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 what could with propriety be addressed to Solomon , could not be unsuitable to his great descendant , and could not possibly imply any thing inconsistent with the unrivalled deity and perfect unity of the Supreme Being ; indeed , any such abuse of the words is guarded against by the language of ver . 7 : ' * Therefore God ^ thy God , hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows , " words which , if they have any meaning at all , ascribed to the person addressed inferiority , derived and dependent authority , and equality of rank with some human beings .
Referring to Mr . Belsham ' s statement , " It is well known that the words of the original will equally well bear to be translated God is thy throne "a statement which , after due deliberation , we have ventured to adopt in the preceding remarks , Dr . S . says , " It is not quite consistent with fairness in argument , for the learned writer roundly to assert as well known , what he could not but know to be extremely disputable , and to have been in fact generally objected to . " There is nothing so plain that it may not be disputed , and Mr . B . did not say or mean that nobody had denied what he asserted , but he certainly neither did think , nor ought in reason to have thought , it extremely disputable . He was safe in his assertion , 1 st , because he was directly supported by the authority of Enjedenus and Crellius , Grotius , * Dr . Samuel Clarke , Pierce , Sykes , J . G . Rosenmiiller , and Wakefield , not now to mention others , men certainly as competent to judge , and as little under the influence of prejudice , as any who have given an opinion on the subject ; and 2 dly , because , whilst the majority of commentators , adopting , in conformity with their own doctrinal views , the common construction , pass by this one without particular notice , those who have undertaken to give reasons against its grammatical propriety , have signally failed in their attempts . *}
-* Dr . S . remarks , that Grotius " seems anxiously to avoid giving any construction , contenting himself with saying , " the sense is . * ' Does Dr . S . then uieau to insinuate that this great critic affirmed that to be the sense of a passage of Scripture which he knew could not be derived from the words ? Such seems to be his meauing , but such a charge neither needs nor deserves an answer . Grotius gives a reason why lie thinks that the word " God" must , iu this place , be understood of the Supreme iicing himself , and adds , ' * Sensus ergo eot : Deus ipse eat sedes tua perpetua . " He perceived uo difficulty in this construction : he considered the original words as ambiguous , and not seeing reason to admit that Christ could be called God in the highest aud proper sense ; having , besides , before observed that the
Psalm primarily referred to Solomon , he thought the reason he had given for understanding the woid God in its highest sense , a sufficient reason for not addressing it as a title to a created being . Dr . S . would , in like manner , detract from the value of the opinions on this point of Enjedin , Clarke , and Pierce : the former only says " the words will admit of this explication : " possuut sic commodfe explicari . And this , we answer , is all that is wanted , as no one denies that they may be taken according to the other construction . Clarke , in a book written after his Scripture Doctrine ^ " follows the commonly-received construction ;** but he does not retract his opinion that the other is perfectly allowable . Pierce only affirms , in a note , that it is doubtful which construction is preferable—i . e . precisely the sentiment for which he is quoted .
- \ r The ambiguity of the Hebrew cannot be denied : the objection to renderiug the Greek words , ** God is thy throne , " is taken from the aiticle being found iu the predicate of the proposition ; but though not of common occurrence , there are exceptions to the ordinary practice iu tins respect , and Mr . Yates , in his Vindication of Unitarianism , ( p . 113 , ) has produced an instance of a precisely similar construction , which sufficiently justifies that translation : Psa . lxxiii . 26 : * H f ^ epn ; / xov o 0 eo $ tu ; roy atava . Psa . xlv . 6 ; Heb . i . 8 : * O Bpoyoq < rov b &eo <; ei $ rov cuuvoc .
Untitled Article
Dr . J . P . Smith * s Scripture Testimony to the Messiah . 161
Untitled Article
vol . v . m
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), March 2, 1831, page 161, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2595/page/17/
-