Christ-or Christ,' as they soon learned to call him in his character of the restorer of the kingdom of his ancestor David, either temporally or spiritually? and indeed what would they have cared for him in that character? If, as St. Paul truly says, the idea of a crucified Messiah was to the Jews a stumbling-block, that to the Gentiles of a king who expressly declared his kingdom to be not of this world, and who, therefore, according to their notions, was no king at all, must indeed have been 'foolishness' -the height of absurdity. A remark made by Dr. Norman Macleod respecting the pagan Hindoos at the present day applies 'totidem verbis' to the Gentile Greeks and Romans of the Apostolic age, and indeed to heathen converts everywhere and in all ages. His words are, Investigations as to the alleged facts of historical Christianity do not interest a Bengalee, if indeed he is capable of making them'*. And as it is natural to all men at all times to seek within their own native language for the direct literal signification of an expression derived from a foreign one, of which they do not understand the true etymology, the name Xpioriavol was corrupted, as Tertullian and Lactantius state it was, to Xpnorɩ- · avo, Chrestiani,' from the adjective xpnoros, of which the meaning is 'good,' 'honest,' 'upright'; and this meaning being perfectly applicable to the character of Christ,' as they understood it, they ignorantly imagined it to be the right one, and 'Chrestus' to be the correct form of our Lord's name, so entirely had they lost all knowledge of the Christ, or Messiah! The heathen historian Suetonius had fallen into the same error long before them; but in his case the mistake was venial.

6

At the present day the name 'Christian' is by many defined to be, not a believer in the Lord Jesus in his character of the Messiah or Christ, but a follower of the example of Christ,' the founder of a new school of morals, whose maxims are not only to be adopted and enforced, but whose personal example ought to be imitated. No one would think of denying that our Lord set an example in his life and doctrine, which it is the bounden duty of every one who professes to be and calls himself a

*Peeps at the Far East.'

Christian to attempt to imitate and follow; but to pretend and to teach that this appellation means merely a follower of Christ's example, which is what Paul meant when he said The Messiah liveth in me'*,-without insisting first and foremost, as Paul did, on the belief in Jesus as the Messiah or Christ of prophecy, is to unsettle the foundations of the Christian Dispensation, with the intention (it is to be feared) of doing away with its special character and merits altogether, and setting it up as a mere human system of ethics like those of Socrates, Epictetus, and other sages of Heathendom.

This discussion of the subject of our Lord's name and title and of that of his followers would be incomplete were it not accompanied by a special consideration of the remarkable passage in the twenty-sixth chapter of the Acts, where King Herod Agrippa is made to say to St. Paul almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.'

In the first place, it has to be remarked that though the believers in Jesus may have been called Christians in the Greek city of Antioch in the time of Paul and Barnabas, it is not at all likely that at that early period they had received that appellation in Judæa, even among the believers themselves, and certainly not from the unbelieving Jews. Consequently the words put by the writer of the Acts into the mouth of the Jewish King cannot well have been used by him precisely as they stand. By this it is not intended to impugn the substantial truth of the narrative of the interview between Agrippa and Paul, which bears the impress of reality; but merely to question the correctness of the terms in which the incidents of that interview are recorded by the Gentile writer of the Acts of the Apostles. The whole narrative is deserving of analysis. King Herod Agrippa and his wife Berenice having come to visit the Roman Governor, Porcius Festus, at Cæsarea, where Paul was a prisoner, Festus made the king acquinted with the charge brought against the Apostle by the Jews, which he confessed his own inability to judge; inasmuch as the Jews did not accuse the prisoner of such things as * Gal. ii. 20.

he, Festus, had supposed,—that is to say, some matter of wrong or wicked lewdness' within his competency as the military and civil governor of Judæa,—but had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive' *. Now, though Festus might have spoken to the Jews themselves as freely as Gallio had spoken to their co-religionists a short time previously †, it is not to be imagined that in addressing their king, puppet as he was, he would have spoken of their own superstition,' or even perhaps that he would have spoken of the Jews' to one of themselves.

Further, when Paul was brought before the Jewish prince, he is stated to have said, 'I think myself happy, King Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews.' But he could hardly have made use of such an expression, because both himself and his hearer were of the same faith; so that he would have employed some such term as our people,' 'our coreligionists,' the priests;' or, if he had been a rash man, which Paul with all his zeal was not, he might have spoken of 'unbelievers,'' oppressors,' but certainly not of Jews.'

6

The Apostle then explained how he had, in the first instance, opposed and persecuted the believers in Jesus; how he had been caused to see the error of his ways by the miraculous vision at Damascus; and how, 'Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come, that the Messiah should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people [i. e. the Jews] and to the Gentiles'. And as he thus spoke for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.' To the heathen Roman governor Paul's words must indeed have been incomprehensible, may well have savoured of madness. But to this Paul replied, 'I am not † Acts xviii. 14, 15. Acts xxvi. 22, 23.

*Acts xxv. 19.

mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.' And then, turning to the Jewish prince, he made this passionate appeal to him:- King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest;'-his meaning being, 'If thou believest the prophets, as I know thou dost, thou must necessarily believe that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by them.' To this Agrippa replied, 'Almost' or 'shortly,' or easily,' the literal signification of the expression év ỏλyy being of no consequence whatever, thou persuadest (or wilt persuade) me that Jesus is the Messiah,' or 'that the Messiah is really come;' which expression a subsequent Gentile Christian narrator might well represent concretely by the words 'to be a Christian,' though assuredly no such words could possibly have issued from the lips of one Jew speaking to another at that early period.

It has been conjectured by some scholars that Agrippa's reply is to be understood as having been made ironically or disparagingly; but the whole interview, as recorded, was evidently a serious one, and the result shows that the Jewish king was favourably disposed towards Paul, even though he may not have been convinced by him.

Christ,'

ages,

is

In conclusion, it must be repeated that 'Christ' is not the proper name of our Lord, but his peculiar distinctive title; and that the use of the word, either alone or in conjunction with Jesus,' without the addition of the definite article, so as to read or 'Jesus Christ,' however sanctioned by the practice of as incorrect as is that of the expression John Baptist' in the authorized version of Matthew, xiv. 8, and leads to very great misapprehension. And, further, that to suppose the designation 'Christian' to mean merely a follower of Christ's example,' is much the same as if it were said that Royalist' means a follower of Queen Victoria's example, or 'Imperialist' an imitator of the ex-Emperor Napoleon. It cannot be too firmly held in remembrance that a Christian-literally a Messianite-is one

6

who believes that our Lord Jesus was, is, and is to be the Messiah, Christ, or Anointed King of prophecy, the promised seed of Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. Those who do not entertain this belief may call themselves Jesuites or Jesuians, but they have no right to the designation of Christians.

CHAPTER VI.

THE LINEAGE AND BIRTH-PLACE OF JESUS.

WHATEVER differences of opinion may have existed among the early Christians respecting the spiritual character of the Messiah and his kingdom, the whole tenour of the Gospel history demonstrates that Jesus of Nazareth was looked upon by them as the son of David after the flesh, and accordingly the avowed object of the two genealogies in the first and third Gospels is to set forth his lineal descent from that monarch.

Those genealogies are, on the face of them, open to grave objections, and they have in consequence been deemed unworthy of credit by many scholars of unquestionable ability. An ingenious attempt has been made by the present Bishop of Bath and Wells (Lord Alfred Hervey)* to reconcile the two, by contending that the one in the first Gospel gives the royal descent of Jesus, through the several heirs to the throne of David, and that the other, in the third Gospel, traces his natural descent from father to son. Thus, on the death of King Jehoiachin childless, Salathiel, the son of Neri, the Rhesa (Prince), who was the father of Zerubbabel, became the legitimate heir to the throne; whilst, in like manner, Joseph, the son and natural heir of Heli, was the legitimate successor to the throne on the death of his uncle Jacob without issue.