placed there already. I think I am safe in saying, that such was a feature of our Saviour's ministry, and of the apostles that succeeded him. It is better to "let the time past suffice,"-" to leave the things that are behind, and press forward to those that are before,' 66 looking to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith." Elias Hicks, and his opinions, might, I think, therefore, have been safely left behind.

It must, I am satisfied, be the cause of deep grief to many, that those excellent and precious testimonies, which the early members of the Society were called upon to bear in the face of a corrupt and sinful world, exposed to buffetings and whippings, sore imprisonments, heavy fines, banishment, malignant tortures, and cruel deaths, should, by an acknowledged minister of that Society, be asserted to be the source from whence has ORIGINATED" that desolating heresy, which, in the United States of America, has lately swept thousands after thousands of our small section of the Christian Church into the gulf of Hicksism and deism.' And it is not more extraordinary than true, that those testimonies are repudiated upon the self-same ground, (though urged, so far as I have seen, with a freedom from bitterness, and, PERHAPS, in a spirit of less derision,) upon which they were opposed by some of the most malignant and stanchest foes, that enlisted against the Friends of those days. No-No, my young Friends; read, try, examine, judge for yourselves the writings, the labours, the travels, the sufferings, the experiences, the joys which the world could neither give nor take from the worthies of those days. Read of "the gift of grace" that was upon them-of the holy love that Knit their hearts together, as the heart of one man"fully know their doctrines, see their manner of life, purpose, faith, long-suffering, charity, patience;" and then say whether that blessed and sanctified testimony to the light within, has led, step by step, into the deadly gulf of deism!"

I cannot adopt the opinions conveyed, in the prefatory remarks, to the "Extracts from Periodical Works," that such discussions as religious contro

86

versy are the chief, if not the only, means whereby, humanly speaking, the errors which have, from time to time, crept into the Christian church, can be eradicated." If any errors have ever been eradicated by what is termed " religious controversy," I think such eradication has formed the exception, and not the rule. One assumption, at all events, is entitled, from a third party, to as much deference as another; and I think, upon sober reflection, it must be admitted on all hands, that "knowledge has been darkened by words without wisdom ;" and that controversy, though recommended to us by the appendage of the hallowed term, "religious," has produced, amongst the professors of Christianity, more ill-will, confusion of ideas, MYSTICISM of thought, word and deed; in short, has been the means of introducing not only a great variety of conflicting, inconsistent, and antiscriptural opinions amongst men, but has been one of the chief causes of those errors, both in faith and practice, which, alas! but too generally, it is to be feared, prevail in these days of outward ease, and great profession. "Of making many books," said Solomon," there is no end," and "the conclusion of the whole matter," the same authority declared to be the "fear of God, and the keeping of his commandments;" for this is the whole duty of man." If men, therefore, neither heed Solomon nor a greater than Solomon, the conjectures of fallible creatures like themselves, upon the meaning of this text and the other of Scripture, though multiplied to ten thousand times the bulk of the whole Scriptures put together, will neither eradicate "the errors that, from time to time, have crept into the Christian church," nor "teach them to fear God and keep his commandments. -for this is the whole duty of man." Oh! how truly harmonious, how beautifully corroborative of this important truth, are the respective testimonies of the Prophet, the Sage of Israel, and the Redeemer of man! I must place them conspicuously before us--"He hath showed thee, oh, man! what is good and what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy

:

God!" "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter-fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man." "Jesus said unto

er?

him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.— This is the first and great commandment, and the second is like unto it-thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the Prophets." How can religious controversy, let me here ask, make this great truth clearSurely the Scriptures, which the Reviewers say, are "the only rule of faith and practice," may be allowed to speak for themselves-to stand as they are, whole and unmutilated, without this man's commentary, or that man's conjecture! And let me appeal to the honest conviction of every man, whether there is not a something within him (whatever name they may give it, which something I know by the name of "the light within"), that bears its testimony to the testimony of Scripture, that to "fear God and keep his commandments, is the whole duty of man?" Has not, I repeat, every sane person, unless “given over to a reprobate mind," something within him that declares this testimony of Scripture to be the truth; and that acquits or condemns him independently of his own volition, his own wishes and strivings with it, according as he walks in obedience or disobedience thereunto? If such evidence be disregarded, and errors be allowed to creep in, how can disputations and learned janglings, commentaries, interpretations, and explanations, adapted to the systems of the various originators and defenders of them, tend to any thing else, but to lead us from the simplicity of the Truth as it is in Jesus" to conduct us to a labyrinth of endless mazes, instead of that path that "a wayfaring man, though a fool, cannot err therein."!!

It is highly necessary that the meaning we attach to certain words should be distinctly explained, or the arguments we adopt, and the views we take, are liable to be misconstrued or misunderstood. From this consideration, therefore, I deem it incumbent on

me, in this place, to state that I do not take "the Word of God" to be the writings of the Old and New Testament. And for these reasons, viz.-in the first place, it is giving them a title which they not only do not appropriate to themselves, but which they inva riably and exclusively apply to Him who was in the beginning with God, and without whom there was not anything made that is made." And, in the second place, it is not only the misappropriation of a name, but it is confounding things which are, in their nature, essentially distinct and separate from each other. "In the beginning," writes the Apostle Jolin, "was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, the same was in the beginning with God." And again" the Word was MADE FLESH and dwelt amongst us, and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth," and "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. That was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."And in the First Epistle of John-" For there are Three that bear record in Heaven-the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." And in Revelations, we read-" And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood, and his name is called the Word of God." I have given these quotations as "a reason for the hope that is in us.' Now I earnestly entreat that every individual, into whose hands this little book may fall, to look at these passages individually and collectively, as though (if it be possible,) it were the first time their eyes had ever beheld them, and then tell me if the Society of Friends, without adducing anything farther, have not scriptural authority and reason for appropriating the term "The Word of God," solely to Him" who was in the beginning with God?" Can all, or any of the high attributes and things which are here related of Him" who liveth for ever and ever," be predicated of the Scriptures, either as a whole or in part, from the first chapter of Genesis to the last of Revela tions? Will any man affirm of the Scriptures that they are one with God-will he affirm of the Scrip

66

tures, in this passage, that they are synonymous with "the Word?" Will any man affirm of the Scriptures that they are "that light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world?"-will he affirm that the Scriptures are " The Word," which the Apostle John says is that light which enlighteneth EVERY MAN that cometh into the world? Will any man affirm of the Scriptures that they were "made flesh, and dwelt among us," and that the glory of the Scriptures was beheld "as of the glory of THE ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father, full of grace and truth.?". Will any man affirm of the Bible, that it " was in the beginning with God," and that it "it was God?”— Hardly, I think. Yet such, according to the Bible's own testimony, must be affirmed of the Bible, Ir the Bible be "the Word of God;" for "The Word," we are told, is "The ONLY BEGOTTEN :" and if the Only Begotten, there can be no other. Nor is the Bible in the least undervalued, its authority impaired, or the weight and excellency of its precious truths diminished, by not giving it a title which it nowhere gives itself. He who sincerely believes that" All Scripture was given by inspiration of God, as holy men of old were moved by the Holy Ghost," will not feel inclined to view the Bible as a "mere written book”to deride its authority-to spurn its counsel to despise its warnings-to refuse its consolations, and trample under foot the glorious promises and blessed hopes that it holds forth. I think it unnecessary to dwell any longer on this point at the present, as I shall probably have to recur to it in the course of this work; but I cannot quit it even here without again urging the entreaty, for my readers to peruse, with attention, impartiality, and desire of truth, the passa

ges I have adduced hereon. Have we authority from these passages, or from any others throughout the Bible, to designate it by that term which is used therein to denominate "The Only Begotten of the Father?" Do the words, I say, warrant any other application of the peculiar and expressive term "The Word," than in the only scriptural sense in which they are there used? Can, or could, anything but