precisely in the same manner as here. Thus, Acts 3: 16, niores rou óvóμaros avrou is 'faith in his [Christ's] name;' Rom. 3: 22, πίστις ̓Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ is faith in Jesus Christ. See, to the same purpose, Rom. 3: 26. Gal. 2: 16, 20. 3: 22. Philip. 3: 9: s is used in the same way, 1 Thess. 1: 3. As these come much nearer the case in hand, they are, in my judgment, more than a counterpoise to all that has been advanced in favor of the other interpretation.

CHAPTER XII.

4. "They wounded in the head with stones;" Loßolnoavres ixegaraiwoαv. Vul. "In capite vulneraverunt." Agreeably τες ἐκεφαλαίωσαν. to this version, the Cam. and five other MSS. omit loßolnoavres. The Cop. and Sax. translations follow the same reading.

14. "Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar or not? Shall we give or shall we not give ?” ἔξεστι κῆνσον Καίσαρι δοῦναι, ἤ οὔ; Swμεv, n μn dwuεv; Vul. "Licet dare tributum Cæsari, an non dabimus?" With this agree the Go. and the Sax. The Cam. omits the whole clause δῶμεν, ἢ μὴ δῶμεν.

19. "Moses hath enacted," Moons roayev. E. T. "Moses wrote.' ." The word yoάqev, when applied to legislators, and spoken of laws or standing rules, is, both in sacred use and in classical, sancire, to enact.'

6

29. "The Lord is our God; the Lord is one," Kúpos Ó Oεos nμav Kúgios els iori. E. T. "The Lord our God is one Lord." The words are a quotation from Moses, Deut. 6: 4: as rendered by the Seventy. In Heb. they run thus:

b In such sen

literally in Eng. 'Jehovah our God Jehovah one.' tences there is no substantive verb in Heb. (as in European languages) to connect the words. Their juxtaposition is held sufficient. Sometimes in Gr. and La. which do not labor under the same defect, the verb is omitted as unnecessary. Now, in my apprehension, (and in this I agree with Vitringa), the words quoted ought to be rendered as two sentences; in Deut. thus, Jehovah is our God: Jehovah is one;' and not as one sentence, 'Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.' My reasons are these: Ist, It appears to have been the purpose of their great legislator to establish among the people these two important articles, as the foundation of that religious constitution he was authorized to give them. The first was,

that the God whom they were to adore, was not any of the acknowledged objects of worship in the nations around them, and was therefore to be distinguished among them, the better to secure them against seduction, by the peculiar name Jehovah, by which alone he chose to be invoked by them. The second was the unity of the divine nature; and consequently that no pretended divinity (for all

other gods were merely pretended), ought to be associated with the only true God, or share with him in their adoration. There is an internal probability in this explanation, arising from the consideration that these were notoriously the fundamental articles of their creed. 2dly, In reply of the Scribe, ver. 32, which was approved by our Lord, and in which we find, as it were, echoed every part of the answer that had been given to his question, there are two distinct affirmations which he begins: these are, "There is one God," and "there is only one;" corresponding to The Lord is our God, and the Lord is one. The first clause, in both declarations, points to the object of worship; the second, to the necessity of excluding all others. Accordingly, the radical precept relating to this subject, quoted by our Lord, Mt. 4: 10, from the Sep. is exactly suited to both parts of this declaration, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God." This may be called the positive part of the statute, and corresponds to the article, The Lord is our God. Thou shalt serve him only: This is the negative part, and corresponds to the article, The Lord is one. 3dly, Such short and simple sentences, without either verb or conjunction to unite them in themselves, or connect them with one another, are not unfrequent in the sacred language. An example, perfectly similar, wehave, Exod. 15: 3, (or, as we read in the Samaritan

rightly rendered in יְהוָה שְׁמו יְהוָה גִּבּוֹד בְמִלְחָמָה,Pentateuch

the E. T. as two distinct sentences, "The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is his name:" by Houbigant, "Dominus est bellator fortis; dominus est nomen ejus." 4thly, It is unexampled in sacred writ to join as an adjective to a proper name. The case is different when it is affirmed as an attribute, because then a copula or substantive verb is understood. For though the Gr. word xúotos be an appellative, we ought to remember that in this passage it supplies the place of Jehovah, a proper name. Now a proper name, which naturally belongs but to one, does not admit numeral adjectives. If such an adjective, therefore, be subjoined to the name, it ought to be considered as something formally predicated of it, not as an epithet or attendant quality. If the whole purpose of the quotation were to assert, in one sentence, the unity of the Godhead, the only natural expression in Heb. would have been

Την Duis in Gr. κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Θεὸς εἰς ἐστι, “Jehovah, or The Lord, our God is one God.' But, as it stands, if it had been meant for one simple affirmation, the expression would have been both unnatural and improper. The author of the Vul. seems, from a conviction of this, to have rendered the words in defiance of the authority of MSS. "Deus unus est." In Deut. he says, indeed, "Dominus unus est." But in some old editions, previous to the revisal and corrections of either Sixtus V. or Clement VIII, the reading is, as in Mr. "Deus unus est." I have consulted two

old editions in folio, one printed at Paris 1504, the other at Lyons 1512, both of which read in this manner.* Some may say, and it is the only objection I can think of, that though my interpretation might suit the Heb. of Deut. it does not suit the Gr. of the evangelist. We have here the substantive verb for, which, as it is used only once in the end, seems to connect the whole into one sentence. I answer, that it is not uncommon in the penmen of the N. T. to use the copula in the last short sentence or member, and leave it to be supplied by the reader's discernment in the preceding. Thus, Με. 11: 30, Ο ζυγός μου χρηστὸς, καὶ τὸ φορτίον μου ἐλαφρόν ἐστι. Here every body admits that we have two distinct affirmations, and that the for which occurs only in the end, must be supplied in the former clause, after zonozós.

2 "Our God," Oto's nμov. Three MSS. read vuŵv; one reads σου. Vul. "Deus tuus."

34. "Nobody ventured to put questions to him," ovdeìs éróżμa avrov inεowrñσat. E. T. "No man durst ask him any question.' These words convey a suggestion of some stern prohibition, or terrible menace, denounced by our Lord, which frightened every body from further attempts this way. But this was not the case. The people saw how completely those were foiled who tried to insnare him by captious questions, and how ill those succeeded who entered into disputation with him; and were therefore naturally led, from respect to a superiority so great and so manifest, to avoid exposing their own ignorance or bad intention. This is sufficiently expressed in the version; J. 21: 12. 2 N.

40. "Punishment," xoiua. E. T. "Damnation." But this word, with us, is confined to the punishment of hell, to which the impenitent will be hereafter condemned. I think it unwarrantable in a translator to limit the words of the sacred penmen to this meaning, when neither the terms used, nor any thing in the context, can be said to limit them. The phrases xoious τns réεvvas and divios xolos, literally, 'the punishment of hell,' and 'eternal punishment,' are the only terms in the Gospels which may be properly rendered damnation.' And even in these I think it preferable, for an obvious reason, to use the periphrasis of the sacred writer. By the frequent, unnecessary, and sometimes censurable recourse of translators to the terms, damned, damnation, damnable, and others of like import, an asperity is given to the language of most modern translations of the N. T. which the original evidently has not. Chap. 16: 16. 3 N.

6

Since I wrote the above, I have seen an edition of the Vul. earlier than either of these, printed at Venice 1484, in which also the expression is "Deus unus est." These are all the editions of that Translation of an older date than the Council of Trent, which I have had occasion to see.

41. "The treasury," zou yasoquiánov. This name seems to have been given to those chests into which the money devoted for the use of the temple and the sacred service was put. The first account we have of such a repository is in 2 Ki. 12: 9. But the chest mentioned there seems to have been intended for receiving only the money brought in by the priests, as it was set in the court of the priests, near the altar, a place to which they only had access; whereas the treasury here meant was accessible to people of all ranks and both sexes, as we learn from our Lord's remark on the gift of a poor widow. It must, consequently, have been in the court of the women, beyond which they were not permitted to go. Gazophylacium, from signifying the chest which contained the treasure, came to denote the place in the temple where the chest was deposited. We find our Lord, J. 8: 20, teaching in the treasury; that is, I suppose, in that side of the court of the women where the sacred treasure was kept.

