MY friend's letter needs no apology. And as it is an apostolic injunction, Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, ^* I wish to do it, with meekness and fear.

To the first question, I reply, I had many reasons, which will sufficiently appear in my answer to the se­cond query: And therefore, as I intend no reflection on a religious Society, many of whom I much esteem, I shall only observe in general on this head, that hav­ing about a year since met with Barclay's Apology, [Page 4]I was fully convinced, that the principles, worship and discipline of the people called Quakers, ^* were more consonant to scripture, reason, and to my own feelings, than those of the Society to which I was united. In­deed, I then saw the cause of the many painful feel­ings, with which I had been for years exercised, as ma­ny of my sentiments coincided with theirs, though I knew it not, being carried away with the vulgar opinion of the erroneousness of their principles, &c. And as I believe, this is the state of many well-disposed minds; I wish that people of all denominations would not take things upon trust, or on the authority of any man, or men; but simply turn their minds to the Divine Teach­er, in their own breast, even to the Lord Jesus, who is the Life and Light of Men, as well as constantly search the Scriptures; for I am persuaded, that numbers so im­plicity believe all they hear, that it may be said they have no creed of their own,

To the second question, I answer, I have repeatedly, and carefully perused that letter, and shall give my friend a few free remarks thereon.

But it may be necessary to premise, that on the first superficial view, it struck me as something plausible; and I believe it has had the same effect on a certain class of readers, who either cannot, or will not look beyond the surface of things. This may account for its being deemed unanswerable. But looking into it a second and third time, it became less and less formida­ble; for as I more attentively considered the objections, and discovered the fallacy of the arguments, some difficulties, which rested on my mind, were removed: On a close inspection, it appeared, that eight out of fifteen of Barclay's propositions, were granted to be agreeable to scripture; and these eight propositions, [Page 5]which the objector allows, do not 'differ from Christi­anity,' contain the fundamental doctrines of the Gos­pel. More narrowly looking into those to which he has objected, I found reason to conclude, that he now sees things more clearly, and has therefore changed his mind with regard to the seventh proposition on Justification, and the tenth on Women's preaching. My reasons, I expect, will be sufficiently clear, when they shall be given in their proper place.

As to the fifteenth proposition, respecting conformity to the world, he agrees with Barclay in some things; and how he can prove that his denying flattering titles to be given to men, makes ‘a difference between Qua­kerism and Christianity,’ is a mystery indeed. How­ever, this I am certain of, that if Barclay was mista­ken in some particulars objected to, his mistakes are harmless, being on the safe side, and such as do not hinder those who hold them, according to the objector's own words, from being ‘Real Christians; men who have the mind that was in Christ. ^*’

I conclude therefore, that eleven out of the fifteen propositions, have nothing different from Christianity in them. Let us then calmly consider the reprobated ones, weighing the arguments which are brought to prove that they 'manifestly differ from Christianity;' and in doing this, let us follow the objector step by step, entering more minutely into the particulars we have just glanced over.

The first objection, [P. 4.] is against the latter part of Barclay's second proposition, in which he treats of immediate revelation. The sentence objected to is this, ‘Yet these revelations are not to be subjected to the examinations of the scriptures as a touchstone.’

To which the writer of that letter replies ‘Here there is a difference between Quakerism and Christianity. [Page 6]The Scriptures are the touchstone, whereby Chris­tians examine all [real or supposed] revelations, In all cases they appeal to the law, and to the testimony, and try every Spirit thereby.’

I answer. Whatever ‘manifest difference between Quakerism and Christianity,’ some people may see in Barclay's Apology, it is easy to see, there is a mani­fest injury done him, by a mutilated quotation, which quite alters the sense of that passage, and makes him speak a language, which both he and his friends disa­vow.

He is here represented as delivering and consequently the people called Quakers as holding a tenet, which must fix a stigma on them, as tho' they slighted the Scriptures, and refused to have their doctrines and practices tried by them. I will give Barclay's own words, and then my friend may judge how fairly he has been quoted, and whether there is just ground to charge him with under-rating the scriptures. His words are, ‘Yet from hence it will not follow, That these revelations are to be subjected to the examination, either of the outward testimony of the Scriptures, or of the natural reason of man, as to a more noble or certain touchstone.’

Was it designed, or only an oversight, to leave out almost half the sentence, especially the words "more noble or certain?" If it was only an oversight, it is highly blameable; for the omission alters the sense of the passage. It is very obvious, Barclay's meaning is, that however excellent the scriptures are, yet they must be considered as inferior to the Holy Spirit, by which they were dictated. And he is particularly careful, while he contends for the doctrine of inspira­tion, to guard against the abuse of it, by saying, ‘These divine, inward revelations, neither do, nor even can contradict the outward letter of scripture, or right and sound reason.’ And as this sentnece was not [Page 7]only joined with, but precisely fixes the sense of that objected to, I marvel that it could be overlooked.

2. I am far from being satisfied with what is brought as a proof of Barclay's error. The objector says, ‘In all cases they appeal to the law and to the testimony.’

I could not help applying to this way of proving things, what a witty author says, ‘Clergymen generally set out with begging the question.’ This is exactly the case, in taking for granted, that the law and the Testimony always mean the letter of scripture. No sure­ly; for the scriptures speak of the law written in the heart, ^* informing us of its accusing, or else excusing; they very frequently treat of the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, ^† the word of God and sure testimony, ^‖ testifying of him, that he is the inward life and light of men. ^§ The true light to the poor Gentile world, who are not so highly favoured as we are with the letter of scripture: The true light to the poor Papists, who, by designing men, are forbid the use of them: And the true light to multitudes, who through bodily infirmi­ties, &c. are deprived of the outward testimony of scripture. Yet all these have the Law written in their hearts; Jesus being that glorious, universal, saving light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the World. ^‡

3. I think it must clearly appear, to every enlight­ened, unprejudiced mind, that in this article, R. Barclay is far sounder in the Christian faith, than the objector. For the latter, in affirming, 'The scrip­tures 'are the touchstone, whereby all Christians exa­mine all revelations,' seems to me to renounce this glorious Gospel promise and privilege, When the Spi­rit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth. ^** That they are a touchstone, is fully subscribed to, but that they are the only touchstone, is denied, as it de­rogates from the office of the Holy Spirit, which is not only given to, but is to abide with the disciples of Christ, to the end of the world. ^††

[Page 8] 4. That 'the Scriptures are' not ‘the touchstone to examine all revelations,’ I prove thus.

Holy men of old, who walked with God, ^* were fre­quently favoured with immediate revelations; yet these men had not the letter of scripture: And if ‘the scrip­tures are the touchstone to examine all (real or sup­posed) revelations,’ I should be glad to know, as they were destitute of this touchstone, how they distinguish­ed the one from the other? I take it for granted, that they had the same Holy Spirit, which Barclay pleads for as the peculiar privilege of Christians, it being promised under the Gospel dispensation, They shall be all taught of God. ^†

5. That ‘The scriptures are the touchstone to exa­mine all revelations,’ cannot be true, for they de­clare instances, wherein they could be no touchstone at all.

Philip had a revelation to join himself to the Ethio­pian, who was reading in his chariot. ^§

Paul and Timothy had a revelation not to preach the word (at that time) in Asia, being forbidden of the Holy Ghost. ^‡ They had a second revelation not to go to Bythinia, the spirit not suffering them. ^†† In short, (to pass by many instances of this kind) they had a third revelation to go to Macedonia ^** But if ‘the scriptures are the touchstone to examine all revelations,’ what scripture could they turn to, capable of satisfy­ing them in any of these particulars?

6. We may bring the matter nearer to ourselves. There is a variety of cases, which we may be called to act in, respecting which, although we may earnest­ly desire to know the will of God, the scriptures may be quite silent. Let me select a single instance, that of the Ministry. Pray what Scripture can satisfy a man, [Page 9]"That he is inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost," ^* to that important office? It will not do to say he has gifts; for I presume, that many have gifts, [if by gifts we understand man's natural and acquired abilities,] who are not called to that important work. And the question is not respecting qualifications, but singly this, whether any scripture can fully satisfy a man thus exer­cised, that what he feels in his mind, is a 'real, and not a supposed revelation?'

There is something that looks like an objection to the third proposition, which, I confess, gives the ob­jector the appearance of one disposed to find fault. However, he answers his own objection, when he says, ‘If by these words be only meant, that the spirit is our first and principal leader. Here is no differ­ence between Quakerism and Christianity!’

I ask how is it possible to understand Barclay in any other sense? And, is it not surprizing that the objector should bring in an if, and seem at a loss for his mean­ing, when in the same sentence, he quotes Barclay's words? "The spirit is our first and principal leader." I wish therefore, that instead of playing upon words, he had given a necessary caution against a common, but dangerous error, amongst those called spiritual people, of making the scriptures supersede the necessity of the holy spirit, which our divine Master promised to all his followers, when he said, But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things. ^† And which ex­actly corresponds with what the beloved disciple John testifies to have been experienced by those, whom he [Page 10]addressed in these ever memorable words, Ye have an unction from the holy One; and ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things. ^* A glorious and comfortable truth! which, when experimentally known, will lead to the highest estimation of the scriptures, as they not only testify of the great love of Christ, in what he has done and suffered for sinners, but also as they give a true tes­timony of his redeeming power, which these have witnessed in their own hearts. And without this liv­ing knowledge of the heart, however men may idolize the scripture, it is to them a sealed book, and a dead letter; which is strikingly set forth in these words, The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. ^‖

I have dwelt the longer on this subject, on account of its great importance, and because numbers of pro­fessors, are not only ignorant of it as an experimental truth, but strangers to it even in theory. And I am constrained to say, I know not any religious society, except the people called Quakers, that bears a scriptu­ral testimony to the doctrine of immediate divine inspiration. It is true, the established church daily prays for, and others preach, and talk much about it; but when they come to the point, some laugh at all who make pretensions of this kind, and others charge them with manifestly differing from Christianity.

The third objection is brought against the seventh proposition, which treats on justification, of which the objector says, ‘Here is a wide difference between Quakerism and Christianity.’ ‘This is flat justifica­tion by works.’ And adds, ‘The ground of this mistake, is the not understanding the meaning of the word justification.’

To which I reply,

1. That Barclay uses the word in a sound, proper sense, for, being made just; which implies the remis­sion [Page 11]of sins, as well as the renewal of the mind, and as these cannot be separated in the experience of Chris­tians, they are always connected in the scriptures. The Apostle Paul, speaking of the wonderful change wrought on some persons of the most abandoned cha­racters, says, And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God. ^*

And it is worthy to be remarked, that the term justification is most commonly used for being made just, as in these words, For he that is dead, is freed (Gr. justified) from sin. ^† I apprehend the reason why it is so frequently used in this sense in scripture, as well as by Barclay, is because it is less liable to be abused.

2. The mistaken sense in which some understand the term justification, as implying an imputation of righteousness, without the implantation thereof, arises from the absurd idea which men form of the supreme Majesty; gloomy minds representing to themselves, and setting him forth to others, as an implacable Being, full of vindictive wrath, even against such as have not only been convinced of, but earnestly desire to for­sake the evil of their ways. So that for want of just conceptions of the divine Being, and properly advert­ing to what the scriptures uniformly declare, God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have ever­lasting life; ^§ and not clearly understanding that Christ's coming into the world was not the cause, but the effect of God's great love to all men, our gracious Creator is set forth in an unamiable light, stript of his divine perfections; and on this false foundation, a superstruc­ture raised, which, I think, is subversive of holiness, in heart and life.

3. But I must do justice to the objector, by saying, he has publicly confessed, that he formerly leaned too [Page 12]much to Calvinism, with respect to the doctrine of justification, and has therefore openly asserted, ‘We are every moment pleasing or displeasing to God, according to the whole of our inward tempers, and outward conduct.’

If I mistake not, this exactly coincides with Barclay, and is agreeable to sound doctrine, ^* as well as to the divine testimony, which every man has in his own breast.

4. As there is a common, but very unjust charge brought against the people called Quakers, by some who are ignorant of, as well as by others, who, I fear, designedly misrepresent their principles, ‘That they deny the fall of man, and err in the nature and cause of our justification;’ this seems to be a proper place to clear up these points, which I shall attempt to do, by making an extract from Barclay's Apology, hoping it will fully satisfy every unprejudiced mind, respecting these important subjects.

Treating of justification, he says, [page 202 ^§]

Hence may clearly appear what a manifest misre­presentation it is, to charge the people called Quakers [Page 15]with denying the fall of man, and his recovery by Christ. And they equally injure them, who assert, that they hold 'Justification by works,' when they ascribe the whole of man's redemption to the Lord Jesus Christ.

The fourth objection to the tenth proposition, which treats of the ministry is, that in suffering women to preach, 'There is a manifest difference between Qua­kerism and Christianity.' And to support this charge, there are two texts of scripture produced, which are the only ones that seem to serve the purpose; but that they are not used in their true signification, I hope fully to demonstrate. For

1. First, that the silence which the Apostle enjoins, is, not asking questions in the church, is evident from a great variety of particulars, as well as from the context. Please to read the chapter, and mark the connection. The Apostle had been treating of the gift of tongues, and of persons prophesying one after another. There is reason to conclude, that in these public assemblies, there were people of different nations, as was the case on the day of Pentecost, and that one Minister had the gift of one tongue, and a second of another, in the same diversity, that they had the other miraculous gifts. For, that they all had not an universal knowledge of all languages, is clear from the Apostle Paul's words, I speak with tongues more than you all. ^* How reason­able then is this conclusion, that there were a few inqui­sitive women in the assembly, who, not understanding what the preacher was then delivering, but prompted by curiosity, [perhaps from a better motive] might have ask­ed questions, to the interruption of the speaker and au­ditory? Therofore the Apostle gives this admonition, Let your women [Gr. wives] keep silence, and if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for them to speak [that is to ask questions] in the church. ^† The injunction, for wives to ask their husbands at home, clearly shews that the prohibition was [Page 16]not a general one, and that it must be confined to ask­ing questions; for what had asking their husbands at home to do with their preaching? It seems a reflection on an inspired writer, to suppose he wrote so inconclu­sively. I think, therefore, that the exposition I have given, is easy and natural, does no violence to any part of the passage, and prevents one scripture from mili­tating against another.

2. If this ^* I have seen the judi­cious J. Locke's paraphrase on the Epistles, and was pleased to find, that he has given the same exposition on this passage.

In his comment on 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35. He says, ‘As to your women, let them keep silence in your assemblies, for it is not permitted them to discourse there, that does no way suit their state of subjection. But if they have a mind to have any thing explained to them, that passes in the Church, let them, for their information, ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to discourse and debate with men publicly in the Church.’

comment be rejected, how shall we re­concile the following scriptures with the common inter­pretation of that passage? And it shall come to pass, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons, and your daughters shall prophesy. ^† Philip had four daughters who prophesied. ^‡ The Apostle Paul respectfully mentions several women who laboured with him in the Gospel; ^†† and one he expresly stiles a minister of a par­ticular church: I commend unto you, Phebe our sister, a servant [Gr. Minister] of the church of Cenchrea. ^| Nay, if he forbids women to preach, how shall we reconcile the Apostle with himself? For he gives as particular di­rections, respecting the manner of women's prophesying, as he does of the men's. Every man praying or prophe­sying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman that prayeth, or prophesyeth with her head uncovered, dishonoreth her head. ^** I would ask, why such particular directions about the mode of wo­men's prophesying, if it be unlawful for them to speak in the church?

[Page 17] 3. To these striking, and I think unanswerable scrip­tures, the objector only proposes a very harmless ques­tion. 'But how do you prove, that prophesying in any of these places means preaching?'

I answer, This is an easy way of getting free from difficulties; for, if I mistake not, the proof lay at his own door; and before he drew the hasty conclusion, ‘Here is a manifest difference between Quakerism and Christianity, he should have proved that prophesying in any of these places does not mean preaching.’

4. But as the whole is rested on this single point, I shall attempt to prove, that prophesying generally means preaching, and that in those places we are more parti­cularly concerned in, it has no other signification.

And, First, The apostle has joined praying and pro­phesying together; and as praying in public assemblies, (for of such he was treating) is universally allowed to be a part, and indeed a very principal part of the ministerial office; and women did exercise this part of the ministerial function, in being the mouth of the peo­ple to God; we have here, at least, a presumptive proof, that prophesying means preaching; and, I think, a demonstration, that the speaking in the church, which the apostle reproves in women, must be wholly confined to asking questions; otherwise it would be a prohibition against their praying, as well as preaching. For how could women pray in public, if it were a shame for them to speak in the Church, in the sense wherein it is generally understood?

Secondly, The apostle when he uses the word, precise­ly fixes the meaning thereof. He that prophesieth, speak­eth unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that prophesieth, edifieth the church. ^* For ye may all prophesy, one by one, (that is, all who were qualified for, and called to the ministry) that all may learn, and all may be comforted. ^† All may learn from those who pro­phesied; [Page 18]and women did prophesy; therefore women were teachers, by whom the church was exhorted, edified and comforted.

In this common acceptation we frequently find the word prophecy used in the Old and New Testament. Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet; that is shall speak unto Pharaoh. ^* Judas and Silas, being Prophets, ex­horted the brethren with many words. ^† Anna the pro­phetess, coming into the temple, gave thanks unto the Lord, and spake of him (Christ) to all them who looked for redemption in Israel. ^§ Zachariah prophesied, saying Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who hath visited, and redeemed his people. ^‡ In all these places, prophesying has no other meaning than preaching; and among these preachers, we have a female. And that there was nothing of an extraordinary nature in the prophesying, which the apostle treats of throughout the whole chap­ter we have been considering, may be learned from the close of it; for the church was to judge of what was delivered. Let the prophets speak, two or three; and let the others judge. ^**

Thirdly, Should it be granted, that it does not mean preaching, it makes the case worse; for then it must have been something greater, as the apostle informs us: Greater is he that prophesieth, than he that speaketh with tongues. ^††And he exhorts them, Desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. ^‡‡ Hereby signi­fying, that prophesying was above all the miraculous gifts, which abounded in that church. So that there is but this alternative, if they are not allowed to be ordi­nary, then we make them extraordinary ministers.

