Seventh-day, ad Mo. 16, 1822.

LETTER XXII.

THE Editor having thought proper to divide my last Essay, and to permit my Opponent to appear between the fractions of it-I will postpone the further discussion of the present important subject to my next Essay, and proceed to notice a few of "Paul's" remarks in his last address to us.

It appears that my Opponent has taken some offence at what he deems personality, and charges me with the indulgence of myself in aspersions and insinuations against the character of my supposed antagonist"-If I know any thing of my own heart, I am sure I should be very sorry to asperse the character of any individual with whom I am acquainted, and I should be still more cautious of aspersing one with whom I am not acquainted -As to personality, "Paul" may rest assured I have used noneThrough the medium of his Writings I know him-through any other medium I have no desire to know him. He has shrouded himself in darkness! - Without telling us whether he is a Catholic, an Episcopalian, a Baptist or a Presbyterian-he has shot his arrows at us under a disguised name-Either through ignorance or by design he has misrepresented us in a great number of instances, and has spared no pains to darken our character!-at one time we are atheistical-at another deistical-sometimes we are like the Swedenborgians-then like Anabaptists-Sometimes he is "very much struck with our similarity to the Socinians"then to the Universalists-During all the time of this attack, he is closely wrapped in the mantle of obscurity! - There let him remain-Charity forbids to strip off his disguise, and Amicus intends to obey her mandate.

I have said that "either through ignorance or design he has in many instances misrepresented us."-I am inclined to believe (what charity would dictate) that "Paul" is really unacquainted with the nature and tendency of our leading principle-If it were not so, I should be at a loss to account for the fact, that he has in several of his communications, charged us with errors, against which, we have uniformly borne testimony-these charges, must with thousands who know us better, directly invalidate his assertions, and render all his evidence suspicious. In this respect, he labours effectually to defeat his own cause. Who has ever heard that Friends "set up Conscience as a Guide?" Barclay in his Apology. Prop. VI. Sec. 16. where he defines conscience, expressly refutes this idea. Who has ever heard that Friends professed to believe in the Universal Salvation of all mankind? I am no stranger to their writings, and I can truly say, I never saw the sentiment in any acknowledged Writer amongst us. For our sentiments on this subject, let the

Reader consult the Apology, Prop. VI. Sec. 12. In conformity with many unequivocal passages of the Old and New Testament we admit, yes we assert, that God has, in his infinite mercy and goodness, made Salvation possible to every rational creaturethat "a measure or manifestation of the Spirit," as the Apostle declares " is given to every man to profit withal." 1 Cor. xii. 7. but we never asserted that every man did so profit by it as thereby to become an heir of Salvation-because many have voluntarily rejected the teaching of this Holy Spirit, and in consequence of this rejection, the God of this world hath blinded their eyes, so that "the light that was in them has become darkness, and great has been that darkness!" Matt. vi. 23. As my Opponent has "challenged me to deny that we hold the doctrine of Universal Salvation," I will now challenge him to produce a single passage from any of our Writings that vindicates that doctrine !!

"Paul" boasts of having brought twenty arguments against our doctrine of "Internal Light," and asserts that I have only answered one of them! Now I humbly conceive that the numerous Scripture texts which I adduced to prove the truth of our doctrine in this particular, none of which "Paul" has attempted to refute, are sufficient to nullify, not only twenty of his arguments, but utterly to overthrow twenty thousand such flimsy supporters of his antiscriptural scheme-That one text of the Evangelist is sufficient to settle the question with every man who sincerely respects the Holy Scriptures, and humbly submits his judgment to the clear testimony of the Inspired Penmen.--"He (John) was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light, which was the the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." John i. Let my reader consult this passage and he will see that the light here spoken of was Christ "the Word of God," not the Scriptures! It was that same Divine principle, that all powerful WORD by whom the worlds were made, "and without him was not any thing made that was made." John i. 3. It was that same Divine principle of whom it is said, "In him was Life and the Life was THE LIGHT OF MEN." It was that same LIGHT of which our Lord said, "I am the Light of the World, he that followeth me shall Hot walk in darkness, but shall have the LIGHT of LIFE." John viii. 12, It was that same LIGHT of which He again said, "While ye have the LIGHT believe in the LIGHT that ye may be the Children of the LIGHT. John xii. 35. It was the same Light of whom it was predicted that he should be "a LIGHT to lighten the Gentiles and the glory of his people Israel." Lukeii. 32. It is that same Light of which it is said, that "Gon who commanded the LIGHT to shine out of darkness hath shined in

1

our hearts to give the LIGHT of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face (or appearance) of Jesus Christ." 2 Cor. iv. 6. and finally it was the same LIGHT of which it is said, "All things that are reproved are made manifest by the LIGHT, for whatsoever doth make manifest is LIGHT, wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and CHRIST shall give thee LIGHT. Eph. v. 13.

Yet gentle reader, this is the blessed "Internal Light" the glorious Luminary of the New Covenant Dispensation, the peculiar characteristic of the Christian Religion, which "Paul" calls an "Ignis fatuus," "a delusion," a "cunningly devised fable," "an impostor," ," "a pretender," "an usurper!"

