obloquy, I addressed a letter to the editor under the signature of "Another Clerical Member of the Christian Knowledge Society," wherein, besides shewing that the refinements introduced into his mode of explicating Christian doctrine would only bewilder plain understandings, for which the scriptures were written, I farther shewed, that there was authority for the use of the word "conditions," in the sense objected to, to which I was quite sure he would bow; and then mentioned "Venn's New Whole Duty of Man." From this work I cited a dozen or more passages which first occurred, strongly and decidedly to the point, giving both the edition and the pages. Instead of referring to the places where the passages were to be found, the editor most unscrupulously declared, that he " was fully persuaded that the quotations given from the work from which his correspondent extracted were not to be found in that publication"-thus casting upon me an imputation of want of veracity which has cost many a man his life. I wrote to him twice to complain of this injury, but no notice was taken of my letters, nor the slightest apology made to me to this day. Only, by the help of his correspondents, he made (as he thought) the discovery, that the " New Whole Duty of Man" was not Venn's, but the "Complete Duty of Man." Of the latter work, as distinct from the former, I certainly was not aware; but he is wrong in saying the other is not Venn's. It is a Venn's, at any rate,-what Venn's, I shall not undertake to say. I thought it, and I believe it is generally thought, to be the Venn's. But it is of no importance. I will conclude what I have to say with citing a few passages from sundry luminaries of our church, all bearing me out, that to speak of" conditions" of salvation is no novel mode of expression, nor inconsistent with the utmost holiness of life and purity of doctrine that ever adorned the Christian character. I could go further, and prove--a consideration paramount to all others that it is quite in accordance with scripture, even with those passages that are brought forward as militating against it. But to our authorities: Donne says-" Fix upon the conditions, and perform them." Bishop Taylor-" If obedience and charity be not a condition of our salvation, then it is not necessary to follow faith." Bishop Stillingfleet-" He (i.e., Christ) begins (his sermon on the mount) with promising blessedness to the humble, merciful, pure in heart." What do these things mean, if they be not conditions on our parts, necessary in order to happiness? Bishop Horne-" Faith and works are the conditions, to the performance of which, through the power of his grace, God has annexed the promise of redemption." Again, Gisborne-"If it be intended that good works are a meritorious condition of salvation, the meaning is totally unchristian: if the sense be, that they are an indispensable condition, it is scripturally correct." This distinction is maintained also by Bishop Sanderson, and the great nonconformist, Baxter. The saintly Leighton also calls "faith the condition of salvation." And lastly, Waterland not only contends for the innocence of the term objected to, but also assigns the probable reason of the objection. "Some (says he) have been very scrupulous as to this innocent name (conditions), while they allow the absolute ness. necessity of good works as indispensable qualifications for future blessedWhy not conditions, therefore, as well as qualifications? Perhaps, because that name might appear to strike at absolute predestination, or unconditional election, and there may lie the scruple; otherwise the difference appears to lie in words rather than in things." I believe it. I remain, Sir, truly yours, CANDIDUS. BISHOP JEWELL. MR EDITOR,-The profligate acts of Romanists who does not know? I remember, in younger and more confiding years, having been led, by Dr. Milner's "End of Controversy," to fear that half our hierarchy were covert papists! I remember, too, Dr. Parr reading him a severe lecture with respect to certain freedoms he had taken with certain eminent names, asserting of them, that in their last moments they had crept back into the bosom of his church! And such, still, is their policy. I was, however, surprised to find, in the mutually warranted report of the "Controversy at Downside," an allegation, neither met nor rebutted by the protestant champions, as it ought to have been, against that great name, the synonyme of scriptural protestantism and the church of England, Jewell. In Mr. Brown's 4th speech, we have as follows::-"We have the assurance of Dr. Smith, not many years after the death of Jewell, that on his death-bed he declared that all the time he professed to be the enemy of catholic doctrines, and combatted them, he was, in heart, a catholic-(this, on the assurance of a physician, Dr. Twin, who received the information from the CHAPLAIN of Bishop Jewell.") Who will believe this, that knows the character of that most admirable man? in face, too, of the most unimpeachable contemporary evidence! Jewell is public property of the protestant world. Let him be vindicated; and to this