Page images
PDF
EPUB

Jian language, for the benefit of the Malabarians: and whereas the short Catechism, and Means of Salvation, in the Malabarick language, as also the little book of Principles in the Portuguese tongue, are all dispersed abroad, we have now printed them a second time."

"In the town of Pontischery, a Jesuit was heard to say that our Malabarick version of the New Testament was full of errors.' Being credibly informed of his assertion, I drew up a letter, bearing date May 13, 1715, wherein I proposed to him the following terms: since I cannot discover any of these faults myself, I entreat you to shew me where the translation is not agreeable to the text, and you will really do me a singular piece of service: but then I do also desire you to compare our Damulian version not only with your vulgar Latin, but also with the original Greek itself; and then I shall hope you will find the errors to have been imaginary, and the trauslation faithfully performed.' But I have not yet received this gentleman's answer, nor the catalogue of errors wherewith he hath threatened our version "

During the same period, some letters passed between Mr. Grundler and Governor Harrison of Madras, on the subject of schools and missions. I extract a passage from a letter of the Governor's, which is highly creditable to him.

Fort St. George, Oct. 25, 1715."I shall always think myself happy, if, in the discharge of my office, I can by any means promote your pious and laudable endeavours for propagating the Gospel of Christ, either here, or in any part of our territories. Moreover, I am most ready to assist your endeavours whenever you intend to put your design in execution. If you had rather begin at Dewanapatnam than here, our vice-governor shall be ready to defend your cause. And whereas I have more than once understood, by your worthy friend

Governor Hassius, that you are very well disposed, and most capable of this glorious undertaking, I cannot foresee any hindrances, unless what may arise from the dark superstition of those whom you have a mind to instruct in the Christian faith. I promise that there shall be no impediment on my part."

Mr. Grundler writes thus, on the 16th January, 1716, from Tranquebar:

"Our Governor Hassius is exceeding kind to me (which is owing to the goodness of the Almighty); he entirely loves me, and promotes my office and mission as much as possi bly he can. He has also, by his recommendatory letters, procured me the love and favour of the Honourable Governor Harrison. We are now very busy in building a paper-mill, for the benefit of the mission. Our Honourable Governor defrays half the expense, and I, on the mission's account, the other half. The tim her work belonging to this fabric is finished, and a few days after we begun the edifice itself. If this design under God meets with success, it will be very advantageous both to this mission and to all India. We have now printed a treatise of divinity in Damulian characters; the three first sheets whereof, together with some other small tracts, which we have hitherto published, I have here enciosed."

A letter from the Rev. Samuel Briercliffe, chaplain at Calcutta, dated Dec. 31, 1715, contains a passage which stands directly op posed to the assertions, so vehemently urged by many of the Anglo-Indians of the present day, of the absolate impracticability of extending Christianity among the Hindoos.

"The Christians in Bengal bear but a very small proportion to the Mahometans and Gentoos. In this settlement, we are not above one in two thousand; we have few Protestants in this place besides those of our own nation. There are, indeed, great numbers of Portaguese Christians (in comparison te

us), who have got a very large church, and they are daily making proselytes. For the Portuguese language being well understood by many of the natives, and very current withal in matters of business, does the easier introduce the Romish religion. The Portuguese have also another church at Hughly, about twenty miles above us, upon the river Ganges, and they have one at Balafore, and one at Chittigon; in all which places they have many converts. The Portuguese have not carried on their religion by means of schools, but chiefly by bringing up their slaves and servants, while young, in their own faith; many of which have afterwards throve in the world, and accordingly educated their own children, slaves, &c. in that religion; which is the reason they are now so numerous in India"

A letter from the Rev. Mr. Sterenson, the chaplain at Madras, dated in February 1716, gives a pleasing account of the state of the mission at that time.

"I have been at Tranquebar, where I spent three days with great satisfaction. On Sunday I heard Mr. Grundler preach to the Malabarian converts in their own language, and Mr. Berlin made an useful, earnest lecture in Portuguese. The people seemed far more attentive, serious, and composed in their behaVIGor, than our Europeans generally

are.

quality, necessary to render him capable of carrying on the work of the mission. Mr. Berlin is also a very pious, diligent youth, and seems to have a genius for languages, which is very requisite in a missionary: he made so great a progress in the Portuguese tongue, that he was master of it in one year, and now preaches in it with great ease and fluency. As for Mr. Adler, he is an artist so useful and ingenious, that he deserves the greatest encouragement. I saw the paper-mill he is now a making: it is in great forwardness, and will be finished, he says, in a few months."

And the children whom I heard catechised in Portuguese, have juster notions of religion, and are greater proficients in true Christran knowledge, than those of a more advanced age are among us. I have no time to enlarge upon the order and good discipline that are kept up in the three schools, nor the continual successful labours of the missionaries. The governor, and the Danish minister of Tranquebar, gave Mr. Grundler an extraordinary character, and confirm the good opinion I always had of him. He is a man of great probity, vabriety, prudence, and every good

To the Editor of the Christian Observer ON re-perusing Talib's last letter, I perceive, that, in my reply, I have omitted to give an answer to the latter part of it. This however, will enable me to state briefly, by way of recapitulation, the grounds whereon I think the year 606-607, a more probable epoch of the commencement of the 1260 years, than that proposed by Talib and Mr. Bicheno, and, with this recapitulation, I hope that our long controversy will terminate.

I. It appears to me, that the commencement of that period is clearly marked by a triple notation of circumstance: hence I infer, that unless an epoch can exhibit such triple notation, it cannot be the true date of the period in question.

1. The 1260 years commence with the establishment of an universal monarchy in the church. This I collect from the prediction that the saints, as a collective body, should be given into the hand of the papal little horn during the term of that period: whence the period itself must commence with their being so given.

2. The 1260 years commence with the authorized establishment of idolatry.-This I collect from the declaration, that the holy city and the outer court of the temple should be

given into the hand of a new race of gentiles, that is, paganizing Christians, during the term of that same period: whence the period itself must commence with the city and the court being so given.

3. The 1260 years commence with the flight and secession of a certain body of spiritual Christians from the apostate church, with which, until then, they had remained in communion.-This I collect from the flight of the woman into the wilderness; where she is preserved during 1260 years, evidently in a state of persecuted separation from the degenerate church, which is exhibited under the character of another distinct woman: whence she must have fled or separated herself at the commencement of the period in question. I further collect it from the sackcloth-prophesying of the witnesses during 1260 years, which witnesses are evidently in a state of separation from the gentiles of the outer court: whence the 1260 years must commence with their separation.

Now there is reason to believe that the year, commencing in 606 and ending in 607, exhibits this very triple notation, which is required: whence I inferred, that that year was most probably the first of the 1260 years.

1. In the year 606, the Pope was exclusively declared bishop of bishops and supreme head of the catholic church, and every title of a similar description was prohibited to the other patriarchs.

2. In the year 607, idolatry, which had hitherto been an unauthorised individual sin, was authoritatively established in the church by the supreme pontiff.

3. History does not enable us to fix the precise year when the pious Valdenses first separated themselves from the Romish communion; but we may collect from it, that they be gan to retire into the valleys of Piedmont about the time when I date the 1260 years. Mosheim, on the authority of Antoine Leger, deems the seventh century the most proba

ble era of their secession*: and, if so, since their first act of separation must have been caused by some remarkable event which peculiarly of fended their consciences, it can scarcely be esteemed an unnatural, conjecture, that the authoritative establishment of idolatry, which occurred in this very century, was the event which led them to quit the commu. nion of Rome. One of our ablest historians supposes them to have separated in the seventh century: now to what event of that century can we more probably ascribe their separation than the authoritative etablishment of idolatry? So long as idolatry was an individual sin, however rife the practice might be, they were not bound in conscience to separate from the church: but, when the church adopted it as part of her discipline, and exacted it as a term of communion, no alternative but secession would be left to them.

And now let us see, how Talib manages the argument in favour of the year 533, which he conjectures to be the true date of the 1260 years.

1. He contends, that the edict of Justinian did at that time establish an universal monarchy in the church of Rome.-To this, omitting other arguments, I reply: that, about some 60 or 70 years after the supposed establishment of universal ecclesiastical monarchy, Pope Gregory the Great was quite ignorant of the existence of any such prerogative in the see over which he presided. This is manifest from his epistles respecting the patriarch of Constantinople. Hlad such an establishment taken place in the church of Rome about 60 years before, he must have known it: had he known it, he could never, in the patriarch of Constantinople, have branded, as a badge of Antichrist, the claim of that identical prerogative, which he himself then actually and knowingly possessed. Gregory must surely have known

*Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. Cent. VII. part ii. chap. ii. sec. 2.

the authority of his own see: yet le derives to it from the grant of Justinian no such universal monarchy, as Talib discovers in the emperor's edict. Is Gregory or Talib' the best interpreter of that edict? As I find it impossible to reconcile them, for once in my life I prefer the opinion of the Pope to that of the Protestant: and, concluding from the language of Gregory, that unieral monarchy was not then the claim of the Roman pontiff, I follow the civilian Dr. Brett, who studied the matter as a lawyer, in the view which he has taken of the famous edict of Justinian. Hence I believe it to have done nothing more than settle the precedency of the several bishops of the Roman empire.

apostle does not scruple to call the
blood of the man Jesus the blood of
God*, he thereby authorizes us to
call the mother of the man Jesus
the mother of God. We only employ
the very same figure of rhetoric that
St. Paul did."-I am no way de-
fending the title: but I think, that
Justinian was far less culpable in
inventing it, than in anathematizing
those who disliked it. As for its
involving any establishment of idol-
atry, I must own I can discover no-
thing of the sort. The title, be its
merits what they may, does not as-
cribe to the Virgin one atom of the
honour due to God alone: nor can I
comprehend, how a person, who
(in the phraseology of Justinian)
should call her the mother of God,
would be one jot more in danger of
worshipping her, than a person, who
(in the phraseology authorized by
the church of England) should de-
nominate her the mother of him whỏ
is very God as well as perfect man.
A child in theology may see the idea
with which Justinian's title was in-
vented; it was plainly the acknow-
ledged deity of Christ: but, why

