mentioned sometimes under the simple appellation of The Lord, John xx. 2. without any addition, a form of expression which in the Old Testament our translators, as above observed, had invariably appropriated to God. What is the meaning of this? Is it that, from his first showing himself in public, all men believed him to be the Messiah, and not only so, but to be possessed of a divine nature, and entitled to be accosted as God? Far from it. The utmost that can with truth be affirmed of the multitude is, that they believed him to be a prophet. And even those, who, in process of time, came to think him the Messiah, never formed a conception of any character, as belonging to that title, superior to that of an earthly sovereign, or of any nature superior to the human. Nay, that the apostles themselves, before his resurrection, had no higher notion, it were easy to prove. What then is the reason of this strange peculiarity? Does the original give any handle for it? None in the least. For, though the title that is given to him is the same that is given to God, it is so far from being peculiarly so, as is the case with the English term, so circumstanced, that it is the common compellation of civility given not only to every stranger, but to almost every man of a decent appearance, by those whose station does not place them in an evident superiority.

It is the title with which Mary Magdalene accosted one whom she supposed to be a gardener, John xx. 15. It is the title given by some Greek proselytes to the apostle Philip, ch. xii. 21. probably a fisherman of Galilee. It is the title with which Paul the tent-maker, and Silas his companion, were saluted by the jailor at Philippi, Acts xvi. 30. (See sect. 7.) Lastly, it is the title with which Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator, a Pagan and idolater, is addressed by the chief priests and pharisees, Matt. xxvii. 63. And though the Jewish rulers would not refuse what was merely respectful to the Roman procurator, who as such was their superior, we may be sure they would not have given him a title that could be understood to imply any thing sacred or divine. Our translators have been so sensible of this, that even in the application to the chief magistrate within the country, they have thought fit to render it only sir. Further, it is the title which those gave to Jesus, who, at the time they gave it, knew nothing about him. In this manner the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well addressed him, John iv. 11. when she knew no more of him than that he was a Jew, which would not recommend him to her regard. Thus also he was addressed by the impotent man who lay near the pool of Bethesda, chap. v. 7. who, as we learn from the sequel of the story, did not then know the person who conversed with him, and who soon proved his benefactor. In these places indeed, and some others which might be mentioned, our translators have rendered the word Kupie, not lord, but sir. Why they have not uniformly done so, when the term

is given by contemporaries to Jesus residing on the earth, it would be impossible to assign a good reason. The only reason I can imagine is, the uniform practice that obtains very properly among his followers since his ascension, now when all power in heaven and on earth is committed to him, Matt. xxviii. 18; now when he is made head over all things unto his church, Eph. i. 22; and hath received a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on the earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, Philip. ii. 9, &c.; in one word, now when men are more especially obliged to honour the Son even as they honour the Father, John v. 23.

Is there any fitness in thus exhibiting the honours of deity as appropriated to him in the very time of his humiliation, when for our sakes he was pleased to veil his glory; when he made himself of no reputation, divested himself, as the expression strictly implies, and took upon him the form of a servant? Philip. ii. 6, or is there any consistency in representing men as using this style, whose sentiments, on examination, will not support it? The highest to which the faith of any of the people, not his disciples, at that time rose, was to think that he was John the Baptist risen from the dead, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets; Matt. xvi. 13, &c. But where do we find any of the prophets addressed with the peculiarity of idiom which commonly distinguishes the Deity? There is, therefore, in this manner of translating, a very great impropriety, first, as it produces an inconsistency between the style of the persons introduced, and what from the history itself we discover of their sentiments; secondly, as it thereby, to a mere English reader, throws a degree of incredibility on the whole narrative.

14. If they had uniformly translated the word Kupiɛ, lord, to whomsoever applied, they would have done better; because every reader of common sense must have perceived that the word was employed, not according to the English idiom, but according to the usage of a tongue very different. Still, however, by comparing the various places where it occurs, it would have been practicable to reduce the term to its proper value. Not that I approve this servile manner of translating, any more than that in the opposite extreme called liberal. To translate the words, but not the idiom, is doing but half, and much the easier half, of the work of a translator, and never fails to render obscure and enigmatical in the translation what is perspicuous and simple in the original. But our interpreters have, in this particular, followed neither the Hebrew idiom nor the English, but adopted a peculiarity in regard to Jesus Christ, which represents most of his contemporaries as entertaining the same opinions concerning him which are now entertained among Christians. Now, nothing

can be more manifest than that, in those days, the ideas of his apostles themselves were far inferior to what we entertain.

To do justice therefore to our idiom, to preserve at once consistency, perspicuity, and propriety, it is necessary that the word KUOLOÇ, in an address to heaven, be rendered Lord, or O Lord; when the Supreme Being is not addressed, but spoken of, The Lord; in addressing a king, or eminent magistrate, My Lord; and in other ordinary cases, Sir. Sometimes from a servant to his master, or from one immediate subordination to a person on whom he depends, it may be more emphatical to say Master Let it, however, be observed, that in translating the Scripture, Kupios prefixed to a proper name cannot be rendered either sir or master, immediately followed by the name, on account of the particular idea which that mode of expression conveys to us. Let it also be observed, that what I have said of kyrios, as applied to Jesus Christ, regards purely its application in the Gospels. It is plain, that after Christ's ascension into heaven, and exaltation to the right hand of the Father, he is viewed in a very different light. Addresses to him are conveyed only by prayer, and ought to be clothed in its language. When we speak of him, it ought to be, not as of a lord, one possessed of great power and eminence, but as of The Lord of the creation, the heir of all things, to whom all authority in heaven and upon the earth, and all judgment, are committed by the Father. That expression of Thomas, therefore, ó Kupios pov каι å Оɛоç μоov, cannot be otherwise rendered than it has been rendered by our translators, My Lord, and my God, John xx. 28. It is manifest from the exclamation, that Thomas viewed his Master now since his resurrection, though not yet ascended, in a light in which he had never viewed him before. For these reasons I think, that in general no alteration would be proper in the way of rendering the word Kupios as applied to Jesus either in the Acts or in the Epistles. The case is different in the Gospels.

15. It is proper to take notice, before I conclude this article, that the word kuptoç is in the Septuagint also employed in translating the Hebrew word Jehovah, the incommunicable name of God. Though this is a proper name, and not an appellative, the Seventy, probably from the superstitious opinion which had arisen among the Jews, (for it was evidently not from the beginning,) that it was dangerous to pronounce that word, and consequently to adopt it in another language, have thought fit to render it always Kupios, an appellative which, as we have seen, is of very extensive application. Nay, in reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue service, their doctors to this day always read adon, or adoni, Lord, or my Lord, where they find Jehovah. The writers of the New Testament, who wrote in Greek, have so far conformed to the usage of their countrymen, that they have never introduced this name in their writings. In quoting

from the Old Testament, they have adopted the method of the Seventy, whose words they frequently use. The generality of Christian translators have in this imitated their practice. Our own, in particular, have only in four places of the Old Testament used the name Jehovah: in all other places, which are almost innumerable, they render it the Lord. But, for distinction's sake, when this word corresponds to Jehovah, it is printed in capitals.

I once thought, that in translating the New Testament the word Jehovah might properly be replaced, wherever, in a quotation from the Old, that name was used in the Hebrew. On more mature reflection I now think differently. It seemed good to infinite Wisdom, in the old dispensation, when a peculiar nation was chosen, and contradistinguished to all others, so far to condescend to the weakness of his creatures as to distinguish himself as their God by an appropriate name, which might discriminate him, with them, from the gods of the nations; the general names God and Lord being applied to them all. But in the gospel dispensation, wherein all such distinctions were to be abolished, it was proper that there should remain nothing which might appear to represent God as a national or local deity. A proper name is not necessary where there are no more than one of a kind. We are not sensible of the want of a proper name for the sun, the moon, or the earth. It is not suitable in the interpreter of the New Testament, to show a greater nicety of distinction than the sacred penmen have warranted. It belongs rather to the annotator than to the translator to mark such differences. In translating the Old Testament, the distinction, in my judgment, ought to be sacredly preserved, for the very same reason that no distinction ought to be made in the New. The translator ought faithfully to represent his original, as far as the language which he writes is capable of doing it. So much for the import of the word Kupios, and the different senses that it bears according to the application.

κύριος,

PART II.

Διδασκαλος, RABBI.

I PURPOSE now to make a few observations on the word didacкados, and some other titles of respect current in Judea in the days of our Saviour. After the Babylonish captivity, when Jerusalem and the temple were rebuilt, and the people restored to their ancient possessions, care was taken, under the conduct of Ezra, and those who succeeded him in the administration of affairs, to prevent their relapsing into idolatry, which had brought such accumulated calamities on their country. It was justly considered

as one of the best expedients for answering this end, as we learn partly from Scripture and partly from Jewish writers, to promote amongst all ranks the knowledge of God and of his law, and to excite the whole people, throughout the land, to_join_ regularly in the public worship of the only true God. For their accommodation, synagogues came in process of time to be erected in every city and village where a sufficient number of people could be found to make a congregation. Every synagogue had its stated governors and president, that the public service might be decently conducted, and that the people might be instructed in the sacred writings, both the law and the prophets. The synagogues were fitted for answering, among them, the like purposes with parish-churches amongst us Christians. But this was not all: That the synagogues might be provided with knowing pastors and wise rulers, it was necessary that there should also be public seminaries or schools, wherein those who are destined to teach others were to be taught themselves. And so great was their veneration for these schools or colleges, that they accounted them, says Buxtorf,* more sacred than even synagogues, and next, in this respect, to the temple. They maintained, that a synagogue might lawfully be converted into a school, but not a school into a synagogue. The former was ascending, the latter descending. Both were devoted to the service of God; but the synagogue, say they, is for the spiritual nourishment of the sheep, the school for that of the shepherds.

2. Now their schools were properly what we should call divinity colleges; for in them they were instructed in the sacred language, the ancient Hebrew, not then the language of the country-in the law and the traditions, the writings of the prophets, the holy ceremonies, the statutes, customs, and procedure of their judicatories; in a word, in whatever concerned the civil constitution and religion of their country. I make this distinction, of civil and religious, more in conformity to modern and Christian notions, than in reference to ancient and Jewish. In that polity, these were so interwoven, or rather blended, as to be inseparable. Their law was their religion, and their religion was their law; insomuch that with them there was a perfect coincidence in the professions of lawyer and divine. But as to their mode of education, that they had some kind of schools long before the time above-mentioned, even from the beginning of their establishment in the land of Canaan under Joshua, or at least from the time of Samuel, can hardly be made a question. A certain progress in letters had been made, very early, by this people, and regularly transmitted from one generation to another. But this seems evidently to have been without such fixed seminaries as were erected and endowed afterwards; else it is impossible there should be so little notice of them in so long a Synag. Jud. cap. x.