lates merely to the order of ideas themselves. But the belief in miracles is implied in the argument against them; and, therefore, that argument is suicidal, and carries its own refutation along with it.

"But independently of the reductio ad absurdum, which Hume's own philosophy affords against his favorite argument, and which is undermined by the very system from which it springs, it may be observed, that it contains within itself a complication of blunders, more numerous, perhaps, than ever was crowded into the same brief space. The argument of Hume against miracles is as follows:- A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; but we learn from experience that the laws of nature are never violated. Our only accounts of miracles depend upon testimony; and our belief in testimony itself depends upon experience. But experience shows that testimony is sometimes true, and sometimes false; therefore, we have only a variable experience in favor of testimony. But we have a uniform experience in favor of the uninterrupted course of nature. Therefore, as on the side of miracles there is but a variable experience, and on the side of no miracles a uniform experience, it is clear that the lower degree of evidence must yield to the higher degree; and, therefore, no testimony can prove a miracle to be true.'

Every one who has attacked this sophistry, has pointed out a new flaw in it, and they are scarcely yet exhausted. Paley showed that it was necessary to demonstrate that there was no God, previously to demonstrating that there could be no miracles. Campbell showed, that so far from belief in testimony being founded on experience alone, that it was diffidence in testimony that we acquire by experience. Others have pointed out the sophism in the double sense of the word 'experience,' and the confusing of the experience of a particular individual with the universal experience of mankind; for, to assert that miracles are contrary to experience in the last sense, is most pitifully to beg the question. Others have observed upon the complete misapprehension of the argument of Tillotson, and upon the sophism in the use of the word 'contrary; for, as it is a begging of the question to say that miracles are contrary to the experience of mankind, so it is a sophism to say that they are contrary to the experience of Mr. Hume himself, unless he had been personally present, at the time and place when and where all the miracles recorded in the Bible are said to have been wrought, from the days of Moses to the time of our Saviour. Our experience, so far from being contrary to miracles, is decidedly in favor of them." Both our reason and our experience are altogether in favor of the veracity of testimony, where there is no motive to deceive, and no possibility of being deceived. Such was the case with the apostles. Their personal experience, and that of many others, is invincibly in favor of miracles. There is no experience, no, not even of a single individual, against miracles. No one was ever placed in the situation where miracles might reasonably be expected, to whom miracles were not vouchsafed. Thus, so far from miracles being contrary to experience, the whole range of experience we possess is altogether, and without one solitary exception, in favor of miracles.

66

But, to take entirely new ground, miracles, philosophically speaking, are not violations of the laws of nature. The miracles of the Bible, which are the only true miracles, so far from being violations of nature, are as natural as the lifting up a stone from the ground, or impelling a

vessel along the waves by the stroke of an oar. None would call it a violation of the laws of nature when human agents set a body in motion, which was previously at rest, and which would have remained at rest without their interference; still less can it be called a violation of the laws of nature, when the Divine Agent, who is the lawgiver of nature, impresses an additional force upon creation, and gives a new direction to its movements. But it would be endless to go over all the variety of mistakes which are involved in the sophistry against miracles, and to point out the many vulgar and unphilosophical notions which are implied in Hume's reasonings both concerning 'nature' and her 'inviolable laws." "-DOUGLAS' Errors regarding Religion, Part vi., pp. 231-235.

EXPOSITION XXI.

THE WASHING OF THE APOSTLES' FEET, AND ITS IMPORT.

JOHN XIII. 1-17.

THIS paragraph of the gospel history, is occupied with a very remarkable manifestation of the love of our Lord to his chosen disciples, the stooping to perform to them the office of a menial servant, in washing their feet. They were now assembled with him in an upper chamber, in Jerusalem, for the purpose of eating the passover. Before, and as it appears immediately before, observing this ordinance (for almost all interpreters are now agreed, that the words rendered "supper being ended," signify, 'supper being now come,' or 'prepared"), he gave them this most instructive and touching proof of his self-sacrificing affection for them. He was aware that his hour was come, when he should depart out of this world unto the Father. It was but a very little time now that he was to be with them in the world. He was on the very eve of commencing his wondrous journey, down to the depths of the grave, up to the throne of God; and whither he went, they could not then follow him, though they were to follow him afterwards. They were still to continue for a season in the world, while he left it and went to the Father. They were "his own," given him by his Father, chosen by himself,-his constant companions, his familiar friends, the objects of his peculiar affection, the subjects of his saving benefits. He had "foved" them, that is, he had cherished and manifested towards them, during the whole period of his connection with them, in innumerable ways, a tender and distinguishing affection; and in the singularly interesting incident recorded in the passage before us, he showed that this tender and distinguishing affection continued unabated to the very close of the period of his being with them in the world,— "he loved them to the end." He "rested in his love."

