An Apology for the True Christian Divinity / Being an explanation and vindication of the principles and doctrines of the people called Quakers

by Robert Barclay

§. VIII.

[117] John 3. 34.

Answ.I answer, So was he also circumcised; it will not follow from thence that Circumcision is to continue: Why Christ was baptized by John.For it behoved Christ to fulfil all Righteousness, not only the Ministry of John, but the Law also, therefore did he observe the Jewish Feasts and Rites, and keep the Passover. It will not thence follow that Christians ought to do so now; and therefore Christ, Matt. iii. 15. gives John this Reason of his being baptized, desiring him to suffer it to be so now; whereby he sufficiently intimates that he intended not thereby to perpetuate it as an Ordinance to his Disciples.

Obj. 2.Secondly, They object, Matt. xxviii. 19. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Answ.This is the great Objection, and upon which they build the whole Superstructure; whereunto the first general and sound Answer is, by granting the whole; What Baptism Christ doth mean in Mat. 28.but putting them to prove that Water is here meant, since the Text is silent of it. And though in Reason it be sufficient upon our Part that we concede the whole expressed in the Place, but deny that it is by Water, which is an Addition to the Text, yet I shall premise some Reasons why we do so, and then consider the Reasons alleged by those that will have Water to be here understood.

Arg. 1.The First is a Maxim yielded to by all, That we ought not to go from the literal Signification of the Text, except some urgent Necessity force us thereunto.

But no urgent Necessity in this Place forceth us thereunto:

Therefore we ought not to go from it.

Arg. 2.Secondly, That Baptism which Christ commanded his Apostles was the one Baptism, id est, his own Baptism:

But the one Baptism, which is Christ’s Baptism, is not with Water, as we have already proved:

Therefore the Baptism commanded by Christ to his Apostles was not Water-baptism.

Arg. 3.Thirdly, That Baptism which Christ commanded his Apostles was such, that as many as were therewith baptized did put on Christ:

But this is not true of Water-baptism:

Therefore, &c.

Arg. 4.Fourthly, The Baptism commanded by Christ to his Apostles was not John’s Baptism:

But Baptism with Water was John’s Baptism:

Therefore, &c.

Alleg. 1.But First, They allege, That Christ’s Baptism, though a Baptism with Water, did differ from John’s, because John only baptized with Water unto Repentance, but Christ commands his Disciples to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; reckoning that in this Form there lieth a great Difference betwixt the Baptism of John and that of Christ.

I answer, In that John’s Baptism was unto Repentance, the Difference lieth not there, because so is Christ’s also; yea, our Adversaries will not deny but that adult Persons that are to be baptized ought, ere they are admitted to Water-baptism, to repent, and confess their Sins: And that Infants also, with a Respect to and Consideration of their Baptism, ought to repent and confess; so that the Difference lieth not here, since this of Repentance and Confession agrees as well to Christ’s as to John’s Baptism. But in this our Adversaries are divided; for Calvin will have Christ’s and John’s to be all one, Inst. Lib. 4. Cap. 15. Sect. 7, 8. yet they do differ, and the Difference is, in that the one is by Water, the other not, &c.

Secondly, As to what Christ saith, in commanding them to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, I confess that states the Difference, and it is great; but that lies not only in admitting Water-baptism in this different Form, by a bare Expressing of these Words: For as the Text says no such Thing, neither do I see how it can be inferred from it. Of the Name of the Lord how taken in Scripture.For the Greek is [Greek: eis to onoma: εις το ονομα], that is, into the Name; now the Name of the Lord is often taken in Scripture for something else than a bare Sound of Words, or literal Expression, even for his Virtue and Power, as may appear from Psal. liv. 3. Cant. i. 3. Prov. xviii. 10. and in many more. The Baptism into the Name, what it is.Now that the Apostles were by their Ministry to baptize the Nations into this Name, Virtue, and Power, and that they did so, is evident by these Testimonies of Paul above-mentioned, where he saith, That as many of them as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ; this must have been a Baptizing into the Name, i. e. Power and Virtue, and not a mere formal Expression of Words adjoined with Water-baptism; because, as hath been above observed, it doth not follow as a natural or necessary Consequence of it. I would have those who desire to have their Faith built upon no other Foundation than the Testimony of God’s Spirit, and Scriptures of Truth, throughly to consider whether there can be any Thing further alleged for this Interpretation than what the Prejudice of Education and Influence of Tradition hath imposed. Perhaps it may stumble the unwary and inconsiderate Reader, as if the very Character of Christianity were abolished, to tell him plainly that this Scripture is not to be understood of baptizing with Water, and that this Form of Baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, hath no Warrant from Matt. xxviii. &c.

Whether Christ did prescribe a Form of Baptism in Matt. 28.For which, besides the Reason taken from the Signification of [the Name] as being the Virtue and Power above expressed, let it be considered, that if it had been a Form prescribed by Christ to his Apostles, then surely they would have made use of that Form in the administering of Water-baptism to such as they baptized with Water; but though particular Mention be made in divers Places of the Acts who were baptized, and how; and though it be particularly expressed that they baptized such and such, as Acts ii. 41. and viii. 12, 13. 38. and ix. 18. and x. 48. and xvi. 15. and xviii. 8. yet there is not a Word of this Form. And in two Places, Acts viii. 16. and xix. 5. it is said of some that they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus; by which it yet more appears, that either the Author of this History hath been very defective, who having so often Occasion to mention this, yet omitteth so substantial a Part of Baptism (which were to accuse the Holy Ghost, by whose Guidance Luke wrote it) or else that the Apostles did no Ways understand that Christ by his Commission, Matt. xxviii. did enjoin them such a Form of Water-baptism, seeing they did not use it. And therefore it is safer to conclude, that what they did in administering Water-baptism, they did not by Virtue of that Commission, else they would have so used it; for our Adversaries I suppose would judge it a great Heresy to administer Water-baptism without that, or only in the Name of Jesus, without Mention of Father, or Spirit, as it is expresly said they did, in the two Places above-cited.

Alleg. 2.Secondly, They say, If this were not understood of Water-baptism, it would be a Tautology, and all one with Teaching.

Answ.I say, Nay: Baptizing with the Spirit is somewhat further than teaching, or informing the Understanding; How Teaching and Baptizing differ.for it imports a Reaching to, and melting the Heart, whereby it is turned, as well as the Understanding informed. Besides, we find often in the Scripture, that Teaching and Instructing are put together, without any Absurdity, or needless Tautology; and yet these two have a greater Affinity than Teaching and Baptizing with the Spirit.

Alleg. 3.Thirdly, They say, Baptism in this Place must be understood with Water, because it is the Action of the Apostles; and so cannot be the Baptism of the Spirit, which is the Work of Christ, and his Grace; not of Man, &c.

Answ.The Baptism with the Spirit ascribed to godly Men as Instruments. I answer; Baptism with the Spirit, though not wrought without Christ and his Grace, is instrumentally done by Men fitted of God for that Purpose; and therefore no Absurdity follows, that Baptism with the Spirit should be expressed as the Action of the Apostles. For though it be Christ by his Grace that gives spiritual Gifts, yet the Apostle, Rom. i. 11. speaks of HIS imparting to them spiritual Gifts; and he tells the Corinthians, that HE had begotten them through the Gospel, 1 Cor. iv. 15. And yet to beget People to the Faith, is the Work of Christ and his Grace, not of Men. To convert the Heart, is properly the Work of Christ; and yet the Scripture oftentimes ascribes it to Men, as being the Instruments: And since Paul’s Commission was, To turn People from Darkness to Light (though that be not done without Christ co-operating by his Grace) so may also Baptizing with the Spirit be expressed, as performable by Man as the Instrument, though the Work of Christ’s Grace be needful to concur thereunto. So that it is no Absurdity to say, That the Apostles did administer the Baptism of the Spirit.

Alleg. 4.Lastly, They say, That since Christ saith here, that he will be with his Disciples to the End of the World, therefore Water-baptism must continue so long.

Answ.If he had been speaking here of Water-baptism, then that might have been urged; but seeing that is denied, and proved to be false, nothing from thence can be gathered: He speaking of the Baptism of the Spirit, which we freely confess doth remain to the End of the World; yea, so long as Christ’s Presence abideth with his Children.