Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth." J. R. AUCKLAND. We had four immersions last evening, making twelve in all during Bro. Lewis's stay with us. He goes to the Thames next week for a month or so. T. BAILEY.

༴་

DUNEDIN.-The cause here progresses 'favourably. We have established a missionary association, and expect ere long to be in a position to procure another evangelist, and place him in some large hall in the city, if we can manage this I am confident we shall make headway. We have a fine Sunday school with about 260 names on the roll, and a branch school at the end of the town with 60 on the roll, which was established about six months since, both schools are doing well and have a good staff of teachers.

A. R. HISLOP.

PRUSSIA. Recently the Baptists in Prussia have secured an official recognition. A law was proposed by the Government, which gives to the Baptist Churches the right of incorporation. It was discussed very fully, but it was finally passed by both Houses. One of the speakers in the Upper House said: "There is probably no one among us who does not wish that to our poor people our people's church may be preserved. It is impossible to preserve a people's church without infant baptism. The danger is not small, when on the one side you take away the obligation to infant baptism, and on the other side bestow privileges on a society which contemns infant baptism." Notwithstanding, however, the opposition that was made, and notwithstanding the danger to the State-Church from the granting of privileges to the Baptists, who always have opposed infant baptism, the law was finally carried in both Houses. It was proposed by the Government, and was carried successfully through. According to the National Baptist, the Rev. G. W. Lehmann, pastor of the Baptist Church in Berlin, said to Dr. George W. Anderson, after the law was adopted, that he was not aware of the design of the Government to propose it, until he saw a notice of its presentation, in the daily papers. This is another step in advance for the Baptists of Germany.

SWINDON.-The Unitarian Herald reports that Mr. F. Young, for the past fourteen years minister of the "Free Christian Church," New Swindon, Wilts, has withdrawn his name from the list of Unitarian ministers, and his church from the list of Unitarian churches. It is not

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

MRS. WALKER.-At Viewforth House, Grangemouth, on the 7th September, in the eighty-third year of her age, Mrs. Captn. Andw. Walker, calmly fell asleep. in Jesus, beloved by all who knew her, being cheerful, frank, and affectionate to the last; throughout a long life manifesting her faith by her works. Early brought to the Saviour, and being of an inquiring turn of mind, she saw it her duty to unite with a few believers to break bread on Lord's-day, and in 1842, she was led from the study of the Word to obey the Lord, in baptism, and united with the church here, since which she has never been absent from the Lord's table, unless duty called, or trouble prevented. She always took a lively interest in the cause of truth and righteousness. On the night before her departure, when the xiv. chapter of John was being read, she said in her usual emphatic way, "Precious, precious, promises!" none of us thinking it was her last night on earth. At six o'clock next morning her redeemed spirit departed to be with Christ. W. W.

DEATH OF JOSEPH BARKER, IN NEBRASKA. A name familiar to Yorkshiremen of two generations is now only a memory. A correspondent, resident at Lincoln, Nebraska, writes that Joseph Barker died in Nebraska, on September 15th. In 1856 he went to Nebraska with his family, and selected a farm a few miles west of Omaha. Subsequently he came back to England, and worked in connection with the Methodist church. But he retained his Nebraska farm; and returning thither his last days were spent in retirement. He died on his farm. Mr. Barker was honoured in his Nebraska home. It was remembered of him that he had taken an active and useful part in the abolition struggle. Mr. Barker was a Yorkshireman, having been born'_at Bramley, near Leeds.—Nottingham Express.

Observer, Dec. 1, '75.

THE COMMISSION AS GIVEN IN MARK XVI.—

IS IT GENUINE ? *

I HAVE stood up in defence of this passage on a former occasion, and I feel called upon to buckle on the armour, to do battle for it again. An Edinburgh gentleman hath said, "The one passage (Mark xvi. 16) on which the Disciples have founded so much, is now clearly beyond doubt recognised by every modern critic of any eminence, I may add, almost by every Biblical scholar of any research, to be an uninspired addition to Mark's Gospel." In view of these sweeping assertions, to attempt to defend the passage in question may be considered on my part as a fool-hardy effort. I run the risk of being classified with those who are not "scholars," because he says "almost every Biblical scholar of any research" has refused to accept it as an inspired passage. My nervousness is however somewhat relieved by that lucky lapsus pennae, "almost." Under cover of that word I may show myself and at least try to feel that I am one of the exceptions pointed out by this almost. But appearing on the field, Mr. M. may enquire, who are you? I have not found you classified among Biblical scholars of eminence, with whom I am familiar, and whose works I have critically consulted. My reply is. It does not matter who I am, or what my place on paper may be, I am here to throw a spear in defence of Mark xvi. 16, and you would do well to see to your shield. Although my spear is a borrowed one, you shall be enabled to judge whether it has point, or the arm strength that has it now poised for the throw.

