« AnteriorContinuar »
known that there is a contrary error to be guarded against, and that nothing short of these terms would awaken man's mind to right notions of the dignity and glory and benefit of this sacrament. For this purpose, then, God has suffered this figure to stand, a stumbling in his word to those who will misapprehend it, that those who apprehend it aright may have their benefit elevated and magnified, by reaching after a spiritual intercourse with Christ, high enough and intimate enough to be described in these words. Have we, then, a notion of the benefit to be received in this sacrament, which to our mind justifies and meets the expression of eating the flesh of Christ, and drinking the blood of Christ? It must be a near union and communion which is so spoken of: it ought to be something very sacred and very strengthening; very strengthening because eating food and drinking wine set forth a supporting, comforting, animating repast; and pre-eminently sacred because the figure is eating Christ's holy flesh, and drinking Christ's holy blood.
Pause a moment here. Never was there another holy human frame, since the first Adam gave up his body to the action of sin : the blood of every body but Christ's has beat in pulses of sin: the flesh has wrought the limbs to move in the furtherance of sin: sin ful impressions have been voluntarily re ceived, and sinful desires brought to pass by every body of the race of man except by that body. Nay, the very earth, and all that it produces, are under the curse; so that one might say that flesh of Christ is the only holy thing that has been in the world since the fall. It was before the crucifixion, but now, since his suffering, it is rid likewise of our imputed guilt. To eat then of that holy body, and to drink of that holy blood, is a figure of no common dignity, and must indicate advantages of no common fulness and sacredness to be herein gained.
We are partakers of a nature still carnal, sold under sin: the good that we would, we (often) do not; and the evil that we would not, that we do. We cannot then be indifferent to this argument, that there must be some special treasury of grace opened to us in this sacrament, aye, more than many think, and therefore more than they receive; for the High and Omniscient God deems this high and mystical allegory not too high to set forth what is to be obtained-"the communion of the blood of Christ," and "the communion of the body of Christ." Surely it has been wisely and well done in the church to which it is our privilege to belong, to follow implicitly the very words of revelation, though the way be sometimes dark; and not to venture to throw
body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner.' Here a new guard is set in addition to the former: the communion is also "heavenly"-it is of a heavenly sort; and it takes place with Christ in heaven. How well this harmonizes with the reasoning quoted from John vi. But, in further proof that it is the church of England doctrine, refer to the note at the end of the communion service, of which the last sentence is, "The natural body and blood of Christ are in heaven, and not here." "In heaven and not here," because they cannot be at once in both; for Christ's body was in every sense a real body like our own, as truly limited in all its properties, and incapable of existing as a body in any other than a limited state. Therefore suppose it severed into ten thousand parts, and scattered all over the world (which the transubstantialist and every sort of consubstantialist suppose), and what is the consequence? It dies by being so severed the spirit is parted from it by such mutilation: it is no longer a living body: therefore this note most wisely sums up the controversy by the affirmation, "it is against the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one.'
This is enough to shew the combined judgment of our martyred and suffering ancestors, and to indicate how meekly they followed in the steps of inspiration, not only not diminishing from, but not adding to its say ings. Surely nothing more can be needed on this part of my subject. The article and a note at the end of this service combine in one strain with the service itself, and we have considered the scriptures which they humbly repeat; beware then of them that would deceive you by mystic arguments, into the opinion that in some mystic way or other the literal flesh and blood of Christ are received by us. The point is of vast importance, and I pray God to keep my readers stedfast in it. But now it becomes necessary to enlarge on the fulness of the true meaning which is to be assigned to these words, which our church adopts as her first argument for the exceeding great benefit of communicating, that she may thereby allure us to obey our Saviour's command. And now let me ask, do we sufficiently consider that, when men use a strong metaphor, they mean much; and when Christ and Christ's apostle, speaking by the Spirit, use such startling language, is there not great and rich and high meaning therein? Nay more; would not Christ and the Spirit of God, foreknowing how these words would be misused and exaggerated, and what consequences would ensue, have stooped to some less astounding language, had they not
aside expressions of God's lips, because they lie open to misconstruction, and because Christians, corrupted from apostolic simplicity, have perverted them, and even now pervert them.
