ate and personal efforts were confined to very narrow limits. He was allowed no time for developing the plan with which he commenced by appropriate actions, and was prevented from making the attempt as soon as opportunity presented for the purpose. It was very natural, therefore, that, during his short public life, in which he had enough to do in order to secure faithful men to whom he might intrust the continuation of his work, he should have made no arrangements for leaving the Jewish community. If it were his intention to separate from it, death overtook him before suitable preparations had been made for so important a step, and the thing could be effected with security. For the same reasons also, he was under the necessity of limiting the first commissions which he gave his disciples, to their own countrymen. Possibly he may have been further influenced in so doing by the reflection, that there was then very much to be done at home, and that his messengers were as yet too incapable of performing any thing among strangers, to be entrusted with more extensive powers. All things well considered, it was also necessary for Jesus to make his appearance in the character of a man, having the purification and improvement of his own paternal religion at heart. In no other character could he have introduced himself to his countrymen, so as to command their attention and esteem. No safe conclusion therefore, can be drawn from his conduct in these respects, as to the compass of his plan. He was obliged to act as he acted, whether he confined his views to his nation, or gave them more ample extent. He, therefore, who infers, that Jesus had merely the improvement of his own paternal religion in view, from the course which he pursued, appeals to circumstances altogether of an equivocal nature, and which might as well be combined with any other supposition, and so of course prove nothing.

§ 10. On the other hand, so many of the expressions of Jesus plainly indicate his resolution to erect an establishment perfectly new, and entirely different from the religious constitution of the Jews, as to render it a matter of astonishment that it could have been so often overlooked.

Look at the very declaration itself to which such bold appeals have been made in proof of the contrary. • I am not come to destroy the law or the prophets,' says he, 'but to fulfil; for one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law till all be fulfilled. He therefore who breaks one of these least commandments and teaches men so, shall be the least in the kingdom of Heaven,' Matt. 5: 17-19. What is this declaration, when considered in connexion with what follows, but a hint, that the heavenly kingdom which he had in view, was to be a moral establishment, perfectly new, and far exalted above the old constitution?

As if Christ had spoken as follows: "Hitherto the use of the sacred Scriptures for purposes of moral improvement, has been constantly neglected, and is particularly so at present. They are expressly calculated however, to exert an influence in this respect, and accordingly the law and the prophets are henceforth to receive such a fulfilment as they never have received in times past. He therefore who would fulfil them, exhaust their meaning, advance their utility, and use them in a proper manner, must consider them in this point of view, and exchange the constitution grounded upon them for an institution of pure morality."* Now does not Christ's whole discourse, subsequent to this declaration, undoubtedly prove, that this was actually the fulfilment which he had in view? What does he quote from the law? How would he have it observed? How does he explain it? How does he inculcate it? He always confines himself in what he says, to those general commandments which are of universal and eternal obligation in morality. He clears them of the spurious additions and false interpretations of the Pharisees. He represents them in their true extent and all their sanctity. He calls upon his hearers to yield them obedience with an earnestness which condemns the hypocrisy of the Pharisees without forbearance. With the sacrificial rites, ceremonies, and the precepts, which relate to the external constitution of the Jews, he either does not meddle at all, or only in an inci

* Paul calls this establishing the law, Rom. 3: 31.

dental way, and for the purpose of showing that they must derive all their value from pure morality, Matt. 5: 23, 24. 6:16-18. Can any one look at the connexion in which this discourse stands, and have a right apprehension of its spirit, without perceiving that the heavenly kingdom, the establishment of which is here announced, must consist of something more than the Jewish worship? Jesus informed his hearers, as distinctly as his circumstances, and their limited capacities would consistently permit, that the old order of things was to be dissolved into a kingdom of true morality, and the pure worship of God. When this was effected, could not one say for the first time, that the law and the prophets had been fulfilled ?*

As soon, however, as Jesus had acquired more influence and authority, he declared in still plainer language, that the old order of things was soon to be destroyed, and a new, more general, and far better order of things to be substituted in its stead. I shall adduce only a few of the most noted passages in proof of this. In Matt. 8: 5—12, we are informed, that a centurion, who was a Gentile, applied to Jesus for help in behalf of his servant, at the same time expressing views and feelings calculated to put the Jews to the blush, and that Jesus, struck with his magnanimity, broke out in the assurance, that the heathen should come from all quarters of the earth and sit down in the kingdom of Heaven, while the Jews, the children of the kingdom, should be cast out of it. Whatever we under

stand in this place by the kingdom of Heaven, this declaration unquestionably implies, that a change was at this time to be expected, which should divest the Jews of the privileges to which they thought themselves exclusively entitled, and confer them upon the heathen. On another occasion, Jesus repeated this declaration in a still more definite manner. During the latter part of his public career, and shortly before his execution, finding no farther reasons, from any thing that he had to do or suffer, for keeping it

