Letters on England [2]
of Christ, not of John." I pitied very much the sincerity
of my worthy Quaker, and was absolutely for forcing him to get
himself christened. "Were that all," replied he very gravely, "we
would submit cheerfully to baptism, purely in compliance with thy
weakness, for we don't condemn any person who uses it; but then we
think that those who profess a religion of so holy, so spiritual a
nature as that of Christ, ought to abstain to the utmost of their
power from the Jewish ceremonies." "O unaccountable!" say I:
"what! baptism a Jewish ceremony?" "Yes, my friend," says he, "so
truly Jewish, that a great many Jews use the baptism of John to this
day. Look into ancient authors, and thou wilt find that John only
revived this practice; and that it had been used by the Hebrews,
long before his time, in like manner as the Mahometans imitated the
Ishmaelites in their pilgrimages to Mecca. Jesus indeed submitted
to the baptism of John, as He had suffered Himself to be
circumcised; but circumcision and the washing with water ought to be
abolished by the baptism of Christ, that baptism of the Spirit, that
ablution of the soul, which is the salvation of mankind. Thus the
forerunner said, 'I indeed baptise 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 baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with
fire.' Likewise Paul, the great apostle of the Gentiles, writes as
follows to the Corinthians, 'Christ sent me not to baptise, but to
preach the Gospel;' and indeed Paul never baptised but two persons
with water, and that very much against his inclinations. He
circumcised his disciple Timothy, and the other disciples likewise
circumcised all who were willing to submit to that carnal ordinance.
But art thou circumcised?" added he. "I have not the honour to be
so," say I. "Well, friend," continues the Quaker, "thou art a
Christian without being circumcised, and I am one without being
baptised." Thus did this pious man make a wrong but very specious
application of four or five texts of Scripture which seemed to
favour the tenets of his sect; but at the same time forgot very
sincerely an hundred texts which made directly against them. I had
more sense than to contest with him, since there is no possibility
of convincing an enthusiast. A man should never pretend to inform a
lover of his mistress's faults, no more than one who is at law, of
the badness of his cause; nor attempt to win over a fanatic by
strength of reasoning. Accordingly I waived the subject.
"Well," said I to him, "what sort of a communion have you?" "We
have none like that thou hintest at among us," replied he. "How! no
communion?" said I. "Only that spiritual one," replied he, "of
hearts." He then began again to throw out his texts of Scripture;
and preached a most eloquent sermon against that ordinance. He
harangued in a tone as though he had been inspired, to prove that
the sacraments were merely of human invention, and that the word
"sacrament" was not once mentioned in the Gospel. "Excuse," said
he, "my ignorance, for I have not employed a hundredth part of the
arguments which might be brought to prove the truth of our religion,
but these thou thyself mayest peruse in the Exposition of our Faith
written by Robert Barclay. It is one of the best pieces that ever
was penned by man; and as our adversaries confess it to be of
dangerous tendency, the arguments in it must necessarily be very
convincing." I promised to peruse this piece, and my Quaker
imagined he had already made a convert of me. He afterwards gave me
an account in few words of some singularities which make this sect
the contempt of others. "Confess," said he, "that it was very
difficult for thee to refrain from laughter, when I answered all thy
civilities without uncovering my head, and at the same time said
'thee' and 'thou' to thee. However,
of my worthy Quaker, and was absolutely for forcing him to get
himself christened. "Were that all," replied he very gravely, "we
would submit cheerfully to baptism, purely in compliance with thy
weakness, for we don't condemn any person who uses it; but then we
think that those who profess a religion of so holy, so spiritual a
nature as that of Christ, ought to abstain to the utmost of their
power from the Jewish ceremonies." "O unaccountable!" say I:
"what! baptism a Jewish ceremony?" "Yes, my friend," says he, "so
truly Jewish, that a great many Jews use the baptism of John to this
day. Look into ancient authors, and thou wilt find that John only
revived this practice; and that it had been used by the Hebrews,
long before his time, in like manner as the Mahometans imitated the
Ishmaelites in their pilgrimages to Mecca. Jesus indeed submitted
to the baptism of John, as He had suffered Himself to be
circumcised; but circumcision and the washing with water ought to be
abolished by the baptism of Christ, that baptism of the Spirit, that
ablution of the soul, which is the salvation of mankind. Thus the
forerunner said, 'I indeed baptise 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 baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with
fire.' Likewise Paul, the great apostle of the Gentiles, writes as
follows to the Corinthians, 'Christ sent me not to baptise, but to
preach the Gospel;' and indeed Paul never baptised but two persons
with water, and that very much against his inclinations. He
circumcised his disciple Timothy, and the other disciples likewise
circumcised all who were willing to submit to that carnal ordinance.
But art thou circumcised?" added he. "I have not the honour to be
so," say I. "Well, friend," continues the Quaker, "thou art a
Christian without being circumcised, and I am one without being
baptised." Thus did this pious man make a wrong but very specious
application of four or five texts of Scripture which seemed to
favour the tenets of his sect; but at the same time forgot very
sincerely an hundred texts which made directly against them. I had
more sense than to contest with him, since there is no possibility
of convincing an enthusiast. A man should never pretend to inform a
lover of his mistress's faults, no more than one who is at law, of
the badness of his cause; nor attempt to win over a fanatic by
strength of reasoning. Accordingly I waived the subject.
"Well," said I to him, "what sort of a communion have you?" "We
have none like that thou hintest at among us," replied he. "How! no
communion?" said I. "Only that spiritual one," replied he, "of
hearts." He then began again to throw out his texts of Scripture;
and preached a most eloquent sermon against that ordinance. He
harangued in a tone as though he had been inspired, to prove that
the sacraments were merely of human invention, and that the word
"sacrament" was not once mentioned in the Gospel. "Excuse," said
he, "my ignorance, for I have not employed a hundredth part of the
arguments which might be brought to prove the truth of our religion,
but these thou thyself mayest peruse in the Exposition of our Faith
written by Robert Barclay. It is one of the best pieces that ever
was penned by man; and as our adversaries confess it to be of
dangerous tendency, the arguments in it must necessarily be very
convincing." I promised to peruse this piece, and my Quaker
imagined he had already made a convert of me. He afterwards gave me
an account in few words of some singularities which make this sect
the contempt of others. "Confess," said he, "that it was very
difficult for thee to refrain from laughter, when I answered all thy
civilities without uncovering my head, and at the same time said
'thee' and 'thou' to thee. However,