sions. A thing once proved by positive evidence, cannot be disproved by all the circumstantial evidence in the world, without departing from a rule as ancient as time itself.

CHAPTER III.

Remarks on Rand's third chapter, which he calls "Reasoning for the inferiority of the scriptures, in favour of new revelations, examined."

I would premise, that if this chapter bore a little more of the appearance of a friendly debate, and not quite so much of artful invective, I think I could enter upon it with a little more pleasure than I now can; but I must take it as it is. I shall leave others to judge whether he has made a judicious arrangement, in intermixing the vague reports of other sects, not connected with friends, with what he would have thought a friendly discussion with them, and proceed to consider his further remarks, when he says, "Barclay's first argument for the spirit as a guide superior to the scrip tures is in substance as follows: The scriptures were themselves given by the Spirit; he must be superior to his own work, or word; therefore the scriptures cannot be the principal ground and origin of all faith and knowledge.'" Here Rand has disingenuously stated Barclay's argument, in that he says, "Barclay's first argument for the Spirit as a guide superior to the scriptures," &c.; for the fact is, Barclay first clearly proves that the teachings of the Holy Spirit are still continued, and that these teachings are the true foundation of knowledge; and then the above argument comes in as a regular link in the chain of reasoning.

cases;

But Rand says, "let us apply this argument to other I receive an account of events (I have not myself witnessed) from a man of veracity, the account is of vast importance to my interest, and has an important bearing on my conduct, but the account itself depends entirely on my informer; he must certainly be superior to his own work or word, therefore the account is of no manner of use to me, at least I can make but little use of it, without having recourse every moment to its author."

To this I reply, that I consider this reasoning calculated to illustrte the truth of Barclay's position more clearly. Suppose him deprived of an interest, by some person to him unknown, and his friend at a distance should get a thorough knowledge of the whole circumstances, and is in possession of evidence sufficient to enable him to recover it; his first step is to inform by letter that he is possessed of this knowledge, and can give the necessary evidence. What would follow? Would he say I have got my friend's letter, and I have no doubt of the correctness of the statement; I will commence process, and recover my property, my friend's letter is quite sufficient for my purposes? Or would he not say, now this is a very valuable piece of information, it gives a knowledge of where my property lies, but if I don't take care to get my friend's testimony in court it will eventually be of no service to me, as the letter will not be admitted as evidence; thus clearly shewing the writer superior to his letter.

His second illustration I esteem equally illustrative of Barclay's position; it is this: "A master gives all ne cessary directions to his servant, concerning a particular business, and for a certain time; during which time

he is absent, or has bidden the servant to expect no farther orders: how clear it is that these orders derive all their meaning, truth and authority from the master, and that he is himself vastly superior to his own directions! What a fool must the servant be, to give any heed to his orders, unless his master is every moment at hand and giving new commands.”

Now Barclay's position is not, that those that are called to work in the master's vineyard, and are made sensible by the master's direction what portion or part is assigned to them, should be slothful servants, and delay doing their duty, because they were not every moment repeated. But there are many things with regard to their circumstances, which particular Christians may be concerned in, but for which there can be no particular rule had in scripture.

There is also another consideration proper to be taken into view, viz. 'it is no uncommon occurrence for a master to give orders to servants, with a view to be absent a certain time, but afterwards it turns out otherwise; in which case, masters think, notwithstanding the directions they have given, they have a right to take the conducting of their own affairs into their own hands, and direct their servants as they please: and in this case, are they not superior to the direction they had written? Or if the master, after giving these orders, so that the servant should think he had sufficient directions without looking for any thing farther, should by any means give him an intimation that it was his will that he should not proceed in that way, but do his will another way, he would be in no other situation than Paul and Timothy were in, when, Acts xvi. 7. they essayed to go into Bythany, but the spirit suffered them not, but

shewed them another way. Would it not in such a case be the duty of the servant to consider the master superior to his former orders, as Paul did? It is not likely Paul essayed to go into Bythany without suppo sing he had his master's direction.

Rand's next admission goes also to illustrate the principle held by those he is opposed to, viz. "If the servant wants explanation of orders already given, if cases occur to which his orders do not extend, or if his master has given intimations that further directions would come, still he may apply."

Now it is a principle with the Quakers, that the scriptures contain a system of the purest morality and religion, recorded for our instruction, as a general guide in our pilgrimage through this vale of tears, all of which are to be obeyed; but to point out many particular individual duties in religion, we are every day dependent on the spirit that the Saviour promised in the scripture that he would send to his followers, that shonld lead and guide them into all truth. That spirit is always sufficiently near, and we ought in all religious duties in an especial manner to seek to it as David said the righteous did in his day, Psalm cxxiii. 2. "Behold as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their master, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God until that he have mercy upon us. If we take it upon us to perform religious acts in the strength of our own wisdom, and creaturely understanding, we only place ourselves in the situation of those to whom it was said, Isaiah 1. 11, "Behold! all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks; walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks ye have kindled;

sorrow.

this shall ye have of mine hand, ye shall lie down in And none can serve the Lord acceptably, but by, and through, the aid of his Holy Spirit; nor know what he requires of us, as filling up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in his flesh, for the body's sake which is the church, because if the apostle is correct, as 1 Cor. ii. 11, "That no man knoweth the things of God, but the spirit of God," then a man might read the scriptures from youth to old age, and have them all by rote, and still without the aid of the Spirit be ignorant of the things of God; all which I think Rand has admitted, in so often referring to the aid of the Spirit, to open the understanding, imprinting the word, applying the scriptures, &c." as has been shewn.

But he says, again to use Clarkson's similitude, “rivers and streams depend upon their fountains or springs; the scriptures flow from the Spirit in like manner; therefore, they are inferior." But he says, "Is the stream that runs by my dwelling no river to me, because I have never traced it perhaps hundreds of miles to its source? or because its fountain is hidden in the bowels of a mountain ?" Fallacious reasoning! but no doubt with an intention to insinuate, that the Quaker make no use of the scriptures because they do not acknowledge them the fountain of all knowledge: an insinuation which he knows to have no manner of truth in it, as he had Barclay before him, who says, page 68, "For in that which we affirm of them, it doth appear at what high rate we value them, accounting them, without all deceit, or equivocation, the most excellent writings in the world, to which not only no other writings are to be preferred, but in divers respects not comparable thereto; for as we freely acknowledge,