.ETTER »HN GURNEY, ESQ. AUTHOR OF OBSERVATIONS ON THE RELIGIOUS PECULIARITIES OF THE SO( F FRIENDS', MADVERTING UPCJN' $HAT PART OF HIS WO: RELATES T NANCES OF BAPTISM, AND THE LORD'S SUPPER. SEACOME ELLISON. LONDON: PUBLISHED BY HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO AND BY D. MARPLES, LIVERPOOL. 1833. PRICE THREE SHILLINGS. LETTER JOSEPH JOHN GURNEY, ESQ. AUTHOR OF OBSERVATIONS ON THE RELIGIOUS PECULIARITIES OF THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, ANIMADVERTING UPON THAT PART OF HIS WORK WHICH RELATES TO THE ORDINANCES OF BAPTISM, AND THE LORD'S SUPPER. seacome;ellison. LONDON : PUBLISHED BY HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. AND BY D. MARPLES, LIVERPOOL. 1833. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/lettertojosephjoOOelli LETTER. Sir, A short time after you had been lecturing in Liverpool, in the early part of last year, I took the liberty of addressing- a letter to you, stating that I was told the only argument you advanced against the ordinance of Water Baptism was, that of Paul having told the Corinthians that Christ sent him not to bap- tize but to preach the Gospel : and after making some remarks, I observed, that to controvert all which is stated in the Scripture on the subject, you must have some other and more powerful argument, to support you in the non-observance of this great ordinance : and I added, T should be glad to be informed from what part of the word of God you had obtained it. To which, your reply was in these words : " As thou " wast not present at the public meeting for worship " to which thy letter alludes, thou canst not judge of " what was then spoken. In point of fact, thy notion " of what I did say is quite exaggerated." This being the case, I have to apologize for the liberty I took, for I should be extremely sorry to impute to any one sentiments which he disavows. Shortly after our correspondence terminated, your publication, entitled " Observations on the Religious Peculiarities of the Society of Friends," (first edition,) B was put into my hands. From this publication I shall make a few extracts, and I shall endeavour to point out, in some particulars, wherein they appear to me to differ from the standard of the Holy Scriptures. I shall make the extracts as concise as I well can, yet so as to preserve their full meaning. If I should in any instance mistake or fall short of it, it will not be intentional; and as your work is before the public, I refer any one who may read these observations to the book itself, giving the pages from which the extracts are taken. In the 9th page of the preface, you say, " The " views which I have attempted to unfold are of a " nature entirely religions ; it has of course been neces- " sary for me largely to refer to that sacred book, to " the test of which all religious opinions are rightly " brought, since it was given by inspiration of God, " and contains a divinely authorized record, both of " the doctrines which we ought to believe, and of the " duties which we are required to practise." In this I perfectly agree with you. We must take the Sacred Book as a whole, and compare one part with another, and not judge of its meaning by isolated passages. It is given by inspiration of God, and is " plain to him that understandeth."1 All its ordin- ances and rules of practice are clearly laid down ; and the path in which we are to walk is as clearly defined. The Holy Scriptures are the only standard by which we are to try every man's doctrine, and it is by this standard that every man will be tried by the great Judge of all. Our Lord says, " He that rejecteth me, 1 Prov. viii. 9. and receiveth not ray words, hath one that judge th him : the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."1 " To the law and to the testimony : if they speak not ac<|brding to this word, it is because there is no light in them."2 As " Who- soever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God," therefore, " If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed. For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."3 Again, in the same page, you say, " The common " English version of the Bible may be understood " with sufficient precision, without the aid of the critic " or the annotator." Here also we agree. I believe it is almost univer- sally allowed, that our translation comes as near, if not nearer, to the original, than that in any other modern language, and that from it we may learn all that is necessary for our salvation. Critics and anno- tators, generally speaking, only bewilder their readers; and it would have been well for the world, had the Bible been left more to speak for itself. Upon your admission that it is sufficiently clear, I shall discuss the different points on which we essentially differ. In page 29, you say, " Nor ought we, in tracing " the causes of these differences, by any means to " forget, that on many points of a merely secondary "nature — those particularly which relate to modes of " worship and of church government — there is to be " found, in the divinely authorized records of the 1 John xii. 48. 2 Isaiah viii. 20. 3 2 John 9, 10, 11. " Christian revelation, very little of precise direction ; " and thus is there obviously left, in reference to such " points, a considerable scope for the formation of dif- " ferent views." In the preceding extracts, you sayrhe Scriptures are given by the inspiration of God, and contain a divinely authorized record, both of the doctrines we ought to believe, and the duties we ought to practise, and that they may be understood without the help of man. But you here add, that on many points, those particularly which relate to modes of worship and of church government, the divinely authorized records of the Christian revelation give considerable scope for different views. These you are pleased to denominate subjects of a merely secondary nature. What a reflection on the wisdom of the Almighty ! on Him who clearly prescribed the way in which he would be worshipped by us, and pronounced the severest anathemas on any one who should dare to depart from it. Those who reject the way of his appointment, and come to him by a way of their own invention, he will not receive. It is only by a pure mode of worship, in accordance with the revealed will of our Lord, that we can pos- sibly glorify him. Any departure from the rule which he has enjoined, is that thing of all others which his " soul hateth." See the account of Nadab and Abihu offering strange fire, which the Lord commanded them not.1 Their crime was so heinous, that after the Lord had destroyed them, Aaron their father was forbid to mourn for them. The command in the New Testament, is equally binding with that in the Old. 1 Lev. x. 1. And any departure from the rule laid down, is neither more nor less than offering strange fire. In Matthew xv. 9, it is said, " In vain they do worship me, teach- ing for doctrines the commandments of men." See with what severity the Jews were reproved for false worship. " Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar ; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee ? In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil ? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil ? offer it now to thy governor ; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts."1 David says, Psalm xii. 6, " The words of the Lord are pure words ; " and " The law of the Lord is perfect, con- verting the soul : the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple."2 Zephaniah, personating the Lord, says, " Then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent."3 If the Scriptures give no precise direction how we are to worship the Lord, they cannot be a perfect law : and if they cannot clearly be understood, they cannot be " sure, making wise the simple." Therefore no con- demnation can ensue from our ignorance of their con- tents. Neither can the Lord be just when he makes this declaration, " This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."4 Now if this light be as you imply, so obscure that we cannot distinguish our way, God cannot " be jus- tified when " he " speaketh, and be clear when " he 1 Mai. i. 7, 8. 2 Ps. xix. 7. 3 Zcph. iii. 3. 9. * John iii. 19. "judgeth:"1 because his creatures may upbraid him for judging them by a law, the terms of which they are not able to comprehend. " For if the (Gospel) trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"2 Page 61. " It is our belief that we have been led " out of the practice of these rites by the Spirit of " truth ; that we could not recur to them without " grieving our heavenly monitor ; and that in fact " they are not in accordance with the entire spiritu- " ality of the gospel dispensation." Our Lord says, " The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."3 And these com- mands to his apostles are not the least important of them. " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, bap- tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."4 " He took bread and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you : this do in remembrance of me."5 You say the observance of these things is not in accordance with the Gospel dispensation : and that you are led out of the jn*actice of them by your hea- venly monitor. This monitor must be something of your own imagination. It cannot be the Spirit of truth that dictated the Scriptures. If it were, he would be at variance with himself; and consequently could not be the true Spirit. In pages 68 — 73, you quote the opinions of a num- ' Ps. li. 4. 2 1 Cor. xiv. 8. 3 John vi. 63. * Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. s Luke xxii. 19. ber of Jewish and other learned authors respecting baptism, and then say, " These points of resemblance " between the proselyte baptism of the Jews and the " baptism of the Christians are so important and so " striking as to render it nearly indisputable that the " one baptism was borrowed from the other. These opinions should be thrown " to the moles and to the bats."1 The word of God does not stand in need of adventitious help. See the example made of Uzzah, when he put forth his hand to support the ark, the symbol of God's presence.2 It was presump- tion in him, though probably his intention was good ; but being one of those who were commanded not to come near it,3 he was smitten on the spot for his disobedience. And the greatest punishment awaits those who have the temerity to add to, or to take from, the word of God. It was preached to the poor, and is unquestionably within their comprehension, independent of the aid of learned men. James en- quires, " Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith ?" 4 These have no opportunity of know- ing the opinions of learned men. The book of God is sufficient for their instruction. Paul informs us, "not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called."5 They are not passed by because they are wise, mighty, or noble, (to be so endowed is rather a cause of thankfulness,) but because they misapply these blessings, being " vainly puffed up by" their "fleshly minds. ",5 They and the world at large consider the assurance of eternal hap- 1 Isa. ii. 20. - 2 Sam. vi. 6, 7. 3 Numb, xviii. 22. 4 James ii. 5. 5 1 Cor. i. 26. 6 Col. ii. IS. piness which the believers enjoy to be enthusiasm, because they do not understand its nature : and being wholly absorbed in worldly pursuits, these subjects, the only ones really deserving of attention (being of an eternal nature), are by them wholly neglected. The Lord does not now visit acts of disobedience with signal displays of his vengeance, as was the case under the old dispensation ; where, in many marked violations of the holy law, the transgressors either suffered immediate death, or had judgment openly pronounced against them, in order that their bre- thren thereby might be warned against similar acts of disobedience. Now in this life, to all outward appearance, the obedient and disobedient are alike the objects of God's care ; he says, " Let both grow together until the harvest ; " 1 and although we have not these visible warnings, yet we have the more certain record of the word of God for our guide : and if we err by taking a false view of this record, and die in error, we shall ultimately discover that we have only ourselves to blame. Having by the help of learned men ascertained the supposed resemblance between the baptism of the Jewish proselyte, and that of the Christian dispensa- tion, you think this evidence renders it nearly indis- putable that the one was borrowed from the other. But we must have better proof than this. There is no command that I can find in the Old Testament for baptizing a proselyte; neither can I find the word baptism once mentioned in that book. If I be correct, then, they had no such command given, and if they 1 Matt. xiii. 30. did so baptize, their baptism was an illegal, super- stitious act. And can any man suppose that the Lord of life and glory, who came to redeem his people, and to shew them the path of life, would give countenance to such an act, by making- it the basis of an ordinance of his own appointment? The idea is preposterous ! Page 78. " On the supposition, therefore, that the " ceremonies of water baptism and the eucharist are " truly of Christian origin, yet being shadows and " types and nothing more, they perfectly resemble the " ordinances of the Jewish law, and plainly appertain " to the principle of the old covenant. But further, " on a fair examination of the history of these ceremo- " nies, we find that they not only appertain to the "principle of the old covenant, but were practices '* observed on that principle by the Jews themselves, " before the introduction of the Christian revelation. " Thus, then, it appears that they actually formed " a part of the ritual system of Judaism itself; and, "since it is on all hands allowed that the whole of " that ritual system, although observed for many years " after the death of Jesus by most of his immediate " disciples, is nevertheless null and void under the " Christian dispensation, we appear to be brought to " a sound conclusion, that in connexion with the wor- " ship of Christians, the ceremonies in question are " rightly disused." You say, on the supposition that the ceremonies of baptism and the eucharist are truly of Christian origin, yet as they perfectly resemble the ordinances of, and appertain to, the old covenant, they ought now to be abolished. This is your opinion. But a follower of 10 his Saviour would say, that whether his ordinances were similar or dissimilar to any that had been insti- tuted before, they ought nevertheless still to be ob- served. The ordinances of the Old Testament were typical, and so are those of the New, but observed very differently. The manner of observing the ordin- ance of the passover is fully set forth in Exodus ; " And thus shall ye eat it (the lamb without blemish) ; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service ? that ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land : for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." l The institution was designed to bring to the remem- brance of God's ancient people the deliverance of their first-born, when the destroying angel passed over the land of Egypt. It was also a type of the deliverance from sin wrought out by the sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour. The new ordinances, instituted by him, are not of a general, but of an individual character. Bap- tism being the action by which the believer sets his seal to his confession, and by which he makes " a good profession before many witnesses." 2 It is, when ob- served in faith, and according to the divine rule, the 1 Exod. xii. 1 1, 26, 27. 18. 2 1 Tim. vi. 12. 11 first open profession of the truth as it is in Jesus, and the introduction into the school of Christ, where he is to learn the deep mysteries of the kingdom of God. The Supper is a perpetual ordinance, designed for those who are thus initiated, to remind them of all that their Lord has done for them, and to enable them to look steadily forward to his second coming : of whom he saith, " To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throneJ' l I observed that these ordinances, of New Testament origin, are typical. In Baptism, is prefigured Christ dying for our sins, and rising again for our justifica- tion ; and of our dying to sin, and rising again to newness of life in him; as Paul expresses it, " There- fore we are buried with him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." 2 In the ordinance of the Supper, the bread prefigures the body of Christ, broken for our sins, as he himself declares, " This is my body, which is given for you ; take, eat." The cup prefigures his blood, poured out to make atonement for us ; " This cup is the new testament in my blood"...." which is shed for many for the remission of sins " .... " Drink ye all of it." The Apostle Paul writes thus to the Corinthians ; " As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." 3 This latter ordinance our Lord was pleased to leave with us, whereby to confess his name, and keep his love in mind; saying, "Do this in remcm- 1 Rev. iii. 21. - Koni. vi. 1. " 1 Cor. xi. 26. 12 brance of me." We hereby commemorate the absolute perfection of Him whom the Father gave to us, the preciousness of the life which the Son laid down for us, and the constancy of the supply with which he perpetually feeds us ; and also the glorious feast which he is preparing for us in his Father's kingdom. "The Lord's supper, as well as baptism, belongs solely to the true Israel of God; the passover belonged to the literal Israel, without respect to their faith or cha- racter. The grand distinction between the Jewish ordinances and the ordinances of the church of Christ is, the former shadowed forth good things to come, and were appointed for the nation in general, which had only a ceremonial holiness ; the latter are ap- pointed for the people of God only, who enjoy what is prefigured by them." I do not find it any where mentioned in the New Testament, that the whole of the ritual of the Mosaic Law was observed by most, or even by many, of the immediate disciples of our Lord. Some parts of it they occasionally did observe, merely to conciliate the Jews ; but the apostles shewed them the folly and weakness of observing that which Paul, in particular, terms, turning " again to the weak and beggarly elements." 1 When we consider that the ancient form of worship was ordained by God himself, perhaps some allowance may be made for the tardiness with which the converted Jews resigned their old institutions. But there is none to be made for those who now cleave to any form of worship established merely by man. Pages 80, 81. "If the possibility of an entrance « Gal. iv. 9. 13 " into the kingdom of heaven, which a multitude of " moral sins does not preclude, is precluded by the " infraction of a merely positive precept, and by the "omission of a rite in itself absolutely indifferent, " it may almost be asserted that the system of Chris- " tianity is overturned, and that the gospel falls to the " ground." By what means a positive precept of the Lord Jesus can be converted into a rite of itself absolutely indif- ferent, I am totally at a loss to determine. To me the terms appear absolutely irreconcileable. It is true, our Lord says, "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies where- with soever they shall blaspheme : " 1 but then, they are only forgiven on his own terms, which he made known when he said to the apostles, " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." " He that believeth and is bap- tized shall be saved." The command here given was, and still is, a positive precept, and obedience to it is the appointed way of salvation. Believing and bap- tizing cannot be separated. The same may be said of them, as our Lord said of marriage ; " What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." 2 They are inseparably connected : to be baptized with- out believing to the saving of the soul is a mockery ; and for a believer to neglect baptism is to disregard the divine command. This precept, which is given to us, is as positive as that which was given to Adam : i Mark iii. 28. s Matt. xix. 6. 14 and as certainly as he transgressed, and thereby be- came mortal, so certainly shall all those who believe and are baptized become immortal, and enjoy eternal life. " Baptism is not a converting, but a confirming ordinance." There is no virtue in the water, in the act, or in the words, any further than it is attended to in obedience to the Lord's command, and the things sig- nified being beheld by faith. Yet it is in this ordi- nance we publish, in the presence of men, that we have " received his testimony," and by it we " set to " our "seal that God is true."1 All prudent men, in order to make their wills effective, sign and seal them according to the law of their country : this you will allow to be indispensable. Now see the folly and weakness of your reasoning ; a human law, made for the purpose of securing earthly property, you respect, but a law given by our Lord, as a means of securing " the promise of eternal inheritance,"2 you despise, and term it a rite in itself absolutely indifferent. It is im- possible that any genuine believer in Christ can live in the neglect of baptism, where he has an opportunity of being baptized. I say "opportunity," because we have one instance given us of salvation being enjoyed without it; that is, the thief upon the cross. Here, it may be truly said, " There is one instance on record, that none might despair ; and only one, that none might presume." What may be accounted by our Lawgiver as want of opportunity, is not for us to say ; that can only be known at the last great day of audit. But this we well know, that it is a dangerous thing to pro- crastinate, and put the word of God from us. It is 1 John iii. 33. 