장음표시 사용
161쪽
thoy hold that it can bo no fori os revolation, hecauso it is vered mith so gross and denso a veil of ignorance. Theyassim, thereiore, that none of the apostles, nor indeed any of the sainis, nor any person belonging to the church, could
bo iis author; but that Cerinthus, and tho heretical sectiounded by him, and named aster him tho Cerinthian seci, Ming desimus os attaching the authority of a great name toste fiction pro unded by him, prefixed that titio to tho oh. For the doctrine inculcated by Corinthus is thistinat thero vili bo an earthly reim os Christ; and as lis Washimseli a man devoted to the pleasures of the body, and alimether carnal in his dispositions, ho fanciod that that Lingdom Would consist in those Linds of gratifications onmhich his own heari Was se*-to Wit, in the delights of thobessy, and what comes beneath the belly, that is to say, ineating and drinhing, and mar ing, and in other things under the mise of Whicli ho thought he could indulge his appetites missi a bellar grace,' such as festivais, and sacrifices, and theslaying of victims. But L for my pari, could not venture toset this book aside, for there are many brethren Who valueit hi ly. Yet, having formed an idea of it as a compositionexceeding my capaci of understanding, I regard it as containing a Lind of hiddon and wonderfui intelligonos on thoseverat subjecta which come under it. For though I cannot eomprehend it, I stili suspect that there is some deeper senseundeHying the words. And I do not me ure and judgo ita expressions by the standard of my oWn reason, but, mahingruore allonance for faith, I have simply regarded them astoo losty for my comprehension; and I do not forinwith rejectWhat Ι do not underetand, but I am only the moro filled withmonder at it, in that I have not been able to discern iis impori.
Thia pamam is given substantialty is Eusebius algo in b. iii. c. 28.
- νον; but the present reading is inven in the HSS., Cod. Mag., and Med., as also in Eusebius, iii. 28, and in Nicephorus, iii. 14. So Rufinus renderait: et ut aliquid sacratius dicere rideretur, legales aiebat festivitatea rur
162쪽
1667 OS OF DIONYSIUS. 4. Afer this, he examines the whole book of the Revelation:
theso things. y That this person was called JAn, thereiore, and that this Was the writing of a Jolin, I do not deny. AndΙ admit further, that it was also the work of some holy and inspired man. But I could not so eastly admit that this Wasthe aposite, tho son os Zebedee, the brother of James, and the fame person mith him Who wroto the Gospet which beare the titio Meording to Iohre, and the catholic epistie. Buthom tho character of both, and the forms of expression, and the whola disposition and execution of tho book, I Maw tho conclusion that the auctoral, ip is not his. For the evangelistnowhere else subjoins his name, and ho never proclaims himself oither in the Gospei or in the epistie. And a litile furthem in he ωλ:-Jolin, moreoVer, noWhem
writes also an episue, in Which he says et M John to the sevenchurches Which are in Asia, grace be unto Du, and mace.'The evangelist, on the other hand, has not prefixed his nameeven to the catholic epistie; but Without any circumlocution,
163쪽
anonymous Wriling, The etare. This oster author, on theeontra , did not even deem it suffcient to namo himselfonce, and then to proceed Mith his narrative; but ho inhosv liis name again, and says: μI Jolin, Who also am Durbrother and companion in tribulation, and in tho Engdomand patiencs of Jesus Christ, Was in tho isto that is called Patmos for the Word of God, and for the testimony oi Jesus Christi And likswiso toWard tho end he spe s thus:
inem.VM That it is a Jolin, then, that write, these things me must belleve, for tis himseli telis us. 5. What John this is, however, is uncertain. For he has not iniri as he osten does in the Gospei, that he is ins disciplebeioved by the Lord, or the one that lemed on His boso or the brother of James, or ono that was privileged is see and hear the Lord. And surely he would have oven us someos theso indications it it had Men his purposo to mari Um- seli clearly known. But os ali this he offers us nothing; and he onj calis himself our brothor and companion, and the linem of Jesus, and one blessed with the seeing and hea ing os these revelations. I am also os opinion that there Were many persona of the fame namo With Jolin the apostis, Who bythela lovo for his, and their admiration and emulation of him, and their desim to M lovod by the Lord as he was loved, mere inducta in embrace also the samo designation, just M We
164쪽
of Paul and Poter. Thero is, hesides, another Jolin mentioned in tho Acts of the Apostles, with the surname Mais,
John to their minister. y But Whether this is the ono whowrote tho Revelation, I could not say. For it is not writtenthat he came with them into Asia. But the writer says:
