and bridegroom; whereas, the phrase in Eng. the children of the bride-chamber, suggests a very different idea.

2 Do they fast? un duvartai vnsever; E. T. Can they fast? In a subject such as this, relating to the ordinary manners or customs which obtain in a country, it is usual to speak of any thing, which is never done, as of what cannot be done; because it cannot, with propriety, or without the ridicule of singularity, be done. Μη δύνανται νησεύειν is therefore synonymous with μη νησεύ ; Do they fast? And & Suvevral seven, with & 5801, They do not fast. As the simple manner suits better the idiom of our tongue, I have preferred it.

20. They will fast, vns:vr871. E. T. Shall they fast. The expression here used does not convey a command from our Lord to his disciples, but is merely a declaration made by him occasionally to others, of what would in fact happen, or what a sense of propriety, on a change of circumstances, would induce his disciples, of themselves, to do. The import is therefore better expressed by will than by shall. At the time when the common translation was made, the use of these auxiliary verbs did not entirely coincide with the present use. In the solemn style, and especially in all prophecies and predictions, shall was constantly used where every body, now speaking in prose, would say will. As that manner is (except in Scotland) become obsolete; and as, on many occasions, the modern use serves better the purpose of perspicuity, distinguishing mere declarations from com. mands, promises, and threats; I judged it better, in all such ca. ses, to employ these terms according to the idiom which prevails at present.

24. Which, on the Sabbath, it is unlawful to do. Mt. xii. 2. N. 26. Abiathar the high priest. From the passage in the history referred to, it appears that Ahimelech, the father of Abia. thar, was then the high priest.

2 The tabernacle-the loaves of the presence. Mt. xii. 4. N. 28. Therefore the Son of Man, ASE O DIGG TY AVAρWAY. This is introduced as a consequence from what had been advanced, v. 27. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Hence one would conclude that, the Son of Man, in this verse,

must be equivalent to man, in the preceding; otherwise a term is introduced into the conclusion, which was not in the premises.

CHAPTER III.

4. To do good- or to do evil; to save, or to kill—ayaboñoinσαι, η κακοποίησαι ψυχήν τωσαν, η αποκτείναι. In the style of Scripture, the mere negation of any thing is often expressed by the affirmation of the contrary. Thus, L. xiv. 26. not to love, or even to love less, is called to hate; Mt. xi. 25. not to reveal is to hide; and here, not to do good, when we can, is to do evil; not to save is to kill. Without observing this particularity in the Oriental idiom (of which many more examples might be brought), we should be at a loss to discover the pertinency of our Lord's argument; as the question about preference here was solely between doing and not doing. But from this, and many other passages, it may be justly deduced, as a standing principle of the Christian ethics, that not to do the good which we have the opportunity and power to do, is, in a certain degree, the same as to do the contrary evil; and not to prevent mischief, when we can, the same as to commit it.

5. For the blindness of their minds, επι τη πωρωσει της καρδίας Diss. IV. § 22, 23, 24.

αυτών.

12. He strictly charged them, worλA ETTETIMZ AUTOS. Ch. ix.

25. N.

14. That he might commission them to proclaim the reign, ένα αποτέλλη αυτός κηρύσσειν. Diss. VI. P. V. § 2.

21. His kinsmen hearing this, went out, ansoAUTES OF TA?' avT800. Sir Norton Knatchbull, a learned man, but a hardy critic, explains these words as if they were arranged and pointed thus, Οι ακέσαντες, παρ' αυτ8 εξήλθον, Qui audiverunt, sive "audientes quod turba ita fureret, ab eo exiverunt," They who heard went out from him. He does not plead any diversity of reading, but that such transpositions of the article are often to be met with. “ Ακέσαντες οι dicitur frequenti trajectione pro οι ακουσαντες.” But it would have been more satisfactory to produce examples. For my part, I cannot help thinking, with Ra phelius, that this transposition is very harsh, and but ill-suited to the idiom of the language.

66

2 Οι παρ' αυτού. That this is a common phrase for denoting, sui, propinqui, cognati, his kinsmen, his friends, is well known. I have preferred the word kinsmen, as the circumstances of the story evince, that it is not his disciples who are meant, but who would most readily be understood by the appellation friends. Bishop Pearce is of a different opinion, and thinks that by or ap αυτού is meant, " rather those who were with him, or about him, "that is, some of the Apostles or others present." Of the same opinion is Dr. M'Night. But I cannot find a warrant for this interpretation. Пaga often signifies ad, apud, juxta, prope; at, near, with; but not when joined with the genitive. It has, in that signification, regularly the dative of persons, and the accusative of things. Thus, Phavorinus, Παρα πρόθεσις, ότι πλησιότητα δηλοί, επι μεν εμψυχου, δοτικη συντασσεται· επι δε αψυχου, αιτιατική. He subjoins only three exceptions that have occurred to him, in all which the preposition has the accusative of the person, instead of the dative, but not a single example wherein it is construed with the genitive. The use of the preposition, in the N. T. in this signification, which is very frequent, I have found, except in one instance, where the dative of the thing, and not the accusative, is used, entirely conformable to the remark of the lexicographer. The instance is in J. xix. 25. Eisnneiony de mapa za savBut in no instance have I found it with a genitive, unless when the meaning is different; when it has either no relation to place, as appears to be the case here, or when it corresponds to the La. a, ab, and to the Eng. from. If the article did not form an insuperable objection to the disposition of the words proposed by Knatchbull, his way of rendering παρ αυτου εξήλθον, went out from him, would be unexceptionable. Another insuperable objection against both the above hypotheses (for both imply that it was some of the disciples, or at least some of those who were - with Jesus in the house, that went out), is that, by the Evange list's account, they who went out were persons who had been informed of his situation by others. Ακουσαντες οι παρ αυτου. Now, what writer of common sense would speak of men's hearing of a distress which they had seen and felt, and in which they had been partakers? For it is said, not of him alone, but of him and his disciples, that they were so crowded, that they could not so much Nor can the participle axovcaves, in a consistency with

