[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.

That Jesus Christ never forbad water-baptism, the Quakers readily allow.  But they conceive his silence on this subject to have arisen from his knowledge of the internal state of the Jews.  He knew how carnal their minds were; how much they were attached to outward ordinances; and how difficult it was to bring them all at once into his spiritual kingdom.  Hence, he permitted many things for a time, on account of the weakness of their spiritual vision.

That Jesus submitted also to baptism himself, they allow.  But he submitted to it, not because he intended to make it an ordinance under the new dispensation, but to use his own words, “that he might fulfil all righteousness.”  Hence, also he was circumcised.  Hence he celebrated the Passover.  And hence, he was enabled to use these remarkable words upon the cross:  “It is fulfilled.”

But though Jesus Christ never forbad water-baptism, and, though he was baptized with water by John, yet he never baptized any one himself.  A rumour had gone abroad among the Pharisees, that the Jesus had baptized more disciples than John the Baptist.  But John, the beloved disciple of Jesus, who had leaned on his bosom, and who knew more of his sentiments and practice than any other person is very careful, in correcting this hear-say report, as if unworthy of the spiritual mind of his master, and states positively; [180] “that Jesus-baptized not.”

[Footnote 180:  John 4.2.]

The Quakers, lay a great stress upon this circumstance:  for they say, that if Jesus never baptized with water himself, it is a proof that he never intended to erect water-baptism into a Gospel-rite.  It is difficult to conceive, they say, that he should have established a Sacrament, and that he should never have administered it.  Would he not, on the other hand, if his own baptism had been that of water, have begun his ministry by baptizing his own disciples, notwithstanding they had previously been, baptized by John?  But he not only never baptized, but it is no where recorded of him, that he ordered his disciples to baptize “with water."[181] He once ordered a leper to go to the priest, and to offer the gift for his cleansings.  At another time[182], he ordered a blind man to go and wash in the pool of Siloam; but he never ordered any one to go and be baptized with water.  On the other hand, it is said by the Quakers, that he dearly intimated to three of his disciples, at the transfiguration, that the dispensations of Moses and John were to pass away; and that he taught himself, “that the kingdom of God cometh not with observation;” or, that it consisted not in those outward and lifeless ordinances, in which many of those to whom he addressed himself placed the essence of their religion.