Jesus answers this hypocritical attack on his disciples, first, by an appeal to the conduct of David, when placed in similar circumstances:- -"Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him, how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shew-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?" It appears, from the original history of this transaction, that David was compelled to fly from Saul, whose jealous disposition was excited by the success of the shepherd-warrior. In the course of his flight, he passed through Nob in a state of destitution, and called for succour on Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech had no provisions of any kind in his possession, but five loaves of the shew-bread. (See Lev. xxiv. 5, and Exod. xxv. 30.) These David took and divided among his companions and himself. What is here termed "shewbread," means literally "loaves of the Presence;" so called because they were placed in the presence of God in the sanctuary. These loaves were twelve in number-one for each of the tribes. They were "holy," as was everything dedicated to Jehovah; they were to be used by none but Aaron and his sons, the high priest and his family; and they were to be eaten, not in any ordinary apartment, not in their own houses, but in the Temple, or Tabernacle, and in the "holy place." David violated these three regulations in the case mentioned by the Master; he ate the hallowed loaves, which was a ceremonial transgression; he was not high priest, nor a member of the high priest's family; he did not eat them in the Tabernacle, but took them to the hungry companions of his flight, who were concealed somewhere in the neighbourhood. Jesus knew that the Jews would not censure this act in David, their "monarch - minstrel," whose memory was idolised by his countrymen, and from whom was to descend the promised Messias. Neither does he himself condemn this conduct of the distressed fugitive; on the contrary, his argument rests on the ground that the urgent necessity of the case, was a justification of David's neglect of the Levitical enactment. His árgument is this:-If David, when an hungered, scrupled not to use the Loaves of the Presence, which

were dedicated to Jehovah, are my disciples blameworthy in committing a minor offence, that of plucking and chafing ears of corn on the Sabbath-day? The next portion of the reply to the Pharisees, is an appeal to the common practice of those who prepared and offered sacrifices on the Sabbath:— "Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath-days, the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?" On the Sabbath there were four lambs to be killed, two at morning and two at evening (see Numb. xxviii. 3 and 9); the fires were to be lighted; the flour and oil and wine to be procured, and other menial preparations to be made; all of which, literally considered, were profanations of the Holy Day. If, then, the priests, the holy tribe, in the temple, the holy place, scrupled not to kill lambs, &c. on the Sabbath-day, why should my followers be condemned for satisfying their hunger, or for gathering and preparing their food on the Sabbath? "But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the Temple." The Temple was a manifestation of Jehovah, for in it had formerly dwelt a sensible mark of the Divine presence, a splendid light, the emblem of the glory of the Invisible. But Jesus was a still more perfect representation of the Deity in the wisdom of his instructions, in the power of his miracles, in the benevolence of his dispositions, in the purity of his character. In another sense, also, he was greater than the Temple;" for he had been commissioned by the Highest to abolish its worship, to annul its rites and ceremonies, to finish its sacrifices, to break down its partition-wall, to rend the vail which excluded the people from the Holy of Holies. If, then-he says to the Pharisees--if then the Temple destroy the guilt of the priests, who profane the Sabbath within its walls; much more does my presence, who am "greater than the Temple," excuse this trivial act of my disciples, which ye esteem a violation of the day of repose and of devotion. "But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless." This was the second time that the Saviour had referred the Pharisees to these words of the prophet Hosea; at ix. 13 of this Gospel, he says to them, "But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will

66

have mercy, and not sacrifice." The passage in the prophecy here quoted runs thus: "For I desired mercy and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burntofferings." The meaning is plainly this, that God is more pleased with "mercy," i. e. deeds of kindness, charity, affection, and good-will to our fellow-creatures, and with a "knowledge" of Him, his nature, attributes, perfections, and requirements, than with any mere external and ceremonial practices of devotion. Jesus uses yet another argument in exculpation of his disciples, "For the Son of Man is Lord [Master, see on Chap vii. 21] even of the Sabbath-day." In Mark ii. 27, is a fuller statement of this argument. "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord [Master] also of the Sabbath." By the "Son of man," in this place, we do not think Jesus of Nazareth is intended. It was a common epithet bestowed on any person to signify a simple human being. Thus, in the Psalms, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?"—where "son of man" in the latter interrogation, is equivalent to "man" in its predecessor. Unless "son of man" in the text before us, be an exact synonyme for " man,' it is questionable whether the Master draws a strictly legitimate conclusion. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, therefore-Jesus of Nazareth is master of the Sabbath": this would not be a proper inference. But if he reasoned, as we suppose he did, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, therefore the son of man (i. e. Man) is master of the Sabbath"; the deduction is as logical as any that can be drawn from any premises.

Verses 9, 10: "And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: and, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-days? that they might accuse him." The reply of Jesus to this question, is as admirable for its prudence as for its logic: "What man shall there be among you that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath-day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?" This is a course of conduct which every man would pursue in such circumstances,

and he would act virtuously. Moreover, the Jews themselves had laws on this subject, framed by their Rabbis and Scribes. One of them was-" If a beast fall into a ditch, or into a pool of water, let the owner bring him food in the place, if he can; but if he cannot, let him bring cloths and litter, and bear up (i. e. lift out) the beast." Thus, Jesus appeals not only to their self-interest but to their own written law: he knew their answer must be in the affirmative-he knew they would say, that the sheep ought to be rescued from its perilous position even on the Sabbath. His application of this admission to the case before him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbathday?" and his extension of the principle to all cases in which it is possible to benefit our fellow-creatures, in body or mind, or health, or intellect, or property, or capacity for innocent enjoyment, are singularly brief, convincing, and felicitous,- "How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath-days." In accordance with this righteous conclusion, "Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other."

Irritated by these frequent exposures of their ignorance, hypocrisy, and malice, "the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him." This council seems to have been held after their return from public worship. This is indicated by two words in the text, "Then," i. e. when he had cured the impotent man, they "went out," i. e. from the synagogue where the miracle was performed. They deemed it a violation of the Sabbath to prepare or eat food; they deemed it a violation of the Sabbath to rescue a brother from disease; but it was no violation to compass the destruction of the world's best benefactor! Such is the piety of those who are "righteous over much." Hearing the wicked machinations of the Pharisees, Jesus avoided the impending danger: "But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence." The son of David was not one to flee from persecution, from a "fear of what man could do unto him." But he had not yet completed the system of moral truths and divine precepts which he had been commissioned to reveal; he had not yet "finished the work his Father had

given him to do"; he knew indeed that he must die by the hands of the Jews, but this was not the time for his martyrdom which could most contribute to the glory of God and the good of men; his hour was not yet come. Hence he thinks it his duty to avoid unnecessary danger, and to postpone to its proper date the period of his execution.

Verses 17-21: "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust." This is a beautiful picture of the character and conduct of Jesus, and of the triumphs of his Gospel. The word judgment is frequently used by the Hebrew writers to express laws, precepts, and the whole system of doctrine and of duty. "He shall show judgment to the Gentiles," accordingly means, he shall publish his laws, his precepts, his religious system, the Gospel, to the heathen nations. "He shall not strive nor cry, neither shall his voice be heard in the streets." "He shall not cry aloud nor raise a clamour," is the translation of Bishop Lowth. The spirit of Jesus was not a spirit of murmuring, contention, or litigiousness. His Revelation was to win its way among mankind by mild persuasion, and by the gentleness and peacefulness, not only of its advocates, but of its own intrinsic character. Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, when he withdrew himself from the malice and threatened persecution of the Pharisees, rather than remain to contend with them in the public places. "A bruised reed shall he not break." A reed, in Scriptural language, is the symbol of debility; and a "bruised reed" must signify that degree of debility which approaches near to death. This sentence may refer to Christ's healing those who followed him in his flight; they were "bruised reeds," afflicted with many diseases: Jesus did not pass them by unheeded; on the contrary, he removed their ailments, and restored them again to health and strength. Or, "bruised reeds" may be