on of hands, or ordaining ministers. Be cautious how you admit men into holy orders ; let them first be proved, and then receive them. The doctrine which thou hast received of me, the same commit thou to faithful men, that they may be able to teach others also. Again, Receive not an accusation against an Elder, but before two or three witnesses. And again, Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour. These directions are given to him as a man in authority, having jurisdiction over the Elders formerly ordained in the Ephesian Churches, with power to degrade them from their office, in case of misdemeanor, and to commend them if they faithfully performed the duties of their station. And here let it be well observed, that unless he was higher in office than they were, they would not be amenable to him for any part of their conduct. It would not be for him to receive accusations against them, to examine witnesses, and if he found them guilty, to rebuke them before all, as he is directed. With respect to Deacons also, the Apostle gives him particular instructions. Likewise must the Deacons, says he, be grave, not double-tongued, &c. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a Deacon, being found blameless Again, they that have used the office of a Deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. That Deacons in the Christian Church are an order of ministers, I think has been already proved from the case of the seven mentioned in the Acts. And Christian writers immediately after the Apostles, frequently and expressly declare, that “the Deacons are the institution of God," and “are ministers of Christ," in the same rank as the Levites were in the Jewish Church. Thus we see that there were two orders of ministers in the Churches of Ephesus, in subordination to Timothy their Bishop. And finally, it is to be observed, that the epistle to the Philippians is addressed to the Bishops, Deacons and Saints at Philippi ; from which it is manifest, that here also, besides the Christian people who are called Sainte, as they are in other places, there were two orders of ministers distinguished by the names of Bishops and Deacons.

And now, from what has been said, it appears, that in the time of the Apostles there were three distinct orders of ministers, by whom the Christian Church generally was governed. So that we may well observe how the government of our mystical Israel was typified in the literal Israel, where the chief Priests, with the Priests and Levites, exactly represented the Christian Apostles, Presbyters and Deacons ; and thus the prediction of Isaiah was accomplished, that God would declare his glory among the Gentiles, even all nations, and take out of them Priests and Levites. Isa. Ixvi. 19. 20. 21.

(To be continued.]


THE difficulty of rendering one language into another, se as to retain completely the sense of the original, is known to be great, by those who are in any measure acquainted with the subject.

And when we consider, that the Scriptures were written in a language that has long since ceased to be spoken, and in an age when very different manners and customs prevailed, from what we now observe ; that difficulty becomes much greater. It is therefore not at all surprizing that, to the mere English reader, there should frequently appear to be a want of perspicuity in the sense, which may create doubts and difficulties. Much less is it wonderful, that under the hands of different translators, there should be a difference, and sometimes an opposition in the sense. Hence, where there is a material difference, a comparison of different translators must be useful, by enabling the unlearned to understand the word of God more correctly. Although our common Bible may be considered as, in the main, sufficiently faithful ; yet a comparison of it with Castellio's latin version, without recurring to the original, will at once evince, that it might in many places be mended. The connection is so much more perspicuous, and the sentiments follow each other in a manner so much more apt and natural, that we are at once led to doubt, whether our English translators have preserved the sense, as dictated by the Holy Spirit, and handed down in the written word. Of this we have an instance in the 7th Psalm, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th verses; which in our Bibles run thus :

11. God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

12. If he turn not, he will whet his sword : he hath bent his bow, and made it ready.

13. He hath also prepared for him the instruments of death : he ordaineth his arrows against the persecutors.

14. Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood.

The objection to this passage turns upon the abrupt transition at the 14th verse ; there being no change of the pronoun, or any thing else, to indicate a change of subject, save the absurdity which would otherwise follow. The Psalmist, by a poetic figure common in scripture, ascribes to God the actions of men, when hostile towards one another. He represents him whetting his sword, bending bis bow, and making it ready against the wicked; and preparing instruments of death for the persecutors : Then it follows, he travaileth with ini. quity, and hath conceived mischief ; which cannot be applied to God, but must be understood of ungodly men ; while there is nothing in the wording that indicates this change of subject. The sense is consequently confused, abrupt, and unnatural.

