When the early Quakers, dissatisfied with the formal worship of the existing protestant church, separated themselves and formed a society of their own, they were reproached by some with denying the authenticity of the sacred writings, and by others with setting up their own inspirations in opposition to them; and they seem at an early period to have discovered the necessity of recording their belief on this subject, not only to refute the calumnies circulated by their opponents, but as a guide to the inexperienced of their own sect. For, such was the ferment of men's minds at that moment, and the violence of the change from the dull uniformity of formal belief, to all the extravagancies of unrestrained enthusiasm, that it appeared like an epidemic affecting all descriptions of people; and their imaginations became so exalted, that every fancy was mistaken for a revelation, and every preacher, however wild his doctrines, had his followers. Nor did their own members wholly escape the infection; for with all their care, there were those among them who indulged in extravagancies, to the great grief of their more sober friends.

It fell to the lot of Robert Barclay to record the doctrines of the early Quakers, and none of them was better fitted for the task; for he was learned and pious, clear in his perceptions and logical in his arrangement, and well able to give his reasons for his faith. He knew that superstition and fanaticism were the Scylla and Charybdis of religion, and how much care was necessary to prevent us, while avoiding the one, from being swept into the whirlpool of the other. He was surrounded by instances of the unhappy effects of that exaltation of mind, which induced individuals to believe they had arrived at such an unerring state of spiritual knowledge, that the recorded opinions and advice of their pious predecessors, and even the scriptures, (being only in the letter,) were to them neither authority nor a guide; and that they had derived the fulness of knowledge from the fountain itself. That to them reason itself had ceased to be of use, since they were under the constant influence of a clear and distinct revelation, as stable and certain as any of the instincts of our nature: and such was the fever of the brain, that when their prophecies were contradicted by the event, it did not impair their confidence in their own inspirations, because it was the Lord who chose to deceive them, and they were deceived.

He had not adopted the fantastical idea that every passage of scripture has a mystical meaning; but declares them to be the revelations of the spirit of God to the saints, and that they contain a faithful historical account of the actings of God's people in various ages; a prophetical account of several things, whereof some have passed, and some to come; and a full and ample account of all the chief principles of the doctrine of Christ. That they are profitable for correction and instruction in righteousness, and that divine inward revelations can never contradict the outward testimony of the scriptures, or sound reason.

Here all is plain and consistent. No man of sound mind can believe that the revelations of infinite wisdom are ever contradictory; and as the evidence of the divine origin of the scriptures is such as no individual can produce, he was warranted in his conclusion, that all pretensions to the spirit in contradiction to them, are delusions of the devil. And indeed no man of observation can cast his eyes round him, and contemplate the various illusions into which the human mind is seduced on religious subjects, without perceiving the absolute necessity of a standard or rule by which its wanderings may be checked and its aberrations corrected, and we find Locke concurring with Barclay, in stating the scripture revelations and right reason, as the true standards by which our faith is to be tried.

You also seem to perceive the necessity of some check, but in the very spirit which induces that necessity, your own standard is as visionary, and as fruitful a source of evil, as the propensity it is intended to correct; for yours is not that reason which proceeds from premises to consequences, but an actual illusion, which has persuaded you that there is a reason which can see all things immediately and by intuition;^[43] and your bible, a book written in cypher,^[44] the key of which is one of the most vigorous plants of the wilderness of fanaticism. Hence it follows, that your standard, so far from being a true test or corrector of your opinions, must always, when used, confirm you in error; for it is a magnifying mirror, reflecting the exaggerated image of the delusion it is intended to control.

There is not a more prolific source of error, than assuming principles without a careful examination of their correctness, and drawing conclusions from them; and even when the principle is correct, and the inference fairly deducible, men in the ardour of their zeal, often push it to an extreme far beyond its just limits.

It is not difficult to conceive, that a man whose mind is convinced by internal evidence of the truth of the christian religion, and who, under an awful impression of its incalculable importance, opens the sacred volume, finds more instruction and comfort in it, than he who only reads it as history, or from an indistinct sense of duty; because he has a greater degree of inward acquaintance with the same spirit and work in the heart. But this simple exposition is too plain to satisfy the lofty imaginations of the high professors of the present day: because the lukewarm and indifferent do not receive the same instruction and profit from the scriptures as the more serious and pious, the perusal can afford them no benefit; and even to the sincere inquirer it is a sealed book, until its contents are previously communicated by an especial revelation.^[45]

This is the doctrine you have preached, and yet your own practice proves that you have no reliance on it; and that it was only one of those inconsiderate excursions, in which the orator, when not under the strict control of duty or reason, too often indulges; for when, in your cooler moments, you wished to instruct your mind on the subject of our Saviour's birth, you sought it, not only by reading the scriptures, but also by consulting the traditions of the christian church, as recorded by one of its historians.^[46]

These are the inconsistencies to which extravagance always leads; for when the mind, tired of its aerial flight, revisits the earth, and is again employed in its proper duties, it finds that practical objects can only be attained by practicable means.

