Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

UNIVERSITY

CALIFORNIA

MONOTESSARON.

PART FIRST,

Containing the history of Christ's nativity, and his public ministry, to the death of the Baptist.

SECTION FIRST.

INTRODUCTION.

Whereas many* have undertaken to compose a history of those facts which have been fully accredit

* Seeing Luke informs us, in the beginning of the fifth chapter, that the people pressed on Jesus to hear the word of God, we should not be surprised that many would take memorandums of what they heard, and also that frequent inquiries, should be made concerning the doctrines and miracles of Jesus. These detached memorandums would be soon compiled into a history, which would be more or less accurate and authentic, according to the fidelity with which the particulars were collected, and the wisdom and propriety with which they were arranged. These memorandums constituted the foundation of the Gospel History, and to them the Evangelists were much indebted for the various and numerous narratives of which their own histories are composed. But as many reports, not founded on facts, would also obtain circulation, and each being desirous of rendering his history as complete as possible, we cannot be surprised at the number of imperfect and spurious books which obtained, during the first ages of the Christian Church. We have, therefore, abundant reason for gratitude to the kind Providence of Almighty God, who inspired so suitable and worthy a man as Luke, to undertake the assiduous and laborious work of making an accurate and orderly compilation of the Gospel History, for the instruction, comfort, and satisfaction of the Church of Christ through all succeeding ages.

Three Hypotheses have been suggested to account for the singular coincidences of language, which are found in the three first Gospels. First. The Evangelists copied from each other. This was the opinion of Grotius, Wetstein, Mill, Owen, Townson, Hales, Harwood, and Griesbach.-Second. The Evangelists copied from one common document, which contained those passages that are si

ed* among us, even as they, who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Logos,t delivered them to us: it seemed good to me‡ also, having accurately traced

milar. This Hypothesis was adopted by Le Clerc, Lessing, Michaelis, and Eichhorn. Third. The Gospels were compiled from memorandums of Christ's discourses, taken by his auditors. There can be no difficulty in uniting these three Hypotheses; for suppose Matthew compiled his Hebrew Gospel from detached memorandums; this Hebrew Gospel would be a common document for Luke, Mark and Matthew's translator: Luke might copy Matthew, Mark copy Luke, and Matthew's translator, would occasionally copy both Luke

and Mark.

*Though the original word, AngoPognμevov, signifies to be persuaded, or accomplished, I have chosen the term, accredited, as the best calculated to express the meaning of the Evangelists, and the general import of the translators and commentators on this passage. All the events of the Gospel History were so well attested, and the predictions of the ancient prophets so fully accomplished, in the life and ministry of our blessed Master, that the whole vocabulary of the Greek and English languages cannot afford more appropriate words to express the meaning of the sacred historian, than those which have been selected. All the facts were so notorious and public, as to be well and powerfully attested by many thousands, who had no other inducement, than the love of truth and sincerity, to bear testimony, even at the risk of their lives, to the wonderful works of God. Hence the Gospel is supported by an accumulation of evidence, which frowns into shame and disrepute, every attack of infidelity and unbelief.

+ The word Logos is here used as an appellative, to denote Jesus Christ, whose name is the Logos of God, Rev. 19. 13. Such was the opinion of Origen, Athanasius, Gomarus, Cameron, Capellus, Witzius, Wolf, and Calovius. As John has used this word in his introduction to denote that being who holds the second rank in the Universe, I have not translated the term, believing that no word, in the modern languages, adequately expresses the sense affixed to the word Logos, by Philo and the Platonic philosophers, and afterwards adopted by Paul and John. In support of this opinion, I adduce the authority of Lactantius, the Cicero of the Christians. "The Greeks use the term Logos, more appropriately than we can word or discourse; for their oyos signifies both reason and discourse, because it is both the wisdom and voice of God."

The attentive reader cannot but observe the inconsistency of Luke's preface with the supposition of supernatural instruction. As an honest, careful, and accurate historian, he collects, with assiduity and scrupulous exactness, from the most authentic sources, and having cautiously examined the claims of the various narratives, he selects the genuine from the fabulous, and compiles an exact and

every thing from its origin, to write distinctly to thee, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mayest know the certainty of those doctrines, concerning which thou hast received instruction.*

In the beginning existed the Logos,† and the Logos

well digested compend of the history of our Lord's life, doctrines, and miracles, which has been so highly esteemed and admired by all Christians, that even those, who rejected all the other books of the New Testament, acknowledged and believed the Gospel by Luke. Indeed, of all who undertook a history of our Lord, none was so eminently qualified as this Evangelist. Brought up at Antioch, the capital of Syria, being well instructed in the language, manners, and religion of the Jews, an attendant, for some time, on our Lord's ministry, and a constant companion of the Apostle Paul, he mani. fests a variety, energy, and method in his history, not to be found in the productions of the other Evangelists, so that the mere tyro in Greek cannot even look into his preface, without being convinced of the superiority of his style and education.

*From the beginning of the Christian dispensation, the excellent method of communicating religious instruction by catechising, obtained, and has been long and successfully practised; but, alas! how inattentive and contumelious are many parents and ministers to this important duty, by neglect of which the people perish through lack of knowledge. In the early age all were catechised before admitted to the privileges of the Church; there was no exception on account of age or station. Theophilus, a Grecian nobleman, had been catechised, in the elements of the Christian religion, on his conversion to the faith of Jesus, but Luke would have him well instructed, rooted, and grounded in that holy faith, that he might arrive to the stature of a perfect man in Christ Jesus. No wonder, that so many professors are so easily tossed about with every wind of doctrine, when their religious instruction is so superficial and unsatisfactory. Let every man, who regards his present and eternal station in the works of God, and prefers the rank of an intelligent to a mere animal existence, cultivate the most intimate accquaintance with the sacred oracles, ever reflecting, that whilst the things of time pass away, and even the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, the Holy Scriptures are able to make wise to salvation, through faith in Christ Jesus.

