A PORTRAITURE OF QUAKERISM, VOLUME II Taken from a View of the Education and Discipline, Social Manners, Civil and Political Economy, Religious Principles and Character, ofthe Society of Friends by THOMAS CLARKSON, M. A. Author of Several Essays on the Slave Trade New York: Published by Samuel Stansbury, No 111, Water-Street 1806 CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. PECULIAR CUSTOMS. CHAPTER I. SECT. I. --Marriage--Regulation and example of George Fox, relative toMarriage--Present regulations, and manner of the celebration of it amongthe Quakers. SECT. II. --Those who marry out of the society, are disowned--Variousreasons for such a measure--Objection to it--Reply. SECT III. --But the disowned may be restored to membership--Terms oftheir restoration--these terms censured--Reply. SECT IV. --More women disowned on this account than men--Probable causesof this difference of number. CHAPTER II. SECT I. --Funerals--Extravagance and pageantry of ancient and modernfunerals--These discarded by the Quakers--Plain manner in which theyinter their dead. SECT II. --Quakers use no tomb-stones, nor monumental inscriptions--Various reasons of their disuse of these. SECT. III. --Neither do they use mourning garments--Reasons why they thusdiffer from the world--These reasons farther elucidated byconsiderations on Court-mourning. CHAPTER III. Occupations--Agriculture declining among the Quakers--Causes anddisadvantages of this decline. CHAPTER IV. SECT. I. --_Trade--Quakers view trade as a moral question--Prohibit avariety of trades and dealings on this account--various other wholesomeregulations concerning it. _ SECT. II. --_But though the Quakers thus prohibit many trades, they arefound in some which are considered objectionable by the world--Thesespecified and examined. _ CHAPTER V. _Settlement of differences--Abstain from duels-and also from law--Haverecourse to arbitration--Their rules concerning arbitration--An accountof an Arbitration Society at Newcastle upon Tyne, on Quaker-principles. _ CHAPTER VI. SECT. I. --_Poor--No beggars among the Quakers--Manner of relieving andproviding for the poor. _ SECT. II. --_Education of the children of the poor providedfor--Observations on the number of the Quaker-poor--and on theircharacter. _ RELIGION. INTRODUCTION. _Invitation to a perusal of this part of the work--The necessity ofhumility and charity in religion on account of the limited powers of thehuman understanding--Object of this invitation. _ CHAPTER I. _God has given to all, besides an intellectual, a spiritualunderstanding--Some have had a greater portion of this spirit thanothers, such as Abraham, and Moses, and the prophets, andApostles--Jesus Christ had it without limit or measure. _ CHAPTER II. _Except a man has a portion of the same spirit, which Jesus, and theProphets, and the Apostles had, he cannot know spiritual things--Thisdoctrine confirmed by St. Paul--And elucidated by a comparison betweenthe faculties of men and of brutes. _ CHAPTER III. _Neither except he has a portion of the same spirit, can he know thescriptures to be of divine origin, nor can he spiritually understandthem--Objection to this doctrine-Reply. _ CHAPTER IV. _This spirit, which has been thus given to men in different degrees, hasbeen given them as a teacher or guide in their spiritual concerns--Wayin which it teaches. _ CHAPTER V. _This spirit may be considered as the primary and infallible guide--andthe scriptures but a secondary means of instruction--but the Quakers donot undervalue the latter on this account--Their opinion concerningthem. _ CHAPTER VI. _This spirit, as a primary and infallible guide, has been given to menuniversally--From the creation to Moses--From Moses to Christ--FromChrist to the present day. _ CHAPTER VII. Sect. I. --_And as it has been universally to men, so it has been giventhem sufficiently--Those who resist it, quench it--Those who attend toit, are in the way of redemption. _ Sect. II. --_This spirit then besides its office of a spiritual guide, performs that of a Redeemer to men--Redemption outward andinward--Inward effected by this spirit. _ Sect. III. --_Inward redemption produces a new birth--and leads toperfection--This inward redemption possible to all. _ Sect. IV--_New birth and perfection more particularly explained-Newbirth as real from "the spiritual seed of the kingdom" as that of plantsand vegetables from their seeds in the natural world--and goes on in thesame manner progressively to maturity. _ CHAPTER VIII. SECT. I. _--Possibility of redemption to all denied by the favours of"Election and Reprobation"--Quaker-refutation of the later doctrine. _ SECT. II. _--Quaker refutation continued. _ CHAPTER IX. _Recapitulation of all the doctrines advanced--Objection that theQuakers make every thing of the Spirit and but little of JesusChrist--Attempt to show that Christians often differ without a justcause--Or that there is no material difference between the creeds of theQuakers and that of the objectors on this subject. _ CHAPTER X. SECT. I. _--Ministers of the Gospel--Quakers conceive that the spirit ofGod alone can qualify for the ministry--Women equally qualified withmen--Way in which ministers are called and acknowledged among theQuakers. _ SECT. II. _--Quaker-ministers, when acknowledged, engage in familyvisits--Nature of these--and sometimes in missions through England--andsometimes in foreign parts. _ CHAPTER XI. _Elders--Their origin and their office--These are not to meddle with thediscipline of the church. _ CHAPTER XII. SECT I. _--Worship--is usually made to consist of prayer andpreaching--But neither of these are considered by the Quakers to beeffectual without the aid of the spirit--Hence no liturgy or studiedform of words among the Quakers--Reputed manner and character ofQuaker-preaching--Observations upon these. _ SECT. II--_Silent worship--Manner of it--Worship not necessarilyconnected with words--Advantages of this mode of worship. _ SECT. III. --_Quakers discard every thing formal and superstitious fromtheir worship--No consecrated ground--No priest's garments--Nopsalmody--No one day esteemed by them holier than another--Reasons forthese singularities. _ CHAPTER XIII. _Miscellaneous particularities--Quakers seldom use the words "originalsin, " or "Trinity, " and never "the word of God" for theScriptures--Believe in the manhood and divinity of Christ--In theresurrection--Their ideas on sanctification and justification. _ CHAPTER XIV. _Quakers reject baptism and the Lord's supper--Indulgence solicited forthem on account of the difficulties connected with these subjects--Thesedifficulties explained. _ CHAPTER XV. SECT. I. --_Two baptisms, that of John and of Christ--That of John was bywater--and a Jewish ordinance--John the prophet left under the law. _ SECT. II. --_Baptism of Christ was by the Spirit--This the baptism of theGospel--Authorities on which this distinction between the two isfounded. _ SECT. III. --_Quakers conceive it was not the baptism of John which Jesusincluded in the Great Commission, when he ordered his disciples to gointo all nations, and to teach them, baptizing in the name of thefather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost--This shown fromexpressions taken from St. Peter and St. Paul--and from the object andnature of this baptism. _ SECT. IV. --_But that it was the baptism of Christ--This shown from acritical examination of the words in the commission itself--And from thecommission, as explained by St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul. _ SECT. V. --_Practice of Jesus and the Apostles a confirmation of thisopinion. _ CHAPTER XVI. Sect. I. --_Two suppers, the one instituted by Moses, the other by JesusChrist--The first called the passover--Ancient and modern manner of itscelebration. _ Sect. II. --_Second, enjoined by Jesus at Capernaum--This wholly, of aspiritual nature--Way in which this may be enjoyed. _ Sect. III. --_Quakers say that Jesus instituted no new supper distinctfrom that of the passover, and which was to render null and void thatenjoined at Capernaum, at a rite of the Christian church--No suchinstitution to be collected from St. Matthew, St. Mark, or St. John. _ Sect. IV. --_Nor from St. Luke--St. Luke only says, that all futurepassovers of the Disciples with Christ were to be spiritual--but if, asJews, they could not all at once abdicate the passover to which they hadbeen educated, they were to celebrate it with a new meaning--But noacknowledged permission of it to others. _ Sect. V. --_Nor from St. Paul--St. Paul only says that the passover, asspiritualized by Jesus, was allowed to his disciples, or to the Jewishconverts, who could not all at once lay aside their prejudicesconcerning it, but that it was to last only for a time--Differentopinions about this time--That of the Quakers concerning it. _ Sect. VI. --_Had a new supper, distinct from that of the passover, beenintended as a ceremonial of the Christian church, it would have beencommanded to others besides the disciples, and its duration would nothave been limited--Reasons from St. Paul, to show that he himself didnot probably consider it as a Christian ordinance--Whereas the supperenjoined at Capernaum, was to be eternal--and universal--and anessential with all Christians. _ PECULIAR CUSTOMSOF THE_QUAKERS_. (CONTINUED) VOL. II B. PECULIAR CUSTOMSOF THEQUAKERS. CHAP. I. SECTION I. _Marriage--Quakers differ in many respects from others, on the subjectof Marriage--George Fox introduced Regulations concerning it--Protestedagainst the usual manner of the celebration of it--Gave an example ofwhat he recommended--Present regulations of the Quakers on thissubject. _ In the continuation of the Customs of the Quakers, a subject which Ipurpose to resume in the present volume, I shall begin with that ofMarriage. The Quakers differ from others in many of their regulations concerningthis custom. They differ also in the manner of the celebration of it. And, as they differ in these respects, so they experience generally adifferent result. The Quakers, as a married, may be said to be a happy, people. Hence the detailers of scandal, have rarely had it in theirpower to promulgate a Quaker adultery. Nor have the lawyers had anopportunity in our public courts of proclaiming a Quaker divorce. George Fox suggested many regulations on this subject. He advised, amongother things, when persons had it in contemplation to marry, that theyshould lay their intention before the monthly meetings, both of the menand women. He advised also, that the consent of their parents should bepreviously obtained, and certified to these. Thus he laid the foundationfor greater harmony in the approaching union. He advised again, that aninquiry should be made, if the parties were clear of engagements orpromises of marriage to others, and, if they were not, that they shouldbe hindered from proceeding. Thus, he cut off some of the causes of theinterruption of connubial happiness, by preventing uneasy reflections, or suits at law, after the union had taken place. He advised also, inthe case of second marriages, that any offspring resulting from theformer, should have their due rights and a proper provision secured tothem, before they were allowed to be solemnized. Thus he gave a greaterchance for happiness, by preventing mercenary motives from becoming thecauses of the union of husbands and wives. But George Fox, as he introduced these and other salutary regulations onthe subject of Marriage, so he introduced a new manner of thecelebration of it. He protested against the manner of the world, thatis, against the formal prayers and exhortations as they were repeated, and against the formal ceremonies, an they were practised by the ParishPriest. He considered that it was God, who joined man and woman beforethe fall; and that in Christian times, or where the man was trulyrenovated in heart, there could be no other right or honourable way ofunion. Consistently with this view of the subject, he observed, that inthe ancient scriptural times, persons took each other in marriage in theassemblies of the Elders; and there was no record, from the Book ofGenesis to that of Revelations, of any marriage by a Priest. Hence itbecame his new society, as a religious or renovated people, to abandonapostate usages, and to adopt a manner that was more agreeable to theirnew state. George Fox gave in his own marriage, an example of all that he had thusrecommended to the society. Having agreed with Margaret Fell, the widowof Judge Fell, upon the propriety of their union as husband and wife, he desired her to send for her children. As soon as they were come, heasked them and their respective husbands, [1] "If they had any thingagainst it, or for it, desiring them to speak? and they all severallyexpressed their _satisfaction therein_. Then he asked Margaret, if shehad fulfilled and performed her husband's Will to her children? Shereplied, the _children know that_. Whereupon he asked them, whether, iftheir mother married, they should not lose by it? And he asked Margaret, whether she had done any thing in lieu of it, which might answer it tothe children? The children said, _she had answered it to them_, anddesired him to _speak no more about that_. He told them, that he wasplain, and that he would have all things done plainly; for he sought notany outward advantage to himself. So, after he had acquainted thechildren with it, their intention of marriage was laid before Friends, both privately and publicly;" and afterwards a meeting being appointedfor the accomplishment of the marriage, in the public Meeting-house atBroad Mead, in Bristol, they took each other in marriage, in the plainand simple manner as then practised, and which he himself had originallyrecommended to his followers. [Footnote 1: G. Fox's Journal, Vol. 2. P. 135. ] The regulations concerning marriage, and the manner of the celebrationof it, which obtained in the time of George Fox, nearly obtain among theQuakers of the present day. When marriage is agreed upon between two persons, the man and the woman, at one of the monthly meetings, publicly declare their intention, andask leave to proceed. At this time their parents, if living, must eitherappear, or send certificates to signify their consent. This being done, two men are appointed by the men's meeting, and two women are appointedby that of the women, to wait upon the man and woman respectively, andto learn from themselves, as well as by other inquiry, if they standperfectly clear from any marriage-promises and engagements to others. Atthe next monthly meeting the deputation make their report. If either ofthe parties is reported to have given expectation of marriage to anyother individual, the proceedings are stopped till the matter besatisfactorily explained. But if they are both of them reported to beclear in this respect, they are at liberty to proceed, and one or morepersons of respectability of each sex, are deputed to see that themarriage be conducted in an orderly manner. In the case of second marriages, additional instructions are sometimesgiven; for if any of the parties thus intimating their intentions ofmarrying should have children alive, the same persons, who were deputedto inquire into their clearness from all other engagements, are to seethat the rights of such children be legally secured. When the parties are considered to be free, by the reports of thedeputation, to proceed upon their union, they appoint a suitable day forthe celebration of it, which is generally one of the week-day meetingsfor worship. On this day they repair to the Meeting-house with theirfriends. The congregation, when seated, sit in silence. Perhaps someminister is induced to speak. After a suitable time has elapsed, the manand the woman rise up together, and, taking each other by the hand, declare publicly, that they thus take each other as husband and wife. This constitutes their marriage. By way, however, of evidence of theirunion, a paper is signed by the man and woman, in the presence of threewitnesses, who sign it also, in which it is stated that they have sotaken each other in marriage. And, in addition to this, though, it benot a necessary practice, another paper is generally produced and read, stating concisely the proceedings of the parties in their respectiveMeetings for the purpose of their marriage, and the declaration made bythem, as having taken each other as man and wife. This is signed by theparties, their relations, and frequently by many of their friends, andothers present. All marriages of other Dissenters are celebrated in theestablished churches, according to the ceremonies of the same. But themarriages of the Quakers are valid by law in their own Meeting-houses, when solemnised in this simple manner. SECT. II. _Quakers, marrying out of the Society, to be disowned--That regulationcharged with pride and cruelty--Reasons for this disownment are--Thatmixed Marriages cannot be celebrated without a violation of same of thegreat Principles of the Society--That they are generally productive ofdisputes and uneasiness to those concerned--and that the disciplinecannot be carried on in such families. _ Among the regulations suggested by George Fox, and adopted by hisfollowers, it was determined that persons, belonging to the society, should not intermarry with those of other religious professions. Such anheterogeneous union was denominated a _mixed marriage_; and persons, engaging in such mixed marriages, were to be disowned. People of other denominations have charged the Quakers with a more thanusually censurable pride, on account of their adoption of this law. Theyconsider them as looking down upon the rest of their fellow-creatures, as so inferior or unholy, as not to deign or to dare to mix in alliancewith them, or as looking upon them in the same light as the Jewsconsidered the Heathen, or the Greeks the Barbarian world. And they havecharged them also with as much cruelty as pride, on the same account. "AQuaker, they say, feels himself strongly attached to an accomplishedwoman; but she does not belong to the society. He wishes to marry, buthe cannot marry her on account of its laws. Having a respect for thesociety, he looks round it again, but he looks round it in vain. Hefinds no one equal to this woman; no one, whom he could love so well. Tomarry one in the society, while he loves another out of it better, wouldbe evidently wrong. If he does not marry her, he makes the greatest ofall sacrifices, for he loses that which he supposes would constitute asource of enjoyment to him for the remainder of his life. If he marriesher, he is expelled the society; and this, without having been guilty ofan immoral offence. " One of the reasons, which the Quakers give for the adoption of this lawof disownment in the case of mixed marriages, is, that those who engagein them violate some of the most important principles of the society, and such indeed as are distinguishing characteristics of Quakerism fromthe religion of the world. It is a religious tenet of the Quakers, as will be shown in its properplace, that no appointment of man can make a minister of the gospel, andthat no service, consisting of an artificial form of words, to bepronounced on stated occasions, can constitute a religious act; for thatthe spirit of God is essentially necessary to create the one, and toproduce the other. It is also another tenet with them, that no ministerof a christian church, ought to be paid for his Gospel-labours. Thislatter tenet is held so sacred by the Quakers, that it affords onereason among others, why they refuse payment of tithes, and otherdemands of the church, preferring to suffer loss by distraints for them, than to comply with them in the usual manner. Now these two principlesare essentials of Quakerism. But no person, who marries out of thesociety, can be legally married without going through the forms of theestablished church. Those therefore who submit to this ceremony, asperformed by a priest, acknowledge, according to the Quakers, thevalidity of an human appointment of the ministry. They acknowledge thevalidity of an artificial service in religion. They acknowledge thepropriety of paying a Gospel-minister for the discharge of his office. The Quakers, therefore, consider those who marry out of the society, asguilty of such a dereliction of Quaker-principles, that they can be nolonger considered as sound or consistent members. But independently of the violation of these principles, which theQuakers take as the strongest ground for their conduct on such anoccasion, they think themselves warranted in disowning, from acontemplation of the consequences, which have been known to result fromthese marriages. In the first place, disownment is held to be necessary, because it actsas a check upon such marriages, and because, by acting as such a check, it prevents the family-disputes and disagreements which might otherwisearise; for such marriages have been found to be more productive ofuneasiness than of enjoyment. When two persons of different religiousprinciples, a Quaker for example, and a woman of the church, join inmarriage, it is almost impossible that they should not occasionallydiffer. The subject of religion arises, and perhaps some littlealtercation with it, as the Sunday comes. The one will not go to church, and the other will not go to meeting. These disputes do not always diewith time. They arise, however, more or less, according tocircumstances. If neither of the parties set any value upon theirreligious opinions, there will be but little occasion for dispute. Ifboth of them, on the other hand, are of a serious cast, much will dependupon the liberality of their sentiments: but, generally speaking, itfalls to the lot of but few to be free from religious prejudices. Andhere it may be observed, that points in religion also may occasionallybe suggested, which may bring with them the seeds of temporaryuneasiness. People of other religious denominations generally approachnearer to one another in their respective creeds, than the Quakers toeither of them. Most christians agree, for example, in the use ofBaptism in some form or other, and also in the celebration of the Lord'sSupper. But the Quakers, as will be shown in this volume, consider theseordinances in a spiritual light, admitting no ceremonials in so pure asystem as that of the Christian religion. But these differences, which may thus soon or late take their rise uponthese or other subjects, where the parties set a value on theirrespective religious opinions, cannot fail of being augmented by newcircumstances in time. The parties in question have children. Theeducation of these is now a subject of the most important concern. Newdisputes are engendered on this head, both adhering to their respectivetenets as the best to be embraced by their rising offspring. Unable atlength to agree on this point, a sort of compromise takes place. Theboys are denied, while the girls are permitted, baptism. The boys, again, are brought up to meeting, and the girls to church, or they goto church and meeting alternately. In the latter case, none of thechildren can have any fixed principles. Nor will they be much better offin the former. There will be frequently an opposition of each other'sreligious opinions, and a constant hesitation and doubt about theconsistency of these. There are many points, which the mothers willteach the daughters as right, or essential, but which the fathers willteach the sons as erroneous or unimportant. Thus disputes will beconveyed to the children. In their progress through life othercircumstances may arise, which may give birth to feelings of anunpleasant nature. The daughters will be probably instructed in theaccomplishments of the world. They will be also introduced to thecard-room, and to assemblies, and to the theatre, in their turn. Theboys will be admitted to neither. The latter will of course feel theirpleasures abridged, and consider their case as hard, and their father asmorose and cruel. Little jealousies may arise upon this difference oftheir treatment, which may be subversive of filial and fraternalaffection. Nor can religion be called in to correct them; for while thetwo opposite examples of father and mother, and of sisters and brothers, are held out to be right, there will be considerable doubts as to whatare religious truths. The Quakers urge again in behalf of their law against mixed marriages, that if these were not forbidden, it would be impossible to carry on thediscipline of the society. The truth of this may be judged by thepreceding remarks. For if the family were divided into two parties, ashas been just stated, on account of their religion, it would be but in akind of mongrel-state. If, for instance, it were thought right, that theQuaker-part of it should preserve the simplicity of the Quaker-dress, and the plainness of the Quaker-language, how is this to be done, whilethe other part daily move in the fashions, and are taught as a rightusage, to persist in the phrases of the world? If, again, theQuaker-part of it are to be kept from the amusements prohibited by thesociety, how is this to be effected, while the other part of it speak ofthem from their own experience, with rapture or delight? It would beimpossible, therefore, in the opinion of the Quakers, in so mixed afamily, to keep up that discipline, which they consider as thecorner-stone of their constitutional fabric, and which may be said tohave been an instrument in obtaining for them the character of a moralpeople. SECT. III. _But though persons are thus disowned, they may be restored tomembership--Generally understood, however, that they must previouslyexpress their repentance for their marriages--This confession ofrepentance censured by the world--But is admissible without thecriminality supposed--The word repentance misunderstood by the world. _ But though the Quakers may disown such as marry out of their society, itdoes not follow that these may not be reinstated as members. If theseshould conduct themselves after their disownment in an orderly manner, and, still retaining their attachment to the society, should bring uptheir children in the principles and customs of it, they may, if theyapply for restoration, obtain it, with all their former privileges andrights. The children also of such as marry out of the society, though they arenever considered to be members of it, may yet become so in particularcases. The society advises that the monthly meetings, should extend atender care towards such children, and that they should be admittedinto membership at the discretion of the said meetings, either ininfancy or in maturer age. But here I must stop to make a few observations, on an opinion whichprevails upon this subject. It is generally understood that the Quakers, in their restoration of disowned persons to membership, require thempreviously and publicly to acknowledge, that they have _repented_ oftheir marriages. This obligation to make this public confession ofrepentance, has given to many a handle for heavy charges against them. Indeed I scarcely know, in any part of the Quaker-system, where peopleare louder in their censures, than upon this point. "A man, they say, cannot express his penitence for his marriage without throwing a stigmaupon his wife. To do this is morally wrong, if he has no fault to findwith her. To do it, even if she has been in fault, is indelicate. Andnot to do it, is to forego his restoration to membership. This lawtherefore of the Quakers is considered to be immoral, because it maylead both to hypocrisy and falsehood. " I shall not take up much time in correcting the notions that have goneabroad on this subject. Of those who marry out of the society, it may be presumed that there aresome, who were never considered to be sound in the Quaker-principles, and these are generally they who intermarry with the world. Now they, who compose this class, generally live after their marriages, as happilyout of the society as when they were in it. Of course, these do notrepent of the change. And if they do not repent, they never sue forrestoration to membership. They cannot, therefore, incur any of thecharges in question. Nor can the society be blamed in this case, who, bynever asking them to become members, never entice them to anyobjectionable repentance. Of those again, who marry out of the society, there may be individuals, so attached to its communion, that it was never imagined they would haveacted in this manner. Now of these, it may in general be said, that theyoften bitterly repent. They find, soon or late, that the oppositeopinions and manners, to be found in their union, do not harmonize. Andhere it may be observed, that it is very possible, that such persons maysay they repent without any crimination of their wives. A man, forinstance, may have found in his wife all the agreeableness of temper, all the domestic virtue and knowledge, all the liberality of religiousopinion, which he had anticipated; but in consequence of the mixedprinciples resulting from mixed marriages, or of other unforeseencauses, he may be so alarmed about the unsteady disposition of hischildren and their future prospects, that the pain which he feels onthese accounts may overbalance the pleasure, which he acknowledges inthe constant prudence, goodness, solicitude, and affection, of his wife. This may be so much the case, that all her consolatory offices may notbe able to get the better of his grief. A man, therefore, in suchcircumstances, may truly repent of his marriage, or that he was ever thefather of such children, though he can never complain as the husband ofsuch a wife. The truth, however, is, that those who make the charge in question, haveentirely misapplied the meaning of the word _repent_. People are notcalled upon to express their sorrow, for _having married the objects oftheir choice_, but for _having violated those great tenets of thesociety_, which have been already mentioned, and which formdistinguishing characteristics between Quakerism and the religion of theworld. Those, therefore, who say they repent, say no more than what anyother persons might be presumed to say, who had violated the religioustenets of any other society to which they might have belonged, or whohad flown in the face of what they had imagined to be religious truths. SECT. IV. _Of persons, disowned for marriage, the greater proportion is said toconsist of women--Causes assigned for this difference of number in thetwo sexes. _ It will perhaps appear a curious fact to the world, but I am told it istrue, that the number of the women, disowned for marrying out of thesociety, far exceeds the number of the men, who are disowned on the sameaccount. It is not difficult, if the fact be as it is stated, to assign a reasonfor this difference of number in the two sexes. When men wish to marry, they wish, at least if they are men of sense, tofind such women as are virtuous; to find such as are prudent anddomestic, and such as have a proper sense of the folly and dissipationof the Fashionable world; such in fact as will make good mothers andgood wives. Now if a Quaker looks into his own society, he willgenerally find the female part of it of this description. Female Quakersexcel in these points. But if he looks into the world at large, he willin general find a contrast in the females there. These, in general, arebut badly educated. They are taught to place a portion of theirhappiness in finery and show: utility is abandoned for fashion: Theknowledge of the etiquette of the drawing-room usurps the place of theknowledge of the domestic duties: A kind of false and dangerous tastepredominates: Scandal and the card-table are preferred to the pleasuresof a rural walk: Virtue and Modesty are seen with only half theirenergies, being overpowered by the noxiousness of novel-readingprinciples, and by the moral taint which infects those who engage in thevaried rounds of a fashionable life. Hence a want of knowledge, a loveof trifles, and a dissipated turn of mind, generally characterize thosewho are considered as having had the education of the world. We see therefore a good reason why Quaker-men should confine themselvesin their marriages to their own society. But the same reason, which thusoperates with Quaker-men in the choice of Quaker-women, operates withmen who are not of the society, in choosing them also for their wives. These are often no strangers to the good education, and to the highcharacter, of the Quaker-females. Fearful often of marrying among thebadly educated women of their own persuasion, they frequently addressthemselves to this society, and not unfrequently succeed. To this it may be added, that if Quaker-men were to attempt to marry outof their own society, they would not in general be well received. Theirdress and their manners are considered as uncouth in the eyes of thefemale-world, and would present themselves as so many obstacles in theway of their success. The women of this description generally like asmart and showy exterior. They admire heroism and spirit. But neithersuch an exterior, nor such spirit, are to be seen in the Quaker-men. Thedress of the Quaker-females, on the other hand, is considered as neatand elegant, and their modesty and demeanor as worthy of admiration. From these circumstances they captivate. Hence the difference, both inthe inward and outward person, between the men and the women of thissociety, renders the former not so pleasing, while it renders the latterobjects of admiration, and even choice. CHAP. II. SECTION I. _Funerals--Most nations have paid extravagant attention to theirdead--The moderns follow their example--This extravagance, or thepageantry of funerals, discarded by the Quakers--Their reasons forit--Plainness of Quaker-funerals. _ If we look into the history of the world, we shall find, from whatevercause it has arisen, whether from any thing connected with our moralfeelings, such as love, gratitude, or respect, or from vanity, orostentation, that almost all nations, where individuals have been ableto afford it, have incurred considerable expense in the interment oftheir dead. The Greeks were often very extravagant in their funerals. Many persons, ornamented with garlands, followed the corpse, whileothers were employed in singing and dancing before it. At the funeralsof the great, among the Romans, couches were carried, containing thewaxen or other images of the family of the deceased, and hundreds joinedin the procession. In our own times, we find a difference in the mannerof furnishing or decorating funerals, though but little in the intentionof making them objects of outward show. A bearer of plumes precedes theprocession. The horses employed are dressed in trappings. The hearsefollows ornamented with plumes of feathers, and gilded and silvered withgaudy escutcheons, or the armorial bearings of the progenitors of thedeceased. A group of hired persons range themselves on each side of thehearse and attendant carriages, while others close the procession. Theseagain are all of them clad in long cloaks, or furnished, in regularorder, with scarfs and hat-bands. Now all these outward appendages, which may be called the pageantry of funerals, the Quakers havediscarded, from the time of their institution, in the practice of theburial of their dead. The Quakers are of opinion, that funeral processions should be made, ifany thing is to be made of them, to excite serious reflections, and toproduce lessons of morality in those who see them. This they conceive tobe best done by depriving the dead body of all ornaments and outwardhonours. For, stripped in this manner, they conceive it to approach thenearest to its native worthlessness or dust. Such funerals, therefore, may excite in the spectator a deep sense of the low and debasedcondition of man. And his feelings will be pure on the occasion, becausethey will be unmixed with the consideration of the artificialdistinctions of human life. The spectator too will be more likely, if hesees all go undistinguished to the grave, to deduce for himself themoral lesson, that there is no true elevation of one above another, onlyas men follow the practical duties of virtue and religion. But whatserious reflections, or what lessons of morality, on the other hand, dothe funerals of the world produce, if accompanied with pomp andsplendour? To those who have sober and serious minds, they produce akind of pity, that is mingled with disgust. In those of a ludicrousturn, they provoke ludicrous ideas, when they see a dead body attendedwith such extravagant parade. To the vulgar and the ignorant no oneuseful lesson is given. Their senses are all absorbed in the show; andthe thoughts of the worthlessness of man, as well as of death and thegrave, which ought naturally to suggest themselves on such occasions, are swallowed up in the grandeur and pageantry of the procession. Funerals, therefore, of this kind, are calculated to throw honour uponriches, abstractedly of moral merit; to make the creature of as muchimportance when dead as when alive; to lessen the humility of man; andto destroy, of course, the moral and religious feelings that shouldarise upon such occasions. Add to which, that such a conduct amongchristians must be peculiarly improper; for the christian dispensationteaches man, that he is "to work out his salvation with fear andtrembling. " It seems inconsistent, therefore, to accompany with all theoutward signs of honour and greatness the body of a poor wretch, who hashad this difficult and awful task to perform, and who is on his lastearthly journey, previously to his appearance before the tribunal of theAlmighty to be judged for the deeds which he has committed in the flesh. Actuated by such sentiments as these, the Quakers have discarded allparade at their funerals. When they die, they are buried in a mannersingularly plain. The corpse is deposited in a plain coffin. Whencarried to the meeting-house or grave-yard, it is attended by relationsand friends. These have nothing different at this time in their externalgarments from their ordinary dress. Neither man nor horse is apparelledfor the purpose. All pomp and parade, however rich the deceased may havebeen, are banished from their funeral processions. The corpse, atlength, arrives at the meeting-house[2]. It is suffered to remain therein the sight of the spectators. The congregation then sit in silence, asat a meeting for worship. If any one feels himself induced to speak, hedelivers himself accordingly; if not, no other rite is used at thistime. In process of time the coffin is taken out of the meeting-house, and carried to the grave. Many of the acquaintances of the deceased, both Quakers and others, follow it. It is at length placed by the sideof the grave. A solemn, silent pause, immediately takes place. It isthen interred. Another shorter pause then generally follows. Thesepauses are made, that the "spectators may be more deeply touched with asense of their approaching exit, and their future state. " If a ministeror other person, during these pauses, have any observation orexhortation to make, which is frequently the case, he makes it. If noperson should feel himself impressed to speak, the assembled personsdepart. The act of seeing the body deposited in the grave, is the lastpublic act of respect which the Quakers show to their deceasedrelations. This is the whole process of a Quaker-funeral. [Footnote 2: It is sometimes buried without being carried there. ] SECT. II. _Quakers use no vaults in their burying-grounds--Relations sometimesburied near each other, but oftener otherwise--They use no tomb-stonesor monumental inscriptions--Reasons for this disuse--But they sometimesrecord accounts of the lives, deaths, and dying sayings, of theirMinisters. _ The Quakers, in the infancy of their institution, were buried in theirgardens, or orchards, or in the fields and premises of one another. Theyhad at that time no grave-yards of their own; and they refused to beburied in those of the church, lest they should thus acknowledge thevalidity of an human appointment of the priesthood, the propriety ofpayment for gospel-labour, and the peculiar holiness of consecratedground. This refusal to be buried within the precincts of the church, was considered as the bearing of their testimony for truth. In processof time they raised their own meeting-houses, and had their respectiveburying places. But these were not always contiguous, but sometimes at adistance from one another, The Quakers have no sepulchres or archedvaults under ground for the reception of their dead. There has been hereand there a vault, and there is here and there a grave with sides ofbrick; but the coffins, containing their bodies, are usually committedto the dust. I may observe also, that the Quakers are sometimes buried near theirrelations, but more frequently otherwise. In places where theQuaker-population is thin, and the burial ground large, a relation isburied next to a relation, if it be desired. In other places, however, the graves are usually dug in rows, and the bodies deposited in them, not as their relations lie, but as they happen to be opened insuccession without any attention to family connexions. When the firstgrave in the row is opened and filled, the person who dies next, is putinto that which is next to it; and the person who dies next, occupiesthat which is next to the second[3]. It is to many an endearing thought, that they shall lie after their death, near the remains of those whomthey loved in life. But the Quakers, in general, have not thought itright or wise to indulge such feelings. They believe that all good men, however their bodies may be separated in their subterraneous houses ofclay, will assuredly meet at the resurrection of the just. [Footnote 3: By this process a small piece of ground is longer infilling, no room being lost, and the danger and disagreeable necessityof opening graves before the bodies in them are decayed, is avoided. ] The Quakers also reject the fashions of the world in the use oftomb-stones and monumental inscriptions. These are generally supposed tobe erected out of respect to the memory or character of the deceased. The Quakers, however, are of opinion, that this is not the proper mannerof honouring the dead. If you wish to honour a good man, who hasdeparted this life, let all his good actions live in your memory; letthem live in your grateful love and esteem; so cherish them in yourheart, that they may constantly awaken you to imitation. Thus you willshow, by your adoption of his amiable example, that you really respecthis