joy."'

Happy are they whom nothing less than such restoration will comfort! But
would such restoration be comfort enough for the heart of Jesus to give?
Was ever love so deep, so pure, so perfect, as to be good enough for
him? And suppose the love between the parted two had been such, would
the mere restoration in the future of that which once he had, be ground
enough for so emphatically proclaiming the man blessed now, blessed
while yet in the midnight of his loss, and knowing nothing of the hour
of his deliverance? To call a man _blessed_ in his sorrow because of
something to be given him, surely implies a something better than what
he had before! True, the joy that is past may have been so great that
the man might well feel blessed in the merest hope of its restoration;
but would that be meaning enough for the word in the mouth of the Lord?
That the interruption of his blessedness was but temporary, would hardly
be fit ground for calling the man _blessed_ in that interruption.
_Blessed_ is a strong word, and in the mouth of Jesus means all it can
mean. Can his saying here mean less than--'Blessed are they that mourn,
for they shall be comforted with a bliss well worth all the pain of the
medicinal sorrow'? Besides, the benediction surely means that the man is
blessed _because_ of his condition of mourning, not in spite of it. His
mourning is surely a part at least of the Lord's ground for
congratulating him: is it not the present operative means whereby the
consolation is growing possible? In a word, I do not think the Lord
would be content to call a man blessed on the mere ground of his going
to be restored to a former bliss by no means perfect; I think he
congratulated the mourners upon the grief they were enduring, because he
saw the excellent glory of the comfort that was drawing nigh; because he
knew the immeasurably greater joy to which the sorrow was at once
clearing the way and conducting the mourner. When I say _greater_, God