Some persons, when they have been closely pressed, have sought for refuge, by granting that these women, who prophesied, were called to an extraordinary work; which, I think, is giving up the whole point at once, as it grants more than is contended for. And hence [Page 19]we may infer, according to the well established rule, He that is called to a greater, may be called to an in­ferior work.

Besides, should it be granted, that prophesying means foretelling things to come, an insurmountable difficulty yet remains; for, if it was unlawful for women, who had that gift, to speak in the church, how were they to communicate what was revealed to them? If by speaking, what could this be termed, but the most ex­cellent preaching?

Fourthly, The simple fact seems to be this, that tho' prophesying sometimes means predicting, or foretelling things to come, yet in the places which I have quoted, it only means preaching in the common acceptation of the word; and whenever it is used in the ^* un­derstands it in both these senses, and, I think, he is also full to the point, respecting the lawfulness of womens preaching.

‘By the Spirit they shall be enabled to foretel things to come, and to preach the Gospel, without distinction of sex, not only your sons, but your daughters; without distinction of age, both your young men, and old men; and without distinction of outward condition, even the servants and handmaids shall prophesy.’

J. Locke, in his paraphrase on the Chapter we are treating of, gives another sense in which the word Prophesy is to be understood. ‘When any one (says he) sung to God, by the immediate motion, and impulse of the Holy Ghost, which was one of the actions called prophesying, they sung alone. And indeed how could it be other­wise? For who could join with a person so prophesying in things dictated to him alone by the Holy Ghost?’

Here we see the nature of singing in the primitive Church. former sense, it always includes preaching, as publishing these predictions to those concerned. Hence, under the law, such persons were stiled Nebiaim, prophets, (from Ba, which signifies to come, and to go) because of their coming and going between God and the people. So under the gospel-dispensation, they are called Pro­phets, (from pro, and phemi, dico, I speak, or utter forth) because Ministers are the Lord's messengers, to publish his word of reconciliation to the people. He hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation, ^† is the [Page 20]language of an inspired apostle; and therefore he adds, We pray you, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

The other scripture, I suffer not a woman to teach, or usurp authority over the man, has no relation to public teaching, but to her private character, which is very evident from the context. In this sense J. Locke ex­plains it. Treating of 1 Cor. xi. 34. and 1 Tim. ii. 11. He says, ‘What in the one is expressed, by keeping silence; and not speaking, but being under obedience, in the other is called, being in silence with all subjection, not teaching nor usurping authority over the man. I apply the prohibition of speaking only to reasoning and purely voluntary discourse, but suppose a liberty left women to speak, where they had an immediate revelation and impulse from the Spirit of God.’

5. I might have taken a shorter method to convince some persons, that there is nothing unlawful in women's preaching, by saying, there are several female teachers in the Methodist society; and hence I concluded, in the beginning of this letter, that the objector has chan­ged his sentiments in this particular. If he has not, there seems a manifest inconsistency in his suffering women to preach.

The eleventh proposition treats of religious Worship, of which Barclay says, ‘All true worship to God is offered in the inward and immediate moving of his own Spirit, and all worship, which man sets about in his own will, is will-worship.’

1. It is well worthy my friend's particular notice, that altho' the writer of that letter objects to, yet he grants the whole of this proposition, when, adopting Barclay's words, he says, 'It is true indeed,' ‘That all true worship to God is offered in the inward and immediate moving of his own Spirit,’ ‘and that we cannot truly worship God, unless his Spirit move or incline our hearts.’

[Page 21] If so, the dispute is at an end; as all that Barclay contended for, is granted.

The objector's desinition of inspiration is this. ‘God moves man, whom he has made a reasonable creature, according to the reason he has given him, He moves him by his understanding, as well as his affections, by light, as well as by heat. He moves him to do this or that by conviction, full as often as by desire. And he does truly move you to preach, when in his light you see light, clearly satisfying you it is his will.’

I reply, Let the Holy Spirit move the heart in what manner he is pleased; for, I believe, that when the 'af­fections' are divinely moved, so is the 'understanding;' and when there is divine 'heat,' 'light' and 'convic­tion,' are its inseparable attendants. But this moving of the Spirit on the minds of men must be considered, as something which we have not at our own command, but is distinct from, and very superior to, the mere exercise of the rational faculties. This distinction, I think, the objector has not sufficiently attended to, or he would not have given us, what appears to me, an il­lustration of the subject, which explains away the very nature of inspiration. He says, ‘You are as really moved by the Spirit, when God convinces you, you ought to feed him that is hungry, as when he gives you ever so strong a desire, impulse, or inclination.’

I answer, If this assertion is confined to the action of feeding the hungry, or to any other civil or relative duty, it is an undoubted truth. But if it is intended to illustrate the doctrine of inspiration, I object to it as very foreign to that subject, as it confounds things of a very dissimilar nature. The fallacy of this way of rea­soning lies, in taking for granted, that they are similar cases, and consequently, that there is no more need of divine inspiration, to qualify us to worship the divine Majesty, or preach the Gospel, than to feed the hungry; the reverse of which appears to be the truth; for I know it to be my duty at all times to assist the distressed; nor [Page 22]need I wait to be moved by the Holy Spirit to enable me to perform an action, which is in the power of bad as well as good men. But the case is widely different with regard to religious worship, or preaching the Gos­pel, which require very different qualifications. The scriptures inform us, that we know not what to pray for as we ought: ^* And that the preparation of the heart, in man is from the Lord. ^† Whereas the above illus­tration, as well as the practice of the objector, seem to inculcate this doctrine, That without immediate divine inspiration, we are as well qualified at any time to pray or preach, as to feed the hungry. To this kind of in­spiration, I apprehend, there is not any infidel, who can have the least objection.

But how does this agree with his assertion, ‘God truly does move you to preach, when in his light you see light, clearly satisfying you it is his will?’ Has Barclay said any thing stronger on the subject? The question therefore is, should any, stand up to preach, without this clear satisfying light? Several persons have frankly acknowledged to me, that they have attempted to preach, when not only this clear light has been ab­sent; but when they have had a clear sense of being disqualified for the work; and have bewailed the neces­sity they were under, of acting contrary to their own judgment. And this, I believe, (for I speak from expe­rience) must frequently be the case with well-meaning men, who sit or unfit, are in the practice of preaching at certain stated times. I fear there are others, who are strangers to, feel no want of, and therefore do not wait for the divine aid, to qualify them for this great work. To such persons the words of our Lord, on a similar oc­casion, are quite pertinent, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. ^‡

Again: If that only is ‘true worship, which is of­fered to God, when his Spirit moves and inclines our hearts,’ it naturally follows, that all other worship, [Page 23]which is performed when the heart is not thus moved and inclined, must be false worship. It is therefore our indispensable duty, to wait till his Spirit move and incline our hearts, without which we shall fall under the charge, This people draweth nigh to me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. ^† Therefore it is that we have so many solemn cautions against inconsiderately rushing into the presence of the Lord. Keep thy foot, saith Solomon, when thou goest to the house of God. ^†† That is, let thy mind be deeply and awfully sensible of the perfections of the supreme Majesty, in whose presence angels veil their faces, and in silent adoration bow before him. Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God; for God is in hea­ven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few. ^‡ What a check, and just reproof is this to the forward­ness of the creature, who, without waiting for divine aid, which qualifies for worshipping the Lord in the beauty of holiness, ^‖ presumes like Nadab and Abihu, to offer strange fire before the Lord! ^†*

Hence we see the duty and reasonableness of silent waiting on the Lord, as the preparation of the heart is from him, ^* without which we shall incur the censure of offering unto God the sacrifice of fools. ^§ This is strongly inforced in the following words: We know not what to pray for as we ought; but the Spirit itself maketh inter­cession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the heart, knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. ^**

2. But of this silent waiting the writer of that letter asserts, ‘In this there is a manifest difference between Quakerism and Christianity. This is will-worship, if there be any such thing under heaven. For there is neither command nor example for it in scripture.’

[Page 24] I answer, This is merely begging the question. For, if there is such a ‘manifest difference between Qua­kerism and Christianity,’ in this particular, then some scripture condemns it, which scripture should have been produced. But should it be granted (which I must deny) that ‘there is neither command nor example for it in scripture;’ yet unhappily this proves too much, and may be retorted with greater success, that there is neither command nor example,' under the Gospel-dispensation, for liturgies, singing men, organs, and all those superfluous ornaments, which have been borrowed from the Church of Rome, and are diame­trically opposite to the simplicity of the gospel, being the inventions of men, and introduced into the Church in the times of apostacy, to supply the want of the divine presence. We may therefore safely conclude, ‘This is will-worship, if there be any such thing under heaven;’ for there is neither command nor example for it in scripture; nor did it take place in any Chris­tian assembly, till the inward glory had, in some degree departed from it. ^*

3. All the objections, that are brought against this silent waiting on the Lord, arise from not rightly consi­dering the true nature of religious worship; which may be justly defined, a simple act of the mind; and all ex­ternal acts, are at best, only so many outward expressions thereof.

