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

    general , nevertheless , we do not meet with them together : it is observable that in Luke iv . 41 , Griesbach expunges the Words o ' K ^ t ^ oq f rom hi& text , and that he wholly omits Acts

    viii . 37 ; nor does he fail of bestowing some critical notices on most of the few remaining verses where both tTie phrases may be seen . Dr . Spry ( pp . 4 , 5 , ) appeals to Allix , as justifying the statement

    which follows : " It has been shewn , beyond the reach of reasonable objection , that this [ the divine nature of the Messiah ] was a truth already known to the more learned and unprejudiced Jews . " What objeotion exists to any such statement , and whether the objection be reasonable , our readers will judge ,

    after we have laid before them a copi ' ous extract from a discourse , that we greatly prize , on " Scriptural Meaning of the Title Son of God , as applied to our Lord : " *

    " A learned divine of a former as : e m the Church of England [ Dr . Peter Allix ] , in a work which he entitles , * The Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church against the Unitarians / has endeavoured to shew that the Jews in our Saviours

    time expected their Messiah to be of a divine nature . His arguments are chiefly drawn from the expressions which occur in the Chaldee paraphrases of the Scriptures , in which the word of Jehovah appears to be spoken of as a divine person , distinct from Jehovah himself , and this divine word to be identified with the

    Messiah . But were the evidence ever so satisfactory , that the authors of these paraphrases entertained the expectation of a divine Messiah , it would be most unreasonable to admit this as a proof that the Jews in our Lord ' s time did so

    too , when the Scriptures , the faithful , living picture of the sentiments and passions of his contemporaries , not only contain no traces of such an expectation , but decidedly prove that it did not prevail . But the fact is , that in those of the Chaldee paraphrases , which may claim a nearly equal antiquity with the New Testament , the expression , the word of Jehovah , is never in a single instance used hut as a syuouyme for Jehov ; ih ¦ — — —

    ™ _ _ , ¦ 1 . . . . t ¦ These names , then , " the Christ , the Son of God , " are names of office , and do not designate a nature , * By John Kenrick , M . A ., pp . 15 , &c . [ 1 st cd . 1818 ] , and Mon . Rep « s . XIV . 573 , Sec .

    Untitled Article

    292 Spry ' s Two Sermons kef 0 ^ 4 thm University of Oxford .

    Untitled Article

    himself , especially considered as exercising command or exercising power , and that the notion of the word as a substance , having a distinct existence and proper personality , is not found in any of

    the Rabbinical writings till about the sixth century of the Christian aera , wheft the Jews , following the example of the Christians , exalted the Messiah to the rank of deity , in direct opposition to the expectations which prevailed in our Saviour ' s time , and long after it . Even

    while the great corruptions of the Christiau doctrine on this point were proceeding , the Jews continued in their ancient ; opinions , aud are reproached by the fathers with their blindness in not perceiving that the doctrine of the Trinityis taught in the Old Testament , Whether the mote were in the eye of the Jews , or the beam in that of their accusers , is a question foreign to our

    present investigation , but at least it is evident that the judgment of the primitive Jewish Church was iu favour of the Unitarians . " The proper authority of rules of interpretation , depends not so much .

    on their being- " common , " ( p . 6 , ) as On their being just : in all events , it is clear that we should be g-overned by the sense of language , rather than by its sound .

    " We know , " says Dr . Spry , ( ib . ) " that the sons of ruen are partakers in the nature of their fathers ; and , therefore , admitting that the apostle speaks of a fact which was communicated to him "b y a special rerelation , when he tells us that € Christ is the Son of God ; ' we may

    eomprehetid at once , that he intended us to infer , that , as such , he is a partaker in the nature of the Father ; and may learn to confess that c such as the Father is , such is the Son * also ; * that the Father is God , and the Son God . ' * "

    Let us try the solidity of this argument . We read , in 1 John Hi . 1 , that Christians , even " now , are the sons [ children , Te / cycc , ] of God : " and in 2 Pet . i . 4 , the same class of persons are declared to he " partakers of the Divine nature ; " which form of expression , be it observed , is never applied , in the Scriptures , to Jesus Christ . Another text , not less perspicuous , occurs to our recollection : 44 Ye skull be my sons \_ ttq vl& <^ ] and daughters ; " 2 Cor . vi . 113 ; Jer . xxxi . 1 . But will Dr . Spry maintain that * ' * Athanasian Creed / '

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), May 2, 1825, page 292, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2536/page/36/