Imágenes de página

objects of practical neglect and steady dislike. Now, he sees that such an estimate was false, criminal, ruinous; and that to choose the world for his portion is to choose hell for his destiny: it is the estimate corrected that revolutions the choice. Now, he resolutely resigns the world and “ chooses that good part which shall not be taken away from him.” The estimate may exist imperfectly, without the choice; and so the subject revert from mere conviction to a worse apostacy: but it is not conceivable that the definitive choice should occur but as the result of the estimate. Such a volition was never his before, whom its occurrence defines “a new creature.” Thus the Spirit accords in his operations with the laws of mind, of which himself is the creative author. He operates on moral agents; who are not the less such because previous transgressors and enemies; and they are not the less such for what he does in reforming them, either in the process or the result. Those who would see a perfect picture of his influences in conversion, sketched in their results alone, may consult the parable of the prodigal son. After his voluntary desertion of his father, after his riotous and profligate courses, we see a pause, a consideration of his state; we see his rectified estimate of things, his definitive and voluntary resolution, his practical consistency, his humiliating and ingenuous confession, his gracious reception, his final restoration, and the elevated rapture of his father and household at the event.

Having thus given an outline of this most impor

tant doctrine, according to the scope of scripture, I wish to characterize the views of Friends as contra-distinguished from it.

(1) They hold to continued miraculous influences, or—what is much the same—to the PRECEDENCY of subjective impressions, or immediate “objective manifestations” in the mind. Their whole system is subjective mainly. Saith Barclay, “which revelations of God by the Spirit, whether by outward voices and appearances, dreams, or inward objective manifestations in the heart, were of old the formal object of their faith, and remain yet so to be; since the object of the saint's faith is the same in all ages, though held forth under divers administrations. And what was the object of their faith, but inward and immediate revelation, as we have before proved. But further; if the object of faith were not one and the same both to us and to them, then it would follow that we were to know God some other way than by the Spirit.” Sophistical as ever! as if the medium of knowing were the same with the object known !

(2) They hold to the NECESSITY of those, and to that faith which is founded on them as their formal object,in order to salvation. “The true and effectual knowledge, which brings life eternal with it,-is no otherwise attained ; and none have any true ground to believe they have attained it, who have it not by this revelation of God's Spirit.” What is this but eternally unchurching all who disbelieve his doctrine !

(3) They hold that this is UNIVERSAL, all men

IT saves us.

participating it in all ages of the world. ". This light enlighteneth the hearts of all in a day, in order to salvation, if not resisted : nor is it less universal than the seed of sin."

) (4) They hold that, as it is by consenting to this internal light that one man differs from another" untu salvation, so it rests absolutely and ultimately and wholly and only with his will to consent or not, and so to self-arbitrate the event of salvation ; yet, they maintain, that, as it is by consenting to the influence that it saves us, so we ought not to SAY that we save ourselves, but that

It might be proper to inquire how happened Barclay to consent, when others refused ? There was either a cause for it or there was not: if the former, what was that cause ?

“ WHO maketh thee to differ from another ? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive ? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it ?" 1 Cor. 4: 7, and 2 Cor. 5:5. But if it was a mere hap, for which there was no cause at all, then the following absurdities result : (1) God himself could not foreknow it ; for, that which had no cause was a mere fortuity. It might have come to pass and it might not; how then could God have certainly foreknown that it would come to pass, as now the event has taught us all that it did ? If we say he foreknew uncertainly, what is this but affirming his ignorance, since we all do the same with respect to future events—of which we are all totally ignorant! It follows that God never foreknew that any one

would consent, or knew at all until he happened to find out that he had consented! This is next door to horrid impiety. (2) There is no certainty of the continuance of the church on the earth. It is only by consenting to follow the Spirit that any man becomes a member of the church invisible, as we all agree. If then it be an absolute contingency, a matter of perfect chance, whether any one consents or not, it is at best a chance whether one more will ever be converted! The consequence is plain. Again, (3) It is foolish to talk of God's raising up ministers to prosecute his work, since if chance dont happen (without any cause) to cause the will to submit to be willing to consent to the impotent wishes of God, he can never raise up another! What a wonderful felicity of chances it was in the first ages, that God happened to succeed to procure so many apostles just when he happened to want them; ESPECIALLY Paul! And when Friends think of Barclay, what a philosopher he was, how grateful ought they to be to chance, by whom he was converted, by his happening to consent to the light within! Yea! and if Fox had not so happened to consent, what would have become of the whole society? It is plain that Quakerism altogether, with its wonderful light, is the mere result of chance! But let us hear Barclay expound the matter. “I

“I say—that as the grace and light in all is sufficient to save all, and of its own nature would save all; so it shines and wrestles with all in order to save them; he that resists its striving, is the cause of his own condemnation; he that resists it not, it becomes his salvation : so that in him that is saved, the working is of the grace, and not of the man; and it is a passiveness [e. g. sitting still and placid in silent meetings] rather than an act; though afterward, as man is wrought upon, there is a will raised in him, by which he comes to be a co-worker with the grace.” This is rare inspiration and most sublime philosophy! Quakerism needs something more than an apology!

I now infer that the views of Friends concerning the Spirit, are not the views of the Bible ;52 and remark that Barclay continually assumes their identity and rashly reasons on that false assumption : particularly (1) when he quotes the sayings of scripture in reference to the Spirit ; and (2) when he quotes from Calvin, Luther, and the early Fathers, on the same topic. This is a very common and most unfair practice of Friends.

It is plain that neither the scriptures nor the christian Fathers yield his doctrine any support, unless it be true that their doctrine of the Spirit is itself identical with his! As well might Friends quote me, when I speak of the necessity of the influence and maintain that all means will be ultimately vain without it; and because I say this, might they affirm that I held their doctrine! and this, though I abominate their doctrine, and believe it to be a mortal delusion, and am convinced that the blood of souls by thousands is chargeable to its ignis-fatuus coruscations! The assurance of Barclay and of Friends generally on this article is truly wonderful! After

« AnteriorContinuar »