Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The

is given," and ever was given, and ever will be given "by inspiration of God," and is profitable for the purposes to which the Apostle has declared it to be. principles of the Society teach us to look upon the Holy Scriptures, as one of the good and precious gifts of Divine goodness, a good, and, to its end, “a perfect gift, which hath come down from above, from the Father of lights." The principles of the Society engender this belief with regard to the nature and authority of Holy Scriptures; how then can they lead us to speak in terms of disparagement of them? How far

removed from truth and Christian charity, how repugnant to common sense, and how utterly at variance with common honesty of intention, and propriety of language, to attempt assimilation of these principles with those of Deism! and to openly assert that we disparage this gift of the Almighty, because we value the " inestimable gift of his grace and Holy Spirit, through Christ Jesus our Lord, more highly. If a right esteem be set upon a gift of less value, can I be said to disparage it, by esteeming more highly, a gift of greater value? or do I not rather shew myself to be insensible to their comparative value by esteeming both alike, or by giving to the lesser gift the precedence in my affections? Must I of necessity speak in disparagement of the various physical, intellectual, and spiritual gifts, that a beneficent Creator, amidst all the stormy and adverse circumstances of life, coupled with my sins and unfaithfulness, has been pleased to bestow upon me, because I prize, and am thankful above them all, for the gift of eternal life, which he hath promised "to all those who love the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ ?"

[ocr errors]

As an instance of the "terms of disparagement" in which the Scriptures are spoken of, this writer says, that Barclay affirms, that the Scriptures, being outwardly written, are the law which brings condemnation and kills; but that the gospel is the inward spiritual law which gives life." My limits prevent, at this time, my saying much upon this point, but can this quotation from Barclay be fairly and truly said to be in any way disparaging to the Scriptures? How much difference is there between what Barclay says, and what Paul says? Paul says "the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life;" and, "because the law worketh wrath for where no law is, there is no transgression.” "Moreover the law entered that sin might abound."

:

There is now, therefore, no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit; for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, hath made me free from the law of sin and death; for what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Now, what is the sum and substance of these quotations from the Apostle, with many more passages that might be adduced from the same inspired writer, but a statement of the same principles as those contained in the quotation from Barclay? Will the Reviewer deny that the Scriptures are outwardly written ?” Will he not make a distinction between the writing and the thing written of; between the external text, and that which the text treats about? Will he not, even though to the contradiction of himself at other times, join his

66

66

brother Reviewer and Isaac Crewdson, and say, in effect, if not in words, that the Scripture is but a "dead letter," without "the power of the Holy Spirit ?'' And does he not know that that power can even give "dry bones" life, and even of the stones, raise up children unto Abraham ?" And does not this law bring wrath and condemnation? but does not salvation come through Jesus Christ? Does not even the law of human society in some cases bring death to the transgressor ? and when the law thus brings condemnation is it not the royal prerogative of mercy alone that can set free from it? Is not this the power of human law, viz.—condemnation, be it little or much? And is not such the power of the law of which the Apostle speaks? Does he not say that it worketh wrath ?" Does he not say the law which brings no condemnation, as contra-distinguished from that which does, is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jeus? Does he not say that the law which brings condemnation could not set him free? Doth he not give us to understand that the law which brings condemnation requires a righteousness, or an obedience, which it has not the power to enforce ? Doth he not plainly draw a distinction between the dead letter of the law itself, the righteousness it requires, and the power of the law-giver? Doth he not clearly draw this distinction, when he saith, "for what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit?" So much for speaking in terms of disparagement of the Scripture.

Allow me, however, another observation or two. I

would ask what is law in reference to human power and society, both civilized and barbarous ? Is it not a regulation or rule, or the regulations and rules, proceeding from the condensed will of society, in reference to mutual action ? It is either statute or common law, or both; that is, either written or traditional and understood, or both. It is the consent of this condensed will of society, brought into practical operation, which de-jure and de-facto is the law. Now let me ask whether the law is not a distinct and separate thing from the book or characters which only inform us what the law is? Has the law, or the book which tells us what it is, the power of enforcing obedience to its commands, or setting us free from the condemnation which it brings? Is it not the law which brings disobedience, for is it not clear that where there is no law to obey, there can be none to disobey? If the law, therefore, by virtue of its own power, is incapable of producing obedience, if it requires the active operation of the executive to that end, what in fact is the law itself but "a dead letter ?" Now is it speaking in terms of disparagement of this law?—does it amount to saying that no law has ever been given ?-does it " discard or explain away" every law that has been given, because I deny to the law itself, or the book which contains it, the power to enforce its own enactments ? Does not, I ask, this power reside there from whence the law proceeded? Do I deride the law, or derogate from its authority and the obedience which it enjoins in speaking the truth respecting it? in saying that the mere parchment, or paper, or writing, or book, is not the law, and that the law itself is a dead letter, which can neither give the will to obey, nor the obedience to fulfil. Are they

T

who thus say what the law is, to be charged, from this circumstance alone, as violators, despisers, and revilers of the law? Oh! no, you surely would not say so. And is not all that I have here said in reference to human law, applicable, humanly speaking, according to the doctrine of the Apostle, to that "law which worketh wrath ?" Doth he not say that what the law could not do, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus could?"

[ocr errors]

"" are cor

From this disparaging sentence of Barclay, they proceed to another, which they designate "a grand axiom, which is in the mouth of all orthodox Friends;" of which they proceed to make very short work, although they admit a possibility of there being some vanity in the thought, that their remark thereupon is "worthy the attention of Friends," because, if they rect," they say, "the main pillar of Quakerism is overthrown, and the edifice must, as in that case it would deserve to, fall." However, if mistaken in their view of the subject, they express that they "should be happy in being put right." Well, if they are really disposed to be made happy, I will endeavour, so far as this will do it, to make them so. The axiom then, which they say, would seem all very plain, but it is very fallacious," is this, "The author is greater than his work; the Spirit which gave the Scriptures is greater than the Scriptures which he gave; therefore the Spirit, and not the Scriptures, is the first and chief foundation of truth, ground of faith, and rule of con

66

duct." Now, you say this would seem all very plain.” And why, I ask, is it not as plain as it would seem to be?" Because, you say, 66 it is very fallacious." And how do you prove it to be very fallacious?" By

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »