ness that the "Beacon" should be tried; I take my stand. If by this test I am proved guilty, I am ready to confess it, and make the fullest reparation, but, if I by this test am not proved guilty, the Committee are bound in justice, to give me a verdict of full acquittal. Although they stand in the place of accusers, judge and jury, I trust they will act as enlightened and responsible Christians.

Before I enter upon the examination of the various objections against the " Beacon," which the Committee arrange under six heads, I would make one or two general remarks.

The Committee detach from their context, those passages in the "Beacon" which they consider as exceptionable, and what is of more consequence, from the pernicious sentiments on which they are a comment. This course the Committee pursue through the whole examination, with only one exception, in some instances not a little to my disadvantage, as the extracts frequently bear a different aspect, in the naked form in which they are put forth and commented on by the Committee, from what they do as they stand in the "Beacon." This has grieved me; nevertheless, I consider it a small matter, compared with the apparent sanction given to the sentiments of Hicks, by the almost entire silence in which these are passed over by the Committee, whilst engaged in examining and freely censuring the remarks of an Author, whose avowed object was to hold up a warning against them.

The Committee appear to have sometimes forgotten,

that it was a scriptural examination in which they were engaged; they generally pass over the scriptural evidence which support the remarks in the “Beacon,” and frequently do not, themselves, adduce scripture. They occasionally bring forward objections, not in the shape of direct and tangible charges, but rather as inferences ; they remark, such seems to be the bearing-tendency— apparent design, &c. &c. And these inferences, (which are frequently not just) and also the charges, are sometimes supported only by the apprehension-the fearthe strong objection, &c. of the Committee. I mention this particularly, because, although these instances are wholly without the acknowledged line of examination, still they carry something of an air of serious charge, to which they are not entitled.

HEAD I.

Obj. 1-The Committee say, "it is an error, against which, Friends from their first rise to the present day, have ever placed a strong guard, so to treat on the subject of the Holy Scriptures, as, in any degree, to place them in a position, which belongs only to the Saviour of whom they testify. There appears to us to be a tendency to this error, in the following passage of the "Beacon," see Second Edition, p. 128.”

For an answer to this remark, I refer to my " Reply;" only I would add, that the frequent reference in the "Statement;" to that which Friends have, or have not held, is foreign to our object, which is acknowledged to be, a scriptural examination of the Bea con; "the Holy Scriptures being the only divinely

authorised record of the doctrines of true religion, and of the moral principles which are to regulate our actions, and that no doctrine which is not contained in them, can be reqnired of any one to be believed as an article of faith."

Obj. 2.-The Committee object to my application of 1 John, v. 10.; "He that believeth not God, hath made him a liar, because he believeth not the record that God gave of His Son." They say they apprehend, that the "whole written revelation" (leaving out the words "concerning Jesus Christ our Lord, as the one appointed way to eternal life,”) is not here referred to by the apostle: but they state no reason for this apprehension. Ought they not to have said precisely, to what they believed the apostle did refer? What do we know of Jesus Christ as the only way to eternal life, except by the Holy Scriptures, "THE appointed means of making known to us the blessed truths of Christianity ?" When it is remembered, that Jesus Christ is the grand theme of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation; that "to HIM give all the Prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of Sins." I cannot but consider the passage, 1 John v. 10, as applying with great force to "the whole written revelation of the Spirit concerning Jesus Christ our Lord, as the one way to eternal life." Seeing "the Holy Scriptures are THE appointed instrument for making known to mankind the divine plan of grace and salvation through Jesus Christ, and Him crucified,”how fearful should we be of limiting the application of

a passage, which, with peculiar force, declares the absolute necessity of our believing the testimony of the Scriptures," the record which God hath given of His Son."

66

Obj. 3.-The Committee also object to the sentiment, that believing on the Son of God, and believing the record which God hath given of his Son, are equivalent. And to support their objection, adduce 1 John v. 12, "He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life," and John v. 39, 40, ❝ Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." These passages, I conceive, have no bearing on the question; they would have been applicable, if it had been, whether in order to eternal life, it is necessary to have the Son, and to come to Christ; but on these points the Committtee and the Author of the "Beacon" are agreed. The question simply is, whether the expressions, “believing on the Son of God," and "believing the RECORD which God hath given of His Son" are equivalent? The Committee say, "There is a sound and important distinction, between that belief in the truth of the record, without which we make God a liar, and that heartfelt faith in Him of whom the record testifiesthat reliance of the soul on Christ in all his gracious offices,-through which we receive the gift of everlasting life." To have stated their objection justly, and to have supported it, the Committee should have shown wherein consists any sound and important distinction

between the heartfelt belief of the record, and the heartfelt belief in Him of whom the record testifies: for it is "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness," Rom. x. 10.

The following passages appear to me decisively to prove, that the two expressions, "believing on the Son," and "believing the record which God hath given of his Son," are equivalent. John iii. 36., "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life." Believing not the Son, (i. e. the testimony of the Son,) is here plainly put as the opposite of believing on the Son. Again, John v. 46, "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me." Believing Moses, is here put by our Lord in the place of believing the record, and is equivalent to it. Do not these passages plainly shew that the Jews did not believe Christ, because they did not believe the record; and that had they believed the record, they would have believed Christ-they would have believed on Christ-they would have come to Him-they would have accepted his salvation. Is not, then, believing with the heart the record the testimony of God and our Saviour, equivalent to believing on the Father and the Son?

Much harm has arisen from misty and undefined notions of faith; and I would ask my friends of the Committee, whether, it is not by belief of the word, or testimony of God, made known either by hearing or reading, and applied to the understanding and the heart by the Holy Spirit, that the soul is brought to