to the Bishop of Exeter, a man must not read his Bible in order to learn what Scripture allows or forbids: but must be content to take the meaning of Scripture to be that which is laid down by the Canons of his Church. The reader of Scripture may well indeed be shocked to hear such an opinion expressed by a Bishop of the Church of England: but he must not be overpowered by it for a Bishop ignorant of Scripture, is a character which is foreshewn to us by Soripture itself. 64. Tîs dvváμews] i. e. of Almighty Power: the force of the Greek article is not expressed in E. V. See Luke xxii. 69. 75. Ekλavσre Tikрas] The fall of Peter exhibits a striking illustration of the words of Jesus, Mat. xix. 30, and xx. 16: OûTWs ἔσονται οἱ πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι· Peter had been the first of the disr ciples, Mat. x. 2: but by his shameful denial of his Master, he fell below them all: and this is gently but plainly expressed in the words of the Angel, as related by Mark, xvi. 7: etnate tois μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, καὶ τῷ Πέτρω. XXVII. 2. παρέδωκαν αὐτὸν τῷ ἡγεμόνι] Here is an ominous symbol of future persecutions by the Holy Catholic Church. In order to put Jesus to death on a charge of blasphemy, the High Priests and Elders deliver him over to the Civil Power, and raise a popular clamour against him. Their example has been followed by the Bishops and Clergy of the Holy Catholic Church. So long as they had the power to persecute the faithful and true Witnesses of God, they did so. They left off, when they could go on no longer. In free and happy England they have no power. The Archbishop of Canterbury cannot touch the Layman except with his pen, and that is a weapon which a Layman can handle as well as His Grace. All are free here, except the Clergy. : 3. μeraμeλndeís] i.e. regretting what he had done. År. Nub. 1114. χωρεῖτε νῦν, οἶμαι δέ σοι ταῦτα μεταμελήσειν a phrase which is exactly opposed to the common expression ὀλίγον μοι μέλει. So it was with Judas. He regretted what he had done, but his heart was not changed. There is a great difference between μετεμελήθη and μετενόησε. But this incident appears to have a symbolical meaning. Judas Iscariot is a type of the Bishop of Rome and he is here said to express his regret for his treachery towards Jesus : he says ἥμαρτον παραδοὺς αἷμα ἀθῷον. Now these words exactly represent the unrepented guilt of the Holy Catholic Church for the greatest mistake that she ever made was in the immolation of so many hecatombs upon hecatombs of heretics, upon the altar of diabolical error and delusion. And it may be that the Bishop of Rome has now found out his mistake. The contempt into which the See of Rome has fallen, cannot be a matter of ignorance to His Holiness. He must now see, that he is nothing more than a political puppet in the hands of the great Powers of Europe. This agrees with the Apocalyptic Symbol: ἐγένετο ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ ἐσκοτωμένη, Apoc. xvi. 10, But then it must be observed that Judas Iscariot confesses his error to the High Priests and Elders, but to them only: he does not humble himself before JEHOVAH, but seems to have died unrepented. So it is with his Antitype. There is no repentance on the part of the Bishop of Rome. And this is also foreshewn in the language of the Apocalypse: οὐ μετενόησαν ἐκ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν. They bit their tongues, i. e. μετεμελήθησαν, but οὐ μετενόησαν. Apoc. xvi. 10, 11. οἱ δὲ εἶπον, τί πρὸς ἡμᾶς; σὺ ὄψει] The High Priests and Elders are symbolical of the Bishops and Clergy of the Holy Catholic Church. And this incident seems intended to illustrate the folly and absurdity of a man confessing his sins to the Church; who has no power to absolve the sinner, nor to forgive his sins, nor to retain them. But all these powers are most falsely attributed to herself by the Church of England. 9. τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἰερεμίου] This passage is not free from difficulty. For the words which follow, are not to be found in Jeremiah: but something like them is found in Zechariah. Upon which Alford observes: The citation is not from Jeremiah, and is probably quoted from memory and inaccurately: we have similar mistakes in two places in Acts, and in Mark ii. 26, &c. These are very reverend observations, and well worthy of the Dean of Canterbury. If there had been a pèv unfollowed by de, a nominativus pendens, a dativus commodi, or an ecbatic iva, the Dean would have favoured us with a copious exegesis, accompanied with a direction to see Winer's Greek Grammar, or Bernhardy's Syntax, &c: but on