what means was he made more than man? I answer by the same means, and in the same manner, that every other righteous undefiled man is raised above the mere human character; that is to say, by the power and spirit of God the Father. Vol. II. p. 258.

"The Christ then which it concerns us to have an interest in, is not that outward manifestation which was limited in its operations to a small province-a single nation, and to this day known only by history to a few," &c. Ibid. vol. II. p. 21.

"But the manifestation to us is inward, and they [primitive friends] believe that it is the Christ within, and not the Christ without, on which is founded their hope of glory." Ibid, vol. II. p. 84.

In his attack upon the "Doctrines of Friends," the Berean says, "The doctrine therefore contained in the chapter under review, ascribing a proper divinity to Jesus Christ, making him the foundation of every Christian doctrine,' asserting that the divine nature essentially belonged to him,' and constituting him a distinct object of faith and worship, is not only antiscriptural, but opposed to the simplest principles of reason; and is, in short, AMONG THE DARKEST DOC

TRINES THAT HAS EVER BEEN INTRODUCED INTO THE

CHRISTIAN CHURCH." Vol. II. p. 259.

We are not left to conjecture the opinions of those who have separated from us, respecting our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to draw our conclusions from a few isolated expressions; their views upon the subject are delivered in unequivacal terms, and are diffused through most of their discourses and writings. By the extracts we have made from the discourses of Elias Hicks, and the doctrinal publications of the Separatists, it is plain that

they directly assert, That he [Jesus Christ] was raised above the mere human character by the same means, and in the same manner, that every other righteous man is, that he was put upon a level with us, that God who is equal and righteous in all his ways, never can set him above us, because if he did he would be partial, that Christ was the Saviour of Jesus Christ, -that we need not say that it is his spirit, but only that it is the same spirit, a portion of which was in him, that we come up into an equality with him,— that Jesus could do no more than to recommend to the Comforter, that when he had done this, he had done his office, that he never directed to himself, that he was only an outward Saviour, a figure of the Comforter, it was the soul that wanted salvation, but this no outward Saviour could do, no external Saviour could have any hand in it, that Jesus Christ was not the hope of glory,—that it is not that outward manifestation which it concerns us to have an interest in,that we may have access to God without any mediator, and lastly, that ascribing a proper divinity to Jesus Christ, making him the foundation of every Christian doctrine, and asserting that the divine nature essentially belonged to him, is among the darkest doctrines that have ever been introduced into the Christian church.

On the offering of our Lord upon the cross as a sacrifice for sin, Elias Hicks remarks: "But I do not consider that the crucifixion of the outward body of flesh and blood of Jesus on the cross, was an atonement for any sins but the legal sins of the Jews," &c.— Surely is it possible that any rational being that has

66

any right sense of justice or mercy, that would be willing to accept forgiveness of his sins on such terms!! Would he not rather go forward and offer himself wholly up to suffer all the penalties due to his crimes, rather than the innocent should suffer? Nay-was he so hardy as to acknowledge a willingness to be saved through such a medium, would it not prove that he stood in direct opposition to every principle of justice and honesty, of mercy and love, and show himself to be a poor selfish creature, and unworthy of notice."!!! Elias Hick's letter to N. Shoemaker.

"And there is nothing but a surrender of our own will, that can make atonement for our sins." Quaker, vol. I. p. 196.

66

Nothing can atone for sin but that which induced us to sin." Vol. II. p. 271.

"And what are we to do? We are to give up this life [our will] to suffer and die upon the cross; for this is the atonement for all our sins." Ibid. p. 272.

"But, my friends, the inward suffering of the immortal soul is infinitely superior to all outward sufferings. And if sin is atoned for in our souls, it will require a sacrifice proportionable to that which is to be benefitted by it. So that I apprehend, under this spiritual dispensation and day of light, there must be a spiritual and INWARD sacrifice for our sins." Ibid.p.163.

The Berean says: "Whatever redemption therefore was effected by the outward flesh and blood of Christ, it could not in the nature of things be any thing else than an outward redemption. Vol. II. p. 52.

"And have we not reason to hope that the day is not far distant when the absurd and pernicious idea, that the imputed righteousness of another, is the ground of

our acceptance with God, will be found but in the pages of the historian, when tracing the fruits of that lamented apostacy which early overtook Christendom.” Ibid. p. 333.

By these extracts we may perceive, that Elias Hicks and his adherents deny the propitiatory sacrifice of our blessed Saviour upon the cross for the sins of the whole world, and consider that a willingness to be saved through such a medium, is in direct opposition to every principle of justice and honesty, of mercy and love, and betrays a poor selfish disposition, unworthy of notice, that whatever redemption was effected by those sufferings, it was only an outward redemption, and confined exclusively to the legal sins of the Jews; and in their opinion the sacrifice of the will, is the only atonement for all sins now committed that nothing can atone for sin, but that which induced us to sin. This doctrine is contrary to the Holy Scriptures.- We believe that nothing man can do, or suffer, will atone for, or cancel his sins. They are remitted by the mercy of God, through Christ Jesus our Lord, for the sake of the sufferings and death of Christ, and it is the power and efficacy of that propitiatory offering, upon faith and repentance, that justifies both Jews and Gentiles from the sins that are past. Not only do the Separatists efficacy of the offering of our imputation of his righteousness, as the ground of our acceptance, a pernicious and absurd idea, but they appear to rejoice in the hope that the doctrine will be discarded, as the fruit of the apostacy from the Christian faith. Believing as we do, that it is only as we come to be divested of our own righteousness, and of

deny the universal Lord, and term the

all confidence in it, and, through divine mercy, clothed upon with the righteousness of Christ, that any can have a firm ground whereon to rest their hope of salvation, we sincerely deplore the delusion of those, who thus wantonly deprive themselves of that hope, which maketh not ashamed, and entereth within the veil.

Besides the palpable errors we have enumerated, Elias Hicks and his adherents deny that mankind sustain any loss through the fall of Adam, asserting that children come into the world precisely in the condition he did." Belief," with them, "is no virtue, and unbelief no crime:" and however at times they may MAKE HIGH PRETENSIONS TO THE DIVINE LIGHT, it is evident that the guide which they follow is their own benighted reason.

We believe it right to bear our decided testimony against such principles, as tending to destroy all faith in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion, and to break asunder the bands of civil and religious society. And we further declare, that as such who entertain and propagate them, have departed from the teachings of the Holy Spirit, which would have preserved them in the doctrines of Christ Jesus and his apostles, we cannot unite with them in church fellowship, nor own them to be of our communion.

In this abridgment of the "DECLARATION" of the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, we have not inserted the whole of the extracts which are given by them, from the Sermons of Elias Hicks, &c.; many are omitted as not essential to this work; the object of which is, rather to mark the steps which led to so deplorable a result, than to expose Hickism in its most aggravated form.

C