Page images
PDF
EPUB

book I have mentioned, it is probable I should never have entered upon this delightful study. Nothing, I think, would more conduce to facilitate the acquisition of the Greek language without a master, than reprinting this praxis, or one upon the same plan, with appropriate references to an established Grammar. I hope Dr. Jones will excuse me in here suggesting to him, that if he would do it with suitable references to his Grammar, I think he would do an acceptable service to those who wish to enter upon this study. Should he or any of your learned readers, feel disposed to render this service to the unlearned, I shall have great pleasure in sending to him the old book I have mentioned, which is now become unnecessary to

me.

With the above praxis, I should think no other books necessary at the commencement but a Greek Testament and Grammar, and a small pocket Greek and English Lexicon, by J. Bass (sold by Baldwin and Co., price 48). This would be rendered much more useful to the closet student at his outset, by a vocabulary, English and Greek, of the verbs used in the

Testament. Without

Latin or Greek with the same facility as in English. From habit I find this employment rather a pleasure than a labour to me.

If the being able to read the sacred duties and records of our religion in their original language is not a sufficient inducement to persons of leisure to engage in this study, none more powerful can be advanced. I should rejoice to see my beloved countrywomen engage in it with the ardour it deserves; such an event might be regarded as a kind of completion of those important prophecies concerning the latter days, "when many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased," and when "all shall know the Lord."

It was my intention when I sat down, to offer some remarks on the letter of your correspondent Hellenistes, (pp. 205-207,) but I find I must postpone these to some future opportunity, having already intruded more than I intended upon the time of your readers.

SIR,

Ναύτης.

Trowbridge, September 12, 1823. being convinced Mrs.

Grech & Vocabulary, my difficulties N Mary Hughes's strictures on my

would have been increased. There is frequently considerable difficulty for a beginner to find out which word in a sentence is the verb: this difficulty cannot, I apprehend, be estimated by a person who has acquired the language in the usual way.

With the books I have mentioned, I think any gentleman or lady, or any person in business, might, by dedicating half an hour or an hour a day to it, soon be able to read the Greek Testament. It is now three years since I began; my plan at first was to take a verse or two daily, (though with very frequent interruptions,) but I find that I can now get on to fifteen or twenty, and sometimes with very little aid from my Lexicon. My progress would have been more rapid, but I have endeavoured to make my self master of the Latin Testament at the same time. Should health and life be spared to me for two or three years longer, I trust that I shall, without any additional labour or time, be enabled to read the New Testament in

last Tract on the parable of the Prodigal Son, (p. 395,) that my views of the parable, and in particular of the character of the elder brother, are erroneous; and thinking some of that lady's remarks to be founded in misconception; it seems proper for me to offer a few words in reply. I have been prevented doing this sooner by several circumstances, and in particu lar by a dangerous illness, which disabled me for all exertion for some days.

The high respect I entertain for Mrs. H.'s character, liberality in the Unitarian cause, and benevolent labours for the good of others, leads me to value the estimation in which, she says, she holds me and my works; and nothing but a sense of the impor tance of right views of what our Lord taught, could induce me to controvert the correctness and propriety of her remarks, and to point out wherein I think her mistaken. My doing this will, I trust, give her no pain, as I believe the promotion of truth and the

good of mankind are her only objects in writing.

Mrs. H. appears to me completely to mistake our Lord's design in what he says of the elder brother in the parable; and to have been led into that mistake by inattention to the circumstances which occasioned his delivering the three parables contained in chap. xv. of Luke. We are told, vers. 1, 2-" Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and Scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them." In consequence of this, our Lord delivered the parables which follow; evidently with the design of justifying his own conduct, and of reproving the Pharisees and Scribes for objecting to his receiving sinners and eating with them. This being his design, it seems natural to think, that, in the person of the elder brother, he meant to expose their unreasonable prejudices, want of liberal and benevolent feeling, inatten tion to the ignorant, and those who most needed reformation, and the contempt they shewed to all whom they called sinners. As the Jews called all men sinners, who were not of their nation, or proselytes to their religion, what is there unnatural in the supposition, that Jesus, by the elder and younger sons in the parable, meant to represent the Jews and the Gentiles? Mrs. H. takes for granted that what the elder brother said of himself was perfectly correct, that he "had never departed from the path of rectitude, never transgressed his father's commandment ;" and asks, "If, as is most apparent, our great Teacher intends to represent the Almighty under the character of the father in the parable, can the son, who never at any time transgressed his commandment,' be other than the most excellent of human beings?" But, I ask, Is the elder brother, as described by our Lord, the most excellent of human beings? Does not his conduct towards his poor lost brother, stand in opposition to that of our Lord, (who was in reality the most excellent of human beings,) towards lost sinners; and strikingly resemble that of the Pharisees which Jesus censured? Instead of giving him credit for perfect rectitude and uniform obedience, on the mere ground of his

[ocr errors]

own assertion, is it not more natural to think he was one of those whom our Lord addressed in another parable, who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others? His being angry at the conduct of his father, and the language he used to him, can never be reconciled with filial piety; which is the germ of all other virtues. Is it possible for "the most excellent of human beings" to upbraid a good father, and charge him with injustice, even to his face? His assertion, that his father had never given him even a kid, was evidently false; for in ver. 12, we are told that he had his portion at the same time with his brother. Towards his brother he shewed himself unfeeling, and destitute of affection; for he ought to have remembered he was his brother, however he had acted; and, had he not been dead to the best feelings of our nature, the return of his brother must have given him pleasure, instead of his anger being excited at his father's receiving him with kindness. I see not how all our Lord says of him can be taken into view, without his appearing unamiable and selfish; and selfishness is the root of every vice. Could Jesus exhibit the elder brother as an approved character, without seeming to justify the Pharisees in their objections to his own conduct? I perfectly agree with Mrs. H. as to the bad moral tendency of representing those who have been abandoned to every vice, when brought to repentance, as more precious in the sight of the benevolent Father of all, than those who have always been virtuous; but this appears to me irrelevant to the design of our Lord's parable. The question is, whether the truly penitent sinner be not more acceptable in the sight of God, than the self-righteous Pharisee, who, probably, appears outwardly righteous only because he has not been exposed to powerful temptations, and who, with all his boasted righteousness, is censorious, uncharitable, selfish, and inwardly corrupt: and I leave it to Mrs. H. and the readers, to consider whether such were not the characters which our Lord meant to expose and reprove in the parable, while he vindicated his own conduct in receiving sinners and eating with them.

Though Mrs. H. "cannot perceive the least affinity" between the two brothers and the Jews and Gentiles, or that the latter can be "figured" by the former; I still think with the late excellent Mr. Kenrick, in his exposition, and many other good writers, that Jesus had this in view in the parable, as well as to repel the objections of the Pharisees to his immediate conduct. To the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles he seems to have frequently alluded, though obscurely, because even his own disciples were not then prepared to hear the subject stated plainly. In what Mrs. H. says of the Jews and Gentiles, she seems not to recollect that the language of a parable is not to be construed strictly, as if every part of it was designed to allegorize something in the subject designed to be brought into view, or to be only obscurely intimated. Whatever the moral character of the Jews might be, they certainly all along continued professedly the people and church of God; they continued to enjoy the privileges of the former dispensation; and to them the promises respecting Christ and the gospel were made; and this I think sufficient to justify the language used to them, as the elder brother in the parable. The Gentiles before they were lost in superstition and idolatry, had the knowledge of the true God, and voluntarily departed from him, his worship, and the enjoyment of his favour, (see Rom. ch. i.,) which seems to me, to render applicable the description given of the younger brother. I do not deem it necessary to say more on the present occasion; but cannot conclude without expressing my high esteem for the amiable writer, whose stric tures have called forth these remarks. R. WRIGHT.

SIR,

Sept 10, 1823.

writers of eminence amongst the Quakers.

He also appears to consider those Epistles as unquestionably giving the general sense of the large assembly, in whose name they are given forth, as if it was the practice at those Meetings to ascertain what that sense is, in a manner equally decisive of the fact as a show of hands, a ballot, or some other personal declaration of the sense of the majority of persons present on any question that may come before them. Perhaps your correspondent may himself be one of that respectable Society, and of that increasing class amongst them, (if I am not misinformed,) who both purchase and read your Journal. ́Be this as it may, he does not seem to know that your readers have had within about ten years past ample information on, I believe, every part of his inquiry.

That there was considerable variation in sentiment on several points of doctrine of more or less importance amongst its authors in high and general esteem with the Society, from the age of Fox, Penn, Barclay, and their contemporaries, will be evident on an examination of their writings, comparing one part with another. It is equally clear from the history, or rather biography, of its founders, and other leading members of the Society, that they then rather encouraged than repressed the free exercise of private judgment in its members, on the momentous concerns of faith and worship. Yet were they, if any thing in their history can be depended upon, as highly distinguished for zeal in the cause of truth, or of what they believed to be such, as they were, for bearing the peculiar badge of discipleship, by which all men were to know the followers of Christ, their love one towards another. They walked, as Isaac Penington said of

YOUR Correspondent who de- them, harmoniously together, with

scribes himself as a "Friend to the Quakers," I doubt not very sincerely, unknown as he is to me, inquires in your last Number, (p. 467,) how it is to be accounted for that the language of the last Yearly Meeting Epistle should be so different from the representations of some of your correspondents in former Numbers, and the extracts they have adduced from

different apprehensions concerning truth, and in the midst of different practices.

Your Correspondent should consider, that in the lapse of time, bodies of men, even professing Christians, under the same appellation, gradually and almost insensibly adopt new tenets, and silently suffer others which they formerly held, to fall into ob

livion. With regard to the Arian or Sabellian doctrines professed in the last Yearly Meeting Epistle, the proper question is, not whether such doctrines are advocated in some or other of their early writers; but whether they are scriptural, and have been before so recognized as the faith of the Society in its Yearly Epistles; which have now been annually issued about 150 years, and so far as I know, without any such exposition of their faith.

I grant the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ is to be found in a few passages of their early writers. But I think it is usually plain from the context of such passages, that it was not the pre-existence of the man Christ Jesus, but of that divine pow er which dwelt in, and acted by him, of which they meant to speak. Had the two sides of this question been fairly stated, and put to the vote, even at this Yearly Meeting, I am persuaded the decision of a great ma jority would have been in favour of the latter opinion.

But, suppose it to have been in favour of the pre-existence of the man Christ Jesus, who could, he assures us, of himself do nothing, how could such a decision affect in the slightest degree, the genuine sense of the sa. cred writers on the subject?

The authors of the Epistle say that Jesus Christ" condescended to come down from heaven to effect our salvation." I ask, where does the New Testament say any thing of this kind? In the early part of Dr. Watts's life, he in like manner represented Jesus, the humble prophet of Nazareth, as condescending to sit upon the throne of his God and Father. But in the Doctor's more mature age he deeply regretted having ever used such language, and that he had put it out of his own power to correct it in subsequent editions of his Hymns, having sold the copy-right to a bookseller. Yet those Hymns, containing many sentiments which he afterwards much disapproved, are still weekly or oftener sung publicly by thousands, as having his sanction.

man Christ Jesus," or of that power by which he was enabled to do such mighty works as no man could do, unless God were with him; or, in other words, of that spirit which was poured out upon him without measure by his God and Father. Or those terms may have been used to express only a belief in his divine mission, or the divinity of the doctrine which he taught and "had heard of God."

[ocr errors]

So vague and ambiguous are the terms in which this Epistle publicly announces this tenet as the present belief of the Society of Friends, and as no new doctrine" from them. It is true that the doctrine of the personal pre-existence of Christ was many centuries ago held much more plainly by Arius, and that of the divinity of Christ, in far stronger and more sounding terms by Sabellius and his followers. Yet were they both condemned as heretics by the reputedly orthodox churches of the day, then, as now, in strict alliance with the princes of this world. But their decisions are of little or no value with consistent, well-informed Protestants, or indeed with any scriptural Christians, nor were they with the founders of Quakerism. Neither can I esteem this Epistle as correctly representing the general sense of the Society, from what I happen to know of the sentiments of its members; and I have heard many of them express their disapprobation of those parts of this Epistle to which your correspondent has called my attention. Your readers may, however, judge for themselves, how far this Epistle can be justly considered as expressing the general sense of the body, by a brief detail of the manner of its introduction into the Yearly Meeting, and of the substance of what passed there, on these parts of the Epistle.

On the clerk announcing that the General Epistle was brought in by the "large Committee," he thought fit, it seems, to express a hope that Friends would not on its being read remark upon it. It was drawn up by a very large Committee, in which he thought the Meeting might safely place confidence. And if any friend should disapprove any part of it, he might have an opportunity of stating his objections to the Committee to be 4 D

Nor have the compilers of this Epistle given us any explanation of the sense in which they use the phrase "divinity of Christ;" whe ther they mean the divinity of " the

VOL. XVIII.

appointed by the Meeting to superintend the printing. He thought this the best mode, as stating objections in the Meeting at large, had a tendency to dissipate that solemnity which reading such Epistles might bring over the Meeting.

After this effort to discourage inquiry into the meaning of any expressions in the Epistle of doubtful import, or into their accordance with the testimony of Scripture, the Epistle was read. A well-known and approved minister amongst them, Luke Howard, on hearing it, I understand, expressed his dissatisfaction at its having been altered since it passed the large Committee, in its way to that Meeting. On this very proper observation being made, it was agreed to be read again, paragraph by paragraph, as sent up by the Committee. On being thus read, some observations were made on various parts of it, when Friends were again exhorted to state their objections, if they had any, not to the Meeting, but to a small Committee, as the clerk had recommended.

This induced a sensible and respectable Friend, Richard Payne, to observe that he questioned whether the Meeting would give that Committee, whose proper province was only to correct the press, power to alter the Epistle after it had passed the Meeting and been signed by the clerk. He was of opinion the precedent would be a very bad one, and that the principle on which it rested was unsound. On the paragraph which declares the principles of the gospel to be unchangeable, and yet speaks of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ, in unscriptural terms, Joseph Gurney, of Norwich, an approved minister of long standing in the Society, whose orthodoxy as to its tenets, or testimonies as they call them, I never heard called in question, inquired, whether the Meeting was prepared to support every part of that paragraph on clear, scriptural evidence?

This very pertinent, seasonable, and judicious call upon the Meeting, seriously to consider whether they were about to give forth the mere doctrines of man, or such as the clear intelligible evidence of scripture would warrant, occasioned, it appears, no little stir and whispering among the Friends

immediately round the table where the clerk sits as its chairman, though not under that name. The result of this private consultation was, that Joseph Gurney should be asked to state what parts of the paragraph he referred to in the terms abovementioned. By his explanation it appeared that he principally objected to that part of the paragraph which states it to be the belief of the Society, that our Lord Jesus Christ came down from heaven, and took on him the likeness of man, in order to effect our salvation. This, Joseph Gurney said, appeared to him, “to put a limit on the goodness and mercy of God, who he apprehended, had saved men by the same power and upon the same principle, from the beginning of time to the present day." The justice of these remarks was, I understand, not denied or questioned by any person present, and the expression was somewhat modified, but so as to leave the import of the words much the same.

Very few, if any, remarks were made on the other parts of the paragraph; but an elderly Friend, probably from the country, expressed his satisfaction that the Epistle was going forth in its present form, as he believed "it would be very gratifying to great numbers who are not members of our religious Society." Whatever zeal for the truth for its own sake, this Friend might possess, I cannot pretend to say; but to suffer such an observation to escape him may shew, that he was sufficiently alive to the praise of men, and most likely of those who were reputedly orthodox. Fearing I have already exceeded due limits in reply to your Correspondent, I forbear any farther observations.

AMICUS.

The Doctrines of the Divinity and Miraculous Birth of Christ, as taught by the Gnostics in the Church at Rome, reprobated by the Apostle Paul.

Hthe introduction of Christianity

AD the circumstances attending

into Rome been recorded and faithfully handed down to posterity, the doctrines of the divinity and miracu lous birth of Christ would never have been deemed parts, much less essen

« PreviousContinue »