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

    bat we know tbat when he appears we shall be like unto him . 44 Let my reader look at the context , and he will be convinced that / z . e means the Son of God , whose second appearance was denied by the false teachers , and is therefore several times asserted by John in the couise of tFm epistle , These , and similar instances , clearly prove that it is not the pronoun or the termination of the verb that airwa ys determines th ^ implied agent , but the meanitnJPp . of that verb ; and as he does not necessarily refer to God in the above places , so does it not in the controverted

    -verse of Paul . It is asserted that ryv exxXt ^ iocv *? ov Kvctov is belter supported than £ XK \ yo ~ iav tov Seov * In a few words the contrary of this may be proved . CJriesbacIf asserts that the iEthiopic Version has rendered the place by a word which means either Lord or God , and therefore jvrovcs nothing as to the original Of that Version . But Ludolph &hd Walton , the two best judges iii Kurope , assert positively that the ^ Ethiopic word is used only of Jehovah alone . The assertion <> f Griesbach therefore is a gross ^ misrepresentation . — Forty-seven manuscripts , it is allowed , read ocvpiov Koci Saov . But these terms assuredly mean God the Father ^ and not the Lord Jesus . These

    copies then support the reading of SsoV ) and militate against the *> olc reading of kvpiov , as applied to Christ * It is in vain to say that these words are limited to

    our Lord by the subsequent verb ; because rio sfl $ b limitation Exists in truth , and is founded only in tlie erroneous associations of -modern critics . —Griesbach moreover asserts , that the more ancient

    Untitled Article

    fathers had not in their copies to , reading of rov Sso ' v , oecau $ e for sooth ^ they would then have quoted it against the heretics as an express declaration of the divinity of Christ : and here we see

    another proof of the surprising confusion which darkened the understanding ofthis critic —he supposes tov Seov , accidentally used to define rojv exx \ Y } o'ioti > , to be the same as if the apostle had written in

    direct terms , obsog , a nominative case to itsptetfoiYjirXTo . But it is sufficient to say that the early fathers were better judges of Greet than Griesbach ; they were free

    from that prejudice which , arising from the genius of modern Ianguagesj has betrayed him and others into an error . They also knew that the connection of row

    Sscv , if insisted upo 4 i , with the subsequent verb , supposes that Paul was in the habit of calling Jesus a God , and of ascribing to God flesh and blood : a supposi * lion altogether false and

    contradicted by the whole of his writings * I have said that if Ssgv be the genuine reading , it is more easy to account for the introduction of Kvpiov into the text , than if th ^ reverse were the case . For the

    authors of the copies containing it , would then be actuated only by a pre-conceived opinion , an influence to which all good men are liable ; whereas the introduction of Seov would be n direct

    fraud . And I think it by no means probable that the authors of so many copies , jealous of and in other respects at variance with

    each other , should concur in corrupting the language of the apostle . Besides , if they agreed to corrupt the text at all , they wduld have done it so as effectually to answer

    Untitled Article

    124 Mr . John Jones on the Controversy on Acts xx . 58 .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Feb. 2, 1814, page 124, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2437/page/52/