racters reflect on the extensive evil that results from their leading the people to believe, that, without their assistance, they cannot understand the doctrines of Christianity. If the scriptures are of any use to one man, they are equally so to every man; and if it is necessary for one man to study the writings of the prophets and apostles, and to think for himself respecting them, the same thing becomes incumbent on all. In this case they who search the scriptures, and for themselves judge of their contents, are the closest imitators of the apostles, who not only acted thus themselves, but exorted others to do so, and applauded those who were obedient. Your's, &c. August 21, 1812. M. ON RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCES. To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine. SIR, You have many communications much more interesting than the present; yet I hope the insertion of this will not offend any of your readers, nor prevent their being favoured with more important matter. In consequence of what has been produced from the pen of W. C. p. 309, of your Magazine, "On Religious Observances," I beg leave to call his attention again to that subject. He acknowledges he has received information on the consistency of some General Baptists, who, acknowledging their obligation to the bread and wine ceremony, do not neglect that of washing feet. They consider it a duty enjoined by the same authority, and whatever my thoughts are respecting the supper, I acknowledge myself to be under equal obligation to observe the washing of feet. Perhaps, W. C. will not acquit me of short sightedness, in not seeing that the practice is nowhere enjoined on me by Jesus. The question is, how am I to know this? The common answer, "that it was a duty enjoined on the first disciples of Christ, but does not remain obligatory on those in after ages," does not satisfy me. 1 believe, that Jesus gave them a command to wash one anothers' feet-now if he did, and enjoined upon them to teach others all things which he commanded them, must not washing of feet be one of those things which they were to teach? I then ask, were the apostles obedient to the command of their master? and being obedient thereto, did they not teach others (of all nations), to wash one anothers' feet? Does not the evidence from the case alluded to by W. C. respecting widows (I Tim. v. 10), corroborate the probability that the apostles obeyed their master, and taught Christians to observe this ceremony? Of their case he says, "likewise a poor widow, above three score years of age, may not be provided for by the church of God, unless she have washed the saints' feet," &c. Does it not appear from hence, that this practice of washing one anothers' feet had been in the church nearly forty years that it had its * origin in the command of Jesus-and was thought necessary by the apostle Paul, to form a complete Christian character? From these considerations, I see some importance in the practice, and shall be obliged to W. C. if he will inform me by what authority Christians may now neglect a duty so established in the church of God. It may be said, that in the country, and state, of the first Christians, it was necessary for cleanliness and refreshment. Permit me to ask, is not cleanliness and refreshment necessary among Christians now, as well as then? If it be said, that the design of Jesus was to teach his first disciples humility, I ask, is not that as needful now as in their day? Or, if it appear, that the occasion be not so frequent, is there any just reason that this lesson of instruction be totally neglected? Will W. C. contend, that because he cannot do the greatest possible good to mankind, that therefore he need do none? Or that because a poor friend, who formerly received five pounds per annum from his society, to help to support him, can now do with one instead of five, that therefore he shall now receive none? Would this be deemed reasonable, and according to Christianity? If washing one anothers' feet, when occasion offers, be not only a token of love and humility, but well suited to cherish and confirm those principles, why should Christians discard the practice, while they believe and acknowledge that Jesus, their Lord, commanded his disciples to observe it? Mr. Editor, you know, I objected to the opinion of W. C. that the prayer of Jesus when extended on the cross, was for his "real murderers." If my objections were groundless, I am sorry the reply of W. C. has not at all removed them. My objections arose from these three considerations. 1st. That there were many attending at the crucifixion of Jesus, who were not his real murderers-who might join the general clamour; but knowing little or nothing about Jesus, If washing the feet of friends did not originate with Jesus; or if it had been the custom for one to wash another, prior to his command; a reference to good authority in respect thereto will be esteemed a favour. or the cause of his death, were therefore real objects of his compassion. 2fly. That his "real murderers," the envious, malicious priests, and Pontius Pilate, who knew no just cause of death, yet would have him crucified-who knowing that they put to death an innocent person, could not not be the persons whom Jesus excused for their ignorance. 3dly. That such characters do not appear to be fit objects of forgiveness, without sincere repentance; and seeing they could not have such repentance, while in the very act-I conclude they could not share in the forgiveness which was asked; and that they were not included in the prayer. These ideas, I think, were clearly expressed in my questions; but it appears W. C. did not understand me, or he went off the premises, with a design to avoid the conclusion. He asks," Is not God ready to bestow the riches of his favour on the vilest character who repents ?" I answer, I believe he is; but what has this to do with the question? Have not the questions, as stated, implied the willingness of God to forgive the penitent; but does that prove that he forgives the impenitent? If it prove any thing, it is, I think, that he does not. This it is which strengthens my objections to his assertion. The malicious priests, and Pontius Pilate, could neithersbe said to repent, nor to have the ignorance upon which ground the forgiveness is asked, and therefore I think not included in the prayer. If W. C. thinks that I conclude such characters could never after repent, be converted, and become the objects of the divine favour, I am right in supposing he has inistaken my meaning. This would be indeed to limit the mercy of God, and is very far from my thoughts of his sovereign goodness; but if God himself has made repentance indispensably necessary for such as murderers, in order to obtain forgiveness, why should W. C. suppose that I unwarrantably limit the sovereign goodness of God, merely because I press the necessity of such repentance? The limitation is such as God himself has fixed -is not an attempt to remove it unwarrantable? 1 admit, with W. C. that different degrees of guilt must be imputed to the various characters concerned with the death of Jesus, if by death he means the murdering of him; but I conceive that some were present at his death, who were concerned in nailing him to the cross: and, to use the words of W. C. "were actively engaged in imbruing their hands with his blood," who were free from the crime of murder, being compelled to do what their office required; might act, without any murderous intent at all, and therefore could not be the “real murderers" of Jesus. I would ask W. C. if he has not also in his arguments upon this subject gone from the idea of forgiveness to that of mercy? I am unable to defend a nice distinction in the use of words; but this I know, that if we make use of terms and phrases which we understand very differently, it is not likely that we shall meet in our judgment upon any subject. 1 conceive that the term death does not necessarily imply murder, though murder implies death; and that the term mercy may in many instances mean forgiveness, but not always-but that forgiveness must always imply mercy. If I am right in this, that there may be mercy when there is not forgiveness, then the case of the apostle mentioned by W. C. will confirm my opinion, in opposition to his assertion in respect to the prayer of Jesus. The mercy of the Lord was exercised towards him, while in his persecuting rage; but may we say Paul was forgiven before he repented of the crime? He says, indeed, he obtained mercy, because of his ignorance. Here I would ask, was the case of Paul similar to that of Pilate and the priests? Paul thought his zealous defence of the law was right, and that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth, being ignorant; but could the priests say so? Could Pilate, a judge and governor-who found no fault in Jesus, yet scourged him, and gave him up to be crucified, be innocent like the soldiers who acted under his authority? Could it be said of Pilate and the priests, "They know not what they do?" Although the case and prayer of Stephen bears more likeness than that of Paul to the case of Jesus; yet when Stephen said, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge," are we not to understand, that in this prayer he requested only the same good which Paul experienced, (viz.) the long suffering mercy of the Lord? or, in other words, Stephen desired that no speedy evil should come upon them for their crime, but that God in mercy would bear with them. This is the sense in which I understand the words of Stephen. If the prayer of Jesus mean the same, and nothing more, I certainly did not understand it. I do not "mean to affirm that such characters are not to be prayed for at all, or not until they actually repent;" but I do think we are not warranted to ask God to forgive them before they repent, and for this reason, because God has not promised to pardon but upon repentance. If, then, we take it for granted that God has revealed his will on this point, why should Jesus, or why should we, ask him to do that which we are informed and believe to be contrary to his sovereign will and appointment? I trust W. C. can perceive that it does not follow, that if Jesus did not request forgiveness for those who were unwor thy of it, that he died with "malevolence in his heart towards the instigators of his cruel death." I see no reason for such a conclusion. It appears reasonable to conclude, that there were different characters at the crucifixion of Jesus; he either prayed for all present, or for some only. If his prayer was in behalf of every one present, and the forgiveness he requested means no more than the term mercy in some other places, then I confess my questions and objections have no just foundation; but if forgiveness means in the sense of pardon or remission of sins, then I still think that the "real murderers" of Jesus were not included in the prayer. I am your's, &c. Cranbrook, August 8, 1812. J. D. REPLY TO THE MISREPRESENTATIONS AND UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS OF THE BRITISH REVIEWERS, RESPECTING THE FREETHINKING CHRISTIANS. To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine. SIR, FEELING a most ardent desire for the success of your monthly publication, but more particularly of your principles, which I consider to be in strict union with those taught by Jesus and his apostles, it is natural to expect that I should be particularly anxious in wishing to see corrected any false statements that may have gone abroad respecting either, to the great injury of the cause of uncorrupt Christianity. With this view it is that I attempt to correct a late severe and most unjust attack of the British Reviewers upon the Society of Freethinking Christians, in which they are represented not only as a debating club, but likewise as disbelievers in Christianity, and encouragers of blasphemy and, impiety. Such serious and monstrous charges as these, emanating from a respectable quarter, ought not to go unanswered or unnoticed; under this impression I offer myself to the notice of your readers, without any pretension to literary talents or classical erudition, considering that TRUTH is capable of triumphing in homely hands, though destitute of the polish of the school. The connection of argument in which our society is introduced by the Reviewers is not a little singular. After having wrote copiously upon the Lancasterian and Belleyau systems of education, we are told that children ought to learn the Church Catechism, &c. with their Bible, to promote unity of faith, and prevent diversity of opinion, which is so injurious, as they say, to the well-being of society; likewise to prevent the spread of the ( 1 |
