Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

"would present no obstacle to our belief in the Unitarian "doctrine, even though it were certain that, in each in❝stance, the original text is uncorrupted, the English trans"lation correct, and the designations IMMANUEL' and "<"MIGHTY GOD' really intended to be descriptive of the "nature of Christ. These titles would only convey the same "ideas which were expressed by the inhabitants of Jerusa"lem, when they exclaimed, 'A GREAT PROPHET is risen "up among us;' and by the two disciples (Luke xxiv. "19.) who described Jesus of Nazareth as A PROPHET "MIGHTY in deed and word."" (Page 170.)

According to this comment, " IMMANUEL," even supposing it a designation descriptive of Christ's person, "would only 66 convey the idea" of "A GOD WITH US,"-that is, 66 A PRO66 PHET WITH US:"-and the title " MIGHTY GOD," on the same supposition, would naturally convey the same idea, of “ A "MIGHTY PROPHET."-The appellations "would only convey "these ideas." To a mind predisposed to admit the ideas by attachment to Unitarian principles, it is possible enough they might. But I ask the reader, whether Mr. Yates has made out a sufficiently strong case, respecting the application of the name of God to the prophets, to warrant his making this assertion with so much easy confidence? His venturing such an assertion makes me very hopeless of his conviction: because, even if it were shown that such designations as "the supreme God, the one living and true God, the God "of Gods, or the God who is above all," are given to Jesus Christ, it might, with equally good reason, be alleged, that such designations should be considered as given to him in virtue of his commission, as one "authorized, and inspired to "declare the will of God to mankind," appearing, therefore, as his representative, and, in this capacity, bearing his names and

epithets of dignity. This (however unreasonable) would be very much of a piece with the remark, that, even if all critical difficulties were removed from the latter of the two passages just "quoted, still, at the very utmost, the application of the "title" mighty God to Jesus of Nazareth would only prove "him to be a person unto whom the word of God came.' With respect to Isa. vii. 14. compared with Matth. i. 22, 23. I shall only remark,

[ocr errors]

In the first place, that it would be uncandid to question the justice of Mr. Yates's observation relative to the "singular "manner in which proper names were formed and applied by "the ancient Hebrews;"—that "it was common among them "to give to their children names, which were in reality short "sentences, expressive of some Divine favour, conferred at the "time of the child's birth."-Of this he produces an instance or two; and others will occur to every mind familiar with the Old Testament records.

In the second place, on this ground, I frankly admit, that the mere circumstance of the Messiah being called by this name, (Immanuel) would not of itself, in absence of other evidence, be at all a conclusive proof of his Divine dignity.-That it does imply his possessing this dignity, I entertain no doubt;—but, taking it by itself, I should find difficulty in proving it. From the peculiar circumstances in which the prophecy is introduc ed, and the length of discussion to which a full consideration of these would necessarily lead, I formerly declined any criticism on the passage; and I am disposed to follow the same course still. For a distinct and satisfactory elucidation of the prophecy, I may refer the reader to Mr. Ewing's Essays addressed to Jews on the authority, scope, and consummation, of the law and the prophets, Vol. II. pages 6—16.—I shall satisfy myself with one observation only, the truth of

which must be obvious to every reader of the entire prophecy, from chap. vii. 1. to chap. ix. 7. that the child named "IMMA"NUEL" in chap. vii. 14. is the same with the "child born" and "Son given," whose name, in chapter ix. 6. is called"THE MIGHTY GOD;" so that if the latter appellation can be shown to express his divinity, this alone should go far to settle the true meaning of the former.

1. I had remarked (Discourses, p. 91.) that "the phrase "in the original, as well as in our translation, is precisely "the same with that which occurs in verse 21st of the xth "chapter of the same book: The remnant shall return, even "the remnant of Jacob, unto THE MIGHTY GOD.'-And "there can be no doubt, that it is a characteristic desig"nation of the true God, in which, by the attribute of om"nipotence, he is distinguished from the idols of the heathen, "which could neither do good nor do evil; which were all "vanity, and their work of nought."-Of this parallel passage, and its force in the argument, the only notice taken by Mr. Yates, is::-" To illustrate the sense in which the title "MIGH"TY GOD' is applied," (viz. in Isa. ix. 6.) "he compares it with “Isa. x. 21. where the same phrase occurs: The remnant

shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the MIGHTY "GOD."" P. 170.-This is all. It is sufficiently summary;-but to readers who seek for argument, not, I should think, very satisfactory.

