last words had been ύπο πάντων των εθνών. Domum meam domum precationis vocatum iri ab omnibus gentibus; and is, I think, the only La. translator, who, by inserting the preposition ab, has perverted the sense. He has been copied, as usual, by the G. F. Ma maison sera appellée maison d'oraison par toutes nations. This is an error of the same sort with that which was observed on Mt. v. 21. See the note on that verse. The court of the Gentiles, a part of ro iepov, the temple, as it is expressed in this passage, was particularly destined for the devout of all na. tions, who acknowledged the true God, though they had not subjected themselves to the Mosaic law, and were accounted aliens. The proselytes who had received circumcision, and were by consequence subject to the law, were on the same footing with native Jews, and had access to the court of the people. Justly, therefore, was the temple styled a house of prayer for all nations. The error in the common version is here the more extraordinary, as, in their translation of Isaiah, they render the passage quoted for all people.

2 There is another error, in the common version, in this passage, which, for aught. I know, is peculiar to it. Oxes is rendered the house, not a house, as it ought to be. This difference, though on a superficial view it may appear inconsiderable, is, in truth, of the greatest moment. The house of prayer was the utmost that a Jew could have said of the temple of Jerusa. lem. To represent all the Gentiles, most of whom knew nothing about it, and the rest, at the furthest, put it on no better footing than the idol-temples of the surrounding nations, as using a style which implied that it was, by way of eminence, the place of all the earth appropriated to divine worship, is both misrepresenting the fact, and misrepresenting the sacred writers, who are far from advancing any thing that can be justly so interpreted.

18. For they dreaded him, CovvTO yap avtov. I see no rea son, with Pearce, to reject the avrov, on so slight authority as six or seven MSS. Their fear of the people, mentioned in other passages, so far from being inconsistent, naturally led them to dread one who had so great an ascendancy over the minds of the people, who exposed the hypocrisy of the spiritual guides of the age, and was so much an enemy to their traditions and casuistry.

21. Which thou hast devoted, nv xarngaow. E. T. Which thou cursedst. In Eng. the word cursed is not, now, so commonly, nor, I think, so properly, applied to inanimate things. Besides, that acceptation of the verb to curse, to which our ears are most familiarized, associates, in our minds, the idea of something, at once so atrocious, and so vulgar, as makes one dislike exceedingly the application of it, to a solemn act of our Lord, intended to convey instruction, in the most striking manner, on two important articles, the power of faith, and the danger of unfruit fulness under the means of improvement. Devoted, though some times used in a different sense, is here so fixed in meaning, by the words connected, that it is impossible to mistake it; and is surely a more decent term than cursed.

22. Have faith in God, EXETE TIÇIY OEX. That is, say some, Have a strong faith. The words rendered literally are, Have a faith of God. It is a known Hebraism, to subjoin the words of God to a substantive, to denote great, mighty, excellent ; and to an adjective, as the sign of the superlative. In support of this interpretation, bishop Pearce has produced a number of passages, universally explained in this manner. The context here will suit either explanation. Though this is a point on which no one ought to be decisive, I cannot help, upon the whole, preferring the common version. My reasons are these: 1st, I find that the substantives construed with 8, when it signifies great or mighty (for it is only with these we are here concerned), are names either of real substances, or of outward and visible effects. Of the first kind are, prince, mountain, wind, cedar, city; of the second are, wrestling, trembling, sleep; but nowhere, as far as I can discover, do we find any abstract quality, such as, faith, hope, love, justice, truth, mercy, used in this manner. When any of these words are thus construed with God, he is confessedly either the subject, or the object, of the affection mentioned. 2dly, The word is, both in the Acts, and in the Epistles, is often construed with the genitive of the object, precisely in the same manner as here. Thus, Acts iii. 16. 15 T8 OVOμAT℗ AUTY is faith in his [Christ's] name; Rom. iii. 22. #ısı Ino8 Xpısu is faith in Jesus Christ. See, to the same purpose, Rom. iii. 26. Gal. ii. 16. 20. iii. 22. Philip. iii. 9. λ is used in the same way,

1 Thess. i. 3. As these come much nearer the case in hand, they are, in my judgment, more than a counterpoise to all that has been advanced in favour of the other interpretation.

CHAPTER XII.

4. They wounded in the head with stones,alboantavres exeØuλαίωσαν. Vul. In capite vulneraverunt. sion, the Cam, and five other MSS. omit

Agreeably to this verloaves. The Cop.

and Sax. translations follow the same reading.

14. Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give ? εξεσι κηνσον Καισαρι δουναι, η δ; δωμεν, nun daμev; Vul. Licet dare tributum Cæsari, an non dabimus ? With this agree the Go. and the Sax. The Cam. omits the whole clause δωμεν η μη δωμεν ;

19. Moses hath enacted, Mars Expayer. E. T. Moses wrote. The word paper, when applied to legislators, and spoken of laws, or standing rules, is, both in sacred use, and in classical, sancire, to enact.

