« PreviousContinue »
strict adherence to truth,—that English divines and Biblical critics are a century behind those of Germany in the higher departments of sacred criticism. That the works of many of the latter have not been very generally studied in this country, we are ready to admit. The results, however, of their most valuable researches, divested of their neologian interpretation, have been made available to British students by the Bishop of Peterborough, in his Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible; by Mr. Horne, in his Introduction to the Critical Study of the Scriptures, especially in the sixth and last edition ; by Professor Burton, in his recently-published Bampton Lectures; and, so far as the Old Testament is concerned, by Mr. Boothroyd, in his edition of the Hebrew Bible, with select various readings, and critical and philological annotations, published a few years since. For the general unpopularity of the works of Semler, Paulus, Bauer, De Wette, and others, in England, we can assign a most satisfactory reason in the offence, which has justly been taken at the unrestrained licentiousness of assertion and exposition, indulged by them in common with many of the later German critics ; the tendency of whose writings has, not long since, been so ably exposed by Mr. Rose in his “ State of Protestantism in Germany described." But, though the bold and dogmatizing spirit, which unhappily characterizes the works of many of the German authors alluded to, is unquestionably not to be found in the Biblical Treatises of our modern English Divines, whether Churchmen or orthodox Dissenters ; yet we apprehend, that, on a fair and candid comparison, they will be found not inferior, in point of sound learning and correct and faithful interpretation, to any of the most eminent German critics : to whom however they are greatly preferable in the conformity of their doctrinal expositions to the letter and spirit of the Holy Scriptures, and to the interpretations received by the Christian Church in the best and purest ages of her existence. Not to enumerate the many names of individuals, who are yet living, it may suffice to refer our readers to the preceding volumes of our Journal, which has now for twelve years been favoured with the confidence and support of the members of the Reformed Church of England. To the labours of these worthies in the cause of divine truth and of sacred literature, we have to add the “ Analecta Theologica” of Mr. Trollope, of the first volume of which, we are now to give some account to our readers.
The ministers of the Church, and all who are candidates for Holy Orders, ought to be intimately acquainted with those doctrines and moral precepts which they are to communicate to others. That knowledge, which is necessary to ordinary professors of the Christian faith, will not suffice for them. It will not be sufficient that they read a few books on the evidences, and one or two works on systematic
divinity, together with a partial and unsatisfactory Ecclesiastical history. The conscientious Clergyman or candidate for the sacred office, will not confine his Bible studies to our admirable authorized English Version, or draw all his interpretations from one or two favourite commentators; for, as Mr. Trollope has justly remarked, "the opinion of any one or even of several of the best interpreters, especially in passages of difficulty and doubt, can lay but a superficial foundation for a professional knowledge of divinity, and, as such, unsatisfactory even to the student himself.” (Pref. p. vi.) He, who is desirous of making full proof of his ministry, will have recourse to the sacred original for himself: and while he carefully and critically investigates their genuineness, authenticity, credibility and inspiration, he will aim to attain an intimate knowledge of the general principles of criticism and interpretation. But he will not stop here. He will closely and carefully study the Sacred Scriptures ; applying to them the rules previously established ; observing their peculiar phraseology and idiomatic expressions; comparing one scripture with another for the purpose of substantiating doctrines, and illustrating precepts; detecting the minutiæ of verbal forms and usages, and the comparative value of various readings; and exemplifying, by philological research, the language, sentiments, and allusions of the divinely inspired penmen.
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. 1.
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 “Scripture 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 IIétpos, 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 trétpa : (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 ét 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. Π. Ν. 137. πέτρος το της πέτρας αποτμηθέν. That it bears this sense in classic authors is evident from Herod. IX. 55. Callim. Apoll. 22. Soph. (Ed. T. 342. Æschin. Socrat. Dia). III. 21. Instances indeed have been adduced from which it should seem that trétpos is sometimes used for métpa; 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 térpa, 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 mérpa a meaning is affixed to métpos contrary to all legitimate authority; and it is therefore urged that tétpos is changed to métpa 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 népą toutéOTI TỶ Tiotel tñs opodoyias. Again, Hom. CLXIIII. ούκ είπεν επί τω πέτρα, ούτε γάρ επί των ανθρώπω, αλλ' επί την πίστιν την εαυτού ωκοδόμηση εκκλησίαν. Αugustin 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 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 : ταυτήν την ομολογίαν πέτραν καλέσας ο Χριστός, Πέτρος 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 ékkinola 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' écoxov, 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. ii. 7. Jude 20.) laid by the confession and preaching not of Peter only, but of all Apostles, who are collectively designated living stones, Š@VTES Nidoi, of the edifice: 1 Pet. ii. 4. The term nioos is precisely synonymous with Tétpos, 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 tétpos, and not the métpa of the Church.
III. The Romanists refer the relative avrñs to ékk nolav, in which they are followed by almost all commentators, without assenting however to their ex
planation, 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 avtîs 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, Beza, 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: