is actually adopted by Mr. G. the frequent occurrence of the terms "bapas a proof on his own side of the question. The other exception alluded to is one of still greater moment: it is that of the Divine Founder of our religion himself. The Lord Jesus Christ rendered in his own person a complete obedience to all righteous ness, as it was observed under the law; and therefore he submitted to the baptism of John. But his own converts, who be longed to that spiritual institution which he so frequently denominates the " kingdom of heaven," (see Matt. xi. 11, &c.) hé baptized not. Although he permitted his disciples to practise that ceremony, he abstained from it himself. This fact is noticed by the Apostle John, who, after stating that "the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John," carefully adds, (for the prevention of error, no doubt, on so interesting a subject,)" though (or howbeit, Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples;" John, iv. 1, 2. Those preachers of the Gospel, therefore, who consider it their duty, in conformity with the great funda mental law of Christian worship, to abstain from the practice of baptizing their converts in water, have the consolation to know that in adopting such a line of conduct, they are following the example of Him who is on all bands allowed to have afforded us a perfect pattern.-Pp. 92, 93. The other passage of Scripture is from Matthew, xxviii. 18-20. "Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and 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." The force of this passage is thus evaded: Jesus commands his Apostles to make disciples of all nations; and in executing that high commission, it was to be their duty, as we learn from his subsequent words, to baptize the persons whom they taught, unto the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Now the peculiar solemnity of that parting moment, and the apparent improbability that on such an occasion a merely external ceremony should be so prominently insisted on-the method so often employed by Jesus of conveying instruction and precept concerning spiritual things, in words which bore an outward allusion to the flesh — * See, for example, John, iii. 5.—iv. 14, 32-vi. 53. -vii. 33. tize" and "baptism" in the New Testament, and particularly in the discourses of Christ himself, in a sense purely metaphorical-the abolition, under the new dispensation, of the whole Jewish ritual, and the substitution of a worship entirely spiritual -the evidence derived from so many other explicit passages of Scripture, în favour of the doctrine that the baptism of Christianity is the work of the Spirit only-the pointed manner in which Jesus himself, in a preceding part, as is most probable, of this very conversation, contrasted that efficacious influence, the privilege of his own followers, with the water-baptism of John, Acts, i. 5. All these are collateral circumstances which bear with no slight degree of force on the passage before us; and which, when considered as a whole, appear to afford substantial evidence that the baptism of which the use was thus prescribed to his Apostles by the Redeemer of men, was simply and exclusively a spiritual baptism.-P. 86. Now we must here first protest against the claim advanced by Mr. G. grounded on the example left us by our Lord himself: and, further, we must argue, that the force of that example is entirely on our side. It was an exception to the practice of water baptism," says Mr. Gurney. This we must deny. For, in the first place, Jesus himself received baptism. Mr. G. says, that he rendered dience to all righteousness, as it in his own person a complete obewas observed under the law; and therefore he submitted to the baptism of John." How "therefore?" In what part of the law was the baptism of John commanded? But, further, "his own disciples Does baptized great multitudes.” Mr. Gurney suppose, that this practice was followed constantly by all our Saviour's disciples, either in spite of his disapprobation, or even without his approval? But we wish principally to call our reader's attention to these two passages, as affording a good idea of the method adopted by our author, of attacking each opposing text singly, and of thus escaping the conclusions which would naturally be drawn from it if taken in connexion with other passages, Thus, with some labour it is true, and in not the most satisfactory manner, he has contrived to nullify the opposition apparently presented to his views by these two texts. But he has succeeded so far, let it be observed, only by discussing apart two passages which essentially illustrate each other. For when taken in connexion, the facts they establish are as follow: 1. That the disciples had been accustomed to administer baptism by water to all new converts. 2. That they had adopted and continued this practice under the eye of the Lord, and, it may be concluded, with his approval. 3. That on his departure from them, he enjoined them to "preach the Gospel to all nations, baptizing them." 4. That he fur ther prescribed a form, or invocation, to be used in administering baptism," in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 5. That there is nothing in either of the statements of this command at all implying, that the simple language then used was intended to be understood figuratively. And, lastly, it ought not to be forgotten, that the universal practice of the apostolic age proves, that the words were understood literally by all to whom they were addressed. Either the meaning attached by Mr. Gurney to these few simple expressions, is not the correct one, or, if it be, the Christian world has to lament that fifteen hundred years should have elapsed before the discovery was made. There is one other text of Scripture on this subject which we wish to bring under our author's notice. Indeed we are rather surprised to find it passed over in silence in his review of the scriptural evidence on this point. It will be observed by all the readers of Mr. G.'s work, that he studiously describes Baptism as of two kinds-merely ex ternal, the application of water, unaccompanied by any spiritual influence-and, entirely spiritual, unaccompanied by any external rite. Now we submit, that the Scripture constantly speaks of a kind of Baptism combining these two, which Mr. G. seems so desirous of setting in opposition to each other-a Baptism consisting, as our Church states it, both of outward and visible sign, and an inward and spiritual grace." The text we wish to bring forward seems to us most clearly to establish this point. It is as follows: 66 an "Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus; and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's Baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, That they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, "the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spake with tongues and they prophesied."