« AnteriorContinuar »
owing to the countenance, example, and influence of Mr. Daintry and his friend Mr. Ryle. His charity, always unostentatious, and frequently concealed, directed by discriminating prudence, and administered with economy, was constant, uniform, and general, embracing every want of humanity, and every call of religion: at the same time, it must be acknowledged that it was not thought to flow with that full stream which his ample fortune night have supplied. In politics, as in religion, he was a disciple of the old school. The jealous friend ot his king and country, and a warm admirer of the British constitution, he observed with deep concern the auacks made on the altar and throne by the devotees of a false and destructive philosophy. On many occasions, his zeal in counteracting them was prompt, energetic, and successful. Under Providence, he considered our constituted authorities as the firmest bulwarks of English liberty and protestant religion. In the office of a magistrate, as mayor and alderman, he evinced uniformly how much he had at heart the welfare of society, and the good order of the town of Macclesfield. Neither his public avocations, nor extensive commercial and private concerns, prewented him from devoting a portion of his time to the regular discharge of the duties of the closet. Not satisfied with an ample portion in this world, he looked forward to a heavenly country, and unore durable riches. The worship of God in his family and his closet, as well as in the church, evinced how nuch he delighted to acknowledge him in all his ways. In his last illness, the form of sound doctime he had derived from the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, yielded him consolation and support. Though not joyous, his last painful days of mortality were peaceful and resigned, pouring forth his soul in Prayer to God, and calling on his family to aid him in that pious exercise. By repentance renouncing his unrighteous deeds, and by faith in Christ renouncing his righteous "nes as the foundation of his hope, he exPired in the midst of the prayers of his family, in humble dependence on the merits *nd intercession of his Saviour, and in pro*Port of awaking to a blessed immortality, Thus lived and died Michael Daintry, ": a great man; and such he must have *u in any direction to which he had ap* his superior talents, adorned with the learning of the scholar and the manners of * gentleman. Temperate, indefatigable,
regular in all his habits, cheerful in temper, of a lively and inoffensive wit, highly couversible, but never obtrusive and loquacious; ready to commend even humble merit, but mild and sparing to censure; equally remote from vanity and pride, he made no display of any thing he possessed, nor did he value hinself on his family and fortune, nor be. tray any thing of that overbearing superiority which too frequently accompanies intellectual wealth. He possessed a great command of a temper naturally irritable, and that under very trying provocations. Of injuries or enemies he never made mention; the midnight depredator, who violated the security of his dwelling and spoiled his property, owed his life to his forbearing humanity; nor could he be prevailed on to adopt any but precautionary and unvindictive measures against the ruflian, who lifted his hand against his grey head, and, without shadow of provocation, struck him to the ground in the streets of Macclesfield. In a word, there was blended in his public and private character so much of the great and good, that he could not but live respected and beloved, and be regretted at his death as a publie loss. Cordial and warm as is this encomium, it flows fron, no venal pen. It is not the homage paid to his fortune, the tribute of mere private friendship, the gratification of personal affection in a numerous family, respectable in all its branches; much less is it intended to exalt a character which no longer is amenable to any human tribunal; for posthumous fame, though a principle which warms the breasts of the living, can have no place in the spirits of the dead: there God is all in all; and his decision on individual character can receive nothing from human praise or censure. It is for the living this memoir is penned, as a way-mark in the path of life; and chiefly as an example to the great and wealthy, that they may learn from one of their contemporaries, and of their own class, what to seek and what to shun, as well as what is generally expected from them in the conduct of life. A great fortune is a great trust, to which is attached high responsibility; and it is most eminently so, when dignified with superior powers of mind. Such men cannot be neutral characters, for their influence is extensive and great in society; and if he who buried one talent be punished as an unprofitable servant, what may they expect, who shall prodigally waste, or supiusly bury, ten ? Hast thou, affluent reader of this page, found leisure to institute an inquiry into the foundation of thy faith and hope, and hast
thou conducted it with humble reliance on Divine instruction, and with that interest and assiduity with which thou wouldst ascertain the validity of thy title to an earthly inheritance? Hast thou adopted the Christianity of the New Testament; learning the humiliating lesson, that thou art the child of sin, as well as of mortality; that thou must found thy hope of pardon and heaven on the sole mercy of God, through the sacrifice of the death of Christ; and that nothing can constitute thee a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, but a real regeneration of the Spirit, a total renovation of thy principles, temper, and conversation 2 Hast thou, like the subject of this memoir, publicly avowed thy secret conviction of the superlative worth of religion; and dost thou countenance it by thy example, and encourage it by thy influence? Happy art thou, if thou knowest and doest these things! Yet shouldest thou be all Mr. Daintry was, that is not all which God and his church require at thy hand. Thy station is contmanding, thy fortune princely. It is expected that thou shouldest vindicate God's bounties to thyself. The cause of thy God should not only be asserted, but asserted
with zeal and boldness. Thy hand should not.
