CHAPTER X.

Remarks upon the Quotations from the Works of SAMUEL FISHER.

THE Compilers have inserted on p. 48 of the pamphlet, a short quotation, on the subject of imputation, which they inform us is from Samuel Fisher's Works-but give no page. We have carefully examined the volume published by this author, and cannot discover that he ever wrote any such passage. He has written about forty pages on the subject of justification and the atonement by Christ, in which he makes frequent acknowledgment of his christian belief in both. If there be any thing like the compilers' extract, in his works, we imagine it must be altered, so as to bear little resemblance to the original—and whenever they think proper to inform us where it may be found, we shall be ready to reply to it.

The following extracts will serve to show the scriptural soundness of S. Fisher's belief.

"And because we make mention of Christ in us, and the righteousness of the law as necessary in order to salvation, to be performed and fulfilled in our own persons, as Paul does, Romans viii. 4. though we mean no other righteousness than the same that is in Christ, and is wrought in us, by no other power than that of Christ, and that same Christ too, of whom the Scripture speaks, that " to him give all the prophets witness, Acts x. that in his name and through faith in his name alone, whoever believeth, shall receive remission of sins; than which Christ and his name, there is no other under heaven, given among men, whereby they must be saved; they belie us both to God and men, as denyers of Christ, and of his righteousness, and of justification by Christ alone; witness one Ackworth of Rochester, who was once heard by the writer hereof, deprecating and declaring against the Quakers in these words to God himself, in his public prayer, viz. Above all things Lord, (quoth he,) deliver this poor city from the Quakers; they are a people, Lord, that deny God, deny Christ, deny the righteousness of Christ, deny justification by Christ alone."-Page 34.

S. F. proceeds to state that he offered to prove these charges false at the time they were made, but was not permitted; and he gives also, other instances in which the same unfounded accusations were alleged against friends, all which he denies to be true.

On p. 654, in arguing against the notion that Christ died only on behalf of some, and that he was a sacrifice for the sins of believers only, he says,

Argument 11th. If all men are not put into a possibility of life by Christ's dying intentionally for every one of them, if themselves choose not death; then it could not be said, As by sin, condemnation is come on all men, so justification of life is come on all

men; and that the gift of God's grace, and gift of God in Christ, and the benefit and blessing, is, every way, at least as large, and some ways larger and abounding, beyond the mischief and curse that comes by the sin.

"But it is in effect so said, Romans v. 15. xviii. 23. Therefore all and every man, is made as capable to be saved by Christ, as every man is liable to be damned by reason of the sin.

"Argument 12th. Christ could not be truly or properly said to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, nor the Saviour of the whole world; to be given a covenant to the people; a witness to the people, a Leader and Commander to the people, a light to the nations, God's salvation to the ends of the earth; much less could all people, in any consistency with mercy, or (as before) without foolery and mockery of most men, in the midst of their remediless misery, be bid to behold him, or all the ends of the earth, be summoned with promise, yea, assurance of salvation, if they do, and on pain of more cruel damnation, if they do not; to look and come to Him, for it, and hearken to his voice, (or else, be cut off,) in all things whatever he saith to them, and such like, unless he were truly, properly, and intentionally at least, given to be all this, to all men ; all the people, the whole world, and every man in it."

From these short quotations, (and there is much more of the same import in his writings,) it is sufficiently evident, that S. F. did believe in the propitiatory sacrifice of our blessed Lord, for the sins of the whole world; a doctrine which E. Hicks, does positively reject, and therefore dissents entirely from the acknowledged tenets of the early Quakers.

On p. 61 and 62 of the pamphlet we have another quotation from the works of this author, in which he objects to the numerous commentaries, which have been written upon the text of holy Scripture, as tending rather to obscure than render them more perspicuous; and likewise against that undue reverence for the Scriptures themselves, which leads men to place them above the Holy Spirit of God, and to honour the gift, more than the giver. It is worthy of remark, that in the commencement of the treatise, from which the compilers have taken their extract, he lays it down as a certain position, that in all he says on the Scriptures," it is the letter and not the mutter, the writings, and not the subjects, things, truths, doctrines or Word, written of, that is the subject to come under consideration," between him and his opponent, and therefore he does not in the least degree impugn any doctrine or precept contained in the sacred volume.The following quotations will acquit him from coinciding with E. Hicks in a denial of the doctrines of Christ and his apostles, viz. "The outward Scripture I say, is profitable, to such as Timothy was; to men of God, to make them who are wise in the Spirit, wiser and wiser, through their faith in the light, to their own and others' salvation; and to furnish such a minister as Timothy was, who knows when, (and being in the Spirit) how, and how far forth to use it, for every good work in his ministry. And such as are full of might and power first by the Spirit of the Lord upon them, as Micah was, Micah iii. and as Apollos was, are mighty also in the Scrip

ture, and furnished mightily, to confound the scripture searching scribes, and all gainsayers of the light, as they were in their times." -Page 453.

"As for our obedience to the letter, we are by the Spirit, so bound to that, not so far only as we are willing, as thou beliest us, but in a cross to our own wills, that while we walk in the Spirit, which is our rule, we cannot disobey the letter, but fulfil it; while yourselves, who prate of your being bound to obey it, walk at large after your own wills, and lusts, in the liberty of the flesh, and through your boundless boasting of that, ye as boundlessly break, do dishonour both God and yourselves.

"As for our going about to deceive the simple, we deny all deceivers, and deceit; teaching no other doctrine nor gospel, than what Paul delivered, than which, whoever it is that brings or broaches another, whether it be we who are hated as devils, or you who are honoured as angels of light from heaven, by such as dwell in the depths and darkness of hell, I say with Paul, let him be accursed; but those are now marked and manifested plainly enough, who cause the divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine the Saints learned of old; and by the children of the day are avoided also; for they that are such, serve not the Lord Jesus Christ, but their own bellies, and yet by good words and fair speeches, deceive the hearts of the simple, Rom. xvi. 17, 18."-Page 458.

Again, on page 667, "Objection-The Letter kills-cannot give

life.

"Reply. True, but why is it? but because its disobeyed, and cannot give ability to any, to do what it requires-The law, or light, and gospel, and all, kills such as transgress it, I say the gospel itself condemns; but whom is it? None but such as hate, and take not heed to it, that thereby they may come from under the curse and death, into the life it calls for; else, it being the power of God to the salvation of such as believe in it, life should be by the light one way more, than it could come by the letter; for the letter could keep them, that keep it, from the curse denounced in it, to the breakers of it, yet cannot give any, an ability to keep it: But the light is not only able to acquit, justify, clear, absolve, secure, and save from wrath, all such as believe in, and obey it, but also to enable such as look to it, and impower them, more and more to obey and walk by it; and consequently by the letter, which cannot be transgressed by such as abide in the light; all such as singly come to it, and continue waiting on the Lord in it."

In answer to the question, "Whether are the Spirit of God, the Spirit of man, and the Spirit of the devil, three distinct Spirits? S. Fisher replies, "Yea, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the devil, and the Spirit of man are three distinct Spirits."-page 846.

Here are several points, in which S. Fisher is directly at variance with the notions of Elias Hicks. He acknowledges the usefulness of the Holy Scripture; that they are profitable to make wiser, even those who are already wise in the Spirit, and to furnish the man of God unto every good work; whereas, Elias Hicks asserts that since the Spirit has come, we should be better without the scriptures. S.

Ff

Fisher says, the early Quakers were bound by the Spirit, to be obedient to the letter, not so far as they were willing only, but in the cross to their own wills-that they could not disobey the letter, but fulfil it; but Elias Hicks does disobey it, by teaching many notions which directly contradict its sacred testimony. S. Fisher says, if any man preach any other gospel, than that which Paul preached, let him be accursed-yet Elias Hicks does teach doctrines entirely different and opposite to that gospel which Paul preached-and "contrary to the doctrine which the saints learned of old." S. Fisher says, that those who receive and obey the light, and abide in it, cannot transgress the letter, or scriptures, therefore it is clear, that "the dangerous innovations" of Elias Hicks, are positively condemned in the most solemn manner, by the very authors whom the compilers quote. Another point of difference, is the existence of an evil Spirit, distinct from the propensities and will and spirit of men, which Elias Hicks has long notoriously denied, but which S. Fisher here asserts From all which it is fully proved, that Elias Hicks has really swerved from the ancient faith of the Society, and is promulgating notions, subversive of those precious testimonies and doctrines, in support of which, our worthy predecessors suffered the loss of all that this world accounts most dear.

CHAPTER XI.

Observations upon the Compilers' Extracts from the Writings of RICHARD HUBBERTHORN.

ON page 52, of the pamphlet, the compilers have given us two quotations, from the works of this author, each about three lines. They are parts of replies to the objections of the two opponents, who denied the doctrine of the influence of the Holy Spirit, and contended that the Scriptures were the only rule of faith and life. The first is from his answer to John Stelham, viz:

"Further, he, [John Stelham,] saith, the scriptures are a rule above the saint's light, and unto it; and not so, their light above the scriptures;" to which R. Hubberthorn rejoins," this is confusion, and he knows not whereof he affirms; [for the Spirit of God is the "saint's rule, and that is greater than the scriptures, and the rule "of the Spirit of God, is above the scripture:] but such as John Stelham, who talks of scriptures to be a rule, and yet acts these things, which the scriptures declare against, are but found in deeper hypocrisy; for he that is ruled by the Spirit of God, walks up in the fulfilling of Scripture."-Works, page 142.

It was well for the compilers' cause, that they closed their quotation at the semicolon; since if they had extended it but a few lines further, they must have included a declaration of R. Hubberthorn's, which is in direct opposition to Elias Hicks. If "he that is ruled by the Spirit of God, walks up, in the fulfilling of Scripture," as this author says; it follows that such as do not fulfil, but reject and deny the scriptures, are not ruled by the spirit of God. Hence we may readily see, that as Elias Hicks does reject and deny the testimony of scripture, as relates to the miraculous conception, divinity, and propitiation, &c. of Jesus Christ, he cannot be in unity with the faith of the ancient Quakers.

The next quotation is from the same treatise, viz:

"Further, he, [J. Stelham,] saith, the scripture was given by "the spirit for a rule; this, [says R. Hubberthorn,] we desire a proof "of by plain scripture, and till then, we deny it."-page 145.

The reader will see, that in this reply, R. Hubberthorn, so far from denying scripture, lays it down as the test of the truth or error, of his opponent's assertion-which is certainly making it a standard for the soundness of doctrine. His opponent says, "the scripture was given by the spirit for a rule."-R. Hubberthorn demands proof of it by plain scripture, and until he produce this, denies it. The passage, so far from undervaluing the scriptures, gives them a very high character, and commits to their decision the question in dispute between himself and his opponents.

To infer from a short reply, to the erroneous assertion of an oppo