them for all the evils which they had borne for Christ's sake. With deference to the opinion of other scholars, I incline to the opinion of Kuinoel, that by a some time must be understood, when the Apostles should obtain the reward of their patient endurance, &c. namely, in that state which the Jews called the new world, the future state, win (see Lightfoot), when all things, they thought, would be, as it were, born again, including, of course, the resurrection of the dead. This is greatly confirmed by the ancient versions, Syriac, Arabian, Persian, and Ethiopian. In illustration of this sense, the following observations of Kuinoel will be found instructive: "Jesus, in order to quiet and soothe their perturbed minds, and restore them to confidence, promises the most abundant rewards of virtue and constancy, and used for this purpose the images of the Messiah's reign, familiar to the Jews, who thought that the Messiah would subdue the rest of the nations to their power, would recal the dead to life, and, bringing a new face over the world (see Lightfoot on Matt. xxiv. 3), would restore the Jewish Theocracy to its pristine form, and bless the Jews with the highest felicity." It was to these opinions that Jesus had referred. This way yería, this new world (as the Syriac version renders it), this great restoration of all things, the Apostles themselves expected would then take place. Nor (as Flatt observes) did Jesus wish to thus delude them with a false hope, as is manifest from this and other conversations held with them, in which he studied to eradicate from the minds of his disciples a vain expectation of earthly advantages; so that they, and his other auditors, if not entirely stupid, must easily understand, that expressions, such as those above mentioned, were mere tropical phrases, elsewhere explained by Christ. He, moreover, used these involucra in his instructions, since he well knew, that in the minds of his disciples and hearers, there was not yet a clear sense of the felicity which he promised, nor such a desire for it, as could have weight enough to induce them to profess his doctrines with constancy. And although he well knew, that many of his disciples would attribute the natural sense (as so conformable to their prejudices) to expressions purely figurative; yet he foresaw too, that these preconceived opinions would be torn up from their minds, and, as the light of clearer knowledge beamed on them, and their understandings were reformed, they would place their wishes and expectations upon a felicity of a kind very different from that which is seated in vain splendour.

• With the expressions ἐπὶ δώδεκα θρόνους, and κρίνοντες τὰς δώδεκα φυλὰς, there will, I think, be less difficulty. All judicious and enlightened Commentators unite in taking the expressions as simply denoting pre-eminence over (by accommodation to their conceptions of it), and consequently preference to; by the communication of greater happiness, &c. So Schleusner explains: formula xgiVELY TVs, metaphoricè sumpta, et ex adjuncto, notat, superiorem et præstantiorem aliis esse, præcipua præ aliis felicitate, auctoritate et dignitate frui. That xgive, and its derivatives, are used in the sense of authority, has been proved by the philologists. (see Kypke and others.) Exactly parallel is Luke

xxii. 28-30. Kuinóel concludes by observing, that the sense of this passage, when freed from Jewish images, is this: "You, my Apos⚫ tles, as a return for your losses and sacrifices in this life, shall sometime receive the amplest rewards, even eternal ones, in the enjoyment (with me) of the highest dignity and felicity." Vol. I. pp. 266-268.

