could find in in his works, which could be manufactured to suit their purpose. The contrast between the doctrines of George Fox and the opinions of Elias Hicks, is too strongly pourtrayed upon every page of his writings, to give the compilers the least hope of securing him as an advocate for their cause. He not only dissents from them, but condemns their principles in the strongest terms.

George Fox was a man of solid religious experience, firmly grounded in the christian religion, and by no means changeable in his disposition or doctrines. He did not contradict or deny at one time, opinions which he had openly asserted at another. After labouring many years in the work of the ministry, he did not turn about, and propagate a system directly subversive of his former principles, under profession that it was more rational and consistent than the ancienr gospel, and the result of clearer views, or more easily comprehended by the wisdom of men. He was not afraid to come out openly with all his sentiments; he did not conceal, or disguise them under a pretence that the minds of the people were not prepared to receive them. No, he preached the gospel of Christ-not the mere inventions of a depraved imagination, but the unchangeable truth as it is in Jesus. He never refused to bring his doctrines to the test of the sacred volume, but was ever the first to appeal to it, not only to prove the truth of all that he asserted, but to refute the errors of his adversaries. He sought not to lessen a proper regard and esteem of those invaluable records, by denying the solemn truths and holy precepts which they contain, or telling the people "they were altered by the Pope," or "written by nobody knows who," nor yet to apologize for his constant appeal to them, by saying that he did it on account of the ignorance and superstition of his hearers, and "to draw them off from the scriptures by degrees." No, he needed no such flimsy coverings;-he was above such unmanly artifices; he was open-plain-honest-sincere in all he did; and great as was his service, honoured and beloved as he justly was by all who truly knew him; so far from seeking to undervalue Christ Jesus and his blessed offices, and to draw the people to himself, or get himself a party, and a great name among men, he accounted it his highest honour to turn the minds of all his hearers to Jesus Christ, and him crucified-to the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, in whom he felt it to be his greatest joy and noblest privilege, to be a humble, devoted, and true believer.

1

CHAPTER VIII.

Remarks upon the Quotations made by the Compilers from the works of EDWARD BURROUGH.

ON page 47 of the pamphlet, we are presented with a short ex tract, from the works of this excellent man. He was one of those who were early engaged, in defending the society of Friends from the unjust accusations of its enemies, who laboured industriously, to fix upon its members the odious character of denying the doctrines of the christian religion.-It is from a work of this description, that the compilers have taken their first quotation, and by a most unfair mutilation, have endeavoured to support the very charge which it was written to repel.

One Christopher Fowler published a book against the Quakers, in which he exhibits a number of charges, in the form of syllogisms; the third of which is" They that do not own the Lord Jesus Christ to be God by nature, are horrible blasphemers: But those called Quakers do not own the Lord Jesus Christ, to be God by nature: therefore they are blasphemers."

From Edward Burrough's reply to this high charge, the extract in the pamphlet is copied; and in order to enable the reader to judge more correctly, of the injury which they have done him, we shall insert the whole of his reply, and enclose their quotation in brackets, viz.

"Answer to the third position; In this, thou hast falsely accused; but yet, let us consider thy words; [there was a nature, in "that man, Jesus Christ, that was born of the Virgin, that was sub"ject to cold, heat, thirst and hunger, and subject to be tempted of "the devil; and this nature was not God; whose nature is infi"nite, eternal, unmeasurable, not subject to hunger nor thirst, nor "to heat and cold, nor subject to temptations ;] so that a man may say lawfully, and be no blasphemer, that there was a nature in him, which was not God; and yet the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him too, and he is the Everlasting Father, and the Father is in him, and HE in the Father: and thus by a sound interpretation of the word, (God by nature) thy major, and minor, and conclusion, are all made void."-Page 637.

