building of the temple, we find commonly denominated the house of God. Further, that it was not into the holy place that David went, appears from this circumstance,-the loaves of which he partook had been that day removed from before the Lord, and new bread had been put into their room, 1 Sam. 21: 6. For the sake of perspicuity, therefore, and because we do not apply the word house to such a portable habitation, I have thought it better to use some general name, as tabernacle or mansion; for under either of these terms the court or inclosure may be also comprehended.

2 The loaves of the presence, τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως. E. T. "The shew-bread." The Heb. expression, rendered literaily, is the loaves of the face,' or 'of the presence.' This I thought it better to restore, than to continue in using a term which conveys an improper notion of the thing. Purver, whose version I have not seen, uses, as I am informed, the same expression.

5. "Violate the rest to be observed on Sabbaths," rois oάßßaσιν τὸ σάββατον βεβηλοῦσι. Ε. Τ. “On the Sabbath days profane the Sabbath." This looks oddly, as though the Sabbath could be profaned on any other day. Let it be observed that the Heb. word for Sabbath signifies also rest, and is used in both senses in this verse. The evangelist, or rather his translator into Gr. though he retained the original word, has, to hint a difference in the meaning, made an alteration on it when introduced the second time. Thus he uses σάββασι, from σάββας, for the day; but σάββατον for the sabbatical rest. If it be asked, how the priests violate the sabbatical rest? The answer is obvious, by killing and preparing the sacrifices, as well as by other pieces of manual labor absolutely necessary in performing the religious service which God had established among them.

6. "Something greater," μisov. E. T. "A greater." But very many MSS. and some ancient expositors read μsitov. This is also more conformable to the style in similar cases. See 11: 9, and in this chap. see the note on ver. 41, and 42.

6.

8. Of the Sabbath," xai rov oaßßárov. E. T. "Even of the Sabbath." The xai is wanting here in a very great number of MSS. in some early editions, in the Sy. and Cop. versions. It seems not to have been read by several ancient writers, and is rejected by Mill and Wetstein, and other critics.

14. "To destroy him," önos avrov άnoliowo. E. T. "How they might destroy him." Most modern translations as well as the Eng. have in this followed the Vul. which says, "Quomodo perderent eum." Yet ons is not commonly quomodo,' but 'ut.' There seems to be no MS. which has nos, else I should have suspected that this had been the reading in the copy used by the La. translator. It is true that oлos answers sometimes to 'quomodo' as well as tout; but it is a good rule in translating always to prefer

the usual signification, unless it would imply something absurd, or at least unsuitable to the scope of the place. Neither of these is the case here. If there be any difference, the ordinary acceptation is the preferable one. This is the first time that mention is made of a design on our Saviour's life. It is natural to think that the historian would acquaint us of their concurring in the design, before he would speak of their consulting about the means. The explanations given by the Gr. Fathers supply in some respects an ancient version, as they frequently give the sense of the original in other words. In this passage Chr. renders oлws by iva ut,' not by πῶς οι ὃν τρόπον ' quomodo. Συμβουλεύονται ἵνα ἀνέλωσιν αὐτόν. 16. "Enjoining them." Mr. 9: 25. N.

or

20. "A dimly burning taper he will not quench," aivov rugóμενον σβέσει. μevov où oßéoei. E. T. "Smoking flax shall he not quench." By an easy metonymy, the material for the thing made, flax, is here used for the wick of a lamp or taper, and that by a synecdoche for the lamp or taper itself, which, when near going out, yields more smoke than light. The Sy. Ara. and Per. render it 'lamp,' Dio. says, 'lucignuolo.' See Lowth's translation of Is. 42: 3.