ρω.

as eat.

the ordinary rules of construction, refer to any thing but the distress mentioned in the preceding verse.

3 To lay hold on him, xgarŋtaı avtov. All the above mentioned critics agree in thinking that the avrov refers not to Is, but to oxos, in the twentieth verse. L. Cl. also, has adopted this opinion. He renders the words xpeτntes avтw, pour la retenir, referring to la multitude, in the foregoing verse. As to the justness of this version, far from being dogmatical, he says, modestly enough, in his notes, Les mots xparnrai evrov sont equivoques, et peuvent être egalement rapportez au mot oxλs qui precede, et à Jesus Christ. Si l'on suit cette construction, l'Evangeliste voudra dire &c. mais si on rapporte ces paroles à Jesus Christ, il leur faudra donner un sens conforme-He seems to put both ways of rendering the words on a foot of equality. Bishop Pearce is more positive, and says, in his note on this passage, our Eng. translation must certainly be a mistake. Why? Because Jesus was in a house, and therefore they who wanted to lay hold on him, could not go out for that purpose. True, they could not go out of that house; but if they who heard of his distress were in another house (and the very expression employed by the Evangelist, shows that they were not witnesses of the distress), would there be any impropriety in saying, They went out to lay hold on him? I admit, with L. Cl. that the pronoun autoV, may refer either to ox, or to Jesus, the subject of discourse. But that the latter is the antecedent here, is the more probable of the two suppositions, for this reason: the same pronoun occurs before, in this verse, where it is admitted, by every body, to refer to him, and not to the multitude, ʼn was avтɣ cžnλlov xpuThe interpretation, therefore, which makes it refer to him, though not absolutely necessary, is the most obvious, and the most conformable to the syntactic order. Further, till of late, the pronoun here has been invariably understood so by interpreters. Thus, the Vul. Cum audissent sui, exierunt tenere It must have been eam, if they had understood it of the crowd, turba, mentioned in the preceding sentence. With this agree, in sense, all the other translations I know, ancient or modern, Oriental or European, L. Cl.'s alone excepted. The ancient commentators, Gr. and La. show not only that they understood the expression in the same way, but that they never heard of any other interpretation. Though, in matters of abstract reasoning, I am far from paying great deference to names and

τηται αυτον.

eum.

authorities, their judgment is often justly held decisive in matters purely grammatical.

* He is beside himself, eže5n Vul. In furorem versus est. It shocks many persons to think, that so harsh, so indecent, a sentence concerning our Lord, should have been pronounced by his relations. Several methods have, accordingly, been attempted, for eluding this sentiment entirely, or at least affixing another meaning to the words, than that here given, though the most ancient and the most common. By the explanation Dr. Pearce had given of the preceding words (which I have assigned my rea. sons for rejecting), he has avoided the difficulty altogether; what is affirmed being understood, by him, as spoken of the crowd, and not of Jesus. But he has not adverted, that to give the words this turn, is to render the whole passage incoherent. Nothing appears plainer, than that the verdict of his friends, in this verse, is the occasion of introducing the verdict of the Scribes in that immediately following. Observe the parallelism (if I may be allowed the term) of the expressions: 'O xap autɣ sžnλbov xpaτησαι αυτόν, έλεγον γαρ ότι εξέση και οι γραμματεις οι απο Ιεροσολύμων καταβαντες ελεγον ότι Βεελζεβολ εχει. Were the Scribes also speaking of the crowd? As that will not be pretended; to suppose that in one verse the crowd is spoken of, and in the next our Lord, though the expression is similar, and no hint given of the change of the subject, is, to say the least, a very arbitrary supposition. Now, that the sense given in the common version, which I have followed, is an ordinary meaning of the word, is not denied. Phavorinus explains it by maietel, and in 2 Cor. v. 13. it is contrasted with the verb cw@gover, in such a manner as not to admit another interpretation. Thus: Eire yap εξεσημεν, θεω· είτε σωφρονουμεν, ύμων. It is urged, on the other side, that the word occurs in the Sep. in a different meaning, Gen. xlv. 26. ežesn ʼn diavola Ixxw6. E. T. Jacob's heart fainted. But passing the observation, that the expression is not entirely the same, I should admit the same to be the meaning of the Evange list, if it were mentioned as what was reported to his friends, and not as what was said by them. When they say, he is beside himself, every body understands it as a conclusion which they infer, on the sudden, from what they had heard. The judgment is rash and injurious, but not unnatural to people in a certain