YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS

TO

THE BOOK

OP THE

NEW COVENANT.

BY

THE AUTHOE OF THE FORMER ANNOTATIONS.

A NEW EDITION, REVISED AND EXTENDED.

LONDON:
DUNCAN AND MALCOLM, 37 PATERNOSTEE EOW.

M.DCCC.XLI.

LONDON:
PRINTED liY MOYES AND BARCLAY, CASTLE STREET,
LEICESTER SQUARE.

TO THE
HONOURABLE AND REVEREND
SIDNEY GODOLPHIN OSBORNE,
VICAR OP STOKE POGES,
IN THE COUNTY OF BUCKINGHAM 1
3En ©estlmmro
OP THE SINCERE ESTEEM AND REGARD OP
HIS ATTACHED PARISHIONER,
THE AUTHOR.

Stoke Pabk, January, 1841 .

PREFACE.

1. In concluding the ' Expository Preface' of the former
' Annotations to the Book of the New Covenant,' p. 89, I
intimated ' the immediate object I had in view, in bringing
' into a, printed form, my 'Revision' of the text of that Book.'
During the interval that has elapsed since its publication, I
have employed myself diligently in the prosecution of that
object ; and, though I have found nothing to alter in the text,
affecting points of doctrine or oi faith, I have nevertheless
found many occasions for increasing the accuracy of the
translation, and in consequence, of multiplying the number
of the critical annotations.
This, will not surprise any one who is at all conversant
with such matters and operations. " No man who makes
" the first attempt (observes Michaelis, on Mill's great
" labour of collation), can expect to arrive at perfection" in
that first attempt {Introd. ii. 456) ; and, strange it is to say,
this 'Revision' is the first attempt that has been made to ex
tend to every English reader, the benefit of the vast accession
of light which has been progressively accumulating, during
the last two centuries and a quarter, for further illustrating
the texts of the Evangelical Scriptures. Tyndale, in closing
the first edition of his new version, in 1526, and looking
forward to a future and more perfect edition, cautioned his
readers with respect to the former, that " many thynges are
" lackynge, whiche necessaryly are requyred." And he
concluded — " count it as a thynge not havynge his full
" shape; but, as it were borne afore hys tyme; even as a
" thing begunne rather than fynneshed. In tyme to come
" {yf God have, appoynted us there unto) we will geve it

vi PREFACE.
" his full shape: and putt out yf ought be added super-
"fluusly; and adde to, yff ought be oversene thorowe
" negligence : and toill enfoarce to brynge to compendeous-
" ness, that which is nowe translated at the lengthe ; and to
" geve lyght where it is reqityred."
I had, at first, intended to reserve the matter of the
following pages for incorporation, into a future edition ofthe
work : but, when I considered the uncertainty of such a con
tingency at my advanced period of life, and the impropriety
of withholding, from the acquirers ofthe first edition, matter
of much importance ready prepared for their reception, I
thought it my duty to present it to them in the present Sup
plemental form. To this last course, I have been determined,
by the strictures of my censor in the ' British Critic or Theo-
' logical Review,' for July, 1837, No. 43, Art. I.1
2. This critic opens his article, by citing a position con
tained in my 'Expository Preface,' p. 17. § 15 : " It is a
" somewhat startling assertion of the author," he observes,
" that although we have, by public authority, a standard
" English version of the Bible,* yet there exists no standard
" Greek text for the original of that version; and yet,
" strange as it may appear, the assertion is one which it
" would be much easier to contradict, than to confute." The
assertion is rendered more ' startling,' by the admission of
Dr. Cardwell in the preface to his ' Gr. N. T.,' p. 6, just
now published ; that, " the authorised version does not appear
" to have been made from any edition whatever, uniformly."
The Theological Reviewer follows his citation of the pre
ceding passage, with some pages of words, in which he
neither attempts to ' contradict' or ' refute' the assertion, or
to draw any critical and practical inference from it ; but he
goes on to exercise his censorial judgments as unconcernedly
1 If that sanguine assailant had made his hostile demonstrations on his own
legs, I should not have deemed it necessary to revert to them in this new edition ;
but, as he has been ambitious 'eurru vehi ad Curiam' with the Theological
Reviewers, in order to secure for them an admission into all our public libraries,
I must, of necessity, endeavour to render my qualifications of them, co-extensive.
2 The words, ' ofthe Bible,' are here very idly added by the Reviewer, for, I
was speaking of the '¦New Covenant or Testament' only; as the context, and
the words ' Greek text,' sufficed to shew to every scriptural scholar, of ordinary
knowledge and circumspection.

PREFACE. vii
as if that great paramount fact had not been presented to his
intelligence, for its use. In taking cognizance of my
work, he does not assume the quality of a judge (ordinarily
affected by reviewers) ; he has preferably taken on himself
that of a different officer, which he deems more especially
called for, on this particular occasion ; an officer, of very
grave and important service in the administration of
affairs in the court of Rome. It is the duty of that high
functionary (who is popularly entitled in Rome, ' il Avvocato
' del Diavolo' — the Devil's Advocate), to employ all his
armoury of learning, ingenuity, and eloquence, in striving to
prevent the undue canonization of a new saint. Following
the rule of his canonical exemplar, this Theological Reviewer
employs all his armoury of words, ingenuity, and temper, in
striving to prevent the canonization, that is, the acceptation,
of my revision of the ' New Covenant.' That he does not
present himself to his reader in the capacity of a judge in
equity, is manifest, from his not noticing a single point in
which I have had the satisfaction of adding very materially
to his previous stock of textual knowledge ; but, only
apologises to him for not having produced a larger mass of
damnatory matter, of which, he states, " there remain abun-
" dant materials." " No sooner," observes Tyndale's bio
grapher, ''was the volume of his first edition ofthe English
" New Testament published, than the most extraordinary
" efforts were made to exterminate it." With this last example
to console me, it requires but little philosophy to sustain the
similar ' efforts ' renewed by such a critic as this Theological
Reviewer of our own day. There is one point, on which he
may confidently repose : that, if my work is founded on that
which is not the truth of Scripture, ' it will fall to pieces '
without the aid of his good offices ; but, if it has that for its
foundation, he may be well assured — ou dwarai %uru\u«a,i
avro, ' he cannot overthrow it.'
3. There are some persons, who rejoice to find it dark
when they wake from their first sleep, that they may relapse
into their former peaceful insensibility : — 'yet a little sleep,
' a little slumber ; a little folding of the hands to sleep.' The
same persons are disturbed and irritated, if they find that
they have slept till it is broad day-light, and that they must,

VH1 PREFACE.
perforce, rouse themselves and get up. They wake in the
mood ofthe Runic prophetess;
" Who is he, with voice unblest,
That calls me from the bed of rest ?
Unwilling I my eyes unclose :
Leave me, leave me to repose !"
Such are the mood and temper of mind of my awakened
and disturbed Reviewer.
When I said, in my former Preface, § 14, that we
" can sensibly discern, in the present state ofthe text and
" interpretations of the evangelical Scriptures, evidence of
" the continued operation of a moral cause analogous to the
" vis inertia? in physics," I had my eye on that particular
section of the Christian community, of which my reverend
opponent has appointed himself the Oracle and Champion.
If this Champion had been born to flourish in 1537, it is
evident, that he would have been a zealous and active
adherent to (what Hume called,) the ' ancient religion,' and
that he would have advocated as canonical, the ' apocryphal'
writings of the old Scriptures ; but, having been reserved for
the late period of 1837, and having been habituated to regard
those apocrypha as spurious, there remain none to obtain the
benefit of his protection and advocacy, but the apocrypha
and interpolations of the new Scriptures: towards which, he
displays the most filial reverence and attachment. In fact,
he regards them, not as extraneous impurities which have
invaded and attached themselves to the native record, but,
as affections of the record itself, and therefore claiming his
most reverential tenderness: "We should approach its very
" defects," he says, " as a son would approach the infirmities
" of a parent." I thank him, for his illustration. Fortu
nately, we have an example at hand, by which to try
the wisdom of this comparison. The example is afforded
in the conduct of the sons of Noah, on occasion of the
infirmity of their venerated parent : " they took a gar-
" ment, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of
" their father." But, if they had found, that some mis
chievous persons had bemired and disfigured their aged
parent during his infirmity, would they have merely * gone
' backward and covered him ' as he was ? Would not their
filial indignation have been roused; and would they not

PREFACE. ix
have employed immediate and effectual ablution of his per
son, before they covered it and left it? Not so, the pious
Reviewer : to judge by the analogy he has himself proposed
and authorised, he would have regarded the defilement as
sanctified by the contact, identified with the person, and
forming a part of the ' defects and infirmities of the parent,'
which ought to be studiously concealed. Such is the con
fusion of ideas, which ' inertia! prejudice ' has effected in the
mind of the Theological Reviewer.
4. But, if purgation of a corrupted text were granted to
be requisite and desirable, the Reviewer contends, that " the
' ' temper of the time is not propitious to the safe accomplish-
" ment of such a work." This wary critic is a nice timist ;
and recalls the Abbot of St. Godwin, who, pressed for charity
by a hungry and houseless pilgrim, while he was spurring
homeward for shelter from a storm of rain and thunder,
deemed it ' no time for charity.'
" An almes, sir prieste ! " the droppynge pilgrim saide : —
" Varlet !" replyd the abbatte, " cease your dinne !
This is no season almes and prayers to give ! " '
It is quite a new suggestion, that ' safety ' is to be a
governing condition, in diffusing the lights which are con
tinually accruing to illuminate the obscurities induced by
man, on the original lucidity ofthe Gospel text. The Re
viewer must, consistently, think that the 'temper ofthe time'
in the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius Csesar, was by no
means 'propitious to the safe promulgation of the gospel,' nor
that in the reign of Henry VIII., ' to the safe reformation of
' the Christian church ;' and certainly, he is fully borne out
by history : but, "  non defensoribus istis
Tempus eget."
I have always thought, that the proper time for increas
ing light, is when the candles want snuffing ; even, if we
should risk the burning our fingers in the operation. The
Reviewer, on the contrary, would have us patiently wait, in
the hope or expectation that the candles may, somehow or
other, snuff themselves; and thus he would wait, ' dum
Chatterton's ' Excellente Balade of Charitie.'

x PREFACE.
' defluat amnis,' till the stream of time has entirely run itself
out. As, however, we have now waited above two hundred
years, there can be no just impeachment oi precipitancy, if
we at length take up the snuffers for ourselves.
5. But, the Reviewer would by no means have them
touched by any single individual, nor by fewer in number
than "a whole synod of divines and scholars." How officious,
then, was the adventure of an individual Wiclif, or of an
individual Tyndale ! whose translations, nevertheless, con
stitute the basis and substance of our authorised version.
These personages, however, lie far beyond the horizon of
our critic's retrospective vision. 'King James's translators'
form an ' epocha of creation ' in his view of biblical criticism :
" Should it ever be thought advisable," he says, " to revise
" our version, a solemn and strict injunction should be given .
" to the persons intrusted with the task, to ask themselves
" this question — ' In what words would ' King James's trans-
' lators' have expressed the sense ? ' " And why should they
be solemnly enjoined to ask themselves this question? In
order to preserve " the racy archaism — and simple idiomatic
" diction ofthe olden time," which the Reviewer so judiciously
admires ; but, which are attributable to ' King James's trans-
' lators' just so much as, and no more than, the imagination
of the Iliad is attributable to Alexander Pope. This writer's
length of tether for critical expatiation, is not remarkable
for extent, and its substance is too tough to stretch ; and,
consequently, the cyclopaedia which it describes, is not all-
comprehensive. If he could have stretched his tether a little
further, so as to peep into the early part of the preceding
century, he would have found, in Tyndale's first edition, the
same ' racy archaism' and 'simple diction;' of which, King
James's divines were only the channels of transmission, and
which were innate in our language, before those vene
rable personages were born or thought of. " It is astonish-
" ing," observed Dr. Geddes, " how little obsolete the lan-
" guage of it {Tyndale's version) is, even at this day ; and, in
" point of perspicuity and noble simplicity, propriety of
" idiom, and purity of style, no English version has yet sur-
" passed it :" and he declared, " that if he had been inclined
" to make any prior English version the ground-work of his

PREFACE. xi
" own, it would certainly have been that of Tyndale."1 It
is told ofthe celebrated Piron, (who did not concern himself
much with the Bible ;) that, having opened it accidentally,
one day, in the prophecy of Habakkuk, and having read it
through (as it was short), he was so delighted with his dis
covery, that he questioned every one he met — Avez-vous lu
Habacuc? — Avez-vous lu Habacuc ? ' King James's translators '
are the ' Habacuc' ofthe Reviewer ; who has evidently con
cerned himself as little, with any earlier translators. But, let
us prove the test so ' solemnly and strictly enjoined ' by this
punctilious critic ; and let us inquire, in what words ' King
' James's translators' would have expressed the sense ofthe
Greek, yvugiZppiv bfhiv, in 2 Cor. viii. 1 ? We know, that they
would have rendered those words, " We do you to wit," be
cause we know, that they have actually so rendered them ;
or, at least, approved them, only correcting the more ancient
orthography : — or, the interpolated ov SoxS), in Luke, xvii. 9?
which they have rendered ' / trow.' Are we to be bound to
perpetuate these renderings?
But, there are some renderings, as in 2 Cor. iii. .7, 19
(Gr. 18), and v. 3, which strongly urge something more
than a suspicion, that' King James's translators' did not work
alone ; that the scholastic monarch, in virtue of his supreme
office of Head ofthe Church, deemed it to be both his right
and his duty to add, here and there, some finishing touches,
to the work of his reverend labourers. An opinion, that a
fact so probable was also real, is evidently implied in Crutt-
well's apologetical remark, in his preface to Bp. Wilson's
Bible (1785) : " Many are the characters to which posterity
" has been unjust : among them, the editor places that of
" King James the First, whose abilities seem to have been
" despised with much partiality, and little reason. That the
" learning of King James, and his judgment, when not de-
" praved by politicks, were truly respectable, the whole of
" this business will sufficiently evince." Could the royal
moderator, then, conscious of these endowments, have abso
lutely and altogether abstained from determining some points
in equipoise, by supplying a makeweight drawn from his
own " truly respectable learning?" — especially, as his Ma-
1 Abp. Newcome's Hist. View of Eng. Bibi. Translations, pp. 25, 26.

Xll PREFACE.
jesty's personal criticism contributed to cause the new revi
sion? "The kinganswered Dr. Reynolds, That Ae(King James)
" had never yet seen a Bible well translated; though he (King
" James) considered the Geneva translation as the worst."
(Abp. Newcome, ubi supra, p. 92.) Here the royal critic was
pleased, by one sweeping judgment, to pass his own sentence of
condemnation on the learned and valuable labours of Tyndale,
Coverdale, Matthew, Cranmer, and the following Bishops of
England ; in which judgment, if he has no other support, he
has virtually, at least, that of the professedly ' Theological'
Reviewer for July, 1837. But though, under his Majesty's
presidency, those earlier revisions undeniably acquired some
improvements, yet it is undeniable also, that they sustained
some very remarkable deteriorations. See after, Annot. to
2 Cor. iii. 7, 19, and v. 3 : after perusing which, the Re
viewer may find cause to extend his designation, to 'King
'James — with his translators.'
6. But, this critic still enforces his condemnation of any
revision of our version offered, " not upon the authority of a
" convocation of learned men, but solely upon the authority
" oi one individual!" Had he come better furnished for the
field, and better acquainted with men and things, he would
have known, that although ' a whole synod of divines and
' scholars — a convocation of learned men' — of our established
Church, should be unanimous on the readings of all texts
regarding the essential doctrines of Christian faith, yet, their
unanimity would cease there; and that they could never
bring their joint labours to a common result, unless by
mutual concessions and compromises on other points of
detail ; so that, though they might put forth a conventional
revision, they would never produce a minutely critical one.
7. " But," says the Reviewer, " even if a revision were
" clearly desirable:" — To whose standard of intellect, does he
here mean to appeal for decision ? Does this resigned victim
of inertial thraldom wish to restore the principle, that we may
not think, unless through the medium of a body of learned
divines? He may as well hope to call back the breeze that
has blown past him, as to recall those safe and soporous
days. The Apostle exhorts, "Standfast in the freedom with

PREFACE. Xiii
"which Christ hath made us free." Are we to renounce that
'freedom,' which the Reformation recovered for us, because
others " use it for a cloke of evil?" One degree of unfettered
common sense, exercised for ten minutes on the facts, must
clearly discern, that it ' is desirable.' For, what are the
facts? — namely, that between the dates of Tyndale's first
edition, in 1525, and King James's, in 1611, four successive
revisions were published by authority, according as the
progress of the Reformation opened new stores of manuscript
documents ; thus giving a new revision, at the rate of one in
every 22 years, during the 86 years that intervened be
tween those two dates. Whereas, during the 225 years
which have elapsed from 161 1 (within which interval a far
greater multitude of manuscript documents, and among
them those of greater authority, from their greater antiquity,
have been disclosed to the Christian world), no new re-
visional correction has been undertaken, by public authority;
and, the fruits of all those disclosures, have remained unim-
parted to the mere English reader. Does the Theological
Reviewer think, that King James's revision was, by its na
ture, a final measure, with respect to any further emendation
or elucidation of the sacred text? If he does, he betrays a
dulness below zero in the scale of judgment; if he does not,
I leave to him to give a name to the desire and effort to
impress so false an opinion on the unlearned majority of
English readers. It would be, strictly, ' to take away the
1 key of knowledge: not to enter in ' one's self, and not to
' suffer those who are willing to enter, to go in.'
8. In proceeding to his strictures on my volumes, the
Reviewer's first objection is to the title, ' the New Covenant;'
against which he has nothing to allege, further than that
the title 'New Testament' has, for so many ages, been in
possession ofthe " public eye and ear:" an objection, stamped
with the seal of inertial prejudice ; for, it had never the
sanction of the reason. Are we to believe him so entirely
inerudite as not to know, that, during those ages, many of
the most learned scholars throughout Christendom have
concurred in calling that sacred volume 'Novum Fcedus
'{New Covenant),' instead of ' Novum Testamentum?' As
suredly he does not know, that Tyndale himself, in the

Xiv PREFACE.
prologue to his edition printed in 1534, says, "Here thou
" hast {moost deare reader) the New Testament, or Cove-
" naunte, made with us of God, in Christe's bloude." It
was only euvn^uc/, rou ubuXov — ' through custom of the idol'
(1 Cor. viii. 8), that is, through the long-inured practice of
the Latin Church, that Tyndale adopted the former deno
mination for his title-page, instead of the latter. But, we
have been long enough disused from the practices of that
Church, to be any longer, under any of its influences.
9. His next objection, is to the/or^ of my revision : " It
" appears," he observes, " in a volume by itself. — It would
" have been more modest, and infinitely more useful, if the
" authorised text had been printed in its integrity; and if
" the altered text had been introduced, either at the foot of
" the page, or {what might have been still better) in columns
" parallel with the authorised text." This solemn effort of
excerebration pertains to that branch of sagacity which
Bishop Heber aptly called, 'absurd wisdom:' " Abdallah
" worried me a great deal — talking all sorts of absurd
" wisdom." For, to tell an author who professes to write
for the especial purpose of ' separation,' that he ought to
have written for the purpose of ' conjunction,' can only per
tain to the head of absurd wisdom, if it is to be brought
under any head of ' wisdom ' at all. The reverend mathe
matician's new infinitesimal, is too subtle for my appre
hension ; but, if he will only place a copy of my revision
near his copy of the authorised version, he can have the
former ' at the foot ' of the latter, or in a ' column parallel
1 with it,' according as he may choose to collocate the two
books. And he will then be sensible of this advantage,
resulting from the former being ' a volume by itself;' that, if
he should be instigated to put my revision into the fire, he
need not make an auto dafe of the authorised version, in the
same combustion : which will shew the ' infinite utility'' to
be on the side of separation, rather than on that of conjunc
tion. He is, certainly, not very expert at finding resources.
10. The Reviewer, feeling himself in a field wholly new
and strange to him, and for which he had made no previous
exercise of preparation, starts with dismay, at the suggestion

PREFACE. xv
of spurious and apocryphal passages being incorporated into
the text of the 'New Covenant.' He cannot receive the idea,
that in so sacred a consociation any thing can possibly have
entered, that can justify the inquiry, nu; u<sr{kfos t»8s, w i^w
ivdv/ta, yu(i,ov; — 'How earnest thou in hither, not having on a
' wedding garment ? ' Yet, many such intruders have made
their entrance ; and the same causes and opportunities that
procured them admission into the old Scriptures, existed and
acted with enlarged facilities for their admission into the
new : during the darkness of the middle ages, whose manu
script copies have chiefly supplied the commonly received
text. The Reviewer, therefore, can only exclaim, " with no
" small astonishment and consternation — we find, in the
' revision,' not merely noted as doubtful, but omitted as
" clearly spurious and apocryphal, not only the woman taken
" in adultery, the descent of the angel to trouble the waters of
" Bethesda, but, the bloody sweat of the Saviour, which is
" dismissed ' as an unskilful attempt at embellishment;' and
" his dying prayer on the cross, which is also discarded, as
" the work of some weakly- pious philoponist !" Which
mode of critical refutation, by innuendo, possesses just the
same efficacy now, that it did in the days of Galileo, when
they exclaimed — ' He says, the sun does not move round the
' earth!' Or, in the days of Ridley and Latimer, ' He denies
' transubstantiation, and the supremacy of the Pope ! ' The
reverend critic displays excessive ardency of zeal for our
' national translation' ofthe Christian Scriptures ; imploring
for it equal veneration, as for the British Constitution: a
singular example of the bathos — from ' the sacred,' to ' the
' secular.' " We should not mangle it," he very truly and pa
thetically remarks (after Burke), " and toss it into a caldron
" of magicians, to regenerate and reproduce it in a newer and
" better form :" — /«j yevoiro — ¦' Heaven forbid !' But, the
Knight of La Mancha saw giants and enchanters, where
every one else saw only windmills.
1 1 . Not to detain the reader any longer, by tracing the
lines and parallels by which the Reviewer advances to the
assault of my works, I shall bring him at once to the point
where the assailant begins to open his batteries in detail.
" There remains," he says, " a very ungracious part of Our

XVI PREFACE.
" task to be performed, namely, the exhibition of some spe-
" cimens of criticism, which have raised up, within Us, cer-
" tain 'saucy doubts and fears,' relative to the soundness and
" accuracy of Our critic's scholarship, to say nothing of his
" taste. Our examples will be taken almost at random :
" and We shall begin with his experiments on the Greek verb,
" umxu." I acknowledge the ingenuity of his device, in
endeavouring to explode a mine under all my criticisms at
once, by issuing his general 'caveat' against my scholarship
and taste. There is also something magisterial, in the tone
with which he introduces it. But, at the same time, it
was no friendly star that prompted his confidence to pitch
on the verb aitzya, for summoning the attention of the
learned world, in the first instance, to bear testimony to the
' soundness and accuracy of his own experiments' If, how
ever, he has no objection to their arbitration, I cannot have
any. I therefore invite the reader's attention, in the fol
lowing 'Annotations,' not only to our respective experiments
on the verb airex">, but, also, to all the other passages in
which I have been so unfortunate as to experience the result
ofthe Reviewer's censorial condemnation ; viz. —
ccti%w. Matt. vi. 2. tyx^urua. Acts, xxiv. 23, 24.
$ia.^iTa.t — $ou.Tu.i, xi. 12. vraititrtxi — ymirSat. xxvi. 28.
truti lUrfts  t/v uvms. xvi. 13 (Gr. 18.) ttmiqyu. Rom. viii. 28.
i nits — tios. Mark, xv. 32 (Gr. xiii.) ijyav — xai'1, x'- 6.
vr^wi. xviii. 2 (Gr. xvi.) nXmp.ivos — nXn^ius. 1 Cor. vii. 25.
xaraXa/Aliava. John, i. 5. a.Ko\ov6ovws. jl. 3 (Gr. 4.)
ui.Xu. xix. 34. iiu n/tcu — ii' mo/iov. Gal.ii.20(Gr. 19.)
tXaxwri. Acts, i. 18. vr£i>iirrnitlai. Tit. iii. 8.
iJi|«« — egsAslaro. vii. 39 (Gr. 38.) xaim — X"i"- Heb. ii. 9.
12. The active progress in ascertaining the genuine text,
which distinguished the first century from the Reformation,
appears to have become spell-bound amongst us ; — from the
date of King James's version, for the English text, and from
that of Mill's collation of R. Stephen's text, for the Greek.
From those dates, both texts have stagnated with us, in
England; and, though the contributary streams have flowed
freely around us, yet, some accumulation has plainly formed
itself, which prevents those waters from entering our home
reservoir. Three works, of valuable learning and labour, have been
recently bestowed on the world, for the pious purpose of

PREFACE. xvii
advancing the youth of England in a knowledge of the
original oracles of the Christian Scriptures ; Bloomfield's,
Trollope's, and Cardwell's Gr. New Testaments ; but I find,
with concern and disappointment, that those learned la
bours have been almost entirely devoted to the perpetua
tion of the stagnant and imperfect texts to which I have
referred. I am quite aware, of the reverential principle
which has induced all these learned editors to preserve, the
numerous defects of those texts collectively; yet, if many of
the passages were proposed to them separately, the same
learned persons would Avithdraw, in particular cases, the
protection which they afford to them in their consociated
form. Thus for example, I am sure that in a separate disquisition,
none of them would venture to maintain the received reading,
which they all have nevertheless printed, in their texts of
Luke, iii. 23 ; tav, wg evof/iifyro, uiog I&jffjjp tou HX/ — ' being, as he
"was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of HeU:' against the
most ancient reading, fiN TIOS, n2 ENOJVIIZETO TOT m2H<j>,
TOT HAI — ' being the son {whilst he was supposed of Joseph)
' of HeU;' — when they shall have duly considered, 1. that
the latter reading possesses the most ancient authority; viz.
the princeps surviving copy of the Vatican, attested by
Bentley and Birch, and corroborated by the evidence of Ori
gen; followed by the MSS. L, 1, 33, 118, 131, 209, cited by
Wetstein, Schulz, and Scholz, and the Vat. 360, and Ven.
10, collated also by Birch ; which testimonies, were unknown
to our English translators. 2. that dig is commonly employed
by Luke, as the dig temporalis: (iElian, V. H. lib. xii. 1,
cited by Hoogeveen, says — wg ri\h irgog Kugov ^ Atfa-ac/a, itu%iv
uiro ouitvov oiv. so we are to understand St. Luke — dig evofiifyro
rou Iwtrjjp, zrv%i tou HX; uiog m') 3. that our Lord was not the
son of Joseph, as vulgarly supposed at the time, but was the
son of Maby, whom the existing documents of the Jewish
nation record to have been the daughter o/*Heli (see the
former Annott. to Luke, iii. 24) : 4. that it, thus, entirely
rectifies the confusion and depravation which the later and
vulgar text introduced, and which continues until now.
The same critical argument applies equally to the ad
verse readings in Hebrews, ix. 2, where the most ancient
b

xvm PREFACE.
reading ofthe Vatican, is in strict conformity with the record
of Moses ; but the common reading, (which we receive as it
were mechanically,) is in direct contradiction to it.
The same observation is to be extended to many other
texts, to be hereafter pointed out ; all which clearly com
bine, to demonstrate the essential difference between a
Conventional, and a Critical Text.
GRANVILLE PENN.

Stoke Park, Bucks,
1841.

I.

HISTORY OF THE GOSPEL.

MATTHEW

("GOSPEL, WRITTEN IN HEBREW,
\ TRANSLATED INTO GREEK.

MARK and PETER

GOSPEL, IN GREEK.

JOHN  GOSPEL, IN GREEK.

LUKE and PAUL

GOSPEL, IN GREEK.
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, IN GREEK.
GREEK VERSION OF PAUL'S EX
POSITION TO THE HEBREWS IN
V ROME.

SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS.

ST. MATTHEW.

CHAPTER II.
Ver. 16. of two years old, and somewhat under.] uko
(Ihtou; y.ai xuroiTigta : — Pollux, lib. i. c. 7, § 54, under the
head, xaigav ovopara., %at j/gonaiv — ' names of seasons and times,'
or periods, says: irog, du8exa/j,rivog %£0vos — iif/,iirig, xai jj/wsrjjs
Xgovoj, xai diirrig, iug ag dexairrig. — tin /j,w xgovou, nsago^unrai,
iiri hi xaidiou, o^wirai — ' erog, a year, is a period of twelve
' months : injjiiri\g, a period of half a year ; so oWjjj, of two
' years; which form is continued to dixairrig, oi ten years.
' When durrig is applied to time, the acute accent lies on the
' penultimate syllable ; when applied to the child, it is laid
' on the last syllable.' Pollux spoke only of enunciation, not
of writing, for, written language was not then marked for
accent {Exp. Pref. p. 67) ; and, as our most ancient MSS.
of the Gr. Scriptures are not accented, we cannot appeal to
them to determine, whether Huroug is here to be interpreted
of time, or oi person. But, as Herod's inquiry was directed
to a definite point of time {' the time when the star had
' appeared,' ver. 7), I must maintain, that sound interpreta
tion directs us to understand, aiso diiroug (^gorau), xara. rov xgotov,
&c. i. e. ' two years from that time,' to intend, ' a period of
' two years ;' notwithstanding Dr. Bloomfield's remark. It
is true, that when applied to age, the number of the current
year was often loosely assigned ; thus they said, ' in the second
' year, or two years ;' but, when the number is applied as a
measure of time, it intends completeness of that measure :
and xarungu, shews hiTiiug to be used with a definite sense,
as rgivrovg x.ui mam — three years old and upward, in

4 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. II.
2 Chron. xxxi. 16. For xurtaregw — 'somewhat under, or
' below,' see the former Annotations, p. 125. I have there
shewn, that xarcongw is (if I may so speak) diminutive of
xarw. In 1 Chron. xxvii. 23, we read, a*o tixogaiTovg *<*/
xa,Tu, where xaru, in the positive, denotes, ' all below twenty
' years :' xarun^o), in the comparative, reduces that extent,
and signifies ' somewhat below ' two years. It fully appears,
from the history, that Herod's object was, to compute the
exact age of his intended victim; and, that his sanguinary
caution caused him ' somewhat ' to extend the calculation ; but
there is no ground, beyond traditional imagination, to 'justify
' tke received opinion of the extent of his barbarity.' (Trollope.)
And, this fact may serve to explain further, why no express
record of this local act of cruelty is found in the contem
porary writers. It was fully sufficient, to verify the prophecy
of Jeremiah to the Jewish nation ; but, not of sufficient mag
nitude to prompt a heathen historian to record it, in an age
too familiar with scenes of sanguinary atrocity : as in the case
of ' the Galileans, whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacri-
' fices ;' (Luke, xiii. 1); an incident, unnoticed by historians.
All the hypothetical arguments exercised with a view to
detect the precise time of the appearance of the sidereal
indication of the Saviour's birth, from astronomical records,
have been a pure waste of ingenious imagination. We have
seen {Annot. p. 122,) that the Eastern travellers were
conducted by it to his dwelling, not at Bethlehem, but at
Nazareth; and it was very probable, that those strangers
would not be summoned to his presence, until he had attained
the stage of wakeful notice, which is acquired at the age of
two years,
Ver. 23. in the city called Nazareth.] Na^agsr: — The
received- text and our authorised English version, add here
another clause : bwoig irXrigaify to prjfav dia rm TTPOpriroiv, on Na£w-
ga/os xXtiSridirai — ' that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
' the prophets, He shall be called a Nazorcean.' A sentence of
the same import, is found in Luke, ii. 39, in the very ancient
MS. D, or oi' Beza:' — xaScog eggrjQri dia, rou irgotpyrou, on Na£wgafl>5
xXrifygirai — 'as it is said by tke prophet, that he shall be called
' a Nazoraan.' No such passage exists, in. any part of the
Old Scriptures ; wherefore, in the margin of the Syriac MS.,

Chap. II. MATTHEW. 5
Assem. I., it is noted by Birch (to Matt. ii. 23, p. 9, N. T.)
— "in margine Cod. Assem. I. monetur, haec sumta esse e libro
" ignoto ; licet S. Efrem ea ad Jes. xi. 1. referre velit." We
know, from unequivocal testimony, that St. Matthew wrote
his gospel in his own native Hebrew, for the instruction of
his Jewish countrymen.1 " Matthew compiled his gospel in
" the Hebrew language ; which every one translated as he
" was able." This is the witness of Papias, an auditor of
John the evangelist— llamas lwawov axoverrig. — Pantcenus, a
contemporary of the former, bears testimony also to Mat
thew's Hebrew gospel, which he carried into India. Clemens
of Alexandria, the disciple of Pantsenus, bears testimony to
the same original; so also Irenaeus, and Origen, in the
second century. (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. pp. 116, 138, 219, 223,
290.) Matthew could not have confounded, in his native
tongue, two words which had no relation common to each
other ; but, the similarity of two words were very easily to be
confounded by a foreigner (such as was the Greek translator
of the original Hebrew), who has supplied the augmentation
of the concluding verse 23, ofthe received and authorised text;
• which demonstrates its spuriousness. I have no hesitation,
therefore, to reject that self-convicted philoponism. — It will
be well here to observe, that the form Nafygaiog, is found
only in Matthew and John, and Nk^^wis, only in Mark and
Luke: as, in a similar manner, the form 'isgoutfaX^u, is found
only in the Gospel of Luke ; but, in the other three, is uni
formly written 'isgotfoXu/ia. By which fact is shewn, that as
the passage in Matthew, xxiii. 37, containing the form 'Iigou-
6ah.r\jh, is an interpolation drawn from Luke, xiii. 36, so, both
the two passages, now found in the Greek translation of Mat
thew's Hebrew original, have been surreptitiously introduced.
(See the following Annot. to Mark, xiii. 1, and Luke, xiii.
36.) The elaborated annotation of Bengel to the word Na^si-
ga/os in this place, who was not aware of the change which
the text had sustained in its translation from the Hebrew

1 The following contumacious position of an intemperate author, would have
been better withheld : " ^so many books in Greek, why not all ? It seems to
" have been prejudice, which first made men fancy it was likely that those two
" books {Matthew and Hebrews) should be first written in Hebrew, and thence
" conclude that they were so."  (Hey's Lectures, &c. vol. i. p. 28.) The writer
would have more prudently suppressed, either this paragraph, or Au own name.

6 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. III.
original; and those of Burton, Bloomfield, Trollope, and of
all others ; are superseded at once by the direct internal
evidence, that the whole concluding clause was an unskilful
philoponism of the Greek translator: who erroneously con
ceived, that va£/g {vugigaiog, vifygaiog), Jud. xiii. 5, ' Nazarite,'
or ' one bound under a certain vow ;' and ' Nazarine ' or ' Naza-
' raan,' or ' a native ofthe city Nazareth,' had the same signi
fication ; and who, under that error, devised his imaginative
super addition. (See, Trommii Concord. Gr. ad Septuag.
lnterpr. vol. ii. p. 62, foi.)

CHAPTER III.
Ver. 4. his food was locusts, &C.J ?i rgopjj rjv aurou axgt&ig
— It is remarkable, that although in Lev. xi. 22, the
' locust and its kind ' are specially named as lawful arti
cles of food, and although they are, to this day, used as
such, in the countries of scriptural geography (Shaw's Tra
vels, p. 256, foi.) ; yet, we never find them again mentioned
in Scripture, as applied to that use, by any one but by John
the Baptist. The Sept. render, by the common appel
lation of axyg, the Hebrew name of several varieties of
insects ; but, that which is specified in Lev., is the nans,
' locusta,' from roi, ' multum esse.' (Castell. Lex.) Strabo
(torn. ii. p. 1118) describes the simple process by which
these insects were prepared, for present and future suste
nance, by the Arabs : " These people," he says, "live on the
" locusts which the W. and S.W. winds blow in the spring,
" with great violence, into those countries. They place
" smoky fuel in their valleys, which they slightly kindle;
" and the swarms of locusts flying over, are blinded by the
" smoke, and fall down. They then collect and salt them,
" and preserve them for use." See Bochart's Hieroz. lib. iv.
c. 4, p. 480 ; and c. 7, p. 487, where he established, in 1692,
his position, " Joh. Bapt. veras locustas habuisse pro cibo,"
against his learned contemporary, Sir Norton Knatchbull,
and other ingenious expositors, who conjectured, that axgig
intended here a vegetable, not an animal substance ; namely,
what is called the ' locust-bean.' Knatchbull found a diffi-

Chap. III. MATTHEW. 7
culty in supposing, that the Baptist was able to prepare the
animal food in the desert — " quarum artium ulla, vix credere
" est usum fuisse Baptistam in deserto ;" or, that he would
encounter the labour of doing so, and of hunting for the
insects — " et utrum laboris tcedium in arefaciendo coram sole,
" vel in venando vel in aucupando, sumpserit." But, the
order of Providence brought the swarms of insects to his
hand, by millions, without other labour than the kindling the
smoke of some half-dried wild vegetation ; and the ' Head
'Sea' was close at hand, to supply him with its salt : " The
" Arabs make pits at the side of the lake, which are filled
" by its overflow on the melting of the snow ; and, when
" the lake is lower, the water evaporates, and leaves a cake
" of salt : — the country, for a considerable distance, is sup-
" plied with it for common use." (Pococke, vol. ii. p. 36.)
Bloomfield shews from Arisioph. Acharn. 1116, Brunck. (1129,
Invernez.) that locusts were accounted a 'mean food' by
the Greeks ; but I do not find, in either of those editions, the
' Schol.' to which this learned annotator refers. It was, on
account ofthe ' meanness' ofthe diet, that it is here commemo
rated by the Evangelist. (See this question, determined also
for the animal locust, in Elliott's ' Travels' in Palestine.)
Ver. 15. accomplish the whole of justification.] The
phrase, 'fulfil all righteousness,' given by Wiclif from the
Latin ' implere omnem justitiam ;' and copied from him, by
all the succeeding translators and revisers, demonstrates
the embarrassment which the English rendering has caused
to them all. It is the same with the Latin translation.
Euthymius approached much nearer to the true sense with
' his Greek, when he paraphrased thus : — outoi wgiiru poi i:\rt-
goxSai iradav ivroXrjv dia rou fianritsbrpai, ha — rrig ira\ai xarabixrtg
iym vuv avu\Xa%to rovg i% if&ou. — ' Thus it becomes me to fulfil
' every commandment, by submitting to baptism; that I may
'release my (people) from their ancient condemnation:' —
that is, (as more briefly rendered here) — * Thus it becometh
' us, to accomplish the whole of justification.'
The learned Cave thus betrays the equivocation with
which these two words {justification — righteousness) were
used by our early EngUsh divines. " In the first three
" chapters of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, having

8 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. III.
" proved at large that the ' whole world,' both Jew and
"Gentile, were under a state of guilt, and consequently,
" liable to the divine sentence and condemnation ; he comes
" next to inquire, by what means they may be delivered
"from this state of vengeance; and shews, that it could not
" be by legal observances ; but that, now, there is a way of
' righteousness or justification' declared by Christ in the
" gospel, extending to all, both Jews and Gentiles : whereby
" God, with respect to the satisfaction and expiation of
" Christ, is ready freely to pardon and justify all penitent
" believers ; that therefore, there was a way revealed in the
" gospel, whereby a man might be justified, without being
" beholden to the rites of the Jewish law." {Life of St.
Paul, % 10.) — Karadixyg avaXXasanv, to ' reprieve after sen-
' tence of judgment given,' was conventionally expressed by
the apostles, bixaioewri ; to convey which sense, the first Latin
Christian writers devised the word, ' justi-^zco ' — i. e. ' make-
' guiltless' (Tertull. ad Marc. iv. 18.) It is manifest, that the
quality of absolute and essential guiltlessness or innocence, is
widely different from the former ; yet, those qualities are un
warily confounded , as if they were synonymous, in that position
of the learned Cave : which is, also, that of the ' eleventh
' article of Faith, of our Church.' I must therefore take leave
to insist, (notwithstanding the denial of two learned modern
divines,) that the proper signification oidixaioewn in this place,
and generally throughout the evangelical Scriptures, is (as
was asserted by the pre-eminent theologian named in my
first Annotation, Bishop Bull,) " altogether forensic, or of
" legal adjudication ; and intends, release from the guilt, and
" consequent penalty, of Sin:" — ' for, all have sinned; but
' are justified freely by grace.' (Rom. iii. 23,24.) There is
the same relation to the terms 'justice and justification,' as
to those oi rectitude and rectification: — " rectitude, is strait-
" ness, not curvity ; rectification, is the act of setting right
" what was wrong." (Johnson.) Righteousness and recti
tude, have the same ultimate signification ; and so, also,
justification, and rectification have the same ultimate sig
nification. If, then, two such different imports {righteousness
and justification) be used as synonymous, the references drawn
from them must necessarily be vicious, that is, false. (See
after, Annot. to Rom. vi. 16-23.)

Chap. IV. MATTHEW.

CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 13. sea-coast in the borders of Zeb. &c.J vagaSaXaa-
eiav iv ogioig Ze/3. &c. : — This description, only denotes the
western line of coast of the sea or lake of Tiberias; which
formed the eastern boundaries, both of Zebulun and Naph-
tali. Some ancient maps give the whole of the W. coast
to Naphtali, contrary to the statement in Josh. xix. 11,
" the border of Zebulun went up to the sea," i. e. of Tiberias
or Gennesaret: (not the 'great sea,' or 'Mediterranean,' as is
shewn in ver. 15; the tribe of Asher, extending from Tyre
to Carmel, south, separated Zebulun from the 'great sea,' as
is duly laid down in D'Anville's map.)
Ver. 15. Zebulun, and Naphtali, on the way of the sea,
&C.J {xaff) odov {rrig) SaXaddrig {sig to) srsgav tov logdavou, i. e.
' along the sea or lake-road, to the passage ofthe Jordan ;' in
other words, 'from Nazareth to Capernaum;' which district,
constituted the Galilee here mentioned. For, Nazareth was
in Zebulun ; and Capernaum, was situated at the eastern
point of Naphtali where the Jordan enters the sea or lake
of Tiberias. The ancient prophecy thus, minutely, described
the first theatre of our Lord's public ministry: " Topogra-
" phia prophetica mirabilis," observes Bengel ; " latitudine
" et longitudine ad punctum conveniente."
Ib. to the Jordan.] All our English versions, from
Wiclif to James I., have erroneously rendered the Greek
srsgav rou logduvov — beyond the Jordan ; following the first, or
Latin translator, who rendered, ' trans Jordanem.' I there
fore left the received term, ' beyond,' in my former text, until
I could ascertain the principle by which the word irigav
ought, on all occasions, to be interpreted. This word,
standing alone, has caused a perplexity to the commentators
and annotators of all ages, which has not a little confounded
the topographical history of the gospel ; some writers as
suming the word to signify only, 'trans, ultra — beyond,'
whilst others contended, that it signified also, ' cis — on this
' side.' (See Parkhurst's Lex., new edition.)
1. Danim {Lex. p. 1972), speaking after Eustathius, says,

10 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. IV.
" tngat {Ion. irignv), proprie est accusativus ab ^ ir%ga — eadem
" quse ii sgu, )j yti — per ellipsin, xara rr\v vsgai/ vel tig thiv <xigwi;
" et notat, am twv svrauSa eig Try ixeifav avTixgu yrjv — ' ab hisce
" ' locis in terram inde e regione sitam.' " The word is of
comparatively rare occurrence in the classical writers.
2. In the sacred Greek writers, of both Scriptures, it is
of frequent occurrence, both with and without ellipsis. The
Sept. use it about 80 times : of these, 48 times with the
prepositions ano, ev, ex, ag, expressed, and the remainder, with
ellipsis of the prepositions. The Evangelists employ Tiguv
23 times ; 1 1 times with the prepositions ag, dia, the remain
ing times elliptically ; but, all these use irtgav as an adverb,
with the neuter article to, when the preposition is expressed ;
not as an accusative case, with the feminine article, as Damm
exemplifies : " the accusatives irigav and <xigr\v, observes Eusta-
" thius, passed into adverbs — tig imggrj/iUTa to, mgrst xai
fttgav /Jiiriirsdsv." p. 1475, 42.
3. But, these last Hellenistic writers used it with a differ
ent acceptation from that assigned to it by Damm ; they used
it with the sense ofthe Heb. "op, -opo — biafiaeig — ' transitus —
' alveus — passage, ford, or bed of a river (' transitttm ponti-
' ' culo conjungere — to join the opposite banks by a bridge.'
' Cic. Tusc. v. 59); so that, ug to aigav signified ad transitum;
' dia tou -rigav — per transitum; ev rui wigav — in transitu; aim
' tou «iguv — e transitu.' When, therefore, ireguv is found
alone, it is elliptical of one or other of those directing
prepositions, and its intention is manifested by the tenor of
the context.
In the citation from Isaiah before us, which describes the
extremity of the tribe of Naphtali, whose " outgoings were
" at Jordan" (Josb. xvii. 9), the ' motus ad locum'' indicated
by odo>, directs us to understand, eig to «egu» — ' along the sea-
' road, to the channel, or bed of the Jordan, or simply, to the
' Jordan] which formed the S.E. limit of Naphtali ; not,
' beyond' Jordan. So, in ch. xix. 1, where our version also
renders ' beyond,' and the Greek has only iri^av, we are to
understand ng to vsgav, which constituted tu 6gia T^g lovbaiag.
Mark, xi. 1 (Gr. x. 1), says, dia tou — ' by or along the
' course or bank ofthe Jordan,' which formed the eastern
boundary of Judea; by pursuing which line, our Lord arrived
at Jericho : not ' beyond,' or ' on the other side,' which was ' not

Chap. V. MATTHEW. 1 1
' in the borders of Judea.' By rendering irigav, ' ultra,' in this
place, the Latin translator entailed a prescriptive perversion
of topographical history on all the ages that followed him.
The theatre of the Baptist's functions, was the * wilderness of
' Judea ; ' the whole of which lay on the west side of the
Jordan. So, ch. v. 3 (Gr. iv. 25), and in the corresponding
passage, Mark, iii. 8, migav is governed by ano, and we are
to understand, airo tou irtgav — 'from the boundary of the Jor-
' dan. In John, i. 28, zv BnSaviq itegav tou logd., oirou riv Icoav.,
we are to understand, iv toi irigav — ' in or at the passage of
' tke Jordan:' so, in John, iii. 26 ; but, in ch. x. 40, airrjXfov
irtgav tou logd. ng tov tokov, we are plainly to understand,
ug to irigav. St. John is the only evangelist that always
omits the preposition. In ch. vi. 1, and 17, we are to
understand, dia tou iregav : in vv. 22, 25, iv tuj irigav : in
ch. xviii. 1, dia tou irigav. In Luke, viii. 26, ug ti\v x,wzav
Tcav Tigagqvuv {rec. Tadagri'Jtuv1) ijTig tgTiv avrnrigav rqg VaXiXaiag,
we are to understand by avTiiregav, not ' over against Galilee ;'
but, ' the opposite coast of Galilee,' both which opposite
coasts Josephus (B. J. iii. 3) expressly states, were included
in the territory of Galilee. — avniroieigiSai toiv iregav itgayfiaToiv
(Polyb. iii. 97): " citeriora et ulteriora," Steph. Thes. Gr.

