Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

the reading adopted by Griesbach in the 3d, αποστέλλει for ἀποστελεῖ, seem to us to have arisen from a desire to bring Matthew into better harmony with the other evangelists. We should therefore adhere throughout to the common reading, but should be disposed to give ourselves little trouble in explaining the circumstance of there being two animals, on which we cannot implicitly depend. Our author has some good remarks on this passage, but seems, from his note on ver. 5, and the pains he takes about airy, ver. 7, to have been a good deal embarrassed by the mention of the two animals.

The note on Matt. xxviii. 19, is remarkable for passing in silence the argument for the Trinity, probably as being, in our author's opinion, too plain to need illustration. It does, however, after a dissertation on infant baptism, on which we shall not now dwell, introduce a very important question, which has an immediate bearing on the doctrinal application of the text, whether the words of our Lord contain a formula of baptism prescribed by him, or whether they indicate the end and purpose of baptism—we should rather say, the subjects of the instruction to which baptism was the introduction. Our readers will perceive that the argument of Trinitarians is founded on the first supposition. It is acknowledged that the mention, in one place, of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, cannot establish their united and equal deity, nor even the personality of each; but it is contended that the baptismal formula implies a dedication to all three, or a joint invocation of them. Supposing a formula, we should be content with the explanations of it which Mr. B., after Wetstein, has given from the Apostolical Constitutions and Canons (supposititious works, probably of the fourth century): "The Father is mentioned as the cause, the Son as the messenger, the Spirit as the witness. We make known to you that there is one only God, the ruler of all things, with whom is no other, and that you should pay religious homage and worship to him only through Jesus Christ our Lord, in the Holy Spirit,' &c. These passages clearly recognize the supremacy of the Father, and leave us to form our opinions from other places of the nature of Christ and the personality of the Spirit.

Mr. B. decides in favour of the formula; we must confess that our judgment greatly inclines against it. Our author's is the more common opinion; ours is that of "Piscator and Gataker, and, in our own day, of many German theologians, especially Kuinoel." A statement of the arguments on both sides is given from Kuinoel, which will shew many who had before no conception of it, the great uncertainty, to say the least, of any formula being given; it does not, however, entirely express our views. We should say that the leading object of the passage is to direct the apostles as to the subjects of their teaching, and that baptizing is but incidentally named as the ordinary method of receiving disciples for instruction in the doctrines of the master whose authority, by submitting to that ceremony, they acknowledged. With Schleusner we take vua to be redundant. Such expressions as "baptizing into Christ" and "into Moses," "into the name of the Lord Jesus," "into the name of Paul," fully justify us. Being baptized into the name of, or into, any messenger of God, is acknowledging the authority of that person to teach, and being introduced into instruction concerning him and his doctrine-to be baptized into any thing, doctrine, or subject, or into the name of it-is to be admitted to instruction by those who baptized upon that subject. The Samaritans circumcised into the name of Mount Gerizim, i, e. they used the rite of circumcision as an admission to a religion distinguished by the doctrine that this mountain was the place to worship God. So we may understand what the Apostle Paul says, (Rom. vi. 3,) that "as many of us as were baptized

into Christ Jesus, were baptized into his death." If we have at all entered upon Christian instruction, the death of Christ must have been brought before us as a subject of such leading importance, that it might be said to be for the sake of that subject, with express reference to it, that we were baptized, whence we are led to the following allegorical representation of the change produced by the reception of the Gospel. Now we observe, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, may be very well taken for doctrine or instruction upon those subjects, which in fact are those upon which instruction was particularly needed-the mutual relation of God and Christ illustrating the character and dealings of the Father; the dignity and autho rity of the Son; and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were promised to the faithful as the means of convincing others, and a constant witness to themselves of the truth of what they had believed.

These were the subjects respecting which the apostles were to instruct their converts, or into the name of which they were to baptize them, and thus the text is, we think, best understood, not as a formula for administering a rite, but as a direction to the first ministers of the gospel, which recognizes baptizing as the ordinary mode of receiving disciples. "Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;" the particulars respecting God and Christ, expressed by the words Father and Son, and the promised gifts of the Spirit being the points respecting which instruction was most needed"teaching them to observe" (this is part of the same sentence, and the word teaching expresses nearly the same as baptizing into the name of) "whatsoever I have commanded you." We should think that an attention to the connexion of the twentieth with the nineteenth verse might sufficiently prove that the latter cannot be accounted a formula.

ART. III. Observations on the History and Doctrine of Christianity, and, as historically connected, on the Primeval Religion, on the Judaic, and on the Heathen, Public, Mystical, and Philosophical; the Latter proposed as an Appendix to the Political and Military History of Greece. By William Mitford, Esq. 12mo. pp. 192 and 198. Rodwell and Martin.

