prefixing it to eyev, thus making it "he said well." It would be a sufficient reason against this alteration, that, where there is not a good reason for changing, it is safer to follow the order of the words in the original. But were the Gr. what it is not, equally favorable to both interpretations, there is the strongest reason here for preferring the common one. It is not in the manner of these biographers, nor does it suit the taste that prevails through the whole of their writings, to introduce any thing said by our Lord, accompanied with an epithet expressing the opinion of the writer. They tell the world what he said, and what he did, but invariably leave the judgment that ought to be formed about both, to the discernment of their readers. The declared verdicts of others, whether friends or enemies, as becomes faithful historians, they also relate; but, like zealous disciples, wholly intent on exhibiting their Master, they care not though they themselves pass totally unnoticed. Their manner is exactly that of those who considered all his words and actions as far above standing in need of the feeble aid of their praise. The two examples produced by that author do not in the least justify the change, nor invalidate a syllable of what has been now advanced. In neither are they the words of the evangelist, but of interlocutors introduced in the history. The first is, J. 8: 48, Oi ̓Ιουδαῖοι εἶπον αὐτῷ, Οὐ καλῶς λέγομεν, “The Jews said to him, Have we not reason to say?" The other is 13: 13, where our Lord says, Υμεῖς φωνεῖτε με ̔Ο διδάσκκαλος καὶ Ο κύριος, καὶ και As Aéyete, "Ye call me The teacher, and The master, and ye say right." I am aware that the difference may not be thought material; but I cannot help considering the slightest alteration as material which affects the taste of these invaluable writings, and thereby tends to deprive us of an important criterion of their genuineness and divine original. Diss. III. sect. 18.-" Ye judge well." This is spoken ironically. See notes on Mt. 23: 32, and 26: 45, and on J. 4: 17.

11, 12. "But ye maintain, 'If a man say to father or mother, Be it corban (that is, devoted) whatever of mine shall profit thee,' he must not thenceforth do aught for his father or his mother;" vueis δὲ λέγετε, ̓Εὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἤ τῇ μητρὶ Κορβᾶν (ὅ ἐστι δώρον) ὁ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῆς· καὶ οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ ἢ τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ. Ε. Τ. “But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is corban (that is to say, a gift) by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me,' he shall be free; and ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or his mother." For the illustration of this passage, in which it must be acknowledged there is some difficulty, let us, first, attend to the phrase, it is corban. As corban, in the original, is not accompanied with the substantive verb, it suits better the import of the passage to supply it in the imperative, be it, than in the indicative, it

is. Whatever the man meant to do, it is evident that, by the form of words specified, the thing was done as he was bound. The expression, therefore, ought not to imply that the obligation had been contracted before. Be. who has been followed by most modern translators, erred in inserting the verb est. He ought either, with the Vul. to have left the ellipsis unsupplied, or to have said, sit, or esto. Kooßāv is a Sy. word, which this evangelist, who did not write in a country where that language was spoken, has explained by the Gr. word dopov and signifies here 'a gift made to God,' or 'a thing devoted.' Our translators say, "by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;" that is, when expressed more fully, That is corban, whatever it be, by which thou mightest be profited by me.' Now, as to the meaning of the expression, some explain it as importing, Let every donation I make to God turn out to thy advantage.' And they suppose, that when a man has once said this, he is, every time he makes a present to the temple, or an oblation on the altar, to be considered as discharging the duty he owes to his parents. This seems to be the sense of the Vul. : "Si d xerit homo patri aut matri, Corban (quod est donum) quodcunque ex me tibi profuerit." To the same purpose, though in different words, Er. Zu. Cal. and Cas. From Be.'s version it would be difficult to conclude what had been his apprehension of the meaning. His words are, "Si quispiam dixerit patri vel matri, Corban (id est donum) est, quocunque a me juvari posse, insons erit." But by a marginal note on the parallel passage in Mt. he has shown that his idea was the same with that of the ancient interpreter, "Sensus est, quicquid templo donavero, cedet in rem tuam, perinde enim est, ac si tibi dedero." There are several reasons which lead me to think that this cannot be the sense of the words. In the first place, such a method of transferring the benefit of oblations and gifts (if compatible with their usages, which I very much doubt) would have deprived the giver of all the advantage resulting from them. We may believe it would not suit the system of the covetous and politic Pharisees, who were the depositaries of the sacred treasure, to propagate the opinion, that the same gifts and offerings could be made equally to redound to the benefit of two or three, as of one. This would have been teaching the people an economy in their oblations and presents to the temple, which but ill suited the spirit of their doctrine. 2dly, The effect of this declaration could, at the most, only have been to release the son who said so, from the obligation of giving any support to his father, or doing aught for him but it could never be construed into a positive obligation to do nothing. By saying, 'I will do this for you, I will transfer to you the merit of all my oblation,' I cannot be understood to preclude myself from doing as much more as I please. Yet this was the effect of the words mentioned, as we learn from the sacred

:

writers. Thus Mt. says expressly, that after a man has made this declaration, Οὐ μὴ τιμήσῃ, rather τιμήσει, as it is in some noted MSS. and early editions), " He shall not honor his father or his mother." I know that in Be.'s translation, and those which follow it, this argument is in a manner annihilated. By making the words now quoted belong to the hypothetical part of the sentence, and introducing, as the subsequent member, without warrant from the original, the words he shall be free, translators have darkened and enervated the whole. But that the doctrine of the Pharisees extended further than to release the child from the duty of supporting his parents; nay, that it extended so far as to bring him under an obligation not to support them, is still more evident from what is told by Mr. Ouzéri agiere, "Ye suffer him no more to do aught Οὐκέτι ἀφίετε, for his father or his mother." This plainly expresses, not that he is at liberty to do nothing for them, if he choose to do nothing, but that he must never after do aught for them, if he would. This appears even from the common translation, whose words I have quoted; though the passage is greatly marred by the same unwarranted supply as in Mt. I may justly say marred, since the words supplied are inconsistent with those which follow. A man is free, who may do, or not do, as he pleases. This was not the case. The same act which superseded the obligation of the commandment brought him under a counter-obligation, which, according to the Pharisaical doctrine, he was less at liberty to infringe than ever he had been with regard to the former. The method of getting rid of God's commandment, we see, was easy; but there was no release from their tradition. 3dly, our Lord, in both places, mentions two commandments of the law in regard to parents, the one enjoining honor to them, the other prohibiting, under the severest sanction, that kind of dishonor which consists in contumelious words. Both are introduced in illustration of the sentiment with which he began, that they preferred their own traditions to the commandments of God. Now the mention of the divine denunciation against those who treat their parents with reproachful language was foreign to the purpose, if there was nothing in the maxims of the Pharisees here animadverted on, which tended to encourage such criminal conduct. But the speech of the son, as those interpreters explain it, "May every offering I make to God redound to your advantage," cannot be said to he abusive, or even disrespectful. With whatever view it may be spoken, it carries the appearance of reverence and regard. See Mr. 15: 4. N. The An. Eng. version has suggested a different meaning, to wit, that the son had actually given, or intended to give, to the temple, all that he could afford to bestow on his parents: If any one shall tell his father or his mother, that what he could bestow for their relief is corban, that is, to be given to the temple, you discharge him from the obligation of doing any thing for

