alone, therefore, in such cases, adds considerable light to the expression; yet no more than what the words of the historian manifestly convey to every reader who understands his language. It should be, therefore," Paul testified to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ," or the Messiah, &c. Many other examples might be brought to the same purpose; but these are sufficient.

7. But it may be asked, Is the word Christ then never to be understood in the New Testament as a proper name, but always as having a direct reference to the office or dignity? I answer, that without question this word, though originally an appellative, came at length, from the frequency of application to one individual, and only to one, to supply the place of a proper name. What would contribute to hasten this effect, was the commonness of the name Jesus among the Jews at that time, which rendered an addition necessary for distinguishing the person. The remark of Grotius is not without foundation, that in process of time the name Jesus was very much dropped, and Christ, which had never been used before as the proper name of any person, and was, for that very reason, a better distinction, was substituted for it; insomuch that, among the heathen, our Lord came to be more known by the latter than the former. This use seems to have begun soon after his ascension. In his lifetime, it does not appear that the word was ever used in this manner; nay, the contrary is evident from many passages of the Gospels. But the evangelists wrote some years after the period above mentioned, and therefore, the more perfectly to notify the subject of their history, they adopted the practice common among Christians at that time, which was to employ the word as a surname for the sake of distinction. This was especially proper in the beginning of their narrative, for ascertaining the person whose history they were to write. Thus Matthew begins, "The lineage of Jesus Christ," chap. i. 1; and a little after, ver. 18. "Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened thus." Mark, in like manner, chap. i. 1. "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." In all the three places it is Ιησου Χριστου, Jesus Christ, not Ιησου του Xpiorov, Jesus the Christ, or the Messiah.

Matthew and Mark, as was just now observed, name him so, in introducing their Gospels; but it deserves to be remarked, that they do not afterward, in their history, either name him so themselves, or mention this name as given him by any of his contemporaries: nay, the very profession of Peter, and the doubts raised by his enemies in regard to his being ó Xploroç, the Messiah, or the Christ, and his never being named familiarly, either by them or by others, during that period, Inoovs Xploros, but simply Inσους or ὁ Ιησους, which occurs in the four Gospels upwards of five hundred times, put it beyond doubt, that the word was never applied to him as a proper name whilst he remained on this earth. It was at that time always understood as the denomina

tion of the dignity or office to which some believed him entitled, others disbelieved, and many doubted. The names used both by Matthew and by Mark in the beginning of their Gospels, and by John in the introductory part of his, (chap. i. 17,) for Luke does not adopt this manner, show only the usage which obtained at the time when they wrote, but not when their Lord was living upon the earth. In the last of the four Gospels, he is in one place (John xvii. 3) represented as calling himself Jesus Christ, in an address to God; but this is so singular, that I cannot help suspecting an accidental omission of the article; and that the clause must have stood originally δν απέστειλας Ιησουν τον Χριστον. Jesus the Messiah whom thou hast sent. But, whatever be in this, we are warranted to conclude, from the uniform tenor of all the Gospels, that Xotoroç, in this passage, must be understood as the name of his office. Now, for the very same reason for which our translators have rendered ó BаTTIOTηs uniformly the Baptist, with the article, they ought to have rendered ó Xplorоs the Christ, or the Messiah, with the article. By not doing it, they have thrown much obscurity on some passages, and weakened others.

8. Though, in the Epistles, it may be sometimes difficult, but is seldom of consequence, to determine whether Xporos be an appellative or a proper name, there is rarely in the Gospels, with which I am here more immediately concerned, any difficulty that can retard an attentive and judicious critic. Such will be sensible, that whatever was the case afterward, the word Christ, during the period comprehended in the gospel history, was employed solely to express the office or dignity wherewith he was invested, as the Apostle of God, for the redemption of the world. Accordingly, when it is used in the Gospels, the stress of the sentence lies commonly on the signification of that word. Peter, in his solemn confession, says, "We believe and are sure that thou art o Xploroç, the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the living God." John vi. 69. Here the substance of his declared belief lies much in the import of this term. Our translators have considered this as so evident, that, in the parallel passages in other Gospels, they have departed from their ordinary practice, and rendered it the Christ, and in this passage, less properly, that Christ. In other places where propriety equally required the article, they have not given it.

Of several which might be quoted, I shall mention only one example in the question put by Jesus to the Pharisees: Ti vuv δοκει περι του Χριστου, which our translators render, “ What think ye of Christ?" Matt. xxii. 42. The word used in this manner, without any article definite or indefinite, or any other term to a certain the meaning, must in our idiom be a proper name; and, as here proposed by Jesus, can be understood no otherways by an unlearned reader, than as intended for drawing forth their sentiments concerning himself. To such the question must appear

identical with "What think ye of Jesus?" A name of office is never used in so indistinct a manner. For example, we may say indefinitely, "What think ye of a king?" or definitely, "What think ye of the king?" but never, "What think ye of king?" unless we speak of one whose name is King. Yet an appellative may be used without an article when the name is subjoined, because this serves equally with the article to ascertain the meaning; as thus, "What think ye of king Solomon?" In the place above quoted, there was therefore the strongest reason for following more closely the original, as it was evidently our Lord's purpose to draw forth their sentiments, not concerning himself, the individual who put the question to them, and whom he knew they considered as an impostor, but, in general, concerning the quality of that personage whom, under the title of Messiah, they themselves expected.

9. One mark of distinction, therefore, whereby the title Xotoros may be discriminated from the name, is its being attended with the article. I do not mention this, however, as holding invariably, but very generally. When the word is in the vocative, by the idiom of the language, there can be no article; in that case, therefore, we must be directed solely by the sense. Thus, in πρо¶ητενσov v Xoloтε, Matt. xxvi. 68, this term must mean Messiah, as the intended ridicule is entirely founded on their asscribing that character to one in his wretched circumstances. Another exception is, when it is joined to some other title, as Χριστος Κυριος, Luke ii. 11; Χριστος Βασιλευς, ch. xxiii. 2; and sometimes, but more rarely, when construed with a pronoun, as εαν τις αυτόν ὁμολογηση Χριστον, John ix. 22; where the sense renders the meaning indubitable. In a few places, in regard to this as well as to other terms, there is an ellipsis of the article, where the most common usage would require it. Of this, ÓTI XOLOTOV EOTE, Mark ix. 41. is an instance.

I know it may be objected to the article as a criterion, that in Greek it is not unusual to prefix it to the proper names of persons. Accordingly, in naming our Lord, Inoove and ó Inoovs are used indifferently. For this reason I do not lay much stress on this distinction, unless it be confirmed by the connexion. In the Epistles, it is plain that the term is used familiarly as a proper name, and consequently, when alone, and not appearing from the context to be emphatical, may be properly rendered as a name, whether it have the article or not. But when it immediately follows Ingovs, the article not intervening, it can hardly be interpreted otherwise. Let it be observed, that in scriptural use, when a person has two names, the article, if used at all, is prefixed to the first name, and never inserted between them, unless when some other word, as Aɛyoμɛvoç, is added by way of explanation. Thus it is Πόρκιος Φηστος, Σεργίος Παυλος, Ιουδας Ισκαριώτης, Ποντιος Πιλάτος, and Σιμων Πετρος. Indeed, where a person is dis

tinguished by adding an epithet rather than a surname, denoting the place of his birth or of his residence, the article is constantly prefxed to the adjective. Thus it is always Μαρια ἡ Μαγδαληνη, literally Mary the Magdalene, that is, of Magdala, a city on the lake of Gennesaret; and Ιησους ὁ Ναζαραιος, Jesus the Nazarene, or of Nazareth.

When the article, therefore, is inserted between the words Inσove and Xploroç, there is reason to consider the latter as used emphatically, and pointing directly to his office. In many places of the Epistles, perhaps in a very few in the Gospels, it may be regarded as a matter of indifference in which of the two ways the term is translated. Thus in the first chapter of Matthew, ver. 16, Ιησους ὁ λεγομενος Χριστος, may be either Jesus who is called Christ, that being a surname which, when Matthew wrote, was frequently given him, or Jesus who is called (that is, accounted) Messiah. I have in my version preferred the second interpretation; as, in the verse immediately following, we cannot understand otherwise the words we rou XotoTou with the article, and without the name Ιησου prefixed. If so, ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστος is mentioned to prepare us for this application of the title. Besides, the same phrase occurs again in this Gospel, (ch. xxvii. 17, 22,) as used by Pilate at a time when it was never applied to our Lord but by his followers, and that solely as the denomination of his office. So much for the method whereby we may discover when this word is emphatical, and when it is merely a surname.

10. It is proper now to inquire, in the last place, which of the three terms, Messiah, Christ, or Anointed, is the most proper to be applied in an English version. The word anointed is indeed an English word, and is, besides, in respect of the idea it conveys, expressive of the etymological import of the Hebrew and Greek terms. But, notwithstanding these advantages, it is not so proper in this case for being used in a version. For, first, the original term had early been employed, as we have seen, without any regard to the literal signification; and, in the ordinary application of it in our Lord's time, little or no attention seems to have been given to the circumstance of unction, which gave rise to the name. Though the word anointed, therefore, expresses the primitive import of the Hebrew name, it does not convey the meaning in which it was then universally understood. It was considered solely as the well-known title of an extraordinary office, to which there was nothing similar amongst any other people. The original name, therefore, agreeably to what was concluded in a former discourse, ought to be retained. Secondly, it deserves some notice, that the word, both in Hebrew and in Greek, is a substantive, and therefore, in point of form, well adapted for a name of office, being susceptible of the same variety, in number and mode of construction, with other substantives: the English

Diss. II. Part i. sect. 5.

word anointed is a participle, and indeclinable, and so far from being adapted for the name of an office, that it is grammatically no more than the attributive of some name, either expressed or understood.

11. As to the other two words, Messiah and Christ, it may be thought a matter of indifference which of them should be preferred. The following are the reasons which have determined me to give the preference to the former. First, our Lord's own ministry was only amongst his countrymen the Jews, to whom the title of Messiah was familiar. With them, wheresoever dispersed, it is considered as the title of that dignity to this day, and is accordingly naturalized in every language that they speak. We never hear of the Jewish Christ, it is always the Jewish Messiah. When the English translators found it convenient, in translating Daniel, to adopt a term more appropriate than the general word anointed, they chose the Hebrew term Messiah, in preference to the Greek; and it is surely proper, when the meaning of a word in the New Testament is manifestly the same, to conform, as much as possible, to the language of the Old. That the word Messiah was constantly used in Palestine in our Lord's time, is evident from the two passages in the Gospel of John, (chap. i. 42, iv. 25,) where, after mentioning it as the title in current use, both with Jews and with Samaritans, he adds the explanation in Greek. Secondly, Messiah is, even in English use, much more familiar, as the name of the office, than the term Christ, which is now universally understood as a proper name of our Saviour. The word Messiah, on the contrary, is never employed, and consequently never understood as a proper name. It is invariably a name of office; and even this circumstance, however slight it may appear, has a considerable influence on perspicuity.

12. I shall only add here, before I conclude this subject, that the word Xploroç is frequently used by Paul as a trope, denoting sometimes the Christian spirit and temper; as when he says, 'My little children, of whom I travail in birth again, until Christ be formed in you," Gal. iv. 19; sometimes the Christian doctrine, "But ye have not so learned Christ," Eph. iv. 20: and in one place at least the Christian church, "For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ," 1 Cor. xii. 12. In these cases it is better to retain the name Christ, as used hitherto in the version.

13. Some have thought the expression ó vioç тоν av≈ρπоν, the Son of Man, which our Lord always uses when he speaks of himself in the third person, is also a title which was then understood to denote the Messiah. But of. this there does not appear sufficient evidence. The only passage of moment that is pleaded in support of it is from the prophet Daniel, who says, that he