feasts let us send our first invitation to him, for when marriages among us shall be entered into in that spirit, there will be fewer divorces in the land.

And now let me say a few words as to the bearing of this narrative on the matter of temperance. Here we must be specially on our guard against running into "the falsehood of extremes." On the one hand, those who have adopted the opinion that it is a positive sin to drink wine in any quantity as a beverage, have come to the conclusion that the wine of this miracle was not in any degree intoxicating. Now, I cannot but respect the motives of all who are seeking earnestly to grapple with the terrible evil of our modern intemperance. But few things do greater harm to a good and noble-and I will even call it a holy-cause, than to attempt to sustain it by an untenable argument, because, when the antagonist has exposed the badness of the argument, he supposes that he has found a good reason for opposing the cause; and just this has been the result in the case beThe wine here produced was the common wine of the country, or, more specifically, just such wine as was usually furnished at marriage feasts, only much better in quality. Now, no one can read the account of the duties of the governor at such a feast on ordinary occasions, or give a correct interpretation to the words of the governor of the feast here, without coming to the conclusion that the wine was such as, if taken in excess, would have produced intoxication. We must not, we dare not, even in support of a good cause, give any other than the true and honest interpretation of the statements of Scripture, and so we must dismiss the idea that this wine was not in any degree exhilarating, but was only grape syrup, and with that must go the other opinion, that it is a positive sin to drink wine in any, even the smallest, quantity.

fore us.

But then, on the other hand, we must beware of running into the opposite extreme. There was a difference between this ordinary Palestinian wine and those alcoholic mixtures which are classed in our day under the generic name of wine, and so the presence of Christ at this feast, and his changing of water into the wine common in Palestine in his day, cannot be held as justifying "the ordinary drinking usages of American society today, with its bars, its wine-shops, its saloons, its beergardens, its fiery wines, and strong liquors, and all their attendant evils." Nothing, either in Scripture or outside of Scripture, justifies these things, and we must use every proper means to do away with them. The true ground on which to advocate total abstinence in these days is to appeal to the drunkard to abstain for his own deliverance, while we expose the sin of his intemperance, and condemn him, in all love, but yet with all decidedness, as much as the drink. Then, inasmuch as he must not be required to abstain alone, we ought to appeal to Christians to imitate the sacrifice of Christ, and to give their wine out of love to those to whom it is a stumbling-block, saying, like Paul, "If meat make my brother to stumble, I will cat no flesh for evermore, that I make not my brother to stumble." "It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth." That is a ground from which no man can be dislodged. I have never known a Christian who did not feel in some degree the force of such an appeal, and the more he had of the Spirit of Christ, the more ready he was to respond to it.

up

Then we can and ought to appeal to the young, on the ground of the danger that lurks in their use of alcoholic

* Abbot's Commentary in loco.

† I Cor viii. 13; Rom xiv. 21.

drinks. We can say to them, that if there be two possible courses of conduct, one of which is attended with danger and the other with none, prudence dictates that the dangerous course should be avoided and the safe one. followed. The only way to turn the edge of that appeal would be to say that there is no danger in the use of these modern drinks. But no one who has the use of his eyes would say that, for the victims of intemperance meet us on every hand. Therefore let every one take the safe course, and so preserve himself from evil, as well as help to deliver the land from that curse which is eating like a cancer into its cities. That is the ground I have always taken in regard to this question, and I see no reason to change it now. Certainly no reason to substitute for it, what I must call an unnatural and incorrect exposition of this miracle. I say nothing now on the legislative department of the subject, for that has no place in the exposition of this miracle, and there can be no effective legislation till public opinion is strong enough to sustain and to enforce it.

II.

THE HEALING OF THE NOBLEMAN'S SON.

John iv. 43-54.

BETWEEN the two miracles wrought by our Lord at Cana of Galilee, some important events in his life occurred. Foremost among these was his visit to Jerusalem, to attend the first Passover of his public ministry. It was on that occasion that he purged the temple courts of "those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves," and also of "the changers of money." Then, too, he had his memorable conversation with Nicodemus, who came to him by night, inquiring into the nature of that teaching which, as he believed, had been so clearly endorsed as divine by the miracles which he wrought. From Jerusalem he passed into the rural portion of Judea, whence, on his route to Galilee, he went through Samaria, and there, at Jacob's Well, met the woman of Sychar, to whom he revealed himself as the Messiah. At the urgent entreaty of the men of the city to which she belonged, he remained among them for two days, preaching the gospel of the kingdom with marvellous success, and after that he came again to Cana. At Jerusalem he did some remarkable miracles, which are not particularly recorded, but which must have produced most impressive results. This is evident, first, from the

46

reference made to them by Nicodemus, when he said,* "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher sent from God, for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him;" and, second, from the statement made in the narrative now before us,† to the effect that "the Galileans received him, having seen all the things that he did at Jerusalem at the feast." It thus appears that, so far from seeking to make a sensation, by heaping miracle upon miracle in their narratives of the life of Christ, the Evangelists have given only a few of the more important of his wonderful works, having regard in their selection not so much to the supernatural element in them, as to the spiritual lessons which they taught, or to the characters of those on whom and for whom they were performed, or to the discourses to the delivery of which they led, and of which sometimes they formed the texts. This fact is of special value, from its bearing on the mythical and legendary hypotheses, by which some have sought to account for the stories of the miracles which are contained in the gospels, and it has not always received the measure of attention to which it is entitled. Myths and legends are said to be formed by accretion, but here the latest of the four Evangelists has deliberately omitted the records of some miracles to which, yet, he refers as having produced very striking results, a procedure altogether unaccountable if his gospel had been formed after the manner outlined either by Strauss or by Renan.

But how does it come that the Evangelist here gives as a reason for Christ's returning to Galilee at this time the proverb to which he thus refers, in the forty-fourth verse: "For Jesus himself testified that a prophet hath no honor in his own country"? Would not that have † John iv. 45.

* John iii. 2.