from his commentary and notes, is this: It entereth not into his heart, but into his stomach, and goeth out into the lower part of the belly, which purgeth all meats.' Kolia, he says, commonly rendered belly,' is often used for oróuayos, stomach.' Thus Mt. 12: 40, Jonah is said to have been iv ty xolig, in the belly [that is, stomach] of the great fish. But let it be observed, that the Gr. word nokia in no other way imports oróuayos, than as the Eng. word belly imports stomach. With us it is equally proper to say, that Jonah was in the belly, as that he was in the stomach of the fish. Thus we say of gluttons, that all their care is to fill their bellies. Yet in such cases we could not say that either the Gr. word or the Eng. is used in an acceptation different from the common. Whatever goes into the stomach goes into the belly, of which the stomach is a part. Whosoever goes to Rome goes to Italy. It is common to every language often to express the part by the whole, and the species by the genus. This kind of synecdoche is so familiar, and even so strictly proper, as hardly to deserve a place among the tropes. Let it be observed further, than when a more extensive or general term is used, every thing advanced must be suited to the common acceptation of the term. Thus I may say indifferently, that our food goes into the stomach, or into the belly; but if I use the latter term, I cannot add, it passes thence into the intestines, (these being also in the belly), which I might have added if in the first clause I had used the word stomach. The same holds also of the corresponding expression in Gr. and for the same reason. Yet, in this glaringly improper manner does the evangelist express himself, if agedowv, as the bishop explains it mean a part of the belly. If it were necessary to go further into this examination, it might be observed, that άpedov, by the explanation produced from Suidas and Pasor, which makes it at the most, answer only to the intestinum rectum, will not suit his purpose, the secretion of the chyle being more the work of the other intestines. Let it at the same time be remembered, that the version latrina, secessus, is admitted, on all sides, to be according to the common meaning of the word. Add to this, that xavapilov is susceptible of an easy explanation on this hypothesis. It agrees with nav; but nav does not relate to Poduara. It must be explained from the subject treated, πᾶν κοινόν, πᾶν ἀκάθαρτον, Nor can any thing be clearer than the meaning and construction, when the words are thus explained: Any impurity that should enter from without, with the food, into the body, can never contaminate the man, because it nowise affects his mind, but passeth into his belly, whence it is thrown out into the sink, leaving what is fit for nourishment clear of all dregs and defilement.' Gro. has well expressed the last clause, "Si quid est in cibo naturalis immunditiæ, id alvo ejectum purgat relictum in corpore cibum." No interpretation more effectually

exposes the cavil reported by Jerom. Our Lord's words, so far from implying that all that is swallowed is thrown out of the body, imply the contrary. The other interpretation requires also, that we do violence to the words in reading καθαρίζοντα for καθαρίζον, without the sanction of a single MS. edition, ancient version, or early writer.

22. "Insatiable desires," nλcovečiai. E. T. "Covetousness." The use of the word naɛoveğia in the Sep. warrants interpreters to render it covetousness,' in the N. T. But in every place where the word occurs, it does not seem to be properly limited to that meaning. Phav. and Suid. both define it vnio ns indvμías rov πλείονος βλάβη ; they add παρὰ τῷ ἀπόστολῳ, because it is not the common classical use. Now as this definition is applicable to more vices than avarice, there are some passages in Scripture where the sense requires it should be rendered by a more comprehensive term. This is particularly the case when the plural number is employed, as here, and 2 Pet. 2: 14.

24. "Having entered a house," loɛhdwòv eis tηv oixiav. But a great number of MSS. many of them of the first note, have no article. Some of the earliest and best editions have none. The Sy. and the Go. interpreters have not read the article. It is rejected by Wet. and most critics.

26. "A Greek," Envis. This woman is called, Mt. 15: 21. "Canaanitish;" here," a Syrophenician," and " a Greek." There is in these denominations no inconsistency. By birth, she was of Syrophenicia; so the country about Tyre and Sidon was denominated; by descent, of Canaan, as most of the Tyrians and Sidonians originally were; and by religion a Greek, according to the Jewish manner of distinguishing between themselves and idolaters. Ever since the Macedonian conquests, Greek became a common name for idolater, or at least one uncircumcised, and was held equivalent to Gentile. Of this we have many examples in Paul's Epistles, and in the Acts. Jews and Greeks, "Elinves are the same with Jews and Gentiles.

