A Portraiture of Quakerism, Volume II (of 3) by Thomas Clarkson

T >> Thomas Clarkson >> A Portraiture of Quakerism, Volume II (of 3)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

[Footnote 141: Gal. 4. 10.]

For the latter reason also they do not assemble for worship on those
days which their own government, though they are greatly attached to it,
appoint as fasts. They are influenced also by another reason in this
latter case. They conceive as religion is of a spiritual nature, and
must depend upon the spirit of God, that true devotion cannot be excited
for given purposes or at a given time. They are influenced again by the
consideration, that the real fast is of a different nature from that
required. [142] "Is not this the fast, says Isaiah, that I have chosen,
to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let
the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal
thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out,
to thy house? When thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and that
thou hide not thyself from thy own flesh?" This the Quakers believe to
be the true fast, and not the work of a particular day, but to be the
daily work of every real Christian.

[Footnote 142: Isaiah 58. 6. 7.]

Indeed no one day, in the estimation of the Quakers, can be made by
human appointment either more holy or more proper for worship than
another. They do not even believe that the Jewish Sabbath, which was by
the appointment of God, continues in Gospel times, or that it has been
handed down by divine authority as the true Sabbath for Christians. All
days with the Quakers are equally holy, and all equally proper for the
worship of God. In this opinion they coincide with the ever memorable
John Hales. "For prayer, indeed, says this venerable man, was the
Sabbath ordained: yet prayer itself is Sabbathless, and admits of no
rest, no intermission at all. If our hands be clean, we must, as our
Apostle commands us, lift them up every where, at all times, and make
every place a church, every day a Sabbath-day, every hour canonical. As
you go to the market; as you stand in the streets; as you walk in the
fields--in all these places, you may pray as well, and with as good
acceptance, as in the church: for you yourselves are temples of the Holy
Ghost, if the grace of God be in you, more precious than any of those
which are made with hands."

Though, however, the Quakers believe no one day in the sight of God to
be holier than another, and no one capable of being rendered so by human
authority, yet they think that Christians ought to assemble for the
public worship of God. They think they ought to bear an outward and
public testimony for God; and this can only be done by becoming members
of a visible church, where they may be seen to acknowledge him publicly
in the face of men. They think also, that the public worship of God
increases, as it were, the fire of devotion, and enlarges the sphere of
spiritual life in the souls of men. "God causes the inward life, says
Barclay, the more to abound when his children assemble themselves
diligently together, to wait upon him; so that as iron sharpeneth iron,
the seeing the faces of one another, when both are inwardly gathered
unto the life, giveth occasion for the life secretly to rise, and to
pass from vessel to vessel: and as many candles lighted and put in one
place, do greatly augment the light and make it more to shine forth, so
when many are gathered together into the same life, there is more of
the glory of God, and his power appears to the refreshment of each
individual; for that he partakes not only of the light and life raised
in himself, but in all the rest. And therefore Christ hath particularly
promised a blessing to such as assemble in his name, seeing he will be
in the midst of them." For these and other reasons, the Quakers think it
proper, that men should be drawn together to the public worship of God:
but if so, they must be drawn together at certain times. Now as one day
has never been, in the eyes of the Quakers, more desirable for such an
object than another, their ancestors chose the first day in the week,
because the Apostles had chosen it for the religious assembling of
themselves and their followers. And in addition to this, that more
frequent opportunities might be afforded them of bearing their outward
testimony publicly for God, and of enlarging the sphere of their
spiritual life, they appointed a meeting on one other day in the week in
most places, and two in some others, for the same purpose.

CHAP. XIII.

_Miscellaneous particularities--Quakers careful about the use of such
words as relate to religion--Never use the words "original sin"--nor
"word of God," for the scriptures--Nor the word "Trinity"--Never pry
into the latter mystery--Believe in the manhood and divinity of Jesus
Christ--Also in a resurrection, but sever attempt to fathom that
subject--Make little difference between sanctification and
justification--- Their ideas concerning the latter_.

The Quakers are remarkably careful, both in their conversation and their
writings, on religious subjects, as to the terms which they use. They
express scriptural images or ideas, as much as may be, by scriptural
terms. By means of this particular caution, they avoid much of the
perplexity and many of the difficulties which arise to others, and
escape the theological disputes which disturb the rest of the Christian
world.

The Quakers scarcely ever utter the words "original sin," because they
never find them in use in the sacred writings.

The scriptures are usually denominated by Christians "the word of God."
Though the Quakers believe them to have been given by divine
inspiration, yet they reject this term. They apprehend that Christ is
the word of God. They cannot therefore consistently give to the
scriptures, however they reverence them, that name which St. John the
Evangelist gives exclusively to the Son of God.

Neither do they often make use of the word "Trinity." This expression
they can no where find in the sacred writings. This to them is a
sufficient warrant for rejecting it. They consider it as a term of mere
human invention, and of too late a date to claim a place among the
expressions of primitive Christianity. For they find it neither in
Justin Martyr, nor in Irenaeus, nor in Tertullian, nor in Origen, nor in
the Fathers of the three first centuries of the church.

And as they seldom use the term, so they seldom or never try, when it
offers itself to them, either in conversation or in books, to fathom its
meaning. They judge that a curious inquiry into such high and
speculative things, though ever so great truths in themselves, tends
little to Godliness, and less to peace; and that their principal concern
is with that only which is clearly revealed, and which leads practically
to holiness of life.

Consistently with this judgment, we find but little said respecting the
Trinity by the Quaker writers.

It is remarkable that Barclay in the course of his apology, takes no
notice of this subject.

William Penn seems to have satisfied himself with refuting what he
considered to be a gross notion, namely, that of three persons in the
Trinity. For after having shown what the Trinity was not, he no where
attempts to explain what he conceived it to be. He says only, that he
acknowledges a Father, a Word, and a Holy Spirit, according to the
scriptures, but not according to the notions of men; and that these
Three are truly and properly One, of one nature as well as will.

Isaac Pennington, an ancient Quaker, speaks thus: "That the three are
distinct, as three several beings or persons, the Quakers no where read
in the scriptures; but they read in them that they are one. And thus
they believe their being to be one, their life one, their light one,
their wisdom one, their power one. And he that knoweth and seeth any one
of them, knoweth and seeth them, all, according to that saying of Christ
to Philip, 'He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.'"

John Crook, another ancient writer of this society, in speaking of the
Trinity, says, that the Quakers "acknowledge one God, the Father of
Jesus Christ, witnessed within man only by the spirit of truth; and
these three are one, and agree in one; and he that honours the Father,
honours the Son that proceeds from him; and he that denies the Spirit,
denies both the Father and the Son." But nothing farther can be obtained
from this author on this subject.

Henry Tuke, a modern writer among the Quakers, and who published an
account of the principles of the society only last year, says also
little upon the point before us. "This belief, says he, in the Divinity
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, induced some of the
teachers in the Christian church, about three hundred years after
Christ, to form a doctrine, to which they gave the name of Trinity; but,
in our writings we seldom make use of this term, thinking it best, on
such a subject, to keep to scriptural expressions, and to avoid those
disputes which have since perplexed the Christian world, and led into
speculations beyond the power of human abilities to decide. If we
consider that we ourselves are composed of a union of body, soul, and
spirit, and yet cannot determine how even these are united; how much
less may we expect perfect clearness on a subject, so far above our
finite comprehension, as that of the Divine Nature?"

The Quakers believe, that Jesus Christ was man, because he took flesh,
and inhabited the body prepared for him, and was subject to human
infirmities; but they believe also in his Divinity, because he was the
word.

They believe also in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, as
connected with the Christian religion. In explaining our belief of this
doctrine, says Henry Tuke, we refer to the fifteenth chapter of the
first epistle to the Corinthians. In this chapter is clearly laid down
the resurrection of a body, though not of the same body that dies.
"There are celestial bodies, and there are bodies terrestrial; but the
glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is
another. So also is the resurrection of the dead: It is sown a natural
body, it is raised a spiritual body: there is a natural body, and there
is a spiritual body. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption." Here we rest our belief in this mystery, without desiring
to pry into it beyond what is revealed to us; remembering "that secret
things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are
revealed, belong unto us and to our children."

The Quakers make but little difference, and not such as many other
Christians do, between sanctification and justification. "Faith and
works, says Richard Claridge, are both concerned in our complete
justification."--"Whosoever is justified, he is also in measure
sanctified; and as far as he is sanctified, so far is he justified, and
no farther. But the justification I now speak of, is the making of us
just or righteous by the continual help, work, and operation of the Holy
Spirit."--"And as we wait for the continual help and assistance of his
Holy Spirit, and come to witness the effectual working of the same in
ourselves, so we shall experimentally find, that our justification is
proportionable to our sanctification; for as our sanctification goes
forward, which is always commensurate to our faithful obedience to the
manifestation, influence, and assistance, of the grace, light, and
spirit of Christ, so shall we also feel and perceive the progress of our
justification."

The ideas of the Quakers, as to justification itself, cannot be better
explained than in the words of Henry Tuke before quoted: So far as
remissions of sins, and a capacity to receive salvation, are parts of
justification, we attribute it to the sacrifice of Christ; "In whom we
have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to
the riches of his grace." But when we consider justification as a state
of divine favour and acceptance, we ascribe it, not simply either to
faith or works, but to the sanctifying operation of the spirit of
Christ, from which living faith and acceptable works alone proceed; and
by which we may come to know, that "the spirit itself beareth witness
with our spirits, that we are the children of God."

In attributing our justification, through the grace of God in Christ
Jesus, to the operation of the Holy Spirit, which sanctifies the heart
and produces the work of regeneration, we are supported by the testimony
of the Apostle Paul, who says, "Not by works of righteousness which we
have done, but of his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration,
and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Again--"But ye are washed, but ye are
sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by
the spirit of our God."

"By this view of the doctrine of justification, we conceive the
apparently different sentiments of the Apostles Paul and James are
reconciled. Neither of them say that faith alone, or works alone, are
the cause of our being justified; but as one of them asserts the
necessity of faith, and the other of works, for effecting this great
object, a clear and convincing proof is afforded, that both contribute
to our justification; and that faith without works, and works without
faith, are equally dead."

CHAP. XIV.

_Quakers reject Baptism and the Lord's Supper--Much censured far
it--Indulgence solicited for them on account of the difficulties
connected with these subjects--Christian Religion spiritual--Jewish
types to be abolished--Different meanings of the word "Baptise"--Disputes
concerning the mode of Baptism--Concerning also the nature and constitution
of the Supper--Concerning also the time and manner of its celebration
--This indulgence also proper, because the Quakers give it to others,
who differ from them as a body on the subject of Religion_.

The Quakers, among other particularities, reject the application of
water-baptism, and the administration of the Sacrament of the Supper, as
Christian rites.

These ordinances have been considered by many as so essentially
interwoven with Christianity, that the Quakers, by rejecting the use of
them, have been denied to be Christians.

But whatever may be the difference of opinion between the world and the
Quakers, upon these subjects, great indulgence is due to the latter on
this occasion. People have received the ordinances in question from
their ancestors. They have been brought up to the use of them. They have
seen them sanctioned by the world. Finding their authority disputed by a
body of men, who are insignificant as to numbers, when compared with
others, they have let loose their censure upon them, and this without
any inquiry concerning the grounds of their dissent. They know perhaps
nothing of the obstinate contentious; nothing of the difficulties which
have occurred; and nothing of those which may still be started on these
subjects. I shall state therefore a few considerations by way of
preface, during which the reader will see, that objections both fair and
forcible may be raised by the best disposed Christians, on the other
side of the question; that the path is not so plain and easy as he may
have imagined it to be; and that if the Quakers have taken a road
different from himself on this occasion, they are entitled to a fair
hearing of all they have to say in their defence, and to expect the same
candour and indulgence which he himself would have claimed, if, with the
best intentions, he had not been able to come to the same conclusion, on
any given point of importance, as had been adopted by others.

Let me then ask, in the first place, what is the great characteristic of
the religion we profess?

If we look to divines for an answer to this question, we may easily
obtain it. We shall find some of them in their sermons speaking of
circumcision, baptismal washings and purifications, new moons, feasts of
the passover and unleavened bread, sacrifices, and other rites. We shall
find them dwelling on these as constituent parts of the religion of the
Jews. We shall find them immediately passing from thence to the religion
of Jesus Christ. Here all is considered by them to be spiritual.
Devotion of the heart is insisted upon as that alone which is acceptable
to God. If God is to be worshipped, it is laid down as a position, that
he is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth. We shall find them also,
in other of their sermons, but particularly in those preached after the
reformation, stating the advantages obtained by that event. The Roman
Catholic system is here considered by them to be as ceremonial as that
of the Jews. The Protestant is held out as of a more spiritual nature,
and as more congenial therefore with the spirit of the gospel. But what
is this but a confession, in each case, that in proportion as men give
up ceremonies and become spiritual in their worship, their religion is
the best, or that spirituality is the grand characteristic of the
religion of Jesus Christ? Now there immediately arises a presumption, if
spirituality of feeling had been intended as the characteristic of any
religion, that no ceremonious ordinances would have been introduced into
it.

If, again, I were to make an assertion to divines, that Jesus Christ
came to put an end to the ceremonial parts of the Jewish law, and to the
types and shadows belonging to the Jewish dispensation, they would not
deny it. But baptism and the supper were both of them outward Jewish
ceremonies, connected with the Jewish religion. They were both of them
types and shadows, of which the antetypes and substances had been
realized at the death of Christ. And therefore a presumption arises
again, that these were not intended to be continued.

And that they were not intended to be continued, may be presumed from
another consideration. For what was baptism to any but a Jew? What could
a Gentile have understood by it? What notion could he have formed, by
means of it, of the necessity of the baptism of Christ? Unacquainted
with purifications by water as symbols of purification of heart, he
could never have entered, like a Jew, into the spiritual life of such an
ordinance. And similar observations may be made with respect to the
Passover-Supper. A Gentile could have known nothing, like a Jew, of the
meaning of this ceremony. He could never have seen in the Paschal Lamb
any type of Christ, or in the deliverance of the Israelites from
Egyptian bondage, any type of his own deliverance from sin, so clearly
or so feelingly as if the facts and customs had related to his own
history, or as if he had been trained to the connexion by a long series
of prophecies. In short, the passover could have had but little meaning
to him.

From these circumstances, therefore, there would be reason to conclude,
that these ceremonies were not to be continued, at least to any but
Jews; because they were not fitted to the knowledge, the genius, or the
condition of the Gentile world.

But, independently of these difficulties, which arise from a general
view of these ordinances as annexed to a religion which is confessed to
be spiritual, others arise from a particular view of each. On the
subject of baptism, there is ground for argument, as to the meaning of
the word "baptize." This word, in consequence of its representation of a
watery ceremony, is usually connected with water in our minds. But it
may also, very consistently, be connected even with fire. Its general
meaning is to purify. In this sense many understand it. And those who
do, and who apply it to the great command of Jesus to his disciples,
think they give a better interpretation of it, than those who connect it
with water. For they think it more reasonable that the Apostles should
have been enjoined to go into all nations, and to endeavour to purify
the hearts of individuals by the spirit and power of their preaching,
from the dross of Heathen notions, and to lead them to spirituality of
mind by the inculcation of Gospel principles, than to dip them under
water, as an essential part of their new religion.

But on a supposition that the word baptize should signify to immerse,
and not to purify, another difficulty occurs; for, if it was thought
proper or necessary that persons should be initiated into Christianity
by water-baptism, in order to distinguish their new state from that of
the Jews or Heathens, who then surrounded them, it seems unnecessary for
the children of Christian parents, who were born in a Christian
community, and whose ancestors for centuries have professed the
Christian name.

Nor is it to be considered as any other than a difficulty that the
Christian world have known so little about water-baptism, that they have
been divided as to the right manner of performing it. The eastern and
western churches differed early upon this point, and Christians continue
to differ upon it to the present day; some thinking that none but
adults; others, that none but infants should be baptised: some, that the
faces only of the baptized should be sprinkled with water; others, that
their bodies should be immersed.

On the subject of the sacrament of supper, similar difficulties have
occurred.

Jesus Christ unquestionably permitted his disciples to meet together in
remembrance of their last supper with him. But it is not clear, that
this was any other than a permission to those who were present, and who
had known and loved him. The disciples were not ordered to go into all
nations, and to enjoin it to their converts to observe the same
ceremony. Neither did the Apostles leave any command by which it was
enjoined as an ordinance of the Christian church.

Another difficulty which has arisen on the subject of the supper, is,
that Christians seem so little to have understood the nature of it, or
in what it consisted, that they have had, in different ages, different
views, and encouraged different doctrines concerning it. One has placed
it in one thing, and another in another. Most of them, again, have
attempted in their explanation of it, to blend the enjoyment of the
spiritual essence with that of the corporeal substance of the body and
blood of Christ, and thus to unite a spiritual with a ceremonial
exercise of religion. Grasping, therefore, at things apparently
irreconcilable, they have conceived the strangest notions; and, by
giving these to the world, they have only afforded fuel for contention
among themselves and others.

In the time of the Apostles, it was the custom of converted persons,
grounded on the circumstances that passed at the supper of the passover,
to meet in religious communion. They used, on these occasions, to break
their bread, and take their refreshment and converse together. The
object of these meetings was to imitate the last friendly supper of
Jesus with his disciples, to bear a public memorial of his sufferings
and his death, and to promote their love for one another. But this
custom was nothing more, as far as evidence can be had, than that of a
brotherly breaking of bread together. It was no sacramental eating.
Neither was the body of Jesus supposed to be enjoyed, nor the spiritual
enjoyment, of it to consist in the partaking of this outward feast.

In process of time, after the days of the Apostles, when this simple
custom had declined, we find another meeting of Christians, in imitation
of that at the passover supper, at which both bread and wine were
introduced. This different commemoration of the same event had a new
name given to it; for it was distinguished from the other by the name of
Eucharist.

Alexander, the seventh bishop of Rome, who introduced holy water both
into houses and churches for spiritual purposes, made some alterations
in the ingredients of the Eucharist, by mixing water with the wine, and
by substituting unleavened for common bread.

In the time of Irenaeus and Justin the Martyr, we find an account of the
Eucharist as it was then thought of and celebrated. Great stress was
then laid upon the bread and wine as a holy and sacramental repast:
prayers were made that the Holy Ghost would descend into each of these
substances. It was believed that it did so descend; and that as soon as
the bread and wine perceived it, the former operated virtually as the
body, and the latter as the blood of Jesus Christ. From this time the
bread was considered to have great virtues; and on this latter account,
not only children, but sucking infants, were admitted to this sacrament.
It was also given to persons on the approach of death. And many
afterwards, who had great voyages to make at sea, carried it with them
to preserve them both from temporal and spiritual dangers.

In the twelfth century, another notion, a little modified from the
former, prevailed on this subject; which was, that consecration by a
Priest had the power of abolishing the substance of the bread, and of
substituting the very body of Jesus Christ.

This was called the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

This doctrine appeared to Luther, at the dawn of the reformation, to be
absurd; and he was of opinion that the sacrament consisted of the
substance of Christ's body and blood, together with the substance of the
bread and wine; or, in other words, that the substance of the bread
remained, but the body of Christ was inherent in it, so that both the
substance of the bread and of the body and blood of Christ was there
also. This was called the doctrine of Consubstantiation, in
contradiction to the former.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19