from the original Hebrew, as seems to be the case in this instance. 3. But Mr. Pearson cannot understand, how the devotion of Jephthah's daughter to a state of virginity, could occasion in her father such perturbation of mind, as to cause him to rend his clothes, and to exclaim, "Alas! my daughter, &c." But it should be observed, that by this all a fond father's hopes of posterity were utterly extin guished. Beside her, (as we read) he had neither son nor daughter, no one to continue his race; and barrenness and want of children were esteemed a great reproach and curse in those days: and therefore might Jephthah, as well as his daughter, bewail her virginity, and deplore the misfortune which his vow had brought upon him. 4. Further, Mr. Pearson is of opinion, that whatever side of the question is taken, Jephthah will be implicated in a great share of guilt. But surely the act of devoting a daughter to a state of virginity, and to the service of the Lord, and that with her own consent, does not imply any thing very criminal; at least it is not to be compared with the foul erime of shedding the blood of an innocent child, and polluting the altar of God with a human sacrifice, which must be an abomination in his sight, and was one of the crying sins for which the Canaanites were devoted to extirpation and utter destruction. 5. Mr. P. seems to think, that it was the faith of Jephthah, and not his righteousness, which caused him to be enrolled among the Jewish worthies enumerated in the 11th chap. of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Here indeed I must differ from him most widely. The faith which the Apostle speaks of, is not surely a bare assent to the truths of religion, but such a faith as worketh by love, and is productive of good works. The case of David, indeed, was very different. His crime was certainly great and heinous, and as such it is highly censured and reprobated in Holy Scripture; but it was atoned for by the sincerity and earnestness of his repentance and on this account the Lord did put away his sin, that he should not die. But we read of no repentance of Jephthah, no expiation of the horrid crime of wilful and deliberate murder. If Jephthah had been thus guilty, it cannot surely be con2 ceived that he should be enlisted by an inspired Apostle, in the same rank with those, who through faith wrought righteousness, obtained the promises, and of whom it is said, that the world was not worthy. But into such difficulties and perplexities are the advocates of this system, which Mr. Pearson would wish to revive, continually involved. The biblical scholar will therefore, I trust, receive with some degree of satisfaction the explanation which Dr. Randolph has given of this passage, which vindicates the character of Jephthah, and the honour of the Holy Scriptures, and at the same time puts to silence the scoffs of the infidel; and which has obtained the highest encomiums from men of such eminenee, as Bishop Lowth, Dr. Kennicott, and Dr. Parr. I have further to add, that I entirely concur with Dr. Watkins in opinion, that the story of Iphigenia ought to have been omitted in the discussion of a passage in holy writ. Besides, it does not appear that she was offered in sacrifice. Dr. Thomas Brown, in the Book and Chapter of his Vulgar Errors, before cited, tells us, that Iphigenia was not sacrificed herself, but redeemed with an hart, which Diana accepted for her. I have said thus much in vindication of what I conceive to be the cause of truth and of religion, but not with any view of depreciating the merit of Mr. Pearson's writings. Many of his papers in your useful Miscellany I admire and approve of, and esteem him an able advocate in defence of the liturgy and articles of our Church. But in this matter of Jephthah's Vow I cannot agree with him, and flatter myself that I have assigned some good reasons for such dissent. Amicus Socrates, amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. I remain, Sir, March 11, 1806, Your's, &c. CLERICUS. I TO THE EDITORS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S GENTLEMEN, MAGAZINE. BEG leave to call your attention to a subject in which I think the cause of religion and humanity is deeply concerned. It is a subject that has long been dear to me, as the foundation of it will tend in a great measure to alle viate the miseries of a very useful class of men, which I am afraid are but little known to the world. Those whose cause I now wish to plead, and I hope not ineffectually, are the sons of literature and science, to whose united, but useful labours, we are under the greatest obligations, and of which we cannot speak in terms sufficiently grateful. It is well known, that the more the mind is refined by education, the more it is alive to a sense of misery, and to those misfortunes ever attendant upon poverty occasioned by distress, but not brought on by profligate misconduct. Can humanity then figure to itself an object more worthy, or more entitled to the compassion of his fellow creatures, than that man who, as an author, has by his literary productions endeavoured to vindicate religion from the sneers of the infidel, and to protect government from the envenomed shafts of the republican, yet labours under complicated