are circumcised, keep the law, but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh." They were not exact in the other parts of the law, it seems, as strict as they seemed to be for this sacramental practice; which is the case of too many now: yet they pressed it, that they might glory, and value themselves upon gaining others to be conformable to them, whether to excuse their compliance with custom, that they might avoid persecution, or out of love to ceremo nial religion.

"But," says that clear-sighted and plain-dealing apostle, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, whereby the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." If he rejoiced in nothing, but in the cross of Christ, then in no other elementary rite, service, or ordinance, any more than in circumcision.

But he proceeds: "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." That is to say, 'For according to Christ Jesus, or in the religion of Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth, but a new creature, a regenerate soul; one born again by the Spirit of God:' for the apostle, in these excellent words, not only strikes at circumcision, but all outward and elementary observations: neither this, nor that, outward thing availeth in the Christian religion, or according to Christ Jesus, but a new creature:' he does not say, but water-baptism,' as some would have it, who tell us, that it succeeds circumcision, by divine institution: by no means! But that which availeth with Christ, and in the religion of Christ Jesus, is a new creature, a new man, one changed, regenerated, or born again, by the word and baptism of the Holy Ghost. "And," says the apostle, to confirm them in this doctrine of inward circumcision, that is of the heart, in the spirit, (which is the same thing with the baptism of the Spirit) "As many as walk according to this rule, peace shall be upon them." So that we, the poor despised Quakers, take comfort in this apostolical benediction, and can say, to God's glory, his peace has been upon us, in our belief and confession of his blessed doctrine of the new creature. It is what we have aimed at, and has been the great drift of our testimony since we were a people; and in order to it, we have directed all to the gift of God's grace in themselves, that by believing in it, and resigning up their wills and affections, and whole man, to the teaching and conduct of it, they may be leavened and sanctified by it, throughout; by which the state of the new creature, which is Christianity indeed, will be experienced; though it was, and is, a mystery to the world.

As for the apostle Peter's question, Acts x. 48. "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ?" It imports, with submission, no more than this; that Peter, well knowing the narrowness of his countrymen's spirits, was cautious lest his latitude should distaste them: for the Gentiles being unholiness to the Jews, and even Peter himself, without a vision from God, too narrow-spirited for the convictions and devotion of that excellent centurion Cornelius, it behoved him to ask, if any body had any thing to say, why they might not be baptized as well as the Jews, being proselytes to the Christian profession? In all which he seems more concerned to save his own credit, than to recommend, or establish, that of water-baptism. As if he had said, "Why should this custom be forbidden to the Gentiles more than the Jews?' But this will not warrant the practice in general, because practice is no institution, and that there appears no command to make it one. So that asking, who can forbid, what was not commanded, strengthens his question, instead of weakening it, since what was done of condescension, could not have been forbid upon authority. There needed not so much care or strictness in the matter. And indeed the apostles themselves seem not to have been so clear about the abolishing of the Jewish observations, as appears by the want Peter had of a vision, his own appre hension of the straitness of his brethren, and their calling him to account for what he had done, as may be seen in the same chapter.

But I confess I cannot see why the bishop should assume the power of unchristianing us, for not practising of that which he himself practises so unscripturally, and that according to the sentiments of a considerable part of Christendom; having not one text of scripture, to prove, that sprinkling of water in the face was the water-baptism, or that children were the subjects of water-baptism, in the first times. And yet this is all the baptism the bishop practises, who seems so severe upon us. I think our forbearing of water-baptism, from a belief and sense of the coming of the invisible grace, signified by that visible sign, cannot be reputed such a slight to water-baptism, as presuming to alter the manner and substance of its first institution: for then it was in the river Jordan, now in a basin; it was then unto repentance, now, to children uncapable of repentBut that which perhaps misled the doctors of the declining church first into this practice, being at the distance of some hundreds of years from the apostolical times, might be the supposition that water-baptism came in the

ance.

place of circumcision, and that being to children, so might water-baptism too. But they forgot (among other things, which, even before that time, were crept into the church, without precept, or evangelical example) that repentance was not made a condition to circumcision, as it was to water-baptism. I would beseech the bishop to tread softly in this matter; for if water-baptism should indeed prove a badge of Christianity, he would be at a loss for one that would pass current in scripture. Thus much for this point.

What I have said upon this head of water-baptism, may serve also for what is commonly called the Lord's supper, which the bishop reproves us for omitting to practise; urging Luke xxii. 19. "This do in remembrance of me;" and the apostle's words, 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. It is true, indeed, Christ said, when he eat it with his disciples, "That they should do it in remembrance of him till he came." And this seems much more of the nature of a commission, than that cited by the bishop for water-baptism: but the limitation Christ gives to the practice of it, and a right and proper consideration of the import of his words, and the nature of the thing, will best lead us to understand his mind therein.

First, This was also a Jewish practice, as well as waterbaptism, and so, in nature, of no gospel institution, but temporary in its use.

Secondly, Christ seems, by this, to break, or open to them, what was so hard for them to bear, to wit, his departure and death, by a token of memorial till he should come to them again.

Thirdly, Christ takes occasion from thence, to show forth to his disciples the mystical supper they should eat, and the fellowship they should have with him, when he came again.

Now we believe this coming was spiritual, suitable to that saying of his, "I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine, till I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father: and some here shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom," Matt. xvi. 28. Again, "He that dwelleth with you, shall be in you," John xiv. "I in them, and they in me," chap. xvii. All which plainly imports a spiritual coming. Also Rev. iii. 20. “Behold I stand at the door and knock, if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me," which was said near forty years after his ascension. Now since this is acknowledged to be an outward sign of an inward and invisible grace, what can outward bread and wine more properly signify and resemble, than an inward supper? And if so, the words

may reasonably be read thus, Eat this supper of outward bread and wine, till I come into and sup with you, and be your supper, that am the bread and wine from heaven, which nourishes the soul unto eternal life.'

Fourthly, The kingdom of God being spiritual, and in the soul, such should be the ordinances of that kingdom. Now Christ tells the Pharisees, Luke xvii. 20. "The kingdom of God is within." And the apostle Paul, Rom. xiv. 17, saith, "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost:" but the outward supper is meat and drink, and therefore not of the kingdom of God, which is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. And this was made use of by Christ, in the state of humiliation, before his death, and the pouring forth of the Holy Ghost, to fasten upon his disciples, that were weak, and of little faith, the remembrance of him, till they should know him with them, and in them, by his spiritual appearance (as he was "the Lord from heaven, the quickening Spirit,") according to his promise. For if the scripture be consulted, we shall not only find that Christ reproves the apostles for their infidelity in him, but, after all the example, precepts, and miracles they saw by him, and that he had so very lately left them with such assurances of his coming to them again; yet when Mary, &c. brought them the tidings of his resurrection, it is said, Luke xxiv. 10, 11. "Their words seemed to the disciples as idle tales, and they believed them not." Which sufficiently shows the low state they were in, or that at least they needed a sign or token, as that of the supper, to commemorate him. But this reason, which is yet true, does not credit its continuation; for when the Spirit was come, or Christ in his spiritual appearance, their eyes were opened, and they saw then it was the "Spirit that quickens, the flesh profiteth nothing." John vi. 63.

For

Fifthly, Most certainly Christ meant no less, when he preached himself" the Bread that came down from heaven," John vi. 31 to 52, and that they that would have life eternal, must "eat his flesh, and drink his blood;" that is, they must feed upon spiritual food; not the outward, but inward supper; the thing signified, and substance itself. Christ opposes himself, "who is the Bread of God," to the bread their fathers eat in the wilderness, who were dead, which was of an elementary nature: therefore it can never be, that such bread as perisheth, should be the bread of the evangelical supper, when Christ, by comparison, undervalues it to the bread he had to give them.

Sixthly, Our blessed Lord, Mark vii. 18. taught, That it

1

was not that which went into the man that defileth the man," because it went but into his body, and not into his heart and if so, the argument is undeniable, that it is not that which goeth into the man, that is, into his body, and not into his heart, that sanctifieth the man: but material bread and wine goeth only into the body, and not into the heart; therefore they cannot sanctify. The import of Christ's words is plainly this, Meats and drinks neither defile nor sanctify; they neither benefit nor harm any one upon a spiritual account:' consequently elementary bread and wine cannot be the evangelical supper, but a figure of it, which is ended in Christ, the "Bread of God, that cometh down from heaven," John vi. 31, 32, 48, 49, 50, that a man may eat of, and not die; the substance of all shadows: for, saith the apostle, "The body is of Christ;" and where that is, our Lord tells us, Luke xiii. 37, "the eagles are gathered together:" where the apostle's wise men, 1 Cor. x. 15. seek for the true supper, which nourishes the soul unto eternal life.

Seventhly, But the bishop will have this supper four times repeated in the scripture of the New Testament, besides that of the apostle Paul; which must be his mistake-since there is no command to practise it beyond that very time," but in Luke xxii. 19. if there itself. For though his eating of the passover is there related, as also in Mark and Luke, it was but once done; and the command, "This do in remembrance of me," is only once related among the evangelists, as well as it is once commanded. And would we be strict with the bishop, we need not allow him that command to reach farther than the present time in which it was given; for "This do," or, " Take, eat," are equally in the present tense, "for thereby you show forth my death." And the following words, viz. "I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdon," Matt. xxvi. 29, farther explains it. Thus Mark has it, xiv. 25. "Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God." Luke xxii. 18. gives it thus, "I say unto you, I will not drink of the vine till the kingdom of God shall come." Now it is plain that Christ refers them to the spiritual supper, which we prefer and practise, and which is the supper signified by that of outward bread and wine, that was to serve till the kingdom of God came, and then he would communicate with them in a way suitable to his kingdom: which kingdom, as before said, is not meat and drink, but "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." And as the same