01

CHAPTER V.
Ver. 6. beggars'm spirit.] vtuxoi: — I have shewn, in the
former Annot., on the authority of Tertullian, that irrux
here signifies ' mendici — beggars' So Eustathius, p. 1782,
10. irrcuxiuav, iv taw rw iitaiTiiv — irTuxiuav, is equivalent to
' to ash;' also, p. 1833, 54. irTcaxog, 6 eiraiTtig, itwr\g cie 6 xliffl
irovou/jiivog, xai outco diagw — ' the irroixog {beggar) is one who
' asks; but the irivrjg {poor) is one who works with his hands,
' and so gains his living.' Suicer, who loved to expound by
the Greek ofthe Lower Empire, 2 says, " ktoix^ proprie est,
"A aito irXourou xaTiXSoiv tig tvdtiav — itTuyps is> properly, one
1 See former Annot. to Matt. viii. 28, p. 140.
2 So called from the French, 'Le Bas Empire :' " On appelle Le Bas Em-
" jure, le temps de la decadence de l'Empire Romain,qui commence a Vale'rien."
Diet, de l'Acaii. Fr.

12 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VI.
" who has fallen from wealth to indigence:" for which defi
nition he only quotes a ' Code of Ordinances' ofthe Lower
Greek Emperors — " Ut habetur ad Basil. Coisar. regul.
" brev. resp. ad Interrog." 262, p. 630.— With such au
thority we have no concern.
Ver. 33. should go into hell.] The Vatic, copy, thus
reads this clause, ug yimnv airiXfy, as does the D, and some
other anc. versions : the multitude of later copies, have
repeated the clause of the preceding verse ; betraying the
carelessness of after copyists.
Ver. 51. your heavenly Father.] 6 iearrig i/*wv 6 ougamg:
Vatic, and D, MSS., and others, read thus; and do not
repeat, tv ougamg, from ver. 48 (Gr. 45), as in the rec. Gr.
text, or K. James's revision (of our common translation).
It cannot be too often enforced, that our knowledge of the
most ancient testimonies of the primitive text, has been
acquired since the year 1611, when that monarch was an
active agent in producing our present authorised version.
(See the following Annott. to 2 Cor. c. iii. and v.)

CHAPTER VI.

Ver. 2. are far from their reward] or, '¦put away the
' reward from them' — aietxwe' rov f^'^ov {air) auToiv — as in
Jer. V. 25, airigrrjoav tu ayuDa a<p' upuv. The Theological
Reviewer's manifested unacquaintance of the. philological
history, and genuine signification of the verb airix1" (see
Preface), will oblige me to extend this annotation far beyond
my first design ; since he is more anxious to retain the
particular terms used by ' K. James's translators,' than to
ascertain the true import of the words used by our Lord.
I had stated, that the genuine and primitive sense of
mrsp, was ' averto, procul terteo, disto, absum.' The reviewer
admits, that "some such transitive sense" (he does not in-:
quire how or why?) " does, undoubtedly, belong to it, when
" used to signify the action of one person with reference to

Chap. VI. MATTHEW. 13
" others ;" but he objects, with much derision, that I have
ascribed to airsx^ " the same transitive force, when used to
" denote the action of a person with reference to himself:"
and he concludes — " Never till now did we hear it ques-
" tioned, that airo gives to the transitive verb ix°>> in compo-
" sition with it, only a more full and ' emphatic' sense : syja
" implies possession, simply ; airexw signifies, that the pos-
" sessor has received in full, from the proper quarter, what-
" ever was due or expected — that he has carried off with
" him the whole of what was intended for him." It is easy
to shew the source, from which the Theol. Reviewer has
helped himself to this elaborated, but fallacious, definition of
the verb am^w. He has evidently taken it, without acknow
ledgment, almost verbatim, from the convenient ' Thesaurus'
of Suicer, first printed in 1682; who, in his turn, took it
verbatim, also without acknowledgment, from Thomas Gata-
ker's Annotation to the word amx^h subjoined to his ' Marcus
'Antoninus,' first printed in 1652 ; by which processes we
may learn, how freely learned critics sometimes deal with their
brethren's critical property — e. g. :
Suicer, 1682. Gataker, 1652.
airixw- ainxilv-
"  phrasis emphatica est, qua non "  phrasis emphalica, qua non
milium ilium, quod quispiam assecutus tanturn sunm, quod est assecutus quis-
est, indicatur ; sed ita id omne, quod piam, iiiilicatur ; sed ita id omne, quod
suum ducit, plenum et integrum asse- suum ducit, plenum et integrum asse
cutus, ut iu eo plane acquiescat, nee cutus, ut in eo plane acquiescat, nee
quicquam amplius requirat, utpote quicquam amplius requirat, utpote
qui illud sibi sufficere existimat. Unde qimm illud sibi sufficere existimat.
recte Theopbylactus in cap. vi. Matth." Ita Matt. vi. ver. 25 ; Luc. ch. vi. ver.
&c. (torn. i. p. 434, ed. 1746.) ¦ 24, interpretatur Tbeopliylact." &c.
(ed. 1652 et 1697, Annot. p. 178.)
According to the reviewer, therefore, the 'only' direct
and full import of ao-s^w, is to 'receive in full ; and thus he
propounds 'suopericulo,' with Bentley's daring, but freed from
the learning ; for, he is contradicted by every grammarian
and lexicographer, and is not supported by any one ofthe
ancient Greek writers ; all of whom, from Homer, down to
Dionysius Halicarnasseus in the age of Augustus, useda*s^w
with the significations assigned to that verb by Portus, in his
Ionic Lex. — " abstinere ; efficere ut aliquis a re aliqua absti-
" neat ; arcere, amovere, summovere ; remover e ab aliquo loco:"

14 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VI.
— also, ' disto, absum :' — airofcv xai iroggu ixu> Eustath. woggu
eifn, x&iXtuta, Hesych.
The meaning ofthe verb, in ancient Greek, is thus cor
rectly, though briefly, given by Dr. Maltby : "absum, averto
" —to be distant, or keep off. Also, abstineo— to refrain
"from, which signification more properly belongs to the
" middle, aitixw*'" {Gr.Gradus.) Matthias observes— "The
" middle voice is exactly equivalent, in signification, to the
" active joined to the corresponding pronoun pers. refl."—
e.g. " airex1", to withhold another ; mid. airix^®**!, airogyjgbai,
" i. q. uirexw 'ioiutov, to withhold one's self." (Gr. Gramm.
§ 491, a.) Here, Matthias contradicts the Theol. Reviewer;
shewing, that one of the two was by no means master of the
subject with which he meddled. Priscian remarks: " Graci
" airexo/Jiai toutou xai touto : Nos quoque, abstineo illius, et
" ilium, et illo." {Gramm. Latt. Putsch, p. 1 176.) The first
of these signifies, airex® {i^utov am) toutou — the second,
airixu touto {air' epaurou or tpou). So in the Latin: "sese
" cibo abstinere." Ccesar. " abstinere ignem ab aide." Liv.
Eustathius, who interprets airixu °J airofov s^w, iroggu £%w,
instances from Homer aitigx* <pa,gyavov, which the Scholiast
interprets by airogTygov — 'keep or hold back thy sword.' In
Pindar, we have -^oyov airixw, which the Scholiast explains
by airu6eiv — ' to thrust back or repel an imputation.' (Nem.
Od. vii. 31.)
But, in an after and later age, airix® acquired the new
modification of ' ex-cipio' — (capio ex alio) — 'to get from
'another;' not • accipio or recipio' — (capio ad me) — to
'receive;' still less, ' habeo — to have.' The eminently
learned Salmasius, contemporary with Gataker, at the very
time that Gataker penned the note on a*ixin above cited,
was pointing out and demonstrating the fact, that a variation
in the acceptation and use of the verb aittxa> and °f many
other words, had taken place during the progress of the
Greek language, from its adult age in republican Greece, to
its decline under the Greek empire. No notice, however,
appears to have been taken of his acute admonition,1 until it
' Salmasius's triumphant demonstrations are contained in his three tracts,
printed by the Elzevirs, in 12mo. in 1643, entitled, 'de Hellenistica Commenta-
'Hits — Funus Ling. Hellenistica — Ossilegium Ling. Hellenist.' In which
works he impregnably established, against D. Heinsius, 1. That a 'Hellenistic

Chap. VI. MATTHEW. 15
was recently pressed on the attention of the learned world
by Frederic William Sturz, in his treatise ' de Dialecto
' Macedonica et Alexandrina,' printed at Leipzig, in 1808,
and inserted in the first volume of Valpy's Steph. Thesaurus.
And yet, the fact, when once pointed out, was plain enough
to every eye. But, the plainness of the fact, as plainly
raised the question, and demands a discriminating answer —
to which age of the verb airtyu are we to look for its mean
ing, as intended by the writers of the Greek Scriptures?
namely, the Septuagint, and the Apostles and Evangelists.
This is a point which Salmasius did not pursue, but remained
satisfied with the interpretations prescriptively transmitted
by the early scriptural interpreters. But, all those inter
preters were of the late age of the verb airex<» ; and they
uncritically assumed, that the word was necessarily to be
understood with the meaning current in their own day. The
Latin Scriptures of the Roman Church, adopted and trans
mitted the same assumption ; and we, as heritors of that
church, have continued to transmit it.
But, throughout the whole version of the Septuagint,
amp is nowhere used with the sense of ' recipio — to re-
' ceive,' or ' habeo — to have.' Trommius, after C. Kircher,
does not assign either of those senses to any of the places in
which that verb occurs, and he cites them all in his ' Con-
' cordance ' (under airsx^i ftaxgav aTs^w, iroggu airix®) ', viz.
Gen. xliii. 23 ; xliv. 4 : Num. xxxii. 19 : Deut. xii. 21 ;
xiv. 24; xviii. 22: 1 Sam. xxi. 5: Job, i. 1, 8; xiii. 21;
xxviii. 28: Ps. cii. 12: Prov. iii. 27; xxii. 5; xxiii. 4,
13: Eccles. ii. 10: Isa. xxix. 13; xiii. 19; liv. 14; lv. 9:
Jerem. vii. 9: Ezek. viii. 6; xi. 15; xxii. 5: Joel, i. 13;
' dialect' of the Greek language, was a pure fiction of John Drusius, who died
about thirty years before their controversy, and who was the original inventor
of an adjective ' Hettenistica.' 2. That the noun iWvmtrrns signified only
' Grace loquens ;' and, 3. That the Greek of the sacred writers was no other
than the common mixed dialect of Greece, deteriorated in the distant pro
vinces where that language was spoken, and corrupted by the admixture of
numerous foreign terms — Syriac, Latin, &c. "In omnibus Unguis hoc idem
" obtiuuit, ut houestiores doctioresque, alio quasi loqnendi genere uterentur,
" quam plebs ipsa et faex opificum. Hoc iamrixov dicendi genus, ab elegantium
" et urbanorum hominuin sermone sejunctum Iri'quens est — inde sunt, xm%uv
" pro 'habere,' &c.  nihil horum Giaecuin est eo sensu, cum tameu vocum
" illarum Grasea sit forma, et Gratis tisitata sint, sed alio intellectu." {Ossil.
pp. 290, 201.)

16 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VI.
ii. 8 ; iii. 8 : Mai. iii. 6.—Apocryph. 1 Esdr. vi. 27 : Ecclus.
xxviii. 8 : 1 Mace. viii. 4 : 2 Mace. xi. 5 ; xii. 29 ; xv. 5
{xaTigXiv, not airigxw, in the London Polyglott, and in Mill's
Ed.) To all those passages, the London Polyglott assigns
only the significations of ' abstineo, recedo, absum, disto,
' aufero;' (excepting the first and third passages, which will
be considered separately.) Montfaucon, in his Index to the
Hexapla of Origen, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, &c.
assigns to airtx^ only the sense of 'abstineo.' M. C. Rein-
eccius, in his ' Manuale Biblicum in LXX. et N.T.', com
prises all the senses of airexu> in both Scriptures, under the
Latin ' aufero, abstineo.' This is ample evidence, that the
anix® of the Alexandrian interpreters pertained to the pri
mitive age of that verb : it is also evidence, that the verb did
not derive its new acceptation from Alexandria, as Salmasius
and Sturz were disposed to conjecture.
Let us, next, look to the Evangelical Scriptures, in order
to ascertain, by which age of that verb we are to interpret
their Greek texts.
In Matt. xv. 8, we find the Septuagint version of Isaiah,
xxix. 13, cited by the Greek translator of that gospel; and
•again rehearsed in Mark, vii. 6 — n xag&ia avTuv iroggu airsxn
air s/iou — in which there is an ellipsis ofthe pronoun, airiyii
{iauTtiv). This passage, our authorised English version of the
gospel renders, " their heart is far from me ;" but, in that of
the prophet, " they have removed their heart far from me:"
but, if correctly and strictly rendered, ' their heart has re-
' moved or withdrawn (itself ) far from me.' Here, we have a
secure critical standard for the signification and acceptation
of airix® m the Apostolic age ; and we therefore shall not
travel, with Suicer, into the Lower Greek Empire, to ask an
interpretation from Theophanes, in the 9th century, G£cu-
menius in the 10th, or Theophylact in the 11th, when the
acceptation ofthe word was no longer the same.
Let us now, therefore, briefly review all the places in
which airtx® ar)d M^o/na; are employed in the New Cove
nant ; remembering, that the verb is always followed with
airo and its subject, either expressed or understood.1

1 Polyaenus (in the second century), in his ' Stratagem.' lib. iii. c. 5, relates,
' that when Clisthenes besieged Cirra, in Phocis, whose territory lay between

Chap. VI. MATTHEW. 17
airix<"-
Matt. vi. 2, 5, 16. airixouiri vov fjua- i. e. uvre%oufft rov p.ttr6ov (««"') avr/uv.
&01 aurbiv.
Mark, xiv. 41. uvs%sr vtXhv h a/pa.  u<7tixu («wr»jv, i. e. ecffohv wrt, a<p'
ufAtav vi mp/'. <rou xtzfaub'eiv) tiXfav
vt aipa idov {y.ai} orapxoidoT/zi.
Conf. Matt. xxvi. 45.
Luke, vi. 14. aurs^ers T%v xci^axXneiv  uirtxin Tfiv ffotgezxXntriv (a^') tif^uu,
vficaiv.
— vii. 6; xv. 20. ou fiuxgav «5Te-  ou ftaugao airsfcevTos {avrov, i. e.
Xovro; awo, uvohv ovtos) cctto.
—— xxiv. 13. xaif&w ctVE%ouirav ff<ro&. %. — — za/X'/jv avri%ovffa.v {aur9ivt i. C. atrofav
ot/trav) trr. £.
Philipp. iv. 18. a.iri%u vrccvree.  affi^ai («cr i/aou) vravra.
Philem. 15. im xiuviov avrov xtfs%r,s.  ivx xigjviov ecvrov cczrs%r,s {a.<Jto aouj.
airixo/Aai.
Acts, xv. 20, 29. tou oLinxwQou ruv i. e. too xv£%siv ixurovs {avro) aXury.
KXiffiynfoXTcuv — tidojXoSuT6)v xai alfjca.705. tio*. xai aipc.
1 Thess. iv. 3. a^n^arSoct upas kko  {up.us) avn^uv upia$ {aurous) txtro
tvis vro^vuizs. T. vr.
1 Tim. iv. 3. e&&s%eff0xi @g&ifAa<raiv.  upns a^i^nv laurous (asro) j3g.
1 Pet. li. 11. asre^sc&K/ ano Taiv trap- — tx,7n%ztv laurovs oc^ro r. tr. e.
xixojv Iff l6v [Mart,
The uniform sense of the middle, airexwa' — ' abstineo
' me,' in all ages, determines the primitive sense of the
active, airix^, to the sense of ' abstineo.'
In the passage of Matthew now before us, our Lord
affirms, ' that those persons who seek justification from
' God, with an oblique regard to the praise of man, oux
" the sacred ground of Delphi and the sea, the Cirraeans despised his efforts ;
" because the Oracle had pronounced, that Cirra would be impregnable until
" the sea should touch the sacred ground ; and their own intervening territory
" separated it from the sea  vteiirrov xz-i%ovris (xXxtths: but, Clisthenes con-
" secrated their whole country; and, by thus rendering the whole extent sacred,
"he made himself master of it." Here, the learned Meursius had rendered «(¦
Xii', by ' distare.' Kuhnius objected — "ubi xmxm non est 'distare,' ut doctiss.
" Meursius existimat : sed, Cyrrhsei bono erant animo, quod maximam partem
" maris ' haberent.' " In this interpretation, there is evident absence of all
pertinent sense. Accordingly, in the Leyden edition of 1690, with Is. Vossius's
emendations, the passage is rendered in the same sense as by Meursius —
" longissime dissiti a mari." Though this last is nearest the true sense, it
still requires the ellipsis to be supplied — TtXaaroi avixoms {aurm, rm hgai
ym,"*o tds) 9-<t>.«Tr»f  'since they kept back the sacred ground at a great
' distance from the sea.' {Diog. Laert. Menagii. torn. ii. Ind. p. 530.)
1 The French use ' se tenir — se trouver,' in the sense of 'itre.' — Diet, de
l'Ac. Fr.

18 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VI.
' ixme' — ' have not,' airtx™m (a* «<""wv) — ' ^eeP or Put
' back from themselves,' and therefore, are far from, the
' reward they seek.'
But, here the Theological Reviewer exclaims — "To Our
" Ears, this does sound absolutely monstrous : — as if the
" meaning were, that the persons spoken of, kept their
" own reward, or their own consolation, at a distance
"from tkem!" Without any allusion to the Reviewer's
' Ears,' it would be difficult to match the dulness of this
observation, from an aspirant to scriptural exposition. Has
he, then, never read, " Your iniquities have turned away
" these things, and your sins have withh olden, or kept
" back, good things from you" — al apagnai upm airigrrim
{i. e. airnxov) Ta ayada a<j>' u/iuv (Jerem. v. 25)? And,
what is this but to say, ' Ye have kept (good things) —
' your reward — your consolation — back, or at a distance,
'from you,' and therefore, ' are far from it?' Has he never
read, "Ye ask, and receive not — ovx. e^ers — ou Xapfiavin
" — because ye ask evilly — dion xaxoig airnghl" — James,
iv. 2, 3.
The fate of the verb airix*i, in the progress of the
Greek language, is remarkable ; of which we have an apt
illustration in the only place where that verb is used by
Josephus, who lived in the apostolic age, and who was ac
customed to the language of the Greek interpreters of his
Hebrew Scriptures. {Bell. Jud. lib. i. c. 30.) Pheroras,
the half-brother of Herod, having designed the death of
Herod, intrusted the poison which he had provided for
that purpose, to his wife ; but, becoming convinced on his
death-bed, that he had falsely suspected Herod of hostility
towards him, he ordered his wife "to bring him the poi-
" son, and to destroy it quickly, before his eyes;" saying,
eyoi fitv airtxu r1S agifiuag to eirm/Jiiov' gu 8t 6 (puXaTTug x«r
aurou tpag/jiaxov rjftiv pigs, xai fiXivovTog jlou Taxing apuvigov" ha
fi?i *a0' uS°u psgoi/M tov aXaeroga. Here, the Latin interpreter
renders airix" by 'fero;' and the passage is commonly
understood as it is given by Parkhurst : "I receive, or have,
" the reward of my wickedness," &c. But, if the translator
had been mindful of the ellipsis, air i/^ou, after «ors%w, he
would have been sensible, that Pheroras designed the action
which he directed, to be a discharge oi the consciousness

Chap. VI. MATTHEW. 19
of his guilt ; and that he used «*£%w in its primitive sense :
" I remove, or put away, from myself the penalty oi impiety —
" that I may not carry its infliction with me to the grave."
So, iag av sgagjjre to atafopa t% u/iuv — ' until ye take away the
* accursed thing from among you' (Josh. vii. 13) : iroggta iroi^gov
{adixiav) airo gou — 'put away iniquity/arjfrow? thee,' &c. (Job,
xi. 14) : phrases, familiar to the Jewish narrator.
We have another example still more apt, in Plutarch,
who uses the very phrase of Matthew, rov pigfov airexs' '¦>
which Wetstein, Parkhurst, and many others, have cited,
as a proof that the passage in Matthew is to be interpreted
' they have their reward.' Yet, here also, a short attention
to the context will demonstrate, that ««^si is used in its
ancient sense, airtx1' («** uutou). Plutarch states, that, by
the law of Solon, children born out of marriage were not
obliged to maintain or relieve their fathers ; and he remarks,
that he who disregards the sanctions of marriage, tov /moDov
airix*' — puts away from — deprives himself of, that filial
support. Langhorne has irreflectively followed the com
mon error in his English translation of Plutarch. But,
the Sept., the Apostolical, and also the profane writers,
use [ugfoii Xapfiaiisiv to express ' receiving ' a reward. St.
Paul once says, 1 Cor. ix. 18, /uafov e%w — ' I have my re-
' ward;' which is evidence, that he would have understood
IMgDov airixu, in a contrary sense. So also, when our Lord
asked, Tiva pigfov txiri — 'what reward have ye?' (Matt. v.
49 ; Gr. 46) it is equally evident, that he intended a
sense contrary to ' have,' in his phrase, airixoug' ™ i^gSov,
which almost immediately follows in the same discourse,
c. vi. 2.
Besides the sense of iroggoi n/n, Hesychius assigns to a«-^w
the signification of xtaXsvm — 'prohibeo,' a sense congenial with
its other ancient significations above stated. Alberti, in his
note to Hesychius's air$xB (torn. i. p. 446), either unapprised
of Salmasius's admonition, or persisting in the prescriptive
error, rejects the application of this interpretation to the
passage of Matthew now before us. " Cave tamen hoc
" sensu interpreteris phrasin ao-s^s/v tov /ng6ov, quasi 'prohi-
" ' bere mercedem' significaret ; ut vult doctiss. Knatchbull
" ad Matth. vi. 2 : eodem modo exponens Plutarchum in
" Solone, p. 90 (in quo loco citando conspirasse videntur

20 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VI.
" Philologi Sacri): notat enim, habere mercedem." The
preceding paragraphs shew the soundness of KnatchbuU's
exposition, and the unsoundness of Alberti's. The following
is a translation of KnatchbuU's learned ' Animadversion' on
the passage ; exhibiting a striking contrast with that of the
Theological Reviewer.
" Verily I tell you, they have or receive their reward.]
" — So, the generality of interpreters ; or, to that effect.
" But, in the preceding verse, it is distinctly said, ' If ye
' do your alms before men, to be seen by them, ye have
* no reward,' Sec, which is a positive denial ; so that the
" following import would be more consistent, if those who
" so give their alms were said, ' not to have,' rather than
' to have ' their reward. To remedy this incongruity,
" I would certainly render the word with this difference;
' Verily I tell you, they prevent or keep away their reward.'
" By accepting praise from men, they prevent praise from
" God ; from whom they will not obtain it, if they bestow
" their alms before men, in order to be seen by them. I am
" well aware, that the former sense may, as some think, he
" maintained by an applicable distinction, namely, That
" they have a worldly and frail reward ; though, not a
' solid and heavenly one.' But, what need is there for a
" foreign and mystic sense ; what need, I ask, is there for a
" distinction which is manifestly forced, when the sense is
" direct without any distinction, and such as the common
" use of the words import ? Now, we find in all the lexico-
" graphers, that xuXiuoi, airzx®, wirodiZu, signify the same
" thing (sc. to hinder, keep back, obstruct.) — Jn this sense
" (without offence, be it said, to the learned Beza and
" Grotius), Plutarch designed to be understood in his Life of
" Solon" {see the preceding paragraph). "And I am the
" more strongly urged to this acceptation, because the same
" word occurs, with the same sense, towards the end of his
" book on the Cessation of Oracles (and probably elsewhere),
' Nothing prevents, or obstructs {airix^), the spirit of vatici-
' nation.' Which same phrase is most expressly employed* "J
" with the very same sense, by Dionysius Halicarnasseus* =
' No fear shall prevent or deter me {a<pi%u) from speaking
' what I think.' Finally, it is absurd to resort to a mys-
" tical, where we have a literal sense ; and this rule ought

Chap.VL MATTHEW. 21
" to be established, for all similar passages." — {Animadv. in
N. T. p. 11. Oxon. 1677.)
The vicious circle of interpretation which ensued, is
equally remarkable ; proving Matthew's meaning by later
writers, and again, later writers by Matthew. Thus, we
have seen Suicer determining the meaning of amx^ in
Matthew, from Theodosion, QEcumenius, and Theophylact,
who lived about 1000 years after that evangelist; whilst
Cotelerius renders airtix<>ft>sv, ' habemus,' in the spurious
epistle of Barnabas, alleging the authority of Matthew, so
determined {Patr. Apost. torn. i. p. 42, not.). Yet, in the
only passage that Stephens cites for the sense of ' recipio '
(Plut.) — xagirov airtytn, Ta didagxaXsia, tov fhtgtiov ; the proper
meaning of a«%s/i< is not ' re-cipere,' nor ' ac-cipere ;' but
' ex-cipere' — to ' gather from,' as the metaphor attests —
xagirov air$xnv {airo tou divdgou, driXudr)) Ta didagxaXua, tov pigOov :
which ellipsis being overlooked by Stephens, he erroneously
says, " ubi prcepositio non itidem privationem significat."
Yet, the ellipsis is proved in the first paragraph of the
11th book of M. Antoninus, where, speaking of the self-
acting power of the soul, he says, tov xagirov ov <psga, auT%
xagirourai — digre mriiv, eyu airixa Ta 6/ia — (a5r' zpou sub.) —
' the fruit that it bears, it gathers itself; so that it can say,
' I gather my own {from myself) :' airix® has here a syno
nymous sense with xagnoi preceding (' fructum percipere,
' excerpere') ; from which latter Greek verb was derived the
Latin ' carpo,' a derivation overlooked by Gesner, and by
our Ainsworth. The employment of airtx'" and airtxw*'
became, progressively, more and more elliptical. Thus,
where Homer says, xaxav airo %s/g«j sx^gSai, Eustathius ob
serves (p. 1928, 60), "Those who came after Homer speak
" elliptically : according to them, it suffices to say, xaxoiv
" airix^dai." The notion of ' re-cipio,' which has been at
tached by lexicographers to the verb airex^, is only a meto
nymy, or a consequence implied or deduced from its sense of
' ex-cipio,'1 which always expresses a transfer or removal from
one party to another ; and, he who has obtained from
1 " Excipio — latrssima? significationis verbum, cujus duo tamen, velut
"capita constitui possunt ; ut aut sit, (1.) capere ex loco, universitate, copia,
" numero, aliquid, id est, eximere : aut (2.) recipere, aceipere, ea quae veniunt :
" vel (3.) ita ut. repellas." (Gesner, Thes. Rom.) The last of these Latin

22 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VI,
another, may certainly be considered as having received
what he has obtained. So, where iEschines says, owners
Trtv airoxgigiv iraga QiXurirou ; and where Caesar says (ap.
Di. Cass.) airtxSTl -jravra irag epou ; the speakers did not
intend to express ' reception by,' but, ' acquirement from.'
In Num. xxxii. 19, airixopw tous xXqgoug tipuv iv Tip irtgav, &c. ;
a Greek ear would have understood, amx0^ T(,us Algous ri/im
{airo toiv xXngm) tv to? irtgav, &c. — ' we have drawn our lots {from
' or out ofthe lots) on the side ofthe Jordan eastward.'
Though annotators have been prompt to say ' um^oi pro
' habeo' (as Upton, Index to Epictetus), yet it is certain,
that airex® never acquired the simple and absolute sense of
' habeo — to have,' but was always understood relatively to
the subject of airo with which it was compounded ; there
fore, Emanuel Moschopulus, in the fourteenth century (the
latest age of the ancient Greek language), explains miyu
by airoXafiwv s^w — ' take from,' (p. 176, Lutet. 1545). And,
though Gataker described airtx1" a9 ' phrasis emphatica;'
though Suicer echoed Gataker ; and though the Theological
Reviewer, who admired the word, echoed ' emphatic' to
Suicer ; yet, there is no more of emphasis in that verb, than
in any other verb compounded with airo. It is used ellip-
tically of its object ; and Gataker, not having traced the
ellipsis, was led to regard its power as emphatic. To obtain,
therefore, the signification insisted upon by my censor, it
is incumbent on him to fill up the ellipsis, so as to express
the quarter from whence the reward was received.
But, the Theological Reviewer, like Gallio, ' cared for
' none of these things:' — it was sufficient for him to search, in
some book of reference, for a passage which he might appro
priate, and employ as an artillery to sink my exposition; and
he flattered himself, that he had found it in Suicer. In that
exultation, (to express a quality which he acknowledges,
above) he 'saucily' asks: — "We are extremely anxious to
" know, how Mr. P. would translate the Sept. Gen. xliii.
" 23, to agyugiov b/iuv a«=%<w? Would he say, that the steward
" of Joseph's house meant to affirm, that the money of Jo-
significations was the primitive sense ofthe Greek a*iXu : the first was the sense
J acquired in a subsequent age; the second is the metonymical sense, which
h.!?-™, ographers have ^ely aisigned to it, but which the verb did not
oea. ,n the usage of the Greek, while it was a living language

Chap. VI. MATTHEW. 23
" seph's brethren was 'far from him,' and that he had never
" touched a shekel of it 1 If he should say this, he would find
" himself grievously at variance with the original Hebrew ;
" which, literally rendered, is, * your money came to me,' that
" is, as our authorised translation gives it, ' I had your
" ' money.' " Passing over the unlearned confusion ofthe re
lations between the Hebrew, Greek, and English texts, which
he here exhibits, I would ask this criticist — Whether it was
through stratagem, or in honest ignorance, that he here pro
poses, as a sentence of the Septuagint, a sentence which does
not so exist in any copy of the Septuagint ? Whether it was
stratagem, or pure ignorance, that caused him to suppress a
word in the Greek sentence, essential for the translation
which he calls for? The whole passage stands thus, in every
copy of that version, printed and MS.; — to agyugiov upav tudo-
x,if/iouv airix®- The Hebrew text has no word answering to tu-
doxifhouv : the Latin renders from the Greek, * argentum probum
' vestrum habeo.' As Joseph's steward had restored the
money when he spoke those words, and therefore had it
not actually in his possession, it is manifest, that the present,
air$xu is a vitiated reading. Wherefore, Augustin (who has
' probatum' instead of 'probum') aptly remarked, " menda-
" cium videtur ; sed aliquid significare credendum est."
{Qucest. ad Gen. torn. iii. p. 413.) Now, as Joseph's
steward was cashier of Egypt at that period, if tudoxi/iouv
(instead of being a neuter adjective, as is supposed in the
Latin translation) is the first person imperfect of a verb,
ludoxijuoi (quasi tudoxew — sudoxei, iudoxi[&ti ; Hesych. ivdoxia, and
not. 13, p. 1495); and if airix® is properly airi-foi, i.e. airix^v,
by the curtailment of a final v, common in MS. texts, we
shall then have the pertinent sentence — to agyugiov Ipuv
evdoxiptov airix^v, equivalent to ludoxiptm airnxov: " ssepe par-
" ticip. verbo junctum, mutuam patitur permutationem, et
" per verbum redditur ; ipsum autem verbum, participii vim
" obtinet : ut iXuhv uirextpuytav." (Viger. Hoogev. p. 262, and
344) — ' bene affectus erga vos retinui.' 'I purposely, or
' with a good design, withheld, or kept back, your money ' —
i. e. did not pay it in. Thus it is, that I am disposed to read,
and to translate, this spurious passage. The reviewer, how
ever, could not have pitched upon any other, that would
so palpably have betrayed his ignorance of the Septuagint

24 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VI.
version, both in itself and in its relation to the Hebrew
original. Trommius thus introduced it, separately, in his
Concordance, torn. i. p. 662, under the word cudom/ita, as an
' obelised' passage :
" 2. ubi nihil extat in Hebr. textu.
" Gen. xliii. 23. xxi to agyugiov upon tuioxipouv «*£#*>:"
by excluding tudoxipouv, therefore, from his quotation of the
passage, the reviewer has affixed his own seal, in attestation
of that ignorance.
The reviewer calls this exposition of airtxt», my ' error' —
my 'strange hallucination;' and adds, according to his notion
of good taste, that 'fire cannot burn it out of me; which is
the only true point in his stricture. There is, usually, some
balance observed, between self-admiration and knowledge;
but, in this critic, the balance is destroyed by the prepon
derance of the former quality. 'De non mihi apparentibus,
' et non existentibus , eadem est ratio,' appears to be the
prompting and encouraging principle of all his criticisms.
I have to apologise to the reader, for detaining him so
long with this annotation ; but, as the reviewer had entered
the arena professedly to shew, how instantly and easily he
could demolish the labour of a long life, it was necessary
once to present him in his true dimensions, as a philologist
and a critic. In all future occasions, I shall advert only
briefly to his animadversions.
Ver. 13. for, Thine is the Kingdom, &c.J Scholz, em
phatically rejects this sequel from his text: " Egomet, cum
" Complut., Erasmo, Camerario, Grotio, Millio, Bengelio,
" Wetstenio, Griesbachio, earn ut spuriam rejeci:" but, with
this 'Egomet,' he forgets the name of his laborious senior,
and fellow countryman, Schulz ; who preceded him by
three years ; although he copies a portion of his note.
Matthaei alone, of modern editors, would retain it critically.
Its retention by Burton, Bloomfield, Trollope, and Cardwell,
is rather formal and conventional, than critical. But,
though we are bound to discriminate between our Lord's
own words, and those of any other; yet, this very ancient
and beautiful conclusion is well entitled to retain its place,
with due distinction, as a liturgical appendage.

Chap. VII. MATTHEW. 25

CHAPTER VII.
Ver. 22. prophesied^ The word irgoprirtuto — ' to pro-
' phesy,' is vulgarly assumed as signifying only, to 'foretell
'future contingencies' But, since that word is used in the
New Scriptures with a different signification, the English
reader requires a more particular exposition of the cause
and nature of that difference, than I find provided for him.
Erasmus, in his 'Index Vocab.' prefixed to his N.T., says,
" Prophets are persons adorned with the extraordinary gift,
" of foretelling future things, and declaring things that are
" concealed." This last is the true and proper meaning of
irgofiiTtuta, and the former is only a particular application of
the power. Eusebius, quoted by Suicer, clearly exposes
this sense : {irgo<priTr\g) iraga to irgo<faivav xai irgopcoTifyiv iv aurw
to Qtiov irviufha, [iri fj,ovov Ta iragovra, aXXa xai tuv fisXXovTaiv aXr\6rj
xai axgiZri yvoigiv — "a prophet is so called, from the Holy
" Spirit exposing and bringing to the light, through him,
" not only present things, but also, a true and accurate
"knowledge oi future things." Festus, who lived under
Augustus and Tiberius, in his abridgement of the more an
cient work of Verrius Flaccus, says, " Prophetas dicebant
" veteres, antistites fanorum oraculorumque interpretes — the
" ancients called prophets, the chief priests of the temples
" and interpreters of the oracles." So also St. Paul, after
using the word irgopyTiuriTe — 'prophesy,' in 1 Cor. xiv. 5,
explains that word, in ver. 13, by diegpwiuri — 'interpret;' that
is, declare and expound the hidden truths of the Gospel.
Thus, whether in the ancient heathen world, or in the pri
mitive Christian Church, irgo<pi\riuu implied merely to ' speak
'forth, tell, or declare actually;' unless the action was ex
pressly directed to a future object, by some determining
adjunct, which then gave it the particular sense of '/ore-tell.'
The common misapprehension of the proper import of this
verb, has arisen from erroneously taking for granted, that
the irgo in this compound, always intends ' prce' with relation
to time. Whereas, in its general sense, it intends ' coram,
'in medio;' so that irgo<pr\nuo> signifies ' pro-loquor,' rather
than ' pro3-dico :' — as vgo-ridri/ii — ' pro-pono.' Stephens ob
serves, on the passage of St. Paul, last quoted, " est autem

26 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap.X.
" in hoc loco irgotpriTiveiv nihil aliud quam iwopjjreus/n — adeo
" ut prsep. irgo ponatur pro into" This exposition is equally
applicable to Matt. xxvi. 68 ; Mark, xvi. 65 (Gr. xiv.) ;
Luke, xxii. 60 ; and John, xi. 51. In the passage before us,
we are to understand : ' Have we not declared and published
' the revealed mysteries of Thy Gospel, as Thy own minis-
' ters?' — How little this exercise in itself, will avail for
justification with God, our Lord here awfully forewarns all
secularly ambitious preachers.

CHAPTER VIII.

Ver. 29. What hast thou to do with us?] That our common
English rendering of the phrases, ti fifiiv xai got — ti spot xai
eoi — ' What have we to do with thee?' — reverses their true
import, will appear on closer investigation ; and, that m
denotes the agent, fipiv or spot the patient, in the supposed
action. The Lat. Vulg. translated " quid nobis et tibi"—
Wiclif, "What to us and to thee?" Erasmus critically ob
served, of the Latin rendering ; " Imo, quid hie ' Inter-
' preti cum Graeca figura ? ' Vertendum erat, si Latine
" loqui voluisset, Quid tibi rei nobiscum est?" This inter
pretation is confirmed by the question that follows, 'Art
' thou come to torment us before the time?' This order of
interpretation is to be observed, also, in Mark, i. 24, v. 7;
Luke, viii. 28 ; John, ii. 4.

CHAPTER X.
Ver. 6 (Gr. 2). the twelve apostles.] The order in which
the names of the twelve apostles are given here by Mat
thew, by Mark, in ch. iii. 15, and by Luke, in ch. vi. 14, are
generally the order in which they became disciples of our
Lord. Andrew, Peter, Philip, Bartholomew (or Nathanael),
and the two sons of Zebedee, were his first disciples that
attended his person (John, i. 39-43). Ofthe conversion of

Chap. X. MATTHEW. 27
Thomas (named Didumus, or Twin) we are not informed ; but
the calling of Matthew, surnamed Levi, we have on record.
The three following were our Lord's brothers according to
his legal genealogy, viz. : James, the son of Alpheus {Kleo-
pas, or Klopas), and his two brothers, Judas, called Thad-
dceus, and Simon, called the Kanancean or Zealot. In
Luke, vi., and Acts, i., these last are plainly described in
the Vat. MS., Iaxuj3og AXpuiou, xai 2//awv 6 ZjjXwojs xai loudag,
laxu^ou — 'James son of Alpheus, and Simon the Zealot and
' Judas, or Jude, brothers of James.' (See c. xiii. 55, and
Annot. to John, xix. 25.)
Ver. 7. Bartholomew.] BagdoXo/iaiog : ' Proprio nomine
* videtur vocatus fuisse Nathanael.' (Wetstein.) — ' It ap-
' pears, that Bartholomew's proper name was Nathanael.' —
This is also the judgment of the learned Bengel ; also, of
Bloomfield : Clarke and Wilson are silent on the subject :
Scott, Burton, and Trollope, balance : a more decidedopi-
nion is that of a modern, but modest, traveller in 1832-33;
" We passed Cana : this was the birth-place of Nathanael,
" afterwards called Bartholomew." {Notice of the Holy
Land, by the Rev. R. Spencer Hardy, p. 232.) A question —
"so long a-growing, and so leisurely" (Shak.) — does not
occur in any other place. Now, St. John names Nathanael
among the earliest of our Lord's disciples, but he never
names Bartholomew ; while, the other evangelists name
Bartholomew, but do not name Nathanael: as, also, Mat
thew and Mark name Thaddeus among the twelve, but do
not name Judas; and Luke names Judas (the brother of
Simon), but does not name Thaddeus. Both the names,
Nath. and Barth., are mentioned among the twelve dis
ciples ; as are both those, of Thadd. and Jud. The latter
two, are not distinct and different individuals, but the same
person ; and therefore, reason instructs us to understand,
that the former two names also, are not those of distinct and
different individuals, but of the same person. (See Cave,
Lives, frc, Bartholomew.)
Ib. Thomas.] St. John tells us, that Thomas was called
Aidupog, or twin-brother; and he is coupled, in the catalogues
ofthe three other evangelists, with Matthew : but with this

28

SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS.

Chap. X.

observable difference ;— that, in the first, they are presented
as 'T. and M.,' and in the other two, as ' M. and T.,' but
without the description of ' twin.' It is reasonable to infer,
from these variations, that ' 1'homas' was the younger, to
whom 'Matthew' yielded the priority of courtesy. This inti
mation, however, was soon lost sight of, under the error which
early established itself in the copies, and which represented
Matthew as being a ' son of Alpheus.' (Consult the next
Annot., and that to Mark, ii. 14.)
Ver. 7. Matthew, tke publican.] There is much to set to
rights in this catalogue, as it has descended to us. The
clause As/3/3«;os o eirixXtjhig — ' Lebbceus, whose surname was' —
(as our Version renders those words), is not found in the two
most ancient MSS., Vat. and Ephr., nor in Cod. L. ; it is
not found in the Latin versions, nor in the Coptic. It was
therefore, in its origin, a marginal gloss designed for elucida
tion, thus :

x«i MetT$aios o rsXavns'm *
x.u.1 Ixxufios o rou AXQaiov,
Kat I

Ae?|?alo; 6
eirnOv\beiS.

and Matthew, the publican,*
and James, the son of Alpheus,
and Thaddeus —

nailed
LebbmtB.

but, afterward copied into the text, and erroneously inserted ;
since it regarded Matthew, not Thaddceus or Jude ; and thus,
Lebbceus, Aij3j3aiog, was only a Greek form of the Hebrew
Atu'ig — 'Levi,' another name of Matthew, which Origen wrote
As)8»js {contra Cels. i. c. 62), but the glossist, Ae^aiog : for Eu
thymius, in the twelfth century, pronounced, with sounder cri
ticism than some of our latest learned commentators ; 6 Atu'ig
ouTog o MarDaiog Uti, diwvupog yag r\v — ' this Levi is Matthew, for
' he had two names ' {in Marc. ii. 14). The clause, therefore,
if inserted according to the intention of the glossist, would
thus have constituted the passage : MuTdaiog 6 nXoivng, Atfifiaiog
tj Atu'ig 6 tirixXijfaig, xai lax<»fiog. — Mill, as Wetstein states, " pu-
" tabat Aepj3aiov eundem esse, qui Atu'ig dicitur;" but Wetstein
proceeds, " neque rationes orthographical patiuntur eundem
" esse Atuh et As/3/3a/ov." Yet, as Origen wrote At$r\g for
Atu'ig (as Aaj3id is written for Aaurd), and the later Greeks
wrote Atuaiog1 for AtuTg, it is evident, that the principles of

' Grasci posteriores A.iuam dicunt."— Coteleb. Pair. Apasl. i.p. 412, not.

