« PreviousContinue »
nature, in the neuter gender in the ori- || inferior nature? If Jesus Christ were not ginal, not the masculine, s not ing. So in God, and the Spirit were an operation or the passages, John x. 30. “ I and my 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. 1. “ 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. 141. John xiv. 9. “ hath seen, &c.” P. 152. John xv. 26. “I will send, making 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 (s)—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. “ which 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, • av & TW Bobcia. Our “ had done among them the works which Saviour could hardly speak of himself as “ vo 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. ow 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 he 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 " 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 I P. 173. Is. xl. 10. « The Lord God."
Str. “ Adonai Jehovah.” “ Adonai,” || afterwards-sent out had no directions to which is applied to the Messiah in the preach more than this, “ The kingdom of 90 propbetic Psalms, Ps. ii. 4. and “ God is come nigh unto you,” Luke x. 1.9. B. ex. I. and “ Jehovah," which is never When he healed the leper, (Matt. viii. 3. 4. applied but to the Father, Son, or Holy Mark i. 43) he said unto him, “ See thou Ghost. See 241. note on Ps. ii. 4. and “ tell no man." When he saw great mul384. note on Ps. cx. 1. Is not this a titudes about him at Capernaum (Matt. viii. strong intimation that it was to be one 18.) he gave commandment to depart of the persons of the Godhead that was unto the other side (i. e. of the sea of to come? The same is implied by the ex Galilee). When John the Baptist ósent clamation “ Behold your God.”
to ask him, “ Art thou he that should P. 177. (1) Matt. xvi. 16. “ Thou art the .“ come, or do we look for another ?” he Christ.” İt is probable our Saviour had does not in terms say that he is, but he never told this to bis disciples in direct refers John to the miracles he was perterms, but had left it to them to draw the forming. Matt. xi. 3. 5. When he healed conclusion from his life and works. In multitudes, he charged them that they deed there seems to have been great cau should not make him known. Matt. xii. tion in our Saviour, especially in Judea, 15. 16. and see Mark vii. 36. Mark viii. to avoid any such assertion. And his mo. 26. When the unclean spirits recognized tives might have been, because it might him as the Son of God, he strictly charged bare drawn around him such a concourse them that they should not make him of people as would have interfered with known. Mark iii. 11. 12. and see Luke iv. the plan of his life, and the progress of 35.41. When he raised the daughter' of his ministry ; and because it might have the ruler of the synagogue, he charged exposed him to the Roman power as a them straitly that no man should know it. person setting himself up against the esta Mark v. 42.-Luke viii. 56. When Peter blished government: and then, his death, had said to him, “Thou art the Christ, the without some intervention of Providence, “Son of the living God,” he charged his might have been earlier than it was, be: | disciples that they should tell no man that fore his ministry was compleat, and might he was Jesus the Christ. Matt. xvi. 16. 20; have appeared the act rather of the Ro and see Mark viii. 30.—Luke ix. 21. When man governor than of the heads of the Herod the tetrarch heard of bis fame, and Jewish nation. Tiberius, the Roman concluded it was John the Baptist, and emperor, was particularly jealous of any that John had risen from the dead, Jesus one who pretended to encroach upon his departed by ship into a desart place apart, government; and as it was the expecta Matt. xiv. 1. 2. 13. When he found that tion that the Messiah was to be a tempo. the Pharisees had heard that he made and Tal prince, the Roman governor would baptized more disciples than John, he left not have dared to have left him unmo Judea, and departed into Galilee. John iv. lested, bad Jesus assumed that character. 1.3. When he healed the impotent man, With the example of Herod before him, (John v, 13.) he conveyed himself away, a in destroving the children in Bethlehem multitude being in that place. John v.8.13. and the coasts thereof, (Matt. ii. 16.) he When he was pressed to go up to the would never have suffered Jesus to have feast of tabernacles, he refused, because continued at large, had he known that he the Jews sought to kill him, and his time claimed to be the Messiah. Our Saviour's was not yet full come: and though he did preaching was, not that he was the Christ, go up, it was in secret, not openly.John vij. but that “ the kingdom of Heaven was || 1. 10. When the Pharisees asked a sign at hand,” Matt. iv. 17.-Marki. 15. When of him, which would naturally have atbe called Peter and Andrew to be apos tached multitudes to him, he refused to tles, wbat he said was, not that he was give one, Matt. xii. 38, 39.-Mark viii. ll, the Messiab, but “ Follow me, and I will
12.-Luke xi. 29. When they sought to "make you fishers of men,” Matt. iv, 19.-- destroy him, he withdrew himself. Markiii. Marki, 17. To the other apostles, all he 6, 7. After his transfiguration, he charged is recorded to have said is “ Follow me," the disciples who had been with him, "Tell Matt. ix. 9. When he sent out the twelve “ the vision to no man, until the Son of apostles with power over unclean spirits, “ Man be risen again from the dead." &c. all that he commanded them to preach Matr. xvii. 9.--Markix. 9. He paid tribute was." The kingdom of Heaven is at that he might not give offence. Matt. xvü. "hand,” Matt. x, 1.7. The seventy he || 27. When the chief priests and elders
questioned him, by what authority he || because “ thou fool ” was the more o 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 term the Scribes 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 bave 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. 2 to 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 “ the 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 him, Is. xlii. 2. “He shall not cry, the working as to all is distinctly ascribed “ nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be || to the Spirit. See Middl. on-Gr. Art. in R heard in the street.” And the manner loco. in which these passages are scattered in || P. 188. I Cor. xii. 11. “ that one 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,” “ the “ worketh” svegyes, 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 Abrahain 430 years before the law
*given to Moses, the giving that law viour gives himself the same appellation, sed not qualify or abridge that prior Matt. x. 23. and John üi. 13. romise or covenant ; that in truth the P. 216. Jude 4. “ the only Lord God,
was not given with a view to any such &c,” rather, “our only Master, God, and
lification or abridgement, but was an “Lord Jesus Christ." The original is, dditional bargain between God and the “ τον μονον δεσποτην Θεον και Κυριος ημών Ιησεν Israelites, to prepare them at least for the “ Xpisong and there being no article before coming of the Messiah, and was intended Osor or Kugror, those words must, accordonly to operate till his coming, to be, as ing to the Greek language, refer to the be afterwards expresses it, a schoolmaster same person to whom SETTOTYY refers. to bring them unto Christ. It was not (See Middl. on the Greek article, 79,80.) therefore binding upon them, and there AICROTY is a substantive, and should be Tas no reason they should adopt it,
translated “Master” rather than “Lord,” P. 193. Gal. iii, 17. “ in Christ," rather because it is immediately followed by **as to Christ,” with reference to him, “ Kupoor," to which the term “Lord” is
more appropriate ; and “nuwin,” though P. 193. Gal. ij. 19. “to whom” or “as placed after Kuglov, is equally applicable * to whom.” As the promise was to Abra. to all the three nouns. Middl. on the ham, it is only by considering the seed as Gr. article, 622. This would be a text identified with Abraham, that the promise therefore to which the term “ God” can be said to have been made to Abra would clearly be applied to Christ, were ham's seed.
it not that many authorities omit the P. 193. Gal. üi. 19. " in the hand,” or word Otov, “ God," (Middl. 658. Pole * by the interposition."
in loco); and then the passage would P. 194. Gal. ij. 21. “ righteousness," only be, “ Our only Master and Lord i.e." justification; being in the situation Jesus Christ." There are two other * of a righteous person."
texts, however, 2 Pet. i. 1. and Tit. ii. P. 194. Gal. iii. 22. « faith of Jesus 13. in which the word “ God” seems “ Christ," i. e. “a full belief that he was plainly applied to Christ, though this is " the Messiah ; and an implicit convic not so evident upon our version as “tion that it is only through his atone in the original. The text in 2 Pet. i. 1, * ment and mediation that we can hope is “ 78 Oir nuwe sy owingos Inox Xeosy," " for remission of sins and the blessings and the proper rendering, I apprehend, of a future state."
is “ Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” P. 195. Luke x. 28. " live," i.e. “ have This is the translation in most of the " eternal life.” The question asked was, early English versions; and there being what he should do to inherit eternal no article before “ owingos, " Ott and life, and this is the conclusion of the owingos must, according to Dr. Middleton's answer.
Rules, refer to the same person. In the P. 206. Matt. xxii. 45. “ How, &c." same chapter, verse 11. the same words Not that our Saviour meant to insinuate occur, with the substitution only of that he was not David's Son as well as “ Kurio” for “ is.” “18 Kufre une ry David's Lord: but to point to the singu owlmpos Ingy Xp158;" and how are they reolarity of his nature : David's son, after dered? “ Our Lord and Saviour Jesus the flesh, as being born of one of his “ Christ," considering both terms “Lord lineal descendants, Mary: and yet David's “ and Saviour" as applying to the same Lord, as being the Son of God, one whose person ; and would it not be strange that, esistence did not then begin, when he was in sentences so nearly similar, and occurintroduced bodily into the world, but who ring so close to each other, the former had been in the beginning with God, by should be intended to apply to two perwhom also God made the world, and sons, and the latter only to one? In without whom was not any thing made 2 Pet. ii. 20. and iii. 2. “ 78 Kupit ng that was made. St. Austin on Ps, ix, to “ owinpos" is rendered as it ought, wards the end.