2 Heb. ix. 15. 15 said in the Proverbs, " Because I have called, and ye refused ; I have stretched out ray hand, and no man regarded ; but ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord."1 You appear to argue, that because a multitude of sins do not preclude us from the kingdom of heaven, the omission of this ordinance can have no greater effect ; and as all sins are a breach of the law of God, this only counts as one among the number. But this is taking a very improper view of the subject. The omission of this ordinance by an unbeliever is not sin : it is not required of him to observe it ; not being the subject of faith, he is not capable of comprehending its nature. Faith in Christ, and the open manifestation of it, by the observance of his ordinances, and obedi- ence to his commands, is the only way we can be es- teemed righteous in the sight of God. And they who are brought to the knowledge of Him will be anxiously solicitous to learn his will concerning them ; and know- ing that he is a jealous God, no command, nor ordi- nance, that he has enjoined, can be with them a matter of indifference. But if they habitually neglect any duty, or wilfully break any of his commandments, it is a manifestation that their faith is not genuine, but of that sort which James declares cannot save them.2 Things in their own nature indifferent may be left to the option of every man, either to do, or to omit doing them, as his own fancy dictates. But it is not a matter 1 Prov. i. 24—26. 29. - James ii. 14. 16 of indifference whether we obey or disobey a positive (as you yourself term it) precept of Christ. When John refused to baptize our Lord, He addressed John in these memorable words ; " Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him ; " being thus convinced that our Lord was about to set his seal to this New Testament institution, and by his example make it a lasting ordi- nance in his church. Notwithstanding this, you are so presumptuous as to call this ordinance a rite in itself absolutely indifferent, the observance of which our Lord positively asserts is "to fulfil all righteousness."1 There is nothing more hateful to God, than for his creatures to attempt to worship him in a w?^y that he has not commanded ; for he is jealous of the least deviation from his prescribed mode. See Deut. xxix. 20, 19; " the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man" that walks "in the imagi- nation of" his "heart." "They provoked him to jea- lousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger." " They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God ; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities." 2 Read the sixteenth chap- ter of Ezekiel. These quotations you may think inap- plicable to the present subject, and relate only to idola- trous worship. Hear what Samuel says ; " Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stnbbornnesss is as iniquity and idolatry."3 The ob- servance of any form of worship invented or prescribed by men, is rebellion against God ; and a continuance 1 Matt. iii. 15. 2 Deut. xxxii. 16, 21. 3 1 Sam. xv. 22, 23. 17 in rebellion is stubbornness; and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. See, also, how five out of the seven churches in the Revelation were reproved.1 All the precepts of the Most High are to be obeyed. A striking instance of which we have in the prophet, styled the man of God ; he was charged by thje Lord, while on his errand, to "eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that he came ;" things of themselves absolutely indifferent, at any other time. But the charge was to him a positive precept, so long as his journey continued. He followed, it appears, the counsel of his fellow-man, in opposition to the direct commandment of the Lord. He eat, drank, and re- turned by the way that he came : and what was the consequence ? This, — " Forasmuch as thou hast dis- obeyed the mouth of the Lord, and hast not kept the commandment which the Lord thy God commanded thee, but earnest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the LORD did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water ; thy carcase shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers." 2 The great lawgiver of his church, whose wisdom you have thought proper to impugn, has given you no liberty to draw conclusions subversive of his appoint- ments; it is sufficient for us that they are expressly stated ; our province is to obey. It is said, Isaiah lv. 4 ; " Behold, I have given him for a leader and commander to the people." Whoever, therefore, disputes any of his commands, is a rebel : and must, of course, fall under condemnation. Page 89. " We may conclude, therefore, that all in 1 Rev. ii. and iii. 2 1 Kings xiii. c 18 " every age who should believe in Jesus, were to " receive, as well as the apostles themselves, the bap- " tism of the Holy Ghost. Such it is expressly " declared was the case with Cornelius and his family, " Acts xi. 15, 16; and such undoubtedly must be the "case with every Christian, whether more or less " gifted, who is converted and sanctified by the power- " ful influence of divine grace." We have no particular instance in the New Testa- ment of the Holy Spirit being- given to any but to such as were either previously or subsequently bap- tized with water. Peter, in his sermon, and in the verse preceding those you quote, requires that they should " repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins," to prepare them for the reception of " the gift of the Holy Ghost." Our Lord himself, before the visible manifestation of the Spirit, was baptized. And he " went up straightway out of the water : and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he (John) saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him." l The instance of Cornelius and his family, which you mention, is opposed to your argument more than any other you could have selected : and if you had duly considered its import, you would not, I think, have brought it forward, as it appears directly to refute what you are endeavouring to prove, viz. that the baptism of the Spirit exclusively is to be understood in all those passages in the Scripture where baptism is enjoined. And you will excuse my saying, you have " shunned to declare " the whole of the transaction. i Matt. iii. 16. 19 You refer your readers to Acts xi. 15, 16 : by which I presume you intended them to believe that the persons there mentioned were not baptized with water, nothing being- said in these two verses of Cornelius and his family being baptized : and any one having a bias in favour of your views, and not earnest in searching the Scripture for himself with a sincere desire after the truth, might turn to these passages, and say (if he did not look further) that your conclusion was just: there we find the baptism of the Spirit mentioned, without any allusion to water baptism. But had you referred us to the chapter preceding, we should there have seen, that, " While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word: and they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost — Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? And he commanded them to be bap- tized"1 At the first promulgation of the gospel, there were numerous instances of believers in Christ receiving the gift of the Spirit in a manner perceptible to the outward senses ; now there are no such visible manifestations, notwithstanding they received it then, as we do now, in the way appointed of God. You conclude, that all in every age who should believe in Christ, should also be baptized with the Holy Ghost; and you cite Cornelius and his house as a proof: then may I ask, can they be Christians, who do not follow their example? In this instance the Spirit fell on 1 Acts x. 44—48. •20 them out of the regular order; but this was to con- vince Peter (they being- Gentiles) that they were pre- viously believers. We cannot desire a clearer proof that the command given in the New Testament to baptize in water was a positive and literal precept, and that it could not be dispensed with even in this instance, where the persons had already been baptized with the Spirit. Page 89. " The baptism which properly apper- " tained to the dispensation of John, and which dis- " tinguished it from Christianity, was the baptism of "water; — the baptism which properly appertains to " Christianity, and which distinguishes it from the " dispensation of John, is the baptism of the Spirit? The baptism of John was "from heaven;" it was " The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."1 And our Lord sanctioned it, by being baptized of him. The purport of John's baptism, and that of our Lord's, were the same ; both were for " the remission of sins." That John's baptism was from God is clear, from the evidence of the Lord himself. " The baptism of John (he enquires), whence was it, from heaven, or of men,"2 clearly intimating that it was from heaven. And again, the evangelist Luke adds, " But the pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him (John)." 3 Pages 91, 92. " On a general view, therefore, of " the passages in which the apostle makes any doc- " trinal allusion to this subject, we may fairly con- " elude that the only baptism of importance in his 1 Mark i. I. 2 Matt. xxi. 25. 3 Luke vii. 30. 21 " view, was that of the Spirit ; and that it was ex- " clusively to this inward work that he intended to " direct the attention of his readers, when he ex- " pressed himself as follows : ' There is one body, and " one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of "your calling'; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.'" Eph. iv. 4, 5. Paul, writing" to the Ephesians, tells them, " that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel,"1 and that there was "one Lord, one faith, one baptism," alike unto all. One faith, through which all who are subjects of it are saved by grace ; and all whom the Lord is pleased to bless with this saving faith, are commanded to confess his name in the ordinance of baptism, both Jew and Gentile : as Ananias said to Paul — "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."2 And Peter said to the Jews, " Repent, and be bap- tized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."3 It is the visible way by which the Lord adds "to the church... .such as should be saved."4 Paul, in no one instance, either directly or indirectly, intimates that the Spirit of God should be given to any, but to those who were literally baptized. Consequently, he could not direct their attention ex- clusively to the inward work of the Spirit, nor tell them that it was the only baptism intended. It is true, the baptism of the Spirit is of the first import- ance; but so long as we neglect to conform to the 1 Eph. Hi. 6. * Acts xxii. 16. 3 Acts ii. 38. 4 Acts ii. 17. 22 order in which the Lord has directed us to wait for that blessing', we have no reason to expect that we shall receive it. Pages 94, 95. " Under the legal dispensation, divers " carnal baptisms were observed by the Jews, as rites "of purification, Heb. ix. 10; that among those rites " was numbered the baptism on conversion, a ceremony " to which the Israelites themselves submitted on their " original entrance into the covenant of the law, Exod. " xix. 14; and which was afterwards invariably prac- " tised on the admission of the proselytes of justice to " the character and privileges of the native Jew, John " iii. 5. 10; that under divine authority this baptism " on conversion was applied by John to the peculiar " purposes of his own ministry John, i. 32 — 34 ; that " these ancient Jewish baptisms were severally effected "by washing or immersion in water; that they were " all figures of another and a better baptism, by which " Christianity was distinguished from every prepara- " tory dispensation — a baptism of which Christ is the " Author, and his disciples in every age and country " the objects ; that this true Christian baptism apper- " tains not to the body but to the soul, and is effected " entirely by the power of the Holy Ghost ; that by "it we are regenerated or converted, sanctified, and " saved from sin ; and finally, that without it, no man " can find an entrance into the mansions of eternal " rest and glory." The Jewish rites and ceremonies of purification, instituted by Moses, bear no resemblance to the bap- tism instituted by Christ; they were to be repeated in every instance of ceremonial defilement — Christian 23 baptism is only to be once administered. As what you advance respecting the baptism said to be prac- tised by the Jews upon receiving Gentile converts into their community, rests upon no scriptural authority, I think it unnecessary to remark upon it. And I do not conceive your quotation from John iii. 5 — 10 gives any support to the sentiment it is brought to uphold. Surely you do not think what is said, Exod. xix. 14, "And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their clothes" has any very striking resemblance to the baptism of the Spirit ; or, that washing their clothes was a baptism of the body. Yet you point out this to be the baptism which was afterwards in- variably practised on the admission of proselytes to the privileges of the native Jew. This could not he the baptism on conversion which, under Divine autho- rity, was administered by John ; they are so dissimilar. How then can you say, page 78, that the two ordin- ances perfectly resemble each other ? when the Jewish proselyte washed his clothes, and John baptized him who received his ministry in water. The whole of the Old Testament worship was but the shadow of that substance which we now enjoy. And since the coming of the Anti-type, all its types have ceased. Neverthe- less our Lord instituted for his followers new ordin- ances, in the observance of which they manifest their faith in him, through the shedding of whose blood they enjoy salvation. We must distinguish between the baptism of water and the baptism of the Spirit : one being the act of man, the other the act of the Almighty. The baptism of the Spirit is only promised 24 to those who repent and believe the Gospel, and who profess their faith and repentance by the outward ordinance of baptism. The mere act of itself avails nothing. It is its being- appointed of the Lord that makes it imperative upon all who believe, as by it they profess that they are regenerated, sanctified, and saved. This being the case, how can any one expect to find an entrance into the mansions of eternal glory, who never enters in by the door, but endeavours to climb up another way, rejecting the ordinance by which those who believe are inducted into the fold of Christ. Page 96. " Matthew concludes his Gospel with the " following narration of our Lord's last address to his " eleven apostles : And Jesus came and spake unto " them, saying, All power is given unto me in " heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all " nations (or as in the Greek, ' Going therefore, make " disciples of all nations,') baptizing them in the name " (or ' unto the name' of the Father, and of the Son, " and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe all " things whatsoever I have commanded you : and lo, " I am with you alway, even unto the end of the " world. Amen." Matt, xxviii. 18—20. " That the participle " baptizing," as it is used in " this passage, is capable, on common philological " principles, of being interpreted in its literal sense, " as relating to an outward immersion, it would be at " once uncandid and useless to deny. That persons " in all ages of the Christian church, who have been " accustomed to regard that external rite as sacred, " should adopt such an interpretation, can be no 25 " matter of surprise. And that those ministers of the " gospel, who, in conscientious conformity with the " words of Christ, according to their own view of them, " continue the practice of baptizing their converts in " water, are no proper subjects of blame or condem- " nation, is, to my apprehension, equally evident. " Nevertheless, it ought to be observed that there is " no mention made in the passage of water, nor any " thing whatsoever, in the terms used, which renders " such literal interpretation imperative upon us. On " the contrary, I am persuaded that a sound and " impartial view of the various collateral points which " throw light on the true meaning of our Lord's " injunctions, will lead to a very different estimate of " that meaning." To put any other meaning on the word " baptizing," as mentioned in this place, (" Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them," &c.) than that of immersion in water, is to " wrest the Scriptures." No other construction can possibly be put upon it, by those who receive the testimony of Christ as little children ; and such only, he declares, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. This outward ordinance is either commanded of the Lord, or it is not. If it be commanded of him, it is impiety to neglect it. If it be not commanded, the observance of it is a mockery of the Divine name. Therefore, the charitable feelings you express towards those who practise the ordinance can be only of a spurious kind, being extended to such as you are persuaded take an unsound and partial view of the subject and its collateral points, consequently they remain in wilful ignorance of its true design. 26 Your remark, " that there is no mention made in the " passage of water" is puerile in the extreme : do you find it mentioned in Exod. xix. 14 ? Page 97. " Jesus commands his apostles to make " disciples of all nations ; and in executing that high " commission, it was to be their duty, as we learn " from his subsequent words, to baptize the persons " whom they taught, unto the name of the Father, and " of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Now the peculiar " solemnity of that parting moment, and the apparent " improbability that on such an occasion a merely ex- " ternal ceremony should be so prominently insisted " on — the method so often employed by Jesus of con- " veying instruction and precept concerning spiritual " things, in words which bore an outward allusion to the "flesh1 — the frequent occurrence of the terms ' bap- "tize' and 'baptism' in the New Testament, and " particularly in the discourses of Christ himself, in a "sense purely metaphorical — the abolition under the " new dispensation of the whole Jewish ritual, and " the substitution of a worship entirely spiritual — the " evidence derived from so many other explicit pas- " sages of Scripture, in favour of the doctrine that the " baptism of Christianity is the work of the Spirit "only — the pointed manner in which Jesus himself " in a preceding part, as is most probable, of this " very conversation, contrasted that efficacious influ- " ence, the privilege of his own followers, with the "water-baptism of John, Acts iii. 5 — all these are " collateral circumstances which bear, with no slight " degree of force, on the passage before us, and which, 1 See for example John iii. 5 ; iv. 14. 32 ; vi. o-i ; vii. :38. 27 " when considered as a whole, appear to afford sub- " stantial evidence that the baptism, of which the use " was thus prescribed to his apostles by the Redeemer " of men, was simply and exclusively a spiritual " baptism." Our Lord came into the world to do the will of His Father, which was, to shew his people the path of life, and to make atonement for their sins. Before he began his ministry, he was himself baptized, by im- mersion in water; after which there was a visible manifestation of the descent of the Spirit upon him, agreeably to the intimation previously given to John the Baptist. This was to show the great importance of the outward ordinance ; and the last direction he gave to his apostles was, " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them," &c, which being his last commission, it would most assuredly convince them, that obedience to this his final command was indis- pensable. It is very easy for the attentive reader of the New Testament to distinguish between the meta- phorical and the literal meaning of the word " bap- tize." "I baptize you with water:"1 — immersion. " He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost : — " Ye shall be endued with power from on high."2 "I have a baptism to be baptized with;3 — a cup of suffering to drink; an atonement to make for the sins of the world. " Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with : "4 — Ye shall share my sufferings. We do not read of probabilities in the Scriptures. " The works of his hands are verity and judgment, all his commandments i Matt. iii. 11. 2 Luke xxiv. 49. 3 Luke xii. 50. * Matt. xx. 23. are sure."1 The contrast between the baptism of water and that of the Spirit is exceedingly great. They are two distinct things. But we have no proof that the latter is either promised, or given, independent of the former. And all the collateral circumstances you have brought forward, taken together, do not tend in the least to prove, that our Lord intended to convey to his disciples the idea, that the word " baptizing," in the passage under consideration, should be understood in a metajjhorical sense. Page 99. " The ministers of the gospel ought, " however, always to remember that they can admi- " nister the baptism of the Spirit only through the " power of their Lord and Saviour : and in their " humble efforts to comply with so sacred an injunc- " tion, they must derive their encouragement from that "gracious promise with which it was accompanied — " ' Lo, I am with you ahvay, even unto the end of the " world: " Who, in these clays of the general diffusion of the Scriptures, would have expected such carnal reasoning as this ; that "the humble efforts of the ministers of the gospel to comply with so sacred an injunction, as to ad- minister the baptism of the Spirit, must derive encou- ragement from that gracious promise with which it was accompanied ? " Voluntary humility is most hateful to God. Hath he required these humble efforts ? Hath he imposed this obligation ? Hath he enjoined this af- fected compliance ? Hath he delegated to man, that which is his own peculiar prerogative ? Is Christ not alone the anointer of his people ? Is it not he alone 1 Ps. cxi. 7. 29 who "shall baptize" them "with the Holy Ghost and with fire ? " 1 What strange inconsistencies you rush into, by endeavouring to explain the word of God according to your own preconceived ideas ; had you left it to speak for itself, we should not now hear this anti-scriptural doctrine advanced, that the admi- nistration of the Spirit is through the intervention of man. The baptism to which our Lord adverts, is an act, whereby we acknowledge our allegiance to him as our spiritual head — the appointed ordinance by which we ratify our faith, and make a public profession of his name. It is, when observed in faith according to the divine pattern, an open declaration that we are translated from the power of darkness into the king- dom of the Son of God ; that we are separated from the world ; and a line is drawn between us and the earthly, the sensual, and the vain. It is the open entrance into the school of discipleship : but yet there is no real virtue in the ordinance itself, it does not save. It is "by grace" we "are saved, through faith; and that not of " ourselves: "it is the gift of God." 2 Nevertheless, as I have before stated, where there is opportunity to attend to this ordinance, we have no reason to conclude that any one can be in a state of salvation who lives in the neglect of it. Pages 99 — 101. " ' He that believeth and is bap- " tized shall be saved? Mark xvi. 15, 16. Here the " baptism to which our Lord is described as adverting " is classed with saving faith. It is the baptism which " saves. Now we are assured that the baptism which 1 Matt. iii. 11. 2 Eph. ii. 8. 30 " saves is ' not the putting away of the filth of the " flesh,' nor any work of righteousness which we can " perform for ourselves, Tit. iii. 5 ; it is that birth of " water and the Spirit, which is ' from above,' and " which prepares us for an entrance into the kingdom " of heaven, John iii. 5 ; it is ' the answer of a good " conscience towards God, by the resurrection of "Jesus Christ,' 1 Peter iii. 21; it is 'the washing " of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. " Tit. iii. 5." " On a review of the various passages cited in the " present chapter, many of my readers will probably " agree with me in the sentiment, that there is no part " of the New Testament in which the observance of " baptism in water is either commanded, or declared to " be necessary. Such being the case, I know of " nothing which remains to be pleaded in support of " that ceremony as a part of the religious service of " Christians, but the example of the apostles. That " many of the apostles were accustomed, both before " and after the ascension of Jesus, to baptize their " converts in water, is indeed rendered indisputable, " by certain passages in the Gospel of John and in the " book of Acts. But this fact by no means affords " any sufficient evidence that the practice of a similar " rite is universally imperative on the ministers of " Christianity. The entire spirituality of the new dis- " pensation — the great principle that God was no " longer to be served by the intervention of sacerdotal " and typical institutions, but only through the medi- " ation of the Son, and under the influence of the " Holy Spirit, was very gradually unfolded to these 31 " servants of the Lord. It is notorious that many of " them adhered with strictness to a great part of the " Jewish ritual long after it was abrogated by the " death of Christ ; and even on the Gentile converts, " they enjoined an abstinence from things strangled " and from blood (that is from the blood of animals) " no less imperatively than from the sin of fornication; " Acts xv. 29. It is true that after they had ceased to " recommend circumcision to the Gentiles, they con- " tinued to baptize them in water. But the reason of " this distinction is plain ; namely, that circumcision " was the sign of an entrance into the covenant of " the law, but that baptism, although a Jewish practice, " and observed on the principles of Judaism, was the " type of conversion to Christianity itself; and was " therefore very naturally considered by the apostles " as appropriate to the specific purposes of their own " ministry. As long as they observed the ceremonies "of Judaism in their own persons; as long as they " continued unprepared for a full reception of the doc- " trine, that the ordinances and shadows of the law " were now to be disused, and that God was to be " worshipped in a manner entirely spiritual ; so long " would they, as a matter of course, persevere in the " practice of baptizing their converts in water. Neither " are we to imagine that in this respect the apostles " acted in opposition to the will of their divine Master, " who appears to have imposed upon them no sudden " change of conduct respecting ritual observances, but " simply to have left them in possession of those great " principles of spiritual religion, the tendency of which " was to undermine all such observances at the very " foundation, and thus in a gradual manner to effect " their abolition." "The baptism which saves." This expression is a manifest departure from the obvious meaning of the passage you quote. The Scriptures teach us that " repentance towards God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,"1 is the ground on which a sinner is encouraged to look for pardon and acceptance. See Rom. x. 9, 10. "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righte- ousness ; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." You say it is the baptism which saves, i. e. that baptism which the humble efforts of mortal man can administer. I am at a loss for words to reprobate, in terms sufficiently strong, such carnal reasonings in support of a system so much at variance with the revelation of God. You allow (page 96) that the participle baptizing, as it is used in Matt, xxviii. 18, 20, is capable, on common philological principles, of being interpreted in its literal sense ; and as there can be no doubt of it, I shall show where it is com- manded, and where it is declared to be necessary. The first absolute command we read of, was given by our Lord himself in these passages ; " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father," &c "teaching them to observe all things (including baptism) whatsoever I have com- manded you." — "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Here baptism is commanded, and » Acts xx. 21. 33 declared to be necessary, being inseparably connected with believing to salvation. In Acts ii. 38 ; " Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Here is another command, connecting baptism with repentance for the remission of sins, preparatory to the reception of the Holy Ghost. We have another instance, that of the apostle Paul ; he says, " What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus ; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do And one Ananias, a devout man,. ...came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. ....And he said, The God of our Fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou ? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." l This command was given by God through his servant Ananias, being one of those things appointed for Paul to do ; and being thus commanded, it was thus declared to be necessary for the symbolic washing away of sin. We have also the case of Cornelius and his house, mentioned in Acts x. 44 — 48 ; " While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be bap- tized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? And he commanded them to be baptized." 1 Acts xxii. 10— ](i. I) 34 " The gift of the Spirit is the highest token and manifestation of the divine favour and acceptance which could be possibly looked for : and yet this was so far from making Peter think the ordinance of water- baptism could be dispensed with, that it was urged by him as the strongest argument for it." Now, Sir, I will ask you, Does not this passage, as well as those before quoted, clearly prove, that our Lord's direction to his disciples (Matt, xxviii. 19,) was understood by them as relating to a literal baptism ? and do they not also prove, that baptism in water is commanded and declared to be necessary ? You say, you " know of nothing which remains to be pleaded in support of the observance of that cere- mony but the example of the apostles." Why you have not yet pleaded in their favour the commission they received from their Divine Leader, wherein they Avere commanded to "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them," &c. ; nor their unlimited authority, being " endued with power from on high"; nor the encouragement to enforce that authority, given them in these words, " Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."1 Surely these particulars should be sufficient to prevent you calling in question their judgment, or doubting their decision. The church is " built upon the founda- tion of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." And in that part of the Divine Word called the Acts of the Apostles, we have the model of this "building fitly framed toge- 1 Matt, xviii. 18. 33 tlier," which "groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord."1 You further remark, that " it is indisputable " that, before the ascension of Jesus, many of the " apostles baptized their converts in water." To whom were they converts ? In whose name did the apostles baptize ? Of whom did they testify ? Of Jesus, or of themselves ? If of Jesus, would it not be for the purpose that their converts should believe in, and follow him ? Would our Lord have allowed them to baptize to please their own fancies ? Would he have countenanced that which you say he came to abolish ? Would he not have forbidden them to practise a ceremony so contrary to the spiritual nature of his doctrine, who would that all his followers should worship the Father in Spirit and in truth ?2 You give ample license to the enemy to charge with folly Him who is " the power of God, and the wisdom of God."3 Even though many of your readers do agree with you in the sentiment, that there is no part of the New Testament in which the observance of baptism in water is either commanded or declared to be necessary ; will it justify you in pouring contempt upon the Spirit of inspiration, in your endeavour to make Him appear to speak of the things of the kingdom in language so obscure, that we shall never be able to arrive at any definite idea of the true meaning of his word. You also say that circumcision was a sign of an entrance into the covenant of the law, but that bap- tism in water was the type of conversion to Christi- anity itself. What is this but an admission that baptism is a Christian ordinance, and that the apostles i Eph. ii. 20. 21. * John iv. 2T>. :) I Cor. i. 24. 36 so understood it ? But still you declare their example by no means affords a sufficient evidence that the practice is universally imperative on the ministers of Christianity, it being notorious that many of the apos- tles adhered with strictness to a great part of the Jewish ritual long after it was abrogated, and that even on the Gentile converts they enjoined abstinence from blood. Here you class the ordinance of baptism, and absti- nence from blood, among the other Jewish rites and ceremonies ; and conclude, that as the observance of these rites was to cease after the ascension of our Lord, so was the prohibition of blood, and the ordin- ance of baptism, no longer to be regarded. Now if it can be proved that the prohibition respecting the use of blood be still in force, and that it is imperative on all the believers in Christ to abstain from it; then, by a parity of reasoning, the command to baptize is equally imperative, and the observance of it by no means to be discontinued. And that it is clearly proved, is evident from what follows. When " every moving thing that liveth," was first given to man for meat, the " flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof," x was forbidden to be eaten under the penalty of death. This was again enforced under the Mosaic law. " Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood ; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood : and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls.... No 1 Gen. ix. 3, I, H. 37 soul of you shall eat blood .... Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh : for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off."1 " Ye shall not eat the blood : ye shall pour it upon the earth as water Only be sure that thou eat not the blood : for the blood is the life ; and thou rnayest not eat the life with the flesh. Thou shalt not eat it ; thou shall pour it upon the earth as water. Thou shalt not eat it ; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee."2 This was not a merely ceremonial law, but a precept enjoined upon all man- kind long before the law was given, and, having no dependance thereon, was never abrogated, but remains as binding as when it was first instituted ; as we see in the Acts ; " For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to ns, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things. That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication."3 You ought not to argue upon baptism being a Jewish practice, and observed by the apostles on the principles of Judaism, until you establish your authority for so doing from the word of God. There is not, throughout the New Testament, even an allusion to baptism as a Jewish rite, nor is it hinted that it took the jflace of circum- cision. They were different institutions : the latter was to be practised on all the males of the Jewish family, the former to be observed by believers in Christ only. Our Lord commanded his followers to observe his ordinances, and he set the example how they were to Lev. xvii. 10—12. 1 1. 2 Deut. xii. 16, 23— 25. 3 Acts xv. 28, 29. be fulfilled. And it would have been strange indeed if he had afterwards given them a spiritual intimation that the observance of them was not to be continued. The apostles had no ministry of their own ; but they were made of God " able ministers of the New Tes- tament."1 How then can we imagine it possible that they did not understand the institutions of their Divine Master? Those great principles of spiritual religion, which you state are to undermine the ordinances of the Lord's instituting, cannot be the offspring of the Spirit of God ; as he would thereby be acting in oppo- sition to himself, and destroying the work of his own hand. Religion is now a merely external form, go- verned by custom and fashion, as much as dress, behaviour, or any other worldly thing ; and if a man pay due attention to the word of God, so as to tread in the steps of Christ and his apostles, he makes him- self the object of derision. Every deviation from the commands of God is an act of rebellion, and under that term I include that of disallowing, or endea- vouring to depreciate, the institutions of Christ. Pages 101 — 104. "But there is another reason " why the example of the earliest Christian teachers " affords no valid evidence that the practice of water- " baptism is still incumbent on the ministers of the "gospel of Christ — namely, that this example was " not uniform. Its uniformity is known to have been " interrupted by two exceptions of peculiar weight and " importance. The exception which I shall first notice " is that of the apostle Paul. That eminent individual, " who was not ' a whit behind the chiefest apostles,' 1 2 Cor. iii. 6. 39 " and who had formerly heen a ( pharisee of the pha- " risees,' and a zealot in the support of the Jewish (i law, when he was once converted to the Christian " faith, was the first to throw off the bondage of that " law ; and he presently excelled his brethren in his " views of the spirituality of the gospel dispensation. " Accordingly we find that baptism with water was " in his judgment by no means indispensable, or inse- " parably connected with the duties of a Christian " minister. However it may be admitted, as a pro- " bability, that his converts received baptism at the " hands of other persons, it is certain that a great pro- " portion of them were never baptized in wrater by " the apostle himself. He expressly asserts that " among the whole multitude of the Corinthians who " had been converted by his ministry, he baptized " none, save Crispus and Gaius, and the household " of Stephanas ; 1 Cor. i. 14 — 16. It is not, however, " merely the apostle's personal abstinence from the " use. of the rite, which claims our attention in refer- " ence to the present argument : it is rather the ground " and principle on which he declares that he abstained " from it. The practice of this ceremony in the Chris- " tian church, is supported chiefly by the generally " received opinion, that Christ commanded his apostles, " when they made disciples of all nations, to baptize "them with water; and that from the apostles this " duty has descended to all the rightly authorized " ministers of Christianity, who, like them, are en- " gaged in the promulgation of Christian truth. But " Paul, highly favoured as he was as a minister of the " gospel, and engaged far more extensively than any U) " of his brethren in the work of making disciples of " all nations, abstained, to a very great extent, from " the act of baptizing with water; and for this express " reason — that he had received no commission to per- " form it: ' for Christ,' said he, ' sent me not to bap- " tize, but to preach the Gospel :' " verse 17. " The other exception alluded to, is one of still " greater moment : it is that of the Divine Founder " of our religion himself. The Holy Jesus, that first " and most eminent of the preachers of the gospel, ren- " dered in his own person a complete obedience to all " righteousness, as it was observed under the law : and " therefore he submitted to the baptism of John. But " his own converts who belonged to that spiritual insti- " tution, which he so frequently denominates the 'king- " dom of heaven,' (See Matt. xi. 11, &c.) he baptized " not. Although he permitted his disciples to practise " that ceremony, he abstained from it himself. This " fact is noticed by the apostle John, who, after stating " that ' the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and bap- " tized more disciples than John,' carefully adds, (for the " prevention of error, no doubt, on so interesting a sub- " ject,) ' though (or howbeit) Jesus himself baptized not, " but his disciples.' John iv. 1, 2. Those preachers of " the gospel, therefore, who consider it their duty, in " conformity with the great fundamental law of Chris- " tian worship, to abstain from the practice of baptizing " their converts in water, have the consolation to know " that, in adopting such a line of conduct, they are " following the example of Him, who is on all hands " allowed to have afforded us & perfect pattern. " Since, therefore, water-baptism was a Jewish cere- 41 " raonial or typical observance; since, under the new " dispensation, the plan of divine worship is changed, " and all such observances are by a general law abo- " lished ; since, in precise conformity with that law, " ' the doctrine of baptisms,' as unfolded in various pas- " sages of the New Testament, appears to attribute to " Christianity only the baptism of the Spirit; since that " particular passage in which the outward rite is sup- " posed to be enjoined upon Christians, may with the " truest critical propriety be otherwise explained ; and " since the example of the first preachers of Christianity " in favour of that ceremony, arose out of peculiar cir- " cumstances, and was interrupted by two overpower- " ing exceptions — I cannot but deem it undeniable " that the Society of Friends are fully justified in their " disuse of water-baptism." This is a singular, and very inconsistent paragraph. You say, that baptism in water was, in Paul's judg- ment, by no means indispensable, because he said, " Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gos- pel." Yet you admit, as a probability, that his con- verts received baptism at the hands of other persons. And I presume you will not deny that those persons were deputed by Paul for that purpose. This being the case, where is the difference, between Paul bap- tizing them himself, and his deputing others to do it ? When he thanked God that he baptized none of the Corinthians except Crispus and Gaius, and the house- hold of Stephanas, he was reproving them for the worldly and contentious spirit that prevailed in that church ; and as some had taken occasion to represent him as assuming too much authority, he congratulated 42 himself upon not having personally baptized those whom he converted, " lest any should say that he had baptized in his own name." This church was divided into parties, every one of them saying, " I am of Paul ; and I of A poll-os ; and I of Cephas ; and I of Christ."1 But there are two other transactions of Paul's, which you pass ovei\ Either he or Silas baptized the jailer. It is no matter which. If Paul did not, he consented to, and witnessed it, which was the same thing as doing it himself. And when he laid his hands upon the disciples at Ephesus,2 if he did not baptize them, he acknowledged the act; and the Holy Spirit sanc- tioned it, by falling on those upon whom he laid his hands, after they had been baptized. After such examples as these, how can you say that baptism with water was in Paul's judgment by no means indispen- sable, or inseparably connected with the duties of a Christian minister, seeing the Holy Spirit was not given until after that act ? To say that Paul had no commission to perform it, is to deny the evidence of the Holy Spirit, which witnessed and sanctioned it. There is a sense in which Paul might very well say, " he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel : " for, writing to these Corinthians, he says, " According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wrise master-builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon."3 He acknowledged to them that he had "the care of all the churches:"4 and, that " he ordained elders in every church." 5 We cannot suppose that he could possibly visit all the churches, to 1 1 Cor. 1.12. - Acts xix. 2— 7. 3 1 Cor. iii. 10. 4 2 Cor. xi. 28. 5 Acts xiv. 23. 43 baptize every individual that was brought to a know- ledge of the truth. By his preaching-, he established and confirmed the churches, and left the elders, or others whom he appointed, to baptize. He could not have preached the gospel of Christ, if he had not preached baptism : for the same Lord that sent the disciples to preach, commanded them also to baptize. If he were not sent at all to baptize, he exceeded his commission. Preaching the gospel was the paramount object, to bring men's minds to believe in it : he could be their instructor and guide, and leave others to baptize, and thus would still be fulfilling the great command, " Go teach all nations," &c. How inconsistent you make him appear. You say, he excelled his brethren in his views of the spirituality of the gospel, and that in his judgment, baptism in water was not necessary. Then you allow the probability that his converts received baptism at the hands of some one ; and further, that he occasionally baptized them himself. What are we to make of this contradiction ? You only allow the probability of his converts being baptized. But we know to a certainty that they were ; and that their baptism was approved of the Lord. See Acts xviii. 8 — 11. "Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace ; for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee : for I have much people in this city. And he continued there a year and six months, teach- ing the word of God among them : and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized" You appear to lay much greater stress upon our Lord's not baptizing than Paul's : but they are only •14 parallel cases. For, though our Lord did not baptize at all, he commanded (not, as you say, permitted) his disciples to do it : and they, by the power given them, appointed others, and by so doing evinced the great importance of the act. You are well aware that " it is " customary in all countries, and in all languages, to " attribute the operations of those who are under the " government and direction of another, to him by " whom they are directed and governed." It is unde- niable that our Lord rendered, in his own person, com- plete obedience to the law ; but his baptism by John was no part of that law. It was the beginning of " a more excellent ministry ; " 1 and an example set to all his followers, to commence their Christian career in the same manner ; and to say with him, " thus it be- cometh us to fulfil all righteousness."2 When he came up out of the water, the Spirit descended from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him ; showing that his Almighty Father sanctioned the act, and that the full influence of the Holy Spirit could only be expected in the faithful observance of the new institution of his Son. There was no ceremony under the law, that bore the least resemblance to this : and those teachers who would themselves be his faithful servants, and preach his Gospel, without adding to or taking from his word, cannot abstain from baptizing those who receive their ministry : for to such servants the command was given, as well as to his immediate disciples. But those preachers who do not in this respect conform to his precept, and yet flatter themselves that they are fol- 1 Heb. viii. 6. J Matt. iii. 15. 45 lowing the example of Christ, are deceived. He sent his disciples to baptize — they do not. You observe, it is allowed on all hands that our Lord has afforded us a perfect pattern. But in your 29th, 96th, and 104th pages, you say " Nor ought we by any means to " forget, that on many points of a merely secondary " nature .... those particularly which relate to modes of " worship and of church government .... there is to be " found, in the divinely authorized records of the " Christian revelation, very little of precise direction ; '• and thus there is obviously left, in reference to such " points, a considerable scope for the formation of " different views." Then, " That the participle ' bap- " tizing,' as it is used in Matt, xxviii. 19, is capable, " on common philological principles, of being inter- " preted in its literal sense, as relating to an outward " immersion." Then, " That the particular passage " in which the outward rite is supposed to be enjoined " upon Christians, may with the truest critical pro- " priety be otherwise explained." What a strange way of demonstrating that our Lord has afforded us a perfect pattern ! And what a reflection upon his character, to say of his commands, that they are given in so obscure and imperfect a manner, as to be capable, with the truest critical propriety, of being otherwise explained, or, in fact, upon your principles, in any way that fancy dictates ! Although he declares, " All the words of" his "mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing wreathed (margin) or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge."1 You have not 1 Prov. viii. 8, H. 40 been sparing of your trouble, to make that appear dark, which is as clear as the sun at noon day : yet, after all, you have been constrained to confess, that though Paul abstained, to a very great extent, from the act of baptizing with water, that it may be ad- mitted, as a probability, that his converts received baptism at the hands of other persons. And though Jesus himself baptized not, that he permitted his dis- ciples to practise that ceremony. You will doubtless allow, that if you make it known to the world that you empower any one to represent you ; that if he does well, you have all the credit, and that if he does wrong, you are responsible for his acts ; and that, whatever he does, is to all intents and purposes your own act. How, then, can you make a difference between our Lord or his disciples baptizing their converts themselves, and their commanding (or, as you term it, permitting) others to do it ? And how can you say, while you reject the ordinance yourself, and are persuading others to do likewise, that you are following the example of him who not only com- manded it to be observed, but observed it himself? Since you think you have established in your own mind (for it has no foundation in Scripture) that water baptism was a Jewish ceremony ; that, under the new dispensation, it is on that account to be abolished ; that the doctrine of baptisms, as unfolded in the New Testament, appears in your view to attribute to Chris- tianity only the baptism of the Spirit ; it is incumbent upon you to give us clear scriptural authority (mere assumptions and probabilities will not serve) for the conduct of the apostle, (who unquestionably acted 47 under the influence of the Holy Spirit,) in requiring Cornelius and his house to be baptized in water sub- sequently to the miraculous down pouring of the Holy Ghost. His conduct in this instance affords demon- strative proof that he understood our Lord's command to baptize believers in his name in the plain, simple, and literal sense of the term, and not in the meta- phorical sense, as you would have us to believe. I shall now, on concluding this subject, collect those passages together where baptism is most par- ticularly mentioned, and make a few observations thereon. " In those days came. John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sins." Matt. iii. 1, &c. "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Mark i. 4, &c. " The word of God came unto John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Luke iii. 2, &c. "And they asked him (John), and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet ? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water : but there standeth one among you whom ye know not ; he it is, who, coming after me, is preferred before me And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from -18 heaven like a clove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not : but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." John i. 25, &c. In these several passages, we have the first institution of the ordinance of baptism ; the authority by which it was instituted — God the Father ; the design of the institution — to manifest the Son of God. There can be no question, from several circum- stances noted in these passages, and what is said Acts xiii. 24, " When John had first preached before his (Christ's) coming the baptism of repentance," that this was the first time that baptism was used as an initiatory ordinance. John, from being the first who baptized, is emphatically called the Baptist. This would not have been the case if it had been an old Jewish ceremony. The Lord is said to send him to baptize; he baptized in a river; the Jews inquired why he did so. Why should these things be men- tioned, if all he did had been matters of course. John was of the priesthood ; and, according to your argu- ment, there was nothing particular in all this, and it should therefore have been passed over in silence by the sacred historians. But it is undeniable that this was the commencement of a new dispensation, ushered in by this new institution, which was to be con- tinued to the end of time. It was wholly of heavenly original; not of man, more nor less; which is clear from the question put by our Lord to the unbelieving pharisees (who are said to reject the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of John), when 49 he asked them, " The baptism of John, whence was it ? from heaven or of men ? " It is indubitably certain that he meant to imply by this question, thus put to them, that it was from heaven, and they dared not to deny it. Our Lord's coming- to John to be bap- tized is particularly recorded. " Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him : but John forbad him, saying-, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me. And Jesus answering said, Suffer it to be so now ; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." Matt. iii. 13, &c. " And it came to j)ass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan." Mark i. 9, &c. " Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also being* baptized, and ])raying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven which said, Thou art my beloved Son ; in thee I am well pleased." Luke iii. 21, 22. Our Lord was circumcised in conformity to the Jewish rites, which were then soon to cease. He was baptized in conformity to this New Testament dispensation, now commenced, and to continue to the end of time, and, as he emphatically .says, " to fulfil all righteousness." He has in this, as he states upon another occasion, left us an example that we should follow his steps. Our Lord's entering upon his ministry is next re- corded by the evangelist, and this was according to the strict order by himself laid down, baptizing those who received his ministry. " After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judoa ; and there he i) 50 tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in JEnon, near to Salim, because there was much water there : and they came and were baptized And they (the Jews) came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." John iii. 22, &c. John declared, in this his joy was fulfilled, saying', " He must increase, but I must decrease." This we see was veri- fied, by the first verse of the fourth chapter. " When therefore the Lord knew how the pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.)" These words which you say were carefully added by John, can never be admitted as an argument against the observance of this ordinance ; our Lord being said to baptize through the instrumentality of his disciples, he virtually did it himself. We now come to our Lord's commission to his disci- ples, given immediately preceding his ascension to hea- ven. " And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe all things what- soever I have commanded you : and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Matt, xxviii. 18 — 20. " And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark xvi. 15, 16. — "And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the 51 third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Luke xxiv. 46, 47. "And being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. ...Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you : and ye shall be wit- nesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." Acts i. 4, &c. I shall now show how his disciples understood this commission. It is evident, from our Lord's words, that he did not design baptism to be understood only of the Spirit, enough being said before on the subject, to prevent any misconception on their part; as the baptism of the Holy Ghost which they were to wait for was particularly mentioned, and contra-distinguished from water-baptism. " Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do ? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.... Then they that gladly received his word were baptized." Acts ii. 37, &c. Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. And "when they believed Philip, preach- ing the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both 52 men and women Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John : who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost : (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them : only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Of the Ethiopian eunuch it is said, "Then Philip opened his mouth. ...and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water : and the eunuch said, See, here is water ; what doth hinder me to be baptized ? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still : and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.... And he (the eunuch) went on his way rejoicing." Acts viii. 5, &c. We have next the account of Paul's baptism. "And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him, said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou earnest, hast sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost : . . . . and he received sight forthwith, and arose and was baptized." Acts ix. 17, 18. Paul himself gives an account of this. " And one Ananias, a devout man, came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou should- 53 est know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou ? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts xxii. 12, &c. We have, in the 10th chapter of Acts, the remarkable circumstance of the baptism of Cornelius and his household, after the miraculous descent of the Spirit upon them, which has been before fully dwelt upon. Passing- over the baptism of Lydia and her household, we come to that of the Philippian jailor; " And he brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved ? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his straightway And rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.1' Acts xvi. 30, &c. Then, in the 19th of Acts, we have the following particular relation : " And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus : and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized ? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, 54 on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them ; and they spake with tongues, and pro- phesied." Can it be inferred from this passage that the ordinance of water-baptism may not only not be at- tended to, but that attention to it is superstitious, and at variance with the spirit of our Lord's commission ; and that in every place where baptism is enjoined by him, the baptism of the Spirit only is intended ? If so, how absurd and inconsistent must the conduct of the apostles appear, in this and other instances. But we dare not insult the Most High by any such profane supposition. The importance of the ordinance is here and elsewhere established upon incontestible authority. The apostle, faithful to the commission he had received, re-baptized those who had been previously baptized, but unquestionably by some ignorant pretender, as he could not have been a genuine disciple either of our Lord or of John ; — for John declared, that he baptized in faith of Him who should come after him, He who should baptize with the Holy Ghost, — of which it appears they had never heard. The Holy Ghost bore witness to the act of the apostle, by falling upon those in a miraculous manner, after they had been baptized in the true faith, and according to the mode appointed by the Lord. I shall now notice a few places in the Epistles where the subject of baptism is alluded to. In Rom. vi. 3, 4, it is said, " Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism 55 into death : that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Again, Col. ii. 12; "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." — " Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? why are they then baptized for the dead ? " 1 Cor. xv. 29. — " The like figure whereunto even bap- tism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. iii. 21. Can it be asserted with any show of reason, or even the shadow of probability, that the baptism here alluded to is the baptism of the Spirit ? How can it be said that by the baptism of the Spirit we are buried with Christ? — that we are thereby baptized for the dead? — that it is a figure whereby we are saved ? that by it we have the answer of a good conscience toward God ? The baptism of the Spirit is not a figure, but the reality, the substance, that for which we wait in faith to be increasingly blessed with, after we have professed our belief in Him, by the observance of that ordinance which He appointed for all his true followers : it is that blessing which he commanded his disciples to wait for at Jerusalem, whereby they should "be endued with power from on high." Not that we are now to expect the miraculous gifts and powers which were imparted to them ; the object for which they were given being accomplished, they are no longer necessary, and have therefore ceased. In all these passages, where the baptism of the Spirit is to be understood, it is stated in such plain and express terms, and so free from ambiguity, that it cannot be mistaken in any one instance for water- baptism ; and the same may be said of the latter. They are placed as antecedent and consequent with each other ; as, " I indeed baptize you with water," but " He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Matt. iii. 11. "I indeed have baptized you with water; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Mark i. 8. " I indeed baptize you with water ; but one mightier than I cometh : he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Luke iii. 16. " John answered them, saying, I baptize with water ; but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." John i. 26, 33. " And being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you : and ye shall be witnesses unto me," &c. Acts i. 4, &c. " Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ .... and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts ii. 38. Can any one, reading these scriptures with a simple and unprejudiced heart, put any other construction upon them, than that the baptism of the Spirit and the baptism of water are separate and perfectly dis- tinct, and that the former has not superseded the latter. If we receive the word of God without gain- 57 saying, we can arrive at no other conclusion. Why, then, all your labour and toil, to endeavour to make the Scriptures speak another language ? " To the law and to the testimony : if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Page 108. Speaking of the Supper, you say, " In " these days of increasing light and spirituality, as we " may justly esteem them, it is necessary to say but " very little on this branch of our subject. Although " the communicants in the rite of the Lord's Supper " may sometimes be permitted to ' eat the flesh and " drink the blood of the Son of man,' no arguments " need now be advanced to prove that this spiritual " eating and drinking has no necessary connexion " with any external ceremony ; and that in every time " and place it may be the privilege of the humble " Christian, who lives by faith in the Son of God, and " whose soul is subjected to the purifying yet sustain- " ing influence of his Holy Spirit; see John vi. 53, 63. " Neither will it be any longer disputed, that when " persons of such a character meet in companies for " the solemn purpose of worshipping the Father, they "may, without any use of the outward ordinance, feed " together, in a spiritual sense, on the body and blood of " Christ, and experience the truest communion with " their Holy Head, and one with another in him ; " see Matt, xviii. 20." While you allow the gospel to contain the standard of a pure worship, I cannot conceive how you can with propriety, in this place, term these the days of increasing light and spirituality. Seeing that by 58 your own writing- elsewhere, the contrary may be inferred. You say, page 359, " We have much " reason to be convinced, that our religious pecu- " liarities have originated, not in the imagination of " men, but in the will of God, — that we have been " led into the practice of them by the Spirit of truth, — " that they accord with the dictates of the divine law, " as it is recorded in the Scriptures, — and finally, that " they are in a particular manner deposited in our " keeping." If this be so, how can it be said that these are the days of spiritual illumination, when there is not more than one in twenty-five thousand of professing Christians of your sentiments; and all the rest, with few exceptions, insist upon the literal observance of the ordinance of baptism and that of the Lord's supper as indispensably necessary to this pro- fession. And I do not understand that your sect is on the increase by new converts, nor do I suppose the light shines more brilliantly amongst you now, than formerly. Our Lord instituted the ordinance of the supper as an external ceremony ; and when he said, " This do in remembrance of me," he could mean no other, than that they were literally to eat of the bread, and drink of the wine, as he then commanded them. As it is impossible literally to eat and drink by the inward motion of the spirit, so it is impossible that the supper can, under any circumstances, be scripturally celebrated without partaking of bread and wine. Not as at a social meal, but when believers assemble as a church of Christ. Pages 108 — 110. "We may proceed to examine " those passages of the New Testament which have 50 " given rise to the opinion so generally entertained " by modern theologians, that such a rite was ordained " by our Saviour, and that the practice of it is univer- " sally obligatory on believers in Christ. The passages " to which I have to refer, under this head, are only " two in number. The first is in the gospel of Luke, " who, in describing the last paschal supper which " Jesus ate with his disciples shortly before his cru- " cifixion, writes as follows : ' And he (Jesus) took " bread and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto " them, saying, This is my body, which is given for " you : this do in remembrance of me. Likewise, also, " the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New "Testament in my blood, which is shed for you;' "Lukexxii. 19, 20." " The second passage alluded to, contains a declara- " tion of the Apostle Paul's, which fully confirms the " particulars related by Luke. It appears that the " Corinthian converts had so greatly abused the prac- " tice to which the injunction of Christ had given rise, " that when they met together for the purpose of " eating the Lord's supper in company, there was " found among them a total want of order and har- " mony, and many of them availed themselves of the " opportunity thus afforded them, for the intemperate " indulgence of their carnal appetites ; ' for in eating,' " says the apostle, ' every one taketh before other his " own supper ; and one is hungry, and another is " drunken.' In order to correct habits of so disgrace- " ful a character, Paul sharply reproves these Corin- " thians, and calls to their recollection the origin and " object of the observance. ' For I have received of 60 " the Lord,' says he, ' that which I also delivered " unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in " which he was betrayed, took bread : and when he "had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: " this is my body, which is broken for you ; this do in " remembrance of me. After the same manner also he " took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup " is the New Testament in my blood ; this do ye, as " oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as " often,' adds the apostle, ' as ye eat this bread, and " drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he " come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, " and drink this cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the " body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine " himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink " of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh un- " worthily, eateth and drinketh condemnation to him- " self, not discerning the Lord's body.' 1 Cor. xi. " 23—29." The passage in Luke gives our Lord's command for the express observance of the ordinance, and the prin- cipal object of it — to keep his love in mind, " This do in remembrance of me." The passage in Corinthians is a confirmation of this command, and explains more extensively the nature and design of it : " As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do show the Lord's death till he come." They show the origin and manner of observing the ordinance : and when you say, Paul calls it to their recollection, and reproves them for the abuse of it, do you not tacitly admit, that it was a visible gospel institution, a literal eating and drinking, and that it was understood as such r 01 Pages 110—112. "It will be observed that in this " address to the Corinthians, the apostle is not enjoin- " mg upon them the practice of celebrating- the Lord's " supper. The passage contains no command of the " apostle's to that effect : it was intended solely to warn " them against their abuse of that practice, and to ex- " plain to them its origin and true purpose. Accord- " ingly he briefly recites the circumstances which had " given rise to it. The knowledge of these circum- " stances, it appears', he received of the Lord ; and the " apostle's statement, founded on the instruction thus " given to him on the subject, substantially accords " with the narration of Luke. We are therefore to " consider it as a fact resting on confirmed evidence, " that when our Lord at his last paschal supper " invited his disciples to take and eat the bread which " he had broken, he added, ' This do in remembrance " of me:"1 and further, we learn from the apostle, that " after Jesus had handed to them the cup to drink, he " repeated a similar command, — ' TJiis do, as often as " ye drink it, in remembrance of me? " It appears that Paul was recapitulating what he had before communicated to them ; for he says, " I received of the Lord that which also / delivered unto you.'" If he had not before explained unto them the nature of the supper, and the manner of celebrating it, he could not with any propriety have reproved them for the abuse of it. In verse 28, and in verses 33, 34, (which you do not quote), he says, " But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if 62 any man hunger, let him cat at home : that ye come not together to condemnation." Here the apostle exhorts them to a reverential and orderly observance of it, and as he stood as their instructor and appointed head, it certainly amounted both to an enjoinment and com- mand. If it were not a literal eating and drinking, the apostle's words would have been without meaning; and if they were not to eat and drink it in any way, he would surely have told them so, and reproved them for the dullness of their understandings, in taking that in a literal sense which he intended should be understood metaphorically. But it is appointed for every believer in Christ to observe his institutions : and they cannot be his disciples who reject them. In a note, page 111, you say, "This apostle had " learned, or had been taught of the Lord the several " particulars respecting the last supper, which he " afterwards communicated to his Corinthian converts: " but in what manner he received the information in " question, the text does not specify. It might be by " that merely spiritual illumination which he enjoyed " in so large a measure. It might also be through the " medium of his inspired brethren, or through that of " some written document which rested on divine " authority. Whatever, indeed, this apostle knew in " connexion with Christian truth, and in whatever " manner his knowledge of it was acquired, he might " without impropriety describe himself as having " learned it all of the Lord, who had interposed in so " striking a manner for his convincement and con- " version. Now that the information given to him " respecting the circumstances of the Lord's supper, G3 " was received mediately, and not by any direct or " extraordinary revelation, appears most probable, be- " cause those circumstances were simply historical, " and were perfectly known to Paul's eleven brethren " in the apostleship, who were present on the occasion, " and who would, as a matter of course, communicate " with him on a subject in which he was equally inter- " ested with themselves." When you attempted to argue against the practice of baptism, by what Paul wrote to the Corinthians, you styled him an eminent individual, one who was not a whit behind the chiefest apostles. Now that you are wishful to suppress the ordinance of the sup- per, you institute an inquiry how he became acquainted with the particulars respecting it ? The eleven dis- ciples would never have thought of giving Paul an account of the passover, which they knew him to be as conversant with as they themselves were : neither could they, nor he, be interested in an old Jewish abrogated rite. But when you say, they would com- municate with him, as a matter of course, on what passed on the occasion when they were present, and which he might be ignorant of, not being there, your words imply (in opposition to your own argument), that the communication could not relate to the supper of the passover, but to the supper of the Lord, in which they were all equally interested, because they were thence- forth commanded to observe it in remembrance of Him. Pages 112 — 114. "Persons who have been long " habituated to consider these expressions of our " Lord's (' This do in remembrance of me,'' and ' This " do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me,') 64 " in immediate connexion with the rite of the Eucha- " rist, as they themselves observe it, are very naturally " led to explain the former by the latter ; and thus " with respect to the passages now quoted, they lose " sight of those plain and simple principles of inter- " pretation, which they would of course apply to any " other part of the sacred volume. I confess I see no " other way of accounting for the sentiment still so " prevalent among Christians, that when our Lord, " after participating with his disciples in their last " paschal meal, said to them, ' Do this in remem- " brance of me,' he instituted a religious ceremony, " which was thenceforward to form an essential part " of worship, and which in that point of view was to " be obligatory in all ages on the believers in Jesus. " That the words of Christ, when tried by the test of " common rules, and explained by the circumstances " under which they were spoken, do not appear, and " cannot be proved to have been fraught with so exten- " sive a meaning, will probably be allowed by the " candid and considerate critic ; and I would suggest " that no such meaning can justly be applied to them, " for two reasons. " That our Lord's words, in the first place, are not " rightly interpreted as fixing the institution of a " typical ceremony in connexion with Christian worship, " there arises a strong presumption, on this general "ground — that such an interpretation (a completely " adventitious one as far as relates to those mere " words), is directly at variance with the acknowledged " principle, that the old Jewish system of typical " and ceremonial observances was to be abrogated by 0*5 » " the death of Christ, and with our Saviour's own law, " that the Father was now to be worshipped, not " according to the shadowy ritual of the Jews and Sa- " maritans, but in spirit and in truth." " Secondly, it is to be observed, that the command " of Jesus respecting the bread and wine was addressed " only to twelve persons, and was of a nature simply 11 positive. It is true that all the precepts of Jesus were " addressed to those persons who were in his company " at the time when they were uttered, and many of " them probably to his apostles only : but there is an " all-sufficient reason why the bulk of them are to be "received as of universal obligation, — namely, that " they are moral in their nature, and appertain to that " unchangeable law of God which, when revealed, " demands the obedience of all men at all times. But " a merely positive precept has no connexion with that " unchangeable law, and does nothing more than " enjoin, for some specific purpose, a practice in itself " indifferent. Such a precept, therefore, appears to " contain no sufficient internal evidence of its being " binding on any persons, except those to whom it was " actually addressed, and others who were placed under " the same particular circumstances. I would submit " that an universal obligation on the followers of any " moral lawgiver to obey a precept of the nature now " described, cannot be rightly admitted, unless it be by " such lawgiver expressly declared : and that its not " being expressly declared affords an indication that " no such universality was intended." What could our Lord's disciples understand to be his meaning, when he said, Eat this bread, and drink F 66 this wine, in remembrance of me, if they were not to commemorate his death by an actual participation of these elements ? They could put no other construction upon his words ; it is the plain, simple meaning which they would of course apply to them, and obey accord- ingly. I confess I am one of those who consider that the words of our Lord, in immediate connexion with this ordinance, do expressly and unequivocally appoint it as an institution peculiar to the Gospel dispensation, an essential part of Christian worship, obligatory on all his followers until time shall be no more. As it was not possible that the apostles, in their own persons, could " shew the Lord's death till he come;" it is evident that when our Lord said, " This do in remem- brance of me," he intended that his command should be imperative on all believers throughout all ages, and that the apostles so understood him ; or why did not Paul reprove the Corinthians for observing the ordinance, rather than blame them for abusing it ? and why did he write thus to them ; " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? For we being many are one bread, and one body : for we are all partakers of that one bread ? "2 Is not this the same as saying, that be- lievers are all on a perfect equality — that as one loaf is composed of a number of grains of corn, making one whole, so every believer, without distinction, is a mem- ber of the Church of Christ, making part of his body ; consequently is entitled to, and is a partaker of, all its privileges; and is therefore under an obligation to « 1 Cor. x. 16, 17. 07 observe all its ordinances ? Our Lord tells us, " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." This is what every believer does by faith ; he eats of the bread and drinks of the wine, and, through the shadow, views the substance ; and thus typically feeds upon the body and blood of his Lord. You say such a precept is not binding except on those to whom it was actually addressed, and others who were placed under the same particular cir- cumstances. Now, Sir, were not the apostles exactly in the same circumstances as all other men, and are not all men such as the apostles were — sinners ? And did not they, as well as we, stand in need of a Sa- viour? Is not this, then, a sufficient evidence that the ordinance of the supper was intended to be binding upon every believer in Christ ? Before you assume the supper to be an old Jewish ceremonial rite, you should prove it to be so: a strong presumption cannot be allowed to pass, in the face of positive evidence to the contrary. It was a new ordinance, instituted by our Lord ; as the account given of it clearly proves. " And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat ....And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer :.... And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves : for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come." This is the end of the passover. " And (then) he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, (Matthew and Mark say, " Take, eat,") This is my body, 68 which is given for you : this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper (as he had taken the bread), saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you." 1 Matthew and Mark say, " Which is shed for many." The former says, " Drink ye all of it; " the latter, "And they drank of it." Paul, when he reproves the Corinthians, con- firms these particulars as follows ; " That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat : this is my body, which is broken for you : this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had stepped, say- ing, This cup is the New Testament in my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." 2 It is clear, from the manner in which it is mentioned, that it was after our Lord had eaten of the lamb, which was the paschal supper, that he instituted this new ordinance, (which he terms, " The New Testament in my blood,") which he intended should be observed to commemorate the atonement he was about to make " for the sins of the whole world." 3 This is a distinct ordinance from that of the passover, both as it respects its nature and signification. One was, to commemorate past deliverance from natural death, when the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, and suf- fered not the destroyer to enter the doors of the Israel- ites ; the other, to commemorate his death, who was delivered for our offences, and, by being raised again » Luke xxii. 8— 20. "■ 1 Cor. xi. 23-26. 3 1 John ii. 2. 69 for our justification, gives us spiritual life, and makes us heirs of eternal glory. I know no other way of worshipping the Father in spirit and in truth, than by an attention to the ordinances instituted by his Son : not, however, making our worship to consist in the bare observance of them, but by attending to them in faith of what is thereby prefigured, and by obedience to all his commands. Admitting that our Lord's command was only ad- dressed to twelve persons, eleven of them were his faithful disciples, to whom he said, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature,"1 " Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."2 "Do this in remembrance of me," was one of the commands to be observed. Our Lord did not alter the moral law ; but he enforced it in its most extensive and spiritual sense, and left it unchanged and unchangeable. The ordinances of the Lord are binding on his true followers only, as expres- sive of their faith and reliance upon him. It is a solemn mockery for any other person to observe them. Yet neither the believer's faith, nor the observance of the Lord's institutions, exempt him in the least from obedience to the moral law ; on the contrary, they make him respect it more, and keep him " from pre- sumptuous sins."3 I do not know how you can call an ordinance indifferent in itself, which the Saviour whom you profess to follow instituted. Page 115. " In confirmation of these general argu- " ments, the reader's attention may now be called to a "very striking fact; namely, that in the Gospel of i Mark xvi. 15. - Matt, xxviii. 20. 3 Ps. xix. 13. 70 " Matthew, which was written by an eye witness, and " probably at a still earlier date than that of Luke, " and which contains a very exact description of our " Lord's last supper with his disciples, of the breaking " of the bread, of the handing of the cup, and of the " comparison made by Jesus of the one with his body, " and of the other with his blood ; the words upon " which alone could have been founded the institution " of this supposed Christian rite, — ' Do this in remem- " brance of me,' — are entirely omitted. We are not to " conclude from this omission that those words were " not spoken. That they were spoken, on the contrary, " is certain, on the authority of both Luke and Paul. " But since Matthew describes all the circumstances " of the occasion, and narrates the whole of our Lord's " address, with the single exception of these words, " we can hardly suppose him to have understood that " the precept of Jesus was of that very leading import - " ance which is generally imagined ; or that our Lord " then instituted a rite, which was in every age to " form an essential part of divine worship, and to be " universally obligatory on the professors of Christi- " anity. Precisely the same observation applies to the " Gospel of Mark, which is supposed to have been " written under the immediate superintendence of the " apostle Peter." The omission of the words of our Lord, " Do this in remembrance of me," by the evangelists Matthew and Mark, can afford little support to your argument. You admit that the words were actually spoken by him : and this omission of the evangelists above named being afterwards supplied by the later writers, 71 Paul and Luke, so far from detracting- from the im- portance of the ordinance, adds to it if j)ossible a greater weight. Any particular attending a transaction which may have escaped the attention of an early writer, being afterwards supplied by a subsequent one, of equal authority, shows that the particular circumstance in question was of importance, or he also would have omit- ted to record it. This is exactly the case in the present instance. The Holy Spirit, foreseeing how this ordi- nance might thereafter be impugned, used the precau- tion to guard it by the testimony of two unimpeachable witnesses ; who, by giving our Lord's express com- mand for its observance, and showing its true nature and design, left those who trample upon it without excuse. But to them who delight to do his will and walk in his steps, such unequivocal authority is given for their conduct, that they can attend to this New Testament ordinance with an enlightened understand- ing, and a true and lively faith in the promised bless- ings therein typified. It further enables them to give this reply to any who shall question the propriety of their conduct ; The Lord has so commanded us. You call this ordinance of the Lord, " a supposed Christian rite" though in page 108 you say " it may be per- mitted, and is a privilege, to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, but without any use of the out- ward ordinance." Pages 116, 117. "What then may be deemed a " fair and reasonable interpretation of our Lord's very " simple precept ? and in what signification would the " twelve apostles, to whom these words were addressed, " naturally understand them ? In order to give a satis- 72 " factory answer to this inquiry, we may in the first " instance observe, that those twelve apostles, to whom " our Lord addressed himself, were all Jews or Gali- " leans ; that they had long been accustomed to observe " the rites of the supper of the passover, and that " among those rites were numbered (as has been " already stated) the breaking of the bread and the " handing of the cup, with the blessing and giving of " thanks. As they had already been habituated to " these customs, so was the Lord Jesus well aware that " they would still maintain them : for, as it has been " already remarked, the apostles continued in the prac- " tice of parts of the Jewish ritual, long after the "crucifixion of our Lord; and although that ritual " was in fact abolished by his death, the sudden disuse " of it does not appear to have been enjoined upon them " by their Divine Master. Having these facts in our " view, we may reasonably interpret the words of Jesus " as commanding nothing more, than that his apostles " should call him to their recollection, when they met " together to celebrate the supper of the passover. " 'This cup,' said Jesus, 'is the New Testament in my " blood.' Now it was not every cup of wine which " represented the New Testament in the blood of " Christ; it was the cup of wine drunk at the supper " of the passover — an institution which they were " then celebrating, and which, in some of its cir- " cumstances, was expressly typical of the death of " the Messiah. It appears then by no means very " improbable, that it was to the cup of the passover " exclusively, that our Saviour's injunction applied — " ' This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of "me;' that is, as often as ye meet together to cele- 73 " brate the supper of the passover, and to drink of that " cup, which represents the New Testament in my " blood, take care that ye forget not the true purport " of the ceremony — do it in remembrance of me." The fallacy of your reasoning in this extract is easily detected. This New Testament ordinance is denomi- nated the Lord's supper, not the passover. From various passages in the sacred word, it is evident that the disciples of our Lord observed it frequently, and after short intervals of time, and in every place where a church was established, and generally on the Lord's day. These particulars are opposed to the supposition that this ordinance and the passover were one and the same thing. The passover could be observed but once in the course of a year, in a particular month, and upon a particular day of that month, and in one place only — Jerusalem. Can any thing be more clear, from the conduct of the apostles and their disciples, that they understood our Lord's words to have exclusive and special application to this new Christian institu- tion ; totally distinct from, and without any, even the least, reference to or connexion with the passover ? The end for which the passover was instituted being accom- plished, it could be no longer observed by the disciples of Christ. But the new ordinance, the Lord's supper, is to be observed until his second coming. It is pretty evident, from your own words, that you had some mis- giving upon this subject : for you say, " It appears by no means very improbable." Is this a style of language to be used in such a momentous matter as the worship of the true God ? It is obvious, that while you were writing this paragraph, the true light of the Scriptures flashed upon your mental sight with 74 such effulgence that it could not be resisted ; yet being- still determined to pursue your argument, you had the temerity to put a forced construction on the passage in question, though you could only do it in such equivocal terms as the following, — " it is by no means very im- probable" &c. How strange, that one who has under- taken to instruct others on such an important point, should stoop to evasive language like this ! It was to the Jews our Lord first preached, and to them only he could show (because to no other people were the oracles of God committed) that all the Mosaic rites and ceremonies pointed to himself; and that as he the great antitype was come, these types naturally ceased. It was commanded by God that they should observe the passover, as well to bring to their recollection the past deliverance of their first-born, as to point out to themselves their own deliverance from sin, through the blood of the Saviour, which was to be poured out for them. The command was, "At the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shall sacrifice the passover, at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou earnest forth out of Egypt. And thou shalt roast and eat it (the lamb without blemish) in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose." l Our Lord could not have kept the passover without eating of the lamb. And it is plain it was at the conclusion of the passover that he said, "Take, eat: this is my body.... and drink ye all of this cup : for this is my blood of the New Testa- ment, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." He did not say so of the lamb, nor of the wine 1 Dcut. xvi. 6, 7. 75 drank daring the passover, but of that which he gave them after supper. Besides, Paul expressly calls it the Lord's supper, in contra-distinction to that of the passover, which latter was never designated by any other name. " After the same manner, also, he took the cup when he had supped ; " from this we under- stand, that it was after the supper of the passover that he distributed the bread, and afterwards handed the cup to his disciples. The one he calls his body, the other his blood. One might suppose, by your manner of writing, that our Lord was afraid of commanding his disciples to act in conformity with his holy will ; and you appear to place him quite on a level with them, excepting that of allowing him a little foresight to be aware that they would continue to eat the pass- over, notwithstanding all he should recommend to the contrary : and therefore he thought it best to let them, as he knew they would, take their own way. You not only say, that the sudden disuse of it was not enjoined, but your words imply that their Divine Master encou- raged them to continue it, by commanding them to call him to their recollection whenever they met to celebrate it. Throughout your argument, you are espe- cially desirous to convince your readers that all former typical ordinances were abolished, and that no new ones were instituted: yet you can " reasonably interpret " the words of Jesus as commanding nothing more than " that his apostles should call him to their recollection " whenever they met to celebrate the passover." And it appears to you by " no means very improbable" that it was to the cup of the passover exclusively that our Saviour's injunctions applied. You then make our 76 Lord say to his apostles, " As often as ye meet together to celebrate the passover, and drink of that cup which represents the New Testament in my blood, take care that ye forget not the true purport of the ceremony — do it in remembrance of me." What is this, but com- manding them to observe both the eucharist and pass- over, though you assure us the one was abrogated, and the other never instituted ? The passover, by your own account, would naturally be disused as the disciples became more enlightened, and as you say the drinking of the cup made a part of the same ceremony, it would consequently cease at the same time. This is a plausible method both of setting aside the Lord's sup- per, and of depreciating it at the same time in the eyes of your fellow men. Whichever of the appointments of the former dis- pensation the apostles might have continued for a time to practise, it is nowhere mentioned that they ever ate of the lamb of the passover after the death of Christ. That could only be eaten in Jerusalem ; see Deut. xvi. 5, 6. " Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee. But at the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to place his name in." Therefore it could not be the passover that was celebrated by the Gentile church at Corinth, but the Lord's supper. Every one knows, that it is not every cup of wine that represents the New Testament in his blood : and all who read the Scriptures with attention, and without prejudice, may know, that it was not the cup drank at the pass- over, that our Lord gave to his disciples to divide among themselves, but the cup which he gave them when introducing this, his new institution, and which 77 he commanded them all to drink of. " And this was after the conclusion of that paschal feast which pre- figured himself in his death as the antitype of that feast." Pages 118, 119. "Of those numerous persons who " were converted by means of the ministry of Peter on " the day of Pentecost, we read that ' they continued " stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, " and in breaking of bread, and in prayers ;' Acts ii. 42. " Since the * breaking of bread ' is here mentioned " among other signs of religious communion, it pro- " bably signifies (according to the general opinion of " biblical critics) that breaking of bread, which was " introduced as a memorial of the death of Christ. " Nevertheless, that the practice in question was ob- " served as a part of the social meal, is evident from " the immediate context. ' And all that believed,' adds " the historian, ' were together, and had all things " common and they continued daily with one accord " in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, " did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of " heart ;' ver. 46. On another occasion, when we are " informed that ' on the first day of the week,' the " disciples at Troas ' came together to break bread,' " Acts xx. 7 ; there is no reason to suppose that they " met for the purpose of performing a religious cere- " mony. It appears rather that they came together to " participate in a brotherly repast, of which, it is pro- " bable that one particular object was the joint com- " rnemoration of the death of their Lord." Here we have the Lord's supper, which in the pre- ceding paragraph was to be understood to be the same as the Jewish rite of the passover, and could in that 78 case be observed only once in a year, now assimilated with that of a brotherly repast of every day occurrence, and for the same object too, " the joint commemoration of the death of their Lord." But still we can ascend no higher than to a mere probability. Until we have some better authority for our faith and practice than probabilities, we can never worship God in spirit and in truth. Our Lord's commission to his disciples is clear and distinct ; he left nothing for their ingenuity to discover ; he declared to them all the words that he received of his Father ; and their conduct in this respect shows that they fully comprehended his meaning. That the social meal was perfectly distinct from the Lord's supper is clear, from 1 Cor. xi. 18, &c. where the apostle condemns the irregularity of some individuals, who endeavoured to confound them, and degraded the supper of the Lord by eating it as a common meal, and which he classed among their other heresies. But see what importance he attaches to this ordinance. " As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Where- fore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine him- self, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not dis- cerning the Lord's body." Could such an awful de- nunciation as this be attached to the partaking of " the social meal," let it be eaten in whatever manner, other- wise than as the supper of the Lord ? That it is the literal eating and drinking of the bread and wine, as 79 emblems of the Lord's body and blood, that is here intended is clear, from the concluding verse of this chapter. " If any man hunger, let him eat at home, that ye come not together to condemnation." When the disciples, including Paul, came together at Troas to break bread, the change of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first had then taken place, and consequently they assembled to worship God, and to commemorate the Lord's death. But if, as it appears to you, they met to participate in a bro- therly repast, which had two objects, one to satisfy their hunger, and the other to commemorate the death of the Lord, the Corinthians might have retorted upon Paul, and told him, that "this is not to eat the Lord's supper." Pages 119, 120. " The same fact is evident from the " description given by Paul of the abuses which had " crept in among his Corinthian converts, in their " method of conducting these common repasts. ' When " ye come together therefore into one place, this is not " to eat the Lord's supper. 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 to drink in ? or despise ye the " church (or assembly) of God, and shame them that " have not ? What shall I say to you ? Shall I praise " you in this ? I praise you not.' 1 Cor. xi. 20, 22. " After thus reproving them, and after explaining to " them in a passage already cited, the origin and true " object of the observance which they had thus abused, " the apostle, zealous as he was for the right order of " this Christian meal, concludes with the following 80 " exhortation : ' Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come " together to eat, tarry one for another ; and if any " man hunger, let him eat at home, that ye come not " together unto condemnation.' " In this extract, you assume a somewhat bolder tone than in the preceding one ; but there is nothing in it but what I have anticipated and fully refuted. Your object evidently is to detract from the glory of the institution, by degrading it to the level of a common meal. By so doing, you place yourself in the condition of those whom the apostle, in the chapter quoted, so severely reproves, and thereby become guilty of the very thing which he there condemns. And wherefore, if it were, as you suppose, a common repast, should a man be condemned for satisfying his hunger ? Is not this the proper object of a meal ? And wherefore were they enjoined to satisfy their hunger at home, before they came to this feast ? A satisfactory answer to these questions will show that it was no ordinary meal that they were coming to partake of, but to perform an act of divine worship, according to the commandment of the Lord our Saviour. Page 120. " The supper which the apostle here " describes as the Lord's supper, which the Corinthians " had so shamefully misconducted, and during the " course of which the bread was broken and the wine " handed about in commemoration of the death of " Christ, was probably the same as was otherwise " denominated ' love,' or the ' supper of love.' ' Their " coming together,' says Theophylact on 1 Cor. 11. 20, " (or rather Chrysostom, from whom his commentaries " were borrowed), ' was intended as a sign of love and 81 " fellowship, and he denominates this social banquet the " Lord's supper, because it was the imitation of that " awful supper which the Lord ate with his disciples.' " These suppers of love, or ' love- feasts,' are alluded to "by Peter, 2 Peter ii. 13; and by Jude, ver. 12; and " are described by Pliny ; as well as by Tertullian, and " other early fathers. It appears that they were public " repasts, of a decent and frugal character, in which " the poor and the rich of the early Christian churches " participated together, and which were considered as " being both the symbols and pledges of mutual har- " mony and brotherly love. Such, then, was the " ' Lord's supper ' of the primitive Christians : such " were the occasions on which they were accustomed " to break their bread, and to drink their wine, as a " memorial of the body and blood of Christ." The supper which the apostle is here describing, is not that which Chrysostom denominates a social ban- quet, nor yet what you suppose was probably the same as that denominated "love," or "the supper of love:" but it was that solemn ordinance which the Lord him- self appointed, and which his true disciples will observe according to his directions. And those who observe it in any other way will not be held guiltless. I pre- sume the feasts mentioned by Jude and Peter were nothing more than repasts provided by the affluent, or those that could afford to furnish them, and were par- taken of by all in common. This was all perfectly right, so long as it was partaken of in moderation. But if, as it appears to you and Chrysostom, these primitive Christians denominated their social banquets and public repasts the " Lord's supper," they could not G 8-2 be true Christians, but such as Jude and Peter would denominate spots and blemishes, feeding themselves without fear. Social banquets and public repasts, when substituted for the Lord's supper, are similar to those that the Corinthians partook of, when they were thus reproved by Paul ; " When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eat- ing every one taketh before other his own supper ; and one is hungry, and another is drunken." Page 121. " To the simple practice which thus pre- " vailed among these primitive Christians, (if preserved " within proper bounds), there appears to be nothing " which can fairly be objected. It was a practice " which might be classed rather under the head of " pious customs, than under that of direct religious " ceremonies. It was perhaps little more than giving " to one of the common occasions of life, a specific " direction of an edifying character On the one hand, " therefore, we may allow that those persons who con- " tinue the observance of the Lord's supper, not as a " religious ceremony, constituting a necessary part of " divine worship, but on the simple system of the primi- " tive Christians, are not without their warrant, in the " example of those Christians, for the adoption of " such a course. On the other hand, it is no less " evident that the apparent un suitableness of the cus- " torn to the present condition of the visible church, " its known liability to abuse, and more especially its " close affinity with the abolished practices of the " Jewish ritual, afford very strong reasons for its dis- " continuance." 