and unwarranted multiplication of miracles, to assume that the stater was created for the occasion,* and it is in fact a stepping out of the re gion of miracle altogether into that of absolute creation; for in the miracle, as distinguished from the act of pure creation, there is always a nature-basis to which the divine power which works the wonder, more or less closely links itself. That divine power which dwelt in Christ, restored, as in the case of the sick and blind; it multiplied, as the bread in the wilderness; it ennobled, as the water at Cana; it quickened, as Lazarus and others; it brought together, as here, by wonderful coincidences, the already existing; but, as far as we can see, it formed no new limbs; it made no bread, no wine, out of nothing; it created no new men: it did not, as far as our records reach, pass over on any one occasion into the region of absolute creation.t The allegorical interpretations, or rather uses, of this miracle, for they are seldom meant for more, have not in them much to attract, neither that of Clement, with which Theophylact mainly agrees, that each skilful fisher of men will, like Peter, remove the coin of pride and avarice and luxury, from the mouth of them whom they have drawn up by the hook of the Gospel from the waste waters of the world; nor yet that which St. Ambrose brings forward, wherein the stater plays. altogether a different, indeed, an opposite part; nor has Augustine's|| more to draw forth our assent. The miracle is rich enough already in meaning and in teaching, without our seeking to press it further. * So does Seb. Schmidt, (Fascic. Diss., p. 796.) Chrysostom (Hom. 87 in Joh.) has a like explanation of the fish which the disciples find ready upon the shore (John xxi. 9); in the same way many assume that Christ not merely gave sight to, but made organs of vision for, the man who was born blind. (John ix.) The accounts are numerous of precious things being found in the bellies of fishes. The story of Polycrates' ring is well known; (HEROD., 1. 3, c. 42;) and in Jewish legend Solomon, having lost his ring of power, recovered it in the same unexpected way. (EISENMENGER'S Entdeckt. Judenth., v. 1, p. 360.) Augustine (De Civ. Dei, 1. 22, c. 8) gives the account of a like incident in his own day, in which he sees a providential dealing of God to answer the prayer, and supply the need, of one of his servants. same. Pædag., 1. 2, v. 1, p. 172, Potter's ed. Cf. ORIGEN, Comm. in Matth., for the § Hexaëm., 1. 5, c. 6: Ideò misit retia, et complexus est Stephanum, qui de Evangelio primus ascendit [róv ávаßúvта πрāтоv] habens in ore suo staterem justitiæ. Unde confessione constanti clamavit, dicens: Ecce video cœlos apertos, et Filium hominis stantem ad dexteram Dei. So HILARY, Comm. in Matth., in loc. | Enarr. in Ps. cxxxvii. 8: Primum surgentem de mari, primogenitum à mortuis; for by him, he says, with the error which runs through his whole interpretation, ab exactione hujus seculi liberamur. XXIX. THE RAISING OF LAZARUS. JOHN xi. 1-54. THE fact of this miracle being passed over altogether by the first three their existence long years after. The tide of things had swept onward; new objects of hostility had arisen :-not to say that if there was danger, and if the danger would have been thus augmented, yet Lazarus was now a Christian, and would not have shrunk from that danger, nor would those who truly loved him have desired to save him from the post of honorable peril. For what else would it have been, but to have shrunk from confessing Christ, for him to have desired that a work which revealed so much of the glory of the Lord should remain untold, lest some persecution or danger might from the telling accrue to himself? Others again, feeling this explanation to be insufficient, have observed how the three earlier Evangelists have confined themselves almost entirely to the miracles that the Lord wrought in Galilee, leaving those wrought in Jerusalem and its neighborhood nearly untouched, and that so they came to omit this.* It is perfectly true that they did so. But this is not explaining, it is only stating in other words the fact which has to be explained; and the question still remains, Why they should have done so? and to this it is difficult to find now the satisfactory answer. In the house of Martha at Bethany, for St. Luke (x. 38) speaks of her as if alone the mistress of the house, the Lord had often found a hospitable reception; and not in the house only; he had found too a place in the hearts of the united and happy family which abode under that roof; and he loved with a peculiar human affection "Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus." It was to Bethany, after the day's task was over in the hostile city, that probably he was often wont to retire for the night; (Mark xi. 11-19;) its immediate nearness to the city,-it * Thus NEANDER, Leben Jesu, p. 357. Here, as throughout the Evangelical history, there is an exceeding scantiness in all the circumstantial notices concernig the persons mentioned; that only being related which was absolutely necessary to make the history intelligible; and all attention being directed to the portraying the spiritual life and what bore upon this. Whether Martha was an early widow, with whom her sister, and Lazarus, a younger brother, resided, or what other may have been the constitution of the household, it is impossible to determine.