the bride." The Sy. Arm. and Sax. versions have the like addition; xai rns vuugns is found in three MSS. of which the Cam. is one. This is no support. The internal evidence arising from the customs is clearly against the addition. The virgins conducted the bride as her companions from her father's house. The bridegroom went out from his own house to meet them, and to bring her home with joy and festivity.

9. "Lest there be not enough for us and you; go rather to them who sell, and buy for yourselves,” μήποτε οὐκ ἀρκέσῃ ἡμῖν καὶ ὑμῖν· πορεύεσθε δὲ μᾶλλον πρὸς τοὺς πωλοῦντας, καὶ ἀγοράσατε ἑαυ tais. E. T. "Not so, lest there be not enough for us and you; but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves." Vul. "Ne forte non sufficiat nobis et vobis, ite potius ad vendentes, et emite vobis." Several interpreters have thought that there is an ellipsis in the original. Our translators, who were of this number, have supplied it by the words not so. Elsner and others suppose that it ought to be supplied by the word doare or plenere, before unore, and therefore render the expression "take care, lest there be not enough." But it concerned themselves surely (not those who asked the favor) to take care, before granting it, that there should be a sufficiency for both. Such an answer as this would not be a refusal, as was plainly the case here, but a conditional grant of the request, the askers themselves being made the judges of the condition. The quotation from Acts 5: 39, is nowise applicable. The supply of ὁρᾶτε before μήποτε καὶ θεομάχοι εὑρεθῆτε, nobody can doubt to be pertinent, because it was entirely the concern of those to whom Gamaliel addressed himself, to take care that they did nothing which might imply fighting against God. It is evident therefore, that, to make the words before us suit the sense, it would be necessary to supply δεν ἡμᾶς σκοπεῖν, we must take care. But an ellipsis such as this, is unexampled in these writers. I have judged it, therefore, more reasonable, to follow the authors of the Vul. who have not discovered any ellipsis in this passage. The only thing which can be considered as an objection is the d in the second clause. Suffice it for answer, that this particle is wanting in the Al. Cam. and other MSS. of principal note, as well as in the Vul. and is rejected by some critics of eminence, ancient and modern. And even were it allowed to stand, it would not be impossible to show that in some instances it is redundant.

13. To this verse there is, in the common editions, a clause annexed, which I have not translated, ἐν ᾗ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται. E. T. "Wherein the Son of Man cometh." But it is wanting in so many MSS. and in the Vul. Sy. and most of the ancient versions, as well as the early ecclesiastical writers who commented on the Gospel, that it cannot, in a consistency with the rules of criticism, be received. There is an evident defect in the next verse,

14. Which is the beginning of a new paragraph. Something (it is not said what) is compared to a man who went abroad. This defect is supplied in the common version by these words, "The kingdom of heaven is." In my opinion, it has been originally, "The Son of Man is ;" and, from the mistake of supposing this to refer to the words preceding, (for in the ancient manner of writing they had neither points nor distances between the words), has arisen the interpolation of some words in the 13th verse, and the want of some in the 14th. This, I acknowledge, is but conjecture, though I think a very probable one. At any rate, as a supply of some words must be made to ver. 14, those I have used are at least as well adapted to the words in connexion, as any other that have been employed for the purpose.