Now I know of none who more "dishonour the Scriptures" than those, who while they "say many fine things of them," yet who at the same time reject the doctrines which they, in the clearest manner, inculcate! - doctrines which are not only expressed in the Holy Scriptures, but which are written as with a sunbeam on the fleshly table of every heart! - Where is the rational creature under Heaven, that can say he has never felt the secret influence of this Divine "Internal Light," reproving him for sin-approving him for obedience-strengthening him in virtue? I have never met with one! and I believe I shall never find such an one-"a' Kempis" and many more among the Catholics have borne ample testimony to its blessed effects. -" Calvin" acknowledged it-The "Church of England, with their Holy army of Martyrs," have explicitly proclaimed itBunyan and Wesley preached it-the Hindoos in their Veda confess it and the Savages (as they are called) of North America have given the most decided testimony to its efficacy-in proof of which, I have at hand more testimony than would fill twenty numbers of the Christian Repository.

AMICUS.

"We are not as many who corrupt the word of God,-handling the word of God deceitfully. 1 Cor. ii. 17. iv. 2.

THE charge of holding the doctrine of Universal Salvation, Amicus does not dare to deny. His artful management to avoid a direct answer, must have betrayed him to every reader. Whatever difference of opinion may be tolerated among you as to the duration of future punishment, you all agree in fixing some limit to the misery of the wicked in another world. Whether

=

you hold to annihilation, temporary punishment, or no punisliment at all, you do not believe in the eternal condemnation of any sinner. And I again challenge Amicus to deny this charge,or to quote from your standards one sentence which contradicts the doctrine of the final salvation of all men. The reason of your silence on this subject (as well as on the Trinity) is obvious; if the doctrine of Universal Salvation were once openly avorwed, all Christians would at once disown you as members of the Christian church; whereas by your silence many are deceived.

As I foretold, he denies the authenticity and correctness of our copy of the Bible. First, he revives the stale objection of Hobbes, Toland and Paine and other infidels against the Canon of Scripture, asserting that the primitive church "rejected" books which we receive, and intimating that the Epistle of James, the second of Peter, second and third of John, Jude, and the Revelations were for a while of disputed authenticity. Reader, so was the Resurrection of our Lord questioned for a while by some of the disciples, until their unbelief was put to shame by overwhelming evidence. Just so with a few of the Epistles of the New Testament :-such as were addressed to a particular church, as the Epistle to the Romans, Corinthians, &c. never were disputed for a moment: the only difference of -opinion was concerning some of the General Epistles, which not being directed to any particular church, but addressed to the church at large, were not so soon authenticated. Before such authentication, individuals exercised their own judgment in regard to these Epistles, some acknowledging, others questioning their Divine authority. Yet Amicus well knows, that whatever doubt and differences of opinion there might have been at first, after due examination, every book of our present Canon was unanimously admitted as authentic. And the doubts and scruples and jealousy of early Christians on this subject, like the unbelief of Thomas, are so many proofs that not one of these Epistles was received but on full conviction of its apostolic and Divine authority.

i

To say that the Bible depends for its authenticity on the decrees of Councils is a gross slander. It is authenticated in the same way with the writings of Homer, Herodotus, Cicero, Cesar, Barclay or William Penn, by the testimony of cotemporary witnesses and by quotations in every subsequent age. Should a book now appear purporting to be the work of William Penn, of which none of your Society ever before had heard, and which contained doctrines inconsistent with the known opinions of that good man, and one of your Yearly Meetings should warn your members against receiving it as authentic, would this be deciding the authenticity of Penn's real writings?-Not at all; their authenticity was decided before you were born. Should several Epistles, purporting to be from your Yearly Meeting in London to the Meeting in Philadelphia, be circulating through this country, deceiving your members, and your Meeting in Philadelphia, after discovering the forgery, should give warning to your people, would this public notice constitute the only evidence on which the authenticity of your genuine annual Epistles is founded? Not at all. The genuineness of the Epistle from London in 1810 does not depend on any decree or judgment you may hereafter pass. Neither did the genuineness of the Apostolical epistles depend on subsequent decrees of councils (though these are a confirmatory evidence,) and such decrees of councils would never have been expressed, had it not been for some false Epistles which wicked men would have palmed upon the world. I receive the Bible, therefore, as authentic, just as I receive the works of Barclay or of Penn, not by "immediate revelation," but by a train of historical evidence. The authenticity of Paul's Epistles depends as much on the decisions of Councils, as the authenticity of Barclay's Apology depends on the decision of your Yearly Meeting and no more!

But says Amicus, "many passages are falsely rendered." Reader, no human work is absolutely perfect, and therefore time has discovered a few unimportant inaccuracies in our present translation;-in one out of a thousand verses some little word might be altered for the better. But it was the opinion of the learned Selden and also of the best judges of modern times, that

it is the best translation in the world and renders the sense of the original best." And it is certain that more pains was taken with our translation than with any three others now extant.

He objects to the correctness of our present Bible also on account of the "Various Readings" of the Manuscripts from which the printed edition was taken.

Reader, remember the large size of the Bible, how many millions of times it had been copied before Printing was invented, and what a constant miracle it must have required to keep out every little error. Yet, as if Providence had interposed to preserve what it once gave, the difference in the Manuscripts is of little or no account! In the few copies of the little work of Terence now extant there are more and greater differences of readings than in all the Manuscripts of the Bible now in the world! Thus, Reader, you see whither this "Internal Light" leads people-even to bring disrepect and contempt upon the Bible!to treat it, not as the word of God, but as a corrupted, ill-authenticated, falsely rendered, uncertain piece of human composition! Though Amicus dare not meet my arguments, and has not answered one of my objections, I appeal to the public, if I have