Page images

it has any more moral efficacy to dispose, incline, or engage, the soul, or its volitions and tendencies, when it first operates, than the application of a dose of phyfic, from an apothecary's shop.

But, the grace and spirit, the writer of this would daily pray for, on his own account, and those of his fellow finners, are fuch, as may incline the heart or foul, in its first as well as in its after operations, to keep the commandments of God. This, however, is a benefit, no Quaker, who thinks with Mr. Barclay, can expect or ask for consistently ; and if you expect, reader, that the Apologist's saving grace or “ light within,should first rightly dispose the heart and will of finners in general, to improve the means of salvàtion God has given them, you are much mistaken : He preter.ds not to say, in the illustration we have confidered, that it has any such virtue, nay, actually supposes it has not.

The other representation, P. 150. of " men lying “ stupified in a dark pit,” leaves the person's choice or will, in the same situation the former does. All the kind offices of the mighty deliverer that are employed, either internally or externally, have no manner of effect, unless the inan zills or chufes, not to resist and to be paffive ; for thus he writes, “ if they resist * not” (this deliverer) “ will save them ; only they

may refift:” So that the whole hinges upon the temper, turn, or, to follow Mr. Phipps, the innocent inactivity, of the miserable perions mind,

The Apologist calls the light or grace given to erery nian, “ laving,” “ effectual,” and “ fufficient :"> But does it fave any who do not submit to become paslive to it? No, he himself admits it does not: It is allowed to depend, for its success, on something without itfelt, and is, in fact, not faving to those who have not this prerequisite, and therefore, in this view, is improperly called “ faving," with respect to them.


The Gospel of Jesus is called “ saving words," Aēts xi. 14. or “ the truth which faves," i Tim, ij, 4. “ the incorruptible seed," 1 Pet. i. 23. “ the word “. of life,” Phil. ii. 16. and “ the word of salvation,” Acts xiii. 26. And why? Because no man can have it within him, in its full import and evidence, without having hope before God, his will changed, and his temper and life sanctified thereby : but, a person may have a sufficient measure of Mr. Barclay's saving principle within, as he asserts, without finding it all sufficient and effectual, to give him good hope before God, to give a happy turn to his will, and thus to fanctify his whole teinper and practice.

Yet the Apostle John says, “ He that faith, I know « him, and walketh not as he walked, is a liar, and “ the truth is not in him.” : John ii. 4. Doubtless he means here by “the truth," the Gospel, or that for which Christians love one another. In a true and proper sense, that then is saving,” which a man cannot have, without being saved thereby; but that which thousands may have, and yet not be saved by it, deserves not, according to the common use of language, with respect to them, this epithet.

With equal impropriety, does he call it, “ effectual

or efficacious ;" for a great number have it, and yet are never, in fact, pardoned, purified, and saved, by it. What is the effect proposed to be answered by the “ light within ?” Is it not falvation ? But, it is allowed not to have this effect upon all, therefore it cannot be effectual or efficacious” to all, With what justice then does Mr. Barclay object to those, who suppose Christ's mediation was not effectual to all men*? If it be an absurdity, is not his system chargeable with the same? His “ Christ within," upon his

See P. 115. and numerous other places, under the Vth and Viltn propofition.

Сс 2


own principles, pretends not, in itself, when we come to examine it clotely, to be effectual to all, if to any.

The Apologist also dwells iñuch upon the word

sufficient," The measure of his supposed saving light, is always declared to be fufficient ;” but we alk “ sufficient” for what? Not for the salvation of all men, nor for the salvation of any, but fome select ones, such as “ the Virgin Mary, and Apostle Paul,” P. 151. to whom he acknowledges there was given

Special grace," so that they " necessarily obtained salvation. For its fufficiency to mankind in general, depends intirely upon what we have proved to be a virtuous passiveness in the finner, or what Mr. Phipps must allow to be an “ innocent inactivity,” and, without this, never was, and never is, fufficient, for their fál-, vation. And if any thing deserves to be called the universal saving principle to the generality of mankind, or with emphasis, the

fine qua non of salvation, I think it should be that, on which the whole affair turns or hinges : And what is this, but the virtuous paffiveness, or at least, guiltless inačtivity before mentioned ?

Thus, I prefume, I have shown, with clearness, that Mr. Barclay's " light within," or his favourite universal saving principle, has no influence over the difpofition, bent, or will, of man, in the first operațions of the mind, and is, in no proper sense, either s effectual,” “ saving,” or “ lufficient,” to every in. dividual man,

[ocr errors]




1. Some of Mr. Phipps's observations considered, in or

der to shew him that he neither underftands the merits of the question between the Apologist and his opponent, nor has defended the Quakers System or his ozon, against the charge of election and reprobation, which, we think, arê infeparably connetted with it. 2. It is clearly proved, that Mr. Barclay's notions unavoidably lead to zwhat he calls the horrid doctrine of Reprobation, or Preterition. W Erarea

first, to attend a little tỷ some of

Mr. Phipps's observations, on the subjects of “ preterition," « predestination,” and “ election.”

Upon these topicks, he writes like a person who is confident he is a perfect master of them, treating his opponent with the utmost contempt and insult. De claiming, rather than reasoning, he sets forth his antagonist as afferting, “that the greatest part of man" kind inevitably and eternally perish, without any « fault of theirs, to render it just or reasonable ;" P.88. but this remark unhappily discovers its own misapprekenfion; it does not faithfully express the sentiment of the letter-writer, for it is either a designed or mistaken perversion of his meaning.

Let us not, however, imitate him, in his loose way of writing, but closely examine fome of his own representations and descriptions, that it may be seen whether he himself can avoid the consequences charged upon Barclay's system.

Speaking of the rational spirit in mankind, he says, P. 92.

“The guilt it contracts is through its own " act, in following the milleadings of its sensitive


[ocr errors]

“ companion, (the body) falling in with temptation, “ and imbibing the evil influence of fallen and cor. “ rupt spirits. By this means it receives spiritual " pollution, and guilt in proportion to its advances “ therein. Thus, by nature alone, all incur condem" nation, and are, in a sense, children of wrath, or “ subjected to divine justice.”

Next, let us turn our thoughts to another of his observations, in which he has indeed twisted his opponent's expressions to a sense he had not in view, when he wrote them; but, for argument's fake, we will allow his interpretation to be his real meaning. “ What

our Author, therefore, would naturally infer, is an “i urnatural inference ; that the just and all-righteous “ Creator of all men, fhould cause the salvation of 5 any to depend upon the knowledge and reception of “ that,' which he had kept out of their power to re“ ceive or know.” P. 73. Let the reader also look to the following passages, P. 159." Is it just and ra“ tional then to conclude, that he did not, in equity, “ visit all, those who did not believe, as well as those « who did ?” And at the top of the page, speaking upon the fame subject, “ how could God be just and “ equal, in all his ways, if he did not” give all men a' measure of saving, lufficient, and supernatural, light and grace?

So then, according to these last paragraphs, mankind are, by nature, in such a state, that if God does not afford them sufficient means of salvation, he is ukjust; furely then, there can be no grace in his giving them these, for, whatsoever he is bound in justice and equity to bestow, cannot be grace: This is an observation which carries its own evidence with it.

Yet, we are at an intire loís to know, how Mr. Phipps can reconcile this, to his declaration abovementioned, where he asserts, “ thus,

thus, by nature alone, “ all incur condemnation, and are, in a sense, children

66 of

« PreviousContinue »