consistency with Holy Scripture; and the invidious charge of Socinianism had ceased to be arrayed against them, until renewed by William Craig Brownlee, and his coadjutors, the compilers of the pamphlet which we are replying to. We do not, however, regret the coalition. It is a favourable circumstance that they agree so nearly, in endeavouring to prove the Society "ab origine, Socinian ;" since the same reply will serve for both: though, as the most suitable rebuke for their calumny, we would advise them to read the replies to Bugg and Leslie, and the "Switch for the Snake." >

It is certainly not consistent with fair dealing, to pass over the many plain and clear declarations of faith, which the Society of Friends have at different times published, with the false assertion that they rejected all creeds and confessions of faith; and to cull from their controversial writings, mutilated sentences, and publish them as exhibiting the true doctrines of the society. Controversial writings are more generally written to refute and expose the errors of an opponent, than fully to set forth the belief of the writer. There are some observations in a reply to the "Snake in the Grass," which are so peculiarly applicable to the compilers of the pamphlet, that we shall quote them. They are inserted in Gough's History.

"As to this envenomed performance, it was remarked: 1. That the matters therein charged upon us, (Friends,) are generally the same that have been charged on us heretofore, by Faldo, Hicks, and other adversaries, and always refuted, over and over, both formerly and of late. 2. That the things they charge on us, as errors and heresy, are not pretended to be proved, by any plain, express positions or assertions of ours, but from our adversaries' own perverse meanings and wrested constructions of our words, always denied and rejected by us. 3. That the words and passages brought by our adversaries, for proof of their charges against us, are not taken out of our doctrinal treatises, or declarations of faith and principles; but for the most part, out of controversial books, wherein, oftimes, the scope and aim of the author is not so much to assert, or express, his own principles or doctrines, as to impugn and expose his adversaries; by showing the contradictions, absurdities, and ill consequences of his adversaries' opinions; from whence positively to conclude the author's own judgment, is neither safe nor fair. 4. That, however any of our former adversaries might have been misled in their judgments concerning us, George Keith, who hath now moved this controversy against us, knows full well, that we do not hold those things, either generally, as a people, or as particular persons, which he has charged on us as errors." "Besides this, (says Gough,) as George Keith had done before, in his quotations, and references to their writings, he stuck at no unhandsome nor unfair means to represent this people in the most ridiculous, absurd, and disadvantageous light. He mutilated their expressions, by omitting the leading or concluding parts of a sentence, or passing over some in the middle; whereby, in most cases, they made a sense quite different from the author's intention."-Vide Gough's History, vol. iii. p. 392, 393, 394.

In order to enable our readers, to compare the sentiments of Elias Hicks, with those of the authors who are quoted in the

following pages, and to give a clear view of the great discrepancy and contradiction between them; we subjoin the following extracts from his letters, sermons, &c. viz:

SENTIMENTS OF ELIAS HICKS.

"I dont admire at the difficulties thou hast had to encounter, in regard to the mode of redemption, generally held by professing christians, as being effected by the death or outward dying of Jesus Christ upon the outward wooden cross. This, as it regards the redemption of the immortal soul from the bondage of sin, I consider a vulgar error, that came in with the apostacy from primitive christianity. The redemption effected by this outward offering, would ONLY, according to the true analogy of things, be a redemption of the outward bodies; for, as under the legal dispensation, there were many legal institutes, that were binding upon the people of Israel, and on no other people, and a breach of these, produced legal crimes to which penalties were attached, and these inflicted on the bodies of the Israelites; now I consider that the offering of the body of Jesus Christ on the outward cross applied only as a matter of redemption to the Israelites; redeeming them from the curse of that covenant and the penalties attendant on every breach thereof, and this outward redemption was the top stone of that figurative dispensation, as by it that dispensation with all its legal rites and ceremonies was abolished and done away."-Elias Hicks' letter to William B. Irish.

"Why shouldst thou think it cruel or painful, that God sent his Son into the world, and when in the world, permitted him to suffer death by the hands of wicked men, when history informs us that many thousands of righteous men and women have, by the permission of the Almighty, been persecuted to death by wicked men; yet, nevertheless, we do not believe that God sent any of these into the world purposely to suffer death, in the cruel way they did, by the cruel power of the wicked; neither do I believe that God sent Jesus Christ into the world purposely to suffer death in the way he did, any more than all them; for I do not believe that God created any rational being and sent him into the world, to suffer death for other men; because they were wicked and he was righteous; but that it was the righteousness of all these that aggravated the wicked, and was the procuring cause of their hatred and vengeance toward them when they cruelly persecuted them to death. But their sufferings was entirely opposite to, and inconsistent with, the purpose and will of God, for if it was not, the perpetrators of these dreadful crimes, and most atrocious deeds, would all stand justified in his sight."-Ibid.

