there may be instances wherein the term oi näides, like oi vio, may mean children in general. The phrase, both in Hebrew and in Greek, is "the sons of Israel," which our translators render, "the children of Israel," as nobody doubts that the whole posterity is meant. We address an audience of men and women by the title brethren; and, under the denomination all men, the whole species is included. But, in such examples, the universality of the application is either previously known from common usage, or is manifest from the subject or occasion. Where this cannot be said, the words ought to be strictly interpreted. Add to this, 1st, That the historian seems here purposely to have changed the term παιδίον, which is used for child, no fewer than nine times in this chapter; as that word being neuter, and admitting only the neuter article, was not fit for marking the distinction of both sexes; and to have adopted a term which he nowhere else employs for infants, though frequently for men-servants, and once for youths or boys: 2dly, That the reason of the thing points to the interpretation I have given. It made no more for Herod's purpose to destroy female children, than to massacre grown men and women; and, tyrant though be was, that he meant to go no further than, in his way of judging, his own security rendered expedient, is evident from the instructions he gave to his emissaries, in regard to the age of the infants to be sacrificed to his jealousy, that they might not exceed such an age, or be under such another. 3" From those entering the second down to the time," year, ἀπὸ διετοῦς καὶ κατωτέρω, κατὰ τὸν χρόνον: Ε. Τ. “From two years old and under, according to the time." There can be no doubt, that in this direction Herod intended to specify both the age above which, and the age under which, infants were not to be involved in this massacre. But there is some scope for inquiry into the import of the description given. Were those of the second year included, or excluded by it? By the common translation they are included; by that given above, excluded. Plausible things may be advanced on each side. The reasons which have determined me, are as follows. The word deerns is one of those which, in scriptural criticism, we call äлağ keyóueva. It occurs in no other place of the N. T. nor in the Sep. It is explained by Hesychius and Phavorinus, that which lives a whole year, di ölov tou ἔτους. Διετήσιος is also explained in our common lexicons per totum annum durans, anniversarius:' and the verb dierito is used by Aristotle for 'living a whole year.' At the same time it must be owned, that the explanation 'bimulus,' 'biennis,' is also given to the word diens. The term is therefore doubtless equivocal; but what weighs with me here principally is, the ordinary method used by the Jews in reckoning time; which is to count the imperfect days, months, or years, as though they were complete, speaking of a period begun, as if it were ended. Thus it is said, Gen. 17: 12, "The child that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised;" and Lev. 12: 3, "On the eighth day he shall be circumcised." Now it is evident, that, in the way this precept was understood, it behoved them often to circumcise their children when they were not seven days old, and never to wait till they were eight. For the day of birth, however little of it remained, was reckoned the first; and the day of the circumcision, however little of it was spent, was reckoned the eighth. But nothing can set this matter in a stronger light than what is recorded of our Lord's death and resurrection. We are told by himself, that he was to be three days and three nights in the bosom of the earth; that his enemies would kill him, and that after three days he would rise again. Yet certain it is, that our Lord was not two days, or forty-eight hours, (though still part of three days,) under the power of death. He expired late on the sixth day of the week, and rose early on the first of the ensuing week. Both these considerations lead me to conclude, with Wh. and Dod. that Herod, by the instructions given to his messengers, meant to make the highest limit of their commission, those entering, not finishing, the second year. The lowest we are not told, but only that it was regulated by the information he had received from the Magians; for this I take to be the import of the clause, xarà ròv yoóHe had probably concluded, that the star did not appear till the birth, though they might not see it on its first appearance, and that, therefore, he could be in no danger from children born long before, or at all after, it had been seen by them. Supposing, then, it had appeared just half a year before he gave this cruel order, the import would be, that they should kill none above