away by mingled rage and horror, they took up stones to stone Him; and doubtless but for His sudden and unaccountable disappearance, ("He hid Himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by,") He would have been slain on the spot.

We can not doubt that Jesus, on this occasion, gave deliberate expression to that consciousness of eternity 'which was immanent in His divine nature. Indeed, His words are the mysterious yet not irrational utterance of a Being who is at once God and man. In the first clause, "Before Abraham was,"-is expressed a human consciousness of time; but the next, "I am," rises at once above the laws of human thought into the region of the timeless and absolute, and is the sublime symbol rather than the adequate expression, of a self-consciousness to which one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day—a self-consciousness which embraces the ages— the eternities-in an unsuccessive and immovable NOWa self-consciousness that ever dwelt in the Man Christ Jesus, and sometimes flashed forth in words of supernatural splendor and power.

CHAPTER X.

THE WOMAN ACCUSED BY THE PHARISEES.

THE PHARISEES BRING TO JESUS A WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY-THEIR MOTIVES—THEIR QUESTION-OUR LORD'S JUDGMENT-THEY RETIRE CONFOUNDED-THE WOMAN ADMONISHED AND DISMISSED-REFLEC

TIONS.

JOHN VII. 53; vm. 1–12.

ON a certain morning, Jesus, having spent the night on the Mount of Olives, went early to the temple, and the people came flocking to Him, to hear His teaching.* His ubiquitous enemies, the scribes and Pharisees, were also there, on an extraordinary errand. A certain woman,— who is nameless, had been detected in a flagrant-breach of her marriage covenant, and led away for trial. Her accusers, equally void of humanity and shame, determined to take advantage of the sad incident to elicit from Jesus, if possible, a judgment opposed to the law of Moses. They knew with what tenderness our Lord had

I assume that the discourse of our Lord, recorded John viii. 12–59, was spoken on the last day of the feast, in connection with that recorded in chapter vii. 37-52, and that the story of the adulteress (vii. 53; viii. 1–11,) is here out of place. Its authenticity is unquestionable; but it evidently belongs in another connection, probably at the close of Luke xxi. The question is rather fully discussed by Alford in loco, to whom the reader is referred. Stier, Ebrard, and some other eminent scholars, contend for the genuineness of the passage and for its correct location in John's gospel; but they have failed to convince me. In accordance with my rule, I follow in this difficult case what appears to me the best authority. Any discussion of the question in such a work as this would be out of place.

sometimes treated notorious sinners, and they confidently expected that in this case His compassion would lead Him to pronounce a mild decision. They led the woman through the streets in a sort of procession, exposing her, doubtless, to the ribald jeers of a prurient mob, and brought her into that part of the temple where Jesus sat teaching the people. It was an irruption of reeking sensuality, coarseness and hypocrisy. The holy place was at once filled with the very atmosphere of hell.

The accusers, without introduction or apology, declare in the broadest terms their infamous errand: "Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned; but what sayest Thou?" It was not true that Moses had commanded that the adulteress should be stoned; but he had commanded that both the adulterer and the adulteress should be put to death.* Why the accusers had only arrested one of the parties in this case, does not appear. The woman was seized; her probably more guilty paramour had been suffered to escape. Alas, a like unjust partiality in the treatment of the vicious has prevailed in all ages. Our Lord, thus interrupted in His heavenly discourse, feels the manifestations of human depravity, so suddenly forced upon His notice, like a wound. "The shame of the deed itself, and the brazen hardness of the prosecutors, the legality that had no justice and did not even pretend to have any mercy, the religious malice that could make its advantage of the ruin and ignominous death of a fellow-creature-all this was eagerly and rudely thrust before His mind. The effect upon Him was such as might have been produced upon many since, but perhaps upon scarcely any man that ever lived before. He was seized with an intolerable sense of shame. He

* Deuteronomy xxii. 22. Leviticus xx. 10.

could not meet the eye of the crowd, or of the accusers; perhaps of the woman least of all. To hide the glowing blush upon His face, He stooped down and began writing with His finger on the ground."*

Perhaps this was also intended to signify to the people that this was a matter quite aside from His mission-a case with which He had no concern. But His enemies were resolved that He should pronounce a judgment; they continued to urge their question. And He gave them a judgment, but not such as they expected. Raising His head a moment, the flush of wounded purity and holy indignation still upon His face, He said simply: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." The words flashed an awful light into their consciences. They forgot the crime of this woman; they were compelled to look steadfastly at their own sinssins probably of the same nature with hers-and in the presence of Purity they felt themselves vile and guilty. Their secret sins were, then and there, set in the light of God's countenance. Confounded and smitten with terror, they began one after another to slink away from the place, till at length all had departed.

When Jesus saw the woman standing alone, He said to her: "Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? She said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her: Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more." These words present no such ethical difficulty as many of the ancient commentators found in them. Never was the sin of unchastity more fearfully judged and condemned than by our Lord on this occasion. He does not extenuate her guilt. But He was not sent to condemn but to save. He uniformly declined to act as a judge in temporal matters. He had not

Ecce Homo, page 116.

received authority to act as a civil magistrate. Therefore He did not condemn her, but dismissed her with an admonition to sin no more. He probably saw in her the beginnings of true penitence; and we can not but hope that she went away to deplore, with godly sorrow, her great crime. Perhaps "society" never forgave her; but the gate of divine mercy was not closed against her. Perhaps even she is now a white-robed saint among the blessed in paradise. There is redemption in Christ for the fallen; and not less for fallen women than for others