difficulties, and by relentless and merciless creditors is doomed to spend the remainder of his days within the dreary walls. of a prison? That this is not an uncommon case, the monthly records of that excellent institution, called the Literary Fund, an institution which displays in the most amiable point of view, the great characteristic of this nation, Humanity, would prove beyond a shadow of doubt, did not a sense of delicacy prevent their publication. Whoever has been present at the meetings of their society must frequently have shuddered with horror at the well authenticated tales of woe which have there been related, whilst his heart has glowed with rapture at the exalted, but delicate manner, in which he has beheld the various objects of them relieved, and perhaps extricated from the very abyss of misery. To the honour of this nation be it spoken, this society soon promises to be in a flourishing state, since it has received the illustrious patronage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and the no less useful patronage of several of the nobility, together with the truly generous one of most ranks of people. I hope then, that I shall not be accused of temerity in venturing to recommend to my fellow-countrymen the protection of those by whose laborious works, the fame of statesmen, heroes, philosophers, and divines, is transmitted with anxious care to the most distant ages. I wish to serve those who from their profession and education, are tremblingly alive to a sense of misery, and whose wives and and families look to them alone for support and protection, whilst Providence blesses them with health and ability to give it. To dig they are not accustomed, to beg they are ashamed. If we look narrowly around us, we shall be convinced that it is not those who receive parochial assistance who are the most wretched objects in society, but the middle ranks, possessed of small incomes, and which from the unavoidable increase of expense in these times, the most strenuous professional exertions are unnable so far to improve, as to afford any certain protection against the day of sickness, trouble, and distress. If then, Gentlemen, the humanity of any of your readers shall be excited by this representation, weak as I confess it to be, of the miseries too frequently attendant upon a literary life, it will afford the most heartfelt satisfaction and comfort to, Gentlemen, Your humble Servant, ORDINIS MINORIS. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE. A SIR, NY testimony to the truth of Mr. Granville Sharp's rule, from a man of Dr. Clarke's learning and principles, would undoubtedly be strong: but the passage appealed to by Mr. Nosworthy (see your Magazine for January, p. 22,) makes neither for nor against it. Dr. Clarke admits, what no Arian or Socinian can deny, that the words will grammatically bear Mr. Sharp's construction; but so long as he maintains and prefers another, this concession cannot be brought in confirmation or support of the rule. It is perhaps more to the purpose, that the fathers, both Greek and Latin, all, with the exception of one only, concur in referring the words To μayang Di Kaι owingos nuwv, Tit. 2. 13, to Jesus Christ, and in that very chapter, v. 10, God and our Saviour are unequivocally mentioned as one and the same. The omission in some copies of xas before carngos, though it confirms Vol. X. Churchm. Mag. for March 1806. Cc not not the rule, yet favours the doctrine, which it is brought forward to support, viz. the Divinity of our Lord. With regard to the other texts cited by Mr. Pearson, 2 Pet. i. 1. and 2 Pet. iii. 18, there is a different reading also of the first, which to Mr. Sharp's rule would prove fatal with that of the second, namely, the repetition of nuw after owTngos: there is another also which confirms it, the putting of eee and σωτηρος both before ημων. But it must not be dissembled, that if u and I are one in the first verse of 2 Pet. ch. i, they are distinguished as two in the second. The first of these two texts, if uw follows es, will also bear a third interpretation, agreeable to grammar and consistent with scripture, viz. The God of us and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." Thus John xxi. 17, "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my Gad, and your God" and in several epistles we have the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. There is a passage in St. Luke's writings, incorrectly rendered in our translation, but supplying in the original a strong argument for the personality of the Logos, see Acts x. 36 and 37. "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, &c. Τον λόγον ον απέστειλε τοις υιοις Ισραηλ, ευαγγελιζομενος ειρήνην δια Ιησε Χριστε ουτος εστι παντων Κυριος. All the commentators whom I have seen, refer to Inge Xiore; whereas in proper grammatical construction it belongs When the antecedent is joined with the relative in the same case, the sense (say Messrs. de Port Royal) is rendered more clear and elegant, by adding a demonstrative pronoun in the latter part of the sentence, which pronoun agrees with the noun joined with the preceding relative. Thus in Horace, το λόγον. -Nemo quam sibi sortem That is, illa sorte. And again in Cicero, " Quamquis- 1 |