Page images
PDF
EPUB

wise, it would have meant nothing more3. It was common among the Jews to give significant names, and in those names to introduce the name of God; viz. Adonijah, My Lord is Jehovah,-Eliezer, God is my helper. And, Jer. xxxiii. 16, Jerusalem is called The Lord our righteousness.

II. Luke i. 16, 17. "And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he

(John) shall go before him, i. e. the Lord their God, in the spirit and power of Elias."

This is the language of the angel to Zecharias: but the doubtful authenticity of this story has been already noticed, Sect. II.

And though strictness of construction warrants the application of the pronoun him to the antecedent God, yet as the phrase Lord our God' is never applied to Christ in the New Testament, no Jew would ever think of such an application of the words. John was the forerunner of the Lord their God, by being the forerunner of Jesus, the great messenger of God to mankind 4.

III. John i. 1. "—and the Word was God," or, "a god."

i. e.

[ocr errors]

the

An inferior God derived from the Supreme, and delegated by him,-or, God was Wisdom;'-or Word, i. e. the Teacher, was a prophet endued with miraculous powers;'-or, if the conjecture of Crellius and others be allowed, 8 for os, the Word was God's;' the teacher was sent from God.' See Sect. III. 1.

"God was with us in Christ, by his wisdom and power communicated to him for the instruction and benefit of men." Lindsey's Seq. p. 184. See Lowth and Dodson on Isaiah vii. 14.

He will lead the way in the sight of God." Wakefield, with whom archbishop Newcome agrees.-Dr. Clarke (Scr. Doct 534,) admits that the construction of the sentence is favourable to the orthodox interpretation, but that this is contrary to the style of Luke, and to the whole analogy of Scripture. Calvin, Castalio, and Waterland (Serm. p. 203) lay great stress upon this text.

IV. John

IV. John x. 33. "For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

Our Lord had just declared, ver. 31, "I and my Father are one."

But he peremptorily denies the conclusion which the Jews drew from his language. He even maintains, ver. 34, 35, that if he had given himself the appellation af God, he should have been fully justified by the Jewish Scriptures, in which this name is given to prophets and magis But that as to himself, though possessed of powers superior to those of any former prophet, he had never affected to call himself by a higher title than the Son of God.

trates.

V. John xx. 28. " And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

This is a sudden exclamation of astonisment and joy. q. d. My Lord! and my God! How great is thy power! Or, My Lord, and my God, has done this 5!-It is however objected that the words are expressly said to be addressed to Christ, and are an acknowledgement of his proper deity, for which the apostle would have been severely reproved if he had been wrong 6.

But who can believe that this sceptical apostle, who immediately before had been doubting whether his Master was a living man, would, from the sensible and satisfactory evidence he had now obtained of his resurrection, directly infer that he was the living and eternal God? What an infinite distance between the premises and the conclusion! If, then, the words are not to be taken as a mere exclamation, but as an address to Christ, the apostle's meaning

5

Whitby's Last Thoughts, p. 77. Lindsey's Apol. p, 29; Sequel, p. 200. Archbishop Newcome in loc.

6 Erasmus, Grotius, and Beza in loc. Dr. Doddridge calls these words" an irrefragable argument of the deity of our blessed Lord."

seems

seems to be, q. d. Convinced of the truth of thy resurrection, I acknowledge thee as my master, and submit to thee as my god, as a prophet coming with divine credentials, and supported by divine authority. See John x. 34,35. Erasmus, Grotius, and others remark that this is the first, and indeed the only instance occurring in the Gospels, in which Christ is addressed by his disciples under the title of God. And this fact And this fact may be fairly considered as a presumption that he never was addressed by them. under this name, and that the words of the apostle are to be understood as an exclamation only.

VI. Acts xx. 28. "-and to feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood." "The blood of Christ," says Dr. Doddridge," is here called the blood of God, as being the blood of that man who is God with us. And I cannot but apprehend that it was by the special direction of the Holy Spirit that so remarkable an expression was used."

"Our Scriptures," says St. Athanasius, "no where mention the blood of God. Such impudent expressions are only used by Arians7." So widely do these eminent and learned writers differ.

The true reading is unquestionably Kupe, Lord.' This is the reading of the Alexandrine, Ephrem, Cambridge, and many other valuable and ancient manuscripts; of the Syriac, Coptic, and other ancient versions; and of Athanasius, Eusebius, Chrysostom, and other ecclesiastical writers. The word God' in the Received Text rests only upon the authority of the Vulgate version, and of a few manuscripts of little note8.

