« PredošláPokračovať »
right name Pictet, substituted for the misnomer of the press.
Accord. ing to Moreri, as quoted by Dr. Watkins, in his Biographical Dictionary, he was born at Geneva, 1555 where he afterwards became professor of divinity, and died in 1724. He was solicited to ac. cept the theological chair at Leyden ; but declined this post. He was a moral and theological writer of great reputation, and his works were voluminous. The piece referred to in the memoirs of Dr. Foster, it is apprehended, was his Concise Compendium of Theology, in 2 vols. 12mo. which was the text book in several semi, naries : and it appears from “ the case of Professor Simpson,” to have been the system on which he lectured in the university of Glasgow: the chapter on the doctrine of the trinity, is, particular. Jy mentioned, T.
To the Editor of the Monthly Repository. SIR, Observing in some of the numbers of the Repository, an inquiry made after Mr. Grigg's Hymns, I beg leave to inform you and your correspondent H. and the Editor of the 6 small collection” of them referred to, that I have MS. copies of Hymns of Mr. G-'s on the following texts, Rev. iii. 20. Lukei. 6. Mark viii. 38. Mat. xii. 45, Luke xiii. 24. and of “ an evening reflection,” occasioned by contemplating the setting sun. These are perhaps already in many hands. But beside these, I have copies of Hymos on Psalm lxvi. 16. Ixxxvii. 2. ciii. 13. Sol. Song, ii. 16. Matt. xiv. 27. John xüi. 7. Phil. i. 2 b. which were transcribed from that old and most excellent publication, “ The Christian's Magazine,” for 1765 and 1766, and were inserted there his. Copies of any or all of these, if desired, shall be at the service of any of your corres, pondents.
I am, Sir,
AN EXAMINATION OF THE CLERGYMAN'S REMARKS ON
STONE'S SERMON-LETTER UI.
To the Edilor of the Monthly Repository. SIR, In my last I proceeded so far in my observations on the Reo marks on Mr. Stone's Visitation Sermon, contained in your Repository ļor February last, as to take into consideration all those passages in the New Testament which he refers to in order to prove that “ Christ is he whom the New Tes.: tament writers asscrt to be God," and have shewn that such an assertion is not to be found in any of them, or to be inferred from them. On the contrary, it is an obvious. truth that the New Testament writers do positively assert,
that the God of the Jews, the Jehovah of the Old Tes. tament, and the God 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 viii. 54. Acts iii. 13. John xvii. 3. 1 Cor. viii. 6. Eph. i. 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 Christ, or any other being, is God in the proper sense of that term, without the most glaring and palpable contradiction, such as would at once destroy both its credibility and divine authority. From the nature of things then 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 vii. 14–16. The child mentioned in v. 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 “ 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 infallible? May we not with equal propriety say that Dr. Kennicott, has completely mistaken the prophecy and refer to 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 ihe 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 righte-. ousness.' This last name," he says, “the LXX. write, I woedex, 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. Do 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
not uniformly speak of him as a person, as a man, without the least intimation of his possessing any nature superior to that of man ? Has the name Emmanuel any relation to his nature ? Does it not evidently refer to his miracles and his doctrines, by which God was peculiarly and eminently with us, manifesting his presence, power and goodness? 'í'bis is perfectly agreeable to the assertions of our Lord, that the Father was with him, that he dwelt in him, and that the works which he did were not his, but the Father's who dwelt in him, and with those of his apostle, who says, that, “ he was man approved of God by miracles and signs which God did by him," and that, “ he went about doing gond; for God was with him.” This, therefore, is a sufficient justification of his being called in prophecy, “ God with us," without the supposition of a mysterious nature as the reason of the appellation. There is nothing then in the term Emmanuel that proves Christ to be God, or that represents him as being possessed of
This writer adds, “ Jeremi:zh styles him, (that is Christ) Jehovah our righteousness"," which is a compound proper name, like Emmanuel. So, he says, the LXX. understood it. Now when Jehovah is found in the composition of a proper name in the Hebrew scriptures, it is never intended to convey the idea that the person or thing to which that name is given is Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament; but such names are designed as memorials of some interposition of Jehovah, or of some benefits received from him. For instance Gen. xxii. 14, a place is called Jehovah Jireth. Exod. xvii. 15, an altar is called Jehovahnissi. Judges vi. 24, another altar is called, Jehovah-shalom, Ezek. xlviii. 35, a city is called, Jehovah-Shammah, and in Jeremiah xxxiii. 16, it is said, “In those days shall. Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely : and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, Jehovah our righteousness.” The name in the last passage is precisely the same as that which this writer applies to Christ; if then Jehovah being a part of it in that passage, proves him to be Jehovah, God, it will equally prove the person to whom it is given in this to be so too; consequently we shall have two Jchovals, and, according to our rendering, the one a male and the other a female. But we may observe, that in the latter passaget, the name • Chap. xxiii. 6.