Chap. XI. MATTHEW. 29
orthography, supply the strongest confirmation, to the iden
tity of the four names, Atu'ig, Ae/Sjjj, Atuaiog, At/3f3aiog. For
the identity ofthe three forms, Alpheus, Kleopas, Klopas, see
Annot. to John, xix. 25. (Connect the following Annot. to
Mark, ii. 14.
Ver. 8. Simon the Kananaan.] xavavaiog: so read the two
most anc. MSS., Vat. and Ephr.; and so also, this denomina
tion should be written in English, with a K, to prevent its
further misapprehension. This word ' Kananaan' is only the
Hebrew of the Greek word 'Zealot:' thus, where the Sept.
interpret the Hebrew by tyXcurrig — ; zelotes,' the original is,
S3p — xava — kana. Matthew, who wrote his original in
Hebrew, and Mark, who copied from Matthew, read xavavaiog ;
in later copies xamvirrig. Luke, who wrote altogether in
Greek, wrote tyXoirqg. ("Map — xava — 'zelotes,' Exod. xx.
" 5, sic in Lege ; in Prophetis, M13p — xavoa" — id. Nah. i. 2,
Castell. Lex.) The ignorance of a later age changed the
word into a name of country, in Cod. Bezce, 'Xavavaiog —
' Chanaanite ;' yet Euthymius apprehended the word in its
true sense, 2if/,ava tov ZrfXoirriv, tjtoi tov xavaviTTjV — " Simon the
" Zealot, or the Kananite." (See former Annot. to Luke, vi.
15, p. 232.)

CHAPTER XI.
Ver. 2. sent to him by his disciples.] AIA ruv p. a. —
The rec. text reads duo not dia ; on which readings Bloomfield
thus observes: " Some MS. versions and fathers have dia,
" which was preferred by Mill, Bengel, and Sckulz, and
" edited by Fritz ; the evidence, however, is too weak." Let
us assay this ' too weak evidence,' which is that of the Codd.
Vatic, Ephr., Beza, and Dublin; and which are the ear
liest surviving testimonies, written some centuries before
any of the aggregate of those copies which constituted the
received text. It is, therefore, permissible to reject the
learned doctor's personal sentence, and to adhere preferably

30 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XIV.
to that of Mill, Bengel, and Schulz; and of the four patri
archal authorities, which are here alleged.
Ver. 12. is proclaimed.] jSoara/: corresponding to euayytX,-
gerai — ' is preached,' as the same passage is rendered in
Luke, xvi. 16; not /3;a£era/ — ' suffer eth violence? as in our
Engl. Vers., (see the former Annot. to Matt. xi. 12.)
The Theological Reviewer says, " Ptpoti/Mvog may signify
'celebrated;' but it is incumbent on Mr. P. to satisfy
" Us, that fioagdai is ever used, where the meaning is,
" that a thing is ' openly proclaimed or taught by indivi-
' duals.' " I therefore add from Favorinus (or Phavorinus),
p. 152 — Ptfioriftivu, 8ia/3oi)Tu: — that is, 'published, spread
'abroad:' and moreover, by individuals; — diavt/iirovgi rmi;
8ia(3otigavrag, oti Ko/tfiodog TtQvrixt — * they sent about those who
' should spread a report, that Commodus was dead.' (Hero-
dian, ap. Steph.) " Aiaj3e(3orifMvos, unde diafiorjTog : — rou form
" diafioqrou yevoptvou into tw tvdohv — the murder having been
" published abroad by those from within." (Ib. ap. Steph.
dia^oaa.) The falseness of the rule, first broached by Thomas
Magister in the fourteenth century, and copied by Favorinus
in the sixteenth, ' that diafioau was applied only to evil report,
' and irtgifioua to good report,' has been abundantly exposed
by later eminent commentators : " in utramque partem, cum
" adjuncta re quapiam, de qua agitur, sumi patet." {Ouden-
dorp. Thorn. Mag. p. 209, 10, not. ed. I. S. Bernard. Lugd.
1757.) — 8iaj3oau expresses a wider sphere of divulgation than
irtgiftoau. Bodirai, here, in the passive, and (3ouvTog in the active,
c. iii. 2, are used for dia^oaTai, diafiouvTog ; the simple for the
compound verb. We find the readings fiouXtrai and fiia£tTcu
confounded in abbreviation, in MSS. (Steph. Thes. torn. iv.
p. 14— p. 258, Valpy).

CHAPTER XIV.

Ver. 3. put him in prison.] The locality of that prison,
and the scene of this whole transaction, have been wrought
into much confusion. We learn, from three contemporary

Chap. XIV. MATTHEW. 31
historians, deeply interested in the fact, that, at the time of
its occurrence, Judaa was under the jurisdiction of the
Roman governor, Pilate, and Galilee under that of Herod,
(Luke, iii. 1) ; that Herod gave a great feast to the nobles,
chief officers, and principal persons of Galilee (Matt. xiv.
6; Mark, vi. 21); therefore, that the feast was celebrated
within Herod's own dominions of Galilee. We learn, that
during the feast, and while the guests were at table, a
soldier was sent out, with an order to bring in the head of
the Baptist, which order he duly executed : the prison was
therefore in the same locality with the scene of the feast,
namely, the sovereign's actual residence in Galilee. Yet,
because Josephus, who wrote later, and was little interested
in the circumstance, has cursorily stated, that the Baptist's
imprisonment and death took place at 'Macharus' (a fortress
beyond the Dead Sea, in Arabia), many learned persons
have seized on this obscuration, as a new light, and have
thereby darkened the whole history. The authors of the
'Ancient Universal History' pertinently remark; "Josephus
" should have told us, how it came into Herod's posses-
" sion ; having told us just before, that Machserus belonged
" to the king of Arabia." (Vol. x. p. 537.) The most
probable opinion, therefore, seems to be that of John
Phocas, who, about 1180, wrote his Itinerary in Syria and
Palestine; and who referred the events in question to the
city 'Samaria,' which had been recently beautified by the
late Herod the Great, and had been called by him, 'Sebaste,'
in honour of Augustus.
There is no ground, whatever, for assigning the whole
of Percea to Herod Antipas's tetrarchy. The name 'Peraa,'
from the Greek irtgam {yn or %aga), denoted that portion of
the ancient Israel which lay on the east of the Jordan; from
whence, an inhabitant of those parts was called irtga'hrig (Jo
sephus, de B. J. lib. ii. 20); a term, which the Sept. translators
have extended even to Abram, in Gen. xiv. 13, Afiga//, rui
irtgarri, where our version renders, 'Abram the Hebrew,'
from the original nayn. Of that eastern transamnian dis
trict, the portion that adjoined the Sea of Tiberias, formed
the eastern extent of Galilee, as far as Gadaris, as Jose
phus states explicitly {ib. lib. iii. c. 3) ; so that when our Lord
crossed to ' the country of the Gadarenes,' or Gerasenes

32

SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XIV.

(whose countries were contiguous), he was still in the te-
trarchy of Galilee; in the north of which district, Herod built
the city Julia. No other portion of the Peraa is assigned
to Herod Antipas's government by Josephus, and, therefore,
none so remote as ' Machmrus.' And, as we have such
strong reason for contesting the fact, that the fortress Ma-
ch.erus was the scene ofthe Baptist's death; it is reasonable
to think, that the statement originated from a confusion of an
oral tradition, that Herod Antipas had dealt with the Baptist,
as Herod Agrippa afterwards dealt with James the Elder—
avtiXt MAXAIPA — ' slew him witk tke machjera, or sword,'
Acts, xii. 2. A recent learned annotator inadvertently de
scribes this Herod, as ' Herod Antipas, who murdered the inno-
' cents ; ' but, the murderer died during our Lord's infancy,
before he was recalled from Egypt. It is advisable, there
fore, to prevent further mistaking of their persons, to
annex a distinct ' genealogy of the Herods,' drawn from
Prideaux's ' Connection,' part ii. p. 509, foi. 1717.

M al thace == C leopa tra

= Hhrod the Great, the Murderer.:
Matt. ii. 1-19.
[his issue by three wives.)

= Mariamnc.

Archelaus. Matt, it

Herod Antipas.
Matt. xiv. 1,
3,6; Mark.vi.
14-30; Luke,
iii. viii. ix.
xiii. xxiii. ;
Acts, iv. 27.

Philip. Luke,iii. 1.

Herod Philip.
Matt. xiv.
3 ; Mark,
vi. 17.

A ristobul us = Bernice.

J

Herodias. MatUlv,
3; Mark,
vi. 17.

Herod Agrippa I. =j=
Acts, xii. 1, 2,
20-23.

Agrippa 11.
Acts, xxv. 23.

Drusilla.
Ib. xxiv. 23.

Bernice.
Ib. xxv. 23.

Ver. 5. and though she wished.] This passage ought to be
rendered in accordance with the more full and minute re
lation ofthe same incident, as reported by Mark, vi. 17-19;
which shews, that the agent of the verb and participle, is not
'Herod' {he) in the parenthesis, but {she) ' Herodias' in the
text preceding the parenthesis : and, therefore, that the text of
Matthew has been unskilfully adapted, in the rec. reading,
to an erroneous assumption ofthe former construction, and
has been thrown into a direct contradiction to that of Mark:
which last, is confirmed by the minuter circumstances it nar
rates. The primitive text will therefore have stood, as in
Mark, xai rjfoXtv aurov airoxrtivai; or, xai foXouga auTov airoxT. tpofi.
t.o.; a compend fox. ofthe participle, being misapprehended.

Chap. XVI. MATTHEW 33

CHAPTER XVI.
Ver. 13. Thou hast said:] not, 'Thou art Peter:' —
gu airag, not gu u irtrgog. (See the iovmer Annotations, p. 151.)
I have there shewn, that Jerom and Augustin found both
those ancient readings, in the same narrative ; and, that the
former father testified his perplexity at the double reading:
" Quid est quod ait? — ' Et ego dico tibi, Quia tu mihi
' dixisti:' — 'Et ego dico tibi, Quia tu es Petrus?'" — both
which Latin imports, resolve themselves into the same
original Greek.
The Theological Reviewer here contends, with a puerile
pertinacity, that, " unless I can shew that TTG was a usual
" compend of Utrgog, and OITTC of tnrag, my conjecture
"falls to the ground'' The puerility of this remark consists
in the ignorance of assuming, that compendious writing was
a process of defined and limited rule ; whereas, from its
cause and nature, it was undefined, contingent, and in a
great measure arbitrary, in the position of every writer.
{Expos. Pref. p. 71). What we are to require for a sine
qua non, as critics, is not necessarily a duplicate of a specific
compend, but, full evidence that an alleged compend is in
perfect conformity with the principles of usage by which
compendious writing was commonly conducted. Now, since
we have positive evidence from the MSS., that vowels were
commonly omitted ; that tvdu/iaTog was written ivdujUrog, iraga-
/3oX») iraga^Xtj, ytvtjgtTai ytvotrai, Mavaggqg MaTgqg, iragfovog iragvog
(lb. p. 74) ; we have complete moral evidence, that uirag
would have been correctly and familiarly abridged, tiiTg.
With regard to TTC ; it has not been suggested, that irtTgog
was originally written TTC : but, that, the connected primi
tives gutiirg, having been afterwards arbitrarily divided gu u
mg, instead of gu uirg, some early copyist, either by error or
artifice, extended ¥j into irtTgog, as, in the preceding para
graph, he had duly extended %? into %g/<rros.
The caviller is determined to force this question of simple
philological criticism, into a question oi controversy : "Among
" the conjectural attempts of Mr. P.," he says, " there are few
" which demand more cautious consideration than his dealing
" with the celebrated text, Matt. xvi. 18, Gr. (v. 13 of the
D

34 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XVI.
" N. C), which forms, as it were, the foundation-stone ofthe
"fabric of Roman Supremacy. If the former {gu ti irtTgog),
' Thou art Peter,' is the true reading, the Romanists will
" continue in possession of a weapon which they have most
"portentously abused: if tke latter {gu nirag) — ' Thou hast
' said,' the weapon will be wrested from their hands for
" ever." The theologian has thus spared me the necessity of
demonstrating, that the foundation oi the Papal Supremacy
depends, and has always depended, on a philological selec
tion between two ancient readings. It is undeniable, that
the only passage of the New Scriptures which the Church of
Rome ever alleged, or attempted to allege, as constituting a
' Warrant of Primacy ' in the Christian Church, in favour
of the Roman See, is this clause of St. Matthew's Gospel,
with the reading gu u wg {irtTgog), instead of a reading gu tiFs
{uirac) ; and there is good ground for establishing a conviction,
that a variation of the latter reading, to produce the former,
was artificially effected, in order to create the spurious 'War-
' rant.' An internal evidence of very early corruptness, has
now, at length, in this late age, revealed itself in its essence,
which can never again recover its former deceptious appear
ance of integrity. Every one will henceforth be sensible,
that the sentence, " thou hast said," is more congruous with
the context, and more consonant with our Lord's mode of
discourse, than, ' thou art Peter.' Yet, on this ground of
vacuity were erected those monstrous pretensions, which
the Virgil of modem Rome, Vida, bishop of Alba, thus por
trayed, with impious fiction, in homage and obedience to his
Ecclesiastical Augustuses, Leo X. and Clement VII. ; at the
very moment, when the dispensation of the ' Reformation '
first began to beam on the Christian Church, a.d. 1550 :
" Interea, Petre, Te (nulli pietate secundum
Novi etenim) his, rerum Summam Clavumqiie tenentem,
Praeficimus cunctis, ultro qui nostra sequuti
Imperia : hoc Te praecipuo insignimus honore :
Tu regere, et populis parcens dare jura memento.
Summa tibi in Gentes jam nunc concessa polestas :
Jamque pios tege pace : voca sub signa rebelles.
Quemcunque in terris, scelus exitiale perosus,
Admonitum frustra jnsta devoveris ira,
Colloquio absterrens hominura, ccetuque piorum,
Idem erit invisus ccelo : non ille beatis
Sedibus aspiret, nisi Tu placabilis idem

Chap. XVI. MATTHEW. 35
Dignatus venia meliorem in pristina reddas.
Jamque adeo Tibi concessum mortalibus segris
Claudere siderei portas, ac pandere cceli.
Talia mandabat, terras hominesque relinquens." Christiad. lib. vi. 662.
" And, Peter, Thee, in faith by none excelled,
By whom the Key and Sovereign Power are held ;
Thee Chief, with peerless honour, I ordain
O'er all who faithful own My Heavenly Reign.
Be Thine, alone, with moderating sway
To rule mankind, and make the world obey.
O'er hearts submissive spread Thy sheltering hand :
Reduce rebellion to Thy just command.
Whome'er, in vain admonished, Thou condemn
To fly an outcast from the haunts of men
Of righteous converse ; he, the same, shall be
An object marked of Heaven's hostility.
In vain shall he aspire to bliss above ;
Till Thou appeased shalt deign, with pious love
Tempering the ardour of Thy righteous hate,
Again to raise him to his first estate.
To Thee, in fine, for mortal men 'tis given,
To close, or to unfold, the gates of Heaven.
He spoke, and rising left this earthly world."
And in his ' Hymn to the Apostle Peter, and his See' —
" Ille inde Tibi, mortalibus prre omnibus,
Earn (ecclesiam) reliquit ifitheris repetens domos,
Hsereditario velut jure caperes —
Petre, sive Cephas, seu Simon dici eligis —
Tibique succedere adeo innumerabiles,
Alium, deinde alium, instituit in secula ;
Eadem ut potestate pariter prsecellerent,
Sella, sedentes in Tua, eodemque Solio :
Consultum ut hominum generi ita deinceps foret,
Omnes ut tjntim agnoscerent ultro caput."
" And, when He sought the realms of Light,
To Thee, hereditary right
To that High Power He gave to claim,
In Peter's, Cephas', Simon's name : —
And, endless heritors decreed
Each after other to succeed,
And fill, like Thee, Thy rightful Throne $
Whom men, sole head on earth, should own ! " — (1. 23 — 63.)
Thus, the " Tu regere imperio populos, Romatje, me-
" mento," of heathen Rome — " Roman! take heed thou rule
" the race of man!" { — which constituted the maxim oi Impe
rial Roman policy,) combining with the assumptive ' War-

36 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXI.
• rant' couched in the terms, ' Thou art Peter,' &c. engen
dered the principle of Pontifical Roman policy.
I willingly accept the Theological Reviewer's designation,
of 'faithful Protestant critic ;' notwithstanding, the irony
with which it is bestowed.
Ver. 14. on this rock.] tm raurjj «? irtrgcf. — this Hebrew-
idiom is equivalent to the Greek tin toutoi {Xoyifi) iigu tm
irtrgci, — ' on this {word or saying) as on a rock.' So in
Exod. xix. 4, where our version renders too literally with
the Hebrew, ' I bare you on eagles' wings,' the Greek inter
preters, though Jews, render paraphrastically, ' I bare you
' as on eagles' wings' — avtXaZov u/tag digti tin irrtguyoiv aerm.

CHAPTER XIX.
Ver. 1. to the Jordan.] irtgav. — see above, c. iv. 15.
Ver. 28. in the Regeneration.] iv rp iraXiyytvtgia : — This
word occurs, in the N. C, only twice: here, with relation to
the work of Creation ; and in Titus, iii. 5, with relation to
the work of Grace. In this place, with the definite article,
it intends that period which will arrive, when " He who
" sitteth on the throne shall have declared, Behold! I make
" all things New." It intends, the ytvtgig xamu ougctvou %<u
yng xaivng — " the generation of a New Heaven and a New
"Earth." (Gen. ii. 4 ; 2 Pet. iii. 13; Rev. xxi. 1, 5.)
Comp. Luke, xxii. 29 : " For," observed Macarius, in the
fourth century, "for Christians, there is another world, and
" other enjoyments."

CHAPTER XXI.

Ver. 25. planted a vineyard, and raised a fence — and
dug a wine-vat — and built a tower.] "Within every in-

Chap. XXIII. MATTHEW. 37
" closure appeared a wine-press, and one of those rough
"stone edifices — constructed of circular layers of loose
" stones, the diameter of which gradually diminishing ;
" and they end in a conical top : — 'their sole purpose is that
" of shelter for the guardians of the lands, who are gene-
" rally stationed in them during the fruit and grape sea-
" sons, to protect the produce from the depredation of ma-
" rauders." (Craven's Tour through the S. Prov. of Naples,
pp. 94, 95.) Compare, " a cottage in a vineyard." Isaiah, i. 8.

CHAPTER XXII.

Ver. 7. soldiers.] grgartupara : — The authorised version,
which I too scrupulously followed, in the former edition,
renders, ' armies;' for, there is an objectionable disparity
between the agents so described and the subjects of their
action. Tyndale rendered, with better proportion, ' war-
' ryers: the edition of 1548, 'warriers:' the edition of 1611,
changed those renderings to ' armies.' The same disparity
recurs in Acts, xxiii. 27, in the auth. vers., where it renders
grgaTtupa, ' army,' though in ver. 10, it had rendered the
same word, '¦soldiers.' The former revisions, rendered more
judiciously, ' soldiers,' in both places.

CHAPTER XXIII.

Ver. 14. just such another as yourselves.] dnrXortgov iificnv :
the ancient error, of understanding this phrase to signify,
duplo quam, Vulg., ' dupliciter magis,' Bengel, ' two-fold
' more;' has deterred the later annotators from seeking its
simple meaning, which is merely that of a counterpart, or
fac-simile ; or, as we popularly say, ' a very double.' —
"Double, resemblance: as, his or her double; meaning.
" another person extremely like the party." (Todd, John
son's Diet.) Our Lord employed the phrase in the same

38 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXIV.
sense as fyto/oj, where he said, tivi o/ioiugu ; 6/10101 ougi iraiSmg,
Sec. : so, in Rev. xviii. 6, diirXa, means only ra ha, ' equi-
' valent,' as in Luke, vi. 34.
Ver. 34. all these things will come on this generation.]
This was the original conclusion of our Lord's discourse, on
that occasion ; but, a surreptitious addition was very early
subjoined, copied from St. Luke's Gospel, xiii. 35, 36
{Annot.), which bas retained its furtive station in this
of Matthew, in all the surviving copies. As, the usurping
o oiioXoyn, in 1 John, iv. 4, has expelled the primitive
reading, o Xuti, from all the copies except one, ever since the
fifth century. (Euseb. H. Eccl. vii. 32. See the former
Annot. and the following Suppl. Annot. to Heb. ii. 9, and to
1 John, here referred to.)

CHAPTER XXIV.

Ver. 5. in my name.] It has been shewn, in the former
Annot. to this passage, that these words do not express
the counterfeiting or assuming our Lord's name and person;
but, the falsely alleging his authority and mission. Such,
also, were the propounders of the 'false Christs' men
tioned afterwards in ver. 24 ; that is, 'false propounders of
' Christ's true doctrine.'
Ver. 24. false prophets.] i. e. not, 'false foretellers of
' events,' but, 'false propounders of doctrine.' See above,
c. vii. 22. {irgo<prtrtuoi). I am astonished, that all the learned
annotators could persuade themselves, that the various im
postors which they cite from Origen and Josephus, have any
relation to the parties here intended by our Lord ; or, that
the ' false prophets' mentioned by him, were other than the
'falsifiers of his doctrine,' foreshewn in ver. 5.
Ver. 37. no one knoweth.] oidtv: — I must venture to
question an interpretation of this verb, in this place, pro-

Chap. XXVI. MATTHEW. 39
pounded by a recent learned annotator. " The verb uduv," he
says, " here signifies, according to a Hebrew idiom, to make
" to know; i. e. to reveal.'' It is not easy to seize the learned
writer's meaning in this position. There is no Hebrew idiom
that can give to the Greek uduv the sense of ' to make to
' know.' The Hebrew has a conjugation which would give
that force to its own verb, jn» ; but, that would only cause
the Greek translator to interpret by yvcagi^av : not to use
uduv in the sense of yvugiZtiv, which would cause a confusion,
without example, in the Greek language. See Trommius's
Concord., yvugiZa, torn. i. p. 320 — tidtoi, p. 443; by com
paring which places, the point in question will be clearly
illustrated. Ver. 37. neither can know.] See after, Annot. to Mark,
xv. 32; and former Annot. pp. 201-7.
Ver. 47. blessed is that servant who, &c] With this
benediction, compare Malachi, iii. 16, 17: "Then, they
" that feared the Lord spake often one to another; and
" the Lord hearkened, and heard them, and a book of re-
" membrance was written before Him for them that feared
" the Lord, and that thought upon His name : And, they
" shall be mine, saith the Lord of Hosts, in that day when I
" make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth
" his own son that serveih him''

CHAPTER XXVI.

Ver. 28. my blood of the Covenant.] According to the
direct testimony of the most ancient copies, (viz. B, C, D, E,
and the Coptic version,) neither Matthew, nor his follower
Mark, employed the word xaiv-qg — 'New,' in their recitals
of that occasion : that qualification was first added by St.
Paul, in 1 Cor. xi. 25, and Heb. xii. 24, from Jer. xxxi. 31 ;
and was adopted from him, by his disciple Luke, in his
GospeL From thence, it has at length been added, in pro
cess of time, to the two former Gospels, by later philoponists.

40 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXVII.
Ver. 68. Tell us.] irgo^rtugov : — Tyndale, who first trans
lated from the Greek, rendered ' tell us,' in this place; so
also, did the English versions, till 1611, when King James's
revision introduced. the novel term 'prophesy,' from the Latin
' prophetiza :' Tyndale's, is undeniably the most correct and
most intelligible ; King James's, is the least intelligible and
most pedantic.

CHAPTER XXVII.

Ver. 32. they found a man, a Cyrenean.] tugov avbgmn,
Kugrivaiov. Though our Engl, version renders ' of Cyrene,' in
the first of these places, and ' a Cyrenian,' in both the latter,
yet the Greek has the adjective in all the three. By thus
changing the construction in the first passage, the Englishs
reader has been drawn into a misapprehension of the sacred
writer's intentions. The adjective Kugrivaiog, has the same
appellative signification, both in this case of Simon, and that
of Luke in Acts, xiii. 1 , Aouxtog 6 Kugrivaiog — Luke the Cyre
nean) ; and, in c. vi. 9, where it is applied, collectively, to
the whole fraternity so described — Kugqvaioi — ' Cyreneans.'
(See the Annot. to Acts, vi. 9, and xiii. 1.)
Ver. 50. but another, taking a syear, pierced his side, &c]
To the historical fact, of our Lord's side having been pierced
before his death, the Theological Reviewer opposes his two
most potent objections, which he has selected as destructive
of its truth : " Without venturing," he says, " into the laby-
" rinth of critical research which this question lays open,
" We must content ourselves with offering one or two brief
" remarks. First, then, it is extremely difficult to under-
" stand, by what inducement any bystander could have been
" impelled to this peculiar act of violence." To any other
structure of intellect, it would be extremely easy to under
stand, that a humane desire to close a state of torture which
must otherwise terminate in protracted death, was, humanly
speaking, an inducement sufficient for the committal of the
act ; but, when we further add, that by that single act was

Chap. XXVIII. MATTHEW. 41
accomplished the prediction, " a bone of Him shall not be
broken," it is as easy to understand, that the motive, excited
and impelled by the Almighty Author of the prediction,
solves all the difficulty from which this expositor is unable to
extricate himself. I may further point out, that the eventual
' beatification' of the perpetrator of the act, in an after age,
is in keeping with this view of his motive.
" But, secondly," says this ill-provided critic, " We are
" quite at a loss to perceive, how the narrative of St. Matthew
'' can be made to agree with that of St. John, xix. 34 : — in
" the original, the word with which the sentence (in John)
" begins, is aXXa ; and we know not upon what authority
" Mr. P. has given to that word the sense expressed by the
" English causative, for." This is an untoward confession
of ignorance, on the part of the reviewer; for which he
may consult Parkhurst, p. 33, § 11, ed. Rose, 1829, and
Macknight, vol. i. p. 110, § 78, v. a\Xa.
Ver. 50. crying out again :] that is, on receiving the thrust
ofthe spear. The words of this last exclamation, are recorded
only by Luke : ' Father ! into Thy hands I commit my
' spirit!'

CHAPTER XXVIII.

Ver. 1. after the sabbath.] o-^t dt eafSfiurm, — not ' in the
' end of the sabbath,' as our last revisers have chosen to ren
der the sentence. o-\n, in this passage of Matthew, answers
to diaytvopivou in Mark, xviii. 1 (Gr. xvi. 1), which those re
visers correctly render, ' was past:' for, the sabbath ended at
six o'clock, on the evening of Saturday. That word reveals
itself to be a contracted form from o#/<rw, in its relative sense
of 'post' and 'postea;' and, to be applied here to time, as
Homer opposes — vuv xai oiriggm. (See following Annot. to
Mark, xviii. 2.) The time described, is ' the first dawn of
' Sunday.' Ver. 16. and the eleven disciples went.] St. Luke

42 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXVIII.
relates, that on the day when our Lord ascended, ' He gave
' commandments, through the Holy Spirit, to the apostles
' whom He had chosen ; and spoke to them of the things
' pertaining to the kingdom ; ' or, as St. Paul says, 1 Cor.
xv. 7 — tiro, roig airooToXoig iragiv — ' then to all the apostles;'
that is, to the eleven disciples or apostles enumerated by St.
Matthew in this verse. A modern annotator has adven
tured to allege — " It is highly probable, that some of the
" seventy should accompany the eleven :" a most illegitimate
conjecture; contradicting the terms and implications of the
testimony, and seeming to suppose a conflux of spectators,
assembled to witness the gratification of an ascent ! Whereas,
the several inspired writers who have been directed to trans
mit the transaction, have manifestly designed so to shroud
the attendant circumstances, that no ground might be af
forded for attaching local superstition to the place of its
theatre. The same remark is to be applied to the scenes of
our Lord's baptism apd his transfiguration: — namely, 'That
' God caused him to be made manifest : not to all the people,
' but to the witnesses foreordained by God — to testify every
' where.' Acts, x. 41-43. (Comp. after, Annot. to Luke, x.)
Ver. 16. to Galilee, to the mountain.] ug — ug: — As it is
evident, from the silence of the four evangelists, that the
identity of the place of the Ascension has been suppressed
by them all (to avoid occasion for local superstition), it can
not be affirmed, whether the repetition of the preposition,
tig — tig, was designed to convey a mediate, or a final station.
Bloomfield says — " the words oi eragaro, have reference, not
" to the mountain, but to Galilee'' But this would be
inverting the order of communication, which proceeds from
generals to particulars ; from the country to the mountain,
from TaXiXaiav to ogog ; not reversely. It is more reasonable,
therefore, to understand the ug to ogog, as progressive from
the former ug «tjii TaXiXaiav, i. e. ' to or through Galilee, and
' from thence to the mountain.'
Ver. 17. but, they stood at a distance.} not, 'but some
1 doubted.' The only parties that witnessed this incident,
were the eleven apostles; who conversed with our Lord, for
forty days after his resurrection. On the first of those days,

Chap. XXVIII. MATTHEW. 43
the apostle Thomas was the last of them that acknowledged
his identity ; but it was only for a moment, when he solemnly
professed his conviction. Yet, we are to be told by our
common English version, that even on the last oi those forty
days, ' some of them doubted.'
In Matt. xiv. 31, xxiv. 3, we read tdigragag, and tdigTagav,
and in Luke, xxii. 59, xxiv. 51, Acts, xxvii. 28, we read
diaeragrig, bngTr\, diagTavTtg. The former of these words, is
thus clearly explained by Euthymius : dian tdigragag ; qyouv,
dian irgoiTov (liv tHaggqgag, i/grtgov hi tdtiXiagag ; touto yag cuvo//,agt
digrayiiog — "Why didst thou hesitate? that is, Why didst
" thou first take courage, and afterwards be afraid? for, this
" is the meaning of digraypog — indecision." The last three
passages from Luke, are not cited by Euthymius ; but, all tke
five words have the same signification in all the places, and
intend, hesitation in acting, not doubting in believing. Our
Engl, version, therefore, renders the original faultily in the
last passage of Matthew, by rendering, " but some doubted."
— oi de idigr., signifies ' they (all) hesitated or stopped;' and
not, nvtg — ' some,' as a later editor would strain the sense, to
adapt it to his own hypothesis. The Greek words in all the
five passages above cited, have the same common original,
though they are marshalled in the Index of the Concordance
under the separate words, iiignmu and digra^ca. The proper
sense ofthe word in this place, is the same as in the o! tgrr^gav
troggufov — they stopped at a distance, in Luke, xvii. 12.

ST. MARK.

Magzos o ftafams xai lg/j.vvivrnf Utrgov, xai auras Ta into tou TltT^ou xtlguffffepsva,
ty^atpus */&'> axgi/Zus ^ra^aSuxi. — " Mark, the disciple and interpreter of
" Peter., has thus accurately written and delivered to us Peter's promul-
" gation of the Gospel." — Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. lib. iii. c. 39, and
lib. v. c. 8.

CHAPTER II.

Ver. 4. they opened the roof, &c] " Here, as in all the
" Arab villages, the houses are built of bricks dried in the
" sun ; and the roofs are composed of mud laid over branches
" of trees, supported on long straight trunks of aspen. In
" the rainy season, the loss of a roof is an event of ordinary
" occurrence. Their houses are all ofthe same height, and
" never exceed one story; and their tops, communicating
" with one another, form a favourite promenade. A know-
" ledge of these facts, and of the construction of Syrian
" buildings, throws light on the narrative of the 'paralytic;'
" whose friends uncovered and broke up tke roof of a house, to
" let down his bed before our Lord." Elliott's Travels, &c,
vol. ii. p. 278 : see, also, p. 353.
Ver. 14. Levi the publican.] tov rtXuvnv: — not, rov tov
AXfmov — ' the son of Alpheus,' as in the received text. This
last most remarkable false reading, has resulted from a similar
depravation to that which has been exposed in the Annot. to
Matt. x. 7. We find, that in this passage of Mark there
was, very anciently, a varied double reading : tv Tigi fiiiv,
iragayuv tidt laxai^ov tou AXipawu xa&yj/j.tvov, — tv Tigi de, MarOaiov
tov TtXmvriv — " some copies read, — As he passed by, he saw
" James the son of Alpheus sitting, &c, but others, Matthew
" the publican." {Scholium from the Comment, of Victor
Antioch. in Cod. Reg. 1048 ; Coteler. Apost. Pair. torn. i.
p. 413, not.) The Cod. Bezce or D, and Vind. Lamb. 31,
have the reading iaxufiov — James, in this place, instead of

Chap. III. MARK. 45
Atu'iv ; but, the latter copy has in the margin, tv aXXoig Atuiv —
' in others, Levi.' (See the various readings in Wetstein,
Schulz, and Scholz.) From this compound evidence it is
plain, that the common reading, which introduced the genea
logical error, that Matthew or Levi was a 'son of Alpheus,'
and therefore, ' a kinsman of our Lord,' has resulted from
a mangled commixture of the two readings,
Atu'iv rot rt\uvm Levi, the publican,
laKvfiov tou AXcpaiou James, the son of Alpheus ;
which have at last established the confusion of the common
text, and with which Michaelis has distracted himself and
his readers, in his "Account of St. Matthew;" where, he
makes Matthew and Levi distinct and different individuals.
{Introd. vol. iii. p. 96, &c), Cotelerius {ib. p. 275, not.) gives
the following filiation of Matthew, from the Codd. Reg. 1 789,
1026 : Mardaiog, 6 xai Atu'ig, ex irargog Pouxou, [iriTgog di Xaigodnag,
airo rrig TaXiXaiag — ' Matthew, who was also Levi, was the son
' of Rucus and Chasrothea, of Galilee.' This filiation was
evidently unknown to Michaelis ; as was, also, the mutila
tion of this passage of Mark. It was unknown, likewise, to
his right rev. translator. (Ib. part ii. Notes, p. 86.)

CHAPTER III.
Ver. 8. a great multitude followed him from, &c] St.
Matthew states — "from Galilee, and Decapolis, and Jeru-
" salem, and Judea, and from the Jordan :" St. Luke, ch. vi.
18, "from all Judea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast
" of Tyre and Sidon :" both evangelists confining their de
scriptions to the inhabitants within the Jordan, westward.
In this place of St. Mark, the common text reads thus :
"from Galilee, and from Judaea, and from Jerusalem, and
"from Idumasa, and from the Jordan ; and from about Tyre
" and Sidon;" which additional clause {and from Idumaa)
in Mark, caused Bengel to remark with surprise — "Ergo,
" Esau non erat plane exosus." — Now, all the MS. copies
read alike, in the first-cited passages ; but, with great varia
tions, in the last passage : some, omitting the clause airo rrig

46 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. V.
idovpaiag altogether; others, substituting Idou/iaiag for louhaiag,
where the latter is the proper reading. From a similar
careless confusion of the two names, resulted the common
reading loudaiav, for idoupatav, in Acts, ii. 9 ; as I shewed in
the former Annotation to that place, p. 295. It will be
evident, therefore, that the clause — ' and from Idumaa,' is
spurious, and intrusive in this verse.
Ver. 17. the Kananaan.] See above, Annot. to Matt. x. 8.
Ver. 27. eternal sin.] Bengel duly adopted the most anc,
reading apagrias of the Vat., in place of the junior xgmmg :
' aitaviou apagnag — aeterni peccati. Peccatum, hoc loco reatum
' denotat ; et seternum peccatum opponitur, magna proprie-
' tate sermonis, remissions Glossa, aiwviou xgieetag.' {Gnomon.
torn. i. p. 213.)

CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 36. in the ship in which he was.] Bloomfield's note
shews the perplexity caused to annotators, by the common
reading, iig nv tv ry irXoioi; which is, clearly, an ancient sphal-
ma by intrusion of a g ; for, p riv ev ry irXoiw, as is shewn by
what follows — ' though other ships were with him' — ' xai
' aXXa irXoia riv fier aurou : ' so read the Vat. and L MSS.
See Canter, ' de Uteris supervacuis,' c. 2. Pref. p. ii.

CHAPTER V.
Ver. 7. What hast thou to do with me?] See above,
Matt. viii. 29.
Ver. 13. the steep.] " The mountains on the East side
" ofthe Sea of Tiberias, come close to it." Pococke, vol. ii.
p. 69. Birch says, " ngav de i>s digxiXioi, desunt in Vat.
" 1209;" but, Bentley had previously stated, "Cod. Vat.
" i>g b," omitting only r,gav de. See Elliott's, Travels, &c.
vol. ii. p. 338.

Chap. XII. MARK. 47

CHAPTER VIII. (Gr. VII.)
Ver. 17. even as all other foods.] xai irega igov, not xaSa-
giZfiv : as was pointed out in the former Annot., pp. 194, 5.
An analogous confusion occurs in Anacr. Od. 37, last line ;
where xai tfoXcav — ' et sponte,' contracted into xafoXuv, has
perplexed all the annotators, who have persisted in referring
xafoXuv to xaSaigtoi ; but Stephens has shewn, that tfoXuv was
used in the sense of ' sponte' — ' etiam de rebus inanimatis."
In the passage of Anacreon, it signifies the same as auro/j,arn,
or ' automatously ,' in c. iv. 28, of this Gospel. — xai thXoiv —
xakXav, ' and of itself, or spontaneously.'

CHAPTER X. (Gr. IX.)

Ver. 23. If thou canst.] The Vat., Beza, and L MSS.
read this verse : ei ti duvp, fiorjdrigov rifiiv, girXayxvigfoig tip' rijj*ag.
'O de V/igoug tiirtv auroi, to ti duvr/; iravra duvara Tip irigrtuovri — ' If
' thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help
' us. Jesus said to him, If thou canst {sayest thou) 1 All
' things can be, to him who believeth.' This is the pri
mitive, emphatic reading of the verse, which should be thus
rendered. It explains the force of ro, shewing, that our
Lord repeated the words of the supplicant. The changing
duvn to duvagai, and the insertion of irignugai, bear the stamp
of a later age.
Ver. 38. Forbid him not.] Our Lord here establishes
the principle, that the argument, ' he doth not follow Us,'
affords no plea for disunion between those who are different
communities, yet are united in His true faith; for, that all
such constitute only ' One flock,' under ' One Shepherd.'
(John, x. 15.) Conf. former Annot. to Ephes. iv. 12.

CHAPTER XII. (Gr. X. 46.)

Ver. 16. as he went out of Jericho— a blind man, &c]
Compare Luke, xviii. 35, " as he was approaching Jericho — a

48 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XIII.
" certain blind man," &c — " A remarkable variation" (ob
serves Michaelis, Introd. to the N. T. vol. iii. pp. 221, 2) :
" according to St. Mark, x. 46 (xii. 16), Christ restoring a
" blind man to sight, after his entry into Jericho, and as he
" was again quitting the town; but, according to St. Luke,
" Christ performed this miracle before he entered into Jericho
" (c. xviii. 35.)" — This is another instance, of the learned
German charging his own confusion on the evangelist. Mark,
as Matthew (xx. 13, 14), only relates the conclusion of this
incident ; Luke, relates it from the beginning. At its com
mencement, Jesus was in transitu; but the blind man was
in statu. When our Lord had proceeded through the town,
with the multitude, he halted, and then became in statu;
and called for the blind man, who then became in transitu,
to join him, where Mark and Matthew take up the incident.
Michaelis, therefore, carelessly falsifies the evangelist's state
ment when he affirms ; that ' Luke states, that Christ per-
' formed this miracle before he entered into Jericho.' (See a
similar confusion ofthe same expositor, in the former Annot.
to Mark, xviii. 1, (p. 214,) relative to our Lord's burial.)

CHAPTER XIII. (Gr. XI.)

Ver. 1. Jerusalem.] 'itgogoXupa: not'ItgougaX^/i, as it is er
roneously given in this place, in all the printed copies ; which
latter form ofthe name, is exclusively confined to St. Luke's
Gospel. — Schulz, 1827: "'iegogoXufta, B (or Vatic.) D, L, 13,
" 69, 121, 124, 218, all. Sahid. Or. iii. 737, A. Recte; nam ex
" evangelistis nemo nisi Luc. usus est forma 'ItgougaXri/t. Unus,
" quern fortasse opposueris locus, Matt, xxiii. 37, pendet ipse
" a Luc. textu, xiii. 34."
Scholz, 1830, copies and curtails the former's important
criticism, only adding the three references, '28, 346, 435;'
not apprehending the object of the former's acute observa
tion, which he, therefore, suppresses in his edition. He
gives it altogether thus: — " ug 'itgogoXu/ia, B, D, L, 13, 28,
" 69, 121, 124, 218, 346, 435. Sahid. Orig. (3, 737 A.)"—
This is the whole of his Note.

Chap. XVI. MARK. 49
This single example affords sufficient ground for re
gret, that Schulz's manuscript notes for his second volume,
passed, by negotiation, to the possession of Scholz, his near
namesake and continuator. — (See the several Annott. to
Matt. ii. 23 ; Luke, xiii. 36 ; and Heb. x. 24.)

CHAPTER XV. (Gr. XIII.)

Ver. 32. neither can.] oudt olog, not oudt 6 ulog: — See
former Annott, to this place ; where it is shewn, that oi, i, u,
were frequently confounded in MS. copies. In Matt. v. 45,
for u'ioi, some MSS. read, b^oioi (Scholz, torn. i. p. 13 ; and
Proleg. p. xii. " uhi pro bfioioi"), as from oi uki : — also, o/a for
ouui, (Matthsei, not. Luke, vi. 25, p. 339, 2 ed.) " But surely,
" (exclaims my Theological Critic,) it must have far exceeded
" even ' the abruptness characteristic of St. Mark,' to in-
" troduce the solitary dissyllable oiog, as conveying this sense
" {can) ; stripped as it is, to utter nakedness, both by the
" omission of rt, and by the triple ellipsis of roiourog, tgnv, and
" tidevai ! " The force of this ' surely,' will be most sensibly felt
by contrasting with it the scholarship of Hoogeveen {note
64 to Viger, cap. iii. s. 8, § ix.) : " Non minus naturalis
" hujus adjectivi (0/05) virtus percipitur, quando solum per
" se, sine verbo substantivo ponitur; ut in illo Platonis de
" Rep. lib. iii. init., ag' ou raura rt Xtxrtov, xai OIA {i. e. a
" duvara tgri) auroug iroir\gai rixitira tov 6avarov dtdnvai — ' nonne
' talia dicenda sunt, quae mortis metum illis omnino eripere
' possunt (o/a) ?' Eleganter aliquando verbum substantivum
" omittitur, et infinitivus ex prmcedenti oratione est sup-
" plendus:" or, what this Reviewer calls, ' utter nakedness.'

CHAPTER XVI. (Gr. XIV.)

Ver. 3. turning over.] guvrge^aga : not guvrgi-^aga. (See
the former Annotation, p. 207.) Mr. Trollope ingeniously

50 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XVI.
adduces the 'fracto cado— -broken jar' of Propertius, in
support of the reading guvrgi^aga, which Greek word signi
fies, ' smask or break in pieces;' yet, he would restrict its
meaning to signify, merely, " she broke the cement with
" which the stopper was secured." He was probably in
duced to attempt this violation of the usage of language, by
the same consideration that influenced Knatchbull : " Quod
" si fregisset, quo modo potuit effundere? — if she had broken
" it, bow could she have poured out its contents?" Ac
cordingly, this last learned annotator resorted to a very
inadequate sense, which he found in the ' anc. Glossary:
' guvrgifiu, concutio — to shake together.' But, the emphatic
force of xarexetv which follows, implies the ' inversion' or
complete overturning of the vessel, which was of too valuable
a quality to be uselessly destroyed ; being formed of a piece
of solid alabaster excavated, in order to insure the preserv
ation of the fragrance ; and usually ornamented with silver
or gold, as we learn from Pliny (lib. xxxv. cap. 8). We must,
therefore, abide by the reading guvrgi*\>aea, on the ground laid
down in the former Annotation referred to.
I shall here adduce another example of the moral power
of a single letter, to establish its genuineness, against the
authority oi every existing MS. All the MS. copies of Thu-
cydides (lib. ii. c. 1, p. 123, Duker.) read, xaxuv rt xqyallw,
and so all the editions are printed. As the words are used
in lofty panegyric, they mutually contradict each other.
Mr. William R. Hamilton has relieved future commentators
from all perplexity in this reading, by simply correcting,
xaXuv n xayadoiv1 — a x, having been inadvertently written
for a X. This particular sphalma was noted, in the 16th
century, as of ordinary occurrence, by Canter :
" x corrumpitur in x, et contra :
" scribendum igitur, xaxus pro xa\o>s, duobus locis ;
" contra, xaXoi pro xaxoi."2
Ver. 14, 15 — guestchamber — upper room.] xaraXu^a —
avuyaiov, Vat. — Mr. Trollope " thinks it plain, that these
" words intend identically the same place." This is not
1 See " Transactions ofthe Royal Society of Literature," vol. iii. p. 114.
2 Expository Preface, p. 55.

Chap. XVI. MARK. 51
exactly the case : every public ' guest-room,' was not neces
sarily a private ' room upstairs,' which is the meaning of
avuyaiov, or avuiynov — ' above the ground.' Though the xara-
Xu/i/ia inquired for generally, proved in the present case to
be an avuyaiov specially; yet we cannot critically pronounce,
that the words intend the same place.
Ver. 41. the time is past.] a*s%s/, sc. fi isga rou xafoudtiv,
as is shewn by the opposition of yXfov fi iiga — : as in Cicero,
' abiit illud tempus, mutata ratio est' (pro Muraen. 7).
Almost all annotators have collated «*£%£(, in this verse,
with the same word as printed in Anacreon, Od. 28, 33.
aift%it' fcXfTTu yag aurnv :
but, there is no relation between the two cases. The poet,
in the latter case, who was watching a painter engaged in
painting the portrait of a female, suddenly exclaimed,
' Stop, or hold (your hand), for I now see her exactly ! '
Pauw acutely perceived, that we should read airtxe, in the
imperative — ' abstine (manum) ; ' and we have seen in
Annot. to Matt. vi. 2, on the authority of Eustathius, that
Xs'Sa) was popularly elliptic after airtxw. The final short t
oi airtxe, becomes common, before the mute and liquid of
fiXtiroi. Fischer very simply opposed, to Pauw's conclusive
correction, the objection, " that it would be very uncivil so
" to check the painter — nee prseterea ferri potest, quia
" modestice et urbanitati adversatur." (Fischer's Anacr.
p. 111.)
Ver. 65. rec. text, efiaXXov: Vat. and Alex., eXafiov. Beza,
tXa/ifiavov : such negligent inversions, were frequent in the
transcriptions of copies.

52 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XVIII.

CHAPTER XVIII. (Gr. XVI.)
Ver. 2. long before the rising of the sun.] Xiav itgu'i—
avartiXavrog rou ijXiou : — See former Annot. to this place. The
Theological Reviewer resists this exposition, by a process of
singular literary gallantry : " Who ever heard, before," he
says, " that the adverb irgoii was capable of governing a geni-
" tive case? Mr. P., indeed, ventures to invest it with this
" power, on the authority of Pollux; from whom he pro-
" duces, in support of his assertion, the expression irgoii rtis
" ijXixiug (translated, by him, ' before the age of manhood'),
" as opposed to o«\n «js riXixiag. That the former of these
" phrases is opposed to the latter, is certain ; but it is
" equally certain, that their respective meanings are, 'early
' in manhood,' and ' late in manhood:' that is, 'at an
' early or late period of manhood.' " It is surprising, that
self-confidence should thus thrust itself forward for con
futation, and exposure. The whole question is, whether
irgoii and o-vj/s are inclusive or exclusive ofthe period named or
implied. Tne Reviewer is desirous to make his readers be
lieve, that both these words are inclusive; and he therefore
boldly adventures the little critical fraud, oi suppressing the
words of Pollux which I had produced, and which would have
decided the meaning, positively, against him. Pollux ex
pressly premises (lib. i. § 68), that he is speaking of ' things
' done' irgo xaigou, ri pera xaigov — ' before or after a period] and
therefore, not ' early in a period :' so also, that o-\t means
fiitra — ' after,' not ' late in,' a period (see above). The Re
viewer seems never to have had occasion before to learn, that
the adv. irgoii is always elliptical of its object in the genitive case
(as an 'adv. temporis'), when that object is not expressed; and
always denotes precurrence. In this passage of Mark, the
object is expressed — viz. Xiav irgoii — rou riXiou avar. — ' long
' before the sun had risen ; ' as before, in c. i. 35, of the same
gospel, irgoii tvvuxov Xiav — ' early, long before it. was day; ' which
is explained in John, xx. 1, by gxonag en ougng — ' while it was
' yet dark.' But, because, in the English phrase ' dawn of
' day,' dawn is inclusive and partitive of ' day,' the Reviewer
sagaciously assumes, that irgoii, in the Greek, irgoii T^g ^igag—
'just before daylight,' must be inclusive and partitive ofy/tiga,

Chap. XVIJI. MARK- 53
also: deaf to the vociferation ofthe etymon irgo — 'before,'
in irgoii, which tries in vain to obtain the ears of his under
standing. Whether the involution of the construction is
original, or the work of later ages, it is sufficiently ma
nifest, that Mark intended by Xiav irgoii — rou qXiou avartiXav-
rog — ' long before the sun had risen.' The Critic, however,
feeling his ground not very solid under him, closes his
criticism by asserting; "All this is expressed, intelligibly
" and precisely enough, by our own version : ' very early in
' the morning — at the rising of the sun ; ' " which evinces
his liberal indifference as to what is really expressed by the
words : whether, ' long before the sun had risen,' or ' at
' its rising.' He admonishes me, " that a little stern
" collision with the mightiest masters of biblical criticism,
" may still be needful, in order to teach me a salutary
" distrust of my own sagacity and judgment : " to render
me that important service, he has thus charitably engaged
me in a ' collision' with himself, whom, it is evident that he
tacitly includes in the number of ' those masters.'
Ver. 3, 4. Who will roll away the stone ? — but they
saw, that the stone had been rolled back.] Every surviving
MS. reads airoxuXigti, and airoxtxuXigrai (like the printed
texts), excepting only the paramount, or most authoritative
copy, the Cod. Vaticanus ; which was unknown to all our
translators, and which alone reads, airoxuXigti, and avaxtxu-
Xigrai. From the very earliest departure from the primitive
reading of this passage, have resulted all its intricacies. To
roll away — airo, and to roll back or aside — ara, denote dif
ferent degrees of exertion ; and, to that different degree of
exertion the writer alludes, when he adds, "for, it was very
" great." Thus, the recovery of the primitive and genuine
reading of the Cod. Vatic, dispels all the perplexity which
Bloomfield testifies in his Note; and which resulted, only
from his not being aware of the vitiated reading of all the
later texts. " The Commentators (he observes) have been
" not a little perplexed with this clause, because it could
" not be referred to what immediately precedes : — nothing
" would seem to remove it, but to transpose the words, as is
" done by Newcome and Wakefield; but, for that there is
" little authority." In the corrupted reading of the received

54 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XVIII.
text there is, indeed, no authority whatever; but, in the
genuine reading of the Vatican copy, there is paramount
authority. Confer the case of Lazarus, in John, xi. 38-41. " Take
" ye away the stone — and they took away the stone." But,
in this case of Mark, it is said, " Who will roll away the
"stone? — but they saw, that the stone had been rolled
" back — avaxtxuXigrai : for, it was very great, (or too heavy to
" take away)." Such, then, was Mark's original writing;
and, there was no occasion for the transposition so anciently
introduced by the ' Versio Syra-hieros,' cited thus by Birch :
" Hie versus ita habetur : r)v yag fhtyag g<podga' xai avufSXe-fyaeatx
" ^tugaffiv on airoxexuXigrai 6 XiDog." Quat. Evang. p. 315,
not. 4 ; and which has also been adopted by Newcome and
Wakefield. This reading of the Syriac Hier., shews how
early this negligence of the Gr. transcriber must have taken
place. Ver. 9, inclusive, to the end of the rec. text and autk.
vers.] Mr. Trollope, in his recent edition of the Gr. N. T.,
would settle the question respecting this sequel, in a very
summary manner. " It is not possible," he asserts, " that
" the Gospel could have concluded with the words, etpof3owrti
" yag — for they were afraid;" although Eusebius's 'Canon'
expressly testifies, that it did so conclude in his time, that is,
in the fourth century. But, the same assertor does not reflect,
that we can affirm, with stronger internal testimony, that
' it is not possible' that he who wrote those words, could have
proceeded immediately with the unreferred and disjointed
sentence, avagrag dt irgoii, irgoirji ga/3(3urou : suddenly going back
to the time which he had just before described, in ver. 1.
Whereas, the corresponding verse 8, in Matthew, is united
and connected, by regular historical sequence, with the fol
lowing verse: — "Ultima Evangelii pericopa, a commate
" nono ad finem, omnino deest in prcestantissimo et an-
" tiquissimo Cod. Vatican. 1209. — iraga irXeigroig avriygatpoig ou
" xtivrai raera — oig volSa vo/jiigavrtg aura rivtg tivar x. r. X. Hoc
" scholium egregie confirmatur suffragio plurimorum optimse
" notse Codicum, qui numeros capitulorum, qui Eusebius in
" harmonia usus, ultra versum octavum non habent," &c.
Birch. Quat. Evang. not. p. 316.

ST. JOHN.

CHAPTER I.
Ver. 1. and, the Word was God.] "The very gentile
" philosophers themselves (said Cave) could but admire
" John's writings : witness Amelius, the famous Platonist
" and regent of Porphyry's school at Alexandria; who,
" (quoting a passage out of the beginning of St. John's
" Gospel,) " swore, by Jupiter, that this Barbarian {or
' foreigner) had hit upon the right notion when he affirmed,
' that the Word that made all things, was in the beginning, and
' in place of prime dignity and authority with God; and, was
' that God that created all things, in whom every thing that
( was made, had (according to its nature) its life and being ;
' that he was incarnate, and clothed with a body, wherein
' he manifested the glory and magnificence of his nature :
' that, after his death, he returned to the repossession of
' divinity, and became the same God which he was before
' his assuming a body, and taking the human nature and
' flesh upon him.' " (Amelius, ap. Euseb. Prcep. Evang.
lib. xi. p. 540.) — xai ourog aga riv b Aoyos, xaS bv aei ovra ra
ytvofjjtvu, eyivero, ug av xai b JigaxXeirog a^iugeif xai vr) A; ov o
fiagftagog afyoi tv rrj rrig agx^g ra^ti rt xai a%iq xafogrrixora irgog
&tov nvai, xai &eov tivai' x. r. X. — Cave, Antiq. Apostol. St.
John, c. xv., and not.— Comp. "Word o/God," Rev. xix.
8, {rec. 13), and 1 John, i.
Ver. 5. overcame him not.] ou xanXafitv : — the Evange
list's proposition is, that, while the moral world was sub
sisting in universal darkness, a light shone within it; and
maintained its own brightness, unsubdued by the general ob
scurity, which nevertheless did not admit its rays (Comp. Ps.
cxxxix. 11). In this clause, St. John speaks of the impo-
tency ofthe darkness to extinguish the light; in the 11th
verse, he speaks of the repulse or exclusion of the light by

56 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. I.
the darkness. This representation of the state of the moral
world, at the crisis of our Lord's opening ministry, must
be acknowledged to be historically and minutely exact.
Common experience shews us the three cases — a light
diffusing its rays widely, through a clear unimpaired at
mosphere — a light maintaining itself unimpaired, in a dense
atmosphere, which, however, obstructs the diffusion of its
rays — a light extinguished by a mephitic atmosphere, devoid
of vital air. This last, could not be the case in the moral
world : the second, was actually the case : and the object of
our Lord's intervention was to produce the first case, by
purging the density of the atmosphere, and causing an un
obstructed diffusion of the light. Thus, then, ou xareXafitv,
in ver. 5, and ou iragtXafiov, in ver. 11, do not intend the
same operation, (as the Theological Reviewer assumes, with
his ordinary indiscrimination ;) but, on the contrary, two
very different and distinct operations : xaraXapfiavu, always
denotes ' an act of mastery ; ' iragaXapftavoi is, simply, to
' take to one's self.' I illustrated the former operation, by
the entire obscuration of a heavenly luminary, through the
intervention of a cloud, and cited from Shakspere — "and
" overcome us like a (summer's) cloud." If I could have
anticipated so frivolous a caviller as the Reviewer, I should
have omitted the unneeded word, ' summer's;' which he
has facetiously seized upon, for the sole point of his
stricture. His great object is, to retain the rendering,
' comprehended, ' however unmeaning to an ordinary Eng
lish ear; and, even to his own, if his deference to ' K.
'James's translation' would license him to consult his own
reason. We may assure ourselves, that John used the phrase,
gxona xareXafiev, in the same sense as his divine master used
gxona xaraXafiri, in ch. xii. 35, where it undeniably intends,
the obscuration, or extinguishment of light.
Ver. 28. Bethany on the Jordan.] not Bethabara, as in
the rec. text : — Bloomfield's note on this passage, is so con
clusive, that I must transcribe it altogether :
" Bethany, instead ofthe common reading Bethabara, is
" found in almost all the most ancient MSS. (A, B, C, — D Mat
" — E, G, H, L, M, S, X, &c. Schulz), every version of credit,
" and many Fathers and ancient commentators. Also,

Chap. II. JOHN. 57
" almost all the other early editions ; and was restored to
" the text by Wetstein, Matthasi, Griesbach, Knapp, Vata-
" blus, Tittmann, and Scholz. The best commentators are
" of opinion, that the common reading proceeded from a
" mere conjecture of Origen ; who, because the situation
" here does not correspond with that of Bethany where
" Lazarus and his sisters lived, made the change in question.
" There are, however, in all countries, many places of the
" same name ; and Bethany, from its signification (namely,
" a ferry-place or passage), was very likely to be one. Besides,
" this seems to be distinguished from another Bethany, by
" the addition, iregav rou logdavou." So also, in the same chapter
of Acts, xiv., the same name Antioch, intends in ver. 18, the
city in Pisidia, and in ver. 25, the city of Syria. It is to
be regretted, that the same learned annotator did not com
pare this passage of John with those of Luke, xix. 28, and
xxiv. 47 : he would then have perceived, that the same his
torian used the same name, Bethany, with different references
in those places ; as he uses the same name Antioch, also
with differences, in the latter passages. To the proximate
Bethany, the evangelist adds, only ug — ' to;' to the more
remote, he adds tug — ' as far as.' Compare also, 'Libertines'
and 'Libyans,' in the following Annot. to Acts, vi. 9. But,
the errors ofthe Latin church, engendered in its earliest age
of obscuration, established the fiction which has become in-
veterated, viz. — " Le quarantieme jour J. C. monta a ciel
" de dessus la montagne des Olives pres de Bethanie." {Diet.
de More>i, Pre'tre, Docteur de Theologie.)

CHAPTER II.

Ver. 4. What hast thou to do with me, Woman ?] (See
above, Annot. to Matt. viii. 29.)
Ver. 13. the Passover.] The first three Evangelists make
mention only of one Passover during our Lord's ministry,
namely, that in which it was concluded ; and they therefore
afford no data for computing its progress and duration ;

58 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. III.
whereas, St. John distinctly records three consecutive Pass
overs, which enable us to measure out, exactly, its duration
and its progress. He tells us (ch. ii. 1 and 11) that our
Lord's first public manifestation of his divine power took
place at Cana, three days after his return into Galilee from
John's baptism ; at which period St. Luke records {Annot.
to ch. iii. 24), that he had just entered his thirtieth year (at
the end of the preceding December). That miracle was
therefore wrought between Christmas-day and the following j
or first Passover, in March or April, for which festival he
went up from Galilee to Jerusalem (c. ii. 13) : but returned
into Galilee (c. iv. 3). To the next, or second passover, our
Lord did not go up to Jerusalem, but ' remained in Galilee'
(c. vi. 4, and vii. 1), until the 'feast of Tabernacles' (ib. 2),
which fell in October ; from which time he continued in
that city, until after the 'feast ofthe Dedication,' in December
(c. x. 21), when he went to the Jordan (ib. 38) ; but returned
to raise Lazarus, at Bethany in Judea (c. xi. 7). After
which, on the approach of the third and last Passover, he
retired for a short time to Ephraim in the wilderness (c. xi.
54, 55), and, six days before the passover commenced
(c. xii. 1), he returned to Bethany, in order to make his
final entry into Jerusalem. The correspondence between
the years of our Lord's public ministry, and the contemporary
Passovers, will therefore stand thus :
25th December, our Lord completed his 29th year, and began
his 30th : was baptised by John : — his first miracle, at Cana.
1st Passover — March, or April, He went up to Jerusalem.
25th December, He completed his 30th year, and began his 31st.
2d Passover — March, or April, He did not go up to Jerusalem.
25th December, He completed his 31st year, and began his 32d.
3d Passover — March or April, He went up lo Jerusalem, for his Crucifixion.
See the preceding Annot. to Luke, iii. 24, pointing out
an excess of one year, in the vulgar computation of our
Lord's age.

CHAPTER III.

Ver. 8. the wind.] ro irvtvpa: — It is very pertinently
observed by Trollope, that " ourug — 'so,' which denotes

Chap. III. JOHN. 59
" similitude, plainly indicates the use of irvtu/ia, in this verse,
" in two different senses." Burton had incautiously said,
" our version says, the wind; but, many early writers took
" it literally for the Spirit: it does not signify wind, in any
" other place of the N. T." It signifies wind, nevertheless,
at Heb. i. 7, in the citation from the Sept., Ps. civ. 4, of
which sense Burton takes no critical notice; but appears
to admit it, by quoting " ventis spirantibus," from Erasmus,
and other commentators. It signifies what the Sept. have
rendered irvtu/ta irogtuo/itvov xai oux tirigrgttpov, in Ps. lxxviii. 39,
where our translators render, from the Hebrew, ' a wind that
' passeth away, and cometh not again.' The words irvtufaa
avt/iog, irvori, avairvori, have been exchanged in different copies
of the Sept., as may be seen in Trommius's Concordance.
Ver. 10. a teacher.] b didagxaXog : — I cannot think, that
the article here is to be considered as emphatically definite :
6 fijoao-xaXos rou igganX, seems to intend the same in this place
as 6 dibagxoiv srsgoi/, in Rom. ii. 21, ' one who teaches,' or, ' one
' of those who teach ;' not " as indicating a pre-eminent
" degree of celebrity which Nicodemus had acquired — ' ma-
' gister ille,' " as a recent editor would understand, after
Beza. Ver. 23. jEnon — because muck water was there.] As
the rite of baptism causes no consumption of water, the clause
" because muck water was there" — on udara iroXXa, &c. can only
have reference to the signification ofthe name Aivuv — JEnon;
which word is the Greek form ofthe Heb. J»J? — irriyn — spring
or fountain. Thus, Trommius shews {Concord, torn. i. p. 40),
that in Nehemiah, xii. 37, where the printed Sept. reads,
rrig iruXrig rou aiveiv, some MSS. read, rrig iruXrig rrig irnyrig ; both
phrases signifying, ' the gate of the spring or fountain :'
which is also expressed in the same verse, rrig iruXrig rou udarog.
And, since the word 'Beth' — domus — house or station, was
commonly compounded in Heb. names of places, to denote
their peculiar character or quality, there is good ground to
assume, that 'Bethany on the Jordan' should be divided
Bqd-Avia {tv rtfi sub.) irtgav rou logdavou ; and therefore, that this
Heth-Ania, and JEnon, were one and the same place. (See
Annot. p. 258.) I cannot imagine why Mr. Trollope affirms,

60 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VI.
that " the situation of ^Enon and Salem is altogether uncer-
" tain;" for, the situations of few places in sacred geography
are better established. Those places are laid down in the
maps of the learned geographers, N. Sanson, of his son,
W. Sanson, and of D'Anville (inserted in the first and
second volumes of the Benedictine edition of Jerom), as
situated a little to the south of Scythopolis, near, and on,
the west bank of the Jordan : here was the irtgav xai twos
oirou riv Iuawrig to irgurov fiairrigoiiv — " the passage and place
" where John at first baptised." Of Salem, Havercamp
observes : " oppidum juxta Scythopolim, quod usque hodie
" appellatur Salem. Vide Montacutium versus Seldenum,
" pp. 154, 155." (Joseph. A. J. torn. i. p. 32, note.)

CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 34. look on the fields, &c] It is surprising, that any
difficulty should have been experienced in this metaphor of
our Lord. St. John had just before stated, " they went out
" ofthe city, and came to him." While the population of
Sychar was pouring forth to visit him, he thus metaphor
ically directed the attention of his disciples to the multitude,
' lift up your eyes and look,' as in Matt. x. 2-4. St. John
proceeds, " and many of the Samaritans of that city believed
" on Mm," Sec. These, then, were the figurative fields, and
harvest, and reaping, which our Lord intended. It is reason
able, indeed, to infer from the narration, that this incident
occurred about four months before some harvest-time ; but,
that is a very secondary and unimportant point for con
sideration, in the exposition of this context.

CHAPTER VI.

Ver. 4. Passover.] For this second Passover, our Lord
did not go up to Jerusalem ; but, continued to reside in
Galilee until the 'feast of Tabernacles,' in October • as we
are informed in c. vii. 1, where see the Annot.

Chap. VII. JOHN. 61
Ver. 9. Here is a lad.] This reply of Andrew, after that
of Philip, reveals a secret anticipation of our Lord's impend
ing manifestation of his power, or, the apostle would not
have remarked so obvious a disparity : but, he had witnessed
the miraculous supply oiwine at Cana, and h'\s faith applied
that experience to the present deficiency. Andrew, was our
Lord's first disciple (c. i. 40); and he is thus eulogised as
such, in an extract cited by Photius from the writings of
Hesychius, a presbyter of Jerusalem : 2aXiriy% ripag itganxri
irgog iravriyugiv riQgoigtv Avdgtag, b rou x°Sou rm otirogroXw irgoiroroxog,
b irguroirayrig rrig txxXrigiag oVuXos, 6 irgo irergou irtTgog, b rou fofit-
Xiou hfitXiog, b rrig agxrig airagx^ii o irgtv xXrjSrjvai xaXoiv, b irgiv
irgogaxQrivai irgogaywv — " Andrew, the priestly trumpet, sum-
" mons us to this general assembly ; the first-born of the
" apostolic band ; the first-planted pillar of the Church ;
" the Stone before the Stone (or the Peter before the Peter) ;
" the foundation ofthe foundation ; the first-fruit of the be-
" ginning ; calling, before he was called ; leading, before he
" was led." (Photii Biblioth. p. 1488.) Euthymius observes
on this passage of John — u-^/riXortgav fitv ouv tgxe diavoiav b
Avdgtag iraga rou QiXiinrov — 'Andrew had, therefore, a more
' exalted mind, than Philip.'

CHAPTER VII.

Ver. 1 . walked.] iregieiram: — render, ' continued to walk,'
that is, ' did not quit Galilee.'
Ib. because {he knew and testified to his disciples, that)
the Judeans, &c] The narration, in the first six verses
of this chapter, is elliptical, and requires to be read with
reference to ver. 20 and 25 ; to c. viii. 51 ; x. 29 ; and
xi. 8. The first of these verses shews, by implication, that
our Lord knew, and had imparted to his disciples, the inten
tion of the Judean Jews to destroy him ; and the 4th verse
records the disbelief of his apostolical brothers, of any such
intention on their part.
Ib. Judeans.] Ioudaioi, is here to be understood, spe-

62 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VII.
cially, for the Jews of Judea, as distinguished from those of
Galilee : as in Luke, xxiii. 49. {Annotations, p. 252.)
Ver. 3. therefore said.] ouv — ' therefore,' because ofthe
opportunity afforded by the impending festival.
Ib. there.] " Sub, txn — ' thy disciples there, as well as
' here, in Galilee,' " observes Bloomfield.
Ver. 5. for, even his brethren, did not believe him.] This
clause, is apologetical of his brethren's urgency that he
should return to Judea, after he had announced his danger
in so doing. — irigrtuuv tig or tir aurov, and irigrtunv auroi, have
the same meaning, namely, ' to believe Mm:' thus, in Matt.
xxvii. 42, where the rec. texts read irigrtugo^tv aurw, the Vat.,
L, and other MSS. read tir aurov. The common inter
pretation of this passage — " that, the brethren of the holy
" Jesus did not believe in him" — " that, not even our Lords
" brethren believed on him" — (Clarke, Scott, Campbell, &c.)
is preposterous. It is contradicted generally, by the tenonr
of the whole preceding history ; it is pointedly contradicted,
by the incident narrated by the evangelist immediately
before, in vv. 66-68, of the preceding chapter; it is con
clusively contradicted in the last of those verses, where
Peter emphatically declared, in the name of all the twelve
apostles — " We believe and are sure, that, Thou art the
"Holy One of God!" But, it was much earlier contra
dicted, by the same evangelist. After the miracle at Cana,
and before our Lord's first Passover, St. John relates — 'his
' disciples believed on him' (ii. 12) : And, in what character?
— ' as the Lamb of God, that taketh away tke Sin of the
' World' (c. i. 29) ; as, ' the Messiah or Christ' (ib. 41); as,
'Him, of whom Moses and the prophets wrote.' How could
those learned persons have overlooked those several re
citals ? I must, therefore, protest against the position of a
recent learned expositor — that " our Lord's brethren had
" no notion that He was the Messiah:" for, the same ex
positor correctly observes (with self-contradiction), on
Mark, i. 24 — " b ayiog rou ®tou — ' the Holy One of God,'
" signifies, by the force of the article, the Messiah, as being
" xar efyxriv such :" and, in this sacred character, they had

Chap. VIII. JOHN. 63
just before explicitly declared their belief in him, by the
mouth of Peter. The incredulity, therefore, noted by St.
John in this place, regarded only the reality of the fact,
which our Lord then alleged — ' that the Judeans sought to
' kill Jesus:' a reality, of which they presently acquired full
conviction, as the sequel of the history shews.
Ver. 6. My time is not yet come, &c] This rejoinder of
our Lord shews, that the dialogue was wholly confined to
the question of the risk he might prematurely run, in re
turning to Jerusalem.
Ver. 51. that, out of Galilee] not 'for,' out of G. : — See
Erasmus's remark on the confusion of the two significations
of br i, by the Lat. translator, Annot. p. 152.

CHAPTER VIII.

Ver. 1-11. received texts.] With reference to the in
ternal evidence of the spuriousness of the tale of ' the adul-
' teress,' betrayed in the silence of the narrator respecting
the adulterer (as pointed out in the former Annotation,
p. 267) ; it cannot be alleged, that the criminal had escaped,
as in the case of Susannah, where the accusers were only two
aged men; who were, nevertheless, obliged to plead, " the
" man we could not hold, for he was stronger than we."
(Ver. 39.) In the case before us, it is affirmed, that he
was " taken in the very act" (as in Num. xxv. 8), -and the ap-
prehenders were numerous ; for, though the rec. text reads
xareiXriipSri, and the Cod. Beza xaraXriirrai — ' was taken;' the
majority of the copies which contain the tale, read eugofitv —
'we found:' nevertheless, the absence ofthe male criminal
is not accounted for, which demonstrates an inventor wholly
unconversant with the Mosaic laws. Mr. Trollope (like Dr.
Bloomfield) has thought fit to affirm summarily in his note
to this passage, in his Gr. N. T. recently published : " The
" weight of evidence, both internal and external, is decidedly
" in favour of its authenticity ; " yet (like the learned

64 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. IX.
Doctor), he does not contribute a single item of support to
his hardihood of defiance. The forbearance of courtesy, is
put to a hard trial by such peremptory, but refutable
asseverations. See the former elaborated Annot., to tke New
Cov. pp. 266-271.

CHAPTER IX.
Ver. 8. a beggar.] irgogairrig : not ' blind,' as in our Engl.
version. — " TupXoj riv, rec. cum codd. plerisque ; sed irgosairtis
" nv, A, B, C, D, K, L, X, 1, 22, 33, 62, 118, 124, 157, alii:
" Syr. utr. Arr. Pers. w. Copt. Mth. Arm. Sahid. Goth.
" Slav. MS. Vulg. Cant. Brix. Corb. Germ. Foss. For.
" Gat. Mm. Pseudo-Ath. Cyr. Chrys. (in commentar., ut
" videtur) Aug. irruxog riv edd. ru<pXog riv xai irgogairrig 69.
" Ver. Vere. Colb. Rd." (Schulz and Scholz.) Erasmus
took a bold, but an acute, freedom with this reading; in
adventuring to substitute irruxog, in place of ru<pXog : — " Au-
" gustinus legit mendicus, non ccecus, consentientibus per-
" vetustis Latinorum codicibus, quos quidem viderim, om-
" nibus. Proinde, mihi irruxog magis arridet quam rufXog,
" praesertim cum appositius sit ad sensum : ob id enim notus
" erat ille caecus, non quod caecus esset, sed quod publiee
" mendicus; et mendicus legit Theophylactus." Marthas!,
with inferior criticism and coarser nature, condemned
Erasmus's correction : " Erasmus, interim, ex vulgata La-
" tina hoc reddiderat irruxog : sed hoc est partes im-
" postoris agere, non critici :" but, the only error of Eras
mus was in selecting the word irruxog, instead of its
synonym irgogairrig ; in which error, he displayed his critical
eminence. Ver. 15. and / washed, and / see.] This brief reply,
which merely declares the facts, without speaking to their
order, shews the caution and circumspection with which it
was uttered. A similar reserve is manifested in the reply of
the parents; ver. 21, 22.
Ver. 35. the Son of Man.] rou avdguirou : so reads the Vat.

Chap. XI. JOHN. 65
MS., also the Beza, YEth., Sahid., Cant., Chrys. ; not rou
©sou, with the rec. text. The Vat. reads the passage thus :
2u irigrtutig eig rov uiov rou avtlguirou ; rig tgriv, e<pri, xugn ; — not,
airexgiDri txeivog xai eiirt.

CHAPTER X.
Ver. 36. that ye may know — That, Sec] The Vat. and
other anc. MSS. do not read ha yvurt xai irigrtugnn — tv aury,
but, iva yivugxrjrt — tv roi irargi, without irigrtugrirt.
Ver. 38. to the Jordan.] irtgav — understand, ug to iregav ;
and render, ' to the passage ofthe Jordan.'

CHAPTER XI.
Ver. 19. came to Martha, and Mary.] All the most anc.
copies read, irgog rriv M., xai M. ; not, irgog rag irtgi M. xai M.,
which last phrase betrays the tampering of the rec. text ;
as in Acts, xxi. 8, where the simple t^eXSovrtg riXfapev. — 'we
' departed and came,' ofthe Vat., Ephr., Alex., &c. MSS., is
encumbered in the junior received text, with o< irtgi rov HauXov
— ' that were of Paul's company.'
Ver. 54. a city ealled Ephraim.] So read all the MSS.,
with some slight var. oi Ephrem, and Ephram. I am at a
loss to conjecture, why Burton and Trollope describe it " a
" village about two miles from Jerusalem ;" for, it was situ
ated in the wilderness, several miles distant from that city.
Bloomfield, does not notice it : Bengel, refers to 2 Sam. xiii.
23; Wetstein, to 2 Chron. xiii. 19; quoting Eusebius and
Jerom, who place Ephraim in the mountains, twenty miles
north of Jerusalem; and citing Josephus, B. J, iv. 99.
Ver. 56. What think ye : That he will not come to the
feast ?] This doubt, was evidently caused by our Lord ' not
' having gone up to the feast,' in the first day of the preceding
Passover. (See ch. vii. 11.)

66 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XV.

CHAPTER XIV.
Ver. 28. my Father is greater than /.] /x,n£uv pou: — He
who imparts omnipotence from Himself, must stand thus, in
internal relation, to Him who receives that omnipotence,
without derogating from the equality of the power imparted ;
as, even in the capacity oi human paternity, there is an essen
tial relation to son-ship, which can only be expressed by
IhuZpv — 'greater' The Father is, still, 6 ©sos xai Ylarrigrov
Kugiou ripuv I. X. — the ' God and Father oi our Lord J. C.',,
whether in time or in eternity; whether in our Lord's as
sumed human nature, or in the mystery of his eternally
generated divine nature. Though the Father has put 'all
' things' under the feet of the Son, yet, it is manifest (as
St. Paul reasons), that He is excepted who did put all
' things under him.' These, therefore, are the b /j,eya\o;
&eog, xai Zuryg ri/iuv — ' the great God, and our Saviour,' as
described in Titus, ii. 13. (See Annot. to Heb. i. 3, and
Titus, ii. 13.) It is infirmity of judgment, to suppose, that we
cannot preserve our orthodoxy, without resorting to our
Lord's human nature for the exposition of this declaration.
Instead of viewing this great argument directly, and in
itself; there is too general a disposition to view it always
obliquely, with relation to some heresy or controversy of
which we are afraid.

CHAPTER XV.

Ver. 20. kept my word.] rov Xoyov /iou trrigygav : — Our
Lord here reasons thus : " Remember the word that I said
" to you, ' the servant is not greater than his Lord:' if
" they have persecuted me, they will persecute you also; (if,
" erngrigav my word, rrjgrjgougiv yours also) ; but, all these
" things they will do to you, on account of my name, because
" they know not Him who sent me." A question has been
raised, with what sense we are to understand the verb rngtu,
in this place 1 Knatchbull, adopting (as he tells us) a sug
gestion in the epistles of CI. Sarravius {Claude Sarrau.

Chap. XVIII. JOHN. 67
Moreri.), interpreted with an evil sense, namely, to ' watch
' or spy,' in order to * entrap :' so, also, some other learned
commentators. Bloomfield observes, pertinently, " for that
" sense of rriguv, with rov Xoyov, there is no authority." In
all the other passages in which St. John connects those
words, viii. 51, 55; xiv. 15, 21, 23; xvii. 6, he uses rrigtoj
uniformly with the sense of to ' observe, keep, give attention
' to;' and we are therefore bound, by consistent criticism,
to understand it with the same sense in this passage. But,
Bloomfield is of opinion, that we are authorised, by a gram
matical subtlety (which I am unable to apprehend), to turn
the affirmative enunciation into a negative one, by the simple
process of supplying ' not :' — ' if they have not observed my
' word.' Yet, surely, the passage needs no aid from refine
ment, subtlety, or artifice of interpretation. Our Lord
represented to his apostles, the parallel fates of the master
and servant, in two opposite alternatives : ' If,' he said, ' they
' have persecuted me {which they have done), they will per-
" secute you also : {on the other hand) if they have kept my
' word {which they have not done), they will keep yours also.
' But, those {former) things {persecutions) they will do to you,
' because,' &c. The passage is slightly, but very intelligibly
and popularly, elliptical.
Ver. 26. who proceedeth from the Father.] The dis
tinct personality of that Divine Guide, is abundantly tes
tified by our Lord in this place, and in ch. xiv. 25 ; xvi.
7, 8, 13.

CHAPTER XVIII.

Ver. 28. that they — might eat the Passover.] " The
" passage," says Trollope, " supports the hypothesis, that
" Christ had celebrated the Passover before the generality
" ofthe Jews." The learned annotator, has paid too much
deference to the error of Euthymius. I have shewn, that
to iragya here intends the 'feast' ofthe Passover, which fol
lowed the day of the eating the Paschal lamb. See Annot.
to John, xviii. 28, and Luke, xxii. 7.

68 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XIX.

iw

Ver. 36. but my kingdom is not, now, from hence,]
Ss:_this latent force of the adverb 'now,' reveals itself in
Rev. xi. 15 : " The kingdom of the world is become—
" eyevero — ' is now,' the kingdom of our Lord, and of his
" Christ."

CHAPTER XIX.
Ver. 17. bringing forth for Him the cross.] fiagraguv avrtfi
tov graugov : — This is the writing of the most ancient surviving
copy, the Codex Vaticanus ; shewing, that the word j3agra^m
is an ancient abbreviation of the genitive plural absolute,
fiagralpvruv, whose upper line of contraction {$agra£uv) has
been effaced in time (as in other cases) ; and, that we are
to understand aurm omitted, on account of auroi immediately
following, eupkonice gratia. The primitive reading of the
text, lapsed into later variations : e. g. ftagratuv aurov, Vind.
Lamb. 31 . fiagraguv xai rov graugov, Pal. 227 ; until it became
finally established by Erasmus, in the vulgated or printed
copies, fiagraguv rov graugov aurou. But, in Matthaei's 17, or
Dresdensis iv. Evang. Sec. xiii., the text is thus written: —
/3ao"ra£ONTE2 r. gr. a. e^x^on. From which comparisons we
are critically directed to infer, that the primitive reading was
with the gen.pl. abs. : fiagrafyvruv {auruv sub.) auru rov graugov,
t%riX6ov tig rov Xty. Kg. roirov — birou aurov egraugugav. St. John, does
not notice the circumstance related by the other three evan
gelists, viz. " they impressed Simon, the Cyrenean:" the omis
sion of which incident, has given occasion to a later vitiation
of the narrative in this place, by making it to state, that our
Lord, in the first instance, carried the cross alone, or without
assistance ; which early error gave origin to various ignorant
fictions, as, ' that our Lord laboured up a hill of Calvary,
' and fell three several times under the weight of his cross ;'
although no such ' hill' existed at Jerusalem, and that none
ofthe four evangelists make mention, or intimation, of such
a 'hill.' The crosses raised for punishing criminals, were
elevated above the persons of the gazing crowd, and were
consequently of a length too high to be borne by one indi
vidual. As the guards attending the execution loathed their
function, (as in the present case,) they gladly transferred

Chap. XIX. JOHN. 69
their office to some one whom they might venture to impress
to discharge their duties. In this occasion, the Roman
soldiers pitched on the Cyrenean Jew, Simon. Trollope,
pertinently observes in his note ; " who seems to have been
" a disciple;" for, the learned Bengel unheedingly remarks,
" Nee Judceus, nee Romanus ullus erat, qui vellet tollere
"crueis onus — no Jew or Roman would consent to bear the
"burthen of the cross:" and he therefore adds, as heed
lessly, — "ex Asia, Europa, et Africa, adfuere homines — there
" were other men from A. E. and A." (See above, Annot.
to Matt, xxvii. 32, and Acts, xiii. 1.)
Ver. 25. his mother, and his mother's sister, &c] We
collect from this place, that Heli had two daughters, both
named Mary ; the one, mother of our Lord, and wife of
Joseph; the other, the wife oi Alpheus, Kleopas, or Klopas;
which three words are only varying dialectic enunciations of
the same name. " aih^a Nim SBS'n — Kalpha is the same
" as Alpha:" Wetstein, who {N. T. torn. i. p. 366) cites this
from ' Juchasin,' p. 92, says, " Alphceus, quod pro vario pro-
" nunciandi modo etiam scribitur Cleopas." It is to be
further inferred, from the silence of the Evangelists and
of tradition, that Heli had no son, only those two daughters ;
the issues of both which daughters were referred, by the
Hebrew canon and language of genealogy, to the ' loins of
' Heli,' (the grandfather,) and consequently, to the ' womb of
' his wife.' And, as adeXtpoi, in its strict sense, signifies oi tx
rrig aurrig dtX<puog — ' those from the same womb,' all those
issues would be adtXtpoi — ' brothers,' with reference to that
source. The sister of our Lord's mother, (called by Mat
thew, xxvii. 60, ' the other Mary,' with reference to ver. 55,)
was the mother of
1. 'James,' called by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, ' son of Alpheus ;
also, by Mark, ' James the Less,' (to distinguish him from
James, son of Zebedee), and by St. Paul, ' the Lord's bro-
' ther' (Gal. i. 17),
2. ' Joseph,' or ' Joses,' ' brother of James,'
3. ' Simon,' called ' the Kanancean, or
' Zealot,' ' brother of James '  /
4. ' Judas,' called ' Thaddmus,' also, ' bro-
' t her of James ' 

Matt. xiii. 55; Mark,
vi. 4; Jude, 1.

70 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XIX.
all these were accounted ' brothers of our Lord.' James the
son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus, are the only
' James' I find mentioned in the New Covenant or Testament;
when, therefore, Dr. Bloomfield says, on Gal. i. 17, "to
" which of the three James this is to be referred, the com-
" mentators are not agreed," I am quite unable to discover
in the history, the third James that perplexes them. (See
Annot. to Gal. ii. 12.) The reader will find this doubt
entirely removed, in Cave's ' Life of James the Less,'
sect. 1.
Ver. 34. for, one of the soldiers.] aXXa : — " aXXu,"
observes Matthiae, " expresses an opposition." The opposi
tion, in this case, was between the fact which the soldiers
-expected, and the fact which they found ; namely, that our
Lord was not alive, but dead. Parkhurst and Macknight
have shewn, that, in our idiom, the opposition is best ex
pressed, in many cases, by rendering aXXa with the causative
sense of 'for.' Both those expositors, multiply the exam
ples in which it should be so rendered. The correctness
of the interpretation 'for,' in this place, is rendered less
apparent in all the translations, by the translators having
overlooked the proper order of construction of the original,
and translating according to the order ofthe words. The con
struction ofthe Greek sense, is evidently thus, which is shewn
by the order of the action : tin dt rov I. eX&ovreg, ou xarea%a.v
aurou ra gxeXri, oig udov rjdri aurov rtfoqxora' aXX', tig ruv groarimruv,
Sec. This order should be observed in the translation : ' but,
' coming to J., they brake not his legs, when {or since) they
' found that he was already dead : for, one of the soldiers
' had pierced,' Sec. Here, the evangelist proceeds to explain,
how it happened that our Lord ' was already dead,' and
had so fulfilled the prophecy ; tor, the breaking of the bones,
was only resorted to by the soldiers to produce death, in
which work they found they had been anticipated : — aXXa,
looks back to vidri rehrixora, not to ou xartaBav.

Chap. XXI. JOHN. 71

CHAPTER XX.
Ver. 17. Cling not to me — go, Sec] pri airrou pou (so
the Vat.) irogeuou irgog r. ad. (without di.) The imperatives
/i»j airrou, and irogeuou de, stand in direct opposition to each
other ; but are reconciled, by the negative |U»j joined to the
former. The rec. text reads, /iri pa airrou; and the most
common signification oiairru, is ' tango — to touch,' by which
words it is rendered in this place, in the Latin and English
vulgates. But, the Greek Jews, used it also in the wider
sense oi ' appropinquo' — to come near; ' to approach ,' as is
shewn by Trommius in his Concord, torn. i. p. 186. (See
Steph. Thes. Gr. airro/^ai.) It also had the signification of
xge/Lapai — SUSpensus sum — to hang: Xeytrai de tin rou xgefiagQai
ro airregDai. Eustath. p. 1 66; which former word is used
figuratively, in the compound exxgt^a^ai, in Luke, xix. 47
(Gr. 48) : ' the whole people hung on him to hear him.'
Our Lord's injunction, therefore, imported : ' Cling not to
' me : — but go to my brethren :' and his whole speech sig
nified ; 'Stop not here, for I have not yet departed; but,
' Go thou to my brethren, and tell them, from me, I am
' about to ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my
' God and your God.' — avaj3aivu, piXXu avaj3aiveiv. (See
Eph. iv. 7-9.) Some copies, and ancient versions, have
spuriously inserted (before the second Xtyei in ver. 16) xai
<!rgogtdga[Ltv a-^/agSai aurou — ' and she ran to him to touch him ;'
not apprehending the true meaning and intention of airrou,
in this place.

CHAPTER XXI.

