enforce the practical application of the duty of reconciliation. The Scribes and Pharisees made light of such offences as our Lord had just reproved, and made too much of mere gifts and offerings. He therefore teaches that the one is worthless so long as the other is indulged. We are not of course to cease from offering, as some are found glad of an excuse to cease from communicating; the excuse itself being inexcusable:1 but we are to cease from the quarrel which corrupts it. So in the exhortation in our Communion Office, in order to "be meet partakers of those holy Mysteries" we are bidden to "be in perfect charity with all men." Finally our Lord recommends to us the policy, if one may so say, as well as the duty, of making up all quarrels. Differences were sometimes settled by the parties out of court. The debtor would sometimes come to terms with his creditor on the way to it. By this reference to a sensible practice between wise men, our Lord instructs us in the folly of quarrelling, in the wisdom of reconciliation. "The way," "the adversary," "the judge," "the officer," "the prison," "the" (proverbial) "uttermost farthing," are terms taken from the usage of courts of justice and applied to our instruction in righteousness. The brief Parable, for such it is, warns us to "leave off contention before it be meddled with." "The way is evidently the time of this mortal life. Our quarrel is really our "adversary." If now on our way to the judgment. to come we fail to compose the quarrel, if we come before that last tribunal entangled in it, who shall deliver us from that penalty to which it must consign us, from that debt which there and then we can never pay? 1 "And oftentimes excusing of a fault Doth make the fault the worse by the excuse."-King John, iv. 2. " Compare the French proverb, "Qui s'excuse s'accuse." CV. ADULTERY. St. Matthew v. 27-30. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. The second instance our Lord takes to show that, though the letter of a law is kept, the spirit of it may be broken, is this of the seventh commandment. Human laws extend only to outward actions. But the law of God looks upon the heart. The word of God is a discoverer of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The Lord weigheth the spirits. "Concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.”1 Lustful looks, sinful desires, are, according to Him who came to fulfil the Law, the transgression of the command. Whoso is guilty of these, this man is already an adulterer in intent; even as the thief cannot be considered an honest man when simply restrained by the four walls of his prison-house from actual deeds of dishonesty. Our Lord proceeds, by way of practical inference from this, to give His disciples a piece of practical advice which will help them to keep this command in the spirit as well as in the letter. He is not of course recommending actual mutilation of our members. We must 1 Art. ix. 2 "A doctrine that arraigned the irregularities of the most inward notions and affections of the soul, and told men that anger and harsh words were murder; and looks and desires adultery; that a man might stab with his tongue, and assassinate with his mind; pollute himself with a glance, and forfeit eternity by a cast of his eye."-South, Ser. vi. " Why Christ's Doctrine was rejected by the Jews." not be so servilely literal in our interpretation as that. But just as a man would sacrifice a part to save the rest, as he would part with the less to keep the greater, lose a limb to preserve his life, so should we out of mere prudence, even out of consideration for ourselves, be ready to part with what may be dear even as a right eye, near as a right hand, if it come between us and our salvation, if it cause us to offend or stumble or fall. The right eye, the right hand, are specified, as signifying the more eminent and precious. These, or what is as good as these, must be cast away, even as the sailor casts away the cargo which is sinking the ship, lest we be cast away ourselves. The eye, the hand, are instanced; the passive and the active mean and instrument of mischief; that by which sin enters, and that by which it works. "When the woman saw that the tree was . pleasant to the eyes . . . she took of the fruit thereof.": So Adam fell. The eye is put first, for there the evil oftenest begins; by those "windows of the soul "3 it first enters in. So the Apostle speaks of "eyes full of adultery." So the Psalmist prays, "Turn away mine eyes lest they behold vanity." So holy Job resolved: "I made," he says, a covenant with mine eyes." 274 66 CVI. THE SAME SUBJECT-continued. St. Matthew v. 31, 32. It hath beer said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. This third instance of the fulfilment of the Law by Christ 11 Cor. ix. 29. Gen. iii. 6. 3 Jer. Taylor. is ushered in somewhat otherwise than those instances which have gone before. And the reason seems to be that this was not said to them of old time as those other things were said; that is, it was not laid down as a positive precept, but simply mentioned as a permissive course of action.' Divorce was tolerated by the Law, not enacted. Such was the hardness of heart of the Jews of old that some things were allowed to them which were not sanctioned; things which in the beginning were not so, and which shall not be so in the times of the end. This necessary evil was permitted to avoid a greater. In order to prevent wife murder, they were allowed to put away their wives. No encouragement was given to the practice; but, to protect to some extent the weaker sex, let the repudiation at least be public and formal. Our Lord, however, who came to do "what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh," will no longer allow such laxity. He declares that one thing only can justify divorce; and that whosoever, whether high or low, proceeds to a divorce for any other cause short of it, promotes her sin, if the divorced wife is taken by any other man; prompts and encourages her to sin. And He further warns any man from so taking any divorced woman. It is not marriage. It is, to speak the plain truth, adultery. The words recall our Lord's saying to the woman of Samaria when He was convicting her of her sin: "Thou hast well said, I have no husband . . . He whom thou now hast is not thy husband." No human law can make a living man's wife the wife of any other man. It is a foul blot on the Statutebook of some countries called Christian, that, in defiance of these plain words of Christ, laws have been enacted which seem to carry us back to the most ungoverned days of Moses. "This was not spoken to encourage divorces, but, on the contrary, to throw impediments in their way."-See Abp. Trench, Expos. of CVII. AGAINST SWEARING. St. Matthew v. 33-37. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 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. This is the fourth instance of misinterpretations of the Law which our Lord corrects in the Gospel. The Jews of old had no scruple about breaking an oath, provided the name of God was not expressly mentioned in it. Only those oaths in which He was directly appealed to were held to be binding. All others might be broken with impunity. This led to those evasions, some of which are cited, wherein men swore "By heaven," "By the earth," "By Jerusalem," by their "head"; and thought that the transgression of such an oath was no perjury, since only an oath unto the Lord need be performed. Our Lord here is not entering into the question of the lawfulness of a solemn oath under certain circumstances. He proved afterwards in His own case, being Himself put on His oath,' that though " vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men," yet "that Christian religion doth not prohibit but that a man may swear when the magistrate requireth."2 And instances of solemn adjuration in the New Testament are not wanting, to show that the objection of particular sects and persons to taking even the most solemn oath is a groundless scruple. But our 1 St. Matt. xxv. 63, 64. 2 Art. xxxix. Of a Christian Man's oath. 3 3 The solemn affirmation of the people called Quakers seems in itself a subterfuge, almost akin to the eva |