CONCLUSION.

We have now concluded our examination of the Extracts made by the Compilers, from the writings of our "primitive Friends ;" and have proved by abundant and conclusive testimony, from the very authors whom they quote, that the alleged charge of coinciding with Elias Hicks, in denying the Three that bear record in heaven, the Divinity and Atonement of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and the authenticity, and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, is unfounded and untrue.

We have shown from the writings of the early Quakers, that when charged with holding the sentiments which Elias Hicks now avows, they promptly denied and repelled it as a false and malicious accusation; and we have presented to the reader, numerous declarations of faith, put forth by them, evincing in the clearest manner, their firm belief, in all the doctrines of the christian religion, as laid down by our blessed Lord and his apostles, in the sacred volume; from which it is apparent, that E. Hicks and his adherents, have widely swerved from the original principles" of our pious and enlightened predecessors."

In examining the extracts made by the compilers, we have had to notice many instances, where they have garbled or interpolated the writings, which they have quoted, so as to obscure, or entirely pervert, the true sense, and meaning of the authors. We cannot but view these unjustifiable liberties, as greatly beneath the true dignity of honest men, and the uprightness of the christian character, and as furnishing decisive proof, that they are advocating a cause, which cannot be defended by fair and honourable means; yet we are not so uncharitable, as to suppose that all those, who may be favourable to Elias Hicks, approve of the ungenerous means to which the compilers have resorted, in order to force upon the early Quakers, sentiments, which it is incontestibly evident, they never held.-We trust that the number who would thus identify themselves with such dishonourable practices, is very smallfor we are persuaded that every liberal and enlightened mind, whatever may be its bias, in favour of the opinions which the compilers wish to support, will disclaim with noble indignation, any participation in such measures.

In treating upon the several points embraced in the pamphlet, to which we have replied, the sameness of the subjects rendered it impossible to avoid frequent repetition; but we apprehend, the peculiar circumstances of the case, will form a sufficient apology to the candid reader.-In making our extracts, we have been careful to omit no part, requisite to give a just view of the author's senti

ments; and though the limits of the present volume, would not admit of the insertion of more than a small part, of the very abundant evidence, for the soundness of the doctrines of primitive Friends; yet we hope the quotations which we have exhibited, will not only satisfy our readers that they were real Christians, but excite them to a serious examination of their acknowledged doctrinal treatises; of which the most full and clear are Penn's Primitive Christianity Revived, his Key opening the way to distinguish between the Quaker's religion and the perversions of it, and his Testimony to the Truth, &c. and Barclay's Catechism and Apology.

From an extensive and careful research into the works of the early Quakers, we are fully satisfied, without the shadow of a doubt, that they were, what they ever professed to be, sincere and unfeigned believers, in all the doctrines of Holy Scripture, undeniably so, as regards those points which Elias Hicks now positively rejects; and that they were ever ready and willing to have all their tenets tried by the testimony of the Sacred volume. We fear not, but that we shall, on all occasions, be able to prove and establish this, in the most satisfactory manner, by the evidence of their own writings.

The compilers of the pamphlet inform us, that their extracts, "have been carefully transcribed and compared; if, however, [say they] any alterations, or inaccuracies, appear, they are to be attributed solely to accident, and not to design."

We appeal to the sober judgment of every upright man, whether this sentence, does not evince in the clearest manner, that they knew at the time they were printing the pamphlet, that they had unjustly altered the language of the primitive Friends; and were anxious by this flimsy apology, to screen themselves from the merited odium which such conduct must inevitably receive. We can readily attribute literal inaccuracies, and typographical errors to accident, and make every reasonable allowance for them, because we know, that even where much care is taken, they will frequently occur; but deliberately to assert, that alterations, and such alterations too, as the compilers have made, leaving out necessary parts of sentences, adding whole lines to the language of the writer, and by the most unfair garbling, entirely perverting the meaning of the text; to tell the public, that these alterations" are to be attributed solely to accident, and not to design;" is so palpable an instance of disregard to truth, as must put to the blush, every advocate for the cause in which they are engaged. Such alterations could not possibly occur, by accident, as the compilers well knew, when they were writing this sentence. They evince a deliberate design, to lay waste the christian character of the Society of Friends, and to fix the odious stigma of unbelief, upon those worthy and pious men, who were its original founders.

