it would leave the hearers, could not have been the least. It was not, like the former two, a mere comparison or illustration-extending only to a single point of resemblance— but an allegory of just dimensions, and considerable length -embracing a variety of particulars, all of which had their foundation in the facts of a real, but their interpretation in the facts of a future, history. The symbolical picture was laid before the spectators in all the simplicity, and consequently in all the obscurity, of the most circumstantial detail-and the Jews, as we are told by the Evangelista, understood not what it meant. As with the contemplation of objects placed in too bright a light, the very simplicity of the external features rendered the substantial and latent truths so much the more difficult to be discovered. The images in their obvious acceptation were familiar enough— the counterpart, intended beneath them, was the most profound and mystical which can be conceived.

After the delivery of the allegory, and after a pause, expressly, as it would seem, interposed to discover its effect upon the hearers, our Lord proceeded to apply the description to himselfb-which would leave no doubt that it related to Jesus Christ, and to Jesus Christ in the character of the Messiah. But what light did this application reflect on the previous obscurity of the picture? Though the image of the shepherd and his flock might be sufficiently clear in itself and as metaphorically employed for the relation between a king and his subjects, or even between God and his people, might be no uncommon figure in their own Scriptures, yet its application to denote the relation between the Christian Messias and his Church must as yet have been unexampled, and unintelligible. Besides, there was additional matter, mixed up with the application itself, which would serve only to perplex it the more. Our Lord, x. 7. affirmed himself to be the fúpa тāν проßáтшv, as well as the zosǹv ỏ xaλós—through whom the sheep must gain admission into the fold, as well as under whom they must be fed,

maintained, and protected, there. This was to use a metaphor almost as harsh, and fully as incomprehensible, as that of the bread which came down from heaven. He spake also of a wolf, from whose ravages the flock should be in danger-and he more than insinuated that it would be necessary for himself, the keeper and guardian of the flock, to die in opposition to this enemy-yet, strange to tell! the death of the shepherd should be the salvation of the sheep. He spake too of other flocks, distinct from his flock among the Jews, yet sometime to be united to it-and he affirmed it to be a part of his office, and an illustrious feature in his character as the true shepherd, that he should abolish all distinctions, and gather together innumerable flocks, into one fold, and under one shepherd.

Much more than this he said likewise, and equally hard to be understood-which I cannot enter upon at present. If the Jews, then, had merely not comprehended his words before, now they charge him with raving, and being mad: He hath a demon, and is mad-why listen ye to him? And even they, who thought otherwise, judged so not from superior penetration, but from greater humility of disposition— and because the miracles of our Saviour held out the torch for his words, and made them receive what he said, whether intelligible to themselves or not, as the words of truth and soberness, and as the oracles of divine wisdom, neither deceiving, nor deceived.

It is incontestable that the Jews expected a Messiah, who should deliver their country from a foreign yoke-be a triumphant conqueror-and a mighty potentate: and the event proves that they were determined to receive none else. The personal demeanor of our Lord had given them little encouragement to hope he would ever declare himself such; had he but done this, however indirectly, the nation would have become believers to a man. The negative influence of long and systematic opposition to the national wish, combined with the positive effect of the national degeneracy in religion and in morality, was the true and sole

© X. 19. 20.

cause, humanly speaking, of his final rejection by both rulers and people. But had all, who eventually became disbelievers, yet ceased to hope that Jesus might still be the Messias? The proceedings, when he entered Jerusalem, only four days before his crucifixion, will not allow us to assert this. However slow and reluctant to make such an avowal of his character he might himself appear-his actions spoke a language not to be misunderstood; and clearly demonstrated that, were he inclined to assume it, no one was better qualified to realize the glorious and enthusiastic picture of the ideal deliverer-so dear to the national wish. If, notwithstanding the experience of the past, they still clung to the same delusive hope, it would be a motive for watching every word, and every act, of our Lord only the more intensely; and when, in lieu of plain assurances, according with their desires, and easily reconciled to their preconceived expectations, they continued to hear declarations, in their obvious sense flatly repugnant to their belief, and in their secret meaning far beyond their comprehension, great in proportion would be their disappointment.

