Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 brethren, 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, without 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 system to be, the society will hardly think it safe to suffer themselves to be so 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 vindicaté 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 (perhaps equally as capable as he either in a spiritual or temporal sense) have believ ed, 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 money 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.

[ocr errors]

CHAPTER II.

Remarks on Water Baptism.

I would notice (in Chap. 3d, sect. i) 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 disciples 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 gospel 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.

[ocr errors]

Rand says, they reason the ordinance away, because it is not sufficient for salvation." He however immediately puts the necessity of it entirely out of the question, for he says, "We all know that spiritual baptism or sanctification is alone that holiness without which we cannot see God." Now who is so unwise as to think that that which alone is sufficient, has need of another to aid it? Again he says, " but as a means Gođ surely may adopt whatever he pleases, and can make it useful." This I readily admit, but still the evidence is wanting to prove that he did: and I think it always will be wanting in this case, if Rand's position is correct, that the spiritual baptism alone is sufficient, and that alone which will enable us to see God. Because if it was our Saviour's mission to bring in everlasting righteousness in lieu of those ordinances, and outward washings, that were not sufficient to bring us to God, it is not likely he would adopt others equally insufficient, after abolishing the old; and, besides there being no water mentioned by our Saviour, I believe it can no where be found that the disciples or apostles ever asserted that they did it from Christ's command to use water, or in following the directions in the commission, Matt. xxviii. For it may be observed that even Peter used this query: "Can any man forbid water?" &c. Would he have queried any thing about it if he had been sure of his Lord's command for it? It ought also to be remembered that there did not appear to be that stress laid upon the use of it in the apostles days, as has been since, and still continues to be: I very much doubt whether a minister in these days, conducting as the apostle Paul did, would be esteemed quite orthodox. It seems he baptised but very few with water, and thanked God he

had done no more, from a conclusion that he had nothing of it in his commission. And however many may have found satisfaction in it in modern times, it appears those churches that depended on Paul as their minister were deprived of it, unless they could have it through the help of some other. How can we account for Paul's conduct in having so little to do with water baptism? But Paul performed the office of a minister of Jesus Christ to the churches without much of it, altho' he did not censure others, who thought they had a comfort in it.

Perhaps the Quakers may think their opponent might be kind enough to allow them as much indulgence as the other apostles did the apostle Paul; for it ought to be observed that they censure none for the practice of it, who believe it a duty enjoined on them. I admit what he says, p. 17, "that there were divers washings in the temple service," but they were ordinances, and so is this. Then I would ask who has given him or any other authority to retain this and exclude the other. Until he shew this, I see no reason why it should not be left abolished with all the rest; yet if any choose to retain it, let them do so; but pray let it be attribu

John very explicitly

ted to its right father, viz. John. tells us the difference between his and Christ's baptism. "I indeed baptise you with water" (Matt. iii. 11.) and then expressly tells them in the same verse, that Christ's baptism should be of a different nature, viz. "with the Holy Ghost and with fire."

It seems to me that this dispute might safely end, without further altercation, since it is admitted that spi, ritual baptism alone is sufficient; and by that alone we can see God now that which alone is sufficient, needs no companion to aid it.

« PreviousContinue »