he considers it as furnishing him with a better handle for doing this, to introduce upon the scene the woman, and the seven claimants, all at once, who are no sooner raised than they engage in contests about their property in her. But this is no reason why we should not interpret our Lord's words, and the words of the historian, relating to the opinions of the sect, in all the latitude which the nature of the subject, and the context, evidently show to belong to them. The only modern version I have seen, wherein avάoradis is rendered future life, is the Eng. An.

24. "Leave no children," un yov Tixva. Vul. "Non habens filium." It may be doubted whether this version has proceeded from a different reading, as it is quite unsupported either by MSS. or by other translations. But it agrees exactly with the Heb. in the passage of Deut. 25: 5, referred to. The words are there

- The sense is the same in both, as in several instances the Heb. ben is used for a child indefinitely, of either sex. In the place quoted, the words are rendered in the Vul. " absque liberis," and in the E. T." have no child."

32. “ God is not a God of the dead,” οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Θεός, Θεὸς vexov. Vul. "Non est Deus mortuorum." The Sy. Sax. and Cop. agree with the Vul. in using no word answering to the first o eos, which is also omitted in the Cam. Dr. Priestley says, (Harmony, sect. lxxii.), "This argument of our Saviour's evidently goes on the supposition of there being no intermediate state." Now, to me it is evident, that the direct scope of the argument is to prove that there is such a state, or, at least, that the soul survives the body, and is capable of enjoyment after the natural death. The reason which the Doctor has subjoined, is, if possible, more wonderful still." For admitting," says he, "this [intermediate state], God might, with the strictest propriety, be said to be the God of those patriarchs, as they were then living, and happy, though their bodies were in the grave." Is it then a maxim with this learned gentleman, that nothing can be admitted which would show the words to be strictly proper, and the reasoning conclusive? So it appears; for, in perfect consistency with this maxim, he concludes his explanation (if I may so call it) with these remarkable words: "There does not, however, seem to be much force in the argument, except with the Jews, to whom it was addressed, and who admitted similar constructions of Scripture. For, though Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were perished, the person who spake to Moses might make himself known to him, as he whom they had worshipped." If so, this critic should have said, not that there was not much force, but that there was no force at all in the argument. The whole then of this memorable confutation amounts, according to him, to no more than an argument ad hominem, as logicians term it, that is, a fallacious argument, which really proves nothing, and is adopted

solely because the medium, though false, is admitted by the antagonist, who is therefore not qualified to detect the fallacy. But unluckily, in the present case, if the argument be inconclusive, it has not even that poor advantage of being an argument ad hominem. The Doctor should have remembered that our Lord, in this instance, was disputing with Sadducees, who paid no regard to the traditionary interpretations and mystical constructions of Scripture admitted by the Pharisees. Yet even these Sadducees were put to silence by it. The truth is, our Lord's argument stands in no need of such lame apology, as that it is an argument ad hominem. Consider it as it lies, without the aid of artificial comments, and it will be found evidently decisive of the great point in dispute with the Sadducees, whether the soul perish with the body. "God," says our Lord, "when he appeared to Moses in the bush, which was long after the death of the patriarchs, said to him, I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob; now God is not a God of the dead, of those who, being destitute of life, and consequently of sensibility, can neither know nor honor him; he is the God of those only who love and adore him, and are, by consequence, alive." These patriarchs therefore, though dead, in respect of us who enjoy their presence here no longer, are alive, in respect to God, whom they still serve and worship. However true then it may be, as the Doctor remarks, that "though Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were perished, the person who spoke to Moses might make himself known to him as he whom they had worshipped," this remark does not suit the present case: nor could the words of God, on that supposition, have been the same with those which we find recorded by the sacred penman. For God, as in the passage quoted, made himself known to Moses, not as he whom the patriarch had worshipped, but expressly as he whom they then worshipped; for he says not, I was the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, to wit, when the patriarchs lived upon the earth, but I am their God at present. It is manifestly from this particularity in the expression, which cannot, without straining, be adapted either to the past or to the future, that Jesus concludes they were then living. Nor let it be thought too slight a circumstance for an argument of this importance to rest upon. The argument is, in effect, founded, as all reasoning from revelation, in the veracity of God; but the import of what God says, as related in Scripture, we must, not in this instance only, but in every instance, infer from the ordinary construction and idioms of language. When the Creator, in treating with his creatures, condescends to employ their speech; as his end is to inform, and not to deceive, his words must be interpreted by the common rules of speaking, in the same way wherein we should interpret what is said by any of our fellow-creatures. Now, if we should overhear one man say to another, 'I wish to

