existence; for they were taught immediately by Christ, and they directed all to Christ." After this quotation

66

come the following sapient remarks of the Baptist Magazine writers. Every opinion not supported by Scripture must fall to the ground: then Quakerism must necessarily sink; for, according to the Doctor's own showing, that system owes it very existence, not to the Scriptures, but to something else to immediate revelation." And is this the clearness and consistency" of a Magazine writer? Expert logician! dost thou not, or wilt thou not, perceive the difference between a principal and an ally?—between receiving support from the one, and deriving existence from the other? Doctor Hancock does not say that every opinion not owing its existence to the Scriptures must fall to the ground: but that he considers every opinion which has not their support must fall to the ground. Doctor Hancock, I apprehend, considers that the existence of the Society, and the existence of the Scriptures, both originated from the source of divine influence, and therefore the one to be necessarily supported by the other; and that the Society is no more immediately indebted to the Scriptures for its existence, than the Scriptures are indebted to the Society for their existence. The Magazine writer makes collateral assistance, synonymous with the source of existence and the obligations it creates, and he represents, or rather mis-represents the Doctor as doing the same; and then, from these artfully disguised false premises, he deduces a palpably false conclusion. Again he quotes Dr. Hancock, thus: "In page 22, he (Dr. H.) says, the opinion of Robert Barclay, nor that of any other man, would weigh with me, if I did not consider that it was

neither

66

founded on a correct and enlarged view of Scripture doctrine :' very good, but then, in the very next sentence, he (the Doctor) adds, I quote the Apology of Robert Barclay, concluding, that one who is now a minister (Mr. Crewdson,) in outward fellowship in the same Society with myself, can hardly be supposed to HAVE THROWN OFF THE AUTHORITY OF A WORK So justly esteemed as it is amongst us, for this would imply, that his departure from the ground of our testimonies was greater than I am yet willing to believe it to be.' Upon which the Reviewer remarks, "the opinion of Barclay has no weight yet no man in the Society of Friends can be supposed to have thrown off the authority of Barclay's Apology!" This is a gross mis-representation of the quotation they have made from Dr. Hancock's "Defence." Dr. Hancock does not say that "the opinion of Barclay has no weight"—but that it would not weigh with him,- if" says he, “I did not consider that it was founded on a correct and enlarged view of Scripture doctrine." The Reviewers actually quote the Doctor as writing conditionally, and then argue upon it, as though he had written unconditionally. If this is not something more than unfair, I should like to hear from the Magazine writer what can be. Dr. Hancock does consider the opinion of Robert Barclay to have weight, and he considers so, because that opinion "is founded on a correct and enlarged view of Scripture doctrine." Is it then inconsistency, for Dr. Hancock to quote Robert Barclay, in support of his views, and tender them to the calm and dispassionate consideration of "one who is now a minister in outward fellowship." in the same Society with himself, upon the supposition that such an individual could not

this place,) amongst us

have" THROWN OFF THE AUTHORITY (mind a conditional authority is implied, although not expressed in OF A WORK, so justly esteemed as it is Which is greater, let me ask; which more obvious, the inconsistency of the Doctor, or the insincerity of the Baptist Magazine writer? And let me here inform the latter in answer to a query of his in a preceding page, that the authority of Robert Barclay, or Paul, or any one else, or even an angel from Heaven," according to the principles of the Society, could not subvert the truth of the everlasting Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. But those principles do not allow us to join Paul and Jesus as testimonies of equal power, as does the Baptist Magazine writer, since Paul, and all the Apostles and Prophets that ever lived, were but the offspring of Adam, made of flesh and blood like ourselves, and were but instruments "to testify the Gospel of the grace of God." Whereas, Jesus is his own witness, being "the incorruptible Word of God,"- 'born not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God." The authority of Barclay, therefore, does not rest exclusively upon Paul or any other good man, or Prophet, or Apostle; but the authority of Paul, as well as that of Barclay, and every other man past, present, or to come, must rest upon Christ Jesus the Rock of Ages, for other foundation can no man lay."

I shall now dismiss this wiley and disingenuous writer, by denying that "a bitter spirit of intolerance and persecution," has been raised against I. Crewdson, by the Society of Friends-" the peaceable, the nonresisting Friends," as the writer sneeringly observes. The relative situation of the two parties-the Society,

and the individual; the power of the one to inflict, and the power of the other to repel persecution, forbid it, even did the evil Spirit preside over their wishes in this respect. Isaac Crewdson is, I believe, a rich and independent man, according to the common acceptation of these terms: the Society has no power, even had it the desire to lessen any of the advantages that these may yield; they can deprive him of no pecuniary emolument; they can exercise no power over his mind, body, or estate, so as to prevent the free and legitimate disposition of either. The utmost that the discipline of the Society could effect, or according to Christian charity should effect, in the case of I. C., or any one else similarly situated, is to disown the ministry and fellowship of one, who, in his character of minister, publicly propounds doctrines, at variance with the fundamental principles of the Society; which disownment would and ought to be accompanied with fervent and heart-felt expressions of regret for the error into which such an individual had fallen, and a sincere and affectionate desire for his reinstatement in the doctrine of truth, and the fellowship of the Gospel, in the "unity of the Spirit, and the bond of peace." This is all the Society, I feel convinced, would do in a case of this nature-it is all that its principles call for and enjoin. How then, can this writer so falsely charge the Society of Friends with " a bitter spirit of intolerance and persecution," in this particular instance? Suppose a person in the capacity of a Baptist preacher, was from his pulpit, or in a book, to promulgate views opposed to the practice of dipping people; would the writer call it a "bitter spirit of intolerance and persecution," if the Baptist Society were to disown his views, and take measures to prevent

66

him giving publicity to them in their meetings, in the capacity of an acknowledged and authorised minister? Would this writer then exclaim upon such steps being taken, alas for poor human nature! whatever else may change, this is always the same-the same, whether under a Bishop's mitre, or a Quaker's broad brim," or-a Baptist's dipping tub?

66

I have not time or space to notice the remainder of the false representations, which appear in the "Extracts from Periodical Works;" but before I finally quit them, I must deny that either the principles of the Society, or its consistent members, ever sanctioned the extravagancies imputed to them by one Professor Vaughan, from whose work a long quotation is made by the writer in the "Scottish Congregational Magazine, as a "brief outline of the distinguishing features of the system ;" and yet, after having made this quotation, the writer says, Mr. Vaughan, after alluding to some other cases, very properly remarks, 'These examples, however, should not be taken as specimens of QUAKERISM, even in its earlier stages.' Of what, then, are they specimens ? This is the "Scottish Congregational" mode of giving the distinguishing features of a system.” But, by the way, I will just ask the writer in relation to one of the specimens; the female and the trencher, which the Professor speaks of; did not the event verify the prediction? And with reference to another specimen of the Professor's; the man who removed his cap from his head, tore it into several parts, and cried out to Cromwell, So shall thy government be torn from thee and thine house:" was it not unto him even as it was spoken?