1

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 afterwards, in their history, either name him so themselves, or mention this name as given him by any of his cotemporaries: nay, the very profession of Peter, and the doubts raised by his enemies, in regard to his being ỏ xpisos, the Messiah, or the Christ, and his never being named familiarly, either by them or by others, during that period, Ino85 Xpɩ50s, but simply Ιησος or ὁ Ιησος, 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 denomination 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 ", 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 ", 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 απέςειλας Ιησεν τον χριςον, Jesus the

54 i. 17.

55 John, xvii. 3.

Messiah whom thou hast sent. But, whatever be in this, we are warranted to conclude, from the uniform tenour of all the Gospels, that xp50s, in this passage, must be understood as the name of his office. Now, for the very same reason for which our translators have rendered o Banτigns, uniformly the baptist, with the article, they ought to have rendered o xpisos, χρισος, 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 Xpiços 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 afterwards, 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 56, We believe and are sure that thou art o Xogos the Christ the Messiah, the Son of the living God. 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 : 57 Τι υμιν δοκει περι το χρις, which our translators render, What think ye of Christ? The word used in this manner, without any article definite or indefinite, or any other term to ascertain 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 rea

57 Matth. xxii. 42.

son 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 Xpgos 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 роPητενσоv nμiv, Χριςε 58, this term must mean Messiah, as the intended ridicule is entirely founded on their ascribing that character to one in his wretched circumstances. Another exception is, when it is joined to some other title, as Χριςος Κυριος ", Χριςος βασιλευς ; and sometimes, but more rarely, when construed with a pronoun, as εαν τις αυτον ὁμολογηση χριςον ", 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 oTI Xp158 858 62, is an instance.

58 Matth. xxvi. 68.

61 John, ix. 22.

VOL. I.

59

37

60

61

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, Ιησος and ὁ Ιησες are used indifferently. For this reason, I do not lay much stress on this distinction, unless it be confirmed by the connection. 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 Inous, 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 2ɛyouɛvos, is added by way of explanation. Thus it is Πορκιος Φήςος, Σεργιος Παυλος, Ιουδας Ισκαριώτης, Ποντιος Πιλατος, and Σίμων Πέτρος. Indeed, where a person is distinguished by adding an epithet rather than a surname, denoting the place of his birth, or of his residence, the article is constantly prefixed to the adjective. Thus it is always Μαρια η Μαγδαληνη, literally Mary the Magdalene, that is, of Magdala, a city on the lake of Gennesaret; and Ιησους ὁ Ναζα paros, Jesus the Nazarene, or of Nazareth.

When the article, therefore, is inserted between the words Inσous and Xpi50s, there is reason to consider the latter as used emphatically, and pointing directly to his office. In many places in the Epistles,