deferred; and the law of circumcision vacated the law of the Sabbath. 23. "Because I have, on the Sabbath, cured a man whose whole body was disabled?” ὅτι ὅλον ἄνθρωπον ὑγῖη ἐποίησα, ἐν σαβBarq; E. T. "Because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?" Dod. "That I have cured a man entirely on the Sabbath?" This does not differ in meaning from the E. T. which with most other versions denotes only the completeness of the cure. All that they say might have been said with propriety, if no more than a finger or a toe had been affected: whereas the words ὅλον ἄνθρωπον υγῖη ποιεῖν plainly intinate, that it was not a single member only, but the whole body that was cured. Beau. seems to be the first modern interpreter who had fully expressed the sense: "De ce qu'un jour de sabbat, j'ai guéri un homme qui etoit incommodé dans tout son corps." Our Lord doubtless alludes to the cure wrought at Bethesda, on the man who had been eight-andthirty years in distress. I have changed the word diseased, which was perhaps too strong, for disabled, which is more conformable to what we learn from ch. 5: 5, etc. 24. "Judge not from personal regards,” μn zoiveze zar' öyır. E. T. "Judge not according to the appearance." This phrase is ambiguous. It may mean either the external circumstances of the case, or the dignity of the parties concerned; but more readily conveys to our thoughts the former than the latter of these significations. Whereas ois answers to the La. facies, and is equivalent to nooowлоv, 'face,' or 'person.' It occurs only in two other places of the N. T. ch. 11: 44, and Rev. 1: 16. In the one it is rendered face'; in the other, countenance. It is often found in the Sep. in the same acceptation. There can be no question that this precept is of the same import with those which enjoin strict impartiality between the parties, or to have no respect of persons in judgment. The application of the precept is pretty obvious from the occasion of it. If they had been strictly impartial and equitable, they would have seen that they could not vindicate Moses for enjoining such a violation of the sabbatical rest as was occasioned by circumcising, whilst they condemned Jesus for his miraculous cures, which required less labor, and were not less evidently calculated for promoting a good end. Nay, they could not excuse themselves for the one practice, if Jesus was blamable for the other. 26. That this is the Messiah,” ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ Χριστός. E. T. "That this is the very Christ." The word dinos is wanting in many MSS.; amongst which are the Cam. and others of note. It is not in the Com. and some other early editions; nor has it been read by some of the primitive writers. There is no word answering to it in the Vul. Cop. Arm. Sax. and Ara. versions. The Sy. and the Eth. have each a word corresponding to it; but as VOL. II. 64 they have none answering to the word dinos in the former part of the verse, (for the authenticity of which there is so general a consent of MSS. fathers, and versions,) there is some ground to suspect a transposition. On the whole, considering also that the word is unnecessary, and in this place rather unsuitable to the ordinary style of the writer, I thought it better to omit it. 28. "Do ye know both who and whence I am?" Kaμè oïdate, xai oïdare пódev eiui. E. T. "Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am." As the words are plainly capable of being read as an interrogation, it is, in every respect, most eligible to translate them so in this place. In the way they are commonly rendered, they contain a direct contradiction to what our Lord says, ch, 8: 14, 19. Nor does it satisfy, that both may be true in different senses, since these different senses do not appear from the context. Nay, in effect he contradicts them in the same breath; inasmuch as he tells the people, that they know not him who sent him. When they said, "We know whence this man is," the same thing was evidently meant as when they said, ch. 6: 42, "Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" Now our Lord tells them plainly, that they do not know his father, and, consequently, cannot tell whence (that is, of what parentage) he is. Dod. Wes. Wy. render the words here interrogatively. 