ing to the passage I have quoted tells the faithful in Christ at Ephesus, that after they believed in Christ, they were SEALED with the HOLY SPIRIT of promise, "which" says he, "is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession unto the praise of his glory." And in the same Epistle, chap. iv. 30. he exhorts them not to grieve the HOLY SPIRIT of God" whereby" says he "ye are SEALED unto the day of redemption." By all which it is undeniably evident that no outward carnal rite is the seal of God's covenant, but this divine confirmation of the christian is the work of the HOLY SPIRIT in the soul.

I think I am aware of the force of habit, the strength of first impressions, and can make much allowance for the practices of those who differ from us in their forms of worship and the use of shadowy ceremonies-but I have sometimes wondered how any experimental christian who had known the "Love of God shed abroad in his heart," and understood the nature of divine communion with the soul, could afterwards turn to the "weak and beggarly elements and thereunto desire again to be in bondage," could descend from the high, the tranquil, the soul-satisfying enjoyment of a spiritual "supper," to busy himself in a a round of typical ceremonies, weak indeed as pertaining to the conscience, beggar-like in that they have nothing to give us, and which can never make him that doeth the service perfect." See Gal. iv. 9. and also Heb. ix. 9, and 10, and Rev. iii. 20. But it is said we are commanded by divine authority to observe these ceremonies. In my next number I shall give some of my views on that subject and endeavor to show the weakness of such a position.

AMICUS.

LETTER VI.

Seventh-day, 7th MJ. 21, 1821,

HAVING shewn in my last Essay, that water baptism and the ceremony of taking bread and wine-the "Sealing Ordinances," as "PAUL" is pleased to term them, neither are, nor can, in the nature of things be any SEAL of the Divine covenant or BADGE of christianity, that they never had any such use assigned them under the gospel, and are never so termed in the New Testament.-I shall now proceed to state my views of these ceremonies and first, of Water Baptism.

In treating of this subject, I shall not inquire about the mode of Baptism." It is not my business to shew the inconsis

tency of those who plead Scripture precept for this "carnal ordinance," and blame us for the non-observance of it, yet never practice it themselves; who tell us they have the "express command of Christ" for its institution, and yet follow a Romish tradition in its stead-who remind us of Philip and the Eunuch both going down into the water, yet content themselves with sprinkling a little in the face; their conduct in this case, how strange soever it may be, is no concern of mine, who deny Water Baptism, by any mode whatever, to be an ordinance of Christ. As I do not understand that any Society of Christians believe this rite to be essential to salvation, I know of but two arguments that can be used for its support. If these fail it must fall to the ground, and be swept away with the other weak and shadowy institutions of a former dispensation. The first is some express command of Jesus Christ." The second "that the Apostles actually applied water to their converts,” or in more unexceptionable terms, "actually baptized them in water."

66

First Argument. "The express command of Jesus Christ." This is indeed essential to give it the character of a christian ordinance," for we cannot suppose a christian institution unauthorized by any law of Christ. Now we affirm that there is no such law. "PAUL" asserts the contrary, and cites the following text to support his assertion, Matt. xxviii. (See his Essay, Letter 4th,) yet he afterwards in the last paragraph of the same Essay, finding that "water" is not mentioned in the passage tacitly admits there is no such "express command," but asserts "that the commission of our Lord if not express was calculated to lead to Water Baptism. Here he stumbles at the threshold! And here I might safely rest this point, did he not by begging the question in several important particulars on the one hand, and making some unfounded assertions on the other, attempt to fortify his position against the weight of any argument that might be brought to bear upon it. In the first place, he assumes the point at issue, by saying that "our Lord knew the Apostles understood him to mean Water Baptism." In the next place he affirms that Spiritual Baptism was not signified by our Lord in the text, because, it was a "human act" which is there commanded. Here his premises and his conclusion are both untrue, and we deny them both. Then he gravely tells us that these gratuitous assertions, and two or three texts by him quoted, in none of which the word Water is once mentioned, ought to end the controversy between us. Now I am persuaded that "PAUL," (to use his own phrase,) has " imbibed erroneous views of the Society of Friends," if he thinks they can yield to such weak argument as this. And though he supposes "some other than the Holy Spirit, some light beside the the light of Scripture,

must be called in to interpret these texts as not enjoining Water Baptism," yet I hope to be able to show by clear evidence, that the New Testament contains sufficient matter for the purpose I have in view.

Passing over his assertion, that we say "by baptizing, nothing more than teaching is meant," which neither the Society of Friends, nor any of their "admired writers" have ever said; I will now state our views of the Baptism of Christ, give such an explanation of the text quoted by "PAUL," Matt. xxvii. 19, 20, as I think was intended by our Lord, and will correspond with the nature and design of the gospel dispensation.

It is evident from the whole tenor of the New Testament that two kinds of Baptism are distinctly understood. John the Baptist's expressions are decisive on this point, Matt. iii. 11. Mark i. 8: "I indeed have baptized you with water, but he (Christ) shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." As it must be admitted that there are two kinds of Baptism, so it is evident that they are different in their nature. One carnal and elementary, the other spiritual and divine. That the one was temporary and evanescent, the other a perpetual ordinance in the church, is I think clearly evident from John the Baptist's own assertion, John iii. 28, 30: "Ye yourselves bear me witness that I said I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He must increase, but I must decrease." Now it is so reasonable to suppose that when our Lord sent forth his disciples to preach and to baptize that he meant they should use his own baptism, and not the baptism of another, that one would think there could be no doubt on the subject, especially when we consider the nature of each: John's being elementary, typical, inefficient to cleanse from sin. Christ's evangelical, divine, powerful in purifying the soul, and exactly in accordance with the great design of his coming as stated by his beloved disciple John, "Ye know he was manifested to take away our sin." 1 John iii. 5.

