Vindication of Remarks on Passages of Scripture.

1040

must be restricted to the disciples, for they heard his voice and followed him, v. 27. We have, also, good reasons to believe that some of those whom our Lord excluded from the number of the given, were afterwards prayed for among the persons who should believe through the Apostles' word, for many of the priests became obedient to the faith, Acts vi. 7.

4 on a few passages of sacred writ, proceed, in the next place, more particularly to examine the objections which he brings against my exposition of those and other passages of scripture. That the way may be freed of all obstructions, it is necessary for me to remark, that the drift of my reasoning was to prove, that the word give, as used in its different modifications by the apostle John, in his Gos- There are but two more passages pel, was not intended, as many think, (John vi. 37, 39.) that belong to the to convey to the minds of our Lord's class which has been under examinahearers, or of the apostle's readers, tion. Rather greater disculty exists the idea of an eternal gift of a certain in ascertaining, from the scope and number to Jesus Christ, in order to connection, the meaning and applicabe, by him, specially redeemed and tion of these two passages, than does eternally saved. In the course of elu- in reference to the others. From cereidation. I also endeavoured to make tain circumstances, such as, the same it appear, that the persons prayed for speaker, the same writer, the same in the 17th chapter of John's Gospel, persons directly or indiretly con as having been given by the Father to cerned, we may reasonably inert, a the Son, were our Lord's disciples less sufficient evidence be adduced to only. Against this opinion, your cor- the contrary, that the same applicarespondent enters his protest. He tion takes place here as in the other maintains, that the words give, giretà, places already dismissed. The on&e. ought not to be restricted to the nection, in my opinion, WAENDS be apostles, but ought to be applied to application. The two passarts grad believers in all ages. As for the doe-connected as fobos: - Then sal trine of eternal election, he seems to have entirely lost sight of it. That he cannot consistently ground it on the passages in question, is evident, for he says, the apostles were given to Jesus by the agency of the Spirit.". Hence it follows, that they were not given from eternity. It is also equally evident, that our Lord prayed for mone but his disciples in John xvi. 2. 49. 11. 12. for if none are given to Jesus but by the agency of theSpirit. then none, at the use our Lord prayed, had been given to him but his dores: sequendly the words ge, geth, &c. were not spoken of all believers in all ages

they unto him, Lord, eshire Live as this bread. And Jesus sue wit them. I am the bread of le. he dut cometh to me," by the up is eross and following me as a disple

shall never hanger: and he tr believeth on me." as the Christ, de Son of God.-shal never tuss, ist I said unto you missed issaples of Moses teh. 1. 1. 4.

have seen me, and bevet:
38-6. Als de Father and
me" (being such persons as noirse
Moses, have the vint di Gad aimūng
in them (ch 134
learn of the Father ( SE
come" for cometh (c. Si
and him that cometh unto
no wise cast out. Forks
heaven, not to demine
will of him that
the Father's

1041

Vindication of Remarks on Passages of Scripture.

1042

been previously prepared by a belief to the Apostles. On my principles, of him as the promised Messiah. That the word you is, indeed, as much this is the meaning of the passage, limited to the Apostles, as the words appears evident to me, from the sub- give, giveth, &c. are to Christ's discisequent verse, viz. "It is written in ples: but it does not follow, that the the prophets, (Isa. liv. 3, 13. Jer. atonement is to be limited to the Aposxxxi. 33, 34.) And they shall be all tles, no more than the resurrection is taught of God." On turning to the to be restricted to the disciples, John prophets, we find, that the promise vi. 39. Further, we should not have was given to the Jewish church exclu- known, from these words, "this is my sively. The prophecy is also explained body which is given for you," that by our Lord himself, in the words im- Christ died for more than the Apostles, mediately following: "Every man, but we learn from other parts of scriptherefore, that hath heard and hath ture, that Christ tasted death for everg learned of the Father, cometh unto man-that he gave himself a ransom me." But who came unto him in the for all-that he is the propitiation for days of his flesh, but Jews? wherefore the sins of the whole world. Now let none but Jews had heard and learned H. B. come forward, and shew us, in of the Father, or in other words, had what place of the New Tesiament it been drawn of the Father, and given is written, that any but the disciples to the Son. were given to Christ. This I suspect he cannot do; and consequently he must fail in the accomplishment of the task which he is willing to impose on himself. He is, perhaps, ready to refer me to the second Psalm, in which a promise is made, that the heathen should be given to Christ for an inheritance. But it is evident, that this is a gift essentially different in nature from that for which your correspondent contends. It was by virtue of this gift that the Apostles were commanded to preach the gospel to every creature. The heathen were given, as heathen, for the purpose of being brought into the fold of Christ, and of becoming the subjects of his mediatorial kingdom.

My opponent asserts, that if our Lord had meant no Jew by the words no man, (or the word none,) he would have said so. I reply, there are numerous instances, both in the gospels and in the epistles, in which a general term has a particular meaning. But to come closer to the point in hand, the words every man in verse 45, according to my opinion, mean every Jew. The grounds of my belief are given in the foregoing remarks. If then, every man mean every Jew, why may not no man also mean no Jew? But further, the words every man in verse 45, and no man in verse 44, positively and negatively refer to the same individual; consequently, if every man signify every Jew, so also no man Your correspondent defends the use must signify no Jew. The argument of shall instead of will in the following which H. B. adduces, is a mere asser- passage; "All that the Father giveth tion without proof; for he says, "If me shall come to me:" (John vi. 37.) this passage" (No man, &c. v. 44) "is but his defence is so weak, that I confined to those only who were his should be ashamed to lay hands on it. followers, there would be no difficulty It is obvious to the most superficial in proving that all his doctrines and reader, that the subject agitated by precepts, yea, even his atonement our Lord, was not, whether those and mediation, should be understood given to him would come, for the n in the same limited sense." This sup- shall would have been necessary, but poses, that same kind of proof can whether any would come but thos be adduc supposed instances that were given to him. In the pro. as is in and also, that if ceding chapter, our Lord charged his ed in one place audience with unwillingness to come disproved in to him, by saying, "Ye will not com ake of trial, to me, that ye may have life," v. 4). tonement. In the subsequent verses be assign isciples, the reason why they would not come to en for him, viz. the disposition which led you," them to disbelieve Moses, and to 1on ceive honour one of another, in the

dverse under consideration, our Lond

1023

Vindication of Lord Byron's Poetry.

cantos of Don Juan with the works of Swift. There is nothing in them which presents our nature in so degraded and disgusting a point of view as the latter laboured to place it in; yet he was a dignitary of the church, and of unimpeached character, And why not allow his jest to Lord Byron? Those who are acquainted with his predecessors in this vineyard, will be inclined to think that he has not exerted his powers in a very outrageous manner."

As a proof that I have not too highly estimated Lord Byron's poetry, I submit the following extracts to the notice of your readers. And, first, look at his exquisite delineation of Henry Kirke White.

Unhappy White! while life was in its spring, And thy young muse just waved her joyous wing,

The spoiler swept that soaring lyre away
Which clse had sounded an immortal lay.
Oh what a noble heart was here undone,
When science' self destroyed her fav'rite son!
'Twas thine own genius gave the fatal blow
And help'd to plant the wound that laid thee
low.

Thus the struck eagle stretch'd upon the plain,
No more through rolling clouds to soar again,
Viewed his own feather in the fatal dart,
And wing'd the shaft that quiver'd in his
heart;

Keen were his pangs, but keener far to feel
He nurs'd the pinion which impell'd the steel;
While the same plumage that had warm'd his
nest

Drank the last life-drop of his bleeding breast."

English Bards and Scotch Reviewers.

His Lordship's verses on the Death of the Princess Charlotte are too long to quote: the following portion of them will evince their excellence.

"Hark! forth from the abyss a voice proceeds, A long, low, distant murmur of dread sound, Such as arises when a nation bleeds

With some deep and immedicable wound. Through storm and darkness, yawns the rending ground,

The gulf is thick with phantoms; but the chief Seems royal still, though with her head dis

crown'd,

And pale, but lovely, with maternal grief
She clasps a babe, to whom her heart yields

no relief.

Scion of chiefs and monarchs! where art thou?
Fond hope of many nations, art thou dead!
Could not the grave forget thee, and lay low
Some less majestic, less beloved head?
Those who weep not for kings shall weep for
thee !"

Childe Harold, Canto IV.

The following lines on Female Beauty, I confidently submit to the approbation of every admirer of THAT SEX which heightens all man's joys, alleviates all his sorrows, and throws a celestial halo over "this visible diurnal sphere."

1024

"Who hath not prov'd how feebly words essay
To fix one spark of Beauty's heavenly ray?
Who doth not feel, until his failing sight
Faints into dimness with its own delight,
His changing cheek, his sinking heart confess
The might-the majesty of loveliness?
Such was Zuleika-such around her shone
The nameless charms unmark'd by her alone;
The mind-the music breathing from her face,
The light of love, the purity of grace,
The heart whose softness harmonized the
And oh! that eye was in itself a soul !"
Bride of Abydos.

whole

Your limits,Sir,have long since warned me to desist. I will therefore only refer to Lord Byron's exquisite Hebrew Melodies; Napoleon's Farewell; The Ode, commencing "Oh shame to thee, land of the Gaul;" the brilliant burning Ode on the Star of the Legion of Honour; and the beautiful song begin. ning "Maid of Athens, ere we part." I conclude these extracts by giving one of his Lordship's minor poems.

To

"Bright be the place of thy soul!
No lovelier spirit than thine
E'er burst from its mortal control

In the orbs of the blessed to shine.
On earth thou wert all but divine,
As thy soul shall immortally be;
And our sorrow may cease to repine,
When we know that thy God is with thee.
Light be the turf of thy tomb!

May its verdure like emeralds be:
There should not be the shadow of gloom
In aught that reminds us of thee.
Young flowers and an evergreen tree
May spring from the spot of thy rest:
But not cypress nor yew let us see,

For, why should we mourn for the blest?"
Now, Mr. Editor, I would triumph-
antly ask, Can such a writer "decline”
in the estimation of those "whose ap-
probation is worth having?” Oh no!
surely every reader will exclaim with

me,

"His words are sparks of immortality.”

The Edinburgh Review first assailed
Lord Byron; but it long since made
the amende honorable. From G. J.'s
good sense and candour, I expect
that he will "go, and do likewise.”

I trust I have now proved, Sir, that
"Wordsworth's poems and his followers,

like

1

1