at whatsoever time, is heard. In every time and place, God accepts him who "lifts up holy hands, without wrath or doubting." The charge of superstition, therefore, returns upon yourself; for what gross superstition is this, to lay so much stress on an indifferent circumstance, and so little on faith and the love of God!

But to proceed: "We confess singing of psalms to be a part of God's worship, and very sweet and refreshful when it proceeds from a true sense of God's love; but as for formal singing, it has no foundation in Scripture."

In this there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. But let it be observed here, that the Quakers in general cannot be excused, if this is true. For if they "confess singing of psalms to be a part of God's worship," how dare they either condemn or neglect it?

"Silence is a principal part of God's worship; that is, men's sitting silent together, ceasing from all outwards, from their own words and actings, in the natural will and comprehension, and feeling after the inward seed of life." In this there is a manifest difference between Quakerism and Christianity.

This is will-worship, if there be any such thing under heaven. For there is neither command nor example for it in Scripture.

Robert Barclay indeed refers to abundance of scriptures to prove it is a command. But as he did not see good to set them down at length, I will take the trouble to transcribe a few of them :

"Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart," Psalm xxvii, 14. "Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently; fret not thyself at him who prospereth in his way.' "Wait on the Lord, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land," Psalm xxxvii, 7, 34. "Say not thou, I will recompense evil; but wait on the Lord, and he shall save thee," Prov. xx, 22.

By these one may judge of the rest. But how amazing is this! What are all these to the point in question?

For examples of silent meetings he refers to the five texts following:

"So they sat a word unto "Then were And I sat

"They were all with one accord in one place," Acts ii, 1. down with him seven days and seven nights, and none spake him for they saw that his grief was very great," Job ii, 13. assembled unto me every one that trembled at the words of God. 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 any thing 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 remembered 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. And so doubtless it did; not indeed as to the outward sign, but as to the inward grace.

"13. The breaking of bread by Christ with his disciples was but a figure, and ceases in such as have obtained the substance."

Here is another manifest difference between Quakerism and Christianity.

From the very time that our Lord gave that command, "Do this in remembrance of me," all Christians throughout the habitable world did eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of him.

Allowing, therefore, all that Robert Barclay affirms for eighteen or twenty pages together, viz. (1.) That believers partake of the body and blood of Christ in a spiritual manner: (2.) That this may be done, in some sense, when we are not eating bread and drinking wine: (3.) That the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Papists, differ from each other, with regard to the Lord's Supper: And, (4.) That many of them have spoken wildly and absurdly concerning it: yet all this will never prove, that we need not do what Christ has expressly commanded to be done; and what the whole body of Christians in all ages have done, in obedience to that command.

That there was such a command, you cannot deny. But you say, "It is ceased in such as have obtained the substance."

St. Paul knew nothing of this. He says nothing of its ceasing in all he writes of it to the Corinthians. Nay, quite the contrary. He says, "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." O, say you, the Apostle means "his inward coming, which some of the Corinthians had not yet known." Nay, this cannot be his meaning. For he saith to all the Corinthian communicants, "Ye do show the Lord's death till he come." Now, if he was not come (spiritually) in some of these, undoubtedly he was in others. Consequently, he cannot be speaking here of that coming which, in many of them at least, was already past. It remains, that he speaks of his coming in the clouds, to judge both the quick and dead.

In what Robert Barclay teaches concerning the Scriptures, justification, baptism, and the Lord's Supper, lies the main difference between Quakorism and Christianity.

14. Since God hath assumed to himself the dominion of the conscience. who alone can rightly instruct and govern it; therefore it is not lawful for any whatsoever to force the consciences of others."

In this there is no difference at all between Quakerism and Christianity.

66 15. It is not lawful for Christians to give or receive titles of honour, as, Your Majesty, Your Lordship, &c.".

In this there is a difference between Quakerism and Christianity. Christians may give titles of honour, such as are usually annexed to certain offices.

Thus St. Paul gives the usual title of " Most Noble" to the Roman Governor. Robert Barclay indeed says, "He would not have called him such, if he had not been truly noble; as indeed he was, in that he would not give way to the fury of the Jews against him.”

The Scripture says quite otherwise; that he did give way to the fury of the Jews against him. I read: "Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, (who had desired a favour against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, lying in wait in the way to kill him,) said to Paul, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me? Then said Paul, I stand at Cæsar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. If I have done any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die; but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them."

Hence it plainly appears, that Festus was a very wicked person, one who, "to do the Jews a pleasure," would have betrayed the innocent blood. But although St. Paul was not ignorant of his character, still he calls him, "Most Noble Festus," giving him the title of his office; which, indeed, was neither more nor less than saying, "Governor Festus," or "King Agrippa."

It is therefore mere superstition to scruple this. And it is, if possible, greater superstition still to scruple saying, you, vous, or ihr, whether to one or more persons, as is the common way of speaking in any country. It is this which fixes the language of every nation. It is this which makes me say you in England, vous in France, and ihr in Germany, rather than thou, tu, or du, rather than du, de, or ns; which, if we speak strictly, is the only Scriptural language; not thou, or thee, any more than you. But the placing religion in such things as these is such egregious trifling, as naturally tends to make all religion stink in the nostrils of Infidels and Heathens.

And yet this, by a far greater abuse of words than that you would reform, you call the plain language. O my friend! he uses the plain language who speaks the truth from his heart; not he who says thee or thou, and in the mean time will dissemble or flatter, like the rest of the world.

