aa ete te ree mete: ne ae mn ta nn ew hn sarin saa rs eeers Met nero ater tates DUKE UNIVERSITY DIVINITY SCHOOL LIBRARY Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2023 with funding from Duke University Libraries https://archive.org/details/defenceofchristi01 beva A DEFENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES OF THE Society of Friends, AGAINST THE CHARGE OF SOCINIANISM; AND ITS CHURCH DISCIPLINE VINDICATED, In Anfwer to a Writer who ftiles himfelf Verax: In the courfe of which the principal Doétrines of Chriftiaaity are r forth, and fome objections obviated. a To tole IS PREFIXED A LETTER TO JOHN EVANS, The Author of ¢ A Sketch of the Denominations of the Chriftian World,’ And StriGtures on the Eighth and Ninth Editions of that Work. Caeeecce eer earaertnenenennnnneee tne aaa eel By JOHN BEVANS, Jun. ‘ It was needful to me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye fhould earneftly £ contend for the Faith which was once delivered unto the faints.’ Jups, ver. 3- SE ye Se LONDON: : Printed and Sold by Phillips & Fardon, George Yard, Lombard Street; and Sold alfo by ¥. & A. Arch, Cornhill ; . Fobnfon, St. Paul’s Church Yard; Button & Son, Paternofter Row and }. Hatchard, Piccadilly. ta 1805, NV ~~ * eats ee ‘ , . s oe ? rang ‘ ag 4 i ; eis * $3 ce A : ‘ Baybee ; ‘ 4 rs ‘é Pad j my : aa 5 ers wi 2» ie 7 ae ew ie f \ HROISS f a Bee rt Ta ae ie CONTENTS. PREFACE - - - - - - - - - - - = Page INTRODUCTION, containing a brief account of the Church Dij- - cipline of the Society of FRIENDS - - - - - - - C HA Bead: Remarks on the Seventh Edition of John Evans’s Sketch, in- cluding a brief account of the Proceedings of the Society of FRIENDS againff HANNAH BaRnaRD; in a Letter to the Author : together with fome Strictures on the Eighth and Wears Baiduns of bis Work - 2 Fe CHAP. II. Remarks on the ftate of the controverfy-—Of WiLL1AM PENn’s fentiments refpecting the Trinity, and the Divinity of Chrift, and refpetting the fate of man in the Fall - Cat A 2 le Of Rosert Barciay’s /entiments refpetting the Trinity, the Divinity of Chrift, and the flate of man in the Fall—Of GrorGE Fox’s fentiments on the fame fubjels - = - CHAP. IV. Of Isaac PENINGTON’s /entiments refpecting the Trinity, the Divinity of Chrift, and the frate of man in the Fall.— RicHarp Ciaripce’s "fay on the Doétrine of the Trinity. His Effay on the Doétrine of Chrif?s Satisfattion. cleared Srom the mifconftruétions of VERAX - - - - - = Vv x1 33 58 73 ( iv ) CH Aw. 3 ON THE SCRIPTURES. Introduétory Remarks —Ricuarp Ciarwee’s Traffatus Hierographicus; or a Treatife concerning the Holy Scrip- tures.—ROBERT Barcway’s belief in the authenticity and infpivation of the Scriptures, illuftrated by divers extraéts Jrom bis Works.—Objections anfwered - - = = = 100 GH APS We A continuation of the fame fubjeét.—The belief of WiLL1aM Penn and RicHarp Morris in the authenticity and infpivation of the Scriptures, illuftrated by divers extratts jrom their writings = - - = - = = = = = 135 CTA fey Wire The /pecific Charges againf# HaNNau BaRnaRD, as they are severally fiated in the Appeal, examined; and the Objettions to them anfwered.—On the Divine commands for the wars of the Ffews - - - - - - = = = = = = = 160. CHAP. VIII A continuation of the fame fubjet?.—On the Divine commands for the wars of the Fews.—On the Divine command to ApraHAm fo offer up his fonIsaac - - = = = = 183 Ci ap.” Ix A continuation of the fame fubjett.—On the Miraculous Con- ception and Birth of Chrift.—Of Jos Scorr’s fentiments on the Sige of Chrift and the New Birth - - = 206 CE AYR yee A continuation of the fame fubjet.—On the Miracles oe Chriff.—Some objeétions to the late Proceedings of the Society of FRIENDS, in England, anfuered - = = 246 PREFACE. THERE doth not exift a religious Society that has been more calumniated either ‘ through prejudice, © paffion, or intereft,’* than that of the Friends, ufually denominated Quakers. The moft contradictory appella- tions have been given to them, without the leaft regard to truth, but as they beft fuited the defigns of their ad- verfaries; thus they have been, at different periods, reprefented as Papifts, and Deifts, Jefuits, and Socinians, Anabaptifts, Ranters, Fanatics, Enthufiafts, Blafphemers. And now the old charge of Socinianifm, under the new name of Unitarianifm, is revived againft our firft Friends ; and an abdication of their primitive Chriftian principles, and intolerance towards thofe who advocate fuch prin- ciples, are the accufations preferred againft their fuc- ceffors; becaufe they firmly refift all attempts to impofe upon the Society fuch unfound doétrine for genuine Chriftianity. The following pages are defigned to defend our Society from thefe new charges and calumnies, that have been circulated refpeéting its Chriftian principles, and condué, in a cafe that came before the yearly meeting of 1801; in certain publications, viz. 1ft. ‘An Appeal to * Evans’s Preface to his Sketch, 8th Edit. p. v. b, CQ * the Society of Friends, on the primitive Simplicity of * their Chriftian Principles, &c.’ in three parts ( 233 pages); the two firft parts publifhed in 1801, the third part in the beginning of 1808: ad. * A Vindication of ‘Scriptural Unitarianifm, &c. in reply to Vindex’s ‘ Examination of [the firft part of ] An Appeal, &c. by * Verax’ (124 pages), which came out in 1803: and, aie ‘A Narrative of the Proceedings i in America, * of the Society called Quakers, in the cafe of Hannah é Barnard, &c. intended as a Sequel to An Appeal, © &e (145 pages), printed 1804. This laft Pamphlet contains much extraneous matter very irregularly and improperly introduced, fuch as private, confidential cor- refpondence, converfations, &c. moft of which does not admit of a ferious reply, and is confequently unnoticed in this work: as are likewife the proceedings againft Hannah Barnard, in America; from the difficulty of accefs to the fources of information. The author ‘of thefe Pieces having affumed the name of Verax, I have alfo applied it to him, merely to prevent circumlocution: the fame reafon has induced me to alter my letter to John Evans, by an occafional adoption of it. 3 On an early perufal of the firft part of the Appeal, I was of opinion that it claimed, and eafily admitted of, ‘confutation, and was not without thoughts of attempting a reply; but the Pamphlet juft alluded to, entitled, ‘ An Examination, &c. by Vindex,? coming out foon after, 1 dropped my original defign; and indulged a hope that this writer would purfue the fubje&, for. which our opponent in his fucceeding publications, amply furnifhed materials. Difappointed in this hope, and continuing to feel a folicitude for the canfe of ( i.) truth, and for the prefervation of my bfethren in the fame faith, from the fnare laid for them in the various painphlets recently publifhed; which, under the phrafe- ology of Scripture, and of the Society,* fubtilely under- mine the fundamental truths of the gofpel; I was induced at length to take up the pen: and in addition to thefe motives, one or two incidents unexpectedly occurred that favoured my defign. In the beginning of the year 1801, a friend of the author of the ¢ Sketch of the Denominations’ informed me that a new edition of that work was in the prefs; I was hence induced to write to John Evans, and propofe fome corrections in his account of the Friends ; not, at that time, doubting it would meet with a candid reception : but although miftaken herein, yet when I {aw the note of cenfure againft the Friends, in the feventh edition, I made another attempt to remove the prejudice he had conceived towards them: about the 11th Month 1802 I wrote the letter to him, contained in the firtt chapter of this work. From the reception this letter met with, I difcovered that impartiality was not to be expected from the author of the * Sketch of the Dencminations © of the Chriftian World.’+ A few of my friends to * Some inftances of the deceptive phrafeology to which I allude, ate noticed in page 154 to 156 of this work. “In page 32, the reader will find, that after mentioning the -ob- jects J. E. {pecifies to be the intention of his Sketch to promote, I add,‘ But to effe& thefe defirable objects, a work ftill appears'to be ‘ wanting.’ Since this remark was printed, a publication has come out, entitled, «A View of Religions, in three Parts, by Hannah * Adams: a new Edition with Correétions and Additions, &c.’ Button, London, 8yo. gs- and 12mo. 6s. which appears to be conducted with impartiality and candour, C2 ( vii >) whom I fhowed the letter, thought that printing it mighs be of fervice; as tending to explain the principles of the Society, to counteraét mifreprefentations of their cons duct towards Hannah Barnard, and to point out the want of candour in J. Evans. B. The Vindication publithed by Verax, in 1803, cobvieal me that this letter took too concife a view of the fubs jects in difpute, completely to anfwer the end; and to aim at a refutal of the feveral treatifes in circulation, was incompatible with my other engagements: but having been fince that period vifited with indifpofition, that prevented, at different intervals, the purfuit of my ufual avocations, I have employed the leifure thefe m- tervals afforded me, in throwing together fome remarks; which have fwelled to a volume what was intended only for a pamphlet. A few verbal variations, and one tranfpofition, may be found in the letter to J. Evans. They are unimportant, but exprefs my intention rather more clearly. There are alfo annexed a few Strictures on the latter editions of the Sketch. This letter and the ftri€tures form the firft chapter, and may be confidered as comprifing a general view of the controverfy. In the fecond, third, and fourth chapters, the fentiments of the firft Friends with refpeé to what is ufually called the Trinity, and the Divinity of Chrift, are examined and difplayed by copious extraéts from their writings: extraéts which will probably appear to thofe who have not feen the pro- ‘duions of Verax, more diffufe than the fubjetts required, But this, I doubt not, will meet with indul- “gence from the candid reader, when he refle&s thatin a work written on the defenfive, the author is not az _ ( « ) liberty to choofe his own ground, Thus, when Verax produces partial extracts from the works of the early Friends, which do not difcaver their real opinions, I could not, inapplicable as fuch extracts might generally appear, pafs them over without fome notice of the works whence they were taken; left it fhould be fup- pofed that the imferences drawn from them were granted. . _ Neverthelefs, after all, I have not fervilely followed Verax in all his quotations, fince it would have enlarged this work much beyond even its prefent fize ; befides, Vindex’s Examination of the firft part of the Appeal pre- eluded the neceffity of it; for Iconfider that Vindex’s proofs of mifquotation remain unan{wered. In thefe chapters, ‘ I have adduced much additional, © and I truft, conclufive evidence, that the original faith $ of the Society of Friends’ was not Socinian. 1 do not fay Unitarian, becaufe although the Socinians have affumed to themfelves that appellation, they have no exclufive right to it: for thofe who believe the Divinity of Chrift, are equally ftrenuous for the Divine Unity. In the fifth and fixth chapters, the Society’s belief of the infpiration and divine authority of the Scriptures, is very fully inveftigated; and I truft it is clearly proved, that the firft Friends had not the moft remote intention to depreciate the divine authority of thofe invaluable _xecords, when they advocated the fuperiority of the ‘Holy Spirit that diftated them. The four remaining chapters vindicate the feveral charges exhibited againft Hannah Barnard, by the Morn- ing Meeting of Minifters and Elders. The tendency of Verax’s animadverfions upon thefe charges, and his Ce p attack upon the validity of the Scriptures, demanded, in my view, a full inveftigation; and in beftowing this upon them, I have derived confiderable affiftancé from the labours of the learned Lardner, Jortin, Bifhops Lowth, and Watfon, Paley, and other writers of emi- nence. The whole is clofed with a few remarks of Verax’s narrative of the proceedings of the Society in England, in the cafe of H. Barnard; which remarks exhibit fome palpable errors in his ftatement. © - _ Unaccuftomed to appear in the charaéter of an author, and confcious of many defeéts, I fubmit my work to a candid public. It lays no claim to < fuch advantages a8 _ ‘a founding name, and the fanétion’ of the Morning ‘ Meeting’* can give: of the latter, combined, una- voidable circumitances precluded my availing myfelf; at the fame time, I am not aware of a fingle pofition in the work, that would not receive the approbation of that meeting; ftill, as it is thus fem forth without its fanction, and without its help, I muft acknowledge myfelf refponfible for whatever errors may have inads vertently efcaped me. Among the caufes that operated to my foregoing is . revifion by the Morning Meeting, which our Society ftrongly recommends, and to which recommendation { wifh to pay due deference, one was, the delay it muft have occafioned in the publication; which, if longer retarded, might be deemed unfeafonable ; another, that that meeting itfelf was a principal party arraigned by our opponent: but as the work did not come under its infpection, it cannot be accufed of judging in its own cafe, * Verax’s Vindication, P+ Vile (x) nor the performance charged with its partial interference; particularly as I am not myfelf a member of it. - Religious controverfy, inevitable as it fometimes ap- pears, will be reluctantly engaged in by the real Chrif- tian, and only when prompted by a fenfe of duty. Still he may find his path befet with difficulties; and of thefe it is not the leaft, that he may at times feem to be wanting in the meeknefs and charity becoming an advocate of the gofpel; when, if a corre difcrimination were made, that, to which a reader might attach feve- rity of language, probably would prove to be only clofe argument. I have wifhed to keep within the bounds of a yu zeal; and if any inftance of deviation be difcover- able, I think the want of candour on the other fide will be admitted as fome apology. ' As it is not a delight in controverfy that has induced me to take up the pen, fo neither fhall 1 refume it to gratify that difpofition in another: fuch contefts wound that {pirit of divine love, which fhould be the aétuating principle in the breaft of every follower of the holy Redeemer; who, in unparalleled love to fallen man, laid afide his glory, fubjeted himfelf to the temptations and trials incident to human nature, triumphed over them, and finally offered himfelf a facrifice for the fal- vation of a finful world. Page ERRATA. 6, line 1, for diftiné feparate, read diftiné and feparate: 20, — 12, for its, read that 31, — 31, for of, read and 42, — 7, for adds, read, he adds 45; — 3,for Nazeanzen, read Nazianzen 61, — 5, for things, read ‘ things 68, —2t04, of Note, fer Greifbach, read Griefbach 7A, — 21, for irreverent, read irrelevant 306, — 25, for are not, read are 310, — 2, for unumquoque, read unumquodque 122, — 16, for Jews in the time, read difciples 124, — 5, of Note, for favouable, read favourable 146, — 20, for not—be reed not to be 155, — 11, of Note, read I expect, be a practical, &e. 165, — 39,for do we not, read we do not 193, — 46, /or irrefragible, read irrefragable 196, — 31, for induced them, read were induced 204, — 27928, for as it pretended, read as is pretended 207, — 28,/or interpolation, read interpolations 231, — 5,for Smyrnzins, read Smyrnzans 251, — 33, for Aye, read Ay 258, — 28, fer accedes, read concedes 270, — 3, from bottom, for were, read was INTRODUCTION, Containing a brief Account of the Church Difeipline of the Saciety of Friends. SS ‘THERE is no ftability in the union of any Society civil or religious, unlefs it is guided by fome rules for its government and conduét, and to regulate the admiffion or difmiflion of members, in confequence of their approving or difapproving the principles upon which it is formed. The neceflity that hence follows, for a religious fociety to adopt fome plan of internal government did not efcape the attention of our ancient and honourable elder, George Fox; for he was not only inftrumental in gathering our Society as a diftinét people, but alfo in eftab- lifhing the excellent difcipline that exifts amongft us at this day. The meafures purfued by this man of God for the good order and government of the church, were, however, oppofed by fome, who (like our prefent opponents) thought them an infringement upon their gofpel liberty, and upon the rights of con{cience. ins The views of G. Fox and his friends with refpeé to the mature and extent of the church difcipline eftablifhed by them, cannot be more clearly given than in the words of their great advocate Robert Barclay; who alfo defends them from the obje€tions above mentioned. ‘The power and authority, order and government, we © fpeak of, is fuch, as a church, meeting, gathering, or aflembly, ‘ claims towards thofe, that have or do declare themfelves © members; who own, believe, and profefs the fame do€trines * and principles of faith with us, and go under the fame dif- € tmétion. and denomination ; whofe eicapes, faults, and errors may by our adverfaries juftly be imputed to us, if not feafon- ‘ ably and Chriftianly reproved, reclaimed, or condemned : for © we are not fo foolifh as to concern ourfelves with thofe who “are not of us.’* F By this paflage in R. B’s * Anarchy of the Ranters,’ or Treatife on Chriftian Difcipline,’ we learn who were confidered * Barclay’s Works, Edit. 1692. p. 203. ¢ ( xiv ) amenable to the difcipline eftablifhed in the Society; and that its obje€&t was to prevent the truth from fuffering by the errors and mifconduét of its members. The nature of this difcipline, and the objeéts it embraced, are alfo briefly given by R. Barclay in the following propofitions, taken from the fame work. " ‘ rft. That in the church of Chrift, when it confifts of a ‘ vifible people (for I fpeak not here of the church in the dark ‘night of apoftacy, that confifted not of any fociety vifibly ‘ united), gathered into the belief of certain principles, and * united in the joint performance of the worfhip of God, as ‘ meeting together, praying, preaching, &c. there is, and ftill £ muft be, a certain order and government.’ ‘ad. That this government, as to the outward form of it, ‘ confifts of certain meetings, appointed principally for that “end; yet not fo, as to exclude aéts of worthip, if the Spirit * move thereunto.’ “3d. ‘The object of this government is twofold, outwards and ‘inwards. ‘The outwards relate mainly to the care of the * poor, of widows and fatherlefs ; where may be alfo included * marriages, and the removing of all feandals in things unde- ‘niably wrong: the inwards refpe€t an apoftafy either in * principles or practices, that have a pretence of confcience ; ‘and that either in denying fome truths already received and * believed, or afferting new doétrines, that ought not to be re- “ceived. Which again (to fubdivide) may either be in things * fundamental, and of great moment; or in things of lefs weight ‘ in thernfelves, yet proceeding from a wrong fpirit, and which, ‘ in the natural and certain confequence of them, tend to make ‘{chifms, divifions, animofities, and in fum, to break that * bond of love and unity, that is fo needful to be upheld and ‘ eftablifhed in the church of Chrift. And here come alfo “under this confideration all emulations, ftrifes, backbitings, * and evil furmifings.’* Thefe extraéts are fufficient for the illuftration of the nature and defign of the difcipline eftablifhed by our anceftors ; but fince there are fome among us, as there were among them, who may have doubts of the propriety of the fecond branch of the laft propofition, fo far as it relates to principles, I fhall, for their fatisfaction, quote Barclay’s anfwer to the queftion that might be afked by thefe, viz. ‘ Whether the church of Chrift have power in any cafes that ‘ are matters of con/cience, to give a pofitive fentence and deci- * fion, which may be obligatory upon believers?* * Barclay’s Works, p. 235 and 236, ¢ ( w } « T anfwer,’ fays Barclay, ¢ affirmatively, fhe hath; and fhall * prove it from divers inflances, both from Scripture and reafon. * For firft, all principles and articles of faith, which are held * doGtrinally, are in refpe€t to thofe that believe them, matters “of confeience. We know the Papifts do out of confcience * (fuch as are zealous among them) adore, worfhip, and pray *to angels, faints, and images, yea, and to the eucharift, as * judging it to be really Chrift Jefus; and fo do others place * confcience in things that are abfolutely wrong. Now, I fay, * we being gathered together into the belief of certain principles and doétrines, without any conftraint or worldly refpe@, but ‘ by the mere force of truth upon our underftanding, and its “power and influence upon our hearts; thefe principles ‘and do€trines, and the practices neceflarily depending upon * them are, as it were, the terms that have drawn us together, and the bond,* by which we became centred into one body ‘ and fellowthip, and diftinguifhed from others. Now if any “one or more fo engaged with us, fhould arife to teach any * other doétrine or do@trines, contrary to thefe which were [the } * ground of our being one, who can deny, but the body hath * power in fuch a cafe to declare, This is not according to the * truth we proféfs; and therefore we pronounce [uch and fuch doc- * trines to be wrong, with which we cannot have unit » wor yet any * more fpiritual fellowfbip with thofe as hold them? ‘And fo fuch ‘ cut themfelves off from being members, by diffolving the very * bond; by which they were linked to the body.’ Further on he fays, ‘ If the apoftles of Chrift of old, and the ‘ preachers of the everlafting gofpel in this day, had told all * people, however wrong they found them in their faith and * principles, “ Our charity and love is fuch, we dare not judge ** you, nor feparate from you; but let us all live in love together, * and every one enjoy his own opinion, and ail will be well ;” ‘how ‘fhould the nations have been, or what way now can ‘ they be, brought to truth and righteoufnefs? Would not the * devil love this doctrine well, by which darknefs and ignorance, ‘error and confufion, might ftill continue in the earth unre- ‘ proved and uncondemned.’+ Thefe arguments are fo firmly fupported by reafon and Scripture, that the only queftion remaining to be folved is, What are the doétrines and principles of the Friends that are * © Yet this is not fo the bond, but that we have alfoa more inward ‘ and invifible, to wit, the Life of Righteoufnefs; whereby we alfo « have ‘unity with the upright feed in all, even in thofe, whofe under- * ftandings are not yet fo enlightened. But [to] thofe who are oncg § calighianee, this 1s as an outward band, &c.? + Barclay’s Works, p. 213. 215. C2 ( xi ) fo important as to be denominated their faith? The eamdid and unprejudiced reader will, I believe, find this pF fatisfac- tony anfwered in the following pages, to which he is therefore referred. Having taken a general view of the origin of the church difcipline of the Friends, and the objeéts that it recognizes, I fhall proceed to give an account of the regulations that have been adopted, to effect the falutary purpofes for which it was inftituted. i ) The meetings eftablifhed for conduéting their internal go- vernment; are divided into monthly, quarterly, and yearly, which are fo called from the times of their being held. ; A Monthly Meeting tonfifts fometimes of a fingle congre- gation, but it is. more generally compofed of feveral particular congregations, fituated within a convenient diftance from each other. Its bufinefs is, to provide for the fubfiftence of the poor (the Friends maintaining their own poor), and for the education of their offspring ; to judge of the fincerity and fit= nefs of perfons appearing to be convinced) of their religious principles, and defiring to be admitted into memberfhip; to deal with diforderly members, and if irreclaimiable, to difown them: Monthly meetings alfo grant to fuch of their members as. res move into other monthly meetings, certificates of their mems berfhip and conduct; without which they cannot gain mem- berfhip in the latter. Each monthly meeting is required to appoint certain perfons as oyverfeers; who; when any cafe of complaint, or diforderly conduct, comes to)their knowledge, are to fee that private admonition, agreeably to the gofpel rule; Matt. xviii. 15—17. be given, previoutfly to its being laid before the monthly meeting. And as the Society has always ferupled to acknowledge the exclufive authority of the priefts to jom perfons in marriage, their marriages are conducted among themfelves, and propofed to thefe meetings for their concur- rence; which is granted, if, upon enquiry, the parties appear clear of other engagements refpe€ting marriage, and if they alfo have the confent of their parents or guardians. - Their marriages are folemnized in a public meeting for worfhip; and the monthly meeting keeps a record of them; as alfo of the births and burials of its members. Several monthly meetings compofe a Quarterly Meeting, to which they fend reprefentatives; who are furnifhed with writ- ten anfwers from the monthly meetings, to certain queries refpe€ting the conduct of their members, and their care over them. The feveral accounts thus received, the quarterly meet- ing digefts into one, which alfo is fent, in the form of anfwers to queries, by reprefentatives to the yearly meeting. Appeals from the judgment of monthly meetings are brought to the ( xvi ) quarterly meetings, whofe bufinefs, is to afiift in any difficult cafe, or where remiffnefs appears in the care of monthly meet- ings over the individuals who compofe them. A Yearly Meeting has a general fuperintendence of the Society, in the country in which it is eftablifhed; and there~ fore, as particular exigencies arife, it gives advice, makes fuch segulations as appear to be requifite, or excites to the obfer- vance of thofe already made. Appeals from the judgment of quarterly meetings are here finally determined. There are feven yearly meetings, yiz. London, to which come reprefentatives from Great Britain and Ireland; New- England; New-York; Pennfylvania and New Jerfey; Mary- land; Virginia; the Carolinas, and Georgia: and they main- tain a brotherly correfpondence by epiftles with each other; but poffefs no controul over each other’s condud in the trani- action of the affairs of the church. There are alfo monthly, quarterly, and yearly meetings of Women Friends, held at the fame times and places with the men’s meetings, in feparate apartments; on which devolve thofe parts of the Chriftian difcipline wherein their own fex are more peculiarly concerned. Thofe who believe themfelves required to fpeak in meetings for worthip, are not immediately acknowledged as minifters by their monthly meetings; but time is taken for judgment, that the meeting may be fatisfied of their call and qualification. It will.alfo fometimes happen, that fuch as are not approved, _will obtrude themfelves as minifters,. to the grief of their brethren ; but much forbearance is ufed towards thefe, before the difapprobation of the meeting is publicly teftified. In order that thofe who are in the fituation of minifters may have the tender counfel and advice of thofe of either fex, who, by their experience in the work of religion, are qualified for that fervice, the monthly meetings are advifed to fele& fuch, under the denomination of elders. ‘Thefe, and the minifters approved by their monthly meetings, have meetings peculiar to themfelves, called Meetings of Minifters and Elders, or fele& meetings ; in which they have an opportunity of exciting each other to a difcharge of their feveral duties, and of extending advice to thofe who may appear to be weak, without any nged- lefs expofure. Such meetings are generally held in the com~— pafs of each monthly, quarterly, and yearly meeting. Thefe are conducted by rules prefcribed by the yearly meeting, and have no authority to make any alteration or addition to them. The members of them unite with their brethren in the meet- ings for difcipline, and are egwal/y accountable to the latter for their conduét. It is to a meeting of this kind in London, called the Second-day’s Morming Meeting, that the revifal of (. xviii) manufcripts concerning their principles, revioufly to publica. tion, is intrufted by te yearly meeting Ee London; ial allo the granting, in the intervals of the yearly meeting, of certifi- cates of approbation to fuch minifters as are concerned to travel in the work of the miniftry in foreign parts; in addition to thofe granted by their monthly and quarter! meetings. When a vifit of this kind doth not extend beyond Great Britain, a cers tificate from the monthly meeting, of which the minifter is 4 member, is fufficient; if to Ireland, the concurrence of the quarterly meeting is alfo required. Regulations of fimilar ten- dency obtain in other yearly meetings. — ' I fhall {ubjoin, to the preceding account,* a few obfervations. From what is above ftated, we fee that thofe only who are in the ftation of minifters or elders, come under the care of thofe meetings; and alfo that minifters who think their duty calls them to travel in foreivn parts, are to apply to the morning meeting, or fele& yearly meeting, for a certificate expreflive of its uni with their miniftry, and approbation of their propofed journey. ‘The fubfequent minute more particularly fets forth the bufi- nefs of the meetings of minifters and elders, and as I have had occafion to refer to it in the following work, I infert it here. ‘The morning meeting of minifters inLondon, and every other * meeting of minifters, have a right, as theyfee meet in the wifdom ‘ of truth, to advife, exhort, and rebuke any of their members, * or any one who may travel in the work of the miniftry, as oc- * cafion may require, without being accountable for the fame to ‘ any monthly or quarterly meeting. But if any member of the. * aid meetings, or any other minifter, fhould at any time be overtaken ‘ with a fault, and the fame be under the cognizance of the morning ‘ or any other meeting of miniffers, and the monthly meeting to which * [uch perfon belongs, fhall alfo deal with him or her Sor the fame ; ‘ then, on notice from fich monthly meeting, that they have taken the ‘ cafe under their care, all proceedings of the morning or other meetin, < of minifters, againft fuch miniffer or elder foall be finally fopped + * Neither the morning meeting, nor any other meeting of mi- ‘ nifters, have power to difown any minifter, or other perfon, ‘in any capacity whatfoever; this folely belonging to the ‘monthly, quarterly, half-yearly, or yearly meetings, 1735.’ _ _Werax fays that ‘ the gradual extenfion of the power and- “ influence of the fele€& meetings,—have produced the greateft * Taken principally from ¢ A Summary of the Hiftory, Dodétrine, ‘and Difcipline of Friends.’ t+ Verax notices this rule both in the Appeal and Sequel, but in nei- ther does he truft his reader with the part diftinguithed by Italics. Was he not confcious that if he had, the reader muft have {een the morning “Inceting, in the cafe of H. Barnard, aéted quite confiftently with it? t Book of Extraats, 2d Edit. P+ 103, 194, - ( xix ) * change in the conftitution of the Society, that has taken place — ‘fince its firft eftablifhment!’* Well might it be {aid by _Vindex, ‘Here is furely fome inaccuracy.’ What proof have we to fupport this ‘ pofitive affertion?” a few regulations made by the yearly meeting relating to mere matters of order; which could neither increafe nor diminifh the power and influence of the fele&t meetings. The reftriting the attendance of them to ‘their proper members, could certainly be no deviation from their original inftitution. What rule has been lately made, that extended their power beyond what they before poffeffed by the tule of 1735? And can a fingle inftance be produced of their having exercifed a power not authorized by that rule? That thofe who are in the ftation of minifters or elders (fuppofing them rightly qualified for thefe important ftations), have a con. fequent degree of influence in the ‘réfpe@tive meetings of difci- pline to which they belong, is in the natural order of things ; but I believe from obfervation it will be found, that this influ- ence has been, of Jate years, ‘ rather on the decline than the * increafe :’ befides, the influence they poffefs in the meetings of difcipline, is in their individual, and not in their collective capacity. It therefore cannot have been affected by any of the more recent regulations refpecting their meetings. The Society has alfo Meetings for Sufferings, which are compofed of Friends chofen by the feveral quarterly meetings. They were originally inftituted, and thus named, in times of perfecution ; and are continued to {uperintend the general con- cerns of the Society, during the interval of the yearly meetings. From the foregoing account, we fee the origin of the church difcipline of Friends, and the manner in which it is now conducted. The lapfe of above a century fince its firft eftab- lifhment may have produced a few new regulations, but I believe thefe would be found to be improvements ; and they are fuch as have occafioned no material deviation in the difcipline by our anceftors. Thofe whofe principles or conduct make them amenable to it, may, in their own vindication, reprefent it as an impofition on liberty of confcience, and nearly allied to perfecution; but let fuch, divefting themfelves of prejudice, {erioufly rele, that * when any, by their inconfiftent and diforderly conduG, or by ‘imbibing and adopting principles and pra€tices contrary to * th doin which as a ein, ha firft openly sie 5 fefted their difunity with the Society, it is but juft and * requifite that, after endeavouring and waiting to reftore them * without effect, the body fhould teftify its difunity with fuch ‘erring and refractory members; at the fame time earneftly * Appeal, p.y. ( xe ) ' defiring that they thay be conviriced of thé error of their © ways, and that through unfeigned repentance, and a confift- © ent, orderly condu@ m future, they may be reunited to the ©body. This being the utmoft extent of our difcipline refpeét- “ ing offenders, it is very evident, that from the right exercife “thereof no degree of perfecution or impofition can be j ‘ inferred ; for the impofition refts entirely on the part of .* who infift on being retained as members, whilt at open va- © riance’with the body either in principle or pra€tice.’"* * ¢ Extraéts from the Minutes and Advices of the Yearly Meeting held in London,’ 2d Ed. Preface, p. v. vi. "The reader who defires further information refpeéting the Difcipline, may confult this work : and for an anfwer to fome of the objeétions to the exercife of the Dif- cipline, fee an excellent little piece, juft publifhed, entitled, *‘ The ‘Principles of Religion as profefled by the Society of Chriftians, « ufually called Quakers, &c. by Henry Tuke.’ Phillips and Pardon, 2s, 6d. boards. CHAP, IL Remarks on the Seventh Edition of Joun Evans’s Sketch, including a brief account of the Pro- ceedings of the Society of FRIENDS againft Hannau Barnarpd, in a Letter to the Author; together with fome Striétures on the Eighth and Ninth Editions of his Work, REsPECTED FRIEND, HEN I wrote to thee fome time fince concerning a few | inaccuracies in thy account of the Society of Friends given in the Sketch, I hoped there would have been no further occafion to trouble thee again upon the fame fubject; as I apprehended thou waft in poffeflion of fufficient information refpeCting the fentiments of that Society to have given a true account of their principles; but though in thy laft editions thou haft been more particular in thy defcription of the Quakers, yet, inftead of elucidating their principles, it has rather had |the contrary effect: thou alfo indirectly chargeft them with | perfecution, and being under the influence of prejudice and pa/ffion. I therefore propofe pointing out what appears to be incorrect in lthy account of that Society; trufling that if thou have really | no intereft to promote but that of truth,’ it will prevent thee from | purfuing a condu& which thou haft reprefented as ‘ incompa- |* tible with glory to God in the higheft, on earth peace, good € will toward men.’ Refpe€ting the RefurreCtion of the Body, thou obferveft that |€ Barclay, in his Confeffion and Catechifm, ufed only the words © of Scripture on the fubje&, without exprefling the manner £in which he underftood them,’ and then addeft, ‘ The (‘fame remark applies to Barclay’s account of the Divinity of © Chrift.’ -From which obfervations, particularly the laft, I ‘conclude thou haft not read his Catechifm, for the form in B ( 2) which his queftions are drawn up fufficiently explains to a candid reader, in what fenfe he underftands the Scriptures. he advances in anfwer; for example, his fecond queftion refpecting the Refurre€tion fhows that he believed in a refurrection of ' good and bad; and his fourth queftion, that he believed a fpi- ritual body would rife, and not that natural body which we have now: as thou mayft fee, if thou wilt examine Barclay’s Catechifm, which I put into thy hands. The Divinity of Chrift being a doétrine refpeéting which the Society of Friends have of late been much mifreprefented; and as I apprehend thou mayft have read the Appeal to the Friends, alluded to in thy Sketch, I fhall infert Barclay’s queftions and anfwers* upon that fubjeét in his Catechifm. Quef.—* Was not Jefus Chrift in being before he appeared ‘in the flefh? what clear Scriptures prove this, againft fuch as _ © erroneoufly affert the contrary ? Anf.—“ But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be “ little among the thoufands of Judah, yet out of thee thall he “come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Ifrael, whofe “‘ goings forth have been from of old, from everlafting.t In “the beginning was the word, and the word was pa God, “and the word was God. All things were made by him; “and without him was not any thing made that was made.— “ Jefus faid unto them, Verily, Verily, I fay unto you, Before « Abraham was, I am.—And now, O Father, Glorify thou me *¢ with thine own felf, with the glory which I had with thee “ before the world was.t And to make all men fee, what is “ the fellowfhip of the myftery, which from the beginning of “ the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by * Jefus Chrift.§ For by him were all things created that are in “ heaven, and that are in earth, vikible and invifible, whether “ they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers : “‘ All things were created by him, and for him.|| God hath in “thefe days fpoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath ap- “ pointed heir of all things, by whom alfo he made the §© worlds.”’4 oe: ueft.—* Thefe are very clear that even the world was created ‘ by Chriff; but what Scriptures prove the Divinity of Chnft. ‘ againft fuch as falfely deny the fame ?” Anf.—* And the word was God.** Whofe are the Fathers, “ and of whom as concerning the flefh, Chrift came, who is over *In the manufcript, brevity induced me to give, in the anfwers, only the references to the texts quoted by Barclay. + Mich y. 2. ft Johni. 2, 3. vill. 58. xvii. 5. Ephef. iiig. {| Coli. 16, 4Heb.i, 2. ** Johni. 1. € 039) all, God blefied for ever, Amen.* Who, being in the form of “€ God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God.+ Andwe “know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an * underftanding, that we may know him that is true, and we *€ are in him that is true, even in his Son Jefus Chrift: this is -* the true God, and eternal Life.” Queft.—* What are the glorious names the Scripture gives * unto Jefus Chrift, the Eternal Son of God? Anf.— And his name fhall be called Wonderful, Counfellor, “the Mighty God, the Everlafting Father, the Prince of “ Peace.f§ Who is the image of the invifible God, the firft- “born of every creature.|| Who being the brightnefs of his “< glory, and the exprefs image of his perfon, (or more properly ‘‘ according to the Greek, of his fubftance).| And he was “‘ clothed with a yefture dipt in blood, and his name is called the word of God.” ** Queft.—* After what manner was the birth of Chrift ?” Anf—** Now the birth of Jefus Chrift was on this wife: “‘ when as his mother Mary was efpoufed to Jofeph, (before ‘‘ they came together) fhe was found with child of the Holy * Ghoft.+; And the angel faid unto her, Fear not, Mary, for “thou haft found favour with God: And behold thou fhalt “€ conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and {halt call “‘ his name Jefus: he fhall be great, and fhall be called the Son * of the Higheft, and the Lord God fhall give unto him the |“ throne of his father David. Then faid Mary unto the *© Angel, How fhall this be, feeing I know not a man? And “ the Angel anfwered and faid unto her, the Holy Ghoft fhall * come upon thee, and the power of the Higheft fhall over- _“ fhadow thee: therefore alfo that holy thing that fhall be _ _ © born of thee, fhall be called the Son of God.” $+ Queft.—* After what manner doth the Scripture aflert the © conjunction and unity of the Eternal Son of God in and with “the Man Chrift Fefus?’ : Anf—* And the Word was made flefh, and dwelt among “ us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten “ of the Father) full of grace and truth.§§ For he, whom God “ hath fent, fpeaketh the words of God; for God giveth not “the fpirit by meafure unto him.||\] Now God anointed Jefus “‘ of Nazareth with the Holy Ghoft, and with power; who ** went about doing good, and healing all that were oppreffed “ of the devil, for God was: with him.*** For it pleafed the *Rom. ix. 5. +Phil.ii.6. trJohnv.20. § Ifai.ix. 6. |\Colki.a5.. 4Heb.i. 3. ** Rev. xix. 33. ++ Matth. i. 18. _ Et Luke i. 30, 31, 32, 34. 35- §§ John i. 14. [||| John iu, 34, #e* Ads x. 38. . B2 ( Sm) ‘* Father, that in him fhould all fulnefs dwell. For in him ‘* dwelleth all the fulnefs of the Godhead bodily. _ In him are “hid all the treafures of wifdom and knowledge.”§ In the foregoing Queftions, Barclay feems to have carefully guarded againft any mifconception of his fentiments, by pre- fenting them as much as poilible in the form of affertions, and which, in his anfwers, he fupports by the moft appropriate Scriptures he could produce.—It alfo appears from the above, that Barclay did fully believe in the authenticity of the firft chapters of Matthew and Luke, refpe€ting the birth of Chrift ; and therefore could have no allufion to them, when he fpeaks of the inacquracies of the vulgar tranflations, as Verax would infinuate in the 2d part of the Appeal, page 88. But Barclay’s Catechifm is not the only place wherein we are to look for his belief in the Divinity of Chrift, he having fully and explicitly expreffed himfelf thereupon in his Apology, as follows : © For the Infinite and moft wife God who is the foundation,. root, and {pring of all operation, hath wrought all things by, © his Eternal Word and Son.—This is that Word, that was in ‘the beginning with God, and was God; by whom all things © were made, and without whom was not any thing made, that “was made. This is that Jefus Chrift, by whom God created all things, by whom and for whom all things were created, © that are in heaven and in earth, vifible and invifible, whether © they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, “Col. i. 16. As then that infinite and incomprehenfible foun- © tain of life and motion operateth in the creatures by his own € eternal word and power, fo no creature has accefs again unto ‘him but in and by the Son, according to his own exprefs © words; “* No man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to ‘© whom the Son will reveal him.” Matth. xi. 27. Luke x. 22. © And again he himfelf faith, “I am the way, the truth, and “ the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me.”” John ‘xiv. 6. Hence he is fitly called the mediator betwixt God and man. For having been with God from all eternity, being © himfelf Ged, and alfo in time partaking of the nature of Man, ‘through him is the goodnefs and love of God conveyed to ‘ mankind, and by him again man receiveth and partaketh of * thefe mercies.’ —2 Prop. § 5. From the above extract, as well as that from Barclay’s Cate- chifm, thou mayit fee that the Author of the Appeal is unwar- ranted in his fuppofition that Barclay did not confider Col. 1. 16. to allude to the creation of the world, but to the new creation, as the Unitarians explain it, to make it harmonize with their “§Colinig. fig, ii 3, 45) difbelief in the divinity and pre-exiftence of Chriit, whom they confider as only the fon of Jofeph and Mary. The following paragraph in page 151 of the Sketch* appears more likely to miflead the reader, than to give information: ‘ And no writer of acknowledged reputation amongft them ‘has admitted any diftin@ion of perfons in the Deity.’ It is true that they have uniformly objected to the fchool terms, perions, fubfiftences, or iubftances, as applied to the Deity; but if from thence the reader was to conclude they difbelieved in the Scriptural dotrine of the Trinity, he would fall into an etror, as the following extra& from William Penn’s ‘ Key to ‘ the Quakers’ Religion and Perverfions of it’ may ferve to prove. * Perverfion 9.—The Quakers deny the Trinity. € Principles.—Nothing lefs: they believe in the holy Three or * the Trinity of Father, Word, and Spirit, according to the * Scriptures, and that thefe three are truly and properly one: ‘of one nature as well as will, but they are very tender of “ quitting Scripture terms and phrafes for fchoolmens,’ fuch as * diftin&t and ieparate perfons and fubfiftences, &c. are, from “ whence people are apt to entertain grofs ideas and notions of ‘the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, and they judge that a * curious enquiry into thefe high and divine relations, and other “fpeculative fubjects, though never fo great truths in them- * felves, tend little to godlineis, and lefs to peace.’+ William Penn, in his Works, Vol. II. page 879, Fol. Edit. alfo afferts the Friends’ belief in the Trinity, and complains of thofe who, in order to leffen their religious reputation, have reprefented them as deniers of the Trinity. ‘ The Sandy Foundation Shaken,’ is a tra€t far from being the beft calculated of Penn’s Works to give the reader a clear view of his real fentiments, it being controverfial, and that more about words than things. He feems to have been himfelf aware that he might be mifunderftood, and has therefore} towards the latter part of the work, given the following caution : ‘ Miftake * me not, we have never difowned a Father, Word, and Spirit, ‘ which are one, but men’s inventions.’—But this explanation, not iuiting the defign of the author of the Appeal, was, no doubt, after due examination, upon his difcriminating principle, withheld from the view of his readers. Richard Claridge, who was contemporary with William Penn, and who therefore muft be fuppofed to be in poffeffion of his real fentiments; upon his Sandy Foundation Shaken, writes as follows :— © That which William Penn refuted was not the doétrine of * the holy Trinity, as it is declared of in the Scriptures of Truth; * oth Edit. p.160. 4 Penn’s Works, Fol. Edit. Vol. II. p. 783. ( 6 9 : ‘but the notion of three diftin& feparate perfons, as the title “ page plainly fhows: for W. P. fincerely owned and doth own ‘ the Scripture Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft.—Mat. ‘ xxviii. 19. 1 Tim. 11. 5, &c. And whatever the holy Scriptures © teftify concerning him, we unfeignedly believe: but the invented © phrafes of three diftin@ and feparate perfons, we ufe not, “becaufe they are unfcriptural, and becaufe they that do ufe « them,—as they are forced to acknowledge they aré no Scripture ‘ phrafes, fo neither are they agreed about the explication of ‘ them, but have contradicted and written one againft another— © and darken and expofe the myftery itfelf through their cloudy _ and incoherent interpretations. And as we diftinguith be- ©tween a Scripture ‘Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, -©which we unfeignedly believe, and that humanly devifed ‘Trinity of three diftin@ and feparate perfons, which we re- © ceive not, becaufe the holy Scriptures make no mention of it; “{o we diftinguifh between the Scripture redemption and the € vulgar doétrine of fatisfaétion : the firft we receive, the fecond ‘we reje&t.’ And after ftating the contrariety between the vulgar doétrine of -fatisfaction and the Seripture account of the redemption, he fays. ‘ And if any thing befides or contrary to « the Scriptures, be required of us, as an article of faith in com- ‘ mon to be believed as neceflary to falvation, we reject it.* Richard Claridge has fo very explicitly expreffed Friends’ be~ lief in Chrift, that I truft no apology will be neceflary for in- ferting it in this place. ‘ We do believe, that he was and is both God and Man, in ¢ wonderful union, not a God by creation or office, as tfome ‘hold; nor man by the affumption of an human body only, ‘ without a reafonable foul, as ¢ others; nor that the manhood ‘was fwallowed up of the Godhead, as a § third fort grofsly < fancy, but God uncreated. See John i. 1 to 3. Col. i. 17. Heb. ‘ji. 8 to 12. “The true God,” 1 John v. 20. “ The great “ God.” Tit. ii. 13. “ The Lord of glory.” James i. 1, « King of kings, and Lord of lords.” Rev. xix. 16. “ Which is, «‘ which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” Rev. i. 8. <¢ The fame yefterday, to-day, and for ever.” Heb. xiii. 8. § And © Man\\ conceived by the Holy Gho, and born of the Virgin Mary, ‘fee Luke i. 31, 35- ¢ Who fuffered’ for our falvation.” | ‘ Hath “ given himfelf for us an offering and a facrifice to God, “ for a fweet fmelling favour,” Eph. v.2. And “by his own < blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained}” ® Claridge’s Life and Pofthumous Works, p. 421,422, 423, 437- ¢ Arians and Socinians. Apollinarifts. § Eutychians, \| Creed, commonly called the Apoftles’. $ Evecpsevose C 22 € or found, as the word fignifies,’ “eternal redemption for us.” © Heb. ix. 12’.* I have been induced to be more particular on this fubject, from an apprehenfion that thou mayit have been mifinformed, and alfo from knowing: that the author of the Appeal has left nothing undone that his ingenuity could devife to mifrepre- fent Friends’ real fentiments: ample proofs of which may be feen in Vindex’s Anfwer to the firft part of that work. Barclay, Fox, and Penington, have, in various parts of their works, fully exprefied their belief in the Trinity, and in the di- vinity of Chrift; but I hope fufficient has been advanced to fatisfy thee refpe€ting their fentiments in thofe points, and that there is no proximity between them and modern Unitariani{m, with which the Author of the Appeal has not fcrupled to charge them. nf _ I now fubmit for thy confideration, whether the extract from Penn’s Key, only beginning with, ‘ They believe in the Holy ‘ Three,’ &c. will not give his fentiments with more perfpicuity than the title page of his ‘ Sandy Foundation Shaken,’ as it ex- prefles what he believes as well as what he difbelieves. Allo inftead of the extract thou haft given from Penn’s ‘ Innocency ‘ with her open face,’ page 152}, and which throws but little, if any light, upon his fentiments; fuppofe the following extract from the fame work was inferted ; it is fhorter than the one for which it is fubftituted, and more illuftrative of his belief in Chrift; viz. ‘This conclufive argument for the proof of Chrift, the Saviour, € being God, fhould certainly perfuade all fober perfons of my in- * nocency, and my adverfaries malice. He, that is the everlafting ‘ wifdom, the divine power, the true light, the only faviour, the “creating word of all things, (whether vifible or invifible) and their upholder by his own power, is without contradiction © God; but all thefe qualifications and divine properties are, by © the concurrent teftimonies of Scripture, afcribed to the Lord _£ Jefus Chrift, therefore without a fcruple, I call and believe *< him really to be the mighty God.’ | In page 155¢ thou remarkeft that ‘ There feems to be a “much greater uniformity in their drefs than in their opinions.’ If thou intend hereby to intimate that they are lefs eftablifhed _ in their belief of the fundamental doétrines of the gofpel, than | the members of other Chriftian focieties, fuch an implication is | unfounded and injurious. That the fame religious truths will imprefs the human mind varioufly, is evident from the different explications of the fame truths, given by thofe, who notwith- * Claridge’s Life and Works, p. 441, 442. + oth Ed. p. 161 t oth Edit. p. 164. ( 8 ) ftanding unite in their belief and defence of them againft gairt- fayers ; but this obfervation applies equally to the members of any religious fociety—for proof whereof we need go no farther than the Church of England. ‘ As a proof of the diverfity of opinion amongft them,’ thou fayft ‘ we may refer to the late proceedings of the Society © againft Hannah Barnard, a celebrated fpeaker from Hudfon, ‘in North America. For her opinion concerning the Jewifh ‘wars, Trinity, miraculous conception, &c. fhe has been “filenced.’* The proceedings alluded to in the above paf- fage, are, according to my apprehenfion, fo far from being a proof of a diverfity of opinion, that they rather evince the So- ciety as a religious body, to adhere to the fundamental doétrines of the Gofpel, which H. B. endeavoured to undermine. Neither is the reafon affigned for the Society’s filencing H. B. quite cor- re€t; for it was on account of her not acknowledging the truth of the Scriptures in feveral important inftances, ‘ particularly ‘ thofe parts of the Old Teftament which affert the Almighty “ commanded the Ifraelites to make war upon other nations, and ‘various parts of the New Teftament relative to the miracles © and miraculous conception of Chrift.’ I do not find that fhe was at all queftioned refpecting the Trinity, or the fubje& even introduced excepting by herfelf. With refpe€&t to the miracles recorded by the E-vangelifts, if they were not true, then thofe accounts, in which they are fo interwoven with the reft of the narrative, as to be infeparable, muft be confidered as impofitions on mankind; the confequence is unavoidable. And though H. B. was too wary to acknowledge the full extent of her in- credulity refpecting the miracles of Chrift, fhe has neverthelefs exprefled her difbelief in the account of that moft tranfcendant miracle, the refurrection of Chrift’s body from the grave. A miracle, the truth of which is fo intimately conneéted with the truth of the Chriftian religion, that the apoftle declares; “ If “* Chrift be not rifen, then is our preaching vain and your faith “is alfo vain, yea, and we be found falfe witnefles of God; “ becaufe we have teftified of God that he raifed up Chrift.”™ &e. : : And I know not a fingle fociety calling itfelf Chriftian, that, however incredulous in other refpeéts, does not fully believe in the refurrection of Chrift. Sincerity of heart claims our refpeét, even when it is to be found in thofe, who may differ from us widely in their religious opinions: but when I reflect that H. Barnard entirely difcards the neceffity of a belief in the truth of the evangelical accounts of Chrift, or even of a belief in his outward coming at all, to * Sketch, oth Edit. p. 164. (- om} form a member of a Chriftian Society, and notwithftanding claims the privilege of being confidered as a gofpel minifter of Jefus Chrift, it is difficult to give her more credit for bonefty or integrity than thou haft given to Deifts in the 4th edition of thy Sketch, page 136, viz.—‘ Of their hone/fy we may form ‘a tolerable judgment from the oblique mode in which Chrif- ‘ tianity has_been uniformly attacked. Scarcely a Deift has ‘ come forward with an open avowal of his intention, but fkulkin ‘ behind fome unconfecrated altar, aims a deadly blow at the beit ‘ and pureft fyftem of religion which has been ever inftituted.? For however H. B. and the Deifts may differ in other refpeéts, in their mode of attacking Chriftianity they feem to be perfectly agreed. I regret, that the excellent paragraph from which the above extract is taken, and that that immediately follows it, are omitted in the laft editions of the Sketch, for though they may appear to be fevere, they are not more fo than truth will juitify. I am no advocate for requiring fubfcriptions to any formal ticles of faith, believing them to be infufficient to prove the in- luence of vital religion upon the heart; without which, a mere ubfcription to, or acquiefcence in, any fet of opinions, however rue or important in themfelves, will be of no avail in the fight of | heart-fearching God. We fhould not however be indifferent o the religious principles of thofe with whom we unite in religious ellow/bip : for I believe our /entiments have a much greater in- luence upon our moral conduct, than many are willing to believe: either are we to fuppofe that a Chriftian fociety, becaufe it loes not require a fubfcription to articles of faith, as a teft of ts members, is indifferent refpeCting the fundamental dotrines Mf the gofpel; nor that it does not confider its duty calls upon t to contend for the faith once delivered to the faints, when t apprehends that faith to be attacked. Much lefs can it be uppofed, it would quietly fuffer fuch an attack to be made by ne of its members, not to fay one of its minifters, whilft re- Aaining in that capacity; for it would thus make itfelf acceilary 9 {uch an oppofition to the faith. Though our firft friends never required any fubfcription to ticles of faith, they were neither inexplicit in their declarations f their faith, nor fupine in defending it when attacked. As a roof of their zeal in the latter inftance, we may refer to Penn’s Spirit of Truth vindicated,’ in his works, Fo. Edit. Vol. 2. p. 6. After having proved in oppofition to his Socinian anta- nift, that Chrift really alluded to his own pre-exiftence in a ate of glory before the world was, and not toa glory given decree only before the world was, as the Socinian explained ‘in oppofition to George Fox; he proceeds, ¢ And it is a piece of facrilege and ingratitude, I almoft tremble to think on, that ecaufe he (Chrift) was pleafed to defcend in the likenefs of Cc : ( 19 € men, in order to the falvation of mankind (in which our ad- ‘ verfary alfo may have his fhare if he unfeignedly repent), he ‘ fhould unworthily rob him of all pre-exiftence in the form of © God, whilft he himfelf, thought it no robbery to be equal ‘ with God; fo that, though in his humble eftate and fafhion of ¢ 4 man, he could not properly be faid to be glorified, and there- ‘ fore prayed to be fo, yet it is no right conmfequence, that there- ‘fore he never was before.—This is the great myftery of the ‘ Socinians, indeed the rock on which they fplit, they do not ‘ diftinguith betwixt the form of God, and the likenefs of men. ‘ that ‘which came into the world to do the will of God, ane © the body he took, in which to perform it.’ The author of the Appeal, in the 2d and 3d parts of thai work, has brought into view R. Barclay’s Letter to Adriat Paets, as particularly confonant with H. Barnard’s incredulity in the Scripture account of miracles, if not exceeding it, alf making the fame diftinCtion between doétrinal truths and hif torical faéts, that fhe fo repeatedly enforced, in the defence o her opinions; I fhall therefore endeavour to remove the fhad thrown over the fentiments of that able advocate of the caule o Chriftianity, R. Barclay.* The Letter to Adrian Paets may be confidered as a chain ¢ metaphyfical reafoning in defence of ¢ the poflibility and necel ‘fity of the inward and immediate revelation of the Spirit o © God towards the foundation and ground of true faith,’ whic the faid Adrian Paets denied, on the following hypothefis: ‘The © {ince the being and fubftance of the Chriftian religion confiftet « inthe knowledge of, and faith concerning, the birth, life, deatk © refurreétion, and afcenfion of Chrift Jefus—the fubftance of th © Chriftian religion is a contingent truth, which contingent trut < is matter of fact ;’ from which he argues, ¢ Matter of fact cat « not be known but by the relation of another, or by the perceptia « of the outward fenfes, becaufe there are naturally in our fouls r ‘ideas of contingent truths, fuch as are concerning neceflai € truths: to wit, that God is; and that The whole is greater than * part; and fince it may without abfurdity be faid that God can ‘ make a contingent truth to become a neceflary truth; neith “can God reveal contingent truths or matters of fact, but | * contingent truths are revealed; but matters of fa& are not r ¢ vealed, but by the outward fenfes.’ From which argument |] draws the following conclufion, ‘That men are not even oblig “to believe God producing any revelation in the foul concer * This paragraph is a little varied from the manufcript, ‘in con! quence of a tranfpofition of the Remarks upon R. B.’s letter, in ord that the obferyations upon doétrinals thould follow each other withe qnterruption, t | (at) ing matter of fact, whether of a thing done, or to be done, unlefs there be added fome miracles obvious to the outward ° fenfes, by which the foul may be afcertained that that reve- lation cometh from God.’—I.have given Adrian Paets’s objec- ions to revelation at large, the better to fhow the drift of arclay’s anfwer to him. He premifes, 1ft. That it is falfely fuppofed that the effence of the Chriftian religion confifts in the hiftorical faith and know- ledge of the birth, death, life, refurrection, and afcenfion of Chrift. That faith and hiftorical knowledge is indeed a part of the Chriftian religion; but not fuch an effential part, as that without which the Chriftian religion cannot confift ; but an integral part, which goes to the compleating the Chrittian religion: as the hands or feet of a man are integral parts of a man, without which neverthelefs a man may exilt,* but not an entire and complete man.’ adly. ° If by immediate revelation be underftood fuch a revelation of God, as begets in our fouls an hiftorical faith and knowledge of the birth of Chrift in the flefb, without the means of the holy Scriptures, we do not contend for fuch a revelation, as commonly given, or to be expected by us or any other Chriftians: for albeit many other evangelical truths be manifefted to us by the immediate manifeftation of God, not ufing the Scripture as the means; yet the hiftorical knowledge of Chrift is not commonly mani- fefted to us, nor to any others, but by the holy Scripture as the means, and that by way of a material objec? ; even as when we fee the perfon of Peter or Paul to our vifive faculty immediately, yet not without the medium of that perfon concurring as a material object to produce that fight, while the light of the fun concurs as the ormal objet? of that vifion or fight : fo that when we livingly od {cripturally know the hiftory of the birth of Chrift in the flefh; the inward revelation or illumination of God, which is like the fun’s light, proceeding from. the divine Sun, doth thine into the eye of the mind, and by its influence moves the ind to affent unto the hiftorical truth of Chrift’s birth, life, &c. in the reading or hearing the Scripture, or meditating herein. 3dly. Neverthelefs we do firmly affert, that God can moft afily, clearly, and certainly manifeft to our minds the hif- * The following Note in ¢ Penn’s General Rule of Faith and Praétice,” HW illuftrate this argument. ‘ Juftin Martyr faith, «* That alk are Chrif- tians who live with Chrift, as Abraham and Elias; and amongft the Greeks, as Socrates, Heraclitus,” &c. See scultetuson him, who alfo aith, that fome at this day are of his judgment, who have taught hat “ Melchizedek, Abimelech, Ruth, Rachab, the queen of Sheba, Hiram of Tyre, Naaman the Syrian, and the city of Nineveh, are in the catalogue of Chriftians,” Penn’s Works, Vol. I. p. 593. : Cc 2 (( 28 ¢ torical truths of Chrift’s birth, &c. when it fo pleafeth him, < even without the Scripture or any other outward mean. And © becaufe this argument feems to be formed againft the poffibility of ‘ fuch a revelation, therefore I frall proceed to difeufs it: but firft © thou mayft mind that the prophets who foretold ChrifPs coming in: © the fleh, and being to be born of & virgin, and afterwards to fuffer. © death,* did know thefe truths of fab? by the inward infpiration of © God without outward means: for which, fee 1 Peter i. 10 11- © now that which hath been, may be. f 4thly. This argument doth at maf? conclude that we cannot know © naturally any truth of fact, but by the relation of another without © us, or by the perception of the outward fenfes ; becaufe there are © naturally in our minds no ideas concerning contingent truths (and © every truth of fact is a contingent truth), as there are of ne- © ceffary truths : this then proveth, that we cannot naturally know * any contingent truth, but by the relation of another, or per- “ception of the outward fenfes: But that hindereth not, but we © may know a contingent truth by a fupernatural knowledge, ‘ God fupplying the place of the outward relator; who is fo “true, that he may and ought to be believed, fith God is the * fountain of truth.’ + . The quotation, which, in the Appeal, immediately follows the preceding, is in page 902, and does not allude to the reve- lation of contingent truths, but to the divine and fpiritual fenfe: by which ‘ J[piritual-minded men ds behold the glory and beauty 9g “ Gody and whereby ‘ they alfo hear God inwardly Jpeaking in then * fouls, words truly divine and heavenly, full of virtue, and divin “life, and they favour and tafte of divine things, and do as it wer © handle them with the hands of their fouls. [And thofe heaven! © enjoyments do as really differ in their nature from all falfe fimilt “tudes and fistitious appearances of them,—as a true man diffi ¢ from the dead image of a man.—And albeit. either the imaginati ©of man or fubtilty of the devil may counterfeit falfe likenefes “ thefe enjoyments by which men may be deceived, that doth not hinde © but] + that thofe divine enjoyments are clearly perceived in uch, © qubom the divine and fpiritual fenfes are truly opened, and the tr © and fupernatural ideas of thofe things truly raifed up. And € 1) $ there be at any time a miftake, the divine illumination is not 6 the caufe of that miftake, but fome evil difpofition of the € mind, &c.? In the foregoing extracts the italics fhow what is omitted in the Appeal. Barclay, in the sth and 6th Propofitions, § 15, of his Apology, has more clearly explained the nature of the diftinc- tion he makes between the eflence of the Chriftian religion, and the hiftorical faith and knowledge of Chrift, wherein treating upon the univerfal and faving light of Chrift, he pro- ceeds as follows :— a ili ‘ We do not hereby intend any ways to leffen or derogate € from the atonement and facrifice of Jeius Chrift; but, en the € contrary, do magnify and exalt it, For as we believe all thofe ¢ things to have been cettainly tranfacted, which are recorded ‘in the holy Scriptures concerning the birth, life, miracles; ‘ fufferings, refurreCtion, and afcenfion of Chrift; fo we do 6 alfo believe that it is the duty of every one to believe it, to ‘whom it pleafes God to reveal the fame, and to bring to €them the knowledge of it; yea, we believe it were dam- © nable unbelief not to believe it when fo declared; but to -€ refift that holy feed, which as minded would lead and incline every one to believe it, as it is offered unto them ; though € it revealeth not in every one the outward and explicit know- ‘ledge of it, neverthelefs it always affenteth to it, ub declara= € tux, where it is declared. Neverthelefs, as we firmly believe “it was neceflary that Chrift fhould come, that by his death ‘and fufferings he might offer up himfelf a facrifice to God for our fins, who his own felf bare our fins in his own body © on the tree; fo we believe that the remiflion of fins, which any ‘ partake of, is only in and by virtue of that moft fatisfactory § facrifice, and no otherwife. For it is by the obedience of that’ . © one, that the free gift is come upon all unto juftification. For ¢ we aflirm, that as all men partake of the fruit of Adam’s fall, - ¢in that by reafon of that evil feed, which through him is € communicated unto them, they are prone and inclined unto ~€evil, though thoufands of thoufands be Tynorant of Adam’s € fall, neither eyer knew of the eating of the forbidden fruit 5 ¢ fo alfo many may come to feel the influence of this holy and ‘ divine feed and light, and be turned from evil to good by ‘ it, though they knew nothing of Chrift’s coming in the flefh, ‘ through whofe obedience and fufferings it is purchafed unto ‘them. And as we afhrm it is abfolutely needful that thofe ‘ do believe the hiftory of Chrift’s outward appearance, whom “it pleafed God to bring to the knowledge of it; fo we do © freely confefs, that even that outward knowledge is very com- © fortable to fuch as are fubjeét to and led by the inward feed © ait *and light. The Aifory then is profitable and comfortable — © with the my/fery, and never without it, but the myftery is and , * may be profitable without the explicit and outward know- — * ledge of the Aiffory.’ * Barclay’s My/fery and Hiffory of the Chriftian Religion in this paflage exaétly correfpond with the eféntial and integral parts thereof, mentioned in his letter to Adrian Paets, are per- fe&tly confiftent with the reft of his works, and a complete con- futation of the perverfion of his fentiments in the Appeal. In anfwer to Paets’s unfcriptural pofition that God could not — reveal indubitably to the mind matter of faét to come to pafs at, a fall period, unlefs he added fome miracle obvious to the outward fenfes; Barclay remarks, ‘ Uf we will hear the Scripture (as all Chriftians ought) it te/- € tijies to us, that God hath declared his mind and will, even con- © cerning contingent truths to come, in the prophets ; as that of the « firft to the Hebrews doth evidently declare: * God who at fundry “ times and in divers manners fpoke to our fathers by the prophets.” © Yea, let us hear the prophets themfelves: Hofea, chap. i. faith 6 plainly, That the word of the Lord was made in him (as it is in © the Hebrew); Habakkuk alfo Jays, As he was flanding on bis © watch to fee what Fehovah would peak in him. And it is fa © manifeft that the moft heavenly revelations are by inward illuf. £ trations and infpirations on the very minds of the prophets, € that it is frange how any, that believe the Scriptures foould doubt — “it. And if it happened at any time, fuch revelations were © * made in the natural imaginations of the prophets, or any of €their inward natural fenfes,; then it may be confeffed, they © could not be infallibly certain they came from God; unlefs * they alfo felt God in the divine and fupernatural fenfes, by © which they did moft nearly approach to him, from thefe fupe- * rior and moft inward fenfes working upon the lower and lefs ‘noble faculties of the mind. But which ever way the pro- © phets were certain that they were infpired of God, even when * they foretold contingent truths to come; it is without doubt “they were moft certainly perfuaded that they were divinely ‘infpired, and that frequently without any outward miracle ; ‘for John the Baptift did no miracle, and many prophefied ‘ when there appeared no miracle, as in the Scripture may be * often obferved. And we alfo by the infpiration of the fame © divine Spirit, by which the prophets prophefied, do believe their * words and writings to be divine concerning contingent truths, * Barclay’s Apology, 8th Edit. p. 141, 142. +That this has not the moft diftant allufion to miracles, (as repre- ented in the Appeal) may be feen by comparing it with the extract from Barclay, p. 12, as well as by the context. Cag) © a3 well paft, as to come,* elfe that faith by which we believe “the Scriptures would not be divine, but merely human; and - € thence we need no outward miracle, to move us to believe the © Scriptures, and therefore much lefs were they neceflary to the £ prophets who writ them.’+ I cannot difcover in the above extra& the leaft trait of incre- dulity refpe€ting the miracles recorded in the Scriptures. Barclay only proves, and that from the/e very Scriptures, that the revelation of the Spirit of God upon the minds of the prophets refpecting future events, was prefented to the mind with fuch indifputable clearnefs, as to render an outward miracle unneceflary to confirm the truth of fuch revelations to the prophets; the propriety and juftnefs of which obfervation can- not be queftioned by any who believe in divine revelation and the Scriptures. . The fertile genius of the author of the Appeal has even preffed Barclay’s belief in the Scripture account of miracles into his fervice. Barclay fays, ‘ And there are (as the Scrip- * ture affirms) falfe miracles, which, as to the outward fenfes, ~ € cannot be diftinguifhed from the true: evidently alluding to the magicians of Egypt, who, by their enchantments, performed the fame miracles, as to the outward appearance, as Mofes did. It will not be difficult to give H. B. full credit for her incredu- lity refpe€ting any of thefe recorded miracles, whether per- formed by Mofes or the magicians; but it muft be an uncommon fagacity that can difcover either that Barclay was incredulous reipe€ting miracles, or wifhed to leffen the force or authority of | what is recorded in the Scriptures relative to them. That a co-operation of the Spirit of God upon the mind is | neceflary to produce that effect upon it, which is propofed by any outward miraculous interpofition of the Deity (and this is _ the whole that Barclay contends for), muft be admitted ; for how can we otherwife account for that flagrant obduracy and perverfenefs of the {cribes, pharifees, and chief priefts of the ‘Jews, who, notwithftanding they were eye-witnefles of the miracles of Chrift, inftead of acknowledging the Divine Power by which they were wrought, blafphemed and put to death the Lord of life and glory. It is difficult to do full juftice to R. Barclay’s letter to Adrian Paets by extracts only, his chain of argument being thereby unavoidably more or lefs broken; neverthelefs, I truft thou wilt * Does Barclay manifeft the moft remote intention to invalidate the {cripture teftimony refpecting contingent or hiftorical truths, when he afferts that the Friends believe the writings which contain them, to be _ not merely true records, but divine ? _ $ Barclay’s Works, p. 903. ( 1% ) be enabled to form a more torréct judgment of the tendency of the arguments advanced, by the extraéts here cited, than from thofe given in the Appeal; and I apprehend they will admit of the following deductions, viz. ‘ ins ift. That R. Barclay did not confider a knowledge of the — outward coming of Chrift, and a confequent faith in him as the Mefliali, fo effential to that falvation, which can only be obtained through Chrift, as to exclude thofe from the benefit of his coming, who are placed by Providence under a moral impofhibility of attaining to fuch a knowledge and faith; if they do but attend to the influence of Chrift’s {pirit in their hearts, which ftrives with all men. adly. That this does not preclude the neceflity of a belief in all thofe things which are recorded in the holy Scriptures con- cerning the birth, life, miracles, &c. of Chrift, by thofe who are favoured with a knowledge of the Scriptures; but that it _ is the indifpenfable duty of fuch, to believe them, as their incre~ dulity can only proceed from their refifting the Holy Spirit, which as minded would lead and incline eyery one to believe the fame as they are offered to them. Therefore when’H. Barnard declares a belief in the truth of the account of the birth, miracles, &c. of Chrift, to be non- effential to thofe who have a knowledge of the Scriptures, fhe is fo far from coinciding with Barclay that fhe openly oppofes him; and the diftinétion fhe makes between dsérinal truths and biforic fats (a diftinétion that deftroys the obligation of a belief in Chrift’s coming in the flefh, as a condition of Chriftian communion), has not the leaft connexion with the diftinction between the effénce and the doéfrines of the Chriftian religion made by Barclay: for inftead of weakening, he rather ftrengthens the obligations of a belief in the pecu:iar doétrines of the gofpel by profeffing Chriftians. Verax might with as much propriety have drawn a parallel between H. Barnard and T. Paine, as that which he has drawn between her and R. Barclay; for proof whereof I fhall jufty mention an in{tance or two. : She advanced that though fhe could not affert her belief in the pofitive and literal certainty of the miracles of Chrift, fhe fully believed in the power of God to effect thofe or any other | miracles. Her reafons for fufpending her belief in the miracles were, becaufe they had not been revealed to her, and fhe was not prefent at the time they were reported to have been tranfacted : Thomas Paine could fay as much as is here expreffed, for he has fully acknowledged his belief in the divine omnipotence, » though he rejeéts the Scripture miracles as impofitions. The reafon he gives for his difbelief in the refurreétion of Chrift is becaufe he was not prefent, viz. Thomas would net believe it ey 8 without Baving ocular demonftration, fo neither will I? And when H. B: was fpoken to on this fubje€t, her reply alfo was, © Thou muft confider me like T) homas, for I cannot believe it? Her objections to the Jewifh wars are fo exa€tly correfpondent ’ with Paine’s, that a reference to Watfon’s excellent ° Apology * for the Bible’ is a fufficient anfwer to them.—I do not with to be underftood as implying that there is no difference between her and T. Paine, by no means, but that her objections are more deiftical than Chriftian: it is difficult to afcertain the extent of her doubts and difbelief, as fhe generally expreffed her fentiments in vague, indefinite terms; {till their fceptical tendency was fufficiently apparent. : I think enough has been advanced to convince thee that the perverfions of the Friends’ principles in the Appeal are fo notori- ous, that they cannot be attributed to ignorance, but to defign, in order to ferve a party. The fame want of candour and im- partiality is difcoverable in the author’s account of the proceed- ings of the Society again H. B. as could be proved at large. it may fuffice in this place to give a general outline of the proceedings of the Society, alluded to in thy Sketch, that thou mayft judge how far they really deferve the epithets of perfecu- tion, prejudice, and paffion. __ Hannah Barnard came over to England with the ufual cer- tificates from her refpeétive meetings in America, recommend- ing her to the Friends in Great Britain and Ireland, as a mini- fter in unity with them. I am not certain of the time that elapfed before feveral began to fufpeét her foundnefs in the Chriftian faith as profeffed by the Friends ; it is however certain, that diffatisfa€tion refpeCting her exifted forne time previous to the yearly meeting of 1800, and that private advice had been extended towards her; but poffefling a mind, ‘ conceiving its “place in the fcale of intelle€t fome degrees higher than the “real one,’ and ‘ impatient of controul,’* we are not to be furprifed at H.B.’s reje€ting the advice of her friends, pen it might not accord with her conceptions of her own uperior abilities; which ftate of mind, fo oppofite to that meeknefs and lowlinefs of heart inculcated by our bleffed Re- deemer, had been probably too much ‘encouraged by the indif- creet applaufe of fome individuals: if fhe had profited by the private advice of her friends, it would have prevented the necef- ity of purfuing meafures fo unpleafant in themfelves, to which the Society was afterwards impelled in fupport of its primitive * This is extracted from a charater given her by one of her advo- ates ; and which, from the knowledge J have of her, and of what e has written, I believe to be correét. D (18) : faith; alfo the confequent expofure of H. B. as one endeavours ing to fubvert the faith of the gofpel. P | I therefore reject as a grofs calumny ‘the charge contained in the Appeal, of a departure from the plaineft principles of equity, juftice, and gofpel order, by the Society in the prefent inftance; grounded upon the ill-founded fuppofition, that private admo- nition, which indeed forms the bafis of Chriftian difcipline, was not extended to H. B. In the year 1800 fhe requefted of the yearly meeting of minifters and elders the ufual certificate, to enable her to accompany her companion Elizabeth Coggefhall in a vifit te fome parts of Germany: this requeft calling for a public acknowledgment of the unity of the Friends in England with her miniftry ; the propriety of granting fuch an acknowledgment was objected to by one of thofe who had privately, though un- availingly, admonifhed her—he objected becaufe fhe was not of the fame faith as the Society. An inveftigation into the truth ol this charge was no more than juftice to the individual, required of the meeting, though it is called in the Appeal an * exercife ‘ of inquifitorial authority.’—The refult of which inveftigation confirmed the objection which had been made to the foundnefs of her Chriftian principles, in confequence of ;which fhe was advifed to return home: but as fhe appeared determined tc oppofe the advice of the meeting, it referred the further atten. tion to the cafe to the morning meeting of minifters and elder: $n London.—This was not a partial reference, but a general one 0} the whole cafe,* to the morning meeting; and it accordingly appointed a Committee to vifit H. B. the refult of which wa: only a ftill further difcovery of the difcordance between he: - fentiments and thofe of the Friends. The morning meeting’s labour with, and advice to, H. B being alike contemned by her, that meeting -found itfelf ob liged to refer her cafe to a monthly meeting. Notwithftandin; this was a mode of proceeding pointed out by H. B. herfelt and to which fhe informed them fhe had no objection; yet thi Appeal abounds with pointed animadverfion upon it, as a 7 mode of proceeding, and inconfiftent with the written rules o the Society. In a cafe fo perfectly novel that there is no rule o the Society that fully applies to it, it would have been rathe extraordinary if mo novelty had attached to the proceedings 0 the Society refpe€ting it: at the fame time it will be difficul to prove thefe proceedings to have been contrary to the exifin, rules of the Society; which come next under our confideration * That is, this reference was intended to lead to an inveftigation ¢ her various diffents in effential doétrines, and not confined to the fut ject of the Jewifh wars. C we) The following rule was made in 1735, and is, I believe, the only one applicable to the cafe. «The morning meeting of minifters in London, and every ‘other meeting of minifters, have a right, as they fee meet ‘in the wifdom of truth, to advife, exhort, and rebuke any of ‘their members, or any who may travel in the work of the ‘miniftry, as occafion may require, without being accountable for the fame to any monthly or quarterly meeting.’ ‘But if any member of the faid meetings, or any other ‘minifter, fhould at any time be overtaken with a fault, and the fame be under the cognizance of the morning, or any other ‘meeting of minifters, and the monthly meeting to which fuch perfon belongs fhall alfo deal with him or her for the fame; then, on notice from fuch monthly meeting, that they have taken the cafe under their care, all proceedings of the morning or other meeting of minifters again{t fuch minifter or elder fhall be finally ftopped.’* _ From the preceding extract it is evident, that the morning neeting is invefted with a power to take cognizance of the im- roper conduct, not only of its own immediate members, but £ any who may travel in the work of the miniftry, by xtending its rebuke and advice to fuch as it may fee meet: nd if a minifter, in this fituation, be dealt with by a monthly eeting, the rule muft fuppofe a correfpondence to have taken lace between that meeting and the morning meeting, when it ire€ts the monthly meeting to give notice to the morning eeting, that it has taken fuch a cafe under its care, in order qat that meeting may ftop any further proceedings in the cafe, he reprefentation in the Appeal that the advice given by the lorning meeting was equivalent to difowning H. Barnard as a ninjfter, muft be confidered as mere chicanery by any one cquainted with our mode of drawing up difownments: the commendation being written, did not alter the nature of the. vice, the meeting being at full liberty to communicate it ther in writing or verbally; if it had granted H. B.’s requeft giving her a certificate of its unity with her miniftry, fuch srtificate would have been written. | With refpect to the outcry raifed in the Appeal againft the erwhelming: influence of the morning meeting, it fhould be nfidered, that H. B. had certificates from her own monthly, uarterly, and yearly meetings in America, expreflive of their ity with her as a minifter; the influence of which certificates uld have been too powerful, had fhe been oppofed by a fingle * This is followed by what is quoted in the Appeal, ‘ Neither the morning meeting, nor any other meeting of munifters, have power 0 difown,’ &c. : D2 ( 20 ) individual, without the advice of the morning meeting (en joined by the rules on fuch an occafion), having been firft unavailingly, extended towards her, Verax points out no mode of proceeding to prevent thefe certificates, which always ac- company travelling minifters, from having an undue influence, when the conduét of a minifter fo travelling, may require the ublic cenfure of the Society. : In the Appeal no material obje€tion is made to the condu& of Devonthire Houfe monthly meeting, to which the cafe of H. B. was referred by the morning meeting, excepting it be. that their concluding minute did not repeat the charges again{t H. B. upon which its minute was founded, which was of no importance, as a copy of them had been delivered to H. B. in the report of the friends who vifited her; which report fully juftified the fubfequent advice of the monthly meeting: the author of the Appeal is not corréét when he fays that that advice excluded part of the recommendation of the morning meeting ; fer can a meeting be faid very carefully to exclude what it exprefles its approbation of in the following terms, © This meeting approves of the recommendation of the morn- ‘ing meeting of minifters and elders, and advifes her to return © home.’ We now came to the complaint that when H. B. appealed t the quarterly meeting againft the advice of the monthly meeting. the quarterly meeting would not permit the cafe to be opened in the meeting at large: this will require a little further expla nation than is given in the Appeal. The fubject of Appeals generally relates to the immediate bufinefs of monthly, rather than of quarterly or yearly meetings, being occafioned by the diffatisfaction of fome perfon or perfons with the decifion of a monthly meeting: the quarterly and yearly meetings therefore take no further cognizance of fuch bufinefs than is neceflary tc ive reafonable fatisfa€tion to the parties immediately concerned, The following account of H. B.’s cafe will pretty correétl defcribe the ufual mode of proceeding, as it was not material deviated from, except in her favour. When the prefented her appeal againft the monthly meeting to the quarterly meeting, the meeting was informed that theri was an appeal againft Devonfhire Houfe monthly meeting, ail the reprefentatives of that meeting were afked whether th had any regular notice of the fame; and upon its being anfwerer in the affirmative, the meeting was proceeding in its ufual wa to appoint a committee out of the other monthly meetings hear and judge of the faid appeal: when an objeétion was ftartet to any minifier or elder being appointed on this committee or even any perfon, who, accidentally attending cae Houfe monthly meeting, might have therein already exprefik | ( ar ) a fentiment upon the fubje& of the appeal. This obje&tion being as irregular as it was novel, was at firft objected to on that account; the meeting being officially unacquainted either with the purport of the appeal, or even the name.of the appel- Jant, which is never made known to the meeting until the committee delivers in its report; with a view to prevent any improper bias in its appointment. But though officially un- known, the fubje€t of this appeal being of too fingular a nature not to be known to the greater part of the members prefent, as well as the name of the perfon by whom it was prefented 5 the irregularity of the above objeCtion was waved by the meet- ing, and a committee appointed, excluding thofe of the defcrip- tions alluded to. , When the committee delivered in its report to the meeting, the appeal was read, and enquiry made whether both parties had been fully heard by the committee, which being an- fwered in the affirmative, and neither party demanding a rehearing by the meeting itfelf, the report of the committee, as is ufual in fuch cafes, was read and confirmed: the meeting never entering into a difcuflion of the merits of appeals, unlefs requefted by one of the parties concerned,* which neither did in the prefent inftance. The yearly meeting of 1801, conformably to its own rules of 1728 and 1733, appointed a committee of twelve friends, chofen out of twelve quarterly meetings, to hear and judge of any appeal that might after its appointment be prefented to the meeting; the committee being annually appointed whether there be any bufinefs to come before it or not. When H. B.’s appeal was afterwards given in to the meeting, the meeting was informed of the name of the quarterly meeting againft which the appeal lay, and underftanding due notice had been given to the fame quarterly meeting, it referred the confidera- tion of it to the committee of appeals; and when it was after- wards informed that the appellant objected to the faid committee on account of the ftations held by fome of its members in the Society, it was anfwered, that the committee being fairly chofen, agreeably to the eftablifhed rules of the Society, no, objection of that kind could be attended to in the prefent flage of the bufine/s :~-but to do juftice to the committee, it muit be obferved, that the members of the morning meeting which pre- fented the charges againft H. B. to Devonfhire Houfe monthly meeting, being alfo members of the quarterly meeting of London and Middlefex, they were of courfe excluded from the committee; but neverthelefs, admitting that fome of the committee might have been at the preceding yearly meet~ * Or unlefs there appears any ambiguity in the report of the com- mittee on an Appeal. () 22a ing of minifters and elders, and confequently not confidered by H.B. as fufficiently unbiaffed in judgment; the fubfe- quent conduct of the yearly meeting fhould have prevented the violent clamours raifed in the Appeal againft its proceedings en this occafion. For when the committee brought in its report, in confequence of It. B.’s objeétion to the faid report, as well as to the committee, the meeting itfelf confidered her eafe, and patiently heard all that the appellant wifhed to lay before it in her defence, alfo what the refpondents had to fay in anfwer, until both declared they had nothing further to offer. When they withdrew, the meeting impartially confidered the merits of what had been prefented to it by each party, not allowing the members of the quarterly meeting of London and Middlefex, or any minifter or elder prefent, from any part of the nation, to interfere in the deliberation; confequently the final judgment of the meeting was decided by thofe very mem- bers, from amongft whom H. B. was fo earneft to have the committee of appeals chofen, and who unanimoufly, without one diffenting voice, exprefled their approbation of the report of the committee; neither was this confined to a *§ fimply § exprefling their concurrence,’ as ftated in the Appeal; I re- colle& one friend in particular, who not only exprefled his marked difapprobation of thofe tenets, which had that day - found an advocate in H. B. but traced them to what appeared to him to be their fource, as a caution to thofe then aflembled. With refpe&t to the reftraint impofed on the members of London and Middlefex complained of by Verax, it was a yeftraint that the common principles of juftice and impartiality required the meeting to impofe, for upon what principle of equity could that quarterly meeting againft which the appeal was prefented, have been permitted to have a voice in the final deliberation of the yearly meeting upon the propriety of its own proceedings ? it was doubtlefs this view of the fubject that induced a Friend (not one of thofe round the table, but at the bottom of the meeting) to remark, in confequence of three or four London Friends infifting on their right to fpeak, that if the members of the quarterly meeting, which was the refpon- dent in the prefent cafe, were permitted to fpeak, he fhould propoie that the appellant be called in again—the propriety of which obfervation appeared to imprefs the meeting generally, except thofe three or four of H. B.’s party already alluded to; and who are magnified in different parts of the Appeal by the phrafes, ‘a number of Friends,’ ‘ divers,’ ‘ feveral other Friends,’ with a view to leffen the appearance of that unanimity which really prevailed in the feveral meetings on this occafion. Per- haps it is becaufe the attention of Verax was fo abforbed by his fympathy for his three or four London Friends, that he hag i ( 39) been, to adopt his language, ‘as filent as death, on another € moft prominent and important part of the proceeding im € peremptorily enjoining ftrict filence on the’ miniffers and elders prefent, ‘and thereby precluding them from the ufual privilege © of {peaking to fubjects before the meeting, and that in a cafe © on which,’ it is certain that fome, and probably many of them, © had never been allowed to fpeak before.’ The weaknefs of H. B.’s defence of her principles again the arguments advanced by the deputed refpondent was too “manifeft to be denied; therefore it is reprefented in the Appeal that her friends advifed her to leave the refutation of the-refpondent’s fpeech to them: this is intended, I fuppofe, for an apology; but it cannot be faid to be to the credit either of H. B. or her advocates; with refpe&t to her, it implies a confcioufnefs of inability to defend thofe principles which ihe declared it was her duty to promulgate, and this againft one individual only, wherein a full opportunity was allowed of _ advancing every argument with which fhe might have furnifhed herfelf for the long-expeted occafion, and that without any fear of being filenced, except by fair argument; with refpe& to her advocates, it certainly does not redound to their honour to preconcert a plan to deprive the delegated refpondent of an opportunity either of explaining or vindicating his fpeech, by deferring any refutation of it, until he was withdrawn from the meeting, that they might advantageoufly attack it in his abfence.* I attended all the fittings of the quarterly and yearly meetings when this fubjeCt came under their confideration, and in ne cafe was I more fully convinced of ‘ an inflexible regard to * juftice and equity’ and an ‘ anxious folicitude to do right’ influencing the conduct of thofe meetings, fo that I was iur- prifed when informed that H. B.’s party intended to publith thefe proceedings, not being then aware of the refources mif- _reprefentation would furnifh it with, to give what colouring it pleafed to the principles, as well as the conduct of the Society. If the author of the Appeal were really /incere, when he pro- feffed a reluCtancy in recording thefe proceedings, and that it was an unpleafant tafk to him to point out what he calls the errors and inconfiftencies of his brethren, inftead of exaggera- ting them, he would have honourably embraced every oppor- tunity of leffening the force of thofe cenfures, he has beftowed on the Society. And then, perhaps, we fhould have been informed, that the meeting for fufferings (a ftanding committee of the yearly meeting), unwilling to deprive Hannah Barnard of any claim, that her fituation as a ftranger gave her upon the So * We are not therefore to be furprifed at the chagrin manifefted by the author of the Appeal on account of this difappointment. ( 24 ) ciety, not inconfiftent with a Chriftian zeal for its faith, offered to defray the expences of her paflage back to America, which offer, though rejected by her, evinced that however the Friends might be under the influence of prejudice (if preferring their ancient religious opinions to the zew ones propagated by H. B. can be fo termed), they were at leaft free from paffion, or thé antichriftian fpirit of perfection. H. Barnard, when in England, pretended fhe had openly propagated thofe fentiments in America, which had fubjected her to cenfure here. The truth of this may be determined by the event. Upon her return to her own country, fhe was, for her newly profefed fentiments, filenced as a minifter im unity avith Friends, and her fubfequent conduét obliged them to difown her as a member of our Society. ; It may be alfo obferved that there is no credit to be givert to the account in the Appeal of the converfations that paffed between H. B. and the committees; they having been mifres prefented both by omiflions and additions in thofe inftances, re- _ fpe&ting which I have been able to procure information—whe- ther thefe inaccuracies are unintentional, or with defign, I leave; but Verax having, in his extra€ts from the Friends’ writings, and comments upon them, mutilated and perverted their mean- ing, to make them fuit his own purpofes; when he could be fo eafily detected by any who would take the trouble of looking into the works themfelves referred to by him,* we may form an idea what reliance is to be placed on his verbal evidence. To return to the Sketch—thou exprefleft a hope that the Quakers ‘ will return to that perfeét freedom of fentiment which conftitutes the glory of unadulterated Chriftianity.’+ Though it is poflible thou and the Quakers may vary in your definition of thefe two laft words; yet, I think, ere this, thou muft be convinced that they have not fwerved either from the tenets they originally profefled, or from allowing that free- dom of fentiment to other focieties or individuals, which they take to thetnfelves; for with refpe€t to the cafe of H. B. which drew the above remark from thee—the queftion is not, Whether fhe fhould enjoy liberty of confcience to propagate what appears to her, ¢ pure unmixed truth freed from ancient and modern corruptions: for only a fpirit of perfecution could with to deprive her of it: but whether it be confiftent * And which mifquotations have been pointed out by Vindex, alfa in a publication entitled, ¢ Some Traéts relating to the Controverfy be- “tween Hannah Barnard and the Society of Friends.’ Thefe pieces, together with one by Henry Tuke, entitled, ‘The Faith of the People * called Quakers in our Lord and Saviour Jefus Chrift,’ will give fuf- ficient information of the faith of the Friends to fatisfy a candid reader. + Sketch, 7th Edit. p. 156, Note, C 2502 ‘or H, B. whilft profefling herfelf to be a minifter of the Society »f Friends to propagate {entiments that tend to the fubverfion f their principles. I now appeal to thée asa profeffed Chrif- ian minifter, if a fociety can be charged with ‘ the moft diftant refemblance to perfecution,’ for publicly oppofing uch conduct, after private labour to reclaim had been extended. inavailingly ; or rather, if it had not fo done, whether it would ot have manifefted a want of proper zeal ‘ in fupport of what appeared to it to be the interefts of truth.’ My apology for thus intruding upon thy patience, is the duty owe to the Society of Friends, as a member of it; and alfo ecaufe thy judgment appears to have beeh biaffed by a perufal f the Appeal, at which I am not furprifed; the difingenuous, vanner in which that work is penned, is fufficient to miflead 1ofe who view the fentiments and conduét of the Society only wrough its medium. And when we confider the varicty of vatter comprifed in thy Sketch, that thou fhouldft fall into jadvertent errors, through mifinformation, is not to be won- ered at, but I truft ‘thou wilt preferve thy reputation for npartiality, by adopting fome means to remove the injurious npreflion thy Sketch may have made upon the public, by inge= uoufly acknowledging the errors thou haft been led into; and y giving a correct account of the real fentiments of the Friends, ho mutt at prefent confider themfelves as unjuftly reprefented, id in a work, the extenfive circulation of which may not con- ne the injuftice done them within a narrow circle; where= 3 the © Appeal,’ a pamphlet to which thou haft referred ly readers, written by fome anonymous individual, might therwife have fallen into the obfcurity it merits. If thou wert arrange anew thy account of the Friends, I think it might be mprifed in a lefs compafs. If thou fhouldit defire any affiftance wards fuch an arrangement, thou wilt find one always dif- fed to give it as far as it is in his power, in Thy fincere Friend, — JOHN BEVANS, Jun. P.S. I have herewith fent thee The Faith of the People called vakers, by Henry Tuke; An Examination of the firft part of the eal, by Vindex; and Some Traéts relating to the Controverfy een Hannah Barnard and the Society of Friends, publithed by rifticola. ’ Some Strictures on the Eighth and Ninth Editions of ° A Sketch of the Denominations of the © Chriftian World, by Joun Evans. | I. A PARTIAL ftatement of the truth, efpecially if it 4 attended with an appearance of liberality and candour, is often more injurious in its effects, than a direé and palpable mis-ftate- ment, the latter generally defeating its own end. I am rae have to apply fuch a remark to the Sketch: this work, inftead o} giving a clear and juit view of the tenets of the Society o Friends, involves them in an apparent contradi€tion and obfe rity, under the guife of impartial extra&ts from their writings Charity inclined me at firft to attribute this rather to inadver. tence or mifinformation, chan to any premeditated defign; b a continued repetition of it in the fubfequent editions of thi Sketch, made me fufpeé that the author was influenced bi motives incompatible ‘with the profeflions in his preface a dedication, and this fufpicion has been fince confirmed by more {tri€t inveftigation of other parts of his work. j The remarks in the preceding letter applied to the 4 edition of the Sketch; the 8th and gth editions have fine made their appearance: it is to them thefe ftri€tures are 1 tended immediately to apply. They are not entirely confined f j. E.’s account of the Quakers, but extended to other parts the Sketch, in which we may difcover the fecret fprings of prejudice againft them. II. He continues to affert that ‘ Barclay, in his Confeffioi € and Catechifm, ufed only the words of Scripture’ refpectin) the Refurre€tion of the Body and the Divinity of Chrift, ¢ wit © out exprefling the manner in which he underftood them. That Barclay has ufed the words of Scripture in the anfwers the queftions in his Catechifm is true, and that his Confeffion ¢ Faith is drawn up in Scripture language is not denied, but affertion that Barclay has not expreffed the manner in which | underftood them, I reje& as incorre&: if the intelligent read perufe the firft, third, and fourth chapters of the Catechifi the fourth, fifth, fixth, and feventh articles of the Confefhion Faith; and the feventeenth chapter that immediately follows 7 ' “4 ' * Sketch, p. 160, { 29.4) Sonfeffion; he will be convinced of the difingenuity of J. E. in tigmatizing Barclay with fcreening himfelf under Scripture hrafeology, fo as to veil his fentiments in obfcurity. And ven conceding that, from the plan of the work, Barclay had not xprefied himfelf with his ufual perfpicuity in his Catechifm, he extract from his Apology, cited in the preceding letter, p. 4, ; fuficient to remove the charge of intentional ambiguity, n acknowledgment of which was the leaft that equity and enerofity demanded of John Evans.—He has alfo repeated his flertion that ‘ no writer of acknowledged reputation among them (the Friends), has admitted any diftin@ion of perfons in the deity :’* this is true as far as it goes, but it is ‘a part of the truth only;’ hence calculated to miflead. Why does he ot add, that though they reject the fchool terms, © diftiné and feparate perfons,’ becaufe in their apprehenfion convey- ig ideas too grofs, they believe in a Father, Son, and Holy shoft, and that thefe three are one God? has he herein mani- fted equal candour with A. Rees, whofe defcription of the Juakers, in his edition of Chambers’s Cyclopedia ‘does honour > his impartiality?’ Ill. Having rejected Barclay as ambiguous in his account of 1¢ Divinity of Chrift, J. E. introduces William Penn as being 1ore explicit on the fubject. This enemy to ambiguity is how- ver fo unfortunate as to ftumble upon the title of a controverfial act of Penn’s, that has not a word in it either for or againft 1e Divinity of Chrift; neither was the tract intended to eluci- ate that fubject, if we are to believe its author, who, upon sing charged by his opponents, with having, in that work, nied the eternal Deity of Chrift, accufes them with ¢ fup- ofing what he never thought, much lefs writ of.’+ The eatife of Richard Claridge, to which we are referred by J. E. ; a learned defence’ of Penn’s ‘ Sandy Foundation Shaken,” as written in reply to F. Bugg, who endeavoured to put the ac conitruction upon that publication of Penn’s, as Verax has ne; its. import may be clearly feen by the extracts from it in e preceding letter, and the following pages. Our attention is xt called to Penn’s vindication of himfelf in his ‘ Innocency ith her open face.’ Pafling over unnoticed the arguments vanced in defence of the Divinity of Chrift, J. E. haftens to chara€ter. of Socinus, of whom Penn feems to have enter- ned a favourable opinion, from his having abandoned the afures and honours of a court for confcience fake. This ritable view: of the character of Socinus may be gratifying to fe who adopt the opinions that are diftinguifhed by his me, but it leaves the reader where it found him as to Penn’s * Sketch, p. 160, + Penn’s Works, Vol. I. p. 268. E2 ( 28 ) religious fentiments. This citation being however given as illuftrative of his opinions, muft it not have been intended to imprefs the reader with an idea that Penn and Socinus had the fame views refpeéting the nature of Chrift? whereas Penn has fufficiently cleared himfelf from any imputation of this - kind by thofe obfervations, which, as I have juft hinted, are concealed from the view of his readers by J. E. who, however, ventures at laft to give us an extract rather more defcriptive ol Penn’s opinions. Still the whole of his quotations are fuch ai to caft that writer’s tenets into fome incongruity and apparent inconfiftency: and this account of his, he pronounces to be ‘ an explicit declaration of the principles of Quakerifm.’ If it were fo, there might indeed be fome ground for his fubfequent remark that ‘ there feems to be a much greater uniformity it ‘their drefs than in their opinions.” In this, however, I alfe diffent from him. IV. If John Evans had £ no intereft to promote but that o © truth,’ why refufe to infert the extraét from Penn’s ‘ Key te © the Quakers’ Religion and Perverfions of it,’ quoted in m1 letter, page 5, inftead of the title of his ‘Sandy Foundatior “Shaken? It is written by the fame author, exprefied mor clearly, and confequently lefs liable to mifconftru@tion. If trutl were really his only obje€t, why refufe to infert the paflage pro pofed to him, from Penn’s ‘ Innocency with her open Face,’ i page 7, inftead of that containing the charaéter of Socinus: He cannot deny it to be ‘ more explicit on the fubjeé,’ than th latter. “What emptinefs in profeflions ! ; V. The obfervations in my letter being confined to a parti cular branch of the account of the Quakers in the Sketch, © afterwards examined the whole of the article, and fhewed how without enlarging it, other branches of their do&trine might b more clearly exprefled. In this draft I introduced the cafe o Hannah Barnard, not becaufe I deemed it forting with the na ture of the work, but as J. E. had himfelf fo far deviated fron his plan, to afford an opportunity for cenfuring the Friend for their conduct towards her; juftice feemed to require the re paration to be as public as the injury. ‘This laft communica tion met with a reception fimilar to the firft. ; There is no doubt that J. E. may have felt interefted for H B. by difcovering, through a perfonal knowledge of her, fom fimilarity between their religious opinions: but is the chara of a Society to be facrificed to private opinions and acquaintance VI. In the 7th Edition of the Sketch, page 155, is the fe lowing Note, adverting to the proceedings of the Friends agai H. Barnard. Z ‘ We are extremely forry to perceive fuch proceedings among! ¢ a body hitherto diftinguithed for their love of toleration. W ( 29 ) € ufed to think the Quakers abhorred every thing which bore €the moft diftant refemblance to perfecution, and we ftill € indulge the hope, that laying afide all prejudice and paffion, they will return to that perfe@ freedom of fentiment which € conftitutes the glory of unadulterated Chriftianity’ ’ It is the charge contained in this note that is adverted to in my letter to the author, who, in his 8th Edition, inferts the following inftead of it. © The author has omitted a Note in the laft edition, expreflive €of his concern for the proceedings of the Society againft € Hannah Barnard, becaufe it fubjected him to the imputation § of partiality. But he thinks it incumbent on him to declare 6 that he ftill continues as much as ever the enemy of intolerance, © under whatever form it may pleafe to impofe itfelf on the € religious world.’* This is alfo inferted in the oth edition, omitting the words ‘ in the laft edition.’ If the former note fubjeCted its author to the imputation of partiality, it is impoflible for the prefent one to remove that imputation. With regard to the juftice of the cenfure conyeyed by it, I truft the preceding and following pages will determine the point. oe ’ In the 8th and oth Edition, page 166, the reader is referred to two treatifes, as though they were written by the Friends, one by William Matthews, the other by John Hancock : is this ‘compatible with liberality or candour? for J. E. knew them ‘not to be members of the Society, but that their works were Deivitects in oppofition to it. VII. In the preface to the 8th and oth Editions are thefe words ‘In the prefent impreflion he has attended carefully to € recent communications, and where individuals have fent con- ‘ fufed and contradiétory accounts of their own party, he has endeavoured to adjuft their claims with impartiality.” It muft be left with an impartial public to determine, whether, if thefe endeavours were made, they have been crowned with fuccefs. J. E. may have received fome account of the Friends, and of their condu@ towards H. B. from two or three difaffected or ci-devant members, but if he has, he was not ignorant who they were; he could not therefore miftake any thing he might receive from fuch a quarter, as coming from, or on behalf of, the So- ciety. That I may not appear to countenance, by my conduct, what _ T condemn with my pen, by withholding any part of the truth, I readily acknowledge that J. E. has given a pretty corre ‘defcription of the origin of the Friends in their own words ; nor until he comes to their fentiments refpe@ting Chrift, is ® Sketch, p. 165. ( os0 candour expelled by prejudice, but hen he would willingly ge | their opinions a Socinian caft, and indireétly reprefents their oppofition to the diffeminating of Socinian tenets by one o their minifters, as intolerance impofed on the religious world under iome new form, VIII, An attachment to the Socinian caufe may be perceived in various parts of the Sketch; not that it is advocated openly— the nature of the work would not admit of it, but indire@tly, by a repeated, and fometimes a recommendato: reference > to Socinian writers, and {fometimes alfo to the prejudice of other ¥eligious communities. / |g Under a defcription of the tenets of the Socinians, we expect, of courfe, to find a reference to their writers, and Belfham, as being one, is very properly adverted to; but J. E. cannot be faid to have complimented his reader’s memory by introducing” Belfham’s reply to Wilberforce, under the head of Methodifts, after it had been repeatedly mentioned, and extraéts from it before inferted. He has not fhown the fame confideration fo his reader refpeCting Fuller and W; siberntiy the opponents o Belfham we are not even indulged with a fingle extract from either of their works. ; The recommendation to the reader, when deferibing the tenets of the Calvinifts, to confult the ‘ Univerfal Theological * Magazine,’* to know how they ‘ have exprefled themfelve * on the death of Chrift,’+ cannot be more fuitably animadverted on than by the following queftion: What would John Evans think of the candour of the man, who, in a work like the Sketch, under the articles Socinians and U*niverfalifts, fhould refer his reader to ‘ The Theological and Biblical Magazine,’t for a corre account of their tenets ? When J. E. mentions A. Fuller’s work, entitled * The Cal. * winiftic and Socinian Syftems examined and compared as to thei * moral tendency,’ he only gives fo much of the title as is dif. tinguifhed by italic, but does not regle& to fubjoin in a note * Belfham mentions it, in his reply to Wilberforce, with great ‘contempt. He there remarks, that the amount of its boafted * argument is this— We, Calvinifts being much better Chri * tians than you Socinians, our do@trines muf be true!”|| Is not this adapted to imprefs the reader with an idea that Fuller’s work is more dogmatical than argumentative? at leaft, it had this effect upon me; but by reading Fuller’s publication, I faw I had been mifled, and was convinced that it was much eafier fo Belfham to affect to treat it with contempt, than to refute it. — J. E. defcribing the Trinitarians, adopts Prieftley’s divifion of * The Unitarian and Univerfalift’s Magazine. : 4 Sketch, p.71. yA Calviniltic Magazine. |] Sketch, p. 71, 7 (4°) them into two clafles, viz. ¢ thofe who believe that there is nd © proper Divinity in Chrift, befides that of the Father; and the clafs of Tritheifts, who maintain that there are three equal “and diftinét Gods.’* Is the Socinian a fit character to deli- neate the opinions of the Trinitarian? Can J. E. name an Trinitarian fociety that believes in three equal and diftiné Gods ? IX. I fhall conclude thefe ftri€tures with J. E.’s defcription of the Arminians’ view of what are termed the five points. In the firft point, where it mentions that thofe who continue finally impenitent, will be ‘configned to ‘ everlafting punifhment,’ he expunges the word ever/afting, becaufe mimical to the Univer- falifts’ fcheme, and he thus expreffes the Arminians’ belief in the third and fourth points. ; 3d. ‘That mankind are not totally depraved, and that de- ‘ pravity does not come upon them by virtue of Adam’s being ‘their public head, but that mortality and natural evil only are * the dire&t confequences of his fin to pofterity.’ 4th. ‘That there is no fuch thing as irrefiftible grace, in * the converfion of finners.’}+ From whatever fource J. E. has derived his ftatement of thefe two propofitions, the former does not accord with any account I have feen of it, whether given by the enemies or friends of the Arminians, neither is it the fame with what was publicly taught by the Remonftrants in Holland, or with what is now taught by the Wefleyan or Arminian Methodifts and the Quakers or Friends; of whofe belief, the latter alfo is but a mere fkeleton or fhadow. The following are the third and fourth points as ptofeffed by them. 3d. ‘That true faith cannot proceed from the exercife o our natural faculties and powers, nor from the force of ope- “ration of free will; fince man, in confequence of his natural | corruption, is incapable either of thinking, or doing any good thing ; and that therefore it is neceffary to his converfion and falvation, that he be regenerated and renewed by the opera- tion of the holy Ghoft, which is the gift of God, through Jefus Chrift.’ 4th. ¢ That this Divine grace, or energy of the holy Ghoft, which heals the diforder of a corrupt nature, begins, advances, and brings to perfection every thing that can be called good in man, and that confequently all good works, without excep- tion, are to be attributed to God alone, and to the operation of his grace; that, neverthelefs, this grace does not force the man to act againft his inclination, but may be refifted and * Sketch, p. 47. + Ibid. p. 75. ( 3200 * rendered ineffectual by the perverfe will of the impenitent © finner.’ For a true account, not only of thefe, but of the reft of the jive points, as profefled by the Arminians or Remonftrants, fee Mofbeim s Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, and Brand?s Hiftory of the Reform= ation #n the Low Countries. , We will not refufe to J. Evans the merit at leaft of con+ fiftency in his condu,, by reje€ting the true ftatement of thefe two articles. But what can apologize for his thus obliquely confounding the Socinians and Arminians with each other? after this, it would be a reflection upon the good fenfe of the reader to fuppofe it needful further to enlarge, to convince him that the. Sketch is evidently devoted to the caufe of the Socinians and. Univerfalifts.: Hence alfo we muft not be furprifed at the poor Quakers falling under its cenfure, for daring to think for them- felves in oppofition to the party it efpoutes. I muft confefs _ that this dilcovery of the difingenuity of J. E.,occafioned fome: difappointinent, as my hopes of a work that promifed to be ufe- ful and interefting, were thereby fruftrated ; for it would indeed have been of public utility, if it had brought ‘ Chriftians of dif © ferent denominations to a more juft knowledge of each other’s © tenets,’ and proved ‘ the means of inclining them the more © cheerfully to exercife towards one another that charity which ‘ thinketh no evil,’ by divefting ‘ the feveral denominations of © the extraneous matter which had been attached to them, © either through ignorance or malignity, and thus holding them © up to the view of the-reader in their juft and regular propor= ‘tions.* But to effect thefe defirable objects a work ftill appears to be wanting. ’ * Sketch. p. xxi. XXvi. CHAP. II. Remarks on the flate of the controverfy Of Wittiam PEnn’s /entiments refpetting the Trinity, and the Divinity of Chrift, and refpecting the flate of man in the fall, THE Reader will have obferved in the preceding chapter, hat our early Friends refufed to adopt the phrafe of diftinet nd feparate perfons, when {peaking of the Father, Son, and Holy pirit, whom they believed to be one God infeparably united, greeably to the words of Chrift, ‘ He that hath feen me hath feen the Father alfo.” This fubjeéted them to the attacks of neir enemies, as deniers of the Trinity, and of the Divinity of thrift ; which attacks, although they were conftantly repelled y them as unfounded, are now renewed, but with this differ- ce—our early opponents were moftly Trinitarians, our pre- mnt, Socinians. ‘The diverfity in their chara€ters, makes the harge aflume a novel appearance; and on this account, more ban from the cogency of the reafoning of our antagonifts, it ‘quires to be repelled. ‘Several writers have appeared on this occafion; but it is to e refutation of the publications of Verax, the following pages ill be principally devoted; in the courfe of which, I purpofe arly to prove that thofe parts of his pamphlets, which lie en to inveftigation, are founded upon conclufions drawn m falfe premifes. His defultory obfervations and refleGtions the Friends, he will, in general, be permitted quietly to joy. The purport of the Appeal, if I-underftand it, is to prove t firft Friends to be ftri€t Unitarians, ‘in the proper fenfe of e word as it is now underftood,’ and that their fentiments pecting the Scriptures were fimilar to thofe for which Hannah mnard was filenced as a minifter; alfo, that they did not ach fufficient importance to an union of fentiment on thefe F ( 34%) points, to authorize the late proceedings of our Society againt her. In controverting thefe pofitions, I fhall, with bat littl variation, follow the order adopted by Verax. As there is fcarcely a more fruitful fource of miftake tha the ufe of expreflions to which very different ideas may b annexed, we muft firft define the preleee general acceptation ¢ the word Unitarian, before we can determine the pete, c applying it to our early Friends. Unitarian is a name by whic the modern Socinians have chofen to diftinguifh themfelv« from other religious focieties, and is therefore ftri€tly {peaking only appropriate to one who adopts their tenets. Verax, 1 his Vindication of the Appeal againft the Examination of the fir part of that work by Vindex, in reply to an obfervation of th latter, that the Appeal appears to him ‘ mtended to prove th; © our early Friends were what are now called Unitarians,’ & fays, ‘ That I confider our early Friends to have been general © Unitarians, I readily admit ;—they were, no doubt, as eve © Vindex allows William Penn to have been, at all time “ deeply impreffed with the importance of holding up th “ doétrine of the complete unity of the Deity.” ‘The confifter © acknowledgment, and reverent belief; of this truly feriptur ‘ and primitive doctrine, is pure and fimple Unitarianifm. Xt is ‘this fenfe only I have ufed the phrafe, as defcriptive of th ‘ fentiments of our early Friends.’* Thus Verax recedes from his former bold affertion that V Penn muft be confidered in the proper fenfe of ‘ the word ; © it is now underftood, a ftri€t Unitarian,’} and gives a pure fimple fenfe of the word, inftead of that in which it is co’ monly accepted. If he applied this name to our Friends, not the common, but in a pure and fimple fenfe, he fhould hay been more explicit in his definition of it, and not have giv one which may be acceded to by perfons of very oppo tenets. Pafling over his new definition of the import of Ui zarian, let us examine into its prefent meaning, or in o words, into the tenets of the modern Socinians. ft. They reject the doétrine of the Trinity, or that Father, Son, and Spirit. are ‘ one living and true God ev “ lafting, of one fubftance, power, and eternity,’ but believe Son to be a feparate Being from God, confequently not God. 2d. They believe Chrift to be a mere man, the fon of Jofe and Mary, and that the accounts given of his birth in gofpels are falfe. 3d. They believe that mankind have not fuffered fuc moral change in confequence of the fall of Adam, as to req * © Vindication of Scripteral Unitarianifm,’ &c. by Verax, p- iv + Appeal, p. 7 - ( 35 ) any immediate divine influence on the foul to enable man to do the will of God; but that human reafon is fufficient to guide man into the paths of virtue and happinefs. ath. They difbelieve the immateriality of the foul, fuppofing it to be as mortal as the body, that is, that it lofes all confcious sxiftence until the refurrection of the body at the laft day. sth. They deny the freedom of human actions, believing in what they term philofophical neceflity, by which men are im- elled to virtue and vice by irrefiftible motives. Although I believe there are few of the profeffed advocates of the Socinian caufe, who do not maintain the whole of the bove five articles; yet if we only include in our confideration he three firft, as being more peculiarly the leading features of Socinianifm ; they will fuffice to fhow that Verax has entirely ailed in his proofs of the Unitarianifm of our firft Friends. It was probably from a conviction of the ‘ confiderable ambiguity’ n which thefe proofs were involved, that he was induced to hift his ground, and prefent us with a pure and fimple Unita- janifm of his own. Would it not have been more ingenuous o have acknowledged that by a further inveftigation of the Friends’ writings, fo much additional light had been thrown upon their fentiments as to convince him that he had been niftaken refpecting them; but from thofe who have fome ‘other intereft to promote’ befides ¢ that of truth,’ we are not o expect fuch a felf-denial to literary fame. _ Before the conclufions of Verax can be admitted as the evi- lent refult of his premifes, he muft eftablifh the truth of the ‘ollowing inconfequent and contradi€tory deductions. xt. That becaufe the Friends obje€t to ufe the phrafe ' diftin&t and feparate perfons,’ when {peaking of the Trinity, ey cannot believe in the Trinity; notwith{tanding it is a con- quence they have always refufed to admit. 2d. Becaufe they believed that ‘ there is but one living and true God; and in unity of this Godhead, there be three— of one fubftance, power, and eternity; the Father, Son, and the holy Ghoft ;’* they muft have confidered the Son as a iftin& fubftance and being from God, and this, when they rofeffed to believe in his ‘ Eternal Divinity.’ 3d. That they did not believe that the Son of God became an, or took upon him the human nature for the falvation of aankind ; although they declared Chrift to be ‘ God uncreated, and Man conceived by the holy Ghoft, and born of the Virgin Mary,’+ alfo that they believed him ‘ to be really both true God and true man,’} r * Article 1ft of Church of England. Claridge’s Life and Works, p. 442. Barclay’s Works, p. 794. | F 2 wan as ( seam Such are the inconfiftencies Verax has to encounter, befor he can eftablifh his proofs of the Unitarianifm of our firf Friends. He likewife confounds, what has always appeared t me as two diftin@: articles of faith, ift. The Trinity. 2d. That Chrift was and is God and man A belief in one is certainly generally accompanied with a belie in the other, but this does not neceflarily follow; for admittin: that Verax had made good his pofition, that the Friends, b rejecting the fchool terms in their explications of the Trinity rejected the dodtrine itfelf, the confequence he has drawn fror it, viz. that they could not believe in the Divinity of Chrift will not therefore neceffarily follow. They however not o believed in the Trinity, notwithftanding their obje€tions to th metaphyfical terms of the {fchools, but they alfo have in th moft undifguifed terms exprefled their belief in the Divinity ¢ Chrift. As to the infinuation of Verax, that ‘ there is conf * derable ambiguity in their writings,’ and ‘ that on the fubjeé © of Chrift, they fheltered themfelves behind the broad fhield ( ‘allegory; and thus did not difcriminate between Chrift as” ©perfon, and Chrift as a principle.+ I reje€t it as falf and inconfiftent with that ‘ manly boldnefs,’ wherewith, as elfewhere fays, they avowed their fentiments. That the ftron evidence with which Verax has been confronted, fhould hay impelled him to have recourfe to thefe evafions, and endeavou to fhelter himfelf behind the broad Jfhield of allegory, is not fu prifing. Our early Friends were under no neceflity to refort t fuch artifices—they were above them. They believed Chrif without any mental referves, to be their God and Redeemer, ¢ their devotional as well as their controverfial writings clear prove, in which they alfo diftinguifh between the Godhead an manhood of Chrifl, but they have not feparated them into tw Chrifts, as Verax has endeavoured to do by his © broad thie € of allegory.’ That our Friends now believe, and always have believed, | only one God, will not be attempted to be denied. Do not Chriftians profefs to believe only one God? but do they ther fore deny Chrift to be God? Finally, if Verax includes in complete unity of the Deity, the Son and the Holy Spirit, ny only our Friends, but other Trinitarians, will equally claim tl appellation of Unitarians; but it being evident from the whg {cope of his reafoning, that he does not fimply ufe it as impl ing a belief in one God, but as alfo reje€ting the Divinity | * I may here obferve, that whenever I adopt this expreffion, it| to be underftood in its {trict and proper fenfe, + Vindication, Ps Ve (.@7 9 Chrift: I reje& the term in the fenfe intended by him, as not appropriate either to our ancient or modern Friends. [ conceived it neceflary to make thefe preliminary remarks, that we might not ruth into the controverfy without the reader’s underftanding the fubje&t refpe€ting which we contend. It now remains for us to examine whether the writings of our Friends will fubftantiate my remarks, or the conclufions drawn from them by Verax: and as William Penn leads the van of his evi- dence to fupport Socinianifm, we will begin with him. Some notice has been taken of the fentiments of William Penn in the preceding letter, let us however examine further into the nature of the controverfy between him in conjunc- tion with George Whitehead, and Thomas Vincent, Wm. Maddox, &c. which gave rife to ‘ The Sandy Foundation ‘ Shaken,’ and its Apology entitled, ‘ Innocency with her open ‘Face.’ This may be obtained from the former of thefe tracts, in which Penn gives a fhort confutation by way of reca- pitulation of what was objected againft him and Geo. Whitehead by 'T. Vincent, and three of his brethren, as follows : ‘ The queftion was this, Whether we owned one Godhead, * fubfifting in three diftin&t and feparate perfons;—which being “denied by us, as a doétrine no where fcriptural, T. V. frames this fyllogifm from the beloved difciple’s words, “ There are “three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, “and the Holy Ghoft, and thefe three are one.” ¢ Thefe are ‘ either three manifeftations, three operations, three fubftances, ‘for three fomethings elfe befides fubfiftences; but they are sf not three manifeftations, &c. ergo, three fubfiftences. G. ‘SW. utterly rejected his terms as not to be found in {crip- (ture, nor deducible from the place he inftanced: where- i‘ fore he defires their explanation of their terms, inafmuch “as God did not ufe to wrap his truths up in heathenifh *metaphyfics, but in plain language : notwithftanding we “ could not obtain a better explication, than perfon, or of perfon, than the mode of a fubftance; to all which G.'W. and * myfelf urged feveral {criptures, proving God’s complete unity.’ “And controverting ‘I’. V.’s minor propofition he fays, ‘ No one is fubftance can have three diftin& fubfiftences, and preferve its” ‘unity: for granting them the moft favourable definition, is every fubfiftence muft have its own fubftance; fo that three diftin€t fubfiftences or manners of being will require three f diftin@ fubftances or beings, confequently three Gods.’* |Although in oppofing T. Vineent’s fyllogifm, Penn may have jadopted expreflions which might bear an interpretation never jintended by him, he endeavours to prevent any mifconftruction * Penn’s Works, Fol. Edit. Vol. I, Pp 251, ( 3 of that kind by the caution already cited in page 5, of * Mif- “take me not, we have never difowned a Father, Word, and € Spirit, &c.’ hence we may fee that it was the metaphyfical terms adopted by the {choolmen in explaining the Trinity, as verging towards Tritheifm or three Gods, and not the myitery itfelf, againft which Penn’s arguments were direéted. ‘This is further confirmed by G. Whitehead’s vindication of himfelf, and W. Penn, in a Treatife, dated 1669, entitled, *‘ The Divi- * nity of Chrif?, and Unity of the Three that bear record in heaven, * with the blefed end and effects of Chrif?s Appearance, coming in * the flefh, fuffering and Lard for finners confeffed and vindicated * by his followers called Quakers.’ He therein ftates the objection of W. Maddox, one of 'T. Vincent’s coadjutors, as follows : © You, by refufing to call them the Three Divine Hees, have made ‘ it manifeft, that your quarrel is not with the word perfon, as fome ‘ then apprehended ; but with the doétrine or fundamental truth * expreffed by the three perfons, viz. the modal ane? and effenti * union, or onenefs of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft.” To which objection G. Whitehead anfwers, ‘ It is manifeft that fome of ‘ the hearers that were prefent at our debating this matter, - ‘ a better apprehenfion and underftanding of us than you pre- * judiced oppofers had: for fome of them apprehended_ that ‘ we oppofed your unfcriptural terms and words put upon the ‘ Deity, and not that we oppofed either the Divinity or union * of Father, Son, or Holy Ghoft; neither did we in the leaft go *to quarrel with any fundamental truth.—Yea, and it was * evident to many, that we found fault with your mifealling an¢ * mifreprefenting the Father, the Word, and Spirit; and never ‘in the leaft oppofed nor queftioned their being three fuch as € mentioned in the Scripture, viz. the Father, Son, and Holy * Ghoft; but there openly confefled to the fundamental truth of * them in fcripture terms.’* George Whitehead here gives the fame explication of the nature of the difpute between himfelf and William Penn on the one part, and T. Vincent, W. Maddox, &c. on the other part; as R. Claridge does in his vindication of Penn. It is likewife to be obferved, that although W. Penn and the Socinian both objeét to the Athanafian creed, there is this material dif ference between them: the latter entirely rejeéts the doétring that creed attempts to explain; the former admits the doétring, but rejects the explanation as not fcriptural: one believes the Son to be a diftiné and feparate Being from God, and not an object of divine worfhip; the other believes the Son to be truly and properly God, but objects to the fcholaftic terms, a§ making a greater diftintion between the Father, Son, and * Whitehead, p. 23. { 39 ) Holy Spirit, than is authorized by the Scriptures, which defcribe them as one God é Are we to be furprifed that Verax thinks W. Penn’s oppo- nents were juftified in fuppofing that he had, in his ‘ Sandy © Foundation fhaken,’ denied the eternal Deity of Chrift, as . being ‘ grounded on the obvious Unitarian tendency of the © whole work,’* fince he has himfelf preferred a fimilar charge againft the whole of Penn’s works? I know he has endeavoured to modify this charge in his Vindication of the Appeal, by faying that he has never afferted that the Friends denied “ the eternal “ Divinity of Chrift,” in the fenfe in which they ‘ ufed thofe © terms,’ but that ‘ it muft have been their intention to afcribe fupreme Divinity to God the Father only, the uncreated caufe of € all things’+ If they believed Chrift to be ‘ God wacreated,'t mutt they not have believed him to be the wncreated caufe of alé things ? Is not the firft phrafe as {criptural as the laft? if they ‘did not believe Chrift * to be really both true God and true man,’ what fophiftry can juftify their exprefhlons? well may we fay, In what a labyrinth of nonfenfe does a man involve himfelf, 6 who labours to maintain falfehood by argument!’ If W. Penn had not thought very differently from Verax, of the charges of his opponents, would he have confidered their accufation a calumny, and publifhed his ‘ Innocency with her “ open face,’ to defend his ‘ Sandy Foundation fhaken’ againft their attacks? The nature of which attacks it is neceflary to afcertain, to have a clear conception of the import of Penn’s apology for himfelf: his enemies did not accufe him of denying the ‘ Divinity of Chrift’s miffion, and his doétrine as a ‘ prophet, and teacher fent from God ;’ neither did they accufe him of denying the Eternity and Godhead of the Father—No: they charged him with being a Socinian, with denying Chrift to be God; this will appear by the following vindication of him by George Whitehead. © And as for his (Tf. Vincent’s) railing againft W. Penn, and €accufing him with denying that the Lord Jefus Chrift is © God, and with denying the Divinity of Chrift and Holy Ghoft, 6 and with thrufting the Lord Jefus Chrift off from the throne © of his Godhead, &c. I have not yet perceived any ftrength or “ weight of argument from either T. V. or his brethren, that has © convicted W. P. as guilty herein; his {hewing the abfurdity of “ T.V.’s doétrines, and both unfcriptural and unreafonable dif- * tinGtions, and his denial thereof, is neither a denial of the Son, _* Vindication,’ p. 8. + Ibid. p. iv, v. + Verax, in his Vindication. p. 75, objects to the phrafe uncreated, when ufed by R. Claridge, as not a Scripture term, although he has adopted the fame word himfelf when fpeaking of the Deity!!! ( 40 ) © nor Spirit, nor the Divinity of either, but the apparent falfenefs © of thefe railing accufations, with the confequences thereof ‘ againft W. P. in this thing touching the Divinity of Chrift, &c, * appears in his own book, page 14, * Of Chrift being the er “ God, and the Divine nature being infeparable to each (whor “ they call) perfon, each perfon having the whole Divine nature, “ the Son in the Father, and the Spirit in the Son, unlefs the “© Godhead be incommunicable to the perfon (fo called), as they “ are reported to be among themfelves,” faith W.P. Doth not ©W.P. herein own the Divinity of Chrift and Holy Spirit. © Let the indifferent judge how T. V. has wronged him; and ‘then W. P.’s Admonition, page 15, faith, “ Apply thy mind “unto the light and grace which brings falvation ; that by obe- “ dience thereunto, thofe mifts, tradition hath caft before thy “* eyes, may be expelled, and thou receive a certain knowledge “ of that one God, whom to know is life eternal, not to be _ divided, but ONE pure, entire, and eternal Being; who, in “the fulnefs of time, fent forth his Son, as the true light “‘ which enlighteneth every man, that whofoever followed him “(the Light), might be tranflated from the dark notions and “vain converfations of men, to this holy Light, in which only “ found judgment and eternal life are obtainable, (he) teftified “the virtue of it, and has communicated unto all fuch a pro- “ portion as may enable them to follow his example.” [Thus far © W.P.] Now mark, whether herein he has not owned the Di- € vinity of the Son, when thus plainly he hath confeffed to his ‘light, both as to its extent and virtue.” And after complaining of T. V.’s falfely comparing W. Penn to Arius, G. Whitehead proceeds, ‘ But further, how evidently has W. P. in his 18, “19, 21, pages owned and confefled Chrift the Son of God, € and his light and grace, both for remiffion of fins, reconcili- © ation, falvation of men, life eternal; and as he is the only ‘ begotten of the Father, the gift and expreffion of eternal lo © for falvation. Now can any thing have or work thefe effe ‘that is not divine? Is not Chrift’s Divinity, virtue, divine ‘ light, and power, plainly confeffed by W.P. herein, as alfo to his ‘being God, page 21. How grofsly have thefe Prefbyteriang, ‘wronged him, in charging the contrary upon him, and a ‘not they rather juftly chargeable herein, with denying ‘ Divinity of Chrift in fetting fo flight by his light in eve ‘man, as they have done, one calling it an idol, another ‘cautioning not to follow its guidance; but the Divinity of © Chrift, and the honour due to him, far be it from us te ‘deny, as thefe men have done, and the Scripture inftances “in that cafe, we both know and own, John iii. 13. viii. 58 ‘Rom. ix. 5. Phil. i. 6. 10. Col. i, 16,17. Heb. i. 3. 87 ( 41 ) nd in reply to the charge of Socinianifm, he fays, ‘I have heard of fome, beyond the fea, that went under that name, Socinians, who were accufed with denying the divinity of - Chrift; but I know of none here that either deny the divinity of Chrift, or him to be of one fubftance with the Father; if our oppofers do know of any fuch, they may tell them of it, and not accufe the innocent with the guilty, as they have done to us.—We had not our principles either from Arius or Socinus,. neither did we ever deny the divinity of Chrift (or his being of the fame fubftance with the Father), as Arius, Socinus, and others are accufed ; fo that therein we are very unjuftly com- pared and mifreprefented, for which I can fay the Lord forgive thefe our prejudiced oppofers. But it is no ftrange thing for us to be called by nick-names, by thefe and fuch falfe accufers, for one while they were wont to revile us for wanting learning, being illiterate, &c.—another while they accufed us falfely with being Free-willers, Arminians, &c. becaufe we plead for the free grace of God to all men: and now we are, falfely reckoned Socinians, and moft injurioufly accufed with denying the divinity of Chrift the Son of God, which we are ever always clear of, ftill confefling him according to the Scriptures, both in his fufferings, dominion, and glory, who is the fame yefterday, to-day, and for ever.’* Was not Geo. Whitehead, Penn’s affociate in the contro- fy, as likely as Verax to be acquainted with his real opinions, ud as well qualified to defend them? how is it that his de- mce is at complete variance with the Appeal ? William Penn in his ¢ Innocency with her open Face,’ de- ibes the occafion of his imprifonment in the Tower as follows: hat which I am credibly informed to be the greateft reafon f my imprifonment, and that noife of blafphemy which hath ierced fo many ears of late, is, my denying the divinity of Chrift, nd divefting him of his eternal Godhead, which moft bufily has een fuggefted as well to thofe in authority, as malicioufly ine nuated amongft the people.’+—The reafon Penn here afligns the outcry again{ft him, correfponds with Whitehead’s; and cannot fuppofe that Verax, who mutft be acquainted with the ntroverfies that have exifted for feveral centuries refpecting e divinity and pre-exiftence of Chrift, will hazard an af- tion that Penn’s adverfaries did not mean the divinity of rift in the common and ufual acceptation of the phrafe, en they accufed Penn of denying it. And if they are be underftood in that fenfe, how can we reconcile it with fin’s veracity that he fhould reje& the accufation as a ma- * Whitehead’s Divinity of Chrift, p. 32, 33, 34. 38, 39. t Penn’s Works, Vol. I. p. 267. G ¢ 489 licious infinuation, if he really difbelieved the divinity ¢ Chrift. But as Verax feems to think Penn’s enemies we juftified in their accufation againft him from the obvior ‘ Unitarian tendency’ of ‘ the Sandy Foundation Shaken let us fee whether Penn was of the fame fentiment. In ‘ Ennocency with her open Face,’ after faying that he believe ‘the Lord Jefus Chrift really to be the mighty God,’ ad ‘And for a more ample fatisfaétion, let my reply to” © Clapham be perufed, in which Chrift’s divinity and eternity © very fully afferted. Judge then, impartial reader, (to whom Ia ‘ peal in this concern) whether my Chriftian reputation ha ‘not been unworthily traduced; and that thofe feveral perfo “who have been pofting out their books againft me, have “been beating the air and fighting with their own fhadows, ‘ {uppofing what I’never thought, much lefs writ of, to be © intention of my book.’* net ars Thus he was fo far from a to, or being fen of, ¢ the obvious Unitarian tendency of the whole of his worl that he rejeéts having fo much as thought of divefting Ch of his eternal Godhead in that book; confequently he w not obliged to deny the eternal Deity of Chrift, afterwar to fupport his confiftency, and to keep clear * from the cha’ © of temporizing” , Penn having referred to ‘ The Guide Miftaken,’ in reply J. Clapham, for a more ample fatisfaétion of his belief in Chrif eternity, I fhall prefent the reader with the paflage he probat adverts to, viz. ‘Thou muft not, reader, from my qneryg “thus, conclude, we do deny (as he has falfely charged 1 © thofe glorious Three, which bear record in heaven—t ‘ Father, Word, and Spirit; neither the infinity, eternity, 2 © divinity of Jefus Chrift; for that we know he is the mig “God; nor what the Father fent his Son to do on the beh © of loft man; declaring to the whole world we know no oth “name by which atonement, falvation, and plenteous redem © tion comes; but by his name are, according to our meafur € made fenfible of its mighty power.’+ Verax has before feen this paflage; it is quoted at length the very pamphlet to which his is profeffedly a reply, namely © The Examination,’ &c. by Vindex, but inftead of noticing genuine complexion, he paffes it over flightly, faying, in anit to Vindex, that ¢ Penn himfelf calls it not an £ apology but a “ c < tion,” and ‘that he exprefsly gives it for the better explanation < thofe very Unitarian paflages, for which Vindex would rep ‘fent it as an apology.’{ In this I agree with him, but m * Penn’s Works, Vol. I. p. 268, + Lbid. Vol. II. p. 14. } Vindication, p. 4. (4300 fo add, that this ‘ better explanation’ entirely militates againft is fuggeftion of Penn’s intending thofe pailages to have an Jnitarian tendency. erax has entered into a criticifm upon Penn’s rejection of 1¢ phrafe co-eternal (in’ the preceding page of this work), 3 applied to Chrift in diftinCtion from his Father, at the fame me that he fays he is as far from queftioning Chrift’s eter- ity, as ready to fcruple that phrafe, Verax afks, How one art of this fentence is to be reconciled with the other? the rft queftion rather is, whether co-eternal and eternal have caétly the fame meaning—whether the former phrafe does ot imply two diftin&t and feparate beings, confequently two ernals: for though the Friends believe the Father, Son, and loly Ghoft to be eternal, ‘ yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal :’* Penn confequently might reje& the phrafe >-eternal for the fame reafon as he rejects the phrafe, diftin& nd feparate perfons ;’ therefore the inference Verax draws from , viz. that Penn, by rejeCting the phrafe co-eternal, muft have fed eternal in a limited. fenfe, is not deducible from this paflage. To Clapham’s refleGtion on the Quakers that. they openly eny the doétrine of the Trinity—after obferving that ‘Trinity is ot a fcripture phrafe, Penn proceeds, ‘ Yet, if by Trinity he underftands thofe three witnefles in heaven, Father, Word, and Spirit, he fhould have better acquainted himfelf with what we do difown, than ignorantly thus to blaze abroad our open denial of what we moft abfolutely credit and believe.’+ In Penn’s Key, written fo late as 1692, from which I have al- ady given an extract in the preceding letter to John Evans, page he fays, ‘ Let the poor Quakers, and their abufed principles, have better entertainment with thee, reader; and do not conclude,—becaufe they aflert Chrift to be the word of God, and that he is revealed in the heart, according to the {cripture, and that the Scripture, in that excellent fenfe, is not fo; that therefore they deny the divine authority of the Scriptures, and that the mind and truth thereof, as declared by them, is not in any fenfe the word of the Lord to men: or becaufe they do ot receive the fchoolmen’s Trinity, that therefore they deny he Scripture Trinity of Father, Word, and Spirit: or that they deny the divinity of Chrift the word.’ And a little ther on in the fame work, ‘ Reader, thou plainly feeft, that they believe the light to be divine, and the Scriptures to be of ivine authority; that they own the Scripture ‘lrinity or holy hree of Father, Word, and Spirit, to be truly and properly * The creed of Athanafius—It afterwards adopts the phrafe co- ernal, but this does not appear quite confiftent with the above. + Penn’s Works, Vol. II, p. 18. G2 ( 44 )- © one; that Chrift is God, and that Chrift is man; that “came in the flefh, died, rofe again, afcended, and fits * God’s right hand, the only facrifice and mediator for m € happinefs.’* It is likewife in this work that, in reply to the charge ‘the Quakers deny Chrift to be God,’ Penn fays, ‘A m € untrue and uncharitable cenfure; for their great and charac ‘ teriftic principle being this, that Chrift, as the Divine Wo ‘ lighteth the fouls of all men that come into the world, with * fpiritual and faving light, according to John i. g. viii. ‘ ‘ (which nothing but the Creator of fouls can do), it does fu ‘ ciently fhow they believe him to be God, for they truly an * expreisly own him to be fo, according to the Scripture, v “In him was life, and that life was the light of men; and h “is God over all blefled for ever;’ and to the objection ‘the Quakers deny the human nature of Chrift,’ he anfwer © We never taught, faid, or held fo grofs a thing.—For as © believe him to be God over all bleffed for ever, fo we do z ‘truly believe him to be of the feed of Abraham and Davi ‘ after the flefh, and therefore truly and properly man, like u ‘ in all things, fin only excepted.’+ Thus W. Penn three times in the courfe of one Treati (and that written fo late as the year 1692), endeavours to im prefs the reader with the Friends’ belief in the Scripture Trinit of Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, and that when, as Vera obferves, he was probably acquainted with the doubtful auther ticity of 1 John v. 7. confequently he could not be fuppofed 1 have confidered the do€trine of the Trinity, to be depend upon the ‘ particular adoption of the above text, as though © were original, apoftolical and divine.’{ This fuppofition juftified by R. Claridge, who after having ftated, at confide Jength, the various explanations given to the fchool tert adopted in explaining the Trinity, proceeds to give his o fentiments, ‘Is it not better and fafer to fpeak of the my * rious Trimity in the language of the Holy Ghoft, than in * invented terms and phrafes:—therefore in this and all o articles of faith and doctrines of religion in common to © believed, in order to eternal falvation, let not the opini ‘ explications or conceptions of men, which are often dubi © various, or erroneous, be efteemed as a rule or ftandard ; * let every one rely upon the divine teftimony of the holy Se © tures, which declare that God is one, and there is none o © befides him, and that the one God is Father, Son, and Hi ‘ Spirit, or as it is expreffed, 1 John v. 7. The Father, * Penn’s Works, Vol. II. p. 789, 790. — + Ibid. Vol. II. p. 7 7 t¢ Vindication, p. 16. } { 45 ) © Word, and the Holy Ghoft: though that text is fufpected by © many learned men, it being not met with, as Pool informs us, in Nazeanzen, Athanafius, Didymus, Chryfoftom, Cyril,’ &c. € nor urged in the Nicene council againft Arius; for though it € quote v. 6. yet it omits v. 7. either becaufe they found it not € in the original, or doubted its authority. Neither is it found ¢in many Greek and Latin copies, nor in the Syriac, Arabic, €or Ethiopic verfions;’ and after producing fome more au- thorities to the fame éffe€t, he concludes, ‘ But whether that © yerfe be dubious or authentic is not much material, becaufe in © other places of Scripture the fub{tance of it is recorded.’* _ [have been induced to give this paflage more at length, becaufe only partially noticed by Verax, notwithftanding it was as necef- fary for his reader’s information as any of the preceding extracts, he has produced with fo much apparent candour, though they really affeét not the point at iffue, but fimply relate to the dif- ferent and confufed explications of the {chool terms homooufios, Oufia, Hypoftafis, Profopon & Perfona, and the confequent inefh- ciency of thefe phrafes to explain the Scripture Trinity. WVerax has alfo omitted the following extra€t, though he quotes what immediately fucceeds it. ‘ Calvin calls the terms “ Trinity of “ perfons invented names,” ‘and wifheth ‘they had been “buried, provided this faith were univerfally agreed upon, © that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God.”+ I do not -fuppofe even Verax will think of ranking Calvin among the Soci- nians, or as an unbeliever in the divinity of Chrift; yet our Ant Friends have no more denied either the Trinity, or divinity of Chrift than he has here done. Indeed by rejecting the phrafe © Trinity of perfons,’ they have, according to Calvin, only rejected © invented names,’ and not the doétrine itfelf. : Verax fays, ‘ Perfect confiftency, as relating to the precifion © of Penn’s language on this fubjecét, I have not claimed, but confiftency of intention, and fincerity of mind, I muft ftill © contend for on his behalf, &c.’{ He will not have to con- tend with me for Penn’s confiftency of intention, or fincerity of mind. With regard to the want of precifion in Penn’s language, fo as to occafion an apparent inconfiftency, I believe this will only apply to two of his early tracts, viz. ‘ The Sandy © Foundation Shaken,’ and ‘ The Guide Miftaken,’ and each of thefe contain their own correétives, which fully evince the author’s care and defire to prevent mifconftruction. Verax, by infinuating that Vindex confidered thefe paflages as ° very « nearly allied to recantations’ of the tracts of which they form a part, endeavours to make Vindex appear to be as partial to in- * Claridge’s Life and Pofthumous Works, p. 413, 414,415- + Claridge’s Works, p. 393. $ Vindication, p. 13. \ ( 46 ) congruities and paradoxes, as he has fhown himfelf to be. did Verax iupprefs thofe words ‘.Miftake me not, &c.’ in th Appeal, as he cannot deny them to have been intended by the author as a ‘ better explanation of thofe very Unitarian paflages,” {as he calls them) with which he has favoured his readers; and when he at laft quotes them in his reply to Vindex, why not ins| form us how we are to reconcile them with his Unitarian con- ftruction of other paffages in the fame treatife? If he return the queftion, by afking how thefe paflages can admit of a Trinitarian con{truction, my extracts from the Sandy Foundation Shaken, and Whitehead’s Divinity of Chrift are an anfwer to him: from) them it appears, that by ‘ their Trinity,’ which Penn fays ‘ has € not fo much as a foundation in Scripture,’ he means a ‘ Trini © of diftin& and feparate perfons,’ or ‘ three diftin& and feparz ‘holy ones,’ which he rejeéts as contrary to the fcriptural doctrine of the unity of the Father, Son, and. Holy Spirit: upon no other ground can we fupport his ‘ confiftency of «intention, and fincerity of mind.’ Verax’s hypothefis reduce us to the alternative, that Penn muft either have written non- fenfe, or flagrantly contradicted himfelf. . Of the caution or apology, for it is indifferent which we term it, in ‘ The Guide miftaken,’ Verax fays, that Penn ‘ exprefsly * gives it for the better explanation of thofe very Unitarian pa ‘fages, for which Vindex reprefents it as an re ‘ Whether this explanation,’ continues Verax, ‘ be well calc ‘ lated to elucidate the preceding paflages, or is, ftriCtly fpea * ing, perfe€tly confiftent therewith, I have not ventured t ‘afhrm,’* Is here not fome miftake? did Verax really imten¢ to intimate that this caution, exprefsly given by Penm for 2 better explanation of the preceding paflages, is not well calcu- lated to elucidate them? could he for a moment think that the reader would hefitate whom to choofe as the beft expofitor ¢ thefe controverted paflages, Penn or Verax? after this we need not enquire, why the reader is not trufted with Penn’s expofi- tion. ‘The Monthly Reviewers’ Critique on a fimilar paflage from ‘ Innocency with her open Face’ was, probably, not fo otten. ; : In the Appeal there are fome citations from Penn’s Chriftian Quaker, who, in this work, makes a diftin€tion between the Godhead and manhood of Chrift, and very juftly remarks th to. the divinity that dwelt in the body, muft be principall afcribed the virtue and eflicacy of whatever it did in and through the body; the fame as if we were to fay, that any virtue a mar practifes, is to be afcribed to his foul principally, and te his body only fecondarily and inftrumentally, as being only the in= * Vindication, p. 4. { 47 ) ftrument of that immortal fpark of life which dwells in it: The following paragraph is not inferted by the author of the Appeal, although clofe upon an extraét he has given, and immediately connected with his fubject. _ ©1 further confefs, that his righteous life with refped to its € appearance in that holy body, was grieved by fin, and that the * weight of the iniquity of the whole world, with the concern- ‘ment of its eternal well-being, lay hard upon him; nor was ‘his manhood infenfible of it, under the load of this did he € travail, he alone trod the wine prefs, that is, all others were © then infenfible of that eternal wrath, which would be the por- © tion of impenitent perfons, as well as that it was his great care © and deep travail, that the holy, yet opprefled feed might arife © over the preflures of iniquity in the hearts of men, to bruife * the ferpent’s head in all; and as outwardly he gave his out- © ward life for the world, fo he might inwardly fhed abroad “in their fouls the blood of God, that is, the holy purifying © life and virtue which is in him as the Word—God, and as © which he is the light and life of the world.’