a point of real difficulty and high interest, we find altum silentium. All that Alford tells us, is, that Matthew is mistaken here, as Mark and Luke are in other places. But a less reverend expositor may hesitate to affirm such a proposition. For in order to prove that Matthew is mistaken in his citation, it must be shewn to us that Matthew certainly had the words of Zechariah, and no other words, present to his mind, when he wrote thus: and how can that be shewn, unless by revelation? But if we may venture to differ from so very reve, rend a writer as Alford, we may perhaps arrive at the discovery that there is no mistake at all in the passage of Matthew; but, on the contrary, that the finger of JEHOVAH may be read in every word of it. Now in order to do justice to this important question, we must first write out the words of the Greek text. These appear to be as follows: καὶ ἔλαβον τὰ τριάκοντα αργύρια, τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ τετιμημένου, ον ἐτιμήσαντο ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ, καὶ ἔδωκα αὐτὰ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως, καθὰ συνέταξέ μοι Κύριος. Where the reader may observe that instead of dwkav, which is the common reading, I have written edwka. For this excellent reading, I am indebted to Tischendorf: who, however, has not adopted it; but he states it to be the reading of three MSS: and there is very strong internal evidence in its favour. For if we read "doka, then λaßov also must be understood in the first person: and this will exactly agree with Zech. xi. 13, from whom the first few words are taken. But besides that, dwka is absolutely required by the concluding words καθὰ συνέταξέ μοι for if the true reading were ἔδωκαν, then we ought to find αὐτοῖς in the place of poí. The speaker means to say that the directions of JEHOVAH were followed out: which is aptly expressed by saying, "I did as JEHOVAH had directed me." But to say that They did as JEHOVAH directed me, would be contrary to all logical propriety. The word avveragev is used in only one other place in Ν. Τ. viz. Mat. xxvi. 19, ἐποίησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ ὡς συνέταξεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς. Where the reader may observe that after ἐποίησαν we find αὐτοῖς· so, before μοὶ we ought to find ἔδωκα, and not ἔδωκαν. καὶ ἔλαβον τὰ τριάκοντα ἀργύρια] These words are evidently, and without any alteration, taken from Zech. xi. 13. τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ τετιμημένου] i. e. The price of the Precious One. These words are not exactly the same as we now read in Zechariah: but the substance of them is found there. The Good Shepherd, who is valued at thirty silvers, is himself the WORD OF JEHOVAH, Zech. xi. 11: who is here most appropriately called, The Precious One: a mystical designation of the Messiah. So, 1 Sam. iii. 1. The WORD OF JEHOVAH was precious in those days. This is exactly the meaning of the word teriμnμévos. E. g. καὶ χρυσὸν τιμῆντα καὶ ἄργυρον. Σ. 475. ἡ χρυσὸν φίλου ἀνδρὸς ἐδέξατο τιμήεντα. λ'. 326. e'. 393. Thus Tǹ is said of gold, the precious metal. But o retiμnμévos here means the same as o dyanηròs, which in the Gospels is never said of any but Jesus Christ. For ȧyanητоs, when said of a saleable article, answers exactly to our word dear: e.g. ὅπου γε τοῖς θεοῖς μὲν ἠγορασμένον Menand. Athen. 146. E. and 364. D. The design of the speaker here is to contrast the paltry price of thirty silvers, with the inestimable value of the Shepherd for whom that price was paid, and who is therefore called TOÛ TETIμnμévov the same design appears in the words of Zech. xi. 13. ὃν ἐτιμήσαντο ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ] i. e. whom they had bought of the sons of Israel. These words do not at all appear in Zechariah. But they seem to allude to the history of Joseph, who was a type of Jesus Christ, and who literally was bought of the sons of Israel, and for a very small sum, Gen. xxxvii. 28: a purchase which afterwards led to most important results. 