117

have you in my service, and to be your master, as I am your father's, and your grandfather's master, should we not conclude that the persons spoken of are alive, and his servants at this very moment? And would it not be reasonable to insist, that, if they were dead, his expression would be,' As I was your father's and your grandfather's master?' This is, in effect, the explanation given of the reasoning in this passage by the most ancient Gr. expositors, Chr. Euth. and The. I know it is urged, on the other side, that though the verb siui is used in the Gr. of the evangelist, and in the Sep. there is nothing which answers to it in the Heb., and consequently, the words of Moses might as well have been rendered I was, as I am. But this consequence is not just. The Heb. has no present of the indicative. This want, in active verbs, is supplied by the participle; in the substantive verb, by the juxtaposition of the terms to which that verb in other languages serves as the copula. The absence of the verb, therefore, is as much evidence in Heb. that what is affirmed or denied is meant of the present time, as the form of the tense is in Gr. or La. Wherever either the past or future is intended by the speaker, as the orientals are not deficient in these tenses, the verb is not left to be supplied by the hearer. Thus God says to Joshua (chap. 1: 5), "As I was with Moses," that is, when he was employed in conducting the sons of Israel in the wilderness, "so will I be with thee." The verb is expressed All which in both clauses. See also ver. 17, and 1 Kings 8: 57. examples are, except in the single circumstance of time, perfectly similar to this of the evangelist; and are sufficient evidence, that, where the substantive verb is not expressed, but the personal pronoun is immediately conjoined with what is affirmed, the sense must, in other languages, be exhibited by the present. Now, to make the force of the argument, as certain expositors have done, result from something implied in the name God, is to convert it into a mere sophism. To affirm that the term itself includes the perpetual preservation of the worshippers, is to take for granted the whole matter in dispute. To have argued thus with a Sadducee, would have been ridiculous. In Scripture, as every where else, the God of any persons or people, means simply that which is acknowledged by them, and worshipped as such. Thus, Dagon is called the god of the Philistines, Judg. 16: 23, and Baalzebub the god of Ekron, 2 Kings 1: 3. But the sacred writers surely never meant to suggest, that these gods were the authors of such blessings to their worshippers. Nay, it is not even clear that the latter ever expected such blessings from them. What seems to have occasioned the many unnatural turns that have been given to this argument by later commentators, is solely the misunderstanding of the word avάoraois, through not attending to the latitude of signification wherein it was

often used in the days of the apostles. Nor is this the only term in which the modern use does not exactly tally with the ancient.

34. “ Flocked about him,” συνήχθησαν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό. Ε.Τ. "Were gathered together." In this interpretation, the clause, ini τὸ αὐτό, is a mere pleonasm, as συνήχθησαν alone implies the whole. Now let it be observed, that thus much might have been affirmed, in whatever place the Pharisees had met; whereas it is the manifest design of the evangelist to acquaint us, that the preceding confutation of the Sadducees occasioned a concourse of Pharisees to him, which gave rise to the following conversation. I approve, therefore, the way in which Cas. has understood the words ini to autó, who says "coiverunt eodem ;" and not that which has been adopted by the Vul. and Er. who say, "convenerunt in unum;" or by the Zu. translator, who says, convenerunt simul;" which has been followed by our translators, and which in effect destroys the connexion of the passage. The Cam. reads ' autóv; but as in this it is singular, we can lay no stress on it. We only say, that it is of the less consequence, as it makes no difference in the sense. Be. who adopts that reading, says, "aggregati sunt apud eum."

