We are now come to that broad feature which so strikingly diftinguishes the Quakers from all others, who are called by the Chriftian name. The rejection of the facraments establifhed by Chrift, and exprefsly enjoined by him, to be in use among his followers, to the end of the world, is fo bold a measure, that even Mr. Clark fon finds it necessary to solicit "great indulgence to the Quakers on this occafion. He grounds this claim to indulgence, on the footing that the regard paid to the Sacraments, is merely the effect of education and prejudice. "People have received" fays he, "the ordinances in queftion from their ancestors. They have been brought up to the ufe of them. They have seen them fanctioned by the world. Finding their authority dif puted by a body of men, who are infignificant as to numbers when compared with others, they have let loose their cenfure upon them, and this without any inquiry concerning the grounds of their diffent."

Nothing can be more difingenuous and illiberal than this representation. All Chriftians who think it their duty to comply with the injunctions of, their Lord, are here defcribed as a fet of weak, credulous bigots, who can give no other reafon for their faith and practice, than that they follow their ancestors. By what authority does Mr. Clarkfon make this sweeping charge; and how dare he presume to treat the general body of the. Chriftian world as a blind, ignorant, and intolerant mafs, for the purpofe of exalting a fect of fanatics, who have no other reafon for their peculiarities than this, that they were born in the fociety which enjoins them as the bond of union, and that their ancestors had them about a century and a half ago from an illiterate enthufiaft, whom they confidered as divinely inspired?

The Quakers and their advocate, have a fair right to be heard in vindication of the notions and practices which divide them from the reft of mankind, but when they afk for indulgence in the language of abufe, and pronounce judgment while they are preparing to plead, we may juftly confider them as profufe of the very fpirit of bigotry and intolerance, 'which they charge upon others.

Mr. Clarkfon fets out with obferving, that the religion of Jefus Chrift is fpiritual, from whence he labours to prove that every thing ceremonious, is a departure from that fpirituality, and confequently that the more fimple worship is, the nearer it comes to the defign of Chriftianity. Now to this fort of reafoning it is eafy to reply, that ceremonies which

have nothing spiritual in them, or which have no tendency to improve the heart, and to regulate the life of a man, are rejected under this difpenfation, as well as all thofe in the Mofaic fyftem, which typically pointed to Jefus Chrift, and were to be fulfilled in him. But at the fame time, it must be allowed that Jefus Chrift was a legiflator, if his divine authority be received, and therefore every ordinance appointed by him is to be obferved. If he has enjoined any positive inftitutions to be celebrated in his church, it will be no excufe for neglecting them to say that they are ceremonial rites, and that his religion is a religion of the heart. Though they may be ceremonies, they are of his appointment, who can render them. the means of fpiritual bleffings to the fincere obfervers of them; and who can convey as much improvement to the heart, through those channels, as by the medium of public preaching.

But Mr. Clarkson dwells much upon the variety of opinions and practices among Chriftians refpecting the Sacraments of Baptifm and Lord's Supper, whence he concludes for the Quakers that these rites are obfcure and undefined in their meaning, and that Chriftians are at liberty to obferve them or not according to their own convictions. This is playing as faft and loofe with the pofitive inftitutions of religion, as other cafuifts have done with its moral precepts. The diverfity of fentiment and ufage here brought forward with fuch parade, fo far from weakening the authority of the injunction, tends to confirm it; as hereby we have the collected evidence of every age and church fince the Apoftles' days, that thefe facraments were always accounted as effential, whatever notions might be entertained as to the mode and virtue of them. This univerfality of consent in the principle of obedience, will be efteemed by every unbiaffed mind, as a ftrong proof, if direct evidence were wanting, that both Baptifm and the Lord's Supper were obferved from the very beginning of Chriftianity; and that the commands of our Saviour enjoining them were regarded as of perpetual obligation. Surely no man of sober understanding would prefer the arbitrary decree of an illiterate fhoemaker in the feventeenth century, to the whole ftream of Chriftian faith and practice carried up by a clear and unbroken courfe to the age of the Apoftles, and springing forth from the mouth of him who is the fountain of eternal life himself,

On

On the fubject of Baptifm, Mr. Clarkfon is very diffuse. He labours much upon the difference between the baptifm of Jefus Chrift and that of John. The latter he fays was a Jewish ordinance, or more properly an ancient custom among that people; which will not be denied. The baptifm of Jefus was of an inward and a spiritual nature, cleansing or purifying the human heart.

The question now is, which of these two baptisms is included in the great commiffion given by Jefus to his Apoftles," of baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft?" The Quakers contend that it was not the former, which they fay was only a type of that of Jefus Chrift, and therefore ceafed with him. Of the above text, they give the following paraphrase.

