{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_15261/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_15261","id":"gutenberg_15261","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15261","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Society of Friends"],"text":"E-text prepared by Carlo Traverso, Graeme Mackreth, and the Project\nGutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team from images generously made\navailable by the Biblioth\u00e8que nationale de France (BnF/Gallica) at\nhttp://gallica.bnf.fr.\n\n\n\nA PORTRAITURE OF QUAKERISM, VOLUME II\n\nTaken from a View of the Education and Discipline, Social Manners,\nCivil and Political Economy, Religious Principles and Character, of\nthe Society of Friends\n\nby\n\nTHOMAS CLARKSON, M.A.\nAuthor of Several Essays on the Slave Trade\n\nNew York: Published by Samuel Stansbury, No 111, Water-Street\n\n1806\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME.\n\nPECULIAR CUSTOMS.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nSECT. I.--Marriage--Regulation and example of George Fox, relative to\nMarriage--Present regulations, and manner of the celebration of it among\nthe Quakers.\n\nSECT. II.--Those who marry out of the society, are disowned--Various\nreasons for such a measure--Objection to it--Reply.\n\nSECT III.--But the disowned may be restored to membership--Terms of\ntheir restoration--these terms censured--Reply.\n\nSECT IV.--More women disowned on this account than men--Probable causes\nof this difference of number.\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nSECT I.--Funerals--Extravagance and pageantry of ancient and modern\nfunerals--These discarded by the Quakers--Plain manner in which they\ninter their dead.\n\nSECT II.--Quakers use no tomb-stones, nor monumental inscriptions\n--Various reasons of their disuse of these.\n\nSECT. III.--Neither do they use mourning garments--Reasons why they thus\ndiffer from the world--These reasons farther elucidated by\nconsiderations on Court-mourning.\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nOccupations--Agriculture declining among the Quakers--Causes and\ndisadvantages of this decline.\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n\nSECT. I.--_Trade--Quakers view trade as a moral question--Prohibit a\nvariety of trades and dealings on this account--various other wholesome\nregulations concerning it._\n\nSECT. II.--_But though the Quakers thus prohibit many trades, they are\nfound in some which are considered objectionable by the world--These\nspecified and examined._\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n_Settlement of differences--Abstain from duels-and also from law--Have\nrecourse to arbitration--Their rules concerning arbitration--An account\nof an Arbitration Society at Newcastle upon Tyne, on Quaker-principles._\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nSECT. I.--_Poor--No beggars among the Quakers--Manner of relieving and\nproviding for the poor._\n\nSECT. II.--_Education of the children of the poor provided\nfor--Observations on the number of the Quaker-poor--and on their\ncharacter._\n\n\n\n\nRELIGION.\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n_Invitation to a perusal of this part of the work--The necessity of\nhumility and charity in religion on account of the limited powers of the\nhuman understanding--Object of this invitation._\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n_God has given to all, besides an intellectual, a spiritual\nunderstanding--Some have had a greater portion of this spirit than\nothers, such as Abraham, and Moses, and the prophets, and\nApostles--Jesus Christ had it without limit or measure._\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n_Except a man has a portion of the same spirit, which Jesus, and the\nProphets, and the Apostles had, he cannot know spiritual things--This\ndoctrine confirmed by St. Paul--And elucidated by a comparison between\nthe faculties of men and of brutes._\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n_Neither except he has a portion of the same spirit, can he know the\nscriptures to be of divine origin, nor can he spiritually understand\nthem--Objection to this doctrine-Reply._\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n_This spirit, which has been thus given to men in different degrees, has\nbeen given them as a teacher or guide in their spiritual concerns--Way\nin which it teaches._\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n_This spirit may be considered as the primary and infallible guide--and\nthe scriptures but a secondary means of instruction--but the Quakers do\nnot undervalue the latter on this account--Their opinion concerning\nthem._\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n_This spirit, as a primary and infallible guide, has been given to men\nuniversally--From the creation to Moses--From Moses to Christ--From\nChrist to the present day._\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nSect. I.--_And as it has been universally to men, so it has been given\nthem sufficiently--Those who resist it, quench it--Those who attend to\nit, are in the way of redemption._\n\nSect. II.--_This spirit then besides its office of a spiritual guide,\nperforms that of a Redeemer to men--Redemption outward and\ninward--Inward effected by this spirit._\n\nSect. III.--_Inward redemption produces a new birth--and leads to\nperfection--This inward redemption possible to all._\n\nSect. IV--_New birth and perfection more particularly explained-New\nbirth as real from \"the spiritual seed of the kingdom\" as that of plants\nand vegetables from their seeds in the natural world--and goes on in the\nsame manner progressively to maturity._\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nSECT. I._--Possibility of redemption to all denied by the favours of\n\"Election and Reprobation\"--Quaker-refutation of the later doctrine._\n\nSECT. II._--Quaker refutation continued._\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n_Recapitulation of all the doctrines advanced--Objection that the\nQuakers make every thing of the Spirit and but little of Jesus\nChrist--Attempt to show that Christians often differ without a just\ncause--Or that there is no material difference between the creeds of the\nQuakers and that of the objectors on this subject._\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nSECT. I._--Ministers of the Gospel--Quakers conceive that the spirit of\nGod alone can qualify for the ministry--Women equally qualified with\nmen--Way in which ministers are called and acknowledged among the\nQuakers._\n\nSECT. II._--Quaker-ministers, when acknowledged, engage in family\nvisits--Nature of these--and sometimes in missions through England--and\nsometimes in foreign parts._\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n_Elders--Their origin and their office--These are not to meddle with the\ndiscipline of the church._\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nSECT I._--Worship--is usually made to consist of prayer and\npreaching--But neither of these are considered by the Quakers to be\neffectual without the aid of the spirit--Hence no liturgy or studied\nform of words among the Quakers--Reputed manner and character of\nQuaker-preaching--Observations upon these._\n\nSECT. II--_Silent worship--Manner of it--Worship not necessarily\nconnected with words--Advantages of this mode of worship._\n\nSECT. III.--_Quakers discard every thing formal and superstitious from\ntheir worship--No consecrated ground--No priest's garments--No\npsalmody--No one day esteemed by them holier than another--Reasons for\nthese singularities._\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n_Miscellaneous particularities--Quakers seldom use the words \"original\nsin,\" or \"Trinity,\" and never \"the word of God\" for the\nScriptures--Believe in the manhood and divinity of Christ--In the\nresurrection--Their ideas on sanctification and justification._\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n_Quakers reject baptism and the Lord's supper--Indulgence solicited for\nthem on account of the difficulties connected with these subjects--These\ndifficulties explained._\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nSECT. I.--_Two baptisms, that of John and of Christ--That of John was by\nwater--and a Jewish ordinance--John the prophet left under the law._\n\nSECT. II.--_Baptism of Christ was by the Spirit--This the baptism of the\nGospel--Authorities on which this distinction between the two is\nfounded._\n\nSECT. III.--_Quakers conceive it was not the baptism of John which Jesus\nincluded in the Great Commission, when he ordered his disciples to go\ninto all nations, and to teach them, baptizing in the name of the\nfather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost--This shown from\nexpressions taken from St. Peter and St. Paul--and from the object and\nnature of this baptism._\n\nSECT. IV.--_But that it was the baptism of Christ--This shown from a\ncritical examination of the words in the commission itself--And from the\ncommission, as explained by St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul._\n\nSECT. V.--_Practice of Jesus and the Apostles a confirmation of this\nopinion._\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nSect. I.--_Two suppers, the one instituted by Moses, the other by Jesus\nChrist--The first called the passover--Ancient and modern manner of its\ncelebration._\n\nSect. II.--_Second, enjoined by Jesus at Capernaum--This wholly, of a\nspiritual nature--Way in which this may be enjoyed._\n\nSect. III.--_Quakers say that Jesus instituted no new supper distinct\nfrom that of the passover, and which was to render null and void that\nenjoined at Capernaum, at a rite of the Christian church--No such\ninstitution to be collected from St. Matthew, St. Mark, or St. John._\n\nSect. IV.--_Nor from St. Luke--St. Luke only says, that all future\npassovers of the Disciples with Christ were to be spiritual--but if, as\nJews, they could not all at once abdicate the passover to which they had\nbeen educated, they were to celebrate it with a new meaning--But no\nacknowledged permission of it to others._\n\nSect. V.--_Nor from St. Paul--St. Paul only says that the passover, as\nspiritualized by Jesus, was allowed to his disciples, or to the Jewish\nconverts, who could not all at once lay aside their prejudices\nconcerning it, but that it was to last only for a time--Different\nopinions about this time--That of the Quakers concerning it._\n\nSect. VI.--_Had a new supper, distinct from that of the passover, been\nintended as a ceremonial of the Christian church, it would have been\ncommanded to others besides the disciples, and its duration would not\nhave been limited--Reasons from St. Paul, to show that he himself did\nnot probably consider it as a Christian ordinance--Whereas the supper\nenjoined at Capernaum, was to be eternal--and universal--and an\nessential with all Christians._\n\nPECULIAR CUSTOMS\nOF THE\n_QUAKERS_.\n\n\n(CONTINUED)\n\n\nVOL. II B.\n\nPECULIAR CUSTOMS\nOF THE\nQUAKERS.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\nSECTION I.\n\n_Marriage--Quakers differ in many respects from others, on the subject\nof Marriage--George Fox introduced Regulations concerning it--Protested\nagainst the usual manner of the celebration of it--Gave an example of\nwhat he recommended--Present regulations of the Quakers on this\nsubject._\n\n\nIn the continuation of the Customs of the Quakers, a subject which I\npurpose to resume in the present volume, I shall begin with that of\nMarriage.\n\nThe Quakers differ from others in many of their regulations concerning\nthis custom. They differ also in the manner of the celebration of it.\nAnd, as they differ in these respects, so they experience generally a\ndifferent result. The Quakers, as a married, may be said to be a happy,\npeople. Hence the detailers of scandal, have rarely had it in their\npower to promulgate a Quaker adultery. Nor have the lawyers had an\nopportunity in our public courts of proclaiming a Quaker divorce.\n\nGeorge Fox suggested many regulations on this subject. He advised, among\nother things, when persons had it in contemplation to marry, that they\nshould lay their intention before the monthly meetings, both of the men\nand women. He advised also, that the consent of their parents should be\npreviously obtained, and certified to these. Thus he laid the foundation\nfor greater harmony in the approaching union. He advised again, that an\ninquiry should be made, if the parties were clear of engagements or\npromises of marriage to others, and, if they were not, that they should\nbe hindered from proceeding. Thus, he cut off some of the causes of the\ninterruption of connubial happiness, by preventing uneasy reflections,\nor suits at law, after the union had taken place. He advised also, in\nthe case of second marriages, that any offspring resulting from the\nformer, should have their due rights and a proper provision secured to\nthem, before they were allowed to be solemnized. Thus he gave a greater\nchance for happiness, by preventing mercenary motives from becoming the\ncauses of the union of husbands and wives.\n\nBut George Fox, as he introduced these and other salutary regulations on\nthe subject of Marriage, so he introduced a new manner of the\ncelebration of it. He protested against the manner of the world, that\nis, against the formal prayers and exhortations as they were repeated,\nand against the formal ceremonies, an they were practised by the Parish\nPriest. He considered that it was God, who joined man and woman before\nthe fall; and that in Christian times, or where the man was truly\nrenovated in heart, there could be no other right or honourable way of\nunion. Consistently with this view of the subject, he observed, that in\nthe ancient scriptural times, persons took each other in marriage in the\nassemblies of the Elders; and there was no record, from the Book of\nGenesis to that of Revelations, of any marriage by a Priest. Hence it\nbecame his new society, as a religious or renovated people, to abandon\napostate usages, and to adopt a manner that was more agreeable to their\nnew state.\n\nGeorge Fox gave in his own marriage, an example of all that he had thus\nrecommended to the society. Having agreed with Margaret Fell, the widow\nof Judge Fell, upon the propriety of their union as husband and wife,\nhe desired her to send for her children. As soon as they were come, he\nasked them and their respective husbands,[1] \"If they had any thing\nagainst it, or for it, desiring them to speak? and they all severally\nexpressed their _satisfaction therein_. Then he asked Margaret, if she\nhad fulfilled and performed her husband's Will to her children? She\nreplied, the _children know that_. Whereupon he asked them, whether, if\ntheir mother married, they should not lose by it? And he asked Margaret,\nwhether she had done any thing in lieu of it, which might answer it to\nthe children? The children said, _she had answered it to them_, and\ndesired him to _speak no more about that_. He told them, that he was\nplain, and that he would have all things done plainly; for he sought not\nany outward advantage to himself. So, after he had acquainted the\nchildren with it, their intention of marriage was laid before Friends,\nboth privately and publicly;\" and afterwards a meeting being appointed\nfor the accomplishment of the marriage, in the public Meeting-house at\nBroad Mead, in Bristol, they took each other in marriage, in the plain\nand simple manner as then practised, and which he himself had originally\nrecommended to his followers.\n\n[Footnote 1: G. Fox's Journal, Vol. 2. p. 135.]\n\nThe regulations concerning marriage, and the manner of the celebration\nof it, which obtained in the time of George Fox, nearly obtain among the\nQuakers of the present day.\n\nWhen marriage is agreed upon between two persons, the man and the woman,\nat one of the monthly meetings, publicly declare their intention, and\nask leave to proceed. At this time their parents, if living, must either\nappear, or send certificates to signify their consent. This being done,\ntwo men are appointed by the men's meeting, and two women are appointed\nby that of the women, to wait upon the man and woman respectively, and\nto learn from themselves, as well as by other inquiry, if they stand\nperfectly clear from any marriage-promises and engagements to others. At\nthe next monthly meeting the deputation make their report. If either of\nthe parties is reported to have given expectation of marriage to any\nother individual, the proceedings are stopped till the matter be\nsatisfactorily explained. But if they are both of them reported to be\nclear in this respect, they are at liberty to proceed, and one or more\npersons of respectability of each sex, are deputed to see that the\nmarriage be conducted in an orderly manner.\n\nIn the case of second marriages, additional instructions are sometimes\ngiven; for if any of the parties thus intimating their intentions of\nmarrying should have children alive, the same persons, who were deputed\nto inquire into their clearness from all other engagements, are to see\nthat the rights of such children be legally secured.\n\nWhen the parties are considered to be free, by the reports of the\ndeputation, to proceed upon their union, they appoint a suitable day for\nthe celebration of it, which is generally one of the week-day meetings\nfor worship. On this day they repair to the Meeting-house with their\nfriends. The congregation, when seated, sit in silence. Perhaps some\nminister is induced to speak. After a suitable time has elapsed, the man\nand the woman rise up together, and, taking each other by the hand,\ndeclare publicly, that they thus take each other as husband and wife.\nThis constitutes their marriage. By way, however, of evidence of their\nunion, a paper is signed by the man and woman, in the presence of three\nwitnesses, who sign it also, in which it is stated that they have so\ntaken each other in marriage. And, in addition to this, though, it be\nnot a necessary practice, another paper is generally produced and read,\nstating concisely the proceedings of the parties in their respective\nMeetings for the purpose of their marriage, and the declaration made by\nthem, as having taken each other as man and wife. This is signed by the\nparties, their relations, and frequently by many of their friends, and\nothers present. All marriages of other Dissenters are celebrated in the\nestablished churches, according to the ceremonies of the same. But the\nmarriages of the Quakers are valid by law in their own Meeting-houses,\nwhen solemnised in this simple manner.\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_Quakers, marrying out of the Society, to be disowned--That regulation\ncharged with pride and cruelty--Reasons for this disownment are--That\nmixed Marriages cannot be celebrated without a violation of same of the\ngreat Principles of the Society--That they are generally productive of\ndisputes and uneasiness to those concerned--and that the discipline\ncannot be carried on in such families._\n\n\nAmong the regulations suggested by George Fox, and adopted by his\nfollowers, it was determined that persons, belonging to the society,\nshould not intermarry with those of other religious professions. Such an\nheterogeneous union was denominated a _mixed marriage_; and persons,\nengaging in such mixed marriages, were to be disowned.\n\nPeople of other denominations have charged the Quakers with a more than\nusually censurable pride, on account of their adoption of this law. They\nconsider them as looking down upon the rest of their fellow-creatures,\nas so inferior or unholy, as not to deign or to dare to mix in alliance\nwith them, or as looking upon them in the same light as the Jews\nconsidered the Heathen, or the Greeks the Barbarian world. And they have\ncharged them also with as much cruelty as pride, on the same account. \"A\nQuaker, they say, feels himself strongly attached to an accomplished\nwoman; but she does not belong to the society. He wishes to marry, but\nhe cannot marry her on account of its laws. Having a respect for the\nsociety, he looks round it again, but he looks round it in vain. He\nfinds no one equal to this woman; no one, whom he could love so well. To\nmarry one in the society, while he loves another out of it better, would\nbe evidently wrong. If he does not marry her, he makes the greatest of\nall sacrifices, for he loses that which he supposes would constitute a\nsource of enjoyment to him for the remainder of his life. If he marries\nher, he is expelled the society; and this, without having been guilty of\nan immoral offence.\"\n\nOne of the reasons, which the Quakers give for the adoption of this law\nof disownment in the case of mixed marriages, is, that those who engage\nin them violate some of the most important principles of the society,\nand such indeed as are distinguishing characteristics of Quakerism from\nthe religion of the world.\n\nIt is a religious tenet of the Quakers, as will be shown in its proper\nplace, that no appointment of man can make a minister of the gospel, and\nthat no service, consisting of an artificial form of words, to be\npronounced on stated occasions, can constitute a religious act; for that\nthe spirit of God is essentially necessary to create the one, and to\nproduce the other. It is also another tenet with them, that no minister\nof a christian church, ought to be paid for his Gospel-labours. This\nlatter tenet is held so sacred by the Quakers, that it affords one\nreason among others, why they refuse payment of tithes, and other\ndemands of the church, preferring to suffer loss by distraints for them,\nthan to comply with them in the usual manner. Now these two principles\nare essentials of Quakerism. But no person, who marries out of the\nsociety, can be legally married without going through the forms of the\nestablished church. Those therefore who submit to this ceremony, as\nperformed by a priest, acknowledge, according to the Quakers, the\nvalidity of an human appointment of the ministry. They acknowledge the\nvalidity of an artificial service in religion. They acknowledge the\npropriety of paying a Gospel-minister for the discharge of his office.\nThe Quakers, therefore, consider those who marry out of the society, as\nguilty of such a dereliction of Quaker-principles, that they can be no\nlonger considered as sound or consistent members.\n\nBut independently of the violation of these principles, which the\nQuakers take as the strongest ground for their conduct on such an\noccasion, they think themselves warranted in disowning, from a\ncontemplation of the consequences, which have been known to result from\nthese marriages.\n\nIn the first place, disownment is held to be necessary, because it acts\nas a check upon such marriages, and because, by acting as such a check,\nit prevents the family-disputes and disagreements which might otherwise\narise; for such marriages have been found to be more productive of\nuneasiness than of enjoyment. When two persons of different religious\nprinciples, a Quaker for example, and a woman of the church, join in\nmarriage, it is almost impossible that they should not occasionally\ndiffer. The subject of religion arises, and perhaps some little\naltercation with it, as the Sunday comes. The one will not go to church,\nand the other will not go to meeting. These disputes do not always die\nwith time. They arise, however, more or less, according to\ncircumstances. If neither of the parties set any value upon their\nreligious opinions, there will be but little occasion for dispute. If\nboth of them, on the other hand, are of a serious cast, much will depend\nupon the liberality of their sentiments: but, generally speaking, it\nfalls to the lot of but few to be free from religious prejudices. And\nhere it may be observed, that points in religion also may occasionally\nbe suggested, which may bring with them the seeds of temporary\nuneasiness. People of other religious denominations generally approach\nnearer to one another in their respective creeds, than the Quakers to\neither of them. Most christians agree, for example, in the use of\nBaptism in some form or other, and also in the celebration of the Lord's\nSupper. But the Quakers, as will be shown in this volume, consider these\nordinances in a spiritual light, admitting no ceremonials in so pure a\nsystem as that of the Christian religion.\n\nBut these differences, which may thus soon or late take their rise upon\nthese or other subjects, where the parties set a value on their\nrespective religious opinions, cannot fail of being augmented by new\ncircumstances in time. The parties in question have children. The\neducation of these is now a subject of the most important concern. New\ndisputes are engendered on this head, both adhering to their respective\ntenets as the best to be embraced by their rising offspring. Unable at\nlength to agree on this point, a sort of compromise takes place. The\nboys are denied, while the girls are permitted, baptism. The boys,\nagain, are brought up to meeting, and the girls to church, or they go\nto church and meeting alternately. In the latter case, none of the\nchildren can have any fixed principles. Nor will they be much better off\nin the former. There will be frequently an opposition of each other's\nreligious opinions, and a constant hesitation and doubt about the\nconsistency of these. There are many points, which the mothers will\nteach the daughters as right, or essential, but which the fathers will\nteach the sons as erroneous or unimportant. Thus disputes will be\nconveyed to the children. In their progress through life other\ncircumstances may arise, which may give birth to feelings of an\nunpleasant nature. The daughters will be probably instructed in the\naccomplishments of the world. They will be also introduced to the\ncard-room, and to assemblies, and to the theatre, in their turn. The\nboys will be admitted to neither. The latter will of course feel their\npleasures abridged, and consider their case as hard, and their father as\nmorose and cruel. Little jealousies may arise upon this difference of\ntheir treatment, which may be subversive of filial and fraternal\naffection. Nor can religion be called in to correct them; for while the\ntwo opposite examples of father and mother, and of sisters and brothers,\nare held out to be right, there will be considerable doubts as to what\nare religious truths.\n\nThe Quakers urge again in behalf of their law against mixed marriages,\nthat if these were not forbidden, it would be impossible to carry on the\ndiscipline of the society. The truth of this may be judged by the\npreceding remarks. For if the family were divided into two parties, as\nhas been just stated, on account of their religion, it would be but in a\nkind of mongrel-state. If, for instance, it were thought right, that the\nQuaker-part of it should preserve the simplicity of the Quaker-dress,\nand the plainness of the Quaker-language, how is this to be done, while\nthe other part daily move in the fashions, and are taught as a right\nusage, to persist in the phrases of the world? If, again, the\nQuaker-part of it are to be kept from the amusements prohibited by the\nsociety, how is this to be effected, while the other part of it speak of\nthem from their own experience, with rapture or delight? It would be\nimpossible, therefore, in the opinion of the Quakers, in so mixed a\nfamily, to keep up that discipline, which they consider as the\ncorner-stone of their constitutional fabric, and which may be said to\nhave been an instrument in obtaining for them the character of a moral\npeople.\n\nSECT. III.\n\n_But though persons are thus disowned, they may be restored to\nmembership--Generally understood, however, that they must previously\nexpress their repentance for their marriages--This confession of\nrepentance censured by the world--But is admissible without the\ncriminality supposed--The word repentance misunderstood by the world._\n\n\nBut though the Quakers may disown such as marry out of their society, it\ndoes not follow that these may not be reinstated as members. If these\nshould conduct themselves after their disownment in an orderly manner,\nand, still retaining their attachment to the society, should bring up\ntheir children in the principles and customs of it, they may, if they\napply for restoration, obtain it, with all their former privileges and\nrights.\n\nThe children also of such as marry out of the society, though they are\nnever considered to be members of it, may yet become so in particular\ncases. The society advises that the monthly meetings, should extend a\ntender care towards such children, and that they should be admitted\ninto membership at the discretion of the said meetings, either in\ninfancy or in maturer age.\n\nBut here I must stop to make a few observations, on an opinion which\nprevails upon this subject. It is generally understood that the Quakers,\nin their restoration of disowned persons to membership, require them\npreviously and publicly to acknowledge, that they have _repented_ of\ntheir marriages. This obligation to make this public confession of\nrepentance, has given to many a handle for heavy charges against them.\nIndeed I scarcely know, in any part of the Quaker-system, where people\nare louder in their censures, than upon this point. \"A man, they say,\ncannot express his penitence for his marriage without throwing a stigma\nupon his wife. To do this is morally wrong, if he has no fault to find\nwith her. To do it, even if she has been in fault, is indelicate. And\nnot to do it, is to forego his restoration to membership. This law\ntherefore of the Quakers is considered to be immoral, because it may\nlead both to hypocrisy and falsehood.\"\n\nI shall not take up much time in correcting the notions that have gone\nabroad on this subject.\n\nOf those who marry out of the society, it may be presumed that there are\nsome, who were never considered to be sound in the Quaker-principles,\nand these are generally they who intermarry with the world. Now they,\nwho compose this class, generally live after their marriages, as happily\nout of the society as when they were in it. Of course, these do not\nrepent of the change. And if they do not repent, they never sue for\nrestoration to membership. They cannot, therefore, incur any of the\ncharges in question. Nor can the society be blamed in this case, who, by\nnever asking them to become members, never entice them to any\nobjectionable repentance.\n\nOf those again, who marry out of the society, there may be individuals,\nso attached to its communion, that it was never imagined they would have\nacted in this manner. Now of these, it may in general be said, that they\noften bitterly repent. They find, soon or late, that the opposite\nopinions and manners, to be found in their union, do not harmonize. And\nhere it may be observed, that it is very possible, that such persons may\nsay they repent without any crimination of their wives. A man, for\ninstance, may have found in his wife all the agreeableness of temper,\nall the domestic virtue and knowledge, all the liberality of religious\nopinion, which he had anticipated; but in consequence of the mixed\nprinciples resulting from mixed marriages, or of other unforeseen\ncauses, he may be so alarmed about the unsteady disposition of his\nchildren and their future prospects, that the pain which he feels on\nthese accounts may overbalance the pleasure, which he acknowledges in\nthe constant prudence, goodness, solicitude, and affection, of his wife.\nThis may be so much the case, that all her consolatory offices may not\nbe able to get the better of his grief. A man, therefore, in such\ncircumstances, may truly repent of his marriage, or that he was ever the\nfather of such children, though he can never complain as the husband of\nsuch a wife.\n\nThe truth, however, is, that those who make the charge in question, have\nentirely misapplied the meaning of the word _repent_. People are not\ncalled upon to express their sorrow, for _having married the objects of\ntheir choice_, but for _having violated those great tenets of the\nsociety_, which have been already mentioned, and which form\ndistinguishing characteristics between Quakerism and the religion of the\nworld. Those, therefore, who say they repent, say no more than what any\nother persons might be presumed to say, who had violated the religious\ntenets of any other society to which they might have belonged, or who\nhad flown in the face of what they had imagined to be religious truths.\n\nSECT. IV.\n\n_Of persons, disowned for marriage, the greater proportion is said to\nconsist of women--Causes assigned for this difference of number in the\ntwo sexes._\n\n\nIt will perhaps appear a curious fact to the world, but I am told it is\ntrue, that the number of the women, disowned for marrying out of the\nsociety, far exceeds the number of the men, who are disowned on the same\naccount.\n\nIt is not difficult, if the fact be as it is stated, to assign a reason\nfor this difference of number in the two sexes.\n\nWhen men wish to marry, they wish, at least if they are men of sense, to\nfind such women as are virtuous; to find such as are prudent and\ndomestic, and such as have a proper sense of the folly and dissipation\nof the Fashionable world; such in fact as will make good mothers and\ngood wives. Now if a Quaker looks into his own society, he will\ngenerally find the female part of it of this description. Female Quakers\nexcel in these points. But if he looks into the world at large, he will\nin general find a contrast in the females there. These, in general, are\nbut badly educated. They are taught to place a portion of their\nhappiness in finery and show: utility is abandoned for fashion: The\nknowledge of the etiquette of the drawing-room usurps the place of the\nknowledge of the domestic duties: A kind of false and dangerous taste\npredominates: Scandal and the card-table are preferred to the pleasures\nof a rural walk: Virtue and Modesty are seen with only half their\nenergies, being overpowered by the noxiousness of novel-reading\nprinciples, and by the moral taint which infects those who engage in the\nvaried rounds of a fashionable life. Hence a want of knowledge, a love\nof trifles, and a dissipated turn of mind, generally characterize those\nwho are considered as having had the education of the world.\n\nWe see therefore a good reason why Quaker-men should confine themselves\nin their marriages to their own society. But the same reason, which thus\noperates with Quaker-men in the choice of Quaker-women, operates with\nmen who are not of the society, in choosing them also for their wives.\nThese are often no strangers to the good education, and to the high\ncharacter, of the Quaker-females. Fearful often of marrying among the\nbadly educated women of their own persuasion, they frequently address\nthemselves to this society, and not unfrequently succeed.\n\nTo this it may be added, that if Quaker-men were to attempt to marry out\nof their own society, they would not in general be well received. Their\ndress and their manners are considered as uncouth in the eyes of the\nfemale-world, and would present themselves as so many obstacles in the\nway of their success. The women of this description generally like a\nsmart and showy exterior. They admire heroism and spirit. But neither\nsuch an exterior, nor such spirit, are to be seen in the Quaker-men. The\ndress of the Quaker-females, on the other hand, is considered as neat\nand elegant, and their modesty and demeanor as worthy of admiration.\nFrom these circumstances they captivate. Hence the difference, both in\nthe inward and outward person, between the men and the women of this\nsociety, renders the former not so pleasing, while it renders the latter\nobjects of admiration, and even choice.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\n_Funerals--Most nations have paid extravagant attention to their\ndead--The moderns follow their example--This extravagance, or the\npageantry of funerals, discarded by the Quakers--Their reasons for\nit--Plainness of Quaker-funerals._\n\n\nIf we look into the history of the world, we shall find, from whatever\ncause it has arisen, whether from any thing connected with our moral\nfeelings, such as love, gratitude, or respect, or from vanity, or\nostentation, that almost all nations, where individuals have been able\nto afford it, have incurred considerable expense in the interment of\ntheir dead. The Greeks were often very extravagant in their funerals.\nMany persons, ornamented with garlands, followed the corpse, while\nothers were employed in singing and dancing before it. At the funerals\nof the great, among the Romans, couches were carried, containing the\nwaxen or other images of the family of the deceased, and hundreds joined\nin the procession. In our own times, we find a difference in the manner\nof furnishing or decorating funerals, though but little in the intention\nof making them objects of outward show. A bearer of plumes precedes the\nprocession. The horses employed are dressed in trappings. The hearse\nfollows ornamented with plumes of feathers, and gilded and silvered with\ngaudy escutcheons, or the armorial bearings of the progenitors of the\ndeceased. A group of hired persons range themselves on each side of the\nhearse and attendant carriages, while others close the procession. These\nagain are all of them clad in long cloaks, or furnished, in regular\norder, with scarfs and hat-bands. Now all these outward appendages,\nwhich may be called the pageantry of funerals, the Quakers have\ndiscarded, from the time of their institution, in the practice of the\nburial of their dead.\n\nThe Quakers are of opinion, that funeral processions should be made, if\nany thing is to be made of them, to excite serious reflections, and to\nproduce lessons of morality in those who see them. This they conceive to\nbe best done by depriving the dead body of all ornaments and outward\nhonours. For, stripped in this manner, they conceive it to approach the\nnearest to its native worthlessness or dust. Such funerals, therefore,\nmay excite in the spectator a deep sense of the low and debased\ncondition of man. And his feelings will be pure on the occasion, because\nthey will be unmixed with the consideration of the artificial\ndistinctions of human life. The spectator too will be more likely, if he\nsees all go undistinguished to the grave, to deduce for himself the\nmoral lesson, that there is no true elevation of one above another, only\nas men follow the practical duties of virtue and religion. But what\nserious reflections, or what lessons of morality, on the other hand, do\nthe funerals of the world produce, if accompanied with pomp and\nsplendour? To those who have sober and serious minds, they produce a\nkind of pity, that is mingled with disgust. In those of a ludicrous\nturn, they provoke ludicrous ideas, when they see a dead body attended\nwith such extravagant parade. To the vulgar and the ignorant no one\nuseful lesson is given. Their senses are all absorbed in the show; and\nthe thoughts of the worthlessness of man, as well as of death and the\ngrave, which ought naturally to suggest themselves on such occasions,\nare swallowed up in the grandeur and pageantry of the procession.\nFunerals, therefore, of this kind, are calculated to throw honour upon\nriches, abstractedly of moral merit; to make the creature of as much\nimportance when dead as when alive; to lessen the humility of man; and\nto destroy, of course, the moral and religious feelings that should\narise upon such occasions. Add to which, that such a conduct among\nchristians must be peculiarly improper; for the christian dispensation\nteaches man, that he is \"to work out his salvation with fear and\ntrembling.\" It seems inconsistent, therefore, to accompany with all the\noutward signs of honour and greatness the body of a poor wretch, who has\nhad this difficult and awful task to perform, and who is on his last\nearthly journey, previously to his appearance before the tribunal of the\nAlmighty to be judged for the deeds which he has committed in the flesh.\n\nActuated by such sentiments as these, the Quakers have discarded all\nparade at their funerals. When they die, they are buried in a manner\nsingularly plain. The corpse is deposited in a plain coffin. When\ncarried to the meeting-house or grave-yard, it is attended by relations\nand friends. These have nothing different at this time in their external\ngarments from their ordinary dress. Neither man nor horse is apparelled\nfor the purpose. All pomp and parade, however rich the deceased may have\nbeen, are banished from their funeral processions. The corpse, at\nlength, arrives at the meeting-house[2]. It is suffered to remain there\nin the sight of the spectators. The congregation then sit in silence, as\nat a meeting for worship. If any one feels himself induced to speak, he\ndelivers himself accordingly; if not, no other rite is used at this\ntime. In process of time the coffin is taken out of the meeting-house,\nand carried to the grave. Many of the acquaintances of the deceased,\nboth Quakers and others, follow it. It is at length placed by the side\nof the grave. A solemn, silent pause, immediately takes place. It is\nthen interred. Another shorter pause then generally follows. These\npauses are made, that the \"spectators may be more deeply touched with a\nsense of their approaching exit, and their future state.\" If a minister\nor other person, during these pauses, have any observation or\nexhortation to make, which is frequently the case, he makes it. If no\nperson should feel himself impressed to speak, the assembled persons\ndepart. The act of seeing the body deposited in the grave, is the last\npublic act of respect which the Quakers show to their deceased\nrelations. This is the whole process of a Quaker-funeral.\n\n[Footnote 2: It is sometimes buried without being carried there.]\n\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_Quakers use no vaults in their burying-grounds--Relations sometimes\nburied near each other, but oftener otherwise--They use no tomb-stones\nor monumental inscriptions--Reasons for this disuse--But they sometimes\nrecord accounts of the lives, deaths, and dying sayings, of their\nMinisters._\n\n\nThe Quakers, in the infancy of their institution, were buried in their\ngardens, or orchards, or in the fields and premises of one another. They\nhad at that time no grave-yards of their own; and they refused to be\nburied in those of the church, lest they should thus acknowledge the\nvalidity of an human appointment of the priesthood, the propriety of\npayment for gospel-labour, and the peculiar holiness of consecrated\nground. This refusal to be buried within the precincts of the church,\nwas considered as the bearing of their testimony for truth. In process\nof time they raised their own meeting-houses, and had their respective\nburying places. But these were not always contiguous, but sometimes at a\ndistance from one another, The Quakers have no sepulchres or arched\nvaults under ground for the reception of their dead. There has been here\nand there a vault, and there is here and there a grave with sides of\nbrick; but the coffins, containing their bodies, are usually committed\nto the dust.\n\nI may observe also, that the Quakers are sometimes buried near their\nrelations, but more frequently otherwise. In places where the\nQuaker-population is thin, and the burial ground large, a relation is\nburied next to a relation, if it be desired. In other places, however,\nthe graves are usually dug in rows, and the bodies deposited in them,\nnot as their relations lie, but as they happen to be opened in\nsuccession without any attention to family connexions. When the first\ngrave in the row is opened and filled, the person who dies next, is put\ninto that which is next to it; and the person who dies next, occupies\nthat which is next to the second[3]. It is to many an endearing thought,\nthat they shall lie after their death, near the remains of those whom\nthey loved in life. But the Quakers, in general, have not thought it\nright or wise to indulge such feelings. They believe that all good men,\nhowever their bodies may be separated in their subterraneous houses of\nclay, will assuredly meet at the resurrection of the just.\n\n[Footnote 3: By this process a small piece of ground is longer in\nfilling, no room being lost, and the danger and disagreeable necessity\nof opening graves before the bodies in them are decayed, is avoided.]\n\nThe Quakers also reject the fashions of the world in the use of\ntomb-stones and monumental inscriptions. These are generally supposed to\nbe erected out of respect to the memory or character of the deceased.\nThe Quakers, however, are of opinion, that this is not the proper manner\nof honouring the dead. If you wish to honour a good man, who has\ndeparted this life, let all his good actions live in your memory; let\nthem live in your grateful love and esteem; so cherish them in your\nheart, that they may constantly awaken you to imitation. Thus you will\nshow, by your adoption of his amiable example, that you really respect\nhis memory. This is also that tribute, which, if he himself could be\nasked in the other world how he would have his memory respected in this,\nhe would prefer to any description of his virtues, that might be given\nby the ablest writer, or handed down to posterity by the ablest monument\nof the sculptor's art.\n\nBut the Quakers have an objection to the use of tomb-stones and\nmonumental inscriptions, for other reasons. For, where pillars of\nmarble, abounding with panegyric, and decorated in a splendid manner,\nare erected to the ashes of dead men, there is a danger, lest, by making\ntoo much of these, a superstitious awe should be produced, and a\nsuperstitious veneration should attach to them. The early Christians, by\nmaking too much of the relics of their saints or pious men, fell into\nsuch errors.\n\nThe Quakers believe, again, that if they were to allow the custom of\nthese outward monuments to obtain among them, they might be often led,\nas the world is, and by the same causes, to a deviation from the truth;\nfor it is in human nature to praise those whom we love, but more\nparticularly when we have lost them. Hence, we find often such\nextravagant encomiums upon the dead, that if it were possible for these\nto be made acquainted with them, they would show their disapprobation of\nsuch records. Hence we find also, that \"as false as an epitaph,\" has\nbecome a proverbial expression.\n\nBut even in the case where nothing more is said upon the tomb-stone than\nwhat Moses said of Seth, and of Enos, and of Cainan, and others, when he\nreckoned up the genealogy of Adam, namely, that \"they lived and that\nthey died,\" the Quakers do not approve of such memorials. For these\nconvey no merit of the deceased, by which his example should be\nfollowed. They convey no lesson of morality: and in general they are not\nparticularly useful. They may serve perhaps to point out to surviving\nrelations, the place where the body of the deceased was buried, so that\nthey may know where to mark out the line for their own graves. But as\nthe Quakers in general have overcome the prejudice of \"sleeping with\ntheir fathers,\" such memorials cannot be so useful to them.\n\nThe Quakers, however, have no objection, if a man has conducted himself\nparticularly well in life, that a true statement should be made\nconcerning him, provided such a statement would operate as a lesson of\nmorality to others; but they think that the tomb-stone is not the best\nmedium of conveying it. They are persuaded that very little moral\nadvantage is derived to the cursory readers of epitaphs, or that they\ncan trace their improvement in morals to this source. Sensible, however,\nthat the memorials of good men may be made serviceable to the rising\ngeneration, (\"and there are no ideas, says Addison, which strike more\nforcibly on our imaginations, than those which are raised from\nreflections upon the exits of great and excellent men,\") they are\nwilling to receive accounts of the lives, deaths, and remarkable dying\nsayings, of those ministers in their own society, who have been eminent\nfor their labours. These are drawn up by individuals, and presented to\nthe monthly meetings, to which the deceased belonged. But here they must\nundergo an examination before they are passed. The truth of the\nstatement, and the utility of the record, must appear. It then falls to\nthe quarterly meetings to examine them again, and these may alter, or\npass, or reject them, as it may appear to be most proper. If these\nshould pass them, they are forwarded to the yearly meeting. Many of\nthem, after this, are printed; and, finding their way into the bookcases\nof the Quakers, they become collected essays of morality, and operate as\nincitements to piety to the rising youth. Thus the memorials of men are\nmade useful by the Quakers in an unobjectionable manner; for the\nfalsehood and flattery of epitaphs are thus avoided; none but good men\nhaving been selected, whose virtues, if they are recorded, can be\nperpetuated with truth.\n\n\nSECT. III.\n\n_They discard also mourning garments--These are only emblems of\nsorrow--and often make men pretend to be what they are not--This\ncontrary to Christianity--Thus they may become little better than\ndisguised pomp, or fashionable forms--This instanced in the changes and\nduration of common mourning--and in the custom also of court-mourning\n--Ramifications of the latter._\n\n\nAs the Quakers neither allow of the tomb-stones, nor the monumental\ninscriptions, so they do not allow of the mourning garments of the\nworld.\n\nThey believe there can be no true sorrow but in the heart, and that\nthere can be no other true outward way of showing it than by fulfilling\nthe desires, and by imitating the best actions, of those whom men have\nlost and loved. \"The mourning, says William Penn, which it is fit for a\nChristian to have on the departure of beloved relations and friends,\nshould be worn in the mind, which is only sensible of the loss. And the\nlove which men have had to these, and their remembrance of them, should\nbe outwardly expressed by a respect to their advice, and care of those\nthey have left behind them, and their love of that which they loved.\"\n\nBut mourning garments, the Quakers contend, are only emblems of sorrow.\nThey will therefore frequently be used, where no sorrow is. Many persons\nfollow their deceased relatives to the grave, whose death, in point of\ngain, is a matter of real joy; witness young spendthrifts, who have been\nraising sum after sum on expectation, and calculating with voracious\nanxiety, the probable duration of their relations' lives. And yet all\nthese follow the corpse to the grave, with white handkerchiefs, mourning\nhabits, slouched hats, and dangling hat-bands. Mourning garments,\ntherefore, frequently make men pretend to be what they are not. But no\ntrue or consistent Christian can exhibit an outward appearance to the\nworld, which his inward feelings do not justify.\n\nIt is not contended here by the Quakers, that because a man becomes\noccasionally a hypocrite, this is a sufficient objection against any\nsystem; for a man may be an Atheist even in a Quaker's garb. Nor is it\ninsinuated, that individuals do not sometimes feel in their hearts, the\nsorrow which they purpose to signify by their clothing. But it is\nasserted to be true, that men who use mourning habits as they are\ngenerally used, do not wear them for those deceased persons only whom\nthey loved, and abstain from the use of them where they had no esteem,\nbut that they wear them promiscuously on all the occasions which have\nbeen dictated by fashion. Mourning habits therefore, in consequence of a\nlong system of etiquette, have become, in the opinion of the Quakers,\nbut little better than _disguised pomp_, or _fashionable forms_.\n\nI shall endeavour to throw some light upon this position of the Quakers,\nby looking into the practice of the world.\n\nIn the first place, there are seasons there, when full mourning, and\nseasons when only half mourning, is to be worn. Thus the habit is\nchanged, and for no other reason, than that of conformity with the laws\nof fashion. The length of this time also, or season of mourning, is made\nto depend upon the scale of men's affinity to the deceased; though\nnothing can be more obvious, than that men's affection for the living,\nand that their sorrow for them when dead, cannot be measured by this\nstandard. Hence the very time that a man shall mourn, and the very time\nthat he shall only half-mourn, and the very time that he shall cease to\nmourn, is fixed for him by the world, whatever may be the duration of\nhis own sorrow.\n\nIn court-mourning also, we have an instance of men being instructed to\nmourn, where their feelings are neither interested nor concerned. In\nthis case, the _disguised pomp_, spoken of by the Quakers, will be more\napparent. Two princes have perhaps been fighting with each other for a\nconsiderable portion of their reigns. The blood of their subjects has\nbeen spilled, and their treasures have been exhausted. They have\nprobably had, during all this time, no kind disposition one towards\nanother, each considering the other as the aggressor, or as the author\nof the war. When both have been wearied out with expense, they have made\npeace. But they have still mutual jealousies and fears. At length one of\nthem dies. The other, on receiving an express relative to the event,\norders mourning for the deceased for a given time. As other potentates\nreceive the intelligence, they follow the example. Their several levees\nor drawing-rooms, or places of public audience, are filled with\nmourners. Every individual of each sex, who is accustomed to attend\nthem, is now habited in black. Thus a round of mourning is kept up by\nthe courtiers of Europe, not by means of any sympathetic beating of the\nheart, but at the sound, as it were, of the postman's horn.\n\nBut let us trace this species of mourning farther, and let us now more\nparticularly look at the example of our own country for the elucidation\nof the point in question. The same Gazette, which gave birth to this\nblack influenza at court, spreads it still farther. The private\ngentlemen of the land undertake to mourn also. You see them accordingly\nin the streets, and in private parties, and at public places, in their\nmourning habits. Nor is this all. Military officers, who have fought\nagainst the armies of the deceased, wear black crapes over their arms in\ntoken of the same sorrow.\n\nBut the fever does not stop even here. It still spreads, and in tracing\nits progress, we find it to have attacked our merchants. Yes, the\ndisorder has actually got upon _change_. But what have I said? Mourning\nhabits upon change! Where the news of an army cut to pieces, produces\nthe most cheerful countenances in many, if it raises the stocks but an\nhalf per cent. Mourning habits upon change, where contracts are made for\nhuman flesh and blood! Where plans that shall consign cargoes of human\nbeings to misery and untimely death, and their posterity to bondage, are\ndeliberately formed and agreed upon! O sorrow, sorrow! what hast thou\nto do upon change, except in the case of commercial losses, or\ndisappointed speculation! But to add to this _disguised pomp_, as the\nQuakers call it, not one of ten thousand of the mourners, ever saw the\ndeceased prince; and perhaps ninety nine in the hundred, of all who\nheard of him, reprobated his character when alive.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n_Occupations of the Quakers--Agriculture declining among them--Probable\nreasons of this decline--Country congenial to the quietude of mind\nrequired by their religion--Sentiments of Cowper--Congenial also to the\nimprovement of their moral feelings--Sentiments of William\nPenn--Particularly suited to them as lovers of the animal creation._\n\n\nThe Quakers generally bring up their children to some employment. They\nbelieve that these, by having an occupation, may avoid evils, into which\nthey might otherwise fall, if they had upon their hands an undue\nproportion of vacant time. \"Friends of all degrees, says the book of\nextracts, are advised to take due care to breed up their children in\nsome useful and necessary employment, that they may not spend their\nprecious time in idleness, which is of evil example, and tends much to\ntheir hurt.\"\n\nThe Quakers have been described to be a domestic people, and as\npeculiarly cherishing domestic happiness. Upon this principle it is,\ncombined with the ties of their discipline and peculiar customs, that\nwe scarcely find any of this society quitting their country, except for\nAmerica, to reside in foreign parts. If it be a charge against the\nQuakers, that they are eager in the pursuit of wealth, let it at least\nbe mentioned in their favour, that, in their accumulation of it, they\nhave been careful not to suffer their knowledge to take advantage of the\nignorance of others, and to keep their hands clear of the oppression,\nand of the blood of their fellow-creatures.\n\nIn looking among the occupations of the Quakers, we shall find some, who\nare brought up as manufacturers and mechanics; but the number of these\nis small.\n\nOthers, but these are few, follow the sea. There may be here and there a\nmate or captain in the coasting employ. In America, where they have\ngreat local and other advantages, there may be more in the seafaring\nline. But, in general, the Quakers are domestic characters, and prefer\nhome.\n\nThere are but few also, who follow the professions. Their education and\ntheir religion exclude them from some of these. Some, however, are to be\nfound in the department of medicine: and others, as conveyancers, in the\nlaw.\n\nSeveral of the Quakers follow agriculture. But these are few, compared\nwith the rest of the society, or compared with the number of those who\nformerly followed a rural life. Almost all the Quakers were originally\nin the country, and but few of them in the towns. But this order of\nthings is reversing fast. They are flocking into the towns, and are\nabandoning agricultural pursuits.\n\nThe reasons, which may be given for this change, may be the following.\nIt is not at all unlikely but that tithes may have had some influence in\nproducing it. I am aware, however, it will be said, that a Quaker,\nliving in the country, and strongly principled against these, would\nthink it a dereliction of his duty to leave it on this account, and\nwould remain upon the principle, that an abode there, under the annual\nexercise of his testimony, would, in a religions point of view, add\nstrength to his strength. But it must be observed; on the other hand,\nthat where men are not obliged to remain under grievous evils, and can\nget rid of them, merely by changing their occupation in life, and this\nhonourably, it is in human nature to do it. And so far tithes, I\nbelieve, have had an influence, in driving the Quakers into the towns.\nOf later years, as the society has grown thinner in the country, I\nbelieve new reasons have sprung up; for the Quakers have had less\nopportunity of society with one another. They have been subjected, also\nto greater inconvenience in attending their religious meetings. Their\nchildren also have been more exposed to improper connexions in marriage.\nTo which it may be added, that the large and rapid profits frequently\nmade in trade, compared with the generally small and slow returns from\nagricultural concerns, may probably have operated with many, as an\ninducement to such a change.\n\nBut whatever reasons may have induced them to quit the country, and to\nsettle in the towns, no temporal advantages can make up to them, as a\nsociety, the measure of their loss. For when we consider that the\nQuakers never partake of the amusements of the world; that their worldly\npleasures are chiefly of a domestic nature; that calmness, and quietude,\nand abstraction from worldly thoughts, to which rural retirement is\npeculiarly favourable, is the state of mind which they themselves\nacknowledge to be required by their religion, it would seem that the\ncountry was peculiarly the place for their habitations.\n\nIt would seem, also as if, by this forsaking of the country, they had\ndeprived themselves of many opportunities of the highest enjoyment of\nwhich they are capable as Quakers. The objects in the country are\npeculiarly favourable to the improvement of morality in the exercise of\nthe spiritual feelings. The bud and the blossom, the rising and the\nfalling leaf, the blade of corn and the ear, the seed time and the\nharvest, the sun that warms and ripens, the cloud that cools and emits\nthe fruitful shower; these, and an hundred objects, afford daily food\nfor the religious growth of the mind. Even the natural man is pleased\nwith these. They excite in him natural ideas, and produce in him a\nnatural kind of pleasure. But the spiritual man experiences a sublimer\njoy. He sees none of these without feeling both spiritual improvement\nand delight. It is here that he converses with the Deity in his works:\nIt is here that he finds himself grateful for his goodness--that he\nacknowledges his wisdom--that he expresses his admiration of his power.\n\nThe poet Cowper, in his contemplation of a country life, speaks forcibly\non this subject.\n\n   \"O friendly to the best pursuits of man,\n   Friendly to _thought_, to _virtue_, and to _peace_,\n   Domestic life, in rural leisure pass'd!\n   Few know thy value, and few taste thy sweets;\n   Though many boast thy favours, and affect\n   To understand and choose these for their own\n   But foolish man _forgoes his proper bliss_,\n   Ev'n as his first progenitor, and quits,\n   Though plac'd in Paradise, (for earth has still\n   Some traces of her youthful beauty left,)\n   _Substantial happiness_ for _transient joy_.\n   Scenes form'd for _contemplation_, and to _nurse_\n   The _growing seeds of wisdom_, that suggest\n   By every pleasing image they present,\n   Reflections, _such as meliorate the heart,\n   Compose the passions, and exalt the mind.\"_\n\nWilliam Penn, in the beautiful letter which he left his wife and\nchildren before his first voyage to America, speaks also in strong terms\nupon the point in question.\n\n\"But agriculture, says he, is especially in my eye. Let my children be\nhusbandmen and housewives. This occupation is industrious, healthy,\nhonest, and of good example. Like Abraham and the holy ancients, who\npleased God, and obtained a good report, this leads to consider the\n_works of God_, and _nature of things that are good_, and diverts the\nmind from _being taken up_ with the _vain arts and inventions of a\nluxurious world_.\" And a little farther on he says, \"_Of cities and\ntowns, of concourse beware_. The _world is apt to stick close_ to those,\nwho have _lived and got wealth there_. A _country life and estate_, I\nlike best for my children. I prefer a decent mansion of a hundred pounds\na year, to ten thousand pounds in London, or such like place, _in the\nway of trade_.\"\n\nTo these observations it may he added, that the country, independently\nof the opportunity it affords for calmness and quietude of mind, and the\nmoral improvement of it in the exercise of the spiritual feelings, is\npeculiarly fitted for the habitation of the Quakers, on account of their\npeculiar love for the animal creation. It would afford them a wide range\nfor the exercise of this love, and the improvement of the benevolent\naffections. For tenderness, if encouraged, like a plant that is duly\nwatered, still grows. What man has ever shown a proper affection for the\nbrute creation, who has been backward in his love of the human race?\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n\nSECT. I.\n\n_Trade--Trade seldom considered as a question of morals--But Quakers\nview it in this light--Prohibit the slave-trade--Privateering\n--Manufactories of weapons of war--Also trade where the revenue is\ndefrauded--Hazardous enterprises--Fictitious paper--Insist upon\npunctuality to words and engagements--Advise an annual inspection of\ntheir own affairs--Regulations in case of bankruptcy._\n\n\nI stated in the last chapter, that some of the Quakers, though these\nwere few in number, were manufacturers and mechanics; that others\nfollowed the sea; that, others were to be found in the medical\nprofession, and in the law; and that others were occupied in the\nconcerns of a rural life. I believe with these few exceptions, that the\nrest of the society may be considered as engaged in trade.\n\nTrade is a subject, which seldom comes under the discussion of mankind\nas a moral question. If men who follow it, are honest and punctual in\ntheir dealings, little is thought of the nature of their occupations,\nor of the influence of these upon their minds. It will hardly, however,\nbe denied by moralists, that the buying and selling of commodities for\nprofit, is surrounded with temptation, and is injurious to pure,\nbenevolent, or disinterested feelings; or that where the mind is\nconstantly intent upon the gaining of wealth, by traffic, it is\ndangerously employed. Much less will it be denied, that trade is an\nevil, if any of the branches of it through which men acquire their\nwealth, are productive of mischief either to themselves or others. If\nthey are destructive to the health of the inferior agents, or to the\nmorality of any of the persons concerned in them, they can never be\nsanctioned by Christianity.\n\nThe Quakers have thought it their duty, as a religious body, to make\nseveral regulations on this subject.\n\nIn the first place they have made it a rule, that no person,\nacknowledged to be in profession with them, shall have any concern in\nthe slave-trade.\n\nThe Quakers began to consider this subject, as a Christian body, so\nearly as in the beginning of the last century. In the year 1727, they\npassed a public censure upon this trade. In the year 1758, and\nafterwards in the year 1761, they warned and exhorted all in profession\nwith them \"to keep their hands clear of this unrighteous gain of\noppression.\" In the yearly meeting of 1763, they renewed their\nexhortation in the following words: \"We renew our exhortation, that\nFriends every where be especially careful to keep their hands clear of\ngiving encouragement in any shape to the slave-trade; it being evidently\ndestructive of the natural rights of mankind, who are all ransomed by\none Saviour, and visited by one divine light in order to salvation; a\ntraffic calculated to enrich and aggrandize some upon the miseries of\nothers; in its nature abhorrent to every just and tender sentiment, and\ncontrary to the whole tenour of the Gospel.\"\n\nIn the same manner, from the year 1763, they have publicly manifested a\ntender concern for the happiness of the injured Africans, and they have\nnot only been vigilant to see that none of their own members were\nconcerned in this impious traffic, but they have lent their assistance\nwith other Christians in promoting its discontinuance.\n\nThey have forbidden also the trade of privateering in war. The Quakers\nconsider the capture of private vessels by private persons, as a robbery\ncommitted on the property of others, which no human authority can make\nreconcileable to the consciences of honest individuals. And upon this\nmotive they forbid it, as well as upon that of their known profession\nagainst war.\n\nThey forbid also the trade of the manufacturing of gun-powder, and of\narms or weapons of war, such as swords, guns, pistols, bayonets, and the\nlike, that they may stand clear of the charge of having made any\ninstrument, the avowed use of which is the destruction of human life.\n\nThey have forbidden also all trade, that has for its object the\ndefrauding of the king either of his customs or his excise. They are not\nonly not to smuggle themselves, but they are not to deal in such goods\nas they know, or such as they even suspect, to be smuggled; nor to buy\nany article of this description, even for their private use. This\nprohibition is enjoined, because all Christians ought \"to render to\nCaesar the things that are Caesars,\" in all cases where their\nconsciences do not suffer by doing it: because those, who are accessory\nto smuggling, give encouragement to perjury and bloodshed, these being\nfrequently the attendants of such unlawful practices; and because they\ndo considerable injury to the honest trader.\n\nThey discourage also concerns in \"hazardous enterprises,\" in the way of\ntrade. Such enterprisses are apt to disturb the tranquillity of the\nmind, and to unfit if for religious exercise. They may involve also the\nparties concerned, and their families, in ruin. They may deprive them\nagain of the means of paying their just debts, and thus render them\ninjurious to their creditors. Members, therefore, are advised to be\nrather content with callings which may produce small but certain\nprofits, than to hazard the tranquillity of their minds, and the\nproperty of themselves and others.\n\nIn the exercise of those callings which are deemed lawful by the\nsociety, two things are insisted upon: first, that their members \"never\nraise and circulate any fictitious kind of paper credit, with\nendorsements and acceptances, to give it an appearance of value without\nan intrinsic reality:\" secondly, that they should be particularly\nattentive to their words, and to the punctual performance of their\nengagements, and on no account delay their payments beyond the time they\nhave promised. The society have very much at heart the enforcement of\nthe latter injunction, not only because all christians are under an\nobligation to do these things, but because they wish to see the high\nreputation of their ancestors, in these respects, preserved among those\nof their own day. The early Quakers were noted for a scrupulous\nattention to their duty, as Christians, in their commercial concerns.\nOne of the great clamours against them, in the infancy of their\ninstitution, was, that they would get all the trade. It was nothing but\ntheir great honour in their dealings, arising from religious principle,\nthat gave birth to this uproar, or secured them a more than ordinary\nportion of the custom of the world in the line of their respective\ntrades.\n\nAmong other regulations made by the Quakers on the subject of trade, it\nis advised publicly to the members of the society, to inspect the state\nof their affairs once a year. And lest this advice should be\ndisregarded, the monthly meetings are directed to make annual\nappointments of suitable Friends to communicate it to the members\nindividually. But independently of this public recommendation, they are\nearnestly advised by their book of extracts, to examine their situations\nfrequently. This is done with a view, that they may see how they stand\nwith respect to themselves and the world at large; that they may not\nlaunch out into commercial concerns beyond their strength, nor live\nbeyond their income, nor go on longer in their business than they can\npay their debts.\n\nIf a Quaker, after this inspection of his affairs, should find himself\nunable to pay his just debts, he is immediately to disclose his affairs\nto some judicious members of the society, or to his principal creditors,\nand to take their advice how he is to act; but to be particularly\ncareful not to pay one creditor in preference to another.\n\nWhen a person of the society becomes a bankrupt, a committee is\nappointed by his own monthly meeting, to confer with him on his affairs.\nIf the bankruptcy should appear, by their report, to have been the\nresult of misconduct, he is disowned. He may, however, on a full\nrepentance, (for it is a maxim with the society, that \"true repentance\nwashes put all stains,\") and by a full payment of every man his own, be\nadmitted into membership again; or if he has begun to pay his creditors,\nand has made arrangements satisfactory to the society for paying them,\nhe may be received as a member, even before the whole of the debt is\nsettled.\n\nIf it should appear, on the other hand, that the bankruptcy was the\nunavoidable result of misfortune, and not of imprudence, he is allowed\nto continue in the society.\n\nBut in either of these cases, that is, where a man is disowned and\nrestored, or where he has not been disowned at all, he is never\nconsidered as a member, entitled to every privilege of the society,\ntill he has paid the whole of the debts. And the Quakers are so strict\nupon this point, that if a person has paid ten shillings in the pound,\nand his creditors have accepted the composition, and the law has given\nhim his discharge, it is insisted upon that he pays the remaining ten as\nsoon as he is able. No distance of time will be any excuse to the\nsociety for his refusal to comply with this honourable law. Nor will he\nbe considered as a full member, as I observed before, till he has paid\nthe uttermost farthing; for no collection for the poor, nor any legacy\nfor the poor, or for other services of the society, will be received\nfrom his purse, while any thing remains of the former debt. This rule of\nrefusing charitable contributions on such occasions, is founded on the\nprinciple that money, taken from a man in such a situation, is taken\nfrom his lawful creditors; and that such a man can have nothing to give,\nwhile he owes any thing to another.\n\nIt may be observed of this rule or custom, that as it is founded in\nmoral principle, so it tends to promote a moral end. When persons of\nthis description see their own donations dispensed with, but those of\nthe rest of the meeting taken, they are reminded of their own situation,\nand of the desirableness of making the full satisfaction required. The\ncustom, therefore, operates as a constant memento, that their debts are\nstill hanging over them, and prompts to new industry and anxious\nexertion for their discharge. There are many instances of Quakers, who\nhave paid their composition as others do, but who, after a lapse of many\nyears, have surprised their former creditors by bringing them the\nremaining amount of their former debts. Hence the Quakers are often\nenabled to say, what few others can say on the same subject, that they\nare not ultimately hurtful to mankind, either by their errors, or by\ntheir misfortunes.\n\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_But though the Quakers have made these regulations, the world find\nfault with many of their trades or callings--Several of these\nspecified--Standard proposed by which to examine them--Some of these\ncensurable by this standard--and given up by many Quakers on this\naccount, though individuals may still follow them._\n\n\nBut though the Quakers have made these beautiful regulations concerning\ntrade, it is manifest that the world are not wholly satisfied with their\nconduct on this subject. People charge them with the exercise of\nimproper callings, or of occupations inconsistent with the principles\nthey profess.\n\nIt is well known that the Quakers consider themselves as a highly\nprofessing people; that they declaim against the follies and vanities of\nthe world; and that they bear their testimony against civil customs and\ninstitutions, even to personal suffering. Hence, professing more than\nothers, more is expected from them. George Fox endeavoured to inculcate\nthis idea into his new society. In his letter to the yearly meeting in\n1679, he expresses himself as follows: \"The world also does expect more\nfrom Friends than from other people, because they profess more.\nTherefore you should be more just than others in your words and\ndealings, and more righteous, holy, and pure, in your lives and\nconversations; so that your lives and conversations may preach. For the\nworld's tongues and mouths have preached long enough; but their lives\nand conversations have denied what their tongues have professed and\ndeclared.\" I may observe, therefore, that the circumstance of a more\nthan ordinary profession of consistency, and not any supposed immorality\non the part of the Quakers, has brought them, in the instances alluded\nto, under the censure of the world. Other people, found in the same\ntrades or occupations, are seldom noticed as doing wrong. But when men\nare set as lights upon a hill, blemishes will be discovered in them,\nwhich will be overlooked among those who walk in the vale below.\n\nThe trades or occupations which are usually condemned as improper for\nQuakers to follow, are numerous. I shall not therefore specify them all.\nThose, however, which I purpose to select for mention, I shall accompany\nwith all the distinctions which equity demands on the occasion.\n\nThe trade of a distiller, or of a spirit-merchant, is considered as\nobjectionable if in the hands of a Quaker.\n\nThat of a cotton manufacturer, who employs a number of poor children in\nthe usual way, or in a way which is destructive to their morals and to\ntheir health, is considered as equally deserving of censured.[4]\n\n[Footnote 4: Poor children are frequently sent by parishes to\ncotton-mills. Little or no care is taken of their morals. The men, when\ngrown up, frequently become drunken, and the girls debauched. But the\nevil does not stop here. The progeny of these, vitiated by the\ndrunkenness and debauchery of their parents, have generally diseased and\ncrippled constitutions, which they perpetuate to a new generation; after\nwhich the whole race, I am told, generally becomes extinct. What\nChristian can gain wealth at the expense of the health, morals, and\nhappiness of his fellow-creatures?]\n\nThere is a calling which is seldom followed by itself: I mean the\nfurnishing of funerals, or the serving of the pall. This is generally in\nthe hands of Cabinet-makers, or of Upholsterers, or of woollen-drapers.\nNow if any Quaker should be found in any of these occupations, and if he\nshould unite with these that of serving the pall, he would be considered\nby such an union, as following an objectionable trade. For the Quakers\nhaving discarded all the pomp, and parade, and dress, connected with\nfunerals, from their own practice, and this upon moral principles, it\nis insisted upon, that they ought not to be accessary to the promotion\nof such ceremonials among others.\n\nThe trade of a printer, or bookseller, when exercised by a Quaker, has\nnot escaped the animadversions of the world. A distinction, however,\nmust be made here. They who condemn this calling, can never do it\njustly, but in supposed cases. They must suppose, for example, that the\npersons in question follow these callings generally, or that they do not\nmake an exception with respect to the printing or selling of such books\nas may convey poison to the morals of those who read them.\n\nA Quaker-tailor is considered as a character, which cannot consistently\nexist. But a similar distinction must be made here as in a former case.\nThe world cannot mean that if a Quaker confines himself to the making of\nclothes for his own society, he is reproachable for so doing; but only\nif he makes clothes for every one without distinction, following, as he\nis ordered, all the varying fashions of the world.\n\nA Quaker-hatter is looked upon in the same light as a Quaker-tailor. But\nhere a distinction suggests itself again. If he make only plain and\nuseful hats for the community and for other Quakers, it cannot be\nunderstood that he is acting inconsistently with his religious\nprofession. The charge can only lie against him, where he furnishes the\nhat with the gold and the silver-lace, or the lady's riding-hat with its\nornaments, or the military hat with its lace, cockade, and plumes. In\nthis case he will be considered as censurable by many, because he will\nbe looked upon as a dealer in the superfluities condemned by his own\nreligion.\n\nThe last occupation I shall notice is that of a silversmith. And here\nthe censure will depend upon a contingency also. If a Quaker confines\nhimself to the selling of plain silver articles for use, little\nobjection can be raised against his employ. But if, in addition to this,\nhe sells goldheaded canes, trinkets, rings, ear-rings, bracelets,\njewels, and other ornaments of the person, he will be considered as\nchargeable with the same inconsistency as the follower of the former\ntrade.\n\nIn examining these and other occupations of the Quakers, with a view of\nseeing how far the objections which have been advanced against them are\nvalid, I own I have a difficult task to perform. For what standard shall\nI fix upon, or what limits shall I draw upon this occasion? The\nobjections are founded in part upon the principle, that Quakers ought\nnot to sell those things, of which their own practice shows that they\ndisapprove. But shall I admit this principle without any limitation or\nreserve? Shall I say without any reserve, that a Quaker-woman, who\ndiscards the use of a simple ribbon from her dress, shall not sell it to\nanother female, who has been constantly in the habit of using it, and\nthis without any detriment to her mind? Shall I say again, without any\nreserve, that a Quaker-man who discards the use of black cloth, shall\nnot sell a yard of it to another? And, if I should say so, where am I to\nstop? Shall I not be obliged to go over all the colours in his shop, and\nobject to all but the brown and the drab? Shall I say again, without any\nreserve, that a Quaker cannot sell any thing which is innocent in\nitself, without inquiring of the buyer its application or its use? And\nif I should say so, might I not as well say, that no Quaker can be in\ntrade? I fear that to say this, would be to get into a labyrinth, out of\nwhich there would be no clew to guide us.\n\nDifficult, however, as the task may seem, I think I may lay down three\npositions, which will probably not be denied, and which, if admitted,\nwill assist us in the determination of the question before us. The first\nof these is, that no Quaker can be concerned in the sale of a thing,\nwhich is evil in itself. Secondly, that he cannot encourage the sale of\nan article, which he knows to be essentially, or very generally, that\nis, in seven cases out of ten, productive of evil. And, thirdly, that he\ncannot sell things which he has discarded from his own use, if he has\ndiscarded them on a belief that they are specifically forbidden by\nChristianity, or that they are morally injurious to the human mind.\n\nIf these positions be acknowledged, they will give ample latitude for\nthe condemnation of many branches of trade.\n\nA Quaker-bookseller, according to these positions, cannot sell a profane\nor improper book.\n\nA Quaker spirit-merchant cannot sell his liquor but to those whom he\nbelieves will use it in moderation, or medicinally, or on proper\noccasions.\n\nA Quaker, who is a manufacturer of cotton, cannot exercise his\noccupation but upon an amended plan.\n\nA Quaker-silversmith cannot deal in any splendid ornaments of the\nperson.\n\nThe latter cannot do this for the following reasons. The Quakers reject\nall such ornaments, because they believe them to be specifically\ncondemned by Christianity. The words of the apostles Paul and Peter,\nhave been quoted both by Fox, Penn, Barclay, and others, upon this\nsubject. But surely, if the Christian religion positively condemns the\nuse of them in one, it condemns the use of them in another. And how can\nany one, professing this religion, sell that, the use of which he\nbelieves it to have forbidden? The Quakers also have rejected all\nornaments of the person, as we find by their own writers, on account of\ntheir immoral tendency; or because they are supposed to be instrumental\nin puffing up the creature, or in the generation of vanity and pride.\nBut if they have rejected the use of them upon this principle, they are\nbound, as Christians, to refuse to sell them to others. Christian love,\nand the Christian obligation to do as we would wish to be done by,\npositively enjoin this conduct. For no man, consistently with this\ndivine law and obligation, can sow the seeds of moral disease in his\nneighbour's mind.\n\nAnd here I may observe, that though there are trades, which may be\ninnocent in themselves, yet Quakers may make them objectionable by the\nmanner in which they may conduct themselves in disposing of the articles\nwhich belong to them. They can never pass them off, as other people do,\nby the declaration that they are the fashionable articles of the day.\nSuch words ought never to come out of Quakers' mouths; not so much\nbecause their own lives are a living protest against the fashions of the\nworld, as because they cannot knowingly be instrumental in doing a moral\ninjury to others. For it is undoubtedly the belief of the Quakers, as I\nhad occasion to observe in a former volume, that the following of such\nfashions, begets a worldly spirit, and that in proportion as men indulge\nthis spirit, they are found to follow the loose and changeable morality\nof the world, instead of the strict and steady morality of the gospel.\n\nThat some such positions as these may be fixed upon for the farther\nregulation of commercial concerns among the Quakers, is evident, when we\nconsider the example of many estimable persons in this society.\n\nThe Quakers, in the early times of their institution, were very\ncircumspect about the nature of their occupations, and particularly as\nto dealing in superfluities and ornaments of the person. Gilbert Latey\nwas one of those who bore his public testimony against them. Though he\nwas only a tailor, he was known and highly respected by king James the\nSecond. He would not allow his servants to put any corruptive finery\nupon the clothes which he had been ordered to make for others. From\nGilbert Latey I may pass to John Woolman. In examining the Journal of\nthe latter I find him speaking thus: \"It had been my general practice to\nbuy and sell things really useful. Things that served chiefly to please\nthe vain mind in people, I was not easy to trade in; seldom did it; and\nwhenever I did, I found it weaken me as a Christian.\" And from John\nWoolman I might mention the names of many, and, if delicacy did not\nforbid me, those of Quakers now living, who relinquished or regulated\ntheir callings, on an idea, that they could not consistently follow them\nat all, or that they could not follow them according to the usual manner\nof the world. I knew the relation of a Quaker-distiller, who left off\nhis business upon principle. I was intimate with a Quaker-bookseller. He\ndid not give up his occupation, for this was unnecessary; but he was\nscrupulous about the selling of an improper book. Another friend of\nmine, in the society, succeeded but a few years ago to a draper's shop.\nThe furnishing of funerals had been a profitable part of the employ. But\nhe refused to be concerned in this branch of it, wholly owing to his\nscruples about it. Another had been established as a silversmith for\nmany years, and had traded in the ornamental part of the business, but\nhe left it wholly, though advantageously situated, for the same reason,\nand betook himself to another trade. I know other Quakers, who have held\nother occupations, not usually objectionable by the world, who have\nbecome uneasy about them, and have relinquished them in their turn.\nThese noble instances of the dereliction of gain, where it has\ninterfered with principle, I feel it only justice to mention in this\nplace. It is an homage due to Quakerism; for genuine Quakerism will\nalways produce such instances. No true Quaker will remain in any\noccupation, which he believes it improper to pursue. And I hope, if\nthere are Quakers, who mix the sale of objectionable with that of the\nother articles of their trade, it is because they have entered into this\nmixed business, without their usual portion of thought, or that the\noccupation itself has never come as an improper occupation before their\nminds.\n\nUpon the whole, it must be stated that it is wholly owing to the more\nthan ordinary professions of the Quakers, as a religious body, that the\ncharges in question have been exhibited against such individuals among\nthem, as have been found in particular trades. If other people had been\nfound in the same callings, the same blemishes would not have been so\napparent. And if others had been found in the same, callings, and it\nhad been observed of these, that they had made all the beautiful\nregulations which I have shown the Quakers to have done on the subject\nof trade, these blemishes would have been removed from the usual range\nof the human vision. They would have been like the spots in the sun's\ndisk, which are hid from the observation of the human eye, because they\nare lost in the superior beauty of its blaze. But when the Quakers have\nbeen looked at solely as Quakers, or as men of high religious\nprofession, these blemishes have become conspicuous. The moon, when it\neclipses the sun, appears as a blemish in the body of that luminary. So\na public departure from publicly professed principles will always be\nnoticed, because it will be an excrescence or blemish, too large and\nprotuberant, to be overlooked in the moral character.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\n_Settlement of differences--Quakers, when they differ, abstain from\nviolence--No instance of a duel--George For protested against going to\nlaw, and Recommended arbitration-Laws relative to arbitration--Account\nof an arbitration-society, at Newcastle upon Tyne, on Quaker-principles\n--Its dissolution--Such societies might be usefully promoted._\n\n\nMen are so constituted by nature, and their mutual intercourse is such,\nthat circumstances must unavoidably arise, which will occasion\ndifferences. These differences will occasionally rouse the passions;\nand, after all, they will still be to be settled. The Quakers, like\nother men, have their differences. But you rarely see any disturbance of\nthe temper on this account. You rarely hear intemperate invectives. You\nare witness to no blows. If in the courts of law you have never seen\ntheir characters stained by convictions for a breach of the\nmarriage-contract, or the crime of adultery; so neither have you seen\nthem disgraced by convictions for brutal violence, or that most\nbarbarous of all Gothic customs, the duel.\n\nIt is a lamentable fact, when we consider that we live in an age,\nremoved above eighteen hundred years from the first promulgation of\nChristianity, one of the great objects of which was to insist upon the\nsubjugation of the passions, that our children should not have been\nbetter instructed, than that we should now have to behold men, of\napparently good education, settling their disputes by an appeal to arms.\nIt is difficult to conceive what preposterous principles can actuate\nmen, to induce them to such a mode of decision. Justice is the ultimate\nwish of every reasonable man in the termination of his casual\ndifferences with others, But, in the determination of cases by the\nsword, the injured man not unfrequently falls, while the aggressor\nsometimes adds to his offence, by making a widow or an orphan, and by\nthe murder of of a fellow-creature. But it is possible the duellist may\nconceive that he adds to his reputation by decisions of this sanguinary\nnature. But surely he has no other reputation with good men, than that\nof a weak, or a savage, or an infatuated creature; and, if he fells, he\nis pitied by these on no other motive than that of his folly and of his\ncrime. What philosopher can extol his courage, who, knowing the bondage\nof the mind while under the dominion of fashion, believes that more\ncourage is necessary in refusing a challenge, than in going into the\nfield? What legislator can applaud his patriotism, when he sees him\nviolate the laws of his country? What Christian his religion, when he\nreflects on the relative duties of man, on the law of lore and\nbenevolence that should have guided him, on the principle that it is\nmore noble to suffer than to resist, and on the circumstance, that he\nmay put himself into the doubly criminal situation of a murderer and a\nsuicide by the same act?\n\nGeorge Fox, in his doctrine of the influence of the spirit as a divine\nteacher, and in that of the necessity of the subjugation of the passions\nin order that the inward man might be in a fit state to receive its\nadmonitions, left to the society a system of education, which, if acted\nupon, could not fail of producing peaceable and quiet characters; but\nforeseeing that among the best men differences would unavoidably arise\nfrom their intercourse in business and other causes, it, was his desire\nthat these should be settled in a Christian manner. He advised therefore\nthat no member should appeal to law; but that he should refer his\ndifference to arbitration, by persons of exemplary character in the\nsociety. This mode of decision appeared to him to be consistent with the\nspirit of Christianity, and with the advice of the apostle Paul, who\nrecommended that all the differences among the Christians of his own\ntime should be referred to the decision of the saints, or of such other\nChristians, as were eminent for their lives and conversation.\n\nThis mode of decision, which began to take place among the Quakers in\nthe time of George Fox, has been continued by them to the present day.\nCases, where property is concerned to the amount of many thousands, are\ndetermined in no other manner. By this process the Quakers obtain their\nverdicts in a way peculiarly satisfactory. For law-suits are at best\ntedious. They often destroy brotherly love in the individuals, while\nthey continue. They excite also, during this time, not unfrequently, a\nvindictive spirit, and lead to family-feuds and quarrels. They agitate\nthe mind also, hurt the temper, and disqualify a man for the proper\nexercise of his devotion. Add to this, that the expenses of law are\nfrequently so great, that burthens are imposed upon men for matters of\nlittle consequence, which they feel as evils and incumbrances for a\nportion of their lives; burthens which guilt alone, and which no\nindiscretion, could have merited. Hence the Quakers experience\nadvantages in the settlement of their differences, which are known but\nto few others.\n\nThe Quakers, when any difference arises about things that are not of\nserious moment, generally settle it amicably between themselves; but in\nmatters that are intricate and of weighty concern, they have recourse to\narbitration. If it should happen, that they are slow in proceeding to\narbitration, overseers, or any others of the society, who may come to\nthe knowledge of the circumstance, are to step in and to offer their\nadvice. If their advice is rejected, complaint is to be made to their\nown monthly meeting concerning them; after which they will come under\nthe discipline of the society, and if they still persist in refusing to\nsettle their differences or to proceed to arbitration, they may be\ndisowned. I may mention here, that any member going to law with another,\nwithout having previously tried, to accommodate matters between them\naccording to the rules of the society, comes under the discipline in\nlike manner.\n\nWhen arbitration is determined on, the Quakers are enjoined to apply to\npersons of their own society to decide the case. It is considered,\nhowever, as desirable, that they should not trouble their ministers, if\nthey can help it, on these occasions, as the minds of these ought to be\ndrawn out as little as possible into worldly concerns. If Quakers,\nhowever, should not find among Quakers such as they would choose to\nemploy for these purposes, or such as may not possess skill in regard to\nthe matter in dispute, they may apply to others out of the society,\nsooner than go to law.\n\nThe following is a concise statement of the rules recommended by the\nsociety, in the case of arbitrations.\n\nEach party is to choose one or two friends as arbitrators, and all the\npersons, so chosen, are to agree upon a third or a fifth. The\narbitrators are not to consider themselves as advocates for the party by\nwhom they were chosen, but as men, whose duty it is to judge\nrighteously, fearing the Lord. The parties are to enter into engagements\nto abide by the award of the arbitrators. Every meeting of the\narbitrators is to be made known to the parties concerned, till they have\nbeen fully heard. No private meetings are allowed between some of the\narbitrators, or with one party separate from the other, on the business\nreferred to them. No representation of the case of one party, either by\nwriting or otherwise, is to be admitted, without its being fully made\nknown to the other; and, if required, a copy of such representation is\nto be delivered to the other party. The arbitrators are to hear both\nparties fully, in the presence of each other, whilst either has any\nfresh matter to offer, for a time mutually limited. In the case of any\ndoubtful point of law, the arbitrators are jointly to agree upon a case,\nand consult counsel. It is recommended to arbitrators to propose to the\nparties, that they should give an acknowledgment in writing, before the\naward is made; that they have been candidly and fully heard.\n\nIn the same manner as a Quaker proceeds with a Quaker in the case of any\ndifference, he is led by his education and habits to proceed with\nothers, who are not members of the same society. A Quaker seldom goes to\nlaw with a person of another denomination, till he has proposed\narbitration. If the proposal be not accepted, the Quaker has then no\nremedy but the law. For a person, who is out of the society, cannot be\nobliged upon pain of disownment, as a Quaker may, to submit to such a\nmode of decision, being out of the reach of the Quaker-discipline.\n\nI shall close my observations upon this subject, by giving an account of\nan institution for the accommodation of differences, which took place in\nthe year 1793, upon Quaker principles.\n\nIn the town of Newcastle upon Tyne, a number of disputes were\ncontinually arising on the subject of shipping concerns, which were\nreferred to the decision of the laws. These decisions were often\ngrievously expensive. They were, besides, frequently different from what\nseafaring persons conceived to be just. The latter circumstance was\nattributed to the ignorance of lawyers in maritime affairs. Much money\nwas therefore often expended, and no one satisfied. Some Quakers, in the\nneighbourhood, in conjunction with others, came forward with a view of\nobviating these evils. They proposed arbitration as a remedy. They met\nwith some opposition at first, but principally from the gentlemen of the\nlaw. After having, however, shown the impropriety of many of the legal\nverdicts that had been given, they had the pleasure of seeing their plan\npublicly introduced and sanctioned. For in the month of June, 1793, a\nnumber of gentlemen, respectable for their knowledge in mercantile and\nmaritime affairs, met at the Trinity-hall in Newcastle, and associated\nthemselves for these and other purposes, calling themselves \"The\nNewcastle upon Tyne Association for general Arbitration.\"\n\nThis association was to have four general meetings in the year, one in\neach quarter, at which they were to receive cases. For any urgent\nmatter, however, which might occur, the clerk was to have the power of\ncalling a special meeting.\n\nEach person, on delivering a case, was to pay a small fee. Out of these\nfees the clerk's salary and incidental expenses were to be paid. But the\nsurplus was to be given to the poor.\n\nThe parties were to enter into arbitration-bonds, as is usual upon such\noccasions.\n\nEach party was to choose out of this association or standing committee,\none arbitrator for himself, and the association were to choose or to\nballot for a third. And here it will be proper to observe, that this\nstanding association appeared to be capable of affording arbitrators\nequal to the determination of every case. For, if the matter in dispute\nbetween the two parties were to happen to be a mercantile question,\nthere were merchants in the association: If a question relative to\nshipping, there were ship-owners in it: If a question of insurance,\nthere were insurance-brokers also. A man could hardly fail of having his\ncase determined by persons who were competent to the task.\n\nThough this beautiful institution was thus publicly introduced, and\nintroduced with considerable expectations and applause, cases came in\nbut slowly. Custom and prejudice are not to be rooted out in a moment.\nIn process of time, however, several were offered, considered, and\ndecided, and the presumption was, that the institution would have grown\nwith time. Of those cases which were determined, some, relating to\nships, were found to be particularly intricate, and cost the arbitrators\nconsiderable time and trouble. The verdicts, however, which were given,\nwere in all of them satisfactory. The Institution, at length became so\npopular, that, incredible to relate, its own popularity destroyed it! So\nmany persons were ambitious of the honour of becoming members of the\ncommittee, that some of inferior knowledge, and judgment, and character,\nwere too hastily admitted into it. The consequence was, that people\ndared not trust their affairs to the abilities of every member: and the\ninstitution expired, after having rendered important services to\nnumerous individuals who had tried it.\n\nWhen we consider that this institution has been tried, and that the\nscheme of it has been found practicable, it is a pity that its benefits\nshould have been confined, and this for so short a period, to a single\ntown. Would it not be desirable, if, in every district, a number of\nfarmers were to give in their names to form a standing committee, for\nthe settlement of disputes between farmer and farmer? or that there\nshould be a similar institution among manufacturers, who should decide\nbetween one manufacturer and another? Would it not also be desirable,\nif, in every parish, a number of gentlemen, or other respectable\npersons, were to associate for the purpose of accommodating the\ndifferences of each other? For this beautiful system is capable of being\ncarried to any extent, and of being adapted to all stations and\nconditions of life. By these means numerous little funds might be\nestablished in numerous districts, from the surplus of which an\nopportunity would be afforded of adding to the comforts of such of the\npoor, as were to distinguish themselves by their good behaviour, whether\nas labourers for farmers, manufacturers, or others. By these means also\nmany of the quarrels in parishes might be settled to the mutual\nsatisfaction of the parties concerned, and, in so short a space of time,\nas to prevent them from contracting a rancorous and a wounding edge.\nThose, on the other hand, who were to assist in these arbitrations,\nwould be amply repaid; for they would be thus giving an opportunity of\ngrowth to the benevolence of their affections, and they would have the\npleasing reflection, that the tendency of their labours would be to\nproduce peace and good will amongst men.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\n\nSECT. I.\n\n_Management of the poor--Quakers never seen as beggars--George Fox began\nthe provision for the Quaker-poor--Monthly meetings appoint\noverseers--Persons passed over are to apply for relief and the\ndisorderly may receive it in certain cases--Manner of collecting for the\npoor--If burthensome in one monthly meeting, the burthen shared by the\nquarterly--Quakers gain settlements by monthly meetings, as the other\npoor of the kingdom, by parishes._\n\n\nThere are few parts of the Quaker-constitution, that are more worthy of\ncommendation, than that which relates to the poor. All the members of\nthis society are considered as brethren, and as entitled to support from\none another. If our streets and our roads are infested by miserable\nobjects, imploring our pity, no Quaker will be found among them. A\nQuaker-beggar would be a phenomenon in the world.\n\nIt does not, however, follow from this account, that there are no poor\nQuakers, or that members of this society are not born in a dependent\nstate. The truth is, that there are poor as well as rich, but the wants\nof the former are so well provided for, that they are not publicly seen,\nlike the wants of others.\n\nGeorge Fox, as he was the founder of the religion of the Quakers, I mean\nof a system of renovated Christianity, so he was the author of the\nbeautiful system by which they make a provision for their poor. As a\nChristian, he considered the poor of every description, as members of\nthe same family, but particularly those, who were of the household of\nfaith. Consistently with this opinion, he advised the establishment of\ngeneral meetings in his own time, a special part of whose business it\nwas to take due care of the poor. These meetings excited at first the\nvigilance and anger of the magistrates; but when they came to see the\nregulations made by the Quakers, in order that none of their poor might\nbecome burthensome to their parishes, they went away--whatever they\nmight think of some of their new tenets of religion--in admiration of\ntheir benevolence.\n\nThe Quakers of the present day consider their poor in the same light as\ntheir venerable elder, namely, as members of the same family, whose\nwants it is their duty to relieve; and they provide for them nearly in\nthe same manner. They intrust this important concern to the monthly\nmeetings, which are the executive branches of the Quaker constitution.\nThe monthly meetings generally appoint four overseers, two men and two\nwomen, over each particular meeting within their own jurisdiction, if\ntheir number will admit of it. It is the duty of these, to visit such of\nthe poor as are in membership, of the men to visit the men, but of the\nwomen sometimes to visit both. The reason, why this double burthen is\nlaid upon the women-overseers, is, that women know more of domestic\nconcerns, more of the wants of families, more of the manner of providing\nfor them, and are better advisers, and better nurses in sickness, than\nthe men. Whatever these overseers find wanting in the course of their\nvisits, whether money, clothes, medicine, or medical advice and\nattention, they order them, and the treasurer of the monthly meetings\nsettles the different accounts. I may observe here, that it is not easy\nfor overseers to neglect their duty; for an inquiry is made three times\nin the year, of the monthly meetings by the quarterly, whether the\nnecessities of the poor are properly inspected and relieved[5]. I may\nobserve also that the poor, who may stand in need of relief, are always\nrelieved privately, I mean, at their respective homes.\n\n[Footnote 5: In London a committee is appointed for each poor person.\nThus, for example, two women are appointed to attend to the wants and\ncomfort of one poor old woman.]\n\nIt is however possible, that there may be persons, who, from a variety\nof unlocked for causes, may be brought into distress, and whose case,\nnever having been suspected, may be passed over. But persons, in this\nsituation, are desired to apply, for assistance. It is also a rule in\nthe society, that even persons whose conduct is disorderly, are to be\nrelieved, if such conduct has not been objected to by their own monthly\nmeeting. \"The want of due care, says the book of Extracts, in watching\ndiligently over the flock, and in dealing in due time with such as walk\ndisorderly, hath, brought great difficulties on some meetings; for we\nthink it both unreasonable and dishonourable, when persons apply to\nmonthly meetings for relief in cases of necessity, then to object to\nthem such offences as the meeting, through neglect of its own duty, hath\nsuffered long to pass by, unreproved and unnoticed.\"\n\nThe poor are supported by charitable collections from the body at large;\nor, in other words, every monthly meeting supports its own poor. The\ncollections for them are usually made once a month, but in some places\nonce a quarter, and in others at no stated times but when the treasurer\ndeclares them necessary, and the monthly meeting approves. Members are\nexpected to contribute in proportion to their circumstances; but\npersons in a low situation, and servants, are generally excused upon\nthese occasions.\n\nIt happens in the districts of some monthly meetings, that there are\nfound only few persons of property, but a numerous poor, so that the\nformer are unable to do justice in their provision for the latter. The\nsociety have therefore resolved, when the poor are too numerous to be\nsupported by their own monthly meetings, that the collection for them\nshall be made up out of the quarterly meeting, to which the said monthly\nmeeting belongs. This is the same thing as if any particular parish were\nunable to pay the rates for the poor, and as if all the other parishes\nin the county were made to contribute towards the same.\n\nOn this subject I may observe, that the Quaker-poor are attached to\ntheir monthly meetings, as the common poor of the kingdom are attached\nto their parishes, and that they gain settlements in these nearly in the\nsame manner.\n\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_Education of the children of the poor particularly insisted upon and\nprovided for by the Quakers--The bays usually pat out to\napprenticeship--The girls to service--The latter not sufficiently\nnumerous for the Quaker-families, who want them--The rich have not their\nproper proportion of these in their service--Reasons of it--Character of\nthe Quaker poor._\n\n\nAs the Quakers are particularly attentive to the wants of the poor, so\nthey are no less attentive to the education of their offspring. These\nare all of them to receive their education at the public expense. The\nsame overseers, as in the former case, are to take care of it, and the\nsame funds to support it. An inquiry is therefore made three times in\nthe year into this subject. \"The children of the poor, says the book of\nExtracts, are to have due help of education, instruction, and necessary\nlearning. The families also of the poor are to be provided with Bibles,\nand books of the society, at the expense of the monthly meetings. And as\nspine members may be straitened in their circumstances, and may refuse,\nout of delicacy, to apply for aid towards the education of their\nchildren, it is earnestly recommended to friends in every monthly\nmeeting, to look out for persons who may be thus straitened, and to take\ncare that their children shall receive instruction: and it is\nrecommended to the parents of such, not to refuse this salutary aid, but\nto receive it with a willing mind, and with thankfulness to the great\nauthor of all good.\"\n\nWhen the boys have received their necessary learning, they are usually\nput out as apprentices to husbandry or trade. Domestic service is\ngenerally considered by their parents as unmanly, and as a nursery for\nidleness. Boys too, who can read and write, ought to expect, with the\naccustomed diligence and sobriety of Quakers, to arrive at a better\nsituation in life. The girls, however, are destined in general for\nservice: for it must be obvious, whatever their education may be, that\nthe same number of employments is not open to women as to men. Of those\nagain, which are open, some are objectionable. A Quaker-girl, for\nexample, could not consistently be put an apprentice to a Milliner.\nNeither if a cotton-manufactory were in the neighbourhood, could her\nparents send her to such a nursery of debauchery and vice. From these\nand other considerations, and because domestic employments belong to\nwomen, their parents generally think it advisable to bring them up to\nservice, and to place them in the families of friends.\n\nIt is a remarkable circumstance, when we consider it to be recommended\nthat Quaker-masters of families should take Quaker-servants, that\npersons of the latter description are not to be found sufficiently\nnumerous for those who want them. This is probably a proof of the\nthriving situation of this society. It is remarkable again, that the\nrich have by no means their proportion of such servants. Those of the\nwealthy, who are exemplary, get them if they can. Others decline their\nservices. Of these, some do it from good motives; for, knowing that it\nwould be difficult to make up their complement of servants from the\nsociety, they do not wish to break in upon the customs and morals of\nthose belonging to it, by mixing them with others. The rest, who mix\nmore with the world, are, as I have been informed, fearful of having\nthem, lest they should be overseers of their words and manners. For it\nis in the essence of the Quaker-discipline, as I observed upon that\nsubject, that every member should watch over another for his good. There\nare no exceptions as to persons. The servant has as much right to watch\nover his master with respect to his religions conduct and conversation,\nas the master over his servant; and he has also a right, if his master\nviolates the discipline, to speak to him, in a respectful manner, for\nso doing. Nor would a Quaker-servant, if he were well grounded in the\nprinciples of the society, and felt it to be his duty, want the courage\nto speak his mind upon such occasions. There have been instances, where\nthis has happened, and where the master, in the true spirit of his\nreligion, has not felt himself insulted by such interference, but has\nlooked upon his servant afterwards as more worthy of his confidence and\nesteem. Such a right, however, of remonstrance, is, I presume, but\nrarely exercised.\n\nI cannot conclude this subject without saying a few words on the\ncharacter of the Quaker-poor.\n\nIn the first place I may observe, that one of the great traits in their\ncharacter is independence of mind. When you converse with them, you find\nthem attentive, civil, and obliging, but you see no marks of servility\nabout them, and you hear no flattery from their lips. It is not the\ncustom in this society, even for the poorest member to bow or pull off\nhis hat, or to observe any outward obeisance to another, who may happen\nto be rich. Such customs are forbidden to all on religious principle. In\nconsequence, therefore, of the omission of such ceremonious practices,\nhis mind has never been made to bend on the approach of superior rank.\nNor has he seen, in his own society, any thing that could lessen his own\nimportance or dignity as a man. He is admitted into the meetings of\ndiscipline equally with the rich. He has a voice equally with them in\nall matters that are agitated there. From these causes a manliness of\nmind is produced, which is not seen among any other of the poor in the\ninland in which we live.\n\nIt may also be mentioned as a second trait, that they possess\nextraordinary knowledge. Every Quaker-boy or girl, who comes into the\nworld, must, however poor, if the discipline of the society be kept up,\nreceive an education. All, therefore, who are born in the society, must\nbe able to read and write. Thus the keys of knowledge are put into their\nhands. Hence we find them attaining a superior literal and historical\nknowledge of the scriptures, a superior knowledge of human nature, and a\nknowledge that sets them above many of the superstitions of those in\ntheir own rank in life.\n\nAnother trait conspicuous in the character of the Quaker-poor, is the\nmorality of their lives.\n\nThis circumstance may easily be accounted for. For, in the first place,\nthey are hindered in common with other Quakers, by means of their\ndiscipline, from doing many things, that are morally injurious to\nthemselves. The poor of the world are addicted to profane swearing. But\nno person can bring the name of the creator of the Universe into\nfrequent and ordinary use, without losing a sense of the veneration that\nis due to him. The poor of the world, again, frequently spend their\ntime in public houses. They fight and quarrel with one another. They run\nafter horse-racings, bull-baitings, cock-fightings, and the still more\nunnatural battles between man and man. But, by encouraging such habits,\nthey cannot but obstruct in time, the natural risings of benevolence\nboth towards their fellow-creatures and to those of the animal creation.\nNor can they do otherwise than lose a sense of the dignity of their own\nminds, and weaken the moral principle. But the Quaker-poor, who are\nprincipled against such customs, can of course suffer no moral injury on\nthese accounts. To which it may be added, that their superior knowledge\nboth leads and attaches them to a superior conduct. It is a false, as\nwell as a barbarous maxim, and a maxim very injurious both to the\ninterests of the rich and poor, as well as of the states to which they\nbelong, that knowledge is unpropitious to virtue.\n\n\n\n\nRELIGION\nOF THE\nQUAKERS.\n\n\nVOL. II.\n\n\n\n\nRELIGION OF THE QUAKERS.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n_Religion of the Quakers--Invitation to a patient perusal of this part\nof the work--No design, by this invitation, to proselyte to\nQuakerism--All systems of Religion, that are founded on the principles\nof Christianity, are capable, if heartily embraced, of producing present\nand future happiness to man--No censure of another's Creed warrantable,\ninasmuch as the human understanding is finite--Object of this\nInvitation._\n\n\nHaving explained very diffusively the great subjects, the moral\nEducation, Discipline, and Peculiar Customs, of the Quakers, I purpose\nto allot the remaining part of this volume to the consideration of their\nreligion.\n\nI know that persons, who are religiously disposed will follow me\npatiently through this division of my work, not only because religion is\nthe most important of all subjects that can be agitated, but because,\nin the explanation of the religious systems of others, some light may\narise, which, though it be not new to all, may yet be new and acceptable\nto many. I am aware, however, that there are some who direct their\nreading to light subjects, and to whom such as are serious may appear\nburthensome. If any such should have been induced, by any particular\nmotive, to take this book into their hands, and to accompany me thus\nfar, I entreat a continuation of their patience, till I have carried\nthem through the different parts and divisions of the present subject.\n\nI have no view, in thus soliciting the attention of those who are more,\nor of those who are less religiously disposed, to attempt to proselyte\nto Quakerism. If men do but fear God, and work righteousness, whatever\ntheir Christian denomination may be, it is sufficient. Every system of\nreligion which is founded on the principles of Christianity, must be\ncapable, if heartily embraced, of producing temporal and eternal\nhappiness to man. At least, man with his limited understanding, cannot\npronounce with any absolute certainty, that his own system is so far\npreferable to that of his neighbour, that it is positively the best, or\nthat there will be any material difference in the future happiness of\nthose who follow the one or the other; or that the pure professors of\neach shall not have their peculiar rewards. The truth is, that each\nsystem has its own merits. Each embraces great and sublime objects. And\nif good men have existed, as none can reasonably deny, before\nChristianity was known, it would be a libel on Christianity, to suppose\neither that good men had not existed since, or that good Christians\nwould not be ultimately happy, though following systems differing from\nthose of one another. Indeed, every Christian community has a great deal\nto say in the defence of its own tenets. Almost all Christian churches\nhave produced great characters; and there are none, I should hope, that\nhad not been the authors of religious good. The church of England, in\nattempting to purify herself at the reformation, effected a great work.\nSince that time she has produced at different periods, and continues to\nproduce, both great and good men. By means of her Universities, she has\ngiven forth, and keeps up and disseminates, a considerable portion of\nknowledge; and though this, in the opinion of the Quakers, is not\nnecessary for those who are to become ministers of the Gospel, it cannot\nbe denied that it is a source of temporary happiness to man; that it\nenlarges the scope of his rational and moral understanding, and that it\nleads to great and sublime discoveries, which become eminently\nbeneficial to mankind. Since that time she has also been an instrument\nof spreading over this kingdom a great portion of religious light, which\nhas had its influence in the production of moral character.\n\nBut though I bestow this encomium upon the established church, I should\nbe chargeable with partiality and injustice, if I were not to allow,\nthat among the dissenters of various descriptions, learned, pious, and\ngreat men, had been regularly and successively produced. And it must be\nconfessed, and reflected upon with pleasure, that these, in proportion\nto their numbers, have been no less instrumental in the dissemination of\nreligions knowledge, and in the production of religious conduct. I might\ngo to large and populous towns and villages in the kingdom, and fully\nprove my assertion in the reformed manners of the poor, many of whom,\nbefore these pious visitations, had been remarkable for the profaneness\nof their lives.\n\nLet us then not talk but with great deference and humility; with great\ntenderness and charity; with great thankfulness to the author of every\ngood gift,--when we speak of the different systems that actuate the\nChristian World. Why should we consider our neighbour as an alien, and\nload him with reproaches, because he happens to differ from us in\nopinion about an article of faith? As long as there are men, so long\nwill there be different measures of talents and understanding; and so\nlong will they view things in a different light, and come to different\nconclusions concerning them. The eye of one man can see farther than\nthat of another: So can the human mind, on the subject of speculative\ntruths. This consideration should teach us humility and forbearance in\njudging of the religion of others. For who is he, who can say that he\nsees the farthest, or that his own system is the best? If such men as\nMilton, Whiston, Boyle, Locke, and Newton, all agreeing in the\nprofession of Christianity, did not all think precisely alike concerning\nit, who art thou, with thy inferior capacity, who settest up the\nstandard of thine own judgment as infallible? If thou sendest thy\nneighbour to perdition in the other world, because he does not agree in\nhis creed with thee, know that he judges according to the best of his\nabilities, and that no more will be required of him. Know also that thou\nthyself judgest like a worm of the earth; that thou dishonourest the\nAlmighty by thy reptile notions of him; and that in making him accord\nwith thee in condemning one of his creatures for what thou conceivest\nto be the misunderstanding of a speculative proposition, thou treatest\nhim like a man, as thou thyself art, with corporeal organs; with\nirritable passions, and with a limited intelligence. But if, besides\nthis, thou condemnest thy neighbour in this world also, and feelest the\nspirit of persecution towards him, know that, whatever thy pretensions\nmay be to religion, thou art not a Christian. Thou art not possessed of\nthat charity or love, without which thou art but as sounding brass and a\ntinkling cymbal.\n\nHaving therefore no religious prejudices[6] myself, except in favour of\nChristianity, and holding no communion with the Quakers, as a religions\nsociety, it cannot be likely that I should attempt to proselyte to\nQuakerism. I wish only, as I stated in my introduction to this work, to\nmake the Quakers better known to their countrymen than they are at\npresent. In this I think I have already succeeded, for I believe I have\ncommunicated many facts concerning them, which have never been related\nby others. But no people can be thoroughly known, or at least the\ncharacter of a people cannot be thoroughly understood, except we are\nacquainted with their religion; much less can that of the Quakers, who\ndiffer so materially, both in their appearance and practice, from the\nrest of their fellow-citizens.\n\n[Footnote 6: Though I conceive a charitable allowance ought to be made\nfor the diversity of religious opinions among Christians, I by no means\nintend to say, that it is not our duty to value the system of opinion\nwhich we think most consonant to the Gospel, and to be wisely zealous\nfor its support.]\n\nHaving thought it right to make these prefatory observations, I proceed\nto the prosecution of my work.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\n_The Almighty created the Universe by means of his spirit--and also\nman--He gave man, besides his intellect, an emanation from his own\nspirit, thus making him in his own image--But this image he lost--A\nportion, however, of the same spirit was continued to his\nposterity--These possessed it in different degrees--Abraham, Moses, and\nthe prophets, had more of it than some others--Jesus possessed it\nimmeasurably, and without limit--Evangelists and apostles possessed it,\nbut in a limited manner, and in different degrees._\n\n\nThe Quakers believe, that when the Almighty created the Universe, he\neffected it by means of the life, or vital or vivifying energy that was\nin his own spirit. \"And the earth was without form, and void; and\ndarkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved upon\nthe face of the waters.\"\n\nThis life of the spirit has been differently named, but is concisely\nstiled by St. John the evangelist \"the word\" for he says, \"in the\nbeginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.\nAll things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made,\nthat was made.\"\n\nThe Almighty also, by means of the same divine energy or life of the\nspirit which had thus created the universe, became the cause also of\nmaterial life, and of vital functions. He called forth all animated\nnature into existence; for he \"made the living creature after his kind.\"\n\nHe created man also by the same power. He made his corporeal and organic\nnature. He furnished him also with intellect, or a mental understanding.\nBy this latter gift he gave to man, what he had not given to other\nanimated nature, the power of reason, by which he had the superiority\nover it, and by means of which he was enabled to guide himself in his\ntemporal concerns. Thus when he made the natural man, he made him a\nrational agent also.\n\nBut he gave to man, at the same time, independently of this intellect or\nunderstanding, a spiritual faculty, or a portion of the life of his own\nspirit, to reside in him. This gift occasioned man to become more\nimmediately, as it is expressed, the image of the Almighty. It set him\nabove the animal and rational part of his nature. It made him know\nthings not intelligible solely by his reason. It made him spiritually\nminded. It enabled him to know his duty to God, and to hold a heavenly\nintercourse with his maker.\n\nAdam then, the first man, independently of his rational faculties,\nreceived from the Almighty into his own breast such an emanation from\nthe life of his own spirit, as was sufficient to have enabled him both\nto hold, and to have continued, a spiritual intercourse with his maker,\nand to have preserved him in the state of innocence in which he had been\ncreated. As long as he lived in this divine light of the spirit, he\nremained in the image of God, and was perfectly happy; but, not\nattending faithfully and perseveringly to this his spiritual monitor, he\nfell into the snares of Satan, or gave way to the temptations of sin.\nFrom this moment his condition became changed. For in the same manner as\ndistemper occasions animal life to droop, and to lose its powers, and\nfinally to cease, so unrighteousness, or his rebellion against the\ndivine light of the spirit that was within him, occasioned a dissolution\nof his spiritual feelings and perceptions; for he became dead as it\nwere, in consequence, as to any knowledge of God, or enjoyment of his\npresence[7].\n\n[Footnote 7: It was said that, in the day in which Adam should eat\nforbidden fruit, he should die; but he did not lose his animal life, or\nhis rational nature. His loss therefore is usually considered by the\nQuakers to have been a divine spiritual principle, which had been\noriginally superadded to the animal and rational faculties.]\n\nIt pleased the Almighty, however, not wholly to abandon him in this\nwretched state, but he comforted him with the cheering promise that the\nseed of the woman should some time or other completely subdue sin, or\nto use the scriptural language, \"should bruise the serpent's head;\" or,\nin other words, as sin was of a spiritual nature, so it could only be\novercome by a spiritual conqueror; and therefore that the same holy\nspirit, or word, or divine principle of light and life, which had\nappeared in creation, should dwell so entirely and without limit or\nmeasure, in the person or body of some one of his descendants, that sin\nshould by him be entirely subdued.\n\nAs God then poured into Adam, the first man, a certain portion of his\nown spirit, or gave him a certain portion of the divine light, for the\nregulation of his spiritual conduct and the power of heavenly\nintercourse with himself, so he did not entirely cease from bestowing\nhis spirit upon his posterity; or, in other words, he gave them a\nportion of that light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into the\nworld. Of the individuals therefore who succeeded Adam, all received a\nportion of this light. Some, however, enjoyed larger portions of it than\nothers, according as they attended to its influences, or according to\nthe measure given them. Of those who possessed the greatest share of it,\nsome were the ancient patriarchs, such as Noah and Abraham, and others\nwere the ancient scriptural writers, such as Moses and the prophets.\nThe latter again experienced it in different measures or degrees; and in\nproportion as they had it, they delivered more or less those prophecies\nwhich are usually considered as inspired truths, from a belief that many\nof them have been circumstantially completed.\n\nAt length, in the fulness of time, that is, when all things had been\nfulfilled which were previously to take place, this divine spirit, which\nhad appeared in creation, this divine word, or light, took flesh, (for,\nas St. John the Evangelist says, \"the word was made flesh, and dwelled\namong us,\") and inhabited \"the body which had been prepared for it;\" or,\nin other words, it inhabited the body of the person Jesus; but with this\ndifference, that whereas only a portion of this divine light or spirit\nhad been given to Adam, and afterwards to the prophets, it was given\nwithout limit or measure to the man Jesus[8]. \"For he whom God hath\nsent, says St. John, speaketh the words of God, _for God giveth not the\nSpirit by measure unto him.\"_ And St. Paul says, [9] \"In him _the fulness\nof the Godhead_ dwelled bodily.\" In him, therefore, the promise given to\nAdam was accomplished, \"that the seed of the woman should bruise the\nserpent's head;\" for we see in this case a human body, weak and infirm,\nand subject to passions, possessed or occupied, without limit or\nmeasure, by the spirit of God. But if the man Jesus had the full spirit\nof God within him, he could not be otherwise than, perfectly holy. And\nif so, sin never could have entered, and must therefore, as for as\nrelates to him, have been entirely repelled. Thus he answered the\nprophetic character which had been given of him, independently of his\nvictory over sin by the sacrifice of himself, or by becoming afterwards\na comforter to those in bondage, who should be willing to receive him.\n\n[Footnote 8: John 3:34]\n\n[Footnote 9: Col. 2:9]\n\nAfter Jesus Christ came the Evangelists and Apostles. Of the same spirit\nwhich he had possessed _immeasurably_, these had their several portions;\nand though these were[10] limited, and differed in degree front one\nanother, they were sufficient to enable them to do their duty to God and\nmen, to enjoy the presence of the Almighty, and to promote the purposes\ndesigned by him in the propagation of his gospel.\n\n[Footnote 10: 2 Cor. 10. 18.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\n_Except a man has a portion of the same spirit, which Jesus and the\nprophets and the apostles had, he can have no knowledge of God or\nspiritual things--Doctrine of St. Paul on this subject--This confirms\nthe history of the human and divine spirit in man--These spirits\ndistinct in their kind--This distinction farther elucidated by a\ncomparison between the faculties of men and brutes--Sentiments of\nAugustin--Luther--Calvin--Smith--Taylor--Cudworth._\n\n\nThe Quakers believe, that there can be no spiritual knowledge of God,\nbut through the medium of his holy spirit; or, in other words, that if\nmen have not a portion of the same spirit which the holy men of old, and\nwhich the Evangelists and Apostles, and which Jesus himself had, they\ncan have no true or vital religion.\n\nIn favour of this proposition, they usually quote those remarkable words\nof the Apostle Paul;[11] \"for what man knoweth the things of a man, save\nthe spirit of a man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth\nno man, but the spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of\nthe world, but the spirit which is of God, that we might know the things\nthat are freely given to us of God.\" And again--\"but the natural man\nreceiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness\nto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually\ndiscerned.\"\n\n[Footnote 11: 1 Cor. 2.11, &c.]\n\nBy these expressions the Quakers conceive that the history of man, as\nexplained in the last chapter, is confirmed; or that the Almighty not\nonly gave to man reason, which was to assist him in his temporal, but\nalso superadded a portion of his own spirit, which was to assist him in\nhis spiritual concerns. They conceive it also to be still farther\nconfirmed by other expressions of the same Apostle. In his first letter\nto the Corinthians, he says,[12] \"Know ye not that your body is the\n_temple of the Holy Ghost_, which _is in you_, which ye have of God;\"\nand in his letter to Timothy he desires him[13] \"to hold fast that good\nthing which was committed to him by means of the _holy_ Ghost, which\n_dwelled in him_\" Now these expressions can only be accurate on a\nsupposition of the truth of the history of man, as explained in the\nformer chapter. If this history be true, then they are considered as\nwords of course: for if there be a communication between the supreme\nBeing and his creature man, or if the Almighty has afforded to man an\nemanation of his own spirit, which is to act for a time in his mortal\nbody, and then to return to him that gave it, we may say, with great\nconsistency, that the divinity resides in him, or that his body is the\ntemple of the holy spirit.\n\n[Footnote 12: 1 Cor. 6. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 13: 2 Tim. 1. 14.]\n\nThe Quakers conceive again from these expressions of the Apostle, that\nthese two principles in man are different from each other; they are\nmentioned under the distinct names of the spirit of man, and of the\nspirit of God. The former they suppose to relate to the understanding:\nthe latter conjointly to the understanding and to the heart. The former\ncan be brought into use at all times, if the body of a man be in health.\nThe latter is not at his own disposal. Man must wait for its\ninspirations. Like the wind, it bloweth when it listeth. Man also, when\nhe feels this divine influence, feels that it is distinct from his\nreason. When it is gone, he feels the loss of it, though all his\nrational faculties be alive. \"Those, says Alexander Arscott, who have\nthis experience, certainly know that as at times, in their silent\nretirements and humble waitings upon God, they receive an understanding\nof his will, relating to their present duty, in such a clear light as\nleaves no doubt or hesitation, so at other times, when this is withdrawn\nfrom them, they are at a loss again, and see themselves, as they really\nare, ignorant and destitute.\"\n\nThe Quakers again understand by these expressions of the Apostle, which\nis the point insisted upon in this chapter, that human reason, or the\nspirit of man which is within him, and the divine principle of life and\nlight which is the spirit of God residing in his body or temple, are so\ndifferent in their powers, that the former cannot enter into the\nprovince of the latter. As water cannot penetrate the same bodies, which\nfire can, so neither can reason the same subjects as the spiritual\nfaculty.\n\nThe Quakers, however, do not deny, that human reason is powerful within\nits own province. It may discover in the beautiful structure of the\nUniverse, and in the harmony and fitness of all its parts, the hand of a\ngreat contriver. It may conclude upon attributes, as belonging to the\nsame. It may see the fitness of virtue, and deduce from thence a\nspeculative morality. They only say that it, is incompetent to spiritual\ndiscernment. But though they believe the two spirits to be thus distinct\nin their powers, they believe them, I apprehend, to be so far connected\nin religion that the spirit of God can only act upon a reasonable being.\nThus light and the power of sight are distinct things. Yet the power of\nsight is nothing without light, nor can light operate upon any other\norgan than the eye to produce vision.\n\nThis proposition may be farther elucidated by making a comparison\nbetween the powers of men, and those of the brute-creation. An animal is\ncompounded of body and instinct. If we were to endeavour to cultivate\nthis instinct, we might make the animal tame and obedient. We might\nimpress his sensitive powers, so that he might stop or go forward at our\nvoice. We might bring him in some instances, to an imitation of outward\ngestures and sounds. Bat all the years of his life, and centuries of\nlife in his progeny would pass away, and we should never be able so to\nimprove his instinct into intellect, as to make him comprehend the\naffairs of a man. He would never understand the meaning of his goings\nin, or of his goings out, or of his pursuits in life, or of his progress\nin science. So neither could any education so improve the reason of man\ninto the divine principle of light within him, as that he should\nunderstand spiritual things; for the things of God are only discernible\nby the spirit of God.\n\nThis doctrine, that there is no understanding of divine things except\nthrough the medium of the divine principle, which dwells in the temple\nof man, was no particular notion of George Fox, or of the succeeding\nQuakers, though undoubtedly they have founded more upon it than other\nChristians. Those, who had the earliest access to the writings of the\nevangelists and apostles, believed the proposition. All the ancient\nfathers of the church considered it as the corner stone of the Christian\nfabric. The most celebrated of the reformers held it in the same light.\nThe divines, who followed these, adopted it as their creed also; and by\nthese it has been handed down to other Christian communities, and is\nretained as an essential doctrine by the church of England, at the\npresent day.\n\nThe Quakers adduce many authorities in behalf of this proposition, but\nthe following may suffice.\n\n\"It is the inward master, says St. Augustine, that teacheth. Where this\ninspiration is wanting, it is in vain that words from without are beaten\nin.\"\n\nLuther says, \"no man can rightly know God, unless he immediately\nreceives it from his holy spirit, except he finds it by experience in\nhimself; and in this experience the holy spirit teacheth as in his\nproper school, out of which school nothing is taught but mere talk.\"\n\nCalvin, on Luke 10. 21. says, \"Here the natural wisdom of man is so\npuzzled, and is at such a loss, that the first step of profiting in the\nschool of Christ is to give it up or renounce it. For by this natural\nwisdom, as by a veil before our eyes, we are hindered from attaining the\nmysteries of God, which are not revealed but unto babes and little ones.\nFor neither do flesh and blood reveal, nor doth the natural man\nperceive, the things that are of the spirit. But the doctrine of God is\nrather foolishness to him, because it can only be spiritually judged.\nThe assistance therefore of the holy spirit is in this case necessary,\nor rather, his power alone is efficacious.\"\n\nDr. Smith observes, in his select discourses, \"besides the outward\nRevelation of God's will to men, there is also an inward impression of\nit in their minds and spirits, which is in a more especial manner\nattributed to God. We cannot see divine things but in a divine light.\nGod only, who is the true light, and in whom there is no darkness at\nall, can so shine out of himself upon our glossy understandings, as to\nbeget in them a picture of himself, his own will and pleasure, and turn\nthe soul (as the phrase is in Job) like wax or clay to the seal of his\nown light and love. He that made our souls in his own image and\nlikeness, can easily find a way into them. The word that God speaks,\nhaving found a way into the soul, imprints itself there, as with the\npoint of a diamond, and becomes (to borrow Plato's expression) 'a word\nwritten in the Soul of the learner.' Men may teach the grammar and\nrhetoric; but God teaches the divinity. Thus it is God alone that\nacquaints the soul with the truths of revelation.\"\n\nThe learned Jeremy Taylor, bishop of Down and Connor, speaks in a\nsimilar manner in his sermon de Via Intelligentiae. \"Now in this\ninquiry, says he, I must take one thing for granted, which is, that\nevery good man is taught of God. And indeed, unless he teach us, we\nshall make but ill scholars ourselves, and worse guides to others. No\nman can know God, says Irenaeus, except he be taught of God. If God\nteaches us, then all is well; but if we do not learn wisdom at his feet,\nfrom whence should we have it? It can come from no other spring.\"\n\nAgain--\"those who perfect holiness in the fear of God, have a degree of\ndivine knowledge more than we can discourse of, and more certain than\nthe demonstration of Geometry; brighter than the sun, and indeficient as\nthe light of heaven--A good man is united to God--As flame touches\nflame, and combines into splendour and into glory, so is the spirit of a\nman united to Christ by the spirit of God. Our light, on the other hand,\nis like a candle; every word of doctrine blows it out, or spends the\nwax, and makes the light tremulous. But the lights of heaven are fixed\nand bright and shine for ever.\"\n\nCudworth, in his intellectual system, is wholly of the same opinion:\n\"All the books and writings which we converse with, they can but\nrepresent spiritual objects to our understanding, which yet we can never\nsee in their own true figure, colour, and proportion, until we have a\ndivine light within to irradiate and shine upon them. Though there be\nnever such excellent truths concerning Christ and his Gospel, set down\nin words and letters, yet they will be but unknown characters to us,\nuntil we have a living spirit within us, that can decypher them, until\nthe same spirit, by secret whispers in our hearts, do comment upon them,\nwhich did at first indite them. There be many that understand the Greek\nand Hebrew of the scripture, the original languages in which the text\nwas written, that never understood the language of the spirit.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n_Neither can a man, except he has a portion of the same spirit which\nJesus and the Apostles and the Prophets had, know spiritualty that the\nscriptures are of divine authority, or spiritually understand\nthem--Explanation of these tenets--Objection, that these tenets set\naside human reason--Reply of the Quakers--Observations of\nLuther--Calvin--Owen--Archbishop Usher--Archbishop Sandys--Milton\n--Bishop Taylor._\n\n\nAs a man cannot know spiritual things but through the medium of the\nspirit of God; or except he has a portion of the same spirit, which\nJesus and the Prophets and the Apostles had, so neither can he, except\nhe has a portion of the same spirit, either spiritually know that the\nwritings or sayings of these holy persons are of divine authority, or\nread or understand them, to the promotion of his spiritual interests.\n\nThese two tenets are but deductions from that in the former chapter, and\nmay be thus explained.\n\nA man, the Quakers say, may examine the holy scriptures, and may deduce\ntheir divine origin from the prophecies they contain, of which many have\nbeen since accomplished; from the superiority of their doctrines beyond\nthose in any other book which is the work of man; from the miraculous\npreservation of them for so many ages; from the harmony of all their\nparts, and from many other circumstances which might be mentioned. But\nthis, after all, will be but an historical, literal, or outward proof of\ntheir origin, resulting from his reason or his judgment. It will be no\nspiritual proof, having a spiritual influence on his heart; for this\nproof of the divine origin of the scriptures can only be had from the\nspirit of God. Thus, when the Apostle Paul preached to several women by\nthe river side near Philippi, it is said of Lydia only,[14] \"the Lord\nopened her heart, that she attended to the things that were spoken by\nPaul.\" The other women undoubtedly heard the gospel of Paul with their\noutward ears, but it does not appear that their hearts were in such a\nspiritual state, that they felt its divine authority; for it is not said\nof them, as of Lydia, that their hearts were opened to understand\nspiritually that this gospel was of God. Again,[15] when Jesus Christ\npreached to the Jews in the temple, many believed on him, but others\nbelieved not, but were so enraged that they took up stones to cast at\nhim. It appears that they all heard his doctrine with their outward\nears, in which he particularly stated that he was from above; but they\ndid not receive the truth of his origin in their hearts, because they\nwere not in a state to receive that faith which cometh from the spirit\nof God. In the same manner persons hear sermon after sermon at the\npresent day, but find no spiritual benefit in their hearts.\n\n[Footnote 14: Acts 16.13]\n\n[Footnote 15: John 8.30.45.59.]\n\nAgain--a man, by comparing passages of scripture with other passages,\nand by considering the use and acceptation of words in these, may arrive\nat a knowledge of their literal meaning. He may obtain also, by perusing\nthe scriptures, a knowledge of some of the attributes of God. He may\ndiscover a part of the plan of his providence. He may collect purer\nmoral truths than from any other source. But no literal reading of the\nscriptures can give him that spiritual knowledge of divine things, which\nleads to eternal life. The scriptures, if literally read, will give him\na literal or corresponding knowledge, but it is only the spiritual\nmonitor within, who can apply them to his feelings; who can tell him\n\"thou art the man; this is thy state: this is that which thou oughtest\nor oughtest not to have done;\" so that he sees spiritually, (the spirit\nof God bearing witness with his own spirit) that his own situation has\nbeen described. Indeed, if the scriptures were sufficient of themselves\nfor this latter purpose, the Quakers say that the knowledge of spiritual\nthings would consist in the knowledge of words. They, who were to get\nmost of the divine writings by heart, would know spiritually the most\nof divine truths. The man of the best understanding, or of the most\ncultivated mind, would be the best proficient in vital religion. But\nthis is contrary to fact. For men of deep learning know frequently less\nof spiritual Christianity, than those of the poor, who are scarcely able\nto read the scriptures. They contend also, that if the scriptures were\nthe most vitally understood by those of the most learning, then the\ndispensations of God would be partial, inasmuch as he would have\nexcluded the poor from the highest enjoyments of which the nature of man\nis susceptible, and from the means of their eternal salvation.\n\nThese tenets, which are thus adopted by the Quakers, are considered by\nmany of the moderns as objectionable, inasmuch as they make reason, at\nleast in theology, a useless gift. The Quakers, however, contend that\nthey consider reason as one of the inestimable gifts of God. They value\nit highly in its proper province. They do not exclude it from religion.\nMen, by means of it, may correct literal errors in the scriptures; may\nrestore texts, may refute doctrines inconsistent with the attributes of\nthe Almighty. The apology of Robert Barclay, which is a chain of\nreasoning of this kind from the begining to the end, is a proof that\nthey do not undervalue the powers of the mind. But they dare not ascribe\nto human reason that power, which they believe to be exclusively vested\nin the spirit of God.\n\nThey say, moreover, that these tenets are neither new nor peculiar to\nthemselves as a society. They were the doctrines of the primitive\nFathers. They. were the doctrines also of the protestant reformers. And\nthough many at the present day consider that scripture, interpreted by\nreason, is the religion of protestants, yet it was the general belief of\nthese reformers, that the teaching of the Holy spirit was necessary to\nthe spiritual understanding of the scriptures, as well as to the\nspiritual establishment of their divine origin.\n\nLuther observes--\"It is not human reason, or wisdom, nor the law of God,\nbut the work of divine grace freely bestowed upon me, that teacheth me\nand showeth me the gospel: and this gift of God I receive by faith\nalone.\"\n\n\"The scriptures are not to be understood but by the same spirit by which\nthey were written.\"\n\n\"No man sees one jot or tittle in the scriptures, unless he has the\nspirit of God.\"\n\n\"Profane men, says Calvin, desire to have it proved to them by reason,\nthat Moses and the prophets spoke from God. And to such I answer, that\nthe testimony of the spirit exceeds all reason. For as God alone is a\nsufficient witness of himself in his word, so will his word not find\ncredit in the hearts of men, until it is sealed by the inward testimony\nof his spirit. It is therefore necessary, that the same spirit which\nspake by the mouth of the prophets, enter into our hearts to persuade\nus, that they faithfully declared what was commanded them by God.\"\n\nAgain--\"Unless we have the assurance which is better and more valid than\nany judgment of man, it will be in vain to go about to establish the\nauthority of scripture, either by argument or the consent of the church;\nfor except the foundation be laid, namely, that the certainty of its\ndivine authority depends entirely upon the testimony of the spirit, it\nremains in perpetual suspense.\" Again--\"The spirit of God, from whom the\ndoctrine of the Gospel proceeds, is the only true interpreter to open it\nto us.\"\n\n\"Divines, says the learned Owen, at the first reformation, did generally\nresolve our faith of the divine authority of the scriptures, into the\ntestimony of the Holy Spirit;\" in which belief he joins himself, by\nstating that \"it is the work of the Holy Spirit to enable us to believe\nthe scripture to be the word of God.\"\n\nIn another place he says, \"our Divines have long since laid it down,\nthat the only public, authentic, and infallible interpreter of the holy\nscriptures, is the author of them, from whose inspiration they receive\nall their truth, clearness, and authority. This author is the Holy\nSpirit.\"\n\nArchbishop Sandys, in one of his Sermons, preached before Queen\nElizabeth, has the following observations:\n\n\"The outward reading of the word, without the inward working of the\nspirit, is nothing. The precise Pharisees, and the learned Scribes, read\nthe scriptures over and over again. They not only read them in books,\nbut wore them on their garments. They were not only taught, but were\nable themselves to teach others. But because this heavenly teacher had\nnot instructed them, their understanding was darkened, and their\nknowledge was but vanity. They were ignorant altogether in that saving\ntruth, which the prophet David was so desirous to learn. The mysteries\nof salvation were so hard to be conceived by the very apostles of Christ\nJesus, that he was forced many times to rebuke them for their dulness,\nwhich unless he had removed by opening the eyes of their minds, they\ncould never have attained to the knowledge of salvation in Christ Jesus.\nThe ears of that woman Lydia would have been as close shut against the\npreaching of Paul, as any others, if the finger of God had not touched\nand opened her heart. As many as learn, they are taught of God.\"\n\nArchbishop Usher, in his sum and substance of the Christian Religion,\nobserves, \"that it is required that we have the spirit of God, as well\nto open our eyes to see the light, as to seal up fully in our hearts\nthat truth, which we can see with our eyes: for the same Holy Spirit\nthat inspired the scripture, inclineth the hearts of God's children to\nbelieve what is revealed in them, and inwardly assureth them, above all\nreasons and arguments, that these are the scriptures of God.\" And\nfarther on in the same work, he says, \"the spirit of God alone is the\ncertain interpreter of his word written by his Spirit; for no man\nknoweth the things pertaining to God, but the Spirit of God.\"\n\nOur great Milton also gives us a similar opinion in the following words,\nwhich are taken from his Paradise Lost:\n\n   ----\"but in their room----\n  Wolves shall succeed for teachers, grievous wolves,\n  Who all the sacred mysteries of Heaven\n  To their own vile advantages shall turn\n  Of lucre and ambition, and the truth\n  With superstition's and tradition's taint,\n  Left only in those written records pure,\n  Though not but by the spirit understood.\"\n\nOf the same mind was the learned bishop Taylor, as we collect from his\nsermon de Via Intelligentiae. \"For although the scriptures, says he, are\nwritten by the spirit of God, yet they are written within and without.\nAnd besides the light that shines upon the face of them, unless there be\na light shining within our hearts, unfolding the leaves, and\ninterpreting the mysterious sense of the spirit, convincing our\nconsciences, and preaching to our hearts; to look for Christ in the\nleaves of the gospel, is to look for the living among the dead. There is\na life in them; but that life is, according to St. Paul's expression,\n'hid with Christ in God;' and unless the spirit of God first draw it, we\nshall never draw it forth.\"\n\n\"Human learning brings excellent ministeries towards this. It is\nadmirably useful for the reproof of heresies, for the detection of\nfallacies, for the letter of the scripture, for collateral testimonies,\nfor exterior advantages; but there is something beyond this that human\nlearning, without the addition of divine, can never reach. Moses was\nlearned in all the learning of the Egyptians; and the holy men of God\ncontemplated the glories of God in the admirable order, motion, and\ninfluences of the heaven; but, besides all this, they were taught\nsomething far beyond these prettinesses. Pythagoras read Moses' books,\nand so did Plato, and yet they became not proselytes of the religion,\nthough they were the learned scholars of such a master.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n_The spirit of God which has been thus given to man in different\ndegrees, was given him as a spiritual teacher, or guide, in his\nspiritual concerns--It performs this office, the Quakers say, by\ninternal monitions--Sentiments of Taylor--and of Monro--and, if\nencouraged, it teaches even by the external objects of the\ncreation--William Wordsworth._\n\n\nThe Quakers believe that the spirit of God, which has been thus given to\nman in different degrees or measures, and without which it is impossible\nto know spiritual things, or even to understand the divine writings\nspiritually, or to be assured of their divine origin, was given to him,\namong other purposes, as a teacher of good and evil, or to serve him as\na guide in his spiritual concerns. By this the Quakers mean, that if any\nman will give himself up to the directions of the spiritual principle\nthat resides within him, he will attain a knowledge sufficient to enable\nhim to discover the path of his duty both to God and his fellow-man.\n\nThat the spirit of God was given to man as a spiritual instructor, the\nQuakers conceive to be plain, from a number of passages, which are to be\nfound in the sacred writings.\n\nThey say, in the first place, that it was the language of the holy men\nof old. [16] \"I said, says Elihu, days should speak, and multitude of\nyears should teach wisdom. But there is a spirit (or the spirit itself\nis) in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him\nunderstanding.\" The Levites are found also making an acknowledgment to\nGod; [17] \"That he gave also their forefathers his good spirit to\ninstruct them.\" The Psalms of David are also full of the same language,\nsuch as of [18] \"Shew me thy ways, O Lord; lead me in the truth.\" [19] \"I\nknow, says Jeremiah, that the way of man is not in himself. It is not in\nman that walketh to direct his steps.\" The martyr Stephen acknowledges\nthe teachings of the spirit, both in his own time and in that of his\nancestors. [20] \"Ye stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye\ndo always resist the holy spirit. As your fathers did, so do ye.\" The\nQuakers also conceive it to be a doctrine of the gospel. Jesus himself\nsaid, [21] \"No man can come to me except the Father, which sent me, draw\nhim--It is written in the prophets, they shall all be taught of God.\"\n[22]St. John says, \"That was the true light, (namely, the word or\nspirit) which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.\" St. Paul,\nin his first letter to the Corinthians, asserts, [23]that \"the\nmanifestation of the spirit is given to every man to profit withal.\"\nAnd, in his letter to Titus, he asserts the same thing, though in\ndifferent words: [24] \"For the grace of God, says he, which bringeth\nsalvation, hath appeared unto all men.\"\n\n[Footnote 16: Job 32. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Nehemiah 9. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Psalm 25. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Jeremiah 10. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 20: Acts 7. 51.]\n\n[Footnote 21: John 6.44.45]\n\n[Footnote 22: John 1. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 23: i Cor. 12. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Titus 2. 11.]\n\nThe spirit of God, which has been thus given to man as a spiritual\nguide, is considered by the Quakers as teaching him in various ways. It\ninspires him with good thoughts. It prompts him to good offices. It\nchecks him in his way to evil. It reproves him while in the act of\ncommitting it.\n\nThe learned Jeremy Taylor was of the same opinion. \"The spirit of grace,\nsays he, is the spirit of wisdom, and teaches us by secret inspirations,\nby proper arguments, by actual persuasions, by personal applications, by\neffects and energies.\"\n\nThis office of the spirit is beautifully described by Monro, a divine of\nthe established church, in his just measures of the pious institutions\nof youth, \"The holy spirit, says he, speaks inwardly and immediately to\nthe soul. For God is a spirit. The soul is a spirit; and they converse\nwith one another in spirit, not by words, but by spiritual notices;\nwhich, however, are more intelligible than the most eloquent strains in\nthe world. God makes himself to be heard by the soul by inward motions,\nwhich it perceives and comprehends proportionably as it is voided and\nemptied of earthly ideas. And the more the faculties of the soul cease\ntheir own operations, so much the more sensible and intelligible are the\nmotions of God to it. These immediate communications from God with the\nsouls of men are denied and derided by a great many. But that the father\nof spirits should have no converse with our spirits, but by the\nintervention only of outward and foreign objects, may justly seem\nstrange, especially when we are so often told in holy scripture, that we\nare the temples of the holy Ghost, and that God dwelleth in all good\nmen.\"\n\nBut this spirit is considered by the Quakers not only as teaching by\ninward breathings, as it were, made immediately and directly upon the\nheart without the intervention of outward circumstances, but as making\nthe material objects of the Universe, and many of the occurrences of\nlife, if it be properly attended to, subservient to the instruction of\nman; and that it enlarges the sphere of his instruction in this manner,\nin proportion as it is received and encouraged. Thus the man, who is\nattentive to these divine notices, sees the animal, the vegetable, and\nthe planetary world, with spiritual eyes. He cannot stir abroad, but he\nis taught in his own feelings, without any motion of his will, some\nlesson for his spiritual advantage; or he perceives so vitally some of\nthe attributes of the divine being, that he is called upon to offer\nsome spiritual incense to his maker. If the lamb frolics and gambols in\nhis presence as he walks along, he may be made spiritually to see the\nbeauty and happiness of innocence. If he finds the stately oak laid\nprostrate by the wind, he may be spiritually taught to discern the\nemptiness of human power; while the same spirit may teach him inwardly\nthe advantage of humility, when he looks at the little hawthorn which\nhas survived the storm. When he sees the change and the fall of the\nautumnal leaf, he may be spiritually admonished of his own change and\ndissolution, and of the necessity of a holy life. Thus the spirit of God\nmay teach men by outward objects and occurrences in the world; but where\nthis spirit is away, or rather where it is not attended to, no such\nlesson can be taught. Natural objects of themselves can excite only\nnatural ideas: and the natural man, looking at them, can derive only\nnatural pleasure, or draw natural conclusions from them. In looking at\nthe Sun, he may be pleased with its warmth, and anticipate its\nadvantages to the vegetable world. In plucking and examining a flower,\nhe may be struck with its beauty, its mechanism, and its fragrant smell.\nIn observing the butterfly, as it wings its way before him, he may smile\nat its short journeys from place to place, and admire the splendour\nupon its wings. But the beauty of Creation is dead to him, as far as it\ndepends upon connecting it spiritually with the character of God. For no\nspiritual impression can arise from any natural objects, but through the\nintervention of the spirit of God.\n\nWilliam Wordsworth, in his instructive poems, has described this\nteaching by external objects in consequence of impressions from a higher\npower, as differing from any teaching by books or the human\nunderstanding, and as arising without any motion of the will of man, in\nso beautiful and simple a manner, that I cannot do otherwise than make\nan extract from them in this place. Lively as the poem is, to which I\nallude, I conceive it will not lower the dignity of the subject. It is\ncalled Expostulation and Reply, and is as follows:[25]\n\n     Why, William, on that old gray stone,\n     Thus for the length of half a day,\n     Why, William, sit you thus alone,\n     And dream your time away?\n\n     Where are your books? that light bequeath'd\n     To beings, else forlorn and blind,\n     Up! Up! and drink the spirit breath'd\n     From dead men to their kind.\n\n     You look round on your mother earth,\n     As if she for no purpose bore you,\n     As if you were her first-born birth,\n     And none had liv'd before you!\n\n     One morning thus by Esthwaite lake,\n     When life was sweet, I knew not why,\n     To me my good friend Matthew spake,\n     And that I made reply:\n\n     The eye it cannot choose but see.\n     We cannot bid the ear be still;\n     Our bodies feel where'er they be,\n     Against or with our will.\n\n     Nor less I deem that there are powers,\n     Which of themselves our minds impress,\n     That we can feed this mind of ours\n     In a wise passiveness.\n\n     Think you,'mid all this mighty sum\n     Of things for ever speaking,\n     That nothing of itself will come,\n     But we must still be seeking?\n\n     Then ask not wherefore, here, alone,\n     Conversing as I may,\n     I sit upon this old gray stone,\n     And dream my time away?\n\n[Footnote 25: See Lyrical Ballads, Vol. 1. p. 1.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V\n\n_This spirit was not only given to man as a teacher, but as a primary\nand infallible guide--Hence the Scriptures are a subordinate or\nsecondary guide--Quakers, however, do not undervalue them on this\naccount--Their opinion concerning them._\n\n\nThe spirit of God, which we have seen to be thus given to men as a\nspiritual teacher, and to act in the ways described, the Quakers usually\ndistinguish by the epithets of primary and infallible. But they have\nmade another distinction with respect to the character of this spirit;\nfor they have pronounced it to be the only infallible guide to men in\ntheir spiritual concerns. From this latter declaration the reader will\nnaturally conclude, that the scriptures, which are the outward teachers\nof men, must be viewed by the Quakers in a secondary light. This\nconclusion has indeed been adopted as a proposition in the Quaker\ntheology; or, in other words, it is a doctrine of the society, that the\nspirit of God is the primary and only infallible, and the scriptures but\na subordinate or secondary guide.\n\nThis proposition the Quakers usually make out in the following manner:\n\nIt is, in the first place, admitted by all Christians, that the\nscriptures were given by inspiration, or that those who originally\ndelivered or wrote the several parts of them, gave them forth by means\nof that spirit, which was given to them by God. Now in the same manner\nas streams, or rivulets of water, are subordinate to the fountains\nwhich produce them; so those streams or rivulets of light must be\nsubordinate to the great light from whence they originally sprung. \"We\ncannot, says Barclay, call the scriptures the principal fountain of all\ntruth and knowledge, nor yet the first adequate rule of faith and\nmanners; because the principal fountain of truth must be the truth\nitself, that is, whose certainty and authority depend not upon another.\"\n\nThe scriptures are subordinate or secondary, again, in other points of\nview. First, because, though they are placed before us, we can only know\nor understand them by the testimony of the spirit. Secondly, because\nthere is no virtue or power in them of themselves, but in the spirit\nfrom whence they came.\n\nThey are, again, but a secondary guide; because \"that, says Barclay,\ncannot be the only and principal guide, which doth not universally reach\nevery individual that needeth it.\" But the scriptures do not teach deaf\npersons, nor children, nor idiots, nor an immense number of people, more\nthan half the Globe, who never yet saw or heard of them. These,\ntherefore, if they are to be saved like others, must have a different or\na more universal rule to guide them, or be taught from another source.\n\nThey are only a secondary guide, again, for another reason. It is an\nacknowledged axiom among Christians, that the spirit of God is a perfect\nspirit, and that it can never err. But the scriptures are neither\nperfect of themselves as a collection, nor are they perfect in their\nverbal parts. Many of them have been lost. Concerning those which have\nsurvived, there have been great disputes. Certain parts of these, which\none Christian council received in the early times of the church, were\nrejected as not canonical by another. Add to this, that none of the\noriginals are extant. And of the copies, some have suffered by\ntranscription, others by translation, and others by wilful mutilation,\nto support human notions of religion; so that there are various readings\nof the same passage, and various views of the same thing. \"Now what,\nsays Barclay, would become of Christians, if they had not received that\nspirit and those spiritual senses, by which they know how to discover\nthe true from the false? It is the privilege of Christ's sheep, indeed,\nthat they hear his voice, and refuse that of the stranger; which,\nprivilege being taken away, we are left a prey to all manner of wolves.\"\nThe scriptures, therefore, in consequence of the state in which they\nhave come down to us, cannot, the Quakers say, be considered to be a\nguide as entirely perfect as the internal testimony of their great\nauthor, the spirit of God.\n\nBut though the Quakers have thought it right, in submitting their\nreligious creed to the world on this subject, to be so guarded in the\nwording of it as to make the distinction described, they are far from\nundervaluing the scriptures on that account. They believe, on the other\nhand, whatever mutilations they may have suffered, that they contain\nsufficient to guide men in belief and practice; and that all internal\nemotions, which are contrary to the declaration of these, are wholly\ninadmissible. \"Moreover, says Barclay, because the scriptures are\ncommonly acknowledged by all to have been written by the dictates of the\nholy spirit, and that the errors, which may be supposed by the injury of\ntime to have slipt in, are not such but there is a sufficient clear\ntestimony left to all the essentials of the Christian faith, we do look\nupon them as the only fit outward judge of controversies among\nChristians, and that whatsoever doctrine is contrary to their testimony,\nmay therefore justly be rejected as false.\"\n\nThe Quakers believe also, that as God gave a portion of his spirit to\nman to assist him inwardly, so he gave the holy scriptures to assist him\noutwardly in his spiritual concerns. Hence the latter, coming by\ninspiration, are the most precious of all books that ever were written,\nand the best outward guide. And hence the things contained in them,\nought to be read, and, as far as possible, fulfilled.\n\nThey believe, with the apostle Paul, that the scriptures are highly\nuseful, \"so that, through patience and comfort of them, they may have\nhope; and also that they are profitable for reproof, for correction, and\nfor instruction in righteousness:\" that in the same manner as land,\nhighly prepared and dressed by the husbandman, becomes fit for the\nreception and for the promotion of the growth of the seed that is to be\nplaced in it, so the scriptures turn the attention of man towards God,\nand by means of the exhortations, reproofs, promises, and threatenings,\ncontained in them, prepare the mind for the reception and growth of the\nseed of the Holy Spirit.\n\nThey believe, again, that the same scriptures show more of the\nparticulars of God's will with respect to man, and of the scheme of the\nGospel-dispensation, than any ordinary portion of his spirit, as usually\ngiven to man, would have enabled him to discover. They discover that\n[26] \"the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life\nthrough Jesus Christ:\" [27] \"That Jesus Christ was set forth to be a\npropitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness\nfor the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of\nGod;\" [28]that \"he tasted death for every man;\" that he [29]was\n\"delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification;\"\n[30]that \"he is set down at the right hand of the throne of God;\"\n[31] \"and ever liveth to make intercession for us; and, that he is the\nsubstance of all the types and figures under the Levitical priesthood,\n[32] being the end of the law for righteousness to every one that\nbelieveth.\"\n\n[Footnote 26: Rom. 6. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Rom. 3. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Heb. 2. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 29: 4. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Heb. 12. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 31: Heb. 7. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 32: Rom. 10. 4.]\n\nThey believe, again, that, in consequence of these various revelations,\nas contained in the scriptures, they have inestimable advantages over\nthe Heathen nations, or over those, where the gospel-sun has never yet\nshone; and that, as their advantages are greater, so more will be\nrequired of them, or their condemnation will be greater, if they fail to\nattend to those things which are clearly revealed.\n\nThey maintain, again, that their discipline is founded on the rules of\nthe gospel; and that in consequence of giving an interpretation\ndifferent from that of many others, to some of the expressions of Jesus\nChrist, by which they conceive they make his kingdom more pure and\nheavenly, they undergo persecution from the world--so that they confirm\ntheir attachment to the scriptures by the best of all credible\ntestimonies, the seal of their own sufferings.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\n_This spirit of God, which has been thus given to men as an infallible\nguide in their spiritual concerns, has been given them universally--To\nthe patriarchs and Israelites, from the creation to the time of\nMoses--To the Israelites or Jews, from Moses to Jesus Christ--To the\nGentile world from all antiquity to modern times--To all those who have\never heard the gospel--And it continues its office to the latter even\nat the present day._\n\n\nThe Quakers are of opinion that the spirit of God, of which a portion\nhas been given to men as a primary and infallible guide in their\nspiritual concerns, has been given them universally; or has been given\nto all of the human race, without any exceptions, for the same purpose.\n\nThis proposition of the Quakers I shall divide, in order that the reader\nmay see it more clearly, into four cases. The first of these will\ncomprehend the Patriarchs and the Israelites from the creation to the\ntime of Moses. The second, the Israelites or Jews from the time of Moses\nto the coming of Jesus Christ. The third, the Gentiles or Heathens. And\nthe fourth, all those who have heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ, from\nthe time of his own ministry to the present day.\n\nThe first case includes a portion of time of above two thousand years.\nNow the Quakers believe, that during all this time men were generally\nenlightened as to their duty by the spirit of God; for there was no\nscripture or written law of God during all this period. \"It was about\ntwo thousand four hundred years, says Thomas Beaven, an approved writer\namong the Quakers, after the creation of the world, before mankind had\nany external written law for the rule and conduct of their lives, so far\nas appears by either sacred or profane history; in all which time\nmankind, generally speaking, had only for their rule of faith and\nmanners the external creation as a monitor to their outward senses, for\nevidence of the reality and certainty of the existence of the Supreme\nBeing; and the internal impressions God by his divine spirit made upon\nthe capacities and powers of their souls or inward man, and perhaps some\nof them oral traditions delivered from father to son.\"\n\nTo the same point Thomas Beaven quotes the ever memorable John Hales,\nwho, in his golden remains, writes in the following manner: \"The love\nand favour, which it pleased God to bear our fathers before the law', so\nfar prevailed with him, as that without any books and writings, by\nfamiliar and friendly conversing with them, and communicating himself\nunto them, he made them receive and understand his laws, their inward\nconceits and intellectuals being, after a wonderful manner, figured as\nit were and charactered by his spirit, so that they could not but see\nand consent unto, and confess the truth of them. Which way of\nmanifesting his will unto many other gracious privileges it had, above\nthat which in after ages came in place of it, had this added, that it\nbrought with it unto the man to whom it was made, a preservation against\nall doubt and hesitancy, and a full assurance both who the author was,\nand how far his intent and meaning reached. We who are their offspring\nought, as St. Chrysostom tells us, so to have demeaned ourselves, that\nit might have been with us as it was with them, that we might have had\nno need of writing, no other teacher but the spirit, no other books but\nour hearts, no other means to have been taught the things of God.