has within him that which is better than paper and ink. And Gurney does not scruple to assert as we have already seen,1 that the inward light is that lamp and light, which David asserts the scriptures to be. Hence, the conclusion is the more inevitable that the inward light being sufficient, the scriptures are of little worth; and the scriptures being depreciated, will the inward light infallibly guide our steps? Alas, no! This system strikes down the Bible from the place that God meant it should occupy, and gives us in its stead a wretched uncertainty, which, it appears by their own confession, we cannot follow without risk of eternal loss. Their writers, admitting as they do, the sufficiency of the light within acknowledge that we may be egregiously mistaken in our ideas of duty while endeavouring to follow the light, and while we think we are following it. Gurney's testimony upon this point is most remarkable.

He says "It is not to be forgotten that the human imagination is very active, and very delusive; and that persons who are superficial in religion, or who are not sufficiently watchful, may sometimes mistake the unauthorized dictates of their own minds for the voice of a divine and unerring guide. . . . It appears therefore, on the one hand, that the inward illumination of the Spirit of God, is mercifully bestowed on us as a perceptible guide to righteousness; and that, on the other hand, we are exceedingly liable to be led about by the dictates of our own imagination." A very singular predicament the larger part of mankind would be led into by this system if it were generally received. We must learn from the scriptures that an inward light exists within us as our guide to heaven; then, the scriptures-though they may be studied, are of little importance; and when we ask if we can trust ourselves to the guidance of the light; whether the weak as well as the strong in intellect, may find its directions most sure, we are told, that it is very probable, they will not be able to determine between it and the workings of their own imaginations. Can that be the standard of truth by which we may be so easily deceived, as that we may not be able to distinguish it from the workings of our own imaginations? The scriptures are liable to no such uncertainty. They may be

1 Gurney's Observations, p. 47; Bayley's Works, p. 180, 181. Observations, p. 44.

wrested to evil. They may be grossly perverted. But the way of salvation is very distinctly unfolded in them, and the poor man who has a mind to understand anything can learn from them the way to Heaven. Shall we reject this unerring guide at the bidding of George Fox, for that which his own followers pronounce upon experience to be so wretchedly delusive? They have displaced the scriptures as the standard of faith and practice; and having thus removed the only landmarks by which mankind can be safely guided, they throw open the door by which the secret infidelity of the heart will develop itself in practice; and instead of a visible, divine standard, to conformity with whose teaching all must be brought, every man is at liberty, (although Barclay, Gurney, and Penn will not admit it) to stand upon his own ground, and pleading the guidance of the inward light-to do what-and as he pleases. For the inward light is never to be brought to the examination of either reason or scripture. Where then shall we stop? We enter upon a downward path, the moment we deny the Bible to be the supreme standard to man of his faith and practice; and can any man lay his hand upon the precise point in the gradation where the rule will cease to apply? The Friends must each stand sponsor for all the consequences naturally and necessarily flowing from their rule, if they adopt the rule as theirs. Will the Socinian who denies that Jesus Christ is God enter heaven because pleading the guidance of the inward light? Or will the deist whose amiable views of his race will not permit him to think so basely of them, as that they need a Saviour and a revelation, be saved, because his light taught him so? Yet this is the fatal consequence of the argument pushed only to its legitimate length. We may safely presume that Friends do not see these results as likely to ensue; and yet, within the circle of our own acquaintance we have seen many cases in which they have ensued. And the memorable schism caused by Hicks is a standing monument of the folly and delusiveness of the so-called rule of faith of the Friends. That Hicks was wrong we know by the scriptures; but no Friend can prove him wrong by a "I wrong by a "light" that is not to be brought to the test of either reason or scripture.

We are compelled to pass over much upon this subject, to which we could wish to refer; but there is one other consequence flowing from this doctrine, which we may not pass over,

