Imatges de pàgina

" I and my

[ocr errors]

nature, in the neuter gender in the ori- ipferior nature? If Jesus Christ were rot ginal, not the masculine, ir not ius. So in God, and the Spirit were an operation or the passages, John x. 30.

quality only, but an operation or quality “ Father are one," and John xvii. 22. of God, would it receive or take what was That they may be one, even as we are Jesus Christ's ? And how could it be sent one,", the word one is the neuter sin- by Jesus Christ? The superior, if the gular; the plural verb in each case point- Spirit were the superior, would receive or ing out the plurality of persons, the neuter take nothing froin the inferior; and who adjective the unity of their nature. See but God could send or give of what is Cyprian Tracts, 109.—Chrys. de Fide in God's? And when the Spirit was come, Christo (Basil Edit.) vol. 3. p. 422.- whom was he to glorify, and of whom 3 August. de Trin. Lib. 4. c. 8. 9. Lib. 6. was he to testify ? Jesus Christ! He was c. 2. - 4 August. de Trin. Lib. 1.- to speak, not of himself, but what he 9 August. Trin. in Johannem, 36. 37.71. should hear : and to hear of whom? Jesus

P. 136. John xx. 19. “ the doors, &c." Cbrist !-" he shall receive of mine, and rather“ the doors where the disciples “shew it unto you." So that if Jesus “were assembled were shot for fear, &c." were less than God, the Spirit of Truth, not to have assembled would have been which proceedeth from the Father, was neglect of duty, sin : not to have shut to glorify, not the Father, but Jesus the doors, neglect of caution, rashness. Christ; to testify, not of the Father, but Our Saviour set the example of avoiding of Jesus Christ, and was to speak, not unnecessary danger. See post 9, addi- what he should hear or receive from the tional note on Matt. xvi. 16.

Father, but what he should hear and reP. 148. James i. l. “ and of the Lord ceive from Jesus Christ !! And how can “ Jesus Christ.” So that he is here as- this be reconciled, but by considering, as sociated with God; and James describes our Church does, the Father as God, the himself as the servant of both.

Son as God, and the Holy Ghost as God? P. 144. John xiv. 1. “in me.” So that P. 149. John xvi. 28. “I came forth, belief in Christ is made of the same im- &c." an unequivocal assertion of his preportance with belief in God the Father. existence.

P. 144. John xiv. 9. “ hath seen, &c." P. 152. John xv. 26. “I will send, makivg the Son, what he is called Heb. i. 3. &c.” So that our Saviour, after his cruci" the express image of the Father!" fixion, was to have this power. Some

P. 147. John xvi. 8. at the end of note proof of his divinity! Who less than God (8)—Dr.Hales's interpretation of this pas- could send this Comforter ? sage is this, "He (i. e. the holy Spirit) P. 162. John iii. 13. “ wbieb is in ( shall convince the world of sin, of • heaven," or “ whose proper home is “ righteousness, and of judgment. Of heaven," or “who is in Heaven the self“ sin, for not believing in Christ after he “ existent Being, ó un év 7W REQ! " Our “ had done among them the works which Saviour could hardly speak of himself as “ no man did, Matt. ix. 33.-John ix. 32. being in heaven, at the same time he was “Of righteousness, or justification through here on earth, but he might properly “ Christ, (as proved by bis resurrection point to heaven as his home, or describe “ and ascension) by the imputation of what his character there was. • w is the “ his righteousness to them, Rom. iii. 26. proper description of the self-existent " – Rom. v. 18.-2 Cor. v. 21. And Being. “ of judgment, or the future general P. 172. Is. xl. 3. “The Lord,” Hebr. “ judgment, in wbich Satan, the ruler of “ Jehovah,” the incommunicable name of “ this world, with the world itself, is to God. An intimation that be for whom “ be judged, 2 Cor. iv. 4.-Rev. xx. 10. the way was to be prepared was very God: " -Acts xvii. 31.

one to whom that name belonged : and P. 148. John xvi. 14. “ of mine." A yet this is the cry of Christ's forerunner, strong proof of our Saviour's divinity, and and it was for Christ the way was to be of the personality of the Holy Ghost. If prepared. the Spirit was to receive of what was P. 173. Is. xl. 9. “ O Zion, &c." or Jesus Christ's, and if all things were in “O thou that bringest good tidings to common to the Father and the Son, so as Zion,” and “O thou that bringest good to justify the expression, “All things that “ tidings to Jerusalem." Wilson's Hebr. “ the Father hath are mine," could Jesus Gram. 329. and Bp. Lowth in loco. Christ be a subordinate being, a being of P. 173. Is. xl. 10. ^ The Lord God."