\"\n\nThat the spirit of God, as described by Thomas Beaven and the venerable\nJohn Hales, was the great instructor or enlightener of man during the\nperiod we are speaking of, the Quakers believe, from what they conceive\nto be the sense of the holy scriptures on this subject. For in the first\nplace, they consider it as a position, deducible from the expressions of\nMoses[33], that the spirit of God had striven with those of the\nantediluvian world. They believe, therefore, that it was this spirit\n(and because the means were adequate, and none more satisfactory to them\ncan be assigned) which informed Cain, before any written law existed,\nand this even before the murder of his brother, that[34] \"if he did\nwell, he should be accepted; but if not, sin should lie at his door.\"\nThe same spirit they conceive to have illuminated the mind of Seth, but\nin a higher degree than ordinarily the mind of Enoch; for he is the\nfirst, of whom it is recorded, that[35] \"he walked with God.\" It is also\nconsidered by the Quakers as having afforded a rule of conduct to those\nwho lived after the flood. Thus Joseph is described as saying, when\nthere is no record of any verbal instruction from the Almighty on this\nsubject, and at a time when there was no scripture or written law of\nGod, [36] \"How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against\nGod?\" It illuminated others also, but in a greater or less degree, as\nbefore. Thus Noah became a preacher of righteousness. Thus Abraham,\nIsaac, and Jacob, were favoured with a greater measure of it than others\nwho lived in their own times.\n\n[Footnote 33: Gen. 6.3]\n\n[Footnote 34: Ib 4.7]\n\n[Footnote 35: Gen. 5.24.]\n\n[Footnote 36: Ib. 39.9.--The traditionary laws of Noah were in force at\nthis time; but they only specified three offences between man and man.]\n\nFrom these times to the coming of Jesus Christ, which is the second of\nthe cases in question, the same spirit, according to the Quakers, still\ncontinued its teachings, and this notwithstanding the introduction of\nthe Mosaic law; for this, which was engraven on tables of stone, did not\nset aside the law that was engraven on the heart. It assisted, first,\noutwardly, in turning mens' minds to God; and secondly, in fitting them\nas a schoolmaster for attention to the internal impressions by his\nspirit. That the spirit of God was still the great teacher, the Quakers\nconceive to be plain; for the sacred writings from Moses to Malachi\naffirm it for a part of the period now assigned; and for the rest we\nhave as evidence the reproof of the Martyr Stephen, and the sentences\nfrom the New Testament quoted in the fourth chapter. And in the same\nmanner as this spirit had been given to some in a greater measure than\nto others, both before and after the deluge, so the Quakers believe it\nto have been given more abundantly to Moses and the prophets, than to\nothers of the same nation; for they believe that the law in particular,\nand that the general writings of Moses, and those of the prophets also,\nwere of divine inspiration, or the productions of the spirit of God.\n\nWith respect to the Heathens or Gentiles, which is the third case, the\nQuakers believe that God's holy spirit became a guide also to them, and\nfurnished them, as it had done the patriarchs and the Jews, with a rule\nof practice. For even these, who had none of the advantages of scripture\nor of a written divine law, believed, many of them, in God, such as\nOrpheus, Hesiod, Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Cicero, and\nothers. And of these it may be observed, that it was their general\nbelief, as well as it was the belief of many others in those days, that\nthere was a divine light or spirit in man, to enable him to direct\nhimself aright.\n\nAmong the remnants that have been preserved of the sayings, of\nPythagoras, are the following which relate to this subject: \"Those\nthings which are agreeable to God, cannot be known, except a man hear\nGod himself.\" Again--\"But having overcome these things, thou shalt know\nthe cohabitation or dwelling together of the immortal God and mortal\nman. His work is life--The work of God is immortality, eternal life.\"\n\"The most excellent thing, says Timoeus, that the soul is awakened to,\nis her guide or good genius; but if she be rebellious to it, it will\nprove her daemon, or tormentor.\"\n\n\"It was frequently said of Socrates, he had the guide of his life within\nhim, which, it was told his father Sophroniscus, would be of more worth\nto him than five hundred masters. He called it his good angel, or\nspirit; that it suggested to his mind what was good and virtuous, and\ninclined and disposed him to a strict and pious life; that it furnished\nhim with divine knowledge, and impelled him very often to speak publicly\nto the people, sometimes in a way of severe reproof, at other times to\ninformation.\"\n\nPlato says, \"the light and spirit of God are as wings to the soul, or as\nthat which raiseth up the soul into, a sensible communion with God above\nthe world.\"\n\n\"I have, says Seneca, a more clear and certain light, by which I may\njudge the truth from falsehood: that which belongs to the happiness of\nthe soul, the eternal mind will direct to.\" Again--\"It is a foolish\nthing for thee to wish for that which thou canst not obtain. God is near\nthee, and he is in thee. The good spirit sits or resides within as, the\nobserver of our good and evil actions. As he is dealt with by us, he\ndealeth with us.\"\n\nThe Quakers produce these, and a multitude of other quotations, which it\nis not necessary to repeat, to show that the same spirit, which taught\nthe patriarchs before the law, and the Jews after it, taught the\nGentiles also. But this revelation, or manifestation of the spirit, was\nnot confined, in the opinion of the Quakers, to the Roman or Greek\nphilosophers, or to those who had greater pretensions than common to\nhuman wisdom. They believe that no nation was ever discovered, among\nthose of antiquity, to have been so wild or ignorant as not to have\nacknowledged a divinity, or as not to have known and established a\ndifference between good and evil.\n\nCicero says, \"there is no country so barbarous, no one of all men so\nsavage, as that some apprehension of the Gods hath not tinctured his\nmind. That many indeed, says he, think corruptly of them, must be\nadmitted; but this is the effect of vicious custom. For all do believe\nthat there is a divine power and nature.\"\n\nMaximus Tyriensis, a platonic philosopher, and a man of considerable\nknowledge, observes, that \"notwithstanding the great contention and\nvariety of opinions which have existed concerning the nature and essence\nof God, yet the law and reason of every country are harmonious in these\nrespects, namely, that there is one God, the king and father of all--and\nthat the many are but servants and co-rulers unto God: that in this the\nGreek and the Barbarian, the Islander and the inhabitant of the\ncontinent, the wise and the foolish, speak the same language. Go, says\nhe, to the utmost bounds of the ocean, and you find God there. But if\nthere hath been, says he, since the existence of time, two or three\natheistical, vile, senseless individuals, whose eyes and ears deceive\nthem, and who are maimed in their very soul, an irrational and barren\nspecies, as monstrous as a lion without courage, an ox without horns, or\na bird without wings, yet out of these you will be able to understand\nsomething of God. For they know and confess him whether they will or\nnot.\"\n\nPlutarch says again, \"that if a man were to travel through the world, he\nmight possibly find cities without walls, without letters, without\nkings, without wealth, without schools, and without theatres. But a city\nwithout a temple, or that useth no worship, or no prayers, no one ever\nsaw. And he believes a city may more easily be built without a\nfoundation, or ground to set it on, than a community of men have or keep\na consistency without religion.\"\n\nOf those nations which were reputed wild and ignorant in ancient times,\nthe Scythians may be brought, next, to the Greeks and Romans, as an\ninstance to elucidate the opinion of the Quakers still farther on this\nsubject. The speech of the Scythian Ambassadors to Alexander the Great,\nas handed down to us by Quintus Curtius, has been often cited by\nwriters, not only on account of its beauty and simplicity, but to show\nus the moral sentiments of the Scythians in those times. I shall make a\nfew extracts from it on this occasion.\n\n\"Had the Gods given thee, says one of the Ambassadors to Alexander, a\nbody proportionable to thy ambition, the whole Universe would have been\ntoo little for thee. With one hand thou wouldest touch the East, and\nwith the other the West; and not satisfied with this, thou wouldest\nfollow the Sun, and know where he hides himself.\"----\n\n\"But what have we to do with thee? We never set foot in thy country. May\nnot those who inhabit woods be allowed to live without knowing who thou\nart, and whence thou comest? We will neither command nor submit to any\nman.\"----\n\n\"But thou, who boastest thy coming to extirpate robbers, thou thyself\nart the greatest robber upon earth.\"----\n\n\"Thou hast possessed thyself of Lydia, invaded Syria, Persia, and\nBactriana. Thou art forming a design to march as far as India, and thou\nnow contest hither, to seize upon our herds of cattle. The great\npossessions which thou hast, only make thee covet more eagerly what thou\nhast not.\"----\n\n\"We are informed that the Greeks speak jestingly of our Scythian\ndeserts, and that they are even become a proverb; but we are fonder of\nour solitudes, than of thy great cities.\"----\n\n\"If thou art a god, thou oughtest to do good to mortals, and not to\ndeprive them of their possessions. If thou art a mere man, reflect on\nwhat thou art.\"----\n\n\"Do not fancy that the Scythians will take an oath in their concluding\nof an alliance with thee. The only oath among them is to keep their word\nwithout swearing. Such cautions as these do indeed become Greeks, who\nsign their treaties, and call upon the Gods to witness them. But, with\nregard to us, our religion consists in being sincere, and in keeping the\npromises we have made. That man, who is not ashamed to break his word\nwith men, is not ashamed of deceiving the Gods.\"\n\nTo the account contained in these extracts, it may be added, that the\nScythians are described by Herodotus, Justin, Horace, and others, as a\nmoral people. They had the character of maintaining justice. Theft or\nrobbery was severely punished among them. They believed infidelity after\nthe marriage-engagement to be deserving of death. They coveted neither\nsilver nor gold. They refused to give the name of goods or riches to any\nbut estimable things, such as health, courage, liberty, strength,\nsincerity, innocence, and the like. They received friends as relations,\nor considered friendship as so sacred an alliance, that it differed but\nlittle from alliance by blood.\n\nThese principles of the Scythians, as far as they are well founded, the\nQuakers believe to have originated in their more than ordinary attention\nto that divine principle which was given to them, equally with the rest\nof mankind, for their instruction in moral good; to that same principle,\nwhich Socrates describes as having suggested to his mind that which was\ngood and virtuous, or which Seneca describes to reside in men as an\nobserver of good and evil. For the Scythians, living in solitary and\ndesert places, had but little communication for many ages with the rest\nof mankind, and did not obtain their system of morality from other\nquarters. From the Greeks and Romans, who were the most enlightened,\nthey derived no moral benefit. For Strabo informs us, that their morals\nhad been wholly corrupted in his time, and that this wretched change had\ntaken place in consequence of their intercourse with these nations. That\nthey had no scripture or written law of God is equally evident. Neither\ndid they collect their morality from the perusal or observance of any\nparticular laws that had been left them by their ancestors; for the same\nauthor, who gives them the high character just mentioned, says that they\nwere found in the practice of justice,[37] not on account of any laws,\nbut on account of their own _natural genius or disposition_. Neither\nwere they found in this practice, because they had exerted their reason\nin discovering that virtue was so much more desirable than vice; for the\nsame author declares, that nature, and not reason, had made them a moral\npeople: for[38] \"it seems surprising, says he, that nature should have\ngiven to them what the Greeks have never been able to attain either in\nconsequence of the long succession of doctrines of their wise men, or of\nthe precepts of their philosophers; and that the manners of a barbarous,\nshould be preferable to those of a refined people.\"\n\n[Footnote 37: Justitia gentis Ingeniis culta, non Legibus.]\n\n[Footnote 38: Prorsus ut admirabile videatur, hoc illis naturam dare,\nquod Graeci longa sapientium doctrina praeceptisque philosophorum\nconsequi nequeunt, cultosque mores incultae barbariae collatione\nsoperari.]\n\nThis opinion, that the spirit of God was afforded as a light to lighten\nthe Gentiles of the ancient world, the Quakers derive from the\nauthorities which I have now mentioned; that is, from the evidence which\nhistory has afforded, and from the sentiments which the Gentiles have\ndiscovered themselves upon this subject. But they conceive that the\nquestion is put out of all doubt by these remarkable words of the\nApostle Paul. \"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by\n_nature_ the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are\na law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law _written on their\nhearts_, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the\nmean while accusing, or else excusing one another.\" And here it may be\nobserved, that the Quakers believe also, that in the same manner as the\nspirit of God enlightened the different Gentile nations previously to\nthe time of the apostle, so it continues to enlighten those, which have\nbeen discovered since; for no nation has been found so ignorant, as not\nto make an acknowledgment of superior spirit, and to know the difference\nbetween good and evil. Hence it may be considered as illuminating those\nnations, where the scriptures have never reached, even at the present\nday.\n\nWith respect to the last case, which includes those who have heard with\ntheir outward ears the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Quakers believe, that\nthe spirit of God has continued its office of a spiritual instructor as\nwell to these as to any of the persons who have been described. For the\nGospel is no where said to supersede, any more than the law of Moses\ndid, the assistance of this spirit. On the other hand, this spirit was\ndeemed necessary, and this by the apostles themselves, even after\nchurches had been established, or men had become Christians. St. Paul\ndeclares,[39] that whatever spiritual gifts some of his followers might\nthen have, and however these gifts might then differ from one another,\nthe spirit of God was given universally to man, and this to profit\nwithal. He declares again that [40] \"as many as were led by this spirit,\nthese, and these only, possessed the knowledge that was requisite to\nenable them to become the sons of God.\" And in his letter to the\nThessalonians, who had become a Christian church, he gave them many\nparticular injunctions, among which one was, that [41] they would not\nquench or extinguish the spirit.\n\n[Footnote 39: Cor. 12. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 40: Rom. 8, 14.]\n\n[Footnote 41: 1 Thess. 5. 19.]\n\nAnd in the same manner as this spirit was deemed necessary in the days\nof the apostles, and this to every man individually, and even after he\nhad become a Christian, so the Quakers consider it to have been\nnecessary since, and to continue so, wherever Christianity is professed.\nFor many persons may read the holy scriptures, and hear them read in\nchurches, and yet not feel the necessary conviction for sin. Here then\nthe Quakers conceive the spirit of God to be still necessary. It comes\nin with its inward monitions and reproofs, where the scripture has been\nneglected or forgotten. It attempts to stay the arm of him who is going\nto offend, and frequently averts the blow.\n\nNeither is this spirit unnecessary, even where men profess an attention\nto the literal precepts of the Gospel. For in proportion as men are in\nthe way of attending to the outward scriptures, they are in the way of\nbeing inwardly taught of God. But without this inward teaching no\noutward teaching can be effectual; for though persons may read the\nscriptures, yet they cannot spiritually understand them; and though they\nmay admire the Christian religion, yet they cannot enjoy it, according\nto the opinion of the Quakers, but through the medium of the spirit of\nGod.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\n\nSECT. I.\n\n_This spirit, as it has been given universally, so it has been given\nsufficiently--Hence God is exonerated Of injustice, and men are left\nwithout excuse--Those who resist this spirit, are said to quench it, and\nmay become so hardened in time, as to be insensible of its\nimpressions--Those who attend to it, may be said to be in the way of\nredemption--Similar sentiments of Monro--This visitation, treatment,\nand influence of the spirit, usually explained by the Quakers by the\nParable of the sower._\n\n\nAs the spirit of God has been thus afforded to every man, since the\nfoundation of the world, to profit withal, so the Quakers say, that it\nhas been given to him in a sufficient measure for this purpose. By the\nword \"sufficient\" we are not to understand that this divine monitor\ncalls upon men every day or hour, but that it is within every man, and\nthat it awakens him seasonably, and so often during the term of his\nnatural life, as to exonerate God from the charge of condemning him\nunjustly, if he fails in his duty, and as to leave himself without\nexcuse. And in proportion as a greater or less measure of this spirit\nhas been afforded him, so he is more or less guilty in the sight of his\nMaker.\n\nIf any should resist these salutary operations of the Holy Spirit, they\nresist it to their own condemnation.\n\nOf such it may he observed, that they are said to quench or grieve the\nspirit, and, not unfrequently, to resist God, and to crucify Christ\nafresh; for God and Christ and the Spirit are considered to be\ninseparably united in the scriptures.\n\nOf such also it may be again observed, that if they continue to resist\nGod's holy Spirit, their feelings may become so callous or hardened in\ntime, that they may never be able to perceive its notices again, and\nthus the day of their visitation may be over: for [42] \"my people, saith\nGod, would not hearken to my voice, and Israel would none of me; so I\ngave them up to their own hearts' lusts, and they walked in their own\ncounsels.\" To the same import was the saying of Jesus Christ, when he\nwept over Jerusalem. [43] \"If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in\nthis thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are\nhid from thine eyes.\" As if he had said, there was a day, in which ye,\nthe inhabitants of Jerusalem, might have known those things which\nbelonged to your peace. I was then willing to gather you, as a hen\ngathereth her chickens, but as ye would not suffer me, the things\nbelonging to your peace are now hid from your eyes. Ye would not attend\nto the impressions by God's Holy Spirit, when your feelings were tender\nand penetrable, and therefore now, the day having passed over, ye have\nlost the power of discerning them.\n\n[Footnote 42: Psalm 81. 11,12]\n\n[Footnote 43: Luke 19, 42.]\n\nThose, on the other hand, who, during this visitation of the Holy\nSpirit, attend to its suggestions or warnings, are said to be in the\nway of their redemption or salvation.\n\nThese sentiments of the Quakers on this subject are beautifully\ndescribed by Monro, in his just measures of the pious institutions of\nyouth. \"The Holy Spirit,\" says he, \"solicits and importunes those who are\nin a state of sin, to return, by inward motions and impressions, by\nsuggesting good thoughts and prompting to pious resolutions, by checks\nand controls, by conviction of sin and duty; sometimes by frights and\nterrors, and other whiles by love and endearments: But if men,\nnotwithstanding all his loving solicitations, do still cherish and\ncleave to their lusts, and persevere in a state of sin, they are then\nsaid to resist the Holy Ghost, whereby their condition becomes very\ndeplorable, and their conversion very difficult; for the more men resist\nthe importunities, and stifle the motions of the Holy Spirit, the\nstronger do the chains of their corruption and servitude become. Every\nnew act of sin gives these a degree of strength, and consequently puts a\nnew obstacle in the way of conversion; and when sin is turned into an\ninveterate and rooted habit, (which by reiterated commissions and long\ncontinuance it is) then it becomes a nature, and is with as much\ndifficulty altered as nature is. Can the Ethiopian change his colour,\nor the Leopard his spots? Then may you also do good, who are accustomed\nto do evil.\"\n\n\"The Holy Spirit again,\" says he, \"inspires the prayers of those who, in\nconsequence of his powerful operations, have crucified the flesh with\nthe affections and lusts, with devout and filial affections, and makes\nintercession for them with sighs and groans that cannot be uttered. He\nguides and manages them. The sons of God are led by the spirit of god.\nHe makes, his blessed fruits, righteousness, peace, joy, and divine\nlove, more and more to abound in them; he confirms them in goodness,\npersuades them to perseverance, and seals them to the day of\nredemption.\"\n\nThe Quakers usually elucidate this visitation, treatment, and influence\nof the Holy Spirit, by the parable of the sower, as recorded by three of\nthe Evangelists. \"Now the seed is the word of God.\" But as the word of\nGod and the spirit, according to St. John the Evangelist, are the same,\nthe parable is considered by the Quakers as relating to that divine\nlight or spirit which is given to man for his spiritual instruction and\nsalvation. As the seed was sown in all sorts of ground, good, bad, and\nindifferent, so this light or spirit is afforded, without exception, to\nall. As thorns choked this seed, and hindered it from coming to\nperfection, so bad customs, or the pleasures and cares of the world,\nhinder men from attending to this divine principle within them, and\nrender it unfruitful in their hearts. And as the seed in the good ground\nwas not interrupted, and therefore produced fruit in abundance, so this\nspiritual principle, where it is not checked, but received and\ncherished, produces also abundance of spiritual fruit in the inward man,\nby putting him into the way of redemption from sin, or of holiness of\nlife.\n\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_The spirit of God, therefore, besides its office of a teacher, performs\nthat of a Redeemer of men--Redemption outward and inward--Outward is by\nthe sufferings of Jesus Christ--These produce forgiveness of past sins,\nand put men into a capacity of salvation--inward, or the office now\nalluded to, is by the operation of the spirit--This converts men, and\npreserves them from sins to come--outward and inward connected with each\nother._\n\n\nThe spirit of God, which we have seen to be given to men, and to be\ngiven them universally, to enable them to distinguish between 'good and\nevil, was given them also, the Quakers believe, for another purpose,\nnamely, to redeem or save them. Redemption and salvation, in this\nsense,' are the same, in the language of the Quakers, and mean a\npurification from the sins or pollutions of the world, so that a new\nbirth may be produced, and maintained in the inward man.\n\nAs the doctrine of the Quakers, with respect to redemption, differs from\nthat which generally obtains, I shall allot this chapter to an\nexplanation of the distinctions, which the Quakers usually make upon\nthis subject.\n\nThe Quakers never make use of the words \"original sin,\" because these\nare never to be found in the sacred writings. They consider man,\nhowever, as in a fallen or degraded state, and as inclined and liable to\nsin. They consider him, in short, as having the seed of sin within him,\nwhich he inherited from his parent Adam. But though they acknowledge\nthis, they dare not say, that sin is imputed to him on account of Adam's\ntransgression, or that he is chargeable with sin, until he actually\ncommits it.\n\nAs every descendant, however, of Adam, has this seed within him, which,\namidst the numerous temptations that beset him, he allows sometime or\nother to germinate, so he stands in need of a Redeemer; that is, of some\npower that shall be able to procure pardon for past offences, and of\nsome power that shall be able to preserve him in the way of holiness for\nthe future. To expiate himself, in a manner satisfactory to the\nAlmighty, for so foot a stain upon his nature as that of sin, is utterly\nbeyond his abilities; for no good action, that he can do, can do away\nthat which has been once done. And to preserve himself in a state of\nvirtue for the future, is equally out of his own power, because this\ncannot be done by any effort of his reason, but only by the conversion\nof his heart. It has therefore pleased the Almighty to find a remedy for\nhim in each of these cases. Jesus Christ, by the sacrifice of his own\nbody, expiates for sins that are past, and the spirit of God, which has\nbeen afforded to him, as a spiritual teacher, has the power of cleansing\nand purifying the heart so thoroughly, that he may be preserved from\nsins to come.\n\nThat forgiveness of past sins is procured by the sacrifice of Jesus\nChrist, is obvious from various passages in the holy scriptures. Thus\nthe apostle Paul says, that Jesus Christ [44] \"was set forth to be a\npropitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness\nfor the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God.\"\nAnd in his epistle to the Colossians he says, [45] \"In whom we have\nredemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.\" This\nredemption may be called outward, because it has been effected by\noutward means, or by the outward sufferings of Jesus Christ; and it is\nconsidered as putting men, in consequence of this forgiveness, into the\ncapacity of salvation. The Quakers, however, attribute this redemption\nwholly to the love of God, and not to the impossibility of his\nforgiveness without a plenary satisfaction, or to the motive of heaping\nall his vengeance on the head of Jesus Christ, that he might appease his\nown wrath.\n\n[Footnote 44: Rom. 3.25.]\n\n[Footnote 45: Coloss. 1.14.]\n\nThe other redemption, on the other hand, is called inward, because it is\nconsidered by the Quakers to be an inward redemption from the power of\nsin, or a cleansing the heart from the pollutions of the world. This\ninward redemption is produced by the spirit of God, as before stated,\noperating on the hearts of men, and so cleansing and purifying them, as\nto produce a new birth in the inward man; so that the same spirit of\nGod, which has been given to men in various degrees since the\nfoundation of the world, as a teacher in their spiritual concerns, which\nhath visited every man in his day, and which hath exhorted and reproved\nhim for his spiritual welfare[46], has the power of preserving him from\nfuture sin, and of leading him to salvation.\n\n[Footnote 46: The Quakers believe, however, that this spirit was more\nplentifully diffused, and that greater gifts were given to man, after\nJews was glorified, than before. Ephes. 4.8.]\n\nThat this inward redemption is performed by the spirit of God, the\nQuakers show from various passages in the sacred writings. Thus St. Paul\nsays, [47] \"According to his mercy he hath saved us by the washing of\nregeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost.\" The same apostle\nsays, again, [48] \"It is the law of the Spirit that maketh free from the\nlaw of sin and death.\" And again--[49] \"As many as are led by the spirit\nof God, they are the sons of God.\"\n\n[Footnote 47: Titus 3.5.]\n\n[Footnote 48: Rom. 8.2.]\n\n[Footnote 49: Rom. 8.14.]\n\nThe Quakers say, that this inward redemption or salvation as effected by\nthe spirit, is obvious also from the experience of all good men, or from\nthe manner in which many have experienced a total conversion or change\nof heart. For though there are undoubtedly some who have gone on so\ngradually in their reformation from vice to virtue, that it may have\nbeen considered to be the effect of reason, which has previously\ndetermined on the necessity of a holy life, yet the change from vice to\nholiness has often been so rapid and decisive, as to leave no doubt\nwhatever, that it could not have been produced by any effort of reason,\nbut only by some divine operation, which could only have been that of\nthe spirit of God.\n\nOf these two kinds of redemption, the outward and the inward, of which\nthe latter will be the subject of our consideration, it may be observed,\nthat they go hand in hand together[50]. St. Paul has coupled them in\nthese words: \"for if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by\nthe death of his son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by\nhis life;\" that is, by the life of his spirit working inwardly in\nus.--And as they go together in the mind of the apostle, so they go\ntogether as to the benefit of their effects. For, in the first place,\nthe outward redemption takes place, when the inward has begun. And,\nsecondly, the outward redemption, or the sufferings of Jesus Christ,\nwhich redeem from past sins, cannot have any efficacy till the inward\nhas begun, or while men remain in their sins; or, in other words, no man\ncan be entitled to the forgiveness of sins that have been committed,\ntill there has been a change in the inward man; for St. John intimates,\nthat [51]the blood of Christ does not cleanse from sin, except men walk\nin the light, or, to use an expression synonymous with the Quakers,\nexcept men walk in the spirit.\n\n[Footnote 50: Rom, 5. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 51: John I. 6.7.]\n\n\nSECT. III.\n\n_Inward redemption, which thus goes on by the operation of the Holy\nSpirit, has the power of producing a new birth in men--This office of\nthe spirit acknowledged by other Christians--Monro--Hammond--Locke--It\nhas the power also of leading to perfection--Sentiments of the Quakers\nas to perfection--and of the ever memorable John Hales--Gell--Monro\n--This power of inward redemption bestowed upon all._\n\n\nThe sufferings then of Jesus Christ, having by means of the forgiveness\nof past sins, put men into a capacity for salvation, the remaining part\nof salvation, or the inward redemption of man, is performed by the\noperation of the Holy Spirit; of which, however, it must be remembered,\nthat a more plentiful diffusion is considered by the Quakers to have\nbeen given to men after the ascension of Jesus Christ, than at any\nformer period.\n\nThe nature of this inward redemption, or the nature of this new office,\nwhich it performs in addition to that of a religious teacher, may be\nseen in the following account.\n\nIt has the power, the Quakers believe, of checking and preventing bad\ninclinations and passions; of cleansing and purifying the heart; of\ndestroying the carnal mind; of making all old things pass away; of\nintroducing new; of raising our spiritual senses, so as to make us\ndelight in the things of God, and to put us above the enjoyment of\nearthly pleasures. Redeeming thus from the pollutions of the world, and\nleading to spiritual purity, it forms a new creature. It produces the\nnew man in the heart. It occasions a man by its quickening power to be\nborn again, and thus puts him into the way of salvation. [52] \"For verily\nI say unto thee, says Jesus Christ to Nicodemus, except a man be born\nagain, he cannot see the kingdom of God.\"\n\n[Footnote 52: John 3.3.]\n\nThis office and power of the spirit of God is acknowledged by other\nChristians. Monro, who has been before quoted, observes, \"that the soul,\nbeing thus raised from the death of sin and born again, is divinely\nanimated, and discovers that it is alive by the vital operations which\nit performs.\"\n\n\"Again, says he, this blissful presence, the regenerate who are\ndelivered from the dominion, and cleansed from the impurities of sin,\nhave recovered, and it is on the account of it, that they are said to be\nan habitation of God through the spirit and the temples of the Holy\nGhost. For that good spirit takes possession of them, resides in their\nhearts, becomes the mover, enlightener, and director of all their\nfaculties and powers, gives a new and heavenly tincture and tendency to\nall their inclinations and desires, and, in one word, is the great\nspring of all they think, or do, or say; and hence it is that they are\nsaid to walk no more after the flesh, but after the spirit, and to be\nled by the spirit of God.\"\n\nDr. Hammond, in his paraphrase and annotations on the New Testament,\nobserves, that \"he who hath been born of God, is literally he who hath\nhad such a blessed change wrought in him by the operation of God's\nspirit in his heart, as to be translated from the power of darkness into\nthe kingdom of his dear Son.\"\n\n\"As Christ in the flesh, says the great and venerable Locke, was wholly\nexempt from all taint and sin, so we, by that spirit which was in him,\nshall be exempt from the dominion of carnal lusts, if we make it our\nchoice, and endeavour to live after the spirit.\"\n\n\"Here the apostle, says Locke, shows that Christians are delivered from\nthe dominion of their carnal lusts by the spirit of God that is given to\nthem, and dwells in them, as a new quickening principle and power, by\nwhich they are put into the state of a spiritual life, wherein their\nmembers are made capable of becoming the instruments of righteousness.\"\n\nAnd this spirit of God, which thus redeems from the pollutions of the\nworld, and puts a new heart as it were into man, is considered by the\nQuakers as so powerful in its operations, as to be able to lead him to\nperfection. By this the Quakers do not mean to say, that the perfection\nof man is at all like the perfection of God; because the perfection of\nthe former is capable of growth. They believe, however, that, in his\nrenewed state, he may be brought to be so perfect, as to be able to keep\nthose commandments of God which are enjoined him. In this sense they\nbelieve it is, that Noah is called by Moses [53]a just and perfect man\nin his generation; and that Job is described [54]as a perfect and an\nupright man; and that the evangelist Luke speaks of Zacharias and\nElizabeth in these words--[55] \"They were both righteous before God, and\nwalked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.\"\n\n[Footnote 53: Gen. 6. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 54: Job 1. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 55: Luke 1. 6.]\n\nThat man, who is renewed in heart, can attain this degree of perfection,\nthe Quakers think it but reasonable to suppose. For to think that God\nhas given man any law to keep, which it is impossible for him, when\naided by his Holy Spirit, to keep, or to think that the power of Satan\ncan be stronger in man than the power of Christ, is to think very\ninadequately of the Almighty, and to cast a dishonourable reflection on\nhis goodness, his justice, and his power. Add to which, that there would\nnot have been such expressions in the New Testament, as those of Jesus\nChrist--\"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in\nHeaven is perfect\"--Nor would there have been other expressions of the\nApostles of a similar meaning, if the renewed man had not possessed the\npower of doing the will of God.\n\nThis doctrine of perfection brought the Quakers into disputes with\npersons of other religions denominations, at the time of their\nestablishment. But, however it might be disapproved of, it was not new\nin these times; nor was it originally introduced by them. Some of the\nfathers of the church, and many estimable divines of different\ncountries, had adopted it. And here it may be noticed, that the doctrine\nhad been received also by several of the religious in our own.\n\nIn the golden remains of the ever memorable John Hales, we find, that\n\"through the grace of Him that doth enable as, we are stronger than\nSatan, and the policy of Christian warfare hath as many means to keep\nback and defend, as the deepest reach of Satan hath to give the onset.\"\n\n\"St. Augustine, says this amiable writer, was of opinion, that it was\npossible for us even in this natural life, seconded by the grace of God,\nperfectly to accomplish what the law requires at our hands.\" In the\nGolden Remains, many sentiments are to be found of the same tenour.\n\nBacon, who collected and published Dr. Robert Gell's remains, says in\nhis preface, that Dr. Gell preached before King Charles the first on\nEphesians 4. 10. at New-Market, in the year 1631, a bold discourse, yet\nbecoming him, testifying before the King that doctrine he taught to his\nlife's end, \"the possibility, through grace, of keeping the law of God\nin this life.\" Whoever reads these venerable Remains, will find this\ndoctrine inculcated in them.\n\nMonro, who lived some time after Dr. Gell, continued the same doctrine:\nSo great, says he, in his just measures, is the goodness and benignity\nof God, and so perfect is the justice of his nature, that he will not,\ncannot command impossibilities. Whatever he requires of mankind by way\nof duty, he enables them to perform it--His grace goes before and\nassists their endeavours; so that when they do not comply with his\ninjunctions, it is because they will not employ the power that he has\ngiven them, and which he is ready to increase and heighten, upon their\ndutiful improvement of what they have already received, and their\nserious application to him for more.\n\nAgain--\"Though of ourselves, and without Christ, we can do nothing; yet\nwith him we can do all things: and then, he adds a little lower, why\nshould any duties frighten us, or seem impossible to us?\"\n\nHaving now stated it to be the belief of the Quakers, that the spirit of\nGod acts as an inward redeemer to man, and that its powers are such that\nit may lead him to perfection in the way explained, it remains for me to\nobserve, that it is their belief also, that this spirit has been given\nfor these purposes, without any exception, to all of the human race: or\nin the same manner as it was given as an universal teacher, so it has\nbeen given as an universal redeemer to man, and that it acts in this\ncapacity, and fulfils its office to all those who attend to its inward\nstrivings, and encourage its influence on their hearts.\n\nThat it was given to all for this purpose, they believe to be manifest\nfrom the Apostle Paul:[56] \"for the grace of God, says he, which bringeth\nsalvation, hath appeared unto all men.\" He says again,[57] that \"the\nGospel was preached unto every creature which is under Heaven.\" He\ndefines the Gospel to be[58] \"the power of God unto salvation to every\none that believeth.\" He means therefore that this power of inward\nredemption was afforded to all. For the outward Gospel had not been\npreached to all in the time of the apostle; nor has it been preached to\nall even at the present day. But these passages are of universal import.\nThey imply no exception. They comprehend every individual of the human\nrace.\n\n[Footnote 56: Titus 2.11.]\n\n[Footnote 57: Coloss. 1.23.]\n\n[Footnote 58: Rom. 1.16.]\n\nThat this spirit was also given to all for these purposes, the Quakers\nbelieve, when they consider other passages in the scriptures, which\nappear to them to belong to this subject. For they consider this spirit\nto have begun its office as an inward redeemer[59] with the fall of the\nfirst man, and to have continued it through the patriarchal ages to the\ntime of the outward Gospel, when there was to be no other inward\nredemption but by the same means. Thus by the promise which was given to\nAdam, there was to be perpetual enmity between the seed of the serpent\nand the seed of the woman, though the latter was to vanquish, or as, the\nQuakers interpret it, between the spirit of sin and the spirit of God,\nthat was placed in man. This promise was fully accomplished by Jesus,\n(who came from the woman) after he had received immeasurably the spirit\nof God, or after he had become the Christ. But the Quakers consider it\nto have bean partially accomplished by many from the time of Adam; for\nthey believe that many, who have attended to the seed of God, or, which\nis the same thing,[60] to the portion of the spirit of God within them,\nhave witnessed the enmity alluded to, and have bruised, in a great\ndegree, the power of sin within their own hearts, or have experienced in\nthese early times the redeeming power of the spirit of God. And except\nthis be the case, the Quakers conceive some of the passages, which they\nsuppose to relate to this subject, not to be so satisfactorily\nexplicable as they might be rendered. For it is said of Abraham, that he\nsaw Christ's day. But as Abraham died long before the visible appearance\nof Christ in the flesh, he could neither have seen Christ outwardly, nor\nhis day. It is still affirmed that he saw Christ's day. And the Quakers\nsay they believe he saw him inwardly, for he witnessed in his own\nspirit, which is the same thing, the redeeming power of the spirit of\nGod. For as the world was made by the spirit, or by the word, which is\nfrequently interpreted to be Christ, so these terms are synonimous, and\noften used the one for the other. The Quakers therefore believe Abraham\nto have experienced in a very high degree the power[61] of this inward\nredemption. They believe also that Job experienced it in an\nextraordinary manner. For he asserted that he knew \"that his redeemer\nlived.\" But Job could never have said this, except be had alluded to the\npowerful influence within him, which had purified his heart from the\npollutions of sin. For being as early as the time of Moses, he could\nnever have seen any of the sacred writings which mentioned Jesus Christ\nas a redeemer, or the person of Jesus Christ.\n\n[Footnote 59: In the same manner Jesus Christ having tasted death for\nevery man, the sacrifice, or outward redemption, looks backwards and\nforwards, as well to Adam as to those who lived after the Gospel times.]\n\n[Footnote 60: 1 John. 3. 9. Whosoever is born of God does not commit\nsin, for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is\nborn of God.]\n\n[Footnote 61: The Quakers do not deny, that Abraham might have seen\nChrist prophetically, but they believe he saw him particularly in the\nway described.]\n\nThe Quakers also consider David, from the numerous expressions to be\nfound in the Psalms, as having experienced this inward redemption also,\nand in the same manner as they conceive this spirit to have striven with\nAbraham, and Job, and David, so they conceive it to have striven with\nothers of the same nation for their inward redemption to the time of\nJesus Christ. They believe again, that it has striven with all the\nHeathen nations, from the foundation of the world to the same period.\nAnd they believe also, that it has continued its office of a redeemer to\nall people, whether Jews, Heathens, or Christians, from the time of\nJesus Christ to the present day.\n\n\nSECT. IV.\n\n_Proposition of the new birth and perfection, as hitherto explained in\nthe ordinary way--New view of the subject from a more particular detail\nof the views and expressions of the Quakers concerning it--A new\nspiritual birth as real from the spiritual seed of the kingdom, as that\nof plants or vegetables from their seeds in the natural world--And the\nnew birth proceeds really in the same progressive manner, to maturity or\nperfection--Result of this new view the same as that in the former\nsection._\n\n\nI stated in the last section that the spirit of God is considered by\nthe Quakers as an inward redeemer to men, and that, in this office, it\nhas the power of producing a new birth in them, and of leading them to\nperfection in the way described. This proposition, however, I explained\nonly in the ordinary way. But as the Quakers have a particular way of\nviewing and expressing it, and as they deem it one of the most\nimportant of their religious propositions, I trust I shall, be excused\nby the reader, if I allot one other section to this subject.\n\nJesus Christ states, as was said before, in the most clear and positive\nterms, that [62] \"except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom\nof heaven.\"\n\n[Footnote 62: John 3. 3.]\n\nNow the great work of religion is salvation or redemption. Without this\nno man can see God; and therefore the meaning of the words of Jesus\nChrist will be this, that, except a man be born again, he cannot\nexperience that inward redemption which shall enable him to see the\nkingdom of heaven.\n\nRedemption then is necessary to qualify for a participation of the\nheavenly joys, and it is stated to take place by means of the new birth.\n\nThe particular ideas then, which the Quakers have relative to the new\nbirth and perfection, are the following. In the same manner as the\nDivine Being has scattered the seeds of plants and vegetables in the\nbody of the earth, so he has implanted a portion of his own\nincorruptible seed, or of that which, in scripture language, is called\nthe \"Seed of the Kingdom,\" in the soul of every individual of the human\nrace. As the sun by its genial influence quickens the vegetable seed, so\nit is the office of the Holy Spirit, in whom is life, and who resides in\nthe temple of man, to quicken that which is heavenly. And in the same\nmanner as the vegetable seed conceives and brings forth a plant, or a\ntree with stem and branches; so if the soul, in which the seed of the\nkingdom is placed, be willing to receive the influence of the Holy\nSpirit upon it, this seed is quickened and a spiritual offspring is\nproduced. Now this offspring is as real a birth from the seed in the\nsoul by means of the spirit, as the plant from its own seed by means of\nthe influence of the sun. \"The seed of the kingdom, says Isaac\nPennington, consists not in words or notions of mind, but is an inward\nthing, an inward spiritual substance in the heart, as real inwardly in\nits kind, as other seeds are outwardly in their kind. And being received\nby faith, and taking root in man, (his heart, his earth, being ploughed\nup and prepared for it,) it groweth up inwardly, as truly and really, as\nany outward seed doth outwardly.\"\n\nWith respect to the offspring thus produced in the soul of man, it maybe\nvariously named. As it comes from the incorruptible seed of God, it may\nbe called a birth of the divine nature or life. As it comes by the\nagency of the spirit, it may be called the life of the spirit. As it is\nnew, it may be called the new man or creature: or it may have the\nappellation of a child of God: or it is that spiritual life and light,\nor that spiritual, principle and power within us, which may be called\nthe Anointed, or Christ within.\n\n\"As this seed, says Barclay, is received in the heart and suffered to\nbring forth its natural and proper effect, Christ comes to be formed and\nraised, called in scripture the new man, Christ within us, the hope of\nglory. Yet herein they (the Quakers) do not equal themselves with the\nholy man, the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom the fulness of the Godhead\ndwelt bodily, neither destroy his present existence. For though they\naffirm Christ dwells in them, yet not immediately, but mediately, as he\nis in that seed which is in them.\"\n\nOf the same opinion was the learned Cudworth. \"We all, says he, receive\nof his fulness grace for grace, as all the stars in heaven are said to\nlight their candles at the sun's flame. For though his body be withdrawn\nfrom us, yet by the lively and virtual contact of his spirit, he is\nalways kindling, cheering, quickening, warming, and enlivening hearts.\nNay, this divine life begun and kindled in any heart, wheresoever it be,\nis something of God in flesh, and in a sober and qualified sense,\ndivinity incarnate; and all particular Christians, that are really\npossessed of it, are so many mystical Christs.\"\n\nAgain--\"Never was any tender infant so dear to those bowels that begat\nit, as an infant newborn Christ, formed in the heart of any true\nbeliever, to God the Father of it.\"\n\nThis account relative to the new birth the Quakers conceive to be\nstrictly deducible from the Holy Scriptures. It is true, they conceive,\nas far as the new birth relates to God and to the seed, and to the\nspirit, from the following passages: [63] \"Whosoever is born of God doth\nnot commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him.\" [64] \"Being born again,\nnot of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God.\"\n[65] \"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.\" It is\nconsidered to be true again, as far as the new birth relates to the\ncreature born and to the name which it may bear, from these different\nexpressions: [66] \"Of whom I travail in birth again, till Christ be\nformed in you.\" [68] \"Nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth\nin me.\" [69] \"But ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry\nAbba, Father.\" [70] \"But as many as received him, that is, the spirit or\nword, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.\" [71] \"For as many\nas are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of God.\" And as\nparents and children resemble one another, so believers are made [72]\n\"conformable to the image of his son,\" \"who is the image of the invisible\nGod.\"\n\n[Footnote 63: 1 John 3. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 64: 1 Peter 1. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 65: James 1. 18.]\n\n[Footnote 66: Gal. 4. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 67: Gal. 2.20.]\n\n[Footnote 68: Rom. 8.15.]\n\n[Footnote 69: John 1. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 70: Rom. 3. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 71: Rom. 8. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 72: Coloss. 1. 15.]\n\nHaving explained in what the new birth consists, or having shown,\naccording to Barclay, [73] \"that the seed is a real spiritual\nsubstance, which the soul of man is capable of feeling and apprehending,\nfrom which that real spiritual inward birth arises, called the new\ncreature or the new man in the heart,\" it remains to show how believers,\nor those in whose souls Christ is thus produced, may be said to grow up\nto perfection; for by this real birth or geniture in them they come to\nhave those spiritual senses raised, by which they are made capable of\ntasting, smelling, seeing, and handling, the things of God.\n\n[Footnote 73: P. 139. Ed. 8.]\n\nIt may be observed then, that in the new birth a progress is\nexperienced from infancy to youth, and from youth to manhood. As it is\nonly by submission to the operation of the spirit that this birth can\ntake place, so it is only by a like submission, that any progress or\ngrowth from one stature to another will be experienced in it; neither\ncan the regenerated become instrumental in the redemption of others, any\nfarther or otherwise than as Christ or the anointing dwells and operates\nin them, teaching them all truths necessary to be known, and\nstrengthening them to perform every act necessary to be done for this\npurpose. He must be their only means and [74] \"hope of glory.\" It will\nthen be that the [75] \"creature which waiteth in earnest expectation for\nthe manifestation of the sons of God, will be delivered from the bondage\nof corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.\" For\n[76] \"if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are\npassed away; behold, all things are become new, and all things of God.\"\n\n[Footnote 74: Coloss. 1. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 75: Rom. 8. 19, 21.]\n\n[Footnote 76: Cor. 5. 17, 18.]\n\nThey who are the babes of the regeneration begin to see spiritual\nthings. The natural man, the mere creature, never saw God. But the\nbabes, who cry Abba, Father, begin to see and to know him. Though as yet\nunskilful in the word of righteousness, [77] \"they desire the sincere\nmilk of the word, that they may grow thereby.\" And [78] \"their sins are\nforgiven them.\"\n\n[Footnote 77: 1 Pet 2. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 78: 1 John 2. 12.]\n\nThey, who are considered as the young men in this state, are said to be\n[79] \"spiritually strong, and the word of God abiding in them, to have\novercome the wicked one.\"\n\n[Footnote 79: 1 John 2. 14.]\n\nThey, who have attained a state of manhood, are called fathers, or are\nsaid to be of full age, and to be capable of taking strong meat.\n[80] \"They come, in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son\nof God, unto perfect men, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness\nof Christ. They arrive at such a state of stability, that they are no\nmore children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of\ndoctrine; but speaking the truth in love, grow up unto him in all\nthings, which is the head, even Christ.\" [81] \"The old man with his deeds\nbeing put off, they have put on the new man, which is renewed in\nknowledge after the image of him that created him.\" [82] \"They are\nwashed, they are sanctified, they are justified in the name of the Lord\nJesus, and in the spirit of our God.\" The new creation is thus\ncompleted, and the sabbath wherein man ceases from his own works,\ncommences; so that every believer can then say with the apostle, [83] \"I\nam crucified with Christ. Nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ\nliveth in me. And the life, which I now live in the flesh, I live by the\nfaith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.\"\n\n[Footnote 80: Eph. 4. 13.14.15.]\n\n[Footnote 81: Col. 3.9.10.]\n\n[Footnote 82: 1 Cor. 6.11.]\n\n[Footnote 83: Gal. 2.20.]\n\nBut this state of manhood, [84] \"by which the man of God may be made\nperfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, does not take place,\nuntil Christ be fully formed in the souls of believers, or till they are\nbrought wholly under his rule and government. He must be substantially\nformed in them. He must actually be their life, and their hope of glory.\nHe must be their head and governor. As the head, and the body, and the\nmembers are one, according to the apostle, but the head directs; so\nChrist, and, believers in whom Christ is born and formed, are one\nspiritual body, which he himself must direct also. Thus Christ, where he\nis fully formed in man, or where believers are grown up to the measure\nof the stature and fulness of sonship, is the head of every man, and God\nis the head of Christ. Thus Christ the begotten entirely governs the\nwhole man, as the head directs and governs all the members of the body;\nand God the Father, as the head of Christ, entirely guides and governs\nthe begotten. Hence, believers [85] 'are Christ's, and Christ is God's;'\nso that ultimately God is all in all.\"\n\n[Footnote 84: 2 Tim. 9.17.]\n\n[Footnote 85: Cor. 9.23.]\n\nHaving given this new view of the subject, I shall only observe farther\nupon it, that the substance of this chapter turns out to be the same as\nthat of the preceding, or according to the notions of the Quakers, that\ninward redemption cannot be effected but through the medium of the\nspirit of God. For Christ, according to the ideas now held out, must be\nformed in man, and he must rule them before they can experience full\ninward redemption; or, in other words, they cannot experience this\ninward redemption, except they can truly say that he governs them, or\nexcept they can truly call him Governor, or Lord. But no person can say\nthat Christ rules in him, except he undergoes the spiritual process of\nregeneration which has been described, or to use the words of the\nApostle, [86] \"No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy\nSpirit.[87]\"\n\n[Footnote 86: 1 Cor. 12.6]\n\n[Footnote 87: The reader will easily discern from this new view of the\nnew birth, how men, according to the Quakers, become partakers of the\ndivine nature, and how the Quakers make it out, that Abraham and others\nsaw Christ's day, as I mentioned in a former chapter.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\n\nSECT. I.\n\n_Quakers believe from the foregoing accounts, that redemption is\npossible to all--Hence they deny the doctrine of election and\nreprobation--do not deny the texts on which it is founded, but the\ninterpretation of them--as contrary to the doctrines of Jesus Christ and\nthe Apostles--as making his mission unnecessary--as rendering many\nprecepts useless--and as casting a stain on the character and attributes\nof God._\n\n\nIt will appear from the foregoing observations, that it Is the belief of\nthe Quakers, that every man has the power of inward redemption within\nhimself, who attends to the strivings of the Holy Spirit, and that as\noutward redemption by the sufferings of Jesus Christ extends to all,\nwhere the inward has taken place, so redemption or salvation, in its\nfull extent, is possible to every individual of the human race.\n\nThis position, however, is denied by those Christians, who have\npronounced in favour of the doctrine of election and reprobation;\nbecause, if they believe some predestined from all eternity to eternal\nhappiness, and the rest to eternal misery, they must then believe that\nsalvation is not possible to all, and that it was not intended to be\nuniversal.\n\nThe Quakers have attempted to answer the objections, which have been\nthus made to their theory of redemption; and as the reader will probably\nexpect that I should notice what they have said upon this subject, I\nhave reserved the answers they have given for the present place.