44. He was a manslayer, exɛivos avdewπontovos nv. E. T. He was a murderer. The common term for murderer in the N. T. is Qovus. I have here made choice of a less usual name, not from any disposition to trace etymologies, but because I think it is not without intention, that the devil, a being not of earthly extraction, is rather called aveporоxToros than Qovus, as marking, with greater precision, his ancient enmity to the human race. When the name murderer is applied to a rational being of a species different from ours, it naturally suggests that the being so denominated is a destroyer of others of his own species. As this is not meant here, the Evangelist's term is peculiarly apposite. At the same time I am sensible, that our word manslaughter means, in the language of the law, such killing as is indeed criminal, though not so atrocious as murder. But in common use it is not so limited. Hey. says, to the same purpose, a slayer of men.

45. Because I speak the truth, ye do not believe me, ir¡ în αληθείαν λεγω, 8 πίτευετε μοι Vul. Si veritatem dico non creditis mihi. This version, one would almost think, must have arisen from a different reading, though there is none entirely conformable to it in the known MSS. and versions. It may, indeed, be thought an objection against the common reading, that there is something like exaggeration in the sentiment. How is it possible that a man's reason for not believing what is told him, should be that it is true? That this should be his known or acknowledged reason, is certainly impossible. To think or perceive a thing to be true, and to believe it, are expressions entirely synonymous. In this way explained, it would, no doubt, be a contradiction in terms. The truth of the matter may, never. theless, be the real, though, with regard to himself, the unknown, cause of his unbelief. A man's mind may, by gross errors, and inveterate prejudices, be so alienated from the simplicity of truth, that the silliest paradoxes, or wildest extravagancies, in opinion, shall have a better chance of gaining his assent, than truths almost self-evident. And this is all that, in strictness, is implied in the reproach.

46. Which of you convicteth me? IS EŽ ÙμWY EXEY XEI μs; E. T. Which of you convinceth me? The word convinceth is not the proper term in this place. It relates only to the opinion of the

person himself about whom the question is. Our Lord here, in order to show that the unbelief of his hearers had no reasonable excuse, challenges them openly, to convict him, if they can, in any instance, of a deviation from truth. The import of this is, bring evidence of such a deviation, evince it to the world. A man may be convinced, that is not convicted. Nay, it is even possible that a man may be convicted, who is not convinced. I am astonished that Dod. has missed observing this distinction. He is almost the only modern translator into Eng. who has missed it.

Auxρtia not error, false

2 Of falsehood, we aμngrias. E. T. Of sin. only signifies sin, in the largest acceptation, but hood, a departure from truth. Its being contrasted here to inBela, fixes it to this sense. It immediately follows. And if I speak truth, why do ye not believe me?

51. Shall never see death, Davator & un Dewgnon els for alwiz. Hey. Shall not die for ever. This is at least a very unusual expression. If not for ever do not here mean, never, it would not be easy, from the known laws of the language, to assign its precise meaning. But the sense, say they, is, He shall not perish eternally. He shall not suffer eternal death. I admit that this is the meaning which our Lord had to the expression which he then used. But this meaning is as clearly conveyed in the E. T. as in the Greek original. Now, if we could make the expression clearer in Eng. than it is in the Gr. we ought not, in the present case, to do it; because we cannot do it, without hurting the scope of the writer in recording this dialogue, which shows the manner wherein our Lord, whilst he taught his faithful followers, was misunderstood by his enemies. The probability, nay, even the possibility, of some of their mistakes will be destroyed, if his expressions be totally divested of their darkness, or even ambiguity. Our Lord spoke, doubtless, of eternal death, when he said, Davatov & un dewpnon, but, it is certain, that he was understood by most of his hearers as speaking of natural death; the words then ought to be susceptible of this interpre tation. He perceived their mistake, but did not think proper to make any change on his language. The only equivo cal word here is Javaros, death. Els Tov alava, with a negative particle, when the sense is not confined by the verb, has invaria. bly the same meaning, which is never. See Mt. xxi. 19. Mr.

iii. 29. J, iv. 14. x. 28. xiii. 8. 1 Cor. viii. 13. I said, when the sense is not confined by the verb, because when the verb implies duration, the meaning of the phrase is different; for it then denotes not always, not perpetually. We have an example in this chapter, verse 35. ó de dua☞ & μEVER EV TY DIXIE HIS TOV KIWVA. Now 'the slave abideth not in the family perpetually. These two, never, and not perpetually, are the only acceptations in Scripture I have discovered of the phrase. Now it cannot be the latter of these that has been meant by Hey.; and if the former, he has not been happy in the choice of an expression, ch. ix. 32. N.

55. Speak falsely. Diss. III. § 24.

56. Longed to see my day, ηγαλλιασατο ίνα ίδη την ήμεραν την E. T. Rejoiced to see my day. The words ive ion, immediately following yaλararo, show that it cannot mean here rejoiced, but desired earnestly, wished, longed. It is so rendered by the Sy. mod. Nonnus, to the same purpose,

Ήμαρ εμον πολυευκτον ιδειν ηγαλλετο θυμώ.

