Page images
PDF
EPUB

nant of grace," it is obvious that, without such faith, his household would have continued strangers to that Covenant. But the sign" of the OLD Covenant" was given to every Proselyte and to his children also, upon his turning from dumb idols to serve the living God; his children were included with himself, and by reason of his faith, in that Covenant: whereas, in this case, the faith of the Christian convert would not bring his children within "the NEW Covenant!" Yet Dean Alford babbles about the identity of the two Covenants as being equally "the Covenant of grace!" He might as reasonably insist that identity means dissimilarity; and he would certainly be as much entitled to the confidence of his readers in doing so, as he is in the contradictory comments we have quoted.

But let us take some other illustrations of his trustworthiness as a commentator. On Acts ii. 38, he writes "here we have the first mention and administration of CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. . The Apostles and first believers were not thus baptized, because (ch. i. 5) they had received the BAPTISM BY THE HOLY GHOST, the thing signified, which superseded that by water, the outward and visible sign." The statement is positive that the

[ocr errors]

Baptism by the Holy Ghost superseded that by water;" but on ch. xix. 5, the Dean writes, " in all probability, in the cases of the majority of the original disciples, the greater Baptism by the Holy Ghost and fire on the day of Pentecost, superseded the outward form or sign." The certainty had thus dwindled into a probability!

Yet on ch. xi. 16, his words are" This prophecy of the Lord was spoken to His assembled followers and promised to them that Baptism which was the completion and aim of the inferior Baptism by water administered to them by John:" so that unless to supersede" and to "complete" mean the same thing, we have here a pretty contradiction in terms. But the confusion of the Dean is yet further confounded in ch. x. 44, 47, where, com

[ocr errors]

menting on the gift of the Holy Ghost to Cornelius and his friends, he thus writes:" The fire of the Lord fell

conferring on them the substance before the symbol-the Baptism with the Holy Ghost before the Baptism with water: and teaching us, that as the Holy Spirit dispensed once and for all with the necessity of circumcision in the flesh, so can He also, when it pleases Him, with the necessity of water Baptism: and warning the Christian church not to put Baptism itself in the place which circumcision once held:" "the water..

[ocr errors]

the Holy Ghost. The Two great PARTS of full and complete Baptism: the latter infinitely greater than, but not superseding the necessity of the former :" so that Baptism, it seems, is not come "in the place" of Circumcision, and, as the narrative shows, "the substance" may be given without “superseding the necessity of," or even completing the symbol" to be used in consequence of its reception. What Dean Alford means by saying that the Holy Ghost "can, when it pleases Him, dispense with the necessity of waterbaptism," is by no means clear. If he intends to teach that the Holy Ghost does not tie the manifestation of His life-giving, or regenerating, grace to Baptism, we agree with him; though, in that case, he does not agree with himself in his commentary on Titus iii. 5; for he there writes-"The font is the 'laver of regeneration,' because it is the vessel consecrated to the use of that Sacrament, whereby, in its completeness the new life unto God is conveyed. And inasmuch as it is in that font, and when we are in it, that the first breath of that life is drawn, it is the laver of-belonging to, pertaining to, setting forth-regeneration... BAPTISMAL REGENERATION is the distinguishing doctrine of the New Covenant not the mere Ecclesiastical act, not the mere fact of reception by that act among God's professing people, but that completed by the Divine act, manifested by the operation of the Holy Ghost in the heart and through the life." If this be true, when Simon Magus

was "in the font" that "act" of baptism was "completed by the Divine act" of the Holy Ghost, who then and there conveyed "the new life unto God" into his soul. But not even Dean Alford would be bold enough to endorse such a statement; as his note upon the case (though consisting only of passages quoted from Mander and Calvin) shows. And again, if "the new life unto God is conveyed in the font, and when we are in it," with reverence be it written and said, the Holy Ghost cannot dispense with water-baptism, since, in that case, He could not "life unto God!" But if, as convey the history of Cornelius proves, that "life unto God" can be communicated apart from, or if the Dean prefer, prior to, water-baptism, it is manifest that the action of the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of life is not, in any sense whatsoever contingent upon that baptism. But, if he contend that in the foregoing phrase, he meant to teach that the Holy Ghost " can, when it pleases Him," dispense with our Lord's appointment of Baptism, we not only deny the allegation, but venture to remind the Dean that it is irreconcileable with the whole tenor of the New Testament Scriptures. His own comment on ch. ix. 17, may reprove him for his error: "Great honor was here placed on the sacrament of Baptism, inasmuch as not even Saul, who had seen the Lord in special revelation, and was an elect vessel [and let us add, according to verses 16, 18, had received his sight, and been filled with the Holy Ghost, was permitted to dispense with this, the Lord's appointed way of admission into his church!"

In the case of the Ephesian disciples, narrated in ch. xix. 1-5, the Dean writes thus on Paul's question:

"Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye believed? i. e., on your becoming believers, had you the gifts of the Spirit conferred on you? as in ch. viii. 16, 17. This is both grammatically necessary and absolutely demanded by the sense; the enquiry being, not as to any reception of the Holy Ghost during the period since

their Baptism, but as to one simultaneous with their first reception into the Church; and their not having then received Him is accounted for by the deficiency of their Baptism." Again we have to ask the Dean to explain his meaning. What was the "deficiency of their Baptism ?" Was it, as we believe, that they were not baptized into Christ? or was it the non-bestowal of the Holy Ghost simultaneously with their Baptism? We suppose the Dean to intend the latter. Does he then mean that the disciples in Samaria who had been "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," had received a defective baptism? Is not everything "essential to this sacrament" to be found in the "matter" and "words" with which it is administered, so that baptism "in water" and "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," is complete, and according to the institution of Christ? Or does he maintain the preposterous dogma that the. baptism of John was the first reception of his disciples into Christ's Church? The expositor evidently requires to be expounded.

It will not surprise our readers to find Dean Alford making other erroneous statements about the subjects and the mode of baptism. In his note on Acts ii. 39, he dishonestly says"Thus we have a providential recog nition of Infant-baptism at the very founding of the Christian Church;" whereas the text says nothing of the baptism of any persons whatsoever, but speaks only of the promise of God by Joel, which had been previously quoted by St. Peter. In his note on ch. ii. 41, he writes:-"Almost without doubt, this first baptism must have been administered as that of the first Gentile converts was (see ch. x, 47, and note), by affusion or sprinkling, not The immersion of by immersion. 3,000 persons in a city so sparingly furnished with water as Jerusalem, is equally inconceivable with a proces sion beyond the walls to the Kedron, or to Siloam, for that purpose." The note on ch. x, 47, to which we are re

ferred is as follows:-" Can any forbid the water to those who have received the Spirit"? The expression "forbid," used with "the water," is interesting, as showing that the practice was to bring the water to the candidates, not the candidates to the water This, which would be implied by the word under any circumstances, is rendered certain, when we remember that they were assembled in the house." It affords some satisfaction to find that the Dean, if "almost," is not altogether "without doubt" about the administration of "this first baptism." We do not care to answer his unscholarly assertions in more than a word or two. THE DEAN KNOWS THAT THE VERB βαπτίζω NEVER MEANS TO SPRINKLE ; so that Luke propagates an untruth if the people were sprinkled, who, he says, were immersed! We need not say that Luke wrote Greek with sufficient accuracy and precision not to have made a mistake in so remarkable a narrative. And as to the ridiculous plea which has been raised on the word "forbid," it carries its condemnation in its front. No one can doubt that it is merely a shuffling attempt to wriggle out of the plain statements of the historian.