only be prompt to give, but to give largely, as God giveth to thee. If the female be not chaste, the soldier brave, the minister faithful, the trader honest, the physician skilful, and the rich liberal, they are each defective
in that characteristic virtue, which should belong to them. And it should be well remembered, that Christian liberality scorns to be measured by that of the children of this world. Christians know the immense “grace of their Lord Jesus Christ, who, though he was rich, yet for their sakes made himself poor, that they through his poverty might become rich;” and knowing this, they know that their fortunes, as well as themselves, are his, and should be used and improved to his glory; and the use he made of his own riches teaches them what account he will require at their hands. And dost thou, O rich man! seriously call thyself a Christian 2 Tremble at thy responsibility He that made and redeemed thee, treats thy salvation as little less than a miracle. Thy minister, thy pious friends, tremble for thee. Thy good is thine evil; thy wealth thine incumbrance, thy snare, thy daily temptation to depart from the living God, and to take up thy portion in this world. Hast thou genuine piety Thou needest twenty times as much as thy poor tellow-servant. O lop thy fortunes, as thou wouldst prune thy vine. What thy rich ungodly neighbour gives to equipnge, luxury, splendour, and dissipation, give thou to charity and religion. The God of Shadrach preserve thee in the midst of the burning fiery furnace: and if thou shouldest not be found altogether equal to the godlike character designed for thee, mayest thou, at last, though on a single plank, be cast safe onthe heavenly shore
Wr beg to inform X. Y. that most of the sermons in our work are not taken from books. We are much gratified by his approval of them.
W.'s observations on the Construction of Wills have been received; but we have not had
To the Editor of the ChristianObserver.
ISHING to bring my controversy with Mr. Faber to a close, I shall confine what I have to offer, in reply to his paper in your Number for March, within the narrowest limits possible. With respect to the new authority said, by Mr. Faber, to have been conferred on the Pope, in the year 606, I think it sufficient to refer to my papers in the Christian Observer, for January and April, 1810, wherein, I think, I proved that the Emperor Phocas conferred no new powers, but merely confirmed the title granted by Justinian seventy years before. It is true that Pope Gregory the Great protested against the assumption of the title of Universal Bishop, by his rival the Patriarch of Constantinople: but this does not disprove the fact of the title of Head of the Church having been conferred on the papacy by Justinian, which title, and not that of Universal Bishop, is still assumed by the Pope. Indeed, at the very time that Gregory,
in his struggle for power with his
oval metropolitan, denied to him the title first mentioned, he him*If exercised the powers of head of the church in the western emPoe; and in Italy, and the adjacent islands, even the existence, the "nion and translation of episcopal as were decided by his absolute scretion *. When I asserted in a former pa* that the edict of Justinian did "ally establish idolatry, I inWended to argue with Mr. Faber on
his own principles. I never meant to grant that the treading under foot the holy city, &c. Rev. xi. 2, implied in it the establishment of idolatry, by public authority, at the commencement of the 1260 years. It seems to me to signify no more than that, during the 1260 years, the visible church should be grievously oppressed and trampled upon, by men, who, though Christians in name, should be Gentiles in character; no matter whether idolatry was established by public authority, or not. Having said so much in explanation, I am willing to join issue with Mr. Faber, even upon his own principles, and I do still assert that the edict of Justinian was, in effect, an act of public idolatry; it granted to a dead saint such honour and reverence as were in spirit a violation of the second commandment. To prove this point, I shall give the substance of a passage from the edict itself, and let the reader judge. “ Since we have found some persons carried away by the disease and madness of the impious Nestorius and Eutiches, who are enemies of the holy catholic and apostolic church, inasmuch as they refuse to acknowledge the glorious Mary (always a virgin) to be properly and according to truth, the mother of God; we have hastened to teach these persons what is the right faith of Christians.” And how did the Emperor enforce this creed?—“ We order” (says he in a former edict, to which reference is made in that of 533) “ that all such persons” (alluding to those who refused to receive his creed) “shall, as confessed heretics, be subdued by fit punishments.” 2 Y
