only denied the faith of primitive Friends, but we have also adopted, as a part of our system of religion, doctrines and opinions at variance with those of Christianity-or, in other words, we are an association of deists, and infidels.

In joining issue with those who have separated from the body, and who are now endeavoring to destroy its religious character in the world, we have not been influenced by any personal considerations. It is the general interest we have in view. Neither has the least feeling of unkindness to any of those who are commonly called Orthodox Friends, dictated our strictures upon this testimony. There is not a doubt, but many of them, honestly believe they are in the right. And while we are disposed freely to admit their undoubted privilege to differ from us, and feel that their honest opinions are entitled to due deference and respect, we must be permitted to express our full conviction, that they have erred in vision, and stumbled in judgment, with respect to the true character of the doctrines and principles of primitive Friends, as well as of those entertained by Friends of the present day.

We admit that there are passages in the works of our predecessors, which if construed according to the letter, may appear to be favorable to their views. But it must be observed that those parts, which are supposed to suit their purpose best, are mostly expressed in scripture terms; which amounts only to a confession, that they believed the scriptures. We too believe them. We have proved that Elias Hicks believes them. The difference then consists in a different construction of some parts of these writings.

The ideas intended to be conveyed by Friends, in the language of scripture, may be very different from those which it may be supposed to represent. For any form of expression, can only be a representative, or sign of the ideas of the speaker or writer, and may represent a

very different train of ideas in the hearer, or reader. Hence disputes are sometimes conducted with great zeal and pertinacity, between persons, whose real opinions, when rightly explained, do not materially differ. Many religious controversies if closely examined, will be found to be disputes about terms, rather than things. Hence the necessity in all controversies of having precise and definite ideas of the meaning of the terms used, and in no case is this more necessary than in disputes about religion, or the doctrines of the scriptures. What has been the uniform opinion of Friends concerning them? "That the spiritually minded man only, can make a right use of them."—“ That they are only to be understood to edification, by the light of the spirit."

"That the natural man cannot comprehend the things of God" (nor the revelations made to his servants) "because they are spiritually discerned." When our predecessors gave their own views of the doctrines of the New Testament, in their own language, and under the guidance of that light and life, by which many of them were eminently enlightened, we find them to coincide in a very remarkable manner, with those found in the discources of Elias Hicks. And the more closely we examine, and compare their explication of christian doctrine with each other, the more striking this coincidence appears. We thus perceive that they understand the scriptures in the same way. By a careful perusal of Friends' works, it would seem, that their understanding of many parts of the scriptures, was very different from that of many of those now called Orthodox.

The latter construe them more literally, the former more spiritually. Hence these stumble at the expositions of Elias Hicks because more spiritual than theirs; though his are in perfect accordance with those of ancient Friends, as we have endeavored to prove in part, in the following review. Our limits would not admit of

going more extensively into the comparison, and exhibiting more fully the perfect coincidence of faith and doctrine, between Elias Hicks, and primitive Friends. The subject admits of a very copious illustration. They preached the same Lord—the same faith-the same baptism. The same Saviour-the same light and life, which is the light and life of men. They worshipped the same God, in spirit and in truth, who is over all-through all -and in us all, blessed for ever. Amen.

New-York, 7th Mo. 16th, 1829.

TESTIMONY.

"Elias Hicks, has been for many years, in the station of a minister in our religious society, and formerly well approved by us; in which character he has travelled extensively, and obtained great influence with the members of the Society; but for want of abiding in a state of humble watchfulness, in which, by the power of divine grace, he would have been preserved in the truth, he has become exalted in his mind; 2. And giving way to a disposition of reasoning, has indulged in speculative opinions: 3. Asserting that we must always take things rationally. 4. And that we are not bound to believe any thing that we do not understand. 5. Thus declining to be restricted within the limits of the christian faith, he has refused to yield his assent to religious truths which he cannot comprehend; 6. And has imbibed and adopted opinions at variance with some of the fundamental doctrines of the christian religion; always believed in and maintained by the society of Friends: 7. denied the existence or influence of an evil Spirit on the mind of Man, distinct from his natural propensities; 8. And has, in this state entertained doubts of many of the important truths declared in the Holy Scriptures; especially as relates to the fall of man, and his redemption by Christ; 9. And in consequence, to call in question the divine authority of a great portion of the sacred writings, and even the authenticity of some parts thereof.

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; 11. undervaluing the miracles wrought by him; 12. and asserting that he was but a man, as liable to fall into sin, and lose his condition, as the rest of mankind; that he was on a level, and in a state of equality with them; an Isrealite, indued with a measure of divine grace in common with the children of Abraham; 13. And that the principal end of his coming was limited to the Jews.

14. And as he has denied the divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, he has totally rejected a belief in his holy offices; his propitiatory offering for the redemption of mankind; 15. and has denied his resurrection and ascension into heaven, asserting that his body returned to the earth, where it will rest with our bodies to all eternity, and moulder into its mother dust; 16. He has also denied his mediation and intercession with the Father, as plainly set forth in holy writ.

17. Under the specious and captivating pretence of increased spirituality, and advancement in light and knowledge, beyond our primitive Friends, and even beyond the Apostles of our Lord, he has insinuated his unsound opinions into the minds of many of the members of our society, particularly within the limits of our own yearly meeting, and that of Philadelphia: 18. and having gradually prepared them to receive his views, he has induced great numbers to embrace them, and has at length become the leader of a sect (distinguished by his name, yet unjustly assuming the character of Friends), which first separated from the yearly meeting of Friends in Philadelphia, in the 4th month 1827, on the ground of difference in doctrine, as they state in their printed address.

19. They held a separate meeting in that month, and in the 6th and 10th months following, and also in the