Page images
PDF
EPUB

*

at

man's argument has any force against Adult Baptism, it would have equal force against Unitarianism. For I doubt whether there is an Established, a National Church, of Christian Unitarians, at least in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word. In the Greek Established Church, Trinitarianism was sometimes the national religion, and sometimes Arianism, the difference lying between the ὁμεσιοί and ὁμοιωσιοι; it settled at length in the Trinitarian doctrine. The Latin Church was all Trinitarian; the Established Reformed Churches were all Trinitarian, as may be seen in their several confessions, in Quick's Synodicon. The Polish Unitarians, with all their talents, learning, dignity and power, (and they had much of each,) never rose to be a national, established religion. The religion of the ancient Jews, indeed, founded in the ipsa unitas of the Deity, without any distinctions or qualities, as Maimonides expresses it, of time, place or person, (about which the Trinitarian and Unitarian coutroversies, through their many shades of difference, are concerned,) the religion of the Jews was a national Unitarian religion. Mahomet, too, colleaguing with a Jew and Nestorian Christians, and extracting from them a sort of essence of religion, a fundamental principle, (which appears to have been the foundation of most ancient theologies, till they degenerated into idolatry,) formed a national religion, on the abstract idea, the Unity of God. But I beg leave to submit to your learned Correspondent, whether in his sense of the words, there ever was, or is at this day, any National Church of Unitarian Christians?

In examining Christian antiquity, in reference to the question under discussion, it was thought no improper way to appeal, in a former letter, to the testimony of some learned and independent men, who, having gone over this ground with the same end in view, would be competent to give

* See Mr Robinson's Ecclesiastical Researches. Church of Poland, p. 554. + Deus nullas habet qualitates-Quare constanter asserimus, illum absolutissimè esse unum Maimonidis. Moreh Nevocheim, pp. 79, 80.

See Prideaux's Life of Mahomet,

testimony. Your readers were thus furnished with the proper evidence to try the merits of the question. These learned men were taken from our own country; and they might very easily have been multiplied. But that our jury may be as complete as possible, we beg leave to add to them a few names of foreigners. They shall be taken from among critics of different opinions on other theological points, but all of the first eminence for learning and their knowledge of Christian antiquity among their several religious denominations. This part of my work being ready done to my hand by Van Dale, I shall do little more than translate their testimonies from him.

The first is of Campegio Vitringa, the celebrated Professor of Theology and History at Amsterdam, well known for his critical works on Isaiah and the Revelations. He was doctrinally a Predestinarian.

"What is advanced out of Cyprian is more evident; although from all the other writers referred to, nothing can be collected but this; that infants might be baptized, and sometimes were; but not that it was the custom in the first Church that they should be baptized just after their birth, as is done in our sacred assemblies," &c. Observationum, Lib. ii. Cap. xvi.

He then refers to Ludovicus Vives, and he shall be our next testimony, who, in his observations on Augustine, (De Civitate Dei, Cap. xxvii. Lib. i.) after other remarks, adds: "Let no one be deceived by this passage; no one formerly was laved by sacred baptism, till of an adult age, and when the same person both knew what he wished of that mystical water, and desired to be washed, and not merely once asked," &c.

The next testimony that I shall produce is that of Salmasius, which may also be taken as that of Van Dale himself, who was equal at least to those whom he quotes, in that sort of literature which is necessary for a complete knowledge of his subject, as his own admirable work abundantly proves.

Something, therefore," says Van Dale, "must be said of the origin and progress of this Pædobaptism, which

Hist. Baptismatum cum Hebraicorum tum Christianorum.

