cases of the same character that may arise afterwards. What is said of one is said of all, that one case is a type of all the rest, and the authority which decides it applies with equal force to all the rest. So in the decisions of the great Judge of all, as announced by his prophets, the principles involved in the case to which they are specifically applied and the consequences flowing from those principles, reach on with the weight of their divine authority, and find their fulfilment in every analogous case that may afterwards arise. Whatever may be said of the doctrine of types, and the absurd extent to which it has been carried, or of the interpretation sometimes put on the prediction of specific events, many of the ancient prophecies stand forth as types or outshadowings and foreshadowings of divine truths, which shall be perpetually fulfilling themselves in the experience of all times. The passage quoted here from Isaiah is one of this kind. The predicted destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, immediately fulfilled in the fatal retribution which fell on those wicked cities, became, through that fulfilment, a type or sign of the retribution which is in store for every corrupt and ungodly people. The principle of retributive justice, which is involved and announced in that case, holds true always, and applies with more or less force to every new case that may arise.

Of this character are the instructions here given to the Pharisees. The question immediately at issue between them and Jesus relates to a matter which is in itself of

no sort of interest or importance now. But this specific case of washing before meat is made to stand out as the type or representative of all similar cases, and brings out. the great essential principles in such a way as to elucidate the whole subject of a spiritual or formal worship, and to furnish instruction in this matter for all times. Where a sincere and vital religion is dying out, there is always a disposition, with a numerous class of men, to seek refuge

in forms, and to put their consciences to sleep by multiplying religious forms at the expense of the essential principles of devout and holy living. This fatal tendency, belonging alike to unenlightened and to the most luxurious times, making void the law of God by human traditions and observances, is here exposed and condemned. The heart as the centre of the life is the one thing to be kept pure. The thoughts which proceed from that, and not the neglect of outside forms, are what defile the man. Mr. Norton has quoted from Philo Judæus a passage very similar to this. "Through the mouth, as Plato says, mortal things enter, and imperishable things pass out. For food and drink enter it, perishable nutriment of the perishable body; but words proceed from it, immortal laws of the immortal soul, by which the rational life is governed."- Philo, De Mundi Opificio, Opp. I. 29.

The fact that so plain a statement as that of Jesus, 11, should appear to the disciples, 15, a parable or dark saying which needed explanation, shows how dull their spiritual perceptions were at that time, and how slow they were to free themselves from the superstitious formalities of the Jews. The same attitude of mind towards Jewish teachers and observances is indicated by the vehemence with which they put the question, 12, "Dost thou know how the Pharisees were offended by thy words?" His reply is, “Every plant which my Father hath not planted shall be rooted up." As if he had said, The Pharisees are here the recognized and authoritative teachers of the law. Still, if they teach anything not in accordance with the truth, anything which my Father doth not approve and sustain, it cannot stand, but will be rooted up as a plant which he hath not planted. Give them up as your guides. They are only blind leaders of the blind; and no good, but mischief only, can come of their instructions. Here, 15, Peter asks an explanation of the parable, 11. parable in one sense of the word; but the disciples could

It was not a

not understand it. With an expression of sorrowful surprise that they even yet should be unable to understand words so simple, he explains his meaning in such a manner as to do away forever, one would think, at least among his followers, all superstitious regard for merely external observances in matters of religion.

THE SYRO-PHOENICIAN WOMAN.

21-28. In order to escape from the crowds, with the tumults and controversies connected with them, as well as to prevent any premature and mistaken movement in his behalf, he retired from the lake of Galilee towards the northwest, to the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon. It is a question among commentators whether he actually entered their territory or remained still within the limits of Galilee. He sought retirement. "He went (Mark vii. 24, 25) into a house, and would have no man know it; but he could not be hid; for a woman, whose daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him," and came crying after him. The desire to escape observation will account for the anxiety of the disciples to stop her cries. For in calling after them she must necessarily attract attention. She was a Grecian by descent, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and from her birthplace called, as she is here, a woman of Canaan. At first Jesus paid no regard to her. His object probably was to call out and strengthen her faith, by subjecting it to trial. This is in accordance with the whole discipline of life. He therefore, said within her hearing, "I am sent only," i. e. his personal ministry was confined, "to the lost sheep of the But instead of being discouraged, she his feet, and with affecting earnestness entreated him to assist her. He replied to her, "It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs." "Yes, Lord," she exclaimed, "it is; for even the little

66

house of Israel.” threw herself at

dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master's table." The humble, trusting character of this speech showed that nothing more was needed for her. "O woman, great is thy faith. Be it to thee as thou wishest." And her daughter was healed from that hour. What was this faith? Not knowledge; she had not that. Not a belief in certain theological doctrines. It is certain that she knew nothing of them. Her faith consisted in a readiness to believe, an humble, trusting attitude of mind and heart,-"the tenderest susceptibility for what is heavenly." As to the apparent severity of Jesus towards her, "It is," as Olshausen has said, "Christian experience alone which opens our way to the right understanding of this.. The restraining of his grace, the manifestation of a treatment wholly different from what the woman may at first have expected, acted as a check usually does on power when it really exists, the whole inherent energy of her living faith broke forth, and the Saviour suffered himself to be overcome by her. Where faith is weak,

he anticipates and comes to meet it; where faith is strong, he holds himself far off in order that it may in itself be carried to perfection."

FEEDING THE FOUR THOUSAND.

32-38. It has been supposed by some modern writers, as Schleiermacher, Neander, &c., that this account and that in xiv. 14-21, are but different accounts of the same transaction. The circumstances, it is said, the place, the multitude, the compassion of Jesus, the perplexity of the disciples as to what should be done, the sort of food at hand, are substantially the same in the two accounts. But these would be likely to be substantially the same if the miracle had been repeated anywhere in that vicinity. The only exception to what we should look for is in the perplexity of the disciples. How could they, after witnessing the

first miracle, be so much at a loss here? The reply is, that, though they had seen Jesus perform many miracles, they had never, except in a single instance, known him to use his miraculous power for such a purpose as that. Why, then, should they expect it now? Some of the circumstances are alike in the two cases, but others again are different. In the first, there were 5,000 persons; in the second only 4,000. In the first, there were five loaves and two fishes; in the second, seven loaves and a few fishes. In the first, it is not said how long the multitudes were with Jesus; in the second they were with him three days. In the first, specific mention is made of a storm on the lake and of Jesus walking on the water; in the second he is represented as crossing the lake in a vessel without any such occurrence. In so concise an account of two similar events we should hardly expect a greater variety in the details, which certainly point to two distinct transactions. Besides (xvi. 9, 10) Jesus explicitly refers to the two miracles. It may also be added, that in the first account the word translated baskets is Kopivovs, while here it is σTupidas, a long basket, which travellers sometimes used as a bed when they pass the night in the open air, and the same as that in which Saul was let down from the wall (Acts ix. 25). The same distinction is observed in our Saviour's reference to the two miracles, and in all these cases the distinction is found in the Curetonian Syriac Gospels. In the repetition of the miracle, there is nothing improbable. When we consider what multitudes thronged around the steps of Jesus, and that the east side of the lake was a desert place, at a distance from villages where food could be procured for such a concourse of people, we can hardly think it strange, if more than once towards the close of the day, he should have had compassion on the weary multitudes, and fed them by his miraculous power lest they should hunger and faint by the way.