what he means by the same pronoun in the first, when it clearly means the Jewish believers, or the people in the midst of whom the advent and works of the Messiah were fulfilled. The Evangelist then attests, that he was in the number of those to whom the apostles, in their discourses, delivered an account of the actions and instructions of Jesus; and then adds, as a mere adequate qualification for becoming the historian of his Divine Master, that he had himself attended and noted with scrupulous accuracy the transactions which he records in his gospel. But mark the gross and inexcusable error which learned men have committed on this subject: they talk of us, in the second verse, not meaning, as it evidently does, the same persons with us in the first, but the same with me in the third, thus making the writer contradict himself, and invalidating his authority as a competent historian. This blunder was first made by Irenæus about the end of the second century, and it has without exception been adopted by modern critics. It is observable, that neither Matthew nor Mark nor John say that they were eye-witnesses of the facts which they respectively record; while Luke is so particular and emphatic in stating his qualification in this respect. The cause of this peculiarity is to be sought in the reference which this writer makes to the pseudo-evangelists, who, having published their gospels in Egypt, and pretending that Jesus had been in that country, affected to be competent historians of the facts which they related. If, then, Luke, as he most emphatically declared, had witnessed every thing that is related by him, he must have been one of the two disciples who went to Emmaus; for he is the only writer who gives a full account of that occurrence. And the internal evidence that he was one of the two is complete; for in three places he uses the first for the third person, and from the nature of what he says, it is clear that he wrote not what had been told him by another, but what he remembered to have been felt by himself, "And they said to one another, How did our hearts burn with in us as he spoke to us on the way!" Besides the writer, in telling the story, relates but imperfectly some mi

nute circumstances of which his presence alone could give him a full and adequate impression: "It happened that, while they were communing and reasoning together, that Jesus himself, having drawn near, went with them." It seems from the original, that Jesus affecting to be a stranger, kept aloof for a time for fear of intruding, and drew nearer them as they appeared to wish his approach to unite in their conversation; and this is a circumstance which could hardly enter the mind of any but one that had been present.

The other disciple is said to have been Cleopas. Now I propose to shew that this Cleopas was no other than Mark the Evangelist. Mark's father was a Romun, but a proselyte to Judaism, and thence became a resident of Jerusalem. From his extraction he appears to have assumed the name of Mark or Marcus, while, as a Jewish proselyte, he adopted the name of John, which in Greek is interpreted Cleopas or Clopas, meaning sweet-voiced, just as a female would have been styled Calliope. For the origin of John or Iwv, is the Hebrew verb my ona, which under the form of a noun Iona, is applied by Isaiah xiii. 22, to certain birds, which the Septuagint render by ones, sirens, doubtless on account of their sweet or enchanting voice. Mark's father was at this time dead; but his mother was still alive, and had a house at Jerusalem. It was natural for Mark to assume his father's name of Cleopas, but he seems to have declined it after he had ranked with the disciples of Christ; and this seems to be the reason why the name of Cleopas, though a leading disciple, never occurs in the New Testament except on this occasion, nor in any ecclesiastical writer to my knowledge.

If, then, Luke and Mark were the two disciples that went to Emmaus, we can account for some circumstances which characterise this incident. First, we see why Luke and Mark, and not Matthew and John, notice this event-because the two former were personally concerned in it, and alone able from their own knowledge to relate it. Secondly, we see the important reason why our Lord should shew himself separately to these two, and unfold to them in

particular the fulfilment of Moses and the prophets by his death and resurrection, because he knew that they were soon to become the historians of his life and the vouchers of those great events. Thirdly, we see the reason why Mark and Luke thought fit to flee, when it was apprehended that the body of Jesus was stolen. Mark, probably, with Luke his constant companion, was an inhabitant of Jerusalem. Suspicion would more likely fall upon him as being best acquainted with the place; nor could he seclude himself from notice with the same security as the other disciples, who were for the most part strangers at Jerusalem.