good end I solicit information, who are the deponents in this strange, most strange, charge? May I, further and by the way, observe, that the argument of truth labours under a disadvantage in assailing tradition in the abstract. Let the papists (things and men should be called by their right names-our courtesy has done hurt) produce their particular traditions, and let them be tried by their evidence-they are only history at best. If true, they will agree with scripture. Papists, surely, will not refuse this appeal; and THEN there is no difficulty in taking them for what they are worth. We do not want them; still they do no harm. If they contradict scripture, either in letter or spirit, then the onus probandi rests with them, and the guilt of impugning the inspired scriptures. Mr. Tottenham discovers much talent in that particular controversy; but it is altogether a fight in the dark, and we find little but complaints and recriminations of " leaving the subject," and bestowing their blows amiss. How can it be otherwise? J. W. VOL. X.-Oct. 1836. 31 DR. WISEMAN ON 1 JOHN, v. 7, 8. MY DEAR SIR,-The British Magazine, June, 1834, vol. v., p. 702, gives some observations on what Dr. Wiseman had published in the Catholic (Roman) Magazine, 1833; of which I do not find that any notice has been taken, farther than " Amicus" telling you that he found no fun in anything that I said, and his calling upon you to gag me. That learned and acute writer, who took the nom de guerre of "Crito Cantabrigiensis," never liked me one bit; and cried, "Hold, enough!" at our first meeting. He had said, in his long-suppressed work, p. 161, "Why is the genuineness of this verse [these two verses] to be determined on different principles from that of any other passage which claims to be part of the New Testament?" This is referred to p. 703, and I would re-sing it in the ears of the Docti et Prudentes with parrot pertinacity. Now I am confident that there are three or four, out of your numerous learned readers, who would not willingly admit, what the Rev. Robert Taylor, with too much reason, asserted, producing his authorities, (the "glaring evidence" alone would be sufficient,) that we circulate, " as the word of God, with consent and connivance of all parties, several passages known and admitted by all to be forgeries and lies." And I verily believe that there are one or two who would even take the pains to examine whether the atrocious conduct which Crito notices be chargeable upon us "stubborn and perverse people," as the liberal Dr. Jortin styles every one of us, "who pretend to deny that the heavenly witnesses are an interpolation;" or upon our learned and skilful accusers. To these one or two readers I wish that you would intimate, that the discussion in the Birmingham periodical, having received the manus ultima of the learned author, was printed at Rome, 1835, with an advertisement, stating that he had been induced to print a few copies, chiefly for private circulation;" and that I have just obtained a copy, by applying at Mr. Booker's, 61, New Bond-street. FRANCIS HUYSHE, MR. SHARP'S RULE.* SIR,-I proceed to offer you a few concluding observations on the usage of the New Testament, as regards the proposed rule. The following are examples of words of kindred meaning : 2 Cor. x. 1. . . . . . διὰ τῆς πραότητος καὶ ἐπιεικείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ. xii. 21 .... ἐπὶ τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ καὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ ἀσελγείᾳ ἡ ἔπραξαν. Would the writer of this letter look at Stuart's book on the Greek article, which professes to shew that Bishop Middleton is wrong? It is re-published in "Clark's Biblical Cabinet." The Editor is about to examine it closely for himself, and would like very much to have some private correspondence on the matter with "X.," if he would give his name. It is a melancholy truth that so few people are interested in subjects of this kind, all important as they are, that much discussion of them in a public journal is thought tiresome.-ED. 2 Cor. xiii. 11.... ὁ Θεὸς τῆς ἀγάπης καὶ ἐιρήνης. Phil. 1. 7 ....... τῇ ἀναλογίᾳ, καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. 20 ...... τὴν ἀποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα μου. - ii. 17 Col. ii. 19. . 22. .. .... ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν. κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ανθρώπων. 1 Thess. iii. 7. ... ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ θλίψει καὶ ἀνάγκῃ ὑμῶν. Heb. xiii. 16. τῆς εὐποιίας καὶ κοινωνίας. .... The following passages, besides others that might be quoted, are clearly in accordance with the Rule. Rom. xiv. 21 . . . . καλὸν τὸ μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα, μηδὲ πιεῖν οἶνον. .... 1 Cor. xi. 22 .... 2 Cor. vii. 3..... Eph. ii. 20. See iii. 5. εἰς τὸ ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν. εἰς τὸ συναποθανεῖν καὶ συζῆν. ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν. Eph. iii. 18 τὶ τὸ πλάτος καὶ μῆκος και βάθος καὶ ὕψος. ..... 