would in fact be a misrepresentation of the author, and a gross perversion of the sense.

*

25. I shall add but one other example of the misinterpretation of a compound word, arising from the apparent, rather than the real import of its etymology. The word ouoloлans occurs twice in the New Testament. The first time is on the occasion of the miraculous cure of the lame man by Paul and Barnabas at Lystra. When the people would have offered sacrifice to the workers of this miracle, supposing them to be two of their gods, Jupiter and Mercury, the two apostles no sooner heard of their intention, than they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out and saying, (as in the common translation, Acts 14: 15). "Sirs, why do ye these things? we also are men of like passions with you," ouolonaveis vuiv. The other occasion of the word's occurring is where the apostle James said, as our translators render it, "Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, oμоioпavn's nuiv, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain," James 5:17. From which passages I have heard it gravely inferred, that a superiority over the passions is hardly to be expected from the influence even of the most divine religion, or the most distinguishing lights of the Spirit; since sacred writ itself seems, in this respect, to put Jews, Christians, and Pagans, nay, prophets, apostles, and idolatrous priests and people, all upon a level.

But this arises merely from the mistranslation of the word ouolonas, concerning which I beg leave to offer the following remarks: 1st, I remark, that it is found only twice in the New Testament, does not occur in the version of the Seventy, and but once in the apocryphal writings, (Wisd. 6: 3), where it is applied to the earth, in which there is nothing analogous to human passions, though there is some analogy to human sufferings and dissolution; and that therefore we have reason, agreeably to an observation lately made, (p. 101), to consider this term as affected by the idiom

I had occasion to consider a little this subject in another work, The Philosophy of Rhetoric, Book III. chap. i. § 2. part 1. I there took notice of a remark of Cornutus on these words of the first satire of Persius: "Sum petulanti splene cachinno:" which, as it is much to my present purpose, and not long, I shall here repeat. “Physici dicunt homines splene ridere, felle irasci, jecore amare, corde sapere, et pulmone jactari." To the sanie purpose I find, in a very ancient piece, called the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, supposed to be the work of a Christian of the first century, the following sentiment in the Testament of Naphthali, introduced for the sake of illustrating that God made all things good, adapting each to its proper use, καρδίαν εἰς φρονήσιν, ἥπαρ πρὸς θυμόν, χολήν πρὸς πικρίαν, εἰς γελώτα orinva, veggous eis navovoyiar. Grab. Spicil. patrum i. Secul. T. i. Ed. 2. p. 212. This, though differing a little from the remark made by the commentator on Persius, perfectly coincides with what regards the heart and the spleen.

VOL. I.

17

of the synagogue. 2dly, If we recur to classical use, we find that it implies no more than fellow-mortal, and has no relation to what, in our language, is peculiarly called passion: and, 3dly, That with this, the etymology, rightly understood, perfectly agrees. The primary signification of navos in Greek, and of the unclassical term passio in Latin, is suffering; the first from nάoyev, the second from pati, to suffer. Thence they are adopted to denote calamity, disease, and death; thence also they are taken sometimes to denote those affections of the mind which are in their nature violent, and are considered as implying pain and suffering; nay, the English word passion is in this manner applied, (but it is in a sort of technical language), to the death and sufferings of our Lord.

Now, as to the term duotonans, in the manner in which it is rendered by our interpreters, the argument employed by the apostles to the Lycaonians loses all its force and significance. The Pagans never denied that the gods whom they adored were beings. of like passions with themselves; nay, they did not scruple to attribute the most disgraceful and the most turbulent passions to their deities. And as little as any were the two divinities exempted whom they supposed Paul and Barnabas to be; but then they always attributed to them a total exemption from mortality and disease. It would have been, therefore, impertinent to say to idolaters, who mistook them for gods, "We are subject to the like passions with you;" for this their priests and poets had uniformly taught them both of Jupiter and of Mercury. But it was pertinent to say, "We are your fellow-mortals, as liable as you to disease and death;" for, if that was the case with the two apostles, the people would readily admit that they were not the gods they took them for. Indeed this was not only the principal, but I may almost say, the sole distinction they made between gods and men. As to irregular lusts and passions, they seem even to have ascribed them to the celestials in a higher degree, in proportion, as it were, to their superior power. And in regard to the application to Elijah, in the other passage quoted, let it not be thought any objection to the interpretation here given, that the prophet was translated, and did not die; for all that is implied in the apostle's argument is, that his body was naturally mortal and dissolvable as well as ours; a point which was never called in question, notwithstanding his miraculous deliverance from death. I shall only add, that the explanation here given is entirely conformable to the version of those passages in the Vulgate, and to that of all the other translations, ancient and modern, of any name.

26. From all that has been said on this topic it is evident, that, in doubtful cases, etymology is but a dangerous guide, and, though always entitled to some attention, never, unless in the total failure of all other resources, to be entirely rested in. From her tribunal there lies always an appeal to use, in cases wherein use can be dis

covered, whose decision is final, according to the observation of Horace,

Quem penes arbitrium est, et jus, et norma loquendi.

