word but in work? When we object to the use that has been often made of these works, it is only because they have been forcibly severed from the whole complex of Christ's life and doctrine, and presented to the contemplation of men apart from these; it is only because, when on his head who is the Word of God, are "many crowns," (Rev. xxix. 12,) one only has been singled out in proof that he is King of kings, and Lord of lords. The miracles have been spoken of as though they borrowed nothing from the truths which they confirmed, but those truths every thing from them; when indeed the true relation is one of mutual interdependence, the miracles proving the doctrines, and the doctrines approving the miracles, and both held together for us in a blessed unity, in the person of him who spake the words and did the works, and through the impress of highest holiness and of absolute truth and goodness, which that person leaves stamped on our souls ;so that it may be more truly said that we believe the miracles for Christ's sake, than Christ for the miracles' sake. Neither when we thus affirm that the miracles prove the doctrine, and the doctrine the miracles, are we arguing in a circle: rather we are receiving the sum total of the impression which this divine revelation is intended to make on us, instead of taking an impression only partial and one-sided.

*

* See PASCAL's Pensées, c. 27, Sur les Miracles.

Augustine was indeed affirming the same when against the Donatists, and their claims to be workers of wonders he said (De Unit. Eccles., c. 19); Quæcunque talia in catholicâ [ecclesiâ] fiunt, ideo sunt approbanda, quia in catholicâ fiunt, non ideò manifestatur catholica, quia hæc in eâ fiunt,

11

THE MIRACLES.

I.

THE WATER MADE WINE.

JOHN ii. 1-11.

"THIS beginning of miracles" is as truly an introduction to all other miracles which Christ did, as the parable of the Sower is an introduc tion to all other parables which he spoke. (Mark iv. 31.) No other miracle would have had so much in it of prophecy, would have served as so fit an inauguration to the whole future work of the Son of God. For that work might be characterized throughout as an ennobling of the common and a transmuting of the mean-a turning of the water of earth into the wine of heaven. Yet not to anticipate remarks which will find their fitter place, when the circumstances of this miracle have been more fully considered, what is this "third day," which St. John gives as the date of this present miracle? It is generally, and,. 1 believe, correctly answered, the third after the day on which Philip and Nathanael, of whose coming to Christ there is mention immediately before, (i. 43,) had attached themselves to him. He and his newlywon disciples would have passed without difficulty from the banks of Jordan to Cana* in two days, and thus might have been easily present

* Among the most felicitous and most convincing of Robinson's slighter rectifications of the geography of Palestine, (Biblical Researches, v. 3, pp. 204—208,) is that in which he reinstates the true Cana in honors which had long been usurped by another village. It would seem that in the neighborhood of Nazareth are two villages, one of which bears the title of Kefr Kenna, and is about an hour and a half N. E. from Nazareth; the other, Kâna el-Jelil, about three hours' distance, and nearly due

at the "marriage," or, better, the marriage festival, upon the third day after that event. But besides the Lord and his disciples, "the mother of Jesus was there" also. It is most likely, indeed there is every reason to suppose, that Joseph was now dead; the last mention of him occurs on the occasion of the Lord's visit as a child to the Temple; he had died, probably, between that time and Christ's open undertaking of his ministry. The disciples called are commonly taken to be the five* whom he had so lately gathered, Andrew and Peter, Philip and Nathanael, (Bartholomew?) and the fifth, the Evangelist himself. For St. John is generally considered to have been the second of the two scholars of the Baptist mentioned i. 35, 40, of whom Andrew was the other, both from all the circumstances being detailed with so great minuteness, and it being so much in his manner to keep back his own personality under such language as there is used (xiii. 23; xviii. 15; xix. 26, 35). If this was so, he would then be an eye-witness of the miracle which he is relating.f