83 Primitive Christianity is that which was established from the beginning-. Consequently the apostles and first followers of our Lord were the primitive Chris- tians ; and those that did not attend to his ordinance as he commanded were reproved, and the true mann er of observing- it was again explained to them : as we have seen by the passages before quoted. But you style those the primitive Christians, who rejected the ordi- nance of the Lord, and set up one in imitation of it ; and while they kept within proper bounds, — that is, in fact, while they did not celebrate it according to the com- mand of the founder, — there could be nothing in their conduct that could be fairly objected to. And you say that those persons who continue the observance of this " imitation," after their manner, are not without their warrant, having the example of these early dissenters from the true Christian mode for the adoption of such a course. This is a very perverse mode of reasoning, which you render still worse, by making your readers believe that grossly corrupting the ordinance of Christ may be classed under the mild denomination of pious customs. But it is verifying the words of the prophet Jeremiah; the " people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." * Yet even towards these, you encou- rage a liberal and friendly feeling. I do not under- stand why the observance of the Lord's supper is unsuitable for the present condition of the church : the command, " This do in remembrance of me," having never been repealed. It is much to be deplored that 1 Jer. ii. 13. 84 it is abused ; but this is no reason for its disconti- nuance : on the contrary, it should be an additional stimulus to those who profess obedience to Christ to set a good example, by observing the ordinance accord- ing to the original design, and, like Paul, to show unto them that eat and drink unworthily their error. It has no similitude to the abolished practice of the Jewish ritual : but even if it had, and had been com- manded by our Lord, there would still be the same strong reasons for an adherence to it. The sum of this extract appears to me to be this ; that it is in your opinion anti-scriptural, under any circumstances, to observe the ordinance of the supper, as instituted by our Lord : but that, if it be observed after the manner of a social meal, it is not only not objectionable, but allowable. And thus you clearly give your evidence that the writings of such men as Chrysostom, Pliny, Tertullian, and others, are to be preferred before the inspired writings of the New Testament. Page 123. " That there is nothing in the history of " the origin of that custom which precludes, under so " obvious a change of circumstances, the liberty for its " disuse^ the reader will probably allow, for reasons " already stated. Here, however, it appears necessary " to notice a particular expression of the apostle Paul's, " from which many persons have derived an opinion, " that this practice is obligatory on believers in Jesus, " until the end of the world. ' For as oft as ye eat this " bread, and drink this cup,' says the apostle, in a " passage already cited, ' ye do shew the Lord's death " till he come.' The inference deduced from these " words, respecting the necessary permanence of the 85 " rite of the Lord's supper, appears to be ill founded. " For, in the first place, they contain no command to " the Corinthians to continue the practice in question " until the Lord's coming ; and in the second place, it " is evident, from the context, that it was not here the " apostle's object to impress upon his friends the dura- " Hon of the custom, but only its meaning or direction. " The stress of his declaration plainly lies upon the " words, ' ye do shew the Lord's death.' The words " ' till he come ' were probably added as a kind of " reservation, for the purpose of conveying the idea " that when the Lord himself should come, such a " memorial of his death would be obsolete and un- " necessary." I have not yet found that you have given any Scrip- tural reason why the ordinance should be discontinued, nor what is the obvious change of circumstances which precludes it. Strictly speaking, " ye do shew the Lord's death till he come," is not a command ; but the words immediately preceding imply that the ob- servance of the ordinance was to be kept up until that time : " For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." Paul had before reiterated the Lord's command, "This do in remembrance of me." No other inference can be drawn from these expressions, than that the ordi- nance was to be permanent. Where was the utility of the apostle impressing upon his friends the meaning or direction of it, if he did not intend them to observe it according to that meaning or direction ? Admit, as you say, the words " till he come" were probably added for the purpose you name; what would this 86 benefit your argument ? Nothing. Even if it did show that when the Lord himself should come, the memorial of his death would be obsolete and unnecessary, would it not also show, that the observance of it was neces- sary, until he should come ? Page 123. " It appears, from various passages in " the epistles, that the early Christians, and even the " apostle Paul himself, lived under a strong impression " that the coming of Christ in glory was near at hand. " But although this impression, on a point profess- " edly not revealed to any of the inspired servants of " God (Matt. xxiv. 36), was erroneous ; there is a sense " in which it may be truly declared, that the Lord " Jesus is already come again. He is come in those " spiritual manifestations of his divine presence, by " which his faithful disciples in every age are upheld, " strengthened, and comforted. While I by no means " intend to assert that this is the second appearance of " Christ to which Paul is here alluding, I cannot but " remark that the principle on which he upholds the " coming of our Lord as the termination of the out- " ward ordinance, is plainly consistent with the sen- " timent of Friends, that the spiritual manifestations of " the Lord Jesus, and the direct communion with him " enjoyed by his obedient followers, virtually abrogates " any practice in his service which is of a merely sym- " bolical or typical character." It is speaking profanely of the Holy Spirit to assert that the instruments he made use of to declare his will should not only incite erroneous impressions on the minds of those to whom they wrote, but that they S7 themselves, who were immediately under his influ- ence, should be led into error, and that on such an important subject as the coming of Christ in glory. I consider such a view of divine revelation, if not impious, extremely irreverent. It is evident, from what Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, that he was under no such error as you presume. He cautions them not to be " soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand." l The Lord declared that he would come, and abide in the hearts of his people by his Spirit ; which promise he graci- ously fulfilled, and will fulfil until the end of time. His Spirit was to teach them all things — to guide them into all truth — to bring all things to their remem- brance which he from time to time had spoken, and to reveal to them their spiritual signification. This is the spiritual reign of Christ, which commenced imme- diately after his ascension. That this did not abrogate the observance of his ordinances is obvious, from the conduct of the apostles, and the churches established by them ; consequently, the inference which you have drawn is wholly without foundation. Page 124. " The view now taken of the apostle's " doctrine will fitly introduce a concluding observa- " tion — that while Friends consider it to be their duty '■* to abstain from that ritual participation in bread and " wine, so usually observed among their fellow-chris- " tians, there are no persons who insist more strongly " than they do on that which they deem to be the only » 2 Thess. ii. 2. 88 " needful supper of the Lord. That supper, according " to their apprehension, is altogether of a spiritual " nature." There is no doubt, that when our Lord instituted his ordinance of the supper, he meant his followers to feed upon him ; that is, to derive all their spiritual support and comfort from him alone. But, at the same time, he willed that they should manifest their faith by typically feeding upon him in the partaking of bread and wine. It was not left to the discretion of any man to alter his decree, nor to deem that unne- cessary which he commanded to be observed. When He who, " declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done,"1 said, " This do in remembrance of me," he neither saw any thing in his ordinance unsuitable to the then con- dition of his church, nor to any change of circum- stances that should afterwards take place. Therefore, those who discountenance the observance of this ordinance in the literal sense as appointed by by our Lord, treat his laws with contempt, and assume to themselves a power paramount to his. How can those be esteemed the followers of the Son of God who trample upon his authority, and consider it to be their duty to abstain from the observance of his commands ? Are they ignorant, that it is to them he says — "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say ? " 2 " For them that honour me, I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed." 3 Page 126. " On a general review, then, of the par- " ticular passages of the New Testament which relate 1 Isaiah xlvi. 10. - Luke vi. 46. 3 1 Sam. ii. 30. 89 " to the observance of the Lord's supper, I may ven- " ture to recapitulate my own sentiments, that such a " practice has no proper or necessary connexion with " a spiritual feeding on the body and blood of Christ — " that the history of our Lord's last paschal supper " with his disciples affords no reason for believing that " he then instituted a religious ceremony, which was " thenceforth to form an essential part of the worship " of Christians — that our Lord's injunction on that " occasion may be understood, either as relating solely " to the rites of the passover, or as intended to give a " religious direction to the more common social repasts " of his disciples — that it was in connexion with such " repasts, and particularly with their love feasts, that the " primitive Christians were accustomed to commemorate " the death of Christ — that the custom of those love " feasts, however appropriate to the circumstances of the " earliest disciples, soon fell into abuse as the numbers " of believers increased, and appears to be, in a great " degree, inapplicable to the present condition of the " Christian world — and lastly, that under the influ- " ence of the spiritual manifestations of our Redeemer, " we may participate in that true supper of the Lord " which he has himself so clearly upheld to the expec- " tation of his disciples, and which alone is indis- " pensable for the edification, consolation, and salvation " of his people." I have before pointed out several particulars attend- ing the institution of the Lord's supper, which clearly show it to be distinct from, and to have no real con- nexion with, the passover. The awful denunciations of the apostle against those who should profane this J)0 ordinance, declare it to be infinitely superior to eveiy thing of a merely temporal nature, or of human autho- rity ; and can be applicable only to that which is of divine original, and which form (in direct opposition to your views) an essential part of Christian worship. As we have no Scripture evidence of the love-feasts you mention being instituted by Divine authority for the purposes you state, I deem them wholly undeserving of notice ; but it appears to me extraordinary how the increase of believers should occasion their abuse. The feasts of charity, mentioned by Jude, were not debased by the increase of believers, but by men of corrupt minds, destitute of faith, who had crept unawares into the church, and denied " the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." If I were to concede to you that these feasts of charity were identical with the Lord's supper (which I by no means admit), yet the mis- conduct of such profligates as the above could furnish no justification to the real disciples of Christ for the disuse of an ordinance of his instituting. Our Lord, previous to his ascension, " said unto his disciples, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature;" "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." These com- mandments are to be in force unto the end of the world. And I am at a loss to know how any thing can be inapplicable to the present state of the church, which he then commanded his followers to observe. When any body of people, let its pretensions to spi- rituality be what they may, makes laws and institu- tions of its own, without regard to the ordinances prescribed in the gospel, it cannot constitute a church <)1 of Christ. The laws of God ave immutable, and adapted to all nations and tongues : as it is said by the Psalmist, " The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."1 Pages 127, 128. *' Although, for the reasons de- tailed in the present disquisition, it may fairly be concluded that the practices of water-baptism and the Lord's supper are by no means needful, it is certain that these practices have been very generally observed by the professors of the Christian name. This fact is easily explained, not only by the known power of example and tradition, but also by that principle in our nature which leads us so commonly to place our dependence upon outward and visible things. Man is naturally prone to trust in any thing rather than in the invisible Creator, and he is ever ready to make the formal ordinance a part of his religious system, because he can rely upon it with ease to himself, and may often find in it a plausible substitute for the mortification of his own will. Now I would suggest that the ordinances which we have been considering, so far from being, like the moral law of God, univer- sally salutary, are evidently fraught with no little danger, as occasions by which this deceitful disposi- tion in the human heart is naturally excited and brought into action. And here our appeal may be made not only to theory but to facts, for it is indis- putable that the outward rites of baptism and the supper, as observed among the professors of Chris- tianity, have been the means of leading multitudes into gross superstition. How many thousands of 1 Psalm xxxiii. 11. 92 " persons are there, as every spiritually-minded Chris- " tian will allow, who place upon these outward rites " a reliance which is warranted neither by reason nor " by Scripture, and which, so far from bringing them " nearer to God — so far from reminding them of " Christ, operates in the most palpable manner as a " diversion from a true and living faith in their Creator " and Redeemer ! How often has the ignorant sinner, " even in the hour of death, depended on the ' sacra- " ment ' of the Lord's supper as upon a saving ordin- " ance ! And how many a learned theologian, both " ancient and modem, has been feund to insist on " the dangerous tenet, that the rite of baptism is " regeneration ! " You certainly have not been sparing of labour to depreciate the ordinances of the Lord, and to state to your readers their inapplicability to the present time ; though you have omitted to show in what sense they are so now, more than at the time of their original institution. But it is not probable that your reasoning will be convincing to any but such as do not read the Scriptures with attention. By specious argument, and an assumed form of godliness, men lead captive the " unwary," and impose upon the simple ; but those who fear the Lord, and regard his word, who attend to his precepts and commands with a single eye to his glory, shall escape their snares; even though they be so deceptive as almost to throw the very elect off their guard. You now come to the conclusion, that the moral law of God is universally salutary (it is for our well-being here, yet it justifies no one) ; but that the ordinances 93 of the Lord should be fraught with danger is to me inexplicable, and, in my judgment, to say they are so borders upon blasphemy. They were instituted by our Lord himself, to be observed by his genuine followers to the end of time ; and though multitudes have been led by gross superstition into the abuse or even into the disuse of them, this does not in any way diminish their importance, nor render their observance unne- cessary ; consequently, your argument totally fails. You do not deny that there are some, even now, who conscientiously observe these ordinances, conformably to the Divine command : and you will allow that no one perfectly obeys the moral law ; " for there is no man that sinneth not." * You have, therefore, upon your own principle, a much better excuse for rejecting the moral law, from which all men depart, than you have for rejecting the ordinances of Christ, which some observe according to his rule. It must be acknowledged, and it is much to be lamented, that professors of the Christian name have grossly abused these divine ordi- nances ; having overlooked the real object of the insti- tutions, they have ascribed to them an inherent virtue which they do not possess. This is certainly a great delusion, and has undoubtedly proved fatal to many. Water simply cannot purify the conscience, neither can the mere partaking of bread and wine feed the soul. It is their being commanded of the Lord that makes the observance of them imperative upon be- lievers ; the former, as the visible means of introducing us into his church ; the latter, as a representation of feeding upon him by faith. In baptism, we confess 1 1 Kings viii. 46. 94 his name, and avouch the Lord to be our God. In partaking of the supper, we keep in mind his atoning sacrifice, and profess that all our spiritual support is derived from himself. In the last chapter of Revela- tions, it is said, "Blessed are they that do his com- mandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates unto the city." Page 128. " While the Society of Friends believe " that ordinances which are so peculiarly liable to " abuse, and which have been the means of exciting, " not only the superstitions now alluded to, but end- " less divisions and contentions, and many cruel per- " secutions in the church, cannot truly appertain to " the law of God ; while they are persuaded, on the " contrary, that the spirituality of that law is opposed to " the continued observance of any typical religious rite ; " and while, on these grounds, they consider themselves " amply justified in the omission of such practices ; " they entertain, I trust, no disposition whatever to "judge their fellow Christians, who conscientiously " make use of these ceremonies. They are, it may be " hoped, too well aware of the importance of obedience " to the Lord Jesus to condemn others, who, from " their very desire to obey him, are led to differ from " themselves." " For my own part, I am persuaded that there are " many persons who avail themselves of the rites in " question on principles which cannot be deemed " superstitious, and who even derive, through these " signs and memorials, a real instruction and edifica- " tion. Such instances may serve to convince us that " God continues to accept the sincere heart ; and that 95 " he is still pleased to bless a variety of means to a " variety of conditions. Nevertheless I cannot but " deem it probable that there are many Christians, not " of our profession, who, as they draw yet nearer in " spirit to an omnipresent Deity, will be permitted to "find, in the disuse of all types, 'a more excellent " way.' " If these ordinances be not of God, for the reasons which you state, Christ Jesus, on the same ground, is not the Messias, for he was the cause of disisions, as he tells us ; " Think not that I am come to send peace on earth : I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter- in-law against her mother-in-law." l If these ordi- nances be commanded, those only can be in the right who observe them in faith, conformably to the divine rule. If they be not commanded, those only are right who reject them. There is no intermediate course. You think you reject the ordinances of the gospel on Scriptural grounds, and yet you allow those to be right who conscientiously observe them : not consi- dering that the opinions of men in general, particu- larly on sacred subjects, are commonly influenced by the creed of their parents, or of those with whom they mostly associate. These seldom take the trouble to search the Scriptures and judge for themselves ; con- sequently their faith is not built upon the Divine testimony. There can be no true spiritual understand- ing but such as is enlightened by the word of God. 1 Matt. x. 34, 35. 9f The same observation will apply to our consciousness of right and wrong : the pharisees esteemed it a greater crime to transgress the traditions of the elders than to violate the commands of God ; and Paul verily thought in himself that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And an individual may commit an offence either against the law of his God or the law of his country, and his conscience not accuse him. For instance, an unqualified man may kill a hare or a partridge, and think he does no wrong; the simple act itself would not be criminal, if the game laws were not in force ; it is the breach of those laws that constitutes the crime, and subjects him to the penalty thereto annexed. When he is brought to trial, if he plead not guilty, because his conscience does not accuse him of crime in the breach of that law ; the judge, in this case, will think the plea an aggravation of the offence, as it is adding contumacy to disobe- dience, and will pass sentence on the culprit accord- ingly : for while the law exists, all are bound to obey it. As Moses, when admonishing the Jews, says, " And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst : the Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven Because 'he has' forsaken the covenant of the Lord God."1 Those who forsake the plain com- ' Deut. xxix. 19, 20, 25. 