ment, where God speaks of ".

upon the children

'visiting the iniquity of the fathers (Exod. xx. 5), and from a forgetfulness of Eze. xviii. 20, etc. There are few notions that men seem to cling to so naturally, as the notion that bodily sufferings, and all afflictions, are the direct consequences of sin, and that a diseased or afflicted person must necessarily be a very wicked man. This was precisely the short-sighted view that Job's three friends took up when they came to visit him, and against which Job contended. This was the idea of the people at Melita, when Paul was bitten by a viper, after the shipwreck :-"This man is a murderer." (Acts. xxviii. 4.) This appears to have been at the bottom of the question of the disciples :-"There is suffering; then there must have been sin. Whose sin was it?"

Chrysostom thinks that the disciples remembered our Lord's words to the paralytic whom He healed (chap. v. 14) :-"Thou art made whole sin no more; " and asked now to what sin this man's blindness might be traced. This, however, seems very improbable, considering the length of time between the two miracles.

Hengstenberg observes that the fallacy of supposing that special afflictions are the result of some special sins, "commends itself to low and common spirits by its simplicity and palpableness. It has the advantage of rendering it needless to weep with them that weep. It saves a man from the obligation, when he sees heavy affliction, of smiting on his breast, and saying 'God be merciful to me a sinner.' It gives the natural man the comfortable feeling that he is so much the better than the sufferer, as he is more fortunate."

Those who wish to go more deeply into the subject, will find it fully discussed by the great Dutch divine, Gomarus.

It is worth notice that the word here rendered "Master" is the same that is rendered “Rabbi” in five other places in St. John. (i. 38; i. 49; iii. 2; iii. 26; vi. 25.) Why our translators did not observe uniformity in their translation of the word throughout this Gospel is not very clear.

3.-[Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned... ...parents.] This first part of our Lord's answer is elliptical. The sense of course must be supplied from the context. Our Lord did not mean that neither this blind man nor his parents had committed any sin at all, but that it was not any special sin of his or theirs which had caused his blindness. Nor yet did our Lord mean that the sins of parents could never entail disease on children; but that the case

before Him, at any rate, was not such a case. Of course He did not mean us to forget that sin is the great primeval cause of all the evils that are in the world.

[But that the works of God...manifest in him.] The meaning of this must be, that the man's blindness was permitted and overruled by God, in order that His works of mercy in healing him might be shown to men. This blindness was allowed and ordained by God, not because he was specially wicked, but in order to furnish a platform for the exhibition of a work of Divine mercy and power.

A deep and instructive principle lies in these words. They surely throw some light on that great question,-the origin of evil. God has thought fit to allow evil to exist, in order that He may have a platform for showing His mercy, grace, and compassion. If man had never fallen, there would have been no opportunity of showing Divine mercy. But by permitting evil, mysterious as it seems, God's works of grace, mercy, and wisdom in saving sinners, have been wonderfully manifested to all His creatures. The redeeming of the Church of elect sinners is the means of "showing to prinpalities and powers the manifold wisdom of God." (Ephes. iii. 10.) Without the fall we should have known nothing of the cross and the Gospel.

Melancthon, on this verse, suggests no less than ten reasons why God permits evil to come on the Church, which contain much food for thought. Brentius and Chemnitius also say many excellent things on the same theme.

Bucer remarks that this verse should teach us to bear ills patiently and cheerfully, since all that happens to us tends, in some way, to the glory of God.

Gualter remarks, that even wicked men like Pharaoh subserve the glory of God (Rom ix. 17); much more may men's afflictions and diseases.

Ecolampadius remarks, that God allows nothing whatever to happen without some good reason and cause.

Henry observes, "The intention of Providence often does not appear till a great while after the event, perhaps many years after. The sentences in the book of Providence are sometimes long, and you must read a great way before you understand the meaning."

Jones of Nayland, on this text, remarks, "The best way to answer the great question of the origin of evil, is to consider the

end of it, "what good comes out of it?" this makes the subject plain and useful. Why was this man born blind? That the works of God might appear, and Christ might cure him.—Why did man fall? That God might save him.—Why is evil permitted in the world? That God may be glorified in removing it.— Why does the body of man die? That God may raise it up again.-When we philosophize in this manner we find light, certainty, and comfort. We have a memorable example of it in the case before us." Barnes remarks that, "Those who are afflicted with blindness, deafness, or any deformity, should be submissive to God. It is His appointment, and is right and best. God does no wrong; and when all His works are seen, the universe will see and know that He is just."

4.-[I must work the works, etc.] The connection between this verse and the preceding one, seems to be in the word "works." It is as though our Lord said,—“Healing the blind man is one of the great 'works' which God has appointed for Me to do, and I must do it during the 'day,' or short period of My ministry. This blindness was ordained by My Father to be a means of showing forth My divine power."

