5^ £13. ^ 03. XT PRINCETON, N. J. SAMUEL AGNEW, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. % Shelf, I Book, Division Sectk-)!. N»,. BX 7743 .F6 A3 1815 Foster, Thomas, 1759 or 60- 1834. An appeal and address to the Yearly Meeting of Friends, * Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/appealaddresstoyOOfost_0 1 # AN APPEAL AXD ADDRESS TO THE YEARLY MEETLXG OF FRIENDS, HJLD I.\ LONDON, A. D. 1814. * AN APPEAL AND ADDRESS TO THE YEARLY MEETING OF FRIENDS, HELD IN LONDON, A.D. 1814. BY THOMAS FOSTER, ON HIS EXCOMMUNICATION, FOR ASSERTING THE UNITY AND SUPREMACY OF GOD THE FATHER. '• For this cause icas I born, and for this cause / came into the xvorld, that I might BEAR WITNESS TO THE TRUTH. — If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another — the Father, who hath sent me — that beareth, witness of me— of whom ye say that he is your Gop." Jesus Christ. " For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. — To us there is but one Gou, the Father of whom are all ihing-s." Paul. " The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye killed, having hang-ed him on a Cross : him hath God exalted to his right hand, to be a Leader and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." Peter and the other Apostles. LONDON : Printed by Slower Smalljield, Hackney ; AND SOLD BY R. HUNTER, (SUCCESSOR TO J. JOHNSON), ST. PAULAS CHURCH YARD. 1815. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page, Notice of Appeal, March 29th, 1813 2 Letter to the Meeting for Sufferings, Nov. 1st, 1813 - - - 3 Renewed Notice of Appeal, Dec. 26th, 1813 15 Letter to Sparks MoHne and Josiah Messer, Jan. 23d. 1814 - 17 Letter to the Meeting for Sufferings, Feb. 1st, 1814 - - - 18 Letter to the Quarterly Meeting, March 26th, 1814 - - - 23 Discussion thereon - -- -- -- -- -- -- 24 Letter to the Meeting for Sufferings, May 4th, 1814 - - - 25 Yearly Meeting's rules for conducting Appeals, made in 1813 28 Letter from Luke Howard on behalf of the Respondents on my Appeal, 5th month 13th, 1814 30 Letter in reply. May 14th, 1814 - -- -- -- -- ib. Yearly Meeting, 1st and 2d Sittings, 5th month 18th, 1814 - 32 Committee of Appeals chosen - -- -- -- -- - 33 1st Sitting, 5th month l9th - - - 34 Appeal read in the Committee --------- - 35 Discussion on the last Article of the Appeal ------ 47 Committee of Appeals 2d and 3d Sittings, 5th month 20th - 49 Yearly fleeting, 5th month 23d - -- -- -- -- 51 Report of Committee - - 53 Grounds of its decision not allowed to be explained - - - 54 Appeal read in the Yearly Meeting, 5th mouth 24th - - - 55 Address to the Yearly Meeting - -- -- -- - 55 — 74 Address to do. ; afternoon Sitting 74 — 108 Commencement of Respondents reply -------- 109 Appendix 113—125 PREFACE. IT was my intention to wave the right of appeal to the Yearly Meeting, till the unex- pected circumstances stated in the ensuing pages, 3 — 22, altered my determination. The King and Parliament are not above listening to the complaints of obscure individuals, and such condescension is expected from them under the British Constitution ; but a standing Committee of the Yearly Meeting, which had inadvertently, as I am wiling to believe, con- tributed to do me an injury, pertinaciously refused to hear my complaint, even in a re- spectful letter. Thus situated, and still enti- tled to exercise the rights of an Appellant, I thought myself called upon to claim them, in order openly to vindicate my character in the face of those who had aspersed it, and to shew the Yearly Meeting how I had been treated by the Society in a collective capacity, both before and after my disownment. The latter I wished first to speak to, that I might if pos- sible remove the prejudices excited in my judges, before I entered upon the former. viii But silence was peremptorily imposed upon . me, as to any thing the Morning Meeting of Ministers and Elders, or the Meeting for Suf- ferings had done. The rules^however, respecting Appeali!j,soposi- tivelyenjoin a fair and full hearing of both parties, that every other objection which was afterwards made to my exercising that right was overruled, and principally by the firm and impartial con- duct of John Wilkinson, then Clerk of the Yearly Meeting, under which name the duties of a Chairman are exercised. When ecclesiastics of any profession, acting as a collective bodv, assume to themselves the power of judging their Christian brethren on matters of faith and worship, the history of almost every church shews, that there is scarcely any injustice within their power which they he- sitate to commit ; though perhapsas individuals, of irreproachable character. The fact is, that when so associated, they place themselves, how- ever unconscious of it, under the baneful domi- nion of priestcraft, which is so infectious, that as a celebrated writer once said of it, one drop is enough to contaminate the OceanJ^ This exercise of a coercive authority over conscience, in the administration of the disci- pline originally established in the Society of IX Friends, was early apprehended. William Penn thus endeavours to guard against it. ''Church 2:overnment/' savs he, "mast no more be denied, because the Church of Rome pleads for it, than any other truth that she asserts. There are principles held by Jews and Turks in common with Christians, must Christians therefore renounce these common tmths, or be branded w ith Judaism orTurcism } Nor is the abuse of a principle or prfhctice by any Society a reason, why another communion .should be abused for retaining or using it.'^ He adds, speaking in the name and on behalf of the Society. * ' The power m e claim and use, differs both in its nature and object, from the power used by the Roman and other churches too : in nature, for our's is not coercive and penal either by themselves or their proxy, the civil magistrate, who is a member of their church. In object they differ, beC^u^se their authority regards matters of faith and wor- ship ; but that we use, only order and the GOVERNMENT OF SociETY. And here I must beseech those into whose hands this may come, to stop a while and ponder with th^ spirit of meekness and wisdom this distinction/' In the next page Penn adds, We never as- sumed to ourselves a. faith or worship-making « X power, nor did any one — ever charge it upon US. — Our case is plain order, not articles op FAITH ; and the discipline of government, not OF worship."* Had either of the meetings which decided on my case recognized these fundamental principles upon which the discipline was ori- ginally established, would they not in effect have said to my accusers. Ye may be right in point of faith, and the person you accuse may be in error, but neither you, nor are we duly authorized to judge of the soundness of his faith towards God ? This is not within the province of our dicipline, which regards only order and the government of Society — " not articles of faith nor matters of worship.^^ He professes to believe in Jesus as the Messiah, the anointed of tlie Father, and in the divinity ♦ See the Preface to Barclay's Works, Edit, of 1718, pp. 21-23, first published in 1691. Penn's Rise and Progress of the People called Quakers,'* was published in 1694. In this work, treating of The church power they own and exercise, and that which they re- ject and condemn;'' he says, " They distinguish between imposing any practice that immediately regards faith or worship, /^aZ/zc/* is never to be done or suffered^ or submitted unto J and requiring Chris- tian compliance with those methods that only respect church business in its more civil part and concern ; and that regard the discreet and orderly maintenatice of the character of the Society as a sober ajid religious community/* IVorks, vol. i. p. 878.. xi of his mission — and the obligation of obeying his precepts, and receiving his doctrines as of divine authority. Why then should ye judge your brother? AVhat rule of the Society do you charge him v^^ith having broken?* Would ye have us countenance your injudicious accusation, and thereby proclaim that the rights of conscience for which our ancestors suffered so much, are no longer respected or even tolerated amongst us ? Would ye have us unwisely commit the reputation of the Society, as being accountable for the private sentiments of all those whom it retains in membership ? Are ye not aware that this would be to cancel the bond of peace" by which our ancestors were united ; and that it is highly probable, not to say cer- tain, that many among us hold sentim-ents very similar to those you denounce ? Would ye by a rigorous inquisition search out these, and either compel them to recant or disguise their opinions ; or would you drive them from our communion ? Or, would ye * Iq my Narrative there are copies of all the minutes relative to my case, up to the time of its publication. I have not repeated them, as their import will sufficiently appear in this work. None of these, I may however observe, accuse me of a breach of any rule of the Society, or of disbelieving any scriptural doctrine. xii censure and disown some of these, and let others go free, and yet pretend that the rules of our discipline are impartially put in prac- tice r'^ Depart with this admonition from the judgment-seat, examine your own hearts, and endeavour to learn " what manner of spirit ye are of Such I presume would have been in sub- stance the reception of my accusers at the threshold, had the operation of the discipline been confined within those limits, and ad- ministered upon those principles on which it was professedly founded. How their accusation was received and acted upon, the following pages will evince. The disci- pline has indeed, of late yeai^, in many in- stances been conducted upon widely different principles. Opposite maxims have prevailed among the rulers of the Society, and if they are persisted in, and tamely submitted to by the bulk of its members, the consequences are not difficult to foresee. The question is of no less import to them generally, than whether the Apostolical order of the church of Christ" is still the practice and ornament of their Christian So- ciety Or, whether the prevalence of a Pharisaic spirit and the love of reputed ortho- doxy or the praise of men, have alarmingly xiii weakened their love of the truth as it is in Jesus, and their estimation of doctrines in pro- portion to their real importance; and the clear- ness with which they are laid down in Scrip- ture ? Those readers who may object to this work as an ex parte statement, should be infor raed that I wished it to contain a fair view of the Respondents' reply before the Yearly Meeting, which was delivered the day after my address, and occupied about three hours and a half During this time I took notes of what struck me as most material, and especially of the references to the numerous quotations of the Respondents, either for the purpose of crimi- nating me, or of exhibiting their own view of the doctrines of the Societ\-. From these I prepared a summary of their reply, and almost as soon as this work was in the press offered to submit the MS to them, that any enors in it of which they could have reason to complain might be corrected. The Respondents declined this offer, and did not even acknowledge the receipt of the small part of which I sent them a copy. See pp. 109 — 111. I have therefore given no account of their reply at large the day following, of my re- joinder the same evening, nor of the discus- xiv sion the next day in the absence of the parties. I wish, however, to afford the Respondents a fair occasion for publishing their reply, by dropping the curtain at the close of that sittings which heard my address. If they should in- cline to annex to it any account of my rejoinder, they shall be welcome to the use of my MS. with full liberty to add to it, in the form of notes, or otherwise such observations as they may think proper. Should none of the Respondents be inclined to publish any account of their reply, I should be disposed to lend a copy of my MS. sum- mary of it, to any respectable Friend who might be desirous to publish it, and to avail himself of the assistance of my papers. I have so frequently expressed as an Appel- lant, in the plainest and strongest terms I could use, my objection to the imposition of unscrip- tural articles of faith, in any form, or under any pretext, that it is unnecessary to repeat them here, but as the right of imposing such articles on me, or of expelling me from that Society in which it pleased an all-wise Provi- dence that I should be born and educated, has in reality been the point at issue between my accusers and myself ; I would close this preface by expressing my sincere good wishes XV for the welfare and prosperity of the Society, and by quoting a very impressive testimony of John Locke, against siiljection to any similar imposition. After havin^r most dearlv shewn from the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, that in the primitive Christian church, no other article of belief was required of converts to the faith that Christ and his Apostles preached, than that Jesus is the Messiah the Son of God, ' he says,* I allow to the makers of systems and their followers, to invent and use what distinctions they please and to caH thnicrs by what names they think fit : but I cannot allow to them, or to any man, an authority to make a religion for me, or to alter that which God hath revealed. And if they please to call the believing that which our Saviour and his Apostles preached, and proposed alone to be believed a historical faith, they have their libert}- ; but they must have a care how they deny it to be a juf tifving or saving faith . when our Saviour and his Apostles have declared it * Reasonableness of Christianity as deliyered in the Scriproies," last Edit. p. 14*. Johnson & to. London, price in boards, 3s. 6d, iucludin^ a short account of the life and writings of the A ithor. -itb his celebrated ** Essay for tlie understanding of St, P u^j Ep;s:!es, by consulting St, Paul himself." XVI so to be, and taught no other which men should receive, and whereby they should be made believers unto eternal life ; unless they can so far make bold with our Saviour for the sake of their beloved systems, as to say that he forgot what he came into the world for; and tiiat he and his apostles did not instruct people right in the way and mysteries of salva- tion.'' ERRATA. Page 34, line 20, for " obserted," read proposed. 72, line 2, note, for '* § Mark xii. 29," read Rom. xiv. 4. 94, line 8, note, for " It was," read It is. 97, line 30, note, for " of ancients," read of the ancients. 100, line 21, note, for " he add," read he adds. APPEAL, By the constitution of the society of Friends, usually called Quakers, the rights of membership are guarded with peculiar care. Every member disowned by any Monthly Meeting is entitled to appeal against its judgment, to tl\e Quarterly Meet- ing in whose district it is situated. This right I exercised, and considering the decision of the Quarterly Meeting in my case, as tending to encourage by its influence an intolerant spirit, in- jurious to the interests of truth and virtue, I pub- lished as correct a Narrative of the proceedings as was in my power, that their true character might be generally understood. So far as this decision is acted upon as a precedent, it is evidently calculated to discourage among the members of the society, by the fear of censure and disownment, an open profes- sion of their own convictions concerning the doctrines of the New Testament, or even the religious tenets of the founders and most approved authors of the society. Much disposed as I was to wave the farther exer- cise of the rights of appeal, I chose to preserve them B 2 as long as the rules allowed, and therefore gave the following notice To the Quarterly Meeting of London and Middlesex, to be held 3d Month 30th, 1813. Dear Friends, It has been with much reluctance on various accounts, that I have at length concluded to give you notice of appeal to the Yearly Meeting against your judgment. In the exercise of this right, however, I think my resolution is unalterably fixed to occupy but very little of the time of the Meeting, or of its Committee. The probable advantages of another personal discus- sion of the case, do not appear to me important enough, to reconcile me to being the cause of pro- longing the sittings of that Meeting to the necessary, and perhaps great inconvenience of many friends. My object is rather to give the society an opportu- nity of doing itself justice, by calmly reconsidering a decision, which may soon become a precedent inju- rious to its welfare, and unfavourable to its progressive improvement, than to urge the reversal of a sentence confirmed by you, which I deem truly honourable to me, as a Christian^ because, if I understand its im- port, it disowns me as a member of your religious society, for openly professing my belief concerning Jesus Christ, in scriptural terms, and for refusing to adopt a7ii/ other. The Yearly Meeting in 1794 resolved " not to receive in future any appeal in print, or that hath been printed." 1 shall continue to avoid, to the best of my judgment, any infringement of this rule, but I shall nevertheless hold myself at full liberty, to pub- lish a narrative of the previous proceedings in my case, before my intended appeal to that meeting is pre- sented or prepared. 3 So salutary do I deem it, that all persons in whom judicial powers are vested, should exercise them, as under the eye of the public, or rather with a con- sciousness that they are liable to publicity, that I should readily wave the privilege of appeal as illu- sory and of little value, under any system which fettered or prohibited such a right. Earnestly wishing that we may more and more, to our unspeakable advantage " let this mind he in' us " ichich was also in Christ Jesus^'' I am your sincere friend, Thomas Foster. Bromlei/, March 99th, 1813. This notice being read, six respondents were ap- pointed to defend the decision of the Quarterly Meeting, viz. George Stacey, William Allen, Luke Howard, John Ehot, Josiah Forster and Richard Bowman. At length I learnt that a publication was circulating containing such charges against me, as I could not with propriety pass over in silence, countenanced as the work had been, though previously disposed to avoid any farther controversy with the society. I ventured however to hope, that by a plain state- ment and refutation of these charges, though they had been sanctioned by the " Morning Meeting of Ministers and Elders," the appointed censors of the press, and directed to be circulated throughout the society, by the " Meeting for Sufferings,"' that body might be induced to withdraw its farther countenance from the work. With these views I addressed the following letter To the Meeting for Sufferings, to be held 11th Month 5th, 1813. Dear Friends, In " a list of Friends' books now on sale/' published 4 in your name, pursuant to a minute of 9th month 3d last, " for the general information of Friends there is one pamphlet which contains various false and injurious charges and insinuations, tending espe- cially by the countenance you have given it, to pre- judice the minds of Friends in every part of the king- dom against me, while the Appeal to the Yearly Meeting, of which I have given due notice, is pendii^. This work is entitled, " Remarks suggested by the perusal of a Portraiture of Primitive Quakerism, &c/' It was published during the last Yearly Meeting, and sold in common with other Friends' books, at the Clerk's Office, Devonshire House ; and, as I now understand by your minute, " with the approbation of the Morning Meeting" of Ministers and Elders. Soon after it came out, 1 read it attentively, but without being able to discover its pertinency to the subject of wdiich it treats ; and supposing it, till very lately^ to be merely the unsanctioned effusion of an individual, I did not incline to notice either the palpable misrepresentations with which it abounds, or the author's reasoning, of which it contains some very singular specimens. When such a production is officially sent forth by you " for the general information of Friends,'* with a recommendation, that two copies be taken by every Monthly Meeting, and one copy " kept in each Quar- terly Meeting," it acquires a claim to notice of which I before thought it wholly undeserving. I neverthe- less highly esteem the character of its author, as a benevolent and amiable man and a sincere Chris- tian, but I cannot commend his candour or ac- curacy as a writer; nor think that such a work merited the distinguished countenance it has ob- tained. But I solicit your attention to its contents, so far only as they are calculated to excite unjust prejudices, even in the minds of those who may be- come judges of my appeal. 1 shall thus trespass upon your time more than I could wish, yet it would 6 be evidently improper to prefer these complaints^ without distinctly specifying the grounds on which they rest. 1. Your approved author begins by asserting that " Many attempts have lately been made by Unita- rian wiiters to identify their faith with that of the Quakers, but — sometimes — rather covertly than open- \y^*' and that '* The ' Devotional Extracts' were given to the world with this design,'' Whether the first of these assertions be correct or not, the latter is wholly unfounded. The work al- luded to, is entitled, " Devotional and Doctrinal Extracts from Epistles of the Yearly Meetings in London, of the people called Quakers, from the year 1678 to 1810.'' Many of you know that long before the Remarks you have sanctioned were publislied, 1 avowed myseU\the Editor of this work, in the Quar- terly Meeting which heard my appeal. My pro- fessed and real design was not to identify" the faith of any other class of Christians with that of the Quakers," but to evince the general soundness of the devotional language of our predecessors by unexcep- tionable evidence, and to contribute so far as in my power to " the preservation of my brethren, in an undeviating and consistent profession of that great / and fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures, the unity of God r 2. Your approved author says, " This design of identijication is however no longer a secret: it is brought forward in no dubious form in the ' Portraiture of Priiiiitive Quakerism, by William Penn ; with a modern sketch of reputed Orthodoxy, and real into- lerance, by RatclifF Monthly Meeting.'" The design of William Penn in publishing the work here called a " Portraiture" is much too plain to be any secret," to those w^ho read it with atten- tion. He intended it as a defence of the unity, mercy and purity of God ; and as a confutation of those so generally-believed and applauded doctrines of the 6 Tciiiity, a plenary satisfaction and an imputative righteousness. Such was my design in the republi- cation of this Tract, and not to compare, much less " to identify" the faith of those who are usually called Unitarians, " with that of the Quakers." The sketch" contained not an ex parte statement in my favour, but correct copies of all the minutes of Rat- clifF Monthly Meeting relative to my case, with a few explanatory notes. Those minutes, and Penn's Tract form a contrast as striking as I can readily imagine. 3. Your approved author adds, " It may perhaps be suspected that this pamphlet was intended to sell as the work of the Ratcliff Monthly Meeting : though candour would instantly reject such a suspicion, were it not already authorized by the publication of a ver- sion of the New Testament, sanctioned by the name of Archbishop Newcome." The version here alluded to, if I understand your author, is entitled " The New Testament in an improved Version upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new Translation.'* But this is not to claim his sanction in favour of the work farther than is proper, as all deviations from the Primate's text, are carefully marked, and his reading given at the bottom of the page. Nor can this pub- lication, whatever be its merits or demerits, authorize a " suspicion" which your approved author says " candour" would otherwise " instantly reject." 4. He next tells us that " The title given to the ' Devotional Extracts' also, and the manner of its publication, were equalhj calculated to deceived How so ? The title as given above, is, I submit to you, as expressive of the contents of the work, as any I could have chosen. The extracts were selected one or more from each Epistle, from 1678 to 1810. They are generally devotional or doctrinal, and the most appropriate I could find. With what justice then can this title be described as " calculated to deceive?'^ 5. Your approved author however says he " was 7 himself deceived'^ and that he knows of 8ome otheis who eagerly inquired after the work, beheving it to be sanctioned by the society of Friends/' Whai then ? How could the Editor of that w^ork prevent those persons from believing without evidence, or being deceived for want of proper inquiry, when the means were at hand ? The conclusion of the preface might have informed them, that the Editor was far from attempting to give his work any other sanction than the pertinency and fidelity of his selection. For he there informs his readers, that " as a knowledge of the name of the person by whom this selection was. made, cannot assist any one in appreciating its value or the inferences justly deduceable from it, he has not given it. But that if it should be thought necessary in any way to notice this work, the Editor may be called Philemon.'' There was therefore no just ground for representing, that " the manner" in which this pamphlet was published, was in any degree calculated to deceived 6. Your approved author apparently forgetting his suspicion that the Portraiture, &c. " was intended to sell as the work of the Ratclilf Monthly Meeting," informs us that " as it appears to be brought forward by a person born and educated amongst the Quakers^ it may be the more likely to pass for a full exposition of their doctrines." With some persons it may, but not with those who examine before they judge. Such persons as jhe " deeply thinking men,'' for whom your approved author tells us he has often felt compassion," would be likely with all the infirmities he imputes to them to judge better. Nor could any reasonable man consi- der this tract as containing a full exposition' of any doctrines but those above-mentioned. It pro- fesses to treat of no others. 7. After two desultory paragraphs which affect not my reputation, but rather your's who have sane- 8 tioned this work, your author tells us that Penn's Sandy Foundation Shaken " professes to attack all that is of mere human authority and invention in the tenets that relate to the Trinity, imputed righteous- ness, and the satisfaction and atonement made by Christ." This is not much amiss, but I think Penn ex- plains his professed design more definitely and cor- rectly in his preface to this work. He there says, he has " endeavoured a total enervation of those cardinal points, and chief doctrines so firmly believed, and continually imposed for articles of Cliristian faith.'* 8. Your approved author says also, that it " gave great offence to professors of different churches" in Penn's time. It did so to Trinitarians^ but not to his brethren the primitive Quakers. Your author adds, " rude as that age was, it did not refuse to Wil- liam Penn, like the Unitarians of the present, the pri- vilege of explaining his own words : and though he was imprisoned for his book, yet his gaoler was not ordered to put a gag in his mouth, as his present in- quisitors do^ when he would open it for his justifica- tion/' No part of this grave accusation, sanctioned as it is by you, is well founded. To republish one of Penn's tracts, is rather to open than to shut the mouth of its author, and to style those who have been so usefully employed " inquisitors," is most absurdly to call names. 9. " We will remove this obstruction," continues your approved author, " and Penn shall speak for himself bringing in his hand ' Innocency with her open face,' which if I mistake not, will occasion some surprize in the minds of those, who have hitherto been introduced to this amiable writer only through the medium of Unitariafi quotation.'* Is it then a distinguishing character of Unitarians, rather to republish a whole work than to risk exhi- 9 biting the sense of an author imperfectly ? It should seein so by the above passage. As to the " surprize* your author anticipates in the minds of his readers, should they be persons of much reflexion I conceive it will not be that such a tract as the Sandy Foun- dation Shaken, wcs selected for republication, but that its author, having therein spoken for himself so ably and scripturally, should under any circumstances have written such an Apology for that work. He undoubtedly deemed them consistent with each other, if he was, as I believe him to have been a man of integrity. For in the latter, there is no confession whatever that there are any unsound or unscriptural doctrines in the former. Yet so decidedly opposed is it to the doctrine of the Trinity, according to your approved author, that he represents its readers, as introduced to the writings of William Penn, " only through the medium of Unitarian quotation /" 10. In order to remove " this obstruction,'' as he calls it, your author, in the midst of his " Remarks'' provides his readers with a copy of the aforesaid " Apology," but without any comparison of the two tracts, or attempting to vindicate the consistency or sincerity of William Penn in writing the latter, he says, p. 21, '* Not doubting that the perusal of the tract here offered to the public has produced very opposite emotions in different classes of readers, I beg leave to offer some few observations on the ' Por- traiture of Primitive Quakerism.' The concluding remark in the author's preface, plainly declares that the design of this book is the identification of the Quaker and the Unitarian doctrines. Speaking of the ' Sandy Foundation,' he observes, ' than which I am not acquainted with a more manly and able vindica- tion, in that peculiarly fanatical age of the pure Uni- tarian doctrine J " This is comparatively candid, because any attentive reader may see, that the evidence appealed to as so c plain, will not support the conclusion, I did not speak in that place of the doctrines of Unitarians gene- rally, but of the pure Unitarian doctrine^ as it was laid down by William Penn, and defended in that work. This charge therefore is groundless. Nor is that which follows any better founded. The preface and postscript to Penn's Sandy Foundation Shaken/* were omitted as relating to a personal controversy, and as containing other irrelevant matter, of which the two quotations adduced by your author afford " sufficient evidence.*' 11. In the year 1771, an edition of Vewn^^ Select Works was published by the Society, in the preface to which the editors very properly remark, that " Much might here be said on subjects so extensive as the life and writings of our author ; but we re« frain, lest in offering our own sentiments concerning them, we might seem to be endeavouring to prepos- sess the reader in their favour." This preface being prefixed to the " Portraiture," your author seems to have most strangely mistaken the above sentiment^ if not the whole preface, for mine ; and under this im- pression he gives the substance of it, marked with inverted commas, as a correct quotation, in the fol- lowing terms and manner. " Much," says the painter of this Portraiture " might be said on the life and writings of William Penn, but he would not pre- possess the reader in favour of his own sentiments." Your approved author then exclaims, " Of this trait of delicacy let every one form his own opinion^ while I assist this author in examining his favourite identity, by scattering a few more quotations from William Penn." Be it so. Let every one also judge what depen- dence can safely be placed on the accuracy of such a writer, or on the discrimination of those who revised and sanctioned his work. 12. Your approved author, under the influence of eqiiall}^ gross misconception, brings forword p. 28, a much more serious accusation, but without any evi- dence to support it. He there says, " Though the Quakers have no written creeds, the acknowledge- ment of which constitutes a sole right to membership, yet whoever imagines, as may icell he imagined from the writings of Verax, that a man still professing to be a disciple of Mahomet, may yet be a Quaker, is greatly mistaken." Without doubt he is. But this defamatory in- sinuation, that the writings of Yerax have a natural tendency to produce such an erroneous notion, is entirely unfounded. Many, if not most of you knew, before the " Remarks" you have sanctioned were published, that I was accused before the Quar- terly Meeting of being the author of the writings alluded to ; and that a number of passages were adduced from them against me, but that none of thesfe held forth any thing approaching the monstrous proposition, that a professed disciple of Mahomet^'' may yet be intitled to claim membership in a Chris- tian church. Such an extravagant idea, countenanced as this accusation is by you, is utterly incompatible with the whole tenor of those works. The one is intitled, *' A Vindication of Scriptural Unitarianism, and some other Primitive Christian Doctrines ;" the other " Christian Unitarianism Vindicated/' Long: before the date of your minute, declaring the Remarks" to have been duly sanctioned, and directing them to be generally distributed throughout the Society, I had publicly avowed myself to be the author of both those works. There can therefore scarcely be a doubt to whom this heavy charge was intended to apply. Yet I may safely challenge any person to cite a single passage in those works, which can in the slightest degree justify this accusation. Such a thought never entered my mind till your approved author suggested IS it, much less had I ever expressed it verbally, or in writing. 13. Nor doe^ it appear, as he imagines, from the writings of Verax, " as the assumption of a new power ^ by the Quakers of the present age to expel non-conforming members.'* Verax knew very well that the power of expulsion has been freely exercised in every period of their history, and he believes often unnecessarily and unwisely. The cases of George Keith and Hannah Barnard are very unfitly com- pared by your author. There is no similarity between them, either as to the points in question, the conduct of the parties disowned, or, of the society, but rather a perfect contrast. George Keith attempted to im- pose upon his brethren unscriptural articles of faith ; Hannah Barnard set up no such pretension. The church evinced an unequivocal disposition to tolerate the speculative errors of the former, although it at length disowned him. The latter was disowned, not for interfering with the Christian privileges of others, but because the church would not tolerate the con- scientious exercise of her own. Having finished his observations on the " Por- traiture,^' your approved author says, p. 29, " I would gladly avoid all remark on the Appendix to this little volume. It is almost impossible to speak of it without being personal, *' Why so ? The proceedings, it is true, relate to an individual. But the general principles on which they appear to be founded, present by far the most important objects for consideration. The soundness of these might be instructively discussed without any- personal allusion. For instance, the propriety of a% cusers questioning persons suspected of holding erroneous opinions on points of doctrine, or, sitting in judgment on their own accusations. — The consistency and utility of unscriptural articles of faith in Pro- testant churches — of imposing such tenets on pain of 13 expulsion from religious fellowship ; with various other topics equall}^ interesting to the cause of Chris- tian truth, and the rights of conscience might be considered as general propositions, without any per- sonal reference The documents in this appendix, seem to me such as naturally lead a serious and re- flecting mind to such considerations. Your approved author appears to think otherwise, and can hardly speak on the subject, " without being personal^" I wish him and you calmly to consider the cause of this. 14. Persisting in this course, after informing his readers that he laments my " perceptions — were not more alive to prudence than to give this appendix to the pubhc,'' your approved author insinuates, but as usual w ithout any evidence, that I have ventured to " tell a large body of intelligent people^ that they know not what they believe'' If he, or you can shew I have so done, I will promptly condemn my con- duct, as highly indecorous and improper, but I am not conscious that I ever so expressed myself as to deserve such censure. \5. Your approved author reasons thus in the next paragraph, concerning the manner in which he sup- poses 1 have acted. " If Verax," says he, " could persuade the Quakers to be Unitarians, he might tell the world so, and they would have nothing to com- plain of against him : but publicly to persist in this attempt^ in spite of their loudest appeal to the con- trary, is, let him clothe it with as much affected meekness as he please^ an act of great arrogance, What is offensive to individuals is offensive to socie^ ties. The public is no more to be compelled to the yoke of matrimony than an individual, and all at- tempts beyond the freedom of choice, mar the work they would promote."*' Certainly they do. Nor has Yerax at any time made such attempts. He may have endeavouied to 14 " persuade*' his brethren the modern Quakers, to ad- here to the doctrines concerning the unity of God, which he beheves the Scriptures most plainly teach^ and their ancestors openly professed, " PubHcly to persist in this attempt*' — to persuade, is according to your author " an act of great arrogance.'' Whether this be a logical deduction, or a scriptural inference, I leave you to consider, as having recommended this work to the general attention of Friends. That it is directly calculated, if not designed to excite powerful prejudices against me, in the minds of manyof those who may become the judges of my appeal, cannot i think be doubted. Nor will such persons, generally speak- ing, be likely to read any of the writings of Verax, or to have any other means of comparing the allega- tions against me, in this patronized work, with the evidence on which they must rest, if they are in any respect well founded. In his last paragraph your approved author says, " The writer of these remarks has attempted no kind of argumentation." The natural tendency of this this observation, at the conclusion of his work, on those who receive it as being " sanctioned by the Society of Friends,*' is surely to impress them with a belief that it contains so correct a detail of plain un- disputed matters of fact, as can admit of no question, and on which every reader of it, without farther in- formation is competent to decide. Whether this, or any thing like this, be the real fact, I call upon you as Christians conscientiously to examine, after maturely weighing the evidence I have thought it my duty, more for your sakes, and that of the Society, than my own, thus to lay before you. Try it by the golden rule of our common Lord and Master, and if you find it will not bear that test, hesitate not to act as a sense of justice may dictate. For my own part I cannot suppose the various ac- cusations against me in the work thus sanctioned, 15 have been investigated by you, or by the Morning Meeting of Ministers and Eiders, with sufficient atten- tion. If they had, I am persuaded you would not have given them your countenance. It is not my place to point out, bow the injury of which I complain, may now be most properly and effectually redressed, but it will become ^^our duty to consider this, if, on a review of the manner in which you have distributed and recommended this work, you should be convinced, that you have not only by so doino^, injudiciously implicated the reputation of the Society, but contributed to do me great injustice, Before I conclude, I must say, if the rules of the discipline are to, be impartially administered, and *' Defamation and detraction" really discouraged^ my claim upon you for reparation is strong, and requires your serious attention, in proportion to the im- portance of the station you occupy, the publicity you have given to a work, containing injurious aspersions on my character, and the extent of your collective influence over the Society. Earnestly desirous of its real welfare and progres- sive improvement in ^' Christian knowledge and the practice of virtue," I am sincerely your well-wishing friend, Thomas Foster. Bromley, Nov, \st, 1813. In order to preserve my rights as an appellant, I gave the following notice. To the Quarterly Meeting for London and Middlesex, to be held 12th Month 28th, 1813. Dear Friends, In the 3d month last I gave you due notice of ap- peal, but it not being " convenient" to me, to pre- sent the same " to the Yearly Meeting next ensuing," I hereby repeat notice thereof conformably to the 6th rule concerning appeals. 16 In my former notice I intimated to you, that I meant " to occupy but very little of the time of the Meeting, or of its Committee." Since that time I had almost given up all thoughts of appealing, but now deem it an incumbent duty to claim the/;/// exer- cise of that right, in consequence of a pamphlet con- taining many unfounded and injurious charges and reflexions on my character^ having " been published with the approbation of the Morning Meeting" of Ministers and Elders. This work is intitled " Remarks suggested by the perusal of a Portraiture of Primitive Quakerism, &c." and is recognized as having been so approved and pub- lished, by a printed minute of the Meeting for Suf- ferings, dated 9th month :3d last, which recommends it to be circulated within " each Quarterly — and Monthly Meeting— for the general information of Friends," manifestly calculated as it is, to excite powerful and extensive, but unjust prejudices against me while my appeal is pending. To remain lousier silent after 1 at length knew that the system of " Defamation and detraction" under which I had long suffered, was thus widely extended and openly sanctioned by the constituted authorities of the Society, would in my mind have been a criminal dereliction of an important Christian duty. I there- fore feel myself called upon to engage once more, in a very unequal and unpromising contest, but remain with best wishes for your present and future welfare, your sincere friend, Thomas Foster. Bromley, Dec. 96th, 1813. On this notice being read, it was observed, as I understand by George Stacey, that it was doubt- ful whether the Yearly Meeting would hear the appeal, on two grounds : — 1st. The appellant would be expected to assign some very good reasons why he did not bring forward his appeal at the last Yearly Meeting : — 2dly. He had published a narrative of the 17 proceedings of the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings relative to the case. As to the first observation Joseph Gurney Bevan, as I am informed said, " It had no weight with him, as the rules allowed appellants to judge for them- selves, within the time limited, when it was most convenient to them to present an appeal. As to the other objection, it was not for that meeting to judge of it, but to proceed at a proper time to nominate respondents, as the appellant had given regular notice according to the rules.'' This was accordingly done. The following letter \v\\\ shew in w^hat manner my letter to the Meeting for Sufferings w^as disposed of. To Sparks Moline and Josiah Messer. Dear Friends, You were, I understand, desired to examine a sealed letter, which I addressed to the Meeting for Sufferings, held 11 th month 6th last; and that see- ing it came from me and just the beginning of it, you reported, without reading it, that it was not proper to be laid before the meeting, and did not concern them. About three wrecks after Sparks Moline gave me this information verbally, and assured me the letter had been ever since in his possession, and had not been read even by himself. During the conversation between us, I read one passage, w^hich appeared fully to satisfy him, that I had been grossly calumniated in the approved work to which my letter related. He took it back with him, and yesterday informed me, that you had since that time perused it, but remained of the same mind. He also shewed me a letter on the subject from Josiah Messer to himself, briefly stating his [Josiah's] concurrence in the reasons he had assigned why you declined laying my letter before the meeting. D 18 These reasons are far from being satisfactory to me, and are I think highly derogatory to the character of the Meeting for Sufferings, as a standing Committee of the Yearly Meeting. I hope you will not however shrink from the duty of furnishing me with those reasons in writing, that I may clearly understand them, and avoid as I wish all misrepresentation. Common civility, as well as jus* tice requires this, and I hope Josiah Messer's letter to Sparks Moline will be carefully preserved, as I may have important occasion to refer to it. I shall be very ready to meet in any fair manner, the irrelevant accusations it contains whenever Josiah Messer may choose to state the particulars of the alleged misrepresentation, and if his complaint should appear to be well founded, to make repara- tion, as broad and public as the injury. I am, with due respect, Thomas Foster. Bromley Hall^ Jan. 23d^ 1814. Receiving no answer to this letter, I concluded that a small junta had taken upon themselves to determine, that my letter to the Meeting for Sufferings ought not to be laid before them ; I therefore sent the fol- lowing letter to that meeting by Thomas Sturge, one of its members. Thomas Foster, to the Meeting for Sufferings, to be held 2d Month 4th, 1814. Dear Friends, I addressed a sealed letter to you, which was referred 11th month .5th last to a committee of two of your members, one of whom about three weeks after verbally informed me, that without reading it, but just the beginning only, they had reported it was not 19 proper to be laid before you ! Since this time, they have been induced to peruse it, and I am lately in- formed are still of the same mind, on such grounds as I think you should be acquainted with. The letter related to a woi'k which contains un- founded and injurious aspersions on my character, and which, by a printed minute of 9th month 3d last, you certify to have been published with the approba- tion of the Morning Meeting, and recommend to be circulated, "for the general information of Friends/' Your Committee, mucli to my surprise alleged, that you are ohlio-ed to circulate all works which have heen so sanctioned, that yoji have no constitutional power to act otherwise, it being the business of the Morning Meeting, to take care that those publica- tions, contain nothing contrary to the doctrines of the Society. If you really occupy so subordinate a station in the Society, and are so completely under the direction and controul of the Morning Meeting of Ministers and Elders, I have hitherto much mistaken your collective character, as a standing Committee of the Yearly Meeting, empowered to act on its behalf, in the intervals between one meeting and another, iu whatever concerns the general welfare and reputation of the Society, which is not otherwise provided for by its rules. Such I submit to you, is the case to which I solicit your attention. I am aware that the revision of MSS, intended for publication, at the expense of the Society^ has been long intrusted to the Morning Meeting, but if any thing palpably exceptionable should escape their notice, in the exercise of this delicate trust, which ought to be very judiciously executed, or not at all, surely you are duly authorized, on the same being }X)inted out to your conviction, to decline giving such a work farther publicity, and to withdraw your countenance. The object of my letter was to call upon you calmly 20 to consider whether the case it states, has not such a claim to your notice, on the broad principles of im- partial justice. Your Committee represent you as incompetent to entertain such a question. One of them is a member of the Morning Meeting, and may be strongly biassed in favour of its decision in this instance, and in sup- porting its claims to authority in matters of faith and worship. The other^ long after their report to you concerning my letter, professed to be equally unac- quainted with your minute, and the work to which that letter related ! It concerns your reputation, and that of the Society, that it should be known, whether you are at liberty in such cases, to act as your own judgment may dictate, or are intirely submissive to the ecclesiastical mandate of others. In my former letter, I confined myself as much as I well could, to such parts of the work declared by your minute to have so sanctioned, as directly tended to excite unjust prejudices against me, while my ap- peal to the Yearly Meeting is pending. But I can- not conclude this letter, without pointing your atten- tion to one paragraph in this approved work, which so decidedly holds up " the common doctrine of the Trinity," as according with the principles of the Society, that it represents those, who may wish to give them a character " irreconcileable" to that doctrine,, as " endeavouring to consign the Quakers to the invidious condition of the Bat in the fable, neither bird nor beast, with all its pernicious conse- quences,'' I ^, What these may be, your approved author has.fji^t explained. But they can hardly be any other, than such as every sincere lover of truth should be pre-i^ pared to encounter, the loss of the praise of men for reputed orthodoxy, the proper value of which, Christ taught his disciples, how to estimate and despise. There can however be no difficulty in ascertaining 21 where " the common doctrine of the Trinity^* is to be found. That is, in the Athanasian creed. A mass of contradictions and absurdities, too monstrous to have been imposed as an article of faith, during the darkest ages of the Romish church, by any person while living, however great his reputation, in his own name. No ; it was the offspring of fraud and forgery never seen or heard of, till long after the decease of its reputed parent, under the sanction of whose name it was introduced. Yet is this figment of Popery " the common doc- trine of the Trinity,'' thus brought forward under the sanction of an imprimatur rule, as consistent with the principles of the Society ! If such be the fact, 1 may lament it for the sake of many of those who are still your members, but I shall rejoice at my own emancipation. And I know there are many among you, who cannot for conscience^ sake receive this newly-adopted tenet, and bow down to the unscrip- tural image it sets up, or so teach their children. Look ye to it, and judge for yourselves whether this be that faith, " which was once delivered to the saints,'' and will be finally triumphant, by whomso- ever it may be opposed. This work vou mav therefore see has other claims to your notice, as you have given it such extensive publicity and countenance, than those which arise out of the injustice it does me. Read, examine, deli- berate, and then do that which you believe to be right, but do not in blind submission to the uncon- stitutional authority of others, refuse to bring your own deeds to the light, and to hear evidence concern- ing them which is justly entitled to your attention. 1 remain, with best wishes, your sincere friend, Thomas Foster. Bromley, Teh. 1st. 1814. 1 sent this letter unsealed., in order that it might, 22 according to the usual practice be read in the meet- ing, without being first referred to a Committee. 1 was informed how it was disposed of by the following note, but whether referred to the same Committee as my former letter I know not. " Thomas Sturge informs Thomas Foster, that he presented his letter to the Meeting for Sufferings, and notwithstanding it was unsealed, after reading the superscription, it was concluded not to read it, but to refer it to two Friends to report upon : who went out with it, and on their return reported that it was not a proper letter to be read m the meeting; upon which it was given me to return to thee, which I do herewith. Devonshire House, 2d Month 4th, 1814. N. B. The marked words [those in italics] I believe to be the substance of the report, but not exactly the words, not being correctly clear in my recollection of them." Being thus refused a hearing by those, who subse- quent to my disownment had contributed as a col- lective body to the aspersion of my character as a man and a Christian, 1 had no other prospect of obtaining adequate redress than to claim a hearing as an appel- lant, in order to remove, if possible, the unjust im- pressions which had been so systematically and per- severingly made to my prejudice. Under these im- pressions I applied to the recording clerk for a copy of the existing rules concerning appeals, when 1 found to my surprise that the Meeting for Sufferings had taken upon themselves to suspend issuing the rules made by the last Yearly Meeting, for the better con- ducting appeals, and had even refused to several Quarterly Meetings copies of the same. I therefore sent to the next Quarterly Meeting the following letter. 23 To the Quarterly Meeting of London and Middlesex, to be held 3d Month 29th, 1S14. Dear Friends, The last Yearly Meeting, having as I understand made some fresh regulations concerning appeals, I lately applied to the clerk in whose custody the re- cords are placed for general use, for a copy, that I might as an appellant duly observe them. But in consequence of certain directions given him since that time, he declined granting this reasonable request without your permission, or that of the Meeting for Sufferings. I am therefore obliged either to risk forfeiting the right of appeal by not attending to those regulations, or to request you, or that meeting to direct the clerk to furnish me with a copy. It appears most regular to apply to you, as the Meeting for Sufferings does not officially know me as an appellant, and might therefore reject any application from me, as informal however proper in itself. 1 also request you will authorize the clerk to allow me such access to tlie records of the Yearly Meeting, as I may judge necessary in preparing for my defence. Some of its judicial decisions and minutes, I have particular occasion to consult, and I trust you will be of opinion, this is a privilege, of which no appel- lant can be equitably or justifiably deprived, I remain, with undiminished good wishes, your sincere friend, Thomas Foster. Bromleij, March 26fh, 1814. On this letter being read by the clerk, a discussion took place. It was said, as I understand, that the appellant had requested more than the Quarterly Meeting had power to grant, the records being in the custody of the Meeting for Sufferings. 24 The person who started this objection (J. G. Bevan), should have been reminded, that he never hesitated to send the recording clerk out of the Quarterly Meeting for any part of those records to which he wished to refer, without asking leave of either of those meet- ings. Nor was the right of inspecting the records ever objected to within my knowledge till lately, but considered as a right to which every member of the Society was entitled. It appeared, however, to be the decided sense of the meeting, that the requests of the appellant ought to be granted. John Eliot observed, that the re- spondents being members of the Meeting for Suffer- ings had of course free access to the records, and he therefore thought it would be unjust to deny the same privilege to the appellant. In this sentiment most of the persons who spoke concurred, but the Meet- ing for Sufferings not having sent to the Quarterly Meeting a copy of the new rules concerning appeals, and having lately directed their clerk not to permit any other persons but its members, to have access to the records, without their special leave, the Clerk was desired to inform that meeting of my application, and its opinion thereon, also to acquaint me in what man- ner they thought my requests should be granted. This conclusion of the meeting was reported to me the same day by several of my friends who were pre- sent, and r accordingly expected it would have been promptly complied v/ith. But I afterwards found this was a delusive expectation. For although the clerk understood very well what he w^as commissioned to do, as the organ of the meeting, he chose to inquire of a friend near him, whether it would not be proper to write a note to the appellant, to inform him of the conclusion of the meeting ? This he was advised in a whisper would be unnecessary, as the appellant would no doubt apply to him soon enough. The clerk acted upon this uncandid suggestion, ^5 and although he attended the next Meeting for Suf- ferings which occurred in due course only three days after, he withheld the communication he was directed to make to that meeting, w^hich separated without noticing the subjects of my letter to the Quarterly Meeting : yet most of its members were present at the discussion upon it, and knew the same were re- ferred to their attention. By these disingenuous measures, the consideration of the subjects referred to them by the Quarterly Meeting, was deferred till their next meeting, five weeks after, and the appellant consequently deprived during that period of any opportunity to inspect the records, after which if permission were granted, it was easy to foresee it would be of little use, as the Yearly Meeting so soon followed. I however addressed the following letter To the Meeting for Sufferings, to be held 5th Month 6th, 1814. Dear Friends, I ADDRESSED a letter to the Quarterly Meeting held 3d month 29th last, requesting a copy of the regulations concerning appeals made by the last Yeaviy Meeting, and also such access to the records of that meeting, as I might as an appellant judge necessary in preparing for my defence. These requests were I understand generally allowed to be reasonable. But it was thought most proper for you to give the necessary directions, and their Clerk was officially authorized to inform you that I am an appellant to the ensuing Yearly Meeting. A few days after your next meeting was held in due course, at which 1 am told no notice whatever was taken of my application so referred to your atten- tion, although many of you heard my letter read in the Quarterly Meeting, and the discussion thereon. E 26 1 should have been much better pleased for you to have taken the matter up spontaneously, without any farther communication from me, however you might have decided upon it. Thrice have I already had just occasion to apply to you in the character of an appellant, and each time unsuccessfully. My two last letters had in my ap- prehension peculiarly strong claims on your justice, as they called upon you to consider what reparation was due to me, and in your power to make, for a serious and extensive injury which I had received, and to w^hich you had materially contributed. Yet neither of these letters was even suffered to be read ! The request my first letter contained, you rejected without deigning to assign any reason for your re- fusal. It is again referred to your notice, as having the more immediate custody of the records of the Yearly Meeting. While I was a member of the Society, I always considered the records as public property, and as such occasionally inspected and made extracts from them, without its having been ever objected to, till some time after the appointment of your present Clerk. But now it seems no persons in the Society are to be allowed these privileges except they are members of your meeting, or have first obtained your permission. If such restrictions as these are deemed necessary, I am the less surprised at the difficulties thrown in the way of my obtaining as an appellant those rights which you deny to your own members. The regulations of the last Yearly Meeting con- cerning appeals, are understood in several important particulars to be a great improvement upon the former practice. They are said to give an appellant a better chance of having unprejudiced judges, by allowing him to a reasonable extent, the right of challenge — and the aid of advisers in proportion to the number of respondents. These are salutary alterations in the rules, which evince a disposition to administer justice with impartiality. I trust you will agree with 27 me, that they cannot be too soon acted upon.* Under the former rules an appellant, although a female, was once denied the consolation of a single friend to at- tend her ! The painful retrospect of the past com- pared with the spirit which these new regulations evince, affords a cheering prospect of increasing li- berality, which I cannot view w^ithout feeling a sensi- ble satisfaction. Waiting your answer. I remain your well-wishing friend, Thomas Foster. Bromley, May Mh, 1814. The requests in this letter so recommended to its attention, the meeting condescended to permit to be read, and were thereby incidentally informed of my feelings, on their refusal to consider the subject of my two former letters. One of these requests they did grant, although they had hitherto suspended the publication of the rules to which it related, thereby usurping a power over the legislative authority of the Yearly Meeting, which they could not be entitled to exercise. The other request they refused without assigning any reason for depriving an ap{>ellant of the right of access to the statute book of the Society. Had this request been submitted to them at their last meeting, as it ous^ht to have been officially by the Clerk of the Quarterly Meeting, while the conclusion of that meeting was fresh in their recollection, I cannot sup- pose they would have come to such a decision. Soon after their Clerk furnished me with a copy of the fol- lowing rules, intimating at the same time, that he had nothing else in commission from the meeting as to any other requests in my letter. • In this particular I had been misinformed, as no such aid ap- pears to be allowed appellants by the new rules. A proposal to that effect was I suppose made and discussed, but not agreed to by the Yearly Meeting. 28 Yearly Meeting, 1813. After much solid and deliberate consideration, it IS agreed that the following be the rales for conduct- ing appeals in the Yearly Meeting. 1. That a Committee be annually appointed to hear and judge of such appeals. The Committee to consist of one representative from each meeting in Great Britain, which is represented in the Yearly Meeting. But in case the number of such meetings shall, at any time, be fewer than 28, the Meeting of Representatives shall nominate an additional one out of each Quarterly Meeting, in alphabetical order, which has not fewer than four representatives pre- sent, until the deficiency be supplied ; beginning at any future time with the next meeting in rotation.* 2. That all the representatives from such meetings, do meet at the close of the first sitting, for the pur- pose of nominating the said Committee. 3. That every appeal be delivered to the clerk for the time being, before the close of the second ^tting, in writing, sealed up ; with an indorsement specifying the appellant and the meeting appealed against. 4. That on its appearing that due notice has been given, all the representatives be directed again to meet previously to the next sitting ; the appellants and respondents being duly apprized of such meet- ing, and having the liberty to be present. That at this meeting, the nomination agreed to by the 2nd of these rules, be read over to each set of appellants and respondents, as they are respectively called in ; and each side be allowed, if they see occasion, to object to any of the proposed Committee, not exceeding six respectively, assigning no cause for the same ; and then, that both the appellants and respondents do * The number of these meetings was formerly 40, or more. There are now only 28, and this article provides for a farther reduc- tion, which is likely soon to take place. 29 withdraw. That if any of the Committee be so ob- jected to, they be set aside, but as to that particular appeal only. That their places be supplied by the meeting of representatives, in like manner as the original nomination was made. That the Committee or Committees, as finally nominated, be reported to the third sitting of the Yearly Meeting ; the names of the representatives from any meetings concerned in an appeal, being previously struck off from the list, as to that particular appeal. 5. That at a third sitting, all appeals be delivered to the Committee or Committees, in order to be im- mediately proceeded on; not less than 21 of the number appointed for a particular appeal, being at any time present thereon. 6. That the report of the Committee be read in the Yearly Meeting, in the presence of both parties, if they incline to be present ; and that it be a final de- cision, except in matters of faith and principle; in which cases the party against whom a decision is given, may require to be heard by the meeting itself. If however in any case of appeal the report be not signed by at least 21 of the number for that appeal, either party may require to be heard in the Yearly Meeting. 7. That if any case be opened in the Yearly Meet- ing, the Committee of Appeals shall appoint two ot their number to explain to the meeting, in the pre- sence of the appellant and respondents the grounds of their decision, and of the dissent of any of the Committee who may withhold their signature. In consequence of the foregoing regulations, the following rules in the Book of Extracts, under the head Appeals are made void, viz. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10. Copy, William Manley. A few days before the Yearly Meeting I received a lettej:, of v*^hich the following is a copy. so Tottenham, ISth of 6th Month, 1814. Respected Friend, I WRITE this on behalf of the respondents in the case of thy appeal. From the tenor of thy second or repeated notice to the Quarterly Meeting, [p. lo,] we conclude it is thy intention, should a Committee of Appeals con- firm that meeting's decision, to require to be heard by the Yearly Meeting. On the other hand, should the Committee reverse the judgment already given, we think we should not fully discharge our trust, without claiming the exercise of the same right. On these considerations, and from a desire that the time of the Yearly Meeting may not be needlessly protracted, we propose to submit to it a question, whether, under such intentions on both sides, the hearing by a Committee may not be at once dis- pensed with, and give place to that by the meeting itself. If the question be thus submitted, it will be need- ful for thee to be at hand at the time of the presenta- tion of the appeal to the meeting, in order to be ad- mitted together with us, and unite in the proposal. Shouldest thou favour us with thy reply, it may be communicated by letter to thy sincere and well-wish- ing friend, Luke Howard. To Thomas Foster, Bromley. My reply was as follows : — Bromley, May \Uh, 1814. Respected Friend, I HAVE just received thy friendly letter, contain- ing a proposal on behalf of the respondents on my appeal to the ensuing Yearly Meeting. As the oc- 31 casion for it appears to be grounded on the tenor of my renewed notice to the Quarterly Meeting, I have re-perused my copy of it, and cannot discover from what part of it you infer that it is my intention " to require to be heard by the Yearly Meeting," in case the decision of the Committee of Appeals should be against me, unless it may be from the use of the term "full'' in that notice. I did not use the term in that sense, nor mean to be so understood. It referred merely to the strong pledge I had given in my former notice of my desire to occupy but very little of the time of the meeting or of its Committee because I foresaw that the circumstances which had induced me to resume the intention of appealing were likely on my part to take up more time, than 1 had previously resolved to de- vote to the whole of the case, if I went forward with my appeal. After the intimation in my first notice, 1 felt it due to you, that I should explicitly state that I no longer held myself bound by it, but stood on the common ground of an appellant. I meant merely to imply this. I should not deem it decorous for any indivi- dual to predetermine not to be satisfied v/ith the judgment of a Committee of Appeals ; and with me a principal objection to your proposal is, that I do not see how 1 could be a party to it, without imply- ing such a determination in the face of the Yearly Meeting at the opening of the business. The case is widely different with you exercising a delegated trust on behalf of a large and respectable body. I am nevertheless as deeply impressed as I ever was how very undesirable any protracted personal discussion of the points at issue may be ; and perhaps I cannot well give you a more decisive proof of this, than by saying that within the course of the last week, I have not only thought nuich, but consulted some of my friends respecting addressing a letter to you, in order if possible some arrangements might be agreed 32 on between us, that may save the time of the Yearly Meeting. And although I was advised to wave making any such proposal to you by letter, I had re- solved on doing it when we met. One other objection to your proposal strikes me, which perhaps 1 had better mention ; and that is, whether it would not be to imply a disapproval of the important regulations made last Yearly Meeting, and thereby deprive its members at large or the advantages they seem calculated to confer, by making known, not only the decision of a Committee of Appeals, but the grounds of it. I observe this is required when the case is heard in the meeting, and where it is not in some instances it may be equally important. I have no seal with so appropriate a motto, as thine " Nuncius Pacis," ornamented with the gospel em- blem a dove, but 1 hail with pleasure the disposition thy letter evinces, and I trust in whatever way the points at issue may be heard, both parties will be animated by a wish to avoid all acrimony, or the in- troduction of extraneous matter, but above all by a love of truth in the first place — and of peace in the second. I am, very sincerely thy well-wishing friend, Thomas Foster. To Luke Howard, Tottenham. The Yearly Meeting met on the 18th of May at ten. I was then informed by theRespondents, thathav- ing considered my letter they declined making any pro- posal to the Meeting, but intimated that it might be as well for me to be in waiting, for some time after my Appeal was presented, as the Meeting might have occasion to call for my attendance. I replied, it is my intention to be within call. The meeting adjourned to four in the afternoon, when my appeal was laid on the table, sealed up and indorsed as the rules direct. 1 was soon informed by a message, that the liepresentalivea would meet at the 33 close of the meeting, which took place a little after seven. They met in the old meeting-house immediately. When the Respondents and myself were introduced, 1 was surprised to see so large an assembly. I esti- mated its number to be about 300 ; whereas, if it had been constituted of representatives only, as the rules direct, and every meeting had its full number pre- sent, those for London and Middlesex excepted, the whole number would only have been 112.* The major part of the assembly was therefore pro- bably composed of the privileged orders, Ministers, Elders, and the members of the Meeting for Suffer- ings, for I can hardly imagine any other members of the Society would intrude themselves on such an appointment. After a short time of silence, the names of the Committee of Appeals chosen by a meeting thus con- stituted, were read. It consisted of the following names : — Edward Bellis, Cheshire and Staffordshire. Hadwen Bragg, Cumberland and Northumberland. William Wilson, Durham. Henry Ecroyd, Lancashire. Isaac Bragg, Westmoreland. John Hoyland, Yorkshire. Anthony Wigham, Scotland. Joseph May, Bershire and Oxfordshire. Robert Horsenail, Kent. William Chandler, Surrey and Sussex. Thomas Seekings, Carxibridge and Huntingdon. Thomas Catcupool, Essex Jonathan Hutchinson, Lmcolnshire. Joseph John Gurney, Norfolk and Norwich. * Viz. 4 for Scotland, 28 for the six Northern Quarterly Meet- ings, 16 for four of the Southern, 20 for the five Eastern, 24 for the ssix Western, and 20 for the five Midland. F 34 Samuel Alexander, jun. Suffolk. George Fisher, Bristol and Somerset. Joel Lean, Cornwall. Joseph Treffry, Devonshire. William Byrd, Dorset and Hants. James Petley, Glocester and Wilts. Thomas Beavington, Hereford and Worcester. Richard Summers Harford, WaFes. John Ransome, Bedford and Herts. John Grant, Buckinghamshire. Joshua Ransom Scales, Derbyshire and Nottingham. Samuel Cook, Northamptonshire. James Baker, Warwick, Leicester and Rutland. The parties were now informed by the Clerk:, that each might object to six of the names which had been read. My answer appearing to be first expected, I observed that the Friends nominated were so much strangers to me, that I should make no objection to any of them. John Eliot observed, that the six Respondents who were all present, should withdraw with a list of the names to consider the nomination, and to depute one of their number to repoit thereon to the meeting. 1 expressed my concurrence in this proposal as being reasonable, although I had waved the exercise of the same right. The Respondents, however, without re- tiring acquiesced in the nomination which had been made, a list oi which being given to the parties, they soon after withdrew. Committee of Appeals, 1st Sitting at Gracechurch Street, 6th Month lyih, 1814, at Four in the after- noon. The Respondents and myself having received no- tice attended accordingly, but were not called in till near six. On being admitted, it appeared that the Appeal had been opened and read. The Clerk of the 35 Committee suggested whether it would be necessary to read it again. One of the respondents observed, it would cer- tainly be proper to have it read in the presence of the parties, as the respondents were unacquainted with its contents. They might have added, that according to good order, and even the spirit of the rule, the seal of an appeal should never be broken previous to the hearing of the parties. For what purpose the usual practice was departed from in this instance, whilst the parties were known to be in waiting, the Com - mittee did not explain. The promptitude with which they decided on the first objection urged by the respondents, may however throw some light on so singular a commencement of the exercise of judi- cial powers. The Appeal was read again by Joseph John Gurne}^ who had been chosen Clerk of the Committee, or rather Chairman under that name. It is as fol- lows : — To the Yearly Meeting of Friends, to be held in London the 18th of the jth Month, IS 14. The Appeal of Thomas Foster, against the judg- ment of the Quarterly Meeting of London and Mid- dlesex sheweth, 1. That neither his being a subscriber to the Lon- don Unitarian Book Society, instituted for the pro- motion of Christian knowledge and the practice of virtue, " by inciting the attention of men to the gen- time doctrines of revelation^'* as delivered in the Scriptures; nor his having promoted an examination of the Scriptural soundness of certain passages in a Yearly-Meeting Epistle, can he submits to you be justly deemed offences against the rules, or incon- sistent w^ith the principles of the Society. 2. That your Appellant for having thus unequivo- cally asserted the superior authority of Scripture in 36 all that relates to faith and worship ; and for havin*^ subjected one of your Epistles to that test, the only criterion by which the truth of all the doctrines held by professed Christians ought to be tried, was accused by two Overseers of the Monthly Meeting, of which he was a member, of having " imbibed and aided in propagating some opinions contrary to the principles of the Society/' In so accusing him, they admitted they did not act so much on their own judgment, as at the instance of many friends of other meetings^ whose names they chose to conceal. 3. That the said Overseers though thus accusing your Appellant, could not with any consistency have intended to censure the fundamental principles of the London Unitarian Book Society, which they pro- fessed to consider unobjectionable. They are " That there is but one God, the sole Former^ Supporter and Governor of the Universe, the only proper object of religious worship ; and that there is one Mediator between God and men, the Maxf, Christ Jesus, who was commissioned to instruct men in their duty, and to reveal the doctrine of a future life/' Your Appellant submits to you that a careful ex- amination of the following texts, Mark xii. 28 — 34, Acts xvii. 22 — 31, 1 Cor. viii. 6, 6, 1 Tim. ii. 1 — 5, 2 Tim. i. 1,2, 7 — 10 ; not to mention many others, will prove those principles to be strictly scriptural, and sufficiently vindicate him for becom- ing a subscriber to this Book Society. 4. That the Monthly Meeting, without any ade- quate inquiry or evidence, recorded the aforesaid accusation, and appointed a Committee to visit your Appellant " thereon and report.'' 6, That the Committee so appointed, apparently sensible of the insufficiency of the original charges to justify disownment, paid very little attention to them, (though the sole ostensible objects of their appointment,) but exerted themselves to discover 37 iresh matters of accusation against your Appellant, by means of ensnaring interrogatories, on wh u they called " some important points of doctrine." 6. That their report to the Monthly Meeting mani- fests the inquisitorial character of the visits of this Committee, and their disposition to seek for addi- tional accusations against your Appellant. This document speaks of " the eternal divinity — and om- nipotence of Christ.'' and of " the propriety of applying to him in secret supplication." The Committee who drew it up, nevertheless assured your Appellant at the first visit they paid him, that they never understood that the Society of Friends ascribed divinity to the man Christ Jesus, but to that divine power which dwelt in and acted by him. Hence your Appellant concluded they did not ascribe omnipotence to the Mediator of the new Covenant, nor consider him as the proper object of prayer. From this time, however, they refused to explain their accusations on these three im- ^portant points of doctrine," thereby leaving it w holly uncertain whether, on these subjects, there is any or what difference between their sentiments and those of your Appellant. His opinions on those points are grounded on the clear, decisive, and un- equivocal letter and sense of Scripture. If you should judge he has mistaken their import, he trusts you will, if not for his sake, for that of the Church, explicitly say wherein you may think his mistake consists; and not like this Committee, shroud your own principles in obscurity, while you are con- demning those of your Appellant. 7. That the Monthly Meeting acted with great precipitation in receiving and adopting the said report, and was not warranted by the letter or spirit of the rules of the discipline, or of gospel order, in directing on the credit of such a document, a " testimony of denial" to be prepared against your Appellant. 5S 8. That the testimony of denial so prepared was adopted at the next Meeting, with equal precipi- tation, although it is still more objectionable and unjust than the Committee's report, w^ith some parts of which it is absolutely inconsistent. It contains also additional and unfounded accusations ; and your Appellant submits to you, that the Monthly Meeting was not justified by any rule of the Society, nor by any principles or precepts of the gospel in issuing the said testimony of denial. 9. That your Appellant, in due time, gave notice of appeal to the Quarterly Meeting ; but before the same was presented, tlie Clerk, and afterwards the Meeting for Sufferings, refused him access to the records of the Society, some parts of which he had important occasion to consult in preparing for his defence. He has lately, as an appellant to you, repeated the same request by letter, with no better success, but he trusts you will manifest a more proper sense of impartiality and justice.* 10. That the Committee of the Quarterly Meet- ing, to whom the case of your Appellant w^as referred, decided a question on mere ex parte evidence, which was intended to deprive him of all the rights of an appellant, though they well knew that he had not forfeited those rights by the breach of any rule of the Society concerning appeals. The hearing of the case was thus deferred about three weeks, when the Committee reported thereon in a manner which still farther evinced their want of impartiality, but it appearing that there was no foundation whatever for their objection, the Quarterly Meeting desired " the Committee to proceed with the business committed to it, and report. The most pertinent rule which could be adduced was read, and found to be nothing to the purpose, as it only pre- * Very little objection was made by the Respondents to the general statement of facts in the preceding sections, and none which I deem worth notice. 59 eludes the reception and hearing of " any appeal in print, or that hath been printed.* 11. That although your Appellant was afterwards heard by this Committee with much patient atten- tion, he submits to you that on several occasions they plainly indicated either very incorrect or partial views of some of the most essential principles of all regular judicial proceedings. At one time theyt proposed judging between the parties, not solely as justice required, on the original, or even on the recorded charges against your Appel- lant, but on the supposed errors he fell into in the course of his defence. At other times, after having perhaps justly informed him, that they judged he had laid before them some irrelevant matter, and ad- monished him not to deviate in a similar manner, they permitted the Respondents, without any ad-no- nition or restraint, to adduce against your Appellant whatever they chose, however irrelevant and uncon- nected with the original or any of the recorded ' charges against him. And on his objecting to the * The Respondents desired the Committee of Appeals to compare the first-mentioned imputation of partiality in this sectien, with the first report of the Quarterly Meeting's Committee to that Meeting, The instance alluded to, is, I believe, correctly stated in my Nar- rative, pp. 136—139. And even this report implies that the Com- mittee "considered" the " ex parte evidence" of the Respondents, without previously hearing the Appellant. It should also have stated, that they not only " considered" but made known their decision thereon to the parties, before *' the Appellant had any op- portunity given him" to shew the futility of the Respondents' plea. This decision was evidently intended to deprive him of his rights as an appellant; and the opportunity given him afterwards was plainly designed to accomplish the same object, by ensnaring interrogato- ries, which, taught by experience, he prudently refused answering. t The imputation of partiality in the first part of this sectioDj was said by Luke Howard, its Clerk, or more properly Chairman, not to apply to the Committee but to himself. The facts are, I be- heve, correctly stated in my Narrative, pp. 171, 172, and 179 — 181, consistently with which, instead of expressing myself as above, I admit I should have said, instead of they," several of them proposed, &cc. 40 very wide latitude they took under this licence, apparently forgetting their former decision, the Committee, by tlieir Clerk, represented themselves " bound to hear whatever the Respondents chose to lay before them, and considered to be connected with the object of their appointment/' 12. That your Appellant cannot say how far the Committee was influenced in its judp-ment, by the supplementary accusations which the Respondents were thus so improperly allowed, or rather encou- raged to adduce against him. The final report of the Committee to the Quarterly Meeting only states, that they were " unitedly of the judgment that the deci- sion of the Monthly Meeting in relation to the Appel- lant should be confirmed. Perhaps it was intended by these expressions, ob- scurely to intimate that the Committee did not approve the proceedings of the Monthly Meeting in relation to the appellant, nor its decision in favour of unscrip- tural articles of faith, in relation to the Society. The proceedings and the decision your Appellant submits to you, equally relate to both, and unless the proceed- ings can be generally justified as forming a precedent worthy of being approved and acted upon, in the re- gular administration of the discipline, the decision ought unquestionably to be reversed. The Committee could scarcely have made so marked a distinction between the proceedings and the decision, and have limited their approval of the latter so sin- gularly to its relation to the appellant, without some special design. The judgment was unanimous, and could not therefore have been intended to express or imply an approval of such proceedings as some of the most intellig^ent of its members had censured as unjust, and which none of them, in the hearing of your Appellant, attempted to defend.* * The Respondents alleged, that it is not usual in the report of a Committee to siate the grounds of its decision. This is surely rather to evade than to reply to the objections in this section. 41 13. That your Appellant expressing dissatisfaction with the aforesaid report, the case was, according to the rules, opened in the Quarterly Meeting; on his part principally by the appeal being read, and by his reading a written address. The Respondents were then heard in reply, and were allowed, without any interruption on the part of the Meeting, to adduce whatever accusations they chose against your Appel- lant, entirely unconnected as most of them were with the original charges against him. When the Respondents had concluded their reply, the Meeting having sat long, your Appellant, from that consideration only, relinquished his intention of shewing, article by article, that the Respondents had not even attempted to controvert any material part of the allegations in his appeal. He contented him- self with exposing some of the most palpable or injurious of their misrepresentations, but declined entering upon others which would have taken more time, assuring the Meeting he should rely on its not suffering itself to be biassed in its judgment by those unfounded and supplementary charges. The parties having waved the right of being far- ther heard, were requested to withdraw ; soon after which the Meeting adjourned to four the next afternoon.* 14. That every account your Appellant has received of the subsequent discussion in the absence of the parties, combines to impress him with a strong per- suasion that the Quarterly Meeting did not in reality come to any proper or definite judgment upon either of the original, or even upon any of the recorded charges against him. For it appears, on the concurring evidence of many credible witnesses, surprising as the fact is, that not one person who spoke in favour of confirming the * The Respondents did not attempt to deny the truth of any part ^ •f this section. 43 judgment of the Monthly Meeting, uttered one syl- lable upon any of those charges ; and that such of them as assigned any reasons for their judgment, grounded them entirely on the supplementary accu- sations, and principally on those to which your Appellant had declined replying, because he de- pended upon the Meeting not suffering itself to be warped in its judgment by them, much less by any repetition of the same, or the production of any other irrelevant charges. The particulars of the Appeal were, it seems, not entered into, because it would have been " to enter into a wide field of investigation.'* How was this designed to be remedied? By a proposal for the Meeting to consider, " whether the appellant was, or was not, one in principle with Friends.'* In what manner this question was intended to be examined, was not explained. But after several Friends had objected, in very strong terms, to the proceedings against your Appellant, as irregular, dis- orderly and indefensible, whose objections appear to have remained unanswered, it was erroneously stated to be " a very clear case that the appellant is ^ member of another Society /' and to be plain, " from an extract out of a work of his, read yester- day evening, that he rejected the well-known fun- damental doctrine of the Society.*' These were the apparent grounds of the Meeting's judgment, for no others, as your Appellant is credibly informed, were assigned, excepting the report of the Committee feeling pleasant to the mind of one friend, and another being much hurt by many things whic'h had been said on matters with which he was not conversant, " but most of all by the extract above alluded to, which,'* he said, " opposed the doctrine of divine influence.** Yet from this extract, in connexion with the pre- ce'ding or the following sentence^ no such infer- ence can be drawn, with any appearance of justice, 45 or even of plausibility. The passage altogethei-, rather supports than opposes the doctrine of divine influ- ence. It was not written by your Appellant, and expressly quoted not to exhibit his own sentiments, but to shew " that the real difference of opinion be- tween those who are supposed to take opposite sides of the question, may not he so great as is generally imagined J' This attempt to promote a spirit of charity among Christians of different persuasions, was so misrepre- sented by the Respondents, that your Appellant has good reason to suppose that it made a greater im- pression on the Meeting to his prejudice than any thing else which was alleged against him. This pas- sage, it may be said, notices a distinction between that diffusive gift which " the Father of mercies, the God of all comfort, hath given to every man to profit withal," from that extraordinary efliision of the holy spirit by which Jesus Christ and his Apos- tles were enabled to do many wonderful works. It does so. And so important is this distinction, that without making it, your Appellant does not perceive how any person can be properly said to be a believer in Christianity as a special revelation from God * \5, That the minute of judgment made by the Quarterly Meeting, affords a strong presumption on the face of it ; that it was not founded on any de- liberate consideration of the charges and the pro- ceedings against your Appellant. Like the report of its Committee, and in an equally pointed manner, it • The Respondents observed that it was quite sufficient for the Friends, in the Quarterly Meeting, to express their concurrence with the report of the Committee, without assigning; their reascus. Before the Committee of Appeals I granted this, provided a few Friends oniy had clearly assigned sufficient grounds to justify the decision, but that none should, as I am credibly informed was the fact, does appear very extraordinary, and fully justifies the above inferences. The Respondents candidly admitted, that the extract la this section, re- specting divine influence, was introduced as here stated. 44 only expresses an approval of the decision of the Monthly Meeting in disowning him, without extend- ing its approbation to its proceedings, or ti>ose of its Overseers and Committee. Your Appellant there- fore submits to you, that so remarkable a coincid:^nce of expression appears plainly to indicate a conviction on the part of the Meeting, that the proceedings on which that decision is founded, cannot be justified as regular and orderly. The minute says, the meeting deliberately consi- dered the case of your Appellant. Very well ; this was one part of its duty. But what else did the meeting consider? The case the Respondents made out ? Not a word like it in the minute of judgment. With what then did the meeting compare the case they considered so deliberately? With the reply of the Respondents ? No such thing, so far as appears by this minute. The meeting seems to have weighed the case of your Appellant, not against any evidence or arguments they heard from the Respondents, but against the mere authority of its Committee's report, which throws no light whatever upon the subject ; and to which j^our Appellant was constitutionally in- titled to demur, to claim a hearing of the parties by the meeting, and a judgment wholly founded thereon, which by the positive testimony of this minute was pronounced on other and very different grounds.* 16. That deeply impressed as your Appellant was with the injustice of this decision, he was much more disposed to rely on other means of counteract- ing its operation as a pernicious precedent, than to seek the same object by an appeal to you. But since he has been intitled to those privileges which due no- * The Respondents passing over in silence the inferences deduced in this section, pleaded the authority of the Committee's report as being more weighty than the reasoning of those who objf-cted to the proceedings. And the very comfortable feehngs of the Committee during th« last half hour of their delibeiaiions, were gravely urged as Bo slight evidence of the rectitude of their decision. 4.5 tice of appeal implies, and which a decent regard to your authority ought to have preserved inviolate, both have been invaded in an unprecedented and unjustifiable manner. A pamphlet containing vari- ous unfounded and injurious cii?rges and reflexions on the character of vour Appellant, was published at or before the last Yearly Meeting. For nearly six months he considered it as the unauthorized effusion of an individual, and as such undeserving any notice from him, however widely it might be circulated. At length however he found, by a printed minute of the Meeting for Sufferings dated 9th month 3d last, that this work intitled " Remarks suggested by the perusal of a Portraiture of Primitive Quakerism, &c/' was ''published with the approbation of the Morning fleeting'" of Ministers and Elders. Two copies of it are recommended to be taken by each Monthly, and one by each Quarterly Meeting — " for the general information of Friends," manifestly cal- culated as it is, to excite unjust prejudices against your Appellant. From whatever quarter those who are to be his judges may come, they cannot be sup- posed to have escaped its influence. Such are the measures which have been resorted to, and so openly has the collective influence of " many friends of other meetings" been at length exerted against your Appellant, by giving their sanction and extensive publicity to this work, and he submits to you, by a misapplication of a rule or U:^95, which relates only to such works as are published at the expense of the Soci n \ If your constituted autho- rities c ct thus, towards those who are seckii .>' redress at your hands, how can they expect an unprejudiced hearing and impartial justice ? Or how can your judicial authority be permanently respected, if such conduct as this be connived at or encouraged? Your Appellant presented a remonstrance to the Meeting for Sufferings on this occasion, which was disregarded. It was referred to two of its members, 46 who on seeing from whom it came, without reading it^ reported, '* that it was not proper to be laid before the meeting, and did not concern them \" Had this temperate remonstrance, which clearly stated the specific grounds of his complaint, met with any rea- sonable attention, it is highly probable it would have prevented this appeal to you. (See pp. 3 — 15.) But to wave claiming a hearing, to which he is constitutionally entitled under charges thus assidu- ously accumulated against him by the hand of au- * thority, might be thought to imply that he admitted them to be well-founded. Your Appellant cannot grant this ; and conscious as he is of the difficulty of removing prejudices and wiping away accusations however groundless, which have been so openly, widely, and perseveringly disseminated, he claims the right of shewing them to be unfounded and inju- rious, before he enters upon the subjects more pro- perly at issue between the Respondents and himself. After hearing both parties fairly and fully, I pre- sume it will become your province to decide the points at issue between them, which in effect are, whether the paramount authority of the Scriptures on all matters of faith and worship is to be acknow- ledged and respected, and the rights of conscience among your members to be preserved inviolate. Or, whether the Overseers, Elders, or Committees of your meetings for discipline, may at their own dis- cretion question their brethren on points of faith, and impose on them for doctrines the commandments of men, to the obvious disparagement of the Scriptures, as if they do not contain a plain, intelligible and suf- ficient revelation of all necessary articles of Christian faith, and clearly point out the true object of supreme religious worship. " The true worshippers,"' said our Lord and Mas- ter, " shall worship the Father."" The first criterion in his estimation of all true worship. The second is equally essential, that it be " in spirit and in truth."' 47 That you and I may " know what we worship/' and not be ashamed of holding up before men the testi- mony of Jesus, concerning the alone true object of worship, is the sincere desire of your well-wishing friend, in the gospel of love and peace, Thomas Foster. Bromley, Maif \6th, 18 U. The Appeal having been read, the Respondents objected to my being heard relative to the sancdon given to the pamphlet alluded to in the latter part of it, or to any thing the Morning Meeting or the Meet- ing for Sufferings had done. We are appointed, said they, to defend the judgment of the Quarterly Meet- ing in this case, and have nothing to do as Re- spondents with that pamphlet, or with the manner in which it had been sanctioned and circulated. I replied, that although the countenance which had been given to this work, was not the act of the Quar- terly Meeting, as such, it was so far as I complained of it, the act of those w^ho were its members, asso- ciated in a collective capacity icith others, and diff'using by their united authority and influence unfounded and injurious prejudices against me. It was there- fore highly reasonable that I should be allowed a little time to endeavour to remove those prejudices which had been thus excited. The objection of the Re- spondents seemed to imply, that I meant to call upon the Committee to give judgment on the case, which I did not, but merely to claim a hearing that I might if possible remove such erroneous impressions con- cernino- my sentiments and conduct, as the work in question so sanctioned might have left on their minds. Such a claim as this was never refused in courts of justice to any accused person, and when there was cause to apprehend that popular prejudice might endanger the impartial administration of justice, it was the practice to remove or delay the trial of the party. I trusted therefore that the Committee would not hesitate to allow rae this privilege. 48 The Committee desired the parties to withdraw, that they might consider the Appellant's claim and the Respondents' objection. On our being called in, a minute was read by the Clerk confirming the objection of the Respondents. I requested a copy, which the Committee refused, I then urged them to recr>'isider a decision which appeared to me unjust in us 'if, and especially when I contrasted it with the unlimited license which had been, as several of the Respondents knew, granted to the deputies of the Monthly Meeting, to adduce fresh charges against me however irrelevant, throug^h- out the whole oi the proceedings. The Clerk informed me, that oh inquiry it appeared that only six or seven of the members of the Com- mittee had read the pamphlet of which I complained in my appeal, from whence he concluded it had not been so widely circulated as i apprehended. I re- plied, it is not in my power to say how far the minute of the Meeting for Sufferings, and the recommenda- tion it contained had been complied with, but I hap- pened to know that the pamphlet in question had found its way into various and distant parts of the kingdom, and had actually produced such effects on the minds of some friends as 1 had spoken of in my appeal. The Committee intimating their adherence to the minute, I hesitated whether to claim any farther hear- ing or not ; but at length concluded to proceed, not as 1 hinted, with any expectation of obtaining justice at the hands o: men, who could refuse an accused person so equitaole a demand, but because I would not afford any pretext for denying me the right of a hearing by the Yearly Meeting, provided I should think proper to claim that privilege. At this sitting, 1 read my written defence to the conclusion of the observations on the conduct of the Monthly Meeting's deputies in the Quarterly Meet- ing. Some time before eight, the Committee ad- journed to nine the next morning. i9 Committee of Appeals, Devonshire House, 2d Sitting 5th Month 20th, 1814. The Committee met at the time appointed. When I was called upon to proceed, I expressed my regret that the decision of the Committee yesterday, would occasion me to occupy much more of their time than I should otherwise have thought necessary. They had refused to hear my just complaints of the manner in which I had been treated by the constituted au- thorities of the Society, while I was an appellant to the Yearly Meeting. I therefore felt myself called upon to shew more minutely that a similar unconsti- tutional influence had been exerted against me, by the agency of the Overseers and Committee of the Monthly Meeting, who were in reality the mere tools of a secret junta, whose names they refused to dis- close, but by whose instigation it is evident they acted. My proofs of this and of the futility of their accusations were principally deduced from my MS, minutes, the substance of which is given in my Narrative, pp. 1 to !^3, 66 to lOo, and 149 to 17S. I afterwa ds read the remainder of my written de- fence. The Committee adjourned about two o'clock to four the same afternoon. Committee of Appeals, Gracechurch Street, 3d Sit- ting oth Month 20th, 1814. At this sitting the Respondents went through their reply, which occupied about three hours and a half, during which time I made minutes. From these I might exhibit the substance of tlieir argument, but as it was in my apprehension neither consistent nor scriptural, I shall omit any statement of it here, in the hope they will lay it before the public more fully and correctly than is in my power. The re- straint under which they stated the members of th^ H 50 Quarterly Meeting of London and Middlesex felt themselves, not to publish any reply to the pamphlet entitled a Portraiture of Primitive Quakerisni, &c. or to the Narrative of the proceedings in my case, while the same was pending, has now been long re- moved. This was complained of by them as a griev- ance of no small magnitude. Either this complaint was unfounded and ought not to have been preferred in such general terms only^ or the parties making it ought to have long since evinced their sense of the injury of which they complained, by availing them- selves of the removal of those pretexts on which it rested. This they have not yet done; I was sur-, prised at such an empty parade of delicacy, when I recollected that I had been in effect held up by the Morning Meeting of Ministers and Elders, and by the Meeting for Sufferings, to the whole Society as " a pro- fessed disciple of Mahomet,*' and was yet as they knew, and even at their instance deprived of any op- portunity before my judges of repelling such an ac- cusation. When tfee Respondents had concluded their reply, my father-in-law, Thomas Compton, who had at my request accompanied me, expressed a wish that the Committee would consider the propriety of adjourn- ing, as they had already sat so many hours, and he thought must be aware the Appellant was too much exhausted to render it proper to call upon him to proceed farther that evening. The Respondents without waiting to hear the sentiments of the Com- mittee on fihis proposal, objected to it, saying, if it was granted, they shpuld claim a similar privilege, which would occasion another adjournment ! The Committee were of opinion, that the present was thet proper time, if \ inclined to. make any observations on the reply of the Respondents. My rejoinder took about an hour, when 1 concluded^ the; Clerk of the Committee drew up a paper, which he proposed the Appellant aad the Res^ondleata should sign. 51 acknowledging that they had been fairly and fully heard. I objected to signing any such paper unless it stated as an exception the point whereon 1 had claimed a right of being heard, which they re- fused. The Committee declined stating this circum- stance, and therefore no paper was signed. The Re- spondents and myself were desired to attend at the same place to-morrow evening, at half after six, to give the Committee any explanation they might call for. Before the time appointed we received notice that our attendance was not required. We were afterwards desired to attend the Committee on the SSd at nine in the morning, when, after waiting some time, we were informed the Committee had no occa- sion for our attendance. Soon after the Yearly Meeting met, we received notice that the Committee of Appeals intended to present their report to the sitting in the after- noon. Yearly Meeting, oth Month 23d, 18 U. About half past four the Respondents, my father- in-law, and myself were introduced to seats near the table. The Clerk inquired whether the parties had been fairly and fully lieard by the Committee ? 1 replied, I have, with one exception relative to a sub- ject noticed in my appeal, on which the Committee at the suggestion of the Respondents refused to hear me, on such grounds as could not possibly apply to my claim to be heard on that point by the meeting, if in my estimation it should be necessary. One of the Committee proposed informing the meeting why they refused hearing me upon that point. 1 requested they would either state my claim and their objection, or let the former be done by reading the last article in my appeal. It was read accordingly by the Clerk, the conclusion excepted. The Respondents objected 6T to my being heard at all on that subject, saying it was irrelevant matter not relating to the decision of the Quarterly Meeting which they were appointed to defend, and against which the appeal was presented. I urged the reasonableness of allowing any accused person to endeavour to remove whatever prejudices might be supposed to have influenced the minds of those who were to be his judges. No accused per- son was ever denied this privilege in our courts of justice, and in some cases trials were removed or put off in order to insure an impartial, unbiassed jury. I only required a short time to say all that I should deem necessary on this subject, perhaps less than had been already taken up with the discussion, whe- ther I was to be allowed this privilege or not. One of the Committee alleged that the Appellant wished to be heard in reply to a pamphlet which had been published, with the approbation of the Morning Meeting, since the decision against which he aj>- pealed. I replied, this statement confirms my previous persuasion, that the conclusion of the Committee rested on mistaken grounds. I never intended to enter into an examination of this pamphlet, but only of such parts of it as had a direct tendency to excite unfounded prejudices against me in the minds of my judges. Joseph John Gurney said, that on inquiring of the twenty-seven members of the Committee individually, it appeared that only six or seven had read or seen the pamphlet ; and he alleged that the Committee were not at all influenced by it, and considered it quite irrelevant matter. A number of Friends objecting to my claim, in preferring which, I was mistakenly said to have non- suited myself. For I only claimed a hearing, and not the judgment of the court. However, 1 con- cluded to wave it, as no attempt was made to justify the work. 63 The following report was then read by the Clerk. To the Yearly Meeting, We, your Committee appointed to hear and judge of the Appeal of Thomas Foster, against the Quar- terly Meeting of London and Middlesex, having paid deliberate attention to the case as laid before us in the respective statements of the Appellant and Re- spondents, report, that vve are unau'mously of the judgment that the decision of the said Quarterly Meeting, on the appeal of the said Thomas Foster, against the Monthly Meeting of RatclifF, should be confirmed. " Signed at the Back Chamber, Gracechurch Street, 5th Month 2:^d, 1814, by all the Com- mittee/' After this report had been twice read, and a minute thereon made and read, I rose to request the case might " be heard in the Meetings" agreeably to the 6th rule concerning Appeals. Some objections were now made, particularly by William Tuke and William Alexander, to the case being entered into; the latter alleging that I had de- prived myself of the right of being heard, by printing my Appeal. John Wilkinson, the Clerk, observed, that it must be evident to the Meeting that the Appeal ! ad lot been printed. The rule alluded to was now o-Jied for and read, viz. " This Meeting agrees not to re- ceive, in future, any Appeal in print, or tn; c hath been printed." William Tuke said it was intended to prevent the printing v,f any thing relative to an oppeal, while the same was pending. Several other Friends concurred in this opinion. It was however concluded, as the minute related, only to printing an appeal ; and the parties had been heard by a Conmiittee who had pre- 54 sented a report, that the appeal should be read as the preliminary step to the parties being heard by the Meeting. My right to a hearing, under the existing rules, being thus admitted, some considerations were sug- gested, in order to induce me to relinquish it. These were in substance, that, as the Meeting had refused to hear me on that subject which induced me to appeal, whether it would not be more consistent with that profession, and more likely to promote my own peace of mind in a dying hour, quietly to sub- mit to the judgment of so large and judicious a Committee, than to persevere in claiming a further hearing ? I informed the Meeting, that although I was not satisfied at present with the judgment of the Com- mittee, it was possible I might be, when I knew " the grounds of their decision" as the 7th rule con- cerning appeals required. (See p. 29.) Should that be the case, I should be truly glad to feel no farther obligation to occupy the time of the Meeting. The rule being read, the Committee reported that they had appointed Joseph John Gurney, and Joel Lean, " to explain to the Meeting, in the presence of the Appellant and Respondents, the grounds of their decision," and that they were prepared to pre* sent the same. It could not be denied, that the rule was absolutely imperative, but the leading Dis- ciplinarians were too wary to permit the Committee to state to the Meeting the grounds of their decision, for then these grounds might have been examined. William Tuke observed, that the rule did not say at what stage of the proceedings this explanation should be given. The Meeting were to judge of that, and not the Appellant or the Respondents. 1 am of opinion, he added, it is not necessary at preset to call upon the Committee to explain the grounds of their decision. This opinion being supported by a number of Friends, it was proposed that the Appeal 55 should be read. I took the liberty to say, that it appeared to me that commoa sense, and the evident import of the rule, pointed out that the most proper time for giving the explanation required in the presence of the parties, was before they had been heard by the Meeting, which would be afterwards as competent to judge of the grounds of any decision it might come to, as its Committee. The Meeting concluded to hear the parties, with- out requiring any explanation of the grounds of the Committee's decision.* The Appeal was then read by the Clerk,j' very audibly and impressively. After which, the minutes of the Monthly and Quarterly Meeti ngs on the case were also read. The farther hearing being deferred till the next sitting, my Father Compton and myself withdrew a little after seven, soon after which the Meeting adjourned. Yearly Meeting, 5th Month 24th, 1814. A FEW minutes before noon, the Respondents and myself had notice, and were introduced to seats near the table. My Father Compton accompanied me. After a short pause, 1 rose and addressed the Meeting, as follows : My Christian Brethren, There are two considerations by which I am *^ Till some months after the Yearly Meeting^, I did not know whether the persons deputed by the Committee to give this explana- tion to the Meetinfi:, meant to do it verbally or in writing. I was then informed, it was prepared in writing, submitted to the Com- mittee and approv^ by ihem, to be laid before the Yearly Meeting w iheir united judgment. But as that assembly did not choose it should be read in conformity to its owa rule made in 1813, although several of the Committee applied to their Clerk for it, they were re- fused a copy of their own document. So important was it deemed to keep the grounds of this decision in the dark. t For a copy^ of whifth, se» pp. 35--47. 66 powerfully impressed in rising to address you. The first is the high importance of those principles of our common faith, for adhering to^ and profe sing which, I have been called in question, and now stand before you, as 0 person accused by a large and powerful body. The other is the painful sense I feel of my incompetency to support and defend those principles in such a manner as the occasion requires. Sensible as 1 am of this, and of the inadequacy of human reason, unassisted by the discoveries of divine revelation, to have unfolded to mankind in any satis- factory manner, those hopes of a never-endinj; in- heritance in a future state of progressive improve- ment, which are brought to light by the gospel, I cannot for a moment doubt, but that every essential part of such a revelation is wisely fitted for its de- signed end : that is, adapted to the capacities of those to whom it is addressed, the bulk of mankind, the great family of the universal Parent. Simplicity is accordingly found to be one- of the most distinguishing characteristics of all divinely re- vealed truths, as they are recorded by the sacred writers, and especially those which their great Master taught. And therefore when any supposed Christian tenet appears to want this quality, it requires to be examined with the greater attention, from the pre- sumption on the face of it, that it is not of divine origin. But if mystery^ the peculiar characteristic of false doctrines — the commandments of men, is inscribed upon it, not in faint, but in strong characters, and avowed to be its chief recommendation, we are doub\^ called upon to beware of receiving, for a divine truth, the comments or inventions of fallible men. Of the scriptural simplicity and soundness of those- principles which I am now called upon to vindicate in my own defence, I am unshakenly and increas- ingly satisfied But I am more and more doubtful how far I maybe enabled to do tolerable justice t# 67 so good, so glorious a cause. The contest is such a one, as I never encountered. Yet, with the New Testament in my hand, and relying upon its testi- mony, I am not dismayed either at the number, or the known talents of some of my opponents. No less than six Respondents are selected out of the largest Quarterly Meeting in the kingdom, with whom I shall have to, discuss the points at issue be- tween us. And how many of the still unknown prompters of the accusation may be among those who will act as my judges, I have no means of as- certaining. Their names have been hitherto con- cealed from me, in open violation of as express and positive a rule of the Society as any the Book of Extracts contains.* If, therefore, 1 should fail in so arduous, so un- promising a contest, I shall have the consolation of reflecting that the weight of influence arrayed against me has been such, that my failure cannot of itself form any just presumption of weakness in the cause in which I am engaged, but only of incompetence in the advocate. If it should so happen, it may be for the best. It will not be the first time that truth has been outvoted. The doctrines of Jesus of Na- zareth were equally true, and equally important, when " all the disciples forsook him and fled," as * Here I proposed for the Clerk to read this rule, that the Meet- ing might see I had rightly described it. Some objection was now made by Luke Howard, to the Clerk being called upon by the Apel- lant to assist him in stating his case, 1 replied, I have no objection to reading the rule myself, but I though it most proper to be done by the Clerk. It was then read, and is as follows : " ^ htreas, it may happen that some Friends m^y suffer much in theit reputation and character by a detracting Si irit, whick too much prtv.nis among some bearing our name ; who shelter themselves uader a pretence, that they say no more than they have heard from others, b-' vMlnot dtscovei Tihj they ate; wherefore, to prevent this evil oi leportiag and tale bearing, it is agreed, that such reporters or tale-bearers shall either discover their authors, or be dealt with and testified against as the authors thereof." 1744. 1 58 ^vhen a short time before the multitudes cried Ha- sanna to the son of David : blessed is he thatcometh in the name of the Lord/' I am chiefly desirous to bear my testimony to the truth faithfully and plainly, as it appears to me by the united voice of reason and Scripture. Respecting the result, I am not anxious, knowing it is in better hands than mine or your*s. The task which has, by an unsought-for train of circumstances, devolved on me, is comparatively easy; and, with my convic- tions, it would have been mean indeed to have shrunk from the trial. I cannot forget that it was in the same cause that William Penn suffered imprison- ment in the Tower of London, for publishing the Sandy Foundation Shaken, a work repeatedly sanc- tioned by the Society ;* nor that long before that time the intrepid Servetus was burnt at Geneva, at the instigation of the unrelenting Calvin. Many years after, when the true principles of the Reforma- tion ought to have been better understood, the same punishment was inflicted in this city, on Bartholo- mew Legatt, who was, Fuller the historian tells us, * This Tract was first printed in 1668. About five years after, its Author published a reply to John Faldo, in which he says, T. F. that is, Thomas Firmin, would have the Apology for it, entitled, Innocency with her open Face," to be " a rttractiun,^^ which Penn positively denies. See his Works, vol. ii. p. 453. This edition of Penn's Works was published by the Society, about eight years after the Author s decease, viz. in 1726. In the Table of Contents, opposite the full title of the Sandy Foundation Shaken, the following advertisement is conspicuously printed in the margin : — Note. A learned Defence of this Treatise is in the posthumous works of Richard Clavidge, sold by the printer hereof." In the year 1771, the Sandy Foundation was again published by the Society, in Penn's Select Works, in 1 vol. folio ; and again in 1782, in 5 vols. 8vo. Such is the manner in which this work h^is been pub^ ticly and foint&dly distinguished by the Society. At length, how- ever, a profession of the scriptural doctrines it contains, incurs cen- sure and disownment ! Has the Society changed its principles, or is it become less tolerant than formerly } Perhaps both. 69 excellently skilled in Scripture, and his conver- sation unblameable."* The warrant for his execution, under the hand of James I. was addressed to the Sheriffs of London, in 1611, as the instrument testifies, " with the advice and consent, as well of the Reverend Bishops and other Divines, as also of men learned in the law, in judgment sitting and assisting."-!" * In the commission addressed by " James, King of England, &c. defender of the faith, &c. to our right trusty and right well- beloved Counsellor, Thomas Lord Ellesmere, our Chancellor of Eng- land," the errors of the said Bartholomew Legatt, who was prose- cuted at the suit of John King, then Bishop of London, are said to consist chiefly in these thirteen blasphemous positions following, viz. That the creed called the Nicene Creed and Athanasius's Creedy contain not a profession of the true Christian faith, or that he will not profess his faith according to the same creeds. That Christ is not God of God begotten, not made, but begotten and made. That there are no persons in the Godhead. That Christ was not God from everlasting, but began to be God, when he took flesh of the Virgin Mary. That the world was not ma ie by Christ. That the Apostles teach Christ to be man only. That there is no generation in God, but of creatures. That this assertion, Gcd to be made man, is contrary to the rule of faith, and monstrous blasphemy. That Christ was not before the fulness of time except by promise. That Christ was not God otherwise then anointed God. That Christ was not in the form of God equal with God, that is, in substance of God, but in righteousness and giving salvation. 1 hat Christ by his God- head wrought no miracle. That Christ is not to be prayed unto.'* t That the reader may more fully see the true character of that union of Church and State, which existed in this country at the time when the present authorized version of the Script ;i es was trans- lating, under the influence of their united prejudices, 1 subjoin a copy of the following document, which exhibits a fair sample of the natural fruits of such an alliance. " The King to the Sheriffs of London, greeting : Whereas the Reverend Father in Christ John Bishop of London, hath signi- fied unto us, that when he in a certain business of heretical pra- vity against one Bartholomew Legatt our subject of the City of London, of the said Bishop of London's oiocess and juris- diction, rightly and lawfully proceeding by acts enacted, drawn, proposed, and by the confessions of the said Bartholomew Legatt, before the said Bishop judicially made and acknowledged, hath found in the said Bartholomew Legatt very many wicked errors, false opinions, heresies, and cursed blasphemies, and impious doc- 60 Their victim, it is said, " continued firm in his opinions, and his death was not so well taken by the people, as to induce the King to let the Bishops make any more such examples/' " He preferred," says Fuller, " that Heretics hereafter, though con- demned, sliould silently and privately v/aste tiiem- selves away in prison, rather than to amuse others with the solemnity of a public execution." Such was the persecuting spirit of that King, and of the ecclesiastics and learned men in whom he trusted, at the very time when the present author- ized translation of the Scriptures was preparing under trines, expressly contriry and repugnant to the Catholic faith and religion, and the holy word of God, knowingly and maliciously, and with a pertinacious and obdurate, plainly incorrigible mind, tobt iieve, Iiold, affirm and publish, the same Revered Father the Bishop of London with the advice and consent, as well of the Reverend Bishops and other Divines, as also of men learned in the law, in judgment sitting and assisting ; the same Bartholomew Legatt by his definitive sentence hath pronounced, decreed, and declared to be an obdurate, contumacious and incorrigible heretic, and upon that occasion as a stubborn heretic, and rotten, contagious member to be cut off from the church of Christ, and the c mniunion of the faithful; whereas the holy Mother Church hath not further to do and prosecute in this part, the same Reverend Father hath left the aforesaid Bartholomew Legatt as a blasphi mous heretic to our secular power to be punished with condign punishment, as by the letters patents of the said Re- verend Father in Christ the Bishop of London in this behalf, above made hath certified unto us in our Chancery. We therefore as a zealot of justice, and a defender of the Catholic faith, and willing to maintain and defend the holy church, and rights and liberties of the same, and the Catholic faith : and such heresies and errors every where what in us lieth, to root out and extirpate, and to punish with condign punishment such heretics so convicted, and deeming that such an heretic in form aforesaid, convicted and condemned accord- ing to the laws and customs of this our kingdom of England in this part accustomed, ought to be burned with fire ; we do command you, that the said Bartholomew Legatt, being in your custody, you do cora- ipit publicly to the fire, before the people, in a public and open place in West Smithfield, for the cause aforesaid, and, that you causa the said Bartholomew Legatt to be really burned in the same fire, in detestation of the said crime, for the manifest example of other Christians, lest they slide into the same fault, and this that in no msG you omit^ under the peril that shall follow thereon. Witness^ &c*'* 61 his auspices and his influence, by persons selected by him.* At the time of Legatt's martyrdom, the work had been sev^eral years in hand, and was pub- lished in 1611 : some copies have the dates of 1512, and others of 1613. In the lapse of two centuries, and with the advantages of a much more correct Greek text, thwn King James's translators are known to have had, i- is no wonder that learned men have discovered some marks of a bias in the received ver- sion towards the opinions of the translators, and those of their royal master,*]* and some which they * The following persons were chosen to translate the Gospels, the Acts, and the Revelations. Dr. Ravis, Dean of Christ Church, afterwards Bishop of London ; Dr. Abbott, blaster of University College, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury ; Dr. Eedes, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Savill, Dr. Peryn, Dr. Ravens, and Mr. Harmer. And to translate St. PauVs and the other canonical Epistles, Dr. Barlowe, of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, Dean of Chester, afterward Bishop of London ; Dr. Hutchenson, Dr. Spencer, Mr. Fenton, Mr. Rabbett, Mr. Sanderson, and Mr. Dakins. Is it possible to conceive that these men, or " the^mnst ancient and grave divines" selected by the same royal authority, to whose revision their labours were subjected as Overseers of the Transfa- iionsy'^ were not infected with the general persecuting spirit of the age, and at least approving, if not consenting to the execution of Legatt? There seems, indeed, to have been much unanimity" among " the Bishops, other Divines and men learned in the law^" on this occasion. t Some of the King's rules for the better ordering; of their pro- ceedings," which he recommended" to be met careful ly observed,''* had a strong tendency to prod ice or to strengthen suc]i a bias. The 1st directs *' The ordinary Bible read i-i the church, com- monly called the Bishop's Bible, tu be f ollowed^ and as little altered as the original will permit.'"' 2d. *' The names of the Prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.'* 3d. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. as the word (Church J not to be translated congregation, (^c." How far the licence granted under thi- most important " c." was intended to extend, is not easy to determine. 1 he 4th rule directs, that " When any word haih diverse sign fications, that to he kert, which hath been most commonly used by ^ne most eminent Fathers^ being agree- able to the propriety of the pUce,, and th^ analogy qffait/t»'\^ The 65 had not the means of correcting. The surprise is when these circumstances are considered, that the errors which have been detected are not more nu- merous and more important. I have however been loudly censured for holding that the received version contained any errors. I have been told that such objections tended to bring the whole into discredit. You w^ill, I trust, judge otherwise. Our predecessors in the faith were not afraid to admit that the received text contained cor- rupted and perverted passages, and they bore this testimony at a time when persecution was still in fashion, although its royal patrons had discovered that the people no longer relished such savage enter- tainments, as the burning of reputed Heretics. Our ancestors found, however, by experience, that the same spirit was living, and subjected them to long and grievous imprisonments. But at length happier times have arrived ; and since you met last year within these walls, I can congratulate you most sincerely, that both you and I may now, under the protecting arm of the law, openly profess our respec- tive sentiments concerning the proper object of wor- ship, without any man daring to make us afraid, and without depending, as before, for security from received faith of course must be meant here.— See Dr. Adam Clarke's " General preface" to his Edit, of the " authorized Translation," in which Fuller's high eulogium of these " worthy men, now all re- moved to their fathers and gone to God," and " of that gracious King that employed them,'' is quoted with evident approbation. But Fuller's equally express testimony to the King's zeal in burn- ing reputed heretics is kept entirely out of sight, and that of his Bishops and other Divines, which not being so well relished by the people as heretofore, the King was at length induced to gratify their persecuting spirit and his own, in a less public manner, viz. by im- prisonment for life. Yet Dr. Adam Clarke pronounces, that the work of these translators, (who it is to be hoped, knew not what spirit they were of)—'* The English Translation of the Bible, made under the direction of King James the First, is the most accurate and faithful of the whole." He adds, " Nor is this its on li/ praise ; the Translators have seized the very spirit and soul of the original !'* 63 injury, not on the energy of the law, but on the growing liberality of th^ times. The reading of my Appeal will, I trust, have con - veyed a clear, general view of my objections to the proceedings against me. I was induced to include more in it than I should have thought necessary, had not certain hints been publicly thrown out by some Disciplinarians, whose opinions are known to have much influence over others, and especially by one of the Respondents, that it was very doubtful whe- ther you would permit the Appeal to be heard. In such an event, carefully as I had endeavoured to avoid any breach of the rules concerning Appeals, and to conform to the regulations they enjoiiiec, I was desirous my Appeal should contain as vh\\n and full a summary of the leading facts of the case, as I could comprize within the limits of such a document. By having so done, however, I hope to shorten and simplify, rather than prolong and perplex the dis- cussion, as I expect to have less to say on the several heads of it, the last excepted, until the Re- spondents have replied to them, as I trust they will separately and distinctly. I shall also look to them for some appropriate notice of my written defence, before the Quarterly Meeting, which will always speak the same language. A copy of it has, I have reason to beheve, been long since in their hands, and consequently open to their examination.