Wesley Corpus

For examples of silent meetings he refers to the five texts following:-- “They were all with one accord in one place.” (Acts ii. 1.) “So they sat down with him seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: For they saw that his grief was very great.” (Job ii. 13.) “Then were assembled unto me every one that trembled at the words of God. And I sat astonied until the evening sacrifice.” (Ezra ix. 4.) “Then came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me.” (Ezek. xiv. 1; xx. 1.) Was it possible for Robert Barclay to believe, that any one of these texts was anything to the purpose? The odd expressions here also, “Ceasing from all outwards, in the natural will and comprehension, and feeling after the inward seed of life,” are borrowed from Jacob Behmen. “12. As there is one Lord and one faith, so there is one baptism.” Yea, one outward baptism; which you deny. Here, therefore, is another difference between Quakerism and Christianity. But “if those whom John baptized with water were not baptized with the baptism of Christ, then the baptism of water is not the baptism of Christ.” This is a mere quibble. The sequel ought to be, “Then that baptism of water” (that is, John's baptism) “was not the baptism of Christ.” Who says it was? Yet Robert Barclay is so fond of this argument, that he repeats it almost in the same words: “If John, who administered the baptism of water, yet did not baptize with the baptism of Christ, then the baptism of water is not the baptism of Christ.” This is the same fallacy still. The sequel here also should be, “Then that baptism of water was not the baptism of Christ.” He repeats it, with a little variation, a third time: “Christ himself saith, ‘John baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.’” He repeats it a fourth time: “Peter saith, “Then remem bered I the word of the Lord, John baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. From all which it follows, that such as John baptized with water, yet were not baptized with the baptism of Christ.” Very true. But this proves neither more nor less than that the baptism of John differed from the baptism of Christ.