north. The former, which has only greater nearness in its favor, is now always shown by the monks and other guides to travellers as the Cana of our history, though the name can only with difficulty be twisted to the same, the Kefr having first to be dropped altogether; and in Kenna, the first radical changed and the second left out; while "Kâna el-Jelil" is word for word the "Cana of Galilee" of Scripture, which exactly so stands in the Arabic version of the New Testament. In addition, he decisively proves that the mistake is entirely modern, since it is only since the sixteenth century that Kefr Kenna has thus borne away the honors due rightly to Kâna el-Jelil Till then, as he shows by numerous references to a line of earlier travellers and topographers reaching through many centuries, the latter was ever considered as the scene of this first miracle of our Lord. It may have helped to further the mistake, and to win for it an easier acceptance, that it was manifestly for the interest of guides and travellers, who would spare themselves fatigue and distance, to accept the other in its room, it lying directly on one of the routes between Nazareth and Tiberias, and being far more accessible than the true. The Cana of the New Testament does not occur in the Old, but is mentioned twice by Josephus, who also takes note of it as in Galilee. (Vita, § 16, 64; Bell. Jud., 1. 1, c. 17, § 5.) The Old Testament has only Kanah in Asher, (Josh. xix. 28,) S. E. of Tyre.

* Yet later considerations on the first miraculous draught of fishes will leave it not unlikely that “disciples” here may mean only the two among the five who do not appear there, namely, Philip and Nathanael.

A late tradition makes St. John not merely an eye-witness, but to have been himself the bridegroom at this marriage, who, seeing the miracle which Jesus did, forBook the bride and followed him. The author of the Prologue to St. John, attributed to St. Jerome, relates: Joannem nubere volentem à nuptiis per Dominum fuisse vocatum, though without more close allusion to this miracle. The Mahometans have received this tradition, that St. John was the bridegroom, from the Christians. (See D'HERBELOT'S Biblioth. Orient., s. v. Johanna.) Nicephorus tells the story with this variation, that it was not St. John, but Simon the Canaanite who on this hint fol

We need not wonder to find the Lord of life at that festival; for he came to sanctify all life-its times of joy, as its times of sorrow; and all experience tells us, that it is times of gladness, such as this was now, which especially need such a sanctifying power, such a presence of the Lord. In times of sorrow, the sense of God's presence comes more naturally out in these it is in danger to be forgotten. He was there, and by his presence there struck the key-note to the whole future tenor of his ministry. He should not be as another Baptist, to withdraw himself from the common paths of men, a preacher in the wilderness: but his should be at once a harder and a higher task, to mingle with and purify the common life of men, to witness for and bring out the glory which was hidden in its every relation.* And it is not perhaps without its significance, that this should have been especially a marriage, which he "adorned and beautified with his presence and first miracle that he wrought." He foresaw that some hereafter should arise in his Church who would despise marriage, or if not despise, yet fail to give the Christian family all its honor. They should find no countenance from him.‡

lowed Jesus; but the Kavavírns attached to his name, (Matt. x. 4,) and which is probably the only foundation for this assumption, does not mean, of Cana, but rather is of the same significance as Zn2wrns, the title which elsewhere (Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13) is given him. He had belonged to these zealots till his zeal for freedom, which hitherto had shown itself in those stormy and passionate outbreaks of the natural man, found its satisfaction in him who came to make free indeed. Yet see what Mr. Greswell says, (Dissert., v. 2, p. 128, seq.,) against taking Znλwrns=Kavavírns.

* Augustine, or another under his name (Serm. 92, Appendix): Nec dedignatus est conversationem hominum, qui usum carnis exceperat. Nec secularia instituta contempsit, qui ad hæc venerat corrigenda. Interfuit nuptiis, ut concordiæ jura firmaret. Tertullian, in his reckless method of snatching at any argument, finds rather a slighting of marriage than an honoring it in the fact that Christ, who was present at so many festivals, was yet present at only one marriage. Or this at least he will find, that since Christ was present but at one marriage, therefore monogamy is the absolute law of the new covenant. His words are strong (De Monogamið, c. 9): Ille vorator et potator homo, prandiorum et cœnarum cum publicanis frequentator, semel apud unas nuptias coenat, multis utique nubentibus. Totiens enim voluit celebrare eas, quotiens et esse.

EPIPHANIUS, Hares., 67. Augustine (In Ev. Joh., Tract. 19): Quod Dominus invitatus venerit ad nuptias, etiam exceptâ mysticâ significatione, confirmare voluit quod ipse fecit.

How precious a witness have we here in the conduct of our Lord against the tendency which our indolence ever favors, of giving up to the world, or still worse, to the devil, any portion or passage of man's life, which, in itself innocent, is capable of being drawn up into the higher world of holiness, as it is in danger of sinking down and coming under the law of the flesh and of the world! How remarkable a contrast does Christ's presence at this wedding feast with his mother and his disciples offer to the manner in which a man even of St. Cyprian's practical strength and energy,