* It was first read in their hearing, and I may with confidence appeal to them, whether any reply to it was made, or attempted, either by the Monthly * One of the Respondents here observed, that they were not aware of having been ever put into possession of a copy of this document. I replied, not in MS. but as it is recorded in my Narrative which I hap- pened to know had been in some of their hands as long ago as the last Yearly INIeeting, and I supposed they did not mean to say or to insinuate that my address was not given in that work as it was deli- vered. The Respondent replied, we do not question that, but thought the expressions used referred to a copy put into our hands by the Appellant. 64 Meeting's Respondents, or by any member of the Quarterly Meeting, the next day, when the subject should have been discussed. They will also, I con- clude, recollect that when little more than half my Address to the Meeting had been read, that Joseph Gurney Bevan remarked, " that the part they -had already heard would take many hours to examine properly.*' This observation of so competent a judge, was made in their presence and mine ; while the impres- sion of my Address to the Meeting was fresh in his recollection. After such an admission, which no person present offered to controvert, on what rational prin- ciple the Meeting could come to a conclusion with- out any previous examination of that Address, o}: any thing in it, is difficult to imagine. The Re- spondents will perhaps be able to throw some ligbt on the hitherto unexplained grounds of the Meet- ing's judgment. It behoves them to do so, in order that any benefits that decision is th ught likely to produce may be known, and the principles on which it is founded be understoo:]. Unable to ascertain either of these points, or to obtain any autLuntic and satisfactory information concerning them, I at length gave due notice of appeal to you. Soon after which, I much doubted the expediency of prosecuting it; not because those principles, for openly avowing which I had been ac- cused and disowned, appeared tome less important or less sound and scriptural than before, but because I feared appealing unsuccessfully, might for a time at least, strengthen and extend the influence of a pre- cedent which I consider radically unsound, because it goes to sanction the arbitrary imposition of un- scriptural articles of faith, and to encourage an inqui- sitorial, intolerant and Pharisaic spirit, than which nothing is more unfavourable to a manly independent search after truth in the love of it, nor more opposed to that spirit which the gospel of Christ invariably inculcates. 66 Yet under such impressions as these was I dis- posed to concede to my accusers, without further contest, the possession of a victory obtained neither by the force of reason nor argument, but by the exercise of lordship or ecclesiastical power, by which a few zealous Disciplinarians are enabled to pro- nounce in the name and on behalf of a large number of their brethren, whatever they may choose to pass off as the collective sense of a Meeting for Disci- pline. I was weary of such a useless and unequal contest, and increasingly satisfied with my intention to relin- quish it, till 1 found that fresh measures were resorted to, I have every reason to believe at the instance of those many friends of other Monthly Meetings with whom these proceedings originated. Clothed indeed in another character, as tlie bishop was, who is said to have apologized for conduct inconsistent with the character of a Christian bishop, by saying he acted not in the quality of bishop, but of Prince. That system of defamation of which I have complained in the last section of my Appeal, has been widely ex- tended in a manner much more injurious to the repu- tation of the Society than it can be to mine.* In my Appeal I have referred to several very im- portant texts of Scripture, which in my apprehension clearly evince the fuiidamental principles of the Lon- don Unitarian Book Society, to be those of Primitive Christianity, and consequently justify me for be- coming a subscriber to that society. I would now briefly review them. The first is from the 12th chapter of Mark, in which the insidious but unsuccessful at- tempts of " certain of the Pharisees, and of the He- rodians, to catch him [Jesus] in his words,'* is most instructively recorded. * Had I been permitted I should here have read the two letters inserted, pp. 3 — 15, and 18—21, in order to remove from the minds of my judges the prejudices which had been so industriously excited against me by the Society's most powerful agents. K 66 After which, it is said, ^' one of the Scribes came and having heard them reasoning together," as the manner of Jesus was, with those who opposed them- selves to his doctrines, " and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, — Which is the first commandment of all That is, of the whole ten. In answer to such a question by a Jewish Scribe well versed in their law, any other teacher than our great Lord and Master would probably have replied in the terms of that which is usually called the first com- hiandment. " Thou shaft have no other Gods be- fore me." But he who had the spirit of wisdom poured out upon him, in a super-eminent degree, or without measure, and therefore " spake as never man spake/' chose to use on this occasion, still more definite lan- guage, denoting with a strength and energy as great as any terms can convey, the absolute unity of God^ and the supreme importance of openly asserting that doctrine, and of loving him above all, and our neigh- bour as ourselves. " And Jesus answered him [the Scribe] the first of all the commandments is, ' Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, is one Lord,'^* as the re- ceived text has it, but still if possible more strongly ^ it ought to be rendered " Jehovah our God, is 07ie Jehovah." Not three^ nor does the text either here, or elsewhere represent the one Supreme, as " sub- sisting, in three most glorious persons, in the unity of essence, co-equal and co-eternal." This is lan- guage to be found in liturgies, creeds and confessions of faith, but wholly unknown to the sacred writers. When all the circumstances under which this me- morable recognition of the recorded language of Je- hovah concerning himself are duly and seriously con - sidered, they appear to me to shew what great importance Jesus Christ annexed to the consistent and unequivocal professiob of this grand fundamental truth, which holds up Jehovah not as an object of gloomy supersjtitious terror, bu t of love, of reverence 67 and of gratitude, as the equal and all -benevolent pa- rent of mankind. In short, as a doctrine if suffered to make its proper impression on the mind, which powerfully tends to promote the fulfilment of the whole law, love to God, and love to our neighbour. The Evangelist, no doubt, well knowing the mind of his greit Master, has materially stiengthencd this evidence, by shewing how it was understood by a person whom he records as being suitably impressed with the superiority of our Lord's reasoning, over that of his adversaries. For he tells us, that the Scribe said unto him, [Jesus] " Well, Master, thou hast said the truth, for there is one God, and there is none other but he, and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." The next passage of Scripture to which I have re- ferred in my Appeal, is that admirable epitome of Christian doctrine which the Apostle Paul delivered to the Athenians on the following occasion, and which the Evangelist Luke has recorded in the 17th chapter of the Acts, for our instruction and preservation in the primitive Christian faith. " His spirit," says the sacred historian, " was greatly provoked within him when he beheld the citv full of idols. He dis- coursed (the received text says disputed,") in the synagogue with the Jews, and with those Gentiles who worshiped God, and in the market-place daily with such as presented themselves. Then certain philosophers — encountered him. And some said, what will this babbler say ? and others, he seemeth to be a setter forth of foreign demons : because he preached to them the glad tidings of Jesus, and of the resurrection. And they took him — to the court of Areopagus, saying, ' May we know what this new 68 doctrine is, of which thou speakest ? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears : we desire there- fore to know what these things mean/ " In reply to these inquiries, it appears that Paul standing " in the midst of Mar's-hill/' said, " Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this in- scription, ' To the unknown God,* whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. Go4 that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands : neither is worshiped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life and breath and all things, and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath deter- mined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation : that they should seek the Lord, if happily they might feel after him and find him, though he be not far from every one of us. For in him we live, and move, and have our being, as certain also of your own poets have said. For we also are his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the godhead is like unto gold or silver, or stone graven by art or man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men every where to repent : because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that Man whom he hath ordained ; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." Consistently with this most appropriate and com- prehensive exposition of Christian iaith, the same apostle addressing the church at Corinth — as be- lievers in the grace of God which is given by Jesus Christ, declares, that " though there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or on earth — to us [the primitive believers] there is but one God the 69 Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." For it was given him^ " to be head over all things to the church."' Yet as the same apostle assures us, " It is manifest that he [God even the Father] is excepted who did put all things under him." In unison with this truly evangelical doctrine, the apostle writing to Timothy his own son in the faith, testifies that there is one God^ who in the riches of his mercy — will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth — and one Me- diator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus — who hath abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light by the gospel. It cannot, I think, be denied that the foregoing texts amply justify as sound and scriptural every proposition contained in the fundamental principles of the London Unitarian Book Society. Surely then, no Christian society can be justified in ex- pelling any of its members for promoting their re- ception among men. As I have been held responsible for all that the preface to the book of rules of this Society contains, and much prejudice and misapprehension exists re- specting the general principles of those who are usually called Unitarians, and against me, on account of my connexion with this Book Society, give me leave, in the perspicuous language of Robert Aspland, in his Plea for that class of Dissenters, " to occupy your attention for a few minutes longer by stating what is not, and what is " their" faith.* * On taking up this work, an objection was made to my quoting the passage I intended, as having nothing to do with the question before the meeting. But the Clerk observed, that if the Appellant had transcribed the passage, no Friend could have had any pretence for objecting to his adducing it in his defence, and as this was evi- dently not done merely to save the trouble of copying, I think he should be allowed to read the passage from the work he has referred to. I then proceeded for some time without farther obstruction. 70 " We do not believe,*' says he, in ' all and every thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer:' it has many things which we cannot find in the Bible, and some things which the Bible appears to us to discountenance and forbid ; and we hold — ' in its full force and extent, the declaration of the sixth arti- cle — that Holy Scripture containeth all things ne- cessary to salvation, — so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or ne- cessary to salvation.' " We do not believe in the Athanasian Creed: to our understanding it is contradictory and absurd ; we consider it to be subversive of the first principle of revealed religion, the Divine Unity ; and we shudder at the solemn and awful defiance of charity and mercy, with which it opens and concludes. " We do not believe in ' Original or Birth Sin,' consisting as explained in the ninth Article, in the ' corruption of the nature of every man, that natur- ally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam,' and ' in every person born into this world,' deserving ' God's wrath and damnation :' we cannot conceive that there is any sin in being born ; we have been instructed by the Apostle John,* that ' sin is the transgression of the law,' and by the Apostle Paul,f ' that where no law is, there is no transgression,' our reverence of the perfections of the Almighty Creator, will not permit us to suppose that he has made any creature naturally corrupt, or that he hateth any thing which he hath made ; and we have learnt from one apostle J that man is made ' after the similitude of God,' from another, § that ' he is the image and glory of God,' and from our Saviour, |j that children in whom human nature is fresh and • 1 John iii. 4. f Rom. iv. 15. X James iii. 9. § 1 Cor. xi. 7. 11 Matt. xix. 14. 71 entire, are so far from deserving, by virtue of nature, * God's wrath and damnation/ that * of such is the kingdom of heaven/ " We do not believe according to the eleventh Ar- ticle, that ' we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit' of Jesus Christ, and ' that we are justified by faith only :' for we receive the doc- trine of Scripture, that ' he that doeth righteous- ness is righteous,' * th?t ' God having raised up his Son Jesus sent him to bless,' us ' by turning away every one of us ' from his iniquities,' f that at ' the judgment-seat of Christ,' we shall receive * according to the deeds done in the body,' + that ' eternal life' is the merciful reward of ' patient continuance in well-doing, '§ that it is only by ' giving all diligence, and adding to our faith' every virtue, that we can ' make our calling and election sure,* and that thus alone ' an entrance shall be ministered unto' us ' abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord,' || and that, therefore, it is the duty of every man, ' to prove his own work, and then he shall have rejoicing in himself alone and not in an- other ; for every man shall bear his own bur- den.'^ " We do not believe that ' works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his spirit,' as the L'^th Article asserts, ' are not pleasant to God — but have the nature of sin :' this is the doctrine of an African Saint, Augustin, but we have been taught by higher saints, Peter and Paul, that ' God is no respecter of persons, but that in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him,'** and that the gospel is a reve- lation of " glory, honour and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first and also to the Gen- tile."tt For these reasons from Scripture, we are obliged * 1 John iii. 7. f Acts iii. 26. X 2 Cor. v. 10, § Rom. ii. 7. || 2 Peter i. 5, 10, 11. IF Gal. vi 4, 5. ** Acta X. 34, 35. tt Rom. ii. 10. 72 also to withhold our assent from the ISth Article, which declares them ' accursed, that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature this anathema seems to us to lie against the Apostle Paul, who asserts,* that ' the Gentiles not having the law,' sometimes ' do by nature the things contained in the law, being a law unto them- selves,' and shew ' the work of the law which is written in their hearts,' and that they who have lived ' without the law shall not be judged by the law and even against our Lord and Teacher, who expressly says,-|* that ' many shall come from the east and the west, and from the north and from the south,' (plainly intending the heathen countries), ' and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.' . " We do not believe, as the 20th Article asserts, that ' the church hath power to decree rites or cere- monies, and authority in controversies of faith :' such authority without infallibility is ridiculous, such power may uphold every superstition and sanction every ecclesiastical oppression, and both the power and the authority are inconsistent with the ' sufficiency of the holy Scriptures' well maintained in the article before quoted, at war with the right of private judgment, and a usurpation of the prerogative of Je^us Christ, who only has authority and power in the church, who is Ring of Kings and Lord of Lords, and who has forbidden in his disciples indivi- dually and collectively the assumption and exercise of lordship. J " In these points, we do not believe in, orwith the Church of England ; but we do not censure, we dare not condemn its members ; to their own master they^ as well as we, stand or fall ;§ and we rejoice in the Rom. ii. 12, 14. t Matt. viii. 11 > and Luke xiii. 29. % Luke xxii. 25, 26. Matt, xxiii, 9, 10. § Mark xii. 29. 73 persuasion that their belief and our disbelief may be equally acceptable to heaven, if equally conceived in conscientious inquiry, and equally professed in charity. " But having acknowledged and explained our want of faith, let me briefly state what is the faith which we actually hold, and I must be forgiven for making the statement in the language of Scripture, because I can find no other language which would so fully, and yet so concisely, express my meaning. * We believe, then, that ' the Lord our God is one Lord,' and that the profession and observance of this great truth is, ' the first of all the commandments.* f " We believe, that ' the hour is come, when the true worshipers should worship the Father/ J " We believe, that as ' there is one God, the Fa- ther,' § so ' there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all men, to be testified in due time.'|| *' We believe in ' Jesus of Nazareth, a man ap- proved of God by miracles, and wonders, and signs which God did by him.'^ " We believe, that ' since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead, for as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive ** that God ' now commandeth all men every where to repent, because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by * William Tuke observed, that all this was extraneous matter and had nothing to do with the case before the meeting-, and he thought the Clerk should interpose and prevent the Appellant from g^oing- on. He ought, indeed, to have been stopped long ago. I replied, I have adduced nothing but what appears to me pertinent to the occasion, indeed much more so, than a great part of what the Respondents v/ere allowed to adduce against me before the Committee of Appeals, However, as I have but very little more to add on this subject, it will take much less time to permit me to go on, than to discuss whe- ther I am strictly 'n order or not. The Clerk desir d me to proceed. — i Mark xii 29. % John iv. 28, § 1 Cor. viii. 6. 1 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6. ^ Acts ii. 22. «» 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22. L 74 that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men in that he hath raised him from the d^ad ;* that ' the Father hath given the Son authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man that at Christ's coming, is ' the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father — then shall the Son also him- self be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all/ ''J When I had proceeded thus far, the Meeting adr journed about one to four the same afternoon. Yearly Meeting, 5th Month 24th, 1814. Afternoon Sitting. Being called upon by the Clerk to proceed with my defence, I rose and addressed the Meeting as follows : — The Monthly Meeting's Committee confessed they did not know, and refused to inform themselves what the contents of any of the works were which the London Unitarian Book Society circulated, but rested their objections to my being a subscriber, until their last visit, wholly on the contents of the preface to its book of rules. The first paragraph asserts, that Christianity proceeding from God, must be of infinite impor- tance and that " a more essential service cannot be rendered to mankind than to advance the interests of truth and virtue, to promote peace, liberty and good order in society ; to accelerate the improve-* ment of the species — to exalt the character and secure the ultimate happiness of individuals, by disseminating right principles of religion, and by exciting the attention of men to the genuine doctrines of Revelation." What is it this paragraph affirms ? * Acts xvii. 30, 31. t John V. 27. J Cor. xy, 24. 28. 75 The divine origin of Christianity, and its supreme importance to the present and future happiness of man. No Christian can surely object to this. But how does this Book Society propose to for- ward these desirable ends ? Its primary and " chief object" in the distribution of all its books, is profess- edly to excite the attention of men to the Scriptures, as the sole authentic record of the " genuine doc- trines of Revelation." To these writings they refer as the proper touchstone of all doctrines, whether they are of divine authority or of human invention. The Society claims no infallibility in favour of any other writings, and the declared intent of distributing them is principally to induce men to search the Scriptures for themselves, and to try all doctrines by their testimony. All other works are supposed by this Society to be more or less tinctured with error, and therefore with becoming modesty and reverence for the sacred writ- ings, they propose " promoting Christian knowledge and the practice of virtue, chiefly by exciting the attention of men to the genuine doctrines of Reve- lation," as therein unfolded ; and secondarily, " by distributing such books as appear to the members of the Society to contain the most rational views of the gospel, and to be most free from the errors, by which it has long been sullied and obscured. And so far as I have, during a period of more than ten years, be- come acquainted with the works this Society circu- lates, their manifest and general tenor and tendency are, to hold up the Scriptures 2i^hemg paramount €Luthority in all that concerns faith and worship. Such also I have abundant reason to believe, are the seri- ous and conscientious views of its subscribers gene- rally, so far as my acquaintance with them enables me to judge. " Error, voluntary or involuntary,*^ says the writer of this preface, " so far as it extends, must have a peraicioui influence. The members of this Society 7C think, therefore, that they are doing signal service to the cause of truth and good morals, by endefi«» vouring to clear the Christian system from all foreign incumbrances, and by representing the doctrines of Revelation in their primitive simplicity T That is, in scriptural language, the language of Christ and his apostles. " Truth must ultimately be favourable to virtue.'^ The next paragraph contains the fundamental principles of the Society, which my accusers pro* fessed to approve. On reading that which follows sentence by sentence to them, that I might clearly understand what their objections to this preface were, I found reason to conclude they were nearly, if not wholly confined to the application of the term " creature'' to Jesus Christ, the most distinguished of the prophets ; and therefore asked them whether Christ was not called in Col. i. 1^, " the first-born of every creature," or of the whole creation ? This they granted, but said they thought the application of this apostolic language to Christ " disrespectful to his character."' It seemed otherwise to me. Judge ye of this. I will not venture, however, to justify all that this preface contains. There are some expressions in it, which are of dubious, perhaps of exceptionable im-r port, and such as I could wish were omitted. But I never thought myself as a subscriber to this Book Society, accountable for these, but for its fund^ mental principles only. The other accusation against me is, that I aided m circulating certain Remarks " which found fault with the Yearly Meeting Epistle for 1810." They did so, amidst much commendation of its general tenor and tendency, for the following reasons : — 1st. That it holds up the object of prayer, as being one upon whom help is laid^* that is, one who re- ceived, and therefore needed help from another; which by the uniform testimony of Scripture cannot 77 be predicated of the proper object of prayer, the one only true God, who is the inexhaustible source of all power, perfection and benevolence, the giver of every good and perfect gift. 2d. This Epistle quotes an important text of Scrip- ture incorrectly, and then founds thereon an injunc- tion to apply to Christ in secret supplication, instead of to his Father and our Father, his God and our God, to whom only did Christ direct his disciples to otfer their supplications. 3d. It insinuates, that the natural talents with which mankind are endowed, were bej^tow^ed on them by Christ, whereas in Scripture these are always re- presented as the immediate gift of God, even the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 4th. It describes " the lowly-minded Saviour" as *' omnipotent'* who himself assured us, if the testi- mony of his Evangelists may be credited, " that of himself he could do nothing," that all the powers he exercised or possessed were ^' given him of his Fa- ther.'* These passages in the Epistle still appear to me inconsistent with the testimony of Christ and his Apostles, as also with the general tenor of all your former annual addresses to the Church. And I wished by sober, dispassionate discussion to bring them to the test of Scripture, that it might appear whether their foundations were laid in the sand, or on the immoveable rock of genuine Revelation. An Elder in the Society, whose style is well known, accepted this invitation under the signature of " Breviloquus." This writer defined " omnipo- tence" to be, not an incommunicable attribute of the one Supreme, as I consider it, but as somethii^ which might be given* by one being and received by another. ' Although my accusers charged me " with holding that Jesus Christ is not omnipotent, nor the proper object of worship/* they refused to explain whether 78 they considered omnipotence as a communicable attribute, or, as an essential, inseperable attribute of the iViost H igh God : or whether they ascribed omni- potencc to the Man Christ Jesus, or held him to be " the proper object of supreme religious worship,*' Yet the Committee at their first visit, distinctly admitted that when they spoke of the divinity of Christ as a doctrine of the Society, they never as- cribed it to the Man Christ Jesus, but to that divine power which dwelt in and acted by him; but on finding we were likely to agree upon this point, they began to hesita1:e, and proposed to give me their more deliberate judgment concerning it, at their next visit. But from this time they most disingenuously concealed their own opinions while they were ques- tioning me concerning mine, " on various important points of doctrine." I would now say a few words on another subject, that 1 may the sooner remove an erroneous impression which was made on many Friends in the Quarterly Meeting, by the Respondents' adducing an Extract out of a work of mine, as opposing the doctrine of divine influence, and by the unfounded observations which were made thereon in my absence. I have •briefly noticed them in my Appeal, but they seenj to require some farther explanation. The first time my accusers even mentioned this doctrine to me, was at the 4th sitting of the Quar- terly Meeting's Committee on my Appeal, before whom, I not only evinced this charge to be irrele- vant and unfounded, but that the fair construction of the whole passage is directly opposed to that which the Respondents gave of its import. It was quoted by me from a discourse of Dr. Priestley's, " on the doctrine of divine influence on the human mind," for the purpose mentioned in my Appeal ; and holds up an attention to the universal presence and constant agency of God, as " of the greatest importance — that it is exerted " by natural jneant, or in a regu^ 79 lar manner — that we should " endeavour to see God in every thing, and to see every thing in God, that is, in its relation to him — that we ought " ha- bitually to look beyond all second causes, considering them in no other light than as instruments in the hands of God, the only proper cause of all, and em- ployed by him to accomplish in the best manner, his excellent purposes. But in the second place, it is almost of as much importance, that we consider God, not as a being incapable of foresight, but as fore- seeing every thing that can ever come to pass — as acting by general laws, without ever.deviating from them except for great and extraordinary purposes, and then in such a manner, as that his interposition shall be publicly known and acknowledged, so as to have the proper effect of miracles. " Not to respect the general presence and agency of God is practical Atheism ; it is living without God in the world ; and to expect his miraculous interpo» sitions, and not to consider him as acting by general laws, is to encourage an enthusiasm and a delusion almost as dangerous, leading men to neglect the na- tural and only efficacious means of improving their characters, and to depend on certain supernatural impulses and feelings of vague and uncertain descrip- tion, and that cannot have any relation to moral virtue, which consists in a supreme reverence and love of God, an entire devotedness to his will in doing and suffering, a disinterested love of his crea- tures and our brethren, and a just self-government equally favourable to both. "On the whole, the doctrine of divine agency and divine influence respecting things spiritual as well as temporal, is true, and in the highest degree impor- tant. Our characters approach to perfection, in proportion as we keep it in view, and they are de- based and bad in proportion as we lose sight of it.^' With this passage before their eyes did the Re- spondents give no intimation of its import, nor of the 80 declared purpose for which I made the quotation, but passing these over in silence, most uncandidly adduced the next sentence by itself before the Quar- terly Meeting, obviously calculated as it is, when thus severed from its context to make an erroneous impression. The sentence thus selected by them, is as follows : — " But the doctrine of a proper superna- tural influence on the mind is false; and though, like most other false principles, it may be very innocent not in fact superseding the use of the natural means of religion, it is always delusive, and in some cases highly dangerous/'* The Respondents did not venture to quote more than this one sentence, nor can even that be bent to their purpose, without putting a forced construction on the word supernatural^ which as there used means miraculous^ as is evident from the context, and it» usual import. The author adds, " Let this doctrine therefore teach us as individuals to cultivate a spirit of habitual devotion, founded on the belief of the divine presence with and of his constant agency upon us, and upon all things. This is that faith which is the sure anchor of the soul, in a tempestuous world, or rather it is the wings on which we rise above the world, and approach to a state of union with God*' * In my Narrative, pp. 205, !106, I mentioned in a note upon this passage, one fatal instance of the danger of such delubion. Another case equally shocking has occurred since that event, that of an ap- proved minister travelling- under certificates from the Society here, of unity and concurrence with his religious labours, in a visit to Ame- rica. How many minor instances of self-deception are daily happen- ing, it is impossible to ascertain. But I am from long observation so strongly impressed, not only with this delusion occasionally pro- ducing suicide, but in its more ordinary operation a variety of lessef evils of no small importance, that I would earnestly recommend to the Quakers generally, as well deserving their attention, Loeke*i excellent chapter on Enthusiasm, in his Essay on the Human Under- standing. I have often thought that chapter as apposite, as if writ- ten for theic particular benefit. Se« the Appendix. Such is the immediate context of that passage by which the Respondents contrived to impress the Quarterly Meeting, that . I rejected the doctrine of divine influence on the human mind, or what is usually called the fundamental doctrine of the So- ciety. 1 presume it cannot be needful to say more to satisry you, that this accusation is both irrelevant and groundless.* So undeniably sound and scriptural is the doctrine that there is but one God, and that the Father is that one God^ that it has been universally held by Chris- tians of every age, wherever the religion of Jesus of Nazareth has been received. These are truths so clearly revealed in the Scriptures, that there has never been any doubt respecting them, with any per- sons who acknowledsred the authoritv of those writ- p « ings. But nothing like this can be said with truth concerning the supposed Deity of Christ, or his being the second person in the Trinity : nor concerning the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit, the sup- posed third person in the Trinity. All the opinions on these points which have been held by professed Trinitarians, appear to be mere inferences and deductions from certain passages of Scripture, and not that which is expressly affirmed or plainly taught by the sacred writers, and espe- cially when due regard is paid to the context and the general drift of the passage, or of the book or Epistle where it occurs. In fact, the popular or reputedly orthodox opinions on those subjects, never were to my knowledge, and I believe never can be expressed in scriptural language. Let any person carefully examine the Liturgy of the Church of England, or any other Trinitarian * The Respondents, several of whom were members of the Quar- terly Meeting's Committee, on my appealin;^ to them hefore youv Committee of Appeals, candidly admitted that the abo^ e Extract was adduced in tke manner above stated. M 89 church, and he will find even there very strong pre- sumptive evidence, that its compilers considered it to be most accordant to the sense of Scripture to address prayer and supreme religious worship to God the Father, m or througli Jesus Christ, that is, as his disciples. For there are compara- tively very few prayers in the whole church service addressed to the second, or the third person in the Trinity, or to the three jointly.* There are some few examples of direct religious addresses to each, but generally the Father only is addressed agreeably to apostolic precept and example. The celebrated Dr. Samuel Clarke, it is well known, proposed to render the Liturgy of the Esta- blished Church more uniform and consistent, by omitting or altering every part of the service in which prayer, or supreme adoration was addressed to any- other object than to God the Father. The Liturgy so reformed, has been long used by some congrega- tions of Dissenters, who in common with the great bulk of professing Christians, consider the injunc- tion of Christ " after this manner, therefore pray ye, Our Father who art in heaven," &c. as authorizing the use of forms of prayer which comprise no peti- * The Respondents objected to this as irrelevant matter, observrng^ that thetiharges against the Appellant did not relate to the doctrine of the Trinity. I told the Committee, that I believed if they per- mitted me to proceed, they would soon see those preliminary obser- ^valions were relevant to the case. I was then allowed to go on. Be- fbre I close this note, I would obsei-ve, that at a time when all other places of worship in this country, those of the Quakers excepted, were professedly Trinitarian ; the celebrated Elwall, who was tried at Staf- ford assizes in 1726, for publishing a book in defence of the Unity of God, generally attended their places of worship, where the devo- tional language, as to the object of prayer and worship was such as he could accord with, because it was Unitarian. He was, I believe, never a memt)er of the Society, holding the lawfulness of Oaths and defensive War, but generally associated with Friends. An interesting account of his trial is published, price Id, and maj lie had of R. Hunter, bookseller, St. Paul's Church Yard, succeisor to J. Johnson. 83 Uons improper for dependent beings to prefer, and such as all have need to crave, from the bountiful and benignant Parent of the Universe. In a " list of Friends' books now on sale, which have been published in the course of the last few . years, with the approbation of the Morning Meeting,'' 1 find one which appears to me to indicate a very similar view on the part of the author and of that meetins:, with that which Dr. Samuel Clarke enter- tained as to the proper object of prayer. This work is entitled, " Correspondence without Controversy.*' It was written " with a view to remove prejudice, and to promote a friendly disposition towards each other — between the Church of England and the Society of Dissenters, commonly called Quakers.*'* In pursuance of so good a purpose, it w^as natural ^ rather to magnify than to diminish " the correspond- ence" or similarity between them in sundry import- ant points of doctrine. With such an object in view, and the Book of Common Prayer, including the three Creeds, the Liturgy, &c. before him, what is the amount of the " Correspondence without Contro- versy," which this approved author has made out with regard to the proper object of worship ? His work 4ias shewn that this correspondence ex- tends so far as the devotional language of the Liturgy is scriptural and strictly Unitarian. But in this effort to promote a good understanding between the parties, the author has not recognized any distinction of per^ * Luke Howard observed, that if the Appellant should prove that another person was as heretical as himself, it would not prove the doctrioe held by him to be that of the Society, but only of that in- dividual, for which the Society was not answerable. If the work has been approved by the Morning- Meetingf for publication, I object to the propriety of saying the Society have sanctioned it. But I do not know that this work has been so approved. i replied, if that be not granted, I can easily prove it. as I have a copy of the work with me, and a printed minute of the fleeting" for Sufferings, testifying that it has been so approved, which is surely to sanction the work. This was no farther disputed and I proceeded. 84 sons in the Deity ^ or any religious addresses to the second or the third persons in the Trinity^ or in any other manner acknowledged that doctrine as any proof of similarity of faith, much less of " Corres- pondence without Controversy." He has neverthe- less quoted with apparent approbation, the King's declaration respecting the thirty-nine Articles, en- joining submission to them " in the plain and full meaning thereof, and in the literal and grammatical sense/' Extracts from more than twenty Prayers from the Liturgy are given in this approved work, under the heads "Absolution — Christmas day — Innocents' day — the 6th Sunday after the Epipha- ny — the 9th Sunday after Trinity — the Churching of Women — the Communion," &c. without one word of explanation what these relics of Popery mean, or any caution respecting them. Yet with all this inattention to the titles under which these prayers are arranged, your approved author has evinced so much discrimination and dis- cernment, as to adduce nothing of a Trinitarian complexion. His extracts cannot of themselves suggest such an idea to any reader, and yet one of them is selected from " the Collect for the 1st Sun- day in Lent," which is addressed to him who did fast forty days and forty nights." That is, to the Man Christ Jesus, to whom I readily acknowledge every tribute of love, gratitude and reverence, short of that supreme worship which is due only to his God and our God, ought to be rendered by all that are called by his name. As to what is termed " the Divinity of Christ," if these unscriptural terms must be used, care should be taken that they are only used in a scriptural sense ^ and that their import and application be clearly de- fined and understood. But on such a subject, I w^ould say on behalf of myself and others who prefer the simplicity of Scripture language to any other, which the folly or the wisdom of man can devise. S6 " why are we to be accounted heterodox, because, on the divinity of Christ we do not incline to fur- ther than the Scripture leads m J'* My accusers would not agree to this test. This would not satisfy them, yet is it since that time urged on your behalf by Henry Tuke, an approved minister among you^ in a letter a-ddressed to the Editors of the Christian Observer, and inserted at his request in that work, vol. xiii. pp. 9^ — 100.* It appears, that he highly esteems and strongly recommends this periodical publication, and yet it is plain that the Editors of that work carry their ideas concerning the Deity of Christ, " as a divine Person^'' farther than he feels warranted in following them. They wished to know^ whether, when they [the Quakers] affirm the Divinity of Christ, they mean to speak of him as a divine Person^ or, as a quality of the Godhead P'' Nothing can be more easy than to give a plain intel- ligible answer to this question. To avow the ortho- dox opinion, four words only are necessary [as a di- vine person]. To avow the contrary opinion, requires no more than six [as a quality of the Godhead]. In- stead of this direct course, Henry Tuke professing to reply concisely to this question, begins by observing, '-^ We can, indeed, say on this, as on every other oc- casion, that we believe all that the Scriptures have spoken and inculcated.'* After this, he tells us how he understands the first * I forbear enlarging on the contents of this letter, or on the reply to it by the Editors of this work, although I have the number for February last by me, in which they are inserted ; but I would observe, that those who have read both attentively, will see, I should think, the necessity of admitting the fallibility of those writers, whose works have been generally held in the highest estimation by the members of the Society. 1 will only add, that the reply to this letter points out many such passages in those works, as I apprehend no judicious Friend in, or out of this meeting would now undertake to defend. I was previously acquainted with most of those exception- able passages, but know nothing of the person who wrote these ob- servations on Henry Tuke's letter. 86 verses of the gospel according to John, but not a word about divine persons in the Godhead or the doctrine of the Trinity, although he has not over- looked the head to the chapter inserted by King James's translators in order to favour that doctrine, but has in fact given their comment as an explana- tion of the text. Finally, he refers in a note to an- other work of his, first published in 1801, and at last concludes the subject in the following page, by as- serting in effect the propriety of not going " further than the Scripture leads us and pointing out how unreasonable it is to cast the imputation of hetero- doxy on those who limit their profession of faith by the testimony of the sacred writings. It need not be concealed," says our Friend George Stacey, pp. 21, 22, of his ' Brief Remarks on the State of Man and his Redemption by Jesus Christ,** " that there are passages in the sacred -writings, which seem to admit of various interpreta- tions, and to give some room for different views con- cerning doctrine, more especially in the Epistles^ In this I perfectly agree, as also that it is equally for the interests of truth and charity that this should be admitted, and the free exercise of the rights of pri- vate judgment be on that account, not only respected, but encouraged. Our author adds, " But if the occasions on which these were written, were well con- sidered^ and what is difficult in them brought to the test of what is more clear in other parts of the same apostle's writings, we should be less at a loss respect- ing their true meaning'* That is, to make the apostle his own commentator, and carefully to consider the context, as John Locke has most ably shewn in his Paraphrase on St. Paul's Epistles and the Essay pre- fixed to it, is the true way to promote a right un- derstanding of those invaluable parts of Scripture. * This work is included in the ** li«t of Friends' book«/' men- tioned as approved publications, pp, 3, 4. 87 And there is one rule in the interpretation of Scripture where it can be applied/' adds George Stacey, which it seems right to observe — to bring aii to the standard of Christ's own doctrine, in subjects on which he has condescended to explain himself** This I conclude he has done, with regard to all the genuine and essential doctrines of Christian- ity, for he was " the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him, en- dured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down on the right hand of the throne of God/' We are commanded in matters of faith to acknowledge no other master upon earth. After laying down the above excellent rule, our author concludes the paragraph, by quoting the words of Christ, recorded in the 7th chapter of John, in the following manner: — If any man will do [the will of the Father] he shall know of [my] doctrine, whether it be of God/' Even in these terms the distinction, which according to the sacred writer, his great Master made, is in some degree preserved, but as it stands in the text, it is much more strongly and emphatically marked. " Now, Jesus went up into the temple and taught, and the Jews marvelled, say- ing, how knoweth this man letters, having never learned ? Jesus answered them, and said, my doc- trine is not mine, but His that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, vche- ther it be of God, or whether I speak of myself J* — John vii. 14 — 17- In p. 15, after speaking in very appropriate terms " of the love of God in Christ, as altogether adapted to the circumstances in which he [man] is placed," our author observes, that " the Christian believer — sees exemplified in it, the 7nysteriom union of the divine and human nature** By this observation, how- *ever, I would hope he does not mean to insinuate, that such as cannot see this^ are not Christian believers. J^e this as it may, on the sapposition of his seeing 88 this, our author reasons thus: — For that which was eclipsed or lost, being of heavenly origin, could be restored only by HiiD, who first breathed it into man, and that was God, who created aii things by Jesus Christ;'*^ " the power Oi God and tne wisdom of God/— 1 Cor. i. 24. To apply our author's own rule to the fragments of the two texts, with which he has concluded the above reasoning, that is to consider well on what occasion they were written, neither of them will, I believe, appear to be pertinently quoted. The first is Eph. iii. 9, which most evidently relates to the gospel dispensation, the subject of the Epistle. The other is 1 Cor. i. 24, in which the apostle is speak- ing of the effect of receiving the Christian doctrine. " The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks fool- ishness, but unto them that are called Christ, [in whose name they preached] the power of God and the wisdom of God." See Rom. i. l6, where the apostle expressly declares " the gospel of Christ," to be " the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." Hence the Christian believer," continues our author, " while he receives these and other-sacred declarations of Scripture concerning the office and character of Christ into his heart, by faith^ is led also by the samefaith^ to the acknowledgment of the Unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not in operation merely, but in essence ; seeing if Christ be the wisdom and power of God, he must be One essentially with the Father r These metaphysical conjectures concerning the essence' of the Deity, of which the sacred writers * Ephes. iii. 9, " These last words by Jesus Christ, Dr. Clarke says, are not found in the most ancient copies ; and are by the Jearned Dr. Mills, supposed to have been added here from Col. i. 16." *' Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity," p. 28. 89 are wholly silent, our author docs not pretend to deduce from any express declarations of Scripture, but from faith, and after all they appear to be nothing more than the Sabellian doctrine ; like Henry Tuke, our author, avoids admitting in any sense whatever a distinction of persons in the Deity, co-equal and co- eternal, without any inequality or difference, as Tri- nitarians maintain.* * I must \Kg leave again to refer to Dr. Clarke, who observes, S. D. p. 86, that '* Eusebius, through all his books against Mar- cellus, lays it down as the constant known doctrine of the church, that Christ himself is not— r/?e God oier all; but that these are the peculiar titles of the Father. And he particularly affirms, that who- soever applies these titles to the Son, cannot be a pious person. And he adds, that Sabelliui was excommunicated as a blasphemer, for this very assertion ; as confounding the characters of the Father and the Son." Again, If any one (says Origen) is disturbed at these expressions, Johnxvii. 11, ' that they may be One as JTe are,' as if we favoured the opinion of those [the Sabellian heretics] who deny the Father and the Son, to be two distinct subsistencies, — let him consider that text (Acts iv. .32) * All that believed were of one heai t and one soul;' and then he will understand this, I and my Father are one thing." — Ibid. p. 119. " They who are not careful,'' says Dr. Clarke, ibid. p. 290, " to Baaintain these personal characters and distinctions, but, while they are solicitous (on the one hand) to avoid the errors of the Arians, affirm (in the contrary extreme) the Son and Holy Spirit to be (indi- dually with the Father) the self-existcnt Bang: these, seeming in words to magnify the ndme of the Son and Holy Spirit, in reality takeaway \he.\x \exy existence ; and so fall unawares into Sabelli- anism, which is the same with Sociuianism.'' I would here call the meeting's attention to the last paragraph of the 13th section of Barclay's jSfth and sixth Proposition, in order to shew that this is neither his error nor mine, as I have uniformly as- serted the scriptural soundness of its doctrine concerning Jesus Christ, whereas my accusers have as constantly refused to say, whe- ther they approve it or not. It is as follows : — " Now as the soul of man dwells otherwise, and in a far more immediate manner, in the ' head and in the heart, than in the hands or legs, and as the sap, virtue and life of the vine lodgeth otherwise in the stock and root, than in the branches, so God dnelletk otherwise in the Man Jesus than j in us. We also freely reject the heresy of Apollinarius, who denied him to have any soul, but said the body was only acted by the God- head. As also the error of Eutyches, who made the manhood to be ■wholly swallowed up of the Godhead. \Vherefore," continues Bar- 90 Our author in the next place observes, that Christ received homage, as a divine character^ with- out rebuking those by whom it was offered." Doubt- less he did, and he was most truly a divine character^ and well entitled to much higher homage than ap- pears to have been paid him on the two occasions referred to. The first is Matt. viii. 2, where in the received version, the leper whom Jesus afterwards cured is said to have " worshiped him,'^ or more cor- rectly " did him obeisance'* The other is John ix. 38, where the man who was blind from his birth, after his eyes were opened, is in like manner said to have worshiped him. The preceding conference be- tween this man and the Jews gives no manner of countenance to the notion that he offered religious worship to Christ on this occasion, for he argues the reality of the miracle with them thus : — " If this Man [Jesus] were not of God he could do nothing " By our author's reference in a note, p. 15, to Acts X. 25, 26, it appears as if he thought Cornelius of- fered religious worship to Peter, but if he had well considered that Cornelius was " a devout man, one that feared God and prayed to God always,*' I should imagine he would have come to a different conclu- sion. " Nor is it of little moment," adds our author, " in confirmation of the true Christians faith^ that the Fa- ther and the Son are alike designated Light and Life, essentially so ; which cannot be assumed of any created being." No ! Did not our great Master him- self testify, that John the Baptist "was a burning and a shining light P*' John v. S5. Did he not say to his disciples, "Ye are the light of the world — let your light so shine before men, that they may see your clay, speaking in the name and on behalf of the Society, ** as believe he vias a true and real many so we also believe that he con- tinues so to he glorified in the hearens in soul and body, by whom God shall judge the xvorld in the great and general day of judg- ment." 0 91 good works and glorify your Father who is in heu^. <)>> venr That Jesus Christ was in a more eminent degree than any other Teacher sent from God a hght to the world, no Christian will hesitate to acknowledge, but many to pronounce that the Father and the Son are alike designated light in the sacred writings. One of the texts adduced, 1 John i. 5, refers to God and not to Christ, as attentively marking its connexion with the two next verses, will I might say, demon- strate. How John V. 26, can possibly be thought to support such a proposition, I cannot imagine. For it in effect asserts, in unison with the uniform testi- mony of Scripture, that all the power of the Son is derived from the Father, and that the power of the Father which is never spoken of in those writings as being in any manner limited, is original and unde- rived. This is, indeed, a momentous distinction, which our great Lord and Master, whatever powers he possessed, always took care to mark in the strong- est terms, and in the most decisive manner. The whole chapter almost may be quoted, to prove how utterly Jesus Christ, when performing the most un- questionable miracles, and proclaiming the great ex- tent of the power he was ordained to exercise, dis- claimed any of them being properly speaking his own.* *' Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself ver. 19. Again, I can ♦ John V. 26. " For as the Father hath life in himself, so bath he given to the Son to haie life in himself^ " It seems, (says Dr. Clarke, S. D. p. 102) from the foregoing vers. 21 and 25, that the word [Life] here signifies the poiuer of raising from the dead,'" t " What things (saith Epiphanius), the Father doth, these also doeth the Son hkewise. For the Father being a Spirit, acts by his own authority ; but the Son, who is also a Spirit, acts nut by his otvn au- thority* as the Father does ; but acts after a like manner— ministe- rially/' ** * I can of mine own self do nothing,' saith our Saviour ; because he is not of himself ; and whosoever receives his being, must receive his po-wer from another. — The Son then can do nothing of himself, 9S of mine ownself do nothing, as I hear I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father who hath sent me." Verse .'30.* Towards the bottom of the same page, our author says, " There can be no evidence of testimony, in an equal degree certain, or on which we can so fully rely, as that which is given to us. by our holy and blessed Redeemer, who is truth itself ;" and who said, " I and my Father are one.^f — " If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not : but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works ; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and 1 in Him." John x. 30,37, 38. Of the context of these texts, our author says no- thing, and yet no two texts could have been chosen, but what he seeth the Father do, because he hath no power of him- self, but what tlie Father gave." — Bishop Pearson on the Creed, 4th Edit, p 34. Or, S. D. p. 15G. * *' The Son, (saith Tertulhan), always acted by the authority and will of the Father ; for the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." Against Praxeas, chap. 15. Or, S. D. p. 157. t Not [e/f, unus] One and the same person; but [h, unum] One and the same thing. The meaning is, (says Dr. Clarke, S. D. p. 104) " Since none can pluck them out of the Father's hands, and the Fa- ther has communicated his power to the Son; therefore none can pluck them out of the So7is hands : so that being in the Father^s hands, or being in the Son's hands, is in effect one and the same thing. Dr. Clarke shews, that Tertullian, Novatian, Origen, Alexander of Alexandria, Chrysostom and Basil, so understood the import of the text. It may suffice to adduce part of these testimonies. " If Christ, (says Novatian), had been the Father as the heretics imagine ; he would have said, 1 and my Father am one [one person]. But one in the neuter gender, [one thing] signifies the agreement of fellow- ship, not unity of person. So that the Father and Son are one thingy by agreement and love. The Apostle Paul also takes notice of the unity of agreement with a difference of persons. He that planteth, saith he, and he that watereth, are one [one thing]. Now every body knows, that yet A polios was one man and Paul another, and not Paul and Apollos one and the same man.'* " When our Lord says, 1 and my Father are one Thing, he means, (says Chrysostom), one in Power: for concerning that [viz, concern- ing Power] was his whole discourse," 93 the import of which is more obvious when the con- text is " well considered/' or more liable to be mis- taken for want of it. Then came the Jews round about him, [Jesus] and said unto him : — How long dost thou make us to doubt ? If thou be the Christ, [the Messiah whom they looked for like unto Moses] tell us plainly. Jesus answered them ; I told you and ye believed not : the works that I do in my Fa- ther's name, they bear witness of me. But ye be- lieve not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me, and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand, my Father who gave them me is greater than all: and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand, I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them ; Many good w^orks have I shewed you from my Father, [the source of all] for which of these works do ye stone me ? The [calum- niating] Jews answered him, saying ; For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and be- cause that thou being a man makest thyself God. Jesus answered them ; Is it not written in your law, I said ye are Gods ? If he call them Gods, to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture can- not be broken ; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, thou blasphemest ; because I said I am the Son of God ?" That is, the Christ, or the Messiah.* Was ever, I might ask, a * Here Luke Howard requested permission to point out that this was a fahe glossy which the Appellant had put upon a very import- ant text of Scripture, saying- he was not easy to let it pass by with- out some notice of it at the present time, in order to prevent the erroneous and injurious impression it might otherwise make in so targe an assembly. It was spoken to in the Committee, I admitted it had been, but not at all to my satisfaction, for I still believed il was no false gloss, but the genuine meaning of the text, as I observed before the Committee, John Locke had, in my ap- 94 vindication more complete, and the falsehood and malignity of an accusation more conclusively esta- blished ? I believe not. The effect, however, of the two texts our author has selected, when contemplated by him separately from the context, seem to have made a very different impression on his mind, for after quoting them thus, he says : — " It is true we have an evidence of testi- mony from the same source, which seems to contra- vene this assertion ; where it is said, ' My Father is greater than I/" — John xiv. 28.* Had our au- prehension, most conclusively shewn it to be, in his Reasonableness of Christianity as delivered in the Scriptures." [See pp. 23, 26, 38, 42, 43, of a new edition of this excellent work, which has been lately published with his Essay, for the under- standing- of St. Paul's Epistles, and a short account of the Author's Dfe and writings. Johnson & Co. London, price 3s. 6d. in boards ; or Locke's works, vol. ii. pp. 518, 519, 523, 525.] It was, however, my wish, that the Respondents might be allowed the freest liberty to reply to any errors I might, in their apprehension, fall into, as I should be sorry for those errors, to make any hurtful impression for want of being immediately replied to and exposed. A» far as I knew my own heart, I might say, there was not a Friend present more desirous than myself of its being done as promptly, plainly and publicly as possible. The Clerk, however, as a point of order, wished the Respondents rather to make minutes than to interrupt the Appellant, and to reply to whatever they chose after he had been heard. I then recurred to the text, to shew the connexion, and proceeded ai§ above stated. * " The plain meaning of the words is, (says Dr. Clarke, S. D. p. 162) that Gud the Father is greater than the Son absolutely : that he that begat, must needs (for that reason, and upon that very account) be greater, than he that is begotten of him. And that therefore the disciples, if they really loved him, ought to rejoice both for his sake and their own ; that he was going to be exalted to the right hand of the Throne of the Majesty on High, even the Majesty of Him who \% greater than all." Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origeu and several other writers, who have usually been called the fathers of the Christian church, are cited by Dr. Clarke on this subject. Of these early writers Origen seems to have expressed himself the most directly to the point at issue, I shall therefore only adduce his testimony. He says in reply to Celsus, Book viii. — ** Be it so, that there are some among us, (as in such a multitude of believers there cannot but be differences of opinion) who rashly suppose, that our Saviour is the 9^ thor " well considered" the immediate context of John X. 30, even the preceding verse only, he might have discovered a still more decisive testimony from the same source," not even apparently contra- vening any assertion in the text, but really contra- dicting his construction of its import, " My Father," says Christ, " is greater than all." As to the union which is hereafter to subsist between him and his Fa- ther, and him and his disciples, he says, ver. 20, At that dav ye shall know, that I am in the Father, and you in me, and I in you. "But these expressions do not surely imply a personal union between him and his disciples, nor between himself, and that Almighty Being whom he taught us to consider as his Father and our Fa- ther, his God and our God. " The Christian Believer," continues our author " however is not offended at this seeynmg contrariety namely, that Christ declared the Father to be greater than himself. No, I believe not, for if he has read the sayings of Christ with due attention, and " well con- sidered" their full import, no shadow of contrariety would be found between this, and any other of his recorded declarations concerning himself. They are all, not only really consistent, but obviously har- monious. Our author tells us, however, that " the Christian Believer considers tlie two-fold character sustained by Christ, when these expressions w^ere uttered — the divine and human ; nor does he see, that in order to fulfil the glorious office of Mediator, the blessed Re- deemer could possess less perfectly the one than the other. As partaking of man's nature, he was infe- rior to the Father ; as possessing ' all the fulness of the Godhead,* He is One with Him, as said the apostle, ' God blessed for ever.' " Supreme God over all [the same individual being- or person with the Father: which was afterwards the heresy of Sabellius] : t/et we do not think him so ; who believe his own wordi, saying, the Father yfkkh icnt me, i^ greater than /.'' S. D. p. 163. 96 VV^ith regard to the above notions respecting the character of Christ, and our author's deductions from them, I shall only observe, that many Christian believers may greatly "prefer the more intelligible and consistent testimony of Christ, and of the sacred writers concerning his character and offices in the church, to those, or any other conjectures concern- ing them. But I would briefly examine how far the texts appealed to, and in part quoted, can lend those no- tions any support. The 1st is Col. ii. 9. In the 1st chapter, the apostle after describing Christ as " the image of the invisible God, the head of the church, the first-born from the dead,'' adds, as his inference, " that in all things he might have the pre-eminence, for it pleased the Father that in him should all ful- ness dwell." Is the " true meaning" of the apostle then I would ask at all dubious, when in the same Epistle recommending the reception of the Chris- tian doctrine to the Colossians, in its primitive sim- plicity, uncontaminated by the tradition of men, he reminds them that " in Him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.'