obtain it. We shall find some of them in their sermons speaking of
circumcision, baptismal washings and purifications, new moons, feasts of
the passover and unleavened bread, sacrifices, and other rites. We shall
find them dwelling on these as constituent parts of the religion of the
Jews. We shall find them immediately passing from thence to the religion
of Jesus Christ. Here all is considered by them to be spiritual.
Devotion of the heart is insisted upon as that alone which is acceptable
to God. If God is to be worshipped, it is laid down as a position, that
he is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth. We shall find them also,
in other of their sermons, but particularly in those preached after the
reformation, stating the advantages obtained by that event. The Roman
Catholic system is here considered by them to be as ceremonial as that
of the Jews. The Protestant is held out as of a more spiritual nature,
and as more congenial therefore with the spirit of the gospel. But what
is this but a confession, in each case, that in proportion as men give
up ceremonies and become spiritual in their worship, their religion is
the best, or that spirituality is the grand characteristic of the
religion of Jesus Christ? Now there immediately arises a presumption, if
spirituality of feeling had been intended as the characteristic of any
religion, that no ceremonious ordinances would have been introduced into
it.
If, again, I were to make an assertion to divines, that Jesus Christ
came to put an end to the ceremonial parts of the Jewish law, and to the
types and shadows belonging to the Jewish dispensation, they would not
deny it. But baptism and the supper were both of them outward Jewish
ceremonies, connected with the Jewish religion. They were both of them
types and shadows, of which the antetypes and substances had been
realized at the death of Christ. And therefore a presumption arises
again, that these were not intended to be continued.
And that they were not intended to be continued, may be presumed from
another consideration. For what was baptism to any but a Jew? What could
a Gentile have understood by it? What notion could he have formed, by
means of it, of the necessity of the baptism of Christ? Unacquainted
with purifications by water as symbols of purification of heart, he
could never have entered, like a Jew, into the spiritual life of such an
ordinance. And similar observations may be made with respect to the
Passover-Supper. A Gentile could have known nothing, like a Jew, of the
meaning of this ceremony. He could never have seen in the Paschal Lamb
any type of Christ, or in the deliverance of the Israelites from
Egyptian bondage, any type of his own deliverance from sin, so clearly
or so feelingly as if the facts and customs had related to his own
history, or as if he had been trained to the connexion by a long series
of prophecies. In short, the passover could have had but little meaning
to him.
From these circumstances, therefore, there would be reason to conclude,
that these ceremonies were not to be continued, at least to any but
Jews; because they were not fitted to the knowledge, the genius, or the
condition of the Gentile world.
But, independently of these difficulties, which arise from a general
view of these ordinances as annexed to a religion which is confessed to
be spiritual, others arise from a particular view of each. On the
subject of baptism, there is ground for argument, as to the meaning of
the word "baptize." This word, in consequence of its representation of a
watery ceremony, is usually connected with water in our minds. But it
may also, very consistently, be connected even with fire. Its general
meaning is to purify. In this sense many understand it. And those who
do, and who apply it to the great command of Jesus to his disciples,
think they give a better interpretation of it, than those who connect it
with water. For they think it more reasonable that the Apostles should
have been enjoined to go into all nations, and to endeavour to purify
the hearts of individuals by the spirit and power of their preaching,
from the dross of Heathen notions, and to lead them to spirituality of
mind by the inculcation of Gospel principles, than to dip them under
water, as an essential part of their new religion.
But on a supposition that the word baptize should signify to immerse,
and not to purify, another difficulty occurs; for, if it was thought
proper or necessary that persons should be initiated into Christianity
by water-baptism, in order to distinguish their new state from that of
the Jews or Heathens, who then surrounded them, it seems unnecessary for
the children of Christian parents, who were born in a Christian
community, and whose ancestors for centuries have professed the
Christian name.
Nor is it to be considered as any other than a difficulty that the
Christian world have known so little about water-baptism, that they have
been divided as to the right manner of performing it. The eastern and
western churches differed early upon this point, and Christians continue
to differ upon it to the present day; some thinking that none but
adults; others, that none but infants should be baptised: some, that the
faces only of the baptized should be sprinkled with water; others, that
their bodies should be immersed.
On the subject of the sacrament of supper, similar difficulties have
occurred.
Jesus Christ unquestionably permitted his disciples to meet together in
remembrance of their last supper with him. But it is not clear, that
this was any other than a permission to those who were present, and who
had known and loved him. The disciples were not ordered to go into all
nations, and to enjoin it to their converts to observe the same
ceremony. Neither did the Apostles leave any command by which it was
enjoined as an ordinance of the Christian church.
Another difficulty which has arisen on the subject of the supper, is,
that Christians seem so little to have understood the nature of it, or
in what it consisted, that they have had, in different ages, different
views, and encouraged different doctrines concerning it. One has placed
it in one thing, and another in another. Most of them, again, have
attempted in their explanation of it, to blend the enjoyment of the
spiritual essence with that of the corporeal substance of the body and
blood of Christ, and thus to unite a spiritual with a ceremonial
exercise of religion. Grasping, therefore, at things apparently
irreconcilable, they have conceived the strangest notions; and, by
giving these to the world, they have only afforded fuel for contention
among themselves and others.
In the time of the Apostles, it was the custom of converted persons,
grounded on the circumstances that passed at the supper of the passover,
to meet in religious communion. They used, on these occasions, to break
their bread, and take their refreshment and converse together. The
object of these meetings was to imitate the last friendly supper of
Jesus with his disciples, to bear a public memorial of his sufferings
and his death, and to promote their love for one another. But this
custom was nothing more, as far as evidence can be had, than that of a
brotherly breaking of bread together. It was no sacramental eating.
Neither was the body of Jesus supposed to be enjoyed, nor the spiritual
enjoyment, of it to consist in the partaking of this outward feast.
In process of time, after the days of the Apostles, when this simple
custom had declined, we find another meeting of Christians, in imitation
of that at the passover supper, at which both bread and wine were
introduced. This different commemoration of the same event had a new
name given to it; for it was distinguished from the other by the name of
Eucharist.
Alexander, the seventh bishop of Rome, who introduced holy water both
into houses and churches for spiritual purposes, made some alterations
in the ingredients of the Eucharist, by mixing water with the wine, and
by substituting unleavened for common bread.
In the time of Irenaeus and Justin the Martyr, we find an account of the
Eucharist as it was then thought of and celebrated. Great stress was
then laid upon the bread and wine as a holy and sacramental repast:
prayers were made that the Holy Ghost would descend into each of these
substances. It was believed that it did so descend; and that as soon as
the bread and wine perceived it, the former operated virtually as the
body, and the latter as the blood of Jesus Christ. From this time the
bread was considered to have great virtues; and on this latter account,
not only children, but sucking infants, were admitted to this sacrament.
It was also given to persons on the approach of death. And many
afterwards, who had great voyages to make at sea, carried it with them
to preserve them both from temporal and spiritual dangers.
In the twelfth century, another notion, a little modified from the
former, prevailed on this subject; which was, that consecration by a
Priest had the power of abolishing the substance of the bread, and of
substituting the very body of Jesus Christ.
This was called the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
This doctrine appeared to Luther, at the dawn of the reformation, to be
absurd; and he was of opinion that the sacrament consisted of the
substance of Christ's body and blood, together with the substance of the
bread and wine; or, in other words, that the substance of the bread
remained, but the body of Christ was inherent in it, so that both the
substance of the bread and of the body and blood of Christ was there
also. This was called the doctrine of Consubstantiation, in
contradiction to the former.
Calvin again considered the latter opinion erroneous: he gave it out
that the bread was not actually the body of Jesus Christ, nor the wine
his blood; but that both his body and blood were sacramentally received
by the faithful, in the use of the bread and wine. Calvin, however,
confessed himself unable to explain even this his own doctrine. For he
says, "if it be asked me how it is, that is, how believers sacramentally
receive Christ's body and blood? I shall not be ashamed to confess, that
it is a secret too high for me to comprehend in my spirit, or explain in
words."
But independently of the difficulties which have arisen from these
different notions concerning the nature and constitution of the Lord's
supper, others have arisen concerning the time and the manner of the
celebration of it.
The Christian churches of the east, in the early times, justifying
themselves by tradition and the custom of the passover, maintained that
the fourteenth day of the month Nissan ought to be observed as the day
of the celebration of this feast, because the Jews were commanded to
kill the Paschal Lamb on that day. The western, on the other hand,
maintained the authority of tradition and the primitive practice, that
it ought to be kept on no other day than that of the resurrection of
Jesus Christ. Disputes again of a different complexion agitated the
Christian world upon the same subject. One church contended that the
leavened, another that unleavened bread only should be used upon this
occasion: others contended, whether the administration of this sacrament
should be by the hands of the clergy only: others, whether it should not
be confined to the sick: others, whether it should be given to the young
and mature promiscuously: others, whether it should be received by the
communicant standing, sitting, or kneeling, or as the Apostles received
it: and others, whether it should be administered in the night time as
by our Saviour, or whether in the day, or whether only once, as at the
passover, or whether oftener in the year.
Another difficulty, but of a different nature, has occurred with respect
to the Lord's supper. This has arisen from the circumstance, that other
ceremonies were enjoined by our Saviour in terms equally positive as
this, but which most Christians, notwithstanding, have thought
themselves at liberty to reject. Among these the washing of feet is
particularly to be noticed. This custom was of an emblematic nature. It
was enjoined at the same time as that of the Lord's supper, and on the
same occasion. But it was enjoined in a more forcible and striking
manner. The Sandimanians, when they rose into a society, considered the
injunction for this ordinance to be so obligatory, that they dared not
dispense with it; and therefore, when they determined to celebrate the
supper, they determined that the washing of feet should be an ordinance
of their church. Most other Christians, however, have dismissed the
washing of feet from their religious observance. The reason given has
principally been, that it was an eastern custom, and therefore local. To
this the answer has been, that the passover, from whence the Lord's
supper is taken, was an eastern custom also, but that it was much more
local. Travellers of different nations had their feet washed for them in
the east. But none but those of the circumcision were admitted to the
passover-supper. If, therefore, the injunction relative to the washing
of feet, be equally strong with that relative to the celebration of the
supper, it has been presumed, that both ought to have been retained;
and, if one has been dispensed with on account of its locality, that
both ought to have been discarded.
That the washing of feet was enjoined much more emphatically than the
supper, we may collect from Barclay, whose observations upon it I shall
transcribe on this occasion.
"But to give a farther evidence, says he, how these consequences have
not any bottom from the practice of that ceremony, nor from the words
following, 'Do this in remembrance of me,' let us consider another of
the like nature, as it is at length expressed by John. [143] 'Jesus
riseth from supper and laid aside his garments, and took a towel, and
girded himself: after that, he poureth water into a bason, and began to
wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he
was girded. Peter said unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus
answered him. If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. So after he
had washed their feet, he said, Know ye what I have done to you? If I
then, your Lord and master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash
one another's feet: for I have given you an example, that ye should do
as I have done to you.' As to which let it be observed, continues
Barclay, that John relates this passage to have been done at the same
time with the other of breaking bread; both being done the night of the
passover, after supper. If we regard the narration of this, and the
circumstances attending it, it was done with far more solemnity, and
prescribed far more punctually and particularly, than the former. It is
said only, 'as he was eating he took bread;' so that this would seem to
be but an occasional business: but here 'he rose up, he laid by his
garments, he girded himself, he poured out the water, he washed their
feet, he wiped them with a towel.' He did this to all of them; which are
circumstances surely far more observable than those noted in the other.
The former was a practice common among the Jews, used by all masters of
families, upon that occasion; but this, as to the manner, and person
acting it, to wit, for the master to rise up, and wash the feet of his
servants and disciples, was more singular and observable. In the
breaking of bread and giving of wine, it is not pleaded by our
adversaries, nor yet mentioned in the text, that he particularly put
them into the hands of all; but breaking it, and blessing it, gave it
the nearest, and so they from hand to hand. But here it is mentioned,
that he washed not the feet of one or two, but of many. He saith not in
the former, that if they do not eat of that bread, and drink of that
wine, that they shall be prejudiced by it; but here he says expressly to
Peter, that 'if he wash him not, he hath no part with him;' which being
spoken upon Peter's refusing to let him wash his feet, would seem to
import no less, than not the continuance only, but even the necessity of
this ceremony. In the former, he saith as it were passingly, 'Do this in
remembrance of me:' but here he sitteth down again; he desires them to
consider what he hath done; tells them positively 'that as he hath done
to them, so ought they to do to one another:' and yet again he redoubles
that precept, by telling them, 'that he has given them an example, that
they should do so likewise.' If we respect the nature of the thing, it
hath as much in it as either baptism or the breaking of the bread;
seeing it is an outward element of a cleansing nature, applied to the
outward man, by the command and the example of Christ, to signify an
inward purifying. I would willingly propose this seriously to men, that
will be pleased to make use of that reason and understanding that God
hath given them, and not be imposed upon, nor abused by the custom or
tradition of others, whether this ceremony, if we respect either the
time that it was appointed in, or the circumstances wherewith it was
performed, or the command enjoining the use of it, hath not as much to
recommend it for a standing ordinance of the Gospel, as either
water-baptism, or bread and wine, or any other of that kind? I wonder
then, what reason the Papists can give, why they have not numbered it
among their sacraments, except merely Voluntas Ecclesiae et Traditio
Patrum, that is, the Tradition of the Fathers, and the Will of the
Church."
[Footnote 143: John 13. 3. &c.]
The reader will see by this time, that, on subjects which have given
rise to such controversies as baptism and the Lord's supper have now
been described to have done, people may be readily excused, if they
should entertain their own opinions about them, though these may be
different from those which are generally received by the world. The
difficulties indeed, which have occurred with respect to these
ordinances, should make us tender of casting reproach upon others, who
should differ from ourselves concerning them. For when we consider, that
there is no one point connected with these ordinances, about which there
has not been some dispute; that those who have engaged in these
disputes, have been men of equal learning and piety; that all of them
have pleaded primitive usage, in almost all cases, in behalf of their
own opinions; and that these disputes are not even now, all of them,
settled; who will take upon him to censure his brother either for the
omission or the observance of one or the other rite? And let the
Quakers, among others, find indulgence from their countrymen for their
opinions on these subjects. This indulgence they have a right to claim
from the consideration, that they themselves never censure others of
other denominations on account of their religion. With respect to those
who belong to the society, as the rejection of these ceremonies is one
of the fundamentals of Quakerism, it is expected that they should be
consistent with what they are considered to profess. But with respect to
others, they have no unpleasant feelings towards those who observe them.
If a man believes that baptism is an essential rite of the Christian
church, the Quakers would not judge him if he were to go himself, or if
he were to carry his children, to receive it. And if, at the communion
table, he should find his devotion to be so spiritualized, that, in the
taking of the bread and wine, he really and spiritually discerned the
body and blood of Christ, and was sure that his own conduct would he
influenced morally by it, they would not censure him for becoming an
attendant at the altar. In short, the Quakers do not condemn others for
their attendances on these occasions. They only hope, that as they do
not see these ordinances in the same light as others, they may escape
censure, if they should refuse to admit them among themselves.
CHAP. XV.
SECT. I.
_Baptism--Two baptisms--That of John and of Christ--That of John was by
water, a Jewish ordinance, and used preparatory to religious conversion
and worship--Hence John used it as preparatory to conversion to
Christianity--Jesus submitted to it to fulfil all righteousness--Others
as to a baptism to repentance--But it was not initiative into the
Christian church, but belonged to the Old Testament--Nor was John under
the Gospel, but under the law_.
I come now to the arguments which the Quakers have to offer for the
rejection of the use of baptism and of the sacrament of the supper; and
first for that of the use of the former rite.
Two baptisms are recorded in scripture--the baptism of John, and the
baptism of Christ.
The baptism of John was by water, and a Jewish ordinance. The washing of
garments and of the body, which were called baptisms by the Ellenistic
Jews, were enjoined to the Jewish nation, as modes of purification from
legal pollutions, symbolical of that inward cleansing of the heart,
which was necessary to persons before they could hold sacred offices,
or pay their religions homage in the temple, or become the true
worshippers of God. The Jews, therefore, in after times, when they made
proselytes from the Heathen nations, enjoined these the same customs as
they observed themselves. They generally circumcised, at least the
proselytes of the covenant, as a mark of their incorporation into the
Jewish church, and they afterwards washed them with water or baptized
them, which was to be a sign to them of their having been cleansed from
the filth of idolatry, and an emblem of their fitness, in case of a real
cleansing, to receive the purer precepts of the Jewish religion, and to
walk in newness of life.
Baptism therefore was a Jewish ordinance, used on religious occasions:
and therefore John, when he endeavoured by means of his preaching to
prepare the Jews for the coming of the Messiah, and their minds for the
reception of the new religion, used it as a symbol of the purification
of heart, that was necessary for the dispensation which was then at
hand. He knew that his hearers would understand the meaning of the
ceremony. He had reason also to believe, that on account of the nature
of his mission, they would expect it. Hence the Sanhedrim, to whom the
cognizance of the legal cleansings belonged, when they were informed of
the baptism of John, never expressed any surprise at it, as a now, or
unusual, or improper custom. They only found fault with him for the
administration of it, when he denied himself to be either Elias or
Christ.
It was partly upon one of the principles that have been mentioned, that
Jesus received the baptism of John. He received it as it is recorded,
because "thus it became him to fulfil all righteousness." By the
fulfilling of righteousness is meant the fulfilling of the ordinances of
the law, or the customs required by the Mosaic dispensation in
particular cases. He had already undergone circumcision as a Jewish
ordinance, and he now submitted to baptism. For as Aaron and his Sons
were baptized previously to the taking upon them of the office of the
Jewish priesthood, so Jesus was baptized by John previously to his
entering upon his own ministry, or becoming the high priest of the
Christian dispensation.
But though Jesus Christ received the baptism of John, that he might
fulfil all righteousness, others received it as the baptism of
repentance from sins, that they might be able to enter the kingdom that
was at hand. This baptism, however, was not initiative into the
Christian church. For the Apostles rebaptized some who had been baptized
by John. Those, again, who received the baptism of John, did not profess
faith in Christ, John again, as well as his doctrines, belonged to the
Old Testament. He was no minister under the new dispensation, but the
last prophet under the law. Hence Jesus said, that though none of the
prophets "were greater than John the baptist, yet he that is least in
the kingdom of Heaven is greater than he." Neither did he ever hear the
Gospel preached; for Jesus did not begin his ministry till John had been
put into prison, where he was beheaded by the orders of Herod. John, in
short, was with respect to Jesus, what Moses was with respect to Joshua.
Moses, though he conducted to the promised land, and was permitted to
see it from Mount Nebo, yet never entered it, but gave place to Joshua,
whose name, like that of Jesus, signifies a Saviour. In the same manner
John conducted to Jesus Christ. He saw him once with his own eyes, but
he was never permitted, while alive, to enter into his spiritual
kingdom.
SECT. II.
_Second baptism, or that of Christ--This the baptism of the gospel--This
distinct from the former in point of time; and in nature and essence--As
that of John was outward, so this was to be inward and spiritual--It was
to cleanse the heart--and was to be capable of making even the Gentiles
the seed of Abraham--This distinction of watery and spiritual baptism
pointed out by Jesus Christ--by St. Peter--and by St. Paul._
The second baptism, recorded in the scriptures, is that of Christ. This
may be called the baptism of the Gospel, in contradistinction to the
former, which was that of the law.
This baptism is totally distinct from the former. John himself
said,[144] "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that
cometh after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to
bear. He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire."
[Footnote 144: Matth. 3.11.]
From these words it appears, that this baptism is distinct, in point of
time, from the former; for it was to follow the baptism of John: and
secondly, in nature and essence; for whereas that of John was by water,
this was to be by the spirit.
This latter distinction is insisted upon by John in other places. For
when he was questioned by the Pharisees [145] "why he baptized, if he was
not that Christ, nor Ellas, nor that prophet," he thought it a
sufficient excuse to say, "I baptize with water;" that is, I baptize
with water only; I use only an ancient Jewish custom; I do not intrude
upon the office of Christ, who is coming after me, or pretend to his
baptism of the spirit. We find also, that no less than three times in
eight verses, when he speaks of his own baptism, he takes care to add to
it the word [146] "water," to distinguish it from the baptism of Christ.
[Footnote 145: John 1. 25]
[Footnote 146: John 1 from 25 to 34.]
As the baptism of John cleansed the body from the filth of the flesh, so
that of Christ was really to cleanse the soul from the filth of sin.
Thus John, speaking of Jesus Christ, in allusion to this baptism,
says,[147] "whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his
floor, and gather his wheat into his garner, but he will burn up the
chaff with unquenchable fire." By this he insinuated, that in the same
manner as the farmer, with the fan in his hand, winnows the corn, and
separates the light and bad grains from the heavy and the good, and in
the same manner as the fire afterwards destroys the chaff, so the
baptism of Christ, for which he was preparing them, was of an inward and
spiritual nature, and would effectually destroy the light and corrupt
affections, and thoroughly cleanse the floor of the human heart.
[Footnote 147: Mat. 3. 12]
This baptism, too, was to be so searching as to be able to penetrate the
hardest heart, and to make even the Gentiles the real children of
Abraham.[148] "For think not, says John, in allusion to the same
baptism, to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our Father; for I
say unto, you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children
unto Abraham." As if he had said, I acknowledge that you Pharisees can,
many of you, boast of relationship to Abraham by a strict and scrupulous
attention to shadowy and figurative ordinances; that many of you can
boast of relationship to him by blood; and all of you by circumcision.
But it does not follow, therefore, that you are the children of Abraham.
Those only will be able to boast of being his seed, to whom the fan and
fire of Christ's baptism shall be applied. The baptism of him, who is to
come after me, and whose kingdom is at hand, is of that spiritual and
purifying nature, that it will produce effects very different from those
of an observance of outward ordinances. It can so cleanse and purify the
hearts of men, that if there are Gentiles in the most distant lands,
ever so far removed from Abraham, and possessing hearts of the hardness
of stones, it can make them the real children of Abraham in the sight of
God.
[Footnote 148: Math. 3.9.]
