not; " q. d., 'I know that some-that many of you-notwithstanding your professions, do not really believe me to be a divine messenger; for you are not disposed to receive as true whatever I declare to be so: you receive my doctrine only so far as it coincides with your preconceived opinions. Did you really believe, instead of saying, "This is an hard saying, who can hear it?" you would have said, It is a true saying, and we will hear it?' It is possible, too, that our Lord meant to suggest the important truth, that it is the believer alone who can experimentally know that his words are spirit and life. To the unbeliever, who sees merely the outside of them, they profit nothing; they are not understood, they are not influential. The evangelist remarks, in a kind of parenthetical note, "For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him." He was never imposed on. When he called Judas to be an apostle, he knew that he would be the traitor. Our After saying "there are some of you that believe not," our Lord adds, "Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." Lord refers to what he had said at the 44th verse, 'Because I was aware that many of you were not true believers in me, I told you that, unless you were drawn by the Father, unless you were taught of God, unless you heard and learned of the Father, you never could be my disciples indeed.' The consequence of these statements made by our Lord was, that, "from that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him:" that is, they withdrew from attending on his teaching; they no longer followed him from place to place; they returned to their ordinary occupations, convinced that he was not the Messiah they expected or wished for. Their secular expectations were disappointed, and their real character disclosed. They saw two things very plainly: He was not the master they wished for, and they were not the kind of followers he wished for. § 2. On his disciples in deed. When those who had professed to be his disciples were retiring in crowds, our Lord turned to the little band of the chosen twelve, who seem always to have kept close to him, and said to them, "Will ye also go away?" Are ye also disposed to leave me?' In these words, our Lord intimates that he wishes no unwilling followers-that they who do not will to stay with him may go." With a single exception, which our Lord himself immediately adverts to, the apostles were sincere believers in his divine mis 4 John vi. 64. 7 John vi. 66. 5 John vi. 64. 6 John vi. 65. Jesus neminem cogit atque hoc ipso arctius sibi suos jungit.”—BENGEL sion and Messiahship. They were in many things prejudiced and mistaken; but they were fully persuaded that their Master was the promised deliverer, and they were expecting from him something better than a mere temporal deliverance. Peter, with his characteristic forwardness and ardor, replied to the touching question of his Master, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe, and are sure, that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." It is as if he had said, 'We cannot depart from thee, for we know not where else to go to find such a master. We have no wish to depart. Thou, thou only, hast what me so much needthe words of eternal life; thou, thou alone, canst teach us the way to true happiness, and lead us in the way which thou openest up to us. We are fully persuaded thou art the promised Messiah, the Son of God.' It is difficult, or rather impossible, for us to say accurately what ideas Peter at this time attached to the appellation, "Son of the living God." We know what it means; and that in all its extent of meaning, it is applicable to him to whom Peter applies it. 11 In reply to Peter's confession in the name of his brethren, our Lord gave the following most impressive warning "Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" The word devil, in our language, is the distinctive appellation of a particular class of depraved intelligences. The original term is less restrictive. Here it is equivalent either to 'enemy," or 'false accuser.'13 'Even in this little band, in whose name you have professed unbroken attachment, there is one false-hearted person.' The remark was made to put them all on their guard, to make each of them say, "Lord, is it I?" The reference was to Judas Iscariot, who afterwards betrayed him into the hands of his enemies." It has been supposed, and the conjecture is probable, that Judas, who had originally connected himself with Jesus from worldly motives, in the hope that he would secure a high place in the kingdom to be established, first conceived the thought of betraying his Master on hearing statements so completely irreconcilable with the notion that he was to be a temporal prince. 15 I cannot conclude my illustrations of this discourse better, than in the pertinent and pious reflections of Dr. Doddridge.1 "We have, through the Divine goodness, been made acquainted with these gospel truths in their full evidence and mutual con 11 John vi. 70. 12 Est. viii. 1. 10 John vi. 68, 69. 15 I take this opportunity of expressing my cordial admiration of what Dr. Doddridge has called the "Improvement" of the various sections of his " Family Expositor." Many have equalled, some have surpassed, Dr. Doddridge as interpreters of the New Testament, but no man seems ever to have drunk deeper into its spirit, or so happily to have expressed the devout and practical reflections which a careful perusal of it is fitted to awaken in an enlightened polished christian mind. WAY OF SECURING IT OF SECURING IT. nection, which were more obscurely hinted to those who attended on Christ's personal ministry. May we hearken to the spiritual sense of this sublime and excellent discourse, earnestly entreating the influences of Divine grace, that we may not only be drawn to Christ, but be so firmly attached to his interests, that whosoever else forsake him, we may never go. And may instances of apostasy, which, alas, are to be found in our age, as well as in the primitive one, lead us to serious self-inquiry, and to humble dependence on Him, who alone can 'strengthen, stablish, and settle us' in the faith of the truth, and enable us to 'hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of our hope, firm unto the end.'" EXPOSITION IX. HUMAN AUTHORITY IN RELIGION CONDEMNED. MATTHEW Xv. 1-20.