κινωνται τας χείρας, εκ εσθιση και απο αγοράς, εαν μη βαπτίσων701, 82 1791871. E. T. For the Pharisees-xcept they wash their hands oft, eat not; and when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. A small degree of attention will suffice to convince a judicious reader, that there must be a mistake in this version. For if, by what we are told, v. 3. we are to understand, as is allowed by every body, that they did not eat, on any occasion, till they had washed their hands; to what purpose was this added, v. 4. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not? Could any person suppose that, if washing before meals was a duty, their having been at the market, where they were most exposed to defilement, would release them from the obligation? Besides, there is, in the first clause, an indistinctness and obscurity which leaves the reader much at a loss for the meaning. Except they wash oft, they eat not. Does this imply, that they must wash often before every meal? or that their washing frequently before one meal will com pensate for their not washing at all before another? It is well known, and indeed the circumstances of the story, as related here, and in Mt. may satisfy us, that neither of these was the case. For illustrating this passage, let it be observed, 1st, that the two verbs, rendered wash in the E. T. are different in the original. The first is was, properly translated wash; the second is Bartyral, which limits us to a particular mode of washing; for Barri denotes to plunge, to dip. This naturally suggests the idea, that the word yun, in the first clause, added tora, may express the manner of washing, and so complete the contrast in the first and second clauses. Пvyun, according to the old lexicographers, signifies the fist, or the hand contracted for grasping; but I find no authority for rendering it oft. In modern lexicons crebro is admitted as one meaning. But this, I suspect, is solely because the Vul. so translates the word in this passage. The suspicion of Er. is not implausible, that the old translator had read ux. Perhaps it is still more likely, that he had supposed yun to have come into the place of rum, through the blunder of some early copyist. The first Sy. translator has, from the same cause, the not understanding of the import of yμn in this place, rendered it by a word denoting carefully, which, though equally unwarranted, suits the sense better than crebro. The. who is in this followed by Euth. supposes

66

that the word may mean up to the elbow. But as neither of these seems to have been versed in Jewish ceremonies, their judgment, in a point of this kind, is of little weight. Besides, it destroys the contrast clearly indicated by the Evangelist between VITE and Barrie. The opinion of Wet. I think with bishop Pearce, is, on the whole, far the most probable, that the word denotes here a handful. This is, at least, analogical. Thus foot, in most languages, denotes, "the length of the foot." The like may be said of cubit and span. As the sense manifestly supplies the word water, the import is a handful (that is, a sma!! quantity) of water. BATTICO," says that excellent critic, "est ma66 nus aquæ immergere, Tσ manibus affundere." This is more especially the import, when the words are, as here, opposed to each other. Otherwise TE, like the general word to wash in Eng. may be used for ßantigen, to dip, because the genus comprehends the species; but not conversely BaxTil for Te, the species for the genus. By this interpretation, the words, which, as rendered in the common version, are unmeaning, appear both significant and emphatical; and the contrast in the Gr. is preserved in the translation. The Vul. does not confound the two verbs as the E. T. does: at the same time it fails in marking the precise meaning of each. Pharisæi enim-nisi crebro laverint manus, non manducant: et a foro, nisi baptizentur, non comedunt. Ar. whose object is to trace etymology, not to speak either intelligibly or properly, renders yun pugillatim. Be. as unmeaningly, says pugno. Er. Leo, Cal. and Cas. follow the Vul. the three former saying crebro, the last sæpe. None of them sufficiently distinguishes the two verbs. They use the verb lavare, in the active voice, in the first clause, in the passive in the second; seeming to intimate, that in the first case the hands only were washed; in the second the whole body. The Vul. gives countenance to this interpretation. But it ought to be observed, that BaTiONTα is not in the passive voice, but in the middle, and is contrasted to rar, also in the middle; so that by every rule the latter must be understood actively, as well as the former. All the modern versions I have seen, are, less or more, exceptionable in the same way.

4. Baptisms of cups, βαπτισμούς ποτηρίων. E. T. The washing of cups. I have chosen to retain the original word for the

he

following reasons: First, It is not an ordinary washing, for the sake of cleanliness, which a man may perform in any way thinks convenient, that is here meant; but it is a religious cere mony, practised in consequence of a sacred obligation, real or imagined. Secondly, The analogy that subsists in phraseology between the rites of the old dispensation and those of the new, ought, in my opinion, to be more clearly exhibited in transla tions of Scripture, than they generally are. It is evident, that first John's baptism, and afterwards the Christian, though of a more spiritual nature, and directed to a more sublimè end, ori. ginated in the usages that had long obtained among the Jews. Yet, from the style of our Bible, a mere Eng, reader would not discover that affinity which, in this, and some other instances, is so manifest to the learned. The Heb. a perfectly corresponds to the Gr. ẞ and Barriga, which are synonymous, and is always rendered by one or other of them in the Sep. I am not for multiplying technical terms, and therefore should not blame a translation wherein the words baptize, baptism, and others of the same stamp, were not used; if in their stead we had words of our own growth, of the same import. Only let uniformity be observed, whether in admitting, or in rejecting them; for thus we shall sooner attain the scriptural use, and discover how far the latter were analogous to the former institutions. If it be asked, why I have not then rendered Bartiotal, in the preceding clause, baptize? I answer, 1st, That the appellation baptisms, here given to such washings, fully answers the purpose; and, 2dly, That the way I have rendered that word, shows better the import of the contrast between it and wire, so manifestly intended by the Evangelist. The Vul. in this instance, favours this manner, saying here, baptismata calicum, and Heb. ix. 10. variis baptismatibus; but has not been imitated by later translators, not even by those who translated from the Vul. and have been zealous for retaining the words which are retained in that version, as consecrated.

