Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

But again, you say," Unless the statute-book stated that the bread was unleavened, as distinctly as it declared it to be 'bread,' Christians are not bound to use it in that state."

To this remark I reply first, that the statute-book does not lay it down as a rule, that Christian churches are to observe the Lord's supper every first day of the week, and yet all New Testament disciples observe it thus frequently, and feel themselves bound to do so, being regulated in this matter by the example of one apostolic church. Again, on your principle just referred to, all females would be excluded from participating in that ordinance, as we have neither precept nor example, but merely inference, for their attending to it. Yet I have no hesitation in believing that they did attend to the supper.

Now, brother, there was no occasion for stating in so many words, that the bread was unleavened; for it was notorious to all Jews that there could be no other on the table. Moreover, what more could be desired than what is written "Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread," &c. &c. But since this would do, permit me, not only for your own sake, but for the sake of all who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity and truth, to refer shortly to the accounts given by the other sacred historians, of the first observance of this solemn institution.

Mark xiv. 9. "After two days was the feast of the passover and of unleavened bread. (Verse 12.) And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare, that thou mayest eat the passover. (Verse 22.) And as they did eat, Jesus took bread." There was no occasion for saying unleavened bread; it had been

twice said already.

Luke xxii. 1. "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the passover. (Verse 7.) Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, (not Judas Iscariot,) saying, Go and prepare us the passover that we may eat."

Here also, by Luke, unleavened bread is twice mentioned; and by the three sacred historians, five times in all. What occasion, then, had Jesus to say as he took the unleavened loaf into his hand, in as many words, unleavened bread? Had he done so, it would at once have suggested the idea, that different kinds were on the table, which violation of the law of Moses, be far from Jesus and his disciples.

Verse 19. "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body." Blessed be God, that none of the historians has put any other words into the mouth of Jesus, for the reason we have already assigned. Jesus said of the unleavened passover bread, "This is my body;" evidently shewing, that the unleavened bread in the passover, was emblematical of his broken body; and since it was so, when employed in the celebration of a type, how much more appropriate does it appear when employed in an ordinance which symbolises the antitype. Now, brother, are you satisfied? If not, I cannot do more; nor more could an angel from heaven do. For supposing you were convinced, you would still have the Bible as it is.

But now to the question respecting the wine. You say, "It requires also that the New Testament should affirm the wine to be fermented or unfermented, as definitely as it declares it to be the fruit of the vine,' in order to make any of these states as essential to the institution as is the wine." In reply to this, I observe, that it is never called "wine" by any of the sacred historians, but "the fruit of the vine." And permit me to say further, that the wine commonly used, namely, port wine, has been declared by many eminent chemists, to contain not more than ten portions of the juice of the grape, the rest being a decoction of logwood, and various other poisonous substances. In reference to such statement, that the New Testament should affirm the wine to be fermented or

unfermented, in order to make any of these states essential to the observance of the institution, I would remark, that on the same ground, we should require the New Testament to point out the quality of the water essential to the right observance of baptism. To use your own words, It requires that the New Testament should affirm the water to be fresh or salt, as definitely as it declares it to be water, in order to make any of these states as essential to the institution as is the water. But who would ever think of baptizing with salt water, but reckless people? Now, at the ordinance of the supper, it is not only manifest indirectly that it must have been the pure unfermented juice of the grape that was employed, but it also directly appears from the language of our Saviour, as recorded three times in the New Testament, that the unfermented "fruit of the vine" was the original element. Indeed, the Spirit of God, in thus stating emphatically three times, that the "fruit of the vine" was the element used in the institution of the sacred ordinance, seem to have been most anxious to place the quality of the element beyond the reach of controversy. Besides, it is obvious, that no more is fermented wine the product of the grape, than is a corpse a living soul, or a mummy a living man or woman-its nature having been completely changed. In its unfermented state, it is innocent as water, unintoxicating as milk, and nutritive as honey. Ferment it, and it becomes an intoxicating beverage full of deadly poison.

My dear brother, in using the innocent juice of the grape, we are quite certain that we use the fruit of the vine. Of two ways, then, let us always choose the safest, the plainest, and the best. But before leaving this part of the subject, permit me to repeat what I said in my former letter, that Moses in having so peremptorily forbidden the use of leavened bread, in the passover-feast, necessarily prohibited ferment, is obvious; the one being so much akin to the other-both having undergone the first process towards putrifaction. Indeed, fermented wines, whether considered morally, physically, or religiously, ought to be condemned and abandoned (except as medicine) by every lover of Jesus Christ, and expectant of heaven.

[ocr errors]

And now a word or two from the Apostle Paul in confirmation of what has been said. 1 Cor. v. 6. "now ye not, that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened (mark this,) as ye are unleavened' for even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us." Dear brother, does not this teach much? Here the Apostle speaks of the Corinthian disciples as being unleavened; and, surely, if they became unleavened by their conversion to Jesus, much more so was He unleavened who knew no sin. How inapt, then, are leaven and ferment, to symbolise such a holy Saviour; and how incongruous do these elements appear in the hands of those who have become unleavened by the power of the gospel. (Verse 8.) "Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." This requires no comment.

(Chap. x. 15.) "I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say; the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the blood of Christ ?" Has ever Jehovah, in his blessed word, spoken of intoxicating wine as a blessing? No. But he has branded it with the following epithets: "The poison of dragons, and cruel venom of asps. It biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder." Again, "Wine is a mocker; strong drink is raging; and whoever is deceived thereby, is not wise." While on the other hand, God has approbated the unintoxicating wine, or pure juice of the grape. "Ye drank the pure blood of the grape," said Moses to the children of Israel-and Isaiah has these words," Thus saith the Lord, as the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith. Destroy in not, a blessing is in it." We could multiply quotations, but let these suffice—for in what we have quoted, it is clearly seen that God condemns the intoxicating, but

commands the innocent. "A blessing is in it." "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ"—" the pure blood of the grape," of course. "The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ." Is there not also something peculiar here? The Apostle is doubtless speaking of the innocent, or unfermented juice of the grape, used in celebrating the Lord's supper, as also of the peculiar bread then employed in observing the same-unleavened bread, and no mistake.

1 Cor. xi. 23. "For I have received of the Lord, that which also I delivered unto you; that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread." One question naturally arises here, and it is this, To what particular night does the Apostle refer? We answer. To the night of the feast of unleavened bread, when, as we have already shown, there could be no other, save unleavened bread, upon the table. Surely no one, who has carefully read our quotations, will have the hardihood to deny this.

(Verse 25.) "After the same manner also, he took the cup when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." Thus did Paul repeat, in writing to the Corinthians, what he had already taught them, and what he doubtless taught every church; and thus by referring to the subject in this way, he sought to keep upon their minds a deep impression, not only of the importance of the ordinance itself, but also, and particularly, of the quality of the elements to be used therein, namely, unleavened bread, and “the fruit of the vine," or unfermented juice of the grape. Mark, my brother, what follows:

(Verse 26.) "For as often as ye eat this bread (not leavened, but unleavened,) and drink this cup (not the cup of poison and cruel venom of asps, but, the pure blood of the grape, commended by the Spirit of God, even the cup of blessing,) for as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, ye shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup: for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." "A word to the wise is sufficient." Yours for Jesus' sake,

I am, my dear brother,

EBENEZAR ALLAN.

THE CHURCH AT CUPAR.

July, 1849.

Beloved Brother Hudston.-On the first instant I had the pleasure of spending a most agreeable and interesting first day with the congregation in Cupar (Fife,) they having met for the first time in the Kirkgate Chapel; which they have purchased from the Baptists. It is a plain, neat, and commodious building. The interior however has undergone considerable change since I last had occasion to be in it. The large and loft pulpit, with all its priestly appendages, having been removed, and a plain platform slightly elevated erected; and in place of,

"The things that mount the rostrum with a skip,
And then skip down again; pronounce a text;
Cry-hem and reading what they never wrote
Just fifteen minutes, huddle up their work,
And with a well-bred whisper close the scene,"
Six grave but dignified looking brethren
(Elders and Deacons of the Church) were seated,
"in language plain,

And plain in manner; decent, solemn, chaste."

The forenoon was occupied in attending to the Apostles' doctrine, the fellowship, the breaking of bread, prayers, &c. In the afternoon the presiding elder for the day (Brother Dowie) gave a brief history of the Church in Cupar, He stated that, that day nine years ago, a few of them (some six or eight I believe) were expelled from the very house in which they were now assembled, as hereticks and schismatics, unworthy the name of Christians. But notwithstanding all the opposition with which they had to contend, being built upon the foundation which Peter confessed, and holding as their only bond of union, "the one Lord, the one faith, and the one immersion," they had gone on progressively till they had reached their present cheering and prosperous position. That a considerable number who had been united with them upon these glorious facts of the gospel through their instrumentality, were scattered through the length and breadth of the land.

The church in Cupar is one of the largest and the most influential in Scotland. It contains three very efficient proclaimers of the gospel, as well as a number of intelligent and otherwise useful members.

Much love, peace, and unity prevail among them. Six have been added to their number since the meeting in Glasgow, and more inquiries are being made.

T. B.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR.

Old Mills, near Dumfries, 17th July, 1819.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE GOSPEL BANNERDear Brother. I left Glasgow on the 7th June, arrived at Newton Stewart, N. B same evening; met a warm reception from the brethren, and began my labours next day. On Lord's days we met in the Town Hall at twelve o'clock, for fellowship, for breaking of bread, and prayers; at three, and six, for proclaming the salvation of God. The attendance was, at least, equal to the expectation of the brethren. On the other days of the week, I visited from house to house, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ; and finished my daily labours by a proclamation of the gospel in the open air. With the exception of a wet evening, I continued thus for four weeks. In that time I preached twice at Black Crag lead mines, and thrice at Creetown, a village about six miles distant. The attendance often very good, and upon the whole encouraging. Much discussion has ensued, light has broke upon the minds of some: several appear to be convinced of the truth, who are not yet converted; and although I had the pleasure of immersing only one individual, I trust that the fruit of my labours will appear many days hence. In every discourse, I make it a point, both to preach the gospel, and show the way of enjoying its blessings. When I arrived the congregation consisted of seven males and six females. On the 13th June 1 performed the ceremony of marriage; brother Robert Gibson, and sister Marian Wilson being thus united for life, left for Liverpool on the 20th, and sailed from Liverpool for New York on the 22nd, from whence they intend to proceed to Bethany, where, according to agreement, he expects to be shepherd to brother A. Campbell. I was very much gratified by the zeal, and great kindness of this little church. May the God of Jacob bless it, and make it a blessing to many.

On the 23rd June, brother A. Hutchison arrived from Old Mills, and next day being the first day of the week, he held fellowship with us and gave an ex hortation, a pleasant day indeed. After his return I received a kind invitation om the church at Dumfries, to labour in that heighbourhood fora time. On Lord's day the Sth current, I commenced my labours there, preached more than once, both in and out of doors; the last discourse of that evening was by the river, in the open air; at the close, I was interrogated, which gave rise to a lengthened discussion, in the presence of many.

On Monday evening I preached about a mile from the town. The remaining evenings of the week I preached at Dumfries; attendance good, and the people apparently eager to hear. I made a practice of visiting from house to house, for the same purpose as at Newton Stewart.

Last Lord's day, I preached twice in the house, and twice in the open air; audiences large and attentive. I have conversed with a good few, about the primitive way of salvation, and can see that the truth is finding its way here. There are also those who oppose themselves, amongst whom a minister in Maxwelltown, laboured last Lord's day to neutralize my efforts. I would feel glad if he would both hear, and answer questions; as our Master did. As my labours are likely to continue for a time, I beg the prayers of the churches, "that the word of the Lord may have free course and be glorified."

I forgot to state that I was warmly invited by some Methodists at Newton Stewart, to attend their class meeting, which I did; and being allowed I stated the way to enjoy salvation, which was not much liked. I was not invited again. Yours, joyfully anticipating the day "when the King of kings comes,"

R. SERVICE.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST AT

ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE.

THE laws of Jesus in reference to discipline and the proper government of the Church of Christ, have for some time past engaged much of our attention. That these laws must be administered by some who are competent to rule and guide the body, if we wish to see that body in health and peace, we believe is clearly taught and enforced in the Sacred Oracles. Accordingly, during last month, "we looked out from amongst us" three brethren, unanimously considered to be both faithful and competent to form an Eldership. Their names are brothers NATHAN HARRISON, JAMES WARHURST, and JAMES SCHOFIELD. The former as Pastor; the two latter as Deacons. After having chosen these brethen, the church assembled on the morning, of Lord's Day July 1st, that by prayer and fasting, with the imposition of hands, they might be solemnly set apart to their work. Having obtained the services of our beloved Brother Greenwell, he earnestly sought the blessing of God; and then proceeded, with a few remarks upon the design of what we were assembled to do: after which, each member of the body, both male and female, in an orderly and solemn manner, laid our hands upon the brethren chosen. Thus pledging ourselves, by our own voluntary act, to obey them so long as they teach and administer the laws of Jesus our King.

In the afternoon and evening, discourses were delivered by our brother Greenwell, which were listened to with great attention by all present.

Last month one made the good confession. Having been baptized into Jesus, he is now "going on his way rejoicing." M. H.

Monthly Record of Passing Events.

As we feared, so it has come to pass. The Affirmation Bill, though ably supported by Lords Denman and Campbell, and the Duke of Argyle, only received the votes of ten Peers for the second reading.-It was consequently lost, and tender consciences for the present must go unrelieved. The Parliamentary Oaths Bill for admitting Jews into Parliament without "swearing on the true faith of a Christian," has likewise been rejected by the House of Lords. Whereupon a new election has taken place for the city of London, and Baron Rothschild is again returned by a majority of two to one over Lord John Manners.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »