according to their opinion, be of authority when tried by the Scripture, but of No authority without; and as one man's" suggestion" would be as good as another's, the "highest rule," as they call the Scriptures, would be no rule at all. Nor does it stand much, if any, better in REALITY, as it does stand at present; for, if the " Holy Spirit" does not hold intercourse with the soul of man, whereby, and by whose quickening influence alone, man is made a "LIVING Soul" -if the Almighty does not reveal himself in any degree-if the knowledge of his will concerning us can be known only at such times when we can 66 gain access" (not to the Father," but) to the records of former revelations, with which He was graciously pleased to favour OTHER men, some centuries agoif the visitations of divine grace and heavenly love are necessarily restricted within bounds so narrowif the spiritual intercourse of man with the "Father of Spirits" can only be enjoyed with the recorded experiences of other men before us-if He "in whom we live, and move, and have our being," and who never yet said to the wrestling "seed of Jacob, seek ye me in vain"—-if He who produceth all things, sus taineth all things, and "numbereth the very hairs o our heads"—if He, "the high and lofty One, who inhabiteth eternity, and whose name is Holy," and who hath promised to dwell with that "man of a lowly and contrite heart"-if the Son revealeth unto us the Father at such times, and on such occasions only, as Isaac Crewdson and the Reviewers declare, I am even then placed in the same uncertainty; for how I am to distinguish then, better than I could at any other time, between the INFALLIBILITY of the Holy Spirit, and my own FALLABILITY, is a secret which they do not disclose. I admit, with Isaac Crewdson, that "the question is not what God COULD have done, nor what it was befitting, according to our apprehension, that he should have done; but it is simply what is the way which God hath chosen for communicating the knowledge of life and salvation." Isaac Crewdson says, that the way He has chosen is the Holy Scriptures. He calls the Scrip

66

tures the "highest rule," and "the written revelation," without which we cannot have "the knowledge of the will of God." Now, I am sure that there is no such verse in any chapter of his " "highest rule," that says in this respect what Isaac Crewdson says. Isaac Crewdson makes "the true knowledge of God," his "holy law," and "the Gospel of life and salvation through Jesus Christ," synonymous terms with holy Scriptures; but they are nowhere said to be so IN the Scriptures. Such a meaning can only be applied to them by construction, and a construction, too, at complete variance with the whole tenor of Scripture evidence. It assuredly is a strange thing, that men who appear so very solicitous to exclude the influence of "certain impressions,” and mere "suggestions," from their company in search of truth, should all the time yield up their own judgments to no higher authority-that they should make it a matter of solemn regret that any should be so deluded as to set up a light within," and yet, after all, to rest themselves upon no other staff, than such as stands upon no surer foundation, than the recorded experiences of other men. They complain, and rightly, of those who "set up a light within," whilst themselves set up a light without.-Foolish men! their own "ultimate standard" tells them that the only "true light" is set up by Him who said, “let there be light, and there was light." "I am the light of the world, (said Christ) he that followeth me, shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." But, no-says Isaac Crewdson and his co-thinkers, flatly contradicting (if there is such a thing as contradiction in the world) the very "ultimate standard,”the very test for "the truth of every doctrine," which they have chosen for themselves, and others also. No say they-Christ is not the light of the world, but only of such PART of the world as have some of the writings of Moses, the Prophets, and Apostles. "He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." This will not do for Isaac Crewdson and his friends, although they have made the book in which it is so stated, their