7

VII. Rom.

* Ούδαμε δε αίμα Θες καθ' ἡμας παραδεδώκασι αἱ γραφαι : Αριάνων Tа TOIAUTA Tоλunuara. Athanas. cont. Apollin. apud Wetstein. in loc. See Imp. Vers. in loc, and Griesbach's invaluable note in his second edition. This happens rather unfortunate for the credit of Dr.

Doddridge's

VII. Rom. ix. 5. "Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever."

Erasmus, Grotius, Dr. Clarke, and others observe, that though the word God is found in all our present copies, it was wanting in those of Cyprian, Hilary, Chrysostom, and others, and is therefore of doubtful authority.

σαρκα,

Erasmus further remarks, that the words may be translated differently, according to different modes of punctuation. He prefers placing the stop after ' flesh.' q.d. "Of whom is Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be blessed for ever." This interpretation is approved by Le Clerc, Dr. Clarke, Mr. Locke, Mr. Lindsey, and the majority of Unitarians.

Dr. Whitby, in his Commentaries, denies that the words will bear the construction which Erasmus gives; and

Doddridge's pious remark. For surely the Holy Spirit which inspired, would also have preserved the text. Mr. Wakefield retains the word ɛ8, upon the authority of the Ethiopic version; and with Dr. Clarke, (Scr. Doct. 538,) he explains the "blood of God" as meaning the "Son of God." But this learned critic did not advert to a fact mentioned by Dr. Marsh in his Notes upon Michaelis, p. 611, viz. that the editors of the Ethiopic version had a very imperfect manuscript of the Acts of the Apostles, the chasms of which, i. e. the larger part of the book, they supplied by translating from the Vulgate. So that in the Book of the Acts, the Ethiopic version is of no authority whatever. See Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 96.

[ocr errors]

Seven manuscripts only, and those of no antiquity and of little value,• read ɛ8, God.' This reading is supported only by the Vulgate and Philoxenian Syriac versions, which last reads Kupis, 'Lord,' in the margin. It is cited by no writers before Epiphanius and Ambrose, and they are doubtful.-The ancient Syriac reads XpirT8, Christ.' But in this it is singular, and unsupported by versions or authorities.— Forty-seven manuscripts read Kuрi8 naι ε8, Lord and God:' but these manuscripts are neither of high antiquity nor of great value; and this reading is quite unsupported by the ancient versions and ecclesiastical writers. Ten manuscripts, of which four are ancient, read Kupis, Lord :' these manuscripts are of the highest antiquity and authority, and of different families. All the readings in which these manuscripts agree, are, by the best critics, admitted as genuine. And this reading is supported by the most approved ancient versions and ecclesiastical authorities. See Wetstein and Griesbach.

maintains that the text is decisive in favour of the deity of Christ. With him agree Hammond, Doddridge, and the Trinitarians. But, admitting the common translation to be the true one, the Arians and Socinians understand it not of the proper divinity of Christ, but of his supposed dominion over the created universe. See Clarke,

539.

Slichtingius proposed a most happy and plausible conjecture; the transposition of a single letter, vo, for å ŵv, which gives a new and beautiful turn to the whole sentence, viz. "Of whom is the adoption,—of whom are the fathers, of whom is the Messiah,-OF WHOM is God over all blessed for ever." Thus the climax rises gradually, and finishes where it ought. Whereas in the Received Text, while the apostle is professedly reckoning up all the privileges of the Hebrew nation, the greatest of all, and that which would ever be uppermost in the mind of a Jew, is totally omitted, that God owned himself in a peculiar sense their God. See Heb. xi. 16.

This conjecture, ingenious and even probable as it is, not being supported by a single manuscript, version, or authority, cannot be admitted into the text. But one may almost believe that the present reading might be owing to an inadvertence in one of the earliest transcribers, if not in the apostle's own amanuensis9.

VIII. 1 Tim.

It is singular that Slichtingius proposes it as an objection to his own conjecture, that the phrase, "God over all," is more appropriate to Christ, who was made regent of the universe, than to the Supreme Being himself. "Christo rectius hic titulus convenit, ut intelligeretur Christum non super quædam tantum, sed super omnia dominum ac deum effectum esse."-So extravagant were these great critics in some opinions, while they were so eminently judicious in others. But the strongest minds could not at once burst asunder the adamantine bonds of antichristian prejudices. It is wonderful that they advanced so far. And it is owing to their great energies and extraordinary success, that modern inquirers, who have followed their footsteps, have been enabled to advance still further than their venerable predecessors in the true interpretation

« PreviousContinue »