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Hebr. “Adonai Jehovah." “ Adonai," which is applied to the Messiah in the two prophetic Psalms, Ps. ii. 4. and Ps. cx. 1. and “ Jehovah,” which is never applied but to the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost. See 241. note on Ps. ii. 4. and 384. note on Ps. cx. 1. Is not this a strong intimation that it was to be one of the persons of the Godhead that was to come? The same is implied by the exclamation" Behold

your God.P. 177.(1) Matt. xvi. 16. “ Thou art the Christ.” It is probable our Saviour had never told this to his disciples in direct terms, but had left it to them to draw the conclusion from his life and works. Indeed there seems to have been great cau. tion in our Saviour, especially in Judea, to avoid any such assertion. And his motives might have been, because it might bare drawn around him such a concourse of people as would have interfered with the plan of his life, and the progress of his ministry; and because it might have exposed him to the Roman power as a person setting himself up against the established government: and then, his death, without some intervention of Providence, might have been earlier than it was, be: fore his ministry was compleat, and might have appeared the act rather of the Roman governor

than of the heads of the Jewish nation. Tiberius, the Roman emperor, was particularly jealous of any one who pretended to encroach upon his government; and as it was the expectation that the Messiah was to be a tempo. ral prince, the Roman governor would not have dared to have left him unmolested, bad Jesus assumed that character. With the example of Herod before him, in destroying the children in Bethlehem and the coasts thereof, (Matt. ii. 16.) he would never have suffered Jesus to have continued at large, had he known that he claimed to be the Messiah. Our Saviour's preaching was, not that he was the Christ, but that “ the kingdom of Heaven was at hand,”Matt. iv. 17.-Marki. 15. When be called Peter and Andrew to be apostles, what he said was, not that he was the Messiah, but “ Follow me, and I will “ make you fishers of men,” Matt. iv, 19.-Marki. 17. To the other apostles, all he is recorded to have said is “ Follow me," Matt. ix. 9. When he sent out the twelve apostles with power over unclean spirits, &c. all that he commanded them to preach was." The kingdom of Heaven is at “ hand,” Matt. x, 1.7. The seventy hè

afterwards sent out had no directions to preach more than this, “ The kingdom of « God is come nigh unto you,” Luke x. 1.9. When he healed the leper, (Matt. viii. 3. 4. Mark i. 43) he said unto him, “ See thou “ tell no man.” When he saw great multitudes about him at Capernaum (Matt. viii. 18.) he gave commandment to depart unto the other side (i. e. of the sea of Galilee). When John the Baptist 'sent to ask him, “ Art thou he 'that should

come, or do we look for another ?” he does not in terms say that he is, but he refers John to the miracles he was performing. Matt. xi. 3. 5. When he healed multitudes, he charged them that they should not make him known. Matt. xii. 15. 16. and see Mark vii. 36. Mark viii. 26. When the unclean spirits recognized him as the Son of God, he strictly charged them that they should not make him known. Mark iii. 11. 12. and see Luke iv. 35.41. When he raised the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, he charged them straitly that no man should know it. Mark v. 42.-Luke viii. 56.. When Peter had said to him, “ Thou art the Christ, the “ Son of the living God,” he charged his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. Matt. xvi. 16. 20: and see Mark viii. 30.—Luke ix. 21. When Herod the tetrarch heard of his fame, and concluded it was John the Baptist, and that John had risen from the dead, Jesus departed by ship into a desart place apart, Matt. xiv. I. 2. 13. When he found that the Pharisees had heard that he made and baptized more disciples than John, he left Judea, and departed into Galilee. John iv. 1.3. When he healed the impotent man, (John v. 13.) he conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place. John v.8.13. When he was pressed to go up to the feast of tabernacles, he refused, because the Jews sought to kill him, and his time was not yet full come: and though he did go up, it was in secret, not openly.

John vii. 1. 10. When the Pharisees asked a sign of him, which would naturally have attached multitudes to him, he refused to give one, Matt. xii. 38, 39.—Mark viii. 11, 12.-Luke xi. 29. When they sought to destroy him, he withdrew himself. Markiij. 6, 7. After his transfiguration, he charged the disciples who had been with him, "Bell “ the vision to no man, until the Son of “ Man be risen again from the dead." Matt. xvii. 9.--Markix. I. He paid tribute that he might not give offence. Matt. xvii. 27. When the chief priests and elders

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]


questioned him, by what authority he acted, and who gave him that authority, he evaded giving them an answer. Matt. xxi. 23. 27.-Mark xi. 28. 33.-Luke xx. 2. 8. When asked whether it was lawful to give tribute to Cæsar, he answered in such a way as could furnish no ground of accusation against him. Matt. xxii. 17. 21.Mark xii. 14.17.-Luke xx. 22. 25. When the Scribes and Pharisees brought to him the woman taken in adultery, that if he ventured to condemn her, they might bave ground of accusing him for incroaching upon the civil power, his conduct was such as to induce the Scribes and Pharisees to leave him. John viii. 2 toll. When he was desired to speak to a man's brother, to divide the inheritance with him, his answer was, “Who made me a “ judge or a divider over you ?” Luke xii. 13, 14. For observations on these passages, see Locke on Christianity, 55. to 142. This cautious conduct of our Saviour corresponds with the character foretold of him, Is. xlii. 2. “He shall not cry, “ nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be “ heard in the street.” And the manner in which these passages are scattered in the Gospels, with scarce any allusion to the motive, contribute to a critical mind to shew the real character of the Gospels, an artless and genuine relation of the facts they contain.

P. 179. v. 22. “The judgment,” “ the “ council,” and “hell fire;" i. e. Either, first, Jewish punishments, gradually increasing in severity (the first, the being put to death by the sword, the second being stoned to death, which was worse, and the last the being burnt alive in the valley of Hinnom, Grotius in loco); or secondly, Jewish tribunals, competent to inflict these punishments. The object seems to be to mark the difference between divine and human justice: the latter being necessarily confined to offences committed, and not being always able to proportion the punishment exactly to the guilt, whereas the former extends to offences which are conceived only but not executed, and is suited to the degree of guilt with the most accurate nicety. If it rest in anger only, and is confined merely to the inward workings of the mind, subjecting to one degree of punishment; if it advances and breaks forth into words, increasing that degree, and even varying that increase, according to the character of the words, making it more penal to say “thou fool” than “ raca,”

because " thou fool ” was the more opprobrious.

P. 188. 1 Cor. xii. 4. Spirit," i. e.“ the Holy Ghost." The article is expressed in the original ; and can Markland's observation be eluded, that in this and the two following verses distinct mention is made of the three persons in the Trinity, unless indeed the terms Lord” in verse 5, and “God” in verse 6. are applied to the Holy Ghost, which is most probable. The 4th and 5th verses are evidently defective, because they name “the Spirit” and “the Lord” without ascribing any function or operation to either; and it can hardly be doubted but that the " worketh," in verse 6. is intended to apply to “ the

Spirit” and “ the Lord” in verses 4 and 5. as much as to “God” in verse 6; and how strongly is this confirmed by verse 11. where, after a specification of the gifts, administrations, and operations spoken of generally in verses 4, 5, and 6. the working as to all is distinctly ascribed to the Spirit. See Middl. on Gr. Art. in loco.

P. 188. I Cor. xii. 11. “ that one " and the self-same Spirit.” Can it be doubted but that this applies to the Holy Ghost ? And who but an Omnipotent Being could distribute these gifts according to his will? The word here used for “ worketh” svegyei, is never applied in the New Testament but to an agent, and that commonly one of great power. Middl. on Gr. Art. 225, 6.

P. 192. Gal. iii. 16. (5) The better to understand this short portion of Scripture, it is necessary to see what precedes it, and to attend to the drift of St. Paul's argument. The point he is endeavouring to establish is this, that it is unnecessary for them to observe the Mosaic ordinances; and after reminding them that it was through faith, i.e. belief in Christ, and not from any observance of those ordinances, that they received the Holy Ghost, and noticing that it was to Abraham, long before the Mosaic law, that the promise was made, and that that law had nothing in its nature which could procure that absolution from sin which faith in Christ would; he lays it down as an axiom, that a promise or covenant once confirmed cannot be annulled, and then proceeds with this passage, and the argument here is merely this; that as God had made the promise or covenant with Abrahain 430 years before the law

[ocr errors]

τον μόνον



was given to Moses, the giving that law could not qualify or abridge that prior promise or covenant ; that in truth the law was not given with a view to any such qualification or abridgement, but was an additional bargain between God and the Israelites, to prepare them at least for the coming of the Messiah, and was intended only to operate till his coming, to be, as he afterwards expresses it, a schoolmaster to bring them unto Christ. It was not therefore binding upon them, and there was no reason they should adopt it,

P. 193. Gal. iii, 17. “ in Christ," rather " as to Christ," with reference to him, 155 X gisor.

P. 193. Gal. iji, 19. “to whom" or * to whom.” As the promise was to Abraham, it is only by considering the seed as identified with Abraham, that the promise can be said to have been made to Abrabam's seed.

P. 193. Gal. iii. 19. “ in the hand,” or " by the interposition.”

P. 194. Gal. iii. 21. “ righteousness," i. e. “ justification ; being in the situation of a righteous person.

P. 194. Gal. ii. 22. « faith of Jesus

Christ," i. e. full belief that he was “ the Messiah ; and an implicit convic« tion that it is only through his atone“ ment and mediation that we can hope “ for remission of sins and the blessings # of a future state."

P. 195. Luke x. 28. " live,” i.e. " have “ eternal life.” The question asked was, what he should do to inherit eternal life, and this is the conclusion of the answer.

P. 206. Matt. xxii, 45. “ How, &c.” Not that our Saviour meant to insinuate that he was not David's Son as well as David's Lord: but to point to the singularity of his nature : David's son, after the flesh, as being born of one of his lineal descendants, Mary: and yet David's Lord, as being the Son of God, one whose existence did not then begin, when he was introduced bodily into the world, but who had been in the beginning with God, by whom also God made the world, and without whom was not any thing, made that was made. St. Austin on Ps. ix. towards the end.

P. 210. Matt.ix. 6. « The Son of Man," i. “ the Messiah." The Jews understood this as one of the nanies of the Messiah, because it occurs in the prophesy Dan. vii. 13. (p. 92.) which was always taken to apply to him. Our Sa

viour gives himself the same appellation, Matt. x. 23. and John iii. 13.

P. 216. Jude 4. “ the only Lord God; &c.” rather, “our only Master, God, and “ Lord Jesus Christ.” The original is,

δεσποτην Θεον και Κυριον ημων Iησον Xpisón, and there being no article before Otor or Kugsoo, those words must, according to the Greek language, refer to the same person to whom SETTOTNy refers. (See Middl. on the Greek article, 79,80.) A.TOTO is a substantive, and should be translated “Master" rather than “Lord,” because it is immediately followed by

Kugor,” to which the term “Lord” is more appropriate ; and “ouwr," though placed after Kugrow, is equally applicable to all the three nouns. Middl. on the Gr. article, 622. This would be a text therefore to which the term 66 God” would clearly be applied to Christ, were it not that many authorities omit the word Otor, “ God," (Middl. 658. Pole in loco); and then the passage would only be, “ Our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ." There are two other texts, however, 2 Pet. i. 1. and Tit. i. 13, in which the word “Godseems plainly applied to Christ, though this is not so evident upon our version as in the original. The text in 2 Pet. i. I, is τα Θια ημων και σωληρος Ιησε Χριςο,and the proper rendering, I apprehend, is “ Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” This is the translation in most of the early English versions; and there being no article before " σωληρος, ty and owingos must, according to Dr. Middleton's Rules, refer to the same person. In the same chapter, verse 11. the same words occur, with the substitution only of Κυρια”

” for “ Otv." " T8 Kupie w ry owingos Ingy Xpose :" and how are they reodered ? “ Our Lord and Saviour Jesus “ Christ,” considering both terms “ Lord “ and Saviour" as applying to the same person ; and would it not be strange that, in sentences so nearly similar, and occurring so close to each other, the former should be intended to apply to two persons, and the latter only to one? In 2 Pet. ii. 20. and iii. 2.