* Compare Grotius upon the passage, Annotatt. in Nov. Test., where a very correct representation is given of its true meaning.

a secret, he openly affirmed in the temple that the kingdom of God was to be taken from the Jews and given to the gentiles,' Matt. 21: 43. Mark 12: 9. Luke 20: 16, and went so far as to clothe his predictions with various instructive narratives, Matt. 22: 1-14. Now how could the Jews have been rejected and the heathen substituted in their stead, without the introduction of an order of things, new, and entirely different from the former?-When Jesus first sent out his disciples with a commission to excite the attention of their fellow citizens to his enterprises, he did not conceal from them in the least degree the fact, that their calling was a very dangerous one, Matt. 10: 16, and the business intrusted to them greatly detested, Matt. 10: 22. He told them of the abuses of every kind to which they should be subjected, vs. 17, 18, and observed that the accomplishment of his views would unavoidably result in a universal exasperation and dissension, which should even disturb the peace of families, and sever the tenderest connexions, vs. 34-36. Had Jesus had no other object before him than the improvement of the prevailing religion, could he have anticipated such dangerous commotions, and spoken of them before hand? The labors of John the Baptist did not disturb the public tranquillity, for he undertook nothing in opposition to the established constitution. Now if Jesus, as the result of what he intended to accomplish, looked forward to a dissolution of all former relations, and a state of war between all parts of society, must he not have intended to go much farther than John did? Must he not have purposed the actual overthrow of the regulations then in existence ?-There is something remarkable in the manner, in which, on every occasion, he explained those commandments of the law of Moses, which related to the external service of God, and made up a great part of the Jewish constitution. Nothing was more sacred in the estimation of a Jew than sacrifice, Jesus never intimated that a man should offer sacrifice, but he often censured the abuses, which, to the prejudice of morality, had crept into the service, Matt. 15: 5, 6. Mark 7: 11, 12, and with feelings of marked approbation,

told a learned man who had asserted love to God and man to be of more value than "all whole burnt offerings,' that he was not far from the kingdom of God, Mark 12: 34. Nothing appeared more inviolable to the Jews than the commandment respecting the Sabbath. Jesus purposely availed himself of every opportunity which presented itself for correcting their views respecting the Sabbath, inculcating a more liberal mode of thinking in this respect, and convincing them, that that whole precept must be made subordinate to the general laws of morality, Matt. 12: 1-15. Mark 2: 23-28. 3: 1-6. Luke 6:1-11. John 5:9-19. 7: 20-23. He went so far as to intimate to them that he did not consider that precept as binding upon his person, John 5: 17, and that he had power to abolish it altogether,* Matt. 12: 8. Luke 6: 5.† The constitution then existing rested very essentially upon the traditions of the fathers, and the additions which had been made to the precepts of Moses. So long had these oral illustrations been recognised as valid, that it was deemed necessary to let every thing remain as it had hitherto done. Jesus attacked these traditions on all occasions, Matt. 5:21 seqq., and did it with an earnestness which evinced itself by the most vehement reproaches. Matt. 15: 1-9. Mark 7:1-13. Matt. 23: 1-39. He compared all

*It is also to be observed that Jesus undertook to effect a change respecting the subject of divorcements, unquestionably at variance with the Mosaic law, and advantageous to morality, and urged the abolition of the Mosaic precept, Matt. 19: 1–9. Mark 10: 1–6.

Grotius, as is well known, does not explain this passage of Christ, but of every man in general, and appeals to Mark 2: 27, 28, in support of this explanation; and Bolte in his remarks, Zum Bericht des Matthäus von Jesu dem Messia, S. 190 ff., has lately defended this interpretation in detail. It is certainly not opposed to the usus loquendi. The connexion however seems to require these words to be applied to Christ, and understood of his power over the Sabbath. He had just remarked, (v. 6,) as is conceded by Grotius himself, that he was greater than the temple. After this assertion, it was to be expected that he would exalt himself above the Sabbath. Now, as by way of distinction, he frequently calls himself the son of man, so the eighth verse is unquestionably to be explained of him and his power to make changes in the commandment respecting the Sabbath. There is something of a similar import in Matt. 17: 25, 26.