« PoprzedniaDalej »
licited his acquaintance by letter, invited him to distant places at their own expense, and seemed to vie with his particular friends in efforts to promote his honor and happiness. And when he was dead, the mourning was like that of Israel for Moses and Aaron. The respect heaped upon his memory was spontaneous and universal. In him, therefore, was verified most signally the declaration of God "Them that honor me, I will honor." He was an eminent example, before all men, of the contempt of that popularity “ which is run after," and of the possession of that respect and esteem which are called forth, in view of strict consistency, unbending integrity, and high moral worth, sustained amid all the vicissitudes and temptations of a tried and laborious life.
Professor Park justly regards it as one of the sources of interest in Dr. E., that he stood before the present generation as “the representative of choice men among the ancient clergy of New England."
“He often spoke of himself as being left alone, all the old familiar faces long since vailed from his view. There has ever been a melancholy and sombre interest flung over such a man, staying so long behind his time, and watching over the fourth generation of his sucessors. He has been likened to the bird that lingers in a northern hemisphere, long after its companions have sought a more genial clime; to the soldier compelled to slacken his movements, and loiter alone in the land of the enemy, when his comrades have marched through, cheered with the sound of the bugle and the society of a full band, in the hope of soon regaining their home and enjoying their laurels. He has been compared, by an ancient poet, to the oak that stands solitary, after the sur. rounding forest has been hewn down, and that stretches out its stiffened arms, as if to implore mercy from the winds and the storm."
“But he has gone; numbered at last with the friends of his youth, allowed to rejoin the company from which he had been severed so long. The last of our patriarchs has left us; and men whom he baptized in infancy wept at his funeral when they had well nigh reached their seventieth year. Nothing was more affecting to me,' said one who witnessed his obsequies, than to see those old men weeping over the corpse of their father.'”
In remarking upon the volumes before us, we have not thought it necessary to go into a critical examination of particular discourses. This would be an almost endless, as it would be altogether a superfluous labor. These discourses, or the most of them, have been long before the public. They have been extensively and attentively read. Hundreds and thousands have reviewed them, each one for himself, and formed a judgment, and reaped the benefit.
Nor have we thought it necessary to remark upon every point, whether of metaphysics or theology, in which the sentiments or language of our author may be regarded as open to objection, or susceptible of improvement. To do this would lead us into a length of discussion altogether incompatible with our present limits and designs.
But we have endeavored faithfully to exhibit the man, as he appears to us in his biography and his publications, and as he has uniformly appeared to us, during a long and intimate acquaintance. We have endeavored that our readers should have the means of understanding his character-his intellectual, moral, and religious character—his character as a student, a pastor, an instructor in theology, and a minister of Christ. That his works will have many readers there can be no doubt; and by those who understand and appreciate his character, they will be read with increased interest and profit.
The religious community are under great obligations to the Editor and Publishers, for the manner in which these volumes have been brought forth. The Memoir by Dr. Ide is plain and modest, brief and yet full, just in its delincations, and written altogether in good taste. The Lecture by Professor Park is in his usual vigorous, racy style, abounding with anecdote and incident, and by all who dip into it will be sure to be read through. The mechanical execution of the volumes is throughout of a high order, conferring much credit on all concerned.
In closing our notice of these volumes, we only regret that they are limited to six. There should have been ten of them. The Editor informs us that he has in his hands the materials for ten volumes, as valuable as those included in these six; but that the amount published is as much as it was thought prudent to issue at the present time. We say decidedly, and we feel sure that subscribers and purchasers generally will say the same, Let the four remaining volumes
be published, as soon as they can be prepared. Let them be so published, as to conform, in size and appearance, to those already issued. In the writings of Dr. E., however multiplied, there is no prolixity, sameness, or repetition. His ingenuity and power to interest were inexhaustible. Whatever subject he took in hand, his views were always fresh, striking, and original. We are decidedly of the opinion, that the remaining volumes are called for, and should be forthcoming without unnecessary delay.
If there is any one class of persons to whom, above all others, we would recommend the works of Dr. E., it is our young ministers, and those who are studying with a view to the ministry. To the older evangelical clergy, more especially of the Northern and Middle States, his writings are already, to some extent, familiar. They have read them, and pondered them, and been profited by them. But to the younger • portion of the clergy, to candidates, and theological students, these writings will be, in great measure new.
Nor should it be any objection to the reading of Emmons, that individuals do not adopt his sentiments. No matter (so far as the question of reading is concerned), whether you receive them, or not. No matter whether, on all points of disagreement, you shall be convinced, or not. The interest, the pleasure, the profit of reading him will not depend materially on this circumstance. Even if you reject many of his conclusions, you will, as one said before, “ admire his logic." You will find yourselves more than repaid for the perusal of his works, by the force and ingenuity of his reasoning, by the originality and comprehensiveness of his views, by the example of his flowing, pellucid style, and the clearness of his method. The peculiarity and freshness of his thoughts, will awaken thought on your part. He will suggest views, considerations, arguments, which never occurred to you before. He will put you upon new topics of interesting study, and open before you fields of inquiry, which you may enter and explore for yourselves. Again, then, we say to the class of persons here addressed, By all means, read Emmons. And be not satisfied with reading the volumes once, and then laying them aside ; but have them on your study table, or somewhere within the reach of your hand. They reqnire not only to be read, but studied. "They are among the few books, poured
forth from the teeming modern press, which will bear study, and are worthy of it.
EXAMINATION OF THE REv. A. BARNES' REMARKS ON
HEBREWS 9: 16-18.*
By M. Stuart, Professor in the Theological Seminary, Andover..
I have read with attention, the remarks of my highly respected friend and brother, the Rev. A. Bames, of Philadelphia, on the exegesis which I have given of Heb. 9: 16-18, in my vol'ume of Commentary on this epistle. I need not assure him, who knows me so well, that I am not in any degree offended by his strictures; for of the manner of them I cannot complain ; and as to the matter of them that only furnishes me with an occasion of reinvestigating the difficult passage, usually called difficult, to which he has invited my attention once more, in order that I may ascertain, at least for myself, still more definitely, whether I have defended an erroneous opinion. A somewhat thorough re-investigation of the whole subject has ended in the conviction, that Mr. B.'s arguments are not sufficient to establish the position, that I have misunderstood, and in my Commentary misinterpreted, the passage in question.
I hope and trust, that this state of mind is not the result of prejudice in favor of my former views. I have lived long enough to know that men are not infallible; at all events, to know that I am not. I am one of those who believe, that in respect to many of the details of sacred science, truth is the daughter of time. I do not mean, of course, that truth in itself is changed by time, but that we must gradually and by protracted and patient effort come to the knowledge of many truths; and among these are to be found not a few, which are far from being unimportant. Being a full believer in all this, I deem it quite possible, that I may yet in many cases be justly corrected, as to my expositions of the Scriptures; and it
* Printed in the Biblical Repository, July, 1842.
can be hardly otherwise than certain, that in some I have failed to do justice to the sacred writers.
That Mr. B. differs in judgment from me respecting the true meaning of Heb. 9 : 16-18, I can have no right even to regret, unless I can be well assured that he is in the wrong and I in the right. There has been a difference of opinion among interpreters, respecting this passage, long before our time. It is not a case, however, out of which any heresy can well be made out on account of such a difference. And even if it could, my respected brother and myself are not among the class of men who are over-anxiously seeking after heresy, or over-zealous speedily and loudly to proclaim it on slight occasions. I trust we can look upon honest differences of opinion (and such there may be), on points like the present, as affording new impulse to study and investigation. Happy for all who must differ on such points, if they can turn the matter into such a shape as to make it a means of their own improvement, and perhaps of casting light on the paths of other inquirers. I irust ihat Mr. B. and myself will at least show, that we are not only disposed aandeusiv šv dyann, but that we are capable of carrying into execution our good intentions.
If I may state, in the briefest compass possible, the grounds why Mr. B. has failed to satisfy me by his criticisms and argunients, I would say,
(1.) That his interpretation of several important words, in themselves considered, does not appear to me to be well grounded.
(2.) That some important facts, on which the conclusion to which he comes mainly depends, do not appear to be correctly stated.
First, then, I must dissent, in various respects, from Mr. B.'s views of the meaning of diadxn.
On page 52 et seq., he avers that diadhxn “does not properly denote compact, ugreement, or covenant,” but that either “ συνθήκη, σύνθεσις, or συνθεσία,” is the appropriate word for such a meaning." Again, on page 56 he avers the same thing, and also says, that “ although in classic Greek the word [Qadhxn] may have the notion of a covenunt or compact remotely, yet it cannot be shown to have that meaning in a single instance in the Scriptures.”
We join issue on these points, and proceed forthwith lo the work of investigation.