{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/wikisource_Letters_on_Thelyphthora_Letter_7/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/wikisource_Letters_on_Thelyphthora_Letter_7","id":"wikisource_Letters_on_Thelyphthora_Letter_7","license":"Public Domain / CC-BY-SA (see source)","rights_basis":"wikisource_site_inclusion_policy","source":"wikisource","source_url":"https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letters_on_Thelyphthora/Letter_7","summary":null,"tags":["Subpages"],"text":"Layout 2\n\nLETTER VII.\n\nTo the Reverend Mr. Y\u2014\u2014\u2014.\n\nJune 4, 1781.\n\nReverend, and dear Sir,\n\nOur friend Mr. T\u2060\u2014\u2014\u2014 brought me yours of May the 30th: though this be the date, yet the length of it rather makes me suppose, that more days than one were employed in writing it; however, it contains nothing new\u2014nil dictum quod non dictum prius. I always thought you a good-natured man, and have seen you under circumstances, wherein your temper and conduct seemed to give me the highest confirmation of that opinion. I would not easily be persuaded that I have been mistaken; but there are many parts of your letter, which favour of a bitterness of spirit, and violence of temper, which have evaporated on this occasion, and too plainly convince me, that you are more like other people than you think yourself, or than I once thought you to be. But what is still worse than any thing you have said to me, is, that you have set yourself in the scorner's chair, and have indulged your vein for pleasantry by ridiculing sacred things.\n\nAs far as you endeavour to set me right where you think me mistaken, I take it kindly; in this you are my friend, and the more pains you take to \"consider the matter,\" the more am I obliged to you; but when you lose your good-humour, grow angry and abusive, and make use of unhandsome language, to convey very indecent and cruel insinuations, you act as my enemy, but are, indeed and in truth, much more your own. You break through that divine command\u2014Let all your things be done with charity\u2014you lose sight of that lovely grace, so beautifully described 1 Cor. xiii. and seem to forget, that, without it, we are nothing, and indeed worse than nothing, before God. I have learned, said good Bishop Hall (or Beveridge, I forget which) to be angry and sin not , by being angry at nothing but sin; and indeed, this is the only justifiable object of anger.\u2014It is recorded of our Blessed Saviour, that He looked round about on them (his bitter foes the Pharisees) with anger\u2014then follows\u2014being grieved for the hardness of their hearts .\u2014I wish you to make your use of this, and to improve it for your instruction; if it should make you angry with yourself on this occasion, it will do you no harm, but if it should prevent you from being angry at other people, it will do you a great deal of good.\n\nIra furor brevis est.\u2014I therefore no more mind what a man says when he is angry, than when he is mad.\u2014The effects of these are pretty much the same, but the causes of them are very different; the one is a disease, and, like others, involuntary and accidental; the other arises from a sinful principle in our fallen nature, which kindles its fire from our pride, augments its flame from our love of revenge for some supposed injury offered to our supposed dignity, and at last blazes forth in acts of violence towards the persons of our fellow-creatures, either as to their bodily hurt, the destruction of their peace, reputation, and good name, and even, in some instances, to the destruction of their lives. Under the influence of this, the tongue (as St. James speaks) becomes a fire\u2014a world of iniquity\u2014sets on fire the whole course of nature, and is itself set on fire of hell. What the Apostle here says of the tongue, we may say also of the pen; it is equally true of the press\u2014and, as a proof of these positions, I would hold up certain letters, yours particularly, and certain pamphlets, to view, and say\u2014ecce signa!\n\nAs to your long stricture, and the appeal you make to other people's notions on the story of the woman of Samaria, you must excuse my dismissing it with a very few words. I do not form my conjectures of the passage from prejudice of education, or from any other prejudice of any kind, nor from \"primitive fathers, faithful church-histories of antient time (Query which be they?) the canons of the church, the decrees of councils,\" from the first that ever was held since the Apostles' time, to the council of Trent, or any later council inclusive; nor from 26 Geo. II. c. 33. nor any other tradition of men, which I believe to have been all equally out of the contemplation of Christ in what he said, and therefore all equally out of the question: but I form my judgment on the basis of the Jewish law, by which I mean, the law of God delivered to Moses, and by him to the Jews; and I form my judgment on this, because I know no other on which our Blessed Lord ever formed his. Now, if consistently with this Law, you can prove, that every woman who was married to a man who had a prior wife living, had no husband\u2014or that every woman who cohabited with a man, without some outward rite or ceremony first performed, had no husband\u2014then you will not only, in part at least, prove your point, but thoroughly establish that sentiment of Mons. de Voltaire, which he borrowed from Lord Bolingbroke, viz. L'Histoire Juive n'est qu'un tissu de forfaits consacr\u00e9s; or, in plain English\u2014that \"the Jewish history, as recorded in the Old Testament, is no better than a complication of consecrated crimes.\"\n\nYou must permit me, without entering any deeper into the controversy, to conclude with the following argument, which I mean as a full and final answer to your four pages on the subject.\n\nWhatsoever is not consonant with the law of God, as delivered in the Old Testament, is not the true interpretation of any Scripture.\n\nBut your interpretation of Christ's words, John iv. 17. is not consonant with the law of God, as delivered in the Old Testament.\n\nErgo, It is not a true interpretation of the passage in question.\n\nOr,\n\nWhatsoever contradicts the Old Testament, cannot be a true interpretation of any passage in the New Testament.\n\nBut your interpretation of Christ's words, John iv. 17. contradicts the Old Testament.\n\nErgo, It cannot be a true interpretation.\n\nYou may, if you please, transfer these arguments to your interpretation of \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u2014committeth adultery, Matt. xix. 9. and to your strictures on 1 Cor. vii. 2; nor can I imagine that you or I, or indeed any body else, will read the New Testament so as to understand it (in very many places) unless we take the Old Testament for our interpreter. Be assured, that God's word is the best comment on itself.\n\nWishing you all happiness, that especially which results from a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price, I remain, Yours, &c.\n\n\u00a0\n\nP. S. See Whitby's note on John iv. 18. and Pole Syn. on verse 17, 18; where you will find no small justification of the supposition in Thelypthora that he had another husband living. This from Grotius\u2014Lightfoot\u2014Maldonatus.\n\nReferences:","title":"Letters on Thelyphthora/Letter 7","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":1178}