« AnteriorContinuar »
divinity, together with a partial and unsatisfactory Ecclesiastical his-
To furnish students, especially candidates for Holy Orders, and Clergymen who may not be able to command access to voluminous and expensive commentaries and other treatises, with the means of prosecuting this special study of the New Testament, is the object of Mr. Trollope's “ Analecta Theologica ;" which originated in the difficulties he himself experienced at his entrance on the critical study of the New Testament. “The limited interval,” he justly remarks, “ between the time of a student's taking his academical degree, and of entering the Church, renders it impossible to wade through the voluminous folios of the various commentaries on the Scriptures : and the enormous expense of procuring them is no less a bar to his wishes, even if he had leisure for their gratification. Several attempts," he continues, “have been made, to facilitate this branch of Theological study by means of abstracts or summaries of the principal commentaries on the New Testament, but none of them appear to have answered the end proposed. From the want of perspicuity in their arrangement, they are calculated to perplex rather than assist. No order or uniformity is observed in the connexion of the different expositions ; their comparative probability is entirely overlooked ; and the inquirer is left in a maze of conflicting opinions, without any guide to direct his escape from the labyrinth of uncertainty, in which he finds himself bewildered.” (Pref. p. vii.) Disappointed in those works, to which he had looked for assistance, Mr. T. several years
VOL. XII. NO. I.
since, formed the design of collecting into one point of view the several opinions of the best commentators, English and foreign, on the New Testament, condensed into as small a compass as was consistent with perspicuity, and exhibiting the relative weight of the arguments by which they were supported. Thus, the student would be presented with a comprehensive digest of the criticism, philology, and exposition of the sacred text, and be enabled to judge of the merits of each particular comment, without being obliged to refer to the commentators themselves.
Such is the general design of Mr. Trollope; who, in filling it up, has arranged the several interpretations of any disputed or doubtful passage in the order of their respective merits, beginning with that which has the least, and ending with that which has the greatest degree of probability. Every argument of weight, adduced in support of each opinion, is concisely stated; objections are confuted, or confirmed; and the principal authorities in favour of the adopted exposition are given at the end of the note, distinguished from those on the contrary side by means of brackets. Presuming that the student possesses Mr. Horne's Introduction to the Critical Study of the Scriptures, Mr. T. has purposely omitted all the points discussed by him; except in a few instances, which seemed to require a fuller investigation than the nature of his work would admit.
Mr. Trollope has drawn his materials from the best sources, British and foreign. Among the English commentators and critics, whose voluminous labours are here condensed into a small compass, we observe the names of Archbishop Newcome, Bishops Horsley, Burgess, Blomfield, Marsh, Middleton, Mant, Newton, and Pearce; Doctors Allix, A. Clarke, Doddridge, Campbell, Hammond, Lightfoot, Macknight, Lardner, Wall, and Whitby; and Messrs. Gilpin, Markland, Parkhurst, Holden (whose judicious selection of “ Scrip. ture Testimonies to the Divinity of Jesus Christ” is much less known than it deserves to be), &c. &c. Among foreign commentators, besides the works of Josephus, and the valuable expository writings of Chrysostom and Theophylact, we recognize the names of Alberti, Beausobre, Elsner, Grotius, Griesbach, Heinsius, Krebs, Kuinoel, Kypke, Le Clerc, Loesner, Michaelis, Munthe, Rosenmüller, Schleusner, Schmidius, and Schoettgen. From the last-mentioned critic, and from Dr. Lightfoot, Mr. T. has derived numerous elucidations of Jewish idioms and phrases; while many forms of expression are happily elucidated from classic authors.
Where any important various reading occurs, that which is best supported by critical evidence, is established: and throughout the work, the author has laudably exposed the erroneous intepretations of particular passages by Romanists and Unitarians. Of the four Gospels, that
of St. Matthew comes first in order, and is the longest of the four narratives of our Saviour's life, so that the annotations on it are of course the most copious: but the analyses of the chapters in which the parallel passages of the other Gospels are indicated, will enable the student readily to find notes on any text which he may require. Many of the notes, from the variety and extent of the information which is condensed in them, might almost be termed dissertations. We have been particularly struck with the summary of the doctrine of the Greek article, in pp. 9–11, which is abridged from the late Bishop Middleton's masterly treatise; the note on the chronology of the visit of the Magi, pp, 21-26 ; and those on the dæmoniacs, pp. 55, 56; on Mat. xi. 3, the message from John the Baptist to Jesus Christ, pp. 135, 136; on the typical resemblance between John the Baptist and Christ, pp. 141-143; on the foundation of the Christian Church, and the power of the keys, pp. 198—202 ; on the Transfiguration, pp. 206-210; on Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem, pp. 250—252; on Matt. xxvi. 6, reconciling a supposed discrepancy between St. Matthew and St. John, pp. 310–312; on the time when our Saviour celebrated his last passover, pp. 313-315; on the Resurrection, and change of the Sabbath, pp. 363-371; on Christian Baptism, pp. 376—379; on the circumstances connected with the births of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, pp. 440—445; on Luke ii. 1, on the date of the nativity as connected with the taxing mentioned by St. Luke, pp. 467—473; and on the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and the date of Christ's Baptism, in pp. 486—491. • We had marked many of the shorter notes, which are more particularly worthy of attention ; but as the limits necessarily assigned to the critical department of our journal, will not allow us to enumerate them, we select the following at random:
Matt. xvi. 18. où el Tiérpos, k. 7.d. It is well known that upon the declaration of our Lord in this and the following verse the Church of Rome rests its presumptuous doctrine of supremacy and infallibility. The futility of the Papal claims will appear from the following considerations.
[ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. The discussion of this point involves, (1.) The relative signification of tétpos and térpa : (2.) Who or what was the rock upon which Christ determined to build his Church; and (3.) To what antecedent the pronoun aŭrñs should properly be referred.
I. It is maintained by some writers that there is no distinction between Trétpos and trét pa, in opposition to the Greek grammarians, who explain the former of a small stone, and the latter a great stone or rock. Eustath. on Hom. Il. N. 137. métpos• Tò cñs métpas åtotunév. That it bears this sense in classic authors is evident from Herod. IX. 55. Callim. Apoll. 22. Soph. Cd. T. 342. Æschin. Socrat. Dial. III. 21. Instances indeed have been adduced from which it should seem that trétpos is sometimes used for tétpa; but there is no such example in the N. T. or the LXX. and if it be urged that Peter's Syriac name, Cephas, means both métpos and métpa, it is replied that the former meaning is unequivocally appropriated in John i. 42.
II. By most Roman Catholic writers St. Peter himself is looked upon as the ock upon which Christ was to build his Church; and in this interpretation they have been followed by some of the leading Protestant divines. But by this application of tétpa a meaning is affixed to métpos contrary to all legitimate authority; and it is therefore urged that tétpos is changed to térpa solely because the former does not signify a foundation-stone, and therefore could not be so employed. The usage of Scripture, however, plainly proves that this is not the case, for the term rock is wholly confined to God and Christ. Compare Deut. xxxiii. 4. 2 Sam. xxii. 2. 32. Psalm xviii. 2. It should seem, therefore, that the foundation of the Church of Christ was not Peter himself, but the important truth of which he had just made confession, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. This interpretation is supported by many of the ancient Fathers, and even by some of the Popes themselves. Chrysostom, Hom. XIV. in Matt. Tŷ métpaTOUTÉOTI rñ miorel tñs doloylas. Again, Hom. CLXIIII. oỦA GLT6v #Ti Ti TếTpq, ojre yào kì Tộ ảo6,5T, CA’ em? try niotiv Trv éavtoũ Q kodóuno ou éKKAnoiav. Augustin in Tract X. in Epist. 1 John: Quid est, super hanc petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam? Super hanc fidem ; super id quod dictum est, Tu es Christus Filius Dei. So Pope Greg. M. Epist. III. 32. Vitam vestram in petra Ecclesiæ, hoc est, in confessione B. Petri, solidate. Nor does this interpretation destroy the allusion which our Lord evidently intended to make to the name of Peter, but rather preserves it. Basilius Seleuciensis observes : Tautn tnv guodoylav tétpav kaléoas o Xplotos, Ilétpov, ονομάζει τον πρώτως ταυτην ομολογήσαντα, γνώρισμα της ομολογίας την προσηγορίαν δωρούμενος. This view of the subject will be considerably strengthened by considering what is meant in Scripture by the Church. The word ekkinoia signifies primarily a concourse of people, assembled for any purpose good or bad, (Acts xix. 32. 39.) and therefore requires some word to be joined to it to determine its nature, as the Church of God, the Church of Christ. As applied, however, kar' Foxov, it is well defined in the 19th Article to be a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly ministered, according to Christ's ordinance. This Church is represented in the N. T. under the figure of a building, of which Jesus Christ himself is the chief corner stone (Ephes. ii. 20. compare Col. ü. 7. Jude 20.) laid by the confession and preaching not of Peter only, but of all Apostles, who are collectively designated living stones, CVTES Nidou, of the edifice : 1 Pet. ii. 4. The term lídos is precisely synonymous with trét pos, and the former is not employed by Christ, only on account of the allusion of the latter to métpa, the rock on which the Church was built. It is one of those instances of paronomasia so common in the 0. T. Compare Gen. iii. 20. xxvii. 36. in which Eve has the same relation to living, and Jacob to supplanted, as Peter has here to rock. The Apostle therefore was a mérpos, and not the métpa of the Church
III. The Romanists refer the relative avtñs to ékkinoiav, in which they are followed by almost all commentators, without assenting however to their explanation, that by the Church is meant the Church of Rome, or the inference deduced from it, that the Church of Rome is infallible. This interpretation is wholly untenable on the ground of historical fact; and the grammatical construction is also against it. For aútäs should unquestionably be referred not to the Church, but to the Rock upon which it was built; i.e the Gospel. It should be observed, however, that under either interpretation of the passage, the Papal claims can derive no support from it; as will be fully shewn under the subject of the Keys, in the next verse. Lightfoot, Bæza, GR. SHARPE, Bp. BURGESS.[Grotius, MICHAELIS, Whitby, BP. MARSH, &c.]—Pp. 198—200. .
This note on the power of the Keys, want of room compels us to omit. The Socinian tenet, that the death of Christ was merely a seal and ratification of the new covenant, is well refuted in the following note, which establishes the doctrine of the atonement:
* Μatt. Xx. 28. λύτρον αντί πολλών. The word λύτρον signifes a ransom or price of redemption, whether from death, captivity, or any other state of misery whatsoever. In Exod. xxi. 30. LXX. it is used for the Hebrew 1979, pedion, the ransom for a man's life. But it more generally corresponds in the LXX with the Hebrew 72, copher, which signifies a piacular sacrifice; as in Numb. Xxxv. 31. Prov. vi. 35. in which latter place several other versions use
Einaoua, and the LXX themselves also translate the verb 73 by Eidão Dai, in Levit. iv. 20. x. 17. Psalm cvi. 30. In this sense also the Greek word is employed in Lucian. D. D. p. 125. Kpiòv tedúo eo bai Nútpa útép é uou. Hesych. Ethaoua: ivrinut pov. With respect to the efficacy of vicarious sacrifices, the whole Gentile world, as well as the Jews, were very generally persuaded that piacular victims were accepted as an atonement for the life of an offender; and that the life of one person was, in some cases, given for the life of another. These persons were called dvriyoxol, and there is an oracular response in Aristid. Sacr. V. founded upon this notion, wherein yoxò årti yuxas is required. So Virg. Æn. V. 85. Unum pro multis dabitur caput. Compare also Josh. ii. 14. LXX. Joseph. de Maccab. p. 1090. C. Porphyr. de Åbstin. IV. 15. Eurip. Phæn. 1011. Alcest. 293. See also Horne's Introd. Vol III. p. 157. Our Lord, therefore, clearly meant, and was understood by the Apostles to mean, that he gave his life instead of the life of others. Some, indeed, have supposed, that the words dúrpov årtì mollôr mean, one ransom instead of many ransoms; i.e. the many prescribed by the Jewish law; and the Socinians affirm, that the death of Christ was not intended as a substitute for that of men, but as the seal and ratification of the New Covenant. The criticism, upon which this depends, is supported by Deut. vii. 8. LXX, where the verb &urposato signifies simply, delivered from captivity. But there no ransom is mentioned; whereas the death of Christ is here expressly stated as the lútpov, and the sense of the passage is confirmed beyond all doubt by the use of the preposition évti in its strong and original sense of instead, in the place of The word mollớv has also been a stumbling-block, as seeming to imply, that redemption is not universal. Some have argued, therefore, that mooi is used of believers only; but it is far more satisfactory to understand rolloi in the sense of trávtes, which it clearly bears in a variety of passages. Compare especially Dan. xii. 2. with John v. 28, 29. and Rom. v. 15. 19. with 1 Cor. xv. 12. 22. Again, a question has arisen, whether the prevalent opinion respecting the Messiah, that he would not be subject to death, (John xü. 34.) would have allowed the Apostles to understand Jesus as speaking to the effect which his words imply. It is certain, indeed, that they did not altogether comprehend the nature and intent of Christ's sufferings, even after his repeated declarations on that subject; still it is equally true that many of the more enlightened Jews expected that their Messiah would make some sort of expiation for the sins of their nation. He is spoken of, for instance, as 7 Wix, aish copher, which is equivalent with ávnp lútpov, an appellation which probably originated in Dan. ix. 24. where it is predicted that he should make reconciliation for iniquity. Compare Matt. xxvi. 28. John xi. 51, 52. Ephes. v. 2. 1 Tim. i. 6. Heb. ix. 14. 28. WHITBY, LE CLERC, KYPKE, KUINOEL.-[GROTIUS, CALVIN, WAKEFIELD.] There is a remarkable addition to this passage in the Codex Bezæ, and some MSS. and Versions; but it is evidently an interpolation from some Apocryphal Gospel.—Pp. 247, 248.
We subjoin one more passage on Matt. xxvi. 37, on account of the importance of its subject - the agony of our Saviour in the Garden of Gethsemane :
From the strong expressions employed in the description of our blessed Saviour's agony, from the earnestness of his prayer for deliverance, and, indeed, from all the attendant circumstances, it is unquestionable that his distress of mind was in the highest degree poignant and acute. Of the cause, however, to