and certainly of equal pretenfions. Who now hears of the delufive fancies of the ancient Myftics; or who makes mention of thofe innumerable Prophets, who in every age, and in every kingdom, have severally claimed a divine commiffion, and have feverally attempted to form their peculiar eftablishments? It is only in the page of history that even their names are now preferved ".

Nor ought this to excite aftonishment. From the very nature of things we may expect, that no Enthufiaftic Sect can fubfift long, after that the first charm of novelty which recommended it is loft. If any do subsist, this is owing to a circumstance which merits our moft ferious regard. For we may obferve that the converts to any new Sect, in order to give it perpetuity, never adhere ftrictly to the doctrines which its Founders, although they pretended to actual inspiration, originally taught. They rather filently substitute other doctrines; and by flow degrees model the whole fyftem into

At the beginning of the last century, the Enthufiaftic pretenfions of the French Prophets were thought to be of fufficient importance to engage the attention of fome of the writers of the first eminence. It is now near fifty years that the very existence of the Sect feems to have been almost forgotten.

a new

a new and a more fpecious form. If there be any part of it which is manifeftly extravagant, this they prudently fupprefs: if any of its tenets are found to be positively inconsistent with Scripture, to these they give an ambiguous interpretation: and if either its mode of worship or its form of miniftry are of new invention, these they take pains to represent as having been the genuine, but long difcontinued practices of the primitive Church. By fuch means as thefe it has happened that fome Enthufiaftic Communions have, in the courfe of a few years, been fo entirely altered, that they in fact are constituted upon principles very different from thofe which their Founders themselves maintained 9. The danger of admitting fuch a

9 This cannot be illuftrated more ftrongly than in the inftance of Quakerism. It is probable that very few of those who belong to that Sect in the present day would have entered into it, had they heard the feveral blafphemous opinions, which were advanced and maintained by its first Enthufiaftic Founders. It were to be wifhed therefore that the members of that communion would attentively confider the Writings and the Journals of Fox, and his immediate followers; and read what has been collected on this head by Bugg and Leslie. The unfoundness of the foundation upon which their Communion is built would then appear fo evident, that many probably would feel the neceffity of adopting the doctrines and re-entering the pale of the established Church.

practice

practice as this must even at first fight be manifeft. For what herefy is there, which, however flagrant in itfelf, may not by these means be foftened down until it fhall appear to the incautious to be confiftent with Scripture? or what Communion is there, however fchifmatical in its origin or in its principles, which having gone through these feveral modifications may not be believed, by the ignorant and inconfiderate, to be the fame with an Apoftolic Church?

Thefe remarks are here urged in order to obviate an objection, which perhaps might otherwife have been made to the manner, in which our enquiry has been conducted. It might have been said, for instance, that we are exploding obfolete pretenfions; that no one now admits the divine miffion of the Founders of the Sect; that the caufe in no fhape refts upon thofe claims for fanction; and that the Communion ought to be confidered with regard to thofe principles only on which it actually ftands at the prefent day.

Now, were we to admit that these obfervations were juft, ftill it would be obvious, when we recall our minds to the point which we proposed to confider, that they could neither affect the method which we have

purfued,

purfued, nor invalidate the conclufions which we shall hereafter make. Our general position was, that the claims of the Enthufiaft, however ftrong his conviction of their truth may be, can at all times be proved to be fo illfounded, as that they never juftify him in making Schifms in the Church. All therefore that we have to do, as far at least as concerns our argument, is to prove that the Authors of any Sect were Enthusiasts. That their conduct is finful, then follows as a confequence. It matters not in what light thofe Enthufiafts may be afterwards confidered by fome of their followers. It is the principle which induced them firit to eftablish a new Communion, which alone is to be made the the object of confideration. Certainly the claims of Montanus are obfolete and every one confeffes that his belief in immediate illuminations was the effect of mere Enthusiastic delufion. Yet had we illuftrated the truth of our general pofition by an examination of his pretenfions in particular, no one could have properly objected, on those grounds, that our enquiry was incomplete. And should that Sect be ever revived, it must be allowed that the most obvious method to convince those who should adopt it of the finfulness of their conduct, would be to expose the

Enthufiafm of him from whom the fyftem which they have embraced, originated.

of

This then is the mode of enquiry, which in every inftance perhaps it would be expedient to adopt. But in the prefent, we may doubt whether there is any other method by which any pofitive conclufion could have been obtained. For though it be true, that the Sect which was founded by the Enthufiafts in question affume one general name; it is nevertheless true, that it is made up feveral diftin& Communions, each of which interprets Scripture and worships God in the way which feemeth good in their own fight. What fingle argument is there therefore, which applying to one can apply equally to all, unless it be the reference to that one fource from which they all originally proceeded? If they disclaim one common original, they then must have their principles of feparation peculiar to themfelves. Let these be avowed, and they will at all times be impartially confidered. Until this be done, we are to suppose that they justify their conduct by the authority of those perfons, whom they call their venerable Fathers in the Gospel.

But perhaps it will be argued, that this mode of reafoning can apply to one part only of the prefent queftion. It may be said,

for