-Acts, xix. 1-5. It appears, undeniably, from this passage, that St. Paul considered the gift of the Holy Spirit to be connected with what Mr. Gurney calls "the merely external rite of water Baptism." These disciples had not received the Holy Ghost. St. Paul inquires the reason. Had they been rightly admitted by Baptism? It turns out that they had not. They, therefore, at his instance, receive the rite of Christian Baptism, and with it the gift of the Holy Spirit. Such, are the facts as simply stated in Scripture; but which appear to us irreconcileable with Mr. Gur ney's system. The next subject on which we dissent from Mr. Gurney is that of the Lord's Supper. His views on this point will be best understood from the following passage of his work: On a comparison with certain parts of the following chapter (1 Cor. x. 15—22), it must in all fairness be allowed, that the bread broken and the cup of blessing, which the Apostle here describes as a "joint participation in the body and blood of Christ," are the bread and the cup of wine which were eaten and drunk in a literal sense, at the supper denominated by the Apostle himself, the Lord's Supper; ch. xi. 20. It appears, then, that those who ate and drank together of that bread and wine, were joint participants in the body and blood of Christ, on the same principle, and in the same sense, that the Jews who ate together of the sacrifices ordained by the law were joint participants in the altar, and the Christians who united with idolaters in the eating of meats offered to false gods, were joint participants in devils. As no one imagines that these mixed companies of idolaters and Christians united in eating the devils, or that the Jewish wor shippers united in eating the altar, so it is altogether an error to suppose, that the Christian communicants are here represented by the Apostle, as feeding on the body and blood of Christ. When we compare the three cases together, the whole that we can gather from the Apostle's description of the bread and wine is this: that, as the eaters of meats sacrificed to the idols were joint participants in those things which respected the service of devils; and as the Jews, who ate the victims sacrificed under the law, were joint participants in those things which respected the altar; so the Christians, when they met to éelebrate the Lord's Supper, were joint participants in those things which respected the body and blood or the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I have entered into this examination of the passage before us, not so much for the purpose of disproving the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, as in order to show that the Apostle's words give no real countenance to the notion so generally entertained among Protestants, that those who rightly communicate in the rite of the Lord's Supper do thereby feed together, in a spiritual sense, on the body and blood of Christ.-Pp. 93–96. presence of the Saviour's body and blood, in any sense, in this Sacrament; thus depriving it of its principal, if not only, intent and meaning. When we find an author venturing thus far in opposition to the plain words of Scripture, we naturally turn over the leaves to see in what way he contrives to escape from the simple but positive expressions used by our Lord at the institution of this Sacrament. All the four Evangelists agree in the words used by Christ "Take, eat, this is my body." "This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many." And how language so plain could be misunderstood, or made to appear doubtful, we could not imagine. We searched, however, in Mr. Gurney's book, in vain for any attempt to evade the force of the passage. To his credit, he has left the words without any attempt to weaken their force, or to divert their meaning. But, then, our wonder is naturally excited to find so able a reasoner as this author, sending forth an elaborate argument against the presence, in any sense, of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament; in which argument he never attempts lessen the force of the one great scriptural fact which, if left untouched, renders all that he can adduce against the doctrine entirely useless. to It will be said, however, that if Mr. G. concedes the point, that in the Apostolic times, and in the use of the Passover, Christ's body and blood might be understood to be in some sense present,-still he argues, that the command of our Saviour was confined to the persons then addressed, and concerned only their future celebrations of the Passover. On the first of these points we remark, that the extent of the command is indicated by a single expression of St. Luke: This is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me." All, therefore, who have the comfortable assurance, that Christ's body was sacrificed for them, are here bidden to "do this in remembrance of him." On the other point, we observe, that it was not the Pas chal Lamb, a sacrifice peculiar to the Jews, which our Saviour directed to be received as his body. The representatives of his body and blood, then chosen, were bread and wine, substances in use in every country and at every period, by which was plainly betokened the universality of the benefits of his sacrifice, and also of the ordinance he was then instituting. It was not a new direction given to the Paschal Feast, it was the substitution of a simple and more general memorial, in the room of the Jewish rite. Another passage of St. Paul, in the xith chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, is thus explained: Here, however, it appears necessary to notice a particular expression of the Apostle Paul, from which many persons have derived an opinion, that this practice is obli gatory on believers in Jesus until the end of the world. "For as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup," says the Apostle, in a passage already cited, " ye do show the Lord's death till he come." The inference deduced from these words respecting the necessary permanence of the rite of the Lord's Supper, appears to be ill-founded. For, in the first place, they contain no command to the Corinthians to continue the practice in question until the Lord's coming; and in the second place, it is evi dent from the context, that it was not here the Apostle's object to impress upon his friends the duration of the custom, but only its meaning or direction. The stress of his declaration plainly lies upon the words, "Ye do show the Lord's death. The words "till he come" were probably added as a kind of reservation; for the purpose of conveying the idea, that when the Lord himself should come, such a memorial of his death would be obsolete and unnecessary. Pp. 110, 111. We cannot but feel assured, that our readers will think this, like the former quotation on the same subject, a very unsatisfactory mode of explanation. Let it be allowed, that the passage under consideration" contains no command” to continue the use of the Sacrament. But why does it not? Because no command was needed; because the "practice," as Mr. Gurney calls it, was "continued ;" and because "the religious peculiarities of the Society of Friends" were unknown in apostolic times. We are willing to concede, also, that the words, "till he come,' were probably added as a kind of reservation; implying, "that when the Lord himself should come, such a memorial of his death would be obsolete and unnecessary." But, then, we require Mr. Gurney to go the full length of this his own interpretation, and to concede, that until "the Lord himself does come, such a menorial is not obsolete or unnecessary." We have to complain here, also, of the method adopted by Mr. Gurney, to ascertain the real weight of Scripture authority on the point in question. If the passages, which we bring forward as commands, be disputed, and their force or relevancy questioned, then let other parts of Holy Writ be examined for evidence tending to illustrate the real meaning, and for proof as to the sense in which the disputed passages were understood at the very time of their first appearance, and while their wriwhich Mr. Gurney seems to us ters were still living. Instead of to be too apt to take up each text apart from the rest of Scripture, and then to employ all the powers of his favourite " 'philology to draw from it a sense favourable to his view of the question. Let us take, for instance, the first of the two passages brought forward by our author as the only two upon which our error in continuing the rite can be founded. It is quoted from Luke, xxii. 19, 20, being our Lord's institution of the Sacrament. Now, in com menting upon this, Mr. G. contends, that the command, "do this in remembrance of me," was addressed to the twelve disciples, and was meant for them only. But if he had referred to St. Paul's words, 1 Cor. xi. 23-29, he would have found, that the Apostle delivered the same injunction to these, his Greek converts, and most explicitly tells them, as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." 66 Now, Mr. Gurney has brought forward these very words of St. Paul; but then he does it not to explain and elucidate the meaning of the passage in St. Luke, but to be made the object of a distinct and separate attack. "The Apostle (says Mr. G.) is not arguing upon the practice of celebrating the Lord's Supper. The passage contains no command," &c. It was not necessary that it should contain any command, since it proves very distinctly, that both the Apostle and his converts had reference to a previous command of Christ himself. But yet we cannot but think, that the language of the verses referred to does very explicitly "enjoin" the use of the ordinance. It recounts the words of the Lord Jesus on instituting the Supper, and further adds, "let a man examine himself; and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup." The practice, however, of which we are complaining, is that of taking up passages of Scripture in this isolated manner, questioning the meaning or extent of a command, in one instance, and then pausing at another, because it is not a command; instead of using the latter, as common sense would dictate, to show what meaning the Apostle himself attached to the former. In leaving this part of the sub un ject, we cannot but express our surprise, that Mr. Gurney should have incidentally quoted St. Paul's words: "whosoever shall cat this bread and drink this cup worthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.""" For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body:" and should have forgotten to explain how they can possibly be understood in a sense consistent with his own views- "that the observance of the Lord's supper ""has no proper or necessary connexion with a spiritual feeding on the body and blood of Christ." Certainly the agreement between these two statements is by no means obvious; and we should doubt whether" philology" itself would be able to make it clear to unlearned readers. One topic only remains, of the three to which our attention must be confined-the topic of the appointment and remuneration of the ministers of the Gospel. We have not, perhaps, so full instructions on this point in Scripture, as could be adduced in defence of the Sacraments; but we think that common sense might easily determine between the system Mr. G. defends, and that to which he objects. The ground taken by our author is thus described by him: It is a principle generally understood and admitted by the members of that Society, that the faculty of the Christian ministry is a gift of the Spirit which cannot be rightly exercised otherwise than under the direct and immediate influence of that Spirit. Friends are not, therefore, satisfied with any general impression that it is they venture, under their duty to preach the Gospel; nor do such impression, either to employ their own intellectual exertions as a preparation for the service, or to select their own time for performing it. If it be the divine will that they should minister, they believe it will be manifested to them by the divine Spirit when they are to speak, whom they are to address, and what things they are to express.-P. 121. We are unable to assent to this principle, because it appears to us |