the Philopatris of Lucian C. 27, seems to allude in the expression : τὴν εὐχὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀρξαμένος, καὶ τὴν πολυώνυ μov gon' is vélos niveis. Hence the ed. Complut., and afterwards Erasmus and Beza' express the conjecture that the formula had passed from the liturgical use into the text of the New Testament. Thus in the Ave Maria to the benedicta tu in mulieribus, was added the quia peperisti servatorem animarum nostrarum. So the Mosaic blessings are in various ways enlarged by our own clergy, and so in the Catholic church, to the libera nos a malo in the Lord's prayer itself, the clause was frequently annexed per Jesum Christum dominum nostrum. The words are considered not authentic by the following of older divines, besides those already mentioned, Zwingli (not Calvin), Oekolamp., Pellican, Bucer, Melancthon, Camerar., Drusius, Scultetus, Walton, Grotius, Mill, Grabe, M. Pfaff, with whom nearly all the moderns agree. Luther also has passed over the doxology in the large and in the small Catechism.? Among the advocates of the genuineness of the passage may be mentioned Wolf, Olearius, Witsius, Heumann, S. J. Baumgarten de auth. doxol. Halae 1753. Heinr. Benzenberg in the Symbolae, Duisb. 1784. T. II. P. 1. p. 97, Matthäi in the remarks upon his N. T., Weber in the dissertation already referred to. Yet all that these advocates produce in its favor will not bear comparison with the arguments which we have exhibited on the other side of the question. Benzenberg has entered most minutely into the defence of the passage, but his subterfuges, which are sometimes extremely forced, have already been met by the editor of the Symb. the learned P. Berg. The most important witness in favor of the genuineness of the passage is without doubt the Peschito. The three Syriac versions viz. the Peschito, the Philoxen, and the Jerus. have the doxology. The last two, as they belong to a later period,3 cannot 1 Beza who is elsewhere so accurate in his references, mentions that Chrysostom has not explained the clausula. He has explained it however as minutely as the rest of the text. 2 It is doubtless an echo of the vulgate, and a remnant of the Papal times, that particularly at the Lord's supper, the Lord's prayer was offered in the Protestant church, in most of the churches, without the doxology. Yet this was by no means uniformly the case. See Brem. and Verdische Bibliothek, II. 530. IV. 1026. 3 The age of the Jerusalem version it is true cannot be determined; the fact however is at least established, that it is of more recent date come into consideration here: but as it respects the authority of the Peschito, even this is not beyond the suspicion of some interpolations, or additions from the Lectionarii. Those passages of this version from which this conclusion is drawn, have been collected by Griesbach-in the meletemata de vetustis textus N. T. recensionibus p. LI. The Aethiop., the Armenian, and Gothic versions, as well as the Arabs Erp. and the Persian in the London Polyglott, did not exist before the fourth century, and consequently are of no authority on this point. Matthäi insists that Origen was the first to introduce this corruption of the text for which supposition however there is a total want of plausible reasons--and he thinks to destroy the authority of the vulgate by 1 John 5:7. He contends that as there the addition was made by the Latins, for doctrinal reasons, so here the passage has been struck out of the Greek text, proprio Marte, for liturgical reasons. While Bengel, on the contrary, found in no small degree confirmed by one passage, the favorable opinion which, as affording a stronger vindication of his favorite text, 1 John 5: 7, he already cherished of the Latin Version. even if Matthäi had taken away the authority of the Vulgate, that is by no means the only witness in support of the omission. Benzenberg proceeds in a still more arbitrary manner, when he attempts to excite the suspicion that all the Fathers in whom the words are wanting, have been corrupted by the Parisian editors, so as to follow the Vulgate. Yet If for the reasons which have been exhibited we are obliged to reject this aetiological doxology from the text, still it will maintain its place undisputed in the usage of the church. For, to repeat a former remark, unless we consider ourselves scrupulously bound to the precise words of the prayer as to a magic form, the enlargement of it is admissible. But that the enlargement of it, as it here lies before us in the doxology, is made altogether in the spirit of our Lord can by no means be called in question. V. 14, 15. According to those interpreters, who consider the sermon on the Mount as made up of several distinct declarations, this declaration also must originally have stood in a different connexion, and have been joined to this place only than the Peschito as it has interpolations out of the Peschito. Nov. Test. Graece, T. I. p. 23. II. p. 297. Eichhorn Bibl. II. 510. on account of its relation to the fifth petition. So early as Calvin, the passage in Mark 11:25, was presented by that commentator as parallel to the one in question. But if it is asserted that the declaration here stands in no good connexion with the preceding context, the same may be alleged with still greater propriety of the passage in Mark. But why may not our Saviour have expressed, on different occasions, in different connexions, and even before different hearers, the great truth which he expresses here? Indeed the same declaration is found repeated in Matthew c. 18: 35. Respecting the sense in which this remark of our Saviour is to be understood, see the observations upon the fifth petition. ARTICLE VI. SPIRITUAL DESPOTISM. BY THE AUTHOR OF NATURAL HISTORY OF ENTHUSIASM. New York: Leavitt, Lord & Co. 1835, pp. 363. By the Editor. THE attentive reader of the early history of New England will be satisfied, we think, that our fathers brought over to this country all the light that existed in England on the subject of religious toleration at the beginning of the seventeenth century. In respect to this point, the general mind of Europe was in darkness. The difference between the Jewish theory and the Christian scheme was not apprehended. By the union of the Roman Catholic religion with the state, the very elements of society had been contaminated. The character of that religion and of the princes and potentates who upheld it, were regarded as the cause of all the evils which had afflicted the church. It was supposed that the interests of Zion would be safe in the hands of protestant kings and governors. There was, however, a faint dawning of light in England. Gross instances of religious persecution seemed to require an apology. Finally, it was perceived that there were certain rights of conscience on the subject which were not to be tam pered with. The magistrate learned to tolerate different forms of religious worship, if practised in secret, or in families. Public deviations from established forms were still visited with merciless penal inflictions. Some faint conception was at last attained of the impropriety of burning men on account of difference of opinion. It may be doubted whether its impolicy was not perceived previously to its unlawfulness. Be that as it may, certain individuals welcomed the thought to their souls. Among these few, the puritans were foremost. The sentiments of the excellent Robinson of Leyden are well known. Thomas Walley, a venerable minister of Barnstable, uttered on a public occasion these memorable words, "A well bounded toleration is very desirable in all Christian Commonwealths." Winthrop, and the company who came with him, cherished feelings of the most unaffected good-will towards the established church as well as towards different sects of dissenters. The venerable governor on his dying bed, lamented that he had ever been drawn into measures which his better nature abhorred. The colony of Plymouth, during the whole of its separate existence, maintained, for the most part, a liberal policy. Another fact manifest on the face of the early New England history is, that religious toleration was understood and practised to a greater extent at the time of the first settlement than it was ten or twenty years afterwards. The influence of Endicot and of some others at Salem was unfortunate. A few of the influential clergymen were not a little tinged with an intolerant spirit, and urged measures which were wholly inconsistent with freedom of opinion. But a principal cause of the unhappy increase of jealousy and of ill-will was the strange perverseness and fanaticism of Mrs. Hutchinson, the quakers, and others, who were deemed schismatics. They evidently longed for the honors of imprisonment and martyrdom. Many of the deeds which they perpetrated, were an insult to the courts and to the country. It was very unwise and unjustifiable for the magistrates to proceed, as they did, against these disturbers of the peace of the community. A patient and Christian forbearance was the only effectual remedy. These fevers in the social system must run their round. A violent check frequently causes them to break out with greater virulence. Those, who disapprove of excesses of religious zeal, must be careful lest they be driven to another extreme. Determined opposition to a wild measure may end in persecution, or, at least, in the belief of untenable doctrines. This was the case with our fathers. Goaded by the intrusion of men of other sentiments, not a few of them, fractious religionists, who were determined to vex, where they could not subvert, the pilgrims resorted to severe enactments, which not only did not arrest the evil, but which were the source of great and permanent injuries to the Commonwealth. Such, however, is human nature in its best estate. In times of great excitement, truths confirmed by the experience of ages, are slighted or forgotten. It is obvious to remark that there was a real connection between the church and the State in Massachusetts, for, at least, sixty years after the landing at Plymouth. Religious profession was the only passport to political honor. Ecclesiastical crimes were obnoxious to civil penalties. The stern theocracy of ancient Israel was revived in Boston. John Cotton was the chief priest of the church in the wilderness. John Winthrop was the Moses of the new world. No church could be gathered without the permission of the magistrates. A minister, preaching to a church collected in any other manner, was liable to a civil penalty. All, who were physically able, were required to attend on the authorized public worship. The first laws deprived excommunicated persons, and a whole church separated from the others, of all civil privileges. Synods were called by order of the general court, and their results were commended by legislative authority to the people, and ordered to be observed. Breaches of the first three commandments, as well as of the others, were indictable offences. There was notwithstanding, a radical difference in the form of the connection between the State and the churches here and between the State and the church in the mother country. Here there were many churches nearly independent of each other; there the church was one body. Here the churches elected their own pastors, with the exception of an extremely rare intervention of the civil powers; there clergymen were imposed by the civil government or by patrons. Here the political authority never assumed the power of deciding on matters of doctrine and discipline, but always called, for that purpose, the representatives of the churches freely chosen ; there they were determined ultimately by the civil power. Here an unpopular magistrate could be displaced at an annual election; there, in such cases, there was no redress.* See Dr. Wisner's History of the Old South Church, Boston, p. 70. 27 |