"ultimate appeal," they must come in here with a disjunctive conjunction-but-no man can follow Him (Christ) unless he has the Bible-therefore he must walk in darkness, and cannot have "the light of life." Such is the "gulf,”—the gulf of darkness into which this doctrine leads, or it leads no where at all. For, if a man can follow Christ-if he can have "the light of life," without the Scriptures, then the Scriptures are not the "highest rule,"—are not the sine qua non that Isaac and his friends say they are. It is clearly and expressly stated in the Scriptures, that Christ said, "I AM the light of the world." Isaac Crewdson and the Reviewers deny it. What! choose their own 66 appeal,"-call their own witness, appoint their own judge, and then reject the testimo-ny and the decree! Yes-so it is—they will not take the evidence as it is given, but they will take it only in conformity to "certain impressions," to " suggestions" which "comport most with their own particular bent of mind." John, the forerunner of Christ's outward appearance, said he came to "bear testi-mony to that light," and that "that was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world." Now, if there is any thing in the meaning of words at all-if there is any stability in their meaning-if they are not to be wrested at pleasure, and twisted about into any sense that men like best -if these things have been "written for our instruction"-if these words mean in this place what they would mean in any other-if "light," means "light," and not darkness-if "THE world," means WORLD," and NOT a part of the world only-if "every man," means "every man," and NOT some few men only,-then "it is manifest that light is come into the world," and was in the world before Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote their histories, or Paul and the other Apostles, their Epistles; and that it would be in the world, although all their writings, precious, and extremely precious, as I acknowledge them to be, were lost to-morrow.

"the

I am no more, I trust, inclined to follow "certain impressions and suggestions than Isaac Crewdson

66

and his Reviewers; and I feel no inclination to be "wise above that which is written" in Holy Scripture, or to "set up a light within, above the revelation of the Spirit of God" therein. I heed not, in this respect, all the "impressions" and "suggestions" from Adam downwards, until now. I am thankful to take that which is written, or, at least, as much as remains of what was written, knowing it to have been written "for our instruction." And I also know that a light is already set up. "I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth." And I also know that it is written, that "he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." Still, notwithstanding these plain declarations, we are cautioned not to " presume to speculate" with regard to the Heathen. Right-not to presume to speculate? But who DOES Speculate? These people who caution us against the presumption of speculation, inform us, first, truly enough, that without the Gospel there is no salvation: then, contrary to the evidence of their own "ultimate appeal," that the Heathen are, as I shall shew further on, without the Gospel. Why they leave us nothing to speculate upon. The conclusion is inevitable— the Heathen are lost; for they say, the Heathen are not possessed of that which ALONE can save them. This is pretty well, to be sure; but this is not all; for whilst the witness they themselves bring forth, testifies that Christ is the light of the world, and that those who follow him " shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life," they say that those ONLY can have the " light of life" who have the SCRIPTURES. They shut their eyes with the book before them, and then implore us not to do the same thing. "And let none of us shut our eyes against what God has made known to us, because (now mark the because,) because there are other things which, in his wisdom, he hides from us;" amongst which "other things," they include the state of the Heathen. Were ever men more bewildered with their own "impressions" and "suggestions," or more confused in their

manner of publishing them, than these men? They first shut their own eyes to the meaning of plain words to the truth, as it is written and made known; and then, as though their eyes were wide open, advise us not to follow their unwise example. With their eyes thus shut they give us a "certain impression" for the truth of God, backed by a certain " sugges tion," which "most comports with their own particular bent of mind," leave the conclusion to be drawn thereupon inevitable, and then charge us not to speculate upon that very self-same conclusion, which they themselves have placed out of the field of speculation.

Before I enter more minutely into a consideration of the grounds upon which the doctrine of the Seriptures being the "highest appeal," is founded, it will be necessary for me to explain what I understand by the terms," true knowledge of God," "his holy law," and the "gospel of life and salvation through Jesus Christ." It is evident by the manner in which these terms are employed throughout " the Extracts," that the different writers therein, use them in a synonymous sense with the Scriptures. Now, I do not believe them to have any such meaning properly. If in any part of their "ultimate appeal for the truth of every doctrine," they can produce a single passage in which either of these three terms is predicated of that portion of Holy Writ bound up in one volume, called the Bible, I will admit their authority; but if not, I shall treat such interpretation of these terms only with that courtesy, which is the due of "certain impressions," and those "suggestions which most comport with their particular bent of mind," who assert it. I will therefore give what I understand by the terms, which is no other than as they are explained in the Scriptures themselves. I presume not to give any other definition, I dare not say that they mean the Scriptures; and the Seriptures, I repeat, say not so of themselves. The Scriptures narrate, that our Saviour said to his disciples, "If ye had known ME, ye should have known my FATHER ALSO; and from henceforth ye KNOW him,