ness. had been speaking of the Israelites under Moses in the wilderThis sounds strangely in Christian ears. That the gospel had been preached to us, needs no affirmation to convince us; our only difficulty is to understand in what sense the gospel or religious institution of Jesus Christ was preached to those who lived and died before his incarnation. Yet it seems here to be supposed that we all know that the gospel was preached to them, but need to be informed that it has ever been preached to ourselves. Had it been said, "For unto them was the gospel preached as well as unto us," we should have discovered a meaning in the sentence, though we might have been at a loss to conceive in what respect it is defensible. But, as it stands, we are no less puzzled about the meaning than about the truth of the observation. Now the literal and proper translation of the word evayyedɩsoμaι in an instant removes every difficulty: "For unto us the good tidings are published which were published to them." What these good tidings are, is evident from the context. It is the promise of rest to God's people. It had been shown by the apostle in the preceding chapter, that the promise first made to the patriarchs was not, if I may so express myself, exhausted by the admission of the Israelites into the land of Canaan; that, on the contrary, we learn, from a threat in the Psalms against the rebellious, that there was still a nobler country and superior happiness men had to look for, of which the earthly Canaan was but a figure; that therefore we ought to take warning, from the example of those whose carcases fell in the wilderness, to beware lest we also forfeit through unbelief that glorious inheritance, the rest that yet remains for the people of God. Now, as the promises conveying the good news of rest were originally made to the fathers and to Israel according to the flesh, it was pertinent to take notice that we are equally interested in them, and that this good news of rest in a happy country afterward to be enjoyed, is declared to us as fully as ever it was to them. This sense, though clearly the apostle's, is totally effaced by the misinterpretation of the word εvnyyedioμevol. The Vulgate has, in this place, kept clear of the glaring impropriety in the English version. It has simply, "Etenim et nobis nuntiatum est quemadmodum et illis." Their common way, however, is different. 7. In other places most common translators have been misled, in this article, by implicitly following the Vulgate, which first set the bad example of translating those passages differently, in the Old Testament and in the New. In the passage quoted from Paul, and by him from Isaiah, Erasmus has very well preserved both the import of the word, and the conformity to the way in which it had been always justly rendered in the prophet: "Quam speciosi pedes annuntiantium pacem, annuntiantium bona!" To the same purpose Castalio, who has taken this way, which Erasmus had not done, of rendering also the words read by our Lord in the synagogue, "Me ad læta pauperibus nuntianda misit.” In the other places above referred to, Castalio follows the common method: "Pauperes evangelium docentur." Erasmus, in rendering the passage quoted from Matthew, has endeavoured to comprehend both ways: "Pauperes lætum accipiunt evangelii nuntium." He has in this been copied by the translator of Zuric. This method is quite paraphrastical. It does not savour of the simplicity of the evangelical style. If evayyeλov mean lætum nuntium, why did he add evangelii? And if it do not mean lætum nuntium, what had these words to do in the version? And if the Latin evangelium is of the same import with the Greek Evayyedov, the sentence is a mere tautology; as if he should say, "The poor receive the good news of glad tidings." And if the import of the adoptive Latin word evangelium be different, which is in fact the case, from that of the Greek, which is fully interpreted by the two words lætum nuntium, evangelii is a mere interpolation. The words of the original are general, and have equal latitude of signification with the Latin lætum nuntium, or the English good news. The addition of the word evangelii limits the sense in a way which the prophet's expression does not warrant. Nor does an interpreter's opinion concerning the completion of the prophecy, (however true, nay, however certain that opinion be,) entitle him to express the prediction with greater specialty of meaning than has been done by his author. Erasmus does not seem himself to have been entirely satisfied with this circumlocution, as he has rendered the same words in Luke in the common way, and in this also has been followed by the Tigurine translator. Beza has in all the passages above referred to (except that in which the Vulgate was right) followed the Vulgate, and has been followed by most of the early Protestant translators. 