« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
that Christ died to deliver us from the condemping sentence of the law, by ratifying the new covenant, which is a dispensation of mercy.”
Romans v. 10.
(NESTORIUS.) Nestorius denied the hypostatical union of the word with our nature; and supposed that there were two persons in Jesus Christ.
“ I allow," said Nestorius, “ that we must not separate the word from Christ; the Son of Man from the Divine Person. We have not two Christs, two Sons; a first, a second; nevertheless, the two natures which form this Son, are greatly distinguished, and do not admit of confusion.
“Scripture points out expressly what is applicable to the Son, and what to the word. When St. Paul speaks of Jesus Christ, he says, “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman. Gal. iv. 4. And again, • We have been reconciled to God by the death of his Son,' he does not say, by the death of the word.
“ It is, therefore, speaking in a manner little conformable to Scripture, to say, that Mary is the mother of God. Besides, this language is an obstacle to the conversion of the Pagans; for how can we oppose the Pagan deities, if we admit, that a God was born, suffered, and died? Or, by holding this language, can we refute the doctrine of the Arians, who contend, that the word is a creature?
“ Nestorius farther said, that he could not allow the union of the human with the divine nature, be
cause, by that union, supposing but one person in Christ Jesus, the Divinity would be subjected to the weaknesses and passions of humanity.”
This doctrine excited much commotion towards the middle of the fifth century; it is now chiefly professed by the Chaldeans of Syria.
This controversy has been considered by some as merely a dispute about words. “ It is true,” observes Dr. Mosheim, “ that the Chaldeans attribute to Christ two natures, and even two persons; but they correct what may seem rash in this expression, by adding that these natures and persons are so closely and intimately united, that they have only one aspect. Now the word Barsopa, by which they express this aspect, is precisely of the same signifi, cation with the Greek word mpoowmov, which sigt nifies a person; and from hence it is evident, that they attached to the word aspect, the same idea that we attach to the word person, and that they understood by the word person, precisely what we understand by the term nature, :: See Bayle's Dictionary, Dict. des Hérésies, and Mosheim. "
(BARSUMAS.) Barsumas, who was created Bishop of Nisibis, (A.D, 435.) and his followers, instead of teaching their disciples precisely the doctrine of Nestorius, rather polished and improved his uncouth system to their own taste, and added to it several tenets of their own. The Nestorians, who still remain in Chaldea, Persia, Assyria, and the adjacent countries, consider Barsumas as their parent and founder, own qua... . See Mosheim.
...:: Romans v. 11. .
.. . (UNITARIANISM.) .,
Wakefield, Belsham, and Unitarian Version.
ROMANS v. 12,
(UNITARIANISM.) “ The Apostle here assumes and reasons upon the account of the fall contained in the Book of Genesis, as an historical fact; and he traces an analogy between the consequences of the fall of Adam, and those of the righteousness of Christ. And as the Apostle was instructed by Christ himself in the nature and the excellence of the Gospel dispensation, in all its comprehension and extent, we are fully authorised to admit his conclusions, even though we may doubt of the validity of his arguments, and the correctness of his premises. The Apostle does not say that he was inspired to assert the literal truth of the Mosaic history of the fall; probably, he knew no more of it than we do. Perhaps he only argued ex concesso upon the supposition of the fact; and certainly no reasonable person, in modern times, can regard it in any other light than as an allegory or fable; the moral of which is sufficiently apparent. But the Apostle assumes its historic truth; and, admitting the Mosaic account to be a fact, he argues, that the curses entailed by Adam's fall, and the blessings secured by the death of Christ, äre equally inde
pendent of the antecedent merit or demerit of those, who are the subjects of them; also, that the curse and the blessing are equally universal, but that the blessings of the Gospel extend far beyond the miseries of the fall."
ROMANS v. 19. “ By one man's disobedience many were made sinners." No. l.
(GREGORY DE RIMINI.) Some theologians have supposed, that the body of Adam became corrupted by sin; consequently all bodies partake of this corruption. Although, therefore, the soul comes in a pure state from the hands of its Maker, yet, being united to a corrupt body, it contracts that corruption as a pure liquor is corrupted by an infected vase.
By way of explaining the mode in which sin corrupted the body of the first man, Gregory of Rimini supposed, that the Serpent, in conversing with Eve, infected her body by his contagious breath.
Eve communicated the contagion to Adam, and both communicated it to their children. . ..
See Dictionn. des Hérésies.
De la Place rejected the opinion, that the personal and actual transgression of the first man is imputed to his posterity, and maintained, on the contrary, that God imputes to every man his natural corruption, his personal guilt, and his propensity to sin; or, to speak
in the theological style, he affirmed, that original sin is indirectly and not directly imputed to mankind.. Mosheim-Aymon, Synodes des Eglises Reformées de France,
t. ii. p. 680.
(PELAGIUS AND CELESTIUS.) With regard to original sin, Pelagius and Celestius contended, that the sins of our first parents were imputed to them alone, and not to their posterity ; that we derive no corruption from their fall, but are born as pure and unspotted as Adam came out of the forming hand of his Creator.
Pelagius argued, that we receive from our fathers the body only, and the body is not capable of sin; it is in the soul that sin resides, and the soul proceeds pure and innocent from the hands of God.
See Pelag. apud Aug. de nat. et grat.
(ARMINIUS.) Arminius, whose tenets, generally speaking, were the same as those of the Church of England at the present day, maintained, according to Mr. Gregory, " that depravity does not come upon mankind by virtue of Adam's being their public head, but that mortality and natural evil only are the direct consequences of his sin to his posterity.”
This account, however, is at variance with the following article, given by Dr. Mosheim, as one of the five articles of Arminianism.
Art. 3.-" That true faith cannot proceed from