The manner in which the compilers have garbled this answer of E. B. in order to force upon him a denial of the divinity of our blessed Lord is really disgraceful. They commence and end at a semicolon, omitting both the leading and concluding parts of the sentence, in which he denies the charge which they insinuate against him; by an open confession of his full belief in the Godhead of Jesus Christ. This partial quotation they place in their pamphlet, as though it were full, fair and complete. By such un

righteous means, the early Quakers, or any religious writer, might be made to avow the most unchristian doctrines; since if they did but recite the words of an opponent, or state a position to be discussed and refuted, it might be adduced by our compilers to prove that they held the very doctrines which they were opposing.

The sentiments which E. B. has asserted in the answer quoted, must be admitted to be sound and scriptural by every christian reader. He positively denies the charge of C. Fowler, as a false accusation. This then at once contradicts the same charge, alleged by the compilers. He then proceeds to describe the manhood and Godhead of Jesus Christ, asserting that the former was not the latter, which must certainly be admitted to be correct; but that he may not thereby be construed to deny the Divinity, he asserts his belief in this also, in the most unequivocal terms. He acknowledges that the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him, that he was the everlasting Father, and that the Father was in him, and he in the Father; all which is according to Scripture, and directly contrary to the notion of E. Hicks, that Christ was no more than an Israelite, endued with a portion of the Spirit.

On the same page of the pamphlet, we have about three lines, extracted from the middle of a long paragraph, on p. 56 of E. Burrough's journal, in which he is replying to an opponent, who charged the Quakers with" not only neglecting the weightier matters of the law, but the law itself, teaching men so to do ;" and this, because they affirmed, that the Scriptures were not the primary rule of faith and life. E. B. clears the Society, from the charge of neglecting the precepts of the law, and then adds," and this again I affirm, as before I did in thy hearing, that the Scripture is not the Saint's rule, but the Spirit which gave forth the Scripture, as the Scripture itself witnesses."]

The compilers have omitted the words "before I did in thy hearing," and inserted in their place "I have done before." The extract they make, proves nothing more, than that Edward Burrough asserted the scriptures were not the primary and only rule of the saints, which the Quakers never believed they were. On the same page he says in reply to his opponent:

"I answer, the scriptures we own, and by that spirit which speaks them forth, we witness them to be true, and they are ours; and though you say they are the savour of death to us that perish, yet thou art found a liar, for we are saved out of the perishing state, and death is destroyed through death, through faith; and thou hast diminished from that scripture, 2 Tim. iii. 15, false prophet like again, and so art both an adder [to] and a diminisher; and thou mayst read thy portion in Rev. xxii. 18, 19."

No less than five times, on this and the following page, does Edward Burrough declare that the Quakers own the scriptures.

The following extract, from his treatise entitled "A Standard lifted up," &c. will show fully the opinions of "primitive Friends," upon the subject of the Holy Scriptures, viz. "Concerning the Word of God, and concerning the scriptures, this testimony I give unto all the world.

"The Word of God was in the beginning, before any creatures were made; and by it all things stand and remain unto this day; and the Word endures forever, and by it all things in heaven and in earth are brought to pass, which God doth; and it is from everlasting to everlasting, without beginning and without end; and the Word is powerful, dividing and discerning all things, even the secret thoughts of every man's heart; it is as a two edged sword, and as a fire, and like a hammer, to cut up, to burn, and to beat down; the Word of the Lord reconciles man again to Him; and this Word is in the mouth and in the heart, and the servants of the Lord handled, tasted, saw, and felt the Word of Life; and from it, spoke forth the scriptures, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, through the eternal spirit; and it is a declaration of the Word of Life, which was in the beginning, and endures forever; and it declares what the saints received, believed and enjoyed, and none can understand it, without the same spirit that gave it forth, and to such who have the same spirit, the scripture is profitable: the Word of God, which was in the beginning, and which endures forever, is not the scripture; which was not in the beginning, neither can it endure forever; but the scripture testifies of that Word, and that Word, witnesses to the scriptures; and THEY ARE NOT CONTRARY ONE TO THE OTHER, but gives witness each of other; but many hath the scripture that hath not the Word, neither knows it; BUT THEY THAT HAVE THE WORD, CANNOT BUT OWN THE SCRIPTURES; and this is the truth as it is in Jesus, testified to all the world by us; who doth deny them that hereof gives any other testimony."-Page 249.

Here are some very plain declarations, which look but little like coinciding with Elias Hicks' denial of the sacred volume. Edward Burrough asserts that the scriptures are the declaration of the Word of Life, given forth by holy men, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, that the Word, witnesses to the scripture; that they are not contrary one to the other; and that they who have the Word, cannot but own the scripture, and lastly, that the Quakers deny those who give any other testimony of them. According, therefore, to Edward Burrough's knowledge of the early Quakers, they not only denied the principles of Elias Hicks on this subject, but also those persons who held them.

In a paper entitled "Some considerations presented to the King of England," &c. he says

"I do testify unto the King, and before the whole world, that we [the Quakers] do profess and believe, concerning the Father, Son and Spirit, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the blessed gospel, and the Holy Scriptures; I say we do believe, and make profession in truth and righteousness, concerning all these things; and by our doctrines and instructions, do persuade all people to believe; and not seduce any from these truths of the gospel, and this is known, through these kingdoms, concerning us, though we stand now accused falsely, concerning these matters before the king. But as for the scriptures being the rule of life, we say the spirit of God that gave forth the scriptures, is the rule of life and faith, unto the saints, and LEADS NOT

CONTRARY, BUT ACCORDING UNTO THE SCRIPTURES; in the BELIEF and practice of whatsoever the scripture saith.”—Page 758.

It will necessarily follow from this declaration of Edward Burrough, on behalf of "primitive Friends," that those doctrines which some, professing to be Quakers, are now promulgating, contrary to the scriptures, are not sanctioned by that spirit of God which is the saints' rule, and consequently are directly in opposition to the Christian principles of our worthy ancient Friends.

On page 71 of the pamphlet, the compilers have inserted a part of E. Burrough's reply to Samuel Eaton, who contended that "the sanctification of the first day of the week, had put an end to the sanctification of the seventh," &c. To this Edward Burrough objects, because the scriptures no where tell us, that under the gospel dispensation, one day has any more inherent holiness, than another, but that all days are to be sanctified unto the Lord.

It was an opinion very common among the various denominations of professing Christians, in his time, that the first day of the week was the gospel Sabbath, or true saints' rest, typified by the seventh day Sabbath, under the law; and that hence, the obligation to refrain from every species of labour on the first day, was equally as obligatory upon Christians; as the rigid observance of the seventh was upon the Jews. This notion, and the severity of the existing laws, in England, subjected our early Friends to much suffering, from the malice of persecuting informers, who falsely accused them of violating the Sabbath, when only engaged in the necessary and unavoidable duties of domestic life.

Convinced in their own minds, that the true gospel rest had a more spiritual and inward signification, and that it was to be witnessed in the secret of the soul; the early Quakers endeavoured to convince other professors, that from various passages in the sacred volume, it was evident, that with all their veneration of holy days, they were missing the real enjoyment of the saints' rest, and too much confiding in the mere outward form without knowing the life and power.

But while they did this, they were religiously careful to be diligent and punctual in their attendance at their places for divine worship; and as scrupulously guarded against the performance of manual or servile labour, other than was indispensable, on that day, as those of other denominations. This is repeatedly asserted in their writings, when defending themselves from the charge of totally neglecting the observance of the Sabbath.

It is clearly apparent that the compilers design to make the impression, by their extract, that this charge was true that our ancient Friends made no distinction between the first day and other days of the week. To do this the more effectually, they have added a note at the bottom of the page, stating that the sentiments of Edward Burrough were advanced and defended by all the early writers in the Society of Friends. It may be very true, that most, or all, of the early Friends, held the same sentiments respecting the sanctification of the first day of the week, as Edward Burrough did; and a number of writers have defended them; but it is certainly true, that the compilers' construction of those sentiments, was neither advan

E e