10. Having thus restored the prohibition to its legitimate extent, he exposes an evasion of it which was sanctioned by tradition. The doctrine was, that if a man put away his wife, giving her a writing of divorcement, he might, without any breach of the law against adultery, marry another, thus accomplishing the purpose of the adulterer without incurring the guilt of adultery. Our Lord teaches, in direct opposition to this doctrine, that he who put away his wife, save for the single offence which disannuls the marriage covenant, will not only be guilty of adultery himself if he marry another, but will also, if his wife whom he puts away marry, be the indirect cause of adultery on her part, and on the part of him who marries her.-(Ver. 31, 32.)

11. Their gross perversion of the prohibition respecting perjury afforded our Lord another illustration. This prohibition, "Thou shalt not forswear thyself," they seem to have restricted to vows made to God, for they explained it by the positive injunction, "Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths." The radical offence of him who forswears himself is, that he acts with irreverence towards God, in appealing to his omniscience and his righteous judgment, and yet swearing falsely. Accordingly, when it is forbidden. that we forswear ourselves, it is forbidden that we act with the irreverence towards God of which he who forswears himself is thus guilty. But we act with such irreverence towards him if we swear at all of our own choice, or if the cause of our swearing be that we are not restrained by a due fear of him, and not that we are constrained and laid under obligation by circumstances. Nor do we escape the guilt of such irreverence, though, instead of swearing directly by God himself, we swear, in terms, by somewhat else; for, if our oaths are not idolatrous, they derive their significancy and force from a reference to God. "But I say unto you, Swear not at all: neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool:

neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King: neither shalt thou swear by thy head; because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."-(Ver. 34-37.)

12. The precept from which our Lord draws his next illustration is in its form a positive precept, but its bearing upon life is that of a prohibition. The direction, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," was addressed to magistrates, and intended to regulate the administration of criminal justice. (Exod. xxi. 22, 24; Lev. xxiv. 20, 22; Deut. xix. 18, 21.) It accordingly implied a prohibition of the offences to be punished in the manner directed. When the magistrates were directed to punish those offences, the people were, by implication, forbidden to commit them. But the scribes and pharisees, with a perverse dexterity in making the letter of the law subservient to their purpose, though in utter contravention of its spirit, construed the direction to punish the offences referred to into a licence to commit them in retaliation. It is the private retaliation, which the rule, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," was thus made to authorise, that our Lord so emphatically forbids.—“ But say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee; and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."-(Ver. 39-42.)

I

13. There is here no determination or deliverance on the subject of self-defence, or on any kindred subject. The only point at issue is the lawfulness of retaliation, and Christ pronounces it unlawful, and forbids it. He requires that we keep at the utmost distance from all resistance of evil in a retaliating spirit, and that no injuries done to us prevent us

from bestowing benefits. The intention of the punishment, prescribed in the rule under consideration, was to expel from human intercourse all unkind and unbrotherly conduct; and our Lord commands his subjects to concur in this intention, and by their whole deportment and spirit to contribute to this result.

14. Prohibitory precepts, bearing upon our conduct towards our fellow-men, imply the requirement, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour." They bid us decline every lower position, and rise to the exercise of love. Our Lord, accordingly, follows up his illustration of the spirit and extent of this class of precepts with a vindication of the true import of the injunction, which is thus the fulfilling of them.—(Rom. xiii. 10.) From this injunction the scribes and pharisees derived a licence to "hate their enemies." (Ver. 43.) They restricted the term "neighbour" to their countrymen-to those connected with them by vicinity-instead of regarding it as descriptive of the relation to them which all their fellow-men sustained; and understanding, consequently, the injunction, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour," as an injunction to love their countrymen, they inferred from it that they were authorised, if not positively required, to confine their love to their countrymen, and to hate all others. But, though the term neighbour were taken in their own restricted sense, this inference would not be well founded; for surely the step which we take in loving our neighbour in that sense, is a step in the direction of loving all our fellow-men. And, besides, if we love those who are our neighbours by vicinity with the love which we owe them, and not on mere external grounds, we shall love those also who are not our neighbours by vicinity, for all the great considerations that awaken legitimate love in the former case are presented equally in the latter.

15. The duty of loving all our fellow-men, our enemies, even the bitterest of them not excepted, our Lord enforces

by the consideration that the discharge of it is an essential characteristic of his subjects, as being the children and bearing the image of God, and as being thus distinguished by moral excellence of which others are destitute.—“ But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?”—(Ver. 44-47.)

16. The restriction of prohibitory precepts, which formed. a prominent part of the traditional system of the scribes and pharisees, has obtained, though generally under a more disguised form, in every age, and obtains among ourselves. To this fact is to be traced the satisfaction of many with their own character, and their disposition to justify themselves; for it may be observed that it is, in a great measure, for negative excellencies, for their supposed obedience to prohibitory precepts, that they take credit to themselves— they have not done this, and they have not done the other thing. According to our Lord's method of expounding prohibitory precepts,—that is, according to the true import of such precepts,-those violate them who do anything of the same general character with the offences expressly prohibited, or who cherish any corresponding inclinations or desires, or who do not rise to the opposite disposition. If this method of expounding them were universally adopted, would not many think of themselves much less favourably than they now do? Would not many, for example, who now testify in their own favour that they have not done harm to any one, feel themselves obliged to relinquish this self-flattery?

If it were, indeed, true that they had not done harm to any one, it would be true not only that they had not done anything that had an injurious bearing upon their neighbour, but also that they had never cherished such a spirit towards him, or that the state of their hearts towards him had never been such as would lead them to do anything that had an injurious bearing upon him; and, still further, that they had loved him. And is this true? Have they loved their neighbour?

17. Reader, when you recognise the spirit and the extent of the prohibitions of the law, as they are presented by our Lord in the portion of the sermon on the mount which we have been examining in this section, do you not feel that you fall grievously short of full obedience to them? Every true believer, however, honestly and earnestly endeavours to render full obedience to them, and to effect and maintain a total withdrawal, in heart and in life, from every portion of the territory which they interdict.

18. In dealing with a law that throughout takes cognizance of the dispositions and affections, how necessary to guard. against externalism, against resting in an outward abstinence from forbidden acts, and in outward propriety and blamelessness of deportment! In all this there is no superiority to the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees. All the subjects of the kingdom of heaven obey from the heart.

SECTION II.-RIGHTEOUSNESS DISCRIMINATED AS REGARDS THE PERFORMANCE OF POSITIVE DUTY-REFERENCE TO GOD. -(C. d. e.) vi. 1-18.

1. The proper source of abstinence from forbidden acts is freedom from the affections and desires which prompt to them. There should be no necessity for the operation of motives to secure abstinence from them. Thus, the proper source of abstinence from the acts forbidden in the precept, "Thou shalt not kill," is freedom from anger and hatred, and