8. Some may imagine that I am here pleading for what on other occasions I have shown no partiality to, a translation of the words servilely literal or etymological. But let it be observed, that I am never for tracing in the translation the etymology of the words of the original, when the etymology does not give the just import of the words, according to the received use at the time. when the speeches or dialogues related were spoken, or when the book was composed. The Greek verb ɛvayyɛλw, when first used by the Evangelists, or the Hebrew bashar, when used by the Prophets, or the Syriac o sabar, as most probably used by our Lord and his apostles, conveyed to their countrymen only one and the same idea, which is precisely what the phrase to bring good tidings conveys to us. The appropriation of the word to the religious institution called the gospel is of a later date, and has gradually arisen out of the former usage. When etymology and use entirely coincide, as they often do, we cannot be too K 2 literal in our interpretations; when they differ, which does not seldom happen, the latter is to be followed, and not the former. In some respects similar, though apparently contrary to the above objection, is that of those who urge that our term gospel, in its Saxon etymology, is an exact counterpart to the Greek Evayyɛdov, being compounded of two words which, conjoined, denote good news. But the only pertinent question is, in this case, Is this the present meaning of the English word gospel? The first objectors would assign to the Greek word Evayyελiov, a sense which it had not during our Lord's ministry, but which it acquired soon after; the second would put upon the English word gospel a sense which it once had, but now has not. That this is the case is evident. Should one, for example, bring us word* that an end is put to hostilities, and that the powers at war have at last agreed upon a peace, ought we, in reporting this intelligence, to say, that one had come preaching to us the gospel of peace? Whoever should express himself thus, would, I am afraid, be thought to talk both absurdly and profanely. At least, he would be said to employ a very bold and far-fetched metaphor. Yet, not the metaphorical, but the proper expression, in the language of the apostles, would be, ευηγγελίσατο ἡμιν ειρηνην, or even εκήρυξεν ήμιν το · ευαγγέλιον της ειρηνης. Josephus, in his History of the Jewish War,t acquainting us that Titus sent to his father the good news of his taking Tarichea, says, Τιτος δε εκπεμψας τινα των ἱππεων ευαγγελίζεται τῳ πατρι το έργον. How would it sound in our ears to render it preached to his father the gospel of the action? Nothing can be a stronger evidence that the Greek phrases abovementioned, and the English preached the gospel, are not equivalent. All, therefore, that can be concluded from the primitive import of the word gospel, in a different though related language, is, that in the Anglo-Saxon, not the English version of the New Testament, the word ɛvayyeλiov was rightly so translated. Certain it is, however, that the error remarked in the English versions runs through all the modern translations, as well as the Vulgate which gave it birth, and is a remarkable instance of the truth of an observation formerly made, that sometimes, by consulting other versions, we may be confirmed in an error, instead of having it corrected. Indeed the old Latin translation has served in many things, as will appear more fully afterward, as a model to the translators in the west. 9. But though the noun Evayyeλtov was equally unequivocal with the verb Evayyedw, in its acceptation in the Old Testament, and commonly in the Evangelists, it must be owned that, from its original signification, it came insensibly afterward to vary and receive other meanings, in the way I shall now attempt to explain. The This was written towards the end of the American war. ↑ Lib. iii. ch. 34. word occurs very often in the New Testament, where, as it is a term of principal importance, its different significations deserves to be investigated with the greatest accuracy. That the radical signification, good news, is not only the most common, but, in some respect, a concomitant of every other meaning affixed to the word, must be evident to every one who is conversant with the original. Yet this allusive concomitance, if I may so express myself, is an advantage which cannot be obtained in a translation. As use, which governs language, will not bend to our inclinations, we must change the word in the version, when the import of the original name is so far different, that the same term, in another language, will not answer; yet, by changing it, we may lose the emphasis, which results from the allusion to the primitive and predominant application of the word. It will sometimes happen in a train of reasoning, where the same word is used in the original in different but related senses, that the change of the corresponding term in the version will hurt