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

Calvin again considered the latter opinion erroneous: he gave it out
that the bread was not actually the body of Jesus Christ, nor the wine
his blood; but that both his body and blood were sacramentally received
by the faithful, in the use of the bread and wine. Calvin, however,
confessed himself unable to explain even this his own doctrine. For he
says, "if it be asked me how it is, that is, how believers sacramentally
receive Christ's body and blood? I shall not be ashamed to confess, that
it is a secret too high for me to comprehend in my spirit, or explain in
words."

But independently of the difficulties which have arisen from these
different notions concerning the nature and constitution of the Lord's
supper, others have arisen concerning the time and the manner of the
celebration of it.

The Christian churches of the east, in the early times, justifying
themselves by tradition and the custom of the passover, maintained that
the fourteenth day of the month Nissan ought to be observed as the day
of the celebration of this feast, because the Jews were commanded to
kill the Paschal Lamb on that day. The western, on the other hand,
maintained the authority of tradition and the primitive practice, that
it ought to be kept on no other day than that of the resurrection of
Jesus Christ. Disputes again of a different complexion agitated the
Christian world upon the same subject. One church contended that the
leavened, another that unleavened bread only should be used upon this
occasion: others contended, whether the administration of this sacrament
should be by the hands of the clergy only: others, whether it should not
be confined to the sick: others, whether it should be given to the young
and mature promiscuously: others, whether it should be received by the
communicant standing, sitting, or kneeling, or as the Apostles received
it: and others, whether it should be administered in the night time as
by our Saviour, or whether in the day, or whether only once, as at the
passover, or whether oftener in the year.

Another difficulty, but of a different nature, has occurred with respect
to the Lord's supper. This has arisen from the circumstance, that other
ceremonies were enjoined by our Saviour in terms equally positive as
this, but which most Christians, notwithstanding, have thought
themselves at liberty to reject. Among these the washing of feet is
particularly to be noticed. This custom was of an emblematic nature. It
was enjoined at the same time as that of the Lord's supper, and on the
same occasion. But it was enjoined in a more forcible and striking
manner. The Sandimanians, when they rose into a society, considered the
injunction for this ordinance to be so obligatory, that they dared not
dispense with it; and therefore, when they determined to celebrate the
supper, they determined that the washing of feet should be an ordinance
of their church. Most other Christians, however, have dismissed the
washing of feet from their religious observance. The reason given has
principally been, that it was an eastern custom, and therefore local. To
this the answer has been, that the passover, from whence the Lord's
supper is taken, was an eastern custom also, but that it was much more
local. Travellers of different nations had their feet washed for them in
the east. But none but those of the circumcision were admitted to the
passover-supper. If, therefore, the injunction relative to the washing
of feet, be equally strong with that relative to the celebration of the
supper, it has been presumed, that both ought to have been retained;
and, if one has been dispensed with on account of its locality, that
both ought to have been discarded.

That the washing of feet was enjoined much more emphatically than the
supper, we may collect from Barclay, whose observations upon it I shall
transcribe on this occasion.

"But to give a farther evidence, says he, how these consequences have
not any bottom from the practice of that ceremony, nor from the words
following, 'Do this in remembrance of me,' let us consider another of
the like nature, as it is at length expressed by John. [143] 'Jesus
riseth from supper and laid aside his garments, and took a towel, and
girded himself: after that, he poureth water into a bason, and began to
wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he
was girded. Peter said unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus
answered him. If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. So after he
had washed their feet, he said, Know ye what I have done to you? If I
then, your Lord and master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash
one another's feet: for I have given you an example, that ye should do
as I have done to you.' As to which let it be observed, continues
Barclay, that John relates this passage to have been done at the same
time with the other of breaking bread; both being done the night of the
passover, after supper. If we regard the narration of this, and the
circumstances attending it, it was done with far more solemnity, and
prescribed far more punctually and particularly, than the former. It is
said only, 'as he was eating he took bread;' so that this would seem to
be but an occasional business: but here 'he rose up, he laid by his
garments, he girded himself, he poured out the water, he washed their
feet, he wiped them with a towel.' He did this to all of them; which are
circumstances surely far more observable than those noted in the other.
The former was a practice common among the Jews, used by all masters of
families, upon that occasion; but this, as to the manner, and person
acting it, to wit, for the master to rise up, and wash the feet of his
servants and disciples, was more singular and observable. In the
breaking of bread and giving of wine, it is not pleaded by our
adversaries, nor yet mentioned in the text, that he particularly put
them into the hands of all; but breaking it, and blessing it, gave it
the nearest, and so they from hand to hand. But here it is mentioned,
that he washed not the feet of one or two, but of many. He saith not in
the former, that if they do not eat of that bread, and drink of that
wine, that they shall be prejudiced by it; but here he says expressly to
Peter, that 'if he wash him not, he hath no part with him;' which being
spoken upon Peter's refusing to let him wash his feet, would seem to
import no less, than not the continuance only, but even the necessity of
this ceremony. In the former, he saith as it were passingly, 'Do this in
remembrance of me:' but here he sitteth down again; he desires them to
consider what he hath done; tells them positively 'that as he hath done
to them, so ought they to do to one another:' and yet again he redoubles
that precept, by telling them, 'that he has given them an example, that
they should do so likewise.' If we respect the nature of the thing, it
hath as much in it as either baptism or the breaking of the bread;
seeing it is an outward element of a cleansing nature, applied to the
outward man, by the command and the example of Christ, to signify an
inward purifying. I would willingly propose this seriously to men, that
will be pleased to make use of that reason and understanding that God
hath given them, and not be imposed upon, nor abused by the custom or
tradition of others, whether this ceremony, if we respect either the
time that it was appointed in, or the circumstances wherewith it was
performed, or the command enjoining the use of it, hath not as much to
recommend it for a standing ordinance of the Gospel, as either
water-baptism, or bread and wine, or any other of that kind? I wonder
then, what reason the Papists can give, why they have not numbered it
among their sacraments, except merely Voluntas Ecclesiae et Traditio
Patrum, that is, the Tradition of the Fathers, and the Will of the
Church."

[Footnote 143: John 13. 3. &c.]

The reader will see by this time, that, on subjects which have given
rise to such controversies as baptism and the Lord's supper have now
been described to have done, people may be readily excused, if they
should entertain their own opinions about them, though these may be
different from those which are generally received by the world. The
difficulties indeed, which have occurred with respect to these
ordinances, should make us tender of casting reproach upon others, who
should differ from ourselves concerning them. For when we consider, that
there is no one point connected with these ordinances, about which there
has not been some dispute; that those who have engaged in these
disputes, have been men of equal learning and piety; that all of them
have pleaded primitive usage, in almost all cases, in behalf of their
own opinions; and that these disputes are not even now, all of them,
settled; who will take upon him to censure his brother either for the
omission or the observance of one or the other rite? And let the
Quakers, among others, find indulgence from their countrymen for their
opinions on these subjects. This indulgence they have a right to claim
from the consideration, that they themselves never censure others of
other denominations on account of their religion. With respect to those
who belong to the society, as the rejection of these ceremonies is one
of the fundamentals of Quakerism, it is expected that they should be
consistent with what they are considered to profess. But with respect to
others, they have no unpleasant feelings towards those who observe them.
If a man believes that baptism is an essential rite of the Christian
church, the Quakers would not judge him if he were to go himself, or if
he were to carry his children, to receive it. And if, at the communion
table, he should find his devotion to be so spiritualized, that, in the
taking of the bread and wine, he really and spiritually discerned the
body and blood of Christ, and was sure that his own conduct would he
influenced morally by it, they would not censure him for becoming an
attendant at the altar. In short, the Quakers do not condemn others for
their attendances on these occasions. They only hope, that as they do
not see these ordinances in the same light as others, they may escape
censure, if they should refuse to admit them among themselves.

CHAP. XV.

SECT. I.

_Baptism--Two baptisms--That of John and of Christ--That of John was by
water, a Jewish ordinance, and used preparatory to religious conversion
and worship--Hence John used it as preparatory to conversion to
Christianity--Jesus submitted to it to fulfil all righteousness--Others
as to a baptism to repentance--But it was not initiative into the
Christian church, but belonged to the Old Testament--Nor was John under
the Gospel, but under the law_.

I come now to the arguments which the Quakers have to offer for the
rejection of the use of baptism and of the sacrament of the supper; and
first for that of the use of the former rite.

Two baptisms are recorded in scripture--the baptism of John, and the
baptism of Christ.

The baptism of John was by water, and a Jewish ordinance. The washing of
garments and of the body, which were called baptisms by the Ellenistic
Jews, were enjoined to the Jewish nation, as modes of purification from
legal pollutions, symbolical of that inward cleansing of the heart,
which was necessary to persons before they could hold sacred offices,
or pay their religions homage in the temple, or become the true
worshippers of God. The Jews, therefore, in after times, when they made
proselytes from the Heathen nations, enjoined these the same customs as
they observed themselves. They generally circumcised, at least the
proselytes of the covenant, as a mark of their incorporation into the
Jewish church, and they afterwards washed them with water or baptized
them, which was to be a sign to them of their having been cleansed from
the filth of idolatry, and an emblem of their fitness, in case of a real
cleansing, to receive the purer precepts of the Jewish religion, and to
walk in newness of life.

Baptism therefore was a Jewish ordinance, used on religious occasions:
and therefore John, when he endeavoured by means of his preaching to
prepare the Jews for the coming of the Messiah, and their minds for the
reception of the new religion, used it as a symbol of the purification
of heart, that was necessary for the dispensation which was then at
hand. He knew that his hearers would understand the meaning of the
ceremony. He had reason also to believe, that on account of the nature
of his mission, they would expect it. Hence the Sanhedrim, to whom the
cognizance of the legal cleansings belonged, when they were informed of
the baptism of John, never expressed any surprise at it, as a now, or
unusual, or improper custom. They only found fault with him for the
administration of it, when he denied himself to be either Elias or
Christ.

It was partly upon one of the principles that have been mentioned, that
Jesus received the baptism of John. He received it as it is recorded,
because "thus it became him to fulfil all righteousness." By the
fulfilling of righteousness is meant the fulfilling of the ordinances of
the law, or the customs required by the Mosaic dispensation in
particular cases. He had already undergone circumcision as a Jewish
ordinance, and he now submitted to baptism. For as Aaron and his Sons
were baptized previously to the taking upon them of the office of the
Jewish priesthood, so Jesus was baptized by John previously to his
entering upon his own ministry, or becoming the high priest of the
Christian dispensation.

But though Jesus Christ received the baptism of John, that he might
fulfil all righteousness, others received it as the baptism of
repentance from sins, that they might be able to enter the kingdom that
was at hand. This baptism, however, was not initiative into the
Christian church. For the Apostles rebaptized some who had been baptized
by John. Those, again, who received the baptism of John, did not profess
faith in Christ, John again, as well as his doctrines, belonged to the
Old Testament. He was no minister under the new dispensation, but the
last prophet under the law. Hence Jesus said, that though none of the
prophets "were greater than John the baptist, yet he that is least in
the kingdom of Heaven is greater than he." Neither did he ever hear the
Gospel preached; for Jesus did not begin his ministry till John had been
put into prison, where he was beheaded by the orders of Herod. John, in
short, was with respect to Jesus, what Moses was with respect to Joshua.
Moses, though he conducted to the promised land, and was permitted to
see it from Mount Nebo, yet never entered it, but gave place to Joshua,
whose name, like that of Jesus, signifies a Saviour. In the same manner
John conducted to Jesus Christ. He saw him once with his own eyes, but
he was never permitted, while alive, to enter into his spiritual
kingdom.

SECT. II.

_Second baptism, or that of Christ--This the baptism of the gospel--This
distinct from the former in point of time; and in nature and essence--As
that of John was outward, so this was to be inward and spiritual--It was
to cleanse the heart--and was to be capable of making even the Gentiles
the seed of Abraham--This distinction of watery and spiritual baptism
pointed out by Jesus Christ--by St. Peter--and by St. Paul._

The second baptism, recorded in the scriptures, is that of Christ. This
may be called the baptism of the Gospel, in contradistinction to the
former, which was that of the law.

This baptism is totally distinct from the former. John himself
said,[144] "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that
cometh after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to
bear. He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire."

[Footnote 144: Matth. 3.11.]

From these words it appears, that this baptism is distinct, in point of
time, from the former; for it was to follow the baptism of John: and
secondly, in nature and essence; for whereas that of John was by water,
this was to be by the spirit.

This latter distinction is insisted upon by John in other places. For
when he was questioned by the Pharisees [145] "why he baptized, if he was
not that Christ, nor Ellas, nor that prophet," he thought it a
sufficient excuse to say, "I baptize with water;" that is, I baptize
with water only; I use only an ancient Jewish custom; I do not intrude
upon the office of Christ, who is coming after me, or pretend to his
baptism of the spirit. We find also, that no less than three times in
eight verses, when he speaks of his own baptism, he takes care to add to
it the word [146] "water," to distinguish it from the baptism of Christ.

[Footnote 145: John 1. 25]

[Footnote 146: John 1 from 25 to 34.]

As the baptism of John cleansed the body from the filth of the flesh, so
that of Christ was really to cleanse the soul from the filth of sin.
Thus John, speaking of Jesus Christ, in allusion to this baptism,
says,[147] "whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his
floor, and gather his wheat into his garner, but he will burn up the
chaff with unquenchable fire." By this he insinuated, that in the same
manner as the farmer, with the fan in his hand, winnows the corn, and
separates the light and bad grains from the heavy and the good, and in
the same manner as the fire afterwards destroys the chaff, so the
baptism of Christ, for which he was preparing them, was of an inward and
spiritual nature, and would effectually destroy the light and corrupt
affections, and thoroughly cleanse the floor of the human heart.

[Footnote 147: Mat. 3. 12]

This baptism, too, was to be so searching as to be able to penetrate the
hardest heart, and to make even the Gentiles the real children of
Abraham.[148] "For think not, says John, in allusion to the same
baptism, to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our Father; for I
say unto, you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children
unto Abraham." As if he had said, I acknowledge that you Pharisees can,
many of you, boast of relationship to Abraham by a strict and scrupulous
attention to shadowy and figurative ordinances; that many of you can
boast of relationship to him by blood; and all of you by circumcision.
But it does not follow, therefore, that you are the children of Abraham.
Those only will be able to boast of being his seed, to whom the fan and
fire of Christ's baptism shall be applied. The baptism of him, who is to
come after me, and whose kingdom is at hand, is of that spiritual and
purifying nature, that it will produce effects very different from those
of an observance of outward ordinances. It can so cleanse and purify the
hearts of men, that if there are Gentiles in the most distant lands,
ever so far removed from Abraham, and possessing hearts of the hardness
of stones, it can make them the real children of Abraham in the sight of
God.

[Footnote 148: Math. 3.9.]

This distinction between the watery baptism of John, and the fiery and
spiritual baptism of Christ, was pointed out by Jesus Christ himself;
for, he is reported to have appeared to his disciples after his
resurrection, and to have commanded them [149] "that they should not
depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which,
says he, ye have heard from me. For John truly baptized with water, but
ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."

[Footnote 149: Acts 1.4.]

Saint Luke also records a transaction which took place, in which Peter
was concerned, and on which occasion he first discerned the baptism of
Christ, as thus distinguished in the words which have been just given.
[150] "And as I began to speak, says he, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as
on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that
he said, John, indeed, baptised with water, but ye shall be baptized by
the Holy Spirit."

[Footnote 150: Acts II, 15,16.]

A similar distinction is made also by St. Paul; for when he found that
certain disciples had been baptized only with the baptism of John,[151]
he laid his hand upon them, and baptized them again; but this was with
the baptism of the spirit. In his epistle also, to the Corinthians, we
find the following expression:[152] "For by one spirit are we all
baptized unto one body."

[Footnote 151: Acts 19.]

[Footnote 152: I Cor. 12, 13].

SECT. III.

_Question is, which of these turn baptisms is included in the great
commission given by Jesus to his Apostles, "of baptizing in the name of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?"--Quakers deny it to be that
of John, because contrary to the ideas of St. Peter and St.
Paul--because the object of John's baptism had been completed--because
it was a type under the law, and such types were to cease._

It appears then that there are two baptisms recorded in Scripture; the
one, the baptism of John, the other that of Christ; that these are
distinct from one another; and that the one does not include the other,
except he who baptizes with water, can baptize at the same time with the
Holy Ghost. Now St. Paul speaks only of[153] one baptism as effectual;
and St. Peter must mean the same, when he speaks of the baptism that
saveth. The question therefore is, which of the two baptisms that have
been mentioned, is the one effectual, or saving baptism? or, which of
these it is, that Jesus Christ included in his great commission to the
Apostles, when he commanded them "to go and teach all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

[Footnote 153: Eph. 4.5.]

The Quakers say, that the baptism, included in this commission, was not
the baptism of John.

In the first place, St. Peter says it was not, in these words:
[154] "Which sometimes were disobedient, when once the long suffering of
God waited in the days of Noah while the Ark was preparing, wherein few,
that is, eight souls, were saved by water;[155] whose antetype baptism
doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,
but the answer of a good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ."

[Footnote 154: 1 Peter 3. 20. 21]

[Footnote 155: Antetype is the proper translation, and not "the figure
whereunto."]

The Apostle states here concerning the baptism that is effectual and
saving; first, that it is not the putting away of the filth of the
flesh, which is effected by water. He carefully puts those upon their
guard, to whom he writes, lest they should consider John's baptism, or
that of water, to be the saving one, to which he alludes; for, having
made a beautiful comparison between an outward salvation in an outward
ark, by the outward water, with this inward salvation by inward and
spiritual water, in the inward ark of the Testament, he is fearful that
his reader should connect these images, and fancy that water had any
thing to do with this baptism. Hence he puts his caution in a
parenthesis, thus guarding his meaning in an extraordinary manner.

He then shows what this baptism is, and calls it the answer of a good
conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In fact, he
states it to be the baptism of Christ, which is by the Spirit. For he
maintains, that he only is truly baptized, whose conscience is made
clear by the resurrection of Christ in his heart. But who can make the
answer of such a conscience, except the Holy Spirit shall have first
purified the floor of the heart; except the spiritual fan of Christ
shall have first separated the wheat from the chaff, and except his
spiritual fire shall have consumed the latter?

St. Paul makes a similar declaration: "For as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."[156] But no man, the Quakers
say, merely by being dipped under water, can put on Christ, that is, his
life, his nature, his disposition, his love, meekness, and temperance,
and all those virtues which should characterise a Christian.

[Footnote 156: Galat 3. 27.]

To the same purport are those other words by the same Apostle:[157] "Know
ye not, that so many of us as were baptized unto Jesus Christ, were
baptized into his death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead
by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of
life." And again--[158] "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are
risen with him, through the faith of the co-operation of God, who hath
raised him from the dead." By these passages the Apostle Paul testifies
that he alone is truly baptized, who first dies unto sin, and is raised
up afterwards from sin unto righteousness, or who is raised up into life
with Christ, or who so feels the inward resurrection and glory of Christ
in his soul, that he walks in newness of life.

[Footnote 157: Rom. 6.3.4]

[Footnote 158: Colos. 2.12]

The Quakers show again, that the baptism of John could not have been
included in the great commission, because the object of John's baptism
had been completed even before the preaching of Jesus Christ.

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