On this page
-
Text (1)
-
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
Scrip ture usually alleged by his opposed- ^ Mr * Freftd on the Proem of-John 8 GospeL The proposed translation of srysHro is certainly worth considering , probably Mr . Frend regards it as
corroborating * the interpretation which refers this passage to the beginning of the gospel dispensation . But can we doubt that John had in his mind a vaffiie reminiscence at least of the first
of Genesis , and either intentionally or insensibly conformed his opening gospel to it ? I must believe that he directly imitated the phraseology of Moses , even if he intended his narrative to begin with the life of Jesus . Much more so , if his intention was , as
seems to me the case , to represent the fact , that the power and wisdom which " became flesh /* or was exhibited in the person of Jesus Christ , was identical with that exerted in the creation of the world , or in other words ,
that it was a divine , not a spurious or fictitious power and wisdom . If there be any plausibility in this last theory of the passage , Mr . Frend will please to consider whether Kavra , eysyero would not better be translated in the sense suggested by the same verb as it occurs in Gen . ii . 4 of the Septuagint
version . T . F . B . on the same subject . I entirely agree with this correspondent in his views of the passage , except his interpretation of the initial clause . But this is a point of comparative
unimportance to the mam question , and he has cooled my confidence a little even in my own views of that particular clause by his array of the passages from John ' s epistle . Has he a right , however , to assume that the
commencement of the epistle is a " perfectly parallel passage to that of the gospel "? This seems to be anticipating a conclusion before fairly arrivni at it . It is more difficult for me 10 K 71 Ml ^ l / IO /* # ¦ ! - » n 4- T ^ v 1-. .- » « « r ^ - » 1 ] . rl t » r > / - » c < / "k l () that John would
suppose use so elli ptical a phrase as the beginning , l eaning only the beginning of the gos-P '> than that he would adopt for the ^ mmencement of his history a clause jrom the book of Moses , with which .
" « was perfectly familiar , and attach ? \ Moses ' s obvious and unstrained Jgnification . I perceive no injury to ie sense in supposing that the comm ? ncernent of the epistle refers to the uri of all things . If it refer to the
Untitled Article
beginning of Chrislfi&mty , the assert tion of the apo $ tl& appears to me ta settle into a vague and bald remark * I feel the weight whiuh TlF . ILaseribes to his considerations on the 4 th and
5 th verses of the gospel . This writer disclaims the praise of originality . But surely the finely discriminating vie ^ vs in his last paragraph but one , are not common , even if they be not original .
Dr . J . Jones on the same subject Much of this is truly great ; but the last paragraph on p . 7 ^ 6 exhibits a little of the mere effrontery of Unitarianism . The coincidence between Dr . Jones * *
explanations of the word Xayoq , as used in the proem , and that by T . F . B . in the preceding article , unconcerted as it doubtless was , is remarkable . A jealous Trinitarian would ask Dr .
Jones if he has not artfully substituted the expressions union and united in the room of becoming and became , as equivalent to the expression fyevsTo , and that too , after he had himself allowed and maintained that the Greek
term implies transition . Mr . Cogan on Yiyvea-Occi , appears to me quite happy in his fact 3 , though a little refined , to say the least , in his metaphysics * Dr . Smith in reply to Mr * BakeicelL Dr . Smith's reiterated statement of
the Calvinistic doctrine of Perseverance , still appears to me a mere truism * His words are , that " the real Christian , " "the sincere Christian , " will
persevere , &c . But be deludes himself in not perceiving that the convenient terms real and sincere just mean those Christiana who will
persevere , and thus the doctrine goes round and round in a circle , which proves nothing at all , and amounts to nothing at all . How can the Doctor characterize that wild , strange , fierce , inconsistent , dogmatic , and intolerant extract from
the Acts of Dort as containing * truth and argument , " and as meeting with his reverence ? As for " argument , " I see no pretensions to it in the whole passage , good or bad . If there is truth in it , I would like to ask the Svnod of Dort and Dr . Smith , whether
those whom they call * ' true believers /' when they are "hurried away into great anil dreadful sins , " are certain always of an opvohtunity to retur * i
Untitled Article
Critical' Synvpsw of " the Monthly Repository for December , 1835 i JHBt
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1826, page 715, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2555/page/15/
-