nifestly more favourable to the common doctrine than the other. I say not this to recommend it to any party, knowing that, in these matters, we ought all to be determined by the impartial principles of sound criticism, and not by our own prepossessions.

43

j 12. BUT to return: a second case, wherein it is better to employ the general word messenger, is, when it is not clear, from the context, whether the sacred penmen meant a celestial, or a terrestrial, being. In such cases, it is always best to render the term, so as that the version may admit the same latitude of interpretation with the original; and this can be effected only by using the general term. For this reason, in the following expressions, olives ελαβετε τον νομον εις διαταγας αγγέλων ", and διαταγεις δι' αγγέλων εν χειρι μεσιτε“, it would have been better to translate ayyɛλov messengers, as it is not certain whether such extraordinary ministers as Moses and Joshua, and the succeeding Prophets, be meant, or any of the heavenly host. The same may be said of that passage, οφείλει η γυνη εξεσιαν εχειν επι της κεφαλης, δια τις αγγελος “, it being very doubtful whether the word, in this place, denotes angels or men.

13. A THIRD case, wherein (I do not say it must, but) it may, properly be rendered messengers, is when, though it evidently refers to superior 45 1 Cor. xi. 10.

43 Acts, vii. 53.

44 Gal. iii. 19.

beings, it is joined with some word or epithet, which sufficiently marks the reference, as αγγελος Κυριό, a messenger of the Lord, δι αγγελοι των ερανων, the heavenly messengers, di âyini ayyɛλo, the holy messengers; for, with the addition of the epithet, the English is just as explicit as the Greek. Not but that such epithets may in some sense be applied to men also; but it is customary with the sacred writers thus to distinguish the inhabitants of heaven. In this case, however, it must be admitted, that either way of translating is good. There is one advantage in sometimes adopting this manner, that it accustoms us to the word messenger in this application, and may consequently assist the unlearned in applying it in doubtful cases. In some cases, not doubtful, to add the word heavenly in the version, is no interpolation, for the single word ayyɛ20s often includes it. Thus, though the word y2wooα originally means no more than tongue, it is frequently employed to denote an unknown or foreign tongue 46.

§ 14. A FOURTH case, wherein the general term is proper, is when the word is applied to a human being. This rule, however, admits some exceptions, soon to be taken notice of. Our translators have rightly rendered it messenger, in the instances which fall under this description noted in the mar

46 Diss. XII. P. IV. § 9.

gin", wherein they are not only human beings that are meant, but the message is from men.

§ 15. I SAID, that there are some exceptions from this rule. The first is, when not only the message is from God, but when it appears to be the view of the writer to show the dignity of the mission, from the title given to the missionary, as being a title which he has in common with superior natures: in such cases, it is better to preserve in the version the term angel, without which the allusion is lost, and by consequence justice is not done to the argument. For this reason the word angel ought to be retained in the noted passage of the Gospels concerning John the Baptist": What went ye to see? A Prophet? Yea, I tell you, and something superior to a Prophet; for this is he concerning whom it is written, "Behold I send mine angel before thee, who "shall prepare thy way." There is, manifestly, couched here a comparison between the two titles prophet and angel, with a view to raise the latter. Now, to this end the common English word messenger is not adapted, as it does not convey to us the idea of greater dignity than that of a Prophet, or even of so great. My argument here may be thought not quite consistent with what I urged in my first remark on this word. But the two cases are rather opposite than similar. The allusion was there to the ordinary signification of the term; the

47 Luke, vii. 24. ix. 52. James, ii. 25.

48 Matth. xi. 9, 10.

allusion is here not to the signification, but to the common application of it, to beings of a superior order. The intention was there, comparatively, to depress the character, the intention here is to exalt it.

16. ANOTHER case, in which the word angel ought to be retained, though used of man, is when there would arise either obscurity or ambiguity from the construction, if the word messenger should be employed. It cannot be doubted, that the angels of the seven churches mentioned in the Apocalypse", are human creatures; but the term messenger would render the expression ambiguous or rather improper. The messenger of societies (in like manner as of individuals), is one sent by them, not to them. In this, and some other instances, the Greek ayyɛ20s is to be understood as corresponding in extent of signification to the Hebrew

malach, which often denotes a minister, or servant employed in any charge of importance and dignity, though not a message. It would, therefore, be no deviation from what is included in the Hellenistic sense of the word, if, through the whole of that passage, it were rendered president.

17. IN what concerns civil offices, our translators have, very properly, retained some names to which we have none entirely equivalent. Of this

49 Rev. i. 20. ii. 1. 8. 12. 18. iii. 1. 7. 14.

number is the name tetrarch, which admits no explanation but by a periphrasis. Centurion and publican are of the same kind. The word legion, though not a name of office, being the name of a military division, to which we have not any exactly corresponding, may be ranked in the same class. The three words last specified are neither Hebrew nor Greek, but Latin; and as they are the names of things familiar only to the Latins, they are best expressed by those names of Latin derivation employed by our translators. Two of them occur in the Latin form in the New Testament, λεγεων, and κεντυρίων, though for the latter word the Greek εκατονταρχος is oftener used.

It may be proper here to observe, in regard to such Latin appellatives, that from the connection which has subsisted between all European countries and the Romans, and from the general acquaintance which the Western nations have long had with the ancient Roman usages, history, and literature; their names of offices, &c. are naturalized in most modern languages, particularly in English. This makes the adoption of the Latin name for an office, or any other thing which the Jews had solely from the Romans, peculiarly pertinent. The remark now made holds, especially when the persons spoken of were either Romans, or the servants of Rome. If, therefore, after the Vulgate, we had rendered xapros tribune, avevaτоs proconsul, and perhaps σлερα cohort, the expression, without losing any thing, in perspicuity, to those of an inferior class; would have