2. In a subsequent part of his work, when the same passage occurs as a proof of Christ's almighty power, he makes two remarks upon it, in addition to those he had offered before: —namely, that "the doctrine to be proved is, not that our "Saviour was MIGHTY, (for this is granted,) but that he was "ALL-mighty, that his will was irresistible, and his power un❝ derived, unlimited, and independent:” and—“ that the epi

"thet MIGHTY, upon which the argument depends, is applied "in more than a hundred passages of the Old Testament to "mere human beings. (See Taylor's Concord. v. GEBER.)”

[ocr errors]

To these two remarks, one remark shall suffice in reply; and it is one in which, as in some others, I have been anticipated by Mr. Brown:-" We have only to say, in reply, that "the force of the argument' does not lie in the word geber "simply, but in the compound epithet GEBER AL, the mighty "God.' Eyen Mr. Yates would be ashamed to say he had "proved that the latter of these words is not in the text. If he "could have brought forward a passage of Scripture, in which "the compound appellation was given to a mere human being, "it would indeed have answered his purpose." Strictures, p. 59.-To this it may be added, that, in certain connexions and associations, the inferior word may have all the force of the superior. Thus, Jehovah is, on different occasions, called by Isaiah, the MIGHTY ONE of Israel. The word generally used on these occasions, is one, which, like GEBER, is frequently applied to creatures. Yet, in such connexions, it has all the force of the higher word AL-mighty. Although, however, Jesus Christ were denominated the "mighty One of Israel," as, in the text under discussion, he is called " the mighty God," we might, upon the same principle on which Mr. Yates's remarks on this text proceed, be met with a reference to " Taylor's "Concordance, V. ABER," and a statement of the number of times in which the word is applied to "mere human beings," or to brute animals.

3. It is worse than trifling to conjure up all the difficulties and conjectures that have ever been started about a text, unless these are such as really to affect our own convictions relative to its correctness or to its meaning. Mr. Yates represents this text as "produced by the ignorant with the most trium

"phant and unreflecting confidence;" and then he brings forward, without being so "presumptuous" as to attempt to set

tle

any of them, his list of difficulties and conjectures:-" Whe"ther AL be a genuine part of the Hebrew text;"-does Mr. Yates himself doubt this?" Whether, supposing it genuine, "it should not be translated a RULER,' since this is a very "common acceptation of the term;"-but where are the instances of AL signifying a ruler? and especially, where is the instance of the phrase AL GEBER for "a mighty Ruler?”—does Mr. Yates himself doubt, after comparing it with Isa. x. 21. whether "mighty God" be the correct and legitimate translation? "Whether the titles contained in the verse were not intend❝ed to describe, at least according to their primary significa ❝tion, the character of Hezekiah, or some other distinguish"ed person, born at the time when the prophecy was ut"tered;"-does Mr. Yates himself think this possible-after comparing, as he surely must have done, Isa. vii. 14. with Matth. i. 23. Isa. ix. 1, 2. with Matth. iv. 14-16. and Isa. ix. 7. with Luke i. 32, 33?—Will he indeed adopt this Jewish way of solving difficulties respecting the prophetic descriptions of the Christ? It is not at all wonderful, that every method should have been taken to bring doubt and uncertainty on such a passage; a passage which contains, in the minds not merely of " the ignorant and unreflecting," so clear and decisive a proof of the Saviour's supreme Godhead;-which "as“serts, in the clearest and strongest manner of which lan66 guage is capable, his real incarnation, his essential divinity, ❝ and his mediatorial kingdom and glory." Ewing's Essays, &c. Vol. II. p. 16.

[ocr errors]

JOHN i. 1. "THE WORD WAS GOD."-On this passage I might simply request the reader to re-peruse my former observations upon it, and to ask himself, in candour, how many of

U

« PreviousContinue »