This distinction between the watery baptism of John, and the fiery and
spiritual baptism of Christ, was pointed out by Jesus Christ himself;
for, he is reported to have appeared to his disciples after his
resurrection, and to have commanded them [149] "that they should not
depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which,
says he, ye have heard from me. For John truly baptized with water, but
ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."
[Footnote 149: Acts 1.4.]
Saint Luke also records a transaction which took place, in which Peter
was concerned, and on which occasion he first discerned the baptism of
Christ, as thus distinguished in the words which have been just given.
[150] "And as I began to speak, says he, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as
on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that
he said, John, indeed, baptised with water, but ye shall be baptized by
the Holy Spirit."
[Footnote 150: Acts II, 15,16.]
A similar distinction is made also by St. Paul; for when he found that
certain disciples had been baptized only with the baptism of John,[151]
he laid his hand upon them, and baptized them again; but this was with
the baptism of the spirit. In his epistle also, to the Corinthians, we
find the following expression:[152] "For by one spirit are we all
baptized unto one body."
[Footnote 151: Acts 19.]
[Footnote 152: I Cor. 12, 13].
SECT. III.
_Question is, which of these turn baptisms is included in the great
commission given by Jesus to his Apostles, "of baptizing in the name of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?"--Quakers deny it to be that
of John, because contrary to the ideas of St. Peter and St.
Paul--because the object of John's baptism had been completed--because
it was a type under the law, and such types were to cease._
It appears then that there are two baptisms recorded in Scripture; the
one, the baptism of John, the other that of Christ; that these are
distinct from one another; and that the one does not include the other,
except he who baptizes with water, can baptize at the same time with the
Holy Ghost. Now St. Paul speaks only of[153] one baptism as effectual;
and St. Peter must mean the same, when he speaks of the baptism that
saveth. The question therefore is, which of the two baptisms that have
been mentioned, is the one effectual, or saving baptism? or, which of
these it is, that Jesus Christ included in his great commission to the
Apostles, when he commanded them "to go and teach all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
[Footnote 153: Eph. 4.5.]
The Quakers say, that the baptism, included in this commission, was not
the baptism of John.
In the first place, St. Peter says it was not, in these words:
[154] "Which sometimes were disobedient, when once the long suffering of
God waited in the days of Noah while the Ark was preparing, wherein few,
that is, eight souls, were saved by water;[155] whose antetype baptism
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."
[Footnote 154: 1 Peter 3. 20. 21]
[Footnote 155: Antetype is the proper translation, and not "the figure
whereunto."]
The Apostle states here concerning the baptism that is effectual and
saving; first, that it is not the putting away of the filth of the
flesh, which is effected by water. He carefully puts those upon their
guard, to whom he writes, lest they should consider John's baptism, or
that of water, to be the saving one, to which he alludes; for, having
made a beautiful comparison between an outward salvation in an outward
ark, by the outward water, with this inward salvation by inward and
spiritual water, in the inward ark of the Testament, he is fearful that
his reader should connect these images, and fancy that water had any
thing to do with this baptism. Hence he puts his caution in a
parenthesis, thus guarding his meaning in an extraordinary manner.
He then shows what this baptism is, and calls it the answer of a good
conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In fact, he
states it to be the baptism of Christ, which is by the Spirit. For he
maintains, that he only is truly baptized, whose conscience is made
clear by the resurrection of Christ in his heart. But who can make the
answer of such a conscience, except the Holy Spirit shall have first
purified the floor of the heart; except the spiritual fan of Christ
shall have first separated the wheat from the chaff, and except his
spiritual fire shall have consumed the latter?
St. Paul makes a similar declaration: "For as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."[156] But no man, the Quakers
say, merely by being dipped under water, can put on Christ, that is, his
life, his nature, his disposition, his love, meekness, and temperance,
and all those virtues which should characterise a Christian.
[Footnote 156: Galat 3. 27.]
To the same purport are those other words by the same Apostle:[157] "Know
ye not, that so many of us as were baptized unto Jesus Christ, were
baptized into his 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." And again--[158] "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are
risen with him, through the faith of the co-operation of God, who hath
raised him from the dead." By these passages the Apostle Paul testifies
that he alone is truly baptized, who first dies unto sin, and is raised
up afterwards from sin unto righteousness, or who is raised up into life
with Christ, or who so feels the inward resurrection and glory of Christ
in his soul, that he walks in newness of life.
[Footnote 157: Rom. 6.3.4]
[Footnote 158: Colos. 2.12]
The Quakers show again, that the baptism of John could not have been
included in the great commission, because the object of John's baptism
had been completed even before the preaching of Jesus Christ.
The great object of John's baptism, was to make Jesus known to the Jews.
John himself declared this to be the object of it. [159] "But that he
should be made manifest unto Israel, _therefore_ am I come baptizing
with water." This object he accomplished two ways; first, by telling all
whom he baptized that Jesus was coming, and these were the Israel of
that time; for he is reported to have baptized all Jerusalem, which was
the metropolis, and all Judea, and all the country round about Jordan.
Secondly, by pointing him out personally.[160] This he did to Andrew, so
that Andrew left John and followed Jesus. Andrew, again, made him known
to Simon, and these to Philip, and Philip to Nathaniel; so that by means
of John, an assurance was given that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ.
[Footnote 159: John 1.31.]
[Footnote 160: John 1.40.]
The Quakers believe again, that the baptism of John was not included in
the great commission, because it was a type under the law, and all types
and shadows under the law were to cease under the Gospel dispensation,
or the law of Christ.
The salvation of the Eight by water, and the baptism of John, were both
types of the baptism of Christ. John was sent expressly before Jesus,
baptizing the bodies of men with water, as a lively image, as he himself
explains it, of the latter baptizing their souls with the Holy Ghost and
with fire. The baptism of John, therefore, was both preparative and
typical of that of Christ. And it is remarked by the Quakers, that no
sooner was Jesus baptized by John with water in the type, than he was,
according to all the Evangelists, baptized by the [161] Holy Ghost in
the antetype. No sooner did he go up out of the water, than John saw the
Heavens opened, and the spirit of God descending like a dove, and
lighting upon him. It was this baptism of Jesus in the antetype which
occasioned John to know him personally, and enabled him to discover him
to others. The baptism of John, therefore, being a type or figure under
the law, was to give way, when the antetype or substance became
apparent. And that it was to give way in its due time, is evident from
the confession of John himself. For on a question which arose between
some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying, and on a report
spread abroad, that Jesus had begun to baptize, John says, [162] "He
(Jesus) must increase, but I must decrease."--This confession of John
accords also with the following expressions of St. Paul: [163] "The Holy
Ghost this signifying, that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet
made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing, which
was a figure for the time then present,"--which stood only in meats and
drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances imposed on them until
the time of reformation.
[Footnote 161: Mat. 3. 16.--Mark 1. 10.]
[Footnote 162: John 3. 30.]
[Footnote 163: Heb. 9. 8. 9. 10.]
SECT. IV.
_Quakers show that the baptism, included in the great commission, which
appears not to be the baptism of John, is the baptism of Christ, from a
critical examination of the words in that commission--Way in which the
Quakers interpret these words--This interpretation confirmed by
citations from St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul_.
Having attempted to show, according to the method of the Quakers, that
the baptism of John is not the baptism included in the great commission,
I shall now produce those arguments, by which they maintain that that
baptism, which is included in it, is the baptism of Christ.
These arguments will be found chiefly in a critical examination of the
words of that commission.
To enable the reader to judge of the propriety of their observations
upon these words, I shall transcribe from St. Matthew the three verses
that relate to this subject.
[164] "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 whatsoever I have
commanded you. And lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world."
[Footnote 164: Mat. 23.18,19,20.]
The first observation, which the Quakers make, is upon the word
"THEREFORE." As all power is given unto _me_ both in Heaven and in
earth; and as I can on that account, and as I will qualify you, go ye
therefore, that is, having previously received from me the qualification
necessary for your task, go ye.
The next observation is, that the commission does not imply that the
Apostles were to teach and to baptize as two separate acts, but, as the
words intimate, that they were to teach baptizing.
The Quakers say again, that the word "teach" is an improper translation
of the original [165]Greek. The Greek word should have been rendered
"make disciples or proselytes." In several editions of our own Bibles,
the word "teach" is explained in the margin opposite to it, "make
disciples or Christians of all nations," or in the same manner as the
Quakers explain it.
[Footnote 165: [Greek: didasko] is the usual word for teach, but [Greek:
word] is used in the commission; which latter word occurs but seldom in
the New Testament, and always signifies to "disciple."]
On the word "baptize," they observe, that because its first meaning is
to wash all over, and because baptism with Christians is always with
water, people cannot easily separate the image of water from the word,
when it is read or pronounced. But if this image is never to be
separated from it, how will persons understand the words of St. Paul,
"for by one spirit are we all baptized into one body?" Or those of
Jesus, "Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of, or be baptized with the
baptism that I am baptized with?" Or, if this image is not to be
separated from it, how will they understand the Evangelists, who
represent Jesus Christ as about to baptize, or wash all over, with fire?
To baptize, in short, signifies to dip under water, but, in its more
general meaning, to purify. Fire and water have equally power in this
respect, but on different objects. Water purifies surfaces. Fire
purifies by actual and total separation, bringing those bodies into one
mass which are homogeneous, or which have strong affinities to each
other, and leaving the dross and incombustible parts by themselves.
The word "in" they also look upon as improperly translated. This word
should have been rendered [166] "into." If the word "in" were the right
translation, the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost," might be construed into a form of words to be used
at the time of baptism.
[Footnote 166: The word in the original Greek is [Greek word] and not
[Greek word]]
But we have no evidence that such a formula was ever used, when any of
the Apostles baptized. Indeed, the plain meaning of the word is "into,"
and therefore all such formula is groundless.[167] "Jesus Christ did
not, says Zuinglius, by these words institute a form of baptism, which
we should use, as divines have falsely taught."
[Footnote 167: Lib. de Bapt. p. 56, tom. 2. Oper.]
On the word "name," the Quakers observe, that, when it relates to the
Lord, it frequently signifies in scripture, his life, or his spirit, or
his power. Thus, [168] "in my name, shall they cast out devils." And,
[169] "by what power, or by what name have ye done this?"
[Footnote 168: Mark 16. 17.]
[Footnote 169: Acts 4. 7.]
From the interpretation, which has now been given of the meaning of
several of the words in the verses, that have been quoted from St.
Matthew, the sense of the commission, according to the Quakers, will
stand thus: "All power is given to me in Heaven and in earth. In virtue
of the power which I have, I will give you power also. I will confer
upon you the gift of the Holy Spirit. When you have received it, go into
different and distant lands; go to the Gentiles who live in ignorance,
darkness, and idolatry, and make them proselytes to my new dispensation;
so purifying their hearts, or burning the chaff of their corrupt
affections by the active fire of the Holy Spirit, which shall accompany
your preaching, that they may be made partakers of the divine nature,
and walk in newness of life. And lest this should appear to be too great
a work for your faith, I, who have the power, promise to be with you
with this my spirit in the work, till the end of the world."