^"* Especially, as the same apostle says to the Ephesians, " I bow my * " The fulr iss of the Godhead that is, says Dr. Clarke, '« of Divine Power, Dominion and Authority. For so the word Sfcrij; [Divinity] signifies ; in the same manner as dv^pucitorrj^i and all other words of the like formation. And it is as great an abiise of lan- guage, to suppose QeorTjf [the Deity that is, the dominion of God, to signify the substance of Gud ; as it would be to understand a v9f wtto- TTji [manhood], to signify the substance of man. Where Deity is put (by a mere idiom of the English language) for God himself, as Acts xvii. 29 ; (in like manner as with us, the King's Majesty often means, not the Majesty of the King, but the King himself ;) it is in the Greek not ij hotr,^^ but to 05ioy." " Origen styles the Father ' the Fou?ttain of Dixinity.'* And he distinctly explains himself to mean thereby that the Sou is styled Go(/, upon account of the authority and dignity derived to him from , the Father : and that angels and magistrates are styled Gods, upon account of the authority and dignity derived to them through the iSon:' S. D. p. 131. 97 knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God." Eph. iii. 19. The common rendering of the other text has been objected to by many learned men, as erroneous and inconsistent with the context. Locke renders it, " he who is over all, God, be blessed for ever.'' And although in the received version the text is, as our author has quoted it, the early Christian writers " do not apply those words to Christ, but pronounce it to be rashness and impiety to say, that Christ was God over all."* It is not a little remarkable, that * The Greek words," says Dr. Clarke, ibid. p. 85, are of ambiguous construction ; and may signify either, of whom Christ came ; God who is over all be blessed for ever, amen : or, of whom Christ came, who is over all, God be blessed for ever, amen : or, of whom Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever, amen, *' In favour of the two fonner renderings, may be alleged the use of the word EuKoyrjro^, [Blessed,] as applied generally to God the Fa- ther, by way of eminence in other places of Scripture; as Dan. iii. •28. ; Psalm Ixxxix. 52. ; Rom. i. 25. ; 2 Cor. i. 3., and 11. 31. ; Eph. i. 3. ; 1 Pet. i. 3. ; and in that most remarkable place, Mark xiv. 61.—* Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed '* To the same purpose it is also very remarkable, that not only the Apostolical Constitutions, and the larger Epistles of Ignatius-, (books of dubious authority though very ancient), represent it as a branch of the Gnostick heresy to affirm Christ to be himself absolutely, the God over all. — But even Tertullian chargeth upon Praxeas, his styling Christ, ' The Lord God Almighty,' as equivalent to con- founding him with the Father himself. And Origen calls it rashness (which he would not have done, if he had thought it to be the doc- trine of St Paul), to suppose Christ to be the God over all ; as being inconsistent with his own words, * My Father is greater than However, the words of this text being of ambiguous construction, the latter of the three fore-mentioned renderings, viz. of whom Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever, amen: was pitcht upon by our Translators as the most obi ious. And indeed, the sense, even as thus expressed in our translation, is not difficult. For as the same apostle tells us, 1 Cor. xv. 27, that when he saith, all things are put under Christ, it is manifest that he is excepted^ which did put all things under him: so here in like manner, when he repeats the very same thing, that Christ is God over all; or, as some of ancients seem to have read the text (omitting the word ^eof), that Christ is over qU ; and chapter x. 12, that he is Lord over all; and Acts 36^ o 98 ill the conclusion of more than twenty prayers of approved ministers in the Society now extant, de- livered at public meetings previous to 169^, and taken in short-hand, the very words of this text are adopted, but applied to the Father. Did these men pray with the spirit and with the understanding also, or were they all mistaken in the application of these terms, or is the text in the received version errone- ously rendered ? The four first verses of this Epistle if well con- sidered,'* render it so ciear that in the estimation of the apostle^ the Father alone was God over all, that the correction of the above text might almost be jus- tified on that ground only ; but the same apostle having assured us elsewhere that to us Christians, there is but one God even the Father, the presump- tive evidence against the common reading of this text is as strong as can easily be imagined. I have thus briefly reviewed such parts of some of the latest approved works which relate to those im- portant points of doctrine, on which I have been called in question, for the sake of shewing how com- he is Lord of all ; it is manifest again, that He must needs be excepted, by communication of whose divine power and supreme au- thority, Christ is God or htn d over all,*' ** Christ, (saith Justin), is Lord of Hosts, according to the will of the Father who gave them that power. And Clemens Alexandrinus : the Lord of alt mijiisteritig to the will of the Supreme Father. And again, to Him is subject the whole army of ancels and of Gods [al- luding to Ps. xcvii. 7, * Woi-ship him all ye Gods,'] — vfon account of him who put all under him. " And Tertullian : He is Lord of Hosts, because all things are put under him by his Father. " And Hippolytus : He is God over all; for so he says expressly, * All things are given unto me of my Father.' ** And Novatian : Having always power over all things, but a power deliveredf a power given, a power granted to him from his Father.'' Before the Committee of Appeals, Luke Howard represented me as not warranted in stating, that <* the early Christian writers'* did not apply the words in Rom. ix. 5, to Christ, adding that I should kave produced my authorities. This call upon me I have now at- 99 paratively unimportant those shades of difference, or perhaps only of phraseology are, by which those who unite in rejecting the doctrine of a distinction of persons in the Deity, appear to be divided in opinion. Nor are the practical consequences of any of tliese variations at all similar to those which naturally spring out of the reception of the doctrine of the Trinity, and have been in fact generally associated with that tenet. For instance, the doctrine of original sin, or innate depravity, and the opinions usually connected there- with, as our Friend George Stacey, most justly ob- serves, are doctrines which impugn the power and goodness of God" The reception of these fearful doctrines is hardly compatible with a belief in the simple unity of God, void of all personal relations. Nor do 1 know that they have ever been associated with any consistent profession of that scriptural doc- trine. The sanction of the Morning Meeting " to the com- mon doctrine of the Trinity,^' in a late work approved by them, I would hope w^as given rather inadvert- ently than by design.^ The recognition of any new tenet by a religious society, or any new explanation of an old one, where human formularies tended to, by producing a variety of pertinent passages from the learned and candid Dr. Clarke, and through him, not from ** Ebion, Cerinthus and such writers,'' as the Respondent insinuated, but from those who are generally called the fathers of the Christian ehurch, to whose testimony Barclay has so largely appeak-d in his Apology. * This work is entitled, " Remarks suggested by the perusal of a Portraiture of Primitive Quakerism. &c." I would refer to the two first paragraphs, to shew tlie meeting, in the words of its approved author, his judgment concerning the principles of the Society. He says, on what grounds I know not, Many attempts have lately been made by Unitarian writers, to identify their faith with that of the Quakers ; but it has been sometimes done rather covertly than openly.'* I do not say such " attempts'' hrcve not been made, but if they have, it has not fallen under my notice. Nor can I imagine 100 of faith are deemed necessary in Christian churches^ should at least be " well considered^'' and the im- port of every proposition, and its agreement with Scripture doctrine be accurately weighed. And even then, experience has largely shewn the ill success of such efforts to promote their professed object, an uniformity of opinion concerning the doctrines of reli- gion. Perhaps the most plausible forms under which these attempts have been made, are those which are called Scriptural Catechisms. But even in these, although the answers may be expressed in the very terms of Scripture, unless they are also in their true import, rightly applicable to the questions prefixed, that any writers in much esteem among the Unitarians, would consider such an object of sufficient importance to make any attempt of the kind. If they had, I should most likely have known it. Your approved author adds, the *' Devotional Extracts" were given to the world with this design. Now, as the Editor of this work, I disclaim any such intention. Its object was to shew, what the devo- tional language of this Meeting had been from 1678 to 1810, by faithful extracts from its annual Epistles during that time, and the most pertinent in each Epistle that I could find. Your author next bears his testimony to the fidelity of this selection, by saying, " but they could not be sufficiently divested of those expressions that ascribe worship to the Saviour, to answer this purpose effectually.'* They were, however, quite sufficient for mine. Your author continues, *' Yet the compiler 'perhaps thought, that to gain half a purpose was better than to gain nothing at all, and might therefore wish to give to the principles of that Society a character irreconcileable 4o the C07nmun doctrine of the Trinity.^'' If this be not lo represent your principles, and that doctrine as coalescing or uniting with each other, I am unable to discover the import of these expressions. But as if it were to remove all doubt of such being the author's intention, he add, " thus endeavouring to consign the Quakers to the invidious condition of the Bat in the fable, neither bird nor beast with all its pernicious consequences." Such is the language in which this doctrine is recognized as ex- pressly according with the faith of the Society, in a work which your licencers ftf the press have sanctioned, and which the Meeting for Sufferings have directed to be circulated throughout the nation for the general information of Friends. 101 nothing can well be more delusive. The doctrines contained in the Scriptures, when viewed in their natural connexion with the context, and above all, when brought " to the standard of Christ's own doc- trine/* appear to the most advantage, the most ho- nourable to God, the most beneficial to man, and the most likely to produce their proper effect upon the mind. Only a few years ag6, after authorizing the publi- cation of the first part of a Catechism, entitled " Early Christian Instruction, &c. you referred the consi- deration of continuing the work to the Meeting for Sufferings. It remained under their care no less than two years., when in my mind you very judiciously con- curred in a report from that meeting, intimating after so much attention as they must have paid to the sub- ject during that time, that it was too nice an under- taking to enter very minutely into points of doctrine, and to publish the work in the name and on behalf of the Society. On which ground, if my memory serves me, it was agreed that any thing farther that might be published in pursuance of that object, should appear in the name of an individual, and not under the express sanction of the Society. If I have mistaken the grounds of this conclusion, my apology must be, that I have been refused access to the records. Had I been permitted to consult them on this, and a few other points, I should only have referred to such parts as on examination appeared to me material to my case, and by quoting them correctly, have enabled you, with less loss of time, to determine how far they may affect the questions at issue. For the same purpose I wished to have shewn, that by another report from the Meeting for Suffer- ings, which was also read in my hearing, and the , minute you made thereon, that the imprimatur rule, which was hastily agreed to in 1801, has been since 102 that time virtually repealed^ by the sanction you have given to that meeting to. appoint Sub-Com- mittees to inspect periodical publications, and to reply to such articles in them as they might judge necessary. I approved this measure, and considered it from that time as in effect doing away a minute which on the face of it requires to " he invariably ohservedy And accordingly since that time, persons in every station in the Society, Ministers and Elders not excepted, have acted as if no such rule defaced theJ)Ook of Extracts. Upon what principle then can the prpceedil^gs against me, so far as they are founded on a supposed breach of the above-mentioned im- primaltur rule, be consistently justified ? I also wished to see whether the written records of your meeting would confirm, strengthen, or invali- date the very striking picture which Gough has drawn of its eminently .tolerant spirit towards George Keith, under all the fanciful, unscriptural notions he entertained, if he would only have been content with openly professing them, and had not insisted on im- posing them on his brethren. As the case is stated by Gough, vol. iii. pp. 321, 327 — 3S9, 335, and 383, I cannot readily imagine any thing much more di- rectly opposed to the principle of the proceedings in my case. But as it may be objected that Gough has given a partial view of those proceedings, I was de- sirous^of going to the fountain-head for information, that I might know, so far as that could inform me^ the real character of those memorable proceedings. I have for many years considered them highly credit- able to the Society, and well entitled to its attention and imitation in every subsequent age. The records of the primitive Christian church, however, contain the best precepts and the brightest examples concerning the exercise of the rights of private judgment. The articles of faith which were then required as requisite for religious fellowship 105 were few, plain and simple, but highly important and conducive not only to peace and charity, but equally adapted to awaken and to preserve a love of truth, a fearless profession of it, a deep reverence for its author, the God of truth, and a consequent increase of true believers. Contrary maxims have always produced opposite fruits, of which the pages of ecclesiastical history afford mournful, but mstruc- tive evidence. From the period of the Reformation, however, the lumber which had accumulated during the dark ages of the church, has been gradually removing, as the sacred w^ritings have been more freely unfolded ; and the professors of Christianity been induced to search the Scriptures, and disregarding the fear of man openly and freely to avow the result of their examination. During the whole of this contest, the two parties forming in fact the Christian world, have been divided in opinion on two principles which are irreconcileably opposed to each other. The one assumes, that, the Christian church is from time to time duly authorized to propound articles of faith in unscriptural terms, and to impose them on its members. The pleas for exercising this power in substance are, the supposed danger of diversity of opinion from reading the Scriptures, without the aid of an authorized comment by the church, and the supposed safety of relying on its spiritual discern- ment.* * As the proceedings in this and in other similar cases appear to be taken up, to secure the church from the danger aud imputation of heresy aud schisin, I would refer the reader to John Locke's post- script to his first Letter on Toleration, where he has very coiiclusively Jshewn, that the pursuit of such object^ by any church, is to incur those imputations which it proposes to guard against. That those only are or can be Heretics or Schismatics, who separate themselves from any church, holding the Scriptures to be the sole rule of taith, because she does not publicly profess some certain opinions which the Holy Scriptures do not expressly teach or those who under the same profession, however numerous or powerful, exclude others out 104 The other and more ancient principle which was held before " the Gospel Dove was strangled in tha embraces of the Imperial Eagle," asserts the suffici- ency and the plainness of the Scriptures in a correct text or translation, in all that regards faith and wor- ship, without the assistance of note or comment. It claims for every Christian an equal and unalienable right to examine their testimony, and to judge of it for himself ; and consequently denies the right of any church or assembly to require of its members a pro- fession of any articles of faith which are not plainly and expressly laid down as such, in the New Testa- ment. The Church of Rome holds one of these principles. All consistent Protestants adhere to the other. Any infringement of it is to violate the sacred, the funda- mental principle whereon the Reformation was founded, and can alone be justified. The last number of the Philanthropist contains in a Review of " Gilpin's Lives of the Reformers," so clear and so masterly a defence of that principle, that I cannot forbear quoting one paragraph from it. It is as follows : — ^ ^ " If the propriety of translating the Scriptures be established and acknowledged, other consequences follow which are not in general observed. The trans- lation of the Scriptures is only good, if schism and dissent are good, and not otherwise. If schism and dissent are evil, so also is the translation of the Scrip- tures. If the opinions of the church are alone to be followed, and if the adoption of any other opinions is evil, the proper course undoubtedly is to confine the Bible to those who manufacture the opinions of the church, and to give to the people only the opi- nions which are made for them. The Church of of her communion, because they will not profess their belief of cer- tain opinions which are not the express words of Scripture. — " Both these,*' says Locke, " are heretics^ because they err in fundamentals, and err obstinately against knoxvkdgey Works, vol. ii. p. 266. 10^ Rome reasoned accurately and consistently, by re^ fusing the use of the Bible to the laity, when it esta- blished their incompetency to form opinions for themselves. The Church of England manifests a woful incapacity of reasoning, when it maintains that the Bible should be translated and read, and yet that there is any duty or propriety whatsoever in following the opinions of the parish priest more than the opinions of any other man. Surely the reading of the Bible is good only, if it is good to judge of it according to the dictates of the reader's understand- ing. It can answer no other purpose. If this is not good, it is merciful to keep the Bible out of his hands ; it is merciful to keep him from the chance and from the temptation of error. Whoever talks of schism and dissent as any thing else than desirable and good,* is in reality, therefore, not a Protestant ; he avows the very principle of Popish tyranny and the source of Popish corruption ; he lays down th^ servitude of the human mind as the foundation of his system ; he actually, and in truth condemns the translation and perusal of the Bible. So very nearly are Popish high church and Protestant high church related !" Vol. iv. p. 126. Recognizing these principles as purely Christian ^nd Protestant, it is evident I cannot consistently look to you for any authoritative confirmation of any doctrines or opinions which appear to me sound and scriptural. But I do look to some of the Respondents to shew how they imagine such principles can be * Here Luke Howard inquired, whether I meant to assert that schism and dissent were ^ood in themselves, as the passag^e just read seemed to imply ? I replied, the Committee may see thiit it is rather the comparative than the positive good of schism and dissent of which this passage speaks. But I have no hesitation in expressing my firnv persuasion, that any evils attendant upon the freest avowal of dissent even from doctrines both true and important, are far less than those which necessarily flow from discouraging or restraining in any aianner the exercise of the rig^hts of private judgment. P 106 openly avowed and publicly countenanced, consist- ently with an approval of those inquisitorial and in- tolerant proceedings which they are appointed to defend. I am at present utterly unable to comprehend this, but I shall be willing to listen with attention to their explanation ; and 1 can truly say, whatever variation of senti ment there may be, between any of my fel- low-professors of faith in Christ Jesus, within the Society in which I was born and educated, and those which I entertain, I have no desire to obtrude my sentiments upon others farther than they are true, and appear so to their understandings.* I am very ready to allow that there is no merit whatever in merely holding true doctrines, however commendable it maybe to search after religious truth, * I have, however, much reason to conclude, that the proceedings against me chiefly arose from the olFence certain Disciplinarians had taken at the occasional expression of my sentiments in Meetings for Discipline. The Monthly Meeting's Committee let out this secret at their first visit, by expressing the dissatisfaction of Friends at my general conduct in this respect for ten years past See my Narrative, pp. 03, 100, 125, 126, and pp. v.— viii. of the preface. The Re- spondents on this appeal betrayed a siinilar foeling, by describing me as attending their Met tingsfor Discipline** smd *' legislatingfor thtm^* because I sometimes expressed my sentiments on subjects under con- sideration. Another cause for my expulsion, with the secret junta ^ who all along prompted the agents ostensibly employed, to deal with me, was, I have no doubt, to deprive me through the medium of disown^ ment, of the hitherto acknowledged right of its members to inspect the records of the Society. The new and absolute restriction of this right was expressly made on a mere ex parte statement of the present Clerk of the records, to the Meeting for Sufferings, that I had claimed this right, which had never before been denied me. To the jealousy thus excited among the ruling Disciplinarians, " the many Friends of other meetings,'' with whom these proceedings originated, and by whom they were supported, I attribute the cause of my expulsion, much more than to any of the grounds on which it was ostensibly founded. This will not surprise the candid reader, when he considers the above circumstances, and the pertinacity with which I was re- fused all access to the records, as related in pp. 25 — 27 of this work. If, however, this conjecture be ilUfounded, I hope it will be distinctly shewn to be erroneous. 107 as after a treasure of inestimable value ; nor an}^ de- merit in not attaining a correct knowledge of doctrinal truths, unless it arises from blamable negligence, indifference, or the prevalence of a worldly spirit. It is, however, highly important to us all, to be faithful to our convictions of truth, after we have sought it diligently in the love of it, and to be obe- dient to the practical precepts of the gospel, and to that law which was to be written under the new covenant, not upon tables of stone, but upon the fleshly tables of the heart, whether it has pleased infinite wisdom to confer upon us the five, the ten talents, or the one talent only. Our business, is faithfully to occupy therewith till Christ shall come, ^' and then he will reward every man according to his works." Matt. xvi. 27. Duly contemplating these solemn truths, and that unavoidable diversity of sentiment which arises out of the very constitution of our nature, as the work- manship of God, and created in his image, let us with increasing assiduity cultivate that healing spirit of love and charity, which our divine Master declared to be the best mark of discipleship. May we also be more and more animated by the cheering prospect held out to us by the gospel, of meeting hereafter, under happier circumstances for distinguishing truth from error and communicating our thoughts one to another, when we shall no longer see tilings as through a glass darkly, but know even as we are known. Having delivered the foregoing address to a very large and attentive audience, consisting I suppose of about twelve hundred persons, I sat down. After a short pause, the Clerk asked, if I had any thing more to offer to the Meeting ? I replied, I have not, except it be to say that I hope the Respondents will be satisfied with vindi- cating in the best manner they are able the recorded 108 charges against me, or at least will not attempt as they did before the Committee, to make me respon- sible for the soundness of opinions which I have never maintained, or for whatever they may deem objectionable in the works circulated by the London Unitarian Book Society. In becoming one of its Subscribers I had no idea that I thereby made myself accountable for all which those works might contain. Nor would I have joined this or any other Society upon such terms, either expressed or understood. Some works are admitted into its catalogue which are known to contain sentiments adverse even to its fundamental principles. These, it is nevertheless thought, may promote a spirit of inquiry, and thereby aid the cause of truth. The works of the late Arch- deacon Blackburne, an able assertor of the rights of private judgment, are of this number, and contain strong censures on Unitarianism, which was far from being consonant with the Archdeacon's views of scriptural doctrine. I might, therefore, on the plea the Respondents have urged, be accused of being a Trinitarian, and in fact of holding at the same time directly opposite tenets. There is not, I am fully persuaded, a single member of this Book Society who considers himself responsible for the soundness of any of its works, except it be so far only as they are conformable to the genuine doctrines of Revelation, as laid down in the Scriptures. And of this, we wish every person, to judge for himself. Such are the principles of our Association, as avowed in the Preface to our Book of Rules, which the Respondents must have entirely mistaken or overlooked, or surely they could never have imputed to me an approval of opinions merely because they appeared to them to be erroneous, and were to be found in some of its publications. I therefore so- lemnly protest against the injustice of attempting to make me responsible for any thing more than its fundamental principles, on account of my connexion with this Book Society. 109 The Respondents being now called upon to replf, Josiah Forster rose, and said : — " We are appointed to defend the decision of the Quarterly Meeting of London and Middlesex, in confirming the disown- ment of Thomas Foster, by Ratcliff Monthly Meet- ing, not to enter into so large a field of irrelevant matter as the Appellant has chosen to adduce.* * In p. 49j 1 expressed an opinion that the reply of the Respondents before the Committee of Appeals, " was neither consistent nor scrip- tural.'' The above definition, before so large an assembly, of what they are *' appointed to defend," reminded me of the grounds on which that " decision^ was built. Before the Committee, the Re- spondents defended " the decision" as proper and necessary, but they seldom adverted to any of the most material parts of 'he proceedings on which that decision was founded, without making ssuch concessions as with competent and impartial judges would have been fatal to the cause they were appointed to advocate. For instance, there was no rule of ihe Society which bore on the case. It was . ot a very strong Monthly Meeting that took it up.— Its Committee in their confer- ences with the Appellant did their best — and adduced such texts of Scripture as they thought pertinent, which, whether relevant or not, equally shewed their care. As to their questioning the Appellant, and in some other respects the proceedings were not such as the Re- spondents could have wished. In their report to the Monthly Meet- ing, the Committee expressed themselves as they thought correctly. — In short, it might have been better if the proceedings had been more judicious, correct and regular, less inquisitorial and precipitate. Yet, with all these acknowledged defects, were they in effect held up in the lump as being founded in the power and xvisdom of God ! /" The following minute was quoted for this purpose. ** Our Monthly and Quarterly Meetings being set up by the power and in the wisdom of God. which is the authority of those meetings, all Friends are tenderly desired and advised carefully to keep to, and in that authority; and therein manage all the business and affairs of the said meetings, in discharge of their duty to God and his church ; and not expect or depend upon this meeting for particular direction from time to time, how they shall proceed in the management of the coi>- cerns of those meetings, relating to truth's testimony and service ; but wait for, and depend upon, the power and wisdom of God for counsel and direction, in such matters and cases as may come before^ them." Book of Extracts, p. 43. Xs to many of the opinions imputed to me as erroneous, the Re- spondents did not deem it necessary to shew, I had ever professed them ; nor to compare them with Scripture doctrine to prove they were erroneous. Their principal test of truth appeared to be the doctrine which they imagined George Fox preached, and his fol- 110 " It does not appear to be our duty on this occa- sion to go into any general defence or the doctrines of Chri3tianity, but to prove that the Appellant has promoted the circulation of doctrines contrary to those held by the Society. If it were to be understood that any general discussion of doctrines was proper to be entered into on such an occasion, rules for con- tlucting the disputation ought to be laid down. But I suppose the meeting will not hold the Respondents under any obligation to discuss such subjects as the Appellant has introduced, a great part of which do not properly relate to the case at issue." Luke Howard, now rose, and said, " I shall, how- ever, claim the right, not so much in the character of a Respondent, as in that of a Member of the Yearly Meeting, to reply to such parts of the Appellant's address as I may deem necessary, in order to remove the injurious impression they may have made ; and especially to point out at a proper time, as I suppose the meeting will not sit much longer this evening, a false gloss which the Appellant put on a very im- portant text of Scripture."' The Clerk observed, " The Respondents haye an undoubted right as such, to use their own discretion in replying to whatever parts of the Appellant's ad- dress they may think proper. But I feel myself called upon to say, they can only claim to be heard on the case before the meeting, in the character of Respondents. It is my wish to act with strict im- partiality." Several of the Respondents plainly indicated dis- satisfaction with this judgment of the Clerk, but without re-asserting their claim. Luke Howard lowers held. Of these, such as were supposed to favour their own views were held up, as being almost of divine authority, whilst others, although more plain, rational, consistent and scriptural, though profess- ed by the same writers, or sanctioned by the Society under a modem imprimatur rule, were represented as not implicating^ the Society, and of no authority whatever^— the mere sentiments of fallible individuals. Ill rose again, saying, " The Appellant has adduced in his deience, the opinions of several individuals on points of doctrine. He has canvassed the sentimeius of Henry Tuke, of Win. Candler, of George Stacey, and of Wm. Allen.* He has tried a number of pas- sages in a work of George Stacey 's, by the evidence and authority of the late Dr. Samuel Clarke. All this I deem irrelevant matter, and I hope the meet- ing will consider the Respondents as disclaiming much that the Appellant has advanced, although they might not particularly reply to such parts of his address." Wm. Tuke and several other Friends said, that a large proportion of what the meeting had heard from the Appellant was irrelevant matter, such as be ought not to have been allowed to produce ; and some general cautions were thrown out to those who were present, and especially to the youth, to be upon their guard against the hurtful impressions it might have made ; and an earnest wish was expressed, that those who had heard the Appellant might as much as they well could, attend the next afternoon to hear the reply of the Respondents. I cordially approved this recommendation, and could hardly forbear se- conding it ; but I waved so doing, as being unneces- sary, after what I had before said. * I think it cannot be said, that I expressly canvassed any of the opinions of Wm. Allen, in my address to the meeting, or even al- luded to any he had held or countenanced, except it was to approve them. In an early part of it, p. 63, I did, it is true, caU upon the Re- spondents to take some appropriate notice of my still unanswered address to the Quarterly Meeting, as inserted in my Narrative (pp. 256 — 295, and 300 — 335) long since in th^ir hands. In this work there are some remarks in the form of notes, on the impressive speech of Wm. Allen in that meeting-. pp. 359 — 363 — Perhaps Luke Howard referred to these, as 1 do noi know that I ever canvassed ;uiy other opinions of William Allen's. And i. so, I recommend those remarks once more to his cool examination. They are well worthy his attention, and were sent me as 1 ackncwleuged by a Frieml of mine, who heard the speech delivered, and was ii* comoion with many •thers sensible of the effect it produced. 115 Stephen Grellet, a minister from America, on a religious visit to this country, commended the orderly deportment of those who had attended the discussion. The meeting adjourned about half after six to four the next afternoon. APPENDIX. AN ESSAY ON ENTHUSIASM, BY JOHN LOCKE, BEING THE NINETEENTH CHAPTER OF THE FOURTH BOOK OF JUS ESSAY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING. Sect. 1. Love of Truth necessary. HE that would seriously set upon the search of truth, ought in the first place to prepare his mind with a love of it : for he that loves it not, will not take much pains to get it, nor be much concerned when he misses it. There is nobody in the common- wealth of learning, who does not profess himself a lover of truth : and there is not a rational creature that would not take it amiss to be thought otherwise of. And yet, for, all this, one may truly say, there are very few lovers of truth for truth's sake, even amongst those who persuade themselves that they are so. How a man may know whether he be so in earnest, is worth inquiry : and I think there is this one unerring mark of it, viz. the not entertaining any proposition with greater assurance, than the proofs it is built upon will warrant. Whoever goes beyond this measure of assent, it is plain, receives not truth in the love of it ; loves not truth for truth's sake, but for some other by-end. For the evidence that any o 114 proposition is true, (except such as are self-evident), lying only in the proofs a man has of it, whatsoever degrees of assent he affords it beyond the degrees of that evidence, it is plain all that surplusage of assur- ance is owing to some other affection, and not to the love of truth : it being as impossible, that the love of truth should carry my assent above the evidence there is to me, that it is true, as that the love of truth should make me assent to any proposition, for the sake of that evidence, which it has not, that it is true ; which is, in effect, to love it as a truth, be- cause it is possible or probable that it may not be true. In any truth that gets not possession of our minds by the irresistible light of self-evidence, or b}^ . the force of dem'onstration, the arguments that gain it assent, are the vouchers and gage of its probability to us ; and we can receive it for no other than such as they deliver it to our understandings. Whatsoever credit or authority we give to any proposition more than it receives from the principles and proofs it sup- ports itself upon, is owing to our inclinations that way, and is so far a derogation from the love of truth, as such : which, as it can receive no evidence from our passions or interests, so it should receive no tincture from them. Sect, 2. A Forwardness to dictate^ from whence. The assuming an authority of dictating to others, and a forwardness to prescribe to their opinions, is a constant concomitant of this bias and corruption of our judgments : for how almost can it be otherwise, but thar he should be ready to impose on others' be- lief, who has already imposed on his own ? Who can reasonably expect arguments and conviction from him, in dealing with others, whose understand- ing is not accustomed to them in his dealing with himself? Who does violence to his own faculties, tyrannizes over hi3 own mind, and usurps the prero- 115 gative that belongs to truth alone, which is to com- mand assent by only its own authority, i. e. by and in proportion to that evidence which it carries with it. Sect, 3. Force of Enthusiasm, Upon this occasion I shall take the liberty to con- sider a third ground of assent, which, with some men, has the same authority, and is as confidently relied on as either faith or reason : I mean enthusiasm ; which, laying by reason, would set up revelation without it. Whereby, in effect, it takes away both reason and revelation, and substitutes in the room of it the ungrounded fancies of a man's own brain, and assumes them for a foundation both of opinion and conduct. Sect. 4. Reason and Revelation. Reason is natural revelation, whereby the eternal Father of light, and fountain of all knowledge, com- municates to mankind that portion of truth which he has laid within the reach of their natural faculties : revelation is natural reason enlarged by a new set of discoveries communicated by God immediately, which reason vouches the truth of, by the testimony and proofs it gives, that they come from God. So that he that takes away reason, to make way for revelation, puts out the light of both, and does much the same, as if he would persuade a man to put out his eyes, the better to receive the remote light of an invisible star by a telescope. Sect, 5. Rise of Enthusiasm. Immediate revelation being a much easier way for men to establish their opinions, and regulate their conduct, than the tedious and not always successful labour of strict reasoning, it is no wonder that some 116 have been very apt to pretend to revelation, and to persuade themselves that they are under the peculiar guidance of heaven in their actions and opinions, especially in those of them which they cannot ac- count for by the ordinary methods of knowledge, and principles of reason. Hence we see, that, in all ages, men, in whom melancholy has mixed with devotion, or whose conceit of themselves has raised them into an opinion of a greater familiarity with God, and a nearer admittance to his favour, than is afforded to others, have often flattered themselves with a per- suasion of an immediate intercourse with the Deity, and frequent communications from the Divine Spirit. God, I own, cannot be denied to be able to enlighten the understanding by a ray darted into the mind im- mediately from the fountain of light. This they un- derstand, he has promised to do ; and who then has so good a title to expect it, as those who are his pecu- liar people, chosen by him, and depending on him ? Sect. 6. Enthusiasm. Their minds being thus prepared, whatever ground- less opinion comes to settle itself strongly upon their fancies, is an illuniination from the Spirit of God, and presently of divine authority ; and whatsoever odd action they find in themselves a strong inclina- tion to do, that impulse is concluded to be a call or direction from heaven, and must be obeyed ; it is a commission from above, and they cannot err in exe- cuting it. § 7. This I take to be properly enthusiasm, which, though founded neither on reason nor divine revela- tion, "but rising from the conceits of a warmed or overweening brain, works yet, where it once gets footing, more powerfully on the persuasions and actions of men, than either of those two, or both together : men being most forwardly obedient to the impulses they receive from themselves ; and the 117 whole man is sure to act more vigorously, where the whole man is carried by a natural motion. For strong conceit, like a new principle, carries all easily with it, when got above common sense, and freed from all restraint of reason and check of reflection, it is heightened into a divine authority, in concur- rence with our own temper and inclination. Sect. 8 . Enthusiasm mistaken for Seeing and Feeling. Though the odd opinions and extravagant actions enthusiasm has run men into, were enough to warn them against this wrong principle, so apt to misguide them both in their belief and conduct ; yet the love of something extraordinary, the ease and glory it is to be inspired, and be above the common and natural ways of knowledge, so flatters many men's laziness, ignorance and vanity, that when once they are got into this way of immediate revelation, of illumina- tion without search, and of certainty without proof, and without examination, it is a hard matter to get them out of it. Reason is lost upon them ; they are above it : they see the light infused into their under- standings, and cannot be mistaken ; it is clear and visible there, like the light of bright sunshine ; shews itself, and needs no other proof, but its own evi- dence ; they feel the hand of God moving them within, and the impulses of the spirit, and cannot be mistaken in what th^y feel. Thus they support themselves, and are sure reason hath nothi^^g to do with what they see and feel in themselves ; what they have a sensible experience of, admits no doubt, needs no probation. Would he not be ridiculous who should require to have it proved to him, that the light shines, and that he sees it ? It is its own proof, and can have no other. When the Spirit brings light into our minds, it dispels darkness. We see it, as we do that of the sun at noon, and need not the twilight of reason to shew it us. This light i 118 from heaven is strong, clear and pure ; carries its demonstration with it ; and we may as rationally take a glow-worm to assist us to discover the sun, as to examine the celestial ray by our dim candle, reason. § 9. This is the way of talking of these men : they are sure, because they are sure ; and their persuasions are right, only because they are strong in them. For, when what they say is stripped of the metaphor of seeing and feeling, this is all it amounts to ; and yet these similes so impose on them, that they serve them for certainty in themselves, and demonstration to others. Sect. 10, Enthusiasm^ how to he discovered. But to examine a little soberly this internal light, and this feeling on which they build so much : these ' men have, they say, clear light, and they see : they have an awakened sense, and they feel : this cannot, they are sure, be disputed them. For, when a man says he sees or he feels, nobody can deny it him that he does so. But here let me ask ; this seeing, is it the perception of the truth of the proposition, or of this, that it is a revelation from God This feel- ing, is it a perception of an inclination or fancy to do something, or of the Spirit of God moving that inclination ? These are two very different percep- tions, and must be carefully distinguished, if we would not impose upon ourselves. I may perceive the truth of a proposition, and yet not perceive that it is an immediate revelation from God. I may perceive the truth of a proposition in Euclid, with- out its being, or my perceiving it to be a revelation : nay, I may perceive I came not by this knowledge . in a natural way, and so may conclude it revealed, without perceiving that it is a revelation from God ; because there be spirits,which, without being divinely commissioned, may excite those ideas in me, and lay them in such order before my mind, that I may per- 119 ceive their connexion. So that the knowledge of any proposition coming into my mind, I know not how, is not a perception that it is from God. Much less is a strong persuasion, that it is true, a percep- tion that it is from God, or so much as true. But however it be called light and seeing, I suppose, it is at most but belief and assurance : and the proposition taken for a revelation, is not such as they know to be true, but take to be true. For where a proposi- tion is known to be true, revelation is needless : and it is hard to conceive how there can be a revelation to any one of what he knows already. If therefore it be a proposition which they are persuaded, but do not know to be true, whatever they may call it, it is not seeing, but believing. For these are two ways, whereby truth comes into the mind, wholly distinct, 30 that one is not the other. What I see I know to be so by the evidence of the thing itself ; what I be- lieve, I take to be so upon the testimony of another : but this testimony I must know to be given, or else what ground have I of believing ? I must see that it is God that reveals this to me, or else I see nothing. The question then here is, how do I know that God is the revealer of this to me ; that this impression is made upon my mind by his Holy Spirit, and that therefore I ought to obey it ? If 1 know not this, how great soever the assurance is that I am possessed with, it is groundless ; whatever light I pretend to, it is but enthusiasm. For whether the proposition supposed to be revealed, be in itself evidently true, or visibly probable, or by the natural ways of knowledge uncertain, the proposition that must be well-grounded and manifested to be true, is this, that God is the revealer of it, and that what I take to be a revela* tion, is certainly put into my mind by him, and is not an illusion, dropped in by some other spirit, or raised by my own fancy. For, if I mistake not, these men receive it for true, because they presume Go D revealed it. Does it not then stand them upon. 150 to examine on what grounds they presume it to be a revelation from God ? Or else all their confi- dence is mere presumption ; and this light they are so dazzled with, is nothing but an ignis fatuus, that leads them continually round in this circle. It is a revelation, because they firmly believe it ; and they believe it, because it is a revelation. / ,;Sect, 1 Enthusiasm fails of Evidence, that the Pro- position is from God. In all that is of divine revelation, there is need of no other proof, but that it is an inspiration from God : for he can neither deceive, nor be deceived. But how shall it be known, that any proposition in our minds, is a truth infused by God ; a truth that is revealed to us by him, which he declares to us, and therefore we ought to believe } Here it is that enthusiasm fails of the evidence it pretends to. For men thus possessed, boast of a light whereby, they say, they are enlightened, and brought into the knowledge of this or that truth. But if they know it to be a truth, they must know it to be so either by its own self-evidence to natural reason, or by the rational proofs that make it out to be so. If they see and know it to be a truth either of these two ways, they in vain suppose it to be a revelation. For they know it to be true by the same way that any other man naturally may know that it is so, without the help of revelation. For thus all the truths, of what kiftd soever, that men uninspired are enlightened with, came into their minds, and are established there. If they say they know it to be true, because it is a re- velation from God, the reason is good : but then it will be demanded, how they know it to be a revela- tion from God. If they say by the light it brings with it, which shines bright in their minds, and they cannot resist ; I beseech them to consider, whether this be any more than what we have taken notice of 121 already, viz, that it is a revelation, because they strongJy believe it to be true. For all the light they speak of is but a strong, though ungrounded persua- sion of their own minds, that it is a truth. For rational grounds from proofs, that it is a truth, they must acknowledge to have none ; for then it is not received as a revelation, but upon the ordinary grounds that other truths are received : and if they believe it to be true, because it is a revelation, and have no other reason for its being a revelation, but because they are fully persuaded, without any other reason, that it is true, they believe it to be a revelation, only because they strongly believe it to be a revelation ; which is a very unsafe ground to proceed on, either in our tenets or actions : and what readier way can there be to run ourselves into the most extravagant errors and miscarriages, than thus to set up fancy for our supreme and sole guide, and to believe any pro- position to be true, any action to be right, only be- cause we believe it to be so ? The strength of our persuasions is no evidence at all of their own recti- tude : crooked things may be as stiff and inflexible as straight ; and men may be as positive and peremp- tory'- in error as in truth. How come else the un- tractable zealots in different and opposite parties ? For if the light, which every one thinks he has in his mind, which in this case is nothing but the strength of his own persuasion, be an evidence that it is from God, contrary opinions may have the same title to be inspirations ; and God will be not only the Father of lights, but of opposite and contradictory lights, leading men contrary ways ; and contradictory pro- positions will be divine truths, if an ungrounded strength of assurance be an evidence, that any pro- position is a divine revelation. Sect. 12. Firmness of Persuasion, no Proof that any Proposition is from God. This cannot be otherwise, whilst firmness of per- R I 122 suasion is made the cause of believing, afid confidence of being in the right, is made an argument of truth. St. Paul himself believed he did well, and that he had a call to it, when he persecuted the Christians, whom he confidently thought in the wrong : but yet it was he, and not they, who were mistaken. Good men are men still, liable to mistakes, and are some- times warmly engaged in errors, which they take for divine truths, shining in their minds with the clearest light. Sect, 13. Light in the Mind, what. Light, true light in the mind is, or can be nothing else but the evidence of the truth of any proposition ; and if it be not a self-evident proposition, all the light it has, or can have, is from the clearness and validity of those proofs upon which it is received. To talk of any other light in the understanding, is to put our- selves in the dark, or in the power of the prince of darkness, and, by our own consent, to give ourselves up to delusion, to believe a lie : for if strength of persuasion be the light which must guide us, I ask, how shall any one distinguish between the delusions of Satan, and the inspirations of the Holy Ghost ? He can transform himself into an angel of light. And they who are led by this son of the morning, are as fully satisfied of the illumination, i, e, ajre as strongly persuaded that they are enlightend by the Spirit of God, as any one who is so: they acquiesce and rejoice in it, are acted by it ; and nobody can be more sure, nor more in the right, (if their own strong belief may be judge), than they. Sect, 14. Revelation must be judged of by Reason. He therefore that will not give himself up to all the extravagaiicies of delusion arfri error, must bring this guide of his light within to the trial. God, 123 when he makes the prophet, does not unmake the man : he leaves all his faculties in their natural state, to enable him to judge of his inspirations, whether they be of divine original or no. When he illumi- nates the mind with supernatural light, he does not extinguish that which is natural. If he would have us assent to the truth of any proposition, he either evidences that truth by the usual methods of natural reason, or else makes it known to be a truth, which he would have us assent to, by his authority, and convinces us that it is from him, by some marks which reason cannot be mistaken in. Reason must be our last judge and guide in every thing. I do not mean, that we must consult reason, and examine whether a proposition revealed from God can be made out by natural principles ; and if it cannot, that then we may reject it : but consult it we must, and by it examine whether it be a revelation from God or no : and if reason finds it to be revealed from God, reason then declares for it, as much as for any other truth, and makes it one of her dictates. Every conceit that thoroughly warms our fancies, must pass for an inspiration, if there be nothing but the strength of our persuasions, whereby to judge of our persuasions. If reason must not examine their truth by something extrinsical to the persuasions themselves, inspirations and delusions, truth and falsehood, will have the same measure, and will not be possible to be distinguished. Sect, 15. Belief no Proof of Revelation, If this internal light, or any proposition which under that title we take for inspired, be conformable to the principles of reason, or to the word of God, which is attested revelation, reason warrants it, and we may safely receive it for true, and be guided by it in our belief and actions : if it receive no testimony nor evidence from either of these rules, we cannot take it for a revelation, or so much as for true, till we 124 have some other mark that it is a revelation, besides our beheving that it is so. Thus we see the holy men of old, who had revelations from God, had some- thing else besides that internal light of assurance in their own minds, to testify to them that it was from God. They were not left to their own persuasions alone, that those persuasions were from God, but had outward signs to convince them of the author of those revelations. And when they were to convince others, they had a power given them to justify the truth of their commission from heaven ; and by visible signs to assert the divine authority of a message they were sent with. Moses saw the bush burn without being consumed, and heard a voice out of it. This was something besides finding an impulse upon his mind to go to Pharaoh, that he might bring his brethren out of Egypt ; and yet he thought not this enough to authorize him to go with that message, till God, by another miracle of his rod turned into a serpent, had assured him of a power to testify his mission by the same miracle repeated before them whom he was sent to. Gideon was sent by an angel to deliver Israel from the Midianites, and yet he desired a sign to convince him that this commission was from God. These, and several the like instances to be found among the prophets of old, are enough to shew, that they thought not an inward seeing or persuasion of their own minds, without any other proof, a suffi- cient evidence that it was from God, though the Scripture does not every where mention their de- manding or having such proofs. § 1 6. In what I have said, I am far from denying that God can, or doth sometimes enlighten men's minds in the apprehending of certain truths, or excite them to good actions, by the immediate influence and assistance of the Holy Spirit, without any extraor- dinary signs accompanying it. But in such cases too, we have reason and Scripture, unerring rules, to know whether it be from God or no. Where the 1^5 truth embraced is consonant to the revelation in the written word of God, or the action conformable to the dictates of right reason or holy writ, we may be assured that we run no risk in entertainins: it as such : because though perhaps it be not an immediate reve- lation from God, extraordinarily operating on our minds, yet we are sure it is warranted by that revela- tion which he has given us of truth. But it is not the strength of our private persuasion within our- selves, that can warrant it to be a light or motion from heaven ; nothing can do that, but the written word of God without us, or that standard of reason, which is common to us with all men. Where reason or Scripture is express for any opinion or action, we may receive it as of divine authority ; but it is not the strength of our own persuasions which can by itself give it that stamp. The bent of our own minds may favour it as much as we please ; that may shew it to be a fondling of our own, but will by no means prove it to be an offspring of heaven, and of divine original. PrizUid by Stoicer Snalljiddf Hackney. INDEX. A. Addresses of the Appellant to the Yearly Meeting, 55 — 74 — 108. Replies to, commencement of by the Respondents 109 — 111 Allen, William, a Respondent, 3, his opinions whether canvassed by the Appellant 111 Apology of Barclay quoted 89, 90^ Apostolic Epistles, obscure or difficult passages, to what test they should be brought 86 Appeal, notice of, 2, renewed 10, copy of 35—47, contains a plain and full summary of the case 03 Appeals in print, or that have been printed not to be received 2 Appeals, Committee of chosen 33 Appellant, why disowned 2 Appellant's reasons for exercising the right of Appeal stated, 44 — 46 not allowed to attempt removing the prejudices excited in his judges 48 — 51,52 Aspland, Robert, his Plea for Unitarian Dissenters quoted 70 — 74 B. Barclay, not a Sabellian 89, 90 Barnard, Hannah, why disowned 12 Bevan, Joseph Gurney, his speech in the Quarterly Meeting 17 Bishops and other Divines generally persecutors in 1611 60, 61 Book Society, the Unitarian 35, 36, 65 — 76 Book of Extracts 109 Breviloquus, his idea of omnipotence 77 Bowman, Rd. a Respondent 3 C. Cases of George Keith and Hannah Barnard compared 12 Candler, William, work of reviewed 83 Catechism, 1st part of one published, why not completed 101 Catechisms, Scriptural, plausible but delusive 100, 101 Creed, Athanasian, rejected by Unitarians 70 Christ, the Messiah, or the Son of God, synonymous terms as used by the sacred writers 93, 94 Christ, Deity of, not taught in the Scriptures 81 Christianity, all its essential doctrines taught by Christ and re- corded in the gospels 87 INDEX. Christian writers, the ancient, pronounce it impiety to say that Christ is God over all ' 97, 98 did not apply the words in Rom. ix. 5, to Christ ibid. Christian believers not bound to believe unscriptural doctrines 87 Christian Observer, Henry Tuke's Letter to the Editors of 85 , the Editors' remarks on ibid. Church of Rome frames and imposes articles of faith on its mem- bers 103 Churches, Protestant, should have no articles of faith but the Scriptures 104 Clarido:e, Rd., his Defence of Penn's Sandy Foundation Shaken 58 Clarke, Dr Samuel, his attempt to reform the Liturgy 82 notes from his Scripture doctrine of the Trinity, 88, 89, 91, 9-2,94, 96, 97 Clarke, Dr. Adam, his Eulog-y of the authorized text of the Scrip- tures, and of the translators G2 Committee of Appeals, list of, 33, 34. — 1st sitting of, 34 — 48. — 2d and 3d sittings, 49 — 51. Report of, 53. Its members not allowed a copy of a paper explaining the grounds of its decision 55 Concessions of the Respondents compared with their claims, 109, 110 D. Decision of a Committee of Appeals, according to rule, the grounds of to be explained 29 , this rule dispensed with 54, 55 Defamation and Detraction a Christian duty, to oppose 15, 16 Deity of the Father always held by Christians of every age 81 Deity of Christ, those who profess to beheve, seldom agree in what sense it should be held ^1 Divine influence on the human mind, doctrine of, true and im- portant 78 — 80 Dirinity of Christ, not ascribed by Friends to the Man Christ Jesus, but to that divine power which dwelt in him 37, 78 only to be professed in a scriptural sense 84, 85 Detraction, rule respecting, how observed 57 Devotional and Doctrinal Extracts, object of 5 — 7 Discipline among the Quakers, its proper nature and extent pref. VI — viii Dissent whether evil or good 104 Doctrine, different views of 86 E. Eliot, John, a R.espondent 3, 24, 34 Elwall, Edward, attended Friends' Meetings, and v.h\ 82 Euthusiasm, what 115 — 117 Enthusiasts, reason lost upon 117 F. Forster, Josiah, a Respondent 3 's speech in the Yearly Meeting 109 — 1 h) INDEX, Fox, George 109 Fuller's Eulogy on King James's translators 62 G. Gilpin's lives uf the Reformers, review of, quoted Gnostic Heresy, a branch of, to affirm Christ to be God over all 27 God the Father held to be the one true God, by all Christians in every age _ 81 Gospel of Christ, the power of God unto salvation 88 Gough, John 102 Grellett, Stephen 112 Gurney, Joseph John 83 ^ ^ chosen Clerk of the Committee of Appeals, 35, 48, 50, 52. 54, 55 H. Head to the 1st chapter of St. John's gospel, by King James's translators, a comment on the text 86 Heretics, burning of, in London, not well taken by the people in 1611 : the practice laid aside, and why 60—62 described by John Locke 104 Howard, Luke, appointed a Respondent, 3, his Letter on their behalf, his speeches in the Committee, 3, 39, 57, 83, 93, 98, 105 reply to his Letter 30—32 r his speeches in the Yearly Meeting 110, 111 I, J. James 1st, his commission to Thomas Lord Ellesmere , his directions to the translators of the Scriptures Imprimatur rule virtually repealed Interrogatories, ensnaring, put to the Appellant Intolerance, inconsistent with Protestantism K. Keith, George, why disowned 12, 102 King, John, Bishop of Loudon, a pei-secutor 59 L. Lean, Joel 34, 54 Legatt, Bartholomew, burnt in Smithfield in 1611 59 Letters to the Quarterly Meeting 2, 15, 23 IVJeeting for Sufferings 3, 18, 25 Letter to Sparks Moline and Jociah Messer, 17— to Luke Howard 30 Light in the mind, what US 122 , internal, how to be tried ' 123 125 Liturgy of the Church of England, language of, for the most part Unitarian ^2 5d, 60 61,62 102 37 105 INDEX. Locke, John, his protest against unscriptural articles of faith, pref. xiii, xiv , shews who are, and who are not Heretics and Schismatics 103 , his rendering of Rom. ix. 5. 97 London Unitarian Book Society, fundamental principles of 65 — 69 , general character of the works it distributes 74 — 76 , why it admits works into its catalogue, known to contain sentiments adverse to its fundamental principles 108 Lordship in matters of faith forbidden by Christ 72 M. Mahomet, professed disciples of, not entitled to claim member- ship in a Christian church Al Meetinff, Yearly, rules of, for conducting Appeals, 28, 29, 18, 51,74,112 Meeting, Monthly, acted with great precipitation 37 Meeting for Sufferings, assume the power of suspending rules, 22. Letters to 3, 18, 25 Meeting of Representatives, Sec. Committee of Appeals chosen by 33 Ministers and Elders, appointed Censors of the press 3 J examples of its exercise of this pov.'er, 3 — 16, - 19—21, 83, 84, 86—96 Monthly Meetings' Committee let out a secret . 106 Mystery, the peculiar mark of false doctrines t ^6 N. Newcome, Archbishop, his translation of the New Testament, the basis of an Improved Version 6 0. Original sin, the doctrine of. Unitarians do not believe 70 impugns the power and goodness of God. — Rejected by the Quakers j 89 Overseers, how their accusation of the Appellant ought to have been treated by the church pref. viii — x Overseers of the translation of the Scriptures appointed by James 1st. 61 Paul's speech at Athens, 67 — his address to the church at Co- rinth, 68 — his testimony to Timothy 69 Penn, V/iUiam, why committed to the Tow^r, 58 — his Sandy Foundation Shaken, design of, 5, 6, 8 — 10 — republished by the Society of Friends, in Penn's select works in 1771 and in 1782, 10, 38— defence by Richard Claridge 58 Penn's Rise and Progress of il«e Quakers pref. x Persecutors ill qualified to translate the Scriptures faithfully and impartially 58 — 62 S INDEX. Popish and Protestant high church nearly related 105 Power of God the Father, original and under ived 91 «• the Son derived from God the Father ih. Prejudices, powerful, excited against the Appellant among his judges 4 — 15 Priestcraft, infectious nature of pref. vi Q. Quakerism, primitive, contrasted with modern Orthodoxy and real Intolerance 5, 6 , Remarks on 4 Quakers in every period of their history, how they have exer- cised the power of expulsion 12 Quarterly Meeting, never discussed the case of the Appellant, 41, 42. Decided by the authority of its Committee's report 44 R. Reason, unassisted by revelation, unable to discover the most important religious truths 56 , natural revelation 115 , our judge and guide 123 and Scripture, unerring rules 124 Records of the Society of Friends, not open as formerly to the inspection of its members 26, 106 Respondents chosen by the Quarterly Meeting 3, 106 Letter from 30 speeches of, 34, 35, 39, 40, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 68, 81, 82, 83, 93, 98, 105, 109, 110, 111 Revelation, what, 115, always consistent 121 Rules of the Society, none that apply to the case of the Appel- lant 109 S. Sabellians seem in words to magnify the name of the Son of God, but in reality deny his existence 89, 95 Sabellius excommunicated, for asserting Christ to be ded over all 89 Sacred writers wholly silent concerning the essence of God 88, ^ Scripture, general rule for interpreting, to bring all to the stand- ard of Christ's own doctrine 87 , translation of only good, if schism and dissent are good, and why 104, 105 Servetus burnt at Geneva, at the instigation of Calvin 58 Simplicity, a distinguishing characteristic of divine truth 56 Spirit, intolerant injurious to the interests of truth and virtue 1 Sfpirit, Pharisaic, its effects 64, 65 Stacey, George, a Respondent 3 speech in the Quarterly Meeting, 16 — remarks on the state of man, and his redemption by Jesus Christ 86—99 INDEX. Stacey, George, his metaphysical conjectures concerning the essence of God, 88 — avoids admitting^ in any sense whatever a distinction of persons in the Deity 89 Statute book, the possession of usurped by a Committee of the Yearly Meeting 27 T. Trinit>', the common doctrine of 20, 21, 99, 100 Translators of the New Testament chosen by James 1st, list of 61 Truth, love of, how tq be known 113 Tuke, William ^34, 73, 74 Tuke, Hemry 85 U. Union, mysterious, of the divine and human nature in Christ, no scriptural doctrine 87, 95 Unity of God, the supreme importance of openly asstrting, in- culcated by Christ 66, 67 Unitarians, why they do not beHtve many things in the Book of Common Prayer 70 receive the doctrine of Scripture 71 — 74 Version of the Scriptures, prepared by persecutors, to be re- ceived with caution 58—62 W. Wilkia«;on, John, Clerk of the Yearly Meeting, hit firm and impartial conduct pref. viii 51, 53, 55 -, reads the Appeal 35 — 47 69, 73, 107, 110 INDEX OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE CITED IN THIS WORK. Pa ffe . Psalm Ixxxix. 