“ The Lord and Saviour," and refers to P.210. Matt.ix. 6. “The Son of Man," one and the same person, Jesus Christ. i.e. “ the Messiah.” The Jews under See Middl. 621 to 626. The original in stood this as one of the names of the Tit. ii. 13. is, “ Ipoodezcopteros Thu HCCNAEIOU Messiah, because it occurs in the pro ελπιδα, και επιφανειαν της δοξης το μεγαλα Θεο phesy Dan. vii. 13. (p. 92.) which was by owneos w Ingy. Xaisy" the literal transalways taken to apply to him. Our Sa- |lation of which I take to be, “ Looking “ for that blessed hope, and (or even) the 11 P. 240. Ps. i. 6. “ the Congregation “ appearance of the glory (i.e. the glo- | i. e. “. those whoin God collects, “ rious appearance) of our great God and « exempt them from calamity." “ Saviour Jesus Christ.” There being no P. 240. Ps. ii. This psalm was writte article before owlmpos, that word, accord by David (Acts. iv. 25.) and it either refe ing to Dr. Middleton's Rule, (Middl. 79, to himself, foretelling the discomfiture 80.) must refer to the same person to his enemies, and brings forward an assu whom 2:8 refers, and the context shews, ance God had made to him, that he (o that by '“ Oir" God the Father could some descendant froin him) should be t not be meant. The expected appearance God a Son, &c. or it applies wholly to th of Christ in glory is continually referred Messiah, and is a prophecy of the oppo to by St. Paul ; but where is there a sur sition he should experience, of the succes mise of the expectation of an appearance of his kingdom, and of the vengeance h of God the Father? No man had seen should take upon his opponents. The Him at any time, nor was there any inti latter was the opinion of the early Jews, mation that He would be seen : but the and is adopted by many of the ablest coming of the Lord, the coming of the commentators. See Pole's Synopsis.Son of Man in the clouds of heaven, 2 Hales's Chron. 369 to 371.-1 Hales's with power and great glory, is part of Trinity, 187.—and particularly Hales's Christ's prophecy, Matt. xxiv. 30.-Mark Dissert. 224 to 268. . xiii. 26. and Luke xxi. 27.; and was mat P. 241. Ps. ii, 2. “ against the Lord ler of earnest expectation in St. Paul's time. and against his Anointed.” The Hebrew Chrysostomi mentions this passage, vol. 4. is, “ against Jehovah and against his p. 32. in his 6th Discourse on the Phi .“ Messiah :" terms which David was not lippians, and vol. 6. p. 962. in his Dis likely to have used, had the psalm been course upon the Trinity; and in both he referable to himself.: considers it as clear, that "livaly 0:3" P. 241. Ps. ii. 4. “ The Lord.” The “ our great God," applies to Christ, not word in the Hebrew is not “ Jehovah," to the Father ; and Dr. Whitby notices, but Adonai or Adoni, a lower term, some that 870Favesse never occurs in the New times applied to God, and sometimes to Testament but when applied to Christ, man, and properly signifying “a Ruler." and some coming of his. See 2 Thess. It probably refers here to the Messiah, as ii. 8.-] Tim. vi. 14.-2 Tim. i. 10. and I it certainly does in the prophetic psalm, iv. 1. 8. Dr. Middleton's Rule is illus- Ps. cx. ). where “ the Lord said unto my trated by Col. i. 3. and Eph. v. 20. where, “ Lord,” is in the original, “Jehovah said by “TW OiW xy Tapo” “God and (or even) Il “unto ny Adon, or Ruler." the Father," the same person must be P. 241.' Ps. ï. 5. “ he,” i. e. “ God," meant by both terms. The rendering in he that dwelleth in heaven. See Pole's the French edition at Mons, 1672, of the Synopsis. text in Jude, is conformable to what 'P. 241. Ps. ii. 7. “ 1,” i.e. “ the Messeeins to me the true sense of the ori " siah.” Euseb. Eccl. Hist. B. i.c. 3. p.8. ginal: “Et qui renoncent Jesus Christ, P. 241. Ps. ii. 7. “ the Lord." Hebr. « notre unique Maitre, notre Dieu, et “ Jehovah.” “ potre Seigneur.”
P. 242. Ps.ü. 11. « The Lord.” Hebr. P. 223. Jer, xxiji. 6. “ The Lord,” “ Jehovah." Hebr. “ Jehovah," the incommunicable P. 242. Ps. ii. 12. “ The Son," i. e. name of God. See Hales's Disserta “ the Messiah." tions, 200.
P. 244. Ps. v. 11. “ destroy, &c.” The P. 223. Jer. xxiii. 6. “ Our righteous verbs in this and the beginning of v. 12. “ ness." Because through his mediation should rather be in the future, as predicand atonement his righteousness is to be tions, than in the optative, as imprecaimputed to us : to be carried to our ac tions : “thou shalt destroy,” “ they shall count: to be reckoned ours : we through “ perish,” “ thou shalt cast,” and “ all him are to be treated as righteous. See “ they that put their trust in thee shall
Hales's Trinity, 232. « He of God “ rejoice.” They are futures in the Hebrew, “(in the language of Rom. i. 30.) being but that language having no optatives, “ made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, what is there in the future, is rendered “and sanctification, and redemption." either as a future or an optative, as may · P. 240. Ps. i. 6. «The Judgment," i. e.. best suit what is supposed to be the probably “any time of visitation." meaning,