35. "A lawyer," vouixos. Diss. VII. Part ii. sect. 2, 3, and Diss. XII. Part. v. sect. 12.

42. "Whose son should he be ?" tivos viós ¿ori; E. T. "Whose son is he?" The indicative mood, in the Gr. of the N. T. has often all the extent which is given to that mood in Heb. where it supplies most of the other moods. The import of it in this place is justly rendered in Fr. both by L. Cl. L. and Beau. "De qui doitil être fils?" which answers exactly to the way I have translated it. 43. "Call him his Lord." Diss. VII. Part i. sect. 8.

CHAPTER XXIII.

2. "Sit in Moses' chair." The Jewish doctors always taught sitting.

5. "Phylacteries," quλaxτnoia. A Gr. word exactly corresponding in etymology to the word conservatories. They were scrips of parchment used for preserving some sentence of the law written on them, which, from the literal interpretation of Deut 6: 8, they thought themselves obliged, on several occasions, especially at their prayers, to wear bound upon their forehead, and on their left arm. 8. "Assume not the title of rabbi, for ye have only one teacher,” μὴ κληθῆτε ῥαββὶ εἰς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ καθηγητής. Ε. Τ. "Be not ye called rabbi, for one is your master." Vul. "Vos nolite vocari rabbi, unus est enim magister vester." The Vul. seems to have read διδάσκαλος, where it is in the common Gr. καθηγητής; for didάoxalos is commonly rendered in that version magister; and

diddoxalos is given by John (1:39,) as an interpretation into Gr. of the Sy. rabbi. At the same time it must be owned, this conclusion, in regard to the reading found in the copies used by the La. translator, does not possess a high degree of probability, inasmuch as the word anɣnts is twice rendered by him magister in ver. 10. The same may be said of the Sax. and perhaps some other versions. But it is equally evident, that the Sy. interpreter has read differently. For the word za nynτns, in ver. 10, (where there is no such difference of reading,) is by him, as it ought to be, rendered by the word signifying leader, or guide; whereas the term rabbi is repeated in ver. 8, agreeably to his uniform practice in rendering the Gr. didaoxalos. Besides this evidence of a different reading, there is a great number of Gr. MSS. which read didάoxalos, ver. 8. This reading is approved by Orig. and Chr. and many modern critics; amongst whom are Gro. Drusius, Be. Selden, De Dieu, Mill, and Ben. The internal evidence is entirely in favor of this reading. The sense requires that the term, in the latter clause, be equivalent to rabbi in the former. That didάozalog is such a term, we learn not only from the evangelist John, in the place above quoted, but from the use of the Sy. interpreter, who always renders the one term by the other; whereas xaonynins has in that version, a distinct interpretation in ver. 10. Further, in ver. 10, in the common Gr. we find the disciples prohibited from assuming the title of xanynins, for the very reason repeated which we find given in ver. 8, for their not assuming the title of rabbi. Thus it stands in the two verses: "Assume not the title of rabbi, for ye have only one cathegetes; assume not the title of cathegetes, for ye have only one cathegetes." For my part, I have seen no instance of such a tautology, or so little congruity of expression, in any of the instructions given by our Lord. I therefore approve in ver. 8, the reading of the Sy. interpreter, which is also the reading of many MSS. replacing didάoxalos, which is perfectly equivalent to rabbi. I also think, with that interpreter, that our Lord meant, in the 10th verse, to say something further than he had already said in the 8th. I acknowledge that the sentiments are nearly related; but if there had not been some difference, there would have been no occasion for recurring to a different, and even unusual term. Our Lord, in iny opinion, the more effectually to enforce this warning against an unlimited veneration for the judgments and decisions of men, as a most important lesson, puts it in a variety of lights, and prohibits them from regarding any man with an implicit and blind partiality, as teacher, father, or guide. Now this end is not answered, if all or any two of them be rendered as synonymous. The very uncommonness of the word za nynins, (for it occurs in no other place of the N. T.), shows an effort to say something more than was comprehended in the preceding words. And let it be observed, that