Church-rulers and church-builders may not take away the children's bread and the grown man's wine, because some misuse them, and draw on multitudes in their train. Thank God that our inheritance is kept in our sight by the retaining of these expressions; that we are admonished of that mystical union and communion with Christ which is high enough and profitable enough to bear being described in words like these. And I may add, if the vail of words is so splendid, what must the realities be, the spiritual and heavenly realities which lie behind the terms which must hide, though they reveal? But let me not speak of it as a privilege which no man knows, and to which no man may subscribe his name, saying, "I have felt something of this sort.' Christians may indeed have suffered much loss from their expectations being set too low, but God hath not left his sacramental bounty without witness: Christians have found strength, animation, comfort, peace, flow into their hearts in this sacrament in a fuller stream than is according to their wonted experience. They have gone to it expecting some considerable infusion of Christ's help into their souls, and have found more than they looked for; nay, there have been times when they expected little, and compassed great spoil; and many are the times when they have carried away much more than they knew they had received. But who is there whose expectations have ever reached the point which these terms seem to call for "eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ?" Do they not imply a nearness of the soul to Christ, and of Christ to the soul, and a fulness of supply ready to be poured in; and consequently a liberal opening of Christ's treasures to them that raise their desires to this height, according to all their need, and beyond what in all other ordinances we are led to look for?
We need not depreciate the preciousness of prayer, or the peculiar promises made to preaching, or the grounds of hope in the other sacrament; but respecting none of them are such terms used as here. What, then, can we judge but that the presence of Christ in the Lord's supper is nearer, and may be more efficacious, than in many other of the ordained channels of divine mercy? I think that anything short of this fails to account for these marvellous words, which call forth all our hearts and minds to grasp them, and bid us raise our expectations to reach after some
special intercourse with Christ in this sacrament of his dying love.
But further, the church has enforced the same in the second and third expressions of this address, by which it strives to persuade us of the greatness of the benefit to be derived from fitly communicating; and here I can be more brief, because these expressions have much in common with that which we have considered. The second reason given is-" We dwell in Christ, and Christ in us," in rightly partaking of this sacrament. Now herein is a thing worthy of remark, that in no passage of scripture that I can discover is our dwelling in Christ, or Christ dwelling in us, spoken of in special connection with receiving this sacrament. Sufficiency there is of passages to establish both terms in their general sense. As Ephesians iii. 17-" That Christ may dwell in your hearts, by faith;" and 1 John iv. 13-" Hereby do we know that we dwell in him, because he hath given us of his Spirit;" but these I believe, and all others, refer to the standing privilege of the believer in every place and in all occupations. They shew that he may run under Christ's shadow as to a refuge in any moment of temptation, by thinking of him, and lifting up the heart to him; nay, that he may maintain so constant a habit of so doing, that he may be said to "dwell in Christ;" and that, if the door of his heart is continually open to Christ, Christ is continually entering in and blessing him; and that Christ may be doing this so constantly, that Christ may be said, by reason of his scarcely interrupted communion, not to be going in and out of his heart, but to be dwelling in it. So that not only is there a mutual connexion perpetual, but there may be a mutual intercourse almost perpetually, especially on the side of Christ towards him. This point is high and lofty as well as the first, and, like it, has drawn many into error: let us beware then how any expression escapes us, or finds favour with us, which makes confusion between Christ and his influences, which are one thing; and the soul and the effects produced upon it by Christ's indwelling, which is another. Christ is not the soul; and the soul is not Christ. We are distinct beings from him, and he from us, though he and we are said to dwell in one another.
CHURCH ARCHITECTURE *.
architects as well as guardians of the church; and, if IN the middle ages the clergy were frequently the this cannot be expected now, at all events it is desirable that those to whom the care of our holy edifices is intrusted, should not be ignorant of the essen
• From "Elementary Remarks on Church Architecture;" by John Medley, M.A, vic. of St. Thomas, Exeter. Exeter : Hannaford; London: Rivingtons. 12mo. pp. 39.