THIS little volume has been some time before the public; but we are induced to take this late notice of it, on account of the many valuable criticisms and remarks which it contains, and which derive weight from the learning and celebrity of the author. Mr. Mitford is the well-known historian of Greece. His merits in that character are disputed. All admit his erudition; but his prejudices in favour of the aristocracy, which he scruples not to avow, have given an evident bias to his pen, and determined his estimate of characters and events. He writes Grecian history as an English Tory, and as if he were fearful that his pages should be soiled by mechanic thumbs or turned over any where but in the drawing-room. A greater fault could scarcely be attributed to an historic writer. Still, his learning, his independence of former historians, and his earnestness and laboriousness, give no small value to his work, which will always be consulted by scholars, though, if we read the book of fate aright, it will never be much used by the

Whilst we are reading this proof-sheet, we learn with regret the death of Mr. Mitford. His death is rather oddly announced as a loss to his brother, Lord Redesdale.

people. The author's style is indeed a bar to its popularity; for he affects involved sentences and crabbed phrases, as if he wished to warn off the public liking, and to inscribe upon his composition as well as upon his sentiments the motto of Noli me tangere.

Now this very character of Mr. Mitford as a writer enhances in our view the importance of the present work, which he wishes to be considered as supplementary to his historic volumes. We have here the reflections which he made and the conclusions which he drew in his long and laborious course of Greek reading. He is no reformer, but he is too aristocratic to submit to the dictation of the priest. He is not a student of theology, properly so called, and indeed confesses his unacquaintedness with some English books which we are too prone to regard as known of necessity to every man who is in any degree entitled to the name of a scholar. For this very reason, some of his observations are of more value: though not uncommon, they are original as to the writer, and from this circumstance serve to confirm more strongly the reasonings and conclusions of preceding writers. So far from wondering at this gentleman's little knowledge of theological works, we may well be astonished that, amidst the active duties of the military profession, he should have been able to acquire such stores of Greek learning, and to have digested his extensive reading into such profitable order; and we are really surprised that with his occupations, and what we may, without offence, we hope, call his prejudices, he should, in so many instances, have formed such a rational scheme of scriptural interpretation and so liberal a system of religion. His is the testimony of a layman, and is on every account to be hailed by that large and happily increasing number of scholars and Christians who place that which is agreeable to evidence and reason above that which is acceptable with the multitude, and who regard orthodoxy as lighter than air when placed in the scales against truth.

Mr. Mitford's book is divided into two Parts, and these again into Sections. Following these, and in what is paged as another volume, are some Letters to a Friend, partly in apology for, and partly in explanation of, the preceding Observations.

The First Section of Part I. is entitled, "Apology for the UndertakingFoundation of Faith." Here we find some remarks savouring of a truly Protestant spirit: the Bible alone is represented as the authority for matters of faith, and the Bible only, as every one, with such instruction as he may obtain, can understand it. (P. 4.) The author wishes to avoid offence both to sectaries and to many of the Church of England, especially ecclesiastics, but this he fears is impossible: he avows himself a member of the Church of England, but disclaims the persuasion of her infallibility. (Pp. 6, 7.) He further makes up his mind to incur the disapprobation of those of our legislators that are in favour of Catholic emancipation, which in his judgment is wholly incompatible with the safety of our Protestant establishment. Why he should have thus deprecated the displeasure of liberal statesmen, we can hardly conjecture. Possibly, he felt that he was about to surprise some of his admirers with his free private thoughts, and hoped that he should quiet their apprehensions in part by declaring beforehand that he reserved one at least of his former habits of reasoning. Then follow some sensible, or, as in the phrase now in vogue they may be called, philosophical, reflections upon Theism.

Section II. is "Of Creeds and Prayer." Under this head the author makes some excellent remarks upon the Apostles' Creed. He points out the additions that have been made to this venerable symbol, which have, he

thinks, injured it greatly; and pronounces, that were it reduced to its original purity, it would be unexceptionable, and for the great body of Christians, even at this day, useful. A passing remark discloses his small valuation of the creed "called of St. Athanasius" (pp. 17-19), his full judgment on which we shall hereafter have the pleasure of laying before the reader. He complains of the tediousness of the Liturgy of the Church of England, in which the frequent repetition of the Lord's Prayer, objected to by some churchmen, is to his mind a relief (pp. 20, 21); an exculpatory observation, for which the regular eulogists of "the best-constituted church in the world," will, assuredly, not thank him.

The IIIrd Section is "Of the Lord's Prayer," a subject partly anticipated in the conclusion of the Second, where he quotes some of the sentiments of Socrates, who, in one of his well-known prayers, nearly approached the spirit and even the language of this admirable form. The several phrases of the Lord's Prayer are here commented on and shewn to teach the justice and goodness of the Almighty; and the use of the whole of "this short but comprehensive prayer, declaring our belief in Almighty God, to whom it is addressed, implies also" (says the annotator) "our faith in the birth, doctrine, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as related in the Gospels which give us the prayer." (Pp. 31, 32.)

