Page images

" I and my

nature, in the neuter gender in the original, not the masculine, so not los. So in the passages, John x. 30. " Father are one," and John xvii. 22. “ That they may be one, even as we are one,", the word one is the neuter singular ; the plural verb in each case pointing out the plurality of persons, the neuter adjective the unity of their nature. See Cyprian Tracts, 109.-Chrys. de Fide in Christo (Basil Edit.) vol. 3. p. 422.3 August. de Trin. Lib. 4. c. 8. 9. Lib. 6. c. 2. — 4 August. de Trin. Lib. I.. 9 August. Trin. in Johannem, 36. 37.71.

P. 136. John xx. 19. “the doors, &c." rather“ the doors where the disciples “were assembled were shat for fear, &c." not to have assembled would have been neglect of duty, sin : not to have shut the doors, neglect of caution, rashness. Our Saviour set the example of avoiding unnecessary danger. See post 9, additional note on Matt. xvi. 16.

P. 148. James i. 1. “and of the Lord " Jesus Christ.” So that he is here associated with God; and James describes himself as the servant of both.

P. 144. John xiv. 1. “ in me.” So that belief in Christ is made of the same importance with belief in God the Father.

P. 144. John xiv. 9. “ hath seen, &c.” making the Son, what he is called Heb. i. 3. “ the express image of the Father !"

P. 147. John xvi. 8. at the end of note (s)—Dr.Hales’s interpretation of this passage is this, “ He i.e. the holy Spirit) ( shall convince the world of sin, of “ righteousness, and of judgment. Of “sin, for not believing in Christ after he “ had done among them the works which “ no man did, Matt. ix. 33.-John ix. 32. “Of righteousness, or justification through “ Christ, (as proved by his resurrection " and ascension) by the imputation of “ his righteousness to them, Rom. iii. 26. " – Rom. v. 18.-2 Cor. v. 21. And “ of judgment, or the future general “ judgment, in wbich Satan, the ruler of “ this world, with the world itself, is to “ be judged, 2 Cor. iv. 4.-Rev. xx. 10. “-Acts xvii. 31.

P. 148. John xvi. 14. “ of mine." A strong proof of our Saviour's divinity, and of the personality of the Holy Ghost. If the Spirit was to receive of what was Jesus Christ's, and if all things were in common to the Father and the Son, so as to justify the expression, “ All things that: " the Father hath are mine," could Jesus Christ be a subordinate being, a being of

inferior nature? If Jesus Christ were not God, and the Spirit were an operation or quality only, but an operation or quality of God, would it receive or take what was Jesus Christ's ? And how could it be sent by Jesus Christ? The superior, if the Spirit were the superior, would receive or take nothing from the inferior ; and who but God could send or give of what is God's? And when the Spirit was come, whom was he to glorify, and of whom was he to testify? Jesus Christ! He was to speak, not of himself, but what he should hear: and to hear of whom? Jesus Christ!--" he shall receive of mine, and “shew it unto you.” So that if Jesus were less than God, the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, was to glorify, not the Father, but Jesus Christ; to testify, not of the Father, but of Jesus Christ, and was to speak, not what he should hear or receive from the Father, but what he should hear and receive from Jesus Christ !! And how can this be reconciled, but by considering, as our Church does, the Father as God, the Son as God, and the Holy Ghost as God?

P. 149. John xvi. 28. “ I came forth, &c." an unequivocal assertion of his preexistence.

P. 152. John xv. 26. “I will send, &c.” So that our Saviour, after his crucifixion, was to have this power.

Some proof of his divinity! Who less than God could send this Comforter ?

P. 162.. John ii. 13. " which is in heaven,” or “whose proper home is

heaven,” or “who is in Heaven the self" existent Being, ò a'r ény TW *4212” Our Saviour could hardly speak of himself as being in heaven, at the same time he was here on earth, but he might properly point to heaven as- his home, or describe what his character there was. ó wo is the proper description of the self-existent Being

P. 172. Is. xl. 3. “The Lørd,” Hebr.

Jehovah," the inconimunicable name of God. An intimation that he for whom the way was to be prepared was very God: one to whom that name belonged : and yet this is the cry of Christ's forerunner, and it was for Christ the way was to be prepared.

P. 173. Is. xl. 9. “O Zion, &c." or “O thou that bringest good tidings to “ Zion,” and “ O thou that bringest good “ tidings to Jerusalem.". Wilson's Hebr. Gram. 329. and Bp. Lowth in loco.

P. 173. Is. xl. 10. ^ The Lord God."

[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 mo. tives 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, before 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, had 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 he 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 he

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 viji.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. 1. 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, "Well " 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. xvü. 27. When the chief priests and elders

“ the

nor lift

" that one

questioned him, by what authority he because “ thou fool” was the more on acted, and who gave him that authority, he probrious. evaded giving them an answer. Matt. xxi. P. 188. 1 Cor. xii. 4.

