The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1869-08-28


luded to, is its denial of the Holy Scriptures
as the only and sufficient rule both of faith
and morals. Barclay, in his ApOlogy, the
dogmatic standard of his people, says that
the Holy Scriptures ''are not be esteemed
the pricipal ground of all truth and kwowl-
edge, nor yet the adequate, primary rule
of faith and manners; yet, because they
give a true and faithful testimony of the
first foundation, they are and may be es-
teemed secondary rule, subordinate to the
Spirit from which they have all their ex-
eellency and certainty" little further
on, however, he adds that, ''as they are
commonly acknowledged to have been
written by the dictates of the Holy Spirit,
we do look upon them as the on
ly fit outward judge of controversy among
Christians" This seems to say and unsay.
When they assert that the Scriptures are
only a secondary rule of faith and mall
ners," they imply q primary, which Barclay
calls s'the inward, spiritual law, engraven
on the heart, the law of the spirit of life,
the word that is nigh in the heart and in
the mouth" The meaning of this appar-
ent contradiction must be, that true Chris
tians are inspired as fully as the Apostles
were, and that the direct voice of the Spirit
in the heart is superior to the inspiration
of others, even Apostles, when once it has
been committed to writing, but as it is
needful to have an arbiter in controversy,
the Bible is agreed upon as a proper one.
So far, however, as we can see, the priciple
of the Friends might have led them to Sc
lect George Fox, or any other of their lead
ing characters, instead of the Scriptures
Indeed, a living Friend, according to their
theory, would be better than a dead Apos-
tie, and yet there be no Pope, for all are
equally and sufficiently inspired.
Mr.. Janney, the author of the book I'M
der review, writes from the so-called lick
site point of view, and raises the question
whether his party or the orthodox are the
original Friends. We cannot see the ques-
ton as he does. It is quite clear to our
mind, notwithstanding the refusal of the
Quakers to use the entire Technology of
orthodoxy that they agree, in the main,
with the doctrinal views of Professionalism.
1t is obvious that when George Fox seems
self to be only contradicting Tritheism, for,
| Immediately after such a seeming denial,
he quotes. 81 and my Father are one, :"
and adds, "and the Holy Ghost proceeds
10 lo
| conceived by the Holy Ghost" etc. VIM
Penn, in like manner, when charged with
denying the Trinity, answers, "Nothing
less. We believe in the Holy Three, or
cording to Scripture etc. He alleges,
| however, that he is unwilling to use the
terms of the schoolmen, from which men
| are apt to get gross, ideas. AS to the doc
trine of original sin, it is easy for Mr.. Jan
ney to show that the early Friends denied
| the Calvinian view of it. They revolt at
| the thought of Adams sin being imputed
| to his descendants, or of our sin being i'm
puted to Christ, and so do we; but they
| accept, as we do, the belief that men inheri
| from Adam a sinful nature. We might ]
on and quote from Mr.. Janney's book to
| show that the early Friends were substan-
| TALLY orthodox on all the great questions of
| theology. Their language is often unset
entific and mystical, but still they evidently
| only aim, by their peculiar forms of speech,
| to put new life and spirit into the old for
mulas, which, indeed, they rightly felt to
| be large part of their mission as 4 people.
Elias Hicks, who is quoted as the sole
| representative of the new Quaker tendency,
| is evidently Il Unitarian, and, in his views
| of the Scriptures, very loose one. AT
| one time he even considered the Bible q
| dangerous book, doing great deal more
harm than good. He was afterward in
| duced to write something that might soften
this infidel or popish utterance; but the
| explanation, so far from being retraction,
| is defence i'll the form of Il quibble.-
| Elias Hicks evidently held but few of the
| doctrines that we, rs orthodox Christians,
| consider essential, while the early friends
| appear to us, notw outstanding their rejec,
| ton of many current theological terms, to
| be III substantial accord with Protestant
Christianity. With an error at the very
root of their theory of religion, it is a Won
der that for tSTo hundred years they hav.
remained true to the Protestant faith, anG
it is no wonder at all that large party
of them has taken the liberty allowed by
| tbair Ionic and fnllowa1 thair Sul,iacti we
inspiration into the ways of error.