« AnteriorContinuar »
to difsent from them. For we cannot allow that there is such a Light as they pretend, and which they suppose to be the immediate efficient cause of what they call the Work of Christ in us; and consequently it's Operations can have no measure of Goodness, because they are not. But would they by the Work of Christ in us mean the influences of the Holy Spirit which Christ has be. stowed upon us, we readily ascribe to it a real
worth, that is, such a measure of goodness as makes e it acceptably to God. The same may be said of
the Intercession of Christ in us, if they meant thereby nothing more than his Spirits assisting us to pray acceptably unto God. But since they mean the Light's stirring, moving, and enabling us to pray by particular impulses; 'tis plain such an Intercer. fion cannot have such a measure of goodness as makes it acceptable to God, because it is a mere figment. And as for what they call the Sufferings of Christ in us, they can have no measure of Good. ness; because there are no such Sufferings of Christ in us, upon the account of the pretended Light's being in us. But if by the Sufferings of Christ in us they understood the Sufferings of his Members, which are no otherwise his than as they are inflicted or permitted by his Providence, and submitted to for his fake, born by the Asistance of his Grace, and by such persons as are, both Externally by Water-baptism, and Internally by the Communication of the Spirit, united to him ; I say, if they meant such Sufferings as these, without foisting in their fond conceits of their pretended Light; we most readily ascribe to them a real worth, or such a measure of Goodness as makes them ac. ceptable to God.
CH A P. XVI.
Of the Rule of Faith.
HE next Controversy which I Niall ende
vor to determin, is concerning the Rule of Faith.
By Faith in this controversy. I understand, not a bare Belief of the Christian Doctrine, but such a Belief as is fruitful in good Works. To this
Mr. Penn (a) agrees, saying, By Faith we understand : an assent of the Mind in such manner to the Disco: veries made of God thereto, as to resign up to God, and have dependence upon him, as the great Creator and Savior of his people, which is inseparable from good Works. And accordingly, what I call a Rule of Faith, is what Mr. Penn (6) calls a Rule of Faith and Life, and Mr. Barclay (c) a Rule of Faith and Manners. Wherefore that Standard and Measure according to which we are obliged to believe and aa, is our Rule of Faith.
Now that the Scriptures are a A Rule of Faith, our Adversaries themselves do grant. But then Mr. Pean (d) observes, that À Rule, and THE Rule, are not one and the same thing. And accordingly, thoʻour Adversaries do acknowledge, that the Scriptures are A Rule of Faith, that is, a secondary and subordinate Rule of Faith ; yet they deny them to be THE Rule of Faith, that is, the primary and adequate Rule thereof. Thus Mr.
(a) Chriftian Quaker Part. 1. append. p. 136. (6) Ibid. (0) Apol
. prop. 3. P. 398. (d) Christian Quaker. Part si apo pend. P: 147
Barclay Barclay (e) faies, the Scriptures may be esteemed a secondary Rule, subordinate to the Spirit, which he (f) tells us, is the primary and adequate Rule of Faith and Manners. Whereas I shali
Whereas I shall prove, that the Scriptures are, not only A Rule, but THE Rule; that is, 1. the only, 2. an adequate Rule of Faith.
I. I shall prove, that the Scriptures are the only Rule of Faith. For that Rule of Faith, besides which there is no other, is the only Rule of Faith. Now that the Scriptures are that Rule, besides which there is no other, will appear if the following particulars be considered.
First, I have already observed, that Mr. Barclay affirms the Spirit to be the primary and adequate Rule of Faith. But according to Mr. Penn the pretended Light within is the General Rule of Faith. For Mr. Penn expresly faies, that (g) the Light was and is most properly the General Rule; and he affirms the same (h) elsewhere.
Now I shall not dispute, whether Mr. Bare clay's primary and adequate Rule of Faith, be the same with Mr. Penn's general Rule of Faith. 'Tis sufficient to observe, that besides the Holy Scriptures, which both of 'em do allow to be a Rule of Faith, Mr. Penn pretends that the Light within, and Mr. Barclay that the Spirit, is also the Rule of Faith.
Nor thall I dispute, whether Mr. Penn, who afserts chat the Light within is the general Rule of Faith, does in any Measure differ from, or contradiet Mr. Barclay, who asserts that the Spirit is
(e) Apol. prop. 3. p. 296. (f) Ibid. p. 298. (8) Qua. kerim a new Nick name for old Christianity, ch.5. p. 54. Lond. 3673. (b) Christian Quaker, part 1. append. p. 136.
the primary and adequate Rule of Faith. "Twill be sufficient to prove, that whether their opinions do clash or no, yet both of 'em are in the Wrong, for asserting that there is another Rule besides the Holy Scriptures. Because I fall fhew, that neither the Light within, nor the Spirit, is a Rule of Faith.
As for what our Adversaries mean by the Light within, I have largely shewn, that there is no such thing. And how then can it be a Rule of Faith? 'Tis impossible for that, which is not, to be the Measure and Standard of Man's Belief and PraEtice.
And as for the Spirit, I must observe in the first place, that the Word Spirit does in the language of our Adversaries fometimes fignify the Light within. Thus Mr. Barclay (i) saies, God hath communicated and
given unto every Man a Measure of the Light of his own Son, a Measure of Grace, a Measure of the Spirit, &c. in which words the Light and the Spirit do plainly denote the same thing. Mr. Penn also faies, (k) The very Light and Spirit of Christ is and ought to be our Rule; in which words the Spirit and Light are used as Synonymous Terms. And (to add no more Quotations) the same Author, treating professedly of the general Rule of Faith and Life, and having in that very Discourse fre- . quently asserted that the Light or Spirit is the general Rule of Faith and Lite, expresly declares, that (l) the Spirit and Light are one, tho'two Names. How conlillent this last passage is with Mr. Barclay's Teaching, that the Light is not God, but his
(1) Apol. prop: 5; 6. p. 336. (k) Quakerism a new Nickname, ch. 5. p. 58. (1) Christian Quaker, part. 1. append. p. 151. O z
Instrument, I think it concerns Mr. Penn to consider. But I shall pass it over. Now, if when our Adversaries affirm, that the Spirit is the Rule of Faith, they do by the Spirit mean the Light within; then I have already ihewn their Mistake. But as for Mr. Barclay, whatever he means in some Places, I think it abundantly evident to any one that is conversant in his Writings, that when he saies, the Spirit is the Rule of Faith, he does by the Spirit generally mean that Holy Spirit of God, who is God, that is, the Third Person in the Trinity. I shall therefore shew, that this Spirit, or the Spirit understood in this Sense, is not a Rule of Faith.
For (as Mr. Barclay speaks and distinguishes) the Spirit of God, or God, may be considered, either simply, or as manifesting himself in Divine immediale Revelations. Now that the Spirit, or God, fimply considered, that is, considered as not manifesting himself in Divine immediate Revelations, cannot be a Rule of Faith, Mr. Barclay freely grants, saying, (m) God, (not fimply considered, but) as manifesting himself in divine immediate Revelations in the hearts of his Children,
is the pri. mary and adequate Rule of Christians. For I was never so absurd, as to call God fimply considered, or the Spirit of God in abstracto (not as imprinting Truths to be believed and obeyed in Men's hearts, not contrary, but according to Scripture, for he cannot contradiet himself ) the Rule of Christians. Nor can God, as manifesting himself in divine immediate Revelations, be a Rule of Faith. For when we say, that God manifests himself, we mean, that he
(m) Apol. Vindic. sect. 4. p.752.