geftion of the Spirit: But did it lead them or their followers to unite in profeffion, affection, and practice? No, we have feen how they oppofed each other, embraced, in many particulars, different opinions, and obferved very different modes of difcipline and manners. Which of them then was right? How is the serious mind, who admits their leading fentiment, in which they all agreed, to be determined? Is the person to conform to the terms of the Quakers, or, if brought up in the Popish church, to continue in it, as Molinos did? Are the Sacraments (as they are commonly though unfcripturally called) to be now observed, as Madam Bourignon taught, or to be reject ed, as Fox and Barclay infift, averring, at the fame time, their doctrine to be that of "the Spirit within "them?"

As each of these infpired teachers were fufficiently confident of their being guided by the unerring Spirit of God, could they have been affembled, in a folemn council, to have compared their doctrines and practices together, is it likely that either of them would have acknowledged, that he was in any particulars deceived? Would they not have warmly contended, with one another, each infifting upon the reality, certainty, and infallibility, of his own inward light or fpirit? I may prefume to fay, the reader will readily acknowledge, there would have been either warm work between them, or elfe, one must have so far prevailed, as to have convinced all the others, they had been under a delufion, which it is moft likely, would never have happened.

I would further obferve, that "the fpirit within" the Quakers themselves, after the death of Fox, appeared to speak a different language and fentiments in America, from thofe which it dictated in London *;

* See Mofheim's Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, Cen. 17. and those books which refer to the controverfy between Keith and them. Nor

Nor can we fuppofe that either of thefe bodies of Quakers thought themselves not influenced by the Spirit. To prevent contentions of this kind, for the future, it was neceffary to have frequent affemblings of the Elders, and to appoint a set of respectable men to inspect the publications of any of their bre thren, before they were countenanced by the whole body: However, if their doctrine be true, they might fafely have left this to "the Spirit," without any fear of the confequences.

If we were further to confider the effects of the Quakers" inward principle," with respect to any other enthufiafts, it would appear equally uncertain and dangerous. Mr. Barclay declares, that "it is not to "be fubject to the outward teftimony of Scripture, ἐσ nor the reafon of man." Suppofe then a Quaker was to converse about the concerns of the foul, with any Papift, Turk, Jew, Brachman or other devout. Pagan, who fincerely believed himself under the influence of the Spirit of his God, and in the right road to future happiness; can we imagine he would think his own inward principle of religion, lefs certain and compleat than that of Barclay, or Mr. Phipps? And, with refpect to the warmth of his devotion, the purity of his manners, and the form of his worship, he may poffibly, in his judgment of things, esteem himself far fuperior to the difciples of George Fox. How he could receive any true information concerning the Character and religion of Christ Jefus, without a plain declaration of the hiftory and doctrines of the New Teftament, cannot be con ceived, unless we suppose an immediate revelation of Christian truths to his mind, from the Deity: But a fingle inftance of this, in any age fince the first century, we believe the Quakers are unable to produce.

It is well known, that all Enthufiafts amongst the

Proteftants, who really think themselves guided by the fpirit of their God, whatever be their ftrange reveries and ridiculous practices, will quote his motions and impulfes within, to justify their doctrines and manner of worship, with as much confidence as the primitive George Fox, or any of his difciples. Directing then perfons to a "light within," who know nothing of the religion of Jefus, or referring them to look inward for life and falvation, without ftating the truths of a written revelation, as containing the Gospel or that by which the Spirit of Chrift faves men, is nothing more nor lefs, let us ufe what facred terms we will, than directing them to their own fancy : And, whither this enchantrefs will lead them, if not reftrained by the authority of Elders, or kept within bounds by the political maxims of certain focieties, is difficult to fay: We are convinced, by too many inftances, of her extravagant flights in the last age, not to mention any in this, that the is a moft prefump tuous and dangerous guide, in religious affairs.

Mr. Phipps is a man of ingenuity and fenfe, of which, perhaps, he need not to be informed; but can he confcientiously think any of his friends, of either fex, who, after fome violent gefticulation, and a confused muttering and groaning, ftand up to speak, with the most unnatural tone, palpable inconfiftencies, or, at leaft, incoherent fentences, without any pertinent meaning are under the influence of the "immediate "internal revelation" of the infinitely wife Spirit of truth? Yet what can he, what dare he do, to filence them, if they conclude, from their ftrong fenfations, that they are under the infallible guidance of the facred Spirit? Were he to oppofe them, would they not think that their inward light and spirit were better than his who would reftrain them?

2. How

2. How the Quakers inward principle countenances Deifm as well as Enthufiafm.

Mr. Beafley, in his letter to Dr. Formey, P. 36, obferves, "That an hiftorian and Philofopher of "the first rank in thefe kingdoms reprefents the "Quakers, in one part of his writings, as extrava"gant Enthufiafts, in another, as fellow-believers "with himself, i. e. Deifts. No wonder then that "they are fo reprefented abroad."

To me it appears no wonder at all, that any Philofopher or hiftorian, who has read Barclay's Apology, or converfed in general with Quakers, should repre→ fent fome of them as Deifts, and others as extravagant enthufiafts; which, I prefume, is all that the author referred to intended: The charge, I think, is not only fupported by inconteftible facts, but by the natural tendency of their prevailing principles.

Here, it will be neceffary, however, to define our terms, to prevent all ambiguity and difguife. By "a Deift," I mean, not merely one who denies all Revelation, but he that rejects the written Revelation of Jefus, which is recorded, by his infpired fervants, in the New Teftament. According to this definition, "Lord Herbert, of Cherbury" was a Deift, though he admits of extraordinary atteftations of the divine approbation from Heaven, in fome cafes, and folemnly declares, before God, that he was favoured with one, to countenance the publication of his book "de "veritate." With equal propriety, may the term be applied to "the Author of a pamphlet, intitled, "Chriftianity not founded on argument," though he pofitively afferts, that "the only true principle of faith, is a conftant particular revelation, imparted feparately and "fupernaturally to every individual.

Thefe

These two eminent oppofers of the New Teftament were deemed Deifts, by their opponents, and particularly the latter is fo called, by Leland, Doddridge, Benson, and Dr. Randolph; who, with much learning and argument, attacked and confuted him: They have been ranked under the fame denomination, by all other Christian writers, of any note, that I have feen. But Mr. Phipps has produced a paffage from one" Alexander Arfcot," "whofe better understanding ❝he prefers," which is as follows, Obferv. P. 108. "Deism and Enthufiafm are as oppofite as the two "Poles. The one denies all revelation; the other

believes and contends for it to an excefs. But to "come more closely to the point; Deifm, in the "modern use of that word, is the belief and pro

feffion of natural religion, in oppofition to revela❝tion of all kinds."-And further on-" So that re

ligion, in the fenfe of the Deifts, hath nothing to "do with revelation; in the Quakers fenfe, it is all "revelation, either external or internal."

With all due deference to this writer of "better "understanding," we muft obferve, that according to his Definition, neither Lord Herbert of Cherbury, nor the Author of the book intitled Christianity not founded on Argument, are properly called Deifts, because they did not deny revelation of all kinds : They may perhaps be deemed, in fome refpects, "Qua"kers," for they paid a regard to a certain kind of "immediate revelation," but, as to the written revelation in the Bible, they neither liked it, nor formed their principles and conduct, by its humbling doctrines and precepts.

We fee then that Arfcot's definition, which is ap proved by his friend Mr. Phipps, does not allow those to be Deifts, who admit or contend for any kind of revelation from God to men, though they deny that to be one which we have in the Bible: But is this the