triumphant; but to fome it appears exceedingly illiberal to refer to paft events, which would condemn them. But of what ufe are the pages of hiftory unless they read leffons of caution; unless they fhew the points of danger, and the delufions of folly, that we may avoid them. Indeed, a very prudent or a popular preacher might have taken other topicks, and tried to please all parties. He might have stated that the Diffenters, as well as the Catholics, were now fo liberal and enlightened, that they would act very differently from their forefathers; that they were only to be entrusted with power, to fee what an excellent use they would make of it; that they were totally different from their ancestors, who lived in the ages of darkness and fuperftition. Still the old proverb recurs; "the burnt child dreads the fire." Their words may be fmoother than oil, and yet be they very fwords. He has profited but little by the experience of the world, who does not judge of mankind by their ac tions rather than their words. Profeffions are easy, but facts are the tests of truth.

I am no friend to long fermons or long fpeeches. A profufion of words fometimes only indicates a poverty of ideas. Much wifdom may be expreffed in a fmall compafs; yet I hope that a fermon rather longer than ufual, need not be difgraced by the principal part of a congregation rifing and leaving the chapel. I was the more furprized in hearing of this conduct in fome who are legiflators. They are accustomed to long fpeeches. They have fo often been witneffes to the fetting fun and the rffing fun while they continued in an angry debate: that for once in their lives they might have heard a plain, honeft, country clergyman, without fuch manifeft difguft. All people I trust go to church to do their duty to God, and to fet good examples to others. Now was this decorous conduct? If the governors might leave the chapel, why might not the children of the foundling do the fame? One is difpleafed with this part of a subject, another thinks the fermon too long, therefore he will take up his hat and walk off. But is this to be endured in a Chriftian congregation? Is this fetting a falutary example? Is this the mode to inftruct the youth committed to their care, or to treat a Chriftian preacher, when the ftage-player or the mountebank, however dull or impertinent, is generally treated with more respect. What is the standard of excellency, and how many minutes or feconds may be allowed to a difcourfe on an important fubject? Senators will make speeches of three hours long: Is then a clergyman to

be

be condemned because he ventures to enlarge his difcourfe to five and thirty minutes? If the Morning Service be too long, I could willingly dispense with much theatrical mufic and folo finging, which are too often difplayed. I truft by this time the governors are forry and afhamed at what they have done; and fuch violation of all public decorum will not occur again; if it should, they will not expect to pass unnoticed.

London, June 6th, 1808.

Z. Z.

FOR THE ORTHODOX CHURChman's magazine.'

ON SELECT PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH.

(Continued from page 344.)

On the Prophecy of CHRIST's calling the Gentiles, xlii. 1, &c. fupported by MAT. xii. 17-21. xvii. 5. EPHES. i. 6. LUKE ii. 32. iv. 18-21. ACTS xiii. 47.

T

O all this Infidels object,-First, That there is nothing extraordinary in the names God's Servant, Elect, Delight, &c. for David is called God's Servant, Chofen Servant, Man after God's own Heart, Son, Anointed; this last title being given by Ifaiah to wicked Cyrus:-Secondly, that Jefus Chrift did not judge and punish the Gentiles: but, on the contrary, fubmitted to Pontius Pilate; gave them not civil laws; nor called one of them to profefs his religion.— Thirdly, That not crying, and not caufing his Voice to be heard, agreed ill with his, public character; and he made himself known by his words and works.-Fourthly, Simeon applied these words improperly.-Fifthly, How could St. Paul infer a command to preach the Gofpel to the Gentiles? In Ifaiah xlix. 6. the Jews are promifed the greateft advantages from the perfon in queftion, and Gentiles fome benefits from being joined to them.-Sixthly, Temporal concerns are mixed with the words, and fuch as are peculiar

peculiar to the Jewish polity.-Seventhly, Prophecies in xli. 14-16, and 25, are not applicable to Chrift Jefus, no fuch advantages temporal or spiritual, having accrued to the Jews from him.

I anfwer, First, That it is no objection to the fitness of the names of the Meffiah that they are given to David; for the Meffiah was his Son; and as to that given to Cyrus, who was far from deferving the title of a wicked prince, it was given to him on a very fingular occafion, in which he was a Type of the Meffiah.-Secondly, Though Jefus Chrift gave not civil laws to the Gentiles, and did not judge or punish them whilft he ftaid on earth, nor did by himself call one Gentile to Chriftianity, yet he commiffioned his Apostles to call them, and gave them a Law of Religion, and when they rebelled against him, judged and punished them; and was a great light by his Gofpel, to fuch as were converted from darknefs, &c.-Thirdly, Though his Difcourfes and Miracles proved him a meffenger from God, yet he did not publicly affume the character of Meffiah.-Fourthly, Simeon justly applied these words to Chrift, and could have no motive fo to apply them for any advantage to himself, being extremely old, but he was led by the Spirit.-Fifthly, The Jews, who would receive the Meffiah, had the greatest advantages from him; and fo had the Gentiles by uniting themselves to the Jews in the belief of the Meffiah.-Sixthly and Seventhly, Words relating to Jewish polity and temporal benefits, were very properly chofen to exprefs fpiritual advantages, in order to attach the Jews to their religion, the only true religion before the promulgation of Christianity.

On the Prophecy of the EFFUSION of the HOLY SPIRIT, xliv. 3. as applied by PETER, Acts ii. 18.

INFIDELS confefs that they know not what the Prophet aimed at, but furely not Gofpel times, as Cyrus is meant, verse 28.

But we answer justly, that Cyrus was a Type of Christ, laying the foundation of the Temple as Chrift did of the Gospel.

On the Prophecy of CHRIST'S SUFFERING STATE, viz.Firft, Incredulity of the Jews, liii. 1. applied in JOHN xii. 38. and Rom. x. 16.-Secondly, Defpicablenets of

CHRIST,

CHRIST, liii. 2, 3. applied MARK ix. 12.-Thirdly, Cause of his Death, viz. To appeafe Divine vengeance, liii. 4-8. applied MATT. viii. 17. Rom. iv. 25. 1 PET. ii. 24. 1 COR. xv. 3.-Fourthly, His Deportment under Sufferings, liii. 7. applied Acrs viii. 32.-Fifthly, His Death and Burial, liii. 9, 10. proved by 1 PET. ii. 22. and JOHN iii. 5. 2 COR. v. 21.-Sixthly, Reward of his Sufferings, liii. 11, 12. applied PHILIP ii. 9. MARK XV. 28. LUKE xxii. 37. ROM. viii. 34. HEB. vii. 25. 1 JOHN

ii. 1.

INFIDELS firft cavil against John xii. 37-41. as denouncing an irrefiftible decree; and will have the exclamation, "Who hath believed our report ?" to be only an ininvocation for attention; and that St. Paul only complains in allufion to the prophet.-Secondly, that St. Mark fpeaks not of a quotation from Ifaiah.-Thirdly, That St. Matt. viii. 17. applies Ifaiah liii. 4. to Chrift working miracles, to fulfil which, he should have been fick, poffeffed by devils, &c.-Fourthly, In the cure of the blind man, Chrift forgave not fins. They own however that the perfon in the prophet is a fufferer for others.-Fifthly, As to the filence in the trial applied to Chrift they object, that, his taciturnity was not natural, and did not arife from his difowning the authority of the court, and therefore was a kind of acknowledgement of his guilt, and not a praiseworthy filence as that in the prophet.-Sixthly, That the tranfpofition in verfe 9th, does not exactly fuit Chrift, and if allowed would deftroy all interpretation.-Seventhly, They deny that Phil. ii. 8, 9. Mark xv. 28. Luke xx. 37. Rom. viii. 34. Heb. vii. 25. have any relation to Ifaiah's prophecy.-Eighthly, That in Isaiah xi. 1. xxxv. and xl. Meffiah is described as great and powerful; but here as the contrary.-Ninthly, They argue from John xxi. 3. that even Chrift's difciples after his death could not reconcile the predictions to him. -Tenthly, That Chrift's miracles could not prove him the Meffiah while thus contradicting apparently the prophecies, but were rather the works of the devil.

Anfwer.-ft. John xii. only relates a contingent event foreseen by God. The exclamation as an invocation to attention is abfurd, and muft relate to fome fact, and agrees with none but what the Evangelift points to. St. Paul's complaint is a ftrict application.-2dly. Though St. Mark mentions not Ifaiah, he plainly muft refer to him.-3dly. The prophecy of Ifaiah may be applied to Chrift's miracles, he having power to take away diseases in general, the punishment of fins :

4thly.

4thly. The cafe of the blind man is no objection to the general truth :-5thly. Chrift's filence is juftifiable, because though he could have excepted to the court, and pleaded innocence, the scheme of redemption required him to die : -6thly.There is no occafion for a tranfpofition, the words. as they ftand being literally true :-7thly. The texts denied to have reference to Ifaiah liii. plainly have; for they fhew Chrift to have been in the ftricteft fenfe a propitiation, and as fuch predicted in Ifaiah by him who died for tranfgreffors: -8thly. The predictions of Chrift as great and powerful are very reconcileable with those of his fufferings; the latter being made the way to his greatnefs:-9thly. The doubts of the difciples after Chrift's death are to be afcribed to the hardness of their hearts :- 10thly. Miracles were a fufficient proof that Chrift was the Meffiah, his fucceeding greatnefs being very confiftent with preceding fufferings.

It is to be obferved that promifes of a Meffiah as a great king, were abfolutely neceffary to fupport the Jews under captivity, and preserve them a separate people, when ease and affluence in Babylon, would otherwise have funk them in the eyes of that people.

On the Prophecy of CALLING the GENTILES, Iv. 3. fup. ported by 2 SAM. vii. 13. and Ps. lxxxix. 28. and applied ACTS xiii. 34.

INFIDELS object that things prophefied of in the liv. Iv. and lvi. chapters were never literally fulfilled in Jefus Christ. Answer. Since the Old Teftament is proved di-vine, these promises must be fulfilled figuratively for this very reafon. Converted Jews the true feed of Abraham.The expreffion" a witnefs to the people," true only of Chrift, who died to prove himself the Meffiah; alfo "an house of prayer for all people," could not be true of the material temple, but the New Jerufalem; alfo for the Stranger' and Eunuch who would perpetuate a name among the feed of Jacob. See the Acts.

On the Prophecy of the REDEEMER from ZION, &c. lix. 20, 21. applied Roм. xi. 26, 27.

INFIDELS object that this chapter relates to redemption from captivity;-Secondly, That it was not literally fulfilled

VOL. XIV.

Chm. Mag. June 1808.

8 H

under