11. The reason ■why chastisement is only fob a season. This reason is to be found in the character of God. " He doth not afflict willingly," or rather, " from his heart." There is an essential diiferenoo between chastisement and mercy. Chastise- ment is necessary and sent reluctantly, but mercy springs from the heart of God and is ^ven willingly. That is a false and libellous representation of God, according to which the theologian describes the outpouring of Divine wrath as though there were a real satisfaction to God in the process of causing pain to his creatures. The description of (iverlasting perdition as given to lost souls with a flood of wrath is more like the action of a malignant demon than that of a merciful God. It is sometimes so spoken of as though every attribute in God but mercy were eternal. Truth, justice, holiness, wrath, vengeance, are to endure for ever. Only mercy has its day. Only this one ftrace is short-lived and soon to be exhausted. The calumny is a direct contradiction to Scripture, which teaolies over and over again that the mercy of the Lord endureth for ever. This attribute at least is eternal. This one springs most directly from the heart of God ; for it is the fruit of love. While we say God is angry at times, we do not say God is anger, because anger is not of the essential nature of God. But we do say, not only God loves, but God is love. But it may be said, if God does not afflict " from his heart," why does he aflSict at all ? It must be because the circumstances of his children make it necessary. He does it not for his own sake. Then he must do it for their sakes. Seeing, however, that the chastisement is not agreeable to them, there must be some object in it, some result of it by which they are to profit. It must, there- fore, cease in due time, that it may give place to that happy result.
Ver. 38. — How evil and good loth proceed from God, The Hebrew prophets shou-^ no inclination towards Persian dualism. They never attempt to solve the mystery of evil by the doctrine of two principles in nature, a good and an evil principle, in any respect co-ordinate one with another. On the contrary, they emphasize the monism of their creed by ascribing sole supremacy and originating power to "the Eternal." Nevertheless, they do not teach that moral evil is caused by God. This they regard as springing from the heart of man. In the verse before us we have no question of this darkest kind of evil. It is not sin, but suffering, that is referred to, as the context clearly shows. We have just been told that God will not cast off for ever because he does not afflict from his heart. We are now reminded that it is not the less true that Gk)d sends adverse as well as pleasant things.
I. Thb whole op oub lifb-expebibnoe is undeb the direction of God. Our con- duct is in our own hands ; but what is not thus immediately dependent on our own will is directed by God. Other men influence us, but they are overruled by the Most High. Chance and accident seem to strike us, but chance and accident only exist to our ignorance. They are not really, for Providence excludes them. We sometimes speak of visitations of God, as though he came and went. But that only means that we perceive his action at one time more than at another. God is ever working in us. " In him we live, and move, and have our being." Things great and small, pleasant and painful, spiritual and physical, eternal and temporal, are under the hand of God and regulated by his will.
II. God treats us in vabious ways. He sends both evil and good. He has not one unchanging method of action. He varies his treatment according to requirement. To one he sends more evil, to another more good. Yet to none does he send experience of one kind only. The hard lot has many mitigations. The pleasant places have their shadows. As we pass through life we see how God deals with us in wise suitableness, now sending most good, now most evil.
III. We must not infer that if Gob is with us no trouble can befall. If evil as well as good proceeds from the mouth of the Most High, no assurance of the presence of the Author of both will jiistify us in disbelieving in the coming of either experience. We must be on our guard or we shall bo disappointed. We must be prepared to expect evil things even while we are under the care of God.
IV. We must not infbb that if evil befall us God cannot bk with us. This iaference of unbelief is the natural consequence of disappointment in the presumptiou
4* THE LAMENTATIONS OP JEKEMIAH. [oh. in. 1—66.
that, if God is with us, we cannot suffer trouble. There is real comfort in the tboughl that evil is sent by God, if only by the removal of the common assumption that it indicates desertion by him.
V. We may infbb that if evil fbooebds from God it is pbrmittbd fob the bake OF ULTIMATE GOOD. For Ood does not delight in sending evil. His heart is not in it. But his heart is in mercy. He may seem to send the two indifferently ; but he does not bestow them with equal pleasure nor with similar results, for the good is lent for its own sake, and the avil only that it may lead to higher good in the futuro.
Ver. 40. — Belf-examtnatlon. It is interesting to watch the progress of the thoughts and feelings of the writer who addresses us as a sufferer in the overthrow of Jerusalem. At first he bewails his lot, then he calls to God for assistance. After doing so he regain! faith, and calls to mind the merciful kindness of God. This helps him to the assurance that the trouble is but temporary. He feels that since it comes from God it mart not be complained of. It is rather a call to reflection and self-examination.
L Chastisement should lead to self-exauination. It does us little good until it maket us thoughtful. We must sit still under it and think. Then we should turn our thoughts in upon ourselves. We are inclined to look anywhere else, to discuss the justice of God, to complain of the conduct of men, to criticize the course of events. But tiie one tUng necessary is to look within. This is difUcult, as any one who has honestly tried it knows quite well. It is not necessary habitually. Too much intro- spection develops a morbid subjectivity. But there are special occasions for self- examination, and trouble is one of tbem.
II. Self-examination should investioatb conduct. It la "our ways" that we are to inquire into. 1. The important question is as to what toe do and how we live. People examine their feelings. The examination Is delusive and unwholesome. They