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.

these merely human precepts to pernicious plants, which must be entirely rooted up, Matt. 15: 13; bitterly censured the Pharisees for taking so much pains to make proselytes to a disfigured religion, Matt. 23: 15; and finally, engaged to deliver the poor oppressed people from the whole burden of the Mosaic law, and give them the easy yoke of a pure, spiritual religion in its stead, Matt. 11: 28, 29. Could it have been the design of a man to spare and defend a constitution, concerning the most essential and most holy parts of which he made such declarations? On the other hand, is it not sufficiently apparent from these assertions, that he had determined to weaken its authority and gradually prepare the way for its overthrow?

In

Jesus made known his resolution in still more definite terms, whenever the circumstances under which he spoke, were such, that an undissembled declaration of it could produce no injury and occasion no misunderstanding. the very first year of his public ministry, he informed a Samaritan woman, who could not possibly take offence at what she heard, that the religious constitution of the Jews was drawing to a close; that the time was then at hand in which the true worship of the father should no longer be confined to a particular place ;-in which all Jewish and Samaritan, all merely external worship, should entirely cease, and God be adored in spirit and in truth, John 4: 20-24. Jesus could not have expressed in clearer and stronger terms than it is here done, his determination to substitute a new, better, and more extensive religion, instead of the Jewish constitution, which presented such obstacles to the extension of a spiritual religion, and was calculated to confine it to a single nation, to one corner of the earth. In the confidential circle of his apostles, he spoke in a similar manner. When Peter, in a conversation, at which none but his fellow apostles were present, declared they were convinced he was the Messiah, Jesus not only approved of this decision, but added that by means of Peter, he intended to found a church which should endure forever, and into which Peter should admit whom he would, Matt. 16: 18, 19. In these words, the resolution of Jesus to establish a religious society, peculiar, and

entirely different from that of the Jews, is too clearly expressed to be mistaken. His church is to be founded. Had he had the improvement of the Jewish religion solely in view, he certainly would not have spoken of founding a church. In the new church the highest power is to be conceded to Peter, who is to open and shut it whenever he pleases. In the Jewish church neither Christ nor his apostles sought after authority and power. It must have been his intention therefore to separate his church from that, and give it regulations entirely distinct. Indeed he says so, in Matt. 18: 17, 18, where, under the new constitution, soon to go into operation, similar power is also conferred upon the other apostles. If with the above we compare Matt. 16: 28. Mark 9: 1, and Luke 9: 27, it will appear that the successful enlargement of this church, or, which is the same thing, the kingdom of heaven, which he was engaged in founding, was to commence with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, when, as is well known, the Jewish constitution ceased, and the Christian stood forth entirely alone. This last point,

however, deserves more particular attention. It cannot be denied that Jesus spoke of a near overthrow of the Jewish state, and an entire destruction of the temple. He spoke of these changes more than once, Luke 13: 34, 35. 19: 41-44. Matt. 22: 7. 23: 33-39, and described them to his apostles, with all their attending circumstances, and the consequently successful progress of his undertaking, in so clear and minute a manner, Matt. xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xxi., as to remove all doubt that he expected such a revolution, and considered it as altogether unavoidable. When we reflect therefore, that he expressly makes a distinction between his own affairs and those of the religious constitution of the Jews, and represents the decay of the latter and the destruction of the temple, as events which should conduce to the advantage of his own undertaking, and the kingdom of heaven, Matt. 24: 30, 31. Luke 12: 27, 28, can we deem it in the least degree probable that he aimed solely at the improvement of his own nation, without ever forming the design of separating himself from