The Quakers contend, that this is the true interpretation of this
commission, because it exactly coincides with the meaning of the same
commission as described by St. Luke and St. Mark, and of that also which
was given to St. Paul.
St. Luke states the commission given to the Apostles to have been
[170] "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his
name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." The meaning therefore
of the commission, as stated by St. Luke, is precisely the same as that
stated by St. Matthew. For first, all nations are included in it.
Secondly, purification of heart, or conversion from sin, is insisted
upon to be the object of it. And thirdly, this object is to be effected,
not by the baptism of water, (for baptism is no where mentioned,) but by
preaching, in which is included the idea of the baptism of the spirit.
[Footnote 170: Luke 24. 47]
St. Mark also states the commission to be the same, in the following
words: [171] "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." Here all nations, and the preaching of the Gospel, are
mentioned again; but baptism is now added. But the baptism that was to
go with this preaching, the Quakers contend to be the baptism of the
spirit. For first, the baptism here mentioned is connected with
salvation. But the baptism, according to St. Peter, which doth also now
save us, "is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer
of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ;"
or the baptism of the spirit. Secondly, the nature of the baptism here
mentioned is explained by the verse that follows it. Thus, "he that
believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved. And these signs shall follow
them that believe: they shall speak with new tongues." This therefore is
the same baptism as that which St. Paul conferred upon some of his
disciples by the laying on of his hands. [172] "And when Paul had laid
his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spake with
tongues and prophesied." Thus, again, it is demonstrated to be the
baptism of the spirit.
[Footnote 171: Mark 16.15.]
[Footnote 172: Acts 19.6.]
The commission also, which has been handed down to us by St. Matthew,
will be found, as it has been now explained, to coincide in its object
with that which was given to Paul, as we find by his confession to
Agrippa. For he declared[173] he was sent as a minister to the Gentiles
"to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from
the power of Satan unto God, that they might receive forgiveness of
sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith in
Christ." But what was this, the Quakers say, but to baptize them into
the life and spirit of a new and divine nature, or with the baptism of
Christ?
[Footnote 173: Acts 26.17. 18.]
And as we have thus obtained a knowledge from St. Paul of what his own
commission contained, so we have, from the same authority, a knowledge
of what it did not contain; for he positively declares, in his first
Epistle to the Corinthians, that "Christ sent him not to baptize
(evidently alluding to the baptism by water) but to preach the Gospel."
It is clear therefore that St. Paul did not understand his commission to
refer to water. And who was better qualified to understand it than
himself?
It is also stated by the Quakers, as another argument to the same point,
that if the baptism in the commission had been that of water only, the
Apostles could easily have administered it of themselves, or without
any supernatural assistance; but, in order that they might be enabled to
execute that baptism which the commission pointed to, they were desired
to wait for divine help. Jesus Christ said,[174] "I send the promise of
my father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be
endued with the power from on high; for John truly baptized with water,
but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." Now,
the Quakers ask, if baptism by water had been the baptism contained in
the great commission, why could not the Apostles have performed it of
themselves? What should have hindered them more than John from going
with people into the rivers, and immersing them? Why were they first to
receive themselves the baptism of the spirit? But if it be allowed, on
the other hand, that when they executed the great commission, they were
to perform the baptism of Christ, the case is altered. It became them
then to wait for the divine help. For it required more than human power
to give that baptism, which should change the disposition and affections
of men, and should be able to bring them from darkness unto light, and
from the power of Satan unto God. And here the Quakers observe, that the
Apostles never attempted to execute the great commission, till the time
fixed upon by our Saviour, in these words: "But tarry ye in the city of
Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." This was the day
of pentecost. After this "they preached, as St. Peter says, with the
Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven," and with such efficacy, that "the
Holy Ghost fell upon many of them, who heard their words."
[Footnote 174: Luke 24.49.]
SECT. V.
_Objection to the foregoing arguments of the Quakers--namely, "If it be
not the baptism of John that is included in the Great Commission, how
came the Apostles to baptize with water?"--Practice and opinions of
Peter considered--also of Paul--also of Jesus Christ--This practice, as
explained by these opinions, considered by the Quakers to turn out in
favour of their own doctrine on this subject._
I have now stated the arguments by which the Quakers have been induced
to believe that the baptism by the spirit, and not the baptism by water,
was included by Jesus Christ in the great commission which he gave to
his Apostles, when he requested them "to go into all nations, and to
teach them, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost."
Against these arguments the following question has been usually started,
as an objection: "If it be not included in the great commission, how
came the Apostles to baptize; or would they have baptised, if baptism
had not been considered by them as a Christian ordinance?"
The Quakers, in answering this objection, have confined themselves to
the consideration of the conduct of the Apostles Peter and Paul. For
though Philip is said to have baptized also, yet he left no writings
behind him like the former; nor are so many circumstances recorded of
him, by which they may be enabled to judge of his character, or to know
what his opinions ultimately were, upon that subject.
The Quakers consider the Apostles as men of the like passions with
themselves. They find the ambition of James and John; the apostacy and
dissimulation of Peter; the incredulity of Thomas; the dissention
between Paul and Barnabas; and the jealousies which some of them
entertained towards one another, recorded in holy writ. They believe
them also to have been mostly men of limited information, and to have
had their prejudices, like other people. Hence it was not to be expected
that they should come all at once into the knowledge of Christ's
kingdom; that, educated in a religion of types and ceremonials, they
should all at once abandon these; that, expecting a temporal Messiah,
they should lay aside at once temporal views; and that they should come
immediately into the full purity of the gospel practice.
With respect to the Apostle Peter, he gave early signs of the dulness of
his comprehension with respect to the nature of the character and
kingdom of the Messiah. [175]For when Jesus had given forth but a simple
parable, he was obliged to ask him the meaning of it. This occasioned
Jesus to say to him, "Are ye also yet without understanding?"
[Footnote 175: Matt. 15.16.]
In a short time afterwards, when our Saviour told him, [176] "that he
himself must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things, and be killed, and
be raised again the third day, Peter took him and rebuked him, saying,
Be it far from thee, Lord. This shall not be unto thee."
[Footnote 176: Matt. l6. 21. 22.]
At a subsequent time, namely, just after the transfiguration of Christ,
he seems to have known so little about spiritual things, that he
expressed a wish to raise three earthly tabernacles, one to Moses,
another to Elias, and a third to Jesus, for the retention of signs and
shadows as a Gospel labour, at the very time when Jesus Christ was
opening the dismission of all but one, namely, "the tabernacle of God,
that is with men."
Nor did he seem, at a more remote period, to have gained more large or
spiritual ideas. He did not even know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ
was to be universal. He considered it as limited; to the Jews, though
the words in the great commission, which he and the other Apostles had
heard, ordered them to teach all nations. He was unwilling to go and
preach to Cornelius on this very account, merely because he was a Roman
Centurion, or in other words, a Gentile; so that a vision was necessary
to remove his scruples in this particular. It was not till after this
vision, and his conversation with Cornelius, that his mind began to be
opened; and then he exclaimed, "Of a truth, I perceive that God is no
respecter of persons; but in every nation, he that feareth him and
worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."
The mind of Peter now began to be opened and to see things in a clearer
light, when a new occurrence that took place nearly at the same time,
seems to have taken the film still more from his eyes: for while he
preached to Cornelius, and the others present, he perceived that "the
Holy Ghost fell upon all of them that heard his words, as on himself and
the other Apostles at the beginning." Then remembered Peter the words of
the Lord, how that he said, "John indeed baptised with water, but ye
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost:" that is, Peter finding that
Cornelius and his friends had received, by means of his own powerful
preaching, the Holy Ghost, perceived then for the first time, to his
great surprise, that he had been executing the great commission of Jesus
Christ; or that he had taught a Gentile, and baptized him with the Holy
Spirit. Here it was that he first made the discrimination between the
baptism of John, and the baptism of Christ.
From this time there is reason to think that his eyes became fully open;
for in a few years afterwards, when we have an opportunity of viewing
his conduct again, we find him an altered man as to his knowledge of
spiritual things. Being called upon at the council of Jerusalem to
deliberate on the propriety of circumcision to Gentile converts, he
maintains that God gives his Holy Spirit as well to the Gentiles as to
the Jews. He maintains again, that God _purifies_ by _faith_; and he
delivers it as his opinion, that circumcision is to be looked upon as a
yoke. And here it may be remarked, that circumcision and baptism
uniformly went together, when proselytes of the covenant were made, or
when any of the Heathens were desirous of conforming to the whole of the
Jewish law.
At a time, again, subsequent to this, or when he wrote his Epistles
which were to go to the strangers all over Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,
Asia, and Bithynia, he discovers himself to be the same full grown man
in spiritual things on the subject of baptism itself, in these
remarkable words, which have been quoted: "Whose antitype baptism doth
also now save us, (not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the
answer of a good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ." So that the last opinion of Peter on the subject of
water-baptism contradicted his practice, when he was but a noviciate in
Christ's kingdom.
With respect to the Apostle Paul, whose practice I am to consider next,
it is said of him, as of St. Peter, that he baptized.
That Paul baptized is to be collected from his own writings. For it
appears, by his own account, that there had been divisions among the
Corinthians. Of those who had been converted to Christianity, some
called themselves after the name of Cephas; others after the name of
Apollos; others after the name of Paul; thus dividing themselves
nominally into sects, according to the name of him who had either
baptized or converted them. St. Paul mentions these circumstances, by
which it comes to light, that he used water-baptism, and he regrets that
the persons in question should have made such a bad use of this rite, as
to call themselves after him who baptized them, instead of calling
themselves after Christ, and dwelling on him alone. [177] "I thank God,
says he, that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius; lest any
should say that I baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the house
of Stephanas. Besides I know not whether I baptized any other, for
Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." Now this
confession of the Apostle, which is usually brought against the Quakers,
they consider to be entirely in their favour, and indeed decisive of the
point in question. For they collect from hence, that St. Paul never
considered baptism by water as any Gospel ordinance, or as any rite
indispensably necessary, when men were admitted as members into the
Christian church. For if he had considered it in this light, he would
never have said that Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the
Gospel. Neither would he have thanked God, on account of the mere abuse
of it, that he had baptized so few, for doubtless there were many among
the learned Greeks, who abused his preaching, and who called it
_foolishness_, but yet he nowhere says, that he was sorry on that
account that he ever preached to them; for preaching was a gospel
ordinance enjoined him, by which many were to be converted to the
Christian faith. Again--If he had considered water baptism, as a
necessary mark of initiation into Christianity, he would uniformly have
adopted it, as men became proselytes to his doctrines. But among the
thousands, whom in all probability he baptized with the Holy Spirit
among the Corinthians, it does not appear, that there were more than the
members of the three families of Crispus, Gaius, and Stephanus, whom be
baptized with water.
[Footnote 177: 1 Cor. I. 14, 15, 16.]
But still it is contended, that Paul says of himself, that the baptized.
The Quakers agree to this, but they say that he must have done it, in
these instances, on motives very different from those of an
indispensable Christian rite.
