the symbol of that which is very costly and precious. So Job 28: 18. The Gospel with every thing that belongs to it is also precious. The Saviour, in Matt. 13: 45, 46, applies the term to himself and the blessings of his kingdom. As before, we must stop for the present at the general idea. We must survey all the parts of the text before we can judge in what way they are connected with each other.

The dispositions and habits of " swine" have made them to be always and every where the symbol of the morally polluted and vile of men.

"Dogs" are rabid animals, and may attack and tear. They were (and are) numerous in Eastern cities, roving about without masters, hungry, howling, ravenous. In this character perhaps they are figuratively introduced in that interesting passage Ps. 22: 16, 20, to represent the enemies and murderers of Christ.

But dogs, like swine, have been universally made rather the symbol of the morally polluted and unclean. (See Gesenius's Hebrew Lexicon, Article ; Robinson's Lexicon of the New Testament, Art. Kvoor; and especially Winer's Realwörterbuch, Art. Hund.) They were unclean by the law, were held in disgust and abhorrence, and well deserve from their dispositions and habits to be the type of the wicked and abominable. The Jewish name of foreigners, " Gentile dogs," David's calling himself "a dead dog" in reference to Saul, and Hazael's words, "Is thy servant a dog?" are illustrations of this usage.

Thus dogs and swine are used, as symbols, quite alike-and they are often united. Peter cites the proverb, "The dog has returned to his own vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." Instances from the classics may be seen in Tholuck, Bergpredigt, p. 475.

Yet we must remember that both dogs and swine, especially in a half-wild state, are fierce and dangerous as well as filthy and abominable. And their fierceness is an element of their vileness. They are fierce in their filthiness-dangerous in their abomination. To gratify their vile propensities, they will assail whatever promises gratification or stands in their way. This then is probably the very mode in which they are metaphorically employed in the text. Even in Ps. 22: 16, 20, this may be the idea.

We must endeavor now to fix as definitely as possible the moral meaning and application of these terms in the passage

under consideration. As the love and enjoyment of what is low and filthy is the point of comparison between the animals and the men in question, those who have the characteristic doubtless have also the name. If so, a large class is designated by these terms; they comprehend all those who, whatever may have been their past, and whatever may be their future character, have and indulge, at present, unholy and impure propensities, and who do this with deliberate preference and headstrong purpose. Let us remember, then, that the reign of worldly, wicked, vicious propensities in the heart and life, is the characteristic of those who are called by these names.

A few words here on the construction of the whole sentence. If, as we have seen, swine are fierce and dangerous as well as dogs, it will not be necessary to consider the passage as a case of the ἐπάνοδος or ὑστέρησις, or, to use the words of Jebb, Horne, and Barnes, of the Introverted Parallelism. In the New Testament-in prose-in a practical discourse-in a rule for conduct, we should not expect a rhetorical and poetic construction which belonged, so far at least as Matthew knew any thing of it, to the Hebrew language, and which even in that is rare in the highest kinds of prose and even in poetry. If then this construction is not necessary, if it is not absolutely certain, it is not to be adopted. But the natural construction which would refer the last two clauses to the swine is favored by the circumstances of the case. It is more than doubtful, indeed, whether the word orgaqévres (turning again) can be taken here as expressing the swine's method of attack. The peculiar manner of a boar in dealing a blow by a sudden side-movement is often noticed in classic writers, and is in Greek expressed by this very word (see Poli Synopsis and Tholuck's Bergpredigt on the place); but here it seems rather to express the simple idea of a turning from trampling to assailing. The circumstances to my mind in favor of the natural construction are, first, the style of composition to which the passage belongs;

These terms indicate a construction by which the fourth clause would be connected in sense with the first, and the third with the second; as if it were written, Give not that which is holy to the dogs, lest they turn again and rend you; and cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet.

secondly, that the assailing may, as we have seen, be as properly understood of the swine as of the dogs; and thirdly, that as the "holy thing" supposed to be thrown to the dogs is apparently something edible and relished by them, while the pearls thrown to the swine only disappoint and provoke them, we should expect the swine and not the dogs to turn and rend their tantalizers.

The only leading terms of the precept itself which remain are "give" and "cast" (dŵre, fáhηre). We shall find, I think, that the whole meaning and bearing of the passage turns upon them. We shall first mention a particular interpretation of them and examine the meaning of the passage, which results from it, and then turn directly to the investigation of the import of the terms and to the search after the true sense of the text.

These words "give," "cast," have almost universally, and apparently without hesitation or reflexion, been understood in the sense of exhibiting, making known, offering. One meaning of the passage which results from this explanation is as follows: There are men so wicked and depraved, that the truths and offers of the Gospel, if laid before them and urged upon their acceptance, would only provoke their contempt and excite their hostility:—therefore, out of regard to the sacredness and preciousness of the Gospel, and the safety of its preachers and friends, Christ commands that to such the Gospel is not to be presented, but that it is to be carefully protected from their observation and contact.* This is the common interpretation.

