palpable violence done the sacred text, by a man of Be.'s knowledge, but that he had too much of the polemic spirit, (the epidemical disease of his time), to be in all respects a faithful translator. Diss. X. Part v. sect. 5.

21, 22. "Shall be obnoxious to," voxos orai. E. T." Shall be in danger of." To be in danger of evil of any kind, is one thing to be obnoxious to it, is another. The most innocent person may be in danger of death; it is the guilty only who are obnoxious to it. The interpretation here given is the only one which suits both the import of the Gr. word and the scope of the passage.

22. "Unjustly," einn. This word is wanting in two MSS. one of them the Vat. of great antiquity. There is no word answering to it in the Vul. nor in the Eth. Sax. and Ara. versions, at least in the copies of the Ara. transcribed in the Polyglots, which Si. observes to have been correct on the Vul., and which are consequently of no authority as evidences. Jerome rejected it, imagining it to be an interpolation of some transcriber desirous to soften the rigor of the sentiment; and in this opinion was followed by Augustin. On the other hand, it is in all the other Gr. MSS. now extant. A corresponding word was in the Itc. or La. Vul. before Jerom. The same can be said of these ancient versions, the Sy. Go. Cop. Per. and the unsuspected edition of the Ara. published by Erpenius. Chrysostom read as we do, and comments on the word sixn. The earliest Fathers, both Gr. and L. read it. This consent of the most ancient ecclesiastical writers, the two oldest versions, the Itc. and the Sy. the almost universal testimony of the present Gr. MSS. taken together, give ground to suspect that the exclusion of that adverb rests ultimately on the authority of Jerom, who must have thought this limitation not of a piece with the strain of the discourse. I was of the same opinion for some time, and strongly inclinable to reject it; but, on maturer reflection, judged this too vague a principle to warrant any alteration which common sense, and the scope of the place did not render necessary. Mr. Wes. rejects this adverb, because, in his opinion, it brings our Lord's instructions on this head down to the Pharisaic model: for the scribes and Pharisees, he says, would have condemned causeless anger as well as Jesus Christ. No doubt they would. They would have also condemned the indulgence of libidinous thoughts and looks. [See Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae, etc. on ver. 28.] But the difference consisted in this-the generality of the scribes, at that time, considered such angry words, and impure looks and thoughts, as being of little or no account in themselves, and to be avoided solely from motives of prudence. They might ensnare men into the perpetration of atrocious actions, the only evils which, by their doctrine, were transgressions of the law, and, consequently, could expose them to the judgment of God. The great

error which our Lord in this chapter so severely reprehends, is their disposition to consider the divine law as extending merely to the criminal and overt acts expressly mentioned in it. From these acts, according to them, if a man abstained, he was in the eye of the law perfectly innocent, and nowise exposed to divine judgment. We are not however to suppose, that this manner of treating the law of God was universal among them, though doubtless then very prevalent. The writings of Philo in that age and some of their rabbis since, sufficiently show that the Jews have always had some moralists among them, who, as well as some Christian casuists, could refine on the precepts of their religion, by stretching them even to

excess.

2 "To the council," to ovvedio. It might have been rendered to the sanhedrin,' ovvedolov being the ordinary name given to that supreme judicatory. I accordingly call it so in those places of the history, where it is evident that no other could be meant. But as the term is general, and may be used of any senate or council, though very differently constituted from the Jewish, I thought it better here not to confine it. It is not improbable also, that there is an allusion to the word xoios, judgment,' to the smaller or citycouncils, consisting of twenty-three judges.

3 'Paxa and μojos. Preface to his Gospel, sect. 25.

4 Teεvav. Diss. VI. Part ii. sect. 1.

26. "Farthing." Diss. VIII. Part i. sect. 10.

27. The words rois doxalois are not found in a great number of the most valuable MSS. and ancient versions, particularly the Sy. The Vul. indeed has them. Mill and Wetstein reject them.

28. "Another man's wife," yvvaîna. E. T. "A woman." Er." Uxorem alterius." The word yuvn in Gr. like femme in Fr. signifies both woman and wife. The corresponding word in Heb. is liable to the same ambiguity. Commonly the distinction is made by some noun or pronoun, which appropriates the general name. But it is not in this way only that it is discovered to signify wife. Of the meaning here given and ascertained in the same way by the context, we have examples, Pro. 6: 32. Ecclus. 26: 7. Wet. has produced more instances; but in a case so evident these may suf fice. If we translate yuvaina woman,' we ought to render uoigevoer aviηvhath debauched her.' The Gr. word admits this latitude. The Lucian (Dial. Dor. et Thet.) says of Acrisius, when his daughter Danae, whom he had devoted to perpetual virginity, proved with child, ὑπὸ τίνος μεμοιχεύσθαι οἰήθεις αὐτὴν, ab ali quo stupratam fuisse illam arbitratus.' But I prefer the other way, as, by changing here the interpretation of the word uozów, the intended contrast between our Lord's doctrine and that of the Jews is in a great measure lost.

9. In order to cherish impure desire,” πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι VOL. II.

6

avin. E. T. "To lust after her." Ar. Er. Zu. Cal. "Ad concupiscendum eam." Pisc. "Ut eam concupiscat." The Gr. preposition oós before an infinitive with the article, clearly marks the intention, not the effect. This all the La. versions also do. The expression, chap. 6: 1, лoos to tradñvai avtois here rendered in order to be observed by them,' is perfectly similar, and is inanifestly employed to express the intention from which the Pharisees act. Ios to means, therefore, in order to,' 'to the end that; whereas wors, which we have ch. 8: 24, and L. 5: 7, signifies so as to,' 'insomuch that,' and marks solely the effect. When an expression, with either of these prepositions, is rendered into Eng. simply by the infinitive, it may be doubted whether we are to understand it as expressing the intention or the effect, and whether we should supply before the sign of the infinitive the words in order, or so as. Hence it is evident, that the common version of this passage is not so explicit as the original.

6

29. “ Insnare thee,” σκανδαλίζει σε E. T. "Offend thee." Vul. "Scandalizat te." Nothing can be further from expressing the sense of the Gr. term than the Eng. word offend, in any sense wherein it is used. Some render the expression 'cause thee to offend.' This is much better, but does not give fully the sense, as it does not hint either what kind of offence is meant, or against whom committed. The translators from the Vul. have generally, after the example of that version, retained the original word. Sa. says, "Vous scandalize;" Si. no better, "Vous est un sujet de scandale;" the Rh. "scandalize thee." This I consider as no translation, because the words when taken together convey no conceivable meaning. The common version is rather a mistranslation, because the meaning it conveys is not the sense of the original. The word oxavdálov literally denotes any thing which causes our stumbling or falling, or is an obstacle in our way. It is used, by metaphor, for whatever proves the occasion of the commission of sin. The word nays, ' snare,' is another term which is in Scripture also used, metaphorically, to denote the same thing. Nay, so perfectly synonymous are these words in their figurative acceptation, that in the Sep. the Heb. word wpin' mokesh,' answering to napis, laqueus, a snare,' is oftener translated by the Gr. word oxavdálov than by nays, or any other term whatever. Thus, Josh. 26: 13, what is rendered in Eng. literally from the Heb. "They shall be snares and traps unto you,” is in the Septuagint ἔσονται ὑμῖν εἰς παγ idas nai eis oxávdala. Judg. 2: 3. "Their gods shall be a snare unto you,” Οἱ θεοι αὐτῶν ἔσονται ὑμῖν εἰς σκάνδαλον. 8: 27. “ Which thing became a snare unto Gideon,” ἐγένετο τῷ Γεδεών eis oxávdalov. 1 Sa. 18: 21, "That she may be a snare to him,' καὶ ἔσται αὐτῶ εἰς σκάνδαλον. Ps. Gr. cv. cvi. 36. "Which were a snare unto them,” καὶ ἐγεννήθη αὐτοῖς εἰς σκάνδαλον. The word

6

oxalov, which is equivalent, is also used by the Seventy in translating the same Heb. word. From the above examples, which are not all that occur, it is manifest, that, in the idiom of the synagogue, one common meaning of the word oxávdalov is snare; and that, therefore, to render it so in Scripture, where it suits the sense, is to translate both according to the spirit of the writer and according to the letter. The anonymous version uses the same word.

32. " Except for whoredom,” παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας. Ε. Τ. "Saving for the cause of fornication." The term fornication is here improper. The Gr. word is not, as the Eng. confined to the commerce of a man and a woman who are both unmarried. It is justly defined by Parkhurst, " Any commerce of the sexes out of lawful marriage.' To this meaning of the word nооvεia etymolоgy points, as well as scriptural use. It is the translation of the Heb. word and ♫ which are employed with equal latitude, as one may soon be convinced on consulting Trommius' Concordance. The word, indeed, when used figuratively, denotes 'idolatry;' but the context manifestly shows that it is the proper, not the figurative sense that is here to be regarded. Though noоvεia may not be common in classical Gr. its meaning is so well ascertained by its frequent recurrence, both in the Septuagint and in the N. T., that in my opinion it is as little to be denominated ambiguous as any word in the language.

