CHA P. II.

1. The futility of fome referves in the former conceffions. 2. The diftinction concerning the Scriptures, which allows them only to be a Secondary and Ina dequate rule, exploded. 3. Mr. Phipps's remarks on Scripture and right reafon confidered. 4. It is fhewn, that other people have a right to appeal unto the Spirit, as well as the Quakers. 5. It is very obfervable, that Barclay argues in a circle upon this fubject.

PERSONS of

1. ERSONS of any measure of accurate obfervation will take notice of the guarded expreffion "a ftandard," which is known to be carefully kept up by Quakers, in their religious controverfies, and of Mr. Barclay's directly obferving in the fecond propofition-" Yet it will not follow, that

thefe divine revelations are to be fubjected to the ❝ examination, either of the outward testimony of the "Scriptures, or of the natural reafon of man, as to 66 a more noble or certain rule or touchftone."

In the paffage quoted from Barclay, in the former chapter, he allows, that all their doctrines and practices fhould be tried by the Scriptures as the judge and teft: but here he infifts on it, that "their di"vine," inward "revelations should not be subjected "to the examination, either of the Scriptures, or "the natural reafon of man, as to a more noble ❝or certain rule or touchftone." This is however an artful referve, as it is prefumed, will afterwards appear. Suppofing we admitted it, the queftion in debate then would be, Whether the miffion of George Fox, and the immediate internal revelations, under the influence of which Barclay prefumes he writes, and

to

to which bis Brethren pretend, be from the unerring Spirit of God or not? Did we admit the affirmative, the controverfy would be at an end, and we fhould ef teem it wicked and impious to oppofe them: But we deny it; fo did thofe, for whom the Apology was written, with a view either of filencing or convincing them. We must therefore bring George Fox's pretenfions and Barclay's revelations to the teft of Scripture, right reafon, or our own fuppofed internal influence of the Spirit, in order to examine into their validity; or elfe, fubmit our judgments and confciences to their grave and bold dictates. But who, that has any fear of God, any dread of being impofed upon in matters of the highest confequence, or any juft apprehenfions of the fatal tendency of enthufiaftic delufions, will ever do this?

Let the reader well obferve the following quota-' tions.

"Inward revelations are not to be fubjected to the "examination either of the outward teftimony of the "Scripture, or the natural reafon of man, as to a "more noble or certain rule or touchstone." Apol. Prop. II.

* Mr. Phipps adds, P. 3, "As understood only by the unrecti"fied natural reason of man, is not to be preferred to the internal "revelation of the Spirit." However these are not Mr. Barclay's words here, nor is this merely his meaning. Then Mr. Phipps further writes, "This is what our author muft oppofe. if he would "refute Barclay." But our author thinks not himself under any obligations to answer all Mr. Phipps's additions and perverfions. In the next place, Mr. P. charges him with " ignorance, defigned perverfion," with " combating his own man of straw, and with

66

jangling with his own misconceptions," but with what politeness, liberality, good-nature, and religious fpirit, the reader is left to judge. It will be proper to afk one queftion here, Does Mr. P. think himself and his party the infallible judges of a perfon's reafon, and that they can determine, with certainty, whether it be "unrectified" or not? He may think fo, but his opponent, with equal authority and argument, may think quite the contrary.

Robert

"Robert Barclay's exception has no other referve "in it, than that which ought ever to be made, "and which it would be manifeftly unjust not to "make, a refervation of the right of the fupreme "author, from whom the Scriptures derive their "whole authority and value." Mr. Phipps, P. 4.

"Nor can we prefer the Scriptures to the inward "illuminations of the Holy Spirit itself." P. 14.

"The Scriptures are and may be esteemed a fe"condary rule." Apol. Prop. III.-" Nevertheless, "because they are only a declaration of the fountain, "and not the fountain itself; therefore they are not "to be esteemed the principal ground of all truth " and knowledge, nor yet the adequate, primary "rule of faith and manners."

