Again--a man, by comparing passages of scripture with other passages, and by considering the use and acceptation of words in these, may arrive at a knowledge of their literal meaning. He may obtain also, by perusing the scriptures, a knowledge of some of the attributes of God. He may discover a part of the plan of his providence. He may collect purer moral truths than from any other source. But no literal reading of the scriptures can give him that spiritual knowledge of divine things, which leads to eternal life. The scriptures, if literally read, will give him a literal or corresponding knowledge, but it is only the spiritual monitor within, who can apply them to his feelings; who can tell him "thou art the man; this is thy state: this is that which thou oughtest or oughtest not to have done;" so that he sees spiritually, (the spirit of God bearing witness with his own spirit) that his own situation has been described. Indeed, if the scriptures were sufficient of themselves for this latter purpose, the Quakers say that the knowledge of spiritual things would consist in the knowledge of words. They, who were to get most of the divine writings by heart, would know spiritually the most of divine truths. The man of the best understanding, or of the most cultivated mind, would be the best proficient in vital religion. But this is contrary to fact. For men of deep learning know frequently less of spiritual Christianity, than those of the poor, who are scarcely able to read the scriptures. They contend also, that if the scriptures were the most vitally understood by those of the most learning, then the dispensations of God would be partial, inasmuch as he would have excluded the poor from the highest enjoyments of which the nature of man is susceptible, and from the means of their eternal salvation. These tenets, which are thus adopted by the Quakers, are considered by many of the moderns as objectionable, inasmuch as they make reason, at least in theology, a useless gift. The Quakers, however, contend that they consider reason as one of the inestimable gifts of God. They value it highly in its proper province. They do not exclude it from religion. Men, by means of it, may correct literal errors in the scriptures; may restore texts, may refute doctrines inconsistent with the attributes of the Almighty. The apology of Robert Barclay, which is a chain of reasoning of this kind from the begining to the end, is a proof that they do not undervalue the powers of the mind. But they dare not ascribe to human reason that power, which they believe to be exclusively vested in the spirit of God.