Ver. 17. lovest thou me?] tpiXeig : — our Lord here varies
his term, from ayairag. Erasmus observed : " Variavit
" Evangelista Graecam vocem ; prius illud est ayairag, pos-
" terius <piXe?g, quibus tamen citra discrimen est usus. Id
" quod indicavit et Augustinus libro ' de Civitate Dei,'
" decimo quarto, ne quis, arbitratus subesse mysterium in hac

72 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXI.
" varietate, frustra philosophetur." This criticism of Au
gustin, forms the subject of the 7th chapter of the book
referred to by Erasmus ; and, as I regard that ancient
father's decision, in this case, to be sound in judgment, I see
no cause for altering the version, according to the suggestion
of a recent learned reviewer, who surmises, in the varia
tion of the terms, "a delicacy which is lost in the common
" translation." {Literary Gazette.)

ST. LUKE.

Aouxas, o axoXouffos TIauXou, ro vir sxewou xvjputrifQfAzvau euecyylXXiov, tv fiifiXtiti xart-
hro. — " Luke, Paul's attendant minister, recorded the Gospel promulgated
" by Paul." Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. lib. v. c. 8, p. 219.
aiiptlti rots asrotrroXois iratriv' itr%arov Sg iravrav, aitptfn xapot — " He appeared to ALL
" the apostles : and, last of all, He appeared to me {Paul) also." 1 Cor.
xv. 7, 8.

CHAPTER I.

Ver. 17. from fathers, even to children.] So, our own
learned Knatchbull ; before Bengel, whom I cited for this
import in the former Annotations : " Intelligendum reor,
" usque adfilios, Sec. — Officium enim erat prsecursoris, qui
" parabat vias Domini, resipiscentiam praedicare omnibus
" hominibus, a patribus ad filios, et a filiis ad patres ; ut
" paratiores fierent ad recipiendum, quod appropinquabat,
" regnum Dei." {Animadv. p. 29.)

CHAPTER II.
Ver. 6. first-born.] irguroroxov : this word, is to be under*
stood here in a cardinal, not in an ordinal sense, if I may so
speak. Eustathius states, four several times (423, 24; 642,
42; 907, 5; 1091, 58) that irgurordxog, with the accent on
the penult., applied to a mother, signified, in the words of
Homer, II. g. 5, ou irgn eiduia toxoid — ' who had not before known
' child-birth,' (not ' a first child-birth, in an ordinal course
of succession) ; and that, with the accent on the antepenult,
it was applied to the infant so born, as ' not having been pre-
' ceded by any other.' It has, therefore, a retrospective rather
than a prospective meaning : and does not necessarily imply,
the beginning of a numerical series. It is evident, from the
silence of the history, that the divine Providence limited the
fruitfulness of the blessed Virgin's womb, to its One glorioua

74 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. III.
fruit. Further questions on her connubial union, founded
on St. Matthew's words, oux eyivugxev aurriv tug — 'and knew
' her not until,' must merge in the oracular declaration of
St. Paul, ' marriage is honourable to all' men, and the bed
' undefiled.' For the question of ' our Lord's brethren,'
according to his Hebrew genealogy, see before, Annot. to
John, xix. 25.

CHAPTER III.
Ver. 3. bordering on the Jordan.] irtgix^gov rou I. : — {. e.
the eastern side of the wilderness of Judea, defined by the
western bank of the Jordan. " Circumjacens ; finitimus,
" vicinus." Budaeus {Steph. Thes. Valpy, p. 10, 791); not
' about,' or ' on both sides,' as I had incorrectly rendered
in the former edition, following the authorised version.
Ver. 24. Jesus was at the beginning of his 30th year.]
aurog riv 6 Irigoug agxo/tevog {i. e. ev Gtgxji) ugsl eruv rgiaxovra : — I
cannot conceive that words, if they are to be attended to, can
speak more plainly than these ; yet, Trollope joins Burton and
Bloomfield in giving them a contrary sense : " The meaning,"
he says, " is, that Jesus had nearly completed his 30th year.''
But, how agxo^evog can be made to yield the meaning ' com-
' pleted,' none of those learned annotators have undertaken
to explain. In fact, they did not so much interpret the
words by their native import, as strive to bring the import
into an accordance with the received tradition of our Lord's
age at the period of his crucifixion, which tradition they re
garded as an authoritative standard : not reflecting at the
moment, that the computation of the Christian Era itself
has been in error, by four years, during its whole course. It
is not surprising, therefore, if common tradition has erred in
one year, concerning our Lord's age. The only positive.!
authority we possess respecting that age, is this explicit"
statement by St. Luke, by which all computations must be
governed : the result of that rule, will appear in applying
it to the preceding Annot. to John, ii. 13. In the following
Annot. to Acts, xiii. 1 , an erroneous excess of ten years
is shewn, in the vulgar chronology of St. Paul's history.

Chap. X. LUKE. 75

CHAPTER X.
Ver. 1. The Lord, also appointed Seventy others, and
sent them by two and two, Sec] This circumstance is re
lated by St. Luke alone, and is not adverted to in any other
part of his history but in this solitary passage ; it is evident,
therefore, that those 'seventy' individuals formed no connected
or constituted body of our Lord's incipient Church. The
writer relates, that those dispersed pairs of missionaries were
appointed, for the express and exclusive purpose of preceding
our Lord " to every several city and place to which he was
" about to go." Each pair, had its own distinct and se
parate function and station; and, consequently, it had no
community of service with any other. None of the apostolic
writers make mention of such duplicate emissaries ; the
whole of whose duties were confined to themselves, and
were accomplished, when their respective objects had been
attained. " The illustrations (says Mosheim) that we have
" yet remaining, relative to their character or office, are
" certainly composed by the more modern Greeks ; and there-
" fore, can have but little authority or credit.'' {Eccl. Hist.
P. ii. c. 2, § 6, cent, i.) A later generation imagined, that
their number had some relation to the number of the pa
triarchs who migrated from Canaan into Egypt ; but, there is
no ground whatever for assuming, that they were united into a
corporate body, order, or community. "He called them all dis-
" ciples, (says Chrysostomus), who were not ofthe Chorus of
" the Twelve. — paQrjrag xaXei, xai roug /J-n rtXouvrag tig rov x°£ov
" ruv dudtxa." (Homil. in Act. ix. 26.) This, was said as early
as the fourth century. No other ' Chorus,' or Community
among the members of the Church, took place within it, till
' tke Twelve Apostles ' appointed the ' Seven Deacons ' to
discharge their ministerial functions. Suicer, in his ' The-
' saurus Ecclesiasticus,' do'es not extend his authorities earlier
than Nicephorus Callisthus and Theophylact, of the four
teenth and eleventh centuries ; whose authorities are null, on
this point. Yet, a learned annotator, under the inveterate
fictions of those dark ages, has adventured to contradict the
express testimony of the inspired historian ; and most unad-

76

SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XIII.

visedly propounds, at the scene of the Ascension : — " It is
" highly probable, that some of the Seventy should accom-
" pany the Eleven." (See above, Annot . to Matt, xxviii. 16.)

CHAPTER XIII.
Ver. 35, 36. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! Sec] St. Luke'
relates this incident, in its due order of time and place, that
is, when our Lord was proceeding from Galilee to Jericho,
on his last progress towards Jerusalem ; and, he marks the
day on which he should enter that latter city : " Behold, I
" cast out devils and perform cures to-day and to-morrow,
" and, on the third day, I shall have finished ; for, it cannot
" be, that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." But, the
interpolator of Matt, xxiii., of the middle age, not critic
enough to compare the order of his dates, but wishing to
embellish his narrative, introduced his pious fraud after our
Lord had entered Jerusalem. (Compare our authorised ver
sion and this revision of the last verses of this chapter, and
of Matt, xxiii.)

Luke, xiii.'
ou iv$i%irat vpotpvrtiv atfoXttrQui i\u
'\i^ou<ra\'/ip,. 'Ugoutrahyifi, 'Ugouo'aX.vp:

Matt, xxiii.
vi%u raura tfavra wri rviv yitim ra.it.
i. 'IsgoutraXwp, 'IsgouffaXvfi.

St. Luke's relation of our Lord's exclamation, ' Jeru-
' salem, Jerusalem!' was immediately consequent on his
naming that city, in Galilee ; but, the interpolator of St.
Matthew's text, foists it in, without any previous mention
or reference to it.
Finally; the name 'itgougaXn^, inserted into Matthew's
text, betrays its spurious origin. That word so written, was
exclusively used by St. Luke, who is the only evangelist
that uses the form 'legougaXn^ : in all the rest of Matthew's
Gospel, it is written 'itgogoXupa. In the eleven times that
Matthew's text has occasion to name the city, it names it
uniformly, 'legogoXupa -. in the twenty-seven times that Luke
names it, he uniformly names it 'ligougaXrip. If, therefore,
the paragraph be found written with ' UgougaXrip, in copies

Chap. XVII. LUKE. 77
of both evangelists, the one is a demonstrated plagiarism
from the other. It is so found, in Matt. xiii. 37 of the
received Greek text ; the clause, is therefore spurious.

CHAPTER XVI.

Ver. 8. the Lord acknowledged — That, Sec] nr'/jvei — on —
pgovi/iug : — This is the proper meaning of the original ;
not, " commended the unjust steward because he had done
" wisely," or, as the Latin, ' laudavit quia prudenter fecisset.'
Our first translator was misled by the frequent error of the
Latin interpreter already exposed (former Annot to Matt.
xvi. 13,) who confounded the two senses of on; and ren
dered ' because' in this place, instead of ' that.' The verb
eiraiveu, is here used in its sense of ' assentior,' as used by
Origen (c. Cels. lib. ii. c. 31), in a passage cited by Wetstein
(2V. T. note, torn. i. p. 834, in fine) — oudtvog {ruv loudaiuv xai
gopuv) axrixoa tiraivovrog rov Xoyov eivai rov uiov rou 8iou — I never
heard any of the Jews or philosophers ' acknowledge, that the
' Xoyog was the Son of God.' So, also, tpgovipoig is used in a
very different sense from gwpug — 'wisely,' which our later
revisers have inconsiderately substituted for Wiclif's 'pru-
' dentli/.' Stephens, in citing Aristotle {Eth. 6, 7), observes,
" esse alioqui goipoug alios quam pgovifioug, docet, cum scribit
" Anaxagoram et Thaletem et alios hujusmodi fuisse quidem
" VOCatOS goipoug; at non ipgovipoug, utpote ayvouvrag ra guptpegovra
" auroig — That the go<poi or ' wise,' are sometimes different
" from the pgovi^oi or 'prudent,' Aristotle shews, when he
" says, that Anaxagoras, Thales, and others of that class were
" called goipoug — ' wise; ' but not tpgovipoug — ' prudent,' because
" they were ignorant of their own interests." {Thes. tpgovipog.)

CHAPTER XVII.

Ver. 17. Were not the Ten cleansed ? but, where are
the Nine?] oux 'OI AEKA exa^agig^gav ; 'OI AE ENNEA,
irou; — this emphatic interrogation of our Lord is grievously

78 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XVIII.
enfeebled by rendering, ' Were there not ten cleansed : ' as if
the number, were the point of the question. Whereas, 0/ dtxa,
here is elliptical of iravng — iravrtg 01 o"sxa, ' all the ten? —
' why, then, does one only, return to give thanks ?'

CHAPTER XVIII.

Ver. 8. will He Und faith on tke earth?] It is a most
strange and portentous infatuation, which has possessed some
of our learned commentators, to restrict the application of this
parable to the ' destruction of Jerusalem.' The evangelist
states, that our Lord applied it generally ; " they (all men)
" ought to pray always, and not be discouraged." In the prece
ding chapter, our Lord declares the objects to whom he
applies it, that is, universally ; as in all his parables :
" Nevertheless, when the Son of Man cometh, will He find
" faith on the earth ? " All " in the days of Noah," intended,
all mankind in that age ; and, all " in the days ofthe Son of
" Man," intends equally, all mankind. It is this universal
congregation of Mankind, of which St. Peter speaks, when he
says : " In the last days will come scoffers, saying; Where is
" the promise of his coming? &c. but, beloved, be not forget-
" ful of this one thing — that the day ofthe Lord will come,
" as a thief," Sec (2 Pet. iii. 3-10.) It was with reference to
that ultimate and universal crisis, that our Lord applied his
interrogative admonition, on this occasion. At the period of
our Lord's first coming, the Jewish people were in expectation
of His arrival (c. iii. 16), through their faith in the prophetic
notices of their sacred Scriptures. At the period of His second
coming, will He find a corresponding expectation among the
Christian nations, through a similar faith in their sacred
Scriptures ? Does it not appear far more probable, that in
these ' last days,' it will be more generally said, — ' Where is
' the promise of His coming ? for, all things continue as they
' have been from the Creation, (2 Pet. iii. 4). Thus it is, that
' that day will come as a snare on all that dwell on the face of
' tke whole earth' (c. xxi. 35); interrupting, disappointing, —
or, more properly, astounding and distracting, every secular
prospect and expectation, that 'all things will continue as
' they have been.'

Chap. XXI. LUKE. 79

CHAPTER XX.
Ver. 29. and he be childless.] xai obrog arexvog p: — So
¦the Vat. and Cod. L., and several jun. copies and versions;
not arexvog airo6avri — -'die without children,' as our English
vulgate reads, after the rec. text ; which repeats unnecessarily
the preceding airoQavy.

CHAPTER XXI.

Ver. 24, 25. until the times of the Gentiles be accom
plished — when, signs will be in the sun, &c] Parkhurst has
accurately and acutely observed : — " xai, after words of time,
"when. Mark, XV. 25, riv de uga rgirri xai egraugugav aurov —
' Now, it was the third hour when they crucified him ;' or,
' when it was the third hour, they crucified him.' Compare
" Matt. xxvi. 2, 45 ; Luke, xix. 43 ; Acts, v. 7 ; James, i. 2.
" Raphelius has shewn, that this use of xai, is not merely in
" conformity to the Hebrew idiom, but agreeable to the style
" of the Greek writers." So here : ayjgi irXrigu6ugi xaigoi efauv,
xai egrai grj^ua — 'until the times ofthe Gentiles be accom-
' plished ; when, signs will be in the sun,' &c. That coin
cidence is shewn, by our Lord, to be simply that, of the time
when Jerusalem should cease to be trodden down by the Gen
tiles. This, was the only character of time which our Lord
then propounded ; and, therefore, a learned expositor (like
some others) travels much too fast when he propounds : " By
' the times of the Gentiles,' is meant, the period at which all
" nations shall be converted to the gospel, and the Jews re-
" stored to their country." — To this peremptory proposition,
I must as peremptorily reply, 'negatur!' The proposition
is entirely gratuitous and imaginative ; and has no real
support from revelation.
Ib. 25. as the roaring of the sea and waves.] rixovg
OaXaggrig xai gaXou : — rixoug, not jj^ouo^s, as the rec. text : e.g.

80 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap, XXI.
D. David Schulz, 1827. L Mart. August. Scholx, 1830.
" A, B, L, M ~33, 42, 69, 118, " A, B, L,M,X, 1, 33, 42, 69, 118,
131, 195, 209, Ev. 13, Syr. Pers. w. 131, 195, 209, 346, alii. Ev. 13, Syr.
Arr. Slav. Yulg. [Rd] It. exc. Cant. Pers. w. Arr. Slav. Vulg. It. (exc.
Tert. \Xous us Arm. ut sonitus Brix. Cant.) Tert. ti%aus us Arm. ut sonitus
velut a sonilu Marc. ap. Tert. sonitus Brix. velut a sonitu Marcion (ap.
el For." Tert.) sonitus et For."
Here, Scholz appropriates (only adding ' X, 346, alii,')
Schulz's note of references ; but, he suppresses that learned
author's name altogether.
Ver. 32. I tell you, that that generation shall not pass
away, until all those things be done.] jj ytvta aurri : — ' that
' generation ; ' not ' this generation,' as our English version
has erroneously rendered; following theLatin Vulgate, which
renders, ' generatio hcec.' It is evident, that ' that gene-
' ration,' which is here pointed out, is that which is pre
dicated in the preceding warning, respecting the ' times of
' the full accomplishment of the Gentiles ;' and, that our Lord
declared, that ' that generation' should not pass away, before
the ' times of the Gentiles ' should be fully accomplished : —
or, that, while that generation should be still subsisting, the
' times of the Gentiles' should be brought to their termination.
There are contemporary generations, between an aged man and
a new-born infant; but, which of these generations is the one
here designed in the prophecy, is not pointed out by our
Lord. The Port Royal grammarians shew (B. viii. c. 6)
from Budaeus, " that there is sometimes occasion for ambiguity
" in the pronoun aurog." That ambiguity, in this place, misled
the Latin translator, and Wiclif; and, from the latter, it
misled also all our following translators from the Greek. " If
" aurog has the article before it, it signifies — the same — idem"
(Matthiae, Gr. Gr. % 467); therefore, aurri — eadem, here
relates to the yevta — 'generation' in which ' the times ofthe
' Gentiles shall be fully accomplished.' The verse 38 resumes,
and clinches, the verse 24 : e. g.
24. Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the
times of the Gentiles be fully accomplished: 
38. Verily I tell you that that generation shall not pass away, till
those things be done.
Euthymius (in the twelfth century), who clearly saw

Chap. XXII. LUKE. 81
that ' the generation' intended by our Lord, did not mean a
particular generation of coexisting persons, thus proposed to
explain the reference : — " What did he mean by yevea aurnl
" He called 'generation,' the ' religion of all who believed on
' him.' The apostles did not suppose, that our Lord's pre-
" dieted dangers would entirely extinguish, both the preach-
" ing, and the faithful : for, he assured them, that his religion
" would not be effaced before his second advent; but, that it
" would continue to the consummation of time, and would
" not be affected by any danger." (Vol. ii. p. 935.)
But, the interpretation thus ingeniously devised, is not
required ; for, the ytvta aurri — ' that generation' here ex
pressed, is plainly to be understood in its ordinary accept
ation : and, therefore, it eminently behoves Us, of ' this
' generation,' so signally noted, to mark well our Lord's con
cluding, and most solemn warning: — "What J say to you,
" T say to all, Watch! — Watch, therefore; for, ye know
" not in what day your Lord cometh." (See after, Annot. to
2 Pet. iii. 8-11.)

CHAPTER XXII.

Ver. 37. Lt is enough.] Ixavov soy/: — This was our Lord's
rejoinder to the apostles, after the last supper, when they
had informed him — 'That they had two swords:' which
rejoinder, I had regarded as prospective to the use to which
he foreknew that one of them would so shortly be applied,
and which would produce the occasion of his last exercise of
merciful power. But, a learned Reviewer objects, to this ex
position ofthe words "it is enough" — Ixavov egn, that, " We
" have no example of our Lord laying the ground-work for
" a miracle." {Lit. Gaz. for Jan. 1837, p. 50.) Yet, when the
disciples inquired, concerning the man born blind, " Why " he
had been so born ? our Lord expressly replied, " That the
" works of God might be manifested in him." And, in Exod.
ix. 16, God declared to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I
" have raised thee up, that in thee I may shew my power."
We have a direct ' example of laying tke ground-work for a
' miracle,' in the case of Lazarus, whom our Lord suffered to
G

82 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXIII.
expire by the course of nature, in order, by His power, that
he might recall him from death in the presence oi many
witnesses. In the case before us, our Lord's miraculous
power, exercised in this juncture, demonstrated ; both the
truth of his appeal, " Thinkest thou that J cannot call to my
"Father?" Sec, and also, that what he was able and prompt
to do for another, he would not do for himself.
Ver. 61 (Gr. 64). This verse has been adapted, in the
rec. texts, to the recitals of Matthew and Mark : the Vat.
reads thus — xai oi avdgeg oi guvex"vrtg ai>rov, eveiraiZov auro)' degovrig
xai irtgixaXu-^/avrtg aurov, eirrjguruv Xeyovreg — ' and the men that
' held him, mocked him ; and having blindfolded and struck
' him, they asked him, saying :' —

CHAPTER XXIII.

Ver. 29. for, if they bring forth these things in the green
tree, vfhat will befall them in the dry!] iroiougn: — By not
extending their view from this place, to the use and applica
tion ofthe proverbial sense oiiroieu in Matt, viii., Euthymius,
Erasmus, Bengel, and all our English divines, have missed
the object intended by our Lord. All of them concurred
(but by different courses), to apprehend the word iroieu in
this place, in the ordinary sense, ' to do;' without collating
it with the congenial figure employed by Matthew. But, that
figure was not divided and distributed, by Luke, in contrast
to the good and the bad — the young and the old; it was
altogether and exclusively confined to the ' bad,' only; in
their successive conditions, ' in life,' and ' after life.' The
ancient version of the Latin, might have served to guide the
interpretation ofthe Greek by its verb ' facio,' signifying the
same in both places, in Luke and in Matthew : instructing
us, therefore, to understand iroieu in the same sense, in both.
St. Paul, in Rom. vii. 4, 5, guided his contemporary trans
lator of the first century ; but, the translator of the twelfth,
century misled all his successors. " My brethren (said the
" former), ye have died to the law, through the body of

Chap. XXIV. LUKE. 83
" Christ, that ye may bring forth fruit to God : for, while
" we were in the flesh, our members, brought forth fruit to
" death." The figure of the green tree, therefore, in our
Lord's last allegory, did not intend the 'green tree bearing
' good fruit to God;' but, the 'green tree bearing evil fruit to
' death;' which ' tree' would become 'dry,' and be cut down,
' and cast into the fire.' — ruv %uXuv, ra fitv eyyagi/ia, ra de
xaugi/ia — " of woods (says Pollux) some are available for
" use; the others, are only to be burned."
Ver. 31. the place called Kranion {that is, Skull).] Of
all the delusions which the train of dark and ignorant ages
have impressed on the minds of Christians ofthe West of
Europe, none is more extraordinary than the topographical
notion of a Mount Calvary, equally existent as a Mount Sion,
or Mount of Olives. The great and earliest painters of the
West, have mainly contributed to foment the delusion. Yet,
the Scriptures make no mention of any such 'mount:' the
four Evangelists only say, ' a place . called Golgotha, —
' Kranion — of a Skull.' St. Paul only says, 'Jesus suffered
' without the City.' On which account, a, very recent and
learned visitor of that holy theatre observes; " When it is
" urged, that the modern Calvary is not sufficiently high to
" meet our ideas of a hill; it may fairly be replied, that
" Scripture nowhere states, that Calvary was a hill." (Elliot's
Travels, vol. ii. p. 442.)

CHAPTER XXIV.

Ver. 13. two of them.] The Evangelist, in this place,
names only one of those disciples, namely, Kleopas or
Alpheus, husband of Mary the sister of the blessed Virgin ;
and the father of those who were called ' the Lord's brothers'
A vulgar tradition early prevailed, that the other disciple was
' Peter ; the cause of which error can now be traced. The
tradition was drawn from ver. 33, ' the Lord — hath appeared
' to Simon ;' which Origen hastily interpreted to mean,
Simon Peter, and impressed his error on the early church.

84 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXIV.
But, an ancient scholion to ver. 33, in the margin of Cod.
Vat. 354, written in 949, first discovered by Birch, supplies
the following obvious distinction : on b fi^era rou KXeuira irogeuo-
fuevog l,ifjjuv riv, oux » litrgog, aXX' b eregog — ' he who was walking
' with Kleopas, was Simon; not Peter, but the other.' Now,
that other Simon was the ' Zealot,' a son of Kleopas : an
union, very likely to have occurred at a moment of such
anxious domestic interest. And, this error goes to render the
reading Kri<pag — ' Kephas,' in 1 Cor. xv. 5, very questionable,
though ancient, when we consider, how easily the names
KXtuirag and Kri<pag might be so abbreviated as to present an
equivocal compend; and certainly, Kleopas was the first male
witness to whom our Lord revealed himself after his resur
rection, not Kephas or Peter. This is further shewn, in the
ancient tradition early appended to St. Mark, xviii. (Gr.
xvi. rec. text.) Comp. the var. readings, Kyipag and Utrgog,
Gal. ii. 9, 11, 14.
Trollope cautions — "That, Klopas mentioned in John,
" xix. 25, must not be confounded with Kleophas mentioned
" here by St. Luke," but, he states no ground for that
caution, which is altogether superfluous ; since we know
only of one individual of that name, and also, that Alpheus,
Kleopas, Kleophas, and Klopas, are only differing enun
ciations of the name of that individual. (See Annot. to
John, xix. 25.)
It should here be observed, that the form ' KleqpAas,'
with the aspirate ph, is unknown to every Gr. MS. ; all of
which read ' Kleopas,' or ' Klopas,' without an aspirate.
The form ' Cleophas,' was first introduced by the Latin trans
lator ; and it has been transmitted by Wiclif, from the Latin
Vulgate, to all his successors.
Ver. 32. the eleven.] roug hdtxa : " But how," asked
Euthymius, in the twelfth century, " could there have been
" eleven, since Judas Iscariot had perished, and Thomas was
" not then present?" The same question may be further
asked, with respect to the absence oi Simon the Zealot with
Kleopas, which reduced the number of the apostles present
to nine. Whether hdexa has grown out of ewea, or whether
Luke wrote prospectively of the time when all were to be
again reassembled, I do not take on myself to pronounce.

Chap. XXIV. LUKE. 85
Ver. 44, 45, 46.] aggapevoi: — No reading has been
more diversified than this word ; each diversity altering the
purport of the context, at the expense of grammar. Some
copies read ag%a/tevuv ; others, ag!;afitvog ; one MS. ag^a/itvriv ;
the received text has gratuitously adopted the reading
ag^a/nvov, referring it to the preceding context, and inserting
' dt tgrt in the following sentence. The Vat. MS. reads the
passage thus: — xai xriguxQ?lva< em rV ovoftari aurou (Ltravoiav eig
apegiv aftagriuv eig iravra ra edvri. Ag^a/Jitvoi airo 'itgougaXrip,
upiig f&agrugeg rouruv' xai idou, e^airogrtXXu rriv eirayy. — thus
referring ag^apevoi to ufiieig in the succeeding context, where
(as Luke shews in Acts, i. 8) we are to understand tgtgh, not
egre. The Codd. L, N, or Vind. Lambec. 2, of the seventh
century, and the Copt. vers, read as the Vat. MS. Both
Bentley and Birch have stated, " de egre, desunt in Cod. Vat."
The construction of the most ancient text, is, therefore,
ufitig, ag^a/itvoi airo'legougaXr)//,, {egegh) pagrugtg rouruv xai idou. —
Erasmus's perplexity at this place, evidently arose from his
not being acquainted with the most ancient reading ofthe
Vat. MS.; for, he knew neither that MS. nor the Codd. L, N ;
to which Scholz adds Cod. X, or Lands hutensis, ofthe tenth
century. Ver. 47. And he led them out {of the city) as far as to
Bethany (i. e. on the Jordan).] efyiyayt dt auroug 'Efis EI2
BtSaviav : i. e. riyaye de aurows tx {rrig iroXtug) eug tig TSriSaviav (i. e.
irtgav rou logdavou). The words tug tig — ' as far as,' in this
place of Luke, distinguish it, in the same evangelist, xix.
28, from the simple eig — to ' Bethany, at the mount of
'Olives;' — which " was about fifteen furlongs from Je-
" rusalem," (or, not quite two miles). " Particula tug,
" proprie designat continuum nee interruptam actionem."
(Hoogev. p. 206. Schutz.) This, therefore, was the same
Bethany intended by St. John, in c. i. 28. See the former'
Annot. to that place.

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES:
luke's continuation of his gospel.

CHAPTER I.
Ver. 14. Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.]
xai guv roi? adtXpoig : — viz. 'Joses, and his sisters:' " o! adtXipoi,
" etiam de sororibus ;" (Zeun. ad Xen. K. n. 245. Steph.
Thes. Gr. p. 3197. Valpy) the plural brothers, in Greek,
comprehends sisters also. See Matt. xiii. 55, Mark, vi.
4, where ' brotkers and sisters ' are expressed ; but ' bro-
' thers ' only by Luke, in this place ; ' sisters,' being under
stood. Ver. 18. he hung, Sec] eXaxyge ; in Matt, xxvii. 5, airriy%un
— ' laqueo se suspendit.' Lat., as of Ahithophel, 2 Sam. xvii.
23. — I have shewn {Annot. p. 292), that tXaxrige is no other
wise Greek, than by adoption from the Latin ' laqueo — to
'hang;' as tpgayeXXou, from the Latin ' flagello — to scourge'
" Jam vero, nemo ambigit," says Salmasius, " quin Graecus
" sermo, quo conscriptae sunt Novi Foederis tabulae, multas
" insiticias voces Romanos habeat : goudagiov, (pgayeXXiov, Xtvnov,
" xougrudia, nrXog, aggagiov, xodgavryjg, Srjvagiog, xrjvgog, et alias
" plures, de eo quemquam dubitare non sinunt," {de Hellenist.
p. 94). The Theological Reviewer contends, in defiance of
orthography and grammar, that tXaxrjgt is ' sufficient Greek'
to be interpreted in the sense of tXaxe — ' crepuit.' I know
no scholarly meaning that can be annexed to the phrase
* sufficient Greek,' but, that a insititious word is duly moulded
into a Greek form. The inflection eXaxngt, certainly resulted
from a present, Xaxtu; a verb, which the Greek language, as
certainly, did not possess. " We think" says the Theological
Reviewer, " that Xaxeu is evidently employed by the Evan-
" gelist, to signify that which is expressed, in familiar
" English, by the word ' split ' or ' crack;' although the
" Greek text may possibly appear to us, to be somewhat

Chap. I. ACTS. 87
" strange, and even coarse:" — that is to say, in the sense of
the obsolete Xaxu; with which word, Xaxeu has no nearer
etymological connexion than our English ' lop ' with ' loop,'
that is, an accidental community of elements : he has no
better ground for his thought. But, the Reviewer must be
content to take with him, that, in that sense, it especially
intends and includes the sound of the crack — ' cum strepitu,'
as when an earthen vessel is broken by falling on a pave
ment, or a piece of cloth violently rent asunder; not the
mere separation of the parts, but the accompanying audible
notice of the separation. It will thus signify, that ' Judas
' (whom he calls simply, Iscariot), cracked in the middle —
' cum strepitu — with a loud noise.' I leave the benefit of
this exposition to the Theological Reviewer to support his
interpretation of eXaxrjgt, by appealing to Suidas, a Christ
ian lexicographer of the twelfth century (Harles.) : " In
" Suidas," he confidently says, " this very word tXa'xrigt is
" interpreted, ptgov tgx'«h-" But, this is proving too much ;
for, tXaxrjgt is not interpreted by the sense of pegog tgx'gh,
that follows it. The critic did not perceive, that Suidas
only copied the vulgar interpretation of that passage, as
Kuster pointed out in his note ; but which, the critic does
not attend to: viz. — "Actor, i. 18, de Juda dicitur; hue
" Suidas respexit."
I must here introduce a notice on this text, which was
inadvertently overlooked in the first edition of this Sup
plement. — The reverend censor refers to what I observed on
the eXaxrige in this place, in my former Annotation (p. 293),
relative to the reading ofthe ancient ' Borgian' MS. ofthe
line, ' Nubes,' (Aristoph. 409) ; and he remarks: — " If tke
" B. MS. be right, We do not quite see how the poet can
" well be acquitted of a heavy sin, both against grammar,
" and prosody ; since diaXaxigu is not a neuter but a tratis-
" itive verb, and that the integrity of the anapaestic verse,
" absolutely demands diaXrixrigaga'' — But, " the B. MS. may
" still be right," though the caviller " may not quite see how."
If he had taken the pains, before he personated the teacher,
to graduate as a learner, and to consult the Treatise, No. V.
in vol. i. part ii. p. 47, note 1, of the ' Trans, of the R. S. of
' Literature,' printed in 1829, and referred to in 1837, in
the first of these ' Annotations,' p. 293, he might have

88 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. II.
avoided this exhibition of tirocinian criticism ; because, he
would then have found, from Invernezius's learned and
latest edition of Aristophanes, with Notes, (Lipsiae, 1794),
that his " integrity of his anapcestus," in this whole line, is a
spurious reading of the poet's own genuine text :
71 T ap sQuvirav' tu i%atQv>)g, haZ.axiffug vrgos auru.
I have not further space for tracing out the intimate con
nexion between ' laqueus — a cord,' laqueo {Xaxtu with the
neuter sense of xgipau — pendeo) ' to hang ' — and ' laquear —
' a ceiling,' consisting in the relations of support and sus
pension: I shall, therefore, offer my censor the following
clues, and leave to him to work out that connexion. — " A
" laqueo, laquear." (Priscian, Putch. p. 691.) — " dependent
" lychni laquearibus." iEn. i. 726. — " Sidera ignibus ccelum
" laqueantia:" Manil. — "pendentis sidera cceli." Ov. Met. —
" laqueata templa," Lucret. ii. 28, is opposed to " lampadas
" igniferas manibus retinentia ;" the former intimating, lights
suspended from the ceiling :— " laqueata tecta," Hor., ' e qui-
' bus pendebant lucernae.' Baxter : — " laqueus suspendiosi,"
Plin. N. H. xx viii. 12, ' the rope oi a person hanged.' The
passage of the Acts before us, with its insititious Latin term
' laqueavit,' will therefore signify, ' dejectus infaciem (Au-,
' gustin), pependit — EAAKH2E, in medio,' Sec — ' casting \
' himself headlong , he hung in the midst,' Sec:
"  cceli terrseque perosus,
" Inter utrumque peril." — Arator.1 ap. Suicer. i. 405.
Ver. 25. to go to his own place.] The Vat., Ephr., and
Alex. MSS. read roirov — 'place,' not xXrigov, 'part,' — at the
beginning of this verse, as well as at the end. Those most
anc. copies, read the whole verse thus : Xaj3eiv rov TOIION rng
hiaxoviag raurrig xai airogroXrig, a<p' rig iragefiri loudag irogeu6r)vai eig
rov TOIION rov idiov.

CHAPTER II.

Ver. 18. after these things.] We have here a ' duplex
' lectio conflata, or confluent double reading.' The Greek
1 Arator, secretary and minister of finance to Athalaric, king of the Ostro
goths, in 526 ; sub-deacon to Pope Vigil, in 544, to whom he presented his
metrical version of * the Book ofthe Acts.'

Chap. VI. ACTS. 89
text of Joel is, xai egrai [tera raura xai exxeu — and it shall
come to pass, after these things, that I will pour out; this is
also the reading ofthe Vat. MS., in this citation. The Cod.
Ephr. reads with the addition, xai egrai fiera raura, ev raig
egx^raig ri,u,egaig — exxeu — ' and it shall come to pass after
' these things, in the latter days, that I will pour out.' All
the following copies omit the genuine ptra raura, and retain
only the intrusive gloss ofthe Cod. Ephr. We thus see the
origin of the difference in the passage in question, in our
English version ofthe prophet, and in this place.

CHAPTER VI.
Ver. 9. of the Libyans, and Cyrenians, and Alexan
drians.] Libyans, not Libertines, as in the rec. texts: — It
would be worth while to refer to the fruitless labour with
which learned annotators have variously endeavoured to ex
plain the Greek word Atfiegnvuv — ' Libertinorum' in this place,
with the sense of 'Libertines,' as given in our authorised
English version ; before we consult Havercamp's Note on Jo
sephus, A. J. xvi. c. 6, § 1 ; and that of his follower, Wet
stein, on Acts, in this place. The learned Havercamp, to the
passage of Josephus where he mentions, roug de jcara rriv Agiav
loudaioug, xai bgoug ri irgog Kugrivriv A;/3u)j xaregxev — adds this im
portant observation : " We learn, from Acts, ii. 10, that there
' were sojourning in Jerusalem, Jews — from Egypt, and the
' parts of Libya about Cyrene.' Syncellus, the chronologist, in
" p. 347, records (concerning those in the reign of Trajan) —
" Ioudaioi, xara Aifivrjv xai Kugrivriv xai Aiyuirrov xai AXe^avdgaav —
' the Jews that were in Libya, and Cyrene, and Egypt,
' and Alexandria.' Since, then, in Acts, vi. 9, the Syna-
" gogue Aifiugnvuv, AXt^avdgtuv, Kugrivaiuv — of the Libustian,
" Alexandrian, Cyrenian Jews, are joined together, I cannot
" doubt, that the same parties are intended ; and, that the
"word Aifiegnvuv — 'Libertines,' is a corrupted reading in
" that place of the Acts. It is known, that : Libystinus '
" was equally formed from Libya, as ' Libys.' Catullus,
" epig. 60, " — - — ¦¦ — leaena montibus Libyslinis."

90 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VII.
See Wetstein's note on Acts, vi. 9 ; (where the learned
German does not acknowledge his obligation to Havercamp,
though he works on his ground). Comp. also, Heyne's note,
to TEn. lib. v. 37. ¦*. '%  pelle Libystidis ursae :"
" Libystidis, defensum vide a Pierio contra eos, qui Li-
" byssidis malebant : Labysticcis et Labystinis vitio libra-
" riorum. Est Aifiug, Atfiugng." But, though Wetstein
has suppressed the name of his learned coadjutor in his
Note, he has given us the name of Beza in his various read
ings: — " Ai(3tgnvuv] Aifiugnvuv T. Beza in annotatt. Ed. 1, 2,
" (1565, 1576). J. Clericus, Jac. Gothofredus." — Scholz,
the latest annotator, gives us only — " Labyorum, Arm. Co-
" rintho Ar. pol;" but. adds no remark. We are, therefore,
wholly indebted to Havercamp, for recovering this important
reading. Ver. 14. the Nazarene.] b Nagugaiog : — Thus, reads the
Vatican Copy, by the personal testimony of Bentley (' Col-
' latio Cod. Vatic. N. T., C. G. Woide, Oxon. 1799');
omitting — ' that — this Jesus' —
Ed. Oxon. 1675. Codex Vaticanus.
Cap. VI.
v. 14. Sn Iwous I v. 14. — — — —

The negative testimony of Birch, after the destruction of
all his second volumes, in 4to. (by the conflagration of the
R. Printing Press, at Copenhagen, in June 1795), might
well have caused the omission in his Suppl. 'Var. Lectt.' in
12mo., compiled from his MSS.; which were printed in
1798.

CHAPTER VII.

Ver. 39. chose out.] e%eXe%aro : — Vat. MS. ; not ede^aro,
as the rec. text, (see former Annot.) The Theological
Reviewer's criticism can discern nothing more, in the

Chap. XIII. ACTS. 91
testimony of the earliest and most ancient document that has
been preserved for us, than a solitary numerical unity. (See
Exposit. Pref. p. 28.) It may, therefore, be to the purpose to
observe, that the Septuagint use the verb exXtyo^ai 112 times,
but txdexo/iai only 8 times; the N. C. exXey. 19 times, but exdex-
only 8. We read in Deut. xxx. 19, rriv turiv xai rov davarov
beduxa irgo irgoguirou u/j,uv — exXe^ai rriv Zuriv gu, ha fyigjig.

CHAPTER IX.
Ver. 5. I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest : but, arise,
Sec] Between these sentences, our authorised English
version, copying the vulgate Greek, introduces a spurious
insertion, borrowed from c. xxvi. 14. — Burton, Bloomfield,
and Trollope, give due notice of the interpolation, but, they
nevertheless give it a place in the genuine text : by which
proceeding, I do not perceive that any practical gain is
obtained, toward separating the tares and the grain.
" Glossam hanc esse, ex parallelo xxvi." says also Bengel ;
yet, he suffers the gloss to retain its usurped station.
Scholz, has duly expelled the intruder from his text :
but, as he had obtained the possession and property of all
the MS. labours of his learned predecessor, Schulz; without
referring or adverting to his stores ; we cannot venture to
ascribe to the former, the credit which *may very possibly
be due only to the latter. (See, the following Annot. to
Heb. x. 24.)

CHAPTER XIII.
Ver. I. Lucius (or Luke) the Cyrenean.] Aouxiog {xa-
Xou/iievog) b Kugrivaiog : — This last denomination, gives the,
historian's own description of himself; which St. Paul ex
pressed more familiarly in his Epistle to the Colossians,
C iv. 12. — Aouxag b targog b ayairnrog — 'Luke, the beloved
' physician :' xugrivaiog and targog, being here to be understood

92 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XIII.
synonymously : irguroi pev Kgoruvtrirai irirgoi eXeyovro ava rriv 'EX-
XaSa eivar aeu«go; de, Kugnvaioi — ' The Crotonians, were said to
' be the first physicians in Greece ; the Cyreneans, the se-
' cond.' (Herod, iii. 131.) — " Aouxiog : Lucius, qui alias
" Lucas appellatur. Observant enim nomen ejus in com-
" pendium fuisse redactum, ut pro Lucilio vel Lucano,
" vocatur Lucam." (Wetst. in Act. xiii. and Rom. xvi. 21.)
" Lucii nomen et Lucce idem est, nisi quod prius istud,
" posterioris diminutiviim, familiar ius aliquiquando sonat."
(Bengel, ad Luc. c. i.) That name was written differently,
according to its Greek or Latin inflection ; but, in the
darkening ages which followed, they became distributed to
different imaginary persons. In our own authorised version,
they became multiplied into three — ' Lucius, Luke, and
' Lucas.' In the same manner, our common version has
multiplied the solitary name Magxog, into Mark and Marcus.
A learned annotator observes on this name (in his note before
the Gospel of this evangelist) : "if this Mark died in the
" eighth year of Nero (a.d. 60 or 62), as is said by Eusebius,
" he could not be mentioned in the 2 Ep. to Timothy, which
" was not written before a.d. 64, andperhaps in 66." But, if
that chronologist (who would thus settle a date definitively
between the terms a.d. 61 and a.d. 66,) had been at all aware,
that the received reading of his N. T. in Gal. ii. 1, dia dexareg-
gaguv — 'fourteen,' and that our recovered reading, dia de xa {xai)
reggaguv — ' within four,' made a difference of ten years in his
chronology (" in which" he is constrained to acknowledge,
" we do not know any thing of what happened to him;") he
would have had the caution to abstain from so futile an
attempt of decision, on this chronological question. And, I
cannot refrain from reprehending a ground which the same
learned Annotator is so adventurous as to assume, for sus
taining his own personal conjecture: — " St. Luke (he says)
" may have been ill-informed of Paul's movements, at this
" time." The reverend canon himself may, indeed, 'have been
' ill informed oi St. Paul's movements at that time ;' but not
so probably the consociated historian.
Ver. 8. but the Sorcerer, for so his name Elymas is
interpreted.] We should use this construction in the transla
tion, in order to convey clearly the historian's meaning.

Chap. XVII. ACTS. 93

CHAPTER XVII.
Ver. 25. the God that made the world, Sec] This, and
the following seven verses, comprise the two first Articles of
that Faith, which St. Paul was ordained to promulgate in
the first instance, to the heathen world. After those two
preliminary articles had been propounded and established, he
next proceeded to expose the third or last Article, respecting
the Holy Spirit. " Have ye received the H. S. since ye be-
" lieved?" (he asked) ; and they said to him, " We have not
" heard, that there is a H. S. — Then Paul told the people,
" that they must believe on Jesus : and when they heard
" this, they were baptised in the name of tke Lord Jesus.
" And, when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit
" came upon them" (c. xix. 2-7). In the first exposition, there
fore, St. Paul laid open only the foundation ofthe Gospel faith,
as introductory to its entire revelation ; following the exam
ple of his Divine Master toward his own generation : "I
" have yet many things to say to you, but ye are not able to
" bear them now ; but, when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come,
" He will guide you to all the truth," John, xvi. 12, 13.
It is surprising, that this introductory symbol or formulary
of belief, was not incorporated into our liturgy, with those
of a later age.
St. Paul's First Profession of Faith, to the Athenians.
" The God that made the world, and every thing in it,
being himself Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in tem
ples made with hands ; neither is served by human hands,
as if He needeth any thing; since He Himself giveth to all,
life, and breath, and all things :
" and, from one man, He hath made every nation of men
to dwell on all the face of the earth ; having determined the
appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation :
" that they should seek the Lord, if haply they may feel
Him out and find Him ; although, He is not far from every
one of us; for, in Him we live, and move, and have our
being. " Being therefore ourselves, offspring of God, we ought

94 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XIX.
not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold, or silver,
or stone, graven by art and man's device :
" but, God, having overlooked those times of ignorance,
now commandeth that all men, every where, shall change their
thoughts; according as He hath appointed a day in which He
will judge the world with justice, by the Man whom He hath
ordained ; of which He hath given assurance to all men, by
raising Him from the dead."
In a riper state of his auditors, he fully disclosed the
mystery of that 'Man:' — "The first man, was from the
" earth : the second Man, is from Heaven." (1 Cor. xv. 47.)
Ver. 25. made the world, and every thing in it.] 'Existence,'
is the exclusive and personal attribute of God, whether self-
existence or imparted existence ; both, emanate from Himself
only : there is no general or neutral existence. As every ex
istence springs from Him alone, it can cease to exist, or con
tinue to exist, only by his will ; and, though man can change
the corporeal circumstances of his existence, as by suicide, he
cannot affect the existence itself, which remains the same,
and can only be affected by the will and power of its
Creator.