I will not enter into any discussion respecting the title of Mother of God. I shall only observe, in the words of the translator of Mosheim's History of the Church, that “to the judicious and learned it can present no idea at all, and to the ignorant and unwary it may present the most absurd and monstrous notions.”—I remark further, that it is, even according to Mr. Faber's admission, indefensible: and it is, in the opinion of many (of whom I confess myself to be one) nothing less than blasphemous; insomuch that were a creed tendered to me for subscription, of which it formed a part, I should think it my duty to go. to the stake rather than subscribe it. Yet this was the creed imposed on all his subjects, by the emperor Justinian, under the severest penalties; and he was supported in this act of monstrous tyranny by the Pope, to whom, on the promulgation of the edict, he gave the title of “ Head of the Church,” requesting him to sanction his (the Emperor's) creed, by the authority of the Holy See.—In these proceedings, the Emperor made the refusal to give to a dead saint, a title and honour altogether unwarranted by the Scriptures, the ground of excommunication, and of inflicting several civil pains and penalties. I did not expect that any Protestant would deny this to have been an act of idolatrous veneration to the Virgin Mary; or that thereby the Emperor placed the abomination of desolations in the symbolical temple, Dan. xii. I 1. I am sure, sir, that if a similar law were passed in these kingdoms, the fires of Smithfield must be rekindled, and we should practically feel, that a desolating abomination did tread under foot the courts of our Zion *. . . As to the tendency of the title of * Mr. Faber quotes Acts xx. 28, in pals:ation of the offensive title; but the reading adopted by Griesbach deprives the Catholic
of every support from that text. Griesbach reads, “The Church of the Lord.”
Mother of God, to promote the direct worship of the Virgin, which I asserted in a former paper, and which Mr. Faber expressly denies *; we are most explicitly informed, that even in the fifth century, in consequence of the Nestorian controversy, the image of the Virgin Mary, holding the child Jesus in her arms, obtained the first and principal place among the costly images which adorned, the churches +. It is also an undeniable fact, that every church which has given to the Virgin the above title, has at no distant time fallen into open idolatry. I leave it, therefore, to the reader to judge whether Mr. Faber's assertion, or mine, be best supported by history. Mr. Faber's interpretation of the flight of the Woman into the Wilderness, (Rev. xii. 6.) seems to me to be erroneous. For if the flight of the woman denote (as he supposes) the separation of the true church from the external communion of the Romish church, then, by parity of reason, the return of the woman from the wilderness, at the close of the 1260 years, must signify her restoration to a state of communion with the Romish church, i. e. with
* Mr. Faber does not deny the tendency of this ascription to produce idolatry, but merely that its use does not prove the establishment of idolatry, or involve such establishment as a necessary consequence. We make this remark, in the hope that it may tend to prevent the prolongation of this particular controversy, of which our readers have manifested some signs of impatience. The same motive induces us to observe, that as far as respects the argument derived from the use of the title, “The Mother of God,” we are disposed to regard Talib's view of it as by no means a conclusive reply to the reasoning employed by Mr. Faber in our Number for March, p. 141. We certainly are far from desiring to become parties in this controversy; but we are in hopes, that ably as the subject has been discussed on both sides, and completely as it has been exhausted, this short note may preclude the necessity of a reply on the part of Mr. Faber—Editor.
