as a class of inferior municipal magistrates; who might consequently be met with every where.

With regard to the call of Levie, which certainly took place the same day, the only question would be, whether it took place on the way to, or on the way from, the lake; a question, which St. Matthew, and St. Luke, may leave in doubt, but St. Mark decides in favour of the latter; shewing that Jesus, before he called Levi, had made an end of teaching. We may infer, therefore, that the cure of the paralytic happened early in the day, and the call of Levi comparatively late; for our Lord commonly resorted to the lake, for the purpose of teaching, in the morning whence, if the entertainment, on record in St. Mark and in St. Lukes, was given by Levi the same day, and in consequence of his call, it would be a supper; and this, as we shall see hereafter, would be the strongest argument that each of these occasions must have been distinct from Matthew ix. 10-15. On this question, however, I shall enter elsewhere, by itself. With the facts, hitherto considered, the Gospel accounts of the first year of our Saviour's ministry are brought to a close.

Matt. ix. 9. Mark ii. 13. 14. Luke v. 27. 28. Matt. xiii. 1. compared with Mark iv. 35. iii. 20. Luke v. 29. to the end.

f Luke v. 1. 5. Mark ii. 15-22.

DISSERTATION VIII.

PART III.

General prospective survey of our Lord's ministry in Galilee.

THE first intimation of the second year, which we possess, is the history of the walking through the corn-fields a; concerning which, I have shewn elsewhere b that the disposition, thus manifested, of our Lord's enemies to take exceptions against his conduct, or, what was the same thing, the conduct of his disciples, for supposed infractions of the sabbath, is a new feature in the gospel narrative; which, however frequently it may recur hereafter, cannot be traced farther back than the time of the transactions in Jerusalem, John v. 1-16. I argued from this coincidence that the feast there specified was the feast of the Passover, next in order after the same feast, John ii. 13. and before the same, John vi. 4. This Passover, therefore, and the incidents which ensue so soon upon it, discriminate the close of that one and the first year of our Lord's ministry, which might be called the acceptable year of the Lord; during which the rulers of the Jews either had not yet made up their minds to reject him, or not begun to conspire against his life; but from which time they did both: and this conclusion we may proceed to confirm a little more fully as follows.

The walking through the corn-fields in question is placed by St. Matthew and by St. Mark simply upon the sabbath; but by St. Luke on a sabbath which he calls the Σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον: a designation which ranks among the anat λeyóueva of the New Testament, and, like another of the same class, Tòv ÉTIOÚσic*, has created no small diffi

*The meaning of this term, to which an allusion has thus occurred, may be explained as follows. The

Matt. xii. 1-8. Mark ii. 23-28. Luke vi. 1-5.

b Diss. viii.

culty how to explain it. Knowing the great exactness of this Evangelist, I am persuaded it was not without design

The use of ἡ ἐπίουσα is just as common as the use of ἡ αὔριον— with the ellipsis in each instance of uépa-for to-morrow, or the morrow, in opposition to chμepov, to-day, or this day. Vide Acts vii. 26. xvi. 11. xx. 15. xxi. 18. xxiii. 11.

From the former of these, considered as a substantive, the adjective is in the kindred signification of of, or belonging to, the morrow, would be regularly derived. The words of the petition, then, are equivalent to these—τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν, τὸν τῆς ἐπιούσης, δὸς ἡμῖν onμepov, Give us this day our bread of the morrow: and the bread of the morrow is a genuine Hebraism for the bread which is wanted to day. The bread of to-day is in one sense the bread of the morrow; for it is the bread which must sustain us until the morrow. It is the bread, ὁ εἰς τὴν ἐπίουσαν—the bread which is wanted against the morrow. The change which St. Luke has made in the terms of St. Matthew, places this relation in a still clearer light: Τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθ ̓ ἡμέραν, xi. 3. Give us every day our bread of the morrow; or, more literally, Give us, for the day, our bread of the morrow.

While I am upon this subject of the anat λeyóμeva which occur in the gospels, I will take the liberty of adding one more, peculiar also to St. Luke; yet not so much from the peculiarity of the word, as from the peculiarity of the sense in which it is used. This is in the use of ȧváoτaow, ii. 34-the difficulty of understanding which text, so long as this word was considered to possess there its common signification of resurrection, has often been painfully felt by myself, and, probably, by others also. But the word ȧváσtaris possesses another sense, in which it is equivalent to avaσTáTwoss, overthrow or subversion; of which these are specimens from the best Greek classics.