CHAPTER XIX.
Ver. 9. in the school of Tyrannus.] ev <%oX»] Tuguvmu,
Vat. M.S. : — ev 0%. Tugawou nvog, is the reading of the re
ceived text ; on which Erasmus pertinently asked, " Si
" nomen est proprium, cur addidit nvogV The Vat. MS.,
followed by the Alex., enables us, in our generation, to
answer this question; by stating, that nvog is a spurious
reading, introduced subsequently to the date of those copies;
and thus, to render superfluous the learned and ingenious
conjecture of Knatchbull, who endeavoured to expound the
passage from Phavorinus, who says, rugawog egnv agxuv iroXiug
— 'tyrannus denotes the chief of a city.'

Chap. XXII. ACTS. 95

CHAPTER XXI.
Ver. 7. Ptolemais.] This name, which occurs only in
this solitary occasion in the S. S., was given for a time, by
the Greeks and Romans, to the ancient Accho mentioned in
Judges, i. 31; which ancient town recovered its former
denomination in the Christian ages, in the forms Aco, and
Acre, and finally, of St. Jean d'Acre. No notice, of the
name or place, is taken either by Bengel or any of our
English annotators ; but, a copious note relating to it is
added by Wetstein, torn. ii. p. 602. At the present mo
ment, it is contemplated with interest as qualified for forming
an advance-guard of a new sovereignty of Egypt, towards
Syria. Ver. 8. departed and came.] See note above, to John, xi. 19.
Ver. 16. taking us to {lodge at the house of) oneMnason,
&c] So the words ayovrtg {ri/iag) irag' o5 %evig6u{j,tv Mvaguvi rivi,
should be rendered ; and not, ' bringing with them one Mna-
son,' as I had too scrupulously followed our English vulgate.
" Miror vero interpretes quos vidi omnes vertunt, adducentes
" secum Mnasonem; cum neque steterit cum grammatica, vel
" sensu. Multo est enim probabilius, Mnasonem habitasse
" et jam fuisse Hierosolymis, apud quern statuebant hospi-
" tari." (Knatchbull, Animadv.)

CHAPTER XXII.

Ver. 2. he spake to them in the Hebrew^ tongue.] Here,
the historian proceeds to report to his readers, a Greek
translation oi St. Paul's oration to his Hebrew auditory,
which he delivered to them in their ' Hebrew tongue ;' as is
expressly stated, also, in the conclusion of the preceding
chapter. Now, it is a most remarkable oversight of a learned
and laborious expositor, that, though Luke distinctly tells us,
that Paul delivered that discourse in the Hebrew tongue, the
matter of which he (the historian) presents in a Greek trans-

96 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXIV.
lation, yet, the modern expositor appeals to the translation,
as if it contained the original words of the Hebrew speaker.
He says — " The point of coincidence, important to be noticed,
" between Acts, xxii. 5, xxvi. 11, and Heb. x. 29, in which
" these terms respectively occur, is, that they are employed in
" all the three contexts." But it so happens, that the middle
one only of the three contexts, was truly St. Paul's original
Greek ; the first and .last were Luke's Greek translations
of Paul's Hebrew originals. (See the following Prefatory
Annotation to the Hebrews ; and, The Apost. Author, to tke
Epistle to tke Hebrews, 1838, p. 62.) This fatal oversight,
saps the foundation of the learned expositor's specious, but
unsolid superstructure ; as will be found in the place here
referred to.

CHAPTER XXIV.

Ver. 23, 24. His justification. J These verses, as I before
observed, have experienced the officiousness of philoponists.
All the oldest copies, Vat., Ephr., Alex., Cod. Vat., 367,
and many other ancient MSS., read the latter verse with
out egegQat, which is an insertion of later copyists, after
the eighth century; shewing, that the context has been
tampered with : Scholz has, therefore, correctly excluded
that word from his text. The unpunctuated words of
the latest surviving uncial copies, previous to that date,
Stand thus : (lereireft-^aro rov TiauXov xai rjxougev aurou irtgi rrig tig
Xgigrov Irjgouv irtgrtug diaXtyo/itvou de aurou iregi dixaioguvrig xai eyxga-
reiag xai rou xgi^arog tou fieXXovrog e/aipo^og yevoftevog o <J>»)X(|;. The
subject-matter, and * ratio comparationis,' direct us to dis
tribute diaXeyoftevou de to TiauXov, the first mentioned ; and the
second aurou, (by an emphatic hyperbaton,1) to Xgigrov T?jow,
last mentioned, detached from rng irigreug. "Hyperbaton, id
" est, verbi transgressionem, quam frequenter ratio comparer
" tionis (al. compositionis) et decor poscit, non immerito inter
" virtutes habemus." (Quinctil. Inst. Orat. lib. viii. c. 6,
p. 749. Ed. Burmann.)
1 Knatchbull, on Jude, 18. "Est etiam in hoc loco hyperbaton  adeo ut
" fatendum sit, in singulis apostolis reperiri hyperbata, ne quis ultra in lis
" luereat."

Chap. XXIV. ACTS. 97
On a close examination, the rec. text is found complete,
with the rejection only of the interpolated tgegbai. The
passage will then stand thus — pereirep-^aro rov IlauXov, xai
nxougev auTou irtgi rng eig XPI2TON IH20TN irigreug' diaXtyo/j,tvou
ie, ATTOT iregi dixaioguvqg, xai eyxgareiag, xai tou xgi/iarog rou
peXXovrog, efipofiog ytvoptvog a <E>. — 'he sent for Paul, and heard
' him speak concerning the faith in Christ Jesus : and, as
' he reasoned oi His justification, and power or dominion,
' and future judgment, Festus becoming terrified,' &c. —
aurou irtgi dix., for <?regi Six. aurou. The context shews, that
Paul's discourse was engaged in urging the great articles
ofthe 'Christian Faith' — viz. ' Christ's justification, His
' supreme power, and His final tribunal.' The first of these
was the dixaioguvn ®tou — 'justification of God,' which Paul
urges in Rom. i. 17 ; iii. 21-27 : the second, was that su
preme power which he enforced in Rom. x. 13, where he
proclaims Christ Kugiog iravruv — 'Lord of all:' the last, is the
xgi/aa rou Qeou — 'judgment of God,' of which he gives warn
ing in Rom. ii. 3. The Theological Reviewer says — "a
" moment's inspection of the original will shew, how utterly
" inadmissible is the insertion ofthe word ' his' in the above
" translation." This critic appears habituated to momentary
inspections ; but, an entire minute's inspection of the same
text, will shew him, that the pronoun 'his,' is not only
admissible, but is actually ^expressed in it. He does not
perceive that, in the last sentence, the historian has changed
his subject, from Paul to Christ ; and that aurou, in this
clause, signifies aurou toutou, referring to the last-mentioned
person : " aurog is often in the sense of is ipse." (Matthiae,
Gr. Gr. % 472, 10.)
Of the different senses appertaining to the Greek word
eyxgama, those of ' ditio, potentia, superioritas,' appear the
most suitable to this place.
'Eyxgartu, tyxgareuu, eyxgareia, eyxgar%g, and tyxgarug, re
spectively express, in their primary and general imports, the
exercise, fact, or quality of ' controlling power.' Of these
different parts of speech, the last two are most common with
the Greek writers. The verbs are also expressed by the ad
jective and yivopai, as tyxgarng rrig Aiyuirrou iragng eytvtro —
'omni iEgypto potitus est.' D. Cassius, lib. xxxix. c. 51.
Also, with eifii ; as, airavruv ruv aya6uv eyxgartig ovrag roug Oeoug,
H

98 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXIV.
xai auroug £%£/>, xai douvai roig aXXoig. Demosth. Ep. Reiske,
p. 1487. 27: — 'the Gods having the power both to possess,
' and to impart, all good things.'
Pollux, who constructed his Onomaslicon as early as the
second century, thus associates tyxgartia: — xagrtgia, tyxgartia,
avdgeia, eu$u/i,ia, eugugna, which the Latin interpreter correctly
renders, 'fortitudo, potentia, virilitas, animositas, robur.'
(iv. 10.) The same lexicographer says, Xeuvra av eiiroig —
igXugov, dgaguv, xgaregov, tyxgarn avdguv — ' leonem VOCablS —
' Validum, audacem, fortem, virorum potentem.' Of this use
oi eyxgareia, we have an example in Xenoph. Cyrop. lib. viii.
C. i. 36 : rnv eyxgartiav tou irovoug, xai "\>ux?l, "«/ OaXirri, xai Xi/mv,
xai di-^og duvagdai iptgtiv — 'the power of enduring both labours,
' and cold, and heat,' &c. The Cod. Guelf. reads tmxgarngiv
for tyxgartiav {in marg. Schneider ;) and it is to be observed,
that verbs, compounded with tv and eiri, are frequently used
in the same sense ; as, eyygaipu, eiriyga<pu. So, Galen says,
eitixgarei rng Degpfyg h •ifvyrga. — 'cold has power over, or over-
' comes heat.'
From this general and active sense, those words became
restricted to a reflective moral sense, signifying ' self-coercion
' or control,' especially of temper, or resentment, which exer
cise we express by 'forbearance.' Hence Pollux observes;
rnv guipgoguvrp, aroXfiiav, rriv d' eyxgartiav, avavdgiav oitrai (vi. 134),
' some think prudence to be pusillanimity, and forbearance,
' weakness.' This sense is also applicable to the passage
before us, as also, to Gal. v. 23.
Finally : tyxgartia became at length still more limited,
and was applied by the Christian writers to signify, self-
restraint from sensual and voluptuary passions and propen
sities, viz. temperance, continence, and chastity. These last,
and latest, are the only senses, in which the word is known to
the Theological Reviewer: "The only dominion," he says,
" which this word implies, either in Attic or Hellenistic
" Greek, is the dominion which a man exercises over Ms own
"passions. We, at least, have never seen an instance," &c.
Here he appeals to Hesychius in the sixth century, Suidas in the
twelfth, and Suicer in the seventeenth ; the last of whom, sup
plies him amply with the ecclesiastical Greek ofthe Constanti-
nopolitan empire : " tyxgartia, eyxgareuo/iai, eyxgarng '• 1 • sumitur
" pro exquisita diceta, quo quis in vita sua utitur. 2. sumitur

Chap. XXVI. ACTS. 99
" pro reframatione appetitus omnium rerum malarum. 3. spe-
" cialiter, sumitur pro refrcenatione pravarum concupiscentia-
" rum, quae impellunt ad pollutiones et scortationes." It
will be plain to every reflective and competent judgment, that
the sense of ' temperance,' is wholly foreign to the triple asso
ciation here selected for enforcement by St. Paul (Comp.
Annot. to Gal. v. 22).
Ver. 26. money would have been given Mm.] The rec.
text has absorbed a marginal gloss of explanation, unknown
to the Codd. Vat. (Bentley), Ephr., Alex., St. Germ., Sec viz.
" birug Xugri aurov — ' that he might loose him.'"

CHAPTER XXVI.

Ver. 28. Art thou persuaded, thou wilt soon make me a
Christian?] I shewed, in the former Annotation to this
passage, that the earliest MSS. read iroingai, where the junior
copies have substituted ytvtgSat ; and, therefore, in order for
the context to accord in sense with that ancient reading, that
ireihig will reveal itself to be an erroneous conjunction of
iredei ff, i. e. ge ; as in Matt. xxvi. 53, where the generality of
MSS. read doxttg, but some read doxei goi : proving the cause of
the diversity to have been the union of the ordinary compend
of the pronoun gu, in all its inflections, viz. <r in undivided
uncial writing— TTeieeiCXPIGTIXNON. The primitive
reading will therefore have been : ev oXiyw pe ireihi ge xg«triavov
iroir,gai. The Theological Critic, whose only principle of scrip
tural criticism is to retain, at all hazards, all the readings of
the vulgar text, and of ' K. James's translation,' thus prer
sents my exposition : " Now, says Mr. P., only detach the
" final g from ireihig in the Vat. text, and supply a dash over
" the g, and then we shall have ireihi 7, which, written at
" length, will be ireihi gt." I wish I could regard this pre
sentation of my argument, as simply flippant and erroneous,
but every reader must perceive in it, something more ; for, I
have not said what he affirms that I have said, nor any thing
that can fairly and truly be so represented. I did not ground

100 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXVIII.
my criticism on the word ireihig, as he would pretend, but, on
the reading iroingotr, and, if he is unable to discern by the testi
monies adduced, that mineau is the genuine reading, he would do
well to cease from 'critical experiments,' and confine himself to
his professed sciences. I shewed, as a necessary corollary to
the reading iroingoti, that the reading ireihig (not of the ' Vat.'
only, but of all the texts), must be read, ireihi ge. He further
thus proceeds, as an arbiter oi taste : "To us, it appears that,
" in order to bear the sense assigned to it by Mr. P., the pass-
" age should run thus — ev oXiyui ireihi ge xi'eTiawv P* iroirigai."
This collocation of the words may very possibly appear pre
ferable to the Reviewer; but, as /as bears the emphasis of
Agrippa's reply, readers of any rhetorical sensibility will at
once perceive another instance of hyperbaton f1 and will feel,
that — ev oXiyifi me iruhi gt xgrfnavov irotngat, is a more probable
order for Agrippa, or any Greek speaker to have used, than
the hobbling measure suggested by the Reviewer's pedestrian
notion of Greek elocution.

CHAPTER XXVII.

Ver. 37. seventy souls.] See former Annot. — Numerical
•errors in copies, were so familiar to the ancients, that where
Homer's vulgar text had stated, that the tides ebb and flow
three times in the day, Strabo readily solved the difficulty,
by assuming a manuscriptural error: pn rgtg, aXXa dig, rax«-
rm ygotfris din/iagrnu-evng. (Strabo, torn. i. p. 9, ed. Wolt. foi.)

CHAPTER XXVIII.

Ver. 3-5. a Viper came out and fastened on his hand —
but he felt no harm.] Two interventions of the divine
power, are here recorded by the ocular testimony of the
1 EfTi 3e {ra uvrtgf&ara) Xs|eaiv fi voyffluv ix rou xar uxoXouhav xixiwifAlvvi rafys,
xai anvil ftaguxrvii tvayuviou -rufous aXviSitrraros — . ' Hyper bata, are removals of
' words or thoughts from their consecutive order, and are certain indications of
* excited feeling.' Longinus, de Subl. s. xxii., p. 55. Toup.

Chap. XXVIII. ACTS. 101
historian, Luke: 1st, the existence of a Viper in the island
of Malta, at the moment when St. Paul had just landed
from his shipwreck : 2dly, the harmless power of the reptile's
bite, on that apostle.
A reviewer of the Monthly Review (of vol. xliv, 1804,
p. 183), caught by a fugitive vision of the late learned but
imaginative Jacob Bryant, denied the inveterated tradition of
the locality ascribed to that shipwreck ; asserting : 1. " That
Malta lay out of Paul's track:" — the falsity of which posi
tion, has been sufficiently'exposed in the former Annot. to
Acts, xxviii., Conclusion, p. 506. 2. " That it does not har
bour Vipers:" — which position, only corroborates the histo
rian's relation. 3. " That, in tke time of the Romans, the
" inhabitants could not be represented as barbarians :" — a pro
position, revealing consummate ignorance of the subject ;
since, the Romans were only a foreign garrison of con
querors, but the inhabitants were indigenous ; and were
Arabian, both in origin and language. The notoriety of
the absence of all Vipers in Malta, can alone explain the
two opposite and sudden convictions of the Maltese specta
tors : " When the natives saw the beast, they said among
" themselves, — Though he hath escaped the sea, vengeance
" suffereth him not to live: — but, when they saw no harm
" happen to him — they said, That he was a God!"
Ver. 23. he expounded and testified — the things con
cerning Jesus, from the Law of Moses and from tke Pro
phets ; from Morning till Evening.] That 'Exposition and
' Testimony? delivered by Paul to his countrymen at Rome,
in their Hebrew tongue, but translated into Greek under
his inspection, by his disciple and fellow-traveller Luke,
comprises the first twelve chapters ofthe Treatise called the
' Epistle to the Hebrews :' the last of which twelve chapters,
is followed and concluded by a separate or thirteenth chapter,
written in Greek by Paul himself to his Hebrew converts in
the East; transmitting and accompanying the whole pre
ceding 'Exposition;' which now finds its natural station as
the substance of the following book, commonly entitled,
' Epistle to the Hebrews ;' the discussion of which (we are
here told), engaged the Apostle 'from Morning till Evening.'
(See ' Hebrews,' Prefatory Annotation.)

ST. PAUL'S EXPOSITION TO THE
HEBREWS IN ROME:
RENDERED INTO GREEK BY LUKE.
(Acts, xxviii. 23.)

PREFATORY ANNOTATION.
Pantjenus, the Stoic philosopher, (afterwards the head
of the Christian school of Alexandria in a.d. 180,) the earliest
surviving witness of this Tract, has testified1 — rnv irgog 'Efigaioug
eirigroXnv TIauXou (Ltv eivai, ytygaip&ai dt 'E(5gaioig 'Kj3ga'i'xri <pmn'
Aouxav de <piXon//*ug aurnv fiithg^nveugavra txdouvai roig EXXjjovi/ —
" that, the Epistle inscribed to the Hebrews, was written to
" the Hebrews by Paul, in the Hebrew tongue; but, that
" Luke translated it, with great accuracy, to impart it to the
" Greeks." — "Wherefore (adds Eusebius, in the fourth
" century) tke same complexion of style is found, in this
Epistle and in the Acts." — bhv rov aurov xSUTa fgigxeaiou xara
rnv tgfinvtiav, raurng rt rng eirigroXng, xai ruv irga^euv. {Eccl.
Hist. lib. vi. c. 14.) The authority of Pantaenus, is witnessed
in the next generation by his eminent auditor and disciple,
Clemens Alexandrinus. In the two following centuries, spu
rious rivals were raised up to contest the genuine title of
Panttenus's primitive testimony; which, nevertheless, remains
unrivalled and unimpeachable.2
1 iptvri and tkiyi in p. 273, c. 14, refer to their distant nominative, ' Panteenus,'
in c. 13, 1. 14, p. 271.
2 tfu(>u. Yuftawv riff iv ou vofti£srai rou unotrroXov ruiy%uvuv—' some ofthe Romans
'do not think it a work of the Apostle.' (Euseb. ib. p. 273  not.) " Omnes
" Grmci patres — uno Caio, quo Hieronymus in Catalogo scribit, excepto — hanc
" epistolam receperunt ut Paulinam. Admonet Eusebius paulo infra, cap. 20,
" hanc epistolam, a quibusdam Romanis, Pauli non esse agnitam ; quod etiam de
" sua estate Hieronymus testatur : at, quotquot fere deinceps secuti sunt, earn
" pro Paulinam agnoverunt." — Dr. Guel. Estius, Prolegom. in hanc Epistolam.
(G. Estius, celebre Theol. natif de Gorcum de l'anc. famille d'Est, Docteur a
Louvain, en 1580. Comment, sur les Ep. de St. Paul, 1709, 2 vol. in foi.
(Ladvocat.)

HEBREWS. 1 03
This sacred Tract, contains St. Paul's reply to the Hebrews
who were residing in Rome at the moment of his first arrival
in that city : " We are desirous (said they) to hear from thee,
" what thou thinkest : for, as to this sect, it is notorious to us,
" that it is every where opposed (Acts, xxviii. 23)." The ori
ginal of this expository reply to that question (composed
and delivered in Hebrew), remained among that people;
but, Paul deemed it expedient to employ his disciple and
attendant Luke, to translate it into Greek, for the benefit of
his converted adherents in the East, both Jews and Greeks :
subjoining some further suggestions, arising from subse
quent contingencies. That account of the document, fully
explains the statement of Eusebius, that " it was not received
" by many ; for, it was rejected by the Church of Rome, as
" not being one of Paul's -genuine epistles:" in fact, it was
not properly ' an Epistle,' but ' an Exposition, accompanying
' an Epistle,' nor was its matter addressed to the general
body of that Church ; and local jealousies, might have con
spired to cause that local rejection.
By omitting to produce the primary authority of Pan-
taenus, and by inadvertently beginning his critical argu
ment eleven lines lower than he ought to have commenced
his quotation, a learned expositor reverses the whole pur
port of Clemens' and Eusebius' testimonies; making those
authorities to record, the very contrary to that which
they truly record. It is (as I before was constrained
to observe, in Annot. Acts, xxii. 2) a remarkable over
sight of the same laborious expositor, that although Luke
explicitly relates, that Paul delivered this discourse in
the Hebrew tongue (the matter of which, Luke imparts in a
Greek translation) ; yet, the expositor appeals to the trans
lation, as to the original words of Paul. Whereas it has
been shewn, that, ofthe three contexts, Acts, xxii. 5, xxvi.
II, Heb. x. 29, the middle one only, contains Paul's
own Greek ; and that, the first, and the last, are Luke's
Greek versions oi Paul's Hebrew originals. The learned
author has aspired to demonstrate, by Ms own critical tact
alone, after a lapse of 1800 years ; that a simple matter
of fact (testified by an unimpeachable witness within 180
years of the fact in question,) is not true. But, a disciple, of
the same nation and language as the preceptor ; translating

104 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS.
the preceptor's native original into a foreign dialect equally
familiar to both ; and scrupulously rendering its import,
under the eye and correction of the preceptor ; may defy
any (Edipus to assign the actual writer, by internal evidence
alone, especially, after such an interval of ages.1 It is by
collateral testimony only, that the fact can be attained ; and,
that fact has been clearly demonstrated by an unimpeachable,
and almost contemporary witness. Had Michaelis, also, duly
combined Luke's record in the last chapter of his Acts of the
Apostles, with Luke's Greek version of Paul's exposition to
the Hebrews, (alluded to in that place,) the learned German
might have spared himself nearly an hundred fruitless, though
elaborate pages. If you cannot see what has fallen at your
feet, the farther you seek for it, the less hopeful must be your
search ; and such has been the case of these two (and other)
learned aspirers, in their abstruse expositions.
A moment's reflection, will now suffice to demonstrate : —
First, that Luke's ' Gospel' and his ' Acts ofthe Apostles,'
are divisions of the same general history, and ought never to
have been separated. , Secondly : that the ' Epistle to the
' Hebrews ' contains, as it were, an Appendix to the last of
those two Tracts, constituting an 'Exposition' ofthe general
argument referred to in the 23d verse of the last chapter of
that Tract, namely, " That it engaged Paul, from morning till
" evening, in Expounding and Testifying the kingdom of Goo :
" and, endeavouring to persuade them of the things concerning
" Jesus; both from the law of Moses, and from the Pro-
" phets." Such, is the argument of Paul's 'Epistle to the
' Hebrews,' compressed in that summary title ; and thus,
Luke's three works are, as it were, dove-tailed into each
other; the first and second, comprising Luke's History of
our Lords Life and the Infancy of Ms Church ; and the
second and third, Paul's Exposition to Ms Hebrew countrymen
at Rome, recorded by tke same Luke.
i "Davus es, non (Edipus." — Terent. Andria, I. ii. 23.

1 \

Chap. I. HEBREWS. 105

CHAPTER I.
Ver. 3. the effulgence of his glory.] airauyagpa r»js do^ni
aurou : this designation cannot be better paraphrased, than
by the words of our great poet :
" — of the eternal, co-eternal beam 
Bright effluence of bright essence increate .*"
this exposition, which the poet does not apply to created
light, is applicable, and applicable only, to that Divine
Light, with propounding which, St. John opens his Gospel ;
which also was the ' Word of God, without whom nothing
' was created that has been created.'
I shall take this opportunity to remark, that the ' Nicene
' Creed' concluded, originally, with an anathematising clause,
of the same character as those incorporated into the body of
the Symbol called the ' Atkanasian Creed.' " Such," ob
serves Jortin, " was the Nicene Creed as it stood originally.
" Our Church hath dropped the anathematising clause at the
" end ; and one cannot help wishing, that the Nicene fathers
" had done the same." (Vol. III. p. 117.) The fathers of
our Church did what it behoved them to do, in that
omission ; for, as they introduced the Creed into our liturgy
for general public expression, it was not the function ofthe
laity, nor even of the clergy generally, to pronounce spiritual
condemnation or censure. It is therefore greatly to be la
mented, that the same parents of our Church did not, in
consistency, exclude the anathematising clauses from the
Athanasian Creed. The presence of those clauses, has
always given much, and reasonable, offence to many pious
minds ; and has ever acted injuriously to the Creed itself, of
which they do not form an integral part. It is therefore to
be desired, that those clauses should, even at this late hour,
be rejected and expunged by authority ; and they would then
leave that sublime symbol of Christian faitk (skilfully con
structed to meet, at once, all the chief heresies that infested
the early Church,) thus unobjectionable to every orthodox
Christian. It would be an unskilful and a culpable expedient,

106 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. I.
to resort to the alternative of suppressing the symbol alto
gether. (See the former Annot. to Heb. i. 3 ; and after, the
Annot. to 1 John, iv. 9.)
Symbol ofthe CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITH.
1 The Catholic Faith, is this : That we worship One God in
Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity : 1
2 neither confusing the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.
3 For, there is one person of the Father ; another of the Son ;
and another of the Holy Spirit ;
4 but, the Divine Nature2 ofthe Father, ofthe Son, and ofthe
Holy Spirit, is One and the Same : the Glory equal, the Majesty
co-eternal. 5 Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy
Spirit. 6 The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit
uncreate :
7 The Father incomprehensible,3 the Son incomprehensible, and
the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
8 The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit
eternal :
9 and yet, they are not three eternals, but One Eternal ;
10 as also, they are not three incomprehensibles, nor three
uncreate, but One Uncreate, and One Incomprehensible.
1 1 So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and
the Holy Spirit almighty :
12 and yet, not three almighties, but One Almighty.
13 So likewise, the Father is God ; the Son, God ; and the
Holy Spirit, God :
14 and yet, not three Gods, but One God.
15 So, likewise, the Father is Lord ; the Son, Lord ; and the
Holy Spirit, Lord :
16 and yet, not three Lords, but One Lord.
17 For, as we are compelled, by the Christian Truth, to acknow
ledge each separate Person to be God and Lord ;
18 so we are forbidden, by the Catholic Religion, to say, There
are three Gods, or three Lords.
19 The Father, is made from none ; neither created, nor be
gotten :
1 Matt, xxviii. 19, and former Annot.
8 hioms — '¦Godhead; godship ; divinity; divine nature.' (Johnson.)
3 axaraXritros. See Chrysostom, ap. Suid. v. atgocirov, torn. i. p. 305.

Chap. I. HEBREWS. 107
20 the Son, is from the Father alone ; not made, nor created,
but begotten :
21 the Holy Spirit, is from the Father,1 and the Son;8 not
made, nor begotten, but proceeding.
22 So, there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not
three Sons ; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
23 And, in this Trinity, none was before or after, none is
greater or less than another ; but, the entire three Persons are
co-eternal, and equal :
24 so that, in all things, as hath been said, both the Unity
ought to be worshipped in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity.
25 Furthermore ; it is necessary, to believe rightly the Incar
nation of our Lord Jesus Christ :
26 for, the right faith is, That we believe and confess, That
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man :
27 God, of the Substance of his Father, begotten before the
world; and Man, of the substance of Aw mother, born in the world :
28 perfect God ; and perfect Man, subsisting of a reasonable
soul and human flesh :
29 equal to the Father, as to his Divine Nature : and inferior
to the Father, as to his human nature :
30 Who, though he is both God and man, is yet, not two, but
One Christ :
31 One, not by conversion of the Divine Nature into flesh, but
by assumption of the Human Nature unto God :
32 One, altogether, not by confusion of Substance, but by
Unity of Person.
33 For, as the reasonable soul and the flesh are one man, so,
he who is both God and man, is one Christ :
34 Who suffered for our salvation ; descended to the grave ;
and rose from the dead, the third day.
35 and ascended to heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of
the Father, the God Almighty ; from whence he will come, to
judge the living and the dead :
36 at whose coming, all men will rise again, and give account
of their own works ;
37 and they that have done good, will go into life eternal;
but, they who have done evil, into eternal fire.
38 This, is the Catholic Faith !3
1 In essential being. John, xv. 26. " In effusion on the Church. Ib.
' Though this Creed was composed in Latin, yet, as it was digested by the
works of Athanasius, and so translated into Greek, I have referred to the terms
of that translation.

108 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. X.

CHAPTER II.
Ver. 9. apart from God.] x^S'5 ®l0U '• — * stated unre
servedly, in the former Annotation, p. 423, that {the Vat.,
as well as) every other known MS., reads xaim — ' ty the
' grace J in this place; excepting tke Cod. 53, Wetst., which
alone reads xaV$ — ' apart' On this statement, neverthe
less, the Theological Reviewer thus observes, " It happens,
" sometimes, that the critic is tempted to rebel against the
" Vat. MS. itself: among other instances, his allegiance fails
" him at the 9th verse of Heb. ii." In my ' Expository ?
' Preface,' part i. § 34, p. 49, I had providently and dis
tinctly stated, that, as the Vat. MS. pertained, not to the
first but to the fourth century, some deviations of its text,
from earlier copies, might reasonably be expected ; which
might be rectified, by the testimony of still more ancient
authorities; as I stated at pp. 465, 6, in 1 John, iv. 3, where
both the Vat. and the recited MSS. read b /j,n b/ioXoyei, but
where the still earlier copies used by Socrates in the fifth
century (now long since perished), read b Xuei (Euseb. H. E.
lib. vii. c. 32). My 'allegiance' to the Vat. MS., therefore,
was expressly declared to be subject to ' more ancient au-
' thority; which I produced. I therefore said : " In the very
" rare instances, in which I have deemed it obligatory to
" depart from the readings of that MS. {Vatican), I have
" fully assigned the reasons in the annotations." Had I
rejected the Vat., for a junior authority, my censurer might
have warrantably said, that I rebelled against it; but, he
was careful to keep out of sight my exposition on this point:
exhibiting, throughout his whole Article, the animus of a
party-voter, who, finding his favourite candidate sorely
pressed, deems himself secularly justified in relaxing the
strict rules of moral obligation toward his opponent.

CHAPTER X.

Ver. 24. let us attend to.] xaravouptv : — This, is the
reading oi every Manuscript. Scholz, however, opposes to
that unanimity, his solitary dissent: " xaraxovau, Conjectur.

Chap. XI. HEBREWS. 109
(he adds) — Try xaraxovau." Now, the former verb, is
used 41 times in the O. and N. Gr. T. ; but, the latter is
not found in existence in any Greek writing, Sacred or Pro
fane. It appears to be, indeed, in one single instance, in the
Hippolytus oi Euripides (line 823 of Invernezius, 829 of
Brunk, and 821 of Musgrave) ; but, on that solitary occa
sion, Stephens adds this caution { Thes. Gr.), "nisi prava haec
" lectio est pro xaraxoira — unless it is a corrupted reading, for
" xaraxoira." Such, is Scholz's " Conjectur." Such trifling
with texts and readings, might possibly be tolerated in
profane criticism ; but, it is very far otherwise in aspiring
to discharge the office of ' steward of the mysteries of God.'
It is deeply to be regretted (as I have already had occasion to
remark, p. 49,) that Schulz did not complete the second
volume of his edition and notes of the Gr. N. T. ; but was
induced to negotiate the property of his own manuscripts,
with his near namesake and junior, Scholz ; the latter of
whom has, by that means, acquired the transfer ofthe honour
of his senior's earlier achievements, and has embodied them
with his own, undistinguishably, suppressing the name of the
former possessor.1

CHAPTER XI.

Ver. 36. were pierced througk] tirtg$n<f°w ¦ — On this
reading, Knatchbull observes : " a mode of death so noto-
" rious, that it is not credible that the apostle should have
" passed it over, in enumerating the several kinds of deaths,
" which Christians in those times, and formerly the pro-
" phets, suffered on account of their faith ; among which
" kinds, Nicephorus and Eusebius specify, 'piercing through
' the entrails with stakes.' This action, Favorinus calls
1 " Aucti congesserunt (says Scholx, Proleg. p. xxvi.), praster Millium et
Wetstenium, J. A. BengeHus, C. F. Matthcei, P. C. Alterus, And. Birchius,
J. J. Griesbachius, aliiq. .- to which he adds, in a note (/) .• " Knittelius, Tree-
" chovius, Doederleinius, Michaelis, Euchornius, Georgius, Bodius, Slorrius,
" Whitius, Adlerus, Woidius, Munsterus, Hugius, Papalbaumius, Zahnius,
" Dermont, al. : "— but, he omits his predecessor, D. David Schulz (Berolini),
to whose elaborate, but unassuming volume I was under great obligation, for
three years before Scholx's splendid edition saw the light.

110 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XIII.
" avag%oXoiriX,eiv, adding, ' formerly they pierced malefactors
' through the back, with a stake, as fishes are spitted on
' skewers to be roasted.'" The rec. reading, eireigagAnow —
' were tempted,' condemns itself, in this place.

CHAPTER XII.

Ver. 23. oi tke first-born.] irguroroxuv, sub. tx ruv vexguv —
'from the dead,' as expressed in Col. i. 18 : ' the dead in
' Christy will rise first — avagrnaovrai irgurov (1 Thess. iv. 4 :
Gr. iv. 16) : ' This is the first resurrection' — ainj ri avagraag
n irgurn (Rev. xx. 5). These, our Lord emphatically calls, in
Luke, xx. 36, the "children of the resurrection" — rng avairra-
eeug ahi. The apostle here speaks, prospectively, of the future
and final establishment of ' the kingdom of God, and of His
' Christ ;' whose redeemed subjects are ' enrolled in heaven,'
— tv ougavotg airoyeygaf&ftevoi, and their names, like those of
" Clemens, and his fellow-labourers," already ' written in the
' Hook of Life.' Philipp. iv. 3. " Hinc patet, non ideo quia
" in ccelis descripti sunt, ipsos non esse in ccelis: sunt tarnen
" descripti etiam, ut nomina eorum olim publice citentur: —
" per alteros ducitur agmen beatorum, per alteros clauditur."
(Bengel, Gnomon, torn. ii. p. 1129.)

CHAPTER XIII.

Ver. 1. Wherefore, receiving a kingdom, Sec] Here
Paul, having concluded the foregoing Hebrew 'Exposition'
to his unconverted countrymen in Rome {translated into
Greek by Luke), commences a short accompanying letter to
his converted Jewish disciples in Greece and Asia Minor;
written by himself in Greek. But, the last two chapters
having been misapprehended, they have been erroneously
distributed. Read, and divide the chapters, thus :
c- xii.
28  that the things that will not be shaken, may continue.
c. xiii.
1 Wherefore, receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, &c.

Chap. XIII. HEBREWS. 1 1 1
Ver. 23. I have written to you, only in few words.] xai
yag dia figaxeuv eirtgreiXa uft.iv — namely, in this last chapter,
accompanying the preceding copious 'Exposition.' Such,
is the simple explanation of this short letter of Paul ; but,
from not seizing its import, learned annotators have troubled
the clear water. "Paucis pro copia rerum," says Bengel;
and, to the same purport, Burton, Bloomfield, and Trollope.
Whereas, Paul only writes a short Greek letter, to accom
pany a transcript of Luke's Greek translation of his {Paul's)
Hebrew original Commentary. Through the same ancient
misapprehension, the separation of the last two chapters, xii.
and xiii., has been erroneously assigned.
Ver. 24. Timothy, is released ; whom, if he go shortly,
I will see, if God permit.] There is no passage more tho
roughly depraved, than that of the common reading in this
place ; which makes Paul express his speedy return to
Greece, when he was only just arrived from thence, to make
a long residence in Italy. Our vulgar translation reads :
" Know ye, that our brother Timothy is set at liberty ; with
" whom, if he come shortly, i" will see you:" the received
Gr. text, is thus , yivuextrt, tov adeXipov T. uiroXeXu/ievov, f/ied' ou
{eav rax'ov egx*irai) o-^o//,ai ii/tag. Agiragagh iravrag.
It is very apparent, that the primitive reading was written
thus : yivugxere tov. ad. T. airoXeXufitvoV ov, pera hou, eav raxiov
tgXVai, o-^sopai. 'T/iag agiragagh, iravrag r. jj. b., xai iravrag
r. a. : — The pronoun bv, having been absorbed into the
termination of the final ov oi the preceding participle, airo-
XeXupevov — fuera hou, having been abridged into y,eb* oh — and
u/iiag, of the following sentence, having been inconsiderately
joined to the end of the preceding sentence — have concurred
to produce all those sphalmata of the received readings.

END OF THE HISTORY OF THE GOSPEL.

II.

APOSTOLICAL EPISTLES.

PAUL.

TO THE ROMANS
 CORINTHIANS — TWO
 GALATIANS
¦  EPHESIANS
 PHILIPPIANS
 COLOSSIANS
 THESSALONIANS  TWO
TO TIMOTHY  TWO
 TITUS
 PHILEMON.

JAMES PETER

GENERAL.

GENERAL  TWO.

{REVELATION GENERAL PERSONAL  TWO.

JUDE  GENERAL.

ST. PAUL.

ROMANS.

CHAPTER VI.
Ver. 21. when ye were the servants of Sin, ye were free
from the service of Justification.] The antithesis, with which
the verses 18 and 21 are constructed, appears to bear some
thing of sarcasm. It has been shewn, in the foregoing Annot.
to Matt. iii. 15, that, of the two very different senses,
'justitia and justificatio' — ' righteousness and justification,'
(which words have been indiscriminately mingled in our
common English version,) the latter only is the true sense in
which it is intended here by St. Paul.
Ver. 16, 18, 21-23. " Know ye not, that ye are the
"servants of him, whichever ye obey? Whether oi Sin,
" unto Death, or of Obedience, unto Justification. When ye
" were freed from the service of Sin, ye became the servants
" of Justification ; for, while ye were the servants of Sin, ye
" were freed from the service of Justification. What fruit
" had ye, then, from those things ? for, the end of those
" things is Heath. But now, being freed from the service of
" Sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto
" Eternal Life."] St. Paul, here Galls in the inspired
Psalmist, to establish this position : ' There is none righteous,
' no, not one ; there is none that doeth good, no, not one !' :
but, he adds this lucid and sustaining exposition — ' but, they
' are justified freely by grace, through redemption by Christ
'Jesus.' (Rom. iii. 10, 12, 24.)
This point being thus incontestably established, it is
surprising that the terms ' righteous and justified' could
ever have been confounded, and used as synonymous. He,
who ' is righteous ' absolutely, cannot ' be justified,' or
rendered more righteous: he, who ' is justified,' can only be
righteous relatively, that is, by his justification ; and his

116 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VIII.
righteousness ought never to be understood absolutely, but
always with the expression or implication of his qualification,^
oi release from the penalty of Sin. It is, by the omission and
oblivion of that essential qualification, that so much spiritual
pride has been engendered in the Church, by assuming and
appropriating the absolute quality of righteousness, in place
ofthe relative ; which last, must necessarily inspire the pro-
foundest humiliation. (See Annot. above, to Matt. iii. 15.)

CHAPTER VIII.

Ver. 28. God, maketh all things to work together.] iravra
guvegyei b &tog : — not, ' all things, work together] as in our
version. I shewed, in the former Annotation to this pass
age, that this is the genuine reading of the most ancient MS.
the Vat., and also of the Alex.; it is so cited, also, by Origen,
with the nominative, b Qeog ; I therefore rendered guvtgyu, tran
sitively. The Theological Reviewer, however, thus launches
forth in castigation of my version: — "Most certainly" he
says, " that version is in audacious defiance of Greek! We
" believe it would be very difficult indeed, to produce an
" instance from any writer, sacred or profane, in which
" guvtgyeiv is used in a transitive sense. It always signifies
" to 'co-operate;' and never (that we have seen), to com-
" pel the co-operation of other persons or things. Mr. P.,
" however, seems to have been comfortably free from all
" misgivings. He tells us, very coolly, that guvegyei governs
" iravra in the accusative ; as if it were an indisputable
" matter, that the verb might be used transitively, or not,
"just as tke context -might seem to require. But, any
" scholar could tell him, that, if &eog is to be the nominative
" to guvegyu, iravra must be governed by some word under-
" stood, such as eig or xara. And then, the sense will be that
" which appears to have been adopted by the Syriac and
" Ethiopic translators : God, in all things, works together
" with those that love him, for good." But, the Critic here
becomes nebulous; and does not discern, that both, in my
' Vatican' reading — 'God maketh all things to work,' and, in
his oion alleged Syr. and Eth. readings (see his Hebrew above,
p. 23) — < God, in all things, works together with,' ®tog is the

Chap. VIII. ROMANS. 117
nominative oi guvegyei; whereas, in the received text, and in our
authorised version, iravra — ' all things,' is made the nominative
oi guvegyei. I have here emptied out the Reviewer's cornucopia
of indignation, at my transitive translation of guvegyei, in this
place : I shall, now, follow my own track.
The sentence before us, is congenial in structure with
that of Rom. xi. 31, guvexXtigev b &tog roug iravrag tig aireihiav —
' conclusit Deus omnes in incredulitate — God hath compre-
' hended all in unbelief: ' so here, iravra guvegyei b ©so? eig
ayahv — ' concludit Deus omnia in bonum — God combines, or
' makes all things to combine, for good, to them that love
' him.' — " guvegyu, concludo, in unum concludo." (Steph. Th.
Gr.) : " guvegyu, guvtegyu, guvngyu, concludo, colligo — guvtgyahv,
" guvtxXuov." (Damm. Lex. p. 806.) In Hesychius, torn. i.
p. 431, we find guvegyov and guveegyov, airegyov and airttgyov,
written indifferently in the copies ; where Alberti remarks,
" Similis simplicis et duplicis t est permutatio." guveegyov,
b egrt guveigyov, guvtdtgfi,ouv. Eustath. p. 1637, 59. Here, then,
guvegyei is a transitive verb, like guvexXeige. It was early mis
taken for the intransitive verb guvtgyeu — ' co-operor,' which
is the only form given by Parkhurst, in his ' N. T. Lex.,'
and which is now mistaken by the theological critic ; and,
to that misapprehension we easily trace the mutilation which
the original passage has sustained, by the rejection of the
proper agent, b &tog. None of these things, however, had in
truded themselves into the self-reposing mind of the Theo
logical Reviewer, who was not aware of any thing more in
the form guvegyei, than that of guvegye?, the third pers. sing.
pres. of the circumflex verb, guvegyeu — ' co-operor ; ' and who
had not discovered (to return him his own words), " what
" any scholar could tell him," that many words, and accepta
tions of words, which have long fallen into disuse in a metro
politan society, are still retained in use in distant provinces :
of confusions of a similar nature, we shall find other examples,
in the words nX-wevog, 1 Cor. vii. 25, and yewn, in James, iii. 6.
It will be well here to observe, that the act oi co-operating
with man, is nowhere ascribed to God, by the sacred writers,
with the words guvegyog, guvegyeu; which words, always suppose
equality or similarity of nature in the agents, ©sou tgpev
guvegyoi, 1 Cor. iii. 9, does not mean, ' we are labourers
' together with God,' (as our English translation very im-

118 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chai>. XI.
properly renders, following Wiclif's translation in 1380,
from the Latin — " Dei sumus adjutores " — we ben the
helpers of God,) but, ' we (Paul and Apollos) are joint-
' labourers for God;' and therefore Tyndale rendered, with
more skill, ' we are Goddis labourers:' which rendering was
continued in the first authorised English version, until King
James's criticism called back the erroneous translation of the
Latin. (See after, Annot. to 2 Cor. iii. and iv.) The verb
guvegyeu, is indeed once applied in the former sense to our
Lord, in the received text; but, it is in the spurious supple
ment to St. Mark's Gospel, xvi. 20 (Gr.), and serves to
testify the lateness of that interpolation.
Ver. 32. will forgive us all things.] xaS'eeTa,: — our com"
mon version renders 'give;' Wiclif rendered ' ghaf {gave),
from the modern Lat. Vulg. ' donavit.' But, the older Lat.
vers., quoted by Tertullian, read, " quomodo et non cum illo
" omnia condonavit nobis ?" {Contr. Gnost. c vii.) It is to be
observed, that the Lat. has the past tense, whereas the
Greek texts have the future; but I apprehend, that this
difference arose merely from the indiscriminate employment
ofthe labial elements b and v, pointed out in some Latin MSS.
by Gesner ( Thes. Lat.B.); and, that the ' condonavit' of Ter
tullian, intended ' condonabit' — guv aury — ' with Him.' The
following verses shew, that this general amnesty is the conjoint
act, of the Father and the Son.