18 Kupiel My o winpos." is rendered it ought, • The Lord and Saviour," and refers to one and the same person, Jesus Christ. See Middl. 621 to 626. The original in Tit. i. 13. is, “ Προσδεχομενοι την μακαριαν ελπιδα, και επιφανειαν της δοξης τα μεγαλα Θεω By owingos sparer Incy. Xpist" the literal translation of which I take to be, “Looking



μεγαλα Θ.s”

“ for that blessed hope, and (or even) the

appearance of the glory (i.e. the glo

rious appearance) of our great God and “ Saviour Jesus Christ." There being no article before owinpos, that word, according to Dr. Middleton's Rule, (Middl. 79, 80.) must refer to the same person to whom ©£refers, and the context shews, that by

“ Ole" God the Father could not be meant. The expected appearance of Christ' in glory is continually referred to by St. Paul; but where is there a surmise of the expectation of an appearance of God the Father? No man had seen Him at any time, nor was there any intimation that He would be seen : but the coming of the Lord, the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory, is part of Christ's prophecy, Matt. xxiv. 30.–Mark xiii. 26. and Luke xxi. 27.; and was matler of earnest expectation in St. Paul's time. Chrysostom mentions this passage, vol. 4. p. 32. in his 6th Discourse on the Philippians, and vol. 6. p. 962. in his Discourse upon the Trinity; and in both he considers it as clear, that "

our great God," applies to Christ, not to the Father; and Dr. Whitby notices, that 705&ve never

occurs in the New Testament but when applied to Christ, and some coming of his. See 2 Thess. ii. 8.-] Tim. vi. 14.-2 Tim, i. 10. and iv. 1. 8. Dr. Middleton's Rule is illustrated by Col. i. 3. and Eph. v. 20. where, by τω Θεω

.“God and (or even) M

παρ.” the Father,” the same person must be meant by both terms. The rendering in the French edition at Mons, 1672, of the text in Jude, is conformable to what seems to me the true sense of the original: “ Et qui renoncent Jesus Christ, « notre unique Maitre, notre Dieu, et “ notre Seigneur."

P. 223. Jer, xxiii. 6. “ The Lord,” Hebr. “ Jehovah," the incommunicable name of God. See Hales's Dissertations, 200.

P. 223. Jer. xxiij. 6. “ Our righteous

ness." Because through his mediation and atonement his righteousness is to be impuled to us : to be carried to our account: to be reckoned ours : we through him are to be treated as righteous. See i Hales's Trinity, 232. "He of God “(in the language of Rom. i. 30.) being " made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, “ and sanctification, and redemption.”

P.240. Ps. i. 6. “The Judgment,” i. e. probably "any time of visitation."

P. 240. Ps. i. 6. “ the Congregation," i. e. “. those whom God collects, to

exempt them from calamity.”

P. 240. Ps. ii. This psalm was written by David (Acts. iv. 25.) and it either refers to himself, foretelling the discomfiture of his enemies, and brings forward an assurance God had made to him, that he (or some descendant from him) should be to God a Son, &c. or it applies wholly to the Messiah, and is a prophecy of the opposition he should experience, of the success of his kingdom, and of the vengeance he should take upon his opponents.

The latter was the opinion of the early Jews, and is adopted by many of the ablest commentators. See Pole's Synopsis.2 Hales's Chron. 369 to 371.-1 Hales's Trinity, 187.-and particularly Hales's Dissert. 224 to 268.

P. 241. Ps. ii, 2. " against the Lord and against his Anointed.” The Hebrew is, “ against Jehovah and against his “ Messiah ;" terms which David was not likely to have used, had the psalm been referable to himself.

P. 241. Ps. ii. 4. “ The Lord.” The word in the Hebrew is not “ Jehovah," but Adonai or Adoni, a lower term, sometimes applied to God, and sometimes to man, and properly signifying "a Ruler." It probably refers here to the Messiah, as it certainly does in the prophetic psalm, Ps. cx. ). where “ the Lord said unto my “Lord,” is in the original, “Jehovah said

36 “ unto my Adon, or Ruler."

P. 241. Ps. ii. 5. “ he,” i. e. “ God," he that dwelleth in heaven. See Pole's Synopsis.

P. 241. Ps. ii. 7. “1," i. e. “ the Mes“ siah.” Euseb. Eccl. Hist. B. i.c. 3. p.8.

the P. 241. Ps. . 7. “ the Lord." Hebr. “ Jehovah."

the P. 242. Ps.ji. 11. 6 The Lord.” Hebr. “ Jehovah."

P. 242. Ps. ii. 12. “ The Son," i. e. " the Messiah." P. 244. Ps. v. 11. "

destroy, &c.” The verbs in this and the beginning of v. 12. should rather be in the future, as predictions, than in the optative, as imprecations : “thou shalt destroy,” “ they shall perish,”

,” “ thou shalt cast,” and “ all they that

put their trust in thee shall rejoice." They are futures in the Hebrew, but that language haviug no optatives, what is there in the future, is rendered either as a future or an optative, as may best suit what is supposed to be the meaning.

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinua »