pression, and led the generality of readers into mistakes. Keep, through thine own name, can hardly be understood otherwise than as signifying, preserve, by thy power. Similar expressions occur in the Psalms and other places. If verse 11th were the only place in this prayer where mention is made of the name of God, I should not deny that this interpretation would have some plausibility. But, as that is not the case, we cannot interpret TW Vμ one way in verse 11th, and another way in verse 12th, where it is similarly connected and construed. What is to be remarked in the subsequent note, serves, in some degree, to confirm the interpretation now given. I own the Eng. word name hardly admits this latitude of acceptation. But it was observed (Diss. XII. P. V. § 12.), that we are obliged sometimes, in order to avoid tiresome circumlocutions, to admit an application of particular terms, which is not entirely warranted by use. When there is a difficulty (for it is only of such cases I am speaking), there is this advantage in tracing the words of the original, that the sense of the sacred writer is not arbitrarily confined by the opinions of the translator, but is left in the text, as nearly as possible, in the same extent, to the judgment of the reader.

2 Which thou hast given me, as dedwxas μos. E. T. Whom thou hast given me. But there is a great majority of MSS. and, among them, those of principal consideration, which reject the words in this place. A few substitute in its room, but the much greater number have. In either way, the meaning is the same with that given in this version. The relative in Gr. often takes the case of the antecedent, and not always, as in La. the case that is governed by the verb with which it is connected. For reading, there is also the authority of the Com. both the Sy. translations, and the Ara. Of the fathers, there are Athanasius, Cyril, The. and Euth.; likewise many modern critics; amongst whom are, Ham. Mill, and Wet. Add to this, that such a mistake as the change of & into &s, in this place, is easily accounted for: 's dedwnas os occurs in the very next verse. It is incident to transcribers, either through inadvertency in directing their eye, or through suspicion of mistake in the former copier, to make the expressions of the author, which are nearly the same, entirely so. Besides, the meaning of 's dedwxas is more obvious than that of dedwxas, which might readily lead a transcriber to

consider the latter as a mere blunder in copying. But if the word was originally, it is not easily to be accounted for, that it should have been so generally corrected into, and the like correction on verses 6th and 12th not attempted. It may be observ ed in passing, that this reading does not a little confirm the sense I have given to the word name, through the whole of this passage. If, by the name here, be meant the Gospel revelation, nothing can be more conformable to the tenor of our Lord's whole dis. course on this occasion; this revelation was given by the Father to his Son, to be by him communicated to the world.

3 That they may be one, as we are, iva wow iv, natws μs. The word is here iv, one thing; not is, one person. Ch. x. 30. N.

13. That their joy in me may be complete, iva exori THY Xasa την εμην πεπληρωμένην εν αυτοίς. Ε. Τ. That they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. What meaning our translators affixed to these words, I cannot say; but the whole scope and connection make it evident, that ǹ xaça ǹ eμn denotes, here, not the joy which I have (the only sense which the words my joy will bear in Eng.), but the joy whereof I am the object, the joy they will derive from Beau. seems to have been the first modern interpreter who rendered the words intelligibly, afin qu'ils goutent en moi une joie parfaite; and the only one in Eng. the An.

me.

17. By the truth, ev în ahnbesa 08. E. T. Through thy truth. The pronoun is not in some principal MSS. nor in the Vul. the Go. and the Sax. versions. Cyril seems not to have read it; and Ben. and Mill reject it. It is very unnecessary here, as the explanation subjoined, thy word is the truth, sufficiently appropriates it.

24. Father, I would, water, Jew. E. T. Father, I will. sh expresses no more than a petition, a request. It was spoken by our Lord in prayer to his heavenly Father, to whom he was obedient, even unto death. But the words I will, in Eng. when will is not the sign of the future, express rather a command. The La. volo, though not so uniformly as the Eng. I will, admits the same interpretation; and, therefore, Beza's manner here, who renders the word used by John, velim, is much preferable to that of the Vul. Er. Zu. and Cas. who say, volo. That the sense of the Gr. word is, in the N. T. as I have represented it, the critical reader may soon satisfy himself, by consulting the following passages

CH. XVIII.

in the original: Mt. xii. 38. xxvi. 39. Mr. vi. 25. x. 35. In some of these, the verb is rendered would, by our translators; it ought to have been rendered so in them all, as they all mani. festly imply request, not command. In most of the late Eng. translations, this impropriety is corrected. Dod. and Wes. have, indeed, retained the words I will; nay, more, have made them the foundation of an argument (one in his Paraphrase, the other in his Notes), that what follows I will, is not so properly a petition, as a claim of right. But this argument is built on an Anglicism in their translations, for which the sacred author is not accounta ble. Augustine, in like manner, founding on a Latinism, argu ed from the word volo of the Itc. version, as a proof of the equality of the Father and the Son. He is very well answered by Be. whose sentiments, on this subject, are beyond suspicion. See his Note on the place. The sons of Zebedee also use the word Schoμer, Mr. x. 35. in making a request to Jesus; but it would be doing great injustice to the two disciples to say, either that they claimed, as their right, what they then asked, or that they called themselves equal to their lord and master. Calvin, speaking of those who, in support of the trinity of persons in the godhead, argued that Moses, in his account of the creation, joins elohim (a word signifying God), in the plural number, to the verb bara (created), in the singular, advises very properly, "Monendi sunt "lectores ut sibi a violentis ejusmodi glossis caveant" (Com. ment. in Gen. i. 1.). I shall conclude this note with the words of Cas. (Defensio, &c.): Ego veritatem velim veris argumen. "tis defendi, non ita ridiculis, quibus deridenda propinetur ad"" versariis."