memory. This is also that tribute, which, if he himself could beasked in the other world how he would have his memory respected in this, he would prefer to any description of his virtues, that might be givenby the ablest writer, or handed down to posterity by the ablest monumentof the sculptor's art. But the Quakers have an objection to the use of tomb-stones andmonumental inscriptions, for other reasons. For, where pillars ofmarble, abounding with panegyric, and decorated in a splendid manner, are erected to the ashes of dead men, there is a danger, lest, by makingtoo much of these, a superstitious awe should be produced, and asuperstitious veneration should attach to them. The early Christians, bymaking too much of the relics of their saints or pious men, fell intosuch errors. The Quakers believe, again, that if they were to allow the custom ofthese outward monuments to obtain among them, they might be often led, as the world is, and by the same causes, to a deviation from the truth;for it is in human nature to praise those whom we love, but moreparticularly when we have lost them. Hence, we find often suchextravagant encomiums upon the dead, that if it were possible for theseto be made acquainted with them, they would show their disapprobation ofsuch records. Hence we find also, that "as false as an epitaph, " hasbecome a proverbial expression. But even in the case where nothing more is said upon the tomb-stone thanwhat Moses said of Seth, and of Enos, and of Cainan, and others, when hereckoned up the genealogy of Adam, namely, that "they lived and thatthey died, " the Quakers do not approve of such memorials. For theseconvey no merit of the deceased, by which his example should befollowed. They convey no lesson of morality: and in general they are notparticularly useful. They may serve perhaps to point out to survivingrelations, the place where the body of the deceased was buried, so thatthey may know where to mark out the line for their own graves. But asthe Quakers in general have overcome the prejudice of "sleeping withtheir fathers, " such memorials cannot be so useful to them. The Quakers, however, have no objection, if a man has conducted himselfparticularly well in life, that a true statement should be madeconcerning him, provided such a statement would operate as a lesson ofmorality to others; but they think that the tomb-stone is not the bestmedium of conveying it. They are persuaded that very little moraladvantage is derived to the cursory readers of epitaphs, or that theycan trace their improvement in morals to this source. Sensible, however, that the memorials of good men may be made serviceable to the risinggeneration, ("and there are no ideas, says Addison, which strike moreforcibly on our imaginations, than those which are raised fromreflections upon the exits of great and excellent men, ") they arewilling to receive accounts of the lives, deaths, and remarkable dyingsayings, of those ministers in their own society, who have been eminentfor their labours. These are drawn up by individuals, and presented tothe monthly meetings, to which the deceased belonged. But here they mustundergo an examination before they are passed. The truth of thestatement, and the utility of the record, must appear. It then falls tothe quarterly meetings to examine them again, and these may alter, orpass, or reject them, as it may appear to be most proper. If theseshould pass them, they are forwarded to the yearly meeting. Many ofthem, after this, are printed; and, finding their way into the bookcasesof the Quakers, they become collected essays of morality, and operate asincitements to piety to the rising youth. Thus the memorials of men aremade useful by the Quakers in an unobjectionable manner; for thefalsehood and flattery of epitaphs are thus avoided; none but good menhaving been selected, whose virtues, if they are recorded, can beperpetuated with truth. SECT. III. _They discard also mourning garments--These are only emblems ofsorrow--and often make men pretend to be what they are not--Thiscontrary to Christianity--Thus they may become little better thandisguised pomp, or fashionable forms--This instanced in the changes andduration of common mourning--and in the custom also of court-mourning--Ramifications of the latter. _ As the Quakers neither allow of the tomb-stones, nor the monumentalinscriptions, so they do not allow of the mourning garments of theworld. They believe there can be no true sorrow but in the heart, and thatthere can be no other true outward way of showing it than by fulfillingthe desires, and by imitating the best actions, of those whom men havelost and loved. "The mourning, says William Penn, which it is fit for aChristian to have on the departure of beloved relations and friends, should be worn in the mind, which is only sensible of the loss. And thelove which men have had to these, and their remembrance of them, shouldbe outwardly expressed by a respect to their advice, and care of thosethey have left behind them, and their love of that which they loved. " But mourning garments, the Quakers contend, are only emblems of sorrow. They will therefore frequently be used, where no sorrow is. Many personsfollow their deceased relatives to the grave, whose death, in point ofgain, is a matter of real joy; witness young spendthrifts, who have beenraising sum after sum on expectation, and calculating with voraciousanxiety, the probable duration of their relations' lives. And yet allthese follow the corpse to the grave, with white handkerchiefs, mourninghabits, slouched hats, and dangling hat-bands. Mourning garments, therefore, frequently make men pretend to be what they are not. But notrue or consistent Christian can exhibit an outward appearance to theworld, which his inward feelings do not justify. It is not contended here by the Quakers, that because a man becomesoccasionally a hypocrite, this is a sufficient objection against anysystem; for a man may be an Atheist even in a Quaker's garb. Nor is itinsinuated, that individuals do not sometimes feel in their hearts, thesorrow which they purpose to signify by their clothing. But it isasserted to be true, that men who use mourning habits as they aregenerally used, do not wear them for those deceased persons only whomthey loved, and abstain from the use of them where they had no esteem, but that they wear them promiscuously on all the occasions which havebeen dictated by fashion. Mourning habits therefore, in consequence of along system of etiquette, have become, in the opinion of the Quakers, but little better than _disguised pomp_, or _fashionable forms_. I shall endeavour to throw some light upon this position of the Quakers, by looking into the practice of the world. In the first place, there are seasons there, when full mourning, andseasons when only half mourning, is to be worn. Thus the habit ischanged, and for no other reason, than that of conformity with the lawsof fashion. The length of this time also, or season of mourning, is madeto depend upon the scale of men's affinity to the deceased; thoughnothing can be more obvious, than that men's affection for the living, and that their sorrow for them when dead, cannot be measured by thisstandard. Hence the very time that a man shall mourn, and the very timethat he shall only half-mourn, and the very time that he shall cease tomourn, is fixed for him by the world, whatever may be the duration ofhis own sorrow. In court-mourning also, we have an instance of men being instructed tomourn, where their feelings are neither interested nor concerned. Inthis case, the _disguised pomp_, spoken of by the Quakers, will be moreapparent. Two princes have perhaps been fighting with each other for aconsiderable portion of their reigns. The blood of their subjects hasbeen spilled, and their treasures have been exhausted. They haveprobably had, during all this time, no kind disposition one towardsanother, each considering the other as the aggressor, or as the authorof the war. When both have been wearied out with expense, they have madepeace. But they have still mutual jealousies and fears. At length one ofthem dies. The other, on receiving an express relative to the event, orders mourning for the deceased for a given time. As other potentatesreceive the intelligence, they follow the example. Their several leveesor drawing-rooms, or places of public audience, are filled withmourners. Every individual of each sex, who is accustomed to attendthem, is now habited in black. Thus a round of mourning is kept up bythe courtiers of Europe, not by means of any sympathetic beating of theheart, but at the sound, as it were, of the postman's horn. But let us trace this species of mourning farther, and let us now moreparticularly look at the example of our own country for the elucidationof the point in question. The same Gazette, which gave birth to thisblack influenza at court, spreads it still farther. The privategentlemen of the land undertake to mourn also. You see them accordinglyin the streets, and in private parties, and at public places, in theirmourning habits. Nor is this all. Military officers, who have foughtagainst the armies of the deceased, wear black crapes over their arms intoken of the same sorrow. But the fever does not stop even here. It still spreads, and in tracingits progress, we find it to have attacked our merchants. Yes, thedisorder has actually got upon _change_. But what have I said? Mourninghabits upon change! Where the news of an army cut to pieces, producesthe most cheerful countenances in many, if it raises the stocks but anhalf per cent. Mourning habits upon change, where contracts are made forhuman flesh and blood! Where plans that shall consign cargoes of humanbeings to misery and untimely death, and their posterity to bondage, aredeliberately formed and agreed upon! O sorrow, sorrow! what hast thouto do upon change, except in the case of commercial losses, ordisappointed speculation! But to add to this _disguised pomp_, as theQuakers call it, not one of ten thousand of the mourners, ever saw thedeceased prince; and perhaps ninety nine in the hundred, of all whoheard of him, reprobated his character when alive. CHAP. III. _Occupations of the Quakers--Agriculture declining among them--Probablereasons of this decline--Country congenial to the quietude of mindrequired by their religion--Sentiments of Cowper--Congenial also to theimprovement of their moral feelings--Sentiments of WilliamPenn--Particularly suited to them as lovers of the animal creation. _ The Quakers generally bring up their children to some employment. Theybelieve that these, by having an occupation, may avoid evils, into whichthey might otherwise fall, if they had upon their hands an undueproportion of vacant time. "Friends of all degrees, says the book ofextracts, are advised to take due care to breed up their children insome useful and necessary employment, that they may not spend theirprecious time in idleness, which is of evil example, and tends much totheir hurt. " The Quakers have been described to be a domestic people, and aspeculiarly cherishing domestic happiness. Upon this principle it is, combined with the ties of their discipline and peculiar customs, thatwe scarcely find any of this society quitting their country, except forAmerica, to reside in foreign parts. If it be a charge against theQuakers, that they are eager in the pursuit of wealth, let it at leastbe mentioned in their favour, that, in their accumulation of it, theyhave been careful not to suffer their knowledge to take advantage of theignorance of others, and to keep their hands clear of the oppression, and of the blood of their fellow-creatures. In looking among the occupations of the Quakers, we shall find some, whoare brought up as manufacturers and mechanics; but the number of theseis small. Others, but these are few, follow the sea. There may be here and there amate or captain in the coasting employ. In America, where they havegreat local and other advantages, there may be more in the seafaringline. But, in general, the Quakers are domestic characters, and preferhome. There are but few also, who follow the professions. Their education andtheir religion exclude them from some of these. Some, however, are to befound in the department of medicine: and others, as conveyancers, in thelaw. Several of the Quakers follow agriculture. But these are few, comparedwith the rest of the society, or compared with the number of those whoformerly followed a rural life. Almost all the Quakers were originallyin the country, and but few of them in the towns. But this order ofthings is reversing fast. They are flocking into the towns, and areabandoning agricultural pursuits. The reasons, which may be given for this change, may be the following. It is not at all unlikely but that tithes may have had some influence inproducing it. I am aware, however, it will be said, that a Quaker, living in the country, and strongly principled against these, wouldthink it a dereliction of his duty to leave it on this account, andwould remain upon the principle, that an abode there, under the annualexercise of his testimony, would, in a religions point of view, addstrength to his strength. But it must be observed; on the other hand, that where men are not obliged to remain under grievous evils, and canget rid of them, merely by changing their occupation in life, and thishonourably, it is in human nature to do it. And so far tithes, Ibelieve, have had an influence, in driving the Quakers into the towns. Of later years, as the society has grown thinner in the country, Ibelieve new reasons have sprung up; for the Quakers have had lessopportunity of society with one another. They have been subjected, alsoto greater inconvenience in attending their religious meetings. Theirchildren also have been more exposed to improper connexions in marriage. To which it may be added, that the large and rapid profits frequentlymade in trade, compared with the generally small and slow returns fromagricultural concerns, may probably have operated with many, as aninducement to such a change. But whatever reasons may have induced them to quit the country, and tosettle in the towns, no temporal advantages can make up to them, as asociety, the measure of their loss. For when we consider that theQuakers never partake of the amusements of the world; that their worldlypleasures are chiefly of a domestic nature; that calmness, and quietude, and abstraction from worldly thoughts, to which rural retirement ispeculiarly favourable, is the state of mind which they themselvesacknowledge to be required by their religion, it would seem that thecountry was peculiarly the place for their habitations. It would seem, also as if, by this forsaking of the country, they haddeprived themselves of many opportunities of the highest enjoyment ofwhich they are capable as Quakers. The objects in the country arepeculiarly favourable to the improvement of morality in the exercise ofthe spiritual feelings. The bud and the blossom, the rising and thefalling leaf, the blade of corn and the ear, the seed time and theharvest, the sun that warms and ripens, the cloud that cools and emitsthe fruitful shower; these, and an hundred objects, afford daily foodfor the religious growth of the mind. Even the natural man is pleasedwith these. They excite in him natural ideas, and produce in him anatural kind of pleasure. But the spiritual man experiences a sublimerjoy. He sees none of these without feeling both spiritual improvementand delight. It is here that he converses with the Deity in his works:It is here that he finds himself grateful for his goodness--that heacknowledges his wisdom--that he expresses his admiration of his power. The poet Cowper, in his contemplation of a country life, speaks forciblyon this subject. "O friendly to the best pursuits of man, Friendly to _thought_, to _virtue_, and to _peace_, Domestic life, in rural leisure pass'd! Few know thy value, and few taste thy sweets; Though many boast thy favours, and affect To understand and choose these for their own But foolish man _forgoes his proper bliss_, Ev'n as his first progenitor, and quits, Though plac'd in Paradise, (for earth has still Some traces of her youthful beauty left, ) _Substantial happiness_ for _transient joy_. Scenes form'd for _contemplation_, and to _nurse_ The _growing seeds of wisdom_, that suggest By every pleasing image they present, Reflections, _such as meliorate the heart, Compose the passions, and exalt the mind. "_ William Penn, in the beautiful letter which he left his wife andchildren before his first voyage to America, speaks also in strong termsupon the point in question. "But agriculture, says he, is especially in my eye. Let my children behusbandmen and housewives. This occupation is industrious, healthy, honest, and of good example. Like Abraham and the holy ancients, whopleased God, and obtained a good report, this leads to consider the_works of God_, and _nature of things that are good_, and diverts themind from _being taken up_ with the _vain arts and inventions of aluxurious world_. " And a little farther on he says, "_Of cities andtowns, of concourse beware_. The _world is apt to stick close_ to those, who have _lived and got wealth there_. A _country life and estate_, Ilike best for my children. I prefer a decent mansion of a hundred poundsa year, to ten thousand pounds in London, or such like place, _in theway of trade_. " To these observations it may he added, that the country, independentlyof the opportunity it affords for calmness and quietude of mind, and themoral improvement of it in the exercise of the spiritual feelings, ispeculiarly fitted for the habitation of the Quakers, on account of theirpeculiar love for the animal creation. It would afford them a wide rangefor the exercise of this love, and the improvement of the benevolentaffections. For tenderness, if encouraged, like a plant that is dulywatered, still grows. What man has ever shown a proper affection for thebrute creation, who has been backward in his love of the human race? CHAP. IV. SECT. I. _Trade--Trade seldom considered as a question of morals--But Quakersview it in this light--Prohibit the slave-trade--Privateering--Manufactories of weapons of war--Also trade where the revenue isdefrauded--Hazardous enterprises--Fictitious paper--Insist uponpunctuality to words and engagements--Advise an annual inspection oftheir own affairs--Regulations in case of bankruptcy. _ I stated in the last chapter, that some of the Quakers, though thesewere few in number, were manufacturers and mechanics; that othersfollowed the sea; that, others were to be found in the medicalprofession, and in the law; and that others were occupied in theconcerns of a rural life. I believe with these few exceptions, that therest of the society may be considered as engaged in trade. Trade is a subject, which seldom comes under the discussion of mankindas a moral question. If men who follow it, are honest and punctual intheir dealings, little is thought of the nature of their occupations, or of the influence of these upon their minds. It will hardly, however, be denied by moralists, that the buying and selling of commodities forprofit, is surrounded with temptation, and is injurious to pure, benevolent, or disinterested feelings; or that where the mind isconstantly intent upon the gaining of wealth, by traffic, it isdangerously employed. Much less will it be denied, that trade is anevil, if any of the branches of it through which men acquire theirwealth, are productive of mischief either to themselves or others. Ifthey are destructive to the health of the inferior agents, or to themorality of any of the persons concerned in them, they can never besanctioned by Christianity. The Quakers have thought it their duty, as a religious body, to makeseveral regulations on this subject. In the first place they have made it a rule, that no person, acknowledged to be in profession with them, shall have any concern inthe slave-trade. The Quakers began to consider this subject, as a Christian body, soearly as in the beginning of the last century. In the year 1727, theypassed a public censure upon this trade. In the year 1758, andafterwards in the year 1761, they warned and exhorted all in professionwith them "to keep their hands clear of this unrighteous gain ofoppression. " In the yearly meeting of 1763, they renewed theirexhortation in the following words: "We renew our exhortation, thatFriends every where be especially careful to keep their hands clear ofgiving encouragement in any shape to the slave-trade; it being evidentlydestructive of the natural rights of mankind, who are all ransomed byone Saviour, and visited by one divine light in order to salvation; atraffic calculated to enrich and aggrandize some upon the miseries ofothers; in its nature abhorrent to every just and tender sentiment, andcontrary to the whole tenour of the Gospel. " In the same manner, from the year 1763, they have publicly manifested atender concern for the happiness of the injured Africans, and they havenot only been vigilant to see that none of their own members wereconcerned in this impious traffic, but they have lent their assistancewith other Christians in promoting its discontinuance. They have forbidden also the trade of privateering in war. The Quakersconsider the capture of private vessels by private persons, as a robberycommitted on the property of others, which no human authority can makereconcileable to the consciences of honest individuals. And upon thismotive they forbid it, as well as upon that of their known professionagainst war. They forbid also the trade of the manufacturing of gun-powder, and ofarms or weapons of war, such as swords, guns, pistols, bayonets, and thelike, that they may stand clear of the charge of having made anyinstrument, the avowed use of which is the destruction of human life. They have forbidden also all trade, that has for its object thedefrauding of the king either of his customs or his excise. They are notonly not to smuggle themselves, but they are not to deal in such goodsas they know, or such as they even suspect, to be smuggled; nor to buyany article of this description, even for their private use. Thisprohibition is enjoined, because all Christians ought "to render toCaesar the things that are Caesars, " in all cases where theirconsciences do not suffer by doing it: because those, who are accessoryto smuggling, give encouragement to perjury and bloodshed, these beingfrequently the attendants of such unlawful practices; and because theydo considerable injury to the honest trader. They discourage also concerns in "hazardous enterprises, " in the way oftrade. Such enterprisses are apt to disturb the tranquillity of themind, and to unfit if for religious exercise. They may involve also theparties concerned, and their families, in ruin. They may deprive themagain of the means of paying their just debts, and thus render theminjurious to their creditors. Members, therefore, are advised to berather content with callings which may produce small but certainprofits, than to hazard the tranquillity of their minds, and theproperty of themselves and others. In the exercise of those callings which are deemed lawful by thesociety, two things are insisted upon: first, that their members "neverraise and circulate any fictitious kind of paper credit, withendorsements and acceptances, to give it an appearance of value withoutan intrinsic reality:" secondly, that they should be particularlyattentive to their words, and to the punctual performance of theirengagements, and on no account delay their payments beyond the time theyhave promised. The society have very much at heart the enforcement ofthe latter injunction, not only because all christians are under anobligation to do these things, but because they wish to see the highreputation of their ancestors, in these respects, preserved among thoseof their own day. The early Quakers were noted for a scrupulousattention to their duty, as Christians, in their commercial concerns. One of the great clamours against them, in the infancy of theirinstitution, was, that they would get all the trade. It was nothing buttheir great honour in their dealings, arising from religious principle, that gave birth to this uproar, or secured them a more than ordinaryportion of the custom of the world in the line of their respectivetrades. Among other regulations made by the Quakers on the subject of trade, itis advised publicly to the members of the society, to inspect the stateof their affairs once a year. And lest this advice should bedisregarded, the monthly meetings are directed to make annualappointments of suitable Friends to communicate it to the membersindividually. But independently of this public recommendation, they areearnestly advised by their book of extracts, to examine their situationsfrequently. This is done with a view, that they may see how they standwith respect to themselves and the world at large; that they may notlaunch out into commercial concerns beyond their strength, nor livebeyond their income, nor go on longer in their business than they canpay their debts. If a Quaker, after this inspection of his affairs, should find himselfunable to pay his just debts, he is immediately to disclose his affairsto some judicious members of the society, or to his principal creditors, and to take their advice how he is to act; but to be particularlycareful not to pay one creditor in preference to another. When a person of the society becomes a bankrupt, a committee isappointed by his own monthly meeting, to confer with him on his affairs. If the bankruptcy should appear, by their report, to have been theresult of misconduct, he is disowned. He may, however, on a fullrepentance, (for it is a maxim with the society, that "true repentancewashes put all stains, ") and by a full payment of every man his own, beadmitted into membership again; or if he has begun to pay his creditors, and has made arrangements satisfactory to the society for paying them, he may be received as a member, even before the whole of the debt issettled. If it should appear, on the other hand, that the bankruptcy was theunavoidable result of misfortune, and not of imprudence, he is allowedto continue in the society. But in either of these cases, that is, where a man is disowned andrestored, or where he has not been disowned at all, he is neverconsidered as a member, entitled to every privilege of the society, till he has paid the whole of the debts. And the Quakers are so strictupon this point, that if a person has paid ten shillings in the pound, and his creditors have accepted the composition, and the law has givenhim his discharge, it is insisted upon that he pays the remaining ten assoon as he is able. No distance of time will be any excuse to thesociety for his refusal to comply with this honourable law. Nor will hebe considered as a full member, as I observed before, till he has paidthe uttermost farthing; for no collection for the poor, nor any legacyfor the poor, or for other services of the society, will be receivedfrom his purse, while any thing remains of the former debt. This rule ofrefusing charitable contributions on such occasions, is founded on theprinciple that money, taken from a man in such a situation, is takenfrom his lawful creditors; and that such a man can have nothing to give, while he owes any thing to another. It may be observed of this rule or custom, that as it is founded inmoral principle, so it tends to promote a moral end. When persons ofthis description see their own donations dispensed with, but those ofthe rest of the meeting taken, they are reminded of their own situation, and of the desirableness of making the full satisfaction required. Thecustom, therefore, operates as a constant memento, that their debts arestill hanging over them, and prompts to new industry and anxiousexertion for their discharge. There are many instances of Quakers, whohave paid their composition as others do, but who, after a lapse of manyyears, have surprised their former creditors by bringing them theremaining amount of their former debts. Hence the Quakers are oftenenabled to say, what few others can say on the same subject, that theyare not ultimately hurtful to mankind, either by their errors, or bytheir misfortunes. SECT. II. _But though the Quakers have made these regulations, the world findfault with many of their trades or callings--Several of thesespecified--Standard proposed by which to examine them--Some of thesecensurable by this standard--and given up by many Quakers on thisaccount, though individuals may still follow them. _ But though the Quakers have made these beautiful regulations concerningtrade, it is manifest that the world are not wholly satisfied with theirconduct on this subject. People charge them with the exercise ofimproper callings, or of occupations inconsistent with the principlesthey profess. It is well known that the Quakers consider themselves as a highlyprofessing people; that they declaim against the follies and vanities ofthe world; and that they bear their testimony against civil customs andinstitutions, even to personal suffering. Hence, professing more thanothers, more is expected from them. George Fox endeavoured to inculcatethis idea into his new society. In his letter to the yearly meeting in1679, he expresses himself as follows: "The world also does expect morefrom Friends than from other people, because they profess more. Therefore you should be more just than others in your words anddealings, and more righteous, holy, and pure, in your lives andconversations; so that your lives and conversations may preach. For theworld's tongues and mouths have preached long enough; but their livesand conversations have denied what their tongues have professed anddeclared. " I may observe, therefore, that the circumstance of a morethan ordinary profession of consistency, and not any supposed immoralityon the part of the Quakers, has brought them, in the instances alludedto, under the censure of the world. Other people, found in the sametrades or occupations, are seldom noticed as doing wrong. But when menare set as lights upon a hill, blemishes will be discovered in them, which will be overlooked among those who walk in the vale below. The trades or occupations which are usually condemned as improper forQuakers to follow, are numerous. I shall not therefore specify them all. Those, however, which I purpose to select for mention, I shall accompanywith all the distinctions which equity demands on the occasion. The trade of a distiller, or of a spirit-merchant, is considered asobjectionable if in the hands of a Quaker. That of a cotton manufacturer, who employs a number of poor children inthe usual way, or in a way which is destructive to their morals and totheir health, is considered as equally deserving of censured. [4] [Footnote 4: Poor children are frequently sent by parishes tocotton-mills. Little or no care is taken of their morals. The men, whengrown up, frequently become drunken, and the girls debauched. But theevil does not stop here. The progeny of these, vitiated by thedrunkenness and debauchery of their parents, have generally diseased andcrippled constitutions, which they perpetuate to a new generation; afterwhich the whole race, I am told, generally becomes extinct. WhatChristian can gain wealth at the expense of the health, morals, andhappiness of his fellow-creatures?] There is a calling which is seldom followed by itself: I mean thefurnishing of funerals, or the serving of the pall. This is generally inthe hands of Cabinet-makers, or of Upholsterers, or of woollen-drapers. Now if any Quaker should be found in any of these occupations, and if heshould unite with these that of serving the pall, he would be consideredby such an union, as following an objectionable trade. For the Quakershaving discarded all the pomp, and parade, and dress, connected withfunerals, from their own practice, and this upon moral principles, itis insisted upon, that they ought not to be accessary to the promotionof such ceremonials among others. The trade of a printer, or bookseller, when exercised by a Quaker, hasnot escaped the animadversions of the world. A distinction, however, must be made here. They who condemn this calling, can never do itjustly, but in supposed cases. They must suppose, for example, that thepersons in question follow these callings generally, or that they do notmake an exception with respect to the printing or selling of such booksas may convey poison to the morals of those who read them. A Quaker-tailor is considered as a character, which cannot consistentlyexist. But a similar distinction must be made here as in a former case. The world cannot mean that if a Quaker confines himself to the making ofclothes for his own society, he is reproachable for so doing; but onlyif he makes clothes for every one without distinction, following, as heis ordered, all the varying fashions of the world. A Quaker-hatter is looked upon in the same light as a Quaker-tailor. Buthere a distinction suggests itself again. If he make only plain anduseful hats for the community and for other Quakers, it cannot beunderstood that he is acting inconsistently with his religiousprofession. The charge can only lie against him, where he furnishes thehat with the gold and the silver-lace, or the lady's riding-hat with itsornaments, or the military hat with its lace, cockade, and plumes. Inthis case he will be considered as censurable by many, because he willbe looked upon as a dealer in the superfluities condemned by his ownreligion. The last occupation I shall notice is that of a silversmith. And herethe censure will depend upon a contingency also. If a Quaker confineshimself to the selling of plain silver articles for use, littleobjection can be raised against his employ. But if, in addition to this, he sells goldheaded canes, trinkets, rings, ear-rings, bracelets, jewels, and other ornaments of the person, he will be considered aschargeable with the same inconsistency as the follower of the formertrade. In examining these and other occupations of the Quakers, with a view ofseeing how far the objections which have been advanced against them arevalid, I own I have a difficult task to perform. For what standard shallI fix upon, or what limits shall I draw upon this occasion? Theobjections are founded in part upon the principle, that Quakers oughtnot to sell those things, of which their own practice shows that theydisapprove. But shall I admit this principle without any limitation orreserve? Shall I say without any reserve, that a Quaker-woman, whodiscards the use of a simple ribbon from her dress, shall not sell it toanother female, who has been constantly in the habit of using it, andthis without any detriment to her mind? Shall I say again, without anyreserve, that a Quaker-man who discards the use of black cloth, shallnot sell a yard of it to another? And, if I should say so, where am I tostop? Shall I not be obliged to go over all the colours in his shop, andobject to all but the brown and the drab? Shall I say again, without anyreserve, that a Quaker cannot sell any thing which is innocent initself, without inquiring of the buyer its application or its use? Andif I should say so, might I not as well say, that no Quaker can be intrade? I fear that to say this, would be to get into a labyrinth, out ofwhich there would be no clew to guide us. Difficult, however, as the task may seem, I think I may lay down threepositions, which will probably not be denied, and which, if admitted, will assist us in the determination of the question before us. The firstof these is, that no Quaker can be concerned in the sale of a thing, which is evil in itself. Secondly, that he cannot encourage the sale ofan article, which he knows to be essentially, or very generally, thatis, in seven cases out of ten, productive of evil. And, thirdly, that hecannot sell things which he has discarded from his own use, if he hasdiscarded them on a belief that they are specifically forbidden byChristianity, or that they are morally injurious to the human mind. If these positions be acknowledged, they will give ample latitude forthe condemnation of many branches of trade. A Quaker-bookseller, according to these positions, cannot sell a profaneor improper book. A Quaker spirit-merchant cannot sell his liquor but to those whom hebelieves will use it in moderation, or medicinally, or on properoccasions. A Quaker, who is a manufacturer of cotton, cannot exercise hisoccupation but upon an amended plan. A Quaker-silversmith cannot deal in any splendid ornaments of theperson. The latter cannot do this for the following reasons. The Quakers rejectall such ornaments, because they believe them to be specificallycondemned by Christianity. The words of the apostles Paul and Peter, have been quoted both by Fox, Penn, Barclay, and others, upon thissubject. But surely, if the Christian religion positively condemns theuse of them in one, it condemns the use of them in another. And how canany one, professing this religion, sell that, the use of which hebelieves it to have forbidden? The Quakers also have rejected allornaments of the person, as we find by their own writers, on account oftheir immoral tendency; or because they are supposed to be instrumentalin puffing up the creature, or in the generation of vanity and pride. But if they have rejected the use of them upon this principle, they arebound, as Christians, to refuse to sell them to others. Christian love, and the Christian obligation to do as we would wish to be done by, positively enjoin this conduct. For no man, consistently with thisdivine law and obligation, can sow the seeds of moral disease in hisneighbour's mind. And here I may observe, that though there are trades, which may beinnocent in themselves, yet Quakers may make them objectionable by themanner in which they may conduct themselves in disposing of the articleswhich belong to them. They can never pass them off, as other people do, by the declaration that they are the fashionable articles of the day. Such words ought never to come out of Quakers' mouths; not so muchbecause their own lives are a living protest against the fashions of theworld, as because they cannot knowingly be instrumental in doing a moralinjury to others. For it is undoubtedly the belief of the Quakers, as Ihad occasion to observe in a former volume, that the following of suchfashions, begets a worldly spirit, and that in proportion as men indulgethis spirit, they are found to follow the loose and changeable moralityof the world, instead of the strict and steady morality of the gospel. That some such positions as these may be fixed upon for the fartherregulation of commercial concerns among the Quakers, is evident, when weconsider the example of many estimable persons in this society. The Quakers, in the early times of their institution, were verycircumspect about the nature of their occupations, and particularly asto dealing in superfluities and ornaments of the person. Gilbert Lateywas one of those who bore his public testimony against them. Though hewas only a tailor, he was known and highly respected by king James theSecond. He would not allow his servants to put any corruptive fineryupon the clothes which he had been ordered to make for others. FromGilbert Latey I may pass to John Woolman. In examining the Journal ofthe latter I find him speaking thus: "It had been my general practice tobuy and sell things really useful. Things that served chiefly to pleasethe vain mind in people, I was not easy to trade in; seldom did it; andwhenever I did, I found it weaken me as a Christian. " And from JohnWoolman I might mention the names of many, and, if delicacy did notforbid me, those of Quakers now living, who relinquished or regulatedtheir callings, on an idea, that they could not consistently follow themat all, or that they could not follow them according to the usual mannerof the world. I knew the relation of a Quaker-distiller, who left offhis business upon principle. I was intimate with a Quaker-bookseller. Hedid not give up his occupation, for this was unnecessary; but he wasscrupulous about the selling of an improper book. Another friend ofmine, in the society, succeeded but a few years ago to a draper's shop. The furnishing of funerals had been a profitable part of the employ. Buthe refused to be concerned in this branch of it, wholly owing to hisscruples about it. Another had been established as a silversmith formany years, and had traded in the ornamental part of the business, buthe left it wholly, though advantageously situated, for the same reason, and betook himself to another trade. I know other Quakers, who have heldother occupations, not usually objectionable by the world, who havebecome uneasy about them, and have relinquished them in their turn. These noble instances of the dereliction of gain, where it hasinterfered with principle, I feel it only justice to mention in thisplace. It is an homage due to Quakerism; for genuine Quakerism willalways produce such instances. No true Quaker will remain in anyoccupation, which he believes it improper to pursue. And I hope, ifthere are Quakers, who mix the sale of objectionable with that of theother articles of their trade, it is because they have entered into thismixed business, without their usual portion of thought, or that theoccupation itself has never come as an improper occupation before theirminds. Upon the whole, it must be stated that it is wholly owing to the morethan ordinary professions of the Quakers, as a religious body, that thecharges in question have been exhibited against such individuals amongthem, as have been found in particular trades. If other people had beenfound in the same callings, the same blemishes would not have been soapparent. And if others had been found in the same, callings, and ithad been observed of these, that they had made all the beautifulregulations which I have shown the Quakers to have done on the subjectof trade, these blemishes would have been removed from the usual rangeof the human vision. They would have been like the spots in the sun'sdisk, which are hid from the observation of the human eye, because theyare lost in the superior beauty of its blaze. But when the Quakers havebeen looked at solely as Quakers, or as men of high religiousprofession, these blemishes have become conspicuous. The moon, when iteclipses the sun, appears as a blemish in the body of that luminary. Soa public departure from publicly professed principles will always benoticed, because it will be an excrescence or blemish, too large andprotuberant, to be overlooked in the moral character. CHAP. V. _Settlement of differences--Quakers, when they differ, abstain fromviolence--No instance of a duel--George For protested against going tolaw, and Recommended arbitration-Laws relative to arbitration--Accountof an arbitration-society, at Newcastle upon Tyne, on Quaker-principles--Its dissolution--Such societies might be usefully promoted. _ Men are so constituted by nature, and their mutual intercourse is such, that circumstances must unavoidably arise, which will occasiondifferences. These differences will occasionally rouse the passions;and, after all, they will still be to be settled. The Quakers, likeother men, have their differences. But you rarely see any disturbance ofthe temper on this account. You rarely hear intemperate invectives. Youare witness to no blows. If in the courts of law you have never seentheir characters stained by convictions for a breach of themarriage-contract, or the crime of adultery; so neither have you seenthem disgraced by convictions for brutal violence, or that mostbarbarous of all Gothic customs, the duel. It is a lamentable fact, when we consider that we live in an age, removed above eighteen hundred years from the first promulgation ofChristianity, one of the great objects of which was to insist upon thesubjugation of the passions, that our children should not have beenbetter instructed, than that we should now have to behold men, ofapparently good education, settling their disputes by an appeal to arms. It is difficult to conceive what preposterous principles can actuatemen, to induce them to such a mode of decision. Justice is the ultimatewish of every reasonable man in the termination of his casualdifferences with others, But, in the determination of cases by thesword, the injured man not unfrequently falls, while the aggressorsometimes adds to his offence, by making a widow or an orphan, and bythe murder of of a fellow-creature. But it is possible the duellist mayconceive that he adds to his reputation by decisions of this sanguinarynature. But surely he has no other reputation with good men, than thatof a weak, or a savage, or an infatuated creature; and, if he fells, heis pitied by these on no other motive than that of his folly and of hiscrime. What philosopher can extol his courage, who, knowing the bondageof the mind while under the dominion of fashion, believes that morecourage is necessary in refusing a challenge, than in going into thefield? What legislator can applaud his patriotism, when he sees himviolate the laws of his country? What Christian his religion, when hereflects on the relative duties of man, on the law of lore andbenevolence that should have guided him, on the principle that it ismore noble to suffer than to resist, and on the circumstance, that hemay put himself into the doubly criminal situation of a murderer and asuicide by the same act? George Fox, in his doctrine of the influence of the spirit as a divineteacher, and in that of the necessity of the subjugation of the passionsin order that the inward man might be in a fit state to receive itsadmonitions, left to the society a system of education, which, if actedupon, could not fail of producing peaceable and quiet characters; butforeseeing that among the best men differences would unavoidably arisefrom their intercourse in business and other causes, it, was his desirethat these should be settled in a Christian manner. He advised thereforethat no member should appeal to law; but that he should refer hisdifference to arbitration, by persons of exemplary character in thesociety. This mode of decision appeared to him to be consistent with thespirit of Christianity, and with the advice of the apostle Paul, whorecommended that all the differences among the Christians of his owntime should be referred to the decision of the saints, or of such otherChristians, as were eminent for their lives and conversation. This mode of decision, which began to take place among the Quakers inthe time of George Fox, has been continued by them to the present day. Cases, where property is concerned to the amount of many thousands, aredetermined in no other manner. By this process the Quakers obtain theirverdicts in a way peculiarly satisfactory. For law-suits are at besttedious. They often destroy brotherly love in the individuals, whilethey continue. They excite also, during this time, not unfrequently, avindictive spirit, and lead to family-feuds and quarrels. They agitatethe mind also, hurt the temper, and disqualify a man for the properexercise of his devotion. Add to this, that the expenses of law arefrequently so great, that burthens are imposed upon men for matters oflittle consequence, which they feel as evils and incumbrances for aportion of their lives; burthens which guilt alone, and which noindiscretion, could have merited. Hence the Quakers experienceadvantages in the settlement of their differences, which are known butto few others. The Quakers, when any difference arises about things that are not ofserious moment, generally settle it amicably between themselves; but inmatters that are intricate and of weighty concern, they have recourse toarbitration. If it should happen, that they are slow in proceeding toarbitration, overseers, or any others of the society, who may come tothe knowledge of the circumstance, are to step in and to offer theiradvice. If their advice is rejected, complaint is to be made to theirown monthly meeting concerning them; after which they will come underthe discipline of the society, and if they still persist in refusing tosettle their differences or to proceed to arbitration, they may bedisowned. I may mention here, that any member going to law with another, without having previously tried, to accommodate matters between themaccording to the rules of the society, comes under the discipline inlike manner. When arbitration is determined on, the Quakers are enjoined to apply topersons of their own society to decide the case. It is considered, however, as desirable, that they should not trouble their ministers, ifthey can help it, on these occasions, as the minds of these ought to bedrawn out as little as possible into worldly concerns. If Quakers, however, should not find among Quakers such as they would choose toemploy for these purposes, or such as may not possess skill in regard tothe matter in dispute, they may apply to others out of the society, sooner than go to law. The following is a concise statement of the rules recommended by thesociety, in the case of arbitrations. Each party is to choose one or two friends as arbitrators, and all thepersons, so chosen, are to agree upon a third or a fifth. Thearbitrators are not to consider themselves as advocates for the party bywhom they were chosen, but as men, whose duty it is to judgerighteously, fearing the Lord. The parties are to enter into engagementsto abide by the award of the arbitrators. Every meeting of thearbitrators is to be made known to the parties concerned, till they havebeen fully heard. No private meetings are allowed between some of thearbitrators, or with one party separate from the other, on the businessreferred to them. No representation of the case of one party, either bywriting or otherwise, is to be admitted, without its being fully madeknown to the other; and, if required, a copy of such representation isto be delivered to the other party. The arbitrators are to hear bothparties fully, in the presence of each other, whilst either has anyfresh matter to offer, for a time mutually limited. In the case of anydoubtful point of law, the arbitrators are jointly to agree upon a case, and consult counsel. It is recommended to arbitrators to propose to theparties, that they should give an acknowledgment in writing, before theaward is made; that they have been candidly and fully heard. In the same manner as a Quaker proceeds with a Quaker in the case of anydifference, he is led by his education and habits to proceed withothers, who are not members of the same society. A Quaker seldom goes tolaw with a person of another denomination, till he has proposedarbitration. If the proposal be not accepted, the Quaker has then noremedy but the law. For a person, who is out of the society, cannot beobliged upon pain of disownment, as a Quaker may, to submit to such amode of decision, being out of the reach of the Quaker-discipline. I shall close my observations upon this subject, by giving an account ofan institution for the accommodation of differences, which took place inthe year 1793, upon Quaker principles. In the town of Newcastle upon Tyne, a number of disputes werecontinually arising on the subject of shipping concerns, which werereferred to the decision of the laws. These decisions were oftengrievously expensive. They were, besides, frequently different from whatseafaring persons conceived to be just. The latter circumstance wasattributed to the ignorance of lawyers in maritime affairs. Much moneywas therefore often expended, and no one satisfied. Some Quakers, in theneighbourhood, in conjunction with others, came forward with a view ofobviating these evils. They proposed arbitration as a remedy. They metwith some opposition at first, but principally from the gentlemen of thelaw. After having, however, shown the impropriety of many of the legalverdicts that had been given, they had the pleasure of seeing their planpublicly introduced and sanctioned. For in the month of June, 1793, anumber of gentlemen, respectable for their knowledge in mercantile andmaritime affairs, met at the Trinity-hall in Newcastle, and associatedthemselves for these and other purposes, calling themselves "TheNewcastle upon Tyne Association for general Arbitration. " This association was to have four general meetings in the year, one ineach quarter, at which they were to receive cases. For any urgentmatter, however, which might occur, the clerk was to have the power ofcalling a special meeting. Each person, on delivering a case, was to pay a small fee. Out of thesefees the clerk's salary and incidental expenses were to be paid. But thesurplus was to be given to the poor. The parties were to enter into arbitration-bonds, as is usual upon suchoccasions. Each party was to choose out of this association or standing committee, one arbitrator for himself, and the association were to choose or toballot for a third. And here it will be proper to observe, that thisstanding association appeared to be capable of affording arbitratorsequal to the determination of every case. For, if the matter in disputebetween the two parties were to happen to be a mercantile question, there were merchants in the association: If a question relative toshipping, there were ship-owners in it: If a question of insurance, there were insurance-brokers also. A man could hardly fail of having hiscase determined by persons who were competent to the task. Though this beautiful institution was thus publicly introduced, andintroduced with considerable expectations and applause, cases came inbut slowly. Custom and prejudice are not to be rooted out in a moment. In process of time, however, several were offered, considered, anddecided, and the presumption was, that the institution would have grownwith time. Of those cases which were determined, some, relating toships, were found to be particularly intricate, and cost the arbitratorsconsiderable time and trouble. The verdicts, however, which were given, were in all of them satisfactory. The Institution, at length became sopopular, that, incredible to relate, its own popularity destroyed it! Somany persons were ambitious of the honour of becoming members of thecommittee, that some of inferior knowledge, and judgment, and character, were too hastily admitted into it. The consequence was, that peopledared not trust their affairs to the abilities of every member: and theinstitution expired, after having rendered important services tonumerous individuals who had tried it. When we consider that this institution has been tried, and that thescheme of it has been found practicable, it is a pity that its benefitsshould have been confined, and this for so short a period, to a singletown. Would it not be desirable, if, in every district, a number offarmers were to give in their names to form a standing committee, forthe settlement of disputes between farmer and farmer? or that thereshould be a similar institution among manufacturers, who should decidebetween one manufacturer and another? Would it not also be desirable, if, in every parish, a number of gentlemen, or other respectablepersons, were to associate for the purpose of accommodating thedifferences of each other? For this beautiful system is capable of beingcarried to any extent, and of being adapted to all stations andconditions of life. By these means numerous little funds might beestablished in numerous districts, from the surplus of which anopportunity would be afforded of adding to the comforts of such of thepoor, as were to distinguish themselves by their good behaviour, whetheras labourers for farmers, manufacturers, or others. By these means alsomany of the quarrels in parishes might be settled to the mutualsatisfaction of the parties concerned, and, in so short a space of time, as to prevent them from contracting a rancorous and a wounding edge. Those, on the other hand, who were to assist in these arbitrations, would be amply repaid; for they would be thus giving an opportunity ofgrowth to the benevolence of their affections, and they would have thepleasing reflection, that the tendency of their labours would be toproduce peace and good will amongst men. CHAP. VI. SECT. I. _Management of the poor--Quakers never seen as beggars--George Fox beganthe provision for the Quaker-poor--Monthly meetings appointoverseers--Persons passed over are to apply for relief and thedisorderly may receive it in certain cases--Manner of collecting for thepoor--If burthensome in one monthly meeting, the burthen shared by thequarterly--Quakers gain settlements by monthly meetings, as the otherpoor of the kingdom, by parishes. _ There are few parts of the Quaker-constitution, that are more worthy ofcommendation, than that which relates to the poor. All the members ofthis society are considered as brethren, and as entitled to support fromone another. If our streets and our roads are infested by miserableobjects, imploring our pity, no Quaker will be found among them. AQuaker-beggar would be a phenomenon in the world. It does not, however, follow from this account, that there are no poorQuakers, or that members of this society are not born in a dependentstate. The truth is, that there are poor as well as rich, but the wantsof the former are so well provided for, that they are not publicly seen, like the wants of others. George Fox, as he was the founder of the religion of the Quakers, I meanof a system of renovated Christianity, so he was the author of thebeautiful system by which they make a provision for their poor. As aChristian, he considered the poor of every description, as members ofthe same family, but particularly those, who were of the household offaith. Consistently with this opinion, he advised the establishment ofgeneral meetings in his own time, a special part of whose business itwas to take due care of the poor. These meetings excited at first thevigilance and anger of the magistrates; but when they came to see theregulations made by the Quakers, in order that none of their poor mightbecome burthensome to their parishes, they went away--whatever theymight think of some of their new tenets of religion--in admiration oftheir benevolence. The Quakers of the present day consider their poor in the same light astheir venerable elder, namely, as members of the same family, whosewants it is their duty to relieve; and they provide for them nearly inthe same manner. They intrust this important concern to the monthlymeetings, which are the executive branches of the Quaker constitution. The monthly meetings generally appoint four overseers, two men and twowomen, over each particular meeting within their own jurisdiction, iftheir number will admit of it. It is the duty of these, to visit such ofthe poor as are in membership, of the men to visit the men, but of thewomen sometimes to visit both. The reason, why this double burthen islaid upon the women-overseers, is, that women know more of domesticconcerns, more of the wants of families, more of the manner of providingfor them, and are better advisers, and better nurses in sickness, thanthe men. Whatever these overseers find wanting in the course of theirvisits, whether money, clothes, medicine, or medical advice andattention, they order them, and the treasurer of the monthly meetingssettles the different accounts. I may observe here, that it is not easyfor overseers to neglect their duty; for an inquiry is made three timesin the year, of the monthly meetings by the quarterly, whether thenecessities of the poor are properly inspected and relieved[5]. I mayobserve also that the poor, who may stand in need of relief, are alwaysrelieved privately, I mean, at their respective homes. [Footnote 5: In London a committee is appointed for each poor person. Thus, for example, two women are appointed to attend to the wants andcomfort of one poor old woman. ] It is however possible, that there may be persons, who, from a varietyof unlocked for causes, may be brought into distress, and whose case, never having been suspected, may be passed over. But persons, in thissituation, are desired to apply, for assistance. It is also a rule inthe society, that even persons whose conduct is disorderly, are to berelieved, if such conduct has not been objected to by their own monthlymeeting. "The want of due care, says the book of Extracts, in watchingdiligently over the flock, and in dealing in due time with such as walkdisorderly, hath, brought great difficulties on some meetings; for wethink it both unreasonable and dishonourable, when persons apply tomonthly meetings for relief in cases of necessity, then to object tothem such offences as the meeting, through neglect of its own duty, hathsuffered long to pass by, unreproved and unnoticed. " The poor are supported by charitable collections from the body at large;or, in other words, every monthly meeting supports its own poor. Thecollections for them are usually made once a month, but in some placesonce a quarter, and in others at no stated times but when the treasurerdeclares them necessary, and the monthly meeting approves. Members areexpected to contribute in proportion to their circumstances; butpersons in a low situation, and servants, are generally excused uponthese occasions. It happens in the districts of some monthly meetings, that there arefound only few persons of property, but a numerous poor, so that theformer are unable to do justice in their provision for the latter. Thesociety have therefore resolved, when the poor are too numerous to besupported by their own monthly meetings, that the collection for themshall be made up out of the quarterly meeting, to which the said monthlymeeting belongs. This is the same thing as if any particular parish wereunable to pay the rates for the poor, and as if all the other parishesin the county were made to contribute towards the same. On this subject I may observe, that the Quaker-poor are attached totheir monthly meetings, as the common poor of the kingdom are attachedto their parishes, and that they gain settlements in these nearly in thesame manner. SECT. II. _Education of the children of the poor particularly insisted upon andprovided for by the Quakers--The bays usually pat out toapprenticeship--The girls to service--The latter not sufficientlynumerous for the Quaker-families, who want them--The rich have not theirproper proportion of these in their service--Reasons of it--Character ofthe Quaker poor. _ As the Quakers are particularly attentive to the wants of the poor, sothey are no less attentive to the education of their offspring. Theseare all of them to receive their education at the public expense. Thesame overseers, as in the former case, are to take care of it, and thesame funds to support it. An inquiry is therefore made three times inthe year into this subject. "The children of the poor, says the book ofExtracts, are to have due help of education, instruction, and necessarylearning. The families also of the poor are to be provided with Bibles, and books of the society, at the expense of the monthly meetings. And asspine members may be straitened in their circumstances, and may refuse, out of delicacy, to apply for aid towards the education of theirchildren, it is earnestly recommended to friends in every monthlymeeting, to look out for persons who may be thus straitened, and to takecare that their children shall receive instruction: and it isrecommended to the parents of such, not to refuse this salutary aid, butto receive it with a willing mind, and with thankfulness to the greatauthor of all good. " When the boys have received their necessary learning, they are usuallyput out as apprentices to husbandry or trade. Domestic service isgenerally considered by their parents as unmanly, and as a nursery foridleness. Boys too, who can read and write, ought to expect, with theaccustomed diligence and sobriety of Quakers, to arrive at a bettersituation in life. The girls, however, are destined in general forservice: for it must be obvious, whatever their education may be, thatthe same number of employments is not open to women as to men. Of thoseagain, which are open, some are objectionable. A Quaker-girl, forexample, could not consistently be put an apprentice to a Milliner. Neither if a cotton-manufactory were in the neighbourhood, could herparents send her to such a nursery of debauchery and vice. From theseand other considerations, and because domestic employments belong towomen, their parents generally think it advisable to bring them up toservice, and to place them in the families of friends. It is a remarkable circumstance, when we consider it to be recommendedthat Quaker-masters of families should take Quaker-servants, thatpersons of the latter description are not to be found sufficientlynumerous for those who want them. This is probably a proof of thethriving situation of this society. It is remarkable again, that therich have by no means their proportion of such servants. Those of thewealthy, who are exemplary, get them if they can. Others decline theirservices. Of these, some do it from good motives; for, knowing that itwould be difficult to make up their complement of servants from thesociety, they do not wish to break in upon the customs and morals ofthose belonging to it, by mixing them with others. The rest, who mixmore with the world, are, as I have been informed, fearful of havingthem, lest they should be overseers of their words and manners. For itis in the essence of the Quaker-discipline, as I observed upon thatsubject, that every member should watch over another for his good. Thereare no exceptions as to persons. The servant has as much right to watchover his master with respect to his religions conduct and conversation, as the master over his servant; and he has also a right, if his masterviolates the discipline, to speak to him, in a respectful manner, forso doing. Nor would a Quaker-servant, if he were well grounded in theprinciples of the society, and felt it to be his duty, want the courageto speak his mind upon such occasions. There have been instances, wherethis has happened, and where the master, in the true spirit of hisreligion, has not felt himself insulted by such interference, but haslooked upon his servant afterwards as more worthy of his confidence andesteem. Such a right, however, of remonstrance, is, I presume, butrarely exercised. I cannot conclude this subject without saying a few words on thecharacter of the Quaker-poor. In the first place I may observe, that one of the great traits in theircharacter is independence of mind. When you converse with them, you findthem attentive, civil, and obliging, but you see no marks of servilityabout them, and you hear no flattery from their lips. It is not thecustom in this society, even for the poorest member to bow or pull offhis hat, or to observe any outward obeisance to another, who may happento be rich. Such customs are forbidden to all on religious principle. Inconsequence, therefore, of the omission of such ceremonious practices, his mind has never been made to bend on the approach of superior rank. Nor has he seen, in his own society, any thing that could lessen his ownimportance or dignity as a man. He is admitted into the meetings ofdiscipline equally with the rich. He has a voice equally with them inall matters that are agitated there. From these causes a manliness ofmind is produced, which is not seen among any other of the poor in theinland in which we live. It may also be mentioned as a second trait, that they possessextraordinary knowledge. Every Quaker-boy or girl, who comes into theworld, must, however poor, if the discipline of the society be kept up, receive an education. All, therefore, who are born in the society, mustbe able to read and write. Thus the keys of knowledge are put into theirhands. Hence we find them attaining a superior literal and historicalknowledge of the scriptures, a superior knowledge of human nature, and aknowledge that sets them above many of the superstitions of those intheir own rank in life. Another trait conspicuous in the character of the Quaker-poor, is themorality of their lives. This circumstance may easily be accounted for. For, in the first place, they are hindered in common with other Quakers, by means of theirdiscipline, from doing many things, that are morally injurious tothemselves. The poor of the world are addicted to profane swearing. Butno person can bring the name of the creator of the Universe intofrequent and ordinary use, without losing a sense of the veneration thatis due to him. The poor of the world, again, frequently spend theirtime in public houses. They fight and quarrel with one another. They runafter horse-racings, bull-baitings, cock-fightings, and the still moreunnatural battles between man and man. But, by encouraging such habits, they cannot but obstruct in time, the natural risings of benevolenceboth towards their fellow-creatures and to those of the animal creation. Nor can they do otherwise than lose a sense of the dignity of their ownminds, and weaken the moral principle. But the Quaker-poor, who areprincipled against such customs, can of course suffer no moral injury onthese accounts. To which it may be added, that their superior knowledgeboth leads and attaches them to a superior conduct. It is a false, aswell as a barbarous maxim, and a maxim very injurious both to theinterests of the rich and poor, as well as of the states to which theybelong, that knowledge is unpropitious to virtue. RELIGIONOF THEQUAKERS. VOL. II. RELIGION OF THE QUAKERS. INTRODUCTION. _Religion of the Quakers--Invitation to a patient perusal of this partof the work--No design, by this invitation, to proselyte toQuakerism--All systems of Religion, that are founded on the principlesof Christianity, are capable, if heartily embraced, of producing presentand future happiness to man--No censure of another's Creed warrantable, inasmuch as the human understanding is finite--Object of thisInvitation. _ Having explained very diffusively the great subjects, the moralEducation, Discipline, and Peculiar Customs, of the Quakers, I purposeto allot the remaining part of this volume to the consideration of theirreligion. I know that persons, who are religiously disposed will follow mepatiently through this division of my work, not only because religion isthe most important of all subjects that can be agitated, but because, in the explanation of the religious systems of others, some light mayarise, which, though it be not new to all, may yet be new and acceptableto many. I am aware, however, that there are some who direct theirreading to light subjects, and to whom such as are serious may appearburthensome. If any such should have been induced, by any particularmotive, to take this book into their hands, and to accompany me thusfar, I entreat a continuation of their patience, till I have carriedthem through the different parts and divisions of the present subject. I have no view, in thus soliciting the attention of those who are more, or of those who are less religiously disposed, to attempt to proselyteto Quakerism. If men do but fear God, and work righteousness, whatevertheir Christian denomination may be, it is sufficient. Every system ofreligion which is founded on the principles of Christianity, must becapable, if heartily embraced, of producing temporal and eternalhappiness to man. At least, man with his limited understanding, cannotpronounce with any absolute certainty, that his own system is so farpreferable to that of his neighbour, that it is positively the best, orthat there will be any material difference in the future happiness ofthose who follow the one or the other; or that the pure professors ofeach shall not have their peculiar rewards. The truth is, that eachsystem has its own merits. Each embraces great and sublime objects. Andif good men have existed, as none can reasonably deny, beforeChristianity was known, it would be a libel on Christianity, to supposeeither that good men had not existed since, or that good Christianswould not be ultimately happy, though following systems differing fromthose of one another. Indeed, every Christian community has a great dealto say in the defence of its own tenets. Almost all Christian churcheshave produced great characters; and there are none, I should hope, thathad not been the authors of religious good. The church of England, inattempting to purify herself at the reformation, effected a great work. Since that time she has produced at different periods, and continues toproduce, both great and good men. By means of her Universities, she hasgiven forth, and keeps up and disseminates, a considerable portion ofknowledge; and though this, in the opinion of the Quakers, is notnecessary for those who are to become ministers of the Gospel, it cannotbe denied that it is a source of temporary happiness to man; that itenlarges the scope of his rational and moral understanding, and that itleads to great and sublime discoveries, which become eminentlybeneficial to mankind. Since that time she has also been an instrumentof spreading over this kingdom a great portion of religious light, whichhas had its influence in the production of moral character. But though I bestow this encomium upon the established church, I shouldbe chargeable with partiality and injustice, if I were not to allow, that among the dissenters of various descriptions, learned, pious, andgreat men, had been regularly and successively produced. And it must beconfessed, and reflected upon with pleasure, that these, in proportionto their numbers, have been no less instrumental in the dissemination ofreligions knowledge, and in the production of religious conduct. I mightgo to large and populous towns and villages in the kingdom, and fullyprove my assertion in the reformed manners of the poor, many of whom, before these pious visitations, had been remarkable for the profanenessof their lives. Let us then not talk but with great deference and humility; with greattenderness and charity; with great thankfulness to the author of everygood gift, --when we speak of the different systems that actuate theChristian World. Why should we consider our neighbour as an alien, andload him with reproaches, because he happens to differ from us inopinion about an article of faith? As long as there are men, so longwill there be different measures of talents and understanding; and solong will they view things in a different light, and come to differentconclusions concerning them. The eye of one man can see farther thanthat of another: So can the human mind, on the subject of speculativetruths. This consideration should teach us humility and forbearance injudging of the religion of others. For who is he, who can say that hesees the farthest, or that his own system is the best? If such men asMilton, Whiston, Boyle, Locke, and Newton, all agreeing in theprofession of Christianity, did not all think precisely alike concerningit, who art thou, with thy inferior capacity, who settest up thestandard of thine own judgment as infallible? If thou sendest thyneighbour to perdition in the other world, because he does not agree inhis creed with thee, know that he judges according to the best of hisabilities, and that no more will be required of him. Know also that thouthyself judgest like a worm of the earth; that thou dishonourest theAlmighty by thy reptile notions of him; and that in making him accordwith thee in condemning one of his creatures for what thou conceivestto be the misunderstanding of a speculative proposition, thou treatesthim like a man, as thou thyself art, with corporeal organs; withirritable passions, and with a limited intelligence. But if, besidesthis, thou condemnest thy neighbour in this world also, and feelest thespirit of persecution towards him, know that, whatever thy pretensionsmay be to religion, thou art not a Christian. Thou art not possessed ofthat charity or love, without which thou art but as sounding brass and atinkling cymbal. Having therefore no religious prejudices[6] myself, except in favour ofChristianity, and holding no communion with the Quakers, as a religionssociety, it cannot be likely that I should attempt to proselyte toQuakerism. I wish only, as I stated in my introduction to this work, tomake the Quakers better known to their countrymen than they are atpresent. In this I think I have already succeeded, for I believe I havecommunicated many facts concerning them, which have never been relatedby others. But no people can be thoroughly known, or at least thecharacter of a people cannot be thoroughly understood, except we areacquainted with their religion; much less can that of the Quakers, whodiffer so materially, both in their appearance and practice, from therest of their fellow-citizens. [Footnote 6: Though I conceive a charitable allowance ought to be madefor the diversity of religious opinions among Christians, I by no meansintend to say, that it is not our duty to value the system of opinionwhich we think most consonant to the Gospel, and to be wisely zealousfor its support. ] Having thought it right to make these prefatory observations, I proceedto the prosecution of my work. CHAP. I. _The Almighty created the Universe by means of his spirit--and alsoman--He gave man, besides his intellect, an emanation from his ownspirit, thus making him in his own image--But this image he lost--Aportion, however, of the same spirit was continued to hisposterity--These possessed it in different degrees--Abraham, Moses, andthe prophets, had more of it than some others--Jesus possessed itimmeasurably, and without limit--Evangelists and apostles possessed it, but in a limited manner, and in different degrees. _ The Quakers believe, that when the Almighty created the Universe, heeffected it by means of the life, or vital or vivifying energy that wasin his own spirit. "And the earth was without form, and void; anddarkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved uponthe face of the waters. " This life of the spirit has been differently named, but is conciselystiled by St. John the evangelist "the word" for he says, "in thebeginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made, that was made. " The Almighty also, by means of the same divine energy or life of thespirit which had thus created the universe, became the cause also ofmaterial life, and of vital functions. He called forth all animatednature into existence; for he "made the living creature after his kind. " He created man also by the same power. He made his corporeal and organicnature. He furnished him also with intellect, or a mental understanding. By this latter gift he gave to man, what he had not given to otheranimated nature, the power of reason, by which he had the superiorityover it, and by means of which he was enabled to guide himself in histemporal concerns. Thus when he made the natural man, he made him arational agent also. But he gave to man, at the same time, independently of this intellect orunderstanding, a spiritual faculty, or a portion of the life of his ownspirit, to reside in him. This gift occasioned man to become moreimmediately, as it is expressed, the image of the Almighty. It set himabove the animal and rational part of his nature. It made him knowthings not intelligible solely by his reason. It made him spirituallyminded. It enabled him to know his duty to God, and to hold a heavenlyintercourse with his maker. Adam then, the first man, independently of his rational faculties, received from the Almighty into his own breast such an emanation fromthe life of his own spirit, as was sufficient to have enabled him bothto hold, and to have continued, a spiritual intercourse with his maker, and to have preserved him in the state of innocence in which he had beencreated. As long as he lived in this divine light of the spirit, heremained in the image of God, and was perfectly happy; but, notattending faithfully and perseveringly to this his spiritual monitor, hefell into the snares of Satan, or gave way to the temptations of sin. From this moment his condition became changed. For in the same manner asdistemper occasions animal life to droop, and to lose its powers, andfinally to cease, so unrighteousness, or his rebellion against thedivine light of the spirit that was within him, occasioned a dissolutionof his spiritual feelings and perceptions; for he became dead as itwere, in consequence, as to any knowledge of God, or enjoyment of hispresence[7]. [Footnote 7: It was said that, in the day in which Adam should eatforbidden fruit, he should die; but he did not lose his animal life, orhis rational nature. His loss therefore is usually considered by theQuakers to have been a divine spiritual principle, which had beenoriginally superadded to the animal and rational faculties. ] It pleased the Almighty, however, not wholly to abandon him in thiswretched state, but he comforted him with the cheering promise that theseed of the woman should some time or other completely subdue sin, orto use the scriptural language, "should bruise the serpent's head;" or, in other words, as sin was of a spiritual nature, so it could only beovercome by a spiritual conqueror; and therefore that the same holyspirit, or word, or divine principle of light and life, which hadappeared in creation, should dwell so entirely and without limit ormeasure, in the person or body of some one of his descendants, that sinshould by him be entirely subdued. As God then poured into Adam, the first man, a certain portion of hisown spirit, or gave him a certain portion of the divine light, for theregulation of his spiritual conduct and the power of heavenlyintercourse with himself, so he did not entirely cease from bestowinghis spirit upon his posterity; or, in other words, he gave them aportion of that light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into theworld. Of the individuals therefore who succeeded Adam, all received aportion of this light. Some, however, enjoyed larger portions of it thanothers, according as they attended to its influences, or according tothe measure given them. Of those who possessed the greatest share of it, some were the ancient patriarchs, such as Noah and Abraham, and otherswere the ancient scriptural writers, such as Moses and the prophets. The latter again experienced it in different measures or degrees; and inproportion as they had it, they delivered more or less those prophecieswhich are usually considered as inspired truths, from a belief that manyof them have been circumstantially completed. At length, in the fulness of time, that is, when all things had beenfulfilled which were previously to take place, this divine spirit, whichhad appeared in creation, this divine word, or light, took flesh, (for, as St. John the Evangelist says, "the word was made flesh, and dwelledamong us, ") and inhabited "the body which had been prepared for it;" or, in other words, it inhabited the body of the person Jesus; but with thisdifference, that whereas only a portion of this divine light or spirithad been given to Adam, and afterwards to the prophets, it was givenwithout limit or measure to the man Jesus[8]. "For he whom God hathsent, says St. John, speaketh the words of God, _for God giveth not theSpirit by measure unto him. "_ And St. Paul says, [9] "In him _the fulnessof the Godhead_ dwelled bodily. " In him, therefore, the promise given toAdam was accomplished, "that the seed of the woman should bruise theserpent's head;" for we see in this case a human body, weak and infirm, and subject to passions, possessed or occupied, without limit ormeasure, by the spirit of God. But if the man Jesus had the full spiritof God within him, he could not be otherwise than, perfectly holy. Andif so, sin never could have entered, and must therefore, as for asrelates to him, have been entirely repelled. Thus he answered theprophetic character which had been given of him, independently of hisvictory over sin by the sacrifice of himself, or by becoming afterwardsa comforter to those in bondage, who should be willing to receive him. [Footnote 8: John 3:34] [Footnote 9: Col. 2:9] After Jesus Christ came the Evangelists and Apostles. Of the same spiritwhich he had possessed _immeasurably_, these had their several portions;and though these were[10] limited, and differed in degree front oneanother, they were sufficient to enable them to do their duty to God andmen, to enjoy the presence of the Almighty, and to promote the purposesdesigned by him in the propagation of his gospel. [Footnote 10: 2 Cor. 10. 18. ] CHAP. II. _Except a man has a portion of the same spirit, which Jesus and theprophets and the apostles had, he can have no knowledge of God orspiritual things--Doctrine of St. Paul on this subject--This confirmsthe history of the human and divine spirit in man--These spiritsdistinct in their kind--This distinction farther elucidated by acomparison between the faculties of men and brutes--Sentiments ofAugustin--Luther--Calvin--Smith--Taylor--Cudworth. _ The Quakers believe, that there can be no spiritual knowledge of God, but through the medium of his holy spirit; or, in other words, that ifmen have not a portion of the same spirit which the holy men of old, andwhich the Evangelists and Apostles, and which Jesus himself had, theycan have no true or vital religion. In favour of this proposition, they usually quote those remarkable wordsof the Apostle Paul;[11] "for what man knoweth the things of a man, savethe spirit of a man which is in him? Even so the things of God knowethno man, but the spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit ofthe world, but the spirit which is of God, that we might know the thingsthat are freely given to us of God. " And again--"but the natural manreceiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishnessto him; neither can he know them, because they are spirituallydiscerned. " [Footnote 11: 1 Cor. 2. 11, &c. ] By these expressions the Quakers conceive that the history of man, asexplained in the last chapter, is confirmed; or that the Almighty notonly gave to man reason, which was to assist him in his temporal, butalso superadded a portion of his own spirit, which was to assist him inhis spiritual concerns. They conceive it also to be still fartherconfirmed by other expressions of the same Apostle. In his first letterto the Corinthians, he says, [12] "Know ye not that your body is the_temple of the Holy Ghost_, which _is in you_, which ye have of God;"and in his letter to Timothy he desires him[13] "to hold fast that goodthing which was committed to him by means of the _holy_ Ghost, which_dwelled in him_" Now these expressions can only be accurate on asupposition of the truth of the history of man, as explained in theformer chapter. If this history be true, then they are considered aswords of course: for if there be a communication between the supremeBeing and his creature man, or if the Almighty has afforded to man anemanation of his own spirit, which is to act for a time in his mortalbody, and then to return to him that gave it, we may say, with greatconsistency, that the divinity resides in him, or that his body is thetemple of the holy spirit. [Footnote 12: 1 Cor. 6. 19. ] [Footnote 13: 2 Tim. 1. 14. ] The Quakers conceive again from these expressions of the Apostle, thatthese two principles in man are different from each other; they arementioned under the distinct names of the spirit of man, and of thespirit of God. The former they suppose to relate to the understanding:the latter conjointly to the understanding and to the heart. The formercan be brought into use at all times, if the body of a man be in health. The latter is not at his own disposal. Man must wait for itsinspirations. Like the wind, it bloweth when it listeth. Man also, whenhe feels this divine influence, feels that it is distinct from hisreason. When it is gone, he feels the loss of it, though all hisrational faculties be alive. "Those, says Alexander Arscott, who havethis experience, certainly know that as at times, in their silentretirements and humble waitings upon God, they receive an understandingof his will, relating to their present duty, in such a clear light asleaves no doubt or hesitation, so at other times, when this is withdrawnfrom them, they are at a loss again, and see themselves, as they reallyare, ignorant and destitute. " The Quakers again understand by these expressions of the Apostle, whichis the point insisted upon in this chapter, that human reason, or thespirit of man which is within him, and the divine principle of life andlight which is the spirit of God residing in his body or temple, are sodifferent in their powers, that the former cannot enter into theprovince of the latter. As water cannot penetrate the same bodies, whichfire can, so neither can reason the same subjects as the spiritualfaculty. The Quakers, however, do not deny, that human reason is powerful withinits own province. It may discover in the beautiful structure of theUniverse, and in the harmony and fitness of all its parts, the hand of agreat contriver. It may conclude upon attributes, as belonging to thesame. It may see the fitness of virtue, and deduce from thence aspeculative morality. They only say that it, is incompetent to spiritualdiscernment. But though they believe the two spirits to be thus distinctin their powers, they believe them, I apprehend, to be so far connectedin religion that the spirit of God can only act upon a reasonable being. Thus light and the power of sight are distinct things. Yet the power ofsight is nothing without light, nor can light operate upon any otherorgan than the eye to produce vision. This proposition may be farther elucidated by making a comparisonbetween the powers of men, and those of the brute-creation. An animal iscompounded of body and instinct. If we were to endeavour to cultivatethis instinct, we might make the animal tame and obedient. We mightimpress his sensitive powers, so that he might stop or go forward at ourvoice. We might bring him in some instances, to an imitation of outwardgestures and sounds. Bat all the years of his life, and centuries oflife in his progeny would pass away, and we should never be able so toimprove his instinct into intellect, as to make him comprehend theaffairs of a man. He would never understand the meaning of his goingsin, or of his goings out, or of his pursuits in life, or of his progressin science. So neither could any education so improve the reason of maninto the divine principle of light within him, as that he shouldunderstand spiritual things; for the things of God are only discernibleby the spirit of God. This doctrine, that there is no understanding of divine things exceptthrough the medium of the divine principle, which dwells in the templeof man, was no particular notion of George Fox, or of the succeedingQuakers, though undoubtedly they have founded more upon it than otherChristians. Those, who had the earliest access to the writings of theevangelists and apostles, believed the proposition. All the ancientfathers of the church considered it as the corner stone of the Christianfabric. The most celebrated of the reformers held it in the same light. The divines, who followed these, adopted it as their creed also; and bythese it has been handed down to other Christian communities, and isretained as an essential doctrine by the church of England, at thepresent day. The Quakers adduce many authorities in behalf of this proposition, butthe following may suffice. "It is the inward master, says St. Augustine, that teacheth. Where thisinspiration is wanting, it is in vain that words from without are beatenin. " Luther says, "no man can rightly know God, unless he immediatelyreceives it from his holy spirit, except he finds it by experience inhimself; and in this experience the holy spirit teacheth as in hisproper school, out of which school nothing is taught but mere talk. " Calvin, on Luke 10. 21. Says, "Here the natural wisdom of man is sopuzzled, and is at such a loss, that the first step of profiting in theschool of Christ is to give it up or renounce it. For by this naturalwisdom, as by a veil before our eyes, we are hindered from attaining themysteries of God, which are not revealed but unto babes and little ones. For neither do flesh and blood reveal, nor doth the natural manperceive, the things that are of the spirit. But the doctrine of God israther foolishness to him, because it can only be spiritually judged. The assistance therefore of the holy spirit is in this case necessary, or rather, his power alone is efficacious. " Dr. Smith observes, in his select discourses, "besides the outwardRevelation of God's will to men, there is also an inward impression ofit in their minds and spirits, which is in a more especial mannerattributed to God. We cannot see divine things but in a divine light. God only, who is the true light, and in whom there is no darkness atall, can so shine out of himself upon our glossy understandings, as tobeget in them a picture of himself, his own will and pleasure, and turnthe soul (as the phrase is in Job) like wax or clay to the seal of hisown light and love. He that made our souls in his own image andlikeness, can easily find a way into them. The word that God speaks, having found a way into the soul, imprints itself there, as with thepoint of a diamond, and becomes (to borrow Plato's expression) 'a wordwritten in the Soul of the learner. ' Men may teach the grammar andrhetoric; but God teaches the divinity. Thus it is God alone thatacquaints the soul with the truths of revelation. " The learned Jeremy Taylor, bishop of Down and Connor, speaks in asimilar manner in his sermon de Viâ Intelligentiae. "Now in thisinquiry, says he, I must take one thing for granted, which is, thatevery good man is taught of God. And indeed, unless he teach us, weshall make but ill scholars ourselves, and worse guides to others. Noman can know God, says Irenaeus, except he be taught of God. If Godteaches us, then all is well; but if we do not learn wisdom at his feet, from whence should we have it? It can come from no other spring. " Again--"those who perfect holiness in the fear of God, have a degree ofdivine knowledge more than we can discourse of, and more certain thanthe demonstration of Geometry; brighter than the sun, and indeficient asthe light of heaven--A good man is united to God--As flame touchesflame, and combines into splendour and into glory, so is the spirit of aman united to Christ by the spirit of God. Our light, on the other hand, is like a candle; every word of doctrine blows it out, or spends thewax, and makes the light tremulous. But the lights of heaven are fixedand bright and shine for ever. " Cudworth, in his intellectual system, is wholly of the same opinion:"All the books and writings which we converse with, they can butrepresent spiritual objects to our understanding, which yet we can neversee in their own true figure, colour, and proportion, until we have adivine light within to irradiate and shine upon them. Though there benever such excellent truths concerning Christ and his Gospel, set downin words and letters, yet they will be but unknown characters to us, until we have a living spirit within us, that can decypher them, untilthe same spirit, by secret whispers in our hearts, do comment upon them, which did at first indite them. There be many that understand the Greekand Hebrew of the scripture, the original languages in which the textwas written, that never understood the language of the spirit. " CHAP. III. _Neither can a man, except he has a portion of the same spirit whichJesus and the Apostles and the Prophets had, know spiritualty that thescriptures are of divine authority, or spiritually understandthem--Explanation of these tenets--Objection, that these tenets setaside human reason--Reply of the Quakers--Observations ofLuther--Calvin--Owen--Archbishop Usher--Archbishop Sandys--Milton--Bishop Taylor. _ As a man cannot know spiritual things but through the medium of thespirit of God; or except he has a portion of the same spirit, whichJesus and the Prophets and the Apostles had, so neither can he, excepthe has a portion of the same spirit, either spiritually know that thewritings or sayings of these holy persons are of divine authority, orread or understand them, to the promotion of his spiritual interests. These two tenets are but deductions from that in the former chapter, andmay be thus explained. A man, the Quakers say, may examine the holy scriptures, and may deducetheir divine origin from the prophecies they contain, of which many havebeen since accomplished; from the superiority of their doctrines beyondthose in any other book which is the work of man; from the miraculouspreservation of them for so many ages; from the harmony of all theirparts, and from many other circumstances which might be mentioned. Butthis, after all, will be but an historical, literal, or outward proof oftheir origin, resulting from his reason or his judgment. It will be nospiritual proof, having a spiritual influence on his heart; for thisproof of the divine origin of the scriptures can only be had from thespirit of God. Thus, when the Apostle Paul preached to several women bythe river side near Philippi, it is said of Lydia only, [14] "the Lordopened her heart, that she attended to the things that were spoken byPaul. " The other women undoubtedly heard the gospel of Paul with theiroutward ears, but it does not appear that their hearts were in such aspiritual state, that they felt its divine authority; for it is not saidof them, as of Lydia, that their hearts were opened to understandspiritually that this gospel was of God. Again, [15] when Jesus Christpreached to the Jews in the temple, many believed on him, but othersbelieved not, but were so enraged that they took up stones to cast athim. It appears that they all heard his doctrine with their outwardears, in which he particularly stated that he was from above; but theydid not receive the truth of his origin in their hearts, because theywere not in a state to receive that faith which cometh from the spiritof God. In the same manner persons hear sermon after sermon at thepresent day, but find no spiritual benefit in their hearts. [Footnote 14: Acts 16. 13] [Footnote 15: John 8. 30. 45. 59. ] Again--a man, by comparing passages of scripture with other passages, and by considering the use and acceptation of words in these, may arriveat a knowledge of their literal meaning. He may obtain also, by perusingthe scriptures, a knowledge of some of the attributes of God. He maydiscover a part of the plan of his providence. He may collect purermoral truths than from any other source. But no literal reading of thescriptures can give him that spiritual knowledge of divine things, whichleads to eternal life. The scriptures, if literally read, will give hima literal or corresponding knowledge, but it is only the spiritualmonitor within, who can apply them to his feelings; who can tell him"thou art the man; this is thy state: this is that which thou oughtestor oughtest not to have done;" so that he sees spiritually, (the spiritof God bearing witness with his own spirit) that his own situation hasbeen described. Indeed, if the scriptures were sufficient of themselvesfor this latter purpose, the Quakers say that the knowledge of spiritualthings would consist in the knowledge of words. They, who were to getmost of the divine writings by heart, would know spiritually the mostof divine truths. The man of the best understanding, or of the mostcultivated mind, would be the best proficient in vital religion. Butthis is contrary to fact. For men of deep learning know frequently lessof spiritual Christianity, than those of the poor, who are scarcely ableto read the scriptures. They contend also, that if the scriptures werethe most vitally understood by those of the most learning, then thedispensations of God would be partial, inasmuch as he would haveexcluded the poor from the highest enjoyments of which the nature of manis susceptible, and from the means of their eternal salvation. These tenets, which are thus adopted by the Quakers, are considered bymany of the moderns as objectionable, inasmuch as they make reason, atleast in theology, a useless gift. The Quakers, however, contend thatthey consider reason as one of the inestimable gifts of God. They valueit highly in its proper province. They do not exclude it from religion. Men, by means of it, may correct literal errors in the scriptures; mayrestore texts, may refute doctrines inconsistent with the attributes ofthe Almighty. The apology of Robert Barclay, which is a chain ofreasoning of this kind from the begining to the end, is a proof thatthey do not undervalue the powers of the mind. But they dare not ascribeto human reason that power, which they believe to be exclusively vestedin the spirit of God. They say, moreover, that these tenets are neither new nor peculiar tothemselves as a society. They were the doctrines of the primitiveFathers. They. Were the doctrines also of the protestant reformers. Andthough many at the present day consider that scripture, interpreted byreason, is the religion of protestants, yet it was the general belief ofthese reformers, that the teaching of the Holy spirit was necessary tothe spiritual understanding of the scriptures, as well as to thespiritual establishment of their divine origin. Luther observes--"It is not human reason, or wisdom, nor the law of God, but the work of divine grace freely bestowed upon me, that teacheth meand showeth me the gospel: and this gift of God I receive by faithalone. " "The scriptures are not to be understood but by the same spirit by whichthey were written. " "No man sees one jot or tittle in the scriptures, unless he has thespirit of God. " "Profane men, says Calvin, desire to have it proved to them by reason, that Moses and the prophets spoke from God. And to such I answer, thatthe testimony of the spirit exceeds all reason. For as God alone is asufficient witness of himself in his word, so will his word not findcredit in the hearts of men, until it is sealed by the inward testimonyof his spirit. It is therefore necessary, that the same spirit whichspake by the mouth of the prophets, enter into our hearts to persuadeus, that they faithfully declared what was commanded them by God. " Again--"Unless we have the assurance which is better and more valid thanany judgment of man, it will be in vain to go about to establish theauthority of scripture, either by argument or the consent of the church;for except the foundation be laid, namely, that the certainty of itsdivine authority depends entirely upon the testimony of the spirit, itremains in perpetual suspense. " Again--"The spirit of God, from whom thedoctrine of the Gospel proceeds, is the only true interpreter to open itto us. " "Divines, says the learned Owen, at the first reformation, did generallyresolve our faith of the divine authority of the scriptures, into thetestimony of the Holy Spirit;" in which belief he joins himself, bystating that "it is the work of the Holy Spirit to enable us to believethe scripture to be the word of God. " In another place he says, "our Divines have long since laid it down, that the only public, authentic, and infallible interpreter of the holyscriptures, is the author of them, from whose inspiration they receiveall their truth, clearness, and authority. This author is the HolySpirit. " Archbishop Sandys, in one of his Sermons, preached before QueenElizabeth, has the following observations: "The outward reading of the word, without the inward working of thespirit, is nothing. The precise Pharisees, and the learned Scribes, readthe scriptures over and over again. They not only read them in books, but wore them on their garments. They were not only taught, but wereable themselves to teach others. But because this heavenly teacher hadnot instructed them, their understanding was darkened, and theirknowledge was but vanity. They were ignorant altogether in that savingtruth, which the prophet David was so desirous to learn. The mysteriesof salvation were so hard to be conceived by the very apostles of ChristJesus, that he was forced many times to rebuke them for their dulness, which unless he had removed by opening the eyes of their minds, theycould never have attained to the knowledge of salvation in Christ Jesus. The ears of that woman Lydia would have been as close shut against thepreaching of Paul, as any others, if the finger of God had not touchedand opened her heart. As many as learn, they are taught of God. " Archbishop Usher, in his sum and substance of the Christian Religion, observes, "that it is required that we have the spirit of God, as wellto open our eyes to see the light, as to seal up fully in our heartsthat truth, which we can see with our eyes: for the same Holy Spiritthat inspired the scripture, inclineth the hearts of God's children tobelieve what is revealed in them, and inwardly assureth them, above allreasons and arguments, that these are the scriptures of God. " Andfarther on in the same work, he says, "the spirit of God alone is thecertain interpreter of his word written by his Spirit; for no manknoweth the things pertaining to God, but the Spirit of God. " Our great Milton also gives us a similar opinion in the following words, which are taken from his Paradise Lost: ----"but in their room---- Wolves shall succeed for teachers, grievous wolves, Who all the sacred mysteries of Heaven To their own vile advantages shall turn Of lucre and ambition, and the truth With superstition's and tradition's taint, Left only in those written records pure, Though not but by the spirit understood. " Of the same mind was the learned bishop Taylor, as we collect from hissermon de Viâ Intelligentiae. "For although the scriptures, says he, arewritten by the spirit of God, yet they are written within and without. And besides the light that shines upon the face of them, unless there bea light shining within our hearts, unfolding the leaves, andinterpreting the mysterious sense of the spirit, convincing ourconsciences, and preaching to our hearts; to look for Christ in theleaves of the gospel, is to look for the living among the dead. There isa life in them; but that life is, according to St. Paul's expression, 'hid with Christ in God;' and unless the spirit of God first draw it, weshall never draw it forth. " "Human learning brings excellent ministeries towards this. It isadmirably useful for the reproof of heresies, for the detection offallacies, for the letter of the scripture, for collateral testimonies, for exterior advantages; but there is something beyond this that humanlearning, without the addition of divine, can never reach. Moses waslearned in all the learning of the Egyptians; and the holy men of Godcontemplated the glories of God in the admirable order, motion, andinfluences of the heaven; but, besides all this, they were taughtsomething far beyond these prettinesses. Pythagoras read Moses' books, and so did Plato, and yet they became not proselytes of the religion, though they were the learned scholars of such a master. " CHAP. IV. _The spirit of God which has been thus given to man in differentdegrees, was given him as a spiritual teacher, or guide, in hisspiritual concerns--It performs this office, the Quakers say, byinternal monitions--Sentiments of Taylor--and of Monro--and, ifencouraged, it teaches even by the external objects of thecreation--William Wordsworth. _ The Quakers believe that the spirit of God, which has been thus given toman in different degrees or measures, and without which it is impossibleto know spiritual things, or even to understand the divine writingsspiritually, or to be assured of their divine origin, was given to him, among other purposes, as a teacher of good and evil, or to serve him asa guide in his spiritual concerns. By this the Quakers mean, that if anyman will give himself up to the directions of the spiritual principlethat resides within him, he will attain a knowledge sufficient to enablehim to discover the path of his duty both to God and his fellow-man. That the spirit of God was given to man as a spiritual instructor, theQuakers conceive to be plain, from a number of passages, which are to befound in the sacred writings. They say, in the first place, that it was the language of the holy menof old. [16] "I said, says Elihu, days should speak, and multitude ofyears should teach wisdom. But there is a spirit (or the spirit itselfis) in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth himunderstanding. " The Levites are found also making an acknowledgment toGod; [17] "That he gave also their forefathers his good spirit toinstruct them. " The Psalms of David are also full of the same language, such as of [18] "Shew me thy ways, O Lord; lead me in the truth. " [19] "Iknow, says Jeremiah, that the way of man is not in himself. It is not inman that walketh to direct his steps. " The martyr Stephen acknowledgesthe teachings of the spirit, both in his own time and in that of hisancestors. [20] "Ye stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in heart and ears, yedo always resist the holy spirit. As your fathers did, so do ye. " TheQuakers also conceive it to be a doctrine of the gospel. Jesus himselfsaid, [21] "No man can come to me except the Father, which sent me, drawhim--It is written in the prophets, they shall all be taught of God. "[22]St. John says, "That was the true light, (namely, the word orspirit) which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. " St. Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, asserts, [23]that "themanifestation of the spirit is given to every man to profit withal. "And, in his letter to Titus, he asserts the same thing, though indifferent words: [24] "For the grace of God, says he, which bringethsalvation, hath appeared unto all men. " [Footnote 16: Job 32. 7. ] [Footnote 17: Nehemiah 9. 20. ] [Footnote 18: Psalm 25. 4. ] [Footnote 19: Jeremiah 10. 23. ] [Footnote 20: Acts 7. 51. ] [Footnote 21: John 6. 44. 45] [Footnote 22: John 1. 9. ] [Footnote 23: i Cor. 12. 7. ] [Footnote 24: Titus 2. 11. ] The spirit of God, which has been thus given to man as a spiritualguide, is considered by the Quakers as teaching him in various ways. Itinspires him with good thoughts. It prompts him to good offices. Itchecks him in his way to evil. It reproves him while in the act ofcommitting it. The learned Jeremy Taylor was of the same opinion. "The spirit of grace, says he, is the spirit of wisdom, and teaches us by secret inspirations, by proper arguments, by actual persuasions, by personal applications, byeffects and energies. " This office of the spirit is beautifully described by Monro, a divine ofthe established church, in his just measures of the pious institutionsof youth, "The holy spirit, says he, speaks inwardly and immediately tothe soul. For God is a spirit. The soul is a spirit; and they conversewith one another in spirit, not by words, but by spiritual notices;which, however, are more intelligible than the most eloquent strains inthe world. God makes himself to be heard by the soul by inward motions, which it perceives and comprehends proportionably as it is voided andemptied of earthly ideas. And the more the faculties of the soul ceasetheir own operations, so much the more sensible and intelligible are themotions of God to it. These immediate communications from God with thesouls of men are denied and derided by a great many. But that the fatherof spirits should have no converse with our spirits, but by theintervention only of outward and foreign objects, may justly seemstrange, especially when we are so often told in holy scripture, that weare the temples of the holy Ghost, and that God dwelleth in all goodmen. " But this spirit is considered by the Quakers not only as teaching byinward breathings, as it were, made immediately and directly upon theheart without the intervention of outward circumstances, but as makingthe material objects of the Universe, and many of the occurrences oflife, if it be properly attended to, subservient to the instruction ofman; and that it enlarges the sphere of his instruction in this manner, in proportion as it is received and encouraged. Thus the man, who isattentive to these divine notices, sees the animal, the vegetable, andthe planetary world, with spiritual eyes. He cannot stir abroad, but heis taught in his own feelings, without any motion of his will, somelesson for his spiritual advantage; or he perceives so vitally some ofthe attributes of the divine being, that he is called upon to offersome spiritual incense to his maker. If the lamb frolics and gambols inhis presence as he walks along, he may be made spiritually to see thebeauty and happiness of innocence. If he finds the stately oak laidprostrate by the wind, he may be spiritually taught to discern theemptiness of human power; while the same spirit may teach him inwardlythe advantage of humility, when he looks at the little hawthorn whichhas survived the storm. When he sees the change and the fall of theautumnal leaf, he may be spiritually admonished of his own change anddissolution, and of the necessity of a holy life. Thus the spirit of Godmay teach men by outward objects and occurrences in the world; but wherethis spirit is away, or rather where it is not attended to, no suchlesson can be taught. Natural objects of themselves can excite onlynatural ideas: and the natural man, looking at them, can derive onlynatural pleasure, or draw natural conclusions from them. In looking atthe Sun, he may be pleased with its warmth, and anticipate itsadvantages to the vegetable world. In plucking and examining a flower, he may be struck with its beauty, its mechanism, and its fragrant smell. In observing the butterfly, as it wings its way before him, he may smileat its short journeys from place to place, and admire the splendourupon its wings. But the beauty of Creation is dead to him, as far as itdepends upon connecting it spiritually with the character of God. For nospiritual impression can arise from any natural objects, but through theintervention of the spirit of God. William Wordsworth, in his instructive poems, has described thisteaching by external objects in consequence of impressions from a higherpower, as differing from any teaching by books or the humanunderstanding, and as arising without any motion of the will of man, inso beautiful and simple a manner, that I cannot do otherwise than makean extract from them in this place. Lively as the poem is, to which Iallude, I conceive it will not lower the dignity of the subject. It iscalled Expostulation and Reply, and is as follows:[25] Why, William, on that old gray stone, Thus for the length of half a day, Why, William, sit you thus alone, And dream your time away? Where are your books? that light bequeath'd To beings, else forlorn and blind, Up! Up! and drink the spirit breath'd From dead men to their kind. You look round on your mother earth, As if she for no purpose bore you, As if you were her first-born birth, And none had liv'd before you! One morning thus by Esthwaite lake, When life was sweet, I knew not why, To me my good friend Matthew spake, And that I made reply: The eye it cannot choose but see. We cannot bid the ear be still; Our bodies feel where'er they be, Against or with our will. Nor less I deem that there are powers, Which of themselves our minds impress, That we can feed this mind of ours In a wise passiveness. Think you, 'mid all this mighty sum Of things for ever speaking, That nothing of itself will come, But we must still be seeking? Then ask not wherefore, here, alone, Conversing as I may, I sit upon this old gray stone, And dream my time away? [Footnote 25: See Lyrical Ballads, Vol. 1. P. 1. ] CHAP. V _This spirit was not only given to man as a teacher, but as a primaryand infallible guide--Hence the Scriptures are a subordinate orsecondary guide--Quakers, however, do not undervalue them on thisaccount--Their opinion concerning them. _ The spirit of God, which we have seen to be thus given to men as aspiritual teacher, and to act in the ways described, the Quakers usuallydistinguish by the epithets of primary and infallible. But they havemade another distinction with respect to the character of this spirit;for they have pronounced it to be the only infallible guide to men intheir spiritual concerns. From this latter declaration the reader willnaturally conclude, that the scriptures, which are the outward teachersof men, must be viewed by the Quakers in a secondary light. Thisconclusion has indeed been adopted as a proposition in the Quakertheology; or, in other words, it is a doctrine of the society, that thespirit of God is the primary and only infallible, and the scriptures buta subordinate or secondary guide. This proposition the Quakers usually make out in the following manner: It is, in the first place, admitted by all Christians, that thescriptures were given by inspiration, or that those who originallydelivered or wrote the several parts of them, gave them forth by meansof that spirit, which was given to them by God. Now in the same manneras streams, or rivulets of water, are subordinate to the fountainswhich produce them; so those streams or rivulets of light must besubordinate to the great light from whence they originally sprung. "Wecannot, says Barclay, call the scriptures the principal fountain of alltruth and knowledge, nor yet the first adequate rule of faith andmanners; because the principal fountain of truth must be the truthitself, that is, whose certainty and authority depend not upon another. " The scriptures are subordinate or secondary, again, in other points ofview. First, because, though they are placed before us, we can only knowor understand them by the testimony of the spirit. Secondly, becausethere is no virtue or power in them of themselves, but in the spiritfrom whence they came. They are, again, but a secondary guide; because "that, says Barclay, cannot be the only and principal guide, which doth not universally reachevery individual that needeth it. " But the scriptures do not teach deafpersons, nor children, nor idiots, nor an immense number of people, morethan half the Globe, who never yet saw or heard of them. These, therefore, if they are to be saved like others, must have a different ora more universal rule to guide them, or be taught from another source. They are only a secondary guide, again, for another reason. It is anacknowledged axiom among Christians, that the spirit of God is a perfectspirit, and that it can never err. But the scriptures are neitherperfect of themselves as a collection, nor are they perfect in theirverbal parts. Many of them have been lost. Concerning those which havesurvived, there have been great disputes. Certain parts of these, whichone Christian council received in the early times of the church, wererejected as not canonical by another. Add to this, that none of theoriginals are extant. And of the copies, some have suffered bytranscription, others by translation, and others by wilful mutilation, to support human notions of religion; so that there are various readingsof the same passage, and various views of the same thing. "Now what, says Barclay, would become of Christians, if they had not received thatspirit and those spiritual senses, by which they know how to discoverthe true from the false? It is the privilege of Christ's sheep, indeed, that they hear his voice, and refuse that of the stranger; which, privilege being taken away, we are left a prey to all manner of wolves. "The scriptures, therefore, in consequence of the state in which theyhave come down to us, cannot, the Quakers say, be considered to be aguide as entirely perfect as the internal testimony of their greatauthor, the spirit of God. But though the Quakers have thought it right, in submitting theirreligious creed to the world on this subject, to be so guarded in thewording of it as to make the distinction described, they are far fromundervaluing the scriptures on that account. They believe, on the otherhand, whatever mutilations they may have suffered, that they containsufficient to guide men in belief and practice; and that all internalemotions, which are contrary to the declaration of these, are whollyinadmissible. "Moreover, says Barclay, because the scriptures arecommonly acknowledged by all to have been written by the dictates of theholy spirit, and that the errors, which may be supposed by the injury oftime to have slipt in, are not such but there is a sufficient cleartestimony left to all the essentials of the Christian faith, we do lookupon them as the only fit outward judge of controversies amongChristians, and that whatsoever doctrine is contrary to their testimony, may therefore justly be rejected as false. " The Quakers believe also, that as God gave a portion of his spirit toman to assist him inwardly, so he gave the holy scriptures to assist himoutwardly in his spiritual concerns. Hence the latter, coming byinspiration, are the most precious of all books that ever were written, and the best outward guide. And hence the things contained in them, ought to be read, and, as far as possible, fulfilled. They believe, with the apostle Paul, that the scriptures are highlyuseful, "so that, through patience and comfort of them, they may havehope; and also that they are profitable for reproof, for correction, andfor instruction in righteousness:" that in the same manner as land, highly prepared and dressed by the husbandman, becomes fit for thereception and for the promotion of the growth of the seed that is to beplaced in it, so the scriptures turn the attention of man towards God, and by means of the exhortations, reproofs, promises, and threatenings, contained in them, prepare the mind for the reception and growth of theseed of the Holy Spirit. They believe, again, that the same scriptures show more of theparticulars of God's will with respect to man, and of the scheme of theGospel-dispensation, than any ordinary portion of his spirit, as usuallygiven to man, would have enabled him to discover. They discover that[26] "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal lifethrough Jesus Christ:" [27] "That Jesus Christ was set forth to be apropitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousnessfor the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance ofGod;" [28]that "he tasted death for every man;" that he [29]was"delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification;"[30]that "he is set down at the right hand of the throne of God;"[31] "and ever liveth to make intercession for us; and, that he is thesubstance of all the types and figures under the Levitical priesthood, [32] being the end of the law for righteousness to every one thatbelieveth. " [Footnote 26: Rom. 6. 23. ] [Footnote 27: Rom. 3. 25. ] [Footnote 28: Heb. 2. 9. ] [Footnote 29: 4. 25. ] [Footnote 30: Heb. 12. 2. ] [Footnote 31: Heb. 7. 25. ] [Footnote 32: Rom. 10. 4. ] They believe, again, that, in consequence of these various revelations, as contained in the scriptures, they have inestimable advantages overthe Heathen nations, or over those, where the gospel-sun has never yetshone; and that, as their advantages are greater, so more will berequired of them, or their condemnation will be greater, if they fail toattend to those things which are clearly revealed. They maintain, again, that their discipline is founded on the rules ofthe gospel; and that in consequence of giving an interpretationdifferent from that of many others, to some of the expressions of JesusChrist, by which they conceive they make his kingdom more pure andheavenly, they undergo persecution from the world--so that they confirmtheir attachment to the scriptures by the best of all credibletestimonies, the seal of their own sufferings. CHAP. VI. _This spirit of God, which has been thus given to men as an infallibleguide in their spiritual concerns, has been given them universally--Tothe patriarchs and Israelites, from the creation to the time ofMoses--To the Israelites or Jews, from Moses to Jesus Christ--To theGentile world from all antiquity to modern times--To all those who haveever heard the gospel--And it continues its office to the latter evenat the present day. _ The Quakers are of opinion that the spirit of God, of which a portionhas been given to men as a primary and infallible guide in theirspiritual concerns, has been given them universally; or has been givento all of the human race, without any exceptions, for the same purpose. This proposition of the Quakers I shall divide, in order that the readermay see it more clearly, into four cases. The first of these willcomprehend the Patriarchs and the Israelites from the creation to thetime of Moses. The second, the Israelites or Jews from the time of Mosesto the coming of Jesus Christ. The third, the Gentiles or Heathens. Andthe fourth, all those who have heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ, fromthe time of his own ministry to the present day. The first case includes a portion of time of above two thousand years. Now the Quakers believe, that during all this time men were generallyenlightened as to their duty by the spirit of God; for there was noscripture or written law of God during all this period. "It was abouttwo thousand four hundred years, says Thomas Beaven, an approved writeramong the Quakers, after the creation of the world, before mankind hadany external written law for the rule and conduct of their lives, so faras appears by either sacred or profane history; in all which timemankind, generally speaking, had only for their rule of faith andmanners the external creation as a monitor to their outward senses, forevidence of the reality and certainty of the existence of the SupremeBeing; and the internal impressions God by his divine spirit made uponthe capacities and powers of their souls or inward man, and perhaps someof them oral traditions delivered from father to son. " To the same point Thomas Beaven quotes the ever memorable John Hales, who, in his golden remains, writes in the following manner: "The loveand favour, which it pleased God to bear our fathers before the law', sofar prevailed with him, as that without any books and writings, byfamiliar and friendly conversing with them, and communicating himselfunto them, he made them receive and understand his laws, their inwardconceits and intellectuals being, after a wonderful manner, figured asit were and charactered by his spirit, so that they could not but seeand consent unto, and confess the truth of them. Which way ofmanifesting his will unto many other gracious privileges it had, abovethat which in after ages came in place of it, had this added, that itbrought with it unto the man to whom it was made, a preservation againstall doubt and hesitancy, and a full assurance both who the author was, and how far his intent and meaning reached. We who are their offspringought, as St. Chrysostom tells us, so to have demeaned ourselves, thatit might have been with us as it was with them, that we might have hadno need of writing, no other teacher but the spirit, no other books butour hearts, no other means to have been taught the things of God. " That the spirit of God, as described by Thomas Beaven and the venerableJohn Hales, was the great instructor or enlightener of man during theperiod we are speaking of, the Quakers believe, from what they conceiveto be the sense of the holy scriptures on this subject. For in the firstplace, they consider it as a position, deducible from the expressions ofMoses[33], that the spirit of God had striven with those of theantediluvian world. They believe, therefore, that it was this spirit(and because the means were adequate, and none more satisfactory to themcan be assigned) which informed Cain, before any written law existed, and this even before the murder of his brother, that[34] "if he didwell, he should be accepted; but if not, sin should lie at his door. "The same spirit they conceive to have illuminated the mind of Seth, butin a higher degree than ordinarily the mind of Enoch; for he is thefirst, of whom it is recorded, that[35] "he walked with God. " It is alsoconsidered by the Quakers as having afforded a rule of conduct to thosewho lived after the flood. Thus Joseph is described as saying, whenthere is no record of any verbal instruction from the Almighty on thissubject, and at a time when there was no scripture or written law ofGod, [36] "How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin againstGod?" It illuminated others also, but in a greater or less degree, asbefore. Thus Noah became a preacher of righteousness. Thus Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were favoured with a greater measure of it than otherswho lived in their own times. [Footnote 33: Gen. 6. 3] [Footnote 34: Ib 4. 7] [Footnote 35: Gen. 5. 24. ] [Footnote 36: Ib. 39. 9. --The traditionary laws of Noah were in force atthis time; but they only specified three offences between man and man. ] From these times to the coming of Jesus Christ, which is the second ofthe cases in question, the same spirit, according to the Quakers, stillcontinued its teachings, and this notwithstanding the introduction ofthe Mosaic law; for this, which was engraven on tables of stone, did notset aside the law that was engraven on the heart. It assisted, first, outwardly, in turning mens' minds to God; and secondly, in fitting themas a schoolmaster for attention to the internal impressions by hisspirit. That the spirit of God was still the great teacher, the Quakersconceive to be plain; for the sacred writings from Moses to Malachiaffirm it for a part of the period now assigned; and for the rest wehave as evidence the reproof of the Martyr Stephen, and the sentencesfrom the New Testament quoted in the fourth chapter. And in the samemanner as this spirit had been given to some in a greater measure thanto others, both before and after the deluge, so the Quakers believe itto have been given more abundantly to Moses and the prophets, than toothers of the same nation; for they believe that the law in particular, and that the general writings of Moses, and those of the prophets also, were of divine inspiration, or the productions of the spirit of God. With respect to the Heathens or Gentiles, which is the third case, theQuakers believe that God's holy spirit became a guide also to them, andfurnished them, as it had done the patriarchs and the Jews, with a ruleof practice. For even these, who had none of the advantages of scriptureor of a written divine law, believed, many of them, in God, such asOrpheus, Hesiod, Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Cicero, andothers. And of these it may be observed, that it was their generalbelief, as well as it was the belief of many others in those days, thatthere was a divine light or spirit in man, to enable him to directhimself aright. Among the remnants that have been preserved of the sayings, ofPythagoras, are the following which relate to this subject: "Thosethings which are agreeable to God, cannot be known, except a man hearGod himself. " Again--"But having overcome these things, thou shalt knowthe cohabitation or dwelling together of the immortal God and mortalman. His work is life--The work of God is immortality, eternal life. ""The most excellent thing, says Timoeus, that the soul is awakened to, is her guide or good genius; but if she be rebellious to it, it willprove her daemon, or tormentor. " "It was frequently said of Socrates, he had the guide of his life withinhim, which, it was told his father Sophroniscus, would be of more worthto him than five hundred masters. He called it his good angel, orspirit; that it suggested to his mind what was good and virtuous, andinclined and disposed him to a strict and pious life; that it furnishedhim with divine knowledge, and impelled him very often to speak publiclyto the people, sometimes in a way of severe reproof, at other times toinformation. " Plato says, "the light and spirit of God are as wings to the soul, or asthat which raiseth up the soul into, a sensible communion with God abovethe world. " "I have, says Seneca, a more clear and certain light, by which I mayjudge the truth from falsehood: that which belongs to the happiness ofthe soul, the eternal mind will direct to. " Again--"It is a foolishthing for thee to wish for that which thou canst not obtain. God is nearthee, and he is in thee. The good spirit sits or resides within as, theobserver of our good and evil actions. As he is dealt with by us, hedealeth with us. " The Quakers produce these, and a multitude of other quotations, which itis not necessary to repeat, to show that the same spirit, which taughtthe patriarchs before the law, and the Jews after it, taught theGentiles also. But this revelation, or manifestation of the spirit, wasnot confined, in the opinion of the Quakers, to the Roman or Greekphilosophers, or to those who had greater pretensions than common tohuman wisdom. They believe that no nation was ever discovered, amongthose of antiquity, to have been so wild or ignorant as not to haveacknowledged a divinity, or as not to have known and established adifference between good and evil. Cicero says, "there is no country so barbarous, no one of all men sosavage, as that some apprehension of the Gods hath not tinctured hismind. That many indeed, says he, think corruptly of them, must beadmitted; but this is the effect of vicious custom. For all do believethat there is a divine power and nature. " Maximus Tyriensis, a platonic philosopher, and a man of considerableknowledge, observes, that "notwithstanding the great contention andvariety of opinions which have existed concerning the nature and essenceof God, yet the law and reason of every country are harmonious in theserespects, namely, that there is one God, the king and father of all--andthat the many are but servants and co-rulers unto God: that in this theGreek and the Barbarian, the Islander and the inhabitant of thecontinent, the wise and the foolish, speak the same language. Go, sayshe, to the utmost bounds of the ocean, and you find God there. But ifthere hath been, says he, since the existence of time, two or threeatheistical, vile, senseless individuals, whose eyes and ears deceivethem, and who are maimed in their very soul, an irrational and barrenspecies, as monstrous as a lion without courage, an ox without horns, ora bird without wings, yet out of these you will be able to understandsomething of God. For they know and confess him whether they will ornot. " Plutarch says again, "that if a man were to travel through the world, hemight possibly find cities without walls, without letters, withoutkings, without wealth, without schools, and without theatres. But a citywithout a temple, or that useth no worship, or no prayers, no one eversaw. And he believes a city may more easily be built without afoundation, or ground to set it on, than a community of men have or keepa consistency without religion. " Of those nations which were reputed wild and ignorant in ancient times, the Scythians may be brought, next, to the Greeks and Romans, as aninstance to elucidate the opinion of the Quakers still farther on thissubject. The speech of the Scythian Ambassadors to Alexander the Great, as handed down to us by Quintus Curtius, has been often cited bywriters, not only on account of its beauty and simplicity, but to showus the moral sentiments of the Scythians in those times. I shall make afew extracts from it on this occasion. "Had the Gods given thee, says one of the Ambassadors to Alexander, abody proportionable to thy ambition, the whole Universe would have beentoo little for thee. With one hand thou wouldest touch the East, andwith the other the West; and not satisfied with this, thou wouldestfollow the Sun, and know where he hides himself. "---- "But what have we to do with thee? We never set foot in thy country. Maynot those who inhabit woods be allowed to live without knowing who thouart, and whence thou comest? We will neither command nor submit to anyman. "---- "But thou, who boastest thy coming to extirpate robbers, thou thyselfart the greatest robber upon earth. "---- "Thou hast possessed thyself of Lydia, invaded Syria, Persia, andBactriana. Thou art forming a design to march as far as India, and thounow contest hither, to seize upon our herds of cattle. The greatpossessions which thou hast, only make thee covet more eagerly what thouhast not. "---- "We are informed that the Greeks speak jestingly of our Scythiandeserts, and that they are even become a proverb; but we are fonder ofour solitudes, than of thy great cities. "---- "If thou art a god, thou oughtest to do good to mortals, and not todeprive them of their possessions. If thou art a mere man, reflect onwhat thou art. "---- "Do not fancy that the Scythians will take an oath in their concludingof an alliance with thee. The only oath among them is to keep their wordwithout swearing. Such cautions as these do indeed become Greeks, whosign their treaties, and call upon the Gods to witness them. But, withregard to us, our religion consists in being sincere, and in keeping thepromises we have made. That man, who is not ashamed to break his wordwith men, is not ashamed of deceiving the Gods. " To the account contained in these extracts, it may be added, that theScythians are described by Herodotus, Justin, Horace, and others, as amoral people. They had the character of maintaining justice. Theft orrobbery was severely punished among them. They believed infidelity afterthe marriage-engagement to be deserving of death. They coveted neithersilver nor gold. They refused to give the name of goods or riches to anybut estimable things, such as health, courage, liberty, strength, sincerity, innocence, and the like. They received friends as relations, or considered friendship as so sacred an alliance, that it differed butlittle from alliance by blood. These principles of the Scythians, as far as they are well founded, theQuakers believe to have originated in their more than ordinary attentionto that divine principle which was given to them, equally with the restof mankind, for their instruction in moral good; to that same principle, which Socrates describes as having suggested to his mind that which wasgood and virtuous, or which Seneca describes to reside in men as anobserver of good and evil. For the Scythians, living in solitary anddesert places, had but little communication for many ages with the restof mankind, and did not obtain their system of morality from otherquarters. From the Greeks and Romans, who were the most enlightened, they derived no moral benefit. For Strabo informs us, that their moralshad been wholly corrupted in his time, and that this wretched change hadtaken place in consequence of their intercourse with these nations. Thatthey had no scripture or written law of God is equally evident. Neitherdid they collect their morality from the perusal or observance of anyparticular laws that had been left them by their ancestors; for the sameauthor, who gives them the high character just mentioned, says that theywere found in the practice of justice, [37] not on account of any laws, but on account of their own _natural genius or disposition_. Neitherwere they found in this practice, because they had exerted their reasonin discovering that virtue was so much more desirable than vice; for thesame author declares, that nature, and not reason, had made them a moralpeople: for[38] "it seems surprising, says he, that nature should havegiven to them what the Greeks have never been able to attain either inconsequence of the long succession of doctrines of their wise men, or ofthe precepts of their philosophers; and that the manners of a barbarous, should be preferable to those of a refined people. " [Footnote 37: Justitia gentis Ingeniis culta, non Legibus. ] [Footnote 38: Prorsus ut admirabile videatur, hoc illis naturam dare, quod Graeci longá sapientium doctriná praeceptisque philosophorumconsequi nequeunt, cultosque mores incultae barbariae collationesoperari. ] This opinion, that the spirit of God was afforded as a light to lightenthe Gentiles of the ancient world, the Quakers derive from theauthorities which I have now mentioned; that is, from the evidence whichhistory has afforded, and from the sentiments which the Gentiles havediscovered themselves upon this subject. But they conceive that thequestion is put out of all doubt by these remarkable words of theApostle Paul. "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by_nature_ the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, area law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law _written on theirhearts_, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts themean while accusing, or else excusing one another. " And here it may beobserved, that the Quakers believe also, that in the same manner as thespirit of God enlightened the different Gentile nations previously tothe time of the apostle, so it continues to enlighten those, which havebeen discovered since; for no nation has been found so ignorant, as notto make an acknowledgment of superior spirit, and to know the differencebetween good and evil. Hence it may be considered as illuminating thosenations, where the scriptures have never reached, even at the presentday. With respect to the last case, which includes those who have heard withtheir outward ears the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Quakers believe, thatthe spirit of God has continued its office of a spiritual instructor aswell to these as to any of the persons who have been described. For theGospel is no where said to supersede, any more than the law of Mosesdid, the assistance of this spirit. On the other hand, this spirit wasdeemed necessary, and this by the apostles themselves, even afterchurches had been established, or men had become Christians. St. Pauldeclares, [39] that whatever spiritual gifts some of his followers mightthen have, and however these gifts might then differ from one another, the spirit of God was given universally to man, and this to profitwithal. He declares again that [40] "as many as were led by this spirit, these, and these only, possessed the knowledge that was requisite toenable them to become the sons of God. " And in his letter to theThessalonians, who had become a Christian church, he gave them manyparticular injunctions, among which one was, that [41] they would notquench or extinguish the spirit. [Footnote 39: Cor. 12. 7. ] [Footnote 40: Rom. 8, 14. ] [Footnote 41: 1 Thess. 5. 19. ] And in the same manner as this spirit was deemed necessary in the daysof the apostles, and this to every man individually, and even after hehad become a Christian, so the Quakers consider it to have beennecessary since, and to continue so, wherever Christianity is professed. For many persons may read the holy scriptures, and hear them read inchurches, and yet not feel the necessary conviction for sin. Here thenthe Quakers conceive the spirit of God to be still necessary. It comesin with its inward monitions and reproofs, where the scripture has beenneglected or forgotten. It attempts to stay the arm of him who is goingto offend, and frequently averts the blow. Neither is this spirit unnecessary, even where men profess an attentionto the literal precepts of the Gospel. For in proportion as men are inthe way of attending to the outward scriptures, they are in the way ofbeing inwardly taught of God. But without this inward teaching nooutward teaching can be effectual; for though persons may read thescriptures, yet they cannot spiritually understand them; and though theymay admire the Christian religion, yet they cannot enjoy it, accordingto the opinion of the Quakers, but through the medium of the spirit ofGod. CHAP. VII. SECT. I. _This spirit, as it has been given universally, so it has been givensufficiently--Hence God is exonerated Of injustice, and men are leftwithout excuse--Those who resist this spirit, are said to quench it, andmay become so hardened in time, as to be insensible of itsimpressions--Those who attend to it, may be said to be in the way ofredemption--Similar sentiments of Monro--This visitation, treatment, and influence of the spirit, usually explained by the Quakers by theParable of the sower. _ As the spirit of God has been thus afforded to every man, since thefoundation of the world, to profit withal, so the Quakers say, that ithas been given to him in a sufficient measure for this purpose. By theword "sufficient" we are not to understand that this divine monitorcalls upon men every day or hour, but that it is within every man, andthat it awakens him seasonably, and so often during the term of hisnatural life, as to exonerate God from the charge of condemning himunjustly, if he fails in his duty, and as to leave himself withoutexcuse. And in proportion as a greater or less measure of this spirithas been afforded him, so he is more or less guilty in the sight of hisMaker. If any should resist these salutary operations of the Holy Spirit, theyresist it to their own condemnation. Of such it may he observed, that they are said to quench or grieve thespirit, and, not unfrequently, to resist God, and to crucify Christafresh; for God and Christ and the Spirit are considered to beinseparably united in the scriptures. Of such also it may be again observed, that if they continue to resistGod's holy Spirit, their feelings may become so callous or hardened intime, that they may never be able to perceive its notices again, andthus the day of their visitation may be over: for [42] "my people, saithGod, would not hearken to my voice, and Israel would none of me; so Igave them up to their own hearts' lusts, and they walked in their owncounsels. " To the same import was the saying of Jesus Christ, when hewept over Jerusalem. [43] "If thou hadst known, even thou, at least inthis thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they arehid from thine eyes. " As if he had said, there was a day, in which ye, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, might have known those things whichbelonged to your peace. I was then willing to gather you, as a hengathereth her chickens, but as ye would not suffer me, the thingsbelonging to your peace are now hid from your eyes. Ye would not attendto the impressions by God's Holy Spirit, when your feelings were tenderand penetrable, and therefore now, the day having passed over, ye havelost the power of discerning them. [Footnote 42: Psalm 81. 11, 12] [Footnote 43: Luke 19, 42. ] Those, on the other hand, who, during this visitation of the HolySpirit, attend to its suggestions or warnings, are said to be in theway of their redemption or salvation. These sentiments of the Quakers on this subject are beautifullydescribed by Monro, in his just measures of the pious institutions ofyouth. "The Holy Spirit, " says he, "solicits and importunes those who arein a state of sin, to return, by inward motions and impressions, bysuggesting good thoughts and prompting to pious resolutions, by checksand controls, by conviction of sin and duty; sometimes by frights andterrors, and other whiles by love and endearments: But if men, notwithstanding all his loving solicitations, do still cherish andcleave to their lusts, and persevere in a state of sin, they are thensaid to resist the Holy Ghost, whereby their condition becomes verydeplorable, and their conversion very difficult; for the more men resistthe importunities, and stifle the motions of the Holy Spirit, thestronger do the chains of their corruption and servitude become. Everynew act of sin gives these a degree of strength, and consequently puts anew obstacle in the way of conversion; and when sin is turned into aninveterate and rooted habit, (which by reiterated commissions and longcontinuance it is) then it becomes a nature, and is with as muchdifficulty altered as nature is. Can the Ethiopian change his colour, or the Leopard his spots? Then may you also do good, who are accustomedto do evil. " "The Holy Spirit again, " says he, "inspires the prayers of those who, inconsequence of his powerful operations, have crucified the flesh withthe affections and lusts, with devout and filial affections, and makesintercession for them with sighs and groans that cannot be uttered. Heguides and manages them. The sons of God are led by the spirit of god. He makes, his blessed fruits, righteousness, peace, joy, and divinelove, more and more to abound in them; he confirms them in goodness, persuades them to perseverance, and seals them to the day ofredemption. " The Quakers usually elucidate this visitation, treatment, and influenceof the Holy Spirit, by the parable of the sower, as recorded by three ofthe Evangelists. "Now the seed is the word of God. " But as the word ofGod and the spirit, according to St. John the Evangelist, are the same, the parable is considered by the Quakers as relating to that divinelight or spirit which is given to man for his spiritual instruction andsalvation. As the seed was sown in all sorts of ground, good, bad, andindifferent, so this light or spirit is afforded, without exception, toall. As thorns choked this seed, and hindered it from coming toperfection, so bad customs, or the pleasures and cares of the world, hinder men from attending to this divine principle within them, andrender it unfruitful in their hearts. And as the seed in the good groundwas not interrupted, and therefore produced fruit in abundance, so thisspiritual principle, where it is not checked, but received andcherished, produces also abundance of spiritual fruit in the inward man, by putting him into the way of redemption from sin, or of holiness oflife. SECT. II. _The spirit of God, therefore, besides its office of a teacher, performsthat of a Redeemer of men--Redemption outward and inward--Outward is bythe sufferings of Jesus Christ--These produce forgiveness of past sins, and put men into a capacity of salvation--inward, or the office nowalluded to, is by the operation of the spirit--This converts men, andpreserves them from sins to come--outward and inward connected with eachother. _ The spirit of God, which we have seen to be given to men, and to begiven them universally, to enable them to distinguish between 'good andevil, was given them also, the Quakers believe, for another purpose, namely, to redeem or save them. Redemption and salvation, in thissense, ' are the same, in the language of the Quakers, and mean apurification from the sins or pollutions of the world, so that a newbirth may be produced, and maintained in the inward man. As the doctrine of the Quakers, with respect to redemption, differs fromthat which generally obtains, I shall allot this chapter to anexplanation of the distinctions, which the Quakers usually make uponthis subject. The Quakers never make use of the words "original sin, " because theseare never to be found in the sacred writings. They consider man, however, as in a fallen or degraded state, and as inclined and liable tosin. They consider him, in short, as having the seed of sin within him, which he inherited from his parent Adam. But though they acknowledgethis, they dare not say, that sin is imputed to him on account of Adam'stransgression, or that he is chargeable with sin, until he actuallycommits it. As every descendant, however, of Adam, has this seed within him, which, amidst the numerous temptations that beset him, he allows sometime orother to germinate, so he stands in need of a Redeemer; that is, of somepower that shall be able to procure pardon for past offences, and ofsome power that shall be able to preserve him in the way of holiness forthe future. To expiate himself, in a manner satisfactory to theAlmighty, for so foot a stain upon his nature as that of sin, is utterlybeyond his abilities; for no good action, that he can do, can do awaythat which has been once done. And to preserve himself in a state ofvirtue for the future, is equally out of his own power, because thiscannot be done by any effort of his reason, but only by the conversionof his heart. It has therefore pleased the Almighty to find a remedy forhim in each of these cases. Jesus Christ, by the sacrifice of his ownbody, expiates for sins that are past, and the spirit of God, which hasbeen afforded to him, as a spiritual teacher, has the power of cleansingand purifying the heart so thoroughly, that he may be preserved fromsins to come. That forgiveness of past sins is procured by the sacrifice of JesusChrist, is obvious from various passages in the holy scriptures. Thusthe apostle Paul says, that Jesus Christ [44] "was set forth to be apropitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousnessfor the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God. "And in his epistle to the Colossians he says, [45] "In whom we haveredemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. " Thisredemption may be called outward, because it has been effected byoutward means, or by the outward sufferings of Jesus Christ; and it isconsidered as putting men, in consequence of this forgiveness, into thecapacity of salvation. The Quakers, however, attribute this redemptionwholly to the love of God, and not to the impossibility of hisforgiveness without a plenary satisfaction, or to the motive of heapingall his vengeance on the head of Jesus Christ, that he might appease hisown wrath. [Footnote 44: Rom. 3. 25. ] [Footnote 45: Coloss. 1. 14. ] The other redemption, on the other hand, is called inward, because it isconsidered by the Quakers to be an inward redemption from the power ofsin, or a cleansing the heart from the pollutions of the world. Thisinward redemption is produced by the spirit of God, as before stated, operating on the hearts of men, and so cleansing and purifying them, asto produce a new birth in the inward man; so that the same spirit ofGod, which has been given to men in various degrees since thefoundation of the world, as a teacher in their spiritual concerns, whichhath visited every man in his day, and which hath exhorted and reprovedhim for his spiritual welfare[46], has the power of preserving him fromfuture sin, and of leading him to salvation. [Footnote 46: The Quakers believe, however, that this spirit was moreplentifully diffused, and that greater gifts were given to man, afterJews was glorified, than before. Ephes. 4. 8. ] That this inward redemption is performed by the spirit of God, theQuakers show from various passages in the sacred writings. Thus St. Paulsays, [47] "According to his mercy he hath saved us by the washing ofregeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. " The same apostlesays, again, [48] "It is the law of the Spirit that maketh free from thelaw of sin and death. " And again--[49] "As many as are led by the spiritof God, they are the sons of God. " [Footnote 47: Titus 3. 5. ] [Footnote 48: Rom. 8. 2. ] [Footnote 49: Rom. 8. 14. ] The Quakers say, that this inward redemption or salvation as effected bythe spirit, is obvious also from the experience of all good men, or fromthe manner in which many have experienced a total conversion or changeof heart. For though there are undoubtedly some who have gone on sogradually in their reformation from vice to virtue, that it may havebeen considered to be the effect of reason, which has previouslydetermined on the necessity of a holy life, yet the change from vice toholiness has often been so rapid and decisive, as to leave no doubtwhatever, that it could not have been produced by any effort of reason, but only by some divine operation, which could only have been that ofthe spirit of God. Of these two kinds of redemption, the outward and the inward, of whichthe latter will be the subject of our consideration, it may be observed, that they go hand in hand together[50]. St. Paul has coupled them inthese words: "for if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God bythe death of his son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved byhis life;" that is, by the life of his spirit working inwardly inus. --And as they go together in the mind of the apostle, so they gotogether as to the benefit of their effects. For, in the first place, the outward redemption takes place, when the inward has begun. And, secondly, the outward redemption, or the sufferings of Jesus Christ, which redeem from past sins, cannot have any efficacy till the inwardhas begun, or while men remain in their sins; or, in other words, no mancan be entitled to the forgiveness of sins that have been committed, till there has been a change in the inward man; for St. John intimates, that [51]the blood of Christ does not cleanse from sin, except men walkin the light, or, to use an expression synonymous with the Quakers, except men walk in the spirit. [Footnote 50: Rom, 5. 10. ] [Footnote 51: John I. 6. 7. ] SECT. III. _Inward redemption, which thus goes on by the operation of the HolySpirit, has the power of producing a new birth in men--This office ofthe spirit acknowledged by other Christians--Monro--Hammond--Locke--Ithas the power also of leading to perfection--Sentiments of the Quakersas to perfection--and of the ever memorable John Hales--Gell--Monro--This power of inward redemption bestowed upon all. _ The sufferings then of Jesus Christ, having by means of the forgivenessof past sins, put men into a capacity for salvation, the remaining partof salvation, or the inward redemption of man, is performed by theoperation of the Holy Spirit; of which, however, it must be remembered, that a more plentiful diffusion is considered by the Quakers to havebeen given to men after the ascension of Jesus Christ, than at anyformer period. The nature of this inward redemption, or the nature of this new office, which it performs in addition to that of a religious teacher, may beseen in the following account. It has the power, the Quakers believe, of checking and preventing badinclinations and passions; of cleansing and purifying the heart; ofdestroying the carnal mind; of making all old things pass away; ofintroducing new; of raising our spiritual senses, so as to make usdelight in the things of God, and to put us above the enjoyment ofearthly pleasures. Redeeming thus from the pollutions of the world, andleading to spiritual purity, it forms a new creature. It produces thenew man in the heart. It occasions a man by its quickening power to beborn again, and thus puts him into the way of salvation. [52] "For verilyI say unto thee, says Jesus Christ to Nicodemus, except a man be bornagain, he cannot see the kingdom of God. " [Footnote 52: John 3. 3. ] This office and power of the spirit of God is acknowledged by otherChristians. Monro, who has been before quoted, observes, "that the soul, being thus raised from the death of sin and born again, is divinelyanimated, and discovers that it is alive by the vital operations whichit performs. " "Again, says he, this blissful presence, the regenerate who aredelivered from the dominion, and cleansed from the impurities of sin, have recovered, and it is on the account of it, that they are said to bean habitation of God through the spirit and the temples of the HolyGhost. For that good spirit takes possession of them, resides in theirhearts, becomes the mover, enlightener, and director of all theirfaculties and powers, gives a new and heavenly tincture and tendency toall their inclinations and desires, and, in one word, is the greatspring of all they think, or do, or say; and hence it is that they aresaid to walk no more after the flesh, but after the spirit, and to beled by the spirit of God. " Dr. Hammond, in his paraphrase and annotations on the New Testament, observes, that "he who hath been born of God, is literally he who hathhad such a blessed change wrought in him by the operation of God'sspirit in his heart, as to be translated from the power of darkness intothe kingdom of his dear Son. " "As Christ in the flesh, says the great and venerable Locke, was whollyexempt from all taint and sin, so we, by that spirit which was in him, shall be exempt from the dominion of carnal lusts, if we make it ourchoice, and endeavour to live after the spirit. " "Here the apostle, says Locke, shows that Christians are delivered fromthe dominion of their carnal lusts by the spirit of God that is given tothem, and dwells in them, as a new quickening principle and power, bywhich they are put into the state of a spiritual life, wherein theirmembers are made capable of becoming the instruments of righteousness. " And this spirit of God, which thus redeems from the pollutions of theworld, and puts a new heart as it were into man, is considered by theQuakers as so powerful in its operations, as to be able to lead him toperfection. By this the Quakers do not mean to say, that the perfectionof man is at all like the perfection of God; because the perfection ofthe former is capable of growth. They believe, however, that, in hisrenewed state, he may be brought to be so perfect, as to be able to keepthose commandments of God which are enjoined him. In this sense theybelieve it is, that Noah is called by Moses [53]a just and perfect manin his generation; and that Job is described [54]as a perfect and anupright man; and that the evangelist Luke speaks of Zacharias andElizabeth in these words--[55] "They were both righteous before God, andwalked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. " [Footnote 53: Gen. 6. 9. ] [Footnote 54: Job 1. 3. ] [Footnote 55: Luke 1. 6. ] That man, who is renewed in heart, can attain this degree of perfection, the Quakers think it but reasonable to suppose. For to think that Godhas given man any law to keep, which it is impossible for him, whenaided by his Holy Spirit, to keep, or to think that the power of Satancan be stronger in man than the power of Christ, is to think veryinadequately of the Almighty, and to cast a dishonourable reflection onhis goodness, his justice, and his power. Add to which, that there wouldnot have been such expressions in the New Testament, as those of JesusChrist--"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is inHeaven is perfect"--Nor would there have been other expressions of theApostles of a similar meaning, if the renewed man had not possessed thepower of doing the will of God. This doctrine of perfection brought the Quakers into disputes withpersons of other religions denominations, at the time of theirestablishment. But, however it might be disapproved of, it was not newin these times; nor was it originally introduced by them. Some of thefathers of the church, and many estimable divines of differentcountries, had adopted it. And here it may be noticed, that the doctrinehad been received also by several of the religious in our own. In the golden remains of the ever memorable John Hales, we find, that"through the grace of Him that doth enable as, we are stronger thanSatan, and the policy of Christian warfare hath as many means to keepback and defend, as the deepest reach of Satan hath to give the onset. " "St. Augustine, says this amiable writer, was of opinion, that it waspossible for us even in this natural life, seconded by the grace of God, perfectly to accomplish what the law requires at our hands. " In theGolden Remains, many sentiments are to be found of the same tenour. Bacon, who collected and published Dr. Robert Gell's remains, says inhis preface, that Dr. Gell preached before King Charles the first onEphesians 4. 10. At New-Market, in the year 1631, a bold discourse, yetbecoming him, testifying before the King that doctrine he taught to hislife's end, "the possibility, through grace, of keeping the law of Godin this life. " Whoever reads these venerable Remains, will find thisdoctrine inculcated in them. Monro, who lived some time after Dr. Gell, continued the same doctrine:So great, says he, in his just measures, is the goodness and benignityof God, and so perfect is the justice of his nature, that he will not, cannot command impossibilities. Whatever he requires of mankind by wayof duty, he enables them to perform it--His grace goes before andassists their endeavours; so that when they do not comply with hisinjunctions, it is because they will not employ the power that he hasgiven them, and which he is ready to increase and heighten, upon theirdutiful improvement of what they have already received, and theirserious application to him for more. Again--"Though of ourselves, and without Christ, we can do nothing; yetwith him we can do all things: and then, he adds a little lower, whyshould any duties frighten us, or seem impossible to us?" Having now stated it to be the belief of the Quakers, that the spirit ofGod acts as an inward redeemer to man, and that its powers are such thatit may lead him to perfection in the way explained, it remains for me toobserve, that it is their belief also, that this spirit has been givenfor these purposes, without any exception, to all of the human race: orin the same manner as it was given as an universal teacher, so it hasbeen given as an universal redeemer to man, and that it acts in thiscapacity, and fulfils its office to all those who attend to its inwardstrivings, and encourage its influence on their hearts. That it was given to all for this purpose, they believe to be manifestfrom the Apostle Paul:[56] "for the grace of God, says he, which bringethsalvation, hath appeared unto all men. " He says again, [57] that "theGospel was preached unto every creature which is under Heaven. " Hedefines the Gospel to be[58] "the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth. " He means therefore that this power of inwardredemption was afforded to all. For the outward Gospel had not beenpreached to all in the time of the apostle; nor has it been preached toall even at the present day. But these passages are of universal import. They imply no exception. They comprehend every individual of the humanrace. [Footnote 56: Titus 2. 11. ] [Footnote 57: Coloss. 1. 23. ] [Footnote 58: Rom. 1. 16. ] That this spirit was also given to all for these purposes, the Quakersbelieve, when they consider other passages in the scriptures, whichappear to them to belong to this subject. For they consider this spiritto have begun its office as an inward redeemer[59] with the fall of thefirst man, and to have continued it through the patriarchal ages to thetime of the outward Gospel, when there was to be no other inwardredemption but by the same means. Thus by the promise which was given toAdam, there was to be perpetual enmity between the seed of the serpentand the seed of the woman, though the latter was to vanquish, or as, theQuakers interpret it, between the spirit of sin and the spirit of God, that was placed in man. This promise was fully accomplished by Jesus, (who came from the woman) after he had received immeasurably the spiritof God, or after he had become the Christ. But the Quakers consider itto have bean partially accomplished by many from the time of Adam; forthey believe that many, who have attended to the seed of God, or, whichis the same thing, [60] to the portion of the spirit of God within them, have witnessed the enmity alluded to, and have bruised, in a greatdegree, the power of sin within their own hearts, or have experienced inthese early times the redeeming power of the spirit of God. And exceptthis be the case, the Quakers conceive some of the passages, which theysuppose to relate to this subject, not to be so satisfactorilyexplicable as they might be rendered. For it is said of Abraham, that hesaw Christ's day. But as Abraham died long before the visible appearanceof Christ in the flesh, he could neither have seen Christ outwardly, norhis day. It is still affirmed that he saw Christ's day. And the Quakerssay they believe he saw him inwardly, for he witnessed in his ownspirit, which is the same thing, the redeeming power of the spirit ofGod. For as the world was made by the spirit, or by the word, which isfrequently interpreted to be Christ, so these terms are synonimous, andoften used the one for the other. The Quakers therefore believe Abrahamto have experienced in a very high degree the power[61] of this inwardredemption. They believe also that Job experienced it in anextraordinary manner. For he asserted that he knew "that his redeemerlived. " But Job could never have said this, except be had alluded to thepowerful influence within him, which had purified his heart from thepollutions of sin. For being as early as the time of Moses, he couldnever have seen any of the sacred writings which mentioned Jesus Christas a redeemer, or the person of Jesus Christ. [Footnote 59: In the same manner Jesus Christ having tasted death forevery man, the sacrifice, or outward redemption, looks backwards andforwards, as well to Adam as to those who lived after the Gospel times. ] [Footnote 60: 1 John. 3. 9. Whosoever is born of God does not commitsin, for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he isborn of God. ] [Footnote 61: The Quakers do not deny, that Abraham might have seenChrist prophetically, but they believe he saw him particularly in theway described. ] The Quakers also consider David, from the numerous expressions to befound in the Psalms, as having experienced this inward redemption also, and in the same manner as they conceive this spirit to have striven withAbraham, and Job, and David, so they conceive it to have striven withothers of the same nation for their inward redemption to the time ofJesus Christ. They believe again, that it has striven with all theHeathen nations, from the foundation of the world to the same period. And they believe also, that it has continued its office of a redeemer toall people, whether Jews, Heathens, or Christians, from the time ofJesus Christ to the present day. SECT. IV. _Proposition of the new birth and perfection, as hitherto explained inthe ordinary way--New view of the subject from a more particular detailof the views and expressions of the Quakers concerning it--A newspiritual birth as real from the spiritual seed of the kingdom, as thatof plants or vegetables from their seeds in the natural world--And thenew birth proceeds really in the same progressive manner, to maturity orperfection--Result of this new view the same as that in the formersection. _ I stated in the last section that the spirit of God is considered bythe Quakers as an inward redeemer to men, and that, in this office, ithas the power of producing a new birth in them, and of leading them toperfection in the way described. This proposition, however, I explainedonly in the ordinary way. But as the Quakers have a particular way ofviewing and expressing it, and as they deem it one of the mostimportant of their religious propositions, I trust I shall, be excusedby the reader, if I allot one other section to this subject. Jesus Christ states, as was said before, in the most clear and positiveterms, that [62] "except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdomof heaven. " [Footnote 62: John 3. 3. ] Now the great work of religion is salvation or redemption. Without thisno man can see God; and therefore the meaning of the words of JesusChrist will be this, that, except a man be born again, he cannotexperience that inward redemption which shall enable him to see thekingdom of heaven. Redemption then is necessary to qualify for a participation of theheavenly joys, and it is stated to take place by means of the new birth. The particular ideas then, which the Quakers have relative to the newbirth and perfection, are the following. In the same manner as theDivine Being has scattered the seeds of plants and vegetables in thebody of the earth, so he has implanted a portion of his ownincorruptible seed, or of that which, in scripture language, is calledthe "Seed of the Kingdom, " in the soul of every individual of the humanrace. As the sun by its genial influence quickens the vegetable seed, soit is the office of the Holy Spirit, in whom is life, and who resides inthe temple of man, to quicken that which is heavenly. And in the samemanner as the vegetable seed conceives and brings forth a plant, or atree with stem and branches; so if the soul, in which the seed of thekingdom is placed, be willing to receive the influence of the HolySpirit upon it, this seed is quickened and a spiritual offspring isproduced. Now this offspring is as real a birth from the seed in thesoul by means of the spirit, as the plant from its own seed by means ofthe influence of the sun. "The seed of the kingdom, says IsaacPennington, consists not in words or notions of mind, but is an inwardthing, an inward spiritual substance in the heart, as real inwardly inits kind, as other seeds are outwardly in their kind. And being receivedby faith, and taking root in man, (his heart, his earth, being ploughedup and prepared for it, ) it groweth up inwardly, as truly and really, asany outward seed doth outwardly. " With respect to the offspring thus produced in the soul of man, it maybevariously named. As it comes from the incorruptible seed of God, it maybe called a birth of the divine nature or life. As it comes by theagency of the spirit, it may be called the life of the spirit. As it isnew, it may be called the new man or creature: or it may have theappellation of a child of God: or it is that spiritual life and light, or that spiritual, principle and power within us, which may be calledthe Anointed, or Christ within. "As this seed, says Barclay, is received in the heart and suffered tobring forth its natural and proper effect, Christ comes to be formed andraised, called in scripture the new man, Christ within us, the hope ofglory. Yet herein they (the Quakers) do not equal themselves with theholy man, the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom the fulness of the Godheaddwelt bodily, neither destroy his present existence. For though theyaffirm Christ dwells in them, yet not immediately, but mediately, as heis in that seed which is in them. " Of the same opinion was the learned Cudworth. "We all, says he, receiveof his fulness grace for grace, as all the stars in heaven are said tolight their candles at the sun's flame. For though his body be withdrawnfrom us, yet by the lively and virtual contact of his spirit, he isalways kindling, cheering, quickening, warming, and enlivening hearts. Nay, this divine life begun and kindled in any heart, wheresoever it be, is something of God in flesh, and in a sober and qualified sense, divinity incarnate; and all particular Christians, that are reallypossessed of it, are so many mystical Christs. " Again--"Never was any tender infant so dear to those bowels that begatit, as an infant newborn Christ, formed in the heart of any truebeliever, to God the Father of it. " This account relative to the new birth the Quakers conceive to bestrictly deducible from the Holy Scriptures. It is true, they conceive, as far as the new birth relates to God and to the seed, and to thespirit, from the following passages: [63] "Whosoever is born of God dothnot commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him. " [64] "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God. "[65] "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth. " It isconsidered to be true again, as far as the new birth relates to thecreature born and to the name which it may bear, from these differentexpressions: [66] "Of whom I travail in birth again, till Christ beformed in you. " [68] "Nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ livethin me. " [69] "But ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cryAbba, Father. " [70] "But as many as received him, that is, the spirit orword, to them gave he power to become the sons of God. " [71] "For as manyas are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of God. " And asparents and children resemble one another, so believers are made [72]"conformable to the image of his son, " "who is the image of the invisibleGod. " [Footnote 63: 1 John 3. 9. ] [Footnote 64: 1 Peter 1. 23. ] [Footnote 65: James 1. 18. ] [Footnote 66: Gal. 4. 19. ] [Footnote 67: Gal. 2. 20. ] [Footnote 68: Rom. 8. 15. ] [Footnote 69: John 1. 12. ] [Footnote 70: Rom. 3. 14. ] [Footnote 71: Rom. 8. 29. ] [Footnote 72: Coloss. 1. 15. ] Having explained in what the new birth consists, or having shown, according to Barclay, [73] "that the seed is a real spiritualsubstance, which the soul of man is capable of feeling and apprehending, from which that real spiritual inward birth arises, called the newcreature or the new man in the heart, " it remains to show how believers, or those in whose souls Christ is thus produced, may be said to grow upto perfection; for by this real birth or geniture in them they come tohave those spiritual senses raised, by which they are made capable oftasting, smelling, seeing, and handling, the things of God. [Footnote 73: P. 139. Ed. 8. ] It may be observed then, that in the new birth a progress isexperienced from infancy to youth, and from youth to manhood. As it isonly by submission to the operation of the spirit that this birth cantake place, so it is only by a like submission, that any progress orgrowth from one stature to another will be experienced in it; neithercan the regenerated become instrumental in the redemption of others, anyfarther or otherwise than as Christ or the anointing dwells and operatesin them, teaching them all truths necessary to be known, andstrengthening them to perform every act necessary to be done for thispurpose. He must be their only means and [74] "hope of glory. " It willthen be that the [75] "creature which waiteth in earnest expectation forthe manifestation of the sons of God, will be delivered from the bondageof corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. " For[76] "if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things arepassed away; behold, all things are become new, and all things of God. " [Footnote 74: Coloss. 1. 27. ] [Footnote 75: Rom. 8. 19, 21. ] [Footnote 76: Cor. 5. 17, 18. ] They who are the babes of the regeneration begin to see spiritualthings. The natural man, the mere creature, never saw God. But thebabes, who cry Abba, Father, begin to see and to know him. Though as yetunskilful in the word of righteousness, [77] "they desire the sinceremilk of the word, that they may grow thereby. " And [78] "their sins areforgiven them. " [Footnote 77: 1 Pet 2. 2. ] [Footnote 78: 1 John 2. 12. ] They, who are considered as the young men in this state, are said to be[79] "spiritually strong, and the word of God abiding in them, to haveovercome the wicked one. " [Footnote 79: 1 John 2. 14. ] They, who have attained a state of manhood, are called fathers, or aresaid to be of full age, and to be capable of taking strong meat. [80] "They come, in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Sonof God, unto perfect men, unto the measure of the stature of the fulnessof Christ. They arrive at such a state of stability, that they are nomore children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind ofdoctrine; but speaking the truth in love, grow up unto him in allthings, which is the head, even Christ. " [81] "The old man with his deedsbeing put off, they have put on the new man, which is renewed inknowledge after the image of him that created him. " [82] "They arewashed, they are sanctified, they are justified in the name of the LordJesus, and in the spirit of our God. " The new creation is thuscompleted, and the sabbath wherein man ceases from his own works, commences; so that every believer can then say with the apostle, [83] "Iam crucified with Christ. Nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christliveth in me. And the life, which I now live in the flesh, I live by thefaith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. " [Footnote 80: Eph. 4. 13. 14. 15. ] [Footnote 81: Col. 3. 9. 10. ] [Footnote 82: 1 Cor. 6. 11. ] [Footnote 83: Gal. 2. 20. ] But this state of manhood, [84] "by which the man of God may be madeperfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, does not take place, until Christ be fully formed in the souls of believers, or till they arebrought wholly under his rule and government. He must be substantiallyformed in them. He must actually be their life, and their hope of glory. He must be their head and governor. As the head, and the body, and themembers are one, according to the apostle, but the head directs; soChrist, and, believers in whom Christ is born and formed, are onespiritual body, which he himself must direct also. Thus Christ, where heis fully formed in man, or where believers are grown up to the measureof the stature and fulness of sonship, is the head of every man, and Godis the head of Christ. Thus Christ the begotten entirely governs thewhole man, as the head directs and governs all the members of the body;and God the Father, as the head of Christ, entirely guides and governsthe begotten. Hence, believers [85] 'are Christ's, and Christ is God's;'so that ultimately God is all in all. " [Footnote 84: 2 Tim. 9. 17. ] [Footnote 85: Cor. 9. 23. ] Having given this new view of the subject, I shall only observe fartherupon it, that the substance of this chapter turns out to be the same asthat of the preceding, or according to the notions of the Quakers, thatinward redemption cannot be effected but through the medium of thespirit of God. For Christ, according to the ideas now held out, must beformed in man, and he must rule them before they can experience fullinward redemption; or, in other words, they cannot experience thisinward redemption, except they can truly say that he governs them, orexcept they can truly call him Governor, or Lord. But no person can saythat Christ rules in him, except he undergoes the spiritual process ofregeneration which has been described, or to use the words of theApostle, [86] "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the HolySpirit. [87]" [Footnote 86: 1 Cor. 12. 6] [Footnote 87: The reader will easily discern from this new view of thenew birth, how men, according to the Quakers, become partakers of thedivine nature, and how the Quakers make it out, that Abraham and otherssaw Christ's day, as I mentioned in a former chapter. ] CHAP. VIII. SECT. I. _Quakers believe from the foregoing accounts, that redemption ispossible to all--Hence they deny the doctrine of election andreprobation--do not deny the texts on which it is founded, but theinterpretation of them--as contrary to the doctrines of Jesus Christ andthe Apostles--as making his mission unnecessary--as rendering manyprecepts useless--and as casting a stain on the character and attributesof God. _ It will appear from the foregoing observations, that it Is the belief ofthe Quakers, that every man has the power of inward redemption withinhimself, who attends to the strivings of the Holy Spirit, and that asoutward redemption by the sufferings of Jesus Christ extends to all, where the inward has taken place, so redemption or salvation, in itsfull extent, is possible to every individual of the human race. This position, however, is denied by those Christians, who havepronounced in favour of the doctrine of election and reprobation;because, if they believe some predestined from all eternity to eternalhappiness, and the rest to eternal misery, they must then believe thatsalvation is not possible to all, and that it was not intended to beuniversal. The Quakers have attempted to answer the objections, which have beenthus made to their theory of redemption; and as the reader will probablyexpect that I should notice what they have said upon this subject, Ihave reserved the answers they have given for the present place. The Quakers do not deny the genuineness of any of those texts, which areusually advanced against them. Of all people, they fly the least to thecover of interpolation or mutilation of scripture to shield themselvesfrom the strokes of their opponents. They believe, however, that thereare passages in the sacred writings, which will admit of aninterpretation different from that which has been assigned them by many, and upon this they principally rely in the present case. If there arepassages, to which two meanings may be annexed, and if for one there isequal authority as for the other, yet if one meaning should destroy allthe most glorious attributes of the supreme being, and the other shouldpreserve them as recognized in the other parts of the scripture, theythink they are bound to receive that which favours the justice, mercy, and wisdom of God, rather than that which makes him appear both unjustand cruel. The Quakers believe, that some Christians have misunderstood the textswhich they quote in favour of the doctrine of election and reprobation, for the following reasons:-- First, because if God had from all eternity predestinated some toeternal happiness, and the rest to eternal misery, the mission of JesusChrist upon earth became unnecessary, and his mediation ineffectual. If this again had been a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, it nevercould have been overlooked, (considering that it is of more importanceto men than any other) by the founder of that religion. But he neverdelivered any words in the course of his ministry, from whence anyreasonable conclusion could be drawn, that such a doctrine formed anypart of the creed which he intended to establish among men. His doctrinewas that of mercy, tenderness, and love; in which he inculcated thepower and efficacy of repentance, and declared there was more joy inHeaven over one sinner that repented, than over ninety-nine just personswho needed no repentance. By the parable of the sower, which the Quakers consider to relate whollyto the word or spirit of God, it appears that persons of all descriptionwere visited equally for their salvation; and that their salvationdepended much upon themselves; and that where obstacles arose, theyarose from themselves also, by allowing temptations, persecutions, andthe cares of the world, to overcome them. In short, the Quakers believe, that the doctrine of election and reprobation is contrary to the wholetenour of the doctrines promulgated by Jesus Christ. They conceive also, that this doctrine is contrary to the doctrinespromulgated by the Evangelists and Apostles, and particularly contraryto those of St. Paul himself, from whom it is principally taken. To makethis Apostle contradict himself, they dare not. And they must thereforeconclude, either that no person has rightly understood it, and that ithas been hitherto kept in mystery; or, if it be intelligible to thehuman understanding, it must be explained by comparing it with othertexts of the same Apostle, as well as with those of others, and alwaysin connexion with the general doctrines of Christianity, and thecharacter and attributes of God. Now the Apostle Paul, who is consideredto [88] intimate, that God predestined some to eternal salvation, andthe rest to eternal misery, says, [89]that "God made of one blood allnations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth;" that, in theGospel dispensation, [90] "there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcisionnor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. " [91]Hedesires also Timothy "to make prayers and supplications andintercessions for all men;" which the Quakers conceive he could not havedone, if he had not believed it to be possible, that all might be saved. "For this is acceptable, says he, in the sight of our Saviour, who willhave all men to be saved; for there is one God and one mediator betweenGod and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all. "Again, he says, [92] that "Jesus Christ tasted death for every man. " Andin another place he says, [93] "The grace of God, which bringethsalvation, has appeared unto all men. " But if this grace has appeared toall, none can have been without it. And if its object be salvation, thenall must have had sufficient of it to save them, if obedient to itssaving operations. [Footnote 88: Romans, Chap. 9. ] [Footnote 89: Acts 17. 26. ] [Footnote 90: Coloss. 3. 11. ] [Footnote 91: 1 Tim. 2. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. ] [Footnote 92: Hebrews 2. 9. ] [Footnote 93: Titus 2. 11. ] Again, if the doctrine of election and reprobation be true, then therecommendations of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and particularly ofPaul himself, can be of no avail, and ought never to have been given. Prayer is inculcated by these as an acceptable duty. But why should menpray, if they are condemned before-hand, and if their destiny isinevitable? If the doctrine again be true, then all the exhortations torepentance, which are to be found in the scriptures, must beunnecessary. For why should men repent, except for a little temporaryhappiness in this world, if they cannot be saved in a future? Thisdoctrine is considered by the Quakers as making the precepts of theApostles unnecessary; as setting aside the hopes and encouragements ofthe Gospel; and as standing in the way of repentance or holiness oflife. This doctrine again they consider as objectionable, in as much as itobliges men to sin, and charges them with the commission of it. It makesalso the fountain of all purity the fountain of all sin; and the authorof all good the dispenser of all evil. It gives to the Supreme Being amalevolence that is not to be found in the character of the mostmalevolent of his creatures. It makes him more cruel than the most crueloppressor ever recorded of the human race. It makes him to havedeliberately made millions of men, for no other purpose than to standby and delight in their misery and destruction. But is it possible, theQuakers say, for this to be true of him, who is thus described by St. John--"God is Love?" SECT. II. _Quakers' interpretation of the texts which relate to thisdoctrine--These texts of public and private import--Election, as ofpublic import, relates to offices of usefulness, and not tosalvation--as of private, it relates to the Jews--These had beenelected, but were passed over for the Gentiles--Nothing moreunreasonable in this than in the case of Ishmael and Esau--or thatPharaoh's crimes should receive Pharaoh's punishment--But though theGentiles were chosen, they could stand in favour no longer than whilethey were obedient and faithful_. The Quakers conceive that, in their interpretation of the passages whichare usually quoted in support of the doctrine of election andreprobation, and which I shall now give to the reader, they do noviolence to the attributes of the Almighty; but, on the other hand, confirm his wisdom, justice, and mercy, as displayed in the sacredwritings, in his religious government of the world. These passaged may be considered both as of public and of privateimport; of public, as they relate to the world at large; of private, asthey relate to the Jews, to whom they were addressed by the Apostle. The Quakers, in viewing the doctrine as of public import, use the words"called, " "predestinated, " and "chosen, " in the ordinary way in whichthey are used in the scriptures, or in the way in which Christiansgenerally understand them. They believe that the Almighty intended, from the beginning, to makeboth individuals and nations subservient to the end which he hadproposed to himself in the creation of the world. For this purpose hegave men different measures of his Holy Spirit; and in proportion asthey have used these gifts more extensively than others, they, have beenmore useful among mankind. Now all these may be truly said to have beeninstruments in the hands of Providence, for the good works which theyhave severally performed; but, if instruments in his hands, then theymay not improperly be stiled chosen vessels. In this sense the Quakersview the words "chosen, " or "called. " In the same sense they view alsothe word "preordained;" but with this difference, that the instrumentswere foreknown; and that God should have known these instrumentsbefore-hand is not wonderful; for he who created the world, and who, touse an human expression, must see at one glance all that ever has been, and that is, and that is to come, must have known the means to beemployed, and the characters who were to move, in the execution of hisdifferent dispensations to the world. In this sense the Quakers conceive God may be said to have foreknown, called, chosen, and preordained Noah, and also Abraham, and also Moses, and Aaron, and his sons, and all the prophets, and all the evangelists, and apostles, and all the good men, who have been useful in spiritualservices in their own generation or day. In this sense also many may be said to have been chosen or called in thedays of the Apostle Paul; for they are described as having had variousgifts bestowed upon them by the spirit of God. [94] "To one was given theword of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge; to another the'discerning of spirits;' to another prophecy; and to others other kindsof gifts. But the self-same spirit worked all these, dividing to everyman severally as he chose. " That is, particular persons were 'called bythe spirit of God, in the days of the Apostle, to particular offices forthe perfecting of his church. [Footnote 94: 1 Cor. 12. 10. 11. ] In the same sense the Quakers consider all true ministers of the Gospelto be chosen. They believe that no imposition of hands or humanordination can qualify for this office. God, by means of his Holy Spiritalone, prepares such as are to be the vessels in his house. Thosetherefore, who, in obedience to this spirit, come forth from themultitude to perform spiritual offices, may be said to be called orchosen. In this sense, nations may be said to be chosen also. Such were theIsraelites, who by means of their peculiar laws and institutions, werekept apart from the other inhabitants of the world. Now the dispute is, if any persons should be said to have been chosen inthe scripture language, for what purpose they were so chosen. Thefavourers of the doctrine of election and reprobation, say for theirsalvation. But the Quakers say, this is no where manifest; for the termsalvation is not annexed to any of the passages from which the doctrineis drawn. Nor do they believe it can be made to appear from any of thescriptural writings, that one man is called or chosen, or predestined tosalvation, more than another. They believe, on the other hand, thatthese words relate wholly to the usefulness of individuals, and that ifGod has chosen any particular persons, he has chosen them that theymight be the ministers of good to others; that they might be spirituallights in the universe; or that they might become, in different timesand circumstances, instruments of increasing the happiness of theirfellow-creatures. Thus the Almighty may be said to have chosen Noah, toperpetuate the memory of the deluge; to promulgate the origin andhistory of mankind; and to become, as St. Peter calls him, "a preacherof righteousness" to those who were to be the ancestors of men. Thus hemay be said to have chosen Moses to give the law, and to lead out theIsraelites, and to preserve them as a distinct people, who should carrywith them notions of his existence, his providence, and his power. Thushe may be said to have chosen the prophets, that men, in after ages, seeing their prophecies accomplished, might believe that Christianitywas of divine origin. Thus also he may be said to have chosen Paul, ([95]and indeed Paul is described as a chosen vessel) to diffuse the Gospelamong the Gentile world. [Footnote 95: Acts 9. 15. ] That the words, called or chosen, relate to the usefulness ofindividuals in the world, and not to their salvation, the Quakersbelieve from examining the comparison or simile, which St. Paul hasintroduced of the potter and of his clay, upon this very occasion. [96] "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thoumade me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lumpto make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" Thissimile, they say, relates obviously to the uses of these vessels. Thepotter makes some for splendid or extraordinary uses and purposes, andothers for those which are mean and ordinary. So God has chosenindividuals to great and glorious uses, while others remain in the meanor common mass, undistinguished by any very active part in the promotionof the ends of the world. Nor have the latter any more reason tocomplain that God has given to others greater spiritual gifts, than thathe has given to one man a better intellectual capacity than to another. [Footnote 96: Rom. 9. 20. 21. ] They argue again, that the words "called or chosen, " relate tousefulness, and not to salvation; because, if men were predestined fromall eternity to salvation, they could not do any thing to deprivethemselves of that salvation; that is, they could never do any wrong inthis life, or fall from a state of purity: whereas it appears that manyof those whom the scriptures consider to have been chosen, have failedin their duty to God; that these have had no better ground to standupon than their neighbours; that election has not secured them from thedispleasure of the Almighty, but that they have been made to stand orfall, notwithstanding their election, as they acted well or ill, Godhaving conducted himself no otherwise to them, than he has done toothers in his moral government of the world. That persons so chosen have failed in their duty to God, or that theirelection has not preserved them from sin, is apparent, it is presumed, from the scriptures. For, in the first place, the Israelites were achosen people. They were the people to whom the apostle addressedhimself, in the chapter which has given rise to the doctrine of electionand reprobation, as the elected, or as having had the preference overthe descendants of Esau and others. And yet this election did not secureto them a state of perpetual obedience, or the continual favour of God. In the wilderness they were frequently rebellious, and they were oftenpunished. In the time of Malachi, to which the Apostle directs theirattention, they were grown so wicked, [97]that "God is said to have nopleasure in them, and that he would not receive an offering at theirhands. " And in subsequent times, or in the time of the Apostle, he tellsthem, that they were then passed over, notwithstanding their election, [98]on account of their want of righteousness and faith, and that theGentiles were chosen in their place. In the second place, Jesus Christ is said in the New Testament to havecalled or chosen his disciples. But this call or election did not securethe good behaviour of Judas, or protect him from the displeasure of hismaster. [Footnote 97: Malachi 1. 10. ] [Footnote 98: Rom, 9. 31. 32. ] In the third place, it may be observed, that the Apostle Paul considersthe churches under his care as called or chosen; as consisting of peoplewho came out of the great body of the Heathen world to become a selectcommunity under the Christian name. He endeavours to inculcate in them abelief, that they were the Lord's people; that they were under hisimmediate or particular care; that God knew and loved them, before theyknew and loved him; and yet this election, it appears, did not securethem from falling off; for many of them became apostates in the time ofthe Apostle, so "that he was grieved, fearing he had bestowed upon themhis labour in vain. " Neither did this election secure even to those whothen remained in the church, any certainty of salvation; otherwise theApostle would not have exhorted them so earnestly "to continue ingoodness, lest they should be cut off. " The Quakers believe again, that the Apostle Paul never includedsalvation in the words "called or chosen, " for another reason. For ifthese words had implied salvation, then non-election might have impliedthe destruction annexed to it by the favourers of the doctrine ofreprobation. But no person, who knows whom the Apostle meant, when hementions those who had received and those who had lost the preference, entertains any such notion or idea. For who believes that because Isaacis said to have had the preference of Ishmael, and Jacob of Esau, thattherefore Ishmael and Esau, who were quite as great princes in theirtimes as Isaac and Jacob, were to be doomed to eternal misery? Whobelieves that this preference, and the Apostle alludes to no other, everrelated to the salvation of souls? Or rather, that it did not whollyrelate to the circumstance, that the descendants of Isaac and Jacob wereto preserve the church of God in the midst of the Heathen nations, andthat the Messiah was to come from their own line, instead of that oftheir elder brethren. Rejection or reprobation too, in the sense inwhich it is generally used by the advocates for the doctrine, iscontrary, in a second point of view, in the opinion of the Quakers, tothe sense of the comparison or simile made by the Apostle on thisoccasion. For when a Potter makes two sorts of vessels, or such as aremean and such as are fine and splendid, he makes them for theirrespective uses. But he never makes the meaner sort for the purpose ofdashing them to pieces. The doctrine therefore in dispute, if viewed as a doctrine of generalimport, only means, in the opinion of the Quakers, that the Almighty hasa right to dispose of his spiritual favours as he pleases, and that hehas given accordingly different measures of his spirit to differentpeople: but that, in doing this, he does not exclude others from anopportunity of salvation or a right to life. On the other hand, theybelieve that he is no respecter of persons, only as far as obedience isconcerned: that election neither secures of itself good behaviour, norprotects from punishment: that every man who standeth, must take heedlest he fall: that no man can boast of his election, so as to look downwith contempt upon his meaner brethren: and that there is no otherfoundation for an expectation of the continuance of divine favour than areligions life. In viewing the passages in question as of private import, which is thenext view the Quakers take of them, the same lesson, and no other, isinculcated. The Apostle, in the ninth chapter of the Romans, addresseshimself to the Jews, who had been a chosen people, and rescues thecharacter of God from the imputation of injustice, in having passed overthem, and in having admitted the Gentiles to a participation of hisfavours. The Jews had depended so much upon their privileges as the children ofAbraham, and so much upon their ceremonial observances of the law, thatthey conceived themselves to have a right to continue to be the peculiarpeople of God. The Apostle, however, teaches them, in the ninth and theeleventh chapters of the Romans, a different lesson, and may be said toaddress them in the following manner:-- "I am truly sorry, my kinsmen in the flesh, that you, who have alwaysconsidered yourselves the elder and chosen branches of the family of theworld, should have been passed over; and that the Gentiles, whom youhave always looked upon as the younger, should be now preferred. But Godis just--He will not sanction unrighteousness in any. Nor will he allowany choice of his to continue persons in favour, longer than, after muchlong suffering, he finds them deserving his support. You are acquaintedwith your own history. The Almighty, as you know, undoubtedlydistinguished the posterity of Abraham, but he was not partial to themalike. Did he not reject Ishmael the scoffer, though he was the eldestson of Abraham, and countenance Isaac, who was the younger? Did he notpass over Esau the eldest son of Isaac, who had sold his birth-right, and prefer Jacob? Did he not set aside Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, thethree eldest sons of Jacob, who were guilty of incest, treachery, andmurder, and choose that the Messiah should come from Judah, who was butthe fourth? But if, in these instances, he did not respect eldership, why do you expect that he will not pass you over for the Gentiles, if yecontinue in unbelief?" "But so true it is, that he will not support any whom he may havechosen, longer than they continue to deserve it, that he will not evencontinue his countenance to the Gentiles, though he has now preferredthem, if by any misconduct they should become insensible of his favours. [99] For I may compare both you and them to an Olive-Tree. If some ofyou, who are the elder, or natural branches, should be broken off, andthe Gentiles, being a wild Olive-Tree, should be grafted in among you, and with you partake of the root and fatness of the Olive-Tree, it wouldnot become them to boast against you the branches: for if they boast, they do not bear the root, but the root them. Perhaps, however, theymight say, that you, the branches, were broken off, that they might begrafted in. Well, but it was wholly on account of unbelief that you werebroken off, and it was wholly by faith that they themselves were takenin. But it becomes them not to be high-minded, but to fear. For if Godspared not you, the natural branches, let them take heed, lest he alsospare not them. " [Footnote 99: Rom. 11. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. ] "Moreover, my kinsmen in the flesh, I must tell you, that you have notonly no right to complain, because the Gentiles have been preferred, butthat you would have no right to complain, even if you were to become theobjects of God's vengeance. You cannot forget, in the history of yourown nation, the example of Pharaoh: you are acquainted with hisobstinacy and disobedience. You know that he stifled his convictionsfrom day to day. You know that, by stifling these, or by resisting God'sHoly Spirit, he became daily more hardened; and that by allowing himselfto become daily more hardened, he fitted himself for a vessel ofwrath, or prepared the way for his own destruction. You know at lengththat God's judgments, but not till after much long suffering, came uponhim, so that the power of God became thus manifested to many. But if youknow all these things, and continue in unrighteousness and unbelief, which were the crimes of Pharaoh also, why do you imagine that yourhearts will not become hardened like the heart of Pharaoh; or that ifyou are guilty of Pharaoh's crimes, you are not deserving of Pharaoh'spunishment?" CHAP. IX. _Recapitulation of all the doctrines hitherto laid down with respect tothe influence of the Spirit--Objection to this, that the Quakers makeevery thing of this spirit, and but little of Jesus Christ--Objectiononly noticed to show, that Christians have not always a rightapprehension of Scriptural terms, and therefore often quarrel with oneanother about trifles--Or that there is, in this particular case, nodifference between the doctrine of the Quakers and that of the objectorson this subject. _ I shall now recapitulate in few words, or in one general proposition, all the doctrines which have been advanced relative to the power of thespirit, and shall just notice an argument, which will probably arise onsuch a recapitulation, before I proceed to a new subject. The Quakers then believe that the spirit of God formed or created theworld. They believe that it was given to men, after the formation of it, as a guide to them in their spiritual concerns. They believe that it wascontinued to them after the deluge, in the same manner, and for the samepurposes, to the time of Christ. It was given, however, in thisinterval, to different persons in different degrees. Thus the prophetsreceived a greater portion of it than ordinary persons in their owntimes. Thus Moses was more illuminated by it than his contemporaries, for it became through him the author of the law. In the time of Christit continued the same office, but it was then given more diffusivelythan before, and also more diffusively to some than to others. Thus theEvangelists and Apostles received it in an extraordinary degree, and itbecame, through them and Jesus Christ their head, the author of theGospel. But, besides its office of a spiritual light and guide to men intheir spiritual concerns, during all the period now assigned, it becameto them, as they attended to its influence, an inward redeemer, producing in them a new birth, and leading them to perfection. And as itwas thus both a guide and an inward redeemer, so it has continued theseoffices to the present day. From hence it will be apparent that the acknowledgment of God's HolySpirit, in its various operations, as given in different portions beforeand after the sacrifice of Christ, is the acknowledgment of a principle, which is the great corner stone of the religion of the Quakers. Withoutthis there can be no knowledge, in their opinion, of spiritual things. Without this there can be no spiritual interpretation of the scripturesthemselves. Without this there can be no redemption by inward, thoughthere may be redemption by outward means. Without this there can be noenjoyment of the knowledge of divine things. Take therefore this principle away from them, and you take away theirreligion at once. Take away this spirit, and Christianity remains withthem no more Christianity, than the dead carcass of a man, when thespirit is departed, remains a man. Whatsoever is excellent, whatsoeveris noble, whatsoever is worthy, whatsoever is desirable in the Christianfaith, they ascribe to this spirit, and they believe that trueChristianity can no more subsist without it, than the outward worldcould go on without the vital influence of the sun. Now an objection will be made to the proposition, as I have just statedit, by some Christians, and even by those who do not wish to derogatefrom the spirit of God, (for I have frequently heard it started by such)that the Quakers, by means of these doctrines, make every thing of thespirit, and [100]but little of Jesus Christ. I shall therefore noticethis objection in this place, not so much with a view of answering it, as of attempting to show, that Christiana have not always a rightapprehension of scriptural terms; and therefore that they sometimesquarrel with one another about trifles, or rather, that when they havedisputes with each other, there is sometimes scarcely a shade ofdifference between them. [Footnote 100: The Quakers make much of the advantages of Christ'scoming in the flesh. Among these are considered the sacrifice of his ownbody, a more plentiful diffusion of the Spirit, and a dearer revelationrelative to God and man. ] To those who make the objection, I shall describe the proposition whichhas been stated above, in different terms. I shall leave out the words"Spirit of God, " and I shall wholly substitute the term "Christ. " This Ishall do upon the authority of some of our best divines. .. . Theproposition then will run thus: God, by means of Christ, created the world, "for without him was not anything made, that was made. " He made, by means of the same Christ, the terrestrial Globe on which welive. He made the whole Host of Heaven. He made, therefore, besides ourown, other planets and other worlds. He caused also, by means of the same Christ, the generation of allanimated nature, and of course of the life and vital powers of man. He occasioned also by the same means, the generation of reason orintellect, and of a spiritual faculty, to man. Man, however, had not been long created, before he fell into sin. Itpleased God, therefore, that the same Christ, which had thus appeared increation, should strive inwardly with man, and awaken his spiritualfaculties, by which he might be able to know good from evil, and toobtain inward redemption from the pollutions of sin. And this inwardstriving of Christ was to be with every man, in after times, so that allwould be inexcusable and subjected to condemnation, if they sinned. It pleased God also, in process of time, as the attention of man was ledastray by bad customs, by pleasures, by the cares of the world, andother causes, that the same Christ, in addition to this his inwardstriving with him, should afford him outward help, accommodated to hisoutward senses, by which his thoughts might be oftener turned towardsGod, and his soul be the better preserved in the way of salvation. Christ accordingly, through Moses and the Prophets, became the author ofa dispensation to the Jews, that is, of their laws, types, and customs, of their prophecies, and of their scriptures. But as in the education of man things must be gradually unfolded, so itpleased God, in the scheme of his redemption, that the same Christ, infulness of time, should take flesh, and become personally upon earth theauthor of another outward, but of a more pure and glorious dispensation, than the former, which was to be more extensive also; and which was notto be confined to the Jews, but to extend in time to the uttermostcorners of the earth. Christ therefore became the Author of the inspireddelivery of the outward scriptures of the New Testament. By these, as byoutward and secondary means, he acted upon men's senses. He informedthem of their corrupt nature, of their awful and perilous situation, ofanother life, of a day of judgment, of rewards and punishments. Thesescriptures therefore, of which Christ was the Author, were outwardinstruments at the time, and continue so to posterity, to second hisinward aid. That is, they produce thought, give birth to anxiety, excitefear, promote seriousness, turn the eye towards God, and thus preparethe heart for a sense of those inward strivings of Christ, which produceinward redemption from the power and guilt of sin. Where, however, this outward aid of the Holy Scriptures has not reached, Christ continues to purify and redeem by his inward power. But as men, who are acted upon solely by his inward strivings, have not the sameadvantages as those who are also acted upon by his outward word, so lessis expected in the one than in the other case. Less is expected from theGentile than from the Jew: less from the Barbarian than from theChristian. And this latter doctrine of the universality of the striving of Christwith man, in a spiritually instructive and redemptive capacity, as it ismerciful and just, so it is worthy of the wise and beneficent Creator. Christ, in short, has been filling, from the foundation of the world, the office of an inward redeemer, and this, without any exception, toall of the human race. And there is even [101] "now no salvation in anyother. For there is no other name under Heaven given among men, wherebywe must be saved. " [Footnote 101: Acts 4. 12. ] From this new statement of the proposition, which statement isconsistent with the language of divines, it will appear, that, if theQuakers have made every thing of the spirit, and but little of Christ, Ihave made, to suit the objectors, every thing of Christ, and but littleof the spirit. Now I would ask, where lies the difference between thetwo statements? Which is the more accurate; or whether, when I say thesethings were done by the spirit, and when I say they were done by Christ, I do not state precisely the same proposition, or express the samething? That Christ, in all the offices stated by the proposition, is neithermore nor less than the spirit of God, there can surely be no doubt. Inlooking at Christ, we are generally apt to view him with carnal eyes. Wecan seldom divest ourselves of the idea of a body belonging to him, though this was confessedly human, and can seldom consider him as a pureprinciple or fountain of divine life and light to men. And yet it isobvious, that we must view him in this light in the present case; for ifhe was at the creation of the world, or with Moses at the delivery ofthe law, (which the proposition supposes) he could not have been therein his carnal body; because this was not produced till centuriesafterwards by the virgin Mary. In this abstracted light, the Apostlesfrequently view Christ themselves. Thus St. Paul:[102] "I live, yet notI, but Christ liveth in me. " And again, [103] "Know ye not your ownselves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" [Footnote 102: Gal. 2. 20. ] [Footnote 103: 2 Cor. 15. 5]. Now no person imagines that St. Paul had any idea, either that the bodyof Christ was in himself, or in others, on the occasions on which he hasthus spoken. That Christ therefore, as he held the offices contained in theproposition, was the spirit of God, we may pronounce from various views, which we may take of him, all of which seem to lead us to the sameconclusion. And first let us look at Christ in the scriptural light in which he hasbeen held forth to us in the fourth section of the seventh chapter, where I have explained the particular notions of the Quakers relative tothe new birth. God maybe considered here as having produced, by means of his HolySpirit, a birth of divine life in the soul of the "body which had beenprepared;" and this birth was Christ. [104] "But that which is born ofthe spirit, says St. John, is spirit. " The only question then will be asto the magnitude of the spirit thus produced. In answer to this St. Johnsays, [105] "that God gave him not the spirit by measure. " And St. Paulsays the same thing: [106] "For in him all the fulness of the godheaddwelt bodily. " Now we can have no idea of a spirit without measure, orcontaining the fullness of the godhead, but the spirit of God. [Footnote 104: John 3. 6. ] [Footnote 105: John 3. 34. ] [Footnote 106: Coloss. 2. 9] Let us now look at Christ in another point of view, or as St. Paul seemsto have viewed him. He defines Christ [107] "to be the wisdom of God, and the power of God. " But what are the wisdom of God, and the power ofGod, but the great characteristics and the great constituent parts ofhis spirit? [Footnote 107: 1 Cor. 1. 24. ] But if these views of Christ should not be deemed satisfactory, we willcontemplate him as St. John the Evangelist has held him forth to ournotice. Moses says, that the spirit of God created the world. But St. John says that the word created it. The spirit therefore and the wordmust be the same. But this word he tells us afterwards, and thispositively, was Jesus Christ. It appears therefore from these observations, that it makes no materialdifference, whether we use the words "Spirit of God" or "Christ, " in theproposition that has been before us, or that there will be no differencein the meaning of the proposition, either in the one or the other case;and also if the Quakers only allow, when the spirit took flesh, that thebody was given as a sacrifice for sin, or that part of the redemption ofman, as far as his sins are forgiven, is effected by this sacrifice, there will be little or no difference between the religion of theQuakers and that of the objectors, as far as it relates to Christ[108]. [Footnote 108: The Quakers have frequently said in their theologicalwritings, that every man has a portion of the Holy Spirit within him;and this assertion has not been censured. But they have also said, thatevery man has a portion of Christ or of the light of Christ, within him. Now this assertion has been considered as extravagant and wild. Thereader will therefore see, that if he admits the one, he cannot veryconsistently censure the other. ] CHAP. X. SECT. I. _Ministers--The Spirit of God alone can made a Minister of theGospel--Hence no imposition of hands nor human knowledge can beeffectual--This proposition not peculiarly adopted by George Fox, but byJustin the Martyr, Luther, Calvin, Wickliffe, Tyndal, Milton, andothers--Way in which this call, by the Spirit, qualifies for theministry--Women equally qualified with men--How a Quaker becomesacknowledged to be a Minister of the Gospel. _ Having now detailed fully the operations of the Spirit of God, as far asthe Quakers believe it to be concerned in the instruction and redemptionof man, I shall consider its operations, as far as they believe it tobe concerned in the services of the church. Upon this spirit they makeboth their worship and their ministry to depend. I shall thereforeconsider these subjects, before I proceed to any new order of tenets, which they may hold. It is a doctrine of the Quakers that none can spiritually exercise, andthat none ought to be allowed to exercise, the office of ministers, butsuch as the spirit of God has worked upon and called forth to dischargeit, as well as that the same Spirit will never fail to raise up personsin succession for this end. Conformably with this idea, no person, in the opinion of the Quakers, ought to be designed by his parents in early youth for the priesthood:for as the wind bloweth where it listeth, so no one can say which is thevessel that is to be made to honour. Conformably with the same idea, no imposition of hands, or ordination, can avail any thing, in their opinion, in the formation of a minister ofthe Gospel; for no human power can communicate to the internal man thespiritual gifts of God. Neither, in conformity with the same idea, can the acquisition of humanlearning, or the obtaining Academical degrees and honours, be essentialqualifications for this office; for though the human intellect is sogreat, that it can dive as it were into the ocean and discover the lawsof fluids, and rise again up to heaven, and measure the celestialmotions, yet it is incapable of itself of penetrating into divinethings, so as spiritually to know them; while, on the other hand, illiterate men appear often to have more knowledge on these subjectsthan the most learned. Indeed the Quakers have no notion of a humanqualification for a divine calling. They reject all school divinity, asnecessarily connected with the ministry. They believe that if aknowledge of Christianity had been attainable by the acquisition of theGreek and Roman languages, and through the medium of the Greek andRoman philosophers, then the Greeks and Romans themselves had been thebest proficients in it; whereas, the Gospel was only foolishness to manyof these. They say with St. Paul to the Colossians, [109] "Beware lest anyman spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition ofmen, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. " And theysay with the same Apostle to Timothy, [110] "O Timothy! keep that whichis committed to thy trust, avoid profane and vain babblings, andoppositions of science falsely so called, which some professing haveerred concerning the faith. " [Footnote 109: Coloss. 2. 8. ] [Footnote 110: 1 Tim. 6, 20, 21] This notion of the Quakers, that human learning and academical honoursare not necessary for the priesthood, is very ancient. Though George Foxintroduced it into his new society, and this without any previousreading upon the subject, yet it had existed long before his time. Inshort, it was connected with the tenet, early disseminated in thechurch, that no person could know spiritual things but through themedium of the spirit of God, from whence it is not difficult to pass tothe doctrine, that none could teach spiritually except they had beentaught spiritually themselves. Hence we find Justin the Martyr, aPlatonic philosopher, but who was afterwards one of the earliestChristian writers after the Apostles, and other learned men after himdown to Chrysostom, laying aside their learning and their philosophy forthe school of Christ. The first authors also of the reformation, contended for this doctrine. Luther and Calvin, both of them, supportedit. Wickliffe, the first reformer of the English church, and Tyndal theMartyr, the first translator of the Bible into the English language, supported it also. In 1652, Sydrach Simpson, Master of Pembroke-Hall inCambridge, preached a sermon before the University, contending that theUniversities corresponded with the schools of the prophets, and thathuman learning was an essential qualification for the priesthood. Thissermon, however, was answered by William Dell, Master of Caius Collegein the same University, in which he stated, after having argued thepoints in question, that the Universities did not correspond with theschools of the prophets, but with those of Heathen men; that Plato, Aristotle, and Pythagoras, were more honoured there, than Moses orChrist; that grammar, rhetoric, logic, ethics, physics, metaphysics, andthe mathematics, were not the instruments to be used in the promotion orthe defence of the Gospel; that Christian schools had originally broughtmen from Heathenism to Christianity, but that the University schoolswere likely to carry men from Christianity to Heathenism again. Thislanguage of William Dell was indeed the general language of the divinesand pious men in those times in which George Fox lived, thoughunquestionably the opposite doctrine had been started, and had beenreceived by many. Thus the great John Milton, who lived in these verytimes, may be cited as speaking in a similar manner on the same subject. "Next, says he, it is a fond error, though too much believed among us, to think that the University makes a minister of the gospel. What it mayconduce to other arts and sciences, I dispute not now. But that, whichmakes fit a Minister, the Scripture can best inform us to be only fromabove; whence also we are bid to seek them. [111]Thus St. Matthew says, 'Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forthlabourers into his harvest. ' Thus St. Luke: [112] 'The flock, over whichthe Holy Ghost hath made you overseers. ' Thus St. Paul: [113] 'How shallthey preach, unless they be sent?' But by whom sent? By the university, or by the magistrate? No, surely. But sent by God, and by him only. " [Footnote 111: Mat. 9. 38. ] [Footnote 112: Acts 20. 28. ] [Footnote 113: Rom. 10. 15. ] The Quakers then, rejecting school divinity, continue to think withJustin, Luther, Dell, Milton, and indeed with those of the church ofEngland and others, that those only can be proper ministers of thechurch, who have witnessed within themselves a call from the spirit ofGod. If men would teach religion, they must, in the opinion of theQuakers, be first taught of God. They must go first to the school ofChrist; must come under his discipline in their hearts; must mortify thedeeds of the body; must crucify the flesh with the affections and luststhereof; must put off the old man which is corrupt; must put on the newman, "which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness;"must be in fact, "Ministers of the sanctuary and true tabernacle, whichthe Lord hath pitched, and not man. " And whether those who come forwardas ministers are really acted upon by this Spirit, or by their ownimagination only, so that they mistake the one for the other, theQuakers consider it to be essentially necessary, that they shouldexperience such a call in their own feelings, and that purification ofheart, which they can only judge of by their outward lives, should beperceived by themselves, before they presume to enter upon such anoffice. The Quakers believe that men, qualified in this manner, are really fitfor the ministry, and are likely to be useful instruments in it. Forfirst, it becomes men to be changed themselves, before they can changeothers. Those again, who have been thus changed, have the advantage ofbeing able to state from living experience what God has done for them;[114] "what they have seen with their eyes; what they have looked upon;and what their hands have handled of the word of life. " Men also, who, by means of God's Holy Spirit, have escaped the pollutions of the world, are in a fit state to understand the mysteries of God, and to carry withthem the seal of their own commission. Thus men under sin can neverdiscern spiritual things. But "to the disciples of Christ, " and to thedoers of his will, "it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom ofHeaven. " Thus, when the Jews marvelled at Christ, saying [115] "Howknoweth this man letters, (or the scriptures) having never learned?Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his who sentme. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whetherit be of God, or whether I speak of myself. " Such ministers also areconsidered as better qualified to reach the inward state of the people, and to "preach liberty to the captives" of sin, than those who havemerely the advantage of school divinity, or of academical learning. Itis believed also of these, that they are capable of giving more solidand lasting instruction, when they deliver themselves at large: forthose, who preach rather from intellectual abilities and from thesuggestions of human learning, than from the spiritual life and powerwhich they find within themselves, may be said to forsake Christ, who isthe "living fountain, and to hew out broken cisterns which hold nowater, " either for themselves or for others. [Footnote 114: Coloss. 2. 6. ] [Footnote 115: 1 Tim. 6. 20. 21. ] This qualification for the ministry being allowed to be the true one, itwill follow, the Quakers believe, and it was Luther's belief also, thatwomen may be equally qualified to become ministers of the Gospel, as themen. For they believe that God has given his Holy Spirit, withoutexception, to all. They dare not therefore limit its operations in theoffice of the ministry, more than in any other of the sacred officeswhich it may hold. They dare not again say, that women cannot mortifythe deeds of the flesh, or that they cannot be regenerated, and walk innewness of life. If women therefore believe they have a call to theministry, and undergo the purification necessarily connected with it, and preach in consequence, and preach effectively, they dare not, underthese circumstances, refuse to accept their preaching, as the fruits ofthe spirit, merely because it comes through the medium of the femalesex. Against this doctrine of the Quakers, that a female ministry isallowable under the Gospel dispensation, an objection has been startedfrom the following words of the Apostle Paul: [116] "Let your women keepsilence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them tospeak"--"and if they will learn any thing, let them ask their Husbandsat home. " but the Quakers conceive, that this charge of the Apostle hasno allusion to preaching. In these early times, when the Gospeldoctrines were new, and people were eager to understand them, some ofthe women, in the warmth of their feelings, interrupted the service ofthe church, by asking such questions as occurred to them on the subjectof this new religion. These are they whom the Apostle desires to besilent, and to reserve their questions till they should return home. Andthat this was the case is evident, they conceive, from the meaning ofthe words, which the Apostle uses upon this occasion. For the word inthe Greek tongue, which is translated "speak, " does not mean to preachor to pray, but to speak as in common discourse. And the words, whichimmediately follow this, do not relate to any evangelical instruction, which these women were desirous of communicating publicly, but whichthey were desirous of receiving themselves from others. [Footnote 116: 1 Cor. 14. 34. 35. ] That the words quoted do not relate to praying or preaching is alsoequally obvious, in the opinion of the Quakers; for if they had relatedto these offices of the church, the word "prophesy" had been usedinstead of the word "speak. " Add to which that the Apostle, in the sameepistle in which the preaching of women is considered to be forbidden, gives them a rule to which he expects them to conform, when they shouldeither prophesy or pray: but to give women a rule to be observed duringtheir preaching, and to forbid them to preach at the some time, is anabsurdity too great to be fixed upon the most ordinary person, and muchmore upon an inspired Apostle. That the objection has no foundation, the Quakers believe again, fromthe consideration that the ministry of women, in the days of theApostles, is recognized in the New Testament, and is recognized also, insome instances, as an acceptable service. Of the hundred and twenty persons who were assembled on the day ofpentecost, it is said by St. Luke that [117] some were women. That thesereceived the Holy Spirit as well as the men, and that they received italso for the purpose of prophesying or preaching, is obvious from thesame Evangelist. For first, he says, that "all were filled with the HolyGhost. " And secondly, he says, that Peter stood up, and observedconcerning the circumstance of inspiration having been given to thewomen upon this occasion, that Joel's prophecy was then fulfilled, inwhich were to be found these words: "And it shall come to pass in thehist days, that your sons and your daughters shall prophesy--and on myservants and handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my spirit; andthey shall prophesy. " [Footnote 117: Acts, Chap. 1. ] That women preached afterwards, or in times subsequent to the day ofpentecost, they collect from the same Evangelist. [118]For he mentionsPhilip, who had four daughters, all of whom prophesied at Cæsarea. Nowby prophesying, if we accept [119]St. Paul's interpretation of it, ismeant a speaking to edification, and exhortation, and comfort, under theinfluence of the Holy Spirit. It was also a speaking to the church: itwas also the speaking of one person to the church, while the othersremained silent. [Footnote 118: Acts 21. 9. ] [Footnote 119: 1 Cor. 14. ] That women also preached or prophesied in the church of Corinth, theQuakers show from the testimony of St. Paul: for he states the manner inwhich they did it, or that [120]they prayed and prophesied with theirheads uncovered. [Footnote 120: 1 Cor. 11. 5. ] That women also were ministers of the Gospel in other places; and thatthey were highly serviceable to the church, St. Paul confesses withgreat satisfaction, in his Epistle to the Romans, in which he sends hissalutation to different persons, for whom he professed an affection oran esteem: [121]thus--"I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is aservant of the church, which is at Cenchrea. " Upon this passage theQuakers usually make two observations. The first is, that the [122]Greekword, which is translated servant, should have been rendered minister. It is translated minister, when applied by St. Paul to [123]Timothy, todenote his office. It is also translated minister, when applied to[124]St. Paul and Apollos. And there is no reason why a change shouldhave been made in its meaning in the present case. The second is, thatHistory has handed down Phoebe as a woman eminent for her Gospellabours. "She was celebrated, says [125]Theodoret, throughout the world;for not only the Greeks and the Romans, but the Barbarians, knew herlikewise. " [Footnote 121: Romans 16. 1. ] [Footnote 122: [Greek: Diokogos. ]] [Footnote 123: 1 Thess. 3. 2. ] [Footnote 124: 1 Cor. 3. 5. ] [Footnote 125: In Universa Terra celebris facta est; nec eam soliRomani, &c, ] St. Paul also greets Priscilla and Aquila. He greets them under thetitle of fellow-helpers or fellow-labourers in Jesus Christ. But this isthe same title which he bestows upon Timothy, to denote his usefulnessin the church. Add to which, that Priscilla and Aquila were the personsof whom St. Luke [126]says, "that they assisted Apollos in expounding tohim the way of God more perfectly. " [Footnote 126: Acts 18. 24. 26. ] In the same epistle he recognizes also other women, as having beenuseful to him in Gospel-labours. Thus--"Salute Tryphena, and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. " "Salute the beloved Persis, who laboured muchin the Lord. " From these, and from other observations, which might be made upon thissubject, the Quakers are of opinion that the ministry of the women wasas acceptable, in the time of the Apostles, as the ministry of the men. And as there is no prohibition against the preaching of women in the NewTestament, they see no reason why they should not be equally admissibleand equally useful as ministers at the present day. SECT. II. _Way in which Quakers are admitted into the ministry--When acknowledged, they preach, like other pastors, to their different congregations ormeetings--They visit occasionally the different families in their owncounties or quarterly meetings--Manner of these family-visits--Sometimestravel as ministers through particular counties or the kingdom atlarge--Sometimes into foreign parts--Women share in theselabours--Expense of voyages on such occasions defrayed out of thenational stock. _ The way in which Quakers, whether men or women, who conceive themselvesto be called to the office of the ministry, are admitted into it, so asto be acknowledged by the society to be ministers of the Quaker-church, is simply as follows. Any member has a right to rise up in the meetings for worship, and tospeak publicly. If any one therefore should rise up and preach, who hasnever done so before, he is heard. The congregation are all witnesses ofhis doctrine. The elders, however, who may be present, and to whoseprovince it more immediately belongs to judge of the fitness ofministers, observe the tenour of his discourse. They watch over it forits authority; that is, they judge by its spiritual influence on themind, whether it be such as corresponds with that which may be presumedto come from the spirit of God. If the new preacher delivers any thingthat appears exceptionable, and continues to do so, it is the duty ofthe elders to speak to him in private, and to desire him to discontinuehis services to the church. But if nothing exceptionable occurs, nothingis said to him, and he is allowed to deliver himself publicly at futuremeetings. In process of time, if, after repeated attempts in the officeof the ministry, the new preacher should have given satisfactory proofof his gifts, he is reported to the monthly meeting to which he belongs. And this meeting, if satisfied with his ministry, acknowledges him as aminister, and then recommends him to the meeting of ministers andelders belonging to the same. No other act than this is requisite. Hereceives no verbal or written appointment or power for the execution ofthe sacerdotal office. It may be observed also, that he neither gainsany authority, nor loses any privilege, by thus becoming a minister ofthe Gospel. Except, while in the immediate exercise of his calling, heis only a common member. He receives no elevation by the assumption ofany nominal title, to distinguish him from the rest. Nor is he elevatedby the prospect of any increase to his wordly goods in consequence ofhis new office; for no minister in this society receives any pecuniaryemolument for his spiritual labours. When ministers are thus approved and acknowledged, they exercise thesacred office in public assemblies, as they immediately feel themselvesinfluenced to that work. They may engage also, with the approbation oftheir own monthly meeting, in the work of visiting such Quaker familiesas reside in the county, or quarterly meeting to which they belong. Inthis case they are sometimes accompanied by one of the elders of thechurch. These visits have the name of family visits, and are conductedin the following manner:-- When a Quaker minister, after having commenced his journey, has enteredthe house of the first family, the individual members are collected toreceive him. They then sit in silence for a time. As he believes himselfconcerned to speak, he delivers that which arises in his mind withreligions freedom. The master, the wife, and the other branches of thefamily, are sometimes severally addressed. Does the minister feel thatthere is a departure in any of the persons present, from the principlesor practice of the society, he speaks, if he believes it required ofhim, to these points. Is there any well disposed person under any inwarddiscouragement; this person may be addressed in the language ofconsolation. All in fact are exhorted and advised as their severalcircumstances may seem to require. When the religious visit is over, theminister, if there be occasion, takes some little refreshment with thefamily, and converses with them; but no light or trifling subject isever entered upon on these occasions. From one family he passes on toanother, till he has visited all the families in the district, for whichhe had felt a concern. Though Quaker ministers frequently confine their spiritual labours tothe county or quarterly meeting in which they reside, yet some of themfeel an engagement to go beyond these boundaries, and to visit thesociety in particular counties, or in the kingdom at large. They whofeel a concern of this kind, must lay it before their own monthlymeetings. These meetings, if they feel it right to countenance it, grantthem certificates for the purpose. These certificates are necessary;first, because ministers might not he personally known as ministers outof their own district; and secondly, because Quakers, who were notministers, and other persons who might counterfeit the dress of Quakers, might otherwise impose upon the society, as they travelled along. Such persons, as thus travel in the work of the ministry, or publicfriends as they are called, seldom or never go to an inn at any town orvillage, where Quakers live. They go to the houses of the latter. Whileat these, they attend the weekly, monthly, and quarterly meetings of thedistrict, as they happen on their route. They call also extraordinarymeetings of worship. At these houses they are visited by many of themembers of the place and neighbourhood, who call upon and converse withthem. During these times they appear to have their minds bent on theobject of their mission, so that it would be difficult to divert theirattention from the work in hand. When they have staid a sufficient timeat a town or village, they depart. One or more guides are appointed bythe particular meeting, belonging to it, to show them the way to thenext place, where they propose to labour, and to convey them free ofexpense, and to conduct them to the house of some member there. Fromthis house, when their work is finished, they are conveyed and conductedby new guides to another, and so on, till they return to theirrespective homes. But the religious views of the Quaker ministers are not always confinedeven within the boundaries of the kingdom. Many of them believe it to betheir duty to travel into foreign parts. These, as their journey is nowextensive, must lay their concern not only before their own monthlymeeting, but before their own quarterly meeting, and before the meetingof Ministers and Elders in London also. On receiving their certificates, they depart. Some of them visit the continent of Europe, but most ofthem the churches in America, where they diligently labour in thevineyard, probably for a year or two, at a distance from their familiesand friends. And here it may be observed, that, while Quaker ministersfrom England are thus visiting America on a religious errand, ministersfrom America, impelled by the same influence, are engaging inApostolical missions to England. These foreign visits, on both sides, are not undertaken by such ministers only as are men. Women engage inthem also. They cross the Atlantic, and labour in the vineyard in thesame manner. It may be mentioned here, that though it be a principle inthe Quaker society, that no minister of the Gospel ought to be paid forhis religious labours, yet the expense of the voyage, on such occasions, is allowed to be defrayed out of the fund, which is denominated by theQuakers their national stock. CHAP. XI. _Elders--Their appointment--One part of their office to watch over thedoctrines and conduct of ministers--Another part of their office to meetthe ministers of the church, and to confer and exhort for religiousgood--None to meddle at these conferences with the government of thechurch. _ I mentioned in the preceding chapter, as the reader must have observed, that certain persons, called Elders, watched over those who came forwardin the ministry, with a view of ascertaining if they had received aproper qualification or call. I shall now state who the elders are, aswell as more particularly the nature of their office. To every particular meeting four elders, two men and two women, butsometimes more and sometimes less, according as persons can be foundqualified, are appointed. These are nominated by a committee appointedby the monthly meeting, in conjunction with a committee appointed by thequarterly meeting. And as the office annexed to the name of elder isconsidered peculiarly important by the Quakers, particular care istaken, that persons of clear discernment, and such as excel in thespiritual ear, and such as are blameless in their lives, are appointedto it. It is recommended that neither wealth nor age be allowed tooperate as inducements in the choice of them. Indeed, so much care isrequired to be taken with respect to the filling up this office, that ifpersons perfectly suitable are not to be found, the meetings are to beleft without them. It is one part of the duty of the elders, when appointed, to watch overthe doctrine of young ministers, and also to watch over the doctrine andconduct of ministers generally, and tenderly to advise with such asappear to them to be deficient in any of the qualifications which belongto their high calling. When we consider that every religious society attaches a more thancommon respectability to the person who performs the sacerdotal office, there will be no difficulty in supposing, whenever a minister may bethought to err, that many of those who are aware of his error, will wantthe courage to point it out to him, and that others will excusethemselves from doing it, by saying that interference on this occasiondoes not belong more immediately to them than to others. Thisinstitution therefore of elders fixes the offices on individuals. Itmakes it their duty to watch and advise--It makes them responsible forthe unsound doctrine, or the bad conduct of their ministers. And thisresponsibility is considered as likely to give persons that courage inwatching over the ministry, which they might otherwise want. Hence, if aminister in the Quaker church were to preach unsoundly, or to actinconsistently with his calling, he would be generally sure of beingprivately spoken to by one or another elder. This office of elders, as far as it is concerned in advising ministersof the Gospel, had its foundation laid by George Fox. Many persons, whoengaged in the ministry in his time, are described by him as "having runinto imaginations, " or as "having gone beyond their measure;" and inthese cases, whenever they should happen, he recommended that one ortwo friends, if they saw fit, should advise with them in love andwisdom. In process of time, however, this evil seems to have increased;for as the society spread, numbers pressed forward to become Gospelministers; many supposed they had a call from the spirit, and rose up, and preached, and in the heat of their imaginations, deliveredthemselves unprofitably. Two or three persons also, in the frenzy oftheir enthusiasm, frequently rose up, and spoke at the same time. Nowthis was easily to be done in a religious society, where all wereallowed to speak, and where the qualifications of ministers were to bejudged of in part by the truths delivered, or rather, where ordinationwas no mark of the ministry, or where an human appointment of it wasunknown. For these reasons, that mode of superintendence which had onlybeen suggested by George Fox, and left to the discretion of individuals, was perfected into an establishment, out of imperious necessity, inafter times. Men were appointed to determine between the effects ofdivine inspiration and human imagination; to judge between the cool andthe sound; and the enthusiastic and the defective; and to put a bridleas it were upon those who were not likely to become profitable labourersin the harvest of the Gospel. And as this office was rendered necessaryon account of the principle that no ordination or human appointmentcould make a minister of the Gospel; so the same principle continuingamong the Quakers, the office has been continued to the present day. It devolves upon the elders again, as a second branch of their duty, tomeet the ministers of the church at stated seasons, generally once inthree months, and to spend some time with them in religious retirement. It is supposed that opportunities may be afforded here, of encouragingand strengthening young ministers, of confirming the old, and of givingreligious advice and assistance in various ways: and it must be supposedat any rate, that religious men cannot meet in religious conference, without some edification to each other. At these meetings, queries areproposed relative to the conduct both of ministers and elders, whichthey answer in writing to the quarterly meetings of ministers and eldersto which they belong. Of the ministers and elders thus assembled, it maybe observed, that it is their duty to confine themselves wholly to theexhortation of one another for good. They can make no laws, like theancient synods and other convocations of the clergy, nor dictate anyarticle of faith. Neither can they meddle with the government of thechurch. The Quakers allow neither ministers nor elders, by virtue oftheir office, to interfere with their discipline. Every proposition ofthis sort must be determined upon by the yearly meeting, or by the bodyat large. CHAP. XII. SECT. I. _Worship--Consists of prayer and preaching--Neither of these effectualbut by the Spirit--Hence no liturgy or form of words, or studiedsermons, in the Quaker-church--Singular manner of deliveringsermons--Tone of the voice usually censured--This may arise from thedifference between nature and art--Objected, that there is littlevariety of subject in these sermons--Variety not so necessary toQuakers--Other objections--Replies--Observations of Francis Lambert, ofAvignon. _ As no person, in the opinion of the Quakers, can be a true minister ofthe gospel, unless he feel himself called or appointed by the spirit ofGod, so there can be no true or effectual worship, except it comethrough the aid of the same spirit. The public worship of God is usually made to consist of prayer andpreaching. Prayer is a solemn address of the soul to God. It is a solemn confessionof some weakness, or thanksgiving for some benefit, or petition for somefavour. But the Quakers consider such an address as deprived of its lifeand power, except it be spiritually conceived. [127] "For the spirithelpeth our infirmities. For we know not what we should pray for as weought. But the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groaningswhich cannot be uttered. " [Footnote 127: Rom. 8. 26. ] Preaching, on the other hand, is an address of man to men, that theirattention may be turned towards God, and their minds be prepared for thesecret and heavenly touches of his spirit. But this preaching, again, cannot be effectually performed, except the spirit of God accompany it. Thus St. Paul, in speaking of himself, says, [128] "And my speech and mypreaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but indemonstration of the spirit and with power, that your faith should notstand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. " So the Quakersbelieve that no words, however excellent, which men may deliver now, will avail, or will produce that faith which is to stand, except they beaccompanied by that power which shall demonstrate them to be of God. [Footnote 128: 1 Cor. 2. 4. ] From hence it appears to be the opinion of the Quakers, that the wholeworship of God, whether it consist of prayer or of preaching, must bespiritual. Jesus Christ has also, they say, left this declaration uponrecord, [129]that "God is a spirit, and that they that worship him, mustworship him in spirit and in truth. " By worshipping him in truth, theymean, that men are to worship him only when they feel a rightdisposition to do it, and in such a manner as they judge, from their owninternal feelings, to be the manner which the spirit of God thensignifies. [Footnote 129: John 4. 24. ] For these reasons, when the Quakers enter into their meetings, they useno liturgy or form of prayer. Such a form would be made up of the wordsof man's wisdom. Neither do they deliver any sermons that have beenpreviously conceived or written down. Neither do they begin theirservice immediately after they are seated. But when they sit down, theywait in silence, [130] as the Apostles were commanded to do. Theyendeavour to be calm and composed. They take no thought as to what theyshall say. They avoid, on the other hand, all activity of theimagination, and every thing that arises from the will of man. Thecreature is thus brought to be passive, and the spiritual faculty to bedisencumbered, so that it can receive and attend to the spirituallanguage of the Creator. [131]If, during this vacation from all mentalactivity, no impressions should be given to them, they say nothing. Ifimpressions should be afforded to them, but no impulse to oral delivery, they remain equally silent. But if, on the other hand, impressions aregiven them, with an impulse to utterance, they deliver to thecongregation as faithfully as they can, the copies of the severalimages, which they conceive to be painted upon their minds. [Footnote 130: Mat. 10. 19. Acts 1. 