"All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. In virtue of the power which I have, I will give you power also. I will confer upon you the gift of the Holy Spirit. When you have received it go into different and distant lands. Go to the Gentiles, who live in ignorance, darkness, and idolatry, and make them proselytes to my new dispensation, so purifying their hearts, or burning the chaff of their corrupt affections, by the active fire of the Holy Ghost, which shall accompany your preaching, that they may be made partakers of the divine nature, and walk in newness of life. And lest this should appear to be too great a work for your faith, I, who have the power, promise to be with you, with this my Spirit in the work, till the end of the world."

According to this interpretation, which is contended for by a fort of criticifm on the original text, water-baptifm made no part of this great commiffion. But as the Apoftles are exprefsly commanded to make profelytes, and to baptize them, fome action is most exprefsly enjoined by the word Bar, and what that is the plain meaning of the term which is to wash, fufficiently expreffes. The Quakers, ever maintain, that hereby is to be underflood only the communication of the Holy Spirit, which power no creature can poffibly poffefs, it being the prerogative of Chrift himfelf.

The baptifm enjoined is an outward act to be performed by men, otherwife there is no meaning in words; but the inward baptifm of the Holy Ghoft no man can give, and it would be downright blafphemy for any of the ministers of Chrift, to say that they baptize with the Holy Ghost.

The Quakers admit that Jefus Chrift fubmitted to water. baptifin, and allowed it, but they fay, and Mr. Clarkson

fays

fays fo too, that he never baptized any one himself. As a proof of this we are referred to the fourth chapter of St. John, where it is faid that "Jefus baptized not, but his difciples."

Had however this learned theologian looked into the preceding chapter, he would have found that Jefus did baptize. In the 22nd verfe we read, "After these things came Jefus and his difciples into the land of Judea, and there HE tarried with them and BAPTIZED," and in the 26th verse it is recorded that some of John's difciples, after a difpute with the followers of Jefus, came to their master and faid, "Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bareft witness, behold the SAME BAPTIZETH, and all men come to him.'

But fuppofing that our Lord did not baptize himself, if his difciples baptized in his prefence, and under his authority, the rite was completely ratified and established by his authority, If water baptifm was to end with the miniftration of John, it would not have been continued by Jefus; nor would he have fuffered his difciples to obferve that ceremony on all who came to him.

The Quakers cannot deny that the Apoftles confidered water baptifm as a Chriftian ordinance after the ascension of their maller, but the answer to this is in the fpirit of Dr. Priestley. "The Quakers confider the Apoftles as men of like paffions with ourselves:" and hence they infer that no regard is to be had to their faith or their practice. Because Thomas was incredulous, and Peter denied his master, the whole apoftolical college is to be treated with as little refpect as a modern fynod. After fuch a declaration as this, it would be in vain to argue with men who will just admit as much of the Bible for their rule, as they please.

We cannot difmifs this fubject of baptifm without a quotation which places Mr. Clarkfon's faithfulness in a yery confpicuous light.

"The Quakers 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 been previously baptized by John? But he not only never baptized himself, but it is no where recorded that he ordered his disciples to

baptize with water. He once ordered a leper to go to the priest, and to offer the gift for his cleansing; at another time 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."

Now we have fhewn that our Lord actually did baptize with water the multitudes who came to him, and that John's difciples were diffatisfied on that account as thinking that it was an injury to their mafter's reputation. What now will be thought of the integrity of the Quakers and their advocate, who not only evade a folemn commandment by the most fhameful fophiftry, but flatly contradict the Gofpel History itfelf?

After having discharged the firft facrament, we are not to wonder at the mode in which the fecond is difpofed of. Mr. Clarkson will have it that this is a mere Jewish rite, and confequently that it was not to continue under the fpiritual dif penfation of Jefus Chrift.. If fo, how came Chrift to celebrate it himself, and leave an injunction to his difciples to continue the ordinance as a "remembrance of him ?" but the answer is that three of the Evangelifts do not give us these words. All of them, however, mention the inftitution itself, and we know that many tranfactions of our Lord's hiftory, and feveral of his difcourfes, are recorded in one gofpel, and omitted in another. When therefore, we find men difobeying a direct command, and overthrowing a folemn inftitution, on account of a flight and an immaterial variation between the evangelical writers, as to the words ufed by our Lord, our difpofition to indulgence is mixed with indignation against this audacious attempt to defroy the authority of the Chriftian Scriptures.

Having thus attacked the veracity of St. Luke, a very fingular effort is made to fet afide the reafoning of St. Paul on this facrament, in his firft Epiftle to the Corinthians. According to the Quakers, the Apoftle's charge to those converts had reference only to the Jewish paffover, but who told thefe fophifts, or their advocate, that the paffover was ever celebrated in the Corinthian Church? on the contrary, St. Paul was a moft zealous oppofer of every thing that had a Judaizing appearance, even among the difciples of the circumcifion. If the paffover was meant by St. Paul in his explicit discourse on the nature of the facrament, then the perfons to whom his epifle was addressed must have been Jews, for it would be prepofterous to fuppofe that the Gentile converts would obferve that folemnity. But the Corin