Whilst Christian charity induces me to conceive and to believe, that many pious minds, through the bias of education, or for want of duly considering the subject in all its scriptural bearings, may have conscientiously received or administered this rite in such a form; yet it would not be just to so important a subject, not to speak very plainly upon it. In short, I apprehend that both he that so administers, and he that so receives water baptism, being of an age to form his own judgment, must utterly pervert the design of water baptism; and would do well very seriously to consider if he is not trifling with Omnipotence. And where pecuniary consideration passes for such an administration of Baptism, if both do not trifle with the Omnipotent Jehovah, because of their really entertaining a belief that the blessed influence of the Holy Ghost is THUS imparted, then is there not great danger of both the donor and the receiver, each subjecting himself to the reproof of Peter: "Thy money perish with thee; because thou hast thought that the GIFT of GOD may be purchased with money."

In whatever point of view water baptism is regarded, it involves awful considerations. If it is deemed only an outward sign of inward and spiritual grace, then if we reflect that two thousand years are fast hastening to a close, since this sign was divinely authorized, is it not high time for the professing Church of Christ, to allow the shadow to decline, the sign to "decrease" and vanish away; and for her to seek and pray for this issue, through the substantial blessing being imparted of the immediate rays of the Sun of Righteousness.

If, on the other hand, water baptism should be viewed as essential to salvation, it must surely stand in opposition to the Baptism of the Holy Ghost; for as the apostle declares, to the believers in Christ: "There is one Lord, one Faith, ONE BAPTISM."

SECT. II.

The Lord's Supper.

J. W., in p. 272, thus introduces the subject, "In the course of what has been said respecting the flesh and blood of Christ, it is hinted that, with the views the Society of Friends entertain on that great subject, it is no wonder they discard the observance of the Lord's Supper. After adverting to

the three opinions into which Barclay says-the professors of Christianity do chiefly divide in this matter,' viz., those of the Papists, the Lutherans, and the Calvanists, we find him、 saying: (Prop. 13, Sect. 4, p. 456;) Now all those uncertain and absurd opinions, and the contentions therefrom arising, have proceeded from their all agreeing in two general errors concerning this thing; which being denied and receded from as they are by us, there would be an easy way made for reconciliation; and we should all meet in one spiritual and true understanding of this mystery and as the contentions, so would also the absurdities which follow from the three forementioned opinions, cease and fall to the ground.””

J. W. goes on with the quotation; but, as there ends Barclay's paragraph, in two editions now before me, and as it may, independently of this circumstance, be more brief and perspicuous, before giving the rest of J. W.'s quotation from Barclay, to introduce R. B.'s three opinions to which J. W. refers, I now present to the reader the substance of them. The first opinion is that of the Papists, which it is enough to say embraces

Transubstantiation, or changing the elementary bread and wine," into the very substance of that same body; flesh and blood of Christ, which was born of the virgin Mary, and crucified by the Jews.' Apology, p. 454.

Second. Lutherans who say: "The substance of the bread remains," but that likewise the outward body of Christ "is in, and with, and under the bread."

Third. Calvinists who, "denying both these, do affirm That the body of Christ is not there corporally or substantially; but yet that it is really and sacramentally received by the faithful, in the use of bread and wine; but how or what way it is there they know not."

Will any considerate and pious mind, on deep reflection, admit that from the mere participation of bread and wine can arise any one of these three effects? If the bread and wine cannot of themselves produce either of these three effects, a previous question arises: By what authority does any man, or any set of men, communicate to mere bread and wine, the virtue ascribed to them by what is termed “consecration ?” Produce Scripture authority for such an AWFUL PRETENSION; and then the subject may be worthy of being further considered.

J. W. thus proceeds in his extract from Barclay, concerning the two general errors, p. 273:

"The first of these errors is in making the communion or participation of the body, flesh and blood of Christ to relate to that outward body, vessel, or temple that was born of the virgin Mary, and walked and suffered in Judea; whereas it should relate to the spiritual body, flesh, and blood of Christ, even that heavenly and celestial, light and life, which was the food and nourishment of the regenerate in all ages; as we have already proved.

"The second error is in tying this participation of the body and blood of Christ to that ceremony used by Him with his disciples, in the breaking of bread, &c., as if it had only a relation thereto, or were only enjoyed in the use of that ceremony, which it neither hath nor is."

J. W. then proceeds, p. 274, to offer his own sentiments in these words: "The substance of the above extract, I must contend is neither more nor less than genuine Hicksism; or in other words, mystical deism."

To prevent mistake, it may be proper to state explicitly that both these quotations, and the former one pointing out the existence of the two errors, are all given by J. W. in one paragraph, consequently the term "extract" just used, embraces the whole quotation, which he describes as being neither more nor less than genuine Hicksism," &c.

If all that Barclay has there advanced be genuine Hicksism, and mystical deism-we shall probably have to enrol the apostle Paul as a mystical deist.

It is with a feeling of deep reverence that I again offer any remarks on the body of Christ; and in doing so, I wish to remind the reader of what has been already said on this subject, in p. 103-108, "On Redemption ;" and also in the introductory remarks to the present chapter, of which this is the second section.

Paul, in treating on the resurrection of mankind, not only defines, but expressly declares that "there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body;" and he goes on further to define and declare the complete distinction between these two bodies. The same apostle also states of our Lord's outward manifestation, that: "In ALL things it behoved Him to be made LIKE unto his brethren." Hence then does it not most

To

decisively follow that we may say of Christ, "there was a natural body, and there was a SPIRITUAL BODY also? " this spiritual body I conceive our Lord referred when he said: "The bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world;" for besides the "Life in Him" being "in the beginning, the Light of men," this outward body came not down from heaven; but was "prepared" by being born of the virgin Mary. In accordance

with this construction, is also the language of Paul respecting the Israelites in the wilderness: "Our fathers," did all eat the same SPIRITUAL meat, and did all drink the same SPIRITUAL drink; for they drank of that SPIRITUAL ROCK that followed them; and THAT ROCK was CHRIST."

In our Holy Redeemer being by this eminent Apostle, thus emphatically styled the Spiritual Rock, I conceive, we have additional authority for accepting our Lord's allusion as being to that spiritual food derived to the Soul, from the inward union and Communion with Divine Intelligence, which our Lord most fully described, in his ever memorable discourse with his Disciples just before he suffered, as recorded by the evangelist John; and hence that we may without any mystification, understand Him to refer to what may most consistently with Spiritual ROCK, and Spiritual DRINK, be styled His Spiritual body, when He said: "I am that bread of Life.""I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever."

The addition annexed, in which our Lord says: "And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," is a most important addition; and not merely and strictly synonimous; but showing also that the sacrifice of Himself was, in the appointment of the Father, an essential portion of the stupendous plan of Human Redemption. And thus, were the two portions one revelation from the Lord of Glory Himself, of the essentiality both of his inward revelation, and of his outward manifestation and sacrifice, in order to unfold the wondrous whole of salvation by the name of Jesus.

Paul also says: "GOD was manifest in the flesh," and of this manifestation he says: "Great is the mystery of Godliness;" and have we not, "without controversy," a clear distinction (see p. 103-108,) between "God who is a Spirit," and the flesh or vail in which our Lord, who is one with the