« PreviousContinue »
P. 194. our Lord hears our prayers. ]
Interrog. Quid de exauditione precum, deque non modò actionum sed cogitationum nostrarum cognitione statuis? annon his præditum Jesum Christum esse censes?
Respon. Nihil hic dubii esse potest. Quomodo enim sine his nos regere ac gubernare posset, et nostri curam habere ?
Interrog. Quid igitur censes de iis, qui ista Christo non tribuunt?
Respon. Censeo, illos non esse Christianos, quippe qui re ipsa Christum non habeant, et Jesum esse Christum licet fortasse apertè verbis non audeant, re tamen ipsâ omnino negent. Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, vol. i. p. 656.
P. ib. We confess and adore.] Unum Deum Patrem omnis principii atque originis expertem, et unum Dominum Dei filium, hominein illum Jesum Nazarænum crucifixum et resuscitatum confitemur, et adoramus. Bibl. Fratr. Polon. vol. ii. p. 375.
P. ib. that our Lord takes care.] Cæterum, quod diximus de rectè ac plenè hoc intelligendo, quod Jesus habeat potestatem nobis æternam vitam dandi, significat, debere non tantùm agnosci, præter id, quòd doctrina Christi ejusmodi sit, ut, si quis secundum illam vivat, vitam æternam sit habiturus, Jesum illo ultimo die suscitaturum a mortuis suos fideles, et transformaturum corpora nostra vilia, ut sint conformia corpori illius glorioso; sed etiam, nunc perpetuò habere curam
omnium suorum, omniaque illis posse largiri ac suppeditare, quibus indigeant, quo facilius possint in cæpto cursu pergere ac perseverare, et tandem vitam æternam adipisci : id quod Christum habere agnosci nequit, quin simul agnoscatur, illum esse suis fidelibus per totum hunc cursum, usque ad ipsum judicii digne loco ipsius Dei, et pro ipso Deo in Ecclesiâ regnare; et inde necessariò consequitur et cultus divini exhibitio et agnitio potestatis implorando ipsius Jesu opem in iis omnibus, ubi habeatur ratio curæ ac gubernationis prædictæ, quam Jesus suorum fidelium habeat, SINE QUA EXHIBITIONE ET AGNITIONE CERTUM EST, NEMINEM VEL DIGNUM QUIDEM ESSE, QUI CHRISTIANUS APPELLETUR. Bibl. Fratr. Polon. vol. i. p. 245.
P. 205. means.] That the work entitled the “ New Testament in an improved Version," resorts to the several means stated in p. 205. will appear on reference to the passages tioned under the seven heads immediately subsequent.
1. By giving to conjecture, &c.] See p. 2. note under St. Matt. i. 16. - and p. 120. note under St. Luke, i. 4.
2. By substituting figure, Sc.] See p. 73. note on St. Matt. xxviii. 19.-p. 166. note on St. Luke, xiii. 16.-p. 276. note on Acts, v. 3. p. 343. note on Rom. i. 4.
p. 395. note on 1 Cor. xii. 11.
3. By assuming, 8c.] See p. 201. Version of St. John, i. 10. The version of this passage, and the note subjoined, are extraordinary. The version is, “ the world was enlightened by him.” The note maintains the propriety of this version; first, by asserting that in the New Testament the word sysveto never bears the sense of creating ; secondly, by comparing St. John, i. 10. with St. John, i. 6. and with St. Matt. xxiii. 15. On which two points we may thus remark,
1st, Although the second aorist of yovou an is not found in the New Testament with the signification of creating, yet another tense of that verb is so used. In his epistle to the Hebrews, xi. 3., St. Paul alludes to that primary cause, the Divine command, which called the universe into existence. He describes the effect of that command to have been eis TO un ex φαινομενων τα βλεπομενα γεγονέναι. . The scope of the Apostle's subject, and the most natural mode of interpretation, lead us
to render yeyoveva by the term created or made. The inference is, if any one tense of yovouces may be used with the sige nification of creating, syeveto may be so used.
2dly, St. John was warranted in using eyeveto with that signification ; for Josephus, his contemporary, adopts yovou as the same acceptation. That historian, in his chapter on cosmogony, has these sentences; γενεσθαι φως εκελευσεν ο Θεος. Lib. Ι. c. i. S. 1. Και τον κοσμον εν εξ ταις ταυταις ημεραις Μωύσης και παντα τα εν αυτω φησι γενεσθαι. Ιbid. When he comes to the mention of Adam and Eve, he says, 'O de av@pwπος ούτος Αδαμος εκλήθη σημαινει δε τουτο, κατα γλωτταν την Εβραιων, Πυρρος, επειδήπερ απο της συρρας γης φυραθεισης εγεγονει. Ibid. s. 2. Και ο Αδαμος προσαχθεισαν αυτην εγνωρισεν εξ εαυτου gevojevry. Ibid. If a writer, so respectable as Josephus, would use yovouch to express creation, no reason can be assigned why St. John should not use the same word for the same purpose.
3dly, St. John was not only warranted, but there was peculiar propriety in his using yirouan to express creation. It is one of the very words used in a work with which the Evangelists and Apostles were conversant; the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.* The first book of the Pentateuch de. rives its name Γενεσις from γινομαι. Some part of that verb, in the sense of creating or making, occurs often in the first chapter of Genesis, e. g. Και είπεν ο Θεος, γενηθήτω φως και εγενετο φως, ν. 3.-γενηθήτω στερεωμα εν μεσω του ύδατος, ν. 6.γενηθήτωσαν φωστηρες εν τω στερεωματι του ουρανου, ν. 14. Thus we see yovouas, in the sense of creation, was of scriptural usage. And as St. John was describing the very same creation which is described by the Septuagint, he could have adopted no term, for that purpose, with greater propriety, than the term adopted in the Septuagint.
4thly, That in St. Matt. xxiii. 15. the word #poon Autos must be understood after yemtan is, indeed, true. But between the
The Evangelists, we may presume, chose rather to follow in general that common version, against which the Jews had then nothing to object, and for which the first converts had a high veneration. – P. 7. of “ The Modes of Quotation,” by Dr. Owen,
ellipsis in that passage, and the imaginary ellipsis in St. John, i. 10., there is this material difference. The supplying of the former from προσηλυτον, which is so near γενηται, must be obvious to any scholar of the plainest understanding. Whereas, the proposed insertion of πεφωτισμενος after γενηται in v. 10. is so little to youyou, is so very remote from ordinary usage, that the conception of it could enter only into a mind more than commonly inventive and studious of novelty.
5thly, Ifit could be allowed that in v. 10. TEOWTITUevos ought to be understood after yeritat, then, indeed, the mode of interpreting v. 10. and v. 6. should be the same. But it is utterly impossible to admit 7€®UTIO usvos into v. 10. The insertion of it is neither necessary nor proper. Not necessary, because the affirmative proposition ο κοσμος δι' αυτου εγενετο is in itself equally complete as the affirmative proposition TATA 81' AUTOU eyeveto in v. 3. LEISNER speaks of “ Ficta Ellipses." He explains his meaning thus: “ Ellipses autem fictas voco, quum vocabula dicuntur omissa esse, quæ ad plenam orationem, sensûsque Integritatem non sunt necessaria.” Præf. to LAMBERT Bos. Ed. 7. Under that description falls the imaginary ellipsis of writusvos in v. 10.
But, moreover, the insertion of that word in v. 10. would be improper, with a view both to analysis and subject. To analysis, because, between Çwriter in v. 9. and sysveto in v. 10. intervenes the clause εν τω κοσμα ην, « Πe,” (for αυτον at the end of v. 10. by its gender proves that ny refers to the Aeros, and not to ows) " He was in the world.” Now the introduction of this clause is not in any such manner as can indicate that suspension of thought between φωτιζει and εγενετο, which we commonly understand when a passage is merely parenthetical. It has all the requisites which can constitute the commencing clause of a new sentence, proceeding to farther progress in the series of description. Being of such a nature, it stands as an insuperable impediment to any reference from sysveto in v. 10. to QwTiger in v. 9.
The insertion of πεφωτισμενος after εγενετο in v. 10. would be improper with a view to subject. For the effects of such insertion would be, to resume an idea from which the mind of the evangelist had passed, and to exclude a new idea,