DISCOURSE LIII.

RICHARD WHATELY, D.D., LL.D.*

THIS distinguished prelate, himself the son of a clergyman of note (the Rev. Dr Whately, of Nonsuch Park, Surrey), was born in 1789. The youngest of a family of nine children, he received, nevertheless, all the advantages which the limited income of an excellent father could afford; and commencing his studies at an early age, was, in due time, admitted to Oriel College, Oxford-a school famous for having sent out some of the most distinguished thinkers of the present generation, among whom are Arnold, Copleston, Newman, and others. Having completed his education, he was, in 1811, elected a fellow of this college, and thus put in possession of a yearly stipend, sufficient for his necessities, but guarantied to him only so long as he remained unmarried. Subsequently he received the appointment of college tutor, the duties of which he performed for several years. Marrying in 1821, he lost the benefits of his fellowship, but by the influence of an uncle, obtained the rectory of Halesworth, which yielded him an income of £450 per annum. In 1825, Lord Granville, Chancellor of the University of Oxford, appointed him President of St Alban's Hall, where he had as a co-laborer, the distinguished Dr. Samuel Hinds, author of the "History of the Rise and Early Progress of Christianity," as well as of other learned works. In 1830, he was elected by the University Professor of Political Economy, and during the following year was consecrated Archbishop of Dublin, and Bishop of Glendalagh.

As an archbishop of the English Church, he is entitled to a seat in the House of Peers; and here, though ever ready to perform his duty, he has constantly avoided party strife, and thus maintained the manly independence and noble impartiality of his character. Whenever questions have arisen which imposed upon him the duty of speaking, he has never hesitated either to combat or to defend the ministry. The elevation of Dr. Whately to the Episcopal dignity was, doubtless, due to his writings, which had, for a long time, engaged the attention of the University of Oxford. Unable to side with either of the two extreme parties, of which one threatened to destroy the English Church by a want of discipline, while the other seemed destined to paralyze it by formality and priestly rule, he resolved to exorcise both; and the plan which he formed, and the manner in which he executed this plan, deserve to be remembered by all the defenders of the Christian religion. Instead of entering the lists and provoking the contending parties, he went into his closet, and with a sincere love of truth, and an humble submission to the teachings of the

* Most of the strictly biographical data of this sketch have been translated from the preface of the French edition of Dr. Whately's "Kingdom of Christ," written by M. Reville, and furnished us from Dublin, by direction of the archbishop.

Holy Spirit, opened the Word of God; then, ascending the pulpit of the University, he discoursed in language clear and profound upon the records of the evangelists, and the letters of the apostles. In the discussion of the various themes before him, he could not fail to encounter the Antinomian exaggerations of the one party, and the clerical pretensions of the other; but, without indulging in any personality, and with the calmness of a Christian philosopher, he showed that none of these things had the slightest foundation in the holy Scriptures. From these premises he drew, in the first place, this very wise and moderate conclusion, namely, that the disciple of Jesus Christ ought to guard for himself his interpretation of the divine Word; to persuade others to adopt it, if he can, but never to enforce it. And, in the second place, that, instead of reading the gospel by the light of his own system, the servant of Jesus Christ ought to examine his system by the light of the gospel; and then, to resolve solemnly to believe and to profess publicly every thing taught by the Saviour's words.

The liberality of the learned prelate aroused the displeasure of the mere scholastics of the English Church. He was accused of betraying his religion, because he acknowledged Christians of other denominations as his brethren, and co-heirs of the kingdom of God; because he spoke of the divinity of the Saviour as spoke the Holy Spirit; and because he taught man's responsibility as well as man's depravity. But his equanimity has never been disturbed by his adversaries, whose bitterness affords him abundant evidence that he is on the side of truth.