In endeavouring to account for these motives, the Quakers consider the
Apostle Paul as not in the situation of Peter and others, who were a
long time in acquiring their spiritual knowledge, during which they
might be in doubt as to the propriety of many customs; but as coming, on
the other hand, quickly and powerfully into the knowledge of Christ's
kingdom. Hence, when he baptized, they impute no ignorance to him. They
believe he rejected water-baptism as a gospel ordinance, but that he
considered it in itself as an harmless ceremony, and that, viewing it in
this light, he used it out of condescension to those ellenistic Jews,
whose prejudices, on account of the washings of Moses and their customs
relative to proselytes, were so strong, that they could not separate
purification by water from conversion to a new religion. For St. Paul
confesses himself that "to the weak he became as weak, that he might
gain the weak, and was made all things to all men, that he might by all
means save some." Of this his condescension many instances are recorded
in the New Testament, though it may be only necessary to advert to one.
At the great council at Jerusalem, where Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James,
and others, were present, it was[178] determined that circumcision was
not necessary to the Gentiles. St. Paul himself with some others carried
the very letter of the council, containing their determination upon this
subject, to Antioch to the brethren there. This letter was addressed to
the brethren of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. After having left Antioch,
he went to Derbe and Lystra, where, notwithstanding the determination of
himself and the rest of the council, that circumcision was not a
Christian rite, he[179] circumcised Timotheus, in condescension to the
weakness of the Jews, who were in those quarters.
[Footnote 178: Acts 15.]
[Footnote 179: Acts 16.3.]
In addition to these observations on the practice and opinions of the
Apostles, in the course of which the Quakers presume it will be found
that the baptism of John is not an ordinance of the Gospel, they presume
the same conclusion will be adopted, if they take into consideration the
practice and opinions of Jesus Christ.
That Jesus Christ never forbad water-baptism, the Quakers readily allow.
But they conceive his silence on this subject to have arisen from his
knowledge of the internal state of the Jews. He knew how carnal their
minds were; how much they were attached to outward ordinances; and how
difficult it was to bring them all at once into his spiritual kingdom.
Hence, he permitted many things for a time, on account of the weakness
of their spiritual vision.
That Jesus submitted also to baptism himself, they allow. But he
submitted to it, not because he intended to make it an ordinance under
the new dispensation, but to use his own words, "that he might fulfil
all righteousness." Hence, also he was circumcised. Hence he celebrated
the Passover. And hence, he was enabled to use these remarkable words
upon the cross: "It is fulfilled."
But though Jesus Christ never forbad water-baptism, and, though he was
baptized with water by John, yet he never baptized any one himself. A
rumour had gone abroad among the Pharisees, that the Jesus had baptized
more disciples than John the Baptist. But John, the beloved disciple of
Jesus, who had leaned on his bosom, and who knew more of his sentiments
and practice than any other person is very careful, in correcting this
hear-say report, as if unworthy of the spiritual mind of his master,
and states positively; [180] "that Jesus-baptized not."
[Footnote 180: John 4.2.]
The Quakers, lay a great stress upon this circumstance: for they say,
that if Jesus never baptized with water himself, it is a proof that he
never intended to erect water-baptism into a Gospel-rite. It is
difficult to conceive, they say, that he should have established a
Sacrament, and that he should never have administered it. Would he not,
on the other hand, if his own baptism had been that of water, have begun
his ministry by baptizing his own disciples, notwithstanding they had
previously been, baptized by John? But he not only never baptized, _but
it is no where_ recorded of him, that he ordered his disciples to
baptize "with water."[181] He once ordered a leper to go to the priest,
and to offer the gift for his cleansings. At another time[182], he
ordered a blind man to go and wash in the pool of Siloam; but he never
ordered any one to go and be baptized with water. On the other hand, it
is said by the Quakers, that he dearly intimated to three of his
disciples, at the transfiguration, that the dispensations of Moses and
John were to pass away; and that he taught himself, "that the kingdom of
God cometh not with observation;" or, that it consisted not in those
outward and lifeless ordinances, in which many of those to whom he
addressed himself placed the essence of their religion.
[Footnote 181: Mat. 8.4.]
[Footnote 182: John 9.7]
CHAP. XVI.
SECT. I.
_Supper of the Lord--Two such suppers, one enjoined by Moses, the other
by Jesus Christ--The former called the Passover--Original manner of its
celebration--The use of bread and wine added to it--Those long in use
when Jews Christ celebrated it--Since his time, alterations made in this
supper by the Jews--But bread and wine still continued to be component
parts of it, and continue so to the present day--Modern manner of the
celebration of it._
There are two suppers of the Lord recorded in the Scriptures; the first
enjoined by Moses, and the second by Jesus Christ.
The first is called the Supper of the Lord, because it was the last
supper which Jesus Christ participated with his disciples, or which the
Lord and master celebrated with them in commemoration of the passover.
And it may not improperly be called the Supper of the Lord on another
account, because it was the supper which the lord and master of every
Jewish family celebrated, on the same festival, in his own house.
This supper was distinguished, at the time alluded to, by the name of
the Passover Supper. The object of the institution of it was to
commemorate the event of the Lord passing over the houses of the
Israelites in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered the
former from their hard and oppressive bondage.
The directions of Moses concerning this festival were short, but
precise.
On the fourteenth day of the first month, called Nissan, the Jews were
to kill a lamb in the evening. It was to be eaten in the same evening,
roasted with fire, and the whole of it was to be eaten, or the remains
of it to be consumed with fire before morning. They were to eat it with
loins girded, with their shoes on their feet, and with their staves in
their hands, and to eat it in haste. The bread which they were to eat,
was to be unleavened, all of it, and for seven days. There was to be no
leaven in their houses during that time. Bitter herbs also were to be
used at this feast. And none who were uncircumcised were allowed to
partake of it.
This was the simple manner in which the passover, and the feast of
unleavened bread, which was included in it, were first celebrated. But
as the passover, in the age following its institution, was not to be
killed and eaten in any other place than where the Lord chose to fix his
name, which was afterwards at Jerusalem, it was suspended for a time.
The Jews, however, retained the festival of unleavened bread, wherever
they dwelt. At this last feast, in process of time, they added the use
of wine to the use of bread. The introduction of the wine was followed
by the introduction of new customs. The Lord or master of the feast used
to break the bread, and to bless it, saying, "Blessed be thou, O Lord,
who givest us the fruits of the earth." He used to take the cup, which
contained the wine, and bless it also: "Blessed be thou, O Lord, who
givest us the fruit of the vine." The bread was twice blessed upon this
occasion, and given once to every individual at the feast. But the cup
was handed round three times to the guests. During the intervals between
the blessing and the taking of the bread and of the wine, the company
acknowledged the deliverance of their ancestors from the Egyptian
bondage; they lamented their present state; they confessed their sense
of the justice of God in their punishment; and they expressed their hope
of his mercy from his former kind dealings and gracious promises.
In process of time, when the Jews were fixed at Jerusalem, they revived
the celebration of the passover, and as the feast of unleavened bread
was connected with it, they added the customs of the latter, and blended
the eating of the lamb and the use of the bread and wine, and several
accompaniments of consecration, into one ceremony. The bread therefore
and the wine had been long in use as constituent parts of the
passover-supper, and indeed of all the solemn feasts of the Jews, when
Jesus Christ took upon himself, as master of his own family of
disciples, to celebrate it. When he celebrated it, he did as the master
of every Jewish family did at that time. He took bread, and blessed,
and broke, and gave to his disciples. He took the cup of wine, and gave
it to them also. But he conducted himself differently from others in one
respect, for he compared the bread of the passover to his own body, and
the wine to his own blood, and led the attention of his disciples from
the old object of the passover, or deliverance from Egyptian bondage, to
a new one, or deliverance from sin.
Since the time of our Saviour, we find that the Jews, who have been
dispersed in various parts of the world, have made alterations in this
supper: but all of them have concurred in retaining the bread and wine
as component parts of it. This will be seen by describing the manner in
which it is celebrated at the present day.
On the fourteenth day of the month Nissan, the first-born son of every
family fasts, because the first-born in Egypt were smitten on that
night. A table is then set out, and covered with a cloth. On the middle
of it is placed a large dish, which is covered with a napkin. A large
passover cake of unleavened bread, distinguished by marks, and
denominated "_Israelite_," is then laid upon this napkin. Another, with
different marks, but denominated "_Levite_," is laid upon the first: and
a third, differently marked, and denominated "_Priest_," is laid upon
the second. Upon this again a large dish is placed, and in this dish is
a shank bone of a shoulder of lamb, with a small matter of meat on it,
which is burnt quite brown on the fire. This is instead of the lamb
roasted with fire. Near this is an egg, roasted hard in hot ashes, that
it may not be broken, to express the totality of the lamb. There is also
placed on the table a small quantity of raw charvil instead of the
bitter herbs ordered; also a cup with salt water, in remembrance of the
sea crossed over after that repast; also a stick of horse radish with
its green top to it, to represent the bitter labour that made the eyes
of their ancestors water in slavery; and a couple of round balls, made
of bitter almonds pounded with apples, to represent their labour in lime
and brinks. The seat or couch of the master is prepared at the head of
the table, and raised with pillows, to represent the masterly authority
of which the Jews were deprived in bondage. The meanest of the servants
are seated at the table for two nights with their masters, mistresses,
and superiors, to denote that they were all equally slaves in Egypt, and
that all ought to give the same ceremonial thanks for their redemption.
Cups also are prepared for the wine, of which each person must drink
four in the course of the ceremony. One cup extraordinary is set on the
table for Elias, which is drank by the youngest in his stead.
All things having been thus prepared, the guests wash their hands, and
seat themselves at table. The master of the family, soon after this,
_takes his cup of wine in his right hand_, and the rest at the table
doing the same, he says, together with all the others, "Blessed art
thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who hast created the fruit
of the vine." This is followed by a. thanksgiving for the institution of
the passover. _Then the cup of wine is drank by all_. Afterwards the
master of the family says, "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of
the Universe, who hast sanctified us with thy commandments, and
commanded us to cleanse our hands."
Then the master of the family desires the guests to partake of the
charvil dipped in salt water, which he gives them with an appropriate
blessing. He makes them touch also the dish, containing the egg and
shank bone of the lamb, and repeat with him a formula of words suited to
the subject. He then takes _the second cup of wine_, and uses words in
conjunction with the rest, expressive of the great difference between
this and any other night. After this, copious remarks follow on the
institution of the passover. Then follow queries and answers of the
rabbis on this subject: then historical accounts of the Jews: then the
fifteen acts of the goodness of God to the Jewish nation, which they
make out thus:--He led the Jews out of Egypt: he punished the Egyptians:
he executed judgment on their gods: he slew their first-born: he gave
the Jews wealth: he divided the sea for them: he made them pass through
it as on dry land: he drowned the Egyptians in the same: he gave food to
the Jews for forty years in the wilderness; he fed them with manna: he
gave them the sabbath: he brought them to Mount Sinai: he gave them the
law: he brought them to the Laud of Promise: he built the Temple.
