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

    its adrdcates be compelled to have recourse to such miserable ! expedients . Earache I'does not signify " the blessed God , ' * but c < God hath blessed : " the blessed God would be Baruchd ^ Neither does Elijah signify 46 God the Lord , ' but Jah is rny God . " Nor does Eladah si gnify " God eternal / ' but either " the congregation of God , God is a witness , or , possibly , God hath

    preserved . " Nor docs Gabriel signify ** the mighty God , " but * God is my mighty one . " So again , no argument can be drawn from an undescriptive proper name to an evidently descriptive appellation . Thus Klijah is a mere proper name , whollv

    undescriptive of the character of the prophet : whereas El Gitbor never was the proper name of Christ , but is plainly , Just in the same manner as the prince of peace , neither more nor less than an appellation descriptive or the character of the child born . But let the reader peruse the whole passage ,

    and judge for himself . To me it appears evident , since the child born is said to be called El Gibbor or QC the mighty God , " since El Gibbor never was the proper name of Christ , and since it is one of the peculiar titles of Jehovah , that the child born must be Jehovah the mighty God , as we Trinitarians believe him to be . As for the name of the altar

    in Gfcn . xxxiii . 20 . that in the first place was its proper name , and no argument can be drawn from an indescriptive proper name to a descriptive appellation ; and , in the second place the genius of the Hebrew language , in conferring , as proper names , what in English are sentences , shews that J 57-JSloffe-Israel signifies cc God is the God of Israel . " J . ' M . is

    right in Saying , that Abi ad means the father of the future 9 gea and that the expression alludes to the age of the gospel : but this very circumstance serves only to place the meaning of El Gibbor in a stronger light . Since both * ' the pr ince of peace" and " the father of the future age" are plainly descriptive appellations of Christ , the mighty God must by analogy be the same .

    In his remarks on Zech . ii . 8—13 , we have a fresh instance of his begging the question . He argues , that , ii tke sender and the sent are equally called Jehovah , then the unity of the Godhead is subverted . This ., however , is the very point , which we , who worship the unity in trinity , deny . We find inthr * present passage two persons alike called Jehovah ;

    we find in various other passages both Christ and the Hply Ghost represented as Godj fyiit we ^ koow that there is onlvpiie Gpd ; therefore we believe that the unity of Godl is of a nature peculiar to itself , a nature which we pretend not to understand , but a nature vvlrjch is reyeaAe < J to us ajj pojnprehendiijg thn #

    Untitled Article

    412 The Clergyman ' s Answer to J * ikf .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1807, page 412, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2383/page/16/