pears, that it arises wholly, from the use of the unscriptural term Trinity, and the notion of Three distinct and separate persons in one Godhead. After treating these points at some length, and adducing the testimony of several protestant writers, to show, that they have given rise to many inconsistent and erroneous ideas upon this solemn and mysterious subject, he concludes very properly that it is safest and most becoming, for men to express their belief in those terms, which the Holy Ghost has been pleased to reveal.— On page 414, he says

"By keeping to scripture revelation we shall declare our faith in a form of sound and safe words; but if we go beyond those sacred records for our creed, there may quickly be as many symbols of faith, as there are fond and ambitious innovators.

"Therefore in this, and all other articles of faith and doctrines of religion, in common to be believed, in order to eternal salvation, let not the opinions, explications, or conceptions of men, which are often dubious, various, or erroneous, be esteemed as a rule or standard, but let every one rely upon the divine testimony of the Holy Scriptures, which declare that "God is one, and there is none other besides him; and that the one God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: or, as it is expressed 1st John v. 7-The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. Though that text is suspected by many learned men, it being not met with, as Poole informs us, in Nazianzen, Athanasius, Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Hilary, Augustine, and Bede; nor urged in the Nicene Council against Arius; for though it quote verse 6, yet it omits verse 7th, either because they found it not in the original, or doubted its authority.

"Neither is it found in many ancient Greek and Latin copies, nor in the Syriac, Arabic, or Ethiopic versions, nor in some ancient Greek impressions, as that of Strasburg by Wolfius Cephalinus, 1524, and that of Paris by Simon Colinaeus, 1534, nor in the German version of Martin Luther, as Erasmus, the Divines of Lovain, Beza, and others, have observed.

"Nor is it, as Dr. Hammond says, in the King's manuscript at St. James. See also what Franciscus Junius, Selden, Paulus Colomesius, and Bishop Burnet say of the omission of it.

But whether that verse be dubious or authentic, is not much material, because in other places of scripture the substance of it is recorded."-Pages 414, 415.

We suppose that this last quotation from Richard Claridge has induced the compilers to make the assertion, that he doubted the authenticity of this text in 1st John. It will at once be seen, however, that Richard Claridge himself, does not say that he doubted its authenticity; but merely that this text was suspected by many learned men, and gives their reasons for so doing. Had the reasons, which induced them to suspect (not actually to doubt) the passage, produced the same impression on his mind, he would not have concluded the statement in the manner he has; for to say, "whether it be dubious or authentic, is not much material," is an expression, which shows that he had not decided it to be dubious; since it might be safely used, in the sense he has it, by one who was con

tending for its authenticity. The most, therefore, that can be drawn from all that he has said on its doubtfulness, is that he asserted many learned men suspected it.

The concluding paragraph above quoted, is however, a strong proof of his belief in its genuineness, when viewed in connexion with the fact, that he has not only placed it as his motto on the title page of his book, but also declared in this essay, that it is the fittest language whereby to express our belief in the Holy Three. It is scarcely to be supposed, that so learned a writer, would hazard the credit and force of a controversial essay, on so momentous and serious a subject, by building its authority, upon a text of scripture whose authenticity he doubted. It would certainly be an evidence of great weakness in him, and augur very unfavourably of the cause for which he was contending. A further confirmation of this view, is afforded by the great care he takes, to guard his readers against denying the doctrine, in consequence of any doubt which some might have, of the authenticity of the text. For after stating the suspicion of these learned men respecting it, he adds"But whether that verse be dubious or authentic, is not much ́material, because in other places of scripture, the substance of it is recorded" thus clearly showing, that he was an unfeigned believer in the doctrine which it contained.

66

From the note made by the compilers of the pamphlet on the subject, and their unqualified assertion, that he doubted its authenticity, as well as from the object of their work; viz: to prove that primitive friends," concurred with Elias Hicks, in denying the doctrine which is inculcated in the text, and the divinity of Jesus Christ; it might possibly be inferred, by some uninformed readers, that Richard Claridge did not believe in the doctrine of the "Three that bear record in Heaven;" but for proof that this was not the case, the extracts which we have here given, as well as those from his defence of William Penn and the early Quakers, against the invidious accusations of Francis Bugg, inserted in our first chapter, are amply sufficient. His "Essay on the Trinity," concludes with this excellent paragraph:

"The Holy Scriptures are the great Charter of the Christian Faith and doctrine, and unto them, should all appeals be made in matters relating unto both. So was it observed by the Ancient Fathers and by the first Reformers: they constantly appealed to scripture, in all questions and controversies of religion. And though in sundry instances, they deviated from the path of truth, it was not because they appealed to scripture, but because they attended not to the teaching of the Spirit of Truth, in their own hearts, whose prerogative it is, to open and guide the understandings of those infallibly therein, who humbly wait for, and faithfully follow its conduct."-Page 419.

The compilers likewise inform us in their note, that the verse in question, "is now admitted to be spurious, even by many Trinitarians." We grant that some persons who are denominated Trinitarians, have been so far influenced by the objections which have been made to the passage, as to be induced to suspect its authenti

city. It is equally true however, that the number of these is small when compared with those who are satisfied of its genuineness. The learned bishop of St. David's, who has devoted much time and attention to this subject, and whose extensive research, entitles his opinion to great weight, has this observation respecting it; "I can say with truth, that every renewed examination of the subject has added to my convictions of its authenticity." Nolan in his profound and interesting "Inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate," after stating the internal and external evidence in support of the text, adds" I trust nothing further can be wanting, to convince any ingenuous mind that 1st John v. 7, really proceeded from St. John the Evangelist." Dr. Hales in a very able and learned work on the subject of the Trinity, speaks with equal confidence of the authenticity of the verse. "To the authority of Griesbach on this question, (he says) I shall not hesitate to oppose and prefer the authority of a celebrated German editor and critic, the learned Ernesti, with whose observations I shall close this minute and laborate survey, of the whole external and internal evidence, which I humbly trust, will be found exhaustive of the subject, and set the controversy at rest in future." Grier, in his reply to Dr. Milner's "End of religious controversy," after noticing "the invincible arguments" of Nolan, says, "I feel compelled to abandon my former prejudices against the verse, and to think, that a person should almost as soon doubt the genuineness of the rest of St. John's Epistle, as that of the disputed passage." A late edition of the Greek testament by Edward Valpy, a very learned Greek scholar, retains among other passages 1st John v. 7.

It may be proper to remark, that the investigation of the subject is still industriously continued; and as there are yet to be examined, many hundred ancient manuscripts in the Vatican, and other libraries, many of which may be still older than those we are at present possessed of; we should certainly have the most positive evidence of corruption or interpolation, to induce us to abandon a passage so well supported, by internal and external evidence, and which in the deliberate and sober judgment, of many of the most learned biblical critics, is equally genuine with any of the apostle John's writings. Should it however happen, that future researches, present us with evidence, sufficient to invalidate the great weight of testimony by which it is now supported, the absence of the text will not diminish the irresistible evidence, for the doctrine which it teaches, since other unsuspected passages, prove it in the most clear and unequivocal manner.

CHAPTER VI.

Remarks upon the Quotations made by the Compilers of the Pamphlet, from the works of WILLIAM BAYLY.

THE Compilers have presented us with several extracts from the writings of this author, the object of which we are at a loss to determine, since they do not favour a denial of the divinity or atonement of our blessed Lord, but, on the contrary, afford sufficient proof of his sincere faith in both, and are, therefore, no evidence in support of the notions of Elias Hicks.

The first of them is on pages 38, 39, of the pamphlet, and is a reply to an objection made by some of the opponents of Friends, that they seldom addressed their prayers to God, in the name of Jesus Christ. To this William Bayly answers:

"First, I do affirm, that they who preach and pray in the "spirit, and power, and light, and wisdom of God, do pray in the "name of Jesus; for Jesus is but a name which was given unto that, which was before that name was, which the angel called a holy "thing, and also said, that holy thing which shall be born of thee, "shall be called the Son of God. And also, it is written, behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they "shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted, is God with "us. So that this one holy thing, in process of time, according to "the knowledge of his works and operations, in and by many, bath "several, many, and various names given unto it."] Page 158.