When these acts of the goodness of God, with additional remarks on the
passover out of Rabbi Gamaliel, have been recited, all the guests touch
the dish which contains the three cakes of bread before mentioned, and
say: "This sort of unleavened bread, which we eat, is because there was
not sufficient time for the dough of our ancestors to rise, until the
blessed Lord, the King of Kings, did reveal himself to redeem them, as
it is written. And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough, which they
brought forth out of Egypt; for it was not leavened, because they were
thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry; neither had they prepared for
themselves any victuals." After this they touch the horse-radish and
join in a narration on the subject of their bondage. Then they take
_their third cup of wine_, and pronounce a formula of adoration and
praise, accompanied with blessings and thanksgivings, in allusion to the
historical part of the passover. After this the master of the family
washes his hands and says, "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of
the Universe, who hast sanctified us with thy Commandments, and
commanded us to cleanse our hands." He then breaks the _uppermost cake
of bread_ in the dish, and says, "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King
of the Universe, who hast brought forth bread from the earth." Then he
takes _half of another cake of bread, and breaks it_, and says, "Blessed
art thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who hast sanctified us
with thy commandments, and commanded us to eat the unleavened bread."
_Then he gives every one at the table of each of the two cakes of bread
that are broken_, and every one repeats audibly the two last blessings.
He then takes the green top from the horse-radish, and puts on the balls
before mentioned, and pronounces a blessing. He then puts these into the
hands of the guests, and they pronounce the same. After this, he cuts
the bottom cake, and puts a piece of it upon a piece of horse-radish,
and pronounces a formula of words, in allusion to an historical fact.
These ceremonies having been thus completed, the guests sup.
After supper, a long grace is said. Then the _fourth cup_ is filled. A
long prayer follows, on the subject of creation. This is again followed
by a hymn, enumerating and specifying the twelve wonders which God did
at midnight. Another hymn succeeds, specifying the fifteen great works
which God did at different times, both on the night, and on the day, of
the passover. Then follows a prayer in praise of God, in which a desire
is expressed, that they may again he brought to Jerusalem. Then follows
a blessing on the fourth cup which is taken; after which another hymn is
sung, in which the assistance of the Almighty is invoked for the
rebuilding of the temple. This hymn is followed by thirteen canticles,
enumerating thirteen remarkable things belonging to the Jews, soon after
which the ceremony ends.
This is the manner, or nearly the manner, in which the passover is now
celebrated by the Jews. The bread is still continued to be blessed, and
broken, and divided, and the cup to be blessed and handed round among
the guests. And this is done, whether they live in Asia, or in Europe,
or in any other part of the known world.
SECT. II.
_Second Supper is that enjoined by Jesus at Capernaum--It consists of
bread from Heaven--or of the flesh and blood of Christ--But these not of
a material nature, like the passover-bread, or corporeal part of
Jesus--but wholly of a spiritual--Those who receive it, are spiritually
nourished by it, and may be said to sup with Christ--This supper
supported the Patriarchs--and must be taken by all Christians--Various
ways in which this supper may be enjoyed_.
The second supper recorded in the scriptures, in which bread, and the
body, and blood of Christ, are mentioned, is that which was enjoined by
Jesus, when he addressed the multitude at Capernaum. Of this supper, the
following account may be given:
[183] "Labour not, says he to the multitude, for the meat which
perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which
the Son of Man shall give unto you."
[Footnote 183: John 6. 27.]
A little farther on, in the same chapter, when the Jews required a sign
from heaven, (such as when Moses gave their ancestors manna in the
wilderness,) in order that they might believe on him, he addressed them
thus: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread
from heaven: but my father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For
the bread of God is he that cometh down from heaven, and giveth light
unto the world."
Then said they unto him, "Lord, evermore give us this bread." And Jesus
said unto them, "I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall
never hunger; and he that believeth in me, shall never thirst."
It appears, that in the course of these and other words that were spoken
upon this occasion, the Jews took offence at Jesus Christ, because he
said, he was the bread that came down from heaven; for they knew he was
the son of Joseph, and they knew both his father and his mother. Jesus
therefore directed to them the following observations:
"I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness,
and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a
man may eat thereof and not die. I am the living bread, which came down
from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. And
the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life
of the world." The Jews, therefore, strove among themselves, saying, How
can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them,
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whosoever eateth my
flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up
at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink
indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me,
and I in him. As the living father hath sent me, and I live by the
father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that
bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and
are dead. He that eateth of this bread, shall live forever."
As the Jews were still unable to comprehend the meaning of his words,
which they discovered by murmuring and pronouncing them to be hard
sayings, Jesus Christ closes his address to them in the following words:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth. The flesh profiteth nothing: the
words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
It appears from hence, according to the Quakers, that Jesus Christ, in
mentioning the loaves, took occasion to spiritualize, as he did on all
other fit occasions, and to direct the attention of his followers from
natural to spiritual food, or from the food that perisheth, to that
which giveth eternal life.
Jesus Christ calls himself upon this occasion the living bread. He says
that this bread is his flesh, and that this flesh is meat indeed. The
first conclusion which the Quakers deduce on this subject, is, that this
bread, or this flesh and blood, or this meat, which he recommends to his
followers, and which he also declares to be himself, is not of a
material nature. It is not, as he himself says, like the ordinary meat
that perisheth, nor like the outward manna, which the Jews ate in the
wilderness for their bodily refreshment. It cannot therefore be common
bread, nor such bread as the jews ate at their passover, nor any bread
or meat ordered to be eaten on any public occasion.
Neither can this flesh or this bread be, as some have imagined, the
material flesh or body of Jesus. For first, this latter body was born of
the virgin Mary; whereas the other is described as having come down from
heaven. Secondly, because, when the Jews said, "How can this man give us
his flesh?" Jesus replied, "It is the spirit that quickeneth. The flesh
profiteth nothing;" that is, material flesh and blood, such as mine is,
cannot profit any thing in the way of quickening; or cannot so profit as
to give life eternal. This is only the work of the spirit. And he adds,
"the words I have spoken to you, they are spirit, and they are life."
This bread then, or this body, is of a spiritual nature. It is of a
spiritual nature, because it not only giveth life, but preserveth from
death. Manna, on the other hand, supported the Israelites only for a
time, and they died. Common bread and flesh nourish the body for a time,
when it dies and perishes; but it is said of those who feed upon this
food, that they shall never die. This bread, or body, must be spiritual
again, because the bodies of men, according to their present
organization, cannot be kept for ever alive; but their souls may. But
the souls of men can receive no nourishment from ordinary meat and
drink, that they should be kept alive, but from that which is spiritual
only. It must be spiritual again, because Jesus Christ describes it as
having come down from heaven.
The last conclusion which the Quakers draw from the words of our Saviour
on this occasion, is, that a spiritual participation of the body and
blood of Christ is such an essential of Christianity, that no person who
does not partake of them, can be considered to be a Christian; "for
except a man eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, he has
no life in him."
The Quakers therefore believe, that this address of Jesus Christ to his
followers near Capernaum, relates wholly to the necessity of the souls
of men being fed and nourished by that food, which it is alone capable
of receiving, namely, that which is of a spiritual nature, and which
comes from above. This food is the spirit of God; or, in the language of
the Quakers, it is Christ. It is that celestial principle, which gives
life and light to as many as receive it and believe in it. It is that
spiritual principle, which was in the beginning of the world, and which
afterwards took flesh. And those who receive it, are spiritually
nourished by it, and may be said to sup with Christ; for he himself
says, [184] "Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my
voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him,
and he with me."
[Footnote 184: Rev. 3. 20.]
This supper which Jesus Christ enjoins, is that heavenly manna on which
the Patriarchs feasted, before his appearance in the flesh, and by which
their inward man became nourished; so that some of them were said to
have walked with God; for those, according to St. Paul, [185] "did all
eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink;
for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock
was Christ."
[Footnote 185: 1 Cor. 10.3.4.]
This supper is also that "daily bread," since his appearance in the
flesh; or, as the old Latin translation has it, it is that
supersubstantial bread, which Christians are desired to pray for in the
Lord's prayer; that bread, which, according to good commentators, is
above all substance, and above all created things. For this bread fills
and satisfies. By extinguishing all carnal desires, it leaves neither
hunger nor thirst after worldly things. It redeems from the pollutions
of sin. It so quickens as to raise from death to life, and it gives
therefore to man a sort of new and divine nature, so that he can dwell
in Christ and Christ in him.
This supper, which consists of this manna, or bread, or of this flesh
and blood, may be enjoyed by Christians in various ways. It may be
enjoyed by them in pious meditations on the Divine Being, in which the
soul of man may have communion with the spirit of God, so that every
meditation may afford it a salutary supper, or a celestial feast. It may
be enjoyed by them when they wait upon God in silence, or retire into
the light of the Lord, and receive those divine impressions which
quicken and spiritualize the internal man. It may be enjoyed by them in
all their several acts of obedience to the words and doctrines of our
Saviour. Thus may men everyday, nay, every hour, keep a communion at the
Lord's table, or communicate, or sup, with Christ.
SECT. III.
_The question then is, whether Jesus Christ instituted any new supper,
distinct from that of the passover, (and which was to render null and
void that enjoined at Capernaum) to be observed as a ceremonial by
Christians--Quakers say, that no such institution can be collected from
the accounts of Matthew, or of Mark, or of John--The silence of the
latter peculiarly impressive in the present case._
It appears then, that there are two suppers recorded in the scriptures,
the one enjoined by Moses, and the other by Jesus Christ.
The first of these was of a ceremonial nature, and was confined
exclusively to the Jews: for to Gentile converts who knew nothing of
Moses, or whose ancestors were not concerned in the deliverance from
Egyptian bondage, it could have had no meaning.
The latter was of a spiritual nature. It was not limited to any nation.
It had been enjoyed by many of the Patriarchs. Many of the Gentiles had
enjoyed it also. But it was essentially necessary for all Christians.
Now the question is, whether Jesus Christ, when he celebrated the
passover, instituted any new supper, distinct from that of the
passover, and which was to render null, and void, (as it is the tendency
of ceremonies to do) that which he enjoined at Capernaum, to be observed
as an ordinance by the Christian world.
The Quakers are of opinion that no institution of this kind can be
collected from Matthew, Mark, or John. [186]St. Matthew mentions the
celebration of the passover supper in the following manner: "And as they
were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave to
his disciples, and said, take, eat, this is my body."
[Footnote 186: Mat. 26. 26.]
"And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying,
drink ye all of it."
"For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for
the remission of sins."
"But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the
vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my father's
kingdom."
St. Mark gives an account so similar to the former, that it is
unnecessary to transcribe it. Both mention the administration of the
cup; both the breaking and giving of the bread; both the allusion of
Jesus to his own body and blood; both the idea of his not drinking wine
any more but in a new kingdom; but neither of them mention any command,
nor even any insinuation by Jesus Christ to his disciples, that they
should do as he did at the passover supper.
St. John, who relates the circumstance of Jesus Christ washing the feet
of his disciples on the passover night, mentions nothing even of the
breaking of bread, or of the drinking of the wine upon that occasion.
As far therefore as the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and John, are
concerned, it is obvious, in the opinion of the Quakers, that Christians
have not the least pretence, either for the celebration of the passover,
or of that which they usually call the Lord's Supper; for the command
for such a supper is usually grounded on the words, "do this in
remembrance of me." But no such words occur in the accounts of any of
the Evangelists now cited.
This silence with respect to any command for any new institution is
considered by the Quakers as a proof, as far as these Evangelists are
concerned, that none was ever intended. For if the sacrament of the
supper was to be such a great and essential rite as Christians make it,
they would have been deficient in their duty, if they had failed to
record it. St. Matthew, who was at the supper, and St. Mark, who heard
of what had passed there, both agree that Jesus used the ceremony of the
bread and the wine, and also that he made an allusion from thence to his
own body and blood; but it is clear, the Quakers say, whatever they
might have heard as spoken by him, they did not understand him as
enjoining a new thing. But the silence of John, upon this occasion, the
Quakers consider as the most impressive in the present case. For St.
John was the disciple, who leaned upon the bosom of Jesus at this
festival, and who of course must have heard all that he said. He was
the disciple again, whom Jesus loved, and who would have been anxious to
have perpetuated all that he required to be done. He was the disciple
again, who so particularly related the spiritual supper which Jesus
enjoined at Capernaum, and in this strong language, that, "except a man
eat his flesh, and drink his blood, he has no life in him."
Notwithstanding this, St. John does not even mention what took place on
the passover night, believing, as the Quakers suppose, that it was not
necessary to record the particulars of a Jewish ceremony, which, being a
type, was to end when its antitype was realized, and which he considered
to be unnecessary for those of the Christian name.
SECT. IV.
_Account of St. Luke examined--According to him Jesus celebrated only
the old Jewish passover--Signified all future passovers with him were to
be spiritual--Hence he turned the attention of those present from the
type to the antitype--He recommended them to take their meals
occasionally together in remembrance of their last supper with him; or
if, as Jews, they could not relinquish the passover, to celebrate it
with a new meaning._
St. Luke, who speaks of the transactions which took place at the
passover-supper, is the only one of the Evangelists who records the
remarkable words, "do this in remembrance of me." St. Luke, however,
was not himself at this supper. Whatever he has related concerning it,
was from the report of others.
But though the Quakers are aware of this circumstance, and that neither
Matthew, Mark, nor John, give an account of such words, yet they do not
question the authority of St. Luke concerning them. They admit them, on
the other hand, to have been spoken; they believe however, on an
examination of the whole of the narrative of St. Luke upon this
occasion, that no new institution of a religious nature was intended.
They believe that Jesus Christ did nothing more than celebrate the old
passover; that he intimated to his disciples, at the time he celebrated
it, that it was to cease; that he advised them, however, to take their
meals occasionally, in a friendly manner, together, in remembrance of
him; or if, as Jews, they could not all at once relinquish the passover,
he permitted them to celebrate it with a new meaning.
In the first place St. Luke, and he is joined by all the other
Evangelists, calls the feast now spoken of the passover. Jesus Christ
also gives it the same name; for he says, "with desire I have desired to
eat this passover with you before I suffer."
Jesus Christ, according to St. Luke, took bread and broke it, and
divided it among his disciples. He also took the cup, and gave thanks,
and gave it among them. But this, the Quakers say, is no more than what
the master of every Jewish family did on the passover night: nor, is it
any more, as will have already appeared, than what the Jews of London,
or of Paris, or of Amsterdam, or of any other place, where bread and
wine are to be had, do on the same feast at the present day.
But though Jesus Christ conducted himself so far as other masters of
families did, yet he departed from the formula of words that was
generally used upon these occasions. For in the first place, he is
described to have said to his disciples, that "he would no more eat of
the passover, until it should be fulfilled in the kingdom of God;" and a
little farther on, that "he would not drink of the fruit of the vine,
till the kingdom of God should come; or, as St. Matthew has it, till he
should drink it new with them in his father's kingdom."
By these words the Quakers understand, that it was the intention of
Jesus Christ to turn the attention of his disciples from the type to the
antitype, or from the paschal lamb to the lamb of God, which was soon to
be offered for them. He declared, that all his passover suppers with
them were in future to be spiritual. Such spiritual passovers, the
Quakers say, he afterwards ate with them on the day of pentecost, when
the spirit of God came upon them; when their minds were opened, and when
they discovered, for the first time, the nature of his kingdom. And
these spiritual passovers he has since eaten, and continues to eat with
all those whose minds, detached from worldly pursuits and connexions,
are so purified and spiritualized, as to be able to hold communion with
God.
It is reported of him next, that "he took bread, and gave thanks, and
brake it, and gave to his disciples, saying, this is my body which is
given for you."
On these words the Quakers make the following observations:--The word
"this" does not belong to the word "bread," that is, it does not mean
that this bread is my body. For the word "bread" in the original Greek
is of the masculine, and the word "this" is of the neuter gender. But it
alludes to the action of the breaking of the bread, from which the
following new meaning will result. "This breaking of the bread, which
you now see me perform, is a symbol or representation of the giving, or
as St. Paul has it, of the breaking of my body for you."
In the same manner, the Quakers say, that the giving of the wine in the
cup is to be understood as a symbol or representation of the giving of
his blood for them.
The Quakers therefore are of opinion, when they consider the meaning of
the sayings of Jesus Christ both with respect to the bread and to the
wine, that he endeavoured again to turn the attention of his disciples
from the type to the antitype; from the bread and wine to his own body
and blood; from the paschal lamb that had been slain and eaten, to the
lamb that was going to be sacrificed; and as the blood of the latter
was, according to St. Matthew, for the remission of sins, to turn their
attention from the ancient object of the celebration of the passover, or
salvation from Egyptian bondage, to a new object, or the salvation of
themselves and others by this new sacrifice of himself.
It is reported of him again by St. Luke, after he had distributed the
bread and said, "this is my body which is given for you," that he added,
"this do in remembrance of me."
These words the Quakers believe to have no reference to any new
institution; but they contain a recommendation to his disciples to meet
in a friendly manner, and break their bread together, in remembrance of
their last supper with him, or if as Jews, they could not all at once
leave off the custom of the passover, in which they had been born and
educated as a religious ceremony, to celebrate it, as he had then
modified and spiritualized it, with a new meaning.
If they relate to the breaking of their bread together, then they do not
relate to any passover or sacramental eating, but only to that of their
common meals; for all the passovers of Jesus Christ with his disciples
were in future to be spiritual. And in this sense the primitive
Christians seem to have understood the words in question. For in their
religious zeal they sold all their goods, and, by means of the produce
of their joint stock, they kept a common table, and lived together. But
in process of time, as this custom from various causes declined, they
met at each other's houses, or at their appointed places, to break their
bread together, in memorial of the passover-supper. This custom, it is
remarkable, was denominated the custom of _breaking of bread_. Nor could
it have had any other name so proper, if the narration of St. Luke be
true. For the words "do this in remembrance of me," relate solely, as he
has placed them, to the breaking of the bread. They were used after the
distribution of the bread, but were not repeated after the giving of the
cup.
If they relate, on the other hand, to the celebration of the passover,
as it had been modified and spiritualized with a new meaning, then the
interpretation of them will stand thus: "As some of you, my disciples,
for ye are all Jews, may not be able to get over all your prejudices at
once, but may celebrate the passover again, and as it is the last time
that I shall celebrate it with you, as a ceremonial, I desire you to do
it in remembrance, or as a memorial of me. I wish the celebration of it
always to bring to your recollection this our last public meeting, the
love I bear to you, and my sufferings and my death. I wish your minds to
be turned from carnal to spiritual benefits, and to be raised to more
important themes than the mere escape of your ancestors from Egyptian
bondage. If it has been hitherto the object of the passover to preserve
in your memories the bodily salvation of your ancestors, let it be used
in future, if you cannot forsake it, as a memorial of your own spiritual
salvation; for my body, of which the bread is a representation, is to be
broken, and my blood, of which the wine is an emblem, is to be shed for
the remission of your sins."
But in whatever sense the words "do this in remembrance of me" are to be
taken, the Quakers are of opinion, as far as St. Luke states the
circumstances, that they related solely to the disciples themselves.
Jesus Christ recommends it to those who were present, and to those only,
to do this in remembrance of him. But he no where tells them to order or
cause it to be done by the whole Christian world, as he told them to
"preach the Gospel to every creature."
To sum up the whole of what has been said in this chapter:--If we
consult St. Luke, and St. Luke only, all that we can collect on this
subject will be, that the future passover-suppers of Christ with his
disciples were to be spiritual; that his disciples were desired to break
their bread together in remembrance of him; or if, as Jews, they could
not relinquish the passover, to celebrate it with a new meaning; but
that this permission extended to those only who were present on that
occasion.
SECT. V.
_Account of St. Paul--He states that the words "do this in remembrance
of me" were used at the passover-supper--That they contained a
permission for a custom, in which both the bread and the wine were
included--That this custom was the passover, spiritualised by Jesus
Christ--But that it was to last but for a time--Some conjecture this
time to be the destruction of Jerusalem--But the Quakers, till the
disciples had attained such a spiritual growth, that they felt Christ's
kingdom substantially in their hearts--And as it was thus limited to
them, so it was limited to such Jewish converts as might have adopted it
in their times._
The last of the sacred writers, who mentions the celebration of the
passover-supper, is St. Paul, whose account is now to be examined.
St. Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, reproves[187] the
latter for some irregularities committed by them in the course of their
religious meetings. What these meetings were is uncertain. They might
have been for the celebration of the passover-supper, for there was a
synagogue of Jews at Corinth, of whom some had been converted. Or they
might have been for the celebration of the passover as spiritualized by
Jesus Christ, or for the breaking of bread, which customs both the
Jewish and Gentile converts might have adopted. The custom, however, at
which these irregularities took place, is called by St. Paul, the Lord's
Supper. And this title was not inapplicable to it in either of the cases
supposed, because it must have been, in either of them, in
commemoration of the last supper, which Jesus Christ, or the Lord and
Master, ate with his disciples before he suffered.
[Footnote 187: Chap. 11.]
But whichever ceremonial it was that St. Paul alluded to, the
circumstances of the irregularities of the Corinthians, obliged him to
advert to and explain what was said and done by Jesus on the night of
the passover-supper. This explanation of the Apostle has thrown new
light upon the subject, and has induced the Quakers to believe, that no
new institution was intended to take place as a ceremonial to be
observed by the Christian world.
St. Paul, in his account of what occurred at the original passover,
reports that Jesus Christ made use of the words "this do in remembrance
of me." By this the Quakers understand that he permitted something to be
done by those who were present at this supper.
He reports also, that Jesus Christ used these words, not only after the
breaking of the bread, but after the giving of the cup: from whence they
conclude, that St. Paul considered both the bread and the wine, as
belonging to that which had been permitted.
St. Paul also says, "for as often as ye eat this bread and drink this
cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." By these words they
believe they discover two things; first, the nature of the thing
permitted; and, secondly, that the thing permitted, whatever it was, was
to last but for a time.
The thing then, which was permitted to those who were present at the
passover-supper, was to show or declare his death. The words "show or
declare," prove, in the first place, the connexion of the thing
permitted with the Jewish passover. For after certain ceremonies had
been performed on the passover night, "the showing forth or
declaration," as it was called, followed; or the object of the meeting
was declared aloud to the persons present, or it was declared to them
publicly in what particulars the passover feast differed from all the
other feasts of the Jews. Secondly, the word "death" proves the thing
permitted to have been the passover, as spiritualized by Jesus Christ;
for by the new modification of it, his disciples, if they were unable to
overcome their prejudices, were to turn their attention from the type to
the antitype, or from the sacrifice of the paschal lamb to the sacrifice
of himself, or to his own sufferings and death. In short, Jesus Christ
always attempted to reform by spiritualizing. When the Jews followed him
for the loaves, and mentioned manna, he tried to turn their attention
from material to spiritual bread. When he sat upon Jacob's well, and
discoursed with the woman of Samaria, he directed her attention from
ordinary, or elementary to spiritual and living water. So he did upon
this occasion. He gave life to the dead letter of an old ceremony by a
new meaning. His disciples were from henceforth to turn their attention,
if they chose to celebrate the passover, from the paschal lamb to
himself, and from the deliverance of their ancestors out of Egyptian
bondage to the deliverance of themselves and others, by the giving up of
his own body and the shedding of his own blood for the remission of
sins.
And as the thing permitted was the passover, spiritualized in this
manner, so it was only permitted for a time, or "until he come."
By the words "until he come," it is usually understood, until Christ
come. But though Christians have agreed upon this, they have disagreed
as to the length of time which the words may mean. Some have understood
that Jesus Christ intended this spiritualized passover to continue for
ever as an ordinance of his church, for that "till he come" must refer
to his coming to judge the world. But it has been replied to these, that
in this case no limitation had been necessary, or it would have been
said at once, that it was to be a perpetual ordinance, or expressed in
plainer terms, than in the words in question.
Others have understood the words to mean the end of the typical world,
which happened on the destruction of Jerusalem, when the Jews were
dispersed, and their church, as a national one, done away. For the
coming of Christ and the end of the world have been considered as
taking place at the same time. Thus the early Christians believed, that
Jesus Christ, even after his death and resurrection, would come again,
even in their own life time, and that the end of the world would then
be. These events they coupled in their minds; "for[188] they asked him
privately, saying, tell us when these things shall be, and what shall be
the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world?" Jesus told them in
reply, that the end of the world and his coming would be, when there
were wars, and rumours of wars, and earthquakes, and famine, and
pestilence, and tribulations on the earth; and that these calamities
would happen even before the generation, then alive, would pass away.
Now all these things actually happened in the same generation; for they
happened at the destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus Christ therefore meant
by the end of the world, the end of the Jewish world, or of the world of
types, figures, and ordinances: and he coupled naturally his own coming
with this event, because he could not come fully into the hearts of any,
till these externals were done away. He alluded, in short, to the end of
the Jewish dispensation and the beginning of his own spiritual kingdom,
or to the end of the ceremonial and the beginning of the Gospel world.
[Footnote 188: Matt. 24.]
Those therefore who interpret the words "till he come" to mean the end
of the typical world, are of opinion that the passover, as spiritualized
by Jesus Christ, was allowed to the disciples, while they lived among a
people, so wedded to religious ceremonies as the Jews, with whom it
would have been a stumbling block in the way of their conversion, if
they had seen the Apostles, who were their countrymen, rejecting it all
at once; but that it was permitted, them, till the destruction of
Jerusalem, after which event the Jews being annihilated as a nation, and
being dispersed and mixed among the infinitely greater body of the
Gentiles, the custom was to be laid aside, as the disuse of it could not
be then prejudicial to the propagation of the Gospel among the community
at large.
The Quakers, however, understand the words "till he come," to mean
simply the coming of Christ substantially in the heart. Giving the words
this meaning, they limit the duration of the spiritualized passover, but
do not specify the time. It might have ceased with some of them, they
say, on the day of pentecost, when they began to discover the nature of
Christ's kingdom; and they think it probable, that it ceased with all of
them, when they found this kingdom realized in their hearts. For it is
remarkable that those, who became Gospel writers, and it is to be
presumed that they had attained great spiritual growth when they wrote
their respective works, give no instructions to others, whether Jews or
Gentiles, to observe the ceremonial permitted to the disciples by Jesus,
as any ordinance of the Christian church. And in the same manner as the
Quakers conceive the duration of the spiritualized passover to have been
limited to the disciples, they conceive it to have been limited to all
other Jewish converts, who might have adopted it in those times, that
is, till they should find by the substantial enjoyment of Christ in
their hearts, that ceremonial ordinances belonged to the old, but that
they were not constituent parts of the new kingdom.
SECT. VI.
_Quakers believe, from the preceding evidence, that Jesus Christ
intended no ceremonial for the Christian church--for if the custom
enjoined was the passover spiritualized, it was more suitable for Jews
than Gentiles--If intended as a ceremonial, it would have been commanded
by Jesus to others besides his disciples, and by these to the Christian
world--and its duration would not have been limited--Quakers believe St.
Paul thought it no Christian ordinance--three reasons taken from his
own writings on this subject._
The Quakers then, on an examination of the preceding evidence, are of
opinion that Jesus Christ, at the passover-supper, never intended to
institute any new supper, distinct from that of the passover, or from
that enjoined at Capernaum, to be observed as a ceremonial by
Christians.
For, in the first place, St. Matthew, who was at the supper, makes no
mention of the words "do this in remembrance of me."
Neither are these words, nor any of a similar import, recorded by St.
Mark. It is true indeed that St. Mark was not at this supper. But it is
clear he never understood from those who were, either that they were
spoken, or that they bore this meaning, or he would have inserted them
in his Gospel.
Nor is any mention made of such words by St. John. This was the beloved
disciple who was more intimate with Jesus, and who knew more of the mind
of his master, than any of the others. This was he who leaned upon his
bosom at the passover-supper, and who must have been so near him as to
have heard all that passed there. And. yet this disciple did not think
it worth his while, except manuscripts have been mutilated, to mention
even the bread and wine that were used upon this occasion.
Neither does St. Luke, who mentions the words "do this in remembrance of
me," establish any thing, in the opinion of the Quakers, material on
this point. For it appears from him that Jesus, to make the most of his
words, only spiritualized the old passover for his disciples, all of
whom were Jews, but that he gave no command with respect to the
observance of it by others. Neither does St. Luke himself enjoin or call
upon others to observe it.
St. Paul speaks nearly the same language as St. Luke, but with this
difference, that the supper, as thus spiritualised by Jesus, was to last
but for a time.
Now the Quakers are of opinion, that they have not sufficient ground to
believe from these authorities, that Jesus intended to establish any
ceremonial as an universal ordinance for the Christian church. For if
the custom enjoined was the spiritualized passover, it was better
calculated for Jews than for Gentiles, who were neither interested in
the motives nor acquainted with the customs of that feast. But it is of
little importance, they contend, whether it was the spiritualized
passover or not; for if Jesus Christ had intended it, whatever it was,
as an essential of his new religion, he would have commanded his
disciples to enjoin it as a Christian duty, and the disciples themselves
would have handed it down to their several converts in the same light.
But no injunction to this effect, either of Jesus to others, or of
themselves to others, is to be found in any of their writings. Add to
this, that the limitation of its duration for a time, seems a sufficient
argument against it as a Christian ordinance, because whatever is once,
most be for ever, an essential in the Christian church.
The Quakers believe, as a farther argument in their favour, that there
is reason to presume that St. Paul never looked upon the spiritualised
passover as any permanent and essential rite, which Christians were
enjoined to follow. For nothing can be more clear than that, when
speaking of the guilt and hazard of judging one another by meats and
drinks, he states it as a general and fundamental doctrine of
Christianity, that [189] "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but
righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
[Footnote 189: Romans 14. 17.]
It seems also by the mode of reasoning which the Apostle adopts in his
epistle to the Corinthians on this subject, that he had no other idea of
the observance of this rite, than he had of the observance of particular
days, namely, that if men thought they were bound in conscience to keep
them, they ought to keep them religiously. "He that regardeth a day,
says the Apostle, regardeth it to the Lord." That is, "as he that
esteemed a day, says Barclay, and placed conscience in keeping it, was
to regard it to the Lord, (and so it was to him, in so far as he
regarded it to the Lord, the Lord's day,) he was to do it worthily: and
if he were to do it unworthily, he would be guilty of the Lord's day,
and so keep it to his own condemnation." Just in the same manner St.
Paul tells the Corinthian Jews, that if they observed the ceremonial of
the passover, or rather, "as often as they observed it," they were to
observe it worthily, and make it a religious act. They were not then
come together to make merry on the anniversary of the deliverance of
their ancestors from Egyptian bondage, but to meet in memorial of
Christ's sufferings and death. And therefore, if they ate and drank the
passover, under its new and high allusions, unworthily, they profaned
the ceremony, and were guilty of the body and blood of Christ.
It appears also from the Syriac, and other oriental versions of the New
Testament, such as the Arabic and Ethiopic, as if he only permitted the
celebration of the spiritualized passover for a time in condescension to
the weakness of some of his converts, who were probably from the Jewish
synagogue at Corinth. For in the seventeenth verse of the eleventh
chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians, the Syriac runs thus:
[190] "As to that, concerning which I am now instructing you, I commend
you not, because you have not gone forward, but you have gone down into
matters of less importance." "It appears from hence, says Barclay, that,
the Apostle was grieved, that such was their condition that he was
forced to give them instruction concerning these outward things, and
doting upon which they showed that they were not gone forward in the
life of Christianity, but rather sticking in the beggarly elements; and
therefore the twentieth verse of the same version has it thus:
[191]'When then ye meet together, ye do not do it as it is just ye
should in the day of the Lord; ye eat and drink.' Therefore showing to
them, that to meet together to eat and drink outward bread and wine, was
not the labour and work of that day of the Lord."
[Footnote 190: The Syriac is a very ancient version, and as respectable
or of as high authority as any. Leusden and Schaaf translate the Syriac
thus: "Hoc autem, quod praecipio, non tanquam laudo vos, quia non
progressi estis, sed ad id, quod minus est, descendistis." Compare this
with the English edition.]
[Footnote 191: Quum igitur congregamini, non sicut justum est die domini
nostri, comeditis et bibites. Leusden et Schaaf lordoni butavorum.]
Upon the whole, in whatever light the Quakers view the subject before
us, they cannot _persuade_ themselves that Jesus Christ intended to
establish any new _ceremonial_, distinct from the passover-supper, or
which should render null and void, (as it would be the tendency of all
ceremonials to do) the supper which he had before commanded at
Capernaum. The only supper which he ever enjoined to Christians, was the
latter. This spiritual supper was to be eternal and universal. For he
was always to be present with those "who would let him in, and they were
to sup with him, and he with them." It was also to be obligatory, or an
essential, with all Christians. "For except a man were to eat his flesh,
and to drink his blood, he was to have no life in him." The supper, on
the other hand, which our Saviour is supposed to have instituted on the
celebration of the passover, was not enjoined by him to any but the
disciples present. And it was, according to the confession of St. Paul,
to last only for a time. This time is universally agreed upon to be that
of the coming of Christ. That is, the duration of the spiritualized
passover was to be only till those to whom it had been recommended, had
arrived at a state of religious manhood, or till they could enjoy the
supper which Jesus Christ had commanded at Capernaum; after which
repast, the Quakers believe they would consider all others as empty, and
as not having the proper life and nourishment in them, and as of a kind
not to harmonize with the spiritual nature of the Christian religion.
END OF THE SECOND VOLUME