I thus shew first from the celebrated Salmasius, a man of such great name among the Reformed. (Ex Epistolâ ad Justum Pacium sub nomine Simplicii Verini.) In the two first centuries nobody received baptism, but he who, being instructed in the faith, and imbued with the doctrine of Christ, could give testimony that he believed, on account of those words, He who shall believe and be baptized. Therefore, the first thing was to believe: thence arose the order of catechumens in the Church. The perpetual custom also then constantly prevailed, that the eucharist should be immediately given to those catechumens after baptism. Afterwards an opinion prevailed, that nobody could be saved, unless he had been baptized and thence arose the custom of giving baptism to infauts. But because the eucharist was given to adult catechumens, as soon as they were washed with sacred baptism, without any space of time intervening, it was instituted that this also should be done to infants, after the introduction of Infant Baptism.'" Thus far Van Dale, who was not of the clerical profession, but all whose works are full of erudition. *

I have already alluded to the opinion of Socinus, and other learned Unitarians in Poland. To the opinion also of the accomplished critic Grotius, an allusion has also been made; and his opinion was, that Infant Baptism might be practised, and was practised pretty early, but not by Christ or his apostles. Annot. in Matt. xix. Sensus est veniant ad Christum, ut instituantur, non ut baptizentur, nisi postquam vim baptismi intellixcrent." My intention was, Mr. Editor, to have subjoined a few thoughts on Mr. Belsham's sense of Infant Baptism, in reference to Tertullian, and a critique on the word norint, as used by him, together with some remarks on Mr. Belsham's "important testimony of Justin Martyr," and his quotations from Irenæus and Origen. But these matters, I perceive, must be deferred.

D.

Il pratiqua cette science (Médecine) avec succès, et se fit une réputation dans l'Europe par sa profonde érudition. Nouveau Dictionnaire Historique.

SIR, Swakeleys, Jan. 6, 1819.

ERMIT me to assure your Chi

Pehester Correspondent (Vol. XIII.

17

p. 749,] that nothing he has written on the subject of my "Bible Only' School at Binham, has in the "least annoyed" its well-meaning, however mistaken patron. He has warrantably enough, perhaps, bestowed upon it a title, which it seems however, it did not deserve. The whole difference of opinion that obtains between us, is indeed, I am willing to hope, no more than this: that while I am content to seat my little plebeian catechumens "at the feet of Jesus" and his apostles alone, he would place some Apollos beside them of the same way of thinking with himself, so long as they were under my exclusive jurisdiction; for beyond that moment I profess to give them up again to their parents. As little, I trust, will he be, in return,

[ocr errors]

19

annoyed" by my Anti-isms of every description, if, in a spirit which “thinketh no evil" of any other opposed to it, I venture to record my conviction, that, were every "note and comment' now extant on the Bible, committed to-morrow to the flames, the religion of Christ might somewhere or other, in this our enlightened day and generation, arise from their ashes in a purer form than any it now exhibits in any single established or non-established Church in Christendom.

a

With regard to my projected plan of place of worship, it is indeed, I fear, still more Utopian than he justly represents it; for it by no means professes to aim at inoffensiveness on the ground of being alike and in common acceptable to every denomination of Christians. Its avowed object is an approximation to the apostolic model of religious homage: et jure aut injuriâ comprehends invocation of the Saviour of the world. The Unitarian would have to tolerate Idolatry under a roof beneath which the Trinitarian had connived at the blasphemy of not addressing the Son as "an equal person with" the Father; while The GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ was alone ultimately addressed as "the Author of every good and every perfect gift," as "the GOD above all, as well as through and in us all," the "one Lord," the "made

1 Cor. viii. 6,

Broom Bank, near Sheffield,

Lord," the "Advocate at the Father's right hand," and in the midst

SIR,

January 17, 1819. of a congregation met together in his which was preached in May last, HE Reviewer of my Discourse,

name, would be also petitioned, prayed to, as able to save to the uttermost all who come unto that GOD through him. Towards such an approxima. tion, the first step would be the abdi cation of all unscriptural phraseology; the subordination and delegated authority of the Logos-Theos, the next: but within the ample range of this preliminary circumscription, the proposed Liturgy would expatiate as freely as the letter of the Bible would admit, and scarcely therefore propitiate, in all its parts, an unanimous, though concurrent expression of devotion. While "the mercy-seat" shone with none but borrowed rays, it would still perhaps peer as one of the most prominent features of the sanctuary; as the incense ascended from its altar, the high priest who wafted it towards heaven might still fix the fearful eye of many a suppliant, and when the Allelujah ascended with one heart and voice to Him who sit teth upon the throne, what if the Lamb were not all around, so with one heart and voice, forgotten? These are appalling annunciations, undoubtedly, to many a scriptural Christian; there are, on the other hand, uot a few as consistent Biblists, whose ear they will by no means offend; and for one, I am free to confess, that though reformation proceeded no farther than to these limits, most cordially should I rejoice to see the religious service of the Established Sect (the best, in my opinion, but for its traditional deformities, with which I am acquainted,) so far purged of what every idolater of the litera scripta of the sacred records must deem its two capital pollutions. Whether the more sweeping Unitarian would patronize what he might deem so partial, so insufficient a compromise, I know not: but from the silence of our body, I certainly presume that mere man-ism, (I use the word in no invidious sense,) is averse from the experiment. To that implied decision, I now therefore respectfully bow with regret, and subscribe myself,

J. T. CLARKE.

Acts ii. 36. See Griesbach in loc.

before the Supporters of the Unitarian Fund, having intimated to me, [Vol. XIII. p. 766,]“that it is not quite correct "perhaps, "to quote Luke vi. 12, as a proof that our Lord continued a whole night in a dreary solitude,' since poreux, sometimes, and probably here, signifies an oratory, or "house of prayer;" I feel myself called upon to explain. I am well satisfied, and have always entertained the opinion, that the word poreuxn often signifies an oratory, and that such is the sense in the passage quoted, as well as in Acts xvi. 13, to which the reviewer has referred me. But the term " dreary solitude" was a term which I applied, as every reader may see, not to the poor, but the mountain to which our Lord had gone, and on which he continued all night, (diaνυκτερεύων εν τη προσευχῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ) “ in the oratory of God." Some indeed think this to be rather a harsh translation, and prefer the common version, which is also adopted in the new one, and which I have followed, notwithstanding its supposed incorrectness. Indeed this adoption cannot require much defence, when it must be admitted that prayer or devout communion with God (which is prayer taken in its most comprehensive sense) was our Saviour's object. Indeed it ought to be mentioned in favour of the common translation, that the Cambridge Manuscript has avrov after the word poreux instead of rou. The reviewer has referred me to Acts xvi. 13, and Bishop Pearce's Commentary and Note. I have not that author at hand, but I admit that the Jews had their

poreva near to rivers, or by the seaside, and in other retired places on the plains; or, near to (as the preposition 5 sometimes signifies) the mountains; but they had them also on the hills an mountains themselves, the retreat of the most recluse, because the least exposed to intrusion. See Jennings's Jewish Antiquities, Vol. I. p. 91, also p. 69. These pσexα included a certain space of ground enclosed with walls and open to the Heavens, according to Philo, Josephus and other writers, whither devout persons resorted alone, or in company, for reli

gious exercises. Those on the high grounds, or within the bosom of the dreary mountains, were frequented by such persons as wished to be as much as possible remote from the haunts and interruptions of man. Such a solitude would naturally, I think, be our Saviour's choice, under the circumstances which I brought before the reader, and which shew the anxious state of his mind at the time, and prove how necessary he found it to fly to God, in retirement from the world, and seek counsel and direction for the great work before him. The absolute and entire dependence of Christ on his Father's wisdom and support, and his long-continued earnestness to obtain

and apply them to the important purposes in view, present, in my estimation, the most positive exclusion of his Deity that can offer itself to a reflecting mind. I would add, that the translation of the word ενομίζετο " was wont to be made," in Acts xvi. 13, is, I apprehend, very improper. The proper rendering would be "registered, or allowed by law." In the same sense the word is used in Luke iii. 23, where, instead of reading "being as was supposed, the Son of Joseph," we should rather read " legally sanctioned, or allowed to be according to law,' or "registered as the Son of Joseph." NATH. PHILIPPS.

BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

Suggestion on John i. 1.
Philadelphia, U. S.
June 12, 1818.

Heb. xi. 5, where it is said, "before his translation he had this testimony that he pleased God."

ADMITTING that the introduy have next person spokens of as

John relate to the Christian dispensation, and that, by "the word," Jesus Christ is to be understood as the person designated; the explanation which is usually given of that part of the first verse in which we read, that "the word was with God," appears to me to be liable to several objections. It is said, that, to be "with God," means, to receive divine communications; and that, " as Moses was with God in the mount, so was Christ in the wilderness, or elsewhere; to be instructed and disciplined for his high and important office:" but, in the context, there is no mention of, and no allusion to, such an occurrence; and the supposition of Socinus, that to be "with God," in the passage before us, signifies, that, as the word of God, Jesus was known to God alone, is, to my mind, equally unsa tisfactory.

In illustrating the phraseology of Scripture, and particularly the Hebraisms with which the New as well as the Old Testament abounds, it is often useful to recur to the passages in which they are first to be met with, and thus to ascertain their original signification.

In Gen. v. 22, we read, “And Enoch walked with God." How he "walked with God," we learn from

[blocks in formation]

Gen. vi. 9: "Noah was a gust man, and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." Here, as in the former instance, the reference is to personal character; and as walking indicates a steady, regular course, the meaning will be, that both Enoch and Noah were pious and religious persons when this character was given of them.

In the first Epistle of John, several passages are to be met with in which similar phraseology is used. Thus, it is said, chap. i. 3, "and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." Chap. iii. 24 : "He that keepeth his commandments, dwelleth in him, and he in him." Chap. iv, 15: "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God." As these are general declarations, they cannot be descriptive of any special or peculiar communications to particular persons; but are easily understood, if referred to religious character.

[ocr errors]

Perhaps, the strongest and most exactly parallel expression, is that which occurs in Psalm 1xxiii. 23: 'Nevertheless, I am continually with thee." These are the words of Asaph, a man who made no claims either to the prophetic character, or to any divine mission; they would, there

[merged small][ocr errors]

"As diff'rent scenes of life arise, Our grateful hearts would be With thee amidst the social band,

In solitude with thee."

I am, therefore, disposed to construe Joha i. 1, 2, thus: "In the beginning of the period respecting which I am now to treat, Jesus Christ existed; and Jesus was a pious and religious person, and Jesus was God; as Moses was God to Pharaob, and as those persons were called gods unto whom the word of God came. This Jesus was in the beginning with God, i. e. he was from the first pious and religious."

Thus, it seems to me, that uniformity is preserved in the interpretation of the phrase which has now been considered; that the Evangelist is made to speak with distinctness and precision both of the personal and official characters of Jesus Christ; and that the second verse contains an explanatory remark of considerable importance, instead of appearing to be merely a repetition of what had been asserted in the preceding verse.

These observations are made with diffidence, for I am not aware that they correspond with any explanation that has yet been given of the passage to which they relate.

T

J. T.

[blocks in formation]

HERE is no safer rule, none more estimable, than that of interpretating Scripture by Scripture. "The word was God." John i. 1. Jesus is taken to be implied by "the Word;" the word of God, in all its "fulness," residing in, and being promulgated by, him.

But, the question is unsettled whether "God," in this sentence, be used

For No. 1, see Vol. XIII. p. 632.

[blocks in formation]

In my humble apprehension, that the version ought, for the sake of ordinary readers, to be

"The word was as God."

Pronounced by Him, through a medium, it was to be regarded, not merely as spoken by himself, but (in scriptural phraseology) as himself.

Pretty bold, it may be said, and rather free with the original.

But, is such a latitude, to make sense of a passage, unexampled or unauthorized?

Take the answer in 2 Samuel xxiv. 23.

"All these things did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king." The word "as" is in italics, supplied by the translators to make sense of the passage; Araunah being no king, but a wealthy subject of David's.

It is possible, also, to make nonsense of a passage by a literal translation, unexplained.

e. g. "The word was with God, and the word was God."

This occurs in the context, and a more eminent example it would not be very easy to cite.

So, ought not Matt. xii. 50, to be rendered, "Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is as my brother and sister and mother"?

If I be told that this and a multiunderstood and read in this sense,tude of similar passages are always be it so! And does not consistency require the same principle of construction to elucidate John i. 1 ? BREVIS.

On the Contents of the Book of the
Revelation.
No. I.
TOTWITHSTANDING the bles-

attend to the words of this prophecy, and keep those things that are written therein, many sincere believers in Christianity think the time lost that is spent in the study of it, and that it would be much better employed in studying the precepts of morality. With them I think this last ought to

« PreviousContinue »