The heads of Section IV. are "The Old Testament. History of the Creation. Probation the Purpose of Man's being on Earth. Fall of Man." The author speaks his mind freely concerning the book of Genesis:

"If, then, under all the circumstances known of a book so old as that describing the creation and the immediately following events, order occasionally fails; if repetitions here and there seem to mark some derangement of the narrative; if omission or transposition of some words may appear indicated; if the sense of a word or a phrase is occasionally disputable; I esteem these to be proofs of the honesty of those who, having found a work, so altogether valuable, in that state, scrupling to use their ingenuity for its correction, have given it to posterity exactly as they found it. With the great critic of antiquity, (supposed a heathen, though how far, or whether at all, disapproving the better doctrine of Christianity, which must have been known to him, none can tell,) I can admire the occasional sublimity of the account of the creation, and say with him, that its author was no ordinary man,' notwithstanding that the very first words, In the beginning,' as they stand in the English and Septuagint translations, are to me unintelligible.”—Pp. 36, 37.

On the origin of evil, Mr. Mitford could not be expected to throw any light. He is in doubt whether the account of the fall of our first parents should be taken according to the letter, or as allegory and parable. What is clearly stated by the historian, and confirmed by frequent reference to it in following passages of Holy Writ, is (he says, pp. 44, 45), "that our first parents were subjected to trial, in which they were found failing; and for their failure were punished in this life."

[ocr errors]

Section V. is entitled "Death of the Body. Institution of Sacrifice." Mr. Mitford understands the threatening against the disobedience of Adam and Eve to imply only natural death. He observes, "that in Sebastian Castellio's Latin Translation of the Bible, made for King Edward the Sixth, the expression (Gen. ii. 17) on the day' is omitted, so that the sense is' simply, thou shalt die,' without declaring when." He says that, not being versed in Hebrew, he knows not what may warrant the omission, but the context satisfies him that the historian meant, "On the day on which thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely become mortal." (Note, pp. 46, 47.) This is a proof of Mr. Mitford's sagacity: he repeats, without being aware of it,

one of the most ancient interpretations of the words that is extant.

"Morte

morieris.] Vires tuæ, sustentatæ ante per arborem vitæ, deficient: quæ via est ad mortem. Syri interpretes hîc habebant, mortalis eris: quod notant Ambrosius et Hieronymus." Grotii Annot. ad loc.

Mr. Mitford's theory of the origin and design of sacrifice will scarcely satisfy the typifying divines of our day:

[ocr errors]

Presently, then, after the account of the fall, a matter is related altogether strongly commanding observation, but, in part, of questioned import. Saerifice, without any previous notice of such a rite, is mentioned in clear terms as an established duty of man, and as the means still graciously afforded by the Creator for immediate communication with himself. Together with the condemnation to mortality, it had been declared that the spontaneous productions of the earth should no longer suffice for man's subsistence; by his labour he was thenceforward to earn his bread. It seems to me then enough implied that, with the institution of the rite of sacrifice, the grant, in a following part of Scripture distinctly stated, of every inferior animal as lawful food for man, was made to Adam on his removal from Paradise; thenceforward wanted, not only as of quality best supplying the failure of the life-preserving fruit, but also, as the world into which he was turned is constituted, farther necessary for maintaining the multitudes to be born in it. Man's constitution, however, remaining, as far as holy writ informs us, unaltered, animal flesh in its natural state was not suited to his power of digestion, as to that of the inferior carnivorous animals: the agency of fire, which man was endowed with ability to produce and use, with art of preparation, easy to him, but not within their capacity, were requisite.

"The combination here then is eminently remarkable. When man, sinful and perishable, was suddenly turned from the ready plenty of Eden into the wide world; not to be led, as the inferior animals, by instinct, but endowed with reason, yet reason uninformed and unexperienced, he would often want instruction, both for supplying his needs and performing his duties. Accordingly the Almighty still graciously allowed immediate communication with himself, through the rite of burnt-offering, which was to hallow the meal of meat insuing; for it is abundantly marked in Scripture, and by heathen writers, that the sacrifice, among both Jews and Gentiles, always afforded a meal. That meal, though thenceforward a main support of life and strength, must have been, till familiarity produced reconciliation to it, disgusting both in preparation and in use. But its religious purpose is obvious. Man was thus at once reminded of his degradation and of his final lot in this world; the salutary severity nevertheless being softened by the appointment of that very rite of burnt-offering, with all its degrading circumstances, for the exercise of his yet high privilege, peculiar to himself among surrounding animals, of communicating with his Creator."-Pp. 48–51.

He points out the "near concurrence of heathen customs derived from remotest antiquity, with the law given by divine authority to the posterity of Abraham." In both, "the meal of meat" was a sacred ceremony; insomuch that Xenophon has described cattle, taken for the subsistence of a plundering army, by the title of 'Iega, sacrificial offerings. In some of the Grecian states the public sacrifices furnished a principal part of the subsistence of the poor. The author might have observed, that some of the Apostle Paul's counsels to the churches were occasioned by this fact, which was not a little embarrassing to the first Christian converts in Heathen countries.

It is suggested in a note, (p. 54,) "that the word murder should not be applied to Cain's act, at least without explanation. The degree of favour shewn by the Almighty to Cain might admonish, that to estimate his crime we are not furnished with sufficient information, and that to define it, therefore, must be rash."

« ПредишнаНапред »