[ocr errors]

2. That idolatry was established in this same year 533, is the next point which Talib wishes to make good. This he attempts to do at the close of his last letter; and this 1s the particular which I omitted to notice in my reply.-He says, that Justinian did then declare the Virgin Mary to be the mother of God; and anathematized all impugners of the doctrine; that the Pope solemn-" the worship of the Virgin should ly sanctioned the imperial decree by follow as a necessary consequence bis authority; and that this was the of her being called the mother of God tetablishment of idolatry in the church, by those who believed in the diviinasmuch as to give to the creature nity of her Son, I profess myself any part of the honour due to God quite unable to perceive. Yet this, dolatry, and the worship of the according to Talib, is the predicted Virgin followed as a necessary con- establishment of idolatry, which was sequence from her new title.-I doubt to take place at the commencement not that Talib is perfectly accurate of the 1260 years, when the holy ia his statement; but I suspect, that city and the outer court were given he leaps with far too great rapidity to a race of gentilizing Christians. to his conclusion. To invent the He appears to me, to have no more title of mother of God was indefen- proved the claim of his date (the sible, because unauthorized: but, year 533) to the second characteris how this can be construed into the tic mark of the commencement of establishment of idolatry, is not the 1260 years, than he has done. quite so clear. I suppose Justinian, to the first. How then can that pethe Pope, and the prelates, argued riod have commenced in the year in some such manner as the follow- 533, when it wants the predicted ing-Christ is God: Mary is the badges of incipiency? mother of Christ: therefore Mary is the mother of God. And they might very speciously have corroborated their argument from Scripture itself. They might have urged,'« Since an

3. Of the third point, I cannot in justice require from Talib a more decisive proof, than I have adduced in

Acts xx. 98.

favour of my own date, the year 606607. Yet I have a right to call upon him to shew, that there is much reason to believe that in the year 533 a separation of faithful worshippers took place from the corrupt church. As yet he has not attempted this: and I am inclined to think, he will find it no easy task to perform.

II. But, before I can adopt Talib's date of the 1260 years, I must call upon him to shew, not only that their supposed commencement is marked by the triple notation set forth in prophecy, but likewise that their supposed termination answers to that chronological definition of it which is likewise set forth in prophecy. Our Lord tells us, that the Jews are to be led away captive into all nations, and Jerusalem to be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled. Now, whatever these times of the Gentiles may mean, it is plain, that the long tribulation of the Jews must expire, in other words, that they must begin to be restored, precisely when the times are fulfilled. Such a conclusion is absolutely required by the ordinary usage of language. If I were to say, such a man is to be imprisoned until the first day of January next, my phraseology must plainly import, that, as soon as that first day arrived, the man's confinement would be at an end: in like manmer, when it is said, that the dispersion of the Jews is to continue until the completion of the times of the Gentiles, we are compelled to understand, that they will begin to be restored exactly when those times are completed; consequently, so long as they are dispersed, we may be sure that the times have not expired. This being the case, we have only to ascertain the import of the times of the Gentiles, in order to know the precise epoch of the commencing restoration of Judah. Now it is generally agreed by our best commentators, such as Mede, Newton, and Hurd, that these times of the Gentiles are either the times of

the four great monarchies, or the thre times and a half; which, as Med observes, amounts to the same thing in point of termination. But I do not wish to build upon authority alone: let us attend to the reason ablenesss of this opinion. In my own judgment, our Lord means specially the three times and a half. When he speaks of the times of the Gentiles, he plainly speaks of some well known period of time, by which the commencement of the restoration of Judah was to be chronolo gically determined. But we shall search in vain through all the Old Testament to find any period, except Daniel's three times and a half, to which it can be reasonably supposed that our Lord alluded: and these correspond verbatim; the times mentioned by our Lord are the times mentioned by Daniel. But Christ calls them the times of the Gentiles: and it is worthy of note, that his apostle John does the same. Those times, during which (according to Daniel) the saints are given into the hand of the little horn of the Gentile Roman beast, are the precise times, during which (according to John) the holy city and the court of the temple are given to the Gentiles. If then these are to be given to the Gentiles during the three times and a half, those three times and a half must necessarily be the times of the Gentiles. But, if the three times and a half be the times of the Gentiles, since the restoration of Judah commences precisely at the end of the latter, it must also commence precisely at the end of the former. And this is con firmed by the prophet Daniel in a passage, to which I have little doubt Christ referred in his own prediction. Danjel fixes the same termination to his three times and a half and to the scattering of the holy people*. By the holy people here spoken of, Mede, Newton, More, Woodhouse, and our best expositors, understand the Jews: but Talib's system compels him to maintain, that that holy

* Dan. xij. 6, 7.

« PreviousContinue »