I have been the more particular on this head, becuase etymology seems to be a favorite with many modern interpreters, and the source of a great proportion of their criticisms. And indeed it must be owned, that of all the possible ways of becoming a critic in a dead or a foreign language, etymology is the easiest. A scanty knowledge of the elements, with the aid of a good lexicon, and a plausible fluency of expression, will be fully sufficient for the purpose. I shall add a few instances in this taste from some modern translations of the New Testament; though I am far from insinuating that the above-mentioned qualifications for criticising were all that the authors were possessed of. Some of them, on the contrary, have, in other instances, displayed critical abilities very respectable. But where is the man who on every occasion is equal to himself? The word onλayyvioon, Matt. 9: 36, is rendered by the gentlemen of Port Royal, Ses entrailles furent emues de compassion, on which Wynne seems to have improved in saying, His bowels yearned with compassion. Evdóznoav, Rom. 15: 26, 27, is rendered by the former, ont resolu avec beaucoup d'affection. Aéŋois ¿vepYouμévn, James 5: 16, is translated by Doddridge, Prayer wrought by the energy of the Spirit. Exnvoel, Rev. 7: 15, by Diodati, Tendera un padiglione. Xigorovýoavres, Acts 14: 23, by Beza, cum ipsi per suffragia creassent, and xingovoμnoovo, Matt. 5:5, haereditario jure obtinebunt. The Vulgate, too, sometimes without necessity, but more rarely, adopts the same paraphrastical method. For those examples above referred to which occur in the Gospel see the notes on the places.

DISSERTATION V.

OF THE PROPER VERSION OF SOME NAMES OF PRINCIPAL

IMPORT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

THE religious institution of which the Lord Jesus is the author, is distinguished in the New Testament by particular names and phrases, with the true import of which it is of great consequence that we be acquainted, in order to form a distinct apprehension of the nature and end of the whole. A very small deviation here may lead some into gross mistakes, and conceal from others, in a considerable degree, the spirit which this institution breathes, and the discoveries which it brings. I think it necessary, therefore, to examine this subject a little, in order to lay before the critical, the judicious, and the candid, my reasons for leaving, in some particulars which at first may appear of little moment, the beaten track of interpreters, and giving, it may be said, new names to known things, where there cannot be any material difference of meaning. The affectation of rejecting a word because old, (if neither obscure nor obsolete), and of preferring another because new, (if it be not more apposite or expressive), is justly held contemptible; but without doubt it would be an extreme on the other side, not less hurtful, to pay a greater veneration to names, that is, to mere sounds, than to the things signified by them. And surely a translator is justly chargeable with this fault, who, in any degree, sacrifices propriety, and that perspicuity which in a great measure flows from it, to a scrupulous (not to say superstitious) attachment to terms, which, as the phrase is, have been consecrated by long use. But of this I shall have occasion to speak more afterward.

The most common appellation given to this institution or religious dispensation, in the New Testament, is, Banıdría roï Orov, or ræv ovoavaiv; and the title given to the manifestation of this new state is most frequently τὸ Εὐαγγελίον τῆς Βασιλείας, etc. and sometimes, when considered under an aspect somewhat different, Kaivn Aanan. The great Personage himself, to whose administration the whole is entrusted, is, in contradistinction to all others, denominated o Xploros. I shall in this discourse make a few observations on each of the terms above-mentioned.

PART I.

OF THE PHRASE, Βασιλεία τοῦ Θεον, οι τῶν οὐρανῶν.

In the prase ή Βασιλεία τῶν Θεον, οι τῶν οὐρανῶν, there is a manifest allusion to the predictions in which this economy was revealed by the prophets in the Old Testament, particularly by the prophet Daniel, who mentions it, in one place, (2 : 44), as a kingdom, Basilela, “which the God of heaven would set up, and which should never be destroyed :" in another, (7: 13, 14), as a kingdom to be given, with glory, and dominion over all people, nations, and languages, to one like a son of man. And the prophet Micah, (4: 6, 7), speaking of the same era, represents it as a time when Jehovah, having removed all the afflictions of his people, would reign over them in Mount Zion thenceforth even forever. To the same purpose, though not so explicit, are the declarations of other prophets. To these predictions there is a manifest reference in the title, ἡ Βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, οι τῶν οὐρανῶν, or simply ἡ ΒασιAsia, given in the New Testament to the religious constitution which would obtain under the Messiah. It occurs very often, and is, if I mistake not, uniformly, in the common translation rendered kingdom.

2. That the import of the term is always either kingdom, or something nearly related to kingdom, is beyond all question; but it is no less so, that, if regard be had to the propriety of our own idiom, and consequently to the perspicuity of the version, the English word will not answer on every occasion. In most cases PaoiAtla answers to the Latin regnum. But this word is of more extensive meaning than the English, being equally adapted to express both our terms reign and kingdom. The first relates to the time or duration of the sovereignty; the second, to the place or country over which it extends. Now, though it is manifest in the Gospels, that it is much oftener the time than the place, that is alluded to, it is never, in the common version, translated reign but always kingdom. Yet the expression is often thereby rendered exceedingly awkward, not to say absurd. Use indeed softens every thing. Hence it is, that, in reading our Bible, we are insensible of those improprieties which, in any other book, would strike us at first hearing. Such are those expressions which apply motion to a kingdom, as when mention is made of its coming, approaching, and the like; but I should not think it worth while to contend for the observance of a scrupulous propriety, if the violation of it did not affect the sense, and lead the reader into mistakes. Now this is, in several instances, the certain consequence of improperly rendering Baoilɛia, kingdom.