Imagini ale paginilor

of words. I further conclude, that if we were to proceed in the way proposed by the former of these critics, and to expunge whatever in Scripture we dislike, or imagine might be spared, it is impossible to say what would be left at last of the divine oracles. The remarker, if he would act consistently ought also to throw out as a marginal reading κηρύσσων το ευαγγελιον, which is coupled with didaσkov in the two places of Matthew referred to. We may not be able to discover the meaning or the use of a particular expression; for who can discover every thing? but let us not be vain enough to think, that what we do not discover, no other person ever will.*

15. The only other word in the New Testament that can be said to be nearly synonymous with either of the preceding, is KаTAYYƐλλw, annuncio, I announce, publish, or promulgate. It is an intermediate term between κηρυσσω and ευαγγελιζομαι. In regard to the manner it implies more of public notice than is necessarily implied in ευαγγελιζομαι, but less than is denoted by κηρυσσω. In regard to the subject, though commonly used in a good sense, it does not express quite so much as evayyedioμai, but it expresses κηρύσσω, which generally refers to some one remarkable fact or event, that may be told in a sentence or two. Accordingly, both these words, καταγγελλω and ευαγγελιζομαι, come nearer to a coincidence in signification with διδασκω than κηρύσσω does.

more than

16. The word evayyeλiorns rendered evangelist, occurs only thrice in the New Testament. First in the Acts, (xxi. 8,) where Philip, one of the seven deacons, is called an evangelist; secondly, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, (iv. 11,) where evangelists are mentioned after apostles and prophets, as one of the offices which our Lord, after his ascension, had appointed for the conversion of infidels, and the establishment of order in his church; and lastly, in the injunction which Paul gives Timothy to do the work of an evangelist, 2 Tim. iv. 5. This word has also obtained another signification, which, though not scriptural, is very ancient. As Evayyedov sometimes denotes any of the four narratives of our Lord's life and sufferings which make a part of the canon, so evangelist means the composer. Hence Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are called evangelists.

17. As to the word didaσkev, it may suffice to observe, that it can hardly ever be wrong translated into Latin by the verb docere, or into English by the verb to teach; and that it was mentioned in the title, not on account of any difficulty occasioned by it, but solely for the sake of suggesting my purpose to show, that, far from being coincident, it has not even so great an affinity in signification to the other words there mentioned as is commonly supposed. But, as the supposed coincidence or affinity always arises from mistaking the exact import of the other words, and not from any error in regard to this, a particular explanation of this term is not necessary.

* Diss. XII. Part ii. sect. 13, 14.



I INTEND in this Dissertation to offer a few remarks on those titles of honour which most frequently occur in the New Testament, that we may judge more accurately of their import, by attending, not only to their peculiarities in signification, but also to the difference in the ancient Jewish manner of applying them, from that which obtains among the modern Europeans, in the use of words thought to be equivalent.



NOTHING can be more evident than that, originally, titles were every-where the names either of offices or of relations, natural or conventional, insomuch that it could not be said of any of them, as may be said with justice of several of our titles at present, those especially called titles of quality, that they mark neither office nor relation, property nor jurisdiction, but merely certain degrees of hereditary honour, and rights of precedency. Relation implies opposite relation in the object. Now, when those persons for whose behoof a particular office was exercised, and who were consequently in the opposite relation, were very numerous, as a whole nation, province, or kingdom, the language commonly had no correlate to the title expressing the office; that is, it had not a term appropriated to denote the people who stood in the opposite relation. But when there was only a small number, there was a special term for denoting the relative connexion in which these also stood. Thus the terms, king, judge, prophet, pontiff, hardly admitted any correlative term but the general one of people. But this does not hold invariably. With us, the correlate to king is subject. In like manner, offices which are exercised, not statedly, in behalf of certain individuals, but variously and occasionally, in behalf sometimes of one sometimes of another, do not often require titles correlative. Of this kind are the names of most handicrafts, and several other professions. Yet with us the physician has his patients, the lawyer his clients, and the tradesman his customers. In most other cases of relation, whether arising from nature or from convention, we find title tallying with title exactly. Thus, father has son, husband has

[ocr errors]

wife, uncle has nephew, teacher has disciple or scholar, master has


2. I admit, however, that in the most simple times, and the most ancient usages with which we are acquainted, things did not remain so entirely on the original footing, as that none should be called father but by his son or his daughter, none should be saluted master but by his servant, or styled teacher but by his scholar. There is a progression in every thing relating to language, as, indeed, in all human sciences and arts. Necessity first, and ornament afterwards, lead to the extension of words beyond their primitive signification. All languages are scanty in the beginning, not having been fabricated beforehand to suit the occasions which might arise. Now, when a person, in speaking, is sensible of the want of a proper sign for expressing his thought, he much more naturally recurs to a word which is the known name of something that has an affinity to what he means, than to a sound which, being entirely new to the hearers, cannot, by any law of association in our ideas, suggest his meaning to them. Whereas, by availing himself of the name of something related, by resemblance or otherwise, to the sentiment he wants to convey, he touches some principle in the minds of those whom he addresses, which (if they be persons of any sagacity) will quickly lead them to the discovery of his meaning. Thus, for expressing the reverence which I feel for a respectable character, in one who is also my senior, I shall naturally be led to style him father, though I be not literally his son; to express my submission to a man of greater merit and dignity, I shall call him master, though I be not his servant; and to express my respect for one of more extensive knowledge and erudition, I shall denominate him teacher, though I be not his disciple. Indeed, these consequences arise so directly from those essential principles of the imagination uniformly to be found in human nature, that deviations, in some degree similar, from the earliest meanings of words, are to be found in all tongues, ancient and modern. This is the first step from pure simplicity.

