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

The great object of John's baptism, was to make Jesus known to the Jews.
John himself declared this to be the object of it. [159] "But that he
should be made manifest unto Israel, _therefore_ am I come baptizing
with water." This object he accomplished two ways; first, by telling all
whom he baptized that Jesus was coming, and these were the Israel of
that time; for he is reported to have baptized all Jerusalem, which was
the metropolis, and all Judea, and all the country round about Jordan.
Secondly, by pointing him out personally.[160] This he did to Andrew, so
that Andrew left John and followed Jesus. Andrew, again, made him known
to Simon, and these to Philip, and Philip to Nathaniel; so that by means
of John, an assurance was given that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ.

[Footnote 159: John 1.31.]

[Footnote 160: John 1.40.]

The Quakers believe again, that the baptism of John was not included in
the great commission, because it was a type under the law, and all types
and shadows under the law were to cease under the Gospel dispensation,
or the law of Christ.

The salvation of the Eight by water, and the baptism of John, were both
types of the baptism of Christ. John was sent expressly before Jesus,
baptizing the bodies of men with water, as a lively image, as he himself
explains it, of the latter baptizing their souls with the Holy Ghost and
with fire. The baptism of John, therefore, was both preparative and
typical of that of Christ. And it is remarked by the Quakers, that no
sooner was Jesus baptized by John with water in the type, than he was,
according to all the Evangelists, baptized by the [161] Holy Ghost in
the antetype. No sooner did he go up out of the water, than John saw the
Heavens opened, and the spirit of God descending like a dove, and
lighting upon him. It was this baptism of Jesus in the antetype which
occasioned John to know him personally, and enabled him to discover him
to others. The baptism of John, therefore, being a type or figure under
the law, was to give way, when the antetype or substance became
apparent. And that it was to give way in its due time, is evident from
the confession of John himself. For on a question which arose between
some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying, and on a report
spread abroad, that Jesus had begun to baptize, John says, [162] "He
(Jesus) must increase, but I must decrease."--This confession of John
accords also with the following expressions of St. Paul: [163] "The Holy
Ghost this signifying, that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet
made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing, which
was a figure for the time then present,"--which stood only in meats and
drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances imposed on them until
the time of reformation.

[Footnote 161: Mat. 3. 16.--Mark 1. 10.]

[Footnote 162: John 3. 30.]

[Footnote 163: Heb. 9. 8. 9. 10.]

SECT. IV.

_Quakers show that the baptism, included in the great commission, which
appears not to be the baptism of John, is the baptism of Christ, from a
critical examination of the words in that commission--Way in which the
Quakers interpret these words--This interpretation confirmed by
citations from St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul_.

Having attempted to show, according to the method of the Quakers, that
the baptism of John is not the baptism included in the great commission,
I shall now produce those arguments, by which they maintain that that
baptism, which is included in it, is the baptism of Christ.

These arguments will be found chiefly in a critical examination of the
words of that commission.

To enable the reader to judge of the propriety of their observations
upon these words, I shall transcribe from St. Matthew the three verses
that relate to this subject.

[164] "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given
unto me in Heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you. And lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world."

[Footnote 164: Mat. 23.18,19,20.]

The first observation, which the Quakers make, is upon the word
"THEREFORE." As all power is given unto _me_ both in Heaven and in
earth; and as I can on that account, and as I will qualify you, go ye
therefore, that is, having previously received from me the qualification
necessary for your task, go ye.

The next observation is, that the commission does not imply that the
Apostles were to teach and to baptize as two separate acts, but, as the
words intimate, that they were to teach baptizing.

The Quakers say again, that the word "teach" is an improper translation
of the original [165]Greek. The Greek word should have been rendered
"make disciples or proselytes." In several editions of our own Bibles,
the word "teach" is explained in the margin opposite to it, "make
disciples or Christians of all nations," or in the same manner as the
Quakers explain it.

[Footnote 165: [Greek: didasko] is the usual word for teach, but [Greek:
word] is used in the commission; which latter word occurs but seldom in
the New Testament, and always signifies to "disciple."]

On the word "baptize," they observe, that because its first meaning is
to wash all over, and because baptism with Christians is always with
water, people cannot easily separate the image of water from the word,
when it is read or pronounced. But if this image is never to be
separated from it, how will persons understand the words of St. Paul,
"for by one spirit are we all baptized into one body?" Or those of
Jesus, "Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of, or be baptized with the
baptism that I am baptized with?" Or, if this image is not to be
separated from it, how will they understand the Evangelists, who
represent Jesus Christ as about to baptize, or wash all over, with fire?
To baptize, in short, signifies to dip under water, but, in its more
general meaning, to purify. Fire and water have equally power in this
respect, but on different objects. Water purifies surfaces. Fire
purifies by actual and total separation, bringing those bodies into one
mass which are homogeneous, or which have strong affinities to each
other, and leaving the dross and incombustible parts by themselves.

The word "in" they also look upon as improperly translated. This word
should have been rendered [166] "into." If the word "in" were the right
translation, the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost," might be construed into a form of words to be used
at the time of baptism.

[Footnote 166: The word in the original Greek is [Greek word] and not
[Greek word]]

But we have no evidence that such a formula was ever used, when any of
the Apostles baptized. Indeed, the plain meaning of the word is "into,"
and therefore all such formula is groundless.[167] "Jesus Christ did
not, says Zuinglius, by these words institute a form of baptism, which
we should use, as divines have falsely taught."

[Footnote 167: Lib. de Bapt. p. 56, tom. 2. Oper.]

On the word "name," the Quakers observe, that, when it relates to the
Lord, it frequently signifies in scripture, his life, or his spirit, or
his power. Thus, [168] "in my name, shall they cast out devils." And,
[169] "by what power, or by what name have ye done this?"

[Footnote 168: Mark 16. 17.]

[Footnote 169: Acts 4. 7.]

From the interpretation, which has now been given of the meaning of
several of the words in the verses, that have been quoted from St.
Matthew, the sense of the commission, according to the Quakers, will
stand thus: "All power is given to me in Heaven and in earth. In virtue
of the power which I have, I will give you power also. I will confer
upon you the gift of the Holy Spirit. When you have received it, go into
different and distant lands; go to the Gentiles who live in ignorance,
darkness, and idolatry, and make them proselytes to my new dispensation;
so purifying their hearts, or burning the chaff of their corrupt
affections by the active fire of the Holy Spirit, which shall accompany
your preaching, that they may be made partakers of the divine nature,
and walk in newness of life. And lest this should appear to be too great
a work for your faith, I, who have the power, promise to be with you
with this my spirit in the work, till the end of the world."

The Quakers contend, that this is the true interpretation of this
commission, because it exactly coincides with the meaning of the same
commission as described by St. Luke and St. Mark, and of that also which
was given to St. Paul.

St. Luke states the commission given to the Apostles to have been
[170] "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his
name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." The meaning therefore
of the commission, as stated by St. Luke, is precisely the same as that
stated by St. Matthew. For first, all nations are included in it.
Secondly, purification of heart, or conversion from sin, is insisted
upon to be the object of it. And thirdly, this object is to be effected,
not by the baptism of water, (for baptism is no where mentioned,) but by
preaching, in which is included the idea of the baptism of the spirit.

[Footnote 170: Luke 24. 47]

St. Mark also states the commission to be the same, in the following
words: [171] "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach
the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall
be saved." Here all nations, and the preaching of the Gospel, are
mentioned again; but baptism is now added. But the baptism that was to
go with this preaching, the Quakers contend to be the baptism of the
spirit. For first, the baptism here mentioned is connected with
salvation. But the baptism, according to St. Peter, which doth also now
save us, "is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer
of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ;"
or the baptism of the spirit. Secondly, the nature of the baptism here
mentioned is explained by the verse that follows it. Thus, "he that
believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved. And these signs shall follow
them that believe: they shall speak with new tongues." This therefore is
the same baptism as that which St. Paul conferred upon some of his
disciples by the laying on of his hands. [172] "And when Paul had laid
his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spake with
tongues and prophesied." Thus, again, it is demonstrated to be the
baptism of the spirit.

[Footnote 171: Mark 16.15.]

[Footnote 172: Acts 19.6.]

The commission also, which has been handed down to us by St. Matthew,
will be found, as it has been now explained, to coincide in its object
with that which was given to Paul, as we find by his confession to
Agrippa. For he declared[173] he was sent as a minister to the Gentiles
"to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from
the power of Satan unto God, that they might receive forgiveness of
sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith in
Christ." But what was this, the Quakers say, but to baptize them into
the life and spirit of a new and divine nature, or with the baptism of
Christ?

[Footnote 173: Acts 26.17. 18.]

And as we have thus obtained a knowledge from St. Paul of what his own
commission contained, so we have, from the same authority, a knowledge
of what it did not contain; for he positively declares, in his first
Epistle to the Corinthians, that "Christ sent him not to baptize
(evidently alluding to the baptism by water) but to preach the Gospel."
It is clear therefore that St. Paul did not understand his commission to
refer to water. And who was better qualified to understand it than
himself?

It is also stated by the Quakers, as another argument to the same point,
that if the baptism in the commission had been that of water only, the
Apostles could easily have administered it of themselves, or without
any supernatural assistance; but, in order that they might be enabled to
execute that baptism which the commission pointed to, they were desired
to wait for divine help. Jesus Christ said,[174] "I send the promise of
my father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be
endued with the power from on high; for John truly baptized with water,
but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." Now,
the Quakers ask, if baptism by water had been the baptism contained in
the great commission, why could not the Apostles have performed it of
themselves? What should have hindered them more than John from going
with people into the rivers, and immersing them? Why were they first to
receive themselves the baptism of the spirit? But if it be allowed, on
the other hand, that when they executed the great commission, they were
to perform the baptism of Christ, the case is altered. It became them
then to wait for the divine help. For it required more than human power
to give that baptism, which should change the disposition and affections
of men, and should be able to bring them from darkness unto light, and
from the power of Satan unto God. And here the Quakers observe, that the
Apostles never attempted to execute the great commission, till the time
fixed upon by our Saviour, in these words: "But tarry ye in the city of
Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." This was the day
of pentecost. After this "they preached, as St. Peter says, with the
Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven," and with such efficacy, that "the
Holy Ghost fell upon many of them, who heard their words."

[Footnote 174: Luke 24.49.]

SECT. V.

_Objection to the foregoing arguments of the Quakers--namely, "If it be
not the baptism of John that is included in the Great Commission, how
came the Apostles to baptize with water?"--Practice and opinions of
Peter considered--also of Paul--also of Jesus Christ--This practice, as
explained by these opinions, considered by the Quakers to turn out in
favour of their own doctrine on this subject._

I have now stated the arguments by which the Quakers have been induced
to believe that the baptism by the spirit, and not the baptism by water,
was included by Jesus Christ in the great commission which he gave to
his Apostles, when he requested them "to go into all nations, and to
teach them, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost."

Against these arguments the following question has been usually started,
as an objection: "If it be not included in the great commission, how
came the Apostles to baptize; or would they have baptised, if baptism
had not been considered by them as a Christian ordinance?"

The Quakers, in answering this objection, have confined themselves to
the consideration of the conduct of the Apostles Peter and Paul. For
though Philip is said to have baptized also, yet he left no writings
behind him like the former; nor are so many circumstances recorded of
him, by which they may be enabled to judge of his character, or to know
what his opinions ultimately were, upon that subject.

The Quakers consider the Apostles as men of the like passions with
themselves. They find the ambition of James and John; the apostacy and
dissimulation of Peter; the incredulity of Thomas; the dissention
between Paul and Barnabas; and the jealousies which some of them
entertained towards one another, recorded in holy writ. They believe
them also to have been mostly men of limited information, and to have
had their prejudices, like other people. Hence it was not to be expected
that they should come all at once into the knowledge of Christ's
kingdom; that, educated in a religion of types and ceremonials, they
should all at once abandon these; that, expecting a temporal Messiah,
they should lay aside at once temporal views; and that they should come
immediately into the full purity of the gospel practice.

With respect to the Apostle Peter, he gave early signs of the dulness of
his comprehension with respect to the nature of the character and
kingdom of the Messiah. [175]For when Jesus had given forth but a simple
parable, he was obliged to ask him the meaning of it. This occasioned
Jesus to say to him, "Are ye also yet without understanding?"

[Footnote 175: Matt. 15.16.]

In a short time afterwards, when our Saviour told him, [176] "that he
himself must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things, and be killed, and
be raised again the third day, Peter took him and rebuked him, saying,
Be it far from thee, Lord. This shall not be unto thee."

[Footnote 176: Matt. l6. 21. 22.]

At a subsequent time, namely, just after the transfiguration of Christ,
he seems to have known so little about spiritual things, that he
expressed a wish to raise three earthly tabernacles, one to Moses,
another to Elias, and a third to Jesus, for the retention of signs and
shadows as a Gospel labour, at the very time when Jesus Christ was
opening the dismission of all but one, namely, "the tabernacle of God,
that is with men."

Nor did he seem, at a more remote period, to have gained more large or
spiritual ideas. He did not even know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ
was to be universal. He considered it as limited; to the Jews, though
the words in the great commission, which he and the other Apostles had
heard, ordered them to teach all nations. He was unwilling to go and
preach to Cornelius on this very account, merely because he was a Roman
Centurion, or in other words, a Gentile; so that a vision was necessary
to remove his scruples in this particular. It was not till after this
vision, and his conversation with Cornelius, that his mind began to be
opened; and then he exclaimed, "Of a truth, I perceive that God is no
respecter of persons; but in every nation, he that feareth him and
worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

The mind of Peter now began to be opened and to see things in a clearer
light, when a new occurrence that took place nearly at the same time,
seems to have taken the film still more from his eyes: for while he
preached to Cornelius, and the others present, he perceived that "the
Holy Ghost fell upon all of them that heard his words, as on himself and
the other Apostles at the beginning." Then remembered Peter the words of
the Lord, how that he said, "John indeed baptised with water, but ye
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost:" that is, Peter finding that
Cornelius and his friends had received, by means of his own powerful
preaching, the Holy Ghost, perceived then for the first time, to his
great surprise, that he had been executing the great commission of Jesus
Christ; or that he had taught a Gentile, and baptized him with the Holy
Spirit. Here it was that he first made the discrimination between the
baptism of John, and the baptism of Christ.

From this time there is reason to think that his eyes became fully open;
for in a few years afterwards, when we have an opportunity of viewing
his conduct again, we find him an altered man as to his knowledge of
spiritual things. Being called upon at the council of Jerusalem to
deliberate on the propriety of circumcision to Gentile converts, he
maintains that God gives his Holy Spirit as well to the Gentiles as to
the Jews. He maintains again, that God _purifies_ by _faith_; and he
delivers it as his opinion, that circumcision is to be looked upon as a
yoke. And here it may be remarked, that circumcision and baptism
uniformly went together, when proselytes of the covenant were made, or
when any of the Heathens were desirous of conforming to the whole of the
Jewish law.

At a time, again, subsequent to this, or when he wrote his Epistles
which were to go to the strangers all over Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,
Asia, and Bithynia, he discovers himself to be the same full grown man
in spiritual things on the subject of baptism itself, in these
remarkable words, which have been quoted: "Whose antitype baptism doth
also now save us, (not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the
answer of a good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ." So that the last opinion of Peter on the subject of
water-baptism contradicted his practice, when he was but a noviciate in
Christ's kingdom.

With respect to the Apostle Paul, whose practice I am to consider next,
it is said of him, as of St. Peter, that he baptized.

That Paul baptized is to be collected from his own writings. For it
appears, by his own account, that there had been divisions among the
Corinthians. Of those who had been converted to Christianity, some
called themselves after the name of Cephas; others after the name of
Apollos; others after the name of Paul; thus dividing themselves
nominally into sects, according to the name of him who had either
baptized or converted them. St. Paul mentions these circumstances, by
which it comes to light, that he used water-baptism, and he regrets that
the persons in question should have made such a bad use of this rite, as
to call themselves after him who baptized them, instead of calling
themselves after Christ, and dwelling on him alone. [177] "I thank God,
says he, that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius; lest any
should say that I baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the house
of Stephanas. Besides I know not whether I baptized any other, for
Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." Now this
confession of the Apostle, which is usually brought against the Quakers,
they consider to be entirely in their favour, and indeed decisive of the
point in question. For they collect from hence, that St. Paul never
considered baptism by water as any Gospel ordinance, or as any rite
indispensably necessary, when men were admitted as members into the
Christian church. For if he had considered it in this light, he would
never have said that Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the
Gospel. Neither would he have thanked God, on account of the mere abuse
of it, that he had baptized so few, for doubtless there were many among
the learned Greeks, who abused his preaching, and who called it
_foolishness_, but yet he nowhere says, that he was sorry on that
account that he ever preached to them; for preaching was a gospel
ordinance enjoined him, by which many were to be converted to the
Christian faith. Again--If he had considered water baptism, as a
necessary mark of initiation into Christianity, he would uniformly have
adopted it, as men became proselytes to his doctrines. But among the
thousands, whom in all probability he baptized with the Holy Spirit
among the Corinthians, it does not appear, that there were more than the
members of the three families of Crispus, Gaius, and Stephanus, whom be
baptized with water.

[Footnote 177: 1 Cor. I. 14, 15, 16.]

But still it is contended, that Paul says of himself, that the baptized.
The Quakers agree to this, but they say that he must have done it, in
these instances, on motives very different from those of an
indispensable Christian rite.

In endeavouring to account for these motives, the Quakers consider the
Apostle Paul as not in the situation of Peter and others, who were a
long time in acquiring their spiritual knowledge, during which they
might be in doubt as to the propriety of many customs; but as coming, on
the other hand, quickly and powerfully into the knowledge of Christ's
kingdom. Hence, when he baptized, they impute no ignorance to him. They
believe he rejected water-baptism as a gospel ordinance, but that he
considered it in itself as an harmless ceremony, and that, viewing it in
this light, he used it out of condescension to those ellenistic Jews,
whose prejudices, on account of the washings of Moses and their customs
relative to proselytes, were so strong, that they could not separate
purification by water from conversion to a new religion. For St. Paul
confesses himself that "to the weak he became as weak, that he might
gain the weak, and was made all things to all men, that he might by all
means save some." Of this his condescension many instances are recorded
in the New Testament, though it may be only necessary to advert to one.
At the great council at Jerusalem, where Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James,
and others, were present, it was[178] determined that circumcision was
not necessary to the Gentiles. St. Paul himself with some others carried
the very letter of the council, containing their determination upon this
subject, to Antioch to the brethren there. This letter was addressed to
the brethren of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. After having left Antioch,
he went to Derbe and Lystra, where, notwithstanding the determination of
himself and the rest of the council, that circumcision was not a
Christian rite, he[179] circumcised Timotheus, in condescension to the
weakness of the Jews, who were in those quarters.

[Footnote 178: Acts 15.]

[Footnote 179: Acts 16.3.]

In addition to these observations on the practice and opinions of the
Apostles, in the course of which the Quakers presume it will be found
that the baptism of John is not an ordinance of the Gospel, they presume
the same conclusion will be adopted, if they take into consideration the
practice and opinions of Jesus Christ.

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