2 « He is true who sent me,” ἔστιν ἀληθινὸς ὁ πέμψας με. There is generally observed in the N. T. a distinction between ἀληθής and ἀληθινὸς, when applied to persons: the former answers to the La. verax, the latter to verus; the one means 'observant of truth,' the other' genuine.' The words, therefore, are thought by Grotius, not improbably, to suggest, that the genuine father of Jesus, άindivòs avrov naino, was he who sent him; the other, whom they knew, was only voulouevos, supposed to be his father. Others think, that as the true God, in contradistinction to the false gods of the nations, is sometimes in the sacred books called o nowo's Deos, the epithet indivos is here employed to hint, to the attentive and intelligent hearers, that that Almighty Being who alone is eminently denominated TRUE, is he who sent him. In either case, it does not appear to have been our Saviour's intention to express himself in such a manner as to be equally intelligible to all. His own disciples he brought, by little and little, to the full knowledge of his doctrine. The spiritual, like the natural day, advances gradually. Now the translator ought, as much as he can, to adopt the views of his author. 32. “The chief priests,” oi άoxuîç. Vul. "Principes." In conformity to this version, two MSS. of little account read άoxovres. The Sax. version follows the Vul. 33. "Jesus therefore said," εinev ovv avrois o 'Inoous. E. T. "Then said Jesus unto them." So great a number of MSS. edi tions, versions, fathers, and critics, reject avrois in this place, as leave no reasonable ground to think that it has originally belonged to it. When we consider also the scope of the passage, we find it would be improper; for this discourse must certainly have been directed, not to the officers of the Pharisees, but to the people. 66 35. "Will he go to the dispersed Greeks?" un sis nv diaonoραν τῶν ̔Ελλήνων μέλλει πορεύεσθαι; Vul. Numquid in dispersionem Gentium iturus est?" Be. "Num ad eos qui dispersi sunt inter Graecos profecturus est ?" After him E. T. " Will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles?" It is a manifest stretch to render the dispersion of the Greeks, "those dispersed among the Greeks;" but if this were allowable, the very next clause, " and teach the Greeks?" excludes it, for it is to them surely he goes whom he intends to teach. That "Enves is ever used in the N. T. for Hellenist Jews, I have seen no evidence, and am therefore now satisfied that this is the only version which the words will bear. 38. "He who believeth on me, as Scripture saith, shall prove a cistern whence rivers of living water shall flow," ó norεvæv eis ἐμὲ, καθὼς εἶπεν ἡ γραφὴ, ποταμοὶ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ ῥεύσουσιν vdaros Savros. E. T. "He that believeth on me, as the Scripture ὕδατος ζῶντος. hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." As commentators have been at a loss to find the portion of Scripture here referred to, some have joined xadws einev ʼn yoa¶n to the clause ó niɑtevæv eis ¿μe, which immediately precedes, and thus rendered the words," He who believeth on me so as the Scripture hath commanded;" making the latter clause serve to qualify the former, that it may be understood that not every sort of believer is meant, but he whose belief is of such a particular kind. For my part, I do not find any insinuation in Scripture, that there are, or can be, different ways of believing. Belief may indeed have very different objects. But as to the act of the mind called believing, it is always mentioned in holy writ with the same simplicity that seeing, hearing, understanding, and remembering, are mentioned. Nor does there appear the least suspicion in the writer, that any one of these should be misunderstood by the reader more than any other. The above-mentioned is one of those criticisms which spring entirely from controversial theology; for, if there had not been previously different definitions of faith adopted by different parties of Christians, such a manner of interpreting the words had never been devised. Doubtless, therefore, xavas εinev n yoɑon is to be explained in the usual way, as referring to some scriptural promise or prediction, of which what is here told would prove the accomplishment. Houbigant thinks that the passage alluded to is in one of Balaam's prophecies, Num. 24: 7, which he translates in this manner: "De præcordiis ejus aquæ manabunt." He says some plausible things in support of his opinion, which it would be foreign to my purpose to examine here. I have had occasion formerly to observe, that by such phrases as καθὼς εἶπεν ἡ γραφή, a particular passage of Scripture is not always referred to, but the scope of different passages is given. 39. "The Spirit was not yet [given]," ойлш yào v пvεõμa ἅγιον. E. T." For the Holy Ghost was not yet given." Vul. "Nondum enim erat spiritus datus." "Aytov is wanting in several MSS. Origen, Cyril, Hesychius, and Nonnus, seem not to have read it. There is nothing corresponding to it in the Vul. Sy. Cop. Sax. and Arm, versions. It is rejected also by some of the best modern critics. Though there is no word for given in the common Gr. it is in the Vat. MS. the Vul. both the Sy. and the Sax. It seems necessary, in order to complete the sense. The evidence in its favor would otherwise be insufficient. 