endeavour to construct a theory, which shall shew that our blessed Lord might have availed himself of his wisdom for the purpose just mentioned.

3. We have seen from the former part of this work, that there is every reason to think that our Lord subjected himself to that law of our nature by which we are creatures of habit. He learned obedience by what he suffered, and learned habits of compassion for our infirmities which he took to Heaven with him. But habits are formed by separate and repeated acts. If this was so then with Christ, much more was it so with Mary. She differed from Christ not only in not being God, but in this, that the infused grace and wisdom of her soul kept increasing, whereas in Christ they were perfect from the first. Hence there was in Mary a far ampler scope for habits than in Christ. He could have suffered all the tortures of his passion. in as perfect a manner when a child as at thirtythree, and suffered them then as perfectly as he would have done at seventy. But as he had designed Mary to suffer in as nearly the same manner as was possible for a mere creature to do, it is not inconsistent to think, that he hardened and inured her for suffering by separate acts which formed a habit in her. Supposing she were a good woman only, plainly this is tenable, but surely there is nothing in it inconsistent even with the higher privileges we ascribe to her, and which are not to our purpose to insist on here. One of these separate acts is before us. To be deprived of the Lord God, and not to know why, was a vast furnace of affliction to a soul so ravished with love. To think, in her humility, that her want of care had caused Joseph such intense grief, would have heightened her sorrow.

For it seems that one so humble might have judged herself thus harshly, when we consider that, according to Venerable Bede', it was usual on these occasions for the children to go sometimes with the men and sometimes with the women, who travelled separately. Another of these separate acts would be, when our Lord bid his Mother good bye, and exchanged the company of Mary at Nazareth for that of the devil in the wilderness, and was to see very little more of her till his Crucifixion. These would be separate acts, each going towards fitting his revered Mother for that intense passion she was to suffer at the foot of his cross. He may then have been in reality doing an act of respect to her, by preparing her for the great things he had designed for her.

4. Moreover, if he himself learnt in any sense by degrees, much more would Mary, and much more still others whom he had chosen out of the world to call to himself. Of course God could infuse habits at once, but in the ordinary course of things it is 'men who are for precipitating things, but the Author of nature appears deliberate throughout his operations; accomplishing his natural ends by slow successive steps. From this we might guess, even without proof, how he would act as the Author of grace also. Sudden conversions are rare, and when they seem sudden to the world, the convert often sees many and many a stealthy advance which grace had been making in his intellect and his conscience, before it fairly entered in by storm, and

bound the strong one. Now even if Mary had a deeper insight habitually into God's book of predestination than David his remote forefather, still a desolation and a darkening might have prevented her then reading the names there. The Son of God himself slept sometimes, and was unconscious of the outward world: why should not the eyes of Mary's soul be closed sometimes to the invisible world? Meantime our Saviour probably wished to make his first impression on Gamaliel or Nicodemus, or perhaps on St. Joseph of Arimathæa. He knew to a certainty how apt kind hearts are to say, before they do a person a harm, I knew him when he was a boy,' and this would hold them back from wrong; and he could make them kind. Had he put it before his Mother, to let him be crucified then in order that he might save them, she would have accepted it in her love for God and us. Still had he told her before, she could not have suffered them, as he designed her to do. The conversation of our Lord with Nicodemus makes such a supposition as this highly probable, as Nicodemus seems to have been touched by something, and to have that imperfect confidence which is displayed by his coming to Christ as if he knew him, but coming by night as if he feared men. Another confirmation shall be noticed presently, but there is one which may find a place here.

5. Archelaus does not seem to have been a very great contrast to his father, for we find that St. Joseph was afraid of him. It is therefore natural to ask, how Jesus comes to venture a display of any thing extraordinary among the doctors; and not unreasonable to suppose, that they were some of the same kind of persons, as those to whom he See chap. vi. vii. viii.

e

was manifested in the temple at his first visit there? Nor is it again unnatural to suppose, that they were reasoning about the coming of the Messiah, and putting together such traditions and prophecies as would make its time and manner clear to them. There might have been some just object in facing even those who were to crucify him afterwards, but it is not very obvious, what that object could be. It is not God's manner to give clearer evidence to those who were abusing the light shining in a dark place,' already given them: it is his manner to give grace to the humble enquirer. This, as far as it goes, tends to shew what the character of the doctors then present was likely to be. Behold, (he says afterwards,) I send you prophets and scribes: some of the scribes might then be good men, and the converts were mostly from the pharisees, who held fast the traditions. This view of his audience, perhaps, is rendered more credible by the word St. Luke uses of our Lord. They were astonished at his intelligence and answers. Intelligence, says Aristotle, is a critical habit of the soul about practical matters, which judges rightly when another speaks, and is often in popular language confused with prudence,' as St. Jerome has done here. Our Lord seems to have been swift to hear and slow to speak' then, if St. Luke meant to use the word σvvéσis in this sense. If they put difficulties before him, of a mere wrangling nature, it does not appear what scope such a faculty would have for exercise: if they were really about an earnest enquiry, it would have abundant scope. There is something indecorous in supposing a modest

Eth. N. vi. 10. The sentence of Aristotle is hard to

render literally, but this is the drift of it. Cf. Wetsten. ad loc.

youth to have gone there to display his ingenuity in evading subtle and scholastic difficulties: something lovely in supposing that Christ went to suggest modes of explaining the numberless apparent inconsistencies in the prophets to men in anxious earnest. This at least shews it is possible he may have gone from his parents for a purpose he knew they would approve.

6. But if we suppose him not to have gone from them at all, and to have remained quietly with them, then we shall see still more clearly, how the course he really adopted led to a greater and more observable exhibition of reverence to his Mother. His Mother said to him, "Son, why hast thou done so to us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." These words in their plain and natural sense are a reproof to Jesus; and would be a gentle or severe one, according to the tone in which they are pronounced. There seems no reason why they should not be taken in this plain and natural sense, because our Lady really had authority over her Son, and had to keep the secret of his Incarnation close yet awhile. Hence she acted the part of a Mother as naturally as she could, not because she mistook Jesus's conduct for something wrong, but because she had to keep up the appearance of being a humble and ordinary person. Her conduct, though capable of being misinterpreted, yet expressed before all present a great truth: it was a public expression of her authority over Jesus. This view is confirmed. by her calling St. Joseph his father: for this is another expression which was false in the sense in which the audience, she knew very well, would take it, yet it expressed his authority also over Jesus, and the relation he bore to herself. Hence