244 
lifhed creed, refpecting the fubject in. 
queftion: but it feems a ‘general tenti- 
ment among them to reject the trinitarian 
doctrine. Eutheates fays; ‘* The Quakers 
do moft affuredly acknowledge the divi- 
nity of Chrift, fince they peeve that he 
3s co-eternal with the father—that, 72 the 
beginning was the word, and the word 
avas with God, and the word was God.” 
If this is to be depended upon as the 
moft general opinion of the fociety, we 
muft certainly no longer confider Friends 
as Deifts under revelation. They would 
then belong to a rank of chriftians almoft 
unknown at the prefent day, and from 
acknowledging only two perfons in the 
divinity, might be called Bizarians. 
Through converfations had with feveral 
thinking Friends, fince my firft letter, I 
am convinced that the information of Eu- 
theates is well-founded; and learn that 
the Binarian. hypothefis prevails among 
them very extenfively, though they take 
no pains to avow or enforce it, either 
publicly or privately. I obferve alfo in 
the works of Fox, Barclay, &c. that 
thefe ancient Friends ufe the expreffions 
«¢ Spirit of God,” and <« Spirit of 
Chrift,’” as fynonymous; but, that they 
never perfonify the Holy Spirit. Incon- 
formity with the more general fentiments 
of the fociety, the committee, in repub- 
lifhing the ‘“ Summary View,” fhould 
therefore omit, or modify the Scripture 
text fuperadded to their avowal of Chrift’s 
divinity, which has miiled many readers, 
being confidered as an elucidation of 
the previous ftatement; and has caufed 
the Friends to be ranked as Socinians, 
Deifts, &c. 
If we conclude that moft of the mem- 
bers of the fociety are Binarians, this 
eircumftance muft certainly be added. to 
their peculiarities, as they would, per- 
haps, ftand alone in their belief. Would 
it then hurt their feelings to be informed 
that the opinion prevalest among them, 
has been anathematized as heretical and 
damnable, by a general council? I ap- 
prehend it wouldnot. The fecond council 
of Nice probably did net find the Bina- 
rian hypothefis adopted at the,time, but 
forefaw that. it might readily branch out 
from the-doctrine of the Semi-Arians, 
and determined to anticipate the mifchief. 
G. W’s candid and well-written ani- 
madverfions on the Quakers, (Month- 
ly Magazine for Auguft laft) deferve to 
be noticed, and I think might be fatis- 
factorily anfwered ; but would rather in- 
vite to this undertaking fome active and 
intelligent member of the fociety. 
Hermitage, O. 32517986 M.'N. 
Reply to Mr. Wife....Northampton Academy. 
[Od 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, ; 
\ R. WISE’s obfervations, in your 
Magazine for September, are very 
analogous to S. E.’s, and feem to.have 
no better foundation. He fays, ‘* Iwas 
not knows to them by the name of Febovah,” 
does not fignify that they knew not the 
name: but that they knew not the thing 
promifed in that name; at leaft, not in 
any confpicuous degree. 
‘Now, if the moft plain and direét af-- 
fertions are to be thus evaded, or done 
away, how can we depend upon any 
thing {aid in the Scriptures? However, 
before Mr. W's ideas are canvafled, we 
mult expect fome proofs, or decifive texts, 
in favour of what he has advanced. Mere 
gratis diéta, unfupported either by direét 
or collateral evidence, only ferve to thew 
the nakednefs of the land. Would Mr. 
Wisk, in all dithcult paflages of Holy 
Writ, diftort the fenfe of terms ufually 
received, and extract from the words 
whatever meaning he thinks proper? 
Does he not fee the confequenees which 
mutt follow, if fuch a mode of interpre- 
tation were generally admitted ? 
Mr. W. has further aflerted, that ** BZ 
Shaddai’’ is moft properly a ‘* zame of 
Effence :> whereas ‘* Fehovah was a name 
ot di/linétion, réfpecting God’s promife te 
be peculiarly the God of Ifrael.”” * But, 
if he will take the trouble to examine, 
with care, the Feqwi/h Doors, to whom 
he has referred, or confult the authorities 
quoted in ‘¢ Buxtorf’s Hebrew Lexicon,” 
he may foon be convinced of his error. 
M. R. 

To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR; 
HE truftees of Coward’s fund hav- 
ing taken no notice of the challenge 
which appeared in your Mifcellany fome 
months ago, and your correfpondent not 
having, according to promife, given an 
account of the diffolution of the North-~ 
ampton academy; if; among your nu- - 
merous readers, any one that is duly 
qualified will give fome account of that 
extraordinary event, that the young men 
may be judged according to their merits, 
and not, as they now are, condemned 
without a hearing, by the prejudices of 
one party, or wholly acquitted by the pre- 
judices of the other; it will be efteemed 2 
favour by many of your readers, and 
among others by, your’s, &c. 
A FRIEND to JUSTICE. 
O@. 8, 2798. 
To 
e 
