ing that may be remarked between this word and knovoσw, already explained. The former always refers to a message or news in itself good and agreeable, the latter does not require this quality in the subject. What would come under the denomination of Kakayyɛλia, bad news, may be the subject of knoνyμa, proclamation, as well as good news. We say, with equal propriety, κηρύσσειν τόλεμον as KEL Ev, to proclaim war as to proclaim peace. Nay, Jonah's cry through the streets of Nineveh, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown," is denominated кnovyμа both in the Old Testament and in the New. But this is nowhere, nor indeed could be, styled Evayyɛdiov, glad tidings. A second difference is, the word knovσow implies that the notification is made openly to many, whereas the word evayyeλısoμai may not improperly be used, in whatever way the thing be notified, publicly or privately, aloud or in a whisper, to one or to many. Thus, in regard to the important and agreeable message delivered by Gabriel to Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, when the latter was alone in the sanctuary offering incense, the archangel says, "I am sent," evayyediaσdai σol Taurα, "to show thee these glad tidings," Luke i. 19. And it is said of Philip, when in the chariot with only the Ethiopian eunuch, eunyyeλioaTO aνтy Toν Inσovv, "He preached to him Jesus," Acts viii. 35. The term preached, by which our translators have rendered the word, does not in this place reach the meaning of the Greek word, nor does it answer to the ordinary acceptation of the English. It does not reach the meaning of the Greek, as the quality of the subject, its being good news, is not suggested. Nor is the English word proper here; for this teaching was neither public, nor have we reason to believe it was a continued discourse. It is much more probable that it was in the familiar way of dialogue, in which he had begun, that Philip continued to instruct this stranger in the doctrine of Christ. Another distinction seems to arise from the original import of the words, though I will not say that it is uniformly observed. It is, that the word evayyeλw relates to the first information that is given to a person or people, that is, when the subject may be properly called news. Thus, in the Acts, it is frequently used for expressing the first publication of the gospel in a city or village, or amongst a particular people. In regard to the word Kηovσow, there is no impropriety in speaking of the same thing as repeatedly proclaimed among the same people. Thus the approach of the reign of God was, in fact, proclaimed to the Jews in our Saviour's lifetime, first, by the Baptist, then by our Lord himself, afterwards by the apostles, and lastly by the seventy disciples. I shall only add, that the word evayyediloμai is sometimes, though not often, used more indefinitely for teaching and preaching in general, Acts xiv. 15; Gal. i. 23. In one place, VOL. I. (Rev. x. 7,) it is rendered by our translators declared. But in the Gospels it always preserves the primitive signification. When, therefore, we find it there coupled with the verb Sidaoкw, we are not to understand the terms as synonymous, but as intended to acquaint us that the teaching mentioned was accompanied, or perhaps introduced, with an intimation of the approaching reign of the Messiah. μενου The most obvious things are sometimes the most apt to be overlooked by ingenious men. We should otherwise think it unaccountable, that men eminent for their attainments in sacred literature, should be so far misled by the ordinary meaning of a phrase in the translation, as entirely to forget the proper import of the original expression. I am led to this reflection by observing, in a late publication, the following remark on Luke xx. 1: “ Διδάσκοντος αυτου-και ευαγγελιζόμενου. Why this specification of preaching the gospel? Did he not always preach the gospel when he taught the people? Hence I conclude, that Kaι Evayyedioμεvov should be thrown out as a marginal reading, founded perhaps on Matt. iv. 23, or ix. 35." Doubtless, according to the import of the English phrase, he always preached the gospel when he taught, inasmuch as his teaching consisted either in explaining the doctrine, or enforcing the precepts of the Christian religion, which is all that we mean by "preaching the gospel." But his teaching, though it was sometimes, was not always (as is manifest from his whole history) attended with the intimation above-mentioned, which, in that history, is the only thing implied in Evayyediloμevov. A close version of the words removes every difficulty: "One day, as he was teaching the people in the temple, and publishing the good tidings." In my judgment, this last circumstance was the more worthy of being specified here by the evangelists, as it has probably been that which then incensed the chief priests, and prompted them to demand of him in so peremptory a manner to show his warrant for what he did. To that the reign of the Messiah was about to commence, would be accounted by them very presumptuous, and might be construed into an insinuation that he himself was the Messiah, a position which we find them soon after pronouncing blasphemy: and in any case they would consider the declaration, (which was well known not to originate from them,) as an attempt to undermine their authority with the people. say Hence I also will take the liberty to conclude, that the common way of rendering the Greek verb by the aid of consecrated words, not only into English, but into Latin, and most modern languages, has produced an association in the minds of men strong enough to mislead critical as well as ordinary readers; else men of letters, like Dr. Owen and Mr. Bowyer, had never fancied that there is here either a tautology, or so much as a redundancy Bowyer's Conjectures. 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 Sidαoкwv 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 KATAYуEλλw, 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 κηρύσσω. In regard to the subject, though commonly used in a good sense, it does not express quite so much as evayyeλioμaι, but it expresses more than κηρύσσω, which generally refers to some one remarkable fact or event, that may be told in a sentence or two. Accordingly, both these words, καταγγέλλω and ευαγγελιζομαι, come nearer to a coincidence in signification with διδασκω than κηρύσσω does. 16. The word vayyeλorns 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 didaσktv, 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 explana-tion of this term is not necessary. * Diss. XII. Part ii. sect. 13, 14. DISSERTATION VII. INQUIRY INTO THE IMPORT OF CERTAIN TITLES OF HONOUR OCCURRING IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 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. PART I. 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 wife, uncle has nephew, teacher has disciple or scholar, master has servant. 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 |