We doubt not, but the compilers have "carefully compared their extracts;" but we have shown enough in the present volume, to convince any one, that the care in comparing, has been taken, not to render them faithful delineations of the sentiments contained in

the originals, but to mutilate or alter them, so as to present the most favourable construction, in support of the sentiments of Elias Hicks. They seem themselves to have been fully aware of this, and as if to deprecate the just retribution of censure and contempt, which they knew must await detection, they put in the plea of accident. The alterations say they, occurred by accident. But surely, this is adding effrontery to unfairness. What opinion would a judicial tribunal form of a man, who, when arraigned on trial for a forgery, should plead that he did it, solely by accident, not by design? Would not such a paltry excuse justly be esteemed an aggravation to the offence? and yet a man so circumstanced, might with as much truth, set up such a pretence, as do the compilers for the alterations, which they have wittingly made.

It is cause of deep regret to us, that persons professing themselves members of a religious society, once honourably distinguished by its conscientious regard to truth and integrity, should have given occasion for the remarks which we have been obliged to make; and especially when under the pretence of advocating religious principles. Great indeed must be their defection from the sincerity of our worthy predecessors! We know not who the compilers are, and consequently cannot be actuated by personal feelings, in aught we have said.The task of exposing their errors has been by no means a pleasant one; but when we remembered how prompt and decided the early Quakers were, in replying to every accusation alleged against them, and how zealously they vindicated their infant society from the charges which are now revived by the compilers; justice to the memory of these worthy christians, love to the Society of Friends, as well as a sense of duty, impelled us to engage in the present work. We have endeavoured to state the truth honestly, though plainly, and trust that in so doing, we have been actuated only by upright motives.

The following accusations being substantially the same as those insinuated in the pamphlet ; and the replies to them, asserting the true belief of the primitive Friends, may properly claim a place in this conclusion, viz:

"It hath been an objection often made, sometimes foolishly, sometimes enviously, but always falsely; that we deny the holy Three, mentioned 1 John v. 7, which bear record in heaven: because we cannot but think the word "Person," too gross to express them. We own their distinction in all the instances of it, recorded in Holy writ; and have a thousand times declared our sincere belief, in Almighty God, the creator of all things; and in Jesus Christ his eternal Son, by whom all things were made, and in the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son."-Switch for the Snake, p.

184.

"Snake, p. 121.-The Quakers and Socinians, acknowledge a Three, but deny a trinity, which is to confess the same thing in English and to deny it in Latin: for trinitas is only Latin for three -But the meaning is, they would not have the Three in heaven to be Three persons. Though they cannot make sense of Three what they are, if not Three Persons." To which Joseph Wyeth replies :

"What the Socinians acknowledge is not my business to enquire. But for ourselves, We acknowledge the Three mentioned in Holy Writ, which bear record in heaven, and we need not the pedantry of the Snake, to translate the word into Latin: and the sense we make of the Three, so bearing record, is the same which is declared by the Holy Ghost; and when the Snake shall show that the Holy Ghost hath declared them, Three Persons, we will not fail so to express them."-Pages 186, 187.

"According to what has been already spoken in the foregoing sections, occasionally, concerning the Divinity and incarnation of Christ, I do here of set purpose declare it as a truth, which now is, and always hath been, since we were a people, believed and declared by us: That the Word which was in the beginning with God, by which all things were made; did in the fulness of time, according to the appointment of the Father, take flesh, and was born of the Virgin Mary, and that in that body of flesh, the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. Thus in the largeness of the expression, and sense of Scripture, we do truly and sincerely own, according to John i. 14. that the Word was made flesh, &c. dwelt on the earth, and took on him, not the nature of angels; not any aerial or fantastical body; but the seed of Abraham and David; and this he did for the same reason, and behoof mentioned by the apostle, Heb, ii. 17, 18, Wherefore in all things it behoveth him to be made like unto his brethren that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. For which infinite love of Jesus Christ, in being both the Saviour and Reconciler of men to God, through himself, we sincerely say with the apostle, Heb. iii. 3, For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

"Reader, these, and all other testimonies recorded in Holy Writ, testifying to the manhood as well as the divinity of Jesus Christ, we do, and always did sincerely own: so that should our books, in which is treated directly on this subject, and abundantly more largely, and particularly than here it can be, be collected, they would make many volumes. Yet such hath been, and is the inveterate matice of our enemies, that our writings no more than our words, must not mean what we so often and solemnly have declared we do mean by them; but what our adversaries will have them to mean, that so they may not seem to want proofs for these their false and envious charges. What now remains for us to do? But still to persevere in our true and scriptural belief; and to repeat our testimonies of it to the envious objections of enemies; and for the satisfaction of the sober enquirer."-p. 191, 192.

"In the section immediately foregoing, the divinity and incarnation of Christ, is largely treated of, and I have therein shown that we own and believe both, as declared fully and truly in the Holy Scriptures, and also that our books, rescued from the perversions of this our adversary, do speak according to that acknowledged rule.

It remains, that in this, I now show that we have always owned in like scriptural sense; that Jesus Christ, in life, doctrine, and death, did fulfil his Father's will, and did offer up himself, a most satisfactory sacrifice for the sins of mankind; in opposition to the false insinuations of the Snake herein, who says, p. 151, Herein the Quakers are direct Socinians, for they positively deny the satisfaction.

"Under which cloudy charge, he insinuates as if we did deny what the scriptures do declare herein: which is false, and he might with equal sincerity have said, the Church of England do deny the satisfaction. For to come nearer, the satisfaction which is positively denied by us, is as positively denied by the Church of England, which is, that rigid and strict notion of satisfaction, which some had doctrinally, but unscripturally laid down, in the terms following, viz: [Here the author inserts William Penn's description of the doctrine, for which see page 38 of this work.]

"This, reader, is the satisfaction, or strict and rigid notion of it which we do deny, and which William Penn as quoted by the Snake, p. 154, does totally exclude, as anon I shall have occasion more largely to show. But that we do from hence deny the satisfaction which Christ did make, and which the Father did accept, as mentioned and declared in Holy Writ, is very false. For we do believe that as our Saviour does declare, John x. 18, No man taketh it from me, (speaking of his life,) but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment received I of my Father.' I say, we do believe that as Christ had this commandment and power from the Father, so by his pure, divine, free and voluntary resignation, not as I will, but as thou wilt,' Matt. xxvi. 42, he did, thereby endear the Father's love unto him, as himself declares, verse 17, Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life. And this his free, and unconstrained, voluntary offering of himself as a ransom for all, did include his agony on the mount, and his agony on the cross; in fine, it includes all his sufferings, both inward and outward, whereby he became a complete, perfect, and satisfactory sacrifice, and as such was accepted of the Father. This briefly, but truly, and according to scripture, is a short account of the satisfaction which we do positively own; as the former is an account of the satisfaction which we do positively deny."-Pages 230, 231, 232.

"The Quakers dispute against these, (viz: the outward sufferings and death of Christ,) and place the merit and satisfaction, in the allegorical sufferings and blood of their light within, inwardly shed, &c.

"This assertion of the Snake, is not allegorically, but literally a lie; for we acknowledge the satisfaction made by Christ to his Father, but we do deny that groundless and dangerous notion, of his having paid, and his Father exacted, that strict and rigorous satisfaction, by undergoing the self-same punishment and pains that the damned suffer in hell.

"We own the merit of his outward death and sufferings, but dispute, against the misapplication of that merit, to ungodly men, continuing impenitently in their sins.

"We own and believe, that men by continuing impenitently in

K k