* The following is from the 16th chapter; ‘ Before I conclude, © take this notable faying of Chrift to the Jews, and what may © be collected from it to our purpofe: Before Abraham was 1 © am, Abraham faw my day and rejoiced. Which affords us briefly € thus much; that though he was‘not fo vifibly come, yet it was “the fame He that came above one thoufand fix hundred years £ ago, who was with the Fathers of old, and that Abraham, who € lived one thoufand nine hundred years before that outward ap- * pearance, faw him and his day. If this be not the import of the £ place I know none; for the Jews not believing him to be the © Meffiah, thought it high prefumption for him to compare “with Abraham. “ Art thou greater than our father Abraham, ¢ who is dead, and the prophets are dead ? whom makeft thou “ thyfelf?” faid that unbelieving people: unto which he anfwered ‘(that he might prove himfelf to be the true Meffiah, the © Chrift of God), “ Abraham faw my day and rejoiced:” they ftill harping upon that vifible body, or outward man, not thirty- three years old, replied, “Thou art not yet fifty, and haft thou * feen Abraham?” taking that to be the Meffiah, the Chrift of God, and Saviour of the world he meant, which they faw © with their carnal eyes: to which he rejoined with a “ Verily, « verily, I fay unto you, before Abraham was Iam,” &c. By all which it is moft clear,—Chrift that then fpoke muft needs have been long before Abraham’s time, and that fuch holy ancients were not without a fight and profpeCt of him, and | the day of his glorious appearance, or that moft fignal mani- * Penn’s Works, Vol. I. p, 574. ( 48 } * feftation of himfelf in the body prepared for that great an © holy purpofe.— And this is unqueftionably confirmed unto u © by that known and weighty expreffion of the apoftle Paul © the Romans: ‘ Whofe are the fathers, and of whom, as con- “ cerning the flefh, Chrift came, who is over all, God blefit “ for ever, Amen.” Since here both Chrift is diftinguifhed from © the body he took, and alfo made one with God, who is ove € all, bleffed for ever, Amen; as much as to fay, Of whofe flefh * Chrift took, therefore Chrift was before he took it; or his € taking it did not only conftitute him Chrift, which Chrift is © God: and if God (which cannot be faid of mere flefh, or any € corporeal lineage), then mutt he have been from all everlafting.’* Again in chapter 18, ‘That body was the divine life’s, “a body’ “ haft thou prepared me,”’ therefore all that was done by “ © body towards the redemption of mankind was evidently the © divine life’s. —Confider what I fay, with this qualification, that € ultimately and chiefly, not wholly and exclufively, the divin © life in that body was the Redeemer, for the fufferings of that € holy body of Jefus had an engaging and procuring virtue im “them, though the divine life was that fountain from whence € originally it came, and as the life declared and preached forth © itfelf, through that holy body, fo who did then come to th ‘ benefit procured by the divine life, could only do it, through « an hearty confeflion of it as appearing in that body.—This is © the main import of thofe places; “ whom God hath fet forth to “ be a propitiation,” and “in whom we have redemption through “ faith in his blood :” for who is this he, whom God hath fent © forth, and in whom is redemption ? certainly the fame he ie © was before Abraham, the rock of the fathers, that cried, “ L “ I come to do thy will, O God, a body haft thou prepared me; © which was long before the body was conceived and born. But © fome may fay, how is it then his blood? why, juft as his body is his body. Thofe who had faith in that blood, believed his vifible ‘ appearance, inafmuch as they acknowledged that great feal © and ratification of it, to wit, the fhedding the blood of his “ body, who came to fave the world, and who alone is the pro- ‘ pitiation, redemption, and falvation, of all who had, and have ‘ right faith in that appearance.—Faith in his blood was requi- ‘ fite, that they might confefs him, whofe body and blood it was, “to be the Chrift, who is God over all, bleffed for ever.—S« © that the ftrefs lies in confefling to the divinity come in the © flefh, otherwife they would have rejeéted not only the mof © fignal fuffering of the whole manifeftation, but confequent ‘that itfelf.’+ ‘The following extraéts from the 19th chapt will elucidate the drift of Penn’s reafoning in his Chia * Penn’s Works, Vol. I. p. 571. + Ibid. p. 579. ( 49 ) uaker—* That which temains to complete our fcriptural difs courfe of the divine light, is to pronounce it that which our enemies defpife to call it, and do not a little undervalue both us and it, becaufe we do—I mean, Chrift. Not that the mani- feftation of light in every confcience is the entire Chrift; but hat Chrift, the Word-God, is that light of righteoufnefs which lighteth all men; for which the Scripture is moft ex- srefs in that fo well known (but little believed) paflage, lelivered to us by the beloved difciple, who beft knew what 1is Lord was, and ftood in no need of their information how 0 denominate, or rightly characterize him; although they ind others implicitly accufe him of weaknefs, ob{curity, nay f error, if not blafphemy too; who make it all this in a poor Quaker, for only believing on pure conviction this one veighty paflage, “ That was the true light which enlightens all mankind coming into the world.” I have fo thoroughly vandled this matter ina late book, entitled, The Spirit of [ruth vindicated, that'I need the lefs enlarge at this time; to which I refer the reader. for fatisfaCtion, concerning fome bjections raifed againft the place. However I will briefly onfider it here, and—obferve that two things are commonly irged againft our underftanding of the firft nine verfes of ohn, as they refpect the light.’ 1. © Some fay that the light here fpoken of is not a fuperna- ural, and confequently no faving light, but the light of com- non reafon: others call it, of nature decayed by the fall; nd what conviétion arifeth thence is only the imperfect emains of that natural light, which thefe men—grant all have, s well before as after Chrift’s coming in the fleth. 2. © Others fay, that this is indeed an univerfal and faving ight, but they reftrain it to Chrift’s vifible appearance, and nake the a// to be all thofe only that fhall believe; and the orld to be the new fpiritual world Chrift came to create, by iving knowledge, which believers came into.’ "I thall briefly anfwer both :—It is agreed by the firft fort, vat in the beginning of this chapter, Chrift’s eternal Divinity | declared by the evangelift, fince fome of them tell us out — F Eufebius, that it was written on that very occafion; one erinthus then denying any fuch thing. The Word which was ith God, and was and is God; this God, the fame perfon ills us, in his firft epiftle, is light; that by him all things are lade; among the reft, mankind: he then tells us that this Vord had life, and from thence defcends to inform us, what le Word was with refpe@ to man: in him, the word was life, ad the life the light of men; and that as fuch, he was that ue light which lighteth all mankind coming into the world.’ ler proving the light to be divine, and thereby removing the ( go.) fitt objeétion, Penn proceeds to anfwer the fecénd, ‘ That it isnot only a moft falfe, but injurious notion, to ‘ the commencement—or being of that light to men, only * from the coming of Chrift in the flefh. Befides—I cannot © ceive how that expofition can be valid: for then John © have been before Chrift, inftead of Chrift’s being ‘ Abraham.—And to fay nothing at this time of the mif © eftate thofe of mankind muft labour under, antecedently ‘ Chrift’s coming in the flefh, let it be confidered, that the © nine verfes in John relate not in the leaft to his flefhly me ‘ance, from whence thofe men would date both his orig © and man’s illumination, but are a continued feries of ‘higheft proofs of his Divinity, that we might as well © what he was before he came, as when he did come: and © one was an introduétion to the other. Neither is it fair ‘thefe men to allegorize Chrift out of his Divinity, and d ‘deny us an allegory to prove it.—Further let me add, © he who then came into the world, was the fame that cr * that world into which he came, and therefore previous, © before fuch coming, fo neither can it hold that the world it © which man comes, is the new creation, &c.’* ; If W. Penn is to be confidered as difbelieving the Divin of Chrift, merely becaufe he makes a diftinétion between 1 Godhead and manhood of Chrift; I believe it will be difficr if not impoffible, to find a fingle perfon who can be faid believe Chrift to be God. But what can be more captious, be a greater proof of a mind warped by prejudice, than to de a perfon to be a believer in the eternal Divinity of Chrift, unl he alfo believes the body which Chrift took of the Virgin Mi to be co-eternal with Chrift himfelf ? 4 W. Penn having in his Chriftian Quaker referred us to’ book entitled, ‘ The Spirit of Truth vindicated,’ and as Verax his Vindication undertakes to explain the. tenor of that we it is neceflary to advert to it, before we leave Penn. 4 The firft paragraph of this work is as follows: § I cannot ‘ efieem it a peculiar providence of mercy from the moft high Gat “us his moft defpifed people ;—that after our feveral years pref ‘under the heavy calumnies of being involved with a Socin * confederacy, he /bould fo fuffer it to come to pafs, that without ‘ leaft provocation given en our parts, one of that fort of © fhould become our compurgator, indeed our beft advocate © pleading againft us, for whilft he goes about to deteét the Quak “an erroneous [pirit, it is to be fuppofed that he denies them any ‘ in his, and therefore no Socinians. I hope whatever comes of ‘ debate, we fall no longer fuffer for being what we are not; i * Penn’s Works, Vol. I. p. 581 to 584. rv ( st ) vould be hard that we fhould be condemned for Socinians, nd then abufed for refufing to be fo: let them not be ffended with me if I ufe the word, it is not from any under- alue of the man they take it from, nor-out of any reproach - 9 them, but only as a word of difference to diftinguifh per- ons or perfuafions by.’* In the foregoing paragraph the italics diftinguifh what is itted by Verax. Without enquiring into his motives, for not ing the whole, it clearly appears from it, that Penn rejects > charge of Socinianifm againft the Quakers, as falfe, ufing 2 word as diftinguifhing perfons or perfuafions. The fol- ving extracts from this work of Penn’s will affift to elucidate 2 fentiments of the Socinians of his time, alfo his opinion pecting them. ‘ We reverently confefs to Chrift’s appearance, both in flefh nd fpirit ; and when called to it, fhall be as ready, hearty, nd Chriftian (God affifting), in our confeffion of the fame, as o the beginning, progrefs, and end of that bleffed manifefta- ion, as the perfon who accufes us. But we dare not fay, hat the entire Chrift was that vifible body that was crucified, s believing (with the Scripture) moft fincerely, that he that ook upon him the feed of Abraham, according to the flefh, vas, and is, and is to come, God over all, bleffed for ever: vhich perfuafion, I know to be moft heretical in this adver- ary’s apprehenfion, and no part of his +Biddlean creed. Penn afterwards divides his adverfary’s objections to Geo. x’s quotations of Scriptures into three forts, viz—1ft. Such may refer to doétrinal difference, I mean ‘ wherein he op- ofeth us.’—2d. © Such as refer to his Socinian interpretation f the Scriptures, wherein Chrift’s divinity is afferted, where e oppofe him.’~~3d. ‘ Such as are merely trivial, &c. &c.’§ nder the firft head upon his opponent’s interpretation of the lowing text of John, ‘ That was the true light that lighteth very man that cometh into the world,’ who fays that in the reek it is.‘ coming’ and not ‘ that cometh,’ fo that it may er to the light, and not to man, Penn fays, ‘ As to the drift our adverfary in his tranfpofition of the participle, viz. The ivefting Chrift of all right to eternal divinity (which is the ake in the grafs), I fhall anon fufficiently, I hope, vindicate hat great truth. || nd after charging his adverfary with an intention ‘ to de- rone Chrift from the feat of his eternal majefty,’ he pro- * Vol. II, p. 93. From John Biddle, who was the Founder of the only Socinian iety then eftablifhed in England. } Vol. II. p, 96, § Ibid. p. 112. || Ibid. p. 116, H 2 ( sa ) ceeds to prove the Meffiah that then came into the wot to be § God, both by pre-exiftence and omnipotency.’”* wh pafling over for the fake of brevity, I fhall proceed to t feétion entitled, ‘ Scriptures Socinianized,’ in which Penn fay: © His (the Socinian’s) next perverfion of Seripture is that; € John, which he faith G, F. often ufeth, and always abufeth ‘he remembers: I doubt his memory much, but let us hear! “ And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own fe “with the glory I had with thee*before the world was: th “ the Scripture; but G. F. thus, Chrift who was glorified befo “ the world began,” on which read his comment, “ You w «‘ fay perhaps, his words and Chrift’s are the fame in fenfe, “doth God give G. F. his infallible Spirit to correét his 5 “ Chrift’s words.” ‘ He proceeds, “ Nay doth not G..F. ta “his phrafe in a diverfe fenfe from what Chrift-intended “his; for (fays he), it is manifeft that Jefus prayed now to” <« plorified with the glory, wherewith he was not now glorifie « but God was glorious before the world was, therefore Je “‘ intended by the glory he had with the Father before the wot “‘ was, the glory he had given him in decree before the wo « was.” 7 a ‘ The clinch is foolifh, and his confequence falfe and pt © nicious: for what if Chrift was not then glorified, muift “ therefore follow, that he was not in being, much lefs glorifi - © before the world was? Can he be fo great a ftranger to t ‘ apoftle’s doctrine delivered in his epiftle to the Philippiat « where we find him firft equal with God, as being in his ve ‘ form or effence ; next making himfelf of no eS ‘ appearing in the fafhion or likenefs of men, and laftly, © humbled himfelf, and became obedient unto death, even t € death of the crofs, which fhows that he was in an ex “and glorified eftate before he humbled himfelf, elfe how w “he humbled? and it is a piece of facrilege, and ingratitd ‘ Talmoft tremble to think on,’ &¢. as I have already quoted in letter to J. Evans, fee page 9. and then he proceeds, ¢ Nor ‘ this Scripture at all make for his opinion; ‘ for Jefus was “ yet glorified;” fince it might as well have been faid, he ‘not yet died the death of the crofs, neither is rifen © afcended, which was the period of that ftate, unto whic © has from the form of God humbled himfelf, even to the b ‘ of no reputation, which he thus expreffeth himfelf; “I “¢ storified thee on earth, I have finifhed the work thou “me to do:” * And in another place thus, “I came f “ from the Father, and am come into the world.” Again, | © leave the world, and go to the Father,” * ,where is * Vol. II. p. 117. ae ( 52 ) S fame feafon that we fhould believe he was with the Father “ before he came into the world, as that he did come into the ‘ world, and afterwards go to the Father again; elfe why is it ‘again going to the Father? But now let me afk him, if he € can be fo brazened as to think, that God allows him, not only © to correét his Son Chrift’s words,” but the very fubftance of ‘his prayer ?—That ever any man fhould undertake to cor- €re& others in that, which doth not deferve it, whilft the © beam is in his own eye, and he is himfelf moft guilty! M ‘ foul bleffeth God, that our religion is above thefe flight thifts. €J would tell the man in his own words of us, though more § ferioufly, that he, whom G. F. and all of us call Chrift, by « way of excellency, was, in the fenfe aforementioned glorified ‘ before the world began: and if what he calls Chrift was not, jt is to usa proof, that he was not that true Chrift, which ‘both appeared to the fathers of old (for the rock followed them, and that rock was Chrift), and in the fafhion of a man ‘in thefe latter times, humbling himfelf to the death of the § crofs.—He is very angry with G. F. that he makes Chrift § {peak thefe words by the prophet Amos, “ Behold I am “ preffed under you, as a cart is preffed with fheaves,” which, * fays he, belongs to the Lord or Jehovah. Grant it, does it © not therefore belong unto Chrift, who is God over all, blefled * for ever; that faid, Before Abraham was I am ?’* _ Penn next proceeds to vindicate Fox’s words, ‘ The feed is § Chrift, and Chrift is all,’ charges the Socinian with denying Chrift to be all in all, then brings the apoftle’s words in Col. iii. tx. © But Chrift is all and in all, in defence of G. Fox, and makes the following deduction from them; ¢ And if Chrift be all * and in all, and he that is all and in all, be the true and living * God; then becaufe Chrift is all and in all, Chrift is the true * and living God.’ " Next follows that paflage, upon which Verax, in his Vindi- cation, has difplayed his abilities for verbal criticifm in relation to Penn’s conftruétion of John i. 1. 4. that it fhould be read, ‘the ‘ word took flefh,’ rather than that ‘ the very word became “very flefh, I mean vifible to carnal eyes.” I moft cordially unite with Penn’s conftruétion of the paflage, but cannot fee with Verax, wherein it oppofes the doétrine of the incarnation, and therefore we are not to be furprifed if Penn and others of our firft Friends have exprefled their belief in that doctrine. Were I to tranfcribe the whole of this fetion, it would be me continued proof of Penn’s unequivocal belief in the Di- vinity of Chrift, I hall therefore haften to the laft Socinian ob- jeCtion to G. Fox’s citation of Scripture, which is made to his * Ibid. p. 136, 137. ( 54) calling Chrift God (inftead of Lord), both of the dead and living to which Penn anfwers:-— —_ + $ If Chrift be God over all, as faith the apoftle, then wh € not God both of the dead and of the living, as well “Lord both of the dead and of the living —I am well affured | “that God is called judge ef quick and dead, and if fo, them © becaufe Chrift is Lord of quick and dead, Chrift the Lord is © God of both quick and dead ;—in fhort, Chrift is called both | * God, Lord, and Judge; and fince there is but one only t © God, Lord, and Judge of right Chriftians, we therefore believe | * Chrift to be that only true God, Lord, and Judge of both * quick and dead. And here let me caution the man of his” * eager oppofition to Chrift’s Divinity, fince fuppofing it fhould | © not be true, there can be no detraétion; and if it fhould prove * true, as he may one day know, he will be guilty of xobbi * Chrift of that, for which he thought it no robbery himfelf be equal with God; that is to be the only true God himfelf.’ This is the laft paragraph in the feétion entitled, ‘ Scripture € Socinianized,’ which, together with thofe that precede, fuffici ently fhows that Penn ufed the word Socinian as appropriate t thofe who denied the Divinity of Chrift. . } fhall clofe my extraéts from this author on the prefent fu je& with the following paflage taken from his poftcript to ‘'T. € Spirit of Truth vindicated.’ ty “I am to advife the man, if he intends any further contro~ * verfy with us, that he fhould not lofe his time, nor trouble us €in the defence of any common principles, wherein we are « judged to err; but if he pleafe to be fo open with us, as to € come forth in what we have fome ground to believe his com * plexion, that is to fay, If he will tell us that Chrift is but purus « homo, purely a man; that the holy Spirit is a creature ; that ¢ Father, Son, and Spirit are three diftin@ effences and per © fons; that the foul is mortal, with fome other like articles © of his Biddlean creed, then I hope we fhall endeavour to main- £ tain the truth as it is in Jefus, and to give a fufficient reafon of ¢ the hope that is m us.”} j Among the erroneous fentiments with which Wm. Penn charges his opponent, thofe of believing Chrift to be purely a man, and the foul to be mortal, are what diftinguifh fome of the modern Socinians. Jofeph Prieftley has written a treatife te prove the foul material, and as mortal as the body, which has been anfwered by John Whitehead. And in a fmall pamphlet, entitled, ‘ A familiar Illuftration of certain paflages of Scripe ‘ture,’ Prieftley explains Chrift’s prayer, John xvi. 5. ¢ of the ‘ glory which was intended for him in the councils of God ® Vol. IT, p..139. ft Ibid. p. 151. ( 35 ) ® Before all time,’ which explication is exa€tly fimilar to that repelled by Penn, as a perverfion of the text. I mention this to thew ‘that the arguments for and-againft the Divinity of Chrift, have not undergone fuch a revolution, fince the days of Penn, as to involve the language of his time in the obfcurity in- finuated by Verax, to fupport a pofition which muft inevitably fall to the ground if our firft Friends are admitted to fpeak for themfelves, and their words taken in their prefent proper accept- ation. Hence his demand for a ‘ liberal allowance for the ‘peculiar complexion of the times in appreciating the real ‘meaning of our early writers;’ hence his complaint of ‘ the € difficulty of gathering the true import of many paflages which “may not have been thought obfcure, or ambiguous by the ‘ writer himfelf, or his contemporaries ;’ of ‘ doubtful or con- ¢ tradi€tory expreflions’ of Penn’s writings being ‘ deeply tinged € with the fort of language which was then current in theology;’ hence he difcovers our early friends had ‘ fome failings peculiar * to the genius of the age and country in which they lived,’ and that from ‘ miftaken motives they difcovered a great, if not too « great an anxiety, to reconcile their own impreifions of religious ‘ truth, with the current orthodoxy of the day, which has occa- € fioned a correfpondent degree of obfcurity in their writings.’* Is this accufation againft our firft Friends confiftent with their well known integrity and unfhaken zeal for whatfoever they ap- prehended to be truth? to what motive can we attribute Verax’s infinuation that they did not truly and unequivocally believe in thofe doGtrines they publifhed to the world as their faith, except to a defire to throw a veil over their real fentiments, in order to miflead his reader ? He has endeavoured to fan&ion his charge of ambiguity againft Penn by the authority of Jofeph Gurney Bevan, but before we concede to his claim upon this writer, he mutt firft prove Penn, Barclay, and Penington to have been illiterate characters, not underftanding the rules of grammar, and that they ‘had © never converfed much with the learned world; and their ftyle * was confequently unformed.’}+ J.G. Bevan’s obfervations prin- cipally referred to George Fox, who, it is well known, was far from being a literary chara¢ter; and the inftances he produces in fupport of his obfervations, relate rather to grammatical inaccuracies, than to variations in the import of the words ufed by G. Fox. Verax, by a partial quotation from J. G. B.’s Refutation, © endeavours to extend the charge of ambiguity to R. Barclay. * Vindication, p. 19, 20. + A Refutation of 'the more modern mifreprefentations of the * Society of Friends, &c,? by Jofeph Gurney Bevan. p. 53. 54+ ( 969 That the reader may judge of Verax’s candour in this offé in ftance (for I do not intend following him through ail his m tilated quotations), I fhall give the paflage with its context. T Mofheim’s charge that Barclay exprefied the Quakers’ tenets ‘in terms of a vague and indefinite nature,’ &e. J. G. B. re= lies, Of ‘ This is indeed a fingular charge; yet fome of its extraordinary i © confiftency might indeed difappear, could it be proved that the te © of Barclay were vague and indefinite. On the contrary, his t * by which I fuppofe it to be underftood the words which he ufes, are, © [think it will be allowed, as fimple, clear, and definite, as thofe of any) © author: and he has this advantage above others, that as he wrote hit © Apology in Latin and Englifh, each text is to be confidered as an © ginal; and each is an undeniable comment on the other ; and may fe * for the clearing up of any ambiguity that may unintentionally be in the © work. A few unufual words occur, which I have appr * hended to be either Scotticifms, terms current in theology i “ the laft century, or terms framed by the author to fuit his © purpofe; but thefe are generally of obvious meaning. * terms of Barclay being, then, cleared from the imputation of ambis © guity, it feems firange to fay, that, becaufe he wrote in ordinary © language, his method is infidious, c.* . The words in italics are fupprefled by Verax; it woul doubtlefs have been more favourable to his prefent purpofe f Mofheim’s charge of ambiguity againft Barclay to a in its full force; this is evident from the whole tenor of hig reafoning refpecting his ftyle, and that of his coadjutors. = we refleé&t that he has brought the fame accufations againft o firft Friends as their adverfaries did formerly, can we admir that he charges their writings with ambiguity, whereby he ma claim a licence to put that conftruction on their words whie beft fuits his own purpofe, however repugnant to their real im: port? I afk for no forced conftruétion on the extraéts I have adduced, or may adduce, from the writings of our early Friends, for ‘no liberal allowance for the peculiar complexion of th ‘ times’ in which they were written; my only requeft is, tha their own works may fpeak for them, cleared from that ob {curity in which Verax endeavours to involve them: The fall of man through Adam, and his redemption fro it by Chrift, is thus exprefled by William Penn. ‘“ Man—being tempted to afpire above his place, unhappil © yielded againft command and duty,—and fo fell below it, lo ‘ the divine image, the wifdom, power, and purity he was mad ‘in; by which, being no longer fit for paradife, he was expelle ‘that garden of God, his proper dwelling and refidence, an » ® Thid. p..53, 54. ( Sea was driven out as a poor vagabond, from the prefence of the Lord, to wander in the earth, the habitation of beafts. Yet God that made him, had pity on him, for he, feeing man was deceived, and that it was not of malice, or an original pre- fumption in him, but through the fubtilty of the ferpent (who had firft fallen from his own ftate—), in his infinite goodnefs and wifdom, found out a way to repair the breach, recover the lofs, and reftore fallen man again, by a nobler and more excel- lent Adam, promifed to be born of a woman, that, as by means of a woman the evil one had prevailed upon man, by a woman alfo 4e fhould come into the world, who would pre- vail againft him, and bruife his head, and deliver man from his power: and which, in a fignal manner, by the difpen- fation of the Son of God in the flefh, in the fulnefs of time, was perfonally and fully accomplifhed by him, and in him, as man’s Saviour and Redeemer.’* Is this the language of a Socinian? May we not retort upon erax, by reminding him of his excellent maxim, only reverfing s conclufion? * Candour, nay, even common juftice, requires us to put fuch a conftrudtion on particular paflages of any ancient or modern author, as will make them, if poflible, con- fiftent with the general tenor of his writings; which it is, in a inftance, abfolutely impraCticable to do,’ if we are to con- er William Penn, ‘in the proper fenfe of the word as it now underftood, a ftri& Unitarian.’+ : *Penn’s Works, Vol. I. p. 859, 860. ‘ + Appeal, p. 7. CHAP. If, Of Rosert Barciay’s fentiments refpetiing th Trinity, the Divinity of Chrift, and the fiate ¢ man in the fall—Of GEORGE Fox’s /eniimeni on the fame fubjects. . THE reafon affigned in the Appeal for Robert Barclay’s ina tention to the important point of vindicating the unity of Gi which Verax fays ‘ our firft Friends had the manly bolda * openly to avow amidii the general deviation of the great b © of profefling Chriftians,’* is rather fingular, after fuch a ded ration; namely, becaufe R. B. ¢ confidered the doctrine of t ‘ proper unity of God, fo clear in itfelf to every man’s real ¢ and confcience, that it needed but little to be faid by him ‘{upport of it, as he feems from the whole tenor of his & ‘ propofition, to confider it as a doctrine already genere “ acknowledged.’+ Mutt not the writer of this paragraph h quite miftaken the tenor of Barclay’s firft Propofition, which entirely filent refpe€ting the unity or divifibility of God, | fubject of it being fimply the neceflity of a true knowled of God, in order to attain to true happinefs; it is as folloy © Seeing the height of all happinefs is placed in the true kn¢ “ledge of God, This is life eternal to know thee, the only t © God, and Jefus Chrift whom thou haft fent, (John xvii.’ © the true and right knowledge of this foundation and grou © of knowledge, is that which is moft neceflary to be known ‘ believed in the firft place.’ Barclay then proceeds to fhow the hath not ¢ been lefs the device of the devil to perfuade men 1 ‘ wrong notions of God, than to keep them altogether fi ‘acknowledging him,’ and remarks, ‘ How needful and ‘ firable that knowledge is, which brings life eternal, Epicte * Appeal, p. 3. + Ibid. p. 9s . P (53a thoweth, faying, excellently well, cap. 38, Know, that the main foundation of picty is this, to have right opinions and apprehenfions of God. This therefore I judged neceffary, as a firft principle in the firft place to affirm, and I fuppofe will not need much further explanation, as being generally acknow- ledged by all,’ &c.* ! What is this that is generally acknowledged by all as a firft inciple ? certainly, neither the Socinian nor Trinitarian mode f belief in God, refpeéting which there was then, and ftill mitinues to be, fuch diverfity of opinion. It muft have been common principle acknowledged by both thefe parties, viz. That the main foundation of picty is this, to have right )pinions and apprehenfions of God.’ What this true know- dge and right apprehenfion of God is, and how it is to be tained to, is the fubjeét of the fecond Propofition, which gins as follows: ‘ Seeing no man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son revealeth him, and feeing the evelation of the Son is in and by the Spirit; therefore the eftimony of the Spirit is that alone by which the true know- dge of God hath been, is, and can be only revealed.’+ Is not : doctrine of the Trinity acknowledged in this place? If srax fhould deny it, becaufe he cannot difcover the fchool- perfon; perhaps he may ftand corredted by the following &s from Barclay’s Vindication of his Apology, ¢ It will t be amifs here to take notice of his [Brown’s] moft uncha- table and unchriftian infinuations contrary to all Chriftian d fair rules of debate, as firft, page 24, where he will needs our denying of the Trinity, albeit he cannot deny, but finds it owned by me, groundlefsly coupling us with the cinians, &e.’{ Again, ¢ According to his (Brown’s) cuftom, - ough I condemn the Socinians), he will be infinuating, at I agree with them, to whofe notions of the Spirit albeit I ent not, yet I defire to know of him, in what fcripture he s thefe words, that the Spirit is a diftin@ perion of the inity. For I freely acknowledge, according to the Scripture, t the Spirit of God proceedeth from the Father and the » and is God,’ &c.§ Whether thefe extraéts produce con- jon on Verax’s mind or not, their language is fufficiently igible to preclude the neceflity of any comment. erax afks, ‘ In what ftri€:, proper, or confiftent fenfe can man who’ rejects the term perfon, in {peaking of the Son, fefs to believe the doétrine of the eternal Divinity of rift ?’|| This may be anfwered by another queftion, In Barclay’s Apology, 8th Edit. p. 15. 17. + Ibid. p. 18. f Barclay’s Works, Fol. Edit. p. 739. § Ibid. p- 745. || Vindication, p. 23. r2 ( 60 ) %, 7 what ftriG, proper, or confiftent fenfe "can the man wh rejeéts the term perfon in {peaking of the Father, profefs 1 believe in the doétrine of the eternal Divinity of the Father| : | We reject the term perfon to diftinguith either the Father, Soy or Spirit from each other, confequently if Verax’s argumer proves any thing, it mutt be that we cannot believe in the ete nal divinity of either’Father, Son, or Spirit. In objecting | the phrafe ‘ Trinity of perfons,’ we no more deny the Divinit of Chrift than Calvin has done. See page 45- The following confeffion of John Hancock may probab! have more weight with Verax than any argument I can pr duce; it alfo approaches nearer the truth ach any thing ] has written on the fubjeét; ‘The Quakers refufed to adoj ‘the term of Trinity, becaufe the word was not to be four © in Scripture, but many of them, although they ftartled at t ¢ ule of the word, adopted the idea defigned by that word.” The firft part of this obfervation is not quite correct, f although that term was objected to by fome of them for reafon there affigned, Penn, Barclay, and Claridge, have fey rally adopted it as defcriptive of the doétrine believed by the which the preceding extraéts from their writings prove. A if they adopted the idea defigned by that word, Verax certainly be faid to be vainly employed in endeavouring to pr them Socinians. In the Appeal, page 10, an extract is given from Prop. 5. of Barclay’s Apology, which the reader will find, w its context, in the foregoing letter to John Evans, page where I have alfo adverted to Verax’s fuppofition that Bare confidered the text therein quoted, from Col. i. 16. as refe to the new creation, and not to the creation of the world. remove every doubt upon this fubject, let us hear what Apologift fays in defence of this paflage 5 “ He’ (Brown) ‘fp ‘ ceedeth alfo bafely to infinuate, that I deny Jefus of Na ‘reth to be the Son of God; albeit he doth not fo muck ‘ pretend to any colour for it from my words.—In purfua < of this, in the following page, he infinuates as if 1 meant ‘the firft, but the fecond creation, and fo joined with Socit ¢ which is a grofs calumny like the former :* that is, Bro faying that the Quakers denied the Trinity. This defence of Barclay againft Brown affords us anc snftance of the little variation that has taken place in the putes between the Socinians and Trinitarians, refpecting Divinity of Chrift, fince the days of Penn and Barclay 5 Prieftley in the pamphlet before alluded to, on Col. i. 16. «In this paflage we have a view given us of the great dig - * Barclay’s Works, p. 739+ . 7 ( 61 ) . , 4 t and dominion to which Chrift is exalted by his Father, and of ‘the great and happy change that was made in this world by ‘his gofpel; for by creation we are to underftand the new cre- fation, or renovation, &c.—I would further obferve that the things here faid to be created by Chrift are not material things, 'as the heaven and the earth, &c.’ Upon Prieftley’s and Verax’s conftruction of the text, I fhall juft enquire how Chrift can be faid to have created ‘ all things vifible and invifible,’ if he were not the creator of the vifible heaven and earth. We are prefented with a mutilated quotation from Prop. 5. and 6. § 13- Verax’s perverfion of which is fufficiently proved by Vindex* in his Examination of the firft part of the Appeal, but as Verax in his £ Vindication’ has returned to the charge, let us refer the decifion of this difpute to Barclay him- felf, who, in anfwer to Brown’s perverfion of this 13th Sect. fays, ‘ His next perverfion is yet more grofs and abufive, page ‘228, where, from my denying that we equal ourfelves to that ‘holy man, the Lord Jefus Chrift, &c. in whom the fulneis of ‘the Godhead dwelt bodily, he concludes, I affirm him to be ‘ no more but a holy man, and becaufe I ufe the words Pleni- ‘ tudo Divinitatis, that I deny his Deity, which is an abominable © falfehood. I deteft that do¢trine of the Socinians, and deny q there is any ground for their diftin@tion ; and when I confeis ‘ him to be an holy man, I deny him not to be GOD, as this ‘ man moft injurioufly would infinuate ; for I confefs him to be really true God and true man. And whereas he rails and * exclaims here, and in the following page, as if the comparifon I bring betwixt every faint and the man Jefus from the fap, its being otherwife in the root and ftock of the tree, than mm the branches, did further confirm our equalling ourfelves to him; he doth but fhow his folly; fince Chrift himfelf ufeth the fame comparifon, John xv. 5. “ I am the Vine, ye are the ® branches ;” to which I alluded; and upon this he runneth out in a vehement ftrain of railing, exclaiming againft us, as if we denied the Deity of Chrift and his incarnation, which is utterly falfe.’+ If Barclay were a Socinian, whence is it that he always dif vows it; that he fays, he detefts that doétrine of theirs which nies the Deity of Chrift? Thefe extracts from the work entitled ‘R. B.’s Apology for the true Chriftian Divinity vindi- cated from John Brown’s Examination,’ &c. anticipate the bfervations I might otherwife have made upon Verax’s con- ftructions of thofe paffages in the Apology to which they refer, or though his arguments may be more refined, they turn upon the fame point as Brown’s, viz. that Barclay did not believe Chrift to be God, becaufe he believed him alfo to be man; this * Examination, p. 14. + Barclay’s Works, p. 794, 795- 7 ¢ ( Cues | “ “el is anfwered in my laft citation. It remains for the reader tg determine whofe explanation of the Apology he will prefer] that of Bo bert Barclay, or that of Verax. Lt \ The remaining extraéts in the Appeal from the Apology, arg no more.to the purpofe tlian thofe already confidered, for with what propriety could it be faid of Chrift, ‘ So hath he likewife * poured forth into the hearts of all men a meafure of that * divine light and feed wherewith he is clothed,’* if he were not God? for the Pfalmift fays, ‘O Lord, my God, thou art clothed “with honour and majefty, who covereft thyfelf with light, as * with a garment.’ &c.+ ia As nothing exhibits a more prominent featute of a Sociniar than his interpretations of thofe Scriptures which are fuppofed to affert the Divinity of Chiift; fo nothing Barclay has written, more decidedly evinces what his fentiments upen that fubje& are, than his Carechifin ; for an extraét from which, fee page 2. of this work; wherein he expreffes himfelf in language, that would require a much greater revolution in the import of theo- logical terms, to evade its force, than can be proved to have taken place. No Socinian or Unitarian wrote that Catechifm.— Verax may controvert this if he can. That Robert Barclay believed man to be in a degenerat condition, through the fall of Adam, unable by his own natur powers to reftore himfelf from his loft eftate, and that this reftoration can only be effected through the inward operatior _of the grace and fpirit of Chrift as his Redeemer, is evident from the fourth Propofition of the Apology, in which he thus expreffes himfelf : ‘ Not to dive into the many curious notions which many have * concerning the condition of Adam before the fall; all agree i ‘ this, that thereby he came to a very great lofs, not only in the * things which related to the outward man, but in regard of tha ‘inward fellowfhip and communion he had with God. This * lofs was fignified to him in the command, “ For in the day ‘< thou eateft thereof thou fhalt furely die.” Gen. ii. 17. This © death could not be an outward death, or the diffolution of the ‘outward man; for as to that he died not yet many hundred * years after, fo that it muft needs refpe& his fpiritual life and * communion with God. The confequence of this fall, befides that ‘ which relates to the fruits of the earth, is alfo exprefled, Gen. * il. 24. “ So he drove out the man, and he placed at the eaft ‘* of the garden of Eden, cherubims, and a flaming fword, which ‘* turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” Now ‘ whatever literal fignification this may have, we may fafely ‘afcribe to this paradife a mytftical fignification, and truly * Barclay’s Apology, p. 450. + Pfal. civ. 1, 2. m , ( 63 ) . ‘ account it that fpiritual communion and fellowfhip which the ‘faints obtain with God by Jefus Chrift, to whom only thefe ‘ cherubims give way, and unto as many as enter by him, who ‘ calls himfelf the door. So that though we do not afcribe any ‘ whit of Adam’s guilt to men, until they make it theirs by the ‘like a€ts of difobedience, yet we cannot fuppofe that men who ‘are come of Adam naturally, can have any good thing in their ‘mature as belonging to it, which he, from whom they derive ‘their nature, had not himfelf to communicate unto them, ‘If then we may affirm, that Adam did not retain in his nature ‘(as belonging to it), any will or light capable to give him ‘knowledge in fpiritual things ; then neither can his pofterity, ‘For whatfoever real good any man doth, it proceedeth not ‘from his nature as he is man, or the fon of Adam, but from S the feed of God in him, as a new vifitation of life, in order to ‘ bring him out of his natural condition; fo that though it be in ‘him, yet it is not of him.’* _ The next author Verax feleéts to prove our early Friends nitarians, is Georce Fox. Had he attached fome degree of . mbiguity to his ftyle, and claimed fome allowance to appreciate the real meaning of his writings, it would have been rather more | admifible than with regard to Penn and Barclay, men of litera- ture, and converfant ‘with the learned world.’ G. Fox was no (cholar, hence his language is far from being clear of grammati- ° cal inaccuracies, it is'to thefe J. G. Bevan’s remarks, in his ‘ Re- futation of modern Mifreprefentations,’ adverted to by Verax, yrimarily refer. How then are we to account for the following ntroduction to that author’s extra€ts from G. Fox, * As to the doétrine of the Trinity, there does not appear any the fmalleft fhadow of approach to it in the writings of this diftinguifhed Friend,—making even the fame, or even a,much lefs allowance than has been already claimed for Penn and Barclay,—in con- fideration of the peculiar turn and genius of the age in which they lived.’+ Verax adverting to this paragraph, acknow- dges, in his ‘ Vindication,’ that he has ‘ hazarded a pretty {trong negative-aflertion.” It appeared to me not only a trong negative affertion, but fo unwarranted, that I was fur- rifed at his temerity. An explicit, clear, and corre ftyle is ot the moft favourable for fuch writers as Verax, who find it oft to their advantage to have fome plea for making ‘a liberal allowance for the peculiar complexion of the times in appreci- ating the real meaning of our early writers ;’ hence, we may ccount for his predileCtion in favour of Fox’s ftyle. Without examining whether George Fox was miftaken in is conceptions of genuine {cripture doctrine, which Verax has * Barclay’s Apology, p. 96,97. + Appeal, p. 15. ( 64 ) : : : "7 more than once obliquely hinted; we will examine what hi: conceptions were refpeCting the Trinity. My firft extract will be from an epiftle written in 1685, nearly the whole of which | cited by Verax in his Vindication. € Live in the love which God hath thed abroad in your hea € through Chrift Jefus, in which love nothing is able to fepa * you from God and Chrift,—nor to hinder or break your he * venly fellowfhip in the light, gofpel, and Spirit of Chrift, no: € your holy communion in the Holy Ghoft, that proceeds from * the Father and the Son, which leads you into all truth. hk € this Holy Ghoft (in which is your holy communion) that pro} * ceeds from the Father and the Son, you have fellowfhip witl © the Father and the Son, and one with another.’* ‘ George Fox does not indeed ufe the term Trinity, but ht fo obvioufly adopts the idea intended by that word, that Verax mul attach to the word Unitarian an idea different from the com mon one, when he denominates the epiftle from which this tract is taken to be of a ‘ decidedly Unitarian complexion.’ it becaufe in this epiftle George Fox fpeaks of the Deity in t fingular number when im other parts of it he fays, ‘ the Lor € God Almighty,’ &c.? If a belief in ‘ one living and tru * God,’ be all he intends by his ‘ pure and fimple Unitarianifm the Trinitarian and Deift have an equal claim with him toi Verax has a remark fimilar to the preceding one, on a citatior from Fox in Vindex’s Examination of the Appeal, p. 18. I fh not detain the reader to refute this kind of reafoning, and _ Verax fhould imagine that he hereby obtains caufe of trium his enjoyment of it will not be interrupted by me. The following extra from George Fox is alfo given Vindex: the ftrictures upon it by Verax induce me to repea it in this place. : ‘ And ye profeffors, who have given new names to the Fathes © the Word, and Holy Ghoft (as Trinity, and three diftin@ per £ fons), and fay the Scripture is your rule for your doétrine, b * there is no fuch rule in the Scripture, to call them by th ‘new names, which the apoftle that gave forth the Script * doth not give them: and becaufe we do not call the Father, an ¢ the Word, and Holy Ghoft by your new names, therefore € you falfely fay, that the Quakers deny Father, Son, and H © Ghoft; which we own in thofe names and found words, € which the holy men of God fpeak them forth by the H ¢ Ghoft ; which ye give other new names to, and yet fay “have not the fame fpirit, which they had that gave forth € Scriptures; fo, which is to be followed, judge yourfelv * But this is the record that God hath given unto us etern * Fox’s Journal, 3d Edit.p. 583. ( 65 ) ¢ life, and this life is in his Son.” And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us a mind to know him, which is true, and we are in him that is true, mark, that is, in his Son Jefus Chrift, this fame is very God and eternal life. And oe we, the people of God, in {corn called Quakers, do wit- nefs,’* : “The firft part of this quotation proves G. Fox to have been nxious to repel the charge that the Quakers denied the doctrine f the Trinity, occafioned by their obje€tion to the fchool terms, Tinity of diftin€ perfons, &c.; and it confirms what I have it advanced of his adopting the idea intended by the term ‘rinity, notwithftanding his obje€tion to the word itfelf, becaufe ot to be found in the Scriptures. With refpeé to the latter art of this quotation, Verax fays, ‘ that is, I think, rather ex- preflive of religious feelings, than doétrinal.’ This is gliding pretty fmoothly over’ a difficulty. ‘That G. Fox has expreffed is feelings is not denied, but that furely cannot operate to caken the doétrine conveyed, viz. ‘ that Jefus Chrift is very God and eternal Life.’ ; I fhall next call the reader’s attention to a paper of G. Fox’s, drefled to Mahomet, emperor of the Turks, in confequence of declaration of war made by him againft the emperor of sermany, in which the fultan exprefles himfelf in language of ance againft Chrift, a fpecimen of which is given in the owing extra&t from G. Fox. Sultan Mahomet, emperor of the Turks, thou fayeft, thou rt commander of the Chriftians’ crucified God; and fayeft, u wilt purfue their crucified God, whofe wrath thou feareft ot.—Aniwer, Thefe high words are not fpoken in the fear f God; for if thou knoweft God thou wouldft know his Jefus Chrift, who was made of the feed of Abraham cording to the flefh, and declared to be the Son of God cording to the fpirit of holinefs, by the refurre@tion from he dead ; fo that thou haft neither power over his Godhead, this flefh— And Mahomet faith in his Alcoran, page 30, ap. 33- That John did affirm Chrift to be the Mefliah, and 0 be the Word of God. Now if the Turks do believe this, which Mahomet faith in his Alcoran, then you muft believe hat Chrift faith of himfelf,—and what the apoftle John faith him, “ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word, and all things were made by the Word, and without him was not any thing made that was made; and in the Word was life, and the life was the light of men, and that was the true light which enlightens €very man that comes into the world.” Now here is the * Fox’s Dottrinals, p. 446. K ( 66 ) © divine light which is the life in Chrift, the Word, by whic ‘ all things were made, which enlightens every man, &c. A € John faith, This word was made fleth, and dwelt among us, at ‘ his apoftles beheld his glory, as the glory of the only-begott¢ © of the Father, full of grace and truth,’ &c. After this folloy the paflage quoted by Verax, wherein Fox fays, ‘It is blafphem ‘ for the Jews, or any, to fay, that they did crucify the tt © Chriftians’ eternal invifible God,’ and afterwards obferve © But Chrift, which was made of the feed of David, accordit * to the flefh, who took not upon him the nature of angels, bi ‘the feed of Abraham, he fuffered for us in the flefh ;—ai ‘ though Chrift was crucified—through the flefh, yet he is aliy “and liveth by the power of God, 2 Cor. xiii: fo it is cl * that the eternal, and invifible, incomprehenfible God, was ng ‘ nor cannot be crucified; but Chrift, the Son of God, fuffen * according to the flefh, not in his Godhead.’* 4 I have contracted entirely for the fake of brevity, and belicve without any injury to the fenfe. Geo. Fox, in th place, defcribes 1ft. Chrift’s eternal Divinity. 2d. His cloth himfelf with flefh, or becoming man. 3d. That he did fuffer death as God, that being impoffible, but only according the flefh. What is there in this to juftify the affertion that | mutt contradict himfelf, if he, ‘in a ftriét unqualified fenf meant that Chrift was God? That he, by confefling to Godhead of Chrift, contradiéts Verax, is fufficiently evide who therefore endeavours to explain away the proper meani of this expreflion. Whether the context obliges us to hi recourfe to a meaning contrary to the obvious one, let reader judge. : Further on, in this fame paper of Fox’s, is the part quoted Vindex, refpeCting his belief in the Father, Word, and He Ghoft. being one God; to evade which, Verax calis in met phor to his aid. In the paragraph immediately preceding Fox fpeaks of Chrift Jefus, the Son of God, § by whom © made the world, the heavens, the earth, and the feas, and’ ‘things therein.’+ I forbear noticing the other extracts Verax from this epiftle to the Turk, they being chiefly couch in Scripture language, the queftion therefore is, in what fer Fox quoted them? and this can only be known, by exami ing them with their context, which may be done by turning the epiftle itfelf in Fox’s Dotrinals, p. 1003. ; ~ The firft quotation from George Fox, in the Appeal, has following expreflions, ‘The Lord is King over all the eart ‘ therefore, all people, praife and glorify your King in true of ‘dience. Mark, and confider in filence, in lowlinefs of mi * Fox’s Dodtrinals, p. 1005, 1006. t Ibid. p. 1009. (* ora) and thou wilt hear the Lord fpeak to thee:in thy mind. His voice is fweet and pleafant; his fheep hear his voice,—they rejoice, and are obedient, they alfo fing for joy ;—they fing, ind praife the eternal God in Zion.’* I agree with Verax, at thefe ‘ expreflions which have naturally flowed from his yen, afford full and fatisfactory evidence of what his real entiments were.’ They contain an exhortation to attend to e voice of the Lord Jefus Chrift, who is King over the whole rth, and fpeaks in the heart, if we will but attend to his fecret fpirations, and, as Chriit iays himfelf, his ‘ fheep follow him, or they know his voice, and a ftranger will they not follow; hn x. 4, 5. to which Geo. Fox evidently alludes : they may alfo confidered as ‘ the genuine effufions of a warm heart elt piety,’ and very pertinent, as expreffive of Fox’s belief in ¢ omniicience .and omniprefence of Chrift, therefore rather fortunately introduced into the Appeal, to prove the contrary fition. The remaining quotations given from G. Fox having been ready noticed, and the infidious mode of citing them ably pofed, by Vindex, in his Examination of the Appeal, I thall ly remark on the extract from the paper prefented to the vernor of Barbadoes. Verax introduces his vindication of $ extract with an attack on the faithfulnefs of a quotation the fame, by Henry Tuke, in his work entitled, ‘ The aith of the People called Quakers, in cur Lord and Saviour Fefus ift, fet forth in various Extraéts from their Writings, Phillips, don, 1801; becaufe therein he has only commenced his & with G. Fox’s belief in Chrift, as follows, ‘ We do and believe in Jefus Chrift, his [God’s] beloved and only en Son, &c. without inferting the confeffion of faith in , the creator of all things,’ that immediately precedes it, ich was no doubt omitted for brevity, and becaufe it was part of the fubje€&t of his book. Verax’s captious criticifm, ther with the farcaftic manner in which it is penned, can € no purpofe but to fhew the {pirit of the writer. reply to Vindex’s notice of the omiflion of the words, only begotten’ in the extra€t given in the Appeal, Verax » © li feems to me fufficient to juftify the omiffion; to , that the fenfe of no part that is quoted depends upon, is varied by the words omitted.’+ The queftion naturally » What could then be his motive for omitting them? he ers, that he apprehends ‘ that phrafe has given rife to as fs conceptions as any Vindex can fhow have arifen from hat he calls, {peaking of the “.Trinitarian controverfy,” in * Fox’s Journal, p. 37. + Vindication, p. 43. EK 2 ( 6 ) © pager, © the grofs term of three perfons.” Thus although Ve will not allow the omiffion of the phrafe to vary the fenfe of part quoted, he neverthelefs allows the addition of the phrafe materially to affect it, as the term ‘ three perfons’ affeéts the trine of the Trinity, the rejeCtion of which term, he has before, p- 22, reprefented as equivalent to a denial of the doétrine ith if this latter reprefentation be corre&t, is he juftitied in fupp: fing from the writings of Fox, a phrafe fo pregnant with mea ing, when he is profefling to give the fentiments of that Frie to the public by faithful extracts from his works ?* Whether the phrafe in queftion be an interpolation, genuine fcripture, the point in difcuffion is not affected by it being neither refpeCting the authenticity of feripture, — what we ought to receive as {cripture doétrines; but whet what our firft Friends believed in as the primitive apofte faith, from their views of the Scriptures, and the correfpondi convictions of their own minds, will not juftify the Socie condué in filencing Hannah Barnard asa minifter. It will readily granted, that in our private refearch after truth, © ‘ firft of confiderations is not who has believed? but wha ‘the truth’ My prefent defign, however, does not necefla embrace this confideration, it being fimply to clear the Soei uf Friends from the falfe reprefentations of their doGtrines, from the illiberal cenfures beftowed on their late determined pofition to the introduction of Socinianiim among them, If Verax be convinced by an inveftigation of the principle the Friends, that they are inconfiftent with the Scriptures, o own apprehenfions of truth, there is no compulfion; her quietly withdraw from their communion, and unite: him with a Society, whofe fentiments are more congenial with own views of Chriftianity. a Before we leave G. Fox, let us examine a few paflages his Doétrinals, which will be fufficiently expreflive of his fe1 ments without the affiftance of Verax. ‘4 Rom. ix. 5, &c. The apoftle {peaking of the fath “of whom,” faith he, * as concerning the flefh Chrift cai “ who is God over all, blefled for ever, Amen.” And this’ ‘ the apoftle’s doctrine to the church then, who faith, “I “the truth in Chrift, and lie not, my confcience bearing’ a 5 * Neither does there appear any ground for fuppofing the beft G copies do net contain the phrafe ‘ only begotten.’ Greifbach is gi rally confidered as the {tandard for various readings; and Newec who tranflated from Greifbach, retains the phrafe, and fays in his a © our Lord is thus called fix times in the New Teftament.’ Not John i. 14. ( 69) Switnefs in the Holy Ghoft.” (Mark) in Chrift, and in the Holy Ghoit, which fhould be every true confeflor of Chrift his teftimony, which we do witnefs, both as to his flefh, and as he was God.’* This paflage is referred to by Vindex, p. 2, of his Examination, wherein he obferves that G. Fox adopts he text which calls Chrift ‘ God over all.’ In anfwer to this, - Terax fays, that there is much reafon to fuppofe, from its con- axt, that G. Fox did not adopt the conftruction Vindex puts pon it, that is, that Chrift is God over all. The turn G. Fox as given to Rom. ix. 5. fhows he did not adopt the Socinian onftruction of that text, which Prieftley and Verax fay, 10uld be ‘ Whofe are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flefh Chrift came. God, who is over all, be bleffed for ever.” Jur verfion fays, ‘of whom as concerning the flefh Chrift came, who is over all, God bleffed for ever.’ G. Fox was a lain man, and when he quotes fcripture, being unacquainted jth the original languages, muft be confidered as underftand- yg them in their obvious fenfe, as quoted by him. In the refent inftance he has not given the text as it ftands in our anflation, but after the words ‘ Chrift came,’ adds, ‘ who is God over all, bleiled for ever.’ G. F. certainly did not tend, by this variation, to alter the fenfe conveyed by our erfion; but it indifputably proves he was far from adopting 1e conftruction put upon it by Prieftley and Verax. ‘To illuf- ate the import of this extract from G. Fox, Verax refers us to ne preceding and following paragraphs; the firft contains a uotation from Col. i. 12 to 20. and the laft from the 21ft, 22d, th, and 27th verfes of*the fame chapter, neither of which har- nize with Socinianifm; confequently not very appropriate to ove Fox a Unitarian. There are other extracts from G. Fox in Vindex’s Examina- on which Verax has treated in a fimilar manner, and which erefore do not require animadverfion, for as I have already sferved, the accuracy of our Englifh verfion of the Scriptures not the point under difcuflion, but fimply what were the inions of our firft Friends, and whether they would juftify e recent proceedings of the Society towards H. Barnard. The title of the Tra&t from which the laft extract is taken, is, Teftimony of what we believe of Chrift, before he was anifeft in the flefh; and of his birth and preaching, and what he faith he is himfelf; as alfo of his fufferings, death, efurrection, and afcenfion, both as he was GOD, and as he as man.’ In which George Fox alfo fays—‘ And Heb. i. 1.“ At fundry times, and after divers manners, God fpake unto the fathers * Fox’s Dottrinals, p, 433. ( 70 ) ” by the prophets, but in thefe laft days he hath fpoken unto us « by his Son, whom he hath made heir of all things, by whom 66 alfo he hath made the worlds.” Mark, the worlds were “made by the Son of God, and God was Adam and Eve's © teacher in paradife; and now the fame hath fpoken unto us “by his Son, by whom the worlds were made. So he is the “ Quakers’ firft fpeaker, and is the laft, the Son of God be- ‘ing the brightnefs of his Father’s glory, and the exprefs ‘image of his fubftance; ‘“ And upholding all things by his ‘‘ mighty word and power, hath by himfelf purged our fins,” &c.” And in another treatife, ‘ Again, as the Jews hated Chrift in € the flefh, you that profefs him in the flefh, hate this divine © light, which is the life in him, and cry, Away with this light :— € and Chrift Jefus is not known as he“is God in his Divinity, not © in his flefh, as he was manifeft; but by this his divine heaven- © ly light, which we own and believe in, as he commands, wh« © are the children of the light:—and, as it is faid, “* Young men “ you are ftrong, you have overcome the wicked one; fathers “ you have known him from the beginning ;” that is, you havi © known him in his Divinity, you have known him in the pro ‘ mife, and in the prophets, you have known him in his birth ‘and conception by the Holy Ghoft, ye have known him i © his life, preaching, and miracles,’ &c.+ ; | Again, ‘ God faid, “ Let us make man in our image, afte “ our likenefs, and let them have dominion, &c.”’ Gen. i. 26 © Now the Lord faid, “ Let us,’’ and were not all things mad “and created by Jefus Chrift, whofe name is called the Wor © of God.’ | The following extraé adverts to the fall of man, as well a to the Divinity of Chrift. , “ God was the firft fpeaker to Adam and Eve in paradife ‘and as long as they kept under his fpeaking and teaching ‘ they kept the paradife of God, and in that happy and blefle « eftate, in the image of God, and in his power, dominion, an ‘ wifdom, over all things which God had made. But whe ‘they forfook God’s teaching, and followed the ferpent ‘ teaching,—they loft, and fell from the truth and image ¢ © God, and the power in which they had dominion, and fe < from their perfection, and loft their blefled ftate in the par < dife of God. Neverthelefs, the promife to them and mankin “then was, “ The feed of the woman fhall bruife the ferpent «“ head :” and all the fathers and the faithful believed in thi “ promife of God, and died in the faith of it. ‘ And Go “{pake by the prophets to thefe fathers at fundry times, an * Fox’s Dodtrinals, p. 436. t Ibid. p. 507. * Ibid. p. 992. (y ee “after divers manners, in the old covenant.” But the feed * being come, which bruifeth the head of the ferpent, that falfe * teacher ;—Chrift, who is the Saviour, and the life in thefe laft * days, of the new covenant of grace, light, and life, God hath ‘ fpoken unto us, the children of the new covenant, by his Son, “the immortal, eternal, and living God of truth:—fo the eternal God of truth, who was the firft {peaker, he is the ‘fpeaker again unto his people, by his Son now, in thefe latter “days of the new covenant, and fo will be to all eternity; who, ‘ by his Son, renews his believers again into the image of God, ‘as Adam was in before he fell; and creates them anew in ‘ Chrift Jefus, unto good works out of the bad works, that they ‘may come to fit down in the heavenly places in Chrift Jefus, ‘that never fell, who is the firft and lait, by whom all things ‘were made and created, who is over all things, in his life, ‘light, truth, and righteoufnefs, and kingdom of glory, ‘ Amen.’* Tf Verax till perfifts to aver that the only deductions we can make from the whole of the preceding extracts from George Fox, are that he confidered Chrift as the creator of all things n the new creation only, and not that by him this outwar d tem- sorary fyflem was created, and that he did not believe Chrift o be ‘ the immortal, eternal, and living God of truth,’ who is Ser all blefied for ever; to attempt to refute him would be to fle&t on the good fenfe of the Treader, as though he needed an xpofitor to elucidate the plaineft expreflions in his own mother- ngue. George Fox’s views of the prefent fallen condition of man rough Adam, may be further colle€@ted from the following tracts. |£The Lord God faid, “Thou halt not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that thou eateft thereof thou fhalt furely die ;” but the ferpent faid, “If ve eat thereof, ye fhall not furely die ;” and they did eat, and difobeyed the Lord’s voice and command, and did furely die; and fo death paffed upon all men, and all died in Adam :— feeing all was dead in Adam, and fo plunged into death b difobeying the Lord, and hearkening unto the ferpent, fo all uft be baptized with the baptifm of Chrift,—before they an come into the paradife of God, and have a right to eat f the tree of life.’+ ¢ Now all being in the fall of Adam, nd Adam and his whole houfe being fallen from the image f God into fin and darknefs, Chrift, the fecond Adam, died or them all, and enlightens them all,’ &c.t * Fox’s Doatrinals, p. 741. t Ibid. p. 72¢. " £ Ibid, p. 642. sie C. 7a ‘in the way, they have found the way Chrift Jefus, the chi « fhepherd, the bifhop of the foul, the fame yefterday, t “and for ever; © began, by whom all was created, who is the foul’s bifhop, ar €the author of man’s falvation and redemption,—and is « offering that offered himfelf for the fins of George Fox does not handle his fubje&ts fy ftematically lil Barclay, but his fentiments refpecting the fall of man, and nature of his redemption through the incarnation of the etern Son of the Father, are evidently in unifon with thofe of tl latter Author.—Their obvious Unitarian tendency Verax h et to a yet to prove Pe * Doctrinals, p. 174» 175 ig i ES Oe —— ——_- CHAR I Ty, fIsAac PENINGTON’s fentiments refpecting the Trinity, the Divinity of Chrift, and the ftate of man in the fall—RicHARD CLARIDGE’s Lffay on the Doétrine of the Trinity—His Effay on the Doétrine of Chrif’s Satisfaétion cleared from the mifconftruétions of VER AX. ISAAC PENINGTON is chofen by Verax to bring up the ar of his evidence in jupport of Unitarianifm; with whom he as alfo introduced Richard Claridge. His firft extract from aac Penington is from a tract vindicating the Friends’ principles gainft the objections of their perfecutors in New-England. ongft other objections was this, that the Quakers denied e facred Trinity;’ to which our truly valuable elder replies: © Concerning the facred Trinity. They generally both in their kings and in their writings fet their feal to the truth of hat Scripture, 1 John v. 7. That “ there are Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” at thefe three are diftin@, as three feveral beings or perfons: this they read not; but in the fame place they read, that they re One: and thus they believe their being to be one, their e one, their light one, their wifdom one, their power one: id he that knoweth and feeth any one of them, knoweth and th them all, according to that faying of Chrift to Philip, fe that feeth me, hath feen the Father.” John xiv.9. Three there are, and yet one ; thus they have read in the Scriptures, and is they teftify they have bad truly opened to them by that very Spirit ich gave forth the Scriptures, infomuch that they certainly know to be true, and own the thing from their very hearts: but as this title of facred Trinity, they find it not in Scripture, and ey look upon Scripture words as fitteft to exprefs Scripture ings by. And furely if a man mean the fame thing as the cripture means, the fame words will fuffice to expreis it: but e Papifts and fchoolmen having miffed of the thing which the Scrip- L (#44 .N 4 © tures drive at—-have brought forth many phrafes of their owl © vention to expres their apprehenfions by, which we confé/s we © no unity with, Fc.* ; The italics in the above paflage diftinguith as ufual, wha fuppreffed by Verax ; his animadverfion upon Vindex for o ting to inform his readers, either what Ifaac Penington did, what he did not admit from this text (1 John v. 7), revs therefore upon himfelf, and -eonfequently his aflertion, ‘ he has given Penington’s explanation of the text in his words, is not correct; for he has omitted part both of ‘ w “\. B. did, and. of-what he did not believe.’ From the co it appears, that Penington’s ftrictures were only directed the {cholaftic définitions of the Trinity, and againft im them ‘upon others as a fundamental doétrine. I ‘fully a with Penington, that ¢ the true trial of {pirits ismot by an aff © to dogtrines, but by feeling them in the inward virtue of ‘ight, in the fpirit, and in the power.’ It is upon this pi ciple that a mere affent to doétrines is not fufficient ‘for admiflion into the Society of Friends. The remarks of Vé upon the ‘liberal fentiments of our honourable elder,’ quite ‘irreverent to Harnah Barnard’s cafe, for the was filenced for reje@ting the {chool terms, diftinét and fep perfons, &c. as applied to the Father, Son, and Holy G and objected to by Penn, Penington, and Claridge; indee rejection of the doétrine of the ‘Trinity, as I have “ant ‘page 8, does not conititute one ‘of the charges againft » befides there is a great difference between not, having ‘underftanding fully enlightened refpe€ting the truths of 5S ture, and an’endeavour to fubvert thefe truths as = on mankind. I much approve of true liberality of fenti ‘and fhould be pleafed to difcover more of it among the a ‘eates of the Socinian fcheme, ‘for notwithftanding their profeflions of it, it is much wanting among them. Ifaac Penington, in an epiftle to profeflors, explaining t felf upon two or three things, begins thus: ‘ The firft is “ cerning the Godhead, which we own, as the Scriptures ex © it,—in which “ There are Three that bear record in hea © the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and thefe 'T. “are one.” 1 John v.47. This I believe from ‘my heart, “have infallible demonftration of; for I know three, and * three in fpirit, even an eternal Father, Son, and Holy Sp © which are but one eternal God. And I feel them alfo ‘and have fellowfhip with them in their life, and in ‘ redeeming power.—Now confider ferioufly, if a man fro: ‘ heart believe thus concerning the eternal power and ‘Godh i * Penington’s Works, Quarto Edit. Vol. I. p. 264, 265. | (ws )) hat the Father is God, the Word God, the Holy Spirit God, nd that theie are one eternal God; waiting fo to know God, md to be fubje&t to him accordingly; is not this man in a ight frame of heart towards the Lord in this refpect ?* &c, This paflage fhows Penington to have been no Socinian, her in the ancient or modern fenfe of the word; it likewife oves that he did not believe in three Gods, but only in < one ternal God,’ being an advocate for the divine unity of the ther, Son, and Holy Spirit, and therefore no Arian, viz. one 10 believes the Son and Holy Spirit to be created, and inferior the Father. 5 ; Verax’s obfervations on Ifaac Penington’s belief in the Divi- y of Chrift, are preceded by fome quotations from two Effays Richard Claridge, viz. one on the Trinity, the other on the tisfaction of Chrift, to which I have before adverted, fee ges 5, 6, and 44, 45. Although Verax is obliged to allow it Claridge believed in the doétrine comprifed in the cons werted text of 1 John v. 7. inftead of informing us how to eile this belief with a difbelief in the Trinity, he diverts our ention with fome extracts from the Eflay on the Trinity, ex- natory of the various fignifications of fome {chool terms, the milion or rejection of which does not affect the point in {tion. The conclufion Verax draws from thefe extracts, viz. that » adoption of the {chool terms mentioned by Claridge, is ential to a belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are + God being built upon a falfe hypothefis, we fhall pafs 1m by, and proceed to Claridge’s treatife entitled, ‘ An Effay n the doGtrine of Chrift’s Satisfaction.’ Vindex, in his Exa- pation of the Appeal, has given two or three extracts from 5 work, which are animadverted on by Verax, in his Vindi- jon. My letter to John Evans, page 6, contains the firft of fe extraéts pretty entire, with its context: the texts referred by Claridge, I omitted only for brevity. That ‘the holy One f Ifrael,’-—the ‘ one God,’—‘ the only true God,’ &c. &e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I apprehend will be acceded ‘by every ‘Trinitarian, and denied by every Unitarian. iridge’s adoption of thefe texts in fupport of the unity of the y Three, deprives the Socinian of his imagined exclufive right hem, but cannot prove Claridge to have been a Socinian. Verax fays, that in the Effay on the do€trine of Chrift’s isfaGtion, R. Claridge ‘ ably and ftrenuoufly defends that hart of The Sandy Foundation fhaken, which relates to this ibje€t :’ does it therefore follow that either Penn or Claridge fe Unitarians? he alfo plays upon what Vindex fays refpect- * Penington’s Works, Vol. II. p. 615. L 2 ( 9 ing the fuppofed inconfiftency of Penn’s ‘ Sandy Founda ‘ fhaken,’ with his ‘ Innocency with her open Face ;’ whe: he and Vindex do not feem materially to vary on this poi they both admit ‘ the continual gum of Penn’s © opinions,’* and neither of them claim, perfeét confiftency ‘ relating to the precifion of his language,’ only they diff their attempts to reconcile thofe two works with each o If Vindex had not thought the former work fit to be defen is it probable he would have attempted its defence ? The doétrine refuted by W. Penn is ¢ the vulgar doétri © fatisfaGtion, which fuppofing Chrift to have fuffered” ‘ penalty of infinite wrath and vengeance, and wholly paid © us in our room and ftead, viz. for all our fins, paft, pr “and to come, makes the difcharge abfolute and imme “and fo no conditions to be neceflarily required on our ‘in order to the partaking of the benefits of Chrift’s dea Claridge vindicates Penn’s refutation of this doGrine, ag the exceptions of Francis Bugg, which are as follows. © See William Penn’s book, entitled, “ The Sandy Found “ fhaken, or, thofe fo generally believed and applauded doétrines of “God, confifting of three diftin& and feparate perfons refuted,” ©».12. Lhe fame reafferted, p.16. “ The vulgar doétri “ Satisfaétion being dependent on the fecond perfon of the imag “ Trinity refuted.” By thofe two propofitions, it appears to me _ © the Quakers deny the Trinity, and the fatisfaétion made for the ‘ ©of mankind? Quakerifm drooping, p- 92, 93- To wl Claridge replies, ‘ That which W. P. refuted, was not the ¢ “trine of the Holy Trinity, &c.’§ as in my letter to J. E. 5 Verax having faithfully followed the example of F. Bugg confounding the perverfions of doétrines with the dott themfelves, I fhall tranfcribe Claridge’s animadverfions o mode of affixing charges on him and his friends. ‘ As to the doétrine of Chrift’s fatisfa@tion for the fin © mankind, that we unfeignedly embrace according to the Se “tures; and therefore F. B. hath done us wrong in faying “contrary of us. If he had had any regard to truth, “intended to have dealt plainly in the controverfy, he fh © have diftinguifhed between the vulgar doétrine of fatisfa ‘ which, as ftated by W. P. and afferted by fome of our ad ‘ faries, we do not receive, and the doctrine of fatisfa ‘according to the Scriptures, which we do receive. * inftead of this, he conceals the account W. P. gives of * Examination by Vindex, p. 2. + Vindication by Verax, } Claridge’s Life and Pofthumous Works, p. 446, § Ibid. p. 421. « tr in i doGtrine of fatisfaGtion, which carries its confutation ith it,.and cites only the title of that feétion, where it is fet down and refuted, and then concludes, we deny the fatisfac- tion made for the fins of mankind ; whereas if he had dealt fairly by us, and concluded as he ought to have done, his conclufion fhould have been, that we deny the vulgar doctrine, and nothing elfe; for the premifes will bear no other con- clufion according to the true and juft rules of reafoning fo that his conclufion is fallacious and fophiftical, and proves no ‘more againft us than that we deny the vulgar and erroneous -doétrine of fatisfa€tion. Atnd here I would expoftulate a little ‘with him and his atteftators.* Is it fair to fay, That becaufe ‘the Church of England, denies the Antinomian notion of jufti- ‘fication, fhe therefore denies juftification itfelf ?—or, becaufe 'fhe denies the Pelagian dodtrine of free will, fhe denies all ' free will?’ ‘ As this would be unreafonable, to draw fuch inferences ‘ again{t their church, becaufe fhe denies the aforefaid doGtrines; $ fo I would have them confider of the unreafonablenefs of their ‘ concluding as they have done againft us, in the point of fatis- ¢ fa&tion. For that which we deny, in reference to Chrift’s Satis- ‘ f€tion for the fins of mankind, is the impofhbility of God’s € pardoning of fin upon repentance, without a plenary fatisfaction €to his vindictive juftice, by inflicting the penalty of infinite € wrath and vengeance on Jefus Chrift, the fecond perfon of the ‘ Trinity, who, for fins paft, prefent, and to come, hath wholly borne and paid it, whether for all or fome, to the offended ¢ infinite juftice of his Father. This is that which we deny, becaufe it is repugnant to the doétrines of the Holy Scrip- “tures, &c. &c.+ | The above paflages exhibit pretty accurately the ftate of the controverfy between R. Claridge and F. Bugg; but Verax has given us neither of them, although he has made feleCtions clofe upon each. «In the following paffage,’ fays Verax, ‘ Claridge in effect € difclaims the doétrine of the atonement, when he fays of €Chrift, “ Nor did he fo fubftitute or put himfelf in the “ {inner’s ftead, as to take the finner’s guilt upon him, make it “ his own, and fuffer the idem—which was due to the finner: “ for if the very fame had been paid, faith Bifhop Stillingfleet, “ in the ftri@ fenfe, there would have followed a deliverance § ipfo fatto.” t Verax omits after the word idem, ‘ or the very fame eternal § punifhment, neither has he done Claridge’s quotation from # And Imitators. + Claridge’s Works, p, 438, 439) 440 t Vindication, p. 75, 76. ( 78) ) Stillingfleet juftice, for after the words ip/o , it proceeds thu “ for "he Hicale immediately tee it of the “ fame: and it had been injuftice to have requefted any further, “ in order to the difcharge of the offender, when ftri& and full “* payment had been made of what was in the obligation. But “we fee that faith and repentance, and the confequences off “‘ thofe two are made conditions on our parts, in order to the} “€ enjoyment of the benefit of what Chrift hath procured ; fe * that the releafe is not immediate upon the payment, “‘ depends upon a new contract made in confideration of what Chrift hath done and fuffered for us.” a The next quotation from Stillingfleet by Claridge, of whi Verax has only given a fragment, concludes with thefe words, “ The foundation of this miftake lies in the confideration of * punifhment, under the notion of debts, and that fatisfaction “ therefore mult be by {trict payment in rigor of law.”* Then follows another quotation given by Verax, which I hall tran- fcribe with its context. ‘ As it was the main defign of Chrift’s ‘ life, do€trine, and miracles, to call men to repentance, faith, ‘ and obedience, fo it was alfo the great end of his fufferings and ‘ death to accomplifh the fame glorious defign.’ So far Verax: But Claridge proceeds, ‘ For he “ gave. himfelf for our fins, “ that he might deliver us from the prefent evil world, accor- “ ding to the will of God and our Father,” Gai. i. 4. He “loved the church, and gave himfelf for it, that he might “ fanctify and cleanfe it with the wafhing of water by thé * Word; that he might prefent it to himfelf a glorious bot o not having fpot, or wrinkle, or any fuch thing, but that i * fhould be holy, and without blemith,’ Eph. v. 25, 26, 27: “He gave himielf for us that he might redeem us from alt “ iniquity, and purify unto himfelf a peculiar people, zealous o' ‘good works,” Tit. ii. 14. This was the principal end of his ‘ giving himfelf for us, or offering himfelf a facrifice of propiti © ation for the fins of mankind,’ &c.+ y After an extra&t from Bifhop Fowler, in confirmation of thi above, Claridge points out the confequences of the Antinomia doctrine of Satisfation, by fome extraéts from Dr. Crifp, wh fays, “ The new covenant is without any conditions whatfoey ‘© on man’s part,” &c. alfo that “ Chrift doth juftify a perfo ‘< before he doth believe.” { And after proving the repugnance thefe notions to Scripture, and that the new covenant is con ditional, Claridge adds, ‘ But though the new covenant i * conditional, yet we do not underftand that repentance, faith, * and obedience, are {uch conditions as give right to eternal lift ‘and falvation, as a reward due in a way of merit, either * Claridge’s Works, p. 443, 444. + Ibid. p. 446, / {( 9) “congruity, or/of condignity : for nothing that we can do, can * poilibly deferve fo inettimable a_blefling ; »it being :conferred © merely of God’s free grace and mercy in and through his Son € Jefus Chrift, upon our repentance; *faith, and obedience: ‘but ¢ we underftand them to be fuch neceflary qualifications of the € fabjects of Chrift’s kingdom, as that without them no man can enter thereinto; and thefe not performed by our own « fireneth, but by the power of Chrift in us, without whom we ‘can do nothing that is acceptable to God. “We do not there- “fore fay that good works are meritorious of eternal life, as the ‘ Papifts do; but we fay they are acceptable to God through € Jefus Chrift, who alone works in the faithful to will and to “do that which is good; and it is not of man’s merit, but of € God’s infinite mercy, that he is pleafed to reward them.’* He confirms thefe fentiments by further extracts from Bifhops Fowler, Burmet, Dr. diammond, and Archbifhop Tillotfon. The following-is from Fowler. “« Chrift died to! put us into capacity of pardon; the actual “removing of our guilt is not the neceflary and immediate vefuit of his death, but fufpended ‘till ‘fuch time as the afore- “mentioned conditions;” (faith and obedience) “ by the help of ‘his grace, are performed by us.” The next is from Burnet, who fays, “ The death of Chrift is propofed:to us as our dacri- & fice and ‘reconciliation, our atonement and redemption. But, ‘this reconciliation, which is made by the death of Chrift, alto God and ‘man, is not abfolute and without condi- tions hhe*has eftablifhed the covenant, and has performed all ‘that was. incumbent on him, as both the prieft and the facrifice, to do and’to fuffer; and he offers this to the world, that it ‘may be clofed with by them, on the terms on which it is pro- ‘pofed; and if they do not accept it upon thofe conditions, ‘and perform what ‘is enjoined them, they can have no ‘hare in it.”, ~ The Docsctas from Dr. Hammond and Tillotfon ‘are of a ilar import. “Will Verax now venture to affert, that becaufe . Claridge, Bifhops Fowler and Burnet, Dr. Hammond, and rchbifhop Tillotfon refuted the Antinomian doGrine of the onement, that thereby they difclaimed the doctrine of the tonement it/elf ? The reafon affigned by Verax for introducing ‘the doctrine f fatisfaftion is, that Vindex reprefents our early Friends as ‘advocates for the “ notion of a fatisfa&tion for fins by a vica- tious atonement.” Where he has made this difcovery does t-appear, for the extra&t he has produced from a manufcript, titled © Confiderations confidered,’ will not authorize fuch 2 * Claridge’s Works, p. 449. 4 Ibid. p.. 451, 452- ( 80 ) conclufion: the do&rine contained therein, has the fanction 6 no lefs an author than I. Penington, from whofe works it taken, being as follows. ‘I have had experience of that defpifed people for m * years, and I have often heard them, (even the ancient one €of them) own Chrift both inwardly and outwardly: y *I heard one of the ancients of them thus teftify, in ap © blic meeting many years fince, that if Chrift had not com -€ in the flefh, in the fulnefs of time, to bear our fins in his oy © body on the tree, and to offer himfelf up a facrifice for mam © kind, all mankind had ‘utterly perifhed. What caufe “awe We (adds Penington) to praife the Lord God for fendi “his Son in the likeneis of finful flefh, and for what his Se did therein,’ eve: * ‘ Here is not a word on vicarious atonement, not a wa about appeafing a vindi€tive wrath in God againft man. Never thelefs two very important truths of the gofpel are embraced this fhort extract, viz. the fall of all mankind through Adam, an the impoffibility of their recovery from the effeéts of the fal but through Chrift as their Redeemer and Regenerator; conf quently all mankind muft have perifhed, if fome remedy hi not, by the goodnefs of God, been provided for them. B thefe truths being Anti-focinian, Verax endeavours to afhx the to ‘ nobody knows whom,’ rather than to Ifaac Penington, w. has manifeftly inferted them, becaufe adopted by himfelf a his friends ; although he did not think it needful to name perfon whom he heard deliver them in a public meeting. Ver jays, ‘ Far different from this, more found, rational, and feri * tural were the fentiments of our early aia beft writers.’} -Penington be not one ‘ of our early and beft writers,’ where z we to look for them? Whether the notions of Verax are ‘mo ‘found, rational, and fcriptural’ than the ¢ fentiments of o = Redoable elder,’ I leave for others to determine. ; There is another extract from R. Claridge in the Vindicati too important to pafs over unnoticed; the firft part of it relat to the atonement’and fatisfaCtion of Chrift for the fins of ma kind, and would have contained the following paflages if it hi been given correct; the roman charaGters diftinguifh wie quoted by Verax. ‘ For fince Chrift was made fi in, or a facrifice for fin for US, 2 Sv. 12. “ And bore our fins in his own body on the tree.” 1 Pet. 24. Yet he “ did no fin, neither was guile found in his mouth “ver. 22. and therefore ‘ fuffered for fins,” &c. as Verax has} who proceeds with an immaterial omiffion until he comes this paflage, ‘ We do believe, that he fuffered under Pontius Pila * Penington’s Works, Vol. II. p..248. + Vindication, p. 73. ( 8: ) was crucified, dead and buried, that “ he is the propitiation for enir fins, and not for ours only, but alfo for the fins of the whole world.” That it is through his blood that we have redemption, even the fors zivene[s of fins. Col. i. 14. We do believe, that as “ he was delivered for our offences, fo he was raifed again for our juftification,’? Rom. iv. 25. And “ever liveth to make interceffion for us.”’ Heb. vii. 25.’* Without enquiring into Verax’s reafons for fuppreffing what in italics, or difcuffing how we are to interpret the words of e apoftle Paul, I fhall quote what immediately follows the ove in Claridge, as it is cited by Verax, with the comments the latter upon it. 6 We do alfo believe that he was and is both God and man, in wonderful union; not a God by creation or office, as fome hold,+ nor man by the affumption of an human body only, without a reafonable foul as others;{ nor that the manhood was fwallowed up of the Godhead, as a §third fort grofsly fancy: but God uncreated.” Here Vindex concludes the juotation, but Claridge adds, “ See John i. 1, 2, 3.” pro- yably referring to the ancient approved Englifh Bible, which n this place reprefents the word as an attribute, not a think- ng intelligent being. His next reference is to Col. i. 17. And he is before all things, and in him all things confift.” As the two next verfes will fhow the fubjeé&t on which the ypoftle is fpeaking, and elucidate the meaning of this, I add hem, “ And he is the head of the church, he is the beginning, the firft-born from the dead, that in all things he might have e pre-eminence ; for it pleafed the Father, that in him fhould Il fulnefs dwell.” From thefe, and the other texts which laridge quotes in this place, I conceive he meant no more y the paflage feleted by Vindex, than that God was in hrift, although it muft be owned, he has not therein adhered 0 the rule he had himfelf laid down, on the propriety of ufing nly Scripture terms; for we may fearch in vain for any text at afferts Jefus Chrift to be “ God uncreated.”’|| his is a fpecimen of Verax’s polemical*talents— modefty not be faid to be a prominent feature in his character, en, to fupport his caufe, he thus bids defiance to all found ticifm. ‘ He,’ whom Claridge calls ‘ both God and man,’ admitted by Verax to be Chrift; he is indeed compelled to it it, as no other conftruCtion can be put on the paflage. At * Claridge’s Life and Works, p. 441. «¢ Arians and Socinians.” ‘This is Claridge’s Note, as Vindex bferves, and I add, it is totally inapplicable to Unitarians’ (Verax’s te). t Apollinarifts, § Eutychians. _{| Vindication, p. 75. M ( 82 ) the words. * God uncreated,’ he obferves, ‘ Here Vindex co € cludes the quotation, but Claridge adds, “ See John i. 1, “3.” Does he intend by this that Vindex had any defi not inferting a reference to a text completely anti-Socini Verax introduces it in order to inform us that Claridge i bably referred ‘ to the ancient approved Englifh Bible’. If Claridge had this ancient verfion in his view, would he have faid fo, as he muft have known that without fuch an in mation, the generality of his readers would have recourfe to f common vertion; and are not all his quotations from Scriptu in this work, taken from King James’s tranflation? ‘ The oth © texts which Claridge quotes’ are reprefented as illuftrative the import of the part ‘ feleCted by Vindex.’ Why then are th not produced? why have we not the whole of this excell pafflage of Claridge ? (for which fee page 6); wherein after fay: that Chrift is ‘ the true God,’—* the great God,’ &c.” adds, ‘ And man conceived by the Holy Ghoft, and born *the Virgin Mary. See Luke i. 31. 35.’ Verax jurely cannot be ignorant that even the modern Sc nians, who affume the name of Unitarians, allow that | Scriptures call Chrift God, in fuch a limited metaphor fenfe, as only implies that he is the higheft, and moft excell of created Beings: their predeceflors, who alfo called Ch God, did not by that word underftand fupreme, underi _ divinity, but a delegated power. ‘That Claridge, not u quainted with thefe glofles of the Socinians, adopts the te uncreated, to prevent any {uch interpretation of his meani appears, not only from the context, but alfo from the m which is more applicable to the modern Socinians than Ve wifhes his readers to think. If his quarrel with the phi God uncreated, as applied to Chrift, is only becaufe no © {cripture term,’ why has he himfelf applied to the Father { phrafe, ‘ the wncreated caufe of all things?’ one is as unfei tural as the other. If he obje&t to it, becaufe it neceffai implies Chrift to be the unereated caufe of all things, he n either ftrike Clarfdge off his lift of Unitarians, or allow that has written nonfenfe. Richard Claridge fays that Chrift zs both God and man, uncreated,—and man conceived by the Holy Ghoft, and born of Virgin Mary. Could ftronger and more definite terms chofen! Produce the Socinian who will fubferibe to 1 ' defcription of Chrift, as implying no more than that God y in Chrift, in the Socinian fenfe of that phrafe. . - The firft quotation from Ifaac Penington on the Divinity Chrift, that claims attention, is from Vol. 2. page 8. Vin has expofed the partiality of the feleCtion, but as Verax fays reply to Vindex, that he cannot difcover the relevance of t ( 83 ) it omitted by him, it feems neceffary to advert to it again. I. snington firft ftates that fome entertained ‘hard thoughts iainft” the Quakers, as if they ‘ indeed (in effect) denied hat Chrift which died at Jerufalem,’ and to obviate thefe objec- ms, adds, 1 € To remove this out of the minds of the honeft-hearted,—I hall open my mind nakedly herein.’ 1ft. ‘ We own that the Word of Ged (the only begotten f the Father), did take up a body of the flefh of the Virgin Mary, who was of the feed of David, according to the Scrip- ures, and did the will of the Father therein, in holy bedience unto him, both in life and in death. ad. € That he did offer up the flefh and blood of that body though not only fo, for he poured out his ioul, he poured ut his life) a facrifice or offering for fin, (do not, oh! do not tumble at it, but rather wait on the Lord to underftand it; or we fpeak in this matter what we know), a facrifice unto he Father, and in it tafted death for every man; and that it 3 upon confideration, and through God’s acceptance of this acrifice for fin, that the fins of believers are pardoned, that zod might be juft, and the juftifier of him which believeth in efus, or who is of the faith of Jefus.’ d. * What is attributed to that body, we acknowledge and i to that body in its place, according as the Scripture attri- teth it, which is through and becauie of that which dwelt d acted in it,’ &c. ms is ‘the long extraGt, the relevance of which’ Verax nnot difcover.’ Is not our Friends’ belief ‘ that the Word God, by whom all things were created, ‘ did take up a )dy of flefh of the Virgin Mary,’ immediately connected with enquiry into their belief in the Divinity and miraculous con- ion of Chrift? The doGrine of the atonement and facrifice Chrift, and its efficacy towards obtaining the pardon and iffion of fins, is alfo acknowledged. Relevant or irrelevant, x has occupied whole pages on this doctrine: but he fays Vindex gives his readers a partial view of his (Verax’s) quo- on: perhaps Vindex thought he gave fufficient to fhow its mexion with the paflage omitted; with regard to which age, Verax merely informs his readers that it is irrelevant out trufting them even with ‘ a partial view of’ it. Does ot hereby incur the cenfure conveyed in theie words of our jour, ‘ And why beholdeft thou the mote that is in thy other’s eye, but confidereft not the beam that is in thine eye?’ e Criticifms of Verax, to prove that I. Penington has not ed ‘his mind nakedly’ in the preceding pafiage, and his equent refleCtions on Vindex for inattention and miftake, M2 ( 84 ) becaufe he fuppofes Penington had, are ‘ /uch mere trifling,’ they merit no regard. | As it is likely I may fubjeét myfelf to the fame cenfure Vindex has incurred, by not noticing and quoting every ex however irrelevant, that is cited by Verax; he may be info that if I do not, it is not from a fear of meeting them, for believe there is no argument he has deduced from them of weight, that is not confidered in théfe pages; but when | " quotes extraneous matter, we furely are not bound to foll him. For example, in the Vindication, he begins a quotati from Penington in this abrupt manner, ‘ Now of this thing ‘ might {peak yet more clearly and plainly, could men hear o “ words,’ &c. This feems to refer to Chrift’s flefh and bloc which we feed of in the Spirit, mentioned in the. paragra that immediately precedes, but not inferted either in the 4p or Vindication. Such ftriftures may expofe the unfairnefs” the citations of Verax, but give the reader no real infor ation. His next quotation-is from fome queries in the fame tre whence the preceding one is taken. Of thefe queries, as V dex obferves, he § takes the 5th, 6th, part of the 7th, 8th, g “r1th, and 13th. The firft four fpeak of the fatisfaction © Chrift’s facrifice, and the tenth, of the pre-exiftent ftate © him, at whofe name every knee is to bow. Thefe are : ¢ favourite fubjeéts with thofe who write as Verax does.’* Vet complains of this reference to the firft four and the ter queries, and that thofe he quotes are no further noticed. T fame diftin€tion is obferved in thefe queries between the G head and manhood of Chrift, as in Penn’s Chriftian Qual thereforé my remarks upon one will fuffice for the other, wi out a repetition of them. Verax gives the following comm on the tenth query, * That he that was glorified of the Fa © before the world was, was not the body of flefh, but the ano ¢ ing, which was in the body, and appeared in it, that he mi ‘honour, glorify, and fulfil the will of the Father.’+ Does: Trinitarian fay, that Chrift’s outward body was co-eternal Chrift himfelf? Having inferted the two comments of Vin and Verax on the tenth query; they fhall be fucceeded by text. ‘Query ro. Who was he that humbled himfelf, that m ‘himielf of no reputation, that took upon him the form ¢ © {ervant, and was made in the likenefs of men, and founc ¢ fafhion (or habit) as a man? Was it the Body of Chriff, ‘ was it he that was glorified of the Father before the wo ¢ was? And who is to have the honour of exaltation? At wh * Examination of the Appeal, p. 26, + Vindication, p. 82 € % ) ‘name is every knee to bow? Is not the reward to him who aid down his glory to take upon him the body of flefh, and appear in it, that he might honour, glorify, and fulfil the will of his Father?’* I. Penington’s belief in the pre-exiftence of Chrift is marked n charaéters fo indelible in this tenth query, as well as in other laces, that any endeavour to obliterate them will be futile. The onfideration that next prefents itfelf is, whether he believed Shift in his pre-exifting ftate to be God, or a being endowed vith a delegated power from God ? for if he believed him to be od before he took upon him our nature, he muft {till remain un- hangeably the fame, the Alpha and Omega, after, as well as be- ore he took upon him the form of a fervant for the falvation of nankind. This is a confideration Verax does not fairly meet, but, f I underftand him, he withes us to take it for granted that I. enington and his friends believed Chrift to be only a man more livinely favoured than other men, and that therefore when they pply epithets to Chrift, which befpeak fupreme Divinity, thefe re to be underftood not in their {tri and proper fenfe, but vith a mental refervation, as only to be underftood of that livine power and virtue of the Father which revealed itfelf hrough him in a fuperior degree, but in the fame manner as in he prophets before him. Ina word, that they confidered him nerely as a prophet more eminently favoured than any before tim had been, becaufe the promifed Meffiah. But are thefe ypinions of Chrift reconcileable with a belief in his pre- xiftence ? Do they accord with the following extra from I. enington, in which he fpeaks of Chrift in his pre-exiftent ftate s the fupreme God? It is in a treatife entitled, ‘ Life and Im- mortality brought to Light,’ &c. Se€tion 11. Of the three- fold appearance of Chrift, to wit, under the law, in a body of flefh, and in his {pirit and power.’ ‘Firft under the law. Various were the appearances of Chrift ; fometimes as an angel in the likenefs of a man; fo to Abraham, and fo to Jacob, when Jacob wreftled with him, and prevailed, and had overcome ; fo to Jofhua, as the captain of the Lord’s hoft, at his befieging Jericho; fo to Mofes in the bufh, he appeared as an angel, Acts vii. 35. fo likewife in vifions. Thofe glorious appearances of God to the prophets in vifions, were the appearances of Chrift ; as parti- cularly that glorious appearance of God fitting upon a throne, and his train filling the temple, and the feraphim crying, Holy! holy! holy is the Lord of Hofts; his glory is the fulnefs of the whole earth!” Tfaiah vi.t This was an ap- * Pennington’s Works, Vol. II. p. 16, 17. + This paffage is thus rendered by Lowth,— ( 86 ) € peararice of Chrift to Ifaiah, as is manifeft, John xii. ‘41 * where the evangelift (relating to that place), ufeth this expref * fion, “'Thefe things faid Haiah when he faw his glory, ai “‘ fpake of him.” So with the three children, he appeared i *the midft of the fiery furnace, “in a form like the Son « “ God,” as Nebuchadnezzar judged. Dan. iii. 25.* | Can the leaft doubt remain refpeéting Penington’s believin Chrift to be the Lord of Hofts, before he clothed himfelf wit ‘or took flefh, and tabernacled with men? ih “In the paflages I had quoted, fays Verax, ‘ Peningtot * {peaks of Chrift as the arm of God, the power of God, © Saviour and falvation of God.’+ If he intend to infer fro thefe expreflions that Penington could not mean Chrift to b God, I cannot congratulate him for being very fortunate in h feleCtion to prove his pofition. Does not David fay in an addre! to God, ‘ For they (Ifrael) got not the land in poffeflion by the * own fword, neither did their own arm fave them; but thy rig! “hand, and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance,’+ &¢ Jeremiah alfo fays, ‘ Ah, Lord God, behold, thou haft mad € the heaven and the earth by thy great power and ftretched o1 © arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee.’ Thefe are fu ficient to fhew that the arm of God is a metaphor, exprefh of the omnipotent creating power of the Deity, therefore n appropriate to any created being. Verax is equally unhapf im the other phrafes he has felected, for in [aiah we read, © “even I am the Lord, and befides me there is #0 Saviour? The apoftle Paul fays, ‘For therefore we both labour a * fuffer reproach, becaufe we truft in the living God, who is tl * Saviour of all men.+ And David, ‘ The Lord is my ligh © and my /a/vation, whom fhall I fear.’** I thall clofe thefe tex with one more from Iaiah, ‘ Behold God is my /alvation, I w * truft and not be afraid; for the Lord Jehovah is my ftreng * and my fong, he alfo is become my /alvation’++ Whether the texts convey to us the fentiment intended by I. Penington, whe ufing the fame language, may be afcertained by what he ha faid refpeCting the appearances of Chrift under the law, to whie I fhall add fome extracts from his 14th and rsth queries. * Holy, holy, holy, Jehovah God of hofts! ¢ The whole earth is filled with his glory.’ If I had adopted this verfion in my quotation, inftead of Pening ton’s, it would not have altered the fenfe; the tenor of his argument ful fatisfies me, that Penington underflood it, in fubfance, as Lowth hi rendered it, Thefe are liberties others may take with their citatio frem authors; I have no need of them. ' * Penington, Vol. II. p. 376, 377. + Vindication, p. 82. — t Pfalm xliv, 3. | Jeremiah xxxji. 17. § Ifaiah xliii. 14. $1 Timiyro, ** Pflm xxviii,t. $7 Dfaiah xii. 2. ( 87 ) * Query 14.—Is not Chrift the feed? And is not this feed fown in the heart? Now if this feed fpring and grow up in me ?—If I be engrafted into, and grow up in it, am I not in- grafted into Chrilt, the true olive tree, the true vine ?—And is not this the fame Chrift that took upon him the body of flefh, and offered it without the gates of Jerufalem? Is there any more than one, or is there any other than he? Is Chrift di- vided ? Is there one Chrift within, and another without? He that knoweth the leaft meafure of the.thing, doth he not know the thing in fome meafure? And he that is in the leaft mea- fure of the thing, is he not in the thing? He that knoweth the Son, doth he not know the Father? And he that knoweth the Spirit, doth he not alfo know the Son? And he that is in the Spirit, is he not in the Son? For they are one nature and be- ing.—And as Chrift faid concerning the Father, that he was in the Father, and the Father in him; and that he that faw him, faw.the Father; fo may it be as truly affirmed concerning Chrift; that he is in the Spirit, and the Spirit in him; and he that feeth the Spirit, feeth him; and he that feeth him, feeth the Spirit. For he is the Spirit, according to that Scripture, 2, Cor. ili. 17. “ Now the Lord is that Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”—Here is confufion and impofhibility to man’s wifdom; that Chrift fhould be all one with the Spirit ; that Chrift fhould fend the Spirit in his name, and alfo himfelf be the Spirit whom he fends. (This is an hard faying, who can bear it?) and yet this confufion to man, is God’s wifdom, and precious in their eye who are taught of him.—Now as the Father fent the Son, and yet was with and the Son, fo the Son fending the Spirit, he alfo is with and in the Spirit. And as it is the Father’s will that the fame honour be given to the Son, as is given to him 3 {0 it is the Son’s plea- fure, that the fame honour be given to his Spirit as is given ohim. Yea, as he that will worfhip the Father, muft wor- fhip the Son, muft come to him in the Son, muft appear before him in the Son, muft reverence and kifs the Son; fo he that will come to Chrift, will worfhip him, muft come to him in jthe Spirit, muft bow to him in the Spirit. Yea, he that will now and worfhip Chrift in his fulnefs (in the majefty of his glory, dominion, and power), mutt learn to bow at the loweft appearance of his light and Spirit, even at the very feet of Jefus.’— ' © Query 15. Did not the bridegroom go away, as to his Pppearance in the fiefh, that he might come again in Spirit? Did not the apoftles, who knew his appearance in flefh, know alfo afterwards his appearance in Spirit ? Were there not many in that day who could fay concerning the ipiritual and inward appearance of the bridegroom, we know ( 88 ) ¢ that the Son of God, the eternal life, the pure power and © wifdom of the Father is come?—Yea, were they not in him ‘that is true, even in Jefus Chrift the Son, who is the true © God and life eternal, 1 John v. 10,’ &c. ?* Thefe queries immediately follow thofe quoted by Verax, an further illuftrate their meaning; alfo the evidence they afford of the author’s belief in the Divinity of Chrift, appearing to me indubitable and clear, ‘I have cited them, although I may thereby incur the charge of introducing irrelevant matter, b C caufe not adapted to prove Penington a Socinian. a I fhall add one more extract from this excellent treatife as a fur ther teftimony of the author’s care to exprefs himfelf with all the precifion, which the myfterioufnefs of his fubject would admit. ‘Now the Scriptures do exprefsly diftinguith between Chrift,— ‘ and the body in which he came.—* Lo! I come; a body haf “thou prepared me.” ‘There is plainly he, and the body in © which he came.—This we certainly know, and can never cz © the bodily garment Chrift, but that which appeared and dwelt in the body. Now if ye indeed know the Chrift of God, tel © us plainly what that is which appeared in the body ? whether ‘that was not the Chrift before it took up the body, after it “took up the body, and for ever ?—For Chrift is the Son of the ‘ Father; he is the infinite eternal being, One with the Fa “ and with the Spirit, and cannot be divided from either ; cat © not—be excluded from any place where they are. He may tak © up a body, and appear in it; but cannot be confined to be n « where elie but there, no, not at the very time while he is there ¢ Chrift, while he was here on earth, yet was not excluded fro © being in heaven with the Father at the fame time; as he him € felf faid concerning himfelf, “ The fon of man, which is if “ heayen;” John iii. 13. Nor was the Father excluded fror © being with him in the body ; but the Father was in him, an © he in the Father; whereupon he faid unto Philip, ‘ He © hath feen me, hath feen the Father,’+ &c. The former part of this paflage might probably afford Vera an opportunity to difplay his abilities at verbal criticifm, but h has been anticipated herein by John Faldo, an ancient railin adverfary of our Friends, whofe objeétion is ftated by Wm Penn, as follows. \ «The Quakers difown, and deny the Chrift of God, and f “ up a falfe Chrift in his room and ftead; and attribute all 1 “ that falfe Chrift, which is peculiar to the true Chrift. Thi «< js that non-fuch lie, which travails to bring forth that Babel “ wherewith their religion abounds.” His proof is at hang “ This we certainly know, and can never call the bodily g 1 i i * Penington, Vol II.p. 17, 18,19. Ibid Vol. IL. p. 26. ( 8 ) ment Chrift, but that which appeared and dwelt in the body.” enington’s Queft. p. 23. 32. To which he [Faldo] fays, hey do not deny that there was fuch a man as Jefus, the fon of Mary; and that God, or rather Chrift was in him ; gut this is no more than they profefs of themfelves, that Chrift as God, is in them; yet that body of the man Jefus, which he calls here the bodily garnient, he tells us they can lever call Chrift.”" This quotation he offers at explaining by nother from the fame author and book, p. 40. “ For that which le took upoti him was our garment, even the flefh and blood f our natute.”—From whence J. Faldo infers againit us, Phat the body, Chrift took upon himfelf of our nature, is not he Chrift.”* [his is the fubftance of Faldo’s charge againft I. Penington, which W. Penn has given a circumftantial and full anfwer. doubt the form of Verax’s criticifm on Penington might y froin the foregoing, the point he wifhes to eftablifh being erent; neverthelefs, as the bafis of their criticifm would be fame, namely, I. Penington’s diftin@tion between the body Chrift, and the Divinity that was united to it; an anfwer to » will be an anfwer to both. And this anfwer being ex- Sted from an author, whofe ‘ fervency in the caufe of truth,’ rax has reprefented to be fuch as fhould excite our admi- on, muft add to its weight with him. I hall only extract fe parts of Penn’s anfwer which appear more immediately ffe&t the prefent fubject. , —That none may be ftumbled by his untrue character of 13 we plainly declare—that we cannot, we dare not call the ere body, the Chrift, but the body of Chrift; that he was ter the flefh, born of the Virgin, like unto us in all things, 1 only excepted; and confequently that body muft have en of the fame nature with outs ;—and if it had not been fo, ither could it have been a garment of the nature of our flefh, “nor could the cruel inftruments have prevailed againft his e, as they did. And now, whether it be moft againft Chrift, tipture, and reafon, to fay, that that body, which was nailed gon the crofs, was the Chrift, or the body of Chrift only, I ave with Chrift, Scripture, and reafon to determine. Certain am— that this principle, makes a perfect difference betwixt that was before Abraham, and Him that faid fo; Him told his difciples, I will not leave you comfortlefs, and that faid I will come to you again.—But he offers to us ipture, (Luke ii. 26, 27.) “ And it was revealed to him the Holy Ghoft, that he fhould not fee death before he had the Lord’s Chrift,—&c.” And it is, and will be granted, * Penn’s Works, Vol. II. p. 283. N ; ( ge ) ‘ that Simeon faw the Lord’s Chrift; but I hope J. Faldo ©not deny unto that good man, who waited for Ifrael’s © folation, that he had as well a fpiritual, as natural, an ‘ ward, as outward fight of Chrift: for can he think, that © Word which took flefh, was nothing of that Saviour, and € the true light which then appeared, is to be excluded any tha ¢ therein ?—certainly this allegation from Luke ii. 26. will ney € prove the body of Jefus—to be the whole entire Chrift, Sa “our, Light, &c. unlefs Chrift, under all thefe confideratio: « confifted of the mere outward body, that: only was obyious ‘ the outward eyes; which to affirm, were both to deny his I ¢ vinity, and to conclude Simeon void of any {piritual ight.—If ‘ excufe the matter, he fhall fay, the body is only fynecdochica “ or metonymically taken, a part for the whole, or reprefentatiy “ly; Lanfwer, that fuch a diftinction overthrows him :—for if t © body, which was called Jefus, and Chrift, and Lord, &c. be. ‘him allowed as reprefentative of the whole Jefus,—what ] < he been oppofing all this while ? we will as truly and honet € fay, as it is poflible for him to do, that it was the body of © Lord Jefus Chrift—that was born of Mary, was hanged ¢ tree, and laid in the fepulchre.—And if he will advent e ‘fay more, the confequences of excluding the Divinity, : ‘man’s foul, from being any part of the true Chrift, or th ‘ mortality with the body, which are immortal, and not cap ‘ of being hanged on a tree,—will inevitably fall upon hin W. Penn, alfo, upon the Scripture which fpeaks of Je being flain and hanged on a tree, Acts v. 31. fays, that it © © no more be underftood ftri€tly and entirely fo, than it we “be reafonable for a man to fay, that when Samuel died, ¢ foul and body which was called Samuel, died ; and not rat _€ the body of him who was called Samuel: And this is the 1 ‘ fon,’ adds Penn, ‘ why the Socinians, &c. hold the mort ‘ of the foul, becaufe otherwife thofe words which {peak of © death of Chrift, could not be taken properly, as they take; * defend them.’+ This laft paragraph coincides with my remarks that pre the extraéts from Penn’s Chriftian Quaker, p. 46, 47. What calls ‘ the mortality of the foul,’ is held by many, if not moi the modern Socinians, Dr. Prieftley (as I have alread ferved) certainly held it; fee his Difquifitions upon Matter Spirit.t After thefe extracts let us hope, that Verax wi * Penn’s Works, Vol. II. p. 283, 284,286. + Ibid, 284, 285 {If we are to judge of the prevailing tenets of Socinianifm, by of any individual among its advocates, Dr. Prieftley muft be thet as from the following chara@ter of him, given fince his deceale, appears to be viewed as the apoftle and martyr of the Socinian caulk ( 98.) Mit in drawing coticlufions from the diftin@tion made by . Penn and I. Penington between Chrift and his outward dy, that were never intended by them, of which diftinction . P. fays in his Vindication of the work from which I laft oted, * This diftin€tion, friendly reader, of Chrift and his ody, is very unpleafant to me; but I am thruft into it by the oud clamours of our adverfary againft us,—as perfons denying’ he Chrift of God, becaufe we rather choofe to call that body hat was prepared of God, the body of Chrift, than Chrift imfelf.”* Thus our firft Friends were impelled into thefe btile diftin@lions by the attacks of their adverfaries, who pofed their ‘ do€trine of the fpiritual fecond coming of Chrift nto the fouls or men.’ Although I do not profefs to enumerate all the quotations srax has feleéted, there are two, his obfervations on which Il not permit me to pafs by; the firft he thus introduces, Ze was endowed with thofe fublime virtues which conftitute the aracter of a teformer, and the qualifications of an apoftle,—was a jurning and fhining light in the moral and intelle€tual hemifphere,— me of the moft virtuous and enlightened of the human race—by his abours and his fafferings, he has done more than any fingle individual n his day towards diflipating the clouds of fuperftition, reftraining the nfluence of inveterate and deep-rooted prejudices, clearing away the aude mafs of ignorance and error under which the truth had lain for iges buried and overwhelmed, and toward re-chriftianizing the world. —He endured the frightful effects of bigotry, and party rage and vio- ence, with the conftancy of a martyr, and the patience of a faint ?!!! r. Prieftley’s private character may have been amiable, and he himfelf icere in endeavouring to difpel what appeared to him ‘ the clouds of uperftition,’ and as {uch he demands our pity, as a miftaken, though ell meaning man, The Sketch of Prieftley’s chara&ter, whence the tegoing is extracted, is fo loaded with fulfome panegyric on him, and ch invective on thofe whofe principles will not permit them to view m in the fame light; as being narrow minded bigots, ‘ enemies of free enquiry, of ufeful fcience, of found learning, and of exalted virtue;’ that e know not at which to exprefs our furprife moft; the blind partiality at has guided the pencil of the delineator in the firft, or the extreme iberality that has influenced him in the laft inftance.—The religious ad at gave rife to thofe fhameful riots at Birmingham, through which . P. fuffered < the f{poiling of his goods,’ which we are informed he idured ¢ with the conftancy of a martyr,’ &c. was the celebration of the iverfary of the French Revolution by the Friends of A*reedam, We nnot forbear exprefling our decided difapprobation of fuch a pro- ation of the facred caufe of Chriftianity, by confounding it with itics. ‘There is reafon to believe that Dr. P.*s fufferings originated much in his political, as religious principles, or elfe why did he leave gland for America? Did the Birmingham mob follow him to Lon- n? fi” * Penn’s Works, Vol. II. p. 419. N2 ( 92 ) ‘ That the reader may fee more fully, how far Haac Peningt ‘ was from admitting the notion of a vicarious atonement, ‘ fhall here infert, firft the argument of his opponent, in favo ‘ of that doétrine, and then Penington’s anfwer to it, diftinguif * ing by italics the part Vindex has withheld from his readers. Waving any enquiry as to what the notion of a vicario atonement has to do with the Divinity of Chrift, I will prefe the reader with the paffage, which Verax apprehends, illuftrat Penington’s opinions on this point, inferting it as Verax has and his fubfequent remarks thereon. ae “ He faith,” ¢ fays Penington,’ “ the Lord our righteoufinx “* redeems us, not properly by the life and fpirit of Ais Godhea “* though that was in the work, fupporting, enabling him, ai “ carrying him up, in that great undertaking; but by the dea “¢ and fufferings of his manhood.” ; ‘To this propofition Penington replies, “ This is tran “* dottrine, to make the manhood the main Redeemer, and the ue a <¢ fpirit of the Godhead, but the fupporter and carrier up of the m ‘in the work of redemption; whereas it was the Word whi “ created all, which alfo redeemed—it was the fpirit and li ‘of the Father (even the eternal Son) which took up th “* body, appeared in that body, offered it up a pure and acce “* table facrifice to the Father, finifhing the work therein, whi * the Father gave him to do.”* ’“ Here we have Penington,” * fays Vindex,’ ™ acknowlec “‘ ing the eternity of the Son, afcribing creation to him, “well as redemption, and ftyling him the {pirit and the li “of the Father.” ~~ . . : * OF Penington’s ufe of the word eternal, Verax obferves, © ‘a limited fenfe, as applied to the anointed and appointed . ‘the Father, I have already fpoken. And I fhould think | * the context, he here ufes the word created in the fame fen “as the apoftle, when he fays, “‘ For we are his (God’s) worl ‘* manthip created in Chrift Jefus unto good works.” = = Of Penington’s ufe of the word eternal, in a limited fenfe, T¢ not difcover that Verax has faid any thing exprefsly before; ar to what he advances in his introdué&tion tefpeCting that w T have already replied: as to the obfervation that y the w created is to be underftood the new creation or redemption, it is 3 pugnant to the context, which plainly diftinguifhes between primeval and the new creation, for how otherwiie are the words to be underftood, ‘It was the Word which created. ‘which alfo redeemed?’ Is not the firft and fecond creati diftinguifhed from each other in this place by the two wo ereated and redeemed?, * Does Verax expe his readers * Penington, Vol, II. p. 142,143. + Vindication, p. 84. ; ( 93 ) deem fuch mere trifling as this, grave, dignified criticifm? or that they will deem Vindex’s conclufions from this paflage of Penington in the leaft fhaken by his obfervations on it? With refpe€t to the doctrine of the atonement, I can difcover no trace of its being queftioned either by Penington, or his adverfary; the latter making ‘ the manhood the main Redeemer,’ is what is objected to by Penington, in which objection I fhould hink every true believer in the Divinity of Chnift would unite, Neverthelefs that the reader may fee yet more fully that Pening- ‘on does not deny the facrifice and atonement of Chrift, I hall nfert the four firft of his queries alluded to by Vindex. * Query 1.--Whether there was not a neceflity of Chriit’s taking upon him our flefh, for the redemption of thofe that had finned, and the fatisfaction of the Juftice offended ?? . * Query 2.—Whether the Father did not accordingly prepare a body for him, to do his will in all things in; and particularly to offer up to him the acceptable facrifice for the fins of the whole world ?” _£ Query 3.—Whether it was not neceflary, in this refpe@ alfo, that Chrift fhould take upon him our flefh, that he might ~ have experience of our temptations and infirmities, and become a merciful and faithful high-prieft, and interceffor for us ?” £ Query 4.—Wherein lay the value and worth of his facri- fice, and of all he did? did it lie chiefly on the thing done, or in the life wherein he did it, in that he did it in pure faith and obedience to the Father? he became obedient unto death, even the death of the crofs; and he, through the eternal Spirit, offered himfelf without {pot to God ?* To thefe queries I fhall add a paffage from ¢ An Epiftle to all ferious Profeffors,’ &c. wherein ¢ concerning the offering of the Lord Jefus Chrift, without the gates of Jerufalem,’ enington fays: * I do exceedingly honour and efteem that offering, believing it had relation to the fins of the whole world, and was a propitiatory facrifice to the Father therefore. And furel he that is redeemed out of the world up to God by Chrift, annot deny that Chrift was his ranfom, and that he was ought with a price, and therefore is to glorify God, with his body and fpirit, which are God’s, 1 Cor. vi. 20. And, faith e apoftle Peter, ye know that ye were not redeemed with orruptible things, as filver and gold, from your vain conver- ation, &c. but with the precious blood of Chrift, as of a mb without blemifh and without fpot, 1 Peter i. 18, 19. ho fo offered himfelf up to God through the eternal Spirit, eb. ix. 14,’+ * Penington, Vol, II. p. rg. t Ibid. Vol. II. p. 615, 616. if \ ( 94 ) The other quotation from Penington, which I propof noticing, is in the fame work as the firft, and I fhall infert it like the former, as given by Verax in his ¢ Vindication,’ inclu his remarks. Tort a> 8 Yi ‘ Penington ftates his opponent’s argument thus: “ I firmly “ believe, and fo have all the faints that have gone before, ¢hat “ Chriff is a perfon, and his {pirit a living principle in the he * of all the faithful; but it is not the {pirit or principle in * that did redeem us, but the man Chrift Jefus.” ‘'To which Penington replies, “ If be mean by the man Chrif “ ols, the fecond Adam, the quickemng Spirit, the Lord from “© heaven, he who-is one with ihe Father, the Word which was in “ the beginning, and created all things, I grant him'to be the “ Redeemer ; for it was he who laid down bis glory, wherewith he “ was glorified before the world was, and made himfelf of no repu “ tation, but took upon him the form of a fervant, and came as ¢ “ forvant, in the fafbion of a man, to do the will P* But if he dif “ tinguifh Chrift from this Word and Spirit, and make the man’ « part the Saviour, and the Godhead only affiftant to him,—tha “T utterly deny.” ‘So far only Vindex gives of my qudeatide ‘The remainder of it is plainly expreflive of the belief of th * author in the fupremacy of the Father, and is as follow. “ For fo teftifieth the Scripture, I am the Lord, and befides “ there is no Saviour, I am a juft God, and a Saviour, &c. § “that Chrift is the Saviour as he is one with God. It wz “ God’s arm and power (revealed in him), that effeéts falvation “ Yea, if I may fo fpeak, his obedience was of value, as it cat “< from the Spirit, and it was the offering it up through the eterne “¢ Spirit, that made it fo acceptable to God. So that we mu “ not attribute redemption originally to him as'a man, byt as ; “came from God; and bring the honour all back to the fprir “ and fountain from: whence fe had all, that God may be all “all, and the very kingdom of Chrift may endure, and abi “ for ever, in the root of life from whence it came.” ‘If thefe fentiments,’ (adds Verax), * be not moft decided ‘ Unitarian, I have learned from my youth to affix very err © neous ideas to fome of the moft common words in the Enghi ‘ language.’ The extra& from Penington is firft divided into two parts Verax, and then his remarks upon it.are confined to the latt part of the disjointed paragraph, whereas the whole is necefla to be confidered to aicertain the author’s meanmg.— But beft * The part preceding is omitted in the Appeal, + Penington, Vol. J]. p. 154, 155. 7 t Vindication, p. 84. 85. : 4g o ( 95 ) we notice the conclufions Verax has drawn from Penington’s words, it will be proper to confider the nature of his opponent’s rgument, who firft afferts “ that Chrift is a perfon, and his ‘ Spirit a living principle in the hearts of all the faithful.” Se- ndly, That ‘ it is not the Spirit or principle in us, that did ‘redeem us, but the man Chrift Jefus.” : _ Penington in his reply only: notices the fecond branch of this pofition, becaufe he had already faid fufficient on the firft Branch of it in the paragraph that immediately precedes; in which fwering his opponent’s objection, which implied that I. P. onfidered Chrift only as a principle, he fays, . © There is a difference between the light which enlighteneth € (the fulnefs of light, which giveth the meafure of light, the *meafure of anointing to us) and the méafure, or proportion ‘ which is given; the one is Chrift himfelf, the other is his, gift; ‘yet his gift is of the fame nature with himfelf, and leavens “ thofe that receive it, and abide in it, into the fame nature,’* &c. _ Thus Penington makes a clear and {pecific diftinCtion between Chrift as he is the eternal Son, who created all things, and in whom dwells the fulnefs of light and life; and that principle of light or grace, which out of his fulnefz, he bettows upon every man to redeem him from the fall, and which from the onenefs of its nature with him from whom it proceeds, is cailed € Chrift within the hope of glory: fo that it cannot be faid that on the fubject of Chri? Penington has ‘ fheltered him/felf ‘behind the broad frield of allegory. In reply to the fecond branch of his opponent’s. propofition, Penington fays he will accord with him therein. ‘If he mean by the man Chriit © Jefus, the fecond Adam,—the Lord from heaven,—the Word © which—created all things,—who laid down his glory, and © came in the fafhion of a man,’ for, iays Penington, ‘I grart “him to be the Redeemer,’ and then proceeds to prove that if Chrift was not himfelf God as well as man, but that the man- hood was only affifted by God, he could not be the Saviour of mankind; this he fupports by that Scripture, “ 2 am the Lord, “and befides me there is no Saviour, I am a juft God and a ™ Saviour.’ So that Chrift is the Saviour, as he is one with © God, as he came from God,’ from whence the manhood had all its virtue and power. » Until Verax proves that Penington did not believe Jefus iit, whofe body was crucified without the gates of Jerufa- » to be the Redeemer and Saviour of mankind, the extra& he as pronounced to be ‘ moft decidedly Unitarian,’ muft be nfidered as containing the moft irrefragable proofs, that its thor believed Chrift to be truly and properly God. 1 * Penington’s Works, Vol. II, p. 154. ( 96 ) I fhall take leave of Penington with giving the reader’ hig views of the ftate of man in the fall, and Ris natural inability to deliver himfelf, or even to take a fingle ftep towards his fal- vation. : » ‘ The fall of man from God is fuch,’ (fays Penington) ‘ that ‘it hath benumbed all his fenfes; yea, fo bereft him of them, ‘that he cannot feel his own eftate. He is dead, (pirnatlly * dead, and can no more feel his death, his fpiritual death, thaw €a man naturally dead can his natural death—Men fpeak of ‘ the relics of the image which the firft man had: ah! poor de- * ceived hearts! what relics of life are there in a dead man! * What relics of purity in a man wholly degenerated and cor- ‘rupted? Nay, nay; the fpiritual image, the divine image, the * eternal life, the pure power and virtue, is wholly loft, and there ‘is nothing left, but what is captivated and deftroyed through ‘the degenerating power.—So that it is impoflible for fallen ‘ man to attain to fo much as one true breathing or defire after ‘ God again; this muft arife from the grace, from the mercy, ‘from a new begetting (by the free gift) towards life, towards ‘ the divine image again; which was flain in man (and the im- * preflion of it on him wholly loft) ever fince the foundation of ‘the world in his heart—The wound of man is deep by the ‘ fall; he hath really loft God—yea, m that eftate he is alto~ ‘ gether without hope (for the hope fprings from God’s vifitas * tion of him with his light, and from the living promife), That ‘ which recovers man, is the eternal virtue, the endlefs power, “ the life immortal, the Chrift of God.’* ; In ‘ fome propofitions concerning the only way of falvation,” Penington obferves ‘ that there is no way of being faved from * fin, and wrath eternal, but by that Chrift alone which died at ‘ Jerufalem. There is no name, virtue, life, or power under * heaven given, by which loft man may be faved, but his alone.’+ I have now clofed my examination of the extraéts from Penn Barclay, Fox, and Penington, adduced, in the firft part of the Appeal, and Verax’s Vindication of it, to prove their faith to be what is now called Unitarian. . The concluding remarks upon the Divinity of Chrift in the ‘ Appeal’ and the ‘ Vindication,’ proceed entirely upon the fup- . pofition, that a reje€tion of the phrafe of ‘ three diftin& and * feparate perfons’ involves in it a difbelief in the proper Divini of Chrift. This is at beft but begging the queftion, by taking for granted what will not be allowed. For does it follow becaufe Verax thinks he fees an inconfiftency in the belief of one, and rejection of the other, that therefore our firft Friends muft have feen the fame inconfiftency? one thing is * Penington’s Works, Vol. I. p, 336, 339. - Ibid. p. 78. j | ( 7) s a ftain, namely, that their prefent fucceffors do not fee this in- mfiftency which Verax pretends to difcover; for they reject the afe in queftion, when fpeaking of the Trinity, whilft they lequivocally believe in the proper Divinity of Chrift. Proof this has been fufficiently given by their recent condu. That the reader may yet further be convinced that the uakers are not fingular in fuppofing that a belief in the Tri- ty is not neceffarily connected with an adoption of the meta- yfical terms of the fchools, upon which Verax lays the whole efs of this argument, I fhall add the teftimonies of Maclaine d Stillingfleet to that of Calvin given in page 45. “It is,’ fays A. Maclaine, ‘ but too evident, that few contro- erfies have fo little augmented the fum of knowledge, and fo nuch hurt the fpirit of charity, as the controverfies that have een carried on in the Chriftian church, in relation to the loGtrine of the Trinity. Mr. Whifton was one of the firft ivinés who revived this controverfy in the 18th century.’— Ir. Samuel Clarke ftepped alfo afide from the notions com- nonly received concerning the Trinity; but his modification f this do@trine was not fo remote from the popular and rthodox hypothefis, as the fentiments of Whifton.—The earned: Dr. Waterland was one of his principal adverfaries, nd ftands at the head of a polemical body of eminent divines, ~who appeared in this controverfy. Againft thefe, Dr. Clarke, nawed by their numbers, defended himfelf with great fpirit md perfeverance, in feveral letters and replies. ‘This pro- nged a controverfy, which may often be fufpended through he fatigue of the combatants, or the change of the mode in heological refearches, but will probably never be terminated ; or nothing affords fuch an endlefs fubje&t of debate as a octrine above the reach of the human underftanding, and Xxprefled in the ambiguous and improper terms of human mpuage, fuch as perfons, generation, fubjtance, &c. which in iis controverfy either convey no ideas at all, or falfe ones. he inconveniences, accordingly, of departing from the ivine fimplicity of the Scripture language on this fubjeG, nd of making a matter of mere revelation an object of uman reafoning, were palpable in the writings of both the mtending parties. For if Dr. Clarke was accufed of verging wards Arianifm, by maintaining the derived and caw/ed- iftence of the Son and Holy Ghoft, it feemed no lefs evi- ent that Dr. Waterland was verging towards Tritheifm, - r maintaining the /e/f-exi/féncé and independence of thefe di- e perfons, &c.’ ; y The difference between thefe two learned men lay in this, iat Dr. Clarke, after making a faithful colleCtion of the texts Scripture that relate to the Trinity, thought proper to * (a) ‘ ( 98 ) ‘ interpret them by the maxims and rules of right reafonin ‘that are ufed on other fubjeéts; whereas Dr. Waterlai ‘denied that this mode of reafoning was to be admitted ‘ illuftrating the do€trine of the Trinity, which was far exalt above the {phere of human reafon, and therefore he took t © texts of Scripture in their direét, literal, and grammatic *fenfe. Dr. Waterland however employed the words perf § fubfiftence, &c.—Vhe Doétor indeed apelpaizes in his querie * (page 321) for the ufe of thefe metaphyfical terms, by obfer * ing, that “ they are not defigned to enlarge our views, or * add any thing to our ftock of ideas, but to fecure the ple “* fundamental truth, that Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, are “ ftrictly divine and uncreated, and yet not three Gods, but o “ God.” It is, however, difficult to comprehend how terms th neither enlarge our views, nor give us ideas, can fecure t ‘truth. It is difficult to conceive what our faith gains by bei © entertained with a certain number of founds. If a Chine © would explain a term of his language which I did not und ‘ {tand, by another term, which he knew beforehand that © underftood as little, his conduct would be juftly confidered * an infult againft the rules of converfation and good breedin ‘ and I think it is an equal violation of the equitable princiy © of caridid controverfy to offer as illuftrations, propofitions * terms that are as unintelligible and obfcure as the thing to € jlluftrated. ‘The words of the excellent and learned Stilli © fleet (in the Preface to his Vindication of the Doétrine of ‘ Trinity), adminifter a plain and a wife rule, which, were it £ ferved by divines, would greatly contribute to heal the wour ‘which both truth and charity have received in this cont © verfy.” Wo ee both fides yield,” (fays he) “ that the matter th ‘ difpute about, is above their reach, the wifeft courfe they ¢ *© take, is, to aflert and defend what is revealed, and not to * peremptory and quarrelfome about that which is ackno “‘ ledged to be above our comprehenfion; I mean as to 1 “‘manner how the three perfons partake of the Diy * nature.”* ‘ \ No Society of Chriftians has more endeavoured to here to this ‘ plain and wife rule,’ here recommended, than t Society of Friends. Their belief in the Trinity R. Clari has expreffed in terms even lefs exceptionable than thofe Stillingfleet, viz. * That there is the Father, the Word, and t * Holy Ghoft, as in 1 John v. 7. (though in fome very ancic © copies this verfe is omitted), or, the Father, the Son, and * Mofheim’s Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, O@ayo Edit. Vol. VI. p. 44. Note (zj oe ( 99 ) Joly Ghoft, as in Matth. xxviii. 19. And that thefe Three te One, we truly believe; but dare not take upon us to leclare how they are One, and how they are Three, any therwife than we find it already declared in exprefs {cripture erms: and that’ for this reafon, becaufe they are fafe and Baptox. Speaking of our Friends’ rejetion of the phrafe ¢ diftind nd feparate perfons,’ Verax fays, ‘ They patiently bore the alumnies that were moft induftrioufly circulated againit aem on that account ; among which the charge of Deifm was ne of the moft.common, as well as one of the mildeft, by thich they were characterized,’ &c.t In this I muft diffent m Verax, unlefs the charge of Dei/m be milder than that of inianifm. If by patiently bearing ‘ the calumnies circulated gaint them on that account,’ he means that they did not el thofe charges, it is a miftake; the charge of Sociniani/m $ pointedly and profeffedly repelled by W. Penn, in his mocency with her open Face,’ and in his ¢ Spirit of Truth mdicated ;’ by Robert Barclay, in his Vindication of his ology; and by Geo. Whitehead, in his Treatife on the fnity of Chrift. After W.Penn’s deceafe, the charge of jm was brought againft him and his friends, which was ited by Jofeph Befle, in his work entitled, 4 Confutation of charge of Deifm, wherein the orthodox fentiments of Wm. Penn fully demonftrated by extracts from his own writings, printed 4; and by Alexander Arfcott, in the third part of his Cov- rations relating to the prefent fate of the Chriftian Religion, &c. [he evidence produced in the preceding pages, authorizes to adopt the clofing paragraph of Vindex upon this fub- , as ftill retaining its full force, viz. that if Verax © have en labouring to prove that our ancient Friends did, and at Friends now fhould, reje€t the term perfon, in {peaking ‘the Son, confidered as the Word, the Light, the Redemp- m, he feems to me to be fighting a-man of ftraw. But if ea to prove that our ancient Friends, allowing Penn, We Fox, and Penington, to be fair fpecimens of them, ied the eternal Divinity of Chrift,t and refufed him the ute of adoration, (rejeCting alfo the idea of a Holy Three, mentioned in Scripture), I hope the foregoing pages will ifputably fhow that he has not eftablifhed his point. || elius Inquirendum, or an Anfwer to E. Cockfon, 1706. p. 13. + Appeal, p. 23. : Verax in the Introduation to his Vindication, endeavours to the real import of this phrafe, the fallacy of which attempt has noticed in page 39. || Examination, p, 27. Gaz - CHAP. oe ON THE SCRIPTURES, 4 “ Futroductory Remarks.—RicHARD CLARIDGI Traéatus Hierographicus ; or a Treatife co cerning the Holy Scriptures.—ROBERT B cLay’s belief in the authenticity and infpirats of the Scriptures, illuftrated by divers extra from his We orks.—-Oljeétions anfwered, : OUR early Friends: refufed to call the Scriptures the W of God, or to allow them to be the primary rule of faith manners—the firft term they applied to Chrift; the fecone the law written by his Spirit in the heart. ‘Their adverfay on that account, reprefented them as denying the Scriptures, rejecting their divine authority. Before we adduce their defe of themielves againft thefe falfe affertions, which will alfo dicate their fucceflors from the refleGtions of Verax and his adjutors ; we will give what they do believe concerning facred writings, in the form of a few propofitions, whicl obviate all objections as to their accuracy, are in the wort Richard Claridge. ‘We do fincerely and unfeignedly believe the following ! € pofitions.’ ) AM margin Barclay inferts the following note, &c. § Apocry- ha.—Concil. Laod. Can. 59. in Cod. Ecc. 163.—Concil. aod. held in the year 364, excluded from the Canon Eccl. he Wifdom of Solomon, Fudith, Tobias, the Maccabees, which the ouncil of Carthage held in the year 399, received.’ the authority of the facred writings depended wholly s the approbation or canons of any church or aflembly,’ safe differences between the councils would, no doubt, more lefs affe&t the authority of thofe books, refpecting which they. fered ; but Barclay fays, their authority doth not depend upon fe canons. The contefts between the councils are produced him, not to invalidate the authority of ‘ the prefent canon of cripture,’ but to prove the uncertainty that attends refting authority upon the décifions of councils, whereas by the dence of the Spirit of God we know how to difcern ‘ the true om the fa//e,’ the genuine authentic Scriptures, from Apocry- al writings. Barclay gives not the leaft hint that ‘ he ap- lies both thefe terms true and falfe to the prefent canon of cripture,’ but contrariwife; for {peaking of thofe parts of it t fome of the ancients rejected, he calls them ‘ Books which @ approve, and it was the council of Carthage held in the r 399 that ‘ approved thofe, which /ome of us reject.’— that the diftin@tion made by H. B. and her advocates be- * Barclay’s Apology, P: 70 | a ( 1m ) tween the #rwe and fale in the prefent canon of Scripture, is diftinGtion of their own, not authorized by Barclay. i That the reader may not be ignorant of H. Barnard’s manr of quoting Barclay, to prove the coincidence of fentiment eta. him and herfelf, 1 fhall give a fpecimen of her perverfion of 1 paffage now before us; it is in a ** Sequel to the Appeal,” lat: publifhed. “ A Friend fpeaking of the Scriptures, in reply to H. Barnar affertion that Robert Barclay called the authenticity of fo parts of them in queftion, is reprefented by her as fayir “No! Robert Barclay does not call their authority in quetti “ in the leaft, but fully admits it, in every effential point ; : «J have lately perufed him on the fubje&; and the Soci “ have always been uniform in their full belief in them.” © was furprifed,’ (fays H. Barnard) ‘ at his language, and repli * Barclay’s words, as near as I can remember, are, “ The dit - culties and uncertainties in afcertaining the original meani ** of the authors, and whether they have been truly and fait “ fully tranflated and tranfcribed, are fo many, and fo gre “ that it leads the minds even of the learned, into, infinite dou “ perplexity, and uncertainty. And unlefs we examine the *¢ individually, by the light which God has endowed us wi “* we cannot poflibly diftinguith the true from the falfe in ther “and if this privilege is relinquifhed, or by any means tak “ from us, we fhall be left a prey to all manner of wolves.”’# The firft part of this quotation, or rather paraphrafe. from the fourth fe€tion of Barclay’s third Propofition, pag of the Apology, and the latter part which is from the pa I have juft cited, is in the firft feétion, page 70. This is | way of quoting an author; it reminds me of an anecd refpecting a perfon, who, fatirizing another for wrefting fc ture, by quoting infulated texts, without regarding their conte faid, it is written that Judas ‘ went and hanged himfelf,’ i alfo written, ‘Go thou and do likewife,’ offering to pro from {cripture. I do not infer that Hannah Barnard’s. phrafe does equal violence to Barclay’s meaning, alth advanced to make him appear to controvert a fentiment w. he has openly avowed, viz. that he fully admits the authorit the Scripture in every effential point. Inaccuracy in citi paflage of an author from memory is poflible, but when commit it to paper and publifh it, fuch inaccuracy, and occafion of it, fhould be noted that the reader may not be : led by it; which Verax has not done, either in this place, the examination of Hannah Barnard and the refpondents be the committee of appeals (fee page 168 of the Appeal), whet * Sequel to the Appeal, p. 55) 56. ¢ my ) ailar error alfo occurs. Well might J. G. Bevan fay to fuch. alfe citation, that if it proved any thing, it could only prove wt Robert Barclay was not one of the Society; it could not fibly prove that fhe was one of them: the truth is, he did t confider that it proved any thing, becaufe falfe, and therefore, he obferved, ‘ nothing to her purpofe,’ but thence to charge n with condemning R. Barclay as * not one of the Society’ mere trifling, and only merits contempt. Barclay’s Catechifm will alfo further prove that he had no ention of queftioning the authority of thofe books mentioned him as rejected by fome of the ancients ; it is entitled, 4 techifm and Confeffion of Faith approved of and agreed unto by the neral Ajjembly of the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apoftles, Chrift elf chief fpeaker in and among them; which containeth a true and thful account of the principles, &S'c. believed by the churches of rifi—called Quakers,—moft clearly demonftrated by fome plain fcrip- e tefimonies, &c. From this fketch of the title we may fafely iclude that R. Barclay confidered every book he has quoted this work as authentic, and not apocryphal; although it by means follows that he rejected thofe books of the Scripture had no occafion to refer to. The fecond epiftle of Peter, t of James, and the Revelation of John, are repeatedly refer- }to by Barclay in his Catechifm, as /cripture teftimonies; the ond and third epiftles of John being very fhort, and only to ividuals, may account for his not having citations from them. rax muft firft overturn this weight of evidence, before he + ventures to reprefent Barclay as applying the term fa//e whole books of the prefent canon of Scripture. When preffed very clofely with Barclay’s real opinions, Verax orms us, that he ‘ cannot implicitly receive all his fentiments 3 juft, or confider every text he may have quoted, as there- re genuine, and authentic Scripture.’ I believe nobody wifhes a implicitly to receive the opinions either of Barclay or of Prief- if at variance with Scripture and the revelation of the Spirit Chrift in the heart: but rather that he would rank himfelf he proper colours, and not counterfeit the Quaker, when teality a Socinian ; and whilft he continues fuch, we neither &, nor defire to difcover much agreement between him and clay, neither fhall we hefitate to prefer the judgment of the er, to afcertain whether our early Friends believed the pre- canon of Scripture ‘to be genuine, decifive, and fit to dge controverfy by.’ he fecond, fourth, and fixth fe€tions of Barclay’s third Pro- ion, whence the other extracts in the Appeal are fele&ed, written to prove what I truft no Quaker will deny; 1ft. t the Scriptures are not ‘ the principal ground and origin all truth and knowledge,’ nor.‘ the primary rule of faith Q2 ( 116 ) ©and manners.’ 2dly. But that they fhould rank next to tl Spirit, as a fecondary rule, and ‘ the only fit outward judge — * controverfies among Chriftians,’ which he reduces to tl following argument. , ‘ That whereof the certainty and authority depends upon an € ther, and which is received as truth becaufe of its proceed ‘ from another, is not to be accounted the principal grow ‘ and origin of all truth and knowledge: but the Scriptures’ a ‘ thority and certainty depend upon the Spirit, by which th * were dictated; and the reafon why they were received ‘truth is, becaufe they proceeded from the Spirit: therefo ‘ they are not the principal ground of truth.’* The fecond fection begins thus, § Though then we do < * knowledge the Scriptures to be very heavenly and divine w € tings, the ufe of them to be very comfortable and neceflary © the church of Chrift; and that we alfo admire and give pra © to the Lord for his wonderful Providence in preferving th € writings fo pure and uncorrupted as we have them, throu © fo long a night of apoftafy, to be a teflimony of his tr * again{t the wickednefs and abominations even of thofe, wh« © he made inftrumental in preferying them, fo that they hz ‘ kept them to be a witnefs againft themfelves; yet we may 1 © call them the principal fountain of all truth and knowled; nor yet the firft, adequate rule of faith and manners; becat ‘the principal fountain of truth, muft be the truth itfelf, 7 © that, whofe certainty and authority depend not upon anoth © When we doubt of the ftreams of any river or flood, wer © to the fountain itfelf, and having found it, there we defift; *can go no further; becaufe there it {prings out of the bow © of the earth, which are infcrutable: even fo the writings a “ fayings of all men we muft bring to the Word of God, I me © the eternal Word, and if they agree hereunto, we ftand the ‘For this Word always proceedeth, and doth eternally proc ‘ from God, in and by which the unfearchable wifdom of G ©and unfearchable counfel and will conceived in the heart © God, is revealed unto us.’} oF . Would Barclay call the Scriptures very heavenly and dit avritings ; would he praife the Lord for preferving them fo p and uncorrupted; if he had apprehended the inadvertent er that frequent tranfcribing had occafioned, fo far obfcured fenfe of the Scriptures, as to make them aflume ‘ fo ¥ * motley an appearance’ that even the truths they contain fhe be involved in uncertainty and doubt ? £ After obferving that ‘ the very nature of the gofpel 1 $ declareth that the Scriptures cannot he the only and ¢ * Barclay’s Apoiogy, p, 71,72 _.t Ibid-p.7te 7 { aa } rule of Chriftians, elfe there would be no difference between the law and the gofpel,’ and that ‘the principal rule of Chriftians under the gofpel is not an outward letter, nor law outwardly written and delivered, but an inward, {piritual law engrayen in the heart, the law of the Spirit of life, the word that is nigh in the heart and in the mouth,’ Barclay proceeds o fhow wherein the Scriptures cannot be an adequate rule of ronduct. ‘ For inftance, fome are called to the miniftry of the word 5 Paul faith, There was a neceffity upon him to preach the gofpel ; woe unto me, if I preach not. If it be neceflary that there be ‘now minifters of the church as well as then, then there is the ‘fame neceflity upon fome more than upon others to occupy ‘this place; which neceffity, as it may be incumbent upon par- ‘ticular perfons, the Scripture neither doth nor can declare. ‘If it be faid, That the qualifications of a minifter are found in _the | Scripture; and by applying thefe qualifications to myfelf, I may ‘ know, whether I be fit for fuch a place or not; I aniwer, ‘ The ‘ qualifications of a bifhop, or minifter, as they are mentioned ‘both in the epiftle to ‘Timothy and Titus, are fuch as may ‘be found in a private Chriftian; yea, which ought, in fome f meafure, to be in every true Chriftian; fo that this giveth a man no certainty. Every capacity to an office giveth me not 6a fufficient call to it—And fuppofe that I was qualified and € called, yet what fcripture-rule fhall inform me, whether it be my duty to preach in this, or that place, in France or England, Holland or Germany? Whether I fhall take up my time in ‘confirming the faithful, reclaiming heretics, or converting infidels, as alfo in writing epiftles to this or that church? The * general rules of the Scripture, viz. To be diligent in my duty, to do all to the glory of God, and for the good of his church, can give me no light in this thing: feeing two different things may both “have a refpeét to that way, yet may I commit a great error € and offence in doing the one, when I am called to the other. If Paul, when his face was turned by the Lord towards Jeru- falem, had gone back to Achaia or Macedonia, he might have ‘ {uppofed he could have done God more acceptable fervice, in € preaching and confirming the churches, than in being fhut up €in prifon in Judea; but would God have been pleafed here- § with? Nay, certainly. Obedience is better than facrifice; and it is € not our doing that which is good fimply, that pleafeth God; ‘ but that good which he willeth us to do. Every member hath ‘ its particular place in the body, aé the apoftle fhoweth, 1 Cor. © 12. If then I, being the foot, fhould offer to exercife the office € of the hand ; or being the hand, that of the tongue; my fer- f yice would be troublefome, and not acceptable ; and inftead ( 118 J of helping the body, I fhould make a fchifm in it: fo ths ‘ that which is good for another to do, may be finful to me”* ‘Thefe arguments are fo conclufive, that I think there is n Chriftian that believes in immediate revelation, ordivine influence but muft accede to the propriety of them. They clearly exhibi that by the primary rule of faith and manners, Barclay mean that inward law written in the heart, which, as attended unte will dire&t man in thofe duties that relate to the ftation, Provi dence has placed him in, and refpeéting which the Scripture cannot poilbly dire& him, although they may encourage an ftrengthen him in the performance of them, for fays Barclay * God hath feen meet that herein,’ (i. e. in the Scriptures) © w * fhould, as in a looking-glafs, fee the conditions and experience “of the faints of old; that finding our experience anfwer t ‘theirs, we might thereby be the more confirmed and com. * forted, and our hope of obtaining the fame end ftrengthened * that feeing the {nares they were liable to, and beholding thei * deliverances, we may thereby be made wife to falvation, ane * feafonably xeproved and inftruéted in righteoufnefs.’+ Thus as without the Spirit, the Scriptures aré a fealed book; th being led and guided by the Spirit of truth, is fo far from pre. eluding our receiving benefit and inftruétion through infirumentality of the Scriptures, that it is then only we c truly profit by reading them. z If the Scriptures were the principal ground and origin of al truth and knowledge, what would become of thoufands té whom God hath not feen meet to reveal them? Befides to fup pofe any outward writings to be the origin of all truth an knowledge, and to be in themfelves fpirit and life (whereas ¢ * is life eternal to know thee the only true God, and Jefus Chrif “whom thou haft fent),’ is to place the origin of truth and lif eternal in that which is liable to variation and error; for fo. muft be confeffed are all outward writings. That errors, though comparatively trifling, have crept into the Scriptures, will not be denied; it is moft to be admired, that they are f immaterial, as not to affect our faith and praétice in an thing important or effential. ‘This we muft, with Barcla attribute to the wonderful providence of God; may we therefore b fufficiently thankful unto him for having preferved them /o pur and uncorrupted as we have them. Barclay in the fourth feétic points out the difficulties here ftated, that attend the idea of t Scriptures being the only, principal, and chief rule 3 it begiris thus :-— ; _ *§4. Laftly: That cannot be the only, principal, nor chic ‘rule, which doth not univerfally reach every individual, tha * Barclay’s Apology, p. 74, 75:76 Ibid. p. 84. € 119 ) eth it, to produce the neceffary effet ; and from the ule of which—many—are neceflarily excluded; and that either wholly, or at leaft from the immediate ufe thereof.—Shall we then affirm that they are without any rule to Godward, or that they are all damned? As fuch an opinion is in itfelf very abfurd, and inconfiftent both with the juitice and mercy of God, fof know no found reafon can be alledged for it. Now if we may fuppofe any fuch to be under the new covenant difpenfatien, as I know none will deny, but that we may fuppole it without pay abfurdity, we cannot fuppofe them without fome rule and means of knowledge; feeing it is exprefsly afirmed, “ They ‘fhall all be taught of God.” John vi. 45, &c.—Secondly,— how many illiterate, and yet good men are there in the church of God, who cannot read a letter in their own mother- tongue ?—thefe can have no immediate knowledge of the rule of their faith; fo their faith muft needs depend upon the credit of other men’s reading or relating it unto them, where either the altering, adding, or omitting of a little word may be a foundation in the poor hearer of a very dangerous miitake, whereby he may either continue in fome iniquity ignoranily, or believe a lie confidently. As for example; the Papiits in all their catechifms and public exercifes of examinations towards the people, have boldly cut away the fecond command, be- caufe it feems fo expreisly to {trike againft their adoration and ufe of images.’* _ This paflage is not intended to detraét from the utility of the eriptures to thofe who can have accefs to them, but fimply inft their being confidered as the only rule of faith, and Sesiay’s remarks that fucceed the foregoing, are to {how that heir expofure to error through frequent tranfcribing, militates gainit the idea of their being the principal ground and origin all truth and knowledge, or a fuperior and more certain rule han the teachings of that Eternal Word from which they have | their authority and certainty, the fubftance of thefe remarks will endeavour faithfully to tranfcribe. » Barclay, after fhowing how thofe who have not a ‘ thorough knowledge of the original languages in which they werewritten,’ ‘depend upon the honeifty and faithfulnefs of the inter- preters,’ adds, © And that even the laft tranflators in the vulgar languages meed to be corrected (as I could prove at large, were it proper in this place), learned men do confefs. But laft of ail, there is lefs difficulty occurs even to thofe ikilled in the original guages, who cannot fo immediately receive the mind of the authors in thefe writings, as that their faith doth not at leaft 4 * Barclay’s Apology, p. 79, 80. ue ( 126 7 € obliquely depend upon the honefty and credit of the tran © fcribers, fince the original copies are granted by all not to b * now extant. Of which tranfcribers Jerom, in his time, com ‘plained, faying, That they wrote not what they found, bu * what they underftood ; and Epiphanius faith, That in the goo ‘and correct copies of Luke it was written, that Chriff wept and that Ireneus doth cite it; but that the Catholicks blotte “it out, fearing left hereticks foould have abufed it. Other fa thers alfo declare that whole verfes were taken out of Mark § becaufe of the Manichees. But further, the various reading © of the Hebrew character by reafon of the points—the dif € agreement of divers citations of Chrift and the apoftles witl €thofe paflages in the Old Teftament they appeal to; th * great controverfy among the fathers, whereof fome highl € approve the Greek Septuagint;—fome others, and particu “larly Jerom, exalting the certainty of the Hebrew :—an € the many various readings in divers copies of the Greek, an € the great altercations among the fathers of the firft three cen © turies (who had greater opportunity to be better informed, tha € we can now lay claim to), concerning the books to be admitte * or rejected ;—I fay all thefe, and much more which might b * alledged, puts the minds even of the learned into infinite doubt: € {cruples, and inextricable difficulties; whence we may ver € fafely conclude, that Jefus Chrift, who promifed to be alway * with his children, to lead them into all truth, to guard the: againft the devices of the enemy, and to eftablifh their fait * upon an unmoveable rock, left them not to be principal ruled by that, which was fubjeé in itfelf to many uncertai € ties; and therefore he gave them his Spirit, as their princip © guide, which neither moths nor time can wear out, nor trai ‘ fcribers nor tranflators corrupt; which none are fo you “none fo illiterate, none in fo remote a place, but they m © come to be reached and rightly informed by it.’* . I think the conclufion of this extra& confirms the of my preceding obfervations refpeéting the particular put pofe for which it was written; not to detraét from the au thenticity of the Scriptures, but to ftate the difficulties cor fequent upon fetting up the beft of writings (confidering the expofure to error through tranfcribers and tranflators) as th rincipal guide into all truth, to the feclufion of that more im fallible guide, the Spirit of Chrift, who has promifed to be a ways with his children’ to lead them into all truth. Ancien writings generally fuffer more or lefs by tranfcription and trani lation; but few are known to have fuffered lefs from the lapi of time than the Holy Scriptures. a f * Barclay’s Apology, p. 80, 81, 826 (( 1297 ) tee who induftrioufly collec and magnify every e difficulty refpeGting the preient tranflations and the ori- al text of the facred records, that may have been occafionally ited at by Barclay and other learned men, cannot be more tably addreffed on the tafk they have undertaken, than in words of Robert Gray in his Key to the Old Teffament, who aking of King James's tranilation, makes fome very judicious lections. ‘The Romanifts,’ he fays, ‘ ftarted many unreafonable ob- sctions againft this tranilation; and the Prefbyterians pro- sffed themfelves diffatishied. It was however allowed, even y Cromwell’s committee, to be the beft extant; and certainly is a) moft wonderful and incomparable work, equally smarkable for the general fidelity of its conftruction, and the jagnificent fimplicity of its language. That it is not a perfec rork is readily admitted ; the great advancement made fince ae period of its tranflation, in the original languages; the im- rovement that has fucceeded in critical learning,—have much anded to illuftrate the facred writings, and enabled us to etect many errors and defects of tranilation, that might now e corrected and removed.—Whenever, therefore, it fhall be idged expedient by well-advifed and confiderate meafures, to uthorize a revifal of this tranflation, it will certainly be found apable of many and great improvements.* As fuch a work, eliberately planned, and judicioufly executed, would unquef- onably contribute much to the advancement of true religion, lany pious men have expreffed their earneft wifhes for its ecomplifhment.