make a perfon "wife unto falvation," and was "profitable" for every fort of inftruction, so as to

66

perfect" even an an Evangelist---much more is our Bible, when attended to in its real import, and believed, able to make finful corrupt perfons "wife "unto falvation," and to "furnish" them out "to "all" manner of "good works :" For thofe only, we apprehend, who are corrupt and finful need fal

vation.

But we are far from excluding the influence of God, or his Spirit, from the mind; for we are fully convinced that every one who knows and is influenced by the Scriptures, is directed, influenced, and taught of God. It appears to us, that the fenfe or truth plainly expreffed in them, is the means which he always uses to fave perishing men.

No more than what we affert of the ability of Scripture, have the Apologift or his defenders faid of their light within: No more can they fay. They affirm, if we attend to it and follow its teachings, it will fave us, and therefore it is a faving principle: We also fay, the Scriptures will make us "wife unto falva"tion," if we attend to the fenfe of them, believe it, and fo become influenced by it, therefore they are able to fave. Barclay and his friend speak of no divine affiftance which enables perfons to be paffive, that the light within may operate and fave; we believe God fuperintends, and in an especial mauner influences the minds of all, who are brought to attend to the import of revelation, by whatever outward means they were excited to it. Therefore we daily pray," as Paul did, "that the word of the Lord may have free courfe, and be glorified." 2 Theff.

66

66

3. I.

Though certain parts of the Scriptures may, with fome show of reafon, be perverted, by the fuperficial and enthufiaftic, to countenance their abfurdities; yet many, and even moft parts of facred writ, are too

clear

clear and exprefs to be thus tortured and abused: Whereas the plea of the motion of the Spirit within, as being not to be over-ruled or fubjected to any other teft; as being pofitive, fure and fupreme, --- has been a fource of the wildeft reveries and most monstrous tenets, that have ever been broached in the world. With what contradictions, oppofitions, grofs abfurdities, abominable scandals, and even horrid blafphemies, many have been perplexed, under the pretence of being moved by the Spirit, and of having him for their fupreme guide, --- they cannot be ignorant of, who have read any thing of the history of the Gno ticks, Montanifts, Prifcillianifts, Begharts, Mennonites, the family of love, David Georgians, Ranters, Muggletonians, French prophets, Bourignonians, and many other pretenders to the peculiar and extraordinary revelation of the Spirit.

Mr. Phipps's friend cannot help reminding him, that his manner of arguing against the perfection of the Scriptures, as the rule or standard of faith and manners, brings to his remembrance an objection frequently urged of old, and ftill infifted on by the Papifts: It is as follows---" The Scriptures are not the "fupreme guide; for they do not answer the end, "that is, the reconciling of differences for thofe "who pretend most to confult the Scriptures, do moft "of all disagree in matters of faith, and in their in"terpretations of the Scripture." This appears, however, to be wretched logic, and worse divinity. For Proteftant writers have clearly fhewn in their reply, that the infallibility of the Popes, councils, and the church, are equally, nay, much more exceptionable : Because one infallible Pope has annulled the decrees of another infallible Pope; the determinations of one council have been a direct contradiction to thofe of another; and, what the church approved in one age, as agreeable to the will of God, it has folemnly condemned as herefy in another.

We

We may also, fince Mr. P. obferves, P. 2. "That "the Spirit neceffarily unites those who faithfully a-"bide therein, one to another in itself, and that both

in affection and fentiment," retort the argument upon the Quakers themfelves. Their Spirit is not the fupreme and perfect guide, because there have been, and it is prefumed ftill are, many differences of fentiment about fome doctrines and practices among them: For the proof of this the reader is referred to Chapter the fifth, and fection the fixth, of this treatife.

However, refpecting the divine writings, commonly called, by way of emphafis, the Scriptures, it may be farther replied to the obfervator. They have a meaning, or they have not. If they have, that is the will of the Holy Spirit; whether it agrees with his fyftem, or his opponent's: If they have not, they cannot be divine, or from God; for it never can be fuppofed, with any reason, that he fhould ever reveal himself unto mankind, without expreffing, in language that may be underflood, fome ideas or fentiments: And who keeps closest to thefe, whether Mr. P. or his opponent, must be left to the judgment of every reader.

Mr. P. talks, P. 5. of " a cafe in religion which the "Scriptures do not reach." We really with he would point out one or more fuch, and then we should better understand his meaning. He had before spoken "of

a revelation of particular duty which the Scriptures "did not come up to," but it is to be hoped, when he puts pen to paper again, to defend the Apologift, that he will specify thofe particular duties, which the Spirit now teaches men by internal immediate revelalation. The perfon whom Mr. P. writes againft, has a feeling fenle of that truth, that it is the duty of every profeffor to" acknowledge God in all his ways, "and he fhall direct his paths," Prov. iii. 6. and hopes, he fhall be enabled to obferve it, throughout

life;

life; however, he does not expect to have his paths directed by an inward fenfible immediate revelation of particular duty, but by the Spirit of God difpofing his mind, by the ordinary methods of information and instruction, according to the true meaning of his word. Any fyftem of duties fuppofed to be fuperadded to the Scriptures, by any man's private spirit, he should confider, juft of as much authority as the traditions of the church of Rome; fome of which were afferted to be revealed in an extraordinary manner to feveral of their canonized faints.

Should any of the Quakers fay, "The books of "the New Teftament are greatly corrupted," then their appealing to them (as Meffrs. Barclay, Phipps, and Beasley have done) for the proof of their fentiments, is abfurd: For who would appeal for the decifion of a controverfy, to corrupted and erroneous books, which would in this cafe be fuppofed to have no determinate and confiftent meaning? And if they think their spirit can point out to them, where they are corrupted and where not, this will be bringing the controverly to this iffue, that their opponents must infift upon the authority of their fpirit, as not being inferior to that of the Quakers; which they have an equal right to do, as will afterwards appear.

Not contented with his obfervations about the fenfe of Scripture, which prove nothing on either fide of the question, Mr. P. inakes fome obfervations of the fame kind on right reafon.

"Our author," fays he, P. 6, 7. makes high pretenfions to "6 66 right reafon; which he threatens us with, "as if he had the perfect maftery of it." Let it be obferved however,that this is a term firft ufed by Barclay, and the Gentleman who has written to Dr. Formey (See Chap. 1. P. 1. of this treatise): These are the men, who threaten their adverfaries with it, as if they were it's perfect masters, if, for an appeal to it, they deserve to be thus represented.--But why may

D

not

not the writer of this use it as well as they? What! are Mr. P. and his brethren the fole judges of right and found reafon? Or have they a patent from heaven to juftify their exclufive claim upon the term and thing? Surely it can never be allowed them by any, who do not believe them infallibly directed by the Spirit.

He goes on, "We may talk of balancing things "by right reafon, while we mean only our weak and "limited faculty." When he talks of reason, he may mean only" his own weak and limited faculty,' if he pleases, but the writer he animadverts upon imagined, that Barclay, and the letter-writter quoted in the first page, meant by "right reafon," what logicians do; not the faculty of the understanding itself, but that reasoning or argument, which is conformable to the true relation of things, and which the mind viewing objects fhould be ftruck with and governed by.

It is farther observed by Mr. P. "We see how dif"ferent (man's reafon) is in different perfons, re"fpecting many things, especially in fpiritual matters." And he gives us fome inftances. To which it is replied True. It is as different as the Quakers fpirit, or as various as the fpirit of others pretending to immediate divine revelation, is among themselves.

4. But what would Mr. P. infer from thefe reflections, by which he endeavours to fet forth the uncertainty of the fenfe of Scripture and right reafon, as understood by different people? Undoubtedly, (or elfe it is nothing to the purpofe) the neceffity of carrying the decifion of the controverfy up higher, that is, to what the Holy Ghoft inwardly fuggefts to them. This Barclay must be fuppofed to mean, and all the Quakers, when they fay the Scripture is a rule but not the rule. If fo, then the point in debate will be, whether the writer of this treatife in the profeffion of his principles, or any one of the Quakers in the

profeí