A brief examination of Asa Rand's book, called a "Word in season" ...

Front matter

.

A BRIEF

EXAMINATION

Introduction

!T may be proper to inform (he reader that the controversy which has given rise to the following essay was originated by Asa Rand, a professed minister of the gospel, in Gorham, Maine, who, not content with performing the duties of such an office (if indeed he is qualified, and is sensible of what his duties are) voluntarily stepped aside and attacked and grossly misrepresented the principles and practice of his innocent and unoffending neighbours. This he did in two sermons which were published in the year 1817. Such parts of them as related to the society of Friends, and which were deemed worthy of any notice, were replied to by Edward Cobb, in a small tract published soon after. Since which, Hand has made a feint at rejoining to Cobb's remarks; which however he has touched but very slightly. Instead of which, he has branched out in anew publication calling in question the prin. ciples and practices of this society much more exten« sively ; and in doing it has added misrepresentation to misrepresentation.

To clear the principles and practices of this society so far as he has attempted to implicate them, is the design of the following sheets. How far this is done the candid reader is left to judge.

It may not be amiss however briefly to state, that this writer has endeavoured to impugn the tenets of this society in these particulars. A want of giving due credence to the Holy Scriptures. To their disuse of outward ordinances. To their undervaluing the character and office of Jesus Christ. To their professed belief in a divine principle immediately operating* upon the human heart. To their not holding to the resurrection of the body, and to their not being correct in •their belief in the necessity of repentance and regeneration. He has also suggested that they do not explicitly hold to future rewards and punishments. All of which, as well as others not enumerated, have been the themes of former adversaries, and have been repeatedly and it is believed effectually an^vered by our predecessors in the same faith.

It was more excusable in those, who, in the early part of the existence of our society, made these invidious attacks, because, those vindications and explicit statements of our principles, which have since been so fully made, were not then before the public : but that they should be reiterated and again retailed out by Asa Rand, who might and ought to have known that they had been refuted more than a century ago, is just cause of regret as well as animadversion.

Friendly Reader, It may be thought that I have treated him with too much asperity; but whatever excess of feeling I may appear to have indulged, I am persuaded, whoever reads his publication, will be satisfied that I had much to suppress, and will therefore mike proper allowances, for had I suppressed more I might have have felt myself guilty of what I have imputed to him, viz. fallacious pretences, in undertaking to give his performance the colour of a " friendly debate," and then filling it with unnecessary imputations and sarcasms ; such as " the holy duty of 'quaking/ pretended new revelation?," &c. &c. besides the 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 ia 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 t of our ancient friends, &c.

SAMUEL F, HUSSEY,

I*

A

BRIEF EXAMINATION, $c.

Chapter I

Miscellaneous Remarks op the first and second chapter of the " 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, M if ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your childrea, how much more shall your heavenlv father give the holy spirit to them that a?k him." Luke xi. 13. I have no design of doing more than to notice some of the inconsistencies and errors in his publication. 1 shall not attempt a thorough investigation of all I esteem such, as that would require an extensive volume.

First. 1 would ask any person of common understanding if he can believe in his flattering pretensions, that, "he would not, even in his 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 this connection bring any thing into view which might prevent friends or others who may read these pa^es from looking at principles with calm and unprejudiced winds." 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, u 1 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 produced 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, u 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 ot 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 himso.lf 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 H is in Jesus.

As respects his reply to E. Cobb, ir 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 (perhaps 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, «r without paying any man for the purpose of breaking outward bread to them, and especially such men as we have no re ason 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 poet church that depends on that kind cf communion,

CHAPTER IF.

R "narks on Water Baptism.

I would notice (in Chap. 3d, . c ect. 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 pag^e 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, only 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 himseff, 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 his precepts, unless we may be permitted to add the water, to every test where Christ mentions baptising. He (Rand) says, 44 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 zoater, to Christ's commands ; and unless that is admitted, it must depend on opinion only, whether Christ enjoined it oa others.

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, u We all know that spiritual baptism or sanc'afication 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 God 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 righteousneis in lieu of those ordinances, and outward washing-, 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; 11 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 modem 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 the} 7 censure none for the practice of it, who believe it a duty enjoined on them. I admit tvhat he says, p. 17, u 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 attributed to its right father, viz. John. John very explicitly 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 taptism 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 spiritual baptism alone is sufficient ; and by that alone we can see God : now that which alone is sufficient, needs no companion to aid it

1 shall now take notice of the Scripture passages he has quoted merely to shew that so far as they are our Saviour's commands, they say nothing al out water. His first is Matt, xxviii.19. but it saith nothing aboui water ; and John iii. 22. here neither is any thine: said about water, and chap. iv. 2. says, u though Jesus himself baptised not, but his disciples." Peter said, 4t Repent and be baptised 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*" Acts ii. 38. He then says, " read this according to Quaker construction," repent and receive the spirit and ye shall receive the gift of the spirit."

I conceive no person of serious observation will think there is much ingenuity in this construction. The name of the Lord Jesus here, is not a mere sound, but by his name here is meant, his power, and then the passage would read thus ; repent and be baptised in or into the power of the Lord Jesus, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost ; which construction I submit to the candid reader and leave i ? .

This, with the foregoing, is the doings of the apostle Peter. I never heard that the Quakers denied that the apostles baptised with water until Rand asserted it in his publication, which however he soon confutes by his quotation from Barclay, as has b^pn noticed. But the matter in debate is, did their Lord command water? Since there is no scripture proof for it hut by construction, and since it is conceded that Christ's spiritual baptism alone is sufficirnt without it, and with that alone we mav be -brought to see God, ! do no: see the necessity of believing be ever did command it. He quote* Acts viii. 13. " Then ^idtfon himself believed also, and when he was baptised he continued with Philip," &C. But he says, " surely this Simon soon evinced, that he had not received the spiritual baptism ;* and how did he evince it? why, by the same disposition that many in our day evince that they have neither part nor lot in the things that belong to the gospel, viz. by supposing that it was to be purchased by money (as in verse 18) and if so, it might be sold again, an error into which, it is not uncharitable to suppose, many have fallen. From this cause originates so many dry nurses in the churches in our day. It is also an evidence of the inutility of that kind of baptism he had received. Acts ix. 18, and xvi. 15, 33. and xviii. 8. and Cor. i. 13. &c. &c. and also, Acts viii. 36, 33. and x. 44 and 47, may all be examined, and they will only shew that the apostles did baptise, which the Quakers never disputed, but the question is, did Christ command the practice of it ?

If not, and his baptism is complete without it (as confessed by Rand) what need of any farther contention about it? He again repeats, in page 16, u we readily agree there is but one effectual or saving baptism,-' (and no where suggests that this may not be attained to without the second) and freely confesses that it is not water that washes the filthiness of the flesh or unholy nature. But he says, u I must notice one other mistake of Barclay, though I find none in the apostles on the subject.'" Barclay siys (page 424) " The gospel puts an end to carnal ordinances." I do not know in what Barclay's mistake consists, seeing he only there quotes the words of the apostle verbatim, as may be seen, Heb. ix. 10. But after all that has been said, I very well know that the doctrine of water baptism, and the Lord ? s supper, are very popular doctrines through all Christendom, by numerous denominations, and all professing to practice thorn, according a* Ibey judge them to be commanded in the scriptures, which they profess to adhere to. as their only rule of faith and practice, as strongly as Asa Rand does. They also bold them as the band of communion, but from time immemorial have been contending Call having their only rule before them) even to the shedding each other's blood. They still continue so to differ about the mode of administering these ordinances that there are not many of them that can commune together. If I should admit that those ordinances were intended to be continued, unto whom should 1 apply to administer them with any certainty that they would do it according to the rule intended ? seeing there are so many ways contended for, each maintaining that they administer according to scripture.

When I take these things into consideration, I see no reason why they should be very anxious to draw us into their views, as, should we enter with them, the chance is at least an hundred to one, that we should be in the wrong ; seeing that if any one, is right, it can be but one among the numerous ordinance professors. Charity leads to believe that there ought to be no preference of any one of those ordinance professors over another, but that all work equally honest according to their understanding of their only rule. No one therefore has a right to arrogate to himself an indisputable certainty that he fully understands it. I presume the case with them is, that although they have chosen a good rule, yet the} have rejected a leading point belonging to that rule; as if a person should procure a scale, to work proportions by, but should obliterate the radius point: it would be of little use to him, he hiving lost the point to take proportions from. Whatever he did must of course be erroneous or mere guess work. Thus I fear and believe it is with those that have taken the scriptures for their only rule of faith and practice, and reject the spirit by which the scriptures are to be rightly understood. They have lost their radius point, and are left to guess the meaning of the scriptures. Hence the many divisions and distractions that perplex the Christian world, for undoubtedly the scriptures mean the same thing, to every one that seeks to and does rightly understand them.

CHAPTER III. Remarks upon the u LorcPs Supper" and " Holy Sabbath."

Of the "Lord's Supper"— I only say I think the believers in it might better agree among themselves, and decide the great question of constibstantiation and transubstantiation. — If it is not the real body and blood of Christ that is partaken of, then it is not what Christ commanded., — If it is really his flesh and blood, Protestants are denying the truth, and consequently must be very wrong on that score. They might therefore let others alone. If it is not what the Catholics say it is, then Protestants are not partaking of what Christ commanded.

Of the " Holy Sabbath, or Lord's Day,"— I see no new light on the subject, except reducing eight to seven; of his right to which I doubt; and think Cobb has done enough to convince any rational person that Christ did nothing to sanction a belief that he held one day more holy than another. I feel however no objection to people's keeping holy time. If he that keeps one day holy does well, he that keeps seven does better: and as men are not keeping time unless they are doing their duty, their attention to the required duties of life is no encroachment on holy time : therefore all time ought to be and might be kept holy. If any have a desire to know our reasons further for dispensing with the use of the elements, or our views respecting the first day of the week, they may find them pretty fully stated in Barclay's Apology, as well as many other Friends' writings.

Chapter IV

I shall consider in this chapter Rand's remarks on the subjects of human depravity, the incarnation of Christ and his atonement ; and shall, as Rand has done, consider them separately.

Section 1. Of Depravity

On this subject Rand dwells with great satisfaction. He appears to be so enamoured of it, that he charges the Quakers with heterodoxy because they believe that man has means provided by a merciful God, if he but believe and obey, by which he might escape out of this horrible pit.

The reader will observe, by turning to his 27th page, that this writer, in his sermons answered by Edward Cobb, charged the society of Friends amongst other things with denying total depravity. To which Cobb replied, by quoting Barclay to show our sentiments upi>n that subject ; upon which quotation Rand makes the following admissions, page 28, u I need not repeat Friend Cobb's quotation from Barclay (obs. p. 14, 17. Apol. 96,99.) I acknowledge it is full to the point which I have said they allow, viz. that man is totally depraved as he stands in the fall. I allow too there is much more to the same point in Barclay and several other writers. This I knew before I preached my sermons; but this we have seen is not believing depravity, if, at the same time, they believe that mankind have the seed of God, or love of God, restored to them. That they do so believe, I will now prove." Barclay had in a his preceding proposition maintained that mankind had measure of saving divine light given to them, by which, if believed in and submitted unto, they might know a deliverance from this state of death and darkness, and be led into the light of the Lord : that there is a day of visitation afforded to every man, in which, if ke resists not, but humbles himself and repents, he may be saved. But Rand says, page 27th, " they mean (alluding to the Quakers) " as nearly as I can ascertain^ that mankind became corrupt by the fall of Adam, but are now, even all of them restored, so that all men have a holy principle of love of God in them." A want of candour in any man, with whom we have dealings in the common affairs of life, makes it unpleasant and unsafe to have those concerns to adjust ; and stamps his character with an unfavourable impression wherever he is known. But in a professed minister of religion, and in things relating to the knowledge of God and the best interests of our souls, it is disagreeable and unseemly beyond expression. How could this man, after having

