{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_58078/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_58078","id":"gutenberg_58078","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/58078","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Hicks, Elias, 1748-1830","Society of Friends -- Hicksite controversy"],"text":"Produced by Bryan Ness, David King, and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This\nbook was produced from scanned images of public domain\nmaterial from the Google Books project.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                          Transcriber's Note:\n\nThis version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.\nItalics are delimited with the '_' character as _italic_.\n\nFootnotes have been moved to follow the paragraphs in which they are\nreferenced.\n\n               OBSERVATIONS ON THE SERMONS OF ELIAS HICKS\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   IN\n\n                        SEVERAL LETTERS TO HIM;\n\n                                  WITH\n\n                       SOME INTRODUCTORY REMARKS,\n\n                            ADDRESSED TO THE\n\n                             JUNIOR MEMBERS\n\n                                 OF THE\n\n                          SOCIETY OF FRIENDS.\n\n                           BY A DEMI-QUAKER.\n\n                              Robert Waln\n\n  \"To expect that we should be informed of the divine economy with the\n  same distinctness as of our own duty, would be a piece of arrogance\n                       above ordinary.\"--_Burgh._\n\n              \"Dim, as the borrowed beams of moon and stars\n              To lonely, weary, wandering travellers,\n              Is reason to the soul: and as on high,\n              Those rolling fires discover but the sky,\n              Not light us here: so reason's glimmering ray\n              Was lent, not _to assure_ our doubtful way,\n              But guide us upward to a better day.\"--_Dryden._\n\nPHILADELPHIA 1826.\n\n\n\n\n            TO THE JUNIOR MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS.\n\n\nThe situation in which the Society of Friends has of late been placed,\nhas, I have no doubt, attracted the attention of all its members; and\nthat even those among you who have not been in the habit of attending\nits meetings for discipline, are no strangers to their proceedings,\nalthough you have not yet felt it your duty to take any part in them.\nAnd to you more especially I submit the observations contained in the\nfollowing letters.\n\nWhen in my early days I sometimes attended these meetings, my mind was\nfilled with admiration at the harmony and prudence with which their\naffairs were conducted, and that genuine christian forbearance, one with\nanother, which enabled them to triumph over all the difficulties which\nare imposed by conflicting opinions, and generally to unite in the\nadoption of such measures as true wisdom dictated; and it was gratifying\nto me to observe that it was, to other sects, a subject of wonder, how\nany numerous association could conduct their business without the\nintervention of votes or other substitutes, to ascertain the opinions of\nthe majority of the assembly.\n\nThe form is, I have no doubt, yet preserved, and the language of\nforbearance and humility retained by many who in their hearts entertain\nfar different feelings; and the proceedings have in several instances\nproved, that the spirit which formerly pervaded these assemblies, no\nlonger prevails in some of them.\n\nWhy this great change has taken place, will no doubt be ascribed to\ndifferent causes by the parties more immediately interested: an\nimpartial spectator may form conclusions different from many of them,\nand may be permitted to ask, whether the leading causes may not have\nbeen produced by some of that class, to whom the great majority of the\nmembers of the society look for instruction.\n\nThe situation of a christian teacher is of awful responsibility, and in\nthe Society of Friends peculiarly beset with dangers, not only because\nof the high claim on which their ministry is founded, and which seems to\nrequire a degree of unremitting watchfulness with which it is difficult\nfor man to comply; but also, because it requires a constant attention to\nkeeping the mind in that state of lowliness and humility, which can\nalone preserve them from mistaking the wanderings of the imagination for\na call of duty; and from those feelings which lead them to seek after\nthe applause of men. Hence it must necessarily follow, that but few\namong them are always preserved in such a state of mind, as not to\nrequire the caution and advice of their friends: and consequently, that\nsome portion of the society must be selected to watch over their\nconduct; and as this is an office of the greatest importance to their\nwell being, the greatest care ought to be observed in the appointment.\nThe elders are the depositaries of this power, so essential to the very\nexistence of the society; and as the most prudent and cautious use of it\ncannot always prevent the objects of their attention from feelings of\nresentment, so it will naturally follow, that those to whom the exercise\nof it is most necessary, will always be the most zealous in abridging\nit.\n\nThis impatience of control is increased by a ranting spirit which seems\nof late to have infected a portion of the society, and which, in its\nconsequences, is always more injurious than infidelity itself; and\ngenerally arises from a restlessness of disposition, which not content\nwith the measure of light which may have been imparted, is always\naspiring after greater things. It arises from a desire after\ndistinction; and as this disposition must prevent a growth in genuine\nreligion, the delusions of self-love easily enable a man to substitute\nhis own imaginations for revelations; and as every passion is\nstrengthened by indulgence, he proceeds from one step to another, until\nhe fancies himself under the constant and peculiar guidance of the\nspirit, not only in his religious duties, but in all the temporal\nconcerns of life. It naturally follows, that when he has persuaded\nhimself that he is thus gifted and endowed, he will feel himself above\nthe advice of men, and regard all regulations which may have a tendency\nto restrain his wanderings, as obstructing him in his duties, and it\nwill be one of his favourite objects to relieve himself from all\ncontrol. How individuals actuated by such passions can subject the minds\nof others to their illusions, would indeed be wonderful, did not history\nfurnish sufficient proof that it is difficult to calculate too largely\non the credulity of a portion of mankind.\n\nWhenever this disposition of mind is discovered, especially in any part\nof the ministry, every reflecting member of society must perceive the\nnecessity of adopting means to prevent the injurious consequences of it;\nand as that duty more especially devolves on the elders, (who are, and\nalways have been, the true and efficient support of the society,) they\nsoon become objects of dislike to the sublimated spirits opposed to\nthem, and the diminution of their power and authority, the first and\nfavourite scheme.\n\nThat they will not succeed, I am fully persuaded; because I think it\nmust be evident to every unclouded mind, that without such salutary\ninterference as they often find it necessary to exercise, all order and\npropriety would be banished from the society.\n\nCunning is not more inconsistent with fanaticism, than it is with\nlunacy; for however perverted the mind may be in relation to particular\nsubjects, we often see individuals in both situations, adopting the most\nplausible means for the accomplishment of the most irrational objects.\nIt is not therefore to be expected that any attempts will be made\ntotally to abolish the eldership: such a proposal would hardly be\nsuccessful; but if means are found to render that body less independent,\nand to diminish the weight and authority which they have long and\ndeservedly possessed, it may subserve the cause, and lead to ultimate\nsuccess in their projects: and here, if any where, the danger seems to\nbe.[1]\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  Since writing the above, I have been informed that this attempt has\n  actually been made in the yearly meetings in Philadelphia and New\n  York, under the pretext of a necessity of subjecting all important\n  appointments to change at stated periods. No measure could be devised\n  more injurious to the society, and every friend to its welfare must\n  rejoice that it was rejected. I know there are many very pious\n  labourers in the ministry of this people, yet I think it must be\n  evident to every observing mind, that there never was a period since\n  the existence of the society, in which there was greater necessity of\n  unremitting watchfulness on the part of the elders; and that so far\n  from its being expedient to diminish their control, it ought, if\n  possible, to be rendered more efficient. There is a spirit now abroad,\n  which if not checked, will devastate this society. Who would be the\n  principal agents is not for me to say; but one thing is certain, that\n  if there is any disposition on the part of its ministers to relieve\n  themselves from this control, it is sufficient evidence of the\n  necessity of it. Such a disposition must proceed from a mind not\n  imbued with true christian humility, but presumptuously confident in\n  itself. It is spiritual pride, than which nothing is more injurious\n  and odious in a christian professor.\n\nIt is with this disposition that such extraordinary solicitude has been\nmanifested, to induce the youth of the society and others of its\nmembers, who had before silently attended to its proceedings, to take\npart in its deliberations, and to flatter them into a belief that they\nare qualified to administer to its affairs and direct its proceedings;\ninstead of recommending an endeavour to discipline the mind to the\nweighty business of the society, and cautioning them against indulging a\nspirit of judging without a serious and solemn consideration of the\nsubject; and against interrupting the business by their councils, unless\nit is under a solemn impression of duty.\n\nThe effect has been such as might be expected, and was probably\nintended. Individuals who had before taken no part in the deliberations\nof the society, and who, (however respectable in life,) had never\nevinced that disposition of mind which had before been thought a\nnecessary qualification of an active member, are now among the most\nbusy; and some of the younger portion of the society forgetting that\nmodesty is the most becoming ornament of youth, are found opposing their\nunripe notions with unhesitating pertinacity, to the wisdom and\nexperience of age.\n\nUnder these circumstances is it not proper for you to consider whether\nyou have not a part to act? When you look back to the history of your\nsociety and consider its admirable organization; and when you reflect on\nthe respectable standing, to which the unostentatious propriety by which\nall its transactions have been governed, has raised it; you must be\nimpressed with an honest zeal for its welfare; and that reverence which\nevery ingenuous mind feels for the institutions and practices of their\nancestors, strengthened as it is in this case by the best of all tests,\na long experience, must induce you to oppose the innovations of the\nrestless agitators of the present day: and your good sense will, I\ntrust, enable you to distinguish between true religion and fanaticism,\nand not permit you to lose your reverence for the one, in contemplating\nthe wild deformity of the other.\n\nAnd perhaps you may be induced to believe that your attendance at the\nmeetings for discipline, may not be without its use; that your presence\nmay give additional strength and encouragement to the long tried\nstandard bearers, and though you may not feel yourselves called upon to\ntake a very active part in their deliberations, your example may be of\nuse to some of those froward spirits, who, whatever may be their\nexterior appearance, are less qualified for the important business than\nmany of yourselves.\n\nI know there are individuals in every stage of life, who judge of\npreaching as others do of music, by the concord of sweet sounds; and who\nare convinced more by the harmony of a well turned sentence, than by the\nsentiment it is intended to convey; whose religion is founded on\nsensation rather than reflection, and is an affair of feeling instead of\na deliberate sense of duty. To these I have nothing to say. My endeavour\nhas been to show the inconsistencies into which men are led, by\nunfounded pretensions to a state of perfectability,[2] and an\nacquaintance with the inscrutable workings of Providence, (which all\nexperience proves to be unattainable by man;) to show that such lofty\naspirations are not in accordance with the genuine principles of the\nreligion of Jesus Christ; and that it is by a submissive acquiescence in\nthe measure of knowledge communicated, and an anxious endeavour to\nfulfil the obligations it imposes, rather than by curious researches\ninto hidden things, that we best perform our duties here; and as no\nintelligent mind among you can believe that the suggestions of infinite\nwisdom are ever contradictory, it was part of my plan to show the\ninconsistencies in the doctrines of the great leader of the illuminati\nof your society.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  Perfection, in the sense in which it is understood by some people,\n  frequently leads to great extravagance on religious subjects, by\n  inducing men to believe that they have eradicated from their hearts\n  every propensity to evil, and have arrived at a state of stainless\n  purity. There is a great difference between the perfection of the\n  Creator and man. The perfection of man consists in his possessing all\n  that is requisite to attain the end of his creation; and the proper\n  question for him to consider, is not whether he has arrived at that\n  perfection which is the promised reward in another state of being, but\n  whether he has by careful diligence and attention secured for himself\n  that reward.\n\nIf I have succeeded in this, and to your deliberate examination I submit\nit, my task is accomplished; for if we are permitted to judge of the\nsermons as the arguments of a simple individual, sure I am, there are\nnone among you habituated to reflection, who will not discover that they\nabound with inconsistencies, and are totally irreconcileable with\nreason, and the authority of the Scriptures. And you must unite with me\nin lamenting the strange illusion which induced the author of such\ndiscourses to declare that \"he dare not speak at random, otherwise he\nshould show that he departed from God's illuminating spirit.\"\n\n\n\n\n                               LETTER I.\n\n\nWhen I some time since addressed you, I expressed an anxious wish that\nyou would submit to the consideration of your friends, your scheme of\nreligion, in such a form as would enable them to examine it with\ndeliberation; because I did believe that on this momentous subject, too\nmuch care could not be exercised. My wish has been gratified, not by\nyour immediate agency, but by the zeal of your followers, who have\ncaused a number of your discourses to be printed and published to the\nworld.\n\nWhen I sat down to read them, I did not expect to find a regularly\nconcocted system, because I did not believe you had a mind capable of\nvery extensive combination; but I did imagine you had given to your plan\nsome semblance of consistency, and that if there was no adhesion, there\nwould be no striking incongruity in its parts. In this I have been\ndisappointed; for in it, nothing can be discovered but disjointed\neffusions, and attempts to give to different passages of Scripture novel\nconstructions; to amuse the fancy, and engage the mind in useless\nenquiries after hidden things; to withdraw it from its proper business;\nto entangle it in the web which the vanity and restlessness of man has\nwoven; and to substitute for that pure and simple worship which consists\nin prostration of spirit before the throne of grace, a grateful\nacknowledgment of his goodness, and humble thankfulness for the measure\nof light received; lofty speculations on subjects more curious than\nbeneficial; which can have no tendency to mend the heart, and which\noften lead into unprofitable controversies and perplexity of mind; for\nit will ever remain a truth that \"the judgments of the Lord are\nunsearchable and his ways past finding out.\"\n\nThe christian religion is of so much importance, and has so long engaged\nthe attention of men; it has occasioned so much research and so many\ncontroversies; so many sermons have been preached, and so many books\nwritten, upon every part of it, that nothing new can be said upon the\nsubject: yet such is the nature of man, that he is always requiring some\nnovelty to rouse his attention and amuse his mind. This may perhaps\nfurnish some apology for the preacher of a sect whose form of worship\nrequires sermons at stated times, if he sometimes indulges in\nmetaphorical allusion, or contrives to expand his discourse by ingenious\ndigression. With the genuine quaker this plea must be unavailing:\nimpressed with the sublime idea that it is by silence and abstraction\nfrom all outward things, that the mind is best fitted for true and\nacceptable worship, it must follow, that when a minister imbued with\nthis spirit feels himself called upon to offer advice or instruction, he\nwill be careful \"not to multiply words without knowledge, by which\ncounsel is darkened.\" But prolixity is the vice of oratory; it infects\nthe pulpit, the senate, and the bar. There is something so gratifying to\nthe pride and vanity of man in the display of this talent, or so\nfascinating is the music of his own voice, that it is almost always\ncarried to excess; and we often see the orator pursuing his course with\nundiminished vigour, long after his exhausted auditors have withdrawn\ntheir attention from him.\n\nYou possess some of the qualities essential to the orator; you are\nvoluble of speech and impressive in your delivery, and you have that\nconfidence in the powers of your own mind, which secures you from\nhesitation and embarrassment: but you are deficient in others, without\nwhich all is unavailing; your perception is obscure, and your\nratiocination singularly defective; and you are peculiarly unfortunate\nin the belief that you excel in that faculty in which you are most\ndeficient. Hence we find you plunging into the fathomless depths of\nmetaphysics with fearless confidence; stating propositions and assuming\ninferences in direct opposition to them, and such is your fondness for\namplification, that even when the truth of your proposition is\nself-evident, you contrive to involve it in obscurity by the redundancy\nof your expletives, and the profusion of your attempts at illustration.\nYou contemn all human science, for you are ignorant; yet from the whole\nbody of ministers of that society of which you are still a member, you\ncannot select an individual who makes such a lofty display of technical\nterms, or more frequently endeavours to elucidate his observations by\nreference to it. You believe in the doctrine of inspiration, and you\nseem to claim the possession of it to a degree with which few are\nfavoured: you say it is an unerring director, and plainly to be\nunderstood, and yet declare that all its dictates must be governed by\nthe fallible reason of man.\n\nHaving given to reason this unlimited dictatorship, it was natural to\nexpect that you would recommend the most assiduous cultivation of it;\nbut you have interdicted the only means by which it is improved, and\ndenounced by a curse those who are engaged in extending it.[3]\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  See discourses delivered in Philadelphia, page 53. \"Oh that men of\n  science might be aware what a curse they are to the inhabitants of the\n  earth; what a great curse.\" There is no novelty in this opinion, for\n  we find a poet more than two hundred years ago making Jack Cade\n  exclaim, \"thou hast most traitorously corrupted the youth of the\n  realm, in erecting a grammar school: and whereas before, our\n  forefathers had no other books but the score and tally, thou hast\n  caused printing to be used; and contrary to the king, his crown and\n  dignity, thou hast built a paper mill. It will be proved to thy face,\n  that thou hast men about thee that usually talk of a noun and a verb,\n  and such abominable words as no christian can endure to hear.\"\n\nAll this confusion arises from your not having formed any precise idea\nof the terms you apply. With the words _reason_ and _rational_\ncontinually in your mouth, you have never enquired into the nature and\noperation of that distinguishing faculty of man, nor of the manner in\nwhich alone it can be properly applied to the truths of our religion.\nYou appear to consider it as of physical organization; an instinct of\nour nature which is perfected without care or cultivation, and that like\none of our natural senses, it may be summoned to our aid without fear of\nerror in its perceptions. You cannot be ignorant of the great\ninferiority of the reasoning powers of man in his savage state, and a\nlittle enquiry would have taught you, that observation and experience\nare the foundation of all knowledge, and that as we can only reason from\nthe ideas existing in our own minds, it is by their increase alone that\nour reasoning faculty is extended. Hence it must follow, that as it is\nthe noblest gift of the Almighty to man; a germ which without\ncultivation can never flourish, it is our duty to promote its growth and\nexpansion by every means in our power.\n\nI am not insensible of the evils which have arisen from the presumption\nwith which some learned men have endeavoured to destroy that religion\nwhich is the foundation of our hope; but we ought to recollect that such\nis the perversity of man, that if the abuse of the blessings of\nProvidence can be adduced as an argument against their enjoyment, there\nare few indeed in which we can innocently indulge. Nor is ignorance any\nsecurity against this presumption; on the contrary its decisions are\nalways more bold and dogmatic; and if they are less injurious, it is\nonly because they are more foolish.\n\nThat we could never have arrived at a knowledge of our spiritual duties,\nor of many gospel truths by the deductions of human reason, is evident;\nwere it otherwise, the revelations under the christian dispensation\nwould have been unnecessary; but we are not to infer from this, that our\nreason is to be silent on this all important object; for if it is the\nsubject of our cogitations, it is of course under the examination of our\nreasoning powers, and hence arises the importance of endeavouring so to\nimprove this talent, as to enable us to unravel the subtilty of the\nsophist, and separate the gold, from the dross of the enthusiast. Were\nwe all well instructed in the right use of our reason, we should be able\nto distinguish between that which is above, and that which is contrary\nto it; and we should confine it to its proper place, which is, _not to\njudge of things revealed, but of the reality of revelation._ To attempt\nto test the truth of the things revealed, by our reason, is inconsistent\nwith it: they are given to us in a supernatural way, which of itself,\ndiscovers the impossibility of examining them by deductions from our own\nideas; but the reality of the revelations themselves, stands on very\ndifferent ground. Admirable as is the instruction to be drawn from them,\nthe Almighty in mercy to man, did not leave them on their intrinsic\nmerits alone; they were accompanied by signs and wonders, the evidence\nof the divine power by which they were sent. The life of our blessed\nSaviour, his doctrines, and the miracles which he wrought, have been\nrecorded in the Scriptures, and handed down for our instruction and\ngovernment; and as no man can be a christian who does not believe in\nthem, I am fully persuaded that every candid and diligent enquirer, will\nfind sufficient evidence of their authenticity to satisfy his mind; and\nthat being satisfied, his faith in the things revealed will be\nestablished.\n\nNow although I agree with you, that the inspirations of man in our day,\nare to be examined by the rule of right reason, I fear we shall not\nconcur in our manner of conducting the enquiry. We have no extraordinary\nsigns accompanying them, and we all know, how easy it is to mistake the\nsuggestions of the imagination for the operations of the spirit of truth\non the mind; and the strange visions which enthusiasm often produces,\nand as it is sometimes difficult to discover the source from which they\nspring, it is a satisfaction to know that we have a standard by which\nerror itself may be rendered innoxious.\n\n\"I am far (says Locke,) from denying that God can, or doth sometimes,\nenlighten men's minds in the apprehending of certain truths, or excite\nthem to good actions, by the immediate influence and assistance of the\nHoly Spirit, without any extraordinary signs accompanying it. But in\nsuch cases we have reason and Scripture, unerring rules, to know whether\nit be from God or no. Where the truth embraced is consonant to the\nrevelation in the written word of God, or the action conformable to the\ndictates of right reason, or Holy Writ, we may be assured that we run no\nrisk in entertaining it as such; because, though it be not an immediate\nrevelation from God, extraordinarily operating on our minds, yet we are\nsure it is warranted by that revelation which he has given us of truth.\nBut it is not the strength of our private persuasion within ourselves,\nthat can warrant it to be a light or motion from Heaven; nothing can do\nthat but the written word of God without us, or that standard of reason\nwhich is common to us with all men. Where reason or Scripture is express\nfor any opinion or action, we may receive it as of divine authority; but\nit is not the strength of our own persuasions which can by itself give\nit that stamp. The bent of our own minds may favour it as much as we\nplease; that may show it a fondling of our own, but will by no means\nprove it to be an offspring of Heaven, and of divine original.\"\n\nHere is a great coincidence between the opinions of the christian\nphilosopher and the quaker apologist; and although they refer to right\nreason as well as the Scriptures, as our guide, they meant not to use\nthem in contradistinction to each other. When we refer to either of two\nrules to solve a proposition, it is because both will produce the same\nresult; and they introduced the word reason, as applicable only to those\nopinions and actions, respecting which, the Scriptures are silent.\n\nIf, says the philosopher, the doctrine is consonant to reason or\nScripture, it may be received without risk, although it may not proceed\nfrom an immediate revelation of God. Divine revelation, says the\napologist, can never contradict the outward testimony of the Scriptures\nor right reason; and whatever any do, pretending to the spirit, which is\ncontrary to the Scriptures, must be accounted and reckoned a delusion of\nthe devil.\n\nBy this test no genuine quaker can object to being tried,[4] \"for he\npreaches no new gospel, but that which is confirmed by all the miracles\nof Christ and his apostles; and he offers nothing but that which he is\nable and ready to confirm by the authority of the Scriptures, which all\nprotestants acknowledge to be true.\" It is indeed the only criterion by\nwhich we can judge of the faith of man, and by that criterion, how few\nof your sermons would escape condemnation.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  Barclay.\n\n\n\n\n                               LETTER II.\n\n\nIt may now be proper to state the motives which have again induced me\npublicly to address you, and to inform you what course it is my\nintention to pursue; and as I have no standing in the church, and am\naloof from those scenes which must sometimes give rise to asperities,\neven in the bosom of meekness, have no personal acquaintance with you,\nand have been taught to respect your private character, I enter upon the\nsubject, uninfluenced by many of the passions and prejudices which sway\nand control the opinions of man. But although not in membership, I feel\na deep interest in the Society of Friends, and while I am without that\nsectarian spirit, which in the narrow breasts of some individuals,\nconfines all true worship to a particular description of people, (and\nwhich I am happy in believing is no part of a quaker's faith;) long\nobservation has convinced me, that there is no society whose principles\nand discipline are more eminently successful in inculcating the moral\ndoctrines of christianity, and there is none whose religious tenets are\nmore in conformity with my own ideas of true spiritual worship.\n\nI have perused your religious discourses with some attention, and as\nthey appear to me to be in a style, seldom, if ever before, heard in the\nmeetings of the Society of Friends; are abounding in terms which if not\nrightly understood may lead into great error, and with propositions,\nwhich, in the conclusions that may be drawn from them, may be\ndestructive to religion, I thought I should not be unprofitably employed\nin endeavouring to separate your principles from the mass of expletives\nand allusions, in which they are enveloped; to discover the true object\nwhich you have in view, and to show the inconsistencies in which you\nhave involved yourself by your attempts to define inscrutable things:\nand if I should sometimes be thought to indulge in language unsuitable\nto the solemnity of the subject, my only excuse can be, that when you\noccasionally favour your auditors with a display of your reasoning\npowers, there is such a neglect of all order in your arrangement, and\nsuch metaphorical confusion in your ideas, that when you arrive at your\nusual conclusion, \"now how plain this is,\" the effect is so comic that\nit would extort a smile from gravity itself.\n\nIn the examination of the doctrines of every christian teacher, the\nfirst and most essential point, is their conformity to the Scriptures;\nbut as your many deviations from them have been shown with sufficient\nclearness in a pamphlet lately published, I shall not enter into the\nsubject generally, although I may occasionally refer to them. Neither do\nI propose to enter upon an analysis of each particular discourse, for\nthey are mixed up of so many heterogeneous materials, are so diversified\nin their objects, and so devious in their courses, that the end I have\nin view will perhaps be best answered, by referring only to such topics,\nas in their consequences, are of most importance.\n\nIn the first discourse in the volume now before me, which was delivered\nat Friends' meeting house in Mulberry street, your principal objects\nappear to be, to depreciate the value of the Scriptures, and to disprove\nthe account of the miraculous birth of our Saviour. On the first subject\nit may hereafter be proper to make some observations; to the latter I\nshall now give my attention.\n\nAfter several allusions to the birth of our Saviour, you come forward\nand explicitly state your own belief; and unlike those who have preceded\nyou in this path, and who have endeavoured to destroy our faith in the\nmiracle, by arguments drawn from the Scriptures, you take a shorter\nroad, and declare _it is impossible_.\n\nYou say \"By the analogy of reason, _spirit cannot beget a material\nbody,_ because the thing begotten, must be of the same nature with its\nfather. _Spirit cannot beget any thing but spirit, it cannot beget flesh\nand blood._ No, my friends, it is impossible.\"[5]\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  See discourse delivered at Friends' meeting house, in Mulberry street,\n  page 11.\n\nI have in a former letter referred to this assertion, and had you\nconfirmed the opinion which I then intimated, that it was a hasty\nexpression, and uttered without your perceiving its tendency, I should\nnot again allude to the subject. But you found yourself seated between\nthe horns of a dilemma. If you admitted it was an inconsiderate\nexpression, you abandoned your high claim to inspiration; and if you\nre-affirmed it, in its obvious meaning, it would be an adoption of\nprinciples which I sincerely hope you do not entertain; and you have\nendeavoured to escape by an explanation which, although it narrows the\nmeaning, does not relieve it from the stain of impiety; and is a proof,\n(if any further proof is wanting,) that such a course cannot proceed\nfrom the inspirations of the spirit of truth.\n\nYou say, that in denying the power of the spirit to _beget_, you did not\nmean to question the power to _create_. To limit is to destroy the\nomnipotency of the Creator; and when we see such a creature as man,\npresuming to scan His power and determine what He can, or cannot do, the\nfeelings which its profanity would otherwise occasion, are lost in our\nastonishment at its arrogance and presumption. But you have announced\nyour opinion not only as sanctioned by divine inspiration, but as being\naccording to \"the true analogy of reason,\" and yet, taken with your\nsubsequent explanation, it is enveloped in absurdity. In admitting the\npower to create, you have destroyed your own argument; for you cannot\nsuppose that there was an individual present in the meeting, so grossly\ndull as to believe that when the prophecy was accomplished in the birth\nof our Saviour, it was by the means which your explanation points to; or\nthat it was other than a miraculous intervention of that merciful Being,\nwho in his unlimited power and inscrutable wisdom, has chosen his own\nway in directing us to a knowledge of those truths which the gospel\nunfolds. And if we assent to your doctrine in the restricted sense in\nwhich you say you intended the word _beget_ to be understood; we must\nbelieve there are sexes in spirit, and that it can only be produced by a\ncorporeal union of incorporeal beings.\n\nHere is no proof of your ability to draw conclusions from the _analogy\nof reason_, but it is a striking illustration of the wisdom of the\ncounsel, \"not to multiply words without knowledge.\"\n\nA very keen and accurate observer of the foibles and infirmities of man\nremarks, \"it would be well, if people would not lay so much weight on\n_their own reason_ in matters of religion, as to think every thing\nimpossible and absurd, which they cannot conceive: how often do we\ncontradict the right rules of reason in the whole course of our lives?\n_Reason_ itself is true and just, but the reason of every particular man\nis weak and wavering, perpetually swayed and turned by his interests,\nhis passions, and his vices.\"[6]\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  Swift.\n\nIf, as I truly believe, the christian religion is intended to subdue the\nwanderings of the imagination, and bring the mind into a humble\ndependance on our Creator, it seems necessarily to follow, that we ought\nto be anxiously careful to prevent its being drawn into a too great\nfondness for enquiries into unsearchable things. In the course of my\nreading, I have lately perused the prayer of a very learned man,[7]\nwhich, for its rational and fervent piety, must be instructive to all,\nand in a particular manner to those who are _our teachers_. It is the\nprayer of one whose writings will be read with instruction and delight\nas long as our language endures; whose intellectual faculties were of\nthe highest order, and who was sufficiently sensible of his superiority,\nwhen compared with most other men: yet, when in solitude and private\nworship, he looked beyond all sublunary things, and contemplated the\nimmensurable distance between the wisdom of man and his Creator, with\ndeep prostration of mind he prayed \"Oh, Lord, my maker and protector,\nwho hast graciously sent me into this world to work out my salvation,\nenable me to drive from me all such unquiet and perplexing thoughts as\nmay mislead or hinder me in the practice of those duties which thou hast\nrequired. When I behold the works of thy hands, and consider the course\nof thy providence, give me grace always to remember that thy thoughts\nare not my thoughts, nor thy ways my ways: and while it shall please\nthee to continue me in this world, where much is to be done, and little\nto be known; teach me by thy holy spirit, to withdraw my mind from\nunprofitable and dangerous enquiries, from difficulties vainly curious,\nand doubts impossible to be solved. Let me rejoice in the light which\nthou hast imparted, let me serve thee with active zeal and humble\nconfidence, and wait with patient expectation for the time in which the\nsoul which Thou receivest, shall be satisfied with knowledge. Grant\nthis, O Lord, for Jesus Christ's sake.\"\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  Dr. Johnson.\n\nAnd that it is with minds thus disciplined, that all ought to be\nprepared for prayer, and that in this spirit alone, can the preacher\nawaken the mind to true worship, are truths which few professors of the\nchristian name, and none who believe in the doctrines of Friends, can\ndoubt.\n\n\n\n\n                              LETTER III.\n\n\nIf, in my succeeding observations, I refer to the opinions held by any\nother sect than that in which I have been educated, I wish it to be\nunderstood, that it is neither to approve nor censure. Believing, (as I\nsincerely do,) that christianity consists not in forms or observances;\nneither in subscriptions to curiously contrived creeds, nor in\nconfessions of faith; but in that worship which purifies and cleanseth\nthe heart; so I believe that he who ministers to a congregation in this\nspirit, (whatever may be his name among men,) ministers profitably; \"and\nthat both he that soweth, and he that reapeth, may rejoice together.\"\n\nIn reading your sermons, it evidently appears that you have imbibed the\nnotions of a sect, who attribute much more to reason, than any other\nchristian society, and you have asserted that you are unable to believe\nany thing which you cannot bring down to the level of your own\nunderstanding;[8] yet you believe in direct revelation, and with\nsingular inconsistency assert that all your discourses are from its\nimmediate dictates, and without the intervention of any other cause;\nthus calling upon your auditors to assent to that which you assert to be\nimpossible; for by no process of human reason can the reality of your\nrevelations be tested, and if they are assented to, it must be by faith\nalone.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  See Letter to Dr. Atlee. \"I admit that I did assert and have long done\n  it, that we cannot believe what we do not understand.\" This assertion\n  is in curious contrast to some others which he has made. In a\n  discourse before alluded to, he has declared the miraculous birth of\n  our Saviour to be impossible; and in his letter to Thomas Willis, he\n  says, that after believing in the miracle for many years, he has read\n  the ancient History of the Church and the Evangelists with a view to\n  this subject, and that according to his best judgment, Jesus Christ is\n  the son of Joseph; yet he declares in the same letter, that he still\n  retains his original belief: thus proving that he has a mind capable\n  of believing not only what he does not understand, but also against\n  the convictions of his understanding.\n\nI know that you have been hailed as an _efficient fellow labourer_ in\ndestroying our belief in some doctrines which are considered as\nfundamental by almost every christian sect, and I am apprehensive that\nthis applause has stimulated you to greater daring: but you ought to\nrecollect how much easier it is to destroy than to build up, and you may\nbe assured that when the work of destruction is accomplished, your\nservices will be at an end: your coadjutors have too much understanding\nnot to perceive, that you have not sufficient knowledge to aid in\nerecting the building which is to be raised on the ruins, and that you\nare without the skill necessary to give uniformity to its appearance, or\nembellishment to its parts. When the temple of reason is finished and\ndedicated, you may be permitted to worship in its vestibule, but will\nnever be called upon to administer the rites at its altar.\n\nIt seems, however, that you are not quite ignorant of the apparent\ninconsistency of these contradictory assertions, and it is proper that\nyour explanations should be fairly examined, that we should endeavour to\nascertain what you really mean by the word _reason_, and how it is to be\napplied to your own inspirations: in order to do this, it will be\nnecessary to quote your own words.\n\nIn a discourse delivered in New York, you say, \"Now we learn as rational\ncreatures, that God spoke to the Israelites not only as such, but that\nhe always addresses us as rational creatures. Were we not rational\ncreatures we could not understand; for nothing is a recipient for the\nspirit of God but the rational soul, and therefore we are always to\nunderstand him rationally; for this is _according to the nature of\nthings_.\"\n\nIn this remark, the only novelty is, the confusion in which your ideas\nare involved; for I cannot believe there were any of your audience so\nignorant as not to know that it is _according to the nature of things_,\nthat as we were created rational creatures, we should be addressed as\nsuch; and that if we were without understanding, we could not\nunderstand.\n\nAgain you say, \"as reason is a dormant principle without revelation, so\nwhen God is pleased to reveal things unto the immortal souls of the\nchildren of men, they are then seen rationally: and then reason has an\nopportunity to exercise its _balancing and comparing principle_ in man,\nand therefore there is a two-fold revelation to man.\"\n\nYou surely cannot intend to persuade us, that reason has always been\ndormant without revelation, or you must yourself be ignorant, or believe\nthat we are ignorant, of the writings handed down to us, and which\nsufficiently attest the powers of the human mind, even when\nunilluminated by the revelations of the Gospel, and in the darkest ages\nof Paganism. And if, as I suppose, you meant to limit this dormant\nprinciple, (as you call it,) to the revelations of the spirit, you\ninvolve it in absurdity. We will now examine your propositions, and\nendeavour to discover the deductions to be drawn from them. You say that\nreason is a dormant principle without revelation:--when any thing is\nrevealed by God, it is seen rationally;--that then reason is to exercise\nits balancing and comparing principle, and the result is, that there is\na two-fold revelation in man.\n\nWe have heretofore been taught to believe, that the only way in which we\ncan arrive at a knowledge of the truth of any thing by our reason, is by\nthe deductions drawn from the ideas which have been impressed on our\nminds by the use of our natural faculties; and that revelation is a\nspecial communication, in a manner independent of these faculties. But\nadmitting that all the theologians and metaphysicians who have preceded\nyou, have been in error, and that you alone are acquainted with the\nnature and operation of the faculty of reason, in what does it result?\nWhy, when the Almighty reveals any thing to our souls, He, by another\nrevelation, enables us to examine and discover whether the first\nrevelation is right; but you have not told us, by which we are to be\ngoverned, if they differ. If you say they always accord, then a two-fold\nrevelation is superfluous, and you admit that \"our Creator never deals\nsuperfluously with us;\"[9] and if they should disagree, how are we to\ndecide? Your great and leading maxim, \"that for which a thing is such,\nthe thing itself is more such,\" will not apply, for both revelations are\nimmediate and from the same source; and it will be necessary for the\n_numerous[10] converts_ which your maxim has made, again to apply to you\nto solve the difficulty. Can folly itself believe that the truth of any\nthing revealed to our immortal souls by infinite wisdom, requires\nconfirmation; or that if it does, that confirmation can be found in the\nauthority from which it was first derived? And is it not extraordinary,\nthat any individual can go on day after day, and year after year,\nprofessing to explain to us the nature and object of revelation, and the\nuse of our reason when applied to it; and yet not know, that divine\nrevelation must be immutably true, and that as it is communicated in a\nway wholly unconnected with our reason, all reasoning upon it is vain.\nWhether the revelation is from a divine source is another question, and\none which our reason may sometimes enable us to resolve.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  See sermon preached in Philadelphia, page 8.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  See letter to Dr. Atlee.\n\nIn the discourse you delivered at Newtown in Bucks County, you enter\nmore largely on this subject; and as it seems to comprise all your\nnotions in relation to reason, as connected with our religion, it is\nproper to examine it with particular attention.\n\nYou say, \"Right reason is as much a gift of God, as any gift that we can\nreceive: therefore, nothing but the rational soul is a recipient for\ndivine revelation; and when the light shines upon it and shows any\nobject, reason brings it to the test. If it is kept in right order, and\nunder the regulating influence of the divine law, it brings things to\nbalance, and it is brought to know every thing which may rise up,\nalthough at first sight. If it will not accord with right reason, we\nmust cast it off as the work of Antichrist. All that the Almighty\nrequires of us, will always result in reality; and we are not to believe\nany thing which does not so result. Here now we see how easy it is to go\nalong, if we pursue the right course; but as free agents, we can reason\nourselves into the belief that wrong is right.\"[11]\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  See sermons, page 207.\n\nI have perused this passage with great attention, and so far from\ndiscovering any thing to enable me to get easily along, it appears to be\nwholly inexplicable. I have examined it as a whole, and in its different\ndivisions, without being able to arrive at any result. In this\nperplexity I recollected that I was, in my youth, in company with\nseveral ancient friends, when some discussion occurred respecting the\ntrue interpretation of a passage in a book which was the subject of\nconversation. An individual present, with some flippancy observed, that\nhe had read it with great attention both backwards and forwards several\ntimes, and thought he was able to explain it; when he was interrupted by\na venerable old man, who with admirable gravity of countenance and\nsimplicity of manner, said \"He wished the friend to inform the company,\nin which way of reading, he understood it best.\" But here even this\nnovel experiment must fail, and had the ingenious expounder tried it on\nthe passage I have quoted, I fear he must have confessed it was equally\nunintelligible in either way; and that, being contrary to all reason, it\nmust, if examined by the severity of your own rule, be deemed the work\nof Antichrist.\n\nIf you had said that no revelation can be the suggestion of infinite\nwisdom, if contrary to right reason, it would have been intelligible and\ntrue: but if the divine light really discovers any thing to us, we want\nno test to confirm it. Again you say, that reason, if kept under the\nregulating influence of the divine law, will know everything that rises\nup at first sight; but that as free agents, we can reason ourselves into\na belief that wrong is right. Now what kind of reason can this be? It\ndoes seem that reason is given to us because we are free agents, and\nthat it would be a very useless gift were it otherwise: and we do know\nthat this faculty is improved by observation and experience, and that so\nfar from its enabling us to know every thing at first sight, it is by\nstudy and meditation that our knowledge is extended, and that at last,\nwe know but little. But the reason of which you speak, is a reason that\narrives at all knowledge without deduction, and can act and determine\nwith unerring certainty, although contrary to that reason which is given\nto us as free agents. It must follow, that the faculty which you call\nreason, is an instinct never before known to exist; or that all this\ncircumlocution ends in the production of one of those phantasms which\nare sometimes engendered by the imagination, and which has persuaded you\nthat two inspirations are necessary to confirm our belief, that they are\ndistinct in their nature, and that one of them is right reason.\n\nWhen the sensations occasioned by the sonorous voice in which the\npompous terms _analogy of reason, rational souls, and recipients for\ntruth_ are delivered, have passed away; and we seriously meditate the\nmanner in which they are applied; low indeed must that man be in the\nscale of intellectual being, who does not discover that all \"is but as\nsounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.\"\n\n\n\n\n                               LETTER IV.\n\n\nEvery reader of your discourses, must be surprised at the extent to\nwhich you have carried the practice of allegorising the Scriptures: you\ndeclare your assent to them, and yet in practice, you seem to consider\neach part as a fable from which you can draw a moral to suit the purpose\nof the moment; and the belief which you profess in their divine origin,\ndoes not restrain you from indulging in all the licentiousness of\nfiction. \"Sacred History, (says an eminent writer,) has always been read\nwith submissive reverence, and an imagination over-awed and controlled.\nWe have been accustomed to acquiesce in the nakedness and simplicity of\nthe authentic narrative, and to repose on its veracity with such humble\nconfidence, as suppresses curiosity. We go with the historian as he\ngoes, and stop with him when he stops. All amplification is frivolous\nand vain; all addition to that which is already sufficient for the\npurposes of religion, seems not only useless, but is in some degree\nprofane. Such events as were produced by the visible interposition of\ndivine power, are above the power of human genius to dignify. The\nmiracle of Creation, however it may teem with images, is best described\nwith little diffusion of language: _He spake the word and they were\nmade._\"[12]\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  Life of Cowley.\n\nThat an argument may sometimes be illustrated by a moral drawn from the\nevents recorded in Scripture, I do not deny; but I think a pious mind\nmust always indulge in the practice with great caution, and be careful\nnot to make an allegory of the fact itself. Nor do I think that the\npassage of Scripture \"the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth\nlife\"[13] which you so often quote, is at variance with this view of the\nsubject, or can furnish any argument in excuse for the spirit of\nmysticism by which you involve every part of them in obscurity. It is\ntrue that this passage is in the figurative language generally used in\nthe East, but the meaning appears so plain, that only those can mistake\nit, whose minds have been perverted by the habit of speculating in the\nairy regions of the imagination. The New Testament is a code of moral\nlaw and spiritual instruction, teaching man his duty to his neighbour,\nand the true way in which he can render acceptable worship to God. For\nthe outward order of this worship, and the government of religious\nsociety, certain rules and ordinances must be necessary, and were found\nto be so, even in the days of the apostles; but as under the old\ncovenant many had been led to consider the outward observance of the law\nas their _only_ duty, and that \"if they paid their tithe of mint and\nanise and cummin, they might omit the weightier matters of the law,\njudgment, mercy and faith; although _both_ ought to have been\nobserved;\"[14] so this exhortation is intended to caution the flock, not\nagainst the observance of the rules of discipline which had been\nestablished, but that they might not sink down into the belief that such\nobservance was all that was required; and that they ought always to\nremember that \"God is a Spirit;\" and they that \"worship him, must\nworship _him_ in spirit and in truth.\"\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  2 Corinthians, chap. 3.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  Matthew, XXIII.\n\nNow let us see the use you have made of this passage of Scripture, and\nto how many purposes your inventive fancy has applied it. In your\ndiscourse at the meeting house in Germantown,[15] you enter largely into\nthis subject, but as the passage is too long to be transcribed, I shall\nendeavour to give the different inferences you draw from it.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  See sermon at Germantown, page 92.\n\nFirst, That from the letter of the Scriptures, every thing suitable to\ndeceive the people can be taken.\n\nSecondly, That as every thing we read in the Scriptures must necessarily\nbe received through our outward senses, they are only fit for the\noutward creature.\n\nThirdly, That it was the letter of the Scriptures that led men to the\napostacy.\n\nFourthly, That all that has ever been written, is nothing but that which\nthe wisdom of man has devised.\n\nFifthly, In your discourse at Middletown[16], you say, It is but a\nshadow which may do for young beginners; and may point them to the right\nthing.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  Sermons, page 226.\n\nHad the commentators who have preceded you, possessed such fertility of\nimagination, their works, voluminous as they are, must have been\nmultiplied to an extent which it is difficult to conceive. Yet after\nall, you appear at some moments to have a view of the true use of\nScripture, and of the meaning of that passage which you have perverted\nto so many purposes, although you conclude by one of those strange\ninvolutions of ideas with which your attempts at illustration so often\nabound.\n\nYou say, \"All letter written under the influence of God, points us back\nto the place from whence it came, and this is all; because as the letter\nnever could be written without the spirit which stands above it, the\ngreat first cause of all wisdom and knowledge; therefore, unless by the\nletter we are gathered to the spirit, we cannot see the letter aright,\nfor it is the effect; and when we face the letter we turn our backs upon\nthe cause, just as a man turns his back upon the sun to see his own\nshadow.\"[17]\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  See sermons, page 100.\n\nHere the sentiment is in itself correct, although the conclusion\nattempted to be drawn by the puerile conceit with which the sentence\nends, is in direct opposition to it. The needle points to the pole, and\nthe careful mariner does not turn his back upon it, but with a steady\neye keeps it constantly in view as the guide by which alone he can be\ndirected through the trackless ocean: so the Christian pilgrim, with the\ngospel in his hand, endeavours to explore his way. The book itself\ncontains not that for which he is seeking, but it has been in mercy\nhanded down to him by the inspirations of infinite wisdom, as a landmark\nto direct him in the way in which he should walk: it has not only taught\nhim the nature and efficacy of spiritual worship, but it affords a\nstandard by which all his thoughts may be tried, and enables him to\ndistinguish between the wanderings of the imagination and the dictates\nof eternal wisdom. If contrary to the Scriptures, he rejects them; and\nwhatever you may think of the superiority of your two-fold revelations,\nand the accuracy of your knowledge of the nature and use of right\nreason, no _reasonable_ being who is convinced that the Scriptures were\ngiven to us by divine revelation, can believe in the truth of any thing\nwhich does not accord with them.\n\nSuch a tissue of inconsistencies has seldom been brought together--you\nsay that the Scriptures were written under the inspiration of infinite\nwisdom, and also assert that they only proceed from the wisdom of man:\nyou consider them as the box of Pandora from which the apostacy was\nderived, and every thing calculated to deceive us may be taken; and\nstill continue to recommend them as proper to be read by young beginners\nin religion: that they, and every thing else that is received by man\nthrough his outward senses, is suitable only to the outward creature;\nand yet you are continually addressing your hearers through these\nsenses, for the purposes of reproof and spiritual instruction.\n\nThat passages of Scripture have often been perverted to purposes far\ndifferent from the spirit and original intention of them, must be\nadmitted by all; and the sources from which these perversions have been\nderived it is not difficult to conceive.\n\nIt was long before any of the outward professors of Christianity had the\nhardihood to question their authority: they knew that the whole\nChristian world considered this book as the standard by which their\ndoctrines were to be tested, and whenever their inclinations, or their\nvices, impelled them to actions contrary to the pure and obvious meaning\nof gospel ordinances, they sought to veil their aberrations by the\nperversion of the book itself. The man of the world found in it so many\nrestraints upon his ambition and fancied enjoyments, that it is not\nsurprising that he should be anxious to avail himself of every pretence\nto enlarge its boundaries and relax the rigour of his bonds. In this\nstruggle, many of the priesthood were his faithful coadjutors, for they\ntoo felt the uneasiness of the straightened path prescribed to them, and\nthat the pure Christian doctrines and principles could afford no field\nfor the indulgence of their vanity by pompous declamation, or for the\ndisplay of a superiority of mind by subtile disquisition: all was simple\nand practical, such as fishermen could teach and herdsmen understand.\n\nThen began that system of mysticising and allegorising the Scriptures, a\npractice which accorded so well with the lively and subtle characters of\nthe modern Greeks, that every priest became a mystagogue, and the pulpit\na chair of theological alchymy, from which men were taught \"how to\nreduce divinity to the maxims of the laboratory, explain morality by sal\nsulphur and mercury, and allegorize the Scripture itself, and the sacred\nmysteries thereof, into the Philosopher's Stone.