therefore, the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall 41 my that sowed them is the devil.” 3. Matt. xxv. 41: "Into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." 4. Luke viii. 12: “Then cometh the devil and taketh away the word out of their hearts," parparallel to Matt. xiii. 19, where the expression "the wicked one" is used, and to Mark iv. 15, where the word "Satan" is used. 5. John vi. 70: "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" 6. John viii. 44: "Ye are of your father, the devil.' 7. John xiii. 2: "The devil having put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot to betray him." In verse 27 of the same chapter, it reads, "And after the sop, Satan entered into him.' The first and seventh of these instances may be set aside as the language of the Evangelists, and not of Jesus. The seventh may be interpreted figuratively; and as to the first, we refer to our comments on the account of the Temptation in Chapter IV. The fifth case, "Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" is certainly figurative, and gives a decisive intimation of the way in which the word may have been used by Jesus. It is probable that this expression referring to Judas may have led to the use of the same term by St. John, when speaking of Judas in the seventh instance. The sixth case is as follows: "Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father ye wish to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stood not in the truth; because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it." The natural and obvious interpretation, at first sight, of this rather extended description of the devil, would be a literal one applying to a personal being actually existing and answering to this character; but on a closer inspection of the passage, we see that the word father cannot be used in a literal, but only in a spiritual sense; and does not this almost require, in order to the harmony and completeness of the meaning, that the rest of the passage should likewise be taken, not in its literal, but in its spiritual sense? spiritual sense? Is not the extended description given to show in what sense Jesus used the word, devil, viz. as the impersonation of wickedness? Ye are of your father the devil, that spirit of wickedness, which prompted to the first murder, which is the very essence and parent of what is false; and on account of your affinity with it, ye believe me not, because I tell you the truth. As he had a little while before referred to Judas as a devil (John vi. 70), because of his wickedness, so edness, so he may here call the Jews the children of the devil, because of their affinity with what is evil. As in the one case, the word devil as the personification of wickedness is applied to a bad man, why may not in the other case be used in the same way as the personification of evil, especially of murder and falsehood, to describe the spirit and temper of the Jews who were seeking his life and refusing to receive the truth? Does not this better adapt itself to the inward and profound thought of Jesus, than the interpretation which requires him here to speak literally of a personal devil in his direct and personal relation to them? Even if Jesus had believed in such a being, would not this figurative and spiritual application of the term be more natural and more in accordance with his usual mode of speech? it In the fourth case, "Then cometh the devil, and taketh the word out of their hearts," or, as it is in Matt. xiii. 19: "Then cometh the wicked one and catcheth away that which is sown in his heart," the whole sentence is figurative, and this word is plainly used to personify the evil influences which remove from shallow minds the truths which they gladly receive in a moment of re send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom 42 all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and 43 gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth, as the sun, in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to 44 hear, let him hear. Again the kingdom of Heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field, the which, when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he 45 hath, and buyeth that field. Again the kingdom of Heav46 en is like unto a merchant-man, seeking goodly pearls; who, ligious excitement, but which they do not understand. There remain now only two passages to be considered. One is the awful declaration, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." The other is the passage before us, "The enemy that sowed them is the devil." It may be, that Jesus meant nothing more in either case than the impersonation of evil. The accompanying language in both instances is intensely figurative. It is difficult to distinguish between the main point of his instructions and the images under which it was conveyed. But the presumption to our mind is, that in using language such as this, he does imply the actual, personal existence of such beings as are suggested by the words, "the devil and his angels." He has never directly taught the existence of such beings. Every passage in which they are spoken of may be interpreted figuratively, without any violent wrench to the language. Still, the impression left upon us is that Jesus did believe in a vast background of evil beyond what we can see, an empire of darkness where evil spirits live, from which evil influences have been permitted to enter, even into this world, and whose power he came to overthrow. The result of this whole investigation, which we have carefully gone through many times, as a matter of Scriptural interpretation, has been to leave us very decidedly with the impression that Jesus did believe in evil spirits, and the disastrous influence which they might exercise over men who allowed themselves to be acted upon by them. But we find very little evidence that he believed in Satan or the devil as a real, personal being, who ruled over the realm of evil spirits, as a king over his subjects. It does not seem entirely certain to us; but we think the most natural and satisfactory explanation of his language, on the principles of a just and exact interpretation, is to be found in the supposition that he alluded to Satan or the devil as the personification of wickedness, and in that sense called him the Prince of Devils, and spoke of him and his angels, as he called him the father of the mur~ derous and lying Jews, and spoke of him as the prince of this world. (John xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11.) Evil spirits were his angels and subjects, just as wicked men were his children, in a figurative, and not a literal sense. 