42. "Two mites, which make a farthing." Diss. VIII. Part. i. sect. 10.

CHAPTER XIII.

8. "Famines and commotions," λuoi xai rapazai. Vul. "Fames.' The Cop. Sax. and Eth. read as the Vul. Kai ragazai are wanting in the Cam. and one other MS.

9. "To bear testimony to them," εis pagrvorov avrois. E. T. "For a testimony against them." Vul. "In testimonium illis." Thus also, Mt. 10: 18, εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσι, Ε. Τ. renders, "For a testimony against them and the Gentiles." But, in Mt. 24: 14, is μarviov não rois oveo is translated, "For a witness unto all nations." This is evidently the most natural interpretation, and suits the usual import of the dative case. Nor is there aught in the context of any of the three passages that would lead one to interpret it differently from the rest. The change, consequently, appears capricious. In one place, indeed, namely chap. 6: 11, the words in connexion sufficiently warrant the change of the preposition. But that the construction there is rather unusual, may be concluded from the parallel passage, L. 9: 5, where the words are, εἰς μαρτύριον ἐπ' αὐτοὺς, a phrase which occurs in no other part of the Gospel. Be. was the first translator who, in the verse under review, introduced the preposition adversus.

11. "Have no anxiety beforehand, nor premeditate what ye shall speak,” μὴ προμεριμνᾶτε τί λαλήσητε, μηδὲ μελετᾶτε. Vul. "Nolite præcogitare quid loquamini." The latter clause, answering to unde μelerate, is wanting here and in the Cop. and Sax. versions. So it is also in the Cam. and four other MSS.

14. "Foretold by the prophet Daniel,” rò éŋvèv vñò savini тоν продητоν. This clause is not in the Cam. and three other MSS. of some note. It is wanting also in the Vul. Cop. Sax. and Arm. versions.

32. "Or." The common Gr. copies have xai; but if we judge from the value as well as number of MSS. which read, and from the support this reading has in the ancient writers and versions, we cannot hesitate to admit it as genuine.

2 "Hour," was. This word may be rendered season.' Mt. 8:13. N.

35. "In the evening." These are the four night watches, answering with us to the hours of nine and twelve at night, three and six in the morning.

CHAPTER XIV.

3. "Of spikenard,” vάodov пoτizйs. Vul. "Nardi spicati." Critics have been divided about the exact import of this term. Some have thought it has arisen from the La. nanie nardus spicatus, the latter part of which, denoting the species of the plant, has, by some accident, been corrupted intо noτins. Others consider this word only as an epithet, expressive of the purity or fineness of the balsam. In the former way the Vul. translates it; in the latter the Sy. As in meaning, however, they pretty much coincide, the spikenard being accounted the most precious kind of nard, it seemed better to make no alteration on the word which our translators have adopted from the Vul.

2 "She broke open the box," ouvroiyaoa rò áláßaoroov. E. T. "She brake the box." Some late translators, not seeing any necessity for breaking the box, in order to get out the liquor, have chosen to say shook. Blackwall (Sac. Clas. vol. ii. part 2. ch. 3,) thinks that the breaking refers to the parts of the liquor, which would be so separated by shaking as to diffuse their fragrance wider, and flow easier. Zuvruiße, I acknowledge, does not always mean 'to break ;' perhaps oftener to bruise.' Zuvroißɛova, however, always implies that there is violence, and that the thing spoken of has sustained damage. Now it is evident, that it is not the liquor to which the verb is applied, but the box. For though, by a common figure, the containing for the contained, the box might be used to denote the liquor; these two are here so contradistinguished, that the trope can hardly have place. The historian has told us, that the woman had αλάβαστρον μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτελοῦς. After naming the box, the liquor is specified. To this, as being last mentioned, the participle ovvroiyana might refer, if nothing were subjoined ; but the repetition of αλάβαστρον after συντρίψασα,