says a lamp,' as probably most houses had more than one, but the modius,' there being but one, and the stand' as one might be in more frequent use than the rest, for the accommodation of the family. However, as the sense is sufficiently expressed either way, I have preferred the indefinite manner in my version, being better adapted to the more general terms I was obliged to adopt. See N. on ch. 27: 61.

17. "To subvert the law or the prophets," zavalvoai ròv vóμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας. E. T. "To destroy." Of the different senses which have been assigned to the verb xaraluoat, one is, when applied to a law, to break,' or 'violate.' Though this is the sense of the simple verb luw, ver. 19, it cannot be the sense of the compound here. Nobody could suppose that it needed a divine mission to qualify one to transgress the law, which so many, merely from the depravity of their own minds, flagrantly did every day. Another sense, which suits better the context, is authoritatively to repeal,' or abrogate.' This appears proper as applied to the law, but harsh as applied to the prophets, though by the prophets are meant, by common metonymy, the prophetical writings. But even these we never speak of abolishing or abrogating. To destroy is rather saying too much, and is more in the military style than in the legislative. If every copy and scrap of these writings were obliterated or burnt, we could not say more than that they were destroyed. The context, in my opinion, shows that the import of the word here is not directly to rescind or repeal, but indirectly to supersede a standing rule by the substitution of another; which, though it does not formally annul the preceding, may be said in effect to subvert it. This appears fully to express the sense, and is equally adapted to both terms, the law and the prophets.

2" But to ratify," άά ŋσαl. E. T. "But to fulfil." The sense of the verb πληρύω is ascertained by καταλύω. We have seen that the meaning of this word cannot be 'to break,' and therefore it is highly probable that the other means more than 'to obey.' The proper opposite of weakening and subverting a law is confirming and ratifying it. See N. on ch. 3: 15. Some of great name translate it here to complete,' 'perfect,' or 'fill up,' and think it alludes to the precepts, as it were, superadded in this discourse. I own there is a plausibility in this explanation; some of our Lord's precepts being, to appearance, improvements on the law. Yet I cannot help thinking, that these divine sayings are to be regarded rather as explanatory of the law, in showing its extent and spirituality, than as additions to it, not binding on men before, but deriving their power to oblige, purely from their promulgation by Jesus Christ. Besides, I find no example of the sense to fill up in any passage that can be reckoned analogous to the present. For the phrase "fill up the measure of your fathers," cannot surely be

accounted of the number. The word measure' there leaves no room to hesitate. It is otherwise here. The interpretation, "make fully known," given by Benson, (Essay concerning Abolishing of the Ceremonial Law. ch. 2. sect. 2,) though not implausible, does not make so exact a contrast to the preceding word 'subvert,' nor is it, in this application, so well established by use.

6

18. "Verily I say unto you," auηv λéyo vμïv. As Mt. has retained the Heb. word 'amen,' in such affirmations, and is in this followed by the other evangelists, though less frequently by L. than by the rest, it is not improper here, where the word first occurs, to inquire into its import. Its proper signification is 'true,' 'verus,' as spoken of things, 'observant of truth,'' verax' as spoken of persons, sometimes truth,' in the abstract. In the O. T. it is sometimes used adverbially, denoting a concurrence in any wish or prayer, and is rendered by the Seventy yévoiro, ' so be it.' In this application the word has been adopted into most European languages. In the N. T. it is frequently used in affirmation. Now as L. has been more sparing than the other evangelists in the use of this oriental term, it is worth while to observe, when he is relating the same passages of our Lord's history with them, what word he has substituted for the 'amen,' as this will show in what manner he understood the Heb. adverb. The same prediction which in Mt. 16: 8, is ushered in by the words dun iyo viv, is thus introduced L. 9: 27, Léyw vμiv ainus, which answers to truly' or verily' with us. Another example of this interpretation we find, on comparing Mr. 12: 43, with L. 21: 3. The only example, in passages entirely parallel, is Mt. 23: 36, and L. 11: 51, where the duv of the former is, by the latter, rendered by the affirmative adverb vai. I have not observed any passage in the O. T. wherein the word 'amen' is used in affirming; and therefore I consider this idiom in the Gospels as more properly a Syriasm than a Hebraism. Indeed some derivatives from 'amen' often occur in affirmation. Such as 'amenah,' Gen. 20: 12. Jos. 7: 20, rendered in the Sep. aindas. Such also is amenam,' which occurs oftener, and is rendered aληθώς, επ' αληθείας, ἐν ἀληθεία, or ὄντως, exactly corresponding to the application made of dun in the Gospels. This is as strong evidence of the import of this word in the N. T. as the nature of the thing will admit. Nor does there appear the shadow of a reason for the opinion maintained by some critics, that, when used thus, it is of the nature of an oath. It is true that to swear by the God of truth,' elohe-amen,' is mentioned (Is. 65: 16,) as an oath; and so doubtless would it be to swear by the God of knowledge,' or by the God of power.' But does any body conclude hence, that the words knowledge and power, wheresoever found, or howsoever applied, include an oath? It has also been urged, that in the trial of jealousy the woman is said to be charged with an oath of cursing,