We had marked a few other passages for contrast and condemnation, but we have already exceeded our customary limits in noticing this book. Upon the evidence which we have now placed in the hands of our readers, we pronounce Dean Alford an inaccurate and untrustworthy expositor of the New Testament whenever it refers to the question of Baptism: nor will he have reason to complain if we add that such tampering with the sacred narrative, as we have proved against him on one subject, must awaken doubts upon all other interpretations that could reflect his ecclesiastical opinions. The extensive sale of his successive editions of the Greek Testament may have led scholars to notice the faults we have pointed out, but we have never met with any allusion to them; and we have, therefore, thought it our duty to put "English readers"

[ocr errors][merged small]

The Story of the Lives of Carey, Marshman, and Ward. By J. C. MARSHMAN. London: Strahan and Co. 1864. 391 pp. post 8vo.

It is with great pleasure that we receive the people's edition of the lives of the founders of the Serampore mission. To a great extent Mr. Marshman has re-written his very valuable work, and by condensation and partial omissions embodied in this handy volume all that is important and of permanent interest in the two volumes of which the first edition consisted. Without entirely passing over the painful controversies of later years, Mr. Marshman has omitted a great deal that was by no means requisite to a candid and fair appreciation of the merits of the case, while he has done justice to the high Christian motives of the parties to the strife. The present condition of India and its missions, gives to this volume an unusual interest. Looking back over the three quarters of a century since Carey landed in Bengal, it is surprising to note how great are the changes that have taken place, and most interesting to observe how many of them have their root in the labours of the missionaries of Serampore. They were the first to awaken the attention of the government of India, as well as the people of England, to the cruelties practised as sacred rites by the Hindus, and to point out with how little interference with the ancient religious laws of the Shastres many of them could be abolished. The awful infanticide at Saugor island was then stopped. They furnished Lord W. Bentinck with the great body of facts which enabled him, without a murmur from the Hindus, to quench the fires of Suttee. They protested against the connection of the State with Juggernauth and the innumerable idol temples to which, for many years the Indian

statesmen clung with the false impression that Britain's hold upon the country depended, not only on the impartiality and wisdom of their rule, but on their subservience to the superstitions of the people. On them fell the brunt of the conflict, success in which opened India to the missionaries of the Cross. They won for all others that "liberty of prophesying" which all denominations now enjoy. It was in conjunction with their labour that Fuller, aided by the eminent Wilberforce at home, secured the passing of the clause in the East India Company's charter in 1813, by which missionaries and schoolmasters were allowed free access to Hindustan. With facts supplied from Serampore, the first secretary of our Missionary Society fought the Brahminised English advocates of Hindustan and exclusion, and overthrew the hosts led by Edinburgh reviewers, and officered by a Twining and a Scott Waring. Mr. Marshman has recounted the events of this remarkable period of missionary history with great care. In no part of his life

In

was the massive force of the intellect of Andrew Fuller more apparent. It was his noble work both to create a revolution in theological thought, and to lay the foundations of the missionary period of the Christian Church of these modern times. But more especially were the Serampore missionaries the pioneers in every good work that could aid the social and religious improvement of the people in India. the infancy of modern missions it fell to their lot to test and exemplify the principles in which they must be conducted. With them originated the plans afterwards adopted by the British and Foreign Bible Society, to give the Bible to the natives of the East in their own tongues, and largely did they themselves contribute to their accomplishment. The impulse they gave to Biblical translation still continues to operate, both to the improvement of their own versions, which, being the first, must necessarily have been imperfect, and to the preparation of new ones in languages

hitherto unprovided with this Divine gift. They settled the question of the observance of caste among the members of the Christian community, insisting from the first that, among the disciples of Christ, there should be a complete brotherhood of privilege and affection; thereby avoiding the evils which have so seriously embarrassed the older missions of Southern India. They established the first native school for heathen children in Hindustan, and organised the first college for the training of native catechists and evangelists. Dr. Carey was the first prose writer in the Bengali language. In 1801 not a single prose work was found to exist in it. The pundits who monopolised all learning despised the vernacular on the plea that Sanscrit alone was worthy of study or of use. Now, thousands of volumes are annually poured forth by the Bengali press of Calcutta, but the germ of this vast literature must be traced to the missionary press of Serampore. Grammars and lexicons proceeded from the same prolific source, and the first Bengali newspaper, and the first religious periodical, started into being at Serampore. "In all the departments of missionary labour and intellectual improvement," says Mr. Marshman, "they led the way, and it is on the broad foundation which they were en abled to lay, that the edifice of modern Indian missions has been erected." The issue of this volume is most timely, when our mission is passing through a crisis of no common sort. We trust that it will have a wide circulation. The ease and purity of the style render the work most attractive reading, while the narrative itself is calculated to quicken the missionary spirit, and to stir us up to emulate the deeds of the great men whose devotedness to the Saviour it records.

