may select the case of Luther. His language, quoted by Barclay, is, that "no man can rightly know God, "or understand the word of God, unless he immediately receive it from the Holy Spirit; neither can "any one receive it from the Holy Spirit except he "find it by experience in himself; and in this expe"rience the Holy Ghost teacheth as in his own pro"per school; out of which nothing is taught but "mere talk."* It is obvious that this is not "reve"lation," or "immediate manifestation," in Barclay's sense of the terms-(if it were, there would be no difference between the Quaker doctrine on this subject and that of evangelical believers of other denominations;)—it is only the spiritual discernment of that truth which, in the word of God, or the Holy Scriptures, is already revealed.

That there is at present, in the Society of Friends, a growing deference to the authority of these Scriptures, that the disposition is gaining ground to make them the ultimate standard of appeal, in matters of religion, a comparison of your older with your more recent writers, as well as the progress of existing controversies, will not allow me to doubt; and you must excuse me for saying, that it is with special pleasure I admit the conviction into my mind. authority of the inspired writings of the Old and

The

New Testament, is a subject respecting which there appears amongst you an indefiniteness, inconsistency, and even contradictoriness of statement, such as would be marvellous, were it not that they are the unavoidable result of what I may call your double standard,—your superior and inferior, your primary and secondary rule. I might here quote from writers in the present controversy; but I should then have it objected that these were not your accredited authorities. I therefore prefer Barclay. I may afterwards compare his statements with those of your most highly and justly esteemed author of the present day, Joseph John Gurney; but in the mean time, let us hear him who has, for so long a period, been appealed to as the Oracle of your Society.

In the statement of Proposition II. entitled "Of immediate revelation," after referring to the "testimony of the Spirit," as, in all ages, the source of the true knowledge of God, and affirming the continuance still of the same kind of revelation with that given to "patriarchs, prophets, and apostles,"-he says:" Moreover, these divine inward revelations, "which we make absolutely necessary for the build"ing up of true faith, neither do nor ever can con"tradict the outward testimony of the Scriptures, or "right and sound reason. Yet from hence it will

66

not follow, that these divine revelations are to be 66 subjected to the test, either of the outward testi

"mony of the Scriptures, or of the natural reason of 66 man, as to a more noble or certain rule or touch"stone; for this divine revelation, and inward illu"mination is that which is evident and clear of itself, forcing, by its own evidence and clearness, the

66

66

well-disposed understanding to assent, irresistibly "moving the same thereunto, even as the common "principles of natural truths do move and incline the "mind to a natural assent,-as, that the whole is

greater than its part; that two contradictories can "neither be both true nor both false." *—In the statement of Proposition III. "Concerning the Scriptures," after enumerating, under three heads, history, prophecy, and doctrine, the contents of the sacred volume, he proceeds thus :-" Nevertheless, "because they are only a declaration of the Foun"tain, 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. Yet, because they give a 66 "true and faithful testimony of the first foundation, "they are and may be esteemed a secondary rule, "subordinate to the Spirit, from which they have all "their excellency and certainty: for as by the inward "testimony of the Spirit we do alone truly know "them, so they testify, that the Spirit is that guide

Apol. pages 18, 19.

"by which the saints are led into all truth; there "fore, according to the Scripture, the Spirit is the "first and principal leader. Seeing, then, that we "do therefore receive and believe the Scriptures, "because they proceeded from the Spirit, for the

66

very same reason is the Spirit more originally and "principally the rule, according to the received "maxim in the schools, Propter quod unumquodque "est tale, illud ipsum est magis tale: that for which

a thing is such, that thing itself is more such.”*

Now let us, with all seriousness and candour, examine these statements, which being purposely selected from the propositions themselves laid down, seriatim, by Barclay, as the points which it is his aim to establish, may be fairly regarded as expressed by him in the most deliberately chosen and carefully weighed terms. Let the following observations, then, have your ingenuous attention :

What, then, is it? In

1. The Holy Scriptures are acknowledged as a rule, but not as the only, nor even as the primary rule, of faith and of duty. There is something else that is placed above them. the answer to this question there appears a most extraordinary fallacy; the more extraordinary, from its being so palpable, that one can hardly fancy it to escape the detection even of a child. They are said

Apol., pages 67, 68.

to be "subordinate to the Spirit," and "the Spirit to "be more originally and principally the rule."-But surely the Spirit, personally considered, cannot, in any propriety of speech, be called a rule. There is, I admit, a figurative sense, in which one man may be said to be a rule to another, his example and authority being meant. In this way, a father may be a rule to his children; and a good man a rule to his dependants, and to all who know and revere his excellencies. But if, when we speak of a father being a rule to his children, we speak figuratively, and mean no more than that his will is that rule; then what consistency would there be in speaking of the father and his will as if they were two distinct rules, the one primary and the other secondary? The will of the father, in whatever way indicated, is obviously and properly the rule, not the father himself. This is a truism, scarcely worthy of being put into writing. But if you admit this, you cannot withhold your assent to the same statement, in the parallel case:-it is the will or mind of the Spirit, that is obviously and properly the rule, not the Spirit himself; the will or mind of the Spirit, in whatever way indicated, whether mediately or immediately, whether, that is, through the instrumentality of others, or directly to ourselves. This is, or ought to be, sufficiently clear. For, what is my rule, and what is yours? My rule is, the recorded intimations of the mind of the Spirit in the

E