« ZurückWeiter »
proof, however, is offered by him, either that his own exegesis is right, or that the interpretations proposed by others are wrong. He has not shown us how it comes to pass that 'to be born of water must refer to baptism. It is of no use to quote passages from the rabbis to show that they spoke of a proselyte as one new-born; for the question is not as to what is implied in being born again, but as to what is implied in being born again of water. Could it be shown that, in the days of our Lord, the Jews were accustomed to describe the baptism of proselytes by saying they were regenerated of water, it would both settle the question of proselyte baptism, and justify Dr. Halley's exegesis. In defect of this, however, we must hold the latter to be purely gratuitous. As for other interpretations, the lecturer summarily settles them by affirming that no other satisfactory interpretation of the passage has ever been suggested. We should have felt more conviction as to this had he attempted to prove his assertion by an examination of those which have been offered. We should like, for instance, to know his objections to that which supposes here, as in Matt. iii. 11, a hendiadys, and which explains being born of water and Spiriť as equivalent to being born of that Spirit which cleanses like water. *
In one part of the lecture Dr. Halley has partly anticipated some of these strictures; for in reply to the question, 'If the baptized proselyte was regarded by the Jews as new born, how should the ruler in Israel reply to our Lord, 'How can a man be born when he is old ?' &c., he explains the question of Nicodemus as expressive rather of his surprise that our Lord should deem regeneration necessary for a Jew, than of ignorance of the meaning of his words. But what in this case comes of the argument raised on this passage in favour of Jewish baptism? That argument rests, as far as we can see, entirely on the supposed ignorance of the ruler. Such ignorance was held by our Lord to be remarkable and blame-worthy, because, says Dr. Halley, there was some prevalent usage of their nation to illustrate our Lord's words. The existence of this prevalent usage then is an inference from the blameworthiness of the ruler's ignorance. But if there was no ignorance in the case, what comes of the inference? It will not do to substitute in this reasoning the word 'prejudice,' or the word 'obstinacy,' or aught similar for the word 'ignorance;' for if the ruler's question was prompted by 'prejudice or any other cause of a moral character, our Lord's reproof can be accounted for, without at all resorting to the supposition that any 'prevalent usage' formed the subject of his remarks. We humbly think, therefore, that our learned
* See Alexander's Anglo-Catholicism not Apostolical, p. 300.
nion. Wel Cor. x. 1, mak baptism of i
friend's 'second thoughts on this passage are not only better than his first, but annihilatory of all that his first have been urged to prove.
In the course of this lecture, Dr. Halley taking high ground' maintains that there was a general baptism of the Israelites by Moses, and adduces 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, as affording apostolic sanction to this opinion. We should be glad could this point be established, as with us it would settle the question respecting the antiquity of baptism; but we are constrained to say, we have perused Dr. Halley's comments upon the statement of the apostle without conviction. Our space does not allow us to enter at large into the subject; we shall, therefore, simply, from Dr. Halley's own remarks, draw out an analogy which will, we think, at once express the apostle's meaning, and show the fallacy of our author's reasoning. It is this :-as the eating of the manna is to the observance of the Lord's Supper; so is the baptism of the Israelites, at the Red Sea, to Christian baptism, Was then the eating of the manna the same kind of thing as the eating of the Lord's Supper? If not; on what grounds is it concluded that the baptism at the Red Sea was the same kind of thing as Christian baptism? Have we not in both cases a mere historical event, possessing, as all events in the history of the typical people possessed, a spiritual significancy, adduced as supplying an argumentum à fortiori in favour of the due observance of an express and sacredly appointed ordinance ?
We have already exceeded due bounds, and must consequently content ourselves with merely noticing the remaining Lectures. The fourth is On John's Baptism ; and is chiefly occupied in a reply to the late Mr. Hall's reasons for thinking John's baptism not Christian baptism. Here we think the author fails on one point, and that the most important of all, the turning point in fact of the entire controversy ; viz. the rebaptism of John's disciples, mentioned Acts xix. 1-5. Dr. Halley labours hard to get over the testimony of this passage against his position, that the two baptisms were identical. For a statement of his reasonings we must refer our readers to the work itself. To us, they appear to result in this, that John's baptism was valid, if administered before our Lord's death; but not if administered after that event. What is this, but to say that John's baptism was valid for his own, but not for the Christian dispensation ? than which we can require no more evidence that his baptism was not Christian baptism. Nothing would appear to us more clear than that if John's dispensation was not the Christian dispensation, the baptism whose validity expired with the former, was not that baptism which was appointed to be the initiatory rite under the latter.
Lecture V. is on · Baptismal Regeneration, and is, to our judgment, one of the best and most valuable in the volume. In Lecture VI. Dr. Halley enters upon the subject of the mode of Christian baptism,' and, in a long appendix, replies to the work of the late Dr. Carson. Lecture VII. discusses the question of 'the subjects of Christian baptism,' and is followed by two appendices, one on the Codex Laudianus, and the other on Dr. Carson's interpretation of the Baptismal Commission. The subjects handled in these two concluding lectures are such, that even had our space permitted, the peculiar character of this journal as the representative of both parties in the baptismal controversy among dissenters would have precluded our entering upon them. It is the aim of the 'Eclectic' to preserve a strict neutrality upon these questions, and this characteristic of our journal we are the more solicitous to preserve, now that the aspect of the present time seems imperatively to demand union among all sects of evangelical dissenters.
