Billeder på siden

marshes and bogs, rocks and mountains, praying, preaching and singing. But God had blessed him with a stalwart frame, a powerful voice and a brave spirit, ever ready to endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.' During the greater part of the year, he was left without a fellowlabourer, there being only four other Methodist Preachers stationed in the province of Ulster: two in the NorthWest, with Londonderry as their centre; and two in the North-East, with Newry as their head-quarters, while he was alone in the South. It should also be borne in mind that this brave worker was without educational advantages; but this lack was more than compensated by the Holy Spirit, Who spoke through him to the hearts of his hearers.

No connected history of the glorious work which took place was written by the only person who was familiar with all its details, and no one else ever attempted it. Incidental allusions are all that are available now, but even from these it is evident that, notwithstanding the almost insuperable difficulties John Smith had to contend with, the success which crowned his labours has been rarely surpassed. There could not have been fewer than five hundred souls converted to God by his ministry during the year. Many of these, probably, did not identify themselves with Methodism. Possibly in part from his lack of education, but chiefly from the want of persons of experience qualified to watch over and instruct the young converts, the work of organization was left very much to the Preachers who immediately succeeded him. But if some of those brought to the Saviour were lost to Methodism, they were a blessing to the respective Churches with

which they were connected. Arrangements were made, however, in thirtysix places for the young converts and the anxious enquirers to meet together for fellowship and prayer; and thus Societies were formed which subsequently were duly constituted.

Sudden and widespread as was this wonderful outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the work was genuine, deep and permanent. So marked was the change in the character and conduct of the people, that some of the most determined opponents of the work were constrained to acknowledge the hand of God. A few of the converts, it is true, proved unfaithful, but the larger proportion-some for a long period 'witnessed a good confession' in life, and triumphed over the last enemy. Even if the names of all these were forthcoming, the record would give an exceedingly inadequate idea of the results of this gracious work.

The seed of Divine truth, as sown by John Smith, possessed a marvellous power of reproduction. All those who received it in 'honest and good hearts' have long since passed to their eternal reward, but the fruit still exists in their children and spiritual offspring to the third and fourth generation. Upwards of twenty of those converted through the instrumentality of John Smith became Methodist Preachers. The connection between the seed sown more than a century ago and the fruit now manifest may, in some instances, be distinctly traced, and though, in most cases, it is hidden, it is there; and thus the good done still lives, and will live in blessing to generations yet unborn.

What a striking instance is here of the vast amount of moral and spiritual good which may be effected by the humblest Christian, notwithstanding the most formidable obstacles! He

* Mr. Wesley when he saw during his visit the extent of the field and the laborious character of the work, at once sent two additional Preachers to Ulster, one to the NorthEast, and the other to assist John Smith,

† Myles' Chronological History, p. 135.

[merged small][ocr errors]


needs but to be filled with the Spirit' in order to accomplish a great and glorious work. Now, there are many thousands of Christians possessing much greater wealth, culture and influence, and not having to contend with the same prejudice and persecution, yet their success in winning souls falls far short of that realized by men of far humbler attainments. How is this? The obstacles are such as riches, mental talent or social position cannot possibly remove. It is not by these that the Lord's work is done, but by the living energy of the Holy Ghost. Let not, then, Christian workers be too soli

citous about the mere external equipments, however important they may be, or endeavour by elaborate organization to compensate for the lack of spiritual power; but rather, by patient waiting on God in earnest, believing prayer seek the all-important qualification for Christian usefulness. And then, clad in the panoply Divine, with hearts glowing with love to Christ, and lips touched with hallowed fire, they shall speak, so that others shall not be able to resist,' and the feeblest shall be as David; and the house of David as God, as the angel of the Lord.'

THE BAIRD LECTURE FOR 1879, THE simultaneous appearance of these two books furnishes a fresh illustration of the influence of Continental, especially German and Dutch, theological literature upon our English divines. The choice of the subject of the Baird Lecture was evidently suggested by recent rationalistic attacks upon the Messianic Prophecies; and there are indications that Mr. Adeney had these attacks in his thoughts when he wrote The Hebrew Utopia. With a somewhat wide interpretation of the adjective, both writers may be called 'orthodox,' but Mr. Adeney's orthodoxy is of quite another type from Dr. Gloag's. The latter keeps strictly to the old lines; the former, in the first sentence of his Preface, intimates that he is 'more than dissatisfied with the traditional treatment of Messianic Prophecy'; and in the next paragraph he says it will be the object of the following pages to point out the direction which, I think, an investiga tion of Messianic prophecy should follow when due account is taken of the difficulties that are being urged against the patristic and scholastic modes of interpretation.' But inasmuch as Mr. Adeney contends for the fact of inspiration and sees the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy in Jesus Christ, though we greatly disagree with him, we can hardly class him with the rationalists. If there are only two categories for writers on prophecy, the

AND 'THE HEBREW UTOPIA." orthodox and the unorthodox, he certainly belongs to the former.

The plans of our two authors differ considerably. Both discuss the nature of Messianic prophecy, and examine and state the argument to be derived from it. But Mr. Adeney devotes the larger half of his book to tracing the development of Messianic prophecy' throughout the Old Testament, pointing out what he regards as the Messianic elements in each prophet; while Dr. Gloag adduces a comparatively small number of definite predictions of details, investigates the various interpretations that have been given of them, and shows how completely prediction accords with event. Mr. Adeney would deny the validity of Dr. Gloag's reasoning and the usefulness of his enquiries; Dr. Gloag would deem Mr. Adeney's treatment lamentably insufficient, even where he did not positively dissent from the conclusions it leads to. Our judgment would coincide with Dr. Gloag's. Indeed, our chief difficulty in reviewing the Baird Lecture for 1879 is our complete accord and concord with it; there is scarcely a line from its first page to the last that we are not prepared to endorse.

The method whereby God communicated with the Prophets has been much debated, but, as it seems to us, with scant result. No inspired writer has recorded the exact

* The Messianic Prophecies; being the Baird Lecture for 1879. By Paton James Gloag, D.D. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. 1879.

The Hebrew Utopia: A Study of Messianic Prophecy. By Walter F. Adeney, M.A. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1879.

mode of his inspiration, its form or its limitations; all have been content to assert the fact without revealing the manner. Here the Omniscient gave to the seer his foresight, we may not be able to discover; but our perception of its reality is not thereby hindered. Much may be said in favour of the ecstasy' of Hengstenberg, the inward speaking' and 'inward percep tion' of Riehin; but no positive decision can be arrived at for want of explicit evidence. Perchance all theories on the subject err by assuming that the Divine communications to the Prophets followed an invariable fashion. It is quite conceivable that different seers received their messages, and even the same seer different messages, by different methods. So long as we recognize supernatural influence as the ultimate basis of prophetic utterances, 80 long as we accept as strict truth their 'Thus saith the Lord,' we may, without serious risk, allow what play we please to spiritual and mental individuality and to historic environment. But we shall argue in a few moments that the admission of controlling, pervading, supernatural influence brings with it those principles of interpretation which Mr. Adeney rather scornfully rejects. It is not very clear what force the author of The Hebrew Utopia ascribes to supernatural influence. His views appear to approximate closely to those of Dr. Riehm, as set forth in bis able and thought-provoking, but inconclusive and unsatisfactory essays on Messianic Prophecy (T. and T. Clark, 1876). It would not be unfair to place Mr. Adeney and Dr. Riehm in the relation of pupil and master, the work of the former is to so great an extent an application of the doctrines of the latter. But Dr. Riehm's own views as to the inspiration of the Prophets are sufficiently hazy; if not more or less self-contradictory, they are incomprehensible. Again and again he plainly recognizes the Divine element in prophecy, and as often seeks to minimize it and to overlay it with restrictions.

The crucial question-crucial because it involves all the others-relates to principles of interpretation. Have we the right to explain prophecy in the light of its fulfilment? or are we bound to restrict the signification of prophecy to that which it bore, or rather to that which we think it must have borne-for that is what the principle practically comes to-in the mind of its utterer? If we answer the first enquiry in the negative and the second in the affirmative, we shall have to discover some means of reading the utterer's mind. The clne, it is urged, is ready to hand: his ideas could not be much in advance of his age-his predictions must have a 'concrete his

torical foundation.' The argument drawn from any other method of exegesis is declared to be worthless and to involve something very like intellectual dishonesty; and it is further claimed that the negative criticism' has destroyed the foundations of the 'traditionary' edifice of reasoning. To the contention that the usual argument from prophecy postulates the inspiration of the Old Testament, the very point which gainsayers deny, Dr. Gloag replies: At the outset we have nothing to do with the Divine origin of the books of the Old Testament for our argument; it is a matter of comparative indifference by whom they were composed; their origin might be wholly unknown, and they might be brought under our notice merely as ancient Hebrew writings. All that we are required to prove is, that the books containing those prophecies existed some time before the events said to be their fulfilment; that there is a real correspondence between these prophecies and the events; and that this correspondence is of such a nature as could not be foreseen by human sagacity. Our only data are the records containing the prophecies, and the history containing an account of the events.... We then reason backwards, and draw the inference that the books containing these prophetical statements must necessarily be of Divine origin. Our belief in the inspiration of the Old Testament is not a preliminary postulate, but a subsequent inference.'

