CAN THE WORD "PROUD" BE USED IN A GOOD SENSE?

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I HAVE Occasionally heard persons of truly religious character remark— but, I conceive, without any serious consideration of the real import of the phrase "I am proud of this excellent institution,” or “I am proud of our success in this Christian undertaking." I am led to notice the subject by observing the following use of this, to myself, objectionable expression in Sidney's Life of his excellent uncle, Sir Richard Hill, as quoted in your Number for October, p. 553. "At the same time he was surrounded by persons of the first rank and ability, he was proud of being the friend of any humble and despised minister of the Gospel." I am well aware of the sense which the pious biographer attaches to the term in question, namely, "I am glad," or "I am elevated in spirit," or " I am conscious of an important point gained." Such, I doubt not, is the qualified meaning of the word "proud," when so employed by writers, or speakers, of the Christian class. But I would be permitted to inquire, is this the legitimate use, or admissible import, of the term? I humbly conceive that it is not. That "pride was not made for men" is not only the apocryphal representation of the Son of Sirach, (Ecclesiasticus x. 18), but the doctrine of the word of God. Thus (Prov. xvi. 5 and 8), “ Every one that is proud in heart, is an abomination to the Lord;" Pride goeth before destruction." Be ye clothed with humility." (1 Peter v. 5.) I might easily multiply quotations. Can then that term which is uniformly taken in a bad sense by the inspired penmen, be, at any time, lawfully used in a good sense by Christians. As to the minuteness of my query, I have only to say respecting it,

66

"Eheu quam minimis pendent ingentia causis ;"

and (in the higher language of Revelation, 2 Peter iii. 14), "Be diligent, that ye may be found of Him in peace, without spot, and blameless."

Πιστις.

*.* Our correspondent will probably thank us for adding the following passage from Hannah More's least-known work, her "Hints towards forming the Character of a Young Princess." It is not however true that the use of the word "proud" in a good sense is a modern innovation. The old writers thus use it. Dr. Isaac Barrow for example says, "That we may glorify our Maker is an honour we should be glad-we may be proud-of."

"There are perhaps few words which the reigning practice has more warped from its legitimate meaning and ancient usage than the term proud. Let us try whether Johnson's definition sanctions the adopted use. Proud,' says that accurate philologist, means, elated-haughty-daring-presumptuous-ostentatious, &c. &c. Yet, do we not continually hear, not merely the journalist and the pamphleteer, but the legislator, and the orator, sages who give law, not to the land only, but to the language, using the term exclusively in an honourable sense.' They are proud to acknowledge,'- proud to confess.' Instead of the heart-felt language of gratitude for a deliverance or a victory, we hear of a proud day,'—' a proud circumstance'—' a proud event,' thus raising to the dignity of virtue a term which lexicographers and moralists have annexed an odious, and divines an unchristian, sense. If pride be thus enrolled in the list of virtues. must not humility, by a natural consequence, be turned over to the catalogue of vices? If pride was made for man, has not the Bible asserted a falsehood?"

TWO LETTERS FROM THE REV. DR. WOLFF TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN OBSERVER.

[We insert, as Dr. Wolff requests, the two following good-humoured letters: though we had much rather have been spared so much of personal al'usion. We hope the matter will here terminate. As to some questions of controversy, we agree to disagree,” as he says: and will therefore only add a note here and there to clear up a fact. We believe our warm-hearted correspondent to be" an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile."]

Parsonage, Linthwaite, Nov. 6, 1839.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

REV. AND DEAR SIR,

Permit me to address these lines to you, not with the intention of entering into a controversy, (for we must agree to disagree,) but for the purpose of informing you that I have read your review of my late publication, and am sincerely obliged to you for several useful hints you gave me, and of which I hope to profit in my next publication; but at the same time I must confess that I feel grieved to find that you seem to try to give to the public the impression that I confined myself enterely to the preaching of the personal advent of Christ, and his visible reign upon earth, of which certainly you cannot accuse me with justice; so for instance to the Jews in Cephalonia, I preached the sufferings of Christ by expounding to them the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, &c.*

