ページの画像
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

clause, so, that asia denotes, here, a deficient faith, not a total want of faith. I have used the word supply, as hitting more exactly what I take to be the sense of the passage. Gro. justly expresses it, Quod fiduciæ meæ deest, bonitate tua supple. His reason for not thinking that the man asked an immediate and miraculous increase of faith, appears well founded: "Nam "ut augmentum fiduciæ ab Jesu speraverit, et quidem subito, "vix credibile est." The words, however, in the way I have rendered them, are susceptible of either meaning, and so have all the latitude of the original.

25. He rebuked, exetiμnte. Vul. Comminatus est; that is, he severely threatened. In this manner the Gr. word is rendered in the Vul. no fewer than eight times in this Gospel, where it occurs only nine times. This is the more remarkable, as in the Gospels of Mt. and L where we often meet with it, it is not once so rendered, not even in the parallel passages to those in Mr. No La. translator, that I know, has in this imitated the Vul. Some say objurgavit; some increpavit, or increpuit. Beau. who says menaça, and Lu. who says hedrauete, are the only persons I know, who, in translating from the Gr. into modern languages, have employed a word denoting threatened. If there were more evidence than there is, that this is one usual accepta. tion of the term, there would still be sufficient ground for re jecting it as not the meaning of the Evangelists. For, 1st, the verb Tμ is used when the object addressed is inanimate, as the wind, the sea, a natural disease; for though, in such cases, even when rendered rebuke or command, there is a prosopopeia; yet, as we immediately perceive the sense, the expression derives both lustre and energy from the trope; whereas the mention of threats, which always introduces the idea of punishment to be inflicted on disobedience, being nowise apposite to the subject, could serve only to render the expression ridiculous. 2dly, The Evangelists have often given us the very words of the TITS used by Jesus, but in no instance do we discover in them any thing of the nature of menace. We have one example in this very verse, for it is επετίμησε λέγων. 3dly, The same word is adopted, Mt. xvi. 22. to express the rebuke given by Peter to his Master, in which it would be absurd to suppose that he employed threats. 4thly, The Gr. commentator Euth. has given, on Mt. xii. 16. the word παρηγγειλε as synonymous to επετίμησε

5thly, Recourse to threats, in the orders given to individuals, would ill suit either the meekness or the dignity of character uniformly supported by our Lord. Even the verb subgiμesuai, though nearer in its ordinary signification to that of the La. com. minor, yet, in no place of the Gospels, can properly be rendered to threaten. It is twice used by J. for to groan, or to sigh deep. ly. There are only two other passages in which it is applied to our Lord, once by Mt. and once by Mr. In both places the words he used are recorded, and they contain no threatening of any kind. The only term for threat, in these writers, is aan, for to threaten, απειλειν and προσαπειλειν.

29. This kind cannot be dislodged unless by prayer and fasting. Τέτο το γενΘ εν δεν δύναται εξελθείν, ει μη εν προσευχη και vasela. E. T. This kind can come forth by nothing but by prayer and fasting. Some doubts have been raised in regard to the meaning of the words this kind. The most obvious interpretation is, doubtless, that which refers them to the word demon im. mediately preceding. But as, in the parallel passage in Mt. xvii. 19. mention is made of faith, as the necessary qualification for dispossessing demons: Knatchbull, and others, have thought that this kind refers to the faith that is requisite. But to me it appears an insurmountable objection to this hypothesis, that we have here the same sentiment, almost the same expression, and ushered in with the same words, this kind, though, in what goes before, there is no mention of faith, or of any thing but demon, to which it can refer. It would be absurd to suppose that the pronouns and relatives in one Gospel refer to antecedents in ano. ther. Every one of the Gospels does, indeed, give additional in. formation; and, in various ways, serves to throw light upon the rest. But every Gospel must be a consistent history by itself; otherwise an attempt at explanation would be in vain. Now, my argument stands thus: The story, related in both Gospels, is manifestly the same; that the words in question may refer to demon in Mt. no person, who attentively reads the passage, can deny; that they cannot refer to faith, but must refer to demon in Mr. is equally evident. Either, then, they refer to demon in both, or the Evangelists contradict one another. Other arguments might be mentioned: one is, that the application of yw, to an abstract quality, such as faith, is, I suspect, unexampled in the language of Scripture; whereas, its application to different or

[blocks in formation]

Some

ders of beings, or real existences, is perfectly common. have considered it as an objection to the above explanation, that it supposes different kinds of demons; and that the expulsion of some kinds is more difficult than that of others. I answer, 1st, The objection is founded entirely in our ignorance. Who can say that there are not different kinds of demons? or, that there may not be degrees in the power of expelling? Revelation has not said that they are all of one kind, and may be expelled with equal ease. I answer, 2dly, By this kind, is not meant this kind of demons, but this kind or order of beings called demons. And if there be any implicit comparison in the words, it is with other cures. Another objection is, that in Mt. xvii. 20. the power of expulsion is ascribed solely to faith; whereas, here, it is ascribed to prayer and fasting. The answer to this objection will, perhaps, show, that the question does not so much affect the import of the passage, as it affects the grammatical construction and literal interpretation of the words. By the declaration, This kind cannot be dislodged, unless by prayer and fasting, we are not, (as I apprehend) to understand, that a certain time was to be spent in prayer and fasting, before the expulsion of every de mon; but that the power of expelling was not otherwise to be attained. Quod est causa causa, say dialecticians, est etiam causa causati. This is conformable to the idioms which obtain in every tongue. It was evidently concerning the power of expelling that the disciples put the question, Why could not we▬▬ ? Now, to the attainment of that power, fasting and prayer were necessary, because they were necessary for the attainment of that faith, with which it was invariably accompanied. That should be used according to the import of the Heb. conjugation hophal, may be supported by many similar examples in the N. T. 37. Not me, but him who sent me, that is, not so much me as him who sent me.' Mt. ix. 13. 3 N.

