Christ, your unsocial separation from all other denominations; in short, in the characteristic notions and conduct of your society I cannot join ;-for reasons which shall hereafter be assigned.

Whether any thing of mine shall draw forth an answer, is a matter of perfect indifference. Controversy is not wished, but is not feared. This only may be said, as I shall attack no one's person, arraign no one's motives, but simply oppose principles and doctrines, no one need expect me to notice personal invective, hard names, suspected motives, nor any thing but sober argument. Epithets, therefore, of "impertinent," "self-conceit ed," "proselytor," "persecutor," or any names of the kind I give notice beforehand, will all be thrown away, as "I am armed so strong in honesty, they'll pass me like the idle wind which I respect not."

As I know you have the most erroneous notions of our doctrines and principles, it is not impossible I may have imbibed erroneous views of yours. As I have no object in view but truth, my heart shall be open to conviction, and every error I shall be happy to correct. The statement of your doctrines shall be given, not from the mouth of your enemies, but as far as possible, in your own phrases, taken from your daily conversation, and your most admired writers.

A complete discussion of every topic, with all the arguments and objections, in the short compass of a newspaper essay is out of the question. A concise statement of truth and error, is all that will be attempted.

And now, conscious that my motives are pure, my cause just, and the objects for which I contend of infinite moment, to this and every future essay I should have no objection to subscribe my name in full; but as it would answer no good purpose, and might be ascribed by some to ostentation; and as the truth or error of what I write has nothing to do with my personal character, I subscribe my sentiments by the name of an old and frequent combatant of yours, the Apostle- -PAUL.

LETTER II.

ON INTERNAL LIGHT.

Saturday, May 19, 1821.

THOUGH averse to creeds, you have a system of faith and doctrinal bond of union. As a Society you tolerate a greater difference of sentiment among yourselves than any other sect; but yet in certain general and distinctive points you all agree, as is

evident from your conversation, conduct and books. These distinctive or characteristic doctrines, I shall call your creed or system of faith; and these are the doctrines, which, from time to time, I intend to canvass.

In all unscriptural systems of religion there is a radical error; some fundamental principle, upon which, as on a corner stone, the whole system rests. To loosen this is to sap the whole building; a blow here, is a "blow at the root." That doctrine of yours, therefore, which I shall first call in question is this; that "there is a certain internal light, which is the source of all divine knowledge, and the only sufficient guide and rule of conduct; and that this light is either INNATE, or given to all." That you set up this internal light as a standard superior to the sacred scriptures is the general understanding of other denominations, and I think, evident from your conversation, preaching, and the books you patronize. In a summary of your doctrines stated to have been drawn up by one of your "most respectable members," contained in the Encyclopedia, and in Buck's Theological Dictionary, (article Quakers) it is stated, "To Christ alone we give the title of the word of God, and not to the saered scriptures; although we highly esteem these sacred writings, in SUBORDINATION to the spirit." And in Kersey's Treatise, "we do not agree with those professors of christianity, who say the sacred scriptures are the word of God." (p. 20.) Hence, in conversation, when particular passages are quoted against your doctrines, we hear such language as this," We cannot help it, but we feel we are right.""The same spirit which was given to Paul is given to us, his writings have been corrupted, and it is safer to trust the spirit than them-when we can drink at the fountain, why drink from the muddy stream!" -"That was merely Paul's opinion, he was not always inspired"-and many other phrases of like import, all calculated to reduce the authority of the Bible, and exalt the light within.

Now, in opposition to this, I maintain that the sacred scriptures, (in their literal and logical sense) are the supreme and only standard of religious truth.

1. Because they were written by inspiration of God. If you deny their inspiration, what are you better than the Deists, many of whom admit the sacred writers were good men. If you admit their inspiration; in other words, that these "holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," you must submit to their decisions, or make yourselves wiser than God! From the very circumstance, therefore, that they were dictated by infinite wisdom, (which you must admit, or profess deism,) we infer nothing can be a wiser or holier guide than they; of course there can be no higher standard of right and wrong.

Too many of your society, I fear, deny the plenary inspiration of the sacred volume, and are deists in heart; but I am willing to believe the majority agree with Jesse Kersey, that they were written "under the guidance of the word or Spirit of God," and therefore are to be held in "high esteem." With such only have I controversy. Says the Apostle, 1 Cor. xiv. 37: "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." Gal. i. 9: "If any man preach any other gospel, let him be accursed." 1 Thes. iv. 8: "He

that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath given unto us his holy spirit." He, therefore, that for the sake of any other standard, rejects what the apostle wrote, rejects "the commandments of God," and "despises" his maker. Those who in the face of the divine declarations, that "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration;" of the divine threatening to "take his part from the book of life, who should take from the words of this book;" and of Christ's promise to "guide his apostles into all truth, and bind in heaven what they should bind on earth" shall presume to reject or alter any part, have surely no claim to the title of christian. With such, at present, I have nothing to do.

But whether those who regard the sacred scriptures as inspired of God, and yet set up a higher standard of faith and practice, are consistent with themselves, or with the sacred scriptures is the present question. To the Bible, which you, as well as I, profess to reverence, I appeal. If it give countenance to such a standard, I submit. If not, if it uniformly sit as judge itself, and forbid all other trusts, condemn all other guides, your leading doctrine must be given up.

2. Our Lord made the sacred scriptures HIS standard, and why should not we make it ours? What saith the scriptures?" was a frequent appeal. "It is written," was enough for him. "The scriptures cannot be broken," was a fundamental principle. On questions of personal guilt or innocence, he sometimes appealed to conscience; but in all disputes concerning doctrine and duty, when scripture could be quoted, it was quoted, and deemed decisive. He appealed to a standard of which all his hearers could judge. Had he appealed to his own internal light, who but himself could have ascertained the conformity of his words to truth?

3. We are expressly commanded to try the spirits. 1 John iv. 1: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God, for many false prophets are gone abroad into the world." It seems in that age, as in every age since, some were for following internal impulses as their only rule. Against this the apostle guards, and enjoins to try all doctrines and conduct

by scriptural rules. If they contradicted the apostle's doctrines, the spirits were false. How perfectly do you reverse this order, and instead of trying the spirits by the scriptures, you try the scriptures by the spirit!

PAUL.

Saturday, May 26, 1821.

LETTER III.

ON INTERNAL LIGHT.

In my last I considered your doctrine of Internal Light, and showed its inconsistency with the inspiration of the Bible, that it was contrary to the example of Christ, and the command of the apostle John. Let me now offer a few further arguments for your consideration.

4. You expose your people to the delusions of an evil heart. I put this simple question, How shall a man know when he has the spirit? I can conceive of but two ways, from consciousness alone, or a comparison of our feelings with the scriptures. If the latter, you make the Bible your standard, contrary to your doctrine: if the former, if you permit a man to judge in himself, without reference to scripture, when he has the spirit, you leave every man at the mercy of his worst enemy, and under the guidance of deceitfulness itself. For says the prophet, Jerem. xvii. 9: "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it." And is this the infallible standard by which we are to estimate truth! (You would have every man make conscience a higher guide than the word of truth.) You make every thing of conscience, set it up as an infallible guide, an unerring counsellor. Now, we admit conscience is good, as far as it goes, but unless guided by scripture, it will in many points go wrong; scripture speaks of an "evil conscience," of persons whose "mind and conscience were defiled." The apostle Paul says he lived in all good conscience," while in his unregenerate state, and that he verily thought "he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth :" Acts xxvi. 9. for which very acts he afterwards condemned himself as a blasphemer, persecutor and the chief of sinners: 1 Timothy i. 13, 15. Have we any hint that the scriptures are so "deceitful, defiled," deceptive as this standard of yours! Can you wonder then that we prefer trusting, where the Lord and his apostles trusted, to the firm word of prophecy," rather than the igwis fatuus of our own imaginations? The letter of scripture is plain, the heart is more delusive than a dream. That a way may

seem to us right and yet prove wrong is evident from Prov. xvi. 25: "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." How then shall any one know whether a way which seems right, is right! You have no standard, we have; we go to the letter of scripture. He that trusts to any light independent of, or contrary to scripture, trusts to his own heart, and he who trusts his own heart is a fool." Prov. xxviii. 26.

5. Scripture proposes itself as our standard, Isaiah viii. 19. 20: "And when they shall say unto you seek unto them that have familiar spirits, should not a people seek unto their God? To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them." Can any direction be more plain? The law and the testimony are to be our guide, and men professing divine light are to be tried by the plain letter of the law. If they contradict the scriptures, there is no light in them; their light is darkness. Thus the apostle commends the Bereans, because they searched, (what? internal light? no,) the sacred scriptures whether the things which he preached, were so," Acts xvii. 11. And the direction of our Lord, to the Jews was, not to consult some internal luminary, but search the "sacred scriptnres."

66

Arguments on this head might be multiplied to an indefinite extent; but conciseness is my object. To all this you will object.

Obj. 1" The sacred scriptures are never called the word of God." Ans. It is of little consequence what they are called, provided they represent his mind and will. But that they are called the word of God, instead of more, I will rest on two passages to prove, 1. Thess. ii. 13: "We thank God, because when ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as the word of God." Here the "word of God" means something which might be heard, and is put in opposition to the word of men. The other is still more plain, Col. iii. 16: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly," i. e. on your construction, let the Christ of Christ dwell richly in you! But as I said before, the rejection of the name is nothing, did it not lead to the rejection of the thing.

Obj. 2." Christ is the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world." True; he giveth to each, all the light he has; but where is it said, how much? and where that he hath furnished each with a guide superior to the Bible? Those regions where the Bible is not known, are called "the dark places of the earth," the "places where no vision is.”

י

Obj. 3. "The sacred Scriptures have been corrupted by transmission." Ans. This is a bold assertion, which you are bound to prove. But before you undertake the task, remember,