« AnteriorContinuar »
uncouth. He had by dint of great assiduity overcome, or lessened, a natural dcfect of utterance; and this had produced an effect, which at first appeared like mouthing. It seemed forced, and not quite natural. To this we may add, that his delivery in the pulpit was very slow ; and though sufficient labour was employed upon it, and though the emphasis was strong, and in general just, yet it was not calculated to produce a strong or animating effect. The reason was satisfied, but the heart was not warmed. For these reasons, Mr. T. was not a popular preacher. He was esteemed by the judicious; with respect to whom, the peculiarities of manner soon disappeared, and they saw and heard only the humble, pious, and amiable Christian. But he was not in an equal degree valued by the ignorant, or by the common hearer. Among them, this light shone in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.
The writer has often endeavoured to trace, if he could, the manner in which his friend joined together those dates and facts, which were deposited in such amazing number and oriler in his memory. Mr. T. told him that he classed them together by the year, and referred every new entry to that which lay nearest to it. He endeavoured to explain himself by saying, " The year you have just mentioned was 1631. In that year Mr. Philip Henry was born. I have therefore laid up that name along with his; and they are now so associated together, that whilst I retain the one, I shall not forget the other.
It has often been the object of the writer of this account, to urge his friend Mr. T. to turn those wonderful powers which he possessed, to some, public and lasting benefit. But the modesty of this good man rendered every such attempt abortive. And all these treasures have died with him!
A mind continually active seemed, at a rather early period, to have brought on a premature old age; and soon afterwards, to have nearly worn out the earthen vessel in which it was placed. Disorders of a distressing kind had long given himn considerable pain and inconvenience. At length, he was seized with a slight paralytic stroke, which, though short in its continuance, left a very perceptible degree of weakness and decay behind it. This was, after a pretty long interval, followed by another attack, which in three wecks terminated his mortal life. He died without pain or struggle, placid and calm to the last, and with his astonishing powers of memory apparently unimpaired to the last moment.
AN EXAMINATION OF THE CLERGYMAN'S REMARKS ON
It is not uncommon for the dogmatizing orthodox party to charge with ignorance and inattention all those who difer froin them, without offering any reason or argument in support of their own opinions. They produce, indeed, a number of passages of scripture, but without investigating their meaning, or shewing by any mode of proof, that they have any relation to the subject for which they are brought : it is thought by them sufficient to assert that they do unequivocally express it, and that assertion is made the only evidence of the fact.
This reflection was suggested by Remarks written by a clergyman on the cover of Stone's Visitation Sermon, which appeared in the Monthly Repository for February.*
The Remarker says, " Mr. Stone must have read the ancient prophets in the most cursory manner, to hazard the strange assertions which the reader will find in the following discourse.” The assertions referred to, are evidently those which represent Jesus of Nazareth, as the Scriptures express.it, as “ a Man approved of God," and not as being himself the very God. Now what can have made these assertions appear so strange ? not an attention to the ancient prophets, or to the language of the New Testament; neither of which represent him in any other light. The Remarker, however, thinks otherwise, and refers first to Micah v. 2. wherein, he says, “ the divinity of our blessed Saviour is unequivocally declared.” Strange assertion! Is there any thing like it in the passage? Let us examine it; the words are, " And thou Bethlehem Ephrata, though thou be Jittle among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be ruler in Israel : whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” The speaker in this passage, is evidently Jehovah, the Only Living and True God: the prophecy foretels, that a person of the tribe of Judah should arise, or come forth to Jehovah, who was to be ruler over Israel : such a prediction cannot surely refer to the divine Being, or to a person properly God. The divine Being
is self-existent, and consequently not of the tribe of Judah. This person was to come forth to Jehovah, and therefore was not Jehovah. The whole description is that of a proper man, like other men, who was to be born of the tribe of Judah, and advanced to the throne of Israel. So far the prophecy is clear, and does not admit of any doubt. But we may add further, that it is said of this person, verse 4. 6. He shall stand and feed in the strength of Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of Jehovah HIS GOD;" he was therefore dependant upon God and supported by him, which cannot be true of the very God himself. All this is perfectly applicable to the man Christ Jesus, who is supposed to be the subject of the prophecy. But what is there in it that unequivocally expresses his divinity, and proves him to be properly God ?-But the Remarker probably rests the proof of his assertion on the latter clause of the text, “ Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, although, he adds, in his human capacity, he should be born at Bethlehem.” If by his human capacity he means to insinuate that Jesus is both God and man, and that one part of the prophecy refers to him under the one character, and the other part under the other, we reply, the scriptures, know nothing of such a compound Being ; they use no such plırascology, such senseless jargon'; their language is plain and simple; they tell us " There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." We have seen that the subject of this prophecy is evidently a man, this clause therefore must be so understood, as to comport with that idea. His goings forth, then, cannot refer to a personal going forth, for thus applied to Jesus Christ, or to any other man, it would be inexplicable. What goings forih are intended ? From whence did he go forth? Whither did he go ? These are questions, which upon that hypothesis are impossible to be answered. It must then refer to his fame, to the promises respecting him, or to the predictions that had gone before of his person, character, and work. Thus Abraham is said to have rejoiced to see his day, and he saw it, (in the promise, that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed, and was glad. Thus the Chaidee Paraphrast understood this passage and renders it, “ Whose name was foretold of old."* The hebrew word hy does not always mean eternal, but is used to denote a remote period, so Joshua xxiv. 2. “ Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood, siya, from everlasting, even Terah the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor, and served other gods."
This however is certain, that the passage is not a prophecy of the divine Being, but of a man, and therefore it cannot repre. ' sent the subject of it as possessed of proper divinity.
The Remarker goes on to enumerate other unequivocal expressions, as he calls them, of the divinity of Jesus Christ in the following words, “ He, whom David styles · God,' Psal. xlv. 6, 7, 11.-whom Isaiah styles “the mighty God, the Father of eternity,' Isa. ix. 6.— whom Zechariah dignifies with the incommunicable name of Jehovah,' xi. 8 - 13. representing him, nevertheless, as sent by Jehovah."
Before we enter upon his references to the New Testament, let us examine these produced from the Old. As to the first of them, Psal. xlv, he ought to have known that neither in the Hebrew of that Psalın, nor in the Greek of the first chapter to the Hebrews, where the passage is cited, is there any thing to warrant the rendering of the first clause, “ Thy throne O God.” The true rendering of the words is, “ God is thy throne,” that is, the foundation, the support of thy dominion. That the words are not addressed to a Being who was properly God is manifest, because in the following words God is styled his God, and on account of his love of righteousness, and hatred of ini. quity, he is said to have anointed him with the oil of gladness, above his fellows. Now if the person here addressed was God, equal with the Father, who can be intended by his fellows, except the other persons in the Trinity, who with him were equalHy God? Would not then his being anointed above them destroy this equality, and give him a decided pre-eminence, and superiority over thein ?
He next introduces Isa. ix. 6. where he says that, Isaiah styles Christ " the mighty God, the Father of eternity.” Here the following questions are naturally suggested : Can the divine being be the subject of prophecy? Can it be foretold of the immutable God that he would change his mode of existence, cease to be u hat he is, and become an infant, born of one of his creaiuris? That he would be at the disposal of some other Being, a Son given? That he would be advanced to power? And that then he would be called, that is he would really be, " the mighty God, the everlasting Father?” And can it be said of him, the mighty God, as it is here said, that he shall sit upon the throne of David his father? It is added, " The zeal of Jehovah of hosts shall perform this.” Who is this Jehovah of hosts? Is it himself whose zeal would accomplish this prediction respect. ing himself, or is it some other Jehovah? Some critics have sup. posed that the name by which this child was to be called, was sim. ply, the prince of peace, and they render the passage, "and he,”
that is, the wonderful counsellor, the mighty God, &c. 6 shall call his name the Prince of Peace.” But supposing the meaning to be that the name of the child should be called, “ the mighty God, the everlasting Father,” still it would be absurd to attempt to prove, from the meaning of names given to persons in the Hebrew scriptures, that because a character of the divine Being forms a part of the appellation, that therefore the persons bearing those names, must be possessed of divinity, and properly God. For instance, the father of Elihu, is called Barachel, that is the blessed God. A prophet is named Elijah, God the Lord. One of the sons of Ephraim, i Chron. vii. 20. is named Eladah, 17 7yx God eternal, or the eternal God, and an altar is called El-Elohe Israel, God the God of Israel. Gen. xxxiii. 20. Will it then follow that because men and things are called by such names, that they are therefore, what those names import?
The Septuagint renders the words, “ His name shall be called the angel of the great counsel :" from whence it is evident, that they consider the words 7901 3x, el geber, rendered mighty God, as meaning nothing more than angel, or messenger, and that the child the subject of the prophecy, was to be the messenger of the great, or as we have it, wonderful counsel, and such Jesus Christ certainly was, for it was from him that Paul received what he calls, “The whole counsel of God *.” These two words el geber, transposed, form the name of an anvel or messenger, p702, Gabriel, whom the prophet expressly calls a mau, Dan. viii. 16. ix. 21. 688," says Parkhurst,“ is one of the most difficult roots in the Hebrew language, and various methods have been taken by Icarned men, to account for its several applications. After the most attentive consideration, I think the notion of interposition, intervention, or the like, bids the fairest for the ideal meaning of it, and best reconciles its different uses.” He then gives nineteen different applications of it, one of which is that, of a name or title of the true God.
The word na means strength, and is frequently rendered . man, see Job ii. 3. iv. 17. xiv. 10, 14. and Prov. xxx. 19. and in the plural, it is rendered angels, Psal. lxxviii. 25. From whence it will follow, that it is by no means necessary that the appellation el geber, should be rendered mighty God. It may, perhaps, be properly rendered the interposing man, and refer io the mediation of Jesus Christ. It would, we may observe, be natural to expect in a prophecy of a child born, and a son given, that, in the appellations by which he is described in the prophe.