read the statements onlv, made by Edward Cobb, and

2* the extracts which he published, if he had exercised common candour, have attempted to have imposed upon his readers, such an incoherent mass as he has done, as constituting the belief of the society of Friends ? In doing which, he has added insult to injury, by telling what they mean, not what they say. But it is still more extraordinary, after his further admissions, that he has read a number of their standard authors, who have professedly treated upon those subjects. How could he so pervert the plain and positive meaning of Barclay, as when Barclay says, " Whatever good any man doeth, it proceedeth not from his nature as he is man or the son of Adam ; but from the seed of God in him as a new visitation of life, in order to bring him out of his natural condition, so that though it be in him it is not of him." Rand says, " This clearly implies that man doeth some good thing, smd that the seed of God is in him as a new visitation of life to produce it." Certainly no such implication follows from Barclay's words. Does it follow, that, because whatever good any man doeth proceedeth not from his own nature, therefore man doeth some good thing ? Or that all men do some good thing, as he would have his readers believe from what he remarks following, when he says, that " the proposition from which this extract is taken, is entitled, p. 94, u Concerning the condition of man in the fall," and begins thus, " All Adam's posterity, both Jews and Gentiles," &c. Does it follow from thence, that all that is spoken of any man, in the course of the proposition, is to be construed to have this extensive signifi« cation ? I confess it is a new idea to me, that a general signification given to a word in a title to a book or proposition, is to be attached to that word, throughout the book or proposition. Hand has attempted to force this idea upon his readers, and no doubt the better to answer his purpose, has substituted in his extract the words, " Whatever good a man doeth," &c. instead of the words, "whatever good any man doeth," &c. as it stands in Barclay. I would gladly attribute this substitution to accident ; but when I see the use, to which he has turned it, in order to make the words appear to have a general signification, I cannot avoid attributing it to a design to misrepresent.

I have said that the Quakers believe in the universality of the love of God to man, so far that he freely offers to them the means of salvation. But is the providing of- them with the means by which they might be restored, on the condition of faith and obedience, an absolute restoration of them? — The Lord by his spirit strove with the old world, but did this actually restore them? Did he not, because of their disobedience to the strivings of his spirit with them, swallow them up in the deluge ? He gave of his good spirit to instruct the Israelites, Neh. ix. 10. yet because they rebelled against him and vexed his Holy Spirit, therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and fought against them, Isaiah lxiii. 10. It was not inconsistent with the wisdom and goodness of God to give them of his Spirit, although through their disobedience it did not restore them, nor preserve them in his fear. Our blessed Lord declarer, that the office of the Comforter, or spirit of truth, is to convince the world of sin, (and undoubtedly it does its office) ; but it does not follow from thence, that all who are thus convinced, are restored and saved, or have a portion of <c God's holy moral image" in them, God so loved the world that he gave his only hegotten Son that whosoever believed on him should not perish but have everlasting life. But it does not follow, that in consequence of this great love of God to every man, the world have all believed, and been restored to the favour of God. The apostle asserts, that the grace of God, which brings salvation, has appeared to all men ; but it does not from thence follow, that all are restored and saved, or have a portion of God's moral image. — Neither does the failure in effecting restoration and salvation in either of the instances recited, nor yet in any others to which the scriptures bear testimony, in any measure invalidate the certainty of those offers having been made; nor yet of their having been intended to have effected the restoration and salvation of all those to whom they were or are graciously offered. His allegations upon the subject, and his attempts to impose meanings upon the Quakers which have no connection with their principles or belief, may be justly construed to implicate the Divine Being and his servant the apostle in the instances before recited, and indeed in any other instances of an import tending to show the universality of the love of God to man.