"The scriptures are obscure and incomprehensible,” “no two sects agree as to their doctrines," "we need a new revelation to tell us what the old one means," are favourite expressions. Objections of this kind, however, arise from a shameful ignorance of the scriptures, and of the doctrines of different sects. Let infidels say what they will, nine-tenths of the churches in christendom, hold doctrines essentially the same. By consulting the Confessions of Faith of the Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and other leading denominations, you will find, in the doctrines of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the plenary Inspiration of the scriptures, the vicarious Atonement, man's Inability to save himself, Justification only through the merits of Christ, the observance of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the necessity of repentance, faith and holiness; in short, in every important doctrine peculiar to christianity, they all essentially agree. No sect which rejects any one of these doctrines is generally acknowledged as a christian church. No sect which rejects one of them (unless we except the "necessity of repentance," which is not peculiar to christianity) but rejects the whole. And no sect rejects one of these, but avowedly rejects the scriptures as a standard. The Socinians follow, what they call, Reason; Swedenborgians, the dreams of their leader; the Jews and Papists, spurious traditions; the Shakers, Ann Lec; and the Friends, who are unsound on all the above points, (except the last, and here they fail in part) professedly make the scriptures "subordinate" to something else. And I cannot but believe, the reason why those who reject the above doctrines also reject the scripture as a standard, is, that these doctrines are written in that holy book as with a sunbeam, so that "he who runs may read." But all who profess to make the scriptures their sole standard, harmonize on all these points. The objection of John,' therefore, has no foundation: on minor points, it is to be lamented, christians too widely and too warmly differ. But predestination, election, perseverance, modes of Baptism, forms of government, forms of worship, however important, are not, in my opinion, essential doctrines. Only agree with us in those doctrines and ordinan- ̧ ces in which all christians agree, and you shall never be troubled by me about minor differences, but be regarded and loved as christian brethren. 66 Thirdly. Another infidel doctrine is this, that, "Conscience is the creature of habit, formed by education." This is almost Atheism! Only add all difference between right and wrong is factitious, the effect of education," and you are on a par with Hobbes and Hume. Sober deists acknowledge conscience to be universal and independent of circumstances. I have much to say upon more. this subject, but at present, for want of room, can add no Fourthly. Another proof of your friend's infidelity is, the mode in which he sets aside Baptism and the Lord's Supper. I have no doubt many of your society conscientiously neglect these ordinances from a sincere belief that they are not commanded. But this writer does not deny they are commanded, but rejects them simply because christians differ about the mode and circumstances. An humble christian would have first examined whether they were enjoined of God; next, whether any particular mode was fixed; and lastly, whether this mode was made essential." If any particular mode be essential, (as some christians think,) I will answer for it, you will find it plainly taught in Scripture. If you find different modes were practised, and no particular one enjoined, you are allowed the liberty of choice. But that water should be applied in some way to the body, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, almost all christendom holds to be an express command. But, no; "Christians differ about the mode, and therefore I will reject the thing itself; I will make God pay for the folly of his creatures!" This is making short work! At this rate you would reject every thing. Christians differ as much about prayer, as about baptism; whether it should be with a form, or extempore; whether in a kneeling, standing or sitting posture; whether vocal or mental, &c. and yet does this writer never pray! Why not wait until an unessential form is settled? People differ about religion itself. There are at least 3000 different sects in the world, worshipping the Deity under different modes and circumstances; will this writer never serve God "until all the professors are agreed?" PAUL. Obventh-day, 7th Mo. 7, 1821, LETTER II. TO "PAUL," AND HIS FELLOW PROFESSORS. Knowledge and Wisdom, far from being one, COWPER. In my last, I did not present myself as the "defender" of the Society of Friends, and their doctrine. They do not need any defence from me. The foundation of our faith stands sure, and can never be shaken. It is that rock, upon which our Saviour said he would build his church, against which, "the gates of hell can never prevail." And that rock is the revelation of the knowledge of the Father through the Son, in the souls of the children of men, (Matt. xvi. 18:) However deficient many of us may be in practice, our principles are in no danger from "PAUL." We have a witness in the hearts of thousands of pious christians, who do not belong to our Society, that the leading doctrines of our christian profession are true. And the efforts of "PAUL" cannot arrest the progress of this light in the earth. His declamation, and denunciations, contain nothing which bear the smallest resemblance to argument. In my last, with one or two exceptions, I affirmed nothing but what he admits; and the questions put to him are not answered in any other way, than by the cry of Deism," "Infidelity," "Atheism," &c. This is the Alpha and Omega of his essay; the sum and substance of all he has said, or pretended to say in his professed reply to my questions. This method of handling an argument, is perfectly in accordance with the spirit and manner of his. former essays. 66 Thus the Scribes and Pharisees of old called our Saviour a blasphemer, and a deceiver; and when they found that his precepts and example, struck at the root of their pride and selfrighteousness, and tended to lessen their unhallowed influence over the people, they set to work to prevent "the world from going after him." "He hath a devil and is mad, why hear ye him"-again," he is a Samaritan and hath a devil." Indeed I have been forcibly struck from the beginning, with the resemblance which this writer bears, in some particulars, to the Apostle Paul, before his conversion. Brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, a doctor of the Jewish law ;-his manner of life was in conformity to the strictest forms of the Jewish religion: "he verily thought he ought to do many things contrary to the name (which implies power) of Jesus of Nazareth."-And he doubtless believed, that when attempting to extirpate the heresy of Christianity, he was advancing the glory of God, and the good of mankind." But the delusion vanished when he was. met by the way, and the Sun of Righteousness shone around him he then saw that in a state of darkness and unbelief, he had possessed a zeal for God which was "not according to knowledge." : One of the exceptions alluded to above, is where, in my last, I call conscience the "creature of habit, the effect of education; which "PAUL," in his usual manner pronounces to be “almost Atheism." Then if it be almost Atheism, to call conscience the creature of habit, it must be almost a deity. How does this accord with what he has said of conscience in his 3d Letter? Page 9th Semi-deity as he now makes it, he there calls it "deceitful, defiled, deceptive," &c. Such incongruities men fall into when groping in the dark. I need not add much on this subject now, as every reflecting man must be sensible on a little examination, that what I have said of conscience is true. If an infidel has said the same thing before, that does not alter the truth of the proposition. By admitting what we cannot deny, and what common observation will convince us is true, we disarm the Infidel of one of his most powerful weapons. "PAUL” has more to say on this subject; probably as much to the purpose as what he has said. 66 I will now take my leave of "PAUL" for the present, with observing, that we do not wish to turn him aside from his determination to examine our leading doctrines by the light of truth, and expose to us, and to the world the danger of our system." But let him take heed that this examination be "by the light of truth," otherwise, he may "stumble and fall, and his place may not be found." I regret that the Editor* should have misconstrued my meaning, in the questions I asked. He will observe I did not express any decided opinion of the scriptures, in my last. But as I believe there are many pious christians among you, whose views of the scriptures seem to differ from mine, and whose integrity and uprightness of heart, command my esteem and love; on account of such as these, and to show that we consider the Bible the best of books, I will as briefly as possible give some of our views of those writings. We value the scriptures, as containing the testimony of inspired men, which testimony is true, and is profitable for "reproof, for doctrine, for instruction:" The account there given of the creation of the world, and the fall of man; the prophecies, types and shadows, of the old dispensation, all foretelling, prefiguring and centering in Christ the Redeemer ;-his birth, life, example and precepts, death, resurrection, ascension and mediation; all these are recorded there in a style of simplicity, and grandeur, so happily blended and combined, that it has never been equaled. And these records are of more value to mankind than all the books that ever were written. But we dare not place the written testimony of inspired men in the Judgment seat which Christ alone should fill. For we believe, that we have need of the same light, the same spirit of truth, which was to guide into all truth, and to abide with the disciples, or true believers, for ever, to shine upon our understandings, to qualify us rightly to understand the scriptures and to see the beauty, and harmony, and spirituality of their testimonies and we also believe that this same spirit which was * Alluding to some editorial remarks in the C. Repository, to be poured out upon all flesh under the gospel, is still continued, and that by it sons and daughters now prophecy. You call the Bible "the word of God." We use that term as it is used in Scripture, to apply to Christ, an eternal, uncreated spiritual essence. And because we do not call it the woRD, many honest men think it is lightly esteemed by us. Take the first verses of John's Gospel, and substitute Bible for WORD, and how will it read? The following texts will show that the word of God is used in the same sense by the other Apostles. "Take the sword of the spirit which is the word of God." (Eph. vi. 17.) "By the word of God, the heavens were of old," (2 Peter iii. 5.) "The worlds were made by the word of God.” (Heb. xi. 3.) "John bare record of the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus," (Rev. i. 2.) which testimony, he says, "is the Spirit of Prophecy." (Rev. xix. 10.) and in this last chapter he tells us that he who is called the WORD OF GOD, is "LORD OF LORDS, AND King of kings." Brevity forbids that I should multiply quotations-what I have adduced are sufficient for my purpose. That the Bible is not here meant is evident. Procter quod unumquodque est tale, illud ipsum est magis tale, or that which causes, is greater than the thing caused. That the text quoted by the editor from Peter, does not refer to any written testimony of Christ known to the Jews, I think is evident from the context. Peter had been speaking of the vision they had seen on the Mount where our Saviour was transfigured before them, and they had heard a voice from Heaven, saying this is my beloved Son," &c. what stronger outward testimony of the divinity of Christ, could possibly have been given to Peter than this? It was in no respect inferior in point of evidence to the promulgation of the law from Mount Sinai.Yet in contradistinction from this, he says, " but we have a more sure word of prophecy," &c. meaning the internal evidencethat kind of evidence, by which he was enabled to say on another occasion, "thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," and which flesh and blood had not revealed to him." For none other than this kind of evidence could be "more sure" than that with which it is compared. Again, the concluding part of John's Revelation cannot be intended to mean any thing more than a command, not to add to, or take from the Book of Revelations, which he was then about to finish; for he expressly says "the prophecy of this book," else this same John would have subjected himself to the denunciation there mentioned; for it is admitted that he wrote his Gospel and Epistles after he wrote the book of Revelations. I will now quote a paragraph from the book of discipline of |