behind, and is therefore for a season unobserved, and shed such a flood of penitential tears as wetted his feet. She then wiped them with her flowing tresses, and anointed them with the balsam, once probably used on her own person, not thinking herself worthy to pour it upon his head. Simon, looking at this woman's past life, not at her present feelings, began to form an unfavourable opinion of Jesus, for he concluded, judging from himself and other Pharisees, that if he had been a prophet, he must have known her character, and would not have suffered her to approach him. But Jesus answered to his thoughts, for he does not seem to have expressed them, in a way that shewed him to be more than an ordinary teacher, a discerner of the heart, and authorized to forgive sin. Had he directly remonstrated with the Pharisee upon his pride and disdain of this penitent, he would have only irritated and hardened him; but his indirect reproof was calculated to convince and to affect without affronting him. The creditor in the parable represents our Lord himself; the two debtors different descriptions of sinners, who are both guilty, though not in the same degree, and who have no power in any measure to discharge their debt; that is, to atone for their sins. The case being put in the form of a question, Simon allowed that the greater debtor would have the deeper sense of his obligation. Jesus having approved of the answer, proceeded to apply it, and contrasted this woman's conduct with his cold reception of him. Simon had not treated him with ordinary respect; he had not welcomed him with the usual salutation of a kiss, nor anointed his head with common oil; whereas she had kissed his feet, and anointed them with fragrant and costly balsam. She had been forgiven many sins, and therefore she loved much. "For she loved much," is our own and the Vulgate translation; and it must be allowed that or is usually so rendered. But as it appears that this sinner's love was the effect and evidence, not the cause of her forgiveness, which our Lord ascribes to faith, "therefore" is preferable, which, though uncommon, is not without authority. This best ac

cords with the conclusion of his speech, "but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little." This seems to have been spoken aside to Simon, for Jesus says afterwards to the woman, "Thy sins are forgiven thee;" and when the guests are offended at his assuming this divine prerogative, he confirms his declaration by observing, that it is her faith that has saved her. She required no bodily cure, he must therefore have meant the salvation of the soul.

Tradition reports, that the sinner who anointed our Saviour's feet at the Pharisee's entertainment was Mary of Magdala, and hence she is become, as it were, in the Roman church, the personification of female penitence. As such, she is a favourite subject with their artists; and in our own country her name has been assigned to a benevolent asylum, provided by Christian philanthropy for women who have deviated from chastity. For this opinion there is certainly no scriptural authority, for she is there only described as possessed with many devils, which are not in any other instance taken to mean sins; nor is there any reason to suppose, that if she had been this woman, the Evangelist would have concealed her name. This portion of Scripture has been selected for the Gospel on St. Mary Magdalene's day, and the Collect in our original Prayer Book has been composed in conformity with this tradition. Within three years, however, this Prayer Book was revised, and among its numerous alterations was the entire omission of this festival; from which we may conclude, that in the interval our Reformers had satisfied themselves, that Mary of Magdala and this sinner had been erroneously assumed to be the same person.

42. Jesus cures a demoniac, and, being accused of confederacy with the devil, declares that all reviling is pardonable, except that of the Holy Spirit. Matt. ix. Mark iii. Luke viii.

JESUS now made another circuit of Galilee, accompanied by his Apostles, and several women, who had been cured by him of diseases and of demoniacal possession; and some of

them, being persons of property, defrayed his expences; for he not only, as he told a person who offered to become his disciple, had, strictly speaking, no home of his own, but was unable even to pay the tribute money to the temple without a miracle, to such a depth of poverty did it graciously please him to condescend. Three of them are named, Susannah, Joanna, the wife of Chusa, a person of some distinction in Herod's court, conjectured to be the officer whose son was miraculously cured", John iv. 46, and Mary of Magdala. From her being mentioned with Joanna, we conclude that she was also a person of rank and property, and neither the sinner who anointed his feet, nor the sister of Lazarus. On his return to Capernaum, when the eagerness of the multitude to hear him did not give him leisure for his meals, his relations were so far from believing in him, that they wished to keep him within the house, considering him as disordered in mind.