them, returned to Jerusalem.V' I thinh, therofore, that it WasSome other one of those Who mere in Asia. For it is sald that there Were imo monuments in Ephesus, and that eachos theso bears the name of John. 6. d from the ideas, and the expressions, and thscollocation of the fame, it may be Very reason ably conjectured that this ons is distinet from that For the Gospelλ It is morin Whilo to notice this passage of Dionysius on the ancient praetice of the Christiana, in ovang their children tho names of Peterand Paul, Whita they did both in order to expreas the hono and affection in Which they held theas inlata, and to secure that inela Gildrenmight bo dear and acceptable to God, juat M thoae aianta mere. Henoeit is that Chrysostom in his fidit volume, in his oration on St. Meletiva,inys that the people of Antioch had inch Iove and minem for Meletius, that the parenta called thela children by his name, in ordis that theymiot have inela homea adorned by his presence. And the mme Chrysostom, in his ,enty-firat homily on Genesia, exhorta his hearem not locali their children careteasty by the names of their grandiathera, or grea grandiathera, or men ol fame; but rather is tho names of mintly men, Who have been shining patieres of viriue, in order that the childrenmight M sred mith tho destre of virtuo by thela example.-VALES. Aets xiii. 5. Acts xiii. 13. This is the second argument hy vhich Dionysius reamnod thattho Rovelation and the Gospol of John aro not by one aut r. For tha
165쪽
as he has shown in the subsequent paris, to those Who deny that the Lord is come in the flesti. For Whicli reason he has also been caresul to add these motas : And that which WohRVE Men We testify, and show unto you that eternal lifo whichmas Mith the Father, and was manifested unio us : that whichwe have seen and heard declaro Wo unio you.V' Thus hoheeps to himself, and does not diverge inconsistently hom his subjecta, but goes through them ali under the fame heads and in the fame phraseologies, some of Which We shali briefly mention. Thus the attentivo reader Will find the phrases, the lio, αε ligkt, occurring oston in both ; and also suta expressiona
Antistriat, the promise of the Holy Spirit, the adoption os God, the falia required of us in ali things, the Fatiar and the Son,
named as such everyWhere. Αnd altogether, through their hole murae, it Will be evident that tho Gospei and tho Epistis ars distinguished by one and ths fame character os Writing. But the Revelation is totalty different, and ait
gester distinet iram this; and Ι might almost say that it
Dionysius hin in eriticiam; lor it is the critic's part to examine thominius of the ancienta, and distinguish What is genuine and authentio
166쪽
mahe any mention or evince any notion of the Revelation ;and tho Revelation, in like manner, oves no note of the Epistie. Whereas Paul oves somo indication of his revia tions in his episties; Which revelations, hoWever, he has notrecorded in Writing by themselves. 7. And furthermore, on tho ground of difference in diction, it is possibie to prove a distinction belween the Gospes and tho Epistle on the ono hand, and the Revelation on the other. For the former are mitten not only Without actuat error asregatas the Greeli language, but also With the greatest et gance, both in their expressions and in their Nasonings, and in the whole structure of their style. They are Very farindoed from betrving any barbarism or solecism, Or avsori os vulgarism, in their diction. For, as mirat be pr sumed, the Writer possessed tho ost os both Ends of di co se,y tho Lord having benowed both these capacities uponhim, viz. that of knowledge and that os expression. Thattho author of the lalter, hoWever, saW a reVelation, and received knowledge and prophecy, I do not deny. Onj I percoive that his dialeci and language ars not of the exactGreeli type, and that he emptus barbarous idioms, and in
no necessi of seehing out at present. And I Would nothave any one suppose that I havo said theso things in thospirit os ridicule ; for I have dono so only With the purpose of setting right this matter of tho dissimilarity subsisting
λ The old massing Was, τον λόγον, την γνωσιν. Valesius expunges t την γνωσιν, as disturbing the sense, and M absent in various codicea. Instein iam of the reading, τον τε της σοφίας, τόν τε της γνωσεως, the Same editor adopis τον τε της γνωσεως, τον τε της φράσεως, viain is t massing ol variova manuscripta, and is acceptod in the translation Valesius undaratanda that by the εκάτερον λογον Dionyalus meana tho λόγος ἐνδιαθετος and the λόγος προφορικός, that is, the subjectivo diaco se, or remon in the miud, and the objective diaco se, or ulteranoe of the fame.Dj0jtjgod by OOOle
167쪽
Π.-FROM THE BOOKS ON NATURE AGAINST TMEPICUREANS. In Eusebius, Pra par. Evangel. book xiv. oh. 23 7.
