Latin Thesaurus's; Constantine's Lex.; Budæus Comment. on ye Greek Tongue; Nizolius; Brisonius de Verb. Sign.; Suidas. And likewise, with the best Grammarians, as Canninius's Hellenisms; Sanctius's Minerva, with Perizonius's Notes; Scaliger, de Causis Linguæ Latina; Linacre, de emendata Structura Latini Sermonis, and Popma de Differentiis Verborum. Then you may read Le Clerk's Ars Critica, and go to the study of the best critics; such as Jos. Scaliger, I. Casaubon, Lipsius, Turnebus, &c. but, above all, Dr. Bentley and BP Hare, who are the greatest men in this way, that ever were. But more of this as you proceed in your studies. A common-place-book is useful, when one knows what to common-place; but that cannot be, till after one has considerably improved one's knowledge; and to write down trite or trifling passages is but loss of time. "I am your assured Friend, "W. WARBURTON." "You should never let a day pass without reading something in Lat. and Greek, more or less. I don't know whether you understand French. No language can be more useful to a scholar, nor more necessary; the best books in all arts and sciences being wrote in that tongue. You may easily learn it yourselfe, without a master; for you do not want to speak, but to understand it." "To the Rev. Mr. W. Green, A. B. Clare-Hall, " in Cambridge. DEFENCE OF A LETTER ON METHODISM. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S SIR, MAGAZINE. BSERVING in your Magazine for May last, certain strictures on my late Letter to a Country Gentle mau on the subject of Methodism; and presuming, as I must do, that the writer of them is of orthodox principles, ciples, I cannot but wish for a right understanding between us in this case. You will therefore oblige me by giving the following explanation a place in your respectable periodical work, as early as you can. I am, Sir, Your very humble Servant, THE AUTHOR OF THE LETTER IN QUESTION. Suffolk, August 11, 1806. THE design of my letter was to check, if possible, the progresss of Methodism, as taught by the most illiterate preachers, and followed by the lowest classes of the people about us; which (local, as this writer deems my knowledge of their principles) I may venture to pro nounce, form a very great majority of these sectarists throughout the extensive countyin which I am situated. As far as my correspondence goes out of it, I find it nearly the same in others. Did he know again as much as I do of the ignorance which pervades this class of teachers, I am persuaded he would laugh with me at his idea of Arminian or Calvinistic distinctions amongst them if they have heard the more modern names of Wesley or Whitfield, he may be assured, it is all they know of either. The difference of opinions and doctrines amongst the higher and better educated orders of the Methodists, I professedly did not meddle with, as having been amply discussed by much abler writers. Should it now be thought, that those against whom my letter is pointed, were not worth meddling with at all, I still adhere to my first opinion; (viz.) that the greatest mischief to the morals and conduct of the common people, springs from this very class of preachers; and that the common people, under an ill-directed enthusiasm, may, from their very numbers, become most formidable enemies to the public peace. The passage from which this writer charges me with discountenancing family worship among the poor," had never any such meaning as it went from me: for nothing can be more abhorrent to my sentiments. But I must think the passage itself will not, in common construction, support his inference. When I said such piety is not requested of the poor man (and I might have said of any body else), the reader must refer my meaning to to those miscalled divine hymns I had mentioned in the sentence before. When I said that nine o'clock, and even later, in a winter's evening, was an unseasonable and uneconomical hour for the poor man to sit up to at his devotions I could not surely be thought to mean that he was "6 to go to rest like the cattle of the field." When I said that" the short prayer offered up on the pillow of rest, was equivalent on his part," &c. it surely was a very forced construction of the passage, to say it went to supersede all previous forms and postures of devotion. But admitting that I expressed myself here less unexceptionably than I might have done, I still trust that the reader who may give me credit, as this critic himself does, for a "becoming desire" to check the progress of false and pernicious principles of religion among my parishioners, will not readily think me capable of a design to discountenance such a genuine and beneficial part of it, as proper family devotion, amongst any classes of them. For my own part I can only say, that for consciousness of any such meaning or intention, I rest perfectly easy on my own pillow. ON BAPTISM, AGAINST THE QUAKERS. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE. SIR, WAS truly astonished a few days ago, on accidentally taking up Barclay's Apology for the Quakers," to find the words of St. Paul with regard to Baptism, so completely perverted. Indeed I never saw a greater perversion of any meaning in my life. I had intended, at the time I saw the above, to have troubled you with a few remarks on the subject, but I could find no opportunity. However, I have again been led to revert to the sensation I experienced on reading Barclay, by taking up a small publication by a Mr. Tuke, where he joins Barclay in the triumphant exclamation, that "St. Paul thanks God he baptized so few." Should the hum ble ble attempt I am about to make of the explanation of the real meaning of St. Paul in these words be deemed Worthy of your acceptance, I will trouble you more largely, in an extensive view of some of the more peculiar tenets of the sect now under consideration, as I have by me much matter for such purpose. As to St. Paul's words now in question, they are as palpable as the sun at noon-day; they are these: "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius, (mark the following verse, which, though absolutely necessary to complete the sentence, I in vain endeavoured to discover in the quotations of the above candid authors ;) LEST any should say, I have baptized in mine own name?' Nothing can be plainer than the cause of the Apostle's exclamation. Baptism in the name of Christ should have made such Christ's disciples; but we find there were contentions amongst those whom St. Paul addresses; and they said, "I am of Paul-I am of Cephas-I am of Apollos and I of Christ." "Is Christ divided? (exclaims the Apostle), was Paul crucified for you? and were you baptised in the name of Paul?" Well might St. Paul cry out," he thanked God he baptized none of THEM, but Crispus and Gaius; lest they should (perverting the intention of such an holy institution) say, he had arrogated to himself the honour of baptizing in his own NAME." Now Crispus and Gains were good, devout men, as we find Acts xviii. 8. 66 Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, with all his house; and many of the Corinthians fearing, believed, and were baptised. Also we find, Romans xvi. 23, "Gaius (St. Paul, speaking of him, saith), mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you." So here we see clearly established, that St. Paul rejoiced, not because he had baptized so few in NUMBER, but that he only had baptized sound and worthy members, such as Crispus and Gaius. He adds, “ I baptized also the household of Stephanus," of whom we read, xvi. 15, of his Epistle to the Corinthians, "Ye know the house of Stephanus, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." St. Paul is endeavouring to free bis conscience from the recollection of having baptized any unworthy persons (any of them" [of you," who were contentious, and who, by their ill conduct, would have disgraced the religion they had been baptized in,) and gladly gladly enumerates such pious Christians as he names in his epistle. The recollection of THEIR BAPTISM was a pleasure to him; and well it might his labours were so well bestowed, such good fruits followed. We read in the sequel, that St. Paul very naturally, after having mentioned so few he had baptized, adds, "that Christ sent me, not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." But here is nothing to forbid the use of baptism: because St. Paul, by his superior call to the ministry, was so eminently endowed to "preach the Gospel," and convert nations, to make a due preparation for baptism, which when happily effected, the mere, outward rite would be performed by some one less qualified than he was, with the astonishing gifts of the Holy Ghost ;---because his time and talents were so peculiarly precious in the exercise of the Gospel ministry, that he could not stay at all times to perform the ceremony of baptism (a ceremony it became him, and every one, to enforce and undergo, "that all righteousness might thereby be fulfilled"); are we to conclude he meant to forbid or discountenance its use? Nothing of such a nature is, by any means, warranted by the passage in question. When St. Paul thanks God" he had baptized none but good men," he certainly thanked God he had baptized them: but he is "glad" to have "not" baptized such as were unfit to receive this holy sacrament. For why? Not (as the Quakers force their construction) that baptism is a matter of no importance, or was a thing which was better omitted; but LEST they should say, "he had baptized in his own name; lest they whom he had baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, should say, he had baptized in the name of Paul." And can we wonder at such rejoicing in the mind of the holy Apostle? Would he not have rejoiced fourfold could he have said, "He thanked God he had baptized them all, as well as Gaius and Crispus.' Let any one candidly peruse the different passages, and answer this question in the negative, if he can! I could bring a whole host of facts from scripture of the divine institution and command of baptism; but I will only add one at this time, promising to continue the subject, and many others, particularly the "Lord's Sup per," should I have encouragement by seeing this have a place in your very excellent Magazine. The society of Quakers rest their defence for the disuse of water baptism, very strongly on the words of our Saviour. |