nor commanded nothing, but what he received from the immediate manifestation, or revelation of the Spirit of God to him." The words were particularly noticed at the time, and written down immediately, and were expressed verbatum as quoted above. Yet the writings of Moses are a part, the authenticity, and divine authority of which he is charged with doubting; "especially that part as relates to the fall of man."

10. "He has extensively promulgated his views in conversation, in writing, and in his public communications; endeavoring to destroy a belief in the miraculous conception of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

This charge of endeavoring to destroy a belief in the miraculous conception, is one that admits of an easy refutation. The facts which disprove the charge, have been before the public for a sufficient length of time to be generally known. And we cannot suppose that those who now repeat it, could have been ignorant of them. We admit the possibility of a man's language being misconstrued unintentionally, especially if there be any apparent ambiguity in the expressions used. But when an explanation is asked, and explicitly given, that explanation ought, in common justice, to be received as conclusive evidence, of the meaning intended to be conveyed, as well as what was not intended. The evidence adduced in support of this charge, are two extracts, one from a sermon delivered by Elias Hicks in Philadelphia, and another from a letter written by him to Thomas Willis of Jericho, L. I. We shall, in the first place, examine these extracts, to show, that by no rule of fair and liberal criticism, can they be made to convey any such meaning as has been attributed to them. And then exhibit Elias Hicks' plain and express testimony to his belief in the miraculous conception.

These extracts have not only been unfairly taken, as we expect to prove, but construed in opposition to ex

press testimony contained in the same paragraph with one of them. They have been paraded before the world in the form of "Epistles," "Testimonies," and "Declarations," within the last two years, with all the solemn accuracy of evangelical truth; to prove "beyond the reach of contradiction," that Elias Hicks denies that which he himself declares he always believed.

And the clergymen of the different denominations and professions in the United States, have been kindly and gratuitously furnished with these printed "Epistles," and "Declarations," that they might be duly informed of the incorrigible heresy of Elias Hicks.

The first extract alluded to, is from a sermon delivered in Philadelphia, on the 14th day of the 11th month, 1824, and is in these words.

"Who was his father? He was begotten of God. We cannot suppose that it was the outward body of flesh and blood that was begotten of God; but, a birth of the spiritual life. For nothing can be a son of God, but that which is a spirit; and, nothing but the soul of man is a recipient for the light and Spirit of God. Therefore, nothing can be a son of God, but that which is immortal and invisible. Nothing visible can be a son of God. Every visible thing must come to an end, and we must know the mortality of it. Flesh and blood cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven.' By the analogy of reason, spirit cannot beget a material body; because, the thing begotten must be of the same nature with its father. Spirit cannot beget any thing but spirit; it cannot beget flesh and blood. No, my friends, it is impossible." (Sermon, p. 10.)

6

We are willing to take this extract as it stands, upon its own merits, unconnected as it is with the context. It is evident from an impartial examination of the mode of reasoning pursued in it, that it was the design of the speaker to point out to his audience, the natural distinction that exists between flesh and spirit, body and

soul; between that which is mortal, and that which is divine. And it no more implies a denial of the miracle of the birth of Christ, than it does of the creation of Adam. For though the divine Spirit may create matter, it is contrary to its nature to beget a material body; and, therefore, impossible. For it is impossible, even for Omnipotence, to do any thing contrary to his own na

ture.

In a sermon delivered by Elias Hicks, on the second day of the 12th month, 1824, this language is used.. "Here we learn what was man's duty in the beginning. Here we learn how he might obtain the end of his creation, without transgression. We have it in the example of the child Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, and clothed with a body of flesh and blood, and like us endued with an immortal spirit. For nothing can be a son or child of God, but a rational, immortal spirit." (p. 69.) Again, in the same sermon (p. 70,) speaking still of the person of Jesus Christ, he says, "The first birth," (meaning the birth of the body,) " was a created birth." Here is an illustration of his true meaning, where, he says, in the extract objected to, that “we are not to suppose it was the outward body that was begotten of God, but a birth of the spiritual life." And it does not invalidate in the least, the miracle of the birth of Christ. Nay, such a supposition is clearly refuted by these last quotations. They affirm in plain and express terms, first, that the child Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary; and if so, miraculously conceived; and secondly, that the birth of the Virgin was a "created birth," not begotten.-An act of creation, not of generation. . Which is in exact accordance with the supposed objecttionable extract. In that extract Elias Hicks answers the question, who was his father, in these words:-"He was begotten of God." Consequently the son of God. He then proceeds to prove, in a manner perfectly rational and philosophical, that it was not the outward

body that was begotten of God, but a birth of the spiritual life. And why? Because nothing can be a son of God, but that which is immortal and invisible.

Moses, speaking in the name of Jehovah says, "for there shall no man see me and live."-(Exodus 33. 20) And the apostle declares that, "no man hath seen God at any time."-(John 1. 18.) Then that which in its nature is divine, must be, not only immortal, but invisible to the outward senses, which none can reasonably deny. But the outward body of flesh, was visible to mortal eyes; was subject to death; and therefore, in its nature not immortal; otherwise, the Jews could not have taken the life of it. For that which is immortal and divine can never die, as the common acceptation of the terms clearly prove. But that which is begotten of God must be of the same nature with its Father, therefore, immortal and divine.

In the third chapter of John, we find a language which was addressed to Nicodemus, of precisely the same signification with that quoted from Elias Hicks. "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit." Can these expressions possibly be construed to mean any thing else, than that every birth begotten by the Spirit, must be a spiritual birth. For Jesus Christ was speaking of the new birth, which is no other than a spiritual birth, begotten by the Spirit of God in the soul; without experiencing which, no man can see the kingdom of heaven. And Nicodemus, though a master in Israel, was so outward in his views, that he seemed to understand the doctrine no better, than some of our high professors do the same kind of truths now.

"It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6.-63.)

The outward body born of a Virgin was flesh. Can that be properly called the Son of God, which profiteth nothing?

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Rom. 8.-14.) It is the soul that is to be led by the Spirit of God, not the outward body. For there, in the soul, and no where else,the Sonship is known. "For the soul only is a recipient of the light and Spirit of God." (Hicks.) "Now this I say brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 15.-50) The outward body was flesh and blood. Cannot the Son of God inherit the kingdom of God? If this query is answered in the affirmative, it follows that the outward body is not the Son of God,in the sense in which Christ is so called in the scriptures. Therefore the expressions used by Elias Hicks are confirmed and established by the testimony of Jesus Christ, and the Apostles; and do not invalidate the miracle of Christ's birth.

It will now be proper to show that the extract we have been considering does not inculcate any new and strange opinions, unknown to the society of Friends, or discordant with their approved doctrines. The argument, and the language are his own, and are original with him; but arguments and opinions, amounting in effect to the same thing, and against which the same objections lie, with equal, if not greater force, are found in the works of primitive friends, as will appear from the following extracts.

Wm. Penn says, in reply to Reeve and Muggleton; "Such as is the begetter, such must the begotten be." "The thing begotten must be of the same nature with its father. "(Hicks.) And both these declarations are made in relation to the same thing, and have the same meaning. "We see men beget men," (continues Wm. Penn)

horses, horses; fish, fish; and every seed has its own body then by good consequence, the immortal God must have begotten himself an immortal God, one that could not die by the hand, or cruelty of his own creatures. In short, it is as impossible for God, as God, to