Obrazy na stronie

a consequence, his disciples believed on him.” The work besides its more immediate purpose, had a further end and aim, the confirming their faith, who already believing in him, were therefore the more capable of receiving increase of faith,—of being lifted from faith to faith, from faith in an earthly teacher to faith in an heavenly Lord*. , . It was said at the outset, that this first miracle of our Lord's had its inner mystical meaning. The first miracle of Moses was the turning of water into blood, (Exod. vii. 20,) and that had its own fitness, for the law was a ministration of death and working wratht; but the first miracle of Christ

fruits and representatives of the heathen world. At a later period, indeed, it placed other great moments in his life, moments in which his divine majesty gloriously shone out, in connexion with this festival; such, for instance, as the Baptism, as the feeding of the five thousand, and as this present miracle, which last continually affords the theme to the later writers of the Western Church for the homily at Epiphany, as it gives us the Gospel for one of the Epiphany Sundays. But these secondary allusions belong not to the first introduction of the feast, so that the following passage should have prevented the editors of the new volume of St. Augustine's sermons (Serm. Inediti, Paris. 1842,) from attributing the sermon which contains it (Serm. 38, in Epiph.,) to that Father: Hodiernam diem Ecclesia per orbem celebrat totum, sive quod stella præ ceteris fulgens divitibus Magis parvum non parvi Regis monstravit hospitium, sive quod hodie Christus primum fecisse dicitur signum, quando aquas repente commutavit in vinum, sive quod à Joanne isto die creditur baptizatus et Patris consonà voce Dei filius revelatur. The same mark of a later origin is about several other sermons which they have printed as his. In his genuine, he knows only of the adoration of the wise men as the fact which this festival of the Epiphany commemorates.

* This is plainly the true explanation (in the words of Ammonius, a poobývnu čoégautó Tiva tis eis autòv ziotews,) and not that, which Augustine, (De Cons. Evang., l. 2, c. 17,) for the interests of his harmony, upholds, that they are here called “disciplesby anticipation; because subsequently to the miracle they believed ; (non jamn discipulos, sed qui futuri erant discipuli intelligere debemus ;) as one might say, The apostle Paul was born at Tarsus.

† Yet as Moses has here, where he stands in contrast to Christ, a mutatio in deterius, so in another place, where he stands as his type, he has, like him, a mutatio in melius, (Exod. xiv. 25,) changing the bitter waters to sweet; and so not less Elisha (2 Kin. ii. 19—22); however the more excellent transmutation, which should be not merely the rectifying of qualities already

was a turning of water into wine, and this too was a meet inauguration of the rest, for his was a ministration of life ; he came, bringing joy and gladness, the giver of the true wine that maketh glad the hearts of men.—There is, too, another prophetic aspect under which this turning of the water into wine has been often contemplated, another, though in truth but a different aspect of the same,—that even so should Christ turn the poorer dispensation, the weak and watery elements of the Jewish religion, (Heb. vii. 18,) into richer and nobler, the gladdening wine of an higher faith. The whole Jewish dispensation in its comparative weakness and poverty was aptly symbolized by the water, and only in type and prophecy could it tell of him of the tribe of Judah, who should come “ binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine;" of whom it is said, “ he washed his garments in wine and his clothes in the blood of grapes" (Gen. xlix. 11; cf. John xv. 1); but now by this work of his i he gave token that he had indeed come into the midst of his people, that their joy might be full*. And apart from all

existing, but imparting of new qualities, was reserved for the Son; who was indeed not an ameliorator of the old life of men, but the bringer in of a new life-not a reformer, but a regenerator.

* Corn. à Lapide: Christus ergo initio suæ prædicationis mutans aquam in vinum significabat se legem Mosaicam, instar aquæ insipidam et frigidam, conversurum in Evangelium gratiæ, quæ instar vini est, generosa, sapida, ardens, et efficax. And Bernard, in a pre-eminently beautiful sermon upon this miracle, (Bened. Ed., p. 814,) has in fact the same interpretation : Tunc (aqua) mutatur in vinum, cùm timor expellitur à caritate, et implentur omnia fervoré spiritûs et jucundâ devotione; cf. De Divers., Serm. 18, c. 2; and Eusebius (Dem. Evang., l. 9, c. 8): Súußolov liv tò mapadogov uvotiKwTépov κράματος, μεταβληθέντος εκ της σωματικωτέρας επί την νοεραν και πνευματικήν ευφροσύνην του πιστικού της καινής Διαθήκης κράματος. Augustine is in the same line, when he says (In Ev. Joh., Tract. 9): Tollitur velamen, cùm transieris ad Dominum, ... et quod aqua erat, vinum tibi fit. Lege libros omnes propheticos, non intellecto Christo, quid tam insipidum et fatuum invenies ? Intellige ibi Christum, non solùm sapit quod legis, sed etiam inebriat. He illustrates this from Luke xxiv. 25—27. Gregory the Great, (Hom. 6 in Ezek.,) gives it another turn: Aquam nobis in vinum vertit, quando ipsa historia per allegoriæ mysterium, in spiritalem nobis intelligentiam commutatur.-Before the rise of the Eutychian heresy had made it

T. M.

that is local and temporary, this miracle may be taken as the sign and symbol of all which Christ is evermore doing in the world, ennobling all that he touches, making saints out of sinners, angels out of men, and in the end heaven out of earth, a new paradise of God out of the old wilderness of the world. For the prophecy of the world's regeneration, of the day in which his disciples shall drink of the fruit of the vine new in his kingdom, is eminently here;- in this humble feast, the rudiments of the great festival which shall be at the open setting up of his kingdom—that marriage festival in which he shall be himself the Bridegroom and his Church the bride, that season when his “hour" shall have indeed “come.”