This is sound sense. Here is prediction; there is performance; whence the agreement? Surely all are not merely remarkable freaks of chance. Take the nine particulars which Dr. Gloag cites as converging in the Messiah, that is called Christ, and with him, after Dr. Olinthus Gregory, calculate the mathematical probability that they would all meet in one person, and account for the fact that they did so meet. This can not be explained without calling Omniscience to your aid. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that 'the negative criticism' had absolutely demonstrated that each one primarily referred to some other Messiah, you simply add another wonder, for which only the lamest possible solution can be given, and in no way lessen the marvel of their convergence in Christ. And when Mr. Adeney objects to the application of such prophecies as the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah to our Lord, and says it would be quite legitimate if the touches were always so delicate and precise as to form a picture which could not only be recognized at once by the mere fact of resemblance, but recognized as an exclusively individual likeness,' we can but wonder at his defect of vision, and recommend him to study

carefully Dr. Gloag's convincing examination of the most vividly Messianic of all the prophetic portraits.*


We are warned, however, not to read foretelling in the light of fulfilment, because the seer could not have had that light, and could not have had any conscious reference to it. Dr. Richm declares, 'What we do not learn until the period of fulfilment can not be in the prophecy itself:' this dictum Mr. Adeney denominates a golden principle of interpretation. To us, with all respect to the distinguished ability of him who formulated it and those who approve it, it seems an egregious absurdity. How can there be fulfilment of that which is not in the prophecy? it must be fulfilment of something somewhere; if not of something of the prophecy, of what is it the fulfilment? Again the question arises, How can we account for the correspondence between prediction and event-a correspondence so close as to justify us in calling the second the fulfilment of the first? Of course, the upholders of the golden principle' believe that they have a satisfactory reply. The reader shall judge of its worth. Adeney again adopts Dr. Riehm's words: 'In the prophetic foresight we have to distinguish between two different elements: the one is more ideal and general, the other is of a more concrete, historical nature.' It is this ideal element' which is fulfilled. Consequently, Mr. Adeney searches the Prophets for subjective Messianic ideas,' and points out their general accomplish. ment. The theory is not very easy to grasp, because the instant one tries to fix it, the ideal has a puzzling trick of vanishing into the unreal. But let us see the theory at work. David and Solomon, it assumes, in the Messianic Psalms, sung about themselves; nevertheless, they had in their thoughts an ideal Sufferer, Conqueror and King, to whom their predictions related. This ideal person, it is admitted, was the Messiah; and it is also admitted that in Jesus Christ this ideal is realized. But if so, the whole theory is about as purposeless a piece of ingenuity as Biblical literature was ever troubled with. It amounts to saying that the Prophets had not a clear and complete perception of the Person of Whom they spake; and this, most orthodox expounders of prophecy would not only acknowledge, but contend for. In this case the contemptuous arraignment of orthodoxy, and these argumentative treatises are simply a learned and elaborate 'much ado about nothing.' But, unfortunately, this is not the sole aspect of

the doctrine; it is made to harmonize with loose notions of inspiration, and to favour the surrender of definite Messianic predictions at the demand of the gainsayers. Necessarily, therefore, the hypothesis fails, if it can be proved, as we think it can, that such definite predictions exist. But we are chiefly concerned now to show that this boasted via media between rationalism and orthodoxy is not really a separate path. This we could do by manifesting its coincidence either with orthodoxy or with rationalism; we prefer the former method: the goal depends entirely upon which side of the theory you start from. The mischief is that the road leads in two contrary directions, and there is no particular reason for preferring either to other.

To resume our argument: the ideal Messiah and the Christ of history are the same, or they are different. If the latter, Christians have nothing whatever to do with the prophecies; there is an end of the whole matter. And if the ideal Messiah whom the Prophets foretold must be identified with Jesus of Nazareth-i.e., if the Law and the Prophets spake of Him, we cannot escape one of two alternatives: either the seers were conscious of the identity, or they were unconscious of it. Dr. Riehm and Mr. Adeney stoutly affirm the latter. Be it so; let them then account for the identity. To do them justice, they accept the challenge cheerfully, and refer the enquirer to supernatural influence. Therefore the identity existed in the mind of God. But it is accepted that the Prophets were ignorant of the identity. Therefore, again, the Divine Being meant more by the prophecy than they did; and there was something in the prophecy itself that men did not learn till the fulfilment; and that something of the very pith and marrow of the prophecy. Thus the principle stands self-condemned that the very same ideas which are present in the mind of the Prophet are just the true ideas of the prophecy, no more and no less.'

Pushed to its logical issue, this theory resolves itself into another form, that of Dr. Arnold: Every prophecy has, according to the very definition of the word, a double sense; it has, if I may venture so to speak, two authors: the one human, the other Divine.' And it is immaterial whether the human author fully understood or not the Divine intention. explanation Mr. Adeney casts aside on the ground that it implies a measure of 'mechanical inspiration.' It is not our duty to vindicate Mr. Adeney's self-consistency, so we content ourselves with


Even Dr. Riehm, who denies the identity of the Servant of Jehovah with the Messiah, admits that the description in Isaiah liii. is 'typical' of Christ,


stating that in this part of his argument he regards the presence of any meaning in & prophecy which the utterer did not comprehend as inadmissible, lest it should lead to that terrible monster mechanical inspiration. Without adopting the opinion that the Prophets were mere passive instruments whose strings the Divine Hand moved, we would submit that it is unworthy of a serious reasoner first to postulate supernatural influence, and then to explain its exercise on purely natural principles. Inspiration, whatever its mode of operation, did add something to the human mind which could not have come by any merely natural process; else it had no raison d'être. If critics choose to dub this necessary supernatural element 'mechanical,' they arbitrarily name what they do not understand; we are not to be scared by a misapplied adjective. Once acknowledge that God communicated to a man a definite message to deliver, it is then too late to object to the characteristics that evidence the message to have been Divine. If prophecy came from God in any higher sense than that in which the works of mere genius and sagacity come from Him, we may assuredly expect more than the sublimest genius and sagacity could furnish. If the prophet were left to express his message in his own characteristic style, no room was left for mechanism; and we cannot admit that a man is incapable of so delivering a message unless he fully understands its import and its bearing, as well as did the Sender, or even as well as those do who witness the event which is foretold. But let us hear Mr. Adeney again: 'It is very difficult to accept any theory of a twofold sense in the words of a prophecy without falling into some unhappy confusion of thought. But we can well understand a twofold accomplishment....We may have often good reason to suppose that an inspired prediction may have a twofold intention-the intention of the human writer, and the larger intention of the inspiring Spirit. In this case we do not ascribe more than one meaning to the prophecy itself. We read no double sense into the words.' Could unhappy confusion of thought' be more happily illustrated? if you read into the words, first, the narrow or typical or mistaken meaning of the prophet's own mind, and then the full and infallible meaning of God Who inspired the prophecy-how do you escape two meanings? Besides, if the meaning of the prophecy itself' be not what the inspiring God meant by it, but what the blundering and bewildered man meant by it, what interest have we in the prophecy, beyond a curious antiquarian interest? Mr. Adeney and his school ad

mit the evidential value of prophecy; and account for it on the incongruous hypothesis we are testing. But obviously the force of the evidence from prophecy' is in inverse proportion to the consistency of the 'ideal' theory. Carry their principles to their legitimate conclusion, and the evidential value of prophecy sinks to zero, and fulfilled prophecy becomes an answer to an enigma of which we do not know the question. But granted that a prophecy is given by inspiration of God,' then surely, the meaning of the prophecy is what God meant by it.

But we may ask, 'A twofold accomplishment' of what? First, of what the prophecy did mean; and then what the prophecy did not mean. Mr. Adeney recognizes but one meaning, which, being accomplished, there is left no other. The second accomplishment can, therefore, be only of something not meant-a reductio ad absurdum of the entire theory. An inspired intention which we must recognize in the prophecy which yet forms no part of its sense! Of what then did it form part? It is hard to examine such crude sentences seriously.


In Dr. Riehm's third section, 'On the Relation of Messianic Prophecy to New Testament Fulfilment,' the practical working of the theory under discussion is seen at its best. Perhaps no one has more powerfully manifested than he the glorious disparity between prophecy, as interpreted, or, it may be allowed, as interpretable, by the Jew, and its New Testament fulfilment; though, of course, he would regard our italicized qualification as expressing the entire of prophecy rather than as indicating an imperfect apprehension of it. He vindicates, too, the spiritual nature of the fulfilment after a really helpful fashion. But to save his theory, he is obliged to argue that many prophecies have utterly failed; and he explains their failure by the statement that those predictions which do not correspond to the real purpose conceived and executed by God are only a disturbing element which the prophet, in consequence of the limitations of his vision, has mingled with that which was really revealed to him.' We note with pleasure the distinct admission that there was a 'real purpose conceived and executed by God,' however incompatible such an admission is with Dr. Riehm's previous reasoning. But we would point out that the existence of prophecies which can have no fulfilment would destroy the certainty of all prophecy; if prediction is not absolutely true, as history is true, it has no argumentative weight. It need not possess the clearness of history, it must possess its certainty. The prophecies themselves,

« ForrigeFortsæt »