deed, did I expect, that the review of a life so virtuous, so religious, so benevolent, and so honourable, as that of William Penn, would have drawn forth any unpleasant reflections on that religious Society, of which he was so bright an ornament. And when I consider that in these reflections, the present generation of Quakers is, in a great degree, exculpated, it does appear to me to betray a want of charity by no means creditable, either to the justice or liberality of the Reviewer. Supposing what is said to be true, respecting men and women passing naked through the streets; which, so far as relates to women at least, was not, I believe, the case with any acknowledged members of the society; what benefit do the members of the Church of England suppose they shall derive from a reference to those times of excessive zeal and violent persecution? Or shall the Scriptures be depreciated because those violent persecutors professed to make them the rule of their conduct, and the Anabaptists and Fifth-monarchy men grounded their violent outrages on a misconstruction of those Sacred Writings Surely these instances apply at least as forcibly against the teachings of the Scriptures, as the cases brought forward by the Reviewer do against the teachings of the Spirit? What is there, of all the gifts of God to men, so good that the weakness or wickedness of human nature will not either mistake or corrupt?

"Very wisely, indeed, has the excellent Dean of Carlisle, in his controversy with Dr. Marsh, observed, that there were great faults on all sides, during these unhappy times; and that a free confession of this sort, or (what would be still better) silence respecting them, would perhaps be the most healing of all applications. If, however, a comparative estimate should be made of the conduct of different religious denominations during the reigns of Charles I. and II., including the Interregnum, I should feel

very little reluctance in taking the part of the Quakers, in these times of violence and persecution; and I think I should be able to exhibit their conduct in at least as favourable a point of view as that of any of their opposers or persecutors could be placed.

"The Reviewer, after introducing his remarks on the Life of William Penn with some strictures on the conduct of the early Quakers, and their doctrine of the light of Christ within, plainly asserts, that some, in their zeal for the hidden Christ, actually denied the outward Christ, and grossly contended, that the Gospels are a mere allegorical history of Christ in the mind,' &c. It is to be regretted, that in reporting the religious sentiments of others, we should not have recourse to their own acknowledged writings, instead of the works of their enemies. The accusation here brought forward has been often advanced, and often refuted. Charles Leslie, a bitter opponent of the Society, has repeatedly advanced the same charge, and particularly in the preface to The Snake in the Grass:' which excited the following indignant reply from Joseph Wyeth, in his Anguis Flagellatus,' or A Switch for the Snake;" a reply which I trust will set this question at rest, so that it will not again be brought forward in the Christian Observer*. Wyeth's words are: 'The assertion of the Snake is not allegorically, but literally a lie; for we acknowledge the satisfaction made by Christ to his Father; but we deny that groundless and dangerous notion of his having paid, and his Father exacted, that strict and rigorous satisfaction, by undergoing the self-same punishment and pains that the damned suffer in hell. We own the merit of his outward death and sufferings, but dispute against the misapplication of that merit to ungodly men, continuing impeni tently in their sins. Again: We have never said or believed, that the satisfaction made by Christ to his

"It has before been advanced and refuted. See vol. ii. p. 595."

Father and the merit thereof consisted in any allegorical suffering or blood of the Light within, inwardly shed;' and have never placed or believed the possibility thereof did consist in such allegorical death and sufferings, as the Snake does insi. nuate against us.'

"The Reviewer is not satisfied with these reflections in the introduction; but after his remarks on Clarkson's Life of Penn, which are in general favourable to both, he recurs to the Quakers and their principles, and states, that such is the caution used by their writers, that he cannot even now pronounce whether, when they affirm the Divinity of Christ, they mean to speak of him as a Divine Person, or as a quality of the Godhead. Perhaps I cannot more concisely reply to this charge, than by the following extract from a late publication: We ean, indeed, say on this, as on every other occasion, that we believe all that the Scriptures have spoken and inculcated. We believe that the Evangelist was clearly speaking of Jesus Christ, and of his Divinity or Godhead, when he said, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.' "And, the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." Here we have a clear and full testimony both to the Divinity and Humanity of Christ; and we have, ever since we were a people, borne testimony to this Scripture doctrine.'*

"After this remark, the Reviewer enters into an examination of Bar

Tuke's Principles of the Quakers, p. 53, 5th edition. See also a pamphlet entitled, The Faith of the People called Quakers, in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,

set forth in various Extracts from their Writings; of which a few copies are sent with this to the Publisher of the Christian Observer."

CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 146.

clay's fifteen propositions, which form the basis of the Apology for the Quakers, and endeavours to refute such parts as he disapproves. He would have acted more fairly, when writing on the Scriptures, and their inferiority to the Spirit which gave them forth, bad he given a few words more of the passage to which he objects. His deficiency I will endeavour to supply. Barclay says: 'Moreover, those Divine inward revelations neither do nor can contradiet the outward testimony of the Scriptures, or right and sound rea

son.