Chap. XXIII. 24. diüλíloves toy xwwa. Upon this word, we have a most frivolous note by Bowyer. His doubt as to the authority by which strain at has been altered to strain out, has been satisfactorily removed by the very intelligent Mr. Nichols. It appears in Archbishop Parker's Bible. Strain at was therefore a mere typographical blunder. Mr. Bowyer explains the word (obscurum per obscurius) dissubstantiating. He disapproves of the expression straining out, (which to Dr. Campbell sounded oddly, and seemed to be unautho rized,) observing, withal, that to strain or force out a gnat from entering with the liquor, appears to him a contradiction in terms: and so, I confess, it does to me also. But, (with his good leave) this is not the sense of strain out. Mr. Bowyer proposes strain off, which to me appears not so proper. The oddity complained of by Dr. Campbell does not arise from the English phrase, but is inherent in the original, S. It may be worth while to examine the ratio significationis : by which we shall (if I mistake not) discover the reason of its oddity, and know how it may best be translated into any other language. It signifies simply to pass any liquid through () a strainer, ¿lovicu, (Dioscor. iii. 9, and v. 82,) in order to separate from it then, or material particles. So it is often used in the Classics: and thus Amos vi. 6, I TIVOUTES TO SUOMEN VOY. It is twice used in the Old Testa→ ment, impropriè of the process of smelting, or refining, liquified metal. In all these cases, the word is only applied to the liquid to be strained or purified, never of any tλn, or material substance, in the liquid. But in the passage now under consideration, this is not the case. We can therefore only understand the word by considering it as a vox prag. nans, and see what it represents. It signifies then to strain (the liquor), so that the gnats may be passed out or off, and got rid of. Therefore any attempt to represent this word by any single term of any other language, must partake of the obscurity of the original; to effectually avoid which, a circumlocution must be used. And yet such circumlocutions are irksome. (Take, for instance, Dr. Campbell's, "who strain your liquor to avoid swallowing a gnat.") And, there fore, to "strain out gnats," (which is sufficiently intelligible,) may be retained. I would translate, then, "strain out gnats and swallow camels;" for that is here (and not unfrequently) the force of the article; by which is denoted the whole genus of the animal, &c. In Southern countries, these gnats swarm, and therefore may easily fall into wine vessels; nay, as I find from Wetstein's citations, they are sometimes bred in them, and are then called the vinula, or culez vivas rius. Hence both Gentiles and Jews strained their wine. The for mer from cleanliness, the latter from cleanliness united with religious scruples; the xwww being unclean. Athen. 420. D. has aƠOS TÒI "Ovor. The word is not to be found in St. Thes. The observations of the Greek Fathers upon this passage may be seen in Suicer's Thes ii. 29. This whole passage has, I find, been copiously treated by

Greif in a Tract (Lips. 1749) intituled, "Oraculum Christi contra percolantes culicem, et devorantes camelum.""

66

pp. 342-344.

Of the several methods which have been proposed to obviate the apparent discrepancies in the New Testament which consist of the attributing of different expressions, by two or more of its writers, to the same persons and occasions, we should not hesitate to employ that which the Author has, in more than one instance, adopted. The expressions were all used as they would appear collectively, though a part only has been preserved by one Evangelist, and a different part by the others who have recorded the same occurrences. In Matthew xxvii. 54, and Mark xv. 37, the exclamation ascribed to the centurion who was present at the crucifixion, is "Truly, this man was the Son of God!" In Luke xxiii. 47, it appears, "Certainly, this was a righteous man!" Both were used: "Certainly, this was a righteous man! Truly, this man was the Son of God!" We e agree with Mr. Bloomfield in preferring, in opposition to Campbell and some others, "The Son of God," rather than the Son of a God," or "A Son of a God." On Matt. xxvii. 54, Campbell remarks, that if the words in connection be ever sufficient to remove all doubt, they are sufficient in this example. It is, he thinks, perfectly decisive, that the expression came from one who, as he believed in a plurality of gods, could scarcely have spoken otherwise than indefinitely. But was the centurion entirely ignorant of the character and pretensions of our Lord? Did the Evangelists by whom the expressions of the centurion have been preserved, intend to convey the information, that, by this person, Jesus was regarded as a hero or demigod? If that had been the purport of his testimony, a testimony most remarkable in all its circumstances and relations, would the Evangelists have so carefully recorded it? Is it not, then, a fair interpretation of this exclamation, to consider it, as Mr. B. does, as conveying the sense, "This was truly the personage he affirmed himself to be, namely, the Son of God!" Campbell justly remarks, that the article is sometimes omitted when the meaning is definite; and several instances might be produced from his version, of a definite sense being given to passages where the article is wanting. Some of these are quite in accordance with the reading of the Common Version in Matt. xxvii. 54. In Luke i. 32, we have vids iir, where both nouns are anarthrous, like vids 9: would any critic propose an indefinite sense of the expression in this place? Would a Son of the Highest' be tolerable? Campbell has here properly rendered, The Son of the Highest.' So, in verse 35, vids Sev occurs, and here, again, Campbell accords

with the Public Version, and reads, "The Son of God." But in John x. 36, the words ὅτι ἔιπον, ὑιὸς του θεου ἐιμι, are strangely rendered by him, " for calling himself his Son ;" and as the reason for this rendering, he assigns the omission of the article. But did our Lord ever assert of himself, that he was less than the Son of God, in the most definite manner in which that predication can be made? But we must return to Mr. Bloomfield, who has surprised us by the insertion of remarks on Luke xxiii. 47, which are in direct opposition to those which he has so ably made on Matt. xxvii. 54. In the one case, we have the sense of the Common Version maintained against Markland, Campbell, and others; and in the other, we find the rendering of these critics, A son of A God,' adopted, without qualification, as all that the cen⚫ turion meant.'

On Luke i. 23, Mr. Bloomfield correctly states, that Aarogya is derived from the old word Aйros, publicus, and signifies properly any public service, whether civil or military. But when he proceeds to describe the Scriptural use of the word, as applied to the public offices of religion, First, of the Priests and Levites under the Mosaic Law, and, Secondly,

Christian Priests, under the Gospel dispensation, including every branch of the Sacerdotal character,' he must be reminded, that he is widely deviating from the language of the New Testament. Priests' and a Sacerdotal character' are expressions quite foreign from its usage. The word in question is used, in the New Testament, for the legal ministrations of the Temple-the public services of Christian teachers-and beneficence to the poor. In the Greek Fathers, it is applied to the administration of the Lord's Supper, and, as Mr. B. states, to the public offices of prayer.

With Mr. Bloomfield, we adopt the opinion of those expositors who consider the woman who is described by Luke, chap. vii. 36, as a different person from Mary, the sister of Lazarus, and from Mary Magdalen; but we should have admonished him, if we could have advised him in this part of his labours, that there is an impropriety in applying the expression, a harlot,' to the latter. This appellative, indeed, is not directly applied by Mr. B.; it only occurs in a quotation from Wolf; but, as he has translated the passage, he should not have permitted the offensive imputation to appear before his readers without the necessary correction. If the word aparós denotes, not a Gentile, as Hammond and some others suppose, but impudica, that epithet is never affixed to Mary of Magdala, who is never in any part of the gospels represented as of infamous character.

On Luke x. 42, irds dì orl xgía, Mr. Bloomfield has furnished his readers but very imperfectly with the means of forming a critical opinion of the import of the passage. He has not rendered justice to the expositors by whom the passage is interpreted in the less usual acceptation; and he is incorrect, we believe, in classing Campbell with the writers on the other side of the question. Campbell's rendering, and his note, are, we apprehend, in favour of our statement. • Martha, Martha, thou art anxious, and troublest thyself about many things. One thing only is necessary. And Mary hath chosen the good part which shall not be taken away from her. 42. The good part. I had, in the former edition, after the E. T., said, that good part. It has been remarked to me, by a friend, that the pronoun seems to make the expression re•fer to the one thing necessary. I am sensible of the justness ⚫ of the remark, and therefore, now, literally follow the Gr.' We cannot agree with Mr. B. in his approval of Doddridge's censure of Basil and Theophylact as chargeable with frigid ⚫ impertinence' on account of the explanation which they have given of this part of our Lord's address. We see nothing in their view of it inconsistent with the occasion. What impropriety is discernible in our Lord's admonishing Martha of unnecessary attentions in preparing for his reception and entertainment, for whom the most moderate repast was sufficient? We agree with Campbell in considering the good part as not referring to the one thing necessary: it evidently forms a new and a different subject. The note of Bengel, one of the soberest of critics, on this passage, is truly critical and modest, and might with advantage have had a place in Mr.. Bloomfield's Annotation: it is as follows. Antitheton: circa multa. Conf. Sir. xi. 11. 10 Græce. Unum hoc videtur in ' eodem genere dici, atque multa. Unum, (, non rò ) ad ' necessitatem victus, sine apparatu distrahente. Congruit d autem bis adhibitum. Unum necessarium, in genere rerum spiritualium, æque commendatur, quando ayadn' pegis bona 'illa pars appellatur: adeoque si i, unum, referas ad frugali'tatem hospitii, uberior, non modo non tenuior, fit doctrina 'totius perioche. Nil tamen definio. Dixi, videtur. Quod ' ad rem attinet, sententiæ vis non imminuitur.' Gnomon N. T. Ed. 1763. p. 266. In these remarks, we perceive nothing of frigid impertinence.

In John VIII. 35, And the servant abideth not in the house for ever, but the son abideth ever,' there is a diversity of meaning conveyed in the varied form which translators have given to the leading expression. In the Public Version, the latter portion is exhibited in the following manner: "but the