If this be granted, which, I think, is self-evident, it will follow, that as there may be external acts of devo­tion, which do not arise from the internal actings of the quickened foul, so, on the contrary, the mind may be reverently exercised in divine worship, when there are not any verbal expressions. Thus our blessed Master defines the nature of all true worship: God is a spirit; and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth. ^† It therefore highly concerns all, who desire to worship the divine Being acceptably, to beware of [Page 25] sparks of their own kindling, ^‖ and of the too common, but fatal deception, in supposing divine worship to consist in mere outward acts, while the heart remains insensible of these divine feelings, contrition for sin, poverty of spirit, and filial gratitude to the Father of mercies. If we are destitute of these dispositions, how­ever specious our performances may appear, and how­ever frequent we may be in the use of them, we shall only resemble the carnal Jews, who fancied, that reli­gion consisted in the splendor of their temple, and out­ward acts of devotion, while they neglected to cultivate that rectitude of mind, which renders our offerings acceptable in the sight of the divine Being.

4. From what has been said, I think it is evident, that the necessity of silent waiting upon the Lord has its foundation in the nature and fitness of things. For, as it is the Holy Spirit which helps our infirmi­ties; and we know not what to pray for as we ought, ^† till we are thus assisted; it follows, that ‘we cannot truly worship God, unless his Spirit move and incline our hearts;’ a silent waiting therefore, for the moving of the Holy Spirit is not only reasonable, but our indis­pensable duty; and the not waiting for this divine assis­tance, before we begin, any act of religious worship, is no less absurd, than it would have been for a diseased person, at the pool of Bethesda, to have stepped into the water before the angel came down to trouble it. ^§ So that were the scriptures perfectly silent on this head, the na­ture of the duty fully evinces its expediency. And I may safely add, that all those, who are unacquainted with that reverential awe, which expresses itself in the silent breathings of the soul, in humble gratitude, to the Author of our being; and is what the scripture emphatically styles, pouring out the soul before the Lord, ^* are but outward-court worshippers, who have not yet entered into the holy of holies.

[Page 26] I confess, that to natural, and I fear, to some who are called spiritual men, it appears the foolishness of folly, to see a congregation waiting upon God in silence; and therefore they are ready to condemn, and speak evil of that which they do not understand; so true is the declaration of an inspired writer, The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned ^† Whereas to the englight­ened mind, it appears not only scriptural, but highly rational, and is at once an acknowledgment of all the divine perfections; the omniscience, omnipresence, al­mighty power, and boundless goodness of our gracious Creator and Benefactor; as well as of our entire de­pendance on, and expectation of receiving spiritual good, immediately from him. And why should it be thought incredible, that, that infinitely exalted, and happy Spirit, whose offspring we are; and in whom we live, and move, and have our being, ^* should manifest his divine power and presence to the waiting mind, without the medium of an outward instrument! We must assent to this, or deny the scriptures, which abundantly declare it; the experience of Christians who bear testimony to it; as well as derogate from the infinite perfections of the Almighty Creator. Let us not then, imitate the Israelites, who said to Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die. ^§ Rather may it be the language of our hearts, Let all creatures in heaven and earth keep silence, that that still small voice, ^** which proclaims, The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abun­dant in goodness and truth ^‡ may be heard and known, as it were, in the very center of the soul. Here is the Lord's holy mountain, where he makes unto his redeemed people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines well refined on the lees; that is, pure, spiritual enjoyments, free from creaturely mixtures; and where he destroys the covering and veil that are spread over all nations. ^††

[Page 27] 4. All that the objector hath urged, respecting the lawfulness of appointing times and places for public worship, falls to the ground, and only proves that he has mistaken Barclay's meaning in these particulars; for the uniform practice of the people called Quakers, from the beginning, hath fully testified, that they con­sider it as a duty to appoint times and places for their religious assemblies.

Many persons also greatly misapprehend Barclay, in supposing, that he pleads for entirely silent meetings, when he only pleads for a retired waiting for the divine aid, which alone qualifies to pray or preach.

5. Let us now more minutely consider preaching, as it cannot properly be styled worship; and yet so igno­rant are the generality of mankind, that it is looked upon as almost the whole of religious worship: And at the same time so vitiated is the taste of many professors, that they cannot distinguish the chaff from the wheat; ^† nor can they relish any other kind of preaching, than that which has a tendency rather to amuse, than profit the hearers.

But in order to understand the true ground of the ministry, let us look back and consider, on what foun­dation the first ministers stood. The scriptures are abundantly clear on this head. They inform us that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost. ^* As the Spirit gave them utterance. ^§ Of the ability which God giveth, ^‡ they Prophesied one by one, being so attentive to their gift, that if any thing was revealed to another sitting by, he that was speaking held his peace, the spirits of the prophets being subject to the prophets. ^††

From these passages of scripture we may infer the following particulars.

First, That their discourses were not premeditated; but they delivered to the people what was immediately [Page 28]given them from the Lord; so that in truth, they could say, Our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ: And the things which we declare un­to you, we have heard, we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the word of life, ^* even that living word manifested in the heart, which David compares to fire; for, saith he, While I was musing the fire burned, then spake I with my tongue. ^**

Secondly, As they prophesied one by one, there must have been some time of silence, to prevent two or three speaking at once.

Thirdly, The present mode of one man's preaching for an hour, without the Gospel privilege of admitting as many as are moved by the Lord to deliver his mes­sage, was not known among the first ministers.

Fourthly, The practice of the people called Quakers, in the ministration of the word, corresponds in all these particulars, with the conduct of the primitive ministers of Christ.

And, if it is not too absurd an idea, let my friend pic­ture to himself, one of the Apostles writing down his ser­mon; conning over some old commentator;—picking out a sentence, here and there; committing them to me­mory; —and then retailing them to his auditory for the word of God.—But I have done;—as the very supposi­tion is so absurd, that to name it, is sufficient!—For these ministers were to be so led and influenced by the Holy Spirit, that they were enjoined, Take no thought, how or what ye shall speak for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. ^‡ And as all true mi­nisters stand on the same foundation, having the same commission, as well as the same gracious promise, Lo, I am with you alway to the end of the world; ^§ it fol­lows, that they should live in a state of continual wait­ing [Page 29]and dependence on the Lord; speaking from the ability which God giveth, and not in the enticing words of man's wisdom. ^| Or as the Apostle has it in the same chapter, Which things we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth. ^‡ Assigning this reason, That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. ^sect Here we have a clear distinction between the true and the false minister. The former under the divine influence, publishing the counsel of God, in the demonstration of the spirit; the other only amusing the people with his own inventions. Bishop Tillotson makes a pertinent remark, which is quite applicable to the last class. ‘Speculative men wrought a great part of their divi­nity out of their own brains, as spiders do cobwebs out of their own bowels.’ ^†

Their characters are strikingly contrasted in another instance: The one having freely received, ^* according to his Lord's command, and the example of true ministers, freely communicates to the people. The other whom our Lord calls an hireling, ^† being influenced by lucrative motives, desires to be put into the priest's office, that he may eat a morsel of bread. ^††

They are also equally distinguished by their language. That of the true shepherd is, I have coveted no man's silver or gold or apparel. Yea, you yourselves know, that these hands have ministered to my necessities, and to them that were with me. ^** Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but we [two Bishops, Paul and Timo­thy] wrought with labour and travail night and day; ^*† because we would not be chargeable unto any of you; we preached unto you the Gospel of God ^*§ How widely different is the language of an hireling? Like those of old, who knew not the Lord, they are ready to say, Give flesh to roast for the Priest. ^‡* And should any mildly expostulate with them, that this is contrary to [Page 30]the injunction of Christ to his ministers, Freely ye have received, freely give: ^* They are ready to reply, Nay, but thou shalt give it me; or if not, I will take it by force. ^|

And they are very conspicuous in a fourth particular. Our Lord having drawn a striking picture of the true and false Teacher; Of the latter he says, They de­sire to walk in long robes, ^†— They love the uppermost rooms at feasts,—The chief seats in the synagogues, —And to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi, ^§—That is, they sought to be distinguished by their dress, as well as by titles;—Were ambitious of the chief places in church and state,—To be the head of a party; —Head of their brethren;— Lords over God's herit­age; ^†*—Expecting implicit faith and passive obedi­ence from their hearers;—This spirit early crept into the church, and was severely reprehended by our Lord. When there was a strife among the Disciples, who should be the greatest, he said to them, The princes of the Gen­tiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your servant. ^‡ And his particular charge to them was, Be not ye called Rabbi; [Doctor, or Master] for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. Nei­ther be ye called Masters. But he that is greatest among you, shall be your servant. ^**

The twelfth proposition treats of Baptism, on which Barclay observes, "That as there is but one Lord and one Faith, so there is but one Baptism." ^† And that this one Baptism is not an outward one of water, I think he very fully demonstrates.

To which proposition, the writer of that letter objects, 'Yea, one outward Baptism which you deny.' ‘Here therefore is another difference between Quakerism and Christianity.’

[Page 31] I reply, That this way of proving things, by simply affirming, or denying, is very far from being satisfac­tory; and yet I cannot find any thing else offered as a proof here.

But as this is a subject of considerable moment, and several persons, not rightly understanding it, have run into great errors themselves, and at the same time have charged the people called Quakers with being ‘no Christians;’ it may be necessary to examine this mat­ter to the bottom.

1. Since life and immortality are brought to light by the Gospel, ^* there is an end to all shadows, signs and figures, which were only imposed 'till the time of reformation. ^† Thus I understand our blessed Lord, in his conversation with the woman of Samaria, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father. God is a Spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth. ^‡ A plain intimation of the intire removal of all types and shadows, they being no longer necessary, when the substance is come.

2. It is confessed on all hands, that Water Baptism is only a sign, or figure. And the sign, and thing signifi­ed by it, are two distinct things. This is granted by the objector. For I suppose, when he says, ‘Yea, one outward Baptism,’ he would not be understood, that this 'outward Baptism' of water, was the one Baptism, which the Apostle intended. And yet he must do this, or hold two Baptisms. R. Barclay makes this one Bap­tism, an inward Baptism of the Holy Ghost. The ob­jector allows this inward one, but says, ‘Yea, one out­ward Baptism,’ in direct opposition to the Apostle's assertion, one Baptism.

3. That water-baptism was not instituted by Christ, as some ignorantly affirm, is very clear, when we con­sider [Page 32]that it was used by John, before our Lord made his public appearance. Not only so, but it is well known, by those who are acquainted with the Jewish customs, that it was one of their ceremonies; therefore calling it, "an institution of Christ," tends to mislead the ignorant, and is contrary to truth.

4. Taking things for granted, without examination, is the reason that some not only say, ‘It is an instituti­on, of Christ,’ but that he commanded it, when he commissioned his disciples to go and teach all nations, baptizing them in (or, as some render it, into) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. ^* This, I grant, is Christ's baptism; but look at the text, and see if water is mentioned in it. That nothing of such an outward, superficial nature could be intended by our Lord, is evident from the nature of his superior dispensation, which is all spirit and life. ^† Nor is it reasonable to suppose, that our Lord should abolish some shadows and outward figures, and substitute others. I consider therefore the baptism enjoined by the Founder of the Christian religion, as contra-distinguished to, and essentially different from John's. The one outward, of water; the other inward, by the Holy Ghost. Were it not that the covering or veil is spread over all nations, ^§ and that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, ^‡ we should marvel that the words of Christ have been so commonly interpreted in the most gross and outward sense; especially in this instance, as John the Baptist in the clearest manner distinguishes between water-baptism, and the baptism of Christ. I indeed, says he, baptize you with water; but he shall bap­tize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. ^** And this exactly agrees with the prophecy of Malachi, who pro­phesying of the Lord Jesus, whom he styles, The Messen­ger of the covenant, he adds, For he is like a resiner's fire, and like fuller's soap. ^†† So his people know him, when by the brightness of his glorious inward appearance, he [Page 33] consumes the man of sin; ^* and they feeling the painful operation, pointed out by the expressive emblem of fire, are ready to ask, in the striking language of the pro­phet, Who may abide the day of his coming! And who shall stand when he appeareth! When he sits as a refiner, and purifier of silver, ^†not to destroy, but to purge them as gold and silver, from all filthiness of the flesh and spi­rit, ^‡ for this great and gracious purpose, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in rightcousness. ^§ The parallel text to this, and which seems to be a beautiful illustration of it, we find in the prophecy of Ezekiel, which contains a gracious promise of that change of heart, which is productive of all holy tempers, as well as uniformity of conduct. The passage is peculiarly expressive, and may every mind not only discover its beauty, but earnestly desire to experience the full im­port of these words, I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flest, and I will give you an heart of flesh. ^**

Here our Lord's words appear in their true, spiritual meaning, Go, teach all nations. That is, instruct them fully into the great and gracious designs, for which the Son of God was manifested; and baptize them into the name, that is, into the nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. ^†† This interpretation seems to be confirmed by the words of the apostle Peter: And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptiz­ed with the Holy Ghost. ^|

If it be objected, ‘That to baptize in this sense of the word, is the office of the Holy Spirit,’ I answer it is true; but ministers may be said to baptize instru­mentally; [Page 34]and in this sense we must understand the Apostle Paul, when he says, I have begotten you through the Gospel. ^*

To call any thing short of this, the baptism of Christ, must prove, and indeed has proved a fatal mistake to many. For multitudes have erred, by falsely conclu­ding, that as they had been sprinkled with water in their infancy, or immerged when adults, they were there­by "regenerate, and grafted into Christ's Church," ^** tho' remaining intire strangers to the mind which was in Christ! ^§ To all such the Apostle Peter declares, Not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good constience towards God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. ^† This is the real inward baptism, which unites to, and makes us mystically one with Christ; of which the Apostle Paul treats, when he says. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Christ, were baptized into his death. ^‡ For as many of you as have been bapti­zed into Christ, have put on Christ. ^| By one spirit are we all baptized into one body, and have been made to drink into one spirit. ^a The baptism here treated of, cannot possibly mean an outward one of water, for many who have been sprinkled with, or immerged in water, have not put on Christ, nor do they walk as he also walked. ^b

Again, The same Apostle, writing to Titus, says, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but ac­cording to his mercy he saved us by the washing of rege­neration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. ^c And lest any should apprehend this to be some external washing, he guards against so dangerous a delusion, by adding, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, ^d This is that baptisim, which qualifies for the enjoyment of God here, and for his glorious kingdom [Page 35]hereafter: And the lip of truth has declared, Except a man be born again, [which is only another word for bap­tized] he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ^* For, He that believeth and is [thus] baptized shall be saved. ^†

That I have put no false gloss on these scriptures, is abundantly confirmed by the words of our Lord to his Disciples, after his resurrection; John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence; ^§ which promise had its accomplish­ment, when on the day of Pentecost, the new gospel dispensation was opened, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. ^‡

5. That water baptism was sometimes used in the Apostles days, is not denied; and it is equally true, that circumcision, and some other parts of the ceremonial law, were not only in use, but pleaded for, by weak Christians. Shall we from hence infer, the necessity of our coming under those shadows, which are termed, weak and beggarly elements? ^| And if the practice of some in the use of water-baptism, (for I think it is proved, that they had no precept for it) is obligatory, what reason can be assigned, that their practice in cir­cumcision should not be equally binding on us?

6. Some persons ignorantly plead, "That Christ himself "was baptized," and therefore enforce it as the duty of all his followers. By the same way of reasoning, we may conclude, that as Christ was cir­cumcised, so should all Christians.

7. Others have laid a great stress on the following scrip­ture, supposing that it proves to demonstration, the ne­cessity of water-baptism. Except a man be born of wa­ter and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ^** But, if this must mean elementary water; must it not, [Page 36]when it is said, He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire, mean also elementary fire? Or rather, are they not both figurative expressions, pointing out to us, the necessity, and nature of that change of heart, so fully expressed in these words, Without holiness, no man shall see the Lord? ^*

8. In the Acts of the Apostles, and in the several letters to the Churches, we are informed of the very extensive labours of the apostle Paul in planting churches. But what was his practice, with respect to these gather­ed churches? To be sure, if he understood his commis­sion, To baptize all nations, to mean water-baptism, he would have been particularly careful, not even in a sin­gle instance, to transgress his Lord's command. But he not only assures us, that he was not in the practice of it, but says, I thank God, that I baptized none of you; but Crispus, and Gaius, and the houshold of Stephanas, ^† add­ing, that water-baptism was no part of his commission: Christ sent me not to baptize, [that is, with water] but to preach the gospel. ^§ Words cannot more clearly point out in what light the apostle Paul considered water­baptism.

9. Besides, it would puzzle the ablest disputant, to prove, that the Apostles themselves were baptized with water. It is very clear to me, that they were not. For who could baptize them? The scriptures assure us, that Christ baptized not: And, if they were not baptized, according to the present mode of reasoning, they were not Christians; and consequently, incapable of adminis­tering, what they call "An ordinance of Christ."

The thirteenth proposition treats of the communion of the body and blood of Christ; which Barclay con­siders as ‘inward and spiritual, of which the breaking of bread by Christ with his disciples, was a figure.’

It will help my friend to answer the objections brought against this proposition, by considering.

[Page 37] 1. That as our blessed Lord was born under the law, he became subject to all its rites and ceremonies. His last act therefore, was the observance of the passover; so that this was no new institution, but as one of the Evangelists informs us, eating the passover with his Disci­ples; ^* which is confirmed by our Lord's words while they partook of the supper: With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer. ^† And as it was the common practice for the master of the feast, after sup­per to take bread and the cup, and after giving thanks to God, to distribute them among the guests, our bless­ed Master conformed thereto, desiring them to do that act in remembrance of him. Had it been a duty to be continued amongst Christians, no doubt but our blessed Lord would have been more explicit; for, from what then passed, as recorded by the Evangelists, we can only consider the command as confined to that single action performed by the Apostles. And how can we think otherwise, when we are informed, that Christ is the end of the law? ^§ That is, of the shadowy dispensation. So attached indeed were some, even of those who embraced the Christian religion, to these outward things, that it became necessary, sharply to reprehend them. O soolish Galatians, is the language of Paul to that church, after that ye have known God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly clements, whercunto ye desire again to be in bondage. Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed on you labor in vain. ^‡ Not only so, but the Apostle saw it needful, to caution such superficial persons, not to con­demn those who were under a superior dispensation. Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new-moon, or of the sabbath-days; which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. ^**

That many of the Corinthians, who were carnal and walked as men, ^†† should be fond of these shadows, we [Page 38]need not marvel, and therefore in condescension to their weakness, and to prevent their relapsing into idol­atry, they were indulged in the use of this figure. Nor was this a singular case, for in condescension to some, who were weak brethren, ^* Paul, had both Timothy and Titus, circumcised, and in several instances, he himself conformed to the ceremonial law; ^† assigning reasons for this part of his conduct, in these words: To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews: To the weak I became as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. ^§

2. Whether it is the duty of all Christians to be found in the practice of the supper, may be answered by asking another question.

We are informed, that our divine Master, immedi­ately after the supper, poured water into a bason, and washed the Disciples feet, and then said unto them, Ye call me Master and Lord! and ye say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. ^‡ Here we have both the precept and example of our Lord, for feet-washing, in a much more explicit man­ner laid down, than that of the supper. Is it not then, the indispensable duty of all Christians to be found in the practi of it?

Those who are very much attached to outward ceremonies, answer this question, by saying, ‘That it was only a figure, by which our Lord designed to teach his followers the important doctrines of humi­lity and benevolence towards each other.’

And is there not the same reason for concluding with R. Barclay, that ‘the breaking of bread by Christ with his disciples, was a figure,’ by which he intend­ed to instruct all his followers in the necessity of spi­ritually [Page 39]eating his flesh, and drinking his blood? As he has expressly declared, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. ^* And to guard against a gross, carnal sense, which some nave put on these words, our Lord added, The flesh pro­fiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life. ^† And which is fully explained, when he says, 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 sup with him, and he with me. ^‡

Why our Lord's words, in one place must be under­stood in a figurative sense, conveying spiritual truths to the mind; and in another place, be interpreted in the most gross and outward signification, is something mysterious.

3. But it has been pleaded, that ‘the Apostles, who are suppoted to have known the mind of their Master, were in the practice of water-baptism, and the Lord's supper.’

I answer, This seems to be the strongest argument, which can be urged in favor of them; but that it is not impregnable, will appear by considering the follow­ing particulars: First, Should it be granted that the Apostles were in the use of them, it will not follow, that it becomes a duty to us; as nothing can be a duty without a divine precept; For where no law is, there is no transgression. ^§

Secondly, The Apostle Paul's practice and declarati­on, I bapized Crispus and Gaius, and the houshold of Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel, quite overturns the argument.

Thirdly, This argument falls under its own weight, as it proves too much: For, agreeably to this way of proving things, feet-washing; anointing with oil; love­feasts; [Page 40]saluting each other with the kiss of charity; having all things in common; yea, and cirumcision itself; must all he introduced into the church, as they were in use with the Apostles; which may be seen by consulting the Texts in the margin. ^*

The fifteenth proposition which is objected to, as dif­fering from Christianity, is most of all surprising, be­cause that writer himself, as far as he went, has borne a true testimony against the the evil of conformity to this world. But why it should be criminal, to conform to the world in dress, and yet make ‘a manifest difference between Quakerism and Christianity,’ because that people testify, that the world is equally evil in its cus­toms and language, must appear mysterious to every thinking mind; and the most favorable construction that can be put upon it, is to say, the writer's own mind has not attained to the clearness of the perfect day.

2. It appears to me, that he has not done Barclay justice, in fixing only upon the word, thou; detaching it from the connection in which it stood; and then holding it up as a scare-crow, as tho' he made the whole of the plain language to consist in using thou instead of you. Whereas it is the very smallest and lowest link in the chain. And I am fully satisfied, that should any one single out from the objector's writings, some parti­cular sentence, quite detached from its connection, and then ridicule it, every candid mind would disapprove such treatment. Let me, out of many, select a single instance, which seems full to the point. The objector has wrote against conforming to the world in dress, and pointed out the danger of an imitation in the lowest de­gree, saying, ‘A ruffle, from one, may grow to twelve inches.’ Now should any person single out this sen­tence, taking no notice of its connection, but in a kind of triumph, exclaim, Where do the scriptures forbid wearing a ruffle? ‘The placing religion in such things [Page 41]as these, is such egregious trisling, as naturally tends to make religion stink in the nostrils of Insidels and Heathens.’ Were any person thus to expose this well-designed caution to contempt, every fair reasoner would condemn such a procedure.

And yet this very thing the objector is guilty of. Barclay has proved to a demonstration, the apostacy of the Christian world; and, among other things, that its present language and customs, are inconsistent with the simplicity, truth, and purity of the Gospel. The dis­pute therefore, is not about the single pronoun thou, whether it is more scriptural and grammatical, to use it to a single person than you, for this is very obvious to all, who are not blinded by custom or prejudice. For, after all the torturing of invention, to make you to a single person proper, it can never be done, as it destroys the just and necessary distinction between the second person singular and plural.

Besides, you to a single person, was evil in its origin, being invented to slatter the vanity of one of the Ro­man Emperors, by addressing him in the plural num­ber, as if he was more than mortal.

It is also evil in its nature, as it is contrary to truth to use the plural number to one person.

And, it is a departure from that scriptural language, used by God himself, and by all holy men; to a false, flattering, heathenish language, invented by vile syco­phants, to please men of corrupt minds.

But as I hinted, altho' this is a part of the plain language, yet it stands connected with several things of greater importance. Therefore the objector should not have passed them, but ought to have proved, if it could be done, that it is quite consistent with speaking the truth from the heart, ^* to call persons ‘Master and Mistress;’ and to subscribe ourselves, their ‘humble [Page 42]Servants,’ when no such relation subsists between us. Not only so, but that it is lawful, indiscriminately to give to poor, ignorant, sinful mortals, [and some of them the most worthless characters,] the titles which belong to the supreme Being: Such as, "reverend;" "most reverend;" "right honorable; "worshipful;" "majesty;" "your holiness, &c." Whether this is speaking the truth from the heart! Or, is it not, with a witness, giving flattering titles to men? Of which, one who lived under a much inferior dispensation, said, I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing, my Maker would soon take me away. ^*

3. R. Barclay therefore, concludes, ‘It is not lawful for Christians to give, or receive those titles, your majesty, your lordship, &c.’ And the reason he assigns, is, "They alone belong to the supreme Be­ing."

To which it is objected, ‘In this there is a difference between Quakerism and Christianity.’ ‘St. Paul gives the title of Most Noble to the Roman Gover­nor.’

From this objection we may learn, that it is not only lawful to give these titles to men, but also, that it is very criminal to withhold them, if it makes us differ from Christianity. This, I think, is a perfectly new discovery; and what some would term, the opposite extreme.

That Paul once gave the title of Most Noble to Festus, Barclay grants; but adds, ‘He would not have called him such, if he had not been truly noble; and in­deed he was, in not giving way to the fury of the Jews against him.’

To which the writer of the letter objects, ‘The scripture says quite otherwise.’ ‘That he did give way to the fury of the Jews against him, &c.’

[Page 43] If seems to me, that the objector is guilty of two mistakes here. First, In taking for granted, that Festus when he asked Paul, Wilt thou go to Jerusalem? was in the secret of the Jews' intention to kill him; which is highly improbable, as the event fully proves. And the second error, is in asserting, that the scripture says, ‘That Festus did give way to the fury of the Jews against him.’ I think, the scripture says the very reverse. The desire of the Jews was, that Festus would send Paul to Jerusalem. But Paul's request was to go to Rome, to be judged by Caesar. Let the scriptures then decide, to whom Festus gave way. His words are these: Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? Unto Caesar thou shalt go. ^* We may therefore safely conclude, that Festus acted nobly by Paul, in withstanding the power­ful interest of the high-priest, and the chief of the Jews, who desired favor against him, that he would send him to Jerusalem. ^†

4. But it has been objected by others, ‘that the Apostles themselves frequently gave the appellation of Sirs to the people. As, Sirs, ye should have heark­ened to me. Sirs, be of good cheer, &c.’ ^§

To which I reply, that it is universally allowed, that the word [ andres, viri] rendered Sirs, has no such signi­fication, and ought to have been translated men, as it is literally, Men, ye should have hearkened unto me: Men, be of good chear. There is but one exception to this, throughout the Acts of the Apostles. There we are informed, that the awakened jailor, when in great dis­tress of mind, addressed the apostles, saying, Sirs, [Gr. Lords] what must I do to be saved? ^‡ This was his heathenish language, which he had not then parted with, but was never used by the apostles.

That this corrupt language, and those flattering ti­tles, are not "suitable to the simplicity and dignity" of a Christian, I can prove from a comment on these words, [Page 44] The elder unto the elect Lady; ^* which, I expect, the ob­jector himself, can have no objection to. On that scrip­ture the author ^† has this remarkable comment.

‘Kuria (which our translators have rendered Lady) is undoubtedly a proper name both here, and in verse 5th. For it was not then usual to apply the title Lady to any but the Roman Empress; neither would such a manner of speaking have been suitable to the simplicity and dignity of an Apostle.’

Here are two things granted: First, a corruption of language; and, secondly, that this corruption of lan­guage is incompatible with the "dignity and simplicity" of the gospel dispensation.

5. Another branch of the plain language consists in a testimony against that spirit of apostacy, in departing from the simple, scriptural language, used by God him­self, and by holy men in all ages, in calling months and days by those proper names, which the Almighty gave them; and adopting in the place thereof, those heathen­ish, idolatrous names, which were given them in honor of their false gods. This will clearly appear, by consi­dering the origin of some of the months, and of all the days of the week, now commonly used; and which may be seen by consulting Chambers's and Johnson's dictionaries, from which I have mostly borrowed the following remarks, respecting the change of the names of months and days.

1. The first month was by the Romans called Janua­ry, in honor of Janus, an idol with two faces, to whom the first day of this month was dedicated by the hea­thems, with feastings, dancings, masquerades, &c. In opposition to which, the Christians observed it as a day of fasting and humiliation.

[Page 45] 2. The second month, according to an ancient testi­mony, was called February, in honor of the Prince of the infernal regions. Pliny informs us, that the first twelve days of this month were spent in offering sacrifi­ces to the infernal powers (devils) to render them pro­pitious to their deceased friends: And as Pluto (the supposed prince of the infernal regions) was called Februus, in honor of him, this month was called Fe­bruary.

3. The third month was by Romulus, one of the Roman Emperors, styled March, in honor of his pre­tended father Mars, feigned to be the god of war: He therefore commanded, that religious worship should be paid him.

4. The fourth month is supposed to have been called April, in honor of an imaginary goddess, known by the name of Venus, who was worshipped by the Ro­mans, and to whom the most abominable, wanton rites were paid.

. The fifth month is thought by some to have been termed May, in honor of the senators of Rome. By others it is supposed to have been called so, in honor of Maia, the mother of Mercury, one of the pretend­ed deities, whom the idolatrous Romans worshipped.

6. The sixth month was styled June, in honor of an heathenish goddess named Juno.

7. The seventh month has taken its name July, from Julius Caesar, one of the Roman Emperors.

8. The eighth month was called August, in honor of one of the Roman Emperors, who was styled Au­gustus. The title of Augustus (which signifies vener­able, sacred, magnificent) was first given to Octavius, one of the Emperors, as expressive of something divine and elevated in him, above the common pitch of man­kind; and from that time all the Roman Emperors were flattered with the title of Augustus Caesar; that is, Sa­cred, Magnificent King.

[Page 46] 9. September, October, November, and December, are the old numerical Latin names for these months, which were not changed. But it would be improper to use them now, tho' quite proper before the style was altered. The Romans began their year with the month calied March, and therefore September was the seventh month of their year, but the ninth of ours.

And as the idolatrous Romans made these changes in the names of several of the months, in honor of their Emperors, or false gods; so our Pagan ancestors chang­ed the names of all the days of the week, calling them by the name of the idol, which they worshipped on that day. Hence

The first day of the week was called by our idola­trous Saxon ancestors, Sunday, (the day of the Sun) because it was set apart for the worship of the Sun.

The second day of the week they named Monday, (Moon's-day) as they commonly worshipped the moon on this day.

The third day of the week was termed Tuesday, in honor of an idol called Tuisco Mars, who was wor shipped by that barbarous and idolatrous people on this day.

The fourth day of the week was styled Wednesday, and dedicated to one of their idols called Woden, whom they worshipped on this day.

The fifth day of the week they named Thursday, in honor of one of their idols called Thor, whom they worshipped on this day.

The sixth day of the week they styled Friday; and this day was dedicated to, and called after one of their idols, named Freya.

The seventh day of the week they styled Saturday, in honor of the planet Saturn, the supposed father of the heathen gods, to whom idolatrous worship was paid on this day.

[Page 47] Whether it be agreeable to the purity of the Chris­tian religion, to retain the names of these idols, and have months and days called after them, I leave my friend to judge; reminding him, that God's people of old were enjoined, (when they took possession of the land of Canaan, from whence the inhabitants were driven, on account of their idolatry) Make no mention of the names of other Gods, neither let it be heard out of your mouth. ^* For I will take away the names of Baalim (Heb. lords) out of his mouth. ^† And I will cut off the names of the idols of out the land, and they shall no more be remembered. ^§ Then will I turn to the people a pure language. ^**

6. R. Barclay says, ‘It is not lawful for Christians to kneel, or prostrate themselves to any man:’ and the reason he assigns is, that ‘these are the alone out­ward ward expressions of our adoration towards God.’

To which it is objected, ‘If this is not lawful, then some law of God forbids it.’ ‘Can you shew me that law?’

I answer, That ‘these are the alone outward expres­sions of our adoration towards God,’ is a striking reason why it should not be done, if the Almighty had not expresly forbidden the bowing down to any thing in heaven or earth. It is also condemned by the apostle Peter, who, when Cornelius bowed down to him, said, Stand up; I also am a man. ^†† And the angel, before whom John fell down, said, See thou do it not, for I am thy fellow-servant. ^‡

7. They nearly agree with regard to plainness of dress; but there is a reflection on the People called Quakers, as though they placed it only ‘in colour and shape.’

[Page 48] With regard to colour, it is very obvious, that they lay no stress upon it; and as to shape, they only con­demn the continually changing with every new, useless, expensive fashion, and therefore they more nearly keep to the primitive dress of their forefathers, which was not peculiar to them, but the way the nation in gene­ral dressed at that time.

With respect to the quality and price of Clothes, it must be confessed, that many of that, as well as of every other religious society, have widely deviated from the Gospel precepts, which enjoins professors of godliness, to adorn themselves in modest apparel; not with broidered hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array. ^* All which, as they prevent our attainment of, are, in the sacred records, opposed to, the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. ^† And therefore it is, that the same inspired Penman, warns us against the fatal consequences of imitating the cor­rupt customs, maxims, and fashions of the world; as such an imitation would infallibly deprive us of the greatest, spiritual blessings. Hence, the divine admo­nition, Be not conformed to this world; but be ye trans­formed by the rencwing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable and perfect will of God. ^§

It is indeed a painful reflection, that several, who are called Quakers, have so far departed from the purity and simplicity of the gospel, as well as from the ex­ample of their worthy ancestors; regardless of the re­peated admonitions of those, who labor among, and are over them in the Lord; ^‡ yet every candid person must acknowledge, that in modesty of apparel, and freedom from superfluous ornaments, those of that society, who are consistent with their principles, are examples worthy of [Page 49]imitation. But is it not a contradiction in terms, for a person gravely to exhort his audience not to be conformed to this world, ^* and to caution them against superfluity of dress, when at the same time he himself, is clothed from head to foot in a needless, expensive garment, which our Lord condemned in the Jewish teachers, and cautioned his disciples against an imitation of them? Beware, says Christ, of the seribes, who love to go in long clothing, and to be called of men Rabbi, Rabbi. ^†

8. Barclay says, ‘It is not lawful for Christians to swear, as our blessed Lord has commanded, Swear not at all.’ ^§ And the apostle James says, Above all things, my brethren, swear not. ^‡

To which it is objected, ‘Christ himself answered upon oath before a magistrate.’ ‘Yea, he would not answer 'till he was put to his oath.’

I reply, Christ did not swear, but simply answered, Thou hast said. ^** And because the high-priest adjured him by the living God, to make this an act of Christ's, and so countenance that which he absolutely forbids, is a strange mode of wresting the scriptures. What were our Lord's reasons for not answering, does not become us to say, as the scriptures are silent on this head, but to suppose, that ‘he would not answer till he was put to his oath,’ is indeed a most astonishing supposition! And I appeal to my friend, whether it is not more wor­thy of the Son of God, to suppose that he then answer­ed, not to encourage, but to discountenance swearing. For its language seems to be, Stop, presumptuous man! No more profane the sacred name! Thou hast said. That is, I am the Son of God.

Besides, oaths are not only unlawful, as the great Master has enjoined his servants, Swear not at all; but they are pernicious to civil society; so much false swearing as we have in the land, having a direct ten­dency [Page 50]to harden men's hearts, and so prepare them for every act of wickedness. For it is a melancholy truth, that what on account of the strict nature of oaths, their frequent repetition, and the shameful, yea, shock­ing manner of administering them, (few knowing what they swear) there are hardly any offices a man can enter upon, but he has this alternative, either to be perjured, or else ruined by a faithful discharge of his office.

As for Custom-house oaths, little or no regard is paid to them, nor indeed is it hardly possible for a Master of a Ship, to invoice, or clear out his vessel, without being guilty every time, of the heinous crime of per­jury.

How far oaths of Allegiance to Kings are binding, the history of our own nation, furnishes us with awful instances. Here we are informed, of all ranks of men, now swearing Fidelity to the prince, and shortly after dethroning him. We may therefore safely conclude, Because of swearing, the land mourneth. ^*

That swearing was looked upon by the primitive Christians as unlawful, we have several clear and un­doubted testimonies handed down to us; all agreeing, that they considered swearing as forbidden by Christ. Therefore when an oath was tendered them, the general answer was, "I cannot swear: I am a Christian."

9. R. Barclay has joined swearing and fighting to­gether, both being prohibited by our Lord, and con­trary to the Spirit of the Gospel.

The writer of that letter says, ‘Whatever becomes of the latter part of this proposition, (fighting) the former is no part of Christianity.’

Whether this was intended as a tacit acknowledg­ment, that war is unlawful; or whether he was then sensible of the great impropriety, for one professing to be a minister of Christ, to countenance that murderous Spirit which is gone forth into all Christendom, cannot [Page 51]be determined. ^* I wish to preserve, that it may be a standing witness, not only against war, but against those tracts which he has lately published, that countenances what he declares, to be ‘a reproach to all reason and humanity.’

The passage I refer to, is as follows, ‘But there is a still greater and more undeniable proof, that the very foundations of all things, civil and religious, are utterly out of course, in the christian, as well as the heathen world. There is a still more horrid reproach to the Christian name, yea, to the name of man, to all reason and humanity. There is war is the world! War between men! War between Christian! I mean between those that bear the name of Christ and profess to walk as he also walked. Now who can reconcile war, I will not say to religion, but to any degree of common sense?’

But as wars have many advocates, who not only speak for, but also take an active part in them, let us consider what can be said in justification of their conduct.

As the practice is not only highly irrational, but quite contrary to the peaceable and loving spirit, which the Gospel of Christ recommends, we must not expect that it gives any countenance to it; and yet the abet­tors of war think, they can prove its lawfulness, from John the Baptist's answer to the soldiers. Do violence to no man, and be content with your wages. ^† And our Lord's saying to his disciples, Let him that has no sword, sell his garment, and buy one. ^§

To the first of these scriptures, I answer, Let all sol­diers take this advice, Do violence to no man, and I am bold to affirm, that there will be a final period to wars, for maiming and shedding the blood of our fellow-mor­tals, and thereby sending them (perhaps, unprepared) into an awful eternity, is the greatest violence we can offer them.

Should it be granted, (which I am far from believ­ing) that John tolerated the use of war, yet this is not to the point, as he was a Jew; and it is allowed, that war and swearing, were lawful for them, but prohibited [Page 52]by the Founder of Christianity. And as the Gospel dispensation is far more excellent than John's, therefore our Lord asserted, that tho' he was the greatest of all the Prophets, yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. ^* That is, the Gospel dispensation is eminently superior to his. John was so sensible of this, that he bore this public testimony. He must increase, but I must decrease; ^† which words undoubtedly referred to their different dispensations.

That divorcement, wars, and swearing, tho' allowed to the Jews, because of the hardness of their hearts, ^§ are unlawful for Christians, is evident from the following scriptures, which are full to the point, and need no comment. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is devorced, committeth adultery. Again, Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself. But I say unto you, Swear not at all, &c. for whatsoever is more than Yea, yea; Nay, nay, (yes, or no) cometh of evil. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. ^‡ And the Apostle James leads us to the true source of wars, when he enquires, From whence come wars, and fightings? Come they not from hence, even of your lusts, which war in your members? ^‖

The other scripture brought to prove the lawfulness of war, is our Lord's saying to his disciples, Let him that hath no sword, sell his garment and buy one.

To which I reply, That this scripture has its difficul­ty; but that our Lord never designed to countenance fighting by it, I am as sully convinced of, as that I have an existence. My reasons are these.

[Page 53] First, When the disciples answered, Lord, here are two swords, he replied, It is enough. ^* Which answer suffi­ciently evinces, that this scripture must not be confined to a literal meaning. For what could two swords avail, against that armed multitude, which our Lord knew was coming out against him? And the general opinion of those, slyled the Fathers, was, that this scripture had a mystical signification.

Secondly, This seems to be confirmed by what passed between our Lord and Peter, who in his intemperate zeal, smote the servant of the High-priest, and cut off his car; for which our Lord reproved him, saying, Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? Put up therefore thy sword into its place. As tho' he had said, Peter, thou hast mistaken me;—I do not need these carnal weapons;—No: I utterly prohibit the use of them;— For all they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword. ^§—

Thirdly, Wars are not only forbidden by, but are directly opposite to the spirit of the Gospel. Here we are enjoined, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use and persecute you. ^‡ If thine enemy hunger, seed him; if he thirst, give him drink. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. ^** That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil, and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just, and on the unjust. ^‖ When Isaiah, in vision, saw this glorious Gospel-day, he sang, They shall beat their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning-books: nation shall not list up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. ^§§ Which prophecy is in part accomplished, in every heart, where the Prince of Peace ^‡‡ reigns.

I sincerely wish therefore, that well-disposed persons, who have been blinded by custom, and carried away [Page 54]with the current of evil example, would seriously consi­der this subject, and I am satisfied, they will see the great impropriety of setting apart times of prayer, for imploring the God of love, to give success to destruc­tive weapons. And I am persuaded, that with great truth, it may be said to many, Ye know not what ye ask. ^* Or as our Lord said to his disciples, on a similar occasi­on, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of ^† For it these prayers have any meaning, it is, that every bullet may do execution, and every sword may be bathed in blood. And to return thanks to the divine Majesty for success of this kind, argues a mind ignorant of the divine perfections, to whom such prayers and thanksgivings are as acceptable, as the cutting off a dog's neck, or the offering swine's blood. ^§

That frantic mirth also, which discovers itself in pub­lic rejoicings on these occasions, is a disgrace not only to the Christian name, but to humanity itself. The pure principle therefore, leads to an uniform testimony against such ungodly customs. And happy are they who are faithful to it, though they are the derision of a thoughtless, giddy multitude, and even on account of their truly Christian testimony, suffer the spoiling of their good. ^‖

And all those who take an active part in wars, are highly concerned to enquire, what is their principle of action? And, whether a dispute between Princes, will justify them in the sight of God, for seizing on the pro­perty and destroying the lives of their fellow-creatures, even tho' they have the sanction of human laws!

I know, that the common objection is, ‘If these pacific principles prevail, our property will become a prey to every invader.’ Yes; If the Lord has forsa­ken the earth: ^‡ But, if the Lord reigneth, ^** and we fear his name, he will be a wall of five round about us. ^§§ A remarkable instance of which, we have in the case of [Page 55]the Jews, who being enjoined by God, Thrice in the year shall all your males appear (at Jerusalem) before the Lord; the promise of God to them was, Neither shall any man desire your land, when you shall go up to appear before the Lord your God thrice in the year. ^† Which promise, Josephus, the Jewish historian, informs us, was so punctually fulfilled, that tho' their enemies knew these stated seasons, and that their cities and towns were then defenceless, yet at these times, they were never invaded, the terror of the Lord being upon the cities that were round about them. ^§

Nor need we look so far back, as the settlement of the people called Quakers in the Province of Pennsyl­vania, furnishes us with a recent proof of what I have advanced, and which has been so remarkable, as to en­gage the attention, even of infidels. The fact is this. That province, surrounded by savage nations, and des­titute of warlike instruments, either offensive or defen­sive, yet for almost a century, enjoyed uninterrupted tranquillity, while the other Provinces have been repeat­edly attacked by their savage neighbours.

Not only so, but the pacific principles of that people, and their upright conduct towards the natives, in pur­chasing the land from them, (tho' it was granted by the crown) have made such an impression on the minds of this savage people, that they have lived in perfect harmony with them, and speak of W. Penn, the first Proprietor of that province, with the greatest respect.

I have now freely delivered my sentiments. I hope it has been done in a proper temper: For altho' truth leads to the greatest plainness, yet it dictates no impro­per reflection, much less abusive language, which are too common in some of the most admired, controversial writings. I intended to close the whole, with a few remarks on the conclusion of that letter; but on a re­view, finding it made up of a number of mere decla­matory assertions, calculated to misrepresent and fix a stigma on a religious society of people, and totally des­titute [Page 56]of argument, I pass it over, as a proper answer would lead to some degree of severity, which it has been my study to avoid.

However, I must say, that I fear some persons are more concerned, to proselyte to a name, than to some­thing more substantial. When alas! What do names signify, if we are strangers to the love of God, and the love of our neighbour? And what will it avail, that we are orthodox in our principles, while our hearts are heterodox? We may boast of our well-composed forms of prayer, or pique ourselves that we have laid aside these inventions of men, silently to wait on the Lord; yet if our own hearts are not divinely changed, from the love and spirit of the world, into the love and image of God, tho' we differ in name and sentiment, we all belong to one family, and are out of the true church; having only a name to live, while we are in reality, without God in the world: ^* And should death cut the slender thread of life, the immortal spirit, which is disunited from God, and in a state of impurity, would be incapacitated for inhabiting his glorious kingdom; and therefore must be excluded from his presence. ^†

I therefore earnestly wish, that all blind, party zeal may come to an end; that instead of laboring to fix a stigma on those, who see it their duty to dissent from us, our great concern may be, to guard against a nar­row, unchristian spirit: And may the uniform language of our hearts and lives be, Henceforth know we no man after the flesh. ^§ For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven, the same is my Brother, and Sister, and Mother. ^‖