manded and equally known, may please himself, but he does not obey the Lord.

Further Thefe depreciating expreffions, non-efential, external rite, a fhadow, and a mere outward form, may be applied to the facred fupper with as much propriety as they are to baptifm. Another quotation from Barclay will not be difpleafing to our opponents; especially when they obferve, how nearly his language, in regard to baptism, coincides with their's. We, (fays the plain dealing apologift, we) always prefer the power to the form, the fubftance to the fhadow; and where the fubftance and the power is, we doubt not to denominate the perfon accordingly, though the form be wanting. And, therefore, we always feek firit and plead for the fubftance and power, as knowing that to be indifpenfably neceffary; though the form fometimes may be difpenfed with.'*-Difpenfe with the form, in regard to fuch perfons as poffefs the power: why that is the very thing for which. our brethren plead. How happily friend Robert and they are agreed, in this refpect! And what an honour it reflects upon them, as Baptifls, to have fuch an affociate! They, however, will do well to remember that the principle on which the Quaker proceeds, extends its influence to the holy fupper, no less than to baptifm; and that he who has a right to difpenfe with a law, may entirely repeal it, and enact another whenever he pleafes.-Baptifm is an external rite, a mere outward form. But whatever Socinus, or Bunyan, or any of our brethren, may fay in defence of their conduct on this ground, will apply with equal force against a punctual ob

Apology, p. 419.

fervance of the Lord's fupper. This Barclay intended. For are not bread and wine external things, as well as water? And has not the act of baptizing as much fpirituality in it, as the acts of cating and drinking? Besides, an apostle has assured us, that "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink," though the latter were the richest of cordials, any more than it is immersion in water.*

Once more: When I confider how much more frequently baptifm is mentioned in the New Testament, than the facred fupper; how often repenting and believing finners are exhorted, by the apostles, to be baptized; how foon that ordinance was administered to Christian converts after they believed; what exhortations are given to profeffing Chriftians, on the ground of their being baptized; and when I reflect, that the Holy Spirit commends them that were baptized by John, as "juftifying God:" while he feverely cenfures others, as "rejecting the counfel of God against themselves," because they flighted the folemn appointment; 1 cannot but wonder at the language and conduct of our opponents. Their very fingular conduct appears to me ftill more extraordinary, and yet more unwarrantable, when I reflect; that baptism is a divine inftitution to which a believer fubmits but once, and a branch of divine worship that he is required to perform but once; in which refpect it greatly dif fers from every other appointment in the worship of God, under the Chriftian economy. For, this being the cafe, one fhould have imagined, if notorious and ftubborn facts had not forbidden the

* Vid. Hoornbeek. ut fupra, p. 362. † Hoornbeek. ut fupra, p. 409, 416.

thought; that every minifter of Jefus Chrift, and every church of the living God, would infift on a fubmiffion to what they confider as real baptifm, in all whom they admit to the Lord's table. And whatever Pacificus may have faid to the contrary, or however unimportant he may fuppofe the ordinance to be; I have the pleasure to find, that Mr. Ryland, as before obferved, feems to confider it in the fame light with myself, if one may venture to form a judgment of his views relating to this institution, from what he has published under his own name. Thefe are his words, and I would warmly recommend them to the confideration of Pacificus: Baptifm ought to be confidered as glorious an act of worship as ever was infiituted by God. It is to be performed but once in the life of a Chriftian--but once to eternity; and therefore, it ought to be done with the utmost veneration and love.'*-Here, then, we have an ordinance appointed by Supreme authority, which requires to be celebrated but once; a command given by the Lord Redeemer, that is perfectly fatisfied with one, yes, with only one act of obedience in the whole courfe of a Chriftian's life: yet, strange to imagine, but certain in fact, though the authority enjoining is abfolute, and acknowledged fo to be; though the obedience required confifts in a single inftance; and though the duty commanded is generally eafy, very eafy to be performed, where there is a difpofition for it; our brethren not only connive at a neglect of it, but feverely cenfure us becaufe we do not adopt their conduct! but whether we or they deferve cenfure, confidering the principles we hold

Beauty of Social Religion, p. 9.

in common, I leave the impartial reader, I leave all but themfelves, to judge, they not believing, any more than we, the divine authority or the validity of infant fprinkling; for if they did, they would ftand convicted before all the world of Anabaptifm. My reader will pardon the frequent repetition of this thought, it being of great importance in every difpute of this kind; nor can we fuffer our opponents long to forget it.

SECTION VI.

Reflections on the diftinguifbing Character, Strict Baptifts, which our Brethren apply to us.

Ο

UR opponents, I obferve, repeatedly call us, Stria Baptifts; but whether for fo doing they merit commendation, or deferve cenfure, may, perhaps, be a queftion with fome.. If, by the epithet fria, they mean exact, accurate, confcientiously nice; their candour deserves commendation. In that fenfe of the term we are not afhamed to be called Stria Baptifts; we cheerfully adopt the character.

It may, however, admit of a query, whether we be fo fully entitled to poffefs this honour without a rival, as our brethren feem to infinuate. Is it because we are stricter than the apostles, in regard to communion at the Lord's table? That remains to be proved. Is it because we confider baptifm as equally the duty of all believers? This, indeed, we maintain; and the reason is, those argu ments which prove it the duty of one, will apply to all. Or, is it because we confider baptifm as a term of communion? We, it is true, avow the fen

timent; but it is far from being peculiar to us. For it appears from the foregoing pages, that we act on a principle, received in common by Chriftians of almost every name, in every age, and in every nation. When, therefore, we are compared with profeffing Chriftians in general, we have no peculiar claim to the epithet ftria, whatever right we may have to the denomination of Baptifts, or whatever be our distinguishing character, when oppofed to our brethren with whom we now contend.

-Nor can we be otherwise than firic, without violating our own principles, and contradicting our own practice. For we believe that all who have received the truth, should profess their faith in Jefus Chrift and be baptized. And have we not the happiness, in this refpect, of agreeing with our brethren? When we made a public declaration of our dependence on Chrift, and gave a reafon of the hope that is in us, we believed it was our duty to be baptized, before we received the facred fupper. Did not our opponents do the fame? or had it no place at all in their creed? In confequence of fuch a conviction, we were actually immerfed in the name of the Lord, before we approached the holy table. And were not they alfo? But how came it to be either our duty, or their's, thus to proceed? Was it because they or we believed that it was required of us? Or, did a full perfuafion of this kind constitute that a duty, which would no otherwife have been obligatory? If fo, a Catholic may lawfully adore the hoft, a Muffulman revere Mahomet, and a Jew blafpheme the Meffiah. No; that which made it our duty to be baptized, and then to receive the Lord's fupper, was the command of God; which lies on every perfon fo