might accuse him of being a hard master, and requiring impossibilities, which by no means comports with the idea I have of his divine character; nor do I believe. that any, who are disposed to render unto him according to his benefits, could think of representing him in such a point of view.

SECTION 2.

Of the Incarnation.

I now come to section 2d of chapter 4th, page 37, of Rand's book, where, after recapitulating, with some variation, some of the false charges published in his sermons, he says: "In support of the remarks, I shall briefly refer to some more ancient authorities than I have done on other subjects. The first rise of the sect was marked with much wildness and extravagance; and with the explicit avowal of sentiments, which, if they are still embraced, are now more cautiously stated."

To this I reply, that his more ancient authority he says is Cotton Mather, in 1691, sixteen years after Robert Barclay published to the world an approved "Apology for the true Christian Divinity, being an explanation and vindication of the principles and doctrines of the people called Quakers;" addressed to Charles the second, King of Great Britain; and this at a time when he accuses them of much wildness and heated zeal. Barclay's work has long been and still is before the public; from which they may judge with what colour of justice or candour he (Rand) has undertaken to asperse them with the vague reports of such historians as Cotton Mather, a character which well accords with a set of men whose conduct would, if brought to view in these days, disgrace any people, (not only towards the Qua

kers, but also towards others that dared to dissent from them in religious opinions ;) for a sample of which, I will give an extract from an election sermon by President Oakes of Harvard University in 1675. He says, "The outcry of some for liberty of conscience, this is the great Diana of the libertines of the age." Again he observes, "I look upon toleration as the first born of all abominations. If it should be born and brought forth among us, you may call it Gad, and give the same reason that Leah did for the name of her son, behold a troop cometh! a troop of all manner of abominations." Now it is well known from history, that Cotton Mather was a calumniator of such as dared to dissent from him in religious sentiment, in those times: and he stiles himself a persecutor of the Quakers, see page 455, 2d vol. of his works, Hartford edition of 1820. And now if Rand can furnish any account of the conduct of the Quakers, that would savour more of wildness and extravagance than this, it would be something, I presume, the public have not yet been acquainted with; yet it is to the testimony of such writers he resorts for evidence of those facts, that he would cast as a slur upon the society, notwithstanding his fallacious pretensions of candour in his sermons, where he says, "I abhor the practice of picking up accounts, even if perfectly true, of the crimes and faults of a few individuals, and ascribing them to a whole community; I draw my information concerning the sects I shall name from their own writings, and what is well known of their preaching, public confessions and articles of faith, or other undeniable authority." These declarations I shall leave, to stand as an impeachment of his own veracity, before all those who are acquainted with his means to furnish testimony for his

publication, in resorting to remarks of Cotton Mather, and illustrating those vague and detached sentences from "Mather's Quakerism displayed," a piece well known to have been written in the time of wildness and heated zeal for persecution, to inflame the public mind against those people, in order to facilitate their diabolical designs; and was fully confuted by William Penn and others, at the time,

I confess it would have been more pleasant to me if Rand had made out such testimony as he could have thought would answer his purpose, without bringing to view a witness of the character of Mather in his history; as I think his ashes ought not to have been disturbed; and had he (Rand) considered the part he took in his day against the Quakers, I can but think, notwithstanding his propensity for scurrillity, he would have spared his testimony. I cannot see much he has gained by his testimony, when he had such authors before him as he professed to take his information from, which were fully published, at a much earlier period; and even in what Mather says, "They have become or speak somewhat more warily in what they published," we might have thought good sense or good breeding would have led him to have spared it, especially since it is impossible for any one to determine what it would amount to when connected with the subject under discussion at the time; but we will however take it as it is, and see what can be made out of it in its detached state.

He says "Mather quotes a Quaker author in his time, who reproaches other professors for believing in an imaginary God beyond the stars ;" and to make something out of this testimony, he (Rand) adds in pa

renthesis" a denial of the deity of Christ, or more probably his personal or bodily existence at the right hand of the Father." Now would common sense ap prove of such constructions in order to make something out of vague testimony? But let him have it in his own way, and I would ask if he believes that Christ, in his personal and bodily existence at the right hand of the Father, is an imaginary God beyond the stars? since he can no where find that the Quakers have doubted a glorified Christ at the right hand of the Father.*

Rand quotes Cotton Mather saying a Quaker said your "carnal Christ is denied." Doubtless this was in reference to Priest Higginson in England, who Mather says was a worthy man, and the first who wrote against the Quakers. Higginson in his book says "Christ is in heaven with his carnal body." George Fox, in his book, p. 71, which Cotton Mather says he had read, gives this answer-" Christ's body is a glorified body, and the scriptures do not speak any where that Christ's body is a carnal body in heaven." I would ask what prevented Cotton Mather from quoting Higginson's speech instead of a Quaker's he mentions, but his extreme prejudice and enmity against them, and a willingness to cover the gross sentiments of his friend Hig ginson, who appears to be the first that called Christ's body a carnal body in heaven, and published it 33 years before Mather wrote. Higginson's book contains a number of other errors, and charges Friends with holding sentiments they never did hoid; and others, which he called errors, George Fox in his answer proved to be truths by the scripture, as may be seen in his book printed 1658. And thus it has been that the false accusations from Higginson's book as well as others have been handed from one to another, and the gross sayings of adversaries have been falsely charged upon us; so unjust is priest craft; and that Craft as well as enmity was practised by Cotton Mather, appears upon the face of his own history in the following words, viz. "When I heard of any books left by the Quakers in my neighbourhood, I would presently repair to the houses, and obtain the venomous pamphlets from them," which conduct was noticed by John Whiting's answer, p. 42, "fearing their truth should be spread, and careful not to publish any vindication of their principles, or so much as the principles themselves, knowing if he did they would contradict his vague, incorrect and false assertions which he has collected from known adversaries and published." Why, I ask, should Asa Rand take such an historian for his guide? Is it not for the same reasons, that friend's writings were

I will now, to avoid prolixity, bring forward the body of testimony he has collected from Mather, and dismiss it with but few remarks: but they may perhaps be more taken notice of than some people may think such contemptible testimony deserves. Mather quotes another author as saying: "Your carnal Christ is utterly denied by the light." Now does Rand own a carnal Christ? He quotes from Fox: "He is deceived who saith God is distinct from the saints."-And doth not God promise that he will dwell in them ?" And from Whitehead: "They are like to be deceived who are expecting that Christ's second coming will be personal." Did not Christ promise his disciples that he would not "leave them comfortless ?" (John xiv. 18)-"and that if he went away he would come again," (John xiv. 17) and that he would "walk in them and dwell in them?" 2 Cor. vi. 16. and would that be personal?

He then mentions, "That some writers out of the Quaker society had used some expressions, which he says Mather quotes Fox as objecting to, and from which it appears he held the opposite sentiments;" of which I have no doubt, as they appear not to be scriptural. He says, "Mather also quotes the famous Pennington as saying, "We can never call the bodily garment Christ, but that which appeared and dwelt in the body." But

suppressed, i. e. to prevent the truth from appearing, thereby shewing his own as well as Cotton Mather's want of candour? I will notwithstanding with pleasure acknowledge that I have some reason to hope that before his death Cotton Mather had become more mild and more just toward friends, as appears by a letter of his to Thomas Chalkley of Philadelphia, and the answer, as well as his publication called Vital Christianity, and notwithstanding his extreme severity in bis writing of Quakers, I readily refer the reader to the biography of his life and general character in the Biographical Dictionary of the candid John Elliot.