Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Saviour to his disciples: "John truly baptized you with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Acts, i. 15. Likewise they quote the same language from the mouth of John: but are we, for a moment, to conclude, that because Christ had the superior power of baptizing with the Holy Ghost, which John had not, therefore baptizing with water was to be discontinued? Our Saviour and John clearly allude to the superior power and efficacy of the baptism of the former, but by no means intend to supersede the baptism of the latter. John describes the grand and sublime effect of Christ's baptism with the Holy Ghost; this baptism was not in his power. He that was to come, was mightier than he, and was to be endued with much greater authority. John could minister the baptism with water only; the blessed gift of the Holy Ghost belonging to Christ the Messiah. And thus, when Christ himself addresses his disciples in the words I have transcribed, he intends merely to convey the idea I have mentioned, of his superior power and efficacy to John. Now were there any doubt remaining of such being the intention of our blessed Lord, I have only to shew that my explanation exactly accords with that of our Saviour's immediate follower and disciple, Peter; and whoever will attentively and impartially examine the part I am about to bring forward, must be convinced, unless wilfully blind to conviction, that baptism with the Holy Ghost, and with water, are intirely distinct, and as such are spoken of in the scriptures. I wish to premise, we must all agree, Christ's immediate followers must have clearly understood his meaning and intention when he addressed them as I have already shewn. Now we find Peter calling for water, elementary water, to baptize even such as had received the Holy Ghost; for "thus," thought he, no doubt, it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. We read in the Acts of the Apostles, that "as Peter was preaching before Cornelius and "his kinsmen and near friends,' "while he yet spake, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word, and they "spake with tongues, and magnified God." "Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid WATER, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?"" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Now we find from l'eter's own relation of his thus preaching before CorneVol. XI. Churchm. Mug. August, 1806. P lius,

99

lius, that "the Holy Ghost, which fell on them as on the apostles at the beginning," was the effect alluded to of Christ's superior power and efficacy, as conveying his word to his disciples; for, (continues Peter)" then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John, indeed, baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." So then, those who heard Peter preach, were completely endued with the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as spoken of by our Saviour; and yet we find Peter baptized even such with water; proving, beyond all power of contradiction, that baptism of the Holy Ghost does not supersede that of water. I here take my leave for the present, as I am lothe to take up more room in your publication than the present will occupy; but repeat, that should you be inclined to encourage me, I will, from time to time, trouble you on this and other subjects, intimately connected with the present. I close this letter on baptism in the words of the great and learned Bishop Taylor, who, speaking. of baptism, says, "No tradition is more universal, no not of scripture itself; no words are plainer, no, not the ten commandments; and if any suspicion can be superinduced by any jealous or less discerning person, it will need no other refutation but to turn his eyes to those lights, by which himself sees scripture to be the word of God, and the ten commandments to be the declaration of his will." I am yours, &c.

[blocks in formation]

AVING been favoured with a copy of an excellent

H' discourse, preached at the primary visitation of the

present archdeacon of Essex, by Mr. Cowe, I must beg

leave, through the medium of your useful publication, to suggest to the worthy author, that I think he has adopted an erroneous reading of the text, 1 Tim. iv. 16, "Take heed unto thyself, and unto thy doctrine." It should be the doctrine. Thus it stands in the black letter folio of 1611 (being the first edition of our present version); in the Roman letter, 4to. of 1612; again in the black letter folio of 1617. All these from the correct press of Robert Barker. And it should be observed, that this is perfectly agreeable to the word in the original nanania. Bishop Horsley, in a charge delivered to the diocese of Rochester, in the year 1800, p. 29, 30, &c. fully maintains this to be the true meaning; and has enumerated in a note, many different editions of the bible, in which the true and the correct reading is found; and informs us, that since the year 1756, the true reading seems to have maintained its ground: and after this period the text is correctly given in all the Oxford bibles (except a small Svo of Wright and Gill, in 1770). I am also pleased to find, that this reading is followed in a most elegant edition of the bible, ornamented with engravings, by J. Fittler, and printed by T. Bensley, 1795.

The learned prelate above-mentioned expresses himself in his charge thus forcibly on the subject: "Take heed unto the, not thy doctrine. As if the apostle studiously avoided the form of expression which might seem to imply, that even St. Timothy had any doctrine to deliver of his own. He is enjoined to take heed to the doc-` trine, i. e. to the doctrine delivered by the inspired apostles, and by the authority of the church committed to St. Timothy. And this (says the learned bishop, speaking to the clergy,) must be your rule. You must stick close to the doctrine, to the form of sound words delivered to the saints."

Thus it appears, that the change of a single letter, e for y, in the reading of the text, gives a wrong sense to the passage, and very different from the original

Greek.

Surely then in a discourse preached before the clergy of Middlesex, dedicated to them, and printed at their request, the true reading of the text should have been carefully observed. It is most expedient that the preachers of God's word should be attentive to the editions of the bible, and the correctness of the copies they use,

[blocks in formation]

in the quoting of their texts. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God direct, lest he deceive himself and those that hear him. These observations, I trust, will give no offence to the worthy author of the discourse (whom I much respect, and whose zealous exertions' in the work of the ministry are highly commendable), as they are meant only to rectify an error, which he, in common with others, has fallen into, from an inaccuracy of the printing of many of the copies of our bible; and which the Oxford editions have been careful to correct, and which seems well worthy the attention of the ministers of Christ, and preachers of the gospel, who are required by the apostle to give attendance to reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine.

I remain yours, &c..

Aug. 16, 1806.

CLERICUS.

ON THE TERMS APOSTLES AND PROPHETS.

TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE.

I

GENTLEMEN,

F I have already proved to Mr. Pearson's satisfaction, that the prophets mentioned in 2 Ephes. 20, and 3 Ephes. 5, are prophets not of the Old, but of the New Testament, the task now assigned me seems a very easy one; which is, to shew that the terms apostles and prophets, in those alleged texts, are predicated of the same

persons.

I allow that in 1 Cor. 12, 28, 9, 30, a diversity of persons and orders is specified. In the primitive church there were apostles, prophets, teachers, and men endued with the power of working miracles and healing diseases there were others who were fellow-helpers with their brethren, assisting in the government of the Church; whilst others, again, had the gift of speaking divers tongues. Some of these were denominated apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 4 Ephes. 11; but, doubtless, there were some who acted in all these characters, some

to

to whom all these descriptions of person and office were applicable; and such I conclude the TWELVE to have been.---St. John, and St. Peter, and St. Paul were apostles and also prophets, in the strongest sense of the latter word; and surely the other apostles were prophets, at least in the second sense of the word, defined, by Parkhurst, to be persons speaking by divine inspiration, whether they foretel future events or not.

In the first century of the Christian church, a person might be a teacher, a worker of miracles, one who had the gift of healing, a helper in the affairs of the church, or a governor in it, or one who spake with tongues; yet he might not be an apostle likewise: and this is just the case of the SEVENTY. But though all were not apostles, though all were not prophets in every sense of the word, though all were not teachers, or workers of miracles, or endued with the faculty of healing, or of speaking, or interpreting tongues; yet, doubtless, the TWELVE, and St. Paul, were both apostles and prophets. All were not evangelists in the popular sense of the word, as having composed a gospel; yet many were evange lists in the secondary meaning of the term, viz. Preachers of the gospel. Four of the TWELVE are styled evangelists, but all were apostles, and all were prophets; and/ upon them the church was built, JESUS CHRIST himself being the chief corner-stone. Esto perpetua! so prayeth the least and bumblest of the church's sons and servants, A LONDON CURATE.

Aug. 4, 1806.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

N addition to the remarks of your judicious correspondent IOTA, on the absurdity of Mr. Samuel Brett's narrative, p. 8 of your number for July, permit me to observe, that this fictitious account of a Jewish council was called in question, almost immediately upon

its

« AnteriorContinuar »