23. "Is this the son of David ?" μýri oúrós ¿otiv ó viòs Aaßið; E. T. "Is not this the son of David?" Vul. and Ar. "Numquid hic est filius David?" With this agree in Er. Zu. Cal. Pisc. and Cas. only using num, not numquid. Be. alone says, "Nonne iste est filius ille Davidis ?" And in this he has been followed by the Eng. and some other protestant translators. The Sy. and most of the ancient versions agree with the Vul. Sc. observes that μnt is not used by Mt. to interrogate negatively. He might have added, nor by any writer of the N. T. Nonne does not answer to μnt; but num or numquid, in Eng. whether. Only let it be observed, that whether with us would often be superfluous, when unte in Gr. and num in La. would be necessary for distinguishing a question from an affirmation. See chap. 7: 16. Mr. 4: 14. 14. 19. L. 6: 39. J. 7:31. 8:22. 18: 35 21: 5. 2 Cor. 12: 18. In any one of these places, to render it by a negative would pervert the sense. These are all the places wherein it occurs in this form. The only other passage in the N. T. where it is found is 1 Cor. 6: 3. There it has an additional particle, and is not μýtɩ but unteɣɛ, used for stating a comparison, and rendered how much more?' This, therefore, cannot be called an exception. I own at the same time, that to say, 'Is this,' or ' Is not this,' in a case like the present, makes little change in the sense. Both express doubtfulness, but with this difference, that the former seems to imply that disbelief, the latter that belief, preponderates. J. 4: 29. N.

24. "This man," outos. E. T. "This fellow." Why did not our translators say in the preceding verse, 'Is not this fellow the son of David?' The pronoun is the same in both. Our idiom, in VOL. II.

11

many cases, will not permit us to use the demonstrative without adding a noun. But as the Gr. term does not imply, a translator is not entitled to add, any thing contemptuous. By such freedoms, one of the greatest beauties of these divine writers has been considerably injured. Diss. III. sect. 23.

29. "The strong one's house." L. 11: 21. N.

31. "Detraction," Blaoqnuia. Vul. "Blasphemia." E. T. "Blasphemy." Cas. "Maledictum." Er. Zu. Pisc. and Cal. "Convitium." The Gr. word denotes injurious expressions, or detraction in the largest acceptation, whether against God or man. When God is the object, it is properly rendered blasphemy. It is evident that in this passage both are included, as the different kinds are compared together; consequently the general term ought to be employed, which is applicable alike to both; whereas the term blasphemy, with us, is not used of any verbal injury that is not aimed directly against God. Diss. IX. Part ii.

2 In men is pardonable," aqvorrai rois avdowлois, E. T. Shall be forgiven unto men.' As the Heb. has no subjunctive or potential mood, the future tense is frequently made use of for supplying this defect. This idiom is common in the Sep. and has been thence adopted into the N. T. It is evidently our Lord's meaning here, not that every such sin shall actually be pardoned, but that it is, in divine economy, capable of being pardoned, or is pardonable. The words in connexion sufficiently secure this term from being interpreted venial, as it sometimes denotes. The words. remissible and irremissible would have been less equivocal, but are rather technical terms than words in common use.

3" Against the Spirit." Diss. IX. Part ii. sect. 17.

32. "In the present state, in the future," iv tovt to aiõvi, —¿v tử μ¿dλovt. E. T. "In this world,-in the world to come. The word state seems to suit better here than either age, which some prefer, or world, as in the common version. Admit, though by no means certain, that by the two alves are here meant the Jewish dispensation and the Christian: these we cannot in Eng. call ages; as little can we name them worlds. The latter implies too much and the former too little. But they are frequently and properly called states. And as there is an ambiguity in the original, (for the first clause may mean the present life, and the second the life that follows), the Eng. word state is clearly susceptible of this interpretation likewise. And though I consider it as a scrupulosity bordering on superstition, to preserve in a version every ambiguous phrase that may be found in the original, where the scope of the passage, or the words in construction, sufficiently ascertain the sense; yet where there is real ground to doubt about the meaning, one does not act the part of a faithful translator, who does not endeavor to give the sentiment in the same latitude to his readers

in which the author gave it to him. This may not always be possible; but where it is possible, it should be done. Diss. XII. Part i. sect. 23.

35. “ Out of his good treasure,” ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ τῆς xaodías. E. T. "Out of the good treasure of the heart." But the words τns xapdías are wanting in so many MSS. even those of the greatest note, ancient versions, and commentators, that they cannot be regarded as authentic. Pearce, through I know not what inadvertency, has said that the word here should be rendered 'treasury.' The treasury is the place where treasure is deposited, which may be a very noble edifice, though all the treasure it contains be good for nothing. Now a man's producing good things, is surely an evidence of the goodness, not of his store-house, but of his

stores.

6

36. "Pernicious word," nua doyov. E. T. "Idle word." Cas. "Maluum verbum." The epithet doyós, when applied to words, has been shown by several to denote pernicious,' 'false," calumnious.' To this sense the context naturally leads. In the primitive meaning, idle, it is applicable only to persons. When it is applied to things, as the words or actions of men, it is understood to denote such in quality as spring from habitual idleness. And in this class the Jews were wont to rank almost all the vices of the tongue, particularly lying and defamation. See 1 Tim. 5: 13. Consider also the import of the phrase yaorépes ágyai in the character given of the Cretans, Tit. 1: 12. This, if we render the word aoyos as in the text, is idle bellies,' which, if we were to interpret it by our idiom, ought to denote abstemiousness,' as in the abstemious the belly may be said to be comparatively idle or unemployed. Yet the meaning is certainly the reverse. The author's idea is rather bellies of the idle,' those who spend their time merely in pampering themselves. Thus cruel hands are the hands of cruel persons, an envious eye is the eye of a man or woman actuated by envy, a contemptuous look the look of one who cannot conceal his contempt. From this rule of interpretation, in such cases, I do not know a single exception. And by this rule interpreted, onμara doya is such conversation as abounds most with habitual idlers. It was not uncommon with the Jewish doctors to make verba otii,' stand as a contrast to 'verba veritatis,' thus employing it as a euphemism for falsehood and lies. I am far from intending by this remark to signify, that what we commonly call idle, that is, vain and unedifying words, are not sinful, and consequently to be brought into judgment. If these be not comprehended in onuara doya of this passage, they may be included in the uwooλoyia, foolish talking,' mentioned by the apostle Eph. 5: 4.

37. "Or," xai. As both clauses in this verse cannot be ap

plied to the same person, this is one of the cases wherein the copulative is properly rendered or.

38. "A sign;" that is, a miracle in proof of thy mission.' 39. " Adulterous," pozalis. Vul. "Adultera." "This may be understood," says Si. "suitably to the symbolical phraseology Si." of ancient prophecy, as denoting infidel, apostate." He has accordingly, in his translation, rendered it "infidèle." I cannot help observing, that if this had been the rendering in the version of P. R. which here keeps the beaten road, and says "adultère," we should have been told by that critic, that the term employed by those interpreters was not a translation, but a comment, which they ought to have reserved for the margin. And I must acknowledge, that he would have had in this place more scope for the distinction, than in many places wherein he urges it. For it is very far from being evident, that our Saviour here adopts the allegorical style of the prophets. Besides, in their style, it is idolatry,' and not 'infidelity,' which in Jews is called adultery.' And with 'idolatry' we do not find them charged in the N. T.

40. "Of the great fish," zoù xntous. E. T. "The whale's." But xontos is not a whale, it is a general name for any huge fish or sea monster. It was the word used by the Seventy, properly enough, for rendering what was simply called in Jonah "a great fish."

41. "They were warned by Jonah." Diss. VI. Part v. sect. 2. 41, 42. "Something greater," ničov. E. T. "A greater." There is a modesty and a delicacy in the use made of the neuter gender in these verses, which a translator ought not to overlook. Our Lord chooses, on this occasion, rather to insinuate than to affirm the dignity of his character; and to afford matter of reflection to the attentive amongst his disciples, without furnishing his declared enemies with a handle for contradiction.

44. "Furnished," xxooμnμεvov. E. T. "Garnished." Kooμew signifies 'I adorn,' commonly, when applied to a person,' with apparel,' and to a house, with furniture.' This in old Eng. has probably been the meaning of the word 'to garnish,' agreeably to the import of its Fr. etymon garnir.'

46. "Brothers." It is almost too well known to need being mentioned, that in the Heb. idiom near relations, such as nephews and cousins, are often styled 'brothers.' The O. T. abounds with examples.

CHAPTER XIII.

3. " In parables,” ἐν παραβολαῖς. The word παραβολή, as used by the evangelists, has all the extent of signification in which the Heb. mashal is used in the O. T. It not only means