Exaggeration in public speaking is always blameable, and in the preacher particularly objectionable: it is generally resorted to for the purpose of increasing the impression, but seldom produces that effect; and it is upon religious subjects, above all others, that amplification should be avoided, and that pure and simple style adopted which admits of no adventitious ornaments.

You, however, pursue a different course, and by the extravagance of your epithets, not only defeat your own views, but sometimes occasion the subject itself to be considered, if not with ridicule, at least with but little seriousness. Thus in speaking of the propriety of plainness in apparel, instead of giving the simple and obvious reason why the Society of Friends adopted it, you consider it as a vital principle of religion; and you mistake, (to use your own favourite expression,) the effect for the cause, when you exclaim that there is religion in clothing, and exaggerate beyond all bounds, when you declare, that all the sin in the world is created by men's following foolish fashions: and when you seriously assure us that high-crowned hats were never devised in the wisdom of God, the obvious inference that low-crowned hats were, is so ludicrous, that we should be tempted to laugh, were not all merriment on a subject in which that sacred name is introduced, (however improperly,) incongruous, if not profane.^[47]

Again, in speaking of the necessity of a living faith in God, you exclaim that, faith in creeds and the traditions of your fathers, is worse than nothing; that we had better have no faith at all, for it is no better than the faith of devils; and in confirmation of this rash assertion, you quote a passage of scripture which has not the most remote application to the subject.^[48]

To this, no rational christian can ever assent: he believes in the necessity of spiritual worship, and that all ought to feel the power of religion in their own souls: but that the faith which is derived from the lessons of a pious parent, although it may not be accompanied with that degree of spiritual knowledge which it ought to be our endeavour to attain, is no better than the faith of devils, no man in his sober senses can believe.

You would no doubt think me very daring were I to say that your own faith is as bad as the faith of devils; and yet, admitting the truth of your own assertion, I can prove it by testimony, which, to you at least, ought to be conclusive. For in your letter to Thomas Willis, before alluded to, you declare your belief in the Scripture account of our Saviour's birth from your reliance on tradition, although it is contrary to your judgment. If then that faith which a child admits and believes to be true from a firm reliance on the wisdom and experience of a pious father, is as bad as the faith of devils; how are we to describe the faith of that man who gives to tradition such supreme control, as to make a reliance on it a point of duty, although a belief in it, is contrary to his deliberate judgment.

This is one of the instances of the wanderings of your imagination, and the strange inconsistencies into which your metaphysical divinity leads you: and I cite it as a proof of the pernicious consequences of substituting mystical reveries in the place of the simple religion taught by Jesus Christ; and not to censure your reliance on the faith of your predecessors: for I truly believe that did you, like many of them, endeavour to preserve your mind in that meek and lowly state recommended by His example and precepts, all propensity to curious speculation on hidden things would be suppressed, and when called to testify to your faith, you would be ready "always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear."

In alluding to the reasons which prevent many Friends from taking a part in the governments of the earth, instead of ascribing them to that peaceable principle which does not permit them to be agents in any measures connected with war, you denounce the governments of this world as standing eternally in opposition to the government of the God of heaven; and this because all laws made in the wisdom of man are foolishness with God: yet you acknowledge them to be necessary, although you say it is no reason why the law of the Almighty should not prevail, which would take away the necessity of all other laws.^[49]

This reasoning is as confused, as the conclusion to which it leads is extraordinary. How laws in opposition to the will of the Almighty can be necessary, when there is no reason why his law should not prevail, you have not explained; and if human governments are in eternal opposition to the government of God, and yet are necessary, then is there not only a necessity for man's being in eternal opposition to God's will; but the necessity is a justification of it, and your argument, if sound, affords a complete vindication of the persons engaged in the administration of those governments.

We need not be told that if all men were under the strict influence of virtue and religion, most of the existing laws would be unnecessary, because they are enacted in consequence of the vices and frailties of man; but that such a state of things will ever exist on earth, in which all regulations and covenants of society may with safety and convenience be abolished, is an idea too extravagant to require refutation. Nor can it be believed that all laws made by the wisdom of man, are foolishness with God, in the sense in which you understand it. The Creator in his wisdom seems to have ordained that the improvement of man in this state of being should be progressive. The first step is associating in societies, and they necessarily require rules for their government; and as they multiply, new circumstances are continually arising, which require additional regulations. And herein that reason with which man alone, of all created beings, has been favoured, is properly applied: for this it was given to him, and its application to the purposes for which it was originally intended, can never be foolishness in the sight of the Almighty. The scriptures indeed tell us that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; but it is used in reference to our religious duties; to teach us the vanity of building up systems for ourselves, and pretending to explain the hidden things of Omnipotence; and to warn us that "as it is the gospel that has brought life and immortality to light," so "other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."^[50]