A word in season in behalf of the Holy Scriptures

Front matter

Copy 2

0 019 566 779 2

I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I

Introduction

THE following pages owe their origirrto a conviction that some small publication is needed, to establish the authority of the scriptures against prevailing pretences to new revelations, and that particular circumstances seem lately to devolve on me the task which I had waited for others to perform. Of the necessity of such a publication, I leave every reader to judge from his own knowledge of existing opinions in this part of the country. The circumstances to which I allude are these. About the commencement of the year 1817, I published " two Sermons on Christian Fellowship in which I objected to many prevailing sentiments in several sects of professed Christians, and pointed out the neglect of the bible and the credit given to supposed new revelations as the grand error from which the others in general originate. But the subject was not then pursued by any means to the extent its importance demands ; and I have frequently been solicited by judicious friends, to follow up that publication with such an one as I now present on the general subject. At length I concluded to make the attempt.

So far as the vindication of my Sermons is concerned, I would just observe, I have. thought proper to subjoin to this little work a brief Reply to the w Observations1' of Friend Cobb ; the only publication that has, to my knowledge, appeared in answer to them. I now judge such a reply to be proper, though my first irepressions were different, Many persons will probably neglect searching the scriptures for themselves, and it may be a friendly aid to such to present before them scriptural evidence in a connected forme The first part of this book will therefore contain a vindication of my sermons against the objections of the Quakers, I still leave the sermons io speak for themselves in regard to all other denominations of whom they ventured to speak at all. They first appeared indeed under three disadvantages. They wanted, (before the public,) a full and explicit statement of my awn views of gospel truths ; with which I compared the views of others. There was a want of references to authorities, and quotations from writers, in the different sects. And I did not enter fully into argument to substantiate my positions, except in regard to the conduct of professing christians in causing divisions. Th$ reasons for these deficiences were, that, in preaching, I had n» thought of publishing ; and to my constant hearers no statement cf my own principles was necessary — they already knew,byhea!

mg and reading1, that most of the principles I imputed to oilier were avowed by them, and would not hesitate to believe my declaration, if I had read or heard what they had not—and little argument, as- 1 trusted, was needful to convince them that the doctrines I mentioned were not found in scripture. Besides, to have supplied fully all these deficiences, I must have preached at least t«n sermons instead of two, and protracted a discussion on which I entered at all only from an imperious sense of duty. I was a- Ware that it was much more important these additions should be made, when i published. But, for reasons then assigned, I would not add or diminish a word, but publish as' nearly as I could, what I had preached. And if I had made the additions, my ■pamphlet would have becfems -a ^volume. The sermons brought much reproach upon me from various quarters. But of reproach I shall not complain, if I can continue in the path of duty, and be of the least service to the cause ©f truth. I have ne ver for a single hour, regretted either preaching or publishing. My statement is before the public— so are the books, the preaching, the conversation, and the conduct, of the denominations in question. -Let the, public judge. So far &§ I um myself concerned, I am not anxious for the issue : for whatever opinions men may form, H yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with niy God.''

I must say a word on the delay of my notice of the " observations." It would have appeared sooner, if 4 had not designed to publish it with the other part of this volume. I waited some time in expectation of a further answer to my Sermons, which was said to be intended at New- York. My engagements leave me but little time for such a concern. And after I had begun to wrii,e, an afflictive dispensation of Providence obliged me to suspend entirely all attention' to the subject for several months. I1 have lately resumed' it, and at length brought it ' to a close. It trust the Searcher of hearts has seen no bitterness of spirit in my heart, and that the reader will not find it in my pages. I am far from delighting in controversy ; nor would I engage in it, even in the mildest form, but from the same motives which so frequently impelled the Apostle of the Gentiles, the vindication ©f the truth, the glo^y of Christ, the establishment of believers, and the salvation of sinners. A. R*

ijorhmn^ October 23, 181B, _

Chap. 2. Whether the scriptures are " the Word of God."

Chap. 3. Examination of the arguments usually adduced t%> prove that the scriptures are not a sufficient guide, and that inspiration yet continues.

Chap. 4, What is sufficient evidence that a man is inspired— to satisfy himself— to convince others — and to accredit his message with succeeding generations ? The sacred writers have this evidence.

Chap. 5. No evidence from scripture that inspiration is to be expected in the present or any subsequent age.

Chap. 6. Additional reasons why we should not look for inspiration.

Chap. 7. Some pretended revelations examined.

