teaching of the Pharisees (Mark 7:1 -9).  There are six references in

Acts where this ceremonial defilement is intended (Acts 10:14,15,28;

11:8,9 and 21:28), Peter expressing his horror at being commanded to

eat the flesh of animals considered by every Jew under the law as

unclean, and by the Jews of Asia, who charged the apostle with bringing

Greeks into the temple and polluting the holy place.

Writing in the epistle to the Romans, the apostle could take a wider

view of this term saying `there is nothing unclean (common) of itself' (Rom.

14:14).  While it is not to be thought that the common faith and the common

salvation had anything about them that could be classified as defiling or

unclean, we must not forget that Peter long after Pentecost told a Gentile

like Cornelius to his face that apart from the vision given to him, even a

Gentile who could be called `devout' who `feared God' who `gave alms' and

`prayed to God alway' (Acts 10:2) would have been called by him (Peter)

`common or unclean' (Acts 10:28).  From all this painful discrimination the

gospel entrusted to Paul and shared by Titus was blessedly free.  The faith

of God's elect was no longer the preserve of one people; it was now the

possible possession of all men and particularly the Gentile.  It is good to

glory in this most wonderful acceptance, this liberty from all the scruples

of the ceremonial law, but it is well to remember the tendency for the flesh

to take an advantage and to equate liberty with licence.  The apostle Peter,

writing to the `elect' namely to the `scattered' of Israel (1 Pet. 1:1,2) a

`second epistle' (2 Pet. 3:1) urges them to add to their faith virtue, and to

virtue knowledge (2 Pet. 1:5,6).  The addition of these virtues made their

calling and election sure (2 Pet. 1:10).  So Paul makes `acknowledgment'

follow `faith' (Titus 1:1).  Epignosis and epiginosko refer to acknowledgment

rather than added knowledge.  In the New Testament the words epiginosko and

epignosis are translated both by the words `knowledge' and `acknowledge'.

The distinction between them was not so sharply drawn in early days as we are

inclined to draw now.  For example, the majestic words:

`We knowledge Thee to be the Father of an infinite majesty'

were the recognized form in the year a.d. 1535.  `Knowledge' today stands in

the first instance for the `stuff' of knowledge, the information gathered, or

the intelligence possessed; this however is the secondary meaning of the word

and even today a first class dictionary places as the primary meaning of

`knowledge' `acknowledgment, confession; recognition of the position or

claims of any one' (Oxford English Dictionary).

Epignosis is the combination of epi `on' and gnosis `knowledge', but it

must not be assumed that the addition of epi `on' simply indicates the piling

up of knowledge upon knowledge; few if any occurrences of the word would

justify this use of the word.  When Hosea says:

`The Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because

there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land' (Hos.

Mere formal knowledge, historical knowledge, grammatical knowledge is

not intended.  There is implicit in the word the idea of acknowledgment or

recognition.  If we could divest the word `recognition' of its secondary

meaning, that of `recognizing' a person by his features, manners, etc. and

retain only the primary meaning, that of recognizing or acknowledging a

liability or an obligation, this word would suit admirably.  This matter is