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.