On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
how is it we have no record or trace of any diseqjEitent , on the part of the Jews , that bapUstil was enjoined on them , as we should expect , if they had previously known it as an ordinance applicable only to converts from heathenism / J . C . MEANS .
Untitled Article
Authenticity of a Part of the Baptismal Commission , To the Editor , Sir , My Reviewer ( for whose caudid notice of a few pages which might have provoked a less honourable temper of niiud , I owe , and am pleased to render , my thanks ) designates the Baptismal Commission an allusion to a practice .
Now I can assure you with perfect sincerity , that though I have taken no little pains to attach a meaning to this expression , it has hitherto been so absolutely invitd Minervh tnat * quite despair even of remote success . Would any of your correspondents oblige me by rebuking my conscious stupidity in furnishing me with its perhaps very obviqus import i
Haying taken up my pen sinirjly to put this question , may I be indulged ( O the kakoethesO with only a word or two more ? Tne following postulate will hardly be impeached by the stoutest sceptic , or the most insatiable lover of controversy ; that our Saviour either dictated to his immediate disciples the
succinct and precise mode of baptism in question , viz . " into the name of trie Father , " &c , or , that he did not . If he djdj , it seems to be admitted , that the uniform administration of the rite , as recorded in the history of the apostles , into the name of the Lord or Jesus
Cqrist only , must excite surprise aud challenges explanation . If he did not , then what is the supplementary part of the mandate , if not an interpolation ? ^ Surely the issue is not an unimportant one , and truth must , in any event , be befriended by the amicable discussion of It !
TttE Author of "A few Words ofr Obviou 6 Truth . " i [ The two foregoing letters were communicated by the Editor to the . Author of ! the Critical Notice on which they animadvert , in order that the attack and . the < nj |^ y wu gji t i ^ jtE , appear th the preaent volume , of ^ tiich this number is " tfce last . The tteviewet ' s comments are subjoined . ] Your correspondent , Mr , Meaua , has
Untitled Article
taken rather au odd method of shewing , that iu Matt , xxviii . 19 , our Lord was " instituting a ceremony * ' and not alluding to a practice ; " and of removing the alleged discrepancy between this passage ( so interpreted ) and the recorded practice of the apostles .
This text , he says , coutaius " tlie form at full length . " But he has not shewn by what process of ( Abridgment c * the name of the Father , and of the Sod , and of the Holy Spirit , " is reduced to * ' the name of the Lord Jesus Christ . " To select one name out of three would not
be to abridge . It is mere omission . This indeed he allows ; and he argues that * ' the omission by the historian is no proof of omission by the administrator . " I should have thought it had been , in such a case as this . There is no reason whatever for affirming that the Acts are a bit more brief than the Gospels on this subject . There is no reason whatever
for assuming the uniform omission of the Father and the Holy Spirit , rather than of the Son . If the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews was the inducement to select his name in recording their baptism , in that of converts from heathenism we might expect to find the name of the Father selected ; and in . such a case as that to which Mr . M . refers , ( Acts xix . 3 , ) there was an especial
reason for selecting the name of the Holy Spirit , which yet the historiani has not done . Under tjiese circumstances , omission is something like negative proof ; the only kind of proof to , be expected . These men who " had not so much as heard whether taere be auy Holy Spirit , " were ye $ only " baptized into the name of . the Lord Jesus . " Vec . 5 .
As to the cc similar case , " adduced by ypur correspondent , it is certainly the fact that history records the anointing of George III . King of Great Britain , France , and Ireland ; and of George IV ., King of Great Britain .. and Ireland ; and the " omission by the historian" is the consequeuce of the " omission by the
administrator . " Moreover , if in au authentic record of the proclamation of the sovereign ' s titles at several accessions , which should also be the only record , the sole depository of facts as to that practice , ; \ f in such a record one or two titles were uniformly oiiiiited , I think this tooiUd be evidence of their actual
omission . . Besides , the case . is . n # fc ^ owe of mere oraisaiou . Tlie " name of the Lord Jesus" is not in Matt . ** viU . 19 at all . It may be equivalent to the " name of
Untitled Article
8 # 0 Miscellaneous Correspondence ' .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1829, page 880, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2579/page/64/
-