40. Whoever is not against you is for you, 'O x 56 xað nμwv, ὑπερ ήμων εσιν. But in a great number of MSS. some of them of note, in several editions, in the Vul. both the Sy. versions, the Sax. and the Go. the reading is buy in both places, which is also preferred by Gro. Mill, and Wet.

44. 46. 48. Their worm-and their fire. Οσκώληξ αυτών και το πυρ. Diss. XII. P. I. § 30.

CHAPTER X.

1. Came into the confines of Judea through the country upon the Jordan, έρχεται εις τα όρια της Ιαδαίας δια τα πέραν το Ιορδα 18. Vul. Venit in fines Judææ ultra Jordanem. The Sy. and the Go. appear to have read in the same manner as the Vul. agreeably to which die re is omitted in some MSS.

12. If a woman divorce her husband. This practice of divorcing the husband, unwarranted by the law, had been (as Jo. sephus informs us) introduced by Salome, sister of Herod the Great, who sent a bill of divorce to her husband Costobarus; which bad example was afterwards followed by Herodias and others. By law, it was the husband's prerogative to dissolve the marriage. The wife could do nothing by herself. When he thought fit to dissolve it, her consent was not necessary. The bill of divorce, which she received, was to serve as evidence for her, that she had not deserted her husband, but was dismissed by him, and consequently free.

19. Do no injury, un añosɛpnons. E. T. Defraud not. This does not reach the full import of the Gr. verb, which comprehends alike all injuries, whether proceeding from force or from fraud, and is therefore better rendered by P. R. Vous ne ferez tort à personne. This is followed by Sa. Beau. and even by Si. himself, who, changing only the mood, says, Ne faites torte à personne. In the same way, Dio. has also rendered it. Non far danno a niuno ; here rightly following Be. who says, Ne damno quemquam afficito. To the same purpose, the Vul. Ne fraudem feceris; by the sound of which, I suspect, our translators have been led into the version, Defraud not, which does not hit the meaning of the La.

21. Carrying the cross, agus tov suugav. These words are not in the Ephrem and Cam. MSS. There is nothing corresponding to them in the Vul. Sax. and Cop. versions. Mt. x. 38. N.

tut.

25. Pass through, dieλe. There is the same diversity of reading here, which was observed in the parallel place in xix. 24. But the other reading, red, is not here so well supported by either MSS. or versions.

29. See the Note immediately following.

30. Who shall not receive now, in this world, a hundredfold, houses, and brothers, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions. There are two difficulties in these words, of which I have not seen a satisfactory solution. The first is, in the promise, that a man shall receive, in this world, a hundred-fold, houses, and brothers The second is in the limitation, with persecutions. As to the first, there is no diffi. culty in the promise, as expressed by the Evangelists Mt. and L. To say, barely, that men shall receive a hundred-fold, for all their losses, does not imply that the compensation shall be in kind; nor do I find any difficulty in the declaration, that thus far their recompense shall be in this world. James, i. 2. advises his Christian brethren to count it all joy when they fall into divers temptations. Paul, 2 Cor. vii. 4. says, concerning himself, that he was exceeding joyful in all his tribulation. The same principle which serves to explain these passages, serves to explain the promise of a present recompense, as expressed by Mt. and L. The Christian's faith, hope, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, were more than sufficient to counterbalance all his losses. But if the mention of houses and brothers--, add nothing to the meaning of those Evangelists, to what purpose was it made by Mr. Instead of enlightening, it could only mislead, and make a retribution in kind be expected in the present life. Some things are mentioned, v. 29. of which a man can have only one: these are father and mother. In v. 30. we have mothers, but not fathers. Wife is mentioned, v. 29. but not wives, v. 30. Hence that profane sneer of Julian, who asked whether the Christian was to get a hundred wives. As to these omissions, however, there are some varieties in MSS. and versions. In v. 29. the word year is wanting in two MSS. as well as in the Vul Cop. Arm. and Sax. versions. None, indeed, in v. 30. have either yuvaxa or yuvaines, but many MSS. and some of note, read μgά; many also add warga; though these words, in the singular, ill suit the ixatorrahova, which precedes them. These differences and omissions also contribute to render the passage Susacted. According to rule, if one was repeated, all should have been repeated; and the construction required the plural number in them all. Bishop Pearce suspects an interpolation, occasioned by some marginal correction, or gloss, which must

« 前へ次へ »