t Mosheim's Eccles. Hist, Cent. v. partii.
that harlot who is drunken with the blood of the saints and martyrs of Jesus. But this conclusion is absurd; therefore Mr. Faber's interpretation of the flight of the woman is not the true one. A wilderness being a symbol of barrenness, ... and obscurity; the flight of the woman into the wilderness denotes, that during the 1260 years, the true church should remain in a barren and unproductive state, and in obscurity. At the end of that period, she is to emerge from this state; and that she has begun so to emerge from it, I argue from her history during the last nineteen years. For an answer to the second general head of Mr. Faber's last paper, I beg leave to refer to m fo in the Christian Observer, or March and June, 1808. 'I shall only now state generally, that by the same argument that Mr. Faber would prove from Luke xxi. 24, that the restoration of Judah is to commence precisely when the 1200 years end; the Jews might prove from Isaiah vi. 11 and 12 that their judicial blindness ceased, as soon as their present captivity began. It might in the same way be proved from Gen. xlix. 10, that Jesus is not Shiloh, for that the sceptre was to depart from Judah, the moment that Shiloh came ; whereas it did not depart till about forty years after the crucifixion of Jesus. I need not say, sir, that an argument which leads to such consequences must be false.
In fact, from Luke xxi. 24–31,
I draw an inference precisely the reverse of Mr. Faber's. It appears to me from that passage, that the signs in the symbolical heavens, which are there mentioned, do intervene between the close of the times of the Gentiles, and the restoration of Judah. For these signs confessedly begin, when the times of the Gentiles end; and our Lord tommands the Disciples, when they * these signs, “to look up and * up their heads, for their redemp
tion then draweth migh.” Consequently the redemption of Israel does not take place till some time after the close of the times of the Gentiles, and the interval is occupied with the signs in the heavens, &c. I have only one or two more observations to offer; and with them I shall close my paper, and I hope also the controversy. The conversion of Judah is every where mehtioned in the Scripture, as being the greatest and most joyful event, which is to occur in the history of the church, before the second advent of Christ. Now, sir, Mr. Faber's system leads him to suppose, that the conversion of one #. branch of Judah is to be effected before the end of the 1269 years, i.e. while the church is yet in the wilderness, and the witnesses are prophesying in sackcloth, and the saints are under the power of the little horn, and the abomination of desolations is trampling under foot the sanctuary. This is, in my view, contrary to the whole analogy of Scripture; insomuch that were there no other reason for rejecting Mr. Faber's scheme, this one would seem to me a sufficient ground for doing so. Mr. Faber, in your Number for March, pages 142 and 143, undesignedly, represents me, as having advanced an opinion with respect to the holy people mentioned in Dan. xii. 7, which I never advanced, and never held: and he charges me with advancing this opinion to Serve a turn. I believe, as well as Mr. Faber, that the holy people mentioned in the above passage are the Jews. I believe that the finishing of all the events of Daniel's last prophecy, and the accomplishing to scatter the power of the holy peo
ple will take place, not at the end
of the 1260 years, but at the battle of Armageddon; which Mr. Faber places at the conclusion of Daniel's 1290 years. In this view of the assage, I have the support of Mr. Wintle, as quoted by Mr. Fa2 Y 2 ... "