3. Yet, that the difference in laws, sentiments, and manners, which obtain in different nations, will occasion in this, as well as in other things, considerable variety, is not to be denied. In Asia, a common sign of respect to superiors was prostration: In Europe, that ceremony was held in abhorrence. What I have remarked above, suits entirely the progress of civilization in the Asiatic regions. The high-spirited republicans of Greece and Rome appear, on the contrary, long to have considered the title kyrios, or dominus, given to a man, as proper only in the mouth of a slave. Octavius, the emperor, when master of the world, and absolute in Rome, seems not to have thought it prudent to accept it. He very justly marked the precise import of the term, according to the usage which then obtained, in that

noted saying ascribed to him, Imperator militum, Princeps, reiTo assume this title, therefore, he publica, Dominus servorum. considered as what could not fail to be interpreted by his people as an indirect, yet sufficiently evident, manner of calling them his slaves; for such was then the common import of the word servus. But in despotic countries, and countries long accustomed to kingly government, it did not hurt the delicacy of the greatest subject to give the title Dominus to the prince.

4. That such honorary applications of words were quite common among the Jews, is evident to every body who has read the Bible with attention. In such applications, however, it must be noted, that the titles are not considered as strictly due from those who give them. They are considered rather as voluntary expressions of respect in him who gives the title, being a sort of tribute, either to civility, or to the personal merit of him on whom it is bestowed. But, to affix titles to places and offices, to be given by all who shall address those possessed of such places and offices, whether they that give them stand in the relation correspondent to the title or not, or whether they possess the respect or esteem implied or not, is comparatively a modern refinement in the civil intercourse of mankind, at least in the degree to which it is carried in Europe. This is the second remove from the earliest and simplest state of society.

5. There remains a third, still more remarkable, to which I find nothing similar in ancient times. We have gotten a number of honorary titles, such as duke, marquis, earl, viscount, baron, baronet, &c., which it would be very difficult, or rather impossible to define; as they express, at present, neither office nor relation, but which, nevertheless, descend from father to son, are regarded as part of a man's inheritance, and, without any consideration of merit, or station, or wealth, secure to him certain titular honours and ceremonial respect, and which are of a more unalienable nature than any other property, (if they may be called property,) real or personal, that he possesses. I am sensible, that those modern titles were all originally names of offices, as well as the ancient. Thus, duke was equivalent to commander; marquis or margrave, (for they differed in different countries,) to guardian of the marches; count, landgrave, alderman, or earl, to sheriffwhence the shire is still denominated county; viscount, to deputysheriff. Vicecomes, accordingly, is the Latin word in law-writs for the officiating sheriff.* When the principal in any kind of office becomes too rich and too lazy for the service, the burden naturally devolves upon the substitute; and the power of the constituent, through disuse, comes at last to be antiquated. But so much was the title once connected with the office, that when the king intended to create a new earl, he had no other expedient than to erect a certain territory into a county, earldom, or * Blackstone's Commentary, Introd. § 4, and b. i. ch. xii. § 3, 4.

sheriffdom, (for these words were then synonymous,) and to bestow the jurisdiction of it on the person honoured with the title. The baron, though this name was anciently common to all the nobility, was judge or lord of a smaller and subordinate jurisdiction, called a barony. In process of time, through the vicissitudes that necessarily happen in the manners of the people, and in their methods of government, the offices came gradually to be superseded, or at least to subsist no longer on the same footing of hereditary possession. But when these had given place to other political arrangements, the titles, as a badge of ancestry, and of the right to certain privileges which accompanied the name, were, as we may naturally suppose, still suffered to remain. It hardly now answers the first end, as a badge of ancestry, in those countries where there are often new creations; but it answers the second, and besides ennobles their posterity. In consequence of these differences, the titles are regarded as due to him who succeeds to them alike from all men, and that without any consideration of either personal or official dignity, or even of territorial possessions. Thus, one who is entitled to be called my lord, is in this manner addressed, not only by his inferiors but by his equals, nay, even his superiors. The King himself, in addressing his nobles, says My Lords.

6. It was totally different among the Hebrews, I might have said, among the ancients in general. The Greek word kupios, κύριος, kyrios, answering to the Hebrew 8 adon, to the Latin dominus, and to the words lord or master in English, was not originally given, unless by a servant to his master, by a subject to his sovereign, or, in brief, by one bound to obey to the person entitled to command. Soon, however, it became common to give it to a superior, though the person who gave it had no dependence upon him; and if sometimes it was, through complaisance, bestowed on an equal, still the man who gave the title was considered as modestly putting himself on the footing of an inferior and servant, inasmuch as the title was invariably understood to express, not only superior rank, but even authority, in the person on whom it is conferred, over him who gave it. We have examples in Scripture which put it beyond a doubt, that for any man to address another by the title my lord, and to acknowledge himself that person's servant, were but different ways of expressing the same thing, Kupios and Sovλos being correlative terms. The courteous form of addressing with them, when they meant to be respectful, (for it was not used on all occasions,) was not that of most modern Europeans, who, in using the second personal pronoun, employ the plural for the singular; nor that of the Germans, who change both person and number, making the third plural serve for the second singular; but it was what more rarely could occasion ambiguity than either of these-the substitution

* See Spelman's Glossary on the different names.

« ÎnapoiContinuați »