But according to Castellio's rendering, the transition from God to the wicked is made at the 12th verse, which, it will presently be seen, makes the sense run smooth and natural ; when put into English, thus :

11. God is a righteous Judge : God threateneth every day.

12. But he (that is, the wicked, mine enemy) is so far from correcting himself, that he whets his sword, bende bis bow, and makes it ready;

13. Having collected the instruments of death for this end, and firepared his arrows to attack me;

14. Lo, he travaileth with iniquity ; he conceiveth mischief, and bringeth forth wrong.

Here the three last verses of the passage are all of a piece. They accord with one another, and with what follows. By changing the subject from God to man, the figurative style of our common translation is changed into the plain and simple. And the wicked man is represented in his true character, preparing to execute his malice by dealing death and destruction; conceiving mischief, and bringing forth wrong. This rendering of Castellio is confirmed, by considering what is the scope and design of the whole psalm; which, by its title at the head, appears to be David's vindication of himself, and complaint of the malicious intentions of his enemy. Hence we naturally should look to see him enlarging on the nature and evidences of such evil designs, rather than on the power and justice of God to restrain and punish them: which he has done by Castellio's rendering of the passage under consideration. And on the whole, as the sense is more perspicuous and natural, than in our common Bible translation, it should have the preference, as probably most conformable to the sense of the original.


VOLITION is now to be examined, on which primarily turns the question of free will ; for to this faculty belongs choice, as we have seen, more than to the understanding. And in the first place, lest what has been said by philosophers should seem to prove the rectitude of the human will, that it is universally agreed, all creatures, by natural instinct, seek their own good ; let it be observed, that the essence of free will cannot be considered, as belonging to this desire of good, which proceeds more from the inclinations of nature, than from any deliberation of the mind. And the schoolmen confess there is no action of free will but where reason deliberates on both sides of the choice. They therefore suppose that the appetite must present something to be the object of choice, and that deliberation must precede to pave the way for choice. But if you consider what is this natural desire of good in man, you will find it to be common to him and brutes; for they also seek their own good ; and wherever there is the appearance of good that affects their senses, there they seek. But man neither discerns by his reason, nor pursues with good will, what is really his highest good, considering the excellency of his immortal nature ; nor does he so much as apply to his reason, or give his mind to deliberate upon it; but irrationally and inconsiderately pursues, like the brute, the inclinations of his nature. Be it then that man is impelled by the instinct of nature to his own good, yet it makes nothing for the liberty of the will; for to this end it should appear, that by right reason he distinguishes what is good, chooses it when known, and pursues it when chosen. And lest a scruple should remain upon any one's mind, here is a double fallacy to be considered. For in the first place, this desire of good is no effect of the will, but merely a natural inclination ; and the good de

sired is not supposed to be that of virtue and righteousness, but simply a condition, to wit, the well being of man. In the next place, however strongly man may desire to obtain what is good, yet he purgues it not; for there is no one by whom eternal felicity is not desired, and yet there is no one who aspires after it, but by the impulse of the spirit of God. Since then the natural desire of happiness which belongs to man is no proof of the liberty of the will, any more than there can be said to be in metals and stones, an inclination to the perfection of their nature; from other topics let us enquire, whether the will is so altogether vitiated and corrupted that it can produce nothing but evil; or whether it retains some small part uninjured, from whence good desires may arise.

Here let this important distinction be well observed, that man, being vitiated by the fall, sins voluntarily, not unwillingly, nor of force; by a strong bias of the mind, not by violent constraint; by the impulse of his own lusts, not by external coercion ; and that such is the depravity of his nature, that he can move no way but to do evil. If this be true, it is clear and manifest, he is subject to the necessity of sinning. And Barnard, admitting this doctrine of Augustine, thus writes : Man alone among animals is free ; and yet by the intervention of sin, he also is subject to restraint; from the will however, and not from nature, not being deprived of his inborn liberty. For what is voluntary is frec. And a little after ; by a strange and unaccountable kind of depravity, the will itself in man, being perverted by sin, produces a necessity, yet so that that necessity (being voluntary) is no excuse for the will; nor does the will (being enticed) exclude necessity: for this may be said to be a kind of voluntary necessity. Afterwards he says, we are subject to the yoke; but yet a yoke of voluntary servitude. So that we are wretched on account of our servitude ; but inexcusable inasmuch as it is voluntary ; because the will, when it might have been free, submited itself a servant of sin. Finally he concludes ; thus the soul, in a wonderful and unhappy manner, is held a bond slave, and yet free, under this voluntary and wretched free necessity. A bond slave, because under necessity; yet free, because it is voluntary ; and what is more wonderful and more wretched, it is so much guilty as free, and so much a slave as guilty; and therefore so much a slave as free. Hence the reader will see that I advance nothing new, but what was antiently taught by Augustine, conformably to the sentiments of all pious men; and almost a thousand years afterwards maintained in the cloisters of monks.

Calv. Inst: B. II. CHAP. II. III.



THE following extract will shew what was the faith and practice of Christians relative to baptism, at the time it was written, which was about the year of Christ 250. It is addressed by St. Cyprian, and a number of other Bishops met in council, to one Fidus, who seems to have been of the opinion that infants ought not to be baptized until the eighth day, after the manner of the Jewish circumcision. About this point there appears to have been some dispute among the early Christians; though none, whether baptism was to be administered in infancy. The extract, it will be seen, determines not only what was the practice, but also what was understood to be the nature and essence of baptism; to wit, an adoption into the covenant of grace, and thus actually conferring a title to the gifts of God's Holy Spirit, upon the receiver.

NOW as to the case of new born infants, who should not, according to your opinion, be baptized within the second or third day after their births; but should rather wait the time appointed by the law for Jewish circumcision, and so not receive the sanctification of baptism until the eighth day; I must tell you that we were all here assembled in council of another mind; and no one of us came into your sentiments; but on the contrary, we all concluded that the grace and mercies of God were to be denied to none, who should come into the world. For since our Lord hath said in his gospel ; The son of men hath not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them; as far as in us lies, we should certainly use our endeavours that no soul be lost : For what, I beseech you, can be imagined wanting to an human creature formed in the womb by the hands of God? Children after they are born seem indeed to us to receive an increase of growth and stature, as each day, by which in this world we compute the succession of time, advances ; but in the account of God, whatsoever is made by him is immediately perfected by his glorious power.*********** And so there is no difference with God; except you could imagine, that the grace which is confered upon the baptized is dispensed in different proportions, according to the difference of age in its several recipients; whereas in truth the Holy Ghost is given to all in equal measures, through the divine indul. gence and benignity, without any regard to their bulk or growth. For as God accepteth no man's person, so neither doth he respect the age of any one ; since he approves himself equally the father of all, and opens to all alike the attainment of his heavenly grace.

As to what you object of an infant's uncleanness during the first days after its birth, and that none of us care within such a period, to kiss it;* we cannot agree with you, that this should be any hindrance to it from receiving the grace of heaven; since we find it written, that to the pure all things are pure. Nor ought any of us at last to be squeamish with regard to a creature, which God hath vouchsafed to make. For though an infant in this case comes fresh from the birth, yet still we should not be nice in kissing it, or giving it the usual token of peace, when it is baptized; but should rather consider, as our religion would direct us on such an occasion, that the hands of God are but just taken from it; which therefore in a fair con

* In those times it was the universal practice to kiss the person or child baptized, in token that they were received into the fellowship of the faithful.

« VorigeDoorgaan »