29. The Lord is our God: The Lord is one, Kugios • Otos ἡμων Κυριος εις εσι. E. T. The Lord our God is one Lord. The words are a quotation from Moses, Deut. vi. 4. as rendered by the Seventy. In Heb. they run thus, unbæ mm, lite

rally in Eng. Jehovah our God Jehovah one. In such sentences, there is no substantive verb in Heb. (as in European languages) to connect the words. Their juxtaposition is held sufficient. Sometimes in Gr. and La, which do not labour under the same defect, the verb is omitted as unnecessary. Now, in my apprehension (and in this I agree with Vitringa), the words quoted ought to be rendered as two sentences; in Deut. thus, Jehovah is our God: Jehovah is one; and not as one sentence, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. My reasons are these: 1st, It appears to have been the purpose of their great legislator to establish among the people these two important articles, as the foundation of that religious constitution he was authorised to give them. The first was, that the God, whom they were to adore, was not any of the acknowledged objects of worship in

the nations around them, and was, therefore, to be distinguished among them, the better to secure them against seduction, by the peculiar name Jehovah, by which alone he chose to be invoked by them. The second was the unity of the divine nature, and consequently that no pretended divinity (for-all other gods were merely pretended) ought to be associated with the only true God; or share with him in their adoration, There is an internal pro♣ bability in this explanation, arising from the consideration that these were notoriously the fundamental articles of their creed. 2dly, In the reply of the Scribe, v. 32. which was approved by our Lord, and in which we find, as it were, echoed every part of the answer that had been given to his question, there are two distinct affirmations with which he begins; these are, There is one God; and there is only one, corresponding to The Lord is our God, and the Lord is one. The first clause, in both decla rations, points to the object of worship; the second, to the ne cessity of excluding all others. Accordingly, the radical precept relating to this subject, quoted by our Lord, Mt. iv. 10, from the Sep. is exactly suited to both parts of this declaration Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God. This may be called the positive part of the statute, and corresponds to the article, The Lord is our God. Thou shalt serve him only. This is the ne gative part, and corresponds to the article, The Lord is one, 3dly, Such short and simple sentences, without either verb or . conjunction to unite them in themselves, or connect them with one another, are not unfrequent in the sacred language. An ex. ample, perfectly similar, we have, Exod. xv. 3. mombo wis mm (or,

יהוה שמו (יהוה נבור במלחמה,as we read in the Samaritan Pentateuch

rightly rendered in the E. T. as two distinct sentences. The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is his name: by Houbigant, Dominus est bellator fortis; dominus est nomen ejus. 4thly, It is unexampled in sacred writ, to join as an adjective to a proper name. The case is different, when it is affirmed as an at tribute, because then the copula or substantive verb is under stood. For though the Gr. word xup be an appellative, we ought to remember that, in this passage, it supplies the place.of Jehovah, a proper name. Now a proper name, which naturally belongs but to one, does not admit numeral adjectives. If such an adjective, therefore, be subjoined to the name, it ought to be considered as something formally predicated of it, not as an epi

thet or attendant quality. If the whole purpose of the quota. tion were to assert, in one sentence, the unity of the Godhead, the only natural expression in Heb. would have been * 'mbr 19 mm, in Gr. κυρια ὁ Θεον ήμων Θεός εις εσι. Jehovah, or The Lord, our God is one God. But, as it stands, if it had been meant for one simple affirmation, the expression would have been both unnatural and improper. The author of the Vul. seems, from a conviction of this, to have rendered the words, in defiance of the authority of MSS. Deus unus est. In Deut. he says, indeed, Dominus unus est. But in some old editions, previous to the revisal and corrections of either Sixtus V. or Cle ment VIII. the reading is, as in Mr. Deus unus est. I have con. sulted two old editions in folio, one printed at Paris 1504, the other at Lyons 1512, both of which read in this manner*. Some may say, and it is the only objection I can think of, that though my interpretation might suit the Heb. of Deut. it does not suit the Gr. of the Evangelist. We have here the substantive verb £51, which, as it is used only once in the end, seems to connect the whole into one sentence. I answer, that it is not uncommon in the penmen of the N. T. to use the copula in the last short sentence or member, and leave it to be supplied by the reader's discernment in the preceding. Thus, Mt. xi. 30. o ayos us χρησος, και το φορτίον με ελαφρον εσί. Here every body admits, that we have two distinct affirmations, and that the 15:1, which occurs only in the end, must be supplied in the former clause, after

58.

2 Our God, i Otos pav. Three MSS. read ouav; one reads Vul. Deus tuus.

34. Nobody ventured to put questions to him, ovders stoλμa avTOY EжEрWτnσαι. E. T. No man durst ask him any question. These words convey a suggestion of some stern prohibition, or terrible menace, denounced by our Lord, which frightened every body from further attempts this way. But this was not the case. The people saw how completely those were foiled who tried to ensnare

Since I wrote the above, I have seen an edition of the Vul. earlier than either of these, printed at Venice 1484, in which also the expression is Deis unus est. These are all the editions of that Translation of an older date than the Council of Trent, which I have had occasion to see.