+ Jer, xxxii. 16.
as supplied by the translators, and that there is no word in the original to answer to the word wherewith in the translation, that the verb 7 here rendered call by our translators, is by them rendered preach, Jon. iii. 2, proclaing Jer. vij. 2, cry aloud, Isa. Iviii. i, and so elsewhere : that,m3 rendered she is a pronoun feminine of the dative case and has here the emphasis of shewing to whom the preaching was to be, viz. to her, the antecedent Judah and Jerusalem; and the words, 1873 171779 are not here a name, as in chap. xxiii. 6, but the matter of the preaching, Jehovah is our righteousness. The whole sentence then should be rendered, And this is that which he shall preach, (or what shall be preached) unto her, Jehovah is our righteousness. This is perfectly agreeable with what the apostle says of the preaching of the gospel*, that, “ therein the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith.” And againt,
And againt, " The righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and
all them that believe.” God having effected by the mission of Jesus Christ what it was impossible for the law to do, through the weakness of the flesh, that is, the fulfilling the righteousness of the law in us, who walk not after the fesh but after the spirits, the appellation, Jehovoh our righteousness, is properly given to him in prophecy; for the apostle says, that, “ He (God) hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God, ev, through him.”
From hence it appears that the prophecy referred to by this writer, (Jer. xxiii. 6.) does not represent the subject of it as God or Jehovah, nor does the name by which he is called, describe his person or nature; but the effects of his mission, and what Jehovah is to us through him.
Thus we have examined all the passages which this writer supposes contain in them assertions that Jesus is God, that he is Jehovah, and have shewn that there is not any thing like it contained in any one of them, and it
тау be added that there is not a single passage in the Old Testament, which clearly refers to him, where he is said to be Jehovah, or where that name is given to him. But to proceed to some further observations. This wri
si Perhaps Mr. Stone will require us to believe, that all those passages in the very earliest fathers, wherein the divinity of Christ is asserted, are mere interpolations." Whe
. Rom. i. 17.
+ iji. 22.
See Rom. vii. 3, 4.
# 2 Cor. t. 21.
ther they are or are not mere interpolations, is of no consequence, because we have proved that that doctrine is not the doctrine of the New Testament: if therefore they are genuine it only proves how soon they had departed from and corrupted the simplicity of the gospel, and we have already shewn, from the writings of the New Testament, that the doctrine of the person of Christ was corrupted before the writings of the very earliest fathers had any existence, even in the days of the apostles.
This writer further says, 6 Mr. Stone wishes to substitute a subscription to the scriptures only, for a subscription to the articles.” In this Mr. Stone manifests the true. spirit of protestantism, and acts upon the noble maxiin of a great writer, that, “ The Bible, the Bible, and only the Bible, is the religion of protestants.” Has the Church of England any more authority than the Church of Rome to set aside the scriptures, and to tyrannize over the consciences of men, by imposing subscription to articles of faith in their stead? And does this writer, professing himself to be a protestant, come forward as the advocate of such tyranny ? I should now proceed to consider the charge he brings against Mr. Stone, as rejecting all those parts of scripture which declare the atonement, as spurious interpolations, and what he advances in support of that doctrine, as also the allusion he makes to the Levitical sacrifices, particularly the Paschal Lamb, but I must reserve this, with your permission, for another lettter.
ORTHODOXY OF DODDRIDGE AND WATTS.
Zo the Editor of the Monthly Repository. Sir, Your correspondent in his remarks on the “ Memoirs of the Rev. Mr. Clark of Birmingham, (p. 68, of the present vol.)
as, I doubt not, sufficient evidence from personal acquaintance with that gentleman, and recollections of him as a tutor, to decide against the calumnious Eclectic Reviewer, that he
was no Arian.” This, however, could hardly “ be presumed from Dr. Doddridge's high esteem for him.” sides the Doctor's well-known friendly correspondence with christians of various sentiments, from Whitfield down to Lardner, we have an account of his amicable disposition