Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

consider that this act of the Apostle, at the request of the Church, was a Jewish rite, was one of the ordinances abolished by Christ and by him taken out of the way, "nailing it to the cross”—it was a rite accompanied with numerous sacrifices. A he-lamb for a burnt offering-a ewe lamb for a sin offering-a ram for a peace offering-a basket of unleavened bread-cakes of fine flour mingled with oil-wafers of unleavened bread anointed with oil-meat offerings and drink offerings.

Now can it be a matter of wonder if these eminent Apostles and elders of the church, twenty seven years after the introduction of the gospel which was intended to put an end to the ceremonial institutions of the law that "stood only in,meats and drinks, and divers washings and carnal ordinances imposed on them till the time of reformation." Heb. ix. 10. I say can it be any matter of wonder that the apostles and church who were so zealous in the Law of Moses, twenty-seven years after it was abolished, should also be found in the occasional use of John's Baptism? If they could yet light up their altars, slay their beasts and offer their victims, is it any wonder they should not yet lay aside the Baptism of Water? I leave the reader to draw his own conclusions.

There is one more circumstance which I think worthy of remark, before I leave this subject. Twenty-five years after the day of Pentecost, Paul met Peter at Antioch, where they had an open dissension on the subject of Jewish ceremonies. Paul withstood him to the face, and sharply rebuked him for compelling "the Gentiles to live as do the Jews;" but what was very singular the Apostle Paul himself, two years after he had thus severely blamed Peter for his dissimulation, went to Jerusalem and fell into the same snare, by conforming to Jewish ceremonies, at the request of the Apostle James and the church, and was near losing his life in consequence. See Acts xxi. 31. Gal. ii. 11.

From this view of the subject, it is evident that the practice of the Apostles, with respect to outward ceremonies and the use of carnal ordinances in the early periods of the church, is no infallible criterion of their evangelical nature. They had been educated in them, were strongly attached to them. These ceremonies had been divinely instituted and reverently regarded. It is not therefore reasonable to suppose they could be instantaneously abandoned. It fully appears from the scriptures, that the primitive ministers of the church were slow to perceive their inconsistency with the gospel dispensation, and that after this was discovered they were cautious of alarming the prejudices of their new converts by preaching against them; that they therefore not only indulged them in the use of Water Baptism, but of

many other ceremonies which were instituted by the Law of Moses, as we see by the foregoing quotations.

It is said the "Apostles actually baptized their converts in water," and the inference drawn from this fact is that ministers now ought to do so too. Now if this is sound reasoning in one case, it must be sound in another. The Apostles actually circumcised their converts, therefore we ought to circumcise ours. The Apostles compelled their converts to live as do the Jews, therefore we ought to compel ours to observe the Laws of Moses. These conclusions though fairly made from the premises, I apprehend few will admit. The argument drawn from the practice of the Apostles, if it prove any thing, proves too much, and therefore the whole conclusion falls to the ground.

We find however in the later periods of the church when the Apostles had fully experienced the inefficacy of Water Baptism, and the powerful nature of the baptism of Christ, that according to the prediction of John the Baptist, the use of water decreased. Paul speaking of Water Baptism expressly tells the Corinthians he thanked God that he had baptized so few of them, for Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel; which could not be true if our Lord in that commission, Matt. xxviii. 19. to his ministers meant Water Baptism. And Peter speaking of the baptism that saves the soul, says it is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, which is the only property of the watery institution, but the answer of a good conscience towards God, which is the express design and true effect of the baptism of Christ. See 1 Cor. i. 14. and 1 Peter iii. 21.

The Apostle to the Ephesians, Chapter iv. declares "there is one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God, and Father of all, who is above all, and through you all, and in you all." This one Baptism is the baptism of that one Lord, and not the carnal baptism of one of his creatures, else we must exclude the baptism of the one Spirit by which all true christians are baptized into the one body: for saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. xii. 13. "By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have all been made to drink into one Spirit."

It is clear from many plain texts of Scripture, that "Water Baptism" is not the baptism of Christ. It is expressly asserted, John iv. 2. that Christ did not practice it, and there is not the least proof that he ever commanded it. It is contrary to the nature and design of the gospel, which was not intended to institute signs and symbols, but to bring in everlasting righteousness in their stead. And therefore, the Society of Friends, in conformity with what they deem plain scripture doctrine, dare not turn again to the weak and beggarly elements," Gal. iv.

9. but direct their attention and the attention of their hearers, to Christ the anointed teacher of the New Covenant Dispensation, that "word of grace" in the soul which is able to build it up in the most holy faith, and give it an inheritance amongst all them that are sanctified.

In my next, I intend to treat of the Passover Supper, commonly called the Eucharist.

AMICUS.

Seventh-day, 7th Mo. 28, 1821.

LETTER VII.

In my last Essay, I treated of Water Baptism, and proved by many plain Scripture Testimonies that it is no "Ordinance of Christ," that our Lord never practised it, nor gave any precept or command to his disciples to use or administer it in any way whatever. I now come to give my views of what has been emphatically termed "Augustissimum Eucharistiae Sacramentum," the ceremony of taking Bread and Wine, from which, an eminent christian and scholar of the seventeenth century has said, "not only the greatest and fiercest and most hurtful contests, both among the professors of christianity, in general, and among Protestants in particular have arisen, but, also such absurdities, irrational and blasphemous consequences have ensued, as make the christian religion odious and hateful to Jews, Turks and Heathens.

I shall first attempt to shew that this is no institution of Christ. Secondly, that it never was practised by the Apostles; and thirdly, that it is contrary to the nature of the Gospel dispensation. And.

First. That this is no institution of Christ, is I think, evident from the language of all the four Gospels. Matthew and John were the only Evangelists who were present at the Feast which has given rise to this ceremony. John it appears thought the eircumstance so immaterial, that he has given no account of it, although he relates some remarkable occurrences which took place when the Supper was over, and which I shall have occasion to notice hereafter. In order that the reader may judge how far the text will support my present position, I will quote the passage as it stands in Matt. xxvi. 17, 18, 19.

"Now the first day of the Feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover? And he said, go into the city to such a man and say unto him, the Master saith my time

is at hand, I will keep the Passover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had commanded them, and made ready the Passover."

In these three short verses the "Supper" is three times called the "Passover," and once the "Feast of unleavened bread.” I think that this passage clearly proves that this was no new Institution. It was the "Feast of the Passover" instituted fifteen hundred and eighty years before that time.

I am not ignorant of the attempts which have been made by College made christians to prove that this was not the Jewish Passover which our Lord celebrated-they saw that this view of the subject militated against the high character they had stamped on this ceremony. Such weak efforts can however have no other effect than wholly to invalidate the sacred text, since no proposition can be more clearly demonstrated by scripture, no fact better established than this can be. Matthew three times writes it" the Passover." Mark writes it five times" the Passover," Mark xiv. Lake writes it six times "the Passover," Luke xxii. and John the Evangelist calls it "the Feast of the Passover," John xiii. These authorities establish my first posi tion beyond a doubt. I could bring to its support the opinions of many eminent writers of different religious persuasions who acknowledge that our Lord was celebrating the Passover" when he distributed the bread and wine at Supper, but I wish to be brief, and think it needless.

I will now attempt to shew that our Lord on that occasion not only celebrated an ancient Jewish Festival, but that he instituted no new ceremony at that time. The breaking of Bread and distribution of Wine with the blessing on both, were the common rites of this Feast, as Cradock, in his Harmony of the Four Evangelists assures us on the authority of Jewish writers. As the account is interesting and pertinent to my purpose, I will make an extract from it.

1. "When all things appertaining to the Feast were prepared, and all persons belonging to that company were ready, the chief man of the company takes a cup of wine and blesseth it in some such words as these-Blessed be thou O Lord, who hast created the fruit of the Vine," &c.

2. The table was then furnished with provisions of several sorts, viz. bitter herbs, unleavened bread, the body of the paschal lamb roasted whole. The later Jews added a dish of thick sauce, called CHAROSETT, made of dates, figs, rasins and vinegar mingled together, (which was not commanded in the Law) as a memorial to them of the clay in which their fathers' laboured in the land of Egypt."

3. The chief man of the company takes the sour herbs and

blesses them, &c. and eats thereof the quantity of an Olive, and distributes to the rest."

4. "Then he takes the dish or charger, which held the unleavened bread or cakes, and laying by a piece of the unleaven ed bread to be taken afterwards with the paschal lamb at the close of the supper, he blesses the bread in such words as these "Blessed art thou, O Lord, who bringest forth bread out of the earth, &c. Then he breaks it and eats of it."

5. When this is finished, he begins the second cup of wine, and the rest follow him. Then children used to be brought in, and were made to ask, what is the reason this night differs so much from other nights instancing many particulars of the festival solemnities. Then the master of the feast begins a narrative, telling how they were all servants in Egypt, and that night God redeemed them, &c. this kind of declaration or shewing forth the occasion of the Passover, and God's wonderful goodness to them in their deliverance, they call HAGGADAH. This annunciation or shewing forth to their children the Lord's wonderful goodness and mercy, we find commanded in Exodous iii. 8, & xii. 26, 27.”

6. "Then he takes that part of the unleavened cake which was laid aside before, and blessing it and giving thanks for it as before, he distributes to every one a piece to eat with the paschal lamb, of which each person was bound to eat as much as the quantity of an Olive at least."

6.6

7. All this done, they drink the third cup, called the cup of Blessing or thanksgiving, after meat. And this third cup which was after supper, was the cup which our Saviour (as it seemeth) applied to a new spiritual signification.'

[ocr errors]

8. After this they sung the Hallel' or Hymn, and so concluded the supper." So says CRADOCK.

Thus it appears that our Lord did not then institute any new ordinance, and that he attended to those rites only, which were universally observed by the Jews at the Feast of the Passover. As chief man of the feast he only performed those ceremonies which the chief man of this feast always performed at the celebration of it; though as Cradock says he applied them to a new spiritual signification." He endeavoured to turn their attention to the mystical import of this solemn festival. The words "This do in remembrance of me," are in the present tense, they allude to a present act, and simply mean as I conceive, "eat this bread in remembrance of its great antitype, the Spirit of Christ, who is able to deliver you from a harder bondage than Pharaoh's, a deeper darkness than the darkness of Egypt."

If those who differ from us in opinion, do not hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation, I cannot see how they can fairly put a

« AnteriorContinuar »