Matt. i. 23: Meε nuovo εos God with us.-Socinians are said to lay great stress on the presence or absence of the Greek article; and to maintain that Ocoç signifies a god, or inferior deity; while 'O Oɛog means The God, or Supreme God. Were this an infallible rule and distinction, the unlettered Christian may rejoice in being told that the first time the word "God" is applied to his Saviour it is 'O Oɛos, "The God." See 1 Kings xviii. 39: "The Lord, he is The God: the Lord, he is The God."

Matt. v. 3: "For of these is the kingdom of heaven: " that is, It is composed of these: they are the persons of whom the church or kingdom is composed. So, ch. iii. 2, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand:" that is, the Gospel dispensation, or the reign of Grace. So Mark x. 14: "For of such (that is, young children,) is the kingdom of heaven," or the church, composed. Humility does not save us, any more than any other Christian grace or good work: but it is a qualification for church membership, and, like all other Christian graces, a fruit of the Spirit, and a part of our education for eternity.

Verse 22: "Raca,"- "Thou fool." That is, "Thou empty fellow, whose hopes of salvation are unfounded: Thou fool, for believing what God has said." This language could only be used by an infidel and a scoffer, who of course (dying in unbelief and impenitence) cannot be saved.

Verse 39: "Whoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." That is, rather than revenge it; or, if it be in a matter of persecution for righteousness' sake, rather than flee from the line and path of duty. Jesus himself (the best exemplifier of his own precepts), when smitten and buffeted, did not literally turn to the smiter his other cheek, but meekly expostulated, "Why smitest thou me ?" The passage enjoins meekness and forgiveness; not a gratuitous and unnecessary courting of persecution or obloquy.

Verse 43: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy." The lawyers, corrupting the word of God, and mistaking its meaning, had added to the command, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour," the unsound inference, "and hate thine enemy: which God never intended, and Moses never wrote.

Matt. vi. 7 : Μη βαττολογησητε, worEP OL EVIKOL. "Do not Battologise;" or imitate either Battus,-a noted Lacedæmonian, (whose absurd manner of speaking became proverbial for tautology),—or the worshippers of false gods, such as the priests of Baal, who (1 Kings xviii. 26) for several hours cried out, "O Baal, hear us! O Baal, hear us!" and the Ephesians, who (Acts xix. 34) repeatedly cried out, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians! Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" Moreover, it is not against using repetitions themselves that the Saviour speaks, but against vain repetitions.

Verse 24: "No man can serve two masters:" that is, two masters, either whose services require all his time, or whose interests

are opposed to each other; as God and Satan, Christ and the world.

Matt. vi. 25: "Take no thought," &c.: that is, no anxious or distrustful thought be not anxiously solicitous, &c.

Ver. 26: "Are ye not much better than they?" that is, more valuable. Sinners, viewed as fallen creatures, are even worse than the brute creation, which have not sinned but man, as possessed of speech and reason, soul and body, is a much nobler animal than any irrational creature (see ch. x. 31). Besides, Christ is here speaking to his disciples.

man," &c.

Matt. viii. 9: Και γαρ εγω ανθρωπος ειμι, κ. τ. λ. "For I am a "As I have power over the soldiers committed to my care and government, and can order them to go where 1 please to send them; so Thou, who hast given to thee power over all things, whether men, devils, or diseases, canst say to sickness come,' or 'go,' just as thou wilt, exert that power in behalf of my servant. Such is the force of the untranslated word kai. Ver. 22 : αφες τις νεκρές θαχαι της εαυτών νεκρός. "Let the dead bury their dead:" that is, "Let the dead in sin discharge the necessary office for the dead body but do thou, as the proof and result of thy being alive to God, endeavour to quicken the souls of the dead in sin to the life of righteousness." Some, however, suggest the reading Jaxaot for Saxar That is, "Leave the burial of the dead to those whose trade and business it is."

Matt. ix. 2: "Seeing their faith :" not the faith of the paralytic, but of those who brought him. May not pious parents and pious sponsors hope from hence, that He who, for the sake of the bringers, had pity on the person brought, will bless the child which is brought to undergo the rite of holy baptism enjoined by Himself.

Ver. 13. "And not sacrifice:" that is, "rather than sacrifice;" or, "in preference to sacrifice:" duties

being then only acceptable when in place and season.

Ver. 16 ayvaḍə* new cloth: that is, undressed: before it comes out of the fuller's, or dresser's, hands, and, consequently, when unfit for use, being hard and stiff.

Ver. 17: "New wine into old bottles:" that is, unfermented wine into old leathern or bladder bags: which were then used to carry liquids in, glass being then (if even known) not in use for ordinary purposes.

Ver. 38: Ekẞaλn "Send forth," rather, "Thrust out: " perhaps implying man's natural reluctance to leave the comforts of home, and to brave the dangers incident to the life of an apostle or missionary.

Matt. xi, 25: "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because," &c. or rather, "I thank thee," &c., "that, having hid these things from the wise and prudent, thou hast revealed them unto babes:" as if he had said, "I thank thee (not for having hidden, &c., but) "for revealing to the humble what thou hast, in thy wisdom, hidden from the worldly wise." See Romans vi. 17, which may be similarly elucidated.

Matt. xii. 36: "Every idle word," &c. : that is, every such ungrounded charge as ye bring against me, in supposing me to be in league with Satan: or every wantonly wicked, maliciously spoken, or immoral expression, which tends to the slandering of truth, the encouragement of vice, or the corruption of others.

Matt. xv. 5, 6: "Whosoever shall say," &c.; or rather, "Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother (when they are in need, and apply to him for relief,) father, that is a gift' already made to the priests or to the sanctuary (that is, Corban),

by which,' if I had not promised or devoted it, thou mightest have been benefited by me,' then he need not support or relieve his parent;" thus teaching him to evade the Divine command, and enrich the avaricious priests.

Matt. xv. 26: 'o de, K. T. λ. "But," or rather, "moreover.' "But" prepares the reader for a compassionate feeling in the breast of the Saviour; which, though he felt, he did not manifest; but, as if he wished to increase her difficulties, and her faith also, he seemed to deny her claim and their request (supposing that "send her away" was equivalent to "heal her and dismiss her, for she is clamorous:" and not, as some think, “refuse her, for she troubles us "); and therefore the writer adds, "Moreover," (that is, seconding their language,) "he answered, and said," &c.

Matt. xvi. 18: "Upon this rock," pointing to Himself; as, in John ii. 19, 21,"Destroy this temple; and in three days I will raise it up; " where we are expressly told that "He spake of the temple of his body." It is not to be denied that he might have meant "Upon the truth of this doctrine-that is, that I am the Messiah, and the Son of God-will I build my church." Peter was a stone (alas! of stumbling to many): Jesus is a Rock of Salvation to all that build their hopes on Him.

Ver. 19: "I will give unto thee the keys," &c. That this power was not confined to St. Peter, may be seen from ch. xviii. 18. But may it not also allude to the first preaching of the Gospel by Peter, after our Saviour's ascension? At the day of Pentecost, St. Peter opened. as it were, the door of faith to the Jews, and let in about three thousand souls.

Matt. xx. 23 8k esiv epov duval, aλλ' oiç, K.T.λ. Or rather, "It is not mine to give to any other than to those for whom it is proposed," &c. Or, "to give except to those," &c. As the verse now stands, the power to give is taken from Christ; whereas the Greek confers it. Jesus claims this power elsewhere; as John x. 28, "I give unto them (my sheep) eternal life." See also Rev. ii. 7; xvii. 26. St. Paul, after calling the Lord Jesus Christ "the Judge of

the quick and dead" (2 Tim. iv. 1), says (ver. 8), "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the Righteous Judge, shall give to me; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." St. Peter even confines the blessing of eternal life to Christ. (John vi. 68.) The best exposition of the verse is to be found in John xvii. 2: “That he (the Son) should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him." This last cited passage shews, as well as the original Greek of this verse, that the power of Christ to give, is commensurate with that of the Father to appoint. It is no proof of inferiority or impotence, to say of either of the Three equal Persons of the Godhead, that He cannot do any thing without the act, consent, and unity of each and every Person of the adorable Trinity.

PROPRIETY OF THE FIRST LESSONS.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

As I have been in the habit of regarding the first lessons, which Liturgicus, in your No. for April, appears to object to, in a very different light from himself, I beg leave to state my reason for so doing, as I cannot but think it an important one.

Liturgicus says, "Why should not the first lessons for Sundays, out of the Old Testament, be those which are appointed for the day of the month, on which they may occur, instead of having proper lessons for the several Sundays?" He adds, "The present selection of these lessons appears to me often injudicious. I need not specify the instances. I do not mean that the chapters I refer to should not be read to a mixed congregation; but I cannot see why they should be read over and over again, year after year, to the exclusion of many others, at least equally edifying. In most places Sunday is the only day, &c.

and surely if a selection be made, it should be of such chapters as might tend most to edification," &c.

Now, in reference to those lessons which your correspondent seems to allude to, as injudiciously selected, I have been particularly struck with their appropriateness, as setting before us, what it seems evidently to have been the intention of our reformers to do, the most striking scriptural exhibitions of the fall of man, and of the depravation of our nature. Where the calender tells us that passages cannot all be read, what a speaking lecture on the depravity of human nature is that which can be read; and again, the silence itself as to that which cannot; and how fitted are both for exciting feelings of deep humiliation! Surely those who hear the Scriptures publicly read but one day in seven, will not hear these chapters too often, in having them, for the above important uses, brought to their notice once a year. Subjects more agreeable than several of them contain, might be fixed upon but these are written, and these are selected, that we may "take root downward:" or, to allude to "edifying," may lay the foundation well, in deep scriptural conviction of what Mr. Cecil calls "the bankruptcy of human nature." Never may the time come when this unpleasant, but "safe," knowledge shall be less frequently holden up to our "mixed congregations," by replacing these well selected exhibitions with any that may happen to occur in the rotation of the calendar.

R. F. W.

learned doctor's essay on this point is too superficial. How, indeed, could such a subject be handled within the narrow compass of twenty-eight pages of a widely-printed octavo? The opinion of Dr. Whately on the Sabbath, is, I fear, an opinion increasing in popularity: and so zeal. ous is he on the subject, that he has enlarged his view, and printed it as a cheap pamphlet. What pious end can be answered by this, I am unable to explain: at a time when, certainly, a superstitious observance of the Lord's day is not a prevalent error; but when, on the contrary, the sanc tion of the highest ranks is given to treat it with unmingled contempt;" and when the desecration of it, especially in our great towns, is becoming almost universal. Whatever it may be in others, in ministers of the Church of England this is unseemly. They stand at the altar of the congregation in the solemn emblems of priestly duty. They promulge the Fourth Commandment as a portion of the unalterable everlasting code of God: whilst the people, as required by the church, offer the solemn supplication, "Lord, have mercy upon us; and incline our hearts to keep THIS LAW;" and, "write ALL THESE THY LAWS in our hearts, we beseech thee." minister then, perhaps, ascends the pulpit (for I have known such things), and, instead of enforcing the law by gospel principles, proceeds to tell them that that law, which he has so gravely enounced, and for obedience to which they have supplicated in such awful terms, has been abolished, with the commencement of the system of which he is the minister. How the mind can be satisfied in this solemn and unholy

The

PERPETUAL OBLIGATION.

Tothe Editor of the Christian Observer.

YOUR Number for February contained a sensible communication on Dr. Whately's opinion respecting the abolition of the Mosaic law. The

church ordinances, I know not; neither how the church could have announced her opinion on the subject in a more decisive way, than by interweaving the Commandments into the most serious part of her service. This would be quite enough, even were not her views so copiously

expressed in the "First Part of the Homily of the Place and Time of Prayer."

The British Critic, for January last, contains, in a review of the Bishop of Lincoln's account of Justin Martyr, some remarks on this subject; in which the writer seems to imply that the strict observance of the Sabbath originated with Dr. Bound, who published a treatise entitled "Sabbatum Veteris Novi Testamenti ;" and one would suppose, from the reviewer's way of speaking, that he was a mere "puritan divine," and not connected with the established church. But the fact is, that he was a staunch churchman, and rector of Norton, in Suffolk. His book is inscribed to his diocesan, Bishop Jegon, whose orthodoxy has, I believe, never been questioned and that he was not much of a Puritan (if, by that epithet, a contempt for episcopal or ecclesiastical authority be understood) is obvious from the dedication, in which, speaking of certain disputed points respecting the Sabbath, he says, "All which I most willingly subject unto the judicious and learned censures of the most reverend fathers and grave divines of the church, in these united kingdoms under the name of Great Britain; and more particularly the former book, unto your lordship's pen, either to allow, or cancel, by the Scriptures; who, for your great place and learning, have, more than once heretofore, been moderator and determiner of the divinity disputations, and that in the greatest assemblies of the most famous and flourishing University of Cambridge; and whom now the Lord hath made overseer and judge of all the learning and manners of the ministers in Suffolk and Norfolk; and therefore, who not

only is able sufficiently to decide all controversies here handled, but also to whom, by a certain peculiar right, it belongeth to censure whatever is here uttered."

I merely quote these remarks that the reader may know something of "this man," as the reviewer stiles a writer of whom, it seems, he knew no more than what he had seen in a casual remark of Jeremy Collier. I am not defending the length to which Dr. Bound, and especially the puritan writers after him, carried his opinions; for I conceive they are indefensible. But the dispute is not (as the reviewer has confused it) whether the puritan strictness was right, but whether the Fourth Commandment is of moral obligation. The opinion of the Church of England is decisive, both in her Liturgy and Homilies: it is only a party pen, therefore, which would impute this to Dr. Bound, whose book was published in the year 1606; or which attempts to get rid of the question, by amalgamating it with the fanatical excesses of some of the Puritans. I am not aware that the moral obligation of the Fourth Commandment was ever questioned in the Protestant Church of England, until the influence of Archbishop Laud commenced that charge in her discipline and tenets which soon terminated in her destruction. Since the Restoration, the former opinion has been universal among her divines; and, I must confess, that, as nothing tended more to her downfal than the "Book of Sports," and the loose views of the Sabbath, in the 17th century; so nothing is more likely to lead to the same deplorable event, than the promulgation of the same views, which, I regret to find, are becoming too prevalent.

G. D.