The Holy Spirit is not known, felt or discerned, in his real nature, by any Quaker or others, but only his influence, effects, &c.-- Therefore he cannot be in his own real nature a rule of action to them, fuperior to his own productions, effects, or influence. The Scriptures, according to Mr. Barclay and Mr. Phipps, are only an inadequate or fecondary rule: This is all the honour they will ascribe to them. But did any body ever hear of an inadequate rule before? Or is it usual for men thus to exprefs themselves? The term rule seems to imply a pofitive idea, of which primary and adequate are the effential properties. Take away thefe, and our idea of rule is destroyed; in the fame fenfe, as if we take away roundnefs from a bowl, and the bowl is deftroyed. Is it not as great nonsense, to talk of a fecondary inadequate rule, as it would be to talk of a fquare circle, or a globular cube? In proportion as the Scriptures are inadequate or fecondary, there is fomething to be regarded as a test or ftandard above them, and they are no rule at all. I apprehend, then, that these diftinctions are mere quibbles, and ferve no other end, than, to countenance the evafions and fubtilties of those who are fond of them, to confound the understanding of the reader, and to involve the fubject in midnight darkness. 3. Mr. Phipps's remarks on Scripture and right reafon are next to be confidered. To throw contempt on his opponent's appeal to the connected meaning of the Scriptures, Mr. Phipps obferves, p. 5. "That every man's fenfe of the Scrip"ture is his Scripture, and when he propofes his 66 opponent shall be determined by Scripture, he "means, according to his own apprehenfion of the "fenfe of it." To which it may be replied-- That every man's fenfe and apprehenfion of the teachings of the Spirit of God within him, is, in his C judgment, judgment, the mind and will of the fame Spirit; and when he proposes the Spirit of God, as the fupreme rule and ftandard of faith and practice, he means, according to his own fenfe and apprehenfion of his illuminations. It is equally applicable in this cafe as the former, and whatever apprehended abfurd and dangerous confequences he would draw from it, against an appeal to the Scripture, more naturally flow, and with greater abfurdity and danger, from his own principles, against appealing to the Spirit's inward immediate illuminations, or infpirations. For what John Reeve and Lodowick Muggleton thought to be the mind of the Spirit within them, William Penn and his brethren denied; and what these thought to be the mind of the Holy Ghoft, the former rejected as fpurious, because it opposed their fense and view of his inftrucThere may be numerous other instances tions. given. It is remarkable, how Mr. P. labours to fhew the inefficacy of the Scriptures, as a rule of faith and practice *. His reafoning feems plainly to be in fhort this---Controverfy has fubfifted, and still does fubfift, among those who profess them to be the only fupreme rule, therefore they are infufficient, inadequate, and the Spirit, from which they proceed, is the only primary, adequate, and abfolutely perfect rule. Now all he can mean by the Spirit, as has been fhewn, can only be his influences and productions within his own mind, and the minds of his brethren: Then his conclufion must be, the motion of the Spirit within, is to be the fupreme and all-perfect standard of faith and practice. * 'Tis very obfervable, that the fame arguments which are used by the Quakers, to prove that the Scriptures are only a fecondary rule, have been adopted by the Deifts, to prove them no rule at all; particularly by Shafte.bury and Tindal. How However, let the reader judge, whether a written revelation of God's will, which is plain and obvious to the meanest capacity, that is unprejudiced as to all important and neceffary matters, be not a better standard for men to appeal to, and govern their confciences and lives by, than the motion of the Spirit within. How is it poffible that they can judge of themselves, and one another, fo well by the laft as by the first when every conceit of the imagination may be afferted to be the production of a divine afflatus? Neither can men look into each other's minds, but they can into a written revelation, which is open for the perufal, or at least the hearing, of all. ; Mr. Phipps obferves, P. 14, 15. that "the Pha"rifees, with their unrenewed mind, did read and "imitate the Scriptures with great ftrictnefs, but re"mained in a ftate of fpiritual death, because they "refted upon them, and would not apply to Christ "himself." Our Saviour, however, feems to give a different account of the matter; for he frequently tells them, Matt. 15. 16. Mark 7. 13. " that they made the "word of God of none effect, through their tradi❝tions:" How then could they be faid to "reft upon "it"? They evidently perverted its plain sense, and rather "refted upon," and "imitated" the traditions of the elders, than the meaning of the Scriptures. The Son of God appealed to the real import of the Old Teftament writings, in his controverfies with the Jews; and he tells them plainly, John 5. 46. 47. that " if they "had believed Mofes, they would have believed him;" "for," fays he, "he wrote of me: but if ye believe "not his writings, how fhall ye believe my words?" One grand reason, therefore, why they did not believe him, and apply to him as the true Meffiah, was, because they did not follow the Scriptures, and rest their judgments upon their connected fenfe and genuine C 2 mean meaning. Like too many profeffed Chriftians in our day, they used them by fcraps, and selected sentences, without regarding the connection, as mere auxiliaries to fome preconceived fyftem, which had been countenanced by their venerated traditions: they regarded not the facred writings as the primary rule of their faith and conduct. Hence it was that they oppofed Jefus. Hereby they discovered "their unrenewed "mind," and their prefumptuous pretenfions to be wife above what was then written by the infpiration of the Holy Ghost. It deferves to be particularly noted, that our Lord never once blames them for not attending to the light within. Mr. Phipps further writes, P. 15. (See the Apology alfo, P. 85. Prop. III.) to leffen the importance, and fhew the infufficiency of the Scriptures, that "though they are fufficient to make the man of God "perfect through faith, which is in Chrift Jefus ; yet they are not able to make the finful man, the "corrupt man, perfect, who hath not this divine "faith of the operation of God, by which the vic66 tory is obtained." Then he introduces 1 John 5. 4. The paffage in Timothy runs thus:--2 Tim. 3. 15-17. "And that from a child thou haft known the Holy Scriptures" (of the Old Teftament), "which are able to make thee wife unto falvation, "through faith, which is in Chrift Jefus. All Scrip"ture is given by the infpiration of God, and is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, "for inftruction in righteousness, that the man of "God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all "good works." Here we afk, whether a perfon can be "a man of "God," without being "wife unto falvation?" Or whether if he be "wife unto falvation," he must not be "a man of God?" Paul, then here afferts, that "the Scriptures are able to make a perfon," (who was not fo before, or was not fo without them, and muft 111 muft therefore be "finful" and "corrupt") " wife unto "falvation," or, in other words, "a man of God." But, how are the Scriptures able to do this? "Through "faith." If they were not believed, they could not fave; if they were not known, they could not be believed; and if they were known and believed, they certainly would fave. What! any part of them? No, only thofe which related to Meffiah, the Saviour, or Chrift Jefus. For even that part of the Old Teftament called the Law, might have been confidered as "a School-Mafter," to train up the Jews for and lead them to Christ Jefus. * But what does Mr. Phipps mean by "faith"? Does he either intend by it, the things believed by Chrif tians, concerning Jefus, which make them wife unto falvation, or believing itself? I strongly fufpect, fomething different from either of these. He cannot, however, I believe, find any other faith in the Bible, which is of the operation of God, for the falvation of the foul. What John intends by this term, he has explained himself, 1 Epiftle, 5. I. "Whofoever "helieveth," (in the Apostles fenfe)" that Jefus is "the Chrift, is born of God." "This is the victory", he tells us, which "overcometh the world.” verfes the fourth and fifth. See The Apostle afferts then, in this paffage to Timothy, that these Old Teftament Scriptures, were "able "to make a person wife unto falvation," or, "a man "of God," and that they were then alfo "profita"ble," for every purpose of edification, which was neceffary to be attended to, for "perfecting, a man " of God," a teacher, an elder, an evangelist. What therefore may we not fay of our Scriptures, fince the New Teftament is added to the Old? If only a part of them, and in the age of infpiration too, could *But perhaps it fhould be rendered untill Chrift. See how is is ufed in the preceding verfe. make |