The Holy Gospels; Translated from the Original Greek; the Spurious pas sages expunged; the Doubtful brac keted; and the whole revised after the texts of Griesbach, Lachmann,

Tischendorf, Alford, and Tregelles.
With Notes and Critical appendix.
By G. WILLIAM BRAMELD, M.A. of
Lincoln College, Oxford, Vicar of
East Markham. London: Long-
man. 1863.

We welcome this new contribution towards a correct translation of the New Testament into English, as sure to foster the desire for that which is the special want of our times. A great stride will be taken towards Christian union, when all Englishmen, whether in the ministry or not, shall use a faithful version of the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles who have been inspired of God to write for our learning; for they will then be led to reconsider many matters which are ignorantly supposed to be settled by our authorized version.

Mr. Brameld has not prepared his translation for advanced Biblical students, but for those who are "less advanced," in the hope, as he tells us, "that it may perhaps tend to excite in their minds an interest in the subject, which may lead them hereafter to consult, with certain profit to themselves, the works of Dean Alford, Mr. Highton, and other eminent scholars." In this lies the defect of his work. We very strongly feel, and would commend it to Mr. Brameld's serious consideration, that every tentative publication of this kind should be prepared for advanced scholars only. They alone are competent to determine its merits; and until they are satisfied, it is worse than useless to expect that steps will be taken to secure a revision of the Authorized Version. We have no sympathy with those who refuse to look the difficulties raised by true (and therefore reverential) criticism in the face. The Textus Receptus on which our version is founded is notoriously incorrect in many places. It admits sentences for which there is no authority in the oldest MSS., and which ought to be rejected by all men-e.g., Acts viii. 37, and 1. John, v. 7, and retains many readings which are certainly erroneous. By the blessing of God on the labours of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Scrive

ner, we hope we shall ere long have a text which will secure the suffrages of the learned throughout the world, and then it will be incumbent on our English scholars to give us as accurate a version for popular use as the most "advanced" scholarship can supply.

We do not like the tone of Mr. Bramold's introduction. It is harsh, and withal seems to us to be very arrogant. It will fail therefore, as we fear, to conciliate regard to the object which he earnestly wishes to promote. And this is the more to be regretted, because a fair and temperate statement of the facts of the case is all that is necessary to make every Christian understand the reasonableness with which Biblical critics of all Christian communions desire to give to their unlearned neighbours a version that shall duly represent the exact scholarship of the age. In the not improbable event of a second edition, Mr. Brameld will do wisely to rewrite the greater part of this introduction,

As to the version itself, we have compared portions of it with Tischendorf's edition, 1849, and commend its general fidelity. But Mr. Brameld does not always translate with preci sion, or consistently follow his authorities. Thus, let us take John xii., which is open before us. In v. 1, Mr. Brameld inserts" who had been dead," which Tischendorf rejects, and Dean Alford timidly brackets. In v. 2, it should be "but Lazarus," instead of "and Lazarus." In v. 3, we see no good reason for not rendering the participle "having taken," or for inserting even so small a word as "and," without any authority, before "anointed." In v. 5 we should render, "why has not this ointment been sold, &c., and given to the poor;" and in v. 6, instead of "carried that which was put therein," "pilfered the contributions." So too in v. 7, instead of "Let her alone, that for the day of my burial she may keep it"-which is manifestly wrong-we should translate, "Forgive her that she kept this for the day of my burial." But, in spite of the want of minute accuracy in reudering various

« EelmineJätka »