We did not mean to "give the impression" that Dr. Wolff "confined himself entirely to the preaching of the personal advent of Christ, and his visible reign upon earth;" but that he made it a most striking and prominent characteristic of his addresses. Had he seen the "passages of theological remark and argument" which we had maiked, and promised to insert (as we have done) in our December Number, he would have found that we did not confine his theology to one article. We are however still of opinion, whatever may be the true exposition of unfulfilled prophecy, that to tell a Jew, as an argument to embrace the faith of Christ, that if he does so he will be literally restored in triumph to the land of his fathers, is to appeal to motives not necessarily religious or spiritual; but, it may be, only national, selfish, ambitious, or carnal. There is no essential connexion between regeneration, or justifying faith in Christ, and those temporal hopes which even unconverted Jews generally cherish of being restored to Palestine. In this statement we may claim the concurrence of one of the most zealous modern advocates of the expectations referred to, Mr. Burgh; who considers that at the pre-millennial advent of Christ, the restored Jews will be placed nearest his throne, and far above the believing Gentiles; but who nevertheless admits that the hope of a temporal restoration may, and he thinks will, be turned to purposes of personal and national ambition, by Jews who are wholly destitute of religion. His notion of a pre-millennial restoration to Palestine, succeeded by desolation and subjugation, and then by millennial deliverance, is abundantly fanciful; but his argument confirms the advice which we have so often tendered to some of the Christian friends of Israel, (among whom we heartily enrol ourselves) to address the Jews about such matters as CHRIST. OBSERV. APP.

5 H

I do not recollect that I ever accused the spiritualizers (I use this term without intention of offending you or any one else) that they do not believe in any advent of Christ at all; I know that they believe this but your spiritualizing gentlemen have vague and wild views on this subject, whilst I like sobriety in every thing, and especially in the interpretation of Holy Writ. Beside this, you give the public to understand that I attacked the Missionary Societies in Dr. Hook's church. Now I am sure that you were misinformed on this subject, for I had a long conversation with Doctor Hook on the great use of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and I mentioned to that holy, good, excellent, but persecuted friend, (I mean Doctor Hook) as an instance, my meeting with a Brahmin on the frontiers of Tibet, expounding the Bible to a number of Hindoos and Budhists! The first sermon I preached in Dr. Hook's church was the subject of the

conviction of sin, and repentance, and faith, and renewal of heart, and the duties of the Christian life, rather than so much about their literal re-occupation of Jerusalem. Mr. Burgh supposes their temporal restoration to their own land to be consistent with an unrenewed heart, a wicked life, and "greater abominations than ever ;" and we fear that when carnally-minded Jews hear of their expected return to their old country, their notions are not a whit more spiritual than he describes. Where there is the true love of the Saviour, and of his mystical body the church, terrestrial locality is a matter of little moment. The following is Mr. Burgh's opinion:

"I believe that God, for the purpose of teaching them that in the Lord alone the seed of Israel shall be justified and shall glory,' for the purpose of effectually humbling them and weaning them off every other dependance, will allow them to try their strength once more—will let them yet again ‘lean on the staff of a broken reed' -will suffer them to return to their land, where they shall be guilty of greater abominations than ever heretofore, and that at the time they think themselves most secure, he will bring against them the northern army' threatened; will break down their strong-hold wherein they trust, scatter them to the four winds, and by a short work' of judgment consummate the indignation. I believe that the invading army will then plant the abomination of desolation,' and for 'three years and a half' prosper, viz., till the indignation be accomplished,' and God by his instrumentality shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people,' when all shall be finished.''

* We never heard, or thought, or meant to intimate, that Dr. Wolff" attacked the Missionary Societies in Dr. Hook's church." We could not say so; for we knew nothing more about what he preached there, than what he himself states in his letter to Sir Thomas Baring, of March 19, 1839; which is nothing at all. He says:

"Dear Sir Thomas,

"Having been to Leeds last week to preach for Dr. Hook, I was prevented going on with my letter; but now I resume my pen to tell you first of all that I daily see more plainly the total inconsistency of taking the prophecies otherwise than in their grammatical historical sense."

When we spoke of Dr. Wolff as " saying no very obliging things [we did not use the word "attack,"] of some excellent individuals and societies concerned in the work of Christian Missions," we meant in his book, and we honestly quoted our proofs. If he were acquainted with our pages, he would be aware that we never publish remarks upon what persons say in pulpits, dining-rooms, drawingrooms, committee-rooms, or academical common-rooms; we abhor the practice. But if they print their thoughts, then they challenge the world to reply to them.

Millennium, in which he does not go with me all the length, as you know, nor any of the people at Oxford. My sermon on Apostolic Succession, Baptismal Regeneration, and the importance of the Lord's Supper, in which points I completely agree with the people of Oxford, (I mean with Pusey, Newman, and Palmer) I preached in the church of the Rev. Mr. Fawcett, at Woodhouse, who does not go all length with me on these points! On Tradition, I preached for the Rev. Mr. Poole, at Leeds, but Dr. Hook told me after the sermon that I went too far on the subject of Tradition; and Dr. Hook lately reproved me in a letter for having made an observation at Huddersfield, in the meeting of the Propagation Society, which might give offence to the Church Missionary Society!

I lately had a long conversation with him (Dr. Hook) on the great talents of several Missionaries of the Jews' Society-a truth which I am sure many members of the Church Missionary Society will not like to hear-for there is evidently a jealousy existing in the minds of many advocates of the Church Missionary Society against the Jews' Society! * I like the members of the Committee as private gentlemen; but all I maintain is that they are not fit; nor is it proper that they should give orders to ordained Missionaries, or any other Missionary for a person may be a very clever man in his business in Oxford Street at London, but an old woman in Aleppo! It is true that I find fault with some Missionaries; but they have also a right to find fault with me: for I myself have made a great many blunders during my Missionary operations; as for instance at Madras, where I evidently acted with very great imprudence, and thus several times in Egypt and at Lahore! therefore you may publish this candid confession of mine! †

Where could kind-hearted Dr. Wolff, whose "charity thinketh no evil," have heard this strange story? We cannot conceive what shadow of a shade of reason there could be for "jealousy" between two such institutions. If we thought there were any such feeling on either side, we should say," Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another?" The following is one of the fundamental laws of the Church Missionary Society, and is printed with every annual Report: "A friendly intercourse shall be maintained with other Protestant Societies engaged in the same benevolent design of propagating the Gospel of Jesus Christ." If any subscriber should violate this excellent rule, he would be no longer in spirit a member of the Society.

After this "candid confession," we presume that no person will take the trouble to be angry with Dr. Wolff, because he thinks other men and women too-fallible like himself. We only hope that we shall not be made responsible for his remarks; some of which relate to persons and things quite unknown to us; but as we are aware of what comes of either "suppressing" or "garbling" letters, we print verbatim; which Dr. Wolff must acknowledge to be honest dealing. We have not even altered the casual misdate of December for November, in the second letter; because such little chronological caprioles shew that currente-calamo words must not always be scanned too microscopically. We are not fastidious, provided we know what a writer means; so that if Dr. Wolff had preferred dating it (Judaically) the last day of Marchesvan, anno 5600, it would have reached us duly, as it did, on the first of Kisleu, and we should have been equally contented.

Now with regard to Pusey, Newman, and Hook! I call none of them my masters-but so much I must say in their behalf, that I believe them to be pious, holy, good, and excellent men, and the most powerful opponents to Popery, which (I mean Popery) is an Antichristian system-and I detest Popery, and hate it with a perfect hatredbut I accuse myself in my work for imprudence in my proceedings in Ireland in the year 1826-Tottenham at Bath is the man to cope with them, but not Tresham Gregg at Dublin! But I forgot quite the writers of the Oxford Tracts!

The fault I find with the Record is, that it gives garbled and perverted statements of the principles of those holy men, which, if I should have time, I could sufficiently prove it, by NUMEROUS instances! Secondly, the writers in the Record have frequently shown an inquisitorial spirit ;-what right have they, for instance, to ask Mr. Newman what he said in private about the Bishops of Chester and Winchester ? I am far from subscribing to all the sentiments of the Oxford people; some of them allegorize too much the Prophecies, just as you do yourself; but with all this they are honest and good people. There is a great deal of truth in what they say about reserve-but I do not go with them in this respect all the length !

Now with regard to my views on the Voice of the Church and Tradition-I believe that a good pious soul, by reading simply the Scripture, may find out the truth, with God's grace, without Tradition; but Tradition is a safeguard against heretics! However, more the next time. You may also assure the Committees of the Jews' and Church Missionary Society that I love them most cordially! Pray insert this letter in your next Number.

I have only to observe how can Charlotte Elizabeth attack me for having inserted a poem of an Arabian Bedoveen which I heard in Arabia, and which was paraphrased by Mr. Perring at Leeds! Ladies ought never to be reviewers, nor controversialists! Charlotte Elizabeth ought to write books for little children, not against Pusey.

Yours affectionately

JOSEPH WOLFF.

P.S.-Let Charlotte Elizabeth go to Oxford, and argue the subject over with Mr. Newman; if they are Papists (what they are not) they will make a Papist of her in five minutes.

Linthwaite, 7th Dec. 1839.

To the Rev. Editor of the Christian Observer.

REV. AND DEAR SIR,

I must write to you once more to explain to you some other points with regard to some of your remarks. You say that there is a gap between 1831 and 1835; I beg leave to observe that my Journals containing my journeys from Malta to Bokhara, and thence to Calcutta, and back to Malta, which journeys were made from the years 1831 to 1835, have been printed several years ago, but are now out of print, and I intend to prepare a third Edition of them, with additions.

My future publication about America will be a kind but not a pungent one, for I received great kindness in America, and I am especially attached to the Episcopal Church there, whilst I cannot but speak