CHAPTER XI.
Ver. 6. since, a work is not a grace.] eiret to tgyov ouxen
Xag's ¦ — " H," argues St. Paul, " the remnant (here foreshewn)
" are to be chosen by a rule oi favour, it will not be as a
" reward for works performed ; but, if it is to be chosen by
" a rule of retribution for works meritoriously performed,
" then it is not a favour ; for, a work or service so per-
" formed, is not a favour, but a recompense." On reviewing
the reading ofthe Vat. MS., I find, that it omits the rec. tgn,
after ouxen. As the Theological Reviewer's stricture on this
passage only comprises his own personal dissent, which I do

Chap. XVI. ROMANS. 1 19
not find fortified with any sound support ; I shall only refer
the reader to my former annotation, and to the previous
Annot. to c. vi. 21 of this tract, with reference to Ps. xiv. 3,
and c. iii. 10.

CHAPTER XII.
Ver. 20. heap coals of fire.] The diversity of the exposi
tions devised for this passage, is not a little surprising; since
it simply means, that, in rendering a beneficial service to one
who has done you an injury, you kindle a sense of self-
reproach and remorse in his breast, sharp as the burning of
fire; and thus take a holy vengeance, salutary to the indi
vidual himself, " overcoming evil with good;" as is fully
exposed in the next verse.

CHAPTER XIII.

Ver. 1. those that are, are subject to that of God.] The
Vat. MS. reads, ai de- ougai, uiro rou ©sou reray/Jievai eigiv : —
The whole clause is wanting in the Cod. Ephr. or C. The
Codd. A,D, E,F, G, omit rou, which the received text retains.
It would appear, that we are either to understand rnv e^ougiav,
after biro, as in Luke, vii. 8, eyu avtSg. eifhi biro e^ougiav raggo-
fievog ; or, that the text originally stood, biro rnv ®eou : an ab
breviation of rnv having been mistaken for rou — " ¦?, ¥, £, et
" similia, non difficulter inter se commutantur ." Canter.
Pref. p. 59.

CHAPTER XVI.

Ver. 22. Timothy, my fellow-labourer ; Lucius, J. and S.
my kinsmen.] guvegyog — guyytvug : — St. Paul makes these
distinctions, because, the first was gentile by paternal blood ;
whereas, the three others, were Jewish by their whole blood.
— Aouxtog, Lukiws, Lat. term., Lukas, Gr. term. {Engl. Luke.)
See Col. iv. 12; Philem. 22; also Annot. above, to Acts, xiii. 1.

I. CORINTHIANS.

CHAPTER I.
Ver. 10. that ye be perfectly united, in the same mind,
and in the same opinion.] The absolute necessity of 'perfect
' unity,' which St. Paul so passionately implores, jvas thus
wisely enforced by a late experienced contemporary.
' Here I may just remark, upon the desirableness of
' every {Christian ministerial) society having a distinct
' sphere of labour among a heathen people. Much as
' I should rejoice in being associated with an Epis-
' copalian, a Baptist, or a Methodist brother, who did
' not attach primary importance to secondary objects, yet,
' the interests of every mission, especially in the first stages
' of its progress, seem to me to require another line of con-
' duct. The natives, though comprehending but very im-
' perfectly our objects, would at once discern a difference
' in the modes of worship ; and their attention would, of
' necessity, be divided and distracted. Being, also, of an
' inquisitive disposition, they would demand a reason for
' every little deviation, which would lead to explanations,
' first from the one party, and then from the other ; and
' thus, evils would arise, which otherwise might never have
' existed. — I do therefore sincerely hope, that the directors
' or conductors of missionary societies will be ever ready, in
' this way, to sacrifice denominational peculiarities to the
'great object of their institution, — namely, to send the
' glorious Gospel of the blessed God to the heathen :" (John
Williams's Narrative of Missionary Enterprises in the South
Sea Islands, p. 260, and Pref. p. xix.:) — that, the different
converts ofthe Islands may not be seduced to say, "lam of
"Luther, but I of Calvin, but I of Rome;" but, may say with
St. Paul — " but, i" am of Christ!" (1 Cor. i. 12, 13.)—

Chap. VII. I.CORINTHIANS. 121
Since this Note was written, the faithful author of that work
has been called upon to shed his blood, on the heathen
theatre to which he had dedicated his life and service.

CHAPTER VII.

Ver. 25. as one who is bound by the Lord to be faithful.]
The words riXeniAevog biro Kugiou irtgrog eivai, found in all the
copies, have given constant, but fruitless labour to expo
sitors, in their endeavours to extract from them, by various
modes of ingenious violence, an adequate and intelligible
sense ; as may be seen in the notes of Macknight, and
Bloomfield. The Theological Reviewer says, that I am
" extremely dissatisfied with the expression which all the
" copies, with provoking uniformity, ascribe to the Apostle."
If he is satisfied with it, as it stands in the text, he is a
singularity. He adds : " It appears to Us, that the expres-
" sion is elliptical — of, ugre irtgrog tivai, or, perhaps, ug to
" irtgrog avat ;" which suggestion, Dr. Bloomfield had pro
posed in his note on the passage, five years before: but,
both are insufficient to afford any healing sense to the cor
ruption of the received reading. I readily acknowledge the
justness of the Reviewer's censure of the reading riyou^tvog
(which I had suggested), which is as untenable as his own ;
but, his correction has only made me apply a more earnest
attention to the passage. From the preceding universal
failures, we are fully warranted to infer, that the Apostle's
own word in this place was not nXenf-tvog ; and we have
now, therefore, to search for the ivord which he most
probably used.
That word, will appear to have been no other than the
pret. participle pass, ofthe verb eiXeu — eiXnpevog — 'astrictus
' — bound,' written nXn/tens, and differing from the rec.
reading jjXejj^svos, only by an inerudite insertion of an e into
the latter word ; as in yeewn, for yewn, in James, iii. 6, as
will be found in that place. "The most striking ortho-
" graphical errors (observes Michaelis, as cited above) are
" those called itacisms, which confound et, n, h a<> E> Sec"

122 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VII.
Those differences, however, are not always errors; but, are
often dialectic variations, of which we have a notable exam
ple in the verb now before us, which is written variously,
eiXeo/iat, tiXopat, tiXXo^at, iXo/nai, tXXo/iai, and signifying, ' cogor
« — vincior — astringor,' to be 'compelled — bound — con-
' strained :' in the prceterit, ttXn/nvog. Proclus (Plato, Tim.
p. 530, E.) explains the present participle in its form iXXoptvog,
by gpiyyofttvog, guvexo^evog — 'astrictus, cohibitus :' Suidas, by
degiLeuojhevog — ' vinctus, bound.' Ruhnkenius, in his note on
iXXotitvnv {Tim. Lex. p. 70), observes, " etXo/itvnv, hoc in loco
" (Platonis) legit Galenus — adstringendi ei tribuens no-
" tionem : — Deinde, tXXoptvnv an eiXoupevqv eligeris, nihil
" admodum proficies, propterea quod inter iXXeiv et eiXeiv
" nullum significandi discrimen est : ut vana sit veterum
" grammaticorum, hsec anxie distinguentium, diligentia."
He then cites the following passage from a private commu
nication from Hemsterhusius : " Equidem existimo, 'iXuv,
" t'lXtiv, eXXeiv, elXtTv, 'iXtiv, "iXXtiv, nihil inter se discrepare, si
" primam significandi radicem spectes, quae sita est in vol-
" vendo. — Hinc, alise notationum propagines enascuntur,
' volvendi, stringendi, torquendi,' ex quibus fere quicquid
" inde Suit, quod valde multiplex est, expediri potest. Hse
" formse, tam simplices quam compositae, crebro commu-
" tantur, e. g." Sec Herodotus uses the verb, compounded
-with airo, in the sense of ' astrictus ;' — airetXeiv eig avayxairiv —
eg avayxairiv airaXrihvrag (lib. viii. p. 670, Wesseling). " Hero-
" dotea locutio (says Portus) q. d. in necessitatem involvere,
" vel, in necessitate implicare : in necessitatem compellere : ad
" necess. redigere: ad necess. redactos." {Diet. Ion.) Wes
seling observes, on the last passage, " Herodoteum airuXttiv,
" in istam classem referendum verborum de quibus egit vir
" summus in nota, Clar. D. Ruhnken. ad Tim. Lex. — Hie,
" necessitatis velut vinculis adstrictos — necessitate coactos."
So likewise St. Paul, presently afterward, in c. ix. 16,
describes his own position : avayxn /not eirixenai — ' neces-
' sitas mihi incumbit,' Vulg. i. e. aireiXto/iai — uXtofhai —
' adstringor.' When these learned critics call the compound verb
antiXtu, ' Herodoteum,' they only mean, that it pertained
to Herodotus's native Carian dialect. Nearly contiguous
to Caria, in the south of Asia Minor, was the province

Chap- x- I. CORINTHIANS. 123
of Cilicia, the native country of St. Paul. We are there
fore fully warranted in reading the simple verb, nMi^evog,
for tiXn'j-tvog, in this place, and interpreting it with the
same sense as the compound verb was used by Herodotus ;
and, in accounting it as one ofthe ' Cilicisms'1 early pointed
out by Jerom in the language of that apostle : " Multa sunt
" verba, quibus juxta morem urbis et provincise suae, fami-
" liarius apostolus utitur. — Nee hoc miremur in apostolo, si
" utatur ejus linguae consuetudine, in qua natus est et nu-
" tritus." (Tom. iv. p. 204, ed. Martianay.) The compound
verb, proved to be in use in Caria, confirms the probable
use of the simple verb, in the neighbouring dialect of Cilicia;
but, some commonplace copyist or philoponist, not aware of
the fact, assumed it to intend the more ordinary and familiar
word n^eni^evog, not duly considering its operation on the
sense ; and inserted the s. That St. Paul should have forti
fied his private and personal opinion on the important point
in question, with some collateral support, was to be ex
pected ; and he accordingly does so, by declaring — ' I give
' my opinion, as one bound by the Lord to be faithful.' The
initial n, therefore, will be either the common itacism of jj for
/, ti, or t ; or, it will be dialectic, as Homer uses both nXnXaro
and eXrjXaro.

CHAPTER X.
Ver. 3. rock that followed.] I have shewn, in the former
Annot. p. 358, that the ' miracle of the rock' which supplied
the Israelites with water, succeeded or 'followed,' as a coun
terpart, the ' miracle of the manna ' which had supplied them
with food ; and, that this sequence was all that was intended
by the apostle, in the word axoXouhugng. " Now," says the
Reviewer, "it is very safe to affirm, that the Greek language
" utterly repudiates this surmise: axoXouhu was, surely, never
" known to bear the sense here ascribed to it. The verb
may, indeed, signify to 'follow;' but, not in the naked

n

1 See Michaelis on the ' Cilicisms of St. Paul,' and notes, Introd. vol. i.
p. 149.

124 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XIII.
" sense of mere sequence or succession, but in the sense of
" attendance or accompaniment. In English, a clansman may
" be said to follow his chieftain to the field ; and in Greek,
" the same thing might very properly be denoted by the verb
" axoXouhiv. In English, again, one event may be said to
" follow another event ; but, where is the Greek scholar wko
" would ever dream of using axoXouhiv, as applicable to this
" latter instance ? Truly, therefore, the passage must remain •
" in its former obscurity, for any thing that Mr. P. has done
" towards its illumination." This Reviewer is, here, as
unfortunate as in his other dogmatisms ; for, a ' Greek
"scholar' would have told him, that axoXouhiv is applicable
to every mode of sequence, even to logical consequence:
that Aristotle says — duoiv /lev ovroiv, axoXouhi to ev eivat —
' if there are two, it follows, that there is one:' and that
Hoogeveen points out, in his note to Viger, p. 362, that the
Greeks used indifferently, ra exo/teva and ra axoXouhi — quae
sequuntur — to express generally, ' what follows' — or simply,
' et ccetera.' Even Suicer would have told him, in the latest
ages of the Greek language, " Duas vocis axoXouha signifi-
" cationes : 1 . designat, rerum inter se connexionem et co-
" hcerentiam naturalem : 2. ordo, sequentia." (See above,
axoXouhav used by Longinus, p. 100, note.)

CHAPTER XIII.

Ver. 5. seeketh not what is not its own.] ou tyrei ro /in
taurng : — Thus reads the Vat. MS. — The fin has lapsed, or
been erroneously rejected, from all the later copies ; which
has so left the import, that Bloomfield deemed it necessary
to suppose an ellipsis of fiovov — ' does not seek her own in-
' terest only.' But, the oldest reading shews this hypothesis
to be unfounded. We are not forbidden, to seek what is our
own; but are only commanded, not to covet that which 'is
' not our own.'

Chap. XV. I. CORINTHIANS. 125

CHAPTER XIV.
Ver. 25. the secrets of his heart are made manifest,] i. e.
' to himself;' ' the depths of his- own heart are exposed or
' laid open to him.' It was with acute discernment that
Knatchbull admonished — " subaudi auru, post yiverai : Et
" sic occulta cordis ejus manifesta ei fiunt. Id est, Igno-
" rantia, incredulitas, et impietas cordis ejus quae tam diu
" latuit, nee si unquam antea innotuit, nunc fit ei manifesta,
" ita ut statim procidat infaciem, et adoret Deum."

CHAPTER XV.

Ver. 5. that he appeared to Kephas.] xai on u<pbn Knpq: —
In this brief narrative, St. Paul relates, according to all the
existing texts, ' That Christ died — that he was buried —
' that on the third day he rose again — and that he ap-
' peared to Kephas.' His own historian, Luke, relates, —
' That he shewed himself, the same day, to two of them,
' of whom one was Kleopas.' The traditional relation,
which was very early appended to the last chapter of
Mark's Gospel, states, in accordance with Luke, — ' That
' our Lord appeared first to Mary Magdalene — after
' that, he appeared to two of them, as they went into the
' country.' We have seen, in the Annot. to Luke, xxiv. 13, that
the second disciple, who accompanied Kleopas, was his
son, Simon the Zealot; not Simon Peter, as Origen had
early, but erroneously, endeavoured to establish. There
is nothing in the gospel histories to warrant a suggestion,
that our Lord shewed himself separately to Peter, under
any of his names {Simon, Kephas, or Peter); or, until
he appeared to the apostles assembled. As there was an
early disposition to ascribe to Simon Peter, the circumstance
which truly pertained to Simon the Zealot; so there
appears to have been a corresponding disposition, to ascribe
to Peter, under his name Kephas, the circumstance that

126 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XV.
pertained to Kleopas; and to deduce the former name, in
this place, from an abbreviated form of the latter : an
operation, easy in the common practice of copying from
compendious writing. Hence it is warrantable to surmise,
that Paul's amanuensis had originally written the name
KXeoirag in abbreviation, as he wrote "Eiraipgag for EiraipgodiTog,
in the epistles to the Colossians, and Philemon, and Hgigxa
for TigigxiXXa, in the 2d ep. to Timothy ; and, that the abbre
viation became afterwards incorrectly elongated into Kephas.
Ver. 29. What will they who are baptized gain more
than {all) the dead, if the dead rise not at all?] bireg rm
vexguv. — In Rom. vi. 4, St. Paul says, " We have been
" buried with Him, by baptism, into His death ; that, as
" Christ was raised from the dead — so, we also should walk
" in newness of life : if, then, we have been united with
" Him in'the likeness of His death, so also shall we be in
" that of His resurrection.'' And, in Col. ii. 12, he says,
" Having been buried with Him in the baptism by which ye
" are also risen with Him, through faith in the operation of
" God, who raised Him from the dead. And when ye were
" dead in your sins — He brought us together to life, with
" Himself." And again, c. iii. 1. If the memories ofthe
many reverend commentators, who have perplexed them
selves and their readers with the passage of the Corinthians
now before us, had called these passages to their aid,
they need not have been indebted to a learned laic for the
admonition ; that St. Paul speaks, in this place, with the
same figurative allusion. " Cur immerguntur pro mortuis,
" i. e. tanquam mortui, si non ut per emersionem ex aqua
" (quod est typus resurrectionis post sepulturam), certiores
" fierent, quod, si etiam ipsi resurgant a morte in peccatis
" ad novitatem vitas, resurgent etiam cum Christo, post
" mortem, in gloriam. Quasi diceret, ' In vanum utitur
' Ecclesia symbolo Baptismi, si non est resurrectio : est enim
' Haptismus, mortis et resurrectionis Christi, et etiam om-
' nium fidelium, typus:' et sic apud antiquos universim ac-
" cipitur." " That is," said the learned Sir Norton Knatch
bull, " Why are they immersed for, or as, being dead, unless
" to assure them, by their emersion from the water (which
" was a type of resurrection from the grave), that, if they

Chap. XV. I. CORINTHIANS. 127
" rose again from death in sins, to newness of life, they
" would also rise again to glory, with Christ, after death.
" As if he had said, 'In vain does the Church use, the symbol
' of Baptism, if there is no resurrection; for, Baptism is
' the type of the death and resurrection of Christ, and
' of all the faithful ;' and so it was always understood,
" by tbe primitive Christians." (See his note to 1 Pet.
iii. 21.) The MS. copies vary so much in the 29th verse, that it is
manifest, that the true reading cannot be assumed, from any
one of them; for, the received reading, merely as the received
reading, can have no determining authority, with any one
qualified to be accounted a critic, or a scholar. The differ
ences are these :
r usrs^ rm vex{«, Vat. and all otlier MSS. Alex, and Const.;
1st clause \ excepting
(u«{ aurm, Cod. 93, or Ven. 5.
iuinj aurm, Vat. and Uncial MSS. A, D, E, F, G: — chapter
wanting in C. or Ephr., ' pro illis.' — Vulg.
usrsj ruv itx^mv, Const, and rec. text.
uiri^ auraiv ruv vtxgaiv, Codd. 37, 43, 52. Scholz.
The surviving authorities, therefore, for the first 800
years, read the verse thus : eirn, n iroingougiv oi fiairngofievoi
uireg ruv vexguv, ei bXug vexgoi oux eyttgovrat ; ti xai fiairritpvrai birtg
auroiv ; and so Scholz has correctly printed in his text, though
he has made great confusion of the Var. lect. in his margin.
But, the secure establishment of auruv, instead of vexguv, in
the second clause, grounds a strong assumption, that ruv in
the first clause, is only a fragment ofthe same pronoun auruv;
and, that it was originally written birtg auruv {i. e. vexguv) — ' pro
' ipsis {mortuis).'
Now, bearing in mind St. Paul's figurative passages
above cited from Romans and' Colossians, it is reasonable to
assume; that St. Paul wrote, or is to be understood as intend
ing to express, bireg auruv vexguv {ovruv sub.) ; as in Coloss. n. 13,
|^aS| vexgoug ovrag iragairrupagi — gvve^uoiroingev guv auru. The
English, therefore, should be thus expressed : ' Else, what
' will they gain, who are baptized for themselves as dead {i. e.
' in sins), if the dead really rise not? to what end are they

128 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XV.
' baptized, for themselves? and why do we {who have been
so baptized) consent, as Christians, to live every hour in
danger ? St. Paul reasons in the same vein, of circumcision,
in Gal. v. 11. The equivocal rendering of our English
version, which has transmitted and perpetuated a notion
of ' vicarious baptism;' totally unsupported by any testimony
of contemporary history; is one ofthe numerous offsprings
of inerudition and superstition which we still consent in-
ertially to foster, in our common version. That misac-
ceptation of St. Paul's words, led early to a monstrous
artifice practised by the Marcionites, which is thus narrated
by Chrysostom : " When any of their catechumens (or un-
" baptized believers) died, they hid a living one under the
" bed of the deceased; and, going to the corpse, they ad-
" dressed it, and asked it, If it wished to receive the rite of
" baptism? As the corpse made no answer, he who was con-
" cealed beneath answered for it, ' That it, indeed, wished to
' be baptized;' and thus they baptized Mm, who replied, in
" the place ofthe deceased." {Homil. xi. in 1 Cor. pp. 513,
514, ap. Suicer, torn. i. p. 642.)1

1 That, was in the fourth century ; the following, was in the middle ofthe
nineteenth century. — " What will be said to the following trick, which was played
off in a respectable town in Larvados, not fifty miles from LondS sur Noireau,
on Sunday, October 21st, 1838. M. L. was, a few years since, a Protestant
pastor, and had under his care several churches. He professed to be evangelical
in his views, and sought an intimate connexion with a respectable religious body.
That body, did not accede to the overtures which he made. Very soon after this,
he, with his wife and children, abjured the Protestant faith, and united them
selves to the Roman church. The only member of the family who held fast her
profession of the reformed religion, was Madame H  , the mother of the
pastor's wife. In this profession she continued steadfast, till Saturday, the 20th
of October, when she was taken ill. On the following day, she became insen
sible. Her son, the late pastor, then called in the priest and others ; to see her,
and to induce her to recant, that she might be baptized, anointed, and absolved.
When the usual questions were proposed to her, she {being insensible) made, of
course, no answer. A remedy was, however, soon found for this. Her son,
from behind the curtain of the bed, answered for her. All was now right.
She was baptized, anointed, and absolved. On the 22d she died ; and, on the
Wednesday following, she was buried with great pomp, being honoured with
the banner, the grand cross, and the presence of fifteen or sixteen priests. To
complete the farce, her son, the late Protestant pastor, has printed a circular,
and sent it into the town and neighbourhood, saying; his mother-in-law died
in the bosom of the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church, which her ancestors
had wickedly abandoned! Is Popery changed ? Semper eadem."  (From the
Paris Correspondent of the ' Watchman.') — 'Record,' 19th Nov., 1838.

Chap. XV. I.CORINTHIANS. 129
" De baptismo super mortuis (says Bengel,) tanta est
" interpretationum varietas, ut is qui, non dicam varietates
" ipsas, sed varietatum catalogos colligere velit, Disserta-
" tionem scripturus sit." " Muller, in his Dissert, on this
" difficult passage (says Burton), mentions seventeen dif-
"ferent interpretations of it." This is usually the case,
where the imagination is resorted to for help, preferably to
the reason. By consulting the latter only, Knatchbull found
a true solution of the difficulty ; which, nevertheless, I do
not find noticed by any of the later annotators.

II. CORINTHIANS.

CHAPTER III.
Ver. 7. Who hath qualified us to be ministers.] bg ixavugtv
n/iag diaxovoug: — I shewed, in the Expos. Pref. pp. 10, 15,
that the two ancient Latin interpreters, severally, rendered
this clause — ' sufficient.es nos fecit ministros — idoneos nos
' fecit ministros ;' and that Wiclif translated, from the Latin,
' made us able ministers ; ' but, that Erasmus pointed out that
the clause ought to be rendered — 'qui idoneos nos fecit ut es-
' semus ministri, quasi dicas, idoneavit — who fitted or quali-
' fied us to be ministers.' Accordingly, in the first translation
from the original Greek, in 1526, Tyndale rendered, —
' made us able to minister ; ' and this correct rendering was
retained by all the succeeding English revisions, throughout
that century. But, when K. James's revision appeared, in
1611, it was found, that this last reading was rejected, and
that Wiclif's original version from the Latin, — 'made us able
' ministers,' was recalled and substituted in its place ; and, is
now tke reading of our authorised version. Will the reader
ascribe this retrogression to the Latin, to all, or to any, of
K. James's right reverend, reverend, and learned revising
Council ? Or, will he not rather shrewdly suspect, that it
was the proper adjudication of the ' good Royal Moderator
' himself?' {Preface, p. ix.)
Ver. 19. the Lord with His face unveiled.] The obvious
construction of the Greek passage is — npeig iravrtg, xaroirrgi-
Zpjhevoi rriv do£av Kugiou irgoguirui avaxexaXu//i/Jievu, /iera/iogipou/ieSa :
and so the Latin, " nos omnes, speculantes gloriam Domini
" revelata facie, transformamur." Compare ver. 14, ' not as
' Moses, who put a veil over his face, that the children of
' Israel might not look, Sec : we all (on the contrary),
' looking at the glory of the Lord with His face unveiled,

Chap. V. II. CORINTHIANS. 131
' are changed,' &c. Coverdale rendered, "the glory ofthe
" Lord appeareth in us all, with (His) open face." Mat
thews, "we all behold the glory ofthe Lord, with his face
" open." Cranmer, and the Bishop's Bible, " with his face
" open;" so also the edition of 1548. But, in King James's
revision of 1611, that is, in our common authorised version,
it has been thus changed : " we all with open face, be-
" holding," &c. ; evidently reading the Greek thus, weig
iravreg avaxexaXufi/ievifj irgoguirui — or more probably, mistaking
the Latin, ' Nos omnes, {revelata facie gloriam Domini
' speculantes) — transformamur.'

CHAPTER V.

Ver. 3. found clothed, not naked,] ' Eiireg xai evdugay,tvoi, ou
' yu/ivoi, euge6ngo[ie6a.' (Gr.) ' Si tamen vestiti, non nudi, in-
' veniamur.' (Vulg.) — ' If netheles we ben foundun clothid,
' and not nakid.' (Wicl.) — ' Yff yt hapen that we be founde
' clothed, and nott naked.' (Tynd.) — 'If that we be founde
' clothed, and nat naked.' (Ed. 1548.) — " Utinam etiam in-
" duti, non nudi, reperiamur. Precatur apostolus, ut in ultimo
" die inveniantur ccelestem habitationem superinduti, et non
" ea destituti." (Knatchbull, 1677.) — But, King James's re
vision has thus rendered, and edited this passage : ' If so be
' that, being clothed, we shall not he found naked:' evidently
translating — 'eiireg evduga/ievoi, si vestiti — if being clothed, ou
' yu/ivoi euge6ngo/ieht, non nudi inveniamur — we shall not be
' found naked.'
These new and juvenile translations of 1611, which eva
cuate the passages of their native sense, cannot be ascribed
to any of the learned persons designated by the Reviewer,
' King James's translators; nor, could these personages have
sanctioned their publication, unless by command of superior
authority and control. We have no difficulty, therefore, in
assigning the real author : and truly, it must have been an
irksome service to such scholars, to translate and revise in
concert with Royal Criticism and Power : without any im
peachment of loyalty.
Yet, says the Britisk Critic for July, 1837—" Should it

132 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XIII.
" ever be thought advisable to revise our version, a solemn
" and strict injunction should be given to the persons in-
" trusted with the task, to ask themselves this question — In
" what words would King James's translators have ex-
" pressed the sense?" — But, the Critic has not told us, Why
we are to accept 'King James himself as an essential element
for fixing that expression.

CHAPTER XIII.

Ver. 4. for, he ivas crucified, Sec] render, ' for, as he was
' crucified — through weakness, but liveth through the
' power of God ; so, we also are weak in him, but shall live
' with him, through the power of God' — xai yag egrauguSn e%
aghvetag, aXXa £»j ex duvafieug ©sou" xai yag npeig aghvou/iitv tv
auru, aXXa Zrigofitv guv aura ex duvaf/itug ©sou. So reads the
Vat. MS. and the most anc. copies, (the Cod. Ephr. is de
fective from 2 Cor. x. 9, to Gal. i. 20.) "Ad vim gu^irXtxrnriv
" quoque spectat usus {rou xai) in comparationibus, quando
" simile simili componitur." Hoogev. Schiitz. p. 247, § viii.
The junior copies, have inserted ei before egrauguin ; which
has been probably generated from the e of egraugudn which
follows. The same copies have inserted xai, after the second
xai yag ; have changed Zrioo^ev to Zri«oy,thi. ; and have added
eig bjhag to the second ©sou.
The Alex. MS., formed a middle step, from the most
ancient to the received reading : xai yag ei egrauguSri e% ag&n-
vnag, aXXa £j| ix duva/itug ©sou* xai yag niMig aghvoufiev guv auru,
aXXa tyfo/J-ev guv aurtti ex duva/itug ©sou tig bfiiug.

GALATIANS. CHAPTER I.
Ver. 17. James.] See after, Annott. to ch. ii. 1 1

CHAPTER II.
Ver. 11. those who were sent from James.] Dr. Burton
correctly understood these words to mean, " that they came
"from the Church at Jerusalem, of which James was the
" Head." St. Paul here, very plainly reverts to the mission
sent from the Synod of Jerusalem, under the presidency of
James, to the Gentile converts at Antioch, which is related
in Acts, xv. ; before which occurrence, we are told in
ch. xi. 2, Peter did ' eat with the uncircumcised.' From the
sequel we are to infer, that Peter (who though reflectively
bold, was constitutionally timid) followed the missionaries to
Antioch ; but, finding there the Jewish zealots who had
caused the appeal to the apostolical council, he was afraid
of them, and discontinued his former habits. But, that
learned expositor was not equally correct in following the
vulgar reading, oV; de n>-hv — 'but when they came;' instead
of the primitive n^hv, which relates to the former, n^h Utrgog,
not to the proximate, eXhiv nvag. The Vat. MS., Cod. Bezce,
and other uncial copies, read nXhv — ' he came,' i. e. 'Peter ;'
not n^-hv — ' they came,' viz. the missionaries. The James
here mentioned, was the same mentioned in the first chapter
(ver. 17), as ' the Lord's brother;' called also ' the son of
' Alpheus,' and also ' the Less;' and who was appointed the
first ' Bishop of Jerusalem.' James ' the son of Zebedee,'
called 'the brother of John,' had been put to death by Herod,
some time before the assembling of that synod ; as we learn
in Acts, xii. 2. (See Annot. to John, xix. 25.)

134 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. II.
Now, ruv and nvuv, roug and nvag, in compend, are liable
to be mistaken for each other, and have actually caused
variety in the readings ; ' rnv pro raurnv, et rng pro raurng, fre-
' quentissimum : — roug dicitur pro raurous. Luc. viii. 8 ;
' Act. xvii. 6.' (Norton Knatchbull, Animadv.) The whole
of this passage, therefore, illustrates itself thus :
Hgo rou yag eXhiv roug airo Iaxu(3ou, //.era ruv eOvuv guvygDiev
{Kn<pag, Vat. Uergog, rec.) ore de rjkdev, birtgrtXXt 
' for, before those came who were sent from James, he
' {Cephas) eat with the Gentiles; but, when he came, he
' withdrew himself from these.'
Ver. 20. in renouncing the law, I died to tke law.] di
avo/ji,ou, voptji airt&avov : — Every copy, for the first eight hundred
years of the Christian era, gave this clause in the following
form, without separating the words :
erajrxp^i\NOMOYNOMa)\TTe
{Facsimile, Cod. Alex. Slh I. from the top.)
The first separator of the words, in an uncritical age,
separated the dia, mechanically, as an entire preposition, and
left the following words, vo/iou vo/j,u airtdavov ; thus plunging the
sentence into the irremediable obscurity in which it has always
subsisted. It was shewn, in the former Annotations, p. 379,
that a critical age would, at once, have dispelled the ob
scurity, by simply dividing the words, di avo/iou, instead of,
dia vo/j,ou : — eyu yag di avo/iou, vojiioi uirehcvov, iva Qeifi ^jjffw. That
compressed sentence, the same writer thus developed and
explained on another occasion, 1 Cor. ix. 20 — tytvo/inv roig biro
vo/iiov ug biro vofiov, iva roug biro vof&ov xtgdngw roig avo//,oig {i. e. roig
/an biro vofiov) ug avo/iog (f^n m civo/tog ®eif>, aXX' evvopog Xgigrifi) iva
xegdngu avo/ioug — " I became to those that are under the Law,
" as under the Law (though I am not under tke Law), that I
" might gain those that are under the Law. To those that
" are without (i. e. are not under) the Law, as without the
" Law (not as being without the law of God, but under the
" law of Christ), that I might gain those that are without the
" Law." So also in Rom. ii. 11, 'all who have sinned
' without tke Law, will also perish without the Law ; and
' all who have sinned within the Law, will be judged by the

Chap'V- GALATIANS. 135
'¦ Law.' Paul here shews us, that in this argument he used
the word avofiog, in the simple sense of ^ biro vopov — ' not
' under the Law ;' and, in this passage to the Galatians he
says (in Construction), eyu yag airt&avov vo^tf), on Zritu ®etf> di
avo/Mu {i. e. avo,aiag) — 'for, I died to the Law, that I might
' live to God by emancipation from the Law.' " Adjectivum
" neutrum sumitur eleganter pro substantivo fceminino."
(Viger, c. iii. 2, § 1.) — " Hie idiotismus, Graecis familiarior
" quam Latinis." {Not. Hoogeveen.)
But, says the theological oracle, — " Mr. P. proposes to
" escape from all difficulty, by reading di avopou, instead of
" dia vofnou ; but, by what process he extracts the above sense
"from the words di avopou, very far surpasses our (my)
" comprehension." " There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." — Hamlet.

CHAPTER V.
Ver. 22. forbearance.] The Latin Vulgate renders this
verse thus : " Fructus autem Spiritus est charitas, gaudium,
" pax, patientia, benignitas, bonitas, longanimitas, mansue-
" tudo, fides, modestia, continentia, castitas." Accordingly,
Wiclif thus gave it in English : " But the fruyt ofthe spyryt
" is charite, ioie, pees, pacience, long abydyng, benygnyte,
" goodnesse, myldenesse, feith, temperaunce, contynence,
" ckastite." Tyndale, whose knowledge of the Greek ori
ginal enabled him to discover, that the last two words are a
spurious addition of the Latin version, omitted them, and
concluded with ' temperancy ;' which our last revisers have
rendered ' temperance,' as the proper meaning of the Greek
tyxgartia. But, this signification was originally assigned,
when the word was followed by the qualities of ' continence,
'chastity:' and, with a view to those qualities. Those
qualities, however, being now proved not to have been in the
apostle's contemplation when he wrote the sentence, but only

136 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. V.
those which tended to mutual peace and love, tyxgartia is
to be understood in its congenial sense of ' forbearance? or
self-control of evil temper and resentment ; as is shewn
above, in the Annotation to Acts, xxiv. 24, in which place,
as in this, the notion of ' temperance' is wholly foreign and
intrusive: — it here signifies the same as avoxi — forbearance,
endurance, in Rom. ii. 4, as is shewn by their respective con
comitants. Well might the heathen moralist startle the
Christian, by his question —
" Lenius et melius fis, accedente senecta ? "
Hon. Ep. ii. 211.
" Dost grow more mild and good, as age comes on?"

EPHESIANS.

CHAPTER V.
Ver. 5. the kingdom of the Christ, and of God.] St. John,
in Rev. xi. 15, reverses this order — ' the kingdom of our
' Lord, and oiHis Christ.' That both these passages intend
the same thing, and express the Father and the Son in united
government, can be unseen only by those whose piety has
overstrained their intellectual vision, by yielding to the seduc
tion of certain subtleties or sophistries respecting the article,
(hereafter noticed, in Annot. to Titus, ii. 13) ; which subtleties
have not strengthened the cause they were anxious to con
firm, and which needed not such equivocal support. (See
above, Annot. to John, xiv. 28.)

CHAPTER VI.
Ver. 20. an ambassador in bonds.] itgtgfituu tv aXugtr. —
" legatione fungor in vinculis:" ' Quid ni potius, senesco in
' vinculis — Why not rather, I grow old in bonds?' asked
the learned Knatchbull. To this question I reply : First,
that St. Paul determined his own meaning, in 2 Cor. v. 21,
when he said ; birtg Xgigrou irgigfituofttv — " We are ambassadors
"for Christ:" Secondly, that the statement would be inappli
cable to a two-years' imprisonment : Thirdly, that I shewed, in
Annot. to Acts, xiii. 1, that an excess of ten years has been
erroneously superadded to St. Paul's age, through the whole
course of Christian history. These observations, pertain also
to Philemon, 9, on which place see my former Annot.

PHILIPPIANS.

CHAPTER II.

Ver. 10. below tke earth.] xaraxhvim: — this adjective
occurs in no other part ofthe Greek Scriptures, Old or New.
The apostle, writing to the native Greeks of Philippi, sub
limates his language with his subject. But, a question
arises, What sense are we to attach to the word xaraxhmg,
from the pen of St. Paul, a Hebrew, a Christian apostle, and
eminently learned in the sacred Scriptures of his own nation?
It is evident, that we are to understand that word in the sense
of the Hebrew phrase, pxb nnno, which the Alexandrian
Jews have translated into common language, inroxaru rng yng,
and our translators, ' beneath or under the earth.' But, a
second question hence arises, What is to be understood by
that phrase, where it is said (Exod. xx. 4; Deut. v. 8), " in
" heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters
" beneath tke earth?" It has been much too hastily assumed,
that xaraxhviog is to be understood here in its poetical hea
then sense; that, ' under' or ' beneath' the earth, signified be
low or underneath the earth's surface; and, that the xaraxhvmi
intends here, the manes, or shades, which were commonly
supposed, by the heathen poets, to inhabit places " below and
" within the earth." (See Parkhurst, Ed. Rose, p. 429.)
Certainly, St. Paul supposed no such thing; he (" who sur-
" passed many of his equals in years, in the Jewish religion")
had been taught, that " the dust returns to the earth, as it
" was; and the spirit returns to God who gave it." (Eccles.
xii. 7.) We must, therefore, look elsewhere for the true
meaning of biroxaru rng ym — ' below tke earth,' and, conse
quently, for St. Paul's zarax&oviuv ; both which descriptions,
must intend the same thing.
In the passages of Exod. and Deut. just referred to, we
read, tv ougavifi avu, tv rri yn xaru {sc. rou ougavov), xai tv rotf

Chap- lr- PHILIPPIANS. 139
udagiv biroxaru rng yng — 'in heaven above, in the earth below
' {the heaven), and in the waters still below the earth (or the
' sea) :' this is the true force of biro added to xaru, in the
last clause, as marking out three descending levels. This is
shewn by Thucydides, where the earth (or surface of the
earth) is described as avu — ' above,' relatively to the sea
(or surface ofthe sea), which is described as xaru — ' below:'
thus in lib. i. C 7, xaru i/ixouv. {Schol. nroi eyyug rng htXaggng)
— ' they dwelt below.' {Schol. or near the sea.) — c. 120, roig
xaru. {Schol. roig iragaXioig) — ' those below.' {Schol. those on
* the sea-shore.' — See Ind. Ed. Duker. avu, xaru.) The
' waters below the earth ' — ra bdara biroxaru rng yns, mean
only, the 'sea' with the ' islands' it embraces; as in Isaiah,
xxiv. 14, 15: "They shall cry aloud from the 'Sea' — glo-
" rify the name of the Lord God of Israel in the 'Isles of
'the Sea!'' Such we are to understand of xaraxhviuv,
from the pen of this sacred writer. In Rev. v. 13, the divi
sions, by being more minute, confirm this interpretation :
xai irav xrigfta b ev roi ougavifi, xai eiri rng ym, »<*/ biroxaru rrig
yng (or, a) iragaXioi), xai eiri rng daXaggng (or, ev raig vngoig) egrt,
xai ra ev auroig, iravrag nxouga Xeyovrag, ru xafo]fj,ivij>, Sec — ' and
' I heard every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth,
' and below the earth (or on the sea-shore), and in the sea (or,
' islands of the sea), even all that are in them, saying, Blessed,'
Sec St. Paul's intention in using that word, had therefore
nothing in common with the fabulous notions usually resorted
to for its exposition ; but, contemplated a similar universal
jubilation with this of the Apocalypse. That our common
version has unfitly inserted the word ' things' {' things in
' heaven,' &c.) whereas 'persons' are intended, as Bloomfield
justly points out; is clearly shewn by the action described,
of ' bending the knee,' which is St. Paul's own periphrasis for
offering prayer and supplication: " for this cause I bend my
"knees," Sec. Eph. iii. 13, xafiirru — 'bend,' not 'bow.'
From which latter rendering, has sprung the reverential
error universally exhibited in our churches, at the reading
the Lord's name in the Creed.
The equivocation to which we thus find the word xaru
liable, was, probably, the remote cause ofthe remarkable dif
ference between Homer's mythological notion of the seat of
the dead, and the more modern one of Virgil ; the former,

140 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. IV.
assuming it to be a land at the extremity of tke ocean, attain
able by navigation ; the latter, a region attainable only by
descending into tke bowels of the earth. (Comp. Odyssey, xi.
and jEneid, vi.)

CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 18. though I am without all things, yet I abound.]
airexu iravra, xai iregiggeuu, i. e. iroggu s^w iravra — ' I am far
'from every thing, and yet I abound;' which statement, is
the same that St. Paul elsewhere expresses by, pndev scours;,
xai iravra xarexovreg — ' having nothing, and yet possessing all
1 things,' 2 Cor. vi. 10. In the preceding context, the
apostle contrasts destitution and abundance. From the early
example of the Latin translator, who rendered, " habeo
" omnia, et abundo," — our English translators have ren
dered, " I have all, and abound." Yet, in 2 Cor. vi. 10,
the former rendered, " nihil habentes, et omnia possidentes;"
and the latter, " having nothing, and yet possessing all
" things." Now it will be manifest, that these two posi
tions, as they stand in the translations, are contra
dictory; but, the contradiction arises only from the Latin
translator's unskilful rendering airex<» in this place, by
' habeo — have? instead of 'abstineo, absum, disto.' The verb
airexu, never acquired the simple sense of ex®, ' to have ;' as
has been shewn above in the Annot. to Matt. vi. 6 ; which
see.

COLOSSIANS.

CHAPTER I.

Ver. 15 and 18. begotten before every creature, or, cre
ation — the first delivered from the dead.] irguroroxog iragng
xrigtug — irguroroxog Ex ruv vtxguv : — irguroroxog, in these two
verses, should be rendered in English with this diversity.
In ver. 15, irguro-roxog from nxru, in its sense of 'gigno,' it
declares an act of generating, before any act of creating :
roxog and xngig, are here opposed to each other, and fully
express the essential difference of their subjects and opera
tions : ' generation,' transmitting the nature of the ' gene-
' rator; ' creation,' producing a new and distinct nature.
Whereas, in irguro-roxog, ver. 18, followed by the preposition
tx — 'from,' roxog draws its meaning from nxru, in its sense
of ' pario, parturio — to bring forth.'

II. THESSALONIANS.

CHAPTER I.

Ver. 9, 10. from the presence of tke Lord, and from the
glory of His might, when He shall come to be glorified in
His saints ; and to be beheld with Wonder, in That Day.]

' Amazing period !  While aloft,
More than astonishment ! if more can be !
Far other firmament than e'er was seen,
Than e'er was thought by man ! far other Stars !
Stars animate, that govern those of fire:
Far other Sun ! — a Sun, O how unlike
The babe at Bethlehem ! how unlike the man
That groaned on Calvary! — Yet, He it is !" &c. 
( Great Day ! for which all other days were made ;
For which earth rose from chaos, man from earth,
And an Eternity, the date of gods,
Descended on poor earth-created man ! 
Shall all, but man, look out with ardent eye
For that great day, which was ordained for man ?
O day of consummation ! mark supreme
(If men are wise) of human thought ! 
Shall man, alone, whose fate, whose final fate
Hangs on that hour, exclude it from his thoughts ?
I think of nothing else : I see, I feel it ! 
I see the Judge enthroned ! the flaming guard !
The volume open'd ! open'd every heart !
A sun-beam pointing out each secret thought !
No patron ! intercessor none ! now past
The sweet, the clement, mediatorial hour ! 
Time was ! Eternity, now reigns alone ! "
Young, Night IX.
{See the whole context.)

I. TIMOTHY.

CHAPTER V.

Ver. 16. If any believing sister have widows, let her supply
them.] " The Greeks have a great fellow-feeling for relations
" (observes a recent traveller amongst them), and open their
" houses to them, and give them board, as a sort of duty, or
" rather habit. Thus I have generally found, that where
" there is any thing of an establishment sustained, there are
" mostly one or two hangers-on. Sometimes they sit at the
" table with the heads ofthe house, and at other times they
" do not ; but, on inquiry, I always found they were poor
" relations; and I really believe, there is not a respectable
" house in Greece, without them. This, I have understood,
" is the remains of a very ancient custom, which has always
"prevailed throughout the East ; and is one ofthe expected
" rites of hospitality," (Herve, Residence in Greece, Sec
vol. i. p. 183.)

