strengthen them. I know no better example for illustrating this remark, than the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Many, dissatisfied with its simplicity as related by the evangelist, and desirous, one would think, to vindicate the character of the Judge from the charge of excessive severity in the condemnation of the former, load that wretched man with all the crimes which can blacken human nature, and for which they have no authority from the words of inspiration. They will have him to have been a glutton and a drunkard, rapacious and unjust, cruel and hard-hearted, one who spent in intemperance what he had acquired by extortion and fraud. Now I must be allowed to remark, that, by so doing, they totally pervert the design of this most instructive lesson, which is to admonish us, not that a monster of wickedness, who has, as it were, devoted his life to the service of Satan, shall be punished in the other world; but that the man who, though not chargeable with doing much ill, does little or no good, and lives, though not perhaps an intemperate, a sensual life; who careless about the situation of others, exists only for the gratification of himself, the indulgence of his own appetites and his own vanity, shall not escape punishment. It is to show the danger of living in the neglect of duties, though not chargeable with the commission of crimes; and particularly the danger of considering the gifts of Providence as our own property, and not as a trust from our Creator, to be employed in his service, and for which we are accountable to him. These appear to be the reasons for which our Lord has here shown the evil of a life which, so far from being universally detested, is, at this day, but too much admired, envied, and imitated.

3 The Vul. adds, "Et nemo illi dabat ;" but as no support, except that of one or two inconsiderable MSS., and the Sax. version. This reading has, doubtless, by the blunder of some copyist, been transcribed from the preceding chapter.

22. Vul." Sepultus est in inferno." This reading is equally unsupported with the former, and is a mere corruption of the text, arising from the omission of the conjunction in the beginning of ver. 23, and the misplacing of the points.

For the illustration of several words in this and the following verses, such as ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ—τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Αβραάμ—ἀπενεχθῆναι— Siaßñvai-diaпεgoo-see Prel. Diss. VI. Part ii. sect. 19, 20.

25. A great many MSS. and some ancient versions, particularly the Sy. read ade, here, instead of o dè, but he ; and this reading is adopted by Wet. The resemblance in sound, as well as in writing, may easily account for a much greater mistake in copying. But that the common reading is preferable, can hardly be questioned. In it, o de is contrasted to ov de, as vvv is in like manner to ἐν ζώῃ σου; but to ὧδε nothing is opposed. Had ἐκεῖ occurred in the other member of the comparison made by the patriarch, I

should have readily admitted that the probability was on the side of the Sy. version.

CHAPTER XVII.

1. "To his disciples," noo's Tous μanrás. Vul. "Ad discipulos suos." This reading is favored by the Al. Cam. and a considerable number MSS. and by the 1st Sy. Cop. Arm. and Sax. versions. The 2d Sy. also has the pronoun, but it is marked as doubtful with an asterisk. The sense is nowise affected.

7. "Would any of you who hath a servant, etc., say to him, on his return from the field, Come immediately," tis dè ¿§ vμœv δοῦλον ἔχων—εἰσελθόντι ἐκ τοῦ ἀγροῦ ἐρεῖ εὐθεώς παρελθών. Ε. T. "Which of you having a servant-will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go,”-- Vul. "Quis vestrum habens servum-Regresso de agro dicat illi, statim transi." The only material difference between these two versions arises from the different manner of pointing. I have, with the Vul. joined εv✪εώς το παρελθών. Our translators have joined it to ἐρεῖ. In this way of reading the sentence, the adverb is no better than an expletive ; in the other, εύθεώς παρελθών is well contrasted to μετά ταῦτα φαγέσαι in the following verse.

10. “ We have conferred no favor,” δοῦλοι ἀχρεῖοι ἐσμεν. Diss. XII. Part i. sect. 14.