The present remonstrance, x. 24. it appears to me was produced by some such cause as this-by a long-suppressed feeling of impatience at finding their hopes and their wishes so often excited and encouraged, and again dejected and discouraged. There is no necessity, then, for the violent and improbable hypothesis that St. John has arbitrarily joined together the account of the proceedings at the feast of Dedication, with the account of the proceedings at the feast of Tabernacles-yet has given no notice to that effect. The last discourse, recorded to have happened at this feast, as it must be clearly referred to x. 26-30. in the renewal of the conversations at the next, so would be quite sufficient to account for the connection between them, though each of them should have taken place, as they are related, asunder.

The transactions, then, which belong to the feast of Tabernacles as such, must be considered to be still continued down to x. 21; after which, it is probable, Jesus would

leave Jerusalem, and according to his usage return to Capernaum. The two months' interval, between this feast and the next, we cannot suppose to have been spent in Judæa-especially as there is no intimation to that effect in St. John—but we may suppose it to have been spent in Galilee; because Matt. xix. 1. and Mark x. 1. compared with the circumstances of the history before and after them, may safely lead to the inference that all, or by far the greatest part, of the time between the third feast of Tabernacles, and the ensuing Passover, before the point of time when our Lord passed into Judæa out of Peræa, must have been spent in Galilee: in which case, St. John would naturally be silent about it. But if this interval was spent in Galilee, we may take it for granted it would be spent at Capernaum. Our Lord's circuits, for the present, were all over, and the winter-season was at hand: no place would be so likely to be made the scene of a temporary, but stationary, residence, as the usual place of his abode; and had he not been known to have remained there, for some time after the last return which they mention, St. Matthew and St. Mark would not have described his final departure thence so soon, apparently, after that return-though in reality six months later.

The feast of Dedication, John x. 22. is evidently the feast next in order to the feast of Tabernacles, vii. 2: and it is another presumptive proof that, either our Lord had been absent, all the intermediate time, from Jerusalem, or nothing had since occurred upon the spot, similar to what had taken place before, that we meet upon this occasion also with the mention of a renewed attempt to stone him. The Táλ in this allusion can be referred to viii. 59. an incident at the feast of Tabernacles, only. We may conclude, therefore, that since the time of the feast of Tabernacles our Saviour and the Jews of Jerusalem had not met again, until they met in Solomon's porch; or if they had, that nothing had again occurred, like what had occurred before. The former of these suppositions is confirmed by

d x. 31.

the silence of St. John-and the latter is negatived by the experience of the past; for had they ever met again as before, something, it may justly be presumed, would have arisen to make the adversaries of Jesus desirous of stoning him as before.

The proceedings at this feast, beginning with x. 22. cannot embrace more than a single day; and being prematurely terminated by the attempt upon the life of Christ, these proceedings themselves are probably the whole of what then transpired; at least in public. After the day of that attempt Jesus appeared no more openly-and until that day he does not seem to have visited the temple: the conversation in the porch of Solomon, which took place upon that day, took place on the first opportunity furnished by his appearance in public.

The feast of Dedication began on the 25th of the Jewish Casleu, and lasted for eight days in all. The 25th of Casleu is the 69th day inclusive, from the 15th of Tisri exclusive; and consequently in the third year of our Saviour's ministry, when Tisri 15. fell upon October 11. Casleu 25. fell upon December 19. The first of the eight days, then, coincided with December 19. and the last with December 26: a statement, sufficient by itself to prove that the feast of Dedication this year fell out in the midst of a Jewish wintere-which yet would not be always the case. But this year the Passover had fallen as late as it could fall, and, therefore, so had every other feast: if the Passover had fallen as early as it could fall, the feast of Dedication would have fallen out a month earlier-which would not have been so much in the winter. Moreover, when Tisri 15. (as we have proved was the case) fell upon Thursday, Casleu 25. must have fallen on Wednesday: the first day of the feast, then, was a Wednesday; and, consequently, so was the last. The particular day, on which the conversation in Solomon's porch transpired, must be uncertainbut if we may conjecture that Jesus repaired to the temple in this instance about the same time as in the former, viz.

e John x. 22.