« AnteriorContinuar »
is actually adopted by Mr. G. the frequent occurrence of the terms “ bapas a proof on his own side of the tize" and " baptism" in the New Testa
ment, and particularly in the discourses of question.
Christ himself, in a sense purely metaphoThe other exception alluded to is one of rical--the abolition, under the new dispenstill greater moment: it is that of the Di- sation, of the whole Jewish ritual, and the vine Founder of our religion bimself. The substitution of a worship entirely spiritual Lord Jesus Christ rendered in his own per- --the evidence derired from so many other son a complete obedience to all righteous explicit passages of Scripture, in favour of ness, as it was observed under the law; the doctrine that baptism of Chrisand therefore he submitted to the baptism tianity is the work of the Spirit only—the of John. But his own converts, who ber pointed manner in which Jesus bimself, in Jonged to that spiritual institution which he
a preceding part, as is most probable, of 80 frequently denominates the “ kingdom this very conversation, contrasted that of heaven," (see Matt. xi. 11, &c.) hé efficacious influence, the privilege of his baptised not. Although he permitted his own followers, with the water-baptism of disciples to practise that ceremony, be ab- John, Acts, i. 5. All these are collateral stained from it himself. This fact is no
circumstances which bear with no slight ticed by the Apostle Jobn, who, after degree of force on tbe passage before us ; stating that
" the Pharisees heard that and which, when considered as a whole, Jesus made and baptized more disciples appear to afford substantial eridence that than Jobn,” carefully adds, (for the pre- the baptism of which the use was thus prevention of error, no doubt, on so interest- scribed to his Apostles by the Redeenser of ing a subject,) " though (or howbeit, Jesus
men, was simply and exclusively a spiritual 'himself baptized not, but bis disciples ;" baptism.-P. 86., Johni, iv. 1, 2. Those preachers of the Now we must here first protest Gospel, llierefore, who consider it their against the claim advanced by duty, in conformity with the great fundar Mr. G. grounded on the example mental law of Christian worship, to abstain from the practice of baptizing their con- left us by our Lord himself: and, verts in water, have the consolation to further, we must argue, that the know that in adopting such a line of con- force of that example is entirely on duct, they are following the example of
our side. It was an exception Him wbo is on all bands allowed to have
to the practice of water baptism, afforded us a perfect pattern.- Pp. 92, 93.
The other passage of Scripture says Mr. Gurney. This we must is from Matthew, xxviii. 18—20. Jesús himself received baptism,
For, the place, “ Jesus came and spake unto them, Mr. G. says, that " he rendered saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and earth. Goye, there- dience to all righteousness, as it
in his own person a complete obefore, and teach all nations, bap
was observed under the law; and tizing them in the name of the Fa- therefore he submitted to the bapther, and of the Son, and of the tism of John.” How “ therefore?" Holy Ghost." The force of this
In what part of the law was the passage
is thus evaded : Jesus commands kis Apostles to make baptism of John commanded ? disciples of all nations ; and in executing But, further, “ his own disciples that high commission, it was to be their baptized great multitudes." Does duty, as we learn from his subsequent Mr. Gurney suppose, that this words, to baptize the persons whom they practice was followed constantly taught, unto the name of the Father, and
by all our Saviour's disciples, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Now the peculiar solemnity of that parting mo- either in spite of his disapprobament, and the apparent improbability that tion, or even without his approval? on such an occasion a merely external ce- But we wish principally to cal] remony should be so prominently insisted our reader's attention to these 01-the method so often employed by Jesus of conveying instruction and precept idea of the method adopted by our
two passages, as affording a good concerning spiritual things, in words which bore an outward allusion to the flesh
author, of attacking each oppos
ing text singly, and of thus escap: * Sce, for example, John, iii. 5.-iv. ing the conclusions which would 14, 32---Ji. 53.-vii. 33.
naturally be drawn from it if taken
in connexion with other passages. ternal, the application of water, Thus, with some labour it is true, unaccompanied by any spiritual and in not the most satisfactory influence-and, entirely spiritual, , manner, he has contrived to nullify unaccompanied by any external the opposition apparently pre- rite. Now we submit, that the sented to his views by these two Scripture constantly speaks of a texts. But he has succeeded so kind of Baptism combining these far, let it be observed, only by two, which Mr. G. seems so dediscussing apart two passages sirous of setting in opposition to which essentially illustrate each each other-a Baptism consisting, other. For when taken in con- as our Church states it, both of “ nexion, the facts they establish are outward and visible sign, and an as follow : 1. That the disciples inward and spiritual grace.” The had been accustomed to administer text wé wish to bring forward baptism by water to all new con- seems to us most clearly to estaverts. 2. That they had adopted blish this point. It is as follows: and continued this practice under “ Paul having passed through the eye of the Lord, and, it may the upper coasts, came to Ephesus; be concluded, with his approval. and finding certain disciples, he 3. That on his departure from said unto them, Have ye received them, he enjoined then to preach the Holy Ghost since ye
believed? the Gospel to all nations, bap- And they said unto him, We have tizing them."
4. That he fur- not so much as heard whether there ther prescribed a form, or invoca- be any Holy Ghost. And he said tion, to be used in administering unto them, Unto what then were baptism, “in the name of the Fa- ye baptized? And they said, Unto ther, and of the Son, and of the John's Baptism. Then said Paul, Holy Ghost.” 5. That there is John verily baptized with the bapnothing in either of the statements tism of repentance, saying unto of this command at all implying, the people, That they should be that the simple language then lieve on him which should come used was intended to be under- after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. stood figuratively. And, lastly, When they heard this, they were it ought not to be forgotten, that baptized in the name of the Lord the universal practice of the apo- Jesus. And when Paul had laid stolic age proves, that the words his hands upon them,
“ the Holy were understood literally by all to Ghost came upon them, and they whom they were addressed. Either spake with tongues and they prothe meaning attached by Mr. phesied."-Acts, xix. 1--5. Gurney to these few simple ex- It appears, undeniably, from pressions, is not the correct one, this passage, that St. Paul conor, if it be, the Christian world sidered the gift of the Holy Spirit has to lament that fifteen hundred to be connected with what Mr. years should have elapsed before Gurney calls “the merely exterthe discovery was made.
nal rite of water Baptism.” These There is one other text of Scrip- disciples had not received the ture on this subject which we wish Holy Ghost. St. Paul inquires to bring under our author's notice. the reason. Had they been rightly Indeed we are rather surprised to admitted by Baptism? It turns find it passed over in silence in his out that they had not. They, therereview of the scriptural evidence on fore, at his instance, receive the this point. It will be observed by rite of Christian Baptism, and all the readers of Mr. G's work, with it the gift of the Holy Spirit. that he studiously describes Bap- Such, are the facts as simply stated tism as of two kinds--merely ex- in Scripture; but which appear to us irreconcileable with Mr. Gur- presence of the Saviour's body ney's system.
and blood, in any sense, in this The next subject on which we Sacrament; thus depriving it of dissent from Mr. Gurney is that of its principal, if not only, intent the Lord's Supper. His views on
and meaning. this point will be best understood When we find an author venfrom the following passage of his turing thus far in opposition to the work :
plain words of Scripture, we naOn a comparison with certain parts of turally turn over the leaves to see the following chapter (1 Cor. %. 1522), in what
he contrives to escape it must in all fairness be allowed, that
from the simple but positive exthe bread broken and the cup of blessing, which the Apostle here describes as å pressions used by our Lord at the "joint participation in the body and blood institution of this Sacrament. All of Christ,” are the bread and the cup of the four Evangelists agree in the wine which were eaten and drunk in a lite
words used by Christ
“ Take, ral sense, at the supper denominated by the Apostle himself, the Loril's Supper; ch.
eat, this is my body.”_" This is xi. 20. It appears, then, that those who my blood of the New Testament ate and drank together of that bread and which is shed for many.” And wine, were joint participants in the body how language so plain could be and blood of Christ, on the same principle, misunderstood, or made to appear and in the same sense, that the Jews who doubtful, we could not imagine. ate together of the sacrifices ordained by We searched, however, in Mr. the law. were joint participants in the altar, and the Christians who united with idola- Gurney's book, in vain for any atters in the eating of meats offered to false tempt to evade the force of the gods, were joint participants in devils.
passage. To bis credit, he has As no one imagives that these mixed com
left the words without any attempt panies of idolaters and Christians united in
to weaken their force, or to. dieating the devils, or that the Jewish worsbippers united in eating the altar, so it is vert their meaning. But, then, altogether an error to suppose, that the our wonder is naturally excited to Christian communicants are here repre- find so able a reasoner as this ausented by the Apostle, as feeding on the thor, sending forth an elaborate arbody and blood of Christ. When we compare the three cases together, the whole gument against the presence, in that we can gather from the Apostle's de- any sense, of Christ's body and scription of the bread and wine is this: blood in the Sacrament; in which that, as the eaters of meats sacrificed to
he never attempts to the idols were joint participants in those lessen the force of the one great things whicle respected the service of devils; and as the Jews, who ate the victinis scriptural fact which, if left unsacrificed under the law, were joint partici- touched, renders all that he can pants in those things which respected the adduce against the doctrine entirely altar; so the Christians, when they met to useless. celebrate the Lord's Supper, were joint
It will be said, however, that participants in those things which respected if Mr. G. concedes the point, that the body and blood or the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
in the Apostolic times, and in the I have entered into this examination of use of the Passover, Christ's body the passage before us, not so much for the and blood might be understood to purpose of disproving the Roman Catholic be in some sense present,-still doctrine of transubstantiation, as in order he argues, that the command of
to show that the Apostle's words give no i real countenance to the notion so generally
our Saviour was confined to the entertained anong Protestants, that those persons then addressed, and conwho rightly communicate in the rite the cerned only their future celebraLord's Supper do thereby feed together, in tions of the Passover. On the a spiritual sense, on the body and blood of first of these points we remark, Christ.-Pp. 93–96.
that the extent of the command From this passage it is evident, is indicated by a single expression that Mr. Gi denies entirely the of St. Luke: This is
my body which is given for you; this do in same subject, a very unsatisfactory remembrance of me." All, there- mode of explanation. Let it be fore, who have the comfortable as allowed, that the passage under surance, that Christ's body was consideration “ contains no .comsacrificed for them, are here bid- mand” to continue the use of the den to “do this in remembrance Sacrament. But why does it not? of him.” On the other point, we Because no command was needed; observe, that it was not the Pas. because the “practice,” as Mr. chal Lamb, a sacrifice peculiar to Gurney calls it, was "continued ;" the Jews, which our Saviour di- and because “the religious pecurected to be received as bis body. tiarities of the Society of Friends” The representatives of his body were unknown in apostolic times. and blood, then chosen, were bread We are willing to concede, also, and wine, substances in use in that the words, “ till he come, every country and at every period, were probably added as a kind by which was plainly betokened of reservation; implying,
“ that the universality of the benefits of when the Lord himself should his sacrifice, and also of the ordi- come, such a memorial of his nance he was then instituting. It death would be obsolete and unwas not a new direction given to necessary.” But, then, we require the Paschal Feast, it was the sub- Mr. Gurney to go the full length stitution of a simple and more ge- of this his own interpretation, and neral memorial, in the room of the to concede, that until “ the Lord Jewish rite.
himself does come, such a meinoAnother passage of St. Paul, rial is not obsolete or unnecesin the xith chapter of the first sary.” Epistle to the Corinthians, is thus We have to complain here, also, explained :
of the method adopted by Mr. Here, howerer, it appears necessary to Gurney, to ascertain the real notice a particular expression of the Apostle weight of Scripture authority on Paul," from wbich many persons bave de- the point in question. If the pasrived an opinion, that this practice is obligatory on believers in Jesus until the end sages, which we bring forward as of the world. “ For as oft as ye eat this
commands, be disputed, and their bread and drink this cup," says the Apostle,
force or relevancy questioned, in a passage already cited, “
then let other parts of Holy Writ the Lord's death till he come.' The infe- be examined for evidence tending rence deduced from these words respecting to illustrate the real meaning, and the necessary permanence of the rite of the
for proof as to the sense in which Lord's Supper, appears to be ill-founded. For, in the first place, they contain no
the disputed passages were undercommand to the Corinthians to continue stood at the very time of their first the practice in question until the Lord's
appearance, and while their wricoming; and in the second place, it is evi
ters were still living. Instead of dent from the context, that it was not here
which Mr. Gurney seems to us the Apostle's object to in press upon his friends the duration of the custom, but only to be too apt to take up each text its meaning or direction. The stress of his apart from the rest of Scripture, declaration plainly lies upon the words, and then to employ all the pow“ Ye du show the Lord's death. The words
ers of his favourite "
philology “ till he come” were probably added as a
to draw from it a sense favourable kind of reservation ; for the purpose of
to his view of the question. Let conveying the idea, that when the Lord himself should come, such a memorial of us take, for instance, the first of his death would be obsolete and unde- the two passages brought forcessary.-Pp. 110, 111.
ward by our author as the only We cannot but feel assured, two upon which our error in conthat our readers will think this, tinuing the rite can be founded. It like the former quotation on the is quoted from Luke, xxij. 19, 20,
ye do show
» « has no pro
being our Lord's institution of ject, we cannot but express our the Sacrament. Now, in com- surprise, that Mr. Gurney should menting upon this, Mr. G. con- have incidentally quoted St. Paul's tends, that the command, “ do words: “ whosoever shall cat this this in remembrance of me,” was bread and drink this cup addressed to the twelve disciples, worthily, shall be guilty of the and was meant for them only. body and blood of the Lord." "" For But if he had referred to St. Paul's he that eateth and drinketh unworwords, 1 Cor. xi. 23—29, he thily, eateth and drinketh condemwould have found, that the Apo- nation to himself, not discerning stle delivered the same injunction the Lord's body:" and should to these, his Greek converts, and have forgotten to explain how most explicitly tells them, “as they can possibly be understood often as ye eat this .bread and in a sense consistent with his own drink this cup, ye do show the views" that the observance of Lord's death till he come.”
the Lord's supper Now, Mr. Gurney has brought per or necessary connexion with a forward these very words of St. spiritual feeding on the body and Paul; but then he does it not to ex- blood of Christ.” Certainly the plain and elucidate the meaning of agreement between these two statethe passage in St. Luke, but to be ments is by no means obvious; and made the object of a distinct and we should doubt whether “phiseparate attack. “The Apostle lology" itself would be able to (says Mr. G.) is not arguing upon make it clear to unlearned readers. the practice of celebrating the Lord's One topic only remains, of the Supper. The passage contains no three to which our attention must command,” &c. It was not neces- be confined—the topic of the apsary that it should contain any pointment and remuneration of the command, since it proves very dis- ministers of the Gospel. We have tinctly, that both the Apostle and not, perhaps, so full instructions his converts had reference to a on this point in Scripture, as could previous command of Christ, bim- be adduced in defence of the Saself. But yet we cannot but craments ; but we think that comthink, that the language of the mon sense might easily determine verses referred to does very ex- between the system Mr. G. deplicitly “enjoin” the use of the fends, and that to which he objects. ordinance. It recounts the words The ground taken by our auof the Lord Jesus on instituting thor is thus described by him: the Supper, and further adds, It is a principle generally understood and “ let a man examine himself; and admitted by the members of that Society, so let him eat of that bread and
that the faculty of the Christian ministry drink of that cup."
is a gift of the Spirit which cannot be
rightly exercised otherwise than under the The practice, however, of which direct and immediate influence of that we are complaining, is that of Spiril. Friends are not, therefore, satistaking up, passages of Scripture fied with any general impression that it is in this isolated danner, question they rentuie, under such impression,
their duty to preach the Gospel ; nor do ing the meaning or extent of a
either to employ their own intellectual excommand, in one instance, and ertions as a preparation for the service, or then pausing at another, because to select their own time for performing it. it is not a command; stead of If it be the divine will that they should miusing the latter, as common sense
nister, they believe it will be manifested to
them by the divine Spirit when they are to would dictate, to show what mean
speak, whom they are to address, and what ing the Apostle himself attached things they are to express. — P. 121. to the former.
We are unable to assent to this In leaving this part of the sub- principle, because it appears to us