19 97 Ixxxix. 52 76 xcvii. 7 98 Dan. iii. 28 97 Malt. iv. 2 84 V. 14 90 viii. 2 ib. viii. 11 72 xvi. 27 107 " xix. 14 70 ■ xxiii. 9, 10 72 Mark xii. 28 — 38 36, 65—67 xii. 29 73 xiv. 61 97 Luke vi. 31 14 ' ix . 55 pref. xii X. 22 77 xiii. 29 72 xxii. 25, 26 ib. John iv. 23 73 v. 19 77 V. 19, 26, 21,25 91 — — V. 30 92 — • V. 35 90 V. 31, 32. 37 title page vii. 14—17 87 viii. 54 title page ix. 38, 33 90 X. 24—36 92 x. 30, 37, 38 ib. X. 30,20 95 xiv. 28 94 xvii. 11 89 xiv. 28 97 xviii. 37 title page — . XX. 31 pref. XV Acts ii. 22 73 iii. 26 71 iv. 32 89 V. 30, 31, 29 title page X. 34,35 71 X. 25, 26 90 X. 36 97 xvii. 30, 31 74 xvii, 22—31 36, 65—67 Page. Rom. i. 16 88 i. 25 97 ii. 7 71 ii. 10 ib. ii. 12, 14 72 iv. 15' 70 ix. 5 98 ix. 5 97 — ix. 5 95 xiv. 4 72 xiv. 10 pref. r 1 Cor. i. 24 88 viii. 5, 6 36, 68, 69 viii. 6 73 viii. 6 title page X. 12 97 xi 7 70 — — xii. 7 43 XV. 21, 22 73 XV ''I 28 74 5jy 27 97 2 Cor. i. 3 ib. j. 3 43 V. 10 71 xi. 31 97 Gal. vi. 4, 5 71 Eph. i. 3 97 iii. 9 88 iii. 19 97 Col. i. 15 76 i. 15, 18 96 ib. ii. 9 1 Tim. ii. 1—5, 7—10 36, 68 ii. 5, 6 73 ii. 5 title pa^e Phil. ii. 5 3 Heb. xii. 2 87 James iii. 9 7§ Jude 3 tl 1 Peter i. 3 97 2 Peter i. 5, 10, 11 71 1 John i. 5 91 7© 71 v]'t7 74 The following Works hy Thomas Foster^ are soldhy R. Hunter, f Successor to J. JohnsonJ, St. Paul's Church-yard. 1. A VINDICATION OF SCRIPTURAL IJNITARIANJSM, and some other Primitive Christian Doctrines, in reply to Vindex's Examination of an Appeal to the Society of Friends. By Thomas Foster, nnder the Signature of Verax. 8vo. pp. 124. Price 3s. 2. A NARRATIVE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN AMERICA, of the Society called Quakers, in the Case of Hannah Barnard, to which is prefixed, A Brief Review of the previous Transactions in Great Britain and Ireland. Price 4s. 3. CHRISTIAN UNITARIANIS3I VINDICATED, being a Reply to a Work by John Bevans, jun. entitled A Defence of the Chris- tian Doctrines of the Society of Friends. 8vo. pp. 324. Price 7s. in Boards. 4. A NARRATIVE OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SO- CIETY CALLED QUAKERS, within the Quarterly Meeting: of London and Middlesex, against Thomas Foster, for openly professing their Primitive Doctrines concerning the Unity of God. 8vo. pp. 372. Pref. pp. xl. Index pp. 16. Price 10s. in Boards. Of whom also may be had, 5. REMARKS ON THE YEARLY MEETING EPISTLE, of the People called Quakers, for the Year 1810. From the Monthly Repository. By An Unitarian Christian, Breviloquus, Pacificus and Candidus. 8vo. Price 6d, 6. DEVOTIONAL AND DOCTRINAL EXTRACTS, FROM EPISTLES OF THE YEARLY MEETINGS IN LONDON^ of the People called Quakers, from the Year 1678 to 1810. London : Printed for Cradock and Joy, Paternoster Row. 7. THE SANDY FOUNDATION SHAKEN ; or those so generally received Doctrines of one God, subsisting in three distinct and separate Persons, the Impossibility of God's pardoning Sinners, without a plenary Satisfaction, the Justification of impure Persons by an imputative Righteousness, Refuted, from the Authority of Scripture Testimonies and right Reason. By William Penn, a Builder on that Foundation which cannot be moved. 8vo. Price Is. 8. The same Work, in 12mo. Price 4d. I 9. " THE REASONABLENESS OF CHRISTIANITY AS DE- LIVERED IN THE SCRIPTURES," by John Locke, last Edit. pp. 147. Price in boards, 3s. 6d, including a short account of the Life and Writings of the Author, with his celebrated" Essay for the understanding of St. Paul's Epistles, by consulting St. Paul himself." THE SEQUEL TO AN APPEAL TO THE YEARLY MEETING OF FRIENDS, HELD IX LOXDOX, A. D. 1814. OR, A SUMMARY OP THE RESPONDENTS' REPLY AND SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE APPEAL OF THOMAS FOSTER agaimt the Quarterly Meeting of London and Middlesex ON HIS EXCOMMUNICATION FOR ASSERTING THE UNITY, SUPREMACY, AND SOLE DEITY OF GOD THE FATHER. " Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right ?— Judge not, that ye be not judged." Jksls Christ. " Who art thou that judgest another Man's servant ?— With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgement ; yea, I judge not mine o'vm self. For I know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby jxistified : but he that judgeth me is the Lord."' Pa'cl. HontJon: PRINTED BY RICHARD AST) ARTHVR TAYLOR,, SHOE LJSE : AKD SOLD BY R. HUNTER, 72, ST. PAUL's CHURCH-YARD,* AND BY ALL THE OTHER BOOKSELLERS IN TOWN A^*D COUNTRY. 1816. TO THE MExMBERS OF THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, with best wishes for their welfare and advancement in Christian Knowledge and the Practice of Virtue, the ensuing pages are respectfully dedicated; being the Sequel to an Appeal relative to the Confirmation of my Excommunication by the Yearly Meeting in 1814; which, in its next year s Epistle, I observe with pleasure, impressively exhorts you to offer all your natural powers, and every intellectual attainment to the service of the same Lord — the Almighty,'' to whom, as it truly asserts, *^ we are indebted for the blessing of existence, for the means of Redemption, and for that lively Hope of Im- mortality which comes by Jesus Christ." Cordially uniting in these sound and Scriptural sentiments, and earnestly desiring your steady, open, and p)ractical adherence thereto^^ I remain your sincere Friend, Thomas Foster, PREFACE. It was with reluctance that I pubhshed my Ap- peal and Address to the Yearly Meeting, without annexing to it a Summary of the Respondents* Reply. But as they declined my repeated offer to submit the MS, to their inspection, I hoped the publication of that work would induce them to print it, as it was drawn up and delivered. I annexed to one copy of my Appeal &c. a MS. Summary of the Respondents' Reply, as given in the following pages, but Zi ithoitt the ^otes. This MS. has been examined by a number of Friends who heard the Respondents' Reply, all of whom are of opinion that it was generally correct. Several who approved the most part of the Re- spondents' Reply, recommended this Summary of it to be printed, as an interesting, useful, and ac- ceptable publication. If the Respondents, on com- paring it with their Notes, should think otherwise, — however numerous or important the errors or omis- sions of my Summary may be, — I shall be glad to see an authentic and full Report of their Reply pub- hshed. They are aware it has been described to Friends in the countr}', as " the most satisfactory defence and exposition of the doctrines of the So- ciety which any occasion had ever called forth/' If it be justly entitled to this high character, it a 2 iv should by all means be published. And if any material injury be done it by this work, surely the Respondents will feel it incumbent upon them to vindicate its reputation, although their Reply may have completely answered the end for which it was drawn up" that of confirming my excom- munication. If this Summary of it cannot be justly charged with misrepresentation, or with omitting any important part of their argument, the Notes may perhaps have some claim upon their attention*." The Respondents concluded their Reply, before the Yearly Meeting, about the time it genemlly adjourns, after which many of its members soon become restless, whatever be the subject under discussion. I had not proceeded far in my Re- joinder, before this disposition became very pre- valent. This unsettled state of the Meeting, and ♦ The last application to the Respondents to enable me to exhi- bit their Reply " in all its strength, and not as a mere Summary" was as follows ; Bromley, Feb. 13, 1816. Respected Friend, I feel reluctant to address thee again on any subject connected with my late Appeal to the Yearly Meeting. Yet I am not quite satisfied to risk doing any injustice to the Respondents' Reply, by publishing a Summary of it, without previously offering with your permission carefully to correct the MS. myself before it is sent to the Press, by your papers, if you will favour me with that part of them, although you have already declined inspecting the said J\dS» yourselves, and pointing out any errors in it, of which you could have just reason to complain. " Or, I will insert in the intended Sequel to my Appeal, instead of my Summary so corrected, if you prefer it, as full a Report of your Reply as your papers will enable me to give. In either case, if you intrust me with them, I hereby engage to return them unin- jured in a short time. And in order to obviate a possible objection on your part, to granting me the use of your MS., I will just ob- gervc, that your declining it will neitlier prevent, nor much longer V its apparent determination not to adjourn till both parties had relinquished the rioht of a further hearino', I thought might possibly arise from a general conviction that the decision appealed against ought to be reversed ; on account of the admitted irregularity of the proceedings, because the rules of tHe Discipline were never intended to be so applied, or from an apprehension of the dano;er of such a precedent. Under these impressions, I waved discussing various parts of the Respondents' Reply at all, or so fuUv as I wished, and the Minutes I had made would easily enable me to have done. The Notes annexed to the following Summary of it are in- tended to supply these defects of my Rejoinder, the substance of which is given in the ensuing pages as correctly as mv memory would allow. But as much of it was not committed to writing till a considerable time after the Yearly Aleeting, suspend the publication of the Sequel to my Appeal. If it should be printed from my MS. only, in whatever degree it may exhibit your argument imperfectly or erroneously, I trust the repeated offers made you will unequivocally evince my desire to avoid doing your Reply any injustice. Waiting your answer, I remain tliy sin- cere Friend, " Thomas Foster."' ^' To Luke Howard, Tottenham." Th-' follotving is a copy of his Reply. « Tottenham, 15th of 2d Month, 1816. " Respected Friend, " Having communicated the substance of thy Letter of tlie day before yesterday, to three of the Friends formerly Respondeiits on thy Appeal to the Yearly Meetinjr, they unite withfiie in refusing, decidedly and finally, to afford thee the use of their MS. Reply, for the purposes of thy intended Publication. I remain respectfully thy Friend, " Luke Howard. ' To Thomas Foster, Bromley; Middlesex.'* VI it may not be precisely what I actually delivered. Of the extent of this variation those who were present, and peruse these pages, may judge for themselves. With regard to the " deliberate con- sicleration'' of the case, the next daj^, by the members of the Meeting, 1 have given as fair and full an account of it as the notes' and other in- formation I was able to procure would furnish. A number of the Friends who spoke were personally unknown to the young man who took notes of the discussion, and so firmly persevered in the exer- cise oi an indefeasible right. If it exhibits the leading features of this Dis- cussion fairly, it will enable any sound unpreju- diced mind to appreciate its genuine character. 1 shall therefore make an observation or two, which this picture of the Discussion naturally suggests. 1. It is very remarkable that among so great a number of speakers in favour of confirming the judgement of the Committee of Appeals, only one person professed to approve all the proceedings of RatclifF Monthly Meeting, and this declaration appeared so incredible to the sensible Friend who spoke next, that he could not believe this person meant any such thing ; and he appears to have silently acquiesced in this construction of his meaning. 2. So generally were those proceedings repro- bated, which I feared might become a dangerous precedent, that the most which appears to have been said in their favour, and that hytwo or three Friends only, was, that rather too much censure bad been expressed by some Friends on the con- VII duct of that Meeting : one of whom expressly de- clared that " he did not approve of any of their proceedings/' and others appear to have been of the same opinion. It was against that conduct, and the confirmation of those proceedings by the Quarterly Meeting, that I appealed, as inquisito- rial, arbitrary, and unjust. My judges with " much unanimitii" admit them to have been improper and indefensible, hut conjirm the decision which was founded thereon. This is plainly equivalent to taking the power of disownment into the hands of the Yearly Meet- ing, with whom its exercise is not intrusted by its own rules, hut to Monthly Meetings only ; any proceedings of which, proved under an Appeal not to be regular and orderly, should unquestionably be reversed. Objections of this nature were re- peatedly urged in this case, but little attended to. It was in reality taken up and carried through by the Monthly Meeting, at the instance of a secret junta of Disciplinarians, who w'ere not its members, and whose personal influence insured its conjirma^ tion by the Quarterly Meeting. Had the decision of the Monthly Meeting been reversed by the Quarterly Meeting, the names of those " many Friends of other Meetings," which are still so carefully concealed, would have been in danger of being proclaimed. It was you, the Disciplinarians of RatclifF might have said, who incited us to take up this case ; and do you now desert us, who acted not on our own judgement, but on yours ; and do you expect your names to be still concealed ? After I had given due notice of Appeal to the Vlll Yearly Meeting, the body to which I have no doubt the junta belonged, the Morning Meet- ing of Ministers iand Elders,'' sanctioned a work for. publication, which, among many other injuri- ous imputations, holds me up in effect as a "pro- Jesaed disciple of Mahomet " Soon after this, the said work was advertised as being so sanc" t toned. It was also recommended to the general attention of Friends, with other approved works, by the "Meeting for Sufferings,'" which advised two copies to be taken by each Monthly Meet- ing, and their advice was I doubt not respected as a Law. These circumstances I was not permitted by the Yearly Meeting to explain, in order to re- move the prejudices I had much reason to be- lieve had been instilled into the minds of my judges. See my Appeal, p. 45 — 49, 51 — 54. How then could impartiahty be expected at their hands ? I, nevertheless, after some hesita- tion, concluded to persevere, as stated in my Appeal, &c. in the hopeless task of pleading my cause before that Assembly. Those who may also peruse these pages will be competent to judge for themselves, so far as I can enable them, how far the Respondents' Reply is an answer to my Appeal and Address, or, a mere evasion of all the principal points at issue between us, and especially of this highly inter- esting question, if any thing be so appertaining to true Religion ; " Whom ought we alone to worship, according to the commands and example of Jesus of Nazareth, our acknowledged Lord and Master?" ix Since the decision of the Yearly Meeting on my Appeal, my apprehensions that it might en- courage an inquisitorial and intolerant misapplica- tion of the discipline, have been much diminished. The radical principles on which the case was taken up were so strongly censured in the Yearly Meeting, that it wiJl I trust make Disciplinarians in future more cautious how they venture to sit in judgement in like manner on their brethren on points of faith. They would do much better to attend to the advice of an Apostle. " Hast thou faith? Have it to thj/self before God/' But im- pose not thy " private interpretation'* of the Scripture'' upon thy Brother. Nor tempt him if he be " weak in the faith/' to engage in ^' doubtful disputations. — Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind/' The prosperity of the Society of Friends and its consequent increase in Christian Knowledge and Virtue are still interesting to me on many ac- counts. It has never imposed upon its members any form of worship which enjoins a recognition of more than one object of adoration. And it leaves every person who attends its Meetings for worship, to offer up the pure incense of the heart, to that Being onlij to whom each worshiper believes in his conscience this homage is justly due. With its testimony to the universal and impartial }ove of God to mankind under every dispensation of his Providence, I fully concur, and especially that he hath brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel of his Son. — For God our Saviour zoill have all men to he saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." I also con-^ b X cur with them fully in the utter repugnance of all war (and especially of offensive war) to the spirit and precepts of Christianity ; and that it recog- nises no Priests, and consequently no Priestcraft : also that " there is a spirit in man/' and that " the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him under- standing'' to discern good from evil, vn'tue from vice, true doctrines from false, so far as is neces- sary for the salvation of every man*. The imprimatur rule has much to my satis- faction lately become still more obsolete. The publication of Lindley Murray's " Compendium of religious Faith and Practice" sets it at open defiance. It assumes very properly, that the Au- thor alone is accountable for any errors it may contain, and not the Society of which he is a much esteemed member. Nay, he even assigns its imperfections as the reason why he declines complying with a rule, which requires to be " in- variably observed." The first section of the work consists of seven ''Articles of faith; or what we are to'^believe' concerning '^^he being and attributes of God. ' Six of thenr j- I accord with as sound, * " On the nature of the Conscience, and the necessity of attention to its cultivation," see the Appendix. f 1. There is but one hVing and true God, the Maker and Pre- server of all things, the Source of happiness, and of every thing that is good. Deut. vi. 4. Rev. iv. 11. Ps. xxi^vi. 6. Acts xvii. 28, Ps. xvi. 11. James i. 17. 2. This great Being has always existed, and he will exist for ever, and his nature is unchangeable. Ps. xc. 2. 2Peteriii. 8. Malachi iii. 6. James i. 17. 3. He is all-powerful and glorious ; He is every wliere present ; He knows every thing, and perceives our very thoughts and desires. Matt. vi. 13. Isai. xL 17. Prov. xv. 3. Ps.xciv. 9. xxxix, 12. 4. Pie is a God of truth, holiness, and justice. Rev. xv. 3. Ps. lxxxix.34. Isai. xliii. 3. Exod. xv. 11. Gen. xviii. 25. Ps.lxxxix. 14. XI definite and Scriptural ; but not with the y th, because several of the texts adduced as " proofs and illustrations from the Hohf Scriptures'' are erroneoush- rendered, and the rest are entirely silent concernino; the existence of any " mvsteri- ous union of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," in the " One living and true God*/' In the Yearly Meeting for 1809, when the An- swers to the Fourth Query were under considera- tion, and much had been said on a departure from plainness of speech, behaviour and apparel," but little or nothino; on neolectino; to read " the Holy Scriptures ;" a proposal was made for the Meeting 5. He is a God of wisdom, love, and mercy. Ps. civ. 24. Kom. xi. 33. 1 John iv. 16. 2 Cor. i. 3. xiii. 11. Ps. cxlv. 9. 6. He is possessed of every perfection and excellence in an in- rinite degree. Ps. clxvii. 5. Rom. xi. 33. Job xi. 7. 1 Kings viii. 27. * Yet the Author in his Introduction scruples not to assert that *' every tenet and position in this Work is illustrated and conjirmedy by appropriate passages tak'en from the Holy Scriptures ; from Avh'ch it will appear that the whole is founded upon and warranted ly Divine Revelation." He should, therefore, making such a declaration, have been especially careful to appeal to no text of dubious authority. In- stead of which all the texts he cites in proof of this " mysterious union," that even seem to gh:e it any countenance, are notoriously corrupted, or perverted'' as they are cited by him from the re- ceived Version. From which, however, he does not scruple to deviate in quoting Matt, xxviii. 19, without one word of explana- tion, although the evidence in favour of this alteration is much less clear, than it is for the entire rejection of 1 Jolm v. 7, and for a very different rendering of other texts appealed to, as Rom. ix. 5. Phil. ii. 6. and John i. 14-, all of which he adopts from the re- ceived text, as " luarranted hy divine Revelation." Such tenets as these, he is aware, cannot be expected to keep their ground unless they be aided by ear^y impression and the influence of habit', and be wade to grow with the learners' growth, and to strengthen with their strength." His notion of " some points of Scriptural Doc- trine" is, that they are unrevealed " revelntions, which are above the comprehension of the human intellect!" Such cannot surely be " the revelations of our heavenly Father,'' who knoweth how to give good gifts to his childi-en ! to recommend their being publicly read in Friends' Meetings, in order to insure a better and more general acquaintance with their contents amongst its members. In reply to this the late J. G. Bevan observed, There is not, I think, time at present for the Meeting to go properly into the considera- tion of this important subject/' Whether that Assembly has yet found time to take it up, or not, before I close this Preface I would again earnestly recommend it to all the members of the Society who may peruse these pages. Surely a practice recommended by the precepts and example of Christ, and followed by the Primitive Christian Church, however it may have been since connected with forms and ceremonies which Christ never au- thorized, may be revived in its genuine simplicity, to the great advantage of tho^ who would he his followers, — See Preface to Narrative, p. xvii — xix. To the candour of my readers I submit the ensuing pages, and especially my Rejoinder with the notes annexed to the Respondents' Reply, &c. I am sensible they are unworthy of the great cause I have at heart, the diffusion of the all* important doctrine, that there is only one true and living God, the Father Almighty, and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, whom God " in all things made like unto his Brethren" of the human race, " yet without sin,"' and who " became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; wherefore God also hath highly exalted him — that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of Qod the Father/' THE SEQUEL TO AN APPEAL, &c. Sec, YEARLY MEETING, 5th Mo. 25th, 1814. The IMeeting met at four, soon after which the Re- spondents appointed by London and Middlesex Quar- terly IMeeting ; viz., George Stacey, Luke Howard, William Allen, John Eliot, Josiah Forster, and Richard " Bowman, being called upon by John Wilkinson, the Clerk, or rather Chairman under that name, Josiah Forster rose on their behalf, and addressed the Meeting to the following effect : — • A large proportion of the Appellant's Address to the Meeting yesterday was irrelevant matter irregularly in- troduced, and especially that part of it which consisted of the sentiments of individuals. Not that I am pre- pared to admit the justice of his strictures on them, or that those sentiments are either unsound or unscrip- tural*. But the Respondents are unitedly of the judge- ment that they should ill discharge their duty, or pay * For " the sentiments " here alluded to, see my Appeal, pp. 83 — 98, noticing how fully those sentiments had been sanctioned by the Society ; and then let the reader weigh the validity of the Respondent's excuses for passing them over as " irrelevant" and unworthy the attention of the Meeting. B proper respect to the dignity of the Meeting, by follow- ing the Appellant in the devious course he thought proper to take. In the history of the Society, cases at all like the present have been of very rare occurrence. By far tlie most usual application of the Discipline has been to cases of immorality, or for an actual breach of express rules of the Society ; very seldom to difference of opinion on points of faith or worship. With regard to these, as it is impracticable to provide positive rules which will apply to every case, a discretionary power is necessary to be vested in Meetings for Discipline : and this power may be safely lodged in their hands, subject to the important privilege of Appeal, which by our rules is secured to every individual who may think himself aggrieved by the judgement of any Meeting^. The Yearly Meeting, as early as the year 1703, was sensible of the necessity of intrusting such a discretionary power with inferior Meetings, as the minute in the Book * Such cases as the present have indeed been of very rare oc- currence in the history of the Society. Its disciph'ne was never in- tended by its founders to be so apphed. See Preface to Appeal, pp. ix. X. Of all the powers ever exercised by Ecclesiastics, that for which the Pcespondents contend, " a discretionary power," is by far the. most dangerous. And their pleas for the safety and supposed ne- cessity for its exercise are alike delusive : — the necessity for exer- cising such a power they inferred from the impossibility of providing rules, that is, articles of faith, on which the Church can agree. The just inference from this admission surely is, that the rights of pri- vate judgement should at least be respected within those limits on wiiich even the rulers of the Church cannot unite. The safety of vesting such powers in Meetings for Discipline they deduced from the manner in which the right of Appeal is se- cured to every individual. Of the real value of this right in the Society of Friends, perhaps few persons were more competent to form a true estimate than the late Job Scott, a minister from America, highly and deservedly esteemed. His opinion was, that " no private individual had a fair probability of succeeding in an appeal," from the " great prepossession" among its members " iiji (jvery quarter" in favour of the decision of any iMecting for Disci- pline,, however small or weak. 3 of Extracts of that year will show. It is as follows : — Our Monthly and Quarterly Meetings being set up by the power and in the wisdom of God, which is the au- thority of those Meetings, all Friends are tenderly de- sired and advised carefully to keen to, and in that au- thority ; and therein manage all the business and affairs of the said Meetings, in discharge of their duty to God and his Churcli ; and not expect or depend upon this fleeting for particular direction from time to time, how they shall proceed in the management of the concerns of those ^ieetings, relating to ti'uth's testimony and ser- vice ; but wait for, and depend upon, the power and wisdom of God for counsel and direction, in such mat- ters and cases as may come before them." The Monthly and Quarterly Meetings appealed against in this case, have acted to the best of their judo;enient, as the minute just read advises. Every religious or other Society must have some rules for its government. The Society of Friends ac- cordingly holds certain doctrinal articles to be necessary or fundamental principles. It requires its members to profess and receive these, not as being intolerant, which we disclaim, but because their maintenance is necessary for the protection of the Society. When any of its members are known to associate with persons of other Societies, for the promotion of opposite principles, it becomes necessary to notice such cases. In the application of these principles to particular cases, the Society of Friends possesses a great advantage, as by its rules the collective sense of its members may be taken upon them. The Appellant admitted this in his Address to the Quarterly Meeting. [See his Narra- tive, pp. 257, 258.] At the same time we hold that chaiity to those who differ however widelv from us, is necessary to be main- tained. The Quarterly Meeting whose decision we are appointed to defend, is utterly adverse to a spirit of in- B 2 4 tolerance, and on its behalf we disclaim the impu- tation *. The Society requires from its members no subscrip- * The Respondents disclaim "being intolerant." And although they were appointed to defend an excommunication for the exercise of the rights of private judgement, and a refusal to receive uiisaip' iural articles of fait li, they tell us their employers are also utterly adverse to a spirit of intolerance, and gravely disclaim the imputa- tion on their behalf. Can any inconsistency be more palpable than this ? A minute of the Yearly Meeting in 1796 exhibits a curious in- stance of the insinuating encroaching nature of Church-authority. It was made because a difference of opinion had arisen among the active disciplinarians, whether a minute of 1706 simply authorixed disownment for paying Tithes, or enjoined it in all cases as necessary? ' Many Friends were of the former opinion, the minute recommend- ing Montnly Meetings to act in such cases, as to disownment or otherwise, " as in the holy counsel and wisdom of God they shaU be directed^ And so tolerant did the Society become under this dis- cretionary power on the side of forbearance, where they believed the wisdom of God did not require them to act otherwise, that dis- ownments on this account became very rare. I was informed in an early part of my life, I expect on good au- thority, that the Monthly Meeting of Gracechurch Street (of which the late J, G. Bevan, theframer of this minute, was a distinguished member) once officially stated in the answer to the Query on this subject, that a majority of its mevilers were in the practice of paying " Tithes, or those called Church-rates." By the minute of 1796 no such toleration towards those who can neither see the use, propriety ox justice of refusing to pay such legal demands upon them, is to be any longer allowed. They are pronounced by this minute to be *' irrecLnimahle delinquents " and their disownment is expressly en- joined. And not contented with putting this modern construction upon an ancient minute relating only to the payment of Tithes, the same injunction to proceed to disownment is extended to all other cases of dealing where the parties " persist in rejecting the admonition of their brethren." Meetings are no longer permitted as heretofore to act as they may suppose to be conformable to " the holy counsel and wisdom of God," lest they should err on the side of toleration and charity. This latter minute presumes in effect to declare what this wisdom shall in all such cases of dealing iTivaria- lly direct. Its concluding language is " No such exemption from the invariable issue of our dealings with irreclaimable delinquents," is considered by this meeting to be allowed by the said minute,"— Book of Extracts, 2d edit. p. 194. 6 lion to articles of faith. It would not be in its jiidgeinent compatible with the preservation, of peace to insist on such a bond of union. It rather recommends a practi- cal obedience to the dictates of the Spirit; and its mem- bers are not, generally speaking, so much engaged in at- tending to matters of doctrine, as persons of other per- suasions*. The proceedings against the Appellant might not be altogether regular ; but they were not so irregular as to be vitiated on that plea, if the principal allegations against liim are fully established. The pardcular cir- cumstances of the ]Monthly ^leedng should be considered on the one hand, and on the other the unfavourable representation of its proceedings in an anonymous Pamphlet enUded A Portraiture of Primitive Qua- kerism, by William Penn ; with a Modern Sketch Re- puted Orthodoxy and Real Intolerance by Ratcliff ]\Iondily Meedng." Its members disclaim the charge of intolerance, or having been actuated by any animosity towards the Appellant. This Pamphlet was published in 1812, about the ' time of the Yearly Meeting. And near the sama time last year the Appellant published a work endUed " A Narrative of the Proceedings of the Society called Quakers within the Quarterly Meedng for London and Middlesex, against Thomas Foster, for openly professing their Primidve Doctrines concerning the Unity of God '|\" The Respondents agree that the Lord our * I believe with the Respondents, that the members of the Society of Friends " are not, generally speaking, so mucli engaged in at- tending to matters of doctrine, as persons of other persuasions," and therefore that they are less acquainted with the simple and sublime doctrines of Christianity as they are laid down in the Scriptures, than those are who pay more attention to these subjects. At the same time they are probably 7nuch inore liahle than others to be carried away from the sober path of reason and revelation ly delusive notions of inspiration. t The title of my Narrative describes the ostensible cause of the proceedings against me as correctly as with a due regard to brevity was in my power. The Respondents were perhaps better acquainted God is one Lord ; but they deny the justice of this title, and cannot allow the charge it contains, that the pro- ceedings against the Appellant were for openly profess- ing the primitive doctrines of the Society concerning the Unity of God. Such an e.v parte statement should not have been made while an Appeal was pending ; for although the rule of 17^4 only prohibits printing an Appeal, it \vas equally intended to forbid, under the like penalty, print- ing any thing relating to a case while the same was pending. The Appellant has availed himself of the letter of this rule to appeal to the Society and to the public through the medium of the press ; and the mem- bers of the Quarterly and Monthly Meetings have felt themselves much aggrieved by the said publications, and particularly as they did not feel themselves at li- berty to publish any reply to them while the case was pending, the Appellant having given due notice of Appeal^'. I would now call the attention of the Meeting to the proceedings in this case. In the 8th month 1811, an Overseer called on the Appellant in. consequence of his having given away some printed Remarks on the Yearly Meeting Epistle for 18] 0, and his being a member of the London Unitarian Book Society. The professed than I am with the real ground of those proceedings. Whether tlie title be just, and the charge it contains be well founded, depends )iot on their or my assertion, but on historical evidence concerning the faith of our forefathers. To this we have both appealed ; and the question is, which of us has done so 77^05/ coiicLusivebj, * The restraint under which the Respondents and others felt themselves so much aggrieved, not to publish any reply to my Nar- rative &c. while the case was pending, has now been long removed, without their availing themselves of it. How far this consideration really operated during its supposed continuance, let the sanction and publicity given by the Morning Meeting of Ministers and Elders, and the Meeting for Sufferings, to a work entitled Re- marks suggested by the Perusal of a I'ortraiture of Primitive Qua- kerism, &c., by Thomas Prichard," bear witness. See Appeal, pp. 3— 16, andl8--21» 7 objects of this association are stated in the preface to its Book of Rules to be, to promote " the right principles of religion and therefore it is not, as the Appellant has endeavoured to j.Move, a mere Book Society. He was afterwards visited by two Overseers on the same grounds, w iio reported the case to the Monthly Meeting, on which a Committee of four Friends was appointed to visit hiin. The Minute of their appointment related to those two subjects only ; and \vhether the objections the Appellant made to this minute being drawn up in indefinite terms be well founded or not is of litdc consequence [See his Narrative, pp. 35, 36, 58, 131, 26'1, i262.]t The Committee are alleged not to have paid due attention to tlie subjects referred to them [Ibid. pp. 62 — 64], and to have questioned the iVppellant on matters foreign to the objects of their appointment [Ibid. 84— 88, 131—1:34, 264—266]. As to their having ad- duced passages of Scripture in their conferences with the Appellant, we are not now discussing whether they were apposite, or not : they w ere such as they deemed pertinent to the occasion. As to questioning the Appellant, and in some other r^'specls, we admit that the proceedings do not appear on tiie face of the ^Meeting's records such as we could have >\ ished ;[:. * The commencement of tlie proceedings against me is fairly and candidly stated ; but how the Ke5^ version the text is rendered, as we think erroneously y "and lo, I am with you always, to the end of the age." To which this note is annexed : ^'To the end of the age, i. e. to the end of the Jewish * Those who wish to discover the true meaning of the text here spoken of, Matt, xviii. 20, will do well carefully to mark its connexion not only with the two preceding verses, but with the cont3xt at large, which relates to the proper mode of endeavouring to restore love and friendship among fellow Christians after the commission of " personal and private injuries." William Penn has plainly shown this. Works, vol.1, p. 780. 14 dispensation ; till the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple : soon after which miraculous powers w^ere with- drawn, and no personal apj^earances of Jesus Christ are recorded. See Bishop Pearce, Wakefield, &c. Now we ask the Yearly Meeting if they believe that this was the doctrine which George Fox preached ?* On John w 4. — For at a certain season an angel Trent down into the pool, and troubled the water : whoso- ever therefore xvent in first ^ after the troubling of the water, was made well, whatever disease he had — the fol- lowing note is given : " The words in Italics [those above] are wanting in the Vatican and Ephrem manuscripts, and the fourth verse is omitted in the Cambridge MS. In others they are marked as doubtful, and are proba- bly spurious. See Griesbach. It might possibly be a small medicinal spring, which flowed more copiously at some times than at others, and might flow into a bath or basin capable of receiving only one person at a time. It is not mentioned by Josephus. ' The sanative qua- lity of the waters might, in popular estimation, be ex- tended and magnified.' See Newcome. The passage is rejected as spurious by Semler, Michaelis, and Marsh. * Whether 'Uhis was" or was not *'the doetrine that George Fox preached" concerning the import of Matt.xxviii. 20, is of little consequence. He might as well have mistaken its true meaning as any other person. Did the Respondents intend by the earnest manner of putting this question to the Yearly Meeting, to imply that George Fox was an infallible expositor of Scripture? Or to insinuate the divinity of his mission as a Prophet? However this may be, it manifestly appears by the words of tlie text that this promise related only to the eleven disciples." New- come was therefore well warranted in rejecting the common ren- dering of this text, and in giving the most usual and applicable Hieanmg of the Greek word aluovos. In Hill's Lexicon, AI ilN, wvsc, 0, is rendered, Ist, cevum [age] ;2d, mundus [world]; and 3dly, culuwj nearly synonymous with cevum. As the question solely depended upon the proper translation of a Greek word, as us?d in this text, I confess it .surprised me not a little to hear a pro- fessed Greek scholar appeal to the authority of George Fox, or the doctrine he preached ! 15 See Marshs Michaelis, vol. i. p. 293, 507; vol. ii. p. Perhaps we need not adduce more extracts : the Meetin<^ will perceive from those we have selected, the ini-firopi icty of a member of our Society encouraging the circulation of such a work. As the Appellant has insisted much upon the senti- ments of William Penn being similar to those he is charged with iioldin^, I shall cite a few passages to show how widely they ditier. lu the Life of Thomas Ellwood, p. 443, a work of George Keith's called ^'The Deism of William Penn and his Brethren destructive to the Christian Religion exposed," Sec, is mentioned, vindi- cating whom, Thomas Ellwood says [p. 451], ''Yet he himself (George Keith) well knows, that neither he, nor William Penn, nor any of tliC Quakers ever were Deists ; ever did deny, disown, or disbelieve the coming, incarnation, sufferings, and death of Christ, as man out- UHirdlij in the flesh, his resurrection, ascension, and mediatorship ; and he himself has undesignedly acquitted William Penn from his present charge of Deism by a Jtory he told in his hrst Narrative, p. 38 : that upon some urging him to give an instance of one English Quaker that he ever heard pray to Christ, W'illiam Penn being present, said, '' I am an Englishman, and a Quaker, and I own I have oft prayed to Christ Jesus ; even him that was crucitied." * On what ground the Respondents objected to this note, or to printing the text to which it relates, John v. 4, in Italics, they did BOt explain. If they could have shown it was in the MSS. wherein \t is said to be wanting, or that the purport of it is mentioned by Josephus, or that it was not "rejc^cted as spurious" by Seniler, Jlichaelis, and Marsh, as this note says it was, but only by the Editors of this Version and by the Appellant, there might have been some pertinency in adducing it. As it is, I can perceive none ; unless telling the truth be a crime. Yet from this and the two pre- ceding notes above mentioned the Respondents scrupled not let assert that " the Meeting will perceive the impropriety of a nieir,- ber of the Society encouraging tlie circulation of such awori:/' 16 [Tins he says was in 1G78, Avbich was five years after that book was pnbiishecl from which he atteinpts to prove him a Deist ; that is, a denyer of the man Christ Jesus, who was crucitiecl/'] We would now request the ]\IectinfT's attention to a note \n what is called an Improved Version of the New Testament, on the words of our Lord Jesus recorded John xvii. 5, as part of his solemn })ray'er a short time -before his crucifixion : And now, O leather, glorify thou me with thyself, ^vith the glory which I had with thee before the world was." The note on this passage I will now read : " Or, as Mr. Wakefield renders it, ^ with that glory, thine own glory, which I had before the world was.' The glory which is the object of our Lord's petition is that glory of which he speaks, ver. 22 ; the glory of instructing and converting mankind, verses 8, 14. This glory he had given to his apostles, ver. 22 ; that is, he intended it for them. The sam.e glory the Father had given to him : that is, had reserved it for him, and purposed to bestow it upon him. He had it therefore with the Father before the world was, that is, in the Father s purpose and decree. Li the language of the Sciiptures, what God determines to bring to pass is represented e both false and absurd, the other is much more. " This is the great mystery [or error] of the Socinian:? mdecKl the rock on which they split ; they do not di- stinguish betwixt the form of God and likeness of men ; that which came into the world to do the will of God, and the body he took in which to perform it.'' Vol. ii. 19 p. 156. [See also the Appellant's Narrative, pp. i93, 194.] The next note in this new Version to which we would call the Meeting s attention is that on the four first verses of the Epistle to the Romans. To exhibit its import and tendency more fully, I will first read the text, and then the Editors' note. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle separated to the Gospel of God, (which he had promised before by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures,) even the Gospel con- cerninij his Son, who w^as born of the race of David, according to the iiesh, but proved to be the Son of God by power, according to the holy spirit, through his resurrec- tion from the dead ; the Gospel, I say, concerning Jesus ChristourLord." The note on this text says, ''The Apostle could not mean by this phraseology and the antithesis "wiiich he here uses, to assert or countenance the strange and unintelli^iibie notion of two natures in Christ, one the human nature, by wliich he was the descendant of David, the other a divine nature, by which he was the Son of God. The sense of the passage is plainly this ; that Christ by natural descent was of the posterity of David ; but that in a figurative sense, by designation of the holy spirit at his baptism, he was the son of God : or the promised Messiah, which was further proved by the extraordinary exertion of divine energy in raising him fi'om the dead. See Mr. Lindsey's Second Address to the Students of the Two Universities, p. 276. Christ is called the Son of God for two reasons : First, be- cause this title is equivalent to that of Messiah, and w'as so understood by the Jews, John i. 50. Thou art the son of God, thou art the king of Israel. Compare Mark i. 1 ; Lnkeiv. 41 ; xxii. 67, 70. Secondly, he is called a son of God as having been raised from the dead to an immortal life. In this sense Christ is called the first-born, having been the first human being who ^vas put into possession of this glorious inheritance. Col.i. 15, 18; Heb. i.^; Rev. i. 5. All believers, as 20 heirs of the saiiie iniieiitauce, are also oons of God. John i. 12 ; Rooi. viii. 14 — 17 ; I John iii. 2. Hence they are said to be brethren of Christ and co-heirs with him ; and he is the first-born among njany brethren. Rom. viii. 29. These are the only senses in which the title, Son of God, is applied to Christ in the genuine apostolical writings." After reading the above note, Luke Howard observed : The Meeting will remember the xA.ppeilant's gloss on a text of Scripture, [John x. 36,] which I mentioned yesterday as a false gloss, the dangerous tendency of which it was necessary immediately to point Out. I would now only add, that it is perfectly consistent with the tenor of the note which has just been read*. The Meetincf should also be informed that the Editors of this V ersion of the New Testament have had some very im.portant parts of the first chapters of Matthew and Luke printed in Italics, for the purpose of holding them up as of " doubtf ul authority,'' and yet they are ac- knowledged to be " found in all the MSS. and Versions which are now extant." If suspicion, said Josiah I'orster, is thus to be thrown upon any passage of the New Testament which happens not to accord with the preconceived opinions of every new Translator, there is no saying how much of the sacred Volume may he brought into discredit as being of doubtful authority. To the first verse of Matthew this note is afiixed :— Epiphanius says that Ccrinthus and Carpocrates, who used the gospel of the Ebionites, which was probably the * The Respondents sbpuUl have given their ideas about the doc- trine of " two natures in Christ," as they seem to have called the Meeting's attention to this note principally because it asserts that the Apostle could not mean by the four first verses of the Epistle to the Romans to countenance that strange and unintelligible notion. Nor did they attempt to give any other ejcplanation of even one of the Texts referred to in the note, in support of the Editors' conclu- sion. They were, however, not far out in describing my construc- tion of John X. 35, the day before, as perfectly consistent vyit}^ |he tenor of the above note." 21 original gospel of i\fatthe\v, written in the Hebrew language l or the use of the Jewish believers, argued from the genea- logy at the beo^inning of the gospel, that Christ was the von of Joseph and Mary ; but that the Ebionites had taken away even the genealogy, beginning their gospel with these words : " And it came to pass in the days ol Ilcrod the king, &:c/' See Epiph. Hseres. 30. N. 13. Jones on the Canon, vol. i. pt. £. ch. 25. It is proba- ble, therefore, that the first sixteen verses of this chapter are genuine ; and that they were found at least in the copies of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. And, indeed, it can hardly be supposed that an author v» riting for tha instruction of Hebrew christians, would have omitted to trace the descent of Christ from Abraham and David, upon which they justly laid so great a stress. Archbishop Newcome adds the names in v. 8. from 1 Chron. iii. 11, 12. And he suspects v. 17 to have been a marginal note anciently taken into the text. See the annotations to his Harmony, § 9. The eighteenth verse begins a new story, whicii continues to the end of the second chapter. This could not have been written by the author of the genealogy, for it contradicts his design, which was to prove that Jesus, being the son of Joseph, was the descendant of Abraham and David, whereas the design of this narrative is to show that Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, was not his real father. Thi? account therefore of the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ must have been wanting in the copies of Cerin- thus and Carpocrates as well as in those of the Ebionites : and if the genealogy be genuine, this narrative must be spurious." The Etiitors say in a note, " The remainder this chapter, and the whole of the second, are printed in Italics, as an intimation that they are of doubtful authority. They are indeed to be found in all the ma- nuscripts and versions which are now extant ; but from the testimony of Epiphanius and Jerome we are assured that they were wanting in the copies used by the Naza- renc.s and Ebionites, that is, by the ancient Hebrew £2 Christians ; for whose instruction, probablyj this gospel M as originally written ; and to whom the account of the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ could not have been unacceptable, if it had been found in the genuine narrative. Nor would it at all have militated against the doctrine of the proper humanity of Christ, which was universally held by the Jewish Christians, it being a fact analogous to the miraculous birth of Isaac, Samuel, and other eminent persons of the Hebrew nation. If it be true, as Luke relates, chap. iii. 23. that Jesus was entering upon his thirtieth year (see Wakefield's Trans- lation) in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, he must have been born two years at least after the death of Herod, a circumstance which alone invalidates the whole story. See Lardncr s Works, vol. i. p. 432. It is indeed highly improbable that no notice should have been taken of these extraordinary events by any contem- porary writer, that no expectation should have been excited by them, and that no allusion should have been made to them in any other passage of the sacred writings. Some of the facts have a fabulous appearance, and the reasoning from the prophecies of the Old Testam.ent is inconclusive. Also, if this account be true, the proper name of Jesus, according to the uniform custom of the Jews, would have been Jesus of Bethlehem, not Jesus of Nazareth. Our Lord in the gospels is repeatedly spoken of as the son of Joseph, without any intimation on the part of the historian that this language is incorrect. See Mm. xiii. 65. Luke iv. 23. John i. 45. vi. 42. The account of the miraculous conception of Jesus was pro- bably the fiction of some early gentile convert, who hoped, by elevating the dignity of the Founder, to abate tlie popular prejudice against the sect. See upon this subject, Dr. Priestley s History of Early Opinions, vol. iv. b. iii. c. 20 ; Pope on the Miraculous Conception ; Dr. Williams's Free Enquiry ; Dr. BelFs Arguments for the xAuthenticity of the Narratives of Mattliew and Lulce, and Dr. Williams's Komarlis ; Dr. Campbell and 23 Dr. Newcome s Notes upon the text ; ]Mr. Evaiison's Dissonance, chap. i. sect. 3. chap. ili. sect. Q ; Jones's Developenient oi Events, voL i. p. 3G5 iScc.*" In a note * The notes on tlie first chapters of Matthew and Luke, which the- Respondents read, are far from supporting the insinuation thrown out by tliem, that " some very important parts " of those chapters were printed in Itahcs because they did not accord with the preconceived opinions of the translator, and tliat any passage of the New Testament might have suspicion thrown upon it in hke manner." Now the fact is, that no other passage " to be found in all the IVISS. and Versions nov/ extant" has ever been thought liable to similar objections. And these objections are founded not on the preconceived opinions of any modern translators, but on hi- storical evidence of a much earlier date than any MS. or Version now extant. I cannot conclude this note better than by the fol- lowing extract from a work by John Grundy, entitled " Evangelical Christianity considered, and shewn to be synonymous with Unita- rianism," vol. ii. 496—498. " The spuriousness of these chapters does not at all affect the genuineness or authenticity of the remain- der of the gospel historj^ I know that a doubt has arisen in some well-disposed minds, whether it would not be better to let the que- stion alone, lest if we once begin to pull down we should not know where to stop. My friends, it is this objection which prevents any reformation from taking place in the established religion of this country. 'J'here are many well-disposed minds in the church, who, like Archbishop Tillotson, would be glad to be well rid of the Athanasian creed, and parts of the liturgy ; who yet earnestly say, * Let us not begin to amend ; because it is impossible to say, where we may stop !' Indeed this objection is not at ail consistent with our profession as Protestants. It is not the principle upon v;hich the Reformers acted, not the principle upon which the Apostlta acted, not the principle upon which our Saviour acted. And to the objection allow me to answer briefly, that ever}^ sound and discri- minating mind will know where to stop. It will stop where good evidence ceases. It is the part of judgment to discriminate. And I conceive it to be an equal proof of a weak mind, to believe all, or to doubi of all ; especially when the degrees of evidence are so dis- jtroportionate. And in the case before us, the difference i« great and obvious. The gospel histories in general are founded on a rock. Their genuineness and authenticity both collectively and i ndividually are unshaken and incapable of being shaken. But I am not therefore bound to believe that there is not a particle of dross mixed v/ith the gold. Nor am I to believe, that by removing tliis dross, I must infallibly destroy the metal. On the contrary I contend that I render it aiore pure and valuable," 24 annexed to tliC iirst chapter of Luke, ver. 4th, tlic Editors of this new Version say : The remaining, verses of this, and the wliole of the seconti chapter, are printed in Italics, as an indication that Ihey are of doubtful authority: for diough they are to be found in all manuscripts and versions which are now extant, yet the following considerations have induced many to doubt vyhether they were really written by Luke": 1. Tiie evangelist expressly affirms that Jesus had completed his thiiticth year in the hfteenth year of Tiberius Ciesar, chap. iii. 1. He must, therefore, ha ve been born fifteen years before the death of Augustus, A.U.C. 7o2 or 7.'53 : but the latest period assigned tor the death of Herod is the spring of A.U.C. 751, kind he died, probably, the year before. See Lardner's Works, vol. i. p. 423 — 428, and Jones's Developement of Facts, vol. i. p. 365 — 363. Herod therefore must have been dead upwards of two years before Christ was born. A fact which invalidates the whole narration. See Grotius on Luke iii. 23. 2. The two hrst chapters of this gospel were want- ing in the copies used by Marcion, a reputed heretic of the second century; who, thougli he is represented by his adversaries as holding some extravagant opinions, v?as a man of learning and integrity, for any thing that appears to the contrary. He, like some moderns, re- jected all the evangelical histories excepting Luke, of which he contended that his own was a correct and au- thentic copy. " 3. The evangelist, in his preface to the history of the Acts of the Apostles, reminds his friend Theophilus, Acts i. 1, that his former history contained an account of the public ministi y of Jesus, but makes no allusion to the reujarkable incidents contained in the two first chapters : m hich, therefore, probably were not written by him. 4. If the account of the miraculous conception of as Jesus be true, he could, not be the offspring of David and of Abraliam, from whom it was predicted, and by the Jews expected, that the ]\fessiah slioukl descend. 5. There is no ahusion to any of these extraordinary facts in either of the succeeding histories of Luke, or in any other books of the New Testament. Jesus is uni- formly spoken of as the son of Joseph and Mary, and as a native of Nazareth, and no expectation whatever appears to have been excited in the public mind by these wonderful and notorious events. 6. The style of the two first chapters is different from the rest of the history — the date of the enrolment, ch. ii. 1,2, is a great historical diihculty — that John the Baptist should have been ignorant of the person of Christ is not probable, if this narrative be true : John i. 31 — 34. And there are many other circumstances in the story which wear an improbable and fabulous aspect, Evanson's Disson. ch. i. sect. 3. p. 57. " See likewise the note upon the two first chapters of jMatthew, and the references there. It has been objected, that so large and gross an interpolation could not have escaped detection, and would never have been so early and so generally received. In reply to this objection it is observed, that this interpolation was not admitted into the Hebrew copies of Matthew s gospel, nor into ]Marcion s copies of Luke — that it is notorious that forged writings under the names of the apostles were in circulation almost from the apostolic age. See £ Thess. ii. 2.— that the ortho- dox charge the heretics with corrupting the text ; and that the heretics recriminate upon the orthodox— also that it was much easier to introduce interpolations when copies were few and scarce, than since they have been multiplied to so great a degree by means of the press : and finally, that the interpolation in question would, to the generality of Christians, be extremely gratifying, as it would lessen the odium attached to Christiaiiity from its founder being a crucified Jew, and would elevate him E t6 to liie dignity of the heroes and denii-gods of the heathen mythology*," Ho^v differently our ancestors in religious profession thought on these subjects, the following passage in Bar- clay's " Quakerism Confirmed" may suffice to show. He says, sect. iv. prop- 14. " The doctrines of the Incaima- trorij sufferings, death and resurrection of Christ, &c., are necessary every where to be preached ; and being preached, to be believed and improved ; as being of, and belonging unto the integral parts of Christianity. Even as the arms and legs are integral parts of a man, without which he is not a complete man, even so, though one may be a Chi'istian-^and in that state be accepted of God (as is clear in the case of Cornelius) — without the express knowledge of the ouHvard birth, sufferings, &c., of Christ, yet without the same he is not a com pleat Christian, as wanting the knowledge of that which serveth to the perfection and accomplishment thoi-eof"— [Octavo Edit. 1718. vol. hi. p. 101.] Yet without undervaluing or lightly esteeming historical evi- dence, we [the Respondents] consider it as a mere shadoiv when compared to the internal evidence by which the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ is assured to the humble and attentive mindf." * When the above passage was adduced by the Respondents before the Committee of Appeals, Joel Leav, one of its members, was so much shocked with his own misconception of its import, that he exclaimed ; " I hope the Respondents have not any more such extracts to adduce ; the passage which has just been read has thrilled me through with horror" He seems not to have been aware that the Editors were not expressing their own sentiments, but such as were held by semiconverts to Christianity, who probably, like the wi^e Greeks, deemed the primitive apostolic doctrine of a crucified Jew miraculously raised from the dead by the power of God foolishness" f In order to show how differently our ancestors in religious profession thought on these subjects," the Respondents adduced the above passage from Barclay ; I judge by their concluding ob- servations, in order to support the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ. But in what sense they hold this tenet they left wholly uncertain. If they meant by those terms only to assert the reality 27 I shall now quote a passage or two from a work en^ titled A Calm Inquiry into the Scripture Doctrine con- cerning the Person of Christ ; by Thomas Belsham.'* The author is a member of the Book Society to which the Appellant is a subscriber, and this work is in the Catalogue of its Publications. This writer the Appel- lant wiil admit to be well acquainted not only with the doctrines held by Urntarians, but also with the light in which they generally view the principles and worship of other professors of Christianity. " Unitarians," says he, p. 350, " though they regard the worship of Christ as idolatrous and unscriptural, and productive of many hurtful consequences ; and though on this account, they think it their duty to enter their public protest against it, are very tar from presuming to criminate their fellow ChrisUans who fall into this great and common error. It is not for them to judge of the means and opportuni- ties of information which their mistaken brethren may possess, or of the motives by which they may be infiu- of Christ's coming in the flesh in opposition to the heresy of the Gnostics, I shall agree with them. But if the conversion of Deity into flesh, or that the " Vrord was properly made flesh," or the Trinitarian doctrine, which represents God as " Three Persons in One Nature," and Christ as possessing " two natures in one person," I must object to either of these notions, as irrational and unscriptural. The concluding observation of the Respondents indeed shows how little reliance they placed on any testimony of the Scriptures on this subject. For they " consider historical evidence as a mere shadow when compared to the internal evidence by which (say they) the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ is assured to the humble and attentive mind !" By " historical evidence" the Respondents must, I think, have meant the evidence of the Scriptures. I may therefore surely call upon them to re-examine the grounds of that internal evidence on which they so confidently rely. For compared with this, although they profess neither to undervalue nor lightly esteem the historical evidence of the Scriptures, they " consider it as a mere shadow." It however behoves them seriously to reflect, vrhether those who could make such a comparison are not in im- minent danger of following mere shadows, the delusive notions and traditions of men, unsupported by the real doctrines of reve- lation. £ 2 28 enced. Nor do they pretend that the worship of Clirist was ever alluded to in the cautions and warnings of the first teachers of Christianity, nor do they believe that this species of idolatry was ever in the contemplation of the sacred writers. The idolatry which they continually end justly held up to inluniy and abhorrence, was heathen idolatry, which was not only in the highest degree ab- surd in theory, but which countenanced and even re- quired the practice of the most odious and degrading vices*." At p. S79 this author says, It is not necessary to the establishment of the proper humanity of Jesus Christ to produce specific arguments for this purpose. For who would require proof that one who appears in all respects as a man is in fact a proper human being? If Christ had, as is universally allowed, all the external appearance of a man, he must in all reason be consi- dered as a man, in no other way distinguished from his brethren than as being invested with an extraordinary divine commission." Another sitting of the Meeting might be taken up in adducing passages of similar im- port from the works circulated by the Book Society of which the Appellant is a member. But it may be un- necessary to proceed further, as from these we conclude the Meeting will plainly see the true character of its leading or fundamental doctrines, and how directly op- * The Respondents are right in saying that I shall admit this au- thor to be well acquainted with the doctrines of Unitarians, and with the light in which they generally view the principles and worship of other Christians. But I cannot admit that the passage quoted is in point. For it first speaks of the light in which Unitarians would regard the worship of Christ, if offered by persons holding their views of Scripture doctrine. It then states with exemplary charity that they are very far from presuming to criminate their fellow Christians who faJl into this great and common error," The latter part of this quotation is so truly candid, and the distinction it makes between heathen idolatry, and that which has been fallen into by professing Christians, is so just, that I am ready to think this par^ must have been approved even by the Iles|>ondcnts, 29 jio^ed tliey are, to the well-known principles of our Society*. Whether there is just ground to vindicate our prin- ciples is not the present question. Nor is it necessary to prove on this occasion that our principles are Scrip- tural. But as we think the Appellant has misunder- stood and misrepresented them, the iuiportance of the case requires us to show what tfiey are. The fleeting will then be able to compare them with the doctrinci? which we have shown are held by those with whom the Appellant has connected himseli f- The first })assage we shall adduce for this purpose i? from George Fox's Journal, p. 4. where he says, " Tiie Priest Stevens [the Clergyman of Drayton, his native Parish] asked me, ' Why Christ cried out upon the Cross, My God, my God,' why hast thou ibrsaken mer' And why he said, ' If it be possible, let this cup pass from me ; yet not my will but thine be done ?' I told him ; [says George Fox] At that time the sins of all mankind were upon him, aiid their iniquities and transgressions, with which he was wounded, which he was to bear and to be an offering for, as he xcas vuvij but died not as he * If the above passage had been compared with the text which declares that " in all things it behoved him [Jesus] to be made like unto his brethren," Or with any other text relating to Jesus Christ, the result of such a comparison,- if carefully made, might have proved the above passage to be very accordant to the letter and sense of Scripture, however opposed it might be to the doc- trines the Respondents describe as so " w:^ii known," I presume as being founded, not on historical evidence, but on that internal evidence" which they so greatly prefer. f " It is not necessary," say the Respondents, " on this occasion, to prove that our principles are Scriptural. But as we think the Ap- pellant has misunderrood and misrepresented them, tlie importance of the case requires us to show what they are.'' For what purpose ? To compare tliem with my alleged misrepresentations? No. What then? To compare them with any doctrines I have personally pro- fessed ? Neither of these: — but Avith the doctrines vvhicli they " have f-hown are held by those with whom the Appellant has connected himself." They forgot, hon-ever, to prove that we were connected by any such a bond of union, or even to attempt it. The Meeting ^ as left to make this conclusion for itself without ai^y proof. so was God ; so in that he died for all men, tasting death for every man, he was an offering for the sins of the whole world*" I would now turn to a passage in one of the doctrinal works of George Fox, entitled " A Testimony of what we believe of Christ before he was manifest in the * In this first effort of the Respondents to show what the princi- ples of the Society are, they have represented George Fox as re- cognising the great fundamental tenet of Unitarianism, viz. that Christ had a superior to whom he prayed, and whom he acknow- iedged to be his God ; and that his ofiering himself up unto death was not as God, hut as man." Fox doubtless knew that in the language of Scripture as recog- Bised by Christ himself, those vrere called Gods unto whom the word of God came, and did not, therefore, hesitate to apply that term <' to him whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world." It was, however, in a qualified sense only ; for he did not with 7-e«/ Trinitarians of his time hold that the second person in the Godhead expired upon the cross to satisfy the otherwise unappeas- able vengeance of the Jirst, Nay this doctrine was openly main- tained long after. See Sir Ptichard Steel's Christian Hero, 6th edit, p. 33, printed in 1712 ; or No. S56, in that still more popular work The Spectator for April 18 in that year, being the day called <'Good Friday," The language of many of Dr. Watts's hymns, wliich in his riper years he is known to have disapproved, is equally unscrip- tural. Yet are they still in common use among that numerous class of Dissenters who peculiarly claim the character of Evange- lical. And it should seem that some Clergymen of the Established Church are not satisfied with all that the Liturgy, including the three Creeds and the 39 Articles, contains, without other aids to their devotion,. At the house of a very pious and respectable mem- ber of the Establishment, I lately met with a " Collection of Odes, Hymns, Anthems, &c. used in the parish church of Evesham" in Worcestershire, printed by John Agg in 1806," from which I extracted the following specimen of the extravagant ideas yet in- culcated and received by congregations of Trinitarian ^^'orshipers, and too naturally flowing from that doctrine — " Thou Earth, thy lowest centre shake, With Jesu sympathize ; Thou Sun, as hell's deep gloom be black — 'Tis THY Creator dies: See streaming from the fatal tree His all-atoning blood. Is this THE Infinite? 'Tis He, My Saviour and my God J* 31 tlesli ; and of bis birth and preaching, and ^vhathe saith he is, himself ; as also of his sufferings, death, resurrec- tion, and ascension, both as he was God, and as he was man." In this treatise, after professing his belief in the so much controverted Text, 1 John v. 7, he adds, And ye professors, who have given new names to tlie Father, tiie Word, and Holy Ghost, as Trlmtii and three distinct persons^ and say the Scripture is your rule for your doctrine, but there is no such rule in- the Scripture, to call them by those new names, which the Apostle that gave forth the Scripture doth not give them. And be- cause we do not call the Father and the Word and Holy Ghost, by ipiir new iiamesy therefore you do falsely say that the Quakers deny Father Son and Holy Ghost; which we own in those names and sound words in which the holy men of God spake them forth by the Holy Ghost, which ye give other rmrnes to, and yet say, that ye have not the same spirit which they had that gave forth the Scriptures. So which is to be followed, judge yourselves. But this is the record that God hath given unto us et€?'?ial life, and this life is in his Son, And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us a mind to know him, which is true ; and we are in him tliat is true, mark that is, in his Son Jesus Christ, this same is very God and eternal life : And this we the people of God in scorn called Quakers do witness.^'' Doctrinals, p. 446.* These passages are sufficient to * If George Fox did profess his belief in 1 John v. 7. as the Re- spondents say, is that enough in their estimation to estabhsh it* authenticity ? However this may be, it is plain from this passage that Fox objected to giving new or unscriptural names to the Fa- ther the Word and Holy Ghost, as Trinity and three distinct per- sons ; for he warmly censures the practice. In this passage also I may remark that eternal life'' is described as the gift of God '' in his Son." And (it is most evident by the text of the Bishops' Bible, which Fox quotes but not quite correctly,) that '* by hini that is true" in the 1 John v. 20. is meant the true God aj:id giver of ever- lasting life, for it adds, as the Greek requires, tiiorough [or 52 show how different the sentiments of George Fox and of our early friends were, from those openly professed by the Appellant. But as he has in some of his publica* tions laid considerable stress on a passage in the same volume, [see his Reply to Vindex, p. S6 — 38, and his Christian Unitarianism, p. 90 — 94], I wish to ad- duce enough of the context to shov/ that when George Fox wrote his answer to the speech or declaration of Sultan Mahomet the great Turk, he believed in the Godhead of Clirist, though he denied that " the true Christian s God" had been or could be crucified. " So it is clear," says he, "that the eternal invisible incom- prehensible God was not nor can — be crucified ; but Christ the Son of God suffered according to the flesh, TWt in Ills Godhead, So Christ died for our sins, ac* cording to the Old and New Testament. For as in. Adam all died, so even in Christ shall all be made] alive, and that Christ bif the grace of God should taste death for every man." p. lOOG."* through] his Son Jesus Christ." And so Newcome renders it* Whereas the received text sa3^s, " even in his Son," &c. apparently for the unwarrantable purpose of making the text call Jesus Christ " the true God." But I see no reason to suppose George Fox so understood the text ; or that this was what he tells us in the con- clusion of this passage, " the Quakers do witness." Yet the Re- spondents say, these passages are sufficient to show how different the sentiments of our early friends were, from those openly pro- fessed by the Appellant." How vague is this without some direct comparison of these sentiments with mine ! ♦ This passage seems very oddly adduced to prove Fox's belief *' in the Godhead of Christ." Its fair import, when the context is duly considered, is surely this : That when Christ was crucified, neither that divine power which dwelt in him, nor God himself, was or could be crucified. For Fox adds, that it was "the man Christ Jesus" who " offered up himself;" and the Respondents' quotation shov/s that in Fox's opinion he did this " li/ the grace of God." In the sarTiC paragraph Fox says: It was Jesus of Nazareth, A man approved of God by miracles and wonders and signs Avhich God did by him, that the Jews with their wicked hands did take, Ciucifjr, and slay.'' But, that it was God who loosed the pangf 53^ We would now call the Meeting*s attention to a few passages from the works of Isaac Penington : " Con- cerning the Gospel Ministration," he expresses himself in these terms [vol. i. p. 693] : " If the Gospel be not a ministration of words or letter, but of spirit, life, and power ; and if it was the intent of God, that men should not stick in words or testimonies concerning the thing, but come to the diing itself, and live in the Son's life and power, and feel the Son living in them, then they are greatly mistaken who think to gather a rule to themselves out of the testimonies and declara- tions of things in the Scriptures, and do not wait upon the Lord to receive his spirit itself to become their rule, guide, and way. For these are ail one ; the truth is tlie way ; the truth which lives and abides in the heart (where it is received and entertained) is the way ; the rule is the guide : for God is One. There are many names, but the thing is One. The life, the power, the wisdom in the Fath3r, Son, and Spirit, is all one : yea, they themselves are 0?2e, perfectly 0;2e, not at all divided or separated ; but where the Father is, the Son is ; and where the Son is, the Spirit is; and where the Spirit is, there is both the Father and the Son, who tabernacle in man in the day of the Gospel.* And where these are, thej^e that is which is to be preferred before all words, which was afore them, and is in nature spirit and glory above them. He that hath the Son, hath life, even the life eternal, ^vhich the words testify of He that hath the Son, hath him which is true ; and he that is in the Son, is in him that is true ; and abiding there cannot » of death, raised him up the third day ; and exalted him at his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance and forgiveness of sins." * This passage is the very essence of Sabellianism, expressed in such language as no person acquainted with that doctrine can well mistake for any other. It has distinctly those characters which, as Dr. Samuel Clarke has justly observed, although seeming in words to magnify the name of the Son and holy Spirit, in reality" as matter of doctrine " take away their very existence." r 54 be deceived ; but he that is not there, is deceived, let him apprehend and gather out of the Scriptures what he can. Oh ! liow is God glorified, and how is the re- demption and real salvation of the soul witnessed in this despised dispensation of truth, ivhich God hath held, forth in these latter days! Blessed he the name of the Lord, \vl:o hath hid this pure dispensation of life from the eye of the prudent worldly-wise ])art in evei^ man, revealing it only to the babish simpHcity which is of his Son, and which lives in and by him !" The next passage we shall adduce is from a Tract of Isaac Penington's entitled Life and Immortality brought to light through the Gos})el. Being a true dis- covery of the natm'e and ground of the Religion and Kingdom of Christ, in several weighty Queries, pro- pounded ; and other serious niatters treated of, highly importing the eternal salvation of Souls T The 1 1th section of this work treats of the threefold appearance of Christ ; to wit, under the Law, in a body of Flesh, and in his spirit and power. 1 st. Lender the Law. Various vi-ere the appearances of Christ, sometimes as an angel, in the likeness of a man ; so to Abraliam, and so to Jacob; when Jacob wrestled with him, and prevailed, and had overcome ; so to Joshua, or the capr tain of the Lord's host, at his besieging Jericho ; so to Moses in the bush, he appeared as an angel. Acts vii. 35 ; so likewise in visions. Those glorious appearances of God to the prophets in visions were the appearances of Chri-st ; as particularly, that glorious appearance of God sitting upon a throne, and his train filling the Temple, and the Seraphims crying Holy! holy ! holy is the Lord of Hosts, his glory is the fulness of the whole earth ! Isaiah vi. Tliis was an appeai'ance of Christ to Isaiah, as is manifest John xii. 41. where the- Evangelist (relating to that place) useth this repression : Thc-^c things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. So he was the angel of God s presence, which went befoie the Jevvs, in all their journey ing« 35 find ti-avels out of Kgypt, through the sea, and in the wilderness, and in the time of the Judges ; and wrought all their deliverances for them, as is signiiied Isa. Ixiii. 9. ' In all their aiiiictions he was affiicted. and ^he aufjel of his presence saved them,' &c. So with the three children, he appeared in the midit of the fiery furnace, in a form like the Son of God, as Nebuchadnezzar judged. Dan. iii. 25." Vol. ii. p. 376.* At page 26 of the same volume, in a small tract called " An Incitation to Professors, seriously to consider, whether they or we fail, in the true ackno\^'ledgment and owning of the Christ which died at Jerusalenj," the same honourable Llder in our Society says, " Now the Scriptures do expressly distinguish between Christ, and the garment which he wore ; between him that came, and the body in which he came ; between the substance which was veiled, and the veil which veiled it. * Of " the threefold appearance of Christ," spoken of in the passage quoted as above by the Respondents, I should have thought that which related to his appearance " in a body of flesh," was by far the most pertinent to the questions at issue between us. Instead of which they chose to dwell on his supposed appearances under the law," but merely by reading the passage without any explana- nation, and they passed over in silence all that their author says concerning the coming of Christ in the flesh. This did not suit their purpose, and yet it is so plain as to need little or no comment to render the principal part of it intelligible. For under this head the author asserts that " he [Christ] did nothing of himself, or in his own willj or for himieLf; but all in the will arid time of the Father.'' Thus, accordipg to Penington, when Jesus disputed with the doctors and teachers of the law, hearing and asking them questions," he discovered ''the pure wisdom of the Father which dwtlt in him" If " he preached the gospel," it was in the spirit and power of the Father^ If he went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed," it was still "as Ai^ Father s spirit led and guided him."" " Thus," says Penington, ''he did always please his Father, and seek the honour of him that gent him ; and was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, being willing to drink of the cup which his Father gave him to drink." Can any words more expressly ascribe all that Christ did or taught, to his God and Father, than these? I think not ; and yet it appears that Penington held the Ariau Rction of the pi€-existence pf Christ when he wrote them. V X ^ 56 Lo lcome; a body hast thou prepared me. Therein plainly he, and the body in which he came. There was the outward vessel and the inward Hie. This v\e cer- tainly know, and can never call tlie bodily £varment Christ, but that which appeared and dwelt in the body. Now if ye indeed know the Christ of God, tell us plainly what that is which ap[)eared in the body ? Whether that w^as not the Christ before it took up the body, after it took up the body, and for ever ? And then their confining of Christ to that body, plainly manifesteth that they want the knowledge of him in spirit. For Christ is the Son of the Father ; he is the injjnlte eternal Being, one with the Father and with the Spirit, and cannot be divided from either ; cannot be any where, where they are not, nor can be excluded from any place w^here they are. He may take up a body, and appear in it, but cannot be confined to be no where else but there ; no not at the very time while he is there. Christ, w hile he was here on earth, yet was not excluded from being in heaven with the Father at the very same time ; as he himself said concerning him- self : The Son of man which is in heavc?i, John iii. 13. Nor was the Father excluded from being with him in the body ; but the Father was in him, and he in the Father : whereupon he said to Philip, He that hath seen vie hath seen the Father. What ! did every one that saw that body, see the Father also ? Nay, not so ; but he that saw Christ, the Son of the living God, whom flesh and blood revealed not, but the Father only (]\Iatt, xvi. 16. 17), he saw the Father also*." * This quotation from the same author, the Respondents took care to inform us, relates to " the Christ that died at Jerusalem." That is, to the man Christ Jesus. Not to the true Christian's ever- living God, who is without variableness or shadow of turning. Yet in this passage as read by the Respondents, it is said, We [the Quakers] can never call the bodily garment Christ, but that which . dwelt in the body." Now according to this writer, what was that which dwelt in the man Christ Jesus ? He says, in the immediate context of the last passage quoted by the Respondents, that it was 37 We now request the ]\feeting*s attention to a few pass- ages in " Barclays Catechisnn," which was first published in 1673. The 3d Chapter is "Of Jesus Christ being manifest in the tiesh ; the use and end of it." Under this head, the 2d question is, Was not Jesus Christ in being, before he appeared in the flesh ? What clear Scriptures prove this, against such as erroiieouslij assert the contrary ? * Answ. " But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee the pure wisdom — the spirit and power of the Father — that he did nothing of himself Yet are we now told that Christ — is the infinite eternal Being But the author does not profess to have learnt this Sabellian doc- trine concerning Christ " from the letter of the Scriptures," but from a supposed " knowledge of him in spirit" * By the use of the word " erroneously," in the above passage, Barclay appears to intimate that some of the prevalent notions con- cerning the pre-existence of Jesus Christ were unscriptural and unfounded. And although he held " that even the world was cre- ated by Christ," he seems to allude in like manner to certain un- sound notions concerning " the divinity of Christ," by limiting his proofs under that head " to such as falsely deny the same." At the end of his Catechism, Barclay sa3's, "Note, reader, that I have here throughout made use of the last common translation of the Bible. And if I would have made u-;e of the Hebrew and Greek, I could have produced divers other very clear Scriptures, which in the common translation are corrupted and perverted." If the received text contains such errors as these, it is surely allowable to correct them, so that it be done on sound principles of biblical criticism. The translators of the authorized version, it should ever be remembered, were so far from being impartial with regard to some of the most important points of doctrine, that they appear to have concurred with the general voice of the clergy of the estabhshed church (with the biihop of London as prosecutor at their head), in consigning to the flames in Smithfield the virtuous and learned Bartholomev/ Legatt, for being an Unitarian on what he deemed conclusive scriptural evidence. If the received text contains such passages as Barclay affirmed, and other persons have conclusively proved to the entire satisfaction of all competent judges, it is highly proper and important to have these perversions and corruptions of the text pointed out and clearly distinguished from the real doctrines of revelation. 58 $haU he come forth unto me, tliat is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been tVom of old, from everlasting. M'\c. v. 2. " In the beginning was the ^Vord, and the AVord was with God, and the Word was God ; the same was in the beginning with God : all things were made by feim, and without him was not any thing made that was made. John i. 1, 2, 3. " Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Beibre Abraham was, I am. John viii. 58. " And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before tlie world was. John xvii. 5. And to make all men see, what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ. Eph. iii. 9- " For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers : ail things were created by him, and for him. Col. i. \6. God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds. Heb. i. 2.'' Barclay next says, These are very clear, that even the world was created by Christ ; but what Scriptures prove the divinity of Cinist, against such as Jalseli/ deny the same ? A. And the Word was God. John i. 1, *• Whose are the fathers, and of wliom as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen, llom. ix. 5. Wlio being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to-' be equal with God. Phil. ii. 6. " And we know, that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his S9 Son Jesus Glirist : this is the true God, and eternai Life. 1 John v. 20. " Q. What are the glorious names the Scripture gives Unto Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God? ^ " A. And his name shall he called Wonderful, Coun- sellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Isa. ix. 5. " Who is the Image of the invisible God, the First- born of every creature. Col. i. 15. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person (or more properly, according to th« Greek, of his substance). Heb. i. 3. " And he was cloathed with a vesture dipt in blood, and his name is called the Word of God. Rev. xix-. 13, Q. After what manner was the birth of Christ? A. Now the birth of Jesus Ciu'ist was on this wise : Whenas his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph (before tliev came together) she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Matt i. 18. " And the angel said unto her, Fear not, ]\fary, for thou hast found favour with God : and behold thou shait conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus : he shall be great, and shall ba called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. Then said Mary unto the angel,. How shall this be, seeing I know not a man ? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and th^ Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee : therefore * On what ground Barclay chose to deviate from the simplicity of Scripture language in putting a question concerning the eternal Son of God," I cannot say. But in so doing, it is obvious no strictly •criptural ansvrer can he given. Stating such a question, however, seems to have led very naturally to a text erroneously rendered for a reply ; viz. Isaiali ix. 5. The text which follows, is, liowever, «o far from calling the name of Jesus Christ " the mighty Grod,*^ tliat it says, he *'is the image of the invisible . God," as was Adam also, but not the first-born from the dead," as wap the maja Christ Je^us. 40 also that Holy Thing that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. Luke i. 30, 31, 32, 34, 35.* Q. Was Jesus Christ, who was born of the Virgin Mary, and supposed to be the son of Joseph, a true and real man? A. Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the Devil. Heb. ii. 14. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham ; wherefore in all tilings it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High- Priest, &c. Heb. ii. iG, 17. " For we have not an High-Priest, w hich cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities ; but was in all points tempted, as we are, yet without sin. Heb. iv. 15. And the gift of grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. Rom. v. 15. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept : for since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 1 Cor. xv. 20, 21. f ^' Q. After wiiat manner doth the Scripture assert the conjunction and unity of the eternal Son of God in and with the man Christ Jesus ? " A. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among * There is no doubt but Barclay held the doctrine of Mary's miraculous conception of her son Jesus, as Servetus, Socinus, Lard- ner, Cardale, and many other Unitarians did also. t That Jesus Christ was " a true and real man," is so unquestion- ably the doctrine of the New Testament, that with the exception of the Gnostics, a very early sect, who considered him as a man in appearance only, very few professors of Christianity have doubted his being strictly and properly one of the human race, a prophet like unto Moses, but the most distinguished Son and Servant of the Most High. And all the texts quoted under this head, are so many proofs that these opinions qoncerning Christ arc scriptural and well-founded. 41 us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only be? gotten of the Father) full of grace and truth. Joh.n i. 14. " For he, whom God hatli sent, speaketh the words of God ; for God giveth not the spirit by measure unto hiin. John iii. 34. " Now God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and witii Power ; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the Devii ; for God was with him. Acts x. 38. " For it pleased the Father, that in him should all fulness dwell. Col. i. 19. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Col. ii. 9. In him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and know- ledge. Col. ii. 3."* It is not necessary, perhaps, to quote more of this Catechism ; but the Appellant having laid much stress on some passages in Barclay's Apology, as tavourable to the sendments imputjsd to him as erroneous and unsound, we would also appeal to that work. In the 5th sect, of the 2d Prop, tlie Author expresses himself thus : For the infinite and most wise God, who is the foim- dation, root and spring of all operation, hath wrought all things by his eternal Word and Son. This is that Word that was in the beginning with God, and was God, by whom all things were made. This is that Jesus Christ, by whom God created all th ings, by whom and for whom all things were created that are in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or * On •Barclay's departure from Scripture language in this " Scrip- tural Catechism" I have spoken above. In this question he goes further from it than he did on that occasion. And he thereby in- sinuates that the Scripture asserts " the conjunction and unity of the eternal Son of God in and nith the man Christ Jesus." The texts Barclay has referred to and quoted as answers to this question, say nothing approaching this language. The first text, John i. 14». as quoted by Barclay, Wm. Penn has shown, vol. ii. p. 157, to be erroneously rendered ; the others assert or imply that all the powers and fulness of Christ were derived jVcw God the Father. a 4f principalities, ar powers. Cpl. i. 16. Who therefore is called the First-born of every creature. Col. i. 15. As then that infinite and incomprehensible fountain of life and motion operateth in the creatures, by his own eternal word and power; so no creature has access again unto him but in and by the Son, according to hi* own express words, No man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. Matt, xi. 27. Luke x. 2:2. And again he himself saith, I am the way, the truth, and the life ; no man cometh unto the Father but by me. John xiv. 6. Hence he is fitly called, the Mediator betwixt God and man : for having been with God from all eternity, being himself God, ?.nd also in time partaking of the nature of man, through him is the goodness and love of God conveyed to man- kind, and by him again man receive th and partaketh of these mercies." Such are the terms in which Barclay has professed his belief in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Are we then waiTanted in believing that Barclay denied his divinity.'^ The Appellant dwells upon one side of the question only, and on those texts which speak only of the human nature of Christ, as is the usual custom with Unitarians*. * The above passage shows that Barclay considered Jesus Christ as the agent *< by whom God created all things," according to the Allan doctrine ; but it also shows that he looked up to " the infinite and most wise God" as " the foundation, root, and spring of all operation" — as *' th© infinite and incomprehensible fountain of life and motion." After quoting the above passage, the Respond- ents asked, Are we then warranted in believing that Barclay denied his [Christ's] divinity ?" Perhaps not absolutely. But it is plain from this passage and various others in his works, that he did not hold the doctrine of his deity or equality with God the Father in any strict or usual sense. They next allege that the Appellant dwells upon one side of the question only, and on those texts which speak only of the human nature of Christ, as is,'* say they most unfoundedly, the usual custom with Unitarians." Am I then to understand from the Respondents, that all the texts I have cited in this controversy relating to Christ, as well as those usually alleged by Unitarians, speak only of his human nature ?" T)ie 45 Th€ belief of Barclay in the divinity of Christ is strongly expressed in thq 13th sect, of the ^h and 6th Prop, on tlie latter part of which the Appellant insisted so largely, both in Latin and English, before the Quar- terly Meeting*. The entire paragraph is as follows : " But by this [the doctrine of the new man, Christ within, the hope qf.glori/] as we do not at all intend to equal ourselves to that holy man, the Lord Jesus Christ, who was born of the Vii^gin Mary, in whom all the ful- ness of the Godhead dwells bodily ; so neither do we destroy the reality of his present e.vistence, as some have falsely calumniated us. For, though we affirm that Christ dwells in us, yet not immediately, but mediately, as he is in that seed which is in us ; whereas he, to wit, the eternal JVord, which was with God, and was God, dwelt immediately in that holy man. He then is as the head, and we as the members ; he the vine, and we the branches. Now as the soul of man dwells otherwise, texts I have quoted relate to him as the son of man, his most usual appellation in the four evangelists, also as a teacher sent from God — as our Lord and Master — the Messiah and Son of God during his ministry or divine mission upon earth — of his resurrection and ex- altation at <'the right hand of the power of God," and of his being the one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus—hy whom God shall judge the world in righteousness. These and other scriptural characters of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, under God, are asserted by me and in the texts I have quoted, which, say the Respondents, speak only of his human nature." At the same time, if the apostle Peter did not hesitate to describe his brethren as " partakers of the divine nature," in a much higher degree muat this appertain to him to whom " God giveth not the spirit by measure." * The Respondents say the belief of Barclay in the divinity of Christ is strongly marked in the 13th sect, of the 5th and 6th Pro- positions. In the first part of which Barclay says, " By this seed, Grace and Word of God and light, wherewith we say every one is enlightened — we understand not, the proper essence and nature of God precisely taken ; which is not divisible into parts or measures, as being a most pure simple Being void of all composition or division." This explanatory part of the section the Respondents chose to pass over. It is I think perfectly clear from this passage, that Barclay did not consider " the word of God," as precisely taken, Cod himself G 2 44 aiid m a far more immediate mamier in the head and in the heart, than in the hands or legs; and as the sap, virtue and life of the vine lod^eth far otherwise in the stock and root, than in the hranches ; so God dwelleth otherwise in the man Jesus, than in us. " We also freely reject the heresy of Appollinarius, who denied him to have any soul, but said the body was only acted by the Godhead : as also the error of Eutyckes, who made the manhood to be wholly swallowed up of the Godhead. Wherefore, as we believe he was a true and real man ; so we also believe, that he continues so to be glorified in tlie heavens, in soul and body, by whom God shall judge the world, in the great and gene- ral day of judgment*." As Barclay has shown what his meaning in this passage really was, in his Reply to John Brown s Exa- mination of his Apology, I will give his explanation of it. In the third volume of his Works, page 387, he says, His (John Brown's) next perversion is yet more gross and abusive, p. 238, where from my denying * That we equal ourselves to that holy man the Lord Jesus Christ, &c. in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily he concludes I affirm him to be no more but a holy man; and because I use the words pknif ado DkHnitat'is that I deny his Deity ; which is an abomi- nable falsehood. I detest that doctrine of the Socinians, and deny there is any ground for their distinction ; and when I confess him to be a holy man, I deny him not to be God, as this man most injuriously would insi- nuate; for I confess him to be really both true God, * After reading the latter part of the section because I had in- sisted upon it 60 largely before the Quarterly Meeting, the Re- spondents did not attempt to examine my reasoning upon it, as stated pp. 274 — 277 of my Narrative, or to explain how Barclay s belief in the reality of the present personal existence of Jesus Christ as " a true and .real man — glorified in the heavens in soul and body," can be reconciled with a belief in the divinity of Christ in any reputedly orthodox sense of that doctrine. 45 t'.nd true man. And whereas he rails and exclaims here and in the following page at a monstrous rate, as if the comparison I bring of the difference betwixt every Saint and the man Jesus, from tlie sap its being other- wise in the root and stock of the tree than in the branches, did further confirm our equalling ourselves to iiim, he doth but show his folly; since Christ himself useth the same comparison, John xv. 5. I a?ntkevi?ie, ye are the branches, to which I alluded. And upon this he runneth out in a veliement strain of railing, p. 239, exclaiming against us, as if we denied the Deity of Christ, and his incarnation; which is utterly false*." * By this extract the Respondents proposed to give Barclay's construction of the foregoing passage. But this " explanation" is little or nothing to the purpose, because it is entirely silent respecting the principal subjects treated of in that passage. It fcays not a word respecting Barclay's belief, which is there so strong- ly stated, " in the reality of Christ's present existence as a true and real man, gLorifierl in the htavcns, by v.hom God shaU judge the world." These were the points on which I so largely insisted before the Quarterly iNIeeting, as the Respondents well knew. I invited them to continue this irrelevant passage a little further, that they might come to a part of Barclay's reply to Brown more to the pur- pose. But this they declined. Just below in the same page Bar- clay says, his opponent " repeateth tliis calumny, p. 242, adding that ray saying ' That we believe what is written of the conception, birth, life and death of Christ, &c. to be true ; doth not vindicate us from it :' and then he subjoins, ' Do you believe that that body which was crucified at Jerusalem, rose again and is now in glory r* Speak your mind here if you dare." Barclay replies, " For answer then I say ; I do believe, that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was crucified at Jerusalem, nas again raised hy the power of God ; in which glorified body the Lord Jesus Christ dwelletL And I dare him to shew where in my Apology, or elsewhere, I ever said or wrote any thing to the con- trary." The Respondents alike avoided this passage, and another near it which shows that Barclay sometimes applied the term God not in the highest and mo^t strict sense, as he there tells us those do, who say the man Christ is God, and by reason of the personal union sometimes ascribe the actions of the oiie nature to the person denominated by the other j as the Westminster Confes sion itself gcknowledges." ch. 8. As 46 These extracts from the writings of our early Friends V ill, we are persuaded, appear to the Yearly Meeting incompatible with the principles of that association tlie London Unitarian Book Society of which the Appel- lant is a member. Its general principles strike at the fundamental tenet of the Society of Friends, the doctrine of divine grace in the heart inwardly revealed*. As for the opinion of those who affirm Christ to he no more but a holy man," which Barclay mentions in the passage the lle- spoMdents quoted as a doctrine which he detested, I shall only say I am far from approving it, as I imagine every Unitarian Christian would also. Barclay was I conceive a Sabellian rather than an Arian, perhaps more strictly, something between both ; for some of his opinions seem to incline to the one hypothesis, and some to the other ; but none of tliem that I know ofj have tlie same leaning towards the doctripe of the Trinity, on which, as Thomas Clarkson has observed Portraiture of Quakerism, vol.ii. p. 315. he is entirely silent in his Apology for the true Christian Divinity." * That various parts of the foregoing extracts produced by the Respondents to show what the principles of Friends are, cannot be reconciled with those of the London Unitarian Book Society, I grant; because they assert or imply some other authority for Christian doctrine than the Scriptures contain, which are the only authentic written record of the Christian revelation. Whereas the members of that Book Society, so far as I know, acknowledge no other authority in matters of Christian faith. Yet say the Respon- dents, Its general principles strike at the fundamental tenet of the Society of Friends, the doctrine of divine grace in the heart niwardly revealed." They, however, adduced no proof of this. Assertion without it answered their purpose equally well. Let us now calmly inquire whether this jissertion be well founded, and if it be, what is the just inference to which it leads. The general, the only principles upon which this Book Society are founded, are those of the Scriptures, " the genuine doctrines of revelation" as there laid down. If the fundamental tenet of the Society of Friends and that of the Christian revelation be the same, the general principles of this association are in no degree opposed to that tenet. If they are not the same, there may be same contrariety between the said fundamental tenet and those general principles," as the Respondents allege. The proper ques- tion then is, which of these Societies adhere most truly and strict- ly to the testimony of Scripture ? that which acknowledges its authority to be paramount to all other ; or that which, According to the Respondents, estimates its evidence on matters of doctrine a% 47 The Appellant has said much respecting Penn's Sandy foundation Shaken, as being decisively in favour of tiie doctrines he so strenuously and publicly advocates. Tiie Author, though a man of undoubted sincerity and a distinguished ni iiber and minister of our Society, has expi'essed his sentiments in that work in ambiguous lan- guage ; and having written an Apology for the same, it is reasonable to receive it as an explanation of tire former publication. This work is entitled " Innocency with her open Face," and was written in the same year as the tract before noticed ^\ About five years after ha a mere shadow, when compared to the internal evidence by ■w^ich its members persuade themselves the ri:,'ht apprehension of doctrines is assured to tlie humble and attentive mind? As if it was^a greater mark of humility and attention to expect doctrines to be " inward- ly revealed" to eacli individual, instead of being so plainly recorded in the Scriptures that he that reads with a sincere desire to know and to do the will of God, may understand. The apostle Paul seems to have jud^red far otherwise. He de- clared that the advantages of his countrymen over the Gentiles, though *''much every way," consisted ^'chiejly,'" not "in the law- written in their hearts ;" that moral sense of right and wrong, of virtue and vice, of justice and injustice, which the equal and bene- volent Parent of mankind hath in the riches of his mercy and good- ness universally impressed upon the human mind ; but " because that unto them [the Jews] were committed the [written] Oracles of God" And in tliese advantages of " being instructed out of the iaw" of a better covenant ^ Christians possessing the New Testament may still more richly participate. But I fear those are in great ' danger of not reapmg much of these benefits, who esteem histo- rical evidences of the revealed mind and will of God as a mere shadow.'' compared with their own persuasions, however strong, that they are favoured with superior internal illumination, by which they fancy they are assured of the truth of doctrines, and claim the right of censuring their brethren as in error "/or leing mere Scrip- turians.'' * It is rather the Apology for the Sandy Foundation Shaken, that is written in " ambiguous language," than that work, as the Respondents erroneously represent. Nor was it written as an ex- planation of that publication. But they attenipted to prove neither of these assertions. Of all the author's doctrinal Tracts it is the least "ambiguous," and the most argumentative. The one called an Apology- for it was intended as a defence of that work, as the Apology of Barclay was of the true Christian divinity. It con- 48 published a reply to John Faldo's vindication of his book called " Quakerism no Clnistianity," in which he notices the Sandy Foundation Shaken in such terms as may be proper to mention on tliis occasion. Penn says, vol. ii. p. 453, ^' At the time of our disputation with T. D. T. V. T. D. and W. M. at the Spittle, being engaged in the negative concerning the common do<:- trine of distinct and separate personality [in the Deity], he T. F. (that is, as the Appellant admits, Thomas Fir- min*) and some others fell into great intimacy with us. Who but wef, in his and their thoughts? at what time they were not quite discovered by us. But pulling off their masks, at last w^e found them to have been the followers of J. Biddle, in that which is commonly called the Socinian way ; and that their peculiar regard to us came from an implicit vindication of one of their princl- ples^ for which we came under the scandal and odium of Socinians. Pulpits rang how the Quakers had un- masked themselves on that occasion ; and their warm disputes in our defence did not a little strengthen the common reports of us, and me in particular. When my book entitled The Sandy Foundation Shaken came out, it being a further detection of what we call errors, and it happening that Socinians did the same, as if I was a rank Socinian (who never read any one Socinian book in all my life, if looked into one at that time,) so these men, at least T. F. [Thomas Firinin] was ready to be- lieve me nearer akin to them, than, God knows, I was ; tains no intimation whatever that the Sandy Foundation Shaken is expressed in ambiguous language, nor that it inculcates any erro- neous doctrine. * The Respondent not appearing to know who was meant by T. F. before mentioned in Penn's works, and here alluded to, I in- formed him, it was no doubt Thomas Firmin, a friend of Archbishop Tillotson's, and a Citizen of London highly respected for his bene- volence by persons of all persuasions. f That is, William Penn, George Whitehead, and others who at the aforesaid disputation opposed the doctrine of distinct and sepa- rate personality ; that is, the doctrine of the Trinity. 49 that is to say, in denying the divinitij of Christ"^. At this time what would he not have done for nie, if I might have believed him ! and in reality the man was wonderfully taken ; but which was grievous, lie was shamefully mistaken ; and when he came to read my confession to Christ's eternal Godhead, in my little book intituled " Innocency with her Open Face," (though he had another, called ''The Guide Mistaken," that, p. 28, * By this passage it appears that William Penn, George White- head and some other Friends were engaged in the negative in a dis- putation concerning the common doctrine of the Trinity, or of " distinct and separate personality." And so well did they manage the argument against that doctrine, that it brought about, as the Kespondents showed, a " great intimacy" between them and some reputed Socinians, one of whose principles they implicitly, that is decidedly, vindicated. What was this? It could be no other than the strict Unity of God, the only, at least the principal subject under discussion. For which commendable conduct they incurred " the scandal and odium of Socinians, and William Penn in parti- cular." Bui 7iot from the Quakers. They held him to be sound, Orthodox, and a true Gospel Minister at the time it v/as published. Some time after this The Sandy Foundation Shaken cauic out, and therefore not " in the heat of debate" as .T.G. Bevan once represented under the signature of \'index ; but very deliberately in the face of nmch obloquy and abuse. But what was the real character of the work on the Author's own statement five years after it was pub- lished, as shown by the Respondents That it contained " a farther detection" of what the Quakers of that time called "errors," and it happened that Socinians did the same." This decisive vindica- tion of " one of their principles" produced a suspicion that Penn v.^as a rank Socinian." In reply to this what does Penn say? that he renounced this principle because they held it? No. But that he had " never read any one Socinian book, if looked into one, at that time." It was from the Scriptures that William Penn derived the doc- trines he has laid down so clearly and unambiguously in The Sandy Foundation Shaken. And yet having been educated in a Trinita- rian Church, and having no doubt, as a student at Oxford, sub- scribed the ?)9 Articles, it is no wonder lie was not so near of kin to these Socinians as to deny " the divinity of Christ." The plain fact appears to be this, that William Penn considered tliat doctrine in the sense in which he held it, to be sound and scriptural, and at the same time perfectly consistent with his ad- mirable defence of the unity, mercy, and purity of God in his Sandy FoundcUion Shaken. II 50 abundantly doth the same, which was writ, and read hy him before the Sandy Foundation" was thought of,) he deserted me, broke all bonds of friendship, and rules of civility, and his extreme shows of kindness turned to continual excessive reflections. He would have it a Retraction^ rather than be thought to be mistaken. lie had built his hopes too high for the foundation, and then became wrathful that they fell. And though I sought his friendly behaviour, having no thought in my heart but love and friendship to him, yet so invincible was his displeasure, that there was no holding for me of his good will, and believing Christ to be God"*.'' From this passage it may be safely inferred that William Penn in writing the Sandy Foundation Shaken never intended to deny the divinity of Christ. In proof of his continued assertion of that doctrine he here ap- peals to awofk of his published before that was thougiit of, although in the same year, in which he asserts his belief in the eternal Godhead of Christ. That the Sandy Foundation Shaken was written to refute the notion of three distinct and separate persons in the Godhead, the vulgar doctrine of Satisfaction, and the justification of impure persons by an imputative righteousness, cannot be denied. The Appellant seems, however, to have much mistaken the general design of the Author in writing it, and to have misrepresented the import of one passage in particular, which it seems proper to no- tice lest it should mislead others. In page 69 of his Narrative, he says Penn describes Jesus Christ as a finite and impotent creature." Now it appears to us that Penn is not speaking of Christ in that passage, but of mankind, or of human nature in its fallen de- * By this passage the Respondents have shown that five years after the Apology for The Sandy Foundation Shaken was written and published, its Author denied it to be a Retraction' of that v-^ork, and charged Thomas Firmin with being ** shamefully mis- taken," for 30 representing it. See Verax's Christian Unitariauwin Viiidicatt'd, pp. (io — 63. 51 generate state. Surely Penn could not mean to describe Christ in such terms, as he professes to have always believed in his eternal Godhead, and even " that he is the mighty God'^ ." In common with our early Friends * That William Penn held, in some sense or other, " Christ to be God," — the divinity of Christ, or what is sometimes called the Godhead of Clirist, I have never questioned. But what any of these doctrines amount to, more than the divinity of that power which dwelt in Clirist Jesus, namely, that of the Father, in the mouths of those who reject the notion of any distinct and separate Persons ni the (Jodhead, I caimot make out. The Respondents admit the Sandy Foundation Shaken was written to relute this notion or doc- tJ-ine, and its kindred tenets " the vulgar doctrine of Satisfaction," &c. How then have I at all mistahen *' the general design of the Au- thor in writing it?" Is it by giving credit to his solenm assevera- tion near the conclusion of that work, where he calls the righteous God of Heaven to bear him record that he has therein sought no- thing below the delence of his unity, mercy, and purity, against the rude and impetuous assaults of tradition, press, and pulpit."? The Respondents well knew 1 professed to have read this M-ork in early life with much attention, and that the strong impression it then made had never been effaced, but contirmed. Yet am I now- told by those who flinch from the task of examining its arguments, that I seem to have much niistaken the general design of the Au- thor in writing it. This is passing strange. I verily believe it is impossible for any person of common understanding to give this work a cursor}'', much less an attentive perusal, without seeing plainly the general character and design of the work. Its perusal may, I admit, shock the pov/erful prejudices of some readers, with- out surmounting them. On others it may produce a clear convic- tion that its general argument is supported by right reason and tlie testimony of Scripture. And on all that read it with any attention its impression, I am persuaded, must be distinct and definite, not indistinct and ambiguous. Tlie Respondents say, however, that I " have misrepresented the import of one passage in particular." which they notice " lest it should mislead others." The reader of these pages shall be enabled to judge of this. Under a head entitled by Penn " The Vulgar Doctrine of Satisfaction being dependent on the Second Person of the Trinity, rtjuted Jrorn Scripture, ' after much sound argument, the Author proposes to point out the absurdities, ihat unavoidably follo\¥' the comparison of this doctrine with the sense of Scripture," which he does thus ; viz. 1. " That God is gracious to forgive, and yet it is impossible for him unless the debt be fully satisfied. 2. That the finite and impotent Creature is more capable of IT <> i J. ^ 52 generally he received the testimony of that te^t in the Philippians ii. 6, which declares that Christ Jesus being in the form of God, tliought it not robbery to be equal with God." I am aware that the received version of this text has been objected to ; but whether it be righdy rendered or not, docs not affect the question of his pre-existence before he was born of the ^^irgin Mary, for which we are contending^*. extending mercy and forgiveness, than the infinite and omnipotent Creator. 3. " That God so loved the world he gave his only Son to save it, and yet that God stood oft" in high displeasure, and Christ gave himself to God as a complete Satisfaction to his oifended justice : with many more such-like gross consequences that might be drawn." Such IS Penn's statement verbatim. And the Respondents charge me with misrepresenting it, for saying it describes Jesus Christ as a finite and impotent Creature ;" and his God and Father, as the infinite and omnipotent Creator," who is essentially "merciful in him- self, and gracious to forgive, without being rendered placable by another." In order to show that this is a misrepresentation, the Respondents pay : — Now it appears to us that Penn is not speaking of Christ in that passage, but of mankind, or of huvian nature in its fallen dege- nerate state." The Respondents must surely have overlooked the subject on which Penn was treating, for with such a character an- nexed to it, I cannot suppose they meant to speak of Christ's human nature ; and yet surety no other person than Jesus Christ was ever represented by the advocates for the vulgar doctrine of Satisfaction, as the second Person in theTrinity, " or as having fully satisfied the offended justice of his Father." The Respondents will not say that fallen degenerate human nature was ever supposed capable of doing either. Granting this, it is incontrovertibly clear that Penn applied the terms " finite and impotent Creature" to Jesus Christ, because he alone was represented by the doctrine Penn was opposing, as more capable of extending mercy and for- giveness than the infinite and omnipotent Creator, whom the same doctrine describes as standing off in high displeasure till Christ gave himself to God as a complete satisfaction to his offended justice. Nay, Penn a little lower down argues the matter thus — " The justice offended being infinite, his [God's] satisfaction ought to bear a proportion therewith, which Jesus Christ, as man, could never pay, he being Jinite, and from a finite cause could not proceed an infinite effect ; for so man may be said to bring forth (rod, since nothing below the Divinity itself can rightly be called infinite.** * Is it then only the Arian notion of the pre-existence of Christ, 53 III a work of William Penns published in 1698, about thirty yeai^s after the Sandy Foundation Shaken,'* entided " A Testimony to the Truth of God, as held by the People called Quakers," he expresses their faith in Christ in the following terms; vol. ii. p. a77. " We believe him according to Scripture to be the son of Abraham, David, and Alary, after the tiesh, and also God over all, blessed for ever. So that he that is within us, is also without us, even the same that laid down his precious life for us, rose again from the dead, and ever liveth to make intercession for us, being the blessed and only Mediator betwixt God and man, and him by whom God will hnally judge the world, both quick and dead. All which we as sincerely and steadfastly believe as any other Society of people, whatever may be ignorantly or maliciously insinuated to the contrary, either by our de- clared enemies, or mistaken neighbours*." It may now be proper to notice the doctrines of the Society as given forth in 1693, and inserted in SeweFs Histoiy, p. 642, as four or five of the persons whose and not his co-equality with God the Father, which the Respondents contend for, by appealing to this text ? That Christ was, in a cer- tain sense, in the form of God, is not disputed ; but how this im- ports the personal pre-existence of " the one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" I do not understand. The objec- tionable part of the received rendering of tin's text is, that it erro- neously asserts the Apostle to have known that Christ " thought" wiiat he is no where in the Scriptures recorded to have uUered, but often to have asserted the contrary. He could do nothing of him- self, but was exalted, for his obedience, to the glory of God the Father — ver. 6 — 11. * From the manner in which the Respondents managed this quotation, I think they did not do William Penn justice. He says just before " 1st. We believe him [the Holy One of Israel] to be the Eternal, Incomprehensible, Almighty, Allwise, and Omnipresent God, Creator and Upholder of all things, and that he fills heaven and earth, and that the heaven of heavens cannot contain him." Yet he saith by the Prophet Isaiah, *' To that man will I have re- gard that is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and which trembles at my word." It was, therefore, I conceive, this divine Word which he considered as dwelling in Christ Jesus, and as God over all. 54 names are signed tb this paper have been lately brought forward in a periodical publication called Tiie Monthly Repository," [vol. ix. p. lOJ,] in order to show that it was not the practice of our early Friends to address their supplications to Christ, but to the Father only. For this purpose the concluding sentences of a collection of their prayers are quoted*. Those who have seen this statement, and are now present, should be informed that these inferences cannot be considered as well founded, because several of the same persons declared their appro- bation of the paper from which I shall now read one or two passages declarative of the faith of the Society, viz. We sincerely profess faith in God, by his only-be- gotten Son Jesus Christ, as being our light and life, our only w^ay to the Father, and also our only Mediator and Advocate with the Father. " That God created all things, he made the vrorlds, by his Son Jesus Christ, he being that powerful Word of God by whom all things were made. And that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are one, in Di- vine Being inseparable ; one true, living and eternal God, blessed for ever. Yet that this Word, or Son of God, in the fulness of time took Hesh, became perfect man, according to the iiesh descended and came of the seed of Abraham and David, but was miraculously conceived by the Holy Crhost, and born of th.e Virgin Mary. And also further, declared powerfully to be the Son of God, according to the spirit of sanctification, by the resurrection from the dead." * The concluding sentences of such a collection of prayers as these, afford surely better evidence to whom they were addressed than a paper written to vindicate the Society against charges of heterodoxy by George Keith, who had become, from a zealous Quaker, a pro- fessed Trinitarian. The object of this paper Avas of course to re- present the Society as Orthodox as its authors could manage con- sistent with truth. Yet it approaches no nearer than to exhibit some features of the Sabellian hypothesis. " That the Gospel of the grace of God should be preached in the name of the Fatlier, Son, and Holy Ghost, heing one in power, wisdom, and goodness, and indivisihle (or not to be divided) in the great work of man's salvation." We sincerely confess (and believe in) Jesus Christ, both as he is true God and perfect man, and that he is the Author of our living faith in the power and goodness of God, as manifest in his Son Jesus Christ, and by his own blessed Spirit (or divine unction) revealed in us, whereby we inwardly feel and taste of his goodness, life, and virtue ; so as our souls live and prosper by and in him. And tlie inward sense of this divine power of Christ, and faith in the same, and this inward experience, is absolutely necessary to make a true and perfect Christian in spirit and life. " That divine honour and worship is due to the Son of God, and that he is, in true faith, to be prayed unto, and the name of the Lord Jesus Ciirist called upon (as the primitive Christians did) because of the glorious union or oneness of the Son ; and that we cannot ac- ceptably olier up prayers and praises to God, nor re- ceive a gracious answer or blessing from God, but in and through his dear Son Christ.'' — p. ()44.'* The Compilers of this confession of the Society's faith refer to texts of Scripture in support of almost every doctrine it contains. We have thought it sufficient to show what its principles are, without going into auy formal proof that they are Scriptural. Not that we are indisposed on every proper occasion to bring all the tenets we hold to this test, but because in the discussion of this case it does not appear to be necessary. But as the Appellant has largely quoted the Scriptures in favour ♦ The extracts from the paper mentioned in the foregoing note were sent, but by whom I know not, to the Monthly Kepository, They are inserted, vol. viii. p. 307, in the number for May 1813 ; and replies to them in pp. 373 and 64"4' of the same volume. No an- swer has appeared to either. 66 of those sentiments, which we object to as unsound, we would show, by adducing a few decisive texts, that we are at least equally disposed to appeal to its authority. Of these, the first we shall refer to is John v. 22, 23, where it is said by Christ himself: For the Father judgeth no man : but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth hot the Son, honoureth not the F'ather which hath sent him*.'* The Epistle to the Hebrews begins thus : "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom he also made the worlds, who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat * The Respondents, after professing their dis])osition on every proper occasion to bring all the tenets they hold to the test of Scripture, say : " As the Appellant has so largely quoted the Scriptures in favour of his sentiments, we would show, by adducing a few decisive texts, that we are at least equally disposed to appeal to its authority." How did they commence this appeal? By quoting two verses, the 22d and 23d of the fifth chapter of John, without saying one .syllable about their import, or the context. Now these verses with their context are, in my apprehension, decisively in favour of the proper Unitarian doctrine, and entirely inconsistent with any other. For what do they assert ? That the Father — " hath committed all judgment to the Son,*' that is to that man by whom he will judge the world. The Son of man having received this power, those who honour him not, as having this high office committed to him by the Father, honour not the Father who sent him. That Christ did not mean to assert that equal honour was due to the Son as to the Father, is evident by his deckjring in the 19th verse, in reply to the false charge of " making himself equal with God," or rather " like God;" — Verily, verily I say unto you. The Son can do nothing of himself." And in the 30th verse he ssljs, " I can of mine own fcelf do nothing: as I hear I judge: and my judgment is just, be- cause I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father who hath «ent me." Can any language more strongly disclaim all underived power than this ? 57 'down on the light hand of the IMajesty on high ; being made so much better than the angels as he hath by in- heritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto v/liich ot the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And a,oain, I will be to him a Father; and he shall be to me a Son. And a^ain, when he bring-eth in the first-bewtten into the world he sailh, And let all the angels of God wor- ship him. And of the angels he saith, Who niaketh his e texts not Jesus Christ, but another' Being who brought him back from the dead, is declared to be the God of Peace, that is, doubtless, the supreme Governor of the Universe. In tlie verse which follows the next text selected by the Re- spondents, Paul says : " My love be with you all in Christ Jesus." But I suppose we are not to infer from this the divinity of the Apostle. I do not say, or think, that the two cases are perfectly >imilar. In the one the Apostle wk-hes or prays that the grace or favour of Christ may be with those he addresses, or that they may enjoy all the benefits which the Gospel of Christ is calculated to confer on those who receive his doctrines, and obey his preceptr. In the other, the Apostle annexes to his more general benediction a very grateful expression of his personal regard for the Corinthians, And when I reflect that in the 2-ith verse of the preceding chapter he tells them, that when the end cometh he [Christ] shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Father ; when he shall I 2 60 as these. " The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with- you," Rom. xvi. 20. 24. 1 Cor. xvi. 23. Phil. iv. 23. have put down all rule, and all authority and power," I cannot sup- pose that the Apostle any more meant to imply the divinity of Christ, by those benedictions from which the Respondents infer timt doctrine, than he meant to claim such homage as due to him- self, or to those for whom he prayed that they " may be filled with all the fulness of God." The context of Phil. iv. 23 is alike adverse to the inference the Respondents contend for. The Apostle says, a few verses before, *' My God will supply all your wants — through Christ Jesus. Now unto our God and Father Is glory for ever and ever. Amen."^ Nor are the tv/o other texts referred to by the Kespondents more in their favour. As to the " Apostolic addresses," the Respondents did not, I think, even cite one as an example. I was not much surprised at this, for no part of the Scriptures exhibit clearer evidence that it was the constant practice of the Apostles themselves, and of the primitive Christian Church, to nddress their prayers to the God and Father of Jesus Christ, and to ofier religious adoration to him only. In the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, and to Philemon, the ad- dresses are almost verbatim the same : viz. " Grace [or favour] be to you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesu& Christ." Those in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus are very similar. Such is the constant recognition of the Father as God in these Apostolic addresses to the Churches, or to individuals; for the Apostles had no secrets in religion, and shunned not openi}^ to declare the whole counsel of God. Let us now examine the passages immediately connected with these Apostolic addresses, that we may see v»hat these teach us concerning the practice and precepts of the Apostles, as to the proper object of all true worship and supplication. The Apostle savs^ Rom. i. 8 : "I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all." And again, 1 Cor. i. 4: "I thank my God always on your account for his favour which is given you through Jesus Christ." It was then the Apostle's constant practice, to thank God as the pro- per Author and Giver of all Gospel blessings. And very consist- ently with tliis he says, 2 Cor. i. 3 : " BIessed. be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort." Hence it appears that in the judgement of the Apostle the Father of mercies stood in the relation of the' one supreme God, to Jesus Christ, as well as to all the families of the earth, his rational crea- tures and ofFspruig. The next Epistle to which the Respondents refei', as containingr 1 Thoss. V. 28 : 52 Thess. iii. 18, 8cc. To which mav be added the Apostle's prayer or ejaculation to Christ, Apostolic benedictions, begins thus : " Paul an Apostle, not from men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead, and all the brethren that are with rae, to the Churches of Galatia." Having thus instructed the Galatians by whose power Christ vras raised from the dead, the usual bene- diction follows. The Apostle then proceeds to inform them that Christ gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil Avorld [or age], according to the v.ill of our Gcd and Father, to wliom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." After the benediction in the following Epistles, the Apostle adds Eph. i. 3 : Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessing in heavenly things through Christ." Phil. i. 3, 6 : "I thank my God upon every re- membrance of you — being confident — that he who hath begun a good work in you vriil finish it until the day of Jesus Christ." Col. i. 3: " We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus." rXhess. i.*^2, 4-: -'We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers, remembering with- out ceasing your w-ork of faith and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ before our God and Father.'' And. 2 Thess. i. 3 : " We ought to thank God always for you as it is fit, that your faith increaseth exceedingly, and that the love of every one of you all towards each other aboundeth." How constantly and emphatically does the Apostle in these Epistles mark the source from whence every spiritual benefit con- ferred upon mankind by or through Christ Jesus was originally de- rived. If he had distinct!}- foreseen the great corruption of tlie primitive Christian Church which afteruards gradually took place as to the object of worship, he could not have borne his testimony to the Apostolic practice more pointedly and clearly than he has done. N In the first Epistle to Timothy, Paul is said to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Saviour and in tlie 1st verse of the second Epistle, to be an Apostle, by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus."' In this Epistle also he says that he served or worshipped the sair.e God as his forefathers did, that is Jehovah, ver. 3. In the Epistle to Titus, he styles himself " a servant of God, and an Apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect." These testi- monies of the great Apostle of the Gentiles furnish impregnable Scriptural evidence that in the primitive Christian Church the uni- form practice was to ofier supreme worship to God the Father only. But I cannot omit,^longas this note is, — .the concurring evidence of 62 recorded 1 Thess. iii. 11. in these terms: " Now God ]:)imself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you*." We may add to these, the testimony of John the Divine, given in the 5th chapter of the Revelations, ^as to the homage given to " the Lamb — the Lion of the tribe of Jadah, by the redeenjed of the Lord, — out of every kindred, and tongue, and- people, arid nation.'' He says, I beheld and I heard tiie voice of many angels round about the throne, and the beasts and the eiders, and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb diat was slain to re- ceive power and riches and wisdom and strength, and honour and glory and blessing. And ever^^ creature >vinch is in heaven, and on the earlii, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and ail that are in tiiem, heard I saying, J31essing, honour, glory, and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever." Rev. v. 1], 12, 13.t the AposLle Peter in his first Epistle* After declaring h-mself tc^ be ''an Apostle of Jesus Christj according to the f'oreknovviedge of God ihc Fither,'* he adds, ver. 3 : " Blei^seti hd ihe God und Father ofo'Ji* Lord Jesus Chtitit, who according to his abundant mercy Iiath begotten uti again unto a lively hope, by tlie resarrection of Jesurii Christ from the dead." * Passing over the foregoing testimonies of the Apostles to their (Hvn practice, the ]les})ondent3 next selected 1 Thess. iii. 11, vvliich tiiey call " the Apostle's prayer or cjacuLation to Chrit,t» ' It has rather more the appearance of a prayer as rendered in the Improved ^'crtion thus— "Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way to you" — than as cjuoted by the liC.-pondents from the received text. But on what ground they iaiagine, admitting it to be a prayer, that it was addressed to Christ iiKVtead of to God tlie Father, I cannot imagme ; nor did they at- tempt to explain. ■\ The Respondents next turned to the .Gth chapter of the Apo- calypse to slunv the homage given to the " Lamb — the Lion of the 'J'ribe of Judah." ]3ut even this passage, in the most highlyjigura'- live and least intelligible book of any in the New Testament, distin- guishes most cliuirly him that sat on the Throne from the Lamb tiiv^t had bcG-n slain. The latter part of the 4th chapter describe* 63 That the great Apostle of the Gentiles was biioseli in the practice of addressing prayer to Christ, sufficiently nppears in 2 Cor. xii. 7, wliere, after saying ''there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buMei me, Icot I should be exalted above measure,'" he ailds: " i-'oi- tliis tiiino; I besoui^ht the Lord thrice, that it might depart irom me. And he said unto me, ^>ly grace is sullicicnt for thee, for my strength is made pertect in weakness. Most gladly thereiore will I ratlier glory in my iniirnnlics, that the power of Christ may re.5t upon me," ver. 8, fj.* " foLir-and-twenty Elders" as v/orshippini^the Lord God Almlght}'— vvbo liveth for ever and ever, and " creutcHl all things." Had the Respondents continued their quotation to the next vsrse, the last of the chapter, it would ]\ave appeared ti-at in this instance also the " Elders fell down and wor.vhipped hiiri that iiv^^th for ever and ever," that is " llini who sat upon the Throne." " We are not to imagine," says Doddridge, " that the person sitting on the Throne [or the Lamb, he might have added] or, th*? twenty-four Elders, or the four animals, were real beings, existing in nature ; though they represented in a figurative manner things that did really exist. I think it probable that all vvhich passed was in the imagination of St. John." * The Respondents next selected a text which relates to a sub- ject on which John Locke judiciously observed, St. Paul having thought tit to conceal it is not easy for those who come after to discover, nor is it much material." It related to something which occurred above fourteen years" before this Epistle was written. It may however have been well i:nown to those whom he addressed what this " thorn in his flesh" was, but not at all to us. In the ninth chapter of the Acts an account is given of Paul's conversion, by means of a miraculous appearance of Jesus to him in person, and the conference betv*'een them on that occasion. If under any similar circumstances he besought the Lord Jesus thrice that this thon? in the flesh might depart t'rora him, it would be no warrant for our addressing Christ in supplication when not personally present. It is the distinguishing prerogative of the one onl)^ true God to be omnipresent and to hear prayer, although he is invisible, whom no man hath seen, or can see. The Respondents must surely have known that in the language ©f the sacred wi-iters, when the words the Lord" are used, without any special chcmTistance denoting otherwise, that they always mean by them either Jehovah in the Old Testament, or the God and ^^ather of Jesus Christ in the Nev/. 64 Perhaps it is unnecessary to adduce any further proofs that it is lawful to offer worship to the only-begotten Son of God But as the Appellant has endeavoured to show f that cur ancient and highly respectable iiiend Richard Claridge meant no more" by the fol- lowing passage " than that God was in Christ," I v,"ould just read it, to enable the Meeting to judge of its real import, and whelher it will admit of such a construction? It is as follows : " We do also believe, that he (Christ) was and is both God and man, in won- derful union, not a God by creation or office, as some ^ hold ; nor man by the assumption of a human body only, without a reasonable soul, a.s others^; nor that the manhood was swallowed up of the Godhead, as a third .sort ^ grossly fancy ; but God uncreated," Ciaridge's Posthumous Works, p. 441.:|: * By not prefixing the word supreme before *^ worship " 1 SLxn imcertain whether the Respondents meant to assert in this place that it is lawful to offer supreme worship " to the only begotten Son of God," the first-born from the dead, or some inferior degree of reverence only. -j- Vindication of Scriptural Unitarianism, p. 75. ^ Arians and Sociniaus. ^ Apollinarists. * Eutychians. X The Respondents should have informed the Meeting that their solitary extract from Claridge was taken from a v/ork of his entitled An Essay on the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction for the Sins of Mankind; wherein William Penn's book called the Sandy Founda- tion Shaken is defended — and the vulgar doctrine of Satisfaction farther refuted from the testimony of Holy Scripture, and the con- current opinions of many both ancient and modern vrriters." This is the " learned Defence" of the Sandy Foundation Shaken, adver- tised in the first edition of Penn's Works. See the table of contents- The author's design in writing this *' learned defence" of Penn's W'ork, is much more clearly expressed in many other passages than in the one the Respondents selected. From the obvious ge- neral tenor of the Essay, I still think I was warranted in supposing that the author only intended by that passage the plain scriptural doctrine I mentioned. But if I was mistaken, then it may follow that Claridge, construing his expressions very strictly, may have intended in effect to assert the Sabellian doctrine, And it is observ- able that in a note upon it he disclaims certain opinions of Arians, Socinians, Apollinarists, and Eutychians ; but neither here nor else- >yhere; so far as I know, (nor any other approved author amoiig 65 As to tlje Appellant's assurance that he fully believes all that Clirist is recorded in the New Testament to liave said cocerning himself and his doctrines, it is not for us to assert the contrary ; but it is plain that he differs from us as to the sense in which many important texts of Scripture are to be understood. A profession of agreement with all the doctrines laid down in the Scrip- lures, is not a sutlicient bond of union*. For all Pro- Friends) casts any censure on those of the Sabellians, with whose opinions he was well acquainted. For he was very conversant with Ecclesiastical history, as his works sufficiently prove. In his " Essay on the doctrine of the Trinity," after objecting to the Trinitarian hypothesis which supposes that " a different con- sideration, respect or mode," implies so many distinct and separate persons ; he next shows that this leads to the doctrine of three infinite minds, really distinct from each other, in the Goc\head; and then says, " Nay, these different considerat'.ons, respects or modes ■of the Godhead, were owned by the Sabellians of old, and are not denied by the modern Socinians." Ibid. p. 408. This work is entitled " An Essay on the doctrine of the Trinity, wherein the various signification of the School terms, viz. the Greek Homoousios, Ousia, Hj-postasis, Prosopon, and the Latin Persona, are explicated by good authorities, and the necessity of expressing our belief of the Trinity in plain Scripture terms only w devion' sir a ted.'' The author, like the celebrated Dr. Samuel Clarke, was a clergy- man in the Church of England, but wrote this work long after he had joined the Society of Friends. At this time, it is evident from the whole tenor of the Essay, that he had as much renounced the doctrine of the Trinity, as lir. Clarke had when he published his fam.ous work entitled The Scripture Doctrine of tlie Trinit} .'* Yet both of these highly respectable and learned men clung to the name to which they had been accustomed, long after they had re- linquished the doctrine it v/as intended to express. For a brief analysis of this curious and learned work, see Verax's Vindication of Scriptural Unitarianism, pp. 63 — 69. * This plea of the Respondents goes the full length of attempt- ing to justify expulsion from Christian fellowship, not for any disbelief of doctrines laid down in the Scriptures, but for a mere difference of opinion, how they are to be understood. And this right is contended for, on behalf of a Society that "requires from its members no subscription to articles of faith," because it would not be, in its judgement, compatible with the preservation of peace» 10 insist on such a bond of union." Yet, after making these con- <;essions at an early part of their reply, do the Respondents near K 66 testants profess to appeal to the Scriptures in defence of their various and opposite principles ; and we mii^ht as well retain persons in membership who hold that oaths and war are lawful to Cliristians, as those who do not believe the eternal divinity of that power w hich dicell in Christ Jesus*. its close contend for this right of expulsion, not on the compara- tively reasonable and just ground of the breach of articles previously made known aad agreed on, but on the vague and dangerous prin- ciple of investing every particular Monthly Meeting, however small or weak, with a discretionary power of judging its members on points of faith, without any acknowledged standard or law for either party to appeal to. The exercise of " this power may be safely lodged m their hands," say the Respondents, " subject to the im- portant privilege of appeal ;" that is, to such checks as it may hap- pen to secure to an individual in so hopeless a contest with Church authority. How very differently William Penn thought on this subject, let the following extract evince. I might adduce many more from his Works equally strong, but this may suffice. He says, vol. i. p. 74?T, *' The Scripture is . the great record of truth, that which all these parties in controversy agree to be the declared mind and will o£ God, and unanimously say it ought to be believed and professed as such. If this be true, in what language can we so safely and pro- perly declare our belief of those truths as in the very language of the Scripture ? — -I must say it is preposterous, and a contradiction, that those who desire to deliver their faith of truth, in the language truth, shall not be reputed true believers, nor their faith admitted. — It seems then v/e must not express our belief of God in his words ^ but our own ; nor is the Scripture a Creed plain or proper enough to declare a true believer, or an orthodox Christian, without our glosses. "Are not things come to a sad pass, that to refuse any other terms than those the Holy Ghost has given us, and which are confessed to be the rule or f jrm of sound words, is to expose a man to the censure of being unsound in the faith, and unfit for Christian com- munion ? Will nothing do but vnans comment instead of God^s text ? His consequences and conclusions in the room of sacred revelation P I cannot see how any man can be obhged to receive, or beh'eve revealed truths, in any other language than that of the revelation itself ; especially if those that vary the expression, have not the same spirit to lead them in so doing, or, that it appears not to me thnt they have,'' * Perhaps you might even ** as well retain persons in membership who hold oaths and war to be lawful to Christians, as those who do not believe the eternal divinity of that power ,which dwelt in Christ 67 Far different from tliis did our earl)^ Friends under- stand those texts which speak of the creation of all things by Jesus Clirist, whether they be thrones, prin- cipahries, or powers — of his thinknig it no robbery to be equal with God— tlie brightness of his glory — the heir of all things — to whom is jointly uith the Fathtr to be ascribed all power, dominion, and glory, for ever and ever*. We may nov/ conclude by observing that we have no doubt but it will be clear to the Yearly iMeetin^ that Jesus'' r^:t this case is not in point. The Respondents well knew I never hesitated to acknov/Iedge this. All divine po'.ver, strictly speaking, is eternal. It could not otherwise be divine; for all that is in the highest sense divine, is unchangeable and underived. It was not this, but the eternal divinity and omnipotence of Jesus Christ which my accusers and judges disowned me for not holding, as their own records will prove. And that too, refusing to say whether they meant to apply those terms to the man Christ Jesus, or to that divine power which dwelt in him ; nor have I been since informed during any part of the discussion. Even the Respondents refused me this explanation, and yet at the close of their reply, scruple not in the above disingenuous manner to insinuate that I disbelieved what I have in their presence uniformly and repeatedly acknowledged. * In this concluding profession of the Respondents' faith, they appear to me to have stumbled upon the language, not of Scripture, but of Roman missals, or Prayer-books. After quoting in a very confused manner sundry scraps of texts, the last of which (from Heb. i. 1,) describes the Son of God as the heir of all things," they add, without the shadow of any Scriptural authority for the use of such language, " to whom is /oiw//?/ with the Father to be ascribed allpojver, dominion, and glory, for ever and ever." This is to assert a strict co-equality between the Son and the Father, which is a doctrine that I cannot receive at the hands of any Church ; and if the Respondents were warranted in represent- ing it as a doctrine of the Society of Friends, while I lament so great a departure from the primitive simplicity of their Christian faith,' and from tliat of the New Testament, I shall never regret being set free from the imputation of holding a doctrine so deroga- tory, as I deem it, to the honour due to the most high God, " the blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, who only hath immortality, dwelHng in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen, nor can see ; to whom be honour and power everlasting." K 2 68 zne AppeHant does not hold these important doctrines of the Society, but has aided in propagating opposite doctrines, and that the Monthly Meeting was justified in disowning him ; and that it was the duty oi the Quar- terly Meeting, whose decision we are appointed to defend, after hearing the parties on his appeal, to con- firm the said judgement. The Respondents concluded their reply about the time the Meeting usually adjourns, and near an hour later than it sat the day before. A proposal to adjourn was accordingly made by one of its members. The Meeting should have judged of this w ithout any inter- ference by the Respondents ; but two of them objected to it very earnestly. Luke Ploward said, " It will be better for the Meeting to sit till ten at night, than to adjourn before both parties have been fully heard. If the Meeting adjourns for the convenience of the Appel- lant, the Respondents will expect and claim the same indulgence. And if so, it is not easy to say how long the sittings of the Meeting may be protracted." The motion for an adjournment was so slightly supported, that confident as I felt that if I urged it, the clerk would second my claim as just and reasonable, I concluded to wave it, and then addressed the Meeting nearly in the following terms : — It was wisely observed by John Locke, that as truth " can receive no evidence from our passions or interests, so it should receive no tincture from them." — " 1 think there is (says he) one unerring mark of the love of truth, namely, the v\ot entertaining any proposition with greater assurance than the |)roofs it is built upon will warrant." Essay on Enthusiasm, sect. 1. In a small tract entitled "Thouglitson Reason and Revelation," by our friend Joseph Gurney Bevan, he has shown how injudicious it is to decry the use of reason in matters of religion ; and the justly celebrated author I first adverted to, having in a very few w^ords most clearly pointed out the connexion between those two inestima- 69 ble stilts, and the source of both, I would earnestly re- coninieiid the passai:e to your attention. It is this* Reason is natural revelation, whereby the eternal Fa- ther of light and Fountain of all knowledge communi- cates to mankind that portion of truth which he has laid within tlie reach of tiicir natural faculties. " Revelation is natural reason enlari2;ed by a new set of discoveries, coininunicated by God innnediately, which reason vouches the truth of, by the testimony and })roofs it gives drat they come from God. So that he that takes away reason to make way for rci'elation does nmch the same a:^^ if he would persuade a man to put out his eyes, the better to receive the reniote light of an invisible star by a telescope/' Ibid. sect. 4. or Essay on the Unman Understanding, b. 4. c. 19- sect. 4. Hovv- far my accusers have acted upon similar prin- ciples I will not say ; but I cannot help expressing my very great surprise that they should have produced and read to you the 4th rule in the Book of Extracts, under the head Meetings for Discipline, as sanctioning the proceedings they have been appointed to defend. Is it then to be taken for granted that those proceedings were founded in " the power and zvlsclom ofGocV'} The use of such expressions in the ]\Iinute of 1703 may be evidence of the persuasion spoken of, viz. that such was *' the authority of those Meetings^'' but none at all of the grounds whereon that persuasion rested. " Men may be as positive and as peremptory in error as in truth." Similar language I am aware v.-as often used very indiscreetly bv some of our early authors ; but I little expected this Minute would have been quoted as con- ferring a discretionary power, and a consequent qualifi- cation on inferior Meedngs to judge of matters of faith and worship, in cases to which it is admitted that no rule applies — to cases, too, that have been of very rare occun'ence, and might therefore, as well as for many other reasons, be much more safely left to their own operation. It behoves the Meeting deeply to consider 70 how dangerous such a precedent for the exercise of Church authority may become. I suppose the Respondents and many other persons now present must have seen a letter of Henry Tuke's, ia the Christian Observer for Feb. last, [Vol. 13, pp. .95 — 100] and the reply to it by the Editors of that work. If they have read the latter with attention, I think they could not need any further proof that the Avritings of such of our early Friends as are held in the highest esteem contain many passages which no man of a sober judgement and sound understanding would now venture to defend. I have the number by me, and could soon satisfy the IMeeting of this by reading a few passages extracted from George Fox's Journal. But I forbear; and shall only add, that although I was previously ac- quainted with most, if not all the passages they have selected, I know nothing of the writer, nor did I of the article, till some time after it was published. I am sorry it did not teach the Respondents more prudence, than to set up this inapplicable and unwarranted pre- tension in favour of Church authority. As to the quotations they adduced from works circu- lated and sold by the London Unitarian Book Society^ after repeating the solemn protest I made yesterday, I have only to add that, so far as I am acquainted with the sentiments of its members, they would to a man spurn the idea as absurd and unfounded ; that they were individually accountable for all that the works in its catalogue may contain. Nor would I accept mem- bership in any religious society u])on similar conditions. It is not a little singular and inconsistent, that al- though the Respondents have contended for subjecting me to this rigid responsibility, they have in your presence described writings which have been sanctioned by the Morning Meeting of Ministers and Elders (when 1 have appealed to such works), as containing only the senti- ments of individuals, and not those of the Society. But when they adduce any part of the same, or other writings 71 in tiieir favour, they have Iteld them up as ahnost of divine authority. See pp. 51 — 62. 70—76. 83 — 88. ancles. Yet the new Tract Association among Friends is not founded on the principle of making its members per- sonally responsible for the soundness of all that its tracts may contain. There is even a provision in its rules for the casual introduction of error in the works it publishes, wiiich are to be " suspended," or suppressed " when called upon" either by the Meeting for Suffer- ings, or the Morning Meeting ! Our Book Association is founded on very different, and on much more liberal principles. Its members set up no other writings than the Scriptures in a correct text or translation, as of decisive authority in matters of faith and worship, and are for bringing all to the test of Christ's own doctrine. They are also firmly per- suaded that free discussion can never be ultimately unfavourable to the interests of truth and genuine Christianity. In my address to the Meeting yesterday, after quo- ting the saying of Christ " I am the Son of God,'' John X. 36, I added, "That is the Christ, or the Messiah This the Meeting will recollect one of the Respondents asserted to be ''a false gloss,'' and has since twice re- pealed the accusation in a tone and manner calculated to make an impression not merely that I was in error, but that I was wilfully attempting to impose upon the Meeting what I knew to be a perversion of the text. Yet I trust the Respondent could not intend to hold me up as capable of such a crime. Luke Howard here very fully disclaimed any such intention, adding, " As I retract those words, I hope the Appellant will be satislied with this acknowledgment, and say no more on this subject." The clerk said. The Appellant is quite in order, and niust be heard ; and I think it is proper to add, that he set the Respondents a good example, which they would 72 have done well to follow, for I believe he did not once attempt to interrupt them during the whole of their reply. They had better make minutes of any tiling they may wish to add, and may afterwards chiim a liearing. I resumed, saying, i am fully satisfied with the He- Sfondent's explanation with regard to my intentions ; but as the text in question is, as he observed, a very important one, like many others of similar purport, and he still appears to think me in a dangerous error con- cexning its meaning, and called upon me beiore the Committee to produce my authorities ; I am now pre- pared to show that if I am in error, I have missed the true import of the text in very good company. For John Locke, in his " lleasonablencss of Ciiristianity as- delivered in the Sciiptures," has conckisively shon n, chat such is tiie usual import of those tei*ms as used by the writers of the New Testament. A few extracts will I l>elieve suffice to establish this. He says, " It appears by John i. 41, that the Mes- siah being interpreted, is the Chiist. I have therefore, ior the clearer understanding of the Scripture, all along \A\t Messiah iov Christ : Christ being but the Greek -name for ]\iessiah, and both signifying the AnoiJi-tcd,^^ Works, vol. ii. p. i 1 S ; or, his llcasonabieneos of Chris- tianity, p. 23. A.ii;ain, says Locke, still making the Scripture its own interpreter, "That believing him (Christ) to be the Son of God and to be the Messiah was the sa?ne tliing, may tippear by comparing John i. 45 with \ct, A9, where Nathaniel owns Jesus to be the Messiah in these terms : ' Thou art the Son of God ; thou art the King of Israel.* So the Jews, Luke xxii. 70, asking Christ whether he were tlie Son of God, plainly demand of him whether he were the Messiah." Ibid. p. 518. or p. 20, After many otiier sci'iptural proofs that these are convertible terms, having in the sense of tire sacred witers the same meaning, Locke adds, I desire any oiae to read the latter part of the 1 st of John from ver. £ J, 75 with attention, and tell nie whether it be not plain that this phrase the Son of God is an expression used for the Messiah. To which let him add Martha's de- claration other faith, John xi. 27, in these words ; *I believe that thou art the Messiah, THE Son- of God, who should come into the world and that passage of St. John XX. 31. 'That ye might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son" of God ; and'that believing ye might have life through his name and then tell me whether he can doubt that Messiah and Son of God were synonymous terms at that time among the Jews." Ibid. p. 523. or p. 38. I shall only cite one more passage to prove that my comment on John x. 36' was no false gloss in the esti- mation of so accurate a i-easoner and sincere a Christian as John Locke. After quoting John vii. 31, "And many of the people believed in him (Jesus), and said, When the Messiah cometh will he do more miracles than this 'man hath done ? And when the Jews at the feast of dedication, John x. 24, 25, coming about him, said unto him, ' How long dost thou make us to doubt ? If thou be the Messiah, tell us plainly Jesus answered them, ' I told you and ye believed not ; the works that I do in my Father's name bear witness of me.' And John V. 35, he says ^ 1 have greater witness than that of John ; for the works which the Father hath given me to do, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.' Where by the way we may observe, that his being * sent by the Father' is but another way of expressing the Messiah ; which is evident from this place, John v. compared with that of John x. last quoted. For there he says, that his works bear witness of him. And what is that witness? viz. * That the Father sent him.' By which we are taught, that to be sent by the Father, and to be the Messiah, was the same thing, in his way of declaring himself" Ibid, p. 525. or p. 42, 43. If William Penn be deemed in this assembly hio-hcr L 74 authority as an expositor of Scripture than his illus- trious friend John Locke, I might refer to many pas- sages in his writings in support of the same conclusion. One only may suffice. What of the Christian dispen- sation is . so peculiar and important, as to challenge of right the name of Creed ?" Having put this question, he answers it thus : ''I say then, that the belief of Jesus ot Nazareth to be the promised Messiah, the Son and Christ of God, come and sent from God to restore and save mankind, is the first, and was then the only requisite article of faith — and tliis may be proved botii by example and doctrine. It is evident from example, as in the case of Peter, who for having believed in his heart and confessed with his mouth that Jesus was the Christ and Son of God, obtained that signal blessing: Matt. xvi. This made Nathaniel a disciple ; Rabbi, said he, ' thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel.' — This was also the substance of Martha's confession of faith to Jesus, when he said to her, * I am the resurrection and the life, he that believeth in me shall never die ; believest thou this ?' She answered, ' Yea, Lord, 1 believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of G^?^!', which should come into the world.' She answered him not as to — the resurrec- tion, but — that he was the Christy the Messiah, that was to come into the world, and that sufficed^ After adducing many other examples, he says ; This was the main bent of Peter's sermon ; and when the three thousand believed that he whom the Jews had crucified was both Lord and Christ, and repented of their sins, and gladly received his word, they are said to have been in a state of salvation." Penn concludes the examples he adduces by saying, "Thus we may plainly see that they were baptized into the faith of Jesus, and not into numerous opinions ; and that this one confession from true faith in the heart was the ground and principle of their church fellowship. Then (adds he) God s Church was at peace ; she throve ; there (O were then no snares of words to catch men of conscience with. Then not many words, but much integrity : 5iow much talk and little truth. Many articles, but *0 ye of litde faidi ! " Nor was this only the judgement and practice of that time out of condescension to weakness, and charity to ignorance ; for both Christ Jesus himself and his Apo- stles have doctrinally laid it down as the great test to Christians ; that which should — justly entitle them to his discipleship, and Christian communion one with an- other. " Let us read a little further. Then said they to Jesus, What shall we do that we might work the works of God ? Jesus answered, ^ This is the work of God, that ye be- lieve on him whom God hath sent.' And upon another occasion he said to the Jews, ' For if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.' It must follow, then, that if they did believe him to be the Messiah, the anointed of God to salvation, they should be saved." After several other Scriptural proofs, Penn says, I will conclude these doctrinal testimonies out of Scrip- ture wich a conclusive passage, John xx. 30, 31 ; in which place two things are remarkable : 1st, That what- ever things are written of .Tesus, are written to this end, that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ. 2d, That tliose that sincerely believe, shall through him obtain eternal life. Certainly then if this be true, their pre- sumption must be great who have — set another rule of Christianity than Jesus and his apostles gave. This sincere confession contented Christ and his apo- stles ; but it will not satisfy those that yet pretend to believe them. — A man may sincerely believe this, and be stio;ixiatized for a schismatic, a heretic, an excommu- nicate ; but I may say, as Christ did to the Jews in another case, From the beginnino; it was not so." Penn's ^ CO \Vorks, vol. i. pp. 754 — 156. Such is the substantial agreement of these truly great men, as to the Scriptural import of those terms, as used 76 by the sacred writers, for adopting which I have been so repeatedly held up to you as putting a false and a dangerous gloss on an important text of Scripture. If the Respondents, after attentively considering this evi- dence, are still of the same opinion, I hope they will in their rejoinder distinctly state' upon v.hat grounds they adhere to it. With regard to the numerous quotations adduced by them from the vvritin2;s of our early Friends, in order to show what the doctrines of the Society are, I think they might have been much more pertinently quoted to prove the variety of sentiment that existed among them, and that they liberally allowed, and encouraged each other in the free exercise of the rights of private judgement. The lateness of the hour will not admit of it, or the mi- nutes I made during the reply of the Respondents would readily enable me to show^ this, by comparing their quo- tations with each other. I shall therefore only observe, that those quotations appear to me to agree on no point of much importance to the questions at issue, that none of them assert a belief in the doctrine of a distinction of persons in the Deity, which all real Trinitarians profess to hold in some sense or other. This I take to be the precise line which distinguishes their faith from that of Unitarians. To which class then did our predecessors most properly belong? Plainly to the latter. Nor has one of my accusers or judges, to my knowledge, ventured to overstep the boundary line. They profess indeed to believe the divinity of Christ, but will not plainly and distincdy say whether they mean the divinity of his person, of the man' Christ Jesus, or of that divine power which dwelt in and acted by him. I suppose, the latter only^'. The Overseers of the Monthly INIeeting, and its Commiltte, at their first conference with me, distinctly admitted that they never * See the conclusion of the Respondents' reply, p. 66, which sccrns to indicate a leaning that way, although they did not choose to speak out plainly. 77 understood it was ascribed by Friends to the man Ciirist Jesus. But from this time they disingenuously refused sayini^ to whom they believed this divinity of right belongs. Although the minute appointing this Committee is drawn up in the most indefinite terms, to which I strongly objected at the time, the present Respondents, without attempting to refute those objections, have thought fit to say, that " whether they are well-founded or not is of little consequence." I trust you will see, if they do not, the danger of such a precedent. Is it then of no consequence whether the first official record against an accused person truly describes the imputed otience? Or, whether it subjects him to indefinite de- grees of tale-bearins; and detraction, and to the conse- quent decision of prejudiced judges? By the Report of the said Committee they paid me two visits " to no satisfaction^ For this, however, a very intelligible cause is assigned. " V/e questioned him," say this Committee, on some important points of doctrine, respecting which we had strong ground to hdkxe his opinions are at variance with those ol the Society ; to which he decidedly refused to answer." I did so, not because I was ashamed or alraid to avow any doctrine which I believed, or to disavow any which I did not believe ; but because I was firmiy per^ suaded the assumption of such an inquisitorial autiiority ought to be steadily opposed. It is ior you to decide on the propriety of sanctioning the exercise of such powers by deleoutes of the Chu'"ch. The Respondents have admitted that the proceedings in this, and in some other respects, do not appear o/z the face of the Meet ino-^s records, to be such as they "could have wished." The inquisitorial character ot the visits of this Committee is briefiy but accurately inarked in their Report. While the iaculry of memory lasts I shall never forget that this formed the most pronjitient and distinguishing feature of their visits. But although in 78 this instance the Committee have stated the true cha- racter of its proceedings, which the Respondents did not venture to justify, it is obvious that the same con- duct may be pursued in other cases, and no trace of it appear on the Meeting's records. It is the thing itself which it behoves you as a Protestant Church to guard against, and not the exposure of such a practice. The next complaint in this document is, that I re- fused to say whether I had written certain works under the signature of " Verax ?" I did so, because the Com- mittee had no right under the terms of their appoint- ment to make this inquiry. For although the minute was expressed in the most indefinite terms, being present when it was drawn up I knew that it had no reference to those writings. After grossly mis-stating the apparent scope of Verax 's publications, the Report accuses me of having " distributed some papers entitled Remarks on the Quakers' Yearly Epistle calling in question the omnipotence of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and tlie propriety of applying to him in secret supplication as professed by the Y eariy IMeeting in its Epistle for 1810," also that I am "a member of the Unitarian Society" in which I confess to have great satisfac- tion.'^ Such are the charges on which the Monthly Meeting directed a testimony of denial" to be drawn up against me. As to the first of these accusadons, I trust I have already sufficiently vindicated the propriety of bringing one of your Epistles to the test of Scripture. The Re- spondents appear indeed to have tacitly admitted the futility of this accusation, and of that which related to the writings of Verax, by saying, after enumerating the recorded charges against me, that they deemed one of these of itself sufficient to justify disownment ; viz. my becoming a member of the London Unitarian Book Society. And if I had thereby bound myself to an ap- proval of all that the works in its catalogue may con- tain, as they groundlessly im.agined, it might perhaps 79 have warranted their conchision. For it would have been virtually to renounce the paramount authorit)^ of the Scriptures, which it is the great and the professed ob- ject of this Association to support ; or, in other words, to incite the attention of men to the genuine doctrines of revelation, as delivered in the Scriptures. I must repeat that a fresh charge is brought forward in the testimony of disownment. It says, 1 have "joined a Society who publicly avov/ their disbelief of the eter- nal divinity of Jesus Christ our Lord," and that this appears from their Committee's Report. Yet neither of these assertions is true ; and so sensible were the Re- spondents of this, that they shrunk back, and contented themselves with observing " that the Committee ex- pressed themselves as the if thought correctly.'" I admit this, and offered them an opportunity of correcting it as an inadvertent but actual error. They rejected this offer. The Respondents have called upon you, as 1 also do, to judge whether what is said in the testimony of denial be warranted, or not. William Tuke observed that much of what the Ap- pellant had now said should have been alleged yesterday or not at all. In this stage of the proceedings he ought to be heard only in reply to the Respondents' address. The clerk desired me to proceed. At an early part of my address to the Meeting yes- terday morning, I described Penn's Sandy Foundation Shaken, as asserting in the plainest and most unequi- vocal terms the same doctrines which I am accused of having imbibed and aided in propagating. 1 did not attempt any formal proof of their consonancy, because that has been in fact admitted. Even the Respondents have shown by a passage which they read from Penn's Works [vol. ii. p. 453], that five years after that work was published, he strenuously denied that the Apology for that work entitled Innocency with her open Face was Retraction,'' as his fiiend Thomas Firmin would have it to be. It is evident therefore that the 80 Author at the time he wi'ote those works, and as long after as we know any thing of his sentiments respecting them, thiOught them consistent with each other. Not a syllable is to be found in the latter implying that there are any erroneous doctrines in the former. Yet it ap- pears, as I have long since publicly stated, that William Penn held in some sense or oilier the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, and that he considered that tenet to be consistent with a total enervation of the doctrine of the Trinity of separate persons in the unity of essence," of " God's incapacity to forgive, without the fullest sa- tisfaction paid him by another," and of " a justification of impure persons by an imputative righteousness." These principles were in his estimation not more re- pugnant to Scripture Reason and souls security, than most destructive to God's honour, in his unity, mercy, and purity." In short, so decidedly is the Sandy Foundation Shaken admitted to be in my favour, that the Author of a late work sanctioned by the Morning Meeting of Ministers and Elders represents the readers of the last edition of that work, as introduced to the writino;s of William Penn ^' only through the medium of Unitarian quo- tation." That is, if there be any meaning in words, that it is wholly of that complexion and character. The Respondents should therefore have attempted to show, either that it is actually expressed in ambiguous language, as they alleged without the shadow of proof, or, that the Society had never sanctioned this work. These alternatives would be equally difficult. A slight examination of this tract would be sufficient to show that it is remarkably distinguished among all the Author's doctrinal works for definite language and perspicuity ot^ expression. And as to the manner in which the Society have given their sanction to it as a sound doctrinal tract, it may suffice to say that Richard Claridge's learned defence of it was published under the Society's patronage above fifty years after it was first printed. 81 Or, lastly, the Respondents should have attempted to"^ make out its consistency with the passages they adduced from the writings of approved Authors, and its dis- cordance with the doctrines they impute to me as er- roneous. Neither of these positions have they even aimed to establish. If this work cannot be reconciled with the Apology for it, as Joseph Gurney Bevan under the signature of " Vindex" maintained, what is the just inference, from this view of the subject ? Surely this : That our Ancestors in religious profession, extended a liberal toleration to its members on points of faith and worship. The system of discipline which they esta- blished was professedly founded on this principle. It was my intention to have referred to the several articles of my Appeal one by one, in order distinctly to show how very few of its allegations the Respondents have examined, niuch less refuted but the lateness of the hour and the restlessness of the Meeting prevent my entering upon it in the manner I proposed. I shall * One of the Respondents, George Stacey, wliose speech in the Quarterly Meeting is given at p. 352 of my Narrative, is since de- ceased, and I bear a willing testimony to the general excellence of his character. William Allen, another of the Respondents, is second to none within niy knowledge for his enlightened and active zeal in the promotion of philanthropic objects for the improvement of the great mass of Society in moral and intellectual attainments. My Narrative records, p. 858 — 362, the prominent and influential part he took in the discussion of my case in the Quarterl}'^ Meeting; and having subsequently accepted the office of Respondent on this oc- casion, it may appear singular that a man of his acknowledged ta-» lents should not have taken an equally leading part under that ap- pointment. I cannot account for this : but the fact is, he was to- tally silent upon the subject when it was before the Yearly Meet- ing, and only spoke once during the time it was before the Com- mittee of Appeals, and then very briefly and in general terms, saying that the matters at issue between me and the Society turned on one or two points only^ which were necessary to be noticed hy Friends, as I had openly avowed my sentiments on ihem. I requested that he would in justice to me state what he considered these one or two points were^ so many charges having been as he knew al- leged against me. But although I earnestly and repeatedly pressed it, he declined ail explanation. M 19 4 therefore only refer it to your deliberate attention, atid observe that in the first section of it I have endeavoured to exhibit a correct but brief view of that conduct for which I have incurred the censure of iny brethren. I stated this conduct as clearly as was in niy power, be- cause in point of fact I hold myself amenable to you on those two points only, as these were the only grounds on which I was recorded as a delinquent on the books of the Monthly Meeting. 1 have uniformly protested against the introduction of any other matter of crimina- tion, during an inquiry into these, as irrelevant and unjust. It is true I was unable to repress that restless dispo- sition which prompted the reiterated production of one a,ccusation after another, during the whole course of the proceedings ; and neither the Slonthly nor the Quarter- ly Meeting, nor the Committee of the latter would lend any assistance to restrain my accusers to the ground they had originally chosen. Of course I claimed the right of rebutting these fresh charges, so far as 1 thought necessary. In so doing, however, I did not admit, nor do I now, the propriety of producing these supplementary accusations, whether they are well or ill founded ; and I respectfully protest against your right under this Appeal to take into con- sideration as matter of accusation against me, any other than those charges which were first alleged against me, and on which I was in fact put upon my trial. Considering, therefore, that one is our Master even Christ, and that one is our Father, who is in Heaven, even God, and that we all are brethren not authorized to sit in judgement on each other's faith towards God, I do not call upon you to decide upon mine, as it would be in my mind to ask you to assume such power as no Protestant Church can consistently exercise. But I do earnestly solicit you deliberately to examine the real character of the proceedings against me, and impartially to determine between the . parties, not as a question of private concern, but of public interest to 83 the future welfare of the Society. In the discharge of this duty, you will decide whether, in your opinion, 1 have so far exceeded the proper limits of those unalienable rights of private judgement, which it becomes every Christian to claii'a and exercise, as justly to have subjected me to expul- sion from religious fellowship ; whether the proceedings have been just and equitable, regular and orderly, con- formable to your own rules, and consistent with the li* beral unchangeable maxims and divine spirit of the Gospel. However you may determine this question, I trust ever to feel anxious for the promotion of those great and benevolent principles of our common Christianity, which our ancestors so nobly asserted, and for which the So- ciety are still conspicuous advocates. For after all, these constitute much of the essence of all true Religion, breathing in unison with the recorded song of the hea- venly host, Giorif to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will towards men." Soon after I sat down, the Clerk asked the Respon- dents and myself wliether we had any thing farther to offer to the Meeting ? We both answered we had not. The Meeting adjourned a little after nine to the next morning at ten. YEARLY iMEETING, 5th Alonth, 2Gth, 1814. Soon after the Meetinrr assembled I sent in the fol- lowing note by one of the door-keepers : To the Yearly Meeting. " Your Appellant, Thomas Foster, respectfully informs you that he shall be in waiting, in order to be called in to hear in the presence of the Respondents, from " the Committee of Appeals" by two of their number," ap- pointed and reported to you for that purpose, an expla- nation of " the grounds of their decision," at such tima M 2 ' 84 as you may deem most proper, in conformity to the 7th rule respecting Appeals made last year. " Bromley, May 26, 1814." On this note and the rule to which it refers being read by the Clerk, a discussion took place whether the^ rule to which it refers should be complied with, or not. This subject occupied the Meeting, I understand, near an hour. I was informed of the result by the following minute : " 7o Thomas Foster^ the Appellant. Yearly Meeting, 5th Day Morning, 5th Month,, 25th, 1814. "This Meeting does not think it necessary to call upon the deputation of the Committee on the Appeal, to give it any explanation of the grounds of that Committee's decision, in the present stage oj the business ; and is of the judgement that it does not rest with either the Ap- pellant or the Respondents to call for such explanation at any time. "John Wilkinson, Clerk." After this question was thus disposed of, the Meet- mg proceeded to consider the case before it. I have been favoured by some of my friends who were present with the following outlines of the discussion!. John Tucket, Jun. — " I have earnestly desired that on this occasion we might all settle dorm in our own minds, and if any man speak, let him speak as the Oracle of GodX:' \ All the speakers on this discussion, who are .known to me as Ministers or Elders^ or have been reported to me as such, have asterisks prefixed to their names : — to the former two^ to the latter one only. X The text here alluded to 1 Pet. iv. 11, says, *'If any man speak, let him speak as the Oracles of God," that is, according to 85 The requisite qualification for speaking to the subject being detined in these terms, the discussion commenced, and was continued, I am credibly informed, till no less than thirty persons had spoken ; none of whom thought lit to disclaim the Mattering but delusive implied com- pliment of speaking as the Oracle of God:' Yet I do not suppose that the clerk, or the more judicious part of the assembly, could approve such a misapplication of the text. * 1. William Alexander, of York. — I think the subject should be divided into two parts : 1st, Whether the nature of the offence was sufficient to justify the proceedings of Ratcliff Monthly Meeting in disowning the Appellant? Cd. Whetlier the decision of the Quar- terly Meeting confirming those proceedings was justi- fiable ? Admitting these to have been regular, I think the conduct of the Appellant warranted his disownment/'f ** 2. William Grover, of Stanstead, Essex. — "I am thankful that Friends have been preserved in a good degree of patience during the investigation of the subject before the jNIeeting, and am of opinion that the princi- ples of Thomas Foster are not consistent with those of Friends, and therefore approve the decision of the Committee." the doctrine which they teach. Instead of this wholesome and im- portant injunction of the Apostle, another is substituted of a verj different import, according to v,hich every person who spoke on this occasion was enjoined to speak as an Oracle of the Most High. I fear many members of this Society so misunderstand the text. I have commonly heard it quoted in this erroneous manner by its approved ministers. + This Friend lately published, in his "Annual Monitor for 1816," a creed as coinciding with his oivn, which Creed had been inserted, verbatim, in the Monthly Repository for Feb. 1813, vol. viii. p. 1 10, "in order to show what sort of a Trinity it is, which at least some highly accredited members of this Society profess tobeheve;" and that " it only supplies a pretence for the use of orthodox language while the real doctrine is strictly Unitarian" It is, however, emi- nently defective as a Christian profession of f\iith, inasmuch as it is wholly silent concerning " the history, doctrine, death, or resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ:' See also the number for Feb. 1816, vol. xi. p. 88. 86 ** 3. John Bateman, of Chatteris. — " I fully approve the Report of the Committee, and all the proceedings of RatclifF Monthly Meeting." *4. Richard Ball, of Bridgewater, — I apprehend that .John Bateman could not mean to express his approba- tion of all the proceedings of that Meeting, but rather of its decision and of that of the Committee." 5, expressed his unity %vith the decision of the Committee |. 6. Morris Birkbeck, of Guildford.-^" I have been absent from several of the sittings of the Meeting, but I cordially unite with the judgement of the Committee." * 7. Thomas Sparkes, of Exeter. — " I approve th^ Report of the Committee." ^""^ 8. William Martin, of Lewes. — " I also approve the Committee's Report, and believe the Appellant is not one with Friends in their belief ccnoerning the divinity of Christ, and that he was not influenced by affection for the Society in prosecuting his appeal, but by a desire to disseminate his own opinions^." John Wilkinson, of High Wycombe, (the Clerk). — I wish Friends would avoid judging the Appellant as to his motives, whatever they may think of his opinions, as being different from ours. I must injustice to him say that I feel a full conviction of his sincerity, which there appears no reason to call in question." * 10. William Tuke, of York. — " I unite in the sen^ timents of the Friends who have spoken before me, but am of opinion that the Appellant has imbibed sentiments f After the numerals at the beginning of every speech, the name of the Friend being unknown, a space is left for its insertion in AIS» in the copies of such of my readers as may be able and choose to supply the deficiencies. None of the speakers were members of London and Middlesex Quarterly Meeting. X Surely a little reflection might have convinced this Friend that a desire to disseminate opinions which the Appellant believed to be true and highly important, amongst the members of the Society, was rather a proof of his affection for them than of any opposite feeling. 87 of Socinianism which cannot be tolerated by the rules of the Society^." II. — "I concur with the Report of the Committee." Richard Ball proposed the Report of the Commit- tee to be read ; which was accordingly read by the Clerk. 13. It does not appear to me that the Appellant prosecuted his Appeal . from a regard for the principles or the reputation of the Society, and I approve the judgement of the Quarterly Meeting." 14. 15. declared they approved the judgement of the Committee. 16. John Mackellow, of Maidstone. — I think it is my duty to inform tlie Meeting that a young man has been taking notes of what has been said. While I ara upon my feet I would just say, and 1 am proud to say it, that I approve the decision of the Committee. Truth has at last conquered, as it ever will do H-'* § There is nothing definite in this charge : the same accusation was brought against William Pcnn, to which after him I reply, as to the opinions of Socinus,, " If in any thing I acknowledge the verity of his doctrine, it is for the truth's sake, of which he had a clearer prospect than most of his coteraporaries." , But Socinus was a persecutor. " He approved and connived at, if he did not procure, the imprisonment of Francis Davides, for the honest avowal of his opinion that Socinus was inconsistent, and went contrary to Scripture, in contending for the worship of the man Christ Jesus." See Aspland's Plea for Unitarian Dissenters, first edit. p. 73. It is therefore both absurd and unjust to impute Socinianism to those who disclaim this distinguishing tenet of the sect, and adhere to the opposite doctrine of the more consistent . Davides — that religious worship should only be offered to God the Father. \\ This speech betrays a proud" feeling, which may have actu- ated other speakers also. The occasion afforded them an opportur nity not to be let slip, of proclaiming their approval of the Com- mittee's decision, and of thereby implying their own orthodoxy without assigning any reasons for the judgement they pronounced. The triumph of Church power appears more likely to give birth for such feelings, than the simple love of trutlj for its own sake, and to that &i the Gospel. 88 * 17. Thomas Maw, of Needham. — I am of opi- nion that the Appellant has failed in proving his coin- cidence with the doctrines of the Society, but has co- operated with the Unitarian Society, disbelieves the Divinity of Christ, and has imbibed other principles different from those of Friends. 1 therefore approve the judgement of the Committee." ^18. Thomas Davis, of Minehead — 39. John Nevins, of Leeds — and * 20, William Tuke — further reprobated the con- duct of the young man who was taking notes. The latter proposed that he should be shoivn the door, add- ing " 1 suppose he is not a member of the Meeting, but sat there onlij by sufferance '\'' t Tin's Elder, in his zeal to prevent these proceedings from tran- spkiiig) seems to have forgotten that every member of the Society possesses a prescriptive title to those rights he would represent as held only by the sufferance of the privileged orders. They are founded on the common Law, and the uniform practice of Friends, for more than a century. The queries as much enjoin as a duty the general attendance of meetings for discipline, as those for worship. The Yearly Meeting has long been in the regular practice of ap- pointing Friends on its Committees, who were neither representa- tives, ministers, nor members of the Meeting for Sufferings. The Yearly Meeting is no doubt said by the minute of 1801 to consist of representatives from every Quarterly Meeting in Great Britain," &;c. and of such men ministers " as are in Town^' in order to ensure a competent attendance to proceed to business, lut not to the exclusion of any other members of the Society. If such were its proper con- struction, even Elders, the highest order among Friends, those who are appointed to have the oversight of the ministry, would have no right to le present in the Yearly Meeting, much less to partake in its deliberations. Their title to either is not a* Elders, but merely ay members of the Society, in common with the rest of their brethren. Yet are the latter now told that they sit in the Yearly Meeting merely by sufferance ! " This unfounded notion could hardly have arisen among that class of the Society which is still directed by an express rule to abstain in its collective capacity from interfering with the discipline, had its original character, even when assembled as a Yearly Meeting of Ministers and Elders, been kept in view. From the time of its institution in 1753 till ITS^, the general state of the ministry, and of the conduct of its members, was required to be laid beiore each Quarterly Meeting. In short, all the meetings of Ministers and Elders were till that time nothing more than so many 89 21. Joseph Sparkes, of Exeter. — " No doubt the notes are taking for the purpose of exposure, and I think they ought to be shown to the Clerk, that it might be ascertained whether they are correct ; for, if they are not, Friends might be misrepresented." 22. John Mackeilow. — " That is what 1 am afraid of. 1 have good ground to believe the young man is a member of London and Middlesex Quarterly Meet- mg. ^23. John Wilkinson — " Friends must be fully aware that the Meeting has no power to require the notes to be given up, nor have I, as their Clerk, any authority to re- strain Friends from taking notes of the discussion. Friends should not be afraid of their proceedings being publicly known." 24. " " I intreated the Friend to destroy the notes that have been taken." 25. George Saunders, of V^hitby. — Friends are not asham.ed of their procecdmgs being known to all the worldt-" ** 2o. William Tuke. — " I agree with the Friend who has just spoken, that we are not ashamed of our standing Coir.mittees of the Meetings for Discipline. In the course of the next five years various changes were made, all tending sy- stematically to remove them still further from that inspection and control to which they had been hitherto so properly subjected. Prom the year 1789 they were only required generally to state " hctv such select Meetings have leeri conducted" and this badge of iheir former dependance on the Meetings for Discipline was re- moved in 1801, when the Yearly Meeting directed that their Re- ports to the Quarterly Meetings should in future be " tJiat they have been held!' Can it then be matter of surprise that many among them should be inclined to infringe the Christian privileges of their brethren? This is a manly declaration, and honourable to the person who made it. But I have strong reason to conclude that the gene- ral feeling among the most active disciplinarians in the Society is to keep their proceedings as close as possible, and to discourage, by every means in their po\yer, ail public discussion concerning thera out of doors, especially when they are most irregular and into- lerant. 