J. JONES.

N. B. It seems to have escaped the notice of learned men, and of your excellent correspondent N., among the number, that the maxim opy και μη ἁμαρτάνετε, be angry and sin not, is copied verbatim from the Septuagint Version of Psalm iv. 4, and this circumstance serves to ascertain the sense of the Apostle. The Hebrew verb to which opy corresponds, is a ragaz, which in general signifies to move-as to move with force, to shake, cause to quake,-to move with desire, captivate, charmto move with fear, cause to tremble, agitate to move with anger, provoke, irritate. The meaning of the Greek verb is limited to the last, and the purport of the passage is this: "Grant that you are irritated or provoked by the injurious or violent conduct of another, yet let not your irriineant, is retaliation or revenge. This tation betray you to sin." The sin is clear from the sequel: "Let not the sun set on your wrath." The point and propriety of this admonition must have been more forcibly felt in an age and country of the world, when it was not unusual to execute schemes of revenge after the setting of the sun and under the cover of darkness, than in our own. The Apostle then cautions the converts against that species of provocation or irritation which, instead of evaporating or expending itself in complaints or menaces, settles into silent and fell revenge. The anger to which Paul alludes is thus described by Seneca

VOL. XIX.

in

4 P

his admirable work on Anger, lib. i. c. 4, Quædam (iræ) in verborum maledictorumque amaritudinem effusæ quædam ultra querelas et aversiones non exeunt; quædam alta gravesque sunt et introrsus versa. After this admonition concerning such irritations as may be unavoidable, the apostle proceeds to say that all anger, anger of every kind and every degree, should, root and branch, be eradicated from among them. The distinction of anger into acts and habit is a mere fiction to account for a difficulty, and utterly unknown to the ancients, who considered anger as a passion in contradistinction to habit, The origin of gyn is the verb opɛyw, to stretch at a thing, to desire: and hence Aristotle (Rhet. lib. 2, c. 2,) defines it, opes Tupias, the desire of revenge; and in this sense it is utterly prohibited in the Christian Scriptures. And it is in vain to plead that anger in any degree is allowable as not sinful, or that it is even warranted by the example of Jesus. Mark, in one place, ascribes this feeling to his Divine Master; but it should be recollected that this evangelist was an Hellenistic Jew, who used the word anger in the wide sense of the corresponding term in Hebrew, namely, agitation of mind. Being himself sensible of this, he explains this anger or strong emotion to be no other than " grief at their blindness." Mr. Belsham's paraphrase of this verse is most happy, being just, elegant and comprehensive.

the forthcoming Creed], it was cause of uneasiness and deep concern to them, as their sincere regard and engagement for the promotion of the cause of truth made it very desirable that all the members of our religious society should move [according to our notions] in true harmony, under the direction of our blessed Redeemer, upon being informed of thy sentiments by Joseph Whitehall.

"That Jesus Christ was not the Son of God, until after the baptism of John, and the descent of the Holy Ghost, and that he was no more than a man; that the same power that saved him, must save us.'

"Many friends were much affected therewith; and some time afterwards, several friends being together in the city, on subjects relating to our religious society, they received an account from Ezra Comfort of some of thy expressions in the public General Meeting immediately succeeding the Southern Quarterly Meeting, lately held in the State of Delaware, which was also confirmed by his companion Isaiah Bell,That Jesus Christ was the first man that introduced the Gospel dispensation.' [Surely he was. A strange charge this! To whom do these elders look up as the author and finisher of the Christian faith?] The Jews being under the outward and ceremonial law or dispensation, it was necessary that there should be some outward miracle,'-[Do these elders doubt or deny this?] as the healing of the outward infirmities of the flesh, and raising the outward dead bodies, in order to introduce the Gospel dispensation.' [Do they deem the belief of these truths a crime in the minister they accuse? They add] "He [Christ] had no more power given him than man,' [was capable of receiving from God,] for he was no more than man; he had nothing to do with healing of the soul, for that belongs to God only. Elisha had the same power to raise the dead. That man being obedient to the spirit of God in him, could arrive at as great or [a] greater degree of righteousness than Jesus Christ. That Jesus Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with God, neither do I think it robbery for man to be equal with God. Then endeavoured to shew that by at

