ced nor defended by any of the Quakers or their writers. They have referred to several books, and to numerous pages, to support their illiberal insinuation, which we have examined with some care, and find them to treat almost exclusively on the nature of the spiritual Sabbath, under the gospel, and the doctrine of inherent holiness in the first day of the week. But we find not one word in any of the writings they refer to, or any where else, which encourages the members of the Society of Friends to open their shops, or pursue their ordinary avocations, upon this day of the week.

The compilers refer particularly to Isaac Pennington's works, quarto, vol. i. page 349, &c. where they say, "the subject is discussed at length, and many objections clearly and satisfactorily answered." This assertion is certainly untrue, with their construction of it; as any person may readily see by turning to Isaac Pennington's works. The pages they refer to, include four essays; the first is entitled, "The New Covenant of the Gospel, distinguished from the Old Covenant of the Law, and the Rest or Sabbath of Believers, from the Rest or Sabbath of the Jews, &c." the second is, " An Epistle to all such as observe the Seventh day of the week, for the Sabbath of the Lord;" the third is an answer to, "Some queries sent in writing, upon occasion of an Epistle, directed to all such as observe the Seventh day of the week, for a Sabbath;" and the fourth is "A Brief Explication of the Mystery of the Six days Labour, and Seventh day's Sabbath, &c." In all these essays, as the reader may perceive from the titles of them, the subject treated of, is the christian's sanctified, spiritual rest, and the appointed Sabbath of the Jews: and not one word is said throughout the whole, against the sober and regular observance of the first day of the week, as a day of religious worship and cessation from bodily labour.

Among other early writers in the Society of Friends, whom the compilers unjustly cite, in order to prove their non-observance of the first day of the week; (with a view of procuring some authority for the known violation of it by Elias Hicks,) they refer to R. Barclay. We shall quote his words, in order that the reader may see, how contrary the principles and practice of the early Quakers were to those of Elias Hicks on this subject. In his essay entitled, "William Mitchell Unmasked," to which the compilers refer, Robert Barclay says

"His 13th head, is concerning the Sabbath, or First day of the week's being so, as to which, I desire the reader first to take notice; that as we believe the apostles and primitive christians did meet this day to worship God; so we as following their example, do the like, and forbear working, or using our lawful occasions upon that day, as much as our adversaries: so that the debate is only, Whether there be any inherent holiness in this day, more than in another? or if there be any positive command for it from scripture? particularly if the fourth command bind us to the observation of it "Barclay's Folio Works, page 91.

The compilers also refer to his Apology, from which we shall quote his observations on this subject, viz.

"We not seeing any ground in scripture for it, cannot be so su

perstitious as to believe, that either the Jewish Sabbath now continues, or that the first day of the week is the antitype thereof, or the true christian Sabbath, which with Calvin we believe to have a more spiritual sense: and therefore we know no moral obligation by the fourth command, or elsewhere, to keep the first day of the week more than any other, or any holiness inherent in it. But first, forasmuch as it is necessary that there be some time set apart for the saints to meet together to wait upon God; and that secondly, it is fit at some times they be freed from their other outward affairs; and that, thirdly, reason and equity doth allow that servants and beasts, have some time allowed them, to be eased from their continual labour; and that fourthly, it appears that the apostles and primitive christians, did use the first day of the week for these purposes; we find ourselves sufficiently moved for these causes to do so also, without superstitiously straining the scriptures for another reason; which, that it is not to be there found, many protestants, yea, Calvin himself, upon the fourth command, hath abundantly evinced. And though we therefore meet, and abstain from working upon this day, yet doth not that, hinder us, for having meetings also for worship at other times."-Barclay's Apology, pages 349, 350.

George Keith, having falsely accused the Society of Friends with disregarding the observance of the First day of the week, the authors of the "Serious Examination," replied to the charge; and after stating reasons why it is not the christian Sabbath, &c. they conclude thus

"But to conclude this point, we grant as George Keith hath done; And that besides other times set apart for the worship of God, both in public and private, it is commendable in christians, to set apart the First day of the week, from common and ordinary labour; not only for an ease to their servants and cattle, but also that they may with the more freedom, and cheerful readiness attend upon the Lord and his service without all incumbrance.'-Presb. and Indep. vis. churches. And we further add, that we may be truly thankful, that there are laws, to restrain the people of this nation, from their common servile work on the First days of the week; and that God has put it into the hearts of the government, to grant liberty for the subjects, (especially all protestants,) to resort to such religious meetings, (on the first days and others,) as they are in conscience persuaded unto: Blessed be our God, for such liberty and such opportunities."-Pages 47, 48.

Again, on page 72, George Keith says, "They, [the Quakers,] allow doing servile work, as opening shop on the Lord's day, to sell goods, and taylors to mend clothes on that day;"-to which the authors of the Examination reply

"We know no such allowance given by the said people, called Quakers; and their practice shows the contrary: How many of their shops has this adversary seen open, and how many taylors employed by them, on that day, he calls the Lord's day ?"-Page 72.

CHAPTER IX.

Remarks upon the Quotations from HUMPHREY SMITH.

On page 47 of the pamphlet, the compilers have inserted a short quotation from the "True Rule Discovered," by Humphrey Smith; the object of which, we are at a loss to discover, as the doctrine it teaches, is perfectly consonant with the Holy Scriptures. We shall insert the passage a little more at length, viz:

"And now the light is in man, and so that he, that is with His, to the end of the world, is the light of the world who is the resurrection and the life, who was dead and is alive, and I say, he liveth forever more, who hath finished his work, in the outward things, to wit: Circumcision, Baptism, the Supper, and death on the cross without the gate; and is now revealed within, and worketh all our works in us, and ever liveth to make intercession for us, Isaiah, xxvi. 12; Heb. vii. 25, in whose hearts he is now crying, Abba, Father; and he that hath the Son, hath also the Father; to whom be eternal dominion, glory, honour, and humble obedience, forevermore. And so Christ Jesus, being guided by that of God, or rather the fulness of God in him, whereby he finished his work, and departed away "from among them, and bid them wait for that which should abide "with them forever;] and said, these things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you, but the Comforter, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, John xiv. 16, 25, 26, and that which teaches all things, was to be revealed within, &c."-p. 149.

66

From this extract, it is clearly apparent, that Humphrey Smith believed fully, both in the outward coming, and sufferings, &c. of our blessed Lord, his mediation and intercession on behalf of sinful man, and also his spiritual appearance in the soul. He acknowledges the Divinity as well as manhood, asserting that the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him, and that the Father sent the Comforter in Christ's name. This extract alone is amply sufficient to show, how directly opposite his belief was, to the notions now promulgated by Elias Hicks; who asserts that our blessed Lord had the Spirit communicated to him only, as man, in such proportion as seemed necessary, and that God never set him above us.- -See his Sermons.

The next quotation from this author, is on the subject of the scriptures being the primary and only rule of Faith and Life. The following extract will explain his meaning. viz:

"But say the people, though they did walk, and direct others to walk by the Spirit, yet are not we now to walk by the scriptures ? And is not the scriptures now to be our rule? and are we not to be led by that?

66

"To which I answer, That God changeth not; and where "doth the scriptures say, that the scripture is to be a rule, to walk or be led by? And the ministers of Christ did not say, As eve68 ry man hath received the scriptures, so walk; but as every man "hath received Christ, (and he is the light,) so walk]-Colossians, ii. 6. Consider there is first something to be received, and then, there is to be a walking in the power and strength of that received, &c."-p. 150.

It is evident that Humphrey Smith is only contending against the erroneous idea, that under the dispensation of the gospel, the Holy Scriptures are to be preferred before the Spirit of Christ Jesus, inwardly revealed, and made the alone rule of the saint's faith and life. But that he was far from disesteeming the sacred volume, or endeavouring to lessen a true regard for it in others, will be apparent from the following quotation from page 152, of the same book. After defending the revelations of the blessed Comforter, as the guide, and rule under the gospel, and declaring that he fulfils that, which is written without, viz: in the scriptures, he says:

"What then? do I herein, in the least make void, contemn, slight, vilify, or deny the scriptures,? God forbid; nay, I had rather my pen might fall out of my hand, or my arm from my shoulder, or my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth forever, than I should go about to make void the scriptures of truth, (and is a true declaration, Luke i. 1.) which was given forth from that which is my life, which is hid, not in the scriptures, but with Christ in God, Colos. iii. 3. and the Word was God, and that which was God, is God, John i. 1; but if I should say the scriptures is God, I should be a blasphemer, like unto others: Do I herein deny the scriptures? Nay, rather, I establish the scriptures in its place, and make use of it, as a cloud of witnesses by me, in directing all people unto that which the scriptures testify of, and was given forth from; John v, 39, &c." Page 152.

*

* As we had not in our possession, a copy of the works of Humphrey Smith, we have not the opportunity of comparing the above quotations with the original, but have no doubt whatever of their perfect accuracy. The compilers have inserted on page 32 of their pamphlet, two short extracts from the writings of THOMAS ZACHARY. On examining "Whiting's Catalogue," we find that the whole amount published by this author, was four quarto sheets. As we have not been able to obtain these, we cannot say, whether the extracts in the pamphlet are fairly made. If they are, however, they do not prove any thing in favour of the doctrines of Elias Hicks. In the first, the author says, he came to see the idolatry of professors, respecting the body, flesh, and blood of Christ; this is, as he himself explains it, placing all their faith on this alone, without regarding the invisible power, the Godhead which dwelt in him, which was the Life, Power, and Arm of God. But this does not make our blessed Lord to be a mere man; it does not rob him of his equality with the Father, but confesses to his Manhood, as well as Eternal Divinity. In the next quotation Thomas Zachary says, there is no serving God aright, but in a measure of that Spirit, wherewith Christ served him. This all Christians readily admit; but observe he does not say we are to be equal with Christ, and that God never set Christ above us, as does Elias Hicks; but that through the assistance of a measure, of the same Spirit which our blessed Saviour had in fulness, we are to be qualified for the performance of all our religious duties.

There could scarcely be a more reverent confession to the inestimable value of the sacred volume, than is here made by Humphrey Smith. Let the reader compare it with the light manner in which Elias Hicks speaks of them, and undervalues their authority-telling the people they were altered by the Pope, and "written by nobody knows who"-and boldly denying the most precious and sacred doctrines which they teach.