may be prohibited, taken jointly, when it is not meant to prohibit them severally. Another instance of this kind, not perfectly similar, the critical reader will find ch. 7: 6. I shall here observe, by the way, that there are two extremes, to one or the other of which most interpreters lean in translating the instructions given by our Lord. Some endeavor to soften what to their taste is harsh, and seem afraid of speaking out to the world what the sacred historian has authorized them to say. Others, on the contrary, imagining that moral precepts cannot be too rigorous, give generally the severest and most unnatural interpretation to every word that can admit more than one, and sometimes even affix a meaning (whereof μéouva is an instance) for which they have no authority, sacred or profane. There is a danger on each side, against which a faithful interpreter ought to be equally guarded. Our Lord's precepts are, in the oriental manner, concisely and proverbially expressed; and we acknowledge, that all of them are not to be expounded by the moralist strictly according to the letter. But, whatever allowance may be made to the expositor or commentator, this is what the translator has no title to expect. The character just now given of our Lord's precepts is their character in the original, as they were written by the inspired penmen for their contemporaries; it is the translator's business to give them to his readers, as much as possible, stamped with the same signature with which they were given by the evangelists to theirs. Those methods, therefore, of enervating the expression, to render the doctrine. more palatable to us moderns, and better suited to the reigning sentiments and manners, are not to be approved. I have given an instance of this fault in Wy. and Dio. I shall add another from the pious Dod. Ch. 5: 39. Εγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονnow, he renders thus: "But I say unto you, that you do not set yourselves against the injurious person." In this he is followed by Wor. and Wa. The phrase, do not set yourself against a man,' if it mean any thing, means, do not become his enemy, or do not act the part of an enemy; a sense neither suited to the words nor to the context. To pretend to support it from etymology, is no better than it would be to contend that intelligo should be translated, I read between,' and manumitto, I send with the hand' or (to recur to our own language, which answers equally well) to ex-' plain I understand as denoting 'I stand under,' or I reflect, as implying 'I bend back.' The attempt was the more futile here, as every one of the three following examples, whereby our Lord illustrated his precept, sufficiently shows that the meaning of avriornvaι (had the word been equivocal, as it is not) could be nothing else than as it is commonly rendered,' resist,' or oppose.' The anonymous translator 1729 seems likewise to have disrelished this precept, rendering it, 'Don't return evil for evil;" a Christian precept doubtless, but not the precept of the text. Our Lord says expressly, and the whole context vouches his meaning, "Do not resist;" his translator will have him to say, Do not resent. Jesus manifestly warns us against opposing an injury offered; his interpreter will have him only to dissuade us from revenging an injury committed. Yet in the very interpretation which he gives of the following words, he has afforded an irrefragable evidence against himself, that it is of the former that Christ is speaking, and not of the latter. But it must be owned, that there is danger also on the other side, to which our translators have, in rendering some passages, evidently leaned. It is in vain to think to draw respect to a law, by straining it ever so little beyond what consistency and right reason will warrant. "Expect no good," says the Bishop of Meaux, "from those who overstrain virtue :-Ne croyez jamais rien de bon de ceux qui outrent la vertu;" Hist. des Variations, etc. liv. ii. ch. 60. Nothing can be better founded than this maxim, though it may justly surprise us to read it in that author, as nothing can be more subversive of the whole fabric of monachism. There is not, however, a more effectual method, than by such immoderate stretches, of affording a shelter and apology for transgression. And when once the plea of impracticability is (though not avowedly, tacitly) admitted in some cases, it never fails to be gradually extended to other cases, and comes at last to undermine the authority of the whole. That this, to the great scandal of the Christian. name, is become too much the way in regard to our Lord's precepts, in all sects and denominations of Christians, is a truth too evident to admit a question. 