"holy men of God spake and penned as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." Though we were to admit, therefore, that you have in reality--we believe no such thing--revelations from the Spirit of truth, it would be absurd to say, that because the author is greater than his work, these private revelations are a firmer foundation of faith, and a more certain rule of conduct, than the revelations contained in the inspired volume: it is not the Spirit which you have, but, at best, a revelation from the Spirit; and this revelation you place above the Scriptures, which you acknowledge to be divine--which you admit to be a revelation from God to man. It may be vain in us, but we think this remark worthy the attention of Friends: if we are mistaken in our view of this subject, we should be happy to be put right; but if we are correct, the main pillar of Quakerism is overthrown, and the edifice must, as in that case it would deserve to, fall. Of Dr. Hancock's work, it may, perhaps, be enough to say, that it affords a poor defence of notions which many of our readers will believe do not merit a better. Like some other "defenders of the faith," the Doctor makes up for a lack of argument, not indeed by an exhibition of the sword, or the stake, but by positive assertions, by dogmatism, and by a condemnatory spirit. The unfortunate author of "The Beacon" appears, in Dr. H.'s opinion, to have committed an almost unpardonable offence against the society, and, in this opinion, we are sorry to find the Doctor is by no means singular. It is melancholy to witness the bitter spirit of intolerance and persecution, which the well-intended effort of Mr. Crewdson has raised in the Society of Friends--the peaceable, the nonresisting Friends. It is questionable, even now, whether the publication of his little volume may not lead--in violation of one of the fundamental principles of the Society, as stated and advocated by William Penn, in his address to Protestants, and in contempt of the spirit of religion, and, happily, of the age in which we live,--to the exclusion of Mr. Crewdson from the Society of Friends. Alas for poor human nature! whatever else may change, this is always the same--the same, whether under a bishop's mitre, or a Quaker's broad-brim. The "Defence" may certainly appear a powerful thing to those who entirely agree with the author: those who differ from him will probably be of another mind. A few short extracts will suffice to show the _clearness_ and _consistency_ of the author's statements. In page 17, he says, "I consider every opinion which has not their (the Scriptures') support must fall to the ground;" but in page 8 he says, "If nothing of divine influence, in the days of Fox and Penn--nothing, I say, but the light and knowledge of Scripture, had operated on the minds of men, then, I believe, _our religious Society would never have had existence_, for they were taught immediately _by_ Christ, and they