translated more literally, " Because tliou hast seen Me, Tliom- as, thou hast believed." The whole sentence may be thus par- aphrased and expounded. " Thomas, thou hast at last believed my resurrection, because thou hast seen Me with thine own eyes, and touclied Me with thine own hands. It is well. But it would have been far better if thou hadst believed a week ago, on the testimony of thy ten brethren, and not waited to see Me. Remember from henceforth, that in my kingdom they are more blessed and honorable who believe on good tes- timony, without seeing, than those who insist first on seeing, before they believe."
The sentence " Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed," would be rendered literally, " Blessed are those persons not having seen and having believed," — consist- ing, as it does, of two participles connected with " blessed." The idea that our Lord had in view any particular person, such as Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and, generally, the Old Testament saints, appears to me utterly untenable. I be- lieve our Lord had in view no individual case, but only laid down a great general principle which Thomas had forgotten, as a lesson to him and the whole Church in every age. The construction of the Greek language allows us to regard the past tense as a present, in such a sentence as this. (See Jelf's Greek Grammar, 401, 403 ; and Farrar's Greek Syntax, 130.)
Gregory well says, " The incredulity of Thomas has done us more good than the faith of Mary." He means that if Thomas had never doubted, we should not have had such full proof that Christ rose from the dead.
The principle contained in the sentence before us, is one of vast importance in every age, and specially in our own. In a day of scepticism, free inquiry and rationalism, so-called, when hundreds are continually railing against creeds, and dogma- tism, and priestcraft, the sentence deserves close attention and consideration. Nothing is more common now-a-days than to hear people say, that they " decline to believe tilings above their reason, that they cannot believe what they cannot entire- ly understand in religion, that they must see everything clearly before they can believe." Such talk as this sounds very fine, and is very taking with young persons and superficially edu- cated people, because it supplies a convenient reason for neg- lecting vital religion altogether. But it is a style of talking which shows a mind either proud, or foolish, or inconsistent.
In matters of science, what sensible man does not know that we must begin by believing much which we do not under- stand, taking many positions on trust, and accepting many things on the testimony of others ? Even in the most exact science the scholar must begin with axioms and postulates. Faith and trust in our teachers is the very first condition of ac- quiring knowledge. He that begins his studies by saying " I