Page images
PDF
EPUB

"The fourth thing affirmed is, that these revelations were the objects of the saints' faith of old.

This will easily appear by the definition of faith, and considering what its object is. For which we shall not dive into the curious and various notions of the schoolmen, but stay in the plain and positive words of the apostle Paul, who, Heb. xi describes it two ways.

"Faith [says he] is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen :" which, as the apostle illustrateth it in the same chapter by many examples, is no other but a firm and certain belief of the mind, whereby it resteth, and in a sense possesseth the substance of some things hoped for, through its confidence in the promise of God: And thus the soul hath a most firm evidence, by its faith, of things not yet seen nor come to pass. The object of this faith is the promise, word or testimony of God, speaking in the mind. Hence it hath been generally affirmed, that the object of faith is Deus loqueus &c. that is, God speaking &c. which is also manifest from all those examples denied by the apostle throughout that whole chapter; whose faith was founded neither upon any outward testimony, nor upon the voice or writing of man, bút upon the revelation of God's will, manifested unto them and in them; As in the example of Noah verse 7th thus, “By faith Noah being warned of God, of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." What was here the object of Noah's faith, but God speaking unto him? He had not the writings nor prophecying of any going before; nor yet the concurrence of any Church or people to strengthen him; and yet his faith in the word, by which he contradicted the whole world, saved him and his house. Qf which also Abraham is set forth as a singular example, being therefore called the father of the faithful, who is said against hope to have believed in hope, in that he not only willingly forsook his fathers country, not knowing whether he went in that he believed concerning the coming of Isaac, though contrary to natural probability-but above all, in that he refused not to offer him up ; not doubting but God was able to raise him from the dead; of whom it is said, that in Isaac shall thy seed be called. And last of all, in that he rested in the promise, that his seed should possess the land, wherein he himself was but a pilgrim; and which to them was not to be fulfilled while divers ages after. The object of Abraham's faith in all this was no other but inward and immediate revelation, or God signifying his will unto him inwardly and immediately by his Spirit."

"From all therefore which is above declared, I shall deduce an argument to conclude the proof of this assertion, thus

That which any one firmly believes, as the ground and foundation of his hope in God, and life eternal, is the formal object of his faith. But the inward and immediate revelation of God's spirit, speaking in, and unto the saints, was by them believed as the ground and foundation of this hope in God and life eternal. Therefore those inward and immediate revelations were the formal object of the saints faith."

"That which now cometh under debate, fs what we asserted in the last place, to wit--that the same continueth to be the object of the saint's faith unto this day. Many will agree to what we have said before, who differ from us herein. There is nevertheless a very firm argument, confirming the truth of this assertion, included in the proposition itself, to wit, that the object of the saints faith is the same in all ages, though held forth under divers administrations; which I shall reduce to an argument and prove thus :

There the faith is one, the object of the faith is one. But the faith is onewherefore &c.

That the faith is one, is the express words of the Apostle, Ephesians iv. 5, who placeth the one faith, with the one God; importing no less, than that to affirm two faiths is as absurd as to affirm two gods. Moreover, if the faith of the ancients were not one and the same with ours; this is: agreeing in substance

but we doubt the propriety or utility of such an examination. It contains sonie truths which it would be difficult to gainsay. Many difficulties are started which serve to perplex the mind, which would be difficult wholly to clear up, although many of the facts might be reconciled; and still more, by making all due and reasonable allowances for inaccurracy in the statements, (as the writers were not all eye witnesses); but after all, it is doubted whether it would be doing the cause of truth any acceptable service to attempt to answer or refute any thing which appears so gross. It carries with its own best refutation. We state the following as the spirit of the whole of what is written respecting "the moral conduct and precepts of the apostles." The object seems to be not so much to obtain facts as to blacken the characters of the Apostles. Thus he writes. "The apostle Paul, (the real founder of Christianity) is exhibited as an unprincipled and time serving prevaricator; and where necessary to his interest, an unblushing LIAR through the whole of his career."!!! Procul, o procul este, profani! Give us as many facts as you please; and leave others to judge of the motives which led to those facts; but we do protest against this unqualified impeachment of the characters of men either living or dead. We cannot consent to stain our pages with such barefaced calumny. Let it have its full weight with those who like it.

