to ποίεω. 19. Violate, von. It is evident that the sense of the simple λνω is not here the same with that of the compound καταλυω in v. 17th. The verbs contrasted are different, καταλύω to πληροω, λυω With regard to laws, the opposite to subverting is ra tifying, to violating is practising. This is a further evidence that more is meant in v. 17th by λpow than barely obeying. And of the sense I have given it, we have here an actual example. For what tends more to ratify a law than additional sanctions, with which it was not formerly enforced? 2 Or, nas. E. T. And. This is one of the cases wherein the copulative has the force of a disjunctive. The conjunction does but save the repetition of a common clause, which belongs severally to the words coupled. This remark will be better understood by resolving the sentence into the parts, whereof it is an abridged expression. Whoever shall violate these commandments, shall be in no esteem in the reign of heaven; and whoever shall teach others to violate them, shall be in no esteem, &c. Here the sense, with the aid of the copulative, is evidently the same with that expressed disjunctively in the version. One reason, beside the scope of the passage, for understanding the conjunction in this manner is because the verbs aven and diduga are separated in the original, each having its regimen. Os av 8 Avon μiav TWY EYτολων και δίδαξη έτω τις ανθρωπος. Consequently the και is not to be understood disjunctively in the end of the verse, where the verbs are more intimately connected, ός δ' αν ποιηση και διδαξη. 3 Were it the least of these commandments, ICD TWY EVTORNY τέτων των ελαχίσων. E. T. One of these least commandments. But if the commandments here mentioned were Christ's least commandments, what, it may be asked, were the greatest? or, Why have we no examples of the greatest? That this phrase is not to be so understood, our translators themselves have shewn by their way of rendering ch. xxv. 40. 45. The clause must therefore be explained as if arranged in this manner-μιαν των ελαχίστων των ενώ τόλων τότων, the three last words being the regimen of the adjective, and not in concord with it. 4 Shall be in no esteem in the reign of heaven-shall be highly esteemed, ελάχισος κληθήσεται εν τη βασίλεια των κρανων STO Megas HANDGET. E. T. He shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven-he shall be called great. To be called great and to be called little, for to be esteemed and to be disesteemed, is so obvious a metonymy of the effect for the cause, that it natu. rally suggests itself to every discerning reader. By rendering therefore βασιλεια των εράνων, agreeably to its meaning in most places, the reign of heaven, that is, the Gospel dispensation, there is not the smallest difficulty in the passage. But if this phrase be rendered the kingdom of heaven, as referring to the state of the blessed, and if he shall be called the least in that kingdom mean, as some explain it, he shall never be admitted into it, a most unnatural figure of speech is introduced, whereof I do not recollect to have seen an example in any author, sacred or profane. 20. Excel, TEPITσevon. E. T. Exceed. The original word expresses a superiority either in quantity or in kind. The latter difference suits the context at least as well as the former. 21. That it was said to the ancients, ori Eppen Toig apxalois. E. T. That it was said by them of old time. Be. Dictum fuisse a veteribus. Be. was the first interpreter of the N. T. who made the ancients those by whom, and not those to whom, the sentences here quoted were spoken. These other La. versions, the Vul. Ar. Er. Zu. Cas. Cal. and Pisc. are all against him. Among the Protestant translators into modern tongues, Be. whose work was much in vogue with the reformed, had his imitators. Dio. in Itn. rendered it che fu detto dagli antichi; the G. F. qu'il a été dit par les anciens. So also the common Eng. But all the Eng. versions of an older date, even that executed at Geneva, say to them of old time. Lu. in like manner, in his Ger. translation says, zu den alten. I have a Protestant translation in Itn. and Fr. published by Giovan Luigi Paschale in 1555, the year before the first edition of Be.'s (the place not mentioned), which renders it in the same way with all preceding translators, without exception, a gli antichi, and aux anciens. All the late translators, Fr. and Eng. have returned to the uniform sense of antiquity, rendering it to, not by, the ancients. For the meaning of a word or phrase, which frequently occurs in scripture, the first recourse ought to be to the sacred writers, especially the writer of the book where the passage occurs. Now the verb grw (and the same may be observed of its synonymas) in the passive voice, where the speaker or speakers are mentioned, has uniformly the speaker in the genitive case, preceded by the preposition in or dia. And in no book does this occur oftener than in Mt. See ch. ii. 15. 17. 23. iii. 13. iv. 14. viii. 17. xii. 17. xiii. 35. xxi. 4. xxiv. 15. xxvii. 9. xxii. 31. In this last we have an example both of those to whom, and of him by whom, the thing was said, the former in the dative, the latter in the genitive with the preposition no. When the persons spoken to are mentioned, they are invariably in the dative. Rom. ix. 12. 26. Gal. iii. 16. Apoc. vi. 11. ix. 4. With such a number of examples on one side (yet these are not all), and not one from Scripture on the opposite, I should think it very assuming in a translator, without the least necessity, to reject the exposition given by all who had preceded him. It has been pleaded that something like an example has been found in the construction of one or two other verbs, neither synonymous nor related in meaning. Thus π TO BEαInvai aurois ch. vi. 1. means to be seen by them. Odoμ in Gr. answers to videor in La. And the argument would be equally strong in regard to La. to say, because visum est illis signifies it appeared to them, that is, it was seen by them; dictum est illis must also signify it was said by them. The authority of Herodotus (who wrote in a style somewhat resembling, but in a dialect exceedingly unlike, that of the N. T.), in regard to a word in frequent use in Scripture, appears to me of no conceivable weight in the question. Nor can any thing account for such a palpable violence done the sacred text, by a man of Be.'s knowledge, but that he had too much of the polemic spirit (the epidemical disease of his time) to be in all respects a faithful translator. Diss. X. P. V. § 5. 21, 22. Shall be obnoxious to, εvox esα1. E. T. shall be in danger of. To be in danger of evil of any kind, is one thing, to be obnoxious to it, is another. The most innocent person may be in danger of death, it is the guilty only who are obnoxious to it. The interpretation here given is the only one which suits both the import of the Gr. word, and the scope of the passage. 22. Unjustly, sien. This word is wanting in two MSS. one of them the Vat. of great antiquity. There is no word answering to it in the Vul. nor in the Eth. Sax. and Ara. versions, at least in the copies of the Ara. transcribed in the Polyglots, which Si. observes to have been corrected on the Vul. and which are consequently of no authority as evidences. Jerom rejected it, imagining it to be an interpolation of some transcriber desirous to soften the rigour of the sentiment, and, in this opinion, was followed by Augustine. On the other hand, it is in all the other Gr. MSS. now extant. A corresponding word was in the Itc. or La. Vul. before Jerom. The same can be said of these an. cient versions, the Sy. Go. Cop. Per. and the unsuspected edition of the Ara. published by Erpenius. Chrysostom read as we do, and comments on the word in. The earliest Fathers, both Gr. and La. read it. This consent of the most ancient, ecclesiastic writers, the two oldest versions, the Itc. and the Sy. the almost universal testimony of the present Gr. MSS. taken together, give ground to suspect that the exclusion of that adverb rests ultimately on the authority of Jerom, who must have thought this limitation not of a piece with the strain of the discourse. I was of the same opinion, for some time, aud strongly inclinable to reject it; but, on maturer reflection, judged this too vague a principle to warrant any alteration which common sense, and the scope of the place, did not render necessary. Mr. Wes. rejects this adverb, because, in his opinion, it brings our Lord's instructions on this head, down to the Pharisaic model; for the Scribes and Pharisees, he says, would have condemned causeless anger as well as Jesus Christ. No doubt they would. They would have also condemned the indulgence of libidinous thoughts and looks. [See Lightfoot, Hora Hebraicæ, &c. on v. 28.] But the diffe rence consisted in this, the generality of the Scribes, at that time, considered such angry words, and impure looks, and thoughts, as being of little or no account, in themselves, and to be avoided solely, from motives of prudence. They might ensnare men into the perpetration of atrocious actions, the only evils which, by their doctrine, were transgressions of the law, and consequently, could expose them to the judgment of God. The great error which our Lord, in this chapter, so severely reprehends, is their disposition to consider the divine law, as extending merely to the criminal and overt acts expressly mentioned in it. From these acts, according to them, if a man abstained, he was, in the eye of the law, perfectly innocent, and nowise exposed to divine judgment. We are not, however, to suppose that this manner of treating the law of God was universal among them, though doubtless then very prevalent. The writings of Philo in that age, and some of their Rabbies since, sufficiently show that the Jews have always had some moralists among them, who, as well as some Christian casuists, could refine on the precepts of their religion, by stretching them, even to excess. 2 To the council, Ta cuvedpiw. It might have been rendered to the sanhedrim, ovved pov being the ordinary name given to that supreme judicatory. I accordingly call it so in those places of the history, where it is evident that no other could be meant. But as the term is general, and may be used of any senate or council, though very differently constituted from the Jewish, I thought it better here not to confine it. It is not improbable also, that there is an allusion în the word xpices, judgment, to the smaller or city-councils, consisting of twenty-three judges. 3 Pana and μaps. Preface to this Gospel, § 25. 4 FEEVVOV. Diss. VI. P. II. § 1. 26. Farthing. Diss. VIII. P. I. § 10. 27. The words Teis apxalis are not found in a great number of the most valuable MSS. and ancient versions, particularly the Sy. The Vul. indeed has them. Mill and Wetstein reject them. 28. Another man's wife, yvvaixa. E. T. A woman. Er. Uxorem alterius. The word yown in Gr. like femme in Fr. signifies both woman and wife. The corresponding word in Heb. is liable to the same ambiguity. Commonly the distinction is made by some noun or pronoun, which appropriates the general name. But it is not in this way only that it is discovered to signify wife. Of the meaning here given and ascertained in the same way by the context, we have examples, Prov. vi. 32. Ecclus. xxvi. 7. Wet. has produced more instances; but in a case so evident these may suffice. If we translate yuvaixa woman, we ought to render XEY AUTY hath debauched her. The Gr. word admits this latitude. Thus Lucian (Dial. Dor. et Thet.) says of Acrisius, when his daughter Danae, whom he had devoted to perpetual virginity, proved with child, ύπο τινος μεμοίχευσθαι οιηθεις avτny, ab aliquo stupratam fuisse illam arbitratus. But I prefer the other way, as by changing here the interpretation of the word the intended contrast between our Lord's doctrine and that of the Jews is in a great measure lost. μοιχεύω, 2 In order to cherish impure desire, προς το επιθυμησαι αυτης. E.T. To lust after her. Vul. Ar. Er. Zu. Cal. Ad concupiscendum eam. Pisc. Ut eam concupiscat. The Gr. preposition ρos before an infinitive with the article clearly marks the intention, not |