Reader, please attend! A difference of opinion has long existed among critics as to the genuineness of the last twelve verses of Mark. Let it be observed that it is not the authenticity of the passage, by which is meant the historical correctness of its representations, that is called in question, but only its genuineness as a part of Mark's original manuscript. All the historical statements of the passage are known to be true, because they are found in the other Gospels or in Acts. This is conceded, even by Alford, who is one of the most confident writers in opposition to the genuineness of the passage. He says, "It seems to me to be an authentic fragment placed as a completion of the Gospel in very early times, by whom written must of course remain wholly uncertain, but coming to us with very weighty sanction, and having strong claims on our reception and reverence." Is Dean Alford a Biblical scholar of any research? The authenticity of the passage being conceded, the question of its genuineness might be waived without detracting from its authority or credibility; for a time-piece of history, attached to Mark's book, is not less valuable or authoritative because some other person than Mark may have been the author.

The passage is omitted from a few of the manuscripts, and among these are the Vatican, and the Sinaitic, the oldest and best manuscripts extant. Jerome, and some writers of the fourth century are also quoted as affirming that the passage was wanting in most of the Greek copies of their day. On the other hand, the passage is found in nearly all of the other ancient manuscripts, including the Alexandrine, which stands

* In reply to H. MCINTOSH, reprinted in November E. O., from The Baptist.

Observer, Dec. 1, '75.

next to the Vatican, in accuracy. It was also cited by Irenæus and Tatian, of the second century, and by Hyppolytus and Dyonisius of Alexandria, of the third century, all of whom lived before the earliest existing manuscript was written, and from one hundred to two hundred years earlier than Jerome. The words of Irenæus show that it was not only a part of the book of Mark in his day, but that Mark was regarded as the author of it. He says, "But Mark in the end of his Gospel says, And the Lord Jesus, after that He had spoken to them was received up into heaven, and sat at the right hand of God." Dr. George Campbell says, referring to this testimony, all the manuscripts that want the 19th verse, want all the last 12 verses of the chapter, and all the manuscripts that have the 19th verse have all the 12 verses called in question. The manuscript that Irenous quoted from had the 19th verse, so, unless it can be shown to be an exception, it had all the 12 verses. [I have quoted from memory. The reader may refer if he please to George Campbell's Notes on the New Testament, where he will find the testimony which I have in substance given]. From these writers, Irenæus, Tatian, Hyppolytus, and Dyonisius, then, it appears that the passage was a part of some copies of Mark's Gospel, at least as early as the second century. The preponderance of evidence from this source is in favour of the passage. The evidence from ancient versions is altogether in favour of the disputed passage; for all the ancient versions contain it, and thereby testify that it was in the Greek copies from which they were translated. If at this time the Greek copies did not generally contain it, that all the versions were made from those that did contain it, is at least a very remarkable circumstance. Among these versions are the Peshito Syriac, the Old Italic, the Sahidic, and the Coptic; all of which were in existence earlier than the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, and before the time of Jerome.

The relative probability of the passage having been written by Mark, or added by a later hand, is next to be considered.

Those who adopt the latter hypothesis think that the addition was made on account of the want of completeness apparent in closing the narrative with the 8th verse of this chapter. But while this consider

ation would account for the addition of the passage, it leaves unaccounted for the fact that Mark cut short his narrative so abruptly. If we suppose that the passage was written by Mark, its absence from some copies is at once accounted for, by considering the many accidents by which the last leaf of a manuscript may be lost. Alford admits the force of this consideration and says, "The most probable supposition is that the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away." This remark, intended by him to account for the incompleteness which suggested the addition of the passage in question, we think more satisfactorily accounts for the absence of this passage from those manuscripts which have it not; for one manuscript with the last leaf torn away or worn away might be used as a copy, and might have become the prolific mother of an immense brood of manuscripts lacking the portion lost. As regards the external evidence Dr. Davidson says, "On the whole the external arguments, in favour of the passage, outweigh those on the other side." We believe that in this conclusion all the critics concur, excepting of course those Biblical critics of eminence and research whom Mr.

Observer, Dec. 1, '75.

McIntosh has not named. Our final conclusion is that the passage in question is authentic in all its details, and that there is no reason to doubt that it was written by the same hand which indited the preceding parts of the narrative. The objections which have been raised against it are better calculated to shake our confidence in Biblical criticism than in the genuineness of this inestimable portion of the Word of God.