11. "Through the confines of Samaria and Galilee," dia μσου Σαμαρίας καὶ Γαλιλίας. Ε. Τ. “ Through the midst of Samaria and Galilee." I agree with Gro. and others, that it was not through the heart of these countries, but, on the contrary, through those parts in which they bordered with each other, that our Lord travelled at that time. I understand the words did μéoov as of the same import with ava péoov, as commonly understood. And in this manner we find it interpreted by the Sy. and Ara. translators. No doubt the nearest way, from where our Lord resided, was through the midst of Samaria. But had that been his route, the historian had no occasion to mention Galilee, the country whence he came; and if he had mentioned it, it would have been surely more proper, in speaking of a journey from a Galilean city to Jerusalem, to say, through Samaria and Galilee. But if, as I understand it, the confines only of the two countries were meant, it is a matter of no consequence which of them was first named. Besides, the incident recorded in the following words also renders it more probable that he was on the borders of Samaria, than in the midst of the country. It appears that there was but one Samaritan among the lepers that were cleansed, who is called an alien, the rest being Jews.

18. "This alien," alloɣern's ouros. The Jews have, ever since the captivity, considered the Samaritans as aliens. They call them Cuthites to this day.

21. "The reign of God is within you," ßaoiɛla tov Oɛov Evros vμav Zotiv. Vul. Er. Zu. "Regnum Dei intra vos est." Cas. though not to the same purpose. I should have added Be. too, who says, "Regnum Dei intus habetis," had he not shown in his Commentary that he meant differently, denoting no more by intus than apud vos. Most modern translators, and among them

the authors of our common version, have rendered the words in the same way as the Vul. and the Sy. and other ancient interpreters. L. Cl. and Beau. both say, "Au milieu de vous," and have been followed by some Eng. translators, particularly the An. and Dod. who say, "Among you." This way of rendering has also been strenuously supported of late by some learned critics. I shall briefly state the evidence on both sides. That both the preposition vós, before a plural noun, signifies among, Raphelius has given one clear example from Xenophon's Expedition of Cyrus; the only one, it would appear, that has yet been discovered, for to it later critics, as Dod. and Pearce, have been obliged to recur. I have taken occasion, once and again, to declare my dissatisfaction with conclusions founded merely on classical authority, in cases where recourse could be had to the writings of the N. T. or the ancient Gr. translation of the Old. I acknowledge that ivros does not oft occur in either, but it does sometimes. Yet in none of the places does it admit the signification which those critics give it here. As I would avoid being tedious, I shall only point out the passages to the learned reader, leaving him to consult them at his leisure. The only other place in the N. T. is Mt. 23: 26. In the Sep. Ps. 38: 4. 108: 22, or as numbered in the Eng. Bible, 39: 3. 109: 22, and Cant. 3: 10. These are all the passages wherein évto's occurs as a preposition in that version. But it is sometimes used elliptically with the article tά, for the inside, or the things within, as Ps. 102: 1, in the Gr. but in the Eng. 103: 1. Isa. 16: 11. Dan. 10: 16. We have this expression also twice in the Apocrypha, Ecclus. 19: 26. 1 Mac. 4: 48. Of all which I shall only remark in general, that no advocate for the modern interpretation of ¿vros vuav in the Gospel, has produced any one of them as giving countenance to his opinion. Wh. (who, though a judicious critic, sometimes argues more like a party than a judge), after explaining Tos vμav čotiv to mean "is even now among you," and "is come unto you," adds, “so ivros vuiv and v vuiv are frequently used in the O. T." Now the truth is, that iv vuiv does frequently occur in the O. T. in the acceptation mentioned, but evros vμævnever, either in that or any other acceptation; nor does ivros nar occur, nor ivros autov, nor any similar expression. The author

