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 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 discovered, 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, because etymology seems to be a favourite 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 soλayxvioen, Matt. ix. 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. EvdoKησav, Rom. xv. 26, 27, is rendered by the former, ont resolu avec beaucoup d'affection. Aɛnois evepyovμevn, James v. 16, is translated by Doddridge, Prayer wrought by the energy of the Spirit. Eknvwoɛl, Rev. vii. 15, by Diodati, Tendera un padiglione. Xaporovnσavτeç, Acts xiv. 23, by Beza, cum ipsi per suffragia creassent, and kλnpovoμnoovoi, Matt. v. 5, hæreditario 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, ἡ Βασιλεια του Θεου, οι των ουρανων; and the title given to the manifestation of this new state is most frequently το Ευαγγελιον της Βασιλειας, &c. and sometimes, when considered under an aspect somewhat different, Kain Alanкn. The great Personage himself, to whose administration the whole is entrusted, is, in contradistinction to all others, denominated & Xploтoç. I shall in this discourse make a few observations on each of the terms above mentioned.

PART I.

OF THE PHRASE ἡ Βασιλεια του Θεου, OR των ουρανών. In the phrase ἡ Βασιλεια του Θεου, οι των ουρανων, there is a manifest allusion to the predictions in which this economy was re

vealed by the prophets in the Old Testament, particularly by the prophet Daniel, who mentions it, in one place, (ii. 44,) as a kingdom, Baoilla, "which the God of heaven would set up, and which should never be destroyed:" in another, (vii. 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, (iv. 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 for ever. 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 Βασιλεια του Θεου, οι των ουρανων, or simply Baσidea, 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 βασιλεια 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 Baoilla, kingdom.

3. When βασιλεια means reign, and is followed by των ουραvwv, the translation kingdom of heaven evidently tends to mislead the reader. Heaven, thus construed with kingdom, ought in our language, by the rules of grammatical propriety, to denote the region under the kingly government spoken of. But finding, as we advance, that this called the kingdom of heaven is actually upon the earth, or as it were travelling to the earth, and almost arrived, there necessarily arises such a confusion of ideas as clouds the text, and by consequence weakens the impression it would

otherwise make upon our minds. It may be said, indeed, that the import of such expressions in Scripture is now so well known that they can hardly be mistaken. But I am far from thinking that this is the case. Were it said only that they are become so familiar to us, that, without ever reflecting on the matter, we take it for granted that we understand them; there is no sentiment to the justness of which I can more readily subscribe. But then the familiarity, instead of answering a good, answers a bad purpose, as it serves to conceal our ignorance even from ourselves. It is not, therefore, the being accustomed to hear such phrases, that will make them be universally, or even generally apprehended by the people. And to those who may have heard of the exposition commonly given of them, the conception of the kingdom of heaven, as denoting a sort of dominion upon the earth, a conception which the mind attains indirectly by the help of a comment, is always feebler than that which is conveyed directly by the native energy of the expression. Not but that the words Baoiλeia Twv ovρavwv are sometimes rightly translated kingdom of heaven, being manifestly applied to the state of perfect felicity to be enjoyed in the world to come. But it is equally evident that this is not always the meaning of the phrase.

4. There are two senses wherein the word heaven in this expression may be understood. Either it signifies the place so called, or it is a metonymy for God, who is in Scripture, sometimes by periphrasis, denominated "he that dwelleth in heaven." When the former is the sense of the term ovpavo, the phrase is properly rendered the kingdom of heaven; when the latter, the reign of heaven. Let it be remarked in passing, in regard to the sense last given of the word oupavo, as signifying God, that we are fully authorized to affirm it to be scriptural. I should have hardly thought it necessary to make this remark, if I had not occasionally observed such phrases as the assistance of heaven, and addresses to heaven, criticised and censured in some late per- . formances, as savouring more of the Pagan or the Chinese phraseology than of the Christian. That they are perfectly conformable to the latter, must be clear to every one who reads his Bible with attention. Daniel, in the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's days, says, (iv. 26,) "Thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee, after that thou shalt have known that the Heavens do rule." The prophet had said in the preceding verse, "Seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men." Thus he who is denominated the Most High in one verse, is termed the Heavens in the following. The Psalmist Asaph says of profligates, "They set their mouth against the Heavens," Psalm Ixxiii. 9; that is, they vent blasphemies against God. The phrase in the New Testament, Baoiλeia Twv ουρανων, is almost as common as ἡ βασίλεια του Θεου. And though it may be affirmed that the regimen in the one expresses the