(Num. 5: 22,) when all that was required of her was to say 'amen, amen,' to the imprecation pronounced upon her by the priest, in case she was guilty of the crime suspected. This was doubtless an imprecation and an oath; for 'amen,' said in that manner, was equivalent to the repetition of the words spoken by the priest. Should the magistrate in an Eng. judicatory (where the oath administered to witnesses is still in the form of an imprecation) rehearse the words, concluding as usual, "so help you God," and require of the witness only to say 'amen,' it would be justly termed an oath, and an imprecation against himself, if he gave a false testimony. But does any man conclude hence that amen' implies either oath or imprecation, when he subjoins it to prayers for health and safety? This character does not result from any single word, but from the scope and structure of the whole sentence.

6

Yet a critic of no less eminence than Father Si. after translating properly dunv léyw vμïv, Mr. 8: 12, "je vous assure," subjoins in a note, "autrement, je vous jure.' With how little reason this note is added, let the judicious reader determine. Our Lord often recurs to this solemn form of asseveration in his discourse upon the Mount, where he expressly forbids his disciples the use of oaths in their intercourse with one another. How would it have sounded from him to address them in this manner, 'Swear not in any form; but let your answer to what is asked be simply yes or no; for I swear to you, that whatever exceedeth these proceedeth from evil?' How would this suit the harmony which so eminently subsists between his precepts and example? In fact, his solemn manner was calculated to impress his hearers with a sense, not so much of the reality as of the importance of what was affirmed; the aim was more to rouse attention than enforce belief.

2 "One iota," igra Ev. E. T. "One jot." I thought it better here, with most Itn. and Fr. translators, to retain the Gr. word, than to employ a term, which, if it have a meaning, hardly differs in meaning from the word 'tittle' immediately following. This could be the less objected against, as our translators have oftener than once introduced the name of two other Gr. letters, 'alpha' and 'omega,' in the Apocalypse.

3 Without attaining its end," &os äv jévyrai. L. 2: 2. N. 19. Violate," Avon. It is evident that the sense of the simple Avo is not here the same with that of the compound xaraivo in ver. 17. The verbs contrasted are different, xaralów to niŋgów, A to now. With regard to laws, the opposite to subverting is λύω ποιέω. ratifying, to violating is practising. This is a further evidence that more is meant in ver. 17, by ingów, than barely obeying. And of the sense I have given it, we have here an actual example. For what tends more to ratify a law than additional sanctions, with which it was not formerly enforced.

2 "Or," xai. E. T. "And." This is one of the cases wherein the copulative has the force of a disjunctive. The conjunction does but save the repetition of a common clause, which belongs severally to the words coupled. This remark will be better understood by resolving the sentence into the parts whereof it is an abridged expression. Whoever shall violate these commandments, shall be in no esteem in the reign of heaven; and whosoever shall teach others to violate them, shall be in no esteem, etc. Here the sense, with the aid of the copulative, is evidently the same with that expressed disjunctively in the version. One reason, beside the scope of the passage, for understanding the conjunction in this manner is, because the verbs Avon and didan are separated in the original, each having its regimen. “Os ¿àv ovv hvøn μlav ræv ivroλων—καὶ διδάξῃ οὕτω τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. Consequently the καὶ is not to be understood disjunctively in the end of the verse, where the verbs are more intimately connected, ὃς δ ̓ ἂν ποιήση καὶ διδάξῃ.

3 "Were it the least of these commandments," μìav ræv ¿vroλῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλάχιστων. Ε. Τ. “ One of these least commandments." But if the commandments here mentioned were Christ's "least commandments,' what, it may be asked, were the greatest?' or, Why have we no examples of the greatest? That this phrase is not to be so understood, our translators themselves have shown by their way of rendering ch. 25: 40, 45. The clause must therefore be explained as if arranged in this manner—μιάν τῶν ἐλάχιστων των Evrokov Tourov, the three last words being the regimen of the adjective, and not in concord with it.

4 "Shall be in no esteem in the reign of heaven"—" shall be highly esteemed,” ἐλάχιστος κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν οὗτος μέγας κληθήσεται. Ε. Τ. “ He shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven"-" he shall be called great." To be called great and to be called little, for to be esteemed and to be disesteemed, is so obvious a metonymy of the effect for the cause, that it naturally suggests itself to every discerning reader. By rendering therefore faoiksia tav ovoavov agreeably to its meaning in most places, the reign of heaven,' that is, the gospel dispensation, there is not the smallest difficulty in the passage. But if this phrase be rendered the kingdom of heaven,' as referring to the state of the blessed, and if he shall be called the least in that kingdom,' mean, as some explain it,' he shall never be admitted into it,' a most unnatural figure of speech is introduced, whereof I do not recollect to have seen an example in any author, sacred or profane.

20. "Excel," regiooεoε. E. T. "Exceed." The original word expresses a superiority either in quantity or in kind. The latter difference suits the context at least as well as the former.

21. That it was said to the ancients,” ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαί

ors. E. T. "That it was said by them of old time." Be. " Dictum fuisse a veteribus." Be. was the first interpreter of the N. T. who made the ancients those by whom, and not those to whom, the sentences here quoted were spoken. These other La. versions, the Vul. Ar. Er. Zu. Cas. Cal. and Pisc. are all against him. Among the Protestant translators into our modern tongues, Be. whose work was much in vogue with the reformed, had his imitators. Dio. in Itn. rendered it" che fu detto dagli antichi ;" the G. F." qu'il a été dit par les anciens." So also the common Eng. But all the Eng. versions of an older date, even that executed at Geneva, say "to them of old time." Lu. in like manner, in his Ger. translation, says "zu den alten." I have a Protestant translation in Itn. and Fr. published by Giovan Luigi Paschale in 1555, the year before the first edition of Be.'s, (the place not mentioned), which renders it in the same way with all preceding translators without exception, a gli antichi,' and aux anciens.' All the late translators, Fr. and Eng. have returned to the uniform sense of antiquity, rendering it to, not by, the ancients. For the meaning of a word or phrase which frequently occurs in Scripture, the first recourse ought to be to the sacred writers, especially the writer of the book where the passage occurs. Now the verb do (and the same may be observed of its synonymas) in the passive voice, where the speaker or speakers are mentioned, has uniformly the speaker in the genitive case, preceded by the preposition vno or día. And in no book does this occur oftener than in Mt. See chap. 2: 15, 17, 23. 3: 13. 4: 14. 8: 17. 11: 17. 13: 35. 21:4. 24: 15. 27: 9. 22: In this last we have an example both of those to whom, and of him by whom, the thing was said; the former in the dative, the latter in the genitive with the preposition nó. When the persons spoken to are mentioned, they are invariably in the dative. Rom 9: 12, 26. Gal. 3: 16. Apoc. 6: 11. 9: 4. With such a number of examples on one side, (yet these are not all), and not one from Scripture on the opposite, I should think it very assuming in a translator, without the least necessity, to reject the exposition given by all who had preceded him. It has been pleaded, that something like an example has been found in the construction of one or two other verbs, neither synonymous nor related in meaning. Thus ngos rò davvai avrois, ch. 6: 1, means to be seen by them.

6

doua in Gr. answers to videor' in La. And the argument would be equally strong in regard to La. to say, because visum est illis signifies it appeared to them,' that is, it was seen by them;' dictum est illis nust also signify it was said by them.' The authority of Herodotus, (who wrote in a style somewhat resembling, but in a dialect exceedingly unlike that of the N. T.), in regard to a word in frequent use in Scripture, appears to me of no conceivable weight in the question. Nor can any thing account for such a