18. Paul and Silas, who cannot be supposed superior in figure and appearance to ordinary mechanics, were, after having been publicly stripped, beaten, imprisoned, and put in the stocks, accosted with the title kupio, lords, though the common translation has it sirs; Acts xvi. 30. But it was given by a jailor, and, it may be added, after a miraculous interposition of heaven in their favour. To satisfy us, however, that this last circumstance was not necessary to entitle mean people to be addressed in this manner by those whose condition was equally mean or meaner, we may observe, that the same title Kupu is given to Philip, John xii. 21, one of the apostles from Bethsaida of Galilee, who was probably not above the rank of a fisherman. The persons who gave it were Greeks, doubtless of the lowest sort, who had come to Jerusalem to worship. With us, the title lord, given to one who by law or custom has no right to it, is a sort of injury to the whole order to whom the constitution of their country has given an exclusive privilege to be so denominated. With them it could affect no third person whatever, as it implied merely that the person spoken to was, by the speaker, acknowledged his superior.

It may appear to some an objection against this account of the relative import of the words adon and kyrios, that in the English Bible we find the title lord, in one place of the sacred history, used, as we should use the word nobleman or grandee, for denoting a person of a certain determinate rank. Thus we are informed of a lord on whose hand king Jehoram leaned, who is mentioned thrice under this description in the same chapter, 2 Kings vii. 2, 17, 19. I acknowledge that if the Hebrew word there were adon, and the Greek kyrios, it would suffice to overturn what has been here advanced in regard to the difference between the ancient use of such titles and the modern: but it is not adon and kyrios: in neither language is it a title of honour, but a mere name of office. In Hebrew it is wow shalish, in Greek TotoTarns, tristates, a word which occurs often in other places, and is never translated lord, but always captain, as it ought to have been rendered here. The Vulgate interprets it, not dominus quidam, but very properly unus de ducibus. Again, in the common version, we find mention of the king and his lords, (Ezra viii. 25,) precisely in the manner wherein an English historian would speak of his sovereign and the peers of the realm. But neither here is the Hebrew word adon, nor the Greek kyrios. It is sharaio in the former, and οἱ ἄρχοντες αυτου in the latter. In the Vulgate it is rendered principes ejus, and ought to have been in English his chief men, or his principal officers. Whereas 8 adonaio in Hebrew, oi KUρIO AUTOν in Greek, and domini ejus in Latin, would have meant his masters, or those whom he served, a sense quite foreign from the purpose. But though our word lords, used in the above quotations, is not unsuitable to the English style, it would have been better, in such instances, to conform to the Hebrew idiom,

for a reason which will appear from the next paragraph. Herod is said, by our translators, to have made a supper to his lords, Mark vi. 21. The word is μeyisaoiv, grandees. I shall only add, that the term lords is also used in the English translation, where the corresponding words, both in Hebrew and in Greek, are names of offices equivalent to rulers, magistrates, governors of provinces: and therefore nothing can be concluded from the application of this title in the version.

8. Now, with the aid of the above observations on the relative value of honorary titles among the ancients, we may discover the full force of our Saviour's argument in regard to the dignity of the Messiah. The modern use in this particular is so different from the ancient, that, without knowing this circumstance, and reflecting upon it, a proper apprehension of the reasoning is unattainable. I shall give the whole passage as rendered in this version. "While so many Pharisees were present, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of the Messiah? whose son should he be? They answered, David's. He replied, How then_doth David, speaking by inspiration, call him his Lord? The Lord, saith he, said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool. If the Messiah were David's son, would David call him his Lord? To this none of them could answer;" Matt. xxii. 41, &c. They were confounded; yet from our very different usages, whereby such titles, if due at all, are due alike from superiors as from inferiors and equals, we cannot easily, at first, feel the strength of this argument. I have observed already, that an independent monarch, such as David, acknowledged no lord or master but God. Far less would he bestow this title on a son or descendant. It was customary, because respectful, and in the natural order of subordination, for a son so to address his father. Accordingly, in the parable of the man who had two sons, the elder son is thus represented as answering his father, Eyw KUрIE, Matt. xxi. 30. It is the same word which is commonly rendered lord, but in this place sir. The same title was given by Rachel to her father Laban, when he came into her tent in quest of his images, Gen. xxxi. 35; and even by Jacob, after his return from Padan Aram, to his elder brother Esau, ch. xxxii. 4, 5. In no instance, however, will it be found given by a father to his son. This, according to their notions of paternal dignity and authority, which were incomparably higher than ours, would have been preposterous. The Pharisees, and other hearers, were so sensible of this, that, however much they showed themselves, on most occasions, disposed to cavil, our Saviour's observation struck them dumb: "None of them could answer."

9. Though the general belief of the Jews at that time was, that the Messiah would be a much greater man than David, a mighty conqueror, and even a universal monarch, the sovereign of the

kings of the earth, who was to subdue all nations, and render them tributary to the chosen people; yet they still supposed him to be a mere man, possessed of no higher nature than that which he derived from his earthly progenitors. Though their Rabbis at that time agreed that the words quoted were spoken of the Messiah, and spoken by David, the difficulty suggested by our Lord seems never to have occured to them; and now that it was pointed out, they appeared by their silence to admit, that on the received hypothesis it was incapable of a solution. It was plainly our Saviour's intention to insinuate, that there was in this character, as delineated by the Prophets and suggested by the royal Psalmist, something superior to human, which they were not aware of. And though he does not, in express words, give the solution, he leaves no person who reflects at a loss to infer it. I have been the more particular in this illustration, in order to show of how much importance it is, for attaining a critical acquaintance with the import of words in the sacred languages, to become acquainted with the customs, sentiments, and manners of the people.

10. The name kupioç, in the New Testament, is most frequently translated in the common version lord, sometimes sir, sometimes master, and once owner. It corresponds pretty nearly, except when it is employed in translating the name Jehovah, to the Latin dominus and to the Italian signore. But there is not any one word, either in French or in English, that will so generally answer. It may occasionally be applied to a man in any station, except the very lowest, because to men of every other station there are inferiors. It is always proper as applied to God, to whom every creature is inferior. In the former of these applications, namely to man, it frequently corresponds, but not invariably, to the French monsieur, and to the English sir or master. In the application to God, it answers always to the French seigneur, and to the English lord. There is a necessity in these two languages of changing the term, in compliance with the idiom of the tongue. Domine in Latin, signore in Italian, in like manner as kyrie in Greek, and adoni in Hebrew, are equally suitable in addressing God or man. But every body must be sensible, that this cannot be affirmed of the compellation of monsieur in French, or sir in English.

11. There is something so peculiar in the English use of these familiar titles, that it may be proper to take particular notice of it, before I proceed to the application of them in translating. In regard to the term sir, the most common of all, let it be observed, first, that in its ordinary acceptation it is never used except in the vocative, answering to kyrie and domine; secondly, that it is never joined to the name of a person, neither to the Christian name nor to the surname. When the proper name is used master, not sir, must be prefixed. I say this of the word sir in its ordinary acceptation; for when it serves as the distin

guishing title of knighthood, it is used in all the cases, and is always prefixed to the Christian name. But for this application there is no occasion in translating. The third thing I shall observe on the ordinary acceptation of the word is, that it never admits the article either definite or indefinite. This indeed is a consequence of its use being confined to the vocative. Lastly, it has not a proper plural. The word sirs, originally the plural, and equally respectful with the singular, is now rarely used. When it is used, it is with some difference in meaning. The compellation sir almost always shows respect; but sirs show a degree of familiarity hardly consistent with respect. It is most commonly employed in speaking to a crowd, or to inferiors. We usually supply the plural of sir in our addresses to others by the word gentlemen. But this bears so strong a signature of the distinctions which obtain in modern Europe, that it could not be used with propriety in the translation of an ancient author.

Now, as to the title of lord, I have several peculiarities to observe. In the first place, when in the vocative, without either the possessive pronoun my prefixed, or any name or title annexed, the application is invariably, according to the best use at present, to God or Christ. When it is addressed to men, (now it is only to noblemen, and to persons in certain eminent stations that use permits us to give it,) it is always either preceded by the pronoun my, or followed by the title, or both. Thus to say Lord, or O Lord, help me! is nowhere proper but in an address to God: whereas, Help me, my lord, is proper only when spoken to a man. The distinction now taken notice of is, if I mistake not, sacredly observed in the common version of the Old Testament. There are two cases, indeed, in which my Lord, in the vocative, is applied to God; but the intention in both is sufficiently marked. In one case, whereof there occur a few examples, it is preceded by the interjection O! which adds solemnity to the invocation; O! my Lord, Exod. iv. 10, 13. The other is, when it is coupled with my God, as in this, "Awake to my judgment, my God, and my Lord," Psal. xxxv. 23. Another thing to be remarked is, that when the term lord has the definite article prefixed, with no name, title, or description subjoined, it is to be understood as spoken of God, or of Christ. When the word is applied to men, whether the article be, or be not used, the name or title should be annexed. If the frequent occurrence of the title render it proper to omit it, we must say, my lord, not the lord, acted thus: or we may say his lordship, this last form being never used of a celestial superior.

12. So much for the words sir and lord, as used by us at present. In regard to the term master, there can be no question that it comes nearer the primitive signification of Kupios than either of the former. Kupios and dovλos are correlates in Greek, just as master and servant are in English. Indeed, lord and

servant are thus used in the common version of the Gospels, but not so properly. Vassal, not servant, is in English correlative to lord.* At least, it was so anciently; for both were feudal terms, the latter denoting the proprietor of the land, the former the tenant, or him who held it under the proprietor. But, with the gradual abolition of feudal customs, the name vassal has gone almost into disuse; whereas the import of the term lord has been greatly altered, in some respects extended, and in some respects limited. But such variations are incident to every language. A remain of this usage, however we have still in Scotland, in the meaning assigned to the word laird, which is no other than the old Scotch pronunciation of lord. In that dialect, it invariably denotes landlord, or as Dr. Johnson well explains it, lord of the manor. But to return: the reason why our translators have chosen sometimes to contrast servant and lord, rather than servant and master, is because they had preoccupied the word master, employing it to answer to didaσkaλoç. This made it necessary διδασκαλος. to recur to some other term to answer to kupios, for which none fitter could be found than lord. I have thought it preferable to render Sidaokaλos more literally, teacher, and say, "The disciple is not above his teacher, nor the servant above his master," Matt. x. 24. That the motive of our translators was precisely what I have mentioned is evident from this, that in the numerous passages in the Epistles, where the observance of the relative duties of masters and servants is inculcated, the word kupioç, as well as dεomorns, is always rendered master, and not lord. But there is an ambiguity, which arises from rendering Sidaokaλos master, when the context does not point out what kind of master is meant. In the words of James, (iii. 1.) Μη πολλοι διδασκαλοι YIVEOJE, as expressed in the common translation, "Be not many masters," hardly any of the unlearned suppose him to be speaking of teachers.

13. Now, let us consider the ordinary method which our translators have followed in the history of Jesus Christ. One who reads the Bible with reflection (which not one of a thousand does) is astonished to find, that on the very first appearance of Jesus Christ as a teacher, though attended with no exterior marks of splendour and majesty; though not acknowledged by the great and learned of the age, though meanly habited, in a garb not superior to that of an ordinary artificer, in which capacity we have ground to believe he assisted (Mark vi. 3) his supposed father in his earlier days; he is addressed by almost every body in the peculiar manner in which the Almighty is addressed in prayer. Thus the leper, "Lord if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean," Matt. viii. 2. Thus the centurion, "Lord my servant lieth at home," verse 6. The Canaanitish woman crieth after him, "Have mercy on me, O Lord," chap. xv. 22. He is likewise

* Blackstone's Com. b. ii. ch. 4.