Of the New Testament, he says-" The manuscripts of the New Testament, which are extant, are far more numerous, than those of any single classic author whomsoever: upwards of three hundred and fifty were collected by Griesbach, for his celebrated critical edition. These manuscripts, it is true, are not all entire most of them contain only the Gospels; others, the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles, and a few contain the Apocalypse or Revelation of John. But they were all written in very different and distant parts of the world; several of them are upwards of twelve hundred years old, and give us the books of the New Testament, in all essential points, perfectly accordant with each other; as any person may readily ascertain, by examining the critical editions published by Mill, Kuster, Bengel, Wetstein, and Griesbach. The thirty thousand various readings, which are said to be found in the manuscripts, collated by Dr. Mill, and the hundred and fifty thousand which Griesbach's edition is said to contain, in no degree whatever, affect the general credit and integrity of the text."

"In fact, the more copies are multiplied, and the more numerous the transcripts and translations from the original, the more likely is it, that the genuine text, and the true original reading, will be investigated and ascertained. The most correct and accurate ancient classics, now extant, are those, of which we have the greatest number of manuscripts; and the most depraved, mutilated, and inaccu.. rate editions of the old writers, are those of which we have the fewest manuscripts, and perhaps only a single manuscript, extant. Such are Athenaeus, Clemens Romanus, Hesychius, and Photius.

"But of this formidable mass of various readings, which have been collected by the diligence of collators, not one tenth, nay, not one hundredth part, either makes, or can make, any perceptible, or at least any material alteration in the sense in any modern version. They consist, almost wholly, of palpable errors in transcription, grammatical and verbal differences, such as the insertion or omission of an article, the substitution of a word for its equivalent, and the transposition of a word or two in a sentence."

"Even the few that do change the sense, affect it only in passages relating to unimportant, historical, and geographical circumstances, or other collateral matters; and the still smaller number, that make any alteration in things of consequence, do not on that account, place us in any absolute uncertainty."-page 117, 118.-On the same page,

"The very worst manuscript extant, would not pervert one article of our faith, or destroy one moral precept. All the omissions of the ancient manuscripts put together, could not countenance the omission of one essential doctrine of the gospel, relating either to faith, or morals; and all the additions, countenanced by the whole mass of manuscripts, already collated, do not introduce a single point essential either to faith or manners, beyond what may be found in the Complutensian or Elzevir editions. And though for the beauty, emphasis, and critical perfection of the letter of the New Testament, a new edition formed on Griesbach's plan, is desirable; yet from such an one, infidelity can expect no help; false doctrine no support;

K..

and even true religion, no accession to its excellence-as indeed it needs none.

"The general uniformity, therefore, of the manuscripts of the New Testament, which are dispersed through all the countries in the known world, and in so great a variety of languages, is truly astonishing; and demonstrates both the veneration in which the scriptures, have uniformly been held, and the singular care which was taken in transcribing them; and so far are the various readings, contained in these manuscripts, from being hostile to the uncorrupted preservation of the books of the New Testament, (as some sceptics have boldly affirmed, and some timid christians have apprehended,) that they afford us, on the contrary, an additional and most convincing proof, that they exist at present, in all essential points, precisely the same as they were, when they left the hands of their authors.”—pages 118, 119.

We have only to add to this conclusive testimony, our earnest wish that Elias Hicks, and his followers, would take the pains to read the able and interesting works, which have been written in defence of the sacred volume; and to examine for themselves the very great weight of evidence, amounting to absolute certainty, that such of the inspired writings, as we have received, are preserved to us, in a state of purity and completeness; which, amidst the revolutions of empires, the fall of governments, and all the changes which this transitory world is subject to, can only be attributed to the miraculous interference of that Almighty Providence, at whose hand we have received the blessing; and to whom we shall as certainly have to account for the right use of it. We are fully persuaded that the weak and childish objections, that "they were altered by the Pope," and "written by nobody knows who"-and such like unfounded cavils, can only proceed from downright ignorance, to which unbelief has added its usual concomitants, presumption and arrogance.

The next extract of the compilers, in the order of William Penn's treatise, is at the bottom of page 48 of the pamphlet, viz:["Christ "left nothing in writing for the rule of faith and practice, that we "hear of; and it is not to be thought, that he was less faithful in his "house than Moses; and doubtless, had he intended the rule of his "followers to have been a written rule, he would have left it upon "record with all punctuality; this must be believed, and that done, "on pain of eternal death. Nor did his followers write, in the me"thod of a rule, as the law was written, nor did they so call or re"commend what they writ."]-Vol. i. 597.

That our blessed Lord left behind him any of his own writings, we have no evidence to prove. This, however, forms no argument against the reverent esteem and proper use of those invaluable books, which he was pleased to influence and inspire the holy men of old to write, for our learning and comfort. We have both his example and precept for the use of them, since he often quoted them, and even condescended to do it in order to convince the unbelieving Jews that he was indeed the Christ. And though he was Lord of all, and had in his hand all power in heaven and earth, though the very object of

his mission was to introduce a higher and more glorious dispensation than that of the law of Moses; yet to give irrefragable proof that the revelations of his holy spirit never could contradict each other; he told the Jews, when delivering his memorable sermon on the Mount, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." On another occasion he declared to them, "the scripture cannot be broken"-and again to his disciples, after his resurrection from the dead, "These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures; and said unto them, thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."-Luke xxiv. 44-47.

What higher sanction could we have for the truth of Holy Scripture, than he has thus been pleased to give us, by his own testimony, and although William Penn's remark, that He left nothing in writing as the rule of faith and practice, may have much weight against the opinion which he was opposing, it is far from proving that William Penn had any design to derogate from the inestimable value of Holy Scripture he was not contending against the reverent use and esteem of them, but on the other hand, enforces it upon his readers in this very essay.

There cannot be a stronger argument in favour of the divine authority of the Sacred Writings, than the fact that Jesus Christ and his apostles constantly appealed to them, as furnishing decisive proof of the coming of the Messiah, and of all the important particulars relative to his holy life, death, and resurrection; showing, in the most clear and convincing manner, that the prophecies of the prophets had been literally fulfilled in Him, and that the glorious day of Gospel Light, had dawned upon the world, and thus evincing that those prophecies were written under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

The next, and last extract from this treatise, is inserted on the top of page 49 of the pamphlet. It is taken from the conclusion of a long paragraph, and is similar in its arguments to those we have already noticed. It is a little remarkable how close the compilers have clipped the last sentence, closing at a comma, with &c., doubtless in fear, lest they should quote any thing that would serve to show the incongruence of Elias Hicks' opinions, with the belief of William Penn. The last sentence stands thus in Penn; "Now history, though it inform me of others' actions, yet it does not follow that it is the rule of duty to me; since it may relate to actions not imitable, as in the case of Adam and Eve, in several respects, [here the compilers stop with &c. Penn proceeds,] and Christ's being born of a virgin, dying for the sins of the world, &c. wherefore this cannot be the rule of duty." This last they omit entirely, and it is not difficult to see why, when we observe that it contains a declaration of belief in the miraculous conception and atonement of our bless

ed Lord; two points which Elias Hicks notoriously denies. Had the omitted part inculcated contrary sentiments, the compilers, doubtless, would have been careful to present it to us, duly italicised.

It would have been more consistent with justice to the Christian character of William Penn, and the early Quakers, had the compilers, while they professed to furnish the faith of the Society, in relation to the Holy Scriptures, resorted to such of their writings as are declaratory of their belief on the subject, disconnected from extraneous argumentation. They certainly have acted unfairly towards William Penn, in not inserting such parts of the present treatise, as defend him from the imputation of doubting the authenticity, or divine authority of the sacred text. Aware of the misconstructions to which controversial essays were liable, where the scope of the argument was directed to expose the errors and inconsistencies of an opponent, rather than simply to declare the writer's views, and to prevent his language from being wrested to prove what he never intended; William Penn states the following objection to his own essay. "But do you not turn the scriptures off for an uncertain and unserviceable writing; and as good as reject and deny them altogether ?" To which he replies

"Some, indeed, to render us odious to all protestants, have said as much, in our names, as the consequence of our principles, but not without great injustice to us. The scriptures are uncertain upon their foundation, but not upon ours. Doth our manifesting their faith concerning the scriptures, to be grounded upon their own imaginations, or human traditions, make void the scriptures, or render them uncertain? By no means, for we would have them received, upon the spirit's testimony and evidence, which gave them forth. And though we cannot allow them to be the rule of faith and life, under the dispensation of the gospel, which is power and life itself; yet are they to be reverently read, believed, and fulfilled under the gospel. For notwithstanding the law written upon stone was not Paul's rule, after the Son of God was revealed in him; yet the Son of God taught Paul to fulfil the righteousness declared by that law. If it be to deny and reject, (as some have enviously said of us,) yea, to vilify the scripture, because we cannot allow it to be the rule, &c. Paul then may be said to deny, reject, and vilify the written law, at what time the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus became his rule.

"There is a great difference between asserting that the spirit is the rule, and casting away and vilifying of scripture. And indeed, it is but an old fetch of the devil's, to pretend honour to the letter, that he might, the more unsuspectedly, oppose the bringing in of the dispensation of the spirit; which the letter itself testifies of and to. They that come to be led of the spirit, arrive at the end for which the scripture was given forth: the apostle John did as good as say the same thing, when he told them to whom he wrote, that the anointing which they had received, and abode in them, would lead them into all truth; and that they needed not that any man should teach them:

"To deny this to have been the saints' teacher, is to deny as plain

a proposition, as is in the whole Scripture and that one age of christianity should have one rule, and another age another rule, that age the Spirit, and this but the letter, is more than any man can prove: yet did John so writing to the believers, invalidate the Scripture, or vilify his own epistle? I would think none could talk so idly. How then doth our exalting the light and Spirit of Christ, which fulfils the Scriptures, (by bringing such as are led by it, to enjoy the good things therein declared,) reject and vilify the Scriptures? Does our living up to them, by an higher rule, make us deny and reprobate them? Erasmus and Grotius think them then to be most valued, when men are witnesses of their truth in themselves; See them on 2 Peter i. 19, 20.

"I do acknowledge, they contain an account of several heavenly prophecies, godly reproofs, instructions, and examples, that ought to be obeyed and followed."-Vol. i. page 599.

In reply to the objection, that his doctrine makes void the protestants' plea against the Papists, "that the Scriptures are the rule of faith and practice," William Penn says, " Answer, No such matter: for the question was not, whether the Spirit of Christ or the Scripture was the rule; but whether the Scripture, which is God's tradition, or popish traditions, were the rule to measure the truth of doctrines and practice by. We grant that particular scriptures, rightly understood, may measure what is agreeable or disagreeable to them: that is, such doctrines and practices as are contrary to that part of scripture, more particularly relating to our days, are questionable, by the scripture; especially since all parties pretend, that what they say and do, is according to scripture. Yet this concludes not the scripture to be the general and evangelical rule."-Page 601.

We have confined our quotations to the same treatise, as the compilers have taken theirs from, and apprehend we have adduced sufficient proof, that William Penn was far from according with Elias Hicks in his denial of the authenticity, divine authority, and true value of the sacred writings. We shall have occasion to give other extracts from Penn's Works on the subject, which will fully confirm this fact. The devil must have had ill success, we think, with his "old fetch of pretending honour to the letter," in order to oppose the Spirit, since he is now practising the more specious and sanctimonious "fetch" of pretending great honour to the Spirit, in order that he may more successfully destroy all regard to the Holy Scriptures; and thus, open the way to the greatest libertinism in doctrine and practice.

On page 52 of the compilers' pamphlet, we have the following sentence quoted from William Penn's works, as though it were approved and adopted by him, viz.

"George Whitehead says, That which was spoken from "the spirit of truth in any, is of as great authority as the scriptures, "or chapters are, and greater, as proceeding immediately from that "Spirit, as Christ's words were of greater authority when he spoke, "than the Pharisees reading the letter. William Penn's Works, "Vol. ii. page 674."]

The passage is extracted from a tract written by William Penn,