Yet from hence it will not follow, that the Divine Revelations are to be subjected to the examination either of the outward testimony of the Scriptures, or to the natural reason of man, as to a more noble and certain rule and touchstone.' But there is another passage in Barclay, which, if the Reviewer had seen and brought forward, might have made his reader's mind, if not his own, easy on the subject, as showing that we do not set the Spirit in opposition to the letter, though we place the former above the latter. The pas sage is this: We shall also be very willing to admit it as a positive certain maxim, that whatever any do, pretending to the Spirit, that is contrary to the Scriptures, be accounted and reckoned a delusion of the devil.' What more explicit and strong than this can be said? Indeed I often think that our dispute, with some at least of the Church of England, on the Scriptures, is more about words than things. Some of the sentiments of the Reviewer himself may be addused in support of this assertion. He admits, that as many as receive the light of the Spirit, in them is produced a holy birth, bringing forth holiness and purity.' p. 601. Now, when the Reviewer says, as many as receive the light of the Spirit,' he fully allows, that we have the power of refusing it; and therefore, that it cannot operate upon the mind of man without his being conscious of the same. But if the Spirit produces a holy birth, bringing forth O

holiness and purity,' surely its power is superior to that of the Scriptures, and that is all we plead for. Again: It may be true, that we should not pray, whenever the Spirit of God disposes the mind to prayer,' (p.602). I think we must acknowledge, if the Spirit of God disposes the mind to prayer, that we cannot be insensible of its power; and surely the immediate operation of this Divine principle ought to be esteemed superior to that written revelation of the will of God which is bestowed through the Scriptures, however highly we may value those writings.

"I remember in a controversy several years ago, in the Christian Observer, I produced testimonies in favour of our opinions, from Lu ther, Calvin, and various other emi ment Christian writers. This piece the Editor declined inserting, because he knew the sentiments contained in the quotations were consistent with the views expressed by my oppoment. Now, if, in explaining our views, we refer to authorities and passages which are agreed to by our opponents, it seems clear that there is a greater degree of approximation than they are willing to admit. If we cannot go the length of many Chris tians in calling the Scriptures the Word of God, and in applying texts to them which we conceive were never intended to be so applied, but that many of them exclusively belong to Christ, we still acknowJedge their Divine authority, and believe that they were given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. This is the highest testimony which the Scriptures give of themselves; and why are we to be accounted heterodox, because on this subject, and on the Divinity of Christ, we do not incline to go further than the Scripture leads

us.

"The Reviewer appears to have "In the year 1806: see Christian Ob. server, vol. V, pp. 168, 464, 607, and 730.*

mistaken the object of Barclay's 5th and 6th propositions. He there pleads, and I think successfully, for the extension of the benefits which result from the coming of Christ, to all those who share in the consequences of Adam's transgression; that is, to the whole human race, His object is to establish the opinion, that by the one propitiatory Sacrifice, all men were placed in a capacity of salvation, but by no means to release those who have the knowledge of the Scriptures from that responsibi❤ lity for the gift of them which this invaluable treasure imposes.

"That the Quakers are advocates of the advantages of education, their conduct, as a body, and as indivi duals, amply proves. But as they believe that learning is only so far useful as it is sanctified to the cause of religion, and as they unite with the Christian Observer in the be lief that God prepares true ministers,' they dare not limit this prepa ration to those only who are capa ble of reading.

"In justice to Barclay and the Quakers, I shall transcribe the following parts of his Thesis on Wor ship, and hope by so doing to ob viate the objections brought forward on that subject:-All true and ac ceptable worship to God is offered in the inward and immediate moving and drawing of his own Spirit, which is neither limited to places, times, nor persons. For though we are to worship Him always, and con tinually to fear before Him; yet, as to the outward signification thereof, in prayers, praises, or preachings, we ought not to do it in our own will, where and when we will; but where and when we are moved thereunto by the stirring and secret inspiration of the Spirit of God in our hearts, which God heareth and accepteth of, and is never wanting to move us thereunto, when need is, of which he himself is the alone proper judge. All other worship, then, both praises, prayers, or preachings, which man sets about in his own will, and at his own ap pointment, which he can both begin

and end at bis pleasure, do or leave undone, as himself seeth meet, whether they be a prescribed form, as a liturgy, &c, or prayers conceived extempore, by the natural strength and faculty of the mind, they are all but superstition, will-worship, and abominable idolatry in the sight of God, which are now to be denied and rejected, and separated from, in this day of his spiritual arising.

"There are other matters, loosely and incorrectly stated by the Reviewer, which afford room for animadversion; but which I think not of sufficient importance to notice, except that I would make a few remarks on what he says of the of fice of Elders among the Quakers. It is asserted, p. 602, that any one who may think himself prepared to preach to a Quaker congregation, must have previously received the permission of the Elders. This is incorrect. It is in order that those who are in the station of ministers may have the tender sympathy and counsel of those, of either sex, who, by their experience in the work of religion, are qualified for that service, that monthly meetings are advised, to select such under the denomination of Elders * And the Quakers have never, by their discipline, or any other act, assumed the teachings of the Spirit of God to be dubious. They acknowledge it to be an unerring guide; but as they are also fully sensible of the frailty of human nature, they be lieve, that in every Christian.com, munity order is requisite for the preservation of harmony. It is from this conviction, that those who believe themselves required to speak in meetings for worship are not immediately acknowledged as mini sters by their monthly meetings; but time is taken for judgment, that the meeting may be satisfied of their call and qualification + monthly meetings are open to all the ***A Summary of the History, Doctrine, and Discipline of Friends. 8vo. pp. 27. Sold by W. Phillips, London.”

These

tlbid.

members of the society, when every one is at liberty to express his sentiments on the call of those whose ministry is under consideration.

"The Reviewer has certainly said many handsome things of the people whose opinions he has endeavoured to controvert. Had he considered that a tree is known by its fruits, and that men do not gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles,' he would probably have been a little more doubtful of his own views of our principles, and have suspected that they have not that injurious tendency which he supposes likely to flow from them. Some of his compliments, however, are so mixed with a disposition for ridicule, that they are uot likely to be very gra ciously received. His desires for our laying aside a few colloquial peculiarities,' &c. in order for our union with good old mother church, will not, I apprehend, produce much effect. The space between us is too great, and occupied by subjects of too much importance to render such a union probable. But if we cannot unite in church fellowship, we can love and respect the pious and virtuous of all denominations; and to no class of Christians can we more readily convey our esteem and respect, than to the consistent mem❤ bers of the Church of England; for many of whom, within the small circle of my knowledge, I feel an unfeigned affectionate regard, and can say, it always gives me much more pleasure to unite with, than to differ from, them.

I apprehend that I cannot close these remarks better than by adopting the words of a writer in the Christian Observer, in the very folio where the Reviewof Penn's Life com mences. With this view I can cordially express" a feeling of regret that when the British and Foreign Bible Society has done so much to mitigate the hostilities of different sects, particularly the Church and the Dissenters, and is still exercising its benign influence, to produce agreement in every point where

agreement is possible, and to render unavoidable differences, charitable; in short, to reduce the world to two sects, those who are Christians, and those who are none; there should exist writers who sympathize so little in this great object, as at least to endanger the incipient and increas ing harmony, and to do what has an evident tendency to revive between the Establishment and the Dissent their former animosities. Surely other times should be chosen for such labours.' H.T."

On this communication we shall now proceed to make a few remarks.

1. Our respectable correspondent is not content with,affirming, and endeavouring to prove, that we have laboured under mistake or misapprehension in respect to the Quakers; but he charges us with " a disposition to traduce and misrepresent" them, and with "a want of charity by no means creditable either to our justice or liberality." These are serious charges; whether they are just, must be left to the reader to determine, after he shall have read this article.

2. Our correspondent argues as if there were something uncandid and unchristian in the public examination of the principles of Quakers, and particularly in any reference to the early history of their Society. What benefit, he inquires, is to be derived from such a proceeding? Now it does strike us as not a little extraordinary that such a question should proceed from such a quarter. What, we would ask in our turn, is the tendency of some of the most esteemed Quaker writings? Is it not to contrast the conduct of the founders of their Society with that of other religionists of the same period? Is it not to bring other sects into diseredit, the better to justify their own proceedings? From the "Journal" of George Fox down to the "Principles" of Henry Tuke, it is, for example, one end of their publicasions to detach men from a "hire

ling ministry," and to represent those who exact tithes in the light of persecutors. But while works are daily appearing, the effect of which is to recommend the tenets of Quakerism to general acceptance, and unduly to exalt the claims of the fathers of that system to public estimation, it seems somewhat unreasonable to expect that the very individuals whose faith and practice are assailed-in some instances directly, in others indirectly-shall not even presume to examine those tenets, or to sift those claims.- We do not blame the Quakers for what they have done. They have a right to publish, and to recommend, and to circulate with all their might, the Journal of George Fox. They have a right to exhibit portraitures of Quakerism, and testimonies against a hireling ministry, after their own manner. They have a right to de monstrate, if they can, that "truth" and "light" and " power" are to be found exclusively among them, and to represent their founder and all his followers as inspired persons. We neither question their right to do all this, nor censure them for the exercise of that right. But then we do expect in return to be allowed freely and calmly to examine their public pretensions, without being considered as either uncandid or uncharitable for so doing. Mr. Tuke himself admits, that the space between the Quakers and the Church of England is too great, and occupied by subjects of too much im portance to render an union be tween them probable: and yet he expresses grief and surprise, that we should bring these important subjects into discussion; although we have shewn ourselves anxious to discuss them, not in a spirit of hostility or irritation, but of real respect and good-will for the very persons from whom we differ, What, in truth, have we done but defend ourselves? We have endeavoured to shew, that we have reason and Scripture on our side, when, notwithstanding the works of Georg Fox