The Vul. Er. and Zu. say exultavit, but both Cas. and Be. gestivit. L. Cl. Beau. and almost all the late Eng. interpreters; nay, and even the most eminent Fr. translators from the Vul. as P. R. Sa. and Si. follow in this the interpretation of Be. and Cas.

2 He saw.

His faith was equivalent to seeing.

57. And thou hast seen Abraham? » Abçaaμ iwpaxas; E. T. And hast thou seen Abraham? The form I have given to the in. terrogation which is still retained, is more expressive of the derisive manner in which the question seems to have been put. Mt. xxvii. 11. with the N.

58. Before Abraham was born, 1 am. #gw Аßgaαr yevst.Fal, syw e. E. T. Before Abraham was, I am. I have followed here the version of Er. which is close both to the sense and to the letter: Antequam Abraham nasceretur, ego sum. Dio. renders the words in the same way in Italian : Avanti che Abraam fosse nato, io sono. Dod. Hey. and Wy. translate in Eng. in the same manner/ Eya Hu may indeed be rendered I was. The present, for the imperfect, or even for the preterperfect, is no unusual figure with this writer. However, as an uninterrupted duration from

the time spoken of to the time then present, seems to have been suggested, I thought it better to follow the common method.

59. The E. T. adds, and so passed by. In the common Greek we have αYED Tws. But these words are not in the Cam. MS. nor in some of the early editions. There is nothing corresponding to them in the Sy. Vul. or Sax. versions. Cas. and Lu. have them not. Be. considers both this, and the clause immediately preceding, to wit, passing through the midst of them, which is also wanting in the Vul. Arm, and Sax. versions, as mere interpolations. He has, nevertheless, retained them in his translation. They are rejected by Gro. and Mill. It may be said that one of these clauses at least (if not both) adds nothing to the sense: they have much the appearance of having been copied from other Gospels.

CHAPTER IX.

2. Who sinned; this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Diss. VI. P. II. § 19.

7. Wash thine eyes in the pool of Siloam, a ese tuv xodvμβήθραν το Σιλωάμ. E. T. Wash in the pool of Siloam. There are two words which occur in the N. T. in the sense of washing or bathing; yet they are not synonymous, though we have not terms which correspond so exactly as to mark the distinction between them. The words are view and axe. The former, view, or rather α (for the middle voice is more used), denotes to wash or bathe a part only of the body; the latter, A8, is to wash or bathe the whole body. This difference, if I mistake not, is uniformly observed in the N. T. Thus, Mt. vi. 17. το προσωπον σε νιψαι xv. 2. 8 νίπτονται τας χειρας αυτών. And in this Gospel the distinction is expressly marked, ch. xiii. 10. ὁ λελεμεν@ 8 χρειαν έχει η τες πόδας νίψασθαι, where the participle sue is used of him whose whole body is washed; and the verb warda is joined with r8 rods. That the verb Auer is commonly used in the manner mentioned, see Acts, ix. 37. Heb. x. 23. 2 Pet. ii. 22. Rev. i. 5. In all which, whether the words be used literally or metaphorically, the complete cleansing of the body or person is meant. There is only one pas

sage about which there can be any doubt. It is in Acts, xvi. 33. where the jailor, upon his conversion by Paul and Silas, prisoners committed to his custody, is said in the E. T. to have washed their stripes. The verb is £28. But let it be observed, that this is not an accurate version of the Gr. phrase λ8 año Tw any, which, in my opinion, implies bathing the whole body, for the sake both of cleaning their wounds, and administering some relief to their persons. The accusative to the active verb 8 is evidently ra caμara understood. The full expression is έλετε τα σωματα αυτών απο των πληγών. The same distinction be tween the words is well observed in the Sep. The word wash, in Eng. when used as a neuter verb, without a regimen, is commonly, if not always, understood to relate to the whole body. The word shows, on the contrary, that the sacred author meant only a part. That the part meant is the cyes, is manifest from the context. Not to supply them, therefore, in Eng. is in effect to alter the sense. Nonnus, agreeably to this exposition, says νιπτε τεον μεθα. And when the man himself relates to the people, verse 11, how he had been cured, Nonnus thus expresses this circumstance:

Νιψαμεν Θα σκιεροια περίτροχον ομματα υλην. And afterwards, verse 15, to the Pharisees he says, 'udarı ☎nv Eva. Mr. vii. 3, 4. N.

8. They who had before seen him blind, is DewgHITES AUTOY TO προτερον οτι τυφλα ην. Vul. Qui viderunt eum prius quia mendicus erat. Conformable to this are the Al. Cam, and several other MSS. which, instead of rupa&, read #gocuits. Most of the ancient versions agree in this with the Vul. It makes no material difference in the story.

9. Others, He is like him, αλλοι δε, οτι όμοιον αυτω εσίν. Vul. Alii autem, Nequaquàm, sed similis est ei. In conformity to The Sy. and some

this, four MSS. instead of or read 8% x'. other versions agree also with the Vul.

16. Σχισμα την εν αυτοίς.

Diss. IX. P. III. § 2.

17. What sayest thou of him for giving thee sight? Evri Asγεις περί αυτό, ότι ήνοιξε σε τες οφθαλμός ; Ε. T. What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? Vul. Tu quid dicis de illo qui aperuit oculos tuos? It would appear that the La. trans.