CHAPTER VI.
Ver. 20. of knowledge.] yvugeug : — In 1 Cor. viii. 1,
St. Paul says, n yvugig ipugioi — where all our revisers have
rendered yvugig, 'knowledge;' but, in this one place, fol
lowing Tyndale's version, they have rendered that word,
'science.' Wiclif rendered 'kunning,' in both places, as the
Latin interpreter had rendered ' scientia,' in both. This
unwarranted ' variation in translation,' is a notable example
of the evil pointed out by Erasmus : " It affords a handle for
" error; for, it leads to a supposition, that Paul intends dif-
" fer ent tkings, where he intends one and tke same." {Expos.
Pref. p. 84.)

II. TIMOTHY.

CHAPTER I.

Ver. 9. but, do thou endure.] In this place, and in the
following chapter, ver. 3, all the most anc. MSS. A, C, D, E,
read thus, without separation, CYn<XKOTT\eHCON ;
(the Vat. MS. or Cod. B, as has been already noticed, is
defective of these Epistles) : the jun. and rec. texts write
guyxaxoira9ngov in the former place, but gu ouv xaxoiradrjgov in the
latter. Which difference between the small and the uncial
writing, guides us to discern, that the original should have
been divided, in both places, gu ye xaxoirah^gov ; the r not
pertaining to a preposition guv in composition, but being the
particle V, or ye in compend. See " aXXa ye," Hoogeveen, de
Part. p. 13. — ye, " cum pronom. eyu, gu, aurog, significat
" quidem, equidem, saltern." (Viger, c. viii. s. 4, § 6.) — ye is
also used — where we should add ' but.' (Matthiae, Gr. Gr.
§ 602.) A verb guyxaxoirafau is nowhere found, until it occurs
in some ofthe later ecclesiastical writers, who appear to have
drawn it from the equivocation of the uncial writing in these
places : — but, xaxoirahu, is used by both St. Paul and St. James.

CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 13. will reward.] airoduger. in the future; not,
airodain, as the rec. text, which our English vulgate renders
with an optative sense, — ' the Lord reward Mm!' The most
anc. copies, A, C, D, read airodugti, which reading Scholz has
duly restored. It is more likely that St. Paul should have
simply affirmed, than that he should have imprecated, the
retribution that should overtake his adversary. Matthaei,
retains airodojn, in his text ; but adds, in his note, " Chrysos-
" tomus primo vulgatum, deinde in explicatione, airodugti."
Burton alone, of our recent annotators, has pointed out, in
his note, " Most MSS. read airodugti."

TITUS.

CHAPTER II.
Ver. 13. The glorious appearing of the great God, and
oi our Saviour J. C] rou f^eyaXou ©sou, xai gurngog nfhuv, I. X :
— ' There is one Lord — one God and Father of all' (Eph.
iv. 5.) ' My Father is greater than I — fteifyv fiou.' (See
Annot. to John, xiv. 28.) The 6 peyaXog Qeog, xai gurrig nf/iuv,
of St. Paul in this place, denote the two persons whom our
Lord expressed in the words — 6 irarrig fiei^uv pou. Some
eminently pious and learned scholars of the last and present
century, have so far overstretched the argument founded
on the presence or absence of the article, as to have run it
into a fallacious sophistry ; and, in the intensity of their zeal
to maintain the ' honour of the Son,' were not sensible that
they were rather engaged in ' dishonouring the Father.' It
is our unquestionable duty, to understand the essential Union
of the Father and the Son, wherever the terms clearly and
simply express it ; and not to make it a point to strive, by
every effort oi grammatical subtlety, to exclude the former.
Let us be warned, by the excess to which the frenzy of a
superstitious zeal was at one time driven ; when " the devo-
" tion to a human object, had quite effaced the adoration of
" the Deity" (Hume's England, ch. viii.) Or, ' not keeping
' to the Head' (Col. ii. 19) : for, though our blessed Lord is
indeed Deity, yet, he is such by generation and communica
tion oi the paternal nature of Ms Heavenly Father; as he
himself was always earnest to impress on the minds of his
disciples. These observations, are to be applied also to
2 Pet. i. 1. (See the former Annot. to that place.) Mac-
knight is sound in his canons, and correct in his examples :
" Though, in general, the article renders a word emphatical,
" it is sometimes used where no emphasis is intended. — On
" the other hand, some words which want the article, are
¦L

146 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. III.
" emphatical, and must be translated as if the article were
"prefixed; e.g. Matt. i. 18, ex irveu/^arog ayiou — ' oi the
1 Holy Spirit.' Mark, i. 1, uiou ©sou — ' of the Son of God.'
" John, iii. 6, irveu^arog — 'of the Spirit.' Titus, ii. 13, xai
" gurngog n/j.uv Ingou, for rou gurrigog — ' and of our Saviour J. C "
(Vol. i. pp. 97, 108.) So, also, in 2 Pet. i. 1, we are to
understand, rou 0. hfi>uv xai {rou) gurngog I. X. — ' of our God,
' and {of our) Saviour J . C

CHAPTER III.

Ver. 5. the washing of regeneration and renewing ofthe
Holy Spirit.] — This is the only place in the New Covenant,
where the word iraXiyyevegta — 'regeneration,' occurs in a
doctrinal sense, and which St. Paul expresses by xaivn xngig —
' a new creation :' yet, how many volumes of angry contro
versy has it occasioned : calculated to render it question
able, whether the controversialists themselves have yet
obtained the regenerating grace. The cause of which un
christian warfare, is this; that the parties opposed, putting
their own case entirely out of their contemplation, strive
only to shew, that their adversaries have not obtained the
grace : leaving the bystander strong ground for inference, that
both have yet to undergo the renovating process. Whereas,
if there is any question absolutely and exclusively personal
and secret between man and God, it is the question of his
personal calling to the knowledge and belief of the Gospel.
" Who art thou, that condemnest another man's servant?"
" No one," affirms St. Paul, " can say, ' Jesus is the Lord,'
" but by the Holy Spirit," 1 Cor. xii. 3 ; and, " What man
" knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of the man
" which is in him ?" ib. ii. 11.
Ver. 8 and 14. to excel in good works.] ha ipgovn^ugi
xaXuv egyuv irgo'igraghci : — Our authorised English version, of
King James, in 1611, renders irgo'/gragha, ' careful to maintain
' good works.' In the first edition from the Greek, by
Tyndale in 1525, it is rendered 'excelle;' which rendering,
was retained till the reign of King James. " Whitby "

Chap. III. TITUS. 147
(observed Parkhurst), "interprets, to 'excel' or outstrip
" others in good works;" but he adds; " I apprehend, that
" irgo'igraghn should have been joined by a dative." — The
Theological Reviewer, nevertheless, exclaims; " Never before,
" was the correctness of our authorised translation called in
" question: but, it is not satisfactory to Mr. P., he, accord-
" ingly, substitutes for it — to ' excel' in good works ; a
" sense in itself unobjectionable, but which, unfortunately,
" is attended with a manifest violation of syntax : — xaXuv
" tgyuv irgo'i'gragDai, can mean nothing but that which is ex-
" pressed in our common version." I shall not question the
fact of my Theological Corrector's knowledge, that Tyndale
and Whitby rendered ' excel:' I shall only suggest to him,
whether he is sure, that he has himself taken up the syntax
by the right end? It is quite clear, that he has not — 'De Te
' fabula narratur.' Thus, by a judicial ignorance, he has
directed to those learned persons, the taunt which he hoped
would have fallen on me.
The order of the syntax and of the words, is the same
here as in Exod. xx. 8, fXivngQnn r^v hi^egav ruv ga/3@aruv
ayia^eiv aurnv. SO here — iva ipgovri^ugi xaXm egyuv, irgo'i'grag6ai
{auroig sub.) The words xaXuv egyuv, are duly governed in
the genitive, prospectively, by the verb ipgovngugi, or, by the
preposition iregi sub. ; and not retrospectively by irgoigragOai, as
has been too hastily assumed. " <&govri£u — usus hujus verbi,
" quo ponitur pro cur am gero, euro, frequentior est; et qui-
" dem cum genitivo, ut modo dixi: sed is interdum praefixam
" habet prcepos. iregi, vel birtg." (Steph. Thes. Gr.) And this
construction in ver. 8, directs us to the parallel construction,
in the following :
Ver. 14. learn to excel.] fiavhcvtrugav — xaXuv tgyuv, irgo-
'igragdai : — Hoogeveen, on the sentence obrug txu rrig yvu^ng
(Plut.), observes: " recte observat CI. Bos.: ante yvu^ng
" in proclivi est intelligere prcepos. iregi; ut sit integra locutio,
" obrug txu {irtgi) rng yvuf^n?" {Not. adViger. p. 251, ed. 1766.)
So, the ' integra locutio ' of this sentence will be ; ftavQavtrugav
dt xai oi rifLtrtgoi {iregi) xaXuv egyuv, irgo'tgraghci {auroig) : St. Paul
uses irgoi'gragdai in the sense of the Latin ' prastare,' which
signifies, both to ' stand before,' and to ' excel;' and the Latin
Vulgate, also, renders ' prceesse,' in both passages.

PHILEMON.

Ver. 14. did he hastily quit thee, for a moment:]
' Ta%a, raxeug, ug gaipa, gaipug. Hesych. ra^a, n ra^sas, n
' ruxov. Suid. — raxot est, per syncopen, neutrum plurale
' raxea, adverbial iter." (Damm. Lex.) " Ta%« pro rax»,
' sive raxeug, 'celeriter.' (Steph.) : — ' prcecipitanter,' xabairtg
' oi raxeig ruv diaxovuv, 01 irgiv axougai irav ro Xeyo/Aevov txhougiv.'
{Lb. Aristot. Eth.) — " like those hasty servants, who run off
" before they have heard all that is being said to them :" —
Ib. that thou shouldest repel him for ever ?] ha aurov
aiuviov airtx^ig {airo <rou sub. For the proper sense of airtxu,
see above, the long Annot. to Matt. vi. 6. — The Theological
Reviewer thinks, that this is a " most inhuman mangling of
" the beautiful reflection of the aged apostle, as it is given
" in our common version from the Latin — ' Forsitan ideo
' discessit ad horam a te, ut seternum ilium reciperesV —
' perhaps he therefore departed for a season, ihat thou
' shouldest receive him for ever.' ") I find in it, however,
quite as much beauty, more pathos, more pertinent meaning,
and a much closer correspondence with the Greek sense of
airexu.

ST. JAMES.

GENERAL EPISTLE TO THE TWELVE TRIBES.

CHAPTER II.

Ver. 2. your synagogue.] rnv guvayuynv b/iuv : — " Ccetum
" sacrum, addit enim, Vestrum ; nomen a Judceis ad Christ-
" ianos traductum:" — " the name synagogue, had passed
"from the Jews to the Christians," says Bengel; which was
an oversight ofthe learned annotator. This, is the last appli
cation, by any apostle, ofthe word guvayuyn to a Christian place
of worship. It is used here, only by the first Hebrew bishop
of Jerusalem, St. James; who himself, in his last chapter, uses
exxXngia — ' Church.' In all his epistles, St. Paul employs only
the term exxXngia — ' Church.'

CHAPTER III.

Ver. 7. (Gr. 6.) kindled in the birth.] uiro njs yewng {yewa
pro yevea, Steph. Lex.): — not, uiro rng ynwng — ' set on fire
' of Gehenna or Hell,' as our common reading gives it; which
plainly exposes itself to be a ' lusus etymologice ' oi the dark
ening ages, and to have no relation to the subject.1 — h yXugga,
iru%. — ourug n yXugga — tpXoyiZpuga rou rgoxov ™JS yevegeug, xai
<pXoyifyi*tvn wo ytwng. Here the identity, both of the agent
and action, declares itself: — "the tongue, is a fire: as the
" tongue engenders or inflames its successors {rng yevegeug), so
" it is engendered or inflamed by its predecessors {biro ytwng)."
It is not possible to devise a sentence whose structure, and
whose parts and correspondences more demonstrably prove
its import and its originality. "Lingua — inflammat rotam
1 See Steph. Th. Gr. torn. iv. p. 672, and Valpy, torn. i. p. cccc. v. ytma.

150 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. III.
" nativitatis nostra?, inflammata a nativitate:" not, ' a gehenna,'
as the Lat. Vulg. Ps. lviii. 3. ' The wicked are estranged
' from the womb: as soon as they are born, they go astray, and
' speak lies'
Matthaei's note (Gr. Test.) on the preceding word ytvt-
gtug, extends jts sense and its efficacy equally to the fol
lowing correction, of ytwng for yttwng : " Nullum nee postea
" Cod. reperi, qui haberet yetwng ; — fortasse ex proximo
" occuparant scribae. Conjici possit, olini lectum esse ytwng,
" idque expositum esse yevegeug, ac deinde mutatum esse in
" yeewng. — Si omnino legendum sit yeewng, rgoxog jam non
" rota, nee cursus erit, sed tormentum. — yttwng, ergo nil nisi
" error scribarum videtur esse." For this important recovery,
we are indebted to Matthaei ; who, at the same time, was
not aware of its full extent to the following clause.
The MS. Scholia, to Cyril, of the fifth century, and
OEcumenius, ofthe tenth, read yttwa — 'Gehenna or Hell,' in
both clauses of the verse. Our common version, following
the rec. Greek yttwa only in the latter clause, renders, ' set
' on fire of Hell ;' where Bloomfield remarks : " Here is
" (observes Dr. Burton) a very strong metaphor." So also
Trollope ; " There is a strong metaphor in the words :" But,
it is now evident, that the word was not so written by the
apostle, but has been qualified by his later officious copyist.
See above, p. 117, the forms t and ss, as in guvtgyu, guvtigyu,
airtgyu, airugyu ; which forms seem to have lured the phi
loponist, from ytwng to yeewng. In fact, the word yeewn —
'gehenna,' is nowhere1 used, at all, in the whole Greek
Scriptures, Old or New, except by our Lord himself, and
that, only in his parabolical discourses, in Matthew, Mark,
and Luke; so that the reading yeewn, found in this passage of
the prevailing text of James, betrays the ignorance of some
clerical copyist of the darkening ages, who mistook the pro
vincial form yewn, for his more familiar term yeewn- Nor is
that altogether surprising, since the form yewa {yewn Ion.), is
almost wholly confined to such rare writers as Pindar, O. 7,
40, P. 4, 178, and Lycophron, v. 644, 1447.
1 It is a reprehensible freedom of the worthy Parkhurst, where he refers
the proper name Tanvva, in Josh, xviii. 16, (without any remark,) to the word
yittva in his Gr. Lex. Trommius, admits neither of these words iu his copious
' Concordance ' of the Septuagint.

ST. PETER.

TWO GENERAL EPISTLES.

I.
CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 3. For, the time past of {your) life sufficeth to have
wrought the will of the Gentiles, walking in — abominable
Idolatries.] agxtrog yag b iragtXnXuSug %go«>s T0U fi'ou T0 ^eXnfia ruv
thuv xartgyagag&ai ireirogeuf/ievoug — ahfLiroig etduXoXargaaig, Vatic.
and A lex. : — " Sufficit enim praeteritum tempus ad volun-
" tatem Gentium consummandam, his qui ambulaverunt in —
" illicitis idolorum cultibus." Lat. Vulg. — In those most
ancient copies, no pronoun was expressed in this passage ;
but, in the first printed copies, which were taken from the
later MSS., Erasmus inserted ne"* in his edition; and Car
dinal Ximenes inserted u/iiv in his Complutensian edition ; of
which two works, above 20 editions were printed ofthe former,
and 14 of the latter. (Bp. Marsh's Michaelis, Sec vol. ii.
pp. 845, 848.) The sense ofthe reading bfnv, is confirmed by
the following description, ahfhiroig uduXoXargeiaig — 'abominable
' idolatries ;' since, Peter certainly did not include himself
among the number of converted idolaters. Ximenes, there
fore, gave the true meaning ofthe apostle's word, bfitv — 'you;'
and Erasmus has misled all our translators, by introducing
the reading jj/a;v — 'we.' I therefore observed, in the Preface
of my larger work, that I was surprised at the emphasis with
which Dr. B. urges, ' especially the authority of the invaluable
' Editio Princeps :' — because, Erasmus altered his text in
each of his four succeeding editions ; in the last of which, he
had obtained only eight junior MSS. ; and certainly, his
reading is false, in this single instance.

CHAPTER V.

Ver. 13. The church at Babylon, saluteth you,] " In
the sixth century, Christianity was successfully preached

152 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. III.
" to the Bactrians, the Huns, the Persians, the Indians,
" the Pers-armenians, the Medes, and the Elamites: the
" barbaric churches, from the Gulf of Persia to the Caspian
" Sea, were almost infinite ; and their recent faith was con-
" spicuous in the number and sanctity of their monks and
" martyrs. The Pepper Coast of Malabar, and the isles of
" the ocean, Socotora and Ceylon, were peopled with an
"increasing multitude of Christians ; and tke Bishops and
" Clergy of those sequestered regions derived their ordination
"from theCatholic of 'Babylon." (Gibbon, Decline and Fall,
c xlvii.) This explicit passage settles the question, Whe
ther the 'Babylon' of St. Peter is to be here accepted as
' historical ; ' or, as only ' figurative,' as stated by some
learned annotators.

II.

CHAPTER III.
Ver. 10. the earth also, and the works that are in it,
will be discovered.] xai yn, xai to ev aurri egya, ebgihjgtTai.
Vatic. : — This, is the most ancient reading of this passage ;
and it would seem, as if the variation to the received
reading, xaraxaqgnrai — ' be burned up,' had been suggested to
the philoponist by the resemblance of sound of the Latin
' urentur,' to the Greek ebgeSngerai. (Conf. the previous Annot.
to Luke, xviii. 8.)
Ver. 13. But ye, according to His promise, look for a
New Heaven and a New Earth, in which dwelleth Justifi
cation.] dixaioguvn ¦ — In this last word, lies all its importance
and value to us. We are well aware, that 'righteousness' will
dwell there ; but, what will that avail to us, if that were all?
But, it is the assurance, that 'justification' may be obtained
by us, that constitutes all its value to us. Here, then, is the
essential importance, of duly discriminating between the
senses of 'Justification' and 'Righteousness,' which is pointed
out in the former Annot. to Matt. iii. 15. We may aspire to
' Justification,' but we can never aspire to the simple quality
and title of ' Righteousness.'

ST. JOHN.

THE REVELATION;
OB,
EPISTLE TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES OF ASIA MINOR.

CHAPTER I.
Ver. 9. I — was in tke island that is called Patmos.] See
after, c. xix. 8.

CHAPTER III.
Ver. 1. He wko hath tke seven Spirits of God, &c] 6
Ta tirra irveu/tara rou ©sou exhn : — This passage, fully exposes
the futility of Michaelis's remark on ch. i. 4, 5 : " The true
" and eternal Godhead of Christ," he observes," is certainly
" not taught in the Apocalypse so clearly as in St. John's
" Gospel, though the author speaks in enthusiastic lan-
" guage of the greatness of Christ's ministry, and the glory
" communicated to his human nature. At the very be-
" ginning ofthe book (he further observes), Christ is placed
" after the seven Spirits vjho stand near the throne of God"
(vol. iv. p. 539). The futility oi that remark, is amply ex
posed by the fact revealed in this chapter ; namely, that,
" both the seven Spirits, and the seven Stars, are had or held,
" equally under the authority of Christ, as of the Father."
If, therefore, Michaelis had collated both passages, before he
wrote his remark on the former, he might have avoided this
unmeaning and censurable observation.

154 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. VI.
CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 6. living-creatures.] £wa : — The Latin version ren
ders this word ' animalia,' which Erasmus has preserved. It
might have been expressed more closely, ' viventia,' but the
Latin did not use that participle with a substantive sense :
" participii viventium ita positi, non recordor." (Steph. £au.)
Wiclif rendered ' foure beastis,' which his first revisers re
tained, ' iiii. beastes.' It is surprising, that King James's revision
in the 17th century, should not have corrected so manifest an
impropriety. Bloomfield renders ' living-creatures,' and justly
adds : " The propriety of this construction is now, I believe,
" generally agreed upon by commentators. The word is very
" different from higiov, used to designate the ' prophetic
'Beast' in the 13th and following chapters." — But, this in
terpretation is still defective in those places. The word
' beast,' comprises all irrational animals ; whereas, the word
Dngiov, is restricted to the sense of ' fer a — a wild beast;' and
eminently, ' a beast of prey,' which is the design in this place.

CHAPTER V.
Ver. 3, 13. below the earth.] See above Annot. to
Philipp. ii. 10.

CHAPTER VI.
Ver. 1. one ofthe seven Seals.] The 'seals' of a Prophetic
Record, may be presumed to be emblematical of its contents.
By those contents, the correspondence ofthe emblems may
afterwards be traced. We have seen, in the introductory
observations to the former Annotations to this Book, that
the great subject ofthe Record, is the succession of four great
Imperial Conquerors {Babylonian — Persian — Macedonian —
and Roman), and the general sequel of events to the end of
time ; all which, are briefly portrayed in the ' seven Seals'
The 'Bow,' which distinguishes the Conqueror in the
first seal, characterises the empire of Babylon. " I will
" break the ' Bow' of Elam, the chief of their might."

Chap. VII. REVELATION. 1 55
(Jerem. xlix. 35.) Daniel has recorded, that " the Baby-
" Ionian palace of Shushan was situated in the province of
" Elam." (Ch. viii. 2.)
The ' Sword,' which distinguishes the second seal, charac
terises the Persian conqueror of Babylon. "A 'Sword' is
" upon the Chaldeans, saith the Lord,, and upon the in-
" habitants of Babylon." (Jerem. 1. 35.)
The protection afforded by the Conqueror with the 'Ba-
' lance, or Scales,' in the third seal, corresponds to the im
munities granted to the Jewish church and nation by the
Macedonian conqueror of Persia, as recorded by the Jewish
historian ; and especially, to their exemption from tribute
during every untitled seventh year, or year oi Jubilee.1 That
a 'denarius' or 7|d. was an equitable daily consumption for
food, we learn from the parable in Matt. xix. 32. (Gr. xx. 2).
The designations of 'Death ' and the ' Grave,' which are
attached to the Conqueror in the fourth seal, and which
answer to Daniel's description, ' dreadful and terrible'
(ch. vii. 7), correspond to the fourth or Roman Conqueror,
whose empire commenced coincidentally with the Christian
Church. The fifth seal, stamped with the character ofthe 'Era of
' Martyrs,' represents the general fate of that church and of
its members, under the last Conqueror, to the end of time.
The sixth seal, represents the final fate of the collective
adversaries of that church, at that terminating crisis.
The seventh seal, represents the conclusion of time, and
the Renovation of the Visible Creation, for eternal con
tinuance.

CHAPTER VII.
Ver. 4, &c. a hundred and forty -four thousand were
sealed, out of all the tribes, &c] i. e. were selected, and
1 "  All which particulars rendering him {Alexander) kindly affected to
" the Jews, he called them together when he was on his departure, and bid them
" ask, what they had to desire of him ? Whereon, they having petitioned him,
" that they might have the freedom of their country-laws and religion, and be
" exempted every seventh year from paying any tribute, because in that year,
" according to their Law, they neither sowed nor reaped, Alexander readily
" granted them all this request." — Prideaux, Connection, &c. Part i. p. 385,
foi. Conf. Joseph. A. J. xi. 5. p. 582.

156 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XIII.
marked. These selections from each tribe, illustrate the
declaration of St. Paul in Rom. ix. 7, " all are not Israel,
" who are from Israel:" and that also, Rom. xi. 25, " all
" who are Israel will be saved."

CHAPTER VIII.

Ver. 13. an Eagle.] aerou: — not ayyeXou, as in the rec.
text. The agreement of the oldest Vat. and Mosc. MSS. in
this reading, has caused Matthaei, JSloomfield, and Scholz,
to adopt it in their texts. Burton, though he has printed
ayyeXou in his text, subjoins in a note, ' lege aerou.' Cardwell
gives this reading in his margin. Trollope has not noticed
it, because it was not noticed by Mill, whom he follows ;
but, the reading had not been detected in the age of Mill.

CHAPTER X.
Ver. 7. the mystery oi God.] The ' mystery of God'
which is to be 'finished,' denotes the present problematical
state of things, or ' visible Creation,' combining an intricate
and seemingly confused mixture of good and evil agencies, in
continual antagonist operation ; without the appearance of
the Cause, who alone can resolve the problem. The several
dispensations of ' Revelation,' have been partial and special
solutions of that problem ; which will ultimately be resolved,
and unreservedly revealed, to the entire intellectual and
moral creation of the universe, at the approaching period
here noted by the prophecy. (See former Annot.)

CHAPTER XIII.

Ver. 8. written — from the foundation of the world.]
So the words should be connected, as in ch. xvii. 9 ; (not,

Chap. XVII. REVELATION. 157
' slain from the foundation ofthe world,' as in our authorised
version). ' and all the inhabiters of the earth, whose name hath not been
' written from the foundation ofthe world in the book of life ofthe
' Lamb that was slain ' —
So rendered Dr. Hammond ; and so, also, his learned con
temporary Knatchbull, who, referring to ch. xvii. 8 (Gr.),
observes, " quod plane innuit, ro, airo xaraj3oXng xogfLou de-
" bere construi cum uv ou yeygairrai, et non cum rou agviou
" egpayfievou. Ver. 14. It deceiveth my people, Sec] irXava roug epoug roug
xar. : — The important distinction, expressed by roug efMoug —
' mine or my people who dwell,' has lapsed from the received
text ; but is found in the Vat. and Mosc. copies, and is duly
reinstated by Matthaei.
Here we must notice, very particularly, that to the
'Dragon,' or 'Satan,' is ascribed, generally, the " deceiving
" the whole earth," ch. xii. 9, xx. 2; whereas, to the 'False
'Prophet,' (that is, False Propounder of the Gospel,) is
ascribed specially, the " deceiving {i. e. striving to deceive)
" mine, or my people:" shewing, that the latter deceiver is
to be sought within the pale of tke Christian Church : — so
also, roug efhoug douXoug, ch. ii. 22 (Gr. 20.)

CHAPTER XIV.

Ver. 8. Fear the Lord!] xugtov. — Vat. and Mosc, not
©sov.

CHAPTER XVII.

Ver. 9. they that dwell on the earth will view with won
der, when they see, that the Wild-Beast that was, is not,
and yet will be present.] Wild-Beast : see above, Annot.
to C iv. 6. — 0ATMA2ONTAI" uv fiXeirovruv, on n» ro Ongiov, KAI
OTK E2TI KAI TIAPE2TAI: — 6uu/<t,a£eiv,' spectare cum admira-

158 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XVII.
' done' — behold with admiration. (Steph. Thes. Gr. Valpy,
torn. ii. p. 113, A.) — This verse, is a summary repetition
of the more copious clause which immediately precedes it —
" The Wild-Beast that was, and is not, yet will ascend
" out of tke abyss, and go into perdition." — ISngiov 6
eideg, nv, KAI OTK E2TI, KAI MEAAEI ANABAINEIN ex rng
aj3uggou xai EI2 AIIOAEIAN TITArEIN.  The Greek text,
as first printed by Erasmus, was — ro dngiov on nv, xai oux egn,
KAinEP E2TI. The Latin version (from the commencement
of the Western Churches) only rendered the former clause —
' Bestiam quo? erat et non est,' omitting the sense of the fol
lowing Greek words, xaiireg tgn. But, the numerous ancient
MSS., which were disclosed immediately after the age of
Erasmus, testified, that the primitive reading of the Evangelist
was, j3Xeirovruv ro Sngiov on nh KAI OTK E2TI, KAI IIAPE2TAL
This was shewn by the most ancient surviving facsimile copy
ofthe Apocalypse, that ofthe Alexandrian MS. :
BXeTTONTCONTO
eHPIONOTIHNKMOYKGCTIN KXITTXP,
ecTxr
fikivovruv ro
Sqgiov on r\v >tat ovk zariv' nut vag-
earuf
Those testimonies, were thus produced by Wetstein, and
afterwards by Scholz (or Schulz) : " xanrtg egnv, recepta cum
" codicibus plurimis : Sed, xai iragegrai A, B, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8,
" 9, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 26, 29, al. pi. Ed. Complut. Plant.
" Genev. Versio JEthiop. Copt. Arab. Sec, probante H.
" Grotio, J. Mede, J. Millio." — Bengel, has given us an
elaborate note on this reading, the force of which is com
prised in the following passage : — " xai iragegrai : Sic habent
" antiqua documenta, summo consensu: (nonnulla, xai irag-
" egnv) — ipse Erasmus, si viveret, tot codicibus quorum
" nunc copia est herbam, ut arbitror porrigeret ; et asseclas
" suos miraretur qui lectiones ab ipso olim cegre constitutas
" tarn religione tuentur."
The following, was therefore the entire import of the
Angel's communication : — ' The Wild-Beast that thou
' sawest, which was, but is not, will vet ascend out of
'the abyss,. and go into perdition: and they that dwell

Chap. XVIII. REVELATION. 159
' on the earth, (whose names have not been written in the
' Book of Life from the foundation of the world,) will view
' with wonder and admiration, when they see ; That the
' Wild-Beast that was, but is not, will yet be present.'
That import, would seem to imply ; That the departed
subject of this prediction, after having elsewhere fulfilled the
lot of his mortality, would be translated from his first depo
sitory, and be recommitted to a final and general receptacle of
the dead.Ver. 12. (Gr. 11.) the Eighth (king) is d istinct from the
Seven.] aurog OTA002 egn, xai ex ruv eirra : — Archdeacon
Woodhouse (in his p. 432), correctly describes this figure :
" subsisting, after the Seven Heads were gone." Those 'Heads'
were, in their successions, the Babylonian, Persian, Mace
donian, Roman, Grecian, Frankisk, Germanic, the last of which
was extinguished, in the year 1806. In 1804, commenced the
Frenck Empire; which was extinguished, in 1815. Such, was
the ephemeral existence of that Frenck Empire. That glaring,
and portentous meteor in the moral and political firmament
of Christendom; its sudden rise; its rapid ascension and cul
mination ; its raging power ; its speedy extinction, after the
extinction ofthe last remaining eminence oi Roman Empire;
its lifeless reappearance among the multitudes ofthe Northern
hemisphere, after lying, for twenty years, in its remote and
solitary interment in the Southern hemisphere : all these are
phenomena, qualified permanently to fix the thought and at
tention of the present entire Christian world, in wakeful ex
pectation of the sequel which it may be designed to presage.
(Compare above, Annott. to ch. vi. 1, and to Luke, xviii. 8,
p. 78.) " The body, was exposed to view. His features were so little changed,
" that his face was recognised by those who had known it when alive. — His
"hands, were singularly well preserved  His entire person, presented the
" appearance of one lately interred." — From the Act of Disinterring, &c. St.
Helena, Oct. 13, 1840. (Moniteur, Dec. 7-)

CHAPTER XVIII.

Ver. 13. of bodies, and lives of men.] xai gu/iaruv, xai
¦vj/u^as avdguiruv: — These five words form together a peri-

160 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XIX.
phrasis, denoting slaves. The Lat. Vulg. renders, ' manci-
' piorum et animarum hominum,' which Wiclif rendered,
' of servauntes and othire lyves of men.' Tyndale, ' of
' boddyes and solles of men.' Our last revisers, preferring
the Latin version, have rendered gu/iaruv ' slaves,' and -^uxag,
' souls.' But Pollux, who wrote in the second century, ex
pressly says, that gufhara alone, did not then denote slaves —
gu/jiara airXug oux av eiiroig, aXXa douXa gupara (iii. § 78) ; as
opposed to gufiara oixeta — domestic servants {lb. ii. § 235).
At a later period, gupara seems to have been popularly used
with restriction to slaves, whence, gufi.arefj,irogetov — ' a slave-
' market;' — -vj/u^as, is to be understood in its first sense
given by Suicer — " proprie competit corporibus viventibus"
— i. e. ' lives.' We are, therefore, either to read — ' bodies
' and lives of men,' or to substitute the word ' slaves ' for the
whole periphrasis.

CHAPTER XIX.
Ver. 8. His name is called, the Word of God.] This
passage testifies, that this Tract was written before John
wrote, either his Gospel or his Epistle. " The apostle's care
" for the good of the church (observes Cave) is the writings
" which he left to posterity, whereof the first in time, though
"placed last, is his Apocalypse, or book of Revelations;
" written while confined in Patmos." (See above, c. i. 9.)
This * anachronism,' which has attended every succeeding
generation ofthe gospel and church, has affected the designa
tion here assigned to our Lord. That designation,' O AOT02 —
' the Word,' was assuredly not first devised by St. John,
and accepted from him by our Lord ; but, it was first
revealed by our Lord to His apostle, who received it from
Him. Thus, the essential relation in time of those passages in
which John elsewhere employs that designation (John, i. and
1 John, i.), establishes the seniority, and thereby, the au
thenticity ofthe book ofthe ' Revelation.' In the begin
ning of both those two later works, that same designation is
applied by this apostle to our Lord, but not by any other of his
apostles ; and, it appears to have been committed to his pen,

Chap. XXI. REVELATION. 161
exclusively. In this record of the Vision, it was thus disclosed
to him :— ' His Name is called, the Word o/God.'
John, in Patmos.
" I saw heaven opened, and behold, a White Horse ; and He
" Who sat on it, was called Faithful and True, and His Name is
" the Word of God." At a later date, in Ephesus.
" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
" God, and the Word was God. The Same, was in the beginning
" with God. All things were made by Him ; and without Him, was
" not any thing made that was made. In Himself was Life ; and
" the Life was the Light of men." — (John, i.)
" Who was at the beginning; whom our hands have handled of
" the Word o/Life (for, the Life was manifested, and we saw it,
" and bear witness to it ; and declare to you that Eternal Life
" which was with the Father, and hath been manifested to us) ; that
" which we have seen and heard we declare to you ; and that our
" fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son, Jesus Christ."
— (1 John, i.)
If, instead of submitting themselves to be drawn into the
vortex of heathen and heretical philosophies, learned anno
tators had simply rectified the ' anachronism ' here pointed out,
all their intricacies and confusions would have been avoided.
We are to be careful to interpret St. John, in his Gospel, by the
standard of Truth previously imparted to him in his Apoca
lypse; and, not to interpret his Apocalypse, by rabbinical and
heretical expositions applied to his Gospel. Origen, in the
third century, distinctly witnesses, with contemporary testi
mony — "In communicating with many Jews and philosophers,
" I never found one who acknowledged that the Word was the
"sonofQoD." (See above, p. 77.)

CHAPTER XXI.
Ver. 6. 2" — have done!] ytyova, Vat. and Mosc, not
ytyovt, as in the rec. text.
Ver. 16-18. (Gr. 15-17) its length and its breadth
M

162 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap. XXI.
are equal.] There is self-exposed vitiation in these verses,
as they *stand in the common texts ; since, they state the
height of the wall of the city to be, at the same time, both
12,000 furlongs, and only 144 cubits. The Vat. and Mosc.
MSS. read, ver. 16, s/%s pergov xaX. %guo*. ; and omit xai to
ruxog aurng — 'and the wall thereof,' at the end of ver, 16
(Gr. 15); they omit also rogourov egnv, in ver. 17 (Gr. 16).
The Cod. 35 {Magd. Oxon. sec. xi.) omits ro b-^og — ' the
' height? before iga egn — ' are equal.' The Vat. and Mosc.
further omit epergnge in ver. 18 (Gr. 17). From combining
these several variations of the text with its matter, we may
critically conclude, that it stood originally thus :
x«< o XaXav fttr tptov et%e ftirgtv xahxpov %gv<rovv, ivx [&iT£wy rnv
¦jrcXtv, x.a.1 rov; irvhwvc&t; avrvs.
xxi ii iroXi; Tirgctyavo; xtiriti, *«< to /.chjco; avrvii otrov ro jrA«T»5' x.xi
ifttTgytri rtiv rroXiv rot x.x\aftu nri (rrx^iov; ISa'ciex.cc %iXictouV to fi»ix.0{ kxi
to irXxro; avrm few am.
x.xi ro ut^o; tou tii%ovs xvrns, tKctrov wnrx^xnovrx rirrx^av 7ry%av —
' And he that spake to me, had for a measure, a golden reed {or
' rod), to measure the City, and its gates:
' and the City lieth four-square ; and its length is the same as
' its .breadth, and he measured the City with the reed, 12,000 fur-
' longs : its length, and its breadth are equal :
' and the height of its wall, is 144 Cubits :'
Thus, the length or extent of the wall encompassing the
city, is measured by ' stadia ; ' but its height, by ' cubits.'
Bengel, who was not aware of those various vitiations of the
text, was urged to conjecture, that the numbers 12,000, and
144, intended the same measure, by different modes of com
putation; and he even wished to expel the word irnxm —
' cubits,' though it is found in all the copies consulted by
Birch and Matthsei, in Rome and Moscow. The 144 cubits,
constitute the f^eya xai i/^jjXov — 'vast altitude,' ascribed to
the wall in ver. 13 (Gr. 12). Neither Erasmus, ofthe early
annotators, nor Burton, Bloomfield, nor Trollope, of the most
recent, notice this passage.
Ib. according to man's measure, which was that of tke
angel.] pergov avSguirou, b egnv ayyeXou — ' mensura hominis,quce
' est angeli:' Vulg. (i. e. ' qua usus est angelus.') The words

Chap. XXII. REVELATION. 163
merely signify, that the measurements of the angel are to
be understood, according to human measures of length and
height. But, the general propensity to the mysterious, has
operated in this simple description ; so that the learned
Bengel was led to suggest, " Stadia 12,000, absolute dicta,
" erant humana : 144 sive cubiti sive calami, non erant
" humani, sed angelico-humani, humanis multo majores.
" Sive calami 144, sive cubiti erant, eandem muri alti-
" tudinem collatio 12,000 stadiorum exhibet." King James's
version has obscured the text, by rendering, "according to the
" measure of a man, that is, of the angel:" choosing to be
guided here by Wiclif's version of the Latin, which he ren
dered, " bi mesure of man, that is, of an aungel;" rather than
by that of Tyndale and his immediate successors, who revised
by the Greek — ' The measure that the angell had, was after
' the measure that man useth.'

CHAPTER XXII.

Ver. 16, 17. ' Surely, I come quickly!' — 'Amen ! even so
' come, Lord Jesus!'] These clauses, should thus be divided
(as by Burton, Scholz, and Card well); the a^nv — 'Amen!'
being the responsive aspiration of the apostle.
" Behold ! I will send my Messenger {Elijah or the Bap-
" tist), and he shall prepare the way before Me. And the
" Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple,
" even the Messenger of the Covenant {the Messiah), whom
" ye delight in : behold! He shall come, saith the Lord of
" Hosts!" (Malachi, iii. 1.)
"And though, because He delayeth, they slumber and
" sleep; yet, they who are ready, shall go in to the Mar-
" riage ; and the doors shall be locked!" — (Matt. xxv.
5-10. — Comp. above, Luke, xviii. 8, p. 78.)

general epistle.

CHAPTER II.
Ver. 12, 13, 14, my Children — fathers — young.] I
pointed out, in a former Annotation, that the apostle here
addresses only two classes of persons — fathers and young ;
and that the general appellation, rexvia — ' Children,' em
braces them all; as in the first verse ofthe same chapter, and
throughout the epistle. So also, St. Peter addresses the
Christian community to which he writes (1 Ep. v. 1, 4, 5) ;
as, irgegZuregot — 'elders,' veuregoi — 'younger,' iravreg — 'all;'
which last term, answers to the general rexvia — 'Children,' in
this place.

CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 4. who separateth.] b Xuei — not o /*») b/toXoyer. —
Macknight has duly noticed the former ancient and import
ant reading, in the ' qui solvit' ofthe Lat. Vulg.; Burton,
also, has adverted to it, with even more attention, in his
note. What prudential motive has induced Bloomfield and
Trollope to withhold all reference to it in their annotations,
I am unable to conjecture. Compare Heb. ii. 9. Annot.
Ver. 9. God is Love.] b Qtog ayairn egn : — This essential
attribute of the Divine Nature, in its unity, constitutes the
eternal union of its Divine Persons, in their trinity. (See
above, p. 106, ' Symbol of the Catholic Christian Faith.')

CHAPTER V.

Ver. 7. rec. text.] We may venture to assume, after the
full assemblage of testimonies respecting the spuriousness of

Chap. V. GENERAL EPISTLE. 165
the clause controverted in this verse, (which are collected in
the former of these Annotations), and which are sealed with
the testimony of Cardinal Bessarion, (hitherto unknown to
its defenders) ; that the late learned Bishop Burgess (who
favoured me with a copy of his last defence, only a few weeks
before his decease) is the last champion, of distinguished
erudition, that will ever again attempt to maintain its au
thenticity. Luther had excluded the clause from his German
Bible, and also from his catechism ; but, some busy philo-
ponists of his countrymen have since interpolated it : on
which proceeding Michaelis pertinently remarked ; " It is
"not only unjust, but injudicious; for, children are thus
" accustomed to consider this passage as the chief proof oi
" the 'doctrine of the Trinity ;' the consequence of which
" is, that, when they are grown up, and have been informed
" that the passage is spurious, they naturally conclude, that
" the doctrine itself is ungrounded." {Introd. vol. iv. p. 441 .)
Ver. 17. there is, sin not to death.] St. John, here, uses
the qualified word sin — apagria, in contrast to that highest
sense in which our Lord used the latter when he said —
"That the Comforter (or H. Spirit) will convince or convict
" the world oi sin, because they believe not in Him." (John,
xvi. 9.) It was with reference to that highest sin, when he
said, that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, is guilty of
eternal sin. (Mark, iii. 27.) That was the sin intended by
St. John, when he said — ' there is a sin, to death.' Now, no
one can ever incur the penalty of that latter sin — to death,
who penitentially/mrs to incur it; because, the very fear of
incurring it, is assuring evidence, that he is not guilty of it.
' If thou wilt confess with thy mouth the word, that Jesus is
' Lord, and wilt believe in thine heart, that God hath raised
' him from the dead, thou wilt be saved:' (Rom. x. 10.)
wherefore ' I give you to know, — that no one can say, Jesus
' is the Lord, but by tke Holy Spirit.' (1 Cor. xii. 3.)
When, therefore, St. John says, ' He who is begotten of God
' cannot sin ; ' his proposition is confined to this import, that
he whom God has empowered to believe that Jesus is the
Christ, cannot be guilty ofthe sin of disbelieving that Jesus is
the Christ; a proposition, which is self-evident: and, it is
only to such believers that he addresses himself, in c. ii. 1.

166 SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATIONS. Chap.V.
when he says — 'My children, if any (of you) sin, We have
' an Advocate, Sec' For, there is no advocacy for the ' out-
' law sin, of positive disbelieving ; and therefore he con-
' eludes — ' There is, sin to death:' for that {sin), I mean, thou
' shalt not pray for it' — egnv apagria irpog dararon' ou iregi exeivng
{&//<agnag), Xeyu iva egwrngri, i. e. Xtyu, iva ou tgurngfi iregi exeivrig
ufiagriag. We are, indeed, to supplicate, that the simple un
believer may be guided and encouraged to believe; but, not
that he may be pardoned and absolved, while he obstinately
rebels, and willingly adheres to his disbelief: for, such a dis
position could not be admitted in the same society with
believers, without transmitting to the company of Heaven
the very evils which the preliminary exercise of this earthly
existence, was ordained to prevent.

PERSONAL EPISTLES.

II. AND III.

JUDE.

Ver. 1. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of
James.] To identify the Jude who here so plainly describes
himself, needs none of the learned disquisition by which
Michaelis has, on this as on some other occasions, complexed
and confused a very simple point. (See above, Annot. to
John, xix. 25.) His observation, " that Jude or Judas, has
" not designated himself apostle," is wholly nugatory; for,
neither have James nor John in their general epistles, nor
Paul in his epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon,
designated themselves Apostles. It is only necessary to ob
serve, of this short Epistle, that it is entirely confined to matter
already propounded by St. Peter, in his Second Epistle.
END OF THE APOSTOLICAL EPISTLES.

I here conclude these ' Supplemental Annotations,' with
due reverence and attachment to " Christ's Holy Catholic
" or Universal Church ; but, most especially, to those pure
" and Apostolical Sister-Branches of it, which are severally
" established in this United Kingdom of England, Scot-
" land, and Ireland."

THE END.

LONDON
FEINTED BY MOYES AND BARCLAY, CASTLE STREET, LEICESTER SQUARE.