mediate manifestation of the Spirit in spiritual men, or genuine believers in Christ, but to that universal light within, which Friends hold to be enjoyed by all men, in virtue of Christ's mediation.-" Last year," says Mr Newton, "while travelling in Ire"land, I met with a physician, who had been educated "as a Friend, and professed entire coincidence with "the doctrines of Barclay, though he believed not in "the Lamb slain for sin. When the concluding 66 66 verses of the 9th of Hebrews were quoted ('with"out shedding of blood is no remission') he refused "to receive it as Scripture, because it did not meet "the witness of the Spirit in his own mind; and he "then instanced other passages which he rejected on "the same principle. Thus an unregenerate man, "taught by Barclay to believe that God dwelt in "him, was determining what he would not receive as Scripture, and using the very principle of Barclay in defending the rejection of the blood of the "covenant."*—You may allege, that this is the abuse of the principle; but to me it seems to be no more than its legitimate application. This man had the same right to follow "the witness of the Spirit in his own mind,” that the others had, whose conduct Barclay sanctions and commends, regarding its result with admiration and gratitude, as a signal exemplifi * Remonstrance, &c., page 46, Note. cation of "the love of God to his children in these latter days." If the principle did indeed chance in the one case to lead right, (for which, however, we have no evidence but Barclay's opinion;) it chanced, in the other, to lead wrong. And it is manifestly a principle, which, by leaving truth to be determined by the impressions of every man's own mind, and those impressions subject to the illusive influence of a heart" deceitful above all things," is not at least less likely to lead wrong than to lead right. Whether it has not led even Mr Barclay himself to principles at variance with those taught by the Apostles of Christ, to principles that go far to subvert the Gospel, we may hereafter have occasion to examine. I now speak only of the tendency of the principle; and this, I conceive to be, both to draw away the thoughts from the Scriptures to what is believed to be a higher authority, and to leave that authority dependant on the fancied spiritual illumination of every man's own mind. It will not avail you to say, in answer to this, that there are differences of sentiment among those who profess to defer to the Scriptures themselves as the primary and only test. We grant it; we deplore it. But there is this difference between you and us; and it is a most important one, in as far as the respect due to the Scriptures is concerned,-that no protestant interpreters regard their expositions of Scripture as possessing any pretension to inspired authority; they all hold that authority to lie solely in the inspired writings themselves; and this principle binds them to one point-the ascertaining of the real import of those writings. This import alone, when duly ascertained, they regard as of divine obligation. But you, on the contrary, pretend to a source of information and direction superior to what you are accustomed to call-may I not say disparagingly? -the mere external rule :—and, while this necessarily leads to the practical depreciation of that rule, it exposes you to two sources of error instead of one; the first being the liableness, common to you with others, to misapprehension of the lessons of Scripture, when you do have recourse to it,-and the second, the liableness, peculiar to Friends, to self-deception and mistake, as to the reality of the Spirit's intimations to yourselves. I am well aware, (it would be impiety to question it,) that the blessed God, having immediate access to the human mind, can impart to any man, whensoever he pleases, the absolute assurance that a particular communication comes from Him. That he did this, in many instances, to prophets and apostles, independently of the evidence of external signs, I freely grant. Even by them, however, such signs were not unfrequently sought for their own fuller satisfaction; and for the satisfaction of others they were indispensable :which leads me to observe 4. That the modern revelations of Quakerism, even on the assumption of their being genuine, and of their being certified to the mind of the individual with divine assurance (an assumption, however, which would be a begging of the question at issue,-the question, namely, whether such revelations, independent of what is already recorded in the Scriptures, be still made)-yet can be of avail, so far as their authority is concerned, and the consequent obligation they impose, to him only who receives them. How are they to avail for others? But, the present letter having been more than sufficiently extended, I shall defer the consideration of this question, along with remarks on some other topics connected with the all-important subject of the authority and completeness of the Scriptures, to form the contents of my next, and subscribe myself again, Yours very respectfully, R. W. LETTER III. THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. RESPECTED FRIENDS, In the conclusion of my last letter, I had just announced a fourth general observation, in regard to the standard of religious truth and duty. I repeat the terms in which it was then stated, and proceed with the consideration of it:-"That the "modern revelations of Quakerism, even on the as"sumption of their being genuine, and of their be"ing certified to the mind of the individual with "divine assurance,-yet can be of avail, so far as "their authority is concerned, and the consequent 66 obligation they impose, to him only who receives "them. How are they to avail for others?"-The question is one of essential moment.-How are they attested? Whatever assurance inspired men had of old, that "the Divinity stirred within them," and that the intimations to their minds were from Him, -this assurance was exclusively their own. They could not convey it to other minds. It was of too peculiar a nature, to be known otherwise than by |