On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
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
that the God of the ' Jews , the Jehovah of the Old Tes .-tament > and the G ? d of Christians * the God of the New Testament , is the Father and the God of Jesus Christ , and that he is the only God . ( See John viiL 54 . Aets iii .
13 . John xvii . 3 . 1 Cor- viin 6 . Eph . u 3 . 17 . and iv . 6- ) Now if > as these passages shew * - the New Testament does assert in the strongest and most Unequivocal manner that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the only God . it will follow
that it cannot possibly assert that Jesus Christy or any other beings is God in the proper sense of thai-term * ' without the iDost glaring and palpable contradiction , such as would at once destroy both its credibility and divine authority . From the nature of things therv it is manifest * that if the New Testament is a revelation from God , it cannot contain in it any such assertion . But to proceed with our observations on this writer : he
says ) that " Mr . Stone has completely mistaken the prophecy in " Isaiah yii . 14—^ -16 . The child mentioned in \ % 16 /* he says , "is Shear Jashub , not Emmanuel . As Dr . Kennicott rightly observes , the word ought to be translated * this child / Isaiah holds his son in his hand * and points to him / ' That u Isaiah held his son in his hand , and pointed to him / ' is asserted without any authority from the prophecy . Equally unsupported is the assertion that , " Mr . Stone has completely
mistaken the prophecy / ' He differs indeed from Dr » Kennicott in his interpretation of it > but which of them is in * - fallible ? May we not with equai propriety say that Dr . Kennicott ^ has completely mistaken the prophecy and refer t 6 Mr . Stone ' s interpretation as a proof of it , and what will it amount to ^ but that we think so > and this writer thinks otherwise ?
The important matter for which the prophecy is referred to by this writer is the name given to the child , which he thus introduces ^ " A virgin shall bear a son , whose nature shall be so . mysterious as to justify his being called God with us , or as Jeremiah styles him , ' Jehovah our righteousness . ' This last name , " he says > Ci theLXX . write , laxxsSeK , making it a compound proper name , like Emmanuel . ' Is there any thing in the prophecy about the nature of the ; child who is the subject of it , or is its mysteriousness made the reason of the name Emmanuel ? certainly not . I > o the scriptures any where make use of such language as , the mysterious nature of Christ" or do they say a syllable about his nature , whether it were human or divine ? Do they
Untitled Article
An Examination of the Remarks on Stone ' s Sermon . 351
Untitled Article
* ' 3 A 2
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1807, page 351, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2382/page/11/
-