perspicuity, and yet may be necessary, because the same word in another language, whose idiom does not admit the same extent of signification, would hurt it more. 10. The first meaning of the word then in the New Testament, especially in the Gospels, is, as has been observed, good newsa signification which, though always implied, is not always what is chiefly intended; and therefore the word cannot, without a sacrifice of propriety, be uniformly rendered so. The name, from being expressive of an eminent quality in the dispensation introduced by the Messiah, and from being most frequently applied to it, came gradually to serve as a name for the dispensation itself. When it is thus employed, it is in our tongue properly rendered gospel. This is the second meaning of the word. Of the other senses which it has in Scripture, I shall take notice afterward. The two above-mentioned are the chief. And, first, I shall consider the cases wherein that which I call the literal and primitive signification ought to be retained. 11. First, then, this sense ought to be retained in the version when the word Evayyeλtov is construed with a noun serving to limit or explain its nature, as το ευαγγελιον της ειρηνης, the good news of peace, To Evayyedɩov τns Baσideas, the good news of the reign. It was observed, on the explanation of the word Barea that the Christian economy was foretold under the denomination of the reign of God, and the reign of Heaven; and I may add, in the typical language of the Psalms, the reign of David. Now there were, about the time of our Saviour's appearance, many who, from the predictions of the prophets and signs of the times, waited with pious confidence for the consolation of Israel, that is, for the coming of the Lord's Messiah, and the commencement of his glorious reign. This was the great subject of comfort to them amidst all the distresses and oppressions, personal or political under which they groaned. For, how erroneous soever the prevalent notion concerning the person of the Messiah, and the nature of his reign were, they agreed in this, that they exhibited him as a deliverer, in whose time the principal grievances of the nation were to be redressed; and, in consequence of this, the people looked forward with faith and hope, but not without a mixture of impatience, to that long-deferred, as they then thought, but happy era, the mission and consequent reign of the Messiah. Freedom to the slave, release to the prisoner, pardon to the convict, could not be more welcome, or afford matter of greater joy, than the tidings, well authenticated, that that blessed period, spoken of in raptures by their prophets, and described in the most glowing colours of eastern poetry, was at length arrived. Hence it is not improbable, that, even some time before the birth of Jesus, this much-wished event came to be denominated, by those who expected it, perhaps the majority of the nation, the good news, (being such in an eminent manner,) and more explicitly the good news of the reign of God, that is, of the new dispensation that would obtain under the promised Messiah. ερχόμενος, 12. A number of such-like phrases, borrowed from the Prophets and from the Psalms, relating to this event, had become current among the people, and were adopted both by our Lord and by John his harbinger. Thus the Messiah himself is styled o Eρxoμεvos, he that cometh, not he that should come, as it is less properly rendered in the common version, it being an abbreviation of that expression of the Psalmist, (cxviii. 26,)" He that cometh in the name of the Lord." Now, it is manifest that, when first the Baptist, then our Lord himself, and lastly his apostles, in his lifetime, announced publicly the approach of this reign, they announced what the generality of the people would immediately and without difficulty, apprehend. I do not mean that they would understand the nature of the reign or spiritual dominion to be established, for this is what few or none did, but that they would immediately understand it to relate to the accession of the Messiah, their great deliverer, to that sovereignty with which they had learnt from the prophets, and from the scribes, that he was to be invested. The dispensation, therefore, is properly ushered in with an authoritative call to all men to amend their lives, and prepare for the reign of the Messiah, the expectation and joy of God's people, just about to commence. Nothing therefore, could be more suitable, and though alarming to the wicked, nothing could be more consolatory to the pious, at the time the nation was in subjection to a foreign and oppressive yoke, than such seasonable information. Nothing, consequently, can be better accommodated to what must have been the sentiments and prospects of the people at that time, or can more accurately express the full import of the original, κηρύσσων το ευαγγέλιον της βασιλειας του Θεου, than this literal and plain version, "Pro |