On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
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.
-
-
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
fence . Origen and Eusebius , we are told , argue from the omission of the article in the clause && > $ tfv a \ oy *<; that the X «« yd < was not one and the same * h n&i Tavfav , with the Father , the Supreme God . It must be
granted that they consider this circumstance as indicating some inferiority or subordination in the nature of the Logos , but it by no means follows , that had they understood English , they would
have approved such a rendering as the present , which represents the Word as a separate , distinct God . In common with the other Fathers they regarded the Aoyos as existing in the essence of the Father , and partaking of his undivided Deity .
It is further urged , and we readily concede , that an inferior use of the name God occurs several times in the Old Testament , and in quotations from it in the New : as for instance , It is tcritten in the law , I said ye are 9
Gods / speaking of rulers : or , again , s Thou shalt not revile the gods , nor curse the ruler of thy people , " in a like sense . I answer , that such expressions are no more than ancient Hebraisms , occurring only in passages
found in or quoted from the Old Testament , and never forming a part of tlie current style of the New . It is most improbable that a passage of such dignity and gravity as that before us should be couched in such obsolete
and fantastic language . It is doingvery little in such cases to shew that in some extraordinary instances a word has been used in this or that sense : the question is , what is that ordinary and sober sense in which it was proper to use it in the passage under examination .
It appears to me not a little strange to take the phrase , the Word , merely as a synonym for the name of Jesus Christ . If the writer merely intended to say that Jesus Christ was in the beginning , and was with God , why does he designate him thus abruptly by this singular name , by which he never calls him afterwards ? What
proof have we that those to whom he wrote were prepared to understand him in this way of speaking ? There is not a single instance in the New Testament where this phrase , the Wordy passes as a known and distinguishing appellation , or proper name ,
Untitled Article
of Jestis Christ . He is , indeed , called tht Word of G&d in the Revelation ; but only in such a wfcy as he receives various other titles , such as King of
kings , Emmanuel , the Lord our righteousness , and others ; but none of these are received and distinguishing appellations , nor would any writer use them as such who wished to be understood
But if , by the fVord , we understand with Lardner and Priestley , that principle of light and life which , though essentlallyinhemit in the Deity , emanated from him in due time , and being infused into the person of Jesus , dwelt amonff us in the form of human
nature ; this idea , mysterious indeed , but neither unintelligible nor absurd , gives due significance to all the language of the Evangelist , harmonizes with the theological style of the age
when the gospel was written , and corresponds in the main with the sense which all the early fathers gave to the passage . These are surely no mean , arguments in its favour . But I think the rock of offeft . ce for
the Socinian C interpretation is yet to come . O Koa-fAog $ * ' avrB Byevsro . The world Was made by him ; so read the orthodox , and so does Hocinusj but the Improved Version , imputing- to the text a most astonishing- ellipsis , makes bold to render it , The world was enlightened by him . JSocinus is
obliged to propound that , by the woi * ld being made , we must understand that the world was reformed , or that the world means the new creation , which was , no doubt , the work of Christ . Then the difficulty takes a new form , for the question occurs how it could be said that the new creation knew
not Christ ? The figure ellipsis allows a writer to omit what the sense of a passage already sufficiently suggests . If this is the case with the world enlightened , as here inserted , the reader may oipit this word , but will still perceive that it is implied in those which remain . Impartial reader , do you find
this to be so \ It is as plain a matter in English as in Greek , although I have most satisfaction in referring you to the original . It has been said , that the word Eyevero cannot signify was made . I answer , that the word yiyvncrdai signifies to be brought into existence in any form or manner , and la applied in this sense to all sorts of
Untitled Article
On the Proem of John ' s Gospel 537
Untitled Article
VOL . XK . 3 Z
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Sept. 2, 1825, page 537, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2540/page/23/
-