« AnteriorContinuar »
P. 192.--(2) Mr. Cappe is an exception to this observation: “ with respect (says he) to the two first chapters of Luke's Gospel, I find in them no internal traces of forgery or fiction, but many of genuineness and truth. Here are no mistakes; here is nothing inconsistent with manners or with facts, nothing that accords not, as well as truth could accord, with all we know of what went before, or of what followed this narrative: every thing that is ascribed to every character, whether word or deed, is perfectly natural and proper. The narratives of Matthew and Luke are both forged, if either is : they agree perfectly together, and reciprocably elucidate and support each other. Some things in the narratives are of such a nature, that they were likely to bring the whole into controversy; such as an ingenious forger would have avoided, as improbable; such as would hardly have presented themselves to his imagination; or, if they had, such as he would have rejected, lest they should discredit his fiction;" and much more to the same purpose.-See Monthly Repositary, Vol. VIII. p. 190.
Dr. Carpenter, also; believes in the genuineness of St. Luke's introduction.-Reply to Dr. Magee, Bristol, 1820, p. 123.
Dr. Lardner believed in the miraculous conception; though he denied the pre-existence of our Lord.
Ρ. 204.-(3) Εν μορφη θεου, not του Θεου, nor Θεος ων. Εαν ειπωμεν θεος ανευ τoυαρθρου, τον τυχοντα ειποιμεν θεον των εθνων, SEOV τον [adde μη] οντα εαν δε ειπωμεν ο Θεος, δηλον ως απο του ο αρθρου, τον οντα σημαινομεν, αληθη τε και γινωσκομενον. John 1. 1.-Εphiphanius apud Wetstein.
In like manner, it is οτ ειναι ισα θεω, not τω Θεω nor θεος ειναι. This and the former phrase are synonymous. They are both in. compatible with identity; and the latter implies only similitude, according to the following unsuspected authorities, Wetstein, Schleusner, Doddridge, Parkhurst, M‘Knight, Whitby, Newcome and many others. Doddridge and after bim Parkhurst observe, that the proper phrase for equal to God, is soov TW Osw as in John v.18.
Aguayov myndato. The shades of meaning assigned to this phrase are various. See Wetstein for classics and fathers: Merici Casauboni Diatribe apud Crenii Analecta for nume. rous' authorities of a later period; and Newcome, &c. for more recent opinions. There is a similar phrase in Sallust : ' quasi honori non prædæ habeant:" Milton, in his posthu. mous work, p. 105, interprets the phrase, thus: “nempe quia id dono acceperat, non rapto."
Το ειναι ισα θεωI consider as equivalent to ομοιωμα, and put in apposition with
Ортаудоу: : thus
ουχ ηγησατο το ειναι ισα SEW (EIVO!)
. astaruo. The words express his state at the time, not a future acquisition. In this case the verb would be egeBur; as observed by Pierce, of Exeter.
The parallelism of the principal expressions is obvious, Mogen θεο and μορφηυν δουλου, ισα θεω and ομοιωματα ανθρωπων. The following passage is quoted by Dr. Clarke from Eusebius; Πως αυτος ην εν μορφη θεου, δυναμει αυτος ων ο θεος; πως δε ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα θεω, αυτος ων ο θεος.-Contra Marcell, I. c. 18.
P. 208.—14) The interpretation of the text in the notes on the Improved Version is as follows: “Christ, invested with miraculous powers, was in the form of God: but declining to use them for his own personal advantage, he appeared like any other frail and weak mortal.” Bishop Burnett observes, that the Socinian interpretation is extremely cold and insipid, as if it were a mighty argument of humility, that though Christ wrought miracles, yet he did not set up for the Supreme Deity.--Doddridge's Family Expositor.
P. 210. (5) “ Animus hominis habet primum memoriamquam quidem Plato recordationem esse vult superioris vitæ. Socrates (vult) ut discere nihil aliud sit, nisi recordari: nec fieri ullo modo posse, ut a pueris tot-notiones haberemus, nisi animus, antequam in corpus intravisset, in rerum cognitione viguisset; neque ea plane videt animus, cum tam repente in insolitum, tamque perturbatum domicilium immigravit: sed cum se collegit atque recreavit, tum agnoscit illa reminiscen• do."--Cicero. Tusculan. I. 24.
: P. 211.--16) “At the name of Jesus,” should be translated " in the name," says Archbishop Secker. It corresponds with praying in the name of Christ.-See Vol. III. 344.
P. 213.-17) The Holy Spirit, as he is subordinate to the Father; so he is also represented in Scripture as subordinate to the Son, both by nature and by the will of the Father; excepting only, that he is described as being the conductor and guide of our Lord, during his state of humiliation here upon earth.
Upon these grounds supreme honour or worship is due to the person of the Father singly, as being alone the supreme and original author of all being and power.
For the same reason, all prayers and praises ought primarily or ultimately to be directed to the person of the Father, as the original and primary author of all good.
These two last propositions, being practical and not merely speculative, are of the greatest moment and importance. Whatever possible hypothesis be received as to the specula. tive part; yet these two propositions are necessarily right in practice.-Clarke's Scripture Trinity, Prop. 43, 44.
Many Anti-trinitarians, however, in ancient and modern times have thought, that both praises and prayers ought to be offered to Christ. Among those of later date, is, Henry Taylor, he vindicates the worship of Christ, but confesses, that it is no where enjoined; and that “many of those, who allow it to be defensible, do not consider it as a duty, and seldom, if ever, practise it; but direct their prayers to the Supreme God himself, through Jesus Christ, as the Mediator between God and man; this being the way, in which Christ directed them to pray.”-Mordecai's Apology, p. 418.
Micaiah Towgood, also, author of the Dissenting Gentleman's Letters, agreed with this, both in sentiment and practice. See his life, p. 135, written by his Colleague and worthy Successor, Rev. James Manning, of Exeter.
That learned and pious Physician, Dr. R. Perceval, of Dublin, maintains the same opinions, in his Essay on the Divinity of Jesus Christ, with his characteristic liberality and candour.
There is, I think, an unreasonable prejudice in many against praying " for Christ's sake,” and “through the merits of Christ.” If these phrases do not occur expressly in Scripture, it is as well to avoid them: but I see nothing in the first, that is not implied in the intercession; nor in the second, that does not accord with my text; which magnifies the merits of Christ, and implies their influence with the Almighty. The objection holds, only, when they are considered as the sole terms of acceptance. In Eph. iv. 32, sins are said, in our translation, to be forgiven "for Christ's sake,” literally, "in Christ.” In 1 John ii. 12, sins are said to be forgiven "for his name's sake,” da TO OVOMA AUTOU. In Scripture his name signi. fies himself, but Newcome translates it, “through his name." If our sins be forgiven “for his sake," we may implore forgiveness " for his sake.”
HEBREWS vii. -35. “ He is able to save them to the uttermost, that come to
God by him, seeing, he ever liveth to make intercession for us,”
INTERCESSION is a doctrine which presents itself to us in different parts of Scripture, under every form of illustration. Abraham interceded for the people of Sodom, and Moses for the children of Israel. Job offered sacrifices for his sons; and we are taught to “pray for one another," and for the sick; for the ministers of religion; and for kings, and all persons in authority. The intercession of Christ is foretold by Isaiah, and occurs in the Gospels and Epistles. It flows from the pens of the Apostles in their argumentative writings, and from the lips of our Lord in his consolatory addresses, and most earnest sup