But here follows the grand objection, and indeed the only plausible objection that I have ever heard to this view of the subject. This being removed, I think every difficulty would vanish with it-the use of "weak and beggarly clements" would indeed "decrease"-the true baptism of our Lord would be better understood and more fully experienced in his chruch.

We will now consider the nature of this objection, which is clearly and strongly expressed in "PAUL'S" address to us before quoted-"To baptize with the Holy Ghost was no more in the power of the Apostles than to create a world," This position is so clear that it cannot de denied, and I grant it in full. I am sure the Society of Friends never held a contrary opinion. But in order that this argument should have any weight, it must be

shewn that the text necessarily implies that if the Apostles were to baptize with the Spirit, they must do it by their own power.

Now I think this is impossible to be demonstrated. I know very well that no man can by his own power baptize with the Holy Spirit-and it is equally certain, that no man can by his own power preach the Gospel of Christ-no man can by his own power convert a heathen-no man can by his own power put up to heaven one true prayer. "No man, (says the Apostle, 1 Cor. xiii. 4.) can (truly) say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."

This Divine Spirit sent down from Heaven, and operating on the soul of man, is as necessary to all these acts, and indeed to every act of true worship, as it is to baptize with the Holy Ghost

-so that if "PAUL'S" objection is valid in the first instance, it is equally valid in all the rest-if it proves that spiritual baptism is impossible to the true minister of Christ, it proves that all our worship, all our prayers are vain and useless.

But our Lord who knew the objections that would be made to this divine commission takes care to obviate them,-First, by assuring his true ministers that "all power was given to him in Heaven and in earth." Where he is there is divine powerand then by giving them a promise, which has never been annulled, "Lo I am with you always even to the end of the world.” I have commanded you to baptize with the Holy Ghost, and I will enable you to perform my command.

If the limits of my Essays permitted it, I could show from clear texts of Scripture, that this kind of baptism did actually attend the Apostles' ministry, as in Acts xi. 15.-and we do certainly know from real experience, that though it is not confined to time, place or circumstance, yet that it attends the gospel ministry, down to the present day, which to us is conclusive on this point.

Second Argument. I will now take up the only remaining argument with which I am acquainted that is used to prove water baptism to be a Christian ordinance. It is stated by "PAUL" in these words, "The Apostles actually applied water to their converts." He ought to have said, "actually baptized them in water for I cannot find in all the New Testament, one solitary instance of their applying water to their converts, though there are several instances where they applied their converts to the water.

In order to understand the value of this argument, it will be necessary to take a view of the state of the primitive Church for the first thirty years after the crucifixion of our Lord. I will endeavour to do this from the plain testimony of the sacred writings, the legitimate source of evidence, and the best kind of

testimony left us of its condition during that period. From this source it is very evident that the Apostles and primitive believers did not suddenly perceive the true design of the advent of our Lord, and in many things were mistaken as to the real nature of the dispensation he came to introduce. In proof of this I shall adduce some plain scripture testimony as a kind of evidence that we all agree is decisive on any question relating to our faith.

The first case I shall bring into view, is that of the Apostle Peter, who during eight years after our Lord's crucifixion, remained under a belief that it was unlawful to communicate with the Gentiles, or to preach the gospel to them. This mistake is the more remarkable as the prophets had so clearly predicted the call of the Gentiles, and their equal participation in the benefits of Christ's coming, and also as Peter had had the benefit of his Lord's example, which was certainly calculated to remove such an error; yet notwithstanding all this, so strong were his prejudices against the Gentiles that the force of a Divine vision was employed to remove them; it was not till then that he perceived" of a truth that God is no respecter of persons, but that in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted of him." And it appears by the history that Peter was afterwards called to a sharp account for his condescension. Those members of the Church who had been converted from Judaism contended with him on the subject, blaming him for gaing in unto the Gentiles and eating with them; and it was not until he had related the circumstances of his vision that they held their peace." See Acts x. and xi.

It also further appears that nineteen years after our Lord's ascension, the question whether all the members of the Christian Church should submit to the rite of circumcision was debated in a council of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, when it was first settled that the Gentile brethren should be exempted from this ceremony. See Acts xv. See Acts xv. Twenty years after the Ascension, Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles circumcised Timothy himself. Acts xvi. 3. Twenty-two years after the same period, Paul took the Nazarite's vow as prescribed in Numbers vi. and when the days of his separation were ended, had his head shaved, to show the accomplishment of his vow. Acts xviii. 18. Twenty-seven years after the same period, the same Apostle at the particular request of the Apostle James, and all the elders of the Church of Jerusalem, took four men who had made the vow of the Nazarite, and purifying himself with them (according to the Law of Moses,) entered into the temple to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification until that an offering should be offered for every one of them." See Acts xxi. 26. This circumstance is marked with peculiar force when we