On this page

• Text (1)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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

    ^ speaking aft er the manner men ) Elim Gibborijn . But can we suppose , where the gods of the Gentiles ire

    plainly out of the question , that Isaiah could seriously call the «* child born , " singularly , the mighty God ^ if he did uot believe from inspiration that he was so ? The truth is , Socinianism requires that the text must be explained away , and therefore it is so explained away . It may not be amiss to

    observe , that , supposing for a moment Parkhurst to be right in the ideal meaning of El 9 this would not authorise J . M + to translate the word , an interposer , and then to apply it arbitrarily to a mere man . The ideal meaning of the Saxon God is good : but should we on that account style a good man , God ? Yet such is the process of J . M . He assume *

    as incontrovertible the conjecture of Parkhurst : and then , because the ideal meaning of El is supposed to be , interposition" ( as that of Elohim is " the binding by an oath / ' and that of " Jehovah" is 'V self-existence , " ) he argues , that we may translate EL by ' * the interposer / ' ( though he cannot adduce a single text in the Bible to warrant such a translation , ' ) and then apply it , connected as it is with the discriminating epithet Gzbbor or mighty , to a mere interposing man . Any reader unacquainted with Hebrew would suppose from the statement of J . M . that nothing could be more uncertain than the signification of jE / . c * Parkhurst , " says he , " gives nineteen different applications of it , one of which is that

    of a name or title of the true God . " Would not such a reader conclude from this , that El had nineteen different significations , only one of which was God ? What then will he think , when he is informed that these " different applications" are not applications of El , but the significations of various different words , all of which Parkhurst arranges under the radical Ely though other lexicographers arrange several of them quite differently ? Thus Parkhurst never tells us , that El signifies either an oak or a ram , but that Ahh denotes an oak , and ^ ' / ararn . J . JML however is not so confident in his n < ew version of El Gibbor , as wholly to jely upon it . Like a prudent general , he provides against of

    the worst ; and urges , that , e ^ en supposing the nam e the child should be called the mighty God , it would be absurd thence to , argue that Ije is God , because the father of Elihu . ? s called Barachel , that is " the blessed God ;' a prophet is pamed Elijah , " God the Lord ; " and one of the sons of Ephraiun Eladah , " 'God . eternal / ' He adds , that the very two word ^ JSi GibboVy when transposed , form the name of the angel ( jQbrfel . Low indeed ipust be the state of Socinianism , if

    Untitled Article

    of The Clergyman ' s Answer toJ . M \ 411

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1807, page 411, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2383/page/15/