conium;" and after him the E. T. "that by me the preaching might be fully known." This method has here the additional disadvantage, that it makes the next clause a repetition of the sentiment in other words, and " that all the Gentiles might hear." Er. has been so sensible of this, that he has deserted his ordinary manner, and said" ut per me præconium expleretur." The word occurs only once in the Sep. and, as it is applied to persons, it signifies 'persuaded, 'imboldened: Eccl. 8: 11, dia rouzo in ogn καρδία υμιῶν τοῦ ἄνθρωπου ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ πονηρὸν, "Therefore the heart of the sons of men is emboldened to do evil.” It answers in this place to the Heb. & mala, usually rendered Anoów. I shall only add, that the sense here assigned is better suited to the spirit and tenor of these histories than the other. A simple narrative of the facts is given; but no attempt is made by argument, asseveration, or animated expression, to bias the understanding, or work upon the passions. The naked truth is left to its own native evidence. The writers betray no suspicion of its insufficiency. This method of theirs has more of genuine dignity than the other, and, if I mistake not, has been productive of more durable consequences than ever yet resulted from the arts of rhetoricians, and the enticing words of man's wisdom. The examples from pagan authors will be found to confirm, instead of confuting the explanation given above. I desire no better instance than the quotation from Ctesias adduced by Wetstein, which appeared to Mr. Parkhurst so satisfactory a support of Beza's interpretation, Пolλοῖς οὖν λόγοις καὶ ὅρκοις πληροφορήσαντες Μεγαβύζον, " Having convinced Megabyzus with many words and oaths." In this way rendered, the words are perfectly intelligible, and suit the scope of the writer. But will any one say that Ctesias meant to affirm that many words and oaths are a full proof of the truth of an opinion? We all know that they not only are the common resource of those who are conscious that they have no proof or evidence to offer, but with inany are more powerful than demonstration itself in producing conviction. 66 2. " Afterwards ministers of the word,” υπηρέται γενόμενοι του Aóyou. Vul. "Ministri fuerunt sermonis." I have here also preferred the rendering of the Vul. to that of some modern La. interpreters, who have given a very different sense to the expression. In this I am happy in the concurrence of our translators, who have, in opposition to Be. followed the old interpreter. However, as the authorities on the other side are considerable, it is proper to assign the reason of this preference. There are three senses which have been put upon the words. First, by ó óyos some have thought that our Lord Jesus Christ is meant, who is sometimes so denominated by John. But this opinion is quite improbable, inasmuch as the idiom is peculiar to that apostle. And even if this were the meaning of the word here, it ought not to be differently translated, because ministers of the word is just as much fitted for conveying it in Eng. as vanоérαι roυ lóyou is in Gr. The Eng. name is neither more seldom nor less plainly given him in the translation, than the Gr. name is given him in the original. If there be any obscurity or ambiguity in the one, there is the same in the other. The second meaning is that which most modern interpreters have adopted, who render tou lóyou, the thing, not the word; supposing it to denote the same with noαyμátov in the preceding verse; and understand by unnoέrai those concerned in the events, either as subordinate agents in effecting them, or as partakers in their immediate consequences. Thus Be. "administri ipsius rei ;" Cas. to the same purpose, "administratores rei ;" Er. followed by the interpreter of Zu. more in the style of Virgil than of Luke, "qui pars aliqua eorum fuerant ;" and these have had their imitators among the translators into modern languages. Now my reasons for not adopting this manner, which is supported by expositors of great name, are the following: Ist, If Aóyos had meant here (as I acknowledge it often does) thing, not word, it would have been in the plural number as noαyuárov is, which relates to the same events, things so multifarious as to include whatever Jesus did, or said, or suffered. 2dly, When the word λóyos, in the fourth verse, is actually used in this meaning, having the same reference as noayua to the things accomplished, it is in the plural. Moyos, therefore, in the singular in this acceptation in the second verse, would not be more repugnant to propriety, than to the construction both of the preceding part of the sentence and of the following. 