66 report, or outward description and recommendation "of a thing, is the thing itself."

The Gofpel is the faving power of God, manibefted in the faithful heart, to its falvation. But "our author's Gospel feems to be the New Tefta ❝ment only, or fome of the doctrines therein con"contained." Obfer. P. 62.

*

According to Barclay, and Mr. Phipps, the reader will plainly fee, the Gospel, ftrictly and properly fpeaking, is only the virtue or power of God within all mankind, not the doctrines or truths delivered by the Apostles of Jefus : So that the paffage Mr. P. fo often quotes from Paul, Rom. i. 16. means no more than this, in his opinion, That " the gofpel," or properly fpeaking," the power of God" is "the power of God:" What an amazing difcovery!

This power of God, we have feen, is alfo the "light within," "the fubftance which comes down from "heaven," the "feed" which the Almighty has placed in the heart of every fon and daughter of Adam, and, stronger ftill, nothing lefs than "God himself" in the heart or foul of every man.

66

George Fox, in his book entitled "The Great "Mystery," P. 68, and 100. fays, "That the foul is part of God, and of God's being, and that it is "without beginning, and alfo infinite," P. 91. and 29. all which is as much as to fay, the foul is God. “If "fo," fays a fenfible writer, "then God fets up a "light in himself, which he himself is to obey, and in "fo doing, he himself shall be faved." But does not this border upon blafphemy? It must appear fhocking to every confiderate mind.

Let us, however, now confider the quotations of the Apologist, and his defender before mentioned. Collect, reader, your thoughts a little, and examine the meaning of the word "Gospel." In the Greek, as well as

in

in the English, it fignifies "good news*," or glad "tidings," and in this fenfe, without a metaphor, as we fhall fhew hereafter, it is commonly used by the Apoftles.

But did you ever hear before, reader, of fuch "glad tidings," as that of a mere "virtue," " power," or "fubftance" only? For you will obferve, it is nothing faid about it, but ftrictly and properly the "fub"ftance" itself, according to Barclay, and his confident Patron.

The last mentioned gentleman talks of his oppoments" landing in abfurdity," but, we apprehend a perfon may fail round the whole globe, and not land in any country, where he will find, among the religious, a more abfurd notion, and a greater abuse of language, than what he, and the Apologift, are here chargeable with.

Befides this, let the attentive reader take notice of what Barclay says, in the first paragraph before quoted, obferving at the fame time this most obvious truth, that there is no difference between "glad tidings" and "Gofpel." "For, to fpeak properly, the Gospel is this "inward power and life, which preacheth glad tidings " in the hearts of all men.". So then! one while the preacher of the "glad tidings," is the glad tidings" themselves, and the "glad tidings" fo preached, are not the "glad tidings;" whereas at another time, we are led to conceive, the preacher of the good news is not the good news itself, but only the preacher of it.

2

*The following quotation is approved by Mr. Phipps. "The word Evangelium," fays Dr. Smith, "fignifies in general "good "news," and is of the fame import with our English word Gofpel; only in the facred use of them both, there feems to be a metonymy, whereby the words that denote "grod news,' are fet to fignify the hiftory of "good news." Obfer. P. 66. If Dr. Smith means, that the word was always used metonymically in the facred writings, as he has only affirted here, not proved, we may prefume to think him miftaken. For who is this Dr. Smith, that we fhould fubmit to his authority, without argument ?

U

What

.

What palpable abfurdities are here! How have artifice and fubtilty intangled themselves! Is it not fhocking to common fenfe, is it not painful to the ferious mind, to fee our fellow finners, whofe eternal welfare we earnestly pray for, under a grave pretence of the Spirit, thus confounding the plaineft language, and flatly contradicting themselves? And for what? Why, to establish a favourite fyftem, though it be at the expence of violating the plaineft fenfe of God's word.

"Divine light," or "the Gofpel," which are the fame in Mr. Phipp's judgment, " is," fays he, P. 43. "the fubject of inward fenfation, and is not to be "communicated from one to the other, either by ❝reasoning or verbal description. In vain, therefore, "do any call for a verbal demonftration of it. A per"fon void of fight, from his birth, might as reafonably demand the light of an outward luminary to "be fhown him by argument."

These bold affertions are quite confiftent with Barclay's fyftem. They evidently fuppofe the Spirit of God itfelf cannot exprefs the Gofpel by words, or convey it to the mind of a finner, for his conviction and fanctification, by writing, preaching, or converfation. His mistakes here are founded upon this falfe affertion, that the gofpel is fuch an inexplicable thing, that it can only be the fubject of inward fenfation. But can their be any mental fenfations without ideas? However, the teftimony of Peter, and Paul, not to mention other divine writers, which we shall hereafter produce, will expreffly contradict him.

Here, it must be owned, he gravely wraps himself up in a cloud of mystery, and, as it were, calls upon the reader, to ftand at a profound diftance, and adnire him, whilft hugging himself in his ignorance. Should he be happy in the belief of his dark creed, he muft admit the following confeffion to be conformable to his undoubted experience. "I hope in I know not

" what,

"what, and I am influenced to action by I know not "what. In vain do you ask me for a verbal deinon"stration of what I feel, I cannot defcribe it to you "by words. You can know no more about it, by

66

any thing I can fay to you, even though you un❝derstood every declaration in the New Teftament, "than a man born blind can know of the best de"fcription of the fun's light. The Apoftle Peter, in"deed, calls upon Chriftians to "be ever ready to give

a reason of the hope within them, with meekness "and fear," I Pet. iii. 15. "But as for me, I can"not do any fuch thing, for the reason of my hope "I am unable to exprefs, in any language whatever."

Many other things may be here advanced, against their definitions, or defcriptions of Gospel, but what has been obferved is fufficient, it is prefumed, to fhow, how inconfiftent and even ridiculous they are, when fairly examined.

There are fome errors, which need only to be properly reprefented, in order to be confuted: Their accounts of the Gofpel, I really think, come under this predicament.

What we have here feen to be the gofpel of Barclay, and his defender, is the very fame with that of George Fox, as they themselves allow: If this then: be abfurd in itself, and different from the Gospel: which the Apostles and Evangelifts published to mankind, Barclay's affertion, that he and his brethren. preached no other Gospel than that which the Apoftles wrote and spoke about, is undoubtedly not true.

3. The Apoftles Gofpel, ftated from their own writings, and fhown to be different from that of the Quakers.

Let us fairly examine what the Apoftles Gofpek was, and we apprehend every candid and impartial reader

U 2

reader will be fully convinced, that the Apologist, and his defender, have efpoufed a very different fyftem, from that of the infpired fervants of Jesus.

The firft paffage I fhall produce, muft appear to every unbiaffed perfon, as clear and decifive as words can make it.

"Moreover brethren," (Paul is fpeaking to Chrif tians) 1 Cor. xv. 1,&c. "I déclaré unto you the Gospel, "To Gaynor, which I preached unto you, which allo "you have received, and wherein ye ftand, by which "alfo ye are faved, if ye keep in memory what I "preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. "For I delivered unto you, firft of all, that which I "alfo received, how that Chrift died for our fins accord "ing to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and "that be rofe again the third day, according to the Scrip

"tures."

39

This was "the Gofpel which he preached" at Corinth, for a year and half, Acts xviii. 11. "the "Gospel which they had received;"" in which they "ftood;" and "by which alfo they were faved; and it will be exceeding difficult for any man to per vert his meaning, with the most plaufible criticisms or explanations.

The perfon, of whom Paul was writing, the Corinthians knew, was Jefus of Nazareth. That he was the Meffiah or Chrift; that he died for the fins of those who believe him to be what the Apoftles teftified; and that, after his burial, he rofe again the third day, according to the predictions of the Old Teftament, was, without a metonymy, Paul's Gofpel,

But, Barclay fays, and Mr. Phipps agrees with him, "that the outward Gofpel is nothing, the inward Gofpel " is all, and that the former is put figuratively and "by a metonymy." But, where does the Apostle or any of his brethren, make this diftinction of Barclay's? It really appears to me, and I am not afhamed to profess it, a fhocking perverfion of the facred language,

The