« AnteriorContinuar »
tum. Chrysostomus ac Theoph lactus utrumque tribu unt Christo, et ien Hieronymus, etuitantes adversus Arianos, ceu sictcres, con sera pre sit anceps: imo magis pro illis facere videatur quàm pro nobis. l'rimum negari non potest quin Serino Græcus sit ambiguus, et ex æquo pertinens ad sensum utrumlibet. Quid autem agas adversus hæreticum ex loco prorsus ancipiti? Quod si illos urgeas interpretum consensu, certe Ambrosius vir sunmus et Episcopus orthodoxus” (this great Bishop is, however, no other than the poor Deacon whom we have seen Dr. Mill treating so contemptuously) “ divisim accipit, ut magni Dei referatur ad Patrem, Serruloris ad Christum. Ipsius verba subscribam. Hanc esse, &c. as before, to heredes esse possimus. An non hic palam dicit Patrem revelaturum gloriam suam, judice Christo?--At adventus in sacris litteris non tribuitur l'ultri, sed Filio? Nec hic simpliciter nominatur adventus Patris, sed adventus gloriæ, quam interim expectamus in humilitate constituti. Tu'm apparebit majestas nostra, cum aperietur gloria magni Dei Patris, et servatoris nostri Jesu Christi. Quid autem hic inetuimus Arianos, quum tot locis Paulus Dei vocabulum tribuat Patri, filium appellans Dominum? Si Filius Dei, tantum in principio Evangelii Joannis adeo clare pronunciatus esset Deus, nonne sufficeret adversus universos Arianos? Postremo Ariani quidam hunc quoque locu:n accipiunt de Filio, et tamen non credunt quod nos credimus. Magnum enim Deum fatentur, verum negant; et hac et illorum impietas. Qilinguam onissus articulus in libris Græcis facit nonnihil pro diteriú sententiá. Exide,iting
distinxisset personas, si dixisset 4.0L TOU (WTygos.
Miror quid secutus Scholiastes ille magnum Deum interpretetur Spiritum sanctum. Fortasse locum captabat in quo Spiritus sanctus manifeste diceretur Deus.” (Vol. vi. part 2.
The passage which Erasmus alludes to here, is (No. 6, above) from a short Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles, published with the works of Jerome, but ascribed usually to Pelagius, or some Pelagian. It deserved to have been transcribed by Erasmus, or Wetstein, to increase the number of their authorities. For, if there be any other .place in all the writings of antiquity, which does not interpret the words TOU L Erychou Osov, or “magni Dei,” of the Son, this I believe to be the very passage.
Was it that they dreaded the “ din of war,” when Hilarius and Pelagius, after overturning all the other authorities, must still have to fight out the battle by themselves?
But, Sir, whatever may be the event, let our principle be strict Justice. Hear therefore Pelagius :
“ Et adventum gloriæ magni Dei, et Salvatoris nostri, Jesu Christi. Spiritum dicit magnum Deum quia ipsius expectamus adventum.
It would be almost a pity to suggest, that the original reading here, instead of Spiritum, perhaps was Christum, (Co.npare above, Nos. 12, 33, 37, and 56.)
363. Let us now see Grotius's note, and then we shall have had before us a tolerably compleat view of all that has ever been said in favour of that interpretation. Suc, ceeding commentators have faithfully trodden in the steps of those writers.
« Κατα την επιφανειαν: Illa apparitio dicitur non Christi tantum futura, sed et Dei; quia Deus majestatem illam Christo tribuit, ideo dicitur Christus venturus EV Tu doce tou Ilzīgos (Mat. xvi. 27. Marc. viii. 38.). Ita hunc locum recte accepit Ambrosius. Qui putant TOU Gwingos dici debuisse, si hæc distinxisset Apostolus, Apostolus, norint in his libris 72 og 9px sape poni, ubi opus non est, et sape omitti ubi ex usu ponerentur. Og εδωκεν εαυτον, &c.
Now, Sir, as to what is said here about the Article, I believe, that, exclusively of the few passages
you wish to reform the common version ;-I am willing to exclude them, as yet in debate-but I say, exclusively of them, I fully believe, that there is no one exception to your first rule in the whole New Testament: and the assertion might be extended infinitely further. But, in all the other places, (whatever it may be in those concerning which we are particularly interested) having, under your guidance, examined thein, I am persuaded that the idiom is not "anceps,” not “ambiguum.” Nay, may I not venture to add, that the Greek must be a strange language, if such a thing were possible?
With respect to the other part of this argument, that of authority, I have already said, I fear, more than enough.
I am, Sir, &c.
In our last example we abounded in authorities I fear,
N , even to weariness. In what follows, our complaint must be changed. My materials become very scanty.
The mere Commentators on St. Paul are numerous : and therefore, he who should seek for the opinion of antiquity respecting any passage of that writer, would seldom be entirely disappointed, even though he were not to extend his researches beyond the Commentators. But, besides them, all the remains of Ecclesiastical antiquity abound in quotations from St. Paul's writings,
Not so with respect to the Catholic Epistles. Of them manuscripts were comparatively never numerous. Accordingly quotations also are rare. Chrysostom, for instance, in all his writings, has not a word either from the second Epistle of St. Peter, or that of St. Jude, And the following Commentators, who have written on St. Paul, all desert us here, viz. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Damascenus, Theophylact; besides the different Latin