97 mands of the Lord, under pretence of seeking out " a more excellent way," fall under the censure of the prophet Isaiah, — " Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks : walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand ; ye shall lie down in sorrow."1 You before said, there is no reason for believing that our Lord instituted these religious ceremonies, which were thenceforth to form an essential part of the worship of Christians ; therefore, according to your own views, the observance of them must be, if not contrary to, at least without the authority of, his com- mand. How then can you now say, that many per- sons, who avail themselves of the rites in question, derive through these signs and memorials a real in- struction and edification; when of such it is said (if we admit your argument to have any weight), " who hath required this at your hand ? " 2 — " in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."3 And I am at a loss to conceive how you can view such conduct, even with all your charity, in any other light than as mere will-worship, and derogatory to the honour of the Most High. There can be no real sincerity unless it be under the influence of the Spirit of God. Neither can there be any variety of means but such as are approved of Him. We read of only one " common salvation"4 — one "common faith"5 — " one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel."6 "For i Isaiah I. 11. 2 Isaiah i. 12. 3 Matt. xv. 9. 4 Jude 3. 5 Titus i. 4. 6 Phil. i. 27. H 98 by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit That there should be no schism in the body."1 " For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ : .... for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." 2 Neither, according to Paul, can there be any variety of conditions : for, writing- to the Romans, he says, " What then ? are we better than they ? No, in nowise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin."3 Neither can any be called Christians but the true followers of Christ (see Acts xi. 26), who himself clearly shows what con- stitutes a Christian, when he tells the believing Jews, " If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed?^ While " God abideth faithful, he cannot deny himself:"5 consequently it is not possible that any who reject his ordinances can find " a more excellent way." Paul shows this "more excellent way" to be love, which is manifested by obedience, as our Lord affirms; " He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me : and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.^ 6 Page 213. " We regard the members of that church " (the Anglican) with a friendly eye, and rejoice in the " evident extension of true religion within her borders." You surely forgot the appeal you made to facts, in page 128, where you state, " It is indisputable that 1 1 Cor. xii. 13, 25. 2 Gal. iii. 26—28. 3 Romans iii. 9. 4 John viii. 31. 5 2 Tim. ii. 13. 6 John xiv. 21. 99 the outward rites of baptism and the supper, as ob- served among the professors of Christianity, have been the means of leading multitudes into gross superstition.'''' And, a little lower in the same page, you say, " How often has the ignorant sinner, even in the hour of death, depended on the ' sacrament ' of the Lord's supper as a saving ordinance." And yet you now rejoice in the evident extension of true religion within the borders of that church, all the curates of which are bound, on timely notice being given, to administer the sacrament to the sick and dying ; and it is the belief in her doc- trines which has caused many a learned theologian, both ancient and modern, to insist on the dangerous tenet that the rite of baptism (that is, sprinkling an infant), is regeneration. Now, Sir, was it not to the outward rites of this church you then alluded ? And is it not the manner of observing these rites that has been the means of leading multitudes into gross super- stition ? May I then ask, what has caused such a change in your sentiments since you made the above remarks, seeing her doctrines and modes of worship continue unaltered ? Could it be on account of the general charge given by the rulers of this church to their subordinates, which certainly has some appear- ance of affinity with your views of the Lord's supper, and runs thus; " If a man, either by reason of extre- mity of sickness, or for want of warning in due time to the curate, or for lack of company to receive with him, or by any other just impediment, do not receive the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, the curate shall instruct him, that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and stedfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath 100 suffered death upon the cross for him, and shed his blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering- the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefore; he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouths But even to this, as a whole, I think you would not subscribe. Page 214. " We encourage a liberal and friendly " feeling towards our fellow Christians of every de- " nomination." Here you make Christians of every denomination, like the prophetesses mentioned by Ezekiel; who " sew pillows to all armholes, and make kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls I"1 How does this accord with what you say in your preface, that all religious opinions are lightly brought to the test of the Sacred Book ? And for what purpose is this test given, if all who so materially differ be right ? Page 352. " The views thus entertained by the " Society of Friends, on the subject of worship, arise " from the entirely spiritual principles, as we deem " them, of the Christian dispensation. We conceive, " however, that the divine Author and minister of that " dispensation not only brought to light, and instituted " among his followers, the highest standard of divine " worship, but promulgated also a perfect code of "practical morality We conceive it to be in true " consistency with the requisitions of the divine will, " when rightly understood, that we abstain from lower- " ing the standard of truth? 1 Ezek. xiii. 18. 101 The instituted worship of the New Testament is entirely spiritual. The gospel standard admits of no variation : the comparative terms, higher and lower, do not comport with its principles. Nothing less than perfection is the standard established by the gospel. Accordingly, the apostle Paul affirms ; " Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect : but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus."1 " Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."2 This is the standard to which believers are exhorted to press towards and attain unto: nor can they be satisfied with inferior attainments. " Therefore leaving the (first) principles of the doctrines of Christ, let us go on to perfection." 3 It appears strange to me, that while you are con- tending for what you call the highest standard of divine worship, you should admit of so much lax- ity : you allow every man to form his own opinion ; and if he only fancies that he is sincere, you permit him to believe that he will be accepted of God, although his opinions and practices may be altogether at variance with the standard of divine truth. Page 356. " I may venture with humility to express " my own sentiment, that Friends, viewed as a distinct " fraternity in the church universal, have been brought " to a greater degree of religious light, and to juster " views of the true standard of worship and conduct, than " any other class or denomination of Christians with " whom I have the privilege of being acquainted. — " While I am far from depreciating the usefulness of 1 Phil. iii. 12. =» Matt. v. is. 3 Heb. vi. 1. 10-2 " any existing class of serious Christians, and while I " believe that they are severally permitted to occupy " appropriate departments in the fold of the great " Shepherd, I nevertheless entertain the sentiment (in " unison, it may be hoped, with the views of many of " my readers), that a peculiar importance attaches to " the station maintained in the church of Christ by " the pious among Friends ; and for this reason — that " they appear to be the appointed depositories of certain " plain, practical, Christian truths, which are at pre- " sent far from being generally received, but which, " originating in the will of God, as it is both inwardly " and outwardly revealed, may be expected, as the " church on earth gradually advances to a condition of " greater spirituality, to become more widely dissemi- " nated, and more fully allowed." Hitherto you have not ventured to assert any thing as a positive certainty ; all that you have advanced rests upon the authority of such expressions as these ; " It is probable'''' — " It may be admitted as a proba- bility''''— or "that it is nearly indisputable'''' — or that "we may fairly conclude'''' — or that "they appear to afford'''' — or that "the reader may probably allow" or similar expressions, which continually occur in your work : from which we may infer that you have no clear, determinate, nor distinct views of the doc- trines of the gospel, and that you have not attained to any degree of certainty in divine things. Here, however, you go a little further, and venture upon something like positive assertion, that Friends, viewed as a " distinct fraternity " in the church universal, have been brought to a greater degree of religious light, 103 and to juster views of the true standard of worship and conduct, than any other class or denomination of Christians. But though this appears to be advanced, as it ought to be, with humility, it is nevertheless assuming a very lofty station, and such as the Scrip- tures do not warrant ; for we do not read of any dis- tinctions in the church of Christ, — nor of different classes nor denominations of Christians, — nor of one class in particular being selected or appointed in a peculiar manner, as a depository of truths not generally received by the church of Christ, but which, when it becomes more enlightened, it will adopt. The gospel of truth inculcates the very reverse of all this. " For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek : for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him." l " For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." 2 That unity of mind and judgment is a distinguishing characteristic of the church of Christ is evident, from the following passages. Our Lord, praying to the Father, says, " That they all may be one ; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."3 " There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism."4 " Now I beseech you, brethren? 1 Rom. x. 11, 12. -Gal.iii.27, 28. 3 Johnxvii.21,22. *Eph.iv.4,5. 104 by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you ; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment."1 " I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." 2 " Little children, it is the last time : and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; They went out from us, but they were not of us ; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us : but they went out, that they might be made mani- fest that they were not all of us. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things."3 " And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life."4 " In him was life ; and the life was the light of men That was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."5 This is the Light thatdid shine, that now shineth,and that will shine until the end of time. And those that are enlightened by its rays do not now, nor ever will, need the religious light which so peculiarly distinguishes that " distinct 1 1 Cor. i. 10. 2 Gal. i. 6—8. 3 1 John ii. 18—20. 4 1 John v. 20. 5 John i. 4. 9. 105 fraternity " which maintains the sentiments you pro- fess. Since the apostles fell asleep, no additional revela- tion has been made to the sons of men; nor is any addition necessary, revelation being complete, and every thing which is really for our advantage to know is committed to writing in the Scriptures. " He that sat upon the throne said, Behold I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." l Thus we view him as the absolute All in All : First and last in all the counsels of the Father : First and last, accom- plishing every work in his kingdom, and in every com- munication of grace and glory : First and last, in our calling, faith, and sanctification. And as the whole Scripture is finished and sealed in the visions of John the Divine, in the Book of the Revelation ; God never did, nor ever will, add more. So that whoever, since that time, has pretended, or shall hereafter pretend, to receive any message, revelation, or intelligence of any kind, immediately from heaven, let his pretensions be what they may, the former must have been, and the latter will be, either a deceiver, or under the influence of a spirit of delusion, and consequently an enemy to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. The word of God is perfect, and that which is written is upright, even words of truth. Page 359. " Since we have so much reason to be " convinced that these religious peculiarities have ori- 1 Kcv. xxi. 6., and xxii. VS. 100 " ginated, not in the imagination of men, but in the " will of God, — that we have been led into the practice " of them by the Spirit of truth, — that they accord with " the dictates of the divine law as it is recorded in the " Scriptures, — that they are of an edifying tendency, " and are calculated to promote the spiritual welfare " both of our own society and of the church at large, " — and, finally, that they are in a particular manner " deposited in our keeping, — it unquestionably be- " comes us to maintain them, during our walk through " life, with simplicity, sincerity, firmness, and dili- " gence." I think I have shown that your " religious peculi- " arities" do not accord with the word of God : there- fore they must have originated in the imagination of man. For you not only do not keep his command- ments, but you persuade men that they never were intended to be kept; consequently, you cannot be led by the Spirit of God, otherwise, the monitions of the Spirit and the words of the Spirit of inspiration would be at variance. Nothing but the revelation of God, in his written word, can have an edifying ten- dency, or promote the spiritual welfare of any one. The time is long gone by, since the oracles of God were committed to the keeping of any one body of people ; they are now thrown open to all, for the instruction of every one who chooses to be taught by them. But admitting, for argument's sake, that they are in a particular manner deposited in your keeping ; you have a singular method of maintaining them. You promulgate a number of pec aliarities " received by tra- 107 " dition from your fathers," and tell the world they are according to the dictates of the divine law (which peculiarities you expect the church of Christ will adopt as it increases in spirituality) ; but instead of reproving the people, "when they turn to the right hand, and when they turn to the left," and telling them, " This is the way, walk ye in it ; " ] you praise and flatter all, who go directly contrary to what you say the Spirit of truth dictates. And as a striking instance of it, you tell one leading body of people, whom you accuse of gross superstition, and of holding dangerous tenets, that you regard them with a friendly eye, and rejoice in the evident extension of true religion within their bor- ders. Is this being faithful to the trust which you say is deposited with you ? How different your conduct from that of Josiah ! In his day, the great body of the people had departed, as they now have, from the pure worship of God. But as soon as Hilkiah found the book of the law, Josiah sent him and others, saying, " Go ye, enquire of the Lord for me, and for the peo- ple, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found : for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our Fathers have not hearkened to the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us"2 He neither courted nor flattered the idolatrous priests, nor their followers ; nor called them fellow worship- pers ; nor told them they could derive real instruction and edification from the observance of ordinances not of divine institution ; nor that God continued to accept 1 Isaiah xxx. 21. 2 2 Kings, xxii. 13. 108 the sincere heart, except it were under divine influ- ence ; nor that he was still pleased to bless a variety of means to a variety of conditions. No ! He rebuked them openly and fearlessly ; " he went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great ; and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the Lord. And.... he made a covenant before the Lord, to'walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all their heart, and with all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant. And he commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the grove, and for all the host of heaven : and he burned them without Jerusalem And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to bum incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem ; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven. And he brought out the grove from the house of the Lord, without Jerusalem,.... and burned it at the brook Kidron, and stamped it small to powder, and cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people. And he brought all the priests out of the cities of 109 Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beersheba, and brake down the high places of the gates that were in the entering in of the gate of Joshua, the governor of the city And all the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke the Lord to anger, Josiah took away, and did to them according to all the acts that he had done in Bethel And he commanded all the people, saying, Keep the passover unto the Lord your God, as it is written in the book of this covenant And all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book ;.... And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of MosesP J Here is a pattern for a faith- ful servant of God to follow. He knew his responsi- bility, and performed his Master's will, by maintaining the law, according to the sacred BOOK which had been committed to his keeping. Note the contrast ! I have now commented on the various extracts selected from your book; and, by bringing them to the gospel standard, I have shewn the fallacy of your reasoning. The great importance of the cause I have been vindicating urged me, while contending for the truths of the gospel, occasionally to use strong lan- guage; but I am far from intending any personal 1 2 Kings xxiii. 2—6. 8. 19. 21. 24. 26. 110 offence. And I trust you will not think me " your enemy because I tell you the truth."1 It is only the anti-scriptural opinions which you appear so anxious to promulgate, that I have been opposing. Your ar- rival, when you visit Liverpool, is publicly announced (and I presume the same practice prevails in other towns) ; and cards are distributed among the inhabi- tants inviting them to attend you at the meeting house : To hear, What ? Sentiments in many respects entirely at variance with the word of God. That such opinions should be promulgated year after year, and no one lift up his voice against them, is to me a matter of surprise, seeing we are exhorted " earnestly to contend for the faith."2 This consideration, with my regard for the divine records, have induced me to undertake this important duty (no other person, to my knowledge, having attempted it). I feel my inability to do justice to the subject; but as the Lord frequently executes his vast designs by means to human percep- tion the most unlikely, it may please him to bless these feeble endeavours, and make me his humble instrument to frustrate the object which you have evidently in view ; and to counteract the exertions which you are so strenuously making to depreciate and throw obloquy on the institutions of the Lord's house. If what I have written may preserve any one individual from the delusive snares laid for him in your writings and discourses; and if you yourself should thereby be led to search the Scriptures with humility, and prayer for the enlightening influence 1 1 Gal. iv. 16. 3 Jude 3. Ill of the Spirit of God to lead you into the true design of his ordinances, and to fill you " with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding," 1 I shall be amply recompensed ; and his name shall have all the praise. I remain, Sir, Your very sincere friend, SEACOME ELLISON. lltherland, near liverpool, 15th May, 1833. ' Col. i. 9. D. MARPI.F.S, PRINTER, LIVERPOOL. i