sacred Scriptures :-this is my primary, my secondary, my only rule; the only light of my feet, the only lamp of my path; in following the guidance of which, I do not disown the Spirit's immediate aid,but earnestly implore that aid, to preserve me from all prejudice and every biassing influence that might hinder me from discerning, or disincline me from pursuing, the prescribed path. Your rule is double. Your primary rule, you say, is the Spirit; your secondary rule, the Scriptures. But when you say that your primary rule is the Spirit, what do you mean, or what can you mean by the Spirit, but the immediate intimations of the Spirit to your own minds? The rule, in either case, lies in the intimations of the Spirit; and the difference between us must inevitably resolve itself into this; that my primary rule is found in the intimations of the Spirit to prophets and apostles, while yours is found in the intimations of the Spirit to yourselves.—On this subject, Barclay appears to me chargeable with one or other of two things, a most marvellous confusion of ideas, or the most disingenuous sophistry. He says" When we doubt "of the streams of any river or flood, we recur to the "fountain itself; and, having found it, there we de"sist; we can go no farther, because there it springs "out of the bowels of the earth, which are inscru"table. Even so, the writings and sayings of all men we must bring to the Word of God, I mean

66

"the Eternal Word, and if they agree hereunto, we "stand there."* By the Word of God," then, to which, as to a test, "the writings and sayings of all "men" are to be brought, he does not mean what Christians in general so denominate the Holy Scriptures. On the contrary, the contents of these very Scriptures are included among "the writings and say"ings of all men," which are to be brought to his superior test," the Eternal Word," or, as in the same paragraph he terms it, "the Truth itself;" for he says, "we may not call the Scriptures the principal foun"tain of all truth and knowledge, nor yet the first "adequate rule of faith and manners; because the "principal fountain of truth must be the Truth itself; "i. e. that whose certainty and authority depends not "upon another.”—Now here, I repeat, is either confusion, or sophistry. Do you not perceive, that the difference between you and us relates not at all to the Fountain of Truth, but to the communications from that Fountain ? The simple question is, not whether God, the "Eternal Word," the "Truth itself," be the Fountain of truth to us-who doubts it?--but whether, on the one hand, there are in the Holy Scriptures, such communications from this Fountain as were designed to be the rule-the primary and only rule-of faith and manners,-or

* Apol., page 71.

whether, on the other hand, there are still communications made from this Fountain directly to ourselves, which are the rule of primary authority. It is vain to talk of the Fountain being superior to the streams, and of our bringing every thing to the Fountain. How is this to be done? What is meant by bringing any writing or saying of man to "the Eternal Word "

to "the Truth itself?". Is not this to make the direct communications from the Eternal Word, from the Truth itself, to my own mind, the test of that writing or saying? If it means not this, what does it mean? And if it does mean this, then the communications to the mind of each individual are constituted the test of the communications to the mind of every other individual. The mind and will of God can be known in no other way than by some revelation of them; and it is this revelation, not God himself, that must be the test of all that professes to come from the same Source. Where, then, is this revelation? Is it the revelation contained in the Scriptures, or is it the revelation made immediately to the mind now? "The writings and sayings of all men 66 we must bring to the Eternal Word." We must do it. The upshot of the matter, then, is this. The writings and sayings of the prophets and apostles are amongst the "writings and sayings of all men." There is a higher standard than they, namely, the Spirit by which they spoke and wrote. To this

higher standard Robert Barclay brings the writings and sayings of these "holy men of God." But Robert Barclay, when he leaves the prophets and apostles, and goes above them to the Spirit Himself, can know the mind of that Spirit in no other way than by direct communication to his own mind. If there be any other way, it must be in the regions of mysticism, whither I must decline going to seek it. -But the "writings and sayings of all men" comprehend also the writings and sayings of Robert Barclay himself. I am bound to bring them too, in the same way, to the same test. And so is each When we speak,

reader bound to do with mine.

therefore, of the Spirit as the primary rule,-seeing this must mean, if it means any thing attainable or even conceivable, the Spirit speaking to the individual, it follows that each individual becomes to himself, in the communications of the Spirit to his own mind, the standard of all that professes to be divine communication to others!If there is a fallacy here, I do not perceive it. Let us see, then, what consequences follow; and it will be for you to consider whether you are prepared to admit them.

2. The most obvious sequence is, that you place the communications of the Spirit to your own minds above the communications of the Spirit to the inspired writers of the Holy Scriptures. You will perhaps deny this, and allege that you only place them on

an equality, admitting that whatever contradicts the Scriptures is, by that very contradiction, proved to be an illusion, and to have no authority. To place the two even on an equality, I might well regard as presumption enough; and I may show this hereafter. But in truth you do more. The Spirit, according to you, is above the Scriptures, -as the Author of a book is above the book; as the fountain is above the stream, or above the reservoir which it supplies. But, since the Spirit can be known only by his communications, it must be these communications which form the primary rule, and to which the Scriptures are subordinate. When you wait for the Spirit, and listen to the voice of the Spirit, you wait for his suggestions to your minds,-you listen to his voice as it addresses yourselves. It is, in fact, therefore, to these suggestions and to that voice that you give the designation of the primary rule; and it is to these that the suggestions and voice of the Spirit in the Scriptures are secondary. If this is not placing the intimations of the Spirit to you above the intimations of the same Spirit to the sacred penmen, I know of no principles that will yield a legitimate conclusion. It will, therefore, follow further, that it is more reasonable to try the Scriptures by your immediate revelations, than to try the latter by the former. The superior must be the test of the inferior, the primary of the secondary and subordinate.