It is obvious that William Bayly fully asserts his belief in the Godhead and pre-existence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his miraculously taking flesh of the Virgin Mary, in this very passage which the compilers have quoted. In the subsequent paragraph he calls him the Seed of the Woman, the Word of God, the faithful and true Witness, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Lord our Righteousness, the Prince of Peace, the tried Stone and Rock, the Mediator, the Child, the Morning Star, and the good Shepherd, that lays down his life for the sheep. He then argues, that as the name Jesus was given to this holy thing, which in different ages had been characterized by these glorious titles, so those who prayed to him, in his name or power, under any of these various characters, did pray in the name of Jesus, though they might not always use this word to designate him. by. The great difference between the Christian doctrines of William Bayly and the dogmas of Elias Hicks, is sufficiently proved by the extracts which the compilers have made, since the latter declares our blessed Saviour was not the Son of God, until after the baptism of John, denies his miraculous conception, and so far from admitting

that he is the mighty God, says, that the spirit, or light, was dispensed to him as man, in such proportion as was necessary for the work he had to perform. Now as a proportion, or part of any thing, cannot be the whole, so it follows, from the assertion of Elias Hicks, that the fulness of the Godhead did not dwell in him, and that he was no otherwise divine, than as every Christian is.

The next quotation from William Bayly is taken from his reply to the following objection, viz. "But how could Adam be in Christ, before Christ came into the world, or was born of the Virgin, seeing Adam was made in the image of God long before? Could he be made in Christ, or by Christ, before Christ was? How can these things be? Answer." The word Christ, in letters CHRIST, was not "known, (neither was there any occasion of them,) before man had "transgressed, and lost that life, in and by which he was created; "but the power, which was in that man, or body, which suffered "without the gate of Jerusalem, was before the body or creature was "made; and it was the power of the Most High, which overshadow"ed the Virgin; and said HE, a body hast thou prepared мE; mark, "this was the Life and Power in the body, which spoke, in whom "the fulness of the Godhead dwelt: and he spake, and prayed to "his Father, which was in him: so though HE was not known by them "letters, or the name Christ, yet HE was with the Father, glorified "before the world began, and was the Word in the beginning, by whom "the world was made, who said 'Before Abraham was, I am; but the "name, or letters, Christ, was not until many hundred years af"ter:] So thou mayst see, that the Christ of God, the Word, by whom all things were made; was, before it was made, glorified with the Father, before Abraham, and Adam, and Moses, and the names or letters, were; the image of God, the blessed seed."-Page 94.

This quotation furnishes us with another full confession of the faith of William Bayly, in the pre-existence of our blessed Lord, as the Eternal Word, by whom all things were made; in his miraculous conception, Godhead, and Manhood, which suffered without the gates of Jerusalem; and presents a striking contrast with the dogmas of Elias Hicks, who, as we have repeatedly shown, denies both of the former, making Jesus Christ no more than a man.

On the same page of the pamphlet, we have a short quotation, in which the author declares that there are but two seeds, the seed of the serpent or devil, and the seed of the woman, Christ Jesus, the same yesterday, to day, and forever; who, by a manifestation of his Holy Spirit, is now appearing in the hearts of ten thousands of his saints. Here are two points in which he differs from Elias Hicks. The existence of the devil, and Christ being the seed of the woman, promised to Adam and Eve after they had fallen.

At the top of page 40, of the pamphlet, we find a short quotation from William Bayly, in which he applies the term "Elder Brother” to the person of Jesus Christ. The compilers have italicised these words, as if they would have us to infer from thence, that he considers our Lord to be no more than a man. In this, however, they are greatly mistaken, since, in the very paragraph from which they have garbled their quotation, beginning it at a semicolon, and end