Robert Barclay then proceeds to describe the several ways in which Christians may derive benefit from the pious perusal of the sacred volume; and after asserting that the society are ever willing to have all their doctrines and practices tried by them, he considers the various texts adduced by other protestant professors, to prove that they are the only and primary rule of faith and manners. In his ninth section, he thus replies to an objection:

"The last, and that which at first view seems to be the greatest objection, is this:

"If the scripture be not the adequate, principal, and only rule, then it would follow that the scripture is not complete, nor the canon filled; that if men be now immediately led and ruled by the spirit, they may add new scriptures of equal authority with the old, whereas every one that adds is cursed: yea, what assurance have we, but, at this rate, every one may bring in a new gospel, according to his fancy?

"The dangerous consequences insinuated in this objection, were fully answered in the latter part of the last proposition, in what was said a little before, offering freely to disclaim all pretended revelations contrary to the scripture.

"Objection 1.-But if it be urged, that it is not enough to deny these consequences, if they naturally follow from your doctrine of immediate revelation, and denying the scripture to be the only rule: "I answer, we have proved both these doctrines to be true and necessary according to the scriptures themselves; and therefore, to fasten evil consequences upon them, which we make appear do not follow, is not to accuse us, but Christ and his apostles, who preached them. But, secondly, we have shut the door upon all such doctrine in this very position, affirming that the scriptures give a full and ample testimony, to all the principal doctrines of the Christian faith. For we do firmly believe that there is no other gospel or doctrine to be preached, but that which was delivered by the apostles; and do freely subscribe to that saying, let him that preacheth any other gospel than that which hath been already preached by the apostles, and according to the scriptures,be accursed.

"So we distinguish betwixt a revelation of a new gospel and new doctrines, and a new revelation of the good old gospel and doctrines; the last we plead for, but the first we utterly deny. For we firmly believe that no other foundation can any man lay than that which is laid already.' But that this revelation is necessary we have already proved; and this distinction doth sufficiently guard us against the hazard insinuated in the objection."-Apology, pages 104, 105. Barclay then goes into the consideration of the question, whether the scripture be a filled canon or not, which concludes the chapter. Our readers will at once perceive, that while this excellent man, and able theologian, contended firmly against the erroneous idea, that the Holy Scriptures are the only, or the primary rule of faith and life; he does positively assert, on behalf of the Society of Friends, that they utterly renounce and deny all pretensions to the revelation of any new doctrine; that the sacred volume contains all doctrines necessary in common to be believed, and that they freely

subscribe to the saying, let him that preacheth any other gospel than that which hath been already preached by the apostles, and according to the scriptures, be accursed.

This doctrine the society has again and again sanctioned, both in England and America, and given it their approbation in the most unequivocal manner; and consequently, as Elias Hicks and his friends do teach doctrines which directly contradict the Holy Scriptures, it follows that they are not one in faith with the Society of Friends, ancient or modern.

On page 66, of the compilers' pamphlet, we have three short quotations, from the second section, of the thirteenth proposition and argument of the Apology, which treats of the "communion, or participation of the body and blood of Christ." We are at a loss to discover what object the compilers had, in selecting these passages, unless it be to make it appear, that R. Barclay denied the manhood of Jesus Christ. But whatever might have been the design, it is certain that the quotations are made very unfairly, as will appear from the following extracts, in which the parts selected by them, are enclosed in brackets with a hand. The second proposition thus com

mences:

"SII. [The body,] then, [of Christ, which believers "partake of, is spiritual and not carnal; and his blood which they "drink of, is pure and heavenly, and not human or elementary, as Augustin also affirms of the body of Christ which is eaten, in his Tractat Psal. xcviii. Except a man eat my flesh, he hath not in him life eternal: and he saith, The words which I speak unto you, are spirit and life; understand spiritually what I have spoken. Ye shall not eat of this body which ye see, and drink this blood which they shall spill, which crucify me. I am the living bread, who have descended from Heaven. He calls himself the bread, who descended from Heaven, exhorting that we might believe in him, &c. "If it be asked then, What that, body, what that flesh and blood

is?

"I answer; [It is that heavenly seed, that divine, spiritual, "celestial substance, of which we spake before, in the fifth and sixth "propositions. This is that spiritual body of Christ, whereby and through which, he communicateth life to men, and salvation to as many as believe in him, and receive him; and whereby also, man comes to have fellowship and communion with God."-page 460.

The first sentence which the compilers have taken, comprises about three lines of the Apology, and closes at a comma-this they have pointed with a period, and omitting twelve lines, take in about three lines more, in the next paragraph, joining the two together as though regularly connected in the Apology, and appearing in their pamphlet as one continuous quotation.

R. Barclay, then proceeds to recite the principal part of the sixth chapter of John, from verse 32 to the end, and to explain and apply it to the communion of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, which the saints partake of. Having done this, he draws the following conclusion, a part of which the compilers quote, viz:

"From this large description of [the origin, na"ture, and effects, of this body, flesh, and blood of Christ, it is ap"parent that it is spiritual, and to be understood of a spiritual body, "and not of that body, or temple of Jesus Christ, which was born "of the Virgin Mary, and in which he walked, lived, and suffered, in "the land of Judea ;] because it is said, that it came down from Heaven; yea, that it is HE that came down from Heaven. Now all christians at present, generally acknowledge, that the outward body of Christ came not down from Heaven; neither was it that part of Christ which came down from Heaven. And to put the matter out of doubt, when the carnal Jews, would have been so understanding it, he tells them plainly, verse 63, It is the spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing.

