Page images
PDF
EPUB

vocating the cause of the Scotch Episcopalian Church; on which occasion he refuted the arguments and positions of his learned friend Lord Thurlow, who having said, that the custom of praying for Kings, and all that bear legitimate authority, did not appear to be used before the time of Constantine, the Bishop observed, that “so far from this practice commencing at that period, it was to be traced to a source at least three hundred years anterior. It was, in fact, coeval with Christianity itself: which could be proved from authorities, that in no subsequent age were ever doubted; the practice had continued down to the present time under various forms, and attached to different persons.” Against the slave trade he was always a powerful speaker; and when the famous bills were brought forward to prevent seditious meetings, the Bishop gave the aid of his eloquence in support of government with such energy, as to bring upon him the abuse of the whole host of Jacobins and infidels. Three of his speeches in parJiament, or at least the substance of them, have been printed ; one on the slave trade; one on the third reading of the bill for preventing the crime of adultery; and one on the bill for the relief of the London incumbents. In his person, the Bishop was what may very properly be called a handsome man; with features of remarkable expression, and an eye of singular quickness. His mind was truly dignified and independent; and though in his temper he was rather hasty, he possessed all the milk of human kindness, and his charities were extensive and unostentatious. To men of low degree he was remarkably condescending, and modest merit was always certain of his encouragement and patronage. His means, indeed, were not commensurate with his wishes, for as he never had an eye to the accumulation of wealth, and had a soul above suspicion, he was much deceived by those whom he trusted, the consequence of which was, that he lived and died comparatively poor. But he was rich in faith and in good works; and he has left a name that will never die among men, as long as religion and learning shall be respected.

1.

MISCELLANIES.

MISCELLANIES.

IT

AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING THE “TWO IM

MUTABLE THINGS IN WHICH IT WAS IM-
POSSIBLE FOR GOD TO LIE."
Tappears, by what is said in the xii. xiii. and xvii.

chapters of Genesis,that God had repeatedly promised Abraham to cause an innumerable multitude of people to proceed from him, before he confirmed that promise by an oath on Mount Moriah. And, by what is said in the xxii, chap. of the Angel's having solemnly assured Abraç ham on that mount, that the Almighty had sworn to bless him with an innumerable posterity, it does not appear that any express reference was then made to any former promises—at least, no mention was then made of either of the two promises in which Abraham may be supposed to have been more immediately interested, that is, of the possession of the land of Canaan, and of a Son. Indeed, this last-mentioned promise had been then realized. The promise made on the above-mentioned occasion seems, therefore, to have been merely a promise of an excessively numerous, blessed posterity.; which promise, we find, had been made several times before, though not exactly in the same words; and which, it should be also observed, required so long a time for its fulfilment, that Abraham could hardly have expected to live long enough to see it fulfilled, especially as he had not then an express assurance of endless life. We, it seems, at this time, have an incomparably greater assyrance of the veracity of God, with regard to one part of the promise, than Abraham could have, as we know that his posterity still continues, and in not a few countries; and, when we compare them with the rest of mankind, why should we not conclude that they are, in some measure, blessed by the Almighty even in this life?

The foregoing remarks concerning the transaction on Vol. XI. Churchm. Mag. for Dec. 1806. 3 H mount

mount Moriah, deserve the attention of those who would obtain a right understanding of what is said in the latter part of the vi. chap. of the Epistle to the Hebrews. What is there alluded to is prefaced at the 13th verse with a reference to the forementioned transaction on mount Moriah, thus Τω γαρ Αβρααμ επαγγειλαμεν@- ο Θεος, επει κατ' αδενος ειχε μειζονος, ομοσαι ωμοσε καθ' εαυτο, λεγων" Η μεν ευλογων ευλογησω στι και πληθυνων πληθυνώ σε. We find here two evident tokens of a reference to the transaction on mount Moriah, we see the oath expressly mentioned, and we find an almost verbatim rehearsal of a part of the promise then made. But ought this to be understood as alluding only to the transaction which then took place between the Angel and Abraham, or, as having a retrospective view to the several repetitions of the promise, or promises, made previously to that extraordinary interview? To attend to this distinction may help a little to discover the true meaning of the next verse. But to discover the meaning of the sequel, another question should be asked here-Does this afford any just ground for making a distinction between God's promise and his oath ?-or (which will answer the same end)—Does this afford any just ground for supposing that his promise preceded his oath?

Moses, we perceive, said,-“ By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying, I will multiply thy seed,” &c. And the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, having occasion to advert to this solemn declaration of the incomprehensible Jehovah, in the chapter before-mentioned, introduces it 10 our attention, not as Móses had done by recounting the several most extraordinary transactions which preceded this solemn communication, but with this general preliminary reference to the time when it happened, zmayyetda menos o ros, &c. which our translation, it should be observed, neither renders when God swore, nor, when he swore and promised; but, when God promised, os rather, made promise ; thereby attesting the apparent intimation of the original, that the promise and not the oath was considered by the sacred writer as the subject of his ensuing narration. After having thus referred us to the time, he proceeds to quote the declaration tself, thus, w poos zuo caute, &c. placing the act of swearing before the recital of the promise, as Moses himself, we perceive, hath also done. If, then, any distinction was intended to be made between the promise and the

oath,

oath, we may venture to conclude, from the joint testimony of those two ministers of the two covenants, that the oath preceded the promise, unless a reference was intended to be made to previous repetitions of the same promise, which seems to be not very likely. And if no such reference was intended to be made, as the oath would have been of no more signification without the promise, than any adnoun without some noun, we seem to have very little reason to imagine, that a distinction between the oath and the promise was intended either by Muses, or by the writer of this epistle; but, on the contrary, some reason to surmise that they both considered the oath as deriving significancy from the promise, agreeably to the preliminary intimation of the writer of this epistle, 'which has been just before noticed, viz. “ For when God made promise to Abraham,” by which, it was then suggested, he seems to have apprized his reader that he considered the promise, and not the oath, as the. princ pal subject of which he was going to treat.

Ka stw, &c. Emayyahuas. “And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.” Of what nature was this patient enduring, and of what continuance? and what promise did he obtain after he had patiently endured? Whatever the nature of his patient enduring may have been, if he patiently endured at all, we shall find by attending to the strict meaning of the word μακροθυμησας, that we have reason to think that he endured patiently a long while. Which, if true, seems not to be very consistent with what we read of himn in Gen. xxiv. 1. " and Abraham was old, and well stricken in years: and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things.Had, however, this not been said, it would not hare been easy to reconcile his patiently enduring with his having actually obtained the possession of those two temporal blessings which had been promised him, viz. a son in his old age, and, the land of Canaan. That he was put into possession of the promised land, we are informed by the writer of this same epistle, chap. xi. 9. where he says, “ By faith he sojourned in the land of promise as in a strange country;" and that this was something more than an imaginary residence in that country, may be inferred from what follows dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise." That the promise of the land of Canaan was not any part of the promise alluded to by the words under consi

3 H.

deration,

mount Moriah, deserve the attention of those who would obtain a right understanding of what is said in the latter part of the vi. chap. of the Epistle to the Hebrews. What is there alluded to is prefaced at the 13th verse with a reference to the fore-mentioned transaction on mount Moriah, thus Twyze Age&ap. Tayyazovo o Osos, tors, 26.1' so **XF utúvo, op.ocal wood's x29' savre, Aiywy' H psy Evžoyay oxyzze c. 22, ox"Svya, razówo ai. We find here two evident tokens of a reference to the transaction on mount Moriah, we see

the oath expressly mentioned, and we find an almost verbatim rehearsal of a part of the promise then made. But ought this to be understood as alluding only to the transaction which then took place between the Angel and Abraham, or, as having a retrospective view to the several repetitions of the promise, or promises, made previously to that extraordinary interview To attend to this distinction may help a little to discover the true meaning of the next verse. But to discover the meaning of the sequel, another question should be asked here—Does this afford any just ground for making a distinction between God's promise and his oath —or (which will answer the same end)—Does this afford any just ground

for supposing that his promise preceded his oath?

Moses, we perceive, said, “By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying, I will multiply thy seed,” &c. And the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, having occasion to advert to this solemn declaration of the incomprehensible Jehovah, in the chapter before-mentioned, introduces it to our attention, not as Moses had done by recounting the several most extraordinary transactions which preceded this solemn communication, but with this general preliminary reference to the time when it happened, forayyetaapores o osos, &c. which our translation, it should be observed, neither renders when God swore, nor, when he swore and promised; but, when God promised, or rather, made promise ; thereby attesting the apparent intimation of the original, that the promise and not the oath was considered by the sacred writer as the subject of his ensuing narration. After having thus referred us to the time, he proceeds to quote the declaration itself, thus, op.cat zaš’ tavre, &c. placing the act of swearing before the recital of the promise, as Moses himself, we perceive, hath also done. If, then, any distinction was intended to be made between the promise and the oath,

« PreviousContinue »