twelve months old, or under six. νον. 18. "In Ramah," 'Ev Pauỡ. Ramah was a city on the confines of Benjamin, not far from Bethlehem in Judah. As Rachel was the mother of Benjamin, she is here by the prophet Jeremiah, from whom the words are quoted, introduced as most nearly concerned. It is true, however, that in the Heb. the term rendered in Ramah may be translated on high: and both Origen and Jerom were of opinion that it ought to be so translated. But the authors of the Sep. have thought otherwise; and it is more than probable that the Evangelist, or his translator, have judged it best follow that version. The mention of Rachel as lamenting on this occasion, gives a probability to the common version of the prophet's expression; otherwise it would have been more natural to exhibit Leah the mother of Judah, than Rachel the mother of Benjamin, as inconsolable on account of a massacre perpetrated in a city of Judah, and aimed against one of that tribe. 2 "Lamentation and weeping, and bitter complaint," oñvos xai nλavðμòs xai odvoμòs nohús. ́ Vul. "Ploratus et ululatus multus." In three Gr. copies voñvos zaì are wanting. All the three words are in the Sep. in the passage referred to, though there are but two corresponding words in the Heb. In most of the ancient versions there is the same omission as in the Vul. 22.Hearing that Archelaus had succeeded his father Herod in the throne of Judea, he was afraid to return thither." Archelaus was constituted by Augustus ethnarch (that is, ruler of the nation, but in title inferior to king) over Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. The orientals, however, commonly gave to such, and indeed to all sovereigns, the appellation of kings. The emperor is repeatedly so named in Scripture. And here the word uthevoer is applied to Archelaus, who succeeded his father, not in title, but in authority, over the principal part, not the whole, of his dominions. But though Joseph was afraid to go into Judea strictly so called, he still continued in the land of Israel; for under that name Galilee, and a considerable extent of country lying east of the Jordan, were included. Prel. Diss. I. Part i. sect. 7. 23. “That he should be called a Nazarene," ör Naśwęāios xinnoɛral. E. T." He shall be called a Nazarene." The words may be rendered either way. A direct quotation is often introduced with the conjunction öze. On the other hand, that the verb is in the indicative, is no objection of any weight against translating the passage obliquely. The Heb. has no subjunctive mood, and therefore the indicative in the N. T. is often used subjunctively, in conformity to the oriental idiom. And as there is no place in the prophets still extant, where we have this affirmation in so many words, I thought it better to give an oblique turn to the expression. 2 Nazarene." To mark a difference between Nasogalos, the term used here, and Nasαgyvos, the common word for an inhabitant of Nazareth, Sc. and Dod. say "Nazaræan ;" Wa. says " Nazorean." ." But as the term Nasogalos is, by this Evangelist, (26: 71), used manifestly in the same sense, and also by both Mr. and J., I can see no reason for this small variation. Some find a coincidence in the name with a Heb. word for a Nazarite; others for a word signifying branch, a term by which the Messiah, in the judgment of Jews as well as of Christians, is denominated, Isaiah 11: 1. It is proper to observe, that in the Heb. exemplar of this Gospel which was used by the Ebionites, and called "The Gospel according to the Hebrews," the first two chapters were wanting:-the book began in this manner, "It happened in the days of Herod king of Judea, that John came baptizing, with the baptism of reformation, in the river Jordan. He was said to be of the race of Aaron the priest, and son of Zacharias and Elizabeth." But for this reading, and the rejection of the two chapters, there is not one concurrent testimony from MSS., versions, or ancient authors. It is true the Al. has not the two chapters; but this is no authority VOL. II. 3 for rejecting them, as that copy is mutilated, and contains but a very small fragment of Mt.'s Gospel. No fewer than the first twenty-four chapters are wanting, and the copy begins with the verb OZETαι, cometh,' in the middle of a sentence, ch. 26: 6. By a like mutilation, though much less considerable, the first nineteen verses of the first chapter are wanting in the Cam. ; which also begins in the middle of a sentence with the verb napadáßriv, ‘10 take home.' And in the Go. version all is wanting before the middle of the fifteenth verse of ch. v. It begins likewise in the middle of a sentence with the words answering to ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν. Now if we abstract from these, which prove