The original form of most of the works of Dr. Whately, which are very voluminous, was that of discourses, delivered either from the desk of the University, or from the different pulpits in which he officiated. Besides his "Lectures on Political Econoray," his "Elements of Logic," and his "Elements of Rhetoric,” he has contributed largely to the departments of theology and moral science. Some of his works have been translated into several of the languages of Europe. In addition to those already mentioned, the best known are: "Essays on some of the Peculiarities of the Christian Religion;" "Essays on the writings of St. Paul;" "Essays on the Errors of Romanism;" "Sermons on various Subjects;" "Charges and other Tracts;" Essays on Dangers to the Christian Faith;" "The Use and Abuse of Party Feeling in Matters of Religion;" "The Kingdom of Christ Delineated;" "Easy Lessons in Reasoning;" etc., etc.

The writings of Dr. Whately are uniformly characterized by clearness of thought, and precision and transparency of style. If one would not indorse all his sentiments, with the slightest attention he may, at least, comprehend them. The following very able discourse has the reputation of being one of his best. It is inserted with the sanction of the archbishop.

THE NAME IMMANUEL.

"They shall call his name Immanuel: which, being interpreted, is, God with us. THEW, i. 23.

"—MAT

THIS prophecy of Isaiah, which the Evangelist brings forward as having reference to the birth of our blessed Saviour, is the more especially remarkable from the circumstance that it was not fulfilled in that sense

which, to an English reader, the expression would seem naturally to bear. The name given to him was, we know, not Immanuel, but (by the express direction of the angel) JESUS, signifying SAVIOUR. And yet neither the Evangelist himself, who records the name of Jesus, and then adduces the prophecy, nor any of the sacred writers, has thought it necessary to explain this circumstance. None of them notice as seemingly at variance with the words of the prophet, or, in any way, at all remarkable, our Lord's not literally bearing the very name Immanuel.

In this, as in most other points of difficulty, Scripture will explain itself. You will be at no loss to account for the circumstance. I have mentioned, if you will refer to, some of those numerous passages both in the Old and New Testaments, in which the word "name" is employed according to the then common usage; not in the precise and literal sense which it now bears among us; but to denote manifestation of divine power, or revelation of divine will, by a special communication. You will meet with a multitude of expressions in Scripture which would be unintelligible, or very obscurely and imperfectly intelligible, to any one who did not keep this in mind. In such expressions (and they are exceedingly frequent) as "calling on the name of the Lord," praising, blessing, magnifying "the name of the Lord," etc., to an English reader, not familiar with Scripture, the word "name" would be likely to appear superfluous. When again we are forbidden in the third commandment to take the name of the Lord in vain, and are taught in the Lord's Prayer to pray that God's name may be hallowed, such a reader might be apt to understand this as applying merely to the very name of God, literally, and to nothing else; though the word certainly ought to be understood as extending to the holy Scriptures-to the sacra ments—and, in short, to every thing connected with the worship of the Lord our God. To such a reader, again, the expression of overthrowing enemies, or performing any other mighty work, "in the name of the Lord," would be even misunderstood; as it would seem to signify, merely professing to act in the Lord's service; whereas it is plain from the context, that these, and other such phrases, denote the performance of the works through actual divine assistance-not only with the invocation, but through the actual display and manifestation of divine power. When again our Lord Jesus says of himself, "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive," it is plain he did not mean that the false Christ, whom the Jews that had rejected Jesus, followed, would not, in our sense of the phrase, come in his Father's name; i. e., pro fessing and claiming, as he did, to be sent from God. But, by "coming in his Father's name," he plainly means, coming supported by a mani festation of divine power, through which he wrought sensible miracles. "The works,” said he, "that I do in my Father's name" (i. e., by divine power) “they bear witness of me." Others would come hereafter in

their own "names;" i. e., though pretending to be sent from God, yet manifesting no power beyond the natural ability of man-requiring to be believed on their own bare assertion, instead of appealing to (what is in Scripture called the "name of God") a display of divine interference. When again the Israelites are enjoined, in the Mosaic Law, to offer their sacrifices, not in all places indiscriminately, but in the place which the Lord should "choose to set his name there," the meaning plainly is, that, at the tabernacle first, and afterward at Solomon's temple, the Lord would manifest himself-would be, what we call, especially present -hearing prayer, accepting sacrifices, and delivering oracles.

Hence it is that there is a correspondence between the Lord Jesus Christ and that temple; which he himself expressly alluded to when he described his death and resurrection, as a destroying and re-building, after three days, of the temple; viz., says the Apostle John, "the temple of his body." And as the temple at Jerusalem is spoken of as the place which the Lord should "choose, to cause his name to dwell there;" so of the promised Messiah, it is said (evidently in a corresponding sense), that his "name should be, 'God with us," and, again, that his "name should be called (according to Jeremiah) the Lord our righteousness;" and yet again (according to Isaiah), that his name should "be called Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace ;" all which expressions being conformable to the established phraseology of the Jews, were readily understood to mean, that, as in the temple of Jerusalem, so, in the promised Christ or Messiah, there should be an especial indwelling of the divine presence and power; that in him should be a manifestation of God's "might" and "wonderful works," and through him proclamation of God's fatherly kindness, and an offer of "peace" with mankind. Their customary use of the words "name" and "called" conveyed this sense to them. The only question with them was, whether Jesus of Nazareth were the person to whom these prophecies applied, and in whom the Lord God had thus manifested himself. They were all more or less startled and revolted ("offended," as the Evangelists express it) at his not coming forward with temporal power and splendor, as they had expected; but (as you may observe in confirmation of what I have been saying) none of them seem to have been at all in expectation that he would literally, in one sense, bear the "name of Immanuel," and to have made it a matter of surprise or objection that he did not.

And you may observe that when the question was debated between the believers and the unbelievers in Jesus, the same kind of language was employed. Our Lord himself bid his disciples go forth, after his ascen sion, and make converts to his religion, "baptizing them" (not in the name, as it appears in our translation, but) " into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," which is often spoken of, simply, as "baptizing them into the name of the Lord Jesus;" enlisting them,

that is, into his service, and receiving their confession that God had thus manifested or declared himself in him. This kind of language was, of course, equally intelligible to believers and unbelievers, much as they differed as to the fact. We find the chief priests using it when they forbade the apostle to speak to any man "in his name;" they having just before commanded a lame man to "rise and walk, in the name of Jesus of Nazareth ;" and having declared before the assembly, that "there is no other name given under heaven, whereby we must be saved." Now it is plain there could be no miraculous virtue in the sound of the name, but in the divine power and manifestation of God in Jesus. There seems every reason to suppose that this employment of the word “name” (or title," as it might more strictly be rendered) arose from the custom of persons assuming, or having applied to them, a title, alluding to some remarkable action or quality; thence, the word "name" came to be used to denote the very performance of that action, or the possession of that quality, which had given rise to the appellation; and, finally, it was thus used even when the appellation was not actually borne; as, for instance, "the Lord thy God who is a jealous God," and, "the Lord, whose name is jealous," were understood as equivalent expressions.

But, whatever may have been the origin of the custom, you will find it very useful, toward the right understanding of Scripture, to familiarize your mind, by examining various passages (of which you will find many more than I have cited), to the fact, that the word is thus used, and or dinarily used, by the sacred writers, to denote any especial manifestation of God's presence and power, and immediate communication with man, and revelation of his will to us. And you will find such an examination will, if carefully conducted, with the aid of no greater reflection than the plainest Christian, guided by God's Holy Spirit, is equal to, gradually throw light on many important passages which would otherwise be either very obscure, or liable to be mistaken. It will, for example, throw much light on the true character of that great Person, whose coming into the world we this day celebrate.

And on this point I shall proceed to offer a few observations. Let us unite in the prayer which he offered up for us and his other disciples to the Father, "that we may know him the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent."

66

All Christians are agreed that Jesus of Nazareth was, in some way or other, the promised Immanuel; that in some sense, and in some degree or other, "God was with him," and was declared," or manifested, in and by him; that he was called the Christ, Messiah, or Anointed, as being in some especial manner "anointed" (as the Apostle Peter expresses it) "with the Holy Ghost and with power; he himself having · applied to himself the prophecy-"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor." And many intricate and fruitless metaphysical questions have been debated