Imagens das páginas

The following lines have been applied to Lord Tcignmouth, and he is certainly not undeserving of the eulogy which they were designed to convey.

"Adr.iir'd and valued in a distant laud*

*' IIir gentle manners all affection won:

"The prostrate Hindoo owu'd hisfostering hand,

** And science mark'd liim for her favor*d son."



"We have received a letter from the Author of "An Address to Deists," complaining that one paragraph of the Keview of that pamphlet, in our last Number, was not correctly quoted. We respectfully inform him, that it was not intended to be a quotation of the author's words, but as conveying the sense of his statement. Surely, if he regret that blasphemy should be punishable by the common and statute laws of the realm, it was not unfair to conclude, that he wished those laws should no longer be regarded; and then all the consequences mentioned must naturally follow.


The Author of "An Address to Deists" considers himself imperatively called upon to give publicity to the letter to which this notice refers. For if it should be supposed that he had complained but of one thing, and that a mere verbal inaccuracy, it would appear as though he had acquiesced in the other representations given by the Reviewer, and was content to be deemed An ApoLogist For Blasphemy. His pamphlet is before the world, and he cheerfully leaves it to its readers; but when sentiments and feelings are attributed to him which it would be treason against the Majesty of Heaven to entertain, he conceives he is under obligation to disavow them. He endeavoured to write what the Editors of the Baptist Magazine might insert without dishonour to themselves. His object was not to argue, but to explain; and no): to vindicate his. opinions, but his character. He expressed no anger; he made no comment; he even asked as a favour what he might have demanded as a reparation. If the Editors believed the imputations they had cast upon him, it might have been expected that they would have received such a letter with joy,

and published it with eagerness. The crimes with which he'is charged are not trivial; his accusers must feel that he is bound to deny them in a public manner ) if they do not like the method in which he now does so, he wishes them to remember that they have compelled him to adopt it.


"To the Editors of the Baptist Magazine.''


I cannot perhaps reasonably expect that you should allow me to reply to your review of my pamphlet; but as I have been more than twelve years an occasional contributor to your work, you will, I hope, indulge me so far as to permit me to say, that it is no part of my design to be an "apologist for published infidelity and blasphemy," or "a defender of those who like Carlile have blasphemed God and'his Christ." My concern is not for those wretched men, whose mischievous conduct I believe to arise from the most impious motives, and whose dreadful responsibility to God, I have endeavoured to urge upon their partisans; my anxiety is for Christianity; for the honour of my Saviour; and for the compliance of his followers with his recorded instructions.

If you will suffer this explanation to appear in your next Number, I will thank you; but I must, at any rate, claim from you one act of justice. It is that you will inform your readers, that the paragraph which begins, "The author of the pamphlet says," does not contain a single phrase of my writing. What follows, in inverted commas, I never wrote, but should be ashamed to have written. You will not, I am persuaded, allow the assertion to remain on your pages uncontradicted, now that it is pointed out to you.

The sentence the Reviewer refers to must be this: "That Christianity is part and parcel of the common law of the land, may for ought the writer knows, be good constitutional doctrine; it may have been so held in preceding ages; it may be incumbent therefore on an upright and impartial judge, when Christianity is impugned, to rule that it is so now; but if it be, the writer, strongly as he is attatched to revealed religion, must be permitted to regret it; for to be part and parcel of the common law or of the statute lav/, of any land, is

[merged small][ocr errors]

in his view, quite inconsistent with the nature of Christianity."

Tliis is very different from the language attributed to me; and of the remainder of the paragraph in the critique, not one syllable is mine. I am, Gentlemen,

Your fellow servant, The Author Of "an Adiiress To Deists." Sept. 4, 1884.

W hether the writer has not something more to complain of, than that "one paragraph was not correctly quoted," impartial readers will be able to decide, if the Editor of the New Evangelical Magazine will have the kindness to permit this statement to appear in his next Number.

Oct. 1, 1834.

To the Editor of the New Evan. Magazine. Sir,

It is a matter of great moment, that all who profess the gospel should know the grounds on which Christianity rests, and should be able to assign a solid reason for their conviction of its truth. But it is much to be lamented, that as there are many Dissenters who have never examined the reasons for nonconformity, and cannot vindicate their separation, so there are many Christians, whose belief is founded rather in a conviction of its utility, and in an experience of its value to themselves, than in any examination of the powerful evidence for the divineorigin of the gospel. Such men are often highly zealous for the conversion of mankind. They ardently desire, that the Jews may be "turned to the Lord;" but they are unqualified to reason "out of the Scriptures," with a Jew. They believe in the Prophets; but they cannot exhibit from the prophets, any evidence that "Jesus is the Christ." They believe in the New Testament application of the prophecies, which "witnessed beforehand" of the coming of the Messiah—but they cannot vindicate this application of them against the objections of the Jew, and feel no concern about those means, which are essential to the success of their zealous efforts. They believe in the scriptures; but are contented to remain in ignorance of many glorious truths embodied in the sacred volume, which would establish their faith, and confirm

their hopes. Such conduct is, undoubtedly, highly reprehensible; and the more so, as the means of knowledge are, in the present age, so many, and so easy of access.—Where " much has been given, much will be required" of men by the Great Author of our religion; and if we would remove the prejudices, and promote the knowledge of others, we must first study the cultivation and improvement of our own minds.

I have been led to these remarks by what I have long and sorrowfully observed in the bulk of religious professors, and by a desire that their attention may be directed judiciously and successfully to the word of God, which, with all treasures, is so much neglected. Through the medium of your Journal, I wish to invite Christians to the elucidation of the prophecies, which testify of Christ: and as it is read by many who have not time to devote to deep and critical studies, it has been, and may be still more, the organ of conveying scriptural knowledge. I wish to elicit from those who have studied the prophecies, and are "mighty in the scriptures," such an explanation of them, as shall prove their fulfilment in Jesus of Nazareth, and show that the interpretation of them by the apostles is the only true one. In communicating such knowledge to the public, they may confer an important benefit upon ordinary christians, and even on the young preachers of the day, who, in general, attempt nothing higher than mere declamation and common place, instead of informing the understandings of their hearers.

There is a prophecy in Isa. vii. 10— 16. which in the gospel of Matthew is said to be fulfilled in the conception and birth of Jesus; "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which, being interpreted, is, God with us." Matt. i. 22, 23.^-The principal objections of the Jews to this application of the prophecy are the following.

1. That the original word nob^, translated a virgin, does not mean a virgin only, but any young woman, married or unmarried, and in Prov. xxx. 18. is used to express a woman, who is an adulteress.—Moreover, the person spoken of must refer to the prophet's wife, who conceived and bare a son, as recorded in Isa. viii.

1. That before this child should know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land should be delivered from the evils which were inflicted upon it by the two hostile kings.

3. That the birth of a son, at the distant period of many centuries, was an event too remote to be a sign to Ahaz, of the certainty of an immediate deliverance of himself and Judah.

4. That the son here foretold, means the son of the prophet, concerning whom it is said, that before he should be able to say, my father and my mother, the power of both kings should be destroyed. Compare chap, vii. 16. with chap. viii. 4.

5. That the name of this child was to be Emmanuel, not Jesus.

These objections and others of alike nature, are to be met with in antient Jewish writers, and are still repeated by the learned Jews of the present age, as well as by other unbelievers. I should be glad, if some of your correspondents would furnish a judicious vindication of the apostolic interpretation of this prophecy, and thus throw light upon the truths of the gospel, which will never perish. I am, Sir,

Yours respectfully,

PiULO-JuDAlCUS. Sep. IMA, 1824.


Mil. Editor,

I was lately requested to assign a reason on behalf oi myself and brethren of the Baptist denomination, for our uniform omission of the Lord's prayer, both in domestic and public worship.

In order to assign a reason on behalf of myself, I examined the circumstances

under which that prayer was dictated

the writings and conduct of the Apostles after the day of Pentecost—and also the nature of the prayer itself. It is somewhat remarkable that two publications on prayer, should so recently have issued from the pens of Baptist Ministers; but, whether the subject before me has been discussed in either of them, or has appeared in any periodical publication, is unknown to me,

and*, therefore, should you deem the following observations worthy of public attention, you will oblige me by their insertion in your Miscellany.

In examining the circumstances under which our Lord's^prayer was dictated, the Evangelist Luke, narrating his history, informs us, "It came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples." Both from sacred and prophane history it appears that during our Lord's ministry there were four distinguished sec ;s among the Jews. The first were Sadducees ; this was a sect which denied the existence of angels and disembodied spirits—the resurrection of the dead, and a future judgment. But whether they admitted the providential government of God, and prayed that he would do them good, give them rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, and fill their hearts'with food and gladness, we are not informed. The second sect were Pharisees; these were persons opposed in sentiment to the Sadducees, and habituated to frequent and long prayers, engaging in these exercises in the most conspicuous situations; in the streets, the synagogues, and the temple, and pleading their personal and comparative moral purity, though addicted to extortion and excess. The third were Essenes: this sect were celebratedfor their celibacy—their community of goods—their agricultural pursuits, and their devotional exercises; for Josephus informs us that rising very early in the morning, they abstained from all secular conversation till day break, and put up certain prayers, received from their forefathers, as if making supplication for the rising of the sun. The fourth were the disciples of John the Baptist. These were persons baptized upon a profession of their repentance, and of their faith in the approaching reign of God. These persons, dissatisfied, I suppose, with the principles of the Sadducees, and also with the prayers and conduct of the other sects, requested John to teach them to pray. And the disciples of Jesus, feeling a similar dissatisfaction, and having witnessed the humility, submission, ardour, and faith of him, who "offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears," when he ceased, one said, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disci

[merged small][ocr errors]

l>les." Such appear to have been the circumstances under which the prayer was dictated.

In examining the writings and conduct of the Apostles, I suppose that two principles will be admitted; the one is, that the apostolic prayers were "the prayers of the saints"—those which were offered upon the golden altar, and ascended up before God out of the angel's hand. This being admitted, it must be also granted that their prayers were accepted; and these prayers were offered up under a great variety of circumstances. We have on record a prayer at the election of an Apostle—at the release of Peter and John—at the martyrdom of Stephen— the imprisonment of Peter—the imprisonment of Paul and Silas—a prayer for complete sanctification—for preservation of body, soul and spirit, and for a capacity to comprehend the breadth, length, depth and height of the love of Christ; yet under all this variety no allusion is made to our Lord's Prayer. Their conclusions ran thus: "Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us; unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world without end, Amen."

The other principle, which I suppose will be admitted, is, that the apostles rigidly adhered to all positive precepts which were deemed binding after the death of Christ; for they, in obedience to positive precepts, went into Galilee— tarried in Jerusalem—went into all the world and baptized the disciples, yet not the most distant allusion is ever made, either in conduct or epistle to the Lord's prayer; from which I infer, that this prayer was not deemed binding, and that its omission will not prevent our prayers from coming up with acceptance before God.

In examining the nature of the prayer itself, I find, there is no reference made to the mediation of Christ; yet this enters essentially into the medium of our access to God, a circumstance ever calculated to remind us of the holiness of his nature, "that he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.". And it also serves to remind us of our own

impurity, that we are more spotted than the leopard, more ignorant than the ox, and more filthy than the swine: so that our prayers, if answered, can. only be answered through the spotless purity of the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. In the Lord's prayer there is no reference made to the atonement of Christ;* yet this enters into the mode of our access to God. When the patriarchs and prophets prayed, it was either with the offering up of typical sacrifices, or at the time of their offering up, or with windows opene/1 towards the place of their offering up. And when the Jewish High-Priest made intercession, he entered the holy of holies with the blood of others.—But Jesus is gone within the vail with his own blood;— blood this which reconciles 1 which pardons! which forms the cloud of incense! and by which he intercedes for the transgressors! And if we are answered, it is through this blood of sprinkling. I find no reference to the offices of Christ, yet these enter into the mode of our access to God. Jesus appears in the presence of God, as our great High Priest, one who has offered the prescribed and required atonement; as our mediator, one who, being "God manifest in the flesh," can lay his hands upon us both. And he appears as our righteous advocate; one who can plead, that in his conduct not one jot or tittle of the law failed, but all was fulfilled; and if we are answered, it is through this Son of man, whom God has made strong for himself. I find no reference to the influences of the Holy Ghost, one part of whose office it is, to teach us to pray—to help our infirmities and to make intercession with our spiu.s. And, finally,I find in the prayer itself, that its forms of expression are varied: compare Mat. vi. 11, 1?. with Luke xi, 34. and what Matthew inserts in verse 13, the evangelist Luke wholly omits, which appears remarkable, if Luke himself adopted the prayer—or heard it universally adopted—or if it had been designed for adoption throughout all ages. From these omissions I conclude, that, the prayer was not intended for a permanent form—that it may be used by persons who tread under foot the Son of God, and count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing. And also that the prayer is incomplete, according to what we arc taught in John xiv. 13,14. and John xvi, 23—27. Before I dismiss the subject, permit me, Sir, to suggest, that when this prayer was adopted, it is not in the least probable, that it was according to modern custom, which is, after praying for ourselves— our domestics—the Church—the afflicted—our native land and the uttermost parts of the earth, then to add this at the end, as if to give efficacy to all which preceded; but it was used, either as their only prayer or as their pattern. And, allow me to remark also, that this prayer presents a striking contrast to the prayers of the heathen, and even to the prayers of many professors of Christianity. It is not unusual for men of slender talents and attainments to pray in public nearly three quarters of an hour, and in the domestic circles nearly half an hour; but in our Lord's prayer, the same subject, and the same forms of expression are not twice repeated! We should remember, that, though we are praying in the name of Christ, yet it is written, "God is in heaven, and thou upon earth; therefore let thy words be few;"

* Neither is there any direct mention made of Christ's atonement in any of the other prayers .recorded in Scripture, to which our correspondent has alluded. His argument therefore against ^he nse of the lord's prayer, merely on (Ms ground, is inconclusive.—Editor.

I am yours,

J.D M.


N. B. Will you, or some of your correspondents, inform me of the origin of the modern use of the Lord's prayer?


Mb. Editor, n> .

On opening the rt Congregational Magazine" lor the: present Month, my attention was arrested by a " Review of Mr. Cox's recent work on Baptism." Knowing that Independent Ministers of considerable eminence are the Conductors of that work; from the brilliancy of talent which its pages display; from the general excellence of its reviews; and from the great length to which the one in question extends; it appeared that Mr. C. had at length "roused the lion from his lair," and that the Baptists were about to be completely " overwhelmed" by a torrent of most conclusive and irrefragable ar

gument. How far their apprehensions are likely to be realized, let the readers of the Review determine; for my own part, (notwithstanding the very high opinion which I entertain of the reviewers,) I cannot help considering their present production as " Vox et procterea nihil;'' and offer to you a few observations in support of this opinion.

They charge Mr. Cox with "vapid braggery," "consummate arrogance, and indecorum;" with being " unsound, dogmatical, and uncharitable," on account of the assertions in his Advertisement. The correctness of these assertions they deny; but we may perhaps be allowed in a few words to attempt to confirm them. Mr. Cox says, "popular feeling is theirs, the argument is ours." To the former branch of this assertion there surely can be no objection. Consider the reproach which is every where cast upon the Baptists,a.s erroneous,heretical schismatics; as disturbers of the peace of Churches, and enemies both to the temporal and spiritual welfare of the Infant race! They are "a sect every where spoken against,"and their " names are cast out as evil;" all which circumstances combine, to array against them that mass of " popular feeling" which is expressed by superficial thinkers. Now to this they have nothing to oppose but argument, clear and solid argument; not that system of hair-splitting, scholastic Theology, which wraps the plain declarations of the Scriptures up in such a tissue of subtle sophistries, as none but a practised metaphysician can unravel; but the simple reasoning of common sense, founded on the untortured letter of revealed truth, which is open to the investigation, and commends itself to the judgment of every man, however unlearned he may be, who desires fully to know, and as fully to practise the will of Christ. It is not denied that there is a vast shew of imposing argument on the other side. Few Baptists are ignorant of this, and hardly can the assertion of the reviewers be credited, that " a popular Baptist Minister" should be in this situation. Still, however, amidst all this display, the last named parties may justly pride themselves, upon being the exclusive possessors of sound Scriptural argument on this subject, much as the Congregational Reviewers may dislike the assertion; and was it not that the remark would savour of "consummate arrogance, and

« AnteriorContinuar »