For as to the words Καὶ οὐ μὴ τιμήσῃ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ, ἢ τὴν unrépa aúrou, Matt. xv. 5. they are no part of our Saviour's observations, as such, but of the same traditionary quotation, which began at úμeïs dè λéyers—just before. Ye say that, whosoever shall say to his father, or to his mother, Be it dapov, whatever might be useful to thee of mine, he shall by no means honour his own father, or his own mother. The structure of the original proves this: the redundant xal, which has given so much trouble to the critics, is a clear mark of a quotation; being neither more nor less than the Hebrew vau redundant. It will follow, on this principle, that in St. Mark's account, between vii. 12. and vii. 11. after pλns, there is an aσά15-which must be filled up from St. Matthew's. And, indeed, the direct form of verse 12. compared with the indirect of verse 11. cannot be otherwise explained. Ye say, if a man does so and so and ye no longer suffer him: which is an anacoluthon. The assertion, corresponding to the assumption, would, thus, evidently be wanting—and we must have understood it, though it were not expressed: If a man does so and so, he shall not do so and so-and ye no longer suffer him.

With regard to the rest of the narrative, or Matt. xv. 10-20. Mark vii. 14-23. there is little or no difficulty. The brief, idiomatic, and sententious, form of Matt. xv. 10. 11. in the address to the multitude, may be considered a proof that these were our Saviour's very words; which St. Mark, for the sake of avoiding the ambiguity of the expressions coming out of the mouth, or, going into the mouth, has changed for what they were intended to denote, coming out of a man, or, going into a man-coming out of the heart, or, going into the heart. It is possible, however, that our Lord might have first pronounced Matt. xv. 11. and then added Mark vii. 15. 16; connecting them by a γάρ. Οὐδὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἔξωθεν...ἀκουέτω.

The remainder of the conversation, that is, with the disciples in private, is most easily to be adjusted together. I will observe only that axunv, Matt. xv. 16. is simply equiva

lent to outw, Mark vii. 18: after which they proceed, as the Harmony will shew in its proper place, almost in common, to the end. I shall conclude, therefore, with the following general remarks.

First, as I observed on a former occasion, St. Mark, who throughout this account supplies so much more original matter, did not write as the mere abbreviator of St. Matthew. Secondly, premising it all obviously for the benefit of Gentile readers, he must have written after the Gospel had begun to be preached, and probably had been some time preached, to the Gentiles. Thirdly, speaking of the sect of the Pharisees, and of such and such customs, as still in being, he wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem. Fourthly, St. Luke, who records elsewherew an incident very similar to that which gave occasion to this whole discourse, and, though writing professedly for a Gentile, premises no similar explanation, may justly be supposed to carry St. Mark's Gospel-which does supply this explanation-along with his own; and, therefore, to have written after St. Mark; as St. Mark, for a like reason, must have written after St. Matthew.

w xi. 38.

DISSERTATION XIV.

On the first instance of the dispute among the disciples concerning precedence.

As I have considered it necessary to detach Mark ix. 33— end, and Luke ix. 46–50. (which, as far as it extends, is obviously the same with that) from Matt. xviii. 1-9. and much more from the remainder of this chapter, the grounds of the separation require to be distinctly stated.

For this purpose, the course of events needs not to be traced further back than to the time of the return to Capernaum, which is seen to have now taken place. While our Lord, accompanied by the Twelve, was still on his way to that city, but before they were actually arrived at it, we learn, from the express testimony of St. Mark, and the implicit testimony of St. Luke, that a dispute occurred among them on the subject of preeminence-which, though known to Jesus at the time, he did not, however, think proper to reprove at the time.

Again; when they were now come to the city, but not yet arrived at the house, to which they were going, in the city, we learn, from the account of St. Matthewa, that the collectors of the didrachma applied to Peter-apart from Jesus, if not from the rest of the Twelve-with the enquiry, Doth not, or, will not, your Master pay the didrachma? This application to Peter, in particular, might be the effect of accident; or, what is more probable, and seems to be implied in the question itself, it was made to him in the name of the other Apostles, as all being the regular attendants of Jesus-and, perhaps, to him, as holding a certain rank or precedence among that body. This circumstance, also, though known to our Lord, at the time when it happened, as well as the former, was not noticed by him at the time, any more than the other.

When, however, they were all come into private, before Peter had informed him of this application, and, consequently, before any other business could have been transacted, he shewed him, in the manner recorded Matt. xvii. 25-end, that he was already aware of it—and by Peter's own admission, who had so recently acknowledged him as the Son of Godb, ought to have been considered by him exempt from a tribute, imposed for the service of God. That he might not, however, give unnecessary offence, he sends him to the lake, to angle for a fish-in whose mouth he should find a stater-and with this he instructs him to pay the tax in Jesus' behalf, and in his own.

This coupling of Peter with Jesus, in the proposed payment, seems to have been a necessary consequence of the piece of money being a stater—and no especial compliment to that disciple himself for the value of the stater amounting to two didrachma, or an entire shekel, it was just equivalent to the requisite tribute from two persons. And that the coin, provided for the purpose, was a stater might be due, in like manner, to the circumstance that there was no single coin in circulation, exactly equal to two drachmæ, or the half shekel of the sanctuary. Hence, had any other Apostle, and not Peter, been sent upon this errand, no doubt he would have been commissioned to pay the tax for himself and for Jesus in conjunction, as well as Peter.

I have made this observation merely because some commentators have thought that, by the working of a special miracle in his behalf, as well as of Jesus, a kind of distinction having been conferred upon Peter, it might have produced the dispute, which afterwards occurred among the disciples. Now, it should be remembered that Capernaum, whence Peter was despatched, was at some distance from the lake that he has to go to the lake, and to return thence and to find out the collectors of the tribute, and to discharge his commission to them-before he can come back to the house. There was room, then, for much to have transpired in this house, during his absence, at which

he could not possibly have been present-at least throughout it—and something of this kind seems actually to have taken place.

For all the particulars, connected with the history of the tribute money, are related by St. Matthew only; whose account is such as clearly to imply that nothing else could have preceded in the house, after their arrival in it, before this event. Yet St. Mark expressly, and St. Luke by implication, do each of them shew that, as soon as Jesus, with the disciples, was come into the house, he enquired about the subject of the dispute by the way. This enquiry, then, could not have preceded the departure of Peter; but took place either during his absence, or after his return.

Now the disciples, according to the same authority, though questioned by our Lord himself, made no answer to the enquiry as so put; because, as we are also informed, the subject of the dispute had been which was the greatest; that is, because, for some reason or other, they did not venture to acknowledge the subject of the dispute. But, according to St. Matthew, xviii. 1. either then, or some time after, they came to Jesus of their own accord, to prefer the very same question. And if this fact should appear inconsistent with that, xviii. 21-a little further on-may assist us to explain the inconsistency.

Peter is there mentioned as present, and as a hearer of the discourse which had just been pronounced; a discourse, which it is needless to observe arose solely and directly out of the question, xviii. 1. itself. If so, Peter must have been present, when that question was put; and, consequently, he had executed his commission, and returned to the house, before that question was put. When the disciples, therefore, were interrogated by our Lord himself, and made him no answer, (which must have been almost as soon as they were got into the house,) Peter would be away-when they came to him, with the same question, of their own accord, he must have been returned. The two occasions, therefore, and whatever else arose in consequence of each, would be entirely distinct: when Jesus put his question, Peter was