrouded, as it were, by the veil of human suffering; if it be true (as I think Origen says) that His Divinity was the last truth the perfect man came to know, and CHRIST crucified the first taught. And this is according to the whole analogy of the Gospel narrative, wherein He is drawing first of all "by the cords of a man, with the bands of love," until able to disclose His Godhead. Therefore, they were capable of being forgiven, because "they did it ignorantly," as St. Peter says, and our LORD could pray for them, as "not knowing what they did." Would it otherwise have been the sin against the HOLY GHOST? (I ask not curiously, but for our profit.) Certainly we cannot but be struck with the effects which ensued, when the Divine power was more manifested and acknowledged, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, and in that of the sorcerer.