27. "Prolong his life one hour." L. 12: 25. N. 28. "Mark the lilies of the field: How do they grow?" Kaταμάθετε τὰ κρίνα τοῦ ἀγροῦ πῶς αὐξάνει· So it is commonly pointed in the printed editions. But in the old MSS. there is no pointing; nor are the points to be considered as resting on any other than human authority, like the division into chapters and verses. I agree therefore with Palairet, who thinks that there should be a full stop after the dyoou, and that the remaining words should be marked as an interrogation, thus, Καταμάθετε τα κρίνα τοῦ ἀγροῦ. Πῶς αὐξάνει; This perfectly suits both the scope of the place, and the vivacity of our Lord's manner, through the whole discourse. 30. "The herbage," tov zóorov. E. T. "The grass." But lilies are not grass; neither is grass fit for heating an oven. That the lily is here included under the term xóoros, is, (if there were no other) sufficient evidence that more is meant by it than is signified with us by the term grass.' I acknowledge, however, that the classical sense of the Gr. word is 'grass,' or 'hay.' It is a just re mark of Gro. that the Hebrews ranked the whole vegetable system under two classes, 'ghets,' and 'ghesheb.' The first is rendered žulov, or divdoov, tree:' to express the second, the Seventy have adopted zoozos, as their common way was to translate one Heb. word by one Gr. word, though not quite proper, rather than by a circumlocution. It is accordingly used in their version, Gen. 1: 11, where the distinction first occurs, and in most other places. Nor is it with greater propriety rendered' grass' in Eng. than zootos in Greek. The same division occurs Rev. 8: 7, where our translators have in like manner had recourse to the term 'grass.' I have adopted, as coming nearer the meaning of the sacred writer, the word 'herbage,' which Johnson defines herbs collectively. Under the name 'herb,' is comprehended every sort of plant which has not, like trees and shrubs, a perennial stalk. That many, if not all sorts of shrubs, were included by the Hebrews under the denomination 'tree,' is evident from Jotham's apologue of the trees choosing a king, Judg. 9: 7, where the 'bramble' is mentioned as one. 2 "Into the oven,” ɛis tòv xλißavov. Wes. "Into the still." But on what authority, sacred or profane, xißavos is made a 'still,' he does not acquaint us. For my part I have not seen a vestige of evidence in any ancient author, that the art of distillation was then known. The only objection of moment, against the common version of xißavos, is removed by the former part of this note. Indeed the scarcity of fuel in those parts, both formerly and at present, fully accounts for their having recourse to withered herbs for heating their ovens: It accounts also for the frequent recourse of the sacred penmen to those similitudes, whereby things, found unfit for any nobler purpose, are represented as reserved for the fire. See Harmer's Observations, ch. iv. obs. 6. As to the words to-day and to-morrow, every body knows that this is a proverbial idiom, to denote that the transition is sudden. 3 O ye distrustful! oliyónioroi. E. T. "O ye of little faith !" It is quite in the genius of the Gr. language to express, by such compound words, what in other languages is expressed by a more simple term. Nor do our translators, or indeed any translators, always judge it necessary to trace, in a periphrasis, the several parts of the composition. In a few cases, wherein a single word entirely adequate cannot be found, this method is proper, but not otherwise. I have seen no version which renders olyówuzo, they of little soul,' οι μακροθυμία, 4 length of mind, or φιλονείκος, 6 a lover of quarrels.' How many are the words of this kind in the N. T. whose component parts no translator attempts to exhibit in his version? Such are, πλεονεξία, μεγαλόπρεπης, κληρονομέω, ειλικρίνης, and many others. The word distrustful comes nearer the sense than the phrase of little faith; because this may express any kind of incredulity or skepticism: whereas anxiety about the things of life stands VOL. II. 8 in direct opposition to an unshaken trust in the providence and promises of God. 6 33. "Seek-the righteousness required by him," Syteiteτv dixαιoovvηv avtou. E. T. "Seek-his righteousness." The righteousness of God,' in our idiom, can mean only the justice or moral rectitude of the divine nature, which it were absurd in us to seek, it being, as all God's attributes are, inseparable from his essence. But, in the Heb. idiom, that righteousness which consists in conformity to the declared will of God, is called his righteousness. In this way the phrase is used by Paul, Rom. 2: 21, 22. 10: 3, where the righteousness of God is opposed by the apostle to that of the unconverted Jews; and their own righteousness, which he tells us they were about to establish, does not appear to signify their personal righteousness, any more than the righteousness of God signifies his personal righteousness. The word righteousness, as I conceive, denotes there what we should call a system of morality, or righteousness, which he denominates their own, because fabricated by themselves, founded partly on the letter of the law, partly on tradition, and consisting mostly in ceremonies and mere externals. This creature of their own imaginations they had cherished, to the neglect of that purer scheme of morality which was truly of God; which they might have learnt, even formerly, from the Law and the Prophets properly understood, but now, more explicitly, from the doctrine of Christ. That the phrase, "the righteousness of God," in the sense I have given, was not unknown to the O. T. writers, appears from Micah vi. What is called, ver 5, "the righteousness of the Lord," which God wanted that the people should know, is explained ver. 8, to be "what the Lord requireth" of them, namely, "to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with their God." It is in this sense we ought to understand the phrase, James 1: 20. "The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God;" that is, is not the proper means of producing that righteousness which God requireth of us. Now, "the righteousness of God," meant in this discourse by our Lord, is doubtless what he had been explaining to them, and contrasting to "the righteousness of Scribes and Pharisees." The phrase,' seeking righteousness,' for seeking to attain a conformity to the will of God, is not unsuitable to the Jewish phraseology. The same expression occurs 1 Macc. 2: 29, "Then many that sought after justice and judgment,” ζητοῦντες δικαιοσύνην καὶ κρίμα, “ went down into the wilderness to dwell there." And though this book is not admitted by Protestants into the canon, it is acknowledged to have been written by a Jew, and entirely in the idiom of his country, if not originally in their language. CHAPTER VII. 3. "The thorn," rv doxov. E. T. "The beam. That the tropes employed by the orientals often appear to Europeans rather too bold and hyperbolical, is beyond a doubt. But I cannot help thinking, that the effect has been, in many cases, heightened by translators, who, when a word admits different interpretations, seem sometimes to have preferred that which is worst suited to the figurative application. The Gr. word doxós has, even in classical use, more latitude of signification than the Eng. term 'bearn.' It answers not only to the La. trabs or tignum, a' beam' or rafter,' but also to lancea, hasta, a ' spear' or 'lance.' In the latter signification, when used figuratively, I take it to have been nearly synonymous to oxólow, which, from denoting palus aculeatus, sudes, vallus, seems, at least in the use of Hellenists, to have been employed to denote any thing sharp-pointed, (however little), as 'a prickle,' orthorn.' Thus, in Numb. 33: 55, oxólones Ev rois datμois vuov; E. T. "pricks in your eyes;" the Heb. term to which oxólones answers means no more than the Eng. makes it. The Gr. word is similarly rendered in the N. T. ¿dos uoi oxólow Ev oaoxi "there was given to me a thorn in the flesh." The like may be remarked of poles, answering to the La. words jaculum, sagitta, and to the Eng. missile weapon, of whatever kind, javelin, dart, or arrow. But in the Hellenistic use it sometimes corresponds to Heb. words denoting no more than prickle or thorn. Thus in Josh. 23: 13, εἰς βολίδας ἐν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ὑμῶν; Ε. Τ. “ thorns in your eyes ;” the word Polis is put for a Heb. term which strictly means thorn. It is therefore evident that doxos is used here by the same trope, and in the same meaning with oxóloy and ßóles in the places above quoted. And it is not more remote from our idiom to speak of a pole or javelin, than to speak of a beam in the eye. Nor is a greater liberty taken in rendering doxos, thorn, than in rendering poles or σκόλοψ in that manner. 6. "Or,” xai. This is one of the cases wherein xai is better rendered or in our language than and. The two evils mentioned are not ascribed to both sorts of animals; the latter is doubtless applied to the dogs, the former to the swine. The conjunction and would here, therefore, be equivocal. Though the words are not in the natural order, the sense cannot be mistaken. 8. "For whosoever asketh obtaineth; whosoever seeketh findeth. Diss. XII. Part i. sect. 29. 9. " Who amongst you men,” τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος. Ε. T. "What man is there of you." There is evidently an emphasis in the word ἄνθρωπος, otherwise it is superduous; for τίς ἐστιν ἐξ μ is all that is necssary: its situation at the end of the clause |