† What John has said of the Logos in this introduction has occasioned greater perplexity to the commentators, than any other part of the Gospel History, probably on account of the obscurity that hangs over the design of the writer. Nor is it easy to understand the meaning of John, without the supposition that he wrote as a Theologian, to correct some errors of his time. Hence Michaelis and many others have followed Ireneas, in the opinion that John wrote to re

was with God, and the Logos was a god. This same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by him, and without him not one thing came into being That which was accomplished in him, was life,

fute the errors of the Gnostics and other heretics, who arose in the apostolic age, and used Logos, Life, Light, Truth, Favour, Onlybegotten as names of subordinate deities. Le Clerc believed that John's design was not so much to controvert the peculiar notions of his time, as to show the Christians in what sense these terms should be understood, and prevent mistakes arising from the doctrines of Plato and Philo. I think by comparing the introduction of John with the opinions of his time, there will be no reason to differ essentially from either Michaelis or Le Clerc.

1. John asserts that the Logos was with God in the beginning. In this proposition John does not affirm that the Logos was eternal, nor that he was created in the beginning; but only, that at the time this world was formed, the Logos then existed. Now if we compare the writings of Plato, Philo and the Philosophers in general, we'shall find a double sense attached to the word Logos. The first merely conceptual or ideal, being nothing more than a personification of the wisdom or mind of the Deity. The second personal or substantial, being the appellative of the Son of God, when he became a real personal existence. Hence the distinction of the internal and external Logos. Whitby says: "The primitive Fathers very plainly and frequently affirm, that the Logos was strictly from all eternity, in the Father, but was produced or emitted before the creation of the world." In proof of which position he cites Justin, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian, Tatian, and Lactantius; and refers to Bull's Defence of the Nicean Creed.

Theodoret and Augustine are quoted by Corneil a Lapide, in proof that Orpheus and many of the Greek, Chaldean, and Egyptian philosophers called the supreme God, Nous or Mind, and his word, the offspring of the Mind, they denominated Logos. Let us hear Tertullian, in his Apology, addressing the heathen philosophers: "You philosophers yourselves, admit that the Logos, the word and reason, was the creator of the Universe; the Christians merely add: that the proper substance of the word and reason, is spirit; that this word must have been pronounced by God, and when pronounced, it was generated, and, consequently, it is the Son of God." "Thought, says Bossuet, which we feel produced as the offspring of our minds, as the son of our understanding, gives us some idea of the Son of God; for this reason, this Son of God, assumes the name of the Word, to intimate that he was produced in the bosom of the Father, as the inward voice arises in our souls when we contemplate truth. " John Benedict Carpsove and Professor Paulus, of Jena, have shown that besides the merely conceptual Logos, which was allowed to have always existed in the Father, Philo and many of the Jews and philo

and this life was the light of men. And this light shines in darkness and the darkness does not prevent it. That was the true light, which coming into the world, enlightens every man.

He was in the world, and by him the

sophers, attached the notion of personal subsistence to the Logos.Dr. A. Clarke, on this passage, says: "after a serious reading of the Targums, it seems to me evident that the Chaldee term memra or word, is used personally in a multitude of places, and to attempt to give the word any other meaning in various places, would be flat opposition to every rule of construction." There is therefore one principle, in which Philosophers, Learned Jews, and the primitive Christian fathers were united : From all eternity the Logos existed, not personally, but as the reason and voice, or mind and word of God, but before the creation or commencement of time, Jehovah begot, or produced this word as a personal existence, his Son. In this latter sense, the Logos is here introduced by John, as existing with, not in God, at the beginning of time and creation; and hence John plainly teaches the personal pre-existence of Christ, as appears manifest from the whole scope of the passage, and several parts of his Gospel. The word beginning, therefore, has the same import here as in Gen. 1. 1.; and to interpret it to mean the beginning of the Gospel, is to divest the whole passage of force and meaning; for what propriety could there be in saying, Jesus existed when he began to preach? None! Therefore John says the Logos had life in him before he became man.

2. The Logos was a god. John does not teach that the Logos was God, in the absolute sense of the term; but in a subordinate sense. Those who contend for the supreme deity of the Logos, assert that the construction of the Greek, is such as warrants their conclusion; for say they, the word God, being the predicate of the proposition, should not have the article. Admitting this, we say, on the other hand, that had John intended to say the Logos was a god, no other form of expression could have been used, than that found in the original text: whereas had he intended to say the word is the supreme God, he could have used a different form, and have said

[ocr errors]

royos. Thus Origen, on this passage says: "when the word God is used to denote the self-existent being who is the author of the Universe, John places the article before it, but withholds the article when the Logos is called God." Eusebius contra Marcellum de eccles. Theol. L. 11, 17, observes that "the article is here omitted, that the Evangelist might teach a distinction between the Father and the Son; otherwise he might have said ó bɛos nv ó hoyos, had he intended to call the Father and the Son the same being." See the first of these quotations in Rosenmuller, and the latter in Lampe, on this passage. Epiphanius also, cited by Pearson on the Creed, observes that if we say o deos, God with the article, we mean the living and true God, but if we say deos, God without the article, we mean a

« PreviousContinue »