\n\nThe Quakers do not deny the genuineness of any of those texts, which are\nusually advanced against them. Of all people, they fly the least to the\ncover of interpolation or mutilation of scripture to shield themselves\nfrom the strokes of their opponents. They believe, however, that there\nare passages in the sacred writings, which will admit of an\ninterpretation different from that which has been assigned them by many,\nand upon this they principally rely in the present case. If there are\npassages, to which two meanings may be annexed, and if for one there is\nequal authority as for the other, yet if one meaning should destroy all\nthe most glorious attributes of the supreme being, and the other should\npreserve them as recognized in the other parts of the scripture, they\nthink they are bound to receive that which favours the justice, mercy,\nand wisdom of God, rather than that which makes him appear both unjust\nand cruel.\n\nThe Quakers believe, that some Christians have misunderstood the texts\nwhich they quote in favour of the doctrine of election and reprobation,\nfor the following reasons:--\n\nFirst, because if God had from all eternity predestinated some to\neternal happiness, and the rest to eternal misery, the mission of Jesus\nChrist upon earth became unnecessary, and his mediation ineffectual.\n\nIf this again had been a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, it never\ncould have been overlooked, (considering that it is of more importance\nto men than any other) by the founder of that religion. But he never\ndelivered any words in the course of his ministry, from whence any\nreasonable conclusion could be drawn, that such a doctrine formed any\npart of the creed which he intended to establish among men. His doctrine\nwas that of mercy, tenderness, and love; in which he inculcated the\npower and efficacy of repentance, and declared there was more joy in\nHeaven over one sinner that repented, than over ninety-nine just persons\nwho needed no repentance.\n\nBy the parable of the sower, which the Quakers consider to relate wholly\nto the word or spirit of God, it appears that persons of all description\nwere visited equally for their salvation; and that their salvation\ndepended much upon themselves; and that where obstacles arose, they\narose from themselves also, by allowing temptations, persecutions, and\nthe cares of the world, to overcome them. In short, the Quakers believe,\nthat the doctrine of election and reprobation is contrary to the whole\ntenour of the doctrines promulgated by Jesus Christ.\n\nThey conceive also, that this doctrine is contrary to the doctrines\npromulgated by the Evangelists and Apostles, and particularly contrary\nto those of St. Paul himself, from whom it is principally taken. To make\nthis Apostle contradict himself, they dare not. And they must therefore\nconclude, either that no person has rightly understood it, and that it\nhas been hitherto kept in mystery; or, if it be intelligible to the\nhuman understanding, it must be explained by comparing it with other\ntexts of the same Apostle, as well as with those of others, and always\nin connexion with the general doctrines of Christianity, and the\ncharacter and attributes of God. Now the Apostle Paul, who is considered\nto [88] intimate, that God predestined some to eternal salvation, and\nthe rest to eternal misery, says, [89]that \"God made of one blood all\nnations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth;\" that, in the\nGospel dispensation, [90] \"there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision\nnor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free.\" [91]He\ndesires also Timothy \"to make prayers and supplications and\nintercessions for all men;\" which the Quakers conceive he could not have\ndone, if he had not believed it to be possible, that all might be saved.\n\"For this is acceptable, says he, in the sight of our Saviour, who will\nhave all men to be saved; for there is one God and one mediator between\nGod and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.\"\nAgain, he says,[92] that \"Jesus Christ tasted death for every man.\" And\nin another place he says, [93] \"The grace of God, which bringeth\nsalvation, has appeared unto all men.\" But if this grace has appeared to\nall, none can have been without it. And if its object be salvation, then\nall must have had sufficient of it to save them, if obedient to its\nsaving operations.\n\n[Footnote 88: Romans, Chap. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 89: Acts 17. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 90: Coloss. 3. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 91: 1 Tim. 2. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 92: Hebrews 2. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 93: Titus 2. 11.]\n\nAgain, if the doctrine of election and reprobation be true, then the\nrecommendations of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and particularly of\nPaul himself, can be of no avail, and ought never to have been given.\nPrayer is inculcated by these as an acceptable duty. But why should men\npray, if they are condemned before-hand, and if their destiny is\ninevitable? If the doctrine again be true, then all the exhortations to\nrepentance, which are to be found in the scriptures, must be\nunnecessary. For why should men repent, except for a little temporary\nhappiness in this world, if they cannot be saved in a future? This\ndoctrine is considered by the Quakers as making the precepts of the\nApostles unnecessary; as setting aside the hopes and encouragements of\nthe Gospel; and as standing in the way of repentance or holiness of\nlife.\n\nThis doctrine again they consider as objectionable, in as much as it\nobliges men to sin, and charges them with the commission of it. It makes\nalso the fountain of all purity the fountain of all sin; and the author\nof all good the dispenser of all evil. It gives to the Supreme Being a\nmalevolence that is not to be found in the character of the most\nmalevolent of his creatures. It makes him more cruel than the most cruel\noppressor ever recorded of the human race. It makes him to have\ndeliberately made millions of men, for no other purpose than to stand\nby and delight in their misery and destruction. But is it possible, the\nQuakers say, for this to be true of him, who is thus described by St.\nJohn--\"God is Love?\"\n\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_Quakers' interpretation of the texts which relate to this\ndoctrine--These texts of public and private import--Election, as of\npublic import, relates to offices of usefulness, and not to\nsalvation--as of private, it relates to the Jews--These had been\nelected, but were passed over for the Gentiles--Nothing more\nunreasonable in this than in the case of Ishmael and Esau--or that\nPharaoh's crimes should receive Pharaoh's punishment--But though the\nGentiles were chosen, they could stand in favour no longer than while\nthey were obedient and faithful_.\n\n\nThe Quakers conceive that, in their interpretation of the passages which\nare usually quoted in support of the doctrine of election and\nreprobation, and which I shall now give to the reader, they do no\nviolence to the attributes of the Almighty; but, on the other hand,\nconfirm his wisdom, justice, and mercy, as displayed in the sacred\nwritings, in his religious government of the world.\n\nThese passaged may be considered both as of public and of private\nimport; of public, as they relate to the world at large; of private, as\nthey relate to the Jews, to whom they were addressed by the Apostle.\n\nThe Quakers, in viewing the doctrine as of public import, use the words\n\"called,\" \"predestinated,\" and \"chosen,\" in the ordinary way in which\nthey are used in the scriptures, or in the way in which Christians\ngenerally understand them.\n\nThey believe that the Almighty intended, from the beginning, to make\nboth individuals and nations subservient to the end which he had\nproposed to himself in the creation of the world. For this purpose he\ngave men different measures of his Holy Spirit; and in proportion as\nthey have used these gifts more extensively than others, they, have been\nmore useful among mankind. Now all these may be truly said to have been\ninstruments in the hands of Providence, for the good works which they\nhave severally performed; but, if instruments in his hands, then they\nmay not improperly be stiled chosen vessels. In this sense the Quakers\nview the words \"chosen,\" or \"called.\" In the same sense they view also\nthe word \"preordained;\" but with this difference, that the instruments\nwere foreknown; and that God should have known these instruments\nbefore-hand is not wonderful; for he who created the world, and who, to\nuse an human expression, must see at one glance all that ever has been,\nand that is, and that is to come, must have known the means to be\nemployed, and the characters who were to move, in the execution of his\ndifferent dispensations to the world.\n\nIn this sense the Quakers conceive God may be said to have foreknown,\ncalled, chosen, and preordained Noah, and also Abraham, and also Moses,\nand Aaron, and his sons, and all the prophets, and all the evangelists,\nand apostles, and all the good men, who have been useful in spiritual\nservices in their own generation or day.\n\nIn this sense also many may be said to have been chosen or called in the\ndays of the Apostle Paul; for they are described as having had various\ngifts bestowed upon them by the spirit of God. [94] \"To one was given the\nword of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge; to another the\n'discerning of spirits;' to another prophecy; and to others other kinds\nof gifts. But the self-same spirit worked all these, dividing to every\nman severally as he chose.\" That is, particular persons were 'called by\nthe spirit of God, in the days of the Apostle, to particular offices for\nthe perfecting of his church.\n\n[Footnote 94: 1 Cor. 12. 10. 11.]\n\nIn the same sense the Quakers consider all true ministers of the Gospel\nto be chosen. They believe that no imposition of hands or human\nordination can qualify for this office. God, by means of his Holy Spirit\nalone, prepares such as are to be the vessels in his house. Those\ntherefore, who, in obedience to this spirit, come forth from the\nmultitude to perform spiritual offices, may be said to be called or\nchosen.\n\nIn this sense, nations may be said to be chosen also. Such were the\nIsraelites, who by means of their peculiar laws and institutions, were\nkept apart from the other inhabitants of the world.\n\nNow the dispute is, if any persons should be said to have been chosen in\nthe scripture language, for what purpose they were so chosen. The\nfavourers of the doctrine of election and reprobation, say for their\nsalvation. But the Quakers say, this is no where manifest; for the term\nsalvation is not annexed to any of the passages from which the doctrine\nis drawn. Nor do they believe it can be made to appear from any of the\nscriptural writings, that one man is called or chosen, or predestined to\nsalvation, more than another. They believe, on the other hand, that\nthese words relate wholly to the usefulness of individuals, and that if\nGod has chosen any particular persons, he has chosen them that they\nmight be the ministers of good to others; that they might be spiritual\nlights in the universe; or that they might become, in different times\nand circumstances, instruments of increasing the happiness of their\nfellow-creatures. Thus the Almighty may be said to have chosen Noah, to\nperpetuate the memory of the deluge; to promulgate the origin and\nhistory of mankind; and to become, as St. Peter calls him, \"a preacher\nof righteousness\" to those who were to be the ancestors of men. Thus he\nmay be said to have chosen Moses to give the law, and to lead out the\nIsraelites, and to preserve them as a distinct people, who should carry\nwith them notions of his existence, his providence, and his power. Thus\nhe may be said to have chosen the prophets, that men, in after ages,\nseeing their prophecies accomplished, might believe that Christianity\nwas of divine origin. Thus also he may be said to have chosen Paul,([95]\nand indeed Paul is described as a chosen vessel) to diffuse the Gospel\namong the Gentile world.\n\n[Footnote 95: Acts 9. 15.]\n\nThat the words, called or chosen, relate to the usefulness of\nindividuals in the world, and not to their salvation, the Quakers\nbelieve from examining the comparison or simile, which St. Paul has\nintroduced of the potter and of his clay, upon this very occasion.\n[96] \"Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou\nmade me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump\nto make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?\" This\nsimile, they say, relates obviously to the uses of these vessels. The\npotter makes some for splendid or extraordinary uses and purposes, and\nothers for those which are mean and ordinary. So God has chosen\nindividuals to great and glorious uses, while others remain in the mean\nor common mass, undistinguished by any very active part in the promotion\nof the ends of the world. Nor have the latter any more reason to\ncomplain that God has given to others greater spiritual gifts, than that\nhe has given to one man a better intellectual capacity than to another.\n\n[Footnote 96: Rom. 9. 20. 21.]\n\nThey argue again, that the words \"called or chosen,\" relate to\nusefulness, and not to salvation; because, if men were predestined from\nall eternity to salvation, they could not do any thing to deprive\nthemselves of that salvation; that is, they could never do any wrong in\nthis life, or fall from a state of purity: whereas it appears that many\nof those whom the scriptures consider to have been chosen, have failed\nin their duty to God; that these have had no better ground to stand\nupon than their neighbours; that election has not secured them from the\ndispleasure of the Almighty, but that they have been made to stand or\nfall, notwithstanding their election, as they acted well or ill, God\nhaving conducted himself no otherwise to them, than he has done to\nothers in his moral government of the world.\n\nThat persons so chosen have failed in their duty to God, or that their\nelection has not preserved them from sin, is apparent, it is presumed,\nfrom the scriptures. For, in the first place, the Israelites were a\nchosen people. They were the people to whom the apostle addressed\nhimself, in the chapter which has given rise to the doctrine of election\nand reprobation, as the elected, or as having had the preference over\nthe descendants of Esau and others. And yet this election did not secure\nto them a state of perpetual obedience, or the continual favour of God.\nIn the wilderness they were frequently rebellious, and they were often\npunished. In the time of Malachi, to which the Apostle directs their\nattention, they were grown so wicked, [97]that \"God is said to have no\npleasure in them, and that he would not receive an offering at their\nhands.\" And in subsequent times, or in the time of the Apostle, he tells\nthem, that they were then passed over, notwithstanding their election,\n[98]on account of their want of righteousness and faith, and that the\nGentiles were chosen in their place.\n\nIn the second place, Jesus Christ is said in the New Testament to have\ncalled or chosen his disciples. But this call or election did not secure\nthe good behaviour of Judas, or protect him from the displeasure of his\nmaster.\n\n[Footnote 97: Malachi 1. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 98: Rom, 9. 31. 32.]\n\nIn the third place, it may be observed, that the Apostle Paul considers\nthe churches under his care as called or chosen; as consisting of people\nwho came out of the great body of the Heathen world to become a select\ncommunity under the Christian name. He endeavours to inculcate in them a\nbelief, that they were the Lord's people; that they were under his\nimmediate or particular care; that God knew and loved them, before they\nknew and loved him; and yet this election, it appears, did not secure\nthem from falling off; for many of them became apostates in the time of\nthe Apostle, so \"that he was grieved, fearing he had bestowed upon them\nhis labour in vain.\" Neither did this election secure even to those who\nthen remained in the church, any certainty of salvation; otherwise the\nApostle would not have exhorted them so earnestly \"to continue in\ngoodness, lest they should be cut off.\"\n\nThe Quakers believe again, that the Apostle Paul never included\nsalvation in the words \"called or chosen,\" for another reason. For if\nthese words had implied salvation, then non-election might have implied\nthe destruction annexed to it by the favourers of the doctrine of\nreprobation. But no person, who knows whom the Apostle meant, when he\nmentions those who had received and those who had lost the preference,\nentertains any such notion or idea. For who believes that because Isaac\nis said to have had the preference of Ishmael, and Jacob of Esau, that\ntherefore Ishmael and Esau, who were quite as great princes in their\ntimes as Isaac and Jacob, were to be doomed to eternal misery? Who\nbelieves that this preference, and the Apostle alludes to no other, ever\nrelated to the salvation of souls? Or rather, that it did not wholly\nrelate to the circumstance, that the descendants of Isaac and Jacob were\nto preserve the church of God in the midst of the Heathen nations, and\nthat the Messiah was to come from their own line, instead of that of\ntheir elder brethren. Rejection or reprobation too, in the sense in\nwhich it is generally used by the advocates for the doctrine, is\ncontrary, in a second point of view, in the opinion of the Quakers, to\nthe sense of the comparison or simile made by the Apostle on this\noccasion. For when a Potter makes two sorts of vessels, or such as are\nmean and such as are fine and splendid, he makes them for their\nrespective uses. But he never makes the meaner sort for the purpose of\ndashing them to pieces.\n\nThe doctrine therefore in dispute, if viewed as a doctrine of general\nimport, only means, in the opinion of the Quakers, that the Almighty has\na right to dispose of his spiritual favours as he pleases, and that he\nhas given accordingly different measures of his spirit to different\npeople: but that, in doing this, he does not exclude others from an\nopportunity of salvation or a right to life. On the other hand, they\nbelieve that he is no respecter of persons, only as far as obedience is\nconcerned: that election neither secures of itself good behaviour, nor\nprotects from punishment: that every man who standeth, must take heed\nlest he fall: that no man can boast of his election, so as to look down\nwith contempt upon his meaner brethren: and that there is no other\nfoundation for an expectation of the continuance of divine favour than a\nreligions life.\n\nIn viewing the passages in question as of private import, which is the\nnext view the Quakers take of them, the same lesson, and no other, is\ninculcated. The Apostle, in the ninth chapter of the Romans, addresses\nhimself to the Jews, who had been a chosen people, and rescues the\ncharacter of God from the imputation of injustice, in having passed over\nthem, and in having admitted the Gentiles to a participation of his\nfavours.\n\nThe Jews had depended so much upon their privileges as the children of\nAbraham, and so much upon their ceremonial observances of the law, that\nthey conceived themselves to have a right to continue to be the peculiar\npeople of God. The Apostle, however, teaches them, in the ninth and the\neleventh chapters of the Romans, a different lesson, and may be said to\naddress them in the following manner:--\n\n\"I am truly sorry, my kinsmen in the flesh, that you, who have always\nconsidered yourselves the elder and chosen branches of the family of the\nworld, should have been passed over; and that the Gentiles, whom you\nhave always looked upon as the younger, should be now preferred. But God\nis just--He will not sanction unrighteousness in any. Nor will he allow\nany choice of his to continue persons in favour, longer than, after much\nlong suffering, he finds them deserving his support. You are acquainted\nwith your own history. The Almighty, as you know, undoubtedly\ndistinguished the posterity of Abraham, but he was not partial to them\nalike. Did he not reject Ishmael the scoffer, though he was the eldest\nson of Abraham, and countenance Isaac, who was the younger? Did he not\npass over Esau the eldest son of Isaac, who had sold his birth-right,\nand prefer Jacob? Did he not set aside Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, the\nthree eldest sons of Jacob, who were guilty of incest, treachery, and\nmurder, and choose that the Messiah should come from Judah, who was but\nthe fourth? But if, in these instances, he did not respect eldership,\nwhy do you expect that he will not pass you over for the Gentiles, if ye\ncontinue in unbelief?\"\n\n\"But so true it is, that he will not support any whom he may have\nchosen, longer than they continue to deserve it, that he will not even\ncontinue his countenance to the Gentiles, though he has now preferred\nthem, if by any misconduct they should become insensible of his favours.\n[99] For I may compare both you and them to an Olive-Tree. If some of\nyou, who are the elder, or natural branches, should be broken off, and\nthe Gentiles, being a wild Olive-Tree, should be grafted in among you,\nand with you partake of the root and fatness of the Olive-Tree, it would\nnot become them to boast against you the branches: for if they boast,\nthey do not bear the root, but the root them. Perhaps, however, they\nmight say, that you, the branches, were broken off, that they might be\ngrafted in. Well, but it was wholly on account of unbelief that you were\nbroken off, and it was wholly by faith that they themselves were taken\nin. But it becomes them not to be high-minded, but to fear. For if God\nspared not you, the natural branches, let them take heed, lest he also\nspare not them.\"\n\n[Footnote 99: Rom. 11. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.]\n\n\"Moreover, my kinsmen in the flesh, I must tell you, that you have not\nonly no right to complain, because the Gentiles have been preferred, but\nthat you would have no right to complain, even if you were to become the\nobjects of God's vengeance. You cannot forget, in the history of your\nown nation, the example of Pharaoh: you are acquainted with his\nobstinacy and disobedience. You know that he stifled his convictions\nfrom day to day. You know that, by stifling these, or by resisting God's\nHoly Spirit, he became daily more hardened; and that by allowing himself\nto become daily more hardened, he fitted himself for a vessel of\nwrath, or prepared the way for his own destruction. You know at length\nthat God's judgments, but not till after much long suffering, came upon\nhim, so that the power of God became thus manifested to many. But if you\nknow all these things, and continue in unrighteousness and unbelief,\nwhich were the crimes of Pharaoh also, why do you imagine that your\nhearts will not become hardened like the heart of Pharaoh; or that if\nyou are guilty of Pharaoh's crimes, you are not deserving of Pharaoh's\npunishment?\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IX.\n\n_Recapitulation of all the doctrines hitherto laid down with respect to\nthe influence of the Spirit--Objection to this, that the Quakers make\nevery thing of this spirit, and but little of Jesus Christ--Objection\nonly noticed to show, that Christians have not always a right\napprehension of Scriptural terms, and therefore often quarrel with one\nanother about trifles--Or that there is, in this particular case, no\ndifference between the doctrine of the Quakers and that of the objectors\non this subject._\n\n\nI shall now recapitulate in few words, or in one general proposition,\nall the doctrines which have been advanced relative to the power of the\nspirit, and shall just notice an argument, which will probably arise on\nsuch a recapitulation, before I proceed to a new subject.\n\nThe Quakers then believe that the spirit of God formed or created the\nworld. They believe that it was given to men, after the formation of it,\nas a guide to them in their spiritual concerns. They believe that it was\ncontinued to them after the deluge, in the same manner, and for the same\npurposes, to the time of Christ. It was given, however, in this\ninterval, to different persons in different degrees. Thus the prophets\nreceived a greater portion of it than ordinary persons in their own\ntimes. Thus Moses was more illuminated by it than his contemporaries,\nfor it became through him the author of the law. In the time of Christ\nit continued the same office, but it was then given more diffusively\nthan before, and also more diffusively to some than to others. Thus the\nEvangelists and Apostles received it in an extraordinary degree, and it\nbecame, through them and Jesus Christ their head, the author of the\nGospel. But, besides its office of a spiritual light and guide to men in\ntheir spiritual concerns, during all the period now assigned, it became\nto them, as they attended to its influence, an inward redeemer,\nproducing in them a new birth, and leading them to perfection. And as it\nwas thus both a guide and an inward redeemer, so it has continued these\noffices to the present day.\n\nFrom hence it will be apparent that the acknowledgment of God's Holy\nSpirit, in its various operations, as given in different portions before\nand after the sacrifice of Christ, is the acknowledgment of a principle,\nwhich is the great corner stone of the religion of the Quakers. Without\nthis there can be no knowledge, in their opinion, of spiritual things.\nWithout this there can be no spiritual interpretation of the scriptures\nthemselves. Without this there can be no redemption by inward, though\nthere may be redemption by outward means. Without this there can be no\nenjoyment of the knowledge of divine things.\n\nTake therefore this principle away from them, and you take away their\nreligion at once. Take away this spirit, and Christianity remains with\nthem no more Christianity, than the dead carcass of a man, when the\nspirit is departed, remains a man. Whatsoever is excellent, whatsoever\nis noble, whatsoever is worthy, whatsoever is desirable in the Christian\nfaith, they ascribe to this spirit, and they believe that true\nChristianity can no more subsist without it, than the outward world\ncould go on without the vital influence of the sun.\n\nNow an objection will be made to the proposition, as I have just stated\nit, by some Christians, and even by those who do not wish to derogate\nfrom the spirit of God, (for I have frequently heard it started by such)\nthat the Quakers, by means of these doctrines, make every thing of the\nspirit, and [100]but little of Jesus Christ. I shall therefore notice\nthis objection in this place, not so much with a view of answering it,\nas of attempting to show, that Christiana have not always a right\napprehension of scriptural terms; and therefore that they sometimes\nquarrel with one another about trifles, or rather, that when they have\ndisputes with each other, there is sometimes scarcely a shade of\ndifference between them.\n\n[Footnote 100: The Quakers make much of the advantages of Christ's\ncoming in the flesh. Among these are considered the sacrifice of his own\nbody, a more plentiful diffusion of the Spirit, and a dearer revelation\nrelative to God and man.]\n\nTo those who make the objection, I shall describe the proposition which\nhas been stated above, in different terms. I shall leave out the words\n\"Spirit of God,\" and I shall wholly substitute the term \"Christ.\" This I\nshall do upon the authority of some of our best divines.... The\nproposition then will run thus:\n\nGod, by means of Christ, created the world, \"for without him was not any\nthing made, that was made.\"\n\nHe made, by means of the same Christ, the terrestrial Globe on which we\nlive. He made the whole Host of Heaven. He made, therefore, besides our\nown, other planets and other worlds.\n\nHe caused also, by means of the same Christ, the generation of all\nanimated nature, and of course of the life and vital powers of man.\n\nHe occasioned also by the same means, the generation of reason or\nintellect, and of a spiritual faculty, to man.\n\nMan, however, had not been long created, before he fell into sin. It\npleased God, therefore, that the same Christ, which had thus appeared in\ncreation, should strive inwardly with man, and awaken his spiritual\nfaculties, by which he might be able to know good from evil, and to\nobtain inward redemption from the pollutions of sin. And this inward\nstriving of Christ was to be with every man, in after times, so that all\nwould be inexcusable and subjected to condemnation, if they sinned.\n\nIt pleased God also, in process of time, as the attention of man was led\nastray by bad customs, by pleasures, by the cares of the world, and\nother causes, that the same Christ, in addition to this his inward\nstriving with him, should afford him outward help, accommodated to his\noutward senses, by which his thoughts might be oftener turned towards\nGod, and his soul be the better preserved in the way of salvation.\nChrist accordingly, through Moses and the Prophets, became the author of\na dispensation to the Jews, that is, of their laws, types, and customs,\nof their prophecies, and of their scriptures.\n\nBut as in the education of man things must be gradually unfolded, so it\npleased God, in the scheme of his redemption, that the same Christ, in\nfulness of time, should take flesh, and become personally upon earth the\nauthor of another outward, but of a more pure and glorious dispensation,\nthan the former, which was to be more extensive also; and which was not\nto be confined to the Jews, but to extend in time to the uttermost\ncorners of the earth. Christ therefore became the Author of the inspired\ndelivery of the outward scriptures of the New Testament. By these, as by\noutward and secondary means, he acted upon men's senses. He informed\nthem of their corrupt nature, of their awful and perilous situation, of\nanother life, of a day of judgment, of rewards and punishments. These\nscriptures therefore, of which Christ was the Author, were outward\ninstruments at the time, and continue so to posterity, to second his\ninward aid. That is, they produce thought, give birth to anxiety, excite\nfear, promote seriousness, turn the eye towards God, and thus prepare\nthe heart for a sense of those inward strivings of Christ, which produce\ninward redemption from the power and guilt of sin.\n\nWhere, however, this outward aid of the Holy Scriptures has not reached,\nChrist continues to purify and redeem by his inward power. But as men,\nwho are acted upon solely by his inward strivings, have not the same\nadvantages as those who are also acted upon by his outward word, so less\nis expected in the one than in the other case. Less is expected from the\nGentile than from the Jew: less from the Barbarian than from the\nChristian.\n\nAnd this latter doctrine of the universality of the striving of Christ\nwith man, in a spiritually instructive and redemptive capacity, as it is\nmerciful and just, so it is worthy of the wise and beneficent Creator.\nChrist, in short, has been filling, from the foundation of the world,\nthe office of an inward redeemer, and this, without any exception, to\nall of the human race. And there is even [101] \"now no salvation in any\nother. For there is no other name under Heaven given among men, whereby\nwe must be saved.\"\n\n[Footnote 101: Acts 4. 12.]\n\nFrom this new statement of the proposition, which statement is\nconsistent with the language of divines, it will appear, that, if the\nQuakers have made every thing of the spirit, and but little of Christ, I\nhave made, to suit the objectors, every thing of Christ, and but little\nof the spirit. Now I would ask, where lies the difference between the\ntwo statements? Which is the more accurate; or whether, when I say these\nthings were done by the spirit, and when I say they were done by Christ,\nI do not state precisely the same proposition, or express the same\nthing?\n\nThat Christ, in all the offices stated by the proposition, is neither\nmore nor less than the spirit of God, there can surely be no doubt. In\nlooking at Christ, we are generally apt to view him with carnal eyes. We\ncan seldom divest ourselves of the idea of a body belonging to him,\nthough this was confessedly human, and can seldom consider him as a pure\nprinciple or fountain of divine life and light to men. And yet it is\nobvious, that we must view him in this light in the present case; for if\nhe was at the creation of the world, or with Moses at the delivery of\nthe law, (which the proposition supposes) he could not have been there\nin his carnal body; because this was not produced till centuries\nafterwards by the virgin Mary. In this abstracted light, the Apostles\nfrequently view Christ themselves. Thus St. Paul:[102] \"I live, yet not\nI, but Christ liveth in me.\" And again,[103] \"Know ye not your own\nselves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?\"\n\n[Footnote 102: Gal. 2.20.]\n\n[Footnote 103: 2 Cor. 15.5].\n\nNow no person imagines that St. Paul had any idea, either that the body\nof Christ was in himself, or in others, on the occasions on which he has\nthus spoken.\n\nThat Christ therefore, as he held the offices contained in the\nproposition, was the spirit of God, we may pronounce from various views,\nwhich we may take of him, all of which seem to lead us to the same\nconclusion.\n\nAnd first let us look at Christ in the scriptural light in which he has\nbeen held forth to us in the fourth section of the seventh chapter,\nwhere I have explained the particular notions of the Quakers relative to\nthe new birth.\n\nGod maybe considered here as having produced, by means of his Holy\nSpirit, a birth of divine life in the soul of the \"body which had been\nprepared;\" and this birth was Christ. [104] \"But that which is born of\nthe spirit, says St. John, is spirit.\" The only question then will be as\nto the magnitude of the spirit thus produced. In answer to this St. John\nsays,[105] \"that God gave him not the spirit by measure.\" And St. Paul\nsays the same thing: [106] \"For in him all the fulness of the godhead\ndwelt bodily.\" Now we can have no idea of a spirit without measure, or\ncontaining the fullness of the godhead, but the spirit of God.\n\n[Footnote 104: John 3.6.]\n\n[Footnote 105: John 3.34.]\n\n[Footnote 106: Coloss. 2.9]\n\nLet us now look at Christ in another point of view, or as St. Paul seems\nto have viewed him. He defines Christ [107] \"to be the wisdom of God,\nand the power of God.\" But what are the wisdom of God, and the power of\nGod, but the great characteristics and the great constituent parts of\nhis spirit?\n\n[Footnote 107: 1 Cor. 1. 24.]\n\nBut if these views of Christ should not be deemed satisfactory, we will\ncontemplate him as St. John the Evangelist has held him forth to our\nnotice. Moses says, that the spirit of God created the world. But St.\nJohn says that the word created it. The spirit therefore and the word\nmust be the same. But this word he tells us afterwards, and this\npositively, was Jesus Christ.\n\nIt appears therefore from these observations, that it makes no material\ndifference, whether we use the words \"Spirit of God\" or \"Christ,\" in the\nproposition that has been before us, or that there will be no difference\nin the meaning of the proposition, either in the one or the other case;\nand also if the Quakers only allow, when the spirit took flesh, that the\nbody was given as a sacrifice for sin, or that part of the redemption of\nman, as far as his sins are forgiven, is effected by this sacrifice,\nthere will be little or no difference between the religion of the\nQuakers and that of the objectors, as far as it relates to Christ[108].\n\n[Footnote 108: The Quakers have frequently said in their theological\nwritings, that every man has a portion of the Holy Spirit within him;\nand this assertion has not been censured. But they have also said, that\nevery man has a portion of Christ or of the light of Christ, within him.\nNow this assertion has been considered as extravagant and wild. The\nreader will therefore see, that if he admits the one, he cannot very\nconsistently censure the other.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. X.\n\n\nSECT. I.\n\n_Ministers--The Spirit of God alone can made a Minister of the\nGospel--Hence no imposition of hands nor human knowledge can be\neffectual--This proposition not peculiarly adopted by George Fox, but by\nJustin the Martyr, Luther, Calvin, Wickliffe, Tyndal, Milton, and\nothers--Way in which this call, by the Spirit, qualifies for the\nministry--Women equally qualified with men--How a Quaker becomes\nacknowledged to be a Minister of the Gospel._\n\n\nHaving now detailed fully the operations of the Spirit of God, as far as\nthe Quakers believe it to be concerned in the instruction and redemption\nof man, I shall consider its operations, as far as they believe it to\nbe concerned in the services of the church. Upon this spirit they make\nboth their worship and their ministry to depend. I shall therefore\nconsider these subjects, before I proceed to any new order of tenets,\nwhich they may hold.\n\nIt is a doctrine of the Quakers that none can spiritually exercise, and\nthat none ought to be allowed to exercise, the office of ministers, but\nsuch as the spirit of God has worked upon and called forth to discharge\nit, as well as that the same Spirit will never fail to raise up persons\nin succession for this end.\n\nConformably with this idea, no person, in the opinion of the Quakers,\nought to be designed by his parents in early youth for the priesthood:\nfor as the wind bloweth where it listeth, so no one can say which is the\nvessel that is to be made to honour.\n\nConformably with the same idea, no imposition of hands, or ordination,\ncan avail any thing, in their opinion, in the formation of a minister of\nthe Gospel; for no human power can communicate to the internal man the\nspiritual gifts of God.\n\nNeither, in conformity with the same idea, can the acquisition of human\nlearning, or the obtaining Academical degrees and honours, be essential\nqualifications for this office; for though the human intellect is so\ngreat, that it can dive as it were into the ocean and discover the laws\nof fluids, and rise again up to heaven, and measure the celestial\nmotions, yet it is incapable of itself of penetrating into divine\nthings, so as spiritually to know them; while, on the other hand,\nilliterate men appear often to have more knowledge on these subjects\nthan the most learned. Indeed the Quakers have no notion of a human\nqualification for a divine calling. They reject all school divinity, as\nnecessarily connected with the ministry. They believe that if a\nknowledge of Christianity had been attainable by the acquisition of the\nGreek and Roman languages, and through the medium of the Greek and\nRoman philosophers, then the Greeks and Romans themselves had been the\nbest proficients in it; whereas, the Gospel was only foolishness to many\nof these. They say with St. Paul to the Colossians,[109] \"Beware lest any\nman spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of\nmen, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.\" And they\nsay with the same Apostle to Timothy,[110] \"O Timothy! keep that which\nis committed to thy trust, avoid profane and vain babblings, and\noppositions of science falsely so called, which some professing have\nerred concerning the faith.\"\n\n[Footnote 109: Coloss. 2. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 110: 1 Tim. 6, 20, 21]\n\nThis notion of the Quakers, that human learning and academical honours\nare not necessary for the priesthood, is very ancient. Though George Fox\nintroduced it into his new society, and this without any previous\nreading upon the subject, yet it had existed long before his time. In\nshort, it was connected with the tenet, early disseminated in the\nchurch, that no person could know spiritual things but through the\nmedium of the spirit of God, from whence it is not difficult to pass to\nthe doctrine, that none could teach spiritually except they had been\ntaught spiritually themselves. Hence we find Justin the Martyr, a\nPlatonic philosopher, but who was afterwards one of the earliest\nChristian writers after the Apostles, and other learned men after him\ndown to Chrysostom, laying aside their learning and their philosophy for\nthe school of Christ. The first authors also of the reformation,\ncontended for this doctrine. Luther and Calvin, both of them, supported\nit. Wickliffe, the first reformer of the English church, and Tyndal the\nMartyr, the first translator of the Bible into the English language,\nsupported it also. In 1652, Sydrach Simpson, Master of Pembroke-Hall in\nCambridge, preached a sermon before the University, contending that the\nUniversities corresponded with the schools of the prophets, and that\nhuman learning was an essential qualification for the priesthood. This\nsermon, however, was answered by William Dell, Master of Caius College\nin the same University, in which he stated, after having argued the\npoints in question, that the Universities did not correspond with the\nschools of the prophets, but with those of Heathen men; that Plato,\nAristotle, and Pythagoras, were more honoured there, than Moses or\nChrist; that grammar, rhetoric, logic, ethics, physics, metaphysics, and\nthe mathematics, were not the instruments to be used in the promotion or\nthe defence of the Gospel; that Christian schools had originally brought\nmen from Heathenism to Christianity, but that the University schools\nwere likely to carry men from Christianity to Heathenism again. This\nlanguage of William Dell was indeed the general language of the divines\nand pious men in those times in which George Fox lived, though\nunquestionably the opposite doctrine had been started, and had been\nreceived by many. Thus the great John Milton, who lived in these very\ntimes, may be cited as speaking in a similar manner on the same subject.\n\"Next, says he, it is a fond error, though too much believed among us,\nto think that the University makes a minister of the gospel. What it may\nconduce to other arts and sciences, I dispute not now. But that, which\nmakes fit a Minister, the Scripture can best inform us to be only from\nabove; whence also we are bid to seek them. [111]Thus St. Matthew says,\n'Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth\nlabourers into his harvest.' Thus St. Luke: [112] 'The flock, over which\nthe Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.' Thus St. Paul: [113] 'How shall\nthey preach, unless they be sent?' But by whom sent? By the university,\nor by the magistrate? No, surely. But sent by God, and by him only.\"\n\n[Footnote 111: Mat. 9.38.]\n\n[Footnote 112: Acts 20.28.]\n\n[Footnote 113: Rom. 10.15.]\n\nThe Quakers then, rejecting school divinity, continue to think with\nJustin, Luther, Dell, Milton, and indeed with those of the church of\nEngland and others, that those only can be proper ministers of the\nchurch, who have witnessed within themselves a call from the spirit of\nGod. If men would teach religion, they must, in the opinion of the\nQuakers, be first taught of God. They must go first to the school of\nChrist; must come under his discipline in their hearts; must mortify the\ndeeds of the body; must crucify the flesh with the affections and lusts\nthereof; must put off the old man which is corrupt; must put on the new\nman, \"which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness;\"\nmust be in fact, \"Ministers of the sanctuary and true tabernacle, which\nthe Lord hath pitched, and not man.\" And whether those who come forward\nas ministers are really acted upon by this Spirit, or by their own\nimagination only, so that they mistake the one for the other, the\nQuakers consider it to be essentially necessary, that they should\nexperience such a call in their own feelings, and that purification of\nheart, which they can only judge of by their outward lives, should be\nperceived by themselves, before they presume to enter upon such an\noffice.\n\nThe Quakers believe that men, qualified in this manner, are really fit\nfor the ministry, and are likely to be useful instruments in it. For\nfirst, it becomes men to be changed themselves, before they can change\nothers. Those again, who have been thus changed, have the advantage of\nbeing able to state from living experience what God has done for them;\n[114] \"what they have seen with their eyes; what they have looked upon;\nand what their hands have handled of the word of life.\" Men also, who,\nby means of God's Holy Spirit, have escaped the pollutions of the world,\nare in a fit state to understand the mysteries of God, and to carry with\nthem the seal of their own commission. Thus men under sin can never\ndiscern spiritual things. But \"to the disciples of Christ,\" and to the\ndoers of his will, \"it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of\nHeaven.\" Thus, when the Jews marvelled at Christ, saying [115] \"How\nknoweth this man letters, (or the scriptures) having never learned?\nJesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent\nme. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether\nit be of God, or whether I speak of myself.\" Such ministers also are\nconsidered as better qualified to reach the inward state of the people,\nand to \"preach liberty to the captives\" of sin, than those who have\nmerely the advantage of school divinity, or of academical learning. It\nis believed also of these, that they are capable of giving more solid\nand lasting instruction, when they deliver themselves at large: for\nthose, who preach rather from intellectual abilities and from the\nsuggestions of human learning, than from the spiritual life and power\nwhich they find within themselves, may be said to forsake Christ, who is\nthe \"living fountain, and to hew out broken cisterns which hold no\nwater,\" either for themselves or for others.\n\n[Footnote 114: Coloss. 2. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 115: 1 Tim. 6.20.21.]\n\nThis qualification for the ministry being allowed to be the true one, it\nwill follow, the Quakers believe, and it was Luther's belief also, that\nwomen may be equally qualified to become ministers of the Gospel, as the\nmen. For they believe that God has given his Holy Spirit, without\nexception, to all. They dare not therefore limit its operations in the\noffice of the ministry, more than in any other of the sacred offices\nwhich it may hold. They dare not again say, that women cannot mortify\nthe deeds of the flesh, or that they cannot be regenerated, and walk in\nnewness of life. If women therefore believe they have a call to the\nministry, and undergo the purification necessarily connected with it,\nand preach in consequence, and preach effectively, they dare not, under\nthese circumstances, refuse to accept their preaching, as the fruits of\nthe spirit, merely because it comes through the medium of the female\nsex.\n\nAgainst this doctrine of the Quakers, that a female ministry is\nallowable under the Gospel dispensation, an objection has been started\nfrom the following words of the Apostle Paul: [116] \"Let your women keep\nsilence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to\nspeak\"--\"and if they will learn any thing, let them ask their Husbands\nat home.\" but the Quakers conceive, that this charge of the Apostle has\nno allusion to preaching. In these early times, when the Gospel\ndoctrines were new, and people were eager to understand them, some of\nthe women, in the warmth of their feelings, interrupted the service of\nthe church, by asking such questions as occurred to them on the subject\nof this new religion. These are they whom the Apostle desires to be\nsilent, and to reserve their questions till they should return home. And\nthat this was the case is evident, they conceive, from the meaning of\nthe words, which the Apostle uses upon this occasion. For the word in\nthe Greek tongue, which is translated \"speak,\" does not mean to preach\nor to pray, but to speak as in common discourse. And the words, which\nimmediately follow this, do not relate to any evangelical instruction,\nwhich these women were desirous of communicating publicly, but which\nthey were desirous of receiving themselves from others.\n\n[Footnote 116: 1 Cor. 14.34.35.]\n\nThat the words quoted do not relate to praying or preaching is also\nequally obvious, in the opinion of the Quakers; for if they had related\nto these offices of the church, the word \"prophesy\" had been used\ninstead of the word \"speak.\" Add to which that the Apostle, in the same\nepistle in which the preaching of women is considered to be forbidden,\ngives them a rule to which he expects them to conform, when they should\neither prophesy or pray: but to give women a rule to be observed during\ntheir preaching, and to forbid them to preach at the some time, is an\nabsurdity too great to be fixed upon the most ordinary person, and much\nmore upon an inspired Apostle.\n\nThat the objection has no foundation, the Quakers believe again, from\nthe consideration that the ministry of women, in the days of the\nApostles, is recognized in the New Testament, and is recognized also, in\nsome instances, as an acceptable service.\n\nOf the hundred and twenty persons who were assembled on the day of\npentecost, it is said by St. Luke that [117] some were women. That these\nreceived the Holy Spirit as well as the men, and that they received it\nalso for the purpose of prophesying or preaching, is obvious from the\nsame Evangelist. For first, he says, that \"all were filled with the Holy\nGhost.\" And secondly, he says, that Peter stood up, and observed\nconcerning the circumstance of inspiration having been given to the\nwomen upon this occasion, that Joel's prophecy was then fulfilled, in\nwhich were to be found these words: \"And it shall come to pass in the\nhist days, that your sons and your daughters shall prophesy--and on my\nservants and handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my spirit; and\nthey shall prophesy.\"\n\n[Footnote 117: Acts, Chap. 1.]\n\nThat women preached afterwards, or in times subsequent to the day of\npentecost, they collect from the same Evangelist. [118]For he mentions\nPhilip, who had four daughters, all of whom prophesied at Caesarea. Now\nby prophesying, if we accept [119]St. Paul's interpretation of it, is\nmeant a speaking to edification, and exhortation, and comfort, under the\ninfluence of the Holy Spirit. It was also a speaking to the church: it\nwas also the speaking of one person to the church, while the others\nremained silent.\n\n[Footnote 118: Acts 21.9.]\n\n[Footnote 119: 1 Cor. 14.]\n\nThat women also preached or prophesied in the church of Corinth, the\nQuakers show from the testimony of St. Paul: for he states the manner in\nwhich they did it, or that [120]they prayed and prophesied with their\nheads uncovered.\n\n[Footnote 120: 1 Cor. 11. 5.]\n\nThat women also were ministers of the Gospel in other places; and that\nthey were highly serviceable to the church, St. Paul confesses with\ngreat satisfaction, in his Epistle to the Romans, in which he sends his\nsalutation to different persons, for whom he professed an affection or\nan esteem: [121]thus--\"I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is a\nservant of the church, which is at Cenchrea.\" Upon this passage the\nQuakers usually make two observations. The first is, that the [122]Greek\nword, which is translated servant, should have been rendered minister.\nIt is translated minister, when applied by St. Paul to [123]Timothy, to\ndenote his office. It is also translated minister, when applied to\n[124]St. Paul and Apollos. And there is no reason why a change should\nhave been made in its meaning in the present case. The second is, that\nHistory has handed down Phoebe as a woman eminent for her Gospel\nlabours. \"She was celebrated, says [125]Theodoret, throughout the world;\nfor not only the Greeks and the Romans, but the Barbarians, knew her\nlikewise.\"\n\n[Footnote 121: Romans 16.1.]\n\n[Footnote 122: [Greek: Diokogos.]]\n\n[Footnote 123: 1 Thess. 3. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 124: 1 Cor. 3. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 125: In Universa Terra celebris facta est; nec eam soli\nRomani, &c,]\n\nSt. Paul also greets Priscilla and Aquila. He greets them under the\ntitle of fellow-helpers or fellow-labourers in Jesus Christ. But this is\nthe same title which he bestows upon Timothy, to denote his usefulness\nin the church. Add to which, that Priscilla and Aquila were the persons\nof whom St. Luke [126]says, \"that they assisted Apollos in expounding to\nhim the way of God more perfectly.\"\n\n[Footnote 126: Acts 18. 24. 26.]\n\nIn the same epistle he recognizes also other women, as having been\nuseful to him in Gospel-labours. Thus--\"Salute Tryphena, and Tryphosa,\nwho labour in the Lord.\" \"Salute the beloved Persis, who laboured much\nin the Lord.\"\n\nFrom these, and from other observations, which might be made upon this\nsubject, the Quakers are of opinion that the ministry of the women was\nas acceptable, in the time of the Apostles, as the ministry of the men.\nAnd as there is no prohibition against the preaching of women in the New\nTestament, they see no reason why they should not be equally admissible\nand equally useful as ministers at the present day.\n\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_Way in which Quakers are admitted into the ministry--When acknowledged,\nthey preach, like other pastors, to their different congregations or\nmeetings--They visit occasionally the different families in their own\ncounties or quarterly meetings--Manner of these family-visits--Sometimes\ntravel as ministers through particular counties or the kingdom at\nlarge--Sometimes into foreign parts--Women share in these\nlabours--Expense of voyages on such occasions defrayed out of the\nnational stock._\n\n\nThe way in which Quakers, whether men or women, who conceive themselves\nto be called to the office of the ministry, are admitted into it, so as\nto be acknowledged by the society to be ministers of the Quaker-church,\nis simply as follows.\n\nAny member has a right to rise up in the meetings for worship, and to\nspeak publicly. If any one therefore should rise up and preach, who has\nnever done so before, he is heard. The congregation are all witnesses of\nhis doctrine. The elders, however, who may be present, and to whose\nprovince it more immediately belongs to judge of the fitness of\nministers, observe the tenour of his discourse. They watch over it for\nits authority; that is, they judge by its spiritual influence on the\nmind, whether it be such as corresponds with that which may be presumed\nto come from the spirit of God. If the new preacher delivers any thing\nthat appears exceptionable, and continues to do so, it is the duty of\nthe elders to speak to him in private, and to desire him to discontinue\nhis services to the church. But if nothing exceptionable occurs, nothing\nis said to him, and he is allowed to deliver himself publicly at future\nmeetings. In process of time, if, after repeated attempts in the office\nof the ministry, the new preacher should have given satisfactory proof\nof his gifts, he is reported to the monthly meeting to which he belongs.\nAnd this meeting, if satisfied with his ministry, acknowledges him as a\nminister, and then recommends him to the meeting of ministers and\nelders belonging to the same. No other act than this is requisite. He\nreceives no verbal or written appointment or power for the execution of\nthe sacerdotal office. It may be observed also, that he neither gains\nany authority, nor loses any privilege, by thus becoming a minister of\nthe Gospel. Except, while in the immediate exercise of his calling, he\nis only a common member. He receives no elevation by the assumption of\nany nominal title, to distinguish him from the rest. Nor is he elevated\nby the prospect of any increase to his wordly goods in consequence of\nhis new office; for no minister in this society receives any pecuniary\nemolument for his spiritual labours.\n\nWhen ministers are thus approved and acknowledged, they exercise the\nsacred office in public assemblies, as they immediately feel themselves\ninfluenced to that work. They may engage also, with the approbation of\ntheir own monthly meeting, in the work of visiting such Quaker families\nas reside in the county, or quarterly meeting to which they belong. In\nthis case they are sometimes accompanied by one of the elders of the\nchurch. These visits have the name of family visits, and are conducted\nin the following manner:--\n\nWhen a Quaker minister, after having commenced his journey, has entered\nthe house of the first family, the individual members are collected to\nreceive him. They then sit in silence for a time. As he believes himself\nconcerned to speak, he delivers that which arises in his mind with\nreligions freedom. The master, the wife, and the other branches of the\nfamily, are sometimes severally addressed. Does the minister feel that\nthere is a departure in any of the persons present, from the principles\nor practice of the society, he speaks, if he believes it required of\nhim, to these points. Is there any well disposed person under any inward\ndiscouragement; this person may be addressed in the language of\nconsolation. All in fact are exhorted and advised as their several\ncircumstances may seem to require. When the religious visit is over, the\nminister, if there be occasion, takes some little refreshment with the\nfamily, and converses with them; but no light or trifling subject is\never entered upon on these occasions. From one family he passes on to\nanother, till he has visited all the families in the district, for which\nhe had felt a concern.\n\nThough Quaker ministers frequently confine their spiritual labours to\nthe county or quarterly meeting in which they reside, yet some of them\nfeel an engagement to go beyond these boundaries, and to visit the\nsociety in particular counties, or in the kingdom at large. They who\nfeel a concern of this kind, must lay it before their own monthly\nmeetings. These meetings, if they feel it right to countenance it, grant\nthem certificates for the purpose. These certificates are necessary;\nfirst, because ministers might not he personally known as ministers out\nof their own district; and secondly, because Quakers, who were not\nministers, and other persons who might counterfeit the dress of Quakers,\nmight otherwise impose upon the society, as they travelled along.\n\nSuch persons, as thus travel in the work of the ministry, or public\nfriends as they are called, seldom or never go to an inn at any town or\nvillage, where Quakers live. They go to the houses of the latter. While\nat these, they attend the weekly, monthly, and quarterly meetings of the\ndistrict, as they happen on their route. They call also extraordinary\nmeetings of worship. At these houses they are visited by many of the\nmembers of the place and neighbourhood, who call upon and converse with\nthem. During these times they appear to have their minds bent on the\nobject of their mission, so that it would be difficult to divert their\nattention from the work in hand. When they have staid a sufficient time\nat a town or village, they depart. One or more guides are appointed by\nthe particular meeting, belonging to it, to show them the way to the\nnext place, where they propose to labour, and to convey them free of\nexpense, and to conduct them to the house of some member there. From\nthis house, when their work is finished, they are conveyed and conducted\nby new guides to another, and so on, till they return to their\nrespective homes.\n\nBut the religious views of the Quaker ministers are not always confined\neven within the boundaries of the kingdom. Many of them believe it to be\ntheir duty to travel into foreign parts. These, as their journey is now\nextensive, must lay their concern not only before their own monthly\nmeeting, but before their own quarterly meeting, and before the meeting\nof Ministers and Elders in London also. On receiving their certificates,\nthey depart. Some of them visit the continent of Europe, but most of\nthem the churches in America, where they diligently labour in the\nvineyard, probably for a year or two, at a distance from their families\nand friends. And here it may be observed, that, while Quaker ministers\nfrom England are thus visiting America on a religious errand, ministers\nfrom America, impelled by the same influence, are engaging in\nApostolical missions to England. These foreign visits, on both sides,\nare not undertaken by such ministers only as are men. Women engage in\nthem also. They cross the Atlantic, and labour in the vineyard in the\nsame manner. It may be mentioned here, that though it be a principle in\nthe Quaker society, that no minister of the Gospel ought to be paid for\nhis religious labours, yet the expense of the voyage, on such occasions,\nis allowed to be defrayed out of the fund, which is denominated by the\nQuakers their national stock.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XI.\n\n_Elders--Their appointment--One part of their office to watch over the\ndoctrines and conduct of ministers--Another part of their office to meet\nthe ministers of the church, and to confer and exhort for religious\ngood--None to meddle at these conferences with the government of the\nchurch._\n\n\nI mentioned in the preceding chapter, as the reader must have observed,\nthat certain persons, called Elders, watched over those who came forward\nin the ministry, with a view of ascertaining if they had received a\nproper qualification or call. I shall now state who the elders are, as\nwell as more particularly the nature of their office.\n\nTo every particular meeting four elders, two men and two women, but\nsometimes more and sometimes less, according as persons can be found\nqualified, are appointed. These are nominated by a committee appointed\nby the monthly meeting, in conjunction with a committee appointed by the\nquarterly meeting. And as the office annexed to the name of elder is\nconsidered peculiarly important by the Quakers, particular care is\ntaken, that persons of clear discernment, and such as excel in the\nspiritual ear, and such as are blameless in their lives, are appointed\nto it. It is recommended that neither wealth nor age be allowed to\noperate as inducements in the choice of them. Indeed, so much care is\nrequired to be taken with respect to the filling up this office, that if\npersons perfectly suitable are not to be found, the meetings are to be\nleft without them.\n\nIt is one part of the duty of the elders, when appointed, to watch over\nthe doctrine of young ministers, and also to watch over the doctrine and\nconduct of ministers generally, and tenderly to advise with such as\nappear to them to be deficient in any of the qualifications which belong\nto their high calling.\n\nWhen we consider that every religious society attaches a more than\ncommon respectability to the person who performs the sacerdotal office,\nthere will be no difficulty in supposing, whenever a minister may be\nthought to err, that many of those who are aware of his error, will want\nthe courage to point it out to him, and that others will excuse\nthemselves from doing it, by saying that interference on this occasion\ndoes not belong more immediately to them than to others. This\ninstitution therefore of elders fixes the offices on individuals. It\nmakes it their duty to watch and advise--It makes them responsible for\nthe unsound doctrine, or the bad conduct of their ministers. And this\nresponsibility is considered as likely to give persons that courage in\nwatching over the ministry, which they might otherwise want. Hence, if a\nminister in the Quaker church were to preach unsoundly, or to act\ninconsistently with his calling, he would be generally sure of being\nprivately spoken to by one or another elder.\n\nThis office of elders, as far as it is concerned in advising ministers\nof the Gospel, had its foundation laid by George Fox. Many persons, who\nengaged in the ministry in his time, are described by him as \"having run\ninto imaginations,\" or as \"having gone beyond their measure;\" and in\nthese cases, whenever they should happen, he recommended that one or\ntwo friends, if they saw fit, should advise with them in love and\nwisdom. In process of time, however, this evil seems to have increased;\nfor as the society spread, numbers pressed forward to become Gospel\nministers; many supposed they had a call from the spirit, and rose up,\nand preached, and in the heat of their imaginations, delivered\nthemselves unprofitably. Two or three persons also, in the frenzy of\ntheir enthusiasm, frequently rose up, and spoke at the same time. Now\nthis was easily to be done in a religious society, where all were\nallowed to speak, and where the qualifications of ministers were to be\njudged of in part by the truths delivered, or rather, where ordination\nwas no mark of the ministry, or where an human appointment of it was\nunknown. For these reasons, that mode of superintendence which had only\nbeen suggested by George Fox, and left to the discretion of individuals,\nwas perfected into an establishment, out of imperious necessity, in\nafter times. Men were appointed to determine between the effects of\ndivine inspiration and human imagination; to judge between the cool and\nthe sound; and the enthusiastic and the defective; and to put a bridle\nas it were upon those who were not likely to become profitable labourers\nin the harvest of the Gospel. And as this office was rendered necessary\non account of the principle that no ordination or human appointment\ncould make a minister of the Gospel; so the same principle continuing\namong the Quakers, the office has been continued to the present day.\n\nIt devolves upon the elders again, as a second branch of their duty, to\nmeet the ministers of the church at stated seasons, generally once in\nthree months, and to spend some time with them in religious retirement.\nIt is supposed that opportunities may be afforded here, of encouraging\nand strengthening young ministers, of confirming the old, and of giving\nreligious advice and assistance in various ways: and it must be supposed\nat any rate, that religious men cannot meet in religious conference,\nwithout some edification to each other. At these meetings, queries are\nproposed relative to the conduct both of ministers and elders, which\nthey answer in writing to the quarterly meetings of ministers and elders\nto which they belong. Of the ministers and elders thus assembled, it may\nbe observed, that it is their duty to confine themselves wholly to the\nexhortation of one another for good. They can make no laws, like the\nancient synods and other convocations of the clergy, nor dictate any\narticle of faith. Neither can they meddle with the government of the\nchurch. The Quakers allow neither ministers nor elders, by virtue of\ntheir office, to interfere with their discipline. Every proposition of\nthis sort must be determined upon by the yearly meeting, or by the body\nat large.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XII.\n\n\nSECT. I.\n\n_Worship--Consists of prayer and preaching--Neither of these effectual\nbut by the Spirit--Hence no liturgy or form of words, or studied\nsermons, in the Quaker-church--Singular manner of delivering\nsermons--Tone of the voice usually censured--This may arise from the\ndifference between nature and art--Objected, that there is little\nvariety of subject in these sermons--Variety not so necessary to\nQuakers--Other objections--Replies--Observations of Francis Lambert, of\nAvignon._\n\n\nAs no person, in the opinion of the Quakers, can be a true minister of\nthe gospel, unless he feel himself called or appointed by the spirit of\nGod, so there can be no true or effectual worship, except it come\nthrough the aid of the same spirit.\n\nThe public worship of God is usually made to consist of prayer and\npreaching.\n\nPrayer is a solemn address of the soul to God. It is a solemn confession\nof some weakness, or thanksgiving for some benefit, or petition for some\nfavour. But the Quakers consider such an address as deprived of its life\nand power, except it be spiritually conceived. [127] \"For the spirit\nhelpeth our infirmities. For we know not what we should pray for as we\nought. But the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings\nwhich cannot be uttered.\"\n\n[Footnote 127: Rom. 8. 26.]\n\nPreaching, on the other hand, is an address of man to men, that their\nattention may be turned towards God, and their minds be prepared for the\nsecret and heavenly touches of his spirit. But this preaching, again,\ncannot be effectually performed, except the spirit of God accompany it.\nThus St. Paul, in speaking of himself, says, [128] \"And my speech and my\npreaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in\ndemonstration of the spirit and with power, that your faith should not\nstand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.\" So the Quakers\nbelieve that no words, however excellent, which men may deliver now,\nwill avail, or will produce that faith which is to stand, except they be\naccompanied by that power which shall demonstrate them to be of God.\n\n[Footnote 128: 1 Cor. 2. 4.]\n\nFrom hence it appears to be the opinion of the Quakers, that the whole\nworship of God, whether it consist of prayer or of preaching, must be\nspiritual. Jesus Christ has also, they say, left this declaration upon\nrecord,[129]that \"God is a spirit, and that they that worship him, must\nworship him in spirit and in truth.\" By worshipping him in truth, they\nmean, that men are to worship him only when they feel a right\ndisposition to do it, and in such a manner as they judge, from their own\ninternal feelings, to be the manner which the spirit of God then\nsignifies.\n\n[Footnote 129: John 4.24.]\n\nFor these reasons, when the Quakers enter into their meetings, they use\nno liturgy or form of prayer. Such a form would be made up of the words\nof man's wisdom. Neither do they deliver any sermons that have been\npreviously conceived or written down. Neither do they begin their\nservice immediately after they are seated. But when they sit down, they\nwait in silence,[130] as the Apostles were commanded to do. They\nendeavour to be calm and composed. They take no thought as to what they\nshall say. They avoid, on the other hand, all activity of the\nimagination, and every thing that arises from the will of man. The\ncreature is thus brought to be passive, and the spiritual faculty to be\ndisencumbered, so that it can receive and attend to the spiritual\nlanguage of the Creator. [131]If, during this vacation from all mental\nactivity, no impressions should be given to them, they say nothing. If\nimpressions should be afforded to them, but no impulse to oral delivery,\nthey remain equally silent. But if, on the other hand, impressions are\ngiven them, with an impulse to utterance, they deliver to the\ncongregation as faithfully as they can, the copies of the several\nimages, which they conceive to be painted upon their minds.\n\n[Footnote 130: Mat. 10.19. Acts 1.4.]\n\n[Footnote 131: They believe it their duty, (to speak in the Quaker\nlanguage,) to maintain the watch, by preserving the imagination from\nbeing carried away by thoughts originating in man; and, in such watch,\npatiently to await for the arising of that life, which, by subduing the\nthoughts of man, produces an inward silence, and therein bestows a true\nsight of his condition upon him.]\n\nThis utterance, when it manifests itself, is resolvable into prayer or\npreaching. If the minister engages in prayer, the whole company rise up,\nand the men with the minister take off their hats, that is, [132]uncover\ntheir heads. If he preaches only, they do not rise, but remain upon\ntheir seats as before, with their heads covered. The preacher, however,\nuncovers his own head upon this occasion.\n\n[Footnote 132: 1 Cor. Ch. 11.]\n\nThere is something singular in the manner in which the Quakers deliver\nthemselves when they preach. In the beginning of their discourses, they\ngenerally utter their words with slowness; indeed, with a slowness,\nwhich sometimes renders their meaning almost unintelligible to persons\nunaccustomed to such a mode of delivery; for seconds sometimes elapse\nbetween the sounding of short sentences or single words, so that the\nmind cannot always easily carry the first words, and join them to the\nintermediate, and connect them with the last. As they proceed, they\ncommunicate their impressions in a brisker manner; till, at length,\ngetting beyond the quickness of ordinary delivery, they may be said to\nutter them rapidly. At this time, some of them appear to be much\naffected, and even agitated by their subject. This method of a very\nslow and deliberate pronunciation at first, and of an accelerated one\nafterwards, appears to me, as far as I have seen or heard, to be\nuniversal: for though undoubtedly some may make less pauses between the\nintroductory words and sentences than others, yet all begin slower than\nthey afterwards proceed.\n\nThis singular custom may be probably accounted for in the following\nmanner. The Quakers certainly believe that the spirit of God furnishes\nthem with impressions on these occasions, but that the description of\nthese is left to themselves Hence a faithful watch must be kept, that\nthese may be delivered to their hearers conformably to what is delivered\nto them. But if so, it may perhaps be necessary to be more watchful, at\nthe outset, in order to ascertain the dimensions as it were of these\nimpressions, and of their several tendencies and bearings, than\nafterwards, when such a knowledge of them has been obtained. Or it may\nbe that ministers, who go wholly unprepared to preach, have but a small\nview of the subject at first. Hence they speak slowly. But as their\nviews are enlarged, their speech becomes quickened, and their feelings\nbecome interested with it. These, for any thing I know, may be\nsolutions, upon Quaker principles, of this extraordinary practice.\n\nAgainst the preaching of the Quakers, an objection is usually made by\nthe world, namely, that their ministers generally deliver their\ndoctrines with an unpleasant tone. But it may be observed that this,\nwhich is considered to be a defect, is by no means confined to the\nQuakers. Persons of other religious denominations, who exert themselves\nin the ministry, are liable to the same charge. It may be observed also,\nthat the difference between the accent of the Quakers, and that of the\nspeakers of the world, may arise in the difference between art and\nnature. The person who prepares his lecture for the lecture-room, or his\nsermon for the pulpit, studies the formation of his sentences, which are\nto be accompanied by a modulation of the voice. This modulation is\nartificial, for it is usually taught. The Quakers, on, the other hand,\nneither prepare their discourses, nor vary their voices purposely,\naccording to the rules of art. The tone which comes out, and which\nappears disagreeable to those who are not used to it, is nevertheless\nnot unnatural. It is rather the mode of speaking which nature imposes,\nin any violent exertion of the voice, to save the lungs. Hence persons\nwho have their wares to cry, and this almost every other minute, in the\nstreets, are obliged to adopt a tone. Hence persons with disordered\nlungs, can sing words with more ease to themselves than they can utter\nthem, with a similar pitch of the voice. Hence Quaker women, when they\npreach, have generally more of this tone than the Quaker men, for the\nlungs of the female are generally weaker than those of the other sex.\n\nAgainst the sermons of the Quakers two objections are usually made; the\nfirst of which is, that they contain but little variety of subject.\nAmong dissenters, it is said, but more particularly in the\nestablishment, that you may hear fifty sermons following each other,\nwhere the subject of each is different. Hence a man, ignorant of\nletters, may collect all his moral and religious duties from the pulpit\nin the course of the year. But this variety, it is contended, is not to\nbe found in the Quaker church.\n\nThat there is less variety in the Quaker sermons than in those of\nothers, there can be no doubt. But such variety is not so necessary to\nQuakers, on account of their peculiar tenets, and the universality of\ntheir education, as to others. For it is believed, as I have explained\nbefore, that the spirit of God, if duly attended to, is a spiritual\nguide to man, and that it leads him into all truth; that it redeems him;\nand that it qualifies him therefore for happiness in a future state.\nThus an injunction to attend to the teachings of the spirit, supersedes,\nin some measure, the necessity of detailing the moral and religious\nobligations of individuals. And this necessity is still farther\nsuperseded by the consideration, that, as all the members of the Quaker\nsociety can read, they can collect their Christian duty from the\nscriptures, independently of their own ministers; or that they can\ncollect those duties for themselves, which others, who are illiterate,\nare obliged to collect from the church.\n\nThe second objection is, that the Quaker discourses have generally less\nin them, and are occasionally less connected or more confused than those\nof others.\n\nIt must be obvious, when we consider that the Quaker ministers are often\npersons of but little erudition, and that their principles forbid them\nto premeditate on these occasions, that we can hardly expect to find the\nsame logical division of the subject, or the same logical provings of\ngiven points, as in the sermons of those who spend hours, or even days\ntogether, in composing them.\n\nWith respect to the apparent barrenness, or the little matter sometimes\ndiscoverable in their sermons, they would reply, that God has not given\nto every man a similar or equal gift. To some he has given largely; to\nothers in a less degree. Upon some he has bestowed gifts, that may edify\nthe learned; upon others such as may edify the illiterate. Men are not\nto limit his spirit by their own notions of qualification. Like the\nwind, it bloweth not only where it listeth, but as it listeth. Thus\npreaching, which may appear to a scholar as below the ordinary standard,\nmay be more edifying to the simple hearted, than a discourse better\ndelivered, or more eruditely expressed. Thus again, preaching, which may\nbe made up of high sounding words, and of a mechanical manner and an\naffected tone, and which may, on these accounts, please the man of\nlearning and taste, may be looked upon as dross by a man of moderate\nabilities or acquirements. And thus it has happened, that many have left\nthe orators of the world and joined the Quaker society, on account of\nthe barrenness of the discourses which they have heard among them.\n\nWith respect to Quaker sermons being sometimes less connected or more\nconfused than those of others, they would admit that this might\napparently happen; and they would explain it in the following manner.\nTheir ministers, they would say, when they sit among the congregation,\nare often given to feel and discern the spiritual states of individuals\nthen present, and sometimes to believe it necessary to describe such\nstates, and to add such advice as these may seem to require. Now these\nstates being frequently different from each other, the description of\nthem, in consequence of an abrupt transition from one to the other, may\nsometimes occasion an apparent inconsistency in their discourses on such\noccasions. The Quakers, however, consider all such discourses, or those\nin which states are described, as among the most efficacious and useful\nof those delivered.\n\nBut whatever may be the merits of the Quaker sermons, there are\ncircumstances worthy of notice with respect to the Quaker preachers. In\nthe first place, they always deliver their discourses with great\nseriousness. They are also singularly bold and honest, when they feel it\nto be their duty, in the censure of the vices of individuals, whatever\nmay be the riches they enjoy. They are reported also from unquestionable\nauthority, to have extraordinary skill in discerning the internal\ncondition of those who attend their ministry, so that many, feeling the\nadvice to be addressed to themselves, have resolved upon their amendment\nin the several cases to which their preaching seemed to have been\napplied.\n\nAs I am speaking of the subject of ministers, I will answer one or two\nquestions, which I have often heard asked concerning it.\n\nThe first of these is, do the Quakers believe that their ministers are\nuniformly moved, when they preach, by the spirit of God?\n\nI answer--the Quakers believe they may be so moved, and that they ought\nto be so moved. They believe also that they are often so moved. But they\nbelieve again, that except their ministers are peculiarly cautious, and\nkeep particularly on their watch, they may mistake their own\nimaginations for the agency of this spirit. And upon this latter belief\nit is, in part, that the office of elders is founded, as before\ndescribed.\n\nThe second is, as there are no defined boundaries between the reason of\nman and the revelation of God, how do the Quakers know that they are\nfavoured at any particular time, either when they preach or when they do\nnot preach, with the visitation of this spirit, or that it is, at any\nparticular time, resident within them?\n\nRichard Claridge, a learned and pious clergyman of the Church of England\nin the last century, but who gave up his benefices and joined the\nsociety of the Quakers, has said a few words in his Tractatus\nHierographicus, upon this subject, a part of which I shall transcribe as\nan answer to this latter question.\n\n\"Men, says he, may certainly know, that they do believe on the Son of\nGod, with that faith that is unfeigned, and by which the heart is\npurified: for this faith is evidential and assuring, and consequently\nthe knowledge of it is certain. Now they, who certainly know that they\nhave this knowledge, may be certain also of the spirit of Christ\ndwelling in them; for [133] 'he that _believeth_ _on the Son of God, hath\nthe witness in himself;'_ and this witness is the spirit; for it is\n[134] 'the spirit that beareth witness,' of whose testimony they may be\nas certain, as of that faith the spirit beareth witness to.\"\n\n[Footnote 133: 1 John 5.10.]\n\n[Footnote 134:1 John 5. 6.]\n\nAgain--\"They may certainly know that they love the Lord above all, and\ntheir neighbour as themselves. For the command implies not only a\npossibility of knowing it in general, but also of such a knowledge as\nrespects their own immediate concernment therein, and personal benefit\narising from a sense of their conformity and obedience thereunto. And\nseeing they may certainly know this, they may also as certainly know,\nthat the spirit of Christ dwelleth in them;[135] for 'God is love, and\nhe that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him.' And\n[136] 'if we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is\nperfected in us.'\" In the same manner he goes on to enumerate many other\nmarks from texts of scripture, by which he conceives this question may\nbe determined[137].\n\n[Footnote 135:1 John 4. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 136:1 John 4. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 137: The Quakers conceive it to be no more difficult for them\nto distinguish the motions of the Holy Spirit, than for those of the\nchurch of England, who are candidates for holy orders. Every such\ncandidate is asked, \"Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the\nHoly Ghost to take upon you this office and ministration?\" The answer\nis, \"I trust so.\"]\n\nI shall conclude this chapter on the subject of the Quaker preaching, by\nan extract from Francis Lambert of Avignon, whose book was published in\nthe year 1516, long before the society of the Quakers took its rise in\nthe world. \"Beware, says he, that thou determine not precisely to speak\nwhat before thou hast meditated, whatsoever it be; for though it be\nlawful to determine the text which thou art to expound, yet not at all\nthe interpretation; lest, if thou doest so, thou takest from the Holy\nSpirit that which is his, namely, to direct thy speech that thou mayest\npreach in the name of the Lord, void of all learning, meditation, and\nexperience; and as if thou hadst studied nothing at all, committing thy\nheart, thy tongue, and thyself, wholly unto his spirit; and trusting\nnothing to thy former studying or meditation, but saying to thyself in\ngreat confidence of the divine promise, the Lord will give a word with\nmuch power unto those that preach the Gospel.\"\n\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_But besides oral or vocal, there is silent worship among the\nQuakers--Many meetings where not a word is said, and yet worship is\nconsidered to have begun, and to be proceeding--Worship not necessarily\nconnected with words--This the opinion of other pious men besides\nQuakers--Of Howe--Hales--Gell--Smaldridge, bishop of Bristol--Monro\n--Advantages which the Quakers attach to their silent worship._\n\n\nI have hitherto confined myself to those meetings of the Quakers, where\nthe minister is said to have received impressions from the Spirit of\nGod, with a desire of expressing them, and where, if he expresses them,\nhe ought to deliver them to the congregation as the pictures of his\nwill; and this, as accurately as the mirror represents the object that\nis set before it. There are times, however, as I mentioned in the last\nsection, when either no impressions may be said to be felt, or, if any\nare felt, there is no concomitant impulse to utter them. In this case\nno person attempts to speak: for to speak or to pray, where the heart\nfeels no impulse to do it, would be, in the opinion of the Quakers, to\nmock God, and not to worship him in spirit and in truth. They sit\ntherefore in silence, and worship in silence; and they not only remain\nsilent the whole time of their meetings, but many meetings take place,\nand these sometimes in succession, when not a word is uttered.\n\nMichael de Molinos, who was chief of the sect of the Quietists, and\nwhose \"Spiritual Guide\" was printed at Venice in 1685, speaks thus:\n\"There are three kinds of silence; the first is of words, the second of\ndesires, and the third of thoughts. The first is perfect; the second is\nmore perfect; and the third is most perfect. In the first, that is, of\nwords, virtue is acquired. In the second, namely, of desires, quietness\nis attained. In the third, of thoughts, internal recollection is gained.\nBy not speaking, not desiring, and not thinking, one arrives at the\ntrue and perfect mystical silence, where God speaks with the soul,\ncommunicates himself to it, and in the abyss of its own depth, teaches\nit the most perfect and exalted wisdom.\"\n\nMany people of other religious societies, if they were to visit the\nmeetings of the Quakers while under their silent worship, would be apt\nto consider the congregation as little better than stocks or stones, or\nat any rate as destitute of that life and animation which constitute the\nessence of religion. They would have no idea that a people were\nworshipping God, whom they observed to deliver nothing from their lips.\nIt does not follow, however, because nothing is said, that God is not\nworshipped. The Quakers, on the other hand, contend, that these silent\nmeetings form the sublimest part of their worship. The soul, they say,\ncan have intercourse with God. It can feel refreshment, joy, and\ncomfort, in him. It can praise and adore him; and all this, without the\nintervention of a word.\n\nThis power of the soul is owing to its constitution or nature. \"It\nfollows, says the learned Howe, in his 'Living Temple,' that having\nformed this his more excellent creature according to his own more\nexpress likeness; stampt it with the more glorious characters of his\nliving image; given it a nature suitable to his own, and thereby made it\ncapable of rational and intelligent converse with him, he hath it even\nin his power to maintain a continual converse with this creature, by\nagreeable communications, by letting in upon it the vital beams and\ninfluences of his own light and love, and receiving back the return of\nits grateful acknowledgments and praises: wherein it is manifest he\nshould do no greater thing than he hath done. For who sees not that it\nis a matter of no greater difficulty to converse with, than to make a\nreasonable creature? Or who would not be ashamed to deny, that he who\nhath been the only author of the soul of man, and of the excellent\npowers and faculties belonging to it, can more easily sustain that which\nhe hath made, and converse with his creature suitably to the way,\nwherein he hath made it capable of his converse?\"\n\nThat worship may exist without the intervention of words, on account of\nthis constitution of the soul, is a sentiment which has been espoused by\nmany pious persons who were not Quakers. Thus, the ever memorable John\nHales, in his Golden Remains, expresses himself: \"Nay, one thing I know\nmore, that the prayer which is the most forcible, transcends, and far\nexceeds, all power of words. For St. Paul, speaking unto us of the most\neffectual kind of prayer, calls it sighs and groans, that cannot be\nexpressed. Nothing cries so loud in the ears of God, as the sighing of a\ncontrite and earnest heart.\"\n\n\"It requires not the voice, but the mind; not the stretching of the\nhands, but the intention of the heart; not any outward shape or carriage\nof the body, but the inward behaviour of the understanding. How then can\nit slacken your worldly business and occasions, to mix them with sighs\nand groans, which are the most effectual prayer?\"\n\nDr. Gell, before quoted, says--\"Words conceived only in an earthly mind,\nand uttered out of the memory by man's voice, which make a noise in the\nears of flesh and blood, are not, nor can be accounted a prayer, before\nour father which is in Heaven.\"\n\nDr. Smaldridge, bishop of Bristol, has the following expressions in his\nsermons: \"Prayer doth not consist either in the bending of our knees, or\nthe service of our lips, or the lifting up of our hands or eyes to\nheaven, but in the elevation of our souls towards God. These outward\nexpressions of our inward thoughts are necessary in our public, and\noften expedient in our private devotions; but they do not make up the\nessence of prayer, which may truly and acceptably be performed, where\nthese are wanting.\"\n\nAnd he says afterwards, in other parts of his work--\"Devotion of mind is\nitself a silent prayer, which wants not to be clothed in words, that God\nmay better know our desires. He regards not the service of our lips, but\nthe inward disposition of our hearts.\"\n\nMonro, before quoted, speaks to the same effect, in his Just Measures of\nthe Pious Institutions of Youth. \"The breathings of a recollected soul\nare not noise or clamour. The language in which devotion loves to vent\nitself, is that of the inward man, which is secret and silent, but yet\nGod hears it, and makes gracious returns unto it. Sometimes the pious\nardours and sensations of good souls are such as they cannot clothe with\nwords. They feel what they cannot express. I would not, however, be\nthought to insinuate, that the voice and words are not to be used at\nall. It is certain that public and common devotions cannot be performed\nwithout them; and that even in private, they are not only very\nprofitable, but sometimes necessary. What I here aim at is, that the\nyouth should be made sensible, that words are not otherwise valuable\nthan as they are images and copies of what passes in the hidden man of\nthe heart; especially considering that a great many, who appear very\nangelical in their devotions, if we take our measures of them from their\nvoice and tone, do soon, after these intervals of seeming seriousness\nare over, return with the dog to the vomit, and give palpable evidences\nof their earthliness and sensuality; their passion and their pride.\"\n\nAgain--\"I am persuaded, says he, that it would be vastly advantageous\nfor the youth, if care were taken to train them up to this method of\nprayer; that is, if they were taught frequently to place themselves in\nthe divine presence, and there silently to adore their Creator,\nRedeemer, and Sanctifier. For hereby they would become habitually\nrecollected. Devotion would be their element; and they would know, by\nexperience, what our blessed Savour and his great Apostle meant, when\nthey enjoin us to pray without ceasing. It was, I suppose, by some such\nmethod of devotion as I am now speaking of, that Enoch walked with God;\nthat Moses saw him that is invisible; that the royal Psalmist set the\nLord always before him; and that our Lord Jesus himself continued whole\nnights in prayer to God. No man, I believe, will imagine that his\nprayer, during all the space in which it is said to have continued, was\naltogether vocal. When he was in his agony in the garden, he used but a\nfew words. His vocal prayer then consisted only of one petition, and an\nact of pure resignation thrice repeated. But I hope all will allow,\nthat his devotion lasted longer than while he was employed in the\nuttering a few sentences.\"\n\nThese meetings then, which are usually denominated silent, and in which,\nthough not a word be spoken, it appears from the testimony of others\nthat God may be truly worshipped, the Quakers consider as an important\nand sublime part of their church service, and as possessing advantages\nwhich are not to be found in the worship which proceeds solely through\nthe medium of the mouth.\n\nFor in the first place it must be obvious that, in these silent\nmeetings, men cannot become chargeable before God, either with hypocrisy\nor falsehood, by pretending to worship him with their lips, when their\naffections are far from him, or by uttering a language that is\ninconsistent with the feelings of the heart.\n\nIt must be obvious, again, that every man's devotion, in these silent\nmeetings, is made, as it ought to be, to depend upon himself; for no man\ncan work out the salvation of another for him. A man does not depend at\nthese times on the words of a minister, or of any other person present;\nbut his own soul, worked upon by the divine influence, pleads in\nsilence with the Almighty its own cause. And thus, by extending this\nidea to the congregation at large, we shall find a number of individuals\noffering up at the same time their own several confessions; pouring out\ntheir own several petitions; giving their own thanks severally, or\npraising and adoring; all of them in different languages, adapted to\ntheir several conditions, and yet not interrupting one another.\n\nNor is it the least recommendation of this worship, in the opinion of\nthe Quakers, that, being thus wholly spiritual, it is out of the power\nof the natural man to obstruct it. No man can break the chains that thus\nbinds the spirit of man to the spirit of God; for this chain, which is\nspiritual, is invisible. But this is not the case, the Quakers say, with\nany oral worship. \"For how, says Barclay, alluding to his own times, can\nthe Papists say their mass, if there be any there to disturb and\ninterrupt them? Do but take away the mass-book, the chalice, the host,\nor the priest's garments; yea, do but spill the water, or the wine, or\nblow out the candles, (a thing quickly to be done,) and the whole\nbusiness is marred, and no sacrifice can be offered. Take from the\nLutherans and Episcopalians their liturgy or common prayer-book, and no\nservice can be said. Remove from the Calvinists, Arminians, Socinians,\nIndependents, or Anabaptists, the pulpit, the bible, and the hourglass,\nor make but such a noise as the voice of the preacher cannot be heard,\nor disturb him but so before he come, or strip him of his bible or his\nbooks, and he must be dumb: for they all think it an heresy to wait to\nspeak, as the spirit of God giveth utterance; and thus easily their\nwhole worship may be marred.\"\n\n\nSECT. III.\n\n_Quakers reject every thing formal, ostentatious, and spiritless, from\ntheir worship--Ground on which their Meeting-houses stand, not\nconsecrated--The latter plain--Women sit apart from the men--No\nPews--nor priest's garments--nor psalmody--No one day thought more holy\nthan another--But as public worship is necessary, days have been fixed\nupon for that purpose._\n\n\nJesus Christ, as he was sitting at Jacob's well, and talking with the\nwoman of Samaria, made use of the following, among other expressions, in\nhis discourse: \"Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall\nneither, in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.\nBut the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship\nthe Father in spirit and in truth.\"\n\nThese expressions the Quakers generally render thus: I tell you that a\nnew dispensation is at hand. Men will no longer worship at Jerusalem\nmore acceptably than in any other place. Neither will it be expected of\nthem, that they shall worship in temples, like the temple there. Neither\nthe glory, nor the ornaments of gold and silver and precious stones, nor\nthe splendid garments of the High Priest, will be any parts of the new\nworship that is approaching. All ceremonies will be done away, and men's\nreligion will be reduced simply to the worshipping of God in spirit and\nin truth. In short, the Quakers believe, that, when Jesus came, he ended\nthe temple, its ornaments, its music, its Levitical priesthood, its\ntithes, its new moons, and sabbaths, and the various ceremonial\nordinances that had been engrafted into the religion of the Jews.\n\nThe Quakers reject every thing that appears to them to be superstitious,\nor formal, or ceremonious, or ostentatious, or spiritless, from their\nworship.\n\nThey believe that no ground can be made holy; and therefore they do not\nallow the places on which their Meeting-houses are built to be\nconsecrated by the use of any human forms.\n\nTheir Meeting-houses are singularly plain. There is nothing of\ndecoration in the interior of them. They consist of a number of plain\nlong benches with backs to them; There is one elevated seat at the end\nof these. This is for their ministers. It is elevated for no other\nreason, than that their ministers may be the better heard. The women\noccupy one half of these benches, and sit apart from the men.\n\nThese benches are not intersected by partitions. Hence there are no\ndistinct pews for the families of the rich, or of such as can afford to\npay for them: for in the first place, the Quakers pay nothing for their\nseats in their Meeting-houses; and, in the second, they pay no respect\nto the outward condition of one another. If they consider themselves,\nwhen out of doors, as all equal to one another in point of privileges,\nmuch more do they abolish all distinctions, when professedly assembled\nin a place of worship. They sit therefore in their Meeting-houses\nundistinguished with respect to their outward circumstances, [138]as the\nchildren of the same great parent, who stand equally in need of his\nassistance; and as in the sight of Him who is no respecter of persons,\nbut who made of one blood all the nations of men who dwell on all the\nface of the earth.\n\n[Footnote 138: Spiritual officers, such as elders and overseers, sit at\nthe upper part of the Meeting-house.]\n\nThe Quaker ministers are not distinguishable, when in their places of\nworship, by their dress. They wear neither black clothes, nor surplices,\nnor gowns, nor bands. Jesus Christ, when he preached to the multitude,\nis not recorded to have put on a dress different from that which he wore\non other occasions. Neither do the Quakers believe that ministers of the\nchurch ought, under the new dispensation, to be a separate people, as\nthe Levites were, or to be distinguished on account of their office from\nother men.\n\nThe Quakers differ from other Christians in the rejection of psalmody,\nas a service of the church. If persons feel themselves so influenced in\ntheir private devotions, [139]that they can sing, as the Apostle says,\n\"with the spirit and the understanding,\" or \"can sing[140] and make\nmelody in their hearts to the Lord,\" the Quakers have no objection to\nthis as an act of worship. But they conceive that music and psalmody,\nthough they might have been adapted to the ceremonial religion of the\nJews, are not congenial with the new dispensation that has followed;\nbecause this dispensation requires, that all worship should be performed\nin spirit and in truth. It requires that no act of religion should take\nplace, unless the spirit influences an utterance, and that no words\nshould be used, except they are in unison with the heart. Now this\ncoincidence of spiritual impulse and feeling with this act, is not\nlikely to happen, in the opinion of the Quakers, with public psalmody.\nIt is not likely that all in the congregation will be impelled, in the\nsame moment, to a spiritual song, or that all will be in the state of\nmind or spirit which the words of the psalm describe. Thus how few will\nbe able to sing truly with David, if the following verse should be\nbrought before them: \"As the hart panteth after the water-brooks, so\npanteth my soul after thee, O God.\" To this it may be added, that where\nmen think about musical harmony or vocal tunes in their worship, the\namusement of the creature will be so mixed with it, that it cannot be a\npure oblation of the Spirit, and that those who think they can please\nthe Divine Being by musical instruments, or the varied modulations of\ntheir own voices, must look upon him as a Being with corporeal organs,\nsensible, like a man, of fleshly delights, and not as a Spirit, who can\nonly be pleased with the worship that is in spirit and in truth.\n\n[Footnote 139: 1 Cor. 14. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 140: Ephes. 5. 19.]\n\nThe Quakers reject also the consecration and solemnization of particular\ndays and times. As the Jews, when they became Christians, were enjoined\nby the Apostle Paul, not to put too great a value upon \"days,[141] and\nmonths, and times, and years;\" so the Quakers think it their duty as\nChristians to attend to the same injunction. They never meet upon saints\ndays, as such, that is, as days demanding the religious assemblings of\nmen, more than others; first, because they conceive this would be giving\ninto popish superstition; and secondly, because these days were\noriginally the appointment of men and not of God, and no human\nappointment, they believe, can make one day holier than another.\n\n[Footnote 141: Gal. 4. 10.]\n\nFor the latter reason also they do not assemble for worship on those\ndays which their own government, though they are greatly attached to it,\nappoint as fasts. They are influenced also by another reason in this\nlatter case. They conceive as religion is of a spiritual nature, and\nmust depend upon the spirit of God, that true devotion cannot be excited\nfor given purposes or at a given time. They are influenced again by the\nconsideration, that the real fast is of a different nature from that\nrequired. [142] \"Is not this the fast, says Isaiah, that I have chosen,\nto loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let\nthe oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal\nthy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out,\nto thy house? When thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and that\nthou hide not thyself from thy own flesh?\" This the Quakers believe to\nbe the true fast, and not the work of a particular day, but to be the\ndaily work of every real Christian.\n\n[Footnote 142: Isaiah 58. 6. 7.]\n\nIndeed no one day, in the estimation of the Quakers, can be made by\nhuman appointment either more holy or more proper for worship than\nanother. They do not even believe that the Jewish Sabbath, which was by\nthe appointment of God, continues in Gospel times, or that it has been\nhanded down by divine authority as the true Sabbath for Christians. All\ndays with the Quakers are equally holy, and all equally proper for the\nworship of God. In this opinion they coincide with the ever memorable\nJohn Hales. \"For prayer, indeed, says this venerable man, was the\nSabbath ordained: yet prayer itself is Sabbathless, and admits of no\nrest, no intermission at all. If our hands be clean, we must, as our\nApostle commands us, lift them up every where, at all times, and make\nevery place a church, every day a Sabbath-day, every hour canonical. As\nyou go to the market; as you stand in the streets; as you walk in the\nfields--in all these places, you may pray as well, and with as good\nacceptance, as in the church: for you yourselves are temples of the Holy\nGhost, if the grace of God be in you, more precious than any of those\nwhich are made with hands.\"\n\nThough, however, the Quakers believe no one day in the sight of God to\nbe holier than another, and no one capable of being rendered so by human\nauthority, yet they think that Christians ought to assemble for the\npublic worship of God. They think they ought to bear an outward and\npublic testimony for God; and this can only be done by becoming members\nof a visible church, where they may be seen to acknowledge him publicly\nin the face of men. They think also, that the public worship of God\nincreases, as it were, the fire of devotion, and enlarges the sphere of\nspiritual life in the souls of men. \"God causes the inward life, says\nBarclay, the more to abound when his children assemble themselves\ndiligently together, to wait upon him; so that as iron sharpeneth iron,\nthe seeing the faces of one another, when both are inwardly gathered\nunto the life, giveth occasion for the life secretly to rise, and to\npass from vessel to vessel: and as many candles lighted and put in one\nplace, do greatly augment the light and make it more to shine forth, so\nwhen many are gathered together into the same life, there is more of\nthe glory of God, and his power appears to the refreshment of each\nindividual; for that he partakes not only of the light and life raised\nin himself, but in all the rest. And therefore Christ hath particularly\npromised a blessing to such as assemble in his name, seeing he will be\nin the midst of them.\" For these and other reasons, the Quakers think it\nproper, that men should be drawn together to the public worship of God:\nbut if so, they must be drawn together at certain times. Now as one day\nhas never been, in the eyes of the Quakers, more desirable for such an\nobject than another, their ancestors chose the first day in the week,\nbecause the Apostles had chosen it for the religious assembling of\nthemselves and their followers. And in addition to this, that more\nfrequent opportunities might be afforded them of bearing their outward\ntestimony publicly for God, and of enlarging the sphere of their\nspiritual life, they appointed a meeting on one other day in the week in\nmost places, and two in some others, for the same purpose.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIII.\n\n_Miscellaneous particularities--Quakers careful about the use of such\nwords as relate to religion--Never use the words \"original sin\"--nor\n\"word of God,\" for the scriptures--Nor the word \"Trinity\"--Never pry\ninto the latter mystery--Believe in the manhood and divinity of Jesus\nChrist--Also in a resurrection, but sever attempt to fathom that\nsubject--Make little difference between sanctification and\njustification--- Their ideas concerning the latter_.\n\n\nThe Quakers are remarkably careful, both in their conversation and their\nwritings, on religious subjects, as to the terms which they use. They\nexpress scriptural images or ideas, as much as may be, by scriptural\nterms. By means of this particular caution, they avoid much of the\nperplexity and many of the difficulties which arise to others, and\nescape the theological disputes which disturb the rest of the Christian\nworld.\n\nThe Quakers scarcely ever utter the words \"original sin,\" because they\nnever find them in use in the sacred writings.\n\nThe scriptures are usually denominated by Christians \"the word of God.\"\nThough the Quakers believe them to have been given by divine\ninspiration, yet they reject this term. They apprehend that Christ is\nthe word of God. They cannot therefore consistently give to the\nscriptures, however they reverence them, that name which St. John the\nEvangelist gives exclusively to the Son of God.\n\nNeither do they often make use of the word \"Trinity.\" This expression\nthey can no where find in the sacred writings. This to them is a\nsufficient warrant for rejecting it. They consider it as a term of mere\nhuman invention, and of too late a date to claim a place among the\nexpressions of primitive Christianity. For they find it neither in\nJustin Martyr, nor in Irenaeus, nor in Tertullian, nor in Origen, nor in\nthe Fathers of the three first centuries of the church.\n\nAnd as they seldom use the term, so they seldom or never try, when it\noffers itself to them, either in conversation or in books, to fathom its\nmeaning. They judge that a curious inquiry into such high and\nspeculative things, though ever so great truths in themselves, tends\nlittle to Godliness, and less to peace; and that their principal concern\nis with that only which is clearly revealed, and which leads practically\nto holiness of life.\n\nConsistently with this judgment, we find but little said respecting the\nTrinity by the Quaker writers.\n\nIt is remarkable that Barclay in the course of his apology, takes no\nnotice of this subject.\n\nWilliam Penn seems to have satisfied himself with refuting what he\nconsidered to be a gross notion, namely, that of three persons in the\nTrinity. For after having shown what the Trinity was not, he no where\nattempts to explain what he conceived it to be. He says only, that he\nacknowledges a Father, a Word, and a Holy Spirit, according to the\nscriptures, but not according to the notions of men; and that these\nThree are truly and properly One, of one nature as well as will.\n\nIsaac Pennington, an ancient Quaker, speaks thus: \"That the three are\ndistinct, as three several beings or persons, the Quakers no where read\nin the scriptures; but they read in them that they are one. And thus\nthey believe their being to be one, their life one, their light one,\ntheir wisdom one, their power one. And he that knoweth and seeth any one\nof them, knoweth and seeth them, all, according to that saying of Christ\nto Philip, 'He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.'\"\n\nJohn Crook, another ancient writer of this society, in speaking of the\nTrinity, says, that the Quakers \"acknowledge one God, the Father of\nJesus Christ, witnessed within man only by the spirit of truth; and\nthese three are one, and agree in one; and he that honours the Father,\nhonours the Son that proceeds from him; and he that denies the Spirit,\ndenies both the Father and the Son.\" But nothing farther can be obtained\nfrom this author on this subject.\n\nHenry Tuke, a modern writer among the Quakers, and who published an\naccount of the principles of the society only last year, says also\nlittle upon the point before us. \"This belief, says he, in the Divinity\nof the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, induced some of the\nteachers in the Christian church, about three hundred years after\nChrist, to form a doctrine, to which they gave the name of Trinity; but,\nin our writings we seldom make use of this term, thinking it best, on\nsuch a subject, to keep to scriptural expressions, and to avoid those\ndisputes which have since perplexed the Christian world, and led into\nspeculations beyond the power of human abilities to decide. If we\nconsider that we ourselves are composed of a union of body, soul, and\nspirit, and yet cannot determine how even these are united; how much\nless may we expect perfect clearness on a subject, so far above our\nfinite comprehension, as that of the Divine Nature?\"\n\nThe Quakers believe, that Jesus Christ was man, because he took flesh,\nand inhabited the body prepared for him, and was subject to human\ninfirmities; but they believe also in his Divinity, because he was the\nword.\n\nThey believe also in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, as\nconnected with the Christian religion. In explaining our belief of this\ndoctrine, says Henry Tuke, we refer to the fifteenth chapter of the\nfirst epistle to the Corinthians. In this chapter is clearly laid down\nthe resurrection of a body, though not of the same body that dies.\n\"There are celestial bodies, and there are bodies terrestrial; but the\nglory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is\nanother. So also is the resurrection of the dead: It is sown a natural\nbody, it is raised a spiritual body: there is a natural body, and there\nis a spiritual body. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood\ncannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit\nincorruption.\" Here we rest our belief in this mystery, without desiring\nto pry into it beyond what is revealed to us; remembering \"that secret\nthings belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are\nrevealed, belong unto us and to our children.\"\n\nThe Quakers make but little difference, and not such as many other\nChristians do, between sanctification and justification. \"Faith and\nworks, says Richard Claridge, are both concerned in our complete\njustification.\"--\"Whosoever is justified, he is also in measure\nsanctified; and as far as he is sanctified, so far is he justified, and\nno farther. But the justification I now speak of, is the making of us\njust or righteous by the continual help, work, and operation of the Holy\nSpirit.\"--\"And as we wait for the continual help and assistance of his\nHoly Spirit, and come to witness the effectual working of the same in\nourselves, so we shall experimentally find, that our justification is\nproportionable to our sanctification; for as our sanctification goes\nforward, which is always commensurate to our faithful obedience to the\nmanifestation, influence, and assistance, of the grace, light, and\nspirit of Christ, so shall we also feel and perceive the progress of our\njustification.\"\n\nThe ideas of the Quakers, as to justification itself, cannot be better\nexplained than in the words of Henry Tuke before quoted: So far as\nremissions of sins, and a capacity to receive salvation, are parts of\njustification, we attribute it to the sacrifice of Christ; \"In whom we\nhave redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to\nthe riches of his grace.\" But when we consider justification as a state\nof divine favour and acceptance, we ascribe it, not simply either to\nfaith or works, but to the sanctifying operation of the spirit of\nChrist, from which living faith and acceptable works alone proceed; and\nby which we may come to know, that \"the spirit itself beareth witness\nwith our spirits, that we are the children of God.\"\n\nIn attributing our justification, through the grace of God in Christ\nJesus, to the operation of the Holy Spirit, which sanctifies the heart\nand produces the work of regeneration, we are supported by the testimony\nof the Apostle Paul, who says, \"Not by works of righteousness which we\nhave done, but of his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration,\nand renewing of the Holy Ghost.\" Again--\"But ye are washed, but ye are\nsanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by\nthe spirit of our God.\"\n\n\"By this view of the doctrine of justification, we conceive the\napparently different sentiments of the Apostles Paul and James are\nreconciled. Neither of them say that faith alone, or works alone, are\nthe cause of our being justified; but as one of them asserts the\nnecessity of faith, and the other of works, for effecting this great\nobject, a clear and convincing proof is afforded, that both contribute\nto our justification; and that faith without works, and works without\nfaith, are equally dead.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIV.\n\n_Quakers reject Baptism and the Lord's Supper--Much censured far\nit--Indulgence solicited for them on account of the difficulties\nconnected with these subjects--Christian Religion spiritual--Jewish\ntypes to be abolished--Different meanings of the word \"Baptise\"--Disputes\nconcerning the mode of Baptism--Concerning also the nature and constitution\nof the Supper--Concerning also the time and manner of its celebration\n--This indulgence also proper, because the Quakers give it to others,\nwho differ from them as a body on the subject of Religion_.\n\n\nThe Quakers, among other particularities, reject the application of\nwater-baptism, and the administration of the Sacrament of the Supper, as\nChristian rites.\n\nThese ordinances have been considered by many as so essentially\ninterwoven with Christianity, that the Quakers, by rejecting the use of\nthem, have been denied to be Christians.\n\nBut whatever may be the difference of opinion between the world and the\nQuakers, upon these subjects, great indulgence is due to the latter on\nthis occasion. People have received the ordinances in question from\ntheir ancestors. They have been brought up to the use of them. They have\nseen them sanctioned by the world. Finding their authority disputed by a\nbody of men, who are insignificant as to numbers, when compared with\nothers, they have let loose their censure upon them, and this without\nany inquiry concerning the grounds of their dissent. They know perhaps\nnothing of the obstinate contentious; nothing of the difficulties which\nhave occurred; and nothing of those which may still be started on these\nsubjects. I shall state therefore a few considerations by way of\npreface, during which the reader will see, that objections both fair and\nforcible may be raised by the best disposed Christians, on the other\nside of the question; that the path is not so plain and easy as he may\nhave imagined it to be; and that if the Quakers have taken a road\ndifferent from himself on this occasion, they are entitled to a fair\nhearing of all they have to say in their defence, and to expect the same\ncandour and indulgence which he himself would have claimed, if, with the\nbest intentions, he had not been able to come to the same conclusion, on\nany given point of importance, as had been adopted by others.\n\nLet me then ask, in the first place, what is the great characteristic of\nthe religion we profess?\n\nIf we look to divines for an answer to this question, we may easily\nobtain it. We shall find some of them in their sermons speaking of\ncircumcision, baptismal washings and purifications, new moons, feasts of\nthe passover and unleavened bread, sacrifices, and other rites. We shall\nfind them dwelling on these as constituent parts of the religion of the\nJews. We shall find them immediately passing from thence to the religion\nof Jesus Christ. Here all is considered by them to be spiritual.\nDevotion of the heart is insisted upon as that alone which is acceptable\nto God. If God is to be worshipped, it is laid down as a position, that\nhe is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth. We shall find them also,\nin other of their sermons, but particularly in those preached after the\nreformation, stating the advantages obtained by that event. The Roman\nCatholic system is here considered by them to be as ceremonial as that\nof the Jews. The Protestant is held out as of a more spiritual nature,\nand as more congenial therefore with the spirit of the gospel. But what\nis this but a confession, in each case, that in proportion as men give\nup ceremonies and become spiritual in their worship, their religion is\nthe best, or that spirituality is the grand characteristic of the\nreligion of Jesus Christ? Now there immediately arises a presumption, if\nspirituality of feeling had been intended as the characteristic of any\nreligion, that no ceremonious ordinances would have been introduced into\nit.\n\nIf, again, I were to make an assertion to divines, that Jesus Christ\ncame to put an end to the ceremonial parts of the Jewish law, and to the\ntypes and shadows belonging to the Jewish dispensation, they would not\ndeny it. But baptism and the supper were both of them outward Jewish\nceremonies, connected with the Jewish religion. They were both of them\ntypes and shadows, of which the antetypes and substances had been\nrealized at the death of Christ. And therefore a presumption arises\nagain, that these were not intended to be continued.\n\nAnd that they were not intended to be continued, may be presumed from\nanother consideration. For what was baptism to any but a Jew? What could\na Gentile have understood by it? What notion could he have formed, by\nmeans of it, of the necessity of the baptism of Christ? Unacquainted\nwith purifications by water as symbols of purification of heart, he\ncould never have entered, like a Jew, into the spiritual life of such an\nordinance. And similar observations may be made with respect to the\nPassover-Supper. A Gentile could have known nothing, like a Jew, of the\nmeaning of this ceremony. He could never have seen in the Paschal Lamb\nany type of Christ, or in the deliverance of the Israelites from\nEgyptian bondage, any type of his own deliverance from sin, so clearly\nor so feelingly as if the facts and customs had related to his own\nhistory, or as if he had been trained to the connexion by a long series\nof prophecies. In short, the passover could have had but little meaning\nto him.\n\nFrom these circumstances, therefore, there would be reason to conclude,\nthat these ceremonies were not to be continued, at least to any but\nJews; because they were not fitted to the knowledge, the genius, or the\ncondition of the Gentile world.\n\nBut, independently of these difficulties, which arise from a general\nview of these ordinances as annexed to a religion which is confessed to\nbe spiritual, others arise from a particular view of each. On the\nsubject of baptism, there is ground for argument, as to the meaning of\nthe word \"baptize.\" This word, in consequence of its representation of a\nwatery ceremony, is usually connected with water in our minds. But it\nmay also, very consistently, be connected even with fire. Its general\nmeaning is to purify. In this sense many understand it. And those who\ndo, and who apply it to the great command of Jesus to his disciples,\nthink they give a better interpretation of it, than those who connect it\nwith water. For they think it more reasonable that the Apostles should\nhave been enjoined to go into all nations, and to endeavour to purify\nthe hearts of individuals by the spirit and power of their preaching,\nfrom the dross of Heathen notions, and to lead them to spirituality of\nmind by the inculcation of Gospel principles, than to dip them under\nwater, as an essential part of their new religion.\n\nBut on a supposition that the word baptize should signify to immerse,\nand not to purify, another difficulty occurs; for, if it was thought\nproper or necessary that persons should be initiated into Christianity\nby water-baptism, in order to distinguish their new state from that of\nthe Jews or Heathens, who then surrounded them, it seems unnecessary for\nthe children of Christian parents, who were born in a Christian\ncommunity, and whose ancestors for centuries have professed the\nChristian name.\n\nNor is it to be considered as any other than a difficulty that the\nChristian world have known so little about water-baptism, that they have\nbeen divided as to the right manner of performing it. The eastern and\nwestern churches differed early upon this point, and Christians continue\nto differ upon it to the present day; some thinking that none but\nadults; others, that none but infants should be baptised: some, that the\nfaces only of the baptized should be sprinkled with water; others, that\ntheir bodies should be immersed.\n\nOn the subject of the sacrament of supper, similar difficulties have\noccurred.\n\nJesus Christ unquestionably permitted his disciples to meet together in\nremembrance of their last supper with him. But it is not clear, that\nthis was any other than a permission to those who were present, and who\nhad known and loved him. The disciples were not ordered to go into all\nnations, and to enjoin it to their converts to observe the same\nceremony. Neither did the Apostles leave any command by which it was\nenjoined as an ordinance of the Christian church.\n\nAnother difficulty which has arisen on the subject of the supper, is,\nthat Christians seem so little to have understood the nature of it, or\nin what it consisted, that they have had, in different ages, different\nviews, and encouraged different doctrines concerning it. One has placed\nit in one thing, and another in another. Most of them, again, have\nattempted in their explanation of it, to blend the enjoyment of the\nspiritual essence with that of the corporeal substance of the body and\nblood of Christ, and thus to unite a spiritual with a ceremonial\nexercise of religion. Grasping, therefore, at things apparently\nirreconcilable, they have conceived the strangest notions; and, by\ngiving these to the world, they have only afforded fuel for contention\namong themselves and others.\n\nIn the time of the Apostles, it was the custom of converted persons,\ngrounded on the circumstances that passed at the supper of the passover,\nto meet in religious communion. They used, on these occasions, to break\ntheir bread, and take their refreshment and converse together. The\nobject of these meetings was to imitate the last friendly supper of\nJesus with his disciples, to bear a public memorial of his sufferings\nand his death, and to promote their love for one another. But this\ncustom was nothing more, as far as evidence can be had, than that of a\nbrotherly breaking of bread together. It was no sacramental eating.\nNeither was the body of Jesus supposed to be enjoyed, nor the spiritual\nenjoyment, of it to consist in the partaking of this outward feast.\n\nIn process of time, after the days of the Apostles, when this simple\ncustom had declined, we find another meeting of Christians, in imitation\nof that at the passover supper, at which both bread and wine were\nintroduced. This different commemoration of the same event had a new\nname given to it; for it was distinguished from the other by the name of\nEucharist.\n\nAlexander, the seventh bishop of Rome, who introduced holy water both\ninto houses and churches for spiritual purposes, made some alterations\nin the ingredients of the Eucharist, by mixing water with the wine, and\nby substituting unleavened for common bread.\n\nIn the time of Irenaeus and Justin the Martyr, we find an account of the\nEucharist as it was then thought of and celebrated. Great stress was\nthen laid upon the bread and wine as a holy and sacramental repast:\nprayers were made that the Holy Ghost would descend into each of these\nsubstances. It was believed that it did so descend; and that as soon as\nthe bread and wine perceived it, the former operated virtually as the\nbody, and the latter as the blood of Jesus Christ. From this time the\nbread was considered to have great virtues; and on this latter account,\nnot only children, but sucking infants, were admitted to this sacrament.\nIt was also given to persons on the approach of death. And many\nafterwards, who had great voyages to make at sea, carried it with them\nto preserve them both from temporal and spiritual dangers.\n\nIn the twelfth century, another notion, a little modified from the\nformer, prevailed on this subject; which was, that consecration by a\nPriest had the power of abolishing the substance of the bread, and of\nsubstituting the very body of Jesus Christ.\n\nThis was called the doctrine of Transubstantiation.\n\nThis doctrine appeared to Luther, at the dawn of the reformation, to be\nabsurd; and he was of opinion that the sacrament consisted of the\nsubstance of Christ's body and blood, together with the substance of the\nbread and wine; or, in other words, that the substance of the bread\nremained, but the body of Christ was inherent in it, so that both the\nsubstance of the bread and of the body and blood of Christ was there\nalso. This was called the doctrine of Consubstantiation, in\ncontradiction to the former.\n\nCalvin again considered the latter opinion erroneous: he gave it out\nthat the bread was not actually the body of Jesus Christ, nor the wine\nhis blood; but that both his body and blood were sacramentally received\nby the faithful, in the use of the bread and wine. Calvin, however,\nconfessed himself unable to explain even this his own doctrine. For he\nsays, \"if it be asked me how it is, that is, how believers sacramentally\nreceive Christ's body and blood? I shall not be ashamed to confess, that\nit is a secret too high for me to comprehend in my spirit, or explain in\nwords.\"\n\nBut independently of the difficulties which have arisen from these\ndifferent notions concerning the nature and constitution of the Lord's\nsupper, others have arisen concerning the time and the manner of the\ncelebration of it.\n\nThe Christian churches of the east, in the early times, justifying\nthemselves by tradition and the custom of the passover, maintained that\nthe fourteenth day of the month Nissan ought to be observed as the day\nof the celebration of this feast, because the Jews were commanded to\nkill the Paschal Lamb on that day. The western, on the other hand,\nmaintained the authority of tradition and the primitive practice, that\nit ought to be kept on no other day than that of the resurrection of\nJesus Christ. Disputes again of a different complexion agitated the\nChristian world upon the same subject. One church contended that the\nleavened, another that unleavened bread only should be used upon this\noccasion: others contended, whether the administration of this sacrament\nshould be by the hands of the clergy only: others, whether it should not\nbe confined to the sick: others, whether it should be given to the young\nand mature promiscuously: others, whether it should be received by the\ncommunicant standing, sitting, or kneeling, or as the Apostles received\nit: and others, whether it should be administered in the night time as\nby our Saviour, or whether in the day, or whether only once, as at the\npassover, or whether oftener in the year.\n\nAnother difficulty, but of a different nature, has occurred with respect\nto the Lord's supper. This has arisen from the circumstance, that other\nceremonies were enjoined by our Saviour in terms equally positive as\nthis, but which most Christians, notwithstanding, have thought\nthemselves at liberty to reject. Among these the washing of feet is\nparticularly to be noticed. This custom was of an emblematic nature. It\nwas enjoined at the same time as that of the Lord's supper, and on the\nsame occasion. But it was enjoined in a more forcible and striking\nmanner. The Sandimanians, when they rose into a society, considered the\ninjunction for this ordinance to be so obligatory, that they dared not\ndispense with it; and therefore, when they determined to celebrate the\nsupper, they determined that the washing of feet should be an ordinance\nof their church. Most other Christians, however, have dismissed the\nwashing of feet from their religious observance. The reason given has\nprincipally been, that it was an eastern custom, and therefore local. To\nthis the answer has been, that the passover, from whence the Lord's\nsupper is taken, was an eastern custom also, but that it was much more\nlocal. Travellers of different nations had their feet washed for them in\nthe east. But none but those of the circumcision were admitted to the\npassover-supper. If, therefore, the injunction relative to the washing\nof feet, be equally strong with that relative to the celebration of the\nsupper, it has been presumed, that both ought to have been retained;\nand, if one has been dispensed with on account of its locality, that\nboth ought to have been discarded.\n\nThat the washing of feet was enjoined much more emphatically than the\nsupper, we may collect from Barclay, whose observations upon it I shall\ntranscribe on this occasion.\n\n\"But to give a farther evidence, says he, how these consequences have\nnot any bottom from the practice of that ceremony, nor from the words\nfollowing, 'Do this in remembrance of me,' let us consider another of\nthe like nature, as it is at length expressed by John. [143] 'Jesus\nriseth from supper and laid aside his garments, and took a towel, and\ngirded himself: after that, he poureth water into a bason, and began to\nwash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he\nwas girded. Peter said unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus\nanswered him. If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. So after he\nhad washed their feet, he said, Know ye what I have done to you? If I\nthen, your Lord and master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash\none another's feet: for I have given you an example, that ye should do\nas I have done to you.' As to which let it be observed, continues\nBarclay, that John relates this passage to have been done at the same\ntime with the other of breaking bread; both being done the night of the\npassover, after supper. If we regard the narration of this, and the\ncircumstances attending it, it was done with far more solemnity, and\nprescribed far more punctually and particularly, than the former. It is\nsaid only, 'as he was eating he took bread;' so that this would seem to\nbe but an occasional business: but here 'he rose up, he laid by his\ngarments, he girded himself, he poured out the water, he washed their\nfeet, he wiped them with a towel.' He did this to all of them; which are\ncircumstances surely far more observable than those noted in the other.\nThe former was a practice common among the Jews, used by all masters of\nfamilies, upon that occasion; but this, as to the manner, and person\nacting it, to wit, for the master to rise up, and wash the feet of his\nservants and disciples, was more singular and observable. In the\nbreaking of bread and giving of wine, it is not pleaded by our\nadversaries, nor yet mentioned in the text, that he particularly put\nthem into the hands of all; but breaking it, and blessing it, gave it\nthe nearest, and so they from hand to hand. But here it is mentioned,\nthat he washed not the feet of one or two, but of many. He saith not in\nthe former, that if they do not eat of that bread, and drink of that\nwine, that they shall be prejudiced by it; but here he says expressly to\nPeter, that 'if he wash him not, he hath no part with him;' which being\nspoken upon Peter's refusing to let him wash his feet, would seem to\nimport no less, than not the continuance only, but even the necessity of\nthis ceremony. In the former, he saith as it were passingly, 'Do this in\nremembrance of me:' but here he sitteth down again; he desires them to\nconsider what he hath done; tells them positively 'that as he hath done\nto them, so ought they to do to one another:' and yet again he redoubles\nthat precept, by telling them, 'that he has given them an example, that\nthey should do so likewise.' If we respect the nature of the thing, it\nhath as much in it as either baptism or the breaking of the bread;\nseeing it is an outward element of a cleansing nature, applied to the\noutward man, by the command and the example of Christ, to signify an\ninward purifying. I would willingly propose this seriously to men, that\nwill be pleased to make use of that reason and understanding that God\nhath given them, and not be imposed upon, nor abused by the custom or\ntradition of others, whether this ceremony, if we respect either the\ntime that it was appointed in, or the circumstances wherewith it was\nperformed, or the command enjoining the use of it, hath not as much to\nrecommend it for a standing ordinance of the Gospel, as either\nwater-baptism, or bread and wine, or any other of that kind? I wonder\nthen, what reason the Papists can give, why they have not numbered it\namong their sacraments, except merely Voluntas Ecclesiae et Traditio\nPatrum, that is, the Tradition of the Fathers, and the Will of the\nChurch.\"\n\n[Footnote 143: John 13. 3. &c.]\n\nThe reader will see by this time, that, on subjects which have given\nrise to such controversies as baptism and the Lord's supper have now\nbeen described to have done, people may be readily excused, if they\nshould entertain their own opinions about them, though these may be\ndifferent from those which are generally received by the world. The\ndifficulties indeed, which have occurred with respect to these\nordinances, should make us tender of casting reproach upon others, who\nshould differ from ourselves concerning them. For when we consider, that\nthere is no one point connected with these ordinances, about which there\nhas not been some dispute; that those who have engaged in these\ndisputes, have been men of equal learning and piety; that all of them\nhave pleaded primitive usage, in almost all cases, in behalf of their\nown opinions; and that these disputes are not even now, all of them,\nsettled; who will take upon him to censure his brother either for the\nomission or the observance of one or the other rite? And let the\nQuakers, among others, find indulgence from their countrymen for their\nopinions on these subjects. This indulgence they have a right to claim\nfrom the consideration, that they themselves never censure others of\nother denominations on account of their religion. With respect to those\nwho belong to the society, as the rejection of these ceremonies is one\nof the fundamentals of Quakerism, it is expected that they should be\nconsistent with what they are considered to profess. But with respect to\nothers, they have no unpleasant feelings towards those who observe them.\nIf a man believes that baptism is an essential rite of the Christian\nchurch, the Quakers would not judge him if he were to go himself, or if\nhe were to carry his children, to receive it. And if, at the communion\ntable, he should find his devotion to be so spiritualized, that, in the\ntaking of the bread and wine, he really and spiritually discerned the\nbody and blood of Christ, and was sure that his own conduct would he\ninfluenced morally by it, they would not censure him for becoming an\nattendant at the altar. In short, the Quakers do not condemn others for\ntheir attendances on these occasions. They only hope, that as they do\nnot see these ordinances in the same light as others, they may escape\ncensure, if they should refuse to admit them among themselves.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XV.\n\n\nSECT. I.\n\n_Baptism--Two baptisms--That of John and of Christ--That of John was by\nwater, a Jewish ordinance, and used preparatory to religious conversion\nand worship--Hence John used it as preparatory to conversion to\nChristianity--Jesus submitted to it to fulfil all righteousness--Others\nas to a baptism to repentance--But it was not initiative into the\nChristian church, but belonged to the Old Testament--Nor was John under\nthe Gospel, but under the law_.\n\n\nI come now to the arguments which the Quakers have to offer for the\nrejection of the use of baptism and of the sacrament of the supper; and\nfirst for that of the use of the former rite.\n\nTwo baptisms are recorded in scripture--the baptism of John, and the\nbaptism of Christ.\n\nThe baptism of John was by water, and a Jewish ordinance. The washing of\ngarments and of the body, which were called baptisms by the Ellenistic\nJews, were enjoined to the Jewish nation, as modes of purification from\nlegal pollutions, symbolical of that inward cleansing of the heart,\nwhich was necessary to persons before they could hold sacred offices,\nor pay their religions homage in the temple, or become the true\nworshippers of God. The Jews, therefore, in after times, when they made\nproselytes from the Heathen nations, enjoined these the same customs as\nthey observed themselves. They generally circumcised, at least the\nproselytes of the covenant, as a mark of their incorporation into the\nJewish church, and they afterwards washed them with water or baptized\nthem, which was to be a sign to them of their having been cleansed from\nthe filth of idolatry, and an emblem of their fitness, in case of a real\ncleansing, to receive the purer precepts of the Jewish religion, and to\nwalk in newness of life.\n\nBaptism therefore was a Jewish ordinance, used on religious occasions:\nand therefore John, when he endeavoured by means of his preaching to\nprepare the Jews for the coming of the Messiah, and their minds for the\nreception of the new religion, used it as a symbol of the purification\nof heart, that was necessary for the dispensation which was then at\nhand. He knew that his hearers would understand the meaning of the\nceremony. He had reason also to believe, that on account of the nature\nof his mission, they would expect it. Hence the Sanhedrim, to whom the\ncognizance of the legal cleansings belonged, when they were informed of\nthe baptism of John, never expressed any surprise at it, as a now, or\nunusual, or improper custom. They only found fault with him for the\nadministration of it, when he denied himself to be either Elias or\nChrist.\n\nIt was partly upon one of the principles that have been mentioned, that\nJesus received the baptism of John. He received it as it is recorded,\nbecause \"thus it became him to fulfil all righteousness.\" By the\nfulfilling of righteousness is meant the fulfilling of the ordinances of\nthe law, or the customs required by the Mosaic dispensation in\nparticular cases. He had already undergone circumcision as a Jewish\nordinance, and he now submitted to baptism. For as Aaron and his Sons\nwere baptized previously to the taking upon them of the office of the\nJewish priesthood, so Jesus was baptized by John previously to his\nentering upon his own ministry, or becoming the high priest of the\nChristian dispensation.\n\nBut though Jesus Christ received the baptism of John, that he might\nfulfil all righteousness, others received it as the baptism of\nrepentance from sins, that they might be able to enter the kingdom that\nwas at hand. This baptism, however, was not initiative into the\nChristian church. For the Apostles rebaptized some who had been baptized\nby John. Those, again, who received the baptism of John, did not profess\nfaith in Christ, John again, as well as his doctrines, belonged to the\nOld Testament. He was no minister under the new dispensation, but the\nlast prophet under the law. Hence Jesus said, that though none of the\nprophets \"were greater than John the baptist, yet he that is least in\nthe kingdom of Heaven is greater than he.\" Neither did he ever hear the\nGospel preached; for Jesus did not begin his ministry till John had been\nput into prison, where he was beheaded by the orders of Herod. John, in\nshort, was with respect to Jesus, what Moses was with respect to Joshua.\nMoses, though he conducted to the promised land, and was permitted to\nsee it from Mount Nebo, yet never entered it, but gave place to Joshua,\nwhose name, like that of Jesus, signifies a Saviour. In the same manner\nJohn conducted to Jesus Christ. He saw him once with his own eyes, but\nhe was never permitted, while alive, to enter into his spiritual\nkingdom.\n\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_Second baptism, or that of Christ--This the baptism of the gospel--This\ndistinct from the former in point of time; and in nature and essence--As\nthat of John was outward, so this was to be inward and spiritual--It was\nto cleanse the heart--and was to be capable of making even the Gentiles\nthe seed of Abraham--This distinction of watery and spiritual baptism\npointed out by Jesus Christ--by St. Peter--and by St. Paul._\n\n\nThe second baptism, recorded in the scriptures, is that of Christ. This\nmay be called the baptism of the Gospel, in contradistinction to the\nformer, which was that of the law.\n\nThis baptism is totally distinct from the former. John himself\nsaid,[144] \"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that\ncometh after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to\nbear. He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.\"\n\n[Footnote 144: Matth. 3.11.]\n\nFrom these words it appears, that this baptism is distinct, in point of\ntime, from the former; for it was to follow the baptism of John: and\nsecondly, in nature and essence; for whereas that of John was by water,\nthis was to be by the spirit.\n\nThis latter distinction is insisted upon by John in other places. For\nwhen he was questioned by the Pharisees [145] \"why he baptized, if he was\nnot that Christ, nor Ellas, nor that prophet,\" he thought it a\nsufficient excuse to say, \"I baptize with water;\" that is, I baptize\nwith water only; I use only an ancient Jewish custom; I do not intrude\nupon the office of Christ, who is coming after me, or pretend to his\nbaptism of the spirit. We find also, that no less than three times in\neight verses, when he speaks of his own baptism, he takes care to add to\nit the word [146] \"water,\" to distinguish it from the baptism of Christ.\n\n[Footnote 145: John 1. 25]\n\n[Footnote 146: John 1 from 25 to 34.]\n\nAs the baptism of John cleansed the body from the filth of the flesh, so\nthat of Christ was really to cleanse the soul from the filth of sin.\nThus John, speaking of Jesus Christ, in allusion to this baptism,\nsays,[147] \"whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his\nfloor, and gather his wheat into his garner, but he will burn up the\nchaff with unquenchable fire.\" By this he insinuated, that in the same\nmanner as the farmer, with the fan in his hand, winnows the corn, and\nseparates the light and bad grains from the heavy and the good, and in\nthe same manner as the fire afterwards destroys the chaff, so the\nbaptism of Christ, for which he was preparing them, was of an inward and\nspiritual nature, and would effectually destroy the light and corrupt\naffections, and thoroughly cleanse the floor of the human heart.\n\n[Footnote 147: Mat. 3. 12]\n\nThis baptism, too, was to be so searching as to be able to penetrate the\nhardest heart, and to make even the Gentiles the real children of\nAbraham.[148] \"For think not, says John, in allusion to the same\nbaptism, to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our Father; for I\nsay unto, you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children\nunto Abraham.\" As if he had said, I acknowledge that you Pharisees can,\nmany of you, boast of relationship to Abraham by a strict and scrupulous\nattention to shadowy and figurative ordinances; that many of you can\nboast of relationship to him by blood; and all of you by circumcision.\nBut it does not follow, therefore, that you are the children of Abraham.\nThose only will be able to boast of being his seed, to whom the fan and\nfire of Christ's baptism shall be applied. The baptism of him, who is to\ncome after me, and whose kingdom is at hand, is of that spiritual and\npurifying nature, that it will produce effects very different from those\nof an observance of outward ordinances. It can so cleanse and purify the\nhearts of men, that if there are Gentiles in the most distant lands,\never so far removed from Abraham, and possessing hearts of the hardness\nof stones, it can make them the real children of Abraham in the sight of\nGod.\n\n[Footnote 148: Math. 3.9.]\n\nThis distinction between the watery baptism of John, and the fiery and\nspiritual baptism of Christ, was pointed out by Jesus Christ himself;\nfor, he is reported to have appeared to his disciples after his\nresurrection, and to have commanded them [149] \"that they should not\ndepart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which,\nsays he, ye have heard from me. For John truly baptized with water, but\nye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.\"\n\n[Footnote 149: Acts 1.4.]\n\nSaint Luke also records a transaction which took place, in which Peter\nwas concerned, and on which occasion he first discerned the baptism of\nChrist, as thus distinguished in the words which have been just given.\n[150] \"And as I began to speak, says he, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as\non us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that\nhe said, John, indeed, baptised with water, but ye shall be baptized by\nthe Holy Spirit.\"\n\n[Footnote 150: Acts II, 15,16.]\n\nA similar distinction is made also by St. Paul; for when he found that\ncertain disciples had been baptized only with the baptism of John,[151]\nhe laid his hand upon them, and baptized them again; but this was with\nthe baptism of the spirit. In his epistle also, to the Corinthians, we\nfind the following expression:[152] \"For by one spirit are we all\nbaptized unto one body.\"\n\n[Footnote 151: Acts 19.]\n\n[Footnote 152: I Cor. 12, 13].\n\n\nSECT. III.\n\n_Question is, which of these turn baptisms is included in the great\ncommission given by Jesus to his Apostles, \"of baptizing in the name of\nthe Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?\"--Quakers deny it to be that\nof John, because contrary to the ideas of St. Peter and St.\nPaul--because the object of John's baptism had been completed--because\nit was a type under the law, and such types were to cease._\n\n\nIt appears then that there are two baptisms recorded in Scripture; the\none, the baptism of John, the other that of Christ; that these are\ndistinct from one another; and that the one does not include the other,\nexcept he who baptizes with water, can baptize at the same time with the\nHoly Ghost. Now St. Paul speaks only of[153] one baptism as effectual;\nand St. Peter must mean the same, when he speaks of the baptism that\nsaveth. The question therefore is, which of the two baptisms that have\nbeen mentioned, is the one effectual, or saving baptism? or, which of\nthese it is, that Jesus Christ included in his great commission to the\nApostles, when he commanded them \"to go and teach all nations, baptizing\nthem in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\"\n\n[Footnote 153: Eph. 4.5.]\n\nThe Quakers say, that the baptism, included in this commission, was not\nthe baptism of John.\n\nIn the first place, St. Peter says it was not, in these words:\n[154] \"Which sometimes were disobedient, when once the long suffering of\nGod waited in the days of Noah while the Ark was preparing, wherein few,\nthat is, eight souls, were saved by water;[155] whose antetype baptism\ndoth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,\nbut the answer of a good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of\nJesus Christ.\"\n\n[Footnote 154: 1 Peter 3. 20. 21]\n\n[Footnote 155: Antetype is the proper translation, and not \"the figure\nwhereunto.\"]\n\nThe Apostle states here concerning the baptism that is effectual and\nsaving; first, that it is not the putting away of the filth of the\nflesh, which is effected by water. He carefully puts those upon their\nguard, to whom he writes, lest they should consider John's baptism, or\nthat of water, to be the saving one, to which he alludes; for, having\nmade a beautiful comparison between an outward salvation in an outward\nark, by the outward water, with this inward salvation by inward and\nspiritual water, in the inward ark of the Testament, he is fearful that\nhis reader should connect these images, and fancy that water had any\nthing to do with this baptism. Hence he puts his caution in a\nparenthesis, thus guarding his meaning in an extraordinary manner.\n\nHe then shows what this baptism is, and calls it the answer of a good\nconscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In fact, he\nstates it to be the baptism of Christ, which is by the Spirit. For he\nmaintains, that he only is truly baptized, whose conscience is made\nclear by the resurrection of Christ in his heart. But who can make the\nanswer of such a conscience, except the Holy Spirit shall have first\npurified the floor of the heart; except the spiritual fan of Christ\nshall have first separated the wheat from the chaff, and except his\nspiritual fire shall have consumed the latter?\n\nSt. Paul makes a similar declaration: \"For as many of you as have been\nbaptized into Christ, have put on Christ.\"[156] But no man, the Quakers\nsay, merely by being dipped under water, can put on Christ, that is, his\nlife, his nature, his disposition, his love, meekness, and temperance,\nand all those virtues which should characterise a Christian.\n\n[Footnote 156: Galat 3. 27.]\n\nTo the same purport are those other words by the same Apostle:[157] \"Know\nye not, that so many of us as were baptized unto Jesus Christ, were\nbaptized into his death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead\nby the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of\nlife.\" And again--[158] \"Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are\nrisen with him, through the faith of the co-operation of God, who hath\nraised him from the dead.\" By these passages the Apostle Paul testifies\nthat he alone is truly baptized, who first dies unto sin, and is raised\nup afterwards from sin unto righteousness, or who is raised up into life\nwith Christ, or who so feels the inward resurrection and glory of Christ\nin his soul, that he walks in newness of life.\n\n[Footnote 157: Rom. 6.3.4]\n\n[Footnote 158: Colos. 2.12]\n\nThe Quakers show again, that the baptism of John could not have been\nincluded in the great commission, because the object of John's baptism\nhad been completed even before the preaching of Jesus Christ.\n\nThe great object of John's baptism, was to make Jesus known to the Jews.\nJohn himself declared this to be the object of it. [159] \"But that he\nshould be made manifest unto Israel, _therefore_ am I come baptizing\nwith water.\" This object he accomplished two ways; first, by telling all\nwhom he baptized that Jesus was coming, and these were the Israel of\nthat time; for he is reported to have baptized all Jerusalem, which was\nthe metropolis, and all Judea, and all the country round about Jordan.\nSecondly, by pointing him out personally.[160] This he did to Andrew, so\nthat Andrew left John and followed Jesus. Andrew, again, made him known\nto Simon, and these to Philip, and Philip to Nathaniel; so that by means\nof John, an assurance was given that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ.\n\n[Footnote 159: John 1.31.]\n\n[Footnote 160: John 1.40.]\n\nThe Quakers believe again, that the baptism of John was not included in\nthe great commission, because it was a type under the law, and all types\nand shadows under the law were to cease under the Gospel dispensation,\nor the law of Christ.\n\nThe salvation of the Eight by water, and the baptism of John, were both\ntypes of the baptism of Christ. John was sent expressly before Jesus,\nbaptizing the bodies of men with water, as a lively image, as he himself\nexplains it, of the latter baptizing their souls with the Holy Ghost and\nwith fire. The baptism of John, therefore, was both preparative and\ntypical of that of Christ. And it is remarked by the Quakers, that no\nsooner was Jesus baptized by John with water in the type, than he was,\naccording to all the Evangelists, baptized by the [161] Holy Ghost in\nthe antetype. No sooner did he go up out of the water, than John saw the\nHeavens opened, and the spirit of God descending like a dove, and\nlighting upon him. It was this baptism of Jesus in the antetype which\noccasioned John to know him personally, and enabled him to discover him\nto others. The baptism of John, therefore, being a type or figure under\nthe law, was to give way, when the antetype or substance became\napparent. And that it was to give way in its due time, is evident from\nthe confession of John himself. For on a question which arose between\nsome of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying, and on a report\nspread abroad, that Jesus had begun to baptize, John says, [162] \"He\n(Jesus) must increase, but I must decrease.\"--This confession of John\naccords also with the following expressions of St. Paul: [163] \"The Holy\nGhost this signifying, that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet\nmade manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing, which\nwas a figure for the time then present,\"--which stood only in meats and\ndrinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances imposed on them until\nthe time of reformation.\n\n[Footnote 161: Mat. 3. 16.--Mark 1. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 162: John 3. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 163: Heb. 9. 8. 9. 10.]\n\n\nSECT. IV.\n\n_Quakers show that the baptism, included in the great commission, which\nappears not to be the baptism of John, is the baptism of Christ, from a\ncritical examination of the words in that commission--Way in which the\nQuakers interpret these words--This interpretation confirmed by\ncitations from St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul_.\n\n\nHaving attempted to show, according to the method of the Quakers, that\nthe baptism of John is not the baptism included in the great commission,\nI shall now produce those arguments, by which they maintain that that\nbaptism, which is included in it, is the baptism of Christ.\n\nThese arguments will be found chiefly in a critical examination of the\nwords of that commission.\n\nTo enable the reader to judge of the propriety of their observations\nupon these words, I shall transcribe from St. Matthew the three verses\nthat relate to this subject.\n\n[164] \"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given\nunto me in Heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,\nbaptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the\nHoly Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have\ncommanded you. And lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the\nworld.\"\n\n[Footnote 164: Mat. 23.18,19,20.]\n\nThe first observation, which the Quakers make, is upon the word\n\"THEREFORE.\" As all power is given unto _me_ both in Heaven and in\nearth; and as I can on that account, and as I will qualify you, go ye\ntherefore, that is, having previously received from me the qualification\nnecessary for your task, go ye.\n\nThe next observation is, that the commission does not imply that the\nApostles were to teach and to baptize as two separate acts, but, as the\nwords intimate, that they were to teach baptizing.\n\nThe Quakers say again, that the word \"teach\" is an improper translation\nof the original [165]Greek. The Greek word should have been rendered\n\"make disciples or proselytes.\" In several editions of our own Bibles,\nthe word \"teach\" is explained in the margin opposite to it, \"make\ndisciples or Christians of all nations,\" or in the same manner as the\nQuakers explain it.\n\n[Footnote 165: [Greek: didasko] is the usual word for teach, but [Greek:\nword] is used in the commission; which latter word occurs but seldom in\nthe New Testament, and always signifies to \"disciple.\"]\n\nOn the word \"baptize,\" they observe, that because its first meaning is\nto wash all over, and because baptism with Christians is always with\nwater, people cannot easily separate the image of water from the word,\nwhen it is read or pronounced. But if this image is never to be\nseparated from it, how will persons understand the words of St. Paul,\n\"for by one spirit are we all baptized into one body?\" Or those of\nJesus, \"Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of, or be baptized with the\nbaptism that I am baptized with?\" Or, if this image is not to be\nseparated from it, how will they understand the Evangelists, who\nrepresent Jesus Christ as about to baptize, or wash all over, with fire?\nTo baptize, in short, signifies to dip under water, but, in its more\ngeneral meaning, to purify. Fire and water have equally power in this\nrespect, but on different objects. Water purifies surfaces. Fire\npurifies by actual and total separation, bringing those bodies into one\nmass which are homogeneous, or which have strong affinities to each\nother, and leaving the dross and incombustible parts by themselves.\n\nThe word \"in\" they also look upon as improperly translated. This word\nshould have been rendered [166] \"into.\" If the word \"in\" were the right\ntranslation, the words \"in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and\nof the Holy Ghost,\" might be construed into a form of words to be used\nat the time of baptism.\n\n[Footnote 166: The word in the original Greek is [Greek word] and not\n[Greek word]]\n\nBut we have no evidence that such a formula was ever used, when any of\nthe Apostles baptized. Indeed, the plain meaning of the word is \"into,\"\nand therefore all such formula is groundless.[167] \"Jesus Christ did\nnot, says Zuinglius, by these words institute a form of baptism, which\nwe should use, as divines have falsely taught.\"\n\n[Footnote 167: Lib. de Bapt. p. 56, tom. 2. Oper.]\n\nOn the word \"name,\" the Quakers observe, that, when it relates to the\nLord, it frequently signifies in scripture, his life, or his spirit, or\nhis power. Thus, [168] \"in my name, shall they cast out devils.\" And,\n[169] \"by what power, or by what name have ye done this?\"\n\n[Footnote 168: Mark 16. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 169: Acts 4. 7.]\n\nFrom the interpretation, which has now been given of the meaning of\nseveral of the words in the verses, that have been quoted from St.\nMatthew, the sense of the commission, according to the Quakers, will\nstand thus: \"All power is given to me in Heaven and in earth. In virtue\nof the power which I have, I will give you power also. I will confer\nupon you the gift of the Holy Spirit. When you have received it, go into\ndifferent and distant lands; go to the Gentiles who live in ignorance,\ndarkness, and idolatry, and make them proselytes to my new dispensation;\nso purifying their hearts, or burning the chaff of their corrupt\naffections by the active fire of the Holy Spirit, which shall accompany\nyour preaching, that they may be made partakers of the divine nature,\nand walk in newness of life. And lest this should appear to be too great\na work for your faith, I, who have the power, promise to be with you\nwith this my spirit in the work, till the end of the world.\"\n\nThe Quakers contend, that this is the true interpretation of this\ncommission, because it exactly coincides with the meaning of the same\ncommission as described by St. Luke and St. Mark, and of that also which\nwas given to St. Paul.\n\nSt. Luke states the commission given to the Apostles to have been\n[170] \"that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his\nname among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.\" The meaning therefore\nof the commission, as stated by St. Luke, is precisely the same as that\nstated by St. Matthew. For first, all nations are included in it.\nSecondly, purification of heart, or conversion from sin, is insisted\nupon to be the object of it. And thirdly, this object is to be effected,\nnot by the baptism of water, (for baptism is no where mentioned,) but by\npreaching, in which is included the idea of the baptism of the spirit.\n\n[Footnote 170: Luke 24. 47]\n\nSt. Mark also states the commission to be the same, in the following\nwords: [171] \"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach\nthe Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall\nbe saved.\" Here all nations, and the preaching of the Gospel, are\nmentioned again; but baptism is now added. But the baptism that was to\ngo with this preaching, the Quakers contend to be the baptism of the\nspirit. For first, the baptism here mentioned is connected with\nsalvation. But the baptism, according to St. Peter, which doth also now\nsave us, \"is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer\nof a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ;\"\nor the baptism of the spirit. Secondly, the nature of the baptism here\nmentioned is explained by the verse that follows it. Thus, \"he that\nbelieveth, and is baptized, shall be saved. And these signs shall follow\nthem that believe: they shall speak with new tongues.\" This therefore is\nthe same baptism as that which St. Paul conferred upon some of his\ndisciples by the laying on of his hands. [172] \"And when Paul had laid\nhis hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spake with\ntongues and prophesied.\" Thus, again, it is demonstrated to be the\nbaptism of the spirit.\n\n[Footnote 171: Mark 16.15.]\n\n[Footnote 172: Acts 19.6.]\n\nThe commission also, which has been handed down to us by St. Matthew,\nwill be found, as it has been now explained, to coincide in its object\nwith that which was given to Paul, as we find by his confession to\nAgrippa. For he declared[173] he was sent as a minister to the Gentiles\n\"to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from\nthe power of Satan unto God, that they might receive forgiveness of\nsins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith in\nChrist.\" But what was this, the Quakers say, but to baptize them into\nthe life and spirit of a new and divine nature, or with the baptism of\nChrist?\n\n[Footnote 173: Acts 26.17. 18.]\n\nAnd as we have thus obtained a knowledge from St. Paul of what his own\ncommission contained, so we have, from the same authority, a knowledge\nof what it did not contain; for he positively declares, in his first\nEpistle to the Corinthians, that \"Christ sent him not to baptize\n(evidently alluding to the baptism by water) but to preach the Gospel.\"\nIt is clear therefore that St. Paul did not understand his commission to\nrefer to water. And who was better qualified to understand it than\nhimself?\n\nIt is also stated by the Quakers, as another argument to the same point,\nthat if the baptism in the commission had been that of water only, the\nApostles could easily have administered it of themselves, or without\nany supernatural assistance; but, in order that they might be enabled to\nexecute that baptism which the commission pointed to, they were desired\nto wait for divine help. Jesus Christ said,[174] \"I send the promise of\nmy father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be\nendued with the power from on high; for John truly baptized with water,\nbut ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.\" Now,\nthe Quakers ask, if baptism by water had been the baptism contained in\nthe great commission, why could not the Apostles have performed it of\nthemselves? What should have hindered them more than John from going\nwith people into the rivers, and immersing them? Why were they first to\nreceive themselves the baptism of the spirit? But if it be allowed, on\nthe other hand, that when they executed the great commission, they were\nto perform the baptism of Christ, the case is altered. It became them\nthen to wait for the divine help. For it required more than human power\nto give that baptism, which should change the disposition and affections\nof men, and should be able to bring them from darkness unto light, and\nfrom the power of Satan unto God. And here the Quakers observe, that the\nApostles never attempted to execute the great commission, till the time\nfixed upon by our Saviour, in these words: \"But tarry ye in the city of\nJerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.\" This was the day\nof pentecost. After this \"they preached, as St. Peter says, with the\nHoly Ghost sent down from Heaven,\" and with such efficacy, that \"the\nHoly Ghost fell upon many of them, who heard their words.\"\n\n[Footnote 174: Luke 24.49.]\n\n\nSECT. V.\n\n_Objection to the foregoing arguments of the Quakers--namely, \"If it be\nnot the baptism of John that is included in the Great Commission, how\ncame the Apostles to baptize with water?\"--Practice and opinions of\nPeter considered--also of Paul--also of Jesus Christ--This practice, as\nexplained by these opinions, considered by the Quakers to turn out in\nfavour of their own doctrine on this subject._\n\n\nI have now stated the arguments by which the Quakers have been induced\nto believe that the baptism by the spirit, and not the baptism by water,\nwas included by Jesus Christ in the great commission which he gave to\nhis Apostles, when he requested them \"to go into all nations, and to\nteach them, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of\nthe Holy Ghost.\"\n\nAgainst these arguments the following question has been usually started,\nas an objection: \"If it be not included in the great commission, how\ncame the Apostles to baptize; or would they have baptised, if baptism\nhad not been considered by them as a Christian ordinance?\"\n\nThe Quakers, in answering this objection, have confined themselves to\nthe consideration of the conduct of the Apostles Peter and Paul. For\nthough Philip is said to have baptized also, yet he left no writings\nbehind him like the former; nor are so many circumstances recorded of\nhim, by which they may be enabled to judge of his character, or to know\nwhat his opinions ultimately were, upon that subject.\n\nThe Quakers consider the Apostles as men of the like passions with\nthemselves. They find the ambition of James and John; the apostacy and\ndissimulation of Peter; the incredulity of Thomas; the dissention\nbetween Paul and Barnabas; and the jealousies which some of them\nentertained towards one another, recorded in holy writ. They believe\nthem also to have been mostly men of limited information, and to have\nhad their prejudices, like other people. Hence it was not to be expected\nthat they should come all at once into the knowledge of Christ's\nkingdom; that, educated in a religion of types and ceremonials, they\nshould all at once abandon these; that, expecting a temporal Messiah,\nthey should lay aside at once temporal views; and that they should come\nimmediately into the full purity of the gospel practice.\n\nWith respect to the Apostle Peter, he gave early signs of the dulness of\nhis comprehension with respect to the nature of the character and\nkingdom of the Messiah. [175]For when Jesus had given forth but a simple\nparable, he was obliged to ask him the meaning of it. This occasioned\nJesus to say to him, \"Are ye also yet without understanding?\"\n\n[Footnote 175: Matt. 15.16.]\n\nIn a short time afterwards, when our Saviour told him, [176] \"that he\nhimself must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things, and be killed, and\nbe raised again the third day, Peter took him and rebuked him, saying,\nBe it far from thee, Lord. This shall not be unto thee.\"\n\n[Footnote 176: Matt. l6. 21. 22.]\n\nAt a subsequent time, namely, just after the transfiguration of Christ,\nhe seems to have known so little about spiritual things, that he\nexpressed a wish to raise three earthly tabernacles, one to Moses,\nanother to Elias, and a third to Jesus, for the retention of signs and\nshadows as a Gospel labour, at the very time when Jesus Christ was\nopening the dismission of all but one, namely, \"the tabernacle of God,\nthat is with men.\"\n\nNor did he seem, at a more remote period, to have gained more large or\nspiritual ideas. He did not even know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ\nwas to be universal. He considered it as limited; to the Jews, though\nthe words in the great commission, which he and the other Apostles had\nheard, ordered them to teach all nations. He was unwilling to go and\npreach to Cornelius on this very account, merely because he was a Roman\nCenturion, or in other words, a Gentile; so that a vision was necessary\nto remove his scruples in this particular. It was not till after this\nvision, and his conversation with Cornelius, that his mind began to be\nopened; and then he exclaimed, \"Of a truth, I perceive that God is no\nrespecter of persons; but in every nation, he that feareth him and\nworketh righteousness, is accepted with him.\"\n\nThe mind of Peter now began to be opened and to see things in a clearer\nlight, when a new occurrence that took place nearly at the same time,\nseems to have taken the film still more from his eyes: for while he\npreached to Cornelius, and the others present, he perceived that \"the\nHoly Ghost fell upon all of them that heard his words, as on himself and\nthe other Apostles at the beginning.\" Then remembered Peter the words of\nthe Lord, how that he said, \"John indeed baptised with water, but ye\nshall be baptized with the Holy Ghost:\" that is, Peter finding that\nCornelius and his friends had received, by means of his own powerful\npreaching, the Holy Ghost, perceived then for the first time, to his\ngreat surprise, that he had been executing the great commission of Jesus\nChrist; or that he had taught a Gentile, and baptized him with the Holy\nSpirit. Here it was that he first made the discrimination between the\nbaptism of John, and the baptism of Christ.\n\nFrom this time there is reason to think that his eyes became fully open;\nfor in a few years afterwards, when we have an opportunity of viewing\nhis conduct again, we find him an altered man as to his knowledge of\nspiritual things. Being called upon at the council of Jerusalem to\ndeliberate on the propriety of circumcision to Gentile converts, he\nmaintains that God gives his Holy Spirit as well to the Gentiles as to\nthe Jews. He maintains again, that God _purifies_ by _faith_; and he\ndelivers it as his opinion, that circumcision is to be looked upon as a\nyoke. And here it may be remarked, that circumcision and baptism\nuniformly went together, when proselytes of the covenant were made, or\nwhen any of the Heathens were desirous of conforming to the whole of the\nJewish law.\n\nAt a time, again, subsequent to this, or when he wrote his Epistles\nwhich were to go to the strangers all over Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,\nAsia, and Bithynia, he discovers himself to be the same full grown man\nin spiritual things on the subject of baptism itself, in these\nremarkable words, which have been quoted: \"Whose antitype baptism doth\nalso now save us, (not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the\nanswer of a good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of Jesus\nChrist.\" So that the last opinion of Peter on the subject of\nwater-baptism contradicted his practice, when he was but a noviciate in\nChrist's kingdom.\n\nWith respect to the Apostle Paul, whose practice I am to consider next,\nit is said of him, as of St. Peter, that he baptized.\n\nThat Paul baptized is to be collected from his own writings. For it\nappears, by his own account, that there had been divisions among the\nCorinthians. Of those who had been converted to Christianity, some\ncalled themselves after the name of Cephas; others after the name of\nApollos; others after the name of Paul; thus dividing themselves\nnominally into sects, according to the name of him who had either\nbaptized or converted them. St. Paul mentions these circumstances, by\nwhich it comes to light, that he used water-baptism, and he regrets that\nthe persons in question should have made such a bad use of this rite, as\nto call themselves after him who baptized them, instead of calling\nthemselves after Christ, and dwelling on him alone. [177] \"I thank God,\nsays he, that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius; lest any\nshould say that I baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the house\nof Stephanas. Besides I know not whether I baptized any other, for\nChrist sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.\" Now this\nconfession of the Apostle, which is usually brought against the Quakers,\nthey consider to be entirely in their favour, and indeed decisive of the\npoint in question. For they collect from hence, that St. Paul never\nconsidered baptism by water as any Gospel ordinance, or as any rite\nindispensably necessary, when men were admitted as members into the\nChristian church. For if he had considered it in this light, he would\nnever have said that Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the\nGospel. Neither would he have thanked God, on account of the mere abuse\nof it, that he had baptized so few, for doubtless there were many among\nthe learned Greeks, who abused his preaching, and who called it\n_foolishness_, but yet he nowhere says, that he was sorry on that\naccount that he ever preached to them; for preaching was a gospel\nordinance enjoined him, by which many were to be converted to the\nChristian faith. Again--If he had considered water baptism, as a\nnecessary mark of initiation into Christianity, he would uniformly have\nadopted it, as men became proselytes to his doctrines. But among the\nthousands, whom in all probability he baptized with the Holy Spirit\namong the Corinthians, it does not appear, that there were more than the\nmembers of the three families of Crispus, Gaius, and Stephanus, whom be\nbaptized with water.\n\n[Footnote 177: 1 Cor. I. 14, 15, 16.]\n\nBut still it is contended, that Paul says of himself, that the baptized.\nThe Quakers agree to this, but they say that he must have done it, in\nthese instances, on motives very different from those of an\nindispensable Christian rite.\n\nIn endeavouring to account for these motives, the Quakers consider the\nApostle Paul as not in the situation of Peter and others, who were a\nlong time in acquiring their spiritual knowledge, during which they\nmight be in doubt as to the propriety of many customs; but as coming, on\nthe other hand, quickly and powerfully into the knowledge of Christ's\nkingdom. Hence, when he baptized, they impute no ignorance to him. They\nbelieve he rejected water-baptism as a gospel ordinance, but that he\nconsidered it in itself as an harmless ceremony, and that, viewing it in\nthis light, he used it out of condescension to those ellenistic Jews,\nwhose prejudices, on account of the washings of Moses and their customs\nrelative to proselytes, were so strong, that they could not separate\npurification by water from conversion to a new religion. For St. Paul\nconfesses himself that \"to the weak he became as weak, that he might\ngain the weak, and was made all things to all men, that he might by all\nmeans save some.\" Of this his condescension many instances are recorded\nin the New Testament, though it may be only necessary to advert to one.\nAt the great council at Jerusalem, where Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James,\nand others, were present, it was[178] determined that circumcision was\nnot necessary to the Gentiles. St. Paul himself with some others carried\nthe very letter of the council, containing their determination upon this\nsubject, to Antioch to the brethren there. This letter was addressed to\nthe brethren of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. After having left Antioch,\nhe went to Derbe and Lystra, where, notwithstanding the determination of\nhimself and the rest of the council, that circumcision was not a\nChristian rite, he[179] circumcised Timotheus, in condescension to the\nweakness of the Jews, who were in those quarters.\n\n[Footnote 178: Acts 15.]\n\n[Footnote 179: Acts 16.3.]\n\nIn addition to these observations on the practice and opinions of the\nApostles, in the course of which the Quakers presume it will be found\nthat the baptism of John is not an ordinance of the Gospel, they presume\nthe same conclusion will be adopted, if they take into consideration the\npractice and opinions of Jesus Christ.\n\nThat Jesus Christ never forbad water-baptism, the Quakers readily allow.\nBut they conceive his silence on this subject to have arisen from his\nknowledge of the internal state of the Jews. He knew how carnal their\nminds were; how much they were attached to outward ordinances; and how\ndifficult it was to bring them all at once into his spiritual kingdom.\nHence, he permitted many things for a time, on account of the weakness\nof their spiritual vision.\n\nThat Jesus submitted also to baptism himself, they allow. But he\nsubmitted to it, not because he intended to make it an ordinance under\nthe new dispensation, but to use his own words, \"that he might fulfil\nall righteousness.\" Hence, also he was circumcised. Hence he celebrated\nthe Passover. And hence, he was enabled to use these remarkable words\nupon the cross: \"It is fulfilled.\"\n\nBut though Jesus Christ never forbad water-baptism, and, though he was\nbaptized with water by John, yet he never baptized any one himself. A\nrumour had gone abroad among the Pharisees, that the Jesus had baptized\nmore disciples than John the Baptist. But John, the beloved disciple of\nJesus, who had leaned on his bosom, and who knew more of his sentiments\nand practice than any other person is very careful, in correcting this\nhear-say report, as if unworthy of the spiritual mind of his master,\nand states positively; [180] \"that Jesus-baptized not.\"\n\n[Footnote 180: John 4.2.]\n\nThe Quakers, lay a great stress upon this circumstance: for they say,\nthat if Jesus never baptized with water himself, it is a proof that he\nnever intended to erect water-baptism into a Gospel-rite. It is\ndifficult to conceive, they say, that he should have established a\nSacrament, and that he should never have administered it. Would he not,\non the other hand, if his own baptism had been that of water, have begun\nhis ministry by baptizing his own disciples, notwithstanding they had\npreviously been, baptized by John? But he not only never baptized, _but\nit is no where_ recorded of him, that he ordered his disciples to\nbaptize \"with water.\"[181] He once ordered a leper to go to the priest,\nand to offer the gift for his cleansings. At another time[182], he\nordered a blind man to go and wash in the pool of Siloam; but he never\nordered any one to go and be baptized with water. On the other hand, it\nis said by the Quakers, that he dearly intimated to three of his\ndisciples, at the transfiguration, that the dispensations of Moses and\nJohn were to pass away; and that he taught himself, \"that the kingdom of\nGod cometh not with observation;\" or, that it consisted not in those\noutward and lifeless ordinances, in which many of those to whom he\naddressed himself placed the essence of their religion.\n\n[Footnote 181: Mat. 8.4.]\n\n[Footnote 182: John 9.7]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XVI.\n\n\nSECT. I.\n\n_Supper of the Lord--Two such suppers, one enjoined by Moses, the other\nby Jesus Christ--The former called the Passover--Original manner of its\ncelebration--The use of bread and wine added to it--Those long in use\nwhen Jews Christ celebrated it--Since his time, alterations made in this\nsupper by the Jews--But bread and wine still continued to be component\nparts of it, and continue so to the present day--Modern manner of the\ncelebration of it._\n\n\nThere are two suppers of the Lord recorded in the Scriptures; the first\nenjoined by Moses, and the second by Jesus Christ.\n\nThe first is called the Supper of the Lord, because it was the last\nsupper which Jesus Christ participated with his disciples, or which the\nLord and master celebrated with them in commemoration of the passover.\nAnd it may not improperly be called the Supper of the Lord on another\naccount, because it was the supper which the lord and master of every\nJewish family celebrated, on the same festival, in his own house.\n\nThis supper was distinguished, at the time alluded to, by the name of\nthe Passover Supper. The object of the institution of it was to\ncommemorate the event of the Lord passing over the houses of the\nIsraelites in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered the\nformer from their hard and oppressive bondage.\n\nThe directions of Moses concerning this festival were short, but\nprecise.\n\nOn the fourteenth day of the first month, called Nissan, the Jews were\nto kill a lamb in the evening. It was to be eaten in the same evening,\nroasted with fire, and the whole of it was to be eaten, or the remains\nof it to be consumed with fire before morning. They were to eat it with\nloins girded, with their shoes on their feet, and with their staves in\ntheir hands, and to eat it in haste. The bread which they were to eat,\nwas to be unleavened, all of it, and for seven days. There was to be no\nleaven in their houses during that time. Bitter herbs also were to be\nused at this feast. And none who were uncircumcised were allowed to\npartake of it.\n\nThis was the simple manner in which the passover, and the feast of\nunleavened bread, which was included in it, were first celebrated. But\nas the passover, in the age following its institution, was not to be\nkilled and eaten in any other place than where the Lord chose to fix his\nname, which was afterwards at Jerusalem, it was suspended for a time.\nThe Jews, however, retained the festival of unleavened bread, wherever\nthey dwelt. At this last feast, in process of time, they added the use\nof wine to the use of bread. The introduction of the wine was followed\nby the introduction of new customs. The Lord or master of the feast used\nto break the bread, and to bless it, saying, \"Blessed be thou, O Lord,\nwho givest us the fruits of the earth.\" He used to take the cup, which\ncontained the wine, and bless it also: \"Blessed be thou, O Lord, who\ngivest us the fruit of the vine.\" The bread was twice blessed upon this\noccasion, and given once to every individual at the feast. But the cup\nwas handed round three times to the guests. During the intervals between\nthe blessing and the taking of the bread and of the wine, the company\nacknowledged the deliverance of their ancestors from the Egyptian\nbondage; they lamented their present state; they confessed their sense\nof the justice of God in their punishment; and they expressed their hope\nof his mercy from his former kind dealings and gracious promises.\n\nIn process of time, when the Jews were fixed at Jerusalem, they revived\nthe celebration of the passover, and as the feast of unleavened bread\nwas connected with it, they added the customs of the latter, and blended\nthe eating of the lamb and the use of the bread and wine, and several\naccompaniments of consecration, into one ceremony. The bread therefore\nand the wine had been long in use as constituent parts of the\npassover-supper, and indeed of all the solemn feasts of the Jews, when\nJesus Christ took upon himself, as master of his own family of\ndisciples, to celebrate it. When he celebrated it, he did as the master\nof every Jewish family did at that time. He took bread, and blessed,\nand broke, and gave to his disciples. He took the cup of wine, and gave\nit to them also. But he conducted himself differently from others in one\nrespect, for he compared the bread of the passover to his own body, and\nthe wine to his own blood, and led the attention of his disciples from\nthe old object of the passover, or deliverance from Egyptian bondage, to\na new one, or deliverance from sin.\n\nSince the time of our Saviour, we find that the Jews, who have been\ndispersed in various parts of the world, have made alterations in this\nsupper: but all of them have concurred in retaining the bread and wine\nas component parts of it. This will be seen by describing the manner in\nwhich it is celebrated at the present day.\n\nOn the fourteenth day of the month Nissan, the first-born son of every\nfamily fasts, because the first-born in Egypt were smitten on that\nnight. A table is then set out, and covered with a cloth. On the middle\nof it is placed a large dish, which is covered with a napkin. A large\npassover cake of unleavened bread, distinguished by marks, and\ndenominated \"_Israelite_,\" is then laid upon this napkin. Another, with\ndifferent marks, but denominated \"_Levite_,\" is laid upon the first: and\na third, differently marked, and denominated \"_Priest_,\" is laid upon\nthe second. Upon this again a large dish is placed, and in this dish is\na shank bone of a shoulder of lamb, with a small matter of meat on it,\nwhich is burnt quite brown on the fire. This is instead of the lamb\nroasted with fire. Near this is an egg, roasted hard in hot ashes, that\nit may not be broken, to express the totality of the lamb. There is also\nplaced on the table a small quantity of raw charvil instead of the\nbitter herbs ordered; also a cup with salt water, in remembrance of the\nsea crossed over after that repast; also a stick of horse radish with\nits green top to it, to represent the bitter labour that made the eyes\nof their ancestors water in slavery; and a couple of round balls, made\nof bitter almonds pounded with apples, to represent their labour in lime\nand brinks. The seat or couch of the master is prepared at the head of\nthe table, and raised with pillows, to represent the masterly authority\nof which the Jews were deprived in bondage. The meanest of the servants\nare seated at the table for two nights with their masters, mistresses,\nand superiors, to denote that they were all equally slaves in Egypt, and\nthat all ought to give the same ceremonial thanks for their redemption.\nCups also are prepared for the wine, of which each person must drink\nfour in the course of the ceremony. One cup extraordinary is set on the\ntable for Elias, which is drank by the youngest in his stead.\n\nAll things having been thus prepared, the guests wash their hands, and\nseat themselves at table. The master of the family, soon after this,\n_takes his cup of wine in his right hand_, and the rest at the table\ndoing the same, he says, together with all the others, \"Blessed art\nthou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who hast created the fruit\nof the vine.\" This is followed by a. thanksgiving for the institution of\nthe passover. _Then the cup of wine is drank by all_. Afterwards the\nmaster of the family says, \"Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of\nthe Universe, who hast sanctified us with thy commandments, and\ncommanded us to cleanse our hands.\"\n\nThen the master of the family desires the guests to partake of the\ncharvil dipped in salt water, which he gives them with an appropriate\nblessing. He makes them touch also the dish, containing the egg and\nshank bone of the lamb, and repeat with him a formula of words suited to\nthe subject. He then takes _the second cup of wine_, and uses words in\nconjunction with the rest, expressive of the great difference between\nthis and any other night. After this, copious remarks follow on the\ninstitution of the passover. Then follow queries and answers of the\nrabbis on this subject: then historical accounts of the Jews: then the\nfifteen acts of the goodness of God to the Jewish nation, which they\nmake out thus:--He led the Jews out of Egypt: he punished the Egyptians:\nhe executed judgment on their gods: he slew their first-born: he gave\nthe Jews wealth: he divided the sea for them: he made them pass through\nit as on dry land: he drowned the Egyptians in the same: he gave food to\nthe Jews for forty years in the wilderness; he fed them with manna: he\ngave them the sabbath: he brought them to Mount Sinai: he gave them the\nlaw: he brought them to the Laud of Promise: he built the Temple.\n\nWhen these acts of the goodness of God, with additional remarks on the\npassover out of Rabbi Gamaliel, have been recited, all the guests touch\nthe dish which contains the three cakes of bread before mentioned, and\nsay: \"This sort of unleavened bread, which we eat, is because there was\nnot sufficient time for the dough of our ancestors to rise, until the\nblessed Lord, the King of Kings, did reveal himself to redeem them, as\nit is written. And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough, which they\nbrought forth out of Egypt; for it was not leavened, because they were\nthrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry; neither had they prepared for\nthemselves any victuals.\" After this they touch the horse-radish and\njoin in a narration on the subject of their bondage. Then they take\n_their third cup of wine_, and pronounce a formula of adoration and\npraise, accompanied with blessings and thanksgivings, in allusion to the\nhistorical part of the passover. After this the master of the family\nwashes his hands and says, \"Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of\nthe Universe, who hast sanctified us with thy Commandments, and\ncommanded us to cleanse our hands.\" He then breaks the _uppermost cake\nof bread_ in the dish, and says, \"Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King\nof the Universe, who hast brought forth bread from the earth.\" Then he\ntakes _half of another cake of bread, and breaks it_, and says, \"Blessed\nart thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who hast sanctified us\nwith thy commandments, and commanded us to eat the unleavened bread.\"\n_Then he gives every one at the table of each of the two cakes of bread\nthat are broken_, and every one repeats audibly the two last blessings.\nHe then takes the green top from the horse-radish, and puts on the balls\nbefore mentioned, and pronounces a blessing. He then puts these into the\nhands of the guests, and they pronounce the same. After this, he cuts\nthe bottom cake, and puts a piece of it upon a piece of horse-radish,\nand pronounces a formula of words, in allusion to an historical fact.\n\nThese ceremonies having been thus completed, the guests sup.\n\nAfter supper, a long grace is said. Then the _fourth cup_ is filled. A\nlong prayer follows, on the subject of creation. This is again followed\nby a hymn, enumerating and specifying the twelve wonders which God did\nat midnight. Another hymn succeeds, specifying the fifteen great works\nwhich God did at different times, both on the night, and on the day, of\nthe passover. Then follows a prayer in praise of God, in which a desire\nis expressed, that they may again he brought to Jerusalem. Then follows\na blessing on the fourth cup which is taken; after which another hymn is\nsung, in which the assistance of the Almighty is invoked for the\nrebuilding of the temple. This hymn is followed by thirteen canticles,\nenumerating thirteen remarkable things belonging to the Jews, soon after\nwhich the ceremony ends.\n\nThis is the manner, or nearly the manner, in which the passover is now\ncelebrated by the Jews. The bread is still continued to be blessed, and\nbroken, and divided, and the cup to be blessed and handed round among\nthe guests. And this is done, whether they live in Asia, or in Europe,\nor in any other part of the known world.\n\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_Second Supper is that enjoined by Jesus at Capernaum--It consists of\nbread from Heaven--or of the flesh and blood of Christ--But these not of\na material nature, like the passover-bread, or corporeal part of\nJesus--but wholly of a spiritual--Those who receive it, are spiritually\nnourished by it, and may be said to sup with Christ--This supper\nsupported the Patriarchs--and must be taken by all Christians--Various\nways in which this supper may be enjoyed_.\n\n\nThe second supper recorded in the scriptures, in which bread, and the\nbody, and blood of Christ, are mentioned, is that which was enjoined by\nJesus, when he addressed the multitude at Capernaum. Of this supper, the\nfollowing account may be given:\n\n[183] \"Labour not, says he to the multitude, for the meat which\nperisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which\nthe Son of Man shall give unto you.\"\n\n[Footnote 183: John 6. 27.]\n\nA little farther on, in the same chapter, when the Jews required a sign\nfrom heaven, (such as when Moses gave their ancestors manna in the\nwilderness,) in order that they might believe on him, he addressed them\nthus: \"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread\nfrom heaven: but my father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For\nthe bread of God is he that cometh down from heaven, and giveth light\nunto the world.\"\n\nThen said they unto him, \"Lord, evermore give us this bread.\" And Jesus\nsaid unto them, \"I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall\nnever hunger; and he that believeth in me, shall never thirst.\"\n\nIt appears, that in the course of these and other words that were spoken\nupon this occasion, the Jews took offence at Jesus Christ, because he\nsaid, he was the bread that came down from heaven; for they knew he was\nthe son of Joseph, and they knew both his father and his mother. Jesus\ntherefore directed to them the following observations:\n\n\"I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness,\nand are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a\nman may eat thereof and not die. I am the living bread, which came down\nfrom heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. And\nthe bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life\nof the world.\" The Jews, therefore, strove among themselves, saying, How\ncan this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them,\n\"Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of\nMan, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whosoever eateth my\nflesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up\nat the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink\nindeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me,\nand I in him. As the living father hath sent me, and I live by the\nfather, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that\nbread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and\nare dead. He that eateth of this bread, shall live forever.\"\n\nAs the Jews were still unable to comprehend the meaning of his words,\nwhich they discovered by murmuring and pronouncing them to be hard\nsayings, Jesus Christ closes his address to them in the following words:\n\"It is the spirit that quickeneth. The flesh profiteth nothing: the\nwords that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.\"\n\nIt appears from hence, according to the Quakers, that Jesus Christ, in\nmentioning the loaves, took occasion to spiritualize, as he did on all\nother fit occasions, and to direct the attention of his followers from\nnatural to spiritual food, or from the food that perisheth, to that\nwhich giveth eternal life.\n\nJesus Christ calls himself upon this occasion the living bread. He says\nthat this bread is his flesh, and that this flesh is meat indeed. The\nfirst conclusion which the Quakers deduce on this subject, is, that this\nbread, or this flesh and blood, or this meat, which he recommends to his\nfollowers, and which he also declares to be himself, is not of a\nmaterial nature. It is not, as he himself says, like the ordinary meat\nthat perisheth, nor like the outward manna, which the Jews ate in the\nwilderness for their bodily refreshment. It cannot therefore be common\nbread, nor such bread as the jews ate at their passover, nor any bread\nor meat ordered to be eaten on any public occasion.\n\nNeither can this flesh or this bread be, as some have imagined, the\nmaterial flesh or body of Jesus. For first, this latter body was born of\nthe virgin Mary; whereas the other is described as having come down from\nheaven. Secondly, because, when the Jews said, \"How can this man give us\nhis flesh?\" Jesus replied, \"It is the spirit that quickeneth. The flesh\nprofiteth nothing;\" that is, material flesh and blood, such as mine is,\ncannot profit any thing in the way of quickening; or cannot so profit as\nto give life eternal. This is only the work of the spirit. And he adds,\n\"the words I have spoken to you, they are spirit, and they are life.\"\n\nThis bread then, or this body, is of a spiritual nature. It is of a\nspiritual nature, because it not only giveth life, but preserveth from\ndeath. Manna, on the other hand, supported the Israelites only for a\ntime, and they died. Common bread and flesh nourish the body for a time,\nwhen it dies and perishes; but it is said of those who feed upon this\nfood, that they shall never die. This bread, or body, must be spiritual\nagain, because the bodies of men, according to their present\norganization, cannot be kept for ever alive; but their souls may. But\nthe souls of men can receive no nourishment from ordinary meat and\ndrink, that they should be kept alive, but from that which is spiritual\nonly. It must be spiritual again, because Jesus Christ describes it as\nhaving come down from heaven.\n\nThe last conclusion which the Quakers draw from the words of our Saviour\non this occasion, is, that a spiritual participation of the body and\nblood of Christ is such an essential of Christianity, that no person who\ndoes not partake of them, can be considered to be a Christian; \"for\nexcept a man eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, he has\nno life in him.\"\n\nThe Quakers therefore believe, that this address of Jesus Christ to his\nfollowers near Capernaum, relates wholly to the necessity of the souls\nof men being fed and nourished by that food, which it is alone capable\nof receiving, namely, that which is of a spiritual nature, and which\ncomes from above. This food is the spirit of God; or, in the language of\nthe Quakers, it is Christ. It is that celestial principle, which gives\nlife and light to as many as receive it and believe in it. It is that\nspiritual principle, which was in the beginning of the world, and which\nafterwards took flesh. And those who receive it, are spiritually\nnourished by it, and may be said to sup with Christ; for he himself\nsays, [184] \"Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my\nvoice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him,\nand he with me.\"\n\n[Footnote 184: Rev. 3. 20.]\n\nThis supper which Jesus Christ enjoins, is that heavenly manna on which\nthe Patriarchs feasted, before his appearance in the flesh, and by which\ntheir inward man became nourished; so that some of them were said to\nhave walked with God; for those, according to St. Paul, [185] \"did all\neat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink;\nfor they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock\nwas Christ.\"\n\n[Footnote 185: 1 Cor. 10.3.4.]\n\nThis supper is also that \"daily bread,\" since his appearance in the\nflesh; or, as the old Latin translation has it, it is that\nsupersubstantial bread, which Christians are desired to pray for in the\nLord's prayer; that bread, which, according to good commentators, is\nabove all substance, and above all created things. For this bread fills\nand satisfies. By extinguishing all carnal desires, it leaves neither\nhunger nor thirst after worldly things. It redeems from the pollutions\nof sin. It so quickens as to raise from death to life, and it gives\ntherefore to man a sort of new and divine nature, so that he can dwell\nin Christ and Christ in him.\n\nThis supper, which consists of this manna, or bread, or of this flesh\nand blood, may be enjoyed by Christians in various ways. It may be\nenjoyed by them in pious meditations on the Divine Being, in which the\nsoul of man may have communion with the spirit of God, so that every\nmeditation may afford it a salutary supper, or a celestial feast. It may\nbe enjoyed by them when they wait upon God in silence, or retire into\nthe light of the Lord, and receive those divine impressions which\nquicken and spiritualize the internal man. It may be enjoyed by them in\nall their several acts of obedience to the words and doctrines of our\nSaviour. Thus may men everyday, nay, every hour, keep a communion at the\nLord's table, or communicate, or sup, with Christ.\n\n\nSECT. III.\n\n_The question then is, whether Jesus Christ instituted any new supper,\ndistinct from that of the passover, (and which was to render null and\nvoid that enjoined at Capernaum) to be observed as a ceremonial by\nChristians--Quakers say, that no such institution can be collected from\nthe accounts of Matthew, or of Mark, or of John--The silence of the\nlatter peculiarly impressive in the present case._\n\n\nIt appears then, that there are two suppers recorded in the scriptures,\nthe one enjoined by Moses, and the other by Jesus Christ.\n\nThe first of these was of a ceremonial nature, and was confined\nexclusively to the Jews: for to Gentile converts who knew nothing of\nMoses, or whose ancestors were not concerned in the deliverance from\nEgyptian bondage, it could have had no meaning.\n\nThe latter was of a spiritual nature. It was not limited to any nation.\nIt had been enjoyed by many of the Patriarchs. Many of the Gentiles had\nenjoyed it also. But it was essentially necessary for all Christians.\n\nNow the question is, whether Jesus Christ, when he celebrated the\npassover, instituted any new supper, distinct from that of the\npassover, and which was to render null, and void, (as it is the tendency\nof ceremonies to do) that which he enjoined at Capernaum, to be observed\nas an ordinance by the Christian world.\n\nThe Quakers are of opinion that no institution of this kind can be\ncollected from Matthew, Mark, or John. [186]St. Matthew mentions the\ncelebration of the passover supper in the following manner: \"And as they\nwere eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave to\nhis disciples, and said, take, eat, this is my body.\"\n\n[Footnote 186: Mat. 26. 26.]\n\n\"And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying,\ndrink ye all of it.\"\n\n\"For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for\nthe remission of sins.\"\n\n\"But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the\nvine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my father's\nkingdom.\"\n\nSt. Mark gives an account so similar to the former, that it is\nunnecessary to transcribe it. Both mention the administration of the\ncup; both the breaking and giving of the bread; both the allusion of\nJesus to his own body and blood; both the idea of his not drinking wine\nany more but in a new kingdom; but neither of them mention any command,\nnor even any insinuation by Jesus Christ to his disciples, that they\nshould do as he did at the passover supper.\n\nSt. John, who relates the circumstance of Jesus Christ washing the feet\nof his disciples on the passover night, mentions nothing even of the\nbreaking of bread, or of the drinking of the wine upon that occasion.\n\nAs far therefore as the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and John, are\nconcerned, it is obvious, in the opinion of the Quakers, that Christians\nhave not the least pretence, either for the celebration of the passover,\nor of that which they usually call the Lord's Supper; for the command\nfor such a supper is usually grounded on the words, \"do this in\nremembrance of me.\" But no such words occur in the accounts of any of\nthe Evangelists now cited.\n\nThis silence with respect to any command for any new institution is\nconsidered by the Quakers as a proof, as far as these Evangelists are\nconcerned, that none was ever intended. For if the sacrament of the\nsupper was to be such a great and essential rite as Christians make it,\nthey would have been deficient in their duty, if they had failed to\nrecord it. St. Matthew, who was at the supper, and St. Mark, who heard\nof what had passed there, both agree that Jesus used the ceremony of the\nbread and the wine, and also that he made an allusion from thence to his\nown body and blood; but it is clear, the Quakers say, whatever they\nmight have heard as spoken by him, they did not understand him as\nenjoining a new thing. But the silence of John, upon this occasion, the\nQuakers consider as the most impressive in the present case. For St.\nJohn was the disciple, who leaned upon the bosom of Jesus at this\nfestival, and who of course must have heard all that he said. He was\nthe disciple again, whom Jesus loved, and who would have been anxious to\nhave perpetuated all that he required to be done. He was the disciple\nagain, who so particularly related the spiritual supper which Jesus\nenjoined at Capernaum, and in this strong language, that, \"except a man\neat his flesh, and drink his blood, he has no life in him.\"\nNotwithstanding this, St. John does not even mention what took place on\nthe passover night, believing, as the Quakers suppose, that it was not\nnecessary to record the particulars of a Jewish ceremony, which, being a\ntype, was to end when its antitype was realized, and which he considered\nto be unnecessary for those of the Christian name.\n\n\nSECT. IV.\n\n_Account of St. Luke examined--According to him Jesus celebrated only\nthe old Jewish passover--Signified all future passovers with him were to\nbe spiritual--Hence he turned the attention of those present from the\ntype to the antitype--He recommended them to take their meals\noccasionally together in remembrance of their last supper with him; or\nif, as Jews, they could not relinquish the passover, to celebrate it\nwith a new meaning._\n\n\nSt. Luke, who speaks of the transactions which took place at the\npassover-supper, is the only one of the Evangelists who records the\nremarkable words, \"do this in remembrance of me.\" St. Luke, however,\nwas not himself at this supper. Whatever he has related concerning it,\nwas from the report of others.\n\nBut though the Quakers are aware of this circumstance, and that neither\nMatthew, Mark, nor John, give an account of such words, yet they do not\nquestion the authority of St. Luke concerning them. They admit them, on\nthe other hand, to have been spoken; they believe however, on an\nexamination of the whole of the narrative of St. Luke upon this\noccasion, that no new institution of a religious nature was intended.\nThey believe that Jesus Christ did nothing more than celebrate the old\npassover; that he intimated to his disciples, at the time he celebrated\nit, that it was to cease; that he advised them, however, to take their\nmeals occasionally, in a friendly manner, together, in remembrance of\nhim; or if, as Jews, they could not all at once relinquish the passover,\nhe permitted them to celebrate it with a new meaning.\n\nIn the first place St. Luke, and he is joined by all the other\nEvangelists, calls the feast now spoken of the passover. Jesus Christ\nalso gives it the same name; for he says, \"with desire I have desired to\neat this passover with you before I suffer.\"\n\nJesus Christ, according to St. Luke, took bread and broke it, and\ndivided it among his disciples. He also took the cup, and gave thanks,\nand gave it among them. But this, the Quakers say, is no more than what\nthe master of every Jewish family did on the passover night: nor, is it\nany more, as will have already appeared, than what the Jews of London,\nor of Paris, or of Amsterdam, or of any other place, where bread and\nwine are to be had, do on the same feast at the present day.\n\nBut though Jesus Christ conducted himself so far as other masters of\nfamilies did, yet he departed from the formula of words that was\ngenerally used upon these occasions. For in the first place, he is\ndescribed to have said to his disciples, that \"he would no more eat of\nthe passover, until it should be fulfilled in the kingdom of God;\" and a\nlittle farther on, that \"he would not drink of the fruit of the vine,\ntill the kingdom of God should come; or, as St. Matthew has it, till he\nshould drink it new with them in his father's kingdom.\"\n\nBy these words the Quakers understand, that it was the intention of\nJesus Christ to turn the attention of his disciples from the type to the\nantitype, or from the paschal lamb to the lamb of God, which was soon to\nbe offered for them. He declared, that all his passover suppers with\nthem were in future to be spiritual. Such spiritual passovers, the\nQuakers say, he afterwards ate with them on the day of pentecost, when\nthe spirit of God came upon them; when their minds were opened, and when\nthey discovered, for the first time, the nature of his kingdom. And\nthese spiritual passovers he has since eaten, and continues to eat with\nall those whose minds, detached from worldly pursuits and connexions,\nare so purified and spiritualized, as to be able to hold communion with\nGod.\n\nIt is reported of him next, that \"he took bread, and gave thanks, and\nbrake it, and gave to his disciples, saying, this is my body which is\ngiven for you.\"\n\nOn these words the Quakers make the following observations:--The word\n\"this\" does not belong to the word \"bread,\" that is, it does not mean\nthat this bread is my body. For the word \"bread\" in the original Greek\nis of the masculine, and the word \"this\" is of the neuter gender. But it\nalludes to the action of the breaking of the bread, from which the\nfollowing new meaning will result. \"This breaking of the bread, which\nyou now see me perform, is a symbol or representation of the giving, or\nas St. Paul has it, of the breaking of my body for you.\"\n\nIn the same manner, the Quakers say, that the giving of the wine in the\ncup is to be understood as a symbol or representation of the giving of\nhis blood for them.\n\nThe Quakers therefore are of opinion, when they consider the meaning of\nthe sayings of Jesus Christ both with respect to the bread and to the\nwine, that he endeavoured again to turn the attention of his disciples\nfrom the type to the antitype; from the bread and wine to his own body\nand blood; from the paschal lamb that had been slain and eaten, to the\nlamb that was going to be sacrificed; and as the blood of the latter\nwas, according to St. Matthew, for the remission of sins, to turn their\nattention from the ancient object of the celebration of the passover, or\nsalvation from Egyptian bondage, to a new object, or the salvation of\nthemselves and others by this new sacrifice of himself.\n\nIt is reported of him again by St. Luke, after he had distributed the\nbread and said, \"this is my body which is given for you,\" that he added,\n\"this do in remembrance of me.\"\n\nThese words the Quakers believe to have no reference to any new\ninstitution; but they contain a recommendation to his disciples to meet\nin a friendly manner, and break their bread together, in remembrance of\ntheir last supper with him, or if as Jews, they could not all at once\nleave off the custom of the passover, in which they had been born and\neducated as a religious ceremony, to celebrate it, as he had then\nmodified and spiritualized it, with a new meaning.\n\nIf they relate to the breaking of their bread together, then they do not\nrelate to any passover or sacramental eating, but only to that of their\ncommon meals; for all the passovers of Jesus Christ with his disciples\nwere in future to be spiritual. And in this sense the primitive\nChristians seem to have understood the words in question. For in their\nreligious zeal they sold all their goods, and, by means of the produce\nof their joint stock, they kept a common table, and lived together. But\nin process of time, as this custom from various causes declined, they\nmet at each other's houses, or at their appointed places, to break their\nbread together, in memorial of the passover-supper. This custom, it is\nremarkable, was denominated the custom of _breaking of bread_. Nor could\nit have had any other name so proper, if the narration of St. Luke be\ntrue. For the words \"do this in remembrance of me,\" relate solely, as he\nhas placed them, to the breaking of the bread. They were used after the\ndistribution of the bread, but were not repeated after the giving of the\ncup.\n\nIf they relate, on the other hand, to the celebration of the passover,\nas it had been modified and spiritualized with a new meaning, then the\ninterpretation of them will stand thus: \"As some of you, my disciples,\nfor ye are all Jews, may not be able to get over all your prejudices at\nonce, but may celebrate the passover again, and as it is the last time\nthat I shall celebrate it with you, as a ceremonial, I desire you to do\nit in remembrance, or as a memorial of me. I wish the celebration of it\nalways to bring to your recollection this our last public meeting, the\nlove I bear to you, and my sufferings and my death. I wish your minds to\nbe turned from carnal to spiritual benefits, and to be raised to more\nimportant themes than the mere escape of your ancestors from Egyptian\nbondage. If it has been hitherto the object of the passover to preserve\nin your memories the bodily salvation of your ancestors, let it be used\nin future, if you cannot forsake it, as a memorial of your own spiritual\nsalvation; for my body, of which the bread is a representation, is to be\nbroken, and my blood, of which the wine is an emblem, is to be shed for\nthe remission of your sins.\"\n\nBut in whatever sense the words \"do this in remembrance of me\" are to be\ntaken, the Quakers are of opinion, as far as St. Luke states the\ncircumstances, that they related solely to the disciples themselves.\nJesus Christ recommends it to those who were present, and to those only,\nto do this in remembrance of him. But he no where tells them to order or\ncause it to be done by the whole Christian world, as he told them to\n\"preach the Gospel to every creature.\"\n\nTo sum up the whole of what has been said in this chapter:--If we\nconsult St. Luke, and St. Luke only, all that we can collect on this\nsubject will be, that the future passover-suppers of Christ with his\ndisciples were to be spiritual; that his disciples were desired to break\ntheir bread together in remembrance of him; or if, as Jews, they could\nnot relinquish the passover, to celebrate it with a new meaning; but\nthat this permission extended to those only who were present on that\noccasion.\n\n\nSECT. V.\n\n_Account of St. Paul--He states that the words \"do this in remembrance\nof me\" were used at the passover-supper--That they contained a\npermission for a custom, in which both the bread and the wine were\nincluded--That this custom was the passover, spiritualised by Jesus\nChrist--But that it was to last but for a time--Some conjecture this\ntime to be the destruction of Jerusalem--But the Quakers, till the\ndisciples had attained such a spiritual growth, that they felt Christ's\nkingdom substantially in their hearts--And as it was thus limited to\nthem, so it was limited to such Jewish converts as might have adopted it\nin their times._\n\n\nThe last of the sacred writers, who mentions the celebration of the\npassover-supper, is St. Paul, whose account is now to be examined.\n\nSt. Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, reproves[187] the\nlatter for some irregularities committed by them in the course of their\nreligious meetings. What these meetings were is uncertain. They might\nhave been for the celebration of the passover-supper, for there was a\nsynagogue of Jews at Corinth, of whom some had been converted. Or they\nmight have been for the celebration of the passover as spiritualized by\nJesus Christ, or for the breaking of bread, which customs both the\nJewish and Gentile converts might have adopted. The custom, however, at\nwhich these irregularities took place, is called by St. Paul, the Lord's\nSupper. And this title was not inapplicable to it in either of the cases\nsupposed, because it must have been, in either of them, in\ncommemoration of the last supper, which Jesus Christ, or the Lord and\nMaster, ate with his disciples before he suffered.\n\n[Footnote 187: Chap. 11.]\n\nBut whichever ceremonial it was that St. Paul alluded to, the\ncircumstances of the irregularities of the Corinthians, obliged him to\nadvert to and explain what was said and done by Jesus on the night of\nthe passover-supper. This explanation of the Apostle has thrown new\nlight upon the subject, and has induced the Quakers to believe, that no\nnew institution was intended to take place as a ceremonial to be\nobserved by the Christian world.\n\nSt. Paul, in his account of what occurred at the original passover,\nreports that Jesus Christ made use of the words \"this do in remembrance\nof me.\" By this the Quakers understand that he permitted something to be\ndone by those who were present at this supper.\n\nHe reports also, that Jesus Christ used these words, not only after the\nbreaking of the bread, but after the giving of the cup: from whence they\nconclude, that St. Paul considered both the bread and the wine, as\nbelonging to that which had been permitted.\n\nSt. Paul also says, \"for as often as ye eat this bread and drink this\ncup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.\" By these words they\nbelieve they discover two things; first, the nature of the thing\npermitted; and, secondly, that the thing permitted, whatever it was, was\nto last but for a time.\n\nThe thing then, which was permitted to those who were present at the\npassover-supper, was to show or declare his death. The words \"show or\ndeclare,\" prove, in the first place, the connexion of the thing\npermitted with the Jewish passover. For after certain ceremonies had\nbeen performed on the passover night, \"the showing forth or\ndeclaration,\" as it was called, followed; or the object of the meeting\nwas declared aloud to the persons present, or it was declared to them\npublicly in what particulars the passover feast differed from all the\nother feasts of the Jews. Secondly, the word \"death\" proves the thing\npermitted to have been the passover, as spiritualized by Jesus Christ;\nfor by the new modification of it, his disciples, if they were unable to\novercome their prejudices, were to turn their attention from the type to\nthe antitype, or from the sacrifice of the paschal lamb to the sacrifice\nof himself, or to his own sufferings and death. In short, Jesus Christ\nalways attempted to reform by spiritualizing. When the Jews followed him\nfor the loaves, and mentioned manna, he tried to turn their attention\nfrom material to spiritual bread. When he sat upon Jacob's well, and\ndiscoursed with the woman of Samaria, he directed her attention from\nordinary, or elementary to spiritual and living water. So he did upon\nthis occasion. He gave life to the dead letter of an old ceremony by a\nnew meaning. His disciples were from henceforth to turn their attention,\nif they chose to celebrate the passover, from the paschal lamb to\nhimself, and from the deliverance of their ancestors out of Egyptian\nbondage to the deliverance of themselves and others, by the giving up of\nhis own body and the shedding of his own blood for the remission of\nsins.\n\nAnd as the thing permitted was the passover, spiritualized in this\nmanner, so it was only permitted for a time, or \"until he come.\"\n\nBy the words \"until he come,\" it is usually understood, until Christ\ncome. But though Christians have agreed upon this, they have disagreed\nas to the length of time which the words may mean. Some have understood\nthat Jesus Christ intended this spiritualized passover to continue for\never as an ordinance of his church, for that \"till he come\" must refer\nto his coming to judge the world. But it has been replied to these, that\nin this case no limitation had been necessary, or it would have been\nsaid at once, that it was to be a perpetual ordinance, or expressed in\nplainer terms, than in the words in question.\n\nOthers have understood the words to mean the end of the typical world,\nwhich happened on the destruction of Jerusalem, when the Jews were\ndispersed, and their church, as a national one, done away. For the\ncoming of Christ and the end of the world have been considered as\ntaking place at the same time. Thus the early Christians believed, that\nJesus Christ, even after his death and resurrection, would come again,\neven in their own life time, and that the end of the world would then\nbe. These events they coupled in their minds; \"for[188] they asked him\nprivately, saying, tell us when these things shall be, and what shall be\nthe sign of thy coming and of the end of the world?\" Jesus told them in\nreply, that the end of the world and his coming would be, when there\nwere wars, and rumours of wars, and earthquakes, and famine, and\npestilence, and tribulations on the earth; and that these calamities\nwould happen even before the generation, then alive, would pass away.\nNow all these things actually happened in the same generation; for they\nhappened at the destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus Christ therefore meant\nby the end of the world, the end of the Jewish world, or of the world of\ntypes, figures, and ordinances: and he coupled naturally his own coming\nwith this event, because he could not come fully into the hearts of any,\ntill these externals were done away. He alluded, in short, to the end of\nthe Jewish dispensation and the beginning of his own spiritual kingdom,\nor to the end of the ceremonial and the beginning of the Gospel world.\n\n[Footnote 188: Matt. 24.]\n\nThose therefore who interpret the words \"till he come\" to mean the end\nof the typical world, are of opinion that the passover, as spiritualized\nby Jesus Christ, was allowed to the disciples, while they lived among a\npeople, so wedded to religious ceremonies as the Jews, with whom it\nwould have been a stumbling block in the way of their conversion, if\nthey had seen the Apostles, who were their countrymen, rejecting it all\nat once; but that it was permitted, them, till the destruction of\nJerusalem, after which event the Jews being annihilated as a nation, and\nbeing dispersed and mixed among the infinitely greater body of the\nGentiles, the custom was to be laid aside, as the disuse of it could not\nbe then prejudicial to the propagation of the Gospel among the community\nat large.\n\nThe Quakers, however, understand the words \"till he come,\" to mean\nsimply the coming of Christ substantially in the heart. Giving the words\nthis meaning, they limit the duration of the spiritualized passover, but\ndo not specify the time. It might have ceased with some of them, they\nsay, on the day of pentecost, when they began to discover the nature of\nChrist's kingdom; and they think it probable, that it ceased with all of\nthem, when they found this kingdom realized in their hearts. For it is\nremarkable that those, who became Gospel writers, and it is to be\npresumed that they had attained great spiritual growth when they wrote\ntheir respective works, give no instructions to others, whether Jews or\nGentiles, to observe the ceremonial permitted to the disciples by Jesus,\nas any ordinance of the Christian church. And in the same manner as the\nQuakers conceive the duration of the spiritualized passover to have been\nlimited to the disciples, they conceive it to have been limited to all\nother Jewish converts, who might have adopted it in those times, that\nis, till they should find by the substantial enjoyment of Christ in\ntheir hearts, that ceremonial ordinances belonged to the old, but that\nthey were not constituent parts of the new kingdom.\n\n\nSECT. VI.\n\n_Quakers believe, from the preceding evidence, that Jesus Christ\nintended no ceremonial for the Christian church--for if the custom\nenjoined was the passover spiritualized, it was more suitable for Jews\nthan Gentiles--If intended as a ceremonial, it would have been commanded\nby Jesus to others besides his disciples, and by these to the Christian\nworld--and its duration would not have been limited--Quakers believe St.\nPaul thought it no Christian ordinance--three reasons taken from his\nown writings on this subject._\n\n\nThe Quakers then, on an examination of the preceding evidence, are of\nopinion that Jesus Christ, at the passover-supper, never intended to\ninstitute any new supper, distinct from that of the passover, or from\nthat enjoined at Capernaum, to be observed as a ceremonial by\nChristians.\n\nFor, in the first place, St. Matthew, who was at the supper, makes no\nmention of the words \"do this in remembrance of me.\"\n\nNeither are these words, nor any of a similar import, recorded by St.\nMark. It is true indeed that St. Mark was not at this supper. But it is\nclear he never understood from those who were, either that they were\nspoken, or that they bore this meaning, or he would have inserted them\nin his Gospel.\n\nNor is any mention made of such words by St. John. This was the beloved\ndisciple who was more intimate with Jesus, and who knew more of the mind\nof his master, than any of the others. This was he who leaned upon his\nbosom at the passover-supper, and who must have been so near him as to\nhave heard all that passed there. And. yet this disciple did not think\nit worth his while, except manuscripts have been mutilated, to mention\neven the bread and wine that were used upon this occasion.\n\nNeither does St. Luke, who mentions the words \"do this in remembrance of\nme,\" establish any thing, in the opinion of the Quakers, material on\nthis point. For it appears from him that Jesus, to make the most of his\nwords, only spiritualized the old passover for his disciples, all of\nwhom were Jews, but that he gave no command with respect to the\nobservance of it by others. Neither does St. Luke himself enjoin or call\nupon others to observe it.\n\nSt. Paul speaks nearly the same language as St. Luke, but with this\ndifference, that the supper, as thus spiritualised by Jesus, was to last\nbut for a time.\n\nNow the Quakers are of opinion, that they have not sufficient ground to\nbelieve from these authorities, that Jesus intended to establish any\nceremonial as an universal ordinance for the Christian church. For if\nthe custom enjoined was the spiritualized passover, it was better\ncalculated for Jews than for Gentiles, who were neither interested in\nthe motives nor acquainted with the customs of that feast. But it is of\nlittle importance, they contend, whether it was the spiritualized\npassover or not; for if Jesus Christ had intended it, whatever it was,\nas an essential of his new religion, he would have commanded his\ndisciples to enjoin it as a Christian duty, and the disciples themselves\nwould have handed it down to their several converts in the same light.\nBut no injunction to this effect, either of Jesus to others, or of\nthemselves to others, is to be found in any of their writings. Add to\nthis, that the limitation of its duration for a time, seems a sufficient\nargument against it as a Christian ordinance, because whatever is once,\nmost be for ever, an essential in the Christian church.\n\nThe Quakers believe, as a farther argument in their favour, that there\nis reason to presume that St. Paul never looked upon the spiritualised\npassover as any permanent and essential rite, which Christians were\nenjoined to follow. For nothing can be more clear than that, when\nspeaking of the guilt and hazard of judging one another by meats and\ndrinks, he states it as a general and fundamental doctrine of\nChristianity, that [189] \"the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but\nrighteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.\"\n\n[Footnote 189: Romans 14. 17.]\n\nIt seems also by the mode of reasoning which the Apostle adopts in his\nepistle to the Corinthians on this subject, that he had no other idea of\nthe observance of this rite, than he had of the observance of particular\ndays, namely, that if men thought they were bound in conscience to keep\nthem, they ought to keep them religiously. \"He that regardeth a day,\nsays the Apostle, regardeth it to the Lord.\" That is, \"as he that\nesteemed a day, says Barclay, and placed conscience in keeping it, was\nto regard it to the Lord, (and so it was to him, in so far as he\nregarded it to the Lord, the Lord's day,) he was to do it worthily: and\nif he were to do it unworthily, he would be guilty of the Lord's day,\nand so keep it to his own condemnation.\" Just in the same manner St.\nPaul tells the Corinthian Jews, that if they observed the ceremonial of\nthe passover, or rather, \"as often as they observed it,\" they were to\nobserve it worthily, and make it a religious act. They were not then\ncome together to make merry on the anniversary of the deliverance of\ntheir ancestors from Egyptian bondage, but to meet in memorial of\nChrist's sufferings and death. And therefore, if they ate and drank the\npassover, under its new and high allusions, unworthily, they profaned\nthe ceremony, and were guilty of the body and blood of Christ.\n\nIt appears also from the Syriac, and other oriental versions of the New\nTestament, such as the Arabic and Ethiopic, as if he only permitted the\ncelebration of the spiritualized passover for a time in condescension to\nthe weakness of some of his converts, who were probably from the Jewish\nsynagogue at Corinth. For in the seventeenth verse of the eleventh\nchapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians, the Syriac runs thus:\n[190] \"As to that, concerning which I am now instructing you, I commend\nyou not, because you have not gone forward, but you have gone down into\nmatters of less importance.\" \"It appears from hence, says Barclay, that,\nthe Apostle was grieved, that such was their condition that he was\nforced to give them instruction concerning these outward things, and\ndoting upon which they showed that they were not gone forward in the\nlife of Christianity, but rather sticking in the beggarly elements; and\ntherefore the twentieth verse of the same version has it thus:\n[191]'When then ye meet together, ye do not do it as it is just ye\nshould in the day of the Lord; ye eat and drink.' Therefore showing to\nthem, that to meet together to eat and drink outward bread and wine, was\nnot the labour and work of that day of the Lord.\"\n\n[Footnote 190: The Syriac is a very ancient version, and as respectable\nor of as high authority as any. Leusden and Schaaf translate the Syriac\nthus: \"Hoc autem, quod praecipio, non tanquam laudo vos, quia non\nprogressi estis, sed ad id, quod minus est, descendistis.\" Compare this\nwith the English edition.]\n\n[Footnote 191: Quum igitur congregamini, non sicut justum est die domini\nnostri, comeditis et bibites. Leusden et Schaaf lordoni butavorum.]\n\nUpon the whole, in whatever light the Quakers view the subject before\nus, they cannot _persuade_ themselves that Jesus Christ intended to\nestablish any new _ceremonial_, distinct from the passover-supper, or\nwhich should render null and void, (as it would be the tendency of all\nceremonials to do) the supper which he had before commanded at\nCapernaum. The only supper which he ever enjoined to Christians, was the\nlatter. This spiritual supper was to be eternal and universal. For he\nwas always to be present with those \"who would let him in, and they were\nto sup with him, and he with them.\" It was also to be obligatory, or an\nessential, with all Christians. \"For except a man were to eat his flesh,\nand to drink his blood, he was to have no life in him.\" The supper, on\nthe other hand, which our Saviour is supposed to have instituted on the\ncelebration of the passover, was not enjoined by him to any but the\ndisciples present. And it was, according to the confession of St. Paul,\nto last only for a time. This time is universally agreed upon to be that\nof the coming of Christ. That is, the duration of the spiritualized\npassover was to be only till those to whom it had been recommended, had\narrived at a state of religious manhood, or till they could enjoy the\nsupper which Jesus Christ had commanded at Capernaum; after which\nrepast, the Quakers believe they would consider all others as empty, and\nas not having the proper life and nourishment in them, and as of a kind\nnot to harmonize with the spiritual nature of the Christian religion.\n\n\n\nEND OF THE SECOND VOLUME","title":"A Portraiture of Quakerism, Volume 2: Taken from a View of the Education and Discipline, Social Manners, Civil and Political Economy, Religious Principles and Character, of the Society of Friends","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":80816}