43. “ The people were divided,” σχίσμα ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ἐγένετο. Diss. X. Part iii. sect. 2. 48. "Of the Pharisees." Diss. IX. Part iv. sect. 6. 52. "Search," oεúvηoov. Vul. " Scrutari Scripturas." The only voucher for this variation is the Cam. MS. which adds ras roagas. No version whatever favors it. 2 That prophets arise not out of Galilee." öte noogýtns éx tñs Γαλιλαίας οὐκ ἐγήγερται. Ε. Τ. " For out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." A great number of MSS. read ¿yɛioɛral, and several versions; the Vul. both the Sy. the Goth. and the Sax. render the words in such a manner as though they had read so. Nonnus also says yeipera. But we cannot, from this, conclude with certainty that they read so; for a freedom no greater than the change of the tense in verbs must be sometimes taken, especially in translating a writer who uses the tenses with such peculiarity of idiom as this evangelist. It is enough here, that it appears to have been the general sense of intrepreters that the verb was to be understood in the present. Indeed, most of the modern translators, and among the rest the Eng., have in this followed the ancient. It has not a little puzzled expositors to account for so general an assertion from the leading men of the nation, since it is highly probable that Jonah at least arose out of Galilee. On this article I observe, first, that our translators have rendered the expression more absolute than they were warranted by the Gr. It is there literally, 'prophet ariseth not.' They say, "No prophet ariseth." There is a real difference here. The former, in common speech, denotes no more than that it is not usual; the latter, that it never happens. I have rendered it, in my opinion, more agreeably to the sense, and more suitably to our idiom, by the plural number. I observe, 2dly, That men, when their passions are inflamed, are not wont to be accurate in their expressions, or distinct in recollecting, on the sudden, things which make against them. This expression of the Pharisees, therefore, whom prejudice, pride, and envy, concurred in blinding, needs not appear so surprising to us. The expedient, to which Bishop Pearce and others have recurred, of prefixing the article to oogens, without the authority of a single MS. or of a quotation from any ancient author, is, of all resources, the worst. Here it would hurt, instead of mending, the reply. Admit that Jesus had been but a prophet, and not the Messiah, was there no crime, or was there no danger, in forming a plan to destroy him? By such a correction one would make them speak as if it were their opinion, that they might safely take the life of an innocent man, even though a prophet of God, if he was not the Messiah. The reason of their mentioning a prophet, was because our Lord, by pretending a divine commission, had classed himself among prophets, and therefore had given reason to infer that, if he was not a prophet, he was an impostor, and consequently merited the fate they intended for him. For the law, Deut. 18: 20, had expressly declared, that the prophet who should presume to speak a word in the name of God, which he had not commanded him to speak, should die. Now, they had, on their hypothesis, specious ground for making the remark, as it served to vindicate their designs against his life. But the whole of their argument is marred by making it " the prophet ;" for our Lord was not yet understood to have publicly and explicitly declared himself the Mes siah. 53. "Then every man went."- See the Note immediately following. CHAPTER VIII. 1-11. The first eleven verses of this, with the concluding verse of the former chapter, containing the story of the adulteress, are wanting in a great number of MSS. Origen, Chr. The. the Gr. catena, though containing no fewer than three-and-twenty authors, have not read these twelve verses. Euth. a commentator so late as the twelfth century, is the first who has explained them. At the same time he assures us in his Commentary, they are not to be found in the most correct copies. They were not in any good copy of either of the Sy. versions, printed or MS. till they were printed in the Eng. Polyglot from a MS. of Archbishop Usher. They are neither in the Go. nor in the Cop. They have been long read by the Greeks in their churches, are in most MSS. found with them at present; although in some of them they are marked with asterisks or daggers, to show that they are considered as spurious. If they be an interpolation, they are a very ancient one, having been found in some copies before Origen. Some have represented them as having been transcribed from the apocryphal Gospel according to |