If there be errors in the New Testament, in point of fact, let them be corrected. If there were practices approved of, either by Christ or his apostles, that would be improper to be followed at the present day, let it be shown-but let not the man whose only motive and object is to convince the people of pernicious errors, or to instruct them for their good, dip his pen in gall, nor try to put the worst construction on every thing. He who would be a benefactor of his species, must convince the understanding of others that he is a friend to truth as well as to man; and let him cast the same mantle of charity over what he may conceive to be the faults of others, that he would wish to have extended towards his own. With such a writer, we should have no objection to pursue this examination, and fully test the morality of the New Testament. But for reasons given, if we pursue the subject any further, it will be purely on our own account, without any further reference to the writer in the "Correspondent." See a specimen of his logic.

Major. "Philo, lived in Alexandria, when the Jewish language was in great vogue."

Minor. "Eusebeus is not only a notorious liar, and falsifier, but defended lying and forgery, when used for the good of the church.'

[ocr errors]

Ergo. "Hence I conclude, that Philo the Jew may without any mistake, and with great propriety, be called Philo Judæus."--Well, what if he may? Was he the man who is so called in History?

For the Olive Branch and Christian Inquirer.

THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS.-No. IIII.

I know of no better way to arrive at a correct knowledge of any subject, than to analize it, and trace it to first principles. In treating the subject now under discussion, it has been my endeavour to exhibit the real ground of dispute between Friends and their Orthodox brethren, in as concise a manner, as would be consistent with perspicuity—to strip it of all the disguise and verbiage which either ignorance or sophistry have cast upon it. For this purpose, I have endeavored to show what our real "principles" are, what our profession is; in reference to the charge that we have "openly departed from the faith and principles which the society have always held and believed."

These "principles," and this "faith," being rightly understood, it will plainly appear that the charge is unfounded. The "faith which we have always held and believed," is clearly set fourth, and explained, by Barclay in his apology, from which I shall make some extracts in this number, to illustrate and confirm my previous statements and to show that the positions I have laid down, are established by that standard author.

"The fourth thing affirmed is, that these revelations were the objects of the saints' faith of old.

This will easily appear by the definition of faith, and considering what its object is. For which we shall not dive into the curious and various notions of the schoolmen, but stay in the plain and positive words of the apostle Paul, who, Heb. xi describes it two ways.

"Faith [says he] is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen :" which, as the apostle illustrateth it in the same chapter by many examples, is no other but a firm and certain belief of the mind, whereby it resteth, and in a sense possesseth the substance of some things hoped for, through its confidence in the promise of God: And thus the soul hath a most firm evidence, by its faith, of things not yet seen nor come to pass. The object of this faith is the promise, word or testimony of God, speaking in the mind. Hence it hath been generally affirmed, that the object of faith is Deus loqueus &c. that is, God speaking &c. which is also manifest from all those examples denied by the apostle throughout that whole chapter; whose faith was founded neither upon any outward testimony, nor upon the voice or writing of man, but upon the revelation of God's will, manifested unto them and in them; As in the example of Noah verse 7th thus, "By faith Noah being warned of God, of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." What was here the object of Noah's faith, but God speaking unto him? He had not the writings nor prophecying of any going before; nor yet the concurrence of any Church or people to strengthen him; and yet his faith in the word, by which he contradicted the whole world, saved him and his house. Qf which also Abraham is set forth as a singular example, being therefore called the father of the faithful, who is said against hope to have believed in hope, in that he not only willingly forsook his fathers country, not knowing whether he went in that he believed concerning the coming of Isaac, though contrary to natural probability-but above all, in that he refused not to offer him up ; not doubting but God was able to raise him from the dead; of whom it is said, that in Isaac shall thy seed be called.And last of all, in that he rested in the promise, that his seed should possess the land, wherein he himself was but a pilgrim; and which to them was not to be fulfilled while divers ages after. The object of Abraham's faith in all this was no other but inward and immediate revelation, or God signifying his will unto him inwardly and immediately by his Spirit."

"From all therefore which is above declared, I shall deduce an argument to conclude the proof of this assertion, thus—

That which any one firmly believes, as the ground and foundation of his hope in God, and life eternal, is the formal object of his faith. But the inward and immediate revelation of God's spirit, speaking in, and unto the saints, was by them believed as the ground and foundation of this hope in God and life eternal. Therefore those inward and immediate revelations were the formal object of the saints faith."

"That which now cometh under debate, fs what we asserted in the last place, to wit--that the same continueth to be the object of the saint's faith unto this day. Many will agree to what we have said before, who differ from us herein. There is nevertheless a very firm argument, confirming the truth of this assertion, included in the proposition itself, to wit, that the object of the saints faith is the same in all ages, though held forth under divers administrations; which I shall reduce to an argument and prove thus:

There the faith is one, the object of the faith is one. But the faith is onewherefore &c.

That the faith is one, is the express words of the Apostle, Ephesians iv. 5. who placeth the one faith, with the one God; importing no less, than that to affirm two faiths is as absurd as to affirm two gods. Moreover, if the faith of the ancients were not one and the same with ours; this is: agreeing in substance

[ocr errors]

but we doubt the propriety or utility of such an examination. It contains somie truths which it would be difficult to gainsay. Many difficulties are started which serve to perplex the mind, which would be difficult wholly to clear up, although many of the facts might be reconciled and still more, by making all due and reasonable allowances for inaccurracy in the statements, (as the writers were not all eye witnesses); but after all, it is doubted whether it would be doing the cause of truth any acceptable service to attempt to answer or refute any thing which appears so gross. It carries with its own best refutation. We state the following as the spirit of the whole of what is written respecting "the moral conduct and precepts of the apostles." The object seems to be not so much to obtain facts as to blacken the characters of the Apostles. Thus he writes. "The apostle Paul, (the real founder of Christianity) is exhibited as an unprincipled and time serving prevaricator; and where necessary to his interest, an unblushing LIAR through the whole of his career."!!! Procul, o procul este, profani! Give us as many facts as you please; and leave others to judge of the motives which led to those facts; but we do protest against this unqualified impeachment of the characters of men either living or dead. We cannot consent to stain our pages with such barefaced calumny. Let it have its full weight with those who like it.

1

If there be errors in the New Testament, in point of fact, let them be corrected. If there were practices approved of, either by Christ or his apostles, that would be improper to be followed at the present day, let it be shown-but let not the man whose only motive and object is to convince the people of pernicious errors, or to instruct them for their good, dip his pen in gall, nor try to put the worst construction on every thing. He who would be a benefactor of his species, must convince the understanding of others that he is a friend to truth as well as to man; and let him cast the same mantle of charity over what he may conceive to be the faults of others, that he would wish to have extended towards his own. With such a writer, we should have no objection to pursue this examination, and fully test the morality of the New Testament. But for reasons given, if we pursue the subject any further, it will be purely on our own account, without any further reference to the writer in the "Correspondent." See a specimen of his logic.

Major. "Philo, lived in Alexandria, when the Jewish language was in great vogue."

Minor. "Eusebeus is not only a notorious liar, and falsifier, but defended lying and forgery, when used for the good of the church."

Ergo." Hence I conclude, that Philo the Jew may without any mistake, and with great propriety, be called Philo Judæus."--Well, what if he may? Was he the man who is so called in History?

For the Olive Branch and Christian Inquirer.

THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS.-No. IIII.

I know of no better way to arrive at a correct knowledge of any subject, than to analize it, and trace it to first principles. In treating the subject now under discussion, it has been my endeavour to exhibit the real ground of dispute between Friends and their Orthodox brethren, in as concise a manner, as would be consistent with perspicuity-to strip it of all the disguise and verbiage which either ignorance or sophistry have cast upon it. For this purpose, I have endeavored to show what our real "principles" are, what our profession is; in reference to the charge that we have "openly departed from the faith and principles which the society have always held and believed."

These "principles," and this "faith," being rightly understood, it will plainly appear that the charge is unfounded. The "faith which we have always held and believed," is clearly set fourth, and explained, by Barclay in his apology, from which I shall make some extracts in this number, to illustrate and confirm my previous statements and to show that the positions I have laid down, are established by that standard author.

"The fourth thing affirmed is, that these revelations were the objects of the saints' faith of old.

This will easily appear by the definition of faith, and considering what its object is. For which we shall not dive into the curious and various notions of the schoolmen, but stay in the plain and positive words of the apostle Paul, who, Heb. xi describes it two ways.

"Faith [says he] is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen :" which, as the apostle illustrateth it in the same chapter by many examples, is no other but a firm and certain belief of the mind, whereby it resteth, and in a sense possesseth the substance of some things hoped for, through its confidence in the promise of God: And thus the soul hath a most firm evidence, by its faith, of things not yet seen nor come to pass. The object of this faith is the promise, word or testimony of God, speaking in the mind. Hence it hath been generally affirmed, that the object of faith is Deus loqueus &c. that is, God speaking &c. which is also manifest from all those examples denied by the apostle throughout that whole chapter; whose faith was founded neither upon any outward testimony, nor upon the voice or writing of man, but upon the revelation of God's will, manifested unto them and in them; As in the example of Noah verse 7th thus, "By faith Noah being warned of God, of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." What was here the object of Noah's faith, but God speaking unto him? He had not the writings nor prophecying of any going before; nor yet the concurrence of any Church or people to strengthen him; and yet his faith in the word, by which he contradicted the whole world, saved him and his house. Qf which also Abraham is set forth as a singular example, being therefore called the father of the faithful, who is said against hope to have believed in hope, in that he not only willingly forsook his fathers country, not knowing whether he went in that he believed concerning the coming of Isaac, though contrary to natural probability-but above all, in that he refused not to offer him up ; not doubting but God was able to raise him from the dead; of whom it is said, that in Isaac shall thy seed be called.And last of all, in that he rested in the promise, that his seed should possess the land, wherein he himself was but a pilgrim; and which to them was not to be fulfilled while divers ages after. The object of Abraham's faith in all this was no other but inward and immediate revelation, or God signifying his will unto him inwardly and immediately by his Spirit."

"From all therefore which is above declared, I shall deduce an argument to conclude the proof of this assertion, thus—

That which any one firmly believes, as the ground and foundation of his hope in God, and life eternal, is the formal object of his faith. But the inward and immediate revelation of God's spirit, speaking in, and unto the saints, was by them believed as the ground and foundation of this hope in God and life eternal. Therefore those inward and immediate revelations were the formal object of the saints faith."

"That which now cometh under debate, fs what we asserted in the last place, to wit--that the same continueth to be the object of the saint's faith unto this day. Many will agree to what we have said before, who differ from us herein. There is nevertheless a very firm argument, confirming the truth of this assertion, included in the proposition itself, to wit, that the object of the saints faith is the same in all ages, though held forth under divers administrations; which I shall reduce to an argument and prove thus:

There the faith is one, the object of the faith is one. But the faith is one

wherefore &c.

That the faith is one, is the express words of the Apostle, Ephesians iv. 5. who placeth the one faith, with the one God; importing no less, than that to affirm two faiths is as absurd as to affirm two gods. Moreover, if the faith of the ancients were not one and the same with ours; this is: agreeing in substance

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »