« AnteriorContinuar »
108 On the Terms Apostles and Prophets. in the quoting of their texts. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God direct, lest he deceive bimself 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 bave 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 reada ing, to exhortation, and to doctrine. I remain yours, &c.
CLERICUS. Aug. 16, 1806.
ON THE TERMS APOSTLES AND PROPHETS.
TO THE EDITORS
OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S
GENTLEMEN, F I have already proved to Mr. Pearson's satisfaction,
that the prophets mentioned in 2 Ephes. 80, 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 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 evangelists in the secondary meaning of the term, viz. Preache ers 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.
OBSERVATIONS ON THE RED SEA.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S
spondent lota, on the absurdity of Mr. Samuel Breti'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 publication, by those most competent to judge of its truth. The learned Manasseh ben Israel, in his “ Defence of the. Jews,” published in 1656, (the very next year to that in which Brett's narrative appearedy and reprinted in the second volume of that evil-intentioned compilation The Phænix, observes (Ph. vol. 2. p. 401. §. 17) “ And many other things have been reported of us, that never entered into the thoughts of our Nation ; as I have seen a fabulous Narrative of the Proceedings of a great Council of the Jews, assembled in the Plain of Ageda, in Hungary, to determine whether the Messiah were come or no.
With respect to the Red Sea, p. 9, it may be observed that, in the Hebrew, not a word as to its redness appears. The original, which we translated by Red Sea, is 910 D' or.“ the sea of weeds,” which name it probably acquired from the immense quantities of coral at its bottom. Vide Bruce's Travels, vol. 1. p. 237. Now, though I am willing to believe that “ Ferdinand Mendez Pinto was but a type of ” Mr. Samuel Brett, yet I should be as credulous as Mr. Granville Sharp, if this historian of fictitious councils related nothing more improbable than his account of the Red Sea : for though he is contradicted by Bruce, he is supported by Browne.
“ As to what fanciful people have said of any redness in the sea itself, or colour in the bottom, the reader may assure himself all this is fiction, the Red Sea being in colour nothing different from the Indian, or any other ocean." Bruce, ut supra.
“ At Suez I observed in the shallow parts of the adjacent sea, a species of weed, which in the sunshine appeared to be red coral, being of a hue between scarlet and crimson, and of a spongy feel and quality. I know not if any use be made of it, nor am I acquainted with its Arabic name ; but it strikes me, that, if found in great quantities at any former period, it may have given the recent name to this sea; for this was the Arabian gulph of the ancients, whose Mare Erythraum, or Red Sea, was the Indian Ocean. This weed may perhaps be the 90 of the Hebrews;
name for this sea.” Browne's Travels in Africa, Egypt, and Syria, p. 177.
I am, Sir,
ים סוף whence
TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S
CAY I be permitted, with great deference to his
better judgment, to make an observation on a note by the very learned BP. Burgess, in one of his excellent Easter Catechisms; p. 155 ?--- His lordship, says, that “WV FY TW vqaww,” 3 John 13, should be translated, not, as it stands in our version, “which is," but,
or which was in Heaven.”---I have always looked upon this expression as designating the Deity of Christ; who was in Heaven by virtue of his divine nature, at the same point of time in which he conversed here on earth with the ruler of the Jews, in bis human capacity. The bishop Says also, that « ο ων εις τον κολπον τα πατρος,
1. John 18, rendered in our version, “ which is in ihe bosom of the Father,” should be translated " which was.” But CHRIST was invested with two natures, the divine and the human. His Godhead was not laid aside whilst he appeared in our flesh; the manhood was taken into God; arit God and man formed one Christ; and therefore I conclude that there is nothing improper in supposing his spirit to fill the heavens, and to repose in the bosom of the Father, even during the time that the human body, in which he veiled the glories of his native divinity, continued here on earth.
sex is the participle present; but on some occasions, Christ's co-existence with the Father is spoken of in the past time. Thus in í John 1, it is written “the word was with God,” ην προς τον Θεον ;” now why should the past time be here used, except for the purpose of marking what had been the condition of the Acos in the beginning? But as the present tiine is expressed by o wy, why should this asticle and participle be rendered in the past tiine, iņ 3 John 13, or in 1 John 13? May we safely confound these distinctions? If so, what shall we do with St. John's language in the Revelation, where he speaks of CHRIST as ο ων, και ο ην, και ο ερχομενος ?” We may not blend the past and the future with the present time here; then why should we do so in the other specified texts? Very humbly submitted by
A LONDON CURATE. August 4, 1806.
EXTRAORDINARY VISITATION SERMON.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S
ful and judicious Magazine, to maintain and defend the doctrine and discipline of the established church, and to guard the same against the bold encroachments of heterodoxy, I think it incumbent on me, as a well-wisher to the saine cause, to give you some account of a most audacious attack which I lately heard made upon the most essential articles of her doctrine, in a sermon preached at a visitation in the county of Essex. The preacher, a clergyman holding a benefice in that
county, took his text from the first chap. of St. John's Gospel, and the 15th verse: “We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” From these words, and from some other pas. sages in the gospels, in which Jesus is spoken of as the carpenter's son, and the son of Joseph, he boldly affirmed that he was the son of Joseph and Mary by natural generation; and that every passage in Moses and the prophets in which there is any allusion to the Messiah, confirms the truth of that fact. You will probably suppose that the first and second chapters of the Gospel of St. Matthew, and the prophecies to which the apostle alludes in them, would have stood in his way; but no such thing, he maintained that these two chapters were gross aud palpable forgeries, and that the prophecies quoted in them did not bear the least reference to the Messiah; and especially that the remarkable prophecy in the 14th verse of the 7th chapter of Isaiah,' Behold a' virgin shall conceive and beur a son, &c. wholly referred to the temporal circumstances of the Jewishi nation, and was literally accomplished within a few years. The other prophecies quoted in those two chapters from Jeremiali and Hosea, the murder of the Innocents by Herod, and the dreams and flight of Joseph into Egypt, he treated with absolute de. rision and contempt: and for a full confirmation and illustration of the truth of all he had asserted, he referred