"Hence we conclude, that God never sent his Son, Jesus Christ, nor any of his rational creation, purposely into the world to suffer death, by cruel men, but only in his free and voluntary choice to attend to and do his holy will in all things, and thereby glorify and enjoy him, which all agree to be the chief end and design of man's creation."-Ibid.

"But as divine wisdom foresaw that his people Israel, would revolt from his commandments, and rebel against his law, and become cruel and hard hearted, so likewise he foresaw that the wicked among

them would cruelly persecute and slay many of the righteous; and his son, Jesus Christ, among the rest, therefore he inspired many of his servants to testify of these things among them, before they came to pass-as a warning and caution, that so those who were seeking after the right way, might be preserved from taking any part therein; while those who wilfully hardened their hearts against reproof, might suffer the penalties resulting from their crimes, which they had committed in their own free choice, contrary to the counsel and will of their Creator."-Ibid.

In an essay entitled "Wisdom Justified of all her Children," after speaking of Christ as the Jewish Messiah, in which capacity he fulfilled the law and did it away, which was the first part of his work, &c. he proceeds:

"And, secondly, after having finished the law, John's water Baptism being the last ritual he had to conform to, after which he immediately received the descending of the Holy Spirit of God upon him, agreeably to the above Prophecy of Isaiah; by which he became a partaker of the divine nature of his Heavenly Father, and by this spiritual birth, became the son of God, with power; and thereby fully qualified for his Gospel Mission, and went forth, clothed with the spirit and power of God, preaching the gospel to the poor.

"Hence, we see another instance of the consummate wisdom of the Highest, in leading his beloved son, qualified only as a real and · true Israelite, first to fulfil in that state all the righteousness of the law, before the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit upon him, which is the peculiar privilege of the gospel state, but which no individual is prepared to receive, until, like Jesus, he has fulfilled all the righteousness of the moral law. For, had this diffusion of the spirit been conferred upon him while engaged in the fulfilment of that outward covenant, he would not have been any example to that people ; as it would have proved that it required greater ability than the Israelites had received, to perform the same; and would thereby impeach the Lord of being an hard master, in requiring more than he had given ability to perform. But, by withholding the diffusion of the spirit, until he had fulfilled the law of the outward covenant, with the same ability that every Israelite had conferred upon him for the same purpose; he thereby justifies his heavenly Father, and proves his impartiality towards the children of men, and stands as a perfect example in that relation, to all succeeding ages, who come to the knowledge of it. And then by the pouring forth of his spirit upon him, shows his readiness to do the same to every other of his rational creation, according to their several needs, to enable them to fulfil, as Jesus has done, all the righteousness of the gospel-who had previously come up in the same way of faithfulness, in fulfilling the righteousness of the law. And when he had finished his outward ministration, he then gave himself up to the power of his enemies; although it was a very severe and trying baptism for his human nature to bear; having a clear prospect of his sufferings and death, crying out that the spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak: but by his willing surrender to his heavenly Father's will, he has set us a perfect example that we should account nothing too dear, not

even our bodily lives, to surrender for the gospel sake, and the testimony of a good conscience."-Wisdom Justified.

"First, By what means did Jesus suffer? The answer is plain, by the hands of wicked men, and because his works were righteous, and theirs were wicked. Query. Did God send him into the world, purposely to suffer death by the hands of wicked men? By no means, but to live a righteous and godly life, (which was the design and end of God's creating man in the beginning,) and thereby be a perfect example to such of mankind as should come to the knowledge of him and of his perfect life. For if it was the purpose and will of God, that he should die by the hands of wicked men, then the Jews, by crucifying him, would have done God's will, and of course would all have stood justified in his sight, which could not be. But it was permitted so to be, as it had been with many of the prophets, and wise and good men that were before him, who suffered death by the hands of wicked men for righteousness sake, as ensamples to those that came after, that they should account nothing too dear to give up for the truth's sake, not even their own lives."-Letter to Dr. N. Shoemaker. "But I DO NOT CONSIDER THAT THE CRUCIFIXION OF THE OUTWARD BODY OF FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS ON THE CROSS, WAS AN ATONEMENT FOR ANY SINS BUT THE LEGAL SINS OF THE JEWS; for as their law was outward, so their legal sins and their penalties were outward, and these could be atoned for by an outward sacrifice; and this last outward sacrifice was a full type of the inward sacrifice that every sinner must make, in giving up that sinful life of his own will, in and by which he hath from time to time crucified the innocent life of God in his own soul, and which Paul calls, the old man with his deeds, or the man of sin and son of perdition, who hath taken God's seat in the heart, and there exalteth itself above all that is called God or is worshipped, sitting as judge and supreme. Now all this life, power, and will of man, must be slain and die on the cross spiritually, as Jesus died on the cross outwardly, and this is the true atonement, which that outward atonement was a clear and full type of. This the apostle Paul sets forth in a plain manner. Romans, vi. 3, 4. Know ye not that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ, were baptised into his death? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, (outwardly,) by the glory of the Father, even so we, having by the spiritual baptism witnessed a death to sin shall know a being raised up spiritually and walk in newness of life."-Ibid.

"And inasmuch as those idle promulgators of original sin, believe they are made sinners, without their consent or knowledge, which, according to the nature and reason of things, every rational mind must see is impossible; so likewise, they are idle and ignorant enough to believe they are made righteous without their consent or knowledge, by the righteousness of one who lived on the earth near two thousand years before they had an existence; and this by the cruel hands of wicked men, slaying an innocent and righteous one; and these are bold and daring enough, to lay this cruel and unholy act in the charge of divine justice as having purposely ordained it to be so but what an outrage it is against every righteous law of God

7.

and man, as the scriptures abundantly testify. See Exod. ch. 23, v. "Keep thee far from a false matter, and the innocent and righteous slay thou not, for I will not justify the wicked." Deut. 27 ch. "Cursed be he that taketh reward, to slay an innocent person ;" and much more might be produced to show the wickedness and absurdity of the doctrine, that would accuse the perfectly just all-wise and merciful Jehovah of so barbarous and cruel an act as

25 v.

that of slaying his innocent and righteous son, to atone for the sins and iniquities of the ungodly.

"Surely is it possible that any rational being, that has any right sense of justice or mercy, that would be willing to accept forgiveness of his sins, on such terms! Would he not rather go forward and offer himself wholly up, to suffer all the penalties due to his crimes, rather than the innocent should suffer? Nay, was he so hardy, as to acknowledge a willingness to be saved through such a medium, would it not prove, that he stood in direct opposition, to every principle of justice and honesty, of mercy and love, and show himself to be a poor, selfish creature, and unworthy of notice !" Ibid.

Elias Hicks, in his letter to Thomas Willis, on the miraculous conception of the Lord Jesus Christ, says:

"Finding this to be the case, I examined the accounts given on this subject, by the four Evangelists, and according to my best judg ment on the occasion, I was led to think there was considerable more scripture evidence for his being the son of Joseph than otherwise; although it has not yet changed my belief, are the consequences which follow much more favourable; for as the Israelitish covenant rested very much upon external evidence by way of outward miracle, so I conceive this miraculous birth was intended principally to induce the Israelites to believe he was their promised Messiah, or the great prophet, Moses had long before prophesied of, that should come, like unto himself.

"But, when we consider that he was born of a woman that was joined in lawful wedlock with a man of Israel, it would seem that it must shut the way to the enforcing any such belief, as all their neighbours would naturally be led to consider him the son of Joseph, and this it appears very clear they did, by the scripture testimony: and although it has not, as above observed, given cause as yet, to alter my views on the subject, as tradition is a mighty bulwark, not easily removed, yet it has had this salutary effect, to deliver me from judging my brethren and fellow creatures who are in that belief, and can feel the same flow of love and unity with them, as though they were in the same belief with myself; neither would Í dare to say, positively, that it would be my mind, they should change their belief, unless I could give them much greater evidence than I am at present possessed of, as I consider in regard to our salvation, they are both non-essentials; and I may further say, that I believe it would be much greater sin in me, to smoke tobacco that was the produce of the labour of slaves, than it would be to believe either of these positions ;"-See Letter to T. Willis.

"I admit that I did assert, and have long done it, that we cannot