Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ed by Luke. They were the words of our Lord, not to Paul, but those who sat at table when they celebrated the Jewish Passover-and (as I think has been clearly demonstrated) never were intended as the ground work of a new ordinance-the type or figure of a figure or type."

But we have other, and as I conceive, irrefutable evidence that the Apostle never delivered this as an ordinance to the Corinthians. In the second verse of the same chapter in which he so severely reproves them for their scandalous conduct in the performance of this ceremony-he praises them for the right observance of the ordinances which he delivered to them. 1 Cor. xi. 2. "Now I praise you brethren that you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I delivered them unto you." Let us now for a moment suppose that the Eucharist, as it is termed, was one of these ordinances-and what is the consequence? It is either that the Apostle said what was not true, or that he established an institution to promote gluttony and drunkenness. If the Eucharist was one of them, he at the same time praises them for keeping it as he delivered it unto them, and severely rebukes them for keeping it in the most disgraceful manner!!! 1 Cor. xi. 17, 21, 22. "Now in this I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better but for the worse". "for in eating every one taketh before other his own supper, and one is hungry and another is drunken! What? have ye not houses to eat and drink in, or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say unto you?-Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not." Upon the hypothesis of my opponent, the Apostle is a most contradictory writer-which I am not willing to believe.

There has hardly ever been a subject of dispute in the church, which has occasioned so much division, contention and bloodshed as this useless ceremony. Schisms, suffering, and disgrace to the professors of christianity, mark its progress. It began after the institution of christianity with the mistaken Corinthians. Its birth was signalized by heresies and drunkenness its maturity is famous for its faggots and its fires-its old age for weakness and imbecility. See 1 Cor. xi. 19, 21: Also Fox's Acts and Monuments. And what has Christianity gained by it, to compensate for all these disadvantages? This is a most important query. Let the serious candid Christian deeply ponder it, and solemnly answer it to his own heart.

I will now recur to the subsequent part of the eleventh chapter of first Corinthians and attempt to answer my opponent's arguments, founded on some expressions of the Apostle, who, he says, "attaches great importance to the observance of this ceremony" "Whosoever eateth this bread, and drinketh this

cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and blood of the Lord”—“Such unworthy communicants bring upon themselves Divine judgments even sickness and death""to suppose all this importance attached to the use of an uncommanded useless ceremony is to suppose the Apostle acting a solemn farce." But we will neither admit this supposition, nor its consequence, for reasons which shall be shewn. When an individual practices any religious ceremony whatever, whether it be authorized by the precepts of the Gospel or not—whether it be eating bread and drinking wine, whether it be offering burnt sacrifices, or pouring out drink offerings-if he perform it unworthily-knowing that he is not in a state of repentance, he involves himself in the greatest guilt-he is acting the hypocrite, not only before men, but in the more immediate presence of his Creator he is said to be guilty of the Body and blood of Christ, because, he is in the same state of mind as they who crucified the Lord of glory. The Apostle however does not, as my opponent asserts"attach great importance and solemnity to the observance of this ceremony,"-he attaches the great importance to the hypocritical practice of it, and he might with equal truth have attached great importance to the hypocritical offerings of any disciple of Moses. "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily,

eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.” ver. 29. And likewise he that offereth a Burnt offering unworthily, offereth violence to his own soul. The degenerate Jews in the time of Isaiah made such offerings and were severely reproved: "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me, saith the Lord, bring no more vain oblations-incense is an abomination unto me--the new moons and the Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with, it is iniquity." Isaiah. i. 11, 13. From the expressions of the Apostle quoted by my opponent, no conclusion can justly be drawn in favour of typical ordinances. He found the Corinthians in a low carnal stateattached to outward shadowy ceremonies-he did not forbid the use of them, because, they were too weak to bear it-he who circumcised Timothy in condescension to the Jews, indulged the Corinthians in a practice which they could not yet abandon. For all this he gives us a very satisfactory reason. " And I brethren could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal even as unto babes in Christ-I have fed you with milk and not with meat, for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet are ye now able, for ye are yet carnal." 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2, 3.

For want of room to pursue the subject further at this time, I will conclude with some observations on a part of “Paul's” last address to us, which relates to "Water Baptism;" my remarks on the remainder I will leave for a future number.

My opponent says, "Now in the practice of water baptism, the Apostles either were or were not mistaken. Let Amicus take which side he please, his system must fall. If he holds they were mistaken, he so far denies their inspiration."—" If he holds they were not mistaken, he admits the propriety of their practice, and thus gives up his whole argument. This statement puts one in mind of the old Spanish proverb, "When a man gets wrong, he needs good eyes." My heedless opponent has run himself into the toils he had laid for me, and contradicts himself. It is a fact, that the Apostles practised circumcision, legal vows and Jewish sacrifices. Now, in this practice, they either were or were not mistaken-let "Paul" take which side he pleases, he gets entangled in his own net.-If he admits that they were mistaken, he so far denies their inspiration—if he holds they were not mistaken, he admits the propriety of the practice, and upon his own principles, we are now bound to practice and perpetuate circumcision and other Jewish ordinances in the church of Christ!! In contending for the unlimited inspiration of the Apostles in all their practices, "Paul" plainly contradicts himself. In Letter IX, he says expressly, that "the Apostle Paul in offering sacrifices at Jerusalem at the request of James, acted contrary to his own judgment and the judgment of James, and that this was a weak compliance with Jewish prejudices." He says that "Paul circumcised Timothy because of the Jews,' and that "Peter disapproved his own weakness" in compelling the Gentiles to live according to the Law! Now I would ask, was Paul inspired to act contrary to his own judgment? was James inspired when he requested Paul to offer sacrifices at Jerusalem, in a weak compliance with Jewish prejudices? was Paul inspired to circumcise Timothy, or did he do it because of the Jews? was Peter inspired "not to walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel?" and if he were so, was Paul inspired to withstand him to the face because he was to be blamed? or, was Barnabas inspired when he was carried away with the dissimulation of Peter and the other Jews? See Gal. ii. 11, 12, 13, 14. My opponent's system is a mass of incongruity and self contradiction! it falls to pieces for want of cement; it has neither symmetry of design, nor coherence of parts.

To suppose that the Apostles were always under the immediate influence of divine inspiration, is irreconcilable with the whole tenor of their history. They were men of like passions with us they were subject to weaknesses and prejudice, and sometimes acted under their influence. Their religious judgment was not matured in a day. They advanced by a regular progression in the knowledge of Divine things, to the state of manhood in Christ. All that the Christian can rationally or con

sistently contend for, in order to establish the authority of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES is that they were "given by inspiration of God," that however the Apostles may in their practice have manifested the infirmity of our common nature, yet that when they wrote to the churches they wrote under the immediate influence of the Holy Spirit.

Thus we see that "Amicus" can, consistently with the Sacred Writings, admit the fallibility of the Apostles, can grant that they were not perpetually inspired without "giving up his whole argument" or any portion of it-without the fall of his system or the injury of its parts."

AMICUS.

Saturday, Nov. 3, 1821,,

PAUL TO AMICUS,

WHAT Subject you will discuss the present week, I know not; but think it probable you will not yet leave the former topics. I shall be happy to find you have at length given your views of the Scriptures and of inspiration. As you appear to be exhausted on the subject of baptism, and ought, by this time, to be willing to relinquish that of the Lord's Supper; if you will not give us your full sentiments on the Inspiration of the Scriptures, permit me to request your sentiments on another subject. You some time since declared it to be your object to give a fair and candid statement of the principles of Friends, that the erroneous opinions of other sects concerning them might be corrected and removed. Now it is the opinion of the most judicious men of other sects, and so far as I can judge, has been the opinion of such ever since your society arose, that you do not hold the doctrine of the TRINITY. Without justifying the abusive epithets heaped upon you by Mosheim and his translator Maclaine, you are aware that both of them consider you as denying the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Evans, in his "Sketch and Persuasion to Religious Moderation," says that on some "capital points of Christianity, they have not yet explained themselves authentically." Neal in his History of the Puritans, speaking of your society in its earliest stages, says "they de ied the received doctrine of the Trinity." And I know that many modern Christians and Divines, entertain the same opinion. Now, if we are wrong, will you not set us right.

If I recur to your own writers, I find nothing but silence, or what is worse than silence on this subject. William Penn says just enough to show that he rejected the commonly received doc

trines as a 66 gross notion," but no where tells us what he did believe upon the subject. Barclay in his long treatise of nearly six hundred octavo pages, so far as I can find, never alludes directly to the subject! In his first chapter, after some preliminary remarks, he draws this conclusion, (quoted from another) "know that the main foundation of piety is this, to have right apprehensions of God."-and yet here the chapter ends!!--He immediately passes to another subject, and through the volume I do not observe a single hint of any thing like a distinction of Persons in the Godhead. Kersey in his Treatise written partly "for the information of such as are strangers to the Society of Friends," says not a word on this fundamental article of Christianity. Now to me this silence speaks volumes. Till lately it could not be proved against the Boston Socinians that they ever preached a word against the Divinity and Atonement of Christ; but it could easily be proved they said nothing in favour, or on the subject of these important doctrines. And they have since avowed their heresy. Tuke, one of your modern historians says, "some of the teachers of the Christian church, about three hundred years after Christ, were led to form a doctrine to which they gave the name of Trinity." Does not this imply his rejection of the doctrine? Clarkson says you seldom use the term" and reject it, as also the term original sin," because "not found in the sacred writings." He quotes also Pennington and Crook (writers of your Society) as giving little information on the subject. The writer of this note has frequently heard your preachers, read your books, and examined your Apologies, Defences, Portraitures, Treatises, Vindications, Refutations, and Histories, but does not recollect a single allusion which implied your belief of the doctrine in question,-a doctrine which lies at the very root of Christianity. The doctrine of the Trinity is openly disavowed by many in Wilmington who bear your name, and wear your livery; and one of your Leaders not long since declared that he would as soon believe in THIRTY Persons as THREE Persons in the Godhead !” To me you appear to blend the works of the different Persons of the Godhead, making them all the works of the Spirit; you also bury the Holiness and Justice of God under the ever prominent attribute of Goodness. In short, you appear to me to believe and exhibit little more of the character of the Supreme, than what the Light of Nature teaches, entirely disregarding the additional light of the Scriptures.

66

66

Now will you be so kind and candid as to state the sentiments of your Society on this all important subject? In the hope you will thus favour me and the public generally, I will not occupy the Repository next week, but leave room for your communication.

20

« AnteriorContinuar »