The expression "while it is day," and "the night cometh,” must probably be interpreted with special reference to our Lord's ministry upon earth. While He was with His disciples speaking, teaching, and working miracles, it was comparatively "day." His little Church basked in the full sun-light of His Divine presence, and saw and learned countless wonderful things. When He ascended up on high it became comparatively "night." Just as in night “no man can work," so when Christ left the world the visible proof of His Divine mission, which the disciples had so long enjoyed and seen, could no longer be given. The proverbial saying, "No man can work in the night," would be verified.

These limits to the application of the figure must be carefully remembered. Of course our Lord did not mean that the Church, after His ascension, would not enjoy far more spiritual light than it did before He came; nor yet that the disciples, after the day of Pentecost, would not see many truths far more clearly even than when Christ was with them. But the words "day and night" here have a special reference to our Lord's bodily presence with His Church. As long as He was visibly with them it was "day." When He left them it was "night." "9 It is well to remark that St. Paul uses the same figures when comparing time present with time to come, at the second advent. He says, "The night is far

spent, and the day is at hand." (Rom. xiii. 12.) There the night is Christ's bodily absence, and the day Christ's bodily presence.

Melancthon points out what an example Christ supplies to Christians in this place. The hatred, opposition, and persecution of the world, and the failures and infirmities of professing Christians, must not make us give way to despondency. Like our Master, we must work on.

Calvin observes: "From these words we may deduce the universal rule, that to every man the course of his life may be called his day."

Beza and others think that there is a primary prophecy here of the withdrawal of light and privilege from the Jews, which was in the mind of our Lord, as well as the general principle that to all men day is the time for work and not night.

5.-[As long as I am in the world, etc.] This verse seems to be a general broad assertion of our Lord's purpose in coming into the world, and His position while in it. "I came into the world to be its Sun and spiritual Guide, and to deliver men from the natural darkness in which they are; and so long as I am in the world I wish to be its Light in the fullest sense, the Deliverer of men's souls and the Healer of men's bodies."

Cocceius suggests, that in these words our Lord had respect to the fact that He was going to work a work on the Sabbath, and that it would be disapproved by the Jews, as a breach of the Sabbath. Foreseeing this, He defends what He is about to do, by reminding His disciples that during the short time of His earthly ministry He must seize every opportunity of doing good.

Alford observes, that just as Jesus said before He raised Lazaras, "I am the Resurrection and the Life," so here, before giving sight to the blind, He said, "I am the Light."

6.-[When...thus spoken...spat...anointed... clay.] The action here used by our Lord is the same that we find used on two other occasions, once when He healed one deaf and dumb (Mark vii. 33); once when He healed a blind man. (Mark viii. 23.) The making of the "clay," however, is quite peculiar to this miracle. The reason why our Lord used the action we cannot tell. There is, of course, no special virtue either in spittle, or in clay made from spittle, which could cure a man born blind. Why then did Jesus use this means? Why did He not heal the man with a word or a touch?

The only answer to such inquiries is, that our Lord would teach

M

us, by His peculiar mode of proceeding here, that He is not tied to any one means of doing good, and that we may expect to find variety in His methods of dealing with souls, as well as with bodies. May He not also wish to teach us that He can, when He thinks fit, invest material things with an efficacy which is not inherent in them? We are not to despise Baptism and the Lord's Supper, because water, bread, and wine are mere material elements. To many who use them, no doubt they are nothing more than mere material things, and never do them the slightest good. But to those who use the sacraments rightly, worthily, and with faith, Christ can make water, bread, and wine, instruments of doing real good. He that was pleased to use clay in healing a blind man may surely use material things, if He thinks fit, in His own ordinances. The water in Baptism, and the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, while they are not to be treated as idols, ought not to be treated with irreverence and contempt. It was, of course, not the clay that healed the blind man, but Christ's word and power. Nevertheless the clay was used. So the brazen serpent in itself had no medicinal power to cure the bitten Israelites. But without it they were not cured.

The selection of clay for anointing the blind man's eyes is thought by some to be significant, and to contain a possible reference to the original formation of man out of the dust. He that formed man with all his bodily faculties out of the dust could easily restore one of those lost faculties, even sight, when He thought fit. He that healed these blind eyes with clay, was the same Being who originally formed man out of the clay.

Ecolampadius thinks that the spittle was an emblem of Christ's Divinity, and the clay of His humanity, and that the union of the two represented the union of the two natures in Christ's person, whereby healing came to a sin-sick world. To say the least, this seems fanciful.

Barradius suggests that our Lord actually formed new eyes for the man, as He at first formed man's body out of the dust. This however seems needlessly improbable.

Poole thinks that our Lord used spittle to make clay, simply because there was no water nigh at hand to make it with.

Wordsworth observes that Christ's manner of working the miracle was "tenderness to the Jews. They would see the clay on the man's eyes, and see him going to Siloam."

He also observes, "God loves to effect His greatest works by means tending under ordinary circumstances to produce the very