the loss or absence of some valued friend, now separated from him by an expanse of ocean, or a yet more awful interval. Under such circumstances, it is needless to point out the loss which our institutions yearly sustain in the persons of some of their best and most bountiful benefactors, or the unceasing efforts-I may almost say the unceasing and importunate mendicancy-which is necessary to sustain even the most popular and cherished institutions on a liberal and efficient basis.-(To be concluded in the next Number.)

ON FAMILY PRAYER.

To the Editor of the Christian Remembrancer.

SIR,-We have in the present day many useful and excellent helps to pious exercises in the numerous religious publications which are within every one's reach. But there is room, I think, to add to the number with advantage. The practice of family prayer, sadly neglected as it is, is yet, it is to be hoped, extending itself. It has always been recommended that the performance of this duty should be accompanied by reading a portion of Scripture. Would it not be a great convenience, to those who thus become priests of their own household, if a volume were at hand, containing, for every day in the year, and with a particular reference to the course of the ecclesiastical year, selections from the Scriptures suitable to the occasion?

I think it would be found sometimes to relieve the master of a family from embarrassment, and to ensure more of regularity and system in the office itself.

While I am on this subject, may I, with all diffidence, express a wish that the duty of family prayer were more prominently enforced from the pulpit? We hear it occasionally adverted to in a general discourse on prayer; but, I confess, I think it would bear to be more distinctively impressed upon Christian congregations than we are in the habit of hearing it. It is said, that a revival of religion has taken place amongst us, and I trust in God that it is true; but I shall always consider one evidence at least wanting of this good spirit, so long as the duty to which I advert is so little practised by those who call themselves Christians. The excuses alleged for the neglect of this plain, simple, and, I will add, delightful duty, are all of them precisely those which might be urged for the omission of any other Christian duty. I can remember that in my own case they long deterred me from the performance of it, until I put to myself the question "whether they were such excuses as would stand me in stead at the great audit," and from that moment I determined to hesitate no longer in proceeding to the practice of a duty which, after the experience of some years, I can conscientiously declare I have, in the midst of as active and various engagements as fall to the lot of most men, found no difficulty in performing, with a regularity which my previous apprehensions had led me to doubt the practicability of attaining.

No father of a family will ever arrive at a just apprehension of his duties in that character, unless he considers that it his duty to look upon himself in his own house as a priest over his own household. May 7, 1826.

P.

It is certainly true that all parts of the Bible cannot be read in a family in short detached portions with equal advantage; and this we think applies not only to the Old, but also to the New Testament. For we fear the servants of a family are seldom sufficiently acquainted with the context, and, called from their several occupations to join in devotion, that their attention is in general too much distracted to derive from a detached portion the improvement it contains. Hence we think Doddridge's Family Expositor a very useful book. In that excellent work, the text of the New Testament is divided into short portions, each of which is accompanied with a paraphrase, and an 'Improvement,' in which the proper inferences are piously and correctly deduced. If, then, the master of a family read one or more of these portions, either with or without the paraphrase, and concluded with the improvement, it is to be hoped that no one would go away without deriving from the Scripture he had heard, something that was profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, or for instruction in righteousness.

REMARKS "ON THREE LETTERS ADDRESSED TO THE EDITOR OF THE QUARTERLY REVIEW.-BY BEN DAVID."

To the Editor of the Christian Remembrancer.

SIR,-In the above publication a new attack has been made on the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, through the medium of the disputed verse, 1st John, v. 7. The writer of these Letters-relinquishing the former attempts, of the Unitarian party, to prove the verse to be an interpolation in the sacred text-has declared himself a strenuous supporter of its genuineness. Whether the increasing evidence in favour of the verse-evidence already too powerful to admit of almost any hope of successful resistance, and too untractable for even the purposes of sophistry has suggested the policy of adopting a new position, before it should become necessary to abandon the old ground in hopeless defeat-I shall not take it upon me to determine. Such a surmise will, not unnaturally, arise in the minds of those who peruse with care the letters in question; nor will the challenge, thrown out to the Quarterly Reviewer, be considered at all incompatible with one of those feints, with which a skilful enemy knows how to cover a retreat. But be this as it may It must be confessed that if the object attributed by this writer to St. John in his first Epistle, viz.-that of denying the Divinity of Christ-can be proved to be that which the inspired penman had in view, and that the testimony of the witnesses in verse 7, was introduced in furtherance of the same object-then, indeed, the orthodox doctrine has received a fatal shock, which, to use the bitterly-but perhaps prematurely-triumphant terms of the letter-writer-" shall shatter its very foundations, and bring it, at no distant period, to the ground."