Having taken his place with them at the table, on which had been placed the paschal lamb, the memorial of one glorious redemption, and the typical emblem of another infinitely more glori ous, he said to them, "With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God."

And taking "the cup," with which it was usual to begin the paschal feast, he said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

These declarations of our Lord concerning the immediate establishment of his kingdom, being understood by the disciples according to the views generally entertained by the Jews of the nature of Messiah's reign, led to a very unseemly strife among them, which should be accounted the greatest in that kingdom. Instead of sharply rebuking them, as they well deserved, he marked his disapprobation of their views and conduct, by a most overwhelming manifestation of the nature and the extent of his affection towards them.

The circumstances in which our Lord was at that moment placed, are strikingly brought before our mind by the evangelist. The plan for his being delivered up into the hands of his enemies by a traitorous disciple, was fast maturing-and he was perfectly aware of it—" the devil having now put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him." The truth, that "the Father had committed all things to him,"-had intrusted him with the redemption of a lost world, with all the glories of His character, all the interest of His government as involved in this,— and with all the power and authority that are necessary to enable him successfully to execute so high a trust,-that "he had come forth from God," not only sent by Him, but come from Him, from his bosom, and that, through the appointed way of a complete expiation of the sins of men, by intense sufferings, bodily and mental, and a violent death, thus doing the will of God in the sacrifice of himself, he was just about to return to his Father, and receive the rich reward of his generous interposition;-this truth was full before his mind.

It was in these circumstances, external and internal, when the intense inward suffering, and the clear prospect of unparalleled agonies, both of soul and body, just at hand, united with the most undoubting anticipation of triumph in the fearful conflict in which he was engaged, and of a recompense which should satisfy him for all the travail of his soul, discovered in the most sublime manner, the re-union of the human and the divine in the Redeemer, it was in these circumstances, that he stood up to show to his disciples, and to all succeeding generations of men, in an emblematic action, as remarkable for its beautiful simplicity, as for its profound significance, the mystery of true human greatness, to teach what it is to be "great in the kingdom of God." "He arose from the table, laid aside his upper garments,' assumed the form of a servant, "taking a towel and girding himself; and having poured water into a basin, he began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded."" Wonder, O heavens! Be astonished, O earth!" He into whose hands the Father hath committed all things,-he 3 John xiii. 2. 4 John xiii. 3. 6 John xiii. 4, 5.

5 Tholuck.

who came from God, he who is just about to return to God,he who is fully aware of all this, in the guise of a servant, washes the feet of men,-of sinful men,-of publicans and fishermen ! In this action, there seems to be given, as it were, a miniature exhibition, representative of the saving work of Christ. Being in the form of God,-robed in all the glories of Godhead,he "emptied himself," as the apostle has it,-laid aside these glories so far as they could be laid aside, took on him the form of a servant, and in that form he humbled himself, stooping to the lowest offices; and all that men, being washed by him, might have part in him,-being made sharers in his holiness, might be made sharers of his happiness.

Our Lord's corduct must have amazed his disciples, and their wonder must have been mixed with shame; for, though they very imperfectly apprehended the meaning of his actions, they could not but see that they embodied in them a rebuke of their worldly ambition. Feelings of reverence and shame kept the great body of them silent; and probably not unreluctantly, but unresistingly, they allowed their venerated and loved Master to act to them the part of a servant.

But, on coming to Peter, that disciple, with characteristic impetuosity of temper, manifested an indisposition to submit to receive, what it seemed to him degradation in his Master to offer. "Lord," said he, "dost thou wash my feet?" Thou the Christ-the Son of the living God; I, a poor fisherman-a sinful man. For thee to regard me with benignity-to allow me to be one of thy chosen followers-to bestow on me any favor, any token of kindness-is inconceivable condescension; but to wash my feet, surely that is to forget the relation we bear to each other. That be far from thee, Lord.'

"What I do," said the Saviour, with meek modesty-" What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shall know hereafter." As if he had said, 'The design of my apparently unaccountable procedure will be explained in good time. Meanwhile, it is your duty to submit to my will, to comply with my command.'

Had Peter now yielded cheerful implicit obedience to his Master, we could not have blamed severely his expression of amazement at so strange a proposal, and his reluctance to comply with so strange a request; but, instead of this, he obstinately refuses compliance with the clearly-announced will of his Lord. "Thou shalt never," said he, "wash my feet."

Peter, in uttering these words, no doubt thought they were an expresssion of humility; but the feeling which dictated them indicated, in more than one point of view, the unsuspected power of a directly opposite principle. Humility would have prevented him from setting his views of propriety in opposition to the distinctly-indicated will of his Lord, and from even, by insinuation, intimating that he had a higher respect for his Master than his brethren had, since, though they might forget their place, he

7 John xiii 6.

8 John xiii. 7.

• John xiii. 8.