His cure of a demoniac, who was at once both blind and dumb, being an indisputable fact, occasioned the malignant charge, that he performed miracles through a confederacy with Satan. He repels it, by showing that he came to deliver men from subjection to evil spirits; and that Satan's kingdom must be subverted in proportion as his was established. From the fact of his ejecting demons, he demonstrates the superiority of his power to theirs; illustrating it by the remark, that no one could break into and rob a strong man's house, unless he first overpowered and bound him. And as he came to destroy the works of the devil, the case admitted not of neutrality, but those that refused to act with him must be accounted as his enemies. He added, that every kind of sin and reviling was pardonable, except one-blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. It is frequently, but improperly, called the sin against the Holy Ghost, and this inaccuracy has a tendency to augment the alarm which is raised at the

b'Exirgoros, which is also translated steward, is a word of wider extent than oixovóuos, (which answers more accurately to the English term,) and may mean any kind of superintendence.

mention of an unpardonable offence. It is blasphemy, and this limits it to something not done but spoken. Few passages have more alarmed and distressed conscientious yet weak believers, than this awful denunciation; yet taken, as all Scripture ought to be, in connection with the context, we perceive that it was primarily designed as a warning to these his personal opponents, and cannot be committed by any who believe in Christ, though they may grieve, resist, and even quench the influence of the Holy Ghost, by provoking him to leave them to themselves. Hammond, Tillotson, Waterland, and other eminent divines, are of opinion, that our Lord means the very sin which his enemies were then committing, the ascribing his miracles to the devil; and I apprehend they are supported by the authority of Mark, for he adds as a comment, "because they said he had an unclean spirit." It is thus paraphrased by Whitby, and Scott approves of the explanation. "You represent me as one who casts out devils by Beelzebub, and you will still go on to represent me as a deceiver of the people; but, notwithstanding, this grievous sin shall be forgiven, if that last dispensation of the Holy Ghost, which I shall send after my ascension, shall prevail upon you to believe in me; but if, after sending him to testify to the truth of my mission and resurrection, you shall blaspheme him by representing him as an evil spirit, your sin shall never be pardoned." The two senses nearly coincide, and the guilt seems to differ only in degree, the second being an obstinate and wilful perseverance in the first. Upon either supposition, the persons thus solemnly admonished were eyewitnesses of facts, which they themselves allowed to be miracles; they were also works, not only of supernatural power, but of benevolence; and he who will not recognize in them their real author, but deliberately ascribes them to diabolical agency, seems to have sinned beyond the reach of forgiveness, since he insults and reviles the only Being who can bring his mind into such a frame as to be a fit object of mercy. Infidels of modern times have miracles only upon testimony, and do not ascribe them to an evil spirit, but only

call in question their reality. The difference, therefore, of guilt is one not of degree but of kind; the one being the offence of the understanding, the other of the heart; still, if the rejected stone become the head of the corner, shall grind the latter to powder, the former who falls upon it shall be broken. Whether or not the most offensive kind of modern disbelief, which reviles the moral character of our immaculate Redeemer, may come under this tremendous condemnation, must be left for his decision, who knoweth the secrets of the heart, and can alone appreciate the temptations of individuals. Some we know have been reclaimed from the lowest depths of infidelity; and we may be sure, that none, however deep his guilt hath been, who believes and repents, can have committed this unpardonable offence; for genuine repentance and faith are inseparably connected with forgiveness, and being themselves the gift of God, would never be bestowed on those he had determined not to pardon. They who fear having committed it, are generally at the farthest distance from it, while those (if we may presume to form an opinion of their probable future lot) who seem to approach it are fearless, and well satisfied with their conduct, promising themselves, if they believe in another life, an eternity of happiness. Our Lord adds, that though this species of slander is alone unpardonable, none can be practised with impunity, for an account must be given at the day of judgment, not only of sinful actions, but of every wicked speech.

43. The Scribes and Pharisees are reproved for requiring a sign from heaven. Matt. xii. Luke xi.

THE Pharisees, intimating thereby that the miracles they were in the habit of seeing were not satisfactory, as they might be performed through collusion with the devil, de

© 'Pñμa ágyà”, “ idle word," which by a common euphemism is put for pernicious or injurious: for which meaning of the word we have the decisive authority of the Classics and the Greek Fathers; and this is confirmed by the various reading wongóv. But though this seems to suit the context better than merely trifling and light conversation, that, if not noticed here, is condemned by St. Paul under the term εὐτραπελία and μωρολογία, Eph. v. 4.