Irenæus* has an interesting passage, in which he puts together this miracle and that of the loaves, and, as I think, contemplates them together as a prophecy of the Eucharist, but certainly sees them as alike witnesses against all Gnostic notions of a creation originally impure. The Lord, he says, might have created with no subjacent material the wine with which he cheered these guests, the bread with which he fed those multitudes; but he rather chose to take his Father's creatures on which to put forth his power, in witness that it was the same God who at the beginning had made the waters and caused the earth to bear its fruits, who did in those last days give by his Son the cup of blessing and the bread of heaven*.

clearly unadvisable to use such terms as κράσις, ανάκρασις, μιξις, to designate the union of the two natures in Christ, or such phrases as Tertullian's Deo mixtus homo, we sometimes find allusions to what Christ here did, as though it were symbolical of the ennobling of the human nature through its being transfused by the divine in his person. Thus Irenæus (1. 5, c. 1, § 3) complains of the Ebionites, that they cling to the first Adam who was cast out of Paradise, and will know nothing of the second, its restorer: Reprobant itaque hi commixtionem vini cælestis, et solam aquam secularem volunt esse. So Dörner (Von der Person Christi, p. 57,) understands this passage: yet it is possible that here may be allusion rather to their characteristic custom of using water alone, instead of wine mingled with water, in the Holy Communion: the passage will even then shew how Irenæus found in the wine and in the water, the apt symbols of the higher and the lower, of the divine and human.

* Con. Hær., 1. 3, c. 11; Chrysostom in like manner, in regard to the Manichæans, Hom. 22 in Joh.

* The account of this miracle by Sedulius is a favourable specimen of his poetry:

Prima suæ Dominus thalamis dignatus adesse
Virtutis documenta dedit; convivaque præsens
Pascere non pasci veniens, mirabile! fusas
In vinum convertit aquas; dimittere gaudent
Pallorem latices ; mutavit læsa [læta ?] saporem
Unda suum, largita merum, mensasque per omnes
Dulcia non nato rubuerunt pocula musto.
Implevit sex ergo lacus hoc nectare Christus,
Quippe ferax qui Vitis erat, virtute colonâ
Omnia fructificans, cujus sub tegmine blando

Mitis inocciduas enutrit pampinus uvas. In very early times it was a favourite subject for Christian art. On many of the old sarcophagi Jesus is seen standing and touching with the rod of Moses, the rod of might which is generally placed in his hand when he is set forth as a worker of wonders, three vessels resting on the ground, three, because in their skill-less delineations the artists could not manage to find room for more. Sometimes he has a roll of writing in his hand, as much as to say, This is written in the Scripture; or the master of the feast is somewhat earnestly rebuking the bridegroom for having kept the good wine till last; having himself tasted, he is giving him the cup to convince him of his error. (MÜNTER, Sinnbild. d. Alt. Christ., v. 2, p. 92.)



[ocr errors]

There is an apparent contradiction in the words that introduce this miracle. It is there said that Jesus “went into Galilee, for he himself testified that a prophet hath no honour in his own country,” and yet Galilee was his own country, and immediately after we are told that the Galilæans “received *,” or gave him honourable welcome. This however is easily got rid of; yet not as Tittmann, and some of the older expositors propose, by making St. John, in fact, to say that the Lord went into Galilee, though he had testified that a prophet was unhonoured at home ; for there is no compelling the words to mean this; nor yet by understanding “ his own country” as Judæa, and then finding in this saying of his an explanation of his retiring from thence into Galilee. This is Origen’s explanation, whom some moderns follow. But the Lord's birth at Bethlehem in Judæa being a fact not generally known, the slight esteem in which he was there held, could not have had in this its ground. Rather we must accept "countryt” as the place where he had been brought up, namely, Nazareth, and then there is here an explanation of his not returning thither, (with a direct allusion to the testimony which he himself had borne in its synagogue, “No prophet is accepted in his own country,” Luke iv. 24); but going in preference to Cana, and other cities of Galilee; "and the Galilæans," as St. John, with an emphasis,

* 'Edégavto, Benevole et honorificè exceperunt; so often elsewhere.

of Natpis, cf. Matt. xiii. 54, 57; Mark vi. 1, 4; Luke iv. 16. Chrysostom (Hom. 35 in Joh.) has this right view of the meaning, with the exception, indeed, of understanding by “his own country,” Capernaum (Luke x. 15,) rather than Nazareth ; euaptúpnoe will then have the sense of a plusq. perf., of which there are several instances in the New Testament.

« PoprzedniaDalej »