19. It is true that some passages, given in Matthew's report as portions of the sermon on the mount, are omitted in Luke's, and introduced by this latter evangelist elsewhere, in historical connections in which they were evidently uttered.* But this is no proof that they did not form portions of the sermon on the mount. If Matthew is trustworthy, we must proceed on it as a fact that he is so, and receive his report as a true report. It may seem improbable that a passage of any considerable length, and that did not bear the character of a proverbial saying, should have been uttered by Christ on more than one occasion; but, at the utmost, it is only improbable. And are we to set aside an established and admitted fact,—in this case the trustworthiness of Matthew, rather than receive what is only improbable; and to attach more weight to our previous conception of what is likely than to our knowledge of what is? We protest against the logic that requires or tolerates this procedure; and it is a logic too often resorted to in Scripture criticism.

20. We doubt, however, if the repetition in question is improbable. That ordinary teachers do not thus repeat them

The following are the passages referred to:

Luke xi. 2-4 compared with Matthew vi. 9-13;

There are others in which the parallelism is less remarkable:

Luke xii. 58, 59 compared with Matthew v. 25, 26;

Luke xiv. 34, 35 compared with Matt. v. 13 and Mark ix. 50;

Compare also Matt. xviii. 8, 9 and Mark ix. 43-48 with Matt. v. 29, 30;

and Mark xi. 25, 26 with Matt. vi. 14, 15.

selves, may arise from the imperfection of their teaching and the dimness of their views. But we submit that it is exactly what we should expect, that an all-wise and omniscient Teacher should at different times employ the same terms in inculcating the same truth or combating the same error. Having already, with the perfect insight and discernment which are possible only to Omniscience, employed the terms that ought to be employed, why should he substitute others? Would not the same insight and discernment lead him to employ them again? It may be true that two distinct occasions can scarcely be exactly alike; but it does not follow, from the partial dissimilarity of the occasions, that the instructions delivered on both should not be the same, for those instructions may apply only to what is common to them.

21. On the supposition of the repetition of certain passages by Christ on different occasions, the plan of any one gospel could scarcely require that, if they were of any considerable length, they should be given in it more than once; and what we should expect is, that, as regards some of them at least, the reports of the different evangelists should refer them to different occasions of delivery. And with this expectation the actual facts agree. Of passages reported, say by two evangelists, some are introduced by both in the same historical connection, and others by each in a different historical connection. To hold that passages disposed of in this latter manner were delivered only once, is a proceeding the most arbitrary and unscientific. It may be supported with great ingenuity and learning, but it is radically vicious and unwarrantable. It is a mere fancy that it is improbable a passage should be uttered on two different occasions. There is not a shadow of scientific ground for such a view; and any superstructure that may be founded upon it, however laboriously reared, is utterly baseless. When one evangelist reports a passage as delivered on one occasion, and another reports it as delivered on a different occasion, we have evidence, if their

testimony be evidence, that it was delivered on both occasions; and if their testimony be not sufficient to establish this fact, it must be altogether worthless.

22. As regards shorter passages, however, we find some such reported by the same evangelist as uttered on different occasions. (Comp. Luke viii. 16 with xi. 13; Matt. v. 29, 30, with xviii. 8, 9; x. 38, 39, with xvi. 24, 25; and xvii. 20, with xxi. 21.) Instances of such repetition of proverbial expressions and of formulas in frequent use are, as might be expected, more numerous. Thus, "He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear," occurs thrice in Matt. (xi. 15, xiii. 9, 43); thrice in Mark (iv. 9, 23, vii. 16); and twice in Luke (viii. 8, xiv. 35); and these passages furnish evidence that it was used on five different occasions by our Lord. We have also evidence that he used a modified and extended form of it, "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches," on seven different occasions.-(Rev. ii. 7, 11, 17, 29; iii. 7, 13, 22.)

PART I.—(A*) V. 3–10.

SECTION 1.-RIGHTEOUSNESS DELINEATED.

1. The subject of the sermon is righteousness-not "the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe” (Rom. iii. 22), but "the righteousness of the law, which is fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit" (Rom. viii. 4); that is, the righteousness of personal character and conduct. This righteousness is presented in our passage under all its aspects. In our circumstances there are three aspects which it necessarily bears, derived respectively from our position as sentient, our position as moral, and our position as social beings. Under these aspects, accordingly, our Lord presents it; and he presents it first as it is realised internally in the dispositions and exercises of the soul, both under a passive and under an active form. He delineates it under a passive form in the first three beatitudes. It appears under this form in those who are "poor in spirit," not filled or elated with what they already possess; in those "who mourn," deplore the derangement and deformity of their character; and in those who are "meek," mild and patient under injurious treatment.

* The different members or heads of the discourse we indicate by the letters attached to them in our view of its structure.-(See Intro., sect. ii. par. 14.)

He then delineates it under an active form in the next three beatitudes. It appears under this form in those "who hunger and thirst after righteousness;" in those who are "merciful," disposed to forgive, and to do good even to such as need forgiveness; and in those who are "pure in heart," delighting exclusively in what is holy.

2. From this delineation of righteousness as realised in inward dispositions and exercises, he passes to the delineation of it as realised in the outward activity and intercourse of life, under the two aspects under which alone it can be realised in the sphere of outward life, the aspect which it derives from our position as social, and that which it derives from our position as moral beings. It appears under the former in those who are "peacemakers," and under the latter in those "who are persecuted for righteousness' sake."

3. In this delineation of righteousness, men are first viewed as sentient beings, capable of delighting and finding satisfaction in a certain portion; and righteousness is described as consisting partly in the right bearing towards the things in which we are solicited to delight and to seek satisfaction. Things of this kind form two classes-things which are seen and temporal, and things which are unseen and eternal. Now, it is one element of righteousness that we do not rest or seek satisfaction in things of the former class. We are not to neglect them wholly, or to treat them as if they were in all respects unworthy of the least consideration. Such treatment of them would be inconsistent with our circumstances. We are to value them for the temporal and temporary purposes which they are appointed to serve; but not to regard them as either intended or adapted to afford satisfaction. Hence, as the things which are unseen and eternal are not to be fully possessed and enjoyed here, the present state, at the best, is characterised by much want. The spiritually enlightened perceive and experience this; and, consequently, their feeling is that they are poor, that they have not yet