Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 
 
 https://archive.org/details/lettersobservatiOOhick 
 
LETTERS AND OBSERVATIONS 
 
 KELATING TO THE 
 
 BESPECTIXG THE 
 
 DOCTRMES OF EL.IAS HICKS. 
 
 COXTAINTXG 
 
 A REVIEW 
 
 LETTER TO DR. N. SHOEMAKER. 
 
 THIRD EDITION — REVISED- 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 PRINTED FOR THE READER. 
 1824. 
 
Note. — We sincerely regret that circumstances 
 render it necessary to lay the following pages before 
 our readers, but it must be remembered that we have 
 not been the first to resort to the press. Necessity 
 has compelled us into the measure. The publication of 
 Elias Hicks 1 letter to E. A. Atlee, representing the 
 character of Anna Braithwaite in an unfavourable 
 point of view, and the circulation which has been 
 given to it, render it an act of justice due to her, thus 
 plainly to exhibit the real state of the case. 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 The subsequent letter from Anna Braithwaite to 
 a friend at Flushing, Long Island, was written, with 
 a view of preserving a clear and correct account, of 
 the conversation which took place between her and 
 Elias Hicks, on the two occasions mentioned ; that 
 it might be produced to correct any misrepresenta- 
 tions which should get abroad, after she had quitted 
 our shores. 
 
 During the whole of A. B.'s visit to America, she 
 evinced a watchful care, not to become the instru- 
 ment of circulating or exaggerating reports, which 
 she might hear relative to the differences of opinion 
 that existed among some individuals. 
 
 Towards Elias Hicks her whole conduct was cer- 
 tainly that of a friend and a Christian. Instead of 
 forming her opinion of his doctrines, from the repre- 
 sentations of others, she waited upon him, and in- 
 quired for herself ; and it was his own expressions, 
 which satisfied her of the pernicious tendency of his 
 principles. She had heard him for herself, not only 
 in private but in his public preaching, and was fully 
 confirmed in the belief, that he denied the truth of 
 what she considered to be, important and essential 
 points of Christian faith. 
 
 What then became her duty as a gospel minister ? 
 To cover up and to conceal these opinions which he 
 had avowed to her, when she knew that he was con- 
 stantly inculcating the same opinions, in a less open 
 
4 
 
 and forbidding, but more insinuating and dangerous 
 form ? 
 
 Would she have acted the part of a faithful minis- 
 ter, if she had not warned her fellow-professors of 
 the Christian name, against the adoption of these 
 sentiments, which E. H. was holding up to them as 
 more spiritual and consistent, but which she consci- 
 entiously believed to be imminently dangerous to the 
 peace and future happiness of their immortal souls ? 
 No — she would have been guilty of betraying her 
 Master's cause. 
 
 Convinced as she was, most sincerely, that his doc- 
 trines were opposed to the spread of vital Christia- 
 nity, it was her duty to sound the alarm, and solemnly 
 to warn her hearers against the adoption of them. 
 And she did it faithfully. 
 
 Elias Hicks charges Anna Braithwaite with " tra- 
 ducing his religious character behind his back." This 
 is certainly a mis-nomer; for she opposed his prin- 
 ciples in his presence, where he had every opportu- 
 nity to deny that he held such principles, had this 
 been the fact. Now, if E. H. calls this traducing 
 his religious character, it would seem that he himself 
 considers his doctrines of such a nature, that, if the 
 Christian world knew that he held them, it would 
 lower his character as a religious man. 
 
 Anna Braithwaite did no more than unfold, in their 
 true light, and confute by scripture and sound argu- 
 ment, the sentiments which he had avowed to her; 
 and, for the injury which his religious character has 
 sustained, his principles are in fault — not her refuta - 
 tion of them. 
 
 Whatever motives may be attributed to A. B. by 
 those who shrink from a full and free investigation 
 
5 
 
 into the opinions of E. H., it is certain, that she act- 
 ed openly and without disguise. In a select assembly 
 of some hundred persons, of whom E. H. was one- 
 she alluded to the interviews noticed in her letter, and 
 detailed the principal assertions of E. H. as she has 
 put them down on paper ; and he had full liberty to 
 deny, if he thought proper ; which, however, he did 
 not. 
 
 During her stay in New York for several weeks 
 previous to her embarkation, E. H. had every oppor- 
 tunity, if he had chosen, to come forward and to dis- 
 claim what he knew she had asserted, in his pre- 
 sence, to be his doctrine; and further, she evinced a 
 desire to meet him, and caused a message to this 
 effect to be delivered to him ; but he neither came 
 forward to meet her, nor publicly denied the correct- 
 ness of her assertions, until after she had left Ame- 
 rica, to return to her family and friends. 
 
LETTERS, &c. 
 
 Extract of a letter from Anna Braithwaite, to a friend 
 at Flushing, on Long Island. 
 
 The first conversation had with E. H. by A. R., 
 was after the quarterly meeting of Ministers and 
 Elders — Dined at his house. After expressing his 
 great unity with her, he seemed to think she wanted 
 nothing but further experience to enlarge her views, 
 and make them more correct. 
 
 He spoke on the subject of the Scriptures as being 
 much too highly thought of among Friends, eluci- 
 dating his views by saying, that a master was useful 
 in teaching the rules of arithmetic, but when we had 
 learned them, he was no longer needful to us ; there- 
 fore, when we come to the Spirit, to which the Scrip- 
 tures direct, we had no longer need of them. Indeed, 
 he thought that since the Comforter, or Spirit of 
 Truth, had come into every heart, we should be bet- 
 ter without them ; and that children brought up to 
 pay attention to the Spirit, would have all revealed 
 to them which the Scriptures contain, that was need- 
 ful for them, without the perusal of them. Even with 
 regard to the creation of the world, it would be better 
 left to the revelation of the Word, than to any out- 
 ward means of information : and he strongly recom- 
 mended her disuse of the Scriptures, stating, that he 
 only referred to them in his communications on ac- 
 count of the low state of the times, the people being 
 
7 
 
 still attached to the letter. But his opinion was, that 
 both A. B. and himself would preach the gospel better 
 without reference to the Scriptures in any way, as he 
 believed the Bible had done more harm than any 
 other book ever published ; and that, if we supposed 
 it a great advantage to have the Bible, we must sup- 
 pose the Almighty very unjust to leave so large a 
 portion of the human species without it. [The fore- 
 going is the substance of the first conversation, omit- 
 ting strong expressions of E. H. of disapprobation of 
 Bible societies, not thought needful to note.] 
 
 When at Jericho, in the third month, A. B. took 
 tea with E. H. in a social way. She had not long 
 been in the house, when he began to speak on the 
 subject of the Trinity, which A. B. considers a word 
 so grossly abused, as to render it undesirable ever to 
 make use of it. E. H. spoke much of the impossi- 
 bility of believing what we could not comprehend ; 
 and also on the propriety of bringing even Scripture 
 truths to the test of the Spirit in our own hearts, and 
 rejecting all such parts as we do not see to be con- 
 sistent with the attributes of the Almighty ; stating, 
 that from reading various works he was convinced 
 not only that our English translation of the Bible was 
 in many parts erroneous, but also that the gospels 
 handed to us were no more authentic than many 
 other writings that we have not received ; and that 
 they have been greatly contaminated by coming 
 through the medium of popes, who were anxious to 
 favour their own views. Indeed, he said it was not 
 needful for us to believe more than a small part of 
 what was contained in the Scriptures, and that he 
 conceived the writings of Confucius, and many others 
 of the philosophers, were equally of divine revelation 
 
8 
 
 with the Scriptures. That the heathen nations, the 
 Mahometans, Chinese, Indians, &c. bore greater evi- 
 dence of the influence of divine light than professing 
 Christians. E. H. also asked A. B. if she could be 
 so ignorant as to believe in the account of the crea- 
 tion of the world, as given in the Scriptures : that he 
 had been convinced for the last ten years, that it was 
 nothing but an allegory : that this had been specially 
 revealed to his mind in a meeting in Liberty street, 
 about that time. He asked A. B. if she thought Adam 
 ^was any worse after he had eaten the forbidden fruit 
 than before, saying he did not believe he was. He 
 also asked her if she conceived we were born into the 
 world in any different condition from Adam when he 
 was first created; stating, that to suppose we had 
 any propensities to evil, was to suppose the Almighty 
 created evil, and that he believed all our propensities 
 were good : it was the excessive indulgence of them 
 that made them evil. He spoke much of the absur- 
 dity of believing in any outward sacrifice for sin : 
 that it was the same Spirit that was in us that was 
 in Christ, which was the alone means of redemption 
 and salvation : that he believed it to be from the Spirit 
 that he was convinced that Jesus Christ was no more 
 than a prophet, who was faithful to the gift that was 
 in him, and which was conferred at the time the Spirit 
 descended upon him like a dove, when he was under- 
 going the ceremony of outward baptism. 
 
 E. H. said if A. B. would attentively read the 
 Scriptures, she would believe Jesus to be the son of 
 Joseph, and quoted many texts to convince her of it. 
 He asked her whether she could suppose the Almighty 
 to be so cruel as to suffer Jesus Christ to die for our 
 sakes. He appealed to her as a mother, stating how 
 
9 
 
 cruel it would be for her to suffer one of her children 
 to die for the dearest friend she had in the world : 
 that Jesus died in support of his testimony as any 
 other martyr had died, and that his death was no 
 more to us than the death of any other martyr : that 
 he died through the persecution of the Jews, not wil- 
 lingly, but because he could not help it. On being 
 told it was the fulness of the Godhead that was in 
 Christ, and a measure of the Spirit that w as in us, 
 E. H. asserted that the fulness of the Godhead is in 
 us, and in every blade of grass ; and he often ex- 
 pressed his belief that if we attended to the Spirit, 
 every thing relating to the dealings of the Almighty 
 would be revealed to us individually, so that we could 
 comprehend every thing ourselves. That he thought 
 there was no other test for our society to be governed 
 by, but the test of the Spirit, without any reference 
 to the revealed will of God, as contained in the Scrip- 
 tures. On being asked how it should be that the 
 Spirit should in his mind, directly oppose the leading 
 doctrines of our society, founded upon Christian tes- 
 timony, and upon the revelation of the Lord's power 
 in the hearts of our early Friends, and how it could 
 be that in A. B.'s mind its openings had been in uni- 
 form accordance with these, and who must decide 
 between them ? he said he did not know, but he 
 should like to live to see the day when our discipline 
 should be extended to nothing further than immoral 
 conduct : that he thought matters of faith should 
 never come under its cognizance ; and he hoped 
 Friends would let him alone as long as he lived. 
 
 On being asked what would become of the society 
 if one minister stated one thing, and another some- 
 thing directly opposite, all asserting divine inspira- 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 tion, he said he should like to see it tried. On the 
 very subject of the miraculous birth of our Saviour, 
 Ann Shipley, who was with me, and who will bear 
 witness to all the above statements, mentioned to me 
 that, some years ago, in a religious meeting, she 
 heard E. H. most beautifully allude to his full belief 
 in our Saviour's being the Son of the Virgin Mary, 
 and he entered into some instructive illustrations on 
 the subject* 
 
 Can the Spirit of the Lord be opposed to itself in 
 its operations on the mind ? 
 
 ANNA BRAITHWAITE, 
 New York, 1th mo. 16th, 1824. 
 
 The following is the substance of Anna Braith- 
 ivaite's remarks in reply to the assertions of Elias 
 Hicks. 
 
 In regard to believing what we cannot compre- 
 hend, A. B. asked him, if he could comprehend how 
 the grass grew : that, perhaps, he could define it to 
 a certain extent, and had the evidence of the process 
 to his outward senses, so as to remove all doubts of 
 the fact that the grass does grow; but beyond that. 
 there was a creative power, a mystery that human 
 wisdom could not fathom ; and if this was the case 
 with regard to the works of the outward creation, how 
 much more must it be the case with regard to things 
 of a spiritual nature ? that it was transgressing our 
 bounds as finite created beings, to judge of the ways 
 of Omnipotence ; that his ways were higher than our 
 ways, and his thoughts than our thoughts ; that it 
 
11 
 
 was not for us to say what was consistent with 
 attributes, and what was not consistent with them, 
 but to bow to his holy will in what he is pleased to 
 do in and for us ; that, as to the authenticity of the 
 Scriptures, if we take them upon the ground of evi- 
 dence, and lose sight of the wish to comprehend the 
 why and the wherefore of the Lord's dealings, further 
 than as they may be unfolded to us, we shall find a 
 greater mass of external evidence of their authenti- 
 city, than of any other book that was ever w r ritten in 
 the world. She recommended to Elias Hicks, that 
 as he had read works stating objections to the Eng- 
 lish translations, and insinuating that pernicious effects 
 had been produced by the channels through which 
 our gospels had come to us, to peruse some of the 
 various authors who have so ably replied to all these 
 objections. That the Scriptures containing the his- 
 tory of our first parents, their disobedience, their fall 
 in consequence of it, the account of the Lord's deal- 
 ings with his people Israel, of the Mosaic dispen- 
 sation, of the types and figures pointing in so conspi- 
 cuous a manner to the advent of the Messiah, and to 
 the glorious offering for sin upon Calvary's Mount : 
 containing, also, the prophecies and experience of the 
 dedicated servants of the Most High ; followed by 
 the New Testament, where these prophecies are so 
 memorably fulfilled, as relates to the fulness of times, 
 when the promised Saviour, the Redeemer, the Word 
 which was from the beginning, came among men in 
 that prepared body born of the Virgin Mary, and 
 taking upon himself the form of a servant, was, in all 
 respects, tempted as we are, yet without sin ; con- 
 taining, also, most ample testimony to the divinity of 
 our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ : bears such evi- 
 
12 
 
 dent marks of divine inspiration, as to leave no doubt 
 of its having been under divine appointment, that the 
 revelation of the will of Almighty God, as contained 
 in them, should be profitable for doctrine, &c. Then, 
 as regards the internal evidence, he that believeth 
 hath the witness in himself ; and that the state of the 
 true believer is one of progressive growth ; yet when 
 the language can only be in sincerity of soul uttered, 
 " help thou mine unbelief," such an one will ever be 
 preserved from denying what he may not yet be ini- 
 tiated into a belief of ; and as he advances he will 
 find that the Spirit of Christ in him, will ever ac- 
 knowledge to the revelation of the divine will in 
 the sacred writings ; and that it is well for us to 
 remember, that in Christ dwelt all the fulness of the 
 Godhead bodily, and that in us it is a measure of the 
 same Spirit : that to say his divinity consists only in 
 the gift that was in him and in his faithfulness to it, 
 is to make him on a level with ourselves. With re- 
 gard to his death for our sakes, what can be said that 
 is not said in the Scriptures, both before and after 
 this wonderful display of mercy to the children of 
 men, to prove that it was a free-will offering for the 
 sins of the world ? 
 
 In reference to the account of the creation of the 
 world being an allegory, A. B. stated her opinion 
 that although the spiritual application of Scripture 
 facts might sometimes be instructive, yet she con- 
 ceived it dangerous in any degree to undermine a be- 
 lief in the plain historical narration of facts as having 
 really taken place. 
 
 . With regard to Adam, she fully believed him to 
 be in a very different condition, after he had trans- 
 gressed the command of the Almighty, from what he 
 
13 
 
 was in before : that the writings of our early friends, 
 R. Barclay, &c. clearly bear their testimony to the 
 fall of Adam from the state in which he was first 
 created : that A. B.'s views on the subject entirely 
 corresponded with R. B.'s statement of it. She told 
 E. H. he must be aware that there was a great deal 
 of evil in the world, and that if we had not propen- 
 sities to evil, it is more than probable that a prepon- 
 derance of good would appear. That A. B. from her 
 own experience, and from every observation she had 
 been enabled to make on the human mind, was fully 
 convinced that we have evil propensities ; and that it 
 is only through obedience to the glorious means of 
 restoration, through the coming of our Lord and Sa- 
 viour Jesus Christ, that we know an overcoming of 
 evil. 
 
 With regard to all being revealed to us, without 
 the Scripture, A. B. stated her very decided opinion, 
 that it was presumptuous to cherish such an idea. 
 Through unutterable mercy, the grace of God has 
 appeared unto all men; yet facts daily prove to us, 
 that even the most watchful, find that it is for them 
 to accept, with humble thankfulness, the intimations 
 afforded, and that immediate revelation is not at their 
 command. That as the Scriptures do so amply contain 
 the above mentioned chain of sublime truths, should 
 we neglect the means put within our reach, of in- 
 struction from them, we must indeed be blind to our 
 condition to expect, that this sublime chain of events, 
 would be revealed to us during such neglect. With 
 regard to those nations who have not the Scriptures, 
 we fully believe, that as Christ died for all men, so 
 the grace and truth which came by him, doth appear 
 unto all men — yet we see, and do hear facts continu- 
 
14 
 
 ally, proving that where the Scriptures are unknown, 
 evident proofs of darkness do exist; and that it is the 
 want of authentic information on the subject, which 
 can make any ene suppose that the Chinese, Indians, 
 &x. evince stronger marks of gospel light in their 
 conduct, than professing Christians; and if we take 
 what is called the Christian world, we shall uniformly 
 find, that superstition on the one hand, and infidelity 
 on the other, have opposed the reading of the Scrip- 
 tures ; and that under the Divine blessing, the perusal 
 of them has seemed conspicuously to have enlighten- 
 ed the minds of all those, who have been instrumental 
 to religious reform. She stated also, that she thought 
 we could not do better, than leave all those nations 
 whose disadvantages were no doubt weighed in the 
 balance of the sanctuary, to the attribute of Divine 
 mercy, remembering the parable, that he who knew 
 not the Lord's will, and did things worthy of stripes, 
 was to be beaten with few stripes — but what would 
 become of us, if in trying to bring ourselves upon a 
 level with them, we should prove to be of those who 
 might have known the Lord's will, and may deserve 
 to be beaten with many stripes? 
 
 A. B. stated the confusion that would ensue in any 
 religious society, if the ministers of that society were 
 not cognizable to it for the doctrines they might 
 preach. That as she fully believed the Scriptures to 
 be given forth by the Spirit, and to direct to it, so she 
 considered the Spirit might be said to be the cause, 
 and the Scriptures the effect. That as they are the 
 effect, if we really witness the operation of the same 
 Spirit in our own hearts, there will be a correspon- 
 dence, like face answering to face in a glass, and we 
 shall never be afraid of trying the cause by the effect 
 
15 
 
 produced. That our fundamental doctrine of a belief 
 in the guidance of the Spirit of Christ, should never 
 screen us from the necessity of trying the spirits; and 
 that it is not possible that it can be the same Spirit 
 which in one individual gives living faith in the doc- 
 trines of the gospel, and in another contradicts them. 
 
 That our early Friends, gathered out of the forms 
 and ceremonies of religion, by the power of Truth 
 operating upon their hearts and understandings, were 
 brought into the obedience of Christ — they knew his 
 voice within them, and they acknowledged, under its 
 influence, to all he had done for them. Their wri- 
 tings bear ample testimony to this. A society founded 
 upon such principles, so long as its ministers are bap- 
 tized by the One Spirit, into the Body of which Jesus 
 Christ is the Holy Head and High Priest, will be 
 likely to be bound together in the fellowship of the 
 gospel — but when under the profession of the gui- 
 dance of the Spirit, such sacred truths as the mira- 
 culous birth and death of our Saviour, for our sakes. 
 are denied ; then such a depatture from the sound- 
 ness of the Faith, would be watched over, as a fond 
 parent would watch over a diseased limb in a child : 
 and lest the wound should spread, and the vital func- 
 tions should become injured, true affection would lead 
 the parent to consent to the amputation of the limb, 
 that the life of the child might be spared ; so would 
 gospel love lead the living members of the church, 
 after using every means in their power to restore 
 such a minister, to remove him from the body of the 
 Society, lest it also should become diseased. 
 
 That no society could exist, so as to know the 
 unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, if its minis- 
 tors did not all eat the same spiritual meat, and drink 
 
16 
 
 the same spiritual drink, having faith in God, and 
 in Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, proving their 
 faith by their works ; and the work of the ministry 
 is one of the most important tests by which living 
 faith can be proved. A. B. stated in the course of 
 her communications, that she knew herself to be but 
 a child in experience, yet in that love which casts out 
 fear, she believed it her duty to speak the truth in 
 boldness to one whom she desired to entreat as a fa- 
 ther. E. H. repeatedly told her, that it was want of 
 experience which prevented her views being similar 
 to his — that he thought light was progressing, and 
 that we need not recur either to our early Friends, or 
 to the Scriptures, in these days. A. B. thought, that 
 whenever any newer gospel should be preached than 
 that of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, which she 
 believed would never be the case, such corroborating 
 testimonies would be afforded, as conspicuously at- 
 tended the ushering in of the new covenant dispensa- 
 tion. She asked E. H. what greater enlargement he 
 could desire, than attended the apostle Paul after his 
 memorable conversion ; when all his faculties, under 
 the sanctifying power of Divine Grace, were so emi- 
 nently enlarged and directed to the allotted field of 
 labour, he was introduced into. A. B. 
 
 The foregoing comprehends the views held out by 
 A. B. though they may not be the exact words, nor 
 nearly the whole of what she had to say to E. H. 
 
 The first conversation occurred at E. H.'s 1st mo. 
 21st, 1824; the second in the 3d month following. 
 Ann Shipley was her companion, and was present at 
 each time. 
 
17 
 
 Copy of a letter from Elias Hicks to Dr. Edwin A. 
 Atlee, of Philadelphia, relative to the foregoing do- 
 cuments. 
 
 Jericho, 9th mo. 27th, 1824. 
 
 MY DEAR FRIEND, 
 
 Thy very acceptable letter of the 29th ultimo came 
 duly to hand, and I have taken my pen not only to 
 acknowledge thy kindness, but also to state to thee 
 the unfriendly and unchristian conduct of A. Braith- 
 waite towards me, not only as relates to that extract, 
 but in her conversation among Friends and others, 
 traducing my religious character, and saying I held 
 and promulgated infidel doctrines, &c. — endeavouring 
 to prejudice the minds of Friends against me, behind 
 my back, in open violation of gospel order. She 
 came to my house, as stated in the extract thou sent 
 me, after the quarterly meeting of ministers and elders 
 at Westbury in first month last. At that meeting 
 was the first time I saw her, which was about five 
 or six months after her arrival in New York. And 
 as I had heard her well spoken of as a minister, I 
 could have had no preconceived opinion of her but 
 W T hat was favourable, therefore, I treated her with all 
 the cordiality and friendship I was capable of. She 
 also, from all outward appearance, manifested the 
 same ; and after dinner, she requested, in company 
 with A. S., a female Friend that was with her, a pri- 
 vate opportunity with me. So we withdrew into an- 
 other room, where we continued in conversation for 
 near two hours. And being innocent and ignorant 
 of any cause that I had given, on my part, for the 
 necessity of such an opportunity, I concluded she 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 had nothing more in view than to have a little free 
 conversation on the state of those select meetings. 
 
 But, to my surprise, the first subject she spoke 
 upon, was to call in question a sentiment I had ex- 
 pressed in the meeting aforesaid, which appeared to 
 me to be so plain and simple, that I concluded the 
 weakest member in our society, endued with a ra- 
 tional understanding, would have seen the propriety 
 of. It was a remark I made on the absence of three 
 out of four of the representatives appointed by one of 
 the preparative meetings to attend the quarterly meet- 
 ing. And I having long been of the opinion, that 
 much weakness had been introduced into our society 
 by injudicious appointments, I have often been con- 
 cerned to caution Friends on that account. The re- 
 mark I made was this: that I thought there was 
 something wrong in the present instance — for, as we 
 profess to believe in the guidance of the Spirit of 
 Truth as an unerring Spirit, was it not reasonable to 
 expect, especially in a meeting of ministers and el- 
 ders, that if each friend attended to their proper gift, 
 as this Spirit is endued with prescience, that it would 
 be much more likely, under its divine influence, we 
 should be led to appoint such as would attend on a 
 particular and necessary occasion, than to appoint 
 those who would not attend ? 
 
 This idea, she contended, was not correct; and 
 the sentiments she expressed on this subject really 
 affected me. To think that any, professing to be a 
 gospel minister, called from a distant land to teach 
 others, and to be so deficient in knowledge and ex- 
 perience, in so plain a case, that I could not well 
 help saying to her, that her views were the result of 
 a want of religious experience, and that I believed if 
 
19 
 
 she improved her talent faithfully, she would be 
 brought to see better, and acknowledge the correct- 
 ness of my position. But she replied, she did not 
 want to see better. This manifestation of her self- 
 importance, lowered her character, as a gospel minis- 
 ter, very much in my view ; and her subsequent con- 
 duct, while she was with us, abundantly corroborated 
 and confirmed this view concerning her. As to her 
 charge against me, in regard to the Scriptures, it is 
 generally incorrect, and some of it false. And it is 
 very extraordinary, that she should manifest so much 
 seeming friendship for me, when present, and in my 
 absence, speak against me in such an unbecoming 
 manner. Indeed, her conduct towards me, often re- 
 minds me of the treachery of Judas, when he betray- 
 ed his master with a kiss. And, instead of acting to- 
 wards me as a friend or a Christian, she had been 
 watching for evil. 
 
 As to my asserting that I believed the Scriptures 
 were held in too high estimation by the professors of 
 Christianity in general, I readily admit, as I have as- 
 serted it in my public communications for more than 
 forty years, but, generally, in opposition to those that 
 held them to be the only rule of faith and practice ; 
 and my views have always been in accordance with 
 our primitive Friends on this point. And at divers 
 times, when in conversation with hireling teachers, 
 (and at other times) I have given it as my opinion, 
 that so long as they held the Scriptures to be the only 
 rule of faith and practice, and by which they justify 
 wars, hireling ministry, predestination, and what they 
 call the ordinances, viz : water baptism and the pass- 
 over supper, mere relics of the Jewish law, so long 
 the Scriptures did such, more harm than good ; but 
 
20 
 
 that the fault was not in the Scriptures, but in their 
 literal and carnal interpretation of them — and that 
 would always be the case until they came to the 
 Spirit that gave them forth, as no other power could 
 break the seal, and open them rightly to us. Hence 
 I have observed, in my public communications, and 
 in conversation with the members of different deno- 
 minations, and others, who held that the Scriptures 
 are the primary and only rule of faith and practice — 
 that, according to the true analogy of reasoning, " that 
 for which a thing is such, the thing itself is more 
 such" — as the Spirit was before the Scriptures, and 
 above them, and without the Spirit they could not 
 have been written or known. And with this simple 
 but conclusive argument, I have convinced divers of 
 the soundness of our doctrine in this respect — that not 
 the Scriptures but the Spirit of Truth, which Jesus 
 commanded his disciples to wait for, as their only 
 rule, that would teach them all things, and guide 
 them into all truth, is the primary and only rule of 
 faith and practice, and is the only means by which 
 our salvation is effected. 
 
 The extract contains so much inconsistency, and is 
 so incorrect, that, as I proceed, it appears less and less 
 worthy of a reply, and yet it does contain some truth. 
 I admit that I did assert, and have long done it, that 
 we cannot believe what we do not understand. This the 
 Scripture affirms, Deut. xxix. 29 — " The secret things 
 belong unto the Lord our God, but the things that 
 are revealed belong unto us and our children for ever, 
 that we may do all the words of this law" — and all 
 that is not revealed, is to us the same as a nonentity, 
 and will for ever remain so, until it is revealed ; and 
 that which is revealed, enables us, agreeably to the 
 
21 
 
 apostle's exhortation, to give a reason of the hope that 
 is in us, to honest inquirers. I also assert, that we 
 ought to bring all doctrines, whether written or ver- 
 bal, to the test of the Spirit of Truth in our own 
 minds, as the only sure director relative to the things 
 of God; otherwise, why is a manifestation of the 
 Spirit given to every man, if it is not to profit by : 
 and, if the Scriptures are above the Spirit, and a more 
 certain test of doctrines, why is the Spirit given, see- 
 ing it is useless ? But this doctrine, that the Scrip- 
 tures are the only rule of faith and practice, is a fun- 
 damental error, and is manifested to be so by the 
 Scriptures themselves, and also by our primitive 
 Friends' writings. It would seem that A. B. has 
 strained every nerve in exaggerating my words, for I 
 have not said more than R. Barclay, and many others 
 of our predecessors, respecting the errors in our Eng- 
 lish translation of the Bible. Hence it appears, that 
 she was determined to criminate me at all events, by- 
 striving to make me erroneous for saying that the 
 Gospel handed to us, was no more authentic than 
 many other writings. Surely a person that did not 
 assent to this, must be ignorant indeed. 
 
 Are not the writings of our primitive Friends as 
 authentic as any book or writing, and especially such 
 as were written so many centuries ago, the origi- 
 nals of which have been lost many hundred years ? 
 and are not the histories of passing events, written 
 by candid men of the present age, which thousands 
 know to be true, as authentic as the Bible ? 
 
 Her assertions, that I asked her if she could be so 
 ignorant as to believe in the account of the creation 
 of the world, and that I had been convinced for the 
 last ten years, that it was only an allegory ; and that 
 
22 
 
 it had been especially revealed to me at a meeting in 
 Liberty-street about that time ; that I asked her if 
 she thought Adam was any worse after he had eaten 
 the forbidden fruit than before, and that I said I did 
 not believe he was ; and also her asserting, that I said 
 that Jesus Christ was no more than a prophet ; and 
 that I further said, that if she would read the Scrip- 
 tures attentively she would believe that Jesus was the 
 son of Joseph : these assertions of hers, are all false 
 and unfounded, and must be the result of a feigned 
 or forced construction of something I might have 
 said, to suit her own purpose. For those who do not 
 wish to be satisfied with fair reasoning, there is no 
 end to their cavilling and misrepresentation. As to 
 what she relates as it regards the manner of our com- 
 ing into the world in our infant state, it is my belief, 
 that we come into the world in the same state of in- 
 nocence, and endowed with the same propensities 
 and desires that our first parents were, in their prime- 
 val state ; and this Jesus Christ has established, and 
 must be conclusive in the minds of all true believers ; 
 when he took a little child in his arms and blessed 
 him, and said to them around him, that except they 
 were converted, and became as that little child, they 
 should in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. 
 Of course, all the desires and propensities of that 
 little child, and of our first parents in their primeval 
 state, must have been good, as they were all the en- 
 dowments of their Creator, and given to them for a 
 special and useful purpose. But it is the improper 
 and unlawful indulgence of them that is evil. 
 
 I readily acknowledge, I have not been able to see 
 or understand, how the cruel persecution and cruci- 
 fixion of Jesus Christ, by the wicked and hard-heart- 
 
23 
 
 ed Jews, should expiate my sins; and I never have 
 known any thing to effect that for me, but the grace 
 of God, that taught me, agreeably to the apostle's 
 doctrine, to deny all ungodliness and the world's lusts, 
 and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this 
 present world ; and as I have faithfully abode under 
 its teachings, in full obedience thereto, I have been 
 brought to believe that my sins were forgiven, and I 
 permitted to sit under the Lord's teaching, as saith 
 the prophet : " that the children of the Lord are all 
 taught of the Lord, and in righteousness they are es- 
 tablished, and great is the peace of his children." 
 And so long as I feel this peace, there is nothing in 
 this world that makes me afraid, as it respects my 
 eternal condition. But if any of my friends have re- 
 ceived any known benefit from any outward sacri- 
 fice, I do not envy them their privilege. But, surely, 
 they would not be willing that I should acknowledge 
 as a truth, that which I have no kind of knowledge of. 
 I am willing to admit, that Divine Mercy is no doubt 
 watching over his rational creation for their good, 
 and may secretly work at times for their preserva- 
 tion ; but, if, in his infinite wisdom and goodness, he 
 sees meet to hide it from us, as most consistent with 
 his wisdom and our good, let us have a care that we 
 do not, in the pride of our hearts, undertake to pry into 
 his secret counsels, lest we offend; but be content 
 with what he is pleased to reveal to us, let it be more 
 or less, and, especially, if he is pleased to speak peace 
 to our minds. And when he graciously condescends 
 to do this, we shall know it to be a peace that the 
 world cannot give, with all its enjoyments, neither 
 take away, with all its frowns. 
 
 I shall now draw to a close, and, with the saluta- 
 
24 
 
 tion of gospel love, I subscribe myself thy affection- 
 ate and sympathizing friend and brother, 
 
 ELIAS HICKS. 
 
 To Edwin A. Atlee. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 In perusing the preceding correspondence, we have 
 been forcibly struck with the spirit in which the let- 
 ter of Elias Hicks to Edwin A. Atlee, appears to be 
 written. 
 
 Let any person calmly and dispassionately read it 
 and the statement of Anna Braithwaite, which it is 
 designed to refute, and then seriously say, whether 
 the language which E. H. uses, in speaking of Anna 
 Braithwaite, comports with the meekness and gentle- 
 ness of a gospel minister. 
 
 Does it correspond with that " gospel love" to 
 which he alludes in the concluding paragraph of the 
 letter, or with that readiness to forgive, which is so 
 strongly inculcated in the precepts of Christ ? 
 
 Even if we could admit the assertions of A. B. to 
 be incorrect, it must be granted, we think, by all, 
 that she has expressed herself in respectful and be- 
 coming language. 
 
 The letter of E. H. is generally vague and incon- 
 clusive, and appears to meet the statement of A. B. 
 in but few points, and most of those it admits to be 
 correct. He digresses into the discussion of irrele- 
 vant subjects, as if to divert our attention from the 
 main object ; the greater part of it being taken up 
 in treating upon matters which are in no way con- 
 nected with the controversy. 
 
25 
 
 Anna Braithwaite has not said, in any part of her 
 letter, that Elias Hicks " asserted that the Scriptures 
 were held in too high estimation among the professors 
 of Christianity generally" — her words are, " He spoke 
 on the subject of the Scriptures, as being much too 
 highly thought of amongst Friends." 
 
 Hence, it is clear, that although E. H. says much 
 on the subject of the Scriptures, he has not answered 
 the assertion of A. B. but has contended against some- 
 thing entirely foreign to the subject under discussion ; 
 and although he asserts that " his views on this point 
 have always been in accordance with our primitive 
 Friends," it is obvious that by " this point," he alludes 
 merely to " the Scriptures being held in too estima- 
 tion by those who consider them as the only rule of 
 faith and practice ;" a subject which A. B. has not 
 once mentioned. 
 
 He further says, the assertion " that the Scriptures 
 were held in too high estimation" was " generally 
 made in opposition to such as held them to be the 
 only rule of faith and practice" — hence it follows, 
 that he has made the assertion at other times, in op- 
 position to those who do not hold them to be the only- 
 rule of faith and practice, for the word " generally" 
 will admit of many exceptions. 
 
 Elias Hicks, in his letter to E. A. Atlee, as well as 
 more pointedly and at large, in the subsequent one to 
 Dr. N. Shoemaker, rejects the doctrine of the atone- 
 ment. In the latter we find the following assertion : 
 "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." We would simply wish this doc- 
 
 o 
 
26 
 
 trine to be compared with the following passages of 
 Scripture : 
 
 " For it pleased the Father that in him, (Christ,) 
 should all fulness dwell. And having made peace 
 through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile 
 all things unto himself. By him, I say, whether they 
 be things in earth or things in heaven. And you that 
 were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind 
 by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the 
 body of his flesh , through death, to present you holy 
 and unblameable, and unreproveable in his sight." 
 Paul to the Colossians, Chap. i. 19, 20, 21, 22. 
 
 " And I lay down my life for my sheep, therefore 
 doth my Father love me because I lay down my life 
 that I might take it again. No man taketh it from 
 me ; but I lay it down of myself. / have power to lay 
 it down, and I have power to take it again. This 
 commandment have I received of my Father." John, 
 Chap. x. 15. 17, 18. 
 
 These and many others which might be quoted, 
 such as "Ye are bought with a price" — " Christ died 
 for our sins according to the Scripture" — " by the 
 which will ye are sanctified through the offering of 
 the body of Jesus Christ once for all," Paul — "For- 
 asmuch then as Christ has suffered for us in the flesh, 
 arm yourselves," &c. Peter — " Jesus Christ the 
 righteous — He is the propitiation for our sins, 
 and not for ours only, but for the sins of the 
 whole world," John — conclusively prove Jesus Christ 
 to be the Redeemer of the whole world. Indeed, if 
 we strike from the pages of holy writ those parts 
 which inculcate this prominent feature in the system 
 of Gospel Redemption, we shall leave but a small 
 portion of several of the books of the sacred volume. 
 
27 
 
 Now who can believe but that the statement of A. B- 
 on the subject of the Scriptures is true ? 
 
 The whole of E. H's observations and reasoning 
 upon the superiority of the Spirit over the Scriptures, 
 and the appointment of representatives to the quar- 
 terly meeting, are entirely foreign to the subject of 
 Anna Braithwaite's letter; they- are not noticed in it. 
 
 E. H. says, " I also assert that we ought to bring 
 all doctrines, whether written or verbal, to the test of 
 the Spirit of Truth in our own minds, as the only sure 
 director relative to the things of God ; otherwise why 
 is a manifestation of the Spirit given to every man, if 
 it is not to profit by ? And if the Scriptures are above 
 the Spirit, and a more certain test of doctrines, why 
 is the Spirit given, seeing it is useless ?" 
 
 From these expressions it would appear as though 
 the only purpose for which the manifestation of the 
 Spirit is given, is to be a test of doctrines ; and that 
 if we do not make it the supreme judge in this point, 
 it is of no use at all. 
 
 We can readily believe that the Spirit of Truth 
 would prove an invaluable blessing to man, as a guide 
 in the practical duties of Christianity, were it consi- 
 dered to be no test of doctrine at all. But on this 
 point we shall quote Robert Barclay's Apology, which 
 has long been recognized as the standard doctrinal 
 work of the Society of Friends : 
 
 " We do look upon them (the Scriptures,) as the 
 only fit outward judge of controversies among Chris- 
 tians ; and that whatsoever doctrine is contrary unto 
 their testimony, may therefore justly be rejected as 
 false. And for our parts, we are very willing that all 
 our doctrines and practices be tried by them ; which 
 we never refused, nor ever shall, in all controversies 
 
23 
 
 with our adversaries, as the judge and test. We shall 
 also be very willing to admit it as a positive certain 
 maxim, that whatsoever any do, pretending to the 
 Spirit, which is contrary to the Scriptures, be ac- 
 counted and reckoned a delusion of the devil." 
 
 After enumerating several assertions of A. B.'s, 
 E. H. says, "These assertions of her's are all false 
 and unfounded, and must be the result of a feigned 
 or forced construction of something I might have said, 
 to suit her own purpose." 
 
 Had E. H. informed us what it was he " might 
 have said," (or as we suppose he means did say) we 
 could have judged for ourselves, whether all "these 
 assertions of her's are false and unfounded ;" and 
 after admitting fully, as he has done, in this letter, 
 that we cannot believe what we do not understand, 
 that the Scriptures are no test of doctrine, and that 
 the atonement of our blessed Redeemer is of no avail 
 in the salvation of man, his denial of the points above 
 alluded to, must certainly be considered as making 
 very little in support of his cause. 
 
 The subjoined letter from Ann Shipley, was writ- 
 ten, we are informed, without any solicitation on the 
 part of the individual to whom it is addressed, and 
 has been printed in New York. It furnishes a full 
 and decided confirmation of the truth of Anna Braith- 
 waite's statement, and is supported by the testimony 
 of another respectable individual, who was present 
 during a part or the whole of the second conversation. 
 He has been seen, we understand, on the occasion, 
 and asserts that part of A. B.'s statement which re- 
 hearses the conversation that took place while he was 
 present, to be correct 
 
 It is but proper to mention, that all the letters are 
 
29 
 
 published without the knowledge or consent [of t\w 
 writers. 
 
 Letter of Ann Shipley. 
 New York, 10th mo. loth, 1824. 
 
 DEAR FRIEND, 
 
 It has been with feelings of extreme regret and 
 astonishment that I have read two pamphlets pub- 
 lished in your city, entitled " Misrepresentations of 
 A. Braithwaite, &c." 
 
 It is not my desire to discuss or widen the contro- 
 versy which unhappily exists respecting the senti- 
 ments of those who are thus placed before the public 
 as the accusers of our dear friend Anna Braithwaite : 
 but it has become in my mind a serious question whe- 
 ther I ought to permit the character of an absent 
 friend, whose distance from her accusers prevents her 
 from vindicating herself against the gross aspersions 
 so illiberally cast upon her, without endeavouring to 
 do all in my power to avert the arrows of calumny 
 and persecution with which she has been so cruelly 
 assailed, but which, as relates to her own innocency, 
 and a consciousness of having faithfully discharged 
 what she believed to be her religious duty, will, I 
 trust, fall harmlessly at her feet, 
 
 After deliberately weighing the subject, and the 
 very unpleasant and painful considerations associated 
 with it, duty to my absent friend, respect to my own 
 character, and above all, a regard for the cause of 
 truth, obliges me to assure thee, and all A. Braith- 
 waite's friends, that I was present during the conver- 
 sations between her and Elias Hicks. The statement 
 
30 
 
 she left was correct. The subject of the forbidden 
 fruit was mentioned, but I have not a perfect recol- 
 lection of the terms made use of, and never have, at 
 any time, given a different account respecting it, al- 
 though the contrary has been reported. 
 
 I believe her visit to him was with sincere desires 
 that she might be enabled to convince him of what 
 she thought to be his errors, and from feelings of love 
 and good will towards him. 
 
 I also believe when A. Braithwaite left that state- 
 ment, she had no desire to have it circulated in the 
 manner it has been done, but with a view that should 
 any erroneous representations take place respecting 
 the conversations, that an accurate account of them 
 might be produced to prevent trouble. 
 
 It may appear to some very extraordinary, that I 
 should thus express myself in direct contradiction to 
 Elias Hicks ; and my dear friend, thou mayest be 
 assured that nothing but a sense of duty, the peculia- 
 rities of the case, and the entire conviction of mind 
 of the correctness of A. Braithwaite's statement, 
 would ever induce me to do so. 
 
 Signed, ANN SHIPLEY. 
 
 In order to show that the statement of Anna 
 Braithwaite can be fully and firmly supported ; and 
 that the sentiments which she attributes to Elias 
 Hicks are by no means new to him, we subjoin the 
 following documents, which are but a part of the tes- 
 timony which might be adduced, all corroborating 
 her account in the most plain and positive manner. 
 
31 
 
 Statement of Josef l Whitall. 
 
 Having attended the last yearly meeting at New 
 York, I heard Elias Hicks declare, in public testi- 
 mony, in a large meeting, at the North House, " The 
 same power that made Christ a Christian must make 
 us Christians, and the same power that saved him 
 must save us." Being very uneasy with the doctrine, 
 I took a private opportunity to state to him my unea- 
 siness. I informed him, that, for several years, re- 
 ports had been in circulation unfavourable towards 
 him, and that*on these occasions I had vindicated his 
 character, from a belief that he must have been mis- 
 understood, until last fall I met with a piece in wri- 
 ting, said to be from his pen, in which he called 
 Christ the Jewish Messiah ; that he was alone the 
 Saviour of the Jews ; and that he was not the Son 
 of God until after the baptism of John, and the de- 
 scent of the Holy Ghost. To this I offered my ob- 
 jections as unscriptural, but he justified them. Ha 
 also declared that he considered it a matter of the 
 greatest encouragement to believe that Christ was no 
 more than a man, for if he were any thing more it 
 would destroy the effect of his example to him. He 
 admitted that he had not, till of latter time, held up 
 the doctrine that Christ was liable to fall like other 
 men. When I quoted the testimony of John, that the 
 Word was made or took of flesh, he said it was im- 
 possible. I offered my sentiments, that, if he per- 
 sisted in preaching these doctrines, so contrary to 
 the Scriptures, and the testimonies of our ancient 
 Friends, it would produce one of the greatest schisms 
 that had ever happened. He allowed it would pro- 
 
32 
 
 duce a schism, but that it would soon be over, for he 
 believed his doctrines must and would prevail. Seeing 
 that we differed so widely in sentiment on these 
 points, I proposed to him to have a few solid Friends, 
 ministers and elders, convened, that a discussion might 
 be had ; but he would not consent thereto, saying, 
 that he was so confirmed in his sentiments, that he 
 would persevere therein let the consequences be what 
 they might. 
 
 JOSEPH WHITALL. 
 
 12 mo. 12th, 1822. 
 
 E. Hicks, in a letter dated 12 mo. 21st, 1822, 
 speaking of this statement, says, " As these charges 
 are not literally true, being founded on his (J. W.'s,) 
 own forced and improper construction of my words, 
 I deny them," &c. 
 
 Here it is important to observe, that the language 
 used by E. H. is similar to that in which he denies 
 some few points in the statement of A. Braithwaite, 
 though in the case of J. W. he goes no further than 
 to say that they are not literally true ; an assertion 
 which does not in the smallest degree affect their 
 substantial truth. 
 
 If Elias Hicks really believes that he has cause to 
 complain of a feigned, or forced, or improper con- 
 struction being put upon his words, why does he 
 not come out and tell what he did say, and leav e the 
 world to judge how far his meaning has been per- 
 verted by a feigned, or forced, or improper construc- 
 tion of his language ? 
 
 The fact is, there is neither construction nor com- 
 ment, but a simple statement of his own words ; and 
 although he thus speaks of the statement of Joseph 
 
33 
 
 Whitall, yet he did fully admit it to be substantially 
 true, in a conference which J. W. afterwards had with 
 him on the subject, as is expressed in a letter from J. 
 W. dared 2nd mo. 18th, 1823, viz. 
 
 " I thought it proper when he (E. H.) was in our 
 neighbourhood, to call upon him for an explanation, 
 which he was free to give, and which fully confirmed 
 every sentiment which I had entertained concerning 
 his new doctrines. He did not hesitate to admit every- 
 thing which I had stated as his doctrine, with one 
 small exception scarcely worth naming." 
 
 This exception was simply this : E. Hicks said, 
 that instead of stating to J. W. that Christ was no 
 more than a man, he said he was no more than an 
 Israelite. 
 
 We shall now lay before our readers the following- 
 letter, written by Eiias Hicks to a respectable physi- 
 cian of this city, which will be found to corroborate 
 the sentiments which he has avowed in the hearing 
 of these Friends. 
 
 Letter from Elias Hicks to Dr. N. Shoemaker, of 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 Jericho, 3d mo. Slst, 1823. 
 
 DEAR FRIEND, 
 
 Thy acceptable letter of 1st month last, came duly 
 to hand, but my religious engagements, and other 
 necessary concerns, have prevented my giving it that 
 attention that its contents seem to demand. Thou 
 queries after my views of the suffering of Jesus 
 Christ, the Son of God, and what was the object of 
 
 E 
 
34 
 
 the shedding of his blood on the cross, and what be- 
 nefits resulted to mankind by the shedding of this 
 blood, &c. I shall answer in a very simple way, as 
 I consider the whole subject to be a very simple one, 
 as all truth is simple when we free ourselves from the 
 improper bias of tradition and education, which rests 
 as a burthensome stone on the minds of most of the 
 children of men, and which very much mars the unity 
 and harmony of society. 
 
 1st. By what means did Jesus suffer? The an- 
 swer is plain, by the hands of wicked men, and be- 
 cause his works were righteous and theirs were wick- 
 ed. Query. Did God send him into the world pur- 
 posely to suffer death by the hands of wicked men ? 
 By no means ; but to live a righteous and godly life, 
 (which was the design and end of God's creating 
 man in the beginning,) and thereby be a perfect ex- 
 ample to such of mankind as should come to the know- 
 ledge of him and of his perfect life. For, if it was 
 the purpose and will of God that he should die by 
 the hands of wicked men, then the Jews, by crucify- 
 ing him, would have done God's will, and of course 
 would all have stood justified in his sight, which could 
 not be. But it was permitted so to be, as it had been 
 with many of the prophets and wise and good men 
 that were before him, who suffered death by the 
 hands of wicked men for righteousness sake, as en- 
 samples to those that came after, that they should ac- 
 count nothing too dear to give up for the truth's sake, 
 not even their own lives. 
 
 But the shedding of his blood by the wicked scribes 
 and pharisees, and people of Israel, had a particular 
 effect on the Jewish nation, as by this, the topstone 
 and worst of all their crimes, was filled up the mea- 
 
35 
 
 sure of their iniquities, and which put an end to that 
 dispensation, together with its law and covenant. 
 That as John's baptism summed up in one, all the 
 previous water baptisms of that dispensation, and put 
 an end to them, which he sealed with his blood, so 
 this sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, summed up 
 in one all the outward atoning sacrifices of the sha- 
 dowy dispensation, and put an end to them all, there- 
 by abolishing the law, having previously fulfilled all 
 its righteousness, and, as saith the apostle, "He blot- 
 ted out the hand-writing of ordinances, nailing them 
 to his cross;" having put an end to the law that com- 
 manded them, with all its legal sins, and abolished all 
 its legal penalties, so that all the Israelites that be- 
 lieved on him, after he exclaimed on the cross "It is 
 finished," might abstain from all the rituals of their 
 law, such as circumcision, water baptisms, outward 
 sacrifices, seventh day sabbaths, and all their other 
 holy days, &c. and be blameless ; and the legal sins 
 that any were guilty of, was now remitted and done 
 away by the abolishment of the law that commanded 
 them, for " where there is no law there is no trans- 
 gression." But those that did not believe on him, 
 many of them were destroyed by the sword, and the 
 rest were scattered abroad in the earth. But, / do 
 not consider that the crucifixion of the outward body 
 of flesh and blood of Jesus on the cross, was an atone- 
 ment for any sins but the legal sins of the Jews ; for 
 as their law was outward, so their legal sins and their 
 penalties were outward, and these could be atoned 
 for by an outward sacrifice ; and this last outward 
 sacrifice was a full type of the inward sacrifice that 
 every sinner must make, in giving up that sinful life 
 of his own will, in and by which he hath from time 
 
36 
 
 to time, crucified the innocent life of God in his own 
 soul ; and which Paul calls " the old man with his 
 deeds," or " the man of sin and son of perdition,' 5 
 who hath taken God's seat in the heart, and there 
 exalteth itself above all that is called God, or is wor- 
 shipped, sitting as Judge and Supreme. Now all this 
 life, power, and will of man, must be slain and die 
 on the cross spiritually, as Jesus died on the cross 
 outwardly, and this is the true atonement, which that 
 outward atonement was a clear and full type of. This 
 the apostle Paul sets forth in a plain manner, Ro- 
 mans vi. 3 & 4. " Know ye not that so many of us 
 as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized 
 into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him 
 by baptism into death, that, like as Christ was raised 
 up from the dead (outwardly), by the glory of the 
 Father, even so we," having by the spiritual baptism 
 witnessed a death to sin, shall know a being raised 
 up spiritually and walk in newness of life. 
 
 But the primitive Christian church having soon af- 
 ter the apostles' days, turned away from their true 
 and only sufficient guide, the Spirit of Truth, that 
 Jesus commanded his disciples to wait for, and not 
 attempt to do any thing until they had received it, but 
 assured them that when they had received it, it would 
 be a complete and sufficient rule, without the addition 
 of any other thing, as it would lead them and guide 
 them in all truth. And to its sufficiency, John, the 
 beloved apostle, bore this noble and exalted testimo- 
 ny, in full accordance with his Divine Master, in this 
 emphatic language to his fellow believers: " Ye have 
 an unction from the Holy One, and need not that any 
 man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth 
 you, which is truth, and is no lie." But the belie- 
 
37 
 
 vers, by too much looking to their old traditions, 
 soon lost sight of or neglected fully to attend, as they 
 ought to have done, to their inward guide, turned 
 their attention outward to the letter, which always 
 killeth those who lean upon it as a rule. Hence, the 
 successors of those meek and self-denying followers 
 of the example and commands of Jesus, apostatised 
 from the simplicity of the Gospel, by which the unity 
 was broken, and they soon became divided into sects 
 and parties, and persecuted each other ; and invented 
 and promulgated inconsistent and unsound doctrines, 
 such as original sin, certifying that all Adam's off- 
 spring was condemned to eternal punishment for one 
 mis-step of our first parents; for they don't appear to 
 have been guilty of but one failure, and that it ap- 
 pears they made satisfaction for at the time of their 
 first arraignment by their benevolent creator, mani- 
 festing sorrow and repentance : which seems to be 
 fairly implied by the sequel of the interview between 
 them ; for it is said he clothed them with coats of 
 skin, to hide their nakedness, which is an emblem of 
 durable clothing, and as their nakedness ivas not an 
 outward one, but a nakedness of soul, not being able 
 to conceal their sin from the All-penetrating Eye of 
 Divine Justice, so when he had brought them, through 
 conviction, to see their error and to repent of it, he 
 was reconciled to them, and clothed them again with 
 his Holy Spirit. 
 
 And inasmuch as those idle promulgators of origi- 
 nal sin, believe they are made sinners without their 
 consent or knowledge, which, according to the nature 
 and reason of things, every rational mind must see is 
 impossible ; so likewise they are idle and ignorant 
 enough to believe they are made righteous without 
 
38 
 
 their consent or knowledge, by the righteousness of 
 one who lived on the earth near two thousand years 
 before they had an existence, and this by the cruel 
 hands of wicked men slaying an innocent and righ- 
 teous one ; and these are bold and daring enough to 
 lay this cruel and unholy act in the charge of Divine 
 Justice, as having purposely ordained it to be so : But 
 what an outrage it is against every righteous law of 
 God and man, as the Scriptures abundantly testify. 
 See Exodus, c. 23, v. 7. " Keep thee far from a false 
 matter, and the innocent and righteous slay thou not, 
 for I will not justify the wicked." Deuteronomy, c. 
 27, v. 25. " Cursed be he that taketh reward to 
 slay an innocent person and much might be pro- 
 duced to show the wickedness and absurdity of the 
 doctrine, that would accuse the perfectly just, all- 
 wise and merciful Jehovah, of so barbarous and cruel 
 an act, as that of slaying his innocent and righteous 
 Son, to atone for the sins and iniquities of the un- 
 godly. 
 
 Surely, is it possible, that any rational being that 
 has 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 jus- 
 tice and honesty, of mercy and love, and show him- 
 self to be a poor selfish creature, and unworthy of no- 
 tice! ! ! 
 
 Having given thee a sketch of my views on the 
 subject of thy queries, how far thou may consider 
 
39 
 
 them correct, I must leave to thy judgment and con- 
 sideration ; and may now recommend thee to shake 
 off all traditional views that thou hast imbibed from 
 external evidences, and turn thy mind to the light 
 within, as thy only true teacher : wait patiently for 
 its instruction, and it will teach thee more than men 
 or books can do ; and lead thee to a clearer sight and 
 sense of what thou desirest to know, than I have 
 words clearly to convey it to thee in. That this 
 may be thy experience, is my sincere desire ; and 
 with love to thyself and family, I conclude, 
 Thy affectionate friend, 
 
 ELIAS HICKS. 
 
 Dr. N. Shoemaker. 
 
 The reader has now before him the extract of the 
 letter written by A. Braithwaite, attested by Ann 
 Shipley, and another Friend who was present during 
 a part of one of the conversations ; also the statement 
 of Joseph Whitall, subsequently admitted by Elias 
 Hicks ; likewise Elias Hicks' two letters, corrobo- 
 rating the former — by all which it must be evident, 
 that the account of the conversation, as given 
 by Anna Braithwaite, is established and confirmed 
 in the most clear and positive manner, in all its par- 
 ticulars. 
 
 We are far from wishing to attribute to Elias 
 Hicks, a single sentiment which he has not avowed 
 — but when we read his own letters, and the state- 
 ments thus given by several respectable persons, of 
 what he has declared in their hearing, corroborated 
 as they are by other documents, which we could pro- 
 
40 
 
 duce, if necessary, we think the conclusion is cer- 
 tainly a fair one, that he does deny the propitiatory 
 sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and 
 considers his death to be of no more importance to 
 us than the death of one of the martyrs — that he does 
 away a belief in the proper divinity of the Redeemer, 
 and makes him a mere man — that he greatly under- 
 values the blessing of the Holy Scriptures, speaks of 
 them in language calculated to lessen our respect and 
 regard for their authority, and totally discards them 
 as a test of the soundness of doctrines. 
 
 In all which particulars he differs from the princi- 
 ples of the Society of Friends, as set forth in Bar- 
 clay's Apology ; a book which has always been ac- 
 knowledged as their standard doctrinal work. 
 
A WW WMW 
 
 OF 
 
 ELMS HICKS' 1 LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 DR. NATHAN SHOEMAKER. 
 
Note. — The foregoing letter of Elias Hicks to Dr. 
 Nathan Shoemaker, has been widely disseminated in 
 manuscript, and represented by its admirers as con- 
 taming some new and very rational and consistent 
 views on the doctrine of the atonement, &c. It pur- 
 ports to be a deliberate reply to certain queries pro- 
 pounded for the author's consideration. The writer 
 says, " he considers the whole subject to be a very 
 simple one and as he had nearly two months to re- 
 flect upon it before writing his answer, we may fairly 
 conclude that he has given us his sober and matured 
 opinion on the points in question. How " simple" 
 he has made the subject appear, by his manner of 
 treating it in this letter, we shall endeavour to shoir 
 in our remarks. 
 
REVIEW, &c. 
 
 We suppose it will readily be admitted by all our 
 readers, that the preceding letter exhibits the real 
 sentiments of its author upon the several subjects of 
 which it treats. His object in writing it, as stated in 
 the exordium, appears to have been, to give " in a 
 very simple way" his 44 views of the suffering of Jesus 
 Christ, the Son of God, and what was the object of 
 the shedding of his blood on the cross, and what be- 
 nefits resulted to mankind by the shedding of this 
 blood." We would request our readers to notice this 
 particularly, as the letter contains so much irrelevant 
 matter, that there is danger of losing sight of the main 
 subjects. 
 
 As Elias Hicks appeals to the Holy Scriptures as 
 the authority for his opinions, and professes to predi- 
 cate his arguments upon them, we shall assume it as 
 granted that their authority is finally conclusive. We 
 view them as the only legitimate test of our respec- 
 tive sentiments, and to be consistent with his own 
 practice, he must concur with us in such judgment. 
 In the following pages, therefore, Scripture language 
 must be the umpire between us. 
 
 That Jesus Christ " suffered by the hands of wick- 
 ed men ;" " that his works were righteous and theirs 
 wicked," are positions which we freely admit ; but 
 that his death was merely a consequence of this latter 
 fact, or which is the same thing, that he was no more 
 than a martyr to his principles, is to us not quite so 
 
44 
 
 clear. It is an assertion which we do not find sup- 
 ported by Scripture testimony, and as it is calculated 
 to destroy our faith in the vicarious nature of his suf- 
 ferings, we think it unsafe to adopt it. 
 
 Our blessed Redeemer tells us himself, and there 
 can be no higher authority, that he " came to give 
 his life a ransom for many;" " that whosoever be- 
 lieveth on him should not perish, but have eternal 
 life." 
 
 Elias Hicks asks, " Did God send him into the 
 world purposely to suffer death by the hands of wick- 
 ed men?" 
 
 His object in putting the query in this form, as 
 well as in making the Jews put Jesus to death, mere- 
 ly because his works were righteous and theirs were 
 wicked, must, we think, be obvious to all. It is to 
 destroy in the very outset, a belief in the atonement — 
 to alarm us with the apparent absurdity of making 
 wicked men agents in the plan of redemption — and 
 to reduce the sufferings of the Son of God in the flesh, 
 to a complete parallel with those of the martyrs. But 
 Christ himself tells us that he did come purposely to 
 suffer death, and that death was to be a ransom for 
 many. Now, whether he suffered by wicked or by 
 righteous men, it cannot alter the nature of his suf- 
 ferings — they are still redeeming. 
 
 If we vary the query so as to read, Did God send 
 him into the world purposely to lay down his life a 
 ransom for sinners ? (and we shall still preserve the 
 plain meaning of E. H.'s query,) we are compelled 
 to reply in the affirmative, or to deny the concurrent 
 testimony of the Lord Jesus himself, and of prophets, 
 evangelists, and apostles. 
 
 That it was a prominent part of the mission of the 
 
46 
 
 Saviour, " to put away sin by the sacrifice of him- 
 self," and " to lay down his life for the sins of the 
 whole world," is evident from the following passages 
 of Scripture : 
 
 " Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our 
 sorrows, yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of 
 God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our 
 transgressions, he ivas bruised for our iniquities ; the 
 chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his 
 stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone 
 astray ; we have turned every one to his own way ; 
 and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 
 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he opened not 
 his mouth ; he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, 
 and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he 
 opened not his mouth. He was taken from prison 
 and from judgment, and who shall declare his gene- 
 ration, for he was cut off out of the land of the liv- 
 ing ; for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 
 And he made his grave with the wicked and with 
 the rich in his death, because he hath done no vio- 
 lence ; neither was any deceit in his mouth : yet it 
 pleased the Lord to bruise him, he hath put him to 
 grief. When thou shalt make his soul [Hebrew 
 word, life,'] an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, 
 he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the 
 Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see the 
 travail of his soul and shall be satisfied. By his 
 knowlege (or, as a more correct rendering, " by the 
 knowledge of him,") shall my righteous servant jus- 
 tify many, for he shall hear their iniquities; therefore 
 will I divide him a portion with the great, and he 
 shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he hath 
 poured out his soul unto death, and he was number- 
 
46 
 
 ed among the transgressors ; and he bare the sin of 
 many, and made intercession for the transgressors." 
 Isaiah c. liii. 
 
 We have quoted the whole of this very remarkable 
 prophecy, because it is so directly in point, that, was 
 there not another text in the Bible to prove that the 
 predetermined object of the Saviour's coming was to 
 offer an atonement for sin, this of itself is amply suf- 
 ficient to establish the fact, and is a most triumphant 
 refutation of all the cavils that have ever been arrayed 
 against the doctrine of the propitiation of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 It asserts in the most positive manner that the suf- 
 ferings of Christ were not on his own account, for he 
 hath done no violence, neither was any deceit in his 
 mouth : that they were for the sins of others ; he was 
 wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our 
 iniquities, for the transgression of my people was he 
 stricken : that on his part they were perfectly volun- 
 tary; he poured out his soul [life] unto death; he 
 bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the 
 transgressors : that they were well pleasing to the 
 Father, and consistent with his will, for the Lord hath 
 laid upon him the iniquity of us all. It pleased the 
 Lord to bruise him and to put him to grief ; therefore 
 will I divide him a portion with the great, and he 
 shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he hath 
 poured out his soul [life] unto death. 
 
 With these assertions, the testimony of Christ and 
 his apostles fully accords, as will be seen by the fol- 
 lowing texts : " Even as the Son of Man came not 
 to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his 
 life a ransom for many" Matt. c. xx. v. 28. " Tlxink- 
 est thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and 
 
47 
 
 he shall presently give me more than twelve legions 
 of angels ? But how then shall the Scriptures be ful- 
 filled that thus it must be." c. 26. " But all this was 
 done, that the Scriptures of the prophets might be ful- 
 filled." Matt. c. xxi., v. 4. 
 
 As expressions similar to these occur frequently in 
 the narratives of the evangelists, we may remark, that 
 they positively assert certain things to be done, in or- 
 der that the purposes of the Almighty, as predicted 
 by his inspired prophets, might be duly accomplish- 
 ed ; and the things asserted thus to be done, relate 
 not only to the birth and life, but to the minute par- 
 ticulars of the sufferings and death of the Lord 
 Jesus. 
 
 To return to our quotations — " Oh fools and slow 
 of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken — 
 ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to 
 enter into his glory," Luke, c. xxiv. v. 25, 26. 
 " These are the words which I spake unto you while 
 I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled 
 which were written in the law of Moses, and in the 
 prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me." v. 44. 
 " And he said unto them, thus it is written, and thus 
 it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead 
 the third day, and that repentance and remission of 
 sins should be preached in his name, among all na- 
 tions, beginning at Jerusalem." v. 46. " And as Mo- 
 ses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so 
 must the son of man be lifted up, that whosoever be- 
 lieveth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 
 John, c. iii. v. 14. / lay down my life for the sheep ; 
 therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down 
 my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it 
 from me, but I lay it down of myself— I have power 
 
48 
 
 to lay it down, and I have power to take it again, this 
 commandment have I received of my Father." c. x. v. 
 15, 17, 18. Jesus saith to Pilate, "thou couldst 
 have no power at all against me, except it were given 
 thee from above" c. xix. v. 11. " Ye men of Israel 
 hear these w ords, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved 
 of God among you, by miracles and wonders and 
 signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as 
 ye yourselves also know — HIM being delivered by 
 the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, 
 ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified 
 and slain. Acts, c. ii. v. 22, 23. But those things 
 which God before had shewed, by the mouth of all his 
 prophets that Christ should suffer, HE hath so fulfil- 
 led" c. iii. v. 18. " For of a truth against thy Holy 
 Child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod 
 and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the peo- 
 ple of Israel, were gathered together, for to do what- 
 soever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to 
 be done" c. iv. v. 27. 
 
