Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

It is a wonder, which no ground but that of Trinitariaus can ever explain. I mean the ground, that the divine and human natures coexisted in Christ, and that in the same sentence, he could with propriety speak of himself as human and divine. The sacred writers appear not to take the least pains to separate the two natures, in any thing which they say of either. They every where speak of Christ, (so it appears to me,) as either human or divine, or both. They do not seem to apprehend any danger of mistake, in regard to the subject; no more than we, when we say, Abraham is dead, or Abraham is alive, think it necessary to add, as to his body, in one case, or as to his soul, in the other.

This very negligence, (if I may be allowed the expression, saving every thing that would imply improper want of care,) offers a powerful argument to me, I confess, to prove that the sacred writers regarded the human and divine natures, as so intimately connected in Christ, that it was unnecessary and inexpedient to attempt a distinctive separation of them, on every occasion which brought to view the person or actions of Christ.

A second objection is urged; viz. that the king, who is the subject of the 45th Psalm, not only calls God his God, but is said to be "anointed with the oil of gladness, above his fellows." If Christ be truly divine, how, it is asked, can he have fellows i. e. equals ?

The answer to this has, in substance, already been given. Christ is introduced here as the incarnate Messiah. To the office of king, God "consecrated him with the oil of gladness," i. e. placed him in a royal station; he has the "oil of gladness above his fellows," or a rank above those, who also hold a regal office.

It has been objected, 3dly; that the 45th Psalm, from which nur text was taken, does not belong to the Messiah, but to David or Solomon. But how is this proved? “The language," it is said, "is such as to show, that it is a mere epithalamium, or nuptial ode on the marriage of one of these kings with a foreign princess." I have no time to enter into a discussion of this topic here; but I am satisfied. that the difficulties which press upon such a view of the forty fifth Psalm, are overwhelming. Whatever may be

said moreover to prove this, unless it be palpable demonstration, cannot weigh much in the minds of those, who regard the authority of the writer, that composed the Epis tle to the Hebrews. He has told us, that the passage in question is addressed to the Son.

Here then, if our view be correct, is one instance more, in which Christ is called God, with adjuncts which render it probable, that the supreme God is meant.

I should rank the texts, which I have already produced, as the leading ones to establish the divine nature of Christ. But there are others, which should not be neglected, in an impartial examination of Scripture evidence, on the present topic.

1 John v. 20.

"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true; and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."

There are two reasons here, why i aλndivos Deos, the true God, may be referred to Christ. 1. The grammatical construction favours it. Christ is the immediate antecedent. I grant that pronouns sometimes relate to a more remote antecedent; but cases of this nature stand on the ground of necessity, not of common grammatical usage. What doubt can there be, that John could, without scruple, call the Logos the true God, i aλntivos Osos, whom he had before asserted to be God and to have created all things?

But 2dly, my principal reason for referring the true God, • aandivos Deos, to Christ is, the other adjunct which stands with it; "This is the true God-and the ETERNAL LIFE." How familiar is this language with John, as applied to Christ! "In him (i. e. Christ) was LIFE, this LIFE was the "light of men-giving LIFE to the world-the bread of LIFE

my words are spirit and LIFE-I am the way, the truth, and the LIFE-the Logos of LIFE. This LIFE (Christ) was manifested and we have seen it and do testify to you, and declare, the ETERNAL LIFE, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us." 1 John i. 2. Now as I cannot find any instance in John's writings, in which the appellation of LIFE, and eternal LIFE, is bestowed upon the Father, to designate him as the author of spiritual and eternal life;

and as this occurs so frequently in John's writings as applied to Christ; the laws of exegesis compel me here, to accord in my exposition with the common laws of grammar, and to construe both : αληθινος Θεος and ἡ ζωή αιώνιος, (or as some Manuscripts, more consonantly with Greek idiom read, (an aravios,) both of Christ. If the true God then be not really divine who is?

