« FöregåendeFortsätt »
It appears to me that two, at least, of the topics there discussed are worthy of being laid before your readers.
I had said in note W. of the first edition (X of the se. cond) that is the five prétended additional sacraments of the Roman Catholics are so far from having all the requisites of a sacrament, that we may safely deny their having any one of these requisites belonging to them.” Here, my correspondent observes “Wake says, that not one of the five Ordinances called by the Romanists sácráments have all the conditions required to make a sacrament, and the most part have hardly any. Now oil is an outward and visible sign in extreme ünction, and the joining of hands in Matrimony.-Might not this note be softened?" I answered, that I well remembered taking particular notice of this passage, and thinking that the Archbishop had conceded a great deal too much, which was one of my motives for inserting the note, though I could not then enter into particulars. The use of oil, and the joining of hands, were neither of them “ ordained by Christ himself,” and therefore they aré by no means sacramental. What bids fairest for being sacramental, is the laying on of hands; but if this belonged to any sacrament, it must be to baptism; for our Lord himself did not apply it to any thing like ordination, or confirmation. I have endeavoured to give in the text, what seemed to be a desideratum, a full and completë definition of a sacrament, with a view of distinguishing, as clearly and circumstantially as possible between trué sacraments and false ones. I wish some Divine of very high authority would so effectually fix this boundary line, that there could be no doubt in future; in the mean time thé Note in question is a little softened.
In the next succeeding Note I had observed, that "the best meaning of the words “ baptized in the cloud and in the sea,” (1 Cor. 10-2) appears to be, that they were sprinkled by the dew of the cloud, and by the spray from the dashing waves of the sea.” My correspondent, however, demurred as to this interpretation, alleging that “ the waters were a wall unto the Israelites on the right hand and on the left; and it does not appear that there was either dashing or spray," And he suggested a cuery, “whether this assumption of an unauthenticued fact, might not as well be omitted ?”. I was happy o laving my attention recalled to this subject, as it leads to further
nighether thinking or spray it does Pocaelites le ging that
lled to this down I was uthentic:cauery.
unless this very i think it ought turned, howe
researches, the result of which I shall lay before your readers.
„No direct proof, perhaps, can be produced, that the cloud did emit dew, and the sea spray, on this occasion, unless this very passage of St. Paul may be taken as such direct proof, as I think it ought to be, for reasons which I shall presently mention. I turned, however, imme. diately to such Commentators as were at hand. Hammond talks of a kind of baptizing; Whitby of a resemblance of baptism ; and Groțius says, “quusi baptizati sunt,”all which amount to nothing. The continuation of Poole says, “ there is a great probability that the cloud did shower down rain,” referring us to Psalm 89—7,8,9; and Burkitt says, “ the cloud that did overshadow them, did sometimes bedew, and sprinkle them ;" still we have got but half way towards a solid explanation of the passage. At last a friend sbewed me an old collection of Annotations on the whole Scriptures, in 2 vols. folio, which says, “it is not unlike that they were sprinkled with the one and the other.” This collection is anony. mous, the title-page of vol. 1, and part of the Preface being lost; but the title page of vol. 2, runs thus, “ The second volume of Annotations, &c. By the labour of certain learned Divines thereunto appoinied, and therein. employed. Second edition. London, printed for John Legatt, 1651.” I should be happy to learn who these truly learned Divines were, and by whom employed, who published so excellent a work as it seems to be, not only in such early, but in such dangerous times. Last of all I have met with a note in Guyse's Practical Expositor, which is so much to the point, that I shall transcribe the whole of it. " It is probable," says Esțius, “ that they were sprinkled here and there with drops of water from the sea, which stood upright on both sides, as they passed along, and by the cloud that was spread over them; by which the sacramenț of baptisın might be more evidently signified. Vid. Est, in loe. And if it be supposed that here is an allusion to the mode of baptism, one would think it refers rather to an administration of it by sprinkling than by inmersion; since the Egyptians, that were drowlied in the sea, were baptized by the waters çovering them, rather than the Israelites that went on dry ground, and could be no other way washed than with drops that might fall from the cloud, or the dashing of the waves." Though Guyse was a Dissenter, and tino
tured, perhaps, with the heresy of what are now called true Churchmen, yet it is pretty plain that he was no Anabaptist.
Your learned correspondents could doubtless supply still further authorities; but, independently of all these, let us consider the nature of the thing. I have heard of a Clergyman who used to insist, and very wisely, I think, that if Scripture expressions were but taken in their most plain and obvious sense, they would be pretty sure to explain themselves; of which the present passage is a striking instance. Almost all the critics seem to agree as to the drops from the cloud-the sea, though “standing on an heap,” would retain its natural agitation or dashing at the surface-and the ground, though comparatively called to Empoy dry ground, was yet, we may suppose, somewhat splashy, like all ground recently deserted by water, else there would be an unnecessary miracle; and let me just observe, that where Isaiah speaks of “going over the sea dry-shod," the original word means only in shoes, Now it is scarcely possible to conceive, that the Israelites could have thus passed on, eight or nine miles,
"Twixt upper, nether, and surrounding waters, without having been all of them really, and literally bap.. tized by sprinkling. Reason tells us, that they must have been thus baptized ; and the Holy Spirit declares, in the passage we are considering, that they actually were so; than which, taken together, I cannot easily figure to myself a proof more direct and positive. Nor is this all, for the Apostle goes on to say, “and they did all eat the same spiritual food, and did all drink the same spiritual drink." But we know that they all did actually eat the manna, and drink the miraculous water from the rock, as types of the second sacrament; and therefore analogy requires that they must all have been actually sprinkled, as a type of the first sacrament. All which is strongly in favour of pur present mode of baptismal sprinkling.
You have repeatedly, Sir, honoured me with a place in your pages mutato nomine; but it is necessary that I should now subscribe myself,
And most sincere well-wisher,
BAPTIST NOEL TURNER, July 20, 1804,
ON THE ELECTION IN CLERKENWELL.
TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S
HOPE you will find room in your next number for I a few observations upon the contest now subsisting for the vacant living of St. James, Clerkenwell. If other arguments were wanting against the propriety of popular elections for Church Preferments, the present instance would be enough, in all conscience, to disgust every reasonable mind with such kind of patronage. But I wish rather to call the attention of all true Churchmen to the base, restless, and insidious conduct of the Methodistical tribe on the present occasion; and I wish it to stand exposed as a most glaring proof of their factious and anbitious spirit, eager to seize every opportunity that pres sents itself of sowing the seeds of discord, under the pretence of advancing the Gospel of Peace, and of gaining the superiority under the mask of peculiar humility and holiness.
On the death of the latc incumbent, the most regular and respectable inhabitants of the parish, immediately put in nomination for the living, the Curaté who has las boured among them fourteen years. Such a nomination is alike honourable to the Curate and his congregation, inasmuch as it proves that his conduct during a probation of fourteen years, has been such as to render bim deserying of their approbation and election; and it is hopourable to the parishioners to have so just á feeling of his merits, as to wish his continuance among them in the more permanent station of lucumbent, in preference to a stranger, Notwithstanding this cquitable principle, some of the sectarian inhabitants, wlio turn their backs on the Church and encourage conventicles in the parish ; who are inore disposed to attend the ravings of enthusiasts, ordained or unordained, than their stated minister, directly set up the Rev. Mr. Foster as i candidate for the living; and Mr. Foster, who has been already rejected in this same parish, after the most disgraceful scenes of riot and confusion, condescends to accept the pious call.. These unblushing disturbers of the Church's peace, like the Jacobinical crew, who form the committees of the mob-candidate for Middlesex, hold midnight cabale to eject a hired and approved clergyman from a people who have known his merits fourteen years, and want to obtrude on the parish a man who has a considerable fortune of his own, and a chapel more valuable than most rectories, merely because this last is what they call a preacher of the Gospel, which is a modest way of telling the Parishioners that the Gospel has not been preached in their church these fourteen years, and that this new court of triers and spiritual inquisition only have a right to determine who is the proper or qualified person to be Minister of Clerkenwell. That Mr. Foster would fill the Church may be true enough; but by whom would it be filled; not by the parishioners, but by a motley assemblage gathered from all quarters, thus causing schisın in other parishes, drawing away persons from their lawful pastors, and disturbing the peace and devotion of the inhabitants of a large parish, whose church is barely sufficient for their own accommodation.
But Mr. Foster, in his hypocritical address to the worthy parishioners of Clerkenwell, that is to the sectarian part of them, for the others are not in the number of his Elect, cantingly advises them to conduct themselves with Christian meekness, to preserve peace, and not to return railing for railing.
How the reverend gentleman could pen such advice without blushing, is very extraordinary, when even the language of his own address is a direct violation of all that he recommends to his followers. He shews his own meekness in a very peculiar manner indeed, in thus coming forward as a candidate for a living, when he has been already rejected by a majority of the inhabitants, which is a plain proof that he is unacceptable to them. It is the cant of the men of his party, as it was of the old Puritans, that the people should choose their own pas, tor; if so, on what modest pretence can this person, or his friends, justify their conduct in obtruding him again as a candidate where he has once been, and will no doubt again be refused? Does such a proceeding indicate a: Christian spirit, or will a renewed attempt to create disa cord in a large parish be considered as a proof that Mr. Foster's recominendation of peace is sincere? If he had really been so actuated by meekness and a love of peace, er of common justice, he would have declined any overture