4. ] [Footnote 131: They believe it their duty, (to speak in the Quakerlanguage, ) to maintain the watch, by preserving the imagination frombeing carried away by thoughts originating in man; and, in such watch, patiently to await for the arising of that life, which, by subduing thethoughts of man, produces an inward silence, and therein bestows a truesight of his condition upon him. ] This utterance, when it manifests itself, is resolvable into prayer orpreaching. If the minister engages in prayer, the whole company rise up, and the men with the minister take off their hats, that is, [132]uncovertheir heads. If he preaches only, they do not rise, but remain upontheir seats as before, with their heads covered. The preacher, however, uncovers his own head upon this occasion. [Footnote 132: 1 Cor. Ch. 11. ] There is something singular in the manner in which the Quakers deliverthemselves when they preach. In the beginning of their discourses, theygenerally utter their words with slowness; indeed, with a slowness, which sometimes renders their meaning almost unintelligible to personsunaccustomed to such a mode of delivery; for seconds sometimes elapsebetween the sounding of short sentences or single words, so that themind cannot always easily carry the first words, and join them to theintermediate, and connect them with the last. As they proceed, theycommunicate their impressions in a brisker manner; till, at length, getting beyond the quickness of ordinary delivery, they may be said toutter them rapidly. At this time, some of them appear to be muchaffected, and even agitated by their subject. This method of a veryslow and deliberate pronunciation at first, and of an accelerated oneafterwards, appears to me, as far as I have seen or heard, to beuniversal: for though undoubtedly some may make less pauses between theintroductory words and sentences than others, yet all begin slower thanthey afterwards proceed. This singular custom may be probably accounted for in the followingmanner. The Quakers certainly believe that the spirit of God furnishesthem with impressions on these occasions, but that the description ofthese is left to themselves Hence a faithful watch must be kept, thatthese may be delivered to their hearers conformably to what is deliveredto them. But if so, it may perhaps be necessary to be more watchful, atthe outset, in order to ascertain the dimensions as it were of theseimpressions, and of their several tendencies and bearings, thanafterwards, when such a knowledge of them has been obtained. Or it maybe that ministers, who go wholly unprepared to preach, have but a smallview of the subject at first. Hence they speak slowly. But as theirviews are enlarged, their speech becomes quickened, and their feelingsbecome interested with it. These, for any thing I know, may besolutions, upon Quaker principles, of this extraordinary practice. Against the preaching of the Quakers, an objection is usually made bythe world, namely, that their ministers generally deliver theirdoctrines with an unpleasant tone. But it may be observed that this, which is considered to be a defect, is by no means confined to theQuakers. Persons of other religious denominations, who exert themselvesin the ministry, are liable to the same charge. It may be observed also, that the difference between the accent of the Quakers, and that of thespeakers of the world, may arise in the difference between art andnature. The person who prepares his lecture for the lecture-room, or hissermon for the pulpit, studies the formation of his sentences, which areto be accompanied by a modulation of the voice. This modulation isartificial, for it is usually taught. The Quakers, on, the other hand, neither prepare their discourses, nor vary their voices purposely, according to the rules of art. The tone which comes out, and whichappears disagreeable to those who are not used to it, is neverthelessnot unnatural. It is rather the mode of speaking which nature imposes, in any violent exertion of the voice, to save the lungs. Hence personswho have their wares to cry, and this almost every other minute, in thestreets, are obliged to adopt a tone. Hence persons with disorderedlungs, can sing words with more ease to themselves than they can utterthem, with a similar pitch of the voice. Hence Quaker women, when theypreach, have generally more of this tone than the Quaker men, for thelungs of the female are generally weaker than those of the other sex. Against the sermons of the Quakers two objections are usually made; thefirst of which is, that they contain but little variety of subject. Among dissenters, it is said, but more particularly in theestablishment, that you may hear fifty sermons following each other, where the subject of each is different. Hence a man, ignorant ofletters, may collect all his moral and religious duties from the pulpitin the course of the year. But this variety, it is contended, is not tobe found in the Quaker church. That there is less variety in the Quaker sermons than in those ofothers, there can be no doubt. But such variety is not so necessary toQuakers, on account of their peculiar tenets, and the universality oftheir education, as to others. For it is believed, as I have explainedbefore, that the spirit of God, if duly attended to, is a spiritualguide to man, and that it leads him into all truth; that it redeems him;and that it qualifies him therefore for happiness in a future state. Thus an injunction to attend to the teachings of the spirit, supersedes, in some measure, the necessity of detailing the moral and religiousobligations of individuals. And this necessity is still farthersuperseded by the consideration, that, as all the members of the Quakersociety can read, they can collect their Christian duty from thescriptures, independently of their own ministers; or that they cancollect those duties for themselves, which others, who are illiterate, are obliged to collect from the church. The second objection is, that the Quaker discourses have generally lessin them, and are occasionally less connected or more confused than thoseof others. It must be obvious, when we consider that the Quaker ministers are oftenpersons of but little erudition, and that their principles forbid themto premeditate on these occasions, that we can hardly expect to find thesame logical division of the subject, or the same logical provings ofgiven points, as in the sermons of those who spend hours, or even daystogether, in composing them. With respect to the apparent barrenness, or the little matter sometimesdiscoverable in their sermons, they would reply, that God has not givento every man a similar or equal gift. To some he has given largely; toothers in a less degree. Upon some he has bestowed gifts, that may edifythe learned; upon others such as may edify the illiterate. Men are notto limit his spirit by their own notions of qualification. Like thewind, it bloweth not only where it listeth, but as it listeth. Thuspreaching, which may appear to a scholar as below the ordinary standard, may be more edifying to the simple hearted, than a discourse betterdelivered, or more eruditely expressed. Thus again, preaching, which maybe made up of high sounding words, and of a mechanical manner and anaffected tone, and which may, on these accounts, please the man oflearning and taste, may be looked upon as dross by a man of moderateabilities or acquirements. And thus it has happened, that many have leftthe orators of the world and joined the Quaker society, on account ofthe barrenness of the discourses which they have heard among them. With respect to Quaker sermons being sometimes less connected or moreconfused than those of others, they would admit that this mightapparently happen; and they would explain it in the following manner. Their ministers, they would say, when they sit among the congregation, are often given to feel and discern the spiritual states of individualsthen present, and sometimes to believe it necessary to describe suchstates, and to add such advice as these may seem to require. Now thesestates being frequently different from each other, the description ofthem, in consequence of an abrupt transition from one to the other, maysometimes occasion an apparent inconsistency in their discourses on suchoccasions. The Quakers, however, consider all such discourses, or thosein which states are described, as among the most efficacious and usefulof those delivered. But whatever may be the merits of the Quaker sermons, there arecircumstances worthy of notice with respect to the Quaker preachers. Inthe first place, they always deliver their discourses with greatseriousness. They are also singularly bold and honest, when they feel itto be their duty, in the censure of the vices of individuals, whatevermay be the riches they enjoy. They are reported also from unquestionableauthority, to have extraordinary skill in discerning the internalcondition of those who attend their ministry, so that many, feeling theadvice to be addressed to themselves, have resolved upon their amendmentin the several cases to which their preaching seemed to have beenapplied. As I am speaking of the subject of ministers, I will answer one or twoquestions, which I have often heard asked concerning it. The first of these is, do the Quakers believe that their ministers areuniformly moved, when they preach, by the spirit of God? I answer--the Quakers believe they may be so moved, and that they oughtto be so moved. They believe also that they are often so moved. But theybelieve again, that except their ministers are peculiarly cautious, andkeep particularly on their watch, they may mistake their ownimaginations for the agency of this spirit. And upon this latter beliefit is, in part, that the office of elders is founded, as beforedescribed. The second is, as there are no defined boundaries between the reason ofman and the revelation of God, how do the Quakers know that they arefavoured at any particular time, either when they preach or when they donot preach, with the visitation of this spirit, or that it is, at anyparticular time, resident within them? Richard Claridge, a learned and pious clergyman of the Church of Englandin the last century, but who gave up his benefices and joined thesociety of the Quakers, has said a few words in his TractatusHierographicus, upon this subject, a part of which I shall transcribe asan answer to this latter question. "Men, says he, may certainly know, that they do believe on the Son ofGod, with that faith that is unfeigned, and by which the heart ispurified: for this faith is evidential and assuring, and consequentlythe knowledge of it is certain. Now they, who certainly know that theyhave this knowledge, may be certain also of the spirit of Christdwelling in them; for [133] 'he that _believeth_ _on the Son of God, haththe witness in himself;'_ and this witness is the spirit; for it is[134] 'the spirit that beareth witness, ' of whose testimony they may beas certain, as of that faith the spirit beareth witness to. " [Footnote 133: 1 John 5. 10. ] [Footnote 134:1 John 5. 6. ] Again--"They may certainly know that they love the Lord above all, andtheir neighbour as themselves. For the command implies not only apossibility of knowing it in general, but also of such a knowledge asrespects their own immediate concernment therein, and personal benefitarising from a sense of their conformity and obedience thereunto. Andseeing they may certainly know this, they may also as certainly know, that the spirit of Christ dwelleth in them;[135] for 'God is love, andhe that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him. ' And[136] 'if we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love isperfected in us. '" In the same manner he goes on to enumerate many othermarks from texts of scripture, by which he conceives this question maybe determined[137]. [Footnote 135:1 John 4. 16. ] [Footnote 136:1 John 4. 12. ] [Footnote 137: The Quakers conceive it to be no more difficult for themto distinguish the motions of the Holy Spirit, than for those of thechurch of England, who are candidates for holy orders. Every suchcandidate is asked, "Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by theHoly Ghost to take upon you this office and ministration?" The answeris, "I trust so. "] I shall conclude this chapter on the subject of the Quaker preaching, byan extract from Francis Lambert of Avignon, whose book was published inthe year 1516, long before the society of the Quakers took its rise inthe world. "Beware, says he, that thou determine not precisely to speakwhat before thou hast meditated, whatsoever it be; for though it belawful to determine the text which thou art to expound, yet not at allthe interpretation; lest, if thou doest so, thou takest from the HolySpirit that which is his, namely, to direct thy speech that thou mayestpreach in the name of the Lord, void of all learning, meditation, andexperience; and as if thou hadst studied nothing at all, committing thyheart, thy tongue, and thyself, wholly unto his spirit; and trustingnothing to thy former studying or meditation, but saying to thyself ingreat confidence of the divine promise, the Lord will give a word withmuch power unto those that preach the Gospel. " SECT. II. _But besides oral or vocal, there is silent worship among theQuakers--Many meetings where not a word is said, and yet worship isconsidered to have begun, and to be proceeding--Worship not necessarilyconnected with words--This the opinion of other pious men besidesQuakers--Of Howe--Hales--Gell--Smaldridge, bishop of Bristol--Monro--Advantages which the Quakers attach to their silent worship. _ I have hitherto confined myself to those meetings of the Quakers, wherethe minister is said to have received impressions from the Spirit ofGod, with a desire of expressing them, and where, if he expresses them, he ought to deliver them to the congregation as the pictures of hiswill; and this, as accurately as the mirror represents the object thatis set before it. There are times, however, as I mentioned in the lastsection, when either no impressions may be said to be felt, or, if anyare felt, there is no concomitant impulse to utter them. In this caseno person attempts to speak: for to speak or to pray, where the heartfeels no impulse to do it, would be, in the opinion of the Quakers, tomock God, and not to worship him in spirit and in truth. They sittherefore in silence, and worship in silence; and they not only remainsilent the whole time of their meetings, but many meetings take place, and these sometimes in succession, when not a word is uttered. Michael de Molinos, who was chief of the sect of the Quietists, andwhose "Spiritual Guide" was printed at Venice in 1685, speaks thus:"There are three kinds of silence; the first is of words, the second ofdesires, and the third of thoughts. The first is perfect; the second ismore perfect; and the third is most perfect. In the first, that is, ofwords, virtue is acquired. In the second, namely, of desires, quietnessis attained. In the third, of thoughts, internal recollection is gained. By not speaking, not desiring, and not thinking, one arrives at thetrue and perfect mystical silence, where God speaks with the soul, communicates himself to it, and in the abyss of its own depth, teachesit the most perfect and exalted wisdom. " Many people of other religious societies, if they were to visit themeetings of the Quakers while under their silent worship, would be aptto consider the congregation as little better than stocks or stones, orat any rate as destitute of that life and animation which constitute theessence of religion. They would have no idea that a people wereworshipping God, whom they observed to deliver nothing from their lips. It does not follow, however, because nothing is said, that God is notworshipped. The Quakers, on the other hand, contend, that these silentmeetings form the sublimest part of their worship. The soul, they say, can have intercourse with God. It can feel refreshment, joy, andcomfort, in him. It can praise and adore him; and all this, without theintervention of a word. This power of the soul is owing to its constitution or nature. "Itfollows, says the learned Howe, in his 'Living Temple, ' that havingformed this his more excellent creature according to his own moreexpress likeness; stampt it with the more glorious characters of hisliving image; given it a nature suitable to his own, and thereby made itcapable of rational and intelligent converse with him, he hath it evenin his power to maintain a continual converse with this creature, byagreeable communications, by letting in upon it the vital beams andinfluences of his own light and love, and receiving back the return ofits grateful acknowledgments and praises: wherein it is manifest heshould do no greater thing than he hath done. For who sees not that itis a matter of no greater difficulty to converse with, than to make areasonable creature? Or who would not be ashamed to deny, that he whohath been the only author of the soul of man, and of the excellentpowers and faculties belonging to it, can more easily sustain that whichhe hath made, and converse with his creature suitably to the way, wherein he hath made it capable of his converse?" That worship may exist without the intervention of words, on account ofthis constitution of the soul, is a sentiment which has been espoused bymany pious persons who were not Quakers. Thus, the ever memorable JohnHales, in his Golden Remains, expresses himself: "Nay, one thing I knowmore, that the prayer which is the most forcible, transcends, and farexceeds, all power of words. For St. Paul, speaking unto us of the mosteffectual kind of prayer, calls it sighs and groans, that cannot beexpressed. Nothing cries so loud in the ears of God, as the sighing of acontrite and earnest heart. " "It requires not the voice, but the mind; not the stretching of thehands, but the intention of the heart; not any outward shape or carriageof the body, but the inward behaviour of the understanding. How then canit slacken your worldly business and occasions, to mix them with sighsand groans, which are the most effectual prayer?" Dr. Gell, before quoted, says--"Words conceived only in an earthly mind, and uttered out of the memory by man's voice, which make a noise in theears of flesh and blood, are not, nor can be accounted a prayer, beforeour father which is in Heaven. " Dr. Smaldridge, bishop of Bristol, has the following expressions in hissermons: "Prayer doth not consist either in the bending of our knees, orthe service of our lips, or the lifting up of our hands or eyes toheaven, but in the elevation of our souls towards God. These outwardexpressions of our inward thoughts are necessary in our public, andoften expedient in our private devotions; but they do not make up theessence of prayer, which may truly and acceptably be performed, wherethese are wanting. " And he says afterwards, in other parts of his work--"Devotion of mind isitself a silent prayer, which wants not to be clothed in words, that Godmay better know our desires. He regards not the service of our lips, butthe inward disposition of our hearts. " Monro, before quoted, speaks to the same effect, in his Just Measures ofthe Pious Institutions of Youth. "The breathings of a recollected soulare not noise or clamour. The language in which devotion loves to ventitself, is that of the inward man, which is secret and silent, but yetGod hears it, and makes gracious returns unto it. Sometimes the piousardours and sensations of good souls are such as they cannot clothe withwords. They feel what they cannot express. I would not, however, bethought to insinuate, that the voice and words are not to be used atall. It is certain that public and common devotions cannot be performedwithout them; and that even in private, they are not only veryprofitable, but sometimes necessary. What I here aim at is, that theyouth should be made sensible, that words are not otherwise valuablethan as they are images and copies of what passes in the hidden man ofthe heart; especially considering that a great many, who appear veryangelical in their devotions, if we take our measures of them from theirvoice and tone, do soon, after these intervals of seeming seriousnessare over, return with the dog to the vomit, and give palpable evidencesof their earthliness and sensuality; their passion and their pride. " Again--"I am persuaded, says he, that it would be vastly advantageousfor the youth, if care were taken to train them up to this method ofprayer; that is, if they were taught frequently to place themselves inthe divine presence, and there silently to adore their Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. For hereby they would become habituallyrecollected. Devotion would be their element; and they would know, byexperience, what our blessed Savour and his great Apostle meant, whenthey enjoin us to pray without ceasing. It was, I suppose, by some suchmethod of devotion as I am now speaking of, that Enoch walked with God;that Moses saw him that is invisible; that the royal Psalmist set theLord always before him; and that our Lord Jesus himself continued wholenights in prayer to God. No man, I believe, will imagine that hisprayer, during all the space in which it is said to have continued, wasaltogether vocal. When he was in his agony in the garden, he used but afew words. His vocal prayer then consisted only of one petition, and anact of pure resignation thrice repeated. But I hope all will allow, that his devotion lasted longer than while he was employed in theuttering a few sentences. " These meetings then, which are usually denominated silent, and in which, though not a word be spoken, it appears from the testimony of othersthat God may be truly worshipped, the Quakers consider as an importantand sublime part of their church service, and as possessing advantageswhich are not to be found in the worship which proceeds solely throughthe medium of the mouth. For in the first place it must be obvious that, in these silentmeetings, men cannot become chargeable before God, either with hypocrisyor falsehood, by pretending to worship him with their lips, when theiraffections are far from him, or by uttering a language that isinconsistent with the feelings of the heart. It must be obvious, again, that every man's devotion, in these silentmeetings, is made, as it ought to be, to depend upon himself; for no mancan work out the salvation of another for him. A man does not depend atthese times on the words of a minister, or of any other person present;but his own soul, worked upon by the divine influence, pleads insilence with the Almighty its own cause. And thus, by extending thisidea to the congregation at large, we shall find a number of individualsoffering up at the same time their own several confessions; pouring outtheir own several petitions; giving their own thanks severally, orpraising and adoring; all of them in different languages, adapted totheir several conditions, and yet not interrupting one another. Nor is it the least recommendation of this worship, in the opinion ofthe Quakers, that, being thus wholly spiritual, it is out of the powerof the natural man to obstruct it. No man can break the chains that thusbinds the spirit of man to the spirit of God; for this chain, which isspiritual, is invisible. But this is not the case, the Quakers say, withany oral worship. "For how, says Barclay, alluding to his own times, canthe Papists say their mass, if there be any there to disturb andinterrupt them? Do but take away the mass-book, the chalice, the host, or the priest's garments; yea, do but spill the water, or the wine, orblow out the candles, (a thing quickly to be done, ) and the wholebusiness is marred, and no sacrifice can be offered. Take from theLutherans and Episcopalians their liturgy or common prayer-book, and noservice can be said. Remove from the Calvinists, Arminians, Socinians, Independents, or Anabaptists, the pulpit, the bible, and the hourglass, or make but such a noise as the voice of the preacher cannot be heard, or disturb him but so before he come, or strip him of his bible or hisbooks, and he must be dumb: for they all think it an heresy to wait tospeak, as the spirit of God giveth utterance; and thus easily theirwhole worship may be marred. " SECT. III. _Quakers reject every thing formal, ostentatious, and spiritless, fromtheir worship--Ground on which their Meeting-houses stand, notconsecrated--The latter plain--Women sit apart from the men--NoPews--nor priest's garments--nor psalmody--No one day thought more holythan another--But as public worship is necessary, days have been fixedupon for that purpose. _ Jesus Christ, as he was sitting at Jacob's well, and talking with thewoman of Samaria, made use of the following, among other expressions, inhis discourse: "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shallneither, in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worshipthe Father in spirit and in truth. " These expressions the Quakers generally render thus: I tell you that anew dispensation is at hand. Men will no longer worship at Jerusalemmore acceptably than in any other place. Neither will it be expected ofthem, that they shall worship in temples, like the temple there. Neitherthe glory, nor the ornaments of gold and silver and precious stones, northe splendid garments of the High Priest, will be any parts of the newworship that is approaching. All ceremonies will be done away, and men'sreligion will be reduced simply to the worshipping of God in spirit andin truth. In short, the Quakers believe, that, when Jesus came, he endedthe temple, its ornaments, its music, its Levitical priesthood, itstithes, its new moons, and sabbaths, and the various ceremonialordinances that had been engrafted into the religion of the Jews. The Quakers reject every thing that appears to them to be superstitious, or formal, or ceremonious, or ostentatious, or spiritless, from theirworship. They believe that no ground can be made holy; and therefore they do notallow the places on which their Meeting-houses are built to beconsecrated by the use of any human forms. Their Meeting-houses are singularly plain. There is nothing ofdecoration in the interior of them. They consist of a number of plainlong benches with backs to them; There is one elevated seat at the endof these. This is for their ministers. It is elevated for no otherreason, than that their ministers may be the better heard. The womenoccupy one half of these benches, and sit apart from the men. These benches are not intersected by partitions. Hence there are nodistinct pews for the families of the rich, or of such as can afford topay for them: for in the first place, the Quakers pay nothing for theirseats in their Meeting-houses; and, in the second, they pay no respectto the outward condition of one another. If they consider themselves, when out of doors, as all equal to one another in point of privileges, much more do they abolish all distinctions, when professedly assembledin a place of worship. They sit therefore in their Meeting-housesundistinguished with respect to their outward circumstances, [138]as thechildren of the same great parent, who stand equally in need of hisassistance; and as in the sight of Him who is no respecter of persons, but who made of one blood all the nations of men who dwell on all theface of the earth. [Footnote 138: Spiritual officers, such as elders and overseers, sit atthe upper part of the Meeting-house. ] The Quaker ministers are not distinguishable, when in their places ofworship, by their dress. They wear neither black clothes, nor surplices, nor gowns, nor bands. Jesus Christ, when he preached to the multitude, is not recorded to have put on a dress different from that which he woreon other occasions. Neither do the Quakers believe that ministers of thechurch ought, under the new dispensation, to be a separate people, asthe Levites were, or to be distinguished on account of their office fromother men. The Quakers differ from other Christians in the rejection of psalmody, as a service of the church. If persons feel themselves so influenced intheir private devotions, [139]that they can sing, as the Apostle says, "with the spirit and the understanding, " or "can sing[140] and makemelody in their hearts to the Lord, " the Quakers have no objection tothis as an act of worship. But they conceive that music and psalmody, though they might have been adapted to the ceremonial religion of theJews, are not congenial with the new dispensation that has followed;because this dispensation requires, that all worship should be performedin spirit and in truth. It requires that no act of religion should takeplace, unless the spirit influences an utterance, and that no wordsshould be used, except they are in unison with the heart. Now thiscoincidence of spiritual impulse and feeling with this act, is notlikely to happen, in the opinion of the Quakers, with public psalmody. It is not likely that all in the congregation will be impelled, in thesame moment, to a spiritual song, or that all will be in the state ofmind or spirit which the words of the psalm describe. Thus how few willbe able to sing truly with David, if the following verse should bebrought before them: "As the hart panteth after the water-brooks, sopanteth my soul after thee, O God. " To this it may be added, that wheremen think about musical harmony or vocal tunes in their worship, theamusement of the creature will be so mixed with it, that it cannot be apure oblation of the Spirit, and that those who think they can pleasethe Divine Being by musical instruments, or the varied modulations oftheir own voices, must look upon him as a Being with corporeal organs, sensible, like a man, of fleshly delights, and not as a Spirit, who canonly be pleased with the worship that is in spirit and in truth. [Footnote 139: 1 Cor. 14. 15. ] [Footnote 140: Ephes. 5. 19. ] The Quakers reject also the consecration and solemnization of particulardays and times. As the Jews, when they became Christians, were enjoinedby the Apostle Paul, not to put too great a value upon "days, [141] andmonths, and times, and years;" so the Quakers think it their duty asChristians to attend to the same injunction. They never meet upon saintsdays, as such, that is, as days demanding the religious assemblings ofmen, more than others; first, because they conceive this would be givinginto popish superstition; and secondly, because these days wereoriginally the appointment of men and not of God, and no humanappointment, they believe, can make one day holier than another. [Footnote 141: Gal. 4. 10. ] For the latter reason also they do not assemble for worship on thosedays which their own government, though they are greatly attached to it, appoint as fasts. They are influenced also by another reason in thislatter case. They conceive as religion is of a spiritual nature, andmust depend upon the spirit of God, that true devotion cannot be excitedfor given purposes or at a given time. They are influenced again by theconsideration, that the real fast is of a different nature from thatrequired. [142] "Is not this the fast, says Isaiah, that I have chosen, to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to letthe oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to dealthy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out, to thy house? When thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and thatthou hide not thyself from thy own flesh?" This the Quakers believe tobe the true fast, and not the work of a particular day, but to be thedaily work of every real Christian. [Footnote 142: Isaiah 58. 6. 7. ] Indeed no one day, in the estimation of the Quakers, can be made byhuman appointment either more holy or more proper for worship thananother. They do not even believe that the Jewish Sabbath, which was bythe appointment of God, continues in Gospel times, or that it has beenhanded down by divine authority as the true Sabbath for Christians. Alldays with the Quakers are equally holy, and all equally proper for theworship of God. In this opinion they coincide with the ever memorableJohn Hales. "For prayer, indeed, says this venerable man, was theSabbath ordained: yet prayer itself is Sabbathless, and admits of norest, no intermission at all. If our hands be clean, we must, as ourApostle commands us, lift them up every where, at all times, and makeevery place a church, every day a Sabbath-day, every hour canonical. Asyou go to the market; as you stand in the streets; as you walk in thefields--in all these places, you may pray as well, and with as goodacceptance, as in the church: for you yourselves are temples of the HolyGhost, if the grace of God be in you, more precious than any of thosewhich are made with hands. " Though, however, the Quakers believe no one day in the sight of God tobe holier than another, and no one capable of being rendered so by humanauthority, yet they think that Christians ought to assemble for thepublic worship of God. They think they ought to bear an outward andpublic testimony for God; and this can only be done by becoming membersof a visible church, where they may be seen to acknowledge him publiclyin the face of men. They think also, that the public worship of Godincreases, as it were, the fire of devotion, and enlarges the sphere ofspiritual life in the souls of men. "God causes the inward life, saysBarclay, the more to abound when his children assemble themselvesdiligently together, to wait upon him; so that as iron sharpeneth iron, the seeing the faces of one another, when both are inwardly gatheredunto the life, giveth occasion for the life secretly to rise, and topass from vessel to vessel: and as many candles lighted and put in oneplace, do greatly augment the light and make it more to shine forth, sowhen many are gathered together into the same life, there is more ofthe glory of God, and his power appears to the refreshment of eachindividual; for that he partakes not only of the light and life raisedin himself, but in all the rest. And therefore Christ hath particularlypromised a blessing to such as assemble in his name, seeing he will bein the midst of them. " For these and other reasons, the Quakers think itproper, that men should be drawn together to the public worship of God:but if so, they must be drawn together at certain times. Now as one dayhas never been, in the eyes of the Quakers, more desirable for such anobject than another, their ancestors chose the first day in the week, because the Apostles had chosen it for the religious assembling ofthemselves and their followers. And in addition to this, that morefrequent opportunities might be afforded them of bearing their outwardtestimony publicly for God, and of enlarging the sphere of theirspiritual life, they appointed a meeting on one other day in the week inmost places, and two in some others, for the same purpose. CHAP. XIII. _Miscellaneous particularities--Quakers careful about the use of suchwords as relate to religion--Never use the words "original sin"--nor"word of God, " for the scriptures--Nor the word "Trinity"--Never pryinto the latter mystery--Believe in the manhood and divinity of JesusChrist--Also in a resurrection, but sever attempt to fathom thatsubject--Make little difference between sanctification andjustification--- Their ideas concerning the latter_. The Quakers are remarkably careful, both in their conversation and theirwritings, on religious subjects, as to the terms which they use. Theyexpress scriptural images or ideas, as much as may be, by scripturalterms. By means of this particular caution, they avoid much of theperplexity and many of the difficulties which arise to others, andescape the theological disputes which disturb the rest of the Christianworld. The Quakers scarcely ever utter the words "original sin, " because theynever find them in use in the sacred writings. The scriptures are usually denominated by Christians "the word of God. "Though the Quakers believe them to have been given by divineinspiration, yet they reject this term. They apprehend that Christ isthe word of God. They cannot therefore consistently give to thescriptures, however they reverence them, that name which St. John theEvangelist gives exclusively to the Son of God. Neither do they often make use of the word "Trinity. " This expressionthey can no where find in the sacred writings. This to them is asufficient warrant for rejecting it. They consider it as a term of merehuman invention, and of too late a date to claim a place among theexpressions of primitive Christianity. For they find it neither inJustin Martyr, nor in Irenaeus, nor in Tertullian, nor in Origen, nor inthe Fathers of the three first centuries of the church. And as they seldom use the term, so they seldom or never try, when itoffers itself to them, either in conversation or in books, to fathom itsmeaning. They judge that a curious inquiry into such high andspeculative things, though ever so great truths in themselves, tendslittle to Godliness, and less to peace; and that their principal concernis with that only which is clearly revealed, and which leads practicallyto holiness of life. Consistently with this judgment, we find but little said respecting theTrinity by the Quaker writers. It is remarkable that Barclay in the course of his apology, takes nonotice of this subject. William Penn seems to have satisfied himself with refuting what heconsidered to be a gross notion, namely, that of three persons in theTrinity. For after having shown what the Trinity was not, he no whereattempts to explain what he conceived it to be. He says only, that heacknowledges a Father, a Word, and a Holy Spirit, according to thescriptures, but not according to the notions of men; and that theseThree are truly and properly One, of one nature as well as will. Isaac Pennington, an ancient Quaker, speaks thus: "That the three aredistinct, as three several beings or persons, the Quakers no where readin the scriptures; but they read in them that they are one. And thusthey believe their being to be one, their life one, their light one, their wisdom one, their power one. And he that knoweth and seeth any oneof them, knoweth and seeth them, all, according to that saying of Christto Philip, 'He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father. '" John Crook, another ancient writer of this society, in speaking of theTrinity, says, that the Quakers "acknowledge one God, the Father ofJesus Christ, witnessed within man only by the spirit of truth; andthese three are one, and agree in one; and he that honours the Father, honours the Son that proceeds from him; and he that denies the Spirit, denies both the Father and the Son. " But nothing farther can be obtainedfrom this author on this subject. Henry Tuke, a modern writer among the Quakers, and who published anaccount of the principles of the society only last year, says alsolittle upon the point before us. "This belief, says he, in the Divinityof the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, induced some of theteachers in the Christian church, about three hundred years afterChrist, to form a doctrine, to which they gave the name of Trinity; but, in our writings we seldom make use of this term, thinking it best, onsuch a subject, to keep to scriptural expressions, and to avoid thosedisputes which have since perplexed the Christian world, and led intospeculations beyond the power of human abilities to decide. If weconsider that we ourselves are composed of a union of body, soul, andspirit, and yet cannot determine how even these are united; how muchless may we expect perfect clearness on a subject, so far above ourfinite comprehension, as that of the Divine Nature?" The Quakers believe, that Jesus Christ was man, because he took flesh, and inhabited the body prepared for him, and was subject to humaninfirmities; but they believe also in his Divinity, because he was theword. They believe also in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, asconnected with the Christian religion. In explaining our belief of thisdoctrine, says Henry Tuke, we refer to the fifteenth chapter of thefirst epistle to the Corinthians. In this chapter is clearly laid downthe resurrection of a body, though not of the same body that dies. "There are celestial bodies, and there are bodies terrestrial; but theglory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial isanother. So also is the resurrection of the dead: It is sown a naturalbody, it is raised a spiritual body: there is a natural body, and thereis a spiritual body. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and bloodcannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inheritincorruption. " Here we rest our belief in this mystery, without desiringto pry into it beyond what is revealed to us; remembering "that secretthings belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which arerevealed, belong unto us and to our children. " The Quakers make but little difference, and not such as many otherChristians do, between sanctification and justification. "Faith andworks, says Richard Claridge, are both concerned in our completejustification. "--"Whosoever is justified, he is also in measuresanctified; and as far as he is sanctified, so far is he justified, andno farther. But the justification I now speak of, is the making of usjust or righteous by the continual help, work, and operation of the HolySpirit. "--"And as we wait for the continual help and assistance of hisHoly Spirit, and come to witness the effectual working of the same inourselves, so we shall experimentally find, that our justification isproportionable to our sanctification; for as our sanctification goesforward, which is always commensurate to our faithful obedience to themanifestation, influence, and assistance, of the grace, light, andspirit of Christ, so shall we also feel and perceive the progress of ourjustification. " The ideas of the Quakers, as to justification itself, cannot be betterexplained than in the words of Henry Tuke before quoted: So far asremissions of sins, and a capacity to receive salvation, are parts ofjustification, we attribute it to the sacrifice of Christ; "In whom wehave redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according tothe riches of his grace. " But when we consider justification as a stateof divine favour and acceptance, we ascribe it, not simply either tofaith or works, but to the sanctifying operation of the spirit ofChrist, from which living faith and acceptable works alone proceed; andby which we may come to know, that "the spirit itself beareth witnesswith our spirits, that we are the children of God. " In attributing our justification, through the grace of God in ChristJesus, to the operation of the Holy Spirit, which sanctifies the heartand produces the work of regeneration, we are supported by the testimonyof the Apostle Paul, who says, "Not by works of righteousness which wehave done, but of his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. " Again--"But ye are washed, but ye aresanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and bythe spirit of our God. " "By this view of the doctrine of justification, we conceive theapparently different sentiments of the Apostles Paul and James arereconciled. Neither of them say that faith alone, or works alone, arethe cause of our being justified; but as one of them asserts thenecessity of faith, and the other of works, for effecting this greatobject, a clear and convincing proof is afforded, that both contributeto our justification; and that faith without works, and works withoutfaith, are equally dead. " CHAP. XIV. _Quakers reject Baptism and the Lord's Supper--Much censured farit--Indulgence solicited for them on account of the difficultiesconnected with these subjects--Christian Religion spiritual--Jewishtypes to be abolished--Different meanings of the word "Baptise"--Disputesconcerning the mode of Baptism--Concerning also the nature and constitutionof the Supper--Concerning also the time and manner of its celebration--This indulgence also proper, because the Quakers give it to others, who differ from them as a body on the subject of Religion_. The Quakers, among other particularities, reject the application ofwater-baptism, and the administration of the Sacrament of the Supper, asChristian rites. These ordinances have been considered by many as so essentiallyinterwoven with Christianity, that the Quakers, by rejecting the use ofthem, have been denied to be Christians. But whatever may be the difference of opinion between the world and theQuakers, upon these subjects, great indulgence is due to the latter onthis occasion. People have received the ordinances in question fromtheir ancestors. They have been brought up to the use of them. They haveseen them sanctioned by the world. Finding their authority disