[107] Vid. John Leusden Philog. Hebræo-mixt, Dissertat. xxi. de Proselyt. Sect. 1. pag. mihi 144.
It is a common objection, that Christ himself was baptized with water, and that we are required to follow his footsteps: but let it be considered that he was circumcised also, though the one as well as the other needed not to his melioration, but was done for our sake, to show us by the latter, that our hearts must be circumcised, that is, separated from all evil inclinations and lusts. And by the baptism which he suffered to be administered to him, is signified to us that we must be baptized by his spiritual baptism. And if it be objected, that Christ said to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God;” it may be answered, that if this must be understood of outward water, the consequence will be, that water-baptism is of such an absolute necessity, that if any be deprived of it, he is to be shut out of heaven, which, though believed by Papists, yet I think Protestants will hardly say so; neither was John Calvin[108] of that opinion. It is also worth taking notice, that John the Baptist, said, “That Christ should baptize with fire;” by which it appears, that both water and fire in this sense, are metaphorical expressions; for they both serve for cleansing and purifying, though in a different way. Now although some did baptize with water, yet it ought to be considered, that if the command of Christ to his disciples, “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” related absolutely to water-baptism, it would indeed have been very strange, that Paul, that eminent apostle of the Gentiles, did not think himself commissionated for the administration of that baptism. Whereas, if the apostles had really received a commission from the Lord to that purpose, he by no means would have been singled out; since speaking of himself he saith, That he supposed he was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles; and yet he also saith in express terms, “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. And I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius. And I baptized also the household of Stephanus: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.” And yet he saith, “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” which was the baptism of the Spirit. And the same apostle saith also, “As many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ:” and this cannot have relation to water-baptism, because many receive that, who never put on Christ, and become conformable to his image, which however is required of all Christians. To this may be added, that if the command to baptize, Matt. xxviii. 19, were literally restricted to water-baptism, then why not our Saviour’s words be as well understood literally concerning the washing his disciples’ feet, when he said to Peter, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me;” and to his disciples, “If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.” More might be said on this subject; but since R. Barclay hath treated of this matter at large long ago, the reader may apply to his Apology for the true Christian divinity.
[108] Vid. Calvin, Epist. 184. and 229.
Concerning the outward supper, it may be truly said, that it was the passover that was kept by Christ at the eating of the paschal lamb; which likewise was a judaical ceremony, that Christians generally take to be a figure or shadow. But is not the modern use of the outward supper in remembrance of Christ’s sufferings, also a figure, viz. of his spiritual supper with the soul; and doth it not seem absurd, that one figure should be the antitype of the other. The passover was not a memorial of another sign that was to follow; but it was a memorial of the slaying of all the first-born in Egypt, and of the preservation of Israel and their first-born. Moreover it may be said, that the paschal lamb was eaten in their families, whereas the outward supper now is celebrated in public places for worship. We find, that the apostles, “Breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart;” which implies an usual meal or eating. And certainly they do well, who daily at meals remember Christ and his sufferings: for the spiritual supper, which is the thing required, ought to be partaken of by every true Christian; and this cannot be, unless, we, being attentive, open the door of our hearts to Christ, and let him come in. Let it also be considered, that the soul wants daily food as well as the body; and being destitute of that, will faint and languish, and so become unable to do good; and therefore our Lord recommended his disciples to pray for[109] daily bread: for that this chiefly had relation to the spiritual manna, the bread that comes down from heaven, appears from this saying of Christ, “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life.” Besides, the apostle tells us, “That the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” And the author to the Hebrews saith, “It is a good thing that the heart be established with grace, not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.”
[109] [Greek: Τον αρτον επιουσιον: Ton arton epiousion], signifying, according to the nice explanation of Pasor, bread to maintain or uphold the essence or substance; though others have translated it superessential bread.
All this then being duly considered by those called Quakers, it hath restrained them from the use of those ceremonies. For the man who through grace is become truly spiritual, hath no need of ceremonies or outward means to depend upon, but finds himself excited to rely on the inward divine grace, and to depend upon God alone, walking continually in reverential watchfulness before him, and so keeping to the immediate teachings of Christ in his heart, he approaches with boldness to the throne of grace, and with a full assurance of faith, becomes a partaker of salvation.
But I leave this matter, to say something also concerning the Quakers’ way of worship. It is usual among them when they meet together in their religious assemblies, to spend some time in a devout silence and retiredness of mind, inwardly praying with pure breathings to God, which they generally call, waiting upon the Lord: and if under this spiritual exercise any one feels himself stirred up of God to speak something by way of doctrine or exhortation, he doth so, and sometimes more than one, but orderly, one after another. And that this was usual in the primitive apostolical church, appears from what Paul saith, “If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace: for ye may all prophesy one by one.” And what prophesying signifieth under the new covenant, the apostle himself explains with these words, “He that prophesieth, edifieth the church.” Yet let none think this liberty of speaking to be so unlimited, that every body that can say something, may freely do so in the congregation: for he that will speak there, must also by all means be of a good, and honest, and holy life, and sound in doctrine; and if in process of time he finds in himself a concern from the Lord to travel in the ministry, and desires a certificate of his soundness in doctrine and orderly life, he may have it from the congregation where he resides. And certainly a preacher himself ought to have experience of the work of sanctification, before he is qualified to instruct others in the way thereto: for mere brain-knowledge cannot do that effectually. Sometimes in their meetings there is a public prayer before preaching; and preaching is generally concluded with a prayer.
Now preaching among them is not confined to the male sex as among others: for they believe that women whom the Lord hath gifted for gospel-ministry, may exercise their gifts among them to edification: for who will presume to say to him, What dost thou? To him namely, who, by his apostle, hath said, “Quench not the Spirit.” They are not ignorant that the same apostle said to the Corinthians, “Let your women keep silence in the churches.” Now not to insist on the word your, which seems to carry an emphasis along with it, as being chiefly applicable to those Corinthian women, yet by what follows it appears plainly, that it regards ignorant women, since it is said there, “If they will learn any thing,” that is, if they will be further instructed concerning some points of doctrine, “Let them ask their husbands at home.” Whereby it appears that this saying hath relation to such women, who either from indiscretion or curiosity, or out of a desire to be looked upon as such that know also to say something, proposed questions to the church, and thereby caused more confusion than edification: “For it is indeed a shame for [such] women to speak in the church;” and the apostle’s precept is, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” Moreover, it ought to be considered also, that these words, “Let your women keep silence,” have a tendency also to the subjection which women owe to their husbands, because it is said there also, that women are commanded “To be under obedience,” This the apostle explains further in one of his epistles to Timothy, where he saith, “Let the women learn in silence with all subjection: but I suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp authority over the man.” Now that the apostle doth not absolutely forbid women speaking to edification in the church, appears from his own words, when he saith, “Every woman that prayeth, or prophesieth, with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head:” for here he gives to women a prescript how to behave themselves when they prophesy; and what he means by prophesying, he himself declareth in the same epistle, as hath been hinted already, where he saith, “He that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort; and he that prophesieth edifieth the church.” And pray what is this but that which we now a-days call preaching? For though prophesying under the old covenant seemeth chiefly to signify a prediction of what is to come, yet it is credible that the ancient prophets were also preachers; and according to the New Testament language, it is evident that prophesying is chiefly preaching. Hence we may easily understand what kind of virgins the four daughters of Philip were, which did prophesy, and what kind of servant of the church Phœbe was, and Tryphena, and Tryphosa, who laboured in the Lord, and Persis, who laboured much in the Lord, which is considerably more than what is said of that Mary, who bestowed much labour on the apostles. How significantly doth the apostle call Priscilla and Aquila, his helpers in Christ Jesus. And what he means by his helpers in that sense, we may see Philip, iv. 3. where he speaks of women which laboured with him in the gospel. All this then being duly considered, the Quakers, so called, think it unlawful to forbid such women to preach whom the Lord hath gifted, and who are of a godly life and conversation; since it appears sufficiently that in the primitive church they were not debarred from that service. And as in those days, so in ours, it hath evidently appeared, that some pious women have had a very excellent gift to the edification of the church. All which tends to the glory of God, who is no respecter of persons, and is pleased to make use of weak instruments to show forth his praise.
As to singing the words of David, since they do not suit the state and condition of mixed assemblies, they disuse the customary formal way of singing in the churches, which has neither precept nor precedent in the New Testament.