I shall now take notice of the Scripture passages he has quoted merely to shew that so far as they are our Saviour's commands, they say nothing about water. His first is Matt. xxviii. 19. but it saith nothing about wa ter; and John iii. 22. here neither is any thing said about water, and chap. iv. 2. says, "though Jesus himself baptised not, but his disciples." Peter said, 66 Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts ii. 38. He then says, "read this according to Quaker construction," repent and receive the spirit and ye shall receive the gift of the spirit."

I conceive no person of serious observation will think there is much ingenuity in this construction. The name of the Lord Jesus here, is not a mere sound, but by his name here is meant, his power, and then the passage would read thus; repent and be baptised in or into the power of the Lord Jesus, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; which construction I submit to the candid reader and leave it.

This, with the foregoing, is the doings of the apostle Peter. I never heard that the Quakers denied that the apostles baptised with water until Rand asserted it in his publication, which however he soon confutes by his quotation from Barclay, as has been noticed. But the matter in debate is, did their Lord command water! Since there is no scripture proof for it but by construction, and since it is conceded that Christ's spiritual baptism alone is sufficient without it, and with that alone we may be brought to see God, I do not see the necessity of believing he ever did command it. He quotes Acts viii. 13. " Then Simon himself believed also, and

when he was baptised he continued with Philip," &c. But he says, "surely this Simon soon evinced, that he had not received the spiritual baptism ;" and how did he evince it? why, by the same disposition that many in our day evince that they have neither part nor lot in the things that belong to the gospel, viz. by supposing that it was to be purchased by money (as in verse 18) and if so, it might be sold again, an error into which, it is not uncharitable to suppose, many have fallen. From this cause originates so many dry nurses in the churches in our day. It is also an evidence of the inutility of that kind of baptism he had received. Acts ix. 18. and xvi. 15, 33. and xviii. 8. and Cor. i. 13, &c. &c. and also, Acts viii. 36, 38. and x. 44 and 47, may all be examined, and they will only shew that the apostles did baptise, which the Quakers never disputed, but the question is, did Christ command the practice of it? If not, and his baptism is complete without it (as confessed by Rand). what need of any farther contention about it? He again repeats, in page 16, "we readily agree there is but one effectual or saving baptism," (and no where suggests that this may not be attained to without the second) and freely confesses that it is not water that washes the filthiness of the flesh or unholy nature. But he says, "I must notice one other mistake of Barclay, though I find none in the apostles on the subject." Barclay says (page 424) "The gospel puts an end to carnal ordinances." I do not know in what Barclay's mistake consists, seeing he only there quotes the words of the apostle verbatim, as may be seen, Heb. ix. 10. But after all that has been said, I very well know that the doctrine of water baptism, and the Lord's supper, are very popular doctrines through all Christendom, by

numerous denominations, and all professing to practise them, according as they judge them to be commanded in the scriptures, which they profess to adhere to, as their only rule of faith and practice, as strongly as Asa Rand does. They also hold them as the band of communion, but from time immemorial have been contending (all having their only rule before them) even to the shedding each other's blood. They still continue so to differ about the mode of administering these ordinances that there are not many of them that can commune together. If I should admit that those ordinances were intended to be continued, unto whom should I apply to administer them with any certainty that they would do it according to the rule intended? seeing there are so many ways contended for, each maintaining that they administer according to scripture.

When I take these things into consideration, I see no reason why they should be very anxious to draw us into their views, as,should we enter with them, the chance is at least an hundred to one, that we should be in the wrong; seeing that if any one is right, it can be but one among the numerous ordinance professors. Charity leads to believe that there ought to be no preference of any one of those ordinance professors over another, but that all work equally honest according to their understanding of their only rule. No one therefore has a right to arrogate to himself an indisputable certainty that he fully understands it. I presume the case with them is, that although they have chosen a good rule, yet they have rejected a leading point belonging to that rule; as if a person should procure a scale, to work proportions by, but should obliterate the radius point; it would be of little use to him, he having lost the point

to take proportions from. Whatever he did must of course be erroneous or mere guess work. Thus I fear and believe it is with those that have taken the scrip. tures for their only rule of faith and practice, and reject the spirit by which the scriptures are to be rightly understood. They have lost their radius point, and are left to guess the meaning of the scriptures. Hence the many divisions and distractions that perplex the Christian world, for undoubtedly the scriptures mean the same thing, to every one that seeks to and does rightly understand them.

CHAPTER III.

Remarks upon the Lord's Supper," and

Sabbath."

"Holy

Of the "Lord's Supper"-I only say I think the believers in it might better agree among themselves, and decide the great question of consubstantiation and transubstantiation.-If it is not the real body and blood of Christ that is partaken of, then it is not what Christ commanded.-If it is really his flesh and blood, Protestants are denying the truth, and consequently must be very wrong on that score. They might therefore let others alone. If it is not what the Catholics say it is, then Protestants are not partaking of what Christ commanded.

Of the "Holy Sabbath, or Lord's Day,"--I see no new light on the subject, except reducing eight to seven; of his right to which I doubt; and think Cobb has done enough to convince any rational person that Christ did nothing to sanction a belief that

:

he held one day more holy than another. I feel however no objection to people's keeping holy time. If he that keeps one day holy does well, he that keeps seven does better and as men are not keeping time unless they are doing their duty, their attention to the required duties of life is no encroachment on holy time : therefore all time ought to be and might be kept holy. If any have a desire to know our reasons further for dispensing with the use of the elements, or our views respecting the first day of the week, they may find them pretty fully stated in Barclay's Apology, as well as many other Friends' writings.

CHAPTER IV.

I shall consider in this chapter Rand's remarks on the subjects of human depravity, the incarnation of Christ and his atonement; and shall, as Rand has done, consider them separately.

SECTION 1.

Of Depravity.

On this subject Rand dwells with great satisfaction. He appears to be so enamoured of it, that he charges the Quakers with heterodoxy because they believe that man has means provided by a merciful God, if he but believe and obey, by which he might eseape out of this horrible pit.

The reader will observe, by turning to his 27th page, that this writer, in his sermons answered by Edward Cobb, charged the society of Friends amongst other things with denying total depravity. To which Cobb replied, by quoting Barclay to show our sentiments up