31. "Leaving the borders of Tyre and Sidon, he returned," πάλιν ἐξελθὼν ἐκ τῶν ὁρίων Τύρου καὶ Σιδώνος, ἦλθε. Vul. “ Iterum exiens de finibus Tyri, venit per Sidonem." Agreeable to which are the Cop. and the Sax. versions, as well as the Cam. and two other MSS. which, instead of the three last words in Gr. read ἦλθε διὰ Σιδώνος. Whatever may have recommended this reading to Dr. Mill, it has no external evidence worth mentioning, and is besides, in itself, exceedingly improbable. Our Lord's ministry was to the Jews; and to their country he appears to have confined his journies. Even Si. and Maldonat, though both, especially the last, not a little partial to the Vul. give the preference here to the common Gr. Maldonat says, "Credendum non est, Christum in urbes

Gentilium ingressum fuisse, qui non nisi ad oves quæ perierant domûs Israel, se missum dixerat."

32. Who had an impediment in his speech," μoytlákov. Vul. "Mutum." This deviation from the meaning is not authorized by a single MS.

33. "Spat upon his own fingers, and put them into the man's ears and touched his tongue,” ἔβαλε τοὺς δακτύλους αὑτοῦ εἰς τὰ ὦτα αὐτοῦ καὶ πτύσας ήψατο τῆς γλώσσης αὐτοῦ. Ε. Τ. " Put his fingers into his ears, and he spit and touched his tongue." The reference of the pronoun his is here quite indeterminate. The Cam. MS. gives a better arrangement, ruoas ßade x. ε. Two other MSS. say ἔβαλε τοὺς δακτύλους αὑτοῦ εἰς τὰ ὦτα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἥψατο. Though one or two copies are of no authority, yet as there is no doubt about the meaning, that arrangement in Eng. which conduces most to perspicuity ought to be preferred.

34. "Ephphatha." Pref. Mt. sect. 19.

CHAPTER VIII.

12. "No sign shall be given to this generation," i dovńoɛrai τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ σημεῖον. As the negative in the original is expressed by the conditional particle si, if, Simon, in his note on the place, mentions this as an argument, that the words are of the nature of an oath. "Cette particule si semble indiquer le serment." It is true that, among the Hebrews, the form of an oath by imprecation was very common. "God do so to me, and more also," said Ruth to her mother-in-law, "if aught but death part thee and me." This was an oath that she would not leave her. Sometimes there was an ellipsis of the curse, and no more than the hypothetical clause was expressed. In this case, the conditional conjunction had the force of negation, if there was no negative in the sentence; and the contrary effect if there was. But as use in every tongue gradually varies, it is manifest, and might be proved by examples, that the conditional particle came at length, in many cases, to be understood merely as a negative. That it is so here, we need no better evidence than that, in all the other places of the Gospels where we have the same declaration, what is here expressed by ei dovnoɛrai σημεῖον, is expressed in them by σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται. Μι. 12: 39. 16: 4, and L. 11: 29. Notes.

"And he

24. "Having looked up," zai ávaßlépas. E. T. looked up.' Avaẞhinɛiv sometimes signifies' to recover sight,' sometimes to look upwards' to an object situated above us, sometimes to raise our eyes' from looking downwards, or even from a state of passiveness to exertion. In this sense, to look up,' is often used in Eng. As the subject here is the cure of a blind man, VOL. II.

28

6

many are led to prefer the first of these senses. My reasons for thinking differently are as follows: 1st, When avaßlénɛiv, in the Gospel, signifies to recover sight,' it indicates a complete recovery, which was not the case here. 2dly, If it denote here he recovered his sight,' there is a contradiction in the passage, as the same reason would lead us to infer, from the very next verse, that he had not recovered it; for Jesus, after doing something further, noinov avrov áraßiéyat, made him again look up. 3dly, Because the man's recovering his sight is expressed by a distinct clause, άnoxaτεστάθη καὶ ἐνέβλεψε τηλαυγώς. There is no reason to adopt the second meaning mentioned, as the objects he had to look at appear to have been on a level with himself. The third sense, therefore, which is that of the E. T. seems entitled to the preference. The application is similar to that in the Sep. Isa. 42: 18, Oi Tugloi avaßheyare ideiv. E. T. "Look, ye blind, that ye may see.' That the word is sometimes used for looking at things not placed above us, is also evident from L. 21: 1.

