Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Gentiles was so distinctly asserted by himself, that at first sight there appears a considerable difficulty, unless we suppose, with Basnage (Exercit. Historico-Criticæ, p. 125,) that the conversion of Cornelius preceded that of the Ethiopian eunuch, and that St. Luke, as is not unusual with him, inverts the chronological order of the two events. Most of the commentators suppose that the eunuch was a Proselyte of Righteousness. I think it more probable that he was an Egyptian Jew, who had been carried, while young, into Ethiopia: this seems to be Kuinoel's opinion.

LECTURE V.

P. 87. guide them into all truth.] Secker's Sermons, Vol. VI. p. 22.

See Archbishop

P.88. I withstood him to the face.] In order to elude the argument which this fact affords against the supposed primacy of St. Peter, the Romanists have adopted a notion of Clemens Alexandrinus, ap. Euseb. Hist. I. c. 12, that the person reproved by St. Paul, was not Peter the Apostle, but another Cephas. This notion is elaborately refuted by Deyling, in his Observ. Sacr. T. II. p. 520, after Heidegger, and Ittigius, in his History of the First Century, p. 230.

2

P. 96. a term of reproach or contempt.] The Jews called the disciples of Christ Nazarenes, Acts xxiv. 5, not Christians, for they did not use the Greek word Xplorós, but the Hebrew Messiah, or some inflexion of it; and if they had applied to the Christians a name formed from either of these words, it would have implied an acknowledg

ment of Jesus as their Messiah. The termination of the word bespeaks a Roman rather than a Grecian origin. Tacitus is the first Latin author who mentions the appellation. Annal. IV. 44. Quos, per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat; auctor nominis ejus Christus, Tiberio imperitante, per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus est. He therefore regarded it as a term of reproach.

LECTURE VI.

P. 105. The Church-in Jerusalem.] In the present state of religious controversy it will not be unseasonable to notice the clear and satisfactory evidence, which this history affords, against the claims of the Romish Church to be considered as the eldest born of all the Churches; a character, to which it is evident that the Church of Antioch had a far better title than that of Rome, but that of Jerusalem the best of all; which is therefore called by the Council of Constantinople, the mother of all the Churches; and by the Emperor Justin, the mother of the Christian name. See Pearson, Lect. in Act. Apost. p. 36. Lowth on Ezekiel xvi. 61. On the independence of the apostolic churches, the reader may consult the Bishop of Lincoln's Remarks on Tertullian, p. 236.

P. 110. The deacons might be evangelists.] Timothy, who was a bishop, was commanded by St. Paul to do the work of an evangelist, 2 Tim. iv. 5. "We know why four were called evangelists, namely, because they were so well skilled in the history of our Saviour's life and death, as to give it us in writing. By parity of reason, all others, called evangelists, were such as made it their study and business.

to make themselves acquainted with our Saviour's actions, and sermons, and sufferings, and to relate such passages of them in the public congregation, as the occasion required. And this was as useful and edifying an office as any in the Church of God, and was extremely necessary for some years after our Lord's ascension; for it was a good while before the Gospels were written, and much longer before they were dispersed, and universally received. During all this time, the evangelists, who could confirm any great truth, add weight to any advice, or reprehension, by rehearsing any discourse, or relating any momentous passage of our Saviour's life and death, must have frequent and great occasion to exercise their abilities; but when the four Gospels were committed to writing, and were in every one's hand, this office of course ceased; nor is there any mention of such officers in the History of the Church of the ages next to the Apostles."-Johnson's Preface to the Second Volume of the Clergyman's Vade-Mecum.

LECTURE VII.

P. 134. ordained to eternal life.] Terayμévoi eis (wǹjv alúviov. I have suggested that which appears to me to be the most probable of the various interpretations of this passage: not that I think it very material which of them we adopt; for unless τεταγμένοι be equivalent to προωρι opévo, which it is not, no argument can be drawn from this text to prove the Calvinistic tenet of predestination.

P. 138. filled Jerusalem with their doctrine:] i. e. with their teaching. See Notes on p. 16.

P. 147.] On the subject of universal, or limited redemp-
tion, as involving a question of the divine justice, the reader
will find some very judicious remarks, in a review of Mr.
Grinfield's work on the Salvability of the Heathen, British
Critic for April, 1828, p. 326.

P. 155.] This interpretation of the phrase it seemed
good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, nearly coincides with that
of Bishop Pearce: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost;
and, therefore, to us."

P. 155. which in the Jewish Scriptures, &c.] There is,
however, no objection to retaining the literal sense of
TOPVεías in this passage, as being a sin in which the
heathens indulged without restraint.

P. 156. Through hesitation or timidity.] Mr. Blunt, in
his ingenious Remarks on the veracity of the evangelists,
observes, that as Barnabas was a Cypriot, so probably was
Mark; or, at least, that he had friends and relations in
Cyprus; and that, having availed himself of the voyage
of Paul and Barnabas to that island (xiii. 4.) to visit his
connexions there, upon their landing in Pamphylia he left
them, and returned to Jerusalem. It is probable that
Mark himself was born at Jerusalem, or that he had passed
the greater part of his life there, since it appears, from
Acts xii. 12, that his mother Mary resided there, as a
widow, in her own house.

P. 158.

From this incident, &c.] See Witsius Melet.
Leid. p. 66.

P. 164. Lucius - Lucas.] In some of the MSS. of
St. Luke's Gospel, the author is called Lucius.

Origen

mentions that there were some persons before his time, who supposed that Luke the Evangelist was the same with Lucius, whom St. Paul describes as his kinsman; an opinion maintained by Heumann (Poecile, T. II. p. 519), and Koehler (Diss. de Luca Evangelista, § 4); and although Pritius asserts that no probable reason can be assigned, why the Apostle should have called him Lucius, in his Epistle to the Romans, I think that the reason which I have suggested in the text, is quite sufficient to account for his use of the Latin form. If Lucius was a proselyte, and yet a relation of St. Paul, who was a Jew, we must suppose him to have had a Gentile father, but a Jewish mother; as was the case with Timothy. It is objected by Michaelis and Kuinoel, that when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, in which he conveys to them the salutation of Lucius, St. Luke was at Philippi, while the Apostle himself wrote from Corinth; and he refers to Acts xx. 6. But it is by no means certain that Luke remained at Philippi, from the time of his being left there by Paul and Silas (Acts xvi. 40), till Paul again visited that town. Paley remarks, "Lucius is another name in the Epistle (to the Romans.) A very slight alteration would convert Aoúkios into Aoukas, Lucius into Luke, which would produce an additional coincidence: for, if Luke was the author of the history, he was with St. Paul at the time; inasmuch as, describing the voyage which took place, soon after the writing of this Epistle, the historian uses the first person; We sailed away from Philippi. Acts xx. 6."-Hora Paul. p. 28, note. If, as is generally supposed, St. Luke was the brother alluded to by St. Paul in 2 Cor. viii. 18, as having been sent by him to Corinth, together with Titus, to receive the collections of the Corinthian Christians, the Apostle' would find him there on his arrival, and thus St. Luke would actually be with him, when he wrote his

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »