« PreviousContinue »
indelicacy he has aimed at others, as I presumed not connected with Friends, and which I have therefore passed without much notice. I have also passed unnoticed much extraneous matter for brevity sake that might be considered as applied to them. After these remarks I submit it to the reader for a candid perusal.
It was not my original intention to publish the following work, but on submitting it to the inspection of some of my friends with a view to a limited circulation in manuscript, they encouraged me to lay it before the public;. and it now appears with some alterations of the original manuscript and the addition of further extracts from the writings of some of our ancient friends, &c.
SAMUEL F. HUSSEY.
BRIEF EXAMINATION, &c.
CHAPTER 1. Miscellaneous Remarks on the first and second chapter of
the 66 Vindication." Soon after Rand's publication, I had an opportunity of perusing and observing the unjust and illiberal insinuations it contains, even in his introduction, where he presumes to insinuate the neglect of the scriptures as a consequence of the belief that God is able and does condescend to teach his people himself, agreeably to Christ's promise, “they that seek shall find,” saying,
if ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly father give the holy spirit to them that ask him.” Luke xi. 13. I have no design of doing more than to notice some of the inconsistencies and errors in his publication. I shall not attempt a thorough investigation of all I esteem such, as that would require an ex. tensive volume.
First. I would ask any person of common under. standing if he can believe in his flattering pretensions, that, “he would not, even in his own viodication, as a minister of Christ, state any thing to the disadvantage of others, farther than appears fully necessary; and I would not in this connection bring any thing into view wbich might prevent friends or others who may read
these pages from looking at principles with calm and unprejudiced minds." And this after stating, “That if friend Cobb had known what pains his brethren in this town had taken to introduce their preachers and principles among the people who attend on my ministry, I am persuaded he would not have made the above remark ;' but he says, “I feel strongly tempted to state some facts on this subject, but I forbear.” What could he have stated more to the disadvantage of Cobb's bretbren, than his forbearance would imply? or what could they have been guilty of, that may not be conjectured from his suggestions ?
Perhaps he may think it very respectful language when he denominates what they think they practise from principle, mere notion; but it would not be very strange if some others should think it an arrogant assumption, who believe them the requisitions of the Holy Scriptures, which he contends is his only rule. I think his fears may be easily dispensed with unless he can shew that a system has been adopted that has pro. duced more salutary effects than that of the Quakers. Although he seems bound to acknowledge that many good fruits are evident, and appears unable to designate any evil ones, yet unwilling to judge them by his only rule," by their fruits ye shall know them," he sets about judging them from his fears and apprehensions, attributing to them a distorted system of religion, withe out shewing any evil fruits produced by that distortion, and this statement he says " he has felt moved to make before he proceeds,” &c. Let any candid reader judge by what spirit he has been moved to publish all these evil fears and apprehensions without shewing that any of the fruits he apprehends have yet been produced,
or may probably grow out of the Quaker system, after an experiment of nearly two centuries. However dangerous he may conclude the systeto to be, the society will hardly think it safe to suffer themselves to be 80 much alarmed by his presumptions as to abandon it ; especially since he himself acknowledges it has done so much at least as to produce good fruits; and since the system also claims all the benefits the Bible can furnish, and also the influence of the truth as it is in Jesus.
As respects his reply to E. Cobb, it is needless for me to follow and combat all his opinions of scripture and declarations of his belief. Were I to vindicate Friends' belief as respects baptism, after all he has said and written, I should call on him (Rand) for scripture evidence of what he endeavours to enforce as his belief. I should ask him what authority he has to judge of what is the most proper way of expressing church fellowship, since so many (perbaps equally as capable as he either in a spiritual or temporal sense) have believed, that they have enjoyed it as fully and as satisfactorily as he ever has, without any of those outward signs, or without paying any man for the purpose of breaking outward bread to them, and especially such men as we have no reason to believe would continue to administer this supposed comfort to them any longer than the mon
held out to pay them for it: so that an end of money would be an end of the communion with the poor church that depends on that kind of communion.
R:marks on Water Baptism. I would notice (in Chap. 3d, sect. 1) he says, " they argue” (meaning the Quakers) "that because John baptised with water, and predicted that Christ should come and baptise with the Spirit, therefore Christ or his dis. ciples did not baptise with water.” This will appear without foundation, from his own testimony in page 16 of his work, where he says, “and Barclay has no way of avoiding the doctrine of water baptism, in view of such plain assertions of the sacred writers, ouly by saying the apostles were under a mistake, or at most did it of permission, on account of existing circumstances." And thus it may appear he is not very careful of what he asserts ; or he would not thus charge Barclay with what he does not say, and furnish testimony against himself, for the fact is, they have never doubted but that the disciples did baptise with water; but they say it was not the gospeł baptism and they never had Christ's command for it, neither had they bis precepts, unless we may be permitted to add the water, to every text where Christ mentions baptising. He (Rand) says, " Barclay, as well as others, have brought forward a part of the passages, where water baptism is mentioned, but explains them so as to coincide with a preconceived opinion, that there is no such thing." But it will be found by any one that reads Barclay (see apology, prop. 12th) that he admits all the scriptures say on the subject literally, but he does not admit of the addition of water, to Christ's commands; and unless that is admitted, it must depend on opinion only, whether Christ enjoined it on others.