3dly, I am as little satisfied as to the propriety of the word vлngérα in that interpretation. Tangens denotes properly minister,'' servant,' or 'agent,' employed by another in the performance of any work. But in what sense the apostles or other disciples could be called ministers or agents in the much greater part of those events whereof the Gospel gives us a detail, I have no conception. The principal things are what happened to our Lord-bis miraculous conception and divine original, the manifest interposition of the Deity at his baptism and transfiguration, also his trial, death, resurrection and ascension. In these surely they had no agency or ministry whatever. As to the miracles which he performed, and the discourses which he spoke; the most that can be said of the apostles is, that they saw the one, and heard the other. Nor could any little service in ordinary matters, such as distributing the loaves and fishes to the multitude, making preparation for the passover, or even the extraordinary powers by which they were enabled to perform some miracles, not recorded in the Gospels, entitle them to be styled ὑπηρέται τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, οι which alone the Gospels are the histories; and for expressing their participation in the immediate effects of what they witnessed, the term unngira appears to me quite unsuitable. So much for the rejection of that interpretation, though favored by Gro. and Ham. My reasons for adopting the other are these: The word of God,' ó lóyos zou εou, was, with Jews as well as Christians, a common expression for whatever God communicates to men for their instruction, whether doctrines or precepts. Thus our Lord, in explaining the parable of the sower, informs us that the seed denotes "the word of God," o loyos rov εov, L. 8: 11. In what follows in the explanation, and in the other Gospels, it is styled simply the word. Thus, Mr. 4: 14, 'O onɛiowv ròv kójov onɛige, "The sower," which is explained to mean the preacher, "soweth the word." Hence, among Christians, it came frequently to denote the gospel, the last, and the best revelation of God's will to men. Nor is this idiom more familiar to any of the sacred writers than to L. See the following passages: L. 8: 12, 13, 15. Acts 4: 4. 6: 4. 8: 4. 10: 44. 11: 19. 14: 25. 16: 6. 17: 11. For brevity's sake, I have produced those places only wherein the abridged form, o λoyos, the word, is used as in the text. I cannot help observing, that in one of the passages above quoted, Acts 6: 4, the phrase is n daxovia tou koyou, "the ministry of the word." This is mentioned as being eminently the business of the apostles, and opposed to dianovia τoanSwv, "the service of tables," an inferior sort of ministry, which was soon to be committed to a set of stewards elected for the purpose. Who knows not that unngirns and diúxovos are, for the most part, in the Acts and Epistles, used indiscriminately for a minister of religion? It is impossible, therefore, on reflection, to hesitate a moment in affirming, that the historian here meant to acquaint us, that he had received his information from those who had attended Jesus, and been witnesses of every thing during his public ministration upon the earth, and who, after his ascension, had been entrusted by him with the charge of propagating his doctrine throughout the world. Auditors first, ministers afterwards. 3. "Having exactly traced every thing," naonzolovýηxóti now axgßos. E. T. "Having had perfect understanding of all πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς. things." The words in the original express more than is comprised in the common version. By the active verb naдazolovýέw, joined with the adverb axoips, are suggested his diligence and attention in procuring exact information, and not barely the effect, or that he actually possessed an accurate account of the whole. I agree with Maldonat, who says, "Non scientiam his verbis, sed diligentiam suam commendat, quam in quærendis, vestigandis, explorandisque iis rebus adhibuerit quas scribere volebat." The interpretation here given is also, in my judgment, more conformable to the import of the verb лagaxolovew in other passages of the N. T. where it is spoken of persons: 1 Tim. 4: 6. 2 Tim. 3: 10. That L. was not, as Whitby supposes, an attendant on our Lord's ministry, the contrast, in the preceding verse, of aúrónrai zaì vnŋoéraı, ‘eyewitnesses and ministers,' to what he calls in this verse nаonxоlovzýs nãow axißos, clearly shows. Can we imagine that, by this less explicit phrase, he would have described the source of his own intelligence, had he been himself of the αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπη gerai? There is, besides, in the preceding words, another contrast of the autonta who gave the first testimony concerning Jesus, to those who received their testimony, in which latter class he includes himself, παρέδοσαν ̔ΗΜΙΝ οἱ ἀπ' ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται. Now, if it had not been his express purpose to rank himself among these ; if he had meant to oppose the autónia to those only who, from their information, had formerly undertaken narratives, the proper and obvious expression would have been, καθώς παρέδοσαν ΑΥΤΟΙΣ οἱ ἀπ' ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται. 2 To write a particular account to thee," xavens ooì youчai, E. T. "To write unto thee in order." From the word xavens we cannot conclude, as some hastily have done, that the order of time is observed better by this than by any other evangelist. The word xavens does not necessarily relate to time. See Acts 18: 23. The proper import of it is distinctly, particularly, as opposed to confusedly, generally. 3 "Theophilus," eóque. It has been questioned whether this word is to be understood here as a proper name or as an appellative. In the latter case, it ought to be rendered 'lover of God.' But I prefer the former, which is the more usual way of understanding it. For, 1st, If the evangelist meant to address his discourse to all pious Christians, and had no one individual in view, I think he would have put his intention beyond all doubt, by using the plural number, and saying, xqάrioroi deóqiko. 2dly, This enigmatical manner of addressing all true Christians, under the appearance of bespeaking the attention of an individual, does not seem agreeable to the simplicity of style used in the Gospel, and must have appeared to the writer himself as what could not fail to be misunderstood by most readers, proper names of such a form as Theophilus, and even this very name, being common in Gr. and La. authors. 3dly, In the Scriptures, when gilos, that is, lover, or friend, makes part of a compound epithet, it is always, if I mistake not, placed in the beginning, not the end, of the compound. The apostle Paul, to express lover of God, says pulóvros, 2 Tim. 3: 4. There occur, also, in holy writ, several other compositions after the same manner, of which this noun makes a part; as pilάyados, pikάδελφος, φίλανδρος, φιλανθρώπος, φιλάργυρος, φίλαυτος, φιλήδονος, φιλόνεικος, φιλόξενος, φιλόσοφος, φιλόστοργος, φιλότεκνος. The other manner, wherein gilos is placed in the end, though not un exampled in classical writers, is much more uncommon. Lastly, What is said in the fourth verse evidently shows, that the author addressed himself to a person with whose manner of being instructed in the Christian doctrine he was particularly acquainted. 4 "Most excellent," xoάriore. Some consider this as an epithet, denoting the character of the person named; others, as an honorary title, expressing respect to office or rank. I prefer the latter opinion. The word occurs only in three other places of the N. T., all in the Acts of the Apostles, another work of the same hand. In these places, the title is manifestly given as a mark of respect to eminence of station. Accordingly it is only on Felix and Festus, when they were governors of the province, that we find it conferred. It is therefore not improbable that Theophilus has been the chief magistrate of some city of note in Greece or Asia Minor, and consquently entitled to be addressed in this respectful manner. For though Paul observes, (1 Cor. 1: 26), that there were not many wise men after the flesh, not many rich, not many noble, in the Christian community, his expression plainly suggests that there were some. And, at the same time that we find the inspired penmen ready to show all due respect to magistracy, and to give honor, as well as tribute, to whom it is due, no writers are less chargeable with giving flattering titles to men. Such compellations, therefore, as αγαθέ, βελτιστε, κράτιστε, when they may be considered as adulatory or complimental, however usual among the Greeks, do not suit the manner of the sacred writers. When Paul gave this title to Festus, it appears it was customary so to address the Roman presidents or procurators. In this manner we find Felix, who preceded Festus, was addressed, both by the military tribune Lysias, and by the orator Tertullus. Such titles are a mere piece of deference to the civil establishment, and imply dignity of function or rank, but no personal quality in the man to whom they are given. The same distinction, between official respect and personal, obtains amongst ourselves. Among so many reverends, it is, no doubt, possible to find some whose private character would entitle them to no reverence. And it will not, perhaps, be thought miraculous to meet with an honorable, on whom the principles of honor and honesty have little influence. The order of civil society requires a certain deference to office and rank, independently of the merit of the occupant; and a proper attention, in paying this deference, shows regard to the constitution of the country, and is of public utility in more respects than one. But of those commendatory epithets which are merely personal, these writers, alike untainted with fanaticism and flattery, are very sparing. They well knew, that where they are most merited, they are least coveted, or even needed. But in a few ages afterwards, the face of things, in this respect, changed greatly. In proportion as men became more de |