장음표시 사용
461쪽
alleged that heris o stile in an serio IessProper sense; et this does no appear. It iste sides o improbabie, that hera ut here calfi Christ, God when he neve aster gives him thaltille throughout his book or describes it m assumedis our lard ι nor is it me ascribe is hima myother of the sacred Writers Men that ad been originali heathen might mae se sere, an besse familia Mith the nam o God, as e fines ne by the interpolateris Ignatius' Epistlas; ut noe
The postle Iohn, in his preface to his ML
Pel, teaches not, that Iesus a the o hio God, or a great preexistent spirit, and subordinatς creator of the worid o that he a God in any sense what ever: ut that he was ara res man,
raisedi so the greatest purpolas, and fissed Wissimis om and divine power, o fit him so the executionis the important office an trust delegaledio im An What the postle here says that Urim, the Divine isdom e me ess, o ra-ther a mortes man, in the personis Iesus Christ,
is in realit nothin more than the apostle aster' Ward intimates, a spolien in other Wotas, is o
rithe whichio me, he rave me a comman ent, stabat
462쪽
is me, he rit the moras Belisve me, reat Lamin ue Father, and the Ather in me re eis bellave
463쪽
SO that e ma hence inser, that in an inferior limite sense, IVVAmraecameses o man, in the apostles of Christ, and in the first christiansa Poneach of Whon extraordinar divine gist were be-stowed. his however sint mentioned 'ineois that air of mystery, whicli has been thrown Verthis language concerning the Divine Wisdom in Christ fro-whic strange conclusion have been made, and the wormi of the one true God the Father desaced, andiearly lost among men.
we find that Erasmus a greatly lamed by seme Divines for transsaling the rst verse of
St. John' gospei In thed innis mas emo, Beech, instea o verbum, mota. ut many of the latin athere had fouendered the term λογος, hesiore him. It is of mali consequence ho it be rendered, o that it oes no stanssor Christ, a God an creator of at things a constructionmost contrar to the intentio of the apostle, and in opposition to the whole tenoris the scriptures. Thele ouldie nothing wron in stili continuingio translate, In the ginning was the Vord; isthereb be unders od, no Christ, ut the dirine poWer an energy by Which at things were made,
by whicli Christ was inspire an directed. ut
464쪽
.illae in ange of stili hinking Christ in that
character tot meant nil, and no the Divine
This very gros and fatali iistine, of maing the ληγος the word, in the beginningo St. John's mspei, nota be an attribute o God the divine WiDdom, poWer, ca ut a rea person distinct romGod, and the prope nam o Christ, as a Being. exdor eques o God himself has missed sor ages, and stili mine vi in christia mori in generat. Τhis ou fin in ali Writings of Divines, antientand modern Look in to commentaries, annotations
465쪽
th pretende aut rit o Divines, o book of the learned ell them, that the will find that the three forme evangelist kne nothingis theblessed Iesu being an otherethan a human being, and that there re St. John's meaniniis lihel tobe misunder o by thos Who ould mae hin
an other; and that in term logos, thera M. - - o Whateve construction belut pon it, cannot be a nam os Christ, as a DiVine Person, God, and creatori ali hings tu is the namem attribute of the Great God himself his indom, his ord, o divine enero, by hic hebrought at things into heing an direct and
φxtraordinar degre impareed to Iesus Christ, in that it might beri id tes est in him VIII.
