CHAPTER III.

It is indeed by the power of the Holy Spirit that the heart is softened and opened to receive the truth, and also that the truth, when received, is applied with saving efficacy to the heart, and made to produce fruit unto holiness. But let us, with fixed attention to the following passages, consider the divine testimony to the authority of the Word, which word, whether originally written or spoken, comes down to us by the revelation of the Spirit, through the Scriptures; constantly bearing in mind that it is through these divine records that we, at this day, have the true knowledge of God-of his holy law, and of the Gospel of life and salvation through Jesus Christ."

In one of the "Extracts" from the "Beacon," Isaac Crewdson speaks something about "misapprehension of terms, leading to confusion of ideas."

I agree with him, that such results are likely to flow from such a cause. It is, therefore, very desirable that we either attach the same meaning to the same terms as is attached by others, or that we clearly state our own meaning, so as not to be misunderstood. I will endeavour to illustrate this by an example, viz.: Isaac Crewdson and the Reviewers understand by the term, ..the Word of God," those writings which are bound up together in one book, called the Old and New Tes

tament, distinctively; and the Bible, unitedly. But they APPEAR to have another understanding of it also; for instance :-Isaac Crewdson talks of an "OUTWARD Word;"-Mark-not "The Word," but an OUTWARD Word; which would lead one to suppose (if they did not, by the general tendency and result of their writings, deny it,) that they believed in an INWARD Word also. So that, notwithstanding they interpret "the Word of God" to mean the Bible, they still give another meaning to it upon other occasions, when such meaning assists them in the building up of their Babel; but they are, nevertheless, unable to prevent that confusion, which they speak of in so admonitory a style, and which ever must happen to those who would supply the place of the "chief corner stone," for any other that may "comport best with the particular bent of mind” of such wise master builders. The confusion of ideas, and obscurity of expression consequent upon this misapprehension, or want of clear definition of terms, is fully exemplified in the last paragraph of the quotation I have just selected,- "It is, indeed, by the power of the HOLY SPIRIT that the heart is softened and opened to receive the truth, and also that the truth, when received, IS APPLIED with saving efficacy to the heart, and made to produce fruit unto holiness. But let us, with fixed attention, to the following passages, consider the divine testimony to the authority of the Word, which Word, whether originally written or spoken, comes down to us by the revelation of the Spirit, through the Scriptures; constantly bearing in mind that it is through these divine records that we, at this day, have the true knowledge of God-of his holy law, and of the Gospel of

life and salvation through Jesus Christ". What these passages may be I know not, not having seen the work, nor is it material to my argument in this place. The writer, in these passages, speaks of "the authority of the Word as something distinct from the Scriptures, although the whole scope and tendency of the Beacon," appears from other extracts, as well as from the observations of the Reviewers, to have been written with a view to establish the Scriptures, as "the ONLY standard of religious truth." He speaks of "the authority of the Word," which, in this place, mark! is not as serted to be the Scriptures, but "which Word, whether originally written or spoken, comes down to us by the revelation of the Spirit through the Scriptures." Now, the SCRIPTURES, in this instance, are not made the ONLY standard of religious truth, but spoken of as a MEDIUM through which another standard, “ the Word," comes down to us, and for the authority of which Word, our attention is DIRECTED to " the divine testimony," as conveyed in certain passages of Scripture, which, I suppose, thereinafter follow. Now, if it be said, that by "the authority of the Word," the Scriptures only are meant, it must surely be admitted that this mode of expression is not only calculated to mislead us, but, from the indistinct, nay, absurd and contradictory phraseology employed, is inevitably calculated to produce "a confusion of ideas." For, in the first place, we are told of "the authority of the Word," we are next informed of the "divine testimony" to the Word's authority, and directed to the place where this testimony may be found. But then, again, for the author to be consistent with the general reasoning and object of his

work, no authority or standard is admitted but the Scriptures; so that, after all," the authority of the Word" the "divine testimony" to it-and the "Scriptures," through which, by the revelation of the Spirit, "the Word comes down to us," are all one and the same thing. If any proposition or doctrine can possibly be more perplexing than this, I, for one, must confess myself at a loss to imagine; for if no authority or standard but that of the Scriptures, is contended for by the author in this passage, he has certainly, to my mind, darkened counsel by words without knowledge," because, if he had used the same words to express the same meaning throughout the whole of the passage, especially as they occur so nearly together, all constructions, at variance with his intentions, would have been prevented, although his whole process of ratiocination might conclude in a palpable absurdity; for how stands the matter, if the writer is speaking of the same thing only; viz., the Scriptures, under these different aspects. The passage would then read thus-"Let us, with fixed attention to the following passages of Scripture, consider the Scripture testimony to the authority of Scripture, which Scripture (Word in the quotation) comes down to us by the revelation of the Spirit' (which reveals nothing but when reading the Scriptures, or hearing others read them) through the Scriptures.' Now, the writer of the passage either predicates thus of the Scriptures ONLY, or he does not. If only of the Scriptures, what does it all amount to? why only to this,-that Scriptural authority is Scriptural authority; and that what the Scriptures contain has, come down to us through the Scrip

tures

that they bear their own testimony to their authority-that that authority is divine, and that there is no divine authority, for THEIR divine authority, but the divine authority that they de jure are of themselves. If such be the meaning of Isaac Crewdson and the Reviewers, I must beg leave to differ from them, feeling in my own mind fully persuaded (which persuasion the Scripture recommends) that there is another testimony (whether it be acknowledged by others or not) to the true knowledge of God,-of his holy law,-and of the gospel of light and salvation, through Jesus Christ." Really, when I read of a person, who I understand for a number of years has been an acknowledged minister of the Society, calling in question the great leading truth upon which every doctrine and practice of the Society is professed to be based; viz.-that the Word of God," according to the Scriptures, "is that light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world,"—really when I find a person of such standing and station in the Society, attempting to subvert the very foundation of our hopes, I cannot but with the most earnest and affectionate entreaties, reiterate the language of one of old-“To your tents, oh, Jacob! and to your tabernacles, oh, Israel." Have the Society been thus from the day that George Fox first opened his mouth in the name of the Lord, under "the delusions of Satan, or their own minds?" Were the searching testimonies, written and oral, which they bore against the polluted notions and practices of their day, but mere "suggestions of their own minds?" Was the solemn silence which covered their assemblies, and which, at times, was so miraculously accompanied with evidence of divine regard