Until Mr. M. can advance counter evidence of an earlier date, and adduce more cogent arguments against than we have given for the authenticity and genuineness of Mark xvi. 16, we need not, my brethren, fear to sound out in the hearing of our fellow-men the commission of our Lord Jesus, "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is immersed shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned." If Mr. M. is not satisfied with the evidence given, soon as he shows that he has got his lever under our pile we shall be there. The evidence and arguments are condensed from McGarvey's recently published Commentary on Matt. and Mark, copies of which may be had from the editor of the E. 0. This much for "the one passage on which the Disciples have founded so much." If needed, there's "more to follow." C. ABERCROMBIE.

BAPTISM INTO CHRIST.

WHEN Paul (Rom. vi.) meets the cavil: "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" he asserts the negative in the question : "How shall we who have died by sin live any longer therein?" Then, in order to exhibit, in the most pointed manner, the real position of believers to sin and death as well as to life and righteousness, he at once directly appeals, not to their doctrinal professions, not to their faith or to their repentance, or to their religious experience, but to their BAPTISM. It is altogether noteworthy, that, in the midst of a discussion designed to show the superiority of grace to law, the apostle makes this striking reference to baptism, which modern theologasters regard as itself a work of law, while Paul here adduces it as a direct evidence of the efficacy of grace! "Know ye not," says he, "that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?" A baptism into Christ, then, was, with Paul, a baptism into that very sacrificial death through which alone grace could "reign through righteousness unto eternal life." It is this baptism-this expressive symbol-this divinely appointed means of grace, so depreciated and neglected in the modern profession of Christianity, that is thus here Paul's decisive argument in proof of the complete transition of the believer from a state of sin and death, to life and righteousness in Christ. "We are buried with Him," says he, "by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Had it been left to modern self-called "Evangelicalism" to dictate the epistle to the Romans, such a reference as this to baptism could not possibly have found either thought or utterance; nor, indeed, could the most fanciful spiritualizer among Doctors of Divinity, have derived from the modern perversion of

Observer, Dec. 1, '75.

the institution the childish ceremony of sprinkling, that striking symbolization of a death to sin and a resurrection to life, by which this reference to baptism is rendered so significant and appropriate.

6

To those who have been happily freed from the trammels of sectarian systems, and who enjoy the inestimable privilege of receiving the truth directly from God's Word, nothing can seem more pitiable than the concessions and protests wrung, by the force of evidence, from individuals here and there in sectdom, in regard to these corruptions, while at the same time their church relations compel them to practice and maintain them. The learned Episcopalian, Whitby, in his commentary, thus speaks upon the passage before us: "It being so expressly declared here and Coloss. ii. 12, that we are buried with Christ in baptism' by being buried under water; and the argument to oblige us to a conformity to His death, by dying to sin, being taking thence, and this immersion being religiously observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our church, and the change of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance from the Author of the institution, or license from any council of the church, being that which the Romanist still urgeth to justify his refusal of the cup to the laity,* it were to be wished that this custom might be again of general use, and aspersion only permitted, as of old, in the case of the clinici or in present danger of death." Thus, also, Tholuck (Lutheran): "Paul had said, that the rite of baptism, which takes place at the entrance into Christianity, manifests that it is the will of the Christian to conform spiritually to the death of Christ. The very obvious idea hereupon occurs to him that the baptismal symbol itself may be regarded as a figure of the death of Christ, and accordingly he in this verse (4) represents the Christian undergoing baptism; as being in some sort buried with his Saviour. Having proceeded thus far with the emblematical meaning of baptism and the death of Christ, it was natural for the apostle to assimilate, in like manner, the coming out of baptism and the resurrection of Christ, which, accordingly, he does. We find at another place the same symbolical allusion (Col. ii. 12). For the explanation of this figurative description of the baptismal rite, it is necessary to call the attention to the well-known circumstance that in the early days of the church, persons when baptized were first plunged below, and then raised above the water." Commentary on Rom. vi.

To the same purpose, Macknight (Presbyterian), in his view of the reasoning of this chapter: "To show that the apostles who taught the doctrine of justification by faith without works, did not mean thereby to set their disciples free from the obligations of morality, he observed that in baptism, the right of initiation into the Christian Church, the baptized person is buried under the water, as one put to death with Christ on account of sin, in order that he might be stongly impressed with a sense of the malignity of sin and excited to hate it as the greatest of evils, ver. 3. Moreover in the same rite the baptized person, being raised up out of the water, after being washed, he is thereby taught that he shall be raised from the dead with Christ."

During the last month, in a letter to The Times, Cardinal Manning defends withholding the cup from the laity on the ground that the church had the same right to do so as to substitute Pouring for Immersion.

Ed.

« ForrigeFortsæt »