00 proceedings being known: but I nevertheless objett to notes of the discussion being taken ; for some young per- sons especially may express themselves on such an oc-^ casion as this, in a manner that Friends as a body might not approve t-" 27. Joseph Atkins, of Chipping Norton. — " I have been acquainted with the Appellant about thirty years, and have been led into sympathy with him, I have met him occasionally in the street, but never communicated my thoughts on the subject to him, or to any other Friend. If he was my own brother, I should cordially unite with the judgement of the Committee, wishing at the same time that his feet may be turned into that way which may atFord him peace at last. His manner of interpreting the Scriptures I consider as slighting the authority of Christ. May we all look to our standing ! Vv^e have none of us any thing to boast of. — My earnest desii'e is, that we may so live as to promote the cause of God, and of his dear Son our blessed Lord and Saviour." f This Friend's motion for showing the 3'oang man the door wh» was taking notes, and who he mistakenly supposed was sitting in the Meeting only by sufferance,^' not being seconded, he now argues the inexpediency of taking notes, because the younger part of the Assembly may express sentiments which as a body it may not approve. That may be the case, unless the Assembly be infal- lible, although what they express may be the very truth. Or they, m common with Ministers, Elders, or Representatives, being liable to err. may also reason inconclusively, or prorounce a rash and er- roneous judgement. What, then, must it not be known out of doors ? Error housed up, and taken under the patronage of secret co45claves, is always more dangerous than when it is subjected id free and public examination. The preface to my Narrative, pp. v — viii. and p. 63 &c. of the work, show how some Disciplinarians have been disposed to censure those who may venture to object to their m.anagement of the Disci- pline when they thought it was assmning an illiberal or intolerant character. One of the persons who so strongly objected in the Quarterly Meeting to the proceedings against me, as unnecessary and unjust, was soon after visited by an Elder, who had defended t riose proceedings, on account of the strong manner in which he had expressed his sentiments. It was not, however, thought expe- dient, ill tills instance, to carry dealing any further. 91 * ^28-. Samuel Lloyd, of Birmingliani. — I also find a (iifiiculty in speaking, on the ground of relationship and long-continued regard ; but could not be easy without saying, that I think the judgement of the Quarterly Meet- ing ougiit to be contirmed, believing that there is no salvation for myself or any other man, but through tiie atonement and mediation of Jesus Christ our Lord/' 29. " I approve the judge- ment of the Quarterly jMeeting and of the Committee." 30. Joseph Gurney, of Norwich. — I never felt more concurrence with Friends upon any occasion than on the present important question; viz., that tije Ap- pellant does not unite with the doctrines of the Society concerning Jesus Christ. In the discussion of this sub- ject I apprehend there has been somethmg like au attempt to scan the nature of the Divine BciuiJ", a subject far too mighty for me to enter upon, much less to com- prehend. I feel great delicacy in speaking on these topics, from a sense of my own weakness; but although T am unable to form so clear and decided a jud'};enient on these awful subjects as some of my Brethren of more experience than myself, I think it right to say that I ac- quiesce in the judgement of the Committee ; for the Appellant has not only imbibed pi inciples himself con- trary to ours, but it has been clearly proved that he has been enjia^ed in disseminatinii; false doctrines t. ' f I was indebted to this respectable Frier.d for a kind visit soon after the decision of the Yearly ^Meeting on my case. I did not then at all know how he had expressed himself on it. But I sup- posed there was no very wide difference in our opinions concerning the doctrines of the Society with respect to Jesus Christ," haviug heard it asserted in very respectable company as no secret, tliat lie professed subsequent to my disownment v.hoily to approve Penn's " Sandy Foundation Shaken." My endeavours tc convince others." that these principles are those of the Xew Testament, seems, how- ever, the principal reason why he approved the judgement of the Committee. This is very accordant to the recoid.d opinion of an- other Friend. See preface to Narrative, p. iv. in p. 13 of that vvork I have mentioned that the *' Sandy Foundation Shaken" was very impressively recommended by a Minister of eminence to the N <2 92 31. ^' I approve the judgement of the Committee, from a sense of its import- ance to our Religion. For the Meeting not to approve it, would be to upset the corner-stone elect and precious, and to strike at the very foundation of all true religion amongst us." *^ 32, William Candler, of Ipswich. — " I wish very much that Friends would confine themselves^ simply to the point in question, whether they do or do not ap- general attention of Friends at a Yearly Meeting many years ago, at which I was present. When my case was before the Quarterly Meeting's Committee, Luke Howard asked if I had any objection to say who this Minister was. 1 replied, " He is still living, and I had rather not mention his name, lest I should thereby be the means of inciting any weak-minded Disciplinarians to disturb his latter days on such an account." This Luke Howard granted to be a sufficient reason for not naming this friend. He is now beyond their reach. According to my Minutes made at the time, the Discussion alluded to took place 5th Month 24th, 1791, (only a few months after the in- stitution of the London Unitarian Book Society.") On reading the Epistle for that year a second time, " an objection was made by one Friend" (I believe, the late John Bevans) to a passage, not as un- sound or unscriptural, but as being " like/y to he laid hold of ly Unitarians.'' It declared the Lord Almighty, or God the Father according to the sense of many plain texts of Scripture, to be " the alone object of w^orship." Thomas Pole proposed to leave out the word " alone.'' Several other Friends said they thought might stand very snjfly, as brought in by the large Coriiviittee (which con- sisted of more than a hundred persons specially appointed, besides being open to Ministers, Elders, and to all the Members of the Meeting for Sufferings) ; that it would be better for Friends to avoid such nice and useless distinctions on the subject as many other professors of Christianity had gone into. After this, one or two Friends expressing themselves in language somewhat approaching the common doctrine of the Trinity, the late William Jepson, of Lancaster, an approved Minister, who had been Clerk in 1788, rose and said I am sorry to see Friends go into such nice and unprofitable distinctions." He then quoted some of the strongest texts, especially from the Old Testament, declaring in the most direct and positive terms the complete and essential Unity of God : after which he expressed an earnest v/i,-,h that Friends v» ould more generally read, and seriously consider, William Penn's work entitled " The Sandy Foundation Shaken," and recommended it as well worthy their attention. To this no re})ly was made^ but it was previously agreed to omit the whole paragraph. 93 prove the jadgement of the Committee. For my part, I do approve itf." ** S3. John Wilkinson.— *' I hope Friends will not €oniine themselves too much. It has been a great sa- tisfaction to me that so many persons have already ex- pressed their sentiments upon che subject, and I wish Friends who are duly impressed with its importance would assign the reasons on which their judgement is founded. 34. Atkinson Francis Gibson, of Saffron Walden, at some length expressed his assent to the judgement of the Committee. 3.5. Thomas Clarke, of Bridgewater. — I unite in the judgement of the Committee. I have been an old acquaintance of the Appellants, and have no doubt but he may yet be enabled to see the error of his way. I have known more than one beclouded by sitting down in their own strength t- The subject under discussion is a very important one to each of us, and should make a deep and reverent impression on our minds; it being no less than attempting to take a view of the Divine Be- ing. IM'jses could not behold him, his eyes were dim at the prospect. God reveals himself to us, but language is inadequate to define him. I trust these observations are not foreign to the subject. The Lord from Heaven * A work of this Friend's is mentionsd in my Appeal, pp. 8S, 8i. The groundless apprehensions of the preceding speaker seem to have led him to proscribe, so flir as his recommendation would go, a/I reasoning upon (he sulject. He was doubtless aware that if much of this was entered into, no small variety of sentiment would be ap- parent among my judges. The Clerk, however, very properly ex- pressed a \w\'A\ that Friends would " not confine themselves too much," hinting the propriety of assigning their reasons for the judgement they might pronounce. X At the dedication of the Temple, after saying upon ;.i» knees before all the congregation, O Lord God of Israel, there is no God hke thee in the heaven, nor in the earth, who keep- est covenant and sliewest mercy unto thy servants, that walk before thee with all their hearts," Solomon asks, " But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth ?" The answer he gives to 94 condescended to dwell ^vith men. Yet is he not known, but only to those to whom he is inwardly revealed. I have felt much for the Appeiiant, and also for IViends. 1 have rea.^ many Unitarian Tracts, and have observed that writers of that persuasion never appear to approve the doctrine of inspiration, or of divine influence on the mind." He concluded by saying, " If thou blaspheme the Son of man, it shall be forgiven thee ; but if thou blaspheme the Holy Spirit, it is written^ Thou shalt neither be forgiven in this world nor in that which is to come { ." 36. Joseph Geldart, Jun. of Norwich. — " I rise to i^peak on this subject with considerable difficulty, from the discouragement held out by a Friend in the corner opposite, who says, ' If any man speak, let him speak as the Oracle of God.' To have given the most considerate attention to the matter before us, and to have endeavoured to avail my- self of the best direction which I could obtain, is the most to which I can pretend. Any thing beyond this supposes a degree of infallibility, the "very idea ofichkfi would for ever seal my lips xcilh perpetual silence. " But I am the more encouraged to deliver my opi- this question is worthy of being held in everlasting remembrance, and should teach us the deepest humility. '^Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens canjiot contain ihee, hoiu much less this house which I have built ! " + How this allusion to a text, for it is not correctly quoted, can have been thought applicable to ray case, I cannot imagine. But 1 think my old school-fellow could not have intended to hold me up as a blasphemer, and one, too, that was never to be forgiven ! Well acquainted as this Friend professed to be with Unitarian Tracts, he does not seem to have been so much impressed with any errors they contained concerning the doctrine of the Unity of God, the real point at issue, as with those which he imputes to the writers of them, as being weak in the faith on another and a totally different subject. And as to attempting to define the nature or essence of the Divine Being, it is not those who are content Math the simple but sublime doctrine of revelation, that God is One, but those who without any authority from theScriptures assert that in this OneGod there are " three persons— co-eternal and co-equal," who arc justly chargeable with such presumption. 95 nion, because I believe that I agree entirely, one per- son only excepted (John Bateman) ^vith all those who have as yet delivered their sentiments t- That individual goes the whole length of saying, that he entirely approves of ail the proceedings of the Monthly IMeeting of Ratclitf. Now [ wholly ditier from him in this respect. I do not ap- prove of aui^ of their proceedings. I think, from the Mi- nutes read yesterday, there was a want of patience, ot brotherly kindness, and of judgement in what they did. Scill 1 think it probable the result would have been the same, though no one can tell that, had different measures been at iirst pursued. 1 am induced to agree to confirm the Report of the Committee, because, although Thomas Foster may not be responsible for all the books published by the Lon- don Unitarian Book Society ; yet I hold him answer- able for the public address to their pamphlet [the book of rules], and for the sentiments contained in the notes to the new translation called " The Improved Ver- sion." For whoever has read the history of this transla- tion in the Life of Theophilus Lindsey must know that it has been for many years a principal object with the London L^nitarian [book] Society, and particularly sup- ported by them :|:. t From this observation it should seem that J. G.'s encourage- inent to speak his mind, was in exact proportion to its being un- necessary ; and that he would probably have been entirely silent, had he not derived encouragement iVom the persuasion that he agreed in sentiment with tlie majority of those who had spoken. How many of the persons present who disapproved all the pro- ceedings which vvere founded on those of Ratcliif Meeting, withheld their sentiments on similar grounds, it is not easy to say. i It is singular that the only person who took part in this discus- sion, and disclaimed the imputation of speaking with oracular au- thority, should have admitted on the one hand that he did not ap- prove any of the proceedings of the Monthly Meeting, and on the other agree to a Report which confirms those proceedings without making any exception. This is to defend the conclusion when sup- ported by a majority of votes, for most of the speeches were no- thi.'ig more, and to reject the whole of the premises oa the recti- 96 A slight inspection which I once gave it will I think justify me in saying, that it is a work which has a ten- dency to lower the character of Jesus Christ f, that it rejects the doctrine of the Atonement J, wipes out by a tude of which that conclusion could only be well founded. On what principle J. G. held me answerable for a *' public address" to which I had never agreed, or more responsible for the notes to a work on none of which was I ever consulted, than for the contents of other books y)ublished by the same Society, he did not explain, nor can I understand. As to the " public Address," a very " slight in- spection" of the work he refers to might have shown him that some parts of it were strongly objected to from the first, by strict Unitarians, ''as narrowing too much the ground of the Society ;" and that the introduction of the w^ord idolatrous into the paragraph quoted by the Respondents, p. 10, and commented on by them, p. H "gave i^ery great offence to many of the Friends of the infant Institution," and prevented " some Gentlemen of Cambridge and elsev.here, whose names would have been an ornament to the Society," from ** joining it," or induced them tov/ithdraw from it. But that others who still continued in the Society" disapproved " the expres- sion—as having a tendency to fi?j: an opprobrium upon their fellow- Christians." IJelsham's Memoirs of Lindsey, pp. 297 — 299. -f- A slight inspection of this work may produce such a notion, which better acquaintance with it could hardly fail to correct. For it contains as ample a record as the received Version, of the divine sayings, excellent precepts, benevolent and mighty works of Jesus Christ, the Son of the ever-living God, who obeyed his will always and in all things, and was ihertfore highh' exalted at the right hand of the throne of the Most Higli. Is this to lov/er the character of the meek and humble Jesus, who sought not his own glory, but the glory of the Father who sent him ? If it be, such is the tendency of the Improved Version. + Not more than Vv^illiam Penn has, in the " Sandy Foundation Shaken," and in other parts of his writings. For he represented the doctrine as inconsistent with the sense of Scripture, and as un- avoidably and absurdly supposing " that the finite and impotent Creature is more capable of extending mercy and forgiveness than the Infinite and Omnipotent Creator" The doctrine of the Atonement, under every form of it that I am acquainted with, is highly injurious to the moral character of God ; for it represents him as a reformed Being, or rendered placable by another, although his goodness has ever been unchangeably the same, and endureth for ever. The genuine features of this un- christian doctrine are boldly but correctly traced in the following Hymn by the celebrated Dr. Isaac Watis, which in the early part 97 note the solemn command of our Saviour, " Swear not at all I," and endeavours to persuade Christians that they liave not an unwearied adversary whom it is con- stantly necessary to guard against, but whose very exist- ence is doubted or denied J. of his life he approved, but certainly not after he had rejected the common doctrine of the Trinity. * " Rich were the drops of Jesus' blood, That calm'd his [God's] frowning face, That sprinkled o'er the burning throne, And turn'd his wrath to grace. Is there no shelter from the eye Of a revenging God ? Jesus, to thy dear wounds I fly, Bedew me with thy blood. Conceived in sin (O wretched state ! ) Before we draw our breath, The first young pulse begins to beat Iniquity and death." Such are the devotional terms in which I have reason to suppose many congregations of professing Christians publicly express their homage to the Prophet of Nazareth, as the reformer of his God and Father I + The note referred to is on Matt. v. 34?. It does not however wipe out the command there recorded, but recognises and explains it, as it is understood by the great bulk of Christians, although not as J. G. or I may approve. The note is as follows. " That ye swear not at all." N. See Wakefield. It is a prohibition not of judicial oaths, but of swearing upon trifling occasions, and by trifling objects." As J. G. had no reason to suppose I approved either, he should have inferred that I was not responsible for all the sentiments contained in these notes. X Had Joseph Geldart chosen to give us his ideas of this " un- wearied adversary," as to his supposed powers and omnipresence, and the texts on which his opinions are founded, we might have judged how far they were Scriptural. But as he has not, although none of my accusers ever called upon me to profess my belief in the deity of Satan which J. G. seems to have made without prompting, I will close this note by recommending the passages he has referred to on this subject, to his serious attention. They are, I suppose, these : the notes on Matt. iv. 1. Luke xiii. 16. xxii. 3. John viii. 44. xiii. 2, 27. Acts v. 3. x. 38. 2 Cor. xi. 14. xii. 7. 1 Thess. ii. 18. 1 Tim. V. 16. 1 John iii. 8. v. 19. Jude v. 6. Rev. ii. 24. iii. 9. iv.2. and XX. 3. 0 98 These opinions are, I conceive, so totally at variance with those of our Society, that I must confess, though disapproving the original proceedings, the subsequent disownment appears to have been unavoidable ; and on the ground of this difference of sentiment between the Appellant and the Society, I consent to confirm the Re- port f.'' ^^35. Charles Parker, of Yelland, in Lancashire. — " I think it is so clearly the judgement of the Meeting, that the Report of the Committee should be confirmed, that there appeal's to be little occasion to make any ad- dition to what has been delivered. ^ I would, however, censure the impropriety of any Friend taking notes of the discussion." 36. " I am apprehensive what the Friend who has just sat down has said will discourage Friends who- might wish to speak, from ex- pressing their sentiments. I approve the Committee's Report, and concur with him as to the impropriety pt takincf notes." 37. Richard Cadbury, of Birmingham. — " I also ap- prove the judgement of the Committee, and think the Clerk should require the notes to be given up." **38. John Wilkinson. — " I wish this Friend to reflect on the proposal he has made. The Meeting must surely be sensible that I have no power vested in me as its Clerk, to require any notes that may have been taken, to be delivered up J," + I am much obliged to this Friend for sending me a written re* port of his speech, lest I should be misinformed respecting it. The above is a copy of the paper sent me. And if he should ever see the remarks I have annexed to it, I am persuaded the same candid disposition which induced him, though a stranger to me, to take care I should know what he did say, will lead him readily to excuse the freedom of those remarks. + It may be proper to say here, that I had not requested any per- son to take notes, but 1 think myself indebted to those persons who furnished me with them. It was more than I expected. Not that I doubted there being many persons in the Meeting, who would admit it to be proper that I should know what was said concerning me 99 ** 39. George Saunders. — " I fully unite in the judge- ment of the Committee, thinking the Appellant has long entertained principles different from those of Friends, which I may compare to a disease ; and in order to save the whole body, tiie limb affected should be removed. Tiiis I believe to be the case with Thomas Foster, in respect to the Society f." ** 40. Stephen Grellet, of New- York, North Ame- rica, expressed his concurrence with the Committee's decision. **'41. James Saunders, of Bristol, and **42 Joseph Sams, of Darlington, united in the same opinion. 43 * Thomas Catchpool, of Colchester, exhorted the young men to come forward to express their approval or disapprobation of the Committee's judgement ; ij^ there be such a th'uig as the latter in the Meeting. and my case when I was not allowed to be present. Others it seem;? are so impressed with the expediency of secrecy^ as to consider the report given me as "a high breach of privilege on the part of any member of the Society !" f Whether this Friend thinks the Church of which he is both a member and a minister is always infallibly right, or, like certain Protestant Churches, claims only to be never in the wrong, I cannot say. But without defining either the principles he speaks of, or in what degree he supposed I differed from them, and on what grounds, he describes my case as '-a disease" and one of so dangerous a na- ture that "the limb affected" required to be cut off ''to save the whole body" from being contaminated. The use of the term heretic, as a mark of reproach to those who receive the doctrine of Scripture only, and refuse to receive any other, is, I hope, well nigh worn out. The same thing is in this instance called by a more frightful name; but that only shows the apprehensions that are entertained of its prevalence. Nor will such measures do any thing to impede its progress ; they are more likely to accelerate its course. Even as a matter of policy, Church rulers had better in these times, take the advice of our common Lord and Master : "Let both," [the tares and the wheat] says he, " grow together until the harvest, lest while ye gather up the tares ye root up also the wheat." + This Elder seems to have formed a much more correct notion than William Tuke, of the privileges of those whom the latter held not to be members of the Meeting, but sitting there only ly suffer^ ance; for he exhorted them to come forward and exercise their rights. o2 100 **44 Dykes Alexander, of Ipswich. — " I have no doubt but there are still many Friends who wish to ex- press their opinions on the subject. For one, I should not like it to pass with a silent assent." *^45. James Hack, of Chichester. — I approve the Committee s decision." 46. Isaac Wright, of Haverill, Essex. — " I approve the judgement of the Committee ; and when T looked at them, and saw what striplings had been employed, I re- collected how David went down to the brook, and chose smooth stones, there was to be no roughness. [Here I heard, says my informant, a voice, which I think was Wm. Tukes, exclaim ^Shocking, shockingf!'] Isaac Wright continued. I observed that the Appellant while defend- ing himself was turning over Friends' books, &c. ; and He might possibly recollect that the first Christian Council is de- scribed in the New Testament as consisting of " the Apostles and Elders, and Brethren^ See Acts xv. 23. This Friend might not however know, that much disapprobation of the proceedings which the judgement of the Committee went to confirm, was expressed when the case was before the Quarterly Meeting. On one side of the subject there was then some serious argument ; and I presume, as it remained unanswered, he had no reason to suppose these per- sons, although silence was now imposed upon them, had changed their sentiments. His notion, that entire unanimity on such a subject prevailed in an assembly consisting of about twelve hundred persons, is utterly improbable and unfounded. I happen to know there were many persons present who disapproved these proceedings, both of those who were precluded from speaking, and of those who were not, and waved the right from diffidence, or from a conviction that it would be useless, or an apprehension that it might subject them to dealing and disownment, in the present temper of the rulers of the Society. f This Friend's description of the Committee, as " striplings," whose appearance reminded him of the youthful David, or an ap- prehension that he was about to make a rough figurative appli- cation of the smooth stones of the brook, to the Appellant, for the Giant's sword was not yet mentioned, seems to have shocked some of the Elders, who appear to have placed so strong a reliance on the Committee's judgement as Theologians, as to wave calling for any explanation of the grounds on which it rested, although these Were required by an express rule of the Yearly Meeting to be stated in the presence of the Appellant and Respondents !" 101 the title of an ancient Friend's book was brought to my mindt; viz. Goliah killed with his own sword." And this will be the case with the Appellant. * 47. Richard Ball. — " I feel extremely uneasy at what has been said by the Friend Avho spoke last. By the use of metaphorical language, which I much wish Fi iends would a\ oidin speaking on such subjects as these, he has likened the Appellant to a man who defied the ar- mies of the Living God, which I think indicates a want of tiiat Christian spii it ^vhich we ought to show one to another. For my part, I can most cheei'fully hold out the right hand of fellowship towards the Appellant, and I hoped there would have been none in this Meeting, that could not unite with me in so doing. I have known him lonc[, and believe him to be as sincere a man as njvself or any other Friend in this fleeting ; and though he ap- pears to have erred, and to have mistaken his path, he might live to see his error, as I sincerely hope he may ; in whJch case I trust Friends would cordially receive f Without a word or two of explanation, some of my readers may- be at a loss to miderstand the import of this phrase. They should know, then, that it is no less than a kind of claim to actual inspira- tion, intimating that the subjects so spoken of were not presented to tlie mind by the ordinary process of cogitation, or the facuk}^ of memory, but supernaturally brought into view. It is one of those phrases used almost exclusively by Ministers among Friends, and most frequently by such as are both weak and unskilful in the exer- cise of their gifts. They are, however, all advised to be cautious of laying too great a stress on their testimony, by too positively asserting a divine motion — the baptizing power of truth being the true evidence. Book of Extracts, p. U9. On this principle, it may be asked, How is Scriptural evidence to be estimated? That which is asserted in the 1st edition of this work to be " the best evidence,'' and in the 2d edition to be " the true evidence," may often, I suppose, be nothing more than a strong persuasion of the mind, that a certain position or tenet is true or false ; although that persuasion is pompously described as *' the baptizing power of truth." Whatever this may be, it is certainly no appeal to Scriptural authority. See Locke's Essay on Enthusi- asm, the last edition of wliich seems to have been properly enough dedicated to the Society of Friends* 102 him. I unite with the judgemcat of the Committee, although I cannot approve the proceedings of Ratcliff Monthly Meeting." * 48. Joseph Storrs, of Chesterfield. — " I approve the sentiments which have been expressed by the Friend who has just sat down." 49. John Wilkinson. — I think myself bound in duty to call Isaac Wright to order. The sentiments he has uttered, I consider, in concurrence with the Friends who have just spoken, as entirely inconsistent with the principles of a Friend. His speech, I must say, indicates great animosity." "^^^ 50. Isaac Wright here apologized to the Meeting, but in what terms I have not been distinctly informed. 51. Thomas Catchpool, jun. of Colchester. — "I assent to the judgement of the Committee, and hope other young Friends will step forward to declare their opinions." * 52. William Whitehead, of Warwick ; and 53. — merely said they approved the decision of the Committee. 54. Samuel Alexander, of Need ham, spoke for some time, but only to the same purpose. 55. William Westlake, of Southampton.—*' I do not think I shall be quite easy without stating to the Meet- ing that I have great cause to rejoice at the triumph of truth." *56. Isaac Braithwaite, of Kendal. — " It is painful to me to express an approval of the Committee's judge- ment, on account of being related to the Appellant: at the same time I think Ratcliff Meeting was too precipi- tate in its decision." * 57. Edward Pease, of Darlington ; 55. John Shipley, of Shaftsbury ; and ** 59. William Gundry, of Calne, — all expressed their approval of the Committee's decision. 60. John Shewell, of Ipswich, spoke much ; but in 103 so low a voice that Httle more was heard than that he approved the judgement of the Committee. 61. Henry Alexander, of Ipswich. — " I think it is the sense of the ^Meeting that a minute conhrming the Re- port of the Committee should be made and read." 62. John Wilkinson. — I believe that proposal is quite premature^']' 63. 64. Richard Lambert ^^'^eston, of Chatham ; 65. wished the decision of the Committee to be confirmed. 66. " I concur therewith, except with regard to the proceedings of Ratcliff Monthly Meeting." 67. Samuel Tregellis, of Falmouth. — I cannot but express my unity with the Report of the Committee, but with a similar exception as to the conduct of Rat- cliff Meetino;." * 68. William Dilworth Crewdson, of Kendal.—" I incline to think rather too much censure has been ex- pressed hij some Friends on the conduct of Ratcliff ^lonthly ^Meeting, for which some apology should be made, as there is no rule of the Society immediately applicable to the case by which they could regulate their proceedings. I have felt much for the unpleasant situa- tion in which they had been placed ; and I cannot but approve the judgement of the Committee, though I am somewhat connected with the Appellant's family by the ties of relationship." f If the proposal here alluded to was " ijuite premature" at this stage of the discussion, it is very difficult to make out that any ad- ditional grounds were afterwards assigned for the recorded judge- ment of so numerous an Assembly, either " or without ^^viuch 2inanimity." About a twentieth part of the persons present appear to have spoken, and of these very few condescended to assign the reasons whereon their judgement was founded. So that the deci- sion of the Meeting rested on very little more than the mere votes of so small a proportion of its members. 104 69. ' 70. , concurred in the opinion of W. D. Crewdsonf. Such were, I understand by the concurring evidence of much more than two or three zcitnesses,'' and such too as are worthy of credit, the prominent features of this discussion, and especially of those parts of it which had the most relation to the matters at issue. It occupied about two hours, including the time afterwards taken up in settling a minute on the subject. A short space indeed, when the number of speakers is considered. During this " deliberate consideration" of the case, the Respondents and myself were in waiting at the Clerk's Office, where we had some friendly conversa- tion. About one o'clock we received notice that the Meeting had come to a conclusion, which we w ere at f Thomas Clarkson tells us, in his Portraiture of Quakerism, vol. i. p. 24-0, that whatever question " comes before the Yearly Meeting at large, it is decided^ not by the influence of numbers, but by the weight of religious character.'' This is truly a most uncer- tain criterion, unless its members eminently possess the gift of spiritual discernment. He is, however, perfectly correct in saying p. 241, But in whatever way the question before them is settled," whether it be according to evidence, or plainly against it, " no division is ever called for. No counting of numbers is allowed. No protest is suffered to he entered.'' The speeches then are the only evidence, what is, or is not, " the sense of the Meeting," or of the persons assembled. And in proportion as the speeches are desti- tute of reasoning, they approach the character of so many Ayes or Noes upon the question before the Meeting. Many of the speeches on the present occasion can only be considered as so I many votes ; and although the number of speakers was unusually great, they can hardly have exceeded a twentieth part of the num- ber of members present. The opinions therefore of the rest of the Meeting were not in any manner ascertained. And of these speakers a considerable majority were Ministers, or Elders, members of that Meeting which sanctioned the publication of a work while my Ap- peal was pending, calculated to excite powerful prejudices against me amongst my judges, and on which I was peremptorily refused a hearing. See my Appeal, p. 45 — 55. So that I was at last sub- jected to the real judgement of my accusers, under the semblance of enjoying the important privilege of Appeal. 105 Uberty to hear read. We were soon after introduced to seats near the centre of the Meeting. After a short pause, The following minute was read by the Clerk. I'his Aleeiin^^ hating deliberaiely considered the t^ase of Thomas Foster on his Appeal against the Quar- ter! i/ Meeting of London and Middlesex, also the Re* port cf the ^Committee of this Meeting, appointed to hear and judge of the said Appeal, is, with mucli una- nimity, of the judgement that the Report of the said Co?nmit tee should be conjirmed ; and it is hereby eon- ^ ^i"; nn ed according! ij^'' * From tlie commencement of these proceedings to their ter- mination, I have been impressed with a conviction, that the osten- sible, were not real grounds upon which they were taken up, or carried on. The evidence of this has been continually increasing. And so far is the Yearly Meeting since my expulsion was effected, from having really adopted any Trinitarian hypothesis even of the most qualified complexion, that in its Epistle for 1S15.. it has openly ai^serted as Christian truths, all those gi'eat tenets by which Unitarianism is distinguished, and which, by the records of the several Meetings which have decided on my case, are imputed to me as erroneous. Soon after I was officially informed of this open recurrence of the Church to the simplicity of its primitive prmci- ples, I addiessed a respectful Letter to the Monthly Meeting by which I was excommunicated. For a copy of this Letter see the Monthly Repository, for March 1S16, vol. x. p. 153. Before it was published, I addressed the following Letter on the same subject to the Quarterly ^Meeting which confirmed that decision. Soon after the close of the previous ^kieeting for worship, which I attended, 1 publicly presented it at the Table, v/hile tiie Meeting for Disci- pline was assembling, audibly sayin-g : Before I withdraw I be- lieve it right for me to deliver this Letter to the Quarterly ^Meeting, aiid I trust it will be fomid respectful and proper*.to be read/' Two Friends to whom it was referred were, as appears by their Report to the Meeting, of a different opinion, and it was the next day re- turned to me by the Clerk, as not being "thought proper to be read in the ^Meeting." I therefore insert it here, as being closely connected with the subject of this work. " To the (Quarterly Meeting of London and Middlesex, to be hdd 3d Month, 26th, I8i6. Dear Friexds, Having incurred your censure for ' callivig in question' certain P 106" " A cop}} of this Minute to be given the Appellant, and to the Quarterly Meeting of London and Middle- sed'.'' doctrines ' professed by the Yearly Meeting, in its Epistle for 1810,' and being now able with much sincerity to avow my cordial approbation of tliose which its E})istle for the present j'ear con- tains upon the same subjects, I hope expressing the same to you will not be deemed an improper exercise of my Christian liberty, or give you just cause for dissatisfaction. How this Epistle can be reconciled to the former, I know not, but this I beg leave to refer to you, as being well worthy your consideration. "On hearing the latter Epistle read in the last autumn Quarter!}^ Meeting, I was forcibly struck v/ith the soundness, clearness, and Scriptural simplicity of its language, com})ared v.'ith that of the former, upon every point of doctrine on which erroneous opinions are imputed to me by your records, and that without feeling con- scious of any change in my sentiments. " My attention was again drawn to this Epistle, as the latest and most authentic exposition of the doctrines of the Society, by the delivery of a copy to me, by one of your members appointed to distribute those Epistles. Since this time I have carefully exa- mined its contents, and in the respective situation in which we stand to each other, as fellow-chnstians, and children of the same benevolent Parent of the Universe, even ' the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,' I feel that I owe it to you, before I close this letter, briefly to call your serious attention to those parts of the last Yearly IMeeting Epistle to which I have alluded. In doing this I shall annex a few words to mark more plainly how I under- stand the Epistle, ahvays distinguishing them from the text. It begins thus : " * In offering you this salutation of our love, we believe it right to acknowledge our thankfalnesis to the Author of all good, that we have been permitted to meet together. We have had again to rejoice in a sense of the g*jodness of Him [' the Author of all good'] who, by his presence, owned us in times past — we have felt the consoling assurance that the Divine Power [of Him who is omnipresent, and whose mercies are over all his works] is both ancient and new.' That is, I presume more properly, is unckange- alle. 'It is from this holy source ['of all good'] that every en- joyment,' says this Epistle, ' both spiritual and temporal flows ; it is to THE Lord Almighty that we are indehted for the blessing of existence, for the means of redemption, and for that Lively hope of immortality which comes ly Jesus Christ.' " This is much more than merely ' calling in question the omni- potence of Jesus Christ.' It is expressly to attribute omnipotent power and boundless goodness to another Icing, even to ' the Lord I heaid it with perfect composare of mind, ignorant us I tiien was of the character and complexion of the preceding discussion. Yet, I could not but be im- Almighty,' the ever-iiviDg and unchangeable God; and to de- scribe Jesus Christ as tiie medium by whom tJie ' lively hope* of the greatest of these blessings was made known to mankind tiurough Ae gospel. ** If we are * indelled to the Lord Almighty' — the giver of every good, and of every perfect gift, • for the blessing of exist- ence,' as this Epistle asserts, surely He • endo.ved us by nature' v/iih those ' talents— however great,' bv which we are distinguished from every otlier order of beings in this sublunary world. ' To his service, then, dear Friends,' adds the Epistle, ' in obedience to the manifestation of his power [[which is fresh every morning, for the earth is full of his goodness] let us offer our talents ; to the glory of his great and excellent name, let us devote our strength and ihe residue of our doys.' *' As to 'the propriety,* and the duty of ^secret supplication/ and to whom it should be addressed, this Epistle is equally explicit and Scriptural. After recommending the yjutli ' to allot a portion of each day to read and meditate upon the sacred volume [the Scrip- tures] in private,' this exhortation is added : • In these seasons of retirement, seek for ability to enter into a close examination of your own hearts 3 and as you may be enabled, secretly pray to the Almighty for preser\ation fiom the temptations with whieh you are encompassed.' Again : * Let their example,' that of some Friends lately deceased, * encourage you to offer ail your natural powers, and every intellectual attainment, to the service of the same Lordy and patiently to persevere in a coarse of unremitting obedi- ence to the Divine TVillJ If we pray then ' with the spirit, and '.vith the understanding also,' whether openly or in secret, surely it should be offered only to the same Lord — • the Almighty,' as this Epistle enjoins, and not even to Jesus * whom he [God] hath made — -I'oth I/jrd and Christ! Acts ii. S6f " The Epistle concludes thus: 'Let us ever remember, that if we obey the Divine commandments, v,e sholi do ail to the glory of God ; we shall always acknowledge, that it is of his mercy, if we ever become partakers of the unspeakable privilege of the true dis- ciples of Him the Lord Jesus'] who * died for ail, that they that live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again.' 2 Cor. t. 15. *' From this passage I unclerstand, that in the judgement of the compilers of tliis Epistle, we cannot become ' true discipUs of *//;e Lord JesiiSy whom God raised from the dead, without being * al- v.ays' ready to acknowledge,' that we owe ' the unspeakable pri- vUtge to * THE Meucy of God,' the Original Source and proper 108 pressed from the language of tha iVfinute, that it was much more founded on the deference supposed to be due to the mere authority of the Committee's Report, the grounds of which the Meeting, in direct breach of its own rule, refused to hear explained, than on any deliberate consideration of iny Appeal, (which was only once read,) of my Address, the Respondents' Reply, and my Rejoinder, as it ought to have been. I nevertheless felt no inclination to address the Meeting again, and therefore requested my Father Compton to apply to the Meeting in my name, when I was withdrawn, for a copy of the Committee's Report, -without which 1 should not officially know what the Meeting's decision was. A few minutes after, I withdrew in silence, thankful that 1 had openly and faithfully throughout this contest boi'ne my testimony, however feebly or ineffectually, against an intolerant and inquisitorial exercise of Church authority, by the agents of a small junta of Disciplina- rians, whose influence pervades, and over-rules, all the constituted authorities of the Society. Nor am 1 less thankful that I also avowed with equal plainness, my unshaken belief m the Unity ^ Suprtmaci!, Mercy and Purity of the one only true God and Father^ of the Universe. Jiuthor of all the blessings conferred on mankind by Jesus Christ, and by the gospel which he preached. I congratulate you and the Society on so speedy a return to the common language of our an- cestors, and to that ' form of sound words' which is to be found in the Scriptures of truth ; and remain your sincere well-wishing Friend, ^' THOMAS FOSTER, "Bromley, March 25, 1816." APPENDIX. ON THE MORAL SENSE, OR CONSCIENCE. " The Conscience is that internal principle, which, without reason- ing, without direct reflection on the consequences of actions, or even on their ol-ligaiion, at once approves certain dispositions or actions as right, or as what we ought to cultivate and practise ; artd at once disapproves of certain dispositions and actions, as wrong, or as what we ought to check and avoid. The human mind- is so ibrmcd, that the conscience will spring up in it : nevertheless it is equally true and important, that its dictates are not universally the same, and that it is an improvable principle ; — that to give it early correctness and vigour, requires great care on the part of those who are concerned in the early periods of education and that to give it due sensibility , accuracy, and influence, requires the use of suitable means in every period of life. " The pleasures and pains of the conscience (hke all other mental feelings) are produced by the ever active principle of association, which, under the occasional control and direction of the understand- ing, connects, combines, and blends tor^ether a vast variety of plea- sures and pains ; and thus forms a set of feelings,. which most pov.er- fuUy influence the conduct, and contribute niost essentially to the happiness or wretchedness of the individual. These feelings are derived from all the other pleasures and pains of our nature, so far as they are consistent \\ \t\\ one another, \^^th the frame of our na- ture, and with the course of the world (see Hartley, vol. i. prop. 99). They are continually presenting themselves, urging us to shun some branches of conduct, and to pursue others; rewarding us for our obedience, with some of our purest and best satisfactions ; and pu- nishing us for our neglect and disobedience, with emotions always painful, and sometimes so agonizing, that life loses all its relish ; and all the pleasures which have been purchased by slighting its warn- ings, lose their power to give more than temporary relief. *' As soon as the moral principle begins to appear, a great variety of impressions, some designedly communicated, and others pro- duced as it were accidentally, begin to connect with the terms good and right, (and others similar to them,) pleasing feelings, derived directly from sensation, or from the approbation of friends, &c. ; and with the words wicked, wrong, &:c., painful feelings, in like manner derived directly from sensation, or from the feelings of shame. If children are so happy as to have parents whose ideaa respecting duty are generally correct, these feelings will be pro- peri}^ directed ; and they will then be increased, strengthened, and rendered more and more lively, by the continual addition of many others, derived from various sources. If not, there will be a pro- 110 APPENDIX. portionable deficiency, or erroneousness, in the dictates of the con- science, which will be to be corrected, if corrected at all, by expe- rience, or by increased knowledge, afforded by the Scriptures, or some other rule of life, respecting duty, and the consequences of 'performing or neglecting it. " But supposing the generally favourable, and not uncommon case, where an individual has had the advantage of an early correct direction of his moral feelings, — here all the pleasures arising from tlie exercise of the filial affections, all the pains arising, as natural consequences, or as direct punishment, from disobedience, or the neglect of parental injunctions, contribute their share 'to strengthen and enliven these feelings. As soon as some kno^\ ledge of God and of a future hfe have been obtained, the affections which are formed towards God, the hope of future happiness, and the dread of future misery, begin to add to the vigour and extent of the feel- ings of conscience ; and they continually, and through life, contri- bute those impressions which pov/erfully tend to give activity and energy to its pleasures and pains, while at the same time they cor- rect and confirm its dictates. Separate fron this source, though not independent of it, the beneficial tendency of right conduct and dispositions, and the injurious tendency of the contrary, with re- spect to the happiness both of the individual and of others, in the way of interest, or reputation, or social comfort, (whether the re- sult of experience, or observation, or pointed out in a less impres- sive yet often effectual way, by the instructions of parents and friends,) add to the strength and liveliness of the emotions of ap- probation and disapprobation. " Though the feelings of the m.oral sense have a general agreement in their force and direction, in different individuals, who have en- joyed th'e usual advantages for the cultivation of the conscience, yet even in them the component parts, must vary considerably, both in kind and in degree. Without attempting, therefore, to enter into a minute account of the formation of those very complicated feel- ings, composed, as they are, of a vast variety of other feelings, themselves greatly complicated, it may be sufficient to observe, that every pleasing or painful impression, received in connexion with right or wrong conduct, contributes towards the formation or growth of the pleasures and pains of conscience. " Every instance in which approbation, reward, or any other good consequences, are actually experienced, or are observed to be ex- perienced by others, in consecjuence of right conduct, — every in- stance in which the mind is led to perceive the beneficial tendency of right conduct, its suitableness to the course of providence, and to the frame of man, — every instance in which our ov/n right con- duct does good, or gives pleasing satisfaction to others, especially to those whom we love, — every instance in which the heart is im- pressed with the conviction, that he who is greater than the heart, knows and approves of sincere and dutiful obedience to his com- mands, — every thoughtful reflection on the infinitely blissful conse- APPENDIX. Ill qnenccs of a course of steady obedience to duty, — and every in- stance in which the present supports of obedience are experienced,, or perceived in others, — contributes its share towards the formation and strength of those feelings of love and approbation of what is considered as our duty, which make the contemplation of right ac- tions and dispositions a source of delightful emotion ; and which reward the performance of the one, and exercise the culture of the other, by that approving testimony, which has often been an abun- dant recompense for the greatest pains and privations to which duty may direct. " And, on the other hand, everj' instance in which displeasure, shame, punishment, or any otlier ill consequences, are actually ex- perienced, or are observed to be experienced by others, in conse- quence ()f wrong conduct, or in which the mind is led to perceive its injurious tendency, its unsuitableness to the course of providence, and to the frame of man, — every instance in which our wrong con- duct does injury, or gives painful regret to others, especially to those whom we love, — every instance in which the thoughtful conviction is excited, that he who knoweth every secret of the heart, is dis- pleased with disobedience, and that tlie consequence of everyact of disobedience, of every indulgence of wrong disposition, of every neglect of duty, and the affections enjoined by it, will, in his all- righteous ordinations, be followed by its proportionate diminution of happiness, or increase of misery, probably in this life, but cer- tainly in another, — every instance in which the present pains of con- science are experienced, or observed in others, in consequence of the neglect of its dictates, or disobedience to them — contributes its shai-e towards the formation and strength of those lively feelings of disapprobation or even abhorrence, with which we contemplate what, in others, is considered as inconsistent v/ith or contrary to duty, and of remorse, in consequence of wrong actions and dispositions in our- selves ; which punish the performance of the one, and the indul- gence of the other, with pains that often exceed in vividness, all others to which the human being is exposed in this world; which, though sometimes overcome by the bustle and pleasures of the AA'orld, seldom fail to revive in the period of worldly distress, or in the time of sickness and the apprehension of death ; and which will, in all probability, constitute a great part of the awi\il punishments of futurity. " This view of the formation of the pleasures and pains of the conscience, will at once suggest to the thoughtful reader, the means by which it is to be cultivated; and this has been our chief object in stating it. — But in whatever light we regard the conscience, one thing is indisputable, that its dictates are not uniformly tha same in any one individual ; and that they are exceedingly variable in dif- ferent individuals, even with respect to the grand principles of duty, and still more with respect to the application of those principles. It is indisputable, that the moral principle groAvs to maturity from a small seed. It is indisputable, that it is susceptible of culture; that, if 112 APPENDIX. neglected, its judgments become wavering and impotent ; that i£ it? dictates be made to undergo revision, if corrected by the means of knowledge we possess, and their defects supphed by the more ex- tended viev. s of duty, its decisions proportionally become more firnj; and in general m6re efficacious. (See Paley, B. I. ch. 5.) " Even an ardent desire to keep with exactness the best rules of duty, will not render attention unnecessary to the cultivation of the conscience ; / verily ihougkt with myselj]' said the Apostle Paul. * that / ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth ;') and an enlightened love of duty must therefore urge to such cultivation. Dr. Cogan, in his Philosophical Treatise on the Passions, (p. 348) adduces as an example of ' the influence of per- verted principles,' * the conduct of a pious Pdother towards a most excellent and dutiful Son, who, from a principle of conscience, in t)pposition to his interests, renounced the religious system in which he had been educated, for another vvhich he deemed more consonant to truth. She told him, that ' she found it her duty, however se- vere the struggle, to alienate her affections from him, now he had rendered himself an enemy to God by embracing such erroneous sentiments.' My friend added, that she was completely successful in these pious endeavours ; and that the duty which she enjoined upon herself, was scrupulously performed during the remainder of her days.' — The same philosophic writer mentions another instance of the irregularity of the moral principle, in a child, )jf\ whose cha- racter mildness and compassion were pre-eminent features. ' I wai once passing through Moorfields,' hesa3's, 'with a young lady, aged about nine or ten years, born and educated in Portugal, but in the Protestant faith ; and observing a large concourse of people assem- bled around a pile of faggots on lire, I expressed a curiosity toknov,' \}\Q cause. She very composedly answered, ' I suppose it is nothing more than that they are going to burn a Jew.' " From an attentive consideration to the nature of man, as weli as from the declarations of revelation, it is clear that the conscience was intended, by the great Author of our frame, to be our guide in all cases of emergency, and to have great influence in every de- partment of duty. It may often be most justly said, that the voice of conscience is the voice of God. Nevertheless, without due care and culture, it may be, and often is, erroneous and defective; and therefore it is not safe as an exctuslve guide of duty, but should itself be put under the control of a still higher principle, the will of God- It is alike our wisdom and our duty, to enlighten, regulate, refine, and extend the dictates of the conscience, by the law of God, and other intimations of his will, and then submit implicitly to its di- rection." — [Systematic Education: or Elementary Instruction^, hy tl^-. Rev. IV. Sliepkerd, the Rev. J. Joyce, and the Rev. Lant Carpenter , LL.D. vol.ii. p. 322.) THE EXD. ri'l.NTI-D BY RICUA^.D A>!J) ARTilUR lAYLOK, SHOE I.ANK, I.OS0ON. INDEX of Texts of Scripture cited in this Work. Page Deuf. vi. 4 - 5, 6, 9 2 Chron. vi. 13, 14, 18 93, 94 rrei. x T I Jobj xxxii. 8 rr 1 OO Isat. VI. 3 34 ix. 5 39 1 Ixvi. 2 53 JJan. 111. 25 35 Alic. V. 2 38 Matt, I. 18 39 vii. 1 - title page xi. 5 35 27 42 xiii. 29, 30 99 xvi. 16, 17 36 xviii. 20 13 xxiii. 8, 9 82 xxiv. 36 59 xxvi. 39 29 42 35 xxvii. 46 29 XXV iii. 17 58 20 13 Mork, xii. 29 - 5, 6, 9 xiii. 32 59 XV. o4 29 Luke, 1. 30 — 35 40 ii. a, 2 25 14 83 46 35 iii. 23 22 X. 22 42 xii. 57 - title page XX. 36 — 38 16 xxiv. 53 59 T I Jolaif 1. 1, 3 38 14 41 50 19 iii. 13 36 34 41 v. 4 14 19 53,35 22, 23 56 30 35 viii. 58 38 X. 36 30 xii. 41 34 xiv. 6 - 42 9 36 XV. 5' 45 XTli. 5 - 38, 16 12, 22 16 24 17 Aclff ii. 36 107 Page vii. 35 34 56 58 59 57 X. 38 35, 41 XV. 23 100 Rnm. i. 1 — 4 19 iii. 2 47 iv. 17 10 V. 15 40 viii. 29 16, 19 30 10 ix. 5 38 xiv. 1, 2, 22 - Pref. ix xvi. 20, 24 60 1 Cor. iv. 3, 4 - title page v. 3, 4 - i«> XV. 20, 21 40 24, 27, 28 59 xvi. 23 60 ^4 KQ v)V uor. V. Jo — iUf xii. 7 — 9 OJ h.ph, ]. 3 106 iii. 9 rhlL 11, 6 18,52 7 lo 8 pref. xii. 18,35 9 11 - pref. xii iv. 19, 20 60 23 Col. i. 15 - 39, 42 16 - 38,42,67 19 41 ii. 3, 9 1 The^%, iii 1 1 62 V. 28 60 2r//ess.iii. 18 61 1 Tim. ii. 3, 4 pref. ix 5 xii. 42,53 2 Tm. i. 10 IX mh. 1. 1 - 56, 67 2 - 38, 56 3 - 39, 56 4—9 57 ii. 14, 16 40 17 pref, xii, 40 iv, 15 40 viii. 6 47 X. 5 36 iPe^.iv. 11 84 1 JoAw, V. 20 - 31,39 J?eT3. V. 11—13 62 xix, 13 39 Q INDEX. Address of the Respondents, page 1 — 68 Appellant, Reply of tlie, 68—88 Alexander, Dykes, 100 , Samuel, 102 — ^ , Henry, 103 Alien, William, *1, 81 Apostolic Addresses and Benedic- tions strictly Unitarian, 59 — 62 ApoltJfry of Barclny quoted, 43, 45 Appeilaut, vviiy disowned, 9 , no Rule applicable to the Case of, 103 Appellant's Letter to Luke Howard, preface, \v. Atkins, .Tosepf), 90 Ball, Richard, 8G, 87, lOl Barclay, Quotations from, by the Respondents, 26, 37 — 45 ■ , Quotations from, by the Ap- pellant, 12, 37, 41—45 , whether an Arian 6r a Sa- bellian, 45 Belsham's Scripture Doctrine con- cerning the Person of Christ, 27, 28 Bevan, Joseph Garney, 4, 49, 68, 81 Biddle, John, 48 Book of Extracts quoted, 3,69, 100, 101 Braitliwaite, Isaac, 102 Cadbufv, Richard, 98 Candler, William, 92 Catch pool, Thomas, 9^ Christian Observer, 70 Christ, the Greek name for Messiah, both signify the Anointed of God, 72 Church, the Established, concurs in consigning:; Legatt to the blames in Sinithfield, 37 Claridge, Quotation from, 64 < , his Essay on the Doctrine of the Trlnitv, 65 • , his learned Defence of Penti's Sandy Foundation Shaken, 80 Clarke, Dr. Samuel, his OpMons of Sabellianism, 33 ■ , Thomas, 93 Committee of RatcTiff Monthly JVIeetinti;, their Confession to the Respondents, 10 Comparison by Pcaington between I Antient and [supposed]' Moderr^ Revelation, 33, 34 Council, the first Christian, of whom composed, 100 Creed, Scriptural, the only proper one for Christians, 6Q Crewdson, William Dilworth, 103 Davides, Francis, imprisoned for ob- jecting to the Invocation of Christ', 8r Discipline of the Society, how usually applied, 2. Originally tolerant on points of Faith and Worship, 81 Discussion in the Yearly Meeting, leading features of, pref. vi. vii. Disownment, to whom intrusted hy the Rules of the Yearly Meeting, pref. vii. 0istinction between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism explained, 76 Divine Influence on the Human Mind, Doctrine of, 10 Divinity of that Power which dwelt in Christ Jesus asserted, 66, 67 Ellw ood, Thomas, points out the con- tradictory Evidence of Geo. Keith respecting Wrii. Penn, 15, 16 Evebham Hymn-book 30 " Eternal Son of God," an improper and unscriptural name of " the man Christ Jesus," 41—43 Evidence, Historical, how estimated by the Respondents, 26, 27 ■ , Scriptural, how estimated by many Quakers, 100,101 Firniin, Tlionias, 48 Forster, Josiah, his Address to the Yearly Meeting as a Respondent, 1—68 Fox, George, objects to the term Trinity as a hew and unscriptural name of God, 31. Denied that " the true Christian's God" could be crucified, 32 Geldart, Joseph, his Speech in the Yearly Meeting, 94—98 Grellet, Stephen, 99 Grundy^sEvangelicalChristfianity.SS' Gundry, William, 102' Gurney, Joseph, 91 Howard, Luke, Letter to, pref. v. . ^ hrs Speeches in the Yearly Meeting, 20, 68, 71 H^mn used in the Church at Eveshani, INDEX. Asserting tlie Death of the Infinite Creator, 30 Hymn of Dr. Isaac Watts's, 97 Jesus Christ a true and real Man, 40 Imprimatur Rule nearly obsolete, pref. X. ImprovedVersion of the Nev.- Testa- ment, Respondents* Quotations from, 12—17, 19—26 Incarnation of Christ, how said to be best assured to the Mind, 27 Inspiration, delusive Notions of, equally opposed to Ileusoii and Revelation, 5, 100, 101 Keith, Georue, his Evidence concern- ini!; William Penn contradictory, and therefore unworthy of credit, 16 , from being a zealous Quaker, becomes a professed Tri- nitarian, 54 Language, metaphorical, often im- properly used, 101 Lean, Joel, 26 Le^att, Bartholomew, burnt in Smilhfield for being a mere Scrip- turian,37 Locke's Essay on Enthusiasm quoted concerning the Love of Truth, 63; of Reason ai)d Revelation, 69 Reasonableness of Christia- nity as delivered in the Scriptures quoted, 72, 73 Lloyd, Samuel, 91 lyondon Unitarian Book Society, 6 ; objects of, stated by the Respon- dents, 7, 10, 11, 12 Mackellow, John, 89 Martin, VViliiam, 86 Meetings for Discipline, the sup- posed authority of, 3, 69 Messiah, the — the Son of God — the Sent of the f'ather, synonymous terms, 73 Ministers and Elders, Meetings of, mere Committees of the Meetintjs for Discipline till 1784. 88, 89.^ Monthly and Quarterly Meetings, minute concerning their supposed aath:>rity, 3 Monthly Repository of Theology, &c 55, 64, 85 Murray, Lindley, his Compendium of Religious Faith, &c. pref. x. i quotes the most corrupted Texts/ as being war- ranted by Divine Revelatioriy pref. xi. Narrative, Appellant's, 5, 7 — 10, 44, 50—52 New Testament, improved Version of, 11, 12. Extracts from, 13, 14, 16 Oracles of God, text concerning, how misapplied, 84, 85 Parker, Charles, 98 Penington, Respondents' quotations from, 33—36 Appellant's quotations from, 35 — 37 Penn, William, quotations from, by the Respondents, 17, 18, 47—50, 53 ■ , Appellant's quotations from, 51—53, 66, 74, 75, 80 Portraiture of Primitive Quakerism by William Penn, 5 ; Remarks on, 6 Prichard, Thomas, 6 Purver's Translation of the Scrip- tures, published in 1764, 12 Quakers reject the Doctrine of a Distinction of Persons in the Deity, yet profess to believe the Divinitv of Christ, 76 Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, Sketch of its reputed Orthodoxy and real In- tolerance, 5 Reason the proper test of all su- pernatural Revelation, 69 Respondents' Reply, how described to Friends m the Country, pref. iii how completely suc- cessful, iv ■ Address to the Yearly Meeting, 1—68 Revelation, natural Reason im- proved and instructed, 69 Sabellianism, Dr. Samuel Clarke, his , opinion of, 33 Sabellians and Socinians compared to each other by Claridge, 64, 65 Saunders, George, 89, 99 Scott, Job, his estimate of the value of Appeal among Friends, 2 Scriptures, duty and advantage of reading publicly, pref. xii Respondonts' quotations from, 5, 6, 13, 14, 16—22, 29— 31, 34—42,44, 45, 52, 56—58, 60—63, 67,71— 75, 83, 83, 97, 100 INDEX. Scriptures, AppeJlant's quotations from, 9, 11, 14, 26, 29,30, 33,35, :39, 43, 47, 53, 56—63, 67,71 — 75,82—84 Secrets in Religion, the Apostles had none, 60 ; Sectarians have, 98, 99 Sewel's History, Respondents' quo- tation from, 54, 55 Shipley, John, 102 Socinus, a persecutor, worshiped the man C hrist Jesus, 40, 87 Steele, Sir R., his strange notion that the God of Nature died, 30 Stacey, George, 1, 81 Storrs, Joseph, 102 Tiiiotson, Archbishops his opinion of the Athanasian Creed, 23 Tract Association among Friends,71 Tregellis, Samuel, 103 Trinity, doctrine of, rejected by George I'ox, 31 Tucket,.!., jun,, of Basingstoke, 84 Tuke, VVilliaai, 79, 86—88, 89 Union, mysterious, of three Persons in the Deity no Scriptural Doc- trine, pref. xi Unitarian Book Society, C, 9 — IC, 27, 28,^46,70, 71, 95 _ Verax's Christian Unitarianism vin- dicated, 50, 64, 65 Version, Received, contains corrupt- ed and perverted Passages, 37 VVestlake, William, 102 Whitehead, George, opposed the Doctrine of the Trinity, 48 Whom ought we alone to worship.^ pref. viii Wilkinson, John, his Speeches ns Clerk to the Yearly Meeting, 71, 72, 86, 89, 93,98/102, 103 Worship in the Received Version sometimes means only civil re- spect or obeisance, 58 Wright, Isaac, 100, 102 Yearly Meeting Epistle, Rem. on, 9 ■ , Minutes of, 3, 4, 6, 69, 84, 88, 100 , how Questions that come before them are settled, 104 far from adopting any Trinitarian Hypothesis, 105 —108 TlieJoLlovcins Works by Thomas Foster,