lene, out of whom he had cast seven devils, and that she first preached his resurrection-that be then appeared unto the two disciples as they walked by the way, afterward to the eleven as they sat at meat; and that, after he had spoken to them, he was taken up in. to heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, and remaineth Word, Son, and Spirit—a Saviour―a Redeemer-an Intercessor-a Propitiation-an Advocate--a Sanctifier, Purifier, and Justifier, of all that obey his heavenly call; but a swift witness against all the disobedient and gainsaying pharisaical professors. Now if these things have not been believed by the Quakers, I have not discovered it, after an association with them of at least fifty years, in which I have been an attentive observer of their writings, conversation, and conduct. I now submit it to the candid, to judge which of the two have the most rational belief of the IncarnationRand or the Quakers.

SECTION 3.

Of the Atonement of Christ.

Rand says, page 42, "Having replied in regard to the incarnation, I now proceed to the atonement;" and farther on observes, "my meaning was, they do not give it its due importance," and says, "Friend Cobb has quoted one page from Barclay, a part of which has relation to the sufferings of Christ; and this he believes is more than half that can be found on the subject, in that writer's octavo volume of nearly 600 pages;" but admits that he mentions it briefly and incidentally, in a few other places, but explains nothing. Then he admits, "That with him agree all the Quaker writers he has read; and that Clarkson and Tuke are a little more

full and explicit on the subject. Rand undertakes (in page 46) to quote Tuke upon the subject of the atonement, but it appears he has treated him as he has most of our other writers whom he has quoted, taking only a part, and that by no means the principal part, of what Tuke says upon the subject upon which Rand professes to quote him, and when at the same time he complains of Tuke's want of explanation. The instance of Rand now before me exbibits a specimen of unfairness in this respect very rarely to be met with in the writings of those who lay any claim to candour, as will appear by a comparison of Rand's quotation with quotations at large of what Tuke says on the subject.

Rand's quotation: "So far as remission of sins, and a capacity to receive salvation, are parts of justification, we attribute it to the sacrifice of Christ." Tuke, (page 42.) "So far as remission of sins, and a capacity to receive salvation, are parts of justification, we attribute it to the sacrifice of Christ; in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. Eph. i. 7."

Rand's quotation: "But when we consider justification as a state of divine favour and acceptance, we ascribe it to the sanctifying operations of the spirit." Tuke (p 42) "But when we consider justification as a state of divine favour and acceptance, we ascribe it, not simply either to faith or works, but to the sanctifying operation of the spirit of Christ, from which living faith and acceptable works alone proceed; and by which we may come to know that the spirit itself beareth witness with our spirits, that we are the children of God. Rom. viii. 16.

I ask any one to read Barclay (see Barclay's Apology, p. 28, 141, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208) and then

if they can devise any language to set it forth more explicitly or fully, I should be obliged to any one to make me acquainted with it; or if it does not comprise all that the scriptures declare the end of his coming to be -as an outward saviour, a full and complete atonement for sins past, that he might bring man to God, by and through his offering himself on the cross. But he (Rand) says: "The Quaker writers, and he presumes their speakers, seem determined to know nothing among us, but Jesus Christ as a light and seed within." After their declaration so fully of their belief of the efficacy of his unbounded love, in offering himself unto God as an atonement, the just for the unjust, through the shedding his own blood, as a Saviour without us. -must it not be an arrogant assumption to conclude, that because they believe he is again risen from the dead, and is at the right hand of the Father, and hath, as he promised if he went away, sent us another comforter, even the Spirit of truth, that should lead us into all truth-that they overlook that which they so explicitly declare they believe the very foundation of their redemption?

That their writers generally agree to what has been quoted from the authority mentioned, he agrees, but complains of a want of repetition of the same truths: but I presume it will not be contended that a truth once clearly and substantially laid down would be much strengthened by repetition. But if Rand is sincere in his wishes for further explanation, or his readers are desirous of further information on this subject, I refer him to Barclay's Catechism. Also to Barclay's answer to Wm. Mitchell, folio edition of Barclay's works, p. 78, where he says: "Though originally the cause of both pardon and justification, both by the infinite love of

God, in which Christ was given, 'who offered himself a most sweet and satisfactory sacrifice, as a ransom, the atonement and propitiation for our sins; but as to our being justified, it is by Christ and his spirit, as he comes in our hearts truly and really to make us righteous; which, because we are thus made, therefore we are accounted so of him, as the apostle plainly intimates in 1 Cor. vi. 11. that it is by the Spirit of God we are justified.

And in folio p. 628, in his piece called Quakerism Confirmed, Barclay says: "As for the satisfaction of Christ without us, we own it against the Socinians, and that it was full and complete in its kind; yet not so as to exclude the real worth of the work and sufferings of Christ in us, nor his present intercession. For if Christ his intercession without us in heaven doth not derogate from his satisfaction, but doth fulfil it; no more doth his intercession and sufferings in us."

And in the same work, page 628, Barclay says again: "Christ's outward sufferings at Jerusalem were necessary unto men's salvation, notwithstanding his inward sufferings, that he might be a complete Saviour in all. respects. For it behoved Christ not only to suffer in the members of his body, but also in the head; so that it is a most foolish and unreasonable consequence to argue, that because Christ suffereth in the members therefore he need not to suffer in the head; whereas the sufferings of Christ in the members, are but a small part of what he suffered in the head, by being offered up once for all; yet a part they are, as serving to make up the integral of his sufferings."

And in the Apology, page 215, Barclay says again : "I suppose I have said enough already to demonstrate how much we ascribe to the death and sufferings of

Christ, as that whereby satisfaction is made to the jus tice of God, remission of sins obtained, and this grace and seed purchased, by and from which this birth pro ceeds."

In regard to what he (Rand) says of those incidental effects of our Saviour's death and sufferings, which did not belong to the atonement, I do not know but the world may derive great benefit from his explanation. I am apprehensive, however, that if he had left it as the apostle explained it, and as the Quaker writers have left it, the world would have lost nothing by it; since his brief statement seems rather an explaining away, than stating, the doctrines of the atonement. Af ter he has done that, he wisely tells us "that it is all unnecessary; as he conceives it cannot be so well expressed as in plain scripture language," he suffered the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." But is it not arrogant in Rand to assert that there are many incidental effects of the Saviour's death, which cannot be properly said to belong to the atonement," when he admits in the same sentence, as follows: "tho they are all ascribed to his death in scripture," and then for reason adds, "because they are not the great object he had in view in pouring out his soul unto death." But I would ask what right has he or any other man (and especially those who take the scriptures for their only rule) to assert that those effects do not properly belong to a thing which the scriptures expressly aseribe to it. So that it follows from his own admission, (in these words, "though they are ascribed to his death in scripture") that they are all included in the plan of redemption for which he offered himself, after all Rand's attempts to divide it into parts. I think it