26. "Malignant and slothful servant," novηgè doule nai ozvngë. E. T. "Thou wicked and slothful servant." There are several words in Gr. and indeed in all languages, which may be justly said to be nearly synonymous, but not entirely so. Of this kind especially are those epithets which relate to character, as xáκος, πονηρός, ἄνομος, ἄδικος, and some others. That they are sometimes used promiscuously, there can be no doubt. And when a translator renders any of them by a general term, as evil, bad, wicked, he cannot be said to mistranslate them. Nay, sometimes, when used without reference to a particular quality in character or conduct, they ought to be so translated. There is, nevertheless, a real difference among them; and one of them is fitted for marking more especially, one species or one degree of depravity, and another for marking another. "Adixos, for example, in its strictest signification, is' unjust; avoμos, ' lawless,'' criminal.' The first relates more to a man's principles of acting, the second to his actions themselves, considered as open violations of law. Kazos, when applied to character, answers nearly to our word vicious,' and novnoós to 'malicious,' or 'malignant:' xaxos is accordingly properly opposed to vagézos, virtuous,' or dixalos, righteous,' for the former term does not occur in Scripture ; πονηρός to αγαθός, good. Κακία is 'vice,' novŋoia, malice' or 'malignity.' The use of these words in the Gospel, will be found pretty conformable to the account now given. Thus, in chap. 24: 48, the servant, who not only neglected his master's business, but ill-treated his fellow-servants, and rioted with debauchees, is very properly denominated κάκος δοῦλος, 'a vicious servant.' The bad servant, in this parable, appears in a different light. We learn nothing of his revellings or debaucheries; but, first, of his sloth, which entitles him to the epithet oxvno, and, secondly, of the malignity of his disposition, shown in the unprovok ed abuse which, under pretence of vindicating his own conduct, he threw upon his master. The cruel and inexorable is also called nongós, chap. 20: 32. Let it be remarked also, that a malignant,

that is, an envious eye, is πονηρός not κάκος ὀφθαλμός; that the disposition of the Pharisees to our Lord is, chap. 22: 18, called лoνησία, and that the devil is commonly called ὁ πονηρός not ὁ κάκος. Malice is the most distinguishing feature in his character; but vice, which seems more connected with human nature, is not so properly applied to an unembodied spirit. It may be said, is not then the evil one too vague a translation of o novoos? I acknowledge it is; but have adopted it merely because it is hazardous, in a term become so common, to depart from established custom. The Gr. ó diáßolos does not correspond exactly to the Heb. Satan; yet, as the Seventy had employed it, the penmen of the N. T. did not judge it necessary to change it. It is true, however, in general, that there is much more justness in the epithets employed in the Gospel, than is commonly attended to. Too many, in translating, seem to have no other aim in regard to these, than, when the epithet is expressive of a bad quality, to select one to answer to it, as opprobrious as the language they write can afford them. I am far from saying that this was the way of those to whom we owe the common version. Though sometimes the import of an original term might have been more exactly hit, they rarely fail to express themselves so as to preserve propriety with regard to the speaker. Now, it deserves to be remarked, that though our Lord, in his rebukes of the hardened offender, (for it is only of such I am speaking), often express himself with sharpness, it is always with justice and dignity. In some translations, on the contrary, he is made to express himself so as we should rather call passionately. In the passage under review, one makes him begin his reply with, "Thou base and indolent slave ;" another with, "Thou vile slothful wretch." But do we ever hear such expressions, except from one in a violent passion? And can any body seriously imagine that it adds weight to the sentence of a Judge, to suppose that he spoke it in a rage? Our Lord spoke the language of reproof; such interpreters make him speak the language of abuse. Allow me to add, that, in his language, there is more of pointed severity than in theirs. The reason is, his words touch the particular evils; theirs signify only evil in general, in a high degree; and are much more expressive of the resentment and contempt of the speaker, than of the demerit of the person addressed. The terms, base, vile, slave, wretch, used thus, are manifestly of this sort. Like rascal, villain, scoundrel, they are what we properly call scurrility. To abound in appellatives of this sort, is not to be severe, but abusive. Such translators invert that fundamental rule in translating, to make their pen the organ of their author for conveying his sentiments to their readers: they, on the contrary, make their author, and the most dignified characters recorded by him, their instruments for conveying to the world, not only their opinions, but even the asperities of their passions.

27. "With interest," our roxq. E. T. "With usury." An

ciently the import of the word usury was no other than profit, whether great or small, allowed to the lender for the use of borrowed money. As this practice often gave rise to great extortion, the very name at length became odious. The consideration, that the Jews were prohibited, by their law, from taking any profit from one another for money lent, (though they were allowed to take it from strangers), contributed to increase the odium. When Christian commonwealths judged it necessary to regulate this matter by law, they gave to such profit as does not exceed the legal, the softer name of interest; since which time usury has come to signify solely extravagant profit disallowed by law; and which, therefore, it is criminal in the borrower to give, and in the lender to take. As it is not this kind of profit that is here meant, the word usury is now become improper.

29. "From him that hath not." Mr. 4: 24, 25. N.

"

2"That which he hath," özel. In a considerable number of MSS. but few of any note, it is & doxεi xev. Agreeable to which is the Vul. "quod videtur habere," also the second Sy. and the Sax. This expression has probably been borrowed by some copyists, as more correct, from L. 8: 18, where its genuineness cannot be questioned.

34. From the formation of the world,” ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. E. T. "From the foundation of the world." Vul. "A constitutione mundi." Ar. "A fundamento mundi." Er. "Ab exordio mundi. Zu. “A primordio mundi." Cas. "Ab orbe condito." Be. "A jacto mundi fundamento." It is very uncommon to find every one of these translators adopting a different phrase, and yet perhaps more uncommon to find, that, with so great a variety in the expression, there is no difference in the sense. If any of the above-mentioned versions be more exceptionable than the rest, it is that which renders xaraßoin foundation:' for, first, this term, except in the sublimer sorts of poetry, is not very happily applied to the world, in which there is nothing that can be said to correspond to the foundation of a house. Secondly, the word is never used in Scripture to express that part of a house, or edifice of any kind, which we call the foundation; for though there is frequent mention of this part of a building, the word is never xazaẞon, but always Deμéos, or some synonymous term: and this observation holds equally of the N. T. the Sep. and the Jewish Apocryphal writings. I admitted that in the highly figurative style of the Heb. poets, such an image as that of laying the foundation might be applied to the world. I find it in the O. T. twice applied to the earth, which is nearly the same; but it deserves our notice, that in neither of the places is the word in the Sep. xazaßoln, or any of its derivatives. One of the passages is Psal. 102: 25, (in the Sep. 101: 26), "Of old thou hast laid the foundation of the earth," Kar' dozas

tηv yñv ¿Deμeliwoas: the other quite similar, Isa. 48: 13, where the same verb is used. Thirdly, in the only place where xaraßolń occurs in Hellenistic use, as applied to a house, (which is in the Apocrypha, 2 Mac. 2: 29), it is so far from meaning the foundation, that it denotes the whole structure, as contradistinguished to the several parts. See the passage in Gr. and in the common translation, where xaraẞohn is rightly rendered building.'

36. “ Ye assisted me,” ἐπεσκέψασθέ με. E. T. "Ye visited me." The Eng. word visited does not sufficiently express the import of the Gr. verb, when the subject of discourse is a sick person, or one in distress. In such cases, inoxénroμat is strictly visito ut opem feram.' That more is meant here than a visit of friendship, for giving consolation, is probable from the expression used in the next clause, εε nós μe, which is intended to denote such friendly visits being often all that a Christian brother can do for prisoners. Some late translators render ἐπεσκέψασθέ με, “ ye took care of me." This, I think, is in the opposite extreme, as it is hardly applicable to any but the physician or the nurse.

CHAPTER XXVI.

3. "The clause zaì oi yoappareis is wanting in a few noted MSS. The authors of the Vul. and of some other versions have not read it in their copies. But as it is found in the Sy. and the much greater number both of MSS. and of ancient versions, and is not unsuitable to the scope of the place, I have retained it.

2" Palace," avv. Though avin strictly signifies an open court before the entry of a house or palace, (see note on ver. 58), it is not uncommon to employ it by synecdoche for the palace.

5. "Not during the festival," un v ry oory. E. T. "Not on the feast-day." As there is nothing in the original answering to the word day, the term oor may include the whole festival; to wit, the day of the paschal sacrifice, and the seven days of unleavened bread that followed it. As, therefore, it is not certain that one day only is spoken of, it is better to leave it in the same latitude in which we found it. Festival may either denote the first day, which was properly the day of celebrating the passover, or it may include all the eight days.

7. "Balsam," uvgov. E. T. "Ointment." μύρου. E. T. "Ointment." But it is evident, from what is said here, and in other places, both in the O. T. and in the New, that their uga were not of the consistency of what we denominate ointment, but were in a state of fluidity like oil, though somewhat thicker.'

12. "It is to embalm me," nos tó évraqiάoai μe. E. T. "For my burial." The noos tó, in several instances, expresses rather