Chap. 8. The state of the heathen evinces, that inspiration

does not with them supply the want of the scxiptwrm* Ohap. 9« Conclusion, A3

PART L

A VINDICATION OF " TW0 SERMONS ON CHRISTIAN FELLOW- SHIP," SO FAR, AS THEY RELATE TO FRIENDS, OR QUAKERS J '^N REPLY TO THE u OBSERVATIONS" OE FRIEND E»WARB ~X>OBB,

CHAP. L

MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS ON THE " OBSERVATIONS . 5 ?

(JNDER this head I shall notice several things, which will Hot separately require whole chapters.

Friend Cobb views me as one " disposed to meddle with hose who are desirous, as much as in them lies, to live peaceably with all men he can see no cause for my mentioning the Friends among others in my Sermons. — Doubtless any member of any other society, if he had replied to my pamphlet, would have exempted his brethren in the same man- Tier. And I would only reply that I had precisely the same reasons for mentioning the Friends, that I had for mentioning 'he other societies ; viz. that I considered some of their principles as essentially erroneous., and knew that the people among whom I labor were exposed to them. 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, 1 am persuaded he would not have made the above remark. I feel strongly tempted to state some facts cn this subject. But I forbear ; for I would not, even in my own vindication as a minister of Christ, state any thing to the disadvantage of others, farther than appears fully necessary ; and I would not in tktis connection bring my thing to view, which might prevent Friends^ or others i

■'i!whO' may read these pages, from looking at principles with calm and unprejudiced minds.— I trust therefore this gener al statement of ray reasons for having noticed that society, will be sufficient ; persuaded as I am, that it will not be said I have ever u meddled" with those who reside in this town* to interrupt their harmony, to inculcate my principles on them, or draw away their members or children from their faith or practice ; and believing as I do, that the public will perceive this only instance of my meddling which can be produced, was intended, not to injure them* but to vindicate a course I ha^e conscientiously adopted not to have fellowship with them in what I believe to be against scripture.

I had said, " they deny most of the doctrines of the gospel." Fr.C [Friend Cobb] says <c this is a great charge,; but 'there is nothing in it specific." In the Introduction to this work I have shown why my Sermons did not contain a statement of the doctrines. Yet I know not how he could read both of them through attentively, without forming some opinion concerning my belief in the doctrines of the gospel. However, he correctly supposes L meant the above sentence " as a preface to the following charges." He finds V an evident contradiction" in the following sentence, viz. " They of course deny regeneration, by taking. away all necessity for it* With them it is not a renewing by the holy Ghost %

- Dot a new creation by the grace of God ; but only cherishing what we have had from our birth. And yet regeneration with themJs so great a work, that many look for no other resurrection." And he attempts to point out the contradiction to his readers. Pages £0, 21.

I am in the habit of saying, a person denies a doctrine^ when he denies ihe thing meant, though he may use the word by which it is commonly expressed, I -well knew that the Friends talk of regeneration .; but I also knew that they mean 'by it a growth in grace, or the " increase and opera, lion of a living principle" which is in all men, and increases ia the renewed mm* Whereas the common use of Ihe word

B

Vegeneraiidn is to express an idea very different from this, It means the renewal of a depraved sinner, who has no living or holy principle in him ; the renovation of his heart, his" passing from death to life, so that he becomes a 44 new creature.*' I used the word in its proper sense in the first part of the sentence in question, an^ in their sense of it in the latter part ; a practice by no means uncommon, when a word has been used in two senses by different persons, and we wish to speak of both. Nor do I see that ngy meaning could have been doubtful, if this writer had attended to the explanatory clause, " with them it is net a renewing, &c." I admitted that they believed in some kind of change to which they ap = plied the Term regeneration, and explained what they meant by it, and what they did not mean ; in .which it clearly appeared they did not mean what is usually and almost univertally meant by the word regeneration* Antf that I was correct, I need only to refer to the extracts from Fhinps, which Fr. C. produces in this very connection.

