most perfect form that ever was composed? But have not Quakers both a place and a time for assembling to worship? and does not a signal from an elder, intimate that the hour of worship has elapsed? The servant of God may, at times, be disinclined to pray; and experience shows, that if prayer be not habitual and regular, this disinclination increases. We should, therefore, daily, at the throne of grace, beseech the Spirit of God to keep alive within our breasts the flame of inclination to prayer.

Baptism is affirmed, in the twelfth proposition, to be, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God. The Quaker, therefore, allows not of sprinkling by water. But how he can get over the examples of Cornelius, who was baptized in water; of the Ethiopian, who descended with Philip into the water; and of our Lord himself, who submitted to the rite of baptism in Jordan; he has never condescended to show. "Except a man be born of WATER, and of the Spirit," said our Lord to Nicodemus, John, iii. 5, "he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." To suit the Quaker hypothesis, the phrase should run, "Except a man be born of water, THAT IS, of the Spirit;" or "water" should not have been mentioned at all. If baptism were exclusively inward, it would be the work of the Holy Ghost, acting immediately on the individual baptized. No other

MAN could have any concern in it. How comes it, then, that Christ commanded his Apostles, "Go ye into all nations, and dove baptize them?” Matt. xxviii. 19.

As to the passage, declaring baptism to be not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience to God; the Quaker perverts its meaning. It pronounces, that the outward form is not the WHOLE of the sacrament;

Ergo," says the Quaker, "there must be no outward form at all." Now, we are elsewhere told, that the kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink. Rom. xiv. 17. By the above rule, then, men who seek it, ought neither to eat nor to drink at all.

Some Quakers, indeed, affirm, that this rite was prescribed and practised, as suitable to the early periods of Christianity, but that it was only commanded for a time. But by what passage in Scripture do they support so bold an opinion? "Go ye, and baptize ALL nations." The commandment is valid, until all nations be converted.

In the next proposition, the other sacrament is dismissed with equally little ceremony. As baptism is a purification of the heart, the Lord's Supper is a concord of souls. "The communion of the body and blood of Christ is but a shadow it ceases in such as have the substance." But, unfortunately for this explanation, the communion of the Lord's Supper is not a prospective, but a

cominemorative rite. "Do this in REMEMBRANCE of me." Luke, xxii. 19. Men remember a thing not before, but usually AFTER it happened. Nor will it serve the purpose of the Friends, to affirm that THIS rite was commanded only for a season, "As OFTEN as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's death until he come." 1 Cor. xi. 25. What can this mean but the continuance of the act of remembrance, until the Lord's second coming, to judge the world? Why should the office be appointed only for a season? and at what season ought it to cease? If the sacrament of bread and wine was instituted to keep up the memory of the precious death of Christ, the observance becomes even the MORE necessary, as the fact waxes the less recent; for monuments are reared and medals are struck, as standing records of facts to late posterity.

"That no man has a right to force the con sciences of others," is the penultimate proposition, and has, of course, our cordial approbation. The last denies the lawfulness of salutations, compliments, titles of honour, and, in general, of all vain speeches, and of oaths in courts of justice. It forbids bows, and the uncovering of the head ; superfluities in dress, and sportive or idle amuse

ments.

Concerning all these, we must speak in due order. And first, as to flattering words and titles,

M MA

and to the use of You, instead of Thou. Are not titles of respect observed to have been bestowed, by the best characters, both in the Old and New Testaments? Jehoiada, and his sons, said, "God save the king," 2 Kings, xxiii. 11. "King Agrippa,” said Paul, "believest thou the prophets?" Acts, xxvi. 27. Whatever respect was conveyed by addressing a person as You, when it was first introduced, it is certain that "thou" has now become the title of greater respect; for that is most respectful which is reserved for rare occasions. And scriptural language has invested the " thou” with a certain peculiar reverence. A commoner, in addressing a sovereign or a peer, to avoid the impertinence of the familiar You, turns the phrase into the singular number, and accosts the person as a thing; Your Majesty, Your Lordship. If any pragmatical person were to say, Thy Majesty, Thy Lordship, the respect would, perhaps, be increased. So that, if the Quakers mean here to avoid a flattering compliment, they fall into the very error which they seek to shun. But I have heard another reason sometimes assigned for this affected phraseology. You implies two persons, while, in strict TRUTH, the Friend is addressing only one. This is merely a question of grammar; every man knows he is only one person when he is called, You, by another. But there is hyperbolical language to be found in Scripture, sufficient to condemn this trifling and punctilious minuteness,

"And there are many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." John, xxi. 25.

But are such affectations intended to reduce men to an equality? or to remind them of their equa lity? If so, the scruple relates still merely to words. The Friends themselves employ domestic servants, whom they expect to make their fires, to clean their shoes, to wait on them at table, to perform all menial offices. Here is inequality in effect; here is the relation of master and servant, to all intents and purposes. Here is honour paid in action, by one person to another. And how there should be any hesitation in using the name, when the thing is practised, it is not very easy to conceive *.

These observations are applicable to the Quaker objection towards bowing and uncovering the head before superiors, and chiefly before the greatest of all superiors. They themselves receive honour of another in effect; wherefore, then, scruple at an external customary sign of it? Is not this

* Calling a man Mister, or subscribing one's self his humble servant, can be insincerity only as conceived to be such by the speaker or the hearer; but both know well, that the phrase is only a term of civility. But if the Quaker is so very precise, let him acquaint us where is his strict sincerity, in calling a stranger, nay, an enemy, "Friend."