that reverence, honour and adoration to God, that hẹ requires and demands of us, which is comprehended ander worship." Now if this is thanking God that they are not as other men, then he has found it in their writings, and has a right to judge as he does. For this author he confesses he had before him, (as also Kersey, who has one chapter of 15 pages on worship, which if read will give an idea of Rand's disregard to truth, and gross misrepresentations of the Quakers.) It does in deed appear strange that a man professing as Rand does to be a minister of the gospel of truth, should so much degrade his profession and himself, as to make the assertion above alluded to directly in the face of all the authors he had before him, (and from which he professes to have obtained his knowledge of the Society) as well as in the face of every principle of truth and justice. And as to their fruits, although it ought to be acknowledged the Quakers are not fully what they ought to be, I am willing they should be tested with Rand and those of his profession, and whatever balance appears in their favour let it go to their credit.

And thus I close my remarks on his 5th chapter concluding that until he furnishes farther evidence of the books and preaching from which he collected those ideas, I have a right to consider him a man not regarding truth as he ought, but a calumniator, and one of those that Milton predicted would follow the true min isters of Christ's primitive church:

"But in their room,

“Wolves shall succeed for teachers; grievous wolves,
"Who all the sacred mysteries of Heaven
"To their own vile advantages shall turn,
"Of lucre and ambition; and the truth,
"With superstitions and traditions, taint:
"Left only in those written records pure,
Though not but by the spirit understood."

CHAPTER VI.

On Rand's "Concluding Address."

Rand's chapter 6th and concluding address, I confess, would surprise, if not perfectly coinciding with all the scope of his performance.

And first he says, "I trust I shall not offend you, after this free discussion of your principles, if I address you as my friends.”

But surely in this confidence, he must suppose them to be remarkably divested of those tempers which he concludes even Christians and Ministers of the Church of Christ, may retain and exercise in defence of injuries even supposed to be intended.

And next he says, "I am not one of those who entertain unfriendly feelings towards those who differ from them in principle."

6.

On this I will not comment, but leave the truth of it to those who read the work; but as I know that the hearts of men are exceedingly deceitful, and some des perately wicked, I will not dispute but what he may think he has a good desire to bring principles to the test of scripture ;" and I conclude he is right in supposing "you (the Quakers) will say you have already often compared them with the bible." I hope indeed none will be deficient in that important duty, nor be opposed to admitting a review.

But his next question, "Have you not met with many scriptures quoted in these pages, which seem to militate with some of your ideas? have I not given a fair construction to those scriptures ?"

For myself I could answer, I have seen no scripture to militate with the ideas of those that profess with

me. I have seen constructions which would alarm me to concede to, as much as it would to Mahomet's alcoran, particularly one I could instance, that the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, that made the apostle (and I believe is sufficient to make others) free from the law of sin and death, "is in fact nothing more than natural conscience, an unenlightened conscience;" and many others not less absurd. See page 50.

Passing over several unimportant remarks I would notice, he says, "There must to your minds be something unpleasant in the discussion, because my argument opposes some of your favourite principles."

To which I reply-There is not any thing unpleasant to me in the discussion of principles, where there is a difference in sentiments, because I agree to the observation of one whom I esteem a wise writer, I think in these words, "objection and debate often sift out truth."

His next proposition is, "But while you remember the discussion is a friendly debate, and not an angry dispute, undertaken for the purpose of investigating the truth, that we may all receive it, whatever it may be, you will be as willing to enter upon it as myself."

He could not suppose that what he has written could have a candid perusal, upon any other ground than that his readers were more forgiving than himself. But to proceed. Although I should agree, that the scriptures were the only proper outward rule, to decide religious controversy by, yet I should suppose it as unnecessary to recur to them, to determine the truth, or falsehood, of many of his assertions, as it would be, if he should tell me at midnight, that it was the light of the sun k saw, and not the moon, when the moon was in plain view.

As to the controversy as respects matter of faith, I think the scriptures quite sufficient for the decision of it, and that enough has been shewn to satisfy any one that his positions cannot be proved by scripture, unless it is by construction; and his constructions, being deemed very strained and injudicious, will not be admitted by the people he is writing to; therefore they will have no weight with them; for one such construction or comment upon scripture, as has been remarked, would be sufficient to destroy a Quaker's confidence in the commentator, (see Rand page 50) however high he might stand as a school divine.

The next question he asks, would also have the same effect; which is, "Can you know you have that spirit? is there no danger of deception if you follow an internal guide?"

To the first I answer-It is very rational to conclude that we can know we have it, and that if we are mistaken it is our own fault. It is not rational to suppose, that he that promised, he would send the spirit of truth, to lead and guide us into all truth, would not furnish us with the means of knowing whether we have it or not The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirits, that we are the children of God. (Rom. viii. 16.) And as to the second question, I answer, that pretenders may deceive others, but I should affirm, that none ever was deceived that did follow Christ within, the true guide, for Christ never deceived any.

And while he admonishes others, he says, "taking the same counsel to myself, holding myself ready to renounce any principle I hold when convinced it is not found in the sacred writings."

I should think he ought seriously to reflect,

whether it is not time for him to be so far convinced, as to renounce the antichristian doctrine, "that the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus is nothing more than natural conscience, an unenlightened conscience;" for truly if his other construction did not too much corroborate this, I should have thought that it had been an inadvertent declaration, and would not have taken much notice of it, for the honour of christianity. But since he has published the sentiment to the world, it seems necessary it should be reprobated, as it ought to be by all Christians, let their profession be what it may.

He then goes on to pray for what he denies the necessity of, as may be seen in this discussion (and so turns Quaker occasionally) "That the Spirit may open our understandings to behold wondrous things out of his law." What occasion for this prayer, if the scripture is a sufficient rule without the Spirit? Thus I will close the remarks on this chapter in the lines of Cowper:

"From such apostles, Oh! ye mitred heads,

"Preserve the church; and lay not careless hands
"On skulls that cannot teach, and will not learn."