37. "But let your yes be yes, your no, no;" oro de o λóyos vμæv vai vai, ov ov. E. T." But let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay." I take this and the three preceeding verses to be quoted James 5:12. I suppose from memory, as conveying the sense though with some difference of expression, Μὴ ομνύετε μήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν, μήτε τὴν γῆν, μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον· ἦτο δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ, ναὶ· καὶ τὸ οὔ, οὔ. It is but just that we avail ourselves of this passage of the disciple, to assist us in explaining the words of his Master. It was a proverbial manner among the Jews, (see Wet.), of characterizing a man of strict probity and good faith, by saying his "yes is yes, and his no is no;" that is, you may depend upon his word as he declares, so it is, and as he promises, so he will do. Our Lord is therefore to be considered here, not as prescribing the precise terms wherein we are to affirm or deny, in which case it' would have suited better the simplicity of his style to say barely vai xai ou, without doubling the words; but as enjoining such an habitual and inflexible regard to truth, as would render swearing unnecessary. That this manner of converting these adverbs into nouns is in the idiom of the sacred penman, we have another instance, 2 Cor. 1: 20. "For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him amen,” ἐν αὑτῷ τὸ ναὶ, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ἀμὴν· that is, certain and infallible truths. It is indeed a common idiom of the Gr. tongue to turn, by means of the article, any of the parts of speech into a noun. And, though there is no article in the pas

sage under review, it deserves to be remarked that Chr. in his Commentaries writes it with the article, τὸ ναι, ναὶ· καὶ τὸ οὔ οὔ as in the passage of James above quoted. Either he must have read thus in the copies then extant, or he must have thought the expression elliptical, and in this way supplied the ellipsis. Whichsoever of these be true, it shows that he understood the words in the manner above explained. Indeed, they appear to have been always so understood by the Gr. Fathers. Justin Martyr, in the second century, quotes the precept in the same manner in his second Apology, ἔστω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναί· καὶ τὸ οὔ οὔ. And to show that he had the same meaning, he introduces it with signifying, that Christ gave this injunction to the end that we might never swear, but always speak truth; μὴ ὀμνύειν ὅλως, τ' ἀληθῆ δὲ λέγειν ἀεὶ Now, in the way it is commonly interpreted, it has no relation to the speaking of truth; whereas the above explanation gives a more emphatic import to the sentence. Thus understood, it enjoins the rigid observance of truth as the sure method of superseding oaths, which are never used, in our mutual communications, without betraying a consciousness of some latent evil, a defect in veracity as well as in piety. In like manner Clemens Alexandrinus, in the beginning of the third century, Stromata, lib. v. quotes these words as our Lord's: ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ, ναὶ· καὶ τὸ οὔ, οὔ. The same also is done by Epiphanius in the fourth century, lib. i. contra Ossenos. Philo's sentiment on this subject (in his book Iɛoi tov dixa hoyiwv) is both excellent in itself, and here very apposite. It is to this effect, that we ought never to swear, but to be so uniformly observant of truth in our conversation that our word may always be regarded as an oath. Καλλίστον, καὶ βιωφελέστατον, καὶ ἁρμόττον λογικὴ φύσει, τὸ ἀνώμοτον, οὕτως ἀληθεύειν ἐφ' ἑκάστου δεδιδάγ μενῃ, ὡς τοὺς λόγους όρκους εἶναι νομιζέσθαι.

ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστιν.

6

2 Proceedeth from evil," iz toù novηgoù tour. Some render it "cometh from the evil one, supposing Tоu nоvnoou to be the genitive of ornoos, the evil one,' that is, the devil. But it is at least as probably the genitive of zo novýgov, evil in the abstract, or whatever this epithet may be justly applied to. The same doubt has been raised in regard to that petition in the Lord's prayer, "Deliver us from evil," άлo toυ novηyou, or from the evil one.' I consider it as a maxim in translating, that when a word is in all respects equally susceptible of two interpretations, one of which as a genus comprehends the other, always to prefer the more extenThe evil one is comprehended under the general term evil. But in the phrase the evil one, the pravity of a man's own heart, or any kind of evil, Satan alone excepted, is not included. If we fail in the former way, the author's sense is still given, though less definitely. If we err in the other way, the author's sense is not given, but a different sense of our own. It has been affirmed, that this

sive.