66

CHAPTER XVIII.

1. Over the brook Kidron, πέραν το χειμαρρ8 των Κεδρων. Ε. T. Over the brook Cedron. The Al. MS. alone, reads r& Kidęwv. The majority of modern critics agree with Jerom in thinking, that this, which suits the Vul. trans torrentem Cedron, is the genuine reading; a remarkable instance wherein the internal evidence is more than a counterbalance to numerous testimonies, or strong external evidence on the opposite side. Kidron is,

in Heb. the name of a brook near Jerusalem, of which mention is several times made in the historical books of the O. T. The name, when written in Gr. characters, coincides with the genitive plural of the appellative xdpos, a cedar. The transcribers of the N. T. were (with very few, if any, exceptions) Greeks or Latins, who knew nothing of Heb. Such, finding the singular article joined with the plural xɛdpwv, would naturally impute it to inadvertency, arising from hurry in transcribing. In consequence of this notion, 78 would readily be changed into T, by all who chose to have their copies clear from flagrant blunders. This so perfectly, and with so much natural probability, accounts for the change of 8 and Tav, both here, and in some places of the Sep. as, in my judgment, greatly preponderates all the MSS. and versions in the opposite scale. Most interpreters since Jerom's time, that is, since the introduction of the study of Oriental literature into the West, have thought so likewise. It may be remarked also, that this is one of the few passages in which the Eng. translators have preferred the reading of the Vul. though unsupported, to the almost universal reading of the Gr. the proper version of which is, the brook of Cedars. My reason for saying Kidron, I have assigned above. Diss. XII. P. III. § 6, &c.

E. T. Put up

11. Put up the sword, Baλe Ty maxaigar os. thy sword. But the pronoun is wanting in most of the MSS. of principal account, and a great many others. It is neither in the Com. edition, nor in that of Ben. It is not in either Sy. Go. Cop. or Arm. versions. Nonnus, who says simply, xoàsw te tiOtos, seems not to have read it. Will and Wet. reject it.

15. And another disciple, xa o adλos malnous. This is another instance wherein our translators have preferred the reading of the Vul. to that of the common Gr. The Vul. says, et alius discipulus. The only authorities from MSS. for this reading, are the Al. the Cam. and another of less note; all which omit the article. Wet. mentions no versions which favour it, except the Vul. and the Go. It is surprising that he does not mention the Sy. which expresses exactly the sense of the Vul. in this manner, and one of the other disciples. It was impossible, in that language, which has no articles, to show more explicitly that, in their ori. ginal, the expression was indefinite. The Sax. version also says, another. This renders it very probable, that it was so in the Old

Itc. Nonnus too expresses it indefinitely, vEos añλos italpos. On the whole, however, if it were not for that evidence which results from connection, the scope of the place, and the ordinary laws of composition, I should not lay great stress on all that can be pleaded in its favour from positive testimony.

20. Whither the Jews constantly resort, in avtober of Indurai GUVERXOVTα. E. T. Whither the Jews always resort. This is the third example in this chapter (so many will not be found in all the rest of the Gospel) wherein our translators, whom I have copied in these instances, have deserted the common Gr. Here, however, they have adopted a reading vouched by the plurality of MSS. though unsupported either by the Vul. or by the Sy. Beside MSS. the Com. and some other valuable editions, read avThis reading is favoured also by the Go. and second Sy. and by some of the Gr. fathers. Παντες is supported by the Al. and several other MSS. some early editions, with the Vul. 1st. Sy. Cop. Arm. Sax. and Eth. versions. Be. in his edition, whence the common editions are derived, has put zavrodev, giving his reason in the Notes, in these words: "in vetustis codicibus legi66 mus παντοτε : ego vero existimo, vel legendum παντες, vel παν

τότε.

τοθεν, quod facile potuit a librariis mutari in παντοτε.” Wet. after these words which he quotes, subjoins, very properly," et "ita quidem, quod mireris, contra omnes codices edidit." I shall add, as what appears to me still more surprising, that Beza's ego verò existimo," enforced merely by his own example, should, with so many modern editors, and some translators, prove more than a counterpoise to all the authorities of MSS. and versions which can be pleaded against it.

31. We are not permitted, nμw & Eğes. Whether the power of judging, in capital cases, was taken from them by the Romans, or was, in effect, as Lightfoot has rendered very probable (Hor. Heb. Mt. xxvi. 3. J. xviii. 31.) abandoned by themselves, is not material. The resumption of a power which has long gone into disuse, is commonly dangerous, sometimes impracticable. What is never done is, everywhere, considered, as what cannot legally be done.

37. Thou art king then? Ovxxv Batideng ei ou; E. T. Art thou a king then? As to the form of the interrogation, see the pa