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.