On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    rious , and the" play upon the word would not , perhaps , have seemed to an audience of JewSj asit is apt to 3 o to us > beneath the digiiity of the subject and occasion ; but we cannot think that a good connexion of the sentiment with the preceding discourse has been established ; and though the words mi g ht be translated in the manner proposed , the proofs that they should'be so seem to us to fail . If it was good Greek to use yivo ^ i at all . in the sense

    of being born , it signifies little that so common a word has heen employed by the writer of this text ninety times in its more usual sense . If we meet with the very expression < it $ w . .. . ysvso-Qxi , in the sense , " before a person named was born , " in other writers , the Apostle John ' s happening elsewhere to use « 7 T £ tv ysvsa-Bca for " before it came to pass , " does not render it unlikely that , with a proper name before the verb , he should mean by the phrase what others had meant by it . It signifies little to tell us that " the form yeveo-Bai , generally throughout the New Testament ,, and always in St . John ' s

    writings , has a future signification , " when this form , being in its nature indeterminate as to time , depends on the connexion for its reference to the past or the future . The objections made to supposing eya sipi to refer to past time seem equally unfounded ; after all , however * we think that this interpretation of Socinus , which has been ably defended by Dr . Carpenter , is generally treated much more severely than it deserves , and may safely be compared in reasonableness and probability with either of the orthodox , interpretations . :

    In our remarks on Mr . Bloomfield we must begin at vex . 56 ; " Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day : and he saw it , and was glad . " Having justly observed that qyaXkidtraro with Ua expresses desire , " greatly longed to see my day , " he proceeds to interpret , *« and he saw it and rejoiced , " i . e . in the seats of the blessed , in orcus , not in " heaven . " " He

    has seen , 1 . e . mentally has known , my advent , and has felt joy at it , " He mentions the explanation " saw , i . e . foresaw , " along with several others little Worth our notice , which he thus dispatches : " All these interpretations are too far-fetched , and are indeed at variance with the usus loquendi and the context . " We , nevertheless , take this explanation to be the most obvious and natural , and that which alone harmonizes well with the context .

    The purposes of God m the separation of the family of Abraham were but gradually made known to the Patriarch , He longed to see the grand result x at length he was permitted to see in prophetic vision ; how all the nations of the earth should be blessed in his seed , to form some imperfect anticipation of the glorious kingdom of the Saviour of the world , eWe koI i % dpv ) . " He saw and Was glad , " V pw 0 £ v rdq mayytkia s lUvrtq , Heb . xi , 13 , quoted by Schleusnec in verb ** h a clear instance of a similar use of thie word ; it will ,

    indeed , hardly bejderiied by dny that it may bear such £ meaning . What Mr . Bloomfield calls the common interpretation , besides assuming a theory respecting the state ; of the dead , which will hardly be proved' to ; be scriptural , renders our Lord ' s observation triflirig and inappropriate . He answers the query , " Art ; thou greater than out Father Abraham ?¦ " by shewing that it was a privilege to Abraham to be ; allowed to anticipate his Qoniing- ^ -an indirect yetdecisive assertion of his own superiority- ";¦ ¦ : ; /

    la the 6 ? th ; verse , the Jew $ , ; eithej $ tupi < Jly or maliciously npiisunderstand- ! ing ^ our Lord ' s Words ^ fifay to him , ' * Thou artjac ^ yetrfifty y ^^ ioW , ? nd hast thou seen i Abraham ?"> The a ^ qswer -to be ^ ex ^ ct < e 4 mMsjt , i t > f 5 ? o ^ rse ; shew how the previous assertion might ! be ix \ l $% jnotwirW ^ dingithatiesufir could not have beep personally ^ contem porary with -Abraham , a » a this could certainly l ) e dpn ^ n OVbettejr ihan b y observing , as w ^ uf tdejrsH ^ nd Our Lord'fc

    Untitled Article

    744 Review . S - ~ IttotmJ § eld $ Revenm ynoptica Annotationis Sacra ? ,

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Oct. 2, 1827, page 744, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1801/page/32/