■>.// 
 
 
 5CC 
 
NARRATIVE 
 
 
 PROCEEDINGS 
 
 OF 
 
 THE SOCIETY. CALLED QUAKERS \ 
 
 WITHIN THE 
 
 QUARTERLY MEETING 
 
 FOR 
 
 LONDON AND MIDDLESEX, 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 THOMAS FOSTER, 
 
 FOR OPENLY PROFESSING THEIR PRIMITIVE DOCTRINES 
 
 Concerning the 
 
 UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 " The first of all the commandments is : — Hear, O Israel ! the Lord 
 our God is ONE Lord — The true worshippers shall worship the 
 Father in spirit, and in truth. For the Father seeketh such to 
 worship him." Jesus Christ. 
 
 " After the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of 
 my fathers." Paul. 
 
 " For the service «f Jesus of Nazareth, is the service of THE God 
 and Father of Jesus of Nazareth." William Penn. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 Printed Jry C Stoiver, Hackney, 
 AND SOLD BY J. JOHNSON AND CO. ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, 
 LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME & BROWN, AND C. CRAD0CK 
 & W. JOY, PATERNOSTER-ROW, AND BY ALL BOOK- 
 SELLERS IN TOWN AND COUNTRY. 
 
 1813. 
 
( in ) 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 IF the proceedings detailed in the ensuing pages, 
 were of no importance except as they relate to my- 
 self, it would be wholly unnecessary to publish 
 them. I am content under their operation. But 
 I could not remain silent, believing that, if the 
 principles on which these proceedings are founded 
 were generally acted upon, it would tend to the 
 exclusion of many from a Society, for the welfare 
 of which I am still solicitous, and even a small 
 minority might discard and disown the far greater 
 part of its members, as unsound in the faith. This, 
 I am aware, is only matter of opinion, and I state 
 it as such. It has, however, been derived from the 
 information which attention to the subject, for more 
 than thirty years, has afforded. Within that period, 
 also, I have known persons in every station in the 
 Society, ministers, elders and overseers, openly and 
 decidedly advocating the doctrine of the strict Unity 
 
and essential placability of God, without any cen- 
 sure from the church. Hence I concluded these 
 were still the doctrines of the Society, as I, in 
 early life, considered them to be those of its most 
 eminent writers, obscure and mystical as some parts 
 of their works undoubtedly are. 
 
 I have found, however, by experience, that in 
 the judgment of the Monthly and Quarterly Meet- 
 ing, of which I was a member, according to the 
 usual, but uncertain mode of declaring such judg- 
 ment, the open profession of such truly Christian 
 and Scriptural doctrines, is no longer to be tolerated. 
 But I have, understood, since the decision of the 
 latter of those Meetings, that it has been said, " that 
 the ground of the Meeting's judgment, was not the 
 scruples, the doubts, the opinions, which Thomas 
 Foster entertained, but his injudicious proclamation 
 of them." That "had he kept them to himself, or 
 spoken of them, in proper places only, and at pro- 
 per times, he might have been a member of the 
 Society to this day/' These are the sentiments of 
 a man, who must have been well acquainted with 
 the secret springs of action, and with the grounds 
 of a decision, which were not explained in the 
 Meeting, nor likely to have been otherwise gener- 
 ally known. 
 
 Had my offences been described to the Quar- 
 terly Meeting, as consisting in such indiscretions 
 as these, they might not have been declared by 
 that Meeting, deserving of the severest punish- 
 
ment the Society has power to inflict. For, after 
 all, what is their amount ? That in declaring my 
 views of Christian truth, I paid more regard to 
 the plain positive command of our great Master, 
 to publish his doctrines on the house top, than 
 to the miserable calculations of fallible men, about 
 proper times and places. In short, that I refused, 
 in matters of faith and worship, to call any man 
 master, upon earth. 
 
 I am aware, I have often given similar cause 
 of offence, to those rulers in the church, who are 
 governed by such worldly and temporising maxims, 
 the commandments of men. The ensuing pages 
 state the ostensible grounds of the proceedings against 
 me, but as other topics of complaint were frequent- 
 ly alleged, particularly, " the sentiments I had oc- 
 casionally expressed, in Meetings for Discipline," 
 as noticed, p. 63, &c. I will here state, generally, 
 what those sentiments were, from which my ac- 
 cusers inferred, that I was actuated by a hostile 
 disposition towards the Society. Yet so far as I 
 imagine they can have given offence, they have 
 I may venture to say, been, uniformly in favour 
 of what I considered Christian truth, or in de- 
 fence of Christian liberty. For instance : — 
 
 In the year 1799, a proposition was brought up to 
 the Yearly Meeting, respecting the propriety of lend- 
 ing our meeting-houses to persons of other Societies. 
 It was discussed, at two sittings, and resulted in a 
 
minute, declaring "that our meeting-houses should 
 not be lent to the ministers of other Societies, who do 
 not profess to depend on divine direction, in every step 
 taken in worship and ministry " 
 
 The extravagant, exclusive pretensions which this 
 minute set up, and the great illiberality which it in- 
 dicated, induced me warmly to oppose it, unaccus- 
 tomed as I was to speak in so large an assembly. 
 
 Many others opposed this measure, but in vain ; 
 for the Friends round the table, declared it to be the 
 sense of the Meeting, that this restriction on those 
 who were otherwise minded, should pass into a law. 
 It is recorded in the Book of Extracts, p. S5, 86. 
 
 My earnest opposition to this minute, I consider as 
 the first offence I had publicly given to the leading- 
 disciplinarians in the Society. And it is remark- 
 able, that my excellent friend, Hannah Barnard, to 
 whom I was then a total stranger, first offended 
 them, by impressively bearing her testimony against 
 this truly sectarian, and unchristian regulation. 
 
 Continuing to be dissatisfied with this rule, on 
 the 22nd of March, 1801, I urged Ratcliff Monthly 
 Meeting, in a regular, constitutional manner, but 
 without success, to forward a proposition to the Quar- 
 terly Meeting, and through that, to the Yearly Meet- 
 ing, for reconsidering, amending, or repealing the said 
 rule, which I then stated to be, as 1 still consider it, 
 highly injurious to the reputation of the Society. 
 
 At the Yearly Meeting in 1801, a rule was made, 
 which directed " that no books concerning the princu 
 
Vll 
 
 pies of Friends be printed, without being carefully 
 read, and corrected, if necessary, by the Morning 
 Meeting in London." In the first edition of the Book 
 of Extracts, p. 15, a minute in the same words is in- 
 serted, to which the dates 1679, 1672 are annex- 
 ed, importing that it was agreed to by the Yearly 
 Meeting, in one of those years. Having strong resson 
 to believe, that the minutes of that Meeting concern- 
 ing books, in those years, were of a very different im- 
 port, I inquired in the Meeting, on what authority 
 that minute was inserted. J. G. Bevan at length re- 
 plied, that the records had been searched, and no such 
 minute was to be found, under either of those dates, 
 or any other that he could discover. He therefore 
 proposed that it should be omitted. This was how- 
 ever objected to, and after several attempts to give 
 this new rule the air of antiquity, by antedating it, an 
 ingenious device to accomplish the same object, by 
 prefixing a preface to it, was adopted. In this " the re- 
 vision of manuscripts by the second day's Morning 
 Meeting," was represented as " the ancient and approv- 
 ed practice of our religious Society," and the Yearly 
 Meeting declared it to be its judgment, " that the 
 said practice be invariably observed" Yet the genu- 
 ine minutes of 1672 — 1679, related solely to there- 
 vision of such works as were printed at the expence 
 of the Society, and gave no right of controul over its 
 members, with respect to any other publications. The 
 detection and exposure of this pious fraud, or eccle- 
 siastical forgery, would of course form one item 
 
nil 
 
 among my offences. This rule I consider as having 
 been since virtually repealed, as I would have* shewn, 
 inter aliis, if I had been permitted, as an appellant 
 to examine the records of the Yearly Meeting. See 
 p. 126. 
 
 At the same Yearly Meeting, notwithstanding the 
 imposition of silence on the members of the Quar- 
 terly Meeting of London and Middlesex, in breach 
 of a positive engagement with Hannah Barnard; I 
 publicly expressed to the Meeting my entire dis- 
 approbation of its decision on her case. Soon 
 after this, I published, " An Appeal to the So- 
 ciety of Friends, on the primitive simplicity of 
 their Christian principles and church discipline," in 
 three parts. 
 
 In the first part I designed to promote the cause of 
 truth, and the best interests of the Society, by hold- 
 ing up to their view such sound, liberal, and scriptu- 
 ral doctrines of its early and most distingusshed au- 
 thors, as appeared to me to have been of late years, 
 most misunderstood, misrepresented, or forgotten. 
 The manner in which I did this, was, I imagined 
 the best I could adopt, as an argumentum ad hominem, 
 by exhibiting the doctrines in question, in the words 
 of those authors, with references to the passages 
 quoted. In doing this, totally inexperienced as I was 
 in the business of authorship, and connected as 
 many of the passages I had occasion to cite, were 
 with other subjects, it was difficult, within any mo- 
 derate bounds, to adduce such as were to my purpose, 
 
without rendering myself liable to a charge of mak- 
 ing partial and uncandid quotations. 
 
 The principal subjects which I was anxious to im- 
 press upon my readers, in this tract were, 1st, " the 
 important doctrine of the entire and undivided unity 
 of the Deity." 2ndly. That the doctrine of the ple- 
 nary inspiration of the sacred writers, was untenable, 
 and necessarily tended to decrease the credit and in- 
 fluence of the Scriptures, " those most excellent of all 
 writings/* 3rdly. The simplicity, and sufficiency of 
 the conditions of religious fellowship in the primi- 
 tive Christian church, as laid down in the New Tes- 
 tament, with the disadvantages which would necessa- 
 rily follow, from the adoption of more extended ar- 
 ticles of faith, as the requisite terms of Christian 
 communion. 
 
 A few months after, I published the second part 
 of the " Appeal." In this I traced out, princi- 
 pally from the minutes of the Yearly Meeting, the 
 following conclusive evidence of the systematic ex- 
 tension of the power and influence of the meetings 
 of ministers and elders, and the ^consequent dissolu- 
 tion of their former connection with, and regular 
 subordination to, the Meetings for Discipline. To 
 these they were, previous to the year 17S4, nothing 
 but standing committees, required to present to the 
 Quarterly Meetings for Discipline, every three months, 
 reports relative to their own conduct, and to the man- 
 ner in which they had transacted the business entrusted 
 to their care. Till this time, it does not appear, that they 
 b 
 
even kept any record of the names of the persons, who 
 were, from time to time, appointed on these commit- 
 tees. But it was now directed, " that the Monthly 
 Meetings of ministers and elders, should transmit, 
 to the Quarterly Meetings of ministers and elders, 
 a list of the names of their members, to be kept there, 
 on record." 
 
 The Yearly Meeting having thus enabled these com- 
 mittees to keep up a marked and permanent distinc- 
 tion, between their own members, and the rest of their 
 brethren, in religious profession, and constituted 
 them Meetings of record, ordered, in 1786, " that in 
 future, the representatives to the Yearly Meeting 
 of ministers and elders, be such, as are in the station 
 of elders, or ministers, where elders cannot be found. 
 And that Quarterly and Monthly Meetings of minis- 
 ters and elders, be very cautious, how they admit any, 
 besides those who are proper members, (viz. ministers 
 in unity with their respective Meetings, and appoint- 
 ed elders,) to sit in those Meetings, that the freedom 
 necessary to be exercised therein, in a watchful care 
 over each other, may not be interrupted" These 
 committees were thus rendered in their collective 
 capacity, an insulated body, equally removed from 
 inspection and controul. The same Yearly Meet- 
 ing also directed, " that in future, the answers (to 
 the queries) be transmitted from the Quarterly, to 
 the Yearly Meeting of ministers and elders, without 
 passing through the Quarterly Meetings for Disci- 
 pline, with this provision, that the same may be call- 
 
ed for, by the said Quarterly Meetings. Neverthe- 
 less, it is not intended to discontinue the practice of 
 reporting to the Meetings for Discipline, how such 
 Meetings have been conducted." 
 
 Previous to this time, these " answers to the que- 
 ries," were directed to " be ^entered in writing, that 
 the state of the ministry and elders, collected from 
 such reports, be laid before the Quarterly Meeting 
 of the county, for their approbation, and by that be 
 sent to the Meeting of ministers and elders in Lon- 
 don, annually by one or two representatives, appoint- 
 ed to attend the said Meeting." In 1789, the Yearly 
 Meeting decided " that overseers, under that appoint- 
 ment only, are not entitled to sit in Meetings of mini- 
 sters and elders" And in 1790, the following minute 
 was made : — " The manner of appointing representa- 
 tives to the Yearly Meeting of ministers and elders, 
 coming again under the weighty consideration of this 
 Meeting, it is recommended, that the same be, in fu- 
 ture, made in the select Quarterly Meetings." There 
 still remained some appearance of the former subjec- 
 tion of these select Meetings, to the Meetings for 
 Discipline, in the concluding provision of the minute 
 of 1786, above quoted. This was removed by the 
 Yearly Meeting in 1801, which directed, that the 
 reports from the Quarterly select Meetings, to the 
 Quarterly Meetings for Discipline, should, in future, 
 not be, " how such Meetings have been conducted," 
 but " that they have been held." 
 
 Thus were these committees of the Meetings for 
 
Discipline, gradually made, by their own individual 
 influence and voice, in the Yearly Meeting, almost 
 independent of their constituents. Thus did they, 
 at length, become such a distinct and separate body, 
 in the church, as the New Testament neither sanctions 
 by precept, nor example. 
 
 The second part of the " Appeal," exhibited also 
 the associated body of ministers and elders, for Great 
 Britain and Ireland, with all their recently acquired 
 prerogatives, as coming forward in its collective ca- 
 pacity, as the accuser of Hannah Barnard, and in a 
 character totally new, as well as equally improper, 
 and unconstitutional, for such an assembly to appeal 1 
 in. After devoting three sittings to this cause, it 
 " referred the farther attention to the case — to the 
 Morning Meeting of ministers and elders in Lon- 
 don." The efforts of this Meeting, and of its com- 
 mittee, are also stated in this part of the Appeal, 
 with its addition of three fresh articles, in support 
 of the original accusation, and its presentation of the 
 whole, to a Meeting for Discipline. 
 
 It being declared by a rule of the Society, in 
 1735, " that neither the Morning Meeting, nor any 
 other meeting of ministers, have power to disown 
 any minister, or other person, in any capacity what- 
 ever" it is plain that this powerfully influential 
 body, could not well accomplish, of itself, the end it 
 had in view. 
 
 The progress and consequences of its accusation, 
 are detailed at considerable length, in the third part 
 
Xlll 
 
 of the Appeal, and I must confess, I have never seen 
 reason to doubt the folly and absurdity of setting up 
 an uniformity of belief, with regard to the divine 
 sanction for the Jewish wars, as a necessary condi- 
 tion of religious fellowship, in a Christian church, 
 or as a qualification for a gospel minister. In this 
 part of the Appeal I have likewise shewn, that the 
 grounds of accusation were most sedulously kept 
 out of sight, on Hannah Barnard's appeal to the 
 Quarterly Meeting of London and Middlesex, to 
 the certain encouragement of tale-bearing and detrac- 
 tion, and that a majority of the persons, chosen to be 
 judges of her appeal to the Yearly Meeting, were 
 members of the accusing body, and yet accepted 
 such an office, and acted as her judges, in defiance of 
 the most obvious dictates of justice and equity. On 
 these, and various other grounds, I expressed, as I 
 felt, my strong disapprobation of the Yearly Meet- 
 ing's decision on this occasion. Nor do I consider 
 myself, even supposing I was mistaken in my judg- 
 ment, as justly censurable, on that account, by any 
 Christian society. 
 
 Soon after the publication of the third part of the 
 Appeal, a Reply to the first part made its appear- 
 ance, in the spring of 1 802, under the signature of 
 Vindex, generally attributed to J. G. Bevan. This 
 writer does not allege that my quotations from the 
 works of our early Friends, were false, but that they 
 were " partial evidence." That I contented myself 
 with quoting what was to my " purpose, 3 ' and omit- 
 
XIV 
 
 ting, he calls it, " concealing, the rest," and that I es- 
 teemed these " old authors — as having been men li- 
 able to err, and whose works need examination, and 
 discrimination." Yet no sooner does he enter 
 upon his "Examination," of the first of my qup- 
 tations from two of Penn's tracts, written within one 
 year, than he gives up, as impracticable, all ideas of 
 " reconciling the two books together, which," says he, 
 the writer of the Appeal " attempts, and in which, I 
 think, he fails." He adds p. 3 : — " To be sure, 
 nzed enough there is for a new dictionary, if we must 
 make it [Penn's Innocency with her open Face,] 
 perfectly consistent with the Sandy Foundation 
 Shaken." 
 
 My rejoinder was published early in 1803, 
 entitled ." A Vindication of Scriptural Unita- 
 rianism, and some other primitive Christian Doc- 
 trines, in Reply to Vindex's Examination of an 
 Appeal to the Society of Friends." The reader 
 of the ensuing pages, may form his own estimate 
 concerning this work, by the extracts adduced from 
 it, as supplementary accusations against me. They 
 are inserted p. 192 — 199- 
 
 In 1804, I published " A Narrative of the Pro- 
 ceedings in America, of the Society called Quakers, 
 in the Case of Hannah Barnard." To this I pre- 
 fixed, as the Appeal was out of print, " A Brief 
 Review of the previous Transactions in Great 
 Britain and Ireland." The motives which induced 
 
XV 
 
 me to publish this Narrative, were similar to those 
 which occasioned the publication of the Appeal. 
 
 A work, entitled, " A Defence of the Christian 
 Doctrines of the Society of Friends, against the 
 Charge of Socinianism, &c. in answer to a Writer 
 who stiles himself Verax," was published in 1805, 
 by John Bevans. The very title of this work is 
 calculated to mislead, for Verax never alleged such 
 a charge against the Society. 
 
 Circumstances of a painful nature, prevented an 
 earlier reply, but with returning tranquillity of 
 mind, after severe affliction, I again recurred to 
 the controversy, stimulated by the official distribu- 
 tion of hand-bills, from house to house, with the 
 Yearly Meeting Epistles for 1806 and 1807, ad- 
 vertising this work. 
 
 It was the manner in which it was sanctioned and 
 patronized, although published, in open yet justifiable 
 defiance of the new Imprimatur rule, rather than the 
 character, the temper, or any other quality it pos- 
 sessed deserving notice, that induced me to publish 
 a reply. My answer was printed in 1808, entitled, 
 " Christian Unitarianism vindicated." 
 
 The reader will see, that I refused to inform my 
 accusers whether I wrote the above works, on their 
 interrogating me respecting them, after I was ac- 
 cused on other grounds. If even the original charge 
 against me had been, that I had written and pub- 
 lished those tracts, I might reasonably have re- 
 plied, — prove the fact.— no man is bound to accuse 
 
XVI 
 
 himself. And when this point was established, 
 without my evidence, I might rightfully have 
 called upon my accusers, to shew what evil I had 
 thereby committed, and what law I had trans- 
 gressed. But I now consider it right to acknow- 
 ledge that I did write and publish them. 
 
 The reader will also find some passages adduced 
 against me, by way of crimination, from the last 
 mentioned work, which are inserted p. 199 to 205. 
 To his judgment I refer them, adding however, 
 from the Preface, a statement of the principal objects 
 I aimed at promoting, by that publication : viz : — 
 
 1st, To maintain the infinitely important doc- 
 trines of the strict Unity and natural placability of 
 God, as taught in the Scriptures, in opposition to 
 the Trinitarian and Calvinistic tenets, which have; 
 recently been professed, and in some degree counte- 
 nanced, amongst us. 
 
 2dly, To promote more just and reasonable ideas 
 on the doctrine of divine influence on the human 
 mind, than I apprehend many of my fellow professors 
 at present entertain. 
 
 3dly, To excite an increased attention to the 
 Scriptures, and thereby to augment their influence 
 in favour of moral and religious truth, to which, 1 
 think, the unfounded idea of their plenary inspira- 
 tion, is prejudicial. 
 
 4thly, To inculcate the obligation we are under, 
 as professed Christians, primarily to regard the sim- 
 plicity of the apostolic faith, in determining the 
 
 
conditions on which religious fellowship ought to be 
 maintained ; and, consequently, to abstain from the 
 imposition upon our brethren, of more extended ar- 
 ticles of faith, than Jesus Christ, and his apostles 
 have laid down as sufficient. 
 
 Before the publication of this work, I had long 
 lamented the low and defective state of scriptural 
 knowledge, amongst the members of our Society, 
 generally speaking, including many of its ministers, 
 of which the frequent incorrectness of their quota- 
 tions from scripture, in their public ministry, affords 
 sufficient proof. I, therefore suggested in p. 201, the 
 probable advantages of " the public appropriation of a 
 certain portion of time to the express purpose of com- 
 municating religious instruction, in which the read- 
 ing of the Christian scriptures might be introduced, 
 and form a principal part" How far this recom- 
 mendation, and my reasoning in its favour, either in 
 this work, or when I made a similar proposal to 
 the Yearly Meeting in 1809, has been reckoned 
 among my offences, I cannot say. But I am so fully 
 impressed with the necessity of some such plan, in 
 order to promote the proper ends of religious associ- 
 ation, that I cannot forbear pressing it, once more, 
 upon the attention of the Society. 
 
 In doing this, I would remind them how necessary 
 a piece of furniture in a place of worship, George Fox 
 considered a Bible. He made presents of Bibles to 
 several Meetings, probably to many, and one oi these 
 Bibles was, till a few years ago, chained to the preach- 
 c 
 
XV111 
 
 crs gallery, in the meeting -ho use at Swarthmore. By 
 whose order, or why it was removed, I know not. But 
 I conclude it was so attached to a place of worship, 
 in order that it might be used there. And why 
 should it not, as well as in the families of Friends ? 
 
 " We believe," says the Yearly Meeting, in its 
 Epistle for 1 807, " there is an increased attention in 
 Friends in various parts, not only to promote in their 
 families, the frequent reading of the holy scriptures, 
 but to make it the employment of a portion of time 
 daily. We commend this practice, and we believe, 
 there will be so little danger of the custom becoming 
 formal, that it will not unfrequently be the means of 
 quickening the minds of those concerned in it : more 
 especially, if a subsequent pause be allowed ; in order 
 that the sacred truths which have been read, may 
 have time to make their due impression on the mind ; or 
 that the mind may have time to rise in secret aspiration 
 after a blessing" 
 
 Now, I would submit it to any candid and intelli- 
 gent mind, that if such beneficial consequences as 
 these, may be justly expected from this practice, 
 whether, still more extensive advantages would not 
 be likely to arise, from the public, as well as the pri- 
 vate reading of the sacred writings ? Under proper 
 regulations there would be, at least, as little " dan- 
 ger of the custom becoming formal" and it might 
 not less frequently be the means of instruction and 
 edification, even to many who very much neglect 
 reading the Scriptures, and are seldom iu the way 
 
xix 
 
 of hearing them read, with becoming seriousness and 
 solemnity. As the Yearly Meeting believed such 
 desirable results might be more especially looked for, 
 " if a subsequent pause be allowed" when can those 
 writings, " which are able to make wise unto salva- 
 tion" be more profitably read, than immediately 
 preceding the times set apart for solemn, silent wor- 
 ship? During such seasons, " the sacred truths 
 which have been read, may have time to make their 
 due impression on the mind/' at least as fully , and 
 more generally, than could be well expected at any 
 other. And after such opportunities of receiving 
 religious instruction, " the mind may have time to 
 rise in secret aspiration after a blessing," and be the 
 better enabled to offer up, a pure offering of prayer, 
 thanksgiving, or praise, to " the Father of lights, the 
 Giver of every good, and every perfect gift." 
 
 " Christian duty is not a complex system," says 
 the same Epistle, " but consists of a few and simple 
 parts — it is a peculiar glory of the gospel, that it re- 
 mains the same. Love to God, and love to our 
 neighbour, are its grand and primary divisions ; each 
 harmonizing with the other ; neither subsisting a- 
 part." But these simple and sublime views of Chris- 
 tian duty, seem to be wholly forgotten, when the 
 rulers of churches set up uniformity of sentiment, 
 on numerous, or unscriptural articles of faith, as ne- 
 cessary to religious fellowship. 
 
 The Yearly Meeting, in 1806, entrusted the com- 
 pilation of a catechism, to the Meeting for Suffer- 
 ings, which was accordingly drawn up, by a sub- 
 
XX 
 
 committee, consisting of three of its members. The 
 work was presented to the next Yearly Meeting, 
 which, after referring it to a large committee for revi- 
 sion and correction, ordered the first part to be print- 
 ed. It is entitled. " Early Christian Instruction, in 
 the form of a dialogue between a mother and a child, 
 written at the desire of the Society of Friends." 
 Phillips. London, 1807. 
 
 The subject was recommitted to the farther atten- 
 tion of the Meeting for Sufferings, which reported, in 
 1808, that further progress had been made, but that 
 the second part of the catechism was not completed. 
 It was once more referred to their care, by minute, 
 but another year's consideration, satisfied that Meet- 
 ing, that it would not be prudent, or expedient, to 
 commit its own credit, or that of the Yearly Meet- 
 ing, by entering, in the manner proposed, into any 
 very minute statement of articles of faith, and pub- 
 lishing the same, on behalf of the Society, and in its 
 name. The Yearly Meeting coincided in their re- 
 port, and judgment, that it was too nice an undertak- 
 ing to be carried into effect, and the project was ac- 
 cordingly dropped. I was present, and cordially ex- 
 pressed my concurrence with this determination. But 
 how such a decision can be deemed compatible with 
 the proceedings in my case, I do not know. 
 
 The manner in which several of the Quarterly 
 and Yearly Meeting queries, are usually answered, 
 I have long thought to have a natural tendency 
 to nourish a pharisaic spirit, than which, nothing is 
 more opposed to the genuine spirit of Christianity. 
 
XXI 
 
 Nor did any thing appear to call forth more severe 
 reproof from our great Master, who best knew, what 
 was the most pernicious and delusive inhabitant of 
 the human breast, than the conduct of those, who, 
 under a sanctimonious profession of religion, stood 
 aloof from their brethren, and thanked God, they 
 were not like other men, nor even as this, or that, 
 publican. 
 
 The first part of the 2nd query, is peculiarly diffi- 
 cult to answer, in any useful manner, or to any good 
 purpose. " Is there among you any growth in the 
 truth ?" Not satisfied to answer this query, with 
 becoming modesty, and in general terms, the leading- 
 disciplinarians mostly contrive, by descending to par- 
 ticulars, to pay themselves an implied compliment, 
 by adding a few words, importing, that what " growth 
 in the truth," is stated to have taken place, is 
 almost wholly confined to a very small part of the 
 flock. 
 
 I several times called the attention of the Yearly 
 Meeting, a few years since, to so improper a mode 
 of answering this query, by many of the Quarterly 
 Meetings, at that time, although the rules direct, that 
 " the words of the queries be kept to," as much as 
 possible, in answering them. I would not venture, 
 I told the Meeting, to say, that such answers to the 
 query, arose from a pharisaic spirit, but I had no he- 
 sitation in saying, they had a natural tendency to 
 produce such a temper of mind. To such men as 
 my accusers, or their concealed prompters, I am not 
 
XXll 
 
 surprised that this plain speaking should have given 
 offence, their accusation soon followed. 
 
 Before I conclude this preface, I would add a few 
 words, to point out the effects, already produced by 
 these proceedings: — They have encouraged a spirit 
 of religious enquiry, far beyond what any mere efforts 
 of mine could have done. They have excited amongst 
 the Friends, an increased attention to the works 
 circulated by the London Unitarian Book Society, 
 and to a much greater extent, within my knowledge, 
 than I had previously anticipated, as likely so soon 
 to have taken place. 
 
 To proscribe such writings, at this time of day, is 
 one of the surest means of promoting their circula- 
 tion. The time for exercising such tyranny over the 
 mind, is gone by, and I trust will never return. My 
 accusers have, therefore, unconsciously lent their aid, 
 to render my feeble efforts more effectual, than they 
 could otherwise have been. Nor have they at all 
 damped my zeal, or palsied my exertions. No, they 
 have increased both. They have taught me to feel 
 still more powerfully the value and importance, of 
 those Christian principle's; for openly professing 
 which, I have been accused, and disowned. 
 
 As to the charge that I aided in the circulation 
 of some Remarks on the Yearly Meeting Epistle, 
 for 1810, it is, if any thing, still more futile and weak 
 than the other. The only way to secure those annual 
 epistles from such attacks, is, to render them, in fu- 
 ture, sound and scriptural. Then will they be in- 
 vulnerable. But to disown those who write and circu- 
 
xxm 
 
 late sober and serious remarks on them, is to indicate a 
 secret suspicion, that they will not bear examination, 
 that they are not fitted to endure such a trial, that some 
 parts of them are built upon a sandy foundation. It 
 tends also to multiply those attacks. Nor does it, 
 in any degree, put those epistles out of the reach of 
 criticism. The Remarks on the Epistles for 1811, 
 and 1812, which have been published, since these 
 proceedings commenced, sufficiently prove this. 
 They are inserted in the Monthly Repository, vol. vi. 
 p. 716, and vol. vii. p. 611, and 693. 
 
 " Why should we," says Thomas Clarkson, in his 
 Portraiture of Quakerism, vol. ii. p. 109 — 110, "con- 
 sider our neighbour as an alien, and load him with 
 reproaches, because he happens to differ from us, in 
 opinion about an article of faith ? As long as there 
 are men, so long there will be different measures of 
 talents and understanding ; and so long will they 
 view things in a different light, and come to different 
 conclusions concerning them. The eye of one man 
 can see further than another. So can the human 
 mind, on the subject of speculative truths. This 
 consideration should teach us humility and forbear- 
 ance, in judging of the religion of others. For who 
 is he, who can say that he sees the furthest, or that 
 his own system is the best ? If such men as Milton, 
 Whiston, Boyle, Locke and Newton, all agreeing in 
 the profession of Christianity, did not all think pre- 
 cisely alike concerning it, who art thou, with thy in- 
 ferior capacity, who settest up the standard of thy 
 own judgment, as infallible ? 
 
XXIV 
 
 " If — thy neighbour— does not agree, in his creed, 
 with thee, know that he judges according to the best 
 of his abilities, and that no more will be required of him. 
 Know, also, that thou thyself judgest like a worm 
 of the earth ; that thou dishonourest the Almighty 
 by thy reptile notions of him ; and that in making 
 him accord with thee, in condemning one of his 
 creatures, for what thou conceivest to be the misun- 
 derstanding of a speculative proposition, thou treat- 
 est him like a man, as thou thyself art, with corporeal 
 organs, with irritable passions, and with a limited in- 
 telligence. But if, besides this, thou condemnest 
 thy neighbour in this world also, and feelest the 
 spirit of persecution towards him, know that what- 
 ever thy pretensions may be to religion, thou art not 
 a Christian. }> 
 
 I shall only add, that variations of opinion on spe- 
 culative points of doctrine, will always exist, to a 
 considerable extent, in every church, however rigid- 
 ly they may be proscribed, and that if such intole- 
 rant principles, as were adopted in the proceedings 
 to which the following pages relate, were generally 
 acted upon, they would tend to divide the So- 
 ciety into two classes, to neither of which, would 
 any man, of a liberal independent mind, chuse to 
 belong, nor ought either of these classes to be 
 known in a Christian church — those who exercise 
 lordship and authority over the consciences of their 
 brethren^ and those who tamely submit to such anti- 
 christian domination. 
 
XXV 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The New Testament contains so clear and per- 
 spicuous an account of the conditions of religious 
 fellowship, in the primitive Christian church, that 
 it implies a strange disregard of its authority, or 
 great inattention, for any society of Christians, to 
 exercise such powers of exclusion from membership, 
 as are not warranted by any precept, or example of 
 the apostolic age, but are at variance with both. 
 
 Experience, however, proves this to have been 
 generally the case, wherever any system of discipline 
 has been established among Christians. The rulers 
 in churches, so constituted, appear to have imagined 
 the right to exclude their brethren from membership, 
 was as absolute and extensive, as that of any club, or 
 civil society, over its members, limited only by its 
 rules, their own arbitrary will, and the law of the 
 land. This antichristian power, founded as it is on 
 a false principle, seems to have been as openly claim-, 
 ed, on many occasions, by the leading disciplinarians 
 in the Society called Quakers, as by any persons 
 whatever. 
 
 They do not seem to be aware that a religious 
 society may adopt such intolerant measures towards 
 d 
 
XXVI 
 
 its members, as are inconsistent with the character 
 ot i true Christian church, without exercising great- 
 er powers than may belong to an associated body, 
 in civil socii ty. But so far as any church, profess- 
 ing to be Christian, attempts to impose upon any of 
 its members unscriptural tenets, on pain ot disown- 
 ment, or acts towards them in opposition to the pre- 
 cepts of the New Testament, in such proportion 
 does it cease to be a Christian society, and depart 
 from *.he inimitable model of the primitive Christian 
 church. 
 
 The scriptural records seem indeed to have been 
 much less attended to by George Fox, in framing 
 that system of discipline, which was established in 
 the Society called Quakers, than to the impressions 
 on his own mind concerning it. This is evident 
 from his own account: "Then 1 was moved of the 
 Lord," says he, that is, in the year 1666, " to re- 
 commend the setting up of five Monthly Meetings 
 of men and women in the city of London, besides 
 the women's meetings, and the Quarterly Meetings, 
 to lake care of God's glory, and to admonish and ex- 
 hort such as walked disorderly, or carelessly, and not 
 according to truth. For whereas Friends had only 
 Quarterly Meetings, now truth was spread, and 
 Friends grown more numerous, I was moved to re- 
 commend the setting up of Monthly Meetings 
 throughout the nation. And the Lord opened to 
 me what I must do, and how the men's and women's 
 Monthly and Quarterly Meetings should be ordered 
 and established, in this, and other nations; and that 
 I should vrite to those, where I came not, to do the 
 same." Fox's Journal, p. 390, 391. 
 
 In corresponding language, the Yearly Meeting, 
 in 1675, says, " It is our judgment and testimony, 
 in the word of God's wisdom, that the rise and prac- 
 tice, setting up and establishment, of men's and 
 women's meetings, in the church of Christ, in this 
 
XXV11 
 
 our generation, is according to the mind and coun- 
 sel of God, and done in the ordering and leading of 
 his eternal spirit; and that it is the duty of all 
 Friends and brethren, in the power of God, in all 
 parts to be diligent therein, and to encourage and 
 further each other, in that blessed work." Extracts 
 from the minutes and advices of the Yearly Meeting 
 of Friends, held in London, p. 42, commonly called 
 the Book of Extracts. 
 
 Having been themselves severely persecuted on 
 account of their religious opinions, and the open pro- 
 fession of them, they carefully avoided, in the ad- 
 ministration of the discipline they set up, all in- 
 fringement of the rights of conscience, with regard 
 to speculative points of doctrine, on which their 
 writings evince there was amongst themselves, as 
 there always has been, and probably will be, among 
 persons of much reflexion, som^ considerable differ- 
 ence in sentiment, but with them not more than 
 might have been the case, had they unwisely at- 
 tempted to establish a creed. The system was soon 
 tinctured with the fanaticism of the age, and became 
 in some respects, more intolerant, than the most zea- 
 lous disciplinarians in the Society, would now ven- 
 ture to justify. To remind them of a few instances 
 of this kind, may, and I hope will, suggest the pro- 
 priety of re-examining some principles and practices 
 which are still acted upon, and might be relinquish- 
 ed, greatly to the advantage, and credit of the So- 
 ciety. 
 
 It appears that Monthly Meetings, pursuant to 
 the advice of Quarterly Meetings, have issued such 
 recommendations as the following: — ' ; i hat whei# 
 any Friends' children join any of the world in mar- 
 riage, that Friend' stand clear of giving them any 
 portion or part of their estate, until they do unfeign- 
 ed ty repent of ^eir evil action and e.rampU." 'the 
 minute from whence the above extract is made, mav 
 
XXV111 
 
 be found in the records of Hardshaw Monthly Meet- 
 ing, in p. $9, and is dated 5th Month, 6th, 1695. 
 This Monthly Meeting was then large, including 
 as it does stili, the particular Meetings of Friends, 
 at Liverpool, Manchester, Warrington, &c. 
 
 Parents were even required, in those times, upon 
 pain of disown ment, to comply with the advice of 
 the Quarterly Meeting, " that no parents, or mas- 
 ters, retain in their families, such their children, or 
 servants, as are, for their disorderliness, denied by 
 Friends." Ibid, p. Ill, 12th Month, 15th, 1^97- It 
 was natural, that such unchristian requisitions should 
 either be resisted, or very reluctantly complied with. 
 In one instance, two Friends were appointed, by mi- 
 nute, 4th Month, 21st, 1698, to visit one Richard 
 Cubban, for having " taken his daughter Sarah into 
 his house, contrary to the former advice of Friends 
 — and to advise him to a full compliance with Friends' 
 order.'' 
 
 The effect of this visit, is thus described in the 
 minute of the following Meeting, held 5th Month, 
 19th. " Richard Cubban acquainteth Friends that 
 he will endeavour, to answer their advice concerning 
 his daughter." The minute of the next Meeting, held 
 6th Month, 16th, on this case, is as follows: " No 
 account being brought, of what Richard Cubban hath 
 done in relation to his daughter, account is expected 
 from Friends of Bicursteth, at our next Meeting." 
 On 7th Month, 20th, the Meeting was again held, 
 when three Friends " are ordered to speak further 
 to Richard Cubban, to know, why he doth not fully 
 comply with the advice of Friends, relating to his 
 daughter Sarah, and to give account at our next 
 Meeting." This was held 8th Month, 18th, when 
 the following record was made : " The Friends ap- 
 pointed, having been with Richard Cubban, and his 
 answer not being fully to the satisfaction of this 
 
Meeting, they are appointed again to visit him, and 
 his wife, together with'* seven other friends. 
 
 What a picture of church power does this minute 
 exhibit? A committee of no Jess than ten men, ap- 
 pointed to visit the parents of poor Sarah Cubban, 
 to incite them, against their own inclination, to act 
 such a part towards her. The minutes are wholly 
 silent respecting the nature of her offence ; whether 
 she had married " one of the world," as it was the 
 fashion of the times to dtscribe those of a different 
 profession of faith, cannot, I suppose, be now ascer- 
 tained. But whatever might have been her offence, 
 her parents were the only suitable judges of the pro- 
 priety of still extending towards her the protection of 
 their parental roof, and thus contribute towards her 
 reformation, if such she needed. 
 
 It does not appear from the Meeting's records, 
 that she had transgressed the moral law, at all. 
 If she had, it is most probable it would have ap- 
 peared. But the heart-rending effect of the dread 
 of disownment, is thus emphatically described by a 
 minute of the next Monthly Meeting, held 9th mo. 
 1698, recording the labours of the ten Friends. 
 " The Friends appointed to visit Richard Cubban and 
 his wife, &c. give account that there was a submis- 
 sion, and a free acknowledgment that Friends' advice 
 was just, and therefore it is hoped, that it will, in a 
 little time be answered?' 
 
 In another instance, within the same Monthly 
 Meeting, seven Friends were appointed, 3rd month, 
 17th, 1698, "to speak with Samuel Dunbabin, Sen. 
 and advise him to comply with the order of Friends, 
 relative to his disorderly sons." The reluctance of 
 himself and his wife, to comply with this "order 
 of Friends," is thus expressed in the Meeting's mi- 
 nute of 8th month, 18th, 1698. "Account is given, 
 that Samuel Dunbabin, Sen. and his wife, contrary 
 
XXX 
 
 to the advice of Friends, say they cannot put away 
 their sons from them ; therefore a paper is drawn to 
 disown them. Wiiliam Barnes, William Croudson, 
 and Christopher Winn, are appointed to shew it them, 
 before it go forth/ 
 
 In this instance, as in the former, the slavish fear 
 ofdisownment seems to have overpowered the sense 
 of parental duty and affection. For in the Meeting's 
 records of 10th mo. 20th, 1698, it is said, " Account 
 is given, that after reading the paper of judgment to 
 Samuel Dunbabin and his wife, t/uy have submitted, 
 and complied with Friends' advice, and put their 
 sons from their house, and sent a paper thereof to this 
 Meeting, which is ordered to be kept, and therefore 
 the paper of judgment is stayed from going forth, 
 and is ordered to be kept with the book." 
 
 Such were the powers, which disciplinarians in the 
 Society, called Quakers, once thought themselves 
 warranted to exercise. Nor was such an extension 
 of church authority confined to small, or obscure 
 Monthly Meetings. A kindred zeal very generally 
 pervaded the Society, judging from such of its early 
 records as I have had access to, or seen copies of. 
 Yet these records relate to a period in its history, re- 
 specting which we are emphatically reminded, in the 
 Preface to the Book of Extracts, of" the godly zeal, 
 purity, probity, simplicity, and self-denial, so con- 
 spicuous in our worthy predecessors* as if their con- 
 duct merited almost unqualified approbation. 
 
 In the same paragraph it is also said, " And not- 
 withstanding it be too obvious to be denied, that 
 there are amongst us many sorrowful instances of a 
 grievous departure/' from such a picture as the fore- 
 going gives of our ancestors, it is asserted, that " it 
 must be allowed that, as a religious body, we are the 
 same people our forefathers were, in faith, in doc- 
 trine, in worship, in ministry, and in discipline" 
 p. vii. 
 
XXXI 
 
 An accurate comparison of " the later advices'* of 
 the Yearly Meeting, of its Epistles, and above all, 
 of the records of its meetings for discipline/' with 
 those of a more ancient date," would not establish 
 such an exact conformity, as the editors of that work 
 have here claimed; nor vindicate the title of any 
 period, since it became a distinct Society, to such 
 undistinguishing praise as they have bestowed upon 
 " our worthy predecessors." 
 
 A true knowledge of their excellencies, which I 
 have no wish to depreciate, and of the most promi- 
 nent failings which they exhibited, when acting in a 
 collective capacity, is much more likely to incite 
 their successors to emulate the former, and to avoid 
 the latter, than to represent them in any other than 
 their true colours, generally speaking, as upright, 
 but fallible men, and when united, as forming a fal- 
 lible church. 
 
 That the notions of the early Quakers, with regard 
 to propriety of behaviour during the time of public 
 worship, were materially different from those now 
 entertained by their successors, the following minute 
 of the Yearly Meeting, held in 167-5, will evince. 
 It is unquestionably authentic, and was usually in- 
 serted in the MS. volumes of the minutes and ad- 
 vices of that Meeting, under the head singing. I 
 never saw a copy in which this minute was not in- 
 serted. 
 
 " It hath been, and is our living sense and con- 
 stant testimony, according to our experience of the 
 diverse operations of the spirit and power of God in 
 his church, that there hath been, and is, serious sigh- 
 ing, sensible groaning, and reverent singing, breath- 
 ing forth an heavenly sound of joy, with grace, with 
 the spirit, and with understanding, in blessed unity 
 with the brethren, while they are in the public la- 
 bour and service of the gospel, whether by preach- 
 ing, praying, or praising God, in the same power 
 
XXX11 
 
 and spirit, and all to edification and comfort in the 
 church of Christ : which, therefore, is not to be dis- 
 com aged by any. But where any do, or shall abuse 
 tn< j power of God, or are immoderate, or do either in 
 imitation, which rather burthens than edifies, such 
 ought to be privately admonished, unless rebellious; 
 for that liie, spirit and power is risen in the church, 
 which (ioth distinguish, and hath power accordingly 
 to judge." 
 
 That so great and so beneficial a change should 
 have been gradually introduced, as the total discon- 
 tinuance of so singular a mode of singing by the con- 
 gregation, which was once directed not to be dis- 
 couraged by any, affords just cause for congratula- 
 tion. It denotes actual improvement. The " unbe- 
 coming tones, sounds and gestures" of many ac- 
 knowledged ministers among Friends, against which 
 they are, with great propriety, still annually advised, 
 maybe perhaps justly considered as the remains of the 
 fanatical custom so minutely described in the above 
 minute. For if the congregation sang, and breathed 
 forth vocal sounds, in unison with the preacher, 
 while he was engaged in the duties of his office, it 
 cannot, I think, be reasonably doubted, but he sang 
 also, or at least often expressed himself in a manner 
 that would not be now thought, " agreeable to Chris- 
 tian gravity." 
 
 While the Yearly Meeting thought fit to encourage 
 such a practice, those who disapproved it as impro- 
 per in itself, were in those times probably subjected 
 to dealing and disownment, for openly expressing 
 their opinions. That a disposition to discourage the 
 practice existed at that time, the minute affords suf- 
 ficient evidence ; yet I confess it is difficult to ima- 
 gine, that such men as Penn, Barclay and Penington 
 could ever have given their countenance to such a 
 mode of expressing unity with preachers of the gos- 
 pel. And if not, such men must, I have often 
 
XXX111 
 
 thought, had much to bear from their well-meaning, 
 but less enlightened brethren. For the minute affords 
 undeniable proof of the prevalence of the fanatical 
 practice it so accurately describes. 
 
 Many wise and good men of unquestionable in- 
 tegrity and piety, have entertained serious doubts, 
 whether the evils introduced into Christian churches, 
 by such systems of discipline as have hitherto been 
 established, have not overbalanced their advantages. 
 That there are dangers on this hand every reflect- 
 ing mind will readily grant. Persons of good judg- 
 ment have been so strongly impressed with the ex- 
 tent of those abuses, to which the exercise of a 
 very moderate portion of church power, naturally 
 leads, as to be ready to abandon the important bene- 
 fits, which a wise and temperate exercise of Chris- 
 tian discipline is calculated to produce. 
 
 To gain these desirable objects with any reason- 
 able degree of security, against those abuses to which 
 I have adverted, it is necessary that the discipline 
 established in any church, should be strictly confined 
 to its proper objects, as a code of Christian law. 
 That it should be administered, only in a Christian 
 spirit, and in a regular orderly manner, under the 
 express sanction of the known rules of such Society, 
 according to gospel order, and more especially, in 
 cases of exclusion from religious fellowship, which 
 is the utmost power such a community can exercise. 
 How far these principles have been kept in view, 
 lost sight of, or violated during the proceedings re- 
 corded in the ensuing pages, let those judge who 
 peruse them with attention. 
 
 Many of my readers may not know what the es- 
 tablished requisites of membership have long been in 
 the religious Society from which I have been ex- 
 pelled. To enable such better to form their own 
 judgment, it may be proper to mention that by one. 
 of its rules, which is still in force, the Yearly Meet- 
 
XXXIV 
 
 ing, in 1694, directed that " all Friends — removing 
 from one Monthly Meeting, to another, are to have 
 certificates, or other usual recommendation, from the 
 Monthly Meeting to which they belong, of their 
 sober and orderly conversation ; and if single persons, 
 to signify also their clearness respecting marriage en- 
 gagements/ \ Book of Extracts, p. 160. — When a per- 
 son removing is certified " after due enquiry," to be 
 clear in these respects, and to be in solvent cir- 
 cumstances, or free from debts, on the delivery of 
 such certificate " to the Meeting into which he is 
 removed/' the rules declare " he shall thenceforward 
 be deemed a member of the Meeting he so removes 
 into/' without questioning the party respecting 
 points of faith, or articles of speculative belief. Such is 
 the usual, and, so far as I know, the uniform practice. 
 Ibid. p. 162. These certificates are deemed unexcep- 
 tionable, and those which are expressed in less full 
 terms, are nevertheless, sufficient to convey the 
 rights of membership. In the year 1790, the Yearly 
 Meeting issued the following minute. 
 
 " It is the judgment of this Meeting, that it will 
 not be expedient or safe to omit in certificates, all 
 notice of the conduct of Friends, who remove. Never- 
 theless, as it also seems improper to confine Monthly 
 Meetings, in every case, to the use of the precise 
 terms sober and orderly^ this Meeting directs, that 
 they shall be at liberty to use such other terms in de- 
 scribing the conduct and conversation of their members, 
 as circumstances may require, and truth dictate : 
 avoiding in all cases such exposure of past errors, as 
 is inconsistent with true gospel order." Ibid, 161. 
 
 In conformity to the existing rules, being about 
 to remove from my native city, I requested a certifi- 
 cate of the Monthly Meeting, held therein, on the 
 22nd of February, 1791, which was granted, and is 
 as follows : — 
 
 "To the Friends at their Monthly Meeting of Hat« 
 cliff, in London. 
 
*' Dear Friends, 
 *' Thomas Foster, a member of our Meeting, hav- 
 ing informed us of his intention of removing to Lon- 
 don, and requested our certificate, these are, there- 
 fore to certify you, that after due enquiry made, it 
 appears he was of sober life and conversation, and 
 left us solvent, and free from marriage engagements. 
 As such, we recommend him to your Christian re- 
 gard and attention, sincerely desiring his growth, 
 and preservation in the truth. We are, with affec- 
 tionate regard, your friends. 
 
 " Signed in and on behalf of our Monthly Meeting 
 at Worcester, the 29th of 3rd mo. 1791, by Samuel 
 Corbyn, Moses Goodere, George Becket, Timothy 
 Bevington, Joseph Beesley, Henry Beesley, Rich- 
 ard Lowe, Robert Foster, Thomas Newman, Wil- 
 liam Knight, John Pumphrey, Henry Millard, 
 Samuel Read, Seymer Whitehead, Richard Bur- 
 lingham, Joseph Bangham, Oliver Lowe, John 
 Beesley, Francis Belesley, Robert Newman, Stanley 
 Pumphrey, Thomas Howe, Joseph Ford." 
 
 Such was my introduction to RatclifT Monthly 
 Meeting, the ostensible causes of the dissolution of 
 this connexion, are detailed in the following pages. 
 It may be proper to say for the information of some 
 of my readers, that in the Society of Friends, the 
 members of one, or, in most cases, of several congre- 
 gations, constitute a Monthly Meeting for Discipline. 
 The members of all the Monthly Meetings in one, 
 or several adjacent counties, form a Quarterly Meet- 
 ing, to which representatives are appointed, from each 
 of the Monthly Meetings within its district, yet 
 no member is excluded, and they are generally 
 expected to attend. Each Quarterly Meeting in 
 Great Britain, is directed, annually, to depute four 
 representatives to the Yearly Meeting held in 
 London, but the county of York, in consideration of 
 its extent, is allowed to send eight, and London 
 
XXXVI 
 
 twelve. Any member of the Society may be pre- 
 sent at its sittings, and partake in its deliberations. 
 This Meeting possesses the supreme legislative and 
 judicial power in all matters of discipline, for the 
 whole Society throughout Great Britain, and in mat- 
 ters of faith and principle," for Ireland also, from 
 whence representatives are annually deputed, by the 
 national Yearly Meeting held in Dublin. Book of 
 Extracts, p. 4. 
 
 Two or more " faithful Friends,'* are directed to be 
 appointed by every Monthly Meeting, as overseers in 
 each particular Meeting, and those Meetings are ear- 
 nestly recommended to be " careful to choose such 
 as are themselves of upright and unblameable conver- 
 sation, that the advice they shall occasionally ad- 
 minister to other friends, may be the better received, 
 and carry with it the greater weight and force, on the 
 minds of those whom they shall be concerned to ad- 
 monish." 1752. Ibid, p. 109. 
 
 In 1717? the Yearly Meeting recommended, that 
 Friends, in their Meetings for Discipline, " labour to 
 find a nearness to each other in spirit, this being the 
 true way to a thorough reconciliation, wherever there 
 is, or may have been, any difference of apprehension. 
 Hereby friends will be preserved in that sweetness of 
 spirit, that is, and will be the bond of true peace, 
 throughout all the churches of Christ." Ibid, p. A5. 
 In unison with this excellent advice, the Yearly 
 Meeting in 1735, recommended " as a means very 
 conducive to the preservation of Friends, a people 
 of one heart and one way — that the discipline of the 
 church, in the several Meetings, instituted for that 
 purpose, be kept up and managed in a spirit of love 
 and wisdom. Let all things in those Meetings be 
 done in charity ; let the love of God, in an especial 
 manner, rule in your hearts ; and therein, though 
 sometimes different sentiments may arise, yet will 
 .every member have the same thing in view, viz. the 
 
XXXV11 
 
 ^lory of God, and the good of his church and people* 
 and in this singleness of heart will best promote, the 
 great end and services of those Meetings. We ad- 
 vise therefore, upon this occasion, that nothing be 
 done through strife and contention, or from any pri- 
 vate views, or by the influence of numbers; but in 
 lowliness of mind, let each esteem another better 
 than himself/' Ibid, 46, 47- 
 
 The Yearly Meeting, in 1727, desired Monthly 
 Meetings " to appoint some serious, discreet and judi- 
 cious friends, who are not ministers, tenderly to en- 
 courage, and help young ministers, and advise others 
 as they, in the wisdom of God, see occasion ; and 
 where there are meetings of ministering Friends, the 
 Friends so appointed are to be admitted, as members 
 of such Meetings of Ministers, and to act therein, for 
 the good purposes aforesaid." Ibid. p. 99. 
 
 In the written Epistle, for 1731, "the elders" thus 
 appointed, are exhorted " to help and inform the 
 weak, when suitable oportunities present ; that both 
 ministers and hearers, pursuing one and the same end, 
 namely, the glory of God, and the welfare one of 
 another, the church may be edified, increase and 
 flourish/' In the same Epistle ministers are advised to 
 be " ready to hear and receive advice, as well as to 
 teach and instruct, " and Monthly Meetings, to 
 " take great care in giving certificates to those who 
 travel ; to prevent the uneasiness which some- 
 times falls on the church, from a weak and unskilful 
 ministry/' 
 
 " And let the elders, when they see occasion," 
 says this judicious Epistle, " advise ministers to be 
 very prudent in their conduct, not as busy-bodies, nor 
 meddling with family or personal affairs, in which 
 they are not concerned, or required to be assisting ; 
 and to be very tender of one another's reputation, and 
 of that of Friends among whom they travel, neither 
 giving ear to, nor spreading reports, tending to raise 
 
XXXV111 
 
 in the minds of others, a lessening or disesteem of 
 any of the brotherhood ; and, as soon as their service 
 in the ministry is over, to return to their habitations, 
 and there take a reasonable and prudent care of their 
 own business, household, and family. Ibid, p. 91. 
 
 The Yearly Meeting, in 1752, earnestly advised, 
 " all Friends who travel in the work of the ministry, 
 as well as others, that they not only shut their ears 
 against all private informations of persons and things, 
 tending to the defamation of particular persons, or 
 families, and to stir up disputes and contentions in 
 Meetings for Discipline ; but also rebuke and reprove 
 the person or persons, who shall attempt to prejudice 
 their minds, with any private informations of that na- 
 ture; which are often false and attended with bane- 
 ful consequences to the reputation of the persons or 
 families, who are so unkindly and unjustly dealt by ; 
 and may tend to lead such ministers, or others, as shall 
 give ear to the same, in a wrong line of judgment." 
 Ibid. p. 93. 
 
 In 1728 the Yearly Meeting advised, " that mi- 
 nisters, in all their preaching, writing and convers- 
 ing about the things of God, keep to the form of 
 sound words, or scripture terms ; and that none pre- 
 tend to be wise above what is written, and in such 
 pretended wisdom, go about to explain the things of 
 God, in the words which man's wisdom teaches. " 
 Ibid iv. 89- Such are the advices the Yearly Meet- 
 ing has given, to those who are active in the ad- 
 ministration of the discipline. The reader may do 
 well occasionally to recollect their import, in perus- 
 ing the following pages. 
 
GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Commencement of Private Dealing by one Overseer, Aug. 26, 
 
 1811, 1 
 
 First Visit of Two Overseers, Sep. 6. 4 
 
 Second, ditto, Oct. 23 7 
 
 Third Conference with the Overseers, Oct. 27 . . .12 
 
 Letter to the Overseers, Nov. 5, 14 
 
 Fourth Conference with the Overseers, Nov. 17, ... 21 
 
 Letter to the Overseers, . ib 22 
 
 Reply to the Remarks on the Yearly Meeting Epistle, for 1810, . 25 
 
 Proceedings of Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, Dec. 19, ... 30 
 
 Copy of the Remarks on the aforesaid Epistle . ... 39 
 
 Preface to the Rules, &c. of the London Unitarian Book Society . 46 
 
 Proceedings of Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, Jan. 23, 1812 . . 48 
 
 Ditto, ditto, Feb. 20 53 
 
 Ditto, ditto, March 19 79 
 
 Subsequent Conferences with its late Committee . . . 106 
 Copy of the Minutes of the said Meeting, respecting Thomas Fos- 
 ter, with explanatory Notes 108 
 
 Circular Letter to the Members of that Meeting, April 17 .115 
 
 Letter to Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, to be held April 23 . . 116 
 
 Intended Address to the said Meeting 117 
 
 Notice of Appeal to ditto, held May 14 122 
 
 Appointment of Respondents, by ditto . . . . . 124 
 
 Letter to the Meeting for Sufferings held Sep. 4 . . . 125 
 
 Reflections on its Determination thereon 126 
 
 Proceedings of the Quarterly Meeting of London and Middlesex, 
 
 held Sep. 29 127 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 held Nov 
 
 Letter to the Respondents, Sep. 30 
 Appeal to the Quarterly Meeting 
 First Sitting of its Committee, Oct. 12 
 Proceedings of the Adjourned Quarterly Meeting, 
 Second Sitting of its Committee, Nov. 2. 
 Third, ditto, ditto, Nov. 3 
 Fourth, ditto, ditto, Nov. 4 
 ditto, ditto, Nov. 5 
 
 ditto, Nov. 9 
 
 ditto, Nov. 1 1 
 
 Proceedings of the Adjourned Quarterly Meeting, held Nov. 16 
 Ditto ditto, Nov. 17 .... 
 
 Fifth, 
 Sixth, 
 Seventh, 
 
 ditto, 
 ditto, 
 
 130 
 
 ib. 
 
 140 
 
 147 
 
 152 
 
 172 
 
 188 
 
 190 
 
 215 
 
 25S 
 
 344 
 
NARRATIVE, 
 
 SfC. 
 
 AFTER having been for more than fifty years a 
 member of the Society of Friends, in which I was 
 born and educated, without ever receiving a disci- 
 plinary visit, on any charge of delinquency, I have 
 lately been subjected for the first time in my life to 
 what is sometimes called " Dealing** and sometimes 
 " Christian discipline." Of the first conference I 
 soon afterwards made the following minutes. 
 
 1811, Aug. 26th. This morning Henry Knight, 
 one of the overseers of RalclifT Monthly Meeting, 
 paid me a visit on account of my having given away 
 some copies of a printed paper, containing Remarks 
 on the Yearly Meeting Epistle for 1810. and become 
 a subscriber to the London Unitarian Book Society. 
 
 I requested to know what part of the Remarks he 
 disapproved ? He replied, the general tenor of the 
 paper was, in his apprehension, very different from the 
 doctrines of Friends, And in particular, it did not 
 
 B 
 
admit that Christ was God. As to the Unitarian 
 Book Society, he did not even know that such a so- 
 ciety existed till he was informed I was a member of 
 it. But he concluded their principles were very dif- 
 ferent from those of Friends. 
 
 I wished to know in what sense he considered 
 Christ as God ? Whether he meant to assert any 
 distinct personal divinity, besides that of the Father 
 which dwelt in him, according to the text, which 
 says, that " God was in Christ, reconciling the world 
 unto himself?" My visitor disavowed the doctrine 
 that Christ is the second person in the Trinity. His 
 belief appeared to be, that Christ was in reality God 
 himself, and not any distinct being, co-equal and co- 
 eternal with the Father, as all Trinitarians maintain. 
 This Sabellian notion, however, he did not ascribe to 
 the person of Christ, but to that divine power which 
 resided m, and acted by him. 
 
 He asserted that the I Tim. vi. 15, 16, represents 
 Christ as " as the blessed and only Potentate, who 
 only hath immortality." I urged its evident refer- 
 ence to the Father, and the utter inapplicability of it 
 to Christ. 
 
 My visitor next urged the text in Isaiah, which in 
 the common version describes a child and a son to 
 be born at a future time, as the mighty God and the 
 everlasting Father. This I told him was, I conceived, 
 an erroneous translation. As to the real character of 
 Christ, I observed he himself has on many occasions 
 informed us who, and what, he was, in the clearest 
 and most explicit terms, and that I fully believed all 
 he was recorded in the New Testament to have said 
 concerning himself. 
 
 The text in which Christ is represented as saying 
 " I and my Father are one" was urged by my visitor. 
 But by this, [ contended, could not consistently with 
 the context, be understood a personal union, but 
 only the unity of will and action. For in the preced- 
 
ing verse, Chwst is recorded to have said, and who 
 shall dare to contradict him, " My Father is greater 
 than all" — to whom he prayed thus, " Holy Father 
 keep through thine own name those whom thou hast 
 given me, that they may be one as we are.'* 
 
 My visitor also adduced John i. 1. and xvii. 5. In 
 the latter text Christ is represented as praying to that 
 great Being whom he describes in the third verse of 
 the same chapter as " the only true God" in these 
 terms. — " And now, O Father, glorify thou me 
 with thine own self, with the glory which I had 
 with thee before the world was/* With regard to 
 these texts, I urged the necessity of carefully re- 
 garding the context of each in ascertaining their true 
 import ; viz. what the Evangelist meant to express* 
 That I had no objection to these texts, although I 
 might to my visitors construction of them. 
 
 As my visitor repeatedly spoke of information 
 which had been given him respecting my religious 
 opinions, I requested he would acquaint me from 
 whom he had received his intelligence, and what it 
 was that his informants alleged respecting my sup- 
 posed errors. 
 
 The number of persons from whom he had receiv- 
 ed such accounts, not less, he said, than nine or ten, 
 he urged as an excuse for not giving me any farther 
 account of their accusations, and he declined saying 
 who any of them were. I told him, if he came, as 
 he professed to do, out of Christian love and good- 
 will, to caution me against any errors he conceived 
 I had fallen into, I was obliged for his kind inten- 
 tion, and should consider any advice he might give 
 me, in the same, disposition of mind. 
 
 But if he came at the instigation of others, whom 
 he refused naming, with a view to Dealing and dis- 
 ownment for any errors in judgment into which I 
 may have fallen, or for the open profession of what I 
 believed to be Christian truth, I should expect any 
 
charges against me should be given in writing, to 
 which I would reply in a similar manner. That I held 
 no religious doctrines that I was ashamed or afraid to 
 avowi and none as essential but such as weie to be 
 found in the Scriptures, and that to the best of my 
 knowledge 1 believed all the doctrines of Christ, that 
 were recorded in the New Testament, and consider- 
 ed his authority as far superior to any other in all 
 that reptctcd faith and worship. 
 
 My worthy visitor recommended me to avoid for 
 the future disseminating sentiments which were so 
 generally disapproved by others, as well as by 
 Friends, but to keep them to myself, as the circula- 
 tion of them had hurt many weak ?ninds. And this 
 advice he pressed upon me as likely to promote peace 
 of mind and future tranquillity and happiness. 
 
 Such advice, 1 replied, had been given a thousand 
 times. It was the incessant language of the Romish 
 Church at the period of the Iteformation, and had 
 been very generally adopted by the rulers of most 
 churches in almost every age. That I was sen- 
 sible of the great importance of religious truth, 
 and that no one could be so deeply interested in my 
 forming right opinions concerning it as myself. But 
 as to any engagement to abstain from communicat- 
 ing my views of religious truth from time to time, as 
 proper occasions may occur, I must decline holding 
 out any such expectation. We parted in a very 
 friendly manner, with mutual expressions of kind- 
 ness to each other. 
 
 FIRST VISIT OF THE OVERSEERS. 
 
 1811. Sept. 6. This evening Henry Knight and 
 Richard Bowman, as overseers of Ratcliff Meeting, 
 paid me a visit ; the object of which they stated to 
 be, to obtain some farther explanation respecting the 
 paper Henry Knight spoke to me about. I admitted 
 
having given away some copies of it, and also of a 
 reply to it by Breviloquus, which they had not seen. 
 They read it (in the Monthly Repository, Vol. V. p. 
 64/,) and then asked if I approved it P * 
 
 I replied that I was quite as willing it should be 
 seen and judged of by others as the Kemarks on the 
 Yearly Meeting Epistle ; but as I had received one 
 visit from Henry Knight and recorded the substance 
 of our conference, I begged leave to read those mi- 
 nutes, which I did, and expunged an expression or 
 two which he did not recollect having used. The 
 remainder he admitted to be a correct statement of 
 the substance of our conference. 
 
 On referring to 1 Tim.vi.- 15. 16. I re-urged that 
 it was God, and not Jesus. Christ, whom the apostle 
 describes as " the blessed and only Potentate^ho only 
 hath immortality, dwelling in the light which ne man 
 can approach unto, which no man hath seen or can 
 see." — And asked, (to no purpose) how the latter 
 part of this apostolic description could be applicable 
 to Christ ? As to the text he had quoted from Isaiah, 
 ix. 6. as rendered in the authorized version, John 
 Locke, I observed, states it to be an erroneous transla- 
 tion. "Surely," says he, "it is high time to correct that 
 known false reading, and most glaring self-contradic- 
 tion in our English bibles, in which Christ is spoken 
 of expressly in the very same place, as a child to be 
 born at some future time, and is nevertheless styled 
 the everlasting Father, instead of the Father of the 
 age to come. It is not sufficient that learned men 
 know this perversion of the sacred text, it should be 
 made plain and evident to all ; as we find Christians 
 continually misled by it into dark and debasing no- 
 tions of the eternal, unchangeable God." — See an 
 Examination of the Passages in the New Testament 
 respecting the Person of Jesus. By. J. Smith, Gen- 
 tleman, p. 1 j3. 
 
 With regard to the import of John, xvii. 5. they 
 disclaimed all idea of a separate or distinct personal 
 
pre-existence of Christ with the Father, but said they 
 considered Christ as being himself the Father, and 
 they also disclaimed the notion of Christ being the 
 second person in the Trinity, as never having been 
 held by Friends, and as wholly unscriptural. 
 
 My visitors represented how improper they deemed 
 it, for any member of the Society to promote in any 
 degree the circulation of a paper which evidently 
 censured what had been approved by the Yearly 
 Meeting. 
 
 I called their attention to that part of the Epistle 
 which spoke of the object of prayer in ambiguous, 
 and, as I think, highly improper terms, if intended 
 to designate the giver of every good and every per- 
 fect gift, as being one '-'upon whom help was laid," 
 that is, one who received help from another. 
 
 "We referred to the 89th Psalm, where this phrase 
 is applied to David, as my visitors agreed, but 
 Richard Bowman expressed his persuasion that it 
 was elsewhere applied to Christ. He could not 
 point out where, but in case he should make such a 
 discovery, I requested him to refer me to the text, and 
 endeavoured to impress my visitors with the danger 
 of adopting any unscriptural designations of. the ob- 
 ject of worship, by pointing out some of the steps by 
 which great corruptions had been gradually intro- 
 duced into professed Christian churches. 
 
 As Richard Bowman said he considered all the 
 objections to the Epistle in the Remarks to be un- 
 founded, I asked whether an erroneous quotation 
 of scripture was to be defended because it happened 
 to be so quoted in a Yearly Meeting Epistle? On 
 which he said, he did not know it contained any 
 misquotation of a text of scripture ! I pointed out 
 one which does not accord with the following texts, 
 Mat. vi. 33, and Luke xii. 31. 
 
 On the declaration of Christ, in Mat. xxviii. 18, 
 " All power is given unto me, in heaven and in 
 earth," which is quoted by Breviloquus as " a defi- 
 
nition of omnipotence/' being urged by my visitors 
 for the same purpose, I referred them to the 2 Thess. 
 ii. 9. which describes the coming of " the man of 
 sin" to be " after the working of Satan, with all 
 power," to shew them that such expressions in scrip- 
 ture are sometimes used when the writer could not 
 be supposed to speak of absolute omnipotence. 
 
 Richard Bowman read a part of the Preface to the 
 " Rules of the London Unitarian Book Society," 
 containing its fundamental principles, and the greater 
 part of the next paragraph. 
 
 I informed my visitors, that I considered that the 
 Society opposed the doctrine of the Trinity, on simi- 
 lar grounds to those which William Perm had so 
 ably stated, in his " Sandy Foundation Shaken/' 
 That doctrine appeared to me one of the most in- 
 jurious corruptions of pure and primitive Christianity, 
 which had ever been introduced. That I had so es- 
 teemed it from my early years, and never as a doc- 
 trine held by the Society of Friends, that when I 
 became a member of this Book Society, I entered 
 into no subscription to articles of faith, but by pay- 
 ing a sum of money in the year 1804, became a 
 member for life, entitling me to an annual allotment 
 of books. 
 
 On my visitors taking leave, Richard Bowman 
 said they should not feel satisfied without some far- 
 ther explanation : I expressed my readiness to meet 
 them again, but we parted without fixing any time 
 for another conference. 
 
 SECOND VISIT OF THE OVERSEERS. 
 
 Oct. 23,1811. This morning Henry Knight and 
 Richard Bowman, as overseers of Ratcliff Monthly 
 Meeting, paid me another visit. 
 
 I read my minutes of our last conference, to the 
 correctness of which they made only one objection. 
 
 - 
 
It related to an admission, which they did not re* 
 collect making; and which I accordingly expunged ; 
 but as I consider the sentiment important, I shall 
 restate it, not as theirs but my own : viz. That such 
 an application of the phrase from the 89th Psalm, to 
 the object of prayer, as the Yearly Meeting Epistle 
 for 1810 contains, is improper and objectionable. 
 
 When I had made this correction, I reminded 
 Richard Bowman of the strong persuasion he ex- 
 pressed at our last conference, that this phrase was 
 applied to Christ in another part of the scriptures; 
 and of my request to him, that he would point out 
 the passage when he had found it. He appeared to 
 have no longer any hope of doing this. But Henry 
 Knight said it had been applied to Christ by William 
 Penn. I brought him the first volume of Penn's 
 Works, and he pointed it out. 
 
 In this passage he says, speaking of Christ, " For 
 in him the fullness dwells : Blessed be God for his 
 sufficiency. He," that is God, "laid help upon 
 him, that he might be mighty to save all that come 
 to God, through him. Do thou so, and he will 
 change thee ; ay, thy vile body, like unto his glo- 
 rious body. He is the great philosopher indeed, the 
 wisdom of God, that turns lead into gold, vile things 
 into precious: for he maketh saints out of sinners, 
 and almost gods of men." — Vol. I. Fol. p. 273. 
 
 I expressed my full approbation of the manner in 
 which this phrase is applied to Christ, and assured 
 my visitors, if it had been so applied in the Yearly 
 Meeting Epistle, I should never have thought it ob- 
 jectionable. They professed themselves unable to 
 perceive the difference. I only replied the difference 
 appeared to me very great. It was not however 
 Penn's application of the phrase, but its application 
 in scripture, that was the question between us, and 
 whether that would warrant such a use of it as th« 
 compilers of the Epistle had made. 
 
In the scriptures it is I believe only applied to 
 David. And although William Penn has applied it 
 very pertinently to Christ, in the foregoing passage, 
 he does not thereby confound scriptural distinctions, 
 but refers ail the " sufficiency " of Christ, and that 
 in the present tense, to the source from whence, ac- 
 cording to the uniform testimony of the scriptures, 
 it could only be derived, that is from God. 
 
 My visitors wished to know whether I was in- 
 clined to withdraw myself from the Unitarian Book 
 Society. 1 replied that they had not pointed out any 
 sufficient reason why I should. They professed to 
 be unacquainted with the general tenor of the books 
 it has published. I therefore recommended them to 
 peruse some of those works before they censured me 
 for my connexion with that Society. 
 
 This they declined as unnecessary, although I of- 
 fered to lend them any of the books, alledging that 
 the Preface to the Book of Rules of itself contained 
 enough to manifest the impropriety of any member 
 of our Society being a subscriber to this, on account 
 of the great difference between the doctrines there- 
 in, and the known principles of Friends. 
 
 On reading the passage they pointed out as con- 
 taining ample proof of the difference they insisted 
 on, sentence by sentence, that I might clearly un- 
 derstand the nature and extent of their objections, I 
 found reason to conclude theyldid not apply to so 
 much of its contents as the terms they had used led 
 me at first to imagine. 
 
 To the fundamental principles of this Society my 
 visitors made no objection whatever. They are so 
 clear, so important, so sound and scriptural, that I 
 can hardly imagine any denomination of Christians 
 could object to the circulation of books which in- 
 culcate these great truths of our common Christiani- 
 ty, in an able and judicious manner, although they 
 might say nothing respecting the peculiarities which 
 
10 
 
 different Christian churches have annexed to these 
 fundamental principles, however important their re- 
 spective advocates may deem them, or whatever 
 stress they may lay on them as the indispensible 
 terms of religious communion. 
 
 Nor did they make any objection to the inference 
 in the next paragraph respecting " the beneficial in- 
 fluence of these truths upon the moral conduct of 
 men." 
 
 But, alas! the next inference which is deduced 
 from the above-mentioned fundamentals, relates not 
 so directly to moral conduct, as to opinions on points 
 of faith. It is nevertheless very judiciously express- 
 ed, and refers only to such " foreign opinions" as 
 men have attached to those primitive doctrines. 
 
 There is doubtless considerable difficulty in ascer- 
 taining, in some cases, what are and what are not 
 " foreign opinions/' and how far other tenets are 
 strictly consistent with those fundamental articles of 
 all true religion. But these differences of opinion 
 neither diminish the importance of those truths, nor 
 the obligation to inculcate them. To have these 
 firmly impressed upon the mind has a natural ten- 
 dency to prepare it for receiving farther degrees of 
 Christian truth, and to guard it against the baleful 
 influence of fanaticism and superstition. To pro- 
 mote these ends is therefore in effect to encourage 
 the reception of other tenets in proportion as they 
 really deserve the character of Christian doctrines. 
 
 My visitors were so far from censuring "a firm at- 
 tachment to the doctrine of the Unity of God/' that 
 one of them represented the Society of Friends as 
 holding that doctrine in a more strict sense than the 
 Unitarians did; the latter making a distinction be- 
 tween God and Christ, whereas the former, (by his 
 account of the matter) considered them as one and 
 the same Being. 
 
 My visitors allowed Christ to be " the most distin- 
 
11 
 
 guished of the prophets." That he was the mes- 
 senger of God they granted ; but they deemed it 
 disrespectful to speak of him as the creature of God. 
 I observed it was evident, by the connexion of the 
 passage, it was " the man, Christ Jesus" that was 
 so spoken of, and not that divine power which re- 
 sided in and acted by him, to which he himself as- 
 cribed all his wonderful works. " The Father within 
 me doeth the works," that is, his power. " / can of 
 mine own self" or without his assistance, " do no- 
 thing." 
 
 I asked them whether Christ was not called in 
 Col. i. 15. " the first born of every creature," or of 
 the whole creation? On referring to the text it ap- 
 peared I had quoted it correctly. Nor did they deny 
 or question the justice of my inference from it, that 
 it applied the same term to Christ which they ob- 
 jected to as disrespectful to his character. 
 
 But they unitedly urged their incompetency to 
 enter into a discussion of such abstruse subjects, 
 expressing their hope, nevertheless, that I should 
 not deem it unfriendly in them, if they just mentioned 
 the matter to the Monthly Meeting to-morrow, for 
 the sake of getting it off their shoulders: so many 
 Friends had intimated that it was their duty as over- 
 seers to notice the case, that they could not well do 
 otherwise, painful as they professed it to be to them- 
 selves. I inquired whether the Friends they spoke 
 of, were members of our Monthly Meeting or of 
 some other. They replied, without hesitation," they 
 are not members of our Meeting." 
 
 With regard to their intention of reporting the 
 case to the Monthly Meeting to-morrow, I told 
 them I thought they should have acquainted me 
 sooner, but wished them to act as their own sense of 
 duty dictated. It was very immaterial to me whe- 
 ther the case were laid before the Monthly Meeting 
 to-morrow or a few months hence; but I reminded 
 
12 
 
 them the rules of the Society required great care not 
 to bring cases before a meeting for discipline, unne- 
 cessarily or prematurely ; especially such as did not 
 relate to immoral conduct. They assented to this, 
 and intimated their intention to defer any mention of 
 the case to the Monthly Meeting to-morrow, but 
 did not propose paying me another visit unless I 
 should request it. 
 
 CONFERENCE WITH THE OVERSEERS. 
 
 Oct. 27th, 1 S 1 1 . At the close of the meeting for 
 worship this morning, I requested an interview with 
 Henry Knight and Richard Bowman, in order to 
 read to them my minutes of the conference with them 
 on the 2c>rd inst. which I did accordingly at the 
 house of Henry Knight. 
 
 They made no objection to them as incorrect. But 
 on reading the paragraphs in p. 9 and 10, they inquir- 
 ed what need I had to make those observations on 
 the fundamental principles of the London Unitarian 
 Book Society, and the two first sentences of the next 
 paragraph, as they did not make any objection to 
 those parts. 
 
 I replied, as they had objected in very general 
 terms to the whole, I had sufficient reason for ad- 
 verting to those passages. I had not taken up those 
 sentiments lately, but in early life, and the first 
 strong impression on my mind respecting their great 
 importance as Christian doctrines, was derived from 
 Penn's " Sandy Foundation Shaken," where they 
 are so clearly and forcibly stated. This impression 
 has never been effaced, but has been confirmed by 
 subsequent inquiry and reflection. It has grown 
 with my growth and strengthened with my strength. 
 
 Henry Knight referred me to " Penn's Innocency 
 with her open Face," which the author called an 
 Apology for the former work, and therefore he 
 
15 
 
 thought it should be considered as explanatory of 
 his sentiments when he wrote it. 
 
 I replied, I long ago read it with attention, and 
 carefully compared its contents with those of the 
 " Sandy Foundation Shaken." But I could never 
 find reason for thinking, as I knew had been said of 
 late years, that it was intended as an Apology, very 
 nearly allied to a recantation. 
 
 It was not so considered by Penn's contempora- 
 ries ; nor could such an inference be justly drawn 
 from the latter work being called an apology for the 
 former. Did not Robert Barclay, who lived in the 
 same age, call his great work an Apology for the 
 true Christian Divinity ? a title, probably adopted 
 from the celebrated defence of the doctrines of the 
 early Christians, presented to Antoninus Pius, the 
 Roman emperor, under the title of an Apology, by 
 the famous Justin Martyr. 
 
 But on whatever ground Barclay adopted such a 
 title, 1 could not consider it as well chosen. Nor 
 could its adoption by Penn do any thing towards 
 subverting his arguments in the "Sandy Foundation 
 Shaken/' which he thought, and I think, are firmly 
 fixed on the immoveable foundations of scripture and 
 right reason. 
 
 I well remember this work being very impressive- 
 ly recommended by a minister of eminence to the 
 general attention of Friends, at a Yearly Meeting, 
 many years ago. I was then young, but being well 
 acquainted with that work, and thinking highly of 
 its merits, this recommendation of it, by a minister 
 deservedly and generally esteemed, gave me peculiar 
 satisfaction. Nor did a single person think fit to 
 qualify the advice given, by any reference to " In- 
 nocency with her open Face," or to throw out any 
 hint that Friends might be in danger oi adopting er- 
 roneous sentiments by perusing the "Sandy Foun- 
 dation Shaken" without a comment. 
 
14 
 
 Richard Bowman observed he never before heard 
 it had been so recommended in the Yearly Meeting. 
 I assured him it was, while I was present, and by a 
 man whom I considered as one of the best ministers 
 I had ever known in the Society. That the Society 
 had republished it in Penn's " Select Works," and 
 could not therefore consistently censure any person 
 for adhering to the doctrines it contained. 
 
 Soon after the above conference I addressed the 
 following letter to the overseers. 
 
 To Henry Knight and Richard Bowman. 
 
 Bromley, Nov. 5, 1811. 
 
 Respected Friends, 
 
 You have paid me two visits as overseers of Rat- 
 cliff Monthly Meeting, on account of my having 
 submitted to the consideration of certain persons 
 some printed Remarks on the Yearly Meeting 
 Epistle for 1810, which first appeared in the 
 Monthly Repository for that year, p. 490 ; and also 
 on account of my being a subscriber to the London 
 Unitarian Book Society. These are the only two 
 points which you have alleged against me. 
 
 During these visits we have had some free and friend- 
 ly conversation respecting each, of the substance of 
 which, as you know, I soon after made minutes, as 
 also of a, previous conference with Henry Knight on 
 the same subjects. These having been admitted by 
 you to contain a pretty correct account of those con- 
 ferences, I shall refer to, as future occasions may 
 require. 
 
 At the second conference you intimated your in- 
 tention of just mentioning the matter to our Month- 
 ly Meeting, without paying me another visit. That 
 is, I suppose, to denounce me as a delinquent. On 
 this intimation I informed you, that if such was your 
 
15 
 
 determination, it was of no consequence to me per- 
 sonally, whether it was done, as you proposed, at 
 the Monthly Meeting, to be held the next day, or a 
 few months hence. 
 
 Since you have however, by concluding at least to 
 defer your accusation another month, given me far- 
 ther time for reflection on the situation in which we 
 respectively stand in relation to your said intentions, 
 I cannot but feel a wish that you may also avail 
 yourselves of it. And I hope you will not deem it 
 unbecoming in me to submit in writing a few additi- 
 onal thoughts respecting it to your deliberate consi- 
 deration. 
 
 In the first place I must observe, that I am 
 yet wholly ignorant what rule of the Society, of 
 which we are members, I am supposed to have bro- 
 ken. It is for you to reflect on the propriety of ac- 
 cusing any individual under such circumstances, and 
 to act as your judgment dictates. 
 
 But you must excuse my saying, it appears to me, 
 before you take such a step, it behoves you, in re- 
 gard to your own reputation and that of the Meet- 
 ing, on whose behalf you act, previously to ascertain 
 that some rule has been transgressed, that the party 
 has been dealt with according to gospel order, and 
 lastly, that the case is ripe for, and requires pub- 
 lic exposure, as an offence against the rules of the 
 Society. To which I must add, that the plainest 
 principles of common justice require, that the party 
 accused should be early and explicitly informed what 
 law or rule of the Society he is charged with having 
 broken. 
 
 You ought not only to be well satisfied in your 
 own minds, after an attentive examination, that the 
 rule upon which you mean to proceed, properly ap- 
 plies to the case, but of the necessity, upon clear 
 Christian principles, for reporting it to a meeting for 
 discipline. Should you continue to act in this affair, 
 
16 
 
 more upon the opinions of others, than on your own 
 unbiassed judgment, it may be worth your while to 
 consider how far those members of other meetings, 
 whom you have repeatedly spoken of, but always 
 declined naming, have themselves duly observed 
 gospel order in the case ? And how they can be 
 properly qualified to sit in judgment upon it in the 
 event of an appeal ? 
 
 That these persons may become entitled to exer- 
 cise such a power, according to the letter of our 
 rules, you must admit. And from the kind of zeal 
 they have already manifested, it is natural, and no 
 breach of charity to conclude its activity would not 
 decline while any thing remained unaccomplished, 
 which they had incited others to undertake, and 
 which their own efforts might contribute to secure. 
 Blind zeal can, we know by experience, make accusers 
 the judges of an appeal against their own accusation. 
 Nor is there, that I know of, any constitutional re- 
 medy for so glaring an evil, where a man's accusers, 
 and the full extent of their insinuations and charges 
 against him are concealed from himself, and may ne- 
 vertheless be well known to his judges. 
 
 As to the Remarks on the Yearly Meeting Epistle 
 for 1810, I would observe, that they are either just 
 or they are not. If they are just, you cannot reason- 
 ably object to them, or censure me for whatever pub- 
 licity 1 have given them. If they are not just, to 
 give them circulation is but to expose their weakness 
 and promote their refutation. 
 
 The writer of these Remarks seems to have form- 
 ed a favourable opinion of such former epistles of 
 the same annual assembly as he had seen, and ex- 
 presses his surprise at finding such passages as he 
 deemed erroneous in this ; never having before ob- 
 served in them " a profession of similar doctrines/' 
 Now, the passages on which he has animadverted are 
 either accordant with the general tenor of former 
 
17 
 
 Yearly Epistles, or they are not. If they are, it 
 must be very easy to shew their agreement, but this 
 has not, I believe, been yet attempted, and would 
 prove an arduous undertaking. If they are not ac- 
 cordant with each other, and the general tenor of 
 these epistles be sound and scriptural with regard to 
 the doctrines in question, as this writer represents, 
 you cannot surely censure me for giving publicity to 
 a paper, the writer of which expresses his approba- 
 tion of the general language of these epistles on those 
 important points which he has noticed, merely be- 
 cause he has also remarked a few passages which ap- 
 pear to him inconsistent therewith, as well as with 
 Scripture doctrine. 
 
 Our great Master was so far from representing such 
 conduct criminal, that he exhorted even the cavil- 
 ling Jews to " search the Scriptures," which implies 
 examining, comparing, judging. And on another 
 occasion, he appeals to the people, whom the 
 text, Luke, xii. 56. describes as " hypocrites in 
 these terms. — " Why even of yourselves judge ye not 
 what is right ?'* His doctrines will all of them bear 
 the severest investigation, and shine with the greater 
 lustre and the more effect for being subjected to it, as 
 will those of his professed followers, in proportion 
 as they approach to the standard of primitive purity. 
 
 Are you well advised, my friends, in giving coun- 
 tenance by these proceedings to the idea, that our 
 Yearly Epistles will not endure this trial ? Reflect, 
 whether the natural effect of subjecting them to it, is 
 not to render those annual addresses to the church 
 more sound, more correct, more scriptural and edify- 
 ing? 
 
 May we, according to apostolic injunction, every 
 one for himself, read, examine and compare one pas- 
 sage of Scripture with another, " comparing s^iri.'ual 
 things with spiritual things,'' by the aid of " that un- 
 derstanding given us of God." And may we not, with' 
 
 D 
 
18 
 
 out the imputation of something criminal, subject the 
 epistles of our fallible brethren to the same test ? May 
 we neither compare them with each other, nor with 
 the Scriptures ? If we may, I would query of you, 
 what more than this has the writer of the Remarks 
 done ? Or, will you say these epistles are to be held 
 up as too sacred to be examined, or even to have 
 inadvertent errors, and the probable effects of them, 
 pointed out ? Consider these things maturely, and 
 then act towards me as you believe to be just and 
 right. 
 
 You have intimated that I entertain some errone- 
 ous opinions. I grant it is more than probable I do, 
 and thankful should I be to have any of them correct- 
 ed, as I am happy never to have been, since I arrived 
 at maturity, so deeply involved in error as to imagine 
 myself free from it. But you have not imputed to 
 me, in either of the conferences we have had, any 
 wilful or corrupt errors. If, therefore, the opinions 
 you impute to me as erroneous, are not the conse- 
 quence of blameable negligence and inattention to 
 the subject, I intreat you to consider who is entitled 
 to cast the first stone at me, as not being himself al- 
 so subject to error, and in this state of comparative 
 imperfection, to see many things as through a glass 
 darkly ? 
 
 You should recollect that the New Testament en- 
 joins it as an incumbent duty on all Christians, libe- 
 rally to grant to each other, and even to encourage 
 universally, the free exercise of the rights of private 
 judgment. Our great Master uniformly inculcated 
 this duty, as being of indispensible obligation. His 
 disciples acquired this enlightened disposition of 
 mind only by degrees, and were frequently subjected 
 to his instructive reproofs for disregarding his pre- 
 cepts concerning it. " Ye know not what spirit ye 
 are of, 3 * said he unto them, on their manifesting an 
 intolerant and persecuting spirit. At another time, 
 
19 
 
 on their complaining to him of one who followed not 
 with them, just in their track, he replied with equal 
 dignity and wisdom, — " Forbid him not: for he that 
 is not against us is for us/' How worthy are these 
 sayings, and the conduct they recommend, of our 
 highest regard and zealous imitation. 
 
 With respect to the other branch of your intended 
 accusation, I have also a few thoughts to submit to 
 your consideration. Whatever may be the present 
 state of religious knowledge within the pale of our 
 small Society, you will, I presume, readily grant that 
 there are multitudes of our neighbours who have 
 great need to be taught " the first principles of the 
 oracles of God," as the text expresses it ; or, in 
 other words, of the Christian religion, as revealed in 
 the Scriptures. 
 
 Many of these you will also admit, are not at all 
 in the way of being benefitted by any of the means 
 of communicating religious instruction which are 
 adopted by our Society. Neither the labours of our 
 ministers, nor the general tenor of those writings 
 which are designed to inform others of the peculiar 
 doctrines of our Society, are well adapted to convey 
 such a general view of the fundamental truths of 
 Christianity, as the persons I allude to stand in need 
 of being taught, however fit those labours may be, to 
 promote the edification of those to whom they are 
 addressed, or those writings, to inform those who read 
 them, concerning the tenets to which they relate. 
 
 Can it then be justly deemed censurable for me 
 to unite with other well-disposed persons, although 
 not members of our Society, in a benevolent at- 
 tempt to " promote Christian knowledge and the* 
 practice of virtue" amongst those who neither at- 
 tend our meetings for worship, nor read the writings 
 of Friends, by distributing such books as appear to 
 us, (every one judging and acting for himself) the 
 
20 
 
 best calculated to forward these highly desirable ob- 
 jects ? 
 
 You do not profess to know, and consequently 
 are not qualified to judge, of the general complexion 
 of the works we distribute, or of the general charac- 
 ter of those who peruse them. Nor will you, I sup- 
 pose, pretend to have ascertained that the general 
 effect they have produced has been prejudicial. You 
 ought, at least as it seems to me, to be fully prepar- 
 ed to substantiate the hurtful tendency of such pub- 
 lications of this Book Society as I have individually 
 promoted the circulation of, before you can be war- 
 ranted in accusing me in the manner you have pro- 
 posed, on any just or Christian principles, for being 
 a subscriber to such a Society. 
 
 Before I conclude, I would recommend to your 
 deliberate perusal two small pamphlets which ac- 
 company this letter, and of which 1 request 
 your acceptance. The one appears to contain a 
 correct and regular series of Extracts from the 
 Yearly Meeting Epistles from 16J8 to 1810, which 
 will readily enable you to compare those passages in 
 the Epistle for last year, on which we have had 
 some friendly discussion, with the general tenor of 
 those Epistles for former years on the same subjects. 
 This comparison may assist you in determining 
 whether they are consistent with each other, and if 
 they are not, which is most conformable to Scripture 
 doctrine. 
 
 The other is a well written letter on " the Inno- 
 cency of Involuntary Error/' (by Arthur Ashley 
 Sykes,) and one of the works in the present year's 
 Catalogue of Books belonging to the London Unita- 
 rian Book Society, and sold by them " at the price 
 annexed to each article/' or placed at the disposal of 
 its subscribers to a certain amount annually on their 
 own nomination. The perusal of this tract will, I 
 trust, tend to convince you, that mutual forbear- 
 
21 
 
 ance, candour and charity towards each other, where 
 we have different apprehensions of religious truth, 
 are more becoming the followers of Christ, than to 
 aim through any other medium than conviction, at 
 such an uniformity of faith as never was enjoined in 
 the primitive Christian church, andean never be at- 
 tained by any other means, even in appearance only, 
 without inducing far greater evils than the most libe- 
 ral toleration of the rights of private judgment ever 
 produced. 
 
 If it should be your wish to pay me another visit, 
 after the perusal of this letter and the two pamph- 
 lets sent with it, before you finally conclude what 
 course to pursue, in discharge of your duty as over- 
 seers, I shall readily receive you, I hope, with a mind 
 open to conviction, and disposed to embrace the 
 truth in the love of it. In the mean time, I remain 
 your sincere and well-wishing friend, 
 
 Thomas Foster. 
 
 conference with the overseers. 
 
 Nov. 17, 1811. Henry Knight and Richard 
 Bowman informed me they had deliberately consider- 
 ed my letter, and not thinking it would answer any 
 good purpose for them to pay me another visit, they 
 intended to lay the case before the Monthly Meeting 
 the 21st inst. 
 
 I informed them I intended to leave home the day 
 before; but if they deemed further delay improper, 
 i would endeavour to defer my journey, as 1 chose to 
 be present when I was accused before a meeting for 
 discipline. 
 
 The overseers observed that no farther proceedings 
 would take place till my return. And having in my 
 letter to them said something about an appeal, delay 
 had better be avoided, as, if there was one appeal in 
 
22 
 
 this case, there would most probably be two, and that 
 might protract the matter longer than was desirable. 
 
 The same evening I wrote them the following 
 letter: 
 
 Bromley, Nov. 17, 1812. 
 Respected Friends, 
 
 A sincere wish to act towards you with uniform 
 sincerity and candour, alone prompts me again to 
 address you : the reception my former letter appa- 
 rently met with, affords me no encouragement to 
 continue the correspondence; but the intimation 
 given me at our very brief conference this morning, 
 that you meant to proceed in part upon the 20th 
 rule, under the head, " Meetings for Discipline,*' 
 (Book of Extracts, 3d Edit, p, 60) in your intended 
 accusation against me, obliges me to inform you, 
 that the purport of that rule has never been men- 
 tioned or referred to in either of the conferences I 
 have had with you. 
 
 Nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, ever 
 expressed any thing " against the validity of Christ's 
 sufferings, blood, resurrection, ascension, or glory 
 in the heavens, according as they are set forth in the 
 Scriptures; or any ways tending to the denial of the 
 heavenly man Christ." And yet these are the only 
 points of faith which the rule enumerates, as afford- 
 ing ground for dealing, on the wilful rejection of 
 some or all of these Christian tenets; and that only, 
 after such persons had been " diligently instructed 
 and admonished by faithful Friends, and not to be 
 exposed by any to public reproach." 
 
 Can you say that any instruction and admonition 
 has been extended towards me in relation to this 
 rule? This you will not affirm ; for the rule has been 
 only simply referred to, and that not till this morn- 
 
23 
 
 ing, and then without any mention of a single article 
 contained in it. 
 
 You may perhaps imagine some inconsistency be- 
 tween this rule and those sentiments which you 
 impute to me as erroneous, which I do not perceive ; 
 but we should have compared our respective ideas 
 with each other, in reference to this rule, before you 
 can be justified in representing it as forming any 
 part of the ground of your intended proceedings 
 against me. This you have neither done, nor at- 
 tempted. 
 
 But as you have called my attention to this rule, 
 I must observe, that to act upon it against me, would 
 be to abandon the whole tenor and spirit of your 
 proceedings hitherto. It authorizes no further deal- 
 ing than instruction and private admonition, except 
 towards those who " shall wilfully persist in error, 
 in point of faith, after being duly informed. " You 
 have never yet to my knowledge, imputed to me 
 wilful error, much less have I, on any such account, 
 been duly admonished. 
 
 You know I made minutes of our several confe- 
 rences, and read the same to you, and apprised you 
 in my letter that I should refer to them as future oc- 
 casions might require. Your mention of this rule, 
 as if I had transgressed it, naturally recalled to my 
 recollection, the solemn assurances I gave you dur- 
 ing the first visit you paid me, and which I shall 
 now transcribe, verbatim, as I then read them to 
 you, viz. That as to " the real character of Christ, 
 I fully believed all he was recorded in the New Tes- 
 tament to have said concerning himself — that I held 
 no religious doctrines that I was ashamed or afraid to 
 avow, and none as essential, but such as were to be 
 found in the Scriptures, and that to the best of my 
 knowledge, I believed all the doctrines of Christ 
 that were recorded in the New Testament, and con- 
 sidered his authority as far superior to any other, in 
 all that respected faith and worship." 
 
 i 
 
u 
 
 Is this, I would soberly ask you, " any ways tend- 
 ing to the denial of the heavenly man Christ ?" Or, 
 is it possible you can have forgotten the substance of 
 the above declaration ? Or, can it be, that admitting 
 I made it, you are prepared to say, you disbelieve 
 it ? The only other alternative. 
 
 If such misconceptions as these, or either of them, 
 have already occurred between us, it evinces the pro- 
 priety of your reducing your accusations to writing; 
 and on recurring to my minutes, I perceive that I 
 urged your so doing at our first conference, "for the 
 sake of preventing, as much as possible, mutual mis- 
 apprehension," and engaged to give you my reply to 
 them in a similar manner. In such a mode of pro- 
 cedure there might be a reasonable prospect of our 
 understanding each other, which I am seriously per- 
 suaded we do not at present, with sufficient accu- 
 racy, to warrant on any just principles, such further 
 proceedings as you have proposed. I have been 
 given to understand that you meant to proceed in 
 part upon the rule of which I have spoken above, 
 but I am not yet informed what other rule I am sup- 
 posed to have broken. 
 
 The delay you have consented to in consequence 
 of my leaving home, I ought to acknowledge as an 
 act of considerate kindness. But I do not feel easy 
 to defer submitting these things to your considera- 
 tion till after my return. I am very far from being 
 desirous of entering into such a contest as you, some- 
 what incautiously, in my apprehension, hinted at 
 to-day, in terms that implied more than you possibly 
 meant me to understand. 
 
 On recurring to my former letter you will find, 
 that I said nothing respecting my having an intention 
 of appealing. That is a question I have not taken 
 into consideration, nor shall I prematurely. If there 
 should be occasion there will be ample time for me 
 to consider that point deliberately, and to act accord- 
 
95 
 
 ingly. It was not with any reference to my own 
 conduct, but to yours, and that of my still unknown 
 accusers, that I at all adverted to the possible case 
 of an appeal; and then (not as I understood you) 
 in such terms as implied your calculating upon the 
 unfavourable issue of a first appeal, and the conse- 
 quent probability of a second. These significant 
 anticipations I shall leave to others. 
 
 I remain your sincere well-wishing friend, 
 
 Thomas Foster. 
 
 To Henri/ Knight and Richard Bowman. 
 
 REPLY TO THE REMARKS, &C. 
 
 In the next stage of these proceedings, the over- 
 seers exhibiting themselves as my accusers, for hav- 
 ing " imbibed and aided in promoting some opini- 
 ons" which they deemed unsound, it may be proper 
 to inform the reader, that they were not content with 
 defending their notions of orthodoxy in their visits to 
 me, without also promoting amongst Friends the 
 circulation in M.S. of the following Reply to the 
 Remarks on the Yearly Meeting Epistle for 1810. 
 
 Some copies of these Remarks being printed, 
 one was lent by a Friend of Worcester to Stanley 
 Pumphrey, of the same place, an appointed elder in the 
 Society. He returned it, expressing his obligations 
 " for the sight of the paper/' with the following ob- 
 servations on its contents. 
 
 " I have perused it attentively," (says he) " and am 
 of the opinion that it requires no great depth of what 
 1 expect the writer of the paper would call theologi- 
 cal understanding to shew the weakness of bis ob- 
 jections and the superficial nature of the doctrines he 
 wishes to inculcate ; indeed, had he adopted him- 
 self what he recommends to others, ' the assiduous 
 study of the Holy Scriptures^ he would, I think, 
 have seen that all his laboured endeavours to make a 
 
 E 
 
96 
 
 distinction between God and Christ must prove fu- 
 tile; he would have found that although in his mani- 
 festation upon earth, and in the obedience he recom- 
 mends by his own example in the character of 
 Son, the Father is spoken of as a second Person, 
 yet he [Christ] expressly says, < I and my Father 
 are one/ and, ' the Father is in me, and I in him/ 
 The delaration of the disciple John on this subject 
 is likewise positive and convincing as to the divinity 
 of Christ and his oneness with the Father; he intro- 
 duces the account of our Saviour's ministry with 
 these memorable words : — ' In the beginning was 
 the word, and the word was with God, and the word 
 was God, the same was in the beginning with God. 
 All things were made by him, and without him was 
 not any thing made that was made ; in him was life, 
 and the life was the light of men, 5 And a little af- 
 ter, as though to remove all uncertainty, he says, — 
 ' And the word' (which he had been describing as 
 ' being with God/ and 'God/) ' was made flesh, 
 and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the 
 glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full oi 
 grace and truth/ All this was but in unison with 
 what was foretold of him by the prophet. — ' Unto 
 us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the 
 government shall be upon his shoulder, and his 
 name shall be called wonderful Counsellor, the 
 Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince oi 
 Peace/ 
 
 " These and other texts to the like import place 
 our Saviour in the exalted and omnipotent character of 
 God and Christ; and having established this and 
 given it as the received doctrine of the Society, all 
 the objections worthy of notice fall to the ground. 
 
 " Had the writer really been what he informs us he 
 was, viz. an observer ' of the drift of the Epistles 
 issued from the same Annual Assembly / or had he 
 noticed the Vindication of their Principles, into which 
 
57 
 
 the Society was drawn, by the propagation of tenets si- 
 milar to his own in the case of H B , [Hannah 
 
 Barnard], he need not have applied for information, 
 as to what the opinion of the present or early Friends 
 was on this subject; he would have known that they 
 believed, and now believe that Christ is the Word 
 spoken of by the evangelist John, * which was in the 
 beginning with God, and which was God; that all 
 things were made by him, and that without him 
 was not any thing made that was made/ 
 
 " And it will be well if the Unitarian Christian, 
 before he again raises such objections, would seriously 
 reflect on the advice of the apostle to the Colossians, 
 and consider how far he is implicated therein — 
 4 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy 
 and vain deceit, after the tradition of Men, after the 
 rudiments of the world, and not after Christ; for in 
 him dvvelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.' 
 
 " Worcester, 1st Month, 3d, 1811." 
 
 The above Reply to the Remarks is the only one 
 I have seen, except the one by Breviloquus, noticed 
 in p. 5. It was sent me by a friend of mine who 
 resides at Worcester, and was a member of the 
 Society called Quakers, but had joined the Esta- 
 blished Church. I had given him in London, two 
 or three copies of the Remarks. When I acknow- 
 ledged the receipt of the Reply, I put into his hands 
 a Rejoinder, from which I shall extract two passages 
 only. The first relates to a most extraordinary asser- 
 tion, as it appeared tome, concerning which 1 said: 
 
 " I have seldom been more surprised at any state- 
 ment respecting the Supreme Being, which an evi- 
 dent leaning towards the side of supposed orthodoxy 
 has produced, than at a declaration in the paper pur- 
 porting to be written by S. P. that in the holy scrip- 
 tures, ' the Father is spoken of as a second person.' 
 Avowed Trinitarians, to use their own phrase, assert 
 that God the Father is ' primus inter pares, 3 or, the 
 
28 
 
 first among equals. S. P. however, while imputing 
 to 'an Unitarian Christian* a comparative ignorance 
 of the scriptures and inattention to the study of 
 them, fancies his superior discernment has discovered 
 that God is therein ' spoken of as a second person !* 
 He has not. referred to any text in support of his 
 assertion, and I believe the more assiduously he 
 studies the sacred writings, the more difficult he 
 will find it to point out any that can favour such a 
 notion, when coolly and impartially considered. It 
 needed not as he imagines, any ' laboured endeavours 
 to make a distinction between God and Christ.' The 
 evangelists have made it, as broadly and pointedly 
 as the greatest masters of language can possibly, be- 
 tween any two persons or beings whatever/' 
 
 The other passage relates to an impeachment of 
 6 the veracity of the Unitarian Christian, as not 
 having 'really been* what S. P. asserts, ' he informs 
 us he was* viz. an observer 'of the drift of the Epis- 
 tles from the same annual Assembly/ This serious 
 charge is wholly unfounded, the import of the words 
 marked as quotation is materially different from that 
 of the words used, inasmuch as the observation was 
 restricted to ' the general drift of such Epistles as he 
 had seen,* without professing to have seen all the 
 Epistles that have been issued by ' the same annual 
 Assembly.' At the same time I am of opinion, that 
 the most minute examination of all that have been 
 published, previous to the one for 1810, would not 
 discover a profession of similar doctrines. S. P. 
 should be cautious how he again without cause im- 
 putes wilful falsehood to another, however weak he 
 may deem the objections he would prove to be 
 futile, or superficial the doctrines he would confute/' 
 
 Being at Worcester in November 1811, 1 called 
 on Stanley Pumphrey, and requested he would in- 
 form me whether he had given any, and what in- 
 formation to any of the London Friends respecting 
 
99 
 
 me, in relation to " the Remarks," as I expected to 
 be accused by the overseers of Ratcliff Monthly 
 Meeting, of having promoted their circulation. He 
 informed me some inquiries had been made of him, 
 when he was at the last Yearly Meeting, (but by 
 whom he refused saying) if he knew whether I had 
 dispersed any of those Remarks among Friends at 
 Worcester ? That he replied, / do not know that he 
 has, but I saw a copy, and wrote a Reply to it, 
 which was sent to Thomas Foster, and I therefore 
 conclude he had some concern in their dispersion. 
 
 I left with him a copy of my Rejoinder, and a day 
 or two after saw him again, when he informed me, 
 that by saying the Father was spoken of in the scrip- 
 tures "as a second person," he only meant that he 
 was spoken of as another person. That he only used 
 those terms as the second person singular, just as he 
 should to distinguish his own father from himself, or 
 one person from another ; that he did not intend to 
 imply any inferiority in the Father, by using those 
 expressions, and he appeared hurt at the manner of 
 my noticing them. 
 
 I replied, that although I should deem the appli- 
 cation of such terms to God highly irreverent, I did 
 not impute any such intention to him. Nor had I 
 said any thing of their import, but simply quoted the 
 expression, leaving the reader to judge of it for him- 
 self. 1 could not consider it as proper or scriptural, 
 but far otherwise. That I was pleased to hear his 
 acknowledgment, which conceded what I contended 
 for, that in the scriptures, Christ is uniformly spoken^ 
 of, as one person or being, and God the Father as 
 another, unless they contained absolute contradic- 
 tions. 
 
 S. P. also disclaimed any intention of imputing 
 wilful falsehood to the Unitarian Christian, and said 
 he thought his words would not fairly admit such a 
 construction. 
 
 
 ~ ** 
 
30 
 
 The reader will judge of this, as also of the general 
 character of a paper from which the overseers seem 
 to have deduced most of the objections they made 
 to the Remarks at the first visit they paid nie, as I 
 then thought from their similarity; and six days 
 after one of them shewed me a copy (the date, the 
 writers name and residence excepted) evidently pre- 
 pared for circulation. 
 
 To shew what extravagant notions may be adopted 
 by those who disregard scriptural distinctions, I will 
 transcribe the concluding stanza of a " Hymn," 
 which not only holds up the meek and humble Jesus 
 as an object of worship, but describes it as an act of 
 condescension in him to occupy and>7/ the throne of 
 the Almighty Father of the universe. It is given in 
 the Evangelical Magazine, for Oct. 1810, p. 399, 
 verbatim, as follows: 
 
 " Amenthey cry to him alone, 
 
 Who deigns to fill his Father's throne ; 
 They give him glory, and again 
 Repeat his praise and say ^?«e?*." 
 
 Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, 
 12th Month, 19th, 1812. 
 
 After some other business had been gone through, 
 Richard Bowman addressed the Meeting as follows : 
 
 " It seems now to be a proper time for me to dis- 
 charge what I may say is a painful duty, by inform- 
 ing the Meeting that Thomas Foster, one of our 
 members, has imbibed and aided in the propagation 
 of doctrines contrary to those of the Society." 
 
 Henry Knight signified his concurrence in that 
 report, and soon after informed the Meeting that I 
 was a subscriber to the London Unitarian Book So- 
 ciety, producing one of the books of Rules, &c. with 
 a list of the members, in which, he observed, the 
 
31 
 
 name of Thomas Foster appeared as a member for 
 life. 
 
 From the Preface to the book of Rules he read the 
 following passage. "While, therefore, many well- 
 meaning persons are propagating with zeal, opinions 
 which the members of this Society judge to be un- 
 scriptural and idolatrous, they think it their duty to 
 oppose the further progress ofsucn pernicious errors, 
 and publicly to avow their firm attachment to the 
 doctrine of the unity of God, of his unrivalkd and 
 undivided authority and dominion ; and their belief 
 that Jesus Christ, the most distinguished of the 
 prophets, is the creature and messenger of God, and 
 riot his equal, nor his vicegerent in the formation and 
 government of the world, nor co-partner with him 
 in divine honours, as some have strangely supposed. " 
 And having read it, he laid the book of Rules on the 
 table. 
 
 Charles Palmer expressed his regret that the 
 overseers had not simply intimated a wish for the 
 Meeting to appoint a few Friends to assist them in a 
 difficult case, without mentioning the name of the 
 party. Another Friend or two expressed themselves 
 to the like import. But the Meeting generally ap- 
 peared to think the overseers had done right, and 
 the clerk made a minute to the following effect. 
 
 " This Meeting being informed that Thomas Fos- 
 ter, a member of this Meeting, hath imbibed and 
 aided in propagating doctrines contrary to the general 
 belief of the Society, and hath become a member of 
 a Society which avows ' their firm attachment/ ' 
 &c. to the end of the sentence. 
 
 On the minute being read, Richard Bowman ob- 
 jected to the latter part of it, and proposed that part 
 should be omitted. 
 
 John Harris (the clerk) said, he thought the 
 minute ought to be definite ; as did Charles Palmer; 
 
32 
 
 but most of the Friends who spoke to this point, 
 coincided in opinion with Richard Bowman. 
 
 Henry Knight also laid on the table a copy of the 
 Remarks on the Yearly Meeting Epistle for 1810, 
 by an Unitarian Christian, informing the Meeting, 
 that his first visit to me was on account of his being 
 informed that I had been concerned in the dispersion 
 of those Remarks, which found fault with the Yearly 
 Meeting Epistle, and he thought contained senti- 
 ments very different from those of Friends. 
 
 When it appeared to me that the Meeting was 
 about to appoint a committee to visit me, I observed, 
 that although I wished to be present if 1 was to 
 be accused, I had no desire to enter prematurely 
 on my defence, or to preclude any Friend that 
 was present from as free an expression of his 
 sentiments as if I had been absent. But there 
 were a few questions which I hoped it would 
 not be deemed improper in me to put to the Friends 
 who had visited me. And in the first place I re- 
 quested them to inform me, whether they had re- 
 ceived a letter which I had addressed to them, dated 
 the 17th of last month, as neither of them had no- 
 ticed the receipt of the letter. 
 
 The overseers replied they had received it, and did 
 not deem any communication with me necessary 
 concerning its contents ! 
 
 I then requested to know whether they still ad- 
 hered to the intention they had expressed to me on 
 the 17th of last month, of grounding their proceed- 
 ings in part upon the 20th rule under the head Meet- 
 ings for Discipline? 
 
 They declined saying whether they did or not. 
 
 Samuel Marsh said, he thought it was improper 
 to put such questions to the overseers, that having 
 laid the case before the Meeting, it was for them to 
 judge upon what rule to proceed. Several other 
 
S3 
 
 Friends expressed themselves to a similar purport 
 And although I again urged the propriety of inform- 
 ing an accused person what law he is supposed to 
 have transgressed, 1 could obtain no answer. 
 
 Charles Palmer. " I do think, Friends, it is ex- 
 ceedingly to be regretted that the overseers did not 
 pay Thomas Foster another visit subsequent to the 
 receipt of his letter, and I must say, that it appears 
 to me, justice requires that an accused person should 
 in all cases be informed, what law or rule he is 
 charged with having broken. " 
 
 Richard Bowman. " Perhaps that Friend does 
 not know, that this is not the only letter we have 
 received from Thomas Foster V* 
 
 Charles Palmer. " Till I came here I did not 
 know he had written you any ; I was quite a stranger 
 to the case ; but from what has been said, I think 
 some notice should have been taken of his letter." 
 
 I observed, as Richard Bowman has adverted to 
 my former letter to the overseers, which was dated 
 Nov. 5th last, it may not be improper to inform the 
 Meeting, that the only passage in it which the over- 
 seers thought fit to notice to me, they mistook the 
 purport of most strangely. Another part of it seems 
 for a time to have satisfied them of the propriety of 
 informing me what rule they supposed I had violated, 
 yet now they refuse to say, whether they mean to 
 adhere to that part of their accusation. 
 
 Samuel Marsh said he thought it was improper, 
 in the present stage of the business, to enter into 
 particulars ; those should be attended to by a com- 
 mittee : the business of the Meeting was to notice 
 the report of their overseers, in whom they might 
 safely place full confidence, and not to attend to 
 what Thomas Foster might think proper to say in his 
 own defence, or we might sit till night to very little 
 purpose. 
 
 I replied it was my wish to confine myself strictly 
 
3* 
 
 within the bounds of order, and of our rules. But 
 before any appointment was made, there were a few 
 other questions which I must beg leave to propose. 
 The first related to the persons with whom the over- 
 seers who have visited me have held communica- 
 tions, and received information respecting my con- 
 duct and religious sentiments. These persons they 
 informed me are not members of our Meeting, on 
 which I have equal reason to congratulate you 
 and myself. 
 
 William Binns, a member of Westminster, 
 Monthly Meeting, exonerated himself from the im- 
 putation of being one of these talebearers, by saying 
 he knew nothing of the case till it was opened in the 
 Meeting. Samuel Marsh said, that he did not at 
 all know it was likely to be brought forward till last 
 week. 
 
 I again requested the overseers to inform me the 
 names of my accusers, whom they at one time de- 
 scribed as " at least nine or ten Friends, 3 and after- 
 wards as " many Friends." 
 
 Richard Bowman said, there was no need for 
 them to comply with this request, as I had acknow- 
 ledged what they laid to my charge. 
 
 I replied, / had not admitted what was charged 
 upon me by them, and inserted in the minute which 
 had been read. And that it was evident, from what 
 had passed between us in our two conferences, that 
 they had heard much more alleged against me by 
 their informants than they had specifically charged 
 me with, and I therefore once more called upon 
 them before the Meeting, to make known to me 
 the names of those mine accusers. No expectation 
 of their doing me this Justice, being held out, I 
 took up the Book of Extracts from the table, ob- 
 serving their refusal called upon me in justice to 
 myself, to read the following minute of the Yearly 
 Meeting, and to urge their compliance with my 
 
85 
 
 reasonable request in conformity with its positive 
 injunctions. 
 
 " Whereas, it may happen that some friends may 
 suffer much in their reputation and character by a 
 detracting spirit, which too much prevails among 
 some bearing our name; who shelter themselves un- 
 der a pretence, that they say no more than they have 
 heard from others, but will not discover who they are; 
 wherefore, to prevent this evil of reporting and tale- 
 bearing, it is agreed, that such reporters or tale- 
 bearers shall either discover their authors, or be dealt 
 with and testified against as the authors thereof. 
 1744."— Book of Extracts, 2d Edit. p. 41. 
 
 The overseers, nevertheless, persisted in declining 
 to express any intention to acquaint me who any 
 of their informants were. And I think only one 
 friend, Charles Palmer, uttered a sentiment in fa- 
 vour of my request, as either reasonable in itself, or 
 obligatory upon them by the express provisions of 
 the above minute. 
 
 After this I adverted to the proposal of Richard 
 Bowman, on the minute respecting me being first 
 read, that all the latter part of it, which defined one 
 branch of the charges whereon I had been visited, 
 should be omitted, alleging that the former part was 
 expressed in such general terms as would naturally, 
 and almost necessarily, subject me to an indetermi- 
 nate extent of calumny and detraction. And, as I 
 had already been subjected to much of this, which 
 was entirely unfounded and highly injurious to my 
 reputation, I earnestly called upon the Meeting, as 
 men and as Christians, to recognize explicitly the 
 specific charges against me, and not by their own 
 ac v t to expose me to a continuance of similar injuries. 
 
 The Meeting, however, declined recognizing any 
 specific charge against me in the minute, or to in- 
 sert in it any reference to them, so as to mark out 
 the precise boundaries of the accusation! 
 
36 
 
 Henry Knight proposed qualifying the terms of 
 the minute as it now stood, by saying, instead of 
 "doctrines," some doctrines, or " some opinions/' 
 and the latter phrase was adopted. 
 
 William Binns objected to the words " general be- 
 lief of the Society," and proposed to substitute for 
 them " principles of the Society/' which the clerk 
 inserted in the place of the former phrase. 
 
 Samuel Marsh observed that he thought the mi- 
 nute, as it stood, would answer the purpose very 
 well. 
 
 I replied, there was no doubt but it might answer 
 the purpose of subjecting me to an unknown extent 
 of calumny and detraction. That if the Meeting se- 
 parated without doing me the justice to record what- 
 ever charges they recognized on their books, in spe- 
 cific terms, such an effect might be considered as an 
 unavoidable consequence. A minute expressed in 
 such general terms might also be thought to autho- 
 rise an inquisitorial inquiry into my sentiments re- 
 specting other points of doctrine, and not confine 
 the inquiry, as it ought, to the charges now alleged 
 against me. 
 
 With regard to these, it was doubtful whether it 
 could be truly said, that private admonition, ac- 
 cording to gospel order., had been duly extended. 
 But, if the proposed inquiry was carried farther, un- 
 der the supposed sanction of this minute, it would 
 be certain this indispensible preliminary step could 
 not have been taken, and therefore, as well as for 
 other reasons, I should positively object to enter- 
 ing upon any fresh subjects of investigation while 
 these were pending. 
 
 Samuel Marsh attempted to defend the general 
 terms in which the minute was drawn up, as " al- 
 lowing the friends who might be appointed to visit 
 me, to enter upon such other subjects of inquiry as 
 they might think necessary. 3 ' 
 
37 
 
 Richard Bowman remarked, that the printed paper 
 and Book of Rules which they had laid on the ta- 
 ble, (that is, the Remarks on the Yearly Meeting 
 Epistle for 1810, and the Preface to the Rules, &c. 
 of the London Unitarian Book Society,) " contained 
 the proofs on which what is asserted in the minute 
 was founded" Henry Knight said " / consider 
 that to be the case.'' 
 
 The minute being so far settled, it only remained 
 to nominate a committee to visit me and report- The 
 first person proposed for this service was Samuel Marsh! 
 After a short pause, he suggested the expediency of 
 applying to the Quarterly Meeting for assistance, as 
 our Meeting was at all times small, and, at present, 
 some of the most suitable of our members to under- 
 take a case of this nature, were absent. If they did 
 not, as the Quarterly Meeting was to be held next 
 week, " the matter would probably be hung up 
 ■much longer than icas desirable ;" as, if the assistance 
 of the Quarterly Meeting should be found necessary, 
 and he thought a case never occurred which appear- 
 ed more to require it, that assistance could not be 
 had till the spring Quarterly Meeting, three months 
 hence. The Meeting, he also observed, had not 
 long ago applied to the Quarterly Meeting for its as- 
 sistance in a case, previous to the party being at all 
 visited. Several other members of the Meeting were 
 for applying to the Quarterly Meeting for a com- 
 mittee to assist them in the first instance. 
 
 Charles Palmer, and one or two other friends, were 
 of opinion, that it was irregular and improper to apply 
 to the Quarterly Meeting for assistance, before the 
 Meeting had attempted to do its own business, and 
 found it was not able to do it to its own satisfaction. 
 
 I expressed my concurrence in these sentiments, 
 and informed the Meeting that if they did apply to 
 the Quarterly Meeting, in the first instance as had 
 been proposed, I should consider the indefinite 
 
38 
 
 terms in which the minute was drawn up, still more 
 exceptionable, as exposing me to a wider range of 
 talebearing and detraction. That I thought it was 
 necessary the Meeting should hear before it sepa- 
 rated, at least part of my last letter to the overseers. 
 And I requested them to lay my letters to them be- 
 fore the Meeting for that purpose, which Henry 
 Knight did, but Richard Bowman, in a manner 
 equally disrespectful to his colleague and to the Meet- 
 ing, took up the packet from the table, and put it 
 unopened into his pocket, without one word of ex- 
 planation or apology! I produced a copy of the letter 
 and read two extracts therefrom, respecting my be- 
 lief in Christ and his doctrines, for which see pages 
 22 and 23. 
 
 Such were my solemn declarations to Henry 
 Knight on the 26th of August, and these I after- 
 wards read to him and Richard Bowman on the 6th 
 of the following month, verbatim, as I have now 
 read them to the meeting. I trust they will tend in 
 some measure to prevent erroneous impressions go- 
 ing forth against me, in consequence of the very 
 general and vague terms in which the minute is 
 drawn up. 
 
 Henry Knight said he wished to ask me, as I pro- 
 fessed to believe all that Christ is recorded in the 
 New Testament to have said concerning himself, 
 what my sentiments were respecting that text in 
 which Christ says, " I and my Father are one," and 
 that passage in his solemn prayer, wherein he says, 
 '" And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine 
 own self, with the glory which I had with thee be- 
 fore the world was." 
 
 To which I replied that I had already informed 
 him I had no objection to those texts, although I 
 might to his construction of them, and read the same 
 to him and Richard Bowman at the first conference 
 they had with me, as recorded in my minutes, p. 3. 
 
39 
 
 Henry Knight then inquired of me, whether I had 
 not sent a parcel of those papers, meaning the Re- 
 marks on the Yearly Meeting Epistle, to Worcester 
 to be distributed. To which I replied, J had not. 
 
 Richard Bowman informed the Meeting (in which 
 Henry Knight expressed his concurrence,) that I 
 had received their visits in a very friendly, open 
 manner, as he had no doubt I should any Friends 
 the Meeting might appoint to visit me. 
 
 The proposal to apply to the Quarterly Meeting 
 for assistance being at length given up, a minute was 
 made, appointing four friends to visit me and report. 
 
 To give my readers a full and distinct view of the 
 two offences on which the proceedings against me 
 were professedly founded, I shall lay before them 
 the following documents which were presented to 
 the Monthly Meeting by the overseers, as con- 
 taining the evidence on which their accusation rest- 
 ed: viz. A copy of the Remarks on the Yearly 
 Meeting Epistle, which I had promoted the circula- 
 tion of; and, A copy of the Preface to the Rules of 
 the Book Society to which I had become a Sub- 
 scriber. 
 
 REMARKS ON THE QUAKER'S YEARLY EPISTLE, 
 
 To the Editor of the Monthly Repository. 
 Sir, Aug. 10, 1810. 
 
 In the number for July (p. 3$5) you have insert- 
 ed, among other articles of religious intelligence, 
 the last Epistle from the Yearly Meeting of Friends, 
 usually called Quakers. The caution it recommends 
 to all its members * to use moderation in their man- 
 ner of living, and in this way to seek relief from the 
 increasing expense of the times in which we live, 
 rather than by engaging in more extensive and often 
 
hazardous schemes in trade," must, I think, be es- 
 teemed judicious and appropriate counsel. Indeed* 
 the general tenor of the moral advice it contains, has 
 been highly and deservedly commended in several of 
 the public prints, and will, I hope, by their means, 
 have a salutary influence on the conduct of many 
 who are not members of this respectable Society. 
 
 I cannot, however, bestow equal praise on such 
 parts of this Epistle as are more properly theological, 
 and especially on the manner in which it quotes 
 passages of Scripture, or makes use of its peculiar 
 phraseology. To pass over the inapplicable quota- 
 tions from Isaiah in the first paragraph, and the 
 highly figurative, but no less flattering compliment 
 to their preachers, as if their ministry was super-emi- 
 nently a source of light to their hearers, I would 
 first notice an improper application of a scriptural 
 phrase, and then make a few remarks on the abuse to 
 which such a practice is liable, 
 
 " The more we can abide under asenseofour own 
 wants, the readier and the more earnestly/' says this 
 Epistle, " shall we apply for help to him upon whom 
 help is laid." That is, the more sensible we ara 
 that we need assistance, the more shall we be dis- 
 posed to apply for help, not to the original fountain 
 of all power, the giver " of every good and perfect 
 gift, the Father of lights, with whom is no va- 
 riableness, neither shadow of turning." — James i. 
 17, but to one, as the very words import, who him- 
 self received help from another; upon whom help 
 was laid or conferred, as the context evidently shews. 
 
 The phrase is used in the 89th psalm, and I be- 
 lieve no where else in the Old or New Testament. 
 " I, (the Holy One of Israel) have laid help upon 
 one that is mighty. I have exalted one chosen out 
 of the people. I have found David my servant ; with 
 my holy oil have I anointed him. With whom my 
 
 
41 
 
 hand shall be established, mine arm also shall 
 strengthen him.'' vs. 19, 20, 21. 
 
 The writers of this Epistle cannot, I should think, 
 have intended to inculcate the propriety of address- 
 ing our supplications to such a character as the above 
 text describes, under any of the trials to which we 
 may be exposed in this preparatory state. But a se- 
 condary or mystical sense of many texts of scripture 
 having been often contended for, I would endeavour 
 to shew that no such construction of the text, can, 
 in this instance, be successfully pleaded, whether it 
 may or not in any other; for it adds, vs. 25, 26, " I 
 will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand 
 in the rivers. He shall cry unto me, Thou art my 
 Father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. 1 * 
 Hence it appears, whatever secondary or propheti- 
 cal construction the text may be thought to admit, 
 that the person upon whom it says help was laid, ac- 
 knowledged the Holy One of Israel to be his Father, 
 his God, and the rock of his salvation, and there- 
 fore cannot surely be justly considered as being him- 
 self the proper object, to whom Christians, the pro- 
 fessed disciples of Jesus, should offer up their sup- 
 plications. 
 
 After censuring, in very suitable terms, an undue 
 love of ease and worldly enjoyment, the para- 
 graph which inculcates the salutary caution I 
 have already noticed says, " We believe, however, 
 and we are glad in believing, that there are num- 
 bers who act upon sounder principles than these; 
 who knowing, as saith the apostle, that ' the 
 fashion of this world passeih away,' are really desi- 
 rous of « using this world as not abusing it.' These 
 we would encourage to hold on in the way cast up 
 before them, trusting in the Lord, who hath declared 
 that all things necessary will be given to those who 
 seek first His kingdom." 
 
 The declaration of Christ, here alluded to, x is not 
 
 
 *y * 
 
42 
 
 truly stated. Both the evangelists who have record- 
 ed it, Mat. vi. 33, and Lukexii. 31, say the promise 
 related to those who seek first the kingdom of God." 
 Whereas the Epistle represents it as referring to 
 those who seek first " the kingdom of Christ" which 
 is no less than to substitute one person for another : 
 the Son for God the Father. If such liberties as 
 these may be taken with texts of Scripture, it may 
 be made apparently to countenance any set of noti- 
 ons, however contradictory they may be to the ge- 
 nuine sense of the passages which are imagined to 
 support them, and to the general tenor of Scripture 
 doctrine. 
 
 It may perhaps be said, that the variation in this 
 instance is rather verbal than real, that the sense of 
 the passage is preserved, although the terms in which 
 it is expressed are changed ; that the kingdom of 
 God and the kingdom of Christ are substantially the 
 same. 
 
 In a certain qualified sense I admit they are, but 
 not entirely and permanently. For when the 
 end cometh, Christ shall deliver up the kingdom 
 to God, even the Father. 1 Cor. xiii. 24. In like 
 manner " the Gospel of God," although it came 
 originally from the Father, as the apostle Paul as- 
 serts, Rom.i. 1, 2- is nevertheless called in the 1 6th 
 verse of the same chapter, and elsewhere, in an in- 
 ferior sense " the Gospel of Christ." The apostle 
 even calls it his Gospel, according to the received 
 text in the next chapter, v. 16. and again in the xvi. 
 chapter of the same epistle, v. 25. But in both 
 places he emphatically asserts the unrivalled power of 
 God, whether bespeaks of it as acting by the agency 
 of Jesus Christ, or otherwise. 
 
 To return to the Epistle. — Immediately after the 
 above extract, which, without any authority from 
 the text, substitutes Christ in the place of God the 
 Father, it goes on in the following manner : " Thus 
 
4S 
 
 trusting, and endeavouring to apply to him'* Christ, 
 lc in secret supplication, in the difficulties that must 
 in a state of probation be the lot of all, we may 
 humbly hope that in our several proportions, we 
 shall grow in the truth. " 
 
 In reflecting on so palpable a perversion of a de- 
 claration of the lip of truth, and on the unscriptural 
 injunction which seems to have been founded there- 
 on, I cannot but feel strongly persuaded, that a 
 more assiduous study of the New Testament, would 
 more effectually promote a real growth in Christian 
 truth, than any endeavours to apply to Christ in 
 secret or open supplication, both of which are in 
 direct opposition to his uniform commands to his 
 followers, to look up to his Father and our Father, 
 to his God and our God, as the only proper object of 
 prayer. So far was the meek and lowly Jesus from 
 directing his disciples to apply to him for help, in 
 subsequent ages of the Christian church, that he 
 says, "in that day," viz. after his resurrection, "ye 
 shall ask me nothing — whatsoever ye shall ask the 
 Father in my name, he will give it you." 
 
 In the concluding paragraph "the never-ceasing 
 duty of humility/' is pressingly recommended from 
 the consideration, that " even our blessed Lord de- 
 clared himself to be meek and lowly in heart. He 
 did so. And it is highly incumbent on his professed 
 followers earnestly to aspire after "the same holy 
 temper/' Our great exemplar possessed this dig- 
 nified state of mind, in the highest degree, accord- 
 ing to our best conceptions, estimating his character 
 as it is pourtrayed by the evangelists. But they no 
 where tell us, that he ascribed similar qualities of 
 mind to his Father, the King eternal, immortal, in- 
 visible, the only God! 1 Tim. i. 17. 
 
 The sacred writers frequently speak of the holi- 
 ness, mercy, underived power, wisdom, omnisci- 
 ence and omnipresence of the Lord God Almighty, 
 
 
44 
 
 but never of bis meekness, humility, or lowliness of 
 mind. Nor do they ever represent Christ as having 
 endowed mankind with those talents, which they 
 possess " by nature," as rational beings, the offspring 
 of God. These are always represented by them as 
 the gift of God. Yet this Epistle plainly insinuates, 
 that the natural talents which mankind possess, have 
 been bestowed on them by Christ, without any men- 
 tion of the Father. " However great the talents, 
 with which he 9 " Christ, "may have endowed us by 
 nature, or however he may replenish our souls with 
 the more excellent gifts of his holy spirit, still we 
 have nothing which we have not received. " 
 
 This last inference is undoubtedly just, and our 
 great Master has repeatedly assured us, that all the 
 powers even he himself possessed, were given him of 
 his Father — that of himself he could do nothing. 
 Yet does this Epistle, without any reference to the 
 source whence all his powers were derived, ascribe 
 omnipotence to the meek and humble Jesus! 
 
 Self-examination is no doubt an important Chris- 
 tian duty, the discharge of which is in no degree de- 
 pendent on the unscriptural sentiment connected 
 therewith in the following passage. " Let us then, 
 dear friends, be willing to examine ourselves, and 
 know whether we are indeed humble followers of a 
 lowly-minded, though omnipotent Saviour.' 3 That 
 Christ was an all-sufficient Saviour, as being per- 
 fectly qualified to accomplish the great work w r hich 
 his Father gave him to do, I reverently believe, and 
 perhaps the term omnipotent may have been used on 
 this occasion in some such sense ; and not as in- 
 tended to assert his absolute and underived power 
 over all. It would be well, however, to adhere 
 more closely to the language, and especially to the 
 sense of scripture, on such important subjects as 
 these. 
 
 That great Being, who, in contrast with all those 
 
 
4.5 
 
 real or imaginary beings " that are called gods, whe- 
 ther in heaven or on earth, v is styled " God the 
 Father," is represented as saying to the people of 
 Israel, V thou shalt know no God, but me, for there 
 is no Saviour beside me." Hosea xiii. 4. 
 
 He is the Saviour of Saviours; of whom Isaiah 
 says, xix. 20, " he shall send them a Saviour, and 
 a great one, and he shall deliver them.'* 
 
 From the general drift of such Epistles, of the 
 same Annual Assembly, as I have seen in your in- 
 structive Miscellany, or in other periodical publica- 
 tions, I was not a little surprised at finding in this 
 such passages as I have noticed ; never having before 
 observed, in the writings of Quakers, a profession 
 of similar doctrines. Perhaps some member of the 
 Society who may see these Remarks, if you should 
 insert them in the Repository, will inform your 
 readers whether I have rightly understood the tenor 
 of this Epistle; and if so, whether the sentiments it 
 contains are those of the Society generally? And if 
 they are, whether such were also the doctrines of the 
 early Quakers, with regard to the proper object of 
 worship— the person or being who bestowed on 
 mankind their natural faculties — and in what sense 
 they consider Christ as omnipotent? 
 
 The liberal manner in which your work has been 
 conducted from its commencement, affords every 
 reasonable facility to an amicable discussion of all 
 theological topics, and holds out equal privileges to 
 the advocates of both sides of every question. On 
 such a stage, truth, and especially religious truth, 
 is sure to prevail, if its friends are not faithless to its 
 cause, and ingloriously desert its standard. Wish- 
 ing its cause and yours, for its sake, every success, 
 which may comport with the dispensations of un- 
 erring wisdom, and boundless benevolence, 
 I remain, yours, &c. 
 
 An Unitarian Christian. 
 
46 
 
 Preface to the Rules, &c. of the London 
 Unitarian Book Society. Instituted 179 1 - 
 
 Christianity, proceeding from God, must be 
 of infinite importance; and a more essential service 
 cannot be rendered to mankind, than to advance 
 the interests of truth and virtue; to promote peace, 
 liberty and good order in society; to accelerate the 
 improvement of the species ; and to exalt the cha- 
 racter, and secure the greatest ultimate happiness 
 of individuals, by disseminating the right principles 
 of religion, and by exciting the attention of men to 
 the genuine doctrines of revelation. 
 
 This is the chief object of the unitarian so- 
 ciety FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE 
 AND THE PRACTICE OF VIRTUE, BY DISTRIBUTING 
 
 such books as appear to the members of the Society 
 to contain the most rational views of the gospel, and 
 to be most free from the errors by which it has long 
 been sullied and obscured. Error, voluntary or in- 
 voluntary, so far as it extends, must have a perni- 
 cious influence. The members of this Society think, 
 therefore, that they are doing signal service to the 
 cause of truth and good morals, by endeavouring to 
 clear the Christian system from all foreign incum- 
 brances, and by representing the doctrines of reve- 
 lation in their primitive simplicity. Truth must ulti- 
 mately be serviceable to virtue. 
 
 The fundamental principles of this Society are, That 
 there is but one God, the sole Former, Supporter 
 and Governor of the universe, the only proper ob- 
 ject of religious worship; and that there is one me- 
 diator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 
 who was commissioned by God to instruct men in 
 their duty, and to reveal the doctrine of a future life. 
 The beneficial influence of these truths upon the 
 moral conduct of men will be in proportion to the 
 
confidence with which they are received into the 
 mind, and the attention with which they are regard- 
 ed. Consequently, all foreign opinions, which men 
 have attached to this primitive system of Christian 
 doctrine, and which tend to divert their thoughts 
 from these fundamental principles, are in a degree 
 injurious to the cause of religion and virtue. While 
 therefore many well-meaning persons are propagating 
 with zeal, opinions, which the members of this socie- 
 ty judge to be unscriptural and idolatrous, they 
 think it their duty to oppose the further progress of 
 such pernicious errors, and publicly to avow their 
 firm attachment to the doctrine of the unity of 
 God, of his unrivalled and undivided autho 
 rity and dominion ; and their belief that Jesus Christ, 
 the most distinguished of the prophets, is the crea- 
 ture and messenger of God, and not his equal 
 rior his vicegerent, in the formation and govern 
 mentofthe world, nor co-partner with him in 
 divine honours, as some have strangely supposed. 
 And they are desirous to try the experiment, whe- 
 ther the cause of true religion and virtue may not be 
 most effectually promoted upon proper Unitarian 
 principles, and whether the plain, unadulterated 
 truths of Christianity, when fairly taught and incul- 
 cated, be not of themselves sufficient to form the 
 minds of those, who sincerely embrace them, to that 
 true dignity and excellence of character to which the 
 gospel was intended to elevate them. 
 
 Rational Christians have hitherto been too cau- 
 tious of publicly acknowledging their principles; 
 and this disgraceful timidity has been prejudicial to 
 the progress of truth and virtue. It is now high 
 time that the friends of genuine Christianity should 
 stand forth and avow themselves. The number of 
 such, it is hoped, will be found to be much greater 
 than many apprehend. And their example, if ac- 
 companied with, and recommended by, a corres- 
 
 I 
 
48 
 
 pondent purity of life and morals, will naturally at- 
 tract the attention of others, and produce that free- 
 dom of inquiry, that liberal discussion, and that fear- 
 less profession of principles embraced after due exa- 
 mination, which can be formidable to nothing but 
 to error and vice, and which must eventually be sub- 
 servient to the cause of truth and virtue, and to the 
 best interests of mankind. 
 
 As the committee appointed to visit me have so 
 ably described, in their report to the Monthly Meet- 
 ing, the leading features of their visits, it is unne- 
 cessary to give my minutes of those conferences 
 at full length. I shall, therefore, for the sake of 
 brevity, and to avoid repetition, omit them entirely 
 in this place. Such parts as may require notice will 
 be afterwards introduced. 
 
 RATCLIFF MONTHLY MEETING. 
 
 1st Month, 23d, 1812. 
 
 On the minutes of the last Meeting being read, and 
 the business arising therefrom being gone through, till 
 theminute respecting my case wasin the regular course 
 to be also read, my dear Brother, who, as usual, read 
 the minutes of the preceding meeting (which he did 
 not attend, being from home) observed with much ten- 
 derness and feeling, that as it related to a subject on 
 which he could take no part, he hoped the meeting 
 would indulge him by not taking it up till the other 
 business was finished. 
 
 Richard Bowman very promptly offered to take up 
 the Monthly Meeting Book from before my Brother, 
 saying, " J can read the minute. 3 ' 
 
 To which my Brother replied with increased emo- 
 tion, " It is not merely reading the minute, but, as 
 I can take no part in the proceedings respecting the 
 
49 
 
 case, I wish not to be present at any part of the dis- 
 cussion.." 
 
 The reading of the minute was accordingly defer- 
 red, and I can truly say this brotherly, delicate and 
 judicious resolution of one of the best men whom I 
 have ever known, relieved me much, as it may save 
 him considerable pain ; and I am assured he will not 
 lend his ears to the vague and groundless aspersions 
 on my religious sentiments which have long been in 
 circulation. 
 
 When the other business was nearly gone through, 
 my Brother and his Son left the Meeting. 
 
 The minute respecting my case being read, 
 Samuel Marsh rose on behalf of the committee 
 to report their having visited me. But before he 
 had made it, he was interrupted by Sparkes Mo- 
 line, who inquired of Samuel Marsh, if he was not 
 going to lay before the Meeting a report from the 
 committee. And being answered in the affirmative, 
 he observed, that although he was not a member of 
 the meeting, and was not at all aware that such a case 
 was before it, he hoped he should be excused for 
 suggesting, that before the report of the committee 
 was made, Thomas Foster should be requested to 
 withdraw. He was much concerned that a friend, 
 whom he had so long known and esteemed, should 
 be under such circumstances. But by the minute 
 which had been read, he was to be considered as a 
 delinquent under dealing, and therefore he thought 
 it was irregular and improper for a person so situated 
 to sit as it were in judgment upon his own case. 
 
 Samuel Marsh said he was of the same mind, and 
 had never known an instance of the kind before. It 
 was usual to give a person under dealing notice that 
 he might attend, if he chose to be heard previous to 
 a testimony of disownment being issued against him, 
 but not to be present at any of the previous discus- 
 sions on the case. 
 
50 
 
 Richard Bowman expressed his concurrence in 
 this opinion, but observed that Thomas Foster hav- 
 ing made a particular point of being present when 
 the overseers presented their accusation against him, 
 they supposed he might also wish to be present at the 
 subsequent discussions on his case. He thought 
 Samuel Marsh had expressed himself rather unguard- 
 edly about disownment, but he could not mean that 
 any conclusion of that kind was come to with regard 
 to the present case. Samuel Marsh replied, Cer- 
 tainly not. 
 
 Richard Bowman then observed, it would be pro- 
 per for the Meeting to consider what was the usual 
 practice, but he added, I have not been able to find 
 any express minute that will authorize our desiring 
 Thomas Foster to withdraw. I do not say there is 
 no such minute in the Book of Extracts, but I can- 
 not find one. Perhaps some other Friend who is 
 present maybe able to point one out. John Harris 
 also admitted that he could find no such minute, and 
 therefore he supposed if Thomas Foster chose to be 
 present, the Meeting would not be justified in re- 
 quiring him to withdraw. 
 
 One or two Friends said they thought the Meeting 
 might require me to withdraw, in conformity to the 
 usual practice in such cases ; but the Meeting did 
 not seem inclined to act upon that presumption. 
 
 William Batger said he thought it would be kind 
 of Thomas Foster to withdraw, as there were a num- 
 ber of Friends who might have something to say on 
 the case, and yet having no wish to hurt his feelings, 
 would not be likely to express their minds so freely 
 as if he were absent. 
 
 Sparkes Moline expressed his wish that the whole 
 proceedings in this case might be conducted in love, 
 in charity, and in a Christian spirit. It was, he said, 
 of much importance, and required Friends to be as 
 wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. 
 
 When it appeared to me that no other Friend was 
 
51 
 
 inclined to address the Meeting, I inquired whether 
 I might consider myself at liberty to express my 
 view of the subject. That, with the Meeting's per- 
 mission, I would do so in a few words. The clerk 
 observed there could be no doubt but that every 
 Friend present was at liberty to express his sentiments 
 on the subject before the Meeting. 
 
 I observed it could hardly be necessary for me, 
 after what the Meeting had heard from two of the 
 committee, to insist upon there being no minute in 
 the Book of Extracts, that would warrant the exclu- 
 sion of a person, situated as I was, from any Meeting 
 for discipline, and especially from a Monthly Meet- 
 ing, while his own case was under consideration. 
 The contrary practice which had been alluded to, 
 rested upon no rule of the Society, upon no princi- 
 ple of justice, but arose, as I conceived, merely from 
 the choice or the ignorance of the persons, who ge- 
 nerally happened to be so circumstanced. 
 
 As to the observations of William Batger, I hoped 
 no Friend would be less free in expressing his senti- 
 ments in my presence, than if I were absent. No 
 one need be under the least apprehension of hurting 
 my feelings, by saying fairly, candidly and openly to 
 my face, all that they might think applicable to the 
 occasion. I wished my being present, to operate as 
 an encouragement to every one to speak his senti- 
 ments with the utmost freedom. If the proceedings 
 of the Meeting were as I hoped, to be conducted in 
 a Christian spirit, and upon Christian principles, 
 why should any Friend decline speaking out, be- 
 cause the party accused was present, to know what 
 was alleged against him ? 
 
 With respect to the practice of the Society, I 
 could inform the Meeting of one instance, that had 
 fallen within my own personal knowledge, many 
 years ago, while I was under an appointment of this 
 Meeting, as one of the door-keepers to the Yearly 
 
52 
 
 Meeting. On a young man offering to go into the 
 Meeting-house, some of the other door-keepers ob- 
 jected to it, on the ground of his being under deal- 
 ing. But the case being referred, by my desire, to 
 the committee appointed by the Yearly Meeting, to 
 assist the door-keepers as occasions may require, they 
 decided that he ought to be admitted, and he was 
 admitted accordingly, and is still a member of the 
 Society. 
 
 At length all idea of exercising such a stretch of 
 authority against me for the present being given up, 
 Samuel Marsh reported that the committee had paid 
 me two visits, but were not prepared to make any 
 farther report. On which a minute to that purport 
 was made continuing the committee. 
 
 Sparkes Moline said he felt much for his dear 
 friend who had withdrawn, for me, and for the 
 Meeting, and he still hoped, if mutual goodwill and 
 Christian charity was kept in view on both sides, 
 the parties would come nearer together. Richard 
 Bowman shook his head, as if there was no chance 
 of that.- And Sparkes Moline expressed his great 
 concern on the occasion ; adding, that he thought 
 
 iif any individual did entertain sentiments contrary 
 to the principles of the Society, it would be more 
 candid to say so, and quietly to withdraw, rather than 
 to give Friends so much trouble. 
 
 I replied, if I were conscious that my sentiments 
 on the points objected to me, were contrary to the 
 genuine doctrines of the Society, I might probably 
 act as he had recommended : but I thought all such 
 remarks highly improper as tending to prejudge the 
 matters at issue. The overseers knew I had uni- 
 formly urged my agreement with those doctrines, as 
 did the committee also ; and most of the Friends 
 now present knew that at the last Meeting, I denied 
 the truth and justice of the minute recorded against 
 me, in consequence of their accusations. 
 
53 
 
 Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, 
 2nd Month, 20th, 1812. 
 
 When the business of the Meeting was gone 
 through, except that which related to my case, my 
 dear Brother and his Son left the Meeting. 
 
 The minute continuing the committee, with the 
 minute of their appointment being read, it was pro- 
 posed that 1 should be requested to withdraw. Se- 
 veral friends, not only members of the meeting, but 
 others who happened to be present, urged the neces- 
 sity, on their ideas of good order, for me to with- 
 draw, although no minute of the Yearly Meeting di- 
 rected what was to be done in such a case. 
 
 Sparkes Moline proposed that the clerk should 
 officially request me to withdraw, conformably to 
 the practice which custom had established. This 
 proposal was seconded by several friends. 
 
 I remarked, that the same friend made a similar 
 proposal at the last Meeting, when he rested it on 
 the presumption that my delinquency was establish- 
 ed, the moment I was accused. If so, the appoint- 
 ment of a committee was a useless empty form. 
 I was the more inclined to notice such an idea, as I 
 knew it had been warmly insisted upon by some 
 active disciplinarians amongst us, and there were 
 one or two minutes in the Book of Extracts which 
 looked a little that way; but I should be unwilling 
 to suppose such could be their proper construction. 
 
 If it were, after a person was once accused, justly 
 or unjustly, the subsequent proceedings were of no 
 real consequence, and could not affect the ultimate 
 decision. The New Testament bore witness that 
 ^heathens had much more correct ideas of what was 
 due to an accused person, on the principles of jus- 
 tice, as the grounds on which the apostle Paul was 
 sent to Rome to take his trial would prove. 
 
6k 
 
 George Saunders (of Whitby) urged, what he 
 called, the impropriety of my being present to sit in 
 judgment upon others, when I was myself a delin- 
 quent. I called upon the Meeting to say, whether 
 I had acted in any such manner? I had no such 
 motive for being present, nor any other of a per- 
 sonal nature: but I considered the constitutional 
 right of a person, situated as I was, to be present to 
 hear what was alleged against him, so important, 
 that I did not chuse to do any thing towards the 
 establishment of a precedent to the contrary. The 
 common practice which had been adverted to, had 
 arisen, as I conceived, from the majority of cases 
 brought before meetings for discipline, being for 
 some breach of morality, on the facts of which there 
 was no question ; and therefore the parties had no 
 wish to be present. 
 
 George Saunders said, he supposed I must, by my 
 own practice, have countenanced a similar treatment 
 of other persons under dealing, and therefore he 
 thought, when it came to be my own case, I ought 
 to submit to the general practice of the Society. 
 
 I replied, that 1 was not conscious I had ever 
 united in an attempt to deprive any person of such 
 a right. I once took the other side of the question, 
 many years ago, as I informed the last Monthly 
 Meeting. 
 
 Sparkes Moline observed, that he thought the 
 case I then adduced not at all in point, as it related 
 to a person attending the Yearly Meeting, and not 
 sitting in judgment on his own case. 1 reminded 
 him that I had been so far from mentioning it as a 
 perfectly similar case, that I then insisted on the su- 
 perior importance of an accused person being present 
 to know what was alleged against him, before a 
 Monthly Meeting, and attending any other Meeting 
 for discipline. 
 
 The report of the committee being at length read, 
 
55 
 
 it was urged that my being present obstructed the 
 Meeting from entering upon so free a consideration 
 of their own committee's report as they might if I 
 would withdraw. 
 
 George Saunders proposed for me to withdraw till 
 the Meeting had concluded whether to receive the 
 report, or not, and to be called in afterwards to hear 
 the conclusion of the Meeting. But he was of opi- 
 nion, he said, that the Meeting had better apply to 
 the Quarterly Meeting for assistance. He was in- 
 formed that the latter proposal had been already made 
 and considered. 
 
 I observed that the Meeting was certainly in a 
 more favourable situation to decide impartially be- 
 tween any two parties, after hearing both, than to 
 record their judgment on the evidence of one side, 
 before the other was heard ; which, if I understood 
 it rightly, was the proposal that had been made. 
 
 George Knight observed he thought I ought to 
 withdraw, for although a prisoner was present during 
 the trial, the jury frequently left the court to consi- 
 der the case among themselves and agree upon a ver- 
 dict. 
 
 I replied, as the practice of courts of law had been 
 referred to, I must beg leave to state how very dif- 
 ferent that was from the course now proposed. In a 
 court of justice the accusers do not sit on the bench, 
 but the judge was always considered as counsel for 
 the party accused ; no unimportant part of the du- 
 ties of his office. The fullest and fairest hearing was 
 allowed. In the case before the Meeting my accus- 
 ers were not only the mere agents of others whom 
 they refused naming, in open violation of as express 
 a rule of the Yearly Meeting as language could form, 
 but sat in judgment upon their own accusation. 
 The Meeting thus assumed the united offices of ac- 
 cuser, judge and jury, and as far as their power ex- 
 tended, of executioner also. The exercise of such 
 
66 
 
 powers required great patience and moderation on 
 the part of the Meeting, and especially in cases like 
 the present of mere difference of apprehension upon 
 matters of faith, arising in my mind principally from 
 the ambiguity of language. 
 
 William Binns said he had been present when this 
 case was first laid before the Meeting ; he observed, 
 it was not usual for persons under dealing to be pre- 
 sent during the discussion of their own case by the 
 Meeting: yet he was desirous of viewing the matter 
 impartially, and in so doing, it appeared to him that 
 every person accused was entitled to a full and fair 
 hearing. He therefore proposed that I should be per- 
 mitted to offer in my own defence whatever I might 
 think proper ; and having so done, to leave the Meet- 
 ing to deliberate thereon. 
 
 Some Friends approved this proposal, but were for 
 exacting an engagement from me, previous to my 
 being heard, that I would afterwards withdraw. To 
 which I replied, it would be quite time enough to 
 take that point into consideration, after I had been 
 allowed the reasonable privilege of saying what I 
 thought proper to offer to the Meeting at this time. 
 
 The committee's report being now read, I observ- 
 ed I could easily perceive the general injustice of it ; 
 but written charges required deliberate considera- 
 tion, which I might bestow upon them after I had 
 received a copy of the report. I should not even 
 attempt to make any particular reply to them at this 
 time. It would be highly unreasonable to expect it. 
 
 At length I was permitted to proceed in reading 
 the following written address to the Meeting. 
 
 Dear Friends, 
 Unusual as such a mode of addressing you maybe, 
 I have, on mature consideration, adopted it instead 
 of a verbal address; that I may do it with more de- 
 
57 
 
 liberation, and that you may have a better opportu- 
 nity of examining the pertinency and validity of 
 what I may offer, respecting the most material parts 
 of the case, by reviewing as often as you may deem 
 necessary, any part of it ; so that the whole subject at 
 issue may be thoroughly understood, as it ought to be, 
 before you can be competent to decide thereon. If 
 this object be steadily kept in view, it can hardly 
 fail also to save the time of the Meeting, as it will 
 enable me to lay before you in a smaller compass, 
 and perhaps in a more correct manner, what I may 
 deem necessary to offer in my own defence, in reply 
 to the charges which have been exhibited against 
 me. 
 
 Every accused person, you must know, is entitled 
 to a patient, attentive, dispassionate and impartial 
 hearing. But a person cannot have this, if the minds 
 of those who are to sit in judgment upon him are in- 
 fluenced by rumours to his disadvantage, that may 
 have been circulated respecting his general senti- 
 ments and conduct. It becomes, therefore, an in- 
 dispensible duty on them to dismiss from their minds, 
 as much as possible, every trace of such impres- 
 sions, before they enter upon the exercise of judi- 
 cial powers. 
 
 Nor do I consider this obligation less binding on 
 them in such a case as this than in any other, ei- 
 ther because their powers are more limited than those 
 which the civil magistrate possesses, or some other 
 professed Christian churches have exercised ; or be- 
 cause it relates to matters of opinion, and the man- 
 ner in which I have aided in their propagation. 
 
 These rumours, if vague, indefinite, fatee and 
 groundless, as I know many of them to be, ought 
 not, in any degree, to prejudice the minds of my 
 constitutional judges. Your attention will, therefore, 
 I trust, be strictly confined to the two specific 
 charges alleged against me, 12th month, 19th last, 
 i 
 
58 
 
 on which the minute appointing a committee to visit 
 me thereon was founded. 
 
 At that Meeting, as you know, I objected to the 
 indefinite manner in which the minute was drawn 
 up. And I have recently been credibly informed that 
 such a use has been made of it as I then anticipated : 
 copies of it having been handed about, or equally 
 vague rumous respecting its import circulated a- 
 mongst Friends of other Meetings. Yet no one 
 can possibly discover from the minute what my of- 
 fence is. 
 
 The minute equally fits the case of a person who 
 had denied the being and providence of God, and 
 all the fundamental doctrines of the gospel ; or, of 
 one who had merely professed to be of opinion that 
 the word you, in the English language, is a singular, 
 as well as a plural pronoun, and might, without a 
 breach of any precept of the Christian religion, be 
 used accordingly, as the nouns sheep and deer are in 
 speaking of one only, or ofajiock or herd of those 
 animals. Or, it may equally well apply to a person 
 who held, in common with others of every class 
 amongst us, that the Society cannot, in consistency 
 with its testimony against an hireling ministry, sup- 
 ported by a forced maintenance, object to the pay- 
 ment of impropriate tythes. 
 
 By some persons each of these opinions would be 
 deemed " contrary to the principles of the Society;" 
 but no man of a clear, sound mind can possibly think 
 an error on these several subjects equally dangerous 
 and deserving of censure. 
 
 The next circumstance I have to mention is, that 
 the request and demand I made to the overseers in 
 the face of the Meeting, to make known to me the 
 names of my accusers, has not yet been complied 
 with, notwithstanding the positive injunctions of 
 the minute of 1744. Book of Extracts, p. 41. 
 
 The overseers reported to the Meeting " that I 
 
59 
 
 had received their visits in a very friendly, open 
 manner, as they had no doubt 1 should any Friends 
 the Meeting might appoint to visit me." 
 
 Of these visits I shall only say, that just at the 
 close of the last, the overseers "unitedly urged their 
 incompetency to enter into a discussion of such ab- 
 struse subjects^ as those were, which they came to 
 hold conferences with me about, " expressing their 
 hope, nevertheless, that I should not deem it un- 
 friendly in them if they just mentioned the matter to 
 the Monthly Meeting to-morrow, for the sake of get~ 
 ting it off their shoulders." 
 
 The first df these visits was paid me on the 6th of 
 Sept. the other on Oct. the 23rd, when I read to 
 them my minutes of the former conference, and on 
 the 27th of the same month those of the latter, the 
 general correctness of which they admitted. 
 
 As the overseers waved their intention of laying 
 the case before the Meeting on the 24th, I addressed 
 a letter to them, [inserted p. 14 to 21] dated Nov. 
 5, which they treated as undeserving any notice. 
 That you may judge of this I request them to pro- 
 duce it, and that it may now be read. 
 
 From this time the overseers never spoke to me on 
 the subject till the 17th after meeting, when they 
 informed me they intended to report the case to the 
 Meeting on the 21st. This design they waved, as I 
 was obliged to leave home ; but told me they meant 
 to proceed in part upon the 20th rule, under the head 
 Meetings for Discipline. 
 
 The same evening I wrote them a letter, [inserted 
 p. 22 to 25] relative to their intention, which I nlso 
 desire may now be read. You will recollect I did 
 not even know the overseers had received it till after 
 I had been publicly accused by them on the 19th of 
 the following month, when they informed me before 
 you, that they " did not deem any communication 
 with me necessary concerning its contents. ,y 
 
60 
 
 These were the circumstances under which I was 
 accused before you. During the discussion respect- 
 ing the minute to be made thereon, it appears pro- 
 per to notice that Samuel Marsh observed he " did 
 not at all know the case was likely to be brought for- 
 ward till last week." 
 
 This acknowledgment of having been previously 
 acquainted with the case ought to have disqualified 
 him for this appointment. Yet was he the first per- 
 son nominated ! I was forcibly struck with this cir- 
 cumstance at the time, but I did not chuse to object 
 to his nomination. 
 
 Before I review their visits, I would, as a matter 
 of much importance, recall your attention to the ac- 
 tual state of the case as it stood at the time of their 
 appointment. You will recollect that two distinct 
 charges, and two only were presented to the Meeting 
 against me by the overseers. One of these was, my 
 being a subscriber to the London Unitarian Book So- 
 ciety, in support of which they produced one of its 
 Books of Rules, with a List of the Members, in 
 which they observed my name appeared as a member 
 for life. The other related to my having given away 
 some Remarks on the Yearly Meeting Epistle for 
 1810, a copy of which they laid on the table, alleg- 
 ing that those Remarks found fault with the Epistle. 
 
 The truth of these allegations against me I never 
 questioned ; but at each of the conferences I had with 
 them, I denied, as I do still, the justice of the infer- 
 ences they deduced from them. Yet neither this, nor 
 my two subsequent letters to the overseers, prevailed 
 upon them to pay me another visit. And under such 
 circumstances as these, they accused me of having 
 imbibed " some opinions contrary to the principles 
 of the Society," not on the ground of any evidence, 
 but on the presumption that their own inferences from 
 those facts were well founded. 
 
 On the case being reported to you, some discus- 
 
61 
 
 sion took place respecting the proper manner of your 
 recognizing such a charge, bat none at all on the ac- 
 cusation, or the validity of the evidence on which it 
 rests. The consideration of this was deferred by 
 mutual consent, and a committee was appointed for 
 that purpose. 
 
 The first visit they paid me was on the 15th of last 
 month ; at an early part of which I proposed to 
 them the following queries, to which I requested plain 
 and distinct answers, that I might clearly understand 
 the nature and extent of the charges exhihited a- 
 gainst me, by the minute of their appointment, and 
 the grounds on which they rest, viz. 
 
 1st. What the "opinions" are, which this minute 
 charges me with having " imbibed/* and affirms to 
 be " contrary to the principles of the Society?" 
 
 2nd. What " the principles of the Society" are, 
 to which this minute refers, and where are they to be 
 found clearly and explicitly laid down ? 
 
 3rd. At what period of my life, and from whence 
 do you charge me with having " imbibed'* those 
 " opinions/* and on what evidence ? 
 
 4th. In what censurable manner have I " aided 
 in propagating'* those " opinions,** and what rule 
 of the Society of Friends, do you allege I have there- 
 by broken ? 
 
 5th. Admitting I may have " imbibed" some 
 erroneous " opinions," or fallen into certain invo- 
 luntary errors, on what principles do you imagine 
 yourselves justified in imputing criminality to me, 
 for having so " imbibed*' them, or for having, under 
 a belief they were Christian truths of the highest 
 importance, " aided in propagating*' them ? 
 
 To these I annexed the following query on ano- 
 ther subject. 
 
 6th. In compliance with the positive injunctions 
 of the minute in the Book of Extracts, No, 6, under 
 the head " Defamation and Detraction,*' I once 
 
62 
 
 more call upon the overseers, who have already vi- 
 sited me, and are now present, as part of the Month- 
 ly Meeting's committee, to make known to me the 
 names of all the persons to whom they have referred 
 at former conferences with me as their informants, 
 and also the full extent of all they have heard al- 
 leged against me, by such persons, in reference to 
 the " opinions" I am charged, by the minute of 
 the Monthly Meeting, with having " imbibed," and 
 with having " aided in propagating?" 
 
 Not obtaining any definite reply to either of these 
 queries, during this conference, I delivered a copy 
 to the committee. They are, in my opinion, perti- 
 nent to the occasion, and such as 1 was entitled to 
 put to them in the situation in which your record of 
 the overseers accusation had placed me. 
 
 At this conference the committee, instead of con- 
 fining themselves to the proper business of their ap- 
 pointment, an enquiry into the charges alleged 
 against me to the Meeting, set up pretensions of the 
 most extravagant extent and dangerous tendency to 
 the peace and welfare of the Society. Samuel Marsh 
 had indeed just hinted at something of the kind to 
 the Meeting, previous to his nomination on this 
 committee, by then defending " the general terms 
 in which the minute was drawn up, as allowing the 
 Friends, who might be appointed to visit me, to en- 
 ter upon such other subjects of enquiry, as they 
 might think necessary." This was intelligible enough, 
 but the sentiment not being supported by any other 
 person, I was satisfied to rest the matter upon the 
 previous resolution I had expressed to the Meeting, 
 that " I should positively object to entering upon 
 any fresh subjects of investigation while these were 
 pending. 3 ' 
 
 Notwithstanding which the committee insisted 
 upon their right under the general terms in which 
 the minute was drawn up, to enquire into any of my 
 
63 
 
 sentiments which they deemed contrary to the principles 
 of the Society. 
 
 Samuel Marsh was for pushing this inquisitorial 
 enquiry into my general conduct for ten years past, 
 both with regard to anonymous publications, which 
 he said were reputed to be mine, as also to the senti- 
 ments / had occasionally expressed in Meetings for 
 discipline, from which he most unjustly inferred that 
 I was actuated by a hostile disposition towards the 
 Society, than which imputation nothing can be more 
 unfounded. 
 
 To these invectives I replied, that I should be 
 ready to meet any accusation they could allege 
 against me, when it was brought forward in a regular 
 orderly manner; but that I should refuse to enter 
 into any conference with them, as a committee, re- 
 specting any points except those which the overseers 
 had alleged against me to the Monthly Meeting: 
 that it would be a violation of gospel order and the 
 wholesome rules of the Society, to enter upon any 
 other subjects of enquiry, after I had thus been pub- 
 licly denounced as a delinquent: that I was so well 
 satisfied of this, that I would rather leave the room, 
 than sanction by my example so dangerous an abuse 
 of the discipline. Their subsequent and reiterated 
 attempts to act upon these inquisitorial principles, 
 have however induced me in a few instances to depart 
 from this resolution. 
 
 On one of these occasions they called for Penn's 
 " Sandy Foundation Shaken," and read the last para- 
 graph of the postcript, not on account of the sound 
 scriptural acknowledgment it contains, of the Unity 
 and Supremacy of God the Father, but to question 
 me respecting my belief in the miraculous concep- 
 tion of Christ'. To which I declined answering, for 
 the reasons I had before assigned, but called upon 
 them to state whatever they might have to allege 
 
64 
 
 against me, respecting this tenet, which I told them 
 was held by many Unitarians. 
 
 At the same time I remarked, that however true 
 the narrative of it might be, I did not consider it as 
 an indispensible, fundamental Christian doctrine, 
 judging of it by the practice of the sacred writers. 
 For I believed two of the evangelists have passed it 
 over in silence, and the writers of all the apostolic 
 epistles. Nor was it, so far as I knew, any where 
 else mentioned or alluded to, than in the first chap- 
 ters of Matthew and Luke. 
 
 One of the committee observed, he supposed they 
 might conclude from what I had said, that I deemed 
 the authenticity of those chapters doubtful. I re- 
 plied, that 1 thought it was sufficient for me to say, 
 I did not consider myself a competent judge of the 
 grounds whereon the authenticity of those chapters 
 rested, although the evidence in their favour did not 
 appear to me so clear, as that on which the general 
 authenticity of the gospels was founded. 
 
 [John Harris asked on what account I supposed 
 Christ was called in the scriptures " the Son of 
 God V I replied, as the promised Messiah ; and 
 especially as having been raised from the dead: for 
 the apostle says, " he was declared to be the Son 
 of God, with power, by the resurrection from the dead.'* 
 And many Unitarians thought he was so styled on 
 account of the miraculous conception, as Lardner, 
 Cardale and others.] 
 
 The overseers who visited me Having represented 
 how improper they deemed it for me, as a member 
 of the Society, to have promoted in any degree the 
 circulation of a paper " which evidently censured 
 what had been approved by the Yearly Meeting,^ I 
 submitted to the committee, in writing, the following 
 address and queries. 
 
 " The overseers having in general terms expressed 
 their strong disapprobation of all those parts of the 
 
66 
 
 Remarks on the Yearly Meeting Epistle, for 1810, 
 which object to certain passages therein, I should be 
 obliged to them to inform me, on what grounds they 
 conceive those passages can be defended, as sound 
 and scriptural ? They are these — 
 
 1st. That this Epistle designates the object of 
 prayer, not in any language applied by the sacred 
 writers to " the only true God," the original Foun- 
 tain of all power, but as being one who himself re- 
 ceived help from another, or one " upon whom help 
 is laid." 
 
 Whether the evident purport of those words, or 
 their scriptural application to a dependent Being 
 is considered, I am wholly at a loss to imagine? 
 and therefore request you to inform me, how it 
 can be thought a fit designation of the Giver of 
 " every good and perfect gift, the Father of lights, 
 with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of 
 turning ? 
 
 2ndly. That a declaration of Christ's mentioned 
 in this Epistle is not truly stated; but without any 
 authority from the text, one person is substituted 
 for another, the Son for God the Father. 
 
 When you have compared the texts Mat. v. 33, 
 and Luke xii. 31, with the passage in the Epistle, I 
 should like to know, whether you think such an in- 
 correct quotation of scripture in an Yearly Meeting 
 Epistle can be justified? And if you think it may 
 on what grounds ? 
 
 Srdly. What degree of criminality do you impute 
 to me for having " aided" in the correction of this 
 error, or for pointing out, as these Remarks do, that 
 the immediate consequence of this error apparently 
 was, to hold up Christ as the object of " secret sup- 
 plication," instead of his Father and our Father, 
 his God and our God. 
 
 4thly. That this Epistle, in opposition to the uni- 
 form testimony of the Scriptures, plainly insinuates 
 
 K 
 
66 
 
 that the natural talents which mankind possess were 
 bestowed on them by Christ. You will, I suppose, 
 admit that the Epistle does ; .isinuate what is here 
 asserted: and therefore I have only to request you 
 to point out on what grounds, and under the sanction 
 of what texts you imagine the natural talents of 
 mankind were bestowed on them by Christ, and not 
 by God the Father ? 
 
 5thly. That this Epistle, without any warrant 
 from scripture, ascribes omnipotence to the meek 
 and humble Jesus. If you are of opinion this posi- 
 tion can be successfully maintained, I wish you to 
 inform me, what texts you apprehend authorize the 
 ascription of omnipotence to Christ, without any 
 reference to the source from whence all his powers 
 were derived? 
 
 The first observation which the reading of these 
 queries produced, on the part of the committee, was 
 that they " thought they afforded matter that would 
 enable them to get en." That is, I suppose, ground 
 for accusation against me. In pursuit of this expec- 
 tation, the passage in the Remarks to which the first 
 query relates, being read, Henry Knight remarked, 
 that William Penn had applied the phrase in ques- 
 tion to Christ, in the preface to his "No Cross 
 no Crown/' as he had pointed out at one of their 
 conferences. 
 
 I admitted he had, but observed, that it was ap- 
 plied by William Penn in a very different manner. 
 That it appeared strange to me that it should be again 
 urged, as I thought I had then shewn it to be wholly 
 inapplicable. Penn says, and I fully accord with 
 him, " For in him (Christ) the fullness dwells. 
 Blessed be God, for his sufficiency." " He laid help 
 upon him, that he might be mighty to save all that 
 come to God through him/' No words can evince 
 more strongly than these, that Penn ascribed all the 
 sufficiency of Christ to God, who " laid help upon 
 

 67 
 
 him." What for? That he might be mighty to 
 save all that come to God through him. Nothing 
 can be in my mind more sound and scriptural. 
 
 The committee then read several passages from 
 Penn's " Innocency with her Open Face." Works 
 vol. i, p. 267, and 1 one from his Christian Quaker, p. 
 574 and 5, as explanatory of the former passages and 
 others to the like import in various parts of his works. 
 After which, I requested the committee to inform 
 me, whether, when they spoke of the Divinity of 
 Christ, as a doctrine of our Society, ~they meant to 
 assert it of the man Christ Jesus, or of that Divine 
 power which dwelt in, and acted by him ? To 
 which they replied to the latter, and that they never 
 understood it was ascribed by Friends to the former. 
 I therefore enquired, seeing no difference in our sen- 
 timents thereon, whether my explanation on this 
 head was satisfactory to them, or not ? They de- 
 clined saying whether it was, or not, that they must 
 take time to consider it, and might let me know at 
 our next conference. 
 
 The committee then enquired, whether I thought 
 the ascription of omnipotence to Christ in the 
 Yearly Meeting Epistle, and his being spoken of 
 therein as the object of prayer or worship, was ob- 
 jectionable, supposing those passages were intended 
 to speak of that Divine power, which I admitted to 
 have dwelt in him, and to have acted by him ? 
 
 I replied, that in my apprehension such language 
 was very liable to be misunderstood, as many who 
 used similar expressions, applied them to the man 
 Christ Jesus. That such persons had sometimes 
 even asserted that God died, when Christ was cru- 
 cified; a doctrine which George Fox had ably ex- 
 posed and warmly reprobated. 
 
 At length the committee took up the considera- 
 tion of my being a subscriber to the London Unita- 
 rian Book Society, and read a passage in p. 3, of the 
 
68 
 
 Preface to the Book of Rules, saying, they supposed 
 the term " idolatrous/* was therein applied to those 
 who considered Christ as God, and as an object of 
 worship. This appeared not a little singular, when 
 their recent admission is considered. I observed, 
 that it was no doubt applied to those who professed 
 to believe the doctrine of three co-equal and co-eter- 
 nal Gods, or the doctrine of the Trinity, as laid down 
 in the Athanasian Creed, and to those who consi- 
 dered Christ as the second person in such Trinity, a 
 doctrine that William Penn had, in his " Sandy 
 Foundation Shaken/' in my opinion, unanswerably 
 shewn to be unscriptural and erroneous. From which 
 as some evidence thereof I read the following pas- 
 sages. 
 
 " The Trinity of distinct and separate persons, 
 hi the Unity of essence, refuted from scripture." Un- 
 der this head, after quoting a number of texts to 
 prove " that in the days of the first covenant, and 
 prophets, but One was the holy God, and God but 
 that holy One;" Penn adds from the New Testa- 
 ment, " And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou 
 me good? There is none good but One, and that 
 is God. And this is life eternal, that they might 
 know thee" (Father) adds William Penn in a pa- 
 renthesis, to put it beyond all doubt whom he un- 
 derstood Christ to address in his most solemn pray- 
 er as "the only true God." " Seeing it is one 
 God that shall justify." " There be Gods many, but 
 unto us there is but one God, the Father, of whom 
 are all things." " One God and Father, who is above 
 all." " For there is one God." " To the only 
 wise God be glory now and ever." " From all 
 which," adds William Penn, " I shall lay down this 
 one assertion ; that the testimonies of Scripture, both 
 under the law and since the gospel dispensation, de- 
 clare one to be God, and God to be one, on which 
 I shall raise this argument. 
 
 " If God, as the Scriptures testify, hath never been 
 
69 
 
 declared or believed but as the holy one, then it will 
 follow that God is not an holy three, nor doth subsist 
 in three distinct and separate holy ones : but the 
 before-cited Scriptures undeniably prove that one 
 is God, and God only is that holy one ; therefore he 
 cannot be divided into, or subsist in an holy three, 
 or three distinct and separate holy ones." 
 
 I also read the following passage under that divi- 
 sion of Penn's argument, wherein he professes the 
 same doctrine to be " refuted by right reason." 
 
 " If each person be God, and that God subsists in 
 three persons, then in each person are three persons 
 or Gods, and from three they will increase to nine, 
 and so ad infinitum." 
 
 On what Penn calls " the vulgar doctrine, of satis- 
 faction being dependent on the second person of the 
 Trinity," viz. " Jesus Christ," I read the following 
 passage, in which he sets forth a part of ** the absurdi- 
 ties that unavoidably follow the comparison of this 
 doctrine with the sense of Scripture." — Viz. 
 
 " 1. That God is gracious to forgive, and yet it is 
 impossible for him, unless the debt be fully satis- 
 fied. 
 
 2. "That the finite and impotent creature is more 
 capable of extending mercy and forgiveness, than the 
 infinite and omnipotent Creator." 
 
 1 called upon the committee, after reading this 
 passage, to consider of whom William Penn spoke in 
 those terms. To which 1 obtained, no reply : at 
 which I was not surprised ; for the passage describes 
 Jesus Christ as a " finite and impotent creature ; J * 
 that is, a being who could do nothing of himself, and 
 his God and Father as the infinite and omnipotent 
 Creator, who is essentially merciful in himself, and 
 gracious to forgive, without being rendered placable 
 by another. 
 
 Wishing to know on what grounds the charges 
 against me were ultimately to rest, I addressed to the 
 committee the following note, and the annexedqueries. 
 
70 
 
 " With regard to that part of the accusation which 
 relates to my being a member of the London Uni- 
 tarian Book Society, I should be obliged to the com- 
 mittee of the Monthly Meeting to inform me, 
 
 1st. The specific nature of your objections to my 
 continuing a member of this Book Society? 
 
 2ndly. How far they relate to the insertion of my 
 name in the list of its members annually published ? 
 
 Srdly. In what degree those objections apply to 
 my selecting from the annual catalogue of its publi- 
 cations, such books as I either wish to possess, or 
 to give away ? 
 
 4thly. What rule of the Society of Friends in 
 which I have been educated, or what precept of the 
 gospel, have I, in your judgment, violated, by the 
 above, or any other part of my conduct, as a member 
 of this Book Society ? 
 
 (Signed) Thomas Foster/' 
 
 Bromley, Jan. \6th, 1812. 4 
 
 I yet remain without any definite answer to these 
 queries, and am therefore still ignorant in what my 
 offence is supposed to consist. 
 
 The next visit the committee paid me was on the 
 22nd of last month, when they brought with them 
 five papers in M.S. containing their answers to such of 
 the foregoing queries, as they thought fit to reply to, 
 which they left with me for my consideration. On 
 the first of these papers being read, I objected to the 
 irrelevant matter it contained, and refused to counte- 
 nance such a departure from good order, and the es- 
 tablished rules of the discipline. 
 
 I also remonstrated with them on the unjust and 
 uncandid manner, in which some other parts of their 
 written charges were drawn up. They declined 
 making any alteration in them. Neither could 1 ob- 
 tain any definite solution of the question they held 
 out some expectation of favouring me with, at this 
 
71 
 
 conference. Whether, by the doctrine of our Socie- 
 ty, divinity was attributed to the man Christ Jesus, 
 or to that Divine power, which dwelt in, and acted 
 by him ? That it should not be ascribed to the 
 " outward body?' they granted, and were for puttjng 
 that construction on their admission at our last con- 
 ference, till I reminded them that I had put the que- 
 ry, and in putting it, had used the scriptural terms 
 " the man Christ Jesus." 
 
 Previous to this conference, I drew up the fol- 
 lowing queries, that I might, in the language of 
 Barclay, induce the committee, if possible, to take 
 one side, or other of the principal question on which 
 they appeared to think I held erroneous sentiments. 
 
 1st. Do you consider the Lord Jesus Christ as 
 now "glorified in the heavens in soul and, body" as 
 being " a true and real man" or, that he is in real- 
 ity, in this glorified state, the supreme God? 
 
 On reading this query, Henry Knight observed, 
 that he considered it very unbecoming for such poor 
 finite creatures as we were, to presume to form a 
 judgment upon subjects so far above our comprehen- 
 sion. For his part he could not pretend to give an 
 answer to such a question. In this judgment the 
 rest of the committee appeared to concur. I then 
 read the next query. 
 
 2ndly. If you say the former, on what grounds do 
 you accuse me with having " imbibed" unscriptural 
 " opinions" with regard to the person and character 
 of Christ ?> 
 
 3rdly. If you say the latter, how can you defend 
 the position on scriptural ground ? 
 
 To neither of these queries could I obtain any de- 
 finite answer ; but the committee appeared evidently 
 to lean towards the latter, and expressed their dissa- 
 tisfaction with my having presumptuously meddled 
 with such subjects. On which I observed that I 
 had only one more query to submit to them at pre- 
 sent, which was this. 
 
n 
 
 4thly. How can you reconcile such " position 7 ' 
 with the last paragraph of the 13th Sec. of the 5th 
 and 6th Prop, of Barclay's Apology ? viz. 
 
 " Now, as the soul of man dwells otherwise, and 
 in a far more immediate manner, in the head and in 
 the heart, than in the hands or legs, and as the sap, 
 virtue and life of the vine lodgeth otherwise in the 
 stock and root than in the branches, so God dwell- 
 eth otherwise in the man Jesus than in us. We also 
 freely reject the heresy of Apollinarius, who denied 
 him to have any soul, but said the body was only ac- 
 tuated by the godhead. As also the error of Euty- 
 ches, who made the manhood to be wholly swallow- 
 ed up of the godhead. 
 
 " Wherefore," continues Barclay, speaking in the 
 name and on behalf of the Society, " as we believe he 
 ivas a true and real man, so we also believe that he 
 continues so to be glorified in the heavens in soul and, 
 body, by whom God shall judge the world in the 
 great and general day of judgment." 
 
 Having read the foregoing passage from Barclay's 
 Apology to the committee, and asserted the scriptu- 
 ral soundness of the doctrines it contained, which I 
 told them I had not taken up now, merely in my 
 own defence in reply to their charges, but that I 
 could prove, if need were, my accordance with these 
 Christian doctrines many years ago. 
 
 Instead of their being as they had represent- 
 ed, on reading the queries I submitted to them, 
 not fit for Christians to pry into, they were such as 
 it behoved all Christians that believed the New Tes- 
 tament to be a true record, to be well acquainted 
 with, and to have their truth and importance deeply 
 impressed on their minds. 
 
 I appealed to them whether, if had I not shewn 
 undeniably those doctrines to be Barclay's, and 
 they had still supposed them to be my professed 
 sentiments, unsupported by his authority, they 
 would not have considered them as forming one 
 
73 
 
 of the very strongest charges they had to allege 
 against me ? 
 
 None of the committee attempted any reply ; but 
 one of them took a copy of the four queries. 
 
 At the next conference on the 7th inst. I request- 
 ed to be informed what answers the committee had 
 brought to those queries. To which they replied, 
 they did not think themselves at liberty to go into 
 any discussion of that subject, or to give me their sen- 
 timents upon it. i answered, unless you do, I can- 
 not understand how you can possibly take into con- 
 sideration the matters referred to you as a committee. 
 Are not those queries strictly relevant to one of the 
 written charges you delivered to me at our last con- 
 ference ? 
 
 The committee said they had concluded not to go 
 into those matters of controversy. They had no- 
 thing to do with Barclay 's opinions on such subjects, 
 but with mine, which were well known to be contrary 
 to those of Friends in general. 
 
 It was in vain that 1 urged the futility of this plea, 
 and the injustice of the general reflections combined 
 with it, which I observed they had before resorted 
 to when they felt themselves pinched at our last con- 
 ference, on my shewing incontrovertibly the entire 
 consonance of Barclay's sentiments, and mine upon 
 this, the principal ground of their accusations against 
 me. Samuel Marsh, however, denied that they did 
 feel themselves pinched by the argument I alluded 
 to. I replied, it appeared to me too evident to be 
 called in question. 
 
 Before I conclude, I would add a few words to 
 evince the strict accordance of scripture doctrine 
 with that tenet, of Barclay's, for holding which I 
 have been so much censured. How consonant is it 
 with the doctrine of the sacred writers, when they 
 represent " the heavenly man Christ," in his glorifi- 
 ed state, as sitting " on the right hand of God. 35 
 I. 
 
74 
 
 Col. iii. 1. conformably to the prediction of Christ 
 himself, recorded by Luke xxii. 69, in these words : 
 " Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right 
 hand of the power of God/' And by the Evange- 
 lists, Mat. xxvi. 44. and Mark xiv. 62. to the like 
 import. The apostle Paul also, Eph. i. 17. 19- 20. 
 most plainly ascribes the resurrection and exaltation 
 of Christ to " the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 the Father of Glory, — according to the working 
 of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ 
 when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his 
 own right hand in the heavenly places." 
 
 As to the committee declining to express their 
 mind on the subject, I beg it may be distincly un- 
 derstood, / present no charge against them. If they 
 are in doubt upon it, I would recommend them to 
 inquire farther, and by no means to profess either that, 
 or any other doctrine, merely because it was held 
 by Barclay, or for any other reason than their own 
 conviction of its truth. 
 
 It was an apostolic injunction, " Let every man 
 be fully persuaded in his own mind '.—for whatsoever 
 is not of faith is sin." Rom. xiv. 5. 23. That is, 
 to profess even true doctrines, without conviction, 
 is no better than to hold the truth in unrighteous- 
 ness. 
 
 I wave noticing the subsequent part of the con- 
 ferences with the committee in this address as unne- 
 cessary ; my minutes will enable me readily to recur 
 to any part, to which you, or the committee may 
 wish to refer. I am, with good will towards you all, 
 your sincere friend, 
 
 Bromley, Thomas Foster. 
 
 Feb. 19*A, 1812. 
 
 I had not got through the introductory observa- 
 tions of this address, before I was interrupted by Wil- 
 
75 
 
 liam Batger, who asserted they were little or nothing 
 to the purpose. I reminded him I had not retained 
 him as my counsel, and whatever he might think of 
 what I had read, I hoped he would not pretend to 
 judge of the pertinency of what I had not, till he 
 heard it. 
 
 After some other observations had been made, 1 
 was again suffered to proceed, till I came to that 
 part which very briefly reviews the conduct of the 
 overseers. The impropriety of my presuming to 
 judge of that, was strenuously insisted on : when I 
 inquired if I was to understand that persons under 
 such an appointment were infallible ; if they were 
 not, they might err, and, as a person accused by 
 them and by the committee, I had a right to notice 
 such parts of their conduct towards me as I thought 
 were not conformable to gospel order, and the rules 
 of the discipline. The committee had, in my judg- 
 ment deviated widely from both, and when the Meet- 
 ing had heard my reasons for thinking so, they might 
 judge between us. 
 
 Being allowed to proceed, till my letter to the 
 overseers, dated Nov. 5th, was mentioned, with a 
 proposal to have it read ; I requested they would 
 produce it for that purpose. They replied it had 
 been left at home. On which I informed the Meet- 
 ing I had a copy of it, which I was about to read, 
 when the opposition to my so doing became so ge- 
 neral, that I assented to wave reading it for the pre- 
 sent. 
 
 Only one Friend, Charles Palmer, expressed a word 
 in favour of my being allowed to read it, or to have 
 the liberty I claimed soon after, to read my shorter let- 
 ter to them, dated Nov. 17th. He then reminded the 
 Meeting of the regret he had expressed when the 
 case was first reported, that the overseers did not 
 pay me another visit after the receipt of my letter. 
 Several of the committee objected to its being read, 
 
and Richard Bowman alleged that although they had 
 received it, as I said, more than a month, I was from 
 home more than three weeks of the time. Yet the 
 fact is, I was not absent quite two weeks, and saw 
 them, as I observed, several times after my return 
 at Meeting, and thought their taking no notice of 
 my letter very strange. 
 
 The accuracy of my statement of what Samuel 
 Marsh said, respecting his being apprised that 1 was 
 to be accused, was not denied; but one person ob- 
 served, he thought I should not have mentioned the 
 Friend's name ; I might have said one of the com- 
 mittee. I replied, it appeared to me better as it was ; 
 the Meeting generally knew I had not imputed it to 
 a wrong person. 
 
 On reading that part which speaks of the two dis- 
 tinct charges alleged against me by the overseers, 12th 
 month, 19th last, I remarked how disingenuous it 
 was of the committee to endeavour to conceal in 
 their report, which lay on the table, that the Society, 
 to which I was a subscriber, was a mere Book Soci- 
 ety. The discussion that had taken place between 
 us on that point, ought to have satisfied them of the 
 injustice of such an artifice. 
 
 Richard Bowman alleged that it was called " the 
 Unitarian Society," in the title to the Book of Rules, 
 a copy of which he produced, and read therefrom 
 those words, and those only ; whereas, had he gone 
 on with the sentence, the purposes of the institution 
 would have appeared in the following words :■. — 
 '* Rules, &c. of the Unitarian Society, for promoting 
 Christian Knowledge and the Practice of Virtue, by 
 distributing such books as appear to the members of 
 the Society to contain the most rational views of the 
 gospel, and to be most free from the errors by which 
 it has long been sullied and obscured." 
 
 When I came to the first set of queries which I 
 Jiad submitted to the committee, in order to induce 
 
77 
 
 them to explain the indefinite minute of their ap* 
 pointment, as to the accusations against me ; the 
 impropriety of my entering into such details was en- 
 deavoured to be shewn, by alleging the uselessness 
 of appointing a committee, if the particulars which 
 they had taken into consideration, were to be opened 
 in the Meeting, and such an attempt was pronounced 
 to be irregular, and disorderly. 
 
 I told the Meeting if they would permit me to pro- 
 ceed in reading those queries, they might judge how 
 far they were relevant to the charges against me, and 
 whether I was not entitled to put them, although I 
 had not yet been furnished with a clear, distinct an- 
 swer to one of them. 
 
 Being suffered to proceed without farther interrup- 
 tion, till I came to that part which states the inquisi- 
 torial claims the committee had set up, I could not 
 help pausing, to observe the full confirmation the re- 
 port laying on the table furnished of the truth of the 
 part I had just read, both with regard to their con- 
 duct and mine. 
 
 I also remarked how unjust it was for the com- 
 mittee to include charges against me in their report, 
 which were not referred to in the minute of their ap- 
 pointment, and which I refused to enter upon 
 on that account, and had not therefore been at all 
 heard thereon in my own defence, as they knew. 
 
 When I came to the reference to the passages I 
 had read to the committee from Penn's Sandy Foun- 
 dation Shaken, [inserted p. 68, 69-] 1 told the 
 Meeting I regretted not having transcribed them, as 
 they were sound, scriptural, and highly important. 
 
 On reading my account of the committee's re- 
 fusal to say whether they were satisfied with the 
 explanation I had given them a week before, when I 
 thought we were agreed in what sense only our Soci- 
 ety ascribed divinity to Christ, they made no objec- 
 tion to the fact being as I stated. 
 
78 
 
 To my statement of what passed between the 
 committee and myself, relative to that greatly im- 
 portant passage in Barclay, Prop. 5 and 6, § 13. 
 not one of them made the least objection. Nor did 
 thev to the correctness of my minutes of the confer- 
 ence between us, respecting the five queries relative 
 to the Remarks on the Yearly Meeting Epistle for 
 1810. [p. 65, 66.] 
 
 When I had finished reading my written address 
 to the Meeting, severalfr iends urged, that as I had 
 now laid before them all I had to say, they hoped I 
 should be willing to leave them to their own free de- 
 liberation, that they might consider the report of 
 their committee. 
 
 I replied, that I had by no means said all I had 
 to say. There were in my mind other matters which 
 it behoved me to lay before them at a proper time, 
 relative to the two last visits 1 had received, exclu- 
 sive of the committee's report, which I felt did me 
 great injustice. But although I could not concede 
 the right of the Meeting to exclude a person situated 
 as I was, during the discussion in a Monthly Meet- 
 ing of his own'case, if the Meeting would signify that 
 I should beTurnished with a copy of the committee's 
 report, provided they received it, and of any minute 
 they might make thereon, I believed 1 should vo- 
 luntarily withdraw before the close of the Meeting, as 
 I wanted to go home. 
 
 Richard Bowman observed that I had no reason to 
 suppose, from the conduct of the committee to- 
 wards me, that I should have any difficulty in pro- 
 curing a copy of the minute. I made no reply to 
 this strange observation ; but I might have remarked 
 that he must surely have forgotten the great reluc- 
 tance the committee had manifested to giving me a 
 copy of the minute of their appointment ! 
 
 The report of the committee being at length agreed 
 to, and with the introductory minute again read, I 
 
79 
 
 rose and left the Meeting, thankful, that I had so far 
 borne my testimony faithfully, against such a flagrant 
 usurpation of the rights of private judgment, and in 
 favour of pure scriptural truth. 
 
 RATCLIFF MONTHLY MEETING. 
 
 19th of 3rd Month, 1812. 
 
 When the opening minute was read, I rose and 
 observed, that as my being present at the last Meet- 
 ing had been objected to, I had no wish to be pre- 
 sent now, while any other business was transacted, 
 than that which related to my own case. Nor even 
 to be present during the consideration of that, far- 
 ther than the principles of justice required, and the 
 rules of the discipline allowed. But having received 
 notice to attend, perhaps the Meeting would not ob- 
 ject to taking up the minute respecting me in the 
 first place. 
 
 The other minutes on the book were, however, 
 taken up in the usual order, without any Friend re- 
 questing me to withdraw. 
 
 The report of the committee being about to be 
 read, after the preceding minute, I submitted to the 
 Meeting, whether it might not be proper to permit 
 me first to read the letter I addressed to the overseers, 
 dated Nov. 5th last, as it related to the state of the 
 case previous to that report having been drawn up, 
 and which I yet thought it was proper they should 
 hear. 
 
 This being objected to, the report of the commit- 
 tee and the minute thereon were read. After which 
 1 read my letter to the overseers, inserted p. 14 to 
 21, and then the following address. 
 
80 
 
 Dear Friends, 
 
 In contemplating the situation in wliich I am 
 placed by a minute of the last Monthly Meeting, it 
 was natural for me to consider the constitution of 
 the Society in which I had been educated, and the 
 rules that have been established for the government 
 of its members. In doing this, under such a noti- 
 fication as I have received from you, how could I 
 avoid reflecting, that the Society had never yet thought 
 fit to establish a creed, or to enjoin upon its mem- 
 bers any formal confession of articles of faith. This 
 was to act so far upon the model of the primitive 
 Christian church, in which the New Testament a- 
 bundantly testifies the belief of the Messiahship of 
 Jesus of Nazareth was the only article of faith en- 
 joined on Jewish converts, as the terms of religious 
 communion, they already holding that great funda- 
 mental of all true religion, the Being and Providence 
 of God. 
 
 Of heathen converts a relinquishment of Polythe- 
 ism, under every form, was also required, as well as 
 an acknowledgment of the divine mission of Christ 
 the Son of God. The imposition of creeds and con- 
 fessions of faith, under the vain pretence of avoiding 
 diversity of opinion, concerning the doctrines of 
 religion, was the work of priestcraft in subsequent 
 ages of the church. They have however one ad- 
 vantage over the system upon which you have 
 acted in this instance ; that those who are re- 
 quired to subscribe or profess them have due notice 
 thereof. 
 
 Whereas, upon the principles on which the pro- 
 ceedings against me have been conducted, an inqui- 
 sition may be established in every Monthly Meeting 
 without referring to any known rule, or prescribed 
 formulary of faith. There is no member of the So- 
 ciety, who may not be liable to its insidious enquiries 
 into the soundness of his faith, respecting any point 
 
81 
 
 on which one or two persons, in the station of over- 
 seers, may chuse to examine him, at the instigation 
 of others/ These prompters may also be members 
 of other meetings, unknown to the party accused, 
 as the overseers cannot deny was the case in the 
 present instance. What such persons have said to 
 the overseers respecting me, I know not, as they 
 have refused to inform me. 
 
 But it is not improbable from what they did say, 
 respecting the manner in which it had been pressed 
 upon them by these zealous disciplinarians, and from 
 their subsequent conduct, that they were mere agents 
 employed by others, and that expulsion, not candid 
 dispassionate enquiry, was the end proposed and acted 
 upon from the commencement. 
 
 The probable consequences of your sanctioning 
 such a precedent in the administration of the disci- 
 pline, is well deserving your serious consideration, 
 If the principles upon which it is founded will bear 
 examination, and are in unison with gospel order, 
 they ought to be generally acted upon. But if they 
 are utterly opposed to the mild, benignant, and can- 
 did spirit of Christianity, you had better even yet 
 pause before you proceed farther. 
 
 My address to you at the last Meeting related 
 principally to the manner in which your committee 
 acted towards me, in violation, as I conceive, of the 
 established rules of the discipline, of gospel order, 
 and of the immutable principles of reason and justice. 
 In this I propose entering more closely into the mat- 
 ters alleged against me, that my supposed offences 
 may be better understood by you, than they can pos- 
 sibly be, by the committee's report. 
 
 Their conduct has been very similar throughout, 
 being governed by the like intolerant maxims. They 
 also pertinaciously refused to define the meaning of 
 the principal terms in their written charges against 
 me. Yet it appears to me they used those terms, in 
 
 M 
 
82 
 
 a very unusual sense, and therefore I cannot imagine 
 it was unreasonable to request such an explanation 
 of their charges, as would enable me to understand 
 them. 
 
 Nor have you to my knowledge expressed any 
 judgment respecting my said request, which I in- 
 formed you of at the last Meeting. Am I to under- 
 stand by your silence that you deem it improper for 
 an accused person to know what the charges against 
 him are ? That I do not even yet, is certain. 
 
 A copy of the committee's report was delivered 
 to me on Feb. 23d, by your clerk, with the minute 
 made thereon after I had left the Meeting. What 
 were the circumstances under which this report was 
 received, and this minute agreed to ? The party ac- 
 cused informed you he had much more to offer in 
 his defence ; and although he could readily perceive 
 that the report did him great injustice, he should 
 not even attempt at present any particular reply to 
 the charges it contained, as they required deliberate 
 consideration, which he might bestow jLipon them on 
 receiving a copy of the report. 
 
 This exposition of the committee's feelings and 
 judgment in the first place informs us, that they 
 found " no satisfaction" in their two last visits. 
 This is, I think, easily accounted for. At the first 
 of these visits I read to them my observations on the 
 written papers they put into my hands at the pre- 
 ceding conference. Those being in M.S. will, like 
 the *papers to which they refer, always speak the 
 same language. And, as I told the committee, I 
 am quite willing the matters then at issue between 
 us, should be judged of by those documents, by 
 the persons whose province it might become to de- 
 cide between us. 
 
 Those papers you have not seen, and the judg- 
 ment you have so far exercised has been under a 
 formal complaint of one of the parties concerned, 
 
88 
 
 that he has not been fairly or fully jieard. It has 
 been far from my wish to give you or the committee 
 needless trouble. Had they confined themselves to 
 the charges alleged against me, and explained the 
 terms they used so as to enable me to understand 
 them, I was as much disposed to a friendly, open 
 discussion of those matters as during the visits the 
 overseers paid me, which they fully acknowledged to 
 you. The different character of the visits of your 
 committee was sincerely regretted by me; but it 
 arose from their repeated efforts from an early part of 
 their first visit to question me upon matters foreign 
 to the accusation presented to the Meeting against 
 me by the overseers. 
 
 The charges now recognized are to be looked for 
 in the committee's report, which your minute says 
 you have "solidly considered." And it appears that 
 you soon came to a " judgment." What was this ? 
 Not to give me the previous hearing I had so recent- 
 ly claimed as the common right of every accused 
 person, but to pass judgment before I had been fully 
 heard, and to " testify" your " disunity" with 
 such principles and conduct as this report imputes to 
 me. i shall now examine on what grounds, as a duty 
 to the full as " incumbent" upon me, as that of pro- 
 nouncing "judgment'' on such imperfect and partial 
 evidence could possibly be upon you. 
 
 It was to act upon the same principles you had 
 avowed while I was present, and I therefore left you 
 under a strong presentiment of the general complex- 
 ion of what was to follow. The proposal which was 
 made for me to leave the Meeting till you had con- 
 cluded whether to receive the report or not, and af- 
 terwards to be called in to be informed the result, and 
 to be heard in my own defence, appearing to be ge- 
 nerally approved, was too plain to be misunderstood. 
 It was therefore no surprise to me to find that you so 
 promptly desired " the Friends before appointed to 
 
u 
 
 -draw up a testimony of denial" on the frivolous and 
 indefensible grounds alleged in " the said report." 
 
 The leading feature of the labours of your com- 
 mittee is very naturally expressed in their report in 
 these terms. — " We questioned him on some import- 
 ant points of doctrine, respecting which we had 
 strong ground to believe his opinions are at variance 
 with those of the Society, to which he decidedly 
 refused to answer." 
 
 That they questioned me, as they saj^, is true. 
 And it is also true that it was for the most part on 
 points which had no relation to the charges alleged 
 against me. They state my refusal to answer those 
 questions, but without mentioning the reasons I as- 
 signed for such refusal, which were, that no rule of 
 the Yearly Meeting warranted the exercise of such 
 inquisitorial powers, and that most of their questions 
 had no relation to the subjects referred to their care. 
 
 But if they had : let me entreat you calmly to con- 
 sider, whether an assertion of two, three, or four 
 individuals, that they have " strong ground to be- 
 lieve" that the " opinions" of another person " are 
 at variance with those of the Society" constitutes 
 proper evidence of the fact. It amounts on the face 
 of the record, not to any proof, but to belief only. 
 Let those grounds, which the committee deem so 
 strong, be brought forth, and then others may judge 
 of their validity. As the party accused, 1 object to 
 the strength of their persuasions as any evidence of 
 the fact they would have you deduce from it. It 
 may only shew their inclinations that way. They 
 are fallible men, and may therefore form a wrong 
 judgment respecting the " opinions" of a person, 
 whose general reading and pursuits may be widely 
 different from theirs. 
 
 The reiterated efforts they made to put ensnar- 
 ing questions to me admonished me to be aware of 
 such insidious attempts, and determined me not to 
 
S5 
 
 reply to them, lest I should contribute to the estab- 
 lishment of a pernicious precedent. Their report 
 says, " he was also asked if he were not the author 
 who assumes the name of Verax ; which he also re- 
 fused to answer." The question put to me on this 
 subject, which is now stated for evident, but not 
 very justifiable reasons, in the present tense, was 
 then said to refer to a pamphlet, entitled " A Vin- 
 dication of Scriptural Unitarianism," &c. published 
 in 1S03. Who is there that now assumes the name 
 of Verax ? And what do the committee mean to in- 
 sinuate by talking of an author who " assumes" that 
 name, instead of saying who published such a tract or 
 tracts under the signature of Verax ? Do they mean 
 to convey an idea of its being a false assumption ? 
 If they do, it is a mean, disingenuous artifice, un- 
 worthy any real lover of truth and justice. 
 
 Now for theevidence whereon the committee have 
 called upon you to rely, that I am " the author who 
 assumes the name of Verax." They say, " which 
 he is publicly charged with in print" Indeed! Is 
 all then that appears in print therefore worthy of cre- 
 dit ? I should think not. But they say I was 
 " publicly charged" with this offence. Why did 
 they use such terms on this occasion? Had they 
 been inclined to state the fact here alluded to, truly, 
 fairly, and candidly, they should rather have said 
 commended for it, than have used a term so much at 
 variance with the tenor of the public notice of which 
 they speak. It is little better than wilfully pervert- 
 ing the evidence of others, and in my mind wholly 
 indefensible. [See the Monthlv Review for Dec. 
 1810, p: 442.] 
 
 The committee are correct in saying I refused to 
 inform them whethe: 1 was the author of that pamph- 
 let. But they know I professed my readiness to 
 meet any charge they could bring against me, when 
 the same was brought forward in a regular, orderly 
 
86 
 
 manner. Nor did they point out a single passage in 
 it as exceptionable, or in Verax's more recent work, 
 entitled a Defence of Christian Unitarianism, pub- 
 lished in 1808. 
 
 General accusations are essentially unjust, yet 
 such have your committee mostly dealt in; and in 
 their next accusation of Verax they say, " the ap- 
 parent scope of whose publications is, to prove that 
 our early Friends denied the eternal divinity of 
 Christ." I very much doubt whether they have 
 read the publications whose general scope they have 
 thus described. They seem rather to have pinned 
 their faith on the groundless notion of Vindex, 
 which is expressed in the first page of the Introduc- 
 tion to his " Examination of the First Part of an 
 Appeal to the Society of Friends. " However this 
 maybe, if the committee have looked through those 
 works, to shew that it cannot have been with much 
 attention, I will transcribe one passage from the In- 
 troduction to the Reply to Vindex, published in 
 1803, which they seem not to have noticed. Let 
 Verax speak for himself. He says, 
 
 " That I consider our early Friends to have been 
 generally Unitarians I readily admit ; and notwith- 
 standing there is considerable ambiguity in their wri- 
 tings, the scale of evidence has always appeared to 
 me to preponderate decidedly in favour of that opi- 
 nion. They were no doubt, as even Vindex allows 
 William Penn to have been, at all times ' deeply im- 
 pressed aith the importance of holding up the doctrine 
 of the complete unity of the Deity.' The consistent 
 acknowledgment and reverent belief of this truly 
 scriptural and primitive doctrine is pure and simple 
 Unitarianism. It is in this sense only I have used 
 the phrase, as descriptive of the sentiments of our 
 early Friends. 
 
 "That they denied ' the eternal divinity of Christ/ 
 in the sense in which they used those terms, I am 
 
87 
 
 so far from having asserted, that I have given some 
 of the strongest of their expressions in favour of that 
 doctrine. But, as with the voice of one man, they 
 united in rejecting all distinction of personality in 
 the Deity, if they affixed any definite or consistent 
 idea to the terms they used on this subject, it must 
 surely have been their intention to ascribe supreme 
 divinity to God the Father only, the uncreated cause 
 of all things, p. 4, 6? } 
 
 Of this passage 1 shall only observe, that it very ill 
 accords with the judgment of the committee con- 
 cerning the " scope" of Verax's publications. Nor 
 do I know any other that will warrant their asser- 
 tion. They should either have quoted, or referred 
 to some specific passages in support of it, or have ab- 
 stained from bringing such a charge, even had the 
 matter of it been previously gone into, which they 
 know it never was. 
 
 To proceed to the charges they were appointed to 
 investigate. As to these, they are so far from com- 
 plaining of my having " refused to answer." that 
 they describe my conduct in the following terms: — 
 " But he avows that he has distributed some papers, 
 entitled " Remarks on the Quaker's Yearly Epistle" ; 
 also that he is a member of the Unitarian Society, 
 in which he confesses he has great satisfaction." 
 
 I would first notice that my admission concerning 
 the " Remarks'* was not expressed in terms of such 
 extensive import, as the committee use, and it was 
 accompanied with an avowal, that I had also given 
 to some of my acquaintance, a Reply to the Re- 
 marks by Breviloquus, a copy of which I shewed 
 them, saying, 1 was quite as willing it should be 
 read and judged of by others, as the Remarks. I 
 likewise told them that another Reply had been sent 
 me, written by an Elder, which I was desirous 
 should be published, and at first thought it was sent 
 me. for that purpose; but the writer's name being 
 
88 
 
 •affixed to it, I did not then think myself justified m 
 sending it to the editor of any periodical work 
 for insertion, without his consent. How exten- 
 sively it has been circulated in M.S. in connec- 
 tion with these proceedings, (in which the wri- 
 ter secretly bore his part) I cannot say, but at the 
 first visit the overseers paid me, I found reason to 
 suppose they had seen it; and soon after Henry 
 Knight shewed me a copy, the date, the writer's 
 name and residence excepted, evidently intended for 
 circulation. Had I received it in this state, I might 
 perhaps have sent it for insertion in the Monthly 
 Repository. [See p. 25 — 27 for a copy of this reply.] 
 
 These circumstances, as well as the general tenor 
 of the Remarks, are, I conceive, sufficient to evince, 
 to every liberal and enlightened mind, that I was 
 not actuated by any evil design towards the Society, 
 or the cause of scriptural truth, by any publicity I 
 have given those papers. My real object was to 
 serve both. Had any able reply to the second pa- 
 per, by an Unitarian Christian, or to Pacificus, or 
 Candidus, on the same subject, appeared, I should 
 have been as ready to promote their circulation, as 
 I ever was that of the Remarks. 
 
 Such proceedings as these against me, are not cal- 
 culated to confute arguments of any kind. Brevi- 
 loquus judged much better, when he took up his 
 pen in reply to an Unitarian Christian. I am aware 
 that circumstances, which I much lament, may have 
 prevented his continuing the discussion ; yet I 
 have by far too favourable an opinion of him, as a 
 man and a Christian, to imagine he could view with 
 complacency, such attempts to support his theologi- 
 cal sentiments. Whether he writes under the signa- 
 ture of Vindex, Breviloquus, Altera Pars, or any 
 other fictitious name, his style, as an author, is too 
 well known to be readily mistaken. And he must 
 know that such men as Penn, Barclay, Fox and 
 
89 
 
 Penington, would have disclaimed all such means of 
 upholding their doctrines. 
 
 On hearing the report of the committee read at 
 the last, Monthly Meeting, I observed, how very 
 uncandid and unjust it was of them, to endeavour 
 to conceal from the Meeting, by the omission of the 
 word Book between the words Unitarian and Society, 
 that their last accusation related merely to my being 
 a subscriber to a Book Society. Yet they knew that 
 to be the case, and had acknowledged to me that 
 they also knew its subscribers to be members of va- 
 rious religious societies. In reply, Richard Bowman 
 informed the Meeting, it was called " the Unitarian 
 Society," in the title to the Book of Rules. One of 
 which he produced, and read therefrom those three 
 words, and those only ! 
 
 Whereas the title is verbatim thus — " Rules, &c. 
 of the Unitarian Society for promoting Christian 
 Knowledge and the Practice of Virtue, by distribut- 
 ing such Books, as appear to the members of the So- 
 ciety to contain the most rational views of the gos- 
 pel, and to be most free from the errors by which it 
 has long been sullied and obscured/' Can any thing 
 be more disingenuous than such an attempt to de- 
 ceive ? And especially after my previous remon- 
 strances with the committee, on the disposition they 
 had before shewn to practise so gross an act of injus- 
 tice, calculated to represent me as having joined my- 
 self to another religious society. 
 
 Speaking of my connection with the London 
 Unitarian Book Society, your committee say, " in 
 which he confesses he has great satisfaction." They 
 do not seem at all suitably impressed with the obli- 
 gation of stating accurately the confessions of others, 
 when they undertake that difficult task. The con- 
 fession to which they allude, I well remember, and 
 they must know it related solely to my being a sub- 
 scriber to a Book Society. And the satisfaction I 
 
90 
 
 spoke of, was said to have arisen from the perusal of 
 many excellent works, with which I might not have 
 been otherwise acquainted. It was also expressed 
 in the past tense, yet they assert it of the present. 
 
 When I became a subscriber to this Book Society, 
 in the year 1804, I considered its fundamental prin- 
 ciples as scriptural truths of the highest importance, 
 and perfectly accordant to the principles of our So- 
 ciety, as opposed to the doctrine of " the Trinity of 
 distinct and separate persons in the Unity of essence." 
 My ideas accord with those of William Perm, " that 
 God is not an holy three, nor doth subsist in 
 three distinct and separate holy ones." But that 
 the " scriptures undeniably prove that one is God, 
 and God only is that holy one/' Works, vol. i. p. 
 253. 
 
 As to the endeavours of the committee to convince 
 me of the impropriety of my conduct " as a member 
 of our Society " 1 do not know any efforts of theirs 
 at all adapted to this object. They told me, it is true, 
 they thought my conduct was inconsistent, but did 
 not condescend to assign their reasons for the opinion 
 they pronounced. In short they appeared to think 
 I ought, both with regard to doctrines and conduct, 
 implicitly to submit to their judgment, without 
 knowing whereon that was founded, and without 
 any explanation of the terms they used. More than 
 once they observed that I might enjoy the privilege 
 of my own thoughts, if I would but keep them to 
 myself. That, I replied, was equivalent to saying, if 
 I would but add hypocrisy to the other errors I had 
 fallen into, I might pass without censure, and still 
 be considered as in unity with the church. But I 
 did not think myself much obliged to them for the 
 privilege they professed to be willing to grant me, as 
 it was one, of which the most consummate of earthly 
 tyrants could not deprive a prisoner whom he confined 
 in a dungeon. 
 
91 
 
 Before I proceed to consider the theological errors 
 your committee " believe" I hold, for their report 
 contains no direct or specific charge of that kind, I 
 would lay before you some written accusations which 
 they delivered to me Jan. 22nd last. 
 
 These charges were— 1 st. " The Friends who have 
 visited thee before, charge thee with holding that Jesus 
 Christ is not omnipotent, nor the proper object of 
 adoration and praise/' In order to point out in what 
 manner the committee charged me with having cen- 
 surably propagated the opinions I had imbibed, they 
 say, 
 
 2nd. " By spreading an anonymous paper, and 
 publishing a book or books tending to invalidate the 
 faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as held 
 by the Society, and set forth inSewel's History, (vol. 
 ii. p. 497— 500,) and in other works as above quoted 
 (viz. ' Summary' and ' Yearly Meeting Epistles va- 
 rious Extracts,') and by joining thyself to a Society 
 who think it their duty to avow their belief that 
 * Jesus Christ the most distinguished of the prophets 
 is the creature and messenger of God, and not his 
 equal nor his vicegerent in the formation and govern- 
 ment of the world, nor co-partner with him in divine 
 honours.' " 
 
 On the above accusations being read, after object- 
 ing to the former part, as irrelevant, I appealed to the 
 committee, whether it was just or candid to select 
 that part only of the Preface to the Rules of the 
 London Unitarian Book Society, when I had point- 
 ed out to the overseers that it was undeniably clear, 
 from the tenor of the whole, that it was the man 
 Christ Jesus, mentioned above, that was there spok- 
 en of, and not that divine power which dwelt in him. 
 [See p. 46, 47-] 
 
 Did not they, when speaking of Jesus Christ as 
 having been crucified, or as having died, assert it 
 only'of the man Christ Jesus ? In what other sense, 
 
92 
 
 1 wished them to inform me, did the evangelists 
 speak of Christ when he was said to have increased in 
 wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and 
 man, to be weary with his journey, 10 be hungry, 
 faint, &c. ? Could those things be affirmed with 
 truth of the great and omnipotent Creator ? On 
 many other occasions, when Christ was spoken of by 
 the sacred writers, the man Christ Jesus only could 
 be meant. 
 
 The committee alleged that they had a right to se- 
 lect such part of the preface as they chose, to ground 
 their accusation upon. Although, I replied, the 
 meaning of the part you have chosen, depends upon, 
 and is explained by what goes before ? To which they 
 declaring their assent ! I told them it could only be, on 
 the same mode of reasoning, by which a person profess- 
 ed to be able to prove from the Bible, that " there is no 
 God," whereas the text says, " The fool has said in 
 his heart, there is no God." This was an impious 
 attempt, with which I do not charge you, but I 
 must say the reasoning you have adopted, on this 
 and other occasions, is equally inconclusive and 
 unjust. 
 
 At this conference the committee gave me a paper, 
 intended to explain in what sense they understood 
 that the Society of Friends ascribed divinity to Christ, 
 that is, whether to the man Christ Jesus, or to that 
 Divine power which dwelt in him. It is verbatim 
 as follows — 
 
 " We here mean," say your committee, " the 
 spiritual body of Christ, which, he told the Jews, ex- 
 cept they partook of, they had no life in them, the 
 spiritual rock which the fathers are described to have 
 drank of, that powerful efficient word which was in 
 the beginning with God, and which was God, by 
 which all things were created, which took flesh and 
 dwelt among mankind, which wrought many miracles 
 oneartb, was accused by the Jews, whose outward body 
 
93 
 
 suffered death under Pontius Pilate, but was raised 
 up again the third day, which ascended up far above 
 all heavens, filling all things, and upholding all things 
 by the word of his power, and having by one offer- 
 ing perfected for ever all those who are, or shall be 
 sanctified, through obedience to the Holy Spirit, 
 through or by which he appeareth the second time 
 without sin unto salvation." 
 
 To say nothing of the palpable perversion of the 
 sense of the sacred writers which the above docu- 
 ment contains, as a reference to the texts they have 
 so strangely garbled, will evince, I appeal to you, 
 whether it is not evident the committee could not 
 have meant to designate " the man Christ Jesus/' 
 by any of the terms they have used, excepting the 
 epithet so emphatically dashed under, viz. "outward 
 body?" And if so, however they may, for reasons 
 best known to themselves, chuse to shroud their sen- 
 timents in a misapplication of the figurative lan- 
 guage of scripture, whether it can be justly inferred, 
 from this paper, given me as the result of their ma- 
 ture and united judgment, that they ascribe any 
 other divinity to " the heavenly man Christ" than 
 that of the Father which dwelt in him } As it still 
 does in his glorified state in the heavens, by whom, 
 that is, by that man whom he hath ordained, God 
 shall judge the world in the last and general day of 
 judgment. 
 
 Not being able to induce the committee to say, 
 whether they accorded with, or rejected the above doc- 
 trine concerning Christ, as stated by Barclay, and id 
 the New Testament, I proposed to them the follow- 
 ing queries in writing, 
 
 1st. Do you consider omnipotence as a communi- 
 cable attribute? Or, as an essential inseparable at- 
 tribute of the most high God? 
 
 2ndly. When you speak of Jesus Christ as omni- 
 potent, do you mean the man Christ Jesus ? 
 
94 
 
 3rd!}'. When you describe Jesus Christ as " the 
 proper object of adoration and praise" do you mean 
 " the man Christ Jesus?" And by the terms " adora- 
 tion and praise," do you mean supreme religious wor- 
 ship ? 
 
 To these I subjoined the following note, 
 " When you have favoured me with distinct and 
 clear answers to these plain questions, arising out 
 of the terms in which your first written accusation 
 is drawn up, I will take them into deliberate consi- 
 deration, and give you my reply to the same. 
 
 " Thomas Foster. 
 
 " Bromley, Feb. 7th, 1812. ,J 
 
 To this note I annexed the following postscript : 
 
 " In further explanation of your sentiments on 
 the subject of the foregoing accusation, I wish to be 
 informed," 
 
 1st. Whether it is not undeniably the doctrine of 
 Barclay, and of the scriptures, that our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, as now glorified in the heavens, is, in soul 
 and body, a true and real man, by whom God shall 
 judge the world? 
 
 2ndly. Whether you deem it sound and scriptural, 
 to ascribe omnipotence to any true and, real man, 
 however exalted or glorified? 
 
 3rdly. Whether any true and real man can be, con- 
 sistently with the doctrine of the scriptures, repre- 
 sented as ' the proper object' of supreme adoration and 
 praise. 
 
 4thly. Whether the scriptures do not uniformly 
 ascribe omnipotence to that great Being only, who is 
 therein styled the God and Father of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and represent him alone as the proper ob- 
 ject of supreme religious worship? 
 
 To none of these queries have I yet received from 
 the committee any verbal or written reply, pertit 
 
 , 
 
95 
 
 nent as they all are to their accusation. Is such 
 treatment at all likely to convince me of any errors 
 I may have imbibed, or to enable the committee 
 to ascertain what my errors are, and to judge of their 
 nature and extent ? Are these the endeavours they 
 speak of, in their report to you, as having bestowed 
 upon me? That such has been their conduct they 
 cannot deny. Thus refusing me all explanation, 
 they proceeded to accuse me before you, in equally 
 vague and ambiguous terms. Is it possible this can 
 be justifiable ? 
 
 It is utterly inconsistent with my ideas of equity 
 and justice, of fair dealing, and strait forward, ho- 
 nourable conduct. I may add, if such treatment of 
 an accused person be sanctioned by any human tri- 
 bunal, I must appeal against its injustice, and shall 
 be ready to exclaim in the strong language of the 
 patriarch, " O my soul, come not thou into their 
 secret ; unto their assembly mine honour, be not 
 thou united/' 
 
 I would gladly hope better things of you, provid- 
 ed you will even yet give me a dispassionate hearing, 
 and divest your minds of prejudice, unfavourable as 
 the situation in which I now stand is to an ultimate 
 impartial decision, seeing judgment has been already 
 pronounced. This consideration shall not, however, 
 discourage me from persevering in my defence, being 
 fully persuaded your committee had no just ground 
 for their accusations ; or rather, as I hinted before, 
 their insinuations against me in their report. They 
 are merely inferences of their own, from the admitted 
 fact of my having given away some of the papers, 
 entitled " Remarks on the Quaker's Yearly Epis- 
 tle/' 
 
 The committee describe me in their report as 
 " calling in question the omnipotence of our Lord 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ, and the propriety of ap- 
 plying to him in secret supplication, as professed by 
 
96 
 
 the Yearly Meeting in its Epistle for 1 8 1 0." Am I there- 
 fore an offender? And is this the evidence whereon 
 I am accused on your records with having imbibed 
 some opinions contrary to the principles of the So- 
 ciety ? 
 
 The committee might have accused me on much 
 better ground than they have chosen. My letter to 
 the overseers, dated Nov. 17th last, assures them 
 that I believed all that Jesus Christ is recorded in 
 the New Testament to have said concerning himself. 
 And he is therein recorded to have said, that " The 
 Son can do nothing of himself. — I can of mine own 
 self do nothing." John v. 19. 30. " The Father that 
 dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Ibid. xiv. 10. 
 If these and the like divine sayings are true, as 1 
 believe they are, surely there must be some sense in 
 which, truly, properly and scripturally speaking, Je- 
 sus Christ is not omnipotent. 
 
 With regard to the omnipotence of God the Fa- 
 ther, there is no question, that I know of, among pro- 
 fessing Christians. And the committee having ad- 
 mitted that when they speak of the divinity of 
 Christ, as a doctrine held by the Society, they ascribe 
 it only to that divine power which dwelt in him and 
 acted by him, I feel myself obliged to conclude that 
 in speaking of the omnipotence of Christ, they also 
 ascribe it to the same divine power of the Father, 
 which dwelt in him, and not to the man Christ Je- 
 sus. The contrary opinion would be very inconsist- 
 ent and absurd. 
 
 Divinity is a word not to be found in the received 
 version of the Scriptures. It seems to have been 
 derived from the heathen mythology, and by no 
 means necessarily implies supreme, original, unde- 
 rived Deity, but rather the impartation of the com- 
 municable attributes of the one true God, the giver 
 of every good and perfect gift, and especially of all 
 truly divine graces and endowments. In this sense 
 
 
 -* J 
 
97 
 
 of the term it may with the utmost propriety, and in 
 the most eminent manner, be ascribed to the man 
 Christ Jesus whilst he dwelt on earth, as it may also 
 in his present exalted and glorified state in the hea- 
 vens, at the right hand of the power of God. 
 
 The Greek word which is rendered in English om- 
 nipotent or almighty, occurs ten times in the New 
 Testament, and is therein only applied to God, never 
 to Christ. The same word is also very often used in 
 the Old Testament, about one hundred and twenty 
 times, and is uniformly applied to God. Would it 
 not then be, as far as is in the power of such frail, 
 dependent beings as we are, to deprive God of his 
 peculiar honour and sole prerogative, to ascribe it to 
 another ? 
 
 If you should disclaim doing this, under the Sabel- 
 lian notion, that the Father and the Son are person- 
 ally the same being, I confess my ignorance of any 
 text of Scripture that can warrant such a conclusion. 
 You must, I think admit, that absolute, underived 
 Deity and omnipotence are very frequently, plainly 
 and expressly ascribed in the Scriptures to the Father 
 only, and in such terms as cannot, with any shew 
 of reason, be said to designate the Son. Of those 
 comparatively few texts which have been otherwise 
 understood, a considerable part are unquestionably 
 corrupt interpolations. 
 
 How then can the inference deducible from the 
 usual language of the sacred writers, that the Father 
 alone is the most high God, be evaded with any con- 
 sistency by a Society, which has always refused to ad- 
 mit in any sense whatever a distinction of persons in 
 the Deity? A person who asserts the supremacy 
 of the Father, ought to be considered by them as 
 acknowledging the omnipotence of the one true God, 
 as fully as by expressing his belief in terms much 
 
98 
 
 less frequently, if at all employed by the sacred 
 writers, to designate the Supreme Being. 
 
 To have stated their accusation correctly, the 
 committee should have quoted the passage in the 
 Remarks to which they refer. I suppose it is this. 
 " Our great Master has repeatedly assured us that all 
 the powers even he himself possessed were given him 
 of his Father, — that of himself he could do nothing." 
 Can any one who seriously and sincerely believes 
 these sayings of Christ consider h?m as really omni- 
 potent? I cannot doubt the veracity of these posi- 
 tive declarations, as I informed the committee ; yet 
 they would not acknowledge their belief in them, 
 or explain to me, how omnipotence can be consist- 
 ently ascribed to the person, by whom those declara- 
 tions were made. 
 
 " Yet does this Epistle/' says the writer of the 
 Remarks, " without any reference to the source 
 whence all his powers were derived, ascribe omnipo- 
 tence to the meek and humble Jesus." I am unin- 
 formed why the committee did not chuse to state 
 this part of their accusation accurately. Perhaps 
 they thought, as they well might, that it would ap- 
 pear strange to accuse a person, who professed to 
 believe all Christ's sayings, of not ascribing om- 
 nipotence to the meek and humble Jesus. That he 
 made these positive declarations cannot be doubted, 
 if any thing in the gospels may be safely relied on 
 as unquestionable truth. Did the committee ima- 
 gine that meekness, humility and lowliness of mind, 
 which are frequently ascribed to Christ by the sa- 
 cred writers, but never to God, were incompatible 
 with the ascription of omnipotence to the same 
 Being ? 
 
 The lowly-minded Saviour, of whom this Epistle 
 speaks, cannot, 1 think, with propriety, be under- 
 stood to designate any other person than the one me- 
 
99 
 
 diator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 
 How then can this " all sufficient Saviour " as 1 re- 
 verently believe him to be, by by the will and ap- 
 pointment of his Father, be truly and properly said 
 to be omnipotent! To assert this of Jesus Christ is, 
 in my mind, to imply a disbelief of some of the most 
 clear, definite and positive truths, he is, by the tes- 
 timony of the evangelists, recorded to have delivered 
 concerning himself. Am I to be censured and dis- 
 owned for believing his words ? 
 
 How far the committee meant to include that di- 
 vine power, which we unitedly acknowledge to have 
 dwelt in Christ and to have acted by him, under the 
 ambiguous terms " Lord" and " Saviour," which 
 are by the sacred writers, with much propriety, as- 
 cribed not only to God, but also, in an inferior sense 
 to the man Christ Jesus, I know not. If they do, 
 I can only say, I never understood the writer of the 
 Remarks did. And if so, he may have been speak- 
 ing, as I believe was the fact, of the man Christ Je- 
 sus, and the committee may have understood him to 
 have spoken of that divine power which enabled 
 Jesus Christ to perform all his mighty works, and to 
 speak as never man spake. 
 
 The committee seem to have fallen into a similar 
 error, when they speak of offering " secret suppli- 
 cation" to Christ. They do not, 1 imagine, mean 
 that it is a Christian duty to supplicate the man 
 Christ Jesus, but that divine power which dwelt in 
 him. Or, in plain, scriptural phrase, the Father, 
 who is greater than all. 
 
 The proper inquiry seems to be, — To whom does 
 omnipotence appertain ? And who is, according to 
 the sacred writers, the God that is truly omniscient 
 and heareth prayer P Did not Jesus Christ enjoin it 
 as an incumbent duty on all his followers to pray to 
 the Y at her and to him only! Does not Christ re- 
 present it as an indispensible criterion of all true wor- 
 
100 
 
 ship, not only that it should be in spirit and in truth, 
 but also that it be offered unto the only proper object 
 of adoration, to his Father and our Father, to his 
 God and our God? See John iv. 23, 24. " The 
 true worshippers/' says Christ, " shall ivorship the 
 Father. 1 ' Of whom, or of whose worship, the com- 
 mittee's report is wholly silent, as it is also concern- 
 ing the Scriptures ! 
 
 Yet, on the credit of such a document as this, 
 have you directed them, under such circumstances 
 as I have stated to you, to " draw up a testimony 
 of denial," intended to exclude me from the benefits 
 of Christian communion ! The apostle Paul said, 
 * where no law is, there is no transgression." And 
 your committee know I have in vain called upon 
 them to state what rule of the Society they charge 
 me with having broken. Nor have you informed me. 
 
 Can such proceedings as these, I call upon you 
 to say, as honest men and as Christians, be just, re- 
 gular and orderly ? Are they accordant with the ge- 
 nuine sense and spirit of our discipline, which assumes 
 the sacred name of Christian ? If they are, I have 
 hitherto entertained such different ideas of the proper 
 objects of Christian discipline, and of the temper of 
 mind in which it ought to be administered, that if this 
 be the real state of the case, not as it concerns me per- 
 sonally, for that is a very inferior consideration in my 
 estimation, but as it concerns the system acted upon 
 by a professed Christian church, I wish distinctly to 
 state, that I have nothing to complain of on being ex- 
 cluded from a Society, in which such principles are 
 •systematically acted upon. 
 
 What is it I shall lose by being disowned ? The 
 right of attending meetings for discipline, of which 
 I am almost weary, and of using the library and in- 
 specting the records of the Society, which I am 
 aware contain much curious and some interesting 
 matter, illustrative of the genuine maxims and spirit 
 
101 
 
 which prevailed at different periods of its history. 
 Of those also, I have seen nearly enough to satiate 
 my curiosity, so that my personal privations would 
 not be great, in consequence of such a decision. 
 
 But as I have taken much pains to acquire just 
 ideas of the genuine doctrines of the Society, and to 
 appreciate the spirit and manner in which its disci- 
 pline is directed to be put in practice, I cannot allow 
 that its rules afford any sanction to such irregular 
 and intolerant proceedings. There are, in the Book 
 of Extracts, seventeen rules of the Society, applica- 
 ble to as many cases, and all of them authorizing 
 disownment. Of these, six are for transgressions of 
 the moral law. Four relate to such cases as are im- 
 moral, or otherwise, according to circumstances. Six 
 relate to proceedings in courts of law, to marriages 
 contrary to the rules, to the payment of tythes, and 
 other ecclesiastical demands. And one only, to 
 points of faith. Nor is this at all applicable to my 
 case, although the overseers once thought of pro- 
 ceeding " in part" upon it. 
 
 Is it then to be believed that the Yearly Meeting, 
 by whom these special and definite rules were made, 
 for the government of inferior Meetings, could have 
 intended that each of those Meetings, or any of them, 
 should exercise all the powers of legislative authori- 
 ty, and apply them, without controul, to cases never 
 contemplated by the Yearly Meeting, as the proper 
 objects of such disciplinary proceedings? The as- 
 sumption of such powers, by any Monthly Meeting, 
 is in effect to invade the proper province of the 
 Yearly Meeting, and to render its rules of no kind of 
 importance. 
 
 Do you mean, by setting up such pretensions, to 
 say, that the Yearly Meeting has not sufficiently 
 provided for all cases that may require disownment? 
 If you do, let the defect, if there be one on this side 
 the question, be pointed out, and a remedy applied 
 
102 
 
 to it in a constitutional manner. But do not violate 
 those essential principles of justice, on the preserva- 
 tion of which, the peace and welfare of every well- 
 regulated community depends, for the sake of expel- 
 ling a person from membership, by measures not 
 sanctioned by your own rules. 
 
 Those which authorise disownment, apply in the 
 first place to certain specific transgressions of the 
 moral law, and generally to all such persons " as 
 walk disorderly/' These are sufficiently extensive 
 in their operation. And those relating to going to 
 law, to marriages contrary to the rules, to tythes, &c. 
 are as express and effectual as any one could wish ; 
 as are those respecting the non-payment of justdebts, 
 being concerned in Letters of Marque, making im- 
 plements of war, &c. The only one which relates 
 to matters of faith, was issued in 1694, and is drawn 
 up in so benevolent a spirit, and so much in the ge-. 
 nuine simplicity of the primitive Christian faith, that 
 I cannot well avoid pressing it earnestly on your at- 
 tention, not merely because our predecessors in reli- 
 gious profession gave it forth, but on account of its 
 intrinsic excellence. 
 
 What were the " errors, false doctrines, or mis- 
 takes," which this wise and moderate rule was in- 
 tended to guard against? Such as were "against 
 the validity of Christ's sufferings, blood, resurrec- 
 tion, ascension or glory in the heavens, according as 
 they are set forth in the Scriptures^ or any ways tend- 
 ing to the denial of the heavenly man Christ.' y How 
 consonant is this with that doctrine of Barclay's, 
 with which your committee decline saying, whether 
 they accord or not, and which they told me, they had 
 nothing to do with. Not so with me, because it is 
 a doctrine 1 imbibed in early life, and which my riper 
 judgment approves as sound and scriptural. 
 
 At the same time I have no wish to censure any 
 man whose faith is shorter or more abundant than 
 
103 
 
 my own. I am too sensible of my own weaknesses 
 and imperfections, to venture to sit in judgment up- 
 on another, respecting subjects of speculative be- 
 lief. " Hast thou faith " said the apostle, have it to 
 thyself before God / Happy is he who condemneth 
 not himself, in that which he alloweth.*' Horn. xiv. 
 22. " The great error of the ages of the apostacy 
 has been," said Isaac Penington, vol. i. p. 323, " to 
 set up an outward order and uniformity, and to make 
 men's consciences bend thereto, either by arguments 
 of wisdom, or by force; but the property of the true 
 church government, is to leave the conscience to its 
 full liberty in the Lord, to preserve it single and en- 
 tire, for the Lord, to exercise, and to seek unity in 
 the light, and in the spirit, ivalking sweetly and harmo- 
 niously together, in the midst of different practices. 
 
 This is a description by an eminently pious and 
 enlightened man, of the dispositions which ought 
 universally to prevail among professing Christians. 
 But, I confess, the most authentic picture of a 
 Christian church, which has actually attained in the 
 highest degree the proper ends of religious associa- 
 tion, is that which the apostle Paul describes in 
 the beginning of his second epistle to the Thessalo- 
 nians. The charity of which he there speaks, was 
 exercised by " all, towards each other.' y It was not 
 merely of the rich towards the poor, of the wise to- 
 wards those who stood in need of instruction, of 
 those who were as fathers in Christ towards those 
 who were weak in the faith — but a spirit of univer- 
 sal charity and goodwill, pervaded the whole com- 
 munity. And what was the consequence? Church 
 censures for supposed errors of the understanding? 
 Not a word of that kind, but an abundant increase 
 in the faith. Behold the animating picture as drawn 
 by the pen of an apostle. I never contemplate it 
 without wishing it may be again realized. 
 " Paul and Sylvanus and Timotheus unto the church 
 
104 
 
 of the Thessalonians, in God our Father, and the 
 Lord Jesus Christ. Grace unto you, and peace from 
 God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. We 
 are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, 
 as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceed- 
 ingly, and the charity of every one of you all, towards 
 each other aboundeth." 
 
 May these truly Christian dispositions prevail more 
 and more. A real increase in that true faith, which 
 worketh by love, to the purifying of the soul, can- 
 not be otherwise reasonably expected. Nor can 
 these happy effects be hoped for with any prospect of 
 success, amidst the straw and the stubble which hath 
 been scattered over the simple, immoveable founda- 
 tion which Jesus Christ hath laid. His apostles strong- 
 ly disclaimed havingany authority to add new doc- 
 trines to those their divine master had taught. Their 
 province was to republish and to enforce his doctrines, 
 to testify that he was raised from the dead, and to re- 
 commend his example as worthy of all imitation; 
 not to teach new articles of faith, and to enforce 
 them on pain of expulsion from the church. 
 
 Who then is entitled to exercise such authority ? 
 To teach for doctrines the commandments of men, 
 seems nearly equivalent to preaching another gospel ; 
 of the great danger of doing which we are emphati- 
 cally warned in the first chapter of the apostle Paul's 
 Epistle to the Galatians, in stronger terms than I 
 chuse to quote on this occasion. But I would re- 
 commend the whole chapter to your attention. 
 
 Our early Friends were eminently tolerant to each 
 other, with regard to points of faith. To have acted 
 otherwise would have been incompatible with the 
 Christian privileges they so nobly asserted. And if 
 William Penn's evidence may be credited, as to 
 the scriptural simplicity of their faith, he de- 
 clares on their behalf: — " The grace, of which we 
 testify, hath never taught us to acknowledge another 
 
105 
 
 God, than he that is the Father of all things, who 
 fills heaven and earth. Neither to confess "another 
 Lord Jesus Christ, than he that appeared so many- 
 hundred years ago, made of a virgin, like unto us in 
 all things, sin excepted; or any other doctrine than 
 was by him declared and practised.'* 
 
 Your committee know I have uniformly professed 
 to believe all that Christ is recorded in the New Tes- 
 tament to have said concerning himself, and all the 
 doctrines he is therein declared to have taught. 
 Whether you may deem this a sufficient confession 
 of faith, to entitle me still to retain the rights of mem- 
 bership I cannot say. But if you should not, al- 
 though I by no means lightly esteem the benefits of 
 religious association, I cannot sacrifice the rights of 
 conscience and the exercise of private judgment to 
 retain them ; I shall yet remain, I trust, without 
 any feeling of animosity or resentment, and with 
 Christian good-will, your sincere friend, 
 
 Thomas Foster. 
 
 No observations were made on the foregoing ad- 
 dress, or on the letter which was previously read, 
 while I remained in the Meeting ; although I more 
 than once called upon the committee to say if I had, 
 in the slightest degree, imputed any sentiment to 
 them which they had not expressed, or in any way 
 misrepresented their conduct. 
 
 Soon after I had read those papers, during the 
 reading of which I paused occasionally to make a 
 few verbal observations, I informed the meeting I 
 was ready to withdraw at their request. That I was 
 willing to leave my written address with them, 
 which being requested, I laid the same on the table. 
 
 Before I withdrew, I observed the committee had 
 no doubt drawn up a testimony of denial against me, 
 as directed at the last Meeting*. That I had no wish 
 to hear it before I left the Meeting, provided it con- 
 
106 
 
 tained no new accusation ; which I mentioned hav- 
 ing known instances, in which great injustice of 
 that kind, had been done in such documents to per- 
 sons disowned. If that was in any degree the case 
 in this instance, I claimed the right of hearing it 
 read. 
 
 Richard Bowman replied, " It does not contain any 
 new accusation /*■' 
 
 On this assurance being given, I immediately 
 withdrew. The Meeting sat about an hour after- 
 wards, and made a minute, approving the testimony 
 brought in by the committee, and desiring them to 
 hand me a copy. 
 
 SUBSEQUENT CONFERENCES- 
 
 When the Meeting broke up I was shewn the tes- 
 timony of denial by the persons who were appointed 
 to draw it up. They told me, that two of them in- 
 tended to have gone over to Bromley to deliver me a 
 copy this afternoon. 
 
 On perusing the document, I felt keenly, and 
 expressed warmly my sense of their injustice, as it 
 included fresh charges against me, in direct violation 
 of the positive assurances given me about an hour 
 before, in the face of the Meeting, by Richard Bow- 
 man, on their behalf, relying imprudently on the 
 truth of which I left the Meeting without first hear- 
 ing it read. It not only contained new charges, al- 
 though Richard Bowman had so recently and pub- 
 licly asserted it did not, but those charges were false, 
 and unsupported by the evidence to which the tes- 
 timony of disownment appealed. 
 
 They declined all inquiry into this, but informed 
 me they had it in commission to say, if 1 meant to 
 appeal, the Meeting was adjourned to first day af- 
 ternoon. I replied, I have nothing to say to you 
 
107 
 
 upon that subject, nor do I wish your advice respect- 
 ing it. 
 
 The next morning Henry Knight and Samuel 
 Marsh called on me with a copy of the testimony of 
 denial. When they delivered it to me, I requested 
 them to compare what it asserts, respecting my hav- 
 ing "joined a Society who publicly avow their disbe- 
 lief of the eternal divinity of Jesus Christ/* with 
 any passage in the Preface to the Book of Rules of 
 the London Unitarian Book Society, which they ima- 
 gined could warrant such an assertion. 
 
 This they refused to do, alleging that the testimo- 
 ny was now sanctioned by the Meeting. It was 
 their act, and they had nothing to do with it but to 
 deliver a copy to me. 
 
 1 replied, if the Meeting have sanctioned it, they 
 did so, depending on the committee that drew it up 
 for the truth of what it contained. That no charge 
 of the kind I now complained of, as unjust and un- 
 founded, had ever been alleged against me while I 
 was present, and that falsehood and deceit could lend 
 no aid to religion. Nor would any thing in the Re- 
 marks on the Yearly Meeting Epistle, justify their 
 assertion respecting the contents of that paper. The 
 written address which I read to the Meeting, ought 
 to have satisfied them that I believed divinity, in the 
 proper sense of the word, was justly and eminently 
 ascribable to the man Christ Jesus, which was more 
 than I had ever heard them acknowledge. 
 
 As to their allegation above quoted, it was cer- 
 tainly false, and the correction of it concerned their 
 reputation for veracity, not mine. ,1 wished, for the 
 credit of the Society, that their charges against me 
 had been fairly and correctly stated. They would 
 equally have answ-redthe main end I was fully con- 
 vincedtheyallaloug aimed at. Instead of which, much 
 of their conduct as rf a committee towards me, had nei- 
 ther been consistent with truth, justice, fair-dealing. 
 
108 
 
 sincerity or candour. In all my intercourse with 
 mankind I never met with such a continued series 
 of disingenuous, dishonourable conduct, as Richard 
 Bowman and Samuel Marsh in particular had practis- 
 ed. There was, in my mind, a material difference 
 in these respects between their deportment, and that 
 of Henry Knight and John Harris, of whom I saw 
 much less cause to complain. 
 
 The Meeting's deputies said nothing in their own 
 defence worth mentioning, and persisted in refusing 
 to compare the testimony of denial with the commit- 
 tee's report, or to give any explanation of the 
 grounds whereon their new charges were founded, 
 but said, they had it in commission to inform me the 
 Monthly Meeting was adjourned to next first day af- 
 ternoon, if I thought of appealing. I told them, as 
 1 did yesterday, that I had nothing to say to them re- 
 specting my intentions, nor did I wish to have their 
 advice respecting the mode or time of appealing. 
 Soon after this they departed. 
 
 Before another Monthly Meeting occurred, I had 
 all the minutes respecting my case printed, but with- 
 out the annexed explanatory notes, and sent a copy 
 of them to its members generally, with the follow- 
 ing letter in M.S. addressed to each, on the other 
 side of the sheet. Viz. 
 
 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF RATCLIFF MONTHLY 
 MEETING RESPECTING THOMAS FOSTER. 
 
 RATCLIFF MONTHLY MEETING. 
 
 12th Month, 19th, 1811. 
 
 e * This Meeting being informed that Thomas Fos- 
 ter, a member of this Meeting, hath imbibed, and 
 aided in propagating some opinions contrary to the 
 principles of the Society, Henry Knight, Richard 
 
109 
 
 Bowman, Samuel Marsh, and John Harris are ap- 
 pointed to visit him thereon and report." (a) 
 
 (" A true copy. Samuel Harris. 3 ') 
 
 RATCLIFF MONTHLY MEETING. 
 
 1st Month, 23, 1812. 
 " Samuel Marsh reports, that the committee ap- 
 pointed to visit Thomas Foster, have paid him two 
 visits ; they are continued." 
 
 (" A true copy. Samuel Harris. 
 
 RATCLIFF MONTHTLY MEETING. 
 
 20th of 2nd Month, 1812. 
 " The following Report, from the Friends ap- 
 pointed to visit Thomas Foster, was brought in and 
 several times read. 
 
 " TO THE MONTHLY MEETING. 
 
 " We, your committee, appointed to visit Thomas 
 Foster, report that we have paid him two visits since 
 our last Meeting, to no satisfaction. 
 
 " We questioned him on some important points of 
 
 EXPLANATORY NOTES. 
 
 (a) The evidence on which this minute was ostensibly made, re- 
 lated solely to the party accused having given a few of his friends 
 some copies of a paper, entitled " Remarks on the Quakers' Yearly 
 Epistle for 1810,'' which first appeared in t he Monthly Repository, 
 Vol. V. p. 490 ; and to his being a subscriber to the " London Uni- 
 tarian Book Society, for promoting Christian Knowledge and the 
 Practice of Virtue," on account of the following passage, which the 
 Overseers objected to in the Preface to its Book of Rules. " While, 
 therefore, many well-meaning persons are propagating with zeal, 
 opinions, which the members of this society judge to be unscriptu- 
 ial and idolatrous, they think it their duty to oppose the further pro- 
 gress of such pernicious errors, and publicly to avow their firm at- 
 tachment to the doctrine of the unity of God, of his unrivalled 
 and undivided authority and dominion; and their belief that Jesus 
 Christ, the most distinguished of the prophets, is the creature 
 and messenger of God, and not his equal nor his vicegerent, 
 in the formation and government of the world, nor co- partner 
 with him in divine honours." The Meeting refused to recognize 
 these accusations in any definite manner, although the party accused, 
 earnestly called upon them to do him this necessary act of justice* 
 
110 
 
 doctrine, (b) respecting which we had strong ground 
 to believe his opinions are at variance with those of 
 the Society, to which he decidedly refused to an- 
 swer, (c) He was also asked if he were not the au- 
 thor who assumes the name of Verax, (which he is 
 publicly charged with in print, the apparent scope 
 of whose publications is, to prove that our early 
 Friends denied the eternal divinity of Christ ; this he 
 also refused to answer, (d) 
 
 "But he avows that he has distributed some pa- 
 pers, entitled, " Remarks on the Quakers' Yearly 
 Epistle/ calling in question the omnipotence of our 
 Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,^ and the propriety 
 
 (6) Is there any rule of the society that requires, or sanctions, the 
 exercise of such inquisitorial powers ? No, there is not. 
 
 (c) Can it then be justly deemed criminal for any Protestant to 
 resist such attempts to infringe the sacred and unalienable rights of 
 conscience ? Had the party accused been within the reach of the 
 Spanish Inquisition, he might also, for so refusing to answer, have 
 been put to the torture to extort confession. These self-constituted 
 Inquisitors, happily for themselves and for others, possess no such 
 power. They have reported the claims they set up very intelligibly, 
 and his " refusal to answer." But they are silent respecting his re- 
 peated calls upon them, to state any thing they had to allege against 
 him, respecting the subjects of their interrogatories. They seem to 
 have been as careful to conceal the grounds of their suspicions, as 
 the names of his accusers. See Book of Extracts, p. 41. 
 
 (d) This subject was not referred to the committee, and the party 
 accused declined to enter into any discussion upon it on that account. 
 This charge against Verax is therefore very improperly brought for- 
 ward. For he has distinctly shewn, by copious quotations from the 
 works of the early Friends, that they professed to believe in the di- 
 vinity of Christ, and in what sense he conceived they held that doc- 
 trine, viz. as believing that power to be Divine, which dwelt in, 
 and acted 6j/, or through him, 
 
 (e) Did not our great Master, who best knew what powers he 
 possessed, and whence they were derived, when falsely charged by 
 the calumniating Jews with '' making himself equal with God," re- 
 ply most emphatically and plainly as follows ? " Verily, verily, I say 
 unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself — 1 can of mine own self 
 do nothing." li The Father thatdwellethmme," said Christ, "he 
 doeth the works." Is this to claim omnipotence ? Or to disclaim it ? 
 
Ill 
 
 of applying to him in secret supplication, (f) as profes- 
 sed by the Yearly Meeting, in its Epistle ft* 1810; 
 also, that he is a member of the Unitarian Society, 
 in which he confesses he has great satisfaction. 
 
 " We have endeavoured to convince him of the 
 impropriety of his conduct as a member of our Soci- 
 ety ; but he is not disposed to allow that he has act- 
 ed at all improperly or inconsistently. 
 
 " Samuel Marsh, Richard Bowman, 
 " Henry Knight, John Harris. 
 « 20th of 2d Mo., 1812. 
 " And the said Report having been solidly consi- 
 dered, this Meeting is of the judgment, that it is in- 
 cumbent upon it to testify its disunity with such prin- 
 ciples and conduct, and desires the friends before ap- 
 pointed, to draw up a testimony of denial against the 
 said Thomas Foster, and bring it to our next meet- 
 ing, giving him notice thereof." (g) 
 
 (" Copy, John Harris.") 
 
 (f) " The true worshippers," said the lip of truth, " shall wor. 
 ship the Father, in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to 
 worship him. 1 ' Is it not, therefore, to " call in question" either the 
 knowledge or veracity of Christ, to set up any other object of wor- 
 ship ? So far was the meek and holy Jesus from directing his disci- 
 ples to apply to him for help, in subsequent ages of the Christian 
 Church, that he says, " In that day,'' viz. after his resurrection, 
 " ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatso- 
 ever ye shall ask the Father, in my name, he will give it you/' 
 
 (g) When the u Report'' was read, the party accused objected to 
 it, as doing him great injustice, and claimed the right of being more 
 fully heard thereon, after a copy of the same had been given him; 
 which being promised, he left the Meeting. Under these circum- 
 stances, " the said Report having been" (it is said) " solidly consi- 
 dered,'' this Minute was made! At the next Monthly Meeting, the 
 party accused was heard, after judgment had thus been pronounced ', 
 in reply to the charges in l ' the said Report !" But he was induced 
 to withdraw, before the '.* Testimony of Denial'' was read, relying 
 on a positive assurance by Richard Bowman, that it did not contain 
 ant/ fresh accusation! The reader who compares it with " their Re- 
 port/' will judge whether it does, or not. And if he also compares 
 
112 
 
 " Ratclifp Monthly Meeting, 
 « 19th, of 3rd Month, 1812. 
 
 " The Friends appointed to bring in a testimony 
 of denial against Thomas Foster, brought in the 
 draft of one, which was twice read and agreed to, 
 and is as follows ; they are desired to hand him a 
 copy thereof. John Harris is desired to take notice 
 of the disownment to the Six Weeks' Meeting. 
 
 " It having been represented to this Meeting, that 
 Thomas Foster, one of its members, had imbibed and 
 aided in propagating, some opinions contrary to the 
 principles of our Society, and that private labour 
 had been unavailingly extended, (h) a committee 
 was appointed to visit him thereon, who have had 
 several interviews with him, and from their Report 
 it appears, that he has joined a society who publicly 
 avow their disbelief of the eternal divinity of Jesus 
 Christ our Lord (i) — that he has circulated some 
 
 it with the above avowal of the London Unitarian Book Society, it 
 will appear to be in this respect also unfounded. The party accused 
 gave the next Monthly Meeting, held April 23d, by a letter addressed 
 thereto, an opportunity of correcting this error, claiming at the same 
 time the right of being heard thereon. The Meeting declined avail- 
 ing itself of the one, and refused to grant the other ! 
 
 (h) If by (e private labour" the Committee mean, that two of them 
 in the capacity of " overseers,'' questioned the party accused how he 
 understood various texts of scripture, and whether he believed certain 
 tenets proposed in unscriptural terms, there is no doubt of the fact. 
 But there is much reason to question, their having used any judicious 
 means whatever, to convince him of any errors they supposed he had 
 "imbibed." In the minutes he made of their conferences with 
 him, their labours are amply recorded, the correctness of which 
 they have acknowledged. Not a word of " private labour'' in the 
 minute of the committee's appointment, nor in " their Report." 
 But they seem to have thought that the '.* Testimony of Denial" 
 would not look well, without some appearance on the face of it, that 
 this, the most important part of Christian discipline, had not been 
 wholly overlooked. 
 
 (») No such thing as is here asserted, is to be found in « thir Re- 
 
113 
 
 anonymous papers, entitled, Remarks on the Qua- 
 leers' Yearly Epistle, calculated to promote such sen* 
 timents (k) — and that he is publicly stated to be the 
 author of some publications under the assumed name 
 of Verax, (which he does not deny) apparently in- 
 tended to prove that doctrine, to have been held and 
 supported by our early Friends. (I) 
 
 " They endeavoured to convince him of the impro- 
 priety of his conduct, and deviation from our princi- 
 ples, (mj but he was fully disposed to justify himself, 
 
 forty Nor ftas the party accused "joined a society who publicly 
 avow" what the " testimony" issued against him asserts. Nor did 
 the committee even mention such an accusation at either of their 
 " interviews" with him. See the notes (a) and (g.) 
 
 (k) In the " Remarks on the Quakers' Yearly Epistle" nothing is 
 said about a belief, or " disbelief of the eternal divinity of Jesus 
 Christ.'' It indeed the doctrine signified by those terms be not scrip, 
 tural, as the terms in which it is expressed certainly are not, the 
 writer's recommendation " to adhere more closely to the language, 
 and especially to the. sense of scripture, on such important subjects 
 as these,'' may have caused him to be suspected of being adverse to 
 " such sentiments." But if so, can an avowed preference for, the 
 language of the sacred writers be consistently deemed a crime by any 
 Christian Society ? 
 
 (I) This allegation against Verax, is directly at variance with that 
 in M their Report," which being false, this may be true, as the com- 
 mittee have expressed it. Whether they meant to say " that disbelief," 
 instead of " that doctrine,'' is not for me to determine. But it is 
 quite clear the compilers of such documents were very ill qualified to 
 state accurately even their own opinions on points of faith, much less 
 those of others. 
 
 (tn) The real complexion of these endeavours may be estimated 
 tolerably well, by referring to the most correct and prominent feature 
 of the committee's " Report,'' in which they say '« we questioned 
 him,'' &c. As to any endeavours of their's which indicated even the 
 appearance of a candid, impartial enquiry into the charges alleged 
 against the party accused, and referred to their care, they have not 
 come to his knowledge. But if the minutes of the r " interviews" 
 with him, including the committee's Jive papers, should be published 
 they will exhibit in a striking point of view, and much more fully the 
 genuine character of their labours, and I trust tend to expose and 
 Q 
 
114 
 
 and would not allow, that he had acted at all impro- 
 perly or inconsistently, (n) 
 
 " This Meeting therefore believes it incumbent upon 
 it, to testify its disunity with such principles and con- 
 duct, and hereby disowns the said Thomas Foster as 
 a member of our religious Society ; nevertheless de- 
 siring that he may hereafter become convinced of his 
 errors, and be restored to religious fellowship with 
 us." (o) 
 
 (" Copy. John Harris/') 
 
 thereby discourage, such inquisitorial, irregular and intolerant pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 (») When the report was read in the Monthly Meeting, the party 
 accused objected to the last paragraph, as importing that he claimed 
 such an exemption from error, as the committee knew he had repeat- 
 edly disavowed. Yet is the same imputation inserted in this clause 
 of the " Testimony of Denial !" 
 
 (o) This " non obstante clause," as it is sometimes called, is less 
 exceptionable than some others which I have seen. But it contains 
 the usual implied claim to infallibility, by holding up a conviction 
 of the " errors imputed to the party disowned, as the only means of 
 restoration to " religious fellowship." It seems also to imply an un- 
 founded idea, that a general uniformity of belief on all important 
 doctrines subsists amongst its members, and to intimate that no mem- 
 ber of the Society who may imbibe and aid in propagating opinions 
 supposed to be erroneous, is to be tolerated in a Church, which has 
 never thought fit to establish a Creed. Is it also to be understood, 
 that every Monthly Meeting, without the sanction of any rule of 
 the Society, is competent to delegate to a committee ,the power of 
 gttestioning its members on points of faith, and to disown them on 
 " their Report?" Proceedings like these may also, as in this in- 
 stance, be instituted at the private instigation of over zealous disci- 
 plinarians of other Meetings. Such is the system of spiritual domi- 
 nation, which these proceedings directly tend to establish in a So- 
 ciety, which has been distinguished for its attachment to the great 
 cause of civil and religious liberty, without an inviolable adherence 
 to which, if is in vain to talk of " endeavouring to preserve the 
 unity of the spirit in the bond of peace." On such principles as 
 have been professedly acted upon, in the present case, any member 
 of the Society is liable to be disowned for having imbibed, and aided 
 
115 
 
 To the Friends of Ratcliff Monthly Meeting. 
 
 Before I determine whether to appeal, or not to 
 the Quarterly Meeting against your judgment, 1 
 would give you an opportunity of calmly reviewing 
 your proceedings against me. To enable you indi- 
 vidually to do this with greater ease and deliberation, 
 I wish to present each of you with a copy of the Mi- 
 nutes you have recorded on your journals concern- 
 ing my case. 
 
 With regard to such as were made previous to 
 my withdrawing from the last Monthly Meeting, 
 I have nothing more to say at present. But I think 
 it proper to apprise you generally, that I mean to 
 claim the right of being heard at the next Monthly 
 Meeting, in reply to those charges which were sub- 
 sequently brought forward in the " testimony" is- 
 sued against me, in direct violation of the positive 
 assurance given me before the last Monthly Meet- 
 ing, " that it did not contain any fresh accusation /'' 
 
 As the " testimony'* appeals to the committee's 
 " report,'* I wish you to compare those documents 
 with each other, and then say, whether there is any 
 such evidence in " their report" as the " testimony" 
 asserts ? I say there is not. And if there were, it 
 would be easy to prove that evidence to be false. I 
 never " joined a Society who publicly avow" what 
 this " testimony" affirms. It is for you, as acting 
 on behalf of a professed Christian church, to consi- 
 der the propriety of defending such palpably errone- 
 ous assertions, because they may have been inadvert- 
 ently and precipitately sanctioned. 
 
 Disowned as I am by you, I remain still unin- 
 formed who are my accusers, or what rule of the 
 
 in propagating those Christian doctrines for which William Penn suf- 
 fered imprisonment, and which are explicitly laid down in Barclay's 
 Apology as the original doctrine^ pf the Society ! 
 
 AN UNITARIAN CHRISTIAN. 
 
116 
 
 Society I am supposed to have transgressed. I am 
 your well-wishing friend, 
 
 Bromley, Thomas Foster. 
 
 April 17, 1812. 
 
 On the 23d of April, the Monthly Meeting was 
 again held in due course. I attended the previous 
 Meeting for worship, at the close of which I sent in 
 a letter to the Monthly Meeting by one of its mem- 
 bers, of which the following is a copy. 
 
 " To Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, 
 To be held 4th Month, 23d, 1812. 
 
 " The " testimony of denial'' which you direct- 
 ed to be issued against me at the last Monthly Meet- 
 ing, containing fresh charges against me, I claim 
 the right I have not yet been allowed, of being heard 
 thereon ; not that I expect, should I succeed in 
 convincing you of this, and that they are unfound- 
 ed, that it would in any degree tend to reverse your 
 decision. 
 
 " I do not look for that, as you desired the " testi- 
 mony of denial' 5 to be drawn up on such evidence as 
 the committee's " report" contains. But in what- 
 ever way I may appeal against your judgment, I 
 wish previously to give you an opportunity of re- 
 considering, at least those parts of the " testimony," 
 by which you meant to exclude me from " religious 
 fellowship." I am your well-wishing friend, 
 
 Bromley, Thomas Foster." 
 
 April 22d, 1812. 
 
 Some time after, William Gunn and Henry Knight 
 came out of the Meeting, and informed me they 
 were desired to return my letter, as a request to be 
 heard, after a testimony of disownment had been is- 
 sued, was deemed inadmissible. 1 inquired whether 
 
117 
 
 my letter had been read in the Meeting. William 
 Gunn replied, " It has not; and I can answer for it, 
 the Meeting will neither consent to hear thee, nor 
 suffer the letter to be read. The letter was referred 
 to two Friends, who after reading \tout of the Meet- 
 ing, reported that it was not proper to be read there- 
 in." I inquired who these Friends were ? They refused 
 to say, or to take the letter back with a request from 
 me, that it might be read. I told them I wished to 
 know the sense of the Meeting, and not of two 
 Friends only. 
 
 They still refusing to take any message from me, 
 I accompanied them into the Meeting, when I brief- 
 ly assigned them my reasons for personally request- 
 ing the letter might be read, and then withdrew to 
 wait their answer. This was conveyed by the same 
 Friends, and to the like effect as before. Nor did 
 they chuse to inform me whether the letter was read or 
 not! Had the Meeting permitted me, 1 would have 
 read the following address respecting the fresh accu- 
 sations in the testimony of disownment. 
 
 TO RATCLIFF MONTHLY MEETING. 
 
 To be held 4th Month, 23rd, 1812. 
 
 Dear Friends, 
 
 You cannot, I am persuaded, have forgotten my 
 claim, to have the testimony of denial against me 
 read, before I withdrew from your last Meeting, if 
 it contained any fresh charge, nor the positive assu- 
 rance Richard Bowman gave me, that it did not ! On 
 receiving this assurance, I left the Meeting. When 
 it broke up, the persons whom you appointed to 
 draw up the testimony, gave it to me to peruse. 
 
 Fully prepared, as I was, to expect a decision 
 against me, I did not anticipate a breach of an assu- 
 
118 
 
 ranee, so recently given me in the face of the Meet- 
 ing. To my great surprise, I found it contained not 
 only fresh accusations, but such as are unfounded. 
 I warmly expressed my sense of the injustice, of this 
 gross violation of truth, by which I was induced to 
 withdraw from the Meeting, without first hearing 
 the testimony read. 
 
 They wholly declined any enquiry into this 
 breach of good faith, as did your two deputies the 
 next morning, when they delivered me a copy, al- 
 though I wished them to examine for themselves the 
 truth of my assertion. They replied, it had been 
 sanctioned by you, and they had nothing to do with 
 it, but to deliver a copy to me. 
 
 Such parts of the testimony you have sent forth 
 against me, as are really founded on the committee's 
 report, I consider as having been sufficiently noticed 
 in the address I read to you at the last Monthly 
 Meeting. On these I have therefore nothing more 
 to say, but mean to confine myself to the fresh mat- 
 ter it contains. 
 
 Your committee's report says, I am " a member of 
 the Unitarian Society," but not one word of any avow- 
 al of its belief, or its " disbelief." The " testimony," 
 although drawn up by the same persons, after noticing 
 their " interviews" with me, and their " private la- 
 bour," asserts, in your name, that "from their report 
 it appears^" that I have "joined a Society who pub' 
 licly avow their disbelief of the eternal divinity of 
 Jesus Chiist our Lord." This assertion is not true. 
 
 The minute recording your approval of this " tes- 
 timony," says it " was twice read." .. It may have 
 been as " solidly considered" as the " report'* of 
 your committee, but that it was judiciously or atten- 
 tively considered, I cannot believe. 
 
 Your committee did not feel themselves bound to 
 adhere, to the wholesome rules prescribed to every 
 witness in a court of justice, to speak the truth, the 
 
119 
 
 whole truth, and nothing but the truth. On the con- 
 trary, they chose in effect to represent me, as having 
 joined another religious Society. Perhaps they did 
 not incline to have a record on your journals, of the 
 expulsion of a man for being a subscriber to a Book 
 Society, " instituted for the promotion of Christian 
 Knowledge, and the Practice of Virtue." 
 
 In the " Report," Iain said to be a member of "the 
 Unitarian Society" as if there was but one, and that 
 one, too well known to need any farther description. 
 There are many Unitarian Societies, instituted some 
 for one purpose, some for another, but all " Anti- 
 trinitarian," as I always conceived the Society of 
 Friends to be. Of these I am now only a member of 
 one, and that is a Book Society merely. 
 
 Till you disowned me, I might be said to have 
 been a member of another Unitarian Society ; for in a 
 work exposed for sale in the Clerks' office at Devon- 
 shire House, during the Yearly Meeting for 1805, 
 and advertised in hand bills, distributed from house 
 to house, with the Epistles for 1806 and 1807, enti- 
 tled, a " Defence of the Christian doctrines of the 
 Society of Friends," by John Bevans, I find an open 
 claim set up on their behalf, to the honourable title 
 of " Unitarian." See the Preface, p. ix. 
 
 Am I then to be censured for having asserted the 
 same claim a few years before, when that writer pro- 
 fessed to think otherwise? Or, are my uniform senti- 
 ments upon this point, and the more mature profes- 
 sion of his, in a work revised by a select committee, 
 verbally appointed and sanctioned, as we have seen, 
 erroneous? If so, how shall the honest inquirer into 
 the real principles of the Society, know what to de- 
 pend upon ? And is the avowal of an opinion, thus 
 confirmed, to be. made the ground of censure and dis- 
 ownment ? 
 
 Whatever might have been the motives of your 
 committee, for not stating their accusations against 
 
120 
 
 me correctly in this testimony, they have advanced 
 in it several assertions absolutely false. Yet on 
 a subject which they chose to take up as volunteers, 
 they seem to have told the truth merely by mistake. 
 For two of their assertions respecting Verax, are com- 
 pletely at variance with each other. Their report re- 
 presents " the apparent scope" of his publications as 
 tending " to prove that our early Friends denied the 
 eternal divinity of Christ." The testimony of denial 
 accuses him with intending " to prove that doctrine 
 to have been held and supported by our early Friends.'* 
 Such are the contradictory charges you have sanc- 
 tioned. 
 
 The persons you employed were very ill qualified 
 to judge of speculative errors. They frequently 
 reminded me of some early converts, of whom the 
 Apostle Paul speaks, as '" desiring to be teachers of 
 the law, finder standing neither what they say, nor 
 whereof they affirm." i. Tim. i. 7. 
 
 A mere suspicion that a man held what they deem- 
 ed heretical " opinions," seems to have rendered any 
 proof in their estimation unnecessary, where all their 
 efforts to obtain it by confession, were " unavailingly 
 extended'' Nor have I be,en accused of any breach 
 of a gospel precept, or with disbelieving any Chris- 
 tian doctrines " as set forth in the Scriptures. 
 
 Had your committee, in the testimony of denial, 
 adhered strictly to truth, and described my religious 
 sentiments in terms 1 had ever used, or in any fair 
 and candid manner, I should have been much less 
 disposed to trouble you with an appeal to the Quar- 
 terly Meeting. And if I had, the matters at issue 
 between us being fairly stated, the only points for 
 the Quarterly Meeting to decide, would be, whether 
 my having imbibed such involuntary errors as Chris- 
 tian truths, merited disownment? Whether any ex- 
 isting rule of the Society warranted such a measure? 
 And lastly, whether the proceedings against me had 
 
121 
 
 been according to gospel order, and the rules of the 
 discipline ? 
 
 As the case now stands, I may have occasion to 
 call upon you to substantiate, or to withdraw, those 
 charges against me, in support of which 1 have yet 
 seen no proof. I may also require such an explana- 
 tion of some of them, as may enable me, and those 
 who are to decide between us, to understand them. 
 My still unknown accusers of other Meetings, under 
 whose influence these proceedings originated, must 
 also be brought forth, if justice is to be impartially 
 administered, and they are not in reality to be the 
 judges of nil/ appeal. 
 
 It is for you to determine whether you will reconsi- 
 der your proceedings in consequence of this friendly 
 representation. If you do, whatever corrections you 
 may make in your documents, should I afterwards 
 appeal against your judgment, those corrections can- 
 not strengthen my case, but may materially yours. 
 The cause I have at heart, the cause of truth, needs 
 no advantages of this sort, aud I willingly relinquish 
 them, well knowing, that, if the great fundamental 
 doctrine, the unity and supremacy of God the Father, 
 be of men, and ieas not taught by Jesus Christ and 
 his apostles, " it will come to nought,'' but if it be of 
 God, as I firmly believe, on their testimony, " ye 
 cannot overthrow it." Earnestly wishing our mutual 
 increase in Christian "faith, virtue, knowledge, bro- 
 therly kindness, and above all things, in charity 
 which is the bond of perfectness," 
 
 I am your sincere friend, 
 
 Bromley, Thomas Foster. 
 
 Aprils, 1812. 
 
 The Monthly Meeting thus refusing to reconsider 
 any part of the proceedings against me, and the rules 
 of the Society providing that " if any persons shall 
 
><> 
 
 think themselves injured or aggrieved by the judg- 
 ment of any Monthly, or other, Meeting, of which 
 they are or were members, such persons may appeal 
 to the Quarterly Meeting, to which the said Month- 
 ly or other Meeting doth belong." I gave due notice 
 of an appeal in the following terms. 
 
 TO RATCLIFF MONTHLY MEETING. 
 
 To be held the 14th of the 5th Month, 1812. 
 
 Dear Friends, 
 Under a full conviction that no rule of the Society 
 warrants disownment, for such causes as are assigned 
 in the " testimony of denial" you have issued 
 against me, and in the committee's report on which 
 it is founded, and the establishment of such a prece- 
 dent appearing to me of dangerous tendency to the 
 peace and welfare of the Society, I hereby give you 
 notice of my intention to appeal to the Quarterly 
 Meeting against your judgment. 
 
 As I am conscious of my own fallibility, I readily 
 admit I may have " imbibed and aided in propagat- 
 ing" some " erroneous opinions." But so far as 
 your charges are well founded, and you have 
 correctly stated those opinions which you im- 
 pute to me, as being " contrary to the principles 
 of the Society," they are such as I " imbibed" in 
 early life, from perusing the writings of William 
 Penn, Robert Barclay, and other approved authors 
 among Friends. These " opinions" also seem to 
 me, with that increasing evidence which maturer 
 age and subsequent deliberate examination have af- 
 forded, to be consonant with scripture doctrine, and 
 especially with the recorded discourses and express 
 declarations of Jesus Christ, our common Lord and 
 Lawgiver. 
 
 It was therefore, I conceive, my duty as a member of 
 the religious Society in which I was brought up, (to 
 
123 
 
 say nothing of my superior obligations as a Christian) 
 to omit no suitable opportunity of openly professing 
 doctrines which appeared to me, on such powerful 
 and concurring evidence, to be Christian truths of 
 the highest importance, whether they might happen 
 to be approved or not, by the leading disciplinarians 
 of the Monthly Meeting, of which 1 was a member. 
 Such was the " conduct/' in whatever degree I 
 may have " imbibed" erroneous " opinions," for 
 which you have thought fit to disown me. 
 
 Had" those " opinions" which I really held, or 
 had openly avowed, been clearly and distinctly 
 stated, on your records, I should have been much 
 less likely to have troubled you with an appeal to 
 the Quarterly Meeting. And if I had thought it 
 necessary, the points at issue between us, would 
 have lain in a narrower compass, and J might have 
 been saved the most unpleasant part of my duty as 
 an appellant, viz. that of pointing out the injustice 
 which has been done me, by your recording an un- 
 candid and erroneous statement of my " opinions" 
 and " conduct.' ' 
 
 Having sufficient reason to apprehend this might 
 be the case, 1 several times requested your commit- 
 tee to inform me, in what terms they meant to de- 
 scribe my opinions to you, that we might, if possible, 
 agree upon so much of their report, as related there- 
 to. These friendly and disinterested proposals they 
 wholly rejected. Nor was my application to you, 
 to be heard, in reply to the fresh charges exhibited 
 against me, brought forward a month after judgment 
 had been pronounced, more successful ! 
 
 The failure of these attempts, I lament principally 
 on your account. It cannot prejudice my cause, in 
 the estimation of a single person of sound judgment, 
 of any religious persuasion, if my appeal should, in 
 consequence thereof, be more tedious than could be 
 wished, I trust it will be allowed I have hitherto 
 
124 
 
 done all that was in my power to shorten and sim- 
 plify the proceedings, and to remove the causes of 
 mutual misapprehension. I am your well-wishing 
 friend, 
 
 Thomas Foster. 
 
 Bromley, May 13th, 1812. 
 
 P. S. The Quarterly Meeting of London and 
 Middlesex, having a few years ago, made some fresh 
 regulations respecting appeals, I wish you to fur- 
 nish me with a copy, or to inform me how I may 
 obtain one, that I may neither lose any privilege, to 
 which I am entitled, as an appellant, nor transgress 
 them through ignorance. As I may also have occa- 
 sion to consult the records of the Yearly Meeting, 
 in preparing for my defence against your accusations, 
 I request you to give such directions to the clerk, in 
 whose custody they are placed, for general use, as 
 may secure my free access to them, as an appellant, 
 so far as I may deem necessary. 
 
 Of the receipt of the above notice of appeal, the 
 Meeting made the following minute, 
 
 " 14th of 5th Month, 1812. 
 " Thomas Foster sent in notice of his intention to 
 appeal to the Quarterly Meeting, against our deci- 
 sion in his case. Richard Bowman, Henry Knight, 
 Samuel Marsh, and John Harris, are appointed 
 to attend to the appeal, on behalf of this Meeting." 
 
 (Copy. John Harris.) 
 
 The above minute does not say, whether the no- 
 tice was verbal, or written. My accusers and 
 judges did not intend the notice itself, should be 
 read. But my Brother, Joseph Foster, who was now 
 present, reminding them of the propriety of reading 
 it, the same was accordingly read. 
 
 In consequence of the foregoing request, John 
 
125 
 
 Harris, the clerk of the Meeting, furnished me with 
 a copy of the regulations of the Quarterly Meeting, 
 concerning appeals, and intimated, that no Friend 
 in the Meeting, appeared to think 1 should find any 
 difficulty in obtaining such access to the records of 
 the Yearly Meeting as 1 had requested. 
 
 The clerk, in whose custody those records are 
 placed, having refused to allow me to inspect any 
 part of them, I addressed a letter, of which the fol- 
 lowing is a copy, to the Meeting for Sufferings, 
 which is in fact a standing committee of the Yearly 
 Meeting. 
 
 TO THE MEETING FOR SUFFERINGS, 
 
 To be held 9th Month 4th, 1812. 
 
 Dear Friends, 
 
 Having given due notice to RatclifF Monthly 
 Meeting, held oth Month, 14th last, of my intention 
 to appeal against its judgment, to the Quarterly 
 Meeting, and wishing to consult the records of the 
 Yearly Meeting, in preparing for my defence against 
 the accusations of the said Monthly Meeting, I this 
 day applied to the clerk, in whose custody those re- 
 cords are placed for general use, to permit my free 
 access to them, as an appellant, so far as I apprehend 
 they may be useful in my defence. 
 
 This just and reasonable right, as I consider it, 
 and, as I was officially informed, it appeared to Rat- 
 clifF Monthly Meeting, William Manley, the present 
 clerk, by a note informs me, much to my surprise, 
 he does not apprehend himself at liberty to grant, 
 without your expiess permission. I therefore re- 
 quest you, as justice and impartiality require, under 
 such circumstances, to give him directions to allow 
 me, so far as I may deem necessary lo my own de- 
 fence, as free access to those records, as the mem- 
 
126 
 
 bers of the Society generally have heretofore enjoy- 
 ed, and are unquestionably entitled to, of common 
 right. 
 
 I shall be in waiting in order to give any necessary 
 explanation the Meeting may require, and to receive 
 your answer, being with best wishes respectfully 
 your sincere friend, 
 
 Thomas Foster. 
 Bromley, Aug. 2Sth, 1812. 
 
 The letter was presented to the Meeting on the 
 4th of Sep. which, after near an hour's deliberation, 
 informed me by two of its members, William Dil- 
 wyn and George Stacey, that the request contained 
 in it, had been solidly considered by the Meeting, 
 which was of the judgment, it ought not to be com- 
 plied with. I requested them to state the grounds 
 of the Meeting's refusal, and to signify the same in 
 writing. They declined doing either, saying they 
 had nothing farther in commission, and that 1 could 
 be at no loss to apprehend the import of their mes- 
 sage. 
 
 Discouraging as I considered the conclusion of a 
 Meeting whose members were the most active and 
 influential disciplinarians of the Quarterly Meeting, 
 I persevered in my intention of appealing, convinced 
 as I was, that it would be in effect decided upon by 
 the same persons, who had now, in the capacity of a 
 Meeting for Sufferings, refused me access to the re- 
 cords of the Yearly Meeting, or the Statute Book of 
 the Society. I had long been aware of the delusive 
 manner in which the sense of meetings for discipline is 
 frequently taken. It is, perhaps, the most effectual 
 mode of enabling a few to govern many, without the 
 aid of force, that ever was devised, and has no par- 
 rallel, that 1 know of, in either ancient or modern 
 times. The form of a popular assembly is preserved, 
 but nothing more. \ 
 
127 
 
 The members of the Society are not only al- 
 lowed but advised to be present, and may express 
 their opinions on any subject under discussion; 
 but when the collective sense of the Meeting is 
 pretended to be taken, no shew of hands is called 
 for, no counting of numbers is permitted ; but the 
 clerk records what he takes to be the sense of those 
 whom he esteems to be the most weighty friends pre- 
 sent, and this passes, and is recorded, as the general 
 sense of the assembly, and, in cases that admit of 
 difference of sentiment, without any rational evi- 
 dence of the fact. Those who from diffidence or 
 other causes do not speak to the subject, have no 
 other means of expressing their opinion. Yet many 
 of these may be no less able to judge, than their 
 brethren who have spoken. Impressed as I had 
 long been with these circumstances, and having also 
 reason to suppose my unknown accusers the •' many 
 Friends, 5 ' whom the overseers refused naming, were 
 now to sit in judgment upon their own accusation, 
 I forwarded an appeal to the next 
 
 QUARTERLY MEETING OF LONDON AND 
 MIDDLESEX. 
 
 Held at Devonshire House, 9th Month 29th, 1812. 
 
 When a considerable part of the usual busings 
 had been gone through, John Coleby, the clerk, 
 informed the Meeting that a paper lay on the table 
 sealed up, and described on the outside, as an appeal 
 to the Quarterly Meeting, against the Monthly 
 Meeting of RatclifT. Its representatives being asked, 
 if that Meeting had received due notice of such ap- 
 peal, replied, it had, and that respondents were ap- 
 pointed. The Meeting being about to appoint a 
 committee as usual in such cases, John Eliot rose and 
 
128 
 
 observed, he thought the appeal could not be receiv- 
 ed, as the appellant had, laid his case before the pub- 
 lie, and had thereby deprived himself of the right of 
 appeal. 
 
 Joseph Gurney Bevan replied, that this was pre- 
 mature. The Meeting did not officially know the 
 appellant, and consequently could no. judge. But 
 the Committee would. 
 
 John Corby n and William Binns were proposed 
 as members of the committee, but declared them- 
 selves ineligible, and were excused. Luke Howard 
 said, he accepted the appointment with reluctance, 
 because it deprived him of a valuable privilege, 
 that of speaking to the case in the Quarterly Meet- 
 ing at large. Thomas Brewster asked, if it was to 
 be understood, that the Friend had made up his mind 
 respecting the case? To this I cannot learn that 
 any reply was given. A committee consisting of 
 two Friends from each of the Monthly Meetings, 
 except Ratcliff, was then appointed by the following 
 minute. 
 
 " An appeal having been brought in against the 
 Monthly Meeting of Ratcliff, the following Friends 
 are appointed to consider the same and report/' 
 
 (t Joseph Allen, John Row, for Devonshire House. 
 
 Thomas Christy, John Sanderson, •• Gracechurch Street, 
 John Eliot, Jun. Richard Barrett, • • Peel. 
 John Hamilton, William Manser, • • Southwark. 
 George Stacey, Jun. John Bell, • • • • Westminster. 
 
 Luke Howard, John Barrett, • Barking, &c. 
 
 Thomas Brewster, John Colman, • • Wandsworth, Sec. 
 
 Samuel Hull, John Bailey, Longford, Uxbridge, &c. 
 
 William Forster, Josiah Foster,"* ••• Tottenham, &c. &c. 
 
 " To meet next second day week at ten, at De- 
 vonshire House, William Manley to give notice, 
 also to the appellants and respondents/' 
 
 The next day I sent the following letter to the 
 respondents* 
 
129 
 
 To Henry Knight, Richard Bowman, Sam- 
 Cel Marsh, and John Harris. 
 
 Having been informed you are appointed respon- 
 dents in the appeal to the Quarterly Meeting, of 
 which I gave notice to Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, 
 which appeal was presented yesterday, and delivered 
 as I understand sealed up, to one of the committee 
 appointed to hear the same, I hereby offer you either 
 to see, or to take a copy of such appeal, at any 
 time you please, previous to our meeting, before 
 the said committee, on your making such request. 
 
 I am induced to make this equitable proposal, as it 
 strikes me, because 1 see no other way, till that 
 time, in which you can regularly become acquainted 
 with its contents; as any intercourse whatever, di- 
 rectly or indirectly, between either of the parties 
 in an appeal, and any of the committee appointed to 
 judge thereon, unless it be in the presence of the 
 other party, or parties, would be highly indecorous 
 and improper. 
 
 Being present in the Quarterly Meeting when 
 the said committee were nominated, you must know 
 whether any of my accusers of other meetings, 
 whom you so perseveringly refused naming, had so 
 little sense of delicacy, or justice, as to accept such 
 an appointment. I should hope not. Nor do 1 har- 
 bour such a suspicion against any individual. But 
 I shall expect to know, before I enter upon my de- 
 fence before this committee, that they are free from 
 so grievous an imputation. I am, with due respect* 
 
 Thomas Foster. 
 Bromley, Sep. 30th, 1812. 
 
 On the 4th of October, two of the respondents, 
 to whom the above letter was addressed, verbally 
 informed me, they declined accepting my offer to 
 see, or copy my appeal. 
 
130 
 
 On the 8th of October, I received the following 
 notice, 
 
 " Respected Friend, 
 
 " Thou art desired to attend the committee of the 
 Quarterly Meeting, on next 2nd day, being the 12th 
 of the 10th month, 1812, at the 10th hour, at De- 
 vonshire House, about the appeal. 
 
 " William Manley." 
 
 " To Thomas Foster, Bromley . v 
 
 QUARTERLY MEETING' S COMMITTEE, 
 
 10th Month 12th, 1812. First Sitting. 
 
 The respondents and myself, having received notice 
 that the committee were ready to receive us, I sent a 
 message, by William Manley, requesting permission 
 for my father-in-law, Thomas Compton, to accom- 
 pany me, which they granted. 
 
 All the committee were present, except John San- 
 derson. 
 
 After a short pause, Luke Howard, their Clerk, 
 asked the respondents for a copy of the minute ap- 
 pointing them, which being read, Josiah Foster read 
 my appeal, as follows. 
 
 TO THE QUARTERLY MEETING OF LONDON AND 
 MIDDLESEX. 
 
 To be held the 29th of the 9th Month, 1812. 
 
 The appeal of Thomas Foster, sheweth, 
 1st. That he has been disowned by RatclifT 
 Monthly Meeting, without any just or reasonable 
 cause, not having been even accused of a breach 
 of any moral law, gospel precept, or rule of the So- 
 ciety. 
 
131 
 
 2nd. That the accusations against him in the first 
 minute of the Monthly Meeting, relative to his case, 
 are wholly indefinite, and therefore highly improper, 
 as naturally tending to expose him, to injurious tale- 
 bearing and detraction. 
 
 3rd. That the report of the committee appointed 
 to visit him by the said minute, manifests their hav- 
 ing aimed at the exercise of inquisitorial powers, 
 which no rules of the discipline, or of gospel order, 
 authorize, and which your appellant, as was his duty, 
 decidedly resisted. 
 
 4th. That the committee, in their report, irregu- 
 larly and unjustly adduced a fresh charge against 
 your appellant, on a subject which was not referred 
 to their care by the minute appointing them, nor at 
 all investigated, on that account, at either of their 
 conferences with him, which charge is unfounded. 
 
 5th. That the committee, when professing to state 
 in their report, what the party accused has avowed, 
 use language which implies much more, than any 
 thing he ever admitted, will warrant. He therefore 
 calls upon them, to say more correctly what he 
 really avowed, concerning these branches of their 
 accusation. 
 
 6th. That the committee's report, however " so- 
 lidly considered,' 5 does not contain, as the Monthly 
 Meeting seem to have imagined, any sufficient justi- 
 fication of its decision thereon. 
 
 7th. That the testimony issued against your ap- 
 pellant, holds forth additional encouragement to 
 detractive tale-bearing, by adopting the indefinite 
 terms of the minute above-mentioned. 
 
 8th. That the said testimony, contains a specific 
 charge which is unfounded, as the evidence it ap- 
 peals to, will at any time prove. 
 
 9th. That the said testimony, alleges another ac- 
 cusation, which is directly at variance with a prior 
 
132 
 
 charge, on the same subject, in the committee's re- 
 port. 
 
 10th. That your appellant never called in ques- 
 tion, the omnipotence of the God and Father of our 
 Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; or the divinity of 
 that power, which most eminently and transcen- 
 dency dwelt in, and acted by, or through him, the 
 one mediator between God and men, the man Christ 
 Jesus, who declared that of himself, or without his 
 Father's assistance, he could do nothing; and that 
 the true worshippers, should worship the Father, 
 the propriety of applying to whom, in secret or open 
 supplication, in spirit and in truth, under any scrip- 
 tural designation, your appellant never called in 
 question. But he continues to object, as he con- 
 ceives, on the clearest and strongest scriptural 
 grounds, to the propriety of ascribing omnipotence 
 to that man, whom God hath ordained, and by whom, 
 he will judge the world in righteousness; or of ap- 
 plying to him, the man Christ Jesus, in secret sup- 
 plication, as the one only true object of supreme 
 worship, who alone heareth prayer, and hath immor- 
 tality in, and of himself. 
 
 1 1th. That your appellant is a member of various 
 Book Societies, some instituted for the promotion of 
 Christian knowledge, and the practice of Virtue, 
 some for the extension of Science, and general 
 literature. In the latter, by far the most excep- 
 tionable works are to be found. But your appellant, 
 is not even censured for his connection therewith ; 
 which connection, is precisely similar to that which 
 subsists between him, and the former. Yet his being 
 a subscriber to one of these, is objected to in the re- 
 port of the committee, as an " impropriety," meriting 
 disowntnent. For which judgment, it assigns no 
 reason, unless a fallacious description of the Society, 
 may be esteemed one, which seems to have been 
 
153 
 
 intended to conceal, that it was a mere Book Society, 
 and to imply, that your appellant had become a 
 member of another distinct religious community, 
 which is not true. 
 
 12th. That the " opinions" of your appellant, 
 which are said by his accusers to be " contrary to 
 the principles of the Society/' are such as he has 
 held, and professed from his youth upwards, having 
 in reality imbibed them, as the genuine doctrines of 
 the early Friends, from no slight acquaintance with 
 their works, particularly those of Fenn, Barclay, 
 Fox, and Penington. 
 
 13th. That your appellant was never before sub- 
 jected to a disciplinary visit, on any charge of delin- 
 quency whatever, or, on account of the adoption, or 
 propagation of " opinions," supposed to be errone- 
 ous. And your appellant solemnly assured the 
 overseers, at their first visit, verbally, and soon after- 
 wards under his own hand, " that to the best of his 
 knowledge, he believed all that Christ is recorded in 
 the New Testament, to have said concerning him- 
 self, and his doctrines/' — and that your appellant 
 " considered his authority, as far superior to any 
 other, in all that respected faith and worship," It 
 is for you to decide, whether more than this, can be 
 consistently required of its members, and by whom, 
 as a requisite profession of faith, in a religious Socie- 
 ty, which, like the primitive Christian church, has 
 never thought fit to establish a creed, " either as a 
 condition of membership, or a qualification for the 
 service of the church." 
 
 Kth. That the visits your appellant received from 
 the overseers of the Monthly Meeting, and its com- 
 mittee, on this occasion, were of such a character, as 
 indicated no just regard to the primary object of all 
 true Christian discipline, viz to reclaim the party 
 supposed to be in error, but evinced a predetermina- 
 tion, ill-concealed during the two visits of the over- 
 
134 
 
 seers, and still more apparent and unequivocal, in 
 those of the Monthly Meeting's committee, to accuse 
 and disown, under the predominant influence of 
 " Friends of other Meetings," who had long been 
 instigating the overseers,, to proceed against your ap- 
 pellant as a delinquent, on such grounds as the over- 
 seers, after all this prompting, did not pretend to 
 understand, but openly professed to your appellant, 
 their inability to investigate. 
 
 15th. That under these circumstances, your ap- 
 pellant called upon the overseers, and afterwards up- 
 on the Meeting and its committee appointed to visit 
 him, to say who those Friends of other Meetings 
 were, and what they had alleged, as matter of accu- 
 sation against your appellant ; with which reasonable 
 request they wholly refused to comply, notwith- 
 standing the express injunctions of the Yearly Meet- 
 ing's minute of 1744. — Book of Extracts, p. 41, 
 were repeatedly urged as absolutely requiring them 
 to render him that necessary act of justice. [For 
 which see p. 35.] 
 
 16th. That the Monthly Meeting's committee, re- 
 fused to give your appellant, the reasonable and ne- 
 cessary explanation he requested of them, to enable 
 him to understand their written accusations, which 
 were most ambiguously expressed; or to inform him 
 what their own sentiments were, respecting the 
 " most important points of doctrine/' on which 
 they " questioned him," as stated in their report, 
 and to which, as they say, " he decidedly refused to 
 answer." 
 
 17th. That to sanction and confirm, such disci- 
 plinary proceedings as these, would be to establish 
 a precedent, for the erection of an inquisition in every 
 Monthly Meeting, to be invested with undefined 
 powers, to question its members upon points of doc- 
 trine, not with a view to instruct, enlighten, and 
 edify, but to censure and disown. Not to encourage 
 
136 
 
 amongst its members a candid spirit ot tree enquiry, 
 and a pure love of truth, but to incite each petty 
 tribunal, to decide authoritatively, on articles of be- 
 lief, and controversies of faith. 
 
 18th. That the assumption of such arbitrary and 
 undefined powers by Monthly Meetings, would be, 
 in effect, to render all the rules of the Yearly Meet- 
 ing, which authorize disownment in a variety of 
 cases, specifically laid down in the Book of Extracts, 
 completely nugatory and useless. 
 
 19th. That your appellant does not even wish, 
 much less does he look to you, for any authoritative 
 declaration as judges of his appeal, in favour of any 
 " opinions" he may have "imbibed, or "aided in 
 propagating." He is conscious they must stand or 
 fall, by the evidence on which they are respectively 
 founded, not by the suffrage of majorities, however 
 numerous, but as they are founded, or are not, on 
 the solid, immoveable basis of reason and revelation. 
 Majorities may determine the general sense of col- 
 lective bodies of men, concerning any question that 
 is brought before them, but they are no tests of 
 truth. Nor can your appellant, consistently with 
 his sense of duty as a Christian, refer matters of faith 
 and worship, to any human tribunal, as being com- 
 petent to decide for him thereon. It would be, in 
 his apprehension, to disclaim the authority of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, who is appointed by his God, the 
 Father of Glory, " to be head over all things to the 
 church/' 
 
 20th. That your appellant does however earnestly 
 call upon you, impartially to consider with due deli- 
 beration, and conscientiously to decide, whether his 
 accusers have proved, that he has broken any, and 
 what rule of the Society ; and whether the rules of 
 the discipline and of gospel order, have been duly 
 observed throughout the proceedings against him, 
 on account of such errors as he is supposed to have 
 
1S6 
 
 imbibed concerning the principles of the Society, or 
 those of " our early Friends. '•' Respecting your de- 
 cision, he trusts the principal solicitude he feels, is, 
 that it may be such, as will eventually be most pro- 
 motive of the great cause of genuine scriptural 
 Christianity, and secondly, that it may also be for 
 the reputation of the Society, whose prosperity as a 
 Christian church, he most earnestly wishes, and re- 
 mains vour sincere friend, 
 
 Bromley, Thomas Foster. 
 
 Sept. 28*/*, 1812. 
 
 The Clerk made a minute, signifying that an 
 appeal from Thomas Foster, against the judgment of 
 Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, had been read in the com- 
 mittee. He then inquired if I had any thing more 
 to offer. 
 
 Before I could reply to this question, Richard 
 Bowman informed the committee, that a publication 
 had come out, relating to this case, which the re- 
 spondents thought, the committee should be ac- 
 quainted with: and he then presented the com- 
 mittee with a pamphlet, entitled a Portraiture of 
 Primitive Quakerism ; or, " The Sandy Foundation 
 Shaken, by William Penn." — With a modern Sketch 
 of reputed Orthodoxy, and real Intolerance, by Rat- 
 cliff Monthly Meeting." On the tract being handed 
 to the Clerk, he inquired what part of this publica- 
 tion the respondents alluded to ? Richard Bowman 
 replied, to that part which contains a " Copy of the 
 Minutes of Ratcliff Monthly Meeting respecting 
 Thomas Foster, with explanatory notes." 
 
 The Clerk then requested the respondents and the 
 appellant to withdraw, that the committee might 
 consider what had been laid before them. I observ- 
 ed that before this subject had been introduced by 
 the respondents, I had been asked a question by 
 the Clerk, to which I had not yet been allowed 
 an opportunity of replying. I had nothing 
 
137 
 
 more to offer, at present, in support of the appeal, 
 but! did not mean thereby to preclude myself' from 
 saying hereafter, whatever I might think proper. 
 When I sat down, the Clerk said it was the duty of 
 the committee, at a proper time, to hear both par- 
 ties, fully. 
 
 Before we withdrew, I observed there was one 
 matter which I thought I could not mention too ear- 
 ly, the respondents having refused to give me any 
 satisfaction upon it, without the committee's per- 
 mission. They must have seen by my appeal, 
 that the overseers acknowledged their having 
 been incited by " Friends of other Meetings'* to 
 commence these proceedings against me. I there- 
 fore wished them to inform me, whether any of those 
 persons were nominated on this committee. 
 
 The Clerk replied, the committee was chosen in 
 the usual manner; they had nothing to do with 
 such an objection, unless I could allege that any of 
 the committee had so acted as to disqualify them for 
 deciding with impartiality. It concerned only the 
 appellant and the respondents, and should be settled 
 between themselves. I assured the committee I had 
 endeavoured carefully to guard myself against letting 
 in suspicion of any individual. I was ignorant who 
 those persons were, but the overseers must know. 
 And it was somewhat remarkable, that Richard Bow- 
 man, in reply to another question, informed me that 
 they had held no intercourse with any of the com- 
 mittee since their appointment. It would be for their 
 reputation, and that of the Society, for them to be to- 
 tally free from such an imputation. 
 
 Richard Bowman at length assured me, that none 
 of those Friends, whom I called my accusers, were 
 members of the committee. 
 
 The respondents and myself having withdrawn, 
 the committee sat about an hour. When we were 
 again called in, the Clerk informed us that the commit- 
 
 T 
 
13S 
 
 tee had perused the pamphlet laid before them by the 
 respondents, and had concluded not to proceed far- 
 ther in hearing the case, without referring it to the 
 Quarterly Meeting, unless I would say I had neither 
 published, nor been privy to the publication of that 
 pamphlet. 
 
 I replied, I should certainly, on the grounds men- 
 tioned in my appeal, decline answering any such interro- 
 gatories. 1 had given way too much already upon 
 that point, which was most perseveringly urged by 
 the Monthly Meeting's committee, in a manner 
 which satisfied me I ought to resist every pretension 
 of so dangerous a tendency, with still greater firm- 
 ness. That I had endeavoured to inform myself 
 what the regulations of the Society were repecting 
 appeals, to which I had, to the best of my judgment, 
 strictly conformed. The only rule of the Yearly 
 Meeting to which I thought they could allude, re- 
 lated solely to appeals to that Meeting. It was made 
 on the spur of a particular occasion, not the most 
 favourable time for legislating wisely. The late 
 John Roper, of Norwich, had printed his appeal to 
 the Yearly Meeting, and copies of it were distribut- 
 ed among Friends, during the hearing. On which, 
 the Meeting made a minute in these terms. — " This 
 Meeting agrees not to receive in future, any appeal in 
 print, or that hath been printed." It cannot be said, 
 that my appeal has been printed. It is true, I have 
 seen and approve those explanatory notes, as a suit- 
 able correction of the minutes concerning my case, 
 which contain such statements, as have all the effect 
 of direct and injurious falsehoods. 
 
 The Clerk repeatedly wished me to reconsider the 
 resolution I had expressed, saying it would be kind 
 and friendly of me to answer their question, as I 
 must know, whether I had been concerned in pub- 
 lishing that pamphlet. He added, that the commit- 
 tee had concluded not to go farther into the appeal 
 
r39 
 
 unless I did, and that no advantage would be taken 
 of my answer, whatever it might be. That if I could 
 say, I had nothing to do with its publication, the 
 committee would readily take my word for it. I an- 
 swered, my resolution was immoveable, being fully 
 convinced of its propriety ; nor could I refrain from 
 expressing my surprise at the conclusion of the com- 
 mittee. 1 did them the credit of supposing, when 
 the respondents and myself were requested to with- 
 draw, that they would not have decided a point of 
 so much importance, as referring the matter to the 
 Quarterly Meeting, on the consideration of evidence 
 adduced by one of the parties, without previously 
 calling upon the other, to know what be had to al- 
 lege upon that evidence. Such was, however, the 
 course they had thought fit to pursue. 
 
 The Clerk replied, they did not determine the ques- 
 tion, but only referred it to the consideration of the 
 Quarterly Meeting ; after which he inquired of the 
 respondents whether they knew, that I had published 
 the minutes of the Monthly Meeting, with the ex- 
 planatory notes ? Richard Bowman replied, " they 
 did not know that I had." 
 The Clerk observing, that the appellant would have 
 a full opportunity of being heard in the Quarterly 
 Meeting, even to make a speech of two hours long if 
 he chose it, on the subject they meant to refer to the 
 consideration of that Meeting, Richard Bowman 
 now disclosed, that' the object of the respondents was, 
 to prevent my being at all heard against their accu- 
 sations, by saying, he thought that was a point the 
 Clerk was not competent to determine. Luke Howard 
 replied, he could not pretend to legislate for the 
 Quarterly Meeting, or to say how they would act, far- 
 ther than that he supposed they were bound to act, ac- 
 cording to their own rules. One, or two of the com- 
 mittee observed, that what the Clerk had said, was 
 
140 
 
 to be considered only as his private sentiments, and 
 not as the judgment of the committee. 
 
 As to my right of being fully heard before the 
 Quarterly Meeting, I told the committee I felt per- 
 fectly easy, whatever report they might make, as it 
 was a right, as expressly secured to every appellant 
 that chose to claim it, by the Meeting's regulations 
 concerning appeals, as language could readily furnish. 
 
 The respondents and myself being requested to 
 withdraw, we were soon after informed the commit- 
 tee had no farther occasion for our attendance. They 
 declined giving either of the parties, a copy of the 
 minute of their appointment, of the minute respect- 
 ing their reference of the case to the Quarterly 
 Meeting, or of the minute appointing the respond- 
 ents. 
 
 QUARTERLY MEETING OF LONDON AND 
 MIDDLESEX. 
 
 Held by adjournment the 2nd of the 1 1th Month, 
 1812. 
 
 After transacting the other business before the 
 Meeting, the Clerk observed that no business remain- 
 ed, but that of taking into consideration the report 
 of the committee on the appeal. Thomas Compton 
 presented a letter from me to the Meeting, of which 
 the following is a copy. 
 
 TO THE ADJOURNED QUARTERLY MEETING OP 
 LONDON AND MIDDLESEX. 
 
 To be held 11th Month, 2d, 1812. 
 Dear Friends, 
 
 I would not be understood by this letter, as ex- 
 pressing any doubt of your disposition to do impar- 
 tial justice between the parties to the appeal, which 
 
141 
 
 at your last sitting, you referred to a committee ehos* 
 en in the usual manner. But that committee having 
 thought fit to defer hearing the parties thereon, al- 
 most as soon as the said appeal had been read, until 
 they had reported to you a plea advanced by the re- 
 spondents, I trust this application will not be deem- 
 ed improper or disrespectful. By one of your regu- 
 lations for " conducting appeals," it is directed 
 " that the committee give notice to both parties, of 
 the time, when they intend to deliver in their report." 
 Such notice to me may have miscarried. I have re- 
 ceived none, if any has been sent. The same rule 
 provides that, " the person appealing, or some friend 
 or friends in his behalf, have liberty to be present to 
 hear the report read." And although it does not 
 seem, expressly to contemplate more than one report 
 from any committee on an appeal, the spirit of the 
 regulation equally requires the respective parties to 
 be present, to hear any report such a committee may 
 make, if the possible issue of it can, in any manner 
 affect the rights and privileges of either party. 
 
 To whatever cause, therefore, my not having re- 
 ceived due notice to attend to-morrow morning, to 
 hear the committee's report read, is to be attributed, 
 the, object of this letter is to prevent your inadvert- 
 ently receiving it in an irregular manner, and, as your 
 appellant, to claim my right to be present to hear 
 the said report read. I am your sincere, well-wish- 
 ing Friend, 
 
 Bromley, Thomas Foster. 
 
 Nov. 1st, 1812. 
 
 This letter was not permitted to be read, but it was 
 proposedthat the appellant should be invited into the 
 Meeting, according to rule, to hear the report read, 
 should he be so disposed. Luke Howard, on be- 
 half of the committee, informed the Meeting they 
 
142 
 
 hadno report to make, but they had some written 
 information to present. George Harrison said, he 
 hoped the committee would excuse him. If they 
 had something to offer to the Meeting, that some- 
 thing must be a report, a report of some kind or other. 
 Luke Howard said, he could not see it in the light of 
 a report, properly speaking, nor the necessity of the 
 appellant's being present to hear it read. This pro- 
 posal was opposed by several Friends, who said, that 
 if the information was in any degree interesting to 
 both parties, they must of course be present to hear it. 
 
 It was at length agreed, that the appellant should 
 be admitted to hear the report read, and then 
 withdraw, and the respondents also, without mak- 
 ing any remarks, leaving the Meeting to consider 
 its contents. I was accordingly introduced by 
 Thomas Compton, to a seat near the table, when the 
 clerk informed us of the determination of the Meet- 
 ing, and then readme report of the committee. 
 
 Being satisfied that the report, and the injunction 
 of silence on both parties, after hearing it read, was 
 intended to deprive me of any opportunity of being 
 heard, in case the Meeting should coincide in judg- 
 ment with its committee, I rose merely to claim that 
 right, before the Meeting came to such a conclusion. 
 But my speaking at all, being objected to, by a very 
 respectable Friend, I sat down immediately, and soon 
 after withdrew with the respondents. 
 
 The Meeting then proceeded to consider the sub- 
 ject before them. I understand that several Friends 
 expressed their astonishment, at the complexion 
 of the report, and the committee were desired to 
 give some verbal explanation. Luke Howard said, 
 he thought their motive and meaning must be ob- 
 vious to Friends. Friends must be aware of the 
 awkward predicament in which the respondents 
 were placed; that of answering an appeal made to 
 the Society, and to the public at large, at one, and 
 
143 
 
 the same time, (a) Friends would please to ob- 
 serve that they had not referred to any rule of the So- 
 ciety, nor to any thing in the Book of Extracts, (b) 
 
 Some friends appeared to apprehend there was a 
 rule, which would apply to the case, but Joseph 
 Gurney Bevan remarked, that, as the committee had 
 not referred to any rule, he thought it better not to seek 
 for one. Producing rules not to the point, would only 
 tend to confuse Friends minds. Some Friends remain- 
 ing dissatisfied, the Clerk said, he would read the 
 rule, which he supposed Friends had in view. It is 
 as follows — " This Meeting [the Yearly Meeting] 
 agrees not to receive, in future any appeal in print, or 
 that hath been printed." 
 
 J. G. Bevan remarked, that this was nothing to the 
 purpose, because it was a rule belonging to the Yearly 
 Meeting only, and that it was no credit to the com- 
 mittee, to have sent such a piece of paper into the 
 Meeting. George Harrison said, he would readily 
 admit the good intention of the committee, but he 
 must say, they had been guilty of great inadver- 
 tence, to say the least of it, for, instead of judging 
 between the parties, they had appealed to the appel- 
 lant himself. However we might lament the publi- 
 cation of the tract in question, as the appellant had 
 not transgressed any rule of the Society, the commit- 
 tee should have proceeded in the case. 
 
 Luke Howard informed the Meeting, that what 
 
 (a) This is not correct, the appeal to the public was made about 
 six months before, and comprised the whole of the respondents' case, 
 as stated by themselves, and by the Meeting, with a few notes to ex- 
 plain such facts, as were indefinitely, or erroneously stated on the 
 Meeting's records, which I gave them a previous opportunity of cor- 
 recting. It was not therefore an exparte statement, tending to preju- 
 dice the minds of friends by partial and garbled evidence. 
 
 (b) The committee were no doubt aware, there was no rule that 
 applied to the case. It was an undisguised attempt to exercise a 
 vigour beyond the /aw. 
 
144 
 
 they had brought forward, ivas not the whole of the 
 ground which had induced them to come to the Quar- 
 terly Meeting for direction^ and intimated that what 
 they had withheld, was more weighty than ivhat they 
 had advanced. Thomas Brewster said, other things 
 had come to the knowledge of the committee, (c) 
 Luke Howard admitted that the committee had en- 
 tertained an idea, that the Meeting might order them 
 to proceed no farther. 
 
 The Meeting, however, desired the committee to 
 proceea to hear the parties, and report. 
 
 1'Viends now appeared under no small degree of 
 embarrassment, as to the preferable mode of disposing 
 of the committee's report, and recording the pro- 
 ceedings. They hesitated to record the report itself, 
 from motives of delicacy and tenderness towards the 
 committee, to whom the report was thought by many 
 to be no credit ; and that to Friends of future times, 
 it might appear, either that the committee had been 
 lacking in wisdom, or that their motives were ob- 
 scure, and their conduct unaccountable- The Meet- 
 ing seemed so much against recording the report, that 
 it was given to Luke Howard, as a paper with which 
 the Meeting had no more concern. 
 
 Some Friends were for recording the committee's 
 labours in a shape somewhat different from that in 
 which they had been presented, and in a less excepti- 
 onable manner. But this proposal was found so diffi- 
 cult to execute, that it was soon abandoned. It 
 was then suggested that a minute might be made, 
 signifying that the committee were not ready with 
 their report. This was rejected, because it would 
 be misrepresentation on the part of the Meeting. 
 
 (c) What these other, and more weighty things, could possibly be, 
 I cannot imagine ; as no other plea was advanced than the one no- 
 ticed in the committee's report, while I was present. Is it possible 
 any of the committee could have listened to evidence against me in 
 my absence ? It should seem so by these assertions. 
 
145 
 
 not to mention that it would open a door for im- 
 putations of indolence, or negligence, on the part of 
 the committee. Several Friends thought, it was un- 
 necessary to make any minute about the matter, but 
 this was found impracticable; because, as the Meet- 
 ing had appointed the committee at the last sitting, 
 and had given them almost five weeks to go through 
 the business assigned them, Friends could do no less 
 than call for a report, which would lead to a minute 
 of some kind or other. 
 
 J. G. Bevan said, that, in his view, the best way 
 was, to record the report of the committee, and let 
 them speak for themselves. He had no doubt but 
 that all the proceedings of Friends, in this case, would 
 be published to the world; and the best way was to have 
 every thingjwsf, upright and honourable ; for any at- 
 tempt to hide, as well as the thing attempted to be 
 hidden, would only meet with exposure. Samuel Har- 
 ris observed, that the appellant possessed no copy ot 
 the report, nor did he perceive, that he was ever likely 
 to obtain one. William Binnssaid, he could not see, 
 that the report, or the conduct of the committee, was 
 any disgrace to them ; for though it did not appear, 
 that the conduct of the appellant, deprived him of 
 the right of appeal, it ought to have deprived him. 
 
 It was finally agreed to record the committee's 
 report, and the following minutes were annexed 
 thereto. 
 
 " The following minute was brought in from the 
 committee on the appeal, against Ratcliff Monthly 
 Meeting, and read in the presence of the appellant, 
 and respondents. 
 
 " COMMITTEE ON APPEALS, 
 
 Appointed by the Quarterly Meeting of London and 
 
 Middlesex. 
 
 10th Month, 12th, 1812. 
 
 Present all the committee, except John Sanderson, 
 
 u 
 
146 
 
 This committee having read the appeal of Thomas 
 Foster, against RatclifY Monthly Meeting, in the 
 presence of the appellant and respondents, the re- 
 spondents produced a pamphlet, which has been some 
 time in print, having an appendix, entitled, " Copy of 
 the Minutes of RatclifT Monthly Meeting, respecting 
 Thomas Foster, with explanatory notes," and which 
 appears to contain a case, on behalf of the appellant, 
 against Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, (a) The same hav- 
 ing been read, and considered, the appellant had op- 
 portunity given him, to disavow it, as his publica- 
 tion, or as published with his knowledge, on his be- 
 half. He did not choose, either to own, or to dis- 
 avow it, but admitted he had read it, and thought 
 the notes on the Meeting's proceedings to be well 
 founded. 
 
 Under these circumstances, the committee does 
 not feel inclined, to call upon the respondents for 
 their reply, (seeing the case is thus already before the 
 Society at large,) until it has the direction of the 
 Quarterly Meeting, so to do. 
 
 Luke Howard is desired to take this Report, to the 
 Quarterly Meeting. 
 
 Copy from the minutes of the committee, 
 
 Luke Howard." 
 
 " And being considered, the committee is desired 
 
 (o) If this " Pamphlet" does " contain a case, on behalf of the 
 appellant, against Ratcliff Monthly Meeting," as the committee as- 
 sert, by far the most weighty and decisive part of it, consists, in the 
 striking contrast, which Penn's Portraiture of Primitive Quakerism, 
 or, as he called it, the " Sandy Foundation Shaken," furnishes, 
 when compared with the Modern Sketch of Reputed Orthodoxy, 
 by Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, as exhibited in its own minutes, in 
 this comparison, lies the real strength of the appellant's case, as stated 
 in that pamphlet, and not in the explanatory notes, which are com- 
 paratively unimportant, and rather tend to divert the attention of 
 the reader, from the very discordant features of those documents 
 when compared with each other. 
 
147 
 
 to proceed with the business committed to it, and 
 report. 
 
 This Meeting adjourns to this day two weeks, at 
 ten. 
 
 Copy. William Manley." 
 
 QUARTERLY MEETING'S COMMITTEE. 
 
 11th Month, 2nd, 1812. Second Sitting.' 
 Sixteen of the committee present. 
 
 After a short pause, the appeal was read by Luke 
 Howard, as inserted p. 130 — 136. 
 
 The respondents being called on to reply, John 
 Harris read the minutes of the Monthly Meeting, 
 as given p. 108 — 1 14. They were then delivered to 
 the committee. 
 
 After this Richard Bowman read a paper, contain- 
 ing the respondents brief statement of their labours. 
 It stated, that in, or about, the 8th Month, 1811, a 
 Friend, in the station of overseer, heard that I had 
 distributed some of the Remarks on the Yearly Meet- 
 ing .Epistle, for 1810, and in consequence thereof, 
 paid me a visit, from which he did not receive any 
 satisfaction. 
 
 That the same Friend, with another overseer, paid 
 me two visits, to no better satisfaction than the for- 
 mer. It then stated the report of the case to the 
 Monthly Meeting, the appointment of a committee 
 to visit me, and their having thought it right to ques- 
 tion me upon points of doctrine. That they men- 
 tioned to me the authorities on which they believed 
 I held opinions contrary to the doctrines of the Society. 
 
 Henry Knight then read the passage they object- 
 ed to, in the preface to the Rules of the London 
 Unitarian Book Society. The respondents also 
 informed the committee, that they questioned me, re- 
 specting the encouragement I had given to the " Im- 
 proved Version of the New Testament, " which I 
 had acknowledged. As also concerning the publica- 
 tions under the name of Verax, which I denied their 
 
148 
 
 right to enquire into, under the minute of their ap- 
 pointment, and refused to answer their interrogatories 
 on that account, 
 
 A member of the committee enquired of the re- 
 spondents, what Society, they meant to say, the ap- 
 pellant was a member of, when they stated him to 
 be a member of the Unitarian Society ? Did they mean 
 to say, he was a member of a Society, under that 
 name, associated as a Society for the purposes of re- 
 ligious worship, as might be understood by the terms 
 they used? 
 
 John Harris said, it might have been better if they 
 had said, Thomas Foster was a member of an instead 
 of the Unitarian Society, but they only meant that 
 he was a member of that Book Society. On this 
 admission, I informed the committee that I had 
 taken much pains to prevent the respondents stating 
 this fact, in so delusive a manner. And after my 
 remonstrances with them thereon, it was difficult to 
 believe, they did not express themselves in that 
 manner, for the purpose of misrepresentation. 
 
 Richard Bowman informed the committee, that 
 the reason they refused to inform me, who their 
 informants were, was because I had admitted having 
 distributed some of the Remarks on the Yearly 
 Meeting Epistle, and he said, the overseers denied 
 having been led on by Friends of other Meetings. 
 But he afterwards admitted, that one Friend had 
 come down from London, on purpose to represent to 
 him, it was the duty of the overseers to take up the 
 case. And Henry Knight admitted, that several 
 Friends had spoken to him in a similar manner. But 
 he did not mean to allude to them, when he said, 
 that not so few as nine or ten Friends, had spoken 
 to him on the subject. They had, it seems, not 
 given their opinion about the propriety of taking up 
 the case, but only spoken their own sentiments upon 
 it. He added, that he had heard it spoken of in large 
 companies, and in several counties. 
 
149 
 
 On reading my minutes of the visits I had re- 
 ceived from the overseers, till I came to my letter to 
 them, dated Nov, 17th last, and my minutes of the 
 conference with them the same day, Richard Bow- 
 man represented that they had said the 20th rule, 
 under the head meetings for discipline, would bear 
 them out in reporting my case to the Monthly Meet- 
 ing, instead of saying that they meant to proceed in 
 part upon that rule. I reminded him that I had stat- 
 ed the fact in that letter, I believed correctly, to 
 which they made no objection at the time, and 
 informed me at the next Monthly Meeting, that 
 they thought no communication with me necessary 
 concerning its contents, which they would hardly 
 have done, if it misrepresented what they had said. 
 
 Henry Knight informed the committee, I had put 
 a great number of questions to them upon abstruse 
 points of doctrine, such as they did not think it pro- 
 per to go into. I was surprised at this assertion, 
 and called upon the respondents to mention a single 
 instance in which I had acted in this manner. They 
 had put many such questions to me, whereas T was 
 not conscious 1 had put one to them respecting any 
 doctrines, but such as related to their accusations. 
 
 When I had read my minutes of the overseer's vi- 
 sits, p. 1—14. my letters to them, p. 14 — 25. I pro- 
 posed that the respondents should be called upon to 
 reply to that part of my statement, that the commit- 
 tee might decide, if they should think proper, whe- 
 ther such private labour had been bestowed on me, as 
 the nature of the case required, and the rules of the 
 discipline enjoined. As, should they be of opinion 
 with me there has not, I supposed it would be un- 
 necessary to proceed farther. The respondents ob- 
 jected to this proposal, in such a manner as satisfied 
 me it was useless to make any similar effort to short- 
 en the proceedings ; I did not afterwards attempt it. 
 The committee desired me to proceed. I then read 
 
150 
 
 my minutes of the proceedings of Ratcliff Monthly 
 Meeting, p. 30 — 39- and of the first visit of its com- 
 mittee, 1st Month, 15th, 1812. 
 
 At this conference, Henry Knight read the follow- 
 ing passage from the 1st § of Penn's " Innocency 
 with her Open Face/* to shew that William Penn 
 believed Christ to be God. 
 
 " The Proverbs, which as most agree, intend 
 Christ the Saviour, speak in this manner. — ' By me 
 kings reign, and princes decree justice/ ! I, (wis- 
 dom) lead in the midst of the paths of judgment:' 
 ' I was set up from everlasting/ to which Paul's 
 words allude, * unto them which are called (we 
 preach) Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom 
 of God;' from whence," says William Penn, "I 
 conclude Christ the Saviour, to be God ; for other- 
 wise God would not be himself, since if Christ," 
 [that is, Christ the Saviour, before spoken of, not 
 the Man Christ Jesus,~] " be distinct from God, and 
 yet God's power and wisdom, God would be with- 
 out his own power and wisdom ; but inasmuch as it 
 is impossible God's power and wisdom should be 
 distinct or divided from himself, it reasonably fol- 
 lows, that Christ [the Saviour,] who is that power 
 and wisdom, is not distinct from God, but entirely 
 that very same God." 
 
 A little lower down Penn adds, 
 
 " God is light, and in him is no darkness at all: 
 from whence I assert the unity of God and Christ, 
 because, though nominally distinguished, yet essen- 
 tially the same divine light ; for if Christ be that 
 light, and that light, be God, then is Christ God, 
 Again, Rev. xxi. 23. ' And the city had no need of 
 the sun, for the glory of God did lighten it, and the 
 Lamb, (Christ) is the light thereof, by which the 
 oneness of the nature of these lights plainly appears ; 
 for since God is not God, without his own glory, 
 
\5\ 
 
 and that his glory lightens, (which it could never do 
 if it were not light) and that the lamb, or Christ is 
 that very same light, what can follow, but that Christ 
 the light, and God the light, are one pure and eternal 
 light." 
 
 I told the committee I had been long conversant 
 with these passages, and thought I understood in 
 what sense William Penn ascribed divinity to Christ, 
 in those and other parts of his writings ; that it was 
 not to the one mediator between God and men, the 
 man Christ Jesus, personally considered, but to that 
 divine power which dwelt in and acted by him, to 
 which he himself uniformly attributed all the powers 
 he possessed. I had never denied or questioned 
 the power, by which he performed all his wonderful 
 works, being divine. But I thought it was much 
 better to adhere strictly to the language of the Scrip- 
 tures, as divinity had been by many professors of 
 Christianity ascribed to the person of Christ, or to the 
 man Christ Jesus, which I saw no reason tobelieveWil- 
 liam Penn intended Hi any of those passages. I then 
 read the following extract from his works. 
 
 " This was it," says he " which gave the manhood, 
 the understanding it had, and fitted it for so great an 
 embassy, by whose power alone, it fasted, prayed, 
 preached, cast out devils, wrought miracles, lived 
 that most unblemished life, patiently suffered death, 
 was raised for an holy confirmation. And this divine 
 power it was which accompanied the ministry of his 
 followers ; rendering it efficacious to conviction and 
 conversion. So that the invisible, spiritual, and di- 
 vine life, principle, or nature, icas the root and foun' 
 tain of all which is sometimes ascribed in Scripture 
 to the body, by that common figure or way of speak- 
 ing amongst men, the thing containing, which was 
 the body, for the thing contained, which was the 
 the eternal power, wisdom, life, Sfc. 
 
 Not that we should irreverently rob the holy body, 
 
1,52 
 
 of whatsoever acknowledgment is justly due, nor 
 yet separate that, which God hath joined. Though 
 I confess, with holy fear, / dare not attribute that to 
 an external^ prepared Being, which is the natural, 
 proper, and only work of the divine light and life to 
 operate and effect. But certainly if some men in 
 Scripture are intituled Saviours, because of the 
 contribution of their trials, travels, and labours to- 
 wards the salvation of mankind, of much more right 
 is that honour ascribable to him, who had the spirit 
 without m ea sure. 13 A reference to these extracts is 
 given in p. 67- 
 
 The committee adjourned to the back chamber, 
 Gracechurch Street, to the next day, at three in the 
 afternoon. 
 
 11th Month, 3d, 1812, Third Sitting. 
 Fifteen of the Committee present. 
 
 When I was called upon to proceed with my de- 
 fence, I observed that some very judicious observa- 
 tions had been made yesterday by some of the com- 
 mittee, on the importance of correctly ascertaining 
 plain matters of fact, from the respective parties to 
 the appeal, as theirjudgment must be, in great mea- 
 sure founded thereon. 
 
 I had therefore made minutes, as correctly as 1 
 was able, of such objections as the respondents had 
 urged, as also of some important admissions of theirs, 
 in order that these matters might be agreed on, while 
 they were fresh in their recollection; which, with 
 the Meeting's permission, I would now read. 
 
 This proposal being objected to by the respond- 
 ents, we were desired to withdraw. When we were 
 again admitted, the Clerk of the committee informed 
 me, I was at liberty, by way of recapitulation, to re- 
 state any parts which I thought might contribute to 
 
153 
 
 my defence. But that neither the committee, nor 
 the respondents were to be expected to object to any 
 errors that my minutes might contain ; nor was their 
 silence to be considered as implying an admission of 
 their correctness. 
 
 I then read the same, till I came to the substance 
 of the committee's report to the Quarterly Meeting, 
 when I requested a copy. Luke Howard said, I 
 must know it was the property, or at the disposal of 
 the Quarterly Meeting, and asked if I demanded a 
 copy. I told him I requested one, which I hoped 
 the committee would grant. I then read my account 
 of its import. But when I noticed the paper the 
 respondents had read in reply to my appeal, I was 
 interrupted by William Forster, who requested that 
 we should withdraw. 
 
 We did so, and when we were again admitted, I 
 requested leave of the committee for Thomas Comp- 
 ton to accompany me, which they readily assented 
 to, and he was present during the remainder of the 
 sitting. The clerk of the committee then informed 
 me, that they considered part of what I had read as 
 irrelevant matter, but that they were disposed to hear 
 any thing which I thought might be of use in my de- 
 fence. I assured them, had I been aware my propo- 
 sal would have been objected to, or have occupied 
 so much of their time, I would not have made it. 
 If I had acted, in any degree, in an irregular manner, 
 I trusted they would excuse it, as I had never before 
 been placed in a similar situation ; that my object 
 was to save time in the future stages of the discus- 
 sion, and to promote a mutual understanding of the 
 points at issue. 
 
 The Remarks on the Yearly Meeting EpistJe, by 
 an Unitarian Christian were next read, as inserted 
 p. 39 — 45. After which I read my minutes of the 
 proceedings of RatclifT Monthly Meeting, as given 
 p. 48 — 52, and then my minutes of the conference 
 x 
 
154 
 
 with its committee, Jan. 22, 1812, when they re- 
 commended to my attention sundry papers. The 
 two first being somewhat connected, I call No. I. 
 It contains the following replies to the 1st, 2nd and 
 4th queries in p. 61. 
 
 "The minute, [of the Monthly Meeting say the 
 committee] charges thee with nothing specific ; but 
 the Friends who have visited thee before, charge 
 thee with holding that Jesus Christ is not omnipotent^ 
 nor the proper object of worship." In reply to the 
 2nd query, they say, '1 The principles of the Soci- 
 ety, in our opinion, clearly and explicitly laid down, 
 may be found in SewePs History, new edit. Vol. ii. 
 p. 497 to 500. Summary. — Yearly Meeting's Epis- 
 tles, various Extracts/' Viz. 
 
 1683. 
 
 3rd Par. 
 
 p. 17. 
 
 1683. 
 
 1st •••. 
 
 p. 19. 
 
 J 684. 
 
 
 
 p. 24. 
 
 1691. 
 
 
 
 p. 57- 
 
 1695. 
 
 
 
 p. 74. 
 
 1695. 
 
 " last 
 
 p. 77. 
 
 1696. 
 
 1st 
 
 p. 79. 
 
 1699. 
 
 
 
 p. 85. 
 
 1700. 
 
 
 
 p. 87. 
 
 1704. 
 
 last 
 
 p. 99- 
 
 1706. 
 
 1st 
 
 p. 102. 
 
 1712. 
 
 2d 
 
 p. 120. 
 
 1715. 
 
 1st 2d & last 124. 
 
 1717. 
 
 1st. 
 
 p. 130. 
 
 1722. 
 
 last 
 
 p. 147. 
 
 1729. 
 
 
 
 p. 166. 
 
 1731. 
 
 
 
 p. 173. 
 
 1734. 
 
 1st 
 
 p. 180." 
 
 1740. ' 
 
 ' last Par. 
 
 P* 
 
 2o4. 
 
 1740. 
 
 
 
 P« 
 
 206. 
 
 1743. 
 
 1st 
 
 P' 
 
 213. 
 
 1747. 
 
 last*... 
 
 P- 
 
 228. 
 
 1748. 
 
 1st--.. 
 
 P- 
 
 229. 
 
 1751. 
 
 last 
 
 P- 
 
 242. 
 
 1753. 
 
 2d .... 
 
 P- 
 
 249- 
 
 1756. 
 
 
 
 P- 
 
 262. 
 
 1758. 
 
 last 
 
 P- 
 
 271. 
 
 1759. 
 
 2d 
 
 P- 
 
 272. 
 
 1758. 
 
 last 
 
 P- 
 
 275.' 
 
 1760. 
 
 
 
 
 1662. 
 
 
 
 
 1763. 
 
 
 
 
 1765. 
 
 9th 
 
 
 
 1772. 
 
 last • • 
 
 
 
 1773. 
 
 
 
 
 The five first passages in the above list were quot- 
 ed by the committee ; the rest they only referred to. 
 The Yearly Meeting's Epistles, from 1681 to 17^9, 
 were published in one vol. fol. in 1760, to which the 
 pages refer. As to the third query, in p. 61, the 
 the committee confessed they were unable to say 
 when, or from whence, I had " imbibed" the opi- 
 
155 
 
 nions they charged me with holding. Their reply 
 to the fourth query is inserted in p. 91. par. 3d. 
 
 For a copy of the next paper, the committee re- 
 ferred to my attention, [No. II] see p. 92 — 93- No. 
 III. is as follows. 
 
 " On what ground do you impute omnipotence to 
 Jesus Christ." To this question, as stated by them- 
 selves, they refer me to the following texts: viz. 
 " Mat. xi. 6. — xvi. 27. — xxviii. 18. John i. 10. — 
 iii. 31. 34.— v. 26.— x. 30. — xiv. 9- Eph. i. 21.— 
 1 Cor. i. 24. Col. i. lo. — ii. 2. Heb. i. 2." After 
 this list, they refer me to the following " passages, 
 wherein [they say] the Godhead of Christ is assert- 
 ed." Viz. John i. 1. 10. 30. — xiv. 9. — xviii. 11. 
 21.22. Rom. ix. 5. Acts xx. 28. 1 Tim. 2. 3. 
 iii. 16. 2. Tim. iii. 10." 
 
 In the paper, No. 4. the committee say, " It ap- 
 pears to be the opinion of the Society, that Jesus 
 Christ, who was sent by the Father, to be the Sa- 
 viour of the world, is, with the Father, worthy of 
 glory, honour, dominion and praise ; and we appre- 
 hend the following texts, with others, authorize it. 
 John v. 22. 23.— xiv. 13.14. Heb. i. 6. 1 Peter 
 iv. 11. 2 Peter iii. 18. Rev. v, at large. — vii. 10. 
 1 Cor. i. 2. Acts vii. 59." 
 
 When I had finished reading my minutes of 
 this conference, I also read my minutes of the next, 
 on Feb. 7, 1812, with the Monthly Meeting's com- 
 mittee, including the following observations on those 
 papers. — Viz. 
 
 Whether the passages you have selected, are such 
 as the minute of your appointment refers to, or have 
 been since looked out, as the most pertinent you 
 could find, the far greater part appear to me totally 
 inapplicable to the professed object of your selec- 
 tion. How came you to pass over in silence the fif- 
 teen Theses Theologiae of Barclay, or his propositions 
 in defence of " the true Christian Divinity ?V 
 
156 
 
 Instead of this, you refer me to a passage in Sew- 
 el's History [1st Edit. p. 644.] which relates to a 
 controversy between the Society and George Keith, 
 " who appeared/* says Sewel, " in the annual as- 
 sembly at London, anno 1694: but there he shew- 
 ed himself so passionate and boisterous, that no means 
 could be found to compose the difference. 
 
 George Keith was indeed highly to blame, as I 
 have long since thought, and often openly said. For 
 although the Meeting spent near ten days in attend- 
 ing to the subject, and using its " earnest endeavours 
 to reconcile the difference" as Gough informs us, Vol. 
 iii. p. 383. " Keith seeming predetermined, either 
 for carrying every thing his own way, or for a sepa- 
 ration, eluded all endeavours for reconciliation and 
 peace." What was it that Keith wanted ? That an 
 epistle of Thomas Ellwood's, which had been " sub- 
 mitted to the second day's morning meeting," and 
 approved " in a full Meeting," should " be called 
 in" that is, suppressed. Could any thing be more 
 unreasonable than such conduct ? And especially 
 towards those, who appear to have been willing to 
 extend towards him, on principles of Christian cha- 
 rity and forbearance, a liberal toleration of the rights 
 of private judgment. 
 
 George Keith was not satisfied with this, but at- 
 tempted to impose upon the next Yearly Meeting a 
 number of articles of faith, as fit conditions of Chris- 
 tian fellowship, which they very properly refused to 
 sanction, and declared " that whilst he is in an unre- 
 conciled and uncharitable state, he ought not to 
 preach or pray in any of Friends' meetings, nor to 
 be owned or received as one of us." Ibid, p. 386. 
 
 If this be a true picture of the manner in which 
 our predecessors acted at that time, as I gather from 
 the united testimony of Sewel and Gough, is it not, 
 1 intreat you to consider, highly deserving our com- 
 mendation, and worthy the imitation of their succes- 
 
157 
 
 sors in religious profession, in order that we might 
 follow them, as they therein followed the precepts and 
 example of Christ? 
 
 To proceed to a brief review of the passage you 
 have selected from Sewel's history, for my considera- 
 tion. It refers to no less than thirty-six texts, as the 
 authority on which it is founded, all of which I have 
 examined, and of these there are but three, Rom. 
 ix. 5. 1 John v. 7. and v. 20, which I consider lia- 
 ble to any objection of consequence, as being er- 
 roneously rendered in the received version. 
 
 To the scriptural truth and soundness of the rest I 
 assent, and 1 may add, that the meaning of the sacred 
 writers appears to me, generally to be stated with 
 much greater precision and clearness in the text, than 
 in the comment. Yet I could readily select much 
 from the latter, which I think is well, and happily 
 expressed. But I do not incline to descend to par- 
 ticulars ; to do this in any satisfactory manner to 
 myself, would occupy more of my time, and of 
 yours, than I imagine would he useful on this occa- 
 sion. 
 
 Your next reference is to the " Summary of the 
 History, Doctrine, and Discipline of Friends/' ch. 
 11, on Doctrine. The first division of which sub- 
 ject, is styled, in the head to the chapter, " General 
 Belief." The identical words which were inserted 
 in the minute, respecting your accusation, but which 
 were afterwards omitted, and the word "principles," 
 inserted in their room. 
 
 I have, however, a few observations to make, on 
 the use of those terms. They may have been se- 
 lected to intimate, that the reader could not reason- 
 ably expect, any very particular or minute informa- 
 tion, in a Summary. Or, they may have been used, 
 to point out the honourable analogy, which is ob- 
 servable between the primitive Christian church, and 
 
138 
 
 ours, inasmuch as creeds and formularies of faith, 
 were never enjoined in either, general as the practice 
 has for many years been, among most professors of 
 Christianity. I may therefore surely say, it peculi- 
 arly behoves a church, which has never thought fit 
 to establish a creed, to be very tolerant towards its 
 members, and even to encourage them in the free, 
 but temperate exercise of the rights of private judg- 
 ment in matters of religion, that their faith may be 
 founded on individual conviction, and not on a slavish 
 implicit submission to the authority of others. 
 
 To the first paragraph of this chapter, I have no 
 objection. It says, " We agree with other professors 
 of the Christian name, in the belief of one eternal 
 God, the Creator and Preserver of the 
 universe; and in Jesus Christ his Son, the Mes- 
 siah, and mediator of the new covenant" How 
 strictly accordant is this, with the fundamental prin- 
 ciples of that Book Society, for being a subscriber 
 to which, I am now accused of holding opinions 
 contrary to the principles of the Society? 
 
 The preference which the next paragraph ex- 
 presses, for " the use of such terms as we find in 
 scripture — when we speak of the gracious display of 
 the love of God to mankind," in all the particulars 
 mentioned therein, concerning our Saviour, meets 
 my cordial approbation. We ought, I also agree, to 
 be not only " contented with,' 1 but deeply thankful 
 for, " that knowledge which divine wisdom hath 
 seen meet to reveal. " That is, as I suppose, the 
 connexion of the words requires " in scripture," 
 just before spoken of. 
 
 As to not attempting " to explain those myste- 
 ries, which remain under the veil/' I am not sure 
 that I clearly apprehend the intent of the writer. If 
 it means, that we should not attempt to explain such 
 matters, as it has pleased divine wisdom to place out 
 
159 
 
 of the reach of his rational offspring, as opposed to 
 " that knowledge which divine wisdom hath seen 
 meet to reveal," I perfectly agree with the writer, 
 that such attempts are much better let alone. They 
 will assuredly prove vain, and fruitless, and may in- 
 dicate folly, or presumption. The above passage 
 seems to imply, and the same thing is much more 
 plainly asserted in the scriptures, that certain mys- 
 teries which were unknown, or " under the veil," 
 before the promulgation of Christianity, are so no 
 longer; that is, they were then made known, and 
 ceased to be mysteries. M The secret things belong 
 unto the Lord our God: but those things which are 
 revealed unto us, and to our children." The author 
 of the Summary, describes the prudence of the So- 
 ciety of Friends, respecting this point, in the follow- 
 ing terms, connecting another subject with it, not in 
 the most lucid manner: " We attempt not," says 
 he, " to explain those mysteries, which remain un- 
 der the veil ; nevertheless we acknowledge, and as- 
 sert the divinity of Christ, who is the wisdom and 
 power of God unto salvation/' 
 
 Is it not singular, that in this paragraph, the wri- 
 ter of which professes to prefer scriptural terms, be- 
 fore all others, that he should have adopted two or 
 three within so small a compass, which are not to be 
 found in the scriptures ? At least not in the received 
 version. 
 
 The advantages of strictly adhering to the lan- 
 guage of the sacred writers, on all points of faith, are 
 very great. We have then, better security, against 
 having unscriptural notions imposed upon us, for 
 Christian truths. If any question arises, about the 
 true meaning of any term, we may refer to the text, 
 and that will often tend to throw important light, 
 upon its real import, by carefully marking the gene- 
 ral drift of the passage, where it occurs. 
 
160 
 
 Whereas, by using unscriptural terms, we are 
 wholly deprived of these means of distinguishing 
 truth, from error. In such cases, what is to be 
 done? We may, it is true, enquire, in what sense 
 such terms are used by the best writers of our own 
 country. Or, we may look into their derivation 
 from other languages. It may be found, that the 
 same term has been used in one age, in one sense, 
 and in a subsequent age, in another. 
 
 These sources of error may be avoided, by ad- 
 hering to the language of scripture, in which I know 
 not, that the term " divinity" is ever applied to 
 Christ, or that it even occurs anywhere in those 
 writings. Does not then the use of it look like a 
 vain attempt, to be wise above what is written ? 
 However this may be, as the term is not to be found 
 in the scriptures, it is obvious we must seek its 
 true import elsewhere. 
 
 To whom shall we apply ? It must needs be, to 
 some fallible authority. In this dilemma, how are 
 we to proceed? We may attend to the reasons 
 assigned in favour of any opinion we might obtain, 
 and adopt it so far as those reasons appear to us to 
 warrant our concurrence. On these grouiids I sub- 
 mit to your consideration, the following exposition 
 of the term " divinity" by an author who did not 
 write much, but whose style is remarkable for per- 
 spicuity, and a correct use of words. 
 
 " I have hitherto,'' says Paul Cardale, " been 
 endeavouring to set the doctrine of the New Tes- 
 tament, concerning Jesus Christ, which I think has 
 been generally misunderstood, in its true and proper 
 light. If any then, should surmise, that I intend 
 to depreciate our Lord's character, or to deny his 
 divinity, I answer in the negative, and that I have 
 been doing the greatest justice to it, by going as far 
 as the scripture leads me. 
 
161 
 
 *' Of the deity of the Father, and f the divinity of 
 the Son, 1 have very different ideas. Divinity and 
 humanity may unite, and very well agree to one, and 
 the same individual person ; but not godhead and 
 manhood. This is agreeable to my conceptions. 
 The word divinity, does not always necessarily con- 
 vey an idea of the one God, or of the supreme Deity ; 
 but is rather to be understood of those gifts and en- 
 dowments of any kind, which proceed from the Deity, 
 and in which, we may be said to imitate, or resem- 
 ble, the one God; and accordingly, it is often applied 
 to men of distinguished worth and excellence, for 
 their superior knowledge, wisdom, piety, and great 
 abilities, or to such as were Ssoirvsosot divinely illumi- 
 nated. Thus it is used in various languages, and by 
 various writers. And this divinity, is eminently 
 ascribed to the man Christ Jesus. He was, truly 
 speaking, a divine person. Grace was poured into 
 his lips, and he spake as never man spake. (Psalms, 
 xiv. 2. John vii. 46. Luke iv. 22.) The spirit of 
 the Lord was upon him, and he was replenished 
 with all the divine gifts. In this light we just- 
 ly reverence his divine character, and are called to 
 pay all due honour to him, as the person whom his 
 Father hath honoured, and to whom he hath given a 
 name above every name. 
 
 " To say, therefore, as some have done/' [but ne- 
 ver that I have noticed any approved writer in our 
 Society,] " that the godhead of the Father, dwelt 
 personally in the man Christ Jesus, or that God and 
 man were so united, as to form one complex person, 
 or one intellectual, compound being, is very absurd, 
 as well as altogether unscriptural. * His infinitude 
 and immensity forbid the thought, that he should 
 ever assume any human soul and body, into a per- 
 sonal union with himself. And this is the express 
 declared sentiment of that very Being, with whom 
 he is said to be in personal union.' * I come, says 
 
 Y 
 
162 
 
 he, not to do my own will, but the will of him that 
 sent me. Not my will, but thinf be done.' " Doctrinf 
 of the New Testament, &c. p. 250 — 232. 
 
 As to your quotations and references, to passages 
 in the Yearly Meeting Epistles, after atfentively 
 reading those passages, I am unable to discover, 
 how any of them can apply to the points at issue 
 between us, or upon what intelligible principle the 
 selection was made. I know not, that I ever ob- 
 jected to more than two of those passages, and that, 
 on account of their being incorrect quotations from 
 scripture, viz. the last paragraphs in the Epistles, for 
 1758, and 1759. 
 
 The paper you left with me, No. 2, (inserted p. 
 92, 93,) whatever other merits it may have, is not, I 
 think, at all pertinent to the occasion. It was in- 
 tended to give me your united judgment, whether 
 you understood that divinity was ascribed, according 
 to the doctrines of our Society, to the man Christ 
 Jesus, or to that divine power which dwelt in, and 
 acted by him? Instead of giving me any clear an- 
 swer to this plain question, you say—" We here 
 mean the spiritual body of Christ, which he told the 
 Jews except they partook of, they had no life in them." 
 What is that to the purpose, excepting so far as 
 the use of this highly figurative language, may serve 
 to render your meaning obscure to others, if not to 
 yourselves also? The first part of this phraseology 
 seems to be borrowed from Barclay's 5th and 6th 
 Prop. § 13, the latter part of it, from John vi. 53. 
 As to Barclay's use of those terms, or those with 
 which he begins this section, it may suffice to shew, 
 (without going into an irrelevant enquiry, what he 
 did mean by them,) in what sense he himself de- 
 clares, he didnot use them, nor, according to his testi- 
 mony, did those with whom he teas joined in religions 
 fellowship. He says, " By this seed, grace, and 
 wordofGod 9 and light, wherewith, we say, every 
 
163 
 
 one is enlightened — we understand not, the proper 
 essence and nature of God, precisely taken; which is 
 not divisible into parts, or measures, as being a most 
 pure, simple Being, void of all composition, or divi- 
 sion, and therefore can neither be resisted, hurt, 
 wounded, crucified, or slain, by all the efforts and 
 strength of men." 
 
 Having thus disclaimed the use of such like ex- 
 pressions, as speaking of " the proper essence and na- 
 ture of God, precisely taken;" and thereby very pro- 
 perly guarding himself against being misunderstood, 
 he adds, — 
 
 " But we understand a spiritual, heavenly, and 
 invisible principle, in which God, as Father, Son, 
 a?id Spirit, dwells; a measure of which divine and 
 glorious life, is in all men, as a seed, which of its 
 own nature draws, invites, and inclines to God ; 
 and this some call vehiculum Dei, or the spiritual 
 body of Christ, the flesh and blood of Christ, which 
 came down from heaven ; of which all the saints do 
 feed, and are thereby nourished unto eternal life." 
 
 Hence it seems evident, that by the terms, " the 
 spiritual body of Christ," Barclay did not mean to de- 
 signate that "most pure, simple Being" whom he de- 
 nominates, Prop. 2, § 5, " the infinite and most wise 
 God, who is the foundation, root, and spring of all 
 operation " 
 
 By referring to the 2nd section, of the 13th Prop, 
 you may find the same argument much enlarged 
 upon, and expressly extended to that typical " spi- 
 ritual rock, yy of which you next speak. 
 
 How far the following subject is judiciously con- 
 nected by you, with the foregoing, 1 shall refer to 
 your reconsideration. It relates to the introduction of 
 the gospel, according to John the evangelist, on 
 which I submit to you the following brief comment- 
 ary of an able defender of Christianity. 
 
 " In the beginning ivas the word. By beginning, 1 
 
164 
 
 think cannot be intended the beginning of the gospel, 
 but of the creation, or rather always, from eternity 
 was the word. And the word was zvith God; that is, 
 was always with God, though not fully manifested, 
 till these last days of the world. And the word was 
 God; which sometimes has been rendered thus, And 
 God was the word. — I am of opinion, that God here, 
 is the same God that was mentioned before. St John 
 useth a gradation. First he says, the word was al- 
 ways, before all time. Then he adds, and was with 
 God: and lastly, that he was God himself. What 
 follows, confirms this interpretation ; v. 3 All things 
 were made by him, and without him was not any 
 thing made that was made. Who should this be, but 
 God the Father, the one living and true God, and 
 author of life and all being ? Are there more crea- 
 tors than one ? Would any Jew, or disciple of Jesus, 
 ascribe the creation of the world to any but God, or 
 his reason, or understanding, or discretion, his wis- 
 dom, his power, his word, his spirit, which is the 
 same as God himself ? v. 10. He teas in the world, 
 and the world was made by him. This needs no com- 
 ment, v. 11. He came to his own, and his own re- 
 ceived him not. I pray, whose people were the Jews' 
 but God's ; his, who styled himself Jehovah ? He 
 now came in Jesus, to his own people : but they re- 
 ceived him not. St. John, therefore, intends the 
 one true God, not any inferior deity ." Lardner, 
 on the Logos, p. 23, 24, 2o. Unitarian Tracts, 
 Vol. VI. 
 
 As to your allusion to John i. 14. I have no ob- 
 jection to it, at least not to the text, correctly ren- 
 dered. And I perfectly agree with you, that the 
 many miracles which Christ wrought on earth, are to 
 be ascribed to the power of the Father within him. 
 Such I take to be your meaning, though it is some- 
 what obscurely expressed. Yet I cannot think it 
 was this power " which was accused by the Jews/' 
 
To5 
 
 font u the man Christ Jesus." See Matt, xxvii. If. 
 Mark xv. 2. Luke xxiii. 10. and John xviii. 29. 
 30. The same true and real man in soul and body, 
 who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and raised 
 up again 6y the glorious power of the Father. See 
 Rom. vi. 4. 
 
 You say, speaking of " the spiritual body of 
 Christ" whose " outward body suffered death, but 
 was raised up again the third day,, which," that is, 
 in strict grammatical construction, which outward 
 body, " ascended up far above all heavens, filling all 
 things, and upholding all things by the word of his 
 power.'* This surely cannot have been your mean- 
 ing : [which, on reading this passage, the committee 
 acknowledged] and if so, I added, the conscious- 
 ness of your own fallibility in this, and other in- 
 stances, while sitting in judgment on the supposed 
 theological errors of a fellow professor of faith in 
 Christ Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant, 
 should make you sensibly feel, the need there is for 
 the extension of mutual toleration, if you really 
 think it desirable to preserve " the unity of the spirit 
 in the bond of peace." 
 
 In this paper you have very confusedly put toge- 
 ther, a portion of five very important texts of scrip* 
 ture, interlarding them with matter of your own, with- 
 out giving any reference to either, or in any manner 
 distinguishing your additions and alterations, from 
 the language of the sacred writers. The texts you 
 have thus treated, are, Eph. iv. 10. Heb. i. 3. — x. 
 14. 1 Pet. i. 2. and Heb. ix. 28. Pray look at these 
 texts, and the context of each attentively, and then 
 decide for yourselves how far you have given in this 
 paper, the real sense of those passages. They are 
 much too important to be passed over in silence, as 
 you have thus presented them to my notice. 
 
 The first, is thus Tendered in the received version. 
 " He [Christ] that descended, is the same that as- 
 
166 
 
 cended up far above all heavens, that he might fill," 
 (or as the margin has it) "fulfil all things." It is 
 not very material, which is the true reading ; as the 
 intent of the apostle is so well explained in the six 
 following verses. His argument in the ninth and 
 tenth verses, is so perspicuously stated by John 
 Locke in the latter part of a most judicious note on 
 this passage, that I cannot forbear quoting it. He 
 states it to be, " That Christ, the same Jesus that 
 died, and was laid in his grave, was exalted to the 
 right hand of God, above all the heavens, in the 
 highest state of dignity and power ; that he him- 
 self, being filled with the fulness of God, believers, 
 who were all his members, might receive immediate- 
 ly from him, their head, a fulness of gifts and graces, 
 upon no other terms, but barely as they were his 
 members." See also Locke's paraphrase on the 
 whole chapter, and Fox's Doctrinals, p. 430. 
 
 Whatever may be the true meaning of the words 
 you have selected from Heb. i. 3. viz. that which 
 was present to the mind of the sacred penman, when 
 he wrote that passage, it may, I should think, be 
 safely inferred, that it ought to be so understood as to 
 be consistent with the two preceding verses, and that 
 which follows. By the former we are assured that 
 " God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, 
 spake in time past unto the fathers, by the prophets, 
 hath, in these last days spoken unto us, by his Son, 
 whom he hath appointed heir of all things." By the 
 latter verse it appears, that the person so appointed, 
 was " made so much better than the angels, as he 
 hath, by inheritance, obtained a more excellent 
 name than they." Is not this plainly to describe the 
 power of the Son, however great and glorious, as 
 delegated and conferred, not as original and wide- 
 rived. 
 
 The real import of the next text you have quoted 
 a part of, with a needless addition of your own, is 
 
167 
 
 So obvious by only prefixing the two preceding verses 
 to it, as to render any comment unnecessary. — Viz. 
 "But this man, (Jesus Christ,) after he had offered 
 one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right 
 hand of God. From henceforth expecting, till his 
 enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering 
 he hath perfected for ever, them that are sanctified/' 
 Rom. x. 12. 13. 14. 
 
 Your next selection seems to have been made 
 from 1 Pet. i. 2. but not very correctly. The three 
 first verses of which chapter, contain so just, accurate, 
 clear and comprehensive a view of the nature of the 
 gospel dispensation, as to need no illustration. 
 To which, as well comporting therewith, I shall 
 add the last text cited in your paper, but more 
 correctly than you have quoted it. — Viz. 
 
 " Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers 
 scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, 
 Asia and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknow- 
 ledge of God the Father, through sanctification 
 of the spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the 
 blood of Jesus Christ : Grace unto you and peace 
 be multiplied. Blessed be the God and Father 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, which, according to his 
 abundant mercy, hath begotten us again unto a live- 
 ly hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the 
 dead. And unto them that look for him shall he ap- 
 pear the second time without sin unto salvation." 
 Heb. ix. 28. 
 
 As to your first list of references to texts of Scrip- 
 ture, in the paper you gave me, No III. [inserted in 
 p. 155.] I have only to say, that till I know in what 
 sense you therein use the term " omnipotence," I 
 cannot so well speak to your view of the subject. 
 As to mine, they appear, on examining all the texts 
 referred to, entirely inapplicable. 
 
 Of the other list of references in the same paper to 
 eleven texts, there are three which have been long 
 
168 
 
 considered by the ablest biblical critics, to be erro- 
 neously rendered in the received version ; viz Acts 
 xx. 28. Rom. ix. 5. and 1 Tim. iii. 16. Nor do 
 any of the others seem relevant to the professed ob- 
 ject of the selection. The term " godhead, " I think r 
 occurs in the Scriptures but three times ; viz. Acts 
 xvii. 29- Rom. i. 20. and Col. ii. 9- In the two 
 first texts it is expressly applied to God, and not to 
 Christ. And in the latter, the in-dwelling of the 
 fulness, or the spirit of God in Christ, is alone assert- 
 ed. " For in him dvvelleth, all the fulness of the 
 godhead bodily" that is, really and substantially ', 
 as his divine sayings and mighty works evinced in 
 the most signal and conspicuous manner. You have 
 not noticed either of these texts ; and that most of 
 those you have referred to, are not to the purpose for 
 which you have adduced them, is, I think, plain 
 from the passages themselves, or their immediate 
 context. 
 
 For instance, when Jesus said, " / and my Fa- 
 ther are one," can his meaning be at all dubious, 
 when he had just before declared, as recorded in the 
 preceding verse, " My Father is greater than all?" 
 As to the three verses you have adduced from the 
 17th chapter of John, verses 1 1. 21 . 22. 1 wish you to 
 consider seriously, and attentively, whether they do 
 not all imply, that the disciples of Christ maybe one, 
 as he and his Father are one? In the first of these 
 verses, Christ is said to have prayed to the Father, 
 " that they maybe one, as we are." In the second, 
 " that they may be one, as thou Father art in me, 
 and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." And 
 in the third, " that they may be one, even as we are 
 one." That is, in like manner, although not in the 
 like degree. You do not, I suppose, infer from these 
 texts, that the unity of Christ's disciples here spok- 
 en of, however perfect, was to be a personal union ? 
 But rather a oneness of faith in the Son of God, 
 
169 
 
 «' that they may be made perfect in one, and that 
 the world may know, that thou, (Father) hast sent 
 me," says Christ, "and hast loved them, as thou 
 hast loved me" v. 23. 
 
 Before you referred to I Tim. ii. 3. for such a pur- 
 pose, you should, I think, have looked two verses 
 lower down, where you might have seen of whom 
 the apostle spoke in the third verse, and how clearly 
 he distinguishes the " one God," or " God our 
 Saviour," from the " one mediator between God 
 and men, the man Christ Jesus." 
 
 To the general pertinency of your selection of texts 
 in the paper, (No. 4. for which see p. 135,) in order 
 to prove that Jesus Christ is " worthy of glory, ho- 
 nour, dominion and praise," I fully agree ; and also 
 that a much more copious list of appropriate and au- 
 thentic texts might easily be adduced in support of 
 that conclusion. But how you could imagine, the in- 
 troduction of that paper at all relevant to any ques- 
 tion that has ever been agitated between us, or how 
 it can apply to any " opinions" I have " imbibed" 
 or " aided in propagating," I am wholly at a loss to 
 conjecture. Nevertheless, as said the apostle, 1 Cor, 
 xi. 3. " I would have you know, that the head 
 of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman 
 is the man ; and the head of Christ is God." 
 
 On reading the foregoing extracts from Lardner's 
 Letter on the Logos, p. 1 63 — 4, Henry Knight observ- 
 ed, that no notice was taken of that verse, which said 
 the word was made flesh. On which I reminded the 
 committee of my offer to lend them the work, to 
 look over at their leisure. Had they accepted it, 
 they might have seen the author had not passed it 
 over in silence, and with their leave I would read to 
 them Lardner's remarks on that text, which I did as 
 follows: — 
 
 " And the word tvas made flesh, and dwelt among 
 us : that is, as before shewn. * And the word was 
 
170 
 
 made man, or took upon him the human nature/ 
 And we beheld his glory , the glory as of the only begot- 
 ten of the Father, full of grace and truth. That is, 
 And we beheld in Jesus such power, and wisdom, 
 that we could not doubt his being the Messiah. 
 
 " That St. John intends the Lord Jesus, is evident 
 from what he adds in the 15th verse. John bare 
 witness of him, and cried, saying, This is he, of 
 whom I spake. He that cometh after me, is pre- 
 ferred before me. 
 
 " And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. 
 And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only be- 
 gotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. This 
 is the same, which, in other words, is said in divers 
 texts of the New Testament. Matt. i. 20, 23. And 
 she shall bring forth a Son. And thou shalt call his 
 name Jesus. Now all this was done, that it might 
 be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the 
 prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall conceive, and 
 shall bring forth a son. And they shall call his name 
 Emmanuel, which is, God with us. And John iii. 
 34, 35. For he whom God hath sent, speaketh the 
 words of God. For God giveth not the spirit by 
 measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, 
 and hath given all things into his hand. Col. i. 19. 
 For it pleased the Father, that in him should all ful- 
 ness dwell. And chap. ii. In whom are hid all 
 the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. And ver. 
 19. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the God- 
 head bodily. 
 
 "And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only 
 begotten of the Father. As before hinted, it was 
 not the word, which St. John and others beheld, but 
 Jesus, in whom the word dwelled. Him they be- 
 held. And his greatness was conspicuous : so that 
 he appeared, and they knew him, to be, the only 
 begotten of the Father, or the Messiah/' p. 27, 28. 
 Having read the above extract, the [Monthly 
 
I7i 
 
 Meeting's] committee observed, they had no objec- 
 tion to make to those passages. And to my obser- 
 vations on their M. S. papers, they made very little 
 comment of any sort, so that they left me to my 
 own conjectures, how far they were satisfactory to 
 them, or otherwise. 
 
 When the foregoing extract from Paul Cardale's 
 True Doctrine of the New Testament, concerning 
 Jesus Christ, was reading, to the Quarterly Meet- 
 ing's committee, Luke Howard enquired, whe- 
 ther I meant to imply unqualified approbation of 
 that work, from the terms in which I had spoken 
 of it, which he thought nearly imported as much. I 
 told him, I did not intend so to express myself, and 
 thought I had not, that I was not accustomed to de- 
 clare unqualified approbation so much in the lump. 
 
 When I had nearly finished reading the extract 
 from that work, concerning the proper import of the 
 term "divinity " p. 160 — 162, he enquired, very ear- 
 nestly, whether the passage contained an accurate 
 statement of my sentiments, or whether I was only 
 amusing them with a theological lecture ? He 
 thought it was important to ascertain this point, 
 and that the committee had a right to know, in 
 which light I laid it before them, as, if those were 
 my sentiments, as he supposed, by the manner in 
 which the extract was introduced, they might ma- 
 terially affect the committee's decision. It was 
 their business to discover, whether I held such opi- 
 nions, as I was charged with having imbibed, or not ? 
 
 1 told the committee, it appeared to me, that the 
 passage was sound and scriptural, but that the point 
 at issue between the respondents and myself was 
 not, whether in replying to their accusations I might 
 express myself incautiously, or unguardedly, but 
 whether the ground on which I was accused, before 
 the Monthly Meeting, justified my disownmcnt. Nor 
 could I imagine, it was within their province, as 
 judges of my appeal, to decide upon such evidence, 
 
m 
 
 as I brought forward in my defence, unless so far as 
 that evidence was in my favour. The other side of 
 the question ought, in equity and justice, to be 
 wholly made out by the respondents. I assured 
 the committee, if I had supposed they could have 
 thought of making such a use of any part of my de- 
 fence, they should never have heard one line of my 
 minutes. 
 
 I adduced them because I thought it the most 
 candid way of laying before the committee, the 
 manner in which 1 had been treated. But I looked 
 to them, to decide between the respondents and 
 myself, not on any subsequent errors, into which I 
 might have been betrayed in replying to their 
 charges, but on such previous errors, as it was in 
 their power to prove, 1 had imbibed, and aided in 
 propagating, and that upon the two specific points 
 on which I was accused, and on those only. To the 
 introduction of any other, I had all along objectecl, 
 as unreasonable, inquisitorial, and unjust. The 
 length of the discussion had arisen from this conduct 
 of the respondents ; it would otherwise, compara- 
 tively, have laid in a nut-shell. 
 
 Two or three of the committee observed, that 
 what Luke Howard had said, was only to be con- 
 sidered as his sentiments, and not those of the com- 
 mittee, and about the same number seemed to ap- 
 prove them. The committee adjourned to the next 
 day, at three in the afternoon, to meet at Devon- 
 shire House. 
 
 QUARTERLY MEETING^ COMMITTEE, 
 
 11th Month, 4th, 1812. Fourth Sitting. 
 Sixteen of the Committee present. 
 
 When I was called upon to proceed with my de- 
 fence, I observed, that I felt considerable hesitation 
 in proceeding farther in the course I had already 
 
173 
 
 pursued, but as I had laid before the committee, 
 my minutes of the three first conferences with the 
 Monthly Meeting's committee, and those of the last 
 conference were comparatively short, I thought it 
 might be as well to read those also. 
 
 The committee expressing their readiness to hear, 
 whatever I might incline to lay before them, I read 
 my minutes of that conference, Feb. 18th, 1812, from 
 which I shall lay before the reader, the following 
 extracts: 
 
 After a short pause, John Harris said, the object 
 of their visit was very similar to the former, which 
 was to know, whether any thing they had said, had 
 induced me to alter my sentiments ? 
 
 I replied, that I was much surprised at their put- 
 ting such a question to me, as it appeared to imply 
 an almost total forgetfulness of what passed at our 
 last conference. That I was unable to recal to my 
 recollection, one argument they had used at all likely 
 to produce a change of sentiment, in any rational 
 mind. If they recollected any, which appeared to 
 them calculated to produce such any effect, I re- 
 quested they would mention what they were. 
 
 This they declining to do, I told them, that put- 
 ting such a question to me, at the commencement 
 of our conference, shewed the necessity of reviewing 
 what occurred at their last visit. For this purpose, 
 I proposed reading, not the papers I then read, but 
 the minutes I made of the verbal conferences be- 
 tween us, respecting them. They objected to my 
 doing this, and I did not urge it, observing, it ap- 
 peared to me almost hopeless, to expect that we 
 should by any farther conferences, come to a mu- 
 tual understanding of each others sentiments. I was 
 well persuaded, they did not understand mine, and I 
 certainly did not theirs. 
 
 They replied, they thought they did understand 
 mine, and Richard Bowman asserted, the reason 
 
174 
 
 why I did not understand theirs, was because I 
 would not ! 
 
 I assured them, that was not the case, and re- 
 quested to be informed, what replies they had to give 
 to the queries I submitted to them, in writing, at 
 our last conference ? To which they answered^ the 
 only reply we have to give, is, to refer thee to the 
 papers we before left with thee. 
 
 Those papers, 1 replied, I thought you were con- 
 vinced, at our last conference, were mostly irrele- 
 vant to the professed purposes for which they were 
 drawn up, and they contain, in my mind, ample 
 proof that you do not clearly understand the sub- 
 jects, you have undertaken to discuss. I am quite 
 willing, if you are, to rest the matters at issue be- 
 tween us, to the constitutional judges of your con- 
 duct, and mine, upon those papers, and the written 
 replies to them which you have heard. These re- 
 plies they asserted, were, for the most part, not to 
 the purpose, being chiefly made up of extraneous 
 matter, very improperly introduced. Whether they 
 were, or not, I told them, I was willing should be 
 decided by any competent judges, whose province 
 it might become, to determine between us. 
 
 After this, one of the committee adverted to my 
 being a member of the London Unitarian Book Soci- 
 ety, observing, that the first book in the catalogue, 
 annexed to its Book of Rules, was calculated to sub- 
 vert the principal truths of the Christian religion. 
 
 I did not, at first, understand what work they re- 
 ferred to, but I at length found it was the Improved 
 Version of the New Testament! The first ground 
 they alleged for this heavy charge, was the general 
 tenor of the notes on the first chapters of Matthew 
 and Luke, respecting the narratives of the miraculous 
 conception of Christ. To which they added, that 
 those notes were also intended to invalidate the doc- 
 
175 
 
 trines of the pre-existence and eternal divinity of 
 Christ. 
 
 They then proceeded to interrogate me as to my 
 belief in those tenets, repeating part of the first 
 verses of the gospel, according to John, by way of 
 explaining what they meant, by the latter doctrines. 
 I told them, I believed the truth of the text, but re- 
 minded them, with a degree of warmth, which they 
 deemed improper, and unbecoming the occasion, of 
 their repeated attempts to put such sort of ensnaring 
 questions to me, and of my positive and repeated refu- 
 sal to answer them. That it was to aim at the exercise 
 of a power, which no rule of the Yearly Meeting 
 warranted, and that even if there were such a rule, 
 it would be more honoured in the breach, than the 
 observance. That their sentiments, in regard to 
 Christian liberty, and the rights of private judgment, 
 were widely different from mine, and that, from such 
 acquaintance as I had with ecclesiastical history, 
 within the boundaries of the more limited powers 
 they possessed, their claims to the exercise of an 
 inquisitorial jurisdiction, appeared to me, very simi- 
 lar to that which the Romish church authorised, 
 during the darkest ages it had ever known, 
 
 The committee denied the justice of this compa- 
 rison, but without pointing out in what respects it 
 was inapplicable, and observed, that unless I would 
 answer the questions they put to me, their visit was 
 not likely to answer any good purpose! 
 
 I replied, they should adduce any evidence they 
 had it in their power to bring forward against me, 
 as I had repeatedly told them, and not rely for evi- 
 dence, as they had done all along, on the answers 
 I might give, to their insidious, and inquisitorial 
 enquiries. 
 
 Samuel Marsh said, it was>$Rfcnt, their senti- 
 ments and mine, were widely different, as 1 had ac- 
 knowledged. On which I reminded him of the im- 
 
176 
 
 port of my words, I had said no such thing in refe* 
 rence to matters of doctrine, respecting which, { 
 thought we did not rightly understand each other, 
 but with regard to the proper boundaries of Chris- 
 tian liberty, and the rights of private judgment, we 
 did indeed differ very widely in our opinions. John 
 Harris admitted, that my observations, to which Sam- 
 uel Marsh had referred, were distinctly applied, as I 
 stated. 
 
 Richard Bowman remarked, it was plain J refused 
 to be catechised by them. I answered, I shall persist 
 in such refusal. 
 
 Notwithstanding this, they once more questioned 
 me, whether I was not the author of the work sign- 
 ed Verax, which they asserted had a tendency to 
 subvert most of the principles of the Society of 
 Friends ! 
 
 I told them, my refusal to say, whether I was,, or 
 not, arose from no fear of any charge they could 
 bring against me, on this account, if they knew I 
 had written those works, but because it was a sub- 
 ject not referred to their care. And as they had 
 several times before, adverted to my conduct, re- 
 specting Hannah Barnard, I would shew them a 
 quarto volume in M.S. containing my correspon- 
 dence with Frederick Smith, on that subject, which 
 took place near ten years ago, and this would shew, 
 that I had by no means shrunk from enquiry into 
 it, at that time. Nor should I now, if it was regu- 
 larly brought forward. I transcribed the said cor- 
 respondence, and had the same bound, for the in- 
 formation of any Friends, who might wish to see it. 
 They looked over some pages of the M. S. but made 
 no remarks. 
 
 The committee expressed a desire to break up 
 the conference, as I refused to answer their ques- 
 tions, although I had put so many to them. And 
 
177 
 
 Richard Bowman said, I had furnished them with 
 nothing else but questions. 
 
 I replied, it was true I had put a number of ques- 
 tions to them, arising out of their accusations, very 
 few of which, they had even attempted to answer, 
 nor did I think, they had given me a clear explicit 
 answer, even to one. 
 
 Richard Bowman observed, that was, as I thought, 
 they thought differently. Before they left me, I told 
 them, I would submit to their consideration, the 
 following dilemma, in order to extricate myself from 
 which, I requested their assistance. 
 
 At the first conference I had with Henry Knight, 
 he asserted as related in p. 2, that 1 Tim. vi. 13, 16, 
 represents Christ, " as the blessed and only Poten- 
 tate, — who only hath immortality." I told him, it 
 was evident to me, that the apostle applied those 
 terms to God, and not to Christ. I was aware, at 
 that time, that the Yearly Meeting Epistle, for 
 1760, asserts the same thing, but I shall scarcely 
 ever forget, whilst the faculty of memory lasts, the 
 astonishment I felt, on first reading the passage, last 
 spring. I had long been conversant with the Epis- 
 tles to 1759, in which, I am fully persuaded, nothing 
 of the kind can be found. 
 
 The assertion, that Christ is so styled in the 
 scriptures, is either true or false, which any person, 
 who has access to the text, may examine and judge 
 of, for himself. This is the mode I should prefer, 
 in all such cases, but to meet you, on your own 
 principles, as I have since discovered, what I con- 
 sider, a sound and scriptural exposition of this text, 
 by one of our approved authors, I wish to know, 
 which you think I ought to receive, as the true con- 
 struction, that of the Yearly Meeting Epistle, for 
 1760, contrary to my own conscience and judg- 
 ment, or Joseph Besse's excellent " Doxology," 
 as it appears to me, being the concluding paragraph 
 a a 
 
178 
 
 of his two folio volumes, of the sufferings of the 
 people called Quakers, published in 1753, which ac- 
 cords with both, and is as follows : 
 
 " To the Lord, our God, who only hath immor- 
 tality, and dwelleth in the light, the inexhaustible 
 Fountain of all power, and knowledge, who giveth 
 strength to the weak, and understanding to the sim- 
 ple, from whom alone, through Jesus Christ, our 
 Saviour, and Redeemer, proceedeth all our ability 
 for the performance of every good work, be all glory, 
 praise, thanksgiving, and dominion, rendered and 
 ascribed ; now, henceforth, and through all genera- 
 tions. Amen." 
 
 The committee declined saying, which construc- 
 tion of the text, they thought it right for me to re- 
 ceive, under these circumstances. But Samuel 
 Marsh said, it was clear I did not understand it, as 
 the Yearly Meeting had done. This 1 readily grant- 
 ed. Henry Knight observed, that the chief differ- 
 ence between us, was, that Friends made no distinc- 
 tion between the Son, and the Father, but considered 
 them as the same Being, or Person, * whereas, the 
 Unitarians, did make a distinction between them. 
 I replied, that was manifestly to represent the Soci- 
 ety as holding, what was usually called, Sabellian- 
 ism. Soon after this, the committee departed, with- 
 out proposing another conference. 
 
 When I had read the minutes of my last confer- 
 ence with the Monthly Meeting's committee, I ad- 
 verted to the discussion which my quotation from 
 Paul Cardale, occcasioned yesterday evening. On 
 this I had written a letter to the committee, which, 
 with their permission, I would read in the presence 
 of the respondents, and then put it into their hands 
 for consideration. 
 
179 
 
 TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE QUARTERLY 
 MEETING, 
 
 On the Appeal of Thomas Foster. 
 
 Dear Friends, 
 
 From the very unexpected declaration, several of 
 you made, on my reading to you, yesterday evening, 
 an extract from Paul Cardale's " True Doctrine of the 
 New Testament, concerning Jesus Christ," 1 am, on 
 subsequent reflection thereon, satisfied with the pro- 
 priety, and necessity, of my explicitly informing you, 
 that in conformity to the terms of your own propos- 
 ing, that I should be at liberty to draw a pencil mark 
 through any part of my minutes, left in your hands 
 for perusal, that on deliberate consideration, I did 
 not chuse to stand, as part of my defence ; I hereby, 
 with all due deference and respect, give you notice, 
 to consider me as having so done, with regard to 
 every part of such minutes, as may not, in your 
 judgment, contribute to my defence. They were 
 only intended for that purpose, and cannot, J con- 
 ceive, be equitably applied to any other. I have no 
 objection to the respondents making out as strong a 
 case, against me, as may be in their power, relative 
 to the publicity I have given to the Remarks on the 
 Yearly Meeting Epistle for 1810, and to my being a 
 subscriber to the London Unitarian Book Society, 
 the only charges alleged against me, to Ratcliff 
 Monthly Meeting, and on which only were the com- 
 mittee, whose report is before you, appointed to 
 visit me. On these points, you will not find me 
 backward, in giving you every reasonable informa- 
 tion you may require^ but I do object to entering 
 upon any other topics, after what has passed, at least, 
 upon interrogatories, for it would be, in my mind, to 
 deprive you so far, of the honourable character of 
 judges of an appeal, and in the same proportion, ren- 
 
130 
 
 deryou a court of inquisition, to which I should be 
 unwilling to contribute, full as much from the real 
 regard I feel for your reputation, and that of the So- 
 ciety, as from any personal considerations that relate 
 to,myself. 
 
 I am, respectfully, your sincere, well-wishing 
 friend, 
 
 Thomas Foster. 
 Bromley ■, Nov. 4>th, 1812. 
 
 When my letter had been read, the respondents 
 and myself, with Thomas Compton, who kindly ac- 
 companied me, were requested to withdraw. On 
 our being again admitted, Luke Howard informed 
 me that he considered himself alone accountable for 
 the expressions to which I had alluded in my letter. 
 The committee had not confirmed them by any deci- 
 sion of theirs, but disapproved them. He wished me 
 to re-state what I understood he did say, and what 
 other members of the committee, had expressed them- 
 selves to the same effect. 
 
 I replied, I understood he said that it was of much 
 importance to ascertain whether that quotation were 
 intended by me to be understood as containing my 
 sentiments ; as, if it were, it might materially affect 
 the ultimate judgment of the committee ; with which 
 I understood one or two others of the committee had 
 expressed their concurrence. And one of them to 
 have extended the same inference to all the quota- 
 tions I had introduced. That, being near-sighted, I 
 could not say which of the committee did speak to 
 that effect ; but at length it was admitted that William 
 Forster had so expressed himself. 
 
 Luke Howard represented that he had not said it 
 might materially affect, but that it would necessarily 
 enter into their consideration, in deciding, to the best 
 of their judgment, between the parties. And he hoped 
 I should be quite satisfied, as the committee disap- 
 
181 
 
 proved the sentiment, and censured him for express* 
 ing it. In another part of my letter, he thought a 
 circumstance was not quite correctly stated. It re- 
 lated to the proposal which had been made on two 
 several occasions, for me to draw a pencil-mark 
 through certain parts of such papers as I left with 
 them for perusal. 
 
 I admitted having imputed to him the use of the 
 words he disclaimed, recollecting on his mentioning 
 them, that the words he used were such as he now 
 stated. Yet 1 trusted the committee would give me 
 credit, for not intentionally misrepresenting any thing 
 they or the respondents said. No person of common 
 sense, standing in such a situation as I did, before 
 so many witnesses of what passed, could venture 
 upon wilful misrepresentation, provided he was des- 
 titute of any principle of integrity to restrain him 
 from so doing. I well recollected the two occasions 
 he meni.oned ; but those were not the proposal to 
 which my letter referred. That was made very soon 
 after I commenced reading my minutes, and I un- 
 derstood it to be such as I had stated in my letter. 
 
 John Eliot, Jun. very candidly observed, that he 
 recollected the proposal to which I alluded, and the 
 only misapprehension concerning it appeared to be, 
 that the committee meant those pencil-marks should 
 be drawn through such parts of my papers as I did 
 not read to the committee ; whereas, I understood it 
 extended to such as I might have read, and after- 
 wards wished to withdraw, as part of my defence. 
 
 I told the committee 1 so understood their propo- 
 sal, but that my letter would shew, I did not sup- 
 pose them to have come to any decision, as a com- 
 mittee, on the sentiment of Luke Howard's, which 
 induced rae to write it. That 1 was so fully impress- 
 ed with the danger of misconceiving each other's sen- 
 timents, upon points of speculative belief owing to 
 to the ambiguity or imperfection of language, and 
 
1S2 
 
 the inaccurate use of it, that I had always, as the re* 
 spondents knew, attributed much of the apparent 
 contrariety of sentiment between us, on those points, 
 to that fruitful source of dissention. That I consi- 
 dered them as arising much more from grammatical 
 errors, in the use of words, than from any substan- 
 tial difference of opinion, upon points of faith. 
 
 It should be recollected, that words were only the 
 arbitrary signs of our ideas, and unless the sense in 
 which those words were respectively used by any 
 two parties were accurately ascertained, there was 
 no certainty whatever that such persons rightly un- 
 derstood each other. The respondents knew I had 
 urged this point upon them, from day to day, through- 
 out the whole of our conferences, but to no effect. 
 For they had uniformly resisted every attempt which 
 I made, to induce them to explain the terms they 
 used in their written charges against me. 
 
 As to the quotations I had made from the works 
 of the learned and eminently pious Lardner, with 
 whose character, as an able defender of our common 
 Christianity, many of the committee must, I pre- 
 sumed, be well acquainted ; or those from the writ- 
 ings of Cardale or of any other person, I did not 
 mean to measure the truth of Scripture doctrine by 
 such quotations, but to estimate their truth % the sacred 
 writings. That great and benevolent Being, who had 
 called all mankind into existence, had been pleased 
 to bestow upon them, different characters of mind and 
 different powers of perception, with regard to moral 
 and religious truth. Hence had arisen much appa- 
 rent, and some real contrariety of sentiment on these 
 important subjects, even between wise, good and 
 pious men. But these unavoidable differences of 
 opinion, afforded no just reason, why we should not 
 live together in love and harmony, as became Chris- 
 tian brethren. 
 
 A little farther to explain my sentiments on the 
 
18S 
 
 matter, I would first suppose a person to have been 
 disowned, in a regular, orderly manner, for openly 
 professing to reject any, or all of the most important 
 tenets of the gospel, and soon after to exhibit the 
 most unequivocal marks of sincere repentance, and, 
 in this state of mind to be injudicious enough, to ap- 
 peal against such a judgment of a Monthly Meeting. 
 Should such a person clothe himself, as with a garment, 
 with the most orthodox profession of faith that could 
 be imagined, it would not^have the weight of a feather, 
 as an argument for setting aside the judgment against 
 which he appealed. 
 
 On the other hand, supposing a person to have 
 been disowned on insufficient grounds, or the pro- 
 ceedings against him not to have been accordant 
 with the letter and spirit of the established rules, and 
 the immutable principles of justice. No error he 
 may be subsequently led into, and especially in the 
 course of his defence, however gross, ought in jus- 
 tice to be taken into consideration by his judges, in 
 deciding upon his appeal. They may possibly form 
 good ground for instituting a fresh proceeding; but 
 the judgment ought, in both cases, to rest on the 
 establishment of the original accusation, and the re- 
 gularity of the proceedings. 
 
 I therefore objected to the committee deciding be- 
 tween the respondents and myself, on any other 
 grounds than the two distinct charges exhibited a- 
 gainst me to the Monthly Meeting, 12th month, 
 19th last, as no others whatever were then alleged 
 against me. 
 
 I could not readily imagine a more gross violation 
 of justice, than to put a man upon his trial on certain 
 charges, and to adduce against him in the course of a, 
 judicial inquiry into these, fresh matters of accusation. 
 
 Several of the committee expressed their concur- 
 rence with this sentiment, and especially John Eliot 
 Jun. On which Richard Bowman observed, he 
 
184 
 
 did not quite understand the proposition, to which se- 
 veral of the committee seemed to accede, in a manner 
 that appeared to imply some censure on the respond- 
 ents. He therefore requested me to restate the pro- 
 position ; which 1 did, saying I had before stated it, 
 as a general principle, which I considered to be 
 sound and obligatory on all persons who sat in judg- 
 ment. In the soundness of this principle several of 
 the committee had expressed their concurrence, but 
 they had given no opinion whatever, as to its appli- 
 cation to the case at issue between the respondents 
 and myself. It was admitted by all who spoke on 
 the subject, that I had stated it correctly. 
 
 The respondents being called on by the committee 
 to reply, one of them observed, that a person mak- 
 ing minutes of such conferences would be likely to 
 omit some things, and to state others rather more fa- 
 vourably to his own side of the question than they 
 really were. After this general remark, they offered 
 the following pleas in support of their accusation, of 
 the import of which, as they were read, I made mi- 
 nutes.- — Viz. 
 
 1 . They alleged, that I admitted having given en- 
 couragement to the Improved Version of the New 
 Testament, and that I had acknowledged I much ap- 
 proved that work. 
 
 2. That they believed me to be the author of two 
 works, published under the signature of Verax, as 
 the monthly reviewers had said they supposed me to 
 be writer of those works, and I was mentioned as the 
 author of those, and some other works in favour of 
 Hannah Barnard, in Evans's Sketch, &c. 
 
 3. They next read seven passages from Verax's 
 Reply to Vindex, and two from Verax's Christian 
 Unitarian^sm Vindicated, to shew the committee 
 what passages they objected to in those works. 
 [These I shall quote, hereafter, with the context of 
 
185 
 
 such as do not without it exhibit their import, fair- 
 ly and fully.] 
 
 4. They alleged, that I had distributed some co- 
 pies of the "Remarks on the Yearly Meeting Epistle 
 for 1810, by an Unitarian Christian," without enter- 
 ing my protest against the unsound doctrine which 
 that paper contained. 
 
 5. They next objected to a passage in my letter to 
 the overseers, dated Nov. 5th, 1811, respecting those 
 Remarks, as being of dangerous tendency, alleging 
 that the same plea might be urged, with equal rea- 
 son, in favour of the most licentious and immoral 
 publications. [The passage adduced was the last 
 paragraph in p. 16.] 
 
 6. That they had represented how improper 
 they thought it was for me, as a member of the 
 Society of Friends, to have become a subscriber to 
 the London Unitarian Book Society, and to have 
 my name appear in the list of its subscribers, as a 
 member for life. 
 
 7. Their next accusation was, that I did not put the 
 same construction on some texts of Scripture, which 
 they did ! 
 
 8. That in their visits to me, by appointment of 
 the Monthly Meeting, they endeavoured to ascer- 
 tain, by questioning me, whether I did hold such 
 sentiments as the Remarks on the Yearly Meeting 
 Epistle, and the Preface to the Rules of the London 
 Unitarian Book Society contained. 
 
 9. That they also questioned me, whether I was 
 not the writer of the works published under the sig- 
 nature of Verax, and as to the encouragement I had 
 given to the " Improved Version of the New Testa- 
 ment." 
 
 10. That they should be much concerned if it was 
 to be understood, that overseers, or Meetings for 
 Discipline, should be obliged to sift out evidence, 
 
 Bb 
 
186 
 
 as it were, in holes and corners, instead of question- 
 ing the party supposed to be implicated. 
 
 11. That they had endeavoured to convince me, 
 that my conduct and sentiments were inconsistent 
 w 7 ith my continuing to be a member of the Society of 
 Friends, and with the extracts and references to pas- 
 sages in their writings, which they had adduced. 
 
 12. That they thought if my sentiments accorded 
 with the extracts and references they had laid before 
 me, it was well. But if they did not, they thought 
 it was not necessary, or their place, to enter into rea- 
 soning with me, concerning points of doctrine. It 
 was not likely to answer any good purpose, as I was 
 so conversant with all the texts of Scripture which 
 related to those subjects, they did not expect from the 
 first that they should be able to effect any change in 
 my sentiments. The manner in which I received the 
 little they did offer, they said, discouraged them from 
 saying more. And as I did not seem disposed to 
 make any alteration in my sentiments and conduct, 
 they reported the case to the Monthly Meeting, 
 which made the minute of 2nd month, 20th, 1812. 
 
 13. The respondents admitted, that they did not 
 know any rule of the Yearly Meeting, which direct- 
 ly applied to the case of the appellant. But they 
 referred the committee to the following passage in the 
 Preface to the Book of Extracts, p. 5. as justifying 
 their proceedings. " For when any, by their incon- 
 sistent and disorderly conduct, or by imbibing and 
 adopting principles and practices, contrary to the 
 doctrine which we have received, have first openly 
 manifested their disunity with the Society, it is but 
 just and requisite that, after endeavouring and wait- 
 ing to restore them without effect, the body should 
 testify its disunity with such erring and refractory 
 members ; at the same time earnestly desiring that 
 they may be convinced of the error of their ways, 
 and that through unfeigned repentance, and a con- 
 
187 
 
 sistent, orderly conduct in future, they may be re- 
 united to the body/' 
 
 14. That they presumed that the Quarterly Meet- 
 ing's committee would understand by the terms 
 " eternal divinity** as used in their report to the 
 Monthly Meeting, and in the " testimony of denial," 
 that they meant the godhead of Christ, which [they 
 said] was disclaimed in the " Remarks on the Yearly 
 Meeting Epistle for 1810," and in the " Preface to 
 the Rules of the London Unitarian Book Society." 
 
 15. That they had taken considerable pains with 
 me, at their last visit, respecting the encourage- 
 ment I had given to the Improved Version of the 
 New Testament, beyond purchasing it, of which I 
 had taken very little notice in my minutes of that 
 conference ; from whence they inferred, that in my 
 minutes of their other conferences I had omit- 
 ted equally important parts of what they had laid 
 before me. They also urged, that if there were er- 
 roneous passages in the received version* we should 
 not know what to depend upon, and that by making 
 such objections, the whole might be discredited. 
 
 16. Lastly. — The respondents objected to the 
 truth of my repeated assertions, that no other spe- 
 cific charges were alleged against me at the Monthly 
 Meeting, 12th month, 19th, 1812, when the over- 
 seers first reported the case to the Meeting, than my 
 having been concerned in the dispersion of those 
 Remarks, which found fault with the Yearly Meeting 
 Epistle, and my being a subscriber to the London 
 Unitarian Book Society. 
 
 When the respondents had concluded, I told the 
 overseers that they had stated to the Meeting, that 
 those two points furnished the evidence, where- 
 on the minute appointing a committee to visit me 
 was founded, and that neither of them had ever be- 
 fore, to my knowledge, called that fact in question. 
 (See p. 37.) And that if, on recollection, they did 
 
188 
 
 not admit this to be the case, I must request per- 
 mission of the committee to call witnesses to es- 
 tablish the fact, as I deemed it of importance, for the 
 sake of proving, that all their other charges were im- 
 properly introduced. Luke Howard replied, I had 
 no occasion to request permission to do so as a fa- 
 vour ; I might demand it as a right. 
 
 The committee then adjourned to three the next 
 afternoon. 
 
 QUARTERLY MEETING^ COMMITTEE, 
 
 11th Month, 5th, 1812. Fifth Sitting. 
 
 When I was called on to proceed with my defence, 
 Luke Howard said, that although the committee 
 held it to be their duty to hear all I might wish to of- 
 fer, if I would for once consider him as my counsel, 
 he could assure me that I should not injure my de- 
 fence, by compressing the remainder of it, nor had 
 they any wish that I should injure it. I replied, I have 
 carefully looked over my two addresses to the Month- 
 ly Meeting, some parts of which relate to the visits I 
 had received from its overseers and committee, and 
 marked those parts as unnecessary to be read, they 
 having heard my minutes of those conferences. And 
 I believe the committee will not think any other 
 part irrelevant, unless those parts may be thought so, 
 which relate to the extraneous charges brought 
 against me by the respondents, during the investiga- 
 tion of the original accusations. Before I proceed 
 farther, I would say, that I had requested by letter, 
 (a copy of which I read) the attendance of William 
 Binns, and Charles Palmer, as evidences what the 
 charges exhibited to Ratcliff Monthly Meeting were, 
 respecting which the respondents and myself could 
 not agree yesterday evening. 
 
 I then read the introductory observations of my 
 
189 
 
 written address to Ratcliff Meeting, 2nd Month, 
 20th, 1812, p. 56, to the end of the third paragraph 
 in p. 58. 
 
 I next read the latter part of the 13th Sec. of 
 Barclay's 5th and 6th Prop, both in Latin and 
 English, and then the last par. in p. 73, and from 
 thence to the end of the address ; also my minutes of 
 the discussion that took place in the Monthly Meet- 
 ing, relative to my case on the same day, p. 53 — 56, 
 and 74 — 79, and afterwards my address to the next 
 Monthly Meeting, 3rd Month, 19th, last, from p. 80, 
 to p. 92, and from the last par. in p. 95, to p. 105. 
 
 The committee being now informed, that William 
 Binns was in waiting, it was proposed, he should be 
 called in. John Harris observed, that he had no 
 doubt but the appellant and themselves, might, by a 
 few minutes conference, by ourselves, settle the 
 matter in question, as he thought it was, as I had 
 stated. William Binns, however, was admitted, 
 and informed by the Clerk, of the occasion of his 
 being requested to attend. But just as I was about 
 to enquire, if he recollected what charges were 
 alleged against me by the overseers, in his presence, 
 on 12th Month, 19th last, one of the committee re- 
 quested all parties to withdraw. When we had with- 
 drawn Richard Bowman enquired, what the matter of 
 fact was, which I wished to ascertain, by the evidence 
 of William Binns, and Charles Palmer; I informed 
 him, it was to know from them, what the charges 
 alleged by the overseers were, on which the minute 
 was founded, appointing a committee to visit me. 
 He replied, that he understood I had asserted, they 
 had at that time, no thoughts of any other accusa- 
 tion, in their own minds. I told them, that was a 
 matter I could not judge of, and had only spoken of 
 the charges they had alleged against me. The re- 
 spondents soon agreed, those were the two specific 
 accusations, 1 had stated, and those only. And they 
 
190 
 
 informed the committee, that was the case, on our 
 being called in again, soon after. 
 
 I afterwards read the remainder of my minutes, 
 p. 115—126. The committee now enquired, whether 
 the respondents were ready to reply ? Richard Bow- 
 man said, they should certainly have something to 
 offer in reply. But he thought, they had better have 
 a previous conference, among themselves. It was 
 then proposed, for the committee to adjourn. Be- 
 fore they adjourned, having put my minutes into the 
 hands of the committee, I observed, that although I 
 had made minutes of the respective conferences 
 with the respondents, and they had not, I had no 
 objection to their taking with them the address, 
 which I should have read to the next Monthly 
 Meeting, after that which disow r ned me, if the Meet- 
 ing had thought fit to give me a hearing; being the 
 only document, I had laid before the committee, 
 which the respondents had not before heard. The 
 respondents, and several of the committee, acknow- 
 ledged the candour of this proposal, which the for- 
 mer, at length, accepted, and took the paper home 
 with them. 
 
 The committee adjourned to 2nd day next, the 
 9th instant, at 3 in the afternoon. 
 
 QUARTERLY MEETING'S COMMITTEE. 
 
 11th Month, 9th, 1812. Sixth Sitting. 
 
 The respondents being called on to proceed, John 
 Harris read a paper, in reply to my intended address 
 to Ratcliff Meeting; the principal part of which 
 will be noticed hereafter. They also adduced the 
 following passages, from the " Improved Version of 
 New Testament/' in order to enable the committee 
 to judge of its contents, after saying, that I had 
 acknowledged, that I much approved that work. 
 
 1st. Note on John i. 1. " And the word was a 
 
God" ' Was God/ Newcome. 4 Jesus received 
 a commission, as a prophet of the most high, and 
 was invested with extraordinary miraculous powers. 
 But in the Jewish phraseology they were called gods 
 to whom the word of God came. John x. 35. So 
 Moses is declared to be a god to Pharoah. Exod. 
 vii. 1. Some translate the passage, God was the 
 word, q. d. it was not so properly he that spake to 
 men, as God that spake to them by him: Cappe. 
 ibid. 
 
 2nd. v. 2. " Was in the beginning with God. Be- 
 fore he entered upon his ministry, he was fully in- 
 structed, by intercourse with God, in the nature, 
 and extent, of his commission. 
 
 3rd. v. 11. "He came to his own, Sfc. Mr. Cappe's 
 version is, ' He came into his own country, and 
 his countrymen received him not.' This is no doubt 
 the true meaning, but the evangelist's elliptical 
 phraseology, seems more eligible in a literal transla- 
 tion. 
 
 4th. Note on ver. 14. "And the word was Jiesh. 
 Or, nevertheless, the word was flesh. * Though 
 this first preacher of the gospel, was honoured with 
 such signal tokens of divine confidence and favour, 
 though he was invested with so high an office, he 
 was, nevertheless, a mortal man. J Cappe/' [Do 
 the respondents mean to deny that Christ died ?] 
 
 After reading these notes from the Improved Ver- 
 sion, the respondents stated, rather more fully than 
 before, what they called their authorities, for be- 
 lieving me to be the author of several tracts, pub- 
 lished under the signature of Verax. These were, 
 1st. The following passage from the Monthly 
 Review, for Dec. 1810 — «' And we are told by the 
 writer of the Narrative, (of the Proceedings in Ame- 
 rica, of the Society called Quakers, in the case of 
 Hannah Barnard,) who is, we suppose. Mr. Thomas 
 Foster, of Bromley." 
 
192 
 
 2nd. That in Evans's Sketch of the Denomina- 
 tions of the Christian World, 12th edit. 1811. p. 169. 
 Thomas Foster is mentioned as having written " An 
 Appeal to the Society of Friends, with a Sequel, 
 and a Vindication of Scriptural Unitarianism, in re- 
 ply to Vindex, and Christian Unitarianism, vindi- 
 cated," in reply to John Bevans, Jun. The two 
 last of those works, they observed, were published 
 under the signature of Verax. 
 
 The respondents having concluded, I observed, 
 that I did not deny being the author of those pam- 
 phlets, but considered that accusation irrelevant, and 
 improper. Yet I had no wish to trouble the com- 
 mittee, with any discussion of that subject, if the 
 respondents were willing to withdraw that part of 
 their charges against me. This they declining, I 
 told the committee, that several of the extracts the 
 respondents had read at the last sitting, were very 
 partially made. I should, therefore, be obliged to 
 read so much of the context, as I thought neces- 
 sary, to exhibit the sense fairly and fully. 
 
 Their 1st quotation for the purpose of criminating 
 Verax, is from p. iv. v. of the Introduction to his 
 Reply to Vindex ; being the 2nd paragraph of the 
 following passage : the others are added to exhibit 
 its true import, as I read them to the committee. Viz. 
 
 " That I consider our early Friends, to have been 
 generally Unitarians, I readily admit ; and notwith- 
 standing there is considerable ambiguity in their 
 writings, the scale of evidence has always appeared 
 to me to preponderate decidedly in favour of that 
 opinion. They were no doubt, as even Vindex 
 allows William Penn to have been at all times, 
 4 deeply impressed with the importance of holding 
 up the doctrine of the complete unity of the Deity/ 
 The consistent acknowledgement, and reverent be- 
 lief, of this truly scriptural and primitive doctrine, 
 is pure and simple Unitarianism. It is in this sense 
 
193 
 
 only I have used the phrase, as descriptive of the 
 sentiments of our early Friends. 
 
 " That they denied ' the eternal divinity of 
 Christ/ in the sense in which they used those 
 terms, I am so far from having asserted, that I have 
 given some of the strongest of their expressions, in 
 favour of that doctrine. But as, with the voice of 
 one man, they united in rejecting all distinction of 
 personality in the Deity; if they affixed any defi- 
 nite or consistent idea, to the terms they used on 
 this subject ; it must surely have been their inten- 
 tion, to ascribe supreme divinity, to God the Father 
 only, the uncreated cause of all things. It has been 
 judiciously observed, respecting our early Friends, 
 * That on the subject of Christ, they sheltered them- 
 selves behind the broad shield of allegory, and 
 thus did not clearly discriminate, between Christ 
 as a person, and Christ as a principle. And that 
 this led to great ambiguity of expression in them, 
 and their successors down to the present day. Un- 
 der the idea of possessing a sound sentiment, clear 
 to their own conceptions, many of them have per- 
 sonified the spirit of divine illumination, under the 
 name of Christ, or Christ within, or in other words, 
 Christ as a principle/ 
 
 •« I apprehend it was the oneness of this principle 
 with God, which our early Friends alone considered, 
 as properly divine, and an object of worship." 
 
 Their next quotation commences in the middle of 
 a paragraph, and is, to the end of it, a citation from 
 Penn's Works. On what ground, or why, they ad- 
 duced it, I do not understand ; nor did they now 
 attempt to explain. It is given in italics, and with 
 the preceding part of the paragraph, is as follows : 
 ibid, p. 18. 
 
 " As this work of William Penn's, is addressed to 
 a professed Socinian, with whom he was far from 
 uniting in sentiment upon all points, the terms in 
 € c 
 
194 
 
 which he expresses himself, when speaking of their 
 errors, may elucidate his own sentiments, as in the 
 following passage ; where he professes to trace to its 
 source, their error on the subject before us. ' This 
 is,' says Penn, ' the great mystery of the Socinians ; 
 indeed the rock on which they split ; they do not dis- 
 tinguish betwixt the form of God, and likeness of 
 men ; that which came into the world, to do the will of 
 God, and the body he took, in which to perform it.' 
 Vol. ii. p. 136. 
 
 " It leill I think not be denied, that modern Unita- 
 rians, do clearly distinguish in this case, whatever may 
 have been the fact, ivit/i the persons to whom William 
 Penn alluded. They acknowledge, with William 
 Penn, the truth of that text, which says, ' God was in 
 Christ, reconciling the icorld unto himself" 2 Cor. 
 xi. 19. 
 
 Their third quotation is from p. 86. 87 of the same 
 tract, and exhibits the sense of the passage fairly. 
 Viz. 
 
 "In the last paragraph of this chapter, Vindex 
 admits, as we have already had occasion to observe, 
 « that our ancient Friends did — reject the term per- 
 son, in speaking of the Son, considered as the word.' 
 If so, in what proper sense can they be said con- 
 sistently therewith, to assert the eternal divinity of 
 Christ, or to offer him the tribute of adoration ? Un- 
 less they meant only, by that phrase, the eternal di- 
 vinity of the spirit and life of the Father, which was 
 revealed in him, by which he did his Father's will. 
 
 " So I understand the general tenor of their writings, 
 and such appears to me, with yet greater clearness, 
 and weight of evidence, to be the indubitable import 
 of scripture doctrine." 
 
 Their fourth quotation is also fairly given ; but 
 where the criminality of having written either this, 
 or the former, can be, I do not comprehend ; nor 
 
 
195 
 
 did the respondents attempt to explain. It is as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 " Vindex next observes, that Barclay, c speaking 
 of the self-same divine operation, calls it God in one 
 place, and Christ in another/ No doubt he does, 
 and so does the scripture, frequently; but almost 
 numberless passages from each may be adduced to 
 shew, that their respective authors spoke only of 
 unity of design — of oneness of spirit in the Messiah, 
 with the only true God, and not of the Son and 
 Sent of the Father, being really and substantially the 
 same being with the Father himself, whose name is 
 Jehovah. 
 
 " If this be, which, however, I do not allow, ■ to 
 disjoin God and Christ/ in reverence to the former, 
 and under the fullest conviction of therein acting in 
 conformity to the doctrine and precepts of the latter. 
 I feel it to be my duty as a Quaker, and a Christian, 
 to avow the distinction explicitly, and to make no 
 compromise with what appears to me to be the truth, 
 by the united voice of scripture and reason." 
 
 Their fifth quotation was extracted from the mid- 
 dle of a paragraph, with what judgment or fairness 
 the reader will judge, who marks the extent of it by 
 the italics in the following extract. From p. 54 — 56 
 of the same tract. 
 
 " I had said in the Appeal, « The distance must 
 ever remain infinite, and immeasurable,, between the 
 first divine cause of all things, and any other being- 
 whatever, how highly soever the same may have 
 been endowed, even to the fulness of the possession 
 of all heavenly perfections.' 
 
 " Vindex transcribes this sentence, except the 
 word ' distance;' instead of which, he has inserted, 
 4 difference/ The import of which word, in that 
 place, I do not approve, as the union between God 
 and his beloved Son, is ever described in the scrip- 
 tures to be entire and compleat, as I reverently be- 
 
196 
 
 lieve it to be; although I cannot agree with Vindex, 
 that the scriptures to which we both appeal, teach 
 us to consider them as really and substantially the 
 same Being. 
 
 " ' Lastly/ says Vindex, ' I desire it may be 
 remembered, that the scripture never speaks of 
 1 an infinite — distance between (may I write it 
 with reverence) God and Christ; but always of one- 
 ness: those passages probably, or some of them ex- 
 cepted, where the flesh is taken into the account/ 
 
 " Perhaps not, as to the first part of Vindex's as- 
 sertion. Does the above passage even imply, that I 
 have taken it literally from the scriptures? But 
 ivill Vindex question, that the highest endowments 
 of any created being, must ever fall infinitely short 
 of the perfections of the uncreated cause of all 
 things? I do not so understand his objection. We 
 are agreed that there is but one God, and also in re- 
 jecting all distinction of personality in speaking of the 
 Son, as the word. We differ in sentiment, as to the 
 import of scripture doctrine, whether we are authorised 
 from thence to conclude, the Father only is that one 
 God, as I take to be the case; or whether the Son 
 himself, be in reality the Father, and ' God over all,* 
 as Vindex contends. It is, however, apparent he is 
 aware that God and Christ are very differently de- 
 scribed in the Scriptures, and he would account for 
 the whole of this variation, by supposing it refers 
 merely to the ' Flesh.' As to the oneness of 
 Christ, with the Father, in any scriptural sense of 
 the phrase, I have not questioned it. ' I and my 
 Father are one,' says Christ, ' as recorded in the tenth 
 chapter of John, but in the preceding verse he de- 
 clares/ c My Father is greater than all, and no man 
 is able to pluck them (the sheep which my Father 
 gave me,) out of my Father's hand/ He even says, 
 ■ I can of mine own self do nothing ; as 1 hear I 
 judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not 
 
197 
 
 mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath 
 sent me.' John vi. 30. And again, • The words 
 that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself, but 
 the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works/ 
 John xiv. 10. In Christ's prayer to his Father, 
 a little time before Judas betrayed him into the 
 hands of the Jews, does he not clearly distinguish 
 between the only true God, and Jesus Christ? 
 When he says, ' This is life eternal — to know thee, 
 the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou 
 hast sent — Holy Father, keep through thine own 
 name, those whom thou hast given me, that they 
 may be one, as we are.' John xvii. .3, 1 1. 
 
 "The oneness which Christ claimed with the Father, 
 he has here explained to be the same in nature, al- 
 though no doubt transcendently different in degree, 
 to that which true Christians may be capable of, one 
 towards another. — ; That they all may be one, as 
 thou Father, art in me, and I in thee ; that they also 
 may be one in us, — that they may be one, even as 
 we are one. I in them, and thou in me, that they 
 may be made perfect in one/ Ibid, v. 21, 22, 
 23. 
 
 " In the scriptures, the supreme Being is frequently 
 called God, with respect to Jesus Christ, as well as 
 to mankind at large : in such like terms as these, 
 1 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ.' " 2 Cor. xi.31. Eph.i.3. 17- 1 Peter, i. 3, 
 &c. 
 
 Their sixth quotation was also taken from the 
 middle of a paragraph, without any reference to the 
 context, although it expressly relates to what goes 
 before, without referring to which, the import of the 
 passage read by the respondents cannot be known. 
 The reader will see this, who considers what he can 
 make of that part of the following passage, which is 
 given in italics, when severed from the context. 
 Ibid. p. 79. 
 
198 
 
 Respecting the text Luke ii. 52, which says, that 
 " Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in fa- 
 vour with God and man." 
 
 " ' It should be recollected, that Jesus is there 
 spoken of in his puerile apearance/ says Vindex, 
 adding, c and I see no difficulty in the reverent be- 
 lief, that the Deity, the inexhaustible source of in- 
 creasing good, should rejoice in the increasing mani- 
 festations of his own perfection/ 
 
 " What less is this, than ascribing a " puerile ap- 
 pearance/ and rejoicing, to the Deity from the con- 
 templation of the increasing display ' of his own per- 
 fection?' Into such unscriptural, and, I think, irre- 
 verent expressions, even when speaking of a ' reverent 
 belief,' does Vindex' s notion, that Christ is properly 
 and truly God, betray him. I shall conclude this 
 subject, with an instructive extract from the writings 
 of the learned Casaubon, who declares, * that the 
 best and most learned of the Fathers, have been so 
 bewildered in palpable contradictions, whether the 
 Lord and Governor of the world, who fills the uni- 
 verse, was concealed in the body of an infant; that 
 it contains an objection against Christianity, the 
 most considerable that ever was made, and which 
 has kept more people from embracing the Christian 
 faith, than any that he knew. That this doctrine 
 when it came to be explained, produced many divi- 
 sions which were called heresies, and looked upon 
 as crimes. And these divisions produced persecu- 
 tion/ " 
 
 Their last quotation from this tract is a single sen- 
 tence taken from the middle of a paragraph in p. 80. 
 It comprised so much of the following passage as is 
 given in italics. 
 
 " Although we are agreed in approving this one 
 quotation, I do not see how it can square with Vindex' s 
 notion that the Father and the Son, as they are de- 
 scribed in scripture language, are in reality one, and 
 
199 
 
 the same Being. For in this excellent quotation, 
 [as Yindex admits it to be] Christ is said to be 
 * appointed of the Father, to give life— to them that 
 receive him and obey his gospel." Penington's 
 Works, Vol. I. p. 705. And the metaphorical 
 epithets, that are afterwards applied to him, are not 
 only by fair, but by necessary construction, to be 
 understood of his appointed dignities and offi- 
 ces. In what other sense, can Christ be said to be, 
 as he is here called, 'the saviour and salva- 
 tion of god?" That is, a Saviour, by « the 
 will, and according to the counsel of the 
 Father,' for the salvation of men. Or how can 
 he be called a ' priest,' a « prophet,' not to men- 
 tion the other epithets descriptive of mere instru- 
 ments in the hand of another, if the writer of this 
 passage conceived he was strictly speaking, God 
 himself? See Peter's Sermon in Acts ii. " Jesus of 
 Nazareth, a man approved by miracles, wonders, 
 and signs, which God did by him in the midst of 
 you.' Can any thing be more explicit ? 
 
 Having read the above passages, to which the re- 
 spondents made no specific objections, although 1 re- 
 peatedly called upon them to do so, I desired the 
 committee to notice, that the Reply to Vindex, from 
 which they were extracted, was published as long 
 since as 1803, and desired them to consider, whether 
 it was just or reasonable to bring forward such an ac- 
 cusation, so long after its publication. There was a 
 rule of the Society, I observed, which declared all 
 such ill-timed accusations to be " both unseasonable 
 and dishonourable." 
 
 The 8th quotation adduced by the respondents, I 
 observed, was from " Christian Unitarianism Vin- 
 dicated, by Verax," p. 134% It appears to me the 
 most extraordinary accusation I ever heard against 
 any professing Christian.—Viz. That " the doctrine 
 of the Scriptures, respecting the point at issue be- 
 
200 
 
 tvveen us, (that is, John Bevans and Verax) who is 
 alone God over all, is so clear, as to be remov- 
 ed to tl'e greatest possible distance from all myste- 
 ry." Such is the offence of which I am accused. 
 That 1 consider the Scriptures to contain the clearest 
 possible revelation who is alone the true object of 
 wo^ihip, or God over all, I readily acknowledge. 
 Th^re is, in my mind, no mystery, no ambiguity 
 whatever in them, upon this point. Yet, do not mis- 
 understand me, 1 find nothing in them concerning 
 the essence of that great being, who is wholly 
 incomprehensible by any created intelligence. 
 
 Before I entered upon the ninth and last of the re- 
 spondents' criminatory quotations, I appealed to the 
 committee, whether it could possibly be relevant or 
 admissible, for the respondents to bring forward such a 
 charge as this, in reply to my appeal, the subject to 
 which it related never having been mentioned or al- 
 luded to by them at their conferences with me. 
 
 Luke Howard said, unless the respondents con- 
 sented to give it up, and considered it to be unconnecU 
 ed with the object of their appointment, they could 
 not refuse hearing both parties thereon, fairly and 
 fully. 
 
 I replied, as it relates to the doctrine of divine in- 
 fluence on the human mind, which was often termed 
 the distinguishing tenet of the Society, and as the re- 
 spondents' quotation gives a very imperfect view of 
 the passage at large, I must, in justice to myself, 
 read the whole, which would occupy a considerable 
 time, and trespass still farther on their patience. 
 
 The committee assenting to this, I read the whole 
 passage, p. 73 — 80, but, for the sake of brevity, I 
 shall omit the former part of it, which, however, 
 shews that William Penn accused the Socinians of 
 his time, with holding " that the Father, Son and 
 Holy Spirit are three distinct essences, or persons ; iy 
 and also, with having relinquished the doctrine of 
 
201 
 
 the " Primitive Socinians," concerning immediate 
 divine revelation. The quotations he has adduced, 
 from the works of Socinus, Crellius, and other emi- 
 nent writers, " in the Socinian way" fill more than 
 two folio pages, Vol. ii. 108 — 110, and evince that 
 the doctrine of the divine influence on the mind has 
 been, and may be, as fully believed, by those who 
 maintain the simple unity of the Deity, as by any 
 advocate for the doctrine of the Trinity. After quot- 
 ing several of these extracts from Crellius, and one 
 on the same subject from Penn, Verax observes, p. 
 76, that, 
 
 " The above substantial accordance between the 
 ' primitive Socinians' and ' the early Quakers/ ap- 
 pears to have been insisted upon by William Penn, 
 to confute the arguments of his Socinian opponent, 
 and to prove how widely he had deviated from their 
 ancient faith, on this subject. In what degree those 
 who are now called Socinians, have return : d to the 
 opinions of their ancestors, respecting ' the doctrine 
 of divine influence on the human mind.' or improv- 
 ed upon them, I shall not venture to determine ; but 
 I hope the following extracts from a discourse by Dr. 
 Priestley upon that subject, may tend to abate the 
 prejudices of some of my readers, by shewing, that 
 the real difference of opinion, between those who are 
 supposed to take opposite sides of the question, may 
 not be so great as is generally imagined. 
 
 '"There are two things,' says Dr. Priestley, 'that 
 we should principally attend to, with respect to God, 
 and both are of the greatest importance. The first 
 is, the consideration of his universal presence, and 
 his constant, uncontrolled agency ; and the second 
 is, his acting by natufal means, or in a regular man- 
 ner. 
 
 " ' We must, in the first place, endeavour to see 
 God in every thing, and to see every thing in God, 
 that is, in its relation to him. We must habitually 
 
 Dd 
 
202 
 
 look beyond all second causes, considering them in 
 no other light than as instruments in the hands of 
 God, the only proper cause of all, and employed by 
 him to accomplish, in the best manner, his excellent 
 purposes. 
 
 " ' But, in the second place, it is almost of as 
 much importance, that we consider God not as a 
 being incapable of foresight, and acting as particular 
 occasions and emergencies require, but as foreseeing 
 every thing that can ever come to pass, and adapt- 
 ing means to ends from all eternity : as acting by 
 general laws and established rules, without ever de- 
 viating from them, except for great and extraordinary 
 purposes ; and then, in such a manner, as that his in- 
 terposition shall be publicly known and acknow- 
 ledged, so as to have the proper effect of miracles. 
 Now that God has sufficiently provided for the in- 
 struction and reformation of mankind by the gospel, 
 we are to Consider the age of miracles, as over. And 
 if we are not to expect miraculous interpositions in 
 the external world, similar to those that were ex- 
 hibited in the times of Moses and the prophets, or 
 those that attended and promoted the first promul- 
 gation of the gospel, much less can we expect any 
 miraculous influences on the minds of men ; which, 
 in a moral sense, do not appear to have ever been 
 the subject of miracles, in former times. Indeed, in 
 this sense, they would have been a very improper 
 subject of miracles, on many obvious accounts. 
 
 " ' Not to respect the general presence and agency 
 of God is practical atheism ; it is living without God 
 in the world ; and to expect his miraculous interpo- 
 sitions, and not to consider him as acting by general 
 laws, is to encourage an enthusiasm, and a delusion, 
 that is, in some cases, almost as dangerous, leading 
 men to neglect the natural and only efficacious 
 means of improving their characters, and to depend 
 on certain supernatural impulses and feelings, of 
 
203 
 
 vague and uncertain description, and that cannot 
 have any relation to moral virtue, which consists in 
 a supreme reverence and love of God, an entire de- 
 votedness to his will, in doing and suffering, a disin- 
 terested love of his creatures and our brethren, and 
 a just self-government, equally favourable to both. 
 
 " * On the whole, the doctrine of divine agency 
 and divine influence, respecting things spiritual, as 
 well as temporal, is true, and in the highest degree 
 important. Our characters approach to perfection, 
 in proportion as we keep it in view, and they are 
 debased and bad, in proportion as we lose sight of it. 
 But the doctrine of a proper supernatural influence 
 on the mind is false ; and though, like most other 
 false principles, it may be very innocent, not in fact 
 superseding the use of the natural means of religion, 
 it is always delusive, and in some cases highly danger- 
 ous. 
 
 " ' Let this doctrine, therefore, teach us, as indi- 
 viduals, to cultivate above all things a spirit of ha- 
 bitual devotion, founded on the belief of the divine 
 presence with us, and of his constant agency upon 
 us, and upon all things. This is that faith which is 
 the only sure anchor of the soul in a tempestuous 
 world, or rather it is the wings on which we rise 
 above the world, and approach to a state of union 
 with God. 
 
 " « But let us carefully avoid indulging the vain 
 and delusive imagination of an immediate and super- 
 natural communion with God, which is always the 
 foundation of spiritual pride, and the bane of humble 
 devotion and virtue. For there is no true devotion 
 without the deepest humility, and what is some- 
 times not improperly called self-annihilation/ 
 
 " It may perhaps be remarked, that the divine 
 influence is represented in the above passage as act- 
 ing upon the human mind by natural means, where- 
 as the Quakers are accustomed to consider it as su- 
 
^04 
 
 pernatural. Yet, as they have always held it to be 
 universal in the most extensive sense, or given unto 
 every man to profit withal, this is to represent it, 
 as operating in the most regular manner upon the 
 human mind ; or, as Dr. Priestley describes it, by 
 natural means ; to distinguish this diffusive gift, irom 
 that extraordinary effusion of the Holy Spirit, by 
 which Jesus Christ and his apostles were enabled 
 to do many wonderful works. Nor do 1 understand, 
 that in the use of such like expressions, our best 
 writers so much refer to the identity of the gift, as 
 of the great and bountiful Giver. And the following, 
 extract from Penn's Apology, for the Principles and 
 Practices of the People called Quakers, exhibits so 
 clear an' account of their own view of this distin- 
 guishing tenet, which is even yet frequently misun- 
 derstood, that I incline to lay it before the reader. 
 
 " ' I would,' says William Penn, ' that all should 
 understand what we mean by revelation, and that' is 
 this ; that from our conviction of the least evil, to 
 our redemption from it ; and all the knowledge we 
 have of God, his way, and good pleasure towards us, 
 throughout the whole exercise of our religious life; 
 we ascribe our knowledge and instruction to no other 
 thing, than the discoveries or revelation of the spirit 
 of God, in our hearts. But this not in a moment, 
 but gradually, through our obedience to what we 
 know of him. For they that do my will (saith God) 
 shall know of my doctrine. John vii. 17. 
 
 "« Not a man in the world,' adds he, ' need be 
 long ignorant of our meaning of revelation, if they 
 did but consider, that it is the inspiration of the Al- 
 mighty which gives them to understand, what is 
 good, and what is evil ; that they might do the one, 
 and reject the other. And whilst men continue in 
 such watchfulness and obedience, they are daily fur- 
 nished with such discoveries from God, as suit their 
 state and condition. 
 
205 
 
 " * I know, 5 continues he, ■ the monstrous con- 
 ceits, that some have, of our meaning by revelation, 
 fancying we understand whimsical raptures, strange 
 and prodigious trances ; but such imagine evil, of 
 things they know not. We disclaim any share or 
 interest in those vain whimsies, and idle intoxica- 
 tions ; professing our revelation to be solid and ne- 
 cessary discovery from the Lord, of those things that 
 do import and concern our daily conditions, in re- 
 ference to the honour wTiich is due to him, and care 
 owing to our own souls.' ,J Works, vol. ii. p. 38. 
 
 The only part of the above, passage which the re- 
 spondents advanced, is that which is given in italics, 
 p. 203. 
 
 When I had read the whole, I desired the com- 
 mittee to notice the manner in which the extract 
 was introduced, from which the respondents had so 
 disingenuously picked out one sentence, in order to 
 support their charges, by adducing a fresh accusation 
 against me at this late period of the hearing on my 
 appeal. I also called their attention to the evident 
 intent of the passage objected to, which was to draw 
 a parallel between the " vain whimsies and idle in- 
 toxications," which had been often imputed to the 
 Society, but which William Penn had so strongly 
 disclaimed, and those " false principles" which Dr. 
 Priestley has described as " always delusive, and in 
 some" cases highly dangerous.*" Such I thought 
 
 * The pretension which has often been set up to the gift of discern. 
 ing spirits, by many approved ministers in the Society of Friends, 
 I have long considered as both delusive and dangerous in a very high 
 degree. Many injurious instances of the former may be adduced, 
 and some of the latter ; one of which occurred in the year 17S5, in 
 my native city, which made so deep an impression on my mind, as 
 can never be effaced, while the faculty of memory lasts. It was this. 
 A preacher in a public Meeting for worship, described the state of 
 some individual in the Meeting, as having sinned out the day of 
 his salvation. 
 
 This denunciation forcibly struck the imagination of a young 
 
206* 
 
 was the fair construction of the passage, taken all to- 
 gether. 
 
 In reply to the 4th plea of the respondents, 
 p. 185. it may suffice to say, it implies an obligation, 
 not to promote the circulation of any paper, with- 
 out entering a protest against any unsound doctrine, 
 it may chance to contain ! If this be criminal, who 
 shall escape censure? 
 
 To the 5th plea of the respondents, I replied, 
 there was no just analogy between such writ- 
 ings, as they alluded to, and the Remarks in ques- 
 tion. That on all moral and religious subjects, I 
 thought temperate and well-meant discussion, was 
 always favourable, to the cause of truth and virtue. 
 
 In reply to their 6th plea, I informed the commit- 
 tee, that the first knowledge I obtained, that such a 
 Book Society existed, was from a man of distin- 
 guished talents, and character, whose attachment 
 to the cause of scriptural truth, and pure Chris- 
 tianity, was ardent and sincere. The person of 
 whom I spoke, was the late William Rathbone, of 
 Liverpool. From him I first learned the character 
 of the works, circulated by this Book Society, and 
 his name was annually published in the list of its 
 members, for 12 years before I became a subscriber. 
 
 man, who was present. The persuasion he imbibed, that he was 
 the person whose state was thus described, was so strong, that 1 every 
 effort to remove it, proved fruitless. Yet many were exerted, and 
 I have much reason to believe, in a judicious manner, particularly 
 by one elder of the Meeting. But the fanatical poison was too deep- 
 ly infused, for the medicine of calm reasoning to reach it. For ra r 
 ther more than a week it operated on a remarkably innocent, but 
 weak mind, with increasing violence, till at length he put a period to 
 his life, within a few doors of the house where I then resided. 
 
 The reader may judge from this melancholy catastrophe, with 
 what concern 1 perused the encouragement the philanthropic Clark- 
 son has so injudiciously held out in his "Portraiture of Quakerism," 
 Vol. III. p. 286, to this kind of preaching, as being peculiarly «' ef- 
 ficacious and useful?' See also Verax's " Defence of Christian Uni- 
 tarianism," p. 109 — 111. 
 
207 
 
 As he had never been even censured for his con- 
 nexion therewith, how should I imagine, it could 
 be deemed an offence against the rules of the disci- 
 pline, for me to become a subscriber to this Book 
 Society ? 
 
 The late Dr. Fothergill, I observed, and many 
 other respectable members of the Society, en- 
 couraged Purver's translation of the scriptures, as 
 being an Improved Version, which at least proved 
 their conviction that the received text required cor- 
 rection. His translation was published in 1764. 
 About this time, I have reason to believe the acqui- 
 sition of a more correct version, was rather a favour- 
 ite idea, with the leading characters in the Society. 
 And I well remember, some years afterwards, Castel- 
 lio's Latin Version being recommended to my atten- 
 tion by my schoolmaster, a man of unquestioned or- 
 thodoxy among Friends, as a more correct transla- 
 tion than the Vulgate.* 
 
 The 7th plea of the respondents is, that I did not 
 pul the same construction on texts of scripture, that 
 they did. No complaint is made of my rejecting 
 the text, but their interpretation. This of itself 
 sufficiently evinces what the true character of their 
 labours has been. I do not impeach their motives, 
 but I cannot approve, or countenance such claims, 
 by whomsoever they may be set up, or patronised. 
 It tends to destroy the rights of private judgment, to 
 discourage an open profession of religious truth, 
 upon conviction, and even the love of it, and to 
 
 * Yet soon after it was first published, the reputedly orthodox 
 Calvin, among other harsm and unjust censures of the candid, pious 
 and learned Castellio, calls him, " a base corrupter of the sacred 
 writings, a contemner of all religion, a disciple and brother of Ser- 
 vetus." And not only so, but he caused him to be banished, be- 
 cause he could not, for conscience sake, believe thai God had or- 
 daitied men to be damned, as he did Servetus to be burned for deny. 
 trig the divinity of Christ! See Chandler's History of Persecution, 
 p. 312, and Barclay's Apology, Prop. 14. § 5. 
 
208 
 
 set up, in every Monthly Meeting, a petty inquisi- 
 tion of overseers, or other officers of the church, to 
 sit in judgment upon their brethren, on their con- 
 struction of texts of scripture. 
 
 To shew how very different William Penn's sen- 
 timents were, I read the following passages from his 
 " Address to Protestants,'* the 4th § of which is, 
 " Of debasing the true value of morality , under pre- 
 tence of higher things, and mistaking in great mea- 
 sure the very end of Christ's coming." — Viz. 
 
 " The reproaches that men of morality receive 
 at the hands of lewd men, are more their honour 
 than their suffering. That which is most of all an- 
 xious, is, that morality is denied to be Christianity, 
 that virtue has any claim to grace, and that those 
 who glory to be called Christians, can be so partial 
 and cruel, as to renounce a mere just man their soci- 
 ety. — And pray what's the matter ? Why ! though 
 this person be a sober liver, yet he is but a gene- 
 ral believer; his faith is at large. 'Tis true he be- 
 lieves in God, but I hear little of his faith in Christ. 
 Very well; does he not therefore believe in Christ? 
 Or must he therefore be without the pale of salva- 
 tion ? Is it possible that a man can truly believe 
 in God, and be damned ? But as he that believes in 
 Christ, believes in God, so he that believes in God, 
 believes in Christ ; for he that believes on him, that 
 raised up Jesus from the dead, his faith shall be im- 
 puted to him for righteousness, and says Christ him- 
 self; he that believeth my word, and believeth on 
 him that sent me, hath everlasting life." Works, 
 Vol. I. p. 767. The next passage to which I called 
 the attention of the committee was this : — 
 
 " Let us suppose (says William Penn) a Turk is 
 convinced, that Christ is that, which he believed 
 Mahomet to be, the greatest of all prophets ; that 
 Mahomet was an imposter, that Jesus is the only 
 Saviour and Mediator : but being catechistically 
 
209 
 
 taught the two natures in one person, the hyposta- 
 tical union, in fine, the Athanasian creed and other 
 articles of faith, or rites of your church, not so clear- 
 ly expressed in Scripture, nor easily apprehended 
 or assented to, will not this poor creature be looked 
 upon, either as infidel or heretic, and renounced all 
 share in Christ, and Christian fellowship, because 
 his weakness, or understanding will not allow him 
 to come up to the full inventory of articles believed, 
 and imposed by you ? [Protestants.] Certainly you 
 must either be partial, and give him that liberty you 
 deny to persons of equal tenderness, or else you 
 must, after your present streightness, conclude him 
 infidel, or heretic, though he believe one God, Christ 
 to be the only Mediator, the gift of the Spirit, the 
 necessity of holiness, communion and charity. But 
 I would beseech you that we may consider, if this 
 bears any proportion with the wisdom and love of 
 God, in sending Christ into the world to save you 
 and me ? 
 
 " Christ himself, to whom all power was given in 
 heaven and in earth, submitted himself to the test : 
 he did not require them to believe him, because he 
 would be believed ; he refers them to the witness 
 that God bore to him : ' If I bear witness of myself, 
 my witness is not true/ He also sends them to the 
 Scriptures, and pleads the truth of his authority from 
 that of his doctrine and miracles : ' If I had not done 
 among them the works which none other man did/ 
 And finally challenges them to convince him but of 
 one sin : * Which of you convinceth me of sin ? 
 and if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?' 
 He offers to reason the matter, and submit himself 
 to the judgment of truth, and well he might, who 
 was truth itself. 
 
 " But an imposing church bears witness of herself, 
 and will be both party, and judge. She requires as- 
 sent without evidence, and faith without proof, 
 e e 
 
210 
 
 therefore false. Christian religion ought to be car- 
 ried on, only by that way, by which it was introduc- 
 ed, which was persuasion. ' If any man will be my 
 disciple, let him take up his cross and follow me.' 
 And this is the glory of it, that it does not destroy, 
 but fairly conquer the understanding." Ibid. p. 
 776, 777. 
 
 " And as it is one great mark of the false church 
 to pervert the right end of true doctrine, so hath she 
 excelled in the abuse of that excellent word self-de- 
 nial ; for she hath translated it from life to under- 
 standing, from morals to faith : subjugate intellectum 
 in obseqiriumjidei, to subject the understanding to the 
 obedience of faith, is the perpetual burden of their 
 song, and conclusion of their conferences. But 
 what is this faith ? That which conquers the world 
 and purifies the heart ? By no means. But it is to 
 believe that the church of Rome is the true church, 
 and the Pope Christ's vicar, and the visible head of 
 that church. 
 
 "Thus that self-denial which relates to our wills 
 and affections in a corrupt state, they apply to the 
 use of our understanding about religion, as if it were 
 the same thing, to deny that which we understand, 
 and know to be the will of God that we should de- 
 ny, (which is the Christian self-denial) and to deny 
 that very knowledge and understanding, which is 
 God's gift and our honour. Whereas religion and 
 reason are so consistent, that religion can neither be 
 understood nor maintained, without reason ; for if 
 this must be laid aside, I am so far from being infal- 
 libly assured of my salvation, that I am not capable 
 of any measure, or distinction of good from evil, truth 
 from falsehood. Why ? I have no understanding, or 
 at least not the use of any. All the disadvantage 
 the Protestant is under in this, is that of his greater * 
 modesty, and that he submits his belief to be tried, 
 which the other refuses, under the pretence of un- 
 
$11 
 
 accountable infallibility ; to that authority reason 
 demurs, right reason I mean ; the reason of the first 
 nine verses of the first of John. For so Tertullian, 
 and some other ancient, as well as modern critics, 
 give us the word logos ; and the divine reason is one 
 in all ; that lamp of God which lights our candle and 
 enlightens our darkness, and is the measure and test 
 of our knowledge. 
 
 " So that whereas some people excuse their embrac- 
 ing of that religion, by urging the certainty that is in 
 it; I do say, 'tis but a presumption. For a man 
 can never be certain of that, about which he has not 
 the liberty of examining, understanding or judging ; 
 confident, (I confess) he may be, but that's quite an- 
 other thing, than being certain. 
 
 " Yet ]r must never deny, but that every Christian 
 ought to believe as the church believes, provided the 
 church be true; but the question is, which is that 
 true church ? And when that is answered, as a man 
 may unlawfully execute a lawful sentence, so he 
 may falsely believe, as the true church believes. For 
 if I believe what she believes, only because she be- 
 lieves it, and not because I am convinced in my un- 
 derstanding and conscience of the truth of what she 
 believes, my faith is false though her's be true ; I 
 say it is not true to me ; I have no evidence of it." 
 Ibid. p. 778. 
 
 After reading these passages, I called the atten- 
 tion of the committee to the respondents 8th and 
 9th pleas, p. 185, which implied, I observed, too 
 plainly to be mistaken, the uncertainty they were un- 
 der upon both points. The overseers accused me, 
 and seem to have trusted to the subsequent visits to 
 be paid me, to furnish evidence, that it was on suf- 
 ficient ground. Under these circumstances, the in- 
 definite minute of 12th Month, 19th, 1811, which 
 charged me with having " imbibed, and aided in 
 propagating, some opinions contrary to the doctrines 
 
212 
 
 of the Society/' was made. As to the Remarks* 
 my main object in putting them into the hands of 
 some of my friends, was rather to promote discus- 
 sion, and enquiry, as favourable to the cause of 
 truth, than the particular sentiments of the writer. 
 Nor did my being a subscriber to the London Uni- 
 tarian Book Society, imply an approval of all that 
 was said in the preface* to its Book of Rules. 
 
 In reply to the declared preference for inquisito- 
 rial proceedings, which the 10th plea of the respond- 
 ents, p. 185, manifested, I endeavoured to impress 
 the committee, with the dangerous consequences of 
 such a mode of procedure, under any circumstances, 
 and especially where the examiners into the sound- 
 ness of the faith of others, refused to give any intelli- 
 gible account of their own faith, or even to define there 
 own accusations. Such was the manner in which I 
 had been treated by the respondents. 
 
 As to the 11th plea, I observed, that the osten- 
 sible object for which they made the selection, was 
 to inform me the grounds of their accusation, viz. 
 " what the principles of the Society are, to which 
 this minute refers, and where are they to be found 
 clearly and explicitly laid down V* 
 
 On the injustice of such a selection, I remon- 
 strated in the following manner with the respond- 
 ents, at my conference with them, Feb. 7, 18 IS. 
 
 " In your reply to the above query, how have you 
 acted? The tenor of it implies no less than an ac- 
 cusation of universal scepticism, and unbelief. Could 
 this be your intention ? It is true you avoid any 
 direct reference to the [accusing] minute, and speak 
 of the principles of the Society in the most general 
 terms. Yet the references with which it concludes 
 are so extensive, as to include almost all the doc- 
 trines of much importance, professed by the Society. 
 Am I thus to be held up as holding opinions con- 
 trary to all those doctrines ? If you disclaim such 
 
213 
 
 an intention, your reply is very inconsiderate, or 
 very disingenuous, and unjust." 
 
 The respondents at that time disclaimed having 
 had any such intention, and admitted, it might have 
 been better, if they had confined their selection to 
 such passages, as they conceived were contrary to 
 to those I had imbibed. Yet now they are again 
 adduced for the same indefensible purpose! 
 
 The 1 2th plea of the respondents, p. 186, 1 observed, 
 most strikingly confirms the correctness of my min- 
 utes. They did not think it their place to enter 
 into reasoning with me, concerning the very points 
 of doctrine on which they supposed, but did not 
 know, that I held erroneous sentiments. The first 
 reason they assign for this, is curious enough, but 
 it is to pay me an unmerited compliment, which I 
 must disclaim. I am far from being, or thinking 
 myself so good a scripturian, as they are now dis- 
 posed to give me credit for. Yet 1 may truly say, 
 I read and contemplate the New Testament with in- 
 creasing comfort and satisfaction, as I become better 
 acquainted with its contents. 
 
 The manner of my receiving their admonitions, let 
 my minutes, of the overseers visits, testify. These 
 they admitted to be correct, and my uniform deport- 
 ment to be open, friendly, and respectful. But the 
 respondents say, I am not disposed to make any al- 
 teration in my sentiments, as if that was as easy 
 as changing a suit of clothes. 
 
 On their 13th plea, I observed, it had already ap- 
 peared to the committee, by my minutes, that the re- 
 spondents gave me to understand, they meant to pro- 
 ceed upon some rule of the Society, but that the Month- 
 ly Meeting was to decide what rule applied to the 
 case. When I enquired of the Meeting about this, 
 I was referred to the committee. At length, the 
 cause of this indecision is explained, and I am told, 
 
214 
 
 before you, that the respondents do not know any 
 rule that directly applies to the case. 
 
 The ingenious device of recurring to the preface 
 to the Book of Extracts, to supply the defect of 
 the rules, is just as much to the purpose, as it 
 would be, for a prosecutor to allege, in a court of 
 justice, that although there was no law that reached 
 the case, of a person he had accused, yet there was 
 a pertinent passage in the preface to Blackstone's 
 Commentaries, which, in general terms, held out 
 the importance of orderly conduct, and obedience to 
 the laws. The apostle Paul was of the judgment, 
 that where no law is, there is no transgression. My 
 accusers think otherwise. 
 
 The 14th plea of the respondents, strikes me as 
 containing one of the most extraordinary proposi- 
 tions that ever was submitted, to the consideration 
 of any persons in the exercise of judicial powers. In 
 the first place, the respondents say, they presume 
 the committee will put a certain construction on a 
 phrase which they have used, and with which they 
 do not seem to be so well pleased as they were. 
 Perhaps they may have found, that it is not a scrip- 
 tural phrase, and they may also have foupd reason 
 to doubt, whether it is scripturally applied in either 
 of these documents. 
 
 But the most singular part of their statement is, 
 that they presume the committee will understand, 
 by those words, " the eternal divinity of Christ," 
 that " the godhead of Christ" is disclaimed in 
 the Remarks on the Yearly Meeting Epistle, for 
 1810, and in the preface to the Rules of the 
 London Unitarian Book Society. Yet neither 
 of these terms are so much as mentioned in ei- 
 ther of those documents. Just before the conclu- 
 sion of this sitting, I requested to take home with 
 me, the paper read by the respondents, in reply to 
 
2lo 
 
 my address to Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, p. 1 17—12 1 , 
 to which they made no objection, and which after some 
 consideration by themselves, the committee granted, 
 on my engaging to return it to them, and not to take 
 a copy. 
 
 The committee adjourned to 11th Month, 11th, 
 to 4 in the afternoon. 
 
 QUARTERLY MEETING'S COMMITTEE. 
 
 11th Month, 11th, 1812. Seventh Sitting. 
 Seventeen of the committee present. 
 
 Being called upon to proceed with my defence, 
 I observed, it was, at least, doubtful, whether the 
 true meaning of the Greek word, translated in the 
 received version godhead, is justly rendered. It is 
 so translated in Acts xyii. 29, Rom. i. 20, and Col. 
 ii. 9, and I believe it occurs no where else in the scrip- 
 tures. It is far from being a correct translation of 
 any Latin version I have seen, and seems to have 
 been intended to denote something respecting the 
 divine nature, or essence, respecting which, the scrip- 
 tures are wholly silent. It has been rendered, " the 
 divine Being," which is equally literal, and not liable 
 to the same objection. 
 
 In Rom. i. 20, I take the apostles meaning to be 
 correctly expressed, by rendering those words thus, 
 " even his eternal power, and providence." 
 
 I prefer rendering Col. ii. 9, thus, as being more 
 consonant to every Latin version I have seen, and 
 to the Greek also, 
 i "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Deity 
 bodily." 
 
 To the 15th plea of the respondents, p. 187, I re- 
 plied, that the real cause of my omitting much men- 
 tion of this part of their labours with me, was be- 
 
 > 01W &iioT»C 
 
216 
 
 cause I wished to avoid any chance of implicating a 
 most respectable man, who was only incidentally 
 concerned, and that, not in a manner which any per- 
 son could reasonably disapprove. But if the com- 
 mittee, or the respondents, requested it, 1 could now 
 state, verbally, the substance of what did pass on 
 that occasion. It was sufficiently impressed upon 
 my memory. They did not request it. 
 
 I then read the following written reply to the pa- 
 per, the respondents presented, and read, at the last 
 sitting. — Viz. 
 
 TO THE QUARTERLY MEETING'S COMMITTEE. 
 
 On hearing the paper read, which the respondents 
 produced at your last sitting, I was forcibly impress- 
 ed with the striking contrast, these after thoughts ex- 
 hibit, by whomsoever they were composed, when com- 
 pared with the complexion of the labours of the over- 
 seers, and with the manner in which the discipline was 
 administered by the committee, appointed to visit 
 me. Such previous rumours of impending dealings 
 and disownment, had reached my ears, that I had 
 never much doubt of the issue of the committee's la- 
 bours, and none at all of the intent, of those Friends 
 of other Meetings, who had incited the overseers, 
 to commence those proceedings. Notwithstanding 
 which, I am now given to understand, the respond- 
 ents do not admit the justice of such a representa- 
 tion. 
 
 This implies, at least, the impropriety of such a 
 line of conduct, as I imagined them to have acted 
 upon, on such evidence, as would, I believe, till it 
 was again explicitly disclaimed, produce the same im- 
 pression on my mind. 
 
 We are now told, it was " exceedingly painful," 
 to the respondents, " to have so much reason to 
 apprehend?' that I " disbelieved one of the funda- 
 mental principles of the Society — the divinity, or 
 
217 
 
 deity, of Jesus Christ." So that after all, it was, as 
 I conjectured from the first, an apprehension of my 
 being in error, on a point of faith, on which the re- 
 spondents proceeded, and not any knowledge of the 
 fact. 
 
 They had, however, it seems, " no personal anti- 
 pathy against me, and highly esteeming" my " cha- 
 racter, as a member of civil Society, it would have 
 been far more pleasing to' us, (say they) as men, and 
 Christians, had" 1 " been careful to maintain the 
 the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." 
 
 I should think so. I am sure the sentiment so 
 far as it goes, is more conformable to the Christian 
 spirit, than such principles, as I supposed them to 
 have acted upon. But I cannot deem this corrected 
 exposition of their sentiments, as squaring with that 
 genuine Christian spirit, which pervades the New 
 Testament, and breathes forth most effulgently in 
 the recorded discourses of our great Master. Can- 
 not they then extend any esteem towards a man, 
 but merely as a member of civil society, with the 
 word civil so emphatically dashed under, lest I 
 should mistake the import, and extent, of their ex- 
 pression of esteem ? Do all the precepts of the gos- 
 pel, which enjoin Christians to esteem each other, 
 not in proportion to an imaginary conformity on 
 points of faith, which the hypocrite may, on the one 
 hand, profess to believe, and from which a sincere 
 believer in the truth of the gospel, may conscien- 
 tiously startle at, on the other, as not being express- 
 ed in scripture terms ? Do these, I would ask them, 
 sink into utter insignificance in their estimation, 
 and cease to be obligatory on Christians? Is ima- 
 ginary uniformity without conviction, the point of su- 
 preme importance, and is the man who may object 
 to receiving articles of faith, thus held forth to him 
 in unscriptural terms, to be accused of thereby vio- 
 lating the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace ?'' 
 
 Ff 
 
218 
 
 This apostolic precept is so far from being applied 
 to enforce such uniformity, that it is expressly con- 
 nected with the following opposite injunction: 
 
 " Walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are 
 called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long- 
 suffering, forbearing one another in love." Eph. iv. 
 1,2. 
 
 The respondents, say, they " are not aware that 
 they have stepped beyond their commission, or ex- 
 tended their enquiry, farther than was proper. They 
 were deputed to visit a member of the Meeting, on 
 a representation, that he had imbibed, and aided in 
 propagating, some opinions contrary to the princi- 
 ples of the Society, corroborated, but not solely sup- 
 ported, by the two facts, stated to have been thrown 
 before the Meeting/ * 
 
 This ingenious distinction, is more specious than 
 solid. The truth is, no other facts whatever, were 
 either adduced in evidence, or alluded to. Such a 
 plea would, if admitted to be valid, overturn one of 
 the soundest, and most important principles of all 
 equitable, judicial proceedings. It is true, collateral 
 evidence may be properly enough adduced against 
 an accused person, but it ought to relate, in point of 
 time, to a period preceding that of his having been 
 accused, and should also be otherwise connected 
 with his supposed offence. 
 
 The respondents allege further, that " it cannot 
 surely be supposed, that when a person is under 
 dealing, for defection in any respect, that no evidence 
 in proof of such defection, can be heard, or referred 
 to, by a visiting committee, except it has been ad- 
 duced in the previous stages of the discipline." 
 
 This I never objected to, except to being put upon 
 interrogatories. And much as the committee of the 
 Monthly Meeting complain, of my refusal to answer, 
 their report evinces in the most conclusive manner, 
 if its evidence may be relied on, that these interroga- 
 tories were not put, as is now represented, in proof 
 
219 
 
 of the original charge, but as I have all along stated, 
 for the express purpose of annexing to it, other mat- 
 ters of accusation. 
 
 " Though the writings of Verax, (say the respond- 
 ents) might not be mentioned by the overseers, the 
 committee presumed, they were at liberty to advert 
 to the evidence they furnished, on the subject first 
 introduced to notice, by the Remarks, and the Uni- 
 tarian Society's Book of Rules, &c." But these 
 are not adduced in the report as evidence of the ori- 
 ginal accusations, but as distinct charges, 
 
 " Nor did they, (say the respondents) take that evi- 
 dence at second hand, or pin their faith on the report 
 of others, but patiently investigated for themselves/' 
 On this part of the statement, the truth I have no 
 doubt is, from the acknowledgement of the commit- 
 tee to me during their visits, that however patiently 
 they investigated the contents of those works for 
 themselves, they had long been listening to the report 
 of others, concerning my supposed errors, without 
 exerting one effort to rescue me from the labyrinth 
 in which they heard I was involved. 
 
 " It is true," say the respondents, " the commit- 
 tee were c mere agents,* not however, as is insinuat- 
 ed, but solely for the Monthly Meeting." This is, 
 I think, to misrepresent me. I have rather asserted, 
 than insinuated this, and that on evidence, which 
 has not, that I know of, been shewn to be insuffi- 
 cient. 
 
 I was not surprised, (as the respondents seem to 
 have supposed) that the quotations from Verax's 
 writings, submitted to the Quarterly Meeting's com- 
 mittee, were not previously mentioned to me, as I 
 well remember my objection to their introduction of 
 such extraneous matter. But 1 never before under- 
 stood the curious project, now announced for the 
 first time, of " Verax being introduced as a witness." 
 I therefore think it " reasonable now to complain," 
 
520 
 
 not that they had omitted to inform me, " what evi- 
 dence that author had furnished them with," of 
 which I have never complained, but that they have 
 unjustly and irregularly adduced a fresh charge 
 against me, upon that evidence, after I had been al- 
 ready put upon my trial on another distinct accusa- 
 tion. 
 
 " The appellant dwells much," say the respond- 
 ents, " on the irrelevancy" of their " labours, and 
 the weakness of their arguments." As to the latter, 
 1 am not conscious that I have said much ; nor do I 
 well understand how I could. They have stated the 
 grounds why they did not think it necessary to enter 
 into reasoning with me. This is a plea, I felt the 
 force of as soon as it was urged; but I little thought 
 I should be afterwards represented, as dwelling much 
 " on the weakness" of their " arguments.'' To this 
 charge I must plead, not guilty. I may have assign- 
 ed occasionally my reasons, why the respondents' 
 arguments did not bring home conviction to my 
 mind. But as I was favoured with very few of them, 
 I think it will be difficult to make out, that I have 
 dwelt much on their " weakness" 
 
 The authors of this paper are more correct in say- 
 ing, I have dwelt much on the Monthly Meeting's 
 committee "not explaining the terms they made use 
 of.'' I did so, because it was a point that imperi- 
 ously required it. They had proposed to me as 
 Christian truths, certain propositions, not expressed 
 in scriptural terms. I gently reminded them of the 
 only original charter of Christian faith which I ac- 
 knowledged, viz. the New Testament. When I 
 found they had acquired an attachment to certain 
 unscriptural phrases, which I thought it was better 
 to drop by the way, although they might have been 
 used by many good Christians and -wise men, as fitly 
 describing gospel truths, although those terms were 
 not to be found in the Scriptures. 
 
221 
 
 To this proposal I could not induce them to ac- 
 cede, nor could their alleging that such or such an 
 author, however pious or orthodox in the estimation 
 of the church to which they belonged, had used 
 such terms as expressive of their belief, satisfy me 
 that I ought, for that reason, to receive them as 
 equally expressive of mine, unless they were used 
 and applied in a similar manner in the Scriptures. 
 
 They say, " it was more their intention to repre- 
 sent to the party visited, the general belief of the So- 
 ciety, IN THE UNION OF THE DEITY AND MAN- 
 HOOD in the person of our saviour, (a) and 
 
 (a) As this superstructure of the respondents seems to have been 
 founded on that text in Isaiah ix. 6. which in the received version 
 describes a child born, and a son given, as " the mighty God, the 
 everlasting Father," to shew my readers that it is built on an unsub- 
 stantial basis, I would refer them to the unexceptionable evidence 
 of the learned Dr. Wall, a clergyman of the established church, re- 
 specting " the old words of the Septuagint ;" that is, of the 
 Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures, which there is much reason 
 to believe was generally used, if not the only one known, by the Jews 
 of the apostolic age, and by all the writers of the New Testament, 
 whose quotations much better accord therewith than with the He- 
 brew text, yet sometimes differ from both. None of those writers 
 have, quoted this text, as referring to Christ, which surely they 
 would have done, if they had considered it as a prophecy concern- 
 ing him. 
 
 Dr. Wall's " Critical Notes on the Old Testament," published 
 in two Vols. 8vo. in 1734, appear to have been the produce of 
 a dispassionate study of " the Holy Scriptures themselves," towards the 
 latter part of a long life, " after he had left off in great measure the 
 reading of other books." It abounds however with sufficient proofs, 
 of his adherence to that system of doctrines which are commonly 
 deemed orthodox, to prevent his being suspected of perverting this 
 text to favour his pre-conceived notions. In Vol. ii. p. 88, of this 
 elaborate work, he gives the Septuagint rendering of this text ac- 
 cording to the Vatican copy thus : — " For unto us a child is born, 
 unto us a son is given, whose government shall be upon his shoulder : 
 and his name is called the Angel of the great council ; for I will 
 bring peace to his princes and health to him." The Alexandrian co- 
 py, according to Dr. Wall, is as follows : — " And his name is call- 
 - -ed the Angel of the great Council, wonderful Counsellor; the 
 Mighty, the Powerful, the Prince of Peace, the Father of the age 
 
222 
 
 to impress upon him the propriety of considering 
 whether he could not be satisfied to unite in that be- 
 lief, rather than to attempt to explain their ideas on 
 so mysterious a subject, or to enter into explanation of 
 metaphysical terms." 
 
 The use of the terms, " general belief" I would 
 observe, implies some certain degree of difference of 
 sentiment, but not more than the nature of mankind, 
 when joined in religious fellowship, has always ex- 
 hibited to the eye of their omniscient Judge, and 
 common Parent. To the best of my knowledge, 
 this is the first time that the general belief of the So- 
 ciety was ever proposed to my consideration, as con- 
 sisting " in the union of the deity and manhood, in the 
 person of our Saviour/' I profess myself to be ig- 
 norant, that any approved writers in the Society have 
 ever so expressed themselves ; if they have, it has 
 escaped my notice. • Much less do I recollect any 
 near approach to such language in the Scriptures. I 
 can say truly, without reserve or equivocation, in 
 reply to such an article of faith of modern fabrica- 
 
 te) come. The Syriac and Arabic translations are the same, or near 
 the same, as the Vatican." 
 
 " The words, wonderful counsellor, the mighty God, &c. never 
 were," says Dr. Wall, " nor any like them, in any Greek or Latin 
 Bible, till after Aquila's Translation, [about 125 years after Christ] 
 and," adds he, ('' not presently after neither, for Aquila did not 
 put in the word ©so/, though the other words he did) and therefore 
 these words being in a book pretending to a date before Aquila's time, 
 give as plain a proof of its forgery, or being antedated, as that bond 
 did, which being brought into court, appeared to be written on pa- 
 per which had a certain stamp, or paper-maker's mark, but was dat- 
 ed before any paper of that stamp was ever made." Preface, 
 
 p. XXX. 
 
 In the Hebrew text it is granted the word God is used, but the 
 same term is applied to Moses, and to other rulers of the people. 
 And the Hebrew words, used in this texts, are not Had Haggibbor t 
 « the great, the mighty God," which occur Jcr. xxxii. 18. but El 
 Gibbor, a mighty God, the establishment of whose- mrone is described 
 in the text, as wholly depending upon " the zeal of Jehovah." 
 
223 
 
 tion, that I unfeignedly believe that God was in 
 Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. How is 
 this less sound and scriptural, or less satisfactory than 
 the former ? I will not quarrel with, or think harsh- 
 ly of the religious faith of those, who can conscien- 
 tiously receive such a standard of faith ; I am con- 
 tented with the more ancient, primitive and venera- 
 ble testimony of the Scriptures. And I cannot, for 
 conscience sake, " be satisfied to unite in that be- 
 lief," expressed as it is in the terms which fallible 
 men have devised, out of their own imaginations. 
 
 Yet am I far from presuming to use, much less to 
 " to enter into" any " explanation" of terms, the ob- 
 ject of which is to define the nature of God, which 
 I reverently admit to be not only incomprehensible 
 by the greatest and wisest of mankind, but so far as 
 we are enabled to judge, from what is revealed con- 
 cerning him by the sacred writers, even by the 
 highest order of created beings in the universe. 
 
 Yet the respondents allege, that " the appellant 
 was more inclined ro run into abstruse reasoning on 
 the latter, [metaphysical terms'^ than to make an ex- 
 plicit and candid declaration on the former, as we 
 conceive, will be evident to you," [the Quarterly 
 Meeting's committee] " from T. F/s own repre- 
 sentation of the case." 
 
 The appellant is not conscious that he deviated at 
 all into "abstruse reasoning," farther than the use of 
 unscriptural terms by the respondents, in their at- 
 tempts to criminate him, obliged him in his own de- 
 fence against their unscriptural accusations. Let the 
 committee judge between us in this matter. 
 
 The next allegation of the respondents is, that 
 " much stress is also laid by the appellant, on the 
 Meeting's coming to a judgment, previously to his 
 being fully heard in his own defence." And I add, 
 not without good reason. Nor have I any hesitation 
 in saying, that whatever human tribunal acts in such 
 
224 
 
 a manner, on whatever pretence, it cannot exhibit 
 more conclusive evidence of its being in greater haste 
 to condemn, than is compatible with any known 
 principles of justice or impartiality. 
 
 That the appellant was very reluctantly suffered 
 to enter into any previous " detail of the proceed- 
 ings with him," is too notorious to be denied. And 
 from the strenuous efforts that were made at the 
 Monthly Meeting, in the 2nd Month, " at which 
 the respondents say, he entered, very minutely, into 
 a detail of the proceedings with him, in the several 
 conferences?' even to exclude him from being pre- 
 sent ; it is obvious, even this partial act of justice, 
 was most reluctantly granted, and for which he feels 
 himself wholly indebted, not to the Monthly Meet- 
 ing, but to William Binns, an entire stranger to me, 
 who happened to be present, and whose sense of jus- 
 tice, induced him to express himself in favour of my 
 being heard, as a privilege to which every accused 
 person was entitled. [See p. 56.] My address to 
 that Meeting, was almost wholly confined to the 
 proceedings at the two first visits of the committee, 
 and not, as is now stated, to "the several conferences" 
 with them. 
 
 The respondents next state, as if there was some- 
 thing improper in so doing, that I endeavoured " to 
 expose the committee, and to justify'* myself. If I 
 did, it was by as accurate a representation of their 
 conduct, and mine, as I was able to exhibit. 
 
 To the accuracy of the next statement of the re- 
 spondents, I wholly object. After I had, with many 
 interruptions, finished reading my written address to 
 the Meeting, I was immediately urged to withdraw, 
 by several Friends, and indeed very nearly by the 
 general voice of those members, who were ac- 
 customed to take any part, in the ordinary proceed- 
 ings of the Meeting. Nor do I believe, one Friend 
 uttered a single syllable, in favour of my being heard, 
 
225 
 
 much less in favour of my having a "full opportu- 
 nity to make any further remarks, which might arise, 
 in consequence of the report, then submitted to the 
 Meeting." [See p. 78.] 
 
 That I declined doing this voluntarily, for the rea- 
 sons I then assigned, is true, and it is also true, that 
 I entered at large, " into a consideration of the said 
 report, at the next Monthly Meeting," as also into 
 the proceedings of the two last visits of the committee, 
 so far as I deemed necessary, and all this, as the mi- 
 nutes of the Meeting will testify, after a testimony 
 of denial had been directed to be drawn up against 
 me, which important circumstance, the writers of 
 this paper chose to omit, and then proceed to say, 
 that " after a full " and they " believe a patient 
 hearing" I " withdrew/* There was indeed a most 
 striking contrast, between the patience with which I 
 was heard at this Meeting, after judgment had been 
 pronounced, and the reluctance, with which I was 
 permitted to be heard, at all, at the former Meeting. 
 I must have been both blind, deaf and insensible, 
 not to have seen, heard, and felt this. 
 
 But after this "patient hearing," of an accused 
 person, the respondents say, " the Meeting proceeded 
 to take into consideration, what he had laid before 
 it, in order to ascertain, if there were any grounds to 
 doubt the propriety of its former judgment ; but being 
 unitedly of opinion, the same ought to be confirmed, 
 the testimony was read, considered, and agreed to." 
 After such previous proceedings, no other result was 
 to be expected. 
 
 " This testimony" the respondents observe, " is 
 said to contain fresh and unfounded accusations, 
 inasmuch as it asserts, that it appears, from their 
 report, that he [the appellant] has joined a society, 
 who publicly avow their disbelief, of the eternal divi- 
 nity of Jesus Christ, our Lord, &c." 
 
 " On this/' they remark, " that though it was 
 eg 
 
226 
 
 not entered on the minute, yet the passage alluded io, 
 in the preface to the Unitarian Society's Book of 
 Rules, was several times read, as descriptive of the 
 objects of the Society, there mentioned, and may 
 therefore be considered, as forming part of their 
 report/' This outdoes every thing for boldness of 
 assertion, and inconclusiveness of reasoning, 1 al- 
 most ever met with. In the testimony against me, 
 it is positively asserted, that a direct avowal is to be 
 found in a certain document. 
 
 But as no such thing can be discovered in it, the 
 writers of both documents now come forward, and 
 say, that a part of another paper was read in the 
 Meeting, and it may therefore " be considered, 
 as forming part of their report." I can by no means 
 agree to this. Grant any one such a latitude of in- 
 terpretation, and they might consider any thing as 
 proved, in this new style of reasoning, however, at 
 variance with the premises. But I think it will be 
 difficult, I might say impossible, to convince any in- 
 different person, of sound judgment, of the truth of 
 such a conclusion. 
 
 The respondents farther allege, " that T. F. how- 
 ever, not only denies its appearing from the report, 
 that any such avowal as they assert, is in it, and not 
 only so, but its being so at all/' He does, and 
 that without fear of contradiction, for the London 
 Unitarian Society, has never made such an avowal. 
 The respondents are entirely mistaken, in suppos- 
 ing that I ever attempted to support that opinion, 
 by giving " a different meaning to the term divini- 
 ty? to that now attached to it, by the respondents, 
 viz. « Deity." I do not know that I ever expressed 
 any opinion, about the sense in which they used " the 
 term divinity." It is not for me to judge in what 
 sense they use terms, unless they will condescend 
 to explain them, which they refused to do. 
 
 They add, " considering it in this point of view, 
 
227 
 
 it will, we believe, be clear to this committee, that 
 the said Unitarian Society do deny it, (at least in ef- 
 fect) not only in the aforesaid Preface, but in seve- 
 ral of the texts and notes in the Improved Version, 
 (so called) of the New Testament, (which stands at 
 the head of its Catalogue of approved books, and of 
 which T. F. much approves) in which Jesus Christ 
 is described as a mere man." [I know of no such 
 passage in it.] 
 
 I should think, on the other hand, that this point 
 would not " be clear to this committee.'' 1 am sure 
 it is far from being clear to me : and I can hardly 
 persuade myself they can give their sanction to so 
 plain a departure from truth, as this testimony con- 
 tains, (however inadvertently it may have been fal- 
 len into,) whatever judgment they may form concern- 
 ing my supposed theological errors. 
 
 As to any approval I have expressed of the Im- 
 proved Version, I am fully satisfied I have never 
 expressed it to the extent the above assertion implies, 
 and for this sound reason, because I never felt it, 
 and have often expressed the contrary. 
 
 When I spoke of it to the respondents, I confined 
 the remark, 1 believe, wholly, to such parts of it as 
 had no relation whatever to subjects of controversy, 
 or points of faith. For, before they mentioned the 
 Improved Version to me, I was fully aware of the 
 anxiety with which they were loo king for fresh sub- 
 jects of accusation. They may have forgotten this, 
 but J never shall, tvhile the faculty of memory lasts. 
 Yet can I truly say, I freely forgive them, and pre- 
 sume not to question, much less to arraign the pu- 
 rity of their motives in so doing. The intent might 
 have been good, and yet the tendency of sucli in- 
 quisitorial pretensions highly pernicious and inju- 
 rious to that very cause which they would support. 
 
 " The committee several times expressed its dis- 
 approbation with T. F's distinction, which you, [the 
 committee on my appeal] must have several times 
 
228 
 
 remarked, of the man Christ Jesus, as separate and 
 distinct from the godhead, or from the word which 
 is said to have been in the beginning, — to have been 
 with God, — and to have been God. John i. 1. 
 Likewise to have taken, or become flesh, and dwelt 
 among us. v. 14, 3 ' If I have ever used any language 
 that implies a wider distinction than the language 
 that Christ himself, the evangelists and apostles have 
 used concerning him, it was unintentional ; and 
 \vherever or whenever it can be proved that I have 
 so done, either verbally or in writing, I shall be rea- 
 dy to retract the same, confess my error, and endea- 
 vour to be more scriptural and guarded for the fu- 
 ture. 
 
 So far I can meet you with sincerity and with a 
 good conscience, but I dare not engage farther, what- 
 ever may be your judgment concerning me. 
 
 " We do not wish," say the respondents, " to call 
 in question the propriety of the principle, that no 
 man is bound to accuse himself as an axiom of ci- 
 vil and national jurisprudence ; but considering that 
 the foundations on which religious communities are 
 established, are in their nature very different to those 
 systems of policy, by which states are regulated, or 
 held together, we do not conceive that that principle 
 ought to operate to the annulling this, which in our 
 present opinion is equally sound and rational. 
 
 " Every person, who is a member of a society, 
 bonded together by the belief or profession of certain 
 religious tenets or opinions, is amenable to that Soci- 
 ety, or its regularly constituted authorities, for the 
 coincidence of his opinions, with those by which the 
 Society is so united, or distinguished." 
 
 That I consider myself amenable to the rules of 
 the Society, the lex scripia, my appearance before 
 you as an appellant, is sufficient evidence ; but if 
 this principle, which in the present opinion of the 
 respondents, is so sound and rational, is intended to 
 
229 
 
 foe extended so far as to authorize overseers in any 
 Meeting to require of their fellow-members to re- 
 ceive their construction of texts of Scripture, when 
 the voice of conscience, and a regard to truth and 
 sincerity forbids such compliance; 1 do say, it would 
 be an intolerable, ecclesiastical tyranny, injurious to 
 the best interests of the Society, and inimical to the 
 cause of scriptural truth, which can never flourish 
 long in a state of vigour and purity, unless the rights 
 of private judgment are not only tolerated, but en- 
 couraged. 
 
 That the proper constitution of a Christian church 
 upon the apostolic model, is in its nature and foun- 
 dations, essentially different from systems of civil and 
 national jurisprudence, I readily grant. And the 
 great point upon which this distinction rests, is so 
 plainly defined by our great Master, the appointed 
 head over all things to the church, that I cannot well 
 avoid calling your attention to it, as of supreme im- 
 portance to be kept in view, by all who would be his 
 disciples. " Ye know," said Jesus, " that the 
 princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, 
 and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 
 But it shall not be so among you, but who- 
 soever will be great among you, let him be your min- 
 ister ; and whosoever will be chief among you, let 
 him be your servant. Matt. xx. 25. 6. 7- 
 
 " We do not attempt however to justify the pro- 
 priety of any member of such society," say the re- 
 spondents, " calling in question the soundness of the 
 tenets of his fellow-professor, without sufficient cause ; 
 but in case any one should thus interfere, it remains 
 with the constituted authorities of the society to de- 
 cide on the strength and propriety of the grounds of 
 his interference. Such, we apprehend, is (with sub- 
 mission) part of the present business of this commit- 
 tee, rather than to discuss whether we could have 
 any right to interrogate T. F. at all." "Whatever 
 
B30 
 
 may have been the design of the respondents [or then 
 counsel] in advancing such a plea as this, I can, 
 without difficulty perceive, that under it a very se- 
 vere repression of the rights of private judgment may 
 be carried on, against the open profession of scriptu- 
 ral truth, expressed in scriptural language, whilst a 
 mere man of the world, may escape censure, who 
 *' pursues the acquisition of wealth, with a step as 
 steady as time, and an appetite as keen as death ;" 
 and at the same time a real lover of truth may be ex- 
 pelled as a mere scripturicm, for the open, but ho- 
 nest profession of his sentiments. 
 
 There are no doubt articles of faith, of primary and 
 fundamental importance ; but if those only which are 
 of pure Christian origin are valuable, let them be 
 looked for in the New Testament, and let the same sa- 
 cred record be searched, for the conditions of religious 
 fellowship, by which Christian societies ought to be 
 united. In such an enquiry, diligently and impar- 
 tially made, these will be found to be few, plain, and 
 easy of comprehension, free from metaphysical sub- 
 tilties, and in every respect worthy of the unques- 
 tionably divine origin of our common faith, fitted 
 to the state of man, under every clime, and tending 
 to improve his condition and elevate his character, 
 in every stage of civilization, from the Indian who 
 lives in his native forests, to those who have made 
 the greatest advances in the arts and sciences. 
 
 When I had read the above address to the com- 
 m ittee, I delivered the same to them, and then ob- 
 served that with their permission, to shew how far 
 William Penn was from approving such intolerant 
 maxims, as the respondents had uniformly acted up- 
 on, I would now read to them the following passages 
 from his Works. Viz. 
 
 " The enemies of light may be as rhetorical as they 
 please upon the excess or presumption of some, 
 bolder than wise, and more zealous than knowing, 
 
251 
 
 but if they had nothing- to "lose by the discovery, they 
 would never be the enemies of a Christian search. 
 It is to be feared, such get that obedience and subjec- 
 tion by a blind devotion, which no man could yield 
 them upon better information ; and is it reasonable 
 that men of that stamp should secure their empire 
 by the ignorance of the people ? Ignorance ought to 
 be the mother of devotion with none, but those that 
 cannot be devout upon better terms. It is the glory 
 of a man that he is religious upon reason, and that 
 his duty and (Lev. xxii. 13. 29-) sacrifice are not 
 blind or forced, but free and reasonable. Truth up- 
 on knowledge, though vext with schism, wise and 
 good men will chuse before ignorant religion, and all 
 its superstitious effects, with uniformity. " — Vol. I, 
 p. 792. 
 
 " Conscience, in the best sense of the word, has 
 ever been allowed to be a bond upon men in all re- 
 ligions ; but that religion, whoever holds it, which 
 under pretence of authority, would supersede con- 
 science, and instead of making men better, the end 
 of religion, make them worse by confounding all 
 sense and distinction betwixt good and evil, and re- 
 solving all into an implicit faith, and blind obedience 
 unto the commandsofa visible guide and judge is false; 
 it cannot be otherwise. For to admire what men do not 
 know, and to make it a principle not to inquire, is 
 the last mark of folly in the believer, and of impos- 
 ture in the imposer. To be short, a Christian implies 
 a man, and a man implies conscience and understand- 
 ing; but he that has no conscience nor understand- 
 ing, as he has not, that has delivered them up to the 
 will of another man, is no man, and therefore no 
 Christian. 
 
 " I do beseech you, Protestants of all sorts, to con- 
 sider of the danger of this principle, with respect to 
 religion. Of old it was the fool that said in his heart 
 there is no God. But now, upon this principle, 
 
as 2 
 
 men must be made fools, in order to believe there is 
 one. Shall folly, which is .the shame, if not the 
 curse of man, be the perfection of a Christian ? Christ 
 indeed, has advised us to become as li tile children, 
 but never to become such fools ; for as the proverb 
 is, this is to be led by the nose, and not by our wits. 
 You know that God hates the sacrifices of fools. 
 Eccles. v. 1. 'I will pray with the spirit and 
 the understanding also/ saith the apostle. 1 Cor. 
 14. Let us commend that testimony, which we 
 believe to be true, to the consciences of men, 
 and let them have the gospel privilege of exa- 
 mination. Error only, loses upon trial. If this had 
 been the way to Christianity, with reverence be it 
 spoken, God had not made our condition better, 
 but worse ; for this translates our faith and depend- 
 ence upon God, to man ; and the possibility, if not 
 probability, of man's erring, exposes us to a greater 
 insecurity than before : for where I never trusted, I 
 never could be deceived; but if I must abandon 
 my own sense and judgment, and yield myself up to 
 the faith and authority of another, (to say no more 
 of the blindness and lameness of such belief and de- 
 votion) what security can I have, that the man or 
 men whom I trust, may not err and deceive me ? 
 And that deceit is irreparable. 
 
 " Again, since man is a reasonable creature, and 
 that the more reasonable he is in religion, the nearer 
 to his own being he comes, and to the wisdom and 
 truth of his Creator, that did so make him : a religi- 
 on without reason, imposed by an unaccountable au- 
 thority, against reason, sense and conviction, cannot 
 be the religion of the God of truth and reason ; for 
 it is not to be thought that he requires any thing 
 that carries violence upon the nature of his crea- 
 ture, or that gives the lie to that reason or sense, 
 with which he first endowed him. In short, either 
 convince my understanding by the light of truth and 
 
233 
 
 power of reason, or bear down my infidelity with 
 the force of miracles: for not to give me .un- 
 derstanding, or faith, and to press a submission 
 that requires both, is most unreasonable." Ibid, 
 p. 794. 
 
 Two of the respondents now asserted, that I had 
 acknowledged to them, that I much approved, the 
 " Improved Version of the New Testament," as it 
 was called, and that I extended this admission, to 
 the notes also. I assured the committee they must 
 have mistaken my meaning. Before they mention- 
 ed this subject to me, I was aware of the necessity 
 of expressing myself cautiously before them, lest 
 the import of my words should be misunderstood 
 and misrepresented. All the approval I had ex- 
 pressed to them, respecting it, was confined to such 
 passages, as had nothing to do with matters of con- 
 troversy. Many of these were, I thought, more 
 correctly rendered, and more intelligible to the 
 capacities of children, for which reason, I frequently 
 preferred reading it in my family, to the common 
 version. As to the objections they made to the 
 notes, a Bible laying on the table, I shewed them 
 the Athanasian creed, prefixed to the authorised 
 version, which was, I thought, much more objec- 
 tionable, than the notes they disapproved in the Im- 
 proved Version. They are, however, I observed, all 
 given fairly, and candidly, as notes, and not out of 
 their place, so as to impose upon the unlearned, and 
 uninformed, as the notes are given in the received 
 version, at the top of each chapter, as if they had 
 been written by the sacred writers. Some of these 
 have very little analogy to the text, as one proof of 
 which I would mention, that several of them are 
 expressly calculated to hold up the institution of 
 what is commonly called the Lord's Supper, as if it 
 was, as adopted by the Church of England, of apos- 
 tolic authority, and instituted by Christ himself, 
 «h 
 
 V 
 
234 
 
 Yet you will agree with me, no such thing can be 
 justly deduced from the text. These notes it was 
 well known, were added by King James's transla- 
 tors, and they ought, like all other notes, to be so 
 plainly distinguished from the text, that no person 
 might suppose them to have been written by the 
 sacred writers, nor the marginal references neither, 
 which are also of the nature of notes, and some of 
 them most strangely selected. 
 
 I then read to the committee the following texts, 
 as rendered in " the received version," and in " the Im- 
 proved Version," to shew the great superiority of 
 the latter, as giving a correct transcript of a precept 
 of Christ, viz. Mat. vi. 25. vi. 31. vi. 34. x. 19. 
 Mark xiii. 11. in all which, the received version 
 renders the precept, " Take no thought," &c. and 
 in Luke xii. 11, " Take ye no thought," &c. in- 
 culcating indolence of mind, instead of such atten- 
 tion of mind, as the comparative importance of the 
 occasions for it, spoken of in those texts, justly call 
 for. The Improved Version renders the passage in 
 just conformity to that divine wisdom, which dic- 
 tated the reiterated precept, " Take no anxious 
 thought," &c. And in thus rendering the greatly 
 important precept, the editors are amply justified. 
 There is no Latin version, that I have seen, which 
 renders these texts otherwise. Jerome renders 
 Mat. vi. 25. &c. Ne soliciti sitis. Castalione, Ne este 
 soliciti. 
 
 The advantage of rendering Mat. xi. 20, and 
 Mark iii. 21, in the Improved Version by substituting 
 the word " reprove" for " upbraid," I observed, 
 might be thought unimportant, but I considered it 
 an improvement, and was gratified a few days ago, by 
 one of my children pointing it out, at an early age, 
 to make such observations. 
 
 The propriety of rendering Luke xxiii. 32. as it 
 stands in the Improved Version, was not question- 
 
23o 
 
 ed, for in the received version, Jesus is described 
 as a malefactor, "And there were also two other 
 malefactors, led with him to be put to death. 5 ' In 
 the Improved Version it is, " And t woothers, who 
 were malefactors, were led with him to be put to 
 death." The erroneous rendering' of Acts xx. 28, 
 in the received text, was fully admitted by Luke 
 Howard, on my reading it, as given in the Improved 
 Version, " Feed the church of the Lord, which he 
 hath purchased with his own blood," for he ob- 
 served, that was well known to be the true reading 
 of the text, long before that version was thought 
 of. I could not controvert this, for Chrysostom 
 and Athanasius, the great patrons of orthodoxy 
 in the 4th century, reprobated such a rendering of 
 this text, as is still retained in the authorised ver- 
 sion, viz. " Feed the church of God, which he hath 
 purchased with his own blood." In the received 
 version, 1 Cor. xvi. 22, is thus rendered, " If any 
 man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be Anathema 
 Maranatha." After reading this text, I observed, 
 it was very ill calculated to convey information to 
 the mere English reader. It was, I thought, much 
 better given in the Improved Version thus, " If any 
 man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be se- 
 parated from you." Luke Howard made.no objec- 
 tion to this rendering of the text, but observed, 
 that it did not include a translation of the Greek 
 word " Maranatha." (a) 
 
 In the received version, I observed, that Eph. iv. 
 32, is erroneously rendered, " Even as God, for 
 
 (a) I should have added, that the Improved Version renders it 
 after Wakefield, " Our Lord cometh." With, or without which, 
 the text includes most emphatically an implied precept of apostolic 
 authority, not to separate persons from religious fellowship, who do 
 in sincerity love the Lord Jesus. Love to Christ, is made the cri. 
 terion of fitness for Christian fellowship, and not an agreement upon 
 mysterious points of doctrine. 
 
236 
 
 Christ's sake, has forgiven you," being perhaps the 
 most gross perversion of a plain text of scripture, 
 which its translators have fallen into. The Improv- 
 ed Version renders it thus, " As God also, through 
 Christ, hath forgiven you," in conformity to all the 
 Greek M. S. and the true meaning of the Greek 
 preposition ev, as well as to the Latin versions by 
 Jerome and others, and to the English versions by 
 Cranmer, Purver, Newcome, Wakefield, and every 
 other that I have noticed, the received text alone 
 excepted. God is never said in the genuine text 
 of the scriptures, to have been rendered placable, or 
 to forgive men their trespasses, for Christ's sake, or 
 for any other consideration, than their repentance, 
 and his own mercy and goodness. [Yet is this cor- 
 rupt text quoted in the last Yearly Meeting Epistle, 
 without one word to point out the injurious and 
 unscriptural notion, it is calculated to convey.] (b) 
 Having read to the committee the foregoing ex- 
 
 (b) To evince how important a new translation of the Christian 
 scriptures, in the English language, has long been deemed, by per. 
 sons of real judgment, I will quote the opinion of " the Rev. and 
 learned A. Blackwall," from the 2nd vol. of " The Sacred Classics, 
 Defended and Illustrated." It was published in 1731, after his 
 decease, and furnishes ample proof, that he was far from being 
 tinctured with such notions, as are deemed heterodox in Trinita- 
 rian churches. Yet he says, p. 21 of the preface, " A new transla- 
 tion can give no offence, to people of sound judgment, and consi- 
 deration ; because, every body conversant in these, and unprejudiced, 
 must acknowledge, that there was less occasion, to change the old 
 version, into the present, than to change the present, into a new one. 
 Any scholar that compares them, will find that the old one, though 
 amended by this that we now use, in several places, is yet equal to it 
 in very many, and superior in a considerable number.''' 
 
 " The famous Robert Stephens did good service to religion and 
 learning," says he, p. 125, »* by many of his labours; and intended 
 no harm, by his division of the New Testament into chapters and verses, 
 as we have them at present. The reader," Blackwall adds, " will be 
 pleased with the clear account Mr. Locke gives of this matter, whose 
 words I put down, because none of my own can express the thing so 
 emphatically. * One great inconvenience, that the New Testament 
 labours under, in its present form, is, its improper division intu 
 
237 
 
 tracts, I addressed them to the following effect: 
 I have, my Friends, but little more to add, and 
 I ean truly say, it has been a real concern to 
 me, to have already occupied so much of your time, 
 but it has principally arisen from the introduction 
 of additional accusations by the respondents, in- 
 stead of confining themselves, as they ought to have 
 done, to those specific charges, which were first 
 alleged against me. 1 therefore felt myself called 
 upon to reply to these, in justice to myself, to 
 the cause of truth, and of pure scriptural Christian- 
 ity. For if I know any thing of my own heart, I 
 can sincerely assure you, that I love truth, and es- 
 pecially religious truth, much better than I do my 
 own apprehensions concerning it. I am far from 
 thinking I have any exclusive means of becom- 
 ing acquainted with her. The longer I live, 
 the more confined, and limited, does the little that 
 even wise and good men know with certainty, ap- 
 pear to me, in comparison with the full extent of 
 religious knowledge, of which the scriptures speak. 
 They contain much of this kind, which I never ima- 
 gined myself capable of comprehending. But they 
 are also richly strewed with gems, that lie, as it 
 were, on the surface. The gospel was to be preach- 
 ed to the poor, and therefore its essential truths, and 
 fundamental doctrines, were adapted to the capacities 
 
 chapters and verses ; whereby they are so chopped and minced, and 
 stand so broken and divided, that not only the common people take 
 the verses tor distinct aphorisms ; but even men of inore advanced 
 knowledge, in reading them, lose very much of their strength and 
 coherence, and the light that depends on it.' Preface to St. Paul's 
 Epistles." 
 
 " It is with pleasure, and a just veneration," says the Rev. A. 
 Blackwall, p. 161, " to the memory of our learned and judicious 
 translators, that I acknowledge their version in the main, to be faith- 
 ful, clear, and solid. But no man can be so superstitiously devoted 
 to them, [that is, no competent judge] but mu: 5 t own, that a con- 
 siderable number of passages are weakly, and imperfectly, and not a 
 few, falsely rendered." 
 
238 
 
 of those to whom they were addressed. They are, 
 for the most part, simple, plain, and easy of com- 
 prehension. For openly professing my views of 
 these, as was my right and duty, have 1 been dis- 
 owned. 
 
 There has however been one recent occasion, on 
 which I have met, not only three of the respondents, 
 but many, if not the greater part, of the Friends of 
 Ratcliff Meeting, with almost unmixed satisfac- 
 tion, (c) It was at a public meeting, held at Black- 
 
 (c) I said " almost," for I cannot express my full approbation, 
 powerful as the torrent of eloquence was, which «' assailed our intel- 
 lectual vision," on that occasion. Some expressions even in the ,s re- 
 port and address of the provisional committee" are, I think, liable to 
 much stronger objections than occurred to me on its being read. It pro- 
 fesses to give " a distinct explanation" of the object of the Bible Society. 
 This is srated to be, " the unlimited circulation, without note or 
 comment, of those oracles, which alone contain the secret of peace 
 on earth, and of happiness in heaven." We are afterwards told, " Its 
 operations have been in strict and jealous conformity with its princi- 
 ples, — the distribution of the Bible only, without a syllable of ex- 
 planation or commentary; and this maxim," they add, " it has 
 inflexibly observed." Now what do these distinct assertions import? 
 That the contents of the volume they distribute are as nearly as pos- 
 sible, what the sacred writers wrote, and nothing more. Yet what is 
 the plain fact? In the English language they distribute the received 
 version, with all its errors on its head ; its modern and injudicious 
 division into chapters and verses, — its authorized notes at the heads 
 of the chapters, — its marginal readings, and references, which are of 
 the nature of explanatory comments on the text, and give us the ideas 
 of King James's translators, concerning its import, and that of sup- 
 posed parallel passages, but not those of the evangelists and apos- 
 tles. 
 
 I would willingly hope the versions of the New Testament in fo- 
 reign languages, which are going on, under the patronage of the Brit- 
 ish and Foreign Bible Society, will be prepared rather from Gries- 
 bach's corrected Greek text, than from our received version. And 
 if so, I cannot understand why our countrymen should not equally 
 partake of the advantages of an improved version of the Christian 
 Scriptures. On these, or such like principles, the triumphs of the 
 Bible Society may " last for ever !" As one of its eloquent advo- 
 cates very justly observed, — " Its existing patrons may decay, 
 its scenes of action may vary, and the particular circumstances under 
 
239 
 
 wall, (Oct. 15, 1812) for instituting the East Lon- 
 don Auxiliary Bible Society. At that Meeting ma- 
 ny excellent, sound and liberal sentiments were ex- 
 pressed, which breathed, according to my ideas, the 
 genuine spirit of Christianity. These were warmly, 
 and I have no doubt sincerely, applauded by those 
 Friends generally. I marked this expression of their 
 feelings with attention, and yet those sentiments are 
 in my mind irreconcileably opposed to the principles 
 whereon their proceedings against me are found- 
 ed, (d) 
 
 I cannot sit down without again entering my pro- 
 test, against your deciding between the respondents 
 and myself, in any degree, upon their supplementary 
 accusations. The injustice- of putting a man upon 
 his trial on certain charges, and during the investi- 
 
 which it acts, may all be changed; [its adherence to the version of a 
 particular sect among the rest] but, the universal influence and unlimit- 
 ed honours of the Holy Scriptures, its acknowledged object, are marked 
 with perpetuity. 'The hills may pass away, and the mountains be 
 removed;' nations may flourish and decay : empires may rise and 
 fall ; worlds may be created and destroyed ; but ' the word of the 
 Lord endureth for ever. ' " Proceedings, see p. 29- 
 
 (d) " If, with the New Testament model before us," observed the 
 Rev. J. Owen on this occasion, '• we had to form for ourselves a 
 national church, [as was the case wilh the reformers, however differ- 
 ently they acted] we should consider it our duty, a duty imposed up, 
 on us by the strongest considerations, both of justice and policy, to 
 make the terms of communion as broad as possible, in order that all 
 the subjects of the state might be comprehended within the pale of its 
 religious establishment. We should regret the necessity of drawing 
 the line in such a manner, as to leave any ■rtion of our brethren in 
 a state of conscientious separation from the national communion. 
 Now, the principle which would lead to a perfect union, ought sure- 
 ly to be considered as encouraging the nearest approximation that 
 can be made to it. Despairing, therefore, as I fear we must do, of 
 uniformity in sentiment, we should, at least, maintain, as far as we 
 can accomplish it, unity of spirit ; and while we regret the imper- 
 fection of our attainments in the progress towards union, neverthe- 
 less, whereuntowe have attained, we should walk by the same rule, 
 snd mind the some thing,'' Ibid. p. 49. 
 
240 
 
 gation of these, adducing other accusations against 
 him, has been openly admitted, not by the commit- 
 tee collectively, I am aware, but by several of its 
 members. And I feel a strong persuasion, you will 
 unite in judgment upon this point, and that when 
 you come to consider the evidence before you, it 
 will appear, that such has been the manner in which 
 I have been treated. The minutes of the Meeting, 
 with the admission of the respondents, that the 
 first minute of the Meeting concerning me, related 
 to two points, and to two only, sufficiently estab- 
 lish the fact. And I trust you will be of opinion, 
 that the judgment of the Monlhly Meetingought to be 
 reversed, either because the existing rules do not au- 
 thorize disownment for such causes as are alleged in 
 the record, or that my offences are not correctly de- 
 scribed, or lastly, that the proceedings have not been 
 strictly accordant with the true spirit of the disci- 
 pline, and of gospel order. 
 
 I hope you will accept my sincere thanks, and 
 hearty acknowledgments, for the patient attention, 
 with which you have heard my defence. I need not 
 repeat the causes from which the great length to 
 which it has extended, has arisen. But I will add, 
 that I do not intend to trespass farther on your pa- 
 tience, in reply to what the respondents may offer ; 
 unless it should appear to me to call more loudly up- 
 on me, than much that I have replied to, I shall feel 
 no inclination to rise again. But before I sit down, 
 I would request your attention, to a short extract, or 
 two, from a number of the Philanthropist, which lies 
 on the table. 
 
 It is a work, the general tenor and tendency of 
 which, 1 have, from its commencement, observed 
 with increasing satisfaction. The editor of it most 
 of the committee must know to be a highly respect- 
 able member of the Society. He is a man of great 
 talents, and employs them with unwearied diligence 
 
m 
 
 and assiduity to enlighten, improve and benefit hid 
 fellow-creatures, in various ways. Nor is this work, 
 among the least beneficial of his benevolent and com- 
 mendable efforts. What then is the spirit which 
 this work inculcates, with increasing energy and ef- 
 fect? That of the most liberal encouragement of the 
 rights of private judgment. I know not by whom 
 the article to which I am about to refer, was written. 
 I shall read two quotations from it only; the first is 
 from Dr. Campbell, Vol. II. p. 209- Viz. 
 
 " ' So far am I from being afraid of exposing Chris- 
 tianity, by submitting it to the test of reason ;' says 
 the Dr. (in his Dissertation on Miracles, p. 233) 
 ' so far am I from judging this a trial, which it is by 
 no means fitted to endure, that 1 think, on the con- 
 trary, the most violent attacks that have been made 
 upon the faith of Jesus, have been of service to it. 
 Yes : I do not hesitate to affirm, that our religion 
 hath been indebted to the attempts, though not to the 
 intentions, of its bitterest enemies. They have tried 
 its strength indeed, and, by trying, they have dis- 
 played its strength ; and that, in so clear a light, as 
 we could never have hoped, without such a trial, to 
 have viewed it in. Let them therefore write, let 
 them argue ; and when arguments fail, even let them 
 cavil against religion as much as they please : I 
 should be heartily sorry, that ever in this island, the 
 asylum of liberty, where the spirit of Christianity is 
 better understood, (however defective the inhabitants 
 are in the observance of its precepts) than in any 
 other part of the Christian world ; 1 should, I say, 
 be sorry, that in this island so great a disservice were 
 done to religion, as to check its adversaries, in any 
 other way, than by returning a candid answer to 
 their objections. I must at the same time acknow- 
 ledge, that I am both ashamed and grieved, when I 
 observe any friends of religion, betray so great a dif- 
 fidence in the goodness of their cause, (for to this 
 l i 
 
242 x 
 
 diffidence it can only be imputed,) as to show an 
 inclination for recurring to more forcible methods."* 
 
 The other passage is from the works of the Rev. 
 Conyers Middleton, D. D. Principal Librarian of 
 the University of Cambridge, Vol. II. p. 312, " This 
 is a most important passage," says this writer in 
 the Philanthropist, " of which, every sentence de- 
 serves to be written in letters of gold" I cannot 
 finish better, than with such a passage. — Viz. 
 
 " ' I cannot think it agreeable/ says Dr. Mid- 
 dleton, ' either to reason, or religion, to punish even 
 such as are hardy enough, to call in question, the 
 reality of revelation itself; for it is the greatest weak- 
 ness and absurdity to think, that truth can ever be 
 hurt by any examination whatsoever : it may be op- 
 pressed a while by faction, stifled by power; but in 
 a free debate, as in free air and exercise, it always 
 regains its strength and vigour: controversy to truth, 
 is like a gentle wind to trees; it shakes the head, 
 but fastens the root. Truth is naturally so amiable, 
 that wherever it is exposed to view, it necessarily 
 draws all to admire it; and the more it is exposed, 
 the more strongly it attracts. Where artifice, in- 
 deed, and fraud prevail in the stead of it, there all 
 inquiry must industriously be discouraged, as a dan- 
 gerous and fatal enemy; sure to detect and expose 
 the cheat: and wherever it is discouraged, there is 
 always reason to suspect some latent imposture : 
 now, as sure as truth and falsehood are contrary to 
 each other, so sure it is, that the same method of 
 treating them, cannot possibly be of service to both. 
 
 " ' As far as my experience has reached, either in 
 ancient or modern history, there is not an instance 
 on record, where a fair examination has ever done 
 harm to a good cause. The attacks on Christianity, 
 urged on by its warmest enemies, always turn to its 
 advantage; they engage the clergy to study and 
 
243 
 
 Search into the true grounds of it; keep them in breath 
 and exercise; and train them, by constant discipline, 
 to be able champions and defenders of it: they clear 
 religion itself, of all the rust and rubbish, which by 
 the negligence, or the art of its managers, it may 
 have contracted : and above all, they enforce, and 
 lay open the genuine proofs of it; which by time 
 itself, naturally grow languid and ineffectual; till a 
 new debate, like a new publication, sends them 
 fresh again into the world, in their original force and 
 lustre. 
 
 " ' It is, then, my firm principle and persuasion, 
 that a free inquiry into all points of religion, is al- 
 ways useful and beneficial; and, for that reason, 
 never to be punished, or prohibited. It opens the 
 minds, and reforms the manners of the people ; makes 
 them reasonable, sociable, governable ; easy to such 
 as differ from them, and as little scandalized at the 
 different opinion, as the different complexion of 
 their neighbour; whereas, the restraint of this liberty, 
 and the imposition of systems and articles, that must 
 not be called in question, nourishes a churlish spirit 
 of bigotry, uncharitableness, enthusiasm, which no 
 civil power can moderate ; a spirit that has so oft 
 involved mankind in wars and bloodshed, and by 
 turns endangered the ruin of every Christian country 
 in the world.' " Ibid. p. 225 — 226. 
 
 The respondents being called on to reply, one 
 of them observed, that he did not know, that they 
 had much more to offer to the committee, but they 
 inclined to read some passages which they had se- 
 lected from the writings of some of our early Friends, 
 to shew what their sentiments were. The first they 
 adduced, was from p. 415 of " Fox's Doctrinals." 
 It may serve to shew, that in the title page of a 
 tract, in which George Fox professes to " testify 
 against" all such " by-names," as are not applied 
 to Christ in the scriptures, he has transgressed his 
 
244 
 
 own rule. I need not say more in this place, as 1 
 shall quote the whole of the passage hereafter, with 
 the context. 
 
 The next passage was from p. 1009 of the same 
 vol. It shews that Fox quoted the well known 
 corrupted text 1 John v. 7. after this manner, " And 
 there are three which bear witness, or record in 
 heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; 
 and these are one." Yet he did not deduce the 
 usual Calvinistic inferences from this text, if he did 
 deem it authentic. For instead of dilating on the 
 necessity of a vicarious atonement, he describes, just 
 afterwards, transgression and obedience, as mere 
 personal acts, on which the approbation, or displea- 
 sure of God solely depends. 
 
 The next passage read by the respondents, was 
 from the 3rd ch. of Barclay's Catechism, Works, 
 Vol. I. p. 214, viz. " Was not Jesus Christ in be- 
 ing before he appeared in the flesh ? What clear 
 scriptures prove this, against such as erroneously 
 assert the contrary?" In reply to this question, 
 Barclay quotes Micah v. 2, and John i. 1,2, 3, 
 which the respondents read: but how they under- 
 stood these texts, they did not explain. 
 
 The 4th passage the respondents read, was from 
 the same page, viz. " These are very clear, that 
 even the world was created by Christ, but what 
 scriptuies prove the divinity of Christ, against such 
 as falsely deny the same?" Barclay gives John i. 1, 
 Rom. ix. 5, Phil. ii. 6, 1 John v. 20, as a reply to 
 this question. These were read by the respondents, 
 but the proper question is, what is their true scrip- 
 tural import? And are they rightly rendered in the 
 received version? The three last I believe are not. 
 As to Rom. ix. 5, it is evident the early Christian 
 writers did not understand these words as spoken 
 of Christ. See Dr. Clarke's Scrip. Doctrine, p. 8,5, 
 &c. The words should, I have no doubt, be read, 
 
245 
 
 ct God who is over all, be blessed for ever,'' in con- 
 formity to the same apostle's language, in the same 
 Epistle i. 23, 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31, Eph. i. 3, &c. 
 Newcome renders Phil. ii. 6, " Who [Christ] being 
 in the form of God, did not esteem it a prey to be like 
 God." The meaning is, 1 suppose, " he did not 
 make an ostentatious display of his miraculous pow- 
 ers." See the note on the whole passage, in the 
 " Improved Version." 
 
 The common rendering of 1 John v. 20, appears 
 to be palpably erroneous. It renders the Gieek 
 preposition sv, " even in," which is in all the old 
 English versions of this text, that I have seen, trans- 
 lated by or through his Son, &c. and Jerome's 
 Latin version is thus, " Jit scimus ; quoniam Jilius 
 Dei venit : et dedit nobis sensum ut cognoscamus ve- 
 rum Deum : et scimus in vero Jilio ejus. Hie est verus 
 Deus, et vita eternal " And we know, because the 
 Son of God came, and gave us understanding, that 
 we may know the true God, and we are in his true 
 Son. Here is the true God [known] and eternal 
 life.'' The sense of the passage in either of these 
 readings, is clear, and consistent with the general 
 tenor of scripture, but in the received version far 
 otherwise, especially as it is frequently understood. 
 
 The 5th. passage the respondents read, was the 
 following, from Barclay's 2nd Prop. § 5, " Hence 
 he [Christ] is fitly called the mediator betwixt 
 God and man. For having been with God from all 
 eternity, being himself God, and also in time, par- 
 taking of the nature of man : through him is the 
 goodness, and love of God, conveyed to mankind, 
 and by him again, man receiveth and partaketh of 
 these mercies." In the preceding paragraph, to 
 which this refers, the Father is described by Bar- 
 clay, as " the infinite and most wise God, — the 
 foundation, root, and spring of all operation, — that 
 infinite and incomprehensible Fountain of life and 
 
246 
 
 motion," who " operateth in the creatures by his 
 own eternal word, and power." From whence I 
 conclude, Barclay considered Christ " the first-born 
 of every creature/' as the agent, the effect, but not 
 the cause of God's love to mankind. 
 
 Their 6th passage is from Barclay's 13th Prop. 
 § 2nd, as follows, " So then, as there was the out- 
 ward visible body and temple of Jesus Christ, which 
 took its origin from the Virgin Mary ; there is also 
 the spiritual body of Christ, by and through which, 
 he that was the word in the beginning with God, 
 and was and is God, did reveal himself to the sons of 
 men in all ages, and whereby men in all ages come to 
 be made partakers of eternal life, and to have com- 
 munion and fellowship with God and Christ" This 
 is to distinguish between the man Christ Jesus, and 
 that divine power which dwelt in him, as plainly as 
 I have done, although in different terms. 
 
 The 7th passage the respondents read, is the one in- 
 serted in p. 150, with, I believe, part of the four 
 following paragraphs, the general import of which I 
 have noticed in p. 151, &c. 
 
 After these, they read the following profession of 
 faith in God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit from Penn's 
 Works, Vol. II. p. 66 — 67. " We do believe in the 
 One only, holy, God Almighty, who is an eternal spi- 
 rit, the Creator of all things. And in one Lord Jesus 
 Christ, his only Son, and express image of his sub- 
 stance, who took upon him flesh, and was in the 
 world; and in life, doctrine, miracles, death, resur- 
 rection, ascension and mediation, perfectly did, and 
 does continue to do the will of God, to whose holy 
 life, power, mediation and blood, we only ascribe our 
 sanctification, justification, redemption and perfect 
 salvation. 
 
 " And we believe in one Holy Spirit, that proceeds 
 and breathes from the Father and the Son, as the life 
 and virtue of both the Father and the Son, a mea- 
 
247 
 
 sure of which is given to all to profit with ; and he 
 that has one, has all, for those three are one ; who is 
 the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, God 
 overall, blessed for ever. Amen." 
 
 In the preceding page, Penn challenges his Tri- 
 nitarian opponent, to bring him " one Scripture," 
 that on such a subject, authorizes the use of" such a 
 phrase as distinct person, or that says, " I and my 
 Father are two, instead of / and my Father are one.* 
 2ndly. If he will but bring me one piece of antiquity, 
 for the first 200 years, that used any such expres- 
 sion. 3dly. And if he can deny that the popish 
 schoolmen, through the assistance of the Aristote- 
 lian (or infidel) philosophy, were not the grandfa- 
 thers and promoters of such like monstrous terms, 
 and uncouth phrases, 1 will be contented to take the 
 shame upon me, of denying proper, apt, and signifi- 
 cant phrases. But till then, 1 will tell him, that if 
 the son of God did purchase our salvation distinctly 
 from the Father, the Father was not concerned in our 
 salvation, but Christ only ; and if he did so purchase 
 it, as God the Son (distinct from the Father) then 
 God l he Son, (by his principles) cannot be the same 
 with God the Father ; and all the earth, with all 
 their idle sophisms and metaphysical quiddities, 
 shall never be able to withstand the conclusion to be 
 two Gods ; otherwise, if the purchase was by God 
 the Son, then God the Father was concerned as 
 well as God the Son, because the same God. If not, 
 then either Christ's godhead was not concerned in 
 the purchase, or there must be two Gods ; so that 
 which he calls a personality, distinct from the es- 
 sence, could not do it, and if the divine essence did 
 it, then the Father and Spirit did it, as well as the 
 Son, because the same individual, eternal essence." 
 The man who wrote thus in an " Apology for the 
 Principles of the People called Quakers," first pub- 
 
248 
 
 lished in 1692, could not be a Trinitarian in any 
 proper sense of the term. 
 
 \er the next passage adduced by the respondents 
 will shew, that William Penn had not wholly dis~ 
 ca ded the term Trinity, as unfit to designate a scrip- 
 tural doctrine. In reply to an accusation that " the 
 Quakers deny the Trinity," he says, " Nothing less, 
 they believe in the holy three, or Trinity of Father, 
 Word and Spirit, according to Scripture, and that 
 these three are trul\ and properly one ; of one na- 
 ture, as well as will. But they are very tender of 
 quitting Scripture terms and phrases, for schoolmen's; 
 such as distinct and separate persons, and subsistences, 
 &c. are; from whence people are apt to entertain, 
 gross ideas and notions of the Father, Son and Holy 
 Ghost. And they judge, that a curious inquiry into 
 those high and divine relations, and other specula- 
 tive subjects, though never so great truths in them- 
 selves, tend little to godliness and less to peace, 
 which should be the chief aim of true Christians. 
 And therefore they cannot gratify that curiosity in 
 themselves, or others; speculative truths being in 
 their judgment, to be sparingly and tenderly declared, 
 and never to be made the measure and condition of 
 Christian communion. For besides that Christ Jesus 
 hath taught them other things, the sad consequence 
 in all times, of superfining upon Scripture texts, do 
 sufficiently caution and forbid them. Men are too 
 apt to let their heads outrun their hearts, and their 
 notion exceed their obedience, and their passion sup- 
 port their conceits ; instead of a daily cross, a con- 
 stant watch, and an holy practice. The despised 
 Quakers desire this may be their care, and the text 
 their creed, in this, as in all other points ; preferring 
 self-denial, to opinion, and charity, to knowledge, ac- 
 cording to that great Christian doctrine, 1 Cor, 13/' 
 Vol. II. p. 783. 
 How the respondents could have imagined such a. 
 
2*9 
 
 passage as the above did not expressly condemn the 
 whole principle of their proceedings, I cannot ima- 
 gine. I believe they also read the next § of the 
 same tract, the purport of which is already suffici- 
 ently noticed in the foregoing pages. 
 
 The next passages they read, were from some 
 " Queries concerning Christ" in Penington's Works, 
 Vol. II. p. 16' — 17. Viz. " To whom do the names 
 and titles Jesus and Christ, in the first place, belong ? 
 Do they belong to the body which was taken by 
 him, or to him who took the body ? The body hath 
 its nature and properties, and the eternal word, or 
 Son of God. (the pure, spotless lamb, the fountain 
 of innocency,) its nature and properties. ISow the 
 query is, " which was the appointed Saviour of the 
 Fa* her ? Which was the anointed of the Father, chief- 
 ly and in the first place ? Whether the body prepared, 
 or he for whom the body was prepared, to do the 
 will, and offer up the acceptable sacrifice in ?" 
 
 From the above passage it is apparent that Pen- 
 ington considered the Son of God, as having receiv- 
 ed his qualification from the Father to become the 
 appointed Saviour. The next query which the re- 
 spondents read, will shew this still more clearly. Viz. 
 " What was that which saved people outwardly from 
 their outward infirmities and diseases, while Christ 
 was on earth in that body ? Was it the body, or the 
 life, power and spirit of the Father, within the body, 
 and manifest through the body ?" 
 
 At the production of the next passage, I was still 
 more surprised. It is this. Penington asks, " Are 
 not the children and he [Christ] of one? Are not 
 he and they of the same stock P (Both he that sanc- 
 tifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one, 
 Heb. ii. 11.) Is it not from thesce that he is not a- 
 shamed to call them brethren, even because he finds 
 the nature, spirit and life of his Father in them?' 9 
 The three foregoing passages I had quoted in the first 
 
 Kk 
 
250 
 
 part of an "Appeal to the Society of Friends," publish- 
 ed in 1801, p. 21 — 22, to shew that Isaac Penington 
 attributed " all that even Jesus Christ himself was 
 possessed of, performed or communicated to others, 
 to the one only true God." Yet are they now ad- 
 duced, as if they could establish the contrary conclu- 
 sion ! The respondents also read this passage, which 
 follows the above, viz. " What makes a child to 
 God ? Is it not the being begotten of the Father, 
 and being born of the spirit ? And that which is born 
 of the spirit, is spirit. Now mark: have we the de- 
 nomination and relation with Christ, from that which 
 is spiritual, and hath Christ himself the name from, 
 or because of the body of flesh ? Nay, nay ; the 
 name Christ was from the anointing which was in the 
 body, which ran into and filled the vessel. It is true, 
 the body, in and by the union, partakes of his name ; 
 but the name belongs chiefly, and most properly, to 
 the treasure in the vessel." 
 
 Quaintly as this is expressed, it does not, in any 
 proper sense, ascribe divinity to the person of Christ, 
 but only to the spirit or power of the Father, which 
 dwelt in him. The next passage adduced by the re- 
 spondents was this : " Who was it that said, I am 
 the resurrection and the life ; Was it not Christ ? 
 And what did he say it concerning? Did he say it 
 concerning the body, or did he say it [asks Pening- 
 ton, as if that was in his mind the only other alter- 
 native] concerning the power and virtue of the Fa- 
 ther, which was in the body ? Did he not say it con- 
 cerning that, which had the power of life in it before 
 it took up the body, and had also the power of life 
 while it was in the body." 
 
 These significant queries concerning Christ exhi- 
 bibit Penington^s idea of his pre-existence, as con- 
 sisting merely in that of " the power and virtue of 
 the Father," to which he ascribes all that Christ did, 
 said, or taught. 
 
251 
 
 The next passage selected by the respondents, is 
 from another tract of Penington's, in the same Vol. 
 p. 26. Viz. " Now the Scriptures do expressly dis- 
 tinguish between Christ and the garment which he 
 wore; between him that came, and the body in 
 which he came ; between the substance which was 
 veiled, and the veil which veiled it. Lo ! I come ; 
 a body hast thou prepared me. There is plainly he, 
 and the body in which he came. There was the out- 
 ward vessel, and the inward life. This we certainly 
 know, and cannever call the bodily garment, Christ, 
 but that which appeared and dwelt in the body. 
 Now if ye, [the " professors/' to whom this tract 
 was addressed] know the Christ of God, tell us 
 plainly what that is, which appeared in the bo- 
 dy ? Whether that was not the Christ, before it took 
 up the body, after it took up the body, and for 
 ever. 
 
 H For Christ is the Son of the Father; he is the 
 infinite eternal being, One with the Father and with 
 the Spirit, and cannot be divided from either; can- 
 not be any where where they are not, nor can be ex- 
 cluded, from any place, where they are." Ibid. p. 26. 
 
 The next passage which the respondents read was 
 from a tract of Isaac Penington's, addressed " to the 
 professors of Christianity." Ibid. p. 7- " What was 
 that Christ called me, speaking to Philip ? Hast thou 
 not known me, Philip P Hast thou not seen me $ 
 What dost thou not know me after the flesh, after 
 the body. Have I been so long with you, and do 
 you know me no better than so ? The body is from 
 below ; the body is like one of your s, (only sanctified 
 by the Father, and preserved without sin ;) but I 
 am the same spirit, life and being, with the Father." 
 The next and the last passage adduced by the respond- 
 ents was from p. 38 of the same Vol. Viz. 
 
 " What doth Christ, the shepherd, (the eternal 
 
§42 
 
 word, the wisdom, life and power, of the Father,) do 
 for his sheep ?" 
 
 The answer to this question the respondents did 
 not adduce, nor shall I quote it ; but as they select- 
 ed the 7th question proposed by Penington in this 
 tract, I shall quote the first, with his answer to it, 
 because that may throw some light on the others also. 
 " Quest. 1. Who is the shepherd of the sheep }'.' 
 That is, the shepherd spoken of in the 10th chap, of 
 John. " Ans. The wisdom, life and power of the 
 Father, (which dwelleth in, and is manifest through 
 the Son) is the shepherd. He that is the truth, the 
 way and the life, he also is the shepherd, and bishop 
 of the soul." 
 
 Quest. 3. " What is the fold of the sheep ? 
 
 " Ans. The wisdom, life and power of the Father, 
 even the same that is the shepherd. The Father's 
 hand, wherewith he covers them, wherein he inclos- 
 eth them, that is the fold. For it is the power, wis- 
 dom and life, of the Father, which gathereth the 
 sheep, and he gathereth them into his wisdom, into 
 his life ; and that is a wall or fold about them." lb. 
 38—39- 
 
 The respondents did not attempt to explain how 
 any of the above passages, applied to, or supported 
 their accusations, and very soon after they had read 
 them, we signed a paper, acknowledging that we 
 had been fairly and fully heard, by the Quarterly 
 Meeting's committee. We then withdrew, and the 
 committee adjourned soon after. Whether they had 
 more than one sitting, to consider of a report, I donot 
 know, or what time they thought it necessary to 
 take, in deliberating thereon. 
 
 On the 1,5th of the same month, a notice was de- 
 livered to me, of which the following is a copy. — 
 " The committee on the appeal of Thomas Foster, 
 against the judgment of Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, 
 intend to deliver their report thereon to the Quarterly 
 
255 
 
 Meeting, to be. held at this place, at ten in the fore- 
 noon, on 2nd day, the 16th instant. 
 Signed on behalf of the committee, 
 
 Luke Howard. 
 
 Devonshire House, Houndsditch, 
 
 Uth Month, 14*/*, 1812. 
 To Thomas Foster, appellant in the said case." 
 
 QUARTERLY MEETING OF LONDON AND 
 MIDDLESEX. 
 
 Held by adjournment 11th Month, 16th, 1812. 
 
 Being introduced to a seat near the table, after 
 a short pause, the paper, which the respondents and 
 myself had signed, acknowledging that we had been 
 fully and fairly heard by the committee, on the said 
 appeal was read, and then the following minute, 
 and report. Viz. 
 
 " The following report was brought in, and read." 
 
 " At a committee, appointed by the Quarterly 
 Meeting of London and Middlesex, on the appeal 
 of Thomas Foster, against the judgment of Rat- 
 cliff Monthly Meeting. 
 
 " Committee Room, Devonshire House, 11th 
 Month, 14th 1812. 
 
 " Present all the committee except Samuel Hull, 
 absent since the first sitting, and John Hamilton, 
 who was obliged, after constantly attending the 
 sittings of the committee, to leave London this morn- 
 ing. 
 
 " To the Quarterly Meeting, 
 
 " We, your committee on the appeal of Thomas 
 
 Foster, against the Monthly Meeting of Ratcliff, 
 
 report, that having heard the appellant, and also the 
 
 respondents, appointed by the Monthly Meeting, 
 
254 
 
 until both parties acknowledged that they had been 
 fairly and fully heard, and having deliberately inves- 
 tigated and considered the case, we are unitedly 
 of the judgment, that the decision of the Monthly 
 Meeting, in relation to the appellant, should be con- 
 firmed. 
 
 John Eliot, Jun. John Sanderson, 
 
 Richard Barrett, Thomas Christy, 
 
 Joseph Allen, Thomas Brewster, 
 
 John Row, John Coleman, 
 
 John Barrett, William Forster, 
 
 John Bailey, Josiah Forster, 
 
 William Manser, George Stacey, Jun. 
 
 Luke Howard, John Bell.'" 
 
 When the report had been read a second time, 
 and the Clerk appeared to be about making a- mi- 
 nute thereof, I rose and said, that in the short in- 
 terval, which had elapsed since the committee's re- 
 port had been read, I had given it the best considera- 
 tion in my power, and having so done, sincerely as 
 I lamented the necessity of occupying the time of 
 so large a Meeting, I must say, that I am not satis- 
 fied with it. 
 
 The Clerk of the Meeting, after a short pause, 
 observed, that although the appellant had expressed 
 dissatisfaction with the committee's report, he had 
 not claimed the right of having the case opened in 
 the Meeting. 
 
 I replied, that I had not, because I wished to con- 
 form to the mode of procedure, established by the rules 
 and the custom of the Society, and was somewhat 
 uncertain, what the next step should be. If it was to 
 have the appeal read, I requested that might be 
 done, as I did not feel satisfied to wave the right, of 
 being heard in the Meeting. 
 
 But as I could not think of troubling such an as- 
 sembly with the details into which I felt it necessary 
 to go, before the committee, whose patient attention 
 
%5$ 
 
 in hearing them, I should ever readily acknowledge. 
 I had prepared an epitome of the case, for the express 
 purpose of reading it to the Quarterly Meeting, in case 
 their committee should be of opinion, that the de- 
 cision of the Monthly Meeting ought to be con- 
 firmed. 
 
 Luke Howard observed, that it was a great re- 
 lief to his mind, to hear that I had prepared an epi- 
 tome of the case, to prevent the necessity of enter- 
 ing into the long details, which the committee had 
 heard. It was a mark of attention to the conve- 
 nience of the Meeting, which he confessed gave him 
 much satisfaction. Some Friends expressed their 
 doubts, of the propriety of my laying before the 
 Meeting, matter which had not been heard by the 
 committee. I informed the Meeting, that in draw- 
 ing up my intended address, I had endeavoured to 
 condense the arguments I had laid before the com- 
 mittee, and had consequently not expressed myself 
 in the same terms; indeed I had, so far as I found 
 practicable, and advantageous to my cause, purposely 
 varied my arguments ; but they nevertheless were 
 intended to establish the same general conclusions, 
 and were for the most part drawn up without any 
 direct reference to the documents, I had laid before 
 the committee of the Quarterly Meeting. 
 
 After this, the regulations of the Yearly Meet- 
 ing for conducting appeals, were read, on the con- 
 struction of one or two of which, no little difference 
 of opinion was expressed among the most active dis- 
 ciplinarians in the Meeting. On the one side, the 
 literal import of the rule was contended for, on the 
 other, the established practice of the Society, ever 
 since those rules were made. At length it was 
 agreed, that I should be heard, in the manner I pro- 
 posed. 
 
 My appeal, as inserted p. 130 — 136, was then 
 read by John Coleby, the clerk, and afterwards the 
 
 At*. 
 
256 
 
 minutes of Ratclifif Monthly Meeting, with the tes- 
 timony of disovvnment, as inserted p. 108 — 114. 
 When these documents had been read, the Clerk 
 informed me, the Meeting was ready to hear any 
 thing I had to offer, I rose and observed, that the 
 diff .ence of sentiment, which had been manifest 
 amongst those who had spoken, since I was ad- 
 mitted into the Meeting, on the rules respecting the 
 order of procedure in cases of appeal, might serve 
 to shew the difficulty there was, in bringing any 
 considerable number of persons to an exact agree- 
 ment of opinion, on subjects which might appear 
 at first sight, very clear. How much more difficult 
 then, I wished the Meeting to consider, it must be, 
 to attain a uniformity of sentiment, on such sub- 
 jects, as those were, to which the proceedings 
 against me related ? I then read the following ad- 
 dress. 
 
 My Christian Brethren, 
 
 In presenting myself before you as an appellant, 
 after the decision of your committee, which has 
 been read, I am not actuated by any consideration 
 of a private nature. The proceedings of RatclifT 
 Monthly Meeting, on my case, are of such a complex- 
 ion, as to leave me no cause for regret, that I am no lon- 
 ger in membership with those who approved, pro- 
 moted, and sanctioned them. Nor is it probable, 
 that the remote consequences of its decision, if un- 
 reversed, will ever be of any material import to my- 
 self, as an individual. 
 
 If it be asked, why then do I appeal? I answer, 
 because 1 appreciate highly the benefits of religious 
 association, when it is conducted on truly just, and 
 liberal, that is, on Christian principles; and because 
 I believe, the proceedings of which I complain, are 
 founded on opposite principles, and are not sanc- 
 tioned by the letter, or spirit of the rules of the So- 
 
257 
 
 ciety ; and may, if they are not exposed in their 
 true colours, form a precedent in the administration of 
 the discipline, dangerous to the peace, and deeply 
 injurious to the prosperity, of the Society. 
 
 That its reputation is liable to be impaired, by 
 the improper conduct of individual members, will 
 not be questioned. If so, how much more nearly 
 may it not be wounded, when any of its Meetings 
 for discipline, act inconsistently with its established 
 rules, and the precepts of the gospel ? The Society, 
 as a collective body, is not only more strictly amen- 
 able, for the exemplary and judicious conduct of such 
 Meetings, but, by the existing rules, every Monthly 
 Meeting in the Society, is liable to be called upon, 
 blindly to pin its faith, on the supposed rectitude 
 of all the proceedings of other Meetings, which ter- 
 minate in disownment. At least, to act, as if they 
 believed them to be so, and that, perhaps, under a 
 full conviction to the contrary. 
 
 The power of disownment, in the name, and on 
 behalf of the whole Society, as a collective body, 
 is entrusted by its rules, to every Monthly Meeting, 
 however small, or weak ; and every other Meeting, 
 not merely in Great Britain and Ireland, but through- 
 out North America, is virtually bound, by such 
 decision, during the life of the party. Those who 
 resign their membership, or have never been of th^ 
 Society, may, on application, be received as mem- 
 bers, at the discretion of any Monthly Meeting, 
 where they reside, but not a person disowned. No 
 other Meeting, but that which disowned, is allowed 
 to receive him as a member, not even on the most 
 intimate knowledge, and cordial approval, of his 
 religious character and principles, after a residence 
 among its members, however long, or at a place 
 however distant, from that of the Meeting which 
 disowned him. A confession of " misconduct," 
 to the satisfaction of the Meeting which disowned, 
 
2o8 
 
 is the appointed atonement, and indispensable con- 
 dition of restoration to membership. Thus, is a tacit 
 claim to infallibility set up, in favour of all acts of 
 disownment, that are not reversed, by an appeal to a 
 superior Meeting. 
 
 These regulations, are however, of modern date, 
 and not like the right of appeal, almost co-eval with 
 the existence of the Society. For more than a cen- 
 tury, no such shackles on the power of re-admission 
 into membership, were thought necessary to be im- 
 posed on Monthly Meetings. Had this still been 
 the case, it is probable, I should have waved the 
 privilege of appeal, as the right of every community, 
 absolutely to decide for itself, on the admission and 
 exclusion of its own members, is so reasonable, that 
 I know not, whether any plea could be valid enough 
 to call it in question. But, when the decision of a 
 small body of men, has the effect of dissolving the bonds 
 of union, not merely between an individual member 
 and themselves, but between him, and a large Society; 
 and also of precluding, without their special consent, 
 and recommendation, the possibility of his re-union 
 with any part of such Society, which may hereafter 
 be willing to receive him into membership, the right 
 of appeal becomes proportionably reasonable, and im- 
 portant. 
 
 On these grounds, therefore, do I claim your seri- 
 ous attention, to the proceedings against me, which 
 have terminated in disownment. The overseers 
 having paid me two visits, one of them three, re- 
 ported to RatclifT Monthly Meeting, 12th Month, 
 19th last, that I " had imbibed, and aided in the 
 propagation of, doctrines contrary to those of the 
 Society.'* The evidence whereon they rested this 
 accusation, was, that I had given a few of my friends, 
 some copies of a paper, entitled, " Remarks on the 
 Quakers* Yearly Epistle, for 1810, by an Unitarian 
 Christian f secondly, that I was a subscriber to the 
 
259 
 
 " London Unitarian Book Society, for promoting 
 Christian knowledge, and the practice of virtue." 
 
 With regard to the paper, the overseers alleged, that 
 those Remarks " found fault with the Yearly Meet- 
 ing Epistle, and they thought, contained sentiments 
 very different from those of Friends.'* As to the 
 London Unitarian Book Society, after a minute re- 
 view of its fundamental principles, article by article, 
 as the same are stated in the preface to its Book of 
 Rules, the overseers deliberately and explicitly ac- 
 knowledged, that they approved the whole. And on 
 reading to them my minutes, respecting the manner 
 in which I had asserted the scriptural soundness, 
 and great importance of those principles, they even 
 urged, how unnecessary they thought it was, for me 
 to have made any observations thereon, " as they 
 did not make any objection to those parts ." 
 
 This admission, so deliberately made, reduces the 
 objection on their part, to an opinion that my 
 being a subscriber to this Book Society implies 
 more than an agreement with its fundamental prin- 
 ciples. On this ground, the overseers accordingly 
 placed it, saying, they considered me as a subscriber, 
 accountable for all that the preface to its Book of 
 Rules contained. I assured them, it was an approval 
 of its fundamental principles, that induced me to 
 become a subscriber, and that I never imagined my- 
 self answerable for any other. That I had not im- 
 bibed those principles of late years, but in early life, 
 and that the first strong impression that was made 
 on my mind, concerning their great importance, as 
 Christian doctrines, was by perusing Penn's Sandy 
 Foundation Shaken, where they are so clearly and 
 forcibly stated. That this impression had never been 
 effaced, but had been confirmed, by subsequent en- 
 quiry and reflection— had grown with my growth, 
 and strengthened with my strength. 
 
 The overseers also disclaimed the notion, of Christ 
 
260 
 
 being the second person in the Trinity, as a doc- 
 trine never held by Friends, and as wholly unscrip- 
 tural. After these concessions, I was prepared 
 to expect, instead of an accusation, an acknow- 
 ledgment from them, that they had formed a mis- 
 taken judgment of my sentiments, by listening, to 
 the manifest encouragement of tale-bearing and de- 
 traction, to their numerous informants, and prompt- 
 ers of other meetings, whom they refused to name. 
 And the only way, in which 1 can account for the 
 course they pursued, is to suppose they still conti- 
 nued to act, under the influence of those who incited 
 them to commence these proceedings. 
 
 Their whole conduct appeared to me to indicate, 
 that they neither acted upon their own judgment, 
 nor in conformity to the true principles of Chris- 
 tian discipline, the first object of which is, to re- 
 claim and to restore. Had this been the primary 
 end, they aimed at, is it possible they could have 
 acted with so much precipitation ? Could they 
 have thought it likely, that their two visits would 
 suddenly convince me of the propriety of renouncing 
 principles, which they knew had been for many 
 years esteemed by me, as greatly important Chris- 
 tian truths, even supposing them to be erroneous? 
 This, no person of serious reflection, and sound un- 
 derstanding, will, I believe, venture to assert. It 
 is, too improbable, and in fact the overseers assign- 
 ed another reason, for so speedily wishing to lay the 
 matter before the Monthly Meeting, viz. " For the 
 sake of getting it off their shoulders, " as they con- 
 fessed their incompetency to discuss such abstruse 
 subjects, as they had undertaken to treat with me, 
 upon. 
 
 The Monthly Meeting declined to recognize their 
 charges in any definite terms, but recorded its being 
 informed, that I had " imbibed, and aided in propa- 
 gating, some opinions contrary to the principles of 
 
$61 
 
 the Society;" and appointed a committee of four 
 Friends, to visit me thereon, and report. In reply- 
 to such a charge as the foregoing, I might ask, Who 
 has not? And it would be easy to shew, that 
 approved authors in the Society, have published con- 
 tradictory, and therefore some erroneous opinions. 
 In proof of which, it may suffice to refer, to the first 
 paragraph of " the chapter on the Christian Religi- 
 on," p. 32, of Henry Tuke's work on the " Princi- 
 ples of Religion," &c. in which he represents 
 " Adam by his disobedience, as having « entailed sin 
 and misery on himself, and his offspring ,' " in express 
 contradiction to the doctrine of Barclay, Prop. 4, 
 § 4, which I consider as stating the genuine doctrine 
 of the Society, and of the Scriptures, on this subject, 
 and consequently that the above passage of Henry 
 Tuke's is opposed to both, and I will add, highly 
 derogatory to the goodness, and justice of God. (a) 
 
 (a) I ought perhaps to say, that I have since seen another edition 
 of this work, in which the following words are substituted in the 
 place of those above quoted, representing man as having by the sin 
 of Adam, '• subjected himself, and his offspring, to sin and misery" 
 instead of having " entailed sin and misery on himself, and his off. 
 spring." This amendment gets rid, it is true, of the absurdity of 
 saying a man entailed sin and misery, on himself. But it leaves the 
 far most material part of the injurious absurdity undiminished, con- 
 veying it only in terms less open to dectection, but equally at vari- 
 ance with the doctrine of Barclay, and of the Scriptures on this im- 
 portant subject. 
 
 I cannot conclude this note, without giving an extractor two from 
 a recent work of George Stacey's, entitled, '* Brief Remarks on the 
 State of Man, and his Redemption by Christ.'' This esteemed elder 
 in the Society, says in this " approved" work : " But this doctrine of 
 original sin, or innate depravity, is not a solitary, speculative error; 
 Connected as it is, in the view of many, with our desert of eternal 
 misery, from the first moment of existence, and with the still further 
 opinion, that there are infants, not a few, who actually are excluded 
 from the benefit of Christian redemption, it becomes a fearful doc- 
 trine indeed, in its practical effects, or application." p. 8. After 
 shewing the" direct opposition" of this doctrine, with that of Christ, 
 he says, '* that sin, being the transgression of law, cannot be trans- 
 ferred by the act of another, nor be imputed to unconscious infancy j 
 
 
 
262 
 
 Yet who ever thought of subjecting Henry Tuke, 
 to censure and disownment, for having imbibed, and 
 aided in propagating, this erroneous and injurious 
 representation of the doctrines of the Society? It 
 is well known he is an approved minister among 
 Friends, and that this work was submitted to the 
 revision, and published under the sanction of the 
 morning meeting of ministers and elders. This may 
 be thought to exonerate him, but it cannot do so, 
 without shifting the responsibility from his shoul- 
 ders, and placing it with increased weight upon 
 the morning meeting, in exact proportion to the 
 superior estimation, in which the judgment of that 
 body is held, when compared with that of an indi- 
 vidual. What this proportion may be, every one 
 may judge for himself, but it must be allowed, that 
 when error is taken under the patronage of authority, it 
 is too apt to be received on that account, and thereby 
 to lull to sleep, that fearless spirit of enquiry, which 
 a genuine love of truth tends to generate, and 
 which is one of the best securities a kind providence 
 has bestowed upon mankind, against innumerable 
 errors and impositions. 
 
 The aforesaid committee reported to the Monthly 
 Meeting, held 1st month, 23rd last, that they had 
 paid your appellant two visits, and having then, no 
 farther report to make, they were continued. At 
 the next meeting, on 2nd month, 20th. they made 
 a farther report, in which they say, — 
 
 nor can it," adds he, " comport with any idea we can form of Him, 
 •who is goodness itself, and who has declared, ' the son shall not bear 
 the iniquity of his Father,'' to consign to a state of everlasting dere- 
 liction and punishment, that which hath not offended him. And it is 
 not to be forgotten, that man is still the creature of God, all whose 
 works are in wisdom, and adapted to the purpose for which they are 
 formed." p. 11 — 12. That is, for purposes of unlimited and ever- 
 during benevolence. When this subject was adverted to, before the 
 Quarterly Meeting's committee, I expressed the satisfaction I had felt 
 at the perspicuous manner in which this subject was treated, by so re- 
 spectable a member of the Society. 
 
263 
 
 1st. " We have paid him two visits, since our last 
 Meeting, to no satisfaction." 
 
 2nd. " We questioned him, on some important 
 points of doctrine, respecting which we had strong 
 ground to believe, his opinions are at variance with 
 those of the Society." 
 
 3rd. " To which" interrogatories " he decidedly 
 refused to answer.'* 
 
 4th. "He was also asked, if he were not the au- 
 thor, who assumes the name of Verax, which," say 
 they, " he is publicly charged with in print." 
 
 oth. " The apparent scope of whose publications 
 is," the said committee affirm, " to prove that our 
 early Friends denied, the eternal divinity of Christ." 
 
 6th. " This" they say, " he also refused to an- 
 swer" 
 
 7th. " But he avows that he has distributed some 
 papers, entitled i Remarks on the Quakers' Yearly 
 Epistle/ calling in question the omnipotence of our 
 Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ." 
 
 8th. " And the propriety of applying to him in se- 
 cret supplication, as professed by the Yearly Meet- 
 ing, in its Epistle for 1810." 
 
 9th. " Also, that he is a member of the Unitarian 
 Society, in which he confesses he has great satis- 
 faction." 
 
 10th. " We have," say the committee, " endea- 
 voured to convince him, of the impropriety of his con- 
 duct, as a member of our Society ; but he is not 
 disposed to allow, that he has acted at all improperly, 
 or inconsistently." 
 
 Such are the allegations of the committee, as they 
 stand in their report, which I have divided into se- 
 parate articles for the convenience of reference, hav- 
 ing a few observations to make on them, before I pro- 
 ceed to speak of their reception by the Meeting. 
 
 1st. As to the committee's total want of satisfac- 
 tion in their two last visits, I know not that it was 
 
264- 
 
 in my power to prevent it, unless I had acted a part? 
 unworthy of a man, and a Christian. 
 
 2nd. In a protestant country, the only mode of 
 questioning persons on important points of doctrine, 
 that is commonly known, is generally called catechis- 
 ing, and is wholly, as it ought to be, devoted to the 
 purposes of imparting religious instruction. It was, 
 with united feelings of surprise, and I trust, of virtu- 
 ous indignation, that I witnessed the persevering ef- 
 forts of the Monthly Meeting's committee, to exer- 
 cise, for far different purposes, such dangerous and 
 unauthorized pretensions to ecclesiastical power. 
 The object they were aiming at, was all along, so 
 manifestly to lay hold of my words, and by means of 
 ensnaring questions, to extend their accusations 
 against me, that 1 am persuaded they will not, on 
 due consideration, venture to deny it. If they 
 should, however, it must be in the teeth of their own 
 report, which, for so brief a document, contains un- 
 commonly full, and conclusive evidence, upon this 
 point. 
 
 They had indeed, for a long period of time, by their 
 own confession, frequently listened to, and there- 
 fore encouraged, those detractive tale-bearers, whom 
 they refused to name, although called upon so to do, 
 in compliance with the most obvious claims of jus- 
 tice, and the positive requisition of an express mi- 
 nute of the Yearly Meeting. Yet, till these proceed- 
 ings commenced, neither of them ever opened their 
 lips to me on the subject. What was it, after all, that 
 this persevering encouragement of defamation and 
 detraction produced ? It should seem, by their own 
 report, not positive evidence against me, on those 
 important points of doctrine, but it generated, as 
 might be expected, in such listeners to back-biting, 
 what they call, and no doubt fancied, " strong ground 
 to believe, my opinions [on those subjects] are at va- 
 riance with those of the Society." 
 
265 
 
 Accordingly, they proceeded to question me, that 
 they might discover, whether the tales they had been 
 in the habit of listening to, without my knowledge, 
 were true, or false. Had they observed the rules of 
 gospel order, and of immutable justice, they would 
 either have long ago sent these defamers to me, or 
 have informed me, who they were, and what they 
 alleged against me. If they had acted on such prin- 
 ciples, I should have cheerfully received their visits 
 as well meant endeavours, whether in my mind ju- 
 dicious, or not, to rescue me from the baneful effects 
 of error, which would have entitled them to my re- 
 spect and gratitude. 
 
 But after being accused to the Monthly Meeting, 
 in terms which 1 consider unwarrantable and unjust, 
 for the same persons, in concert with two others, to 
 proceed to question me, upon points quite foreign to 
 those on which they rested their own accusation., indi- 
 cates either great ignorance of the plainest principles of 
 justice, or an utter disregard of them. Nor could such 
 pretensions be justified, if they had been confined 
 by the committee to the subjects on which the over- 
 seers had accused me. They had either sufficient 
 evidence, without questioning me, or they had not. If 
 they had, it was unnecessary, and implied they were 
 not satisfied with it, too plainly to be creditable to 
 their sincerity, or consistency. If they were not sa- 
 tisfied with the evidence they had been so long in col- 
 lecting, to resort to such an expedient to supply the 
 defect of it, was equally insidious, and unjustifiable. 
 Look to your religious privileges, Friends, and re- 
 flect, I entreat you, and more especially the youth 
 amongst you, on the probable consequences of estab- 
 lishing a precedent, so inimical to the purest pre- 
 cepts of the gospel, so dangerous to the cause of 
 Christian liberty, and the rights of private judgment* 
 and so subversive of the authority of Christ, who 
 forbad his followers to call, in religious matters, any 
 m m 
 
266 
 
 man master upon earth, " for one is your master, 
 even Christ, and all ye are brethren." 
 
 3d and 6th. That my refusal to answer the interro- 
 gatories of the committee, should be alleged against 
 me as a crime, in their report, affords the most deci- 
 sive proof that their ideas of church authority, are ra- 
 ther of Popish, than of Protestant extraction. The 
 candour and correctness with which they have stated 
 their conduct and mine, with relation to these claims, 
 also shews, that they looked for the approbation of 
 their brethren on the avowed exercise of such pow- 
 ers, and to their censure of me, for decidedly re- 
 fusing to answer their interrogatories. Nor do I 
 question the sincerity of their belief, that such pow- 
 ers may be lawfully, and usefully exercised in a Chris- 
 tian church. As to their motives to action, I have 
 been desirous, as far as possible, of being preserved 
 from judging. It is not my province. But the ten- 
 dency oftheirconduct, and the ground of their accu- 
 sations, it is at once my right, and duty to investi- 
 gate. Of these I would always be understood to 
 speak, where my censure may be thought most se- 
 vere, and their conduct most reprehensible. 
 
 It was not the firm persuasion of Paul, when he 
 verily thought with himself, that he "ought to do 
 many things contrary to Jesus of Nazareth," that could 
 justify his cruel persecution of the primitive Chris- 
 tians ; much less, could his " having received autho- 
 rity" for that purpose, " from the chief priests." 
 He was, by his own testimony after he became an apos- 
 tle, in persecuting even unto death, " zealous towards 
 God ;" yet it was not a zeal according to knowledge, 
 but he " did it ignorantly in unbelief," and there- 
 fore " obtained mercy/ ' Our great Master, for the 
 encouragement of his disciples, foretold the extent 
 of religious delusion over the human mind, in these 
 remarkable expressions. " They shall put you out 
 of the synagogues : yea, the time cometh, that who- 
 
267 
 
 Soever killeth you, will think that he doeth God service.''' 
 If any ask, to what causes is such extreme infatua- 
 tion to be ascribed ? The lip of truth has informed 
 us, as recorded in the following verse. — " And these 
 things will they do unto you, because they have not 
 known the Father nor me. John xvi. 2. 3. 
 
 4th and 5th. These articles relate to a supplement- 
 ary accusation, of which I refused on that account 
 to enter into any discussion, with the committee. It 
 may therefore suffice to say, that the judgment they 
 have pronounced concerning the scope of Verax's 
 publications, is not only palpably erroneous, but the 
 very reverse of the truth. If they are disposed to 
 controvert this, and you should sanction their pro- 
 duction of fresh charges against me, during the in- 
 vestigation of those which were referred to their con- 
 sideration, I must say, such a mode of procedure, if 
 attempted in any court of justice in this country, 
 would, I have no doubt, be scouted with indigna- 
 tion. And when it is resorted to, in the exercise of 
 church discipline, it betrays much more of a dispo- 
 sition to censure, and disown, than calmly to inquire, 
 and impartially to decide, upon the just and equitable 
 principles of gospel order. 
 
 7th and 8th. With regard to these charges, I have 
 already admitted having given a few of my friends, 
 some copies of a paper, entitled Remarks on the 
 Quakers' Yearly Epistle for 1810, as I did to the 
 overseers at the first visit they paid me. And I am 
 so far from considering whatever publicity I gave 
 those Remarks, as any breach of the rules of the dis- 
 cipline, that I confess to you, those Remarks appear 
 tome, a seasonable, temperate and serious vindication 
 of the genuine principles of the Society ; particular- 
 ly of those greatly important doctrines, of the unity 
 and supremacy of God the Father, which the gene- 
 ral tenor of the devotional language of the Yearly- 
 Meeting Epistles, up to the year 17^9? published 
 
26S 
 
 in 1760, holds forth as its practical doctrines. That 
 such was their actual import, I had long been con- 
 vinced, and had, in consequence thereof, marked in 
 the margin of my copy of those Epistles, many ot the 
 more striking passages, without any idea of preparing 
 a collection of them for the public eye. 
 
 But, on reviewing these marginal references, in con- 
 sequence of the replies of Breviloquus, and of Stan- 
 ley Pumphrey of Worcester, it struck me, thai a col- 
 lection of the most definite doxologies in the Yearly 
 Meeting's Epistles, from year to year, would exhibit 
 the most authentic, unexceptionable, and conclu- 
 sive evidence of the real belief of the Society, as a 
 body, and of its actual language, when collectively 
 engaged in the solemn exercise of devotion to 
 the object of its worship, that could possibly be fur- 
 nished. 
 
 With this view, the " Devotional and Doctrinal Ex- 
 tracts" were compiled, and published without any 
 other comment, than a brief explanatory preface, 
 and an Appendix, arranging, under distinct heads, 
 the evidence these extracts appeared to me to afford. 
 After this compilation had been made mM.S. down to 
 the year 17«59» the editor began to collect the epistles 
 of a later date, which have not, like the former, been 
 published in a volume, when he discovered, much to 
 his surprise, an assertion in the Epistle for 1760, 
 which appeared to him manifestly unscriptural and 
 erroneous, as well as inconsistent with the uniform 
 language of all the preceding epistles. This passage, 
 and a few others, which may be thought to inculcate 
 similar doctrine, for the sake of impartiality, the edi- 
 tor has adduced in the Preface, or in the Appendix, 
 that his readers might have the whole evidence fairly 
 before them. 
 
 The general result of this evidence, as it impresses 
 my mind, is, 1st. That there are more than 50 epis- 
 tles, between the years 1678 and 1810, in which God 
 the Father, is most plainly distinguished from, and as 
 
269 
 
 acting " in,— by," or " through" Jesus Christ, or, 
 as bestowing blessings upon mankind, " in, — by,'* 
 or " through" him. 
 
 2ndly. That in above 70 epistles within the same 
 period, the supremacy of the Father, and subordina- 
 tion of the Son, is either expressly asserted, or most 
 plainly implied, by the application of such terms to 
 God, as distinguished from Jesus Christ, as are ne- 
 ver ascribed to the latter, by the sacred writers. 
 
 3dly. That there are above 90 epistles within the 
 same period of time, in which it is highly probable 
 the compilers always meant to designate, God the Fa- 
 ther ow/y, when they used such terms as are. express- 
 ly ascribed to the Supreme Being, and never in these 
 epistles, or in the Scriptures, to Christ, the occasi- 
 onal application of the term Lord alone excepted. 
 
 4thly. That in more than 30 of these Epistles, 
 prayer or supplication is expressly addressed to God 
 the Father, in such definite terms as are totally inap- 
 plicable to Jesus Christ, and can only, in fair con- 
 struction, be understood to designate his God and 
 our God, — " the One benevolent and all-powerful 
 Parent of the universe, — the Preserver of men, who 
 hears the prayer of the humble. " 
 
 Sthly. That in more than 50 of these epistles, 
 <l glory, — honour, — praise, — blessing, — thanksgiving, 
 dominion, — worship," — or " adoration/' are ascrib- 
 ed to God the Father, in such exalted and definite 
 terms, as of right belong only unto him, the sole 
 object of supreme religious worship, none of which, 
 are scripturally applicable to Jesus Christ, but only, 
 unto the " Father and Fountain of all grace, mercy 
 and goodness," — " the King eternal, immortal, in- 
 visible, the only wise God." 
 
 Such is the evidence, a collective and impartial 
 view of the devotional language of our predecessors 
 in religious profession, appears to me to furnish, 
 concerning their belief in, " God, even the Father 
 
270 
 
 <jf our Lord Jesus Christ/' and the Almighty Pa* 
 rent of the universe. 
 
 Soon after the second visit from the overseers, 
 being six weeks before they accused me to the 
 Monthly Meeting, I put into their hands a copy of 
 that pamphlet, with a letter, recommending it to 
 their notice, as containing " a correct and regular 
 series of Extracts from the Yearly Meeting Epistles, 
 from 1678, to 1810," which, I observed, would read- 
 ily enable them " to compare those passages in the 
 Epistle for 1810, with the general tenor of those 
 Epistles, for former years, on the same subjects. 
 This comparison," 1 added, " may assist you in 
 determining, whether they are consistent with each 
 other, and if they are not, which is most conforma- 
 ble to Scripture doctrine." 
 
 Whether the overseers, or the committee of the 
 Monthly Meeting, ever perused this pamphlet, thus 
 submitted to their notice, in my own defence against 
 their accusations, I am ignorant. If they did, they 
 never spoke to me concerning any part of its con- 
 tents, till I requested, towards the close of the com- 
 mittee's last visit, to be informed, why they had so 
 long passed it over in silence, anxious as they had 
 been, in the mean time, to search after additional 
 grounds of accusation. This they refused to ex- 
 plain. 
 
 They accused me with having aided in dispersing 
 some Remarks, which call in question " the omni- 
 potence of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and 
 the propriety of applying to him in secret supplica- 
 tion, as professed by the Yearly Meeting, in its 
 Epistle for 1810." I might have admitted these 
 charges, and have adduced the testimony of the four 
 evangelists, that Jesus Christ positively disclaimed 
 all such titles, and ascribed all the powers he pos- 
 sessed, to the Father. But I thought it more friend- 
 ly, to put my accusers upon reconsidering their un- 
 
271 
 
 scriptural accusation, and therefore submitted to 
 them the following queries, as metioned p. 93. Viz. 
 
 1st. Do you consider omnipotence, as a communi- 
 cable attribute ? Or, as an essential inseparable at- 
 tribute of the most high God ? 
 
 2ndly. When you speak of Jesus Christ, as " om- 
 nipotent," do you mean the man, Christ Jesus? 
 
 3rdly. When you describe Jesus Christ, as " the 
 proper object of adoration and praise,'* do you mean 
 " the man Christ Jesus V 3 And by the terms " ado- 
 ration and praise," do you mean supreme religious 
 worship? To these queries, given them in writing, 
 Feb, 7th, last, the committee never gave me any re- 
 ply, verbal, or written. 
 
 At a former conference, on Jan. 22nd last, the 
 committee having charged me " with holding, that 
 Jesus Christ is not omnipotent, nor the proper ob- 
 ject of adoration and praise," I proposed to them the 
 following queries, as related p. 71 — 72. Viz. 
 
 1st. Do you consider the Lord Jesus Christ, as 
 now " glorified in the heavens, in soul and body," 
 as being " a true and real man," or, that he is in 
 reality, in this glorified state, the supreme God ? 
 
 2ndly. If you say the former, on what grounds do 
 you accuse me, with having imbibed " unscriptural 
 opinions," with regard to the person, and character 
 of Christ? 
 
 Srdly. If you say the latter, how can you defend 
 the position on scriptural grounds? 
 
 To neither of these queries, could I obtain any 
 definite answer, but the committee appeared evi- 
 dently to lean towards the latter, and expressed ge- 
 neral dissatisfaction, with my having presumptuous- 
 ly meddled with such subjects. On which I ob- 
 served, I had only one more query to submit to them 
 at present, which was this : 
 
 4thly. How can you reconcile such " position," 
 
272 
 
 with the last paragraph of the 13th § of the oth and 
 6th Prop, of Barclay's Apology? 
 
 To which the committee have never given me any 
 other answer, than a censure for holding these funda- 
 mental Christian tenets, and saying at a future con- 
 ference, " they did not think themselves at liberty, 
 to give me their sentiments upon them, and that they 
 had nothing to do with Barclay's opinions on such 
 subjects." At this conference, I also proposed to 
 them the following queries, as stated p. 94. 
 
 1st. Whether it is not undeniably the doctrine of 
 Barclay, and of the Scriptures, that our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, as now glorified in the heavens, is in soul 
 and body, a true, and real man, by whom God shall 
 judge the world ? 
 
 2ndly. Whether you deem it sound and scriptural, 
 to ascribe omnipotence to any true and real man, 
 however exalted and glorified ? 
 
 Srdly. Whether any true and real man, can be. 
 consistently with the doctrine of the Scriptures, re- 
 presented, as " the proper object of supreme adora- 
 tion, and praise?" 
 
 4thly. Whether the Scriptures do not uniformly 
 ascribe omnipotence, to that great Being only, 
 who is therein styled, the God and Father of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and represent him alone, as the 
 'proper object of supreme religious worship? 
 
 To these queries also, the committee refused to 
 give me any reply whatever, thus, most uncandidly 
 concealing their own sentiments, on the subjects of 
 their charges against me, and unjustly withholding 
 all explanation of the real import of their accusa- 
 tions. Yet nothing could be more easy, than for 
 them to have answered those questions. Whether 
 they acted with this caution, in consequence of the 
 result of the explanation I obtained, respecting the 
 sense in which they understood the Society held the 
 
573 
 
 doctrine of the divinity of Christ, is not for me to 
 determine. But, it seems, they were, as to this point, 
 and the Society too, in their estimation, either as 
 heretical as myself, or I was as orthodox as they. 
 Such was the actual result of their explanation upon 
 that subject, by which it appeared, that they did not 
 ascribe divinity, to the man Christ Jesus, but to that 
 divine power, which dwelt in him, and acted by him ; 
 a doctrine which I had frequently maintained, and 
 never called in question. 
 
 It may also surely be inferred, from their refusal 
 to explain their own accusation, that they hesitate to 
 avow omnipotence to be a communicable attribute, 
 appertaining to the man Christ Jesus. Or, that he, 
 the one Mediator between God and men, is the pro- 
 per object of supreme religious worship. Their ac- 
 cusation expressly relates to the present glorified 
 state of Jesus Christ, and charges me with holding, 
 that he " is not omnipotent/' but they refuse to 
 say, whether they mean " that same Jesus/' whom 
 the Jews crucified, and whom God raised up, and 
 made both Lord, and Christ. That is, the man 
 Christ Jesus, whom God hath exalted with his right 
 hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour. 
 
 Unreasonable as I still consider this conduct of 
 the Monthly Meeting's committee, I shall not hesi- 
 tate to state to you, openly and explicitly, my sen- 
 timents on the subjects of the above queries. I say 
 then, it does appear to me, to be undeniably the doc- 
 trine of Barclay, and of the Scriptures, that our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, as now glorified in the heavens, 
 is, in soul and body, a true and real man, by whom 
 God shall judge the world. 2nd. 1 do not deem it 
 sound and scriptural, to ascribe omnipotence to any 
 true, or real man, however exalted, or glorified. 3rd. 
 I do not believe any true, and real man, can be, con- 
 sistently with the doctrine of the Scriptures, repre- 
 sented as " the proper object of supreme adoration 
 X n 
 
274- 
 
 and praise." 4th. I am fully persuaded in my own 
 mind, that the Scriptures uniformly ascribe omnipo- 
 tence, to that great Being only, who is therein styled 
 the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
 represent him alone, as the proper object of supreme 
 religious worship. 
 
 It has been observed, that Barclay's ordinary lan- 
 guage, instead of being vague, indefinite, and un- 
 formed, is " as simple, clear, and definite," as that 
 " of any author," that his style " rather removed 
 the veil, which many of the phrases of the earlier 
 writers" among Friends, " had cast over the aspect 
 of the truths which they held, that as he wrote his 
 Apology in Latin and English, each text is to be 
 considered as an original, and each an undeniable 
 comment on the other, and may serve for the clear- 
 ing up any ambiguity that may unintentionally be 
 in the work/' These observations of Joseph Gur- 
 ney Bevan, on the comparative clearness of Barclay's 
 style, I grant to be, generally speaking, just, and they 
 are, I think, peculiarly applicable to the following pas- 
 sage, on account of the remarkable accuracy and pre- 
 cision, with which it is expressed. There is hardly 
 a term in it, of any importance to the author's argu- 
 ment, susceptible of a double, or a dubious inter- 
 pretation. The sense of the writer is obvious, on a 
 first perusal, either in Latin or in English, and the 
 only effect of a re-examination of either, is to con- 
 firm the first impression. The passage is verbatim 
 as follows : " Now, as the soul of man dwells other- 
 wise, and in a far more immediate manner, in the 
 head, and in the heart, than in the hands or legs ; 
 and as the sap, virtue, and life of the vine, lodgeth 
 far otherwise, in the stock and root, than in the 
 branches; so God dwelleth otherwise in the man 
 Jesus, than in us." Sic etiam Deus habitat aliter 
 in homine Jesu Christo, quam in nobis. 
 
 " We also freely reject the heresy of Apollinarius, 
 
275 
 
 who denied him to have any soul, — qui negabat eum 
 habuisse animam, — but said, the body was only 
 acted by the Godhead — sed corpus solummodo divi- 
 nitate actum. As also the error of Eutyches, who 
 made the manhood to be wholly swallowed up of 
 the godhead — qui naturam virilem a divinitate pror- 
 sus absorptam voluit. Wherefore, as we believe he 
 was a true, and real man ; so we also believe, that he 
 continues so to be glorified in the heavens, in soul, 
 and body, by whom God shall judge the world, in 
 the great and general day of judgment'' This asser- 
 tion of an inexpressibtyimportant scriptural doctrine, 
 is very clear, but the Latin original is still more lumi- 
 nous, and definite. " Nam siculi credimus^ic ilium 
 adhuc remanere in ccelis, cum in corpore, turn in animd 
 glorijicatum, per qutfin, Deus judicabit mundum in 
 novissimo, et extremo die judicii." 
 
 It has been said, that this passage is inconsistent 
 with some others in the Apology, but I think, with- 
 out sufficient ground, and that the preceding part 
 of this section, if attentively considered, will at once 
 elucidate Barclay's meaning, and tend to vindicate 
 the consistency of his sentiments. Such parts of it 
 as relate most expressly to the subject of our present 
 enquiry, I shall extract, with as little irrelevant mat- 
 ter as possible. 
 
 1st. " By this seed, grace and word of God, and 
 light, wherewith, we say, every one is enlightened — 
 we understand not the proper essence, and nature of 
 God, precisely taken ; which is not divisible into 
 parts and measures, as being a most pure, simple 
 Being, void of all composition, or division, and 
 therefore can neither be resisted, hurt, wounded, 
 crucified, or slain, by all the efforts, and strength of 
 men." 
 
 2nd. " As we do not at all intend, by speaking of 
 ' Christ within/ to equal ourselves to that holy 
 man, the Lord Jesus Christ, who was born of the 
 
 - 
 
276 
 
 Virgin Mary, in whom all the fulness of the godhead 
 dwelt bodily — in quo habitabat, omnis plenitudo divi- 
 nitatis corporaliter.'' 
 
 3rd. " So neither do we destroy the reality of his 
 present existence, as some have falsely calumniated 
 us." 
 
 4th. " For though we affirm that Christ dwells in 
 us, yet not immediately, but mediately as he is in 
 that seed, which is in us ; whereas he, to wit the 
 eternal word, which was with God, and was God, 
 dwelt immediately in that holy man — cum Me, 
 nimirum verbum ceternum quod erat apud Deum, 
 et ipse Deus erat, et immediate habitabat in sancto 
 Mo homine. He then is as the head, and we as 
 the members ; he the vine, and we the branches." 
 
 It is not to our present purpose, to enquire whe- 
 ther Barclay is equally intelligible, and definite, 
 when he speaks in the same section of " a spiritual, 
 heavenly, invisible principle, in which, he says, 
 " God, as Father, Son, and Spirit dwells, " or to 
 account for it, if he is not, because he expressly 
 tells us, he does not mean thereby, " the proper 
 essence and nature of God." Neither does he, it 
 is plain, by what he calls the spiritual body of 
 Christ, of which he treats so largely in his 13th 
 Proposition. For he says, in the 2nd § u It is that 
 heavenly seed, that divine, spiritual, celestial sub- 
 stance, of which we spake before in the .5th and 
 6th propositions." That is, as not to be understood 
 of " the proper essence and nature of God.'* Nor 
 " of that body, or temple of Jesus Christ, which 
 was born of the Virgin Mary, and in which he 
 walked, lived, and suffered, in the land of Judea." 
 
 Towards the conclusion of this section, Barclay 
 accordingly describes the spiritual body of Christ, 
 not as God himself, precisely taken, but as the in- 
 strument or medium, " by and through which, He, 
 that was in the beginning with God, and was, and 
 
277 
 
 is God, did reveal himself to the sons of men in all 
 ages, and whereby men in all ages, come to be made 
 partakers of eternal life, and to have communion 
 with God, and Christ." These sentiments of the 
 apologist, appear quite consistent with his professed 
 belief, in the reality of the present existence of 
 Jesus Christ, as a true and real man, but wholly 
 inconsistent with the idea of his being either the 
 supreme God, or the second person in the Trinity so 
 called. 
 
 " The Quakers do not," says Thomas Clarkson, in 
 his Portraiture of Quakerism, Vol. II. p. 314, 
 " often make use of the word « Trinity/ This ex- 
 pression they can no where find in the sacred writ- 
 ings. This to them is a sufficient warrant for re- 
 jecting it. They consider it as a term of mere hu- 
 man invention, and of too late a date, to claim a place 
 among the expressions of primitive Christianity. 
 For they find it neither in Justin Martyr, nor in 
 Irenaus, nor in Tertullian, nor in Origen, nor in the 
 fathers of the three first centuries of the church.' ' 
 
 After these and some other observations, Thomas 
 Clarkson says, " their principal concern is with that 
 only, which is clearly revealed, and w 7 hich leads 
 practically to holiness of life." This is, at least, as 
 it should be. He adds, " Consistently with this 
 judgment, we find but little said, respecting the 
 Trinity, by the Quaker writers. It is remarkable, 
 that Barclay, in the course of his Apology, takes no 
 notice of this subject." It is so, upon any suppo- 
 sition. But it would be most remarkable, if it could 
 be shewn, that he believed this tenet to be a 
 Christian doctrine. For if he did, he must have 
 deemed it a fundamental doctrine, and as such, could 
 not surely have passed it over in total silence, in so 
 copious, methodical, and argumentative a defence of 
 the true Christian divinity. These inferences would, 
 1 think, have been just, in the absence of any other 
 
278 
 
 evidence than the work itself. But we are furnished 
 by himself with the real reason why so little is to be 
 found in that elaborate work, " expressly and dis- 
 tinctly" on that abstruse subject. 
 
 A Trinitarian opponent had, it seems, represented 
 the Apology as defectively stating that doctrine. 
 What is Barclay's reply to this objection ? It is admi- 
 rably expressive and intelligible, yet in strict unison 
 with the precept of our great Master, " cast not your 
 pearls before swine, lest they — turn again and rend 
 you," it is couched in such terms as were not likely 
 to subject him to persecution, to which another 
 mode of expression might have uselessly exposed 
 him. " I writ," says he, meaning in his Apology, 
 where he does not so much as notice the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, " as expressly and distinctly of that, .as 
 is expressed in Scripture ; which I hope J. B. will 
 not say is defective in expressing this article of 
 faith." Works, Vol. 111. p. 379. How impressive 
 is such an appeal ! To which I would however an- 
 nex a brief extract from his " Quakerism confirmed," 
 in which he asserts, and that not without a sufficient 
 warrant, " That the apostles used the words Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost, when they baptized, cannot 
 he 'proved ; far less used they, the word Trinity, which 
 w 7 as not invented [till] long after the apostle's days." 
 Ibid. p. 139. 
 
 The same opponent having proposed the following 
 question to Barclay, respecting his belief in the real- 
 ity of the present existence of Christ, " Do you be- 
 lieve, that that body which was crucified at Jerusa- 
 lem, rose again and is now in glory? Speak your 
 mind here if you dare." To this Barclay replies, 
 " For answer then I say, I do believe that the body of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, which was crucified at Jeru- 
 salem, was again raised by the power of God; in 
 which glorified body the Lord Jesus Christ dwelleth. 
 And I dare him to shew, where, in my Apology, or 
 
279 
 
 elsewhere, 1 ever said or wrote any thing to the con- 
 trary." Ibid. p. 388. 
 
 So that Barclay, in this passage, in effect, deliberately 
 asserts the consistency of all he has ever said or written, 
 with thatdoctrine in his Apology, which the Monthly 
 Meeting's committee, supposing it to be mine, 
 and not Barclay's, so loudly censured me for avowing. 
 And in the same page, he shews how he may have 
 occasionally applied the term God, not in the high- 
 est and most definite sense. He says, " And if I, or 
 any other, have called the light within, God, it is no 
 more upon this hypothesis, than they do, who say the 
 man Christ, is God, and by reason of the personal 
 union, ascribe sometimes the actions of the one na- 
 ture, to the person denominated by the other." In 
 this explanation, there are two circumstances deserv- 
 ing of notice. The first is, that when Barclay so 
 applies the term God, it is not in any personal sense, 
 but on that hypothesis which he deemed scriptural. 
 Secondly, that those " who say the man Christ is 
 God, which he plainly intimates he does not, affirm 
 it " by reason of the personal union , fi which their 
 hypothesis, but not his, supposes to subsist between 
 two natures, so infinitely distant as the human, and 
 divine. 
 
 How then can it be thought that Barclay held the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, or that he ascribed omnipo- 
 tence to the Lord Jesus Christ ? I find no such doc- 
 trine in his writings; and if I did, as a Christian I 
 should feel myself bound to examine its truth by the 
 testimony of Scripture. If it appeared to me to ac- 
 cord therewith, I should receive it rather on that ac- 
 count, than because Barclay held it- For divine truth 
 always carries its own evidence with it, and has no 
 need of any other; it is, like all true faith, founded 
 upon sufficient evidence ; and the Christian religion, 
 as laid down in the Scriptures, is not proposed to 
 mankind on the mere footing of authority, without 
 
2SG 
 
 conviction, but on such evidence as is calculated to 
 produce a firm persuasion in the mind, of its truth and 
 importance, to our present and future well-being. 
 Yet are those writings much better entitled than 
 any other to our reverence, as being of the highest 
 authority, in all that relates to Christian faith and di- 
 vine worship. 
 
 To whom then do these writings ascribe omnipo- 
 tence ? Let us impartially inquire. The Greek word 
 Uavloxpdlujp, translated almighty, or omnipotent, " is 
 used ten times in the New Testament. And it is 
 solely applied to God, in those sacred writings, but 
 never to Jesus Christ, or the Holy Ghost. This 
 word is used by the LXX in the Old Testament 
 very often, and always applied to God, about one 
 hundred and twenty times, and plainly appears to be 
 an appropriate character of God. 
 
 " St. Paul useth the word but once in all his Epis- 
 tles, 2 Cor. vi. 18. where nobody can doubt to whom 
 it is applied ; unquestionably. St. Paul applied this 
 character to God the Father, as St. John hath in the 
 Revelations in the following manner. 
 
 "fRev. i. 8. I am the alpha and the omega, the be- 
 ginning and the end, saith the Lord God ; (so the 
 Alexandrian copy) who is, and was, and is to come, 
 the Almighty. Now it must be observed, as it is 
 indeed most remarkable, that the appropriation to 
 God alone, is confirmed by four distinct beings ; viz. 
 by God, who gave the revelation; by Christ, who re- 
 ceived it : by the angel who delivered it : and by St. 
 John, who wrote it. Now God, and Christ, and 
 the angel, and St. John could not be mistaken. This 
 is an invincible testimony. 
 
 " St. John in a vision, iv. 2. 3. 8. saw a throne in 
 heaven, and one sitting upon it, whom he describes 
 particularly, with his attendants, on seats, and four 
 living creatures. And they cease not, day and night, 
 saying Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God, the Al- 
 
281 
 
 mighty, (the first title there mentioned) who was 
 and is, and is to come, (the second title) who sits on 
 the throne, (the third title) who liveth for ever and 
 ever, (the fourth and last title of the supreme God, 
 there mentioned.) Now all these are the appropriate 
 titles, (never of Jesus Christ) but of his God and 
 Father alone. 
 
 " Rev. xi. 17. St. John represents the twenty-four 
 elders falling on their faces, and worshipping God, 
 and saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Al- 
 mighty, who art and wast, and art to come. No 
 doubt, these applied rightly the character, viz. the 
 Almighty. 
 
 " St. John also represents those who got the victory 
 over the beast, singing the song of Moses, and the 
 song of the Lamb, and saying, Great and wonderful 
 are thy works, O Lord God Almighty, or the 
 Almighty, xv. 3. Note. — Here the Lamb him- 
 self is by St. John represented as the composer or 
 singer of a sacred hymn to God, the Almighty. Here 
 again Christ is represented ascribing this character 
 (the Almighty) to God alone. 
 
 " Rev. xvi. 7. St. John represents another angel, 
 saying, Verily, O Lord God Almighty, true and 
 righteous are thy judgments. The same divine title 
 is repeated, v. 14. 
 
 " St. John, in chap. xix. v. 4. represents the twen- 
 ty-four elders, and four living creatures, falling down 
 and worshipping God, sitting upon a throne; and 
 afterwards a great multitude, saying, Hallelujah, 
 that is, praise ye Jehovah ; for the Lord, the God 
 Almighty reigneth ; or, the Lord God omnipotent 
 reigneth. And v. 7. it follows, Let us give him 
 glory, for the marriage of the Lamb is come. Note. 
 Whatever is to be understood as a benefit, or honour, 
 by that marriage of the Lamb, the praise or glory of 
 it, is here expressly required to be given to the Lord 
 God Almighty. Afterwards, St. John, describing 
 
282 
 
 Christ in several particulars, from v. 10 to 15, ex- 
 pressly says, that he (that is Christ,) treadeth the 
 wine- press of the wrath, &c. of God, the Almighty. 
 By which words, the distinguishing title, or charac- 
 ter, the Almighty, is given to God alone, and 
 not to Christ. And, 21, 22, the appropriation of this 
 title, or character, is very express : for God, and 
 the Lamb, being there both mentioned, St. John 
 stiles the first, thus, the Lord God Almighty; 
 and the second, Jesus Christ, the Lamb only." 
 
 The above judicious remarks on the scriptural 
 application of the term omnipotent, or almigh- 
 ty, are taken, from Hopton Haynes's " Scrip- 
 ture Account of the Attributes and Worship of 
 God, and of the Character and Offices of Jesus 
 Christ/' (a) They are perfectly accordant, with my 
 ideas, from my youth upwards, of the genuine doc- 
 trines of the Society. Does not Barclay assert, that 
 " the infinite and most wise God — is the foundation, 
 root and spring of all operation ?" And if so, can om- 
 nipotence be justly ascribed to any other? In what- 
 ever manner, and through whatever medium, " that 
 infinite and incomprehensible fountain of life and 
 motion, operateth in the creatures, by his own eter- 
 
 (a) This work was first published in 1750, after the decease of the 
 author, who was an intimate friend of Sir Isaac Newton's. In the 
 preface, the editor says, he " was a gentleman of great worth, and 
 considerable learning; a pious and good man, who was desirous of 
 worshipping God, and forming his religious notions according to the 
 instructions of divine wisdom. Accordingly, he spent a number of 
 years, ' in examining the sacred writings of the Old and New Testa- 
 ment, with the utmost desire, and most ardent prayer, that he might 
 be rightly informed, in the truest sense, of the holy authors of those 
 divine books.' " The result of this examination, he thus describes : 
 " I think, I write, I speak upon this important article, viz. that the 
 God and Father of Jesus Christ, is the only true God, with a 
 clear understanding, and a clear conscience. I have no doubts, no 
 scruples: no fear of offending God, or displeasing Christ; no secret 
 misgivings that I am, or may be mistaken ; but a full and entire per- 
 suasion, that this foundation is most certain and infallible." p. i. — iii. 
 
283 
 
 nal word and power," still, to use the strong language 
 of Barclay, this " infinite and most wise God'' is, 
 in, and of himself, " the foundation, root and spring 
 of all operation." 
 
 A Being truly infinite and almighty, might doubt- 
 less confer the power of forming such a world as this, 
 out of chaos, and even the whole solar system, on 
 another being, and enable him to accomplish the glo- 
 rious structure. It implies no contradiction, and is 
 therefore possible with God. But such a being- 
 would not therefore be omnipotent ; it would only 
 be the exercise of a delegated and limited, not of an 
 underived and unlimited power. The power of such 
 a being would not only be necessarily limited in ex- 
 tent, by the will of the infinitely greater Being who 
 conferred it, but might be also in duration, as we are 
 assured the kingdom of Christ will be, to which he 
 was appointed by his Father. This kingdom he shall 
 deliver up " to God, even the Father, that put 
 all things under him, that God may be all in 
 all." Cor. xv. 24. 28. 
 
 In the year 1675 George Fox published a work, 
 entitled a Testimony of what we [the Society of 
 Friends] believe of Christ, before he was manifest 
 in the flesh ; and of his birth and preaching, and 
 what he saith he is himself: as also of his sufferings, 
 death, resurrection and ascension ; both as he was 
 God, and as he was man. And also the testimony 
 of the apostles concerning him; with those names 
 which God — has given unto him, and the holy men, 
 as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ; which we 
 faithfully own and believe. But all such by-names, 
 which are not found in the Scriptures, we testify 
 against," &c. 
 
 In this tract, after quoting the first chapters of 
 Matthew and Luke pretty fully, and the first verses 
 of John, he says, " And is this the prophet, like unto 
 Moses, that God raised up, whom we do hear and see, 
 
284 
 
 as Stephen did, and have seen the heavens open, and 
 the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God, 
 who was persecuted by the priests and professing 
 Jews." On whatever grounds Fox asserted that 
 himself and his brethren saw " the Son of Man, as 
 Stephen did," it is plain he did not consider him as 
 God himself, but as occupying a situation of distin- 
 guished honour " on the right hand of God." To- 
 wards the bottom of the same page, 417, of his Doc- 
 trinals, he says, " So the God of Abraham, Isaac 
 and Jacob, and the God of our Fathers, hath glorified 
 his Son Jesus, whom the Jews betrayed and denied 
 in the presence of Pilate, when he had judged him 
 to be delivered, before whom Jesus made a good con- 
 fession." Again, p. 42.5, " But ye are of him in 
 Christ, saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. ii. 30, who of 
 God is made unto tis, wisdom, and righteousness, 
 and sanctification, and redemption, which we wit- 
 ness, blessed be God for ever.' , And the apostle 
 saith, 1 Cor. viii. 6. To us there is but one God, the 
 Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; 
 mark, we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by 
 whom are all things, and we by him. " This we 
 witness, }> adds Fox. " The apostle prayed," says he, 
 p. 429, " that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 the Father of Glory, might give unto them the 
 spirit of wisdom and revelation, through the know- 
 ledge of him, that the saints might know what is the 
 exceeding greatness of his power towards us that be- 
 lieve, according to the working of his mighty power, 
 which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him 
 from the dead, and set him at his right hand in hea- 
 venly places," &c. 
 
 In the next page, after quoting the text, Eph iv. 
 which says, " There is one Lord, one faith, one bap- 
 tism, one God and Father of all, who is above all 
 and through all, and in you all, and the substance 
 of several of the following verses, which describe 
 
285 
 
 Christ as having " ascended far above all heavens, 
 that he might fill all things," he seems to have 
 thought these last words of the apostle, with which 
 he concludes the quotation, might be misunderstood, 
 and he therefore adds the following pertinent exposi- 
 tion of their import. " Mark, Jill all things, that 
 is he, that gives gifts unto men for the work of the 
 ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." 
 A little lower down, says he, " Mark, all ye that 
 call yourselves gathered churches, see who is the 
 head of them, and what spots and wrinkles are in 
 them. But we cannot but give thanks for all things 
 to God, even the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, 
 the holy head, who makes his church holy." How 
 sound and scriptural is this ? 
 
 In the following page, after quoting the principal 
 part of those verses in the 2nd ch. of Paul's Epistle 
 to the Philippians, which describe the high exalta- 
 tion of Christ, as the consequence of his humility, 
 and obedience, even to the death of the cross, Fox 
 adds, " And this we, the people of God called Qua- 
 kers, do confess, that Jesus Christ is the Lord, to 
 the glory of God the Father. For it is God that 
 worketh in you and in ws— that ye may be blameless 
 and pure, and sons of God, without rebuke, in the 
 midst of a crooked generation." In page 434, after 
 quoting 1 Thess. iii. 11, " Now God himself, and 
 our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, guide our 
 journey unto you," Fox observes, " So here it is 
 seen who was, and is, the true Christian's guide." 
 In the same page, after quoting 1 Tim. i. 17, thus, 
 " Now unto the King immortal, invisible, unto God 
 only wise, be honour and glory, for ever and ever, 
 Amen," he adds, "And Christ would have all men, 
 (saith the apostle) to be saved, and come to the 
 knowledge of the truth. Mark, all men to be saved. 
 2 Tim. 4, &c. And therefore are prayers and inter- 
 cessions, and giving of thanks, to be made for all 
 
§66 
 
 men, for kings, and all that are in authority, &c. 
 For there is one God, and one Mediator betwixt 
 God and men, which is the man Christ Jesus. 
 Mark, the man Christ Jesus, is the Mediator be- 
 twixt God and man, Christ who is the heavenly 
 man." 
 
 In page 442, continuing the same subject, Fox 
 says, " Blessed be God, even the Father of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, which, according to his abundant 
 mercy, hath begotten us again: mark, hath begot- 
 ten us again, unto a lively hope by the resur- 
 rection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an in- 
 heritance immortal, and undefined, mark, that fadeth 
 not away, reserved in heaven for you all, God's 
 true believers, which are kept by the power of God, 
 through faith unto salvation, receiving the end of 
 your faith, the salvation of your souls. Here is the 
 saints keeper, the power of God." 
 
 In page 446, Fox quotes the corrupted text 1 John 
 v. 7, but he makes no such use of it, as it was in- 
 tended to serve; but on the contrary, after giving 
 the next verse as follows, " And there are three that 
 bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the 
 blood, and these three agree in one/' he adds, " For 
 this is the witness of God, which he testifieth of his 
 Son: which God's witness, is greater that the wit- 
 ness of men. And he that believeth in the Son_of 
 God, mark, hath the witness in himself. And this 
 we believe, and witness, and he that doth not, hath 
 made him a liar." 
 
 After giving this sound exposition of the real 
 text, he expostulates thus with Trinitarians, in the 
 next paragraph, " And ye professors, who have 
 given new names to the Father, the Word, and 
 Holy Ghost, as Trinity , and three distinct Per- 
 sons, and say, the Scripture is your rule, for your 
 doctrine, but there is no such rule in the Scrip- 
 ture. 3 ' But this is the record, that God hath given 
 
2S7 
 
 unto us eternal lite, and this life is in his Son, 
 And we know that the Son of God is come, and 
 hath given us a mind to know him which is true, 
 and we are in him that is true, mark, that is, in his 
 Son Jesus Christ, this same is very God, and eternal 
 life/' (a) 
 
 The subordination of Christ to the Father, is 
 strongly marked by Fox, in the following passages, 
 p. 448, " And he that overcometh, saith Christ, 
 
 (a) That my readers mayjustly appreciate Fox's idea of the divinity 
 of Christ, I will refer them to the following passage. Viz. " So they,'' 
 says he, the Papists, and Protestants, of whom he was speaking, " are 
 not like to be converted to Christ, to heal them, when they stop their 
 ears to the divinity of Christ , namely, his light, the life in him, which 
 Christ commands them to believe in, and walk in; and yet, without 
 the light, the life inChrist, [that is, without real piety, and holiness,] 
 pretend to preach him in the flesh, and [by an ungodly life,] deny 
 him in his divinity." I need not point out, how different this repre- 
 sentation of the doctrine is, from that which is generally held. " Such 
 persons,'' adds he, " are not like, neither can they preach Christ 
 truly, as he was in his flesh, nor him in his divinity ." In other words, 
 without a blameless life and conversation, no man can be properly 
 qualified to teach, and recommend to others, truly, and with suitable 
 effect, the divine doctrines of Christ. In the language of Fox, these 
 " are ministers of the letter, and old authors, and not of the Spirit," 
 Doctrinals, p. 1085. 
 
 Another similar instance of the sense in which Fox understood the 
 term divinity, when applied to Christ, may be seen in p. 507, of his 
 Doctrinals, by reading the whole paragraph attentively. 
 
 Nor did Isaac Penington, who was a learned man, discover the 
 doctrine of " the sacred Trinity," in the 1 John v. 7, whatever he 
 thought of its authenticity. For he says, concerning the three that 
 are therein said to " bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and 
 the Holy Spirit, that these three are distinct, as three several Beings, 
 or Persons; this they," the Quakers, " read not; but in the same 
 place, they read that they are One. But as for this title of sacred 
 Trinity, they find it not in Scripture; and they look upon Scripture 
 words, as fittest to express Scripture things by. And surely if a 
 man means the same thing as the Scripture means, the same words 
 will suffice to express it. Now whereas they call this a fundamental, 
 we do not find it so called in Scripture. This is the great funda- 
 mental, that God is light, and in htm is no darkness at all,'' Vol. I. 
 p. ?65, 
 
288 
 
 will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, 
 and he shall no more go out. Mark, no more 
 go out, and I will write upon him the name 
 of my God, Rev. c. 3. And c. 4.. See the holy 
 cry. Holy, holy, holy Lord God Almighty, 
 which was, which is, and which is to come. And 
 thanks were given to him that sat upon the throne, 
 which liveth for ever and ever, and they cast down 
 their crowns before him. And so must all do, be- 
 fore they be crowned with Jesus, who is worthy to 
 receive glory, and honour, and power, for ever and 
 ever." Yet is this ascription of glory, honour, and 
 power, perfectly compatible with the subordination 
 of the Lamb Christ Jesus, to him who is described 
 as sitting upon the throne, the Lord God Al- 
 mighty, and to the superiority of Christ, over all 
 those who may by the ineffable goodness and mer- 
 cy of God, be crowned " with Jesus, ,y in that hea- 
 venly kingdom which shall never have an end. 
 
 " And John fell down to worship him, that shew- 
 ed him these things; but, said he, see thou do 
 it not, for 1 am thy fellow-servant, and of thy breth- 
 ren, which have the testimony of Jesus, worship 
 God." Yet is Jesus most fitly described in the 
 same chapter of the Revelations, as having " on his 
 thigh a name written, the King of Kings, and 
 Lord of Lords. And this is Christ," adds Fox, 
 in his next paragraph " blessed be the Lord for 
 ever." p. 4o4. 
 
 He observes p. 462, " Christ saith, Thou, (to 
 wit, the Father) hast given him, (to wit, the Son J 
 power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life 
 to all them that thou hast given him. And this is 
 life eternal, that they know thee to be the only 
 very God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." 
 Again, " Holy Father (saith Christ,) keep them in 
 thy name, even them whom thou hast given me, that 
 they may be one, as we are one. Here is the love of 
 
289 
 
 Christ to his people. I have given them thy word, 
 and the world hateth them, because they are not of 
 the world ; (mark) as I am not of the world. For 
 their sakes sanctifie I myself, that they also may be 
 sanctified through the truth, as thou didst send me 
 into the world, so have I sent them into the world: 
 and the glory that thou gavest me, 1 have given 
 them, that they may be one, as we are one. And 
 these are Christ's own words," adds Fox, " I, (to 
 wit, Christ) in them, and thou in me, that they 
 may be made perfect in one. John xvii. These are 
 the learners of Christ, which we witness unto, and 
 here is an union and a fellowship with the Son, 
 and the Father, Christ in his people, and God in 
 Christ." 
 
 This testimony of George Fox's, concerning his 
 belief of Christ? fills 48 pages in folio, in close print. 
 To these he has annexed a supplement, in the last 
 paragraph of which, he quotes Phil. iii. 20, as fol- 
 lows, " Moreover, the apostle saith, « But our con- 
 versation is in heaven, from whence we look for the 
 Saviour, even our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall 
 change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like 
 unto his glorious body/ " From which he thus 
 argues, — " So if the vile body be changed and fash- 
 ioned like unto his glorious body, it is not the same, 
 &c. But doth not Christ say, he is from above? 
 The second man, is the Lord from heaven, and his 
 body, is a glorious body, and he is the heaven- 
 ly, spiritual man. Therefore, all that profess 
 Scriptures, and Christianity, let them keep to scrip- 
 ture terms, and to those names which God and 
 Christ, and the holy men of God in Scripture have 
 given to it, and him, which are sound words, not to 
 be condemned. 
 
 « G. F." 
 " Worcester Prison, 
 
 " the <25th of the Mth Month, 1675." 
 p p 
 
" The author, having the ancient approved Bible 
 printed in Queen Elizabeth's reign, " the editors ob- 
 serve, " that most of the quotations being taken out 
 of the same, differ in some expressions from our new 
 translation, but not in substance.''' 
 
 In a tract of Fox's, entitled " The Man Christ Jesus, 
 the head of the church, and true mediator," he shews 
 that the apostles had not, and that no other persons can 
 have a right to lord it over God's heritage ; to set up 
 articles of faith, or objects of worship, but exhorts his 
 readers to " give over making of faiths, and look un- 
 to Jesus, the author and finisher of the true faith. 
 And give over making of religions," says he, " and 
 come to the religion which is pure and undefiled be- 
 fore God." Ibid. p. 716. 
 
 Finally, heconludes inthe following manner, after 
 quoting 1 Tim. 2, 3, 4, 6. " Now it is clear, there is but 
 one Mediator betwixt God, and men, the man Christ 
 Jesus, who is head of his church ; and whosoever hath 
 set up, or do set up, other mediators betwixt God, and 
 man, than the Man Christ Jesus, are in the apostacy from 
 the apostle's doctrine, and follow their own doctrines, 
 and not the apostolical doctrine. For he is the one 
 mediator betwixt God, and man, the one, eter- 
 nal, living God, Creator of all, and Christ 
 Jesus, by whom were all things, who gave himself 
 a ransom for all men ; he is the alone one mediator 
 betwixt God, and man, who is the only head of his 
 church, and his church do testifie him so to be, that 
 are come to Jesus their mediator ; who hath made 
 their peace betwixt them, and God, and so hath re- 
 ceived him ; who is come, and hath given them an 
 understanding to know him, and they that have him, 
 have everlasting life.'* Ibid. p. 717. 
 
 " G. F." 
 
 "The 10th Mo?ith, 1678" 
 
291 
 
 The next tract in this collection of Fox's Doctrinal 
 Works, is " Concerning the living God of truth, 
 and the world's God, in whom there is no truth. 5 ' 
 The first is, according to George Fox, " The Lord 
 God of heaven and earth, who is the Creator and 
 Maker of all things therein, which created and made 
 all things good ; so he is the great Lord of all, 
 both of things in heaven, and things in the earth, 
 and therefore all things are to be subject to the 
 great Lord, especially man and woman, whom he 
 made in his own likeness and image. 
 
 "So he is called God Almighty over all his 
 works, and the Lord God Almighty, to oversee all 
 his works, who is present every where, God the Fa- 
 ther, who is the nourisher and preserver of all 
 creatures that he hath made, and takes care for all, 
 who gives life, being and breath unto all, and made 
 the earth to be inhabited,— -who is the God of the 
 spirits of all flesh." Ibid. 719—720. 
 
 " So the living, eternal God is the Creator and 
 Preserver," says he, p. 728, " a holy, pure, just and 
 righteous God, everlasting, immortal, and eternal, 
 who lives for ever, who is without time, and over 
 time, and hath all times and seasons in his hands ; a 
 perfect, and pure God, holy and glorious, full of rich- 
 es, eternal. But the world's God, that is out of the 
 truth, is a destroyer, and brings into poverty, and 
 maketh all dark, like himself, that obey him, and so 
 come under the power of death. 
 
 " But the living, eternal, omnipotent God, is 
 the God of truth, who is light, and in him is no 
 darkness at all ; a holy, eternal spirit, that fills hea- 
 ven and earth ; and heaven is his throne, and the 
 earth is his footstool. He is to be worshipped and 
 served, in his holy spirit and truth, that he pours out 
 upon all flesh ; which truth, the world's God, (the 
 devil) is out of, in whom there is no truth. But 
 the seed being come," says Fox, towards the con- 
 clusion of this tract, " Christ, who is the Saviour 
 
292 
 
 i 
 
 and the life, in these last days, of the hew covenant 
 of grace, light and life, God hath spoken unto us, 
 the children of the new covenant, by his Son" 
 Fox adds intelligibly enough, although by a typo- 
 graphical error in punctuation, a careless reader might 
 mistake his meaning, " The immortal, eternal, and 
 living God of truth, who was the first speaker to 
 Adam and Eve in paradise, who was the speaker by 
 the prophets, to the fathers in the old covenant, who 
 is the speaker unto his children of the new covenant, 
 by his Son, who bruiseth the head of the prince of 
 the air, and destroyeth the serpent, the world's God, 
 and false speaker. So the eternal God of truth, who 
 was the first speaker, he is the speaker again unto his 
 people, by his Son now, in these latter days of the new 
 covenant, and so will be to all eternity. " (a) F.ox 
 concludes this tract with these words, " Blessed and 
 praised be the God of truth for ever, through Je- 
 sus Christ." 
 
 " G. F." 
 
 " The 6th Month, 1679." 
 
 The last tract of Fox's, which I shall quote on 
 this occasion, is an answer he published to a decla- 
 ration of Sultan Mahomet, addressed to the Emperor 
 of Germany. The principal reason why he noticed 
 this state paper, will be apparent enough from the 
 following extract ; as also how important he deemed 
 it, to promote just ideas concerning " the true Chris- 
 tian's God*' Viz. " Now, whereas, the Emperor 
 of the Turks saith, that he is commander and guardian 
 of the Christian's crucified God. Now in this he is 
 mistaken ; for the eternal, incomprehensible, invi- 
 
 (a) By a partial quotation of this passage, John Bevans, in his 
 Reply to Verax, p. 71, has so grossly perverted the sense of it, as 
 lo represent Fox, as therein speaking of Christ, as " the immortal, 
 eternal, and living God of truth !" What can be more disingenuous r 
 
293 
 
 sible, everlasting God, whose divinity extends 
 throughout the whole earth, who is God in heaven 
 above, and in the earth beneath, to whom all nations 
 are but as the drop of a bucket, this is the true Chris- 
 tian's God, whom they serve and worship, in his 
 Spirit and truth, which the Jews did not crucifie, 
 nor could they crucifie; and it is blasphemy for the 
 Jews, or any to say, that they did crucify the true 
 Christian's eternal, invisible God; and great 
 ignorance for any to say, that the true Chris- 
 tian's God was crucified, or, that the eternal, 
 incomprehensible, immortal God, the Creator 
 of all, who is the God of the spirits of all flesh, and 
 the breath of all mankind is in his power, so that 
 poor mortals, or externals, should say, think, or ima- 
 gine, that the eternal, invisible, everlasting, immor- 
 tal, incomprehensible God, was, or can be, crucified, 
 which they cannot comprehend, which is the true 
 Christian's God." 
 
 " But Christ, which was made of the seed of David, 
 according to the flesh, who took not upon him the 
 nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham; he suf- 
 fered for us in the flesh. And so as Christ also, 
 hath once suffered for sins in the flesh, he the just, 
 for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, so 
 God was not crucified, but Christ being put to 
 death, or crucified in the flesh, but quickened again 
 in the Spirit, and rose again, and sits at the right 
 hand of God. This Peter, one of the apostles of 
 Jesus, testifieth, and the true Christians now believe 
 it, and though Christ was crucified through weak- 
 ness, that is, through the flesh, yet he is alive, and 
 liveth by the power ofGod."2 Cor. 13. lb. 1006. 
 Such were the scriptural sentiments of George 
 Fox, concerning '« the true Christian s God,' 3 whom 
 they worship in spirit and in truth ; and also con- 
 cerning " his beloved Son, the appointed head of 
 the church, and true Mediator, between God and 
 
294 
 
 men, 'Me man Christ Jesus." From whence it is not 
 difficult, I think, to determine, to whom alone he 
 did, or could, consistently therewith, offer up su- 
 preme religious worship. Yet, when I have contem- 
 plated him, as the founder of the Society, in which 
 my lot was cast, and especially his character as 
 drawn by so competent a judge of it, as William 
 Penn was, I have sometimes wished to know, in 
 what terms he was wont to express himself, when he 
 was engaged in public supplication. " In his testi- 
 mony, or ministry," says Penn, " he had an extra- 
 ordinary gift in opening the Scriptures. But above 
 all, he excelled in prayer. The inwardness and 
 weight of his spirit, the reverence and solemnity of 
 his address and behaviour, and the fewness, and ful- 
 ness of his words, have often struck even strangers 
 with admiration, as they used to reach others with con- 
 solation. The most awful, living, reverent frame I 
 ever felt, or beheld, I must say, was his in prayer. 
 And truly it was a testimony he knew, and lived 
 nearer to the Lord than other men : for they that 
 know himfmost, will see most reason to approach him, 
 with reverence and fear." Preface to Fox's Journal, 
 p. 28. 
 
 But although there is no record of a single prayer 
 by George Fox extant, that I know of, there are 
 near thirty public prayers, of fifteen of his contem- 
 poraries, all of them approved ministers in the So- 
 ciety, which were delivered in London, between 
 Feb. 7th 1687, and Oct. 11th 1694; and these, hav- 
 ing been taken in " short hand," were published 
 soon after (some of them as early as 1693, others 
 .probably sooner) with more than fifty sermons by 
 the same ministers. 
 
 These prayers, appear to me peculiarly valuable 
 specimens of such sound language, as enlightened 
 and eminently pious men, deeply imbued with the 
 solemn substance of scriptural doctrine, respecting 
 
293 
 
 the proper object of worship, would be likely to 
 adopt, in proportion as they were individually eman- 
 cipated, from the creeds, and commandments of fal- 
 lible men. And as such, I have often thought their 
 republication would form an instructive, impressive, 
 and edifying work; and be at the present time, an 
 honourable testimony to the practical soundness of 
 our ancestors, in religious profession, as to the true 
 object of supreme adoration. In the concluding pa- 
 ragraphs of more than twenty of these prayers, the 
 Father is expressly addressed, as being " God over 
 all," as well in relation to his beloved Son, as to 
 all other beings whatever, and the general tenor of the 
 whole, is perfectly consistent. 
 
 How far these records, of the actual devotional 
 language, of many of the most distinguished minis- 
 ters in the Society, afford conclusive evidence of the 
 original faith of its leading members, in that age, 
 let every one judge for himself, and what is much 
 more important, compare it with the testimony of 
 Scripture. For my own part, when I contemplate 
 such eminently pious men, as engaged in public 
 supplication, to the supreme Majesty of hea- 
 ven and earth, I cannot doubt their having ex- 
 pressed the genuine sentiments of their hearts, with 
 regard to the object of their loorship. 
 
 Most, if not all of them, were educated in pro- 
 fessed Trinitarian churches, from which they had 
 withdrawn themselves, and it appears to me almost 
 impossible, they should have adopted, with so much 
 unanimity, such reiterated and decisive assertions of 
 the absolute unity and supremacy, of God the Fa- 
 ther, as their prayers contain, unless they had in 
 reality renounced the doctrine of the Trinity, upon 
 every hypothesis, which supposes any distinction of 
 persons in the Deity, (a) 
 
 (a) That William Perm had renounced this doctrine in the " Sandy 
 Foundation Shaken,'' cannot, I think, be justly denied by any one 
 
296 
 
 Having proceeded so far, it appeared to me proper 
 to pause a little, to give the Meeting the option of 
 
 who peruses that work. But to shew what his sentiments continued 
 to be, thirty years afterwards, I will give an extract or two from his 
 reply to tie then bishop of Cork, who, it seems, had charged the 
 Quakers " with great shortness and imperfection concerning" their 
 " belief of God •" although that belief was expressed in scriptural 
 terms. " But, with the Bishop's leave," says Penn, Vol. II. p. 
 892, " He that believes in God, believes in all that is necessary to a 
 supreme Being It is what he, and all Christians, take for granted, 
 and allow, as often as they hear any one say, he believes in God. 
 For not to believe him omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, is 
 not to believe him to be God. We have said more,'* adds Penn, 
 "than Moses said to Pharoah. For besides that I AM, is no more 
 than he is , we have added, that he is the rewarder of all men, ac- 
 cording to their works. We gave the text as it is." Heb. ix. 6. 
 
 " The text dots not," observes he, " enumerate and require the 
 belief of all the divine attributes and properties that are in God," but 
 the bare belief of his being, and what he is to mankind that fear him. 
 And whatever the Bishop says, this is enough for a man to come to 
 God, though not enough, it seems, to come to the Bishop in the qua- 
 lity of a believer. He must help the Holy Ghost to speak properly, 
 or we, that speak after him, must be deficient in our expressions, if 
 not in our belief." 
 
 The next objection urged upon the Quakers by the Bishop wat, 
 " for being defective in their confession of the holy Trinity," al. 
 though they had expressed it in the terms of the corrupted text, 1 
 John, v. 7. with the emphatic addition of the word really, (and 
 these three are really one) instead of the words, '* and these three 
 are one." " If this is not a sufficient text to prove the Trinity," 
 adds Penn, " I know not where to find one, in the Scripture. It is 
 generally believed, the apostle John gave this declaration to the first 
 Christians, to prevent their being deluded by Cerinthus. How came 
 the Bishop then to render it, but a by. passage, and otherwise intend- 
 ed by the Apostle than for an article of faith about the Trinity ? Is 
 there a plainer, or fuller, any wherein the writings of the New Tes- 
 tament? Three, and yet one is the doctrine of the Trinity. And no 
 other Apostle has gone so far, or been so express. Insomuch, that 
 the text has been doubted, and rendered apocryphal by such as do 
 not believe in the common doctrine of the Trinity" which it is abun- 
 dantly evident from his works William Penn did not, " and foisted 
 in,'' adds he, *' to serve the turn of Trinitarians. So plain has it 
 been thought to their purpose, even by the anti.trinitarians. How 
 then," asks he, without saying that he thought it so plain to their 
 purpose, but rather insinuating the contrary, «* is the text defective 
 with the Bishop ?" 
 
297 
 
 adjourning, if they inclined so to do, as, although 
 I had been heard with much respectful attention, a 
 number of Friends were going out of Meeting, while 
 the latter part of what I laid before them was read- 
 ing. 
 
 Many Friends now leaving the Meeting, I request- 
 ed permission to withdraw also, for a short time, 
 which I did. When I returned, some Friend^ urged 
 an objection, in point of form, to my proceeding 
 farther, on the ground, that adducing fresh matter 
 which had not been submitted to the committee, 
 was an extra judicial proceeding. In such a mode 
 of hearing a case, an appellant might purposely 
 withhold from a committee, the most material parts 
 on which he considered the strength of his case to 
 rest, for the express purpose of rendering the hear- 
 ing before the committee nugatory and useless, and 
 make out quite a new case to the Meeting. I re- 
 plied, L am fully aware of the force of the objections 
 which have been made, to such a procedure, as it 
 would be to treat the Committee of Appeals with 
 great disrespect. I could, however, appeal to them, 
 whether I had so acted, or whether 1 had, in their 
 judgment, failed to do such justice to my cause, as 
 was in my power. It was obvious from their deci- 
 sion, that they considered my defence before them 
 defective, but I was satisfied they would not impute 
 to me, any intention of that kind, in the hope of dis- 
 
 " But he [the Bishop] says, the Apostle writ it upon occasion. 
 Doubtless he did so, [supposing he wrote it.] But what occasion, I 
 pray, than that of the holy Trinity t" asks Penn, to argue the point 
 with the Bishop, on his own principles. " He [the Bishop] adds, 
 And it was to the Apostle's purpose, touching the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost. But what purpose could the Apostle have, but that of 
 declaring the Trinity, and yet Unity ? What other use does he 
 make of it? The Bishop," continues Penn, " must be very hard 
 put to it, certainly, to shift off, and lessen our confession in this point, 
 and rather than fail, render the text itself short; which, with sub- 
 mission, I think is a bold attempt in one of his station, if he be- 
 lieves the thirty.nine articles.'' 
 
29 S 
 
 turbing their decision, in case that should be against 
 me. 
 
 The fact is, 1 had prepared nothing to lay before 
 the committee on my appeal, because I was satisfied, 
 the best, and most candid mode in which I could lay 
 before them, the grounds of my complaint, would 
 be, by reading the minutes I had made, of the 
 several conferences with me, including such other 
 documents, as related to the case. In order to ren- 
 der it unnecessary to go into this long detail, I had 
 prepared the address, of which they had heard more 
 than half, in drawing up which, I naturally adduced 
 such arguments in my favour, as then struck me as 
 most proper, and consistently with the end I aimed 
 at, I endeavoured also to vary them, as much as I 
 well could, but they were all directed to establish 
 the same conclusions, as those I had before ineffec- 
 tually urged to the committee. 
 
 My address, I thought it was clearly understood, 
 was only to be considered, as a written speech, in 
 which I had endeavoured to condense the arguments, 
 the committee had already heard, in another and more 
 dilated form. It was matter of real concern to me, 
 that I had not been able to compress its matter into 
 a shorter compass. And I had even late last night 
 reviewed it, with a wish to strike out any part that 
 I felt easy to omit. The latter part of what I had 
 read, was inserted after the rest was compiled, be- 
 cause I did not think it consistent with the real re- 
 spect I felt, for the character of George Fox, to pass 
 over in silence, the conclusive evidence, his writings 
 in my judgment, afforded, upon that greatly impor- 
 tant subject, on which I had adduced them. Sup- 
 pose my address had been extempore, could any one 
 say, a person so situated, ought to be bound down 
 to use only the same arguments, and even the same 
 arrangement of his reasoning, as he had used before 
 a committee on his appeal ? 
 
299 
 
 Luke Howard admitted, that so far as I had pro- 
 ceeded, although the arguments in my address, were 
 in some instances amplified, and in others condensed, 
 they were in substance and tendency, such as I had 
 laid before the committee, but with the advan- 
 tage of a better arrangement. Joseph Gurney Be- 
 van remarked, that the part they had already heard 
 of my written address to the Meeting, would take 
 many hours to examine properly, and that if the 
 Meeting adjourned to the evening, as had been pro- 
 posed, he believed he must, from weakness of body, 
 leave the farther hearing of the case to others, who 
 were stronger. For his own part, he thought the 
 parties should produce only such documents, as had 
 been laid before the committee. 
 
 William Binns remarked, that he supposed the in- 
 tention of the Meeting, in allowing the parties to be 
 heard, was, in order to do substantial justice between 
 them, and he therefore hoped the appellant would 
 be allowed to state his own case, in his own way, 
 without any farther obstruction, either now, or at 
 the proposed adjournment. Several other Friends 
 expressed their approbation of this proposal. But 
 one, or two Friends recommended me, before the 
 Meeting met again, to look over that part of my 
 written address, which I had not read, to see whe- 
 ther it might not be shortened, without injury to 
 my cause. I engaged to examine it, with this view, 
 which I did, without seeing the propriety of omitting 
 more than my examination of it last evening, had 
 suggested. 
 
 Before the Meeting rose, the following minute 
 was subjoined to the committee's report. Viz. 
 
 " And the said Thomas Foster, the appellant, not 
 being satisfied with the report, the case was opened 
 in the Meeting. 
 
 " This Meeting adjourns to four o'clock this after- 
 
300 
 
 QUARTERLY MEETING OF LONDON AND 
 MIDDLESEX. 
 
 Held by adjournment, 11th Month 16th, 1812. 
 Afternoon Sitting. 
 
 Being called upon to proceed with my defence, I 
 informed the Meeting I had re-examined the remain- 
 der of my written address, without finding that I 
 could, consistently with my sense of duty, omit lay- 
 ing before them any part of it. 
 
 The next subject I added, to which I have to call 
 your serious attention, is an examination of no less 
 than fourteen texts of Scripture, which the Monthly 
 Meeting's committee recommended to my considera- 
 tion. Respecting these, 1 had only informed them 
 in general terms, [as stated in p. 16?,] that I could 
 not discover that even one of them was applicable or 
 pertinent to the occasion on which they were ad- 
 duced. They did not appear disposed to hear my rea- 
 sons for thinking them totally irrelevant, but I trust 
 you will attentively listen to those reasons, as they 
 are for the most part founded on the plain, obvious 
 import of the respective passages, considered in 
 their natural connection with the context. I then 
 read the remainder of my written address, as fol- 
 lows. 
 
 The Monthly Meeting's committee seem to have 
 formed a very crude and unscriptural notion of om- 
 nipotence, by a paper which they put into my 
 hands, containing a reference to no less than 
 fourteen texts, to explain the grounds whereon 
 they " impute omnipotence to Jesus Christ." The 
 first of these, is Matt. ix. 6. That the full import 
 of the context may be seen, I shall give it from the 
 2nd, to the 8th verse, which explicitly states a very 
 different inference from the same fact, made by those 
 
301 
 
 who were witnesses of the miracle, there related, 
 and on account of whose faith it appears to have 
 been in great measure wrought, to that which the 
 committee would deduce from it. 
 
 " And behold, they brought to him, (Jesus) a 
 man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed ; and Jesus 
 seeing their faith, said unto the sick of the palsy, 
 Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee. 
 And behold, certain of the scribes said within them- 
 selves, this man blasphemeth. And Jesus knowing 
 their thoughts, said, wherefore think ye evil in your 
 hearts ? For whether is it easier to say, thy sins be 
 forgiven thee ? or to say, arise and walk ? 
 
 " But that ye may know, that the son of man hath 
 power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the 
 sick of the palsy) Arise, take up thy bed, and go un- 
 to thine house. And he arose, and departed to his 
 house. But when the multitude, " whose faith Jesus 
 appears to have approved, " saw it, they marvelled, 
 and glorified God, who had given such power unto 
 men." It never occurred to them, to impute omnipo- 
 tence to the meek and humble Jesus. They were 
 Jews, believers in one, only true and living God, the 
 original author of all power. 
 
 The idolatrous inhabitants of Lystra judged far 
 otherwise, on witnessing the miraculous cure of a 
 cripple, " who had never walked. And when the 
 people saw what Paul had done, they lift up their 
 voices, saying, in the speech of Lycaonia, the gods 
 are come down to us, in the likeness of men. And 
 they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, 
 because he was the chief speaker. Then the priest 
 of Jupiter brought oxen and garlands, and would 
 have done sacrifice, with the people ; which, when 
 the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent 
 their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying 
 out, and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things ? We 
 also are men of like passions with you, and preach 
 
 - 
 
302 
 
 unto you, that ye should turn from these vanities," 
 that is, from worshipping those by whose agency a real 
 miracle had been performed, " unto the living God/' 
 by whose aid it was wrought, " who made heaven 
 and earth, and the sea, and all things that are there- 
 in." Acts xiv. 8 — 15. 
 
 The next text, adduced by the committee for the 
 same purpose, is Matt, xvi, 27- viz. " For the son 
 of man, shall come in the glory of his Father, with 
 his angels ; and then he shall reward every man ac- 
 cording to his works." When it can be otherwise 
 shewn, that omnipotence is a suitable characteristic 
 of the son of man, who is to come in the glory of his 
 Father, this text maybe something to the purpose. 
 
 The third text, on which the committee profess to 
 rely, is Matt, xxviii. 18. " And Jesus came and 
 spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto 
 me in heaven and in earth." Whatever may be the 
 true sense of the terms " all power/* in this passage, 
 which it seems to me the two next verses sufficiently 
 explain, it is clear even from this verse, that it has 
 no reference to underived power, and therefore can- 
 not import, actual omnipotence. 
 
 The fourth text, from whence the committee de- 
 duce the omnipotence of Jesus Christ, is John i. 10. 
 " He was in the world, and the world was made by 
 him, and the world knew him not/' How this im- 
 plies omnipotence, I do not understand. 
 
 The fifth, is John iii. 31. " He that cometh from 
 above, is above all : he that is of the earth, is earth- 
 ly, and speak eth of the earth : he that cometh from 
 heaven, is above all." These sayings of John the Bap- 
 tist, are undoubtedly just, as he applied them ; but I 
 see no reason whatever, to suppose he meant thereby 
 to ascribe omnipotence to the Messiah. In the 34th 
 and 35th verses, he is recorded as saying, " For he, 
 whom God hath sent, [that is Jesus Christ] speak- 
 eth the words of God ; for God giveth not the spirit 
 
303 
 
 by measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, 
 and hath given all things into his hand/' That is, all 
 the power of the Son, however great, was derived 
 from the Father, that is, from God. Yet is the 54th 
 verse cited by the committee, to prove the omnipo- 
 tence of Jesus Christ ! 
 
 The seventh text they appeal to, is John v. 26. 
 which most expressly asserts the life of the Father, 
 the primary, and inexhaustible source of all life, 
 to be inherent " in himself '," and that of the Son to 
 be, not underived, but the gift of God. " For as 
 the Father hath life in himself, so hath he, [being 
 omnipotent and immortal,] given to the Son, to have 
 life in himself." The next verse adds, " and hath 
 given him authority to execute judgment, because he 
 is the Son of Man.'' That is, the appointed Mes- 
 siah, for God giveth not the spirit by measure unto 
 him. 
 
 The eighth ground, on which the committee im- 
 pute omnipotence to Jesus Christ, is a declaration he 
 is recorded to have made, "I and my Father are 
 one." The text, John x. 30. does not say, they are 
 one being, one person ; nor that they are co-equal, 
 co-eternal, or co-omnipotent. Such self-contradic- 
 tions, are not to be found in the sacred writings. The 
 text simply says, they "are one," and the evange- 
 list leaves his readers to judge for themselves, from 
 the whole passage, in what sense those words are to 
 he understood. That is, whether of unity of design, 
 and co-operation, or of unity of person. The oc- 
 casion on which those words were spoken, was as 
 follows : 
 
 " And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's 
 porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and 
 said unto him, How long dost thou make us to 
 doubt? If thou be the Christ, (that is the Messiah) 
 tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, 
 and ye believed not: the works that 1 do in my Fa- 
 
304 
 
 ther's name, they bear witness of me," that he sent 
 me. " But ye believe not ; because ye are not of 
 my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my 
 voice, and 1 know them, and they follow me. And 
 I give unto them, eternal life, and they shall never 
 perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my 
 band. My Father who gave them me, is greater 
 than all : and none is able to pluck them out of my 
 Father's hand. I and my Father are one." John x. 
 23 — 30. As if he had said, 1 am the appointed 
 shepherd of the sheep, and my Father, whose pow- 
 er is omnipotent, will enable me to preserve all that 
 he hath given me. For he is greater than all. 
 
 How blind, and prejudiced is a persecuting spirit, 
 of which the conduct of the Jews on this occasion, 
 affords a stiiking example. This unequivocal asser- 
 tion, of the supremacy of the God whom they pro- 
 fessed to worship, in his parental character, and by 
 him, who spake as never man spake, neither abat- 
 ed their rage, nor prevented their perversion of 
 the words of Jesus. " Then the Jews took up 
 stones again, to stone him. Jesus answered them, 
 Many good works have I shewed you from my Fa- 
 ther ; for which of those works do ye stone me? 
 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work 
 we stone thee not; but for blasphemy, and because 
 that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus 
 answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said 
 ye are Gods?" 
 
 After this truly Sqcratjc appeal to them, on their 
 own law, which they professed to revere, he thus 
 argues the injustice of their accusation with them, 
 on their own principles, and in the following con- 
 clusive manner: " If he called them gods, unto 
 whom the word of God came, and the Scripture can- 
 not be broken : say ye of him, whom the Father 
 hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blas- 
 phemest ; because I said, I am the Son of God ? If 
 
305 
 
 I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 
 But it' I do, though ye believe not me, believe the 
 works, that ye may know, and believe that the Father 
 is in me, and I in him." v. 31— :3S. These calum- 
 niating Jews, who were assembled at this time, at 
 " the feast of the dedication" of the temple, could 
 not well have been ignorant, whom Jesus called his 
 Father, as it appears he informed those who were 
 met in the temple, but a short time before, in the 
 most explicit terms, " If I honour myself, my ho- 
 nour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth 
 me, of whom ye say that he is your God." John 
 viii. 54. 
 
 The ninth ground on which the committee impute 
 omnipotence to Christ, is because he is recorded, 
 John xiv. 9, to have said unto Philip, " He that 
 hath seen me, hath seen the Father, and how sayest 
 thou then, shew us the Father?" The next verse, 
 if maturely considered, will shew, I think, how en- 
 tirely unfounded such a construction of the import 
 of the text is. Jesus adds, " Believest thou not, 
 that L am in the Father, and the Father in me? The 
 words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself : 
 but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the 
 works/' The evangelist cannot possibly have un- 
 derstood those expressions, in any literal sense, for 
 he assures us, that " no man hath seen God at any 
 time/' I John iv. 12. Yet it may be truly said, on 
 the authority of Christ himself, that " Blessed are 
 the pure in heart, for they shall see God." 
 
 The tenth text on which the committee found 
 their belief in the omnipotence of Jesus Christ, is 
 Eph. i. 21, which is so expressly connected with 
 several of the foregoing verses, that without refer- 
 ring to them, it is impossible to ascertain to whom 
 it relates, or to form any correct judgment of its 
 import. The apostle, after saying, v. 3, " Blessed be 
 the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who 
 r r 
 
506 
 
 hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly 
 places in Christ :* says v. 15, •* Wherefore 1 also, after 
 I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, cease not to 
 give thanks for you, making mention of you in my 
 prayers; that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 the Father of Glory, may give unto you the spirit 
 of wisdom and revelation, in the knowledge of him: 
 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened, 
 that ye may know what is the hope of his calling — 
 and what is the exceeding greatness of his power to 
 us- ward who believe, according to the working of 
 his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, 
 when he raised him from the dead, and set him at 
 his own right hand, in the heavenly places. v v. 15 — 
 20. Then follows the verse which the committee 
 adduce, not to prove the omnipotence of the God 
 and Father of Christ, which the whole import of the 
 chapter, and of the epistle, goes to establish, in the 
 clearest manner, but of Jesus Christ himself! This 
 verse describes, in very appropriate terms, I have no 
 doubt, the dignity of being exalted at the right hand 
 of God, but it does not say, that omnipotence ap- 
 pertains to the person, whom the Father hath thus 
 exalted. Yet may it, as the text says, to which the 
 committee appeal, be " Far above all principality, 
 and power, and might, and dominion, and every name 
 that is named, not only in this world, but also in that 
 which is to come." Him only " excepted, who 
 did put all things under him.'' 
 
 The next text which the committee adduce, as 
 imputing omnipotence to Jesus Christ, is 1 Cor. i. 
 24. The true import of which, they seem to have mis- 
 taken, probably owing to the modern division of the 
 text into verses, the sense of the part quoted, de- 
 pending upon that of the preceding verse, which is, 
 strictly speaking, part of the same sentence. But an 
 attentive view of the context, more at large, will 
 render the sense, and connexion of the apostle's rea- 
 
307 
 
 soning, more plain and perspicuous. In the 18th verse, 
 lie says, " For the preaching of the cross is to them 
 that perish, foolishness, but unto us which are saved, 
 it is the power of God." The intermediate argument 
 of the apostle, in the three next verses, is important, 
 but not necessary to exhibit his meaning, as to the 
 point in question. This will be sufficiently appa- 
 rent, by the three following verses, when compared 
 with the 18th. — Viz. " For the Jews require a sign, 
 and the Greeks seek after wisdom. But we preach 
 Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, 
 and unto the Greeks foolishness: but unto them 
 which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the 
 power of God, and the wisdom of God/' To wit, 
 the doctrine of Christ, and him crucified. The apos- 
 tle concludes his argument thus, " But of him 
 (God), are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made 
 unto us, wisdom and righteousness, and sanctifica- 
 tion and redemption, that, according as it is written, 
 he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord/' v. 30. 
 Surely this is ultimately to ascribe all to God, and 
 consequently not omnipotence, or underived, unli- 
 mited power, to Jesus Christ. The apostle first says, 
 that " the preaching of the cross is to them — which 
 are saved — the power of God," afterwards that 
 preaching " Christ crucified," is "unto them which 
 are called — Christ the power — and the wisdom of 
 God:" lastly, that " Christ Jesus — is made — of 
 God — unto such — wisdom," &c. as above. Or in 
 other words, " Though he (Christ) were a son, yet 
 learned he obedience, by the things which he suf- 
 fered : and being made perfect, he became the author 
 of eternal salvation, unto all them that obey him." 
 Heb. v. 8, 9. 
 
 The twelfth ground on which the committee impute 
 omnipotence to Jesus Christ, is, because he is said, 
 Col. i. 15, to be " the image of the invisible God, 
 the first born, of every creature I" I cannot discover 
 
308 
 
 that this text gives the least countenance to such 
 doctrine, and the immediate context teaches the 
 contrary. This verse itself, represents that God is 
 " invisible," an essential characteristic of the one 
 supreme; that Jesus Christ, was not God himself, 
 the king eternal, immortal, the omnipotent, but the 
 image of the invisible God, and that he was " the 
 first born of every creature." 1 hat is, either the 
 most excellent of the whole creation, or, as the lSth 
 verse has it, " the first born from the dead, that in 
 all things he might have the pre-eminence : for it 
 pleased the Father that in him should all fulness 
 dwell." As to his being in the image of God, surely 
 that cannot be justly thought to import omnipotence, 
 but rather that he was " holy, harmless, undefiled/" 
 Is it not said, that God created man in his own 
 image ? " In the image of God created he him, 
 male and female created he them." In the 3rd verse 
 of this chapter, the apostle says, speaking for himself, 
 and Timolheus, " We give thanks to God and the 
 Father," &c. according to the received text, as if 
 God were one Being, and the Father another; but 
 there is no such ambiguity in the original, which as 
 Joseph Gurney Bevan has very justly observed, in 
 a note on this text, in his Life of Paul, is " more 
 literally " as it stands in the " Improved Version/' 
 thus — " We give thanks to the God and Father of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, since 
 we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of your 
 love to all the saints." Hence it most evidently 
 appears, to have been the judgment of the apostle, 
 that true faith in Christ Jesus, was strictly compati- 
 ble with a belief, that the great Being, to whom he 
 always prayed, and gave thanks, stood in the rela- 
 tion of God, that is of a superior to Christ Jesus, as 
 well as to all other beings whatever. 
 
 A similar ambiguity occurs in the thirteenth text, 
 to which the committee refer me, as imputing omni- 
 
309 
 
 potence to Jesus Christ, viz. Col. ii. 2. as rendered 
 in the authorized version. This however, though 
 equally requiring it, Joseph Gurney Bevan has not 
 pointed out to his readers. It is given thus : " That 
 their hearts might be comforted, being knit together 
 in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of 
 understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mys- 
 tery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ." 
 Supposing this were the true reading, how it can be 
 thought to impute omnipotence to Jesus Christ, I do 
 not at all understand. The sense of the whole passage, 
 including the 1st and 3rd verses, is in my apprehen- 
 sion more clear, and I have reason to believe " more 
 literally" and correctly rendered by Archbishop New- 
 come. " For I would that ye knew what earnest 
 care I have for you, and for those at Laodicea, and 
 for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh ; 
 that their hearts might be comforted, they being knit 
 together in love, and to all riches of the full assur- 
 ance of their understanding, to the knowledge of 
 the mystery of God the Father, and of Christ, in 
 which are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and 
 knowledge." 
 
 Whether Paul wrote the words the Father and of 
 Christ, is uncertain. The manuscripts vary : Gries- 
 bach omits those words ; Newcome retains them, 
 but with his usual mark of doubtful authenticity. 
 So far as the question at issue is concerned, it is of 
 no consequence, whether those words were, or were 
 not part of the original text. If they were not, all 
 that the latter verse speaks of, refers to " the know- 
 ledge of the mystery of God." If they were, it re- 
 fers to " the knowledge of the mystery of God the 
 Father, and of Christ," that is of the Messiah, the 
 Son and sent of the Father. The received version, 
 by the simple exchange of the word which for whojn, 
 refers the whole that is spoken of in the 3rd verse, to 
 Christ, as if he were omniscient, which he has 
 
310 
 
 assured us in the plainest manner he was not, but the 
 Father only. Matt. xxiv. 36. 
 
 The fourteenth and last text, which the committee 
 adduced as imputing omnipotence to Jesus Christ, is 
 Heb. i. 2. This verse, without question, speaks of 
 Christ in terms of high, perhaps of the highest "ap- 
 pointed" dignity. But in order to form any correct 
 judgment of its true import, the first verse should be 
 looked at, with as much attention as the second. 
 They are thus rendered in the received text, " God, 
 who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake 
 in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath 
 in these last days, spoken unto us by his Son, whom 
 he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also 
 he made the worlds." More literally, "for whom 
 also he constituted the ages." " The design of the 
 author of the Epistle to the Hebrews/' says Hopton 
 Haynes, " as most commentators agree, and indeed all 
 must agree, who carefully peruse it, was to shew by 
 several instances, the preference of Christ, and the 
 Christian institution, to Moses and the high priest, 
 and the Mosaic dispensation. For this purpose the 
 author, in the first chapter, magnifies the character 
 of Jesus Christ, as one, whom God, after all other 
 messages to his people by his prophets, had at last re- 
 solved to send under the character of his Son, a 
 more extraordinary messenger than those prophets ; 
 for God had made him the spiritual heir of his 
 inheritance, the church; and God by him, (his pro- 
 phet or messenger) new-formed the ages, that is, times, 
 and not the material world, as it is commonly mis- 
 understood." Scripture Account, &c, p. 312. 3rd 
 edit. 
 
 The selection of fourteen such texts, to prove that 
 Jesus Christ was omnipotent, I may be allowed to 
 say, supposing the doctrine to be scriptural, implies 
 that the committee hold it on false grounds. It im- 
 plies also, that they do not understand by *' omnipo- 
 
3n 
 
 tence, 9 ' as the sacred writers did, underived, unli- 
 mited, infinite power ; but such power, how great 
 soever, as was capable of being given, and con- 
 sequently of being received, by the person to whom 
 it was imparted. On consulting the texts referred 
 by them to my attention, I conceived they must have 
 adopted such an unscriptural notion of omnipotence, 
 and wishing to know from themselves whether my 
 inference was just, I waved entering into any discus- 
 sion respecting these texts at the next conference, 
 but merely observed that till I knew in what sense 
 they used the term omnipotence in that paper, I could 
 not so well speak to their view of the subject ; as 
 to mine, I told them the whole fourteen texts ap- 
 peared on examination entirely inapplicable. They 
 refused giving me this explanation verbally, or in 
 writing, by which you may form some judgment, of 
 the real character of their endeavours to convince me 
 of the errors, they supposed me to have imbibed. 
 
 The other branch of my offence, in aiding in the 
 dispersion of the " Remarks on the Quakers' Yearly 
 Epistle," relates to their " calling in question the pro- 
 priety of applying to Christ in secret supplication, as 
 professed by the Yearly Meeting in its Epistle foi- 
 ls 10." By referring to those Remarks, to the Epis- 
 tle, and to the text quoted in the passage alluded to, 
 it will appear, that in giving publicity to those Re- 
 marks, so far as they relate to this subject, I have 
 only contributed to point out an erroneous quotation 
 of Scripture, and the apparent consequence of such 
 misquotation. This unintentional error of the com- 
 pilers of this Epistle, as the writer of the Remarks 
 considered it, the committee have most injudiciously 
 held up as an article of faith, professed by the Yearly 
 Meeting. 
 
 I was present when this Epistle was read in the 
 Yearly Meeting. It was only read once, and that 
 altogether, in an impressive manner I allow, but not 
 
312 
 
 afterwards paragraph, by paragraph, making a pause 
 between each, that inadvertent errors might be 
 pointed out, and corrected, as had been the uniform 
 practice till then, within my remembrance. On its 
 being read, however, this misquotation of Scripture 
 struck me ; and when 1 most unexpectedly found it 
 was not likely to be read again as usual, I observed, 
 that as the Meeting appeared to have so concluded, 
 contrary to its former practice, I hoped it would oe 
 clearly understood, to be within the province of the 
 Friends appointed to correct the press, to rectify any 
 erroneous quotation of Scripture which might be found 
 in it. That on its being read, it struck me there was 
 at least one error of that kind, and if so, every one 
 must see the propriety of correcting it. Joseph Gurney 
 Bevan replied, that it was a proper, and pertinent ob- 
 servation. It did expressly lie within the proper 
 province of the Friends appointed to correct the 
 press, to see that all quotations from Scripture were 
 accurately made, and he thought it might be safely 
 left to their care. 
 
 The application of the term omnipotent to Christ 
 in this epistle, was objected to at the same time by a 
 Friend, whose orthodoxy I never heard called in 
 question. He observed very justly, as I think, " that 
 was going a great way," and I should certainly have 
 seconded his objection, had I then thought the Epis- 
 tle contained such a passage, and when 1 found it did, 
 I regretted that I had not. An approved minister, 
 also objected to an unscriptural application of a text 
 quoted from Isaiah, in the first paragraph. Yet was 
 no part of the Epistle amended, or read a second 
 time. 
 
 Under these circumstances, being deeply impressed 
 with the evil consequences of quoting Scripture in- 
 correctly, or without duly attending to the context, 
 can it justly be deemed, I ask, an offence against a 
 Christian society, for me to have pointed out such 
 
313 
 
 passages in this Epistle, as appeared to me equally at 
 variance with the general tenor of former Epistles, 
 and with Scripture doctrine? With my convictions 
 of gospel truth, even if I were mistaken, for I claim 
 not infallibility, it would have been a dereliction of 
 my duty, as a Christian, to have kept them wholly 
 to myself. I therefore, occasionally, spoke my mind 
 freely, and openly, respecting those parts of this Epis- 
 tle, which are noticed in the Remarks, as erroneous, 
 and unscriptural. Of these, the selection of the one 
 which holds up Christ, as the proper object of " se- 
 cret supplication," instead of his Father, and our Fa- 
 ther, his God, and our God, as affording ground for 
 accusation, appears to me peculiarly futile, and ill- 
 chosen. If this tenet, be sound and scriptural in it- 
 self, it can never be defensible, " as professed" in 
 this Epistle, because it is therein founded upon an 
 erroneous quotation of Scripture. It was probably 
 an inadvertent error, arising out of the ambiguous 
 use of the term " Lord" and an incorrect use of the 
 possessive pronoun " his." For only change the 
 words " His kingdom" for the words in the text 
 quoted, " the kingdom of God," the whole passage 
 will be strictly correct, sound and scriptural, as also 
 consonant with the general tenor of the devotional 
 language in all the foregoing Yearly Epistles. As it 
 stands, it contains an untrue statement of a declara- 
 tion of Christ, as given by two of the evangelists, 
 Matt. vi. 33. Luke xii. 31. and without any warrant 
 from the text, substitutes one person, for ano- 
 ther, the Son, for God the Father. With what con- 
 sistency, I wish you calmly to consider, can any 
 real lover of scriptural truth, censure the detection, 
 and exposure of such an error ? 
 
 If this branch of their accusation be considered, 
 independent of that baseless fabric on which the 
 committee erected it, viz, a false quotation of Scrip- 
 ture, it will stand thus. — They accuse me of hold- 
 
314 
 
 ing that our Lord Jesus Christ is not omnipotent, 
 nor the proper object of adoration and praise. I in- 
 quire of them, whether they mean " the man Christ 
 Jesus, " and whether by the terms " adoration and 
 praise/' they mean supreme religious worship? 
 They refuse to inform me, and therefore, for any thing 
 that appears to the contrary, there may be upon these 
 points, no real difference of sentiment between us. 
 It is plain they hesitate to ascribe omnipotence to 
 the man Christ Jesus, or to say they consider him as 
 the proper object of supreme religious worship, or 
 as being, in his present glorified state, the supreme 
 God. So do I. And I moreover believe it to be my 
 religious duty, openly to declare, that I hold it to be 
 wholly unscriptural to ascribe omnipotence to the 
 " one mediator between God and men, the man Christ 
 Jesus," or to offer supreme worship, or prayer unto 
 him, or to consider him as the supreme God. 
 
 When the sacred writers use the words, Jesus, Je- 
 sus Christ, Christ, or the Messiah, the Lord Jesus, our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 
 they appear to me generally, if not uniformly, to 
 mean the " one mediator between God and men, the 
 man Christ Jesus. " This is so obviously and evi- 
 dently the case, that when any other application, of 
 either of those appellatives is contended for as scrip- 
 tural, the grounds for such an exception to a general 
 rule, ought to be clearly and distinctly shewn. If the 
 respondents, therefore, still think fit to support their 
 acsusationon this head, I submit to you, whether it 
 is not incumbent on them to state, either that they 
 mean such of those terms as they have adopted, to be 
 understood in their usual acceptation, or to specify 
 what they do mean by them, or to explain the grounds 
 whereon they would justify using them in any other, 
 than their standing, scriptural sense. It is not for 
 me to conjecture, what the committee did mean by 
 terms which they appear to use in some very uncom- 
 
315 
 
 mon sense, and refuse explaining. But all the ex- 
 ceptions from the general rule, for ascertaining the 
 import of those sacred terms are so few, and so little 
 capable of lending any support to such an accusation, 
 that I feel myself as standing upon impregnable scrip- 
 tural ground, whatever exception they may plead. 
 Do not impute this confidence in the plainness of 
 Scripture doctrine, on a point of such transcendent 
 importance, as that of the unity of God, to a wrong 
 cause. It is the result, I may safely affirm, of much 
 serious, and disinterested investigation. And if I am 
 in error, the refusal of those who were appointed to 
 examine into the soundness of my faith, and to re- 
 port thereon, to explain the terms of their accusa- 
 tions, had no tendency to correct my opinions, but 
 rather excited a suspicion that they were in doubt 
 concerning their own. 
 
 The omnipotence of God the Father, and thein- 
 dispensible obligation of addressing our prayers, and 
 thanksgivings unto him, are so manifestly and forci- 
 bly inculcated in the sacred writings, that no question 
 has everarisen respecting either, among those, of what- 
 ever persuasion, who believed the New Testament to 
 be a genuine, and authentic record. The same cannot 
 be said, concerning the ascription of omnipotence to 
 Christ, or representing him as a proper object of re- 
 ligious worship. Nothing like either can I find in 
 the Scriptures, nor is there in that which is called 
 the Apostles' Creed, unquestionably the most anci- 
 ent of the three, recognized by the Church of En- 
 gland. It is most strictly Unitarian, and I have re- 
 peatedly heard it quoted by approved ministers in the 
 Society, at public meetings, as a correct exposition 
 of the fundamental articles of its faith, with a small 
 exception, of little importance. But I never heard 
 either of the others, so distinguished. In the Nicene 
 creed, which was fabricated in the year 32o, omni- 
 potence is ascribed to the Father only, and Christ is 
 
316 
 
 said to have been begotten of his Father, before all 
 worlds, to be " God, of God, Light, of Light, very 
 God, of very God," to be " begotten, not made, 
 being of one substance with the Father, by whom 
 all things were made," &c. The opinion of this 
 council therefore certainly was, that the divinity of 
 Christ, was derived from the Father, and that he was 
 not without origin, or God of himself, as the Father 
 was. Not a word is there like the assertion of equal- 
 ity, or co-eternity in this creed. The first council 
 which declared the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit 
 were equal in power and glory, was that of Constan- 
 tinople, in the year 38 I . And this new doctrine, they 
 called confirming that of the Council of Nice, to 
 which it was expressly opposed. Thus was this 
 great corruption of the primitive Christian faith, the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, gradually introduced, step 
 by step, till at length that disgraceful monument of 
 priestcraft and fraud, the Athanasian Creed, was im- 
 posed upon the Christian world, (a) 
 
 (a) In the u Athenian Mercury'' of June 14, 16<)2, the Quakers 
 are charged with denying the Trinity. In reply to this accusation, 
 William Penn says, '* You should in justice have added, of persons, 
 with all the school-niceties and distinctions, that belong to that sort 
 of explication of Scripture ; for to that only it is, your first proof re- 
 fers , viz. William Penn's Sandy Foundation, p. 12. For the Scrip- 
 ture, no where calls God, the holy three of Israel, but holy one of Is- 
 rael. And it he had said, imagined Trinity, p. 16, as you cite, 
 which he does not, in the copy we have, it ought not to be so heinous 
 with you, since three persons are not to be found in the Bible. And 
 if you will not allow that council to be infallible, that formed this 
 article [of laith] above 300 years after Christ's ascension, as to be 
 sure you will not, I hope it must be their imagination of the text, if 
 not, [it must be] a divine inspiration.'''' Works, Vol. II. p. 804. 
 
 Such were the sentiments of William Penn, concerning the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity, 24 years after he was imprisoned in the Tower, 
 for publishing the • Sandy Foundation Shaken." From this pas- 
 sage it appears, as if two editions of that work had then been publish- 
 ed, in one of which the epithet imagined, was not prefixed to the 
 teim Trinity in p 16 ; but he shews at this time, in the maturity of 
 iiis age, that such a use of it, was defensible, and thai so far from 
 
317 
 
 From this period it appears to me that all profess- 
 ed believers in that doctrine, with those who bold 
 that Christ is omnipotent, and the proper object of 
 worship, are reducible to two classes only: viz. 1st. 
 Those who believe there is no proper divinity in 
 Christ, besides that of the Father. 
 
 Sndly. The class of tritheists, who maintain that 
 there are three equal, and co-eternal Gods. 
 
 To which of these classes then do my accusers be- 
 long ? To the first unquestionably ; for they have re- 
 peatedly urged it upon me, that the Society of Friends 
 hold the doctrine of the unity of God, in a more strict 
 sense than the Unitarians do ; the latter making a 
 distinction between God, and Christ, which the for- 
 mer, they asserted, did not, but considered them as 
 one, and the same Being. Now if Christ be, as they 
 hold, God in the highest sense, and I acknowledge 
 and assert his (God's) omnipotence, and that he is 
 the proper object of supreme religious worship, they 
 ought to consider me, I think, as asserting the same 
 things, concerning Christ. On the other hand, if 
 Christ be not in reality God the Father, in any strict, 
 proper, personal sense, or " precisely taken," to use 
 Barclay's definite language, but only his well-belov- 
 ed Son, the promised Messiah, whom God hath made 
 both Lord, and Christ, should I not, by ascribing om- 
 nipotence to him, or by offering him supreme religi- 
 ous worship, fall into idolatry ? Whatsoever is not of 
 faith, is sin. 
 
 The whole extent therefore of my supposed error, so 
 far as I understand it, is, that I deem it more sound and 
 scriptural, to use only such terms to designate the 
 one Supreme, as I find most frequently, clearly, and 
 definitely applied, by the sacred writers, to Jehovah, 
 or God the Father, than such as are usually, if not 
 
 having recanted, he still continued to approve the doctrines he had so 
 ably maintained in that work, as being founded on the testimony of 
 Scripture, and of right reason, 
 
 '%/*?•■ ft* 
 
uniformly, applied by those writers to the man 
 Christ Jesus. My accusers appear to think, so far 
 as I have been able to comprehend their meaning, 
 that such terms are equally fit to designate his God, 
 and Father also, the omnipotent, and sole object of 
 all true worship. 
 
 Now supposing their opinion were just, and mine 
 erroneous — do I thereby set up any strange unscrip- 
 tural object of worship? Is it to infringe " The 
 first of all the commandents, Hear, O Israel, the 
 Lord our God, is one Lord." Mark xii. 29. This 
 will not be said. What then is my offence ? Why, 
 in an affair of such great practical importance, in the 
 exercise of all mental, or vocal acts of worship, 1 
 think it most safe to abide by the general scriptural 
 rule, which all Christians, in every age, have united 
 in approving, in preference to an alleged exception, 
 respecting the nature of which, they have always 
 disagreed, and which appears to me, of more than 
 doubtful authority. 
 
 9th. The last accusation in this report is, that 
 your appellant " avows, that he is a member of the 
 Unitarian Society, in which he confesses he has great 
 satisfaction." It will surely be allowed, that it is 
 an incumbent duty on those who undertake to ac- 
 cuse a person, upon his own confession, to do it cor- 
 rectly. That is, neither to misstate any thing, nor 
 to withhold any part of the confession, so as, there- 
 by, to alter its true import. If accusers, who do 
 either, are in possession of better evidence, and have 
 been previously, and plainly apprised of the injustice 
 of such artifices, their conduct is proportionably the 
 more reprehensible. Such, I submit to you, was 
 the conduct of the committee on this occasion. 
 Connected as this charge is, with the rest of their 
 report, it is scarcely possible for any one to read it, 
 (who does not happen to be otherwise better in- 
 formed,) without supposing, that I had become a 
 
;H9 
 
 member of another distinct religious Society. And 
 it is difficult to imagine, it was not intended to make 
 this false impression upon the Meeting, for I had 
 strongly and plainly represented to them, the in- 
 justice they would be doing me, if they did not, in 
 the report they were directed to make, expressly spe- 
 cify, that the Society I was a member of, was merely a 
 Book Society. 
 
 It is not a sufficient apology for such injustice, to 
 say, it was in my power to explain this to the Meet- 
 ing. For the whole record of the case, in conform- 
 ity, I am sorry to say, (so far as I have had the 
 means of judging,) to the usual practice, is a mere 
 ex parte statement. It does not even appear, on the 
 face of the record, that I made the least objection to 
 any part of the report. Yet is this partial, imper- 
 fect, incorrect, and delusive report of my sentiments, 
 and conduct, placed, without comment, upon the 
 Meeting's books, to transmit the same to posterity. 
 
 The satisfaction which the committee say 1 ex- 
 pressed, they knew referred only to the perusal of 
 such works as this Society had published, and I 
 might not otherwise have known. Under such 
 circumstances, 1 refer it to you, to consider, whether 
 it were consistent with candour, justice, or impar- 
 tiality, entirely to keep out of sight, that the Society 
 I was connected with, was a mere Book Society, the 
 subscribers to which, they knew were members of 
 various religious societies. They did not pretend to 
 have any knowledge of those works, with which I 
 had become acquainted, so much to my satisfaction, 
 in consequence of becoming a subscriber to this 
 Book Society, and refused to be informed. Yet it 
 is evident, they ought to have known something of 
 the tenor and tendency of those works, before they 
 could be justified, even upon any plausible intolerant 
 principles, in representing the " satisfaction I had 
 expressed, as a crime. 
 
326 
 
 In their conferences with me, they finally rested 
 their objection, to my being a subscriber to this Book 
 Society, as 1 observed in an early part of this address, 
 on a sentiment in the preface to its Book of Rules, 
 which sentiment, although they allowed it to be 
 sanctioned by apostolic example, they fancied was 
 disrespectful to the character of Christ! This objec- 
 tion, implies an equal censure on the sacred writer, 
 as on the London Unitarian Book Society, and on 
 me, as a subscriber thereto. The occasion for this 
 injudicious censure, was this: in the said preface, 
 " the man Christ Jesus," is represented as " the 
 creature and messenger of God, and not his equal, 
 nor his vicegerent, nor co-partner with him in divine 
 honours, as some have strangely supposed." If this 
 be disrespectful to the character of Christ, what 
 shall we say of the language of the prophets concern- 
 ing him? Did not Christ himself say, " I can of 
 mine own self do nothing ?" Can any words be 
 more plain and definite ? I leave you to judge, whe- 
 ther he thereby describes himself, as " the finite 
 and impotent creature," to use the language of 
 William Penn, or " the infinite and omnipotent Cre- 
 ator ?'' 
 
 On the above ground, did the committee rest their 
 objection to my being a subscriber to this Book 
 Society, but I persuade myself your superior judg- 
 ment, will place the question as reason, and justice 
 require, on the propriety, or impropriety of my ac- 
 cording with its fundamental principles. With these, 
 as Christian truths of great importance, I was well 
 acquainted, long before I knew that such a Society 
 existed, It may appear singular to you, but I was 
 first acquainted with the existence and constitution 
 of this Book Society, by a member of the Society 
 of Friends, and one of the most highly respectable 
 characters, for moral and religious worth, and for 
 solid intellectual endowments, that I have ever 
 
321 
 
 known. The person to whom I allude, was the late 
 William Rathbone, of Liverpool, who had been a /. 
 subscriber to this Book Society, and his name and 
 residence was annually published in the list of its 
 members, for twelve years previous to my becoming 
 a subscriber, without his ever having been subjected 
 to any ecclesiastical censure on that account. This 
 excellent man honoured me with his personal friend- 
 ship, and frequent correspondence, till the fatal pro- 
 gress of his last illness interrupted the delightful 
 and instructive intercourse, as I found it, for he was 
 truly an Israelite indeed, in whom there was no 
 guile, and possessed, in a most eminent degree, those 
 qualities of a vigorous, well regulated, and expanded 
 mind, which are an ornament to human nature, and 
 command the esteem and veneration, of all who are 
 capable of justly appreciating, the value of such un- 
 common excellence. Such was the impression I 
 had received, of the genuine character of the man, 
 whose example I followed, in becoming a subscriber 
 to this Book Society, instituted for the promotion of 
 Christian Knowledge, and the Practice of Virtue. 
 How then could I reasonably suppose such conduct 
 could be deemed criminal ? 
 
 William Rathbone, it is true, ,was not a Quaker, 
 or a Christian, merely, or principally, because his 
 parents, much as he revered them, were such. Reli- 
 gion was with him, as it ought to be with every 
 man, a subject of interesting personal enquiry, and 
 not a slavish and implicit adherence to the faith of his 
 ancestors, as is lamentably the general case, in every 
 church, which does not admit, and sedulously en- 
 courage, a spirit of free enquiry, and the exercise of the, 
 rights of private judgment. His integrity was unim- 
 peachable, and indeed above suspicion. His actions 
 were not governed by the impulses of a heated, or dis- 
 ordered imagination, but were the result of a cool 
 t t 
 
3t2 
 
 judgment, acting with great deliberation, and espe- 
 cially in all that concerned religion. 
 
 Such were the grounds on which he became a 
 subscriber to this Book Society, and he had to a 
 very late period of his life, and I have reason to be- 
 lieve as long as he was capable of contemplating it, 
 increased satisfaction in the consequences of his 
 connexion therewith. Nor did he, any more than 
 myself, imagine it was at all inconsistent with re- 
 taining our membership in the Society of Friends. 
 He was deeply impressed with the great importance 
 of its fundamental principles, and considered them 
 as the basis of all true religion, and the general cha- 
 racter of its publications, as well calculated to pro- 
 mote the great cause of virtue and religion. 
 
 It remains for me to shew, that these fundamental 
 principles, as laid down in the preface to its Book 
 of Rules, are somewhat fuller, but otherwise almost 
 the counterpart of those which are given in the 
 Summary, as the " general belief," of the Society 
 of Friends. They are these : 
 
 " The fundamental principles of this Society are, 
 that there is but one God, the sole former, sup- 
 porter, and governor of the Universe, the only pro- 
 per object of religious worship ; and that there is one 
 mediator between God, and men, the man Christ 
 Jesus, who was commissioned by God to instruct 
 men in their duty, and to reveal the doctrine of a 
 future life," 
 
 The " general belief" of the Society of Friends, 
 as given in the Summary of their " history, doctrine, 
 and discipline," which was " written at the desire/' 
 and " published by permission of the Meeting for 
 Sufferings/' is thus stated: 
 
 " We agree with other professors of the Christian 
 name, in the belief of one eternal God, the Cre- 
 ator, and Preserver of the Universe, and in Jesus 
 
323 
 
 Christ his Sun, the Messiah, and Mediator, of the 
 new covenant. y> 
 
 Such is the substantial agreement of this authen- 
 ticated profession of the " general belief," of the 
 Society of Friends, with the fundamental principles 
 of the London Unitarian Book Society, for being a 
 subscriber to which, I have been disowned. The first 
 strong impression [ received, of the great importance 
 of these doctrines, and of some others* naturally con- 
 nected therewith, was from perusing in early life that 
 sound and scriptural defence of them, Penn's " San- 
 dy Foundation Shaken." The recent publication 
 of this work, by the above-mentioned Book Society, 
 is a sufficient proof, that it was considered by them, 
 as " calculated to promote the general design of the 
 Society/' viz. " the diffusion of Christian Know- 
 ledge and the Practice of Virtue." It was recom- 
 mended agreeably to the rules, by three members, 
 (of whom [ was one) "as worthy of the patronage 
 of the Society/' at one meeting, and unanimously 
 ordered " to be printed, and received into their cata- 
 logue," at the next, being the annual meeting. 
 
 This work was first published in 1668, " about 
 which time/' says the author of Peni/s Life, pre- 
 fixed to the first edition of his works, printed in 
 1726, " he first came forth in the work of the minis- 
 try, rightly called to, and qualified for that office; 
 being sent of God, to teach others, what himself had 
 learned of him," with much more, equally expres- 
 sive of the high sense the Society entertained of the 
 soundness of his spiritual faculties, in the very year 
 when he wrote this work, and suffered imprisonment 
 for publishing this noble vindication of the unity, 
 mercy, and purity of God. The next testimonial 
 I shall adduce, of the continued approval of this 
 work, by the Society of Friends, is from the preface 
 to the folio edit, of Penn's select wotks, printed so 
 lately as the year 1771, by which it appears, that 
 
* s the works of this eminent person, having long been 
 out of print, and much inquired after — it was judged 
 expedient, previously to another impression, to re- 
 view the whole, and to select for publication a// such 
 parts of our author's writings, as have an immediate 
 tendency, to promote the cause of religion in general, 
 containing doctrines, in which people of all nations, 
 ranks, and conditions, are interested without dispute ; 
 and such likewise, as at the same time that they 
 contribute to the same great end, the increase of 
 primitive Christianity in life and doctrines, include 
 an apology for the religious principles, and practices 
 of the people, to whom he was united in profession, 
 A few of his controversial pieces are retained, many 
 are omitted ; such especially, the causes of which 
 being temporary, are thereby rendered less interest- 
 ing to the present age." The Sandy Foundation 
 Shaken, is however retained, as being one of Penn's 
 " many excellent treatises, of general and lasting use 
 — of great importance to the cause of piety and vir- 
 tue," — as an able vindication " of the principles of 
 the Christian Society, of which he was an honour- 
 able member/' 
 
 I may be told, there is another work of Penn's, 
 written while he was suffering persecution for pub- 
 lishing this, which he called an Apology for it. 
 And it has been represented as nearly allied to a re- 
 cantation. There may be some difficulty in recon- 
 ciling the two books together, upon such principles 
 of biblical criticism, as are now generally approved, 
 but I have, by far, too high an opinion of the reli- 
 gious integrity of Penn, to admit that he acted so 
 unworthy a part. The apparent incongruity, be- 
 tween the two books, may, I think, be otherwise ac- 
 counted for, and I see no reason to suppose, he 
 thought them inconsistent with each other. If he 
 did, it would be, in my apprehension, impossible to 
 vindicate his sincerity. If they appear so to any 
 
32.5 
 
 person, it is evident such person cannot approve 
 both. Let every person then freely exercise his own 
 judgment, and receive that as truth, which appears 
 to him to be so, as being sound and scriptural. The 
 Society has so long given its sanction to Penn's 
 works generally, in the manner I have mentioned, 
 that it cannot with any consistency or justice, cen- 
 sure and disown any of its members, for reading 
 his works, or for comparing one part with another, 
 and judging for themselves; nor for openly profess- 
 ing the result of such examination. Yet am I dis- 
 owned, so far as I understand, for doing no more 
 than this ! 
 
 In the exercise of this Christian liberty, it is true, 
 individuals may fall into involuntary errors. When 
 this happens, those errors should be pointed out, and 
 confuted. The spirit and precepts of the gospel, for- 
 bid the exercise of any other power in the correction 
 of such errors than reason, and persuasion. Tore- 
 sort to other measures, to repress opinions which the 
 rulers of any church may happen to disapprove, how- 
 ever limited their power, is to adopt the principle of 
 persecution. It is at least, to substitute authority 
 for conviction. William Penn, I believe, some- 
 where said he abhorred both. And so do I, as ini- 
 mical to the best interests of man, and the progress 
 of genuine evangelical truth. 
 
 10th. The committee allege, lastly, that " they en- 
 deavoured to convince me of the impropriety of my 
 conduct, as a member of the Society, but that I was 
 not disposed to allow I had acted at all improperly or 
 inconsistently." They should have added, with re- 
 gard to the subjects they were appointed to inquire 
 into ; for I was not indisposed to allow, that I might, 
 in many other things, have acted both improperly and 
 inconsistently. It was said by an apostle, " If we 
 say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and 
 the truth is not in us ;" and a most wholesome ad- 
 
326 
 
 monition it is, against all such Pharisaic pretensions, 
 As to the endeavours of the committee to convince 
 me of the impropriety of my conduct, I can say but 
 little, because such endeavours, as they used, were 
 directed rather towards the opinions they supposed I 
 held, than to any improper conduct they alleged I had 
 fallen into. By far the most prominent feature of 
 their labours with me, is strongly marked in their re- 
 port, " We questioned him," &c. These efforts 
 were indeed zealous and persevering. I occasionally 
 relaxed in my opposition to them, but in general, as 
 they say, " decidedly refused to answer." The other 
 efforts they made are not so distinctly marked in 
 their report. They were, however, principally di- 
 rected, not to convince me that the opinions 1 had im- 
 bibed were erroneous, for such or such reasons ; this 
 they scarcely attempted. But they exhorted me to 
 keep them to myself, because they hurt many weak 
 minds, and were generally disapproved, not only by 
 Friends, but also by persons of other persuasions. 
 They also attempted to impress me, but without effect, 
 with the opinion they professed to entertain, that sup- 
 posing there were errors in a Yearly Meeting Epistle, it 
 was both useless, and inconsistent, to point them out. 
 But, above all, the five papers they put into my hands, 
 exhibit to any competent judge, in the most correct 
 manner, the character of their labours with me, and 
 their qualifications for such an undertaking, (a) 
 
 On the presentation of the committee's report to 
 the Monthly Meeting, held 2nd month, 20th, 1812, 
 the first effort that was made, before its being read, 
 was to exclude me, in order that the Meeting might, 
 conformably to what was stated as its usual practice, 
 which custom had established, come to a conclusion 
 thereon, before I was allowed any opportunity of 
 being heard in my own defence. To claim this right 
 
 (a) For copies of these papers see p. 92, 93, and 154, 155. 
 
mi 
 
 in this stage of the proceedings, was said to be unpre- 
 cedented. And the propriety of such procedure 
 was insisted on, but although two of the committee, 
 admitted, at the foregoing Meeting, that they had 
 searched the Book of Extracts in vain, for a minute 
 that would authorize them, by exclusion during the 
 discussion of my own case, to deprive me of this 
 most obvious of all rights, to a person accused. And 
 therefore I was allowed to be present, to hear the re- 
 port of the committee read, not willingly on the part 
 of the most active members of the Meeting, but be- 
 cause they did not think themselves warranted in re- 
 quiring me to withdraw, as no minute could be found, 
 to sanction so gross a departure, from the plainest 
 principles of impartiality and justice. 
 
 At this Meeting, I objected to the general injus- 
 tice of the committee's report, and claimed the rio-ht 
 of being heard thereon, if the Meeting agreed to de- 
 ceive it, after a copy had been delivered to me bv 
 their order. On this occasion I was permitted, after 
 much opposition, to read a written address to the 
 Meeting, relative to the two visits the overseers had 
 paid me, and to their accusation, with the Meeting's 
 indefinite minute thereon, as also to the two first visits 
 I received from the Monthly Meeting's committee. 
 But the Meeting refused to hear either of my letters 
 to the overseers : and under these circumstances, on 
 my voluntarily withdrawing, after expressly claiming 
 the right of a farther hearing, on the two last visits 
 I had received from the committee, and on their re- 
 port, did the Meeting come to a precipitate conclu- 
 sion, " to testify its disunity with such principles 
 and conduct/' as the said committee had imputed 
 to me in their report, and to desire them to draw up 
 a testimony of denial, and to bring the same to the 
 next meeting. 
 
 A few days after, the clerk delivered to me a copy 
 of the committee's report, and of the minute made 
 
thereon- The next Meeting was held 3rd month, 
 19th, which I accordingly attended, and was then 
 suffered to read another written address, without any 
 opposition, or one word of comment thereon, while I 
 was present. The Meeting had concluded a month 
 before, what was to be done, and having so conclud- 
 ed, heard my defence with the appearance, at least, 
 of comparative patience, and without any interrup- 
 tion. The plan was previously settled, and most, if 
 not all the active members that were present, ap- 
 peared to think that was the only proper time for a 
 person to be heard in his own defence. The ill-suc- 
 cess of any defence, addressed to persons who had 
 imbibed such crude notions of equity and justice, 
 cannot be matter of surprise, however unfounded 
 the charges, however irregular the proceedings, how- 
 ever futile or contradictory the evidence. I re- 
 main still ignorant what rule of the Society I am 
 supposed to have transgressed. When I inquired of 
 the committee, they'said the Meeting must judge of 
 that; when I inquired of the Meeting, I was refer- 
 red to the committee. My accusers were now seated 
 as my judges, an office they had previously manifested 
 an inclination to exercise in the absence of the 
 party accused ; but their search for a minute that 
 would serve to sanction such a flagrant violation of 
 justice, being unsuccessful, they were only partially 
 gratified in this respect. Of their motives for acting 
 thus, I wish to form n.o judgment ; but of the natural 
 tendency of acting upon such principles, I cannot 
 entertain any doubt. No minute of the kind they 
 were in search of, disgraces the Society's legislative 
 code. The Meeting, however, or rather those who 
 assumed the right of deciding for it, that is, proba- 
 bly, a few for the whole, acted upon the principle 
 of such a rule, as far as was easily practicable ; and 
 that, in direct opposition to those equitable maxims, 
 which ought to govern all judicial proceedings; viz. 
 
329 
 
 to hear both parties in the first place fairly, fully and 
 impartially, and then to decide between them as jus- 
 tice requires. 
 
 When I had gone through the irksome task of 
 pleading in my defence, after judgment had been 
 pronounced, and recorded, as I perceived in my ac- 
 cusers and judges a reluctance to reading the testi- 
 mony the committee had been directed to draw up at 
 the last Meeting, before I withdrew, 1 observed that 
 I had no wish to have it read, before I left the Meet- 
 ing, provided it contained no new accusation, which 
 I mentioned having known instances of that kind, 
 whereby great injustice had been done to persons 
 disowned. If that was the case in this instance, 
 I should now claim the right of hearing it read. 
 Richard Bowman, one of the persons who drew 
 it up, replied, " It does not contain any fresh accu- 
 sation \ ,y 
 
 On this assurance being given me, I rose and im- 
 mediately withdrew. The Meeting sat about an 
 hour longer ; when it broke up, I was shewn the 
 testimony, ordered to be issued, by the persons who 
 drew it up. On perusing it, much to my sur- 
 prise, after all, I found that it did contain a new accu- 
 sation, and one that was unsupported by the evidence 
 it appealed to, and destitute of any other. I there- 
 fore warmly remonstrated with them thereon. They 
 refused to inquire into this, as did two of them the 
 next morning, when they delivered to me a copy of 
 this injurious document. 
 
 Continuing to feel the injustice and the bad exam- 
 ple of such an abuse of the discipline, in proportion 
 to the high sense I entertain of its advantages, when 
 wisely administered and strictly confined to its pro- 
 per objects, I addressed a letter to the next Monthly 
 Meeting, claiming the right of being heard, in reply 
 to these fresh charges against me. This request the 
 Meeting refused to comply with, and I therefore refer 
 u u 
 
V 
 
 330 
 
 you to the statement I would have laid before them 
 concerning it. See p. 181. 
 
 In due time, I gave notice of appeal, and it is now 
 become your province to decide, on a mature and 
 impartial consideration of tiie whole case, whether, 
 in tie exercise of the rights of private judgment, I 
 have so far exceeded those boundaries which the So- 
 ciety has laid down, for the government of its mem- 
 bers, as thereby justly to have merited disovvnment, 
 and, if so, by what rule of the Society. Also whether 
 the proceedings against me have been regular, and 
 orderly, according to the immutable principles of 
 gospel order. 
 
 That the discipline has not been always judiciously 
 administered, or upon proper principles, will, I 
 think, be readily admitted by any dispassionate and 
 intelligent person, who has been at the pains to look 
 into the written records of the Society, those faithful 
 pictures of the objects of its attention, at different 
 periods of its history, and of its manner of treating 
 them. To judge of these merely by the rules, jour- 
 nals of ministering Friends, or other printed works, 
 is to form an opinion, as it were, by the aspect of the 
 Sunday clothes of the Society, such as were thought 
 most proper and becoming, in the eye of the public. 
 The records, on the other hand, exhibit the Society 
 in its genuine, every day character, in its working 
 dress, employed in managing the affairs of its own 
 family. Some knowledge of these also is necessary 
 to enable any person to form a just judgment of the 
 collective character of the Society at any period, and 
 whether it has on the whole progressively improved, 
 or not. I am of opinion it has improved in various 
 important respects, but I cannot say it has, in an in- 
 creasing disposition to tolerate and encourage the free 
 exercise of the rights of private judgment on matters 
 of faith and worship. These were highly respected 
 by the early Friends, of which the Christian-like 
 
331 
 
 candour, liberality and forbearance of the Yearly- 
 Meeting of London in l(>9iand 1695, towards George 
 Keith, affords a most striking and instructive in- 
 stance. It was he, not they, that called for the sup- 
 pression of works he could not confute. It was he, 
 who was for setting up a creed, consisting of nume- 
 rous articles of faith, expressed in unscriptural terms, 
 with which they refused to comply. 
 
 They appear to have been willing to grant him the 
 liberty of professing his own religious sentiments, 
 but they very properly refused to silence or censure 
 his opponent, or to adopt his own formulary of faith, as 
 he urged them to do. He was therefore finally dis- 
 owned, not on account of the speculative errors he 
 might have professed, but for manifesting a boiste- 
 rous, uncharitable and intolerant disposition of mind. 
 
 If there be, as I suppose, no specific rule of the 
 Society, which authorizes disownment for such 
 causes as have been alleged against me, the case should 
 not be judged of by the prepossessions and influence 
 of a few active disciplinarians, whose zeal may not be 
 according to knowledge, however upright their in- 
 tentions ; but by a fair, candid appeal to those great 
 principles of religious association, which are laid 
 down in the New Testament, as the corner-stones of 
 the fair fabric of a true Christian church. These 
 should be ever kept in v'ew by Christian societies, 
 whatever rights other bodies of men may reasonably 
 exercise in the admission and rejection of their mem- 
 bers, they ought to act only on Christian principles 
 with regard to either. The principle, upon which it 
 is fit to receive persons into Christian fellowship, may 
 be said to have little to do with the present case ; 
 but I take them, with submission, to be closely con- 
 nected. What then of the Christian dispensation is 
 so peculiar and important, as to challenge of right 
 the name or'creed aud faith ? Let William 1'enn an- 
 swer. He replied to that question, " I say then. 
 
332 
 
 that the belief of Jesus of Nazareth to be the pro- 
 mised Messiah, the Son and Christ of God, come 
 and sent from God, to restore and save mankind, is 
 the first, and was then (in the primitive Christian 
 church) the only requisite article of faith ; and this 
 may be proved both by example and doctrine." Af- 
 ter adducing several scriptural proofs of this, Penn 
 adds, " Nor was this only in the days of Christ the 
 effect of his gracious dispensation or peculiar indul- 
 gence, for after times afford us the like instances. 
 This was the main bent of Peter's sermon ; and when 
 the three thousand believed that he whom the Jews 
 had crucified, was both Lord and Christ, and re- 
 pented of their sins, and gladly received his word, 
 they are said to have been in a state of salvation. Thus 
 Cornelius, and his household and kindred, so soon 
 as Peter declared Jesus to be the Messiah, and that 
 they had believed, — were received into the Chris- 
 tian communion. " " Again/' says William Penn, 
 " Paul, as his manner was (at Thessalonica) went 
 in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with 
 them out of the Scriptures ; opening and alleging 
 that Christ must needs have suffered and risen again 
 frovn the dead ; and that this Jesus, (said he) whom 
 I preach unto you, is Christ. And some of them be- 
 lieved. Thus we may plainly see," adds William 
 Penn, " that they were baptized into the faith of 
 Jesus, and not into numerous opinions ; and that 
 this one confession, from true faith in the heart, was 
 the ground and principle of their church fellowship." 
 Vol.' I. p. 754—755. 
 
 The " sincere confession that Jesus is the Christ, 
 the Son of God, contented Christ and his apostles," 
 observes William Penn ; " but it will not satisfy 
 those who yet pretend to believe them. It was 
 enough then for a miracle and salvation too, but it 
 goes for little or nothing now. A man may sincerely 
 believe this, and be stigmatized for a schismatic, an 
 
333 
 
 heretic, an excommunicate ; but I may say, as Christ 
 did to the Jews, in another case, from the beginning 
 it was not so. The question is not whether all the 
 truths contained in Scripture are to be believed, but 
 whether those truths are equally important ? And 
 whether the belief with the heart, and confession 
 with the mouth, that Jesus is the Christ, and Son of 
 God, be not as sufficient now to entitle a man to com- 
 munion here, and salvation hereafter, as in those 
 times ? Against which nothing can be of weight ob- 
 jected. If it be said that this contradicts the judg- 
 ment and practice of many great and good men, I 
 answer I cannot help that. If they have been tempt- 
 ed out of their own curiosity, or the corruption of 
 times, to depart from the ancient paths and footsteps 
 of purest antiquity and best examples, let their pre- 
 tences have been what they will, it was presumption, 
 and it was just with God that error and confusion 
 should be the consequence of such adventures, nor 
 has it ever failed to follow them." 
 
 After recommending to your attention, these truly 
 evangelical sentiments of so distinguished an author, 
 and eminent a minister, in the Society, I have only 
 to submit to your consideration, the two alternatives 
 of confirming, or of reversing, the judgment of the 
 Monthly Meeting. In the latter case, it would be 
 to determine, either that some part of the proceed- 
 ings had not been regular and orderly, or, that such, 
 errors as you had judged I had fallen into, in the 
 exercise of the Christian right of private judgment, 
 did not merit disownment ; or, were such offences as 
 the existing rules have not specifically subjected to 
 such censure and punishment. It would not be to hold 
 out your sanction to any " opinions" you may dis- 
 approve, and which 1 may believe to be scriptural, 
 and accordant to the genuine doctrines of the So- 
 ciety, but to leave those " opinions," to their own 
 proper evidence, and to the judgment of every man, 
 
33* 
 
 who thinks fit to examine how far they are supported 
 by reason and revelation. 
 
 In the former, your responsibility will be much 
 more extensive and weighty. To confirm such a 
 decision, is, in the first place, to pronounce, that 
 the proceedings on which it is founded, have been 
 conformable to gospel order, and the rules of the 
 Society. 
 
 2ndly. That Monthly Meetings are at liberty to 
 set up, each at its own discretion, articles of faith, 
 expressed in unscriptural terms. To exercise inqui- 
 sitorial powers over their members, concerning them, 
 and to enforce their reception, upon pain of dis- 
 ownment, without the sanction of any rule of the 
 Society. 
 
 3rdly. It would be in effect to declare, that such 
 accusations may be presented, and recorded, in in- 
 definite terms, to the manifest encouragement of 
 tale-bearing and detraction ; and that their ostensible 
 authors are, contrary to a positive rule, under no 
 obligation to make known their informants, nor to 
 explain their accusations, however vaguely or ob- 
 scurely expressed, nor to inform the persons they 
 accuse, whether they themselves believe those doc- 
 trines, they are censuring their brethren for not 
 holding. 
 
 4thly. It would also be, like the church of Rome 
 in former times, to set up a claim to infallibility, by 
 declaring, in effect, that the Yearly Meeting Epis- 
 tles, were too sacred to be criticised or examined — 
 that it was useless and pernicious, to. point out even 
 such inadvertent errors, as may be found in them, 
 and might justly incur the penalty of disownment. 
 
 5thly. It would be equivalent to declaring, that, 
 in your judgment, no member of the Society, eccle- 
 siastical officers excepted, ought, in future, openly 
 to profess, or aid if in propagati ng," such " opi- 
 nions,'' as he may believe were held by the most 
 
3$5 
 
 approved authors in the Society, from a careful pe- 
 rusal of their works, but must, if he would avoid 
 the danger of disownment, suppress his own con- 
 victions of truth, and enquire of the overseers of the 
 Meeting he happens to be a member of, what he may 
 profess without giving offence, and what he must 
 keep to himself — how he is to understand the au- 
 thors he peruses— what works he may purchase, and 
 in what manner — whether he may disperse, or give 
 away such works as he judges, may be useful in the 
 promotion of piety and v.rtue — or, whether he may, 
 by the serious use of that understanding given him 
 of God, deduce for himself, in the best manner he 
 can, the sense of particular texts of Scriptuie, or 
 whether he is bound to receive their construction of 
 difficult texts, contrary to his own conscience, and 
 judgment? 
 
 Lastly, it would be to decide that, according to 
 your judgment, a belief of all that Christ is re- 
 corded in the Scriptures to have taught, concern- 
 ing himself, and his doctrines, is not a sufficient pro- 
 fession of Christian faith, to entitle a person to a 
 continuance of membership in the Society of Friends, 
 although it has never thought fit to establish a creed. 
 
 Sincerely desiring your decision may be promotive 
 of the cause of pure primitive Christian truth, and 
 its inseparable attendants, the rights of conscience ; 
 with best wishes for the real prosperity of the So- 
 ciety, and the universal diffusion of its genuine prin- 
 ciples, which breathe " Glory to God.jn the highest, 
 on earth peace, good-will towards men/' I remain 
 your affectionate friend, 
 
 Thomas Foster. 
 
 Bromley, Nov. 1 5th, 1812. 
 
 The respondents being called upon to reply, John 
 Harris rose on their behalf, and observed, that they 
 
336 
 
 had to present to the Meeting, very little more than 
 such documents as they had laid before the commit- 
 tee, with the exception of some errors in them, which 
 having been pointed out, they had corrected. That 
 these documents were not arranged in so methodical a 
 manner, as the statement, the appellant had laid before 
 the Meeting, which might make what they had to offer, 
 appear not so pertinent, from the different order and 
 manner, in which he had treated the subject, to that 
 in which it had been discussed, before the commit- 
 tee. After saying they had used their best endea- 
 vours to convince me, of the inconsistency of my 
 opinions and conduct, with my being a member of 
 the Society of Friends, he read the " brief statement'* 
 of their labours, noticed in p. 147. 
 
 He also observed, that the appellant having been 
 charged with denying the " eternal divinity of 
 Christ/' he had requested the Friends, appointed 
 to visit him, to explain, in what sense they under- 
 stood those words? But he informed the Meeting, 
 they judged it to be improper, to enter into any ex- 
 planation, on such subjects ; whether they had 
 judged rightly, the Meeting would decide. They 
 believed (he added) with the apostle, that " great 
 is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in 
 the flesh," &c. (a) 
 
 (a) That is, my accusers call upon the Meeting to decide, whe- 
 ther they acted rightly, in refusing to explain their own accusations, 
 and in concealing their own sentiments "on such subjects?" Yet 
 no sooner had they referred those questions to the Meeting, than they 
 proceed, as if conscious of the inconsistency of such conduct, to 
 make a gratuitous confession of their own belief, in their own way. 
 
 The predilection of my accusers, for corrupted passages of Scrip- 
 ture, has been throughout most remarkable. They seem to be the 
 main pillars of their own faith, and they recommended me to build 
 mine, upon the same unsound foundation. They began with one in 
 Isaiah, as mentioned in p. 6, and they conclude with professing 
 their belief in the received version of 1 Tim. iii. 16, '' Whereas all 
 the churches/' as Sir Isaac Newton has most conclusively shewn, 
 " for the first four or five hundred years, and the authors of all the 
 
357 
 
 He then read the Remarks on the Yearly Meeting 
 Epistle, for 1810, but gave no farther explanation, 
 than the Monthly Meeting's minutes contained, of 
 the parts they considered objectionable. Richard 
 Bowman proposed reading a passage in the preface 
 to the Rules of the London Unitarian Book Society, 
 when I requested, that the whole might be read, 
 which it was, accordingly. 
 
 The respondents next produced a copy of the 
 Improved Version of the New Testament, observing, 
 it was the first work in the catalogue of the books cir- 
 culated by the London Unitarian Book Society, and 
 that I had owned to them, that I much approved that 
 work. On this assertion, I appealed to the Meeting, 
 whether it were competent to the respondents, to ad- 
 duce a fresh accusation against me, on a subject 
 which they knew had never been mentioned to me, 
 till the last visit they paid me, as the Monthly 
 Meeting's committee. I had never expressed any 
 unqualified approbation of that work, much less 
 to them. After the unequivocal disposition they had 
 shewn, to search out matters of fresh accusation 
 against me, I must have been totally destitute of 
 all prudence and discretion, to have expressed my- 
 self, as they had stated. I had, on the other hand, 
 expressly confined what I said to them, in favour 
 of this Version, as rendering many passages, which 
 had nothing to do with matters of controversy, more 
 correctly and intelligibly, than the authorised ver- 
 sion ; for which reason, I frequently had it read in 
 
 ancient versions, Jerome, as well as the rest, read ' Great is the mys- 
 tery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh.' " See his '* His- 
 torical Account of two notable corruptions of Scripture, first pub- 
 lished entire," in the late Bishop Horsley's quarto edition of his 
 works, " from the M.S. in Sir Isaac Newton's hand-writing, in the 
 possession of Dr. Ekens, dean of Carlisle." Vol. V. p. 531, &c. 
 Or the same valuable tract since published in the Recorder, by Wil- 
 liam Mathews, Vol. II. p. 230, &c. 
 X X 
 
 s 
 
338 
 
 my family, and other versions also. Two of the re- 
 spondents, Samuel Marsh, and Richard Bowman, in- 
 sisted on my having expressed to them, nearly full 
 approbation of the work. After one or two Friends 
 had censured me for interrupting the respondents, 
 they proceeded to read a part of the first verses of 
 the gospel, according to John, with some of the notes 
 which they had read to the committee, for which see 
 p. 190, 191. 
 
 In the next place, they alleged, that the narratives 
 of the miraculous conception, in Matthew and Luke, 
 were printed in italics, thereby throwing suspicion 
 on the truth of those parts of the New Testament. 
 
 One or two Friends observed, they thought this 
 work, viz. " The Improved Version," was very im- 
 properly introduced, not having any thing to do with 
 the original charges against me. Richard Bowman 
 observed, I had laid much stress on the number of 
 Friends who had incited them to commence these 
 proceedings, and he represented, that only one or 
 two overseers, of other Meetings, had at all in- 
 terfered in such a manner. But Henry Knight ac- 
 knowledged, that he had heard my conduct repro- 
 bated, in various large companies, for aiding in the 
 distribution of the Remarks on the Yearly Meeting 
 Epistle. 
 
 The respondents also alleged, that they did not 
 think it would answer any good purpose, to de- 
 lay the matter longer, as from the first the com- 
 mittee of the Monthly Meeting, did not think it at 
 all likely, they should be able to bring- about any 
 change of sentiment, in Thomas Foster. As to the 
 complaints I had made, of their questioning me, upon 
 points of doctrine, it was not done to ensnare me, as I 
 represented, but only to find out what my sentiments 
 really were, and whether they were accordant, or not* 
 with the doctrines of the Society? 
 
 After this, they thought fit to clear themselves 
 
339 
 
 from an imputation, I had never cast upon them, by 
 saying, they " had never called in question, the 
 manhood of Christ." 
 
 Before Richard Bowman sat down, he told the 
 Meeting, the reason why I had not heard those 
 passages, from the writings of Verax, which they 
 charged me with having written, was because I re- 
 fused to enter into any discussion with them there- 
 on ; as I did also, \jie said,] with regard to what 
 I called, a fresh charge in the testimony of denial, 
 which was repeatedly brought forward by the 
 Monthly Meeting's committee, but that I refused to 
 hold any conference with them concerning it. 
 
 They then read a part of the same Extracts, they 
 had read to the committee, from the works of Fox, 
 Barclay, Penn, and Penington, Sewel's History, 
 and the Summary of the History, Doctrine, and Dis- 
 cipline of Friends, which are noticed p. 157 — 162, 
 and 243—252. 
 
 But they did not attempt to shew the application 
 of a single passage, or to explain how any of them 
 bore upon the questions at issue. To conclude, 
 they read the two following passages from Verax's 
 Reply to Vindex, p. 29, inserted p. 195, and from 
 p. 79, inserted p. 198. They also adduced one from 
 Verax's Christian Unitarianism Vindicated, p. 87» 
 which is given in italics, p. 203, and [they said] 
 introduces a quotation from Dr. Priestley ! The 
 reader will see the whole passage, as quoted by Ve- 
 rax, p. 201—203. 
 
 The respondents having concluded their reply, I 
 observed, that there were some matters of fact, which 
 the respondents had so strangely misrepresented, that 
 I must, injustice to myself, claim the privilege of 
 correcting them. One of these directly impeached my 
 veracity. The respondents denied, that there was 
 any fresh charge against me, in the testimony of dis- 
 ownment. The Meeting knew I had asserted there 
 
340 
 
 was. What was the matter of faat, and the best 
 possible evidence in the case ? In the testimony, it 
 is positively asserted, that a certain express avowal, 
 appears in the report of the committee to the Month- 
 ly Meeting. Whereas, on the most minute exami- 
 nation, no such avowal can be found. This incon- 
 trovertible fact, was stated by me, in a written docu- 
 ment, read to the committee on my appeal, in the 
 presence of the respondents. Of this document 
 they had the possession for several days, and at the 
 next sitting of the committee, they brought a writ- 
 ten reply to it, in which they admit that this avowal 
 is not in their report to the Monthly Meeting, and 
 assign the most futile and sophistical reasons. I can 
 easily imagine, why it should be considered as being 
 there, in effect, although it is not there, in point of 
 fact. Whereas, after all this, Richard Bowman 
 comes before you, and says, that the said testimony 
 contains no new accusation ! I then read their 
 written admission of this fact, with my remarks 
 thereon, as stated p. 22.5, 226. Richard Bowman's 
 memory has also failed him in another respect. I 
 never refused entering into any discussion with them, 
 as the Monthly Meeting's committee, on this sub- 
 ject, but, on the contrary, as being connected with 
 one of their original charges, I had, as their own 
 report implies, never shrunk from an investigation 
 of the real objects of the London Unitarian Book 
 Society, but had pressed them to inform themselves 
 better concerning them, as my minutes, which now 
 lie on the table, would testify. From these it might 
 also be shewn, that I preferred another reading of the 
 first verses of John, to the rendering of that passage 
 in the " Improved Version," which the respond- 
 ents now alleged against me, not only, without any 
 evidence, but in the face of the most conclusive 
 evidence, the nature of the case would admit. The 
 same may be said of their attempt to represent me 
 
341 
 
 as having professed an approval of the whole text, 
 and of the notes of the " Improved Version/' which 
 I had never done. For, as to the notes, I believe 
 I have never read them all, and as to the text, I 
 could, if it were necessary, adduce positive evidence, 
 that I had, very soon after its first appearance, ex- 
 pressed my disapprobation of the manner, in which 
 some passages were rendered. 
 
 As to the interference of members of other Meet- 
 ings, I had grounded all I said upon this subject on 
 the language of the overseers, as stated in my mi- 
 nutes, the correctness of which they soon after ad- 
 mitted ; viz. that Henry Knight had spoken of them, 
 as at least nine or ten Friends^ and Richard Bowman, 
 as many Friends of other Meetings; whereas the lat- 
 ter would now persuade you he had only spoken of 
 one, or two. Seep. 3 and 11. 
 
 With regard to the passage the respondents adduc- 
 ed, from Penn's Innocency with her Open Face, 
 [inserted p. IjO] if they had shewn how it can be 
 better reconciled with the obvious tenor of his Sandy 
 Foundation Shaken, or with other parts of his writ- 
 ings, than in the way I have attempted, the produc- 
 tion of it might have been something to the purpose. 
 I made this comparison many years ago, with much 
 serious attention, and the conclusion I then formed, 
 appears to me still to be well-founded. The quota- 
 tions from Isaac Penington, are of such passages as I 
 had long thought decidedly Unitarian, attributing no 
 other divinity to Christ than that of the Father which 
 dwelt in him. They are given p. 249 — 252. 
 
 Several of the quotations from the writings of Ve- 
 rax, and especially the last, are unfairly, uncandid- 
 ly, and partially made; but as all who consult 
 these passages, with the context, may see this, I 
 shall wave the intention I had expressed, of now ex- 
 posing the injustice of such a selection, depending 
 upon it that the Meeting will not suffer itself to be 
 
342 
 
 biassed in its judgment by these supplementary 
 charges. Before I sit down, it appears to me proper 
 to notice, that the report of your committee says no- 
 thing about the proceedings being regular and order- 
 ly, as it appears to me every committee, presenting 
 a report, confirming a sentence of disownment, ought 
 to be prepared to do. Instead of which, if I gather- 
 ed it correctly, it only states their opinion to be, that 
 the decision of the Monthly Meeting should be con- 
 firmed. But whether this unanimous judgment of 
 the committee, be founded on a principle of supposed 
 expediency, or on what other grounds, does not ap- 
 pear. From the sentiments several of the committee 
 expressed, on the incorrect description of my offences 
 in the Monthly Meeting's minutes, and the decisive 
 manner, in which several of them also expressed their 
 sense, of the great injustice of putting a man upon 
 his trial, upon certain specific charges, and during 
 such trial, bringing forward other matters of accusa- 
 tion against him, I cannot suppose the committee 
 could have been equally unanimous upon either of 
 these points. That new charges have been adduced, 
 during the investigation of the original accusations, 
 cannot, with truth, be denied. They were not 
 brought forward, as the respondents attempted to 
 shew, before your committee, as evidence, to estab- 
 lish those charges, but as additional and distinct ac- 
 cusations, as the records of the Monthly Meeting 
 would shew. 
 
 In presenting this appeal to the Quarterly Meeting, 
 I have acted, after much deliberation, upon my own 
 conviction of the propriety of so doing, and contrary 
 to the advice of several of my Friends, whose judg- 
 ment, on most occasions, 1 much prefer to my own. 
 I however exercised the right of appeal, without any 
 sanguine expectation of the decision being in my fa- 
 vour. I had for too long a time, and with too much 
 attention, observed the course of similar proceedings, 
 
343 
 
 to permit my indulging such hope9. I was previous- 
 ly well satisfied of the justice of a remark, which was 
 made many years ago, by a man of uncommon ta- 
 lents, of high estimation in the Society, and of an 
 independent character of mind, the late Job Scott^ 
 who observed, when iu Europe, " that so great was 
 the prepossession among the members of the Society, 
 in every quarter, of the Society having acted with 
 propriety, in its inferior adjudications, that he 
 thought no private individual, had a fair probability 
 of succeeding in an appeal to the superior Meet- 
 ings." Such were the discouraging impressions under 
 which I presented myself before you, as an appellant. 
 It was not, however, on any private ground, but be- 
 cause I believed it to be my duty so to do, in the 
 cause of the rights of private judgment, and of pure, 
 scriptural, Christian truth. 
 
 I have now only to advert, very briefly, to an inci- 
 dent of a most affecting nature, which unexpectedly 
 fell in my way, returning home one day the week be- 
 fore last, which has nevertheless been a support, and 
 a consolation to me under these proceedings. It was 
 this. I called on a friend of mine, whom I had seen 
 but the day before, in good health and spirits. The 
 next morning I found him under great apparent de- 
 jection of mind ; so much so, that he at first seemed al- 
 most unable to speak. I thought it arose from some 
 sudden illness; but soon after he said, I have been this 
 morning, for two hours, by the side of a death-bed. 
 The faculties of the deceased were unimpaired to the 
 last; he was calm, collected and resigned. He sent 
 for me, wishing to impart some things which weigh- 
 ed heavily upon his mind, as the awful period of his 
 dissolution approached. 
 
 Of these, that which he found by far the most heavy, 
 was, that he had been many years fullyconvinced of the 
 truth and of the importance of certain Christian doc- 
 trines, and yet, had never professed or acted as if he be- 
 
3-H 
 
 lieved them, but had rather lent his countenance to 
 opposite principles. For such unfaithful conduct, he 
 acknowledged he deserved many, and severe stripes, 
 which he nevertheless trusted his heavenly Father, 
 to whose will he resigned himself, would administer in 
 mercy. It is out of my power to say, how much I 
 have been encouraged by this seasonable, instructive, 
 and affecting event ; and I hope, when I approach 
 the same awful scene, which must be before many 
 more years have elapsed, perhaps much sooner, I 
 may not, in addition to my other failings, and infirmi- 
 ties, have my last hours in this life, embittered by a 
 consciousness of similar unfaithfulness to my own 
 convictions of Christian, and highly important scrip- 
 tural doctrines. 
 
 Soon after this, the respondents and myself, hav- 
 ing waved the right of being farther heard, were re- 
 quested to withdraw. Luke Howard asked leave to 
 retire with us, which he did, and we waited a short 
 time in the Clerk's office, when we were informed 
 the Meeting had adjourned to four o'clock to morrow 
 afternoon. 
 
 QUARTERLY MEETING OF LONDON AND 
 MIDDLESEX, 
 
 Held by Adjournment, 11th Month, 17th, 1812. 
 
 After the usual time of silence, the Clerk observed 
 that the business remaining to be done, was for the 
 Meeting to consider, whether the decision of RatclifT 
 Meeting should be confirmed, agreeably to the judg- 
 ment of the committee ? After another interval of 
 silence, 
 
 Joseph Rutter said, I have no acquaintance with 
 the appellant, and I trust, my mind is free from 
 any improper bias. I make no pretensions to 
 judgment in matters of theological controversy, but 
 
345 
 
 I have attentively heard what the appellant has said, 
 and I think him a very respectable man. If Friend3 
 could own him as a member of the Society, I should 
 feel well satisfied. I observe the Friends of Ratcliff 
 have questioned the appellant, a mode of proceeding, 
 which I do not think can be right, nor can I approve 
 any such measures, nor any thing that does not 
 admit toleration. I could therefore wish that the 
 report of the committee might be reversed. 
 
 John Arch, proposed that the appeal might' be 
 read. 
 
 Joseph Gurnet/ Bevan replied, I have no doubt but 
 that the substance of the appeal is fresh in the me- 
 mory of Friends, (a) To hear it again, would take 
 considerable time, and to enter into the particulars 
 of it, would be to enter into a wide field of investi- 
 gation, (b) The question before the Meeting seems 
 to be, whether the appellant was, or was not, one 
 in principle with Friends ! (c) 
 
 (a) When the reader considers all that had intervened, since my ap- 
 peal was read at an early part of the first sitting of the Meeting, the 
 day before, this plea against its being read again, must, I think, appear 
 very extraordinary, especially as many Friends came into the Meeting, 
 during the reading of my appeal, or afterwards, and as it was read, 
 neither impressively, nor so audibly, as to be generally heard. Nor 
 will it appear less extraordinary, that such an objection should prove 
 successful. 
 
 (b) I cannot perceive the force of these objections. If the matter 
 contained in the appeal was relevant, and " in favour of the appel- 
 lant," it ought to have been considered deliberately by the Meeting, 
 previous to its decision, although it might have been " ttf enter into 
 a wide field of investigation." 
 
 (c) This is to direct the attention of the Meeting, not to the ques- 
 tion at issue, between the respondents and myself, but to one of much 
 more difficult solution, and of so vague a nature, as to be totally unfit 
 for judicial inquiry, which should always be confined to matters ca- 
 pable of proof, and not be extended to such, as can only Le judged of 
 by feeling and prejudice. On such a plea as this, a secret junta of 
 disciplinarians may, without evidence, or the sanction of any known 
 
346 
 
 A Friend desired the committee's report might be 
 read. 
 
 J. G. Bevan replied, he had objected to the read- 
 ing of the appeal ; and therefore he must object to the 
 reading of the report, (d) The appeal was in favour 
 of the appellant ; the report was against him. (e) 
 It would be unfair to admit the reading of the latter, 
 and to preclude the reading of the former ; but both 
 he thought might be spared, (f) 
 
 Thomas Sturge requested, that the testimony of 
 disownment might be read ; to the best of his recol- 
 lection, it was expressed in a loose and general man- 
 ner ; nothing specific and definite. This proposal 
 being objected to, by some Friends near the table, 
 where some of the most active disciplinarians usual- 
 ly sit, another Friend rose, and pointed out the ab- 
 solute necessity of reading this document, since the 
 committee, as appeared by their report, were of opi- 
 nion, that it ought to be confirmed ; but how could 
 
 rule, effect the disownment of any person who may have opposed their 
 intolerance, and refused to receive their construction of texts of 
 Scripture, and to profess their catalogue of unscriptural articles of 
 faith. 
 
 (d) This is to urge one wrong measure, to justify another, on the 
 profession too of impartiality. It is also in effect, to tell the Meeting, 
 it was better to determine the question without any proper evidence. 
 
 (c) If so, these documents should have been compared. Had I 
 imagined the evening before, that the Meeting would have come to a 
 decision, without having my appeal read again, I should have called 
 their attention to it, article by article, that it might have been dis- 
 tinctly seen, and generally understood, whether any, and which of 
 its allegations, had been disproved by the respondents. Such was 
 my intention, but I waved it, because I was unwilling to occupy 
 more of the time of the Meeting. 
 
 (f) I cannot agree that such a conclusion as this, is compatible 
 with either impartiality, or justice. It is rather to substitute feeling 
 for evidence, and to prefer darkness to light. 
 
347 
 
 the Meeting judge of that, without hearing it, and 
 precisely knowing its contents. 
 
 The testimony of disownment was then read. 
 
 apologized for offering his sentiments, 
 
 but informed the Meeting, that in his apprehension, 
 it was evident, the appellant's principles were not the 
 same with those of Friends. 
 
 George Harrison said, although the rules which have 
 been adopted by the Quarterly Meeting, for the re- 
 gulation of its proceedings on cases of appeal, appear 
 to be fair and impartial in theory, yet in practice they 
 do not seem to fit all cases, nor do they quite fit this 
 case, satisfactorily to me. 
 
 After the apellant and respondents have been fully 
 heard, they are required to leave the Meeting, but 
 were they suffered to remain under the restriction of 
 silence, it might perhaps be better : because after so 
 much pro and con, it is natural to suppose, that 
 things may be said, to which many in the Meeting- 
 might wish to advert in the hearing of the parties ; for 
 my own part, it is far the most pleasant to me, to 
 speak in such a case, face to face. 
 
 In the plea, or defence, which the appellant has 
 read, among other quotations from the writings of 
 our early Friends, he has given us one, from high 
 authority; namely, William Penn, importing that 
 in the earliest times of Christianity, the only article 
 of belief required, was, that Jesus was the Messiah; 
 in this I think William Penn was not correct ; for in 
 the New Testament it stands thus, — to believe that 
 Jesus ioas the Messiah, and that he rose from the dead, 
 gave a title to Christian fellowship, and to the name 
 of a believer, and under this, simple bond of union, 
 Christians in apostolic times, agreed together. The 
 times indeed are altered, but Christianity remains the 
 same, (g) 
 
 (g) It is plain, from the quotation alluded to, that William Penn 
 
34S 
 
 The respondents, in their reply to the statement of 
 the appellant, adduce many authorities of our early 
 Friends, contravening the statement of the appellant, 
 and at length, to my surprise, turn over the pages of 
 a thick octavo volume, to find matter of crimination 
 against him. If this is deemed /air Dealing, I doubt 
 some of us, through whose hands many books have 
 passed, with some portion of approbation, must be 
 deemed culpable, and as to our booksellers, they 
 must be in guilt up to the ears. 
 
 I wish to advert to the case before the Meeting, 
 merely as a case of discipline, and the mode of ad- 
 ministering the discipline, without reference to the 
 offence charged ;' for whether that be an error in reli- 
 gious opinion, or an error in conduct, an act of mo- 
 ral turpitude, it makes no difference in my opinion of 
 the case. 
 
 In the report of the Friends, appointed by Ratcliff 
 Monthly Meeting, to visit and deal with the appel- 
 lant, they say, We questioned him on some import- 
 ant points of doctrine, &c. and afterwards add, " to 
 which he decidedly refused to answer." Now these 
 latter words, if they meant any thing, can only have 
 been meant to aggravate the charge against the ap- 
 pellant, and sorry I am to find, that the Monthly 
 Meeting of Ratcliff sanctioned that report, without 
 any expression of disapprobation of the mode of 
 treating the party accused. 
 
 Perhaps it was not within the province of the com- 
 mittee of appeals, in the report before us, to advert 
 to such a mode of administering the discipline ; but 
 I think it would be worthy of the Quarterly Meet- 
 ing, to mark with disapprobation such a mode of treat- 
 ment. We questioned him. What should we think 
 
 considered a belief that Christ was raised from the dead, as included 
 in the belief that he was the Messiah. As I do also. See the pas- 
 sage in p. 332, as read in the Meeting, the latter part of which, seems 
 to have escaped the notice of George Harrison* 
 
319 
 
 of a counsel for the crown, who, after the Grand Ju- 
 ry had found a bill of indictment against a culprit, 
 should betake himself to the culprit, and question 
 him on the subject of the charges brought against 
 him, and endeavour to extract from him matter of 
 accusation ; and when the offender is arraigned be- 
 fore the court, the same counsel should tell the 
 judge and jury, I questioned the culprit, but he re- 
 fused to answer? 
 
 Would any sober, competent judge, approve of 
 such a mode of interrogatory ? Would any impartial 
 jury admit, that it was justice to resort to the offen- 
 der, for the purpose of establishing, or corroborating 
 the proof of his offence ? Surely not. 
 
 I hope not to live to see the day, when the Soci- 
 ety shall be prepared to fraternize with Dominican 
 monks, and to establish an inquisition in every 
 Monthly. Meeting, within this quarter, and by ex- 
 ample and influence, throughout the Society, in the 
 kingdom- 
 After a few minutes pause, he resumed. What 
 I have further to say, on the subject before the 
 Meeting, is this: when a Monthly Meeting en- 
 ters upon record, the name of a member of the So- 
 ciety as a delinquent, it is usual, and that, from a re- 
 gard to its own character, previously to ascertain 
 the truth of the charge brought against the said 
 member ; the Friends therefore who are deputed to 
 deal with him, on the part of the Meeting, either 
 know the truth of such charge, or they do not know 
 it. If they know it, then, by questioning the offen- 
 der about it, they incur the imputation of what is 
 commonly called hypocrisy. If they do not know it> 
 then it may turn out to be false, and in that case, 
 they seem to place themselves in the predicament 
 of tale-bearers, and detractors. It is for them to ex- 
 tricate themselves from this dilemma. 
 
 With respect to the appellant, it is clear, that he 
 has not concealed, or disguised his sentiments, and 
 
3,50 
 
 therefore all who have heard him, will admit, that 
 he possesses that super-eminent, indispensible, qua- 
 lity of religious profession, sincerity. But from the 
 tenor of what he has said, it seems to be a painful 
 consideration to him, to be severed, in Society fel- 
 lowship, from his friends. I feel for him. I fee! for 
 his family — individually, and for his valuable rela- 
 tives. 
 
 Before I sit down, I will just add, that no one 
 who has heard me, will, I think, say that I have, in 
 any manner endeavoured to invalidate the doctrines 
 of the Society ; such was certainly not my intention, 
 my view was to promote and recommend, a correct 
 and proper mode of administering the discipline 
 amongst us; for however salutary and excellent, our 
 system of discipline may be, and salutary and excel- 
 lent, generally speaking, I admit it to be, yet, if it 
 is improperly, or injudiciously administered, it may, 
 and will become, a bane, instead of a blessing to the 
 Society. 
 
 Stephen Matthews said, I am glad to hear the remarks 
 of the Friend who has just sat down, and had they 
 not been made, 1 believe I should not have been 
 easy, without making remarks, in a degree, similar. 
 Nor is this the first time I have had occasion to 
 notice the impropriety of the practice, of questioning 
 Friends. If there is proof against any one, let it be 
 brought forward. But if the practice of Monthly 
 Meetings, deputing Friends to question their mem- 
 bers, should increase, I believe it would cause great 
 disorder in the Society. 
 
 With respect to the case before the Meeting, look- 
 ing at it every way, I do not see just ground for the 
 disownment of the Friend. 
 
 On reading the Scripture records, (continued Ste- 
 phen Matthews,) we may differ one from another, 
 respecting their import, and if any one should form 
 an opinion, somewhat different from that of the gene- 
 
351 
 
 rality of Friends, let him enjoy his opinion. He may 
 be a worthy and useful member of the Society, and 
 stand approved in the sight of the Almighty, not- 
 withstanding his opinions may be somewhat differ- 
 ent from those of the generality of Friends. 
 
 A Friend then proposed, that if no one felt a con- 
 cern to object to the committee's judgment, that it 
 be accounted the sense of the Meeting, and be com- 
 plied with accordingly, (h) 
 
 John Coleby, (the Clerk) requested that more 
 Friends would speak their minds. 
 
 Francis Joshua, with a becoming solicitude, invited 
 Friends to express their minds freely. He remind- 
 ed them, that it would be the last opportunity they 
 would possess. He did not consider this, as a pri- 
 vate or personal case, for many Friends were involv- 
 ed. So many hours had elapsed since the appeal 
 was read, that he wished it to be read again. 
 
 Thomas Compton said, I cannot bear to sit in the 
 Meeting, and hear my son-in-law condemned, and 
 disowned, without protesting against such proceed- 
 ings. I can never approve the practice, which the 
 visiting Friends adopted in this case, of questioning 
 the party visited. And I must say, if the Meeting 
 should confirm the decision of the Monthly Meeting 
 of Ratcliff, it would be to give their sanction to this 
 hateful practice, which, so far as I know, has never 
 been before, so countenanced in the administration 
 of the discipline. The Society has never thought 
 fit to compile a creed, nor have its members ever 
 been called upon, to subscribe any confession of ar- 
 ticles of faith, 
 
 (A) This proposal may appear to some of my readers, very ill- 
 timed, and almost incredible, but I am well assured its import is 
 correctly stated, and in its proper place, directly after the two pre- 
 ceding speeches, the purport of which, pertinent and impressive as 
 they are, this Friend seems either not to have understood, or to have 
 forgotten, 
 
35 c 2 
 
 On such subjects I am decidedly of opinion, that 
 the principles of the Society are not fully and cor- 
 rectly known, by its members generally. For my 
 own part, I acknowledge that my sentiments are 
 similar to those of the appellant, and they are such 
 as I have held from my youth. 
 
 George Stacey said, the Society certainly had pe- 
 culiar, and specific principles, which were largely 
 diffused in the various writings of Friends. If any 
 members neglected these writings, read them with- 
 out proper attention, or failed in understanding their 
 meaning, the Society could not be answerable for 
 the ignorance, or misapprehension of such mem- 
 bers, (i) It was nevertheless true, that the Society 
 had peculiar and specific principles. With regard 
 to the Friends of Ratcliff, questioning the appellant, 
 I may say, I am against such a procedure in genera I t 
 yet 1 think cases might occur, in which it might be 
 proper. I will not undertake to defend the whole 
 of the proceedings, in this case, but the appellant 
 having been charged with being the author called 
 Verax, I think he might have been glad of the op- 
 portunity of declaring his innocence, if innocent he 
 were, (k) 
 
 (i) If so, which I grant, how can the Society be justified, in cen- 
 suring and disowning its members, for such involuntary errors ? The 
 right of censuring and disowning, can, I presume, only be defended 
 on the opposite presumption, and is generally placed on that ground, 
 even in testimonies of disownment. Besides which, the more largely 
 these principles are diffused, the more difficult it may be to under- 
 stand them. Admitting the Society has peculiar and specific princi- 
 ples, the proper question is, whether it can be justified in disowning 
 its members, on account of such supposed errors, in point of faith, 
 for which it is not answerable ? 
 
 (k) The impropriety of the questioning system, in general, is here 
 admitted, but the occasional use of it, is contended for, as proper, 
 and even as advantageous to the party accused. It proceeds, never- 
 theless, on the unsound principle, of admitting accusers to shift their 
 charges, at their own discretion, and of imputing criminality, from a 
 mere refusal to answer interrogatories ! 
 
3.53 
 
 George Harrison said, I cannot admit the pro- 
 priety of questioning a person accused, after public 
 dealing had commenced, in any case, or under any 
 circumstances. If the offence charged, were not 
 previously ascertained to be well founded, how could 
 a Meeting of discipline be justified in recording it? 
 And if it were, it must be wholly unnecessary, as 
 well as improper, to question the party accused. 
 
 A Friend observed, that he made no great preten- 
 sions to knowledge, nor was he conversant in such 
 matters, as had been so largely spoken of, by the ap- 
 pellant. He trusted, however, he did know a little 
 how to distinguish right from wrong; and many 
 things which had been said, had hurt his mind much. 
 But what had hurt his mind most of all, was the 
 extract which opposed the doctrine of divine in- 
 fluence. (I) 
 
 (I) I do not know who this Friend was, but he seems to have ac- 
 quired the habit of judging, not by evidence, but by his feeling. Not by 
 consulting his reason, but his prejudices. It is therefore no wonder 
 he should be swayed in his judgment, and hurt in his feelings, by an 
 extract which was very improperly introduced, as it has no relation 
 whatever, to the charges exhibited against me. 
 
 I am aware, however, that many persons may, and do apprehend 
 themselves, incapable of understanding the Scriptures, without the 
 immediate agency of the divine Spirit, on their minds. But after 
 professing to seek scriptural knowledge, in this way, seven years, after 
 seven years, what has been the result ? Their knowledge has abounded 
 with obscurity, incongruity, and puerility. They have attained lit- 
 tle, or no knowledge, by which they could benefit themselves, or 
 their fellow-creatures. 
 
 Such persons may be very orthodox in their own estimation, and 
 in that of many of their brethren, may be exceedingly conversant 
 with the letter of the Scriptures, and yet profess to entertain the 
 greatest dislike imaginable, to reading them, " like a critic." Such 
 persons sometimes gravely say, that those passages of Scripture, 
 which inform us that Christ opened the eyes of the blind, and un- 
 stopped the ears of the deaf, are misunderstood by those who dwelt 
 in the outward. According to them, these passages do not relate to 
 corporeal blindness and deafness, but they mean that Christ opened 
 the spiritual eyes, and unstopped the spiritual ears, of those whom 
 
 z z 
 
354 
 
 John Bevans said, I have to complain of a want of 
 fairness and candour in the appellant, for having 
 exhibited his quotations from the writings of Friends, 
 in a partial, and mutilated a state. He has also 
 misrepresented the Scriptures. He has asserted, 
 that •' I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and 
 the ending, be." is always applied to the Father 
 only. The example was taken from the 1st ch. of 
 Rev. but if Friends would read the last ch. of the 
 same book, they would see the same words applied 
 to Christ, (m) With the Meeting's permission, I 
 
 he found spiritually blind and deaf. These are dangerous errors, 
 and I would earnestly recommend such Friends, as may have any 
 doubts on this important subject, seriously, and attentively to read, 
 with a view to their solution, the records of the New Testament, and 
 especially the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles. Such persons 
 may also read, with much advantage, Locke's excellent chapter on 
 Enthusiasm, in hi3 Essay on the Human Understanding, book 4, 
 ch. 19. 
 
 (m) The reader who compares my quotations with the passages re- 
 ferred to, may decide on the justice of these general accusations. I 
 cannot admit they are well founded, and nothing can be more ground- 
 less, than the specific allegation intended to support them. I made 
 no such assertion, having long known, that Christ was called in the 
 Scriptures, " Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end,'' as 
 being, under God, the appointed author, and finisher of the new dis- 
 pensation. 
 
 The example referred to, was taken from the 1st ch. of Rev. but 
 it was adduced to shew, not, that the terms Alpha and Omega are 
 always applied in the Scriptures, to God the Father only, but that 
 omnipotence , or underived, unlimited power, is in those writings, only 
 ascribed unto him, see p. 280. Apparently admitting the correctness 
 of this example, so far as the scriptural application of the terms 
 Alpha and Omega, to God the Farher are concerned, John Bevans 
 pronounces, that " if Friends would read the last ch. of the same 
 book, they would see the same words applied to Christ.'' Will they 
 indeed ? Many learned men have thought so, and among them 
 Archbishop Newcome, who was so fully persuaded, that such was 
 the true meaning of the text, that he has inserted the words " saith 
 Jesus," in the 7th and 12th verses, of that chapter, making him the 
 speaker on both occasions. But if so, Jesus Christ, forbad John to 
 •worship him, saying, " See thou do it not : I am a fellow servant 
 with thee, and with thy brethren the prophets — worship God." 
 
355 
 
 will shew how, and to what extent, the appellant 
 has misrepresented the writings of Friends. I will 
 read the passages, in their proper connexion, and ori- 
 ginal form, and then compare the appellant's quo- 
 tations with them. I think I could do this, in about 
 half an hour. 
 
 Thomas Compton, addressing John Be vans, said, 
 " Dost thou mean to accuse my son-in-law of a 
 breach of veracity ?" John Bevans answered, " Not 
 wilful." 
 
 J. G. Bevan then remarked, if the request of John 
 Bevans were acceded to, by the Meeting, the appel- 
 lant must, no doubt, be admitted, to hear what might 
 be said, and to defend himself. But I am of opi- 
 nion, that it would be better for the Meeting, not 
 to go into any business of the kind, (n) 
 
 The Primate, however, having inserted those words, without any au- 
 thority from the Greek text, the editors of the " Improved Version'* 
 did not think proper to follow his example, it being of the utmost im- 
 portance to distinguish between the language of the text itself, and 
 any inference from it. However clear and obvious that inference 
 may seem, it ought always to appear in its true character. It is na- 
 tural for those who are most firmly impressed with the divine origin of 
 the Christian religion, as a special revelation from God, and believe 
 that the New Testament contains the only authentic reeord of this 
 Revelation, to be most anxious to distinguish the genuine text, from 
 the errors of transcribers, and the spurious additions of corrupt inter- 
 polators. While on the other hand, those who make no proper dis- 
 tinction, between that special effusion of the Holy Spirit, in the age 
 of the apostles, and that moral sense, or divine influence on the hu- 
 man mind, which is common to all good, and pious men, of every age 
 and profession of religion, as naturally deem it of little consequence, 
 that the text of the Scriptures should be correct. Such men are apt, 
 when only indulging their own groundless fancies, to imagine them- 
 selves, almost infallibly, led into all truth. 
 
 (n) That is as much as to say, general or particular charges made 
 against an accused person, in his absence, may be suffered to pass with- 
 out contradiction, but evidence in support of them must not be adduc- 
 ed, without admitting him to hear what might be said, and to defend 
 himself. This is, I think, to approve the far greater evil, of the two. 
 If I must be accused in my absence, I had rather it should be upon 
 
356 
 
 George Harrison then said, as I suppose John 
 Bevans is exceedingly conversant in the writings ot 
 our early Friends, 1 wish to be informed by him, as 
 matter of curiosity, whether he has ever, in any of 
 those writings, met with the phrase " the eternal 
 X^ divinity of Christ?" John Bevans answered, " I 
 have met with the phrase f the eternity of Christ/ 
 in a tract of William Penn's which stands in his 
 works before the Sandy Foundation Shaken." That 
 is, said J. G. Bevan, " The Guide Mistaken." [It is, 
 however, in Vol. II. p. 3 — 31.] 
 
 A Friend observed, he thought the Meeting not 
 sufficiently unanimous to come to any decision at 
 that time; and therefore he would propose that the 
 consideration of the case be adjourned. 
 
 Edmund Matthews said. It is with the greatest 
 difficulty I rise to speak on the present occasion," *n 
 such an assembly as this; but I should think myself 
 wanting in duty, as a member of this Quarterly 
 Meeting, and as a Christian, if I did not endeavour to 
 express a few sentiments, which are upon my mind. 
 — I think this matter should be treated with the 
 greatest seriousness, because the appellant is neither 
 a hypocrite, nor a lukewarm Christian ; but he is 
 one, who can adopt the apostolic language, after 
 the way which they call heresy, so worship I the 
 God of my Fathers. 
 
 1 am sorry I cannot unite in opinion with our Friend 
 George Stacey, that the appellant might, with propri- 
 ety, be interrogated with respect to his being the au- 
 thor called Verax, because he had been said to be so in 
 print — I know not who made this declaration. I 
 have not seen the book in which it is to be found, but 
 
 evidence, than without it. In this case, I am confident, a little exa- 
 mination would have disproved the charge. But it was thought 
 " better for the Meeting not to go into any business of the kind.'' 
 And thus no opportunity was allowed me, to repel a charge so pub. 
 y liclymade! . 
 
 
 MPK, 
 
357 
 
 I believe the author had no ground, no evidence 
 whatever, for such an assertion, besides that of 
 strong suspicion. Much as I unite with the chief 
 of what our Friend, George Harrison has said, I 
 wonder at his bringing into view, the reception of 
 the belief, that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead. 
 I should be exceedingly surprised, if Thomas Fos- 
 ter were unwilling to admit it. I believe he would 
 not be. 
 
 I am of the same mind as our Friend, Thomas 
 Compton, with respect to the principles of the So- 
 ciety being obscurely and imperfectly known. I do 
 not mean that our doctrines are not definitely and 
 precisely laid down, by Penn and Barclay, but I 
 mean the principles of our Society as it at present 
 exists. We were told last evening, that Friends 
 held the doctrine which is commonly known by the 
 name of Sabellianism, But 1 consider the Society 
 as divided into three classes. There may be many 
 Sabellians. There may be many Unitarians. And 
 I am convinced, there are many, who have no belief 
 about the matter; because they have never made 
 it a subject of serious consideration, and investiga- 
 tion. 
 
 With respect to three of the articles in the instru- 
 ment of disownment, (and they are so weighty, that 
 I almost tremble to name them; the divinity of Je- 
 sus Christ our Lord, his omnipotence, and the pro- 
 priety of secret supplication unto him,) I conceive 
 the appellant to have fully shewn, that he is supported 
 by Scripture. As to you, Friends, who make your 
 own private ideas, your rule of faith, consider the 
 awfulness of your responsibility. To your own 
 Master, the Father of light, and life, you must stand, 
 or fall. 
 
 I say again, we have not to do with a hypocrite, 
 or with a lukewarm Christian ; but with one who 
 
35S 
 
 is able to say with the apostle, ■* after the way 
 which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my 
 fathers. " As to the questioning system, I utterly 
 disapprove it, in every shape and form. 
 
 The paper of disownment I consider as containing 
 a false charge against the appellant; "that he has 
 joined a society who publicly avow their disbelief 
 of the eternal divinity of Jesus Christ, our Lord." 
 Whereas, it appears to be a Book Society only ; and 
 I think, were la person of opulence, I should have 
 no objection to belong to such a society, though 
 there would no doubt be a great number of points, 
 on which we should differ in sentiment. 
 
 With respect to such of the charges as are true, 1 
 do not conceive them to be of sufficient magnitude 
 to justify disownment. The appellant read a quota- 
 tion last evening, (whether from a written, or printed 
 document I know not,) from our late friend, Job 
 Scott, [p. 343] in which he expresses it to be his 
 opinion, that an appellant in our Society is not likely 
 to obtain justice. I fear it is so in the present case, 
 and that many friends are afraid to express their 
 minds, lest they should be dealt with by their respec- 
 tive Monthly Meetings. 
 
 I do not know that it is necessary to say much 
 more, but I would again call the attention of Friends 
 to the assertion, that the appellant is the author 
 called Verax. I consider it, a spunging declara- 
 tion ; and I do not know why the author of the tracts, 
 under the signature of Verax, should be brought 
 into view any more than the author of the pamphlet, 
 signed Vindex. 
 
 William Allen observed, that whenever a society 
 has been formed, and its principles agreed upon, and 
 adopted, it was not warrantable for any of its mem- 
 bers to deviate, and still to claim the right of mem- 
 bership. In England, these matters are ordered very 
 
359 
 
 well, foj There is ample toleration and liberty ; 
 for everyone classes, or may class himself, in that so- 
 ciety, with which his principles correspond, fpj 
 
 (o) It was eloquently said, some time ago, at a Bible meeting at 
 which I was present, that it was almost impossible for a person to 
 breathe the air of the room, without catching some perception of the 
 general feeling — without finding his views elevated — the intellect ex. 
 panded, and the heart improved, by the topics which had been that day 
 discussed. There seems, I am sorry to say, something equally influ- 
 ential, but of an opposite tendency, within the walls of a Meeting of 
 Discipline, on such occasions as the present. How else shall I ac- 
 count for the expression of such narrow, sectarian, I had almost said 
 Popish sentiments as these, by a man whose energies are zealously 
 applied elsewhere, in the furtherance of a spirit of liberality, such as 
 I have noticed in p. 241 to 243. In no other place could such a man 
 forget, that religious liberty is still imperfectly enjoyed in our 
 native land — that there are many persecuting statutes, which yet 
 disgrace our Statute Book. 
 
 (p) There may, in some cases, be much more difficulty, in such an 
 arrangement, than this statement represents. 
 
 A young friend of mine, who heard this speech, seems to be suitably 
 impressed with these difficulties, and has favoured me with the follow- 
 ing remarks on them : — he says, " The Society existed long before 
 ourselves. We were its members before we were three months old ; 
 consequently we could not then comprehend, or assent to its princi- 
 ples. Many Friends, of age to examine and judge for themselves, 
 may feel a great predilection for the Society, and for many of its prin- 
 ciples and practices. Yet they may dissent, however reluctantly, from 
 some of their friends, respecting other principles and practices. 
 
 " Are they then to leave the Society and go to another ? They may 
 see no Society whose principles so nearly accord with their own. If 
 they did see one, equal in their estimation to their own, it would not 
 be warrantable to change, because it would be changing for an un- 
 worthy motive. They may, nevertheless, ardently wish to remain 
 members of the Society. Here then toleration and Christian liberty 
 are wanting, and ought to be seen. 
 
 '.' William Allen speaks of deviation, as though it were an act of 
 volition; whereas, it is demonstrable that no man has the power to 
 change his belief; though he has the power to change his profession 
 of belief. As to deviation, who can say where the deviation is? Who 
 can measure its extent? Before this can be done, the Society must 
 fix the boundary between its fundamental, and other principles. They 
 must express their fundamental principles, not in general and ambigu. 
 
359 
 
 It appears, (said William Allen) a very clear case, 
 that the appellant is a member of another Society, fq) 
 I presume no Friend could suppose that the appellant 
 had proved his principles to be those of our early 
 Friends. We had heard one side only of the case. 
 We had heard things only partially. If we were to 
 go into the subject, we must have books and pamph- 
 lets ; we must have records and documents, (r) 
 
 ous phrases, and in words of equivocal meaning; but in a full, clear 
 and correct manner/' 
 
 (<?) Had not William Allen been enveloped in the atmosphere, to 
 which I have already alluded, I presume he could not have made an 
 assertion so totally destitute of evidence to support it, so entirely un- 
 founded. It is a new mode of making out " a very clear case,'' to rest 
 it upon a mere ipse dixit. Such an assertion, on such an occasion, 
 implies, much too plainly to have been otherwise understood, that I 
 had become a member of another religious Society, which is not true. 
 For although the term religious be not used, it is necessarily implied. 
 And this, be it remembered, is the language, not of a professed advocate 
 against me, but of a person exercising the province of a judge, addressing 
 his Peers on the bench, in their judicial capacity, on whom, to a con- 
 siderable extent, I have reason to believe, it made thia erroneous and 
 injurious impression. 
 
 (r) What William Allen meant by saying one side only of the 
 case had been heard, I am at a loss to understand. But it is *' very 
 clear," that both sides should have been impartially heard, and what 
 they said, been deliberately considered, before judgment was pro- 
 nounced. Some persons who were present, thought the quotations 
 produced by the respondents and myself, from the writings of the 
 early friends, were of themselves so far from being on " one side 
 only of the case," as to afford an infallible proof that the writers of 
 those passages were fallible men. Yet are we told that one side 
 only has been heard ! 
 
 If I have failed in proving my principles " to be those of our 
 early Friends," which I do net know that I ever undertook on so 
 broad a scale as this ; for like Joseph Gurney Bevan, and many 
 others, I cannot always reconcile their tenets with each other, I 
 may ask, why did not William Allen bring the respondents to the 
 same test ? 
 
 They told me, as I informed the Meeting, that they had nothing 
 to do with the opinions of Barclay, on a most important, nay a fun- 
 damental Christian doctrine, with which doctrine I fully concurred. 
 
361 
 
 Reason, (continued William Allen) is a high and 
 valuable gift, and a useful gift in its place ; but' it can 
 never bring man to a right understanding of revela- 
 tion. His endeavours to search out the things ap- 
 pertaining to divinity, by the exercise of his own na- 
 tural powers, is a vain endeavour, and a fruitless at- 
 tempt. If we sincerely desire to know the Scrip- 
 tures, and to be benefitted by them, we must suffer 
 our minds to be brought under the dominion of that 
 divine power that gave them forth. We must seek 
 after, and be attentive to divine influence and super- 
 natural instruction, fsj I much esteem the general 
 
 Besides which, the proper question was not, whether I had made, 
 or failed in such an attempt, but whether the respondents had prov- 
 ed, such a deviation from the requisite conditions of religious fellow- 
 ship, as by any known rule of the Society, subji cted me to di^own- 
 ment. This, they neither did, nor attempted. Nor do I understand, 
 how it can with propriety be affirmed, that the parties were " only par- 
 tially heard." I rather think the fact was, the pleas the respect ve 
 parties offered, were much more fully heard, than deliberately and 
 impartially considered. " If we were logo into the subject,'' says 
 this ecclesiastical judge, " we mu>t have books and pamphlets — 
 records and documents." And why not? If these were necessary, 
 they ought to have been called for. But how that can be, if '' one 
 side only" has been heard, William Allen did not explain. He 
 contented himself with stating the supposed difficulty of the requisite 
 examination, if the Meeting " were to go into the subject," and 
 after an irrelevant exposition of his own theological sentiments, 
 concluded with pronouncing judgment against the Appellant, not 
 upon any one of the charges recorded as the ground of his disown, 
 ment, but on an entirely new accusation ! 
 
 (s) Whether this disquisition on reason, and revelation, be in itself 
 judicious, or otherwise, it may suffice for me to remark, that if has 
 no relation to the recorded charges against me, and that I left the 
 Meeting in the confidence that no other charges would be adduced, 
 without animadversion, and the party who might fall into such an 
 error, being called to order. My protest against such conduct was 
 disregarded. I would, however, give my readers the following re- 
 marks of a friend of mine, on this part of the speech. 
 
 li William Allen's notions of revelation," sa)s be, "are to me 
 incomprehensible, and I think he greatly underrates the intellectual 
 owers of man, given him, through nature, by his Almighty and be- 
 3 A 
 
36*2 
 
 character of the appellant; but I think it is plain, 
 from an extract out of a work of his, read yesterday- 
 evening, that he rejected the well-known funda- 
 mental doctrine of the Society, and I am of opinion 
 that the report of the committee ought to be con- 
 firmed, (t) 
 
 neficent Creator. For the sake of perspicuity, I shall divide the sub- 
 ject into two parts, reason, and immediate revelation — reason, and 
 the Scriptures. 
 
 "Whenever I suppose a revelation, I suppose a Giver, something given, 
 and a receiver of the gift* The receiver is man. If he had not a re- 
 cipient and comprehending power, no revelation could possibly take 
 place. If he had no comprehending power, where would be the use 
 of an interpretation, by the same divine Being who gave the original 
 revelation? The interpretation would be a new revelation, and con- 
 sequently need interpretation as much as the former, and so it would 
 be, ad infinitum. 
 
 " If man has a power to comprehend the interpretation, why can he 
 not understand the original revelation ? If he has no power to com- 
 prehend either, no revelation can possibly take place. But as Chris- 
 tians generally admit, that mankind have received, and have been 
 greatly benefited by revelations from the Almighty ; so I presume, 
 that man has a power of comprehending such manifestations. I 
 grant, that things may be made known to man, which he may not 
 fully comprehend. Such, were some of the predictions given to the 
 prophets. Such, were some of the views given to the apostle John ; 
 but who would infer from hence, that mystery, is an essential charac- 
 teristic of revelation ? 
 
 "The ground being thus cleared, the second part of my subject be- 
 comes sufficiently easy. If man can comprehend a revelation imme- 
 diately presented, why may he not comprehend the same revelation, 
 when it comes to him, through the medium of a fellow. creature, 
 clothed in human thought, and accurately expressed in human Ian. 
 guage?" 
 
 (f) This "extract'' is given p. 203, with the context at large p. 200 
 — 205, from whence it will appear, on comparing it with the charges 
 against me, that it is nothing to the purpose, and that it cannot jus- 
 tify the inference drawn from it by William Allen, for it was express- 
 ly adduced by me, not to prove an exact coincidence of opinion, 
 between the modern Unitarians, and the Quakers, on this subject, 
 but to shew " that the real difference of opinion, between those who 
 are supposed to take opposite sides of the question, may not be so 
 great, as is generally imagined.' 9 For this philanthropic attempt, 
 am 1 deemed, by such a man, unworthy of Christian fellowship. 
 
363 
 
 Richard Payne observed, that it did not appear 
 from any thing which had been laid before the Meet- 
 ing, that such charges as William Allen had imputed 
 to the appellant, were at all adverted to in the mi- 
 nutes of Ratcliff Meeting, which had been read, and 
 that he thought the conduct of its overseers and 
 committee had been so improper and irregular, that 
 the Quarterly Meeting could do no less, than reverse 
 the decision of the Monthly Meeting. 
 
 Jasper Capper expressed his concurrence in these 
 sentiments. 
 
 William Forster, Jan. said, " I am of the mind 
 the report of the committee should be confirmed." 
 
 Josiah Messer [an elder] said, he thought by far 
 too much blame had been imputed to the Friends of 
 Ratcliff respecting their putting questions to the 
 appellant. Indeed he appeared to think they de- 
 served no blame at all ; for he explicitly avowed, 
 that he always thought that Friends, or Monthly 
 Meetings, possessed a discretionary power, to do their 
 oimi business in their own way. (u) 
 
 Injustice to William Allen, I think it right to say, that he intend. 
 ed to have expressed his disapprobation of the questioning system, 
 adopted in this case, and was afterwards sorry he did not. I also re- 
 gret it, for if he had impressively reprobated the practice, it might 
 have formed by far the best part of his speech. But he must then 
 have exposed the practice itself, as pernicious and indefensible, and 
 not merely the imprudence of confessing on the Meeting's records, 
 that the discipline had been exercised on such unsound principles. It 
 is not improbable, that the same system may be pursued in other 
 cases, with equal perseverance as in this, and yet no record of it may 
 appear, as there does in this instance. It therefore behoves all persons, 
 who may be hereafter dealt with in like manner, strenuously to re- 
 sist every attempt of the kind, whatever professions of kind intentions 
 may be made towards them, by any disciplinarians. Such induce, 
 ments to be open and candid, were held out to me, by my visitors, 
 in the fairest terms, the reader of these pages has seen the result, and 
 let him be aware of similar insidious approaches. 
 
 (u) Such a power as this disciplinaiian contends for, cannot be 
 rightfully possessed, or exercised, in a Christian church. When 
 
364 
 
 William Manley, [an elder] expressed his concur- 
 rence with the committee's decision, and said, he 
 had observed that the appellant complained very 
 inuch or the want ot gospel order. Now, it did ap- 
 pear that he had been visited first by one Friend, and 
 afterwards by two; and if this was not gospel order, 
 he did not know what was ! 
 
 John Pirn expressed his concurrence with the 
 comtxittee's report. " 1 think," said he, " the report 
 feels pleasant to my mind." (v) 
 
 The Friend who proposed an adjournment now 
 said, that he then apprehended many Friends in the 
 Meeting did not feel unity with the committee's de- 
 cision, on account of the manner in which the appel- 
 
 professed disciples of Christ, assume the right of censuring and ex- 
 pelling their brethren from religious fellowship, they should be espe- 
 cially careful, to act upon his maxims, not " their own/' to con- 
 fine thei"selves to such " power,'' as he has authorised them to ex- 
 ercise, on his behalf, and not to consider themselves as possessing " a 
 discretionary power, to do their own business, in their own way.*' 
 This is to claim the '' exercise of dominion," to an unknown, and 
 indefinite, it not to an unlimited extent. It is to set up no small 
 portion of that authority over conscience, which Christ declared 
 should be wholly excluded from his church, and from amongst his 
 disciples. " It shall n<>t be so among you." In short, this mode of 
 thinking, which Josiah Messer professes to have always entertained, it 
 precisely that which has been pleaded, for the worst species of usur- 
 pation and tyranny, which mankind have ever known. When the 
 rulers of churches get such ideas into their heads, they naturally be- 
 come inflated with spiritual pride, and a phaiisaic disposition of mind. 
 Nor are these consequences of possessing ecclesiastical power, 
 confined to the haughty priest nor to the lordly prelate, but may equal- 
 ly infect the high professing puritan, or the rigid, pharisaic sectarian. 
 
 (v) William Forster, Jun. and John Pirn, are both approved mi- 
 nisters of the Society and might have been supposed well qualified 
 to assign their reasons, for the judgment they pronounced. But this 
 they wholly omitted, nor did any Friend in the Meeting call upon 
 either of them to explain the grounds of their opinion. How far 
 it was becoming the sacred office of Christian ministers, to withhold 
 their reasons on such an occasion, and lend their authority, let my 
 readers judge. 
 
365 
 
 lant had been treated, by the Friends of Ratcliff. 
 But if the Meeting could overlook the proceedings 
 alluded to, or could think them inadequate, as a 
 ground whereon to reverse the judgment of the 
 Monthly Meeting, he had no desire to put any bar 
 in the way of the Meeting's prevalent sentiment. 
 His own were not similar to the appellant's, but 
 differed materially from them. 
 
 Several Friends then rose, one after another, and 
 merely expressed their unity with the decision of the 
 committee, (w) It was then declared by the Clerk, 
 in the customary way, that the Meeting agreed to 
 confirm the judgment of Ratcliff Meeting, of which a 
 minute was accordingly made, (x) 
 
 (w) I cannot perceive what possible advantage such a mode as this, 
 of declaring assent, or dissent, can have, over the equally expressive, 
 and orderly method of elevating an arm, unless it be proper and right, 
 delusively to pass off the judgment of a few, perhaps of much less 
 than a tenth part of the persons present, as the collective judgment 
 of the Meeting. A shew of hands would, in most cases, determine 
 the general sense of a large assembly, in less time, and in a iilent, 
 decisive, and decorous manner; whereas, it is'impossible to ascertain 
 what the judgment of such a body is, where the great majority of the 
 persons present, as is the usual case in these Meetings, do not signify 
 their opinion on the question, in any manner "whatever. 
 
 (x) It was natural I should wish to know, the general complexion 
 of the discussion on this occasion, and, by the kindness of some of my 
 friends, I have been furnished with a more ample, and, as I have reason 
 to believe, a more accurate account than I previously expected. 
 They are however in no degree accountable, for the use which I have 
 thought fit to make of their information. The responsibility of pub- 
 lishing this account, rests wholly with myself; I have neither asked, 
 nor acted upon the advice of any member of the Society. 
 
 But, relying as I do on the report of those Friends, confirmed as 
 it has since been, by the concurring evidence of others who were pre- 
 sent, I appeal with confidence to the impartial reader, whether it can 
 be said, that the arguments of those who opposed the decision of the 
 Meeting, were attempted to be answered? Nay, 1 appeal to such 
 readers, whether any of the foregoing speeches, in favour of con- 
 firming the judgment of the Monthly Meeting, express one syllable 
 in support of either of the allegations, on which the decision of that 
 Meeting was ostensibly founded? I have personally made this appeal, 
 to various persons who were present, without being able to learn that 
 
 • 
 ■ 
 
&6S 
 
 When the said minute had been read, John Eliot 
 ose, and expressed his satisfaction with the appel- 
 
 even one of the persons who spoke on that side of the question, men- 
 tioned, or alluded to any of the recorded charges, on which I was dis- 
 owned, and against which my appeal was presented. Is it then, 1 ask, 
 possible to conceive, that the confirmation of a sentence ofdisownment, 
 under such circumstances, was grounded upon reason or evidence? 
 How was the sense of so numerous an assembly ascertained ? Several 
 hundred persons were, I suppose, present ; yet no counting of num- 
 bers was allowed; no shew of hands was exhibited. In short, the 
 speeches furnished the only means of judging, what the general sense 
 of the Meeting was. And these speeches seem to have operated, not 
 by the weight of the reasoning they contained, or their relevance to 
 the subject before the Meeting, but by the supposed " weight of reli- 
 gious character" of those who delivered them. Can there be a more 
 delusive criterion ? I should think not. Strange as this may appear 
 to some of my readers, it is nothing new. Thomas Clarkson has no- 
 ticed this method of judging of the sense of a large assembly, in his 
 Portraiture of Quakerism, Vol I. p. 240. 
 
 In p. 126, I observed* that this delusive mode of judging of the 
 sense of Meetings for Discipline, has no parallel, that I knew of, in 
 ancient or modern times. I ought perhaps rather to have said, that it 
 was an awkward compound of the Presbyterian and Independent forms 
 of transacting the business of their respective churches, without the 
 peculiar advantages of either. The Kirk of Scotland is governed by 
 Presbyteries^Synods, and General Assemblies, consisting of deputies, 
 or representatives only. Among the Independents, no member of 
 the church is excluded, and all have an equal right of express- 
 ing their sentiments upon any question of discipline, verbally, or 
 by a shew of hands , as many members of the Society of Friends have 
 lately expressed theirs, on questions no less important, or sacred, than 
 such as occur at their Meetings for Discipline ; I mean at Bible Meet- 
 ings, where I have seen many of them uniting with their neighbours, 
 in this simple, rational, orderly and decisive mode of ascertaining the 
 general sense of the persons present. Whereas, the mode in use among 
 themselves, is to leave the decision in the hands of the clergy and the 
 presbytery, under other names, with the mere appearance only of its 
 being exercised by the whole assembly. 
 
 Such a mode of implicating a large number of persons in the real 
 decision of a few, or it may be of one person only, has a natural 
 tendency to nourish a Pharisaic spiiit of domination, in the rulers of 
 such asect, andof implicit submission to their authority, among the test 
 of its members. It discourages many valuable persons, possessing se. 
 rious and liberal minds, from attending Meetings for discipline. It 
 produces disgust, at the narrow spirit which generally actuates the 
 
367 
 
 lant's conduct in the Meeting. He said, the appellant 
 had not minced the matter, but had declared his mind 
 and sentiments, candidly and manfully. In this, John 
 Eliot was joined by several other Friends. 
 
 On the respondents and myself receiving notice 
 by William Manley, that the Meeting had come to 
 a conclusion, which we were at liberty to attend and 
 hear read, we were introduced to seats near the ta- 
 ble ; when, after a short pause, the Clerk read the 
 following minute. 
 
 " This Meeting, having deliberately considered 
 
 most zealous disciplinarians, and generates a spirit of lukcwarmness 
 in many of its members, to all that is connected with such a system. 
 " Zeal," said William Penn," with knowledge, and dipped in charity, 
 is good ; without them, good for nothing." 
 
 I ought perhaps to add, that although I have given regular notice 
 of appeal to the Yearly Meeting against this decision, and six respond- 
 ents are appointed by the Quarterly Meeting, on its behalf, I am now 
 more and more doubtful, whether I shall exercise the right, I have 
 thus thought proper to secure. It is not "convenient" to me to 
 present such appeal to the ensuing Yearly Meeting; in which case, 
 the rules allow my deferring it to the next. Besides which, a project- 
 ed alteration in the mode of hearing and judging of appeals, has been 
 publicly, and privately spoken of, as likely to take place. Whether 
 the proposed change may be, to deprive the respective parties of the 
 right of being heard in the Meeting, on being dissatisfied with the 
 report of a committee, or, to provide some more rational mode than 
 the present, of taking the sense of the Meeting at large, if the privi- 
 lege of being heard therein be continued, I shall not object to either, 
 in the character of an appellant. 
 
 I cannot even imagine, that I shall ever feel a wish to be restored to 
 membership, after this decision of the Quarterly Meeting. I would not 
 willingly, be deemed an intruder any where, and on this principle, I 
 had nearly concluded to have sent in my resignation as a member ot 
 Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, if the judgment of that Meeting had been 
 reversed by the Quarterly Meeting, as several of my Friends know. 
 Much more should I be so inclined, after its confirmation by so large 
 a body, even supposing both those decisions to be reversed by the 
 Yearly Meeting. 
 
 Nothing but such an open renunciation of the general principles, 
 and spirit, on which these proceedings were founded, as I cannot ex- 
 pect to take place in the ruling members of the Society, in my lifetime, 
 would reconcile me, after such treatment, to a continuance in mem. 
 bership. 
 
"363 
 
 the case of Thomas Foster, on his appeal against the 
 Monthly Meeting of Ratcliff, and also the report of 
 the committee of this Meeting, appointed to consider 
 the said appeal, is of the judgment, that the report 
 of the said committee, and the decision of Ratcliff 
 Monthly Meeting, in disowning the said Thomas 
 Foster, as a member of our religious Society, should 
 be confirmed; and the judgment of the said Month- 
 ly Meeting, is confirmed accordingly." (y) 
 
 (y) How far the above reference to the " Report of the Committee," 
 indicates a conscious feeling that the decision about to be pronounced, 
 was not adequately supported by any thing which the respondents 
 urged, I shall not determine. The intelligent reader will judge of 
 this. But I may safely say, that the Committee's Report, inserted 
 p. 253 — 254, cannot possibly furnish any other ground in justifi- 
 cation of that decision, than the mere judgment of the Committee, 
 that it "should be confirmed." And yet their first report, relative 
 to this case, the grounds of which were open to examination, the 
 Meeting had seen reason to reverse. 
 
 I may also add, that after the parties had been heard in the meet- 
 ing, its subsequent judgment should have been wholly founded there- 
 on. Instead of which, the above minute says nothing about hearing 
 the respective parties, but without noticing the respondents, or the 
 case they made out, states, that the Meeting had " deliberately con- 
 sidered" my case, " and also the report of the committee.''' But why 
 refer to their judgment? I had appealed against that, and claimed 
 the right, as the rules of the Society allowed, to have the case 
 opened in the Meeting. What for ? That the Meeting might exer- 
 cise its own judgment, on hearing both sides, and not rest it on their 
 committee's report. The character of the foregoing discussion, may 
 however account for this inclination to rest such a decision, upon any 
 thing, rather than upon the reasoning, and the evidence before the 
 Meeting. For it appears that every person, who spoke in favour of 
 confirming the decision of the Monthly Meeting forgot, or purposely 
 avoided all mention of either of the grounds whereon that judgment 
 was ostensibly founded. 
 
 I cannot, injustice to the Society, conclude this note, without ex- 
 pressing my firm conviction, that such a decision as this, would not 
 have been confirmed by such an assembly, had custom established 
 any effective mode of ascertaining the sense of the majority of its mem- 
 bers. And till some alteration takes place in this respect, or, in the 
 character of its leading disciplinarians, I shall consider the boasted 
 privilege of appeal, as ot no real value, and as a means rather of 
 countenancing, than of counteracting, the usurpations of the few over 
 
369 
 
 " The clerk is directed to send a copy of the above 
 minute, to Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, and to the 
 appellant." 
 
 After a short pause, I requested a copy, not only 
 of the minute recognizing the Meeting's decision, but 
 of all the other minutes respecting my case, to which 
 I observed, I thought myself justly entitled, and es- 
 pecially, as I could claim the right of an appeal 
 against the Meeting's judgment, which I observ- 
 ed, I should not determine whether to exercise or 
 not, till near the expiration of the time the rules 
 allowed. I was informed the Meeting would consi- 
 der my request, after the respondents and myself 
 were withdrawn, (z) 
 
 1 then told the Meeting I would, with their free 
 consent, express a few words before we finally part- 
 ed, but that I had no wish to press it, if thought 
 improper. 
 
 John Eliot expressed a willingness to hear any 
 thing I might wish to say, provided I would confine 
 it within a small compass. 
 
 I replied, it will be but a very few words, and I may 
 add, I believe those few words will not hurt the feelings 
 of any Friend in the Meeting. Having sat down, 1 was 
 soon afterwards informed, by the clerk, that 1 might 
 consider myself at liberty to express what was upon my 
 mind. I then rose, and said, I am well aware of the 
 difficulty of bringing so many persons, as are now as- 
 sembled, to one opinion on such a subject as the Meet- 
 
 the many. The occasional exercise of the right may nevertheless hast- 
 en the period, when the great principles o\ Christian liberty shall be so 
 generally underst >od and respected, thateverv man, without offenLe to 
 his brethren, may speak the truth to his neighbour. 
 
 nute 
 
 (:) This request was granted, as will appear by the following mi- 
 nute. " The appellant and respondents were present, and heard the 
 aforesaid minutes read ; and the appellant having r. qorxteu a copy 
 of the minutes made respecting his ca-e. the sam is allowed vn the 
 present occasion^ and the clerk is directed to furnish him with them, 
 accordingly." 
 
 3B 
 
370 
 
 ing has decided, or indeed, upon almost any other, 
 which would admit of difference of sentiment. 
 But I wish principally, for the sake of better re- 
 conciling those who might disapprove the Meeting's 
 decision, to say, that so far as it related to me per- 
 sonally, and i was able to foresee its consequences 
 on the remainder of my life, it would leave me, very 
 nearly, where my own choice would have placed me, 
 had the Monthly Meeting's decision been reversed. 
 For, in that case, I had, upon deliberate consi- 
 deration, come to a conclusion, very much, if not 
 entirely, to absent myself from Meetings for Disci- 
 pline, from a conviction, that however useful other 
 Friends might be, in such a sphere of action, I should 
 be more likely to give unintentional offence, than 
 to be of any real service in those Meetings. 
 
 John Eliot said, he hoped I had not been hurt by 
 what he had said about my confining myself to a few 
 words, adding, in a very kind manner, that real reli- 
 gion did not consist in notions, and opinions^ That 
 Christ said unto the Jews, " Ye will not come unto 
 me that ye might have life."" (John v. 40.) And on 
 another occasion, " No man can come unto me y except 
 the Father which hath sent me draw him." (John vi. 
 44. That the comforts and blessings of religion were 
 only to be experienced by its influence on the heart, 
 and on the affections. 
 
 I observed, that I thought myself called upon, 
 in justice to that very respectable Friend, and to 
 myself, to say, I was very far from being hurt by 
 what he had said respecting me, and I trusted I 
 should not be deprived of a participation of those 
 blessings, which he had so feelingly and properly 
 described. On which the good old man (who is 
 since deceased) in the most friendly manner, ex- 
 pressed an inclination to offer me his hand, which he 
 said, he hoped other Friends would also. 1 accepted 
 the protfered expression of his goodwill, saying, I es- 
 
371 
 
 teemed it a favour, I had almost said, an honour. 
 The propriety of my using the latter phrase, he most 
 courteously disclaimed. 1 then offered my hand to 
 Joseph Gurney Bevan, the only Friend near me with 
 whom I had ever had any personal controversy. 
 We shook hands, when he rose, and expressed a few 
 words, indicating, so far as 1 recollect their import, 
 the propriety of cultivating a spirit of charity, one 
 towards another, where we had different apprehen- 
 sions, concerning the path in which we were re- 
 quired to walk. On my part, I assured the Meeting, 
 I had no feeling of animosity towards a single Friend 
 of that Quarterly Meeting. Any soreness of mind 
 that I might have felt, in the course of the proceed- 
 ings against me, was entirely effaced. Several Friends 
 expressed their satisfaction at this declaration, when, 
 without again sitting down, I withdrew. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 
 
 Line 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 18 
 
 for 
 
 which 
 
 read 
 
 whom 
 
 is 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 maturity 
 
 _. — 
 
 years of maturity 
 
 22 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 1812 
 
 
 
 1811 
 
 30 
 
 23 
 
 — 
 
 1812 
 
 ■ 
 
 1811 
 
 65 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 v. 33 
 
 — — 
 
 vi. 33 
 
 122 
 
 6 
 
 dele 
 
 an 
 
 
 
 128 
 
 33 
 
 for 
 
 Foster 
 
 _ — 
 
 Forster 
 
 130 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 Foster 
 
 
 
 Forster 
 
 142 
 
 ib. 
 
 — 
 
 was 
 
 — — 
 
 were 
 
 149 
 
 35 
 
 — 
 
 objected 
 
 
 
 objecting 
 
 155 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 
 
 XVII. 
 
 161 
 
 20 
 
 — 
 
 XIV. 
 
 _— 
 
 XLV. 
 
 170 
 
 29 
 
 — — 
 
 19 
 
 — ' 
 
 9 
 
 195 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 add 
 
 ibid, p. 29 
 
 197 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 vi. 
 
 read 
 
 v. 
 
 ao6 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 perused 
 
 
 
 perceived 
 
 248 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1692 
 
 
 
 1671 
 
 284 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 ii. 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 285 
 
 37 
 
 — 
 
 2 Tim. 4 
 
 
 
 1 Tim. ii. 4 
 
 296 
 
 16 
 
 __ 
 
 ix. 
 
 .-, 
 
 xi. 
 
 337 
 
 last 
 
 __ 
 
 Mathews 
 
 , 
 
 Matthews 
 
 339 
 
 IX 
 
 after 
 
 which 
 
 
 
 they did not admit, as it 
 
INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 
 Abuses of ecclesiastical power, Preface vi. vii. Int. xxvii — xxx 
 
 Accusations, indefinite, their evil tendency, 31, 35- Of the Ap- 
 pellant, 30, 39—58, 108—114. Replied to, 56—74, 80— 
 105, 117—121, 130—136, 151—178, 256—295, 300— 
 335. New, unwarrantable, after the commencement of judi- 
 cial proceedings, 171, 172, 179—183, 267- Discus-ion 
 thereon 106—108, 115—118, 131, 225, 226, 329, 339, 340 
 
 Accusers unfit for judges !6 
 
 Address to Protestanls, Penn's 208—211, 230—233 
 
 Addresses of the Appellant to Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, 56—74, 
 80-105, 1x7— 121- To the Quarterly Meeting's Commit- 
 tee, 216—230. To the Quarterly Meeting, 256—295, 300— 
 
 335, 339— 344,369, 371 
 Alexandrian copy of Isaiah ix. 6 221 
 
 Allen William, his speech at the Quarterly Meeting 358 — 362 
 
 Almighty, scriptural application of the term, 97, 280 — 282, 
 
 291, 354 
 Alpha and Omega, application of the terms, 280. 354 
 
 Answers to the queries to the Monthly Meeting's Committee, 92, 
 
 93,164,155 
 Apology of Barclay, 13, 72, 73, 162, 163, 274—277. For 
 
 the Quaker's, by William Penn 204 
 
 Apollinarius's heresy 274 
 
 Apostles, th« ir province to republish the doctrines of Christ, 
 
 not to add to those he taught, 104. Creed 315 
 
 Appeal to the Society of Friends on its Christian principles and 
 church discipline, Pref. viii — ix. xii. xiii. Examined by Vin- 
 dex, Pref. xiii. xiv. To the Quarterly Meeting 130 — 136 
 
 Appeals, committee on, 128, 145, 253 
 
 Appellant, born and educated in the Society of Friends* 1. Im- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 bibed in early life his religious sentiments concerning the 
 unity and placability of God from Penri's 8and\ Foundation 
 Shake ii, 12 Confirmed in ihem b) subsequent inquiry and 
 refle ctie>n> ib. Certificate of his life and conversation, Intr. 
 xxxv. Becomes theieby a member of RatciifT Monthly 
 Meeting in 1791. First subjected to Dealing in 181 1, P. 1. 
 Visited by the overseers, 4 — 12. Accused to the Monthly 
 Meeting, 30; which appoints a committee to visit him and re- 
 port, 39. Defence against the overseers' accusation, 56 — 59 ; 
 against the fresh charge of the committee at their two first 
 visits, 61—74; against their report to the Meeting, 80—105. 
 Drowned, 106. Appeals to the Quarterly Meeting, which 
 appoints a committee to consider the same, 127, 128. His 
 appeal read to the committee, 130—136. Defence before 
 the committee, 149, 151—178, 188, 190, 192—243. Dissa- 
 tisfied with the committee's judgment, claims the right of be- 
 ing heard in the Meeting, 254. His defence, 256—335, 339, 
 344. Concluding observations, after the judgment of the 
 Quarterly Meeting 369, 371 
 
 Aquila's Translation of Isaiah ix. 6 222 
 
 Arch, John 345 
 
 Assemblies, mode of collecting the sense of 365 — 368 
 
 Athanasian Creed 316" 
 
 Athenian Mercury 316 
 
 Atonement, William Penn's opinion of the doctrine 69 
 
 B. 
 Barclay, Robert, his Apology, 13, 72, 73, 162, 163, 274—277. 
 Works, 278. Believed Christ, as glorified in the heavens in 
 soul and body, to be true and real man 72, 73. Catechism 244 
 Barnabas's reception at Lystra 301 
 
 Barnard, Hannah Pref. vi. viii. xii— xiv. 27, 176 
 
 Batger, William 50, 74, 75 
 
 Belief, general, of Friends, 157, 296, 322. Required of a 
 
 Christian defined, 332, 347. Cannot be changed at will 359 
 
 Besse's Doxology 177, 17S 
 
 Bevan, Joseph Gurney, Pref. xiii. His speeches in the Quar- 
 terly Meeting, 128, 143, 145, 274, 299, 308, 309, 345,346, 355 
 Bevans's, John, defence, &c. Pref. xv. 119,292. Speech at the 
 Quarterly Meeting 354 
 
 Bible, chained to the preacher's gallery at Swarthmore Pref. xvii 
 
 Society, observations on it 238 
 
 Binns, William 34, 56. 128, l«fl 224, 299 
 
 Blackwall on the necessity of a new version of the Scriptures 236 
 Body of Christ 151, 163. 165* 246, 250 27=> 289 
 
 Book Society, the Unitarian, 1, 9, 19, 46— 48, /6, 89» 109, 
 
 119» 132, 148, 206, 226, 258, 259i 318—323 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Book of Extracts, Pref. vi. vii. x — xii. xxi. Intr. xxxiv— xxxviii. 
 
 22, 35, 61, 101, 134, 186 
 Bowman, Richard, conferences with him, 4—14 21,61—73, 
 
 91—94, 106, 173—178, 189, ?29 
 Breviloquus's Reply to the Remarks, &c. 5, 27, 87, 88 
 
 Brewster, Thomas 128, 144 
 
 C. 
 
 Calvin, anecdote of 207 
 
 Campbell's Dissertation on Miracles 241 
 
 Capper, Jasper 363 
 
 Cardale's exposition of the term Divinity of Christ, l60— 162, 
 
 171, 179, 182 
 Castcllio's Latin Version of the New Testament 207 
 
 Catechism, Barclay's 244 
 
 Causabon's Works, extract from 198 
 
 Chandler's History of Persecution, extract from 207 
 
 Charges against the Appellant 30, 37, 60, 91, 108—114, 263 
 
 additional, 118, 184—187, 190—192. Replies to them, 
 
 192—243, 339-344 
 Charity of a Christian church 103, 401 
 
 Children of God, 250 
 
 Christ, his sufficiency derived from God, 8, 9. His authority far 
 superior to any other in all that respects faith and worship, 4, 
 23, 133. On the person of, 2, 5, 11, 23, 38, 40, 64, 67, 7 1, 
 91, 97, 110, 158, i6l, 165—170, 191, 196, 221, 244, 249, 
 
 251, 271, 275, 280— 286, 28S, 293, 300— 310, 317, 336 
 Christian, faith of one defined 332 
 
 Christian discipline, primary object of, 133, 134. Disregarded 
 
 by the Monthly Meeting's committee 134 
 
 Christian duty, not a complex system — consists of a few and sim- 
 ple parts Pref. xix. 
 Christianity invites inquiry, 17. Ancient test of it, 80. Cannot 
 
 suffer by discussion 241 
 
 Christian Unitarianism vindicated Pref. xv. 
 
 Church, Christian scriptural picture of one 103, 104 
 
 Churches of Christ, best preserved in the bond of true peace, 
 
 when difference of sentiment is tolerated Int. xxxvi 
 
 Church.government of Friends 126 
 
 Clarke's, Dr. Samuel, Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity 244 
 
 Clarkson, his Portraiture of Quakerism, Pref. xxni. xxiv. 206, 
 
 366. On the word Trinity 277 
 
 Cleik, of Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, 31. Of the Quarterly Meet, 
 ing, 127,255,344. Of the Committee of the Quarterly Meet- 
 ing, 130,137,140,146,253,344 
 Coleby, John 127, 254, 255, 331 
 Commentary on the introduction to St. John's gospel 164, 169) 170 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Committee, appointed by the Monthly Meeting, 39, 48, 6l— 73, 
 81 — 100, 108—114, 117 — 120, 172, 178, 212, 263—267, 
 271-273, 325,326. Of the Quarterly Meeting of London 
 and Middlesex, 128, 145, 152, 172, 188, 190, 215—253, 
 368. First report from 145, 146. Reversed by the Quarter- 
 ly Meeting 146, 147 
 Compton, Thomas, 130. His speech in the Quarterly Meeting 
 
 351,355 
 Conception, doctrine of the miraculous 63, 64 
 
 Conferences with the overseers of Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, 1, 
 
 4, 7, 12, 21, 270 
 Confessions of faith, remarks on 80, 133, 158, 332, 333 
 
 Conscience William Penn's remarks on, 231. Rights of 231-233 
 Constantinople, council of 3l6 
 
 Controversy, utility of 241 
 
 Construction of texts of Scripture, improperly set up as articles 
 
 of faith 185, 207, 208 
 
 Corby n, John 128 
 
 Cork, bishop of, Penn's reply to him, 296, 297 
 
 Correspondence with the overseers of Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, 
 
 14,22 
 Corruptions of texts in the received version, noticed in this 
 work, Isaiah ix. 6. 5, 221, Rom. ix. 5. 157, 244, 1 Tim. iii. 
 16. 168, 336, Acts xx. 28. 235, 1 John v. 7- 157, 244, 
 287, v. 20. 245, Mat. vi. 25. 31, 34, x. 19, Mark xiii. 
 11, Luke xii. 11, Mat. xi. 20, Mark iii. 21, 234, Luke xxiii. 
 32, 1 Cor. xvi. 22, Eph. iv. 32, 235, Rev. i. 8. 280, Col. i. 
 3. 308, ii. 2. 309, Heb. i. 2. 310, Phil. ii. 6, 245 
 
 Council of Nice, 316. Of Constantinople, ib. 
 Creeds, observations on, 80. Of the Quakers, 158, 246. The 
 
 apostles', 315. Nicene, ib. 
 Criticism, biblical, 2, 5, 11, 40, 42, 45, 64, 66, 68, 74, 97, 
 100, 104, 110, 150, 152, 160—163, 170, 177, 190, 191, 196—200, 
 209, 215, 221, 234—236, 244—247, 249, 251, 266, 267, 280—290, 
 
 296, 300—310, 332, 336, 337, 347, 353, 354 
 Crucifixion, the 293 
 
 D. 
 
 Dealing, disciplinary visits of, 1-12, 49, 59, 70, 73,81,348. 
 Persons under, not excluded by any rule from attending Meet- 
 ings for Discipline 49-52, 53--50, S26--3S9 
 Debates in the Quarterly Meeting 127, 128, 141.-145, 344—36*9 
 Decision of the Quarterly Meeting, 334 
 Defence of the Appellant, before the Quarterly Meeting's com- 
 mittee, 149—152, 172, 173—180, 188—190, 200—215, 2l6. At 
 the Quarterly Meeting 256—298, 300—335 
 Deity not implied by the terra divinity 96, 97, l6l 
 Denial, testimony of 1 12-— 1*4 
 
tfNDEX. 
 
 Dilwyn, William, 126 
 
 Discussion, Christianity indebted to 24 1 
 
 Discussions in Ratcliff Monthly Meeting 30—39, 48—56, 75, 79 
 Disownment, rules authorising, 102 
 
 Divinity, of Christ explained, 67 y 71, 92, 96,273, 287, 336. 
 Remarks on the term, ib. 110, l5l. Cardale's exposition of 
 the term, 160, l6l. Does not imply Deity l6l 
 
 Doctrinals, Fox's, extracts from 283—295 
 
 Doctrine of Friends, summary of, 157, 158. Of the New Testa- 
 ment, l60—l ; 62, 171, 179. In the Yearly Meeting Epistles, 
 
 268, 269 
 Doxology of Joseph Besse «i 17* 
 
 E. 
 
 Elders appointed to encourage and help young ministers. To 
 advise ministers, when they see occasion, to be very prudent 
 in their conduct, Int. xxxvii. To keep to Scripture term* 
 in all their preaching, writing, and conversing about the things 
 of God ' Int. xxxviii. 
 
 Elders, their opinion of the Appellant's case 363, 352, 345, 364 
 Eliot, John 127, 366, 369, 370 
 
 John, Jun. 181, 183 
 
 Ellwood, Thomas 156 
 
 Epistle, Yearly Meeting, for r810, 1. Remarks on it, 16— 18, 
 
 39—45, 65, 66, 109, 110 113, 258, 267, 311,313 
 Epistles, Yearly, devotional and doctrinal extracts from them 
 
 268,269 
 Errors, Christian mode of treating 325 
 
 Eutyches's heresy 275 
 
 Evans's Sketch of Denominations, &c. ] 92 
 
 Evidence, faith requires it 280 
 
 Exposition of the term divinity, 160. Fox's, of Scripture 286" 
 
 Extracts, Book of 22, 35, 6l, 101, 134, 186 
 
 F. 
 Faith, apostolical injunction concerning, 103. Penn's remarks 
 on, 208, 210, 230—233. His profession of, 246. Required 
 by Scripture, defined, 296, 332. Cannot be changed at 
 Will, 359 
 
 Fellowship, principles of Christian 331, 332 
 
 Folly, Penn's remarks on 232 
 
 Forgery in Isaiah, ix. 6 222 
 
 Forster, William 153,180 
 
 William, Jun. 363 
 
 Forster, Josiah 130 
 
 Foster, Joseph, took no part in these proceedings 48, 49, 53, 124 
 
 Fothergill, Dr. 207 
 
 3 c 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Fox's Doctrinals, 243, 344, 283, 293. His excellence in pray- 
 er, 294 
 
 Glorification of Christ, 22, 72—74, 93, 102, 166, 169, 275, 
 
 278, 284, 302 
 Glory of God, 5, 8, 42, 43, 45—47, 68, 97— 100, 132, 135, 
 
 161, 165, 177, 178, 269, 280—295 
 God, is One, and One is God, 68, 69, 90, 200. Of truth, 
 
 261, 291, 292. The true Christian's, 292, 293 
 
 God of this world 291 
 
 Godhead, cannot unite with manhood, l6l, 168. The term 
 
 explained 215 
 
 God's influence on the human mind, 201 — 204 
 
 Gospel of God, and gospel of Christ, 42. Of St. John, com. 
 
 mentaryonit l63, 164, l69, 171 
 
 Griesbach's Version of the New Testament 238 
 
 Guide Mistaken, William Penn's 356 
 
 Gunn, William 116,117 
 
 H, 
 
 Harris, John 31, 108, 124, 129, 148, 173, 335, 337 
 Harrison, George, his speeches in the Quarterly Meeting, 142, 
 
 143, 347, 350, 353, 356 
 Haynes, Hopton, on the term Omnipotent or Almighty, 280 — 
 
 282, 310 
 
 Head of the Christian church, 135, 29O 
 
 Hebrews, intent of the epistle to them 310 
 
 Historical account of two notable corruptions of Scripture 337 
 Howard, Luke, 128, 130, 136, 139, 141, 144, 146, 147, 
 
 171, 172, 180, 253—255, 299, 344 
 
 Humility, a never-ceasing duty 43 
 
 Hymn from the Evangelical Magazine 30 
 
 I. 
 
 Illustrations of Scripture, 2, 5, 1 1 , 23, 26, 40, 64, 67, 68, 97, 
 110, 150, 151,155, l6l, 164—170, 177, 191, 196, 215, 
 221, 234—236, 244, 249, 280—286, 288, 293, 300—310, 
 
 336, 353, 354 
 Imprimatur rule, discovered to be a forgery Pref. vi. xv. 
 
 Improved Version of the New Testament, 174, 187, 190, 227, 
 
 233—337, 355 
 Independents, their church government 366 
 
 Inferences from Scripture, to be distinguished from Scripture 355 
 Influence, divine, on the human mind, 201—204,353,362 
 
 Innocency of involuntary error 20 
 
 Innocency with her open Face 12, 150 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Inquiry, Scriptural recommendation of it, 17. A Christian 
 duty, 18. 'Penn's recommendation of, 231. Dr. Middle- 
 ton on the utility of it, 242. Endeavours to repress it, 334 
 Intolerance of the Monthly Meeting's committee 81 
 Introduction to the Reply to Vindex 192 
 Isaiah's supposed prophecy of Christ criticised 221 
 
 J. 
 
 Jerome's version of 1 John v. 20 245 
 
 Jesus Christ, who and what he was, how best known, 2. His 
 real character recorded in the New Testament, in his own 
 
 words 23 
 
 John the Baptist's testimony of Christ 302 
 
 Joshua, Francis, his speech at the Quarterly Meeting 351 
 
 Judgment, rights of private, 18, 158, 231. The great day of 72, 275 
 
 Justin Martin's Apology 13 
 
 K. 
 
 Keith, George, his case 156, 331 
 
 Kingdom of God, and kingdom of Christ 42, 283 
 
 Kirk of Scotland, government of it 366 
 
 Knight, Henry, conferences with him, 1—4, 14,21,61, 73,91 — 
 
 94, 106, 173—178, 189, 329 
 Knight, George 55 
 
 Knowledge, religious, necessity of promoting, 19. To be sought 
 in the Scriptures 237 
 
 L. 
 
 Language of Scripture, advantages of using, in theological dis- 
 . cussions, 159, 220 
 
 Lardner on the Logos l63, 169, 182 
 
 Legislation, ecclesiastical, of the Society Int. xxxvi. 343 
 
 Letters, to Henry Knight, and Richard Bowman, 14, 22, 59, 
 79,94. To the Friends of Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, 115. 
 To the Meeting for Sufferings, 125. To the respondents 
 of Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, 117, 122, 129. To the ad. 
 journed Quarterly Meeting, 140. To the committee of the 
 Quarterly Meeting 179 
 
 Liberty, religious, still imperfect in England 359 
 
 Life of Paul, by J. G. Bevan 308, 309 
 
 Locke, John, on Isaiah ix. 6. 5. On the person of Christ, 1 66. 
 
 On the improper division of the Testament into chapters, ore. 236 
 Logos, Lardner on the l63, l69 
 
 M. 
 
 Mahomet, Sultan, Fox's answer to him 292 
 
 Man, Stacey's remarks on his state, and redemption by Chrirt 26 1 
 
 Manley, William, 125. His speech at the Quarterly Meeting 364 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Manhood, of Christ, cannot unite with godhead, may with divi- 
 nity 161 
 Marsh, Samuel, 32, 49, 52,60, 63, 76, 107, 109, 111, 124, 
 
 129, 175 
 Matthews, Stephen, his speech at the Quarterly Meeting 350 
 
 — : Edmund 356 
 
 Mediator, the true 290 
 
 Meeting Yearly, minute of, on singing in public worship, Int. xxxi. 
 
 Catechism, why only the first part published Pref. xx. 
 
 Meeting, Monthly, of Ratcliff, 30, 39, 48, 78, 79, 106. Copy 
 
 of its minutes, 108 — 114. Correspondence 116, 12t 
 
 Meeting, Quarterly, of London and Middlesex, 127, 128, 
 140—146,253,299,300—344,344—371. Grounds of its 
 judgment explained Pref. iv. 
 
 Meeting for Sufferings 125 
 
 Meetings for Discipline, origin of, Int. xxvi. Soon became in- 
 tolerant, ib. xxvii — xxx. Constitution of, xxxiv. The ser- 
 vice of, best promoted by the exercise of charity towards 
 each other, in the expression of different sentiments, Int. xxxvi. 
 
 Meetings for Discipline, 22. Mode of collecting the sense of 365 
 Messer Josiah, his speech at the Quarterly Meeting 363 
 
 Middleton, Dr. on free enquiry in religion 242 
 
 Mind, doctrine of divine influence on it 201—204, 353, 362 
 
 Ministers and elders, increase o.f the power and influence of their 
 
 meetings Pref. x..-xii. 
 
 Ministers advised by the Yearly Meeting to avoid encouraging 
 
 defamation, and detraction lnt.xxxviii. 
 
 Minutes of conferences, 1, 12, 21. Of Ratcliff Monthly 
 Meeting, 30—39, 48—52—56, 79. Of the Quarterly Meet- 
 ing's committee, 130, 136—140, 147—252. Of the Quar- 
 terly Meeting 253—299, 300—344, 344—371 
 Mistranslation of Isaiah ix. 6, 221. Of 1 Tim. iii. 16, 336 
 Moline, Sparkes 49, 52—54 
 Monthly Repository, extracts from it, Pref. xxiii. 39 — 45, 53, 
 
 54, 109 
 Morality, Penn, William, on debasing its .true value 208 
 
 N. 
 Newcome, Archbishop, on Rev. xxii. 354 
 
 Newton, Sir Isaac, on 1 Tim. iii. 16, 336 
 
 Nicene Creed 315 
 
 Notes, explanatory, on the minutes of Ratcliff Monthly fleeting 
 109--114. In the Improved Version of the New Testa- 
 ment, 190, 191, 233. On the proceedings of the Quarterly 
 Meeting 345-..369 
 
 Notice of appeal 122 
 
INDEX, 
 
 O. 
 
 Omnipotence, on the attribute, 97, 98, 273, 283- Whether 
 justly imputed to Christ, examined, 66, 93, 94, 96, 110, 271— 
 
 > 274 300—310, 315 
 
 Omnipotent, scriptural application of the tei m, 97, 280 — 282, 
 
 354 
 
 One is God, and God is One 68, 69, 90 
 
 Overseers, directed to be appointed by every monthly meeting, 
 proper qualifications, Int. xxxvi. Of Ratcliff Monthly Meet- 
 ing, conferences with them, 1-14, 21, 30-39, 59,64, 70, 81, 
 106. Consider Christ as being himself the Father, 6. Reject 
 the notion of his being the second person in the Trinity, 6. 
 Approve the fundamental principles of the London Unitarian 
 Book Society, % 12. Consider the Society of Friends, as 
 holding the Unity of God, in a stricter sense than the Unita- 
 rians, 10. Prompted to become accusers, by many Friends 
 .whom they refused naming, 11, 16, 81, 134, 341. Minute of 
 the Yearly Meeting respecting such refusals, 35, 134. Their 
 accusations recorded in general terms, nothing specific, 36. 
 Objections to such records, ib. 58 
 
 Owen, Rev. J. 239 
 
 P. 
 
 Palmer, Charles 31,33,75,189 
 
 JJa.vToy.pa.rujp, scriptural application of the term 280 — 282 
 
 Paul's persecution of the Christians, 266. Reception at Lystra, 
 
 301. Preaching at Thessalonica 336 
 
 Payne, Richard, his speech at the Quarterly Meeting 362 
 
 Penington on uniformity, 103, 199. His works, 249, 252, 341. 
 
 On the term Trinity 287 
 
 Penn's Sandy Foundation Shaken, 7, 8, 12, 63, 68, 69. Inno- 
 cency with her open Face, 13. Apology for the Quakers, 
 204. Address to Protestants, 208—211, 230—233. Works, 
 246, 294. Reply to the bishop of Cork, 296. On the Trinity, 
 ib. 316, 323. On the faith necessary for a Christian, ib. 332, 
 
 333.347 
 Persecution of Castellio, 207. Of the primitive Christians, 666. 
 
 The spirit of, incompatible with Christianity Pref. xxiv. 
 
 Person of Christ, 2, 5, 11, 23, 64, 67, 71, 91, 97, 110, 158, 
 161, 165-170, 191, 221, 244, 249, 251, 271. 275, 280— 
 
 286,288, 293,300—310, 317, 336 
 Persons, distinction of, in the Deity, never held by any ap- 
 proved writer in the Society called Quakers, in any sense 
 whatever 97 
 
 Philanthropist, extracts from it 241—248 
 
 Pim, John, his speech at the Quarterly Meeting 364 
 
 Portraiture of Primitive Quakerism, &c. 136 
 
INDEX, 
 
 Portraiture of Quakerism 277 ? 3G(* 
 
 Powers, inquisitorial, not authorised 131, 175 
 
 Prayer, the true object of it 41, 43, 65, 94, 99, ill, 132, 269 
 
 Pre-existence of Christ, Penington's idea of 250 
 
 Preface to the Rules, &c. of the Unitarian Book Society, 46, 
 
 109. 320, 322, 337 
 Presbyterians, their church government 366 
 
 Priestley, Dr. on divine influence on the mind 201 — 203 
 
 Principles of the Unitarian Book Society, 46, 158. 322. Of the 
 Society of Friends, 158, 322. Not generally known, 352, 
 
 357, 359 
 Principles of religion, Tuke's 26l 
 
 Proceedings of Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, 30— 39, 48—52, 53 — 
 79—108, 326. In the Quarterly xMeeting, 127, 128, 140— 
 
 145, 253—344, 344—371 
 Profession of faith, Pcnn's, 246. Required of a Christian, 296,332 
 Professors of Christianity, Penington's address to 251 
 
 Prophecy in Isaiah, whether concerning Christ 221, 222 
 
 Propositions of Barclay's Apology, 72, 162, 163,274 — 277 
 
 Protestants, Penn's address to 208,209,230 — 233 
 
 Pumphrey, Stanley, 25, 28. His notion that the Father is spoken 
 
 of (in the Scriptures) as a second person 26 
 
 Purver's translation of the Scriptures 207 
 
 Q. 
 
 Quakerism confirmed, by Barclay 278 
 
 Quarterly Meeting of London and Middlesex, 127, 128, 140 — 
 
 145, 253—371 
 
 Queries, to the committee of the Monthly Meeting, 6l, 65, 70, 
 93, 94. Answers to some of them, 92, 93, 154, 155. Con- 
 cerning Christ, 249, 252. Of Yearly and Quarterly Meet- 
 ings, liable to nourish a pharisaic spirit Pref. xx. xxi. 
 
 Quotations from Verax and Vindex 192 — 205 
 
 R. 
 
 Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, 30, 39,48,78, 79—106. Copy of the 
 
 minutes, 108— 114. Correspondence 115,117,122,121 
 
 Rathbone, William 206, 321 
 
 Reason and religion union of, 211, 231.' — and revelation 369 
 
 Refutation of the doctrine of the Trinity 68, 69 
 
 Religion, importance of diffusing it, 19. Penn's remarks on, 
 210, 231. Should agree with reason, 232. Cannot suffer 
 by inquiry, 242, 243. Of a personal nature 321 
 
 Remarks on the Yearly Meeting Epistle, for 1810, 1, 16,28, 
 
 39—45, 65, 109, 113, 258, 267, 31i 
 Replies to the queries to the Monthly Meeting's committee, 92, 
 
 93, 154, 155 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Reply to the Remarks on the Yearly Meeting Epistle 25—27, 
 88. To the respondents at the Quarterly Meeting's com- 
 mittee 192— 208, 215, 216—230 
 Report of the Monthly Meeting's committee, 82, 108, 111. 327, 
 348. Of the Quarterly Meeting's committee, 142, 145, 253, 
 
 318, 368 
 Repository, Monthly, Pref. xxiii. 5, 39> 109 
 
 Respondents, their two first charges against the Appellant, 31» 
 32, 37, 39, 46, 189. Allege fresh accusations against him, 
 184, 187, 192—203. Decline to explain their accusations 
 to the Appellant, 61, 65, 81, 82, 212, 220. Or their own 
 sense of the doctrines in dispute, 73, 94, 95, 134, 177. 
 178,271 — 273. Their account of the general belief of the 
 Society, 221. Observations on, 222, 223. Claimed the right 
 of interrogatory, 62, 84, 131, 147, 175, 326. Objections to 
 this claim, 63, 84, 265—267. Their statement of the grounds 
 of their accusations, 76, 87. 89, 91—93, 98, 131—133, 318, 
 319. Their questioning the Appellant, 63, 64, 67, 85. Re- 
 fusal of the Appellant to be catechised by them, 149, 175, 
 176, 218, 265, 266. At the Quarterly Meeting, 127, 147* 
 184,335. Reply to them, 216,339—344 
 
 Revelation, Scripture, 158. Penn's explanation of, 204. Be- 
 lievers in special and general, compared 203, 204, 353 — 355 
 Revelations, book of, remarks on 280—282, 288. 354 
 Rights of private judgment asserted 18 
 Roper, John 138 
 Rules of the Yearly Meeting respecting the requisite conditions 
 of continued membership. Intr. xxxiii. xxxiv. Respecting 
 removals, and the requisites of membership Int. xxxiii. &c. 
 Rutter, Joseph, his speech at the Quarterly Meeting 344, 345 
 
 S. 
 Sabellians in the Society 357 
 
 Salvation, Penn's remarks on the primary Author of, 247. 
 
 Christ, under God, the perfect Author of 307 
 
 Sandy Foundation Shaken 7, 12, 14, 63, 68, 69,259,295,316. 
 First published in 1668, continued to be approved by the So- 
 ciety up to the year 1771 323, 324 
 Satisfaction, Penn's refutation of the doctrine 69 
 Saunders, George, of Whitby 54 » 55 
 Saviour, Christ the all-sufficient 44 » 99 
 Scott, Job, his remarks on appeals to the Society 343, 3o8 
 Scripture terms, the propriety of keeping to, in preaching, writ- 
 ing, and conversing about the things of God, Int. xxxviii. 
 Account of the attributes of God, &c. 280—282, 310. 
 Illustrations, 2,5, 11,40, 64, 67,68,97, 110, 161, 164 — 170, 177, 
 191, 196, 215, 221, 234, 244, 249, 280—286, 288, 292, 300—310, 
 
 
INDEX. 
 
 s 
 
 336, 353, 354. Phrases.- should be used in theological discus- 
 sion 159, 220, 3 It* 
 
 Scriptures, uses of reading in public, Pref. xviii. xix. Chris- 
 tian duty of searching j 7 
 Selection of Penn's Works 323 
 Sense, the moral, common to all good and pious men, distin- 
 guished from the special effusion of the Holy Spirit in the age 
 of the apostles 201—205,355 
 Sewel's History 154, 155 
 Sin, original, a fearful doctrine, man still the creature of God, 
 
 261, 262 
 Sittings of the Quarterly Meeting's committee, 130, 147, 152, 
 172, 188, 190, 215, Of the Quarterly Meeting, 127, 140, 
 
 253, 300, 344 
 Smith's Examination concerning the Person of Christ 5 
 
 Smith, Frederick 176 
 
 Socinians, the primitive 201 
 
 Socratic reasoning of Jesus truly excellent 304 
 
 Speeches in the Quarterly Meeting 127, 128, 141—145, 344—371 
 
 Spirits, supposed gift of discerning 205 
 
 Stacey, George, 126. Brief Remarks on the State of Man, &c. 
 
 261. His speech at the Quarterly Meeting 352 
 
 Statutes, persecuting 359 
 
 Stephens, Robert, his division of the New Testament mto verses, 236 
 St. John's Gospel, commentary on it 164, 169* 
 
 Sturge, Thomas, his speech at the Quarterly Meeting 346 
 
 Sufferings, Meeting for 125 
 
 Summary of the History, Doctrine, and Discipline of Friends, 
 
 157, 322 
 Sykes's Innocency of Involuntary Error 20 
 
 Test of Christianity, the ancient 80, 347 
 
 Testament, New, Improved Version, 174, 187. 190, 191, 227, 
 
 233—236, 337/ 355 
 Testimony of denial, 112—114, 115, 225, 329, 339, 346, 358. 
 
 Fox's, against giving unscriptural names to Christ 283 
 
 Texts of Scripture, criticised or illustrated, 2, 5, 11, 40,64, 
 
 67, 68, 97, 110, 161, 164—170, 177, 191, 196, 215, 221, 234, 
 
 «44, 249, 280—286, 288, 292, 300—310, 836, 353, 354. Corrupt; 
 
 quoted or referred to as genuine by the respondents, Isaiah ix. 
 
 6. 5, 22, Acts xx. 28. 168, 1 Tim. iii. 16. 168, 1 John v. 
 
 7- 157, 244, 287, v. 20. 157, 245, Rom. ix. 5. 157, 244, 
 
 Heb. i. 2. 310, Phil, ii. 6. 244 
 
 Tolerance of early Friends 104, 230, 330 
 
 Trinity, Penn's refutation of the doctrine, 68, 69. His use of 
 
 the term, 248. Clarkson on the word 277. An unscriptural 
 
INDEX. 
 
 term,. ib. Penington on- the, 287. Doctrine renounced by 
 
 the early Friends, 295. Penn's matured sentiments on 296, 310 
 
 Truth, importance of scriptural 237 
 
 Tuke's Principles of Religion 26l 
 
 Turk, supposition of the conversion of one to Protestantism 208 
 
 Tyranny, spiritual 114 
 
 U. 
 
 Understanding, the' free use of, necessary to a Christian 231 
 
 Uniformity of faith, non-essential, 21, 217, 218, 231. Not 
 
 easily attained, 256'. Penington on 103 
 
 Unitarian Book Society, 2, 9, 19. Preface to the Rules, 46, 
 76, 89, 109, 119, 132, 148, 206, 226, 258, 318, 323, 337- 
 Increased attention to its publications among the Friends, 
 Pref. xxii. Penn's Sandy Foundation Shaken re-published 
 by, in 1812. Its fundamental principles and the general be- 
 lief of Friends compared 322, 323 
 
 ■ Tracts 164, l69, 319 
 
 Unitarianism of Friends, pure and simple 86, 97, 192, 317, 357 
 
 Unity of God, doctrine of Friends 10, 68, 86, 317 
 
 V. 
 
 Vatican copy of the Septuagint, its reading of Isaiah ix. 6 221 
 
 Verax's Vindication of scriptural Unitarianism, 85, 110, 113, 
 
 192—199, 219,339,341, 356, S5S 
 Verax's Christian Unitarianism vindicated, 85, 110, 113, 192, 
 
 199—205, 219, 339, 341, 356, 358 
 Version, Improved, of the New Testament, 174, 187, 190, 191, 227 
 
 233, 336 
 Vindex's Examination, &c. 86, 195 
 
 Visits' of the overseer's of Ratcliff Monthly Meeting 4, 7 
 
 W. 
 
 Wall's Critical Notes on the Old Testament 221 
 
 Words, on the use and abuse of them 181, 182 
 
 Worship the true object of 41, 43, 65, 94, 99, 111, 132, 269 
 
 You, remarks on the pronoun 58 
 
 3 D 
 
INDEX 
 
 or 
 
 TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE, 
 
 CITED IN THIS WORK. 
 
 Genesis 
 
 thap. verse page 
 
 >• 27 . . . 308 
 
 Leviticus 
 xxii. 18, 29 . . . 231 
 
 Numbers 
 xxvii. 27, 16 . . .291 
 
 Psalms 
 xlv. 2 . . .161 
 
 liii. 1 . . .92 
 
 bcxxix. 19,21,25,26 .6,40,41 
 Proverbs 
 ▼iii. 15,20, 23 . .150 
 Ecclesiastes 
 ▼• 1 • • . .232 
 
 Isaiah 
 ix. 6 , . . . 2, 5, 26, 221 
 xix. 20 . . .45 
 
 Hosea 
 xiii. 4 . . .45 
 Matthew 
 i. 20—23 . .170 
 
 vi. 25, &C . . 234 
 
 Vi. 33 . . . . 6, 42, 65, 313 
 ix. 2, 8 . . 301 
 
 xi. 6, . . . 155 
 
 — 20 . . . S34 
 
 — 29 . . .43 
 
 xvi. 24, 27 • • 209, 155, 303 
 
 xvi. 44 . . .74 
 
 XX. 25—27 • • • 229, 364 
 xxiv. 36 . . .310 
 xxvi. 44 . . .74 
 
 xxviii. 18 . . .6, 155, 302 
 
 Mark 
 xii. 29 . . . 318 
 liv- 62 . . .74 
 Luke 
 ii. 53 198 
 
 IX. 50, iJ . . ]t>, 18 
 
 chap, verse page 
 
 xii. 31 . . .6, 42,65,315 
 
 56 . . .17 
 
 xxii. 29 . . .99 
 
 69 . . .74 
 
 xxiii. 32 . . 234 
 
 John 
 i- I, 2, 3 3, 26, 27, 155 5 
 
 163, 164 
 
 — 5 15» 
 
 — JO, 11, 14 . . 155, 164, 109, 
 
 191, 304 
 
 — 30 ... . .155 
 
 iii. 31, 34 . . . 155, 302 
 
 34, 35 ... 152, 170, 302 
 
 iv. 23, 24 ... 10O, 111 
 
 v. 18, 19, 36 • .44,96,98,110 
 
 — 22, 23 . . . 155 
 
 — 24, 31 . . . . 208, 209 
 
 26, 27 . . . . 303, 155 
 
 — 30 11,96,110,196 
 
 viii 17, 46 . . . . 204, l6l 
 
 viii. 46, 54 . . . . 209, 305 
 X. 23 — 30 . . . 303, 304 
 
 — 29 3, 99. 196 
 
 — 30 2, 26,38, 155, 
 
 196 
 
 — 31—38 . . . 304, 305 
 
 — 37, 38 . . . 26, 305 
 xiii. 3, .... 44 
 
 xiv. 9, . 155, 251, 305 
 
 10, 13, 14 . . 11, 110, 197» 
 
 155 
 XV. 24 209 
 
 xvi. 2, 3, 23 . 267, 43, 111 
 
 xvii. 2, 3 . . .65, 197, 283 
 
 5, . . . 3, 5, 38 
 
 11, 21, 22 . .3, 155, 288 
 
 XX. 17 43, 100, 31* 
 
 Acts 
 ii. 22,41, &C. . 199,332 
 v. 31,38,39 . . 273, 121 
 vii. 59 . . 155 
 
 X. 47, 48 . . 33a 
 
INDEX OF TEXTS. 
 
 thap. verse 
 xiv. 8 — 15 
 
 xvii. 3, &c. 
 
 29 . 
 
 XX. 28 . 
 
 xxii. 3 
 
 xxvi. 9, 10 
 
 page 
 . 301 
 
 44 
 
 . 235, 155 
 .266 
 
 .ib. 
 Romans 
 
 . 42, 64 
 . 215,354 
 . 42 
 .68 
 . 208 
 . 165 
 
 1. 1, 2, 4 
 
 — 8,20 
 ii. 16, 
 
 iii. 30 
 
 iv. 22—24 
 
 vi. 4, . 
 viii. 6 
 
 ix. 5, 88 
 
 x. 12-— 14 
 Xiv. 5, 92, 23 
 xvi. 25 . 
 xxii. 9, 13 
 
 x Corinthians 
 i. 2 . . -155 
 
 — 24, 30 
 viii. 5, 6 
 
 xi. 3 
 xiii. 24, &c. 
 xiv. 15 
 
 XV. 24—28 
 
 — 27 
 
 page 
 
 . 73, 121 
 
 . 168 
 
 155,167,444 
 
 167 
 
 74, 103 
 
 42 
 354 
 
 Xvi. 22 
 
 Ti. 18 
 xi. 19 
 xiii. 4 
 
 3, 15, 16 
 17—20, 22 
 
 - 21 
 iv. 3, 5, 6 
 
 . 150, 155, 284 
 . 45, 284 
 • 169 
 .42, 248 
 . 232 
 . 283 
 .306 
 . 234 
 2 Corinthians 
 . 280 
 . 194 
 . • 293 
 
 Ephesians 
 
 . 197, 306 
 
 .74, 284, 306 
 
 135 
 . 155,305 
 .217, 68, 105 
 
 284 
 . 235 
 
 — 32 
 
 Philippians 
 ii. 8, 11, 13, &C. . 286 
 |ii. 16, 20, 11 . 239, £39 
 
 xi. 6 . .44$ 
 
 ColoBsiaus. 
 i. 3 . .308 
 
 « 15, 18,19 "> 15S > 3°7 
 
 308, 170 
 ii. 1-.-3 . 155, 309, 170 
 
 — 8,9 . »7,415 
 
 chap, verse 
 iii. 1, 14 
 xi. 9 
 
 2 Thessaloniaus 
 i. 1, 3 103, 104 
 
 ii, 9 • " • • 7 
 1 Timothy ' 
 
 i. 7 • • • ' 20 
 .. 13 * • • 266 
 
 .. 17 • . . 68, »85 
 
 ii. 3 . • • 155 
 
 - 5 . . .68,151,169,290 
 
 iii. 16 .336 
 
 vi. 15, 16 . .2,5,177 
 
 2 Timothy 
 ii. 10 Pref. . 19 
 iii. 10 . 155 
 
 Hebrews 
 i. 1—3 • . 155, 166, 292, 
 
 310 
 _ 6 . • 155 
 
 ii. 1 1 . • 249 
 
 iii. 2—4 . • 99 
 
 v. 8, 9 . . 30/ 
 
 — 1% .19 
 
 x. 5, 7 • • * 51 
 
 xi. 6 . • ag6 
 
 James 
 i. 17 • • 40, 65 
 
 Pref. . 19 
 
 I Peter 
 i. 1—3, 4 • • 167, 197, 286 
 
 -- »5, . • »39 
 
 iv. II • • 155 
 
 a Peter 
 i. 6, 7 • • "I 
 
 iii. 18 . • 155 
 
 1 John 
 i. 8 . • '325 
 
 iv. i» • • 305 
 
 V. 7, 30 • • 444, *96, 245 
 
 Revelation 
 i. 8 . • -*80 
 
 iii. i» . -* 1 * 8 
 
 iv. 8, &C. . • 480, »88 
 
 V. I55 
 
 vii. 10 , • ib ' 
 
 xi. 17 • a8 ° 
 
 XV. 3 . • lb « 
 
 xvi. 7, 14 . • 10. 
 
 xix. 4, 7, &C • 488 
 
 XXi. »8 • • • I50 
 
Lately published in octavo, price 2.?. 
 
 DEVOTIONAL AND DOCTRINAL EXTRACTS, FROM EPIS- 
 TLES OF THE YEARLY MEETINGS IN LONDON, of the 
 People called QUAKERS, from the Year 1678 to 1810. 
 London : Printed for Cradock and Joy, Paternoster Row. 
 Of whom may also be had, 
 
 A VINDICATION OF SCRIPTURAL UNITARIAN1SM, and 
 some other Primitive Christian Doctrines, in reply to Vin- 
 dex's Examination of an Appeal to the Society of 
 Friends. By Thomas Foster, under the signature of Verax. Svo. 
 pp. 124. Price 3s. 
 
 And by the same Author, 
 A NARRATIVE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN AMERICA, of 
 the Society called QUAKERS, in the Case of HANNAH 
 BARNARD, to which is prefixed, A Brief Review of the. 
 previous Transactions in Great Britain and Ireland. 
 Price 4s. 
 
 CHRISTIAN UNITARIANISM VINDICATED, being a Reply 
 to a Work by John Bevans, Jun. entitled A Defence of the 
 Christian Doctrines of the Society of Friends. 8vo. 
 pp. 324. Price f$. in Boards. 
 
 Also, 
 
 R EMARKS ON THE YEARLY MEETING EPISTLE, of the 
 People called QUAKERS, for the Year 1810. From the 
 Monthly Repository. By An Unitarian Christian, Brevilo- 
 quus, Pacificus and Candidus. 8vo. Price 6d. 
 
 THE SANDY FOUNDATION SHAKEN; or those so generally 
 ieceived Doctrines of one God, subsisting in three distinct and se- 
 parate Persons, the Impossibility of God's pardoning Sinners, with- 
 out a plenary Satisfaction, the Justification of impure Persons by 
 an imputative Righteousness, Refuted, from the Authority of Scrip, 
 ture Testimonies and right Reason. By William Penn, a Builder 
 on that Foundation which cannot be moved. 8vo. price Is. 
 
 The same Work, published by the London Unitarian Book Society 
 l2mo. price 4d. 
 

 \