10. καὶ ἔδωκα αὐτὰ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως] These words do not appear in Zechariah, nor elsewhere in V. T. Zechariah says, I cast them to the potter. But not a word is there said about the potter's field. And, to give money to the potter, would rather seem to mean, to buy his pots, than to buy his field. Thus if we hear that a man's money all goes to the Baker, the first meaning that suggests itself, is, that the money is expended in the purchase of bread: not that he buys the Baker's field. The meaning of those words of Zechariah will be considered presently: but our first business is with the words of Matthew. From what has been said, it is clear that when Matthew wrote these words, he was not quoting Zechariah from his own memory, but was writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit: who has repeated some of the words of Zechariah, and has added to them other words, and has applied the whole to the events which were passing in the time of Matthew. But what is meant by the Purchase of the Potter's field? For that appears to be a fact of no historical interest. Is it possible to suppose that the sole end and aim of the Prophecy, was, to tell us that thirty dollars would be expended in the purchase of a Potter's field? That would look like a Mountain after years of labour, producing a mouse. We must therefore enquire whether something more than meets the eye, be not here intended. And to this enquiry we are directed by the Holy Spirit himself: who tells us to look for the Prophecy, not in Zechariah, but in Jeremiah. Accordingly we turn to Jeremiah, and from that to other places, and we find the following: Arise and go down to the Potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.-O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this Potter? saith JEHOVAH. Behold, as the clay in the Potter's hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel. Jerem. xviii. 2, 6. But now, O JEHOVAH, thou art our father: we are the clay, and thou our Potter: and we all are the work of thy hand. Isa. lxiv. 8. Wo to him that striveth with his Maker.-Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? Id. xlv. 9. Here then is a key to the meaning of the Prophecy. The purchase of the Potter's field was in itself an event of no importance: but it is symbolical of an event of the highest interest to Man. For the Potter represents JEHOVAH: the clay in his field represents the race of man: and the purchase of the Potter's field, represents the REDEMPTION OF MANKIND. The Scholar will be reminded of the words of the Greek Poet, Ar. Av. 686: ὀλιγοδρανέες, πλάσματα πηλοῦ, σκιοειδέα φυλ ̓ ἀμενηνά. And now returning to the words of Zechariah, we may observe that he does not say, Buy the Potter's field: but he says, Cast it unto the Potter: words, which may be fulfilled by buying the Potter's field; but which may also mean, Buy his pots. And in fact, both meanings were included in the same expression: and both have been fulfilled: one in a literal sense, and one in the sense which was mystically foreshewn. The learned reader will now judge for himself, whether there is any mistake in these words of Matthew: and whether there is not some slight mistake on the part of Alford, who, without any fitness for the task, has undertaken to edit the Greek Testament. 13. Πιλάτος] Tischendorf has restored this reading. The earlier editions of N. T. read П‹λáros, which cannot be right : for Pilatus must be like Torquatus, Dentatus, &c. media flexa. 17. Βαραββάν ἢ Ἰησοῦν] Some MSS. read Ἰησοῦν Βαραββᾶν, ἢ 'Inoovv &c. and this was the reading of Tischendorf in his 2d ed. Lips. 1849. But in his last ed. 1859, he has returned to the common reading. But it is not improbable that 'Iŋooûv Baραββάν may be the right reading. For Βαραββᾶς is merely a patronymic, and 'Inσoûs, i. e. Joshua, was always a common name among the Jews. Besides, Bar-Abbas means Son of the Father, and it seems to have been the design of Matthew to oppose the nominal Father-son, to the ANOINTED Son of God. But the contrast will be far more striking if the name of Jesus was common to both. And not only that, but the structure of the sentence seems to require it; Ἰησοῦν Βαραββᾶν, ἢ Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Xpioτóv two names against two. Thus, in the common editions of Athenaeus, 321. Α. we read : Επίχαρμος ἐν Ηβας γάμῳ καὶ χελιδόνες τε μύρμαι· τοί τε κολιαν μείζονες ἐντὶ καὶ σκόμβρων, ἀτὰρ τῶν θυννίδων γε μῄονες. Where the Scholar cannot fail to see that something is wrong: for what are μúppai; and what is the meaning of the first halfline? and where is the connexion between that, and what follows? The true reading seems to be, ταὶ χελιδόνες τε, μύραιναί τε, κολιᾶν μείζονες ἐντὶ καὶ σκόμβρων, ἀτὰρ τῶν θυννίδων γε μῄονες. Now the sentence is complete in all its proprieties: the Poet says, these two are greater than those two, but less than the others. Múpavai is a word of Epicharmus, according to Athenaeus 312. C. Επίχαρμος δ ̓ ἐν Μούσαις χωρὶς τοῦ σ' μυραίνας αὐτὰς καλεῖ, ούτωσὶ λέγων· οὔτε γόγγρων ὧν τι παχέων, οὔτε μυραινᾶν ἀπῆς. But the writers of N. T. were most accurate writers: and for the best of all reasons: for who created the Greek language? JEHOVAH. And for what purpose? As a casket to contain its |