Some in ancient times went so far as to think that the whole Gospel was to be withheld from all unbelievers. Tholuck, in his note on the passage, quotes from an ancient book, in which a Christian, on being asked whether he is a Christian, is made to answer, Yes; but when asked what Christianity is, replies, "To say that I am a servant of Christ is my duty; but to tell you what Christianity is, is unsafe till I know who he is who asks the question, lest I be giving that which is holy to the dogs, and casting my pearls before swine." Others of the ancients imitated the heathen in making some of the doctrines and

* Barnes gives the meaning thus: "Do not offer your doctrine to those violent and abusive men, who would growl and curse you; nor to those peculiarly debased and profligate, who would not perceive its value, would trample it down and abuse you."

SECOND SERIES, VOL. XII. NO. I.

11

ordinances of the Gospel, as they termed them, sacred mysteries, a sort of freemasonry, which was not to be divulged to the world. By some moderns, the spiritual precepts of the Gospel have been supposed to be the holy and precious things which were not to be made known to the wicked; by others, the spiritual meaning of the Bible; and by others still, the doctrines of atonement for sin and pardon through Christ; i. e., the very kernel of the Gospel itself. Grotius, Vitringa, Olshausen, are among these. See Tholuck.

Now, if any one of all these interpretations expresses the meaning of the Saviour, we have here a most singular injunction. Our remarks apply directly to the interpretation first given. The others either fall with it or of themselves.

66

1. The Saviour has not elsewhere manifested such an anxiety to save his Gospel from reproach and contempt. Ezekiel was commanded to deliver his message to the people, "whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." Is the Gospel message to be pressed less earnestly? Let Paul answer: We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness, but to them that are saved, Christ the wisdom of God and the power of God." They "mocked" him at Athens, yet he preached Jesus and the resurrection (Acts 17: 18, 19). Christ preached in the midst of revilers, John 7th; and the last words which the disciples were to utter, when leaving a city which rejected them, were, " Notwithstanding, be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." But here I am forbidden to expose the Gospel to the contempt of scoffers and blasphemers!

2. The Saviour has not elsewhere commanded his followers to be so careful of their own safety. "Lest they turn again and rend you." When he sent out his disciples to preach the Gospel, commanding them to publish it as widely as possible, and foretelling the dangers they would incur, he adds (Matt. 10:28), "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell." And the Apostles understood and obeyed their Master. Look at Peter and John and Stephen before the Sanhedrim (Acts 4 and 6 and 7), and Paul at Lystra (Acts 14: 19), and before the enraged Jews (Acts 22). Peter and John doubtless express the true principle (Acts 4: 19, 20): "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye; for we cannot but speak the

things which we have seen and heard." The prayer of the Apostles (v. 29) was doubtless acceptable: "And now, Lord, behold their threatenings; and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word." No, Stephen did not do wrong when he preached to the maddened Sanhedrim, nor Paul when he plead so eloquently before the taunting Festus and Agrippa and the supine Felix; nor the martyrs, from these men and their companions down to the apostolic Williams, when exposing and sacrificing their lives for the Gospel's sake. But if the text has the sense now under review it would be hard to justify them.

3. Christ has not enabled nor elsewhere commanded his people and his ministers to decide who will and who will not be benefited by the Gospel. To presume to do so, is to assume a fearful responsibility. It is a judging of others which may be erroneous, and therefore wicked. See v. 1 of the chapter. How can I decide that such a one, my fellow-creature, is beyond repentance and mercy? Shall I not be liable to measure God's mercy by my severity, his grace by my indifference, his love by my prejudice or hatred, and his power by my weakness? Do I feel as Paul did (1 Tim. 1: 15, 16), that since God has had mercy on me, the worst sinners may perhaps be saved? How then can I act upon this sense of the text in reference to a particular individual?

It is in this very application of the text that its abuse consists. And the abuse of this text is the practical every-day sin of the Church and of Christians. We conceal our light-we lay aside or cover up our piety-we make no efforts for the salvation of those around us-and then we quote this text by way of making the Saviour justify us. We make our neighbors and friends and every-day associates dogs and swine, for whom the Gospel is too holy and too precious.

4. The difficulty in the way of these interpretations is increased by the fact that thousands out of the very worst and most hopeless classes of men have been hopefully converted and finally saved. And many of these cases have been the result of a blessing on the use of means. At the head of this multitude we may place that woman "who was a sinner" (Luke 7: 36– 50), who, the Pharisee thought, should have been rejected by the Saviour: then the thief on the cross-and Saul the persecutor -and, as the representative of the whole class, the prodigal son. Ancient tradition tells us of an abandoned apostate and