dowed the patriarchs and the prophets of old, with gifts of power and of understanding, to enable them to accomplish his purposes, is equally obvious. But all those powers were suited to the times in which they lived, and were peculiar only to the individuals chosen, as, men selected for their fitness of character to proclaim to the idolatrous nations, the only one living and true God, and not that it was common to all, or inherent in them as individuals; but that God had furnished them with such means, for the purpose of subduing the world to himself, by making known his vast and mighty powers, as should ultimately lead mankind to the just consideration of their dependance on him. Here then is the end and intention of their mission accomplished, and here it ceased to exist, with all the means that were employed and wisely adapted to the peculiar circumstances and condition of the times in which they were used. But how different are those gifts to that of the inspired Quakers, the one having a spirit of life and activity, ready at all times to address the people pertaining to things present and to come, whilst the other indulge in a listless apathy, amid sighs and groans, not knowing whether the palsied spirit will rise from the sullen silence of a disordered imagination. But, Sir, we now come to a period when the humble and obscure Jesus was proclaimed to the world, as the Messiah, and the only chosen of God, the author of our hope, and captain of our salvation-who, in order to fix the attention of the Jewish nation on his important mission, was, by the Father and great protector of all, divinely inspired, gifted with the holy spirit, and endowed with powers to heal the sick, give sight to the blind, and to restore the withered limb-to demonstrate by his works that he was the real and true Messiah.

That he exercised those powers unlimited and unrestrained-I think is obvious, as did afterwards the apostles, to accomplish the work their master had begun; and here how manifest does the wisdom of God appear, in calling those illiterate fishermen from their humble occupations, to sustain the high characters of apostles, and to disseminate the most invaluable truths, throughout their own and other countries. Surely nothing could indicate a stronger proof of the interposition of God, than to see untaught ignorance proclaim to the world, with an irresistible force, and in all the languages of surrounding nations, the good news that was come. Surely to their countrymen, this ought to have been sufficient to prove the truth of their doctrines and mission; but the gift of tongues, though so great a requisite to the first propagation of Christianity, in order to give it general circulation, yet, as inspired characters, they had other auxiliaries to accelerate

their grand object-they, as I have hinted above, were able to cure disease, and perform wondrous things to strike conviction to the senses. But all these are powers suited, and intended only for the introduction of the system, as having to contend with ignorance, bigots, priests, and all the formidable obstacles of the day; but as soon as it had a partial establish ment, it was left unaided by gifts to make its way in the world by its excellence and internal worth. And we find an apostle, in contemplating the cessation of the gifts of the spirit, expressly declares," whether there be prophecies they shall fail; whether there be tongues they shall cease; whether there be knowledge it shall vanish away." No where do we find, after the death of Jesus, any one able to impart those powers but the apostles; and to whom it was gifted, there it rested-they were not able to communicate it to others. If this is the case, then neither modern bishops nor Quakers can, by laying on of hands, better in the least, or even change the condition of the most weak or willing disciple, that would suffer such pious tricks or experiments to be played on his person. But my friend modestly says, the Quakers do not pretend to work miracles, but only to a divine inspiration; but if they are inspired, to what purpose is it--what is the end they have to accomplish?-Can they not wear a drab coloured coat, or broad brimmed hat, without inspiration?-Can they not sit silently in their meetings, or even talk nonsense, without inspiration?-But to be serious, do they pretend to teach any thing but what is to be found in the New Testament? if they do not, then as long as the New Testament is in general circulation, inspiration must be at least superfluous.

God certainly has always an end to accomplish whenever he imparts to man a knowledge superior to the reach of human intellect; but I confess, at present, I have yet to discover the proof or manifestation of this divine interference in the present day; and it is somewhat curious, and I think no less an abuse of this supposed gift, that Quakers, active in propounding the scriptures, in strengthening the faith, and building up their youth in the knowledge of God, either manifest a cold indifference in profound silence, or else break out by fits and starts, as though they were electrified, muttering out a few half sentences, or a broken and divided speech, and then this spirit suddenly disappears; surely this is unworthy the plain Christian that is well grounded and firm in the faith, much less the inspired character. But then it is said, the spirit is weak, and utterance is not given, thus attributing the fault to God if the flock is not fed, instead of their own criminal indolence, in not examining and

preparing themselves, to give an account of the faith that is in them. But then they refer you to the apostles of old, where they had utterance, and even words put in their mouth what they should say. I have already said, that a miraculous agency was necessary for them; but to this particular I would reply, that the apostles were infants in the knowledge of the system which their master had committed to their charge. It should be recollected they were educated, and had all the prejudices about them that were peculiar to the Jewish country and institutions-consequently they needed a communication through a miraculous medium. But the case is different with us-we have all the advantages to inform and build ourselves upon, by examining the book which gives an account of all their acquirements, and the result of all their labours; but if this spirit-moving is so capricious, and so little to be depended upon, it is a little astonishing how the Quakers, with any degree of consistency, can announce to the public, by a circulation of bills, that a friend from the country has arrived, and they are invited to assemble at St. John's or Gracechurch Street, to hear him speak; and all this, too four or five days previous to the meeting. My friend does say, and has too much good sense to deny it, that they can all speak if they like, provided their minds are stored with wisdom and understanding.

Mr. Editor, I shall not intrude any farther, and if I have been more severe than 1 intended, it is on account of my ideas becoming a little stronger than when I first sat down to the subject; but should you give it insertion, it may possibly call forth a more able pen, to explode the fallacy of such idle, fanciful dreams. Your's, &c. Old Street, St. Luke's, May 20, 1812.

I

NN

ON RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCES.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine.

SIR,

1. C.

FEEL myself obliged to your constant reader J. D. for his information (in your last number), on the practice of washing one another's feet, among many of the General Baptists (in answer to W. C. on that subject, page 116), who, it seems, are not so idle as I had imagined them to be. Their industry and kindness to each other is commendable; but I cannot acquit them of short-sightedness, in not seeing that the practice is no where enjoined on them by Jesus, although it may have been on the first disciples, as a proof of mutual friendship, and where both the country, and the dress then worn, made the washing of feet necessary for cleanliness and

refreshment; the omission of which was probably as great a breach of hospitality, as not to ask a friend to take some refreshment, when coming off a journey, would be among us.-See Luke vii. 44. The "holy kiss," or salutation of the lips, may with equal propriety be said to be a command, and binding on us (as the Sandemanians do) in this country, where we usually shake hands as a token of friendship.-See Rom. xvi. 16. 1 Cor. xvi. 20. The Popish ceremony of extreme unction, or anointing with oil, may in like manner be defended. See Mark vi. 13-James v. 14. So 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," with other requisite qualifications.-1 Tim. v. 10. But let it be observed, that I did not mean to assert, that the practice of washing one another's feet was never observed by the Sandemanians in any manner, but that it was totally overlooked by them, as a public institu tion of Jesus. The question is, "why so," and yet observe the bread and wine ceremony as a church ordinance? Did Jesus command one to be observed publicly, and the other privately? In short, did the messenger of the Most High institute either, as rites under the new dispensation?

In answer to J. D's. objection to my asserting that Jesus prayed for his real murderers, I am of opinion that he did implore divine mercy for those who were actively engaged in imbruing their hands with his blood; and that he most probably included those malicious and unmerciful priests who were the cause of his death, though they were somewhat more guilty than the misguided multitude, whe cried out crucify him," thereby aiding them in their wicked design. Different degrees of guilt must be imputed to the various characters concerned with the death of Jesus; but does not J. D. unwarrantably limit the sovereign goodness of God, by excluding actual murderers from his mercy, else what meaneth those memorable words of Jesus, "all manner of sin shall be forgiven unto men?" Is not God ready to bestow the riches of his favour on the vilest character who repents? Does not the character of the apostle Paul, before his, conversion, correspond with that of a real murderer-with those who caused Jesus to be put to death, when he breathed out threa tening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, giving his voice against those who were put to death; thus persecut ing them to the very utmost of his power? "Yet he obtained mercy," although the very chief of transgressors. Does J. D. mean to affirm that such characters are not to be prayed for at all, or not until they actually repent. Did not Stephen pray for those who were lawlessly stoning him to death?" and

can J. D. suppose for a moment, that Jesus was less moved with compassion than his followers, or that he died with a spark of malevolence in his heart, towards the instigators of his cruel death? I trust J. D. will think again on these things, and hope, that in future, we may both be free from the imputation of error and absurdity. I remain, your's, &c. Stoke Newington, June 1812.

W. C.

I

REPLY TO JUVENIS, ON PULPIT PREACHING.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christian's Magazine.

SIR,

DID hope that your Correspondent Juvenis would have produced (if it were possible to produce them) some sound arguments in favour of pulpit preaching; but his last communication has satisfied me of the weakness of his cause; and to those who are fond of wit and ridicule, I think he has given most ample room to play upon his defence of pulpit preaching, to the great discredit of the trade.

1

Juvenis in his former communication (contained in your number for February last) makes the following confession-" I am ready to grant that no man at the present day is authorized to preach by any particular command of our lawgiver, or by the precepts and example of Jesus and his Apostles." And again, he says "I prefer the mode you esteem right, where circumstances are suitable;" and in his last remarks on the practice of one man's teaching to the exclusion of the rest, he observes, that he is not at issue with me on that point, and by his not being at issue with me I understand an acquiescence of opinion.

Now really, Mr. Editor, if Juvenis seriously acknowledges all these points; if pulpit preaching has no authority in the New Testament, either by command, precept, or example of Jesus or his messengers; if the plan of instruction adopted by the Freethinking Christians is the most preferable (not to say that it is the precise mode laid down in the New Testament); and if he agrees with me in opinion, as to the impropriety of one man's teaching to the exclusion of the rest; really, Sir, I cannot inform him wherein consists the difference of opinion, or any difference at all, except the incongruity that seems to reign between the preacher and his practice. He does not indeed practise one thing, and contend for another; but while he pursues one practice, he agrees to the propriety of another, which directly opposes it, and declares it to be anti-christian. Here the allurements of the pulpit shew themselves, and display their vain triumph over the mind of Juvenis: unwilling to re