-I cannot at all consent with Mr. Greswell's ingenious essay, On the village of Martha and Mary, (Dissert., v. 2, p. 545,) of which the aim is to prove that in St. John's designation of Lazarus, ¿ñò Вŋðavíaç means one thing, the present place of his residence, and ἐκ τῆς κώμης Μαρίας καὶ Μάρθας another, the village of his birth, which he accounts to have been some Galilæan village, where the Lord had before been entertained by the sisters, (Luke x. 38,) and from whence they had migrated to Bethany, during the later period of his ministry;-well worthy as the essay is of perusal. was not more than fifteen furlongs distant, allowing him to return thither betimes in the morning. And in the circle of this family, with Mary, who "sat at his feet and heard his words," with Martha, who was only divided between this and the desire to pay as much outward honor as she could to her divine guest, with Lazarus his friend, we may think of him as often wont to find rest and refreshment, after a day spent amid the contradiction of sinners, and among the men who daily mistook and wrested his words. But now there has fallen a cloud upon this happy household of love; for not they even whom Christ loves are exempt from their share of earthly trouble and anguish; rather are they bound over to it the more surely. Lazarus is sick; and the sisters in their need turn to him, whom, it may be, they have themselves proved to be a helper in every time of trouble, whom at any rate they have beheld to be such in the extremest needs of others. He is at a distance, beyond Jordan, probably at Bethabara, having withdrawn thither from the fury of his adversaries; (John x. 39, 40; cf. John i. 28;) but the place of his conceal. ment, or retirement rather, is known to the friendly family, and they send a messenger with these tidings, "Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." Very beautiful is it to observe their confidence in him; they take it for granted that this announcement will be sufficient, and say no more; they do not urge him to come; they only tell their need, as being sure that this will be enough; he does not love, and forsake them whom he loves.* It is but a day's journey from Bethabara to Bethany, so that they securely count that help will not tarry long. The words with which the Lord receives the message, and which we are to take as spoken, in the hearing indeed of the apostles, yet primarily to the messenger, and for him to bring back to them that sent him, "This sickness is not unto death," are purposely enigmatical, and must have greatly tried the faith of the sisters. For by the time that the messenger returned, it is probable that Lazarus was already dead. Sorely therefore must this confident assurance that the issue of the sickness should not be death, have perplexed them. Could it be that their divine friend had deceived them, or had been himself deceived? Why had he not made the issue certain by himself coming, or, if aught had hindered that, by speaking that word which even at a distance was effectual to heal, that word which he had spoken for others, for those * Augustine (In Ev. Joh., Tract. 40): Non dixerunt, Veni. Amanti enim tantummodò nuntiandum fuit....Sufficit ut noveris; non enim amas, et deseris. + IIpòs Oávarov. So 1 John v. 16; cf. 1 Kin. xvii. 17; and 2 Kin. xx. 1 (LXX.), where of Hezekiah it is said, ηῤῥώστησεν εἰς θάνατον. that were well nigh strangers to him, and they had been saved? But as with so many other of the divine promises, which seem to us for the moment to come to nothing and utterly to fail, and this because we so little dream of the resources of the divine love, and are ever limiting them by our knowledge of them, so was it with this word,-a perplexing riddle, till the event had made it plain. Even now, in the eyes of him who saw the end from the beginning, that sickness was not unto death; as they too should acknowledge that it was not, when they should find that death was not to be its last issue, but only a moment of transition to a restored, and a higher life than any which yet Lazarus had lived; a higher life, for when Christ declares the meaning of that sickness, that it was "for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby," he certainly includes in this "glory of God" the perfecting for Lazarus of his own spiritual being, as we cannot doubt that it was perfected through these wondrous events of his existence. This was his hard yet blessed passage into life. That which was the decisive crisis in his spiritual development was also a signal moment in the gradual revelation of the glory of Christ unto the world. The Son of God was first glorified in Lazarus, and then on him, and through him to the world. (Compare the exact parallel, John ix. 2, 3.) It has been sometimes proposed to connect ver. 5 with what goes before, so making it to contain an explanation of the message, and of the ready confidence which the sisters show in the Lord's help; or sometimes, as by Olshausen, with the verse following; and then St. John will be bringing out into the strongest contrast the Lord's love to the distressed family at Bethany, and his tarrying notwithstanding for two days where he was, even after the message claiming his help had reached him. The Evangelist will in that case be suggesting to the thoughtful reader all that is involved in this love which waited so long, ere it would step in to save. But I am inclined to think that Maldonatus has caught a truer view of the sequence of thought, when he connects this verse not with the one, but with the two which follow. He understands St. John to say, Jesus loved Martha and the others; when therefore he heard that Lazarus was sick, he abode indeed two days where he was, but "then after that saith he to his disciples, Let us go into Judea again." To conceive any other reason for his tarrying where he was those two days, than that he might have room to work that great miracle, is highly unnatural. Sometimes it has been assumed that he had in hand some great work for the kingdom of God where he was, some work which would not endure to be left, and which therefore he could not quit for the most pressing calls of private friendship. (See x. 41, 42.) But he could have healed with his word at a distance as easily as |