\"[18]\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  Locke.\n\nHence the Scriptures became as one of the sibylline books of Paganism,\nto be opened by the priests alone, for they only could explain the\noracles of God; and they acted with more consistency than you have done,\nby endeavouring to conceal them from the view of the laity; for if they\nare indeed such as _you_ have described, and _they_ have strove to make\nthem, they ought not only to be concealed from the view of young\nbeginners in religion, but prohibited to all but the initiated.\n\nThus was the simplicity of the Christian religion deformed, and the\nunderstandings of men subdued by an ambitious priesthood. They knew that\ngravity and meekness were the attributes and best ornaments of a gospel\nminister, and while pride and the spirit of domination reigned within\nthem uncontrolled, they sought, by a sanctimonious exterior and affected\nhumility, to prolong their sway; and we find the most imperious of the\nRoman pontiffs, when treading on the necks of kings, subscribing himself\nthe servant of the servants of God.\n\nI fear you will consider me as presumptuous, yet I must venture to\nentreat you to examine the course you have been pursuing; to consider\nwhether the habit you have acquired of looking for some hidden novelty\nin every passage of Scripture, does not prevent you from perceiving its\nobvious meaning; and whether the manifest inconsistencies in which this\npractice involves you, is not sufficient proof of your being under the\nguidance of a different spirit from that which you claim as a director.\n\nI have no disposition to question the uprightness of your motives, but I\nam fully persuaded that the applause with which you have been\nsurrounded, has given an unhappy bias to your mind; and that if it was\nunder a right direction, you would be enabled to see, that it is not the\nletter of the Scripture, but the habit, (in which you so largely\nindulge,) of seeking for meanings other than the letter, which has\ncaused so many false interpretations and divisions among men: that the\nletter is intended to teach us our moral and spiritual duties, and\npoints out with sufficient clearness the way in which we should walk;\nand that the nice distinctions and elaborate refinements of the orator,\nneither have a tendency to enlighten the understandings nor purify the\nhearts of the audience, though they often gratify the vanity of the one\nand amuse the imaginations of the other.\n\n\n\n\n                               LETTER V.\n\n\nIn reading your discourses my attention was particularly engaged by the\nsermon delivered at Newtown, in Bucks County, and it did seem to me so\nmuch at variance with the principles which induce the Quakers to\nassemble for public worship, that were there no other evidence, it would\nbe sufficient to prove that you are not under the guidance of that\nspirit, by which, in former days, their ministers were governed.\n\nThat society believe that the great object of such assembling is to\nendeavour, by shutting out all external things, to discipline the mind\nto that pure and silent worship and waiting upon God, in which they may\nexperience Christ to be their shepherd and teacher; and although this\nsolemn silence may sometimes be profitably interrupted for the purposes\nof admonition, instruction and encouragement, yet that no minister can,\n(when under right direction,) expatiate on topics irrelevant to the\nsubject.\n\nA little examination must, I think, convince us that your sermon, so far\nfrom being delivered under such impressions, carries on the face of it,\nthe proof of a mind struggling for distinction: and that in this effort,\nmuch has been introduced foreign to the subject on which you professed\nto treat, and however innocent in itself, very unsuitable to the place,\nand peculiarly calculated to withdraw the mind from the object for which\nthe assembly were ostensibly gathered.\n\nYou commence your sermon by stating your apprehensions that there are\nindividuals who are not sufficiently impressed with the necessity of\norder and discipline in society, and seem to consider it your duty to\nconvince them of its importance. To a plain understanding this does not\nappear difficult, for the arguments in favour of it are so palpable,\nthat a very few minutes indeed, would be sufficient to any one not in\nthe habit of multiplying words, to establish it beyond all controversy.\nYou, however, seem never disposed to take the common road: the arguments\nwould be but the repetition of a thrice told tale, and would therefore\ncommand no extraordinary attention: they might beget conviction, but\nwould not produce _that effect_ upon the audience, which, if not always\nthe object, is so dear to the orator.\n\nBut in deviating from the road, you have lost yourself in the\nwilderness; and such has been your entanglement, that after all the time\nwhich you consumed, I am sure there was not an individual present in the\nmeeting, who could tell what you really meant by discipline, how it is\nto be established, or in what manner it is to be enforced. I form this\nopinion from having read the sermon: for with all the advantages of\nfrequent recurrence to particular passages, and of re-perusal, I found\nit very difficult to form any idea of your meaning: how then could your\naudience, with none of these advantages, in the very few moments in\nwhich they could preserve unbroken the slight concatenation of your\nideas, encumbered as they are with references unconnected with the\nsubject, receive any information or instruction from them. If I am\ncorrect in my conclusion, and sure I am that no one who heard you can\ncontradict me, it must follow, that being incomprehensible to those to\nwhom it was addressed, it could not proceed from the suggestions of true\nwisdom.\n\nAfter a few observations on the subject of discipline, you give to your\naudience a kind of lecture on astronomy. Had you confined yourself to\nrecalling to their recollection the wonderful harmony in the works of\nthe Almighty, it would not have been incongruous; but to enter into a\nlong dissertation on the sun, moon, and stars, and on vacuum and\nunmeasured space, was neither adapted to the place or company. It was no\ndoubt quite new and entertaining to such of them as had never read the\nelementary treatises in use in some of our schools; and it is certainly\nthe most sublime of all sciences, and that in which the powers of the\nhuman mind have been displayed in the greatest degree; yet I cannot\nthink you were judicious in selecting a Quaker meeting as a proper\ntheatre for the display of your talents, nor can I believe that your\ningenuity can make any application of the facts you have stated to the\nsubject of your discourse. You tell us that the sun, although it emits\nso much light, never lessens; that there is harmonious and social\ncommune between the heavenly bodies;[19] that the earth, if kept too\nlong in the cold, would grow heavier, and falling from its proper place,\nderange the other bodies; that the moon has a great effect upon our\nglobe, &c. &c. The moon, we know, is thought by many to have a\nconsiderable influence on the imaginations of men in certain situations,\nbut I never heard that such influence had any effect in producing good\norder and discipline, and no one supposes that the rays of the sun can\nthrow any light upon the subject. Besides you ought to have recollected\nthat you were subjecting yourself to the charge of ingratitude; for\nsurely the men of science must think you ungrateful in availing yourself\nso largely of those labours, which you have endeavoured to persuade your\nfriends are a curse to mankind.[20]\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  This information, I must acknowledge, is an exception to the\n  generality of my assertion, for I do not believe it is contained in\n  any of the elementary books I have mentioned; nor do I think it can be\n  found in the writings of either Newton or Herschell, or that either of\n  them, although so long engaged in examining the planetary system, were\n  so fortunate as to observe any of these bodies at the moment when they\n  were engaged in these friendly conversations. Perhaps the author has\n  been led into a mistake by some obstruction in his glass, like a\n  celebrated member of the Royal Society, who announced the discovery of\n  an elephant in the moon, which, on examination, was found to be only a\n  mouse in his telescope.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  Sermons, page 53 and 55.\n\nI am not so ignorant of the situation of the Society of Friends, as to\nbe uninformed of the uneasiness which is felt by some of its members\nunder its established rules of order and discipline; and as I know that\nyour preaching was one of the principal causes of it, I did think it of\nsome importance to endeavour to ascertain your opinions on the subject.\nIt was indeed a laborious work to travel through the many pages over\nwhich they are dispersed; to remove the various matters with which they\nwere encumbered, and collect the scattered fragments. Yet after all my\ntoil, I found my work not half accomplished. These fragments when\nbrought together, were of such various sizes and colours, so diversified\nin shape, and heterogeneous in their materials, that it surpassed my\nskill to arrange them in any way consistent with order and propriety;\nand if the knowledge of them can afford any instruction, it must be from\nthe striking contrast between their wild deformity, and the rational\nrules of order and discipline which they are intended to supersede.\n\nYou say that all aversion to order and discipline arises from the want\nof a right knowledge of ourselves: that when we come to this right\nknowledge, we shall be so perfect in these things, that there will be no\ncontests or divisions among us: that all order and discipline must be\nfixed by the divine Lawgiver, and that then it cannot be violated; and\ntherefore that all attempts to censure or control a member must proceed\nfrom those who counterfeit its meaning, in order to _lord_ it over\nothers: that each member of society is in himself a little world, which,\nif kept in right order and subjection, all would be harmony and\ndiscipline; but, when this is not the case, all attempts to enforce them\ntend to increase the confusion: that we all have the law within\nourselves, therefore order and discipline must never be contrived by\nmortals: that the Quaker discipline is unsound, because it is in the\nletter; but that there are some true Quakers, and that each of these has\nall discipline and order within himself.\n\nNow what is all this? Is it not a second growth of that _Fungus_ which\nwas engendered in the hot bed of fanaticism many years past; and has not\nthe sober sense of the humble Christian, or the wit and humour of a\nButler, been able to eradicate it from the soil of the Christian church?\nAre we again to have among us those men above ordinances, who mistake\nconfusion for order, and the destruction of our faith for the\nconsummation of religion?\n\nThese questions must present themselves to every mind when examining\nyour opinions; for, when stripped of all glosses, and exhibited in their\ngenuine colours, they mean that all written rules of order and\ndiscipline are restraints upon the liberty of the saints: that no rules\nshould be established by men, for that every man has the rule written in\nhis own heart, and that there alone he is accountable.\n\nThat no man is accountable to another for his religious belief, and that\nevery man has a right to worship in the way which he may believe most\nacceptable to his Creator, are undeniable truths; but as the different\nChristian sects have congregated on account of a unity in their\nreligious tenets, and assemble together for the purpose of uniting in\ndivine worship, they have a right, and, (if they are firm in their\nbelief,) it is their duty, to establish such rules and regulations as\nwill best preserve their religion in, what they believe to be, its\ngreatest purity; and in an especial manner to prevent the preaching of\ndoctrines adverse to it. And this is no infringement of the liberty of\nconscience; for any man who dissents from their doctrines may separate\nhimself from them; he may unite himself with any other sect; or if, in\nhis career, his spiritual knowledge has set him above all ordinances, he\nmay erect his own standard, and, unrestrained by forms and unfettered by\ncreeds, he may give the utmost strain to his imagination, and perhaps\nbecome himself the head of a sect. But no casuistry can justify, or\npretence excuse a man, who continues to be ostensibly the member of a\nreligious community, for the purpose of undermining its principles or\ndestroying the belief in its tenets. Let him believe them erroneous and\nthe substitutes he offers unquestionably true; it alters not the case.\nThe source will be impure, and the waters which flow from it, tainted.\n\nIf the mind can be brought to conceive the possibility of the existence\nof a society formed according to your rules and orders of discipline, it\nmust present itself to the imagination in all the sublime confusion of\nanother chaos--you may offer yourself to explain the word of God, and\nyou will be reminded that this is all in the letter: you may tell them\nthat the Scriptures may be read to advantage, when all things in them\nhave been previously revealed;[21] and they may reply, that reading them\nwill then be quite unnecessary--you may exhort them to assemble together\nfor the purpose of divine worship, \"for that then we should be\ninstructed what to do, and how to bring our offerings, to be handed over\nto the priest, so that they may be made acquainted with our state, and\nmay preach the true gospel to us;\"[22] and they may tell you \"that such\nassemblies are not the places to gather spiritual food.\"[23] If you are\nasked why you waste so much time in preaching, you will tell them \"the\nreason is plain; that although the letter directs us to the law, and\nnothing else can teach us, yet we flee from it; and therefore outward\ninstruments are raised up and clothed with power:\"[24] and they may\nreply that this is also the letter, and \"that the Lord is too kind to\nsend them away for instruction; and that he is always present, a\nschoolmaster to every soul.\"[25] If you explain to them your own growth\nand experience in spiritual knowledge, they will ask you of what use it\ncan be to them, and tell you, \"that each individual requires a law\npeculiar to himself; and that the law of the Spirit of Life in one, is\nnot the law of the Spirit of Life in another\"[26]--and if, (adopting\nthis opinion,) you should declare to them that the law of the Spirit of\nLife is different in each individual, some of your audience may assert,\n\"that the divine law which is written by the finger of God upon the\ntablet of our hearts, is the same to every individual\"[27]--and if\nfatigued with these objections, you should express your surprise at\ntheir number, inconsistency and futility, you will be told that they are\nall furnished by yourself.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  Sermons, page 313.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  Sermons, page 248.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  Sermons, page 275.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  Page 52.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  Sermons, page 51.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  Sermons, page 51.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  Sermons in New York, page 124.\n\nIf, then, the great founder of the sect is yet so indistinct in his\nvision, what must be the situation of those who are less advanced in the\nreligious experience of your new school? If he is so frequently involved\nin contradictions, what must be the accumulated mass when collected\ntogether?\n\nShould your project be realised, and such a congregation assembled,\nthose who, like yourself, search the Scriptures for types and figures,\nmay, with much less violation of probability than occurs in your\ndiscourses, consider the meeting as a consummation of that confusion of\ntongues typified in the building of the Tower of Babel.\n\n\n\n\n                               LETTER VI.\n\n\nThe extraordinary and unhesitating confidence with which you state your\nopinions, even on the most important and solemn subjects, and the air of\nauthority with which you endeavour to enforce them, is in such striking\ncontrast to that humility and reverence with which we are accustomed to\nhear such subjects treated, that it naturally excites some suspicion\nthat there are views and feelings in the mind of the preacher not in\naccordance with that meek and quiet spirit which is the necessary\nqualification of a Christian teacher: and when we turn from the tone and\nmanner of the discourse to some of the opinions delivered, I am afraid\nthat suspicion will ripen into certainty, and that there will be too\nmuch evidence of a mind not habituated to reflections on its own\ninfirmities, but proud[28] in its acquirements, and vaunting in its own\nstrength. For we find you glorying in the ability to withstand the enemy\nof your peace, and gratifying yourself with the honour to be derived\nfrom the victory.[29] In this elevation of mind you say, that it would\nbe a debasement to man, were he placed by the Almighty in a situation\nfrom which he could not fall;[30] and that had we been content to remain\nin a state of innocence, we should have continued to be but as mere\nmachines.[31] To rely on any other than your own exertions you think\ndegrading, and would not accept the sacrifice which is offered for your\nsins by the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ.[32]\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  Sermons, page 68. \"I challenge the whole host of mankind.\"\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  Sermons, page 231.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  Sermons, page 231.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  Sermons, pages 230, 231.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  Letter to Doctor Shoemaker.\n\nWe are, indeed, placed in a state of probation, surrounded with\ntemptations and perplexed with dangers: we have before us the prospect\nof a change into a never-ending state, and that state is promised to be\none of endless felicity to those who, with a sincere and humble heart,\nseek the God of Israel for their portion. To such, and such alone, is\npromised _the exceeding great reward_; and, though it is our duty to\nacquiesce, without repining, in our station and allotment here,\ntemeracious indeed must that man be, who, with such a prize before him,\nwould, for the gratification which the honour of a victory over his own\nevil propensities might afford, prefer the hazardous contest to that\nstate of innocence with which our first parents were blessed before the\nfall; and confident indeed must he be in his own merits, if he rejects\nthe offer of an intercessor, and relies on them alone for a fund not\nonly to redeem his errors here, but to purchase the rich inheritance of\neternal happiness.\n\nSuch a state of mind alone could conceive the singular idea of opening\nan account current with the Creator,[33] and call it religion; to ask a\nrecord of our sins, and boldly claim our offsets; and to rely on the\naccumulated balance of our own works: to gain the prize of everlasting\nlife from the justice and not from the mercy of the Almighty, and not to\npray with David, \"have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving\nkindness; according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies, _blot out\nmy transgressions_.\"\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  Sermons, page 44.\n\nSuch an account would indeed be a novelty: there is no difficulty in\nfilling the debtor side of the ledger: the melancholy list of man's\nfrailties and vices furnish ample materials; but, from whence the mighty\nbalance reserved for the great purchase should arise is not easily to be\nconceived. Let us figure to ourselves a man not immured in sloth or sunk\nin wickedness, but one whose march through life has been in the path of\npropriety and virtue, arranging his account,\n\n    I have lived a life of temperance, regularity and virtue.\n\n      Thou hast been blessed with the enjoyment of health.\n\n    I have been, through life, frugal and industrious.\n\n      Thou hast acquired wealth.\n\n    I have been humane and charitable to the poor and needy.\n\n      I gave thee the fat of the land.\n\n    I have been a good husband and a careful and tender father.\n\n      Thy wife has been virtuous and faithful, and thy children a\n         blessing to thee.\n\n    And if he could add, I have gone about preaching to, and exhorting\n       large assemblies of people in thy name.\n\n      May not the answer sometimes be, And hast thou not been richly\n         rewarded by the incense of flattery and applause which thou\n         hast received.\n\nHere, then, is no balance; virtue is generally rewarded in this life;\nand, if the Christian is to look for redemption, is it not \"by standing\nfast and holding to the traditions which we have been taught,\" by which\nwe shall know that as all have sinned and fallen short, so we can only\nbe justified by grace \"through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;\nwhom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,\nto declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,\nthrough the forbearance of God.\"[34]\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  Romans, 3d Chap.\n\nYou may say that your idea of opening an account with the Creator was\nonly by way of illustration, but what does it illustrate? Is our\nsituation with our Creator such, that works are sufficient to insure our\nsalvation? and do you believe that if \"in looking over the leaf and\nseeing where the balance strikes,\"[35] we should find it to be in our\nfavour, we may indulge in sin and iniquity until the balance is brought\nto an equilibrium? Do not you believe in the efficacy of repentance, and\nthat the truly repentant sinner may receive remission of his sins,\nalthough it may be in the eleventh hour, and when they are of a crimson\ncolour, or a scarlet dye?\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  Sermons, p. 45.\n\nThe idea is indeed cold and heartless; in sentiment most degrading, and\nin its deductions most pernicious. How different from the inspirations\nof the man of old, when musing on the sacred mount of Zion, or on the\nbanks of Shiloah's stream fast, by the oracles of God, he saw the dawn\nof that auspicious day, when HE, our promise would appear to blot out\nour transgressions and redeem us from our sins--and with what holy\nrapture did he announce the joyful tidings? \"Speak ye comfortably to\nJerusalem, and cry unto her that her warfare is accomplished, that her\niniquity is pardoned; for she hath received of the Lord's hand double\nfor all her sins. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son. Unto us\na Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be\nupon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor,\nthe mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. The sun\nshall be no more thy light by day: neither for brightness shall the moon\ngive light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting\nlight, and thy God thy glory.\"\n\nBut this is not the Messiah of whom you preach: yours is like yourself,\na peccable man clothed with infirmities and liable to transgression; and\nwho, so far from having the power to give salvation to others, was\nhimself tempted to sin.[36] You profess to believe that Jesus Christ is\n\"the way, the truth, and the life,\" but in direct opposition to the\nplain intent and purport of the sentence, you declare it only means that\nhe had power to cure outward diseases and give strength of body to enjoy\nthe good things of this life;[37] that for this only was he sent, and\nhis power was but as a figure or shadow of the great Comforter. But even\nwith this perversion, the facts you state will not support your\nargument. It is true that Jesus Christ healed the diseases of\nindividuals; but surely no rational being can suppose that such was the\nobject of his mission, for the number of the healed was so small that it\ncould have had no perceptible effect on the general outward health of\nmankind, or even of the particular people to whom he appeared.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  Sermons, p. 253. E. Hicks says, \"He, (Jesus,) was tempted in all\n  points as we are. Now how could he be tempted if he had been fixed in\n  a state of perfection in which he could not turn aside. Could you\n  suppose as rational beings that such a being could be _tempted_? No,\n  not any more than God could be tempted. Perfection is perfection, and\n  cannot be tempted, it is impossible.\" Here is an evident perversion of\n  the Scriptures; for we nowhere find that Jesus yielded to temptation;\n  and it is a most irrational conclusion, that because there was a\n  tempter he was subject to temptation; and so far from such attempts\n  evincing that _he was not perfect and could turn aside_; the\n  resistance and reproof of the tempter proves, (and was probably\n  intended to prove,) the very reverse. It is one thing to be tempted,\n  and another to yield to temptation, and E. Hicks could not have\n  forgotten that the authority from which he drew his account of the\n  temptations likewise declares that though Jesus \"was in all points\n  tempted like as we are, _yet without sin_.\" Heb. 4. 15. By E. Hicks's\n  erroneous construction of the sentence, he could with equal ease prove\n  the fallibility of the Almighty, for the Scriptures in several places\n  speak of His being tempted by the people.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  Sermons, p. 50.\n\nYou say you believe that the Scriptures were written by divine\ninspiration, and that Jesus did nothing \"but as he received power and\ncommand from His heavenly Father;\"[38] and these Scriptures tell us that\nwhen the Pharisees began to reason and said \"who can forgive sins but\nGod alone?\" Jesus answered, is it \"easier to say thy sins be forgiven\nthee; or to say, rise up and walk? But that ye may know that the _Son of\nMan hath power upon earth to forgive sins_, he said unto the sick of the\npalsy, I say unto thee arise, and take up thy couch and go unto thine\nhouse: and immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon\nhe lay, and departed to his own house glorifying God.\"[39]\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  New York Sermons, p. 97.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  Luke, chap. 5th.\n\nHere we have a plain historical narration, from which it is evident that\nthe sick was healed to convince an unbelieving people, by an act of\nsupernatural power perceptible to their senses, that Jesus was clothed\nwith authority to forgive sins. You however say it was a figure or\nshadow, and as these terms are often in your mouth, it may be proper to\nenquire whether you understand their true meaning, and whether by any\npossible construction of language they can be considered as illustrative\nof your view of the subject. They are here used as synonymous, and mean\n_the expression of an idea by resemblances_: if I speak of persons in\nthe morning of life, I am understood to mean youth; and if I say, the\nking of day is rising in the east, every body understands it to mean the\nsun; and there are other figurative resemblances more obscure, but no\none can, without violating every principle of reason, attempt to adduce\nas authority for, and illustrative of his opinions, expressions which so\nfar from resembling are in direct opposition to them, merely because he\nchooses to call them figurative.\n\nIf indeed there are any individuals who believe they can perceive any\nresemblance between your inferences and the facts; and that when Jesus\nsaid he healed the sick, in order that the Pharisees might know that he\nhad power on earth to forgive sins, he meant it only as a figure, and\nthat he claimed authority only as to the cure of outward diseases; their\nconclusion must be arrived at by a process which the uninitiated do not\nunderstand: and if your argument is according to the _analogy of\nreason_, it cannot be of that reason which arrives at the truth by\nobservation and deduction, but the reason of your new school of\nmetaphysics, which discerns _without reflection_ all things at first\nsight.[40]\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  Sermons, p. 207.\n\nWere you reading a letter informing you that a friend had departed on a\njourney, riding on a black horse, and was told by one of your auditors\nthat the expression was figurative and that he meant a white cow, you\nwould probably laugh; and yet the incongruity is not greater than some\nof your own discoveries. For instance, Paul said \"let your women keep\nsilence in your churches;\" and you observe that all who _are truly\nenlightened_ will understand that the woman means the selfish spirit\nwhich ought not to be permitted to speak in churches; but you have\nforgot to tell us how to apply the succeeding observation that \"if they\nwill learn any thing they must consult their husbands at home.\" Nor is\nit probable that Paul, (although a bachelor,) was so uncharitable as to\nbelieve the selfish spirit so identified with woman, as to render her a\nproper emblem of it.\n\nIn this instance Paul was recommending a rule of conduct, and ought to\nbe allowed to speak for himself: so thought Robert Barclay, and in\naccounting for the exhortation he has given the probable reason of it.\nHe considered it neither as an allegory or a figure; but he had not\narrived at that degree of spiritual knowledge which enabled him to\ndiscover in every page of the Bible a meaning in direct contradiction to\nthe plain and obvious sense of the written language. Religion was with\nhim not an occult science, nor the Bible a caballistick book which can\nnever be read to advantage until the truths contained in it have been\npreviously revealed to us.[41] On the contrary, he believed with the\nApostle Paul \"that these things were written for our learning,\" that\n\"the holy scriptures are able to make wise unto salvation, through faith\nwhich is in Christ Jesus,\" and that \"all Scripture is given by\ninspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for\ncorrection, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be\nperfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work.\"[42]\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  Sermons, p. 313.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  2nd Timothy, Chap. 3d.\n\n\n\n\n                              LETTER VII.\n\n\nWhen the early Quakers, dissatisfied with the formal worship of the\nexisting protestant church, separated themselves and formed a society of\ntheir own, they were reproached by some with denying the authenticity of\nthe sacred writings, and by others with setting up their own\ninspirations in opposition to them; and they seem at an early period to\nhave discovered the necessity of recording their belief on this subject,\nnot only to refute the calumnies circulated by their opponents, but as a\nguide to the inexperienced of their own sect. For, such was the ferment\nof men's minds at that moment, and the violence of the change from the\ndull uniformity of formal belief, to all the extravagancies of\nunrestrained enthusiasm, that it appeared like an epidemic affecting all\ndescriptions of people; and their imaginations became so exalted, that\nevery fancy was mistaken for a revelation, and every preacher, however\nwild his doctrines, had his followers. Nor did their own members wholly\nescape the infection; for with all their care, there were those among\nthem who indulged in extravagancies, to the great grief of their more\nsober friends.\n\nIt fell to the lot of Robert Barclay to record the doctrines of the\nearly Quakers, and none of them was better fitted for the task; for he\nwas learned and pious, clear in his perceptions and logical in his\narrangement, and well able to give his reasons for his faith. He knew\nthat superstition and fanaticism were the Scylla and Charybdis of\nreligion, and how much care was necessary to prevent us, while avoiding\nthe one, from being swept into the whirlpool of the other. He was\nsurrounded by instances of the unhappy effects of that exaltation of\nmind, which induced individuals to believe they had arrived at such an\nunerring state of spiritual knowledge, that the recorded opinions and\nadvice of their pious predecessors, and even the scriptures, (being only\nin the letter,) were to them neither authority nor a guide; and that\nthey had derived the fulness of knowledge from the fountain itself. That\nto them reason itself had ceased to be of use, since they were under the\nconstant influence of a clear and distinct revelation, as stable and\ncertain as any of the instincts of our nature: and such was the fever of\nthe brain, that when their prophecies were contradicted by the event, it\ndid not impair their confidence in their own inspirations, _because it\nwas the Lord who chose to deceive them, and they were deceived_.\n\nHe had not adopted the fantastical idea that every passage of scripture\nhas a mystical meaning; but declares them to be the revelations of the\nspirit of God to the saints, and that they contain a faithful historical\naccount of the actings of God's people in various ages; a prophetical\naccount of several things, whereof some have passed, and some to come;\nand a full and ample account of all the chief principles of the doctrine\nof Christ. That they are profitable for correction and instruction in\nrighteousness, and that _divine inward revelations can never contradict\nthe outward testimony of the scriptures, or sound reason_.\n\nHere all is plain and consistent. No man of sound mind can believe that\nthe revelations of infinite wisdom are ever contradictory; and as the\nevidence of the divine origin of the scriptures is such as no individual\ncan produce, he was warranted in his conclusion, that all pretensions to\nthe spirit in contradiction to them, are delusions of the devil. And\nindeed no man of observation can cast his eyes round him, and\ncontemplate the various illusions into which the human mind is seduced\non religious subjects, without perceiving the absolute necessity of a\nstandard or rule by which its wanderings may be checked and its\naberrations corrected, and we find Locke concurring with Barclay, in\nstating the scripture revelations and right reason, as the true\nstandards by which our faith is to be tried.\n\nYou also seem to perceive the necessity of some check, but in the very\nspirit which induces that necessity, your own standard is as visionary,\nand as fruitful a source of evil, as the propensity it is intended to\ncorrect; for yours is not that reason which proceeds from premises to\nconsequences, but an actual illusion, which has persuaded you that there\nis a reason which can see all things immediately and by intuition;[43]\nand your bible, a book written in cypher,[44] the key of which is one of\nthe most vigorous plants of the wilderness of fanaticism. Hence it\nfollows, that your standard, so far from being a true test or corrector\nof your opinions, must always, when used, confirm you in error; for it\nis a magnifying mirror, reflecting the exaggerated image of the delusion\nit is intended to control.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  Sermons, page 207.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  Sermons, page 313.\n\nThere is not a more prolific source of error, than assuming principles\nwithout a careful examination of their correctness, and drawing\nconclusions from them; and even when the principle is correct, and the\ninference fairly deducible, men in the ardour of their zeal, often push\nit to an extreme far beyond its just limits.\n\nIt is not difficult to conceive, that a man whose mind is convinced by\ninternal evidence of the truth of the christian religion, and who, under\nan awful impression of its incalculable importance, opens the sacred\nvolume, finds more instruction and comfort in it, than he who only reads\nit as history, or from an indistinct sense of duty; because he has a\ngreater degree of inward acquaintance with the same spirit and work in\nthe heart. But this simple exposition is too plain to satisfy the lofty\nimaginations of the high professors of the present day: because the\nlukewarm and indifferent do not receive the same instruction and profit\nfrom the scriptures as the more serious and pious, the perusal can\nafford them no benefit; and even to the sincere inquirer it is a sealed\nbook, until its contents are previously communicated by an especial\nrevelation.[45]\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  Sermons, page 313.\n\nThis is the doctrine you have preached, and yet your own practice proves\nthat you have no reliance on it; and that it was only one of those\ninconsiderate excursions, in which the orator, when not under the strict\ncontrol of duty or reason, too often indulges; for when, in your cooler\nmoments, you wished to instruct your mind on the subject of our\nSaviour's birth, you sought it, not only by reading the scriptures, but\nalso by consulting the traditions of the christian church, as recorded\nby one of its historians.[46]\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  Letter to Thomas Willis.\n\nThese are the inconsistencies to which extravagance always leads; for\nwhen the mind, tired of its aerial flight, revisits the earth, and is\nagain employed in its proper duties, it finds that practical objects can\nonly be attained by practicable means.\n\nExaggeration in public speaking is always blameable, and in the preacher\nparticularly objectionable: it is generally resorted to for the purpose\nof increasing the impression, but seldom produces that effect; and it is\nupon religious subjects, above all others, that amplification should be\navoided, and that pure and simple style adopted which admits of no\nadventitious ornaments.\n\nYou, however, pursue a different course, and by the extravagance of your\nepithets, not only defeat your own views, but sometimes occasion the\nsubject itself to be considered, if not with ridicule, at least with but\nlittle seriousness. Thus in speaking of the propriety of plainness in\napparel, instead of giving the simple and obvious reason why the Society\nof Friends adopted it, you consider it as a vital principle of religion;\nand you mistake, (to use your own favourite expression,) the effect for\nthe cause, when you exclaim that there is religion in clothing, and\nexaggerate beyond all bounds, when you declare, that all the sin in the\nworld is created by men's following foolish fashions: and when you\nseriously assure us that high-crowned hats were never devised in the\nwisdom of God, the obvious inference that low-crowned hats were, is so\nludicrous, that we should be tempted to laugh, were not all merriment on\na subject in which that sacred name is introduced, (however improperly,)\nincongruous, if not profane.[47]\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  Sermons, page 133.\n\nAgain, in speaking of the necessity of a living faith in God, you\nexclaim that, faith in creeds and the traditions of your fathers, is\nworse than nothing; that we had better have no faith at all, for it is\nno better than the faith of devils; and in confirmation of this rash\nassertion, you quote a passage of scripture which has not the most\nremote application to the subject.[48]\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  Sermons, page 293.\n\nTo this, no rational christian can ever assent: he believes in the\nnecessity of spiritual worship, and that all ought to feel the power of\nreligion in their own souls: but that the faith which is derived from\nthe lessons of a pious parent, although it may not be accompanied with\nthat degree of spiritual knowledge which it ought to be our endeavour to\nattain, is no better than the faith of devils, no man in his sober\nsenses can believe.\n\nYou would no doubt think me very daring were I to say that your own\nfaith is as bad as the faith of devils; and yet, admitting the truth of\nyour own assertion, I can prove it by testimony, which, to you at least,\nought to be conclusive. For in your letter to Thomas Willis, before\nalluded to, you declare your belief in the Scripture account of our\nSaviour's birth from your _reliance_ on _tradition_, although it is\ncontrary to your judgment. If then that faith which a child admits and\nbelieves to be true from a firm reliance on the wisdom and experience of\na pious father, is as bad as the faith of devils; how are we to describe\nthe faith of that man who gives to tradition such supreme control, as to\nmake a reliance on it a point of duty, although a belief in it, is\ncontrary to his deliberate judgment.\n\nThis is one of the instances of the wanderings of your imagination, and\nthe strange inconsistencies into which your metaphysical divinity leads\nyou: and I cite it as a proof of the pernicious consequences of\nsubstituting mystical reveries in the place of the simple religion\ntaught by Jesus Christ; and not to censure your reliance on the faith of\nyour predecessors: for I truly believe that did you, like many of them,\nendeavour to preserve your mind in that meek and lowly state recommended\nby His example and precepts, all propensity to curious speculation on\nhidden things would be suppressed, and when called to testify to your\nfaith, you would be ready \"always to give an answer to every man that\nasketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with _meekness and\nfear_.\"\n\nIn alluding to the reasons which prevent many Friends from taking a part\nin the governments of the earth, instead of ascribing them to that\npeaceable principle which does not permit them to be agents in any\nmeasures connected with war, you denounce the governments of this world\nas standing _eternally_ in opposition to the government of the God of\nheaven; and this because all laws made in the wisdom of man are\nfoolishness with God: yet you acknowledge them to be necessary, although\nyou say it is no reason why the law of the Almighty should not prevail,\nwhich would take away the necessity of all other laws.[49]\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  Sermons, p. 198.\n\nThis reasoning is as confused, as the conclusion to which it leads is\nextraordinary. How laws in opposition to the will of the Almighty can be\nnecessary, when there is no reason why his law should not prevail, you\nhave not explained; and if human governments are in eternal opposition\nto the government of God, and yet are necessary, then is there not only\na necessity for man's being in eternal opposition to God's will; but the\nnecessity is a justification of it, and your argument, if sound, affords\na complete vindication of the persons engaged in the administration of\nthose governments.\n\nWe need not be told that if all men were under the strict influence of\nvirtue and religion, most of the existing laws would be unnecessary,\nbecause they are enacted in consequence of the vices and frailties of\nman; but that such a state of things will ever exist on earth, in which\nall regulations and covenants of society may with safety and convenience\nbe abolished, is an idea too extravagant to require refutation. Nor can\nit be believed that all laws made by the wisdom of man, are foolishness\nwith God, in the sense in which you understand it. The Creator in his\nwisdom seems to have ordained that the improvement of man in this state\nof being should be progressive. The first step is associating in\nsocieties, and they necessarily require rules for their government; and\nas they multiply, new circumstances are continually arising, which\nrequire additional regulations. And herein that reason with which man\nalone, of all created beings, has been favoured, is properly applied:\nfor this it was given to him, and its application to the purposes for\nwhich it was originally intended, can never be foolishness in the sight\nof the Almighty. The scriptures indeed tell us that the wisdom of this\nworld is foolishness with God; but it is used in reference to our\nreligious duties; to teach us the vanity of building up systems for\nourselves, and pretending to explain the hidden things of Omnipotence;\nand to warn us that \"as it is the gospel that has brought life and\nimmortality to light,\" so \"other foundation can no man lay than that is\nlaid, which is Jesus Christ.\"[50]\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  Corinthians, Chap. 3d.\n\n\n\n\n                              LETTER VIII.\n\n\nWhen we consider the ingenuity of the mind of man, in drawing inferences\nfrom propositions to suit his present passions and prejudices, and how\noften they are perverted to the most injurious purposes, every person of\nreflection must admit that it is of the most serious importance that the\nministers of religion should be extremely guarded in the terms they use,\nand not suffer a sentence to escape from their lips without a careful\nexamination of its bearing and tendency. Nor is it any justification of\nsuch persons, although they may with truth assert that the pernicious\ndeductions drawn from their declarations were not intended by them, if\nsuch deductions can fairly be made.\n\nThese reflections were impressed upon my mind in reading your sermons,\nin which are to be found many assertions which appear to me to have a\nvery injurious tendency; and with whatever views they were uttered, (for\nI inquire not into your motives,) seem to strike at the very foundation\nof revealed religion.\n\nIn your vain attempts to describe the nature of the Almighty, we should\nbe induced to believe, from some of your expressions, that you had\nadopted the opinion of some sects of unbelieving philosophers, that God\nis not the governor, but the soul of the universe; not a Being, but a\nprinciple or element, which, although it acts efficaciously, implies the\nabsence of all personal agency. For you say, \"Every child of God _has\nthe full and complete nature, spirit, and, may I not say, the divinity\nof God Almighty_; because there is nothing but divinity in God, and\ntherefore, if they are partakers of his divine nature,[51] so far they\nare partakers of his divinity, according to the portion which he is\npleased to dispense: and he _must_ dispense that portion which will make\nthem like himself. _For his children are as much like their Almighty\nFather, as the children of men are like their fathers._\"[52]\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  This is not the doctrine or belief of the Society. They believe in a\n  divine principle of light and life, wherewith Christ hath enlightened\n  every man that cometh into the world; but _by this they understand,\n  not the proper essence and nature of God precisely taken, who is not\n  divisible into parts and measures, but is a pure and simple being,\n  void of all composition and division_. See BARCLAY.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  New York Sermons, page 130.\n\nIn speaking of the operation of the great first Cause, you compare it to\nthe sun: \"What, (you say,) would become of us, were it not for the\nenlivening beams of the sun? Although it emits so much, yet it never\nlessens.[53] Our immortal spirits receive all their light from that\ncelestial and invisible Sun which is the Creator of all things. _He\nemits of his excellency to us, yet he does not lessen, but remains\neternally the same, for all that comes from him will return to\nhim._\"[54]\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  Philadelphia Sermons, page 187.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  Philadelphia Sermons, page 188.\n\nConsistent with this idea, you totally reject the Scripture declarations\nrespecting heaven and the kingdom of God, and consider them only as a\ncondition of the mind, and that we can enjoy them in this state of\nbeing.\n\nIn alluding to the account of the apostle's being taken up into the\nthird heaven, you say, \"What is this third heaven but a three-fold\nmanifestation of the divine presence;\"[55] and you ask, \"Is heaven of so\nlittle value to us that we put it off till the day of our death?\"[56]\n\"We are led to believe that there is an opportunity to lay up treasure\nin heaven; that is, to be in possession of heavenly treasure; or, _to\nuse a more proper expression, to be in possession of heaven_; because\nheaven is a state; it is every where where God is;\"[57] \"God comes alike\ninto the hearts of all the children of men, as much in the fornicator,\nthe thief, and the liar, as in me. But there it is dead, because the\ncreature is in opposition to God.\"[58] \"Now this leading by the spirit\nof God is the same as the kingdom of God, and being subject to the\nleaven. They are still one and the same thing; they are not two things;\nand as we yield to the leaven it leavens us, and brings us into the\ndivine nature, so that _we come to partake of the nature of God_.\"[59]\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  Sermons, page 17.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  Sermons, page 76.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  Sermons, page 275-6.--In one of his sermons, (page 292,) the preacher\n  declares that God never set Jesus Christ above us, \"_because if he did\n  he would be partial_.\" In this, he sets himself above Christ by\n  undertaking to correct his erroneous notion of heaven. Christ, in his\n  Sermon on the Mount, says, \"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon\n  earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break\n  through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.\"\n  This _humble teacher_ says the proper expression would be \"to be in\n  possession of heaven, because heaven is _a state_, and every where,\n  where God is.\"\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  Sermons, page 292.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  Sermons, page 295.\n\nIt is an observation of Doctor Paley, that contrivance is a proof of the\npersonality of the Deity; and we have been accustomed to contemplate\nwith admiration and awe the stupendous works of creation as emanating\nfrom his wisdom and will. But you, in strict accordance with the notion\nto which I have alluded, seem not to admit the argument, or the fact on\nwhich it is founded; for, in speaking of the earth's revolving in its\norbit, you say, \"So it has been through all ages past, and so it will\ncontinue through the _eternal_ ages to come.\"[60] \"As the moon receives\nall its light from the sun, for itself in the first place, so by that\nmeans it is enabled to emit a part of the power received to the next\norb; and here the heavenly order is kept up--so it has been through all\nthe previous _eternal ages_, and so it will continue to all future\nages.\"[61]\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  Sermons, page 188.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  Sermons, page 193.\n\nIs this Christianity, or is it not a renewal of the old doctrines of\nPagan philosophy? They held that matter is eternal, although they did\nnot think with you that our system had existed through all eternity.\nPlato believed the world to be the work of God out of existing matter;\nbut it was the general belief of the learned at a period preceding the\ncoming of Jesus Christ, (as it appears to be your's,) that the soul of\nman is an emission of the divine nature, and that all are partakers of\nit--and from hence they drew the natural, and indeed unavoidable\ninference, that as God is immortal and the soul of man a part of him, it\nmust necessarily have existed from all eternity.\n\nThis idea, so incompatible with God's moral government, completely\nexcludes the doctrine of rewards and punishments; for if \"all that comes\nfrom him must return to him, and is part of his nature,\" how can the\nsoul, when absorbed in the divine essence, be rewarded for its virtues\nor punished for its vices practised on earth?\n\nSo far from being alarmed at this conclusion, you appear to have adopted\nboth the idea and the inference; for you say, \"to be in the image of God\nwe must partake of his own nature, and have a portion of his own blessed\nspirit _to animate the soul and make it immortal, as God is\nimmortal_.\"[62]\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  Sermons, page 66.\n\nHence it must follow, that if the only immortal part in man is the\nportion of the blessed Spirit of which he is the partaker, and that this\nis a part of the nature of God, it must be bestowed equally on the good\nand the wicked, or that no part of the latter can be immortal; and this\nextraordinary consequence must result, that _worship in spirit_ is not\nthe homage of man to his Creator, but the Divinity adoring himself.[63]\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n                  As much you pull Religion's altars down,\n                  By owning all things God, as owning none;\n                  For should all beings be alike divine,\n                  Of worship, if an object you assign,\n                  God to himself must veneration show,\n                  Must be the object and the votary too;\n                  And their assertions are alike absurd,\n                  Who own no God, or none to be adored.\n\n                  BLACKMORE.\n\nSocrates alone, of all the ancient philosophers, had adopted the belief\nof a future state of rewards and punishments; and the reason why he\narrived at this truth, affords an instructive lesson to the metaphysical\npreachers of the present day--he confined himself to the study of\nmorality. \"What, (says an eminent writer,) could be the cause of his\nbelief, but this restraint, of which his belief was the natural\nconsequence? For, having confined himself to morals, he had nothing to\nmislead him; whereas, the rest of the philosophers, applying themselves\nwith a kind of fanaticism to physics and metaphysics, had drawn a number\nof absurd but subtile conclusions, which directly opposed the\nconsequences of those moral arguments.\"[64]\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  Warburton.\n\nAnd the great Newton, in reference to this subject, finishes his\nprinciples of natural philosophy with these reflections:--\"This most\nelegant frame of things could not have arisen, unless by the contrivance\nand direction of a wise and powerful being: and if the fixed stars are\nthe centres of systems, these systems must be similar; and all these,\nconstructed according to the same plan, are subject to the government of\n_one_ Being. All these he governs, _not as the soul of the world_, but\nas the Lord of all; and therefore, on account of his government, he is\ncalled the Lord God; for God is a relative term, and refers to subjects.\nDeity is God's government, not of his own body, as those think who\nconsider him as the soul of the world, but of his servants. The supreme\nGod is a _Being_, eternal, infinite, and absolutely perfect. But a\nbeing, however perfect, without government is not God; for we say my\nGod, your God, the God of Israel. We cannot say my Eternal, my Infinite.\nWe may have some notions, indeed, of his attributes, but can have none\nof his nature. With respect to bodies, we see only shapes and colour,\nhear only sounds, touch only surfaces. These are attributes of bodies,\nbut of their essence we know nothing. As a blind man can form no notion\nof colours, we can form none of the manner in which God perceives, and\nunderstands, and influences every thing.\n\n\"Therefore, we know God only by his attributes. What are these? The wise\nand excellent contrivance, structure, and final aim of all things. In\nthese his perfections we admire him, and we wonder. In his direction or\ngovernment, we venerate and worship him--we worship him as his servants;\nfor God without dominion, without providence, and final aims, is\n_Fate_--not the object either of reverence, of hope, of love, or of\nfear.\"\n\nYou may say that you never intended to inculcate such doctrines as I\nhave alluded to, and you can produce various instances in which you have\ndescribed the Almighty as the supreme governor of the universe; and if\nthese facts are a justification of the course you have pursued, you may\ncontinue your career completely sheltered from censure or reproach; for\nI cannot observe a single novelty in your opinions, or deviation from\nthe established doctrines of the Christian church, which have not been\ncontradicted by yourself.\n\nBut such an excuse cannot be availing; you declare that you dare not\nspeak at random, otherwise you would show that you departed from _God's\nilluminating spirit_; and although those who have had an opportunity to\nread and compare your different sermons, can contemplate that solemn\ndeclaration with no other than feelings of astonishment and regret at\nthe strange delusion, with others it may have a different effect. You\nare a travelling preacher, scattering one doctrine here, and another\nthere; and interlarding your discourses with bold assertions, which are\nremembered, when the prolix and visionary distinctions by which you\nattempt to qualify them are forgotten.\n\nI remember hearing an individual who had attended at a meeting in the\nvicinity of Philadelphia, at which you preached, when asked what was the\nsubject of your discourse, reply, that you preached very comfortable\ndoctrine for some of the company, for you had assured them there was no\ndevil. I am not so uncharitable as to believe that you are intentionally\ninstrumental in removing the salutary restraints upon the vices of man;\nand yet I am surprised that you do not perceive the inevitable and\npernicious consequences of such declarations; and that, if you do not\nbelieve in the authority of the Scriptures yourself, you do not avoid\nassertions which, while they can have no tendency to strengthen and\nencourage the pious mind, must necessarily diminish those feelings of\nfuture responsibility which, awful as they are, unhappily are not\nsufficient to restrain the wickedness of man.[65]\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  If the reader wishes to know what Elias Hicks says on this subject,\n  let him peruse the Sermons, pages 37, 163, 166, 170, 182, and 293, and\n  he will there have a fair specimen of the darkness which surrounds\n  him--a cloud of words unilluminated by a ray of light.\n\nMany to whom you preach are illiterate, and without capacity to\ninvestigate your doctrines and their tendency. They have been accustomed\nto listen to the simple truths of our religion, enforced in language\nwhich they can understand; and they often found in their attendance at\nplaces of worship, consolation, instruction, and encouragement. They\nhave been taught to believe in the revelations unfolded in the sacred\nvolume, and to look forward with the cheering hope, of a Mediator and\nRedeemer, \"who ever liveth to make intercession for them.\"[66]\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  Hebrews, chap. vii.\n\nThese are the lessons of practical piety, which bring the mind into a\nsituation to worship acceptably, and under the influence of which, men\nbut little instructed in human learning, are often enabled to counsel\nthe wise of this world in the things that lead to their peace.\n\nBut if these things are all to be changed: if in place of this simple,\npractical religion, our places of worship are to be converted into\ntheatres for metaphysical disquisitions, and the discussion of questions\nmore curious than useful; and we are to be instructed in the\nunprofitable controversies which have so long perplexed and disturbed\nthe christian world: if faith is no longer a christian principle, and\nthe revelations of the scriptures rejected when not to be arrived at by\nthe analogy of reason, then indeed must the Quaker ministry be\nconstituted anew, and even your own labours cease. The old and unchanged\nservants can take no part or portion in the new order of things; and it\ncannot be expected that the disciples of the new school will take for a\nmaster to lead them to the truth by analogous reasoning, one, who has\nyet to be taught what reason really is.\n\n\n\n\n                               LETTER IX.\n\n\nYour assertion that \"you cannot believe what you do not understand,\" is\noften quoted by your followers, as a proof of your having emancipated\nyourself from the thraldom of tradition, and risen superior to those\nprejudices, which early education, and the authority of antiquity have\nfastened on the minds of men; and yet when we examine and compare this\nassertion with the doctrines you inculcate, it appears evident that you\nhave not a correct idea of the meaning of your favourite maxim.\n\nThis understanding can only be arrived at by the natural faculties of\nperception, judgment, and reasoning, and as the truth of the especial\nrevelations of which you speak, are propositions which cannot be\ndemonstrated by the use of these faculties; they must, if assented to,\nbe purely matters of faith, arising from our belief in the general truth\nof the christian dispensation.\n\nThere is a clear distinction between things which are according to,\nabove, and contrary to, reason. The first are propositions, the truth of\nwhich may be discovered by the use of the ideas we have acquired from\nsensation and reflection. The second are propositions whose truth cannot\nbe investigated by these means: and the third, such as are inconsistent\nand irreconcileable to our clear and distinct ideas.\n\nThus, were you to tell us, that without other impulse than your own\n_will_, you can give mobility to matter, and at your pleasure reduce it\nto a quiescent state, we cannot withhold our assent, because we see you\nexercising that dominion in the government of your limbs; and yet so far\nfrom understanding the operation of this wonderful power, the mind\ncannot form the least idea how the effect is produced. But when we hear\nyou declare to one set of people \"that the law of the spirit of life in\none, is not the law of the spirit of life in his brother; and that each\nindividual requires a peculiar law to himself;\"[67] and to another,\n\"that this divine law which is written by the finger of God upon the\ntablet of our hearts, is the same to every individual;\"[68] we know that\nthese contradictory assertions cannot both be true; and must withhold\nour belief when you declare \"that you dare not speak at random,\notherwise you should show that you departed from God's illuminating\nspirit;\" because our reason will never permit us to believe that such\ninconsistencies can proceed from the illuminations of infinite wisdom.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  Philadelphia Sermons, page 51.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  New York Sermons, page 124.\n\n\"Reason,\" (says Locke,) \"is natural revelation, whereby the eternal\nFather of Light, and fountain of all knowledge, communicates to mankind\nthat portion of truth which he has laid within the reach of their\nnatural faculties. _Revelation_ is natural reason, enlarged by a new set\nof discoveries, communicated by God immediately, which reason vouches\nthe truth of, by the testimony and proof it gives that they come from\nGod.\" And he rebukes the presumption of those who reduce the measure of\ntheir belief to the narrow limits of their own understanding, and\ndeclares \"it is an over-valuing of ourselves, to reduce all to the\nnarrow measure of our capacities; and to conclude all things impossible\nto be done, whose manner of doing exceeds our comprehension. This is to\nmake our comprehension _infinite_, or God _finite_, when what he can do,\nis limited to what we can conceive of it. If you do not understand the\noperations of your own finite mind, that thinking thing, within you, do\nnot deem it strange, that you cannot comprehend the operations of that\neternal, infinite mind, who made and governs all things, and whom the\nheaven of heavens cannot contain.\"\n\nIf a Socinian tells me that he cannot assent to any doctrine which is\nnot on a level with the comprehension of the human understanding, he is\nat least intelligible; for he necessarily rejects the doctrine of\ninspiration; but when you make the same assertion, and yet declare that\nGod is incomprehensible to us as rational creatures, and that all the\naids which science and philosophy can give, can never bring man to\nbelieve rightly in God,[69] and that it is by his inward manifestations\nonly that we can discover the path of our duty; the assertions are\nevidently incompatible; and if any deduction can be drawn from them, it\nis, that the indications by which alone we are taught aright, we are not\nbound to believe.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  Philadelphia Sermons, pages 51, 294, and 300.\n\nReduce your argument to a syllogism, and reflect on the result.\n\n_Prop._ I. We cannot believe any thing which the human understanding\ncannot comprehend.\n\n_Prop._ II. Science and philosophy, and all the knowledge which man can\nderive from his natural faculties, can never bring him to comprehend or\nbelieve rightly in God.\n\n_Conclusion._ As it is impossible for man to believe any thing which the\nhuman understanding cannot comprehend, and he not being able by the aid\nof these faculties to comprehend or believe rightly in God, it is\nimpossible for him to comprehend or believe rightly in God.\n\nSuppose, (and I think it actually the case,) that you do not perceive\nthe extent to which your assertion leads, and that you intended to\nconvey the idea that we are not to believe any thing above the limits of\nour natural capacities on the testimony of another, and only when the\nsame is especially revealed to us; then I would ask why you waste so\nmuch time in descanting on them? According to your own rule, none but\nthose who are favoured with the same especial revelations can believe\nyou, and to them your preaching is useless.\n\nThese are the inconsistencies of those _who bow the knee to the image of\nthe Baal of the present day_; who, neglecting the exhortation \"not to\nthink more highly of themselves than they ought to think; but to think\nsoberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of\nfaith,\"[70] have become wise in their own conceits.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  Romans, chap. xiv.\n\nIf indeed the doctrine is true, that nothing is to be believed as of\ndivine origin, which cannot be accounted for by that faculty of\ncomprehending and judging which we derive from nature, the number of\nreligions must be nearly in proportion to the number of individuals.\nWhat will be clear and evident to the more discerning, will be\nunintelligible to the superficial and ignorant, and our unbelief will be\nincreased in the same ratio in which our intellectual faculties are\ndiminished.\n\nLook from the hillock on which you stand, at the ascending and\ndescending grades of human intellect, and contemplate the immeasurable\ndistance between the minds of a Newton and a Hicks; of a Hicks and an\nEsquimaux: you will find the last unable to comprehend truths of which\nyou possess indubitable evidence, and yourself unable to understand many\nof the laws by which the universe is governed, although you may have\nbefore you, the demonstrations by which the great philosopher has proved\ntheir truth.\n\nIndeed after all this boast of regulating the conduct by those facts and\ncircumstances only which we understand, every observer must perceive,\nthat under the practical exercise of this principle, even the common\naffairs of life would stand still; that we all act on the moral\ncertainty of the existence and operation of things, the cause or\nproduction of which is beyond our comprehension; and that it is from the\nevidence of their actual existence, and not the discovery of the means\nof it, that our belief in them is established. And such is the weakness\nof that understanding on which you so much rely, that even on subjects\nwhere it can with propriety be exercised, we every day see men believing\nand disbelieving propositions under the influence of their interests and\ninclinations, and sincerely changing their opinions, with their\nsituations and circumstances.\n\n\"Reason,\" (says the author[71] of a review of the internal evidence of\nthe christian religion,) \"is undoubtedly our surest guide in all matters\nwhich lie within the narrow circle of her intelligence. On the subject\nof revelation her province is only to examine its authority and when\nthat is once proved, she has no more to do, but to acquiesce in its\ndoctrines; and is therefore never so ill employed as when she pretends\nto accommodate them to her own ideas of rectitude and truth. God, says\nthis _self sufficient teacher_, is perfectly wise, just, and good; and\nwhat is the inference? That all his dispensations must be conformable to\nour notions of perfect wisdom, justice, and goodness: but it should\nfirst be proved, that man is as perfect and as wise as his Creator, or\nthis consequence will by no means follow; but rather the reverse, that\nis, that the dispensations of a perfect and all wise being, must\nprobably, appear unreasonable, and perhaps unjust, to a being imperfect\nand ignorant.\" And in reply to the objections to the divine origin of\nthe christian religion, from the apparent incredibility of some of its\ndoctrines, particularly those concerning the trinity, and atonement for\nsin by the sufferings and death of Christ, one of which is asserted to\nbe contrary to all the principles of human reason, and the other to all\nour ideas of divine justice, he says, \"No arguments founded on\nprinciples which we cannot comprehend, can possibly disprove a\nproposition already proved on principles which we do understand: and\ntherefore on this subject they ought not to be attended to: that three\nbeings should be one being, is a proposition which certainly contradicts\nreason, that is _our_ reason; but it does not from thence follow that it\ncannot be true; for there are many propositions which contradict our\nreason, and yet are demonstrably true: one is, the very first principle\nof all religion, the being of a God; for that any thing should exist\nwithout a cause, or that any thing should be the cause of its own\nexistence, are propositions equally contradictory to our reason; yet one\nof them must be true, or nothing could ever have existed. In like manner\nthe overruling grace of the Creator, and the free will of his creatures;\nhis foreknowledge of future events, and the uncertain contingency of\nthese events, are to our apprehensions absolute contradictions to each\nother; and yet the truth of every one of them is demonstrable from\nScripture, reason, and experience. All these difficulties arise from our\nimagining that the mode of existence of all beings must be similar to\nour own, that is, that they must all exist in time and space; and hence\nproceeds our embarrassment on this subject. We know that no two beings,\nwith whose mode of existence we are acquainted, can exist at the same\npoint of time, in the same point of space, and that therefore they\ncannot be one: but how far beings whose mode of existence bears no\nrelation to time or space, may be united, we cannot comprehend; and\ntherefore the possibility of such an union we cannot positively deny.\"\nAnd to those who assert that even if these doctrines are true, it is\ninconsistent with the justice and goodness of the Creator to require\nfrom them the belief of propositions which contradict, or are above the\nunderstanding which he has bestowed on them, he says, \"to this I answer,\nthat christianity requires no such belief: it has discovered to us many\nimportant truths, with which we were before entirely unacquainted, and\namongst them are these, that three beings are sometimes united in the\ndivine essence, and that God will accept of the sufferings of Christ as\nan atonement for the sins of mankind. These, considered as declarations\nof facts only, neither contradict, nor are above the reach of human\nreason: the first is a proposition as plain, as that three equilateral\nlines compose one triangle; the other as intelligible as that one man\nshould discharge the debts of another. In what manner this union is\nformed, or why God accepts these vicarious punishments, or to what\npurposes they may be subservient, it informs us not, because no\ninformation would enable us to comprehend these mysteries, and therefore\nit does not require that we should know or believe any thing about them.\nThe truth of these doctrines must rest entirely on the authority of\nthose who taught them; but then we should reflect that those were the\nsame persons who taught us a system of religion more sublime, and of\nethics more perfect, than any which our faculties were ever able to\ndiscover, but which, when discovered, are exactly consonant to our\nreason, and that therefore we should not hastily reject those\ninformations which they have vouchsafed to give us, of which our reason\nis not a competent judge. If an able mathematician proves to us the\ntruth of several propositions by demonstrations which we understand, we\nhesitate not on his authority to assent to others, the process of whose\nproofs we are not able to follow: why therefore should we refuse that\ncredit to Christ and his apostles which we think reasonable to give to\none another.\"\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  Soame Jenyns.\n\nWe know that the first preachers of the gospel were generally illiterate\nmen, and that the first converts were among the unlearned and ignorant;\nand it was sufficiently intelligible to them because the practical parts\nwere then taught; which, if not the only, are certainly the most\nessential portion of it. Its intrinsic excellence is perhaps the best\nevidence of its divine origin; yet it cannot be denied that proofs of\nits authority may sometimes be drawn from the speculative inquiries of\nlearned and pious men. But a very little reflection must convince us how\nlittle the reasoning of uninformed men can be depended on; and that when\nthey are so unwise as to habituate their minds to such speculations,\ntheir ignorance must continually involve them in error and\ncontradictions: and it surely would be prudent in these to pause, before\nthey reject a revelation which does not accord with their crude notions\nof reason and the fitness of things, when they recollect that the\ndiligent and learned researches of the master minds of such men as\nGrotius, Bacon, Newton, Locke, and Paley, have ended in convincing them\nof its truth.\n\nThere are in the Scriptures, allusions to mysteries which it seems not\ngiven to us to comprehend in this state of being; and, consequently, all\ninquiries into them are vain: is it not, therefore, reasonable to\nbelieve, that such is not our proper business, and that our concern is\nwith those truths only, which have a practical operation on the minds\nand conduct of men, and which are clearly revealed: and if we examine\nthe consequences to many of those who are engaged in these theoretic\ninquiries, must we not conclude that they tend little to righteousness,\nand less to their own peace.\n\n\n\n\n                               LETTER X.\n\n\nReligion being a subject of the greatest importance to man, and a matter\nsolely between the Creator and the individual who worships him, its\nrewards and its punishments appertaining to that kingdom which is not of\nthis world, and \"the conscience of man being the seat and throne of God\nin him, of which He alone is the proper and infallible judge, who by his\npower and spirit can rectify its mistakes;\"[72] and it being man's duty\nto worship according to the dictates of that conscience, it must follow,\nnot only from the precepts of the Christian religion, but also from the\nclearest dictates of reason, that every attempt on the part of others to\ncontrol or direct his belief, is a usurpation; and the injustice is not\ngreater than the folly of such attempts; for who is there that can\nbelieve that the coerced acquiescence in any form of worship, can be\ngrateful in the sight of the Almighty; or that he who, by the exertion\nof power, thus makes hypocrites, can render a service acceptable to him.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  Barclay.\n\nYet, notwithstanding this self-evident truth, we find the spirit of\npersecution had taken such fast hold of the minds of men, and had become\nso identified with the priestly character, that although they were\nalways ready to complain, and recommend moderation, when suffering from\nits exercise by others, they generally resorted to it when their own\nsect became dominant, and ages elapsed before the principles of\ntoleration gained the ascendency in any portion of the globe. And it is,\nindeed, painful to observe with what reluctance this wicked prerogative\nof power has been abandoned, and that in this country, in the full\nexercise of the rights of conscience, and in the midst of the blessings\nwhich accrue from it, individuals are found in different Christian\nsocieties who evince by their conduct, the old spirit; and who, happily\nrestrained by the law from the use of the sword and faggot, freely\nindulge in contumely and reproach, the only weapons left them.\n\nThe Society of Friends early distinguished themselves as champions for\nthe rights of conscience, and the consequences which resulted from the\npractical exercise of this principle in settling the province of\nPennsylvania, have, both mediately and immediately, been of incalculable\nadvantage in softening the hearts, and enlarging the minds of men, and\nhave caused the name of Penn to be enrolled in the first class of the\nbenefactors of mankind.\n\nThe soil of Pennsylvania was dedicated by the great proprietor to\nreligious freedom; it was the asylum offered to all sufferers for\nconscience sake; and our legislators, acting on the same principles,\nhave done their part by protecting it from the actual violence of\nbigotry. This is all that they could do, and the duty remains to each\nreligious community to suppress that spirit, which, when indulged,\neradicates from the human heart all the charities of life.