Φράζων ἅλωσιν, Ἰλίου τ ̓ ἀνάστασιν.

Esch. Agam. 572.

Οὐδ ̓ ἐμάνθανον

Τρέφων δύ ̓ ἄτα, καπαναστάσεις θρόνων.

Soph. Ant. 532.

Μητροκτόνους τ' ἀγῶνας, οὓς οἱ 'μοὶ γάμοι

Θήσουσιν, οἴκων τ' Ατρέως ἀνάστασιν.

Eur. Troad. 367.

that he added a specific description to a note of time, which his predecessors had left indefinite; and, knowing his great

A multitude of others might be produced from Philo, Josephus, and the contemporary writers. Equally common are avaσtaτhp, ἀναστάτης, ἀνάστατος, and ἀναστατόω, in their analogous sense. The latter occurs thrice in the New Testament itself. Acts xvii. 6. xxi. 38. Gal. v. 12.

In this sense of overthrow, subversion, or prostration, must Luke ii. 34. eis tтwow kai áváotaow, be understood: I. Because the whole prophecy is ominous, and melancholy; predicting evil, and no good, both to the infant Christ-and to his mother the Virgin-and to the many in Israel; to which it would manifestly be repugnant, were ȧváστaris to retain its more usual meaning.

II. Because the same many in Israel are described as the subjects of both the Tσ and the ȧváσtaσi in question; that is, if the former means falling, and the latter rising again, the same many, who are the subjects of the falling, are the subjects also of the rising again and these terms being manifestly avτioTaxa, the one implies the undoing of the effect of the other. Hence, in whatever sense the many were to fall, in the contrary sense they would be to rise again. If their falling, then, predicts their unbelief, their rising again must predict their belief; that is, the prophecy would imply that the same many in Israel should both reject and believe in Christ-that Christ should be set to produce both the belief and the unbelief of the same persons-in which case, it would both involve a contradiction in terms, and be contrary to the matter of fact. Christ was certainly rejected by the many in Israel, and so far might be set to occasion their falling; but the same many persisted in the rejection, and so far never rose again from their fall.

III. Because πτῶσις is not absolutely tautologous with ἀνάστα

precision in the use of terms also, I am persuaded that, peculiar as this denomination may be, if a better, or one more expressive for his purpose in selecting it, could have been found, he would not have employed this.

The word is compounded of two elements, deúrepos and лgτоs, each of them alike significant; and, rendered according to the genius of the Greek language in its compound phraseology, it denotes, first after the second; and not, second after the first; primo-secundus, not, secundo-primus. This being the case, its very construction holds out the torch to its meaning, and confirms the conjecture of Scaliger, to whom the merit of the discovery is due: the ZáßßaTоV DEUTEρоπρштоv, here spoken of, must be some sabbath, considered as first, reckoned after something second, not as second, reckoned after something first.

By the original appointment of the Lawd, the computa

or the one, the cause-and the other, the effect. Persons must fall, before they can lie prostrate; and Tσ is falling-ȧváσta is prostration. In like manner, a person must often stumble, even before he can fall; and as Symeon implies here that the many must fall, before they should be prostrate, so does St. Paul, Rom. xi. 11. that they must stumble, before they should fall.

And this leads me to observe, lastly, that the whole prediction is nothing more than a prediction of the rejection of the Jews, because of their rejection of Christ-whom it sets forth as an obstacle, placed in their way, that so they might stumble over it, fall, and be prostrate. It agrees, therefore, with Rom. x. 32. where St. Paul is reasoning on the same dispensation. They, that is, the Jews, have stumbled at the stone of stumbling; and both are but the repetition of a more ancient description for the same causes and the same effects; Behold, I do set in Sion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence. This stone of stumbling, and rock of offence, was Christ-and the scandal of the cross-concerning which Symeon might consequently well say, Behold this child is set for the falling and subversion of many in Israel. Compare also 1 Pet. ii. 7. 8. which confirms this interpretation.

d Lev. xxiii. 10. 11. 15. 16. Deut. xvi. 9.