Fr. C. has not noticed the concluding words of the above extract from my Sermon ; nor has he any where told us whether they do, or do not, look for any " other resurrection" than that new birth which is sometimes figuratively expressed by the term. I can find but very little on this subect in Barclay, or any other of their writers. They quote a few passages of scripture in relation to it ; but make scarce* ly any comments ; though they freely indulge in them on other occasions. From their silence, I cannot judge whether they understand such passages literally ; or whether, as in many other cases, they spiritualize thsm. ! apprehend that many of their followers are led from this silence to doubt or deny the resurrection of the -body. But as public documents will not decide on individual belief, I shall leave the subject where their writers leave it, only observing that I trust they will all avoid a disbelief of this doctrine, for " if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen ; and if Christ be not risen, our faith is vain, we are yet in our sins.;

I

K)

they also which have fallen asleep in Christ are perish* ed ; and Paul, speaking of two men, says, " who concerning the truth have erred, saying, that the resurrection is past al- -v ready, and overthrow the faith of some."

i had said, " their ideas of religion are of a hidden, mystical, mysterious nature the truth of which assertion I shall leave my readers to discover from their writings in general, from the extracts which will appear in this work, or even from Fr. C's own quotations and remarks. But whether the above remark, or any other in my sermons, proves me to be a "'natural man," or "grossly ignorant,"" or "under the influence of very uncharitable feelings," or that my " lips do not preserve truth," is perhaps a question better left with the searcher of hearts to determine, than to Fr. C. For myself, I had rather receive such language from a stranger, than bestow it upon a stranger, I had rather bless Fr. C, than revile him ; and will only add^ there is One thai judgeth him and me.

My object in writing is rather to search for truth, than attack an opponent ; to convince, rather than reproach. And if Fr. C. and his brethren will read and examine with calmness, candor, and prayer ; perhaps it may not be in vain, however weak my productions may be found.

I shall take up, in the second part of this book, what was contained in the Sermons and' Observations concerning the scriptures and new* revelations ; therefore I need not say any thing farther here on those subjects, than to entreat the Friends to read, and weigh the matter with great deliberation.

I have been censured for not giving correct views of the quaker tenets, from their own writers, as I proposed to do. The reader will be able to judge on that point, after he has , perused the extracts J shall produce. I certainly intended v> to make a correct statement, and had read Barclay's Apology and some others. With a view to the present publication, I have sought for as many standard works as I could Tonveniently obtain. I solicited the loan of such books from

II a- Friend in this town, and mentioned my object. He readily complied with my request, and I here acknowledge my obligations to him*

CHAP. II.

OP SOME THINGS DEEMED WORTHY OF APPROBATION AND IMITA- TION IN THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS.

It is very common to approve or censure, to praise cr condemn, in the gross. I have rarely met with any writer, who does this more extensively, and authoritatively than Barclay. But I cannot return evil for evil. Such a practica seems to betray a defect both in judgment and charity. If we deem it duty to object to principles or practices, or' even to protest against them, and separate from those in whom they are found ; still I perceive no necessity of imputing ev- , ery thing to the worst of motives without evidence, or of de* nying to such persons every thing that is good, and accusing them of all evil. I trust my Sermons were of a different cast. As I am now to speak more at large of the Friends, I have no hesitation in adding a few remarks to those I there made in theirfavor. I highly approve of . their protest against war, with a siqgle exception. I agree with them that $11 offensive wars are unchristian and wicked ; all wars of conquest, ambition, and revenge-: and that government Should go very far in enduring injuries from other nations. I think that defensive war, in case of actual invasion, is justifiable. I honor them for their protest against the abominable practice of enslaving men > and for their exertions, ia connection with others, to effect the. abolition of the, slave trade — - I esteem them for their objections to duelling, litigation, vain amusements, dissipation, and luxury ; for their veracity ^ industry, sobriety, and the general duties of morality. I think indeed they carry their notions respecting dress, language* and the civilities of life, to an extreme ; and that they have stesdless scruples of conscience concerning oaths, and other vV requirements by the civil magistrate, 1 fear also they artife liable to make a self-righteousness of such little things, when adopted as essential articles of their religious creed, or as evidences of grace.

