Page images
PDF
EPUB

66

[ocr errors]

66

"the east wall, which was built by Solomon, at an extraordinary expence, and was in length 500 cubits, or 250 "yards. It is further," adds he, "to be considered, that "the whole length of this wall within, there were walks or "cloisters from each side of the entry of the porch to the "ends of the wall, that were supported by a treble row of "marble pillars, into a double walk, which was in breadth "30 cubits, or 15 yards. The innermost of these pillars was joined to the wall, and this made the two walks to be "divided in the middle by a row of pillars. Now, the "whole of this breadth, from the wall on which the inner"most row of pillars stood, to the Beautiful Gate, together "with the length of the said wall, which was 500 cubits, was, according to Dr. Lightfoot, the learned Mr. Selden, "(de Jure Nat. et Gen. lib. iii. cap. vi.), and Mr. Lewis, (Orig. Heb. lib. iii. cap. xiii.), denominated Solomon's "Porch." But it is obvious that this place could by no means accommodate so many thousands of members, together with their children, and the numerous strangers who would continually be attracted from curiosity to hear them. sides, how could a single preacher be audible, in a court intersected by so many rows of pillars, to forty thousand hearers? Or how could thirty thousand members meet together in such a place for the purposes of government? Could each of these persons make himself be heard by such an assembly? could he distinctly hear the opinion and vote of every individual? and would not business be conducted with extreme tardiness and difficulty where so many had to state their sentiments and vote*? But even granting all

[ocr errors]

Be

* Is it said, that Ezra, after the captivity, read and expounded the law to the Jews, who amounted to a still greater number, and was heard by them all? Neh. viii. 1-5. I ask, whether Independents can suppose that a single individual could be heard by fifty or sixty thousand persons? And is it still affirmed, that this fact, though wonderful, seems to be asserted in this passage? It is replied, that it is not asserted nearly so strongly as is done in Deut. xxxi. 30, that Moses" spake in the ears of all the congregation "of Israel the words of his song," at a time when their males only (see Numb. xxvi. 51, 62), amounted to six hundred and twentyfour thousand seven hundred and thirty, and when, with their wives and children, they made up probably almost two millions. But if Independents would not maintain that Moses made himself audible at once to such a multitude, how can they demonstrate (since in the nature of things it is as certainly impossible) that Ezra

these suppositions to be not only possible but probable, it must still be proved that the Christians at pleasure enjoyed the temple for these religious purposes. So far however is this fact from being clear, that, though extremely important, it is passed over in silence, a circumstance which probably would not have taken place had they possessed that privilege. Nay, though at first, before the blood of any Christians was shed, the apostles ventured occasionally to preach in the temple, even after they had been beaten for it by the high-priests, we do not find that they afterwards enjoyed such a liberty; and neither at first, nor afterwards, did they dare to dispense in it the sacrament of the supper, or convene, for the deliberations of government, the members who belonged to their church. It is manifest that liberty would not be granted to them for the latter, either by the priests or the people, who would be alarmed at the idea of their meeting alone, in a place so sacred, for purposes unknown to them; and it is no less obvious that they would not attempt to administer in it the former. If Paul so highly displeased even the common people, (Acts xxi), though they favoured and magnified the apostles, that they endeavoured to kill him, for bringing, as they supposed, certain Greeks into the temple, and polluting the holy place, would it not have been much more dangerous had they dared to celebrate in it a new sacrament, which vied with, and far surpassed in point of frequency, according to Independents, the most solemn sacrament of the ancient economy *? Ac

was heard in an open street by fifty or sixty thousand, merely be cause he is said to have read the law to them when they were met together? And if Moses, moreover, might be said to speak his song, as we are informed in Deut. xxxi. 30, compared with ver, 28, in the ears of all the congregation of Israel, when he spake only in the ears of their elders and officers, who again were to communicate what he said to the people, might not something like this be done by Ezra? Or might he not only read and explain it to a part, while they explained it to others, especially as we are told, (Neh. viii. 7, 8), that "thirteen others " also, besides the Levites, read to "the people, at that time, in the book of the law of God distinctly, "and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading ?"

* That it is probable that the supper was more frequently dispensed than the sacrament of circumcision is readily conceded, but how much more frequently, notwithstanding all that is asserted by Independents, scripture does not appear expressly to say. In 1 Cor. xi. 25, we are told, that as often as Christians drink the sacra mental cup, they should do it in remembrance of Christ; and in

cordingly, while the apostles are said to have been imprisoned by the high-priests, because they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead, (Acts iv. 2), we do not hear that they were censured for

ver. 26, that as often as they ate that bread, or drank that cup, they shewed forth the Lord's death till he came; but how often they should do so, it does not specify. In Acts ii. 42, it is said, that the converts who believed on the day of Pentecost," continued "stedfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in break"ing of bread, and in prayer." But all that is here recorded, is merely that they persevered in the belief of the doctrines, and in the observance of all the ordinances of Christianity, while, at the same time, it is evident that there is not the smallest hint how often the supper, or any other ordinance, was to be observed. In Acts ii. 46, we are informed, that these Christians, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, or, as others render it, in a house, did participate their food, or the food, with gladness and singleness of heart. But neither does this seem to be sufficiently explicit: for in the 1st place, It is not certain that it is the breaking of sacramental bread, and not their feasts of love, which is intended. And 2dly, If this passage prove any thing upon the subject, it proves too much. It will shew that we should eat the supper, not merely, as Independents maintain, every Sabbath, but daily. In Acts xx. 6, 7, it is said, that when Paul and his companions had tarried seven days at Troas, on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them. But it is not here declared, that on every first day of the week, when the disciples came together, they ate sacramental bread, but only that on that particular first day of the week they had done so. If some ministers, from a distance, arriving in Edinburgh on the Monday before the sacrament of the Supper was dispensed, should remain till the first day of the following week, and then assist at the dispensation of the sacrament, would that circumstance, if narrated by any historian, prove that the Supper was observed every Sabbath in all the churches of Edinburgh? Or if Independents refer to the writings of the fathers in support of this practice, it may be observed, 1st, That many improprieties, as was before shewn, were admitted even by the primitive church; and that we must try this, as well as all their practices, by the scriptures, and see whether it is enjoined or warranted by them. Upon examining the scriptures however, we perceive that it is not explicitly announced how often this ordinance should be observed in the church; and consequently, though many of the primitive churches ate the Supper every Sabbath, we no more offend against the word of God than they, if we do not ate it every first day of the week. And 2dly, This argument proves too much. Cyprian, A. D. 250, informs us, in his Treatise on the Lord's Prayer, that daily communions were the common practice at that time; and Fortunatus, who lived at the same period, adduces the fourth petition of that prayer as an argument

[ocr errors]

meeting the Christians by themselves in the temple, for the affairs of government, or for dispensing, in that place, the sacrament of the supper. And it is remarkable, that at the very time that it is said that the first Christians continued in the temple to receive instruction, it is added, (Acts ii. 46), "that they brake bread from house to house," or in different houses; i. e. as many interpreters explain it, and as the Syriac translates it, they kept the eucharist, or brake sacramental bread*. But if no single person could be audible, as an instructor, to thirty or forty thousand hearers at once; if they could not meet together with ease and satisfaction for the purposes of government; if no single place could be found to accommodate such a multitude, when, as at that early period, according to Eusebius, the houses for worship were extremely small; if even in the temple there was no apartment which could contain such a number; and, whatever its size, if it could not be obtained by them, when they chose to resort to it, for the private meetings of their members for government, or even for the public celebration of the supper; is it not undeniable that there must have been a variety of congregations in the city of Jerusalem, furnished with distinct and separate pastors, and meeting in separate and appropriate churches.

for communicating every day. Basil, in the fourth century, recommends daily communion; and says, that it was the practice of the church of Cesarea where he was, to celebrate the sacrament four times a-week, viz. on Sabbath, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, (Basil. Epist. 289.)-Ambrose seems to intimate that daily communions were in use at Milan, (De Sacram. lib. v. cap. iv. p. 449.)Jerome tells us, that they were kept up, in his time, in the churches of Spain, and at Rome, (Epist. lii. ad Lucin.)-And Augustine, about the year 410, (Epist. cxviii. ad Januar.), that the eucharist was received by some daily. If Independents then, when scripture is silent, wish us to take the example of the primitive church as our guide, and from this contend that we should eat the Supper every Sabbath, why do not they themselves adopt this example in its full extent, and communicate daily, or at least on Sabbath, and Wednesday, and Friday, and Saturday? By these observations it is not intended however to say, whether weekly communion is lawful or unlawful, but only to shew, that as scripture is silent as to the precise degree of frequency, they are not entitled to declaim with. that severity which they often discover against others who cannot, so often as they, observe that ordinance.

*On this circumstance however, as was before stated, no stress is laid, as it is not certain that it is the breaking of sacramental bread which is here intended.

LETTER XVI.

SIR,

THAT there must have been a plurality of congregations ia the city of Jerusalem, I have endeavoured to shew in the preceding Letter, from the number of believers who resided in that city. This rendered it totally impossible for them all to convene in a single place for any of the purposes of religious fellowship. And this, as was remarked, was naturally to be expected, for Jesus having ascended to the right hand of his Father, and shed down his Spirit in more rich abundance on the souls of men than had ever formerly been witnessed by the world, the delightful period had now arrived, when his spiritual offspring were to be more in number than the drops of dew," from the womb of the "morning" Psal. cx. 3.

The same conclusion may be argued from the number of ministers, who, for a very considerable time, were continu ally employed in labouring in that city. Among these were the twelve apostles, and, as most expositors apprehend, the seventy disciples, together with many prophets, (Acts xi. 27, 28), and many elders, (ver. 30.) The first class of these ministers moreover, and consequently we must suppose the rest of them, were so engaged in preaching, that they were obliged to institute an order of ministers to serve tables, that they might themselves be enabled, along with their fellow-ministers, to give themselves continually to prayer and the ministry of the word: Acts vi. But if there was only one congregation of believers where each of these teachers ministered in his turn, how extremely unaccountable must this representation appear? But one congregation, and above a hundred ministers, so unceasingly employed in preaching the word, that they could not find leisure to distribute among the poor the money which had been collected for them! It may be said indeed, that while one of them preached to this congregation, the rest were itinerating through different parts of the city. But still it appears very extraordinary, that while only two or three were necessary for the instruction of this particular congregation, so many teachers remained in Jerusalem even for the purpose of iti

« PreviousContinue »