tial principles of the science to which we are all so deeply indebted, and should know both how to preserve what is valuable, and to add what is deficient. Nor are the clergy the only persons interested. It might be so, if the clergy were the church. But as the laity form equally with themselves an integral part of the one body-as they alike enjoy the benefit of the ecclesiastical taste and munificence of former ages-some knowledge of church architecture ought, surely, to be a part of every liberal education. Ought not they who would be ashamed to be ignorant of the names of ordinary plants, herbs, and minerals, and who even take delight in extending their researches into the productions of a former world, to blush at their ignorance of the very elements of the great science by whose noblest productions they are surrounded? Yet how do most persons enter a cathedral, collegiate, or handsome parochial church? After gazing about them for a few moments in uninstructed amazement, they surrender themselves into the hands of an officer more ignorant probably than themselves, who hurries them on from nave to choir, from monument to monument, with all the rapidity of one who has his alphabet to say, and his fee to receive, and who would be glad to finish the one, and receive the other as soon as possible; and few even of those who frequently enter our parish or collegiate churches have any notion whatever of the style in which they are erected. This general ignorance has been attended with its usual consequences-barbarous neglect where it seemed unnecessary to do anything for the church, and still more barbarous alterations where enlargement or restoration became necessary. For what is the usual course adopted on the enlargement of a parish church? The thing is staved off as long as possible; there is a great deal of talk throughout the parish that accommodation is wanted; a dissenting chapel is built, and those who have tried in vain to obtain a seat in the parish church occupy their sittings there; until at last the parishioners come together. Even then there is a grumbling about the heavy rates and dreadful expenses; but the rate is finally carried. Yet how to enlarge to the best effect nobody knows; one proposes to lengthen, another to widen, a third to build galleries all round the church -which latter proposition is in all likelihood accepted. So the old and lofty pillars are incrusted with galleries, neatly painted to look like oak; and to give light above, green-house frames are thrown into the roof. And now those in the galleries can neither see nor hear the preacher: the pulpit must therefore be removed from its old and graceful position, and placed directly in front of the altar on four handsome Grecian pillars. But the desire for improvement increases. There is an ancient Norman font half blocked up with pews, and very dirty on the outside. Mr. A., the church-warden, is a painter, and has a mind to try his skill, and shew his liberality. So, with the best intention possible, he offers to paint the dirty granite a light cerulean blue, streaked in with veins of marble; and there being nobody to remonstrate, it is done, and all agree the font looks much cleaner than before.
Now this is no exaggerated picture of what is going on every day. Our churches are in a course of transformation; and, unless the parishioners acquire some better notions of what is due to God's house, our church-building zeal will irrecoverably spoil half the old churches in the kingdom, to say nothing of those which are built entirely new.
But there is a higher ground on which we may rest the argument for the necessity of some knowledge of church architecture, and it is this--a deficiency in taste where the object is to pay religious reverence to the Almighty, implies a deficiency in moral perception, and a deficiency in moral perception cannot exist without injury to the moral and religious cha
racter. For if God himself condescended to inspire one holy man with skill for the furnishing a part of the tabernacle, and to mark out by pattern for Moses himself what was proper for its erection, and in a subsequent age to descend to the same particulars in reference to the temple, it is clear that what the great God of heaven thought it not beneath him to teach, must be our duty to learn. And where the houses dedicated to God are either so mean as to excite contempt, or so ill arranged that all that profound selfabasement, which man ought to feel towards his Maker is swallowed up in taking care for his own comfort, and making himself his own idol, it is plain that bad taste is only another name for irreverence and forgetfulness of what is due to God and to the place where he is worshipped. So that I think it may be admitted, on scriptural principles, that incorrect taste in religious edifices implies incorrect moral perception; an error not indeed always wilful, but which nevertheless requires to be amended.
I shall make only one other prefatory remark in anticipation of a supposed objection. It may be said, "May we not safely leave all this in professional hands? The study of church architecture belongs to architects, and may properly remain with them." Now, to say nothing of the mistakes which even skiful architects occasionally make from their want of study of the principles of church architecture, is it not evident that the supply must, in some degree, be regulated by the demand? and that bad taste in the public mind will not call for, nor excite good designs among architects? and that so long as the public are content to be ill informed, architects will not sufficiently inform themselves? But after all, we do not leave the matter in professional hands, for we undertake to be the judges of their plans; and he who undertakes to be a judge, should at least have some knowledge on the point which he is about to decide. Indeed, architects continually complain, and with very good reason, that their designs are ruined by committees, who sit in judgment upon them without the slightest knowledge of the principles on which they are framed, and having accepted a plan, desire the architect to get it executed at half the proposed expense-that is, they accept his design, but destroy its proportions.
BY THE REV. W. BLACKLEY, B.A.
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, 'Thou fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way: first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing."-MATT. v. 21-20.
BEFORE attempting an explanation of this passage it may be well, perhaps, to make a few preliminary remarks. It is undoubtedly a very difficult one. There is, however, as I conceive, more allusion in it to Jewish customs than has generally been thought; and the want of a reference to this fact, together with losing sight of the construction of the 21st and 22nd verses in the original text, has been, in great measure, the cause that persons have failed in coming to a clear understanding of the passage whenever they have sat down to consider its meaning. As it respects
the construction, if the sentence in the 22nd verse"But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment"-be considered parenthetical, the 21st and 22nd verses would be connected thus:-" Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,' shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, 'Thou fool,' shall be in danger of hell fire." And this construction appears correct from the circumstance, that the Greek for the expressions, "Whosoever shall kill," and "whosoever shall say, Raca,""and" whosoever shall say, 'Thou fool,"" is all of the same character in its construction; that is, the pronoun corresponds in each instance, and the verbs are in the same mood. It removes the difficulty too, which every one finds whenever he attempts to explain the words, "whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,' shall be in danger of the council," as those of our Lord. For, supposing them to be the words of our Lord, and intended as a general rule for Christian guidance, they are at a loss to ascertain satisfactorily what can be the meaning of the danger pointed out for saying "Raca" to any one, namely, "he shall be in danger of the council "—that is, of the sanhedrimsince, as the Jewish economy has long since passed away, the power of the council or sanhedrim is now a nonentity.
And while this difficulty in the explanation of the words is removed, by allowing the construction I have pointed out, the not allowing it and making the words, "whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,' shall be in danger of the council," the words of our Lord, there is left, not only the difficulty I have alluded to in applying it to Christians, but a variation in the structure of the 22nd verse, which does not appear in any other part of the sermon. If the "whosoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,'" are the words of Christ, then, in the Greek of that sentence, and in the Greek of the sentence, "whosoever is angry with his brother," there is an unusual difference in the construction; in that case, instead of og d'aven, it might, I think, be expected to have been πᾶς ὁ δ ̓ εἰπὼν to assimilate with πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος. This is also a strong reason for inclining me to think that the words, "whosoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be in danger of the council," are not the words of our Lord. The term council literally signifies the sanhedrim; and among the Jews there was the lesser sanhedrim, and the great sanhedrim. The lesser or inferior sanhedrim was a court in every city, which consisted of twenty-three persons; and had the power of life and death, so far as its jurisdiction extended. The great sanhedrim was a court in Jerusalem, consisting of seventy-two persons, which received appeals from the inferior sanhedrims or courts of twenty-three; and whose business also was to judge in the most important affairs: for instance, in all matters relative to religion; as when any person pretended to be a prophet, or attempted to make innovations in the established worship. To one or other of these councils our Lord undoubtedly referred. There is also another circumstance which inclines me to think that the latter part of the 22nd verse is not in continuation of the words of our Lord, in the first part of it, but in continuation of the 21st verse; and it is this-that if our Lord had intended the latter part of the 22nd verse as a general rule for Christian guidance, he, as our exemplar and pattern, would not have violated the precept which he had laid down for our guidance, as he appears often to have done if that were the case. Just take the 23rd chapter of St. Matthew as an instance; in addressing the scribes and pharisees in the 17th verse, he says-"Ye fools (uopoi) and blind:" and again in the 19th verse
Ye fools (woo) and blind." This, I must confess,
is a very powerful reason for making me conclude that the latter part of the 22nd verse is in continuation of the 21st, and that the first part of the 22nd verse is a parenthesis *.
The original of the expression "hell-fire," literally means the "gehenna of fire," or "the fiery gehenna" -that is, the fire of the valley of Hinnom. This valley lay near to Jerusalem, and had formerly been the scene of the detestable worship of Moloch, an idol of the Ammonites, to which children were offered in sacrifice. The Jews, who were for a long time addicted to idolatry, joined the heathen in the worship of this idol, and caused their own children to pass through the fire to Moloch; a particular place in this valley was called "Tophet "-that is, "the firestove," in which they put and burned their children alive to Moloch. At the time, however, of the reformation under Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 10), that king defiled this place, in order that no one might go there any more to offer his son or his daughter to Moloch, and made it the receptacle for the out-pourings or offal of the city, where fires were kept constantly burning in order to consume it. Now, as there were some offences under the Jewish law, for which people were condemned to be burned alive (see, for instance, Levit. xx. 14, and Levit. xxi. 9), it has been thought that this valley of Hinnom was selected as the place of execution for all who were sentenced to be burnt alive.
With regard to the word parà, it was used when applied to any one, to signify the greatest possible contempt for the individual to whom it was applied; and the word uops, which our translation renders "thou fool," signifies "a graceless villain," and was a term among the Jews which "implied the highest enormity and most aggravated guilt." Now, though I cannot find these expressions alluded to in the Jewish divine law, yet I believe there was a law among the Jews, established by themselves, which gave the sanhedrim power to inflict punishment upon the party who used contemptuous expressions of another, as well as evilly laid to the charge of another, apostacy from the worship of Jehovah, which I believe the word popog implied. And, in reference to this latter expression, as the Jewish law gave authority for the individual to be put to death who apostatized from the worship of Jehovah and turned to idolatry, and as the individual who, having laid a charge against another without being able to prove it, was to suffer the same punishment which the individual, who had been charged, would have had to suffer had he been found guilty (Deut. xix. 16-19), I strongly incline to think that it was a custom among the Jews, in the time of our Lord, to cast into the fiery gehenna
that is, into the valley of Hinnom, where a fire was constantly burning-the individual who charged another with apostacy from the worship of Jehovah without being able to prove it, as well as him who had apostatized, if it could be proved against him t. And I am the more inclined to think this, because I find in the code of the Gentoo laws, that persons who used such expressions as "raca," and "moros," were to be punished for the use of them: the former by a
• Bishop Hurd, in reference to Mark ix. 49, 50, remarks"The difficulty of the two concluding verses of this chapter arises from a vivacity of imagination in the pursuit and application of metaphors; a faculty in which the Orientals excelled and delighted. They pass suddenly from one idea to another, nearly, and sometimes remotely allied to it. They relinquished the primary sense for another suggested by it; and without giving any notice, as we do, of our intention. These numerous reflected lights, as we may call them, eagerly catched at by the mind in its train of thinking, perplex the attention of a modern reader, and must be carefully separated by him if he would see the whole scope and purpose of many passages in the sacred writings."
+ It makes no difference, however, whether the punishment was the being burnt, or the being condemned to attend the keeping up the fires which were constantly burning in that valley.
heavy fine, and the latter by having the tongue of the person who used it cut out, and a hot-iron of ten fingers' breadth thrust into his mouth *.
The 23rd and 24th verses, I incline to think also, refer to prudential advice usually given by the Jews to any one who had, by his conduct, placed himself in danger of being proceeded against by any one for using such epithets as ρακà and μωρέ. And this opinion is confirmed by finding Philo, a Jewish writer, who flourished in the early part of the first century of the Christian era †, observing, when explaining the law of the trespass-offering (de Sacrif., p. 844), that when a man had injured his brother, and repenting of his fault, voluntarily acknowledged it (in which case both restitution and sacrifice were required), he was first to make restitution, and then to come into the temple, presenting his sacrifice, and asking pardon. And in reference to the 25th verse, I find it embodies advice in accordance with a custom prevalent at the time t.
judgment of God for the commission of such a crime. Now the scribes and pharisees teach you, in respect of this command, that if you have not committed actual murder, you are in no sense guilty of having broken it. This, however, is a fundamental error. It is true, that that which any command of God forbids, must be abstained from outwardly; for if it be not, the command is most certainly violated. But then there is no one command that has not a deeper reference than merely a reference to the outward act. And in respect to this very command, Thou shalt not kill,' anger (without cause) cherished in the heart of any one shall cause its violation as well as the outward act of murder. Your law has specially enjoined it upon you not to hate thy brother in thy heart (Levit. xix. 17). Now I solemnly declare to you, although the pharisees may tell you that no one violates the sixth command unless he actually commits murder, that where any person hates another-where any one is angry with his brother without cause-such a que is guilty of murder in the sight of God, and shall be obnoxious to his just and merited indignation on account of it. This may be a hard saying to you; but such is the spirituality of your law. It is indeed exceeding broad: it has respect to the disposition and intention of the inner man, as well as to the outward act; and from this you will discover the necessity that there is for repentance in each one of you. For who can lay his hand upon his heart and say, that in no one instance in his life has he been angry with any one child of man? He who cannot do it has broken the sixth command, and consequently, without repentance, can neither be a child of God nor a subject of Messiah's kingdom. I say no one who has subjected himself to the wrath of God, for being angry in his heart with his brother, can be God's child, or a subject of Messiah's kingdom without repentance. And from customs prevalent among yourselves, in a civil and political point of view, you may learn what is your wisdom and duty under such circumstances. If any one, as you know, reviles, or contemptuously treats his brother, by calling him "raca," that is, an empty, vain fellow, he at once becomes liable to be punished by the sanhedrim for the offence, if the offended party choose to proceed against him. Or if any one of you shall call his brother pope, thou graceless villain, implying that he has forsaken the worship of the God of Israel, and turned to idols, he becomes subjected, if he cannot prove his charge, to being cast into the fiery gehenna, and thus burnt to death, should the party thus falsely spoken against proceed against him.
"Now when any one has thus laid himself open to the vengeance of another, wisdom and interest dictate that he should seek the pardon of the individual, whom he has offended and injured, by an acknowledgment of his fault, and an amendment in his conduct, in order that the punishment to which he has subjected himself may not fall upon him. And your teachers have wisely enjoined upon you, in the event of your having thus committed yourself, that you should seek to be reconciled to your brother; and to be reconciled to him under such circumstances as may give to him the appearance of sincerity on your part, of repentance for your offence: namely, that if at either of your annual festivals, when you all appear in Jerusalem to offer your sacrifices, a remembrance of your offence occur to you, you at once leave your offering before the altar, in the custody of some one who shall take the charge of it, and go and seek out your brother whom you have offended, and seek to obtain his pardon, and then come and offer your gift; or if, after time and opportunity have been afforded you for seeking reconciliation with your offended and injured brother, you have neglected to avail yourself of this so wise a precaution, and one so adapted to your advantage, and the offended party (finding no over
Now, bearing in mind these preliminary remarks in connexion with the declaration of our Lord, that, while heaven and earth remained, the (moral) law should not lose its force; and that, so far from having come to destroy the law and the prophets (as some of those whom he addressed imagined) he was come with the express purpose of fulfilling it; bearing in mind also his statement, that those who acted in opposition to the requirements of the law, and taught by their example and precept, that it was not to be regarded, should not be subjects of the kingdom he was about to establish, while those who performed and taught its commands should be approved and honoured members of it; remembering too the declaration he made, that those who desired to become his people must exceed, in their spiritual attainments, those who were esteemed the wisest and the holiest of their nation, namely, the scribes and pharisees, who, in interpreting the law, affirmed that no more than the outward action was commanded or forbidden-we shall arrive, I trust, at a right understanding of this important, and greatly misunderstood, and misapplied passage: first, however, premising, that, while our Lord taught that the law had a deeper reference than merely what was outwardly forbidden or commanded -that, while it was just and good, it was holy and spiritual, he does not appear to have intended to point out any thing new to those whom he addressed, only rightly to illustrate the law, to show them its meaning, and to lead them to just conclusions from it. As Matthew Henry remarks, he adds not any thing new, only limits and restrains some permissions which had been abused, showing the breadth, strictness, and spiritual nature of the precepts of the law; at the same time adding such explanatory remarks as made them more clear. In this proceeding he commences, in the portion which heads this article, with the sixth commandment. And in the continuation of his address to the assembled multitudes before him, we may conceive him speaking to them in some such way as the following:
"Ye have heard by the public teachers of your church-that is, by those who read and expound the law of Moses and the prophets every sabbath-daythat it was enjoined upon your fathers, and hence upon you, as one of the special commands of GodThou shalt not kill;' and that whosoever shall kill, shall be exposed to the penalty of death as the just
* Code of Gentoo laws, chap. xv., sect. 2-See Dr. A. Clarke. He formed one of a deputation from the Jews at Alexandria to the emperor Caligula, in the year A.D., 40.
I The method of carrying on a process among the Jews, was this:-He who entered the action went to the judges and opened his affair to them, and then they sent officers with him to go and seize the party and bring him to justice. And to this our Lord alludes when he says, "Agree with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him "-that is, before thou art brought before the judge, lest thou be condemned.-Lamy Bibl. Appar. Edit., 1723.