I here are ground to belleve that this intem pretatio of the eginning of St. John's mspei, whic Pirust may bes id now o have been confirmed by a Variet os arguments was, frometheirstandrior severat centuries, held by thos christians, who formed thei opinions of thei religion Domscripture, an not fio philosophy. ut their books, or an iust accounts of the men, have no been suffere to come down to s. eshould in ali probabilit neve have heard of thesentiment of Mςellus, the nitaria bissio ofAncyra in Galatia, in the th centvry, i Eusebius
466쪽
- Universities. SM no hem excited a io rite against im, o account of his chargin himself, and ome
sa Eusebim, ein a reat imop, an havi, thesicular oiner o his side, is very angry, and abusive accuses Marcellus os udaita, and sabellianism .hie in those Mys were but ther Mord sor unitarianism and though a personis great te ning an fine pares he soll- the ogue and prejudice of the times, an quotes scripturea rote Mithout attending to inat the sacred writer intendedi v. The ses-lowincia a ample of his manne in controversy, smin thebeonning of his seeon book against Marcellus. Having nowI says Eusebius, ' lassicienu exposed his maliniau's calumnies, se he stiles Marcellus in contemptὶ itis time to dragio lighthisiaith, orrather his infidelityi rim, - - μα λω ἀπιπιαν toWard the soni God that Ι erip the man s implaus opinioris of that plausibi covering under hic the have long been maseed, and let ali the worl see, by his in testimony. Who and what sortis manae is, in has is long resided in the chruch. For he matas no strupte in inerti that Christ, moi the the sonis God nor had an existence besore he was bom
με uor eve preexisted in any seri, o was Nit God basere he wasior of the virgin Mary And that the logos, the in , is nothinibat an attribute of the Deity coexisting. .ithand united to him, rom allisterni , and the fame in God that resion is in man V serae mahes se of this very comparison. Euseb. p. Colon. 688, contra Marceli
467쪽
and creator, unde the supreme. ut arcellus himself, a mill farther appear maintained that thelogos, the ord, as ni an attribute o God, his poWe and energy, hichisa semetimes for ηmhile communicate to his creatures, and then villidrawn, and that it a the fame in God asmason in gn.
468쪽
lea Jo into a consideratio of them, Ι ould remi ou, of What cannot escape the attentive
reade of the gospe history, viz. that ou Lord generali expresses himself in figurative b langvage, peculia to thos easter countries, and tothe prophetic character. his is howeve more observabie inivr evangelist, han in the thera;
asperated against him for his self-denying doctrine,
and hol reproo of thei vices and o both of them for reason mellanown and generali allowed, he was oblige t be o the reserve in declaring himself the messiali, thei heavent prophet, and king, in si man words and theresere he madeus o circumlocutions, an metaphorical e pressions. callin himself tbe readis life and saying that lae eam domn fram heaven that he
469쪽
Joh I. 5. He that eometh after me, is preferred fore me; forti ac fore me. The la clauseos this sentence mouid nothave Mensu in ambiguous tems, o induce the mere englissi reade to interpret it, scis the baptist had stat, that Iesus, though semeWhat ounge than him, Was neve theles bessire hi in timea intendin thereb todenote a prior eternat existence, hic seme Maedgive him. A circumstance of this ver extrao dina lind, is true, Would not have been once onlyconveyed in a doubilat phrase, but frequently and expliciti mentioned. e ma assure utielves
then thalase baptisti insint of the dignitros Christ, and the superior importance of his messem from God that he was besere him in that respect. An theresereri mouldi rendere into englissi, for he mas greater han me. his is in sense of the word givo by Dr Clarke in his paraphrase and tris achnowlege by the best critic t be a just transiatio of them. See lassius. Philol.
470쪽
es fore Iohm; but then he refers it no to the personis Iesus, ut to the λογος, the ord, the wis.
ma be taken, as 'Eniant bessire iam observed, but ho adopis the interpretation here gium.
t se The patage, thus explained feld a sense hic is in just an apposite, thereaeing at lea an apparent Te- Drance to the insormatio the evangelist hiative us con- Cerning the ρος, δε-orri ἄν miserim, in the eginning of he hapter ' Cam et in loe. his is an interpretationi 'hic an unitaria could mahe no objection, though theother more probabi inas intended bi St. John. I. Enfant' transsation of the verse isa C est iei celui du'quel 'a dit; elui qui vient apres molim'est presere, Pa ςequ'il est plus gransque anes.