9. Ye judge well, continued he, in annulling, xæ EXEYEV AUTOIS, Kaλws abetete. E. T. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject. Bishop Pearce justly prefers the marginal version, frustrate, to the textuary reject. But I cannot approve his other amendment of disjoining the adverb xaλws from abETETE, with which the structure of the sentence leads us to connect it, and prefixing it to ɛλɛ

yo, thus making it, he said well. It would be a sufficient reason against this alteration, that, where there is not a good reason for changing, it is safer to follow the order of the words in the original. But were the Gr. what it is not, equally favourable to both interpretations, there is the strongest reason here for preferring the common one. It is not in the manner of these biographers, nor does it suit the taste that prevails through the whole of their writings, to introduce any thing said by our Lord, accompanied with an epithet expressing the opinion of the writer. They tell the world what he said, and what he did, but invariably leave the judgment that ought to be formed about both, to the discernment of their readers. The declared verdicts of others, whether friends or enemies, as becomes faithful historians, they also relate; but, like zealous disciples, wholly intent on exhibiting their Master, they care not though they themselves pass totally unnoticed. Their manner is exactly that of those who considered all his words and actions as far above standing in need of the feeble aid of their praise. The two examples produced by that author do not in the least justify the change, nor invalidate a syllable of what has been now advanced. In neither are they the words of the Evangelist, but of the interlocutors introduced in the history. The first is, J. viii. 48. O Loudalo ETOV avlw, Ov naλwg deyoμev, The Jews said to him, Have we not reason to say? The other is, xiii. 13. where our Lord says, 'YIS φωνείτε με Ὁ διδασκαλία καί Ὁ κυριου, καὶ καλῶς λεγετε, Ye call me, The teacher, and The master, and ye say right. I am aware that the difference may not be thought material; but I cannot help considering the slightest alteration as material, which affects the taste of these invaluable writings, and thereby tends to deprive us of an important criterion of their genuineness and divine original. Diss. III. § 18.-Ye judge well. This is spoken ironically. See notes on Mt. xxiii. 32. and xxvi. 45. and on J. iv. 17.

11, 12. But ye maintain,' If a man say to father or mother, 'Be it corban (that is, devoted) whatever of mine shall profit thee,' he must not thenceforth do aught for his father or his mother, ύμεις δε λεγετε, Εαν ειπη ανθρωπο τω πατρι η τη μητρί, Κορα βαν (ό εσι δώρον) ό εαν εξ εμε ωφεληθης" και εκετι αφίετε αυτον δεν ποιησαι τω πατρι αυτό η τη μητρί αυτό. E. T. But ye say, ' If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is corban (that is to say,

a gift) by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me,' he shall be free; and ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or his mother. For the illustration of this passage, in which it must be acknowledged there is some difficulty, let us, first, attend to the phrase, it is corban. As corban, in the original, is not accompanied with the substantive verb, it suits better the import of the passage, to supply it in the imperative, be it, than in the indicative, it is. Whatever the man meant to do, it is evident that, by the form of words specified, the thing was done, and he was bound. The expression, therefore, ought not to imply that the obligation had been contracted before. Be. who has been followed by most modern translators, erred in inserting the verb est. He ought either, with the Vul. to have left the ellipsis unsupplied, or to have said, sit, or esto. Koplav is a Sy. word, which this Evangelist, who did not write in a country where that language was spoken, has explained by the Gr. word Sopov, and signifies here a gift made to God, or a thing devoted. Our translators say, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; that is, when expressed more fully, That is corban, what6 ever it be, by which thou mightest be profited by me.' Now, as to the meaning of the expression, some explain it as importing, Let every donation I make to God turn out to thy advan 6 tage.' And they suppose, that when a man has once said this, he is, every time he makes a present to the temple, or an oblation on the altar, to be considered as discharging the duty he owes to his parents. This seems to be the sense of the Vul. Si dixerit homo patri aut matri, Corban (quod est donum) quodcunque ex me tibi profuerit. To the same purpose, though in different words, Er. Zu. Cal. and Cas. From Be.'s version it would be difficult to conclude what had been his apprehension of the meaning. His words are, Si quispiam dixerit patri vel matri, Corban (id est donum) est, quocunque a me juvari posses, insons erit. But by a marginal note on the parallel passage in Mt. he has shown that his idea was the same with that of the ancient interpreter, "Sensus est, quicquid templo donavero, cedet in rem 66 tuam, perinde enim est, ac si tibi dedero." There are several reasons which lead me to think, that this cannot be the sense of the words. In the first place, such a method of transferring the benefit of oblations and gifts (if compatible with their usages, which I very much doubt) would have deprived the giver of all