-MARK VII. 1-23. WHILE our Lord was "teaching in the cities and villages of Galilee," a number of "doctors of the law," belonging to the sect of the Pharisees, whose ordinary residence was Jerusalem, came to him. Whether they were deputed by some public body -or, of their own accord, came expressly for the purpose of hearing the discourses and witnessing the miracles of Jesus-or, being in that remote district of the country at any rate, took the opportunity of obtaining personal information respecting an individual whose character and claims had become a subject of general interest, it is needless to inquire, for it is impossible to learn. From the general character of the body to which they belonged, and from their own conduct on this occasion, there can be little doubt that their object was not to find out the truth, but rather to "entangle Jesus in his talk," and, if possible, to obtain some ground of accusation against him, either before the ecclesiastical or civil authorities-the Jewish Sanhedrim, or the Roman Gov ernor. While they were with him, they seem to have witnessed our Lord and his apostles taking their frugal meal, and remarked, with surprise, that they sat down to meat without observing the ordinary Jewish rite of washing the hands. The Mosaic law required a variety of ablutions; this, however was none of them. But the Jewish Rabbis-" the elders," as they are called by the evangelist had added many ceremonial injunctions of their own to those of Divine appointment, and insisted on obedience to these as a necessary part of religious duty. Among these, that of washing the hand and arm up towards the elbow (for that seems the meaning of the word in Mark, rendered by our translators oft) previously to sitting down to meals, was considered a See Note A. Пluyun. Olshausen understands it somewhat differently. He says, "Undoubtedly Tuyun is to be taken in the usual sense of hand, fist, so that the method in which the Jews washed is pointed out. The hands seem to have been used alternately in washing one another. The Syriac translators would have rendered it 'frequently,' 'generally,' as though they had rendered it πVкV. Either the translator had heard the word wrong, or he did not know how to translate of very great importance. "Whosoever," says one of the Rabbis, "despiseth the washing of hands, is worthy to be excommunicated." "He that eats bread," says another, "with unwashed hands, acts as wickedly as if he had committed whoredom." Rabbi Akiba, when in prison, not having water sufficient both to quench his thirst and wash his hands, employed what he had for the latter purpose, saying, "It is better to die for thirst than to transgress the traditions of the elders." "Whosoever," says another Talmudist, "hath his seat in the land of Israel, and eateth his common food in cleanness, and speaks the holy language, and recites his phylacteries morning and evening, let him be confident that he shall obtain the life of the world to come." With these views of the importance of keeping the traditions generally, and particularly of washing the hands, as a religious rite, before eating, it is not wonderful that it was with a mixture of surprise and indignation that they saw the followers of a professed religious teacher neglect so important an observance; and, concluding that he approved of their conduct, from his not condemning it, they inquired, "Why walk not thy disciples according to the traditions of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?"2 3 Our Lord's reply consists of two parts: a general condemnation of the practice of attending to those unauthorized observ ances, as if they were religious duties, and a particular exemplification of their mischievous tendency. These two parts are not given by the two evangelists in the same order. We follow the order of Mark, who, after his usual manner, obviously gives the more circumstantial account of the whole matter. According to, our Lord, these traditionary observances were both useless and mischievous. They were useless. They were not, they could not be acceptable as pieces of religious worship; for they were not required nor authorized by the great object of worship. As religious services, they were utterly "vain." They could serve no good purpose. This sentiment our Lord expresses by quoting a passage from the book of the prophet Isaiah, and asserting that it is a prophetic description and condemnation of the very practice which they so highly approved, and for the neglect of which they were disposed so severely to censure his disciples. "Well," said he, "hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites." It is as if he had said, 'Ye are hypocrites;' . e., 'you assume a character that does not at all belong to you: you profess to be very zealous for the law and honor of Jehovah-and how do you show your zeal? While insisting on observances, as necessary parts of religious duty, which He has never required, and in conforming to which, not His honor, but the honor of you and your Rabbis i. it." Baπtioμòs-as used by Matthew-according to the same very learned interpreter-"is, as at Heb. ix. 10.-Ablution, washing generally." Campbell would render πuyun "with a little water," quasi, with a handful.' 2 Mark vii. 5, 3 Matt. xv. 3-9. Mark vii. 6-13 |