nothing but that the words they begin with were preceded by something now lost, there is a perfect harmony in the testimonies, both of MSS. and of versions, in favor of the two chapters. The old Itc. translation and the Syr. were probably made before the name Ebionite was known in the church. Even so early a writer as Irenaeus, in the fragment formerly quoted, (Pref. sect. 7.), takes notice that Mt. began his history with the genealogy of Jesus. That the Nazarenes, (or Jewish Christians, on whom, though disciples, the Mosaic ceremonies were by themselves thought binding), who also used a Heb. exemplar of this Gospel, had the two chapters, is probable, as Epiphanius calls their copy very full, angioratov, though it must be owned he immediately after expresses some doubt of their retaining their pedigree. Si. thinks it probable that they did retain it, as he learns from Epiphanius that Carpocras and Cerinthus, whose notions pretty much coincided with theirs, retained it, and even used it in arguing against their adversaries. I might add to the testimony of versions, MSS. and ancient authors, the internal evidence we have of the vitiation of the Ebionite exemplar, the only copy that is charged with this defect, from the very nature of the additions and alterations it contains. CHAPTER III. 1. "In those days." As the thing last mentioned was the residence of Jesus with his parents at Nazareth, the words "those days" may be used with strict propriety of any time before he left that city. Now John was about six months older than Jesus: it may therefore be thought not improbable that he began his public ministry so much earlier, each in the thirtieth year of his age, agreeably to the practice of the Levites, Num. 4: 3. But it must be owned that this is no more than conjecture; for as to the age of the Baptist, when he commenced preacher, Scripture has been silent. 2 The Baptist," o Bantiorns. A title from his office, not a proper name. It is equivalent to the title given him, Mr. 6: 14. Bantisov, "the Baptizer." It is therefore improperly rendered into modern languages without the article, as Dio. has done in Itn. calling him "Giovanni Battista," and all the Fr. translators I know (except L. Cl.,) who call him "Jean Baptiste." 3 "Cried," novooшv. Diss. VI. Part v. 2. "Reform," μeravoεite. Diss. VI. Part iii. 2 66 Reign," paoisia. Diss. V. Part i. 4." Of camel's hair." Not of the fine hair of that animal, whereof an elegant kind of cloth is made, which is thence called camlet, in imitation of which though made of wool, is the English camlet,) but of the long and shaggy hair of camels, which is in the East manufactured into a coarse stuff anciently worn by monks and anchorets. It is only when understood in this way that the words suit the description here given of John's manner of life. 2 Locusts," axoides. I see no ground to doubt that it was the animal so named that is meant here. Locusts and grasshoppers are among the things allowed by the law to be eaten, Lev. 11:22, and are at this day eaten in Asia by the poorer sort. I have never bad satisfactory evidence that the word is susceptible of any other interpretation. 5. “ The country along the Jordan,” ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ ̓Ιορδάνου Mr. 1: 28. N. 6 7. "From the impending vengeance," ano τns μellovons dorns. E. T." From the wrath to come. Μέλλων often means not only future,' but near.' There is just such a difference between oraι and μéλhet ëõɛodai, in Gr. as there is between 'it will be' and 'it is about to be,' in Eng. This holds particularly in threats and warnings. "Εσται λίμος is erit famnes;' μέλλει ἔσεσθαι λίμος is 'imminet fames.' In Job 3: 8, a Heb. word signifying ready, prepared, is rendered by the Seventy péllwv. Besides, its connexion with the verb quyau in this verse ascertains the import of the word. We think of fleeing only when pursued. The flight itself naturally suggests to spectators that the enemy is at hand. In cases, however, wherein no more appears to be intended than the bare prediction of an event, or declaration of some purpose, we are to consider it as equivalent to an ordinary future, ch. 17:22. N. The words, the wrath to come,' appear to limit the sense to what is strictly called the future judgment.' 3. "The proper fruit of reformation," xaonovs atóUS TYS μeTavolas. E. T. Fruits meet for repentance." Vul. "fructum dignum pœnitentiæ." A very great number of MSS. read xαолov giov, amongst which are some of the oldest and most valued; likewise several ancient versions, as the Ara. the second Sy. Cop. Eth. and Sax. It appears, too, that some of the earliest fathers read in the same manner. Of the moderns, Lu., Gro., Si., Ben., Mill. and Wet. have approved it. It is so read in the Com. and some other old |