“ Spirit, 23. 27.-Mark xi. 28. 33.-Luke xx. 2.8. i. e. “ the Holy Ghost." The article i When asked whether it was lawful to give expressed in the original ; and can Mark tribute to Cæsar, he answered in such a land's observation be eluded, that in thi way as could furnish no ground of accu- and the two following verses

distinc sation against him. Matt. xxii. 17. 21.- mention is made of the three persons i Mark xii. 14.17.-Luke xx. 22. 25. When the Trinity, unless indeed the terma the Seribes and Pharisees brought to him

" Lord” in

verse 5, and “God” i the woman taken in adultery, that if he verse 6. are applied to the Holy Ghost ventured to condemn her, they might which is most probable. The 4th and have ground of accusing him for incroach- 5th verses are evidently defective, because ing upon the civil power, his conduct was they name “the Spirit” and “the Lord such as to induce the Scribes and Phari- without ascribing any function or operasees to leave him. John viii. 2to ll. When tion to either; and it can hardly be he was desired to speak to a man's doubted but that the “ worketh," in brother, to divide the inheritance with verse 6. is intended to apply to him, his answer was, · Who made me a “ Spirit” and “ the Lord” in verses 4 * judge or a divider over you ?” Luke xii. and 5. as much as to “God” in verse 6; 13, 14. For observations on these pas- and how strongly is this confirmed by sages, see Locke on Christianity, 55. to verse 11. where, after a specification of 142. This cautious conduct of our Sa- the gifts, administrations, and operations viour corresponds with the character fore- spoken of generally in verses 4, 5, and 6. told of hin, Is. xlii. 2. “He shall not cry, the working as to all is distinctly ascribed up, nor cause his voice to be

to the Spirit. See Middl. on Gr. Art. in heard in the street.” And the manner loco. in which these passages are scattered in P. 188. 1 Cor. xii. ll. the Gospels, with scarce any allusion to " and the self-same Spirit.” Can it be the motive, contribute to a critical mind doubted but that this applies to the Holy to shew the real character of the Gospels, Ghost ? And who but an Omnipotent an artless and genuine relation of the facts Being could distribute these gifts accordthey contain.

ing to his will? The word here used for P. 179. v. 22. “The judgment,”

“ worketh”

EVERYEL, is never applied in the « council,” and “hell fire;" i. e. Either, New Testament but to an agent, and that first, Jewish punishments, gradually in- commonly one of great power. Middl. creasing in severity (the first, the being on Gr. Art. 225, 6. put to death by the sword, the second P. 192. Gal. iii. 16. () The better to being stoned to death, which was worse, understand this short portion of Scripture, and the last the being burnt alive in the it is necessary to see what precedes it, valley of Hinnom, Grotius in loco); or se- and to attend to the drift of St. Paul's condly, Jewish tribunals, competent to in- argument. The point he is endeavouring flict these punishments. The object seems to establish is this, that it is unnecessary to be to mark the difference between for them to observe the Mosaic ordinandivine and human justice: the latter ces; and after reminding them that it being necessarily confined to offences was through faith, i. e. belief in Christ, committed, and not being always able to and not from any observance of those orproportion the punishment exactly to the dinances, that they received the Holy guilt, whereas the former extends to Ghost, and noticing that it was to Abraoffences which are conceived only but not ham, long before the Mosaic law, that executed, and is suited to the degree of the promise was made, and that that law guilt with the most accurate nicety. If had nothing in its nature which could it rest in anger only, and is confined procure that absolution from sin which merely to the inward workings of the faith in Christ would; he lays it down as mind, subjecting to one degree of punish- an axiom, that a promise or covenant ment; if it advances and breaks forth into once confirmed cannot be annulled, and words, increasing that degree, and even then proceeds with this passage, and the varying that increase, according to the argument here is merely this ; that as character of the words, making it more God had made the promise or covenant penal to say “thou fool” than " raca, with Abraham 430 years before the law

[ocr errors]

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, εις Χρισον. .

P. 193. Gal. iii, 19. “to whom" or " as * to whom.”. As the promise was to Abra. ham, 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. iii. 22. « faith of Jesus “ Christ," i. e. “a 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 David's Lord, as being the Son of God,

one whose existence did not then begin, when he was iptroduced 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. e. “ the Messiah.” The Jews understood this as one of the names 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,

τον μονον, δεσποτην Θεον και Κυριου ημών Ιησον “ Xpisòr, and there being no article before Otor or Kugsoo, those words must, according to the Greek language, refer to the same person to whom SETTOTYY refers. (See Middl. on the Greek article, 79,80.) ACOTOTY 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 “ juwv," though placed after Kugsov, is equally applicable to all the three nouns. Middl. on the Gr, article, 622. This would be a text therefore to which the term « 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. ii. 13. in which the word “ God” seems plainly applied to Christ, though this is not so evident upon our version as in the original. The text in 2 Pet. i. 1, is 65

τα Θια ημων και σωληρος Ιησε Χρισε, 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 “ owneos, Oty and culngoç 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 Kupiofor “ Oi8." "

τα Κυμο ημων και owingos Ingo Xpose:” and how are they readered ? “ 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 Kupie ny "owinpos" is rendered as

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. ii. 13. is, “ Προσδεχομενοι την μακαριαν ελπιδα, και επιφανειαν της δοξης τα μεγαλα Θεο vey owinpos niter Ingy. Xpusz" the literal traps, lation 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 glorious 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 @ir refers, and the context shews, that by '“ Oit" 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. Chrysostomy 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 επιφανεια 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


.” “God and (or even) 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. xxiii. 6. “ Our righteous“ ness." Because through his mediation and atonement his righteousness is to be imputed to us : to be carried to our account : to be reckoned ours : we through him are to be treated as righteous. See 1 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, ti

exempt them from calamity.”

P. 240. Ps. ii. This psalm was writter 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. ij. 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 “ unto ny Adon, or Ruler."

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

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

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

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

P. 242. Ps. ii. 12. “ The Son," i. e. “ the Messiah.”

P. 244. Ps. v. 11. “ 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,' perish,”

," thou shalt cast,” and “ all they that put their trust in thee shall “ rejoice.” They are futures in the Hebrew, but that language having 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]


destroy, &c.The

they shall

« PreviousContinue »