I. In opposition to those of the aehoot of Epicurus who deny the
existence of a Providenee, and refer iae eonstitution ofαε universe to avomis bodies la the universe ono coherent Whole, as it seems to be in o
own judment, as Weli as in that of the wisest of the Greehphilosophera, such as Plato and Pythagoras, and the Stoica and Heraclitus' or is it a duali , as some may possibiy have eonjectured or is it indeed something manifold and infinite, as has Men the opinion os certain othera Who, With a varie of mad speculations and fancifes usages of tems, have foughtto divido and resolvo tho essentiat matter ουσίαν) of the universe, and lay doWn the position that it is infinito and unoriginaled, and without tho sWay of Providenco ἀπρο--πο- For thero are those Who, giving the namo ol. atoma to certain imperishablo and most minute hodies .hlehare supposed to be infinite in number, and positing also the
existence ot a certain vacant space of an unlimited vastness,
allege that these atoms, as they are borne along casualty in the void, and clash ali fortuito j against each other in anunregulatia Whlal, and come commingled one With another in a multitude os forma, enter into combination With oachother, and thus graduialy form this Worid and ali objecta init; yea, more, that they construct infinite moesti. This Wastho opinion os Epicurus and Democritus; only they differedin one potat, in so far as the former supposed these atomato M ali most minuis and consequently imperceptibiis, While
168쪽
Democritus held that there Wore also some among them osa very large siete. But they both hold that sueti atoms doexist, and that they are so called on account of their indi solubio consistency. There are some, again, Whο give thename of atoms to certain bodies Whicli aro indivisibis intoparta, While they are themselVes paris of the universe, out of which in their undivided state ali things are made up, and into whicli they aro dissolved again. And the allegationis, that Diodorus Was the person who gave them their nam
as bodios indivisibie into paris των ἀμερων). But it is also said that Heraclides attached another name to them, and callia them Ueights λκους); and irom him the physician Asclepiadesalso derived that name. 2. A refutation of this dogma on the ground offamiliar
How shail Wo bear With these men who assert stat est thoso Wise, and consequently also noble, constructions in the universe are only the Woris of common chance ' those objecta,
I mean, of which each taken by itseli as it is made, and the whole system collectively, Were seen to be good is Him by whose command they came into existence. For, asit is sald, God saW everything that He had made, and, b hold, it was Very good. But truly these men do not reflecton' sto analogies even of smali familiar things which might como under their observation at any time, and Dom whichthey might learn that no object of any utili , and stted to boserviceable, is made Without design or is mere chance, butis Wrought by skill of hand, and is contrived so as to meetits proper use. And When the object fatis out os servies and becomes useless, then it also beons to brea up indete minately, and to decompose and dissipate iis materiati in ovo
λ ἐκληρονόμησε το ονομα. Eusebius surioins this remarh: ταυτ εἰπών,
169쪽
ne tot is, ἐκατέρας συνεκόμισε καίριον, sor Which Viger Proposes εις
τόν ἐκατέρας, etc. The texi oves, θάτωσαν ναρ τὰς αθεάτους ἐκεινοι, καὶ τὰς ἀνοητους νωλωσαν, οὐχ oμοίως ἐκειωρ, etc. The Passage Mems corrupti Some
170쪽
they asseri noW that ali those things of grace and beau , .hieli thoy declare to be textures finely Wrought out es atoma, are fabricated spontaneo ly by these bossies Without either
Wisdom or perception in them, Who can endure in hear them
Or who can bear in hear it maintained, that this mio habitation, whicli is constituted of heaven and earis, and whicli is called Cosmos on account of tho magnitude and tho plenitude of the wisdom Which has been brought to binrupon it, has Men est lished in ali ita order and beau by those atoms Which hold their couris devoid of order and beauty, and that that fame state of disorder has grown intothis trus Cosmos Order or who can belleo that thoso
regular movemenis and courses are the producis of a certain
unregulated impetus 3 or Who can allow that tho perfectconcord subsisting among tho celestial bodios derivos ita harmony from instrumenta destituto both of concord and harmo Or, again, it there is but one and tho fame in
Ps. cxxxix. 16. Tho texi ovea, το ἀκατέργαστόν σου Π σαν OI ὀφθαλμοί μου. Τhis strange reading, instead of the usual το ακατέργαστόν μου ειδον or nον) οἱ ὀφθαλμοί σου, is found iam in the Alexandrino exemplar of the Septuagint, Which oves. - ακατέργαστόν σου εἴδοσαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου, and in tho Psalter of S. Germanua in Calmet, Which has, imperfectum tuum viderunt oculi mei. Viger rendera it thua: puod eae tuis operibus imperfectum actuc et impolitum videbatur, oculi tandem mei perviderunt;