\n\nThis is the duty of all, and, in a more especial manner, of those who,\nprofessing to be of the same faith, also profess to walk in the path of\nthat man: and that they are now called to the exercise of this duty must\nbe evident from the course which you and some others have pursued.\n\n\"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his own master he\nstandeth or falleth; yea, he shall be holden up; for God is able to make\nhim stand. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at\nnought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of\nChrist. Let us not judge one another any more.\"[73]\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  Romans, chap. xiv.\n\nThis was the exhortation of Paul to the Romans, when instructing them in\nthe use of Christian liberty; for he had been taught by his master,\n_that there were other sheep, though not of this fold_.[74] You,\nhowever, seem to be in the state of Peter before his vision, who thought\nit unlawful to eat with the uncircumcised, and knew not, _that on the\nGentiles also, was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost_: and, like\nJames and John, you seem ready to call down the fire of heaven on those\nwho do not receive the gospel according to your own particular ritual,\nalthough you must have read the rebuke of their master, \"Ye know not\nwhat manner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of man is not come to\ndestroy men's lives, but to save them.\"[75]\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  John, chap. x.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  Luke, chap. ix.\n\nYou denounce the members of Bible and Missionary Societies, and the\nministers of most other sects, and stigmatise their endeavours to spread\nthe gospel, _as an abomination in the land_; and accuse them of taking\nfrom the widow for their own aggrandisement.[76] You say that they\ncompass sea and land to make a proselyte, and that _when he is made,\nthey have made him two-fold more the child of hell than he was\nbefore_;[77] and, in speaking of the studies which many religious\nsocieties enjoin as a preparation for the ministry, you call it\ninventing religions by earthly science; and, usurping the judgment seat,\nyou boldly pronounce every priest, thus made, to be _an enemy to his\nGod_;[78] thus indiscriminately anathematising thousands and tens of\nthousands of men, of whom you know nothing.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  Philadelphia Sermons, pages 23, 24, 26.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  Phil. Sermons, page 120.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  Philadelphia Sermons, page 289.\n\nYet, when it answered a present purpose, we find you asserting, \"that\nthe law of the spirit of life in you, is not the law of the spirit of\nlife in your brother, whose bondage here may be different from your own;\nthat each requires a law peculiar to himself; and that the law in\nanother man's mind is no law to us;\" and you say you believe that there\nare among the Christian professors, many who are industriously seeking\nthe Lord, although under the power of tradition and education, and the\nsuperstition that reigns in the land.[79]\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  Philada. Sermons, pages 51, 267.\n\nThat no man can tell how far his own opinions are influenced by\ntradition and education is unquestionable, and it ought to render us\ncautious in censuring those of others; and if it is indeed true, that\neach requires a law peculiar to himself, and that the law in another\nman's mind is no law to us, it must follow that we can form no idea of\nanother's duty, and that to attempt to censure or direct his conduct, is\nas unwise as it is presumptuous. And we can account for your\ninconsistency, only by supposing, that you believe yourself possessed of\na faculty heretofore thought to be an attribute of Omnipotence only, and\nthat you also are a searcher of hearts; or that, like Mahomet, you have\nespecial revelations which release you from the obligations which you\nimpose on others.\n\nNeither of your positions appear to me to be correct. I believe with one\nof the most exemplary ministers that the Society of Friends ever\nproduced,[80] that all true Christians are of the same spirit, though\ntheir gifts may be diverse; that sincere, upright hearted people in\nevery society who love God, are accepted of him; and that Christianity\nis a pure principle in the human mind, _which is confined to no forms of\nreligion, nor excluded from any_, where the heart stands in perfect\nsincerity.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  John Woolman, pages 9, 81, 325.\n\nThese are the opinions of one, who I cannot be mistaken in considering,\nas of greater authority than yourself; for the history of his life\ndiscovers the uniformity of his belief; and the moderation which\ncharacterised his language and opinions, sufficiently prove that he\nadopted in practice the recommendation of a very pious man,[81] \"turn\nyour eyes inward upon yourself, for you can hardly exceed in judging\nyour own actions, nor be too cautious and sparing in censuring those of\nothers; and _censuring_, indeed, this deserves to be called, in the\nworst sense of the word, rather than _judging_; if we consider, not only\nhow unprofitable to any good end, but how liable to infinite mistakes,\nand very often how _exceedingly sinful_, all such judgments are.\"\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  Thomas a Kempis.\n\nI am not a member of any Missionary or Bible Society, nor are all the\nmeasures pursued by either of them, in accordance with my opinions; but\nI see among them, men who, by their lives and conversations, evince the\npurity and uprightness of their motives, and I dare _not judge them,\nlest I be judged_.\n\nIn reading the rash and uncharitable assertions which I have quoted, I\nhave imagined one of these men expostulating with you. Suppose him to\nsay, Look to the many pious, charitable, and distinguished men who are\namong us, and say whether you really believe they would rob the widow of\nher mite for their own aggrandisement? Or do you believe that the\nlabours of a Wilberforce,[82] who has devoted all his talents, and\npassed a life in unparalleled exertions for the relief of the oppressed\nAfricans, and in communicating to them a knowledge of the Christian\nreligion, are an abomination in the land? You appear to have your mind\nexercised on account of this people, and have expressed great zeal on\ntheir behalf; but your labours seem to be confined to declamations among\nyour friends in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, among whom slavery does not\nexist, and whose abhorrence of the practice is equal to your own.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  He is one of the most active members of the Society for propagating\n  the gospel.\n\nCompare these labours with those of one of our brethren,[83] who, under\na like concern, believed himself called to visit the mansions of misery,\nand endeavour to pour into the afflicted bosom of wretchedness, the\nconsolations unfolded by the gospel. He knew the perils and privations\nthat awaited him, and he encountered them all. Excluded from the society\nof the white inhabitants, and continually assailed with contumely, he\npassed his days among this miserable and degraded race, until, under the\npretext that he fomented rebellion among the slaves, he was imprisoned\nand condemned to die, on the oaths of some of these wretched beings,\nwhose own lives depended on the testimony they gave. This was all that\nhis enemies could do, for the regulations of the government of England\ndid not permit the execution of the sentence until ratified by them, and\nthe proceedings were no sooner known there than they were annulled. But\nit was too late! the severity of his imprisonment in an unhealthy\nclimate had hurried him to his grave. His journal and letters show the\nextent of his labours, and that in many instances, even the imperfect\nknowledge and experience which his converts must necessarily have had of\nour religion, had produced a striking improvement in their conduct and\nconversation, and afforded great encouragement to expect the happiest\nresults.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  The missionary Smith.\n\nNow, can you believe that this man, who has given such evidence of the\nsincerity of his belief, and of his devotedness to what he deemed his\nduty, could be numbered among the enemies of his God? Or that the\nglimpse of gospel light which he had been instrumental in communicating\nto the benighted minds of the miserable beings around him, had made them\n_two-fold more the children of hell than before_?\n\nTo such expostulations you could make no reply, nor can the imagination\nconceive any plausible apology for the terms you have used. The\ninconsistency and extravagance of the assertions carry with them their\nown refutation, and the coarseness of the language can inspire nothing\nbut disgust in every liberal mind. In one point of view only, can they\nbe of importance to any but yourself, and that is, as it affects the\nreputation of the society of which you are a member; and as these\nsentiments are alien to those of that respectable body, it is to be\nlamented that a meeting which was probably attended by people of various\nreligious professions, was permitted to separate, without some\nindividual whose mind was imbued with their truly catholic principles,\nexplaining what they really are; so that none might go away in the\nbelief that _this people also_, presume to scan the limits of the mercy\nof the Almighty, \"and deal damnation round the land, on each they judge\nhis foe.\"\n\nNor do I believe that your own heart responds to such sentiments, or\nthat in your cooler moments you can possibly believe them correct. The\ntongue is an unruly member, and he who talks much, will sometimes talk\nunwisely. We are told that although man can tame the beasts of the\nforest, \"the tongue no man can tame.\" \"Behold,\" (says the apostle,[84])\n\"how great a matter a little fire kindleth.\" \"Therewith bless we God,\neven the Father; and therewith curse we men, who are made after the\nsimilitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and\ncursing. _My brethren these things ought not to be so._ This wisdom\ndescendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. But the\nwisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and\neasy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality\nand without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace,\nof them that make peace.\"\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  James, Chap. 3.\n\nAn accurate observer will often discover how erroneously the zeal of\nindividuals operates: he will see around him numbers always ready to\ncounsel and advise their neighbours; to detect their errors and reprove\ntheir aberrations: but how few among us scan with equal severity their\nown; and this, because there is something gratifying in the superiority\nwhich attaches to the counsellor and censor of others, but always\ntroublesome, and often painful, to sit in judgment on ourselves. So when\nthe preacher is followed and applauded, it often begets a restless\nspirit: silent worship no longer affords him satisfaction, and he seldom\npermits it to others, when he is present. Few men have such fertility of\nimagination as to be able to vary such frequent discourses; he is often\nat a loss for a subject, and seizes with avidity every new idea,\nregardless of its correctness, if it possesses the charm of novelty.\n\nThe author of an essay on practical piety[85] makes some reflections on\nthe situation of ministers of the gospel, which ought to be attentively\nconsidered by them. \"There are perils on the right hand and on the left.\nIt is not among the least, that though a pious clergyman may, at first,\nhave tasted with trembling caution of the delicious cup of applause, he\nmay gradually grow, as thirst is increased by indulgence, to drink too\ndeeply of the enchanted chalice. The dangers arising from any thing that\nis good, are formidable because unsuspected. And such are the perils of\npopularity, that we will venture to say that the victorious general, who\nhas conquered a kingdom, or the sagacious statesman who has preserved\nit, is almost in less danger of being spoiled than the popular preacher;\nbecause their danger is likely to happen but once, his is perpetual:\ntheirs is only on a day of triumph, his day of triumph occurs every\nweek; we mean, the admiration he excites. Every fresh success ought to\nbe a fresh motive to humiliation: he who feels his danger will\nvigilantly guard against swallowing too greedily, _the indiscriminate_\nand often _undistinguishing_ plaudits, which his _doctrines_, or his\n_manner_, his _talents_ or his _voice_, may equally procure for him. If\nhe be not prudent as well as pious, he may be brought to humour his\naudience, and his audience to flatter him with a dangerous emulation,\ntill they will scarcely endure truth itself, from any other lips. The\nspirit of excessive fondness generates a spirit of controversy. Some of\nthe followers will rather improve in casuistry than in christianity.\nThey will be more busied in opposing Paul to Apollos, than in looking\nunto Jesus, the author and finisher of their faith, than in bringing\nforth fruits meet for repentance. _Religious gossip_ may assume the\nplace of religion itself. A party spirit is thus generated, and\nchristianity may begin to be considered as a thing to be discussed and\ndisputed, to be heard and talked about, rather than as the productive\nprinciple of virtuous conduct.\"\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  H. Moore.\n\nThat this spirit exists in a considerable degree among a portion of the\nSociety of Friends, I think cannot be doubted; and it would indeed be\nwise in each individual, seriously to scrutinize his own conduct, and\nconsider whether he has been instrumental in generating or propagating\nit.\n\n\n\n\n                              CONCLUSION.\n\n\nWhen I first undertook to review some of the prominent features in the\nsermons alluded to, I did expect to confine my remarks within a narrow\ncompass; but the topics which the author discusses are so various and\nthe applications so numerous, that it unavoidably led to their\nextension, and I have at last left many untouched which are entitled to\nvery serious consideration.\n\nI know there are some very serious and pious men who lament that these\nsermons were published; but I am not of their opinion; for although they\nmay, in one point of view, be prejudicial, an accurate knowledge of the\nwhole scheme, must I think convince every thinking mind, that it is not\nonly inconsistent with the christian religion, but that its parts are so\ndiscordant, and its doctrines so darkly mysterious, as to elude the\ncomprehension of man; and that the author, so far from elucidating that\nreligion by his boasted reliance on the human understanding, has been\nled by that modicum of it possessed by himself, into many notions\ntotally irreconcileable to right reason.\n\nIn one respect they may be injurious; not by making converts to the\nsystem, but by impairing the belief of individuals in the truths\nrecorded in Scripture, and thus paving the way to complete infidelity;\nfor there are few minds so stolid as really to have faith in a religion,\nfounded on a book, which they believe to be itself a fiction.\n\nIt would perhaps be advisable for every member of the Society, after\nperusing these sermons, to read the life and writings of John Woolman.\nContrast often serves to elucidate the truth, and the dissimilitude is\nso great, that they will have little difficulty in discovering which has\nbeen actuated by that humble, peaceable, and gentle spirit, recommended\nby the example and precepts of the Founder of our religion. They were\nprobably equally deficient in human learning; but while the one,\nconfident in his own abilities, is continually involving himself in\ncontradictions by allusions to subjects which he does not understand;\nthe other, favoured with what learning can never supply, a large fund of\n_good sense_, pursues the even tenor of his way without entanglement or\ninconsistency: the one, labouring to clothe his arguments in the\nbrilliant language of the orator, leaves them involved in inextricable\nconfusion; the other, explains his ideas with a precision and clearness,\nwhich if they do not convince cannot be misunderstood.\n\nIndeed there is such a sober seriousness and mildness of spirit which\nbreathes through all the writings of John Woolman; such unbounded\ncharity for others, and such severity in the examination of himself;\nsuch persuasive earnestness in his exhortations, and such a perfect\nconformity between all his principles and practices, that however men\nmay differ respecting some of his doctrines and opinions, all must\nacknowledge that he possessed a mind imbued with a truly christian\nspirit, and regard his tone and manner of writing as a model which ought\nto be imitated by all christian professors.\n\nThe doctrine of divine inspiration was the belief of every christian\nchurch in its primitive simplicity, and is yet the doctrine of almost\nall of them, under different names and modifications; and if the belief\nin it is impaired, I fear it must, in a great degree, be attributed to\nsome of those who profess to be under the guidance of it. Not content\nwith the measure of light which it affords, and which is sufficient for\nthe great purpose of enabling him \"to work out his own salvation,\" man,\nin the pride of his heart, is prone to get from under that humble state,\nin which alone its manifestations are rightly impressed on the mind; to\nbelieve it is given as a substitute for, and not in aid of, our reason;\nand mistaking his own visionary fancies for revelations, actually\npersuades himself that he also is invested with the attribute of\nomniscience. The inconsistencies in which minds thus sublimated are\nalways involved, are stumbling blocks to many, who are from thence led\nto consider all as an illusive or hypocritical pretension.\n\nThese are the whims of the imagination; when man in his exaltation\nreleases himself from the control of his reason, and eradicates from his\nheart the pure and unadulterated principles of the christian religion;\nwhen, forgetting his infirmities, and vaunting in his strength, he\nassumes that station to which he is not called, and ministers to others,\nwhen his own light is extinguished. These are they who are described by\nthe poet--\n\n                   \"Aspiring to be Gods, if angels fell,\n                   Aspiring to be angels, men rebel.\"\n\nBut, notwithstanding the discouraging prospects which surround this\npeople, I trust that all is not lost; that the ark is yet upborne by\nhallowed hands; and that Sion's mount is still encircled by a chosen\nband, who read with humility, reverence, and instruction, that _great\nspiritual and moral code_, given to man in the name and in the majesty\nof Him, \"who is from everlasting to everlasting, the Almighty.\"\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\nMissing or obscured punctuation was corrected.\n\nTypographical errors were silently corrected.\n\nErrata provided at the end of the book have been applied to the text.","title":"Observations on the Sermons of Elias Hicks: In Several Letters to Him; With Some Introductory Remarks, Addressed to the Junior Members of the Society of Friends.","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":26060}