viz: that if a man think himself right he is safe. We have heard this tenet advanced by Friends as one of the tenets of their system; and because it is intimately connected with the doctrine here discussed, we wish to show how naturally it flows from it, and to what it leads. It constitutes an essential feature of the inward light that it should be wholly independent of human control and of human caprice. No human laws can regulate the operation of God's own Spirit. His suggestions are free and independent of humanity. Whatever they may be, they must be obeyed, and no creeds or confessions of faith can check or control them. The Holy Spirit has an undoubted right to direct me as he pleases. He is at perfect liberty to make such communications to me as he deems best; and it is impious, on their own showing, for Friends to establish a creed and confession of faith, by which the Spirit must regulate his communications. Has he ever said that he will confine himself to a particular standard, and shape his communications by that? Certainly not. Their theory is that the light within is superior to the scriptures, and that the two have no necessary connection. In other words, the Spirit may suggest what the Bible does not. We know it is said, the two cannot disagree. But who is to be the judge of the Spirit's suggestions? No one has a right to determine for us that the Spirit has not suggested what we assert with equal confidence it has. And because others have not received this communication, they cannot therefore determine that we have not. "The Spirit bloweth where it listeth." It was to be poured upon certain in the latter days, and there is no reason if it so please, why it should not be poured upon us in larger measure than upon George Fox. If this be so (and their fundamental principle is gone, if it be not), then the conclusion at which we arrive, is, that a man's consciousness, to which no other earthly being can witness, testifying that the Spirit has made to him a communication, that communication may be intended for his especial guidance, and his salvation on Friends's theory, may depend on its being followed. It matters little what the communication may be, or what its character; whether it conform to scripture or do not conform; whether any one else has received it or no one else. It is a communication addressed to us by Him who submits never to the impious question, “What doest thou?" The communication, of which if we are not con

scious of it, we can of course know nothing, is addressed to us especially, and we must follow it, even if it direct us to pursue a course that is not marked out in the Bible, and which is apparently inharmonious with some of its directions; and no man can question our right to follow the commands of the Spirit, or call us to account for our conduct. If it be replied that this doctrine is never pushed to this extreme by Friends, we answer that the consequence flows necessarily and naturally from the principle of the inward light; and for the reason given above, the Christian, the Deist, the Atheist, the Mohammedan, and the Hottentot, are all upon a par, and may all be saved. The "light" within is sufficient to guide them, and if all avow its guidance who dare contradict their avowal? He would need a special communication to that effect; and suppose he assert such a com munication, what endless confusion, confusion worse confounded I would be the result.

But we must close. We have much more to say upon this theme; but we have already gone beyond the limit which we had prescribed for ourselves. The questions we have now to submit are these: Who is the judge of goodness on earth? Have we any standard of right and wrong? On Friends theory the scripture is not the standard, and the inward light is. This inward light cannot be brought to the test of either reason or scripture. The conclusion then is obvious; if we have no other test than this, no other person beside ourselves can claim to know what peculiar revelations God has made to us. And if we assert that we know ourselves to be under the guidance of the inward light at this moment, and that what we do, we do by its suggestions, no matter what those suggestions may be, no man has the right to deny the genuineness and authenticity of my communications from the Spirit, simply because it differs from his. We are precluded from all standards but the light within; and unquestionably our light is as good as their light, and if theirs is to be the judge of mine, mine may be the judge of theirs; and then it follows, that each must frame his life by what he conceives to be his own light, because his light is the only guide he can have, and he is responsible for its use. What a Babel or crime would ensue if this doctrine were universally received.

Thank God that the Friends have in their inconsistency adopted a confession and a creed, even though it overturn their fundamental principle.

ART. III.-The Statesmen of the Commonwealth of England, with a treatise on the popular progress in English History. By John Forster, of the Inner Temple. Edited by J. O. Choules. New York. Harper and Brothers, 1846. pp. 629.

THE Cycle of the great rebellion, beginning from the parliament of 1628 and ending at the restoration of a Stuart, is the golden age of English history in many respects. The battle which was fought in that day between monarchy and liberty was a much more important one than that of Dunbar or of Worcester. The men of the people and the heir and successor of ancient kings were engaged then in as momentous a struggle as Pharsalia or Waterloo. Monarchy rode as it were upon the sky, higher than the highest; and the souls of many were bound to it by spells of superstitious enchantment. Liberty sprang up from her birth-place in the spirits of the humble and contrite, the fairest of earthly forms, speaking with grave face and with deathless resolve, of ancient landmarks, of rights immemorial or inherent. It may well be doubted whether there ever was a more momentous struggle; one in which the latent strong elements of human nature were more deeply engaged; one in which the prizes were so definitely those blessings of human life which are held to be priceless by men who are above mere sensuality; or one which has left to posterity more excellent examples of exalted worth.

It is but six-and-twenty years since the death of Napoleon Buonaparte. It is one hundred and eighty-nine since that of Oliver Cromwell. While we are surprised at the number of books written on the career of the Corsican, recent and dazzling as it is, there have been published within about a twelvemonth past, from no mean hands, as many as three new works relating to the English commonwealth.

There is a sublimity about the eminent men of that day for