And is it then so, that the faith, which has been the joy, and consolation, of so many Saints and venerable Fathers,-which all those, the most distinguished in every age for their talents and learning, have supported and clung to as the sure and stedfast anchor of their hopeis but a cunningly devised fable? Surely this is a hard saying-bearing in it so much of improbability as may at least afford ground to expect that, on a closer examination, it must betray many marks of rashness, or obliquity, of judgment. To such an examination I now propose to subject it; and I beg the Author to believe that, however much I may be disposed to regard the authority of those great names, arrayed on the side of the opinions which he has chosen to impugn, I yet more highly venerate truth. If the truth be found with him, let it prevail.

The letter-writer has arrived at two conclusions, in the course of his investigation, of a very portentous kind, viz. "that the scope of St. John's first Epistle is to set aside the divinity of Christ ;" and that the witnessess in v. 7. are brought forward by the sacred writer in support of that object. These conclusions he has drawn from St. John's condemnation of certain errors of the Gnostics-but with what degree of correctness, and security, will soon, I trust, be apparent.

That the first Epistle of St. John was directed against the errors of Gnosticism, no one, acquainted with the history, and the tenets, of that sect, will deny; nor would it, perhaps, be difficult to shew, that the sacred writer has met these errors in several of their bearings which seem not to have been noticed by the Author of the letters. I shall not, however, at present, go into this inquiry in its full extent. Be it enough to say, that when St. John declared that " God is Light, and that He is Love"-he doubtless intended to condemn the profane, and impious, tenets of the Gnostics, who represented the Creator as a malignant being hostile to the happiness of his creatures. In the peculiarity of the arguments, employed in this Epistle, against sinful indulgence, may be recognised an evident allusion to the licentious doctrines of these heretics; who taught, that Jesus Christ was to set men free from obedience to the laws of God. On these points I readily concur in opinion with the Author of the letters. I also agree with him in thinking, that it was the object of St. John, in his first Epistle, to condemn certain doctrines of the Gnostics respecting Jesus Christ: and, in order to insure a further harmony in our opinions, with regard to some of these doctrines, I will be so fair, and liberal, as to adopt the very statements given of them by the Author of the letters. În page 4, he states it as the doctrine of the Gnostics-" that Christ was a God opposite to the Creator, in nature and character." Now if it can be proved that St. John, in his Epistle, condemned this doctrine ;-and in doing so maintained another doctrine respecting Christ's divinity (viz. the true orthodox doctrine), our Author's conclusion will, I apprehend, be greatly shaken, if, indeed, its foundations be not entirely "shattered." The Gnostics maintained a divinity of Christ, (what kind of a divinity our Author has above told us) St. John denied the divinity. of Christ thus held by Gnostics-therefore, he also denied the divinity of Christ according to the true and orthodox doctrine! This is the process, by which the Author of the letters arrives at his conclusion;

and barely to state that process might be sufficient to shew, how palpably he begs the question,-when he concludes that St. John, in condemning the Gnostic tenet, must also have condemned all doctrines whatever of Christ's divinity.

. But did St. John then, it may be asked, condemn, in his first Epistle, this Gnostic tenet? Let the reader judge for himself in this matter. In the opening of his Gospel, St. John affirms, "that in the beginning was the word, and the WORD WAS GOD-(v. 14.) and the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father (v. 16,) the only begotten Son,—(chap. iii. 18.) the only begotten Son of God. When the same inspired writer, then, in his first Epistle, styles Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the only begotten Son of God;-and denounces those as Antichrist who deny the Father and the Son-that is, deny the relation subsisting between the Father and Jesus Christ, as Father and Son,-he manifestly condemns the Gnostic doctrine. He shews that Christ was not a God opposite to the Great Creator, in nature and character, but the SAME with him in both; inasmuch as he was his only begotten Son; and thus, while he condemns the erroneous notion of the Gnostics respecting Christ as being God-he at the same time establishes another doctrine, in regard to Christ's divinity, viz. the true and orthodox doctrine. It is, I conceive, impossible to evade this in any other way than by contending, that St. John taught a doctrine, in his Epistle, contradictory to that which he taught in his Gospel,- and, consequently, by destroying altogether his authority as an inspired writer.

