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
dead . These inferences turn upon the doctrine of Christ ' s divinity as upon a pivot . And nothing is more certain than that John in ail bis writings directly levels Ms language against them and their base authors .
The Pagan philosophers imitated the Gnostics in attempting to destroy Christianity , by having recourse to the same principle . One example of this kind I shall here produce and it goes to the full extent of my
assertion . They are the words of Ame-Hits , a disciple of Porphyry , and one of the bitterest enemies of the gospel , " This truly is the Word , by whom , as being eternal , all things were made , as Heraclitus would have
acknowledged : and , indeed , the barbarian ( meaning John ) , assigning to him the rank and dignity of being in the beginning , asserts that he existed with God and was God , that by him were all things made , and in him every
thing that is made has its life and being ; that having descended into a body , and clothed himself , he appeared a man , and that after he had even then shewn the greatness of his na » ture , he disengaged himself from the flesh , again resumed his Godhead , and is still a God , as he was before he became a man / ' See Lardner , VII . 160 , or Euseb . Prsep . Evan . Lib . xi . c . p . 540 . Now I maintain that this writer , whom Eusebius represents as one of the supporters of the new philosophy in the school of
Alexandria , not only alludes to the proem of John , but interprets it in the way in which it is interpreted by modern orthodox divines . Taking it for granted that the Evangelist teaches the Godhead of the Logos , Amelius asserts on his authority , that it descended to
a body , and , clothing itself with flesh , appeared as a man . In this state he shews the greatness of Ms nature . Here the philosopher alludes to the stupendous miracles recorded by John which Jesus performed , and is a broad acknowledgment of their truth . Yet he was no believer in the gospel , and
clearly because lie was able to account for the miracles of Christ by referring them to the Godhead Within him . Had he considered Jesus simply as a human being-, teaching and acting with authority from the Almighty , the only true God , the God and Father of pll mankind , this assent of vol . xx . 5 a
Untitled Article
Amelias to his divine mission , and consequently to the truth of his religion , would have been inevitable . This interpretation of * the Gospel of John was borrowed by the Alexandrian philosophers from the Gnostics , and it serves in a remarkable manner
to illustrate the nature and object of their system * At the same time it proves to a demonstration that the divinity of Christ , so far from being essential to Christianity , was made use of by his enemies as the most effectual means of destroying it . JOHN JONES .
Untitled Article
Bfr . Cogan on the Verb TtyvetrSrai . 729
Untitled Article
mm Sir , HAVING , since I wrote ray last , ( p . 646 , ) received two friendly
letters from a respectable contributor to the Repository , on the verb yiyvz < r &a « , I have been led to think upon the subject more than I had ever done before . The result of my thoughts I will now communicate in as few
words as I can . I had said that yevsar&ai was used as the aorist to etva « , and upon looking into Buttman ' s Greek Grammar , I find that this able grammarian has stated that yeyova and zyzvwqv are used as the preterites of this verb .
That this is true with respect to the infinitive mood is certain , there being no possible way of expressing the sense of fuisse in Greek but by ytvta--frcw and yeyovEvcct . But I will confine myself chiefly to yzvecr&ou . If ysvt < r ~ Srai , then , is often equivalent to fuisse ,
would it not be strange if aye ^ o ^ i / could never signify fui ? But of this use there are many and unquestionable examples . I will only add two to those which have * been already produced . Philostrati Heroica , p . 32 ,
in the edition of Boissonade : Ei /*«/ T £ pfi 6 T 6 > & £ K tyeVOVTO EKBIVQI M . OLI £ x //* ? £ ? - ky ){ A&voi Sfypiois , ex oida . An immen&i illi ( Gigantes ) fuerint , et serpentibus cincti , non novu Theocriti Scholiastefl ad Id . vii . ver * 8 : BPASIAA- i $
ypcupovTEt ; Sia . tra $ V dtyutpvotvacri . Eyeveto yap J } pcccr&ot $ Aok&v ro yevof , 6 & £ B $ ot < ri \ a , <; K ( po <; . But , it may be said , how came it to pass that the primary meaning of yiyyeaftai should be obscured or lost in the aorist ? I ask
in reply , hpw came it to pass that the Greek < fnw should Io 3 e its primary signification in the iiatin / w ? But is it
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1825, page 729, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2543/page/25/
-