his father or his mother." And in the parallel passage in Mt. it is, "is dedicated to the temple," though the original does not authorize the change of the tense. This meaning Mr. Harwood also has introduced into his paraphrase, which he calls a liberal translation. Mt. 15: 5, "But you, in direct opposition to this divine command, say, that whosoever dedicates his substance to pious and religious uses, is under no obligation to relieve an aged and necessitous parent." And, Mr. 7: 11, 12, "that, if any man bequeath his fortune to the service of the temple, from that moment he ceases to be under any obligation at all to relieve the most pressing wants of his aged and necessitous parents." I do not think it necessary to attempt a refutation of this opinion, or rather, these opinions; for more ways than one are suggested here, and a sort of casuistry, which, by the way, savors more of the corruptions of the church than of those of the synagogue. Only let it be observed, that the second and third arguments urged against the former hypothesis, serve equally against this; to which I shall add, that, as no Jewish customs have been alleged in support of it, it is far from being what the words would naturally suggest. If such had been our Lord's meaning, the obvious expression would have been, not, If a man say to his father, but, If a man dedicate or bequeath to the temple. Whereas the efficacy in the text is laid entirely on what he says, not on what he does, or intends to do. For my part, I agree with those who think that, by the expression which I have rendered, "be it devoted, whatever of mine shall profit thee," the son did not directly give, or mean to give, any thing to God; he only precluded himself from giving any relief to his parents. For if he should afterwards repent of his rashness, and supply them with any thing, he had by (what I may call) eventually devoting it to God, given, according to the Pharisaic doctrine, the sacred treasury a title to reclaim it. Gro. is of opinion, that this chance of eventual profit to the treasury, whereof the priests, and the leading men of the Pharisees, had the management, contributed not a little to the establishinent of such impious maxims. The words, therefore, "be it corban," or " devoted," involve an imprecation against himself, if he shall ever bestow any thing to relieve the necessities of his parents; as if he should say to them, May I incur all the infamy of sacrilege and perjury, if ever ye get a farthing from me;' than which we can hardly conceive any thing spoken by a son to his parents, more contemptuous, more unnatural, more barbarous, and consequently more justly termed xaxoloɣia, opprobrious language.' Lightfoot quotes a passage from a Rabbinical performance, which sets the intent of such expressions in the clearest light. When a man had a mind to make a vow against using any particular thing, suppose wine, he said, Let all the wine that I shall taste be conem, a word of similar import with corban. By saying so, it was not un

derstood that he devoted any thing to God, but that he bound himself never to taste wine. And if, notwithstanding this, he was afterwards induced to drink wine, he became both sacrilegious and perjured sacrilegious, because the wine was no sooner tasted by him than it was sacred; perjured, because he had broken his vow; for such declarations were of the nature of vows. It appears from Maimonides, that the term came, at length, to denote any thing prohibited. To say, It is corban to me, is to say, I dare not use it; to me it is all one as though it were consecrated to God. In the above explanation we are supported by the authority of Gro. Capellus, Lightfoot, all deeply conversant in Jewish literature; with whom also agree these later critics, L. Cl. Beau. Wh. Wet. Pearce, and several others. Some of our late Eng. translators seem also to have adopted this interpretation. The only difficulty that remains in the sentence arises from the conjunction xai, which, in sentences conditional or comparative, where the concluding member has an immediate dependence on the preceding, appears to break the natural connexion, by forming one of a different kind. To this I answer with Gro. that the xai in the N. T. like the Heb. ?, is sometimes a mere expletive, and sometimes has the power of other conjunctions. I shall mention some of the examples in the Gospels referred to by that author. The learned reader may compare the original with the common translation, Mt. 28: 9. L. 2: 15, 21. 5: 35. 9:51. In all these, the translators have dropped the copulative entirely. In L. 2: 27, 28, they have rendered it then, and L. 15: 1, that. Every impartial person will judge whether it be a greater latitude in translating to omit a conjunction, which, in certain cases not dissimilar, is allowed to be an expletive, or to insert, rather interpolate, a whole clause, which is not only not necessary, but not altogether consistent with the rest of the passage. The last clause, ver. 12, is here rendered more according to the sense than according to the letter. Ye maintain-he must not do,' is entirely equivalent to, Ye do not permit him to do;' for it was only what they permitted or prohibited by their doctrine of which he was speaking. But the former is the only way here of preserving the tenor of the discourse. In the latter, the first member of the sentence is in the words of the Pharisees, the second in the words of our Lord.

19. "It entereth not into his heart, but into his belly, whence all impurities in the victuals pass into the sink,” οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν, ἀλλ ̓ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζον πάντα τὰ βρώματα. Ε. Τ. “ It entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats." A late learned prelate, whom I have had occasion often to quote, proposes a different version of the above passage. The way in which he would render it, as may be collected