The other Gnostic tenet,-which it was St. John's purpose, in his Epistle, to confute,-was this, viz. "that Jesus Christ had not a real body; but was a man only in appearance- -a phantom without flesh and blood." This error is condemned in the following passages: Chap. i. 1. "That which our hands have handled of the word of life." v. 7. "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin." Chap. iv. 2, 3. Every Spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, ("the word was made flesh") is of God." And " every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God."

66

These are the two doctrines respecting Jesus Christ, which it was St. John's object, in the former part of his Epistle, to establish in opposition to the errors of the Gnostics; and which he was naturally led to re-state, in connexion with their appropriate proofs,-at its conclusion. In the 1st, 5th, and 6th verses, of the last chapter, they are so re-stated. "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God," (v. 1.) Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? (v. 5.) This is one doctrine, viz. That Jesus is the Christ the Son of God. The other is immediately subjoined, viz. This Jesus Christ came by water and blood, i. e. he had a real human body, because it afforded-under suffering-these unquestionable proofs of its reality. The two doctrines thus re-stated are immediately followed by the evidences appropriate to each. In support of the first, the evidence of three heavenly witnesses is adduced. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one"-i. e. are witnesses to the one fact.

That more is implied, in the last clause, than a mere concurrence of testimony, I verily believe; but the unity of testimony is all that I have to do with at present. In proof of the second doctrine, the evidence of three witnesses on earth is brought forward. "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood—and these three agree in one"-testimony-to one fact. It will now, I think, appear that all these parts so naturally, and strongly, cohere, that nothing less than a great, and unjustifiable, violence can separate them. It was the object of St. John to establish this doctrine, viz. "That Jesus is the Christ the Son of God." Now the proof of this doctrine consisted in a testimony which had actually been given: -in the testimony of the Father thrice given, by a voice from heaven, declaring Jesus to be his beloved Son :-in the testimony of the "word made flesh," of the word in union with the man Jesus, performing miracles, &c. by his divine power:-in the testimony of the Holy Ghost, in his visible descent on Jesus at his baptism, in the positive declarations of persons under his immediate inspiration-and in the miraculous powers, &c. conferred on the Apostles of Jesus Christ after his ascension. Such was the evidence which had actually been given in proof of the truth of St. John's doctrine. And now, I would ask, whether, or not, any other evidence existed by which that doctrine could have been proved? If not, it is then plain that, if St. John's object in his first Epistle was (as it certainly was) to maintain, and to prove, that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, he must have adduced the testimony of the heavenly witnesses, because by that testimony alone could his purpose be effected. The testimony of the three witnesses on earth, could no more have proved that Jesus was the Son of God, than that of the heavenly witnesses (I mean that testimony which had been actually given by them) could have proved, that Jesus had a real body—real flesh and blood.

The case, then, on the supposition that the 7th verse is spurious, stands thus:-St. John intended to support, against the errors of heretics, the true doctrine, that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God→→ and yet he altogether omitted to adduce the testimony to its truth, which had actually been given from heaven;-and the only testimony by which its truth could be established. But this is not all. In conjunction with this doctrine, another doctrine is stated accompanied with its appropriate proofs-a doctrine which derives its whole value and importance from the former; for of what value would the fact be, that Jesus had a real body, if it could not be proved that he was "the Christ the Son of God?" Is it credible, then, that the sacred writer in supporting two doctrines so related to one another, would have stated the less important doctrine in conjunction with its proper evidences; and yet have left the other altogether defenceless and unsupported, although it too had proofs appropriate to itself-clear, precise, and convincing,-proofs of vital consequence to the whole religious system, of which the doctrines in question are parts? Such however is the supposition to which we are reduced, if the 7th verse is to be rejected-a supposition of which the improbability is so great, as, in my opinion, to outweigh all the arguments which are drawn from the absence of this verse from Greek MSS. -and from the circum