44. treas ure hid in a field] The kingdom of Heaven, i. e. the religion of Jesus, is like a hidden treasure, which a man, while employed on other things, discovers, and with joy secures for himself. His hiding it, while he went to purchase the field, is one of the adjuncts, which, though indicating the great value of what had been found, is not to be construed as having any direct bearing on the main object of the parable. 45, 46. As a contrast to the man who happened to find the treasure is the merchantman who, while seeking for beauti when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it. Again the kingdom of Heaven 47 is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind; which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and 48 sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world. The angels 49 shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be 50 wailing and gnashing of teeth. Jesus saith unto them, 51 Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord. Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe, 52 which is instructed unto the kingdom of Heaven, is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old. And it came to pass, that, 53 when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence. And when he was come into his own country, he taught 54 them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother 55 called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, ful pearls, found one very costly, and went and sold all that he had in order to purchase it. 52. Therefore] For this reason, i. e. taking into account the new truths and hopes and life which have been here set forth, every Scribe, who is instructed in my religion, being already learned in the law, is like a householder who brings out from his treasury things both new and old. It was customary in the East to preserve in houses costly garments and other articles for many generations; and this perhaps is what more particularly suggested the comparison. 53-58. He went into his own country, i. e. to Nazareth. For a fuller account of what occurred there, see Luke iv. 16-24. Though Jesus had astonished them by his wisdom and his mighty works, still they found a stumbling-block to their belief in the fact, that his father, the carpenter, and his brethren or kinsmen, were known to them as ordinary men. Jesus, see ing that they were not in a state of 55. and his brethren Who were the brethren of Jesus? This has been, among commentators, one of the difficult questions, and the ablest among them have given different answers. The brethren of Jesus are spoken of on six different occasions, viz. Matt. xii. 46, and parallel passages in Mark and Luke; the present passage and its parallel, Mark vi. 3; John ii. 12; vii. 3, 5, 10; Acts i. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5. 56 and Judas? and his sisters, are they not all with us? whence 57 then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without 58 honor, save in his own country, and in his own house. And he did not many mighty works there, because of their unbelief. Mr. Norton, in his note on this passage, supposes that "the brethren " or "kinsmen" of Jesus, for the for the original allows either interpretation, were the sons of Alpheus (the same name in Hebrew as Clopas or Cleopas), whose wife Mary is said (John xix. 25) to be the sister or kinswoman of Mary the Mother of Jesus. In Matt. xxvii. 56, Mark xv. 40, she is said to be the mother of James and Joses, i. e. Joseph. Luke, in his catalogue of the Apostles (Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13), mentions Judas of James, i. e. the son or brother of James. Thus we have applied to the sons either of Alpheus, or of his wife Mary, three of the names, which are here applied to the brethren of Jesus, viz. James and Joses and Judas. Would these three names be likely to be repeated in two different branches of the same family? Is it not more reasonable to suppose that these brethren of Jesus, as they are called, were the sons of Alpheus (Cleopas) and Mary, of whom at least two, James and Judas, and possibly, as Mr. Norton supposes, a third, Simon, were among the Apostles? The re ply is: 1. That the names were among the most common Jewish names, and might be repeated in two different branches of the same family. We are acquainted with three different branches of a family in each of which may be found the names William, James, and John. 2. The brethren of Jesus spoken of in John vii. 5, following John ii. 12; vii. 3, did not at that time believe on him, and therefore they could not have been among the Apostles. 3. Whereever they are mentioned in the New Testament, except in the seventh chapter of John, and 1 Cor. ix. 5, they are mentioned in connection with Mary, the Mother of Jesus. For these reasons, we suppose that the brethren of Jesus were the sons of Joseph, though they may not have been the sons of Mary. James, the son of Alpheus, was probably the James whom St. Paul speaks of (Gal. i. 19) as "the brother of the Lord.' Nor is it improbable that James and Judas, sons of Alpheus, are "the brethren of the Lord,' whom he refers to, 1 Cor. ix. 5, as among the Apostles. CHAPTER XIV. HEROD ANTIPAS. 1-12. Or Herod Antipas some account has already been given in chap. xi. Contemporary records, to those who care to enter into such horrible details, furnish examples enough to show that the beheading of John, with the revolting circumstances attending it, was no extraordinary instance of cruelty in those times. Lardner, Part I. Bk. I. Chap. I. Herod seems to have been a weak and crafty,- for the two qualities often go together, — rather than an able and cruel man, as his father, Herod the Great, whom we find in the second chapter of Matthew, had been. When he was on a visit to his half-brother, Philip, a private citizen, and not to be confounded with Philip, the Tetrach of Ituræa and Trachonitis, mentioned in Luke iii. 1, he became enamored of his brother's wife, Herodias, whom he persuaded to leave her husband, and to marry him. This act was a violation of the Jewish law, and called down on Herod a severe rebuke from the stern preacher in the wilderness, who thus incurred her lasting displeasure. She was a bold, bad, unscrupulous woman. "Josephus," says Dr. Lardner, "has represented Herodias as a woman full of ambition and envy, as having a mighty influence on Herod, and able to persuade him to things he was not of himself at all inclined to." It is therefore entirely in character with all that we know of her, that in her anger against John, she should, as we read (Mark vi. 19), seek to destroy him, and that she should have recourse to indirect means for revenging herself, when she had failed in other ways to accomplish her purpose. It was undoubtedly by her direction, that her |