1 Thess. iii. 10. . . εἰς τὸ ἰδεῖν ὑμῶν τὸ πρόσωπον καὶ καταρτίσαι τὰ.... 1 Tim. vi. 20.... τὰς βεβήλους κενοφωνίας καὶ ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως. Tit. ii. 13 ....... τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν. 2 Pet. i. 10. ..... τὴν κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογὴν. In the passage, Col. iii. 5, τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν, τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, πορνείαν, ἀκαθαρσίαν, πάθος, ἐπιθυμίαν κακὴν, καὶ τῆν πλεονεξίαν, ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδω λολατρεία, the article is properly inserted before πλεονεξίαν, to separate it from the preceding class of sensual sins,to which it does not belong. Another case of words included under a single article remains to be noticed, which has been passed over by Bishop Middleton, probably because he was not led to it by Mr. Sharp's Rule-namely, when the words are connected by a disjunctive conjunction. This seems to take place in the case of subjects, with respect to all of which what is affirmed is equally true, or which may be used indifferently by way of illustration of the point in question. The principle is the same as before-they are viewed as together forming a class in virtue of this common property. † The article is here used in reference to ver. 13. τὸ αἷμα ταύρων καὶ τράγων : which appears to be an example to chap. iii. lect. i. s. 7, where the second of two words in regimen is without the article, when it signifes a genus : τὸ αἷμα ταύρων is the blood of that species of animal. I am able to add the following examples to those cited by the Bishop: Plato. Phaedr. p. 259. τὸ τεττίγων γένος. Herod. Euter. 3. γυναικῶν τὰς γλώσσας ὁ ψαμμήτιχος ἐκταμών. On the principle of a common property, I grounded the explanation of the passage, ὁ δ ̓ ἐκκλησιαστὴς καὶ δικαστής. Though in. and δι. might be assumed of the same person, it is clear from the context that it is not the case in the present instance, and therefore the passage does not belong to the first rule. It is made to accord with the proposed rule by the common characteristic of the ecclesiast and the dicast, (ήδη περὶ παρόντων καὶ ἀφωρισμένων κρίνουσι,) in which they differ from the nomothete (ἡ τοῦ νομοθέτου κρίσις οὐ κατὰ μέρος, οὔτε περὶ τῶν παρόντων, ἀλλὰ περὶ μελλόντων τε καὶ καθόλου ἐστίν.) Plato. Theaet. p. 182. τῆς θερμότητος ἢ λευκότητος ἢ ὁτουοῦν γένεσιν, οὐχ οὕτω πως.... Id. τί δὲ περὶ αἰσθήσεως ἐροῦμεν ὁποιασοῦν; οἷον τῆς τοῦ ὁρᾷν ἢ ἀκούειν. Arist. Rhet. 2. 3. τοῖς μηδὲν τούτων ποιοῦσιν, ἢ ἀκουσίως ποιοῦσιν, ή φαινομένοις τοιούτοις, πρᾷοί εισι. 1 Cor. v. 10. ή τοῖς πλεονέκταις ἡ ἅρπαξιν ἢ ἐιδωλλάτραις. xi. 6. εἰ δὲ αἰσχρὸν γυναικὶ τὸ κείρασθαι ἡ ξυρᾶσθαι. The proposed Rule would, I think, at once dispose of all the examples quoted from Mr. Winstanley's work, as having been brought forward against Mr. Sharp's Rule; and it seems to confer additional interest on such passages as that quoted from the epistle of the church at Smyrna, μεθ' οὗ δόξα τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ καὶ ̔Αγίῳ Πνεύματι, by representing the Father and the Holy Spirit as sharing, together with Christ, in the ascription of the same glory. However, I would not appear to mix the present question with theological feelings. We have no reason to fear, and may, in course of time, have great occasion to feel the importance of, sound criticism; of which, on the contrary, the maintainers of extravagances in religion have so often manifested an instinctive dread. If I have been able to render probable the truth of a Rule, which supports the Bishop's first Rule, both by its sameness of principle, and by affording a satisfactory means of accounting for those expressions which have been brought forward against it, I hope I shall be excused for intruding to so great a length on your pages. X. PRAYER MEETINGS. SIR,-As some of my clerical brethren, for whose opinions, on many subjects, I entertain a sincere respect, and whose pastoral zeal I would humbly desire to imitate, are in the habit of holding prayer meetings during the week, with certain portions of their flock, at which the liturgy of the church is not employed, I beg to offer a few suggestions upon the practice, with a hope of inducing, possibly, some of my youthful and less experienced brethren, who, in the ardour of a commencing ministry, may be led to regard the custom as salutary, to pause, before they commit themselves to a system, of which, to say the least, they cannot foresee the results. I need not, I presume, point out that our church has neither commanded nor sanctioned any such practice, but on the contrary has implicitly discouraged everything of the kind by appointing an "order for morning and evening prayer daily throughout the year." This is our rule; and if, through the remissness of these latter days, we may seem excused in suspending it, we owe to it at least so much respect as not to substitute another of our own framing in its place. This is not a time when the authority of the church should be lightly esteemed by those who serve at her altars; neither need I shew how close an approximation we thus |