"This is also founded upon most sound and solid reason; "because it is the soul, not the body, that is to be nourished by this "flesh and blood. Now, outward flesh cannot nourish nor feed the "soul; there is no proportion nor analogy betwixt them; neither is "the communion of the saints with God, by a conjunction and mu"tual participation of flesh, but of spirit:] he that is joined to the Lord, is one spirit, not one flesh."-page 462.

R. Barclay, then goes on to explain the subject further, and to draw a distinction between the spiritual flesh and blood and body of Christ, and that body of outward flesh which he took from the Virgin Mary, in which the Word of God appeared and was manifested. This distinction of spiritual and fleshly bodies, is the most that can be inferred from the sentences, which the compilers have mutilated, and since R. Barclay acknowledges in one of them, the miraculous conception of our blessed Lord, it furnishes us with another instance of disagreement between him and Elias Hicks, the latter affirming that the scripture testimony proves Jesus Christ to be the son of Joseph.

To show clearly, that Barclay was a firm believer in all that the scriptures set forth, concerning the coming, and suffering, and death, &c., of the Son of God, (though this has already been sufficiently evinced from his declarations respecting the sacred volume,) we shall insert the following paragraph from his proposition on universal and saving light. After largely enforcing the necessity and sufficiency of the Holy Spirit graciously vouchsafed to all men, the author adds:

66

"§ XV. Fourthly.-We do not hereby intend, any ways, to lessen or derogate from the atonement and sacrifice of Jesus Christ; but on the contrary, do magnify and exalt it. For as we believe all those things to have been certainly transacted, which are recorded in the Holy Scriptures, concerning the birth, life, miracles, sufferings, resurrection, and ascension of Christ; so we do also believe, that it is the duty of every one to believe it, to whom it pleases God to reveal the same, and to bring to them the knowledge of it; yea, we believe it were damnable unbelief, not to believe it, when so declared; but to resist that holy seed, which as minded would lead and incline every one to believe it, as it is offered unto them, though it revealeth not in every one, the outward and explicit knowledge of

it, nevertheless it always assenteth to it, where it is declared. Netheless as we firmly believe it was necessary, that Christ should come, that by his death and sufferings, he might offer up himself a sacrifice to God for our sins, who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, so WE BELIEVE THAT THE REMISSION OF SINS WHICH ANY PARTAKE OF, IS ONLY IN AND BY VIRTUE OF THAT MOST SATISFACTORY SACRIFICE, AND NO OTHERWISE. For it is by the obedience of that one, that the free gift is come upon all, to justification. For we affirm, that as all men partake of the fruit of Adam's fall, in that, by reason of that evil seed, which, through him, is communicated unto them, they are prone and inclined unto evil, though thousands of thousands be ignorant of Adam's fall, neitheir ever knew of the eating of the forbidden fruit; so also many may come to feel the influence of this holy and divine seed and light, and be turned from evil to good by it, though they knew nothing of Christ's coming in the flesh, through whose obedience and sufferings it is purchased unto them. And as we affirm it is absolutely needful, that those do believe the history of Christ's outward appearance, whom it pleased God to bring to the knowledge of it; so we do freely confess, that even that outward knowledge, is very comfortable to such as are subject to, and led by, the inward seed and light. For not only doth the sense of Christ's love and sufferings tend to humble them, but they are thereby also strengthened in their faith, and encouraged to follow that excellent pattern, which he hath left us, who suffered for us, as saith the apostle Peter, 1 Pet. ii. 21, leaving us an example that we should follow his steps: and many times we are greatly edified and refreshed, with the gracious sayings which proceed out of his mouth. The history then is profitable and comfortable with the mystery, and never without it; but the mystery is, and may be profitable, without the explicit and outward knowledge of the history."pages 155, 156,

CHAPTER XIV.

Observations on the extracts from the writings of FRANCIS HOWGILL,

The compilers have inserted on their 69th page, a quotation from a controversial essay, written by Francis Howgill, by which it would seem, they wish to make it appear, that this author considered the saints to be equal with God. We have already replied to a similar charge alleged against George Fox; and have proved from the evidence of his cotemporary Friends, that he meant far otherwise, than his enemies pretended; and that the early Quakers never professed so blasphemous a doctrine.

Francis Howgill does not assert, that the saints are equal with God, but that they are in that, which is one in nature with him. He quotes the language of the apostle, "He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit," and adds, "there is unity, and the unity stands in equality itself." It is evident from the manner in which he uses the term, that he means no more by equality than oneness in nature, and this is further shown in the subsequent sentence. "He that is born from above," says he, "is the Son of God; and he said, I and my Father are one. And when the Son is revealed and speaks, the Father speaks in him, and dwells in him, and he in the Father." The compilers have here, as in the paragraph from George Fox, on the same subject, omitted the usual form of commencing the word Son, (when applied to our blessed Lord,) with a capital letter, doubtless intending to make it apply to those who are called sons of God by adoption. But it will be seen that Francis Howgill prevents this construction of his expression, by using the past tense, "Who said," and reciting the express words of our Lord, which proves that he alluded to him only. Francis Howgill adds, "IN that which is equal; IN equality itself; there is equality in¡nature, though not in stature."

The intention of the author in these expressions, appears to be in consonance with that saying of our blessed Saviour, "I am the vine, ye are the branches, and my Father is the husbandman. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye except ye abide in me." Hence every true disciple of the Lord Jesus, must abide in him-and he that abides in him, in Christ, is in that, which is equal with God, for said he, "I and my Father are One." But Francis Howgill is careful to distinguish between equality in nature and equality in degree, and in the former sense only, he uses it when applied to the saints; and in both when speaking of Jesus Christ. The same passage as the compilers have quoted in their pamphlet, was adduced by the Snake, to prove that Francis Howgill, equalled himself with God. The reader may see the reply, in Joseph Wyeth's Switch, p. 60.