longer holds its authority: and, on this subject, it would be wholly unfair not to let Mr. Gurney speak for himself. After describing the Law of Moses as a figure for the time then present, and as having a shadow of good things to come, he proceeds with his usual ability. "But important as was the purpose thus answered by the establishment and maintenance of the ceremonial law, it was one of a merely temporary nature. When the Messiah was come-when he had re vealed the spiritual character of his own dispensation when he had died for our sins when he had risen again for our justification when he had shed forth on his disciples the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit-then were all the types fulfilled; then was the law of types abolished.”— After quoting Heb. vii. 18, 19, and x. 5-9, he thus argues : "The system of types and sacrificial ordinances therefore being taken away,' and the system of spiritualities being by the coming of Christ established, we are no longer to worship the Father through the intervention of a human priesthood, of formal ceremonies, or of typical institutions, but solely through the mediation of the High Priest of our profession, and under the immediate and all-sufficient influences of the Holy Ghost. Although the shadows of the old law formed an essential part of the Jewish dispensation, they were no sooner imposed upon Christians than they became unlawful, and assumed the character of an unrighteous bondage and of beggarly elements;' Gal. iv. 9. Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ, from the rudiments of the world,' says the Apostle Paul to his Colossian converts, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances?' Col. ii. 20, comp. 14, Eph. ii. 14-16." Gurney, pp. 64, 65. Priest, another Lawgiver, another code, another worship arose; taking up, indeed, all that was of lasting obligation in the Law of Moses, but establishing something else, wholly independent of Moses's authority. Hitherto, then, we are perfectly agreed. But, if it is intended further to shew what it is which Christianity teaches, by taking the express negation or opposite to all that Moses taught, we must then have our author's warrant for so doing; and a far clearer warrant than he has yet given. Would he abrogate the Ten Commandments because Moses taught them, or the Sabbath because Moses prescribed it? Does he forbid prayer because Moses practised it? Does he dismiss the Christian ministry because of Aaron's ministry? Would he have us forsake the assembling of ourselves together, because Moses called a solemn assembly? Does he renounce all his own forms, ceremonies, customary and prescrib ed proceedings in worship, because the Law of Moses had also certain forms and proceedings? Or would he have no "helps," noremembrance of past mercies and events, because Moses sang a song of perpetual use in the church; nay, even though in heaven they still sing "the song of Moses and the Lamb?" Nothing of all this Mr. Gurney will of course reply. But still-" we are now no longer to worship the Fa ther through the intervention of a human priesthood, of formal ceremonies, or of typical institutions." And why not? If by the expression, " intervention of a human priesthood," is meant "the assistance of men ministers," did none but Moses use men ministers and even women ministers*, as special agents in the service of God? And, formal ceremonies, or even typical again, did none but Moses ever use institutions? The truth is, that al Indeed, we know not how any spiritual dispensation could venture on any thing so Mosaic as a woman ministry: witness the songs of Miriam and Deborah., 20 though our author's language may be so construed as to overthrow the whole code of formality in use among Friends, as well as all other higher degrees of formality ever existing in the world; yet it would appear from the title of this chapter that all he means is typical institutions. He urges the disuse of all TYPICAL rites in the service of God. And why types should be so superabundantly offensive above all other external forms, we know not, except it be that under them may be conveniently ranged the proscribed sacraments of the Christian church.-But to bring this somewhat arbitrary assumption of our author to some test, we will admit, that type and sacrament may possibly mean (which however they do not) exactly the same thing; an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace," as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof;' and we shall still think that he entirely fails in his proof that such a kind, or mode, or act of religious edification was either invented by Moses, or con fined to his time, or to his code; and, therefore, that such rites cannot on that ground alone, or on that ground at all, be withheld from the Christian church. That the particular acts performed in Baptism and the Lord's Supper, were incidentally performed in the course of Jewish ceremonies, and in part prescribed by Moses, does not appear to us to affect the question, although many pages of this elaborate chapter seem to be written to prove that point. All the learning, therefore, which has been translated into the present volume, from Talmuds and Lexicons, and commentators Greek, Latin, and English, to prove that washings with water, and eating at the Passover, were Jewish customs, and in part Mosaic orders, might have been spared for one single note out of Mant's Family Bible, or Mr. Scott's Commentary, as explaining things already sufficiently known, Doubtless they were used by the 3 two wody bawolls Jews, like many other things; like the expressions, for example, in the Lord's Prayer; but they were adopted for quite another purpose into the Christian code. And if sacra, ments are to be used, Mr. Gurney will perhaps agree with us, that none could have been devised so simple and beautiful, so little carnal, so truly according to former scriptural analogies, and so little likely to offend either Jew or Gentile, as the customary emblems of water sprinkling, and sharing toge ther a morsel of bread and a cup of wine. "I will sprinkle clean water upon you," says the Prophet, and ye shall be clean." The Gospel is predicted under the emblem of a feast; and it is remarkable that the Saviour himself embodies to us the figure of the second sacrament, when he says, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." But, to come still more closely to Scripture, and to the words of Christ, we must do Mr. Gurney the further justice of giving his positive argument against sacramental rites, drawn from the alleged express prohibition of them by Christ himself. This comes home to the point ; and this express prohibition against sacramental rites, be it observed, is the only direct one in the whole Bible quoted by Mr. Gurney. It is as follows: Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Yo worship ye know not what we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth." John iv. 21-24. Is the reader satisfied? We ap prehend not nor do we believe that ever there was a Friend, worsa Christian of any sect, who would have been led from such a passage alone, without prejudice or human comment, only by the teaching of the heavenly Monitor within, to guess at its containing a prohibition To 29aniq 19m) qb Dag 315isque owi of sacramental rites. But now for the human comment. In this passage of our Lord's discourse, there is an evident allusion to two separate and distinct systems of worship, appertaining respectively to two different dispensations; and it is equally clear that the change was then about to take place from one of these to the other; that the one was about to be abolished-the other to be established. The system of worship about to be abolished was that which the Jews were accustomed to practise at Jerusalem, and which the Samaritans had endeavoured to imitate on their favourite mountain. Now every one who is acquainted with the records of the Old Testament must be aware that this was a system of worship chiefly consisting in outward ceremonies; in figurative or typical ordinances. The greatest nicety of Divine direction accompanied the institution of these various rites which were a figure, for the time then present,' and which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on the Israelites until the time of reformation; Heb. ix. 10. But now that time of reformation was at hand, and the law was pronounced by the great Media. tor of the New Covenant, that men were henceforward to 'worship the Father in spirit and in truth. The new worship which was thus to distinguish Christianity, was to be in spirit; because it was to consist, not in outward rites of a formal and ceremonial nature, but in services dictated by the Spirit of the Lord, and in direct communion of the soul with its Creator. It was to be in truth; not simply as arising out of a sincere heart-a description which might apply with equal force to the abolished worship of the Jews-but becanse. it was to consist in substantial realities, It was to be carried on, not through the old medium of types and figures, but by the application to the heart of the great and essential truths of the Gospel dispensation; for the type was now to be exchanged for the antitype; the figure for the thing figured; the shadow for the substance. Such then and such exclusively is the true character of Chris tian worship." Gurney, pp. 62, 63.10) Elrow odw ག ་ ༽ ེ ཾ ་ ༈ ༑༑ 2 3 10 In this passage of Scripture, how ever, beit observed, the direct allusion is not to two separate and distinct, systems of worship, appertaining to two different dispensations, but to two separate and distinct places of worship; one, the place in dispute between Jews and Samaritans; the other indefinite, and including every place alike, where there shall be a person "fearing God and working righteousness." Or if the passage mean any thing further than this, (as much was often included in the plainest words of our Lord's discourses,) it had reference probably to those spiritual principles both of morality and devotion to which the Jews had become such strangers as to substitute external for internal obedience, the letter for the spirit, the form for the substance, in their whole system of worship and practice. They rested in their ver bal decalogue and their corban, in their altar and temple. Now, therefore, commandments were to be the heart; and in the new system given which should clearly reach neither place, nor form, nor prayer, nor ritual, of whatever kind, should be declared availing without the heart accompanying the observance, In short, the first legitimate spirituality explained away by those of old time," was now to be revived; and all this we may justly conclude, was contained in the single answer of our Lord to the woman. But, to go on further and say, that it laid down the exact nature of the new ritual, and particularly to the exclusion of all types and sacraments, is, in the first place, arbitrary; and, in the next place, a flat petitio principii for we deny, as before, that types and sacraments are at all inconsist ent with a spiritual worship. The Jewish code of worship, indeed, was one consisting chiefly, as Mr. Gurney very truly observes, in out ward ceremonies; in figurative and typical ordinances. But the Christ tian dispensation was to consistin services dictated by the Spirit of the Lord." Allowing, as we pass, no antithesis whatever between "typis cal ordinances," and " services dic tated by the Spirit," since they were all dictated alike by the Spirit to Moses, (and surely Friends have allowed by their own practice that many a prophetic type might be so dictated,) still we ask, if the Jewish code did not consist wholly in these typical ordinances, why is Christianity to consist in their entire exclusion? The Jews, notwithstanding their types, and in their very types," did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink, (with Christians,) even of that Spiritual Rock which followed them, which was Christ," And why may not Christians then, notwithstanding their spiritual food, be commanded by Christ to use for Lillustration typical actions? The ritual law did not exclude spiritual worship: why should spiritual worship exclude ritual observances ? Undoubtedly there was a very good reason why the whole body of the Jewish ritual, as such, was Ito be swept away by the coming of Christ; because, like an enormous and necessarily indistinctly defined hieroglyphic, it darkly and less intelligibly exhibited the information which was now to be literally and 4 openly exhibited in the facts and verities of the Gospel. But, can it be truly said, that our sacraments give as only dark or unintelligible information? Could the Spirit (we ask it reverently) have spoken more plainly even by words, than by the act of baptism, to shew the washing of regeneration? Can truth itself be more explicit than in that grand commemorative rite, in which "Jesus Christ is evidently set forth crucified among us?" In fine, why should theo figurative expression of bap tism, &c., have been retained in the New Testament, and be used even by Friends, if the figurative action is precisely what it was intended, and that under very severe pains and penalties, to prohibit? ja 10 We have seen then the amount of prohibitions; let us now estimate the amount of commands. A sa crament we understand to be a rite instituted and ordained by Christ himself. Here, then, again the Sat viour appears And He took bread and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you; THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. Likewise also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you-DRINK YE ALL OF IT." Luke xxii; Matt. xxvi. Again, Jesus Christ speaks; "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." Matt. xxviii. This, however, it seems, was all figurative; at least the latter command. What then is the apostolical comment? St. Peter speaks: "Repent and BE BAPTIZED every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Then they that gladly received the word WERE BAPTIZED," Acts ii. And St. Paul: "For I have RECEIVED OF THE LORD that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night that He was betrayed, took bread, &c. &C. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death TILL HE COME Which now, must we think, did the will of the Lord? The Apostles who performed, or Friends who decline, the ce remonies in question? But as we have already seen the force of human comment in finding a prohibition where none existed, perhaps it wil be fair that we should see its force, likewise, in getting rid of a clear and express command. "On the other hand, it is pleaded that the New Testament contains certain pass sages, in which the practice of these rites is not only justified but enforced, and which in fact render such practice obligatory upon all the followers of Christ ou whether this notion be correct or erro In order to form a sound judgment neous, it will be necessary for us to enter into a somewhat detailed examination of the passages in gitestion, [and of several Г.И.Уянга таян "others in which baptism and the Dominical supper are either alluded to or direct ly mentioned. Previously, however, to entering on such an examination, I may venture upon one general observation; namely, that if, on PHILOLOGICAL principles, any such passages are found fairly to admit of either a literal or a spiritual in terpretation, and if it be allowed (as I think it must be, for the general reasons already stated,) that the latter is far more in harmony than the former, with the admitted character of the Christian dispensation,-in such case we are justified by the soundest laws of biblical criticism, in adopting the spiritual and in dropping the literal interpretation." Gurney, p. 79. Thus then we are landed at length in the art and mystery of philology. By philology, the sacraments are to be expunged out of the New Testament: by philology, Bishop Warburton had already expunged life and immortality out of the Old Testament; and by philology the Socinians vainly attempt, year after year, to expunge the Son and the Spirit of God both out of the Old and the New. But these two last have not ventured to plead the alliance of philology with the Spirit of God himself, for nullifying some of His own plainest and most literal dictations. It is an inconsistency reserved for those who undertake the Herculean task of cleansing Christianity from the feculence of all ritual and sacramental services, to appeal at first exclusively to the Spirit of truth, and the Heavenly Monitor within; and then to help themselves out of their difficulties, by a string of bare philological principles, equally questionable in themselves and in their application. How far philology was necessary at all in this case, we have sufficiently seen; and we think we have relieved our author altogether from so ungracious a task as his preconceived notions of spirituality had imposed upon him. We are unwilling, under this impression, to enter upon any one of those texts from which he has thought it right to retire behind the veil of a scholastic mysti cism a veil which, however, we CHRIST.OBSERV.No. 276. are persuaded, would fly like the airy gossamer before the slenderest breath of genuine criticism. But we will, in all solemn seriousness terminate this discussion by asking what security our pious author or any man, can give to us, to himself, to his family, or to the world, against the utter annihilation of all truth, and the destruction of the whole fabric of Scripture, if every person is to be left to his or her own judgment as to placing a literal or a figurative interpretation upon any given passage of the sacred text? Is not this coming upon us indeed with a host of figures and types at the very moment we were to be discharged of all? Surely it is to be remembered, that all persons have not the means or the ability for consulting Calvin, and Gill, and Grotius, and Munster, and Erasmus, and Vatablus, and Clarius, and Capellus and Newcome, and Rosenmuller, and we know not whom else, to help and to countenance them in explaining away the plain letter of Scripture. And if they are to take all this upon the credit of one who has consulted, and assures them of the sense of, these authors as fully to be relied upon, does not that one person take upon himself a heavy responsibility? And if they are led to believe, contrary to their own common sense, and their very senses themselves, that things are not what they are, that water is not water, and to do is not to do, are they not at once brought down to the blindness of popish credulity, or left open to the wildness of fanatic imagination? After this necessarily long dist cussion of a very important subject, under our second head of Gifts of Edification, it cannot be expected that we should have much time or space for what remains. Indeed, we by no means undertake a general reply to the system of Friends, fur ther than as it may more or less bear on the question of Spiritual Influences. Yet, thinking this a fair opportunity for adverting to 5 I |