 We have quoted but a small part of the abundant 
 testimony which might be adduced from the sacred 
 volume, relative to this interesting subject ; and we 
 would ask any of our readers, whether they can re- 
 concile this language of Scripture with the assertion 
 of Elias Hicks, where he argues, that God did by 
 no means send his son into the world purposely to 
 suffer death, but only to live a righteous and godly 
 life, and thereby be a perfect example. If we believe 
 the truth of the Bible, must we not be directly at is- 
 sue with his sentiments on these points ? 
 
 The coming, and sufferings, and death, of the Son 
 of God in the flesh, were events, over which mere 
 human power could have no control — He took upon 
 
49 
 
 himself flesh, and in due time, laid down his own life. 
 expressly declaring " No man taketh it from me, I lay 
 it down of myself" The Scriptures say, he was de- 
 livered up to the Jews by the determinate counsel and 
 foreknowledge of God, and that whatsoever they did 
 against him, the Divine hand and counsel, before de- 
 termined to be done. Now E. H. says, that it was 
 not the purpose and will of God, that he should be 
 put to death by the Jews, but merely, that he should 
 set us a good example, by living a righteous and god- 
 ly life — Which account are we to believe ? 
 
 But, says E. H. "if it was the purpose and will of 
 • God, that he should die by the hands of wicked men, 
 then the Jews by crucifying of him, would have done 
 God's will, and of course, would all have stood justi- 
 fied in his sight, which could not be." 
 
 We say this mode of reasoning is inadmissible, and 
 if E. H. carries it throughout, he must, in numerous 
 instances, impute the greatest injustice and cruelty to 
 his " benevolent creator." We shall only notice the 
 ease of Pharaoh, as one of many. 
 
 The Lord sent Moses and Aaron unto him saying, 
 " Go in, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, that he 
 let the children of Israel go out of his land." — But 
 saith he also, "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, 
 and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land 
 of Egypt ; but Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, 
 that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth 
 mine armies, and my people, the children of Israel, 
 out of the land of Egypt, by great judgments." He 
 not only hardened his heart, that he should not let 
 the people go, but he further says, " And indeed for 
 this very cause, have I raised thee up, for to shew in 
 
 G 
 
50 
 
 thee my power, that my name may be declared 
 throughout all the earth." 
 
 Now to apply the reasoning of E. H. to this case. 
 We will form an argument in his own way ; viz : If it 
 was the purpose and will of God to harden Pharaoh's 
 heart, that he should not let the people of Israel go, 
 then Pharaoh, by refusing to hearken unto the voice 
 of Moses, and keeping them in bondage, would have 
 done God's will, and of course would have stood jus- 
 tified in his sight ; and hence all the punishments in- 
 flicted by the Almighty upon Pharaoh, in conse- 
 quence of his refusal to let the children of Israel go, 
 were cruel and unjust. 
 
 The argument in this case, is exactly parallel to 
 that instituted by E. H. to prove that it was not the 
 purpose and will of God, that Christ should suffer 
 death for mankind ; and if we admit his reasoning to 
 be sound, we must convict the Almighty of injustice 
 and wanton cruelty, in punishing Pharaoh, or else 
 deny the Scripture account altogether. 
 
 The ways of God are above our ways, and beyond 
 the ken of our puny powers, and it becomes us rather 
 to believe and adore, than to be pronouncing dogma- 
 tically what must, or must not, result from the ful- 
 filment of his eternal purposes. The Omnipotent 
 Ruler of the universe, " declareth the end from the 
 beginning," and " ordereth all things after the coun - 
 sel of his own will." 
 
 There is no position more universally admitted, 
 than that He is the great First Cause, " by whom all 
 things consist ;" and yet those who believe this, are 
 far from supposing that He is the author of moral 
 evil, though they well know that it abounds in the 
 world. How far he ordains, and how far he permits. 
 
51 
 
 in the great plan of the moral government of man, 
 is not for us to decide, any further than it is revealed 
 to us in the Holy Scriptures : and although these de- 
 clare that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he 
 should not obey the command, yet, it would be im- 
 pious to conclude, that God is thereby implicated in 
 the sin. 
 
 The Jews, too, were completely free agents in the 
 business. They were wicked and hardy enough, vo- 
 luntarily to become the actors in putting to death the 
 Lamb of God — not because they were disposed to 
 fulfil the "determinate counsel of God;" but for 
 the very contrary reason, because they were " of 
 their father the devil, who was a murderer from the 
 beginning." And shall finite man presume to say, 
 that because the Divine Being overruled their actions } 
 and brought good out of evil, that he was an accom- 
 plice in their guilt, or that their wickedness was di- 
 minished ? — No, their intentions were as diabolical 
 as those of any murderer could be, and for these they 
 stood deeply and justly convicted in the sight of 
 Heaven, and for these they were punished. 
 
 The reasoning of E. H., which we last quoted, is 
 therefore wholly inadmissible, and contradicts the 
 testimony of the Scriptures. 
 
 He tells us in the preceding sentence, what Christ 
 came into the world for, viz : " To live a righteous 
 and godly life, (which was the design and end of 
 God's creating man in the beginning) and thereby be 
 a perfect example to such of mankind as should come 
 to the knowledge of him and of his perfect life." 
 
 The assertions in this sentence amount to this: 
 1st. That Christ came only to live a righteous and 
 godly life, and to be a perfect example : 2d. That 
 
52 
 
 the benefits of his coming were limited to such as 
 should come to the knowledge of his perfect example ; 
 3d. That the design of the Almighty in creating man 
 in the beginning, was to live a righteous and godly 
 life, and thereby to be a perfect example — Ergo, the 
 design and end of God's sending Jesus Christ into 
 the world was the same, precisely, as his design and 
 end in creating Adam. Therefore, according to the 
 assertions of E. H., the design and end of God's 
 sending his Son in the flesh, was for no higher, or 
 more important purpose, than the birth of the very 
 meanest of the human species ; for it must be evi- 
 dent, that it is the design and end of God, in sending 
 all of us into this world, that we should live a right- 
 eous and godly life, and thereby be good examples, 
 and glorify our Creator. 
 
 Hence all those mighty preparations, which for 
 hundreds of years had been making, to open the way 
 for the advent of the Messiah ; which began imme- 
 diately after the fall of Adam, and were continued 
 through the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations ; 
 and all those sublime predictions which are contained 
 in the books of the prophets, setting forth the glory 
 and majesty of the Redeemer's kingdom, terminated 
 nran event, no more important or beneficial to man- 
 kind, than the birth of any mortal, peccable being. 
 Is this consistent with the Scriptures ? 
 
 Do not these assertions of Elias Hicks strip our 
 blessed Lord of his eternal Divinity and Godhead 
 and level him with mere man ? — And does not his 
 scheme cut us off from all hope in the atonement, 
 take away the great and glorious objects for which 
 Christ came and suffered in the flesh, and sweep 
 
53 
 
 from the sacred page the most precious and consoling 
 doctrines of the gospel ? 
 
 We are confirmed in these views by the manner in 
 which he speaks of his death, which he says, " was 
 permitted to be, as it had been with many of the pro- 
 phets, and wise and good men that were before him, 
 who suffered death by the hands of wicked men for 
 righteousness sake, as ensamples to those that came 
 after, that they should account nothing too dear to 
 give up for the truth's sake, not even their own lives*" 
 
 Here, he associates the Son of God with "pro- 
 phets, and wise and good men that were before him, 77 
 as being his equals. — He makes his death exactly si- 
 milar to theirs, which is to say, that Christ was a 
 mere martyr. Is this the language of the Bible ? 
 
 Elias Hicks does not use one solitary sentence, 
 throughout the whole letter, which would characte- 
 rize our blessed Lord as the propitiation, the Saviour, 
 the Mediator or Intercessor for a guilty world, al- 
 though he writes the letter for the very purpose of 
 giving his " views of the sufferings of the Son of 
 God, and what was the object of the shedding of his 
 blood on the cross, and what benefits resulted to man- 
 kind by the shedding of his blood ! !" 
 
 But although he has just assured us that Jesus 
 Christ was sent into the world for the same purpose 
 for which Adam was created, and that his death was 
 a parallel with that of " the prophets, and wise and 
 good men that were before him," yet in the next sen- 
 tence he says " But the shedding of his blood by the 
 wicked scribes and pharisees and people of Israel, had 
 a particular effect on the Jewish nation, as by this, 
 the topstone and worst of all their crimes, was rilled 
 up the measure of their iniquities, and which put an 
 
64 
 
 end to that dispensation, together with its law and 
 covenant." 
 
 Now we would ask, why did it happen that the 
 death of Jesus Christ produced this particular effect 
 upon the Jewish nation, rather than the death of 
 either of those " prophets, and wise and good men 
 that were before him;" who, according to the rea- 
 soning of E. H. were created for the same purpose, 
 and died for the same causes, as did the Son of God ? 
 — As E. H. says that God did not send him into the 
 world purposely to suffer death, it must have been a 
 mere chance that his death put an end to the law, — 
 and as Isaiah, John the Baptist, James, Peter, and 
 Paul, were all " w ise and good men," and died " by 
 the hands of wicked men for righteousness sake," we 
 should like to know why E. H. will make the death 
 of Jesus Christ to produce this important effect, in 
 preference to one of these ? 
 
 He proceeds — " that as John's baptism summed 
 up in one all the previous water baptisms of that dis- 
 pensation and put an end to them, which he sealed 
 with his blood, so the sacrifice of the body of Jesus 
 Christ summed up in one all the outward atoning sa- 
 crifices of the shadowy dispensation, and put an end 
 to them all, thereby abolishing the law," &lc. " so 
 that all the Israelites that believed on him, after he 
 exclaimed on the cross, It is finished, might abstain 
 from all the rituals of their law, such as circumcision, 
 water baptisms, outward sacrifices, seventh day sab- 
 baths,' and all their other holy days, and be blame- 
 less," &x. 
 
 These surely are astonishing events to result from 
 the death of one who came only to do what every man 
 is required to do. and who merely died a martyr ! 
 
55 
 
 It appears, however, that Elias Hicks does believe 
 that this 44 topstone and worst of all the crimes, com - 
 mitted by the scribes and pharisees and people of Is- 
 rael, by which the measure of their iniquity was fill- 
 ed up that this diabolical and wicked act, was the 
 means of abolishing the Jewish law and dispensation. 
 — Now if it was the will of God that this law should 
 be abolished, and 44 the sacrifice of the body of Jesus 
 Christ" was the means of its abolishment, as E. H. 
 asserts ; then from his own reasoning, the Jews did 
 the will of God, in crucifying Christ, fully as much, 
 as on the supposition that he came to suffer death for 
 the sins of mankind. 
 
 Let us state the argument in his own language — 
 For if it was the purpose and will of God, that the 
 sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ should sum up 
 in one all the outward atoning sacrifices of the sha- 
 dow y dispensation, and put an end to them all, there- 
 by abolishing the law ; which put an end to that dis- 
 pensation, together with its law and covenant ; then 
 the Jews by crucifying Jesus Christ would have done 
 God's will, and of course would all have stood justi- 
 fied in his sight. 
 
 But E. H. says all this was done by the sacrifice of 
 the body of Jesus Christ. Therefore, according to 
 his reasoning, the Jews did the will of God in com- 
 mitting this topstone and worst of all their crimes. 
 Vs e have here another specimen of his inconsistency; 
 indeed the letter presents us with a tissue of them, on 
 almost every page. 
 
 If, to extricate himself from this difficulty, he says 
 that it was not the purpose and will of God thus to 
 abolish the law, he should, to be consistent, observe 
 all its rituals and ceremonies. And he has virtually 
 
56 
 
 asserted this, for as he declares that Christ did not 
 come 44 purposely to suffer death," and that his death 
 was the topstone and worst of all the crimes commit- 
 ted by the Jewish nation, and consequently very con- 
 trary to the purpose and will of God in sending him 
 into the world, it follows from his mode of reasoning, 
 that if this murderous deed abolished the law, it must 
 have been done away contrary to the purpose and will 
 of God — Ergo, the Law of Moses ought still to be in 
 force. 
 
 Let any serious person read the account of the de- 
 livery of the law to the children of Israel, and the so- 
 lemn injunctions which were laid upon them to ob- 
 serve all its rituals ; and then say whether he thinks 
 it probable that an event which was to annul that law 
 and do it completely away, never came within the 
 design and purposes and will of the Divine Law- 
 giver ? 
 
 Is it probable that a law, ratified and sealed by so 
 many awful and impressive sanctions, could be abro- 
 gated by the mere accidental death of a martyr ? We 
 say accidental, because E. H. asserts that his death 
 was no part of the divine purpose and will. 
 
 Our readers will perceive from the Scriptures that 
 this law partook of the nature of a covenant made be- 
 tween two parties ; and of course it could not be dis- 
 solved by the consent of one party only, and that 
 by far the inferior. — Consequently if it be repealed, it 
 must have been done with the consent and will of 
 Him who gave it. Hence as it was repealed in the 
 will and wisdom of God, and as E. H. asserts that 
 the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ repealed it, 
 he makes the Jews to have done the will of Heaven 
 in putting him to death. 
 
57 
 
 He proceeds to tell us, that " he does 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 ; for as their law 
 was outward, so their legal sins and their penalties 
 were outward, and these could be atoned for by an 
 outward sacrifice." 
 
 We have always understood the word sin to mean 
 moral evil — the violation of the law and commands 
 of God ; and we are utterly at a loss to know what 
 " outward or legal sin" can mean. If God command 
 his creature man to do any thing, however unimpor- 
 tant the thing itself may appear to him to be, the dis- 
 obedience of that command is positive sin — it is moral 
 evil. The thing itself abstractly considered, may be 
 neither good nor evil ; the crime is in transgressing 
 the law of God, and this must always be absolute sin. 
 If therefore, E. H. alludes to the neglect of the Jew- 
 ish ritual, when he speaks of " legal or outward sin, 5 ' 
 the case is not altered. The Jews w 7 ere as positive- 
 ly commanded to observe all those rituals, as they 
 were to fulfil the precepts of the Decalogue ; and the 
 neglect to do so, was an act of rebellion and disobe- 
 dience to a positive command of God, and therefore 
 was positive sin or moral evil. 
 
 Now E. H. distinctly admits in the sentence which 
 we last quoted from his letter, that the crucifixion of 
 the outward body of flesh and blood of Jesus on the 
 cross, was an atonement for these legal sins of the 
 Jews — that is, that the Jews were released from the 
 curse or penalty, which they had incurred by trans- 
 gressing their law, through the atoning sacrifice, or 
 sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, whom he calls 
 " an innocent and righteous one." 
 
58 
 
 In admitting, therefore, that the legal sins of the 
 Jews could be, and were atoned for, by an outward 
 sacrifice, and that this sacrifice was the death of Je- 
 sus Christ on the cross, E. Hicks has fully recogniz- 
 ed and granted the principle of vicarious and propi- 
 tiatory suffering and death of " an innocent and right- 
 eous one" on behalf, and in lieu of the guilty ; and 
 yet in the same letter, speaking of the Christian's be- 
 lief in this doctrine, he declares it to be " wicked 
 and absurd" — u an outrage against every righteous 
 law of God and man," and asks whether any rational 
 creature that has any right sense of justice and mercy, 
 w 7 ould be willing to accept forgiveness of his sins upon 
 such terms ? 
 
 Is this consistency ? To admit the doctrine of atone- 
 ment on one page, and anathematise it, and the be- 
 lievers in it, on the next ? The distinction of " legal 
 or outward sin," makes nothing in his favour, for 
 the principle of atonement is the same, even if we ad- 
 mit the distinction to be correct, which it evidently 
 is not. If the sins of the Jews could be atoned for 
 by an outward sacrifice, and " this too by the hands 
 of wicked men, slaying an innocent and righteous 
 one," as E. H. asserts, upon the same principle the 
 sins of Christians may be atoned for, by the same 
 sacrifice. What are we to think then of his expres- 
 sions in relation to those who believe in the apostle's 
 doctrine of the atonement, when he says, that any 
 person acknowledging a willingness to be saved 
 through such a medium, would shew himself to be a 
 poor selfish creature, unworthy of notice ? 
 
 He admits the doctrine in behalf of the Jews, why 
 then be so severe upon those who claim it for Chris- 
 tians f 
 
59 
 
 He proceeds in his letter — " And this last outward 
 sacrifice was a full type of the inward sacrifice, that 
 every sinner must make, in giving up that sinful life 
 of his own will, in and by which, he hath from time 
 to time crucified the innocent life of God in his own 
 soul" — " Now all this life, power, and will of man, 
 must be slain and die on the cross spiritually, as Je- 
 sus died on the cross outwardly, and this is the true 
 atonement, which that outward atonement was a clear 
 and full type of." 
 
 This mystical language of " giving up that sinful 
 life, and its being slain and dying on the cross," &;c. 
 rat ans simply that a wicked man should forsake his 
 wickedness and learn to do well ; and the sentiment 
 is fairly inculcated, that a man may thus make 
 atonement for his own sins: that he may go on for 
 years sinning against God, then turn about and be- 
 come religious, and claim the forgiveness of h is past 
 sins as due to his present righteousness. On the same 
 principle, past righteousness could atone for present 
 sin ; all which any one may see is entirely contrary 
 to the plainest doctrines of the Gospel. 
 
 The natural depravity of man, his utter helpless- 
 ness, and his inability to extricate himself from the 
 wretched situation into which sin has plunged him ; 
 the necessity of a propitiation and a mediator, are 
 fully set forth in the sacred volume. 
 
 Our blessed Lord told his disciples, that after they 
 had done all that was commanded them, they should 
 say " we are unprofitable servants, we have done no 
 more than it was our duty to do." Now, we are 
 commanded to keep the whole law of God all our 
 lives long, and it is our duty to obey the command. 
 If a man go on in rebellion against this law for a se~ 
 
60 
 
 lies of years, and is ^then through the goodness of 
 God, awakened to a sense of his sinful state, and be- 
 gins to amend his ways — or as Elias Hicks expresses 
 it, 44 gives up that sinful life of his own will to die on 
 the cross," can this amendment of life be any atone- 
 ment for his past wickedness, when, if he had faith- 
 fully kept the whole law of God all his life long, he 
 would have been but an unprofitable servant, and 
 have done no more than it was his duty to do ? 
 
 This doctrine of self-atonement, though inculcated 
 by E. H., is no where mentioned in the Scriptures, 
 nor supported by them. 
 
 Speaking of the sin of our first parents, he says, 
 $< They don't appear to have been guilty of but one 
 failure, and that it appears they made satisfaction 
 for, at the time of their first arraignment by their be- 
 nevolent Creator, manifesting sorrow and repent- 
 ance." 
 
 That the transgression of Adam and Eve, merited 
 a more forcible appellation than " a failure or a mis- 
 step," is very obvious from the punishment which 
 followed it. Now, to examine the assertions of E. 
 H. : first, that " it appears they made satisfaction for 
 this failure at the time of their first arraignment." 
 
 This is not only unsupported by Scripture, but in- 
 consistent with it. If they made satisfaction for the 
 crime, they must have done away the guilt and pe- 
 nalty; and it would have been highly unjust in their 
 benevolent Creator to punish them for " a failure," 
 which they had made satisfaction for. But the Bible 
 tells us that he did punish them, [see Genesis,] con- 
 sequently, they could not have made satisfaction for 
 the sin. 
 
 Further, he says " they manifested sorrow and re- 
 
61 
 
 pentance." This is equally at variance with the Bi- 
 ble. It tells us that they began making excuses, 
 and trying to shift the blame upon some one else. 
 The woman says, " the serpent beguiled me, and I 
 did eat ;" and Adam, as though he would impute a 
 part of the blame to his Maker, says, " the woman 
 whom thou gavest me to be with me, she gave me of 
 the tree and I did eat." 
 
 We are unable to find any tokens of sorrow or re- 
 pentance in any part of the Scripture narrative. Adam 
 and Eve seem to have no idea themselves of having 
 made satisfaction, or they would not have attempted 
 to hide themselves from the presence of their benevo- 
 lent Creator. Adam says, " I heard thy voice in the 
 garden, and / was afraid" Where would have been 
 the occasion for this slavish fear, if they had made 
 satisfaction for the crime, and manifested sorrow and 
 repentance ? 
 
 The next sentence is predicated upon no better au- 
 thority, viz. " Which (viz. their making satisfaction, 
 &c.) seems to be fairly implied by the sequel of the 
 interview between them, for it is said he clothed 
 them with coats of skin to hide their nakedness, 
 which is an emblem of durable clothing," &c. 
 
 Clothing them with coats of skins, was certainly no 
 evidence of their having made satisfaction ; because, 
 while in a state of innocence and purity, before they 
 sinned, they were naked and needed no clothing. 
 The necessity for clothing was the effect of their sin ; 
 and the wearing of it must have been a constant and 
 painful memento of their fall from their primeval state 
 of happiness. The Hebrew word signifies the "skins 
 of beasts," and we should rather think these indica- 
 tive of the ascendancy which the animal passions had 
 
62 
 
 obtained over them by their fall, than emblems of the 
 pure and holy covering of the Lord's Spirit, which E. 
 H. would make them to signify. 
 
 Again, says E. H., " their nakedness was not an 
 outward one, but a nakedness of soul." 
 
 The Bible says, " they were both naked, the man 
 and his wife, and they were not ashamed" This 
 proves beyond a doubt that their nakedness ivas an 
 outward nakedness, else why say " they were not 
 ashamed ?" We would ask E. H., if it was not 
 an outward nakedness, how could he clothe them 
 with coats of skin ? Could " a nakedness of soul," be 
 removed by covering them with garments made from 
 the skins of beasts ? 
 
 He proceeds : " And inasmuch as those idle pro- 
 mulgators of original sin, believe they are made sin- 
 ners without their consent or knowledge, which, ac- 
 cording to the nature and reason of things, every ra- 
 tional mind must see is impossible, so likewise they 
 are idle and ignorant enough to believe they are made 
 righteous without their consent or knowledge, by the 
 righteousness of one who lived on the earth near two 
 thousand years before they had an existence ; and 
 this by the cruel hands of wicked men slaying an 
 innocent and righteous one." 
 
 We would here request our readers particularly to 
 notice, that the subject treated on in this part of the 
 letter, (from the sentence which we have just quoted, 
 to the concluding paragraph,) is undeniably, the 
 Christian's belief in the doctrine of the propitiation 
 of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. We should 
 recollect too, that Elias Hicks has before granted the 
 principle of atonement, by admitting that the cruci- 
 fixion of the outward body of flesh and blood of Je- 
 
63 
 
 sus on the cross, was an atonement for the legal sins 
 of the Jews ; and of consequence, he makes the 
 Jews righteous, touching those points of the law 
 wherein they had transgressed, (or their legal sins,) 
 " by the righteousness of one who lived on the earth," 
 nearly fifteen hundred years after that law was given ; 
 " and this by the cruel hands of wicked men slaying 
 an innocent and righteous one;" and he is therefore 
 as much chargeable with being " idle and ignorant" 
 in doing so, as those are who hold up the propitiation 
 of Jesus Christ, for the belief of Christians. We do 
 not, however, consider his statement to be correct, as 
 we are not acquainted with any Christians who be- 
 lieve they are made righteous ivithout their consent or 
 knowledge, through the atoning blood of the Son of 
 God. 
 
 While we reverently and gratefully acknowledge 
 the blessed advantages purchased for mankind by his 
 precious sufferings and death on the cross, we are far 
 from believing that this alone, constitutes the whole 
 work of the Christian's salvation. We believe most 
 sincerely, that his death was the procuring cause of 
 the more full and general diffusion of the Holy Spirit, 
 which constitutes the glory of these gospel days ; 
 and that obedience to the influences of this Spirit, 
 are necessary for the work of sanctification. Yet we 
 can no more separate the outpouring of the Holy 
 Ghost, and the mediation and intercession of our ado- 
 rable Redeemer, from that most acceptable sacrifice 
 which he made of himself for the sins of the whole 
 world, than we can assert, that this sacrifice of itself, 
 justifies the sinner while he continues in his sins. 
 The outward offering and the inward work are ne- 
 cessarily and inseparably connected, as cause and ef- 
 
64 
 
 feet, and are both essential and indispensable to man's 
 salvation. 
 
 We have already cited many texts of Scripture, 
 which assert that our blessed Lord and his apostles 
 taught the very doctrine which Elias Hicks stiles us 
 " idle and ignorant" for believing ; and the only de- 
 fence which we shall make on the occasion, is simply 
 to ask the question, Who is most likely to be right, 
 Jesus Christ and his apostles, or Elias Hicks ? 
 
 The following language of Paul, " who was not 
 a whit behind the very chiefest of the apostles," 
 comes directly to the point mentioned in the last quo- 
 tation from the letter : " And, therefore, it was impu- 
 ted to him for righteousness. Now, it was not writ- 
 ten for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him, 
 hxxtfor us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we be- 
 lieve on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the 
 dead, who was delivered for our offences, and was 
 raised again for our justification." Rom. c. iv., v. 22, 
 23, 24, 25. " Therefore, as by the offence of one, 
 judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even 
 so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came 
 upon all men unto justification of life ; for as by one 
 man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by 
 the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" 
 Rom. c. v., v. 18. 
 
 Again, E. H. says, " And these, (viz. those who 
 believe that the atonement was made for the sins of 
 the whole world,) are bold and daring enough to lay 
 this cruel and unholy act in the charge of divine jus- 
 tice, as having purposely ordained it to be so ; but 
 what an outrage it is against every righteous law of 
 God and man, as the Scriptures abundantly testi- 
 fy," &c. 
 
65 
 
 On this passage we have only to remark, that we 
 have proved before, that E. H. by making this " cruel 
 and unholy act," the means of abolishing the law and 
 atoning for the sins of the Jews, has " laid it in the 
 charge of divine justice," fully as much as tho-igh he 
 believed with the apostle John, that Jesus Christ was 
 " the propitiation, not for our (the Jew's) sins only, 
 but for the sins of the whole world" 
 
 It is a little remarkable, that, from his abundant 
 testimony in the Scriptures, he could not have pro- 
 duced some passages more relevant and forcible than 
 those he has selected. They make directly against 
 him : for, although the Jews committed this " cruel 
 and unholy act," yet he grants that it was an atone- 
 ment for their legal sins, which seems much like 
 giving them a reward for slaying the innocent. 
 
 " And much," he says, " might be produced to 
 show the wickedness and absurdity of the doctrine, 
 that would accuse the perfectly just, all wise, and 
 merciful Jehovah, of so barbarous and cruel an act, 
 as that, of slaying his innocent and righteous Son, to 
 atone for the sins and iniquities of the ungodly." 
 
 " The doctrine," to which E. H. attaches this 
 wickedness and absurdity, is evidently that of the 
 atonement of Jesus Christ. We are not aware, how- 
 ever, that " the doctrine," or any of its believers, 
 bring this gross accusation against the Supreme Be- 
 ing. His letter makes this " barbarous act," the ap- 
 pointed means of abolishing the law, and of atoning 
 for the sins of the Jews, who committed it ; and 
 hence he would seem, from his own reasoning, quite 
 as fully to make the accusation, as those to whom 
 he wishes to impute it. 
 
 We really regret that he cannot refer to the doc- 
 
 i 
 
66 
 
 trine in question, without branding it with epithets, 
 which must be painful to all pious Christians. 
 Throughout the whole letter, the subject is not once 
 alluded to, without an attempt, lamentably obvious, 
 to present it in a forbidding, or even disgusting form. 
 \ calm and temperate assertion of his own belief, 
 might be well ; but with this he does not seem to be 
 contented. Christian charity would, we should sup- 
 pose, induce him to respect the feelings of those who 
 sincerely believe, with the Scriptures, that it is the 
 only medium of reconciliation which God hath ap- 
 pointed. 
 
 " Surely," he says, " is it possible, that any ra- 
 tional being that has any right sense of justice or 
 mercy, that would be willing to ACCEPT forgive- 
 ness of his sins on such terms." 
 
 The words " such terms," evidently mean the vi- 
 carious sufferings of Jesus Christ — Once more then 
 to the Bible. Does it not tell us in the plainest 
 language that can possibly be used, that this propitia- 
 tion is the medium of redemption — that these are the 
 terms upon which forgiveness of sin is offered? 
 
 Paul says to the Romans, " Whom God hath set 
 forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, 
 to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins 
 that are past, through the forbearance of God ; to de- 
 clare, I say, at this time his righteousness, that he 
 might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth 
 in Jesus. 7 ' To the Corinthians, " For he hath made 
 him to be sin (or as in the Greek, a sin offering) for 
 us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the 
 righteousness of God in him." To the Galatians, 
 " Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver 
 us from this present evil world, according to the will of 
 
67 
 
 God and our Father." To the Ephesians, " Be ye kind 
 to one another, tender hearted, forgiving one ano- 
 ther, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven 
 you." — " To the praise of the glory of his grace, 
 wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved, in 
 whom ice have redemption through his blood, even the 
 forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his 
 grace." To the Colossians, " And you that were 
 sometime alienated, and enemies in your minds, by 
 wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body 
 of his flesh through death ; to present you holy and 
 unblameable, and unreproveable in his sight." To 
 Timothy, " For there is one God, and one mediator 
 between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave 
 himself a Ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 
 
 To Titus, " Looking for that blessed hope, and the 
 glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Je- 
 sus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might re- 
 deem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a 
 peculiar people, zealous of good works." Hebrews, 
 " By the which will we are sanctified, through the of- 
 fering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all" — 
 " for by one offering he hath perfected for ever them 
 that are sanctified." Peter, " Forasmuch as ye know 
 that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, 
 as silver and gold, from your vain conversation re- 
 ceived by tradition from your fathers, but by the pre- 
 cious blood of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish 
 and without spot.'" " Who, his ownself bare our sins 
 in his own body on the tree, that we being dead to 
 sins, should live unto righteousness, by whose stripes ye 
 were healed." " For Christ also, hath once suffered for 
 sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us 
 
68 
 
 to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quicken- 
 ed by the Spirit." 
 
 Now after reading these, and many other portions 
 of Scripture, which we could produce if necessary, 
 can any one doubt that God does offer us forgive- 
 ness of sins upon "such terms" (as E. H. call the pro- 
 pitiation of our Redeemer), and upon none other ; 
 yet he queries, whether " any rational being that 
 has any right sense of justice or mercy, would be 
 willing to accept it" 
 
 But E. H. by using the word ACCEPT, must ne- 
 cessarily suppose that " such terms" might be offer- 
 ed — for how could a man accept what was not ten- 
 dered to him ? — And yet, although it is God who offers, 
 man the sinner may refuse to accept them. And why 
 not accept them ? Because he says " such terms are 
 wicked and absurd, and an outrage against every 
 righteous law of God and man." 
 
 Does he suppose then, that the Holy, Wise, and 
 Just God, has offered, or could offer to us, the for- 
 giveness of sins upon such terms, that if man has any 
 right sense of justice or mercy, he would not accept 
 them ? How destitute then of any right sense of jus- 
 tice and mercy, does the reasoning of this letter make 
 Him to be, who, as the Bible declares, does offer to 
 our acceptance "such terms." 
 
 Elias Hicks, as we have before stated, asserts that 
 upon " such terms" forgiveness of sins was offered 
 to the Jews ; that is, " by the hands of wicked men 
 slaying an innocent and righteous one." Now we 
 should like to know, whether he considers those Jews 
 who accepted 44 such terms," to have been destitute 
 44 of any right sense of justice or mercy ;" to have 
 been 44 standing in direct opposition to every princi- 
 
69 
 
 pie of justice and honesty, of mercy and love, and to 
 have been poor, selfish creatures, unworthy of notice." 
 It would follow from his reasoning on this subject, 
 that those Jews who utterly rejected the atonement 
 which E. H. says, expiated then sins, and persecu- 
 ted Jesus Christ unto death, were the most just and 
 honest among their nation, and the least selfish in 
 their views. 
 
 Again : says E. H. " Would he not rather go for- 
 ward, and offer himself wholly up to suffer all the 
 penalties due to his crimes, rather than the innocent 
 should surfer ?" 
 
 As regards the sufferings of Jesus Christ, they 
 were entirely voluntary ', as the Scriptures abundant- 
 ly shew 7 ; consequently the latter clause of this sen- 
 tence loses all its force. He freely and of his own 
 will, gave himself a ransom for us — a sacrifice well 
 pleasing unto God. 
 
 What now is the penalty, or " all the penalties, 
 due to man's crimes ?" Let the Bible answer — " Tri- 
 bulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth 
 evil" — " Everlasting destruction from the presence 
 of the Lord and the glory of his power" — " To be 
 cast into hell" — " Suffering the vengeance of eternal 
 fire" — " Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is 
 not quenched" — " To be cast into the lake that burn- 
 etii with fire and brimstone" — " The smoke of whose 
 torment ascendeth for ever and ever." 
 
 Is it not, then, a plain inference from the language 
 of this letter, " that any rational being that has any 
 right sense of justice and mercy, would rather go 
 forward, and offer his soul up to suffer all these pe- 
 nalties," rather than accept the forgiveness of sins 
 through the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ ? 
 
70 
 
 And yet the Scriptures, as we have before shown, 
 fully assert that these are the terms upon which that 
 forgiveness is offered. 
 
 "Nay," says E. H. "was he so hardy as to ac- 
 knowledge 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 ?" 
 
 Here, the words " such a medium" refer to the 
 atonement, as must be evident from the context. 
 What, then, saith this sentence ? Was any rational 
 being so hardy as to acknowledge a willingness to be 
 saved through that medium, which the Scriptures de- 
 clare to be the only medium of salvation that God 
 hath appointed, viz. the coming, sufferings, and death 
 of the Son of God, as a sacrifice for sin ; would it 
 not prove that rational being to be standing in direct 
 opposition to every principle of justice and honesty, 
 of mercy and love, and show him to be a poor selfish 
 creature, and unworthy of notice ? 
 
 Now T , if man would thus debase and degrade him- 
 self by accepting, or by merely acknowledging a 
 imllingness to be saved through the offered medium ; 
 what must HE be who could ordain and appoint 
 that medium ? We tremble when we reflect upon the 
 inferences which result from the reasoning contained 
 in this letter. Does it not make the Pure and Infi- 
 nite Jehovah, the Judge of the spirits of all flesh, to 
 be standing in direct opposition to every principle of 
 justice and honesty, of mercy and love, and to be a 
 poor selfish creature, and unworthy of notice ! ! 
 
 Let the reader contrast the sentiments avowed in 
 
71 
 
 this letter, with the views and the feelings of a truly 
 awakened and penitent sinner. 
 
 Humbled in the dust under an agonizing sense of 
 the amazing weight of his sins, and the just punish- 
 ment which they merit ; conscious of his utter inabi- 
 lity to extricate himself from this dreadful situation, 
 into which his iniquities have plunged him ; the re- 
 penting sinner casts about him a look of anxious in- 
 quiry, and exclaims in the anguish of remorse, " Oh 
 wretched man that 1 am, who shall deliver me from 
 the body of this death ?" 
 
 Conscious of his utter unworthiness and nothing- 
 ness in the Divine sight, he " dare not so much as lift 
 his eyes to heaven," but " smiting upon his breast," 
 cries out " God be merciful to me a sinner." Fully 
 aware that his multiplied crimes have brought upon 
 him all the penalties of the violated law, and that the 
 just sentence of everlasting condemnation is upon 
 him, he can most truly and sincerely adopt the lan- 
 guage, " A Saviour or I die, a Redeemer or I perish 
 for ever." 
 
 Would such a man, think ye, talk of not accepting 
 the forgiveness of his sins, on the terms of the propi- 
 tiation of Jesus Christ ? Would he consider the doc- 
 trine of the atonement, as wicked and absurd ; as an 
 outrage against every righteous law of God and man ? 
 Would he rather go forward and offer himself wholly 
 up to suffer all the pangs and woes and torments, 
 which he feels to be due to his crimes, rather than be 
 saved through that medium which the Bible declares, 
 God has offered him ? 
 
 Far, very far from this. With what humble and 
 reverent gratitude and joy would such a suppliant 
 sinner listen to the gladdening assurances of the gos- 
 
72 
 
 pel of Christ, 44 That when we were yet without 
 strength, in due time, Christ died for the ungodly" — 
 that God commendeth his love toward us, in that 
 while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us ; " that 
 being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from 
 wrath through him " for if when we were enemies, 
 w r e were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, 
 much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his 
 life." 
 
 How fully, how emphatically, would these gra- 
 cious declarations, prove " glad tidings of great joy," 
 to such a sinner as we have described, and how dif- 
 ferent would every feeling and sentiment of his soul 
 be, from the language of this letter. 
 
 The author of this letter appears to deny the divi- 
 nity and Godhead of Jesus Christ, and to consider 
 him a mere man. He rejects the Christian doctrine 
 of the atonement in the most decided and positive 
 language. — His scheme seems to cut us off from all 
 hope of mercy through this means, and to make man 
 the redeemer* of himself. 
 
 Well may we adopt the language of an inspired 
 writer "Can a man be profitable unto God, as he 
 that is wise may be profitable unto himself? Is it 
 any pleasure to the Almighty that thou art righteous, 
 or is it any gain to him that thou makest thy ways 
 perfect? What, hast thou that thou didst not receive? 
 Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as 
 if thou hadst not received it ?" 
 
 Instead of claiming the forgiveness of sins and the 
 blessedness of heaven on the ground of personal wor- 
 
 * The word Redeemer is here used in its strictest sense. Re- 
 dimo, its Latin root, signifies to buy back— to rescue by paying a 
 price. 
 
73 
 
 thiness, it would be acting more in character, for a 
 sinful wretch to cry out, " Behold I am vile, what 
 shall I answer thee ? I will lay my hand upon my 
 mouth — Once have I spoken, but I will not answer, 
 yea twice, but I will proceed no further. Enter not 
 into judgment with thy servant, Oh! Lord, for in 
 thy si^ht shall no man living be justified." 
 
 The author of the document which we have been 
 examining, commences his observations with saying, 
 that " all truth is simple when we free ourselves from 
 the improper bias of tradition and education ;" and 
 concludes them, by recommending us to " shake off 
 all traditional views imbibed from external evidences" 
 a term which he frequently uses to designate the 
 Holy Scriptures. 
 
 It appears from these expressions, as well as from 
 the general tenor of the letter, that it is a necessary 
 preliminary to becoming converts to Elias Hicks' doc- 
 trine, that we should divest our minds of all regard 
 to, or belief in, those plain and positive truths which 
 we have been taught to revere from our childhood ; 
 which holv men of all ages and of different countries, 
 since the Christian era, have held most sacred — 
 Truths, which the Scriptures assert in the most so- 
 lemn and impressive manner, and in support of which, 
 thousands of pious Christians have suffered martyr- 
 dom. And truly we think, that before any person of 
 sane mind, could adopt the sentiments which this letr 
 ter contains, he must shake off, not only " all tradi- 
 tional views," but also a due reverence for sacred 
 things, as well as all common sense and consistency, 
 and totally discard his belief in the sacred volume. 
 
 FINIS. 
 

 
 Prill 
 
 
 "heological Seminary-Speei LiDMry 
 
 
 1 
 
 1012 01008 7221