"That the Scriptures are not fufficient, neither "were ever appointed to be the adequate and only "rule, nor yet can guide or direct a Christian, in all "those things which are needful for him to know, we shall leave that to the next propofition to be ex-. "amined." Apol. P. 39.

86

Now it may be juftly faid, that the diftinction above afferted is the gordian knot of Quakerifm. If this be once fairly untied, the chief difficulty with which they always puzzle their opponents will be removed; the arguments they have tacked to it will lofe their main hold, and their dangerous mistake about it be justly expofed.

But before we attempt to untie this knot, it will be proper to obferve, that the caution of Barclay approved by Mr. Phipps, against trying inward divine revelations by the teft of the Scriptures, as by a more noble rule or standard, feems to be ufelefs, if he means not to fet them up above the meaning of a written revelation. He cannot be well misunderstood here, as he has afterwards called the Scripture a fecondary rule. He appears alfo to have written this under a firm perfuafion, that he himself, Fox, and

his

his brethren, had moft affuredly thefe inward divine revelations. Mr. Phipps likewife, evidently fuppofes the fame of himself, which appears from his contemptuous treatment of his opponent, as being unexperienced and not knowing or elfe denying the gift of God within him.

2. Let us now attend a little closely to the forementioned distinction.

66

If the true fense of the Scriptures be allowed to be the mind and will of the Holy Ghoft, furely it is of the fame authority, with those divine manifeftations which he may be fuppofed to grant to any now. Barclay's defender intimates as much when he observes to this purpose, P. 2." It is impoffible that one degree of the Holy Spirit, fhould oppose another "degree of the fame Spirit, unless it be divided "in itself." And he admits that P. 15. " Barclay's " and his brethrens call, was not of the fame degree, "though he will have it, of the fame nature, with "that of the Apoftles." By which, it is prefumed, that he means to give the latter the pre-eminence. fo, then upon his own principles, the true fenfe of the Scriptures, is a nobler rule of judgment, in religion, than their own pretended inward divine revelations, or, at least, not inferior to them, and therefore Barclay's caution and diftinction, which contain in them a futile reserve, are needlefs, nay, improper and abfurd.

There is more yet to be faid against it.

If

If

Is the real nature of the Spirit to be known either by mere feelings or metaphyfical fpeculations? by the former, they must tell us what these feelings are like; or, if by the latter, they muft produce thefe nice theories. It is not conceived however that they can find out his effence either of thefe ways. Suppofing then, but not granting, that they are under the immediate influence and direction of the Holy Spirit, all they can feel or know of him

is

is-the views, the fentiments, the affections, and the difpofitions, he produces within them. But upon the footing of their own diftinction, these are only the streams, not the fountain; the creature,* not the Creator; productions, not the fupreme Author.

They would perhaps fyllogize on their diftinction, thus-We are fure that the Spirit is more noble than the Scriptures, his productions

We have the Spirit

Therefore we have a more noble rule in religion than they can be.

But if all they can be fuppofed to know of him, be his influences or productions, they cannot with any propriety thus reafon. The major propofition will not apply, in the difpute between us, did we allow the minor (which we do not) and therefore the conclufion is falfe: Efpecially too, when Mr. Phipps admits that "they have not fo great a measure of "the Spirit's influences as the Apostles had."

In every view then, with refpect to the dispute between them and their antagonists, the diftinction is a mere quibble, intirely ufelefs, and anfwers no other end, but to perplex. They have no fhadow of reafon for ufing it in their controverfies, unless they can prove to us they know by feeling or fpeculation, the real nature of the Spirit, or can point out to us, by fome means or other, this his nature, as fuperior to his productions. We may therefore make the following fyllogifm in reply

That which is not known, felt or difcerned in its real nature, cannot be a rule of action to any one, fuperior to its own influence, effects or productions

*An expreffion applied by Mr. Phipps to the Scriptures, P. 4. + Fox, however, pretended to nearly the fame. See the Third Chapter.

The