2 I see men, whom I distinguish from trees only by their walking,” βλέπω τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ως δένδρα περιπατοῦντας. ́Ε. Τ. "I see men as trees walking." But in many MSS. some of them of principal note, in several old editions, and in the commentaries of The. and Euth. the words are, βλέπω τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ότι ὡς δένδρα ὁρῶ περιπατοῦντας. This reading is preferred by both Mill and Wet. and is followed by Cas. and some modern interpreters. Thus, the sentence is made to consist of two members, whereof the second is introduced as the reason for saying in the first, that he saw men. I have endeavored to give a just expression of the sense in the version.

26. "Neither go into the village, nor tell aught to any of the villagers,” μηδὲ εἰς τὴν κώμην εἰσέλθης, μηδὲ εἴπῃς τινὶ ἐν τῇ κώμῃ. Vul." Vade in domum tuam; et si in vicum introieris nemini dixeris." This version has evidently sprung from a different reading; as there has been, in fact, a great deal of variety here, both in MSS. and in versions. The Sy. and a good majority of MSS. favor the common reading. Some have thought that there is an impropriety in that reading, as it seems to suppose they could relate the miracle to the people in the village, though they did not enter it. But the words, oir thoun, are no more than a periphrasis for the villagers.'

28." And others, one of the prophets," lo de ëva ræv п00prav. Vul. "Alii vero quasi unum de prophetis." In conformity to which, the Cam. alone reads ois before Eva. But no translation, not even the Sax. concurs here with the Vul.

31. He began to inform them," ožaro diddoxɛiv avtovs. Chap. 5: 17. N.

2" Be rejected," ánodoxiμaovñval. This word is, probably,

used in reference to the expression in the Psalms, "The stone which the builders rejected,” ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν, as it is rendered by the Seventy.

37. “What will a man not give?" ri doori ävdowños; E. T. "What shall a man give?" Gro. justly observes, that ri, here, is equivalent to noσa; How much! What great things!' The emphasis is better expressed in our language by the negative, which, however strange it may appear, more exactly hits the sense than a literal version.

2" Ransom," avzáλlayua. E. T. "Exchange." The Gr. word means both; but the first is, in the present case, the only proper term in Eng. We ransom what by law, war, or accident, is forfeited, and in the power of another, though we may still be in possession; but we always exchange what we have for what we have not. If a man's life be actually taken, it is too late for bartering.

CHAPTER IX.

12, 13. And (as it is written of the Son of Man),” xai nos γέγραπται ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. Ε. Τ. “ And how it is written of the Son of Man." Twelve MSS. amongst which are the Al. and two others of note, read xavos for xai ns. I cannot help thinking this a sufficient warrant for receiving it, when, by the rules of construction, no proper meaning can be drawn from the words as they lie. The Vul. and Zu. follow the common reading, and render nos quomodo.' Er. Cas. Cal. say' quemadmodum;' which may be interpreted either way. Be. whether it was that he judged xavas the true reading, or that he thought us here of the same import, renders itut.' In this he has been followed by the G. F. which says 'comme,' and Dio. who says 'sicome.' It gives an additional probability, that a similar clause, ver. 13, relating to John, as this does to Jesus, which seeins, in some respect, contrasted with it, is ushered in with the conjuction καθώς, καθώς γέγραπται in avrov. This clause is very generally understood by interpreters, as relating to the coming, not to the sufferings, of the Baptist. I have, therefore, for the sake of perspicuity, transposed it.

20. "No sooner did he see him," idov avrov. An ambiguity in both expressions, but such as, explained either way, hurts not the import of the passage.

23. "If thou canst believe," to ¿í dúvασαι лorεvoαι. Vul. "Si potes credere." The Sy. literally the same. I see little occasion here for criticism. The zó is wanting in so great a number of MSS. that one who thinks the construction embarrassed by it is excusable in rejecting it. And even if allowed to remain, it will