"It is not lawful for Christians to kneel, or bow the body, or uncover the head, to any man."

If this is not lawful, then some law of God forbids it. Can you show me that law? If you cannot, then the scrupling this is another plain instance of superstition, not Christianity.

"It is not lawful for a Christian to use superfluities in apparel; as neither to use such games, sports, and plays, under the notion of recreations, as are not consistent with gravity and godly fear."

As to both these propositions, there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. Only observe, touching the former, that the sin of superfluous apparel lies chiefly in the superfluous expense. To make it therefore a point of conscience to differ from others, as to the shape or colour of your apparel, is mere superstition; let the difference lie in the price, that you may have the more wherewith to clothe them that have none.

"It is not lawful for Christians to swear before a magistrate, nor to fight in any case."

Whatever becomes of the latter proposition, the former is no part of Christianity; for Christ himself answered upon oath before a magistrate. Yea, he would not answer till he was put to his oath; till the high priest said unto him, "I adjure thee by the living God."

Friend, you have an honest heart, but a weak head; you have a zeal, but not according to knowledge. You was zealous once for the love of God and man, for holiness of heart and holiness of life. You are now zealous for particular forms of speaking, for a set of phrases and opinions. Once your zeal was against ungodliness and unrighteousness, against evil tempers and evil works. Now it is against forms of prayer, against singing psalms or hymns, against appointing times of praying or preaching; against saying you to a single person, uncovering your head, or having too many buttons upon your coat. O what a fall is here! What poor trifles are these, that now well nigh engross your thoughts! Come back, come back, to the weightier matters of the law, to spiritual, rational, Scriptural religion. No longer waste your time and strength in beating the air, in vain controversies and strife of words; but bend your whole soul to the growing in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the continually advancing in that holiness, without which you cannot see the Lord.

A TREATISE ON BAPTISM.

CONCERNING baptism I shall inquire, what it is; what benefits we receive by it; whether our Saviour designed it to remain always in his Church; and who are the proper subjects of it.

I. 1. What it is. It is the initiatory sacrament which enters us into covenant with God. It was instituted by Christ, who alone has power to institute a proper sacrament, a sign, seal, pledge, and means of grace, perpetually obligatory on all Christians. We know not, indeed, the exact time of its institution; but we know it was long before our Lord's ascension. And it was instituted in the room of circumcision. For, as that was a sign and seal of God's covenant, so is this.

2. The matter of this sacrament is water; which, as it has a natural power of cleansing, is the more fit for this syrabolical use. Baptism is performed by washing, dipping, or sprinkling the person, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who is hereby devoted to the ever

blessed Trinity. I say, by washing, dipping, or sprinkling; because it is not determined in Scripture in which of these ways it shall be done, either by any express precept, nor by any such example as clearly proves it; nor by the force or meaning of the word baptize.

3. That there is no express precept, all calm men allow. Neither is there any conclusive example. John's baptism in some things agreed with Christ's, in others differed from it. But it cannot be certainly proved from Scripture, that even John's was performed by dipping. It is true, he baptized in Enon, near Salim, where there was much water. But this might refer to breadth rather than depth; since a narrow place would not have been sufficient for so great a multitude. Nor can it be proved, that the baptism of our Saviour, or that administered by his disciples, was by immersion. No, nor that of the eunuch baptized by Philip; though "they both went down to the water:" for that going down may relate to the chariot, and implies no determinate depth of water. It might be up to their kness; it might not be above their

ankles.

4. And as nothing can be determined from Scripture precept or example, so neither from the force or meaning of the word. For the words baptize and baptism do not necessarily imply dipping, but are used in other senses in several places. Thus we read, that the Jews "were all baptized in the cloud and in the sea ;" 1 Cor. x, 2; but they were not plunged in either. They could therefore be only sprinkled by drops of the sea water, and refreshing dews from the cloud; probably intimated in that, "Thou sentest a gracious rain upon thine inheritance, and refreshedst it when it was weary," Psalm lxviii, 9. Again: Christ said to his two disciples, "Ye shall be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with," Mark x, 38; but neither he nor they were dipped, but only sprinkled or washed with their own blood. Again we read, Mark vii, 4, of the baptisms (so it is in the original) of pots and cups, and tables or beds. Now, pots and cups are not necessarily dipped when they are washed. Nay, the Pharisees washed the outsides of them only. And as for tables or beds, none will suppose they could be dipped. Here, then, the word baptism, in its natural sense, is not taken for dipping, but for washing or cleansing. And, that this is the true meaning of the word baptize, is testified by the greatest scholars and most proper judges in this matter. It is true, we read of being "buried with Christ in baptism." But nothing can be inferred from such a figurative expression. Nay, if it held exactly, it would make as much for sprinkling as for plunging; since, in burying, the body is not plunged through the substance of the earth, but rather earth is poured or sprinkled upon it.

5. And as there is no clear proof of dipping in Scripture, so there is very probable proof of the contrary. It is highly probable, the Apostles themselves baptized great numbers, not by dipping, but by washing, sprinkling, or pouring water. This clearly represented the cleansing from sin, which is figured by baptism. And the quantity of water used was not material; no more than the quantity of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. The jailer "and all his house were baptized" in the prison; Cornelius with his friends, (and so several households,) at home. Now, is it likely, that all these had ponds or rivers, in or near their houses, sufficient to plunge them all? Every unprejudiced person must