We have freely given utterance to our dissent from some of Dr. Halley's opinions, but we cannot part from him without an assurance of the deep impression the perusal of his work has left upon our minds of respect for his learning and talents, and of esteem for him as a man and a minister of Christ.
Art. II. Mémoires de B. Barère ; Membre de la Constituante, de la Con
vention, du Comité de Salut public, et de la Chambre des Représentants, publiés par Hippolite Carnot, Membre de la Chambre des Députés, et David d'Angers, Membre de l'Institut. 4 vols. Paris : J. Labitte,
quai Voltaire. THREE years ago, in a city at the foot of the Pyrénées, an old man, the last survivor of the principal actors in the most eventful drama recorded in the annals of any country, closed his long and agitated career, without one feeling of remorse, almost without a regret, and full of confidence in Divine Providence. Two days afterwards, the whole population of Tarbes followed to their last resting-place the remains of their fellow-citizen; and, before the coffin was lowered into the grave, one of the principal inhabitants, the chairman of the council of barristers, addressed the spectators in the following terms :
In this place, where to bestow mendacious praises would be sacrilege, I can solemnly affirm that never, in any man, was found a purer disinterestedness, more affectionate family feelings, a more enthusiastic love for the fine arts, and more honourable principles of sociability,
• It was a great consolation for the old man to see himself elected a member of the general council of his department; but, at the same time, it was great cause of surprise, to his fellow citizens, to see the old man so long and so unsparingly tormented, preserving a calm and dignified mind; an exquisite benevolence, a lucidity of understanding, and a freshness of imagination, which youth might envy; constantly employing himself in elucidating history, which will receive from him many precious documents and important revelations. The pen dropped from his hand with his last sigh, and in the eighty-fifth year of his age.
Men, feeble men as we are, let us be just and merciful, standing as we do on the brink of a grave.
. As citizens and Frenchmen, let us be grateful to those sons of France who broke her fetters, defended her independence, and founded her liberties, at the price of their tranquillity, of their life, and of their reputation,
Old man, now in presence of the Eternal God, thy country salutes thee, and posterity listens to thee!'-vol. i., p. 197.
Most of our readers will hear with astonishment, that the subject of this emphatic encomium, the old man to whom this affectionate farewell was addressed, was no other than the
VIEUX DE LA MONTAGNE,' the 'Reporter of the Committee of Salut public,' the-alas ! too illustrious BERTRAND BARERE, Yet, such is the fact. The man who, in almost all Europe, was, and is still considered as the personification of all the revolutionary atrocities; whose emaciated and tottering frame, notwithstanding the placidity of his features, the mildness of his aspect, and his venerable figure, appeared to the new generation as the relic of a dreadful race of vampires who had preyed upon their forefathers,—this man, in his native town, had retained the esteem and affection of men of character and emi. nence, who, after standing by him, in his old age, against half a century of incessant accusations, remained faithful in death, proclaimed over his corpse the services of the citizen, and engraved on his tombstone the oak-crown of patriotism.
It was not in his native town only that Barère was held in general esteem. The whole department participated in this feeling; and from 1789 to 1841, never missed an opportunity of showing their confidence in his character. In 1789, the electors chose him for their representative in the general states, which soon afterwards became the constituent assembly. Barère was then thirty-four years of age.
At the expiration of his legislative functions, in 1791, his department elected him a judge in the Court of Cassation.
In 1792, he was chosen a member of the National Convention.
In 1797, although almost an outlaw, and hiding himself to escape the exile decreed against him by the convention, without
any trial, he was again elected a member of the council of Five Hundred. In 1805 and 1810, he was chosen, by the same department, as their candidate for the ‘Corps Legislatif,” in spite of the opposition of the imperial government, In May 1815, he was elected a member of the Chamber of Representatives; and at the very first election which followed his return from exile, in 1831, he was again proposed as a candidate for the representation, and his election would have been carried, had he consented to leave Paris, to present himself to the electors. Finally, in 1832, immediately after his return to his native place, he was repeatedly chosen a member of the general council of the department, which function he resigned only in 1840, the year which preceded that of his decease, and when his old age and bodily infirmities no longer permitted him to fulfil his duties with his customary regularity. Thus, during a period of time embracing more than half a century, Barère was constantly invested with the highest and the most confidential offices at the disposal of his fellowcitizens, under every government—nay more, in spite of the hostility of every government; and in contempt, we may say in defiance of the general opinion, in France and the rest of Europe, of both native and foreign historians; and of the universal reprobation which the mere mention of his name was sure to call forth in the whole world. Such a contrast, between the opinion so generally entertained of Barère and the opinion of a locality in which his real character must have been better known, cannot but strike every impartial mind. Such a constancy, on the part of the population of the ‘Hautes Pyrénées,’ and of the electoral body, composed, as it is in France, of men of property, is a fact so startling, that we endeavoured to account for it, and to explain its causes, by a reference to the electioneering arts and practises now in use in France, still more than in this country. We were soon convinced that the test was not applicable. Barère never had a bribe to give, a favour to grant, a benefit to confer, in return for the votes of his constituents. At the time of his affluence and of his power, all the civil and judicial functionaries were elected by the people; and, even after his downfall, in 1795, the electors who voted for him did so with the certainty that they had nothing to expect from the succeeding government, through the intervention of their obnoxious representative. The only conclusion we could arrive at, therefore, is, that the political conduct of Barère had given full satisfaction to his constituents, who, by their suffrages, continued to sanction and