Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it, &c." See also Prov. xxx. 4. Rom. x. 6. 7.

In the verse preceding, our Saviour had been speaking of making known to the Jews "earthly things"-probably meaning plain truths—and "heavenly things"-things less manifest. -After this, it was certainly very natural for him to assert his knowledge of those less known and sublimer things; and this he did in the words in question: "Now no man hath ascended up to heaven, &c." Consult the following passages: Gal. iv. 26. 2 Cor. v. 1. 2. 1 Cor. xv. 47. Isa. xiv. 13. 14. Heb. xii. 25. Matth. xxi. 25.

I shall take notice of one other passage, on which much stress has been laid: Joh. xvii. 5. " And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."-According to the phraseology of the scriptures, actual existence at the time referred to is not necessarily implied in the language here used. Parallel to the above passage are the following.-Rev. xiii. 8. "The lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Joh. viii. 56. “Abraham saw my day, and was glad." v. 58. “Before Abraham was, I am he❞—the Messiah; for so it ought to be translated. Matth. xxv. 34. "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foun→ dation of the world." See also Ephes. i. 4. 1 Pet. i. 20. Rev. xvii. 8. If we carefully read the whole chapter, (Joh. xvii.) we shall see that the glory which our Saviour prayed for was no ineffable glory actually enjoyed in a previous state of existence, but the glory of being the instrument in the hand of God of making known His name in the world, (v. 22.) a glory which Christ also prayed for on behalf of his disciples, which in its measure justly belonged to them.

Scriptural language, which may be accommodated to an assumed doctrine, is not a sufficient proof of the truth of such doctrine. Indeed the very circumstance of a doctrine being

supported by such proof is of itself enough to discredit it. Every important Christian doctrine is in plain terms, specifically and frequently propounded in the New Testament: and whatever supposed doctrine is not so set forth in the scriptures in specific and plain terms can never be established by the strained and unauthorized interpretation of casual expressions.

NOTE VIII.

We shall here give a literal translation of the chapter in the epistle of Clement of Rome, written about the close of the first century, in which, for expressing his high estimation of the character of Christ, he quotes from the first chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews:-" This is the way, beloved, in which we find our salutary aid, Jesus Christ, the high priest of our offerings, the patron and aider of our weakness. Through him [Jesus] we look intently to the height of the heavens, through him we behold as in a mirror his [God's] spotless and most high countenance, through him the eyes of our heart were opened, through him our foolish and darkened understanding rises to his wonderful light, through him the sovereign Lord hath pleased that we should taste of immortal knowledge, who, being the splendor of his greatness, is by so much greater than angels [ayyɛλw] as he has inherited a more excellent name. For it has been thus written, Who maketh winds, or spirits, his messengers, [ayyɛλous] and a flame of fire his ministers;' but touching his Son [ETIT ] the sovereign Lord [Acorns] said, Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee: ask of me, and I will give thee heathens thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth thy possession.' And again he saith to him, Sit on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool.' Who are his enemies? The wicked, who oppose their own will to his will."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Here it is very singular, that all those passages, on which the orthodox so mainly rely, are passed by wholly unnoticed. It can scarcely be doubted, that the writer was quoting from the first chapter to the Hebrews. Why did he omit those very verses, on which the chief stress is now laid, in proving the deity of the eternal Son? Did they appear to him to be not worth quoting, or was his copy very different from the present text? Whatever be the reason, it is certain that he has omitted the verses most relied on by the modern orthodox, while he has quoted portions contiguous to them, both before and after them.

NOTE IX.

There is a very material difference between the expression in this 15th v. and that in the corresponding part of the longer' account concerning John's testimony, which occurs in the 30th v. of this first chap. The former is, "This was he whom I mentioned, He that cometh after me, &c." The latter is, "This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a MAN, who has become before me; for he was before me "—according to the common version, but with literal exactness," for he was my first." If John used these words with a view to set forth the pre-existence of the Logos, is it in the least probable that he would have applied to him the word avng, man? Would the term man, and pre-existence be associated in his mind as compatible? And does not the use of terms so incompatible plainly prove, that he did not even contemplate in his mind the meaning ascribed to his words by the orthodox.

Origen entertained a curious notion about the pre-existence of Christ. He thought, that the man of the Son of God [τον ανθρωπον του ύπου του Θεού,] being a different being from the man born of Mary, pre-existed from the beginning, mixed with the Logos; and that that was the man, whom John professed not to know: For he thought that he was not previously

ignorant of the person of Jesus, being nearly related to him. This curious opinion of Origen is noticed chiefly to shew, that he felt the full difficulty of supposing that the MAN, Jesus Christ born of Mary, pre-existed, and therefore his fertile imagination produced a very peculiar kind of man, whose pre-existence, blended with the Logos, he thought not quite so preposterous.-Huet's Orig. Oper. ii. p. 35.

In the Latin translation of Origen's works by Ambrosius Ferrarius, this clause rewros mov nv [he was my first] is repeatedly rendered, honoratior me erat, that is, 'he was more honourable than me.'

NOTE X.

Expressions similar in form to that used in Joh. i. 14. i λoyos sage sysvsTo the word became flesh, not unfrequently occur; but in no instance that I have been able to discover has an interpretation been adopted, similar to the orthodox explication of the clause in question. Yet upon this strange and unusual explication depends the extraordinary doctrine of the personal union of God the Son and man-Godman. But if on examination no instance can be found, which involves the notion essential to the orthodox doctrine, it will follow surely that it cannot be sustained.

In the beginning of the second ch. of John, we have an account of the miracle of changing water into wine. The expression used is (v. 9) ro vòwg orvov yeyevnμevov. that is, "the water that was become, or made, wine." In this surely there is nothing analogous to the orthodox interpretation of v. 14. Water was not united to wine, so that both the wine and the water retained their essential qualities in one substance; but the water was changed into wine : it was no longer water, but wine. Several other cases of this nature occur, where the language is not metaphorical, but the exposition of a physical fact, as in the changing of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, Gen.

xix. 26. The words are, xa syeveto ornλn åλos" and she became a pillar of salt.". This is also the literal narration of a fact, as is likewise the account of Moses's rod becoming a serpent. Exod. vii. 9, 10. See also Matth. iv. 3. "Command that those stones be made, or become, bread."

The sense, when the expression is used in relation to objects not sensible, is to be ascertained by comparing its use in different passages, and particularly in this same writer. It occurs in ch. i. 12. "As many as received him, to them he gave the privilege to become the sons of God." This refers to no physical change in their constitution. xii. 36. "That ye may become the children of light"— pros, the sons of light. In 1 Cor. i. 30, it is said of Christ, "who was made unto us wisdom from God”—ός εγενήθη ἡμιν σοφια απο Θεου. This signifies that he was the means of imparting wisdom to us, derived from God. See 1 Cor. xiii. 1, "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become sounding brass, &c." The received version very properly adds here," as sounding brass." There is, however, so little real difficulty in this kind of phraseology, where the mind is not influenced by preconceived notions and systems, that I deem it unnecessary either to adduce any more examples, or to offer farther explanation.

FORREST AND FOGG, PRINTERS, MANCHESTER.

« VorigeDoorgaan »