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

I have three reasons for adducing this text. [1] There is no satisfactory proof, that it is an exclamation of surprise or astonishment. No phrase of this kind, by which the Jews were accustomed to express surprise or astonishment, has yet been produced; and there is no evidence that such a phrase, with the sense alleged, belongs to this language. [2] The evangelist tells us, that Thomas addressed himself to Jesus; said to him, estev avro; he did not merely exclaim. [3] The commendation, which the Saviour immediately bestows upon Thomas, serves chiefly to defend the meaning, that I attach to the verse. Christ commends him for having seen and believed. The evidence that he believed, was contained in the expression under examination: for before uttering this expression he is represented as doubting. On the supposition then, that the expression was a mere exclamation, what evidence was it to the mind. of Jesus, or could it be to the minds of others, that he admitted the claims of the Saviour of men, to the character which was connected with this office? What more proof of real belief can be found in such an exclamation, (if it be truly one,) than we can find that men are Christians, when they repeat, as is very common on occasions of surprise or delight, the name of Christ, by way of exclamation? But if we admit that the words of Thomas were the proper evidence and expression of that belief, for which the Saviour commended him; (and I do not see how we can fairly avoid this,) then we must admit that he will commend us, for believing that he is both Lord, and God, Kugios xai Osos; unless we adopt the notable expedient of Schlichting, who avers that Lord, is to be referred to Christ, and God, to the Father; which latter, he thinks, Thomas spoke, after some interval of time had elapsed!

I pass over several passages, where our common text applies the name of God to Christ; e. g. Acts xx. 28. and 1 Tim. iii. 16. In regard to this latter text however, it appears to me a plain case, that the authorities, which Gries bach himself has adduced, would fairly lead to a decision different from his own, respecting the genuineness of the reading, eos. I will not attempt to weigh them here; as I feel no desire to press into my service, witnesses of a character at all dubious. I admit the great desert of Griesbach, in his critical edition of the New Testament. I believe he was a man, who would not willingly, or consciously misrepresent either facts or arguments, for, or against any reading. But the work which he undertook, was too great to be accomplished by one person, or even by one whole generation of critics. Dr. Laurence, in his Essay upon the classification of manuscripts by Griesbach, has rendered it more than probable, that Griesbach's account of facts is not unfrequently very erroneous, (not through design, but from human infirmity:) and that the principles, by which he estimated the value of Manuscripts, and of course the genuineness of particular readings, are fundamentally erroneous. And since I am on this subject, I may take the liberty to state, (what seems to be so little known among us,) that Griesbach is not the only recent ed itor of a critical Testament, to which the great body of critics attach importance. The celebrated Matthäi, whom Middleton calls the best Greek scholar that ever edited a Greek Testament, published at Riga, (between A. D. 1782 --1788,) a critical Testament, of 12 vols., which approaches much nearer to the Textus Receptus, than the edition of Griesbach, with whom he is at variance. Eichhorn, (after giving a high character of this edition of Matthäi, and noticing, that in his maxims respecting the formation of the New Testament text, the editor differs very much from Griesbach and others,) says, that "for a long time he had followed the middle path between the two parties." [Bibliothek. Band ii. St. 2. s. 411.]

The whole system of classifying Manuscripts, which lies at the very foundation of all Griesbach's decisions in regard to the text, is rejected by Matthäi as worthless; and Dr. Laurence has, in the Essay above mentioned, made an attack upon the same classification, which renders questiona

ble the principles of it; at least the application of those principles, as made by Griesbach.

Professor Knapp, of Halle, has also published a Greek Testament, the text of which is independent of Griesbach's although it approximates to it. This edition is esteemed, for its punctuation, order of words, accentuation and spirituation; and has great currency.

I acknowledge this is digression. But it may be useful to those, who are in the habit of attributing so much weight to Griesbach's decisions, to know that they are far from being uncontroverted, by many of the best critics among his own countrymen. I know of no Commentator of note, who has made Griesbach's text his basis, except Paulus; and he has reexamined all his decisions.

To return however to our subject; we do not want, and feel no disposition to use, either of the texts referred to above as proof texts, in the question before us.

There is another class of texts, which I have not hitherto mentioned, because the certainty of their meaning is commonly thought to be less capable of demonstration, than that of others which I have produced. I refer to such texts, as Ephes. v. 5. "The kingdom of Christ and God." Titus ii. 13. "Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearance of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ." 2 Tim. iv. 1. "I adjure you before God, even Jesus Christ, who will judge the quick and the dead at his appearance and kingdom. 2 Pet. i. 1. ... ." of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ."

The translation of these texts here proposed is altogeth-. er in conformity to the Greek idiom. Middleton (on the article) thinks it absolutely essential to it. For although proper names and abstract nouns, in such a connexion as Oos and Xpiros here, may take the article before the first noun, and omit it before the second, and yet designate different things and persons; yet if words, which are attributives, omit the article in such a case, they exhibit evidence that they are to be connected with a preceding noun, and are the predicates of it, and not significant of something separate. E. g. in the first case; Fph. v. 5, " the kingdom of Christ and God," according to this rule, would mean, of Christ who is God." In the second instance, Tit. ii. 13, the meaning is, "of the great God, who is our Saviour," &c.

« ÖncekiDevam »