« FöregåendeFortsätt »
immersion will do you no good unless it is administered by an apostle, prophet, evangelisi, pastor, or teacher. No church is a true church unless it have these inspired officers; and no church but ours (the Mormon, without mentioning the name) is in possession of them. Much is said against the Mormous, because of the bad characters they have among them, but you do not condemn other sects on this ground, neither ought you to condemn the Mormons ou this account, for they are not fellowshipped by us." Now in the United S-ates, Joe Smith, the ostensible leader of the sect, was a proverbial scoundrel; therefore, I inquired, rising in the midst of an audience of about 200, " Do you fellowship Joe Smith ?” He said, he did not stand there to answer ques. tions; but if I would call upon him at his lodgings on the morrow he would talk to me." I replied, that I did not ask for my own information, but for that of the audience. I knew what kind the morality was of, but I wan el it demonstrsted from his own lips, by the only answer he dared give to my ques. tion, if he said anything, namely, that they did fellowship and glory in Joe Smith as their prophet, who was known to be one of the worst of characters in the “ United States.” This Mormon elder, formerly a Baptist preacher, was brought to my house next day by the Universalist preacher, who said it was the earnest desire of the people that I should debate the subject of Mormonism with this advocate of it. After trying for sometime to persuade him to dispute with him, as he seemed so desirous for a debate, I very reluctantly consented. I happened to have in possession the Book of Mormou. I criticized its wretched English, and comparing its assertions with the Bible, pointed out its flat contradictions of its truths. He heaped upon me the most opprobrious epithets, calling me atheist, devil, mad, &c. &c.: and withal fought shy of Joe's Book as dangerous ground to tread on. At last, after a day's exhibition of Mormon depravity, he fell subdued before the rod that smote him. He begged pardon for his abuse; and humbly prayed that I would make a collection for him to enable him to return to Nauvoo. It being a principle with me to return good for evil; I consented to see what the people would give him. Out of 500 persons, I collected for him 75 cents and an old button, so highly did the citizens of St. Charles, about 100 miles from Nauvoo, estimate the traditions of the Mormon sect. The Dr. exposes the fallacy of one of their leading articles belief :
In conclusion, I would add, that the Mormons in the United States have a practice, which ought to be sufficient to open the eyes of every person to their profound ignorance of the first principles of Christianity, which they so impiously and absurdly mix up with the “revelations of the late Mormon Joe. The custom to which I refer is this. On the principle that, if a man dies in his sins he is lost; and, that an immersion by an inspired administrator is indispensable to the remission of sins; and, because they find in 1 Cor. xv, 29 the phrase, “ baptized for the dead;" therefore they hold, that a mat who has died without immersion a short, or long, time ago, may be saved by immersing a living Mormon as his substitute. The immersed Mormon is then said to be “ baptized for the dead.” Now, they took it into their beads, that General Washington and Dr. Benjamin Franklin, were such choice spirits that they ought to have a place in heaven, which they conld not unless Mormon philanthropy stepped in to deliver them. Accordingly, a Mormon disciple came forward to be baptized as the General's substitnte,' and anotber as Benjamin Franklin's, and these two respectable characters were inducted by proxy into heaven and the Mormon church! Would it not have been an im. provement for Lieutenant General Joe, the Prophet, to have obtained from the National Institute at Washington, George Washington's old fashioned regimentals, that the substitute might have presented some apparent connexion with “ the Father of his Country!" Immersing the regimentals, we conceive, would bave been as rational and efficacious for the remission of the General's sins, 13
dipping the Mormon substitute, and quite as scriptural; for, it says, shall they do which are baptized for the dead ?” and this, if we read Scripture like Mormons, may mean, “What shall they, the regimentals, do," as well, as " What shall they, the Mormons, do," for it says as much about regimentals as about Mormons, who pretend to be “ baptized for the dead!”
But“ they err" egregiously "not knowing the Scriptures." The Apostle is not writing about the baptism of substitutes, but the baptism of the living then dead for a certain end; for the text 19, τί ποιήσουσιν οι βαπτιζόμενοι υπέρ των νεκρών, ει όλως νεκροί ουκ εγειρονται; ti poiesousin hot baytizomenoi huper toon nekroon, ei holoos nekroi ouk egeirontai. This is literally - the baptized on account of the dead) plural, dead persons) what shall they (the baptized) do, if the dead are not awaked at all?" The “they” refers to the persons actually immersed huper toon nekroon on account of the dead persons, and not to substitutes; for he says, “ What shall they do who are baptized," &c; we put the same question to show the absurdity, “ What will they, the two Mormon substitutes, do, if George Washington and Benjamin Franklin do not rise at all?" But enough of this nonsense. The Apostle is defending the doetrine of a resurrection of righteous dead persons, against the denial of a future resurrection by some in the church at Corinth, who had embraced the dogma of Plato newly vamped by Hymeneus and Philetus. He argues, that Christians die in hope of the resurrection of the righteous to endless life. That this doctrine is peculiar the gospel ; that he preached that they believed it, and were baptized for it. But, if there was no resurrection, as they said, those believers, who were then dead, who had been baptized into the hope of it, and who had died in the faith of it, were all irredeemably lost-had “perished.” “Baptized for the dead" is an elliptical phrase, and the chasm in it must be supplied by the argument, which resolves it into this, “Else, the baptized (huper for) in hope of the resurrection (toon nekroon) of the dead (believers) what shall they do (what will become of them) if the dead are not awaked at all ?" This is the unvarnished grammatical construction, and none but a Joe Smithite, or a person unskilled in the Word, would put any other construction upon it.
The narrative of Van Dusen consists of a description of the seven degrees, or stages, through which he and his wife passed, in order to be initiated into the Temple Mysteries. In these, wickedness and foolery, profanity and the burlesque, are well commingled.
We earnestly request our readers to purchase the tract. It will arm them against the wiles of the system. We recommend it also to those Mormonites who earnestly seek the truth, and desire above all things to be built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets. Ignorance of the facts narrated in this tract causes them to sanction such a system by
THOUGHTS ON THE LORD'S SUPPER. DEAR BROTHER HUDSTON.-While Moses forbid the use of unfermented bread at the passover, he gave no such command respecting wine. Neither has our Lord restricted us to the use of fermented, or unfermented juice of the grape, in commemorating the shedding of his blood. The fruit of the vine may therefore be used fermented, or unfermented at that ordinance, without transgressing any command.
Moses, at the institution of the passover, made no mention of wine, but it appears that in the days of our Lord,“ the cup” had been introduced into that
ordinance ; probably by divine command, and the dispersed of Judah have used: it ever siuce.
The Jews used fermented wine at the passover, and the care they take to have the genuine “ fruit of the vine" is worthy of our imitation. For the Jews in Britain it is made by their brethren in the south of France. They send it in casks to the chief Rabbi in London, who has it bottled; affixes his seal into it; anil sends it to the different synagogues as required. So the writer was in formed by a Jewish Rabbi.
With the above agrees the uniform practice of the churches of the Gentiles; I Greeks, Moravians, Romanists, and Protestants of every grade, (Quukers and Teetotalers excepted.) Thus we have the unanimous testimony of many trå ditions, handed down through various channels, and by adverse faiths, united in confirmation of the use of fermented and against the use of unfermented wine at the Lord's supper.
We prefer the use of fermented wine for many reasons, of which the fdlowing are the chief:-
1. Because its having been handed down through so many channels, with out ever having been questioned (before the age of teetotalism) appears to as to amount to demonstration, that fermented wine was used by the primitive church, and consequently by our Lord.
2. As the vintage in Palestine did not come till after harvest (Hag. ii. 19,) while the passover was held fifty two days before Peutecost-the feast of firstfruits—there was consequently no grapes on the vine for at least five months before the feast of the passover: nor can it be shown that the Jews were se quainted, with what we consider to be a new discovery, viz. : that fruit, or food, might be kept for an unnatural length of time, by the exclusion of the air; and that they had applied this discovery for the preservation of grapes.
3. Because unfermented wine is used in the Scriptures as an emblem of impurity, and consequently is an unsuitable emblem for the blood of Christ. (Jer. xlviii. 11.)
4. Because we, in common with most Millenarians, expect the supper to meet its final accomplishment, in the use of fermented wine-"wine on the lees well refined,” (Is. xxv. 6,) when, at the marriage supper of the Lamb, we shall sit down with Abraham, with Isaac, with Jacob, and all the faithful, to eat and drink at Christ's table, in his kingdom.
The vine is used in the Scriptures as an emblem of joy, fruitfulness, and blessing. They contain many pleasing promises concerning it which will be accomplished during the Millenniu. “I will multiply the fruit of the tree," (Eze. xxxvi. 30,) “ Neither shall your vine cast her fruit,” (Mal. ii. 11, “ They shall sit every man under his own vine, and under his fig tree, and none shall make bim afraid," then "corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine the maids.” (Zach. viii. 12, ix. 17; Micah iv. 4; Isa. Ixii. 8, 9.)
Vineyards and the vine are God's favourite emblems for his church. How precious was the illustration drawn from the vine by our Lord when the supper was ended ! (John xv. 1-8.)
We disapprove of substituting for “the fruit of the vine," the jnice of the bramble, or currant, which some of our brethren have done; telling us, that they are the vines of the country. Botanists, or others, may classify them together; but the Bible, our only standard, makes a wide distinction between them. The Hebrew word translated bramble, is often trauslated thorn, and the bramble is at best a “wild vine." These are emblems of wickedness and of the curse. Our soul revolts at the thought of comparing the blood of Jesus to the juice of the bramble, the thorn, or the “ wild vine."
The Spirit, by the repeated use of the term “the fruit of the vine," restricts us to the use of the juice of the grape at the supper.
Wive for the Lord's supper ought to be purchased in bond, or from respect
by God's word till we have exhorted and entreated the church with all perseverance and mildness to be obedient to Christ in all things, and it obstinately refuse compliance, In some instances we believe that it is the duty of individuals, who perceive that the church to which they belong is thus defective, to stay in it, teaching, instructing, and exhorting, till all the members either refrain & excommunicate him from their communion. In the latter case we must forbear with the flaw rather than make a schism in the body of Christ. A separation would far outbalance all the good obtained by renouncing communion with the error. Still it is our duty, in all prudence and love, to exhort and strive to enlighten the church respecting its non-conformity to the truth, and eventually the result of our labours would be, that either the church will conform to the primitive model, or depart further from it. In the first instance we should be fully recompensed for our labours, and in the second we should be authorized to separate. This is no visionary idea. Pure knowledge always causes both man and society to either become more righteous and holy, or more profane and wicked.
Sigma must not indulge the thought of separation. Supposing he is right in the fullest sense, he has not sufficient warrant to withdraw from the conmunion of the church.
Thoughts for Thinkers.
Man being a reasonable, and so you can without giving offence to a thinking creature, there is nothing your conscience ; you may often do more worthy of his being than the it with little expense and trouble right direction and employment of to yourself; it will make others his thoughts, since upou this de- happy, and yourself happy too; it pends both his usefulness to the will cause you to be beloved by public and his own present and God which is far better ; for be future benefit in all respects. who always seeks to please, lore
in deed and in truth, and he that THE uncultivated man is con- | loveth hath fulfilled the law. tented, if he see but something going on ; the man of more refine
How admirable is the simplicity ment must be made to feel; the
of the Evangelists! They never man entirely retined, desires to
speak injuriously of the enemies of reflect.
Jesus Christ, of his executioners,
nor his judges. They report the A PERSON of a slender but cor- facts, without adding a single re
flection. They remark neither more agreeable effects on others, their Master's mildness when he than a perplexed and unpurified was smitten, nor his constancy in genius.
bis suffering, which they thus
describe :—“And they crucified Always try to please, where | Jesus."