Page images
PDF
EPUB

same nature with one another, - which, I think, is the argument adduced, — it would not surely follow, that if God were pleased to bring a man near unto himself, as he did Enoch (Gen. v. 24), or to place him next in authority, as he did David, over his people, that there would be any such thing as equality or consubstantiality between them. - DR. BLAYNEY: Note to his Translation of Zechariah, p. 67; and Appendix, in reply to Dr. Eveleigh, p. 82.

MALACHI.

Mal. i. 6: “A son honoureth [his] father, and a servant his "master: if, then, I [be] a father, where [is] mine honour? and if I “ [be] a master, where [is] my fear? saith Jehovah of hosts,” &c.

1I78, his master, or lord. The plural termination of 1978 is here, as usual, employed on account of dignity. - MARCKIUS. [So Piscator, E. F. C. ROSENMÜLLER, and others.

D'1178, adonim, a master, or lord. Lyra deduces from this text the mystery of the Trinity, because the plural word d'378 occurs in it; but the argument is useless against the Jews. For, according to the idiom of the Hebrew language, they explain the plural number in the sense of the singular; as the Latins, in calling one city, Athenas, Athens. —- CECOLOMPADE [who refers to Isa. xix. 4 and Exod. xxi. 4].

D'1178, Lords, is said both of one and many, according to the usage of this language, by which the plural is often taken for the singular, to denote great honour and dignity. Thus it is used of the one God, Ps. cxxxvi. 3. Mal. i. 6; and of one Potiphar, Pharaoh, Joseph, &c. Gen. xxiv. 9; xxxix. 2; xl. 1; xlii. 30. Judg. iii. 25. 2 Sam. xx.

6.CASTELL: Lex. Hept. col. 43.

[The word d'1778, as used here and in other places, is explained to indicate honour or dominion, with a singular signification, by DRUSIUS in loc; BUXTORF, the Father, Heb. Lex. v. 2778; BUXTORF, the Son, Dissert. Philol.-Theol. Diss. de Nom. Dei Heb. § 51, 52; W. ROBERTSON, Thes. Ling. Sanct. Dissertatio; Marcus, Heb. Gram. p. 128; and Professor LEE, Gram. of the Heb. Lang. art. 223, 3.]

MAL. ii. 1: “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom ye soek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith Jehovah of hosts.”

303 777, the way before me, or before my face. He says, before my face, because God lives in the Messiah more fully and perfectly than in any prophet.- GROTIUS.

Before my face; that is, before me. The Father speaks, as is evident from Matt. xi. 10. Mark i. 2. Luke vii. 27. But the evangelists say, before thy face, because before the Father is also before the Son, and the Father was in the Son, and did the works. EMMANUEL SA. [Dr. H. OWEN (Modes of Quot. p. 34) thinks, that the Hebrew was first corrupted, and that the Greek was afterwards adjusted to it.]

The way before me. Before me, as my servant to prepare the people for the coming of my Son, who shall act in my name. DR. BOOTHROYD: Family Bible. [So JOSEPH BENson.]

The plainest way of expounding these words here [before me] seems to be to look upon them as spoken here, as well as in the evangelists, by God the Father concerning Christ; here, of him; there, expressly to him. And then the saying here," my messenger before me,” and there, “thy way before thee,” making the same way to be called God's way here, and Christ's there, affords us an evident proof, that Christ is one God with the Father, and that in Christ God came, and was manifest in the flesh.—[No Unitarian will object to the latter interpretation, but it is quite inconsistent with the former; for surely the being in whom God is cannot be God himself.] — For the proving the same, viz. that Christ is one God with the Father, some would take from what is here said, before my face, an argument, thence proving that Christ is called The face of God; but others observe, that, according to the use of the Hebrew tongue, before my face is no more than before me. And therefore, our translators, so rendering it, show that they thought not in the word my face to be concluded any argument for proving the Divinity of Christ, on which any great stress ought to be laid; and they that think it, ought to show how then the words, as here uttered by the prophet, and as cited in the gospels, may be reconciled. For, if by my face be here meant that Christ is the face of God, who then shall be there understood by thy face? who shall be called the face of Christ? - Dr. Pocock.

,ופתאם יבוא אל היכלו האדון אשר אתם מבקשים

Statimque postea in veniet in regiam suam Dominus, quem quæritis.

LE CLERC.

Who by this Lord is meant is agreed on all hands by Christian interpreters; namely, that it is Christ, “ whom God hath made both Lord and Christ,” Acts ii. 36, and “who is Lord over all,” chap. x. 36; by whom all things were made, &c. By his temple some have anciently understood Christ's human nature, or body, of which he spake, John ii. 21; or his church; or all faithful believers, who are called likewise the temple of God, 1 Cor. iii. 16; or the like. Yet, &c. This argument (that Christ is God because the temple is called his temple), though pious and conclusive to Christians [that is, of course, as the doctor meant, to Trinitarian Christians], yet a learned man, Pet. A FIGUEIRO, would not have to be much insisted on, as to the signification of the word 5798, inasmuch as it doth not only signify a temple, or house of worship, but also a palace. — DR. Pocock.

This word [11787, the Sovereign] is often applied to magistrates, fathers, and other human lers; but, in every instance in which it occurs, as here, with the emphatic prefix 17, it is used only as a name of Deity. - JOHN HENRY MICHAELIS; apud Smith's Script. Test. vol. i. p. 442. [This extract is made principally in order to introduce the following remark:- Supposing it perfectly evident, as some Unitarians think, that the Lord or Sovereign, even the messenger of the covenant, here designates Jehovah himself, it by no means follows that any reference is made to a being called the second person of the Trinity. Indeed some eminent Trinitarians, such as SCHULZ and the younger ROSENMÜLLER, as we have already seen (vide p. 108), are of opinion, that by the term angel or messenger of Jehovah is frequently meant in Scripture " that visible symbol by which the Deity manifested himself to men;" excluding any notion of hypostatical distinctions in the essence of the Godhead.]

minan 78301, even the messenger of the covenant. Christ is called the angel, or messenger, because he was sent by the Father into the world. - MUNSTER and CLARIUS.

He is called the messenger or angel of the covenant, because in him God founded the covenant of grace, and by him, as Mediator of it, administered it. DR. Pocock.

[The text now considered is the last of those which are generally adduced from the Old Testament in favour of the received opinion concerning God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. We have now, by the aid of the most distinguished divines professing Trinitarianism, cleared some of the simple and sublime passages of the Jewish Scriptures from the mystical clouds which have been too often thrown around them; and, by the same means, have shown that the more obscure places are either unfit for proving the truth of any essential point in theology, or are susceptible of being rendered and interpreted in such a manner as to be in complete unison with the great doctrine of reason and revelation, that God is one - one in the common acceptation of the word. We have laid down “ line upon line"accumulateil criticisms, explanations, and remarks — from the works of Trinitarian theologians, some of whom, in interpreting Scripture, seem to have endeavoured to know nought of sect or system, and others who have ransacked every portion of Holy Writ with the view apparently of making it speak the language of reputed orthodoxy; but all severally acknowledging, in one place or another, that the texts of the Old Testament commonly alleged in support of what is called the Trinity do not at all prove that doctrine; — making these admissions, too, sometimes in language as strong and express as has proceeded from the

pen

of
any

Unitarian. But we fully admit, that these concessions are not sufficient for settling the controversy. It may be, that the Deity purposely withheld the knowledge of his nature from his chosen people. be, that he designed not to reveal what he was and is, until “ the fulness of the time," when the Lord Jesus Christ should make his appearance on the earth.

It may be, that he did reveal himself to the world, by the Saviour and his apostles, as not only One Being, but, in some mysterious sense, Three Persons; - not only as the sole Creator and Governor of the universe, but as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, who existed, as distinct hypostases, from all eternity, the same in essence, and equal to each other in power and glory. Let us, then, ascertain whether he “who was in the bosom of the Father," and declared his will, taught this mysterious doctrine; and whether they to whom he gave authority to preach the gospel, and who “declared the whole counsel of God," have left in their writings any clear and indubitable traces of their having believed and preached the dogma of a Triune Divinity. And let us make this inquiry, as before, through the medium of the candour and learning of the professed believers in so-called orthodoxy.]

It may PART III.

TEXTS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

MATTHEW.

Matt. i. 16: And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of “whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”

XPLOTOS, Christ, Messiah, Anointed One. We express ourselves in a very suspicious manner, by giving the name Christ to the divine nature of our Lord. That name can donote only a person who has received graces, gifts, and perfections, and a dignity, which he did not possess of himself. · BEAUSOBRE: Hist. de Manich. tom. i. p. 115; apud Lardner, vol. x. p. 177.

The word Christ bears the same signification in Greek, as Messiah in Hebrew; that is, anointed; a name generally applied to the Jewish kings, because it was usual to anoint them. See 1 Sam. x. 1; xvi. 1, 13; xxiv. 6.- LE CLERC.*

So was Jesus called, because he was appointed and consecrated by the Father to be King, Priest, and supreme Prophet of his church, in respect of his whole person. DIODATI.*

Our Mediator was called Christ, because he was anointed with the Holy Ghost above measure; and so set apart, and fully furnished with all authority and ability, to execute the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King of his church, in the estate both of his humiliation and exaltation.- WESTMINSTER DIVINES: Larger Catechism, Q. 42.

* It may be necessary to mention, that remarks by Le Clerc, without a reference to the work, are from his “ Nouveau Testament ;" and that consecutive commentaries, whether on single books, or on the whole of the New Testament, such as those of Diodati, Kuinoel, Stuart, Bloomfield, and others, will be but seldom referred to in the extracts. The names of the books, with the editions used, will be found at the end of the work, in a list of authors consulted. These being known, the place of any particular extract will, of course, be discovered under the text in question.

« PreviousContinue »