proceeds to give examples: accordingly, his examples are all (as was unavoidable, for he had no other) of ev vuîv and ev nuiv, not one of Evros uv, or any similar application of this preposition. Strange, indeed, if he did not perceive that a single example of this use of the preposition vtós, (which use he had affirmed to be frequent), was more to his purpose than five hundred examples of the other. The instances of the other were, indeed, nothing to his purpose at all. The import of in such cases was never questioned; and his proceeding on the supposition that those phrases were equivalent, was what logicians call a petitio principii, a taking for granted, the whole matter in that dispute. Nay, let me add, the frequency of the occurrence of iv vuiv in Scripture, applied to a purpose to which ivros vuov is never applied, notwithstanding the numerous occasions, makes against his argument instead of supporting it, as it renders it very improbable that the two phrases were understood as equivalent. But to come from the external to the internal evidence; it has been thought, that the interpretation amongst you, suits better the circumstances of the times. The Messiah was already come. His doctrine was begun to be preached, and converts, though not very numerous, were made. This may be regarded as evidence that his reign was already commenced among them. But in what sense, it may be asked, could his reign or kingdom be said to be within them? It is true, that the laws of this kingdom were intended for regulating the inward principles of the heart, as well as the outward actions of the life; but is it not rather too great a stretch in language to talk of God's kingdom being within us? So, I acknowledge, I thought once; but on considering the great latitude wherein the phrases ή βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ is used in the N. T., in relation sometimes to the epoch of the dispensation, sometimes to the place, sometimes for the divine administration itself, sometimes for the laws and maxims which would obtain; I began to think differently of the use of the word in this pas sage. The apostle Paul hath said, Rom. 14: 17, "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." Now these qualities, "righteousness, and peace, and spiritual joy," if we have them at all, must be within us, that is, in the heart or soul. If so, the apostle has by implication said no less than is reported here by the evangelist as having been said by our Lord, that the kingdom of God is within us. Is there any impropriety in saying that God reigns in the hearts of his people? If not, to say the reign of God is in their hearts,' or 'within them,' is the same thing, a little varied in the form of expression. Even the rendering of Basilela, kingdom, and not reign, heightens the apparent impropriety. But it is a more formidable objection against the common version, that our Lord's VOL. II.

50

6

discourse was at that time addressed to the Pharisees: and how could it be said to men, whose hearts were so alienated from God as theirs then were, that God reigned within them? This difficulty seems to have determined the opinion of Dr. Dod. To this I answer, that in such declarations conveying general truths, the personal pronoun is not to be strictly interpreted. It is not, in such cases, you the individuals spoken to but, you of this nation, or you of the human species, men in general. In this way we understand the words of Moses, Deut. 30: 11—14. "This commandment, which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldst say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Nor is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldst say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we way hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." This is not to be considered as characterizing any individual, (for let it be observed, that the pronoun is throughout the whole in the singular number), nor even the whole people addressed: The people addressed had, by their conduct shown too often and too plainly, that the commandments of God were neither in their heart nor in their mouth: But it is to be considered as explaining the nature of the divine service; for it remains an unchangeable truth, that it is an essential character of the service which God requires from his people, that his word be habitually in their hearts. The same is quoted by the apostle, Rom. 10: 6, etc., and adapted to the gospel dispensation. I think further, with Markland, that ivros vuov, as applying an inward and spiritual principle, is here opposed to яaparnonois, outward show and parade, with which secular dominion is commonly introduced.

36. The whole of this verse is wanting in many MSS. some of them of great note. It is not found in some of the early editions, nor in the Cop. and Eth. versions. But both the Sy. versions, also the Ara. and the Vul. have it. In a number of La. MSS. it is wanting. Some critics suppose it to have been added from Mt. This is not improbable. However, as the evidence on both sides nearly balances each other, I have retained it in the text, distinguishing it as of doubtful authority.

CHAPTER XVIII.

1. "He also showed them by a parable, that they ought to persist in prayer,” ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς πρὸς τὸ δεῖν πάντοτε пoooεúzεodαι. E. T. "And he spake a parable unto them, to this end, that men ought always to pray." The construction here plainly shows, that the word to be supplied before the infinitive is