but this being often unavoidable, and sometimes accidental, it was not in any sense a transgression, unless in a few particular cases. It would have been indeed a transgression, if voluntary, in the high-priest, because to him expressly prohibited. His sacred functions required that the necessary care about the interment of persons deceased, though nearly connected with him, should be committed to other hands. The ordinary priests, however, were allowed to defile themselves for near relations. And, as they were permitted, their defilement in such case was no transgression, and consequently implied no sin. Nay more, in many cases it was a man's duty to defile himself, in the sense of the ceremonial law. Nobody will deny that it was necessary, and therefore a duty, to take care of the dying, and to bury the dead. Yet this duty could not be performed without occasioning uncleanness. Nay, the ceremonial law itself required the doing of that which produced this defilement. The priest and others employed in sacrificing and burning the red heifer, and gathering her ashes, were all rendered unclean by what they did; yet they were obliged by law to do it ; Num. 19: 7, 8, 10. It was, therefore, in some cases, a man's duty to make himself unclean. If, indeed, a person in this state had entered the congregation of the Lord, or touched any thing intentionally, and without necessity, not permitted to such, or neglected to use, in due time, the rites of cleansing, he would by this presumption have rendered himself, a transgressor; but not by what is called defiling himself, which the ceremonial law, or law of nature, nay, even the ceremonial law, required.

23. "Every male who is the first-born of his mother," nāvãooεv diavoiyov μntoav. Dod. "Every first-born male." I should, probably, have adopted this expression of Dod. as briefer, if there did not appear an ambiguity in it, which is not in the other. A son may, not improperly, be called the first-born male, who is born before all the other male children of the family, notwithstanding that there may have been one or more females born before him. And, if I mistake not, we frequently use the phrase in this meaning. But such a child is not apoεv diavoiyov untoav, and, consequently, not a male who is the first-born in the sense of this law, which takes place only when the first child which a woman bears is a male. There is the greater reason for remarking the difference, because the Jews themselves made a distinction between the first-born, when it denotes the heir or person entitled to a double portion of his father's estate, and to some other privileges; and the first-born, when it denotes a person who is consecrated to God by his birth, and must in due time be redeemed. Such were, upon the old constitution, before God selected for himself the tribe of Levi in their stead, destined for the priesthood. Now, this sacred prerogative did not always coincide with civil rights of primogen

iture. Unless the child was at once the first-born of his mother, and the eldest son of his father in lawful wedlock, he was not entitled to the civil rights of the first-born, or a double portion of the inberitance. He might, nevertheless, be a first-born son in the religious sense, and subjected to this law of consecration and redemption. The patriarch Jacob had, by different wives, two sons, Reuben and Joseph, each of whom came under the description here given of ἄρσεν διανοίγον μήτραν, and so was consecrated by his birth. But Reuben alone was entitled to the patrimony of the first-born, (if he had not forfeited it by his criminal behavior), as being the first-fruits of both parents. (See Gen. 49: 3, 4. 1 Chron. 5: 1, 2.) It is worthy of remark, that, on Reuben's forfeiture, even the civil prerogative, the double portion, did not descend, according to our notions of seniority, to the son next in age to Reuben; "for," says the sacred historian," he [Reuben] was the first-born; but forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birth-right was given unto the sons of Joseph." This does not appear to have happened in consequence of a particular destination in Joseph's favor, else it is probable that in the history notice would have been taken of that circumstance, but, on the failure of Reuben, to have fallen to Joseph in course. Now, according to the European rules of succession, all the other sons of Jacob by Leah, to wit, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, as being elder than Joseph, had a preferable title. But eldership is one thing, and primogeniture another. When there was no claim to primogeniture in a family-as, when the first-born was a female, or had died-the double portion came, of course, to the senior brother; but the sacred character could not be transferred. In regard to Dan the first-born of Bilhah, and Gad the first-born of Zilpah, not only had they no title to the civil rights of primogeniture, but it is even doubtful, by reason of the servile condition of the mothers, whether they could be accounted holy by their birth. It is universally admitted that Isaac, though the younger son, being the child of a free woman, while Ishmael the elder son was the child of a slave, was alone entitled to all the prerogatives of primogeniture, both sacred and civil. A Gentile mother is also, by the Rabbis, deemed incapable of conveying the rights of the first-born of either kind to her offspring. Any glaring deformity, a defect or redundancy in any of the members, effectually divested the first-born of his sacred character, but not of his patrimonial birthright. A number of cases have been put by the Rabbis, which are more curious than important, in order to show when the two species of rights coincided in the same individual, and when they did not. But they are not, in every thing, unanimous on this subject; and their decisions, though specious, are not always satisfactory. See Selden, lib. De Successionibus, etc. ad Leges Ebræarum, cap. vii. 2 : Is consecrated to the Lord,” ἅγιον τῷ Κυρίῳ κληθήσεται.

E. T." Shall be called holy to the Lord." P. R. Si. Sa. Beau. "Sera consacré au Seigneur." An. "Shall be consecrated to the Lord." It has been frequently observed, and justly, that to be called, and to be, often mean the same thing in the Hebrew idiom. The word called has with them, in such cases, nearly the import of the Eng. words held, acknowledged, accounted. Now, that a thing is acknowledged to be of a particular kind, is considered as a consequence of its being of that kind previous to that acknowledgment. to be of a particular kind, is considered as a consequence of its being of that kind previously to the acknowledgment. It follows, that if, in translating such sentences, the verb xaléw be entirely dropt, and the epithet holy be supplied by the participle perfect of an active verb, the future tense cannot be retained, without turning a simple declaration of what is, into a command of something to be done. To consecrate, doubtless gives a more perspicuous sense in Eng. than to call holy. Yet, shall be consecrated, would in this place imply more than is implied in the original. It would imply an order for the performance of some solemn ceremony of consecration, such, for example, as was used when God commanded Moses to consecrate Aaron and his sons. This future, thus employed, has in our language the effect of the imperative; whereas, in the present instance, it is manifestly the intention of the writer to inform us, that this single circumstance in the birth of a male, that he is the first-born of his mother, does of itself, consecrate him. In such cases, therefore, the words are more accurately, as well as perspicuously rendered, is consecrated, than shall be consecrated to the Lord. In the former way, the words appear, as they ought, not a precept, but an affirmation. If, instead of a participle, an adjective be employed, the future may without impropriety be retained. The versions of Hey. and Wes, are both good. The first says, "shall be held sacred to the Lord;" the second, "shall be holy to the Lord." In neither of these is there any appearance of a command of what is to be done; each is a distinct declaration of what obtains in every such instance.

24. "A pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons.' This was the offering required from the poor. Those in better circumstances were commanded to bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering, and a turtle-dove or a young pigeon for a sin-offering.

30, 31. "The Saviour which thou hast provided," 10 owinqov oov ö nroiμaoas. E. T. "Thy salvation which thou hast prepared." In every language we sometimes meet with such tropes as the abstract for the concrete, the cause for the effect, and the like. In the oriental tongues, however, they seem to be more common than in most others. Thus, God is called our defence, our song, our hope; that is, our defender, the subject of our song, the object of our hope. But when, in any occurrence, the words literally

translated appear but ill adapted to the idiom of our tongue, or occasion obscurity, it is better to express the sense in plain words. 33. "Joseph," Iwong. Vul. "Pater ejus." Vul. "Pater ejus." The Cam. with three other MSS. о пaτng aντoυ. With this agree the Cop. Arm. and Sax. versions.

38. "To all those in Jerusalem who expected deliverance," πᾶσι τοῖς προσδεχομένοις λύτρωσιν ἐν ̔Ιερουσαλήμ. Ε.Τ. “ To all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem." Vul. "Omnibus qui expectabant redemptionem Israel." This version is evidently founded on a different reading. It is favored by the Vat. which is singular in having τοῦ ̓Ισραήλ for ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ. Three MSS. of small account read ἐν τῷ ̓Ισραήλ. The Al. and two others of less note, read Iɛpovoaknu, without the preposition, and thus make the meaning,' the deliverance of Jerusalem.' This reading is followed by the Sy. Go. Sax. and Cop. version. As these differences make no material alteration on the sense, and as the common reading is incomparably better supported than any other, and entirely suited to the scope of the passage, it is, in every respect, entitled to the preference. The expectation of the Messiah, though very general, was not universal.

40. "Adorned with a divine gracefulness," zaois Dεov v en αύτω. E. T. "The grace of God was upon him." A verbal translation sometimes expresses the sense with sufficient clearness; and sometimes, though obscure or equivocal, it is not more so than the original. In either case it admits a plausible apology: but here, I imagine, the words of the evangelist will, to a discerning reader, suggest a meaning which can hardly be said to be conveyed to any by what is called the literal version. The word χάρις has in Scripture several significations, to which there is not one Eng. word that will in all cases answer. Our translators have been as attentive to uniformity as most others; yet, for this word, which is oftenest rendered grace, they have on different occasions employed one or other of the following, favor, liberality, benefit, gift, sake, cause, pleasure, thank, thankworthy, acceptable; and even these are not all. Let it not be concluded hence, that the Gr. word must be very equivocal and indefinite. Notwithstanding the aforesaid remark, it is very rarely so. But it is commonly the words in immediate connexion, which, in all languages, limit the acceptation of one another, and put the meaning beyond a doubt. The word grace in Eng. admits a considerable latitude of signification, as well as the Gr. yagis, yet is seldom so situated as to appear to the intelligent liable to be misunderstood. A reader of discernment will be sensible, that use in the language as truly fixes these limits, as it does the common acceptation of words, or the rules of inflection and construction, I have preferred gracefulness, in the version of this passage, as more explicit, though it cannot be denied that the

word grace often bears the same meaning. Nay, I must add, that in this sense it corresponds to the most common meaning of the Gr. term in classical writers. But this is a sense which, though not so common, is not without precedent in the sacred penmen, and particularly in this evangelist. In ch. 4: 22, of this Gospel, the term is manifestly used in the same meaning: Εθαύμαζον ἐπὶ τοῖς λόγοις τῆς χάριτος τοῖς ἐκπορευομένοις ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αυτοῦ; here rendered," Were astonished at the words full of grace which he uttered." The charms of his elocution, which had an irresistible effect on the hearers, are evidently here pointed out. Gracious words, in the common translation, are not at all suited to the scope of the passage. See the Note on that place. The word appears to me to be used in the same sense Acts 4: 33, where the historian, speaking of the testimony which the apostles gave in behalf of their Master when they entered on their ministry, says, Χάρις τε μεγάλη ἦν ἐπὶ πάντας αὐτούς; to denote the divine eloquence wherewith they expressed themselves, agreeably to the promise of their Lord, that they should receive a mouth and wisdom, which all their adversaries should not be able to withstand. In like manner, I take this to be the import of the word Acts 7: 10, where Stephen says of the patriarch Joseph, Ὁ Θεὸς ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ χάριν καὶ σοφίαν ἐν avriov Papaw. I acknowledge that our translators have not implausibly rendered the words, "God gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh." It is however more probable, and more agreeable to the rules of interpretation, that the gifts, qάow xai oogiav, thus coupled, should be understood as denoting distinct personal talents bestowed on Joseph, and not that only one of them, oogiav, should express a personal quality, and that you should denote barely the effect of the other, or that affection which the discovery of his wisdom would procure him. The sense, therefore, in my opinion, is, that God united in Joseph that discernment which qualified him for giving the best counsel, with those graces of elocution which conciliated favor and produced persuasion. Xaois is also used in this manner by the apostle Paul, Eph. 4: 29. Col. 4: 6. The addition of sou to zápis makes, in the Hebrew idiom, a kind of superlative, raising the signification as much as possible : for xάois is not, like niotis, expressive merely of a mental quality, but refers to effects both outward and sensible. (See Mr. 9: 22. N.) Thus, dorelos To O, applied to Moses, Acts 7: 20, when an infant, signifies extremely beautiful.' As such expressions denote the highest degree of a valuable quality, they have doubtless arisen from the conviction, that God is to be regarded as the source whence every good and perfect gift descends. Wet. gives in effect the same explanation of this passage. For further confirming the version here given, it may be also observed, that when the evangelists say any thing in relation to the characters of the persons of whom

6