I should object to their system of discipline and education, as too austere ; aiming rather to sup* 'press the natural- passions, than to direct them and subordinatethem to higher principles. I should apprehend thenchildren Avould be overawed to submit to their principles and regulations, or, on the other hand, repelled from them and from virtue, by the forbidding aspect of the system. With soKie exceptions of this kind, I approve many of their principles and customs, in their influence on the affairs of this life, r If it be asked, how can a tree be evil, wbich bears such fruit? I reply, there is a great difference in that goodness which extends only to men and the affairs of this world, and that fruit which will endure unto everlasting life. Their morality seems to be rather the effect of their internal regulations, than of their peculiar tenets in religion. Their regulations are adapted to small communities ; and (the society being of recent origin,) they have as yet observed them with some degree of fidelity. In fine, if the civil benefit of mankind were the only object, I should be willing the quaker system,, with some abatement of its severity, and some improvements, should prevail throughout the world. But to make men good citizens in this world, and wise unto salvation also, I should prefer that the bible should go forth, and the truth as it is in Jesus prevail. This would accomplish both objects at once, as 44 Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." I would not say their religious principles have no effect, in connection with their discipline, to make them a sober people ; for undoubtedly they embrace some truths of the bible ; and even a distorted system of religion, with such temporal aids, may produce much temporal benefit, and in some instances lead to true piety, in spite of their errors. I have ■"■••felt moved5* to make this statement of things which ar@ in my opmioB3 worthy of regard, before I proceed to a discussion whic& will involve some objections against their principles on other points.

Chap. III. Of Those Institutions Which The Quakers Reject*

I tender my grateful acknowledgements to Fr. C. for confirming my assertions that the quake^s deny Baptism ; the Lord -a Supper ; the Christian Sabbath ; and the Scriptu res a $ the Word of God, and the only revelation. However* though he admits the correctness of my statement, yet he attempts to justify their tenets, and to prove that they are right in rejecting the institutions here named. I shall reserve the vindication of the scriptures tp the second part of this book* I will here take up the other three subjects in course, after I have disposed of one objection.

I am accused of inconsistency, in saying I would receive such as hold essential truths ; and yet withholding fellowship from quakers for their disuse of ordinances, whieh I acknowledge are not effectual to salvation. I reply ; I view the ordinances as essential to visible Church communion, though not to salvation. The great question before me was, with whom I ought to hold public communion ? therefore it was proper to say, in that connection, that the Friends deny the ordinances ; for it is manifest we cannot express fellowship, in the ordinary and most proper way, with a church that h as no ordinances.

SECTION 1. * Of Water Baptism — As Fr. C. confirms my statement, that the Friends reject this, I have only to answer their objections to it, and prove that it is an institution of our Lord. I cannot enlarge ; but shall first make a few general remarks on the manner in which they support their notion, (l,) They argue that, because John baptized with water, and predicted that Christ should baptize with the Spirit, therefore Christ or his

Bfeerples did ttot baptize with wetter also. But a child rnsfsee that the argument is not conclusive. John preached repentance ; but Christ came to show us the Father, and die for our offences ; yet that is no proof he did not preach repentance also, (2.) They argue, that because so much is said of a spiritual baptism, under the dispensation of Christ, therefore there is no water baptism. Inconclusive also. There is much said of repentance; therefore no faith, or love is required — is an argument equally as good. (S.) They produce many passages which mention spiritual baptism; but omit and overlook those which bring water baptism into view. But I prefer to take the whole counsel of God for my direction. (4.) Barclay (as well as others) has brought forward a part of the passages where water baptism in mentioned ; but explains them so as to coincide with a pre-conceived opinion that there is no such thing. His principal method for effecting this is to " spiritualize^ scripture ; or find an abstruse ,and far-fetched meaning in plain, simple, and decisive language. He finds it in commands and precepts, .which we should suppose would be given in clear terms ; and even in narrative, where the sacred writers are simply jelatingyhcte. (5.) They reason the ordinance away, because it is not sufficient for salvation. We all know that spiritual baptism or sanctification is alone that holiness, without which we cannot see God. But, as a means, God may surely adopt whatever he pleases, and can and does make it useful. . Many have found great benefit from this ordinance (and the other also.) But if i saw no use, I would obey my Lord's command, not daring to call that a carnal ordinance, a beggarly element, which he instituted at the very time he " took away 5? the Jewish rites.

Let my reader peruse any of the quaker writings on this subject, with the above remarks in view ; let him also read the scriptures which they quote, in their connection ; and he will be convinced my remarks are correct. Of course, he will conclude that the sentiment which they establish by such - .methods, is erroneous* 1 will now quote few passages whipfe w

I caiinot myself spiritualize or explain away, by any lawLV method of commenting on scripture. The first shall be our' ascending Lord's commission to his Apostles,'' Matt. 28. 19, " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them m the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy ^ Ghost. "~ Quaker writers say this is spiritual baptism, because there was no other. The inquiry however is, how

did the Apostles understand him ? And this is determined by their pra dice ; for doubtless they obeyed him. He did not however now enjoin what they bad not known before, and practiced. For John 3. 22\ " After these things, came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea ; and there he tarried with them, and baptized." ver. 26. They said to

-John, '* to whom thou barest witness, behold the same bapiizeth, and all men come to him." Chap 4. 2. u Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." Did not Jesus baptize with the Holy Spirit ? or would his disciples baptize without his order ? This therefore was not spiritual baptism, And what did the disciples afterhis ascension ? To the trembling inquiring Jews, Peter said, Acts 2. 38. £< Repent, and be " baptized^ every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins ; and ye.' shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Read this according to the quaker construction. Repent, and receive the spirit, and ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. Ver. 41. " Then they that gladly received his word were baptized ; and the same day there were added to them about 3000 souls." A plain narration of facts. Acts 8. 12, 13. " They were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also ; and when he was baptized, he continued with Phillip, &c." But surely this Simon soon e- "vinced that he had not received the spiritual baptism. And concerning that whole number, it is remarked, ver. 16. " For as yet he, [ie. the Spirit,] was fallen upon none of them ; o lily they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." When Ananias went to Saul, he conferred the gift of the holy spirit

Jirst; and then, the narrative proceeds, Acts 9, 18. " lomr m

^lately there fell from his eyes as it had Wen scales ; and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized Many other passages must be omit ted 5 such as Acts 16. 15, S3, and Id. 8, and 1 Cor. 1. 13. &c. &c. There are two however so explicit, I cannot omit them. Acts 8. 36. " And as they went on their way5 they came unto a certain water * and the eunuch said, see, here is water ?° what doth binder me io be baptized 38, 64 And they went down both into the

water, -and he baptized him." — While Peter preached m

the house of Cornelius^ Acts 10. 44. " The holy Ghost fell on ail them which beard the word." Then answered Peter, ver. 47. " Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Indeed throughout the history of the Apostles' labors, we find they baptized with water those who gave evidence of Ibe new birth, and professed repentance and faith in Christ. And Barclay has no way of avoiding the doctrine of waterbaptism, in view of such plain assertions of the sacred writers, only by saying the Apostles were under a mistake, or at most, did it of permission on account of existing circumstances, and not of commandment. (Apology, pp. 436, 437.) But if they were under mistakes as to the very nature and meaning of their commission from their Lord, they might mistake on ail other subjects, If this be the case, my confidence in their divine authority is gone, and I am thrown upon the Testless ocean of uncertainty, till R. B. or some other prophet of these latter days, shall produce evidence of superior claims to inspiration and infallibility. But I am satisfied they did not mistake ; but delivered to us the commands of Christ, as they received them from the Head of the Church. The above quotations are sufficient to show that the Apostles understood and practiced water baptism, as the command of their Lord given in the same day he was taken up from them. And their practice is worth 10G0 spiritual constructions, which would explain it of the baptism of the Holy Spirit alone. We readily agree there is but u one effectual or saving baptism—- and that water does not " wash away the filthiness of the flesh," or unholy nature ; but submitting to the ordinance is " the answer of a good conscience toward God." — I must notice one other mistake of Barclay's, though I have found none in \he Apostles on this subject. He says (p. 424.) " the gospel puts an end to carnal ordinances— and quotes Heb. 9. 10, to prove that baptism (washings) is of the number. I have only to request the reader to peruse the passage, and remember that there were " divers wasflings" in the temple service, which were totally different from the baptism which the Apostles applied to Christian eonverts.

Section 2

Of the Lord's Supper. Concerning this and baptism together, Clarkson* says, " the rejection of these ceremonies is one of the fundamentals of quakerism." (Portraiture, vol, 2. p. 299.) All the quake r writers I have read agree in this account, and have much to say against a supper of bread and wine. I believe it is an ordinanee, which our Lord instituted just before he suffered, to be observed by his followers at suitable times, till he shall come to judge the world. I receive it as a memorial of our Lord's death, and as a token of communion which Christians have with each other, and with the Father and his Son, through the indwelling of the Spirit. • Without the Spirit in our hearts, it ts null and void; and cannot convey that precious gift, or produce gracious affections, of itself. So that we may, attending on it with a carnal mind, " eat and drink condemnation." But does the abuse of a favour evince that it was not good as it came down from the Father of lights ? If so, there is no good gift in all the profusion of his blessings which fill the earth ; for there is no one which has not been perverted to the ruin of body and soul. Or is this ordina'nce to be wholly despised, as a useless thing, because it is not the greatest of all gifts ? If so,