tending to that stone cut out of the mountain without hands, or the seed in man, it would make man equal with God, saying, for that stone in man was the entire God.' On hearing which, [and unwarrantably circulating these groundless reports and calumnies with no little industry,] it appeared to Friends a subject of such great importance, and of such deep interest to the welfare of our religious Society, [that is, in the eyes of these creedmakers,] as to require an early extension of care, in order that if any incorrect statement had been made, it should as soon as possible be rectified, [How did their subsequent conduct evince this?] or, if true, thon might be possessed of the painful concern of Friends, and their sense and judgment thereon. Two of the elders accordingly waited on thee, on the evening of the day of thy arriving in the city; and although thou denied the statement, yet thou declined to meet these two elders, in company with those who made it, left the mind of Friends without relief. [Elias claiming the right, if he met them, to adduce evidence, that those reports were false. They add] One of the elders who had called on thee repeated his visit on the next day but one, and again requested thee to see the two elders and the Friends who made the above statements, which thou again declined. [Firmly as we then believed their report.] The elders from the different Monthly Meetings in the city were then convened, and requested a private opportunity with thee, which thou also refused; yet the next day consented to meet them at a time and place of thy own fixing; but when assembled, a mixed company being collected, [as related p. 545,] the elders could not in this manner enter into a business which they considered of a nature not to be investigated in any other way than in a select, private opportunity-[without any other evidence than our own]. They therefore considered that meeting a clear indication of thy continuing to decline to meet the elders as by them proposed. Under these circumstances, it appearing that thou art not willing to hear and disprove the charges brought against thee, [on mere exparte evidence,] we feel it a duty to declare,

that we cannot have religious unity with thy conduct, nor with the doc trines thou art charged with promulgating."

Signed 12 Mo. (Dec.) 19, 1822, by Caleb Pierce, and nine other elders.

By the concluding observation of the ten elders, they seem to disown all the doctrines Elias Hicks is charged with promulgating, at least by their letter. Whether this disunity goes farther, I cannot say. If not, it extends to his adherence to several very important Christian and scriptural doctrines. In reply to it, however clearly such a man as Elias Hicks must have seen this, he has with commendable moderation abstained from noticing these really heretical notions, and strictly confined himself to a denial of the truth of the greater part of their charges, and appealed to much better evidence than his accusers relied on, in his own vindication.

His reply is as follows:

"To Caleb Pierce and the other

Friends.

"Having been charged by you of unsoundness of principle and doctrine, founded on reports spread among the people in an unfriendly manner, and contrary to the order of our discipline, by Joseph Whitehall, as stated in the letter from you, dated the 19th inst.; and as these are charges not literally true, being founded on his own forced and improper construction of my words, I deny them. And as I do not consider myself amenable to him, or any other, for crimes laid to my charge, as being committed in the course of the sitting of our last Yearly Meeting; as not any of my fellow-members of that meeting discovered or noticed any such things, which I presume not to be the case, as not an individual has mentioned any such thing to me, but contrary thereto, many of our valuable Friends, who had heard some of these foul reports, promulgated by an individual of our city, [New York, acknowledge the great satisfaction they had with my services and exercises, in the course of that Meeting, and were fully convinced, that all those foul reports were false; and this view is fully confirmed by a certificate granted me by the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings, of which I am a member, in which they express

their full unity with me; and which meetings were held a considerable time after our Yearly Meeting. In the course of which, Joseph Whitehall has presumed to charge me with unsoundness, contrary to the sense of Meetings of which I am a member, the Yearly, Quarterly and Monthly and to whom only I hold myself amenable for all conduct transacted within their limits. The other charges against me, made by Ezra Comfort, as exgeneral, incorrect, as is proved by the pressed in your letter, are, in the annexed certificate. * Moreover, as

We, the undersigned, being in the city of Philadelphia when a letter was handed us, signed by ten of its citizens, Elders of the Society of Friends, and directed to Elias Hicks; after perusing and deliberately considering the charges therein against him, for holding and propagating doctrines inconsistent with our religious testimonies, and more especially those said by Ezra Comfort and Isaiah Bell, to be held forth at a Meeting immediately succeeding the late Southerly Quarterly Meeting, and we being members of the Southern Quarter, and present at the said Meeting, we are free to state, for the satisfaction of the first-mentioned

Friends, and all others whom it may concern, that we apprehend the charges exhibited by the two Friends named, are without substantial foundation; and in order to give a clear view, we think it best and proper to transcribe the said charges and our own understanding of them, viz. "That Jesus Christ was the first man that introduced the gospel dispensation," &c., as stated by the ten elders, "in substance is correct." Of the next charge, "That he (Christ) had no more power given him than man," they say, this sentence is incorrect;" and also "That he had nothing to do with the healing of the soul, for that belongs to God only," "is likewise incorrect;" and the next sentence, "That Elisha also had the same power to raise the dead," should be transposed thus, to give Elias's expressions," By the same power it was that Elisha raised the dead.” "That man being obedient to the spirit of God in him, could arrive at as great than Jesus Christ," they declare also or [a] greater degree of righteousness incorrect." "That Jesus Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with God," with annexing the other part of the paragraph mentioned by the holy apostle, [Phil. ii. 6-11,] "would be correct." As to their next charge against Elias,

is

Some weeks after the date of the above letter and certificate of the three Friends, which refutes the far greater part, and all the weighty charges those elders had in substance been privately circulating, nine of them, and Jonathan Evans, whose name was affixed to the rejected creed, signified their continued disunity with Elias Hicks by the following letter:

"To Elias Hicks. "Philadelphia, 1 Mo. (Jan.) 4, 1823. "On the perusal of thy letter of the 21st of last month, it was not a little affecting to observe the same disposition still prevalent that avoided a select meeting with the elders, which meeting consistently with the station we are placed in, and with the sense of duty impressive upon us, we were engaged to propose and urge to thee, as a means wherein the cause of uneasiness might have been investigated,

the Friends who exhibited the com

plaint fully examined, [but not thy

that he added to the text, as given in the received Version," Neither do I think it robbery for man to be equal with God," they also say " is incorrect." Aud they declare the same of the last accusation, which it is therefore unnecessary to repeat. They conclude by saying, "We were then of opinion, and still are, that the sentiments and doctrines held forth by our said friend Elias Hicks, are agreeable to the opinions and doctrines held by George Fox and other worthy Friends of his time.

Signed, ROBERT Moore,

JOSEPH TURNer,
JOSEPH G. ROWLAND.

12 Mo. (Dec.) 21, 1822.

witnesses,] and the whole business placed in a clear point of view.

"On a subject of such importance, the most explicit candour and ingenuousness, with a readiness to hear, and [mutually to] give complete satisfaction, ought ever to be maintained; this the gospel teaches, and the nature of the case imperiously demanded it. [Especially of accusers and those who claim to be judges of their brethren.] As to the certificate which accompanied thy letter, made several weeks after the circumstances occurred, [but within two days after the date of our written charges,] it is in several respects not only vague and ambiguous, but in others (though in different terms) it corroborates [they assert] the statement at first made. with holding various sound and scrip[This statement charged Elias Hicks tural doctrines, which he cannot deny. They add] When we take a view of their famous Creed, agreed to on the the whole subject, [doubtless including 17th of this month, and ordered to be printed for distribution,] the doctrines and sentiments which have been promulgated by thee, though under some caution while in this city, and the opinions which thou expressed in an interview between Ezra Comfort and

thee, on the 19th ult., we are fully and sorrowfully confirmed in the conclusion, [but on what evidence?] that thou holds and art disseminating principles very different from those which are held and maintained by our religious Society.

the door against the brotherly care "As thou hast on thy part closed and endeavours of the elders here for thy benefit, and for the clearing our religious profession, this matter appears of such serious magnitude, so interesting to the peace, harmony and well-being of [the] Society, that we think it ought to claim the weighty attention of thy Friends at home.

Signed, Ellis Yarnall, Thomas Wistar, Leonard Snowden, Joseph Scattergood, Caleb Pierce, Samuel P. Griffiths, Thomas Stewardson, Edward Randolph, Israel Maul.

Being present when the foregoing letter was concluded on, I unite with the concern and care of my brethren, the elders of this city, that our religious Society might not be under the imputation of holding doctrines which