—Till, however, the execution of this work hall be judged expedient, every fincere and well-difpofed dmirer of the holy oracles may be fatisfied with the prefent ranflation, which is, indeed, highly excellent; being in its oftrines uncorrupt, and, in its general conftruction, faithful to he original. The captious chiefly, and fuch as feek for blemifbes, difpofed to cavil at its minute imperfections, which, however -a work of fuch ferious and interefting value they ma uire correction, fhould not be invidioufly detailed. ‘The few aflages, which, by being erroneoufly tranilated, have furnifhed fion for unjuft and licentious afperfions againft the facred ume, are fo clearly and fatisfaCtorily explained and vindicated y judicious comments, that no one can be mifled in his con- tions, who is defirous of obtaining inftruction.’+ joes not Gray admit with Barclay that there are many errors | defects in our tranflation, and that it is capable of many and < Bifhop Lloyd’s edition of our tranflation is improved in fome re- s. Dr. Paris likewife revifed it in 1745.” + Gray’s Key to the Old Teftament, p. 41 to 44, BR ( 2 ) great improvements? It can do Verax no harm to confide whether, by magnifying and invidioufly detailing thefe defeé “Sig: iain gat heey ; y gt . he is not ‘more intent on purfuing and prefling his adverfari ‘ than in fecuting himfelf an honourable retreat ??—whether is not in effect courting the attacks of the Deift ? The inaccuracies pointed out by R. Barclay relate rather omiffions from, than additions to, the text; for example, t expunging of the fecond command from the decalogue, t Roman Catholics blotting out fome words. in Luke, alfo t omiffion of feveral verfes in Mark, becaufe of the Manichie All omiffions from a rule, militate againft its perfe€tion, but not detra€t from the authority of what is left. The difagr ment of fome citations in the New Teftament, with the fa: paffages in the Old, mentioned by Barclay, is chiefly occafion by the Septuagint or Greek verfion being moft in ufe amo the Jews in the time of our Saviour, and the Septuagint known fot to be in all places exa€tly conformable to the Hebre The various readings in divers copies of the New Teftam« aré noticed by Warburton in the paflage before cited, who fa * frequent tranfcribing has occafioned numerous variations ‘ words and phrafes throughout all the Scriptures of the N © Teftament.’ But Warburton no more than Barclay, intend hereby to weaken the divine authority of the New Teftamet he only oppofes the idea of the organie or plenary infpiration the Scriptures, as Barclay adopts the’fame argument to opp the notion of their being ‘ the principal ground and origin © all truth and knowledge.’ For the Bifhop afterwatds defcril thefe variations as being of a harmlefs nature, and not obfcuri a fingle propofition of faith; a fimilar obfervation is alfo m: by Barclay in the 6th fetion of his third Propofition. T errors he notices, as detected by fome of his friends, do 1 extend to the prefent copies of the original, but are who confined to our Englifh verfion, and therefore of but lit importance, compared with errors in the original text; fot they have not been correted in more recent tranflations, a n tranflation of the whole of the Scriptures would probably eff this defirable objet ; and until then, the plain Englith read who cannot refer to the originals, may content himfelf w faying, ‘If I thall meet with any thing in thefe writings 1 ‘icemeth repugnant to truth, I fhall not doubt to fay, ‘ © either the tranflator hath not reached what was faid; or * I have in no wife underftood it? * Although Verax has been liberal in his-quotations from clay’s fourth fe€tion, he filently paffes over the fifth, in w. an objection that might be made to the preceding one is viated; it immediately follows the laft citation from the fou fection, given in the Appeal, and begins thus :-— ee ( .223 )) £§-5. If it be then alked me, Whether I think hereby to render he Scripture, altogether uncertain, or ufelefs ; 1 anf{wer: Not at Il. The propofition itfelf declares how much I efteem them: md provided that to the Spirit, from which they came, ye but granted that place the Scriptures themfelves give it; do freely concede to the Scriptures the fecond place, even vhatfover they fay of themfelves: which the apoftle Paul hiefly mentions in two places, Rom. xv. 4. * Whatfoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.” 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16, 17. The Holy Scriptures are able to make wife unto falvation, through faith, which is in Jefus Chrift. All Scripture given by in{piration of God, $ profitable for correction, for inftruction in righteoufnefs, hat the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnithed imto every good work.” For though God doth principally ad chiefly lead us by his Spirit, yet he fometimes conveys is comfort and confolation to us through his children, whom e raifes up and infpires to fpeak or write a word in feafon.— nd fuch, as are led by the Spirit; cannot neglect, but do na- . irally love, and are wonderfully cherifhed by, that which pro- sedeth from the fame Spirit in another; becaufe fuch mu- jal emanations of the heavenly life tend to quicken the mind, hen at any time it is overtaken with heavinefs. Peter him- If declares this to have been the end of his writing, 2 Pet. i. 2, 13. “ Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you al- yvays in remembrance of thefe things; though ye know them, nd be eftablifhed in the prefent truth: yea, I think it meet, s long as I am in this tabernacle, to ftir you up, by putting ou in remembrance.”—* ‘This is the great work of the Scrip- res and their fervice to us, that we may witnefs them ful- din us, and fo difcern the ftamp of God’s Spirit and ways gon them, by the inward acquaintance we have with the e Spirit and work in our hearts.’* ; inthe fourth feGtion Barclay enforces the impropriety of idering the Scriptures as a more certain and principal rule aith and manners, than the immediate teachings of the Holy it; fo, in this laft, he removes any fufpicion of his intend- to render uncertain, or depreciate the value of, the facred sin the ftate we now have them, by acknowledging that $ willing to rank them next to the Spirit from which they eeded, and to concede to them every thing they fay of wfelyes, and then adopts, Rom. xv. 4. 2 Tim. ili. 15, 16 d 2 Pet. i. 12, 13. as defcriptive of their nature and de- Here is another proof that he did not himfelf entertain * Barclay’s Apology, p, 83, 84).85- me ( a4} thofe doubts, that he fays, exifted among divers of the aricie fathers refpe€ting fome books included in the -prefent canon Scripture; the 2d Epiftle of Peter, which in this place he knowledges, being one of thefe books. The fixth fe€tion pr fues the iame fubjeé as the fifth, and is nearly as follows : © § 6. In this re[pec? above mentioned then we have foown what / ‘vice and ufe the holy Scriptures, as managed in and by © Spirit, are of to the church of God; wherefore we do account thei ‘ fecondary rule. Moreover, becaufe they are commonly ackno ‘ ledged by all, to have been written by the di€tates of the Hi * Spirit, and that the errors, which may be fuppofed by ‘ ‘ injury of time to have flipt in,* are not fuch, but that th ‘is a fufficient, clear teftimony left to all the effentials of © Chriftian faith ; [we do look upon them, as the only fit o © ward judge of controverfies among Chriftians, and that wh ‘ foever doctrine is contrary unto their teftimony, may theref * juftly be rejeted as falfe. And for our parts, we are v * willing that all our doétrines and pra€tices be tried by the ‘ which we never refufed, nor ever fhall, in all controverfies a ‘ our adverfaries, as the judge and tet. We thall alfo be v ‘ willing to admit it as a pofitive, certain maxim, that what * ever any do, pretending to the Spirit, which is contrary to € Scriptures, be accounted and reckoned a delufion of the devil ‘ For as we never lay claim to the Spirit’s leadings, that we r § cover ourfelves in any thing that is evil; fo we know, - * A reader of Verax obferves, that in p. 94. of the Vindicati renders, ‘ Si qui errores irrepferint, parvi funt,’ &c. The errors have crept in are fmall, &c. inttead of Lf any errors have creptin, th fmall, &c. Thus, without the aid of a miftranflation, the Lati ginal is not a whit more fayouable to Verax than the Englith, + What is inclofed between brackets is adopted by R. Clarid his Traétatus Hierographicus, p. 2. and preceded by the followi claration— : ‘ The holy Scriptures are the moft excellent of all writings * foever, whether we confider the holy Author of them, the grea * of heaven and earth; or, the infpired penmen of them, the hol ¢ phets and Apoftles, who fpake and wrote as they were move * guided by the Holy Ghoft; or, the divine truths therein de ‘ and teftified of, concerning the wonderful love of God for the ¢ ciliation and falvation of loft mankind, through repentance to * God, and faith in, and obedience to, the Lord Jefus Chrift, ‘ ‘* gave himfelf for us, that he might redeem us from all ini ‘and purify unto himfelf a peculiar people zealous of good w ¢ Tit. ii,14, Upon which confiderations thus fummarily laid « we efteem them worthy of preference to all other books in the ‘¢ For they are the words, fayings, and teftimonies of God, Scri * of Truth, divinely infpired writings, containing the judgmen § ftatutes of the Lord, and the Magna Charta of his church,’ ( 3% every evil contradi€ts the Scriptures, fo it doth alfo the Spirit in the firft place, from which the Scriptures came ; and whofe motions can never contradi& one another, though they may appear fometimes to be contradiétory to the blind eye of the natural man, as Paul and Fames feem to contradic one another.* The italics diftinguifh what is omitted in the citation of this e€tion in the Appeal. index has adverted to the omifhion of he latter part of this paragraph; Verax in his Vindication, at- empts to juftify the omiflion, faying, Vindex ‘ points out a few ‘words that follow it [the extra€t] in Barclay, which I did not ‘repeat, becaufe I had given their full import in the preceding ‘part of the quotation.’+ I deny that the full import of the slofing paragraph is given in the former part of the fection; the former adverts more immediately to the general belief of others in the infpiration of the Scriptures, the latter to his own belief, which is dire€tly and unequivocally expreffed ; he alfo therein acknowledges the divine authority of the Epiftle of James, one of the books to which Verax makes him apply the term fale. Perhaps it is becaufe Verax thought Barclay unauthorized to de- termine for a future generation, that he has omitted the middle of the paragraph he has cited, where {peaking of trying doctrines by the Scriptures, it fays, ‘ which we never refufed, nor ever foall, ¢in all controverfies with our adverfaries, as the judge and teft.’ This may not accord with his creed, but that is not a fufficient apology for expunging it. Does he not at times forget that it is not his opinions, but thofe of our firft friends, which are the prefent object of refearch? Verax by dropping the word becau/e at the beginning of his quotation, and putting a period inftead of a femicolon after Chri/tian faith,has alfo varied the fenfe of Barclay. _ Having examined the omiflions of Verax, our next object is to confider with him, In what fenfe Barclay is here to be under= frood. After detailing and magnifying the errors alluded to by Barclay, as if they ob{cured thofe important doGtrines of Chrif- tianity that affect outward religious communion; Verax gives this anfwer to the queftion: ‘ When Barclay therefore {peaks “of the Scriptures as the only outward judge of controverfy, he can only mean in their original purity ; feveral modes of enquiring into, and afcertaining which, he has particularly € pointed out, and employed them freely for this very purpofe.’} This is plaufible, but not deducible from Barclay’s words, which are fo far from implying that the errors fuppofed to have crept into the text by the injury of time, have fo corrupted or per- verted the Scriptures as to prevent their being the judge and teft f Chriftian doftrines; that he aflerts thefe fuppofed errors . * Barclay’s Apology, p. 85, 86. + Vindication, p. 97. t Appeal, p. 31. ( 226 Jj not to be of fufficient importance to obftruct an appeal to ther in their prefent ftate. If Barclay did not intend an aoe t the Scripture as an outward judge and teft, until every wor and letter were reftored to their firft purity, he muft hay appealed to a non-entity, as it is not probable, that will eve be the cafe.* I do not remember one fingle mode ‘ pointe ‘out and employed’ by Barclay to reftore the copies of th original to their firft purity.—To obviate thefe difieultie: as a late writer obferves, ‘ Barclay’s Apology was not foe “as fuch an object did not come withim the feop £ views in that work.’—* It was no part_of his pl: plan to re * commend or adduce any evidence befides that of the teftimon ‘and inward perfuafion of the Holy Spirit, in favour of th ‘ truth of the Scriptures; or to fhow the harmony and accord * ance of fuch parts as might be deemed inconfiftent with eacl “ other; or to attempt the defence of particular paflages whic ‘might be thought obje€tionable.’ The reafon of this is ob vious; thofe, againft whom Barclay’s arguments were directed were fo far from attacking the divine authority of the $ : that they exalted them, in their oppofition to the Quakers, abow the Spirit of Chrift. 1t was only to evince the fuperionity of thi Holy Spirit, that Barclay at all referred to the difficulties th do occur refpecting the ftri@ and rigid accuracy of the text * That the errors alluded to are not fuch as to alarm the ferio seader, I truft will fatisfactorily appear by the following obferyatio of Robert Gray upon their nature and extent, im his Key to the Teftament. After adverting to the deftruétion of Jerufalem, and t final difperfion of the Jews, he proceeds :—* Henceforth, no copy ‘the Hebrew Scriptures was preferved from injury by the vigilance * public guardians, except thofe which were kept in the fcattered fya * gogues of foreign and difperfed Jews ; 3 and it is from this time, pr ‘ bably, that errors and corruptions crept into the facred text. As th * was no longer any eftablifhed ftandard ef correétnefs, by which the. * delity of the different copies could be tried, faults and miftakes were i * fenfibly introduced; the carelefinefs of tranfcribersoccafioned accide € omiffians : marginal annotations were adopted into the texts and | ‘ refemblances between different Hebrew letters, of which, many a ‘ remarkably fimilar in form, contributed, with other circumftanc ‘ too numerous to be here {pecified, to produee alterations and im ¢ feCtions in the different copies, which, from the difficulty of collati ‘ manufcripts for correction, were neceffarily perpetuated. Hen * originated thofe various readings, and occafional differences, which’ ¢ find in the feveral manufcripts of the Hebrew Bible.—Fortunat « however, it has happened, that thefe-differences are feldom importa ‘in their nature or confequences, as appears from a collation of tho “various copies which pious and smenifiecat.asanhiyeat induftrioufl * collected; and it fheuld feem indeed an efpecial effect of fome peci ({ ta: ) efacred writings. Being acquainted with the original lan- ages, he may occafionally have corrected our Englith verfion the Hebrew and Greek text, where he thought the tranflators d obfcured the fenfe of the original. That thefe variations were it, in Barclay’s views, fo numerous and important, as to render iw Englifh verfion unfit. to be the outward judge and teft of e truth of Chriftian dotrines, his Catechifin and Confeffion of sith is an indubitable proof. In this work he purpolely ab- ins from any correction of our common tranflation, to prove ‘our oppofers that he was not obliged to take any advantage at way, it being fufficiently correét in its. prefent flate to hibit the Quakers’ views of the Chriftian religion; and if it not in its prefent ftate congenial with Verax’s notions of that ligion, it muft be becaufe they differ from Barciay’s; neither it probable that a correction of the immaterial errors that have ept in, would render it more pliable to his purpole. We have reafon to conclude that Verax thought Barclay id ufed ‘ ftrong -expreflions,’ for him to be impelled in or- x ‘to avoid their force,’ to have recourfe to the fuppofition at Barclay did not fpeak of the Scriptures in the ftate they we reached us, when he denominated them ‘ the only or moft fit outward judge of controverfy among Chriftians.’— pllec&t the moft ancient manufcripts exifting, and let them be jar Providence, that thofe paffages which relate to faith and do&rine, thofe which defcribe the attributes and perfe@tions of God, and treat soncerning our obligations and duty, are in general preferved uniform gud uncorrupted : fecure in their integrity, from the confiffent tefti- monies of every copy, we may confidently rely on the inftructions which they reveal, and ftedfaftly adhere to the principles which they inculcate.’—After obferving that ‘ wherever the gofpel was received, the law and the prophets were called into notice and efteem ;’ he con- nues, ‘ Copies then muft have multiplied by increafing veneration, and however trivial inaccuracies might proportioaably prevail, con- trived alteration muft have become more impracticable. Thus every ircumftance feems to haye confpired to preferve the integrity of the criptures free from a fufpicion of intended corruption, or of change n any effential point. The jealous care with which they were pre- erved in the tabernacle, and in the temple, being not more calcu- ated to fecure their integrity, than that reverence which afterwards ifplayed itfelf in the difperfed fynagogues, and in the churches con- ecrated to the Chriftian faith; and hence we find in the Scriptures nly fuch corruptions as might have been accidentally produced— he miftakes are chiefly in proper names and numbers; in the latter ten occafioned by the ufe of letters for numbers. Irenzus, Beza, C.? p. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. and note [r] ‘ ; It is as improbable that every error of the kind here defcribed, ich occars ‘either in the Old or New Teftament, will ever’ be com- tely remoyed, as it is unimportant that it fhould be fo. (\ 136% ) carefully collated, and the vulgar tranflations revifed; neverthe Jefs fome unimportant errors would moft likely prevent the tex of the facred records from being in that purity in which onl Verax fays Barclay acknowledges them to be an outward, fecond ary rule of faith and manners. It would no doubt rejoice th fincere admirers of the facred writings, that every inaccurac contained in them that has the moft diftant relation to faith o manners were removed, however uneffential in itfelf; in orde that fuch as feek for blemifbes, and are difpofed to cavil at minut imperfections might be deprived of one of the twigs at which the continually catch. Entirely to filence the captious who fearcl for defects, is not to be expected, for when real difficulties ar done away, they will raife imaginary ones, as Verax has don in the fecond part of the Appeal, refpe€ting both the Old an New Teftament. I have endeavoured to follow the chain of Barclay’s argumen in the copious extraéts adduced; which furnith fufficient ev dence, that the errors of tranfcribers and tranflators, he adverts te were entirely of a fimilar nature with thofe noticed by Warburto and Gray ;---that he confidered the text of our Englith verfio as therefore uncorrupt in all effential, or even material point: This he has placed beyond the fhadow of a doubt, by havin proved the truth of ‘ the whole principles of the people calle ‘ Quakers,’ from our common tranflaticn of the Scriptures, with out correcting it by the Hebrew and Greek copies, which ha he done, he obferves that he could have piotiekll other very clea Scriptures as additional evidence in fupport of their principle the heads of which I fhall briefly enumerate, as hence it be feen that Barclay has included in his confideration ever do&rine of the Chriftian faith. | rft. Concerning God, and the true and faying knowledge him. ; 2d. Concerning the Divinity of Chrift, and his appearance the flefh. * 3d. Concerning the Scriptures. 4th. Concerning the New Birth, and the inward revelation Chrift. sth. Concerning the univerfal and faving light of Chrift. 6th. Concerning Faith, Juftification, and good Works. 7th. Concerning Perfe€tion or freedom from fin. 8th. Concerning Perfeverance, or falling from Grace. gth: Concerning the Church and Miniftry. roth. Concerning Worfhip. 11th. Concerning Baptifm, and what is called the Lo Supper. 12th. Concerning the Life of a Chriftian in general. 13th. Concerning Magiftracy. 4 ( 129 ) rath. Concerning the RefurreCtion. 15th. Concerning the condition of man in the Fall.* erax exprefies a fear of the influence of the’ corrupted ges in our Englifh verfion: what occafion for this alarm, he doctrines juft enumerated can be clearly illuftrated and ved by this verfion of the Scriptures ? But from the general. pr of Verax’s productions, from the diffonance there is ween them and Bafclay’s elucidations of the principles of Friends, it is too evident that his fear is refpe€ting paflages Scripture, adopted by Barclay as ‘ original, apofolical, and vine, and Barclay’s conftruction of thefe paflages will pro- ly include him among thofe whom Verax defcribes as ‘ tor- ring and twifting paflages of dubious import, or difficult terprétation, in fupport of humanly devifed fyftems, which abrace and inculcate unintelligible dogmas, and myfterious iets, that have no more accordance with the genuine doc- hes of the gofpel, than darknefs has with the light of day.’+ are not informed what thefe ‘ unintelligible dogmas and myj- tous tenets’ are; if he mean to pronounce all doétrines ¢ un- telligible dogmas,’ except thofe * refpe@ting which there has ver been much, if any controverfy among Chriftians,’ I eve, of the preceding fourteen articles, twelve, at leaft, muft firuck off the lift, and perhaps what would then remain ht be a band of union wide enough to embrace the f Verax’s feat refpe€ting the influence of the corruptions interpolations of the Scripture, is confined to the trivial rs of Warburton, Gray, and Barclay; why fuch pains in 2d part of the Appeal to difprove the authenticity of the firft fers of Matthew and Luke, which give an account of the culous conception of Chrift; afcribing them to the pagan erts of the fecond century, becaufe they ‘ make againf? his in opinions ?’ Barclay not only adopts thefe accounts of the of Chrift as authentic fcripture in his Catechifm ; but in tter to Adrian Paets, controverting the pofition that ‘ men not obliged to believe God producing any revelation in foul concerning matter of fa&t, unlefs there be added fome cle obvious to the outward fenfes,’ to prove it to be a tion from God; mentions the cafe of Jofeph, the hufband ie’ Virgin Mary, as in point, which he thus introduces. e need no outward miracles to move us to believe the iptures ; and therefore much lefs were they neceflary to the he dotrine of the Fall forms no difting& head in Barclay’s Cate- » but is amply treated of in his Apology; and the Scriptures by him to prove it, are according to king Jantes’s tranflation. + Vindication, p, 109. s 4 5 4 (130) € prophets, who writ them. For we fee in many places “the prophets, where they declare prophecies as revealed ‘them of God, there is not a word mentioned of any ‘ ward miracle, as that by which alone they were certa ‘it. Moreover the falfenefs of this argument doth appe ‘that the Scripture doth declare many contingent truth © have been revealed to the prophets in dreams.—Of whi ‘have a clear example in Jofeph, the hufband of the ble ‘ Virgin, who, when he obferved his wife with child, was) © in a dream, that fhe had conceived by the Holy Ghoft : 1 ¢ I would know to which of Jofeph’s outward fenfes was ‘ revealed? or what miracle had he to induce him to belie which could neither be proved (fo as to make an inf ‘ application to Mary), by the teftimony of the Scripture, ‘ which, being againft the order of nature, did choke his rea ‘ The Scripture mentions no miracle in this matter, and ye € doubt Jofeph had highly finned, had he not believed this r ¢ Jation, and notwithftanding reje€ted his wife as an adultere The latter part of this paflage is cited in the 2d part of Appeal, to prove that Barclay thought a belief in Mary’s n culous conception not to be ‘a proper, neceffary, and effe ‘article of Chriftian faith, to be propofed as a conditio ‘ religious fellowfhip.’ It is certainly a curious -paragra 7 prove fuch a pofition, fince Barclay therein affertgthat Je would have highly finned if he had not believed in the mi lous conception, until confirmed to him by fome miracle oby to his outward fenfes; alfo, that we need no outward min to move us to believe the Scriptures, of which the paflag ueftion forms a part: whether or not Barclay thought belief effential to outward Chriftian communion and fellow let the following words of his, which have been before cit this work, on another occafion, decide. ‘ For as we believe all thofe things to have been ce ‘ tranfaéted, which are recorded in the holy Scriptures, * cerning the birth, life, miracles, fufferings, refurreétion, © afcenfion of Chrift ; fo we do alfo believe that it is the “ of every one to believe it, to whom it pleafes God to “the fame, and to bring to them the knowledge of it; yet © believe it were damnable unbelief not to believe it, wh “ declared ; but to refift that holy feed, which as minded ¥ ‘lead and incline every one to“believe it as it is offered © them.’+ i Verax muft be acquainted with this paflage; it is im elay’s Apology, which has always been, and remains t * Barclay’s Works, p. 903; 904. + Barclay’s Apology, p. 141. (‘ 191%") fidered as the ftandard of the Quakers’ doétrines. Is it fiftent with the di€tates of common fenfe to expect a fociety sontinue united, in religious fellowfhip, with one who perfifts sropagating what it has publicly denominated damnable un- ef? Are not the rights of religious focieties as facred and jolable as thofe of individuals? Is a fociety of Chriftians to continually purfued by the fhafts of malevolence, branded antichriftian, and as actuated by prejudice and paflion, be- fe it will not apoftatize from what it believes to be the nitive faith of the gofpel ? In fa&t, while men,’ to borrow the words of a recent writer, mtinue to differ in religious opinion as they now do, the moft sely way for general peace is for them to clafs themfelves cording to their faith; for no clafs to exercife domimion yer the reft; for their controverfies to be managed with mper and moderation; and for no perfon to affume a right ‘teaching and remaining in a Society, the ancient tenets of hich he rejeéts, or which is not difpofed to adopt the new aes which he may propofe.’ Although R. Barclay maintains that the immediate revelation the Holy Spirit upon the mind of man muft be his principal e and guide, as without this the Scriptures will be only as a d letter to him, unprofitable and ufelefs; he uniformly dif- ims that any revelation from God can contradict the out- rd teftimony of the Scriptures; becaufe the Spirit of God, | which they were dictated and committed to writing, cannot itradict itfelf. in his fecond Propofition ‘ Of immediate Revelation,’ he fays, foreover thefe divine, inward revelations, which we make ab- lutely neceflary for the building up of true faith, neither do, or can ever contradict the outward teftimony of the Scriptures, r right and found reafon.’* Verax has difcovered a partiality ‘the clofe of this paragraph, but he is miftaken if he thinks, t by right reafon, Barclay means ‘ the fallen, corrupt, and filed reafon of man,’ which underftands not the things of Spirit of God. gain, in his Vindication of his Apology, ‘ But he,’ Brown inks I drive at fornething more intolerable, to wit ; ‘ That the lations the Quakers pretend to, or the light within, is to be pre- ed, as the more primary and principal rule, to the Scriptures. If the Quakers did aflirm, any revelations they {peak of, as ming from that light, either were or could be contrary to e Scriptures, he would fay fomething ; otherwife it will ount to no more, but that commands, as they are imprinted on the foul, that is, the law written in the heart by the * Barclay’s Apology, p. 18. $ 2 ag ( 132 ) ‘Spirit, is more primarily and pues the rule, than ‘fame things written and received only from another.’* I believe every objection of Verax againft Barclay’s full lief in the infpiration and divine authority of the Scriptures been removed, but as it is defirable to obviate every diflx that may be prefented; another writer of that party having a mentioned ¢ that Barclay objeéts to the neceflity of believi * that the Scriptures are a filled canon,’ I fhall add one me citation, from the gth Seét. of his third Propofition. ' ‘49. The laft, and that which at firft view feems to ‘ the greateft objection, is this. a ‘ If the Scripture be not the adequate, principal, and only rule, © it would follow, that the Scripture is not complete, nor the canon fe © that if men be now immediately led and ruled by the Spirit, t * may add new Scriptures of equal authority with the old ; wo © every one that adds, is curfed: yea, what affurance have we, € at this rate, every one may bring in a new gofpel according to § fancy 23 4 ‘The dangerous confequences infinuated in this object * were fully anfwered in the latter part of the laft Propofitic ‘in what was faid a little before; offering freely to dif ‘ all pretended revelations contrary to the Scriptures.—But © condly, we have fhut the door upon all fuch doétrine in very pofition, affirming, that the Scriptures give a full © ample teftimony to all the principal doétrines of the Chrif ‘faith. For we do firmly believe, that there is no other gol © or doétrine to be preached, but that which was delivered © the apoftles; and do freely fubfcribe to that faying, Let © that preacheth any other gofpel than that which has b ‘ already preached by the apoftles, and according to the S¢ © tures, be accurfed. So we diftinguifh betwixt a revelatio: © a new gofpel and new doétrines, and a new revelation of © good old gofpel and doctrines ; the laft we plead for; but ‘ firfl we utterly deny.’— , « As to the Scriptures being a filled canon, I fee no nece © of believing it,—for it cannot be found in any book of © Scriptures that thefe books, and juft thefe, and no other ‘ canonical, as all are forced to acknowledge.—If it th © pleafe God to bring to us any of thofe books, which by ‘ injury of time are loft, which are mentioned in the Script ‘ as, The prophecy of Enoch, the book of Nathan, &c. or, ‘ third epiftle of Paul to the Corinthians; I fee no reafon ‘ we ought not to receive them, and place them with the re It is unneceflary to point out the harmlefs nature of Barel * Barclay’s Works, p. 753+ + Barclay’s Apology, p. 99 91> 92 (/ 133, objection to the neceflity of believing the Scriptures to be a filled canon; the lofs of the books he mentions, not at alk affeCting the divine authority of thofe books, which are provi- dentially preferved to us. _ © But the great misfortune has been,’ fays Verax, ‘ that many ‘ things in thefe writings, even admitting them to have been genuine, ‘are improperly advanced into principal. and fundamental F points of faith and Chriftian communion, that are laid no fuch ftrefs on by the writers themfelves; and meanings attached to ‘them, which the idle acquiefcence of ages has ferved to incruft, ‘that are not only far from being fanctioned by the paflages ‘from whence they are hewn for that purpofe, but, alfo, in f ftrit oppofition and contradiétion to many other paflages that § define the neceflary and effential articles of Chriftian faith, in ‘4 manner totally incompatible with the admiflion of fcarcely | fany part of the fuperfiructures of thefe creed and fyftem making advocates.’* From this extract it appears that there are many things in the Scriptures which Verax thinks are not genuine (I fuppofe he means authentic), from which principal and fundamental points of faith are hewn, that are not fanCtioned by the paflages them- felves, even admitting them to be genuine, and which are alfo in ftri&t oppofition to the neceflary and effential articles of | hriftian faith. That thefe firictures are pointed at our Society, js evident from page 199 of the Vindication. Does Verax then believe that there are efféntial ArnticLEs of Chriffian Kartu? f£ he were not fo great an enemy to articles of faith, perhaps he might feel fome qualms of confcience for continuing in apparent religious fellowfhip with a fociety, whofe principles he confiders a ftri€t oppofition and contradiction to the Chriftian religion. | If an inflexible adherence to the faith of our forefathers, from a conviction of its being the true faith, is to be deemed Fan idle acquiefcence;’ as one of the Society, I fhall not be afhamed to fuffer this reproach for maintaining the faith once delivered to the faints. R. Barclay {peaks of fome in his time whofe ‘ chief principles’ were quite contrary to the Scriptures ; hat Verax may judge how far they aifimilate with thofe he has yeen defcribing, I will repeat Barclay’s words; they are in his Catechifm. ‘ Among Proteftants I know the Socinians are great pretend- ers to the Scriptures, and in words as much exalt them, as i any other people; and yet it is ftrange to fee, how that not \only in many things they are not agreeable to them; but in }fome of their chief principles quite contrary unto them, as in ) their denying the Divinity of Chrift, which is as exprelsly * Appeal, p. 32. ( 134°) € mentioned as any thing can be; 4nd the Word was God, John i. * As alfo in denying his being from the beginning, againft the “very tenor of that of John i. and divers others, as at large is © fhown in the third chapter of this treatife. Divers other things * as to them might be mentioned; but this may fuffice, to ftop © their boafting in this matter.’* Barclay muft, in this place, mean the Divinity of Chrift in the frig and proper fenfe of the phrafe; the ancient as well as the modern Socinians, admitting it in the ambiguous and im- proper fenfe in which it has been adopted by Verax. For what is faid on this important point in the third chapter of Barclay’s Catechifm, I refer the reader to my letter to John Evans, pages 2 and 3. I oe ot with Verax that ‘ the moft ufual fource of difference © of fentiment’ arifes rather from the different’ fenfe in which many paflages of Scripture are received, than from any dou refpecting ‘ the mere accuracy of the text, or the fidelity of th * tranflation,’ the juftnefs of this obfervation is verified in the various focieties‘into which Chriftendom is divided (exclafiv of the Socinians), notwithftanding their full belief in the Divine authority of the facred records. That this may alfo be one fource of difference between Hannah Barnard and the Socie of Friends, will be admitted, but as her principal diffent from them conf{ts in fuch a refufal to acknowledge her unequivocal belief in the authenticity of many parts of the Scriptures, ai appears to them to involve in uncertainty the divine authority o the whole, what advantage can refult from deciding * whethe * many paflages ought to be received in a literal or a figurati ‘ fenfe,’ if we have afterwards to determine, whether thefe paf- fages are Scripture or not? Befides, as H. Barnard refted he defence upon her fentiments being congenial with thofe o our Society, and upon the fubftance of its faith according with hers, difclaiming any intention to introduee new dogma repugnant to its primitive faith; fhe thus reduces the contro verly to the two following points. 1ft. What was the faith o our firft Friends? 2d. Do~Hannah Barnard’s opinions accor with it? Thefe two points muft be firft determined, fo 2 either to remove, or confirm the fevere refle€tions on the con dut of the Society fo liberally difpenfed™by Verax and hi affociates ; before the reader’s attention is diverted by irrelevat matter: and I truft this will fufficiently apologize for Vindex ar mytelf, if we have not always followed Verax when he ha diverged from thefe two points, and enlarged the field ¢ difcuflion. ' * Barclay’s Works, p. 174. | | CHAP, VI... rm mo A continuation of the fame fubje.—The belief of WitttAM PENN aad RicuarD Morris ia the authenticity and infpiration of the Scriptures, illuftrated by divers extracts from their writings. =a THE firft work of William Penn, from which Yerax has favoured us with extracts, is, 4 Difcour/e of the general Rule of Faith and Praéice. Copious as his citations from this work are, in the Appeal, they keep the reader in the dark as to the defign of the diicourfe itfelf; the tenor of the argument being kept entirely out of fight. Vindex’s Examination of the Appeal has, owever, produced another extract from this difcourie in the Prat by Verax, which, though comparatively fhort, elu- cidates the purport of it, more than the three pages which are devoted to it in the Appeal: I fhall therefore repeat it. _ © A Rule and the Rule,’ fays William Penn, ‘are two ‘things. By the rule of faith and practice, | underftand, the living, fpiritual, immediate, omniprefent, difcovering, ordering Spirit of God: And by a rule, Lapprehend fome inftrument, by “and through which this great and univerfal rule may con- € vey its directions. Such a fubordinate, fecondary, and declara- tory rule, we never faid feyeral parts of Scripture were not ; yet we confefs the reafon of our obedience is not merely becaufe they are there written (for that were legal), but becaufe « they are the eternal precepts of the Spirit, in men’s confciences, * there repeated and declared; it is the teitimony of the Spirit, which is the true rule for believing and underitanding of the Scripture; therefore not the Scripture, but the Spirit of truth, muit be the rule for our believing and underftanding them. (> 196°) © Thus held the ancients.’* Penn then proceeds to confirm this by the teftimonies of Tertullian, Fuftin Martyr, Ferom, Epipha- nius, among the ancients; and Era/mus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, and feveral others among the Proteitants. — hike y By this ‘ fketch of the work,’ we may fee as with a ao of the eye, the fame diftin€tion between the Rule and a Rule « faith and practice, that is obferved by R. Barclay: this is further confirmed by the following paflages in Penn’s difcourfe. ‘ Now the Scripture tells us, that “ no man knows the Father “ but the Son, and he to whom the Son reveals him:” and as none « knows the things of man fave the fpirit of man, fo the things © of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God. Hence we ‘may fafely conclude, that the creating Word that was with © God, and was God, in whom was life, and that life the light © of men, and who is the quickening Spirit, was He, by whom © God in all ages hath revealed himfelf ; .confequently, that light © or Spirit muft have been the general rule of men’s knowledge, ‘faith, and obedience, with refpect to God.—To which the © apoftle and prophet thus agree: rft. In that “whatever mak “ manifeft is light,” Eph. v. 13. 2dly. That “ whatever mig “ be known of God was made manifeft within,” Rom. i. 14 © for God (who is Light, 1 John i. 5,) had fhown it unto the © and “ God hath fhewn unto thee, O man, what is good, an “ what God requireth of thee,” &c. Mic. vi. 8. which cou © not be without the light of his Son fhining in man’s con © fcience ; therefore the light of Chrift in the confcience mu © needs have been the general Rule, &c. Wt was by this 1 * that Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Melchifedeck, &c. walked, ani © were accepted, as faith Ireneus and Tertullian; they wer *juft by the law written in their hearts; then was it thei © Rule to, and in, that juft ftate. Iren. b. 2. c. 30. Tertul. co € jud. p. 184.’ “Obj. It feems then you deny the Scriptures to be the gener, s Rule, Oy Ce ‘ ‘ Anf. How can they be the general Rule, that have © been general? That which was both before, and fince the * were in being, muft needs be more general than they; bi ‘that was this light in the confcience, the law and guide ¢ ‘ thofe patriarchs (for the Scriptures began long after, in th “time of Mofes), confequently that muft be the gener © Rule, &c.’’— . © Obj. But is not the Scripture the Rule, Se. Zz our day ?” _ © Anf. VE the Rule, then the general Rule; for whatfoever i © The Rule of Faith and Life, excludeth all other from bein « general, they being but particular in refpe& of itfelf; there © fore not the Rule, though a Rule of Faith and Life. But b * Penn’s Works, Vol. I. p. 599. (137) ides their not being general, I have feveral reafons to offer, why they cannot be Zée Rule of faith and life, &c. ft. If Jow the rule, then ever the rule; but they were not ever the ule.—If the faith of God’s people in all ages be of one yature, then the rule, but of one nature. But clear it is, Jeb. xi. The faith has been but of one nature. In fhort, if he holy ancients had faith before they had, or wrote Scripture, hey had a rule before they had or wrote Scripture; for where aith is, there is a rule for that faith.—ad. If the Scriptures vere the general rule, they muft have always been a perfect ule, ever fince they were a rule. But this is impoflible, fince ~ hey were many hundred years in writing, and are now imper- e€t alfo as to number. How then are they the perfect rule? That they were not the perfect rule before they were written, muft be granted,—and that they are imperfect now, as to umber, 1 prove. Enoch’s prophecy is mentioned by Jude, gut not extant in the Bible. ‘The book of the wars of the Lord, Num. xxi. 14. The book of Jafher, Jofh. x. 13. 2 Sam. . 18. The book of Nathan, 2 Chron. ix. 29. The book of Shemaiah, 2 Chron. xii. 15. The book of Jehu. The epiftle #f the apoftle Paul to the Laodiceans, Coloff. iv. 16. and feve- al others mentioned in the Scriptures, not now extant :” : alfo fays, ‘the Scriptures have not been, neither are the general rule, no not fo much as of any age, fince in no age san it be proved, that the whole or greateft part of the world had them.’* We leave it to the reader to determine whether Vindex had %t fome reafon for faying that W- Penn denied ‘ the Scrip- tures to be the general rule, becaufe they were not from the beginning, and are not yet general; and that his (W. P.’s) eafoning tends to this point, in oppofition to the objections hich he fuppofes may be brought by fuch as make them the only rule.’+ Thad written thus far before I thought of recurring to the rk entitled, 4 Confutation of the charge of Deifm: wherein the iftian and orthodox fentiments of William Penn are fully demon- ated by extraéts from his own writings, which are cleared from the verfions and mifconftructions of a namelefs author, &c. By Fofeph @; in whom I find an able ally, and whofe fervices I in- d to accept; as to his character, we are furnifhed with it Verax himfelf, who defcribes him to be ‘a friend of un- ueftioned orthodoxy, and high eftimation in our Society.’ thall quote Jofeph Beffe’s introdu€tory remarks upon Penn’s fcourfe, that the reader may fee the coincidence between: * Penn’s Works, Vol. I. ps §92, 593, 594+ + Examination, p. 33. T (' 138.9 them and thofe I had already penned before I took up Be book.“ b ses ‘ That our reader may have a right underftanding of W. © real fenfe in the prefent cafe, which this author takes care * conceal, it is neceflary that he obferve a diftin€tion which ¥ *P. ftri@ly keeps through this whole Difcourfe, between * Rule of faith and. practice, and The Rule, or, the general Rv ‘of faith and practice; which diftin€tion he thus expreffe ‘ page 599, for which fee my extract from Penn, page 1 ‘So that he admits the Scriptures to be a Rule of faith ai ‘ practice, as his conftant appeal to them, through the w ‘ courfe of his writings, doth demonftrate beyond all reafon * exceptions.’* y In anfwer to the objection that W. P. fays the Scriptur are not perfect, J. Befle replies, ‘ And is not this true in t ‘fenfe W. P. fpeaks it, and undertakes to prove, viz. That # ‘ are imperfect as io number: does he not fhew that many Scri “tures mentioned in thofe we have, are not now extant: This is what R. Barclay advances againft confidering the pi fent books of Scripture a complete, filled canon, but which, I have before faid, does not weaken the divine authority of t books we have. The firft extra€t from W. Penn’s Difcourfe, that is broug forward in the Appeal, ftates, That ‘ the Scriptures, howe ‘ ufeful to edification and comfort, feem not in their oj ‘nature and frame, to have been compiled and delivered as ¢ general rule, and. entire body of faith, but rather written up * particular occafions and emergencies,’*—that the doétrines fcattered throughout the Scriptures, that in fome places. are to be underftood literally, in fome metaphorically, others myftically, from all which hé makes the followi deduction: § Now from ail this, with abundance more * might be faid, plain it is that the Scriptures are not plain, b, * the fpiritual man: thus Peter faid of Paul’s writings, that ‘ many things they were hard to be underflood: therefore not f ‘a rule which ought to be plain, proper, and intelligible,’ & ‘The words in italics are omitted in the Appeal, but from th it appears that Penn believed the Scriptures to be plain to | fpiritually minded: now all are exhorted to be fuch, therefi the Scriptures may become plain to all. Neither Penn’s a ments, nor the dedu€tions he makes from them, militate the le again{t the infpiration aid divine authority of the Scriptures; more is exprefled by him than is contained in Claridge’s eigl propofition cited in page 102. It is eafy to give, with appar * Beffe’s Confutation, p. 68,69. ~ + Ibid. 71. £ Penn's Works, Vol. I. p. 594. (23g) ndour, long citations from argumentative difcourfes, and yet, fupprefling the premifes and deduétions, to miflead the reader, to the true intent of the writer. In the next quotation in the Appeal Penn fays, ‘The queftion rifes not about the truth of the text, for that is agreed on iH hands.’* Iam greatly miftaken if the truth of the text be -an important queftion with our opponents in the prefent atroverfy. ‘This quotation is a long one, the fame paflage is o adverted to by J. Befle’s antagonift, who wifhed to prove tits purport was to detract from the value and divine autho- y of Scripture: his defign being not very diffimilar from that Verax, the fame anfwer will fuffice for both. I fhall give t thofe parts of the extracts in queftion, that are particularly ted and vindicated by Jofeph Befle, and fecondly, the re- rks of the latter on them. * How fhall I be affured,” fays Penn, “ that thefe Scriptures ame from God? I am bound to try all things: if all things, hen them amongft the reft. I would fain know what I mutt ry them with? with the Scriptures? then the Scriptures quft be the rule of my examination and faith concerning hemfelves, which is improper: if with the Spirit that gave hem forth, which fearcheth the deep things of God, (a aeafure of which is given to me to profit withal), then is it aoft congruous to call the Spirit, by way of excellency, and ot the Scriptures, the rule.’+ ~ Does W. P.’ adds J. Beffe, ‘here caft the leaft degree of Matempt upon the Scriptures ? Does he not acknowledge that e Spirit which fearcheth the deep things of God, gave them th? Is not that the very foundation of his argument’? And not the confequence he deduces fo evident, that this de- ert himfelf does not attempt to confute it ? nor indeed does fay a fyllable in difproof of the arguments in the next para- aph, where he tells us, that W. P. argues in the fame man- ras the Deifts ufually do. He is alfo pleafed to tell us, that )W.P. falfely afferts (with Mr. Hobbes, 's°c.) that they [the iptures] qwere not authentic, till they were declared fo in the cil of Lacdicea. ‘This is a grand miftake, for W. P. afferts fuch thing: he indeed afferts, that we read they were firft elared authentic by a public canon in the council of Laodi- 3 but he is very far from afferting that they were not thentic before ; for he always held and acknowledged the y Scriptures to be given forth by divine infpiration, and equently that they were authentic, and of divine authority, * Penn’s Works, Vol. I. p. 595. + Ibid. Vol. I. 595. Of the Bithop of Litchfield and Coventry, in whofe vindication work, anfyered by J. Befle, was written. ! T 2 ( 140 ) © from. the time they were at firft written; nor did he pay fu © deference to councils, or their canons, as to fuppoie 1 ‘authority of Holy Writ to have any dependence on th © determination, &c.’* ; ; This paragraph, which may not accord with Verax’s ideas an anfwer to the following obje€tion, ‘ W. P. argues from the © of the original Scriptures, and the various readings of copies, © the difference of tranflations, that.the Scriptures are not the rule © the very fame manner as the Deifis ufually do; and he falfely aff © (with Mr. Hobbes, c.) that they were not authentic, till ; © were declared fo in the council of Laodicea.’ My next ext from Beffe’s Confutation, I hall introduce with his oppone: objection, viz. ‘W. P. fays, The Scriptures were not rig © difcerned and collected by tradition ; and again, The canon is un © tain, as is likewife the difference of canonical and apocryphal Se © ture, §5'c.’ To this Jofeph Beffle anfwers, ‘ I do not find thefe to € 'W. P.’s exprefs words: however he does fay thus ? “ Sure it is, that fome of the Scriptures taken in by one co “ cil for canonical, were rejected by another as apocryp “and that which was left out by the former for apocryp “* was taken in by the latter for canonical. Now, vifible “ that they contradicted each other, and as true that they | “ erred, refpecting the prefent belief: for your canon and c “ logue vary from theirs, and, let me fay without offence, f “ any catalogue you can produce. Behold the labyrintl “ uncertainties you run yourfelves into, who go from that | “ venly gift in yourfelves, by which the Holy Scriptures “ truly difcerned, relifhed, and diftinguifhed from the mvent “and abufes of men !” In all this’ adds J. Befle, ‘ W. P. has not a fyllable ag: € the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, but againft the ‘ thority of their determinations, who fo contended with, © contradicted each other, about them,’ &c.t I fhall not detain the reader with remarks upon the other | tions in the Appeal from Penn’s Difcourfe of the General Ru Faith and Praétice: but obferve in the words of his advo Jofeph Beffe :—* It is evident, that W. Penn’s reafoning in all © is moft agreeable to Scripture teftimony: he feems to met © much more honour to the Scriptures, by urging the teftimor ‘ the Holy Spirit in confirmation of their authority, than is ‘ fible to be done by confidering them as exclufive of thi * dwelling Spirit of life from whence they proceeded.’§ f Before I advert to Verax’s citations from Penn’s Addr * Beffe’s Confutation, p. 73, 74. + Penn’s Works, Vol. I. p. § } Beffe’s Confutation, p. 74, 75» § Ibid. p, 85. ( aan) Proteftantsy 1 fhall quote a paflage or two from that work which more immediately relate to the Scriptures. _ After obferving that we muft be dire€ted.and guided by the fame rule of faith as the church to which we belong, Penn fays—‘ For it cannot ‘be denied. but that the great foundation of our Proteftant re- ‘ ligion is the divine authority of the Scriptures from without usy _ ‘and the teftimony—of the Holy Spirit within us. Upon this ‘ foot the firft reformers ftood, and made and maintained their ‘feparation from Rome, and freely offered up their innocent ‘lives in confirmation. With good caufe therefore it is the ge- ‘yal confent of all found Proteftant writers, that neither tra- € ditions, councils, nor canons of any vifible church, much lefs € the ediéts of any civil feflions or jurifdiction, but the Scrip- ‘ tures only, interpreted by the Holy Spirit in us, give the final ‘ determination in matters of religion, and that only in the ©confcience of every Chriftian to himfelf. Which Protefta- tion made by the firft public reformers againft the Imperial € ediéts of Charles the fifth, impofing church traditions without - Scripture authority, gave firft beginning to the name of Pro- € teftant, and with that name hath ever been received. this. doc- * trine, which prefers the divine authority of the Scripture and ‘Spirit, to that of the church and her traditions’* Whence he expofes the impropriety of forcing others to be implicitly of our faith without conviction, obferving ‘ for all focieties are to § govern themfelyes according to their inftitution and firft prin- ‘ciples of union. Where there is violence upon this part, ty- ‘ranny and not order is introduced.. Now fince perfuafion and conviction began all true Chriftian Societies, they muft ‘uphold themfelves upon the fame free bottom, or they turn antichriftian.’ He alfo, further on, confutes the notion of a power in the church, to define, refolve, and impofe ‘ upon all ‘people under temporal and eternal punifhment, articles of faith and bonds of Chriftian communion,’t This he con- ‘firms by extraéts from fome Proteftant writers: and anfwer- ing the obje€tions of thofe who would inveft the church -with the power of impofing its faith upon individuals, he fays: % I am not unacquainted with the great objeftion that is made * by Roman Catholics and fome Proteftants, high-churchmen, “perhaps, that loye the treafon, but hate the traitor, that like € this part of popery, but hate the Pope, viz. There are doubts in * Scripture, even about the moft important points of faith: fomebody © muft guide the weak ; there muff be fome one ultrmate, external, © and vifible judge to appeal to, who muft determine and conclude © all perfons, as to their deubts and apprehenfions concerning the iater- * Pegn’s, Works, Vol. I. p. 779s + Ibid. p. 789s ( 142 ) ‘ pretation of Scripture ; otherwife, fo many men, fo many minds * the church would be filled, with controverfy and confufion.’ ‘ I aniwer that the Scriptures are made more doubtful tha ‘they are, by fuch as would fain preferve to themfelves th ‘ umpirage and judgefhip of their meaning. I deny it in poir ‘ of fact, that man’s duty is not moft plainly expreffed in a ‘that concerns eternal falvation. But it is very ftrange, th: ‘when God intends nothing more by the Scriptures, than t ‘ reach the capacities of men, as to things on which their etern: ‘ {alvation depends, that no book, if fuch men fay true, fhould b * fo obfcure, or fubject to fo many various, nay, contradiétor * con{tructions. Name me one author, Heathen, Jew, or Chrit ‘tian, that ever wrote with that obfcurity, and feeming incon ‘ fiftency, which fome gladly pretend to find in the Holy Scrip * tures, that they might have the ufe and keeping of them fron ‘ the vulgar, and make their own ends by it.’ “Is then every body’s book to be underftood but God’s ‘ was that written not to be underftood ?—But to fhut up thi ‘ argument about the difficulty of underftanding the Scriptur ‘ and pretended neceflity of a vifible judge; I fay, Whatfoeve £ may be fpoken, may be written; or thus, Whatfoever a vifibl ‘ judge.can now fay, the holy penmen, by God’s dire@tion, migh ‘ have written; and what an omnifcient and omnipotent Goc * did know, and could do, for man’s falvation, an omnibenevo. ‘lent God, that tells us, he delights not in the death of on ‘foul, but rather that he fhould be faved, would certainly hav: ‘done for man. And becaufe God is as omnibenevolent, a: omnifcient and omnipotent, we muft conclude he has done it; * and it is great prefumption, and a mean fhelter to ignoranc: ‘or ambition, to raife a credit to human devices, by beating * down the true value of the Scriptures.’* Apparently oppofite motives fometimes produce effeéts not very diffimilar. ‘Thus the high-church doétor, to fupport the authority and power of the church may difcover obfcurity and feeming inconfiftency in the Scripture, that the laity may be dependent upon his interpretation to elucidate its meaning ; but here he ftops, without endeavouring with facrilegious hands te fap its divine authority; but the Socinian who finds many parts of Scripture to be asa ‘ {tone of ftumbling and rock of ‘ offence,’ that cannot be removed out of his way by any com- ment, furmounts all his difficulties by ftratagem: he firft affects great veneration for the Scripture as a criterion of Chriftian faith ; but when preffed with Scripture authority, fays, that he only appeals to the Scripture in its original purity, then details and magnifies the occafional errors of tranfcribers and tranflatore * Penn’s Works, Vol. I. p. 791, 792s (eee 4) nto grofs and fraudulent corruptions and interpolations, and wges the doubtful authenticity of whole books of the pre- ° ent canon of Scripture. After having thus made the facred ext rather more pliable to his purpofe, the mangled volume auft appear before his inquifitorial tribunal, and be put again ) the torture to make it exprefs meanings ‘ that are not only far from being fan€tioned by the paflages from whence they have been forced for that purpofe, but which alfo are in ftrict oppofition and contradiction to many other paflages that define neceflary and effential articles of the Chriftian faith.’ The more our opinions diverge from the truth, the more they wink from an examination by the Scriptures of truth: this is erified by the condu€t of the Papift and Socinian, the firft ithholds the Scriptures from the common people to prevent eteCtion ; the laft, not having this in his power, weakens the Irce of an appeal to them, by making their authority uncertain ad precarious. ‘The firft approaches too near to idolatry; the ft to infidelity: hence genuine Scripture do€trine is inaufpi- jous to each. If W. Penn was offended with ‘ obfcurity and feeming incon- fifency,’ being applied to the Scripture without any intention’ ) depreciate its authority; what would he have faid to the arbarous treatment it meets with from the modern Socinian ? refer Verax to the fection entitled, Scriptures Socinianized, in enn’s Spirit of Truth vindicated, for an antwer to this queftion. In the Vindication we are informed in a tone of triumph that dove fix pages of the Appeal are occupied, with quotations om Penn’s Addrefs to Proteffants. ‘This is true; and if Verax ad filled as many more pages with quotations equally per- nent from Penn’s RefleéTions and Maxims, Vindex would pro- ably have manifefted the fame ‘ fhynefs in declining to examine his quotations’ from the latter, as much as from le. former work, for this good reafon, becaufe ‘ in’this,’ to drrow the words of a late writer ‘as in almoft every other ‘difpute, it ufually happens that much time is loft in ree to a multitude of paflages which prove nothing to e purpofe, or in maintaining propofitions, which are ei- ther not difputed, or, whether they be admitted or de- ied, are entirely indifferent as to the matter in debate; ntil at laft the mind, perplexed and confounded with the ndlefs fubtleties of controverfy, lofes fight of the main quef- ion, and never arrives at truth.’ That it may not, however, fuppofed that I am ‘ the man, who, confcious of the weak- efs of his caufe, is interefted in concealing it.’ I will examine (© what appears, from the Vindication, to have been Verax’s fign in citing the long extracts juft adverted to: if I under- nd him, it is to prove that our Society requires a more ( 144 ) extended confeffion of the Chriftian faith, than was neceffa for admiffion into the primitive Chriftian church. I acknov ledge without hefitation, that it certainly does. But what do Verax: gain by this? Does. not W. Penn, himfelf, in anfw to the queftion cited from him, both in the Appeal and the V; dication give, (although he laments the neceflity of it), a mo extended confeffion of faith ? And Verax, with all his parade quotation, has, for reafons beft known to himfelf, left us to fe for this anfwer in Penn’s Works ? Verax fays, ‘ It may be proper to enquire what the princiy € points are, which they’ his extraéts from Penn, * tend to ef! © blifh ? W. Penn is the moft fit perfon to anfwer tl queftion. © True faith in God,’ fays this great man, © is entirely belis ‘ ing and trufting in God, confiding in his goodnefs, refigni up to his will, obeying his commands, and relying upon ) © conduct and mercies, refpeéting this life and that which is “ come.—This holy faith excludes no age of the world ; the j ¢ men, the Cornelius’s, in every generation, have had fome deg ©of it: it was more efpecially the faith of the fimpler as ‘€ of the world, fuch as thofe in which the patriarchs liv ‘ who having not an outward law, became a law to themfelv ‘and did the things contained in the law, for they believed © God, and through faith obtained a good report. But beca ‘ that it hath pleafed God, in order to man’s recovery from t © grievous lapfe, difebedience hath caft him into, at fundry times, ¢ © in divers manners, to appear to the fons of men, firft by his proph © and laft of all by his Son, and that thefe manifeftations have } « fomething peculiar to them, and very remarkable in them, fo t © they claim a place in our creed, it will not be amifs that we bri “ confider them. The firft was that of the prophets, in which M. © preceded, by whom the law came to the Fews, but grace and tr “to mankind by Fefus Chrift.—The one did forerun the other, a: ‘ order of time, Join nature of difpenfation: the law was the go * begun, the gofpel was the law fulfilled or finifbed ; they cannoi ‘ parted. The Decalogue or ten commandments were little m © than what had been known and praétifed before; for it feen ‘ but an epitome and tranfcript of the law writ in man’s he ‘ by the finger of God :—this therefore muft needs be a part of ‘ creed : for it relates to that righteoufnefs which is indifpenfa © and immutable: the other part of their conffitution that was pe ‘ liar to their political, typical, and mutable ftate,* the golf “is either unconcerned in it, or elfe ended it by the bring: *in of a better hope, and a more enduring fubftance ; ¢ grace and truth came by Jefus Chrift.—This is the moft exce * The Appeal inftead of this fays, ‘ as to the ritual part,’ ( 145 ) fition ; it is ours, and it becomes us to weigh well our intereft Take it in other svords of the Holy Ghoft: “ God, who at dry times, and in divers manners, fpake in times paft unto the thers by the prophets, hath, in thefe laft days, [poken to us by his 2 ;—God fo loved the world, that—be gave his only-begotten Son the world, that the world through him might be faved.” ¢ And ere two things prefent themfelves to our confideration : firft, ae perfon, who he was; what his authority : fecondly, his eflage, his doctrine, what he taught; which though never fo safonable in itfelf, depended very much, in its entertainment ‘ mong the people, upon the truth of his miffion and authority, zat he was no impoftor, but came from God, and was the romifed Meffiah. This was done two ways; by revelation and y miracles. By revelation, to fuch as were as well prepared nd inclined, as honeft Peter, the woman of Samaria, &c.— y miracles, to thofe that being blinded by ignorance or pre- idice, needed to have their fenfes {truck with fuch fuperna- iral evidences, from many of whom this witnefs came, that © was the Mefliah, the Chrift and Son! of God.’* The Italic, as before, marks Verax’s omiflions, which, with ers already noticed, are a practical comment on his expref- ns in his preface to the Appeal, where, after defcribing our i friends as ‘ enlightened advocates for the caufe of truth,’ adds, ¢ but I alfo efteem them, as having been men liable to rr, and whofe works need examination and difcrimimation, cc.’ Nobody can object to his difcriminating for him/elf, < be- ween clear and ufeful paflages, and fuch as*may be obicure or nintelligible,’ but does this licenfe a wanton exercife of dif- mination, when he is giving, not Lis own fentiments, but thofe another writer by extracts from his works? The introduc- n of the part omitted in the foregoing citation was neceflary a clear underftanding of what follows it; but is it not pro- that an objection to acknowledge an unreferved, full be- a the Divine miffion of Mofes, and that his difpenfation is part of the divine plan in order to recover man from his nn {tate, prevented the infertion of the whole of the paflage. enn purfuing the fame argument, continues, ‘1 have no- hing to do now with atheifts, or thofe that call themfelves Mheifts; but fuch as own themfelves Chriftians; and fhall herefore keep to my tafk, namely, What of the Chriftian dif- snfation, is fo peculiar and important, as to challenge of isht the name of Creed or Faith? I fay then, That the belief f Jefus of Nazareth to be the promifed Meffiah, the Son and Shrift of God, come and fent from God to reftore and fave hankind, is the firft, and was then the only requifite article of # Penn’s Works, Vol. I. p. 752; 753+ u ( 146 ) * faith, without any large confeffions, or an heap of prine ‘ or opinions refolved upon, after curious and tedious debates, * councils and fynods: and this may be proved both by exam € and doétrine.’* 4 Several examples are then produced by him, to prove whi here advanced ; which are in part enumerated by Verax, bui neither he nor myfelf will obje& to them, I fhall pafs them o and confider Penn’s anfwer to obje€tions to the fimplicity this confeflion. . ‘ But here I expect to be affaulted with this objeCtion * this be all that is neceflary to be believed to falvation, of v ‘ ufe is the reft of Scripture? I anfwer of great ufe, as | ‘ apoftle himfelf teaches us: ‘ All Scripture is given by i ** ration of God, and is profitable for doétrine, for reproof, : * correction, for inftruction in righteoufnefs, that the man ** God may be perfeét, thoroughly furnifhed unto all ge “ works.”+ ‘It concerns the whole life and converfation o * man, but every paflage in it is not therefore fit to be fuch * article of faith, as upon which Chriftian communion ought ‘ ought not—be maintained. For though it be all equally t * it is not all equally important: the queftion is not whether ‘the truths contained in Scripture are not to be believe * but whether thofe truths are equally important ? and wheth ‘ the belief with the heart, and confeflion with the mouth, ‘ Jefus is the Chrift and Son of God, be not as fufficient ni * to entitle a man to communion here, and falyation hereaf¢ * as in thofe times; againft which nothing can be, of weig! © objected.’f That I only abridge for brevity, will appear from my retaj ing that part of the fentence which Verax fays is ‘ far the m ‘ material and pertinent to our fubjeét.’ With the fame vi to brevity I fhall pafs over what he calls Penn’s commenta thereon, and proceed to his reply to the laft and moft importa objection, i ‘ Laftly, if it be alleged, that this will take in all parties, ye ‘ that fchifmatics and heretics will creep in under this genet ‘ confeflion, fince few of them will refufe to make it, I do ‘it would be a happy day ;— but to fhew you that neither tt ‘ fchifmatic—nor true heretic—can ever fhelter himfelf une ‘ this common confeflion of Chriftianity, fincerely made, let. ‘ confider that whoever fo declares Jefus to be the Mefhiz ‘and anointed Saviour of God to men, muft be fuppofed 1 ‘ believe all that of him, with refpeé to which he is fo calle * Now that for which he is fo denominated, is that which Ge ey * Penn’s Works, Vol. I. p. 754. + 2 Tim, iii, 16, 17. -f Penn’s Works, Vol. I, p. 756, ( 147°) nt him to do: the reafon and end of his coming he could ft tell, who ‘hath told us thus, “I am come, that ye may have fe, and that ye may have it more abundantly.” The world - as dead in trefpaffes and fins, the guilt and defilement of infgreffion had killed the foul as to fpiritual life and motion; d from under this powerful death, he came to redeem e foul unto life-—The way he took to accomplifh. this sffed work, was firft, to preach repentance, and the approach the kingdom of God, which is his rule and authority in the arts of men; and that brings to the fecond thing to be lieved, namely, What he taught—His dodtrine led men to pentance: Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand. © man could receive the kingdom of God, whilft he lived der the kingdom and power of fatan. Wherefore I con- ude, that fuch as have not been acquainted with this holy pentance, do not fincerely believe, neither can rightly confefs {us to be the Chrift, the Son of God, the Saviour of the orld. Therefore faith the apoftle, ‘ Let him that nameth the ame of the Lord, depart from iniquity.” And, faith the oftle in another place, “No man can call Jefus Lord, but y the Holy Ghoit ;” which opens to us the nature of the ue confeffion we ought to make, and which, being truly- ade in a Scripture* ienfe, makes us Chriftians in a right t The Appeal fays ‘ Chriflian fenfe” Did its author mean that it ot to be made in a ‘ Scripture fenfe? The fame motives, it is to feared, induced him to take this liberty with Penn, as led him to give the quotation from 2 Tim. ili. 16, in Penn’s Words, in the raét quoted in the lait page. One of the reafons he afhigns, in reply to dex, for not citing this text as Penn has it, is the very reafon why fhould have preferved a rigid fidelity to his author, * I avoided ving it,’ fays Verax, ‘ as he (Penn) has quoted it —becaufe I con- sived others had miftaken its true import.’ Was not Penn as capa- ‘of judging of this as himfelf? If the variation does not alter Penn’s fe, as he pleads, why vary at all? If it does, nothing that he has anced to exculpate himfelf, will juftify the liberty he has taken in faithfully tranfcribing the words of his author; the auchority of «clay will not avail him in this inftance, for as Vindex fays, ‘ Penn bough he publifhed this, about a year after the Englifh Apology came , and three years afier the Latin) doth not quote the text, z2 Tim. i. 16. in Barclay’s way; but according to the prefent verfion.’* By paflage we fee Verax’s manner of citing Vindex; he had no doubt ry cogent reafon for omitting the part in italic; viz. becaufe with 2e paflage was unanfzverable. Verax’s arguments againit ¢ the pienary? organic) ¢ infpiration of the prefent canon of Scripture’ are oppofed phantom raifed by himfelf. But he has yet to find arguments of # Examination, p. 31, 32. pa" ( 48 ) ‘ ‘ Chriftian acception; to wit, That the true confeffion © Jefus to be both Lord and ape: is from fuch a belief in t ‘ heart as is accompanied: with the embracing and practifi ‘his holy do€trine; fuch a faith is the work of the th * Ghoft, and thofe that do not fo confefs him, or call upon hi * that is, by virtue of the overfhadowing of the Divine Spirit a ‘ power, are not truly Chriftians, true worfhippers, or believ ‘and difciples of our Lord .Jefus. Furthermore, they tl * receive Chrift, receive his kingdom, his power and author ‘in their fouls, whereby the {trong man that kept the hor ‘ becomes bound, and his goods fpoiled by this ftronger m: © the Lord’s Chrift, who is come from heaven to dwell in us a ‘ be the hope of our glory; for fo he was preached to the gentil ‘ This kingdom, the apoftle tells us, ftands in righteouine * peace, and joy in the Holy Ghoft, and Chrift tells us where is tobe fetup. ‘The kingdom of God is within you,” fays t ‘ King himfelf, and where fhould the King be but in his o1 ‘ kingdom ?—fo that no man can truly confefs and righ © believe Jefus to be the Chrift and Son of God, who does 1 ‘ receive him to be his King, to rule his heart and affections. ‘ But becaufe it may be expected that I fhould fix upon for ‘few general heads of Chriftian do&trine from the mouth ‘ Chrift_ and his apoftles, as requifite to Chriftian’ communi ‘I thould proceed to mention what Chrift eminently taught.’ After enumerating feveral of the evangelical precepts Chrift, he proceeds thus: ‘ Indeed he’ (Chrift) * gave his life 4 © the world, and offered up one common facrifice for mankin * and by this one offering up of himfelf, once for all, he he ‘ for ever perfected, that is, quitted and difcharged, and tak ‘into favour, them that are fan&tified.—This holy offering | * of himfelf by the Eternal Spirit, is a great part of his Mg ‘ foip; for therein he hath both confirmed his blefféd me: © of remiffion of fins and life everlafting, to as many as t ‘ believe in his name, and hath given himfelf a propitiation € all that have finned, aad thereby come fhort of the. gl * God; infomuch that God is faid by the apoftle Paul to “< juft, and the juftifier of him which believeth in. Jefus, wh “‘ God hath fet forth to be a propitiation through faith in “* blood, to declare his’ righteoufnefs for the remiffion of “that are paft, through the forbearance of God.” U: ‘ which I thall join his Mediatorfhip or Advocacy, linked toge ‘both by the apoftle of the gentiles, and the beloved dif ‘ John: the firft in thefe words, “ For there is one God, a more weight, than any hitherto produced, to prove that our firft fri did not believe in ¢ the authenticity of the prefent canon of Scripture * Penn’s Works, Vol. I. 757, 758,759: ( 149 ) ¢ Mediator between God and men, the man Chrift Jefus, who ‘gave himfelf a ranfom for all, to be teftified in due time:” the apoftle John expreffeth it thus: “ My little children, thefe ‘things write I unto you, that ye fin not; and if any man fin,” ¢we have an advocate with the Father, Jefus Chrift, the righ- €teous; he is the propitiation for our fins, and not for ours € only, but alfo for the fins of the whole world.” ‘So that to be brief, the Chriflian Creed, fo far as it is declaratory, lies ‘eminently in a confeffion of thefe particulars : of the divine authority of the New, as well as of the Old Teftament writings, and particularly of thefe great, general, and obvious ‘truths therein exprefled, to wit, Of God and Chrift, his miracles, do&trine, death, refurrection, advocatefhip or medi~ ‘ation, the gift of his light, {pirit, or grace; of faith and ‘repentance from dead works unto remiflion of fins, keeping ‘his commandments, and laftly, of eternal recompenfe. Lefs, ‘once, than all this would have done; and it does not fhow ‘the age more Chriftian, but niore curious, indeed more ifdel ‘to be fure, more captious and froward, that there is this ftir 'made about external creeds of communion; for diftruft of brethren, and incredulity among Chriftians, are no {mall figns ‘of their decay of faith towards God: from the beginning it twas not fo.’* If W. Penn had to regret that the infidelity and incredulity of his time prevented the fimple confeffion of faith adopted in the apoftolic age, from being fuflicient in his day, is it likely to be fufficient at a time, when infidelity and incredulity fume even the form of Chriftianity ? Brief as W. Penn’s Chriftian Creed is, in which he only Judes what he confidered as the moft material points of Shriftianity, fo as to embrace all the true difciples and follow- ers of ‘Chrift, whether Churchmen, Prefbyterians, Quakers, or others, for he feems to have avoided noticing thofe lefs important oints, tefpe€ting which thefe denominations are divided from ch other; I fay brief and comprehenfive as W. Penn’s Creed is, annah Barnard is unavoidably excluded by it, as it neceffarily cludes a belief in Aifforical facts, which all Chriftian creeds muft, and fhe refufed to acknowledge or confefs her belief in e miracles and refurrection of Chrift, becaufe fhe did not think he Friends ought to make a belief in Aiforical facts, an article faith neceflary to qualify for Chriftian communion. But even f fhe could have fub{cribed to this fhort creed, it would prove othing to the purpofe; it could not prove that fhe was a uaker. The Friends do not unchriftianize or anathematize i thofe who do not conform to them, all thofe who will not * Penn’s Works, Vol. I. p. 762, 763. (150°) unite with them in objeCting to the lawfulnefs of war, or to the propriety of a minifter of the gofpel receiving tithes; neither do they defire to impofe upon others their own peculiar mode of worthip, or views of the gofpel, under the penalty of being ftigmatized for {chifmatics or heretics, if they do not conform to them. I think Verax has done his caufe no good by his introduétion of Penn’s Addre/s to Proteftants, for if that work proves any thing, it can only be—that H. Barnard is no Chriftian, and that ‘W. Penn believed in the divine authority of the books of the Old and New Teftament, and even confidered this belief neceflary to a true faith in the gofpel of Chrift. I fhall con- clude my evidences of W. Penn’s helief in the Scriptures with one more extract taken from his Yeffimony to the Truth, as held by the people called Quakers. Bed ‘ Concerning the Holy Scriptures. Becaufe we affert the Holy ‘ Spirit to be the firft great and general rule and guide of true * Chriftians, as that by which God is worfhipped, fin detected, * confcience convicted, duty manifefted, Scripture unfolded and * explained, and confequently the rule for- underftanding the ‘ Scriptures themfelves (fince by it they were at firft given forth * from hence our adverlaries are pleated to make us blafphemers ‘of the Holy Scriptures, undervaluing their authority, prefer- ‘ ring our own books before them, with more to that purpole : ‘whereas we, in truth and fincerity, believe them to be of * divine authority, given by the infpiration of God, through ‘-holy men, they {peaking or writing them as they were moved ‘by the Holy Ghoft: that they are a declaration of thofe ‘things moft furely believed by the primitive Chriftians, and ‘ that as they contain the mind and will of God, and are ‘hi ‘ commands to us; fo they, in that refpe&t, are his declaratory ‘ word, and therefore are obligatory on us, and are “ profitable “ for doctrine, reproof, correction, and inftruétion in righteouf- “neis, that the man of God may be perfe&, and. thoroughly “ furnifhed to every good work.’”’—We both love, honour, an ‘ prefer them before all books in the world; ever choofing t ‘ exprefs our belief of the Chriftian faith and doétrine in the * terms thereof, and rejeCting all principles and doétrines what- ‘ foever, that are repugnant thereunto.’ ' ‘ Neverthelefs we are well perfuaded, that notwithftandin ‘ there is fuch an excellency in the Holy Scriptures, as we hav ‘above declared, yet the unftable and unlearned in Chrift’ ‘ {chool too often wreft them to their own deftru@tion. An ‘ upon our refletion on their carnal conftruCtions of them, w ‘ are made undervaluers of Scripture itfelf. But certain’ it ig * that as the Lord hath been pleafed to give us the experience “ of the fulfilling of them in meafure, fo it is altogether contrary (hn?) to our faith and practice, to put any manner of flight or corle pt upon them, much more of being guilty of what malici- foully is fuggefted againft us; fince no Society of profeffed" ‘ Chriftians in the world, can have a more reverend and honour- Sable efteem for them than we have. John iv. 24. and xvi. 8. Rom. i. rg. Luke i. 1, 2. 2 Tim. iti. 16, 17.2 Pet. iii. 16.’* _ This is one of W. Penn’s latter pieces, written in-the year 1698, in which he, briefly, but fully, ftates what he does, and what he does not believe refpecting the Scriptures. The reader will now be enabled to judge, by the evidence before him, whether the fame doubts refpecting the authenticity of the Scripture imprefied the minds of Barclay and Penn, that evidently prevail in that of the author of the Appeal? Whe- ther when Barclay and Penn fay, that after the Spirit they ‘freely concede to the Scripture the fecond place,’ that they mentally intended, ‘ with fome confiderable exceptions? Unlefs he an fuppofe that they were fo difingenuous, he mutt {ee that there § not merely a feeming, but a real difference between them and Verax ; for the latter, {peaking of the Scripture ranking next to he Holy Spirit, fays, “I mutt either accede to it, with fome confiderable exceptions, or confine the admiffion to the more ‘excellent parts.’+ _ Although Richard Morris’s Treatife on the Scriptures is not quoted in the firft part of the Appeal, yet it being connected with the {fubject now under confideration, and alfo mentioned by Verax, in his ‘ Vindication,’ I cannot clofe this chapter with- jut refcuing Morris’s Treatife from the fervice into which H. arnard and Verax have endeavoured to prefs it. The title of he work will throw confiderable light upon the drift of the yriter’s argument. JI will recite it. | £ Some animadverfiors on the fuppofition of the Scriptures being the only, principal, and perfect rule to falvation; which are no way intended to leffen any real refpe& due to them, but to provoke the profeffors of religion to an impartial enquiry after, and attention to, that which is and ever was, the living, ancient, unalterable, univerfal rule, viz. The Spirit, Light, ‘or Grace of our Lord and Saviour Jefus Chrift. By Richard Morris, &c, 1 John ii. 27. © Ye need not that any man teach you; but as the fame anointing , teacheth you all ‘things, and is truth.” ‘R. Barclay’s Apology, page 86.’ ‘We alfo are very willing to admit it as a pofitive certain Maxim, that whatfoever any do, pretending to the Spirit, ‘which is contrary to the Scriptures, be accounted and rec- * koned a delufion of the devil.” * Penn’e Works, Vol. II. 878. Sale Vindication, prit2o; ( pare Now the charge againft Hannah Barnard was that fhe hai inculcated what is contrary to the Scriptures. Will he ‘application to Morris’s Treatife fhelter her here? Can fhe avail ingly enlift him under her banner? Whether the charge pre ferred againft her be falfe or true, will be confidered here after. - It may be proper to apologize to the reader for further de taining him, by the introduction of Morris’s pamphlet, as th fubject-matter of it has been fo amply difcufied in the preced ing pages, but the great ftrefs that has been laid upon the above mentioned piece, renders it neceflary, left my filence fhould b interpreted as a fear to meet the fubje&; united on my par with a defire to prevent the neceflity of refuming the pen to re move future objeCtions. ; From the title it is evident the writer is addrefling himfelf t thofe who fuppofe the Scriptures to be the only principal an perfec rule to falvation, who confequently place the Scripture above the Spirit; to fuch the following queftions are ver appropriate. “If the Holy Scriptures be the rule, I defire to know whethe € all from the beginning of Genefis to the end of the Revelatio: © be the rule, or only fome part of them be fo? I fay, is all tha ‘ relates to the laws of Mofes, the genealogies, all that Job’ ‘ friends faid, the rule?’ &c. . Thefe, and the queftions that follow, contain not a fingl word, either againft the authenticity of the Scriptures, or con tradi€ting the title page, by admitting doctrines to be re gated, that are ‘contrary to the Scriptures.” A remark Vindex, refpecting a quotation from W. Penn, by Verax, will be once for all, a fufficient reply to all paffages of this fort. ‘ He (Penn) ‘ mentions indeed,’ fays Vindex, ‘ as in the part alread © adverted to, that there are many parts of Scripture, which ‘ though true in themfelves, can be no rule for us. This i ‘ eafily granted, when we recollect that the Scriptures conta © recitals of not only the acts of bad men, but of holy ‘ placed in circumftances far different from thofe in which w © live, and under a lefs perfect difpenfation.”* ‘ Now, though we freely acknowledge the Holy Scriptures fays R. Morris, ¢ giving them preference to all other writing ‘in the world; and confequently muff acknowledge the teft “mony borne by them; as, “‘ Whatioever things were writte “ aforetime, were written for our learning, that we throug <¢ patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. * And “ The Holy Scriptures are able to make us wife unto ‘‘ vation, through faith which is in. Chrift Jefus,” &c. % * Examination, p. 33» 4 . : C 153 } at they are not, but that an inward living one is, the prins gal, perfect, univerfal rule and guide, may abundantly ap- ar from many texts of the fame, as 1 John ii. 20. 27. Bhn vi. 45, &c. &c. For if it be impoflible to give a blind deaf man a true idea of colours or founds, by any outward feriptions of them; then neither can any outward deicrip- pn, or verbal teftimony alsne, give any man a true know- edge of the things of God.’ Does the affertion that we muff acknowledge the teftimony me by the Scriptures, imply that we may rzfufe to acknow- ge the teftimony borne by them? Morris enforces, and at with much found argument, the neceflity of immediate tion to underftand the divime truths contained im the ptures, and that this revelation muft be our principal rule wd guide, indeed, that without it, the fpiritual truths of the iptures will be as unintelligible to us, as colours to a blind an. R. Morris next fhows, agreeably to the third fection of = third Propofition of Barclay’s Apology, that the Scriptures fmnot be a rule to us in all things, for initance: € The Scriptures tell us,’ fays Morris, ‘ we fhould do, or not p, fuch and fuch things, but do not, (what if I fay, cannot) sli us what we do: which is called by fome, de jure & de igita. ‘Che Scripture, indeed, faith, “ Be not proud.” “ Be- ware of covetouinefs, which is idolatry.” “ Whofoever look- eth on a woman to luft after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” ‘ Thou fhalt not hate thy brother.” Thou {fhalt love the Lord thy God,’—&c. fhich things no outward teftimony can give me the true mowledge of ;—fecing then, that the truce knowledge and ob- tion of thefe things, with many more, exceedingly con- em our everlafting well-being ; it is very neceffary we fhould ave fomething near, whereby we may know whether we ire guilty of the things forbidden, and im the praG@iice of lofe enjoined. But the Scriptures cannot tell me whether I Mm proud, covetous, I luft, hate, or love God with all my rt, and my neighbour as myfelf; have fuch charity as the mving the body to be burned is no certain fign of, &c. That fay, which fhows me thefe things truly and intuitively, muft e fome living principle, even in the mind or heart, viz. the ght, fpirit, or grace of God, to which the Holy Scriptures do mply witnefs, and without the guidance of this light, fpirit, f grace, the Scriptures may truly, without difrefpe@, be Feemed as a dead letter. Some may think they have an Biwer for this ready enough; and tell us that the light of ature, or a natural confcience, reafon, or the heart of man, is ficient for thefe things.—Now, is this any honour to God, is grace, or fpirit, that natural reafon, the light of nature, , , Ps ( 154 * &c. fhould have the preference to his heavenly light and fpi ‘as a more certain guide to be depended on? Is not heart of man faid to be * deceitful above all things, and def “ rately wicked.”—“ And that the imagination of the thoug “ of his heart was only evil continually.’ So the Scriptu “€ are fo far from directing us to examine, interpret, and und * ftand them, by any of the faculties of man in his own natu ‘ that they not only give us the abovefaid warnings, but furt © tell us, * God,” faith Paul, “ hath revealed them unto us “his Spirit; for the Spirit fearcheth all things, yea, the d “things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a'm “ fave the {pirit of man, which is in him? even fo the thi “ of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. But “ natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of Gc “ for they are foolifhnefs unto him; neither can he know the “‘ becaufe they are {piritually difcerned.” ‘ No doubt but P ‘ here fpoke of men who had natural reafon; and fo no queft “had Chrift’s difciples when he told them, “ I have yet m: *¢ things to fay unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. He “ beit, when the Spirit of Truth is come.”—‘ It feems tl ‘ wanted the further afliftance and openings of the Spirit ; | © were not direéted to their natural reafon and abilities.—So th * there is no fafety, no affurance of the things belonging to ‘kingdom of God, or knowledge of him, but by being tay ‘ by the Comforter, “ by the teaching of the anointing.” This part of R. Morris’s pamphlet I would recommend Verax’s ferious and impartial perufal, as the latter by the ge ral tenor of his reafoning, feems to lay more ftrefs upon hun learning, and the reafon of man, as the means to attain to ' right knowledge of the Scriptures, than upon this inward re lation, though I do not fay he has denied this inward gift grace—whilft he retains the mafk of a Quaker, he cannot conf ently do it. Thefe may feem harfh expreflions; Verax can however, be furprifed at them, when he refle&ts upon the gt that has been praétifed; when he reflects that the phrafes, Re lation, the Spirit, the free gift and grace of God, have been appl to human reafon.* » * The writer I advert to is John Hancock, who fays, * Confcié * is the manifeftation of the will of God made in the hearts of all n ‘ the divinity in man—is called the grace of God, his unfpeakable ‘ —the meafure of his fpirit given to profit withal, and is defcribe * various figures expreffive of its operation—the light, becaufe it ‘ manifeft—the talent committed to us to occupy with.’ In anc tract this author fays, ¢ Revelation is a fimple, inward principle ir ‘ heart’— the free gift, the grace of God’—a .‘ ray of the divini * man’— a principle divine in its nature—divine power in the heart, Who would fufpect that the writer of the foregoing only meant hu ( 155 ) Verax fay, he is not refponfible for what others may have ced, in the inftance I immediately refer to, I admit he is + but the fimilarity of fentiment between John Hancock, to 1 allude, and H. Barnard, refpecting moft of the points for sh the was difunited from our Society, joined with the iguity of the phrafes fhe has adopted, when {peaking of 2 revelation,* juftify my fufpicions that there is a diffimi- fon by thefe various expreflions? Does it not appear harfh even to mife fuch a thing? I fhould have thought fo, had he not faid a little - ther on in this fame traét—‘ Confcience is the gift of God—fo alfo s reafon, and as they both proceed from him, fo they mutt be in unifon ogether. Some have attempted to make a diftinGtion between them ; mut I apprehend it has arifen from not taking a comprehenfive view if the fubjeét.— lf pure revelation, unmixed confcience, and found eafon be clofely examined, 1 think they will be found all to proceed tom the fame fource, and if they are not united as one common inciple, the error of fuppofing they mav be one and the fame thing inder different names will not, I expeA, fr epraétical evil; I ac- powledge for my own part, I cannot clearly feparate them, and I clieve a critical attempt to do fo, would partake more of the nature f barren fpeculation, than of practical utility.’ A critical attempt to diftinguifh or feparate reafon from revelation, likely to be produétive of the fame effeéts, as a critical attempt diftinguifh or feparate the creature from the Creator. But an at- pt to confound them together, as John Hancock has done, ° is, fith refpect to the intetlectual world, the exa¢t counterpart of the détrinc of Spinofa, refpecting the material world.’ From the ex- ple adduced of John Hancock’s licentious phrafeology, and which tbe confidered no otherwife than as a dangerous abufe of language, we ft it be difappointed if his writings contain fome contradi€tory pro- tions; thus, in other parts of them, he feems to mak¢ a diftinétion yeen the heart of man as the recipient, and the Spirit of God as a natural pift imparted to it, but his clofing explanation already Btioned confounds all diftinétion between the gift and that which eives it. What conftitutes the effential difference between a man a beait ? is it not his reafon? What conftitutes the effential diffe- between a child of God and an unregenerate man? is it be- fe the latter has loft his rational faculties, or rather, is it not becaufe former is not guided merely by his own natural reafon, but by the frit of God? Can this diftination be faid to partake of the nature arren fpeculation ? ¢ Is not that which enlightens, and that which enlightened, diftin@ ? Is not that in man which makes him capable “perceive, &c. and that which is made capable, two different ings? But to put the matter out of all doubt, If it be God himfeif © illuminates man, are not God and man diftin&? And if God es this immediately, he is certainly prefent with them for that pur- =; and if fo, they have fomething elfe to truft to, befides their own fon fallible as it may be.’ (Arfcott’s Confiderations, &c, 3d Edit. ) 4. Barnard in her Summary fpeaks of ¢ Chrift within, the Hope of x 2 ( 156 ) larity between her and the Friends, refpedting their belief this inward principle; neither does what Verax has advane in his Sequel to the Appeal, page 100, tend to remove r doubts refpecting his own fincere belief in divine infpiration. To return from this, I hope not altogether ufelefs, digreffi to R. Morris; after diftinguifhing between ‘ the Spirit of G “which gave forth the Scriptures,’ and the £ natural reafon’ man, he fays :— = : f ‘ This,’ (the Spirit of God) £ therefore has been, and is, t * univerfal rule or guide, with refpe& to all times and pla ‘ when and where the Scriptures of the Old and New Teff * ment never came, or were known, as well as where they at ‘The Lord hath made known his falvation ; his righteoufn ‘hath he openly fhown in the fight of the heathen: all t ** ends of the earth have feen the falvation of our God. T ‘* Lord is good to all; and his tender mercies are over all ] “‘ works.’ ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the We * was with God, and the Word was God.” ‘ In him was li “‘ and the life was the light of men.” That was the tf “light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the work “* And this is the condemnation, that light is come into “* world, and men loved darknefs rather than light, bec ** their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil, ha *‘ the light, neitHer cometh to the light, left his deeds fh ‘* be reproved.” ‘ But the manifeftation of the Spirit is gi ‘* to every man to profit withal.” ‘* For the grace of God *‘ bringeth falvation, hath appeared to all men.” ‘ Th ** fore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all ** to condemnation, even fo by the righteoufnefs of one, *< free gift came upon all men unto juttification of life.” “* as in Adam all die, even fo in Chrift fhall all be made ali “* After this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no ** could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, “tongues, ftood before the throne, and before the L ‘* clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands.” “¢ Peter opened his mouth, and faid, Of a truth I perceive “ God is no refpecter of perfons; but in every nation, he “ feareth him, and worketh righteoufnefs, is accepted with h ‘ Glory,’ and of ¢ putting on Chrift.—In her reply to fome upon her Summary the adopts the language of the Friends ref{pecting ‘ government of Chrift’s Spirit in the heart? as harmonizing with fentiments (fee Some Traéts relating to the Controverfy between and Friends, p.2, 22, 42to 44.) Mutt not thefe phrafes be ufed i unufual fenfe, when adopted by thofe who believe Chrift to be o mere man? If fuch believe in two Chrifts they ought candidly to fo, and not miflead us by ufing fcriptural language to exprefs anti tural opinions, (1592 ) © For when the gentiles, which have not the law, do by ‘ nature the things contained in the law, thefe having not the ‘law are a law unto themfelves; which fhow the work of ‘ the law written in their hearts; their confcience alfo bearing ‘ witnefs, and their thoughts the mean while accufing or elfe ‘excufing one another.” ‘Some of their own poets faid,” that “in him (i. e..in God), we live, and move, and have ‘our being.” ‘I fhall willingly grant that the Chriftians have had the advantage of the gentiles, as Paul did concerning the Jews; and that’ “ much every way; chiefly becaufe,” ¢ faith he,’ unto them were committed the oracles of God,” (which may well be referred to the difpenfation of Mofes; and his antitype Jefus Chrift), which the Jews had, and we have the advantage of, more than the heathen: although every fpeech from God in the heart of man, may be truly called the oracle of God—Let it then be allowed, that the Chriftian world has ‘received five talents, and the gentiles but two or one; the queftion then is, Whether two talents, or one, is not capable of improvement or advantage, to the falvation of the foul that honeftly joins with the bleffed efficacy of it. “There is one glory ‘ of the fun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory € of the ftars; for one ftar differeth from another {tar in glory.” “But it is a hard thing for many Chriftians to conceive how the gentiles fhould come to falvation (though they would wil- ‘lingly exercife charity towards them), feeing they lack the be- ‘nefit of the Holy Scriptures, and the advantage of the learned ‘to explain them; and to draw from thence, and their own ‘conceptions, the neceffary Chriftian Creeds; whereby they ‘might have a true knowledge of God, needful to their falva- ‘tion. Of fuch I would afk, how they are affured, many of them have not as true knowledge of God as many of thofe called Chriftians.—If we were to judge by the fruits of both ‘fides, one might reafonably think that many of each of them, both Chriftians and Heathens, had not much knowledge or belief of God Almighty.—“ I would afk any one, of what extent the confeflion, or how large or particular the Creed muft be, to anfwer the expectation of fuch as queftion the means of falvation afforded the Heathen? That we or they may have ground to believe they are in a capacity of falvation, mutt they believe and underftand the Creed of Athanafius, and every article thereof, as delivered in the liturgy of the Church of England? which fays, that Whofoever will be faved, be- * fore all things, it is neceflary that he hold the Catholic faith; ‘which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, * without doubt he fhall perifh everlaftingly.” Surely every un- derftanding man muft grant this a hard leflon, even refpect- ing the Trinity itfelf, as it is there exprefled; which the ( 158 ) ‘ learned have been, and yet are, at irreconcileable odds about ‘though under the fame profeflion and community: fo that ‘ if what they further fay be true, viz. that He therefore tha ** will be faved, muft thus think of the Trinity ;” what a doubt. ‘ ful condition will very many of their own church be in, a € well as the Pagans and Mahometans!? Wherein do thefe arguments reach the cafe of H. Barnard | Is fhe a Heathen that has only received one talent? Is there nothing more required of a Chriftian who has received the oracles of God, than of a Heathen? Are not Morris’s argument: intended fimply to prove the abfurdity, to fay nothing worfe, o pronouncing damnation againft all thofe who do not receive our own Creed, whether acquainted with the Scriptures or not thereby excluding the poor Heathen from the means of fal. vation ? % After pointing out the difficulty there is for any man, or fo- * ciety, to determine precifely the number of articles and extent © of that creed, without which a man cannot be faved,’ and the ineficacy of creeds without ‘ the inward revelation of God ‘in the heart.’ Morris concludes his treatife with thefe words, which fum up his whole argument. : aes +e ‘To conclude; by what has been faid it appears, That the * Bible, or Holy Scriptures, that we now have (and neither more * nor lefs), cannot be THE Rule and Standard of Truth, wher ‘ by all things relating to divine affairs are to be proved an ‘ tried: but that we muft depend on fome other thing, which i ‘ abundantly teftified of in thofe Holy Scriptures, which w * yet enjoy the comfort of.—For as the whole world has nee ‘ of falvation, and confequently of a Saviour; fo Ged is wi ‘ ling all men fhould be faved, and come unto the knowledge * the truth. Therefore Chrift gave himfelf a ranfom for al * Now, though nothing were outwardly written for the uphol ‘ing of the devil’s kingdom, few or none will doubt but he i * able and ready to teach, and draw by his inward fuggeftion * abundantly to thofe things that are wicked: fo if we don * allow that God, by his Holy Spirit, is as able and ready t * teach and draw by his inward dire€tions and divine grace, o £ of wickednefs into righteoufnefs, where outward writings ar § wanting, then we fhould infinuate that God is not fo mu * concerned to fave, as the devil is, to deftroy; nor would * remedy be as extenfive and efficacious as the difeafe; whic ‘ how abfurd, if not blafphemons, a thing were it to fuppofe !’ Verax hefitates refpecting ‘ the precife ideas of this write when he perfonifies the fource of all evil; this hefitation mutt attributed rather to his own unbelief of the exiftence of any fu being as a devil or fpirit, than to any ebfcurity in the langua t ( 159 ) F this author, who has unequivocally expreffed his belief in 1e exiftence of fuch a fpirit. We have now before us the leading features of this pamphlet; y which it can be afcertained whether its contents are or are ot confiftent with the title, whether it contains any thing in that militates againft the authenticity and authority of the criptures, or againft their being an outward rule of faith and ractice; alfo, whether by making Chrift’s mediation as exten- ve and efficacious, as Adam’s fall was injurious, to mankind ; 1e writer intended te encourage an indifference refpecting the uths of the gofpel among profeffing Chriftians. With regard to this latter fubject, which feems to be more articularly adverted to by Verax, I thall obferve, that the dif- nétion R. Morris draws between that effential faith, without rhich no man, whether he be called Heathen or Chriftian, can e faved, and that particular faith required of thofe unto whom are committed the oracles of God ;’ is no other than what Bar- lay makes in the 5th and 6th Propofitions of his Apology, quoted — 1 my letter to John Evans, pages 13 and 14. ‘The ¢ glaring in- confiftency,’ and ‘the ftriking variance,’ Verax pretends to dif- over between the Friends’ approbation of the book, and their ibfequent conduét towards H. Barnard, would apply with qual force to R. Barclay himfelf. It remains yet to be ex- lained how R. Barclay and his friends could confiftently unite 1 religious fellowfhip with thofe whofe doétrines they deteited nd held as facrilegious. When our Society denominates all thofe who do not receive s faith and embrace its communion, Heretics or Schifmatics, nd denies them to be Chriftians ; then may Verax triumphantly roduce Barclay, Penn, and Mortis, as teftimonies againft its atolerant zeal and bigotry. | 4 CHAP. VIL ee The fpecific Charges againf{ HANNAH BARNARD as they are feverally flated in the Appeal, ex amined, and the Objections to them anfwered.— On the Divine commands for the wars of th Fews. IN the preceding chapters I have followed Verax in his in veftigation of our early friends’ fentiments on thofe doétrina points, wherein he thinks he has difcovered an agreement be tween them and Hannah Barnard; and alfo imagines he fee a diflonance between them, and the ‘ principal and fundamenta * points of faith’ profeffed by the prefent Friends: but in tracin the paths that, he thinks, have led to thefe difcoveries, the me dium through which we have viewed the fame objects m have been very different, fince the whole I can difcover con vinces me that the doétrines of our Society have undergone n variation, that the tenets inculcated by it, and preached by i minifters at its firft rife, are the fame which are oppofed Verax, as ‘ in ftrict contradiGtion to the neceflary and effenti ‘ articles of the Chriftian faith’ Which of us has viewe thefe objects through a right medium, I leave to others decide. ‘ The next fubjeé to be confidered is the nature and complexi of the charges exhibited againft H. Barnard, including tho opinions, for inculcating which fhe was firft filenced as a mir fter, and afterwards difowned as a member of our religio Society. I fhall firft ftate the charges, and afterwards ado the order purfued by Verax in his ftritures on them. Th charges are, € That fhe promoted a difbelief of fome par ‘of the Old Teftament, particularly thofe parts which affe ‘that the Almighty commanded the Iiraelites to make we ( (16m, } pon other nations :—in which, alfo, fhe includes the com- nand given to Abraham, to offer up his fon Ifaac. It further ppears, that fhe is not one with Friends in her belief refpea- ig various parts of the New Teftament, particularly relating ) the miraculous conception, and miracles of Chrift.’ Although H. Barnard has not put her fignature to the 4ppeal 1 Sequel, yet as fhe has unqueftionably furnifhed the materials 'theie works, we may infer that the defence of her fentiments, itained in them, is approved by her. Verax has divided the irge again{t her into four articles, and upon theie he has fe- ally animadverted. ft. ‘That fhe promoted a difbelief of fome parts of the ctiptures of the Old Teftament, particularly thofe which affert wat the Almighty commanded the Ifraelites to make war upon. ther nations.’* This charge he reprefents to be founded on the following de- ration of H. B.’s, ‘ that war is in itfelf, and ever was, a moral vil, which man creates to himfelf, by the mifapplication of- is powers, or, in other words, by the abufe of his free agency.’+ lowing, that H. B. had, in the feleét yearly meeting, ex- fied words to this import, we cannot admit that the propo- on comprifes an open avowal of her fentiments, or that it s the fole or principal ground of the charge againft her.— ambiguity was well calculated to produce an apparent di- fity of fentiment in the felect yearly meeting. A member © was prefent, on noticing the obfervation in the Appeal, t there appeared ‘ a difference in fentiment,’ remarks, ‘ that je ambiguity with which H. B. expreffed herfelf, oftentimes sndered her meaning obfcure; thus the meeting has been harged with diverfity of /entiment, when that diverfity, which fmall, arofe from ythe various confiruCtions put on her rds.’ . e following ftatement of H. B.’s opinion more clearly ex- its the origin of the charge, than that given by her advocate. t inno age of the world, the great and merciful Creator er commiflioned any nation or perfon to deftroy another, t that they were, formerly, as at prefent, only permitted to do.{ Let us examine, whether diffeminating this iment does, or does not, promote a difbelief in fome of the Scriptures. H.B. has thus exprefied herfelf on point.—* And I remark that my different conftruction of fenfe or import of thofe paffages in the Old Teftament, ative to the fubject of war, ought not, in my judgment, tu conftrued to amount to a difbelief, any more than the fame taken by Thomas Ellwood and others, refpecting thofe ppeal, p. 72. + SequeltozheAppealep.s. + Appeal, p. 194. ¥ s ( 162 ) © paflages wherein it is exprefsly faid, that the Almighty h © ened the heart of Pharaoh; that is, fays Thomas Ellwo “ he fuffered it to be hardened.”’* Hannah Barnard endeavours to avail herfelf of the maxi that no one is to be charged with the confequences that appear to us as the natural refult of his pofitions, when fuc confequences are rejected by him. But fome pofitions invol in themfelves confequences which cannot poflibly be feparat from them—this is true of the inftance before us; for exampl the Scriptures fay, ‘The Lord faid unto Mofes,’ and ‘ ‘TI ‘ Lord fpake unto Jofhua the fon of Nun,’ which are fucceed by commands to Mofes and Jofhua, to make war upon f Canaanites, &c. whereas H. B. fays, the Lord gave no ft commands. Is not this denying the truth of the Scripture 1 cords? Can the confequence be avoided ? Can we believe difbelieve a thing at the fame inftant? The cafe of Pharaoh is not parallel with the confideratio whether Mofes, Jofhua, Gideon, &c. received thofe divine co mands, the Scriptures fay they did receive. In the latter ftance the truth of the text is involved in the confiderati in the former it is not: for Thomas Ellwood was fo far queftioning the text, that he adopts it, fimply fubjoining he underftands it, and which, I believe, coincides with the get rally received opinion with regard to the operations of Spirit of God upon the mind; that is to fay, when a man judicially hardened, it is by God’s leaving him to hiimfelf, a ceafing to ftrive with him; for when the divine influenc wholly withdrawn from the mind, we are forfaken and reje€ of God, and delivered up to our natural innate depravity, wh produces hardnefs of heart, and enmity to the ways of If H. B. inftead of queftioning the truth of the divine cc mands recorded in the Scriptures, had merely advanced conjeCtures refpecting the manner in which the word of | Lord was communicated to the prophets, this liberty would b a comparifon with 'T. Ellwood’s, as then in each cafe the - delity of the text would not be attacked. In order to afcertain whether her fentiments with regar the Jewith wars ‘ ought not to be conftrued to amount toa ‘ belief of thofe paflages in the Old Teftament,’ in which divine command for, and approval of, thofe wars is expreflet fhall cite a few of them : “Behold, I fend an angel before thee to keep thee in the ‘ and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. ~ ‘ware of him, and obey his voice,—do all that I fpeak; i + I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adveriary ¥ * Appeal, p. 1954 ( 163 ) bine adverfaries. For mine angel fhall go before thee, and ring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the lerizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebu- tes; and I will cut them off—I will fend my fear before hee, and will deftroy all the people to whom thou fhalt come. ind I will make all thine enemies turn.their backs unto thee. ind I will fend hornets before thee, which {hall drive out he Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. will not drive them out from before thee in one year, left he land become defolate, and the beaft of the field multiply gainft thee. By little and little I will drive them out from efore thee, until thou be increafed and inherit the land— They fhall not dwell in thy land, left they make thee fin gainft me: for if thou ferve their gods, it will furely be a nare unto thee.”* ‘ And he,’ (God) ‘ faid, Behold, I make a covenant : before ll thy people I will do marvels, fuch as have not been done y all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among shich thou art fhall fee the work of the Lord : for it is a ter- ible thing that I will do with thee. Obferve thou that which I ommand thee this day; behold I drive out before thee the \morite, and the Canaanite, &c. Take heed to thyfelf, left hou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither hou goeft, left it be for a {mare in the midft of thee: but ye hall deftroy their altars, break their images, and cut down heir groves: for thou fhalt worfhip no other god,’ &c.+ Upon the children of Reuben, and of Gad, and the half tribe of anaffeh requefting to have their inheritance allotted them on s wildernefs fide of Jordan; Mofes granted their requeft upon adition that they would go armed with the reft of the Ifraelites sr Jordan, and affift them in obtaining their inheritance be- nd Jordan, faying, ‘If ye will do this thing, if ye will go rmed before the Lord, to war, and will go all of you armed + Jordan before the Lord, until he hath driven out his emies from before him, and the land be fubdued before the ord; then afterwards ye fhall return, and be guiltlefs before Lord.—But if ye will not do fo, behold ye have finned inft the Lord, and be fure your fin will find you out.’t e Book of Jofhua begins thus: ‘ Now after the death of ofes the fervant of the Lord, it came to pafs that the Lord e unto Jofhua the fon of Nun, Mofes’ minifter, faying, {es my fervant is dead; now therefore arife, go over this dan, thou and all this people, unto the land which I do give ‘them, even to the children of Ifrael. Every place that the of your foot fhall tread upon, that have I given unto you, * Exodus xxiii. 20 to 33- - + Ibid. xxxiy. To to 14. t+ Numb. xxxii, 20 to 23. ¥2 ( 164 ) ©as I faid unto Mofes+* There fhall not any man be able ‘ {tand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was wi ‘ Mofes, fo I will be with thee, I will not fail thee, nor forfa © thee. Be ftrong and of a good courage, for unto this pe “fhalt thou divide for an inheritance the land which I fw ‘unto their fathers to give them,—Only be thou ftrong a * courageous, that thou may‘ft obferve to do according to all t “law, which Mofes my fervant commanded thee: turn f ‘ from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayft ~_ ‘ whitherfoever thou goeft. ‘This book of the law fhall not ‘ part out of thy mouth; but thou thalt meditate therein ¢ ‘and night, that thou maytt obferve to do according to all th “is written therein: for ¢4en thou fhalt make thy way profp: * ous, and then thou fhalt have good fuccefs.—Have not I coi ‘ manded thee? Be {trong and of a good courage; be not afra © neither be thou difmayed : for the Lord thy God is with tl * whitherfoever thou goeft.’* - From thefe Scriptures we fee that the children of Ifrael wi not only commanded by the Lord to difpoffefs the Canaanites their land, but that a difobedience to this divine command v pronounced to be a fin againft the Lord which would not committed with impunity. This is alfo confirmed by thofe I torical facts, the truth of which H. B. profeffes not to deny. For of the twelve {pies that went to {py out the Jand of Cana: ten of them * died by the plague, before the Lord,’ becaufe tk difcouraged the children of Ifrael from going to take pofledli of the land promifed to their fathers.—If the commands queftion were forgeries and never given by the Lord, fhould 1 the divine vengeance have fallen upon the heads of Caleb a Jofhua who /upported thefe fictitious commands, and fhould 1 the other ten ipies have received the divine approbation - oppofing them ? whereas the event proves quite the revet for the lives of Caleb and Jofhua were not only prefery when their ten companions died of the plague, but for th good report, and endeavours, though unavailing, to prevent 1 people from being difcouraged by the evil report of the ot {pies, they were permitted to enter the promifed land, wh the reft of the congregation that murmured and rebelled agai the Lord, were condemned to die in the wildernefs; for th want of faith in the divine promiies. y3 : The fame difficulty attends almoft the whole-of the hiftori fa€ts recorded in the Bible: for thofe who do not believe t Moles and Jofhua ated by a divine commiflion, cannot rati ally give credit to the miracles they are related to have wroug by which the Ifraelites were fupported and delivered from * Jofh. i, 1 to 9. ( ‘165 ) farioiis enetnies, viz. the deliverance from Egyptian bondage yy a whole chain of miracles,—their paflage through the Red fea on-dry land—the fame paflage that favoured their flight, woving fatal to the Egyptians, who had the temerity to follow hem—their fupport by manna during their. fojourning in the vildernefs, which was one continued miracle for the ipace of erty years—their paflage on dry land through Jordan—the yall of the city of Jericho falling down flat at the shout of the hildren of Ifrael—the elements fighting for them againit their memies—Eyen the check they received at Ai, was only a con- irmation of the divine miffion of Jofhua,’ who had pronounced he city of Jericho, and all in it, except Rahab and her family, ecurfed. See alfo the Epiftle to the Hebrews, Chap. xi. 45 SEC. ws _ It follows therefore that H. B.’s endeavour to make it appear hat fhe is a general believer of the Pentateuch, notwithitand- ng her difbelief of the divine commiflion of Moies and Jofhua, 5 a vain attempt. And if to affert ‘that in no age of the world, the great and merciful Creator ever commiflioned any Nation or perfon to deftroy another,’ can be confidered by Verax, only as a different conftruction of the pafiages in the Did Teftament, above cited, and that they ‘ ought not to be onftrued. to amount to a difbelief’ of them; let him no more complain of ‘ the idle acquiefcence’ of thofe, who, content with the primitive, apoftolic doGrines, reject the innovating fyi ems of our rational Chriftians. Verax infers that we are no more authorized to attribute the uccefs of the Iiraclites to a divine fanCtion of their wars, than o draw a fimilar conclufion in favour of their enemies, when Lord delivered Ifrael into their hands; becaufe the Serip- ures generally afcribe the bad, as well as the good fuccefs of 4 Ifraelites, to the dire€t interference of the Almighty. -The mature of the Jewifh Theocracy affords, in itfelf, a iuificient eafon why fuccefs in battle is almoft uniformly aicribed to the iret interference of the Almighty; ‘whether on the fide of the Tiraelites, or of their idolatrous enemies,’* without deducing rom fuch fucceis on the part of their enemies, that they acted, is did the Ifraelites, in obedience to a divine command received zom the Almighty—for do we not read that the word of the sord came unto Chutfhan-rifhathaim king of Mefopotama, or lo Eglon king of Moab, &c. This filence of the facred records efpecting any divine communication between God and the dolatrous enemies of Ifrael, conftitutes one eflential difierence etween them and the people of God—and defiroys the force f the parailel Verax has made between them. * Appeal, p.. 73 ( 166 ) The fingle cafe of Gideon further evinces the fallacy of fuck reafoning. In the Sequel to the Appeal it is adverted to in ; note upon a paflage in a private letter of F. Smith’s, whereit he fays, that H. Barnard confiders as erroneous ‘ the remarkabl ‘and ftriking immediate command to Gideon, and what fol. * lows, including divers evidences, by extraordinary figns o ‘its being the will of God; and that by three hundred mer ‘only, the Midianites were completely overthrown. Se © Judges vi.’ ‘To this Verax replies, ‘ This chapter might have been as pertinently quoted, in proo © of the divine fanction of the wars of the idolatrous Midianites ‘as in favour of the wars of the Jews, for the very firft verf * fays— And the children of Ifrael did evil in the fight of th “Lord; and the Lord dehvered them into the hand of Midian fevei “ years.” In the next chapter—Gideon is reprefented as ufin * very fimilar language, addrefied “ to the hoff of Ifrael.—* Arife “ for the Lerd hath delivered into your hand the hoft of Midian.’ © The manner in which Gideon furprifed the camp of the Mi € dianites, ‘‘ in the beginning of the middle watch,” or abou * midnight, is next related. The confufion into which ths * Midianites were thrown by Gideon’s fingular ftratagem, exe: * cuted by three hundred chofen men, was improved into a tota * overthrow, by the afliftance of “ the men of Ifrael who “ ga “ thered them/felves together out of Naphtali, and out of Afber, and ou “ of all Manaffeh, and purfued after the Midianites.” So that i * does not appear by the text, that ‘* the Midianites were com ** pletely overthrown—by three hundred men only.”* If Gideon’s fpeech to his men had been the only proof of hi divine miflion, there would be fome excufe for comparing it with what the hiftorian fays in the beginning of the 6th chapter; no that the comparifon would even then bear; for the language o} Gideon to his three hundred men was prophgtic of their mirac lous fuccefs over an army of one hundred and thirty-five tho fand, and the truth of it was proved by the event. But it not from language defcriptive of the providence of God fupe intending the events recorded in Scripture, and which langua is equally corre€t, whether the agents aét from a divine fant tion, or otherwife. I fay, itis not from fuch general expreffio that we draw our proofs of the divine commands for the Jewi ‘wars, no, we ground them upon their being exprefsly record as fuch in the facred writings. As to the infinuation that Midianites were not completely overthrown by Gideon’s thr hundred men only, let the text decide its validity. After defcribing Gideon’s divifion of his three hundred m: into three companies, and his inftru€tions to them, the acco proceeds. * Sequel to Appeal, p. 104, ( 167 ) So Gideon, and the hundred men that were with him, came unto the outfide of the camp in the beginning of the middle watch,—and they blew the trumpets, and broke the pitchers, that were in their hands. And the three companies blew the trumpets, and broke the pitchers, and held—ithe trumpets in their right hands to blow withal ; and they cried, The fword of the Lord and of Gideon. And they ftood every man in his place round about the camp: and all the hoft ran, and cried, and fled. And the three hundred blew the trumpets, and the Lord fet every man’s fword againft his fellow, even throughout all the hoft: and the hoft fled to Bethfhittah in Zererath, and to the border of Abelmeholah, unto Tabbath.’* It was after xideon had, through the Lord’s caufing the Midianites to mif- ake their own men for thofe of the enemy, completely overthrown hem, that the men of Ifrael gathered themfelves together, nd joined Gideon in the purfuit of the enemy—vVerax furely annot be ignorant of the difference between fighting and rout= ag an army, and uniting in the purfuit of a flying enemy— he men of Ephraim were fully fenfible of it, and ‘ chided with Gideon fharply’ for calling them only to affift in the purfuit. Having replied to Verax’s endeavour to leffen the appearance f a divine interpofition on behalf of Gideon and his {mall ompany,—I {hall proceed to ‘ftate what we confider un- leniable proofs of Gideon’s having acted by an immedi- te divine command, that the reader may fee the difinge- ity of Verax who paffes over the whole of the fixth chapter f Judges, and the firft part of the feventh, that he might place he proof of the divine miflion of Gideon foleiy upon his ad- refs to the Ifraelites, juft preceding their engagement with the Midianites.—This was one of the. fubjeéts that engaged the at- ention of the committee of the morning’ meeting in their con- ent with H, Barnard; and a member of that committee aving furnifhed me with fome minutes he made of what oc- urred on that occafion, I fhall infert from them what relates to he divine command given to Gideon. ‘ Endeavours were made to convince her’ (H. B.’s) ¢ judg ment refpeCting the authenticity of the divine commands for the wars of the Ifraclites, as recorded in the Old Teftament, by pointing out fome remarkable circumftances related there- in, as proof of fuch commands having been given; among others a friend mentioned the following :—“ When Ifrael was opprefied by the Midianites, an angel appeared to Gideon, and in the name of the Lord commanded him to go againft them ; a fign was given him of its being a true meflage by the fleth and unleayened cakes being confumed on the Rock—yet * Judges yii. 19 to 220 ( 168 ) “ Gideon’s diffidence and modefty refpe€ting himfelf was fuel ** that he dared not to proceed unlefs another fign were giver “ him; to this the Lord condefcended by the fleece being bot “< wet and dry, as Gideon had defired. When the army o “‘ thirty-two thoufand men was colleéted together, it is’ related “‘ The Lord faid unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are to “ many for me to give the Midianites into their hands, left Ifrae * yaunt themfelves againft me, faying, Mine own hand hath fave _ © me, &5c.” © They were then reduced to ten thoufand.— * And the Lord faid unto Gideon, The people are yet too many, &c « And the Lord faid unto Gideon, By the three hundred men tha “ Japped will I fave you, and deliver the Midianites into thine hand «© &c. and by them the Midianites were completely over. “thrown.” ‘'To this the faid, fhe did not difpute the hiftori € faét, but the did not believe it was a divine command.’ In addition to thefe remarks, it alfo appears that thefe variou affurances of divine help, were infufficient to preferve Gideot from being difheartened by the confideration of the great dif proportion of his handful of men with the multitudes he w about to engage, therefore ‘ the Lord faid unto him, Arife, ge ‘ thee down unto the hof, for I have delivered it into thine hand ‘ But if thou fear to go down, go thou with Phurah thy fer £ vant down to the hoft: and thou fhalt hear what they fay; an « afterwards fhall thine hands be ftrengthened to go down to th © hoft.” And after Gideon’s fears were difpelled by the drean and interpretation that he heard, he alfo encouraged his me by faying, * Arife, for the Lord hath delivered into your han ‘ the hoft of Midian,’ and immediately attacked the Midianites H. Barnard fays, fhe does not diipute the hiftoric fa&, b does not believe the divine command. Not to fay a word the appearance of the angel to Gideon—of the flefh and u leavened cakes on the rock being confumed by the touch of th ftaff in the angel’s hand—of the fleece of wool being wet wi the dew when it was dry on all the earth befides, and of ii being, the following night, dry on the fleece only when ther sas dew on all the ground—of the dream with its interpret: tion which Gideon heard in the camp of the Midianites ; hoi are we to reconcile his condué in attacking one hundred at thirty-five thoufand men with only three hundred, when, if _ had fo chofen, he might have had a force equal to thirty-t theufand men ?—Did not his conduét (if we deny his divit miifon) exceed in rafhnefs and folly even that of Chark MIith of Sweden, who, at Bender, with three hundre roen befides the officers of his houfehold, fortified himfe againit the attack of an army of twenty-fix thoufand? latter was reduced to his fmall number of men by misfortune the former from cheice. Can we fuppofe that H. Barnard Si. “{ 769 ) . a ‘ 10 proféfiés to believe only what appeart0 her rational, coh ont ae does not difpute or queftion ip her own mind at #, the truth of thefe extraordinary facts, when fhe openly yws her difbelief of the divine commands that are immedi- > ly connected with them, and a belief of which can alone poly account for almoft all the circumftances. attending m?—I know of no other way to fupport her confiffency than fuppofing, that when ‘fhe fays the does not dilfpute thefe ts, or that fhe does not call them in queftion, we are not reby to underftand that fhe really can acknowledge her ief of them, but only that thofe who are fufficiently credu- s to believe them, will not meet with any dred, open oppo- on from her—Such fubtile diftinCtions, however ufeful or eflary they may be to thofe who with to difguife the errors y are difleminating, will be rejeCted by the fincere feekers sr truth, as rather calculated to confound and bewilder, nto enlighten the underftanding. [he extract already mentioned, of what was faid on this fub- t at one of the conferences between H. B. and the morning eting’s committee, and which is entirely omitted in the Ap- 1, evinces either the inaccuracy of H. Barnard’s minutes of _converfations, between herfelf and the committee that vifited _ , or the unfairnefs of Verax’s fele€tion from them. | cannot forbear noticing Verax’s attempt to undermine the ine miffion of Mofes (although not dire€tly within my plan), aufe his ftatement at firft perufal appears as {pecious, as na more minute inveftigation it proves to be futile and void truth. I fhall give his argument unabridged. It is upon the t article of accufation. The terms of this charge,’ he fays, ‘ neceffarily imply that we accufers profefs a perfuafion of the complete infallibility the Scriptures; and therefore that the whole of them ought be believed, efpecially by every minifter of the gofpel, “ of ur religious Society.” But would it not have been wife, ore they ventured to require an unqualified affent to fo ex- five an article of faith, to have informed themfelves, nether the Scriptures, great as their general authenticity and lue is readily acknowledged to be, do not contain fome tradiGtory propofitions? and if fo, fome portion of error ? nd whether either the Society, or its beft and moft generally ed authors, had ever confidered fuch a requifition as a oper bond of Chriftian communion, or as a teft of found- in the faith, or other qualification of a true gofpel mini- PL re we not authorized to confider a belief that the Scrip- $ contain ‘ contradi€tory propofitions,’ as amounting to a Z ; ae | 3 SS a — ( x70 , . difbelief of fome of the ies at leaft that contain fach propo fitions? The terms of the charge certainly imply that no ma terial errors have crept into the Scriptures, a1 t therefo: they ought to be believed to be what they profefs themfelves t be. The two preceding chapters on the Scriptures exhibit th degree of importance attached to them by our early friends, t which I refer the readers and proceed to ftate what is advance by Verax, virtually, if not intentionally, seca the divin miffion of Mofes. ’ ; i ‘ But to come to the particular paflages which affert, ‘ the “the Almighty commanded the Ifraelites to make war upo ‘* other nations.” Are all the declarations on this fubje&t, cor * fiftent with each other, or with the general defcription, whic © the Scripture in numerous places gives us, of the effential a ‘immutable attributes of God? Had the meeting duly c * fidered how they could reconcile the exprefs promifes recor “in the 23d and 34th chapters of Exodus, refpedting t “* Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, ‘* Hivites, and the Jebufites, that the Almighty will cut th “ off.—I will drive them out before thee.—They fhall not dws “in thy land, left they make thee fin againft me; for if tho “ ferve their gods, it will furely be a fmare unto thee.” An © the equally exprefs declarations that follow, from the thi * chapter of Judges. ‘* Now thefe are the nations ‘which # “Lord left to prove Ifrael by them, to know whether thi ‘€ would hearken unto the commandments of the Lord, whic “he commanded their fathers by the hand of Mofes. A “ the children of Ifrael dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittit “« Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebufites. And they to “their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughte’ “to their fons, and ferved their gods.” Or how thefe k ‘ texts will confift in a ftri&t, literal fenfe with the following, * fpecting the fame nations, of whom it is faid, Jofhua xxiv. 1 ** And the Lord drave out from before us (the Ifraelites, all t “* people recapitulated as above) even the Amorites that dw “(in the land.” In the 2d chapter and the a21ft verfe ‘ Judges, it is faid in the name of the Lord, * I alfo will ‘henceforth, drive out any from before them, (the Ifraelit “* of the nations which Jofhua left when he died.” ‘* Are ‘then to believe this pofitive declaration; or the fubfeque ‘ claims to divine authority, and commands for their future w ‘to drive out thefe very nations? who were preferved, the nm ‘ verfe tells us, That through them I (the Lord) might pro ‘Tfrael, whether they will keep the way of the Lord, to w ** therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not.”* '. * Appeal, p. 72) 73. i ; F a r > “1 - ( 372.) If I were longer to be furprifed at any thing from the en of Verax, it would be at his affertion, after having written bor paragraph, that a refufal * to receive the language of Scripture in a itrict, literal fenfe’-—*‘ conftitutes the very eflence of fit prefent accufation’ againft H. B.—Now we read, ‘ And ¢ Lord] faid, Behold I make 2 covenant: before all thy ple I will do marvels.—Obferve thou that which I com- nd thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amo- rite, and the Canaanite—Take heed to thyfelf, left thou make a covenant with the inhabitants,’ &c.* This kind of language ‘reprefented by H. B. as ‘ impiou/ly afferting the fan@tion of the Almighty for thefe fanguinary contefts,’ and in this fhe tuft be allowed to be right, if, as fhe fays, thefe wars were er commanded by God; but then it is equally true, that fes aflerts a falfehood in the name of the Lord; for it is ab- d and only mifleading the reader, to fpeak of ‘ reje€ting the iteral interpretation of paflages’ that will not admit of any er interpretation, fince thereby we virtually reject the truth fuch pailages—So much for this new mode of interpreta- on. ‘Let us examine whether Verax has fucceeded in his attempt ) prove that the Scripture exprefsly contradicts itfelf. If the ader turns back to page 163, he will there find the firft text ferred to in the Appeal with the addition of the context, the ofe of which quotation I wifh him particularly to notice; the ibftance of it is repeated in Deuteronomy, ‘ And the Lord thy God will put out thofe nations before thee by Jittle and fittle: thou mayt{t not confume them at once, left the beafts of the field increafe upon thee.’+ ' Thus it appears that Mofes was fo far from promifing the Ifraelites, that the Almighty would immediately drive it all the inhabitants of Canaan from before them, that -exprefsly informs them he would not until they were in- ed; and afligns a very good reafon for it, that the land build not be defolated, and overrun with wild beafts——Hence le of the Canaanites, &c. being left unfubdued at the death Jofhua, is eafily reconciled with ‘ the exprefs promifes re- orded in the 23d and 24th chapter of Exodus,’ which Verax ut have feen, had he impartially compared the promifes with | accomplifhment of them. a € Scriptures quoted in the Appeal as contradictory to the going promifes, are fo divefted of their context, that we ht conclude its author had entirely forgotten his own re- tks in a former part of the fame work, refpecting the necef- * Exod. xxxiy. 10, 11, I2. . + Deut. vii. 22. 24 > a —_ 3 172 ne a (3172) 4 fity of not being mifled, by the divifion of the Scripture ir chapters and verfes, from ¢ perceiving the general drift of 1 © author, without a careful attention to which, we may ind ‘ guefs what his meaning is, but we fhall be much more hk ‘to ftumble on one of our own, which he never hous ¢ than to afcertain the real mind and intention of t it .€No book is fo conftantly and habitually treated in this abfi ‘manner as the Bible, nor any other fubje&t, sin an equal “ree, obfcured and difgraced by its advocates, as that of ‘ ligion.’* Ee ar Is it not to be regretted that the conduét of Verax relat to the Scriptures, and other writings alfo, has not been 4nt enced by thefe remarks? He not only gives an imperfect vi of the promifes in facred writ, but is entirely filent refpecti the judgments annexed to difobedience to the divine injin tions againft idolatry, &c. The fulfilment of thefe judgme at this prefent day is no inconfiderable evidence of the div infpiration of the books of Mofes—but it is thofe threatenings difobedience that relate more immediately to the gra fucceed the death of Jofhua that come under our prefent confiderati In the Scriptures before quoted the Ifraelites were forbidc to make any covenant with the imhabitants of the land ‘Canaan, left they fhould make them fin againft the Lord, ferving their gods. And in Leviticus the following judgme are denounced againft them in cafe of difobedience. © ‘ But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do © thefe commandments—but that ye break my covenant: I a ¢ will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terro * confumption, and the burning ague—and ye fhall fow y« ‘ feed in vain, for your enemies fhall eat it. AndI will fet: ‘ face againft you, and ye fhall be flain before your enemi * they that hate you fhall reign over you, &e.f = Again in Numbers, ‘ But if ye will not drive out the inha ‘ tants of the Jand from before you; then it fhall come to pz © that thofe which ye let remain of them, hall be pricks in y¢ * eyes, and thorns in your fides, and fhall yex you in the la § wherein ye dwell.’t Seb Mat In Jofhua and Judges we may trace the accomplifhment thefe promifes upon obedience, and judgments upon difobe ‘ence, to the law delivered by Mofes—When Jofhua was : vanced in age, he called together the elders, heads, and jud; of Ifrael, and thus addrefled them: i ‘J am old and ftricken in age; and ye have feen all ¢ 1 * Appeal, p. 30, 31- _, t Lev. xxvie 14 t0 17. » fNum. xxxill, 55. a al ( 173 ) « the Lord your God hath done unto all thefe nations becaufe © © of you; for the Lord your God is he that hath fought for € you. Behold, I have divided unto you by lot thefe nations that € remain, to be an inheritance for your tribes, from Jordan, with 6 om nations that I have cut off, even unto the great fea weft- ‘ward. And the Lord your God, he fhall expel them from ‘before you, and drive them from out of your fight, and ye ~ € fhall poffefs their land, as the Lord your God hath promifed ‘unto you. Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Mofes, that ye ‘turn not afide therefrom, to the right hand or to the left.— § For the Lord hath driven out from before you, great nations “and ftrong: but as for you, no man hath been able to ftand £before you unto this day—Take good heed therefore unto yourfelves, that ye love the Lord your God. LElfe if ye do in “any wife go back, and cleave unto the remnant of thefe na- tions, even thefe that remain among you, and fhall make mar- €riages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you; © know for a certainty, that the Lord your God will no more £ drive out any of thefe nations from before you, but they fhall “be fnares and traps unto you, and fcourges in your fides, and £ thorns in your eyes, until ye perifh from off this good land £ which the Lord your God hath given you. And behold, this “day I am going the way of all the earth, and ye know in all € your hearts and in all your fouls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the Lord your God {pake * concerning you; all are come to pafs unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof, &c.* — Pa Would Jofhua in his exhortation to the elders of Ifrael have appealed to them, whether any of the promifes delivered by Mofes had failed of being fulfilled, if the remnant of the nations dwelling in another part of the land not being yet fubdued by them, conftituted a breach of thofe promifes, as infinuated by Werax? From the words of Jofhua we alfo fee that the promifes ‘to the Mifraelites were not unconditional, their full accomphih< ‘ment depending upon an unreferved obedience to the law of ‘God, for he exprefsly informs them, agreeably to what had been before delivered to them by Mofes, that if they make any covenant or intermarry with ‘ the remnant of thefe nations’ not yet fubdued, God would not drive them out from before them, but that they fhould be {nares and traps to them, In the next chapter Jofnua enumerates to the Ifraelites in the mame of the Lord, the fuperintending providence of God over them, from his calling Abraham their father-unto that time, # Jofhua xxiii. 2 to 14. a ( 174) , and exhorts them to keep themfelves from idolatry, and to fe: and ferve the Lord; to which the people anfwer; ‘ God forbid that we fhould forfakethe Lord to ferve other god * For the Lord cur Gof, he it is that brought us up, and our father * out of the land of Egypt, from the boufe of bondage ; and whic ‘ did thofe great figns in our fight, and preferved us in all the we * wherein we went, and among all the people through whom we faffe * And the Lord drave out from before us all the people, eve “the Amorites which dwelt in the land: therefore will we al * ferve the Lord, for he is our God.* The roman in the laft quotation diftinguithes all that is notice by Verax.—What people were thefe that the Lord drave ov from before the Hraelites ? furely all thofe enumerated in th twelfth chapter, and not thofe mentioned in the thirteenth, 2 yet remaining unfubdued, and who are alfo adverted to b Jofhua in his addrefs to the people I have juft cited. Verax’ eriticiim upon the part felected can only reft upon the Ifraelite diftinguifhing ‘ the remnant of thefe nations’ not yet fubdued, b the fame names with thofe that were driven out. This verb: criticiim may fuit thofe who are ‘ defirous of undermining th * authority of revealed religion, and ftudious in expofing ever * little difficulty attending the Scriptures, toe popular animad ‘ verfion and contempt,’ but muft meet with its deferved repre henfion from every fincere advocate of genuine Chriftianity. In the book of Judges we read—* And it came to pafs whe * Hrael was ftrong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and di * not utterly drive them out.’+ And after giving the names o thofe that were put to tribute, it proceeds thus; * And an ange * of the Lord. came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and faid, I mad * you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the lan * which I {ware unto your fathers; and I faid, IE will never breal * my covenant with you. And ye fhall make no league with * the inhabitants of this land, you fhall throw down their altars “but ye have not obeyed my voice ; Why have ye done this: € Wherefore I alfo faid, I will not drive them out from befor “you: but they fhall be as thorns im your fides, and thei * gods fhall be a fnare unto you.’ Although this fevere rebuke made fome impreihion on the people, it does not appear te have been lafting, for a few verfes further on it fays,—* An¢ ‘the children of Ifrael did evil in the fight of the Lord, an¢ * ferved Baalims and they forfook the Lord God of theit ‘ fathers—and followed other gods ;’t we are not therefore tc be furprifed at reading,—* And the anger of the Lord was. k $ againft Ifrael, and be faid, Becaufe that this people hath tran[greffi ® Joh. xxiv. 16, to 18, F Judg. i, 28, f Judges ui, 1,2, 3. 11, 1% | rete, Bie 0 Oe) my covenant awhich E commanded their fathers, and have not hearks ened unto my voice: 1 alfo will not henceforth drive out any from before them, of the nations which Jofhua left when he died: that through them I may prove Ifracl, whether they will keep the way of the Lord, to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not. LIherefore the Lord left thofe nations without driving them out haftily, neither delivered he them into the hand of Fofbua. Now thefe are the nations which the Lord left to prove Ifrael by them,—zamely, five lords of the Philiftines, and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hivites that dwelt in Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal-hermon, unto the entering in of Ha- math. And they were to prove Ifrael by them, to know whether they would hearken unto the commandments of the Lord, which he commanded their fathers by the hand of Mofes— And the children of If{rael dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Je- bufites ; and they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their fons, and ferved ‘their gods. And the children of Ifrael did evil in the fight of the Lord, and forgat the Lord their God, and ferved Baalim and the groves. Therefore the anger of the Lord was hot againft Ifrael, and he fold them into the hand of Chufhan-rifhathaim king of Meio- potamia, and the children of Ifrael ferved Chufhan-rifhathaim eight years. And when the children of Ifrael cried unto the Lord, the Lord raifed up a deiverer to the children of Ifrael, who delivered them, even Othniel the fon of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother.* _ The roman in this laft extra&t diftinguifhes as before what is yuoted by Verax in detached parts without any attention to he context.—I have been the more copious in my quotations rom Scripture, that the harmony between the prophecies and eir fulfilment might be more clearly feen. The Almighty as with the Jews, under Jofhua, and after his death whilft ey were obedient to the law of Mofes, fo that their enemies uld not ftand before them; but when they rebelled againft e Lord, by intermarrying with the neighbouring idolatrous lations, they were forfaken of God, they fled from before their nemies, and became tributary to them. When onaccount of their ms they were fubjugated by Jabin king of Canaan, they were oppreffed by him, that ¢ the highways were unoccupied, and the travellers walked through by-ways,’ and the villages were eferted, for they could not even go to the wells to draw water ithout being in danger from the archers. And when after- ards from the fame caufe they were delivered into the hand of idian, their fituation feems to have been even worfe than * Judges li, 20 to 23. ill, I to Qs 8 ; oo ae | /?; ey . s. 3 ys : unider Jabin, for they were obliged to conceal themfelves ir dens, mountains, caves, and ftrong holds, and the increafe o: the earth was deftroyed by the Midianites, who ‘ left no fuf © tenance for Ifrael, neither fheep, nor ox, nor afs,’ fo that what ever corn they had, was by ftealth, as may be feen in the caf of Gideon. All this was no more than what Mofes had foretold would befal them, if they tranfgreffed his laws—fee the extra@ from Leviticus in page 172, which fays, ‘ I will appoint over you terrour, confumption, &c. and ye fhall fow your feed in vain © for your enemies fhall eat it, and I will fet my face againf * you, and ye fhall be flain before your enemies.’ But when- ever through the weight of their oppreflions they were brough' to a fenfe of their fins, and cried to the Lord for help, he heare their cry and wrought their deliverance; and this was fometime: attended with circumftances fo fingular and ren to all hu- man probability, that they could not but perceive, their fuccef: was not of themfelves, but of the Lord. Well therefore might the Ifraelites from the promifes anc curfes contained in the law, and their own experience of thei: exact fulfilment, attribute whatever befel them, not to chance. but to the fuperintending power of God, who would no: fuffer his laws and ftatutes to be trampled on with impunity But hence it does not follow, that the condu& of their judges when they did not a& from an immediate divine command. (as Gideon evidently did) muft in every inftance meet with our approbation; for ab/fraéedly confidered, it will be difficul to juftify the manner in which Ehud killed Eglon king of Moab. and that in which Jael killed Sifera, alfo the marriage of Samfor with a daughter of the Philiftines;—although their condu& wa: made inftrumental to the annoyance of the enemies of Ifrael the latter was an a&t exprefsly contrary to the law of Mofes. which prohibited all intermarriages with other nations. By no! diftinguifhing aGtions of this kind from thofe that originatec in an immediate ‘command from God, we confound thing: that require a diftin& confideration; although the Supreme Being made each fubfervient to his gracious defigns towards hi: eople. : ~ Tedd the Scripture paffage which fays, ‘I (the Lord) wil © not henceforth drive out any from before them (the Ifraelites, © of the nations which Jofhua left when he died? Verax en- quires, ‘ Are we to believe this pofitive declaration, or the fub *fequent claims to divine authority, and commands for thei ¢ future wars, to drive out thefe very nations ?’ We read of * fubfequent claims to divine authority’ for de- livering the Ifraelites from their oppreflions under thefe nations, but we may fearch in vain for fuch claims to drive them out; (77) aul indeed received a divine commiffion from Samuel to eftroy utterly the Amalekites, but then it was to fulfil a enunciation pronounced againft them in Exodus—‘ I’ (the ord) ¢ will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven—The Lord hath fworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.’* Although Terax has fufficiently evinced his difbelief in the divine miffion wr deftroying the Amalekites, he muft acknowledge that what } recorded refpecting them in Exodus and the 1ft book of amuel, are in "perfect agreement with each other. ~Verax afks, ‘ Are all the declarations on this fubje€t [the ewifh wars] ‘ confiftent with each other, or with the general defcription which the Scripture, in numerous places, gives us, of the effential and immutable attributes of God ? The perfect harmony of thefe declarations with each other as been already fhown; with refpeé to the latter part of the bjection, it is, fetting afide the appeal to Scripture, the fame § that of T. Paine and other Deifts, who deny, with H. Bar- ard, that © the great and merciful Creator ever commiffioned? he Jews to make war upon the Canaanites—This objeétion, ounded upon the fuppofed inconfiftency of a divine fanétion f thefe wars with the mercy and moral juftice of God, has net with fo full and decifive an anfwer from Watfon in his Apology for the Bible, that I fhall repeat it: the importance of he fubject will apologize for its length. * You [Thomas Paine] hold it impoffible that the Bible can be the word of God, becaufe it is therein faid, that the Ifraelites deftroyed the Canaanites by the exprefs command ‘of God; and to believe the Bible to be true, we muft, you affirm, unbelieve all our belief of the moral juftice of God ; for wherein, you afk, could crying or {miling infants offend ? 1 am aftonifhed that fo acute a reafoner fhould attempt to difparage the Bible, by bringing forward this exploded and frequently confuted objection of Morgan, Tindal, and Boling- broke. You profefs yourfelf to be a Deift, and to believe that there is a God, who created the univerfe, and eftablifhed the laws of nature, by which it is fuftained in exiftence. You profefs that from the contemplation of the works of God, you derive a knowledge of his attributes; and you reje& the Bible, becaufe it afcribes to God things inconfiftent (as you ‘fuppofe) with the attributes which you have difcovered to be- long to him ; in particular, you think it repugnant to his moral juftice, that he fhould doom to deftru@tion the crying or imiling infants of the Canaanites. Why do you not main- fain it to be repugnant to his moral juitice, that he fhould * Exod. xvii. 14. 16, 24 ( 178 ). ¢ fuffer ie or {miling infants to be fwallowed up by as © earthquake, drowned by an inundation, confumed by a fire « ftarved by a famine, or deftroyed by a peftilence ? The Wore “of God is in perfect harmony with his work; crying 0 ‘ fmiling infants are fubje€ted to death in both. We believ: ‘ that the earth, at the exprefs command of God, opened he ¢ mouth, and fwallowed up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, witl ¢ their. wives, their fons, and their littleones, This you efteen « fo repugnant to God's moral juftice, that you {purn, as fpu “ rious, the book in which the circumftance is related. Wher ‘ Catania, Lima, and Lifbon, were feyerally deftroyed by earth £ quakes, men with their wives, their fons, and their little ones © were fwallowed up alive—why do you not fpurn, as {purious “the book of nature, in which this fact is certainly written © and from the perufal of which you infer the moral juftice o © God? You will, probably, reply, that the evils which th Canaanites fuffered from the exprefs command of God, wer ‘ different from thofe which are brought on mankind by th ‘operation of the laws of nature.—Different ! in what ?—No © in the magnitude of the evil—not in the fubjects of fufferance— not in the author of it—for my philofophy, at leaft, inftrué ‘me to believe, that God not only primarily formed, but tha ‘he hath through all ages, executed the laws of mature, an ‘that he will, through all eternity, adminifter them for th * general happineis of his creatures, whether we can, on ever © occafion, difcern that end or not.’ , caufe a deep impreffion thereof upon their minds.’ € Queft. How did God find them in the wildernefs ?’ © Anf. Full of difcontent, full of murmuring, full of felf- vill, full of doubts and queftionings concerning God’s power. “hey did not wait on him, who had delivered them out of the and of Pharaoh—but they murmured againft him. They id not wait for food or water when they wanted, but dil- rufted and complained.—Neither were they content with the rovifion which God allotted them,—but ‘they would have efh.—Again, They would not goon towards Canaan, or fight hen God would have them, and when bis ftrength would have ne with them ; but when he forbad them, of their own will, d trufting to their own ftrength, they would go-on and ht.’— PQuett. How did God deal with them in reference to the nd of Canaan ?’ * Penington’s Works, Vol, I, p. 388, 389. 2B ' { 186 ) ‘ Anf. Firft, He prepared them for it. Secondly, He ‘ poffeffed their enemies, and placed them in it, giving them an ‘ heritance according to their own will. Thirdly, He pou * down blefflings upon them therein.’* Again, in a piece entitled, Zo the Fews Natural, {s'c. ¢ “eternal God was thy refuge, and underneath were the e © Jafting arms (the Lord was thy rock, and thou waft built w ‘him); and he did thruft out the enemy before thee, and did ‘ Deftrey. And when the arm of the Lord did deftroy th ‘before thee, thou didft dwell im fafety alone-—Happy w * thou, O Ifrael! who was like unto thee, O people faved ‘the Lord! the fhield of thy help, and who was the fword ‘thy excellency! and thine enemies were found liars ui ‘ thee, and thou didft tread upon their high places.’+ Thefe extracts are fufficient evidence to prove Ifaac Peni: ton’s firm belief of the divine origin of the law of Mofes, of miraculous interpofitions of the Almighty on behalf of Hraelites, and of the divine commands for their wars with inhabitants of Canaan. ‘ Thomas Ellwood in his preface to his Sacred Hiftory marks, ‘ What Cicero faith of hiftory in general, namely, t ‘it is, “ Temporum teftis, lux veritatis, vita memoria, magi “ wite, (S nuncia antiquitatis 7” i. e. The witnefs of times, : “ light of truth, the life of memory, the miftrefs of life, and “ meffenger of antiquity,” cannot be fo well verified of < © patticular hiftory, as of that which being written by divin ‘infpired penmen, is contained in the books of the Old < ‘ New Teftament.—Of the matter nothing need be faid,—to : ‘to the excellency or credit thereof,’ &c.f And I may a that nothing that Verax has faid will injure its credit. | After mentioning the murmuring of the Ifraelites in cor quence of the evil report of the fpies, and God’s having thre ened to cut them off for theit rebellion againft him, Thor Ellwood adds—‘ But though God, at the inftant intreaty ‘ Mofes, did reverfe his fentence.of prefent death upon | ‘ whole congregation of murmurers, yet the ten falfe fpies, | ‘ immediate authors of this rebellion, who had brought up ‘ evil report upon the good land, were punifhed with death * that time; for they died by the plague before the Lord. | * Caleb and Jofhua (who were men of a right fpirit, and fulfil ‘the will of the Lord) they were preferved alive, were co “mended of God, and had his promife, that they fhould en ‘ into and poffefs the good land.’§ * Penington, Vol. I. p. 503. f Ibid. Vol. IE. p. 274. t Ellwoods Sacred Hiftory, 8vo Edit. 1778. Vol. I. p. iii. Ibid, p. 250, ( 187 ) And upon the expedition of the Ifraelites againft Midian, wood fays, ‘ Mofes gave order that a detachment of twelve houfand feleé&t men fhould go againft the Midianites—This ras a very little hoft to invade a great and potent people : but he Lord who fent them, went with them, to whom to prevail y many or by few is alike. And upon their return from : expedition, ‘ But that all this execution fhould be done Hithout the lofs of one man on Ifrael’s fide (for fo the. of- cers upon a mufter made report) may well pats for a siracle, and be numbered amongft the battles of the jord.’* Thomas Ellwood, indeed, in his Sacred Hiftory, not only uni- mly adopts the infpired penmen’s accounts of the origin of the vith wars, but frequently, as in the prefent cafe, confirms m by his own reflections. v6 Our early Friends were as faithful in fupporting their tefti- my againft all wars and fightings under the Chriftian dif- nfation as we of the prefent day; may we not therefore con- de that, if they had thought the fentiments of Penington and wvood with regard to the Jewith wars, incompatible with ir {tations in the church, they would have fuppreffed rather n have countenanced them by repeated editions of their ks ? but that they could not have done without contradict" - their profeffed belief in the divine authority of the facred tings. n extract is given, in the Appeal, from Robert Barclay, as jouring H. B.’s views of the fubjeét under confideration, it is ally inapplicable, but as the fenfe of Barclay is perverted, it 1 be proper to notice it. Jt is in his Epiftle to the Ambafla- +s at Nimeguen, the italic diftinguifhes what is omitted in the seal—After defcribing the frivolous grounds upon which rs are undertaken, he proceeds :— Yea, is it not fo, that there is only a name, and nothing of the ue nature of Chriftians manifeft in the clergy, who pretend not uly to be profeffors, but preachers, promoters, and exhorters of others Chriftianity, who for the moft part are the greateft promoters and. dvancers of thofe wars ; and by whom upon all fuch occafions the ame of God and Fefus Chri is—profaned and blafphemed, while they e pray to God, and thank him for the deftruttion of their bre- en Chriftians, and that for and againft, according to the changeable ills of their feveral princes: yea Jo, that fome will join in their ayers with and for the profperity of [uch as their profeffion obliges vm to believe to be heretical and antichriftian ; and for the de~ yuction of thofe, whom the fame profeffion acknowledges to be good # Ellwoods Sacred Hiftory, Vol, I. p. 280. 2582 ( 188: ) * and orthodox Chriftians—Yea, whichis yet move firange, if eith * conftraint or intere/t do engage any prince. or frate to change his p ‘ while the fame war and caufe remains ; then will the clergy pri « fenily accommodate their prayers to the cafe, in praying for profperi ‘ to thofe, to whom inftantly before they wifbed ruin; and fo on t. ‘ contrary :—as in this prefent wary in the cafe of the ae 9 ‘ Munfier is manifeft. Was there ever, or can there be an) ‘ more horrible profanation of the holy and pure name of Ged) ‘ efpecially to. be done by thofe, who pretend to be worfhippers ‘ of the true God, and difciples of Jefus Chrift? This not onky ‘equals, but far exceeds the wickednefs of the heathens; fc ‘ they only prayed fuch gods to their affiftance, as they fancie ‘ allowed their ambition, and accounted their warring a virtue | ‘ whom they judged changeable like themfelves, and fubje&t t¢ ‘fuch quarrels among themfelves, as they that are their wor. ‘ fhippers: but for thofe to be found in thefe things, who be. ‘ lieve there is but one only God, and have, or at leaft profefs t « have fuch notions of his juftice, equity, and mercy, and of the ‘ certainty of his punifhing the tranfgreffors of his law, is f ‘ horrible and abominable, as cannot fufficiently be neither faic © nor written.’* To fupply the want of the part he has omitted, Verax add; after the words holy and pure name of God * (than the practice of ‘ war),’ Barclay no doubt thought war contrary to the Chrif tian difpenfation, and in this Epiftle complains of Chriftiar princes making war upon every flender pretext, £ fuch as thei ‘ {mall difcontents,’ or to gratify ‘ their grandeur and worldly ‘ glory’ as inconfiftent with profefling ‘ to be followers of the ‘ jamb-like Jefus, who came not to deftroy men’s lives, but te ‘ fave them: the fong of whofe appearance to the world was, ““ Glory to God in the higheft, and good-will and peace to al “men.” But the fevere cenfure of Barclay quoted in the Ap. peal is confined to the conduct of thofe pretended preachers of the gofpel who ‘ dare pray to God for the deftrution of thei ‘ Chriftian brethren,’ and ‘ prefently accommodate their prayers to the changeable partial interefts of the prince under whom they live, ¢ in praying for profperity to thofe to whom inftantly © before they withed ruin.’ j Verax might well fuppofe it would * be faid that Rober ‘ Barclay has not here adverted to any of the texts in the Old © Teftament, which affert a divine command for war;’ for what he has faid is fo. foreign to them, that-had not Verax mifrepre- fented and perverted his meaning, he would probably om found the Epiftle but ill fuited to his purpofe. * * Barclay’s Works p, 708, 700. { 189 ) "The manner in which he has treated this paflage of Robert Barclay’s affords a very ftriking inftance of infincerity: I advert to what is reprefented in the Appeal as having pafied between the Refpondents of the Quarterly Meeting of London and Middlefex and Hannah Barnard, before the Committee of Ap- peals appointed by the Yearly Meeting.* It fays that H. B. read before the Committee her ¢ defence in writing, on the fub- € je&t of war’ ‘ containing large quotations from the writings of Friends,’ but gives no copy of the defence, although it was a material document to qualify the reader to judge of the pro- priety and relevance of the refpondents’ reply, it is from their remarks alone, as given by H. B. that we can form any idea of its purport, and from them it feems it contained the extract from Barclay’s letter to the Ambafiadors at Nimeguen as given in the Appeal, p. 76, and noticed above—the remarks of J. G. Bevan, one of the refpondents upon this written defence, are defcribed by H. B. nearly as follows : ‘ J. G. Bevan then undertook to reconcile the alleged con- * traditions in the Scripture accounts of the Jewifh wars, re- ‘ferred to in my written defence. All which he made light © of; faying, That was the way with deifts and infidels ; to be- £ gin their attack on the Bible, by labouring to find contradic- ‘ tions in it, evidently in order to overthrow the whole; that it ‘ was a very pleafing employment to them, for if that could be © once effected, the point they aimed at would be fully gained— ‘he had this further to remark, that if any perfon could find © inconfiftencies in the paflages quoted, when fairly viewed in € connexion with their feveral contexts, he thought they muft “be yery ready in finding contradictions. He alfo alleged, that the quotation from Robert Barclay’s letter to the Am- £ bafladors at Nimeguen was not intended to reprobate war, © but only to expofe the duplicity of priefts, who, for the fake © of worldly favour and gain, would applaud and pray for every € party in their turn: declaring it a falie quotation, at leaft, that € its application was falfe ; entreating me to fee it; faying he © believed I had not examined it, before I brought it forward, © for if I had, he was perfuaded, I muft have feen it was no- ‘thing to the purpofe,’ &c.+ Whether this fpeech of J. G. Bevan is corre€tly ftated by H. B. or not, if her paper contained the fame attacks upon the divine authority of the Old Teftament that are contained in the fecond part of the Appeal, and to which I have replied, they were fufficiently fimilar to thofe of the Deifts to juftify his remarks, although not fufficient to denominate H. B. a Deift; * The fame Committee that is adverted to in the letter to John Evans, page 21 of this work. + Appeal, p. 159. { 190 ) neither are we to fuppofe he intended it, but only to imprefs the Committee with the tendency of her arguments. The juftnefs of his obfervations on Barclay’s letter, I think, has been already proved. In the next fitting of the Committee H. B. reprefents herfelf as giving the following anfwer on that fubjedt. “) LS CHAP. IX, A continuation of the Jame fubje#—On the Mira- culous Conception and Birth of Chrift.—Of Jos Scort’s Sentiments on the Divinity of Chrift and the New Birth. 3 THE remaining charges againft H. Barnard rélate to her difs belief of fome parts of the New Teftament, and are as follows: ‘ft further appears, that fhe is not one with friends in her © belief refpe€ting various parts of the New Teftament ; parti- ‘ cularly relating to 2he smiraculous conception, and mitacles of © Chrift! It is obje€ted in the Appeal, that ‘ the firft part of this accu- © fation’ is ‘ expreffed in very general terms, always improper © on fuch occafions,’ and of the whole it is alfo obferved, th * it is fo indefinite, as to be utterly improper to form any p “of an accufation.’? Every objection of this fort muft rec back upon H.B. as being occafioned by her indefinite anfwers to the interrogatories of the committees that vifited het, fot although the committees were fufficiently convinced of het incredulity in the miraculous conception, and miracles ‘ Chrift, as recorded in the New Teftament, the ambiguity o her anfwers induced them to be very cautious in drawing up their reports, that they might give no occafion for cavil, ai having wrefted the import of her words. A want of precifion in her language manifefted itfelf in her obfervations in the morning meeting upon thefe two laft charges, which Verax fays were, “(That fhe did not. fine “« herfelf authorized to enter into conjectures, or determinations “© concerning them, but that fhe did not call them in queftion.” © Adding” But I freely confefs my ignorance, as to theit ( 203 ) * pofitive and literal certainty, which I could only be affured of, * by immediate revelation, and as fuch evidence has not been ‘ given me, I have that reafon at leaft to believe, it has not as * yet been abfolutely neceflary for me to know, as an indivi- ‘ dual in relation to myfelf, nor yet fot my qualification, as a ‘ gofpel meffenger to others; for I fo fully believe in the ‘ power and goodnefs of God, that I am perfuaded he would ‘long ago have revealed it to me, if his wifdom had feen it ‘needful for either.”* I fhall not at prefent any further notice the preceding extract, han as it applies to the miraculous conception, it being firft and eparately confidered in the Appeal. H. B. faid once, when I yas in her company, that the firft chapters of Matthew and Luke that contain the account of the miraculous conceptions vad been clearly proved to be fpurious: fhe informs the com- nittees that vifit her, that fhe neither calls in queftion, nor denies t. How are thefe incongruities to be reconciled; that in a nixed company and among young people, fhe fhould, unfo- icited, openly avow her difbelief of an hiftoric fact, which yefore the committees fhe faid fhe did not deny? Did ¢ it never” yecur * to her mind to practife referve or concealment, with -refpeét to any of her religious opinions?’ But it is faid that he examination of her by the committees was inquifitorial, ind their queftions infnaring, becaufe they extended their ex- mination of her opinions, to points not referred to their tare. I am informed fhe was accufed openly in the yearly- neeting of minifters and elders of denying the Divinity of Shrift, and the miracles as recorded in the New Teftament, ind that they were included in the fubjects referred to the yommittee appointed by the morning meeting. When fhe was thus openly accufed, ‘ What could be more natural than to queftion her concerning the particular points of her faith?7? And fuch inquiries ‘are fully suthesiied by the following rule nade in the year 1694. ' ©If there be any fuch grofs errors, falfe doctrines, or mif- ‘takes, held by any profeffing truth, as are either againft the validity of Chrift’s fufferings, blood, refurreftion, afcenfion, or glory in the heavens, according as they are fet forth in the Scrip- tures; or any ways tending ta the denial of the heavenly man Chrift ; fach perfons ought to be diligently inftructed and admonithed by faithful friends, and not to be expofed by any to public re. proach; and where the error proceeds from ignorance and: darknefs of their underftanding, they ought the more meekly and gently to be informed: but if any fhall wilfully perfift in error in point of faith, after being duly informed, then fuch * Appeal, pe 6a + Sequel, p. xiii. + Appeal, p. 45. | 2D2 ( 204 ) * to be further dealt with according to gofpel order ; that § truth, church, or body of Chrift, may not fuffer by any pa © ticular pretended member that is fo corrupt.’ 1694. Writte § Epiftle.’* ° . This rule appears to have been’ made on a particular o¢c fion, for the Friends were at that time aecufed by Georg| Keith of converting the outward hiftory of Chrift into-an all gory; denying his outward appearance, and owning no othe Chrift, than what was within them: I cannot therefore admi with the author of the Appeal, that the above rule neceffaril includes all the points they confidered * as effential to religio © communion.’ But waving this confideration, it contains fufhe ent to juftify the Society’s excluding from its communion any pet fon, let his flation be what it may, who holds tlie fentiment inculcated by H. B. for the refufed to’ acknowledge her belic of the refurrection of Chrift, and the alfo denied the atonem of Chrift, which is certainly implied, in the expreflion Ais Blood cand that her difbelief of the miraculous conception was ‘ tending t * the denial of the heavenly man Chrift,’ will appear by a pape the Society publifhed, the year before the rule in queftio was made, which clearly deferibes the perfon, the framers of th rule intended by ‘ the heavenly man Chrift.’ The following 1 extracted from it. . ve: ; ‘ Whereas divers accounts have been lately publifhed i: € print, of fome late divifion and difputes between fome per * fons under the name of Quakers in Pennfylvania, about feve * ral fundamental doétrines of the Chriftian faith, (as it pre * tended by one party,)+ which being particularly mentioned, an € thereupon occafion very unduly taken by our adverfaries t * reproach both the Chriftian miniftry, and whole body of th ‘ people called Quakers, and their holy and Chriftian profeffior «both in England and elfewhere,—We are, therefore, tender] © concerned for truth’s fake, in behalf of the faid people (as t © the body of them—who are fincere to God, and faithful to thei ‘ Chriftian principle and profeffion), to ufe our juft endeavour © to remove the reproach, and all caufelefs jealoufies concernin © us, touching thofe doétrines of Chriftianity, or any of ther © pretended (or fuppofed) to be in queftion in the faid divifion © in relation whereunto we do in the fear of God, and in fim ‘ plicity and plainnefs of his truth received, folemnly and fir *cerely declare what our Chriftian belief and profeffion hi “been, and ftill is; in refpe& to Jefus Chrift the only begotte * Book of Extracts, 2d Edit. p. 50; 51. + George Keith’s—This paper was publifhed to clear the Societ from his calumnies, and perverfions of its Chriftian doctrines, ( 205 ) :Son of God, his fuffering, death, refurreCtion, glory, light, ‘ power, great day of judgment, &c.’ § We fincerely profefs faith in God by his only - begotten Son : Jefus Chrift, as being our light and life, our only way to the ‘ Father, and alfo our only mediator, and advocate with the ‘ Father. That God created all things, he made the worlds, by his Son Jefus Chrift, he being that powerful and living Word ‘ of God by whom all things were made; and that the Father, ‘ the Word, and the Holy Spirit are one, in Divine Being infe- ‘parable; one true, living, and eternal God blefled for ever. ‘Yet that this Word or Son of God in the fulnefs of time, ‘took flefh, became perfeé&t man, according to the flefh de- ‘{cended and came of the feed of Abraham and David, but < was miraculoufly conceived by the Holy Ghoft, and born of ‘ the virgin Mary. And alfo further, declared powerfully to be ‘ the Son of God, according to the fpirit of fanttification, by the ‘ refurrection from the dead. That in the Word (or Son of ‘ God) was life, and the fame life was the light of men; and ‘ that he was that true light which enlightens every man com- ‘ing into the world; and therefore that men are to believe €in the light, that they may become children of the light ; ‘ hereby we believe in Chrift, the Son of God, as he is the ‘light and life within us; and wherein we muft needs have $ fincere refpeét and honour to (and belief in) Chrift, as in his € own unapproachable and incomprehenfible glory and fulnefs : £ as he is the fountain of life and light, and giver thereof unto us; Chrift, as in himfelf, and as in us, being not divided. ¢ And that as man, Chrift died for our fins, rofe again, and was © received up into glory, in the heavens. He haying, in his € dying for all, been that one great univerfal offering and facri- ‘ fice for peace, atonement, and reconciliation between God and © man; and he is the propitiation not for our fins only, but for ‘the fins of the whole world. We were reconciled by his death, but faved by his life-—He is interceflor and advocate £ with the Father in heaven, and there appearing in the prefence £ of God for us, being touched with the feeling of our infirmi- ‘ ties, fufferings, and forrows. And alfo by his Spirit in our “Shearts, he maketh interceffion according to the will of God, | crying Abba, Father. For any whom God hath gifted and ‘f called fincerely to preach faith in the fame Chrift, both as £ within and without us, cannot be to preach two Chrifts, but 6 one and the fame Lord Jefus Chrift, having refpe& to thofe '£ degrees of our fpiritual knowledge of Chrift Jefus in us, and § to his own unfpeakable fulnefs and glory, as in himfelf, in his ¢ own entire being, wherein Chrift himfelf and the leaft meafure § of his light or life, as in us, are not divided, nor feparable, no { more than the fun from its light—That the gofpel of the ( 206 ) “ grace of God fhould be preached in the name of the Fathet ‘ Son, and Holy Ghoft, being one, in power, wifdom, and good ‘nefs, and indivifible (or not to be divided) in the work o ‘man’s falvation.—That divine honour and worfhip is due t ‘ the Son of God; and that he is, in true faith, to be praye “unto, and the name of the Lord Jefus Chrift called upon (a ‘the primitive Chriftans did) becaufe of the glorious union o ‘ onenefs of the Father and the Son; and that’ we canno * acceptably offer up prayers and praifes to God, nor receive : « gracious anfwer or blefling from God, but in and through hi © dear fon Chrift.’* Brie Could words more decidedly evince that H. B. by denyin the divine or Aeavenly origin of Chrift, promoted a § denial o the heavenly man Chrift?’ The writings of George Fox alfe further prove that when he and his friends call our Savioui the heavenly man Chrift, by the word Aeavenly they underftand the Godhead that was united to the manhood. _ ‘ For ye Chriftians, fays George Fox, ‘that do confef © Chrift to be come in the flefh, and -yet wont own his light, ‘ that he doth enlighten every man that cometh into the world “ with, to be a Aeavenly, divine, and faving light for every one to * believe in, it is but a flethly profeflion of Chrift,—and not 4 * fpiritual, for none can call him Lord, but by the Holy Ghoft,— “and fo the heavenly fpivitual man is known by the revelation of * his light and Spirit;—and fo that which does reveal the Son of * God, is the light and Spirit cf God: to know him to be the * Chrift, as he was man, and ashe was God; I fay, to know ‘ Chrift, the fpiritual and Aeavenly man, and his heavenly feth * and blood, that is meat indeed and drink indeed to the faints, * which who eats of, lives for ever,’ &c.+ | From this it appears that to know Chrift ‘as he was God ‘and man,’ and ‘to know Chrift, the fpiritual and heavenly ‘man,’ are, with G. Fox convertible terms; fo that if the accufation of unfoundnefs againft H. B. was not immediately ‘groui:ded upon, the minute I have quoted, it is manifeftly {upported by it, and her accufers. * have had the advantage of ‘ acting under the authority of a rule of aétion, (preferibed by ‘ the legiflature of our Society.’t The firft article of accufa- tion was only advanced, becaufe it was confidered as ‘ tending * to the denial of the heavenly man Chrift,” through a reje€tion of the divine miffion of Mofes, whom H. B. makes out to be ‘ a falfe prophet; but Chrift on the other hand, always fpeaks of ‘ him as a true prophet: which of them (if I may without itre. * Sewel’s Hiftory of the People called Quakers, 3d Edit. Vol. IE, P. 542 to 546. ; t Fox’s Doétrinals, p. 503. $ Appeal, p. 230. ( 207 ) verence couple them in one relative) knew beft, let the reader judge. Here then we have her at variance with Chrift. To contradict is not to believe; but no one will fay, that beliey- ing Chrift is not neceffary to be a Chriftian.’* The reafon affigned by H. B. for not acknowledging her elief of the miraculous conception is, that fhe had not been affured of it by immediate revelation,’ but if R. Barclay (to thom Verax refers us) is to determine the point, her want of elief muft be afcribed to her refifting ‘ that holy feed, which as minded would lead and incline every one to believe it, as it is offered unto them;’ for ‘ though it revealeth not in every one the outward and explicit knowledge of it, neverthelefs it always affenteth to it, where it is declared.’ To afcertain the degree of importance that R. Barclay attached » the miraculous conception, and divinity of Chriit, it will uflice to turn back to pages 2, 3, 4, 13, 58 to 62, 129, 130, 133 nd 134, of this work, as containing a full anfwer to what is aid in the Appeal upon his ‘ general view of the fubje&’ The objection to the phtafe miraculous conception becaufe ‘ not to be found in the Scriptures’ is ‘ mere trifling.’ Does not onception always precede the birth, and if fuch conception (as n the cafe of the Virgin Mary) be defcribed in the Scriptures s fupernatural, then it may furely, with the ftricteft propriety f language, be denominated miraculous, without pretending ‘ to be wife, above what is written.’ This Verax feems to have yeen awate of, and therefore he endeavours to prove the firft chapters of Matthew and Luke that contain the account of the virth of Chrift to be corrupt interpolation. For the fake of the reader of the Appeal, I thall, on this fubje&t, as on the fub- e&t of the Jewith wars, deviate from my original defign by ex- pofing the fallacy of thefe endeavours to fubyert thofe Scrip- tures which do not accord with Socinianifm. _ “If the other Evangelifts and Apoftles, fays Verax, ‘ were ‘acquainted with the faCt, recorded in the firft chapters of ‘ Matthew’s and Luke’s hiftories; it is fingular, that none of ‘their writings fhould contain any mention of this fubject, ' which can be conftrued into a confirmation of it. Is there fany allufion to the miraculous conception, in any of the © epiftles, and is it not a point likely, if generally received, to « have been ftrenuoufly infifted upon ?’+ » * This is taken from a manoufcript paper that points out the deiftical ency of H. B.’s rejection of the divine miffien of Mofes—W. atthews in his Recorder has attempted a reply; but his opponent’s arguments remain yet unrefuted. T Appeal, p. 84. ( 268 ). Experience informs us that it is not wheti an hiftorical fact is generally received, but when it begins to be controvertéd, that it is moft likely to be frenuoufly infffted upomn—Two of the Evangelifts relate the manner of Chrift’s birth, and al- though the other two do not repeat thofe accounts, they have’ exprefled what may be con/trued into a confirmation of them. In biography it is ufual to give fome information, however fhort, of the defcent of the fubje& of the memoir. ‘This has not been neglected either by Mark or John, for the firft intro- duces his Gofpel with thefe words—‘ The beginning of the ‘ Gofpel of Jefus Chrift the Son of God.’* This, though brief, is full and comprehenfive. As to John, he wrote his Gofpel, according to Irenzus, ‘ defigning to root out the error, which| ‘had been fown among men by Cerinthus, and long before by thofe who ate called Nicolaitans,’+ who held (like the Arians afterwards) that the Creator of the world was an inferior and created being, and not the fupreme God, alfo that Jefus was a mere man, and did not exift before his birth by Mary—hence the divinity and pre-exiftence of Chrift is, if poflible, more fully fet forth by John, than it is in the other Gofpels to which his was intended as a fupplement. His introduétion is ftriking and emphatical. ‘In the beginning’ fays the beloved difciple, * was the Word, ‘and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: ‘The ‘fame was in the beginning with God. All things were made ‘by him, and without him was not any thing made that wa ‘ made—He was in the world, and the world was made by © him, and the world knew him not—And the Word was made * flefh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory © as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.” * No man hath feen God at any time; the only begotten Son © which is in the bofom of the Father, he hath declared him.’ Further on in the fame chapter, John the Baptift, bears record of Chrift, ‘ that this is the Son of God.’ And afterwards Natha nael, when Chrift gave him a proof of his omnifcience, confeffe from the lively conviction produced upon his mind, ‘ Rabbi * If any perfom fhould object that the definite article is not in th Greek before the word fon in Mark i. 1. I anfwer, fo neither is it i Luke i. 35.—and if Luke, after the remarkable prophetic defcriptio which precedes, did not think an article wanting to denote Jefus the fon, and not merely a fon, we may the more boldly fupply it in bo: places to render the fenfe ciear in Englifh. And even Wakefield, profeffed Socinian, has the fon in both places. + Epiphanius and Jerom afcribe the origin of St. Jchn’s Gofpel t the fame occafion. } John i, 1 to 18. ( 209 ) thou art the Son of God, thou art the king of Ifrael.’* Are hefe united ‘teftimonies of Mark and John in the introduction 9 their Gofpels, that Chrift was the Son of God, no corroboration f Luke’s account of the miraculous conception, in which the ngel addrefles Mary in thefe words, ‘ The Holy Ghoft thall come upon thee, and the power of the Higheift fhall overfhadow thee: therefore alfo that holy thing which fhall be born of thee, thall be called the Son of God ?’+ Becaufe our Saviour ap- lied this diftinguifhing epithet to himfelf, the Jews took up ones to ftone him, ‘ For a good work,’ faid they, ‘ we {tone thee not, but becaufe that thou, being 4 man, makeft thyfelf Gop.’t{ From this we fee that they confidered the language f Chrift to imply that he was God, and his anfwer was {fo far om giving fatisfaCtion, that they perfifted in their refolution > kill him: their reafon for perfecuting him even to death is aus defcribed—* The high prieft afked him, and faid unto him, Art thou the Chrift, the Son of the Bleffed ? And Jefus faid, Iam: and ye fhall fee the Son of man fitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high prieft rent his clothes, and faith, What need we any further witneffes? Ye have heard the blafphemy: what think ye? and they all condemned him to be guilty of death.’§ ind when Pilate informed the Jews that he found no fault in im, they anfwered, ‘ We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, becaufe he made himfelf the Son of God.’ || Thus the evangelifts Mark and John not only begin their arratives by informing us of the divine origin of Chrift, but hey alfo attribute his being put to death by the Jews to his fferting his Divinity. If any urge that fince our Saviour calls imfelf the Son of man, he cannot confiftently therewith be con- idered as God—let fuch recolle& that thofe who believe in the Jeity of Chrift, believe him alfo to be fon of David and Mary ccording to the flefh; alfo that this objection to Chrift’s Jivinity becaufe he was man, is no other than the old obje€tion f the Jews, who told.our Saviour that they {toned him not for } good work, but becaufe he being a man made himfelf God. As to Philip’s calling Chrift ‘ Jefus of Nazareth the fon of Jofeph, does not Luke fay that he was ‘the reputed fon of ofeph? Was it not therefore neceflary for Philip to defcribe as fuch to Nathanael, in order to diftinguifh whom he meant, Jefus was no uncommon name among the Jews? Our ord being denominated of Nazareth does not afford the flight- objection to the accounts of his birth, fince he was brought é # John i. 34, 49- t Lukei. 35. _ £ John x, 33.—v. 17, 18. § Mark xiv. 61-64. ‘ | John xix. 7. ; 2&8 ( 210 ) up at that place, Jofeph and Mary’s ptoper refidence. incidental circumftance mentioned by Luke, accounts fo: being born at Bethlehem, and hereby the prophecy of Mic: concerning Meffiah was literally fulfilled. The next remark by Verax is, ‘The books now deem * canonical were not collected into one volume, till many yea “© after the deceafe of all the apoftles.’ I do not fee the co nexion, this infulated paflage has with the miraculous conception the fubje& now before us; but it being, as Watfon terms a fimi lar one from T. Paine, ‘ calculated to miflead the commo: ‘ reader,’ I thall infert part of what he has quoted from Mofhein in reply. sig “The opinions,” ¢ fays this author,’ “ or rather the conjec “‘ tures of the learned concerning the time when the books o * the New Teftament were colleéted into one volume, as ‘ about the authors of that colleCtion, are extremely different.— *‘Tt is however fufficient for us to know, that, before th ‘* middle of the fecond century, the greateft part of the book “ of the New Teftament were read in every Chriftian fociet “ throughout the world, and received as a divine rule of fait “‘and manners. Hence it appears that thefe facred writi ‘« were carefully feparated from feveral human compofitions upo “ the fame fubje€t, either by fome of the apoftles themfelves, “by their difciples and fucceffors, who were fpread abroa “through all nations. We are well affured, that the Sou “© gofpels were collected during the life of St. John, and that three firft received the approbation of this divine apoftle.”* Mofheim’s evidence is alfo corroborated by Eufebius, Jeron Lardner, Paley, Percy, and by almoft all the writers upon t authenticity of the New Teftament. “InSt. Paul’s firft Epiftle to Timothy,’ fays Verax, £ there is ‘ pafiage applicable enough to the cafe, and to the genealogi ¢ in particular. In which he cautions Timothy, not “ to gi “heed to fables, and endlefs genealogies, which minift ‘* queftions, rather than godly edifying, which is in faith= “From which fome having iwerved, have turned afide unt “< vain jangling, defiring to be teachers of the law, underftand “ing neither what they fay, nor whereof they affirm, ‘ From which,’ adds Verax, ‘ we may learn, that fome ha ‘ even then, corrupted the fimplicity of the primitive faith, | “the addition of fables. And as the apoftle fo clofely unite: © them with the genealogies, if they were then combined, * we now have them, could it more naturally refer to any oth *- * Watfon’s Apology, 301 to 303.—alfo Mofheim, Vol, I. p. 108 109s . | se 1%; (i frm} circumftance; efpecially confidering Ris total filence thereon, in all his epiftles, except one or two other fimilar cautions ?’* ‘If the author of the Appeal had followed the advice of the joftle, by avoiding ‘ vain jangling,’ the preceding fentence tobably had never efcaped him. The apoftlé objects to § end- lefs genealogies ; it cannot therefore have even a diftant refer~ ice to the genealogies in Matthew and Luke; which are fo far om being endle/s, that they begin with Adam and end with hrift. ‘The apoftle more probably alluded to the Gnoftics, a & in the Chriftian church that began to make its appearance the firft rife of Chriftianity, but did not become confpicuous atil the fecond century, when it was oppofed by Irenzeus, who prefents it ‘ as introducing into religion certain vain and ridi- culous genealogies, i.e. a kind of divine proceflions or ema- nations, [which were called zons] and that had no other foundation but in their own wild imagination.’+ But whatever was the apoftle’s meaning, if the two firft chap- rs of Matthew and Luke were added, as Verax is afterwards old enough to fuppofe by the Pagan converts of the fecond ntury, it was impoflible for him who wrote in the firft century y advert to them. Could we have a more convincing proof of ie little regard due to Verax’s conjectures, than their thus ontradicting each other? If the authority of this, or any ther part of fcripture could be fhaken by loofe and vague con- tures, unfupported by proof, the Deift and Atheiit would mg ere now have triumphed over Chriftianity. Verax objects to the two genealogies as inconfiftent with each ther. Watfon replies to T. Paine on this fubje@t—‘ There is a difagreement between them, therefore you fay ‘‘ If Matthew fpeak truth, Luke fpeaks falfehood: and if Luke fpeak truth, Matthew fpeaks falfehood ; and thence there is no authority for believing either; and if they cannot be believed even in the very firft thing they fay and fet out to prove, they are not entitled to be believed in any thing they fay afterwards.” I cannot admit either your premifes or your conclufion :— not your conclufion ; becaufe two authors, who differ in tracing back the pedigree of an individual for above a thoufand years, cannot, on that account, be efteemed incompetent to bear tefti- ey to the tranfaCtions of his life, unlefs an intention to alfify could be proved againft them.—I cannot admit your . | * Appeal, 84, 85. + From a confufion and diverfity in the opinions of the different noftic Sets, it is difficult to give a correct view of their notions, For rther account of them, and the various feéts in the Chriftian church at branched from them, fee Mofheim’s Ecclef. Hilt. Vol. I. p. 88, 23144, 145, 215, &c. ; 2 EO ( a2 ) * they would have been expofed at the time to inftant deteCtion, ‘and the certainty of that deteCtion would have prevented them ‘ from making the attempt to impofe a falfe genealogy on the * Jewith nation.’* a The obje€tions in the Appeal do not proceed to the fan extent as thofe of Paine, but if they have any force, it muft b upon the fame principles; fince they are evidently intended overturn the authenticity of the account of the birth of Chrift: whereas, according to Watfon, the veracity of the iced not neceflarily depend upon the. accuracy of the genealogi Does not the above extrac likewife fhow how we may trace * the lineal defcent of Jefus from David and Abraham’ without confidering him as the real fon of Jofeph ? . % Luke, in the beginning of the Aéts of the Apoftles, faying ‘The former treatife have I made, O Theophilus, of all tha ‘ Jefus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he wa: ‘taken up,’ Verax hence infers that he was not the author « the two firft chapters of his gofpel, the introduétion excepted To deny Luke to have defcribed the birth of Chrift, becaufe h profeffes to defcribe all that he began both to do and to teach, as it is wholly deftitute of proof, is furely a futile deduétion. _ We may prefume when thefe two chapters were thus, as at one ftroke, rejected as {purious, the writer did not fufficiently con fider the full bearing of his argument, fince in his Vindication on the Appeal, he has expreffed his firm belief in the authenticity 0 part of the fecond chapter of Luke, the whole of which f here appears to reject without any exception. * Watfon’s Apology, p. 227 to 230. Newcome in his tranflation of the New Teftament, fo fatisfactori explains the reafon of the difference between the two genealogies, th I fhall infert his words :—* I think that’St. Matthew gives the nafur « genealogy of Jofeph: Jacob, fays he, begat Jofeph. But I under « ftand St. Luke as giving the civil or /egal genealogy of Jofeph, whom » &that evangelift calls the fon of Heli. c. iit. 23. Jofeph peing re ‘ of kin to Mary, the daughter and fole child of Heli, married her, ai ‘had a right to the inheritance of Heli his father-in-law. Jofep “is therefore ftyled the fon of Heli, in the Jewifh latitude of the © word,’ ( Sage) -Criticifm fimilar to the foregoing has alfo been exercifed upon he introdu@tion to Luke’s Gofpel, ‘ Forafmuch as many have taken in hand, to fet forth in order a declaration of thofe things which are moft furely believed among us, even as they deli- vered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye- witnefles, and minifters of the word ; it feemed good to me al- fo, having had perfect underftanding of all things, from the very firft, to write unto thee in order, moft excellent Theo- philus, that thou mighteft know the certainty of thofe things, wherein thou haft been inftru€ted.’ , ‘ © Hence it appears,’ fays Verax, ‘ that the minifters of the word, as the apoftles are here called, were eye-witnefles of thofe things from the beginning. And how could that refer to any period, or circumftance, previous to the preaching of John the Baptift? Is there any fufficient ground for fuppofing ‘that the Apoftles had, any of them, the leaft knowledge or ex~- pectation of the Mefliahthip of Jefus, before that time? And ‘could their intimate perfonal knowledge of thofe things have ‘commenced at an earlier period, than their being called to be difciples of Jefus, when he began to be about thirty years of age:’* _ Luke very probably received from the Apoftles, his inform- tion of the principal part of the tranfadtions relating to the niniftry. of Chrift fubfequent to the preaching of John the Baptift. But that none of them had the leaft perfonal know- edge of what related to Chrift previoufly to that period, re- mains for Verax to prove. As to the conception and birth of fefus, Jofeph and the Virgin Mary could be, ftrictly fpeaking, he only proper witneffes to certify the truth, and from them, xs alfo from Chrift, it is probable the apoftles derived their snowledge of it. And might not Luke have obtained his know- edge from the fame fource, fince Mary is fuppofed to have fur- yived our Lord feveral years ? Quitting Luke’s introdu€tion, our author next advances what he confiders as internal marks of the fpurioufnefs of the two firft chapters of Matthew. ‘The reference made therein’ fays Verax, ‘to the prophecy in Tfaiah, to which the writer ‘ appeals, as it were, to fupport the truth of his narrative, will ‘only ferve to fhow, that he totally miftook the object of the ‘prophecy, which, it evidently appears by a perufal of the text, chap. vii & viii was a fon of Haiah’s, &c.’} I have examined this text, and perceive that, to have a clear view the prophet’s meaning, the text takes in, and neceflarily extends 0 the firft feven verfes of the gth chapter, the natural connex- on of the prophecy fhowing that they belong to what immedi- * Appeal, p. 85, 86. + Ibid, 86. ( ‘orp FP, ately precedés, although feparated from it by the arbitrary divi> fion into chapters, a divifion which Verax himfelf elfewhere con- | demns as detrimental to a right underftanding of the Scriptures. That the firft part of the 9th chapter is a continuation of the fub- ject treated on in the 8th is confirmed by the application of this prophecy by Matthew, chap. iv. verfe 15 and 16. Lowth, in his tranflation, has therefore very juftly varied from the com- mon divifion by adding the firft feven verfes of the oth chapter to the 8th, as appertaining to the fame prophecy. a The affertion that the writer of the firft chapters of Matthew’s’ Gofpel ¢ totally miftook the obje& of the prophecy,’ indicates a difregard to the twofold application of many of the Jewith’ prophecies. Lowth, after remarking that the prophecy con~ tained in the 8th chapter ¢ concludes at the 6th verfe* of chap. ‘ix. with promifes of bleflings in future times, by the comin ‘of the great deliverer already pointed out by the name o ‘Immanuel, whofe perfon and charaéter is fet forth in terms” ‘ the moft ample and magnificent,’ adds, ¢ And here it may be” * obferved, that it is almoft the conftant praétice of the prophet’ * to connect in like manner [as in the preceding prophecy] de~ ‘liverances temporal with {piritual. ‘Thus the 11th chapter,’ ‘fetting forth the kingdom of Meffiah, is clofely conneéted * with the roth, which foretells the deftru€tion of Sennacherib. ‘ So likewife the deftru€tion of nations, enemies to God, in the * 34th chapter, introduces the flourifhing ftate of the kingdom * of Chrift in the 35th. And thus the chapters from 40 to 49, * inclufive, plainly relating to the deliverance from the captivity * of Babylon, do in fome parts as plainly relate to the great deli- * verance by Chrift.’+ On the fourteenth verfe of the feventh chapter Lowth alfo fays,— . ‘ Agreeably to the obfervations, communicated by the learned” ‘ perfon above-mentioned, [Euftathius] which perfe€tly well ‘ explain the hiftorical fenfe of this much difputed paflage, not * excluding a higher fecondary fenfe, the obvious and literal ‘ meaning of the prophecy is this: “ that within the time that “a young woman, now a virgin, fhould conceive and bring: <* forth a child, and that child fhould arrive at fuch an age as “to diftinguifh between good and evil, that is, within a few” ‘© years, (compare chap. viil. 4.) the enemies of Judah fhould be” ** deftroyed.” But the prophecy is introduced in fo folemn a ‘ manner; the fign is fo marked, as a fign fele€ted and given * by God himfelf, after Ahaz had rejeéted the offer of any fign” ‘of his own choofing out of the whole compafs of nature ; the” ‘terms of the prophecy are fo peculiar, and the name of i * Lowth has thrown our 6th and 7th verfes into one, 3 + Lowth’s Ifaiah, Quarto Edit. p. 67, 68. { a5 ) * child fo expreflive, containing in them much more than the * circumftances of the birth of a common child required, or © even admitted; that we may eafily fuppofe, that, in minds “ prepared by the general expectation of a great deliverer to “ {pring from the houfe of David, they raifed hopes far beyond * what the prefent occafion fuggefted; efpecially when it was * found, that in the fubfequent prophecy, delivered immediately € afterward, this child, called Immanuel, is treated as the Lord, € and Prince of the land of Judah. Who could this be, other * than the heir of the throne of David? under which character ©a great and even a divine perfon had been promifed. No £ one of that age anfwered to this character, except Hezekiah; * but he was certainly born nine or ten years before the delivery “of this prophecy. That this was fo underftood at that time, £is collected, I think, with great probability, from a paflage © of Micah, a prophet contemporary with Ifaiah, but who began “to prophecy after him; and who, as I have already obferved, ¢ imitated him, and fometimes ufed his expreflions. Micah, © having delivered that remarkable prophecy, which determines * the place of the birth of Mefliah, “ the Ruler of God’s people, *¢ whofe goings forth have been of old, from everlafting;” that © it fhould be Bethlehem Ephrata, adds immediately, that never- . “thelefs, in the mean time, God would deliver his people into ‘ the hands of their enemies; ‘ he will give them up, till the, “who is to bear a child, fhall bring forth,” Mic. v.3. This ¥ obvioufly and plainly refers to fome known prophecy concern- ‘Sing a woman to bring forth a child; and feems much more £ properly applicable to this paffage of Ifaiah, than to any others * of the fame prophet, to which fome interpreters have applied ‘it. St. Matthew therefore in applying this prophecy to the £ birth of Chrift, does it not merely in the way of accommo- € dating the words of the prophet to a fuitable cafe not in the -£ prophet’s view; but takes it in its ftriCteft, cleareft, and moft important fenfe, and applies it according to the original de- fign and principal intention of the prophet.’* _ In addition to the-foregoing I fhall notice the objeCtions that -prefent themfelves to interpreting Ifaiah’s prophecy, as applying to his own fon, and not to Mefliah. _ sft. The prophecy fays ‘a virgint fhall conceive; it could not * Lowth’s Ifaiah, p. 64, 65. + Evanfon in his ‘ Diffonance of the four generally received Evan- gelifts,’ fays, that this word in the original does not neceflarily < fignify “any thing more than a woman young enough ta bear children.” When the violent abettors of a favourite hypothefis reject the generally ac- _knowledged import of a {cripture paflage, having no /lronger objection fo it than that it does not mecefarily convey fuch a meaning, is there * ( 216 ) therefore in its ftrict, literal fenfe or import apply to Ifaiah wife, and unlefs that Ifaiah had had a fon by a former wife, mu{t have been already a mother, nee 2d. The name of the child is Immanuel, whereas Maiah’s called Maher-fhalal-hafh-baz, fignifying ‘ to haften the fpoil ‘ to take quickly the prey;’ which canngt, by amy rational con ftruction be interpreted fo as to apply to Imm 3d. ‘ This child Immanuel 1s treated as the Lord ‘ of the land of Judah,’ and the delineation of his ‘character at the clofe of the prophecy, cam cor no perfon fhort of Mefliah him{felf—‘ Unto us a chi ‘unto usa fon is given, and the government fhall be ‘ fhoulder: and his name fhall be called Wonderful, Counf ‘The Mighty God, The Everlaiting Father, The Prince ‘Peace. Of the increafe of his government and peace the ‘ fhall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kin ‘dom, to order it, and to eftablifh it with judgment and wi ‘ juftice, from henceforth even for ever: the zeal of the Lord © of Hofts will perform this.’ eR TY I Will thefe defcriptions attach in any fenfe to Haiah’s child With regard to the prediCtion being partly delivered in the prefent tenfe, it is not unufual in the {pirit of prophecy to adopt the prefent for the future, thereby denoting its certain aceom- plifhment. I do not wih to infer that the birth of Haiah’s fon was not intended to confirm that part of the prophecy, delivered in the preceding chapter, that relates to the future Rate of the kingdoms of Ifrael and Syria: fo far otherwife, that I believe it immediately referred to it; but at the fame time I confider tl child Immanuel had no allufion dire& or indire& to the chi that was born to Iaiah. : cP tae From the whole does it not appear that this remarkable pro- phecy of Tfaiah (as well as that of Micah) points immediate to the birth of Chriit, recorded in the gofpels. ‘The other. pai- fages in the prophets referred to in the 2d chapter of Matthew, b not reafon to fufpeét that they are fubftituting fome ftrained conftruc- tion inftead of the natural and obvious one, becaufe the latter militates againft the hypothefis they with to eftablifh? Notwithftanding Evan- fon’s conjelures to the contrary, I fee no fatisfactory reafon for his fuppofition that the word which is ufed in Proverbs xxx. 19. does not mean a virgin in its itrieft fenfe. Purver in his note on the 14th verfe of the 7th chap. of Ifaiah, fays, ‘ Ver. 14. [Virgin] fee Matt 1.22, 23. That this Hebrew word always fignifies fo in Scripture, “may be feen in Kidder’s Demon/flration of the Meffias. P. 2. Ch. 5, Vide Vol. H. p. 258 to 300. My reafon for noticing Evanfon im this place is, becaufe of the great fimilarity between his arguments and thofe brought by Verax again{t the genuinenefs of the firft chapters a Matthew and Luke’s Goipels, ' ( 217 ) nay be confidered as accommodations of the words of the rophets, becaufe again verified in the events recorded, without he evangelift’s intending to imply that the event was immedi- tely in the prophet’s view. Paley in his Evidences of Chrifii- nity, p. 3-b. 2. ably expofes the folly of attempting to overthrow he hiftorical credit of the writers of the New Teftament, on ccount of fuch applications of the words of the prophets to the ranfactions recorded by them. The objections of Verax to the quotations from the prophets n Matthew will, if they have any validity, extend to other parts f the apoftolical writings; hence I fhall annex the teftimony of ortin, who, in his Remarks on Ecclefiaftical Hiffory, has, 1 thmk, andled the fubject with much perfpicuity. ‘ Paflages in the Old Teftament which have been applied to Chrift, are of four forts. 1. Accommodations: 2. Direét Prophecies: 3. Types: 4. Prophecies of double fenfes. *1. Accommodations are pafiages of the Old Teftament, which are adapted by the writers of the New, to fomething that happened in their time, becaufe of fome correfpondence and fimilitude. Thefe are no prophecies, though they be faid fometimes to be fu/filled, for any thing may be faid to be fd- piled, when it can be pertinently applied. For example, St. Matthew fays, ‘ All thefe things fpake Jefus unto the multi- tude in parables, that it might be fulfilled-which was fpoken ' by the prophet, faying, I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things which have been kept fecret from the foundation ‘of the world.” The meaning is apparently no more than this, that what the Pfalmift faid of his way of teaching, might juftly be faid of thofe difcourfes of Chrift. Thus the apoftles frequently allude to the facred books; and this is no fault, but rather a beauty in writing ; a paffage applied juftly, and in anew fenfe; is ever pleafing to an ingenious reader, who loves to be agreeably furprifed, and to fee a likenefs and pertinency where he expected none,’ £2, Dire& prophecies are thofe which relate to Chrift and ‘the gofpel, and to them alone, and which cannot be taken in y other fenfe. Such is the rroth Pfalm: “ The Lord faid unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footftool, &c.” ‘This is as plain as a prophetic lefcription ought to be; it is applicable to Chrift alone.’ £3. A type is a rough draught, a lefs accurate pattern or nodel, from which a more perfe&t image or work is made. Types, or typical prophecies, are things which happened, and ere done in ancient time, and are recorded in the Old Tefta- ent, and which are found afterwards to defcribe or reprefent omething which befel our Lord, and which relates to him d his gofpel. For example ; under’ the law, @ -lamb’ was : 2F ( 28 J ‘ offered for a fin-offering, and thus an atonement was ma ‘ for tranfgreffions. John the Baptift calls Chrift “ the Lam “ of God, who taketh away the fins of the world,” and St “ Peter tells Chriftians that they are redeemed by the blood o “ Chrift as of a lamb.” Hence we infer and conclude that th ‘lamb was a type of Chrift; and upon confidering it, we fn ‘ that it has all that can be required to conftitute a type; for i ‘is in many refpects a very juft and lively reprefentation o ‘ Chrift; the lamb could not commit fin by his nature, no ‘ Chrift by his perfection; the lamb was without bodily {pot o © blemith ; Chrift was holy and undefiled: a lamb is meek an * patient; fuch was the afflicted and much injured Son of God, ‘4. There are prophecies of double fenfes, which admit n © more than two fenfes, which are nearly of the fame kind wi © typical prophecies, and many of which might be cleared up by « obferving that the prophet meant one thing, and the Spirit o ‘ God, who fpake by him, meant another thing; for the Hol € Spirit fo over-ruled the prophets, as to make them ufe word “which ftriétly and rigidly interpreted could not mean wha “ themfelves intended. Somewhat of this kind is the prophee ‘ of the high prieft Caiaphas; for the fpirit of God has fome * times fpoken by bad men. When the chief priefts and phari ‘ fees confulted what they fhould do with Jefus, the high prief * faid, “ Ye know nothing at all, nor confider that it is expe « dient for us that one man fhould die for the people, and tha “the whole nation perifh not.” ‘His meaning was plainh © this, that it mattered not whether Chrift were guilty or inne “cent, becaufe the public fafety abfolutely required his death, “‘ And this fpake he,” (fays St. John,) “not of himfelf; but ** being high prieft that year, he prophefied that Jefus fhould di nement fo: *< for that nation,” ‘ that is, be a facrifice d ato: eme! ‘ their fins. He prophefied then, and kt t not; for | (. 219 ) even the pious, honeft’ credulity of Thomas Ellwood, appears to have laboured hard, but in vain, to get over them.” What re thefe infuperable difficulties? We are informed that ‘ he’ (T. llwood) ‘ is forely puzzled to determine, either the time wheh, or the place where, theie ‘ Magi,” as he calls them, offered their prefents.’* Setting afide the air of ridicule and irony in thefe remarks, hat do they fay ?—that T. Ellwood finds fome difficulty to etermine points, refpeéting which the evangelifts are totally lent. y Lardner in his ¢ Supplement to the Credibility of the Gofpel Hiftory’ gives it as his decided opinion that Luke, when he rote his Gofpel, had not feen either Matthew’s or Mark’st. ind if we examine Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts of the mira- ulous conception and birth of Chrift, we fhall fee that they ontain irrefragable proofs of not being copied from each other, nd yet there is a coincidence between them, that nothing ut their being relations of real tranfactions can account for. flatthew fays, Jefus was born at Bethlehem, but does not nention the refidence of Jofeph and Mary previoufly to that vent: Luke fays it was at Nazareth, and mentions the cenfus r enrollment ordered by Auguftus Czefar, as obliging them to ‘0 to Bethlehem, fo that he was, in confequence of this circum= tance, born there. Luke alfo relates the appearance of angels to ome fhepherds, and the glorious anthem fung at the birth of “hrift, alfo his parents’ taking him to Jerufalem, and prefenting im in the temple agreeably to the law of Mofes: thefe trani- Gions are pafled over in filence by Matthew, who, however, ecords a circumftance omitted by Luke, namely, the wife-men’s * Appeal, p. 87. + Origen, Jerom, Epiphanius, and Eufebius, among the ancients, agree hat by the many who, Luke fays, had taken in hand to write hiftories £ Chrift, are to be underftood, not Matthew and Mark, but fome yho had attempted what they were not properly qualified to accom. ith: this is alfo the opinion of Grabe, Mill, Doddridge, Lardner, d Michaelis among the moderns.—Luke does not however feem to harge thefe. writers with any bad intention. ‘ Thofe memoirs,’ fays ardner, ¢ were not bad or fabulous. But they were imperfect, as L apprehend, to a great degree: nor do I lament the lofs of them. I ‘can pay fo much deference to the judgment of Chriftian antiquity, efpecially the earlieft ofall, as to believe, that thofe many Narrations, to which St. Luke refers, did not deferye to be preferved, or to he much taken notice of, after the publication of the Gofpels of our firft three Evangelifts. I imagine that when once thefe came abroad, the former appeared to the faithful fo low, and mean, and defetive, that they could not bear to fee or read them.’ Supplement to the Credibility of le Gofpel Hiftory. Vol. i, Chap. 8. . ZF? ( 220. ) coming to worfhip Chrift; the confequent maffacre of th infants at Bethlehem by Herod; and Jofeph’s flight, with Jef and his mother, into Egypt, through an admonition in a dream {n all this, notwithftanding the evangelifts relate different inci dents, there is no contradi€tion between them. They bot erfe&tly harmonize in the moft important particulars recorde i each. ‘They both ftate that Mary, a virgin efpoufed t Jofeph, had conceived by the Holy Spirit, before the confum mation of the propofed marriage, that Jefus was born at Beth- Jehem of Judea, but that he was brought up at Nazareth, a city of Galilee, (fee Luke iv. 16.) and thence called Jefus of Naza- reth. Matthew’s filence, as to the time when, or the place where, the wife-men prefented their offerings to Chrift, has, of courfe, left an open field for the conje€tures of commentators. If I may venture my opinion on this fubjeét, it is, that after — prefentation of Chrift in the temple, and his return with hi parents to Nazareth, the wife-men came from the Eaft to Jeru- falem, where they were directed to go to Bethlehem, but as’it is not faid they followed this direétion, but followed the ftar, that it led them, moft probably, as Ellwood fuggefts, to Naza- reth. Several commentators think, however, that it was to Bethlehem. But to whichever place it was, is not very im- portant, fince Matthew agrees with Luke that Jofeph and Mary returned with the child Jefus to Nazareth. ‘The following objetion is ftarted by Verax to Matthe manner of defcribing Jofeph’s departure into Galilee, after is return out of Egypt, and to the reafon affigned for it, On * Jofeph’s return out of Egypt, we are told, that “ he null “ afide into the parts of Galilee,” for fear of Archelaus, where ‘another fon of Herod’s reigned at that time; and the jour- ‘ney fpoken of, as turning afide, muft have been almoft fro * one end of Judea to the other.’* It may be obferved that the alarm excited by the birth Chrift feems to have been confined to Jerufalem, the capital of Judea, and its vicinity, fo that although during the life of Hero whofe jurifdiétion extended alfo over Galilee equally with Judea the life of Jefus might not have been fecure, even in that diftan | province of the kingdom, yet after his death, and the divif of his kingdom among his fons, Galilee was too remote from Bethlehem and Jerufalem, to occafion much apprehenfion of ‘danger, efpecially fince we read that they were dead who fought the child’s life.+ By the phrafe he turned afide into th * Appeal, p- 88. € t Is is very probable that Antipater, Herod’s eldeft fon, united wit ‘ his father in feeking the life of our Saviour, The charaGter of Arche= ( oa: ) parts of Galilee,’* we may underftand that Jofeph avoiding the more public road through Judea by Bethlehem and Jerufalem, turned afide, and went by a more private way to Galilee. Verax fays, ‘ They’ (i.e. the accounts of the birth of Chrift) € are wholly unnoticed by our Saviour himfelf or any of his * apoftles, throughout the whole account we have of their * preaching the gofpel: “ Not fhunning to declare the whole * counfel of God.” Could this ever have been the cafe, had * they confidered it neceflary to prove, and to have it believed, € that he was not a prophet, like unto Mofes, a lineal defcend- £ ant of David’s, of the root of Jeffe, like unto his brethren, in € all things, fin excepted, the Mefliah promifed unto the Jews, © by fo many of their prophets ?’+ Were not Matthew and John apoftles? is the divine origin ‘of Chrift wholly unnoticed by them in their gofpels? The epiftles of the apoftles are of the nature of exhortatory dif- courfes, they therefore rather contain the dotrinal truths that are founded upon the hiftoric facts recorded by the Evangelifts, than a recapitulation of thofe facts. Thus the Divinity of Chrift is an apoftolical dotrine founded upon the truth of the miraculous conception, and it is a do€trine that is enforced in various parts of the epiftles, for many inftances of which fee a quotation from Robert Barclay, page 2 and 3 of this work.{ Jaus, who fucceeded Herod in that part of his kingdom, called Judea, {Antipater being dead) will alfo account for the fears of Jofeph re- {peéting him more particularly. For even before he was well eftablifhed in his government, he ordered, in confequence of fome tumult at the temple, his foldiers in among the Jews, who flew above three thoufand. (Jof. Ant. B. 17.C. 9. § 3.) ¢ And in the tenth year of his govern- * ment,’ fays Jofephus, * the chief of the Jews and Samaritans, not be- “ing able to endure his cruelty and tyranny, prefented complaints * againft him to Cefar. Auguftus, having heard both fides, banifhed ‘ Archelaus to Vienna in Gaul, and confifcated his treafury.’ (Ibid. €. 13. § 2. ¥ cds tranflates this paffage, ‘ he withdrew into the parts of : * Galilee.*—=Campbell has it ‘ retired into the diftri@ of Galilee,’ : + Appeal, p. 88. t The Apoftle Peter when addrefling the Jews at the day of Pente- coft, very properly urges the miracles of Chrift and his re/urreGion as proofe of his being ‘ doth Lord and Chrift,’ becaufe as to the miracles e could appeal to the Jews’ own knowledge, faying, ¢ as ye yourfelves * alfo know,’ and as to the refurrection, there were above five hundred brethren, ready to atteft the truth of it as being eye-witnefles, there- fore thefe and the gift of the Holy Ghoft fo eminently poured forth, were to thofe Jews at that time the proper evidences (exclufive of the purity of the doétrine taught) of the Divinity of Chrift; the miraculous conception and birth of Chrift was not, as more remote from the know- ledge of the audience, fo proper for the Apoftle to appeal to on fach an ( 23879 To the latter part of the above citation E hall reply by enqui-— ring, Who denies Chrift to have been a prophet, and as like | unto Mofes, as the difference between the nature of their dif- | penfations, and their perfonal charaéters would admit ? Who denies Chrift to have been a lineal defcendant of David, or that he took not on him the nature of angels, but the feed of Abraham; and was ‘ therefore truly and properly man, like us | in all things, fin only excepted ?’* Who denies Chrift to be L aes promifed unto the Jews by fo many of their pro- ets! That the likenefs between Mofes and Chrift does not extend it- felf to every particular, we are informed by the apoftle in his epiftle to the Hebrews where he fays, § Wherefore, holy brethren, © partakers of the heavenly calling, confider the apoftle and high ¢ prieft of our profeflion, Chrift Jefus; who was faithful to him © that appointed him, as alfo Mofes was faithful in all his houfe. © For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Mofes, ©in as much as he who hath builded the houfe, hath more honour ‘than the houfe. For every houfe:is builded by fome man ; ‘ but he that built all things is God. And Mofes verily was € faithful in all his houfe, as a fervant, for a teftimony of thofe ‘things which were to be fpoken after; but Chrift as a Son © over his own houfe: whofe houfe are we, if we hold faft the © confidence, and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. © Wherefore as the Holy Ghoft faith, To-day if ye will hear ‘ his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the | ‘day of temptation in the wildernefs.—He that defpifed ‘ Mofes’s law, died without mercy, under two or three wit-- “ nefles: of how much forer punifhment, fuppofe ye, thall he “be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of © God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith © he was fanétified an unholy thing, and hath done defpite unto © the Spirit of grace.’} : I have before mentioned the fenfe attached by the Jews to the phrafe, the Son of God; without infifting on it in this place, it muft be obvious to every reader, that the apoftle has here drawn a much ftronger line of diftinction between Mofes and Chrift, than could have been done, if the likenefs between them had extended itfelf to every particular. Upon a comparifon, the | fimilitude between them is in many refpeéts very ftriking. Jortin has reckoned thirty-nine inftances of parallel between thefe two prophets and lawgivers. He concludes his compa- rifon with thefe words :— : occafion. The Apoftle’s filence refpecting it, therefore proves nothing in favour of Socinianifm. * See page 44 of this work, + Heb, iit, 1-8. x. 28, 29+ ( 223 }) Is this fimilitude and correfpondence in fo many things ®-between Mofes and Chrift the effet of mere chance? let us © fearch all the records of univerfal hiftory, and fee if we can ‘find a man fo like to Mofes as Chrift was, and fo like to ¢ Chrift as Mofes was. If we cannot find fuch an one, then © have we found him of whom Mofes in the law and the pro- ‘ phets did write, Jefus of Nazareth, the Son of God.’* The author of the Appeal alfo brings forward what he con- ceives to be collateral evidence againft the genuinenefs of the firft chapters of Matthew’s Gofpel, ‘ If the inhuman mafiacre- € of the children,’ fays he, ‘really took place, is it credible that © no other hiftorian, either facred or profane, fhould have no- © ticed fo extraordinary an event? As all Judea was, at. that ‘ time, only a province of the Roman empire, was fuch power $ intrufted with, or is it likely Herod would have dared to in- $veft himfelf with fuch tyrannical authority, as a tributary "© prince, fubje€ not only to removal, but punifhment ?’+ ‘The curfory manner in which the Greek and Roman hif- torians have paffed over the hiftory of the Jews, does away objeétion to their filence refpeéting this fingle inftance of Herod’s cruelty; neither is the omiflion of Jofephus the Jewifh hiftorian fufficient to invalidate Matthew’s account of this cir- cumftance: for, as Lardner obferves, the moft exa&t and dili- gent hiftorians have omitted many events, that happened within ‘the period of which they undertook to write. Suetonius, Tacitus, and Dio Caflius, have all three written of the reign of Tiberius, but it is no objection to the refpective credit of their hiftories, that each has mentioned fome things omitted by the reft. Neither is it any objection againft St. Matthew, that he has related an ation of Herod, omitted-by Jofephus. _ Jofephus gives an account of feveral pharifees being put to death by Herod, about this time, for certain prediCtions that € God had decreed that Herod’s government fhould ceafe, and _ his —pofterity be deprived of it, and that Herod flew alfo all _ €thofe of his own family who had confented to what the phari- _ fees had foretold.’~ As this happened about the fame time, and the occafion was fimilar to that which produced the - flaughter of the infants, may they not have had fome con- _nexion ? ¢ St. Matthew,’ fays Lardner, ‘ relates only what was done at Bethlehem, Jofephus, what happened at Jerufalem. The filence of Jofephus about the former, and of St. Matthew _¢ about the latter, may be in a good meafure accounted for by _ *thefe confiderations. St. Matthew was not concerned to re- *late ftate matters, but barely to give the hiftory of Jefus % Jortin’s Remarks on Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, Vol. I. p. 148,.149. + Appeal, p, 87. t Jofephus B. 17, C,2. $4. ( 224 ) © Chrift; and therefore all that he was obliged to take notice of * upon this occafion was, the attempts made upon the life of * Jefus. Jofephus’s is a political hiftory of the Jewith nation, * and therefore the executions at court might be more fuitable * to his defign.’* Macrobius, a heathen author at the latter end of the fourth century, has a paflage which fhows, the truth of Herod’s maf- facre of the children was fully admitted by him. ‘ When he * [Auguftus] had heard that among the children within two € years of age, which Herod king of the Jews commanded to * be flain in Syria, his own fon had been killed, he faid: It ig * better to be Herod’s hog than his fon.’+ What renders this paflage of fome weight notwithftanding ‘the latenefs of the date at which it was written, is, that Ma- crobius was a bigoted heathen, and could not therefore be fuf- pected of any defign to confirm the truth of the facred records, neither is it likely that he had much acquaintance with Chriftian writers; this makes it probable that he tranfcribed what he relates from fome more ancient heathen author now loft. The paflage may, at leaft, be confidered as a proof that Herod’s maffacre of the children was not only well known, but not controverted by the heathens at the time Macrobius wrote. Without entering into any difcuffion how far Judea could be frily confidered as a province of the Roman Empire, or Herod a ¢ributary prince, at the time of our Saviour’s birth, the leaft acquaintance with the hiftory of Herod, and the cruelties practifed by him, will convince us not only of his power to ‘ inveft himfelf with fuch tyrannical authority,’{ but. alfo of its correfpondence with his general character. He murdered, either through jealoufy or groundlefs fufpi- cions, his favourite and beloved wife Mariamne, her brother, grandfather,.and the two fons he had by her, From Jofephus we likewife learn that he flew every member of the Sanhedrim in Hyrcanus’s time, except Sameas,§ and that — in his laft illnefs when he was paft hopes of recovery, he fum-— moned all the chief men of the Jewith nation to affemble at Jericho, which commands were enforced with the penalty of death: when they were come to Jericho, he ordered them all to be fhut up in the hippodrome, or circus, and fending for his — fifter Salome, and her hufband Alexas, he faid to them, ‘ I thal Bots 's i y * Lardner’s Credibility, Vol.2.B.C.2, + Ibid. + It may be likewife remarked that Herod, from being a retainer of — Anthony’s, had become a tool of Auguftus, which in fo corrupt a court as that of Rome would fecure impunity. ~ ¢ § Jofephus’s Antiq. B. 14.0.9. § 4» Lardner fays, all except Hillel and Shamai. am y . ( =F ) die ina little time, fo great are my pains; but what princi- pally troubles me is this, that I fhall die without being Jamented, and without fuch mourning as men_ufually expect at a king’s death ;’ and in order to afford him fome alleviation of his great forrows, and procure him the mourning he was fo Jefirous to obtain, he requefted them immediately on his death ‘© place foldiers round the hippodrome, and give orders that hofe who were in cuftody fhould be fhot with their darts : with tears in his eyes, he entreated them by the kindnefs they S owed to him, and by the faith they owed to God, that they would not hinder him of this memorable mourning at his ‘funeral. So they promifed not to tranfgrefs his commands.’* Thefe commands, though never executed, give a finifhed froke to Herod’s charaéter, and we may fay. with Prideaux, that. ‘ the hiftory of this his wicked defign takes off all objection ‘ againft the truth of murdering the innocents, which may be $ made from the incredibility of fo barbarous and herrid an act. ‘For this thoroughly fhows, that there can be nothing ima- ¢ gined fo cruel, barbarous, and horrid, which this man was not ‘ capable of doing.’+ But no other facred hiftorian has noticed it. If we are to reject a fact recorded by one evangelift, merely becaufe it is not noticed by the other three, we fhall have very little left of St. John’s Gofpel, and each of the others will be confiderably abridged. ‘That ‘ omiflion is at all times a very uncertain € ground of objection’ has been iufficiently proved by Lardner, Paley, and others, I fhall therefore content myfelf with obferv- ing that if this argument againft the gofpels be admitted as valid, Jofephus'’s Wars of the Fews might be produced to invali- date his Antiquities.~ The weaknefs of fuch an argument mutt, upon the leaft confideration, appear to every one: omiffion is no contradiétion. Verax intimates that the two firft chapters of Luke are additions of thofe pagan converts of the fecond century whom Origen fo properly calls ‘¢ eafy-working interpolators,” to whofe €labours,’ Verax adds, ‘ many learned and pious Chriftians € have alfo attributed the two firft chapters of Matthew, which ¢ are not contained in fome of the oldeft manufcripts.’§ _ This Jaft affertion appeared to me of fo extraordinary a ture, that I was induced to examine whether there was really foundation for it. The refult of this examination is, that * Jof. Antiq. B.17, C. 6. § 5. _ + Prideaux’s Connexion of the Old and New Teftament. Part 2, _ g. Vol. 4-p-925- + Paley’s Evidences, Vol. 2. py 289 to 294. § Appeal p. 86, 2 ( 226 ) there are nanufcripts, and fome perhaps ancient (although wz the olde), which are defeCtive towards the beginning of St Matthew’s Gofpel, but then thefe defeéts are fo manifeftly from injury through age, or other caufes; that it would be ab furd to appeal to them as any evidence on either fide; f example, the Alexandrian manuicript, which is one of the mo ancient, wants from the beginning of the New Teftament t Matth. xxv. 6. Another manufcript is wanting from t beginning to Matth. xviii. 5. There are alfo others with fimilar chaims. Thefe manufcripts as much prove againft the authenticity of the firft 17 or 24 chapters of Matthew as againf{ the two firit only. ; Herbert Marfh, in his Edition of Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Teftament, to whofe work I am indebted for the pre- ceding information, has given the evidence of the Greek manu- icripts, and of the ancient verfions, for and againft the authen- ticity of thefe two chapters of Matthew fo much controverted by Socinians ; which [I fhall tranfcribe. ‘In examining the queftion whether a paflage of the Greek ‘ Teftament be genuine or not, the firft queftion to be afked is; ‘ What is the evidence of the Greek manufcripts, of the ancient ‘ verfions, and of the ancient fathers? Now there have been ‘ not lefs than three hundred and fifty-five Greek manufcripts ‘ of the gofpels collated, every one of which contains the two * firft chapters of St. Matthew’s Gofpel, with the exception to the ‘ fingle Codex Ebnerianus. But even this manufcript contains th ‘ fecond chapter,* and the more-ancient manufeript containe ‘ probably the whole of the firft. Theyevidence of the Gre ‘ manufcripts therefore is decidedly in favour of the authenti ‘city of the two firft chapters of St. Matthew’s Gofpe ¢ Equally decifive is the tefiimony of the ancient verfions ; ‘thefe chapters are contained in all of them. That in fome ‘few Latin manufcripts the genealogy is feparated from the © remaining part of the firft chapter, and that St. Matthe ‘ Gofpel is made to begin with chap. i, 18, is a cireumftanc ‘which is not only much too trivial to be oppofed to * weight of evidence cn the other fide, but at the furtheft « affect only the genealogy, and not the whole of the two firlt ‘ chapters. With refpect to the quotations of ancient writers ‘ which form the third kind of evidenee, it is fuflicient to obferve ‘that both Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, have quo ‘from the two chapters in queftion, without fignifying am ‘ fufpicion of their want of authenticity. And what is - more, even Celfus, the great enemy of the Chriftian reli * This MS. begins with the eighteenth verfe of the firft chapter, the genealogy therefore is all hat is omitted. * satu ( 227 ) in the fecond century, has quoted them. See Griefbach’s Symbol critic, tom. 2. p. 241. ‘We mutt fet therefore all the laws of eriticifm at defiance, if we afiert that the Greek 'gofpel of St. Matthew, to which alone the preceding argu- ;ments relate, began with Chap. iii. “Ev 08 rais npigais deh. "That the Greek Gofpel even began in this manner is in itlelf ikewife incredible, fince no writer, unlefs fomething had pre- ‘ceded, would fay “ in thofe days.” On the other hand, how- ever evident it may be, that the Greek Gofpel of St. Matthew, ‘from its very firft exiftence, contained the two firft chap- ‘ters, yet, as this ‘Gofpel is a tranflation from the Hebrew, (that is the Chaldee) of St. Matthew, it is ftill poffible, that ‘they were not contained in the original, that the original ‘began, as Epiphanius fays the gofpel ufed by the Ebionites ‘began, with the words, * it happened in the days of Herod « the king, &c.” that the Greek tranflator prefixed a tranflation Sof fome other Chaldee document containing an account of © Chrift’s birth, and that, in order to connect it with the com- < mencement of ‘his original, he altered “ the days of Herod” € to thofe days.” All this is poflible: but it would be a very ¢ difficult matter to render it probable.’ After exprefling the probability that St. Matthew was the author of the two firft chapters, he adds as an additional argument ‘ efpecially fince the © Hebrew gofpel ufed by the Nazarenes really contained them, and there is great reafon to believe that the Hebrew gofpel ‘ufed by the Nazarenes approached much nearer to St. ©Matthew’s genuine original, than that which was ufed by € the Ebionites, fince the Nazarenes were defcendants of the “firft converts to Chriftianity, the Chriftians of Judea being ae Natweain, A€ts xxiv. 5, while the Greek Chriftians *were called Xesiavor, Aé&ts xi. 26. Abfolute certainty on this €fubje€& is indeed not to be obtained for want of fufficient € data: but the fame want of data makes it impoflible to prove ©that “St. Matthew was not the author of the chapters in * queftion.’* Since H. Marth only excepts the Codex Ebnerianus among the Greek manufcripts that were collated, thofe manufcripts ‘to which I adverted, fuch as the Codex Alexandrinus could 4 have been included, becaufe of no authority in deciding " ® Marfh’s Michaelis’s Introduction to the New. Teftament, Vol. 3. ie 2. p.138.—140. In the text of Michaelis fome difficulties at- ending the two firit chapters of. Matthew are pointed out, chiefly re- lating to ¢ quotations contained in them from the Old Teftament,’ to which I have already anfwered; and for further fatisfaction the reader is referred to Newcome’s notes on the fecond chapter of Matthew, in his tranflation of the New Teftament. 2G2 ( 228 ) refpecting the proper beginning of St. Matthew’s Gofpel. Thi we may therefore hope will fet the queftion to reft, fo far at leaft as the ancient manufcripts are concerned in it, The bare fuppofition that the Gofpel of the Ebionites and Cerinthians, was the original Hebrew Gofpel of St. Matthew, is then all that the Socinians have to oppofe to the united tef timonies of the moft ancient Greek manufcripts, of the mo ancient verfions, the Hebrew Gofpel of the Nazarenes, and th teftimonies of the ancient fathers, in favour of the authenticity of the two firft chapters of Matthew. And this folitary fup- port muft fail them, upon an infpe¢tion into the peculiar tenets of the Ebionites and Cerinthians, and from the internal marks of fpurioufnefs that may be difcovered in the fragments of their Gofpel, preferved in the writings of Epiphanius. | ‘The Ebionites feem to have been a branch of the Nazarenes; fome have confounded them together, but the writings of the an- cient fathers, and the difference between the gofpels received by them, fhow that they were diftinct feds, the latter name pro- bably diftinguifhing, as H. Marth obferves, the defcendants of thofe firft Jewifh converts to Chriftianity who adhered to the law of Mofes, whereas’ the Ebionites deviated in a greater de- gree from the purity of the faith of thofe firft converts. It is probable from the Apoftle Paul’s Epiftles, that they, or perfons of their defcription, began to trouble the church very early. For the Apoitle in his Epiftle to the Galatians exprefles himfelt with great zeal againft fome who wanted to impofe the law Mofes upon the Gentile Chriftians, accufing them of per- verting the Gofpel of Chrift, and even wifhes they were od rated from the church; hence his zeal fo offended the Ebionit that they, according to Irenzeus, utterly rejeéted all his epiftle calling him an apoftate from the law, and only received tha which was called the Gofpel according to the Hebrews, und the name of Matthew, which, if it ever were a copy of Matthew’s Gofpel, was fo mutilated and adulterated by them, that it w never received by Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, or the fathe as Matthew’s genuine Gofpel. pero That the Hebrew Gofpel received by the Ebionites was ne the fame as that which was received by the Nazarenes, is e dent from the difference in their accounts of the baptifm Chrift, which, for the information of thofe who may nat othe wife have an opportunity to compare them, I will give in oppo- fite columns. ° ! 7 } f $ 4 ( Sep ) NAZARENE GOSPEL, | From Ferome. ©It came to pafs when the © Lord afcended from the wa- ‘ ter, the whole fountain of the ‘Holy Ghoit defcended and ‘ refted upon him, and faid un- ‘ to him, “My Son, among (or « during all the time of) all “the prophets, I was waiting “ for thy coming, that I might “ reft upon thee, for thou art “my reft; thou art my firft- << begotten Son, who fhalt reign EBIONITE GOSPEL, From Epiphanius. ‘and as he (Jefus)afcended © out of the water, the heavens * were opened, and he faw the * HolySpirit of God in the form ‘ of a dove defcending and en~ ‘ tering into him, and a voice ‘ was made from heaven, fay- ‘ing, “ Thou art my beloved «Son, in whom I am well “ pleafed;” ¢ and then another, “JT have this day begotten “thee ;” and fuddenly there * to everlafting ages.” € fhone around the place a great © light; which, when John faw, *he faid to him, “ Who art © thou, Lord ?” © and then ano- * ther voice from heaven came ‘to him, “ This is my beloved s©Son, in whom I am well leafed,” &c.* From what Jerom fays of the Nazarene Gofpel of Matthew, it muft at leaft have contained that part of the two firft chap- ‘ters of Matthew which gives the account of the miraculous con- ‘ception: whether it alfo included the genealogy, Jerom’s filence ‘makes it impoflible to determine with certainty, yet I think his filence a prefumptive evidence that it did, fince he feems to have ‘remarked upon and quoted thofe pafiages only that did not agree with the Greek Gofpel of St. Matthew. For had not the Naza- ‘rene Gofpel put ‘ Bethlehem of Judah,’ inftead of ‘ Bethlehem © of Judea,’ at Matth. ii. 5. and followed the Hebrew verfion -inftead of the Septuagint, in its quotations from the Old Tefta- ‘ment, it is likely Jerom would never have referred to the fecond chapter of that gofpel. The Ebionite Gofpel began, ¢ It “came to pafs-in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, that RB John came baptizing, &c.’ entirely omitting the two frit chapters. It is not neceflary to produce any further proof that the Nazarenes and Ebionites had not the fame gofpel. _ The Gofpel of the Nazarenes is cited by Origen and Jerom, / not as of any authority, but as apocryphal. I donot find that ‘the Gofpel of the Ebionites is quoted by any of the fathers before Epiphanius, who at the fame time rejects it as contain- ‘ing falfe doétrine. The additional voice from heaven at the | *® Jones’s new and full Method of fettling the Canon of the New Teftament, Vol. I. p. 341, 345. Edit. 1726. ( ze J baptifm of Chrift, faying, ‘I have this day begotten thee,’ has the appearance of being foifted in to fupport the falfe doc+ trines of the Cerinthians, who held that Jefus and Chrift were two diftin& beings, that Jefus was born of Jofeph and Mary,| and ‘Chrift a fuperior fpirit or zon that defcended upon him in the form of a dove, at his baptifm, and that this union confti- tuted him the Son of God; but that this 2on was feparated| from ‘him at his fuffering and death. Irenzeus fays that th Apoftle John wrote his Gofpel to controvert the errors of Cerinthus, and I may alfo add in the words of a modern author, that even if Irenzus had not aflerted that St. John * wrote his Gofpel againft the Gnoftics, and oan tite againft, * Cerinthus, the contents of the gofpel itfelf would lead to this * conclufion: The fpeeches of Chrift which St. John has re+ * corded, are chiefly dogmatical, and relate to Chrift’s divinity, ‘ the dodtrine of the Holy Ghoft, &c.’ 5 To conclude my remarks on this fpurious Hebrew Gofpel: It was never received, but by thofe who were corrupters of the Chriftian doétrine from the firft rife of Chriftianity, and oppofed as fuch by the Apoftles Paul and John—the fragments of it that have efcaped the ravages of time contradiét, not to mention Matthew’s Gofpel, the other three Gofpels written by Mark, Luke, and John, and always received by the Chriftian fathers as the genuine produétions of thofe to whom they are afcribed, it can therefore be confidered only as an apocryphal ‘book defigned to fubvert the genuine doétrines of the’Gofpel. ~ And although the Hebrew Gofpel received ‘by the'Nazarenes, “from the manner in which it is mentioned ‘by Origen, Jerom, ‘and Epiphanius, was not, we may conclude, equally corrupt and ‘mutilated as that of the-Ebionites ; yet if we are to judge of it, by the fragments left, there is no reafon 'to-regret its lofs. ~ The doubts of Verax refpecting the authenticity of the two firft chapters of Luke (excepting the Introdu€tion), can be founded upon nothing but mere conjeéture, to fupport an opi ‘nion; (if the fame may not indeed be faid with regard to the two firft chapters of Matthew). The inference made from Luke’s in- troduction to his Aéts of the Apoftles, and to his Gofpel, that he could not be the author of the two firft chapters, is, allows ing its full force, fo entirely negative, that I am furprifed any man of common fenfe fhould reft upon it. Verax does not refer us to the teftimony of the * oldeft manuferipts’ againft the genuinenefs of the two firft chapters of Luke; he knew, I fi er pofe, chat they would decide in favour of it: his filence, how- ~ever, needs not prevent me from appealing to them as eviden againft him. pret Notwithftanding Verax has produced no obje€tion of any weight or importance againft Luke’s account of the birth of t ( 238.) “hrift, Tfhall fubjoin a few teftimonies from the ancient fathers, 1s an additional confirmation of its authenticity. Ignatius, whe was contemporary with the Apoftles, expreffes his belief, that Shrift was conceived by the Holy Ghoft, and born of the Virgin Mary. In his Epiftles to the Ephefians and Smyrnezins, he does sot direétly cite the words of either of the Evangelifts; in the ‘ormer epiftle it is probable he alluded to Luke, and in the latter o Matthew, this is however of little confequence, as it does not leftroy his teftimony in favour of the miraculous conception, which is the only circumftance to which we can attribute Verax’s attack upon the two firft chapters of Luke. Juftin Martyr, before the middle of the fecond century, pre- ented an Apology on behalf of the Chriftians, addrefled to Vitus Antoninus Pius, Marcus Antoninus, and Lucius Verusy he Senate and People of Rome; in this Apology are thefe words :— ‘ At the fame time an angel was fent to the fame virgin, fay- ng, “ Behold thou fhalt conceive in thy womb by the Holy © Ghoft, and fhalt bring forth a fon, and he thall be called ‘the Son of the Higheft. And thou {halt call his name Jefus, © for he fhall fave his people from their fins.” As they have ‘taught who have written the hiftory of all things concerning our Saviour Jefus Chrift. And we believe them.”* Here is a dire&t allufion to the firft chapters of Matthew and Luke, compare Matth. i. 20, 21, with Luke-i. 31. The occa- fon and period of this teftimony by Juftin Martyr deferves articular attention. For can we for a moment imagine that a would, in a public apeloay for the Chriftians, addrefled to the Emperor and Senate of Rome, advert to the miraculous conception, and fay that the Chriftian church believed the hiftory of it written by the evangelifts, had it not been generally received at the time he wrote? If he had declared a falfehood, he was certain of immediate detection, for it is not improbable that there were fome Chriftians then living, who had been dif- ciples of the apoftles : this apology being prefented only about forty years after the death of St. John; and it is fuppofed by fome to have been written before the martyrdom of the vene- table Polycarp, that apoftle’s difciple. _ Again in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, written about the fame time, ‘ And the virgin Mary having been filled with ‘faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel brought her good ‘tidings, that the ‘“ Spirit of the Lord fhould come upon her, “and the power of the Higheft overfhadow her, and therefore * that holy thing born of her fhould be the Son of God, an- fwered ; Be it unto me according to thy word.” ¢ Lardner’s Cred, Part 2. Vole I. p. 266, + Ibid. 267, 268, (+2325) This is taken immediately from Luke i. 35 to 38. In another part of the fame Dialogue he mentions the wife-men’s coming to worfhip Chrift, Jofeph’s going with Mary and the youn: child to Egypt, and Herod’s killing the infants at Bethlehem. This writer at length died a martyr to the Chriftian faith. To the teftimony of Ignatius and Juftin Martyr may be added, that of Ireneus, of ‘Tertullian, Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Cy- prian of Carthage, &c.t ‘Thus the teftimony of the primitive church feconds the teftimony of the moft ancient manufcripts and verfions. And, what is before all this, the doétrines in- culcated in the other writings of the Apoftles and Evangelifts confirm the’ truth of the chapters in queftion. Verax may oppofe this Appeal to the Scriptures as afluming what he will not grant, neverthelefs, I confider myfelf juftified in advancing it, becaufe it is not merely my private opinion, but (as I truit has been fhown), the uniform faith of the Society of Friends; therefore until Verax, who profefles to be one of them, can prove this is not their faith, or elfe throw off his aflumed character, I am not, as a member of that fociety, bound to meet him upon the fimple ground of the controverfy as it refts between the Trinitarian and Socinian, refpecting their different conftruction of thofe paflages of Scripture to which I advert. _ From the liberties Verax has taken with the facred writings, we muft not look for more refpe€t to any teftimony produced in favour of them; but he is not to conclude that mere decla= mations and bold aflertions will be accepted for arguments, when oppofed to the moft pofitive proofs. The manner in which fome queries of George Keith are i troduced into this part of the Appeal, and the remarks that ac= company them, I cannot confider as refle€ting any credit on the candour of Verax. After citing the queries, he makes the fol, lowing comments :— é — ‘ Thefe queries, with the anfwers annexed to each, exhibit ‘a pretty clear general view of the doctrinal points, which ‘ George Keith was fo urgent with the Society to adopt; and ‘ by comparing them with what the Society, in any collective © capacity, had then publithed, or any of the leading member * This event is alfo mentioned by Origen in his anfwer to Celfus, where he fays, ‘ Herod put to death all the little children in Bethle ‘hem and its borders, with a defign to deltroy the king of the Jews ‘ who had been born there.’ Lardner’s Cred. of the Gofpel litt, Vol. 11. B. 2. C. 2. Origen could not therefore have confidered this event as the fabrication of his ¢ eafy-working interpolators.’ 2 + For the feveral teftimonies of thefe fathers, fee Lardner’s Cred. of Gofpel Hilt. Part 2. and Supplement ; fee alfo Paley’s Evidences, Vol. 1. Chap. 3 to 9 inclufiye, a € *2g7 /) of it, on the fame fubjedts; a tolerably correct idea may be ‘formed of the nature and extent of the variation in fentiment ‘between them. And they appear to have been alfo equally dif- ‘ cordant in opinion, on the propriety, wifdom, and neceflity of laying down precife and fpecific articles of faith, even if they ‘ could have agreed upon terms, as a fuitable criterion of com- ‘munion in a religious fociety; which appears to have been ‘the point that Keith was aiming at, and predetermined to have ‘his own way in, or to feparate from the fociety.’* I believe pride and chagrin at not carrying certain points tefpecting the difcipline which he had propofed to the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, rather than difference of fentiment, was the caufe of George Keith’s feparation from the fociety; for it was but a few months before this feparation that he had publifhed a book in defence of the Friends’ principles. - Of the queries of Keith, the fifth being the moft to the point, I fhall cite the firft part of it—* Do yon believe that € Chrift or the Eternal Word was fo made flefh, as that he truly ‘and really became man, as truly man as he was God?? When queries are put in this public manner, it ufually implies a fufpi- cion that the party to whom they are addrefled maintains the counter-pofition; we may therefore conclude that Verax in- tended to make this impreflion.on the reader by giving Keith’s queries, without a fingle extract from any of the papers the Society had written in reply to Keith. He began to trouble the Friends in the year 1692, accufing them of holding * damnable herefies and doétrines of devils.’ In 1693, they fully cleared themfelves from thefe injurious afperfions by pub- lithing a paper, entitled, The Chriffian Dottrine and Society of the People called Quakers, cleared, &'c. figned by George Whitehead} and feveral others, on behalf of the Society. From this paper an extract is given in page 204, which entirely precludes the neceflity of any further anfwer to Keith. _ That the Society did not refufe to lay down fpecific articles ‘of faith, if that would have fatisfied George Keith, appears from the teftimony of denial iffued againft him by the monthly meet- ing in Philadelphia; from which the following is extracted: _ © He hath often quarrelled with us about confeffions, declar- * ing that he knew none given forth by the body of Friends to Shis fatisfation, and often charged moft of us with being * unfound in the faith. We have offered in. feveral meetings * for his fatisfa€tion, and to prevent ftrife amongft us, and for * preferving the peace of the church, to deliver a confeflion of € our Chriftian faith, in the words of our Lord and Saviour Jefus ® Chrift, the author of the Chriftian faith, and in the words of * Appeal, p. 92. 2H ¢ 2434) * the apoftles, and difciples, his faithful followers; or we would * declare our belief in teftimonies of our ancient Friends and * faithful brethren, who were generally received by us; or we: “ would concur and agree upon a confeflion, and have it tranf- ‘ mitted for the approbation of the Yearly Meeting here, or ‘the Yearly Meeting at London; yea, it was offered unto him ‘at the fame time that a confeflion concerning the main. * matters of controverfy, fhould be given out of a book of his. * own; but all was flighted as infufficient.’* ; So far were the Friends from refufing to draw up terms of communion, or a confeflion of their Chriftian faith, that they even. cheerfully and willingly propofed it to George Keith, by whom it was rejected, his difcontent proceeding from another caufe.+ I have already been fo diffufe on the fentiments of the early Friends refpeGting the perfon of Chrift, that I fhall decline producing any further evidence to juftify the prefent article of accufation againft the exceptions of Verax, afrefh urged in this part of his work. * Gough’s Hiftory of the Quakers, Vol, III. p. 335 336- + George Keith and his abettors feem to have practifed the fame mode of attack upon the writings of Friends, that has been fince adopted by Verax, the following complaints of unfairnefs being made again{t them. : ; ‘The words and paffages brought by our adverfaries for proof of * their charges again{t us, are not taken out of our doétrinal treatifes, ‘or declarations of faith and principles; but (for the moft part) out * of controverfial books ; wherein, oftentimes, the {cope and aim of the « author is, not fo much to affert or exprefs his own principles or doc« ¥trines, as to impugn and expofe his adverfaries, by dthowing the * contradiGtions, abfurdities, and ill confequences of his adverfaries” ‘ opinions: from whence, pofitively to conclude the author’s own ‘judgment, is neither fafe nor fair.’ Gough’s Hiftory, Vol. Il, page 393+ | George Keith pretended ‘ to prove that George Whitehead denied « Chrift to be God,’ notwithftanding he could not have been ignorant that George Whitehead had publifhed a book under the title of * The © Divinity of Curist, and Unity of Three, Gc. confeffed and vin- ‘ dicated by his Followers, called Quakers ; but inftead of appealing to this book, he refers to another book of George Whitehead’s, entitled, The Light and Life of Chrift within, (See Sewel’s Hiftory of thé Quakers, 8vo Edit. Vol. II. p. 578.) Does not Werax’s perverfion of Penn’s controverfial tract, called The Sandy Foundation fhaken, cor= refpond with the conduét of George Keith? Are aot their writings in+ tended to prove the fame pofitions? ry ee L a ( 5) Tuts Chapter might have clofed here, had not the fentiments of a late approved minifter on the Divinity of Chrift and the New Birth, eed publicly arraigned in the Sequel to the Appeal, as tending to Athei/m. Juftice to the individual, and to the Society, will not permit it to be pafied over without animad- verfion. This ftrange charge is introduced by a private letter from Ann Alexander to Robert Ranfome, which, but for a breach of con- fidential friendfhip, would probably have never met the public eye. In this letter are the following exprefhons of the late Job Scott. ‘I truft, I as firmly believe in the Divinity of Chrift, as any man living; but I have no more belief that there are two ¢ Divinities than two Gods. It is altogether clear to my mind, ‘that that one Divinity aétually became the feed of the ¢ woman, and bruifed the ferpent’s head, as early as ever any € man ever witneffed redemption from fin, and is one in the ¢ head, and in all the members, he being like us in all things, except fin. My only hope of eternal falvation is on this round; nor do I believe there has been any other poffible ‘ way of falvation, but that of a real conception and birth of € the Divinity in man.’* This is the language in which the tendeney to Atherfm is difcovered by Verax’s ‘ much valued friend,’ who has commu- nicated to him this wonderful difcovery in fome Remarks upon jt, and they have appeared to Verax fo valuable, that to reicue ‘them from oblivion he has given them a place in his work.— His friend being equally anonymous with himielf, to prevent circumlocution, I fhall confider Verax as the author. Our Remarker, after noticing the different explications of the phrafe Divinity of Chrif, and that it is applied to our Saviour by the Trinitarian, Arian, and Unitarian, ‘ though “€with meanings evidently different from each other,’ obferves that ‘ by many perfons in our Society, and probably by Ann '« Alexander, thefe expreflions of Job Scott’s are conceived to “faffert his belief in the Divinity of Chrift, as being, in the '* ftri@, literal, and unqualified meaning of the terms, one “with the Father.+ Verax then proceeds to give what he _apprehends to be the purport of thefe expreffions, but he has fo ‘confufed his argument by the introduction of Platonic phrafes, that it is difficult to connect his reafoning with his fubject. I fhall not enter into abftrufe difquifitions refpecting the ‘nature of the foul, but fimply confider whether Job Scott was “not fincere when he faid, that he as firmly believed in the Divinity of Chrift as any man living 5 and whether he believed * Sequel, p. 95. 4+ Ibid. 99, 10¢. 2H2 5 ( 236 ) Divinity to be ‘an infeparable attribute’ of ‘ the fouls of vir< “tuous men. A death-bed is not the time that it is ufual for - a perfon to belie his genuine fentiments, and Ann Alexander who attended him in his laft illnefs, bears this teftimony con- cerning him, that his ‘ dying expreflions to thofe around him, © moft fully evinced his belief in the Divinity of Chrift, and th ‘ blefled effects of attending to his inward and fpiritual appear fance.’ This is alfo corroborated by many paflages in hi € Journal, and his Treatife on Baptifm. The following felection| was publifhed in the Pamphlet, entitled, Some Traéts relating 4 the Controverfy between H. Barnard and the Society of Friends. _ fhall give it with the introductory remarks, ' . § That Job Scott fully believed in the incarnation and Divi- ‘ nity of Chrift, and that there is no redemption or reconcili € ation, nor even power to do the will of God, but through hi € power and Divine influence, is manifeft from the genera * tenor of his writings, as will appear by the following extracts * from them.’ “© The Jews, even while they were expe€ting Chrift’s coming “knew him not when he came; they overlooked and defpifec “his mean and ordinary appearance, thought he was Jofeph’s “fon, and born among them, and fo rejected, abufed, anc ‘¢ finally put him to death. But they were miftaken in hi: “ pedigree: his defcent was from heaven, and God, not Jofeph “ qas his father.—Seeing the light and life of the holy Wore “which in the beginning was with God, and was God, hatl “* enlightened every man that cometh into the world, and feeing “ moreover, Chrift Jefus hath tafted death for every man: * how thall’ we efcape if we negle& and reje& fo great falva- ‘tion ?—I remembered the account of Chrift’s agony, hi: ‘¢ fweating, as it were drops of blood, and crying out to hi: “ heavenly Father, ¢ My Gad, my God, why haft thou forfaken me. *‘T faw the propriety of his pafling through this trying fcene ‘* and though he pafled through his fufferings for our fakes, hy ‘‘ being experimentally touched with a feeling of our infirmitie ‘¢ and {fufferings, not but that his omnifcience as God, could fe *‘ and behold it all without feeling it in a body of flefh); but a “‘ the brethren were partakers of flefh and blood, he willing] “ took part of the fame, and in all the fufferings incident to th ‘brethren in this life, &c.”* ‘ Abraham faw Chrift’s day ‘rejoiced in it, and came in degree into the life of it. He no * only faw it, as then to come in greater fulnefs and glory; he ‘* knew it in himfelf; for when the Jews faid to Chrift,'Thou ar ** not yet fifty years old, and haft thou feen Abraham ? he dic ** not efcape their dilemma by telling them, Abraham forefaw hi * Scott’s Journal, p, 11, 187, 169. ( 237. ) * day afar off: that was not the thing he aimed at; but he came direétly to the ever important point, to the very life of * the matter; ‘ Verily, verily I fay unto you, before Abraham was ‘Tam.’ John viii. 58. “ Not I was; for, as the holy Word © (the fame that appears in the heart), he is the Eternal [1] Am. © Abraham knew and enjoyed him as fuch, as the life and ‘‘ fubftance of the new covenant.—There never was, nor can “be, but one thing through all time, that the juft could or s© ever can live by; that is, this inward word of life, the {piri- “ tual flefh and blood of Chrift, He that eateth me, even he fall “5 live by me, faith the bleffed Jefus, John vi..57, and he that “ eateth him not truly and fubftantially—has no life in him. “ This is the tree of life in the midf of the paradife of God; this s€ heals the nations of them that walk in the light of the lamb; s and by this, and this only, they live unto God.—Hence Paul ** renounces all mere legal righteoufnefs, and comes home to Chrift alive in his own foul. He mentions #he bleffing of Abra- ‘* ham as coming on the Gentiles only through Fé/us Chriff the § life.”* TI fhall clofe my extraéts from Job Scott with the § following ftanzas from his Journal :— £ Though ftorms without arife, ‘ Emblems of thofe within, € On Chrift my foul relies, € The facrifice for fin. © And well affur’d I am, ‘ True peace is only known, § Where he, the harmlefs Lamb, © Has made the heart his throne.’+ Is not this language {fcriptural? Does the fentiment that Jefus Chrift the Eternal Word -by whom the worlds were created, became man, like us in all things, fin excepted, ap- proximate nearer to the heathen mythology than to Chriftianity ? Let us next examine thofe particular expreffions of Job Scott’s in Ann Alexander’s letter, which make a birth of the divinity in man, (whereby we are made ‘ partakers of the divine nature,’ )t the only ‘ poffible way of falvation ;’ and whether the idea or fentiment conveyed by them ‘ confounds the effential, and ' never to be forgotten diftin€tion between the creature and the _§ Creator, and erroneoufly reprefents the religious or fpiritually- * minded man, as homogeneous with Divinity.’ Whether ‘ it * Scott on Baptifm, 8vo Edit. p. 151, 154s + Some Traéts, &c. p. 29——31s $2 Pet.i. 4, (\ 238" 9 *is with refpe& to the intelle€tual world, the exact counter. ‘ part of the doctrine of Spinofa [a fyftematic atheift]* refpect ‘ ing the material world.’+ , “It is altogether clear to my mind,’ fays Job Scott, © that that ‘ one Divinity actually became the feed of the woman, and ‘ bruifed the ferpent’s head, as early as any man ever witnefled ‘redemption from fin” And further on, * My only hope o “€ falvation is on this ground, nor do I believe there has been ¢ any other poflible way of falvation, but that of a real concep- * tion and birth of the Divinity in man.’ Thefe expreflions are fucceeded in the ‘ Sequel’ by the follow- ing interrogations. ‘ May we not reverently afk, how is it poflible for the Divinity “to become the feed of a woman?’ How pofhible! By its own omnipotent power. ‘On what ground fhall we admit a propo * fition fo irrational, unfuitable, and degrading, as that there can * poflibly be a real conception and birth of that wncreated, Sef © exiffent, and eternal Divinity, in man. In what part of the * {cripture is this doctrine, fo widely remote from the beautiful “fimplicity of the gofpel, and fo evidently refembling the * mythology of the heathens, to be found ?”f Does this language indicate a candid, liberal mind, difpofed to put a fair conftru@tion on the words of a man, it acknowledges to be ‘in an eminent degree virtuous?’ Is not Verax inten- tionally confounding here, what in another place he has as carefully diftinguifhed, when he had a different objet in view ; namely ‘ Chiff as a priuciple of life, and the foul in which he dwells: his words are ‘I apprehend it was the onenefs of this ‘ principle with Ged, which our early friends alone confidered “as properly divine, and an obje of worfbip.§ He further obferves upon this principle of theirs, that ‘ it muft furely have ‘¢ been their intention to afcribe Supreme Divinity to God the © Father only, the uncreated’ caufe of all things.’ Yet becaufe Job Scott has exprefled the fame fentiment as gur early friends,: Deift is too mild an appellation for him, he muft be compared with an Atheift. Whence is this inconfiftency in Verax? Does he believe that J. Scott could pofibly mean by a birth of the Divinity in man, that each regenerate man contained within himfelf the uncreated, felf-exiftent, and eternal Divinity? no, it is a fentiment too blaf— phemous, unworthy of himfelf, and contradictory to his other * Verax makes this atheift to be in an eminent degree a ferious and ftriGly virtuous man !!! O'tempora! . ; + Sequel, p. 100, ror. { Ibid. p. ro0. . § Vindication, p. ve ( 239 ) sritings, for Verax fo have ferioufly entertaiit@d for a moment. Je alfo allows prefently afterwards that when J. S. fpeaks of he Divinity being ‘ one in the head and in all the members,’ a difference in degree’ may be underftood. Does not this con- effion undermine the whole charge? For what makes the Di- ine attributes the exclufive attributes of God, whether we regard ‘is power, wifdom, or goodneis, but our attaching the idea of in- nity to them. Thus to afcribe infinite power, wifdom, and oodnefs to the creature, would be to confound it with the “reator; but no one will fay that becaufe a man participates f a portion of the Divine power, wifdom, and goodnefs, he herefore poffeffes the incommunicable attributes of Deity, everthelefs, as thefe properties are Divine in their nature, pro- seeding from God, in whom alone they effentially exiit, he may ye faid to poffefs a meafure of the Divinity of Chriit, his God ind Saviour; through whofe regenerating, baptizing power he yas recovered the image and likenefs of God, which the farit Adam loft, the day of his tranfgreflion. To doubt that God out f his fulnefs can communicate of his perfections to finite eings, is to doubt his omnipotence. ‘The religious or {piritually-minded_ man,’ fo far from fcribing any Divine virtue or power to himfelf, will from an experimental fenfe of his own infufficiency readily concede to the truth of that declaration of Chrift’s, ‘ Without me ye cart ‘do nothing.’ A leffon unlearnt by our men of reafon, who think themfelves equal to the performance of their whole duty by their natural powers, without the aid of Divine influence 5 for viewing Chriftianity merely as a fyftem of ethics, the doc- trine of the New Birth, or a renovation of all the powers of the foul by the baptifm of the Holy Spirit, muft appear to them unintelligible: by fuch the expreflions of Job Scott may be viewed as ‘irrational, unfuitable, and degrading,’ but the language of Chrift and his apoftles will, upon the fame prin- ciples be equally liable to cenfure, fince they enforce in the moft impreffive language the doftrine of the New Birth, as effential to falvation. Our Saviour addrefling Nicodemus, introduces it with ‘ Verily, verily, I fay unto thee, except a man be bora again, he cannot fee the kingdom of God ? notwithftanding ie cies was a teacher or rabbi in Ifrael, his learning could not comprehend this do€trine, Chrift however, knowing his fincerity, condefcends to explain more fully his meaning, * Ve+ frily, verily, I fay unto thee, Except a man be born of water € and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. € That which is born of the fleth, is flefh; and that which is ®born of the Spirit, is Spirit.’* * John iii, 3, 5, 6. ( 240) That which is born of the flefh muft partake of its nature and properties, and is therefore called flefh: fo alfo that which is born of the Spirit, muft be begotten into the fame nature, | cur Lord therefore calls it Spirit, which Spirit is Chrift in us the hope of glory. Hence how far tranfcendent the union be-| tween Chrift and his difciples, beyond the clofeft connexion, the pureft friendfhip between man and man! It is not a union originating in a human affection, but a fpiritual and vital union, from the fulnefs of the Godhead or Divinity in Chrift the head, diffufing its living virtue to all the members of his myftical body. This ‘bond of unity’ which ‘the fpiritually-minded “ man’ feels even in this life, is very forcibly reprefented by our Lord, in his comparifon between himfelf and his church, and the vine and its branches: ‘ Abide in me, and Tin you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itfelf, except it abide in the ¢ vine: no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, € ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the ‘fame bringeth forth much fruit ; for without me ye can do “nothing.’* John xv. 4, 5. * This and the text that follows, are among thofe paflages in Scrip- ture, to elucidate which, the attempts of the man of mere critical fkalP and learning will fail—it is out of his province—here the fimple, il- literate, fpiritually-minded Chriftian is more learned than he: his: heart is warmed and animated by them, the Spirit of Chrift bearing witnefs with his fpirit to the f{piritual truth fignified: whilft the critic amufes himfelf with them as highly figurative forms of fpeech, and fticking in the letter, like the carnal Jews of old, reaps nothing from them but hufks or chaff: forgetting, or not heeding the words of our Lord to the unbelieving Jews, ‘ It is the fpirit that quickeneth, the £ flefh profiteth nothing; the words that I {peak unto you, they are fpirit, and they are life. John vi. 63. A dignitary of the church of England, whom I efteem for his talents, and of whofe learned la= bours I have availed myfelf, has even ventured fo far to contradi& the do&rines of his own church, as to fay, * If any one afks what the expref= * fions in fcripture, Regenerate,—Born of the Spirit,—New Creatures, * mean ?—We anfwer, that they’ mean nothing! nothing to us!—no “thing to be found, or fought for, in the prefent circumftances of * Chriftianity !” Does not this lamentably exhibit the little avail the greateft abilities and learning are of to their poffeffor, unlefs he alfo pofleffes with them the life of God in his foul? The doétrine con tained in the expreflions with which this writer informs us we hay nothing to do, is no other than that Rock upon which Chrift faid h would build his church, and that the gates of hell fhould never prevai againft it. That its enemies fhould find allies in any profefling themfelve members of the Society of Friends is a phenomenon, that marks th fatal progrefs of a lifelefs profefion of Chriftianity in the prefent age- A late eminently pious writer of the Church of England, has, with an energy of reafoning peculiar to himfelf, defcribed the danger at > ( 241 ) It is to this principle of the Divine life in man, here com- ared to the fap of the vine, that our Lord points, when e fays, ‘ Except ye eat the fiefh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whofo eateth my flefh, and ending a reprefentation of what the Scriptures fay on the doctrine of he new Birth, as being only ftrong figurative expreffions, implying no lore at’ moit than an outward moral change of behaviour, and he fo at the fame time, fhows from the words of our Lord, John xy. 7 5: the abfolute neceflity of the new Birth, and that by rejeting it, re reje& what is effential to our falvations ‘The fubject is fo mo- entous, that I fhall adopt his words on this occafion. ~ * How pitiable, or rather how hurtful, is that learning, which ufes all s art of words, to avoid and lofe the true fenfe of our Saviour’s doc- ine concerning the new Birth, which is necgflary to fallen man, by olding that the paflages afferting the new Birth are only a figurative, rong form of words concerning fomething that is not really a birth or rowth of the new Nature, but may, according to the beft rules of riticifm, fignify either our entrance into the fociety of Chriftians by he rite of baptifm, or fuch a new relation as a {cholar may have with is mafter, who by aconformity to terms of union, or by copying his rays and manners, may, by a figure of /pecch, be {aid to be born again fhim. Now let it here be obferved, that no paflage of {cripture is to e called or efteemed as a figurative expreflion, but when the literal ueaning cannot be allowed, as implying fomething that is either bad in felf or impoffible, or inconfiftent with fome plain and undeniable docs rines of {cripture. Now that this is not the cafe here is very evident, ‘or who will prefume to fay, that for the {foul of fallen man to be born gain of the Son, or light, and holy Spirit of God, is in the literal fenfe j the words a thing bad in itfelf, or impoilible, or inconfiftent with any lain and undeniable doétrines of Scriptures? The critics therefore, who a this matter leave the literal meaning of the words, and have recourfe 9 a figurative fenfe, are without excufe, and have nothing they can urge sa reafon for fo doing, but their own {kill in words. One would vender how any perfons, that believe the great myftery of our redemp- ion, who adore the divine goodnefs, in that the Son of God became ‘man himfelf, in order to make it poffible for man by a birth from im to enter again into the kingdom of God, fhould feek to, and cons end for, not a real, but a figurative fenfe of a new birth in jJefus brift. Can any thing ftrike more direétly at the heart of the whole ture of our redemption? God became man. But why was this done ? was becaufe man was become fo dead to the kingdom of heaven, able to help himfelf, becaufe that. which he had loft was the light ad life of heaven, that the Son or Word of God, entered by a birth this fallen nature, that by this myfterious incarnation, the fallen tore mignt be born again of him according to the Spirit, in the fame ality, as they were born of Adam according to the c/o, But what comes of this, whet is there left in any part of the myftery, if this w birth, for the fake of which God became man, is not, as the Tipture affirms, 3 real birth of thé Soa and Spirit of God in the foul, Zi — ( 7 7 ¢ drinketh my blood, hath eternal life-—He that eateth my fleth ‘and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As ‘ the living Father hath fent me, and I live by the Father, fo he| ‘ that eateth me, even he fhall live by me. This is that bread * which came down from heaven—he that eateth of this bread € fhall live for ever.’* 4 | This is the fame doétrine as that contained in the exhorta- tion of the apoftle to the Corinthians. ‘ Examine yourfelves,— ‘ prove your own felves: know ye not your own felves how that « Jefus Chrift is in you, except ye be reprobates?”+ It was a but fomething or other, which the critics fay, may be called a new Birth by a certain figure of {peech? Is not this to give up all our re- demption at once, and a turning all the myfteries of our falvation, into mere empty, unmeaning terms of fpeech? For this new Birth is not a part, but the evhole of our falvation. Nothing does us any good, but either as it helps forward our Regeneration, or as it is a true fruit or effect of it. All the glad tidings of the Gofpel, all the benefits of our Saviour, however varioufly expreéffed in fcripture, all centre in this one point, that he is become our light, our life, our holinefs and fal- vation ; that we are in him new Creatures, created again unto righte- oufnefs, born again of him, from above, of the Spirit of God. Every thing in the Gofpel is for the fake of this new Creature, this new Man in Chrift Jefus, and nothing is regarded without it. “What excufé therefore can be made for that learning, which, robbing us of the true fruits of the tree of life, leaves ys nothing to feed upon but the dry duff of words ?” u «« Tam the vine, ye are the branches.” ‘ Here Chrift, our fecond Adam, ufes this fimilitude to teach us, that the new Birth that we are to have from him is rea/, in the moft ftri@ and literal fenfe of the word, and that there is the fame nearnefs of relation between him and his true difciples, that there is between the vine and its branches, that be does all that in us and for us, which the vine does to its branches. Now the life of the vine muft be really derived into the branches, they cannot be branches till the birth of the vine is brought forth i them. And therefore as fure as the birth of the vine muft be brought forth in the branches, fo fure is it that we muft be born again of our fecond Adam; and that unlefs the life of the Holy Jefus be in us by a birth from him, we are as dead to him, and the kingdom of God, as the branch is dead to the vine from which it is broken off. Agail our bleffed Saviour fays, “¢ Without me ye can donothing.” The quel tion is, When or how a man may be faid to be without Chrift? Confider again the vine and its branches: a branch can then only be faid to be without the vine, when the vegetable life of the vine is no longer in it. This is the only fenfe in which we can be faid to be without Chrift; when he is no longer in us, as a principle of a heavenll life, we are then without him, and fo can do nothing, that is, nothing that is good or holy. A Chrift not in us, is the fame thing as a Chrilf “not ours.’ * John vi. 53—58. + 2 Cor. Xilie 5. ( 243 ) loétrine too clofely conneéted with the life of Chriftianity, for he primitive Chriftians to have been ftrangers to it, hence the poltle’s appeal to them, ‘ Know ye not your own felvesy &c. Again, ‘Set your affe€tion on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Chrift in God. When Chrift, who is our life, fhall appear, then fhall ye alfo appear with him in glory. * This the apoftle Paul fays 3 the myftery that he preached to the Gentiles, namely, ¢ Chrift in you, the hope of glory.’ In his epiftle-to the Ephefians, he urther fays, ‘ For this caufe I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift—that Chrift may dwell in your hearts by faith—that ye might be filled with all the fulnefs of God.’ \ gain in the fame epiftle, ‘And he gave fome, apoftles; and fome, prophets, &c. for the perfecting of the faints,—till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfe@t man, unto the meafure of the ftature of the fulnefs of Chrift.’+ The apoftle Peter alfo in his general piftle to believers, addreffes them as ‘ being born again, not of corruptible feed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which ‘liveth and abideth for ever.’t : More {criptures to the fame effect might be cited, put thefe vill explain ‘ the plain and genuine meaning of Job Scott,’ and re an anfwer to the queftion, ‘ In what part of the Scripture _ is this do€trine—to be found ?” Perhaps I am one of thofe whom Verax terms /uperficial eaders of the Scriptures; if fo, I muft allege in their defence, hat they do not think, as he reprefents, that thefe paflages of Scripture, or others of like import, favour the idea ¢ that the {fame Divinity which is imputed to Chrift, is alfo imputable to ‘every pious and upright man.’ Although, to a verbal critic fome of them may feem as objectionable as the words of Job Scott. This charge againft him and his friends is not very dif- imilar to a grofs calumny againft our early Friends, that they believed each individual contained the whole and entire Chrift within himfelf. The following words of J, Penington will be a confutation of both. ‘ There is a difference between the light which enlighteneth ‘(the fulnefs of light, which giveth the meafure of light, the ees of anointing to us), and the meafure, or proportion which is given; the one is Chrift himfelf, the other is his gift; yet his gift is of the fame nature with himfelf, and leavens thofe that receive it, and abide in it, into the fame nature.” (See p. 95-): . Is this confounding ‘ the effential 2nd never to be forgotten diftinGtion between the creature and the Creator?’ Is it *Col, iii, 2,3, 4. t Eph. iit 14—19, ve 1133. E1 Pet. i. 23. 232 ( 244 ) ‘ with refpect to the intelleCtual world, the exa& counterpart ‘of the doétrine of Spinofa, refpeGting the material world 24] Can it be called indulging ‘ in the fallies of imagination,’ ox| deviating from ‘ the fober and fimple path of [right] reafon and| © revelation ?’* rm — Let the idolizers of human reafon ferioufly and calmly con. fider whom they are oppofing, left they bring upon themfelve the charge contained in the martyr Stephen’s Addrefs»to the Jews, ‘ Ye ftiff-necked, and uncircumeifed in heart and ears, * ye do always refift the Holy Ghoft, as your fathers did, fo de $ ye. . ig RAB) What affinity there was between the fentiments of Job Scot! and Plato, I am not fufficiently acquainted with the works of th latter to determine. From the accounts I have read of Plato, he feems to have borrowed his philofophy from the Hebrev theology, hence he has been denominated the Hebrew philofo- pher. Numenius the Pythagorean calls him the Attic Mofes, and upbraids him with plagiarifm, becaufe he ftole his do@trine about the world and. God, from the books of Mofes. ‘There may therefore be an affinity between fome of the fentimen Plato has borrowed from the facred writings, and the doétrine 5 of Chriftianity : but does it follow that the latter is indebted t the former for any of its do€trines ? Neither do I fee why Jo Scott fhould be fufpected of having borrowed from the writing of a heathen philofopher: his Journal and Treatife on Baptifn contain nothing to juftify the injurious comparifon. ‘The Scrip- tures I have quoted, inform us whence Job Scott derived his idea of the divine union and onenefs between Chrift and hi church, without recurring to Plato, or to the heathen mythos logy. Finally, nothing can be a more unexceptionable illuftratio: of the union of the fpiritually-minded man with the Diyinity, than the divinely inftru€tive prayer of our Lord, previoully t his fufferings and death. ‘ And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own fel © with the glory which I had with thee before the world wa ‘ T have manifefted thy name unto the men which thou gav ‘me out of the world.—For I have given unto them the word ‘ which thou gaveft me :’and they have received them, and hav ‘ known furely that I.came out from thee, and they have believe ‘that thou didft fend me. I pray for them: I pray not for the * world, but for them which thou haft given me, for they are thine, ‘ And all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorifies ‘in them.—Holy Father, keep through thine own name, thofe ‘ whom thou haft given me, that they may be one as we are, * Sequel, p. tol. f Ads vil. 510 > ( 245 ) Neither pray I for thefe alone, but for them alfo which fhali © believe on me through their word. That they all may be one, © as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they alfo may be € one in us; that the world may believe that thou haft fent me. © And the glory which thou gaveft me, I have given them; that © they may be one, even as we are one. I in them, and thou in ¢ me, that they may be made: perfe& in one, and that the * world may know that thou haft fent me, and haft loved them, as thou haft loved me. Father, I will that they alfo whom ‘thou haft given me, be with me where I am; that they ‘may behold my glory which thou haft given me; for thou © lovedft me before the foundation of the world. O righteous ‘ Father, the world hath not known thee; but I have known “thee, and thefe have known that thou haft fent me. And I ‘ have.declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that « the love wherewith thou haft loved me, may be in them, and ¢ I in them:’* rahe iy : fe * Joho xvii. 5—26. CHAP. X. a ge “4 continuation of the fame fubje@—On the Mira-— cles of Chrifi.—Some objeétions to the. late pro-— ceedings of the Society of FRIENDS in England anfwered. - « - ’ THE fame metephyfical fubtilty with which H. B. explains . her views of the fubjeéts of the three preceding articles of — aceufation, attends her explanation of her fentiments on the t fourth and laft, the miracles of Chrifi; the fame caution was — therefore obferyed in wording it, as in that with which it is combined. t \ ‘Jt further appears, that fhe is not one with Friends in her : ‘belief refpecting various parts of the New’ Teftament; parti- ~ ‘cularly relating to the miraculous cone¢eption and miracles of — © Chrift.’ Upon this part of the charge Verax obferves, * That the real ~ ‘nature and extent of this charge may be better underftood, ~ * the official reply of the clerk of the morning meeting fhould ; ‘be related; the party accufed urging, that if they mtended to « charge her with denying the fats recorded in the New Tefta- ‘ment,’ “ They had nothing in juftice to ground it upon,” ‘ the © * clerk obferved,’ “ We have not charged thee with difbelieving “any part of the New Teftament, but only with differing in ~ “ thy belief from the Society: look at the charge, and obferve © ‘** how it is worded.” £ On her enquiring into the difference, ‘he undertook to define it, by afferting,’ “ That Friends, as a “« Society, acknowledged their full and entire belief of all that *‘ was written, relative to thofe faéts, in the New Teftament, “and fhe would not.” ‘I told them, as E had done the com= ~ «* mittee, that I did not call them in queftion; but fully be- | ‘* lieved in the divine power and right to produce thofe effects, j ~* > ( 247.) "* or even greater, in that, or any other age of the world; but « as hiftoric faéts, readily confefled my ignorance, as to their “ pofitive and literal certainty ; and queried whether it was * poffible for any of them, in ftrict truth to affert, that they knew any more about them. And whether the advantages _ refulting to us as individuals, from a belief of the felf-evident _& do@rines, and imitation of the correfpondent example, of , a Chrift, as they are {tated in the New Teftament, could “be fuppofed in any degree pofitively to depend upon our © certain knowledge of thefe facts.”* To the committee H. B. expreffed herfelf on miracles to this import, ¢ That Chrift might _€ have wrought them, they were recorded as hiftoric fais—if ‘ fhe had been prefent fhe would have told what the thought © refpeéting them, but as fhe was not preient fhe could not iay © whether they were wrought or not.’ If this language does not extend to an open denial of the _ miracles recorded by the evangelifts, it clearly implies that H. 5. _ rejected the evidence upon which. they are received, as infu ficient to command our belief of them. Deifts and infidels have endeavoured to juftify their fcepticifm upon the fame prin- eiples. The fallacy of their reafoning has been repeatedly ex- pofed.—Watfon, in anfwer to Gibbon the hiftorian, on the mi- racles of Chrift, fays,— ‘ Knowledge is rightly divided by Mr. Locke into intuitive, © fenfitive, and demonftrative. It is clear that a paft miracle ¢ can neither be the object of fenfe, nor of intuition, nor confe- * quent] of demonftration; we cannot then philofophically- ‘ {peaking, be faid to know, that a miracle has ever been per- © formed. But in all the great concerns of life, we are influenced ‘ by probability rather than by knowledge: and of probability, the fame great author eftablifhes. two foundations; a con- ‘ formity to our own experience, and the teitimony of others. * Now it is contended, that by the oppofition of theie two prin- © ciples, probability is deftroyed; or, in other terms, that human © teftimony can never influence the mind to aflent to a pro- - © pofition repugnant to uniform experience. Whofe experience - «do you mean? You will not fay your own; for the experience _ € of an individual reaches but a little way; and no doubt, you _ * daily affent to a thoufand truths in politics, in phyfics, and in 4 the bufinefs of common life, which you have never feen veri~ © fied by experience. You will not produce the experience of _ © your friends, for that can extend itielf but a little way beyond your own. But by uniform experience, I ‘conceive, you are thefe difcrepancies will be ftill * more numerous, when men‘do not write hiftories but smemoirs; ‘ which is perhaps the true name and proper defcription of our ‘ gofpels; that is, when they do not undertake, or ever meant * to deliver, in order of time, a regular and complete account of ( 251 *) ali the things of importance, which the perfon, who is the € fubje& of their hiftory, did or faid; but only, out of many £ fimilar ones, to give fuch paffages, or fuch actions and dif- courfes, as offered themfelves more immediately to their atten- * tion,—or were fuggefted by their particular defign at the time * of writing.’* Hannah Barnard rejected the hiftorical evidence for the miracles of Chrift, becaufe they had not been revealed to her mind by immediate revelation. Having thus fet afide the only evidences by which the miracles could be affured to the mind, if fhe retained any belief that our Saviour wrought mi- racles; it muft have been a belief without any-evidence. With regard to the refurreétion of Chrift’s body from the grave, fhe ‘unequivocally expreffed her difbelief of his bodily appearance to his difciples, and this neceffarily involves in it a diibelief of his tefurreétion, and confequently a difbelief of the moft important miracle recorded in the Gofpels; for if Chrift were not rifen from the dead, as Paul juftly obferves, the apoftles were falfe witneffes of God, and inftead of being confidered as divinely commiffioned meffengers and minifters of God, they muft be rejeéted as impoftors who had forged a lie in his name, to give ‘a fan@tion to their particular dogmas. The fubftance of the converfation between H. Barnard and himielf on this point is thus defcribed by F. Smith. © She afked me, “ When fhe had denied the refurrection? “4 circumftance fhe as fully believed as any of the doctrines of “ Chrift,” I anfwered “ in the Committee,” fhe faid, “ I cer- * tainly was miftaken; fhe never had denied it.” Qn which I © reminded her, that a friend had afked her the queftion; to “which the anfwered in, the affirmative; but being further € afked, whether he appeared corporeally, when they were all ‘together? fhe anfwered, How could that be when the doors * were fout. At this time fhe faid to me, ** Aye, how could he & indeed ?”? To which I anfwered fomewhat as a friend had ® done in the Committee, “ If thou recolle& the relation as in © Scripture, thou muft be aware that this circumftance was an € extraordinary appeal to the faith of the difciples; that Thomas ® had previoufly expreffed his difbelief of the. refurreétion by faying, “I will not believe, unlefs I fee the print of the nails «in his hands, and the hole in his fide;’’. that at this period, * Thomas was the perfon addrefled, “ Reach hither thy finger,” € faid Chrift, “ and behold my hands, and thruft it into my fide; * and be not faithlefs, but believing.” On which Thomas made €ufe of thefe memorable words, “* My Lord and my God,” * Paley’s Evidences, 7th Edit. Vol. II. p. 289,294 2K 2 ( 252 ) * wherein he acknowledged not only his power but his Divinity ‘ alfo.— Well,” faid fhe, * then thou muft confider me like ‘ Thomas, for I cannot believe it; I believe he might have aps “‘ peared fpiritually but not corporeally.” I then referred to * another part, wherein he appealed to their underftandings, by ‘ thus addrefling his difciples, ‘* Behold my hands and my feet, “‘ that it is I myfelf; handle me and fee; for a fpirit hath not “ flefh and bones, as ye fee me have,” And that he took “ a “¢ piece of a broiled fith and of an honey-comb,” to all which fhe § faid, “it made no difference to her, fhe did not believe it.” How this part, of the converfation between H. B, and F. Smith came to be omitted in the account given of it in the Sequel, will, probably, never be fatisfa€torily explained, fince the part of the converfation which is inferted in that work is mifreprefented. Has not Hannah Barnard by rejecting the relations of Chrift’s appearances to his difciples after his refurrection, re- jected the only proof we have of the reality of his refurreCtion? and is not this {peaking ‘ againft the validity of Chrift’s—re/ur- ‘ reétion*, a{cenfion, and glory in the heavens, according as they € are fet forth in the Scriptures?’ and has fhe not hereby made herfelf amenable to the rule cited in page 203, which enjoins, * David Hume’s infinuation that the {cripture miracles were no other than pious frauds, related ‘ with the beft intention in the werld, for the ¢ fake of promoting fo holy a cavfe,’ is thus animadyerted upon by George Campbell. } * Some of the miraculous events, which the Apoftles attefted, were “not only the ewidences, but the diftinguifhing doérines of the religion « which they taught. There is theveie in their cafe an abfolute in- “ confiftency betwixt a conviction of the truth of the caufe, and the « confcioufnefs of the frauds ufed in fupport of it. Thofe frauds them- ‘ felves, if I may fo exprefs myfelf, conftituted the very effence of the * caufe. What were the tenets, by which they were diftinguifhed, in ‘ their religious fyftem, particularly from the Pharifees, who owned “not only the unity and perfections of the Godhead, the exiftence of * angels and demons, but the general refurrection, and a future ftate of * rewards and punifhments? Were not ‘thefe their peculiar tenets, “* That Jefus, whom the Jews and Romans joined in crucifying with= “* out the gates of Jerufalem, had fuffered that ignominious death, to ** make atonement for the fins of men? that, in teftimony of this, and ** of the divine acceptance, God had raifed him from the dead? that *¢ he had exalted him to his own right hand, to bea prince and faviour, “* to give repentance to the people and the remiffion of their fins? that ‘* he is now our advocate with the Father? that he will defcend from “* heaven at the laft day, to judge the world in righteoufnefs, and to ‘€ receive his faithful difciples into heaven, to be for ever with hynfelf,* 137» 138. ( #2935) in cafe © any flall wilfully perfift in error, in point of faith, after £ being duly informed,’ that then fuch be dealt with ‘ accord- £ ing to gofpel order ; that the truth, church, or body of Chrift, * may not iuffer by any particular pretended member that is fo ® corrupt ?” The Appeal contains the following queftions, on the Society of Friends requiring of H. B. a belief of the miracles recorded in the New Teftament: ‘ If the Society have ever profefied fo large an article of faith, have they given it forth with the requifite € publicity, to render it a well-known condition of Chriftian © communion ? or, is a formal and pofitive affent to it, a belief ‘ with the heart, and confeflion with the mouth, more efpecially © neceflary, as a qualification for approved minifters of the $ Gofpel? And has fuch a teft been actually propofed by the * Society, and acceded to, by either its members in general, or £ its minifters ? Was it infifted upon, as an effential point, in the § firft age of the Society? If not, when was it introduced ? Can _§ any inftance be produced previous to the prefent ?’* Has not R. Barclay, in the 5th and 6th Propofition, § 15, of his Apology, infifted upon a belief of the birth, miracles, and refurrection of Chrift as effential to thofe who have the know- Jedge of the Scriptures? And that the Society have, by the moft extenfive diftribution of this book, given forth their belief of thefe points with the requifite publicity, cannot be denied by Verax. Has not W. Penn alfo, in his Addrefs to Proteftants (quoted page 149) declared a belief of the miracles and refurrection of Chrift, an important part of the Chriftian creed? And are not Barclay and Penn introduced to our notice by Verax as exhibiting the doctrines believed by the Friends, in the firft age of the Society ?- That our firft Friends, did not require any formal fubfcrip- tion to Articles of Faith, can prove nothing in favour of Verax; for might we not with as much propriety hence infer, that they did not confider faith in God and Chrift neceffary to qualify for memberfhip with them, as to make a fimilar inference with _ refpect to the miracles and refurre€tion of Chrift? yet Verax would not admit it to be candid or juft to aceufe them of having fellowfhip with Atheifts and Deifts. The rule of the year 1694, I allow to be virtually an anfwer ¢ Thefe fundamental articles of their fyftem, they muft have known, ¢ deferved no better appellation than a ftring of lies, if we fuppofe ¢ them liars in the teftimony they gave of the refurretion and afcen- ¢fion of their mafter.’ Difértation on Miracles. 34 Edit. 1797, ps * Appeal, p. 96. ( 254 } to any objection of this fort; fo is alfo the paper publithed by the Society the preceding year, and the quotations adduced in this work from Penn, Barclay, Fox, and Penington. But I believe it will be impoffible for Verax to mention a fingle inftance wherein the rule of 1694 has been propofed as a teft of communion to any perfon applying for admiffion into the Society of Friends. ‘To afcertain the caufe of which, is not ° difficult, the rule never being intended as a teft for admiffion into the Society, but to prevent thofe who were already mem- bers of it from rejecting the reality of Chrift’s fufferings, &c. As a teft of communion, it is not of itfelf fuffiiciently explicit, fince it does not enjoin any faith in God the Creator of all things, except by inference, that the belief of the heavenly man, Chrift includes a belief of his two-fold nature as being God and man; but this inference (however juft) we may fup- pofe Verax would not admit. Before we examine the quotations adduced by Verax from the writings of our early Friends, to prove that they did not confider ‘an outward conformity of fentiment’ on the miracles of Chrift, ‘as a proper bond of religious foundnefs in the faith,’ it will be proper firft to advert to the diftin@tion made by H: Barnard between the doffrinal truths and hifforic faéts contained in the Scriptures. She uniformly infifted on the non-effentiality of a belief of the hiftoric faéts recorded by the evangelifts, and on the impropriety of enforcing or we oe a belief as a condition of Chriftian communion ; which, fhe faid, thould be confined to effential doétrinal truths : hence the refufed to acknow- ledge her belief of the refurrection of Chrift from the grave, ‘becaufe (according to her) it partakes of the uncertainty, fhe attaches to hiftoric fatts in general, and more particularly to thofe of the miraculous kind. We read in the gofpels that Jefus Chrift was born in the time of Auguftus Czfar, that he proved himfelf to be Mefliah by a chain of miracles wrought before his bittereft enemies with that publicity that they could not be gainfaid; that he was, through the malice and envy of the Jews, crucified, when Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea, and that on the third day he rofe from the dead, and appeared to his difciples for the fpace of forty days. ‘Thefe are all unqueftionably Aifforie facts. I do not fay that H. B. entirely rejeéts the whole of them: but however true they may be in themfelves, a belief of them ought not (agreeably to her pofition) to be made a condition of Chriftian communion, That a belief of them is not effential to. the falvation of thofe who have never been favoured with the outward knowledge of the Scriptures, the only medium through — which they are uiually revealed to men, is granted, and is what { oss :). Barclay’s Letter to Paets enforces; but this is quite foreign te our prefent enquiry, which does not relate to thofe who have not, but to thofe who have, the light afforded by the Scriptures. To fay that a belief of hiftoric facts is not effential to outward religious fellowfhip among the latter, is no other than faying that an acknowledgment of Chrift as the Mefliah foretold by the prophets, is not eflential to an outward profeffion of Chriftianity. For muft we not believe there was fuch a perfon as Jefus Chrift, which is an hifforic fad, before we can believe him to be Meffiah? Are not the bounds of religious union pleaded for by H. B. fufficiently expanfive to comprehend the Deift ? What H.B. intends by ‘ the felf-evident doctrines and cor- ‘ refpondent example of Jefus Chrift, as they are ftated in the “New Teftament’ does not clearly appear, but I am ready to think they are no more than what Rouffeau would have acknowledged to be worthy of belief and imitation. But although this eminent Deift in his parallel between Jefus Chrift and Soerates, could, when defcribing the former, admire the gentlenefs and purity of his manners, the mildnefs and affeCting grace of his inftructions, the elevation and dignity of his maxims, the deep wifdom of his difcourfes, the ‘pure and fublime ‘ morality that was inculcated in his inftructions, and which he ‘alone (adds Rouffeau) taught and practifed with an equal ‘ degree of perfe€tion,’ and by the irrefiftible force of truth is made to exclaim, ‘ Ah! if the life and death of Socrates carry © the marks of a fage, the life and death of Jefus proclaim a God;’ yet, ftrange inconfiftency! this man after all, to apo- logize for his not believing in Chrift as Meflah, pretends that the gofpel is full of things that are incredible, of things which ‘are repugnant to reafon.’ But the immorality of his life affords a more forcible, becaufe a practical, reafon for his infi- delity. If Rouffeau had feen Evanfon’s Diffonance of the Gofpels, he might have difcovered that this work, very good naturedly, removes out of the way the foolifhnefs of the gofpel and the ftone of {tumbling to unbelievers ; fo that the Deift who makes his own fallible reafon the ftandard by which he fcrutinizes the ways and conduct of Omnipotence towards his creature man, may embrace it without firft becoming a fool in his own eyes, and refigning his own earthly wifdom, which is from beneath, to be taught or inftructed by the wifdom of God, revealed in his only-begotten Son Jefus Chritt. H. B.’s diftinGtion between effential dofrinal truths, and bifforic (foéts \ikewife tends to promote an object fo defirable to the Sceptic; but all attempts at fuch diftinétions muft fail of their purpofe; fince many of the hiftoric facts of the gofpel are fo ( 256 ) clofely interwoven with the peculiar doétrines of the Chriftiat religion, that it is abfurdity itfelf to think of feparating them. Our ancient Friend George Fox’s fentiments on the miracles of Chrift, are thus adverted to by Verax : ‘ Although George Fox, in his Journal, which contains a * great variety of his epiftles, and other writings, is nearly, or < wholly filent on the fubje& of the miracles of Chrift and his * apoftles, no one acquainted with his chara€ter, would impute “the omiflion to any doubt in his mind of their general € authenticity.’* George Fox’s epiftles being chiefly addreffed to Chriftian profeflors who believed the general authenticity of the miracles of Chrift, he had little occafion to bring them prominently into view; but when he addrefles the Jews who did not believe them, he is not filent on the fubje€t. In a paper called § A £ Vilitation to the Jews,’—he fays, * Now your fathers that had Mofes,—and received the law ‘from him;—knew him [Chrift] not, neither heard him, ‘ though he was a prophet,—made of the feed of Abraham * according to the flefh, but declared to be the Son of God, * according to the Scriptures, by figns, wonders, and miracles, * devils being made fubjeét to him, loofing many from their ‘ chains, which were kept under bonds; and yet your fathers * believed not that prophet which Mofes faw, and the prophets *faw, &c.’+ ; In another paper, entitled ‘ A Declaration to the Jews, &c.’ he alfo fays: ‘ And did not David fay, he would not fuffer his Holy One * to fee corruption, nor leave his foul in hell? he faw the travail ‘ of his foul, and therefore was fatisfied, according to [aiah’s ‘prophecy. ‘Therefore after you had killed him by a fhameful ‘death upon the crofs, and buried him, did not he rife again, ‘and faw no corruption, whom neither death, bonds, nor ‘ grave could hold ?—who now remains in heaven at the right ‘ hand of God until the reftitution of all things, who, after hés ‘ refurrection, was feen of many brethren, and many witneffes, ‘ who were the witnefles of his refurreCtion amongft your fore- * fathers, and amongft whom (your fathers) he wrought many ‘ miracles, and did many wonders, to the aftonifhment of the ‘ very heathen, and of many of your forefathers, yet their hearts ‘ being hardened, and their eyes being blinded, and could not ‘nor would either fee or believe, therefore did he pronounce ‘ the woes againft you which are come upon you.’t * Appeal p. 97. t Fox’s Doétrinals, p. 36, t Ibid. p. 245. (. an7 0 From the preceding extracts we fee that G. Fox confidered that the miracles wrought by Chrift declared him to be the Son of God, and that the Jews’ rejeCtion of thefe proofs of his being the Mefliah, was the caufe of the woes he pronounced againft them ; and that the appearances of Chrift to his difciples, after his refurrection, are alfo mentioned by G. Fox as evincing the truth of that greateft and moft important of all the miracles recorded by the evangelifts, and as qualifying the difciples to be the witnefles of it among the unbelieving Jews. That the reader may judge of the value and importance attached to the facred writings by G. Fox, I fhall give one more extraét, in which he declares his belief of them. It is from the paper prefented to the governor of Barbadoes. - ©Concerning the Holy Scriptures, we believe that they * were given forth by the Holy Spirit of God, through the ‘holy men of God, who (as the Scripture itfelf declares, 2 Pet. “i, 21.) “ {poke as they were moved by the Holy Ghoft.” We “believe they are to be read, believed, and fulfilled (he that ‘ fulfils them is Chrift), and they are profitable for do@trine, * for reproof, &c. 2 Tim. iii. 16. and are able ** to make wife unto “‘ falvation, through faith in Chrift Jefus.” And we believe “the Holy Scriptures are the words of God; for it is faid “in Exod. xx. 1. “ God {poke all thefe words, faying, &c.” ‘meaning the ten commandments given forth upon Mount * Sinai. And in Rev. xxii. 18. faith John, “I teftify to every “* man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book; if ** any man addeth unto thefe, and if any man fhall take away *« from the words of the book of this prophecy,” (not the word ) * &c. So in Luke i. 20. Becaufe thou believeit not my words.— * So that we call the Holy Scriptures as Chrift and the apoftles € called them—viz. the qwords of God.’* Here G. Fox fays in behalf of himfelf and his friends, that the Scriptures (including the writings of Mofes and the firft chap- ters of Luke) were given forth by divine infpiration, and are to be tead and believed. We need no further evidence to prove that G.F. and H. B. are far from uniting in their views of both thefe pofitions; the latter entirely reje€ting what is believed by the former, and publifhed by him as the faith of the Society. _ Of the feveral paflages feleted by Verax from Haac Pening- ton, the firft is by far the moft important both as to its length and contents. It is from a paper entitled, ‘ A Queftion con- * cerning Miracles anfwered.’ To obtain a clear and accurate wiew of the anfwer, we fhould be in poffeffion of the purport — of the queftion; it is rather long, but for the fake of perfpi- cuity I ihall infert the whole of it. * Fox’s Journal, p, 436. 21 ( 258 ) ‘ Queft. If this be a new difpenfation of the life and power ‘ of God, even of the preaching of the everlaiting gofpel again ‘after the apoftafy, why is it not accompanied with outward ‘ miracles now, as formerly it was? I fay outward miracles, be- ‘ caufe it is accompanied with inward miracles. For the lame ‘ (that could never fet ftep in the path of life) do now walk; the ‘eyes that were blind, are opened and do now fee; the ears < that were deaf, have been unftopped and do now hear; the ‘lepers inwardly (who were all overfpread with fin and cor- * ruption) have been wafhed, cleanfed, and healed, by the pure * power; yea, the dead inwardly have been quickened, raifed, « turned to him that lives for evermore, have received life from ‘ him, and do live in him and with him. Now thefe are mighty © things, wonderful miracles, even the fubftance of the miracles ‘ which were wrought under the law, and which Chrift himfelf ‘wrought outwardly. For it was not the outward healing, ‘ which is falvation, life, and power chiefly aimed at therein ; « but to point men by that to the thing which was to work the ‘ inward; that they might take notice of it, know it, come to ‘it, and wait upon it, to be made partakers of the inward ‘ health and falvation by it. Yet feeing in that day Chrift did ‘ then pleafe to put forth his power outwardly, to point to, and ‘ witnefs of, the inward, why doth he not do fo now ?” The objeétion raifed by this queftion againft the doétrine of {pecial infpiration in the prefent age of Chriftianity, pre-fup- pofes the truth of the evangelical accounts of the miracles of Chrift, and I. Penington alfo by the manner in which he ftates the queftion, evidently accedes to it: that he had no doubt of their having been wrought, will yet further appear by his anfwer to this objection. . ‘ Anfw. The nature of the prefent difpenfation doth not require it. ‘ For the prefent difpenfation of life, is to bring men to the prin- ‘ ciple of life whieh is within them (which is the fum and fub- ‘ {tance of all former difpenfations); and to bring them to this, « there doth not need any thing of a miraculous nature outward= ‘ly; but the witnels, demonttration, and enlightening of the « Spirit inwardly.’ Now when the outward law was to be received, « then the Lord faw need of outward miracles to confirm it; foalfo in ‘ the prophets days, while that difpenfation held, till towards the © coming of Chrift: and when Chrift came, in the body prepar ‘by the Father, it pleafed the Lord to confirm by outward « yifible demonftrations of his power in him, that this was he. ‘ Likewife afterwards, the apofiles having the doétrine concerning _& that appearance to preach and teftify to the world, the Lord wa “alfo pleafed and faw good to confirm it by miracles. But now < there is not any new do€trine to be preached. The doétrine ‘ concerning Chrilt js the fame that it was, the very fame that ( 259 ) * the apoftles preached. Neither is there any need of confirm- ‘ ing it now; for it is generally believed among profeffors of alk * forts; as Chrift’s birth, preaching, living holily, dying, offering * himfelf up as a facrifice for fin, rifing, afcending, fitting at the ‘right hand of the Father: who doubts of thefe things? But € under all this knowledge men hide their fins, their lufts, and * corruptions, ferving not the Lord,—but his enemies, and are * become corrupt like unto the heathen.—Therefore hath the © Lord vifited the world in this ftate, and fent forth what he € judged meet for it in this ftate; to wit, not a miniftry to * preach over that doctrine, under which the Chriftian world ‘had corrupted themfelves; but to point to the principle of ‘ life, wherein is the light and power to difcover, lead from, € and wath away this corruption. And with this miniitry there £ goeth a power, to reach the heart and raife the witneis in all * that hear in fear, and in the fenfe and dread of God; fo that * the witnefs prefently anfwers, and the mind is inwardly fatii- * fied, knows the thing, and turns to it. Now this (and the ‘ effet of this) is beyond miracles, and the fatisfaction or € affurance which they can afford. For miracles leave a difpute in the mind (notwith{tanding all the miracles Chrift fhowed, *there was yet a difpute and diflatisfation in the minds of * many concerning him). But he that feels the thing itfelf in € the true principle, where the demonftration and certainty of € the Spirit’s aflurance is received; he is paft difpute, and is gone *a degree, in the nature of things, beyond that fatisfaction € which miracles can afford. He is out of that ftate and mind ‘which afketh a fign, or feeketh confirmation bya fign. So ‘that men ought to take heed how they expect or call for ‘ miracles now, as the Jews did to Chrift for a fign of old; for ‘that is not the temper of mind which this difpenfation is to * anfwer, but rather to draw men out from thence into a prin- * ciple, into the new life and Spirit itfelf; where fuller demon- § {trations (of a deeper nature) are given to the foul, than out- d ward miracles are’* So far was I. Penington from feeling any difficulty in acknow- edging an unreferved belief of the truth of the Scripture iracles, that in the piece before us, although the fubject did t neceflarily call for or require fuch an acknowledgment, he preffes his belief of the miracles that were wrought to con- irm the divine miffion of Mofes, and of thofe that were after- tds wrought by the holy prophets and apoitles, as well as of ofe performed by Chrift himfelf. In the anfwer the italic as ual diftinguifhes what is withheld from his readers by Verax : he whole of the queftion is omitted by him. * Penington’s Works, Quarto Edit. Vol. LU. p. 348, 349, 350. ; ZLe ( 260 ) Penington, in his anfwer, very juftly reprefents the impro- priety of expecting miracles now as an evidence of a minifter of Chrift being called by the Holy Spirit to preach the gof- pel; and unlefs it can be made to appear that any fuch evi- dence was ever required of H. Barnard, this part of Penington’s anfwer is quite wide from the point before us. Again, the preference given by Penington to the evidence of the Spirit before that of miracles, confidering them feparate and dif- tin@ from each other, does not in the leaft invalidate the Scripture miracles. That miracles may leave a doubt on the mind that inquifitively afketh for a fign, is quite conformable to the effet, thofe wrought by our Saviour produced upon the minds of fome of the Jews, as it is reprefented in the gofpels, and can therefore be no proof of a doubt or difbelief of the truth of the evangelical accounts, to which Penington, in this very place refers the reader, as confirming the truth of what he advances: this latter part of his anfwer is confequently equally wide with the former, from the point ftri€tly before us, which is, whether our firft friends refufed, as H. B. has done, to acknowledge their belief of the miracles of Chrift. The fentiments of I. Penington were fuch, no doubt, ‘ as the « Society at that time approved,’ and fuch as the Society at this time would think ‘ might be fafely tolerated, even im an ‘ approved minifter, without prejudice to the unity of the fpirit. ‘which is the bond of peace.’* But ¢ the plain inference’ of Verax that the proceedings againft H. B. ‘ are a departure from the praétice and principles of our predeceflors in the ‘faith,’ he has not yet made appear to be deducible from his premifes. : Before I finally take my leave of Penington, I will prefent the reader with his fentiments with regard to the Scriptures col- je€tively—The following is from a paper entitled, ‘ Concerning «the Rule of the New Covenant,’ &c. ‘If a man receive the Spirit, and walk in the newnefs of the “light and quickenings thereof every day, hath he not a rule ‘ which is certain and infallible? If any man be in Chrift, there ‘ is a new creation; and the limits of that new creation (which “is the light and power of the endlefs life, or of God’s Holy ‘Spirit dwelling within) are his rule. And within the bounds © of that—man never errs; but out of it, deceit, and.darknefs, and erfor, is always at hand.’ ' - © Yet (though we do own Chrift to be the rule) we do not ‘deny making ufe of the Scriptures to try doétrines b —b ‘ know that what is of God, doth and will agree therewith ; an ‘what doth not agree therewith is not of God ; and that our & 5 ; * Appeal, p. 99. {{ sm} © forefathers in the faith were led to batter the fuperftitions and © idolatries of the Papifts, by the teftimony of the Scriptures. * And we have alfo the teftimony of the Scriptures with us, both © to the light and Spirit within, and againft forms formerly in- © vented, or now practifed, out of the life and power.’* On another occafion he fays, ‘ Chrift is the way, the truth, © and the life.” What is a Chriftian’s rule? Is not the way of © God his rule? Is not God’s truth his rule? And is not ‘truth in Jefus; where it is taught and to be heard, and to “be received even as it is in Jefus? Is not he the King, the © Prieft, the Prophet,—the way to God, the life itfelf, the living © path out of death; yea, All in All to the believer, whofe eye *is opened to behold him? The Scriptures teftify of Chrift, © but they are not Chrift; they alfo teftify of truth, and are a € true te{timony; but the truth itfelf is in Jefus, who by his © living Spirit writes it in the heart which he hath made living.’+ In another place on the Scriptures he remarks, ‘ The Scrip- ©tures are words, whofe chief end, drift, and fervice is, to © bring men to the Word from which the Scriptures came. * And when men are there, then they are in the life of the © Scriptures, and witnefs the fulfilling of the Scriptures, &c.’{ What has been before faid on the fubjet of our firft friends’ belief of the Scriptures, precludes the neceflity:of much com- ment on thefe paffages from our ancient and honourable elder. There is however one obfervation that prefents itfelf, namely, I. Penington fays the Scriptures teffify of truth, and are a true te/- timony, that they are to try doétrines by, and ‘ that what is of - © God, doth and will agree therewith.’ H. Barnard would not confent to have her doétrines ‘ tried by the Scriptures confidered as a true record. { thall leave the reader to make his own com- ment, after referring him to pages 105 and 106 of this work; and pafs on to the next author brought forward on this occafion. The extraéts by Verax from William Penn in this part of the Appeal are taken from his Addre/s to Protefants, the purport of which work I have already fo fully invettigated, that it will fuffice to refer the reader back to Chap. vi. page 143 to I§0. There is a paflage from Penn’s ‘ Serious Apology for the Prin- ‘ ciples and Practices of the People called Quakers,’ relating to the fubject of miracles, cited by Verax in his V: indication, and which he fays ‘ was approved and defended—as being “ en- “ tirely rational,” by Jofeph Beffe, a friend of unqueftioned ‘ orthodoxy, and high eftimation in our Society,’} I thal there- fore prefent the reader with this paflage, and the defence of it by Jofeph Befle, as it is given by the latter in his Confutation of * Penington’s Works, Vol. II. p. 452. + Ibid. Vol. I. pe 267. { Ibid. p. 692. § Vindication, p. 118. ( 24289 the charge of Deifin, &c. in which work the writings of W. Pen “are cleared from the perverfions and mifconftru@tions of 2 ‘namelefs author, in his late Vindication of the Bithop of * Litchfield and Coventry.’ “AP ‘ Vin. page 49. “ W. Penn (in his Serious 4; &c. page 38, 39. Vol. II. of his Works, Lond. 1726) {peaks thus con- “cerning Jefus’s Miracles: But how weak an argument the “ doctrine of miracles is, to prove the verity of the Chriftian “ faith, or doétrine of revelation, at this time of day, is beft feen “ by confidering it was weaknefs that occafioned them : for had “not the Lord Jefus obferved the darknefs and carnality of “ thofe times to be fo great, as without reaching through the “ black clouds of their traditions and fuperftitions, by the hand ‘ of his miracles (or vifible figns to their underftandings, or ra- “ ther fenfes) there was no likelihood of faftening a conviction “‘ on them, there never had been need of an external miracle in “any fuch fenfe. I would that the man [his opponent T. Jenner] fhould know, we have received and maintained our ‘faith in Chrift by more noble and fublime arguments, than ‘“ that af miracles; namely the truth, reafon, equity, holinefs, “¢ and recompentfe of the Chriftian religion; which miracles can “‘ never render more or Jefs intrinfically fo. Not that we put «