Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

2d. There is no clear proof of the ordinance having been administered by immersion in a single case during the ministry of Christ and his apostles. Even the baptism of Christ by John, does not appear to have been by immersion, because (1.) It was not the customary mode of administering the rite among the Jews. (2.) This mode did not comport with the design of his baptism. He was baptized "to fulfil all righteousness" -the requirements of the Jewish law. In Lev. viii. 6, 12, 30, we find what was the mode of consecrating priests to the sacred office--" Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water"-not in water. "He poured anointing oil upon Aaron's head, to sanctify him;" "He sprinkled the anointing oil and blood upon Aaron and his sons." Now, in compliance with this well-known custom among the Jews, Christ was baptized-washed-consecrated-by John, and formally inducted into the office of the Christian priesthood, and we maintain that his being immersed would have been an unmeaning ceremony, so far as the mode is concerned, and that only by sprinkling, pouring, or both, could the Saviour "fulfil all righteousness." (3.) The prepositions "into," "out of,” and “from,” in the Greek Testament, do not convey the idea of immersion, as every school-boy knows, who has studied the Greek language. Christ went up "into a mountain"-was he immersed in the mountain ? "There came boats from Tiberias"-had they been immersed in Tiberias? The strong probability is, that Christ went down to Jordan to wash, in compliance with the Jewish custom of consecration. Having washed his hands, and probably his feet, in the water, John took of the liquid element, and poured and sprinkled it upon his person, and the Holy Ghost then lighted upon him. All this is in keeping with the design of his baptism: any other mode would have failed in expressiveness.

(4.) The baptism of the thousands on the day of Pentecost affords an evidence that immersion could not have been physi. cally possible. Three thousand were bantized in the space of

a few hours. Now, if each of the twelve apostles baptized which is not at all certain-there would have been two hundred and fifty for each apostle to baptize, within these few hours; and think you that these three thousand could have been immersed in the small brook of Cedron, the receptacle of all the filth and refuse stuff of a large city like Jerusalem ?

(5.) The baptism of the Philippian jailer, with his household, in the house, at midnight, is a proof that immersion could not have been the mode, as is also the baptism of Saul, “who arose,”—stood up-" and was baptized.”

(6.) The fact that the "Spirit, the water, and the blood, are said to agree in one," is a proof that immersion cannot be the mode of baptism prescribed by the Holy Scriptures. These three "agree," partly in the design, and partly in the mode: and if we can be assured of the mode in which blood was anciently applied to the person, as a symbol of moral cleansing through the blood of Christ-which was invariably by sprinkling-then have we a criterion by which to judge of the proper mode of applying water to the candidate for baptism; and if we learn that the Spirit is said "to be shed on us," to "fall on us," to be "given" to us, to "descend," &c., then may we infer, that pouring or sprinkling are the authorized and proper modes of administering this important symbolical rite; while it is at the same time cheerfully admitted, that immersion is also valid-for those, who from conscientious motives prefer that mode.

ARTICLE XVIII.

OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.

"The supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

THE LORD'S SUPPER.

179

"Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by holy writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

"The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper is faith.

The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

The former part of this article is designed to show what the Lord's Supper is, and the three latter clauses are designed to guard this sacred institution from the false views of the Roman Church, who believe that the body and blood of Christ are really and literally present in the sacrament; that as soon as the priest blesses the elements of bread and wine, a transubstantiation, or change of substance, takes place in these elements, and that they immediately become changed into flesh and blood, soul and divinity, so that the whole Christ is really and bodily present. The absurdity and blasphemy of this doctrine is so apparent, that we need not attempt to prove to the intelligent reader the falsity of a doctrine as unreasonable as it is monstrous.

The Lord's Supper is designated by different names in the New Testament. It is called the Eucharist-the Communion -the Sacrament-the Paschal feast-the Passover-all of which appellations are used to signify some particular property or design in this solemn ordinance: as a Eucharist it partakes of the nature of a solemn thanksgiving to God; as a communion, it shows the fellowship existing between Christ and his disciples, and between the disciples themselves; as a sacrament, it partakes of the nature of a solemn covenant engagement, entered into between the Saviour and his worshippers; as a Paschal feast, or Passover, it is designed to commemorate the sufferings and death of Christ, and in connection therewith, the deliverance wrought out for us by the same. The phrase

Lord's Supper, it is thought by some, was not applied by the Saviour or his apostles to this sacrament; as however it was used in reference to the last supper which Christ ate with his disciples, and the Eucharist was celebrated immediately after supper, it has grown into common use, and is so designated in the Article before us.

[ocr errors]

The design of this sacrament has perhaps been sufficiently stated, as above. We wish, however, further to say, that in partaking of the same, in commemoration of the sufferings and death of Christ, it is with strict reference to the vicarious nature of the atonement; not to commemorate his death as a martyr, or as the founder of a new dispensation, but as God in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself," by his own blood. Thus we recognize the proper and essential divinity of our Lord, and for this reason we prefer not to join any, in the act of communing, who deny the vicarious nature of the atonement, or the Godhead of the "Man Christ Jesus." Unitarians, Socinians, and others of every grade or name, who deny these doctrines, or either of them, must excuse us if we refuse to partake with them, or neglect to invite them to partake with us at the Lord's table.

ARTICLE XIX.

OF BOTH KINDS.

પ The cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people; for both the parts of the Lord's Supper, by Christ's ordinance and com· mandment, ought to be administered to all Christians alike."

This Article has reference to the unscriptural and unreasonable practice of the Church of Rome, in withholding the cup from the laity in the administration of the Lord's Supper. Notwithstanding it is expressly and fully admitted by that

THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST.

181

church, that communion in both kinds was the practice of Christ and his apostles, as also of the primitive Christians, yet, by the decrees of councils, and the bulls of popes, anathemas are hurled against those who shall say that the laity of the church ought not to be denied the cup. Aside from the unscriptural character of the prohibition, is it not evident that the laity of that church are denied the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? If by the Lord's Supper is intended the eating of bread and the drinking of wine, as instituted by Jesus Christ; and if it can be celebrated with nothing less than bread and wine; then is it evident that the sacrament of the Eucharist is a thing unknown to the great body of the Roman Church, while denied the use of the cup, and if the definition of the

Church," as given by a former Article, is correct, namely, “a congregation of faithful men, where the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered," then it follows, as a matter of necessity, that the Roman Church is no Church of Christ, because the sacraments are not duly administered, according to Christ's institution; or if a church, the clergy only constitute the same, as they, only, receive the communion in both kinds.

ARTICLE XX.

OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST, FINISHED UPON THE CROSS.

"The offering of Christ, once made, is that perfect redemption, pro pitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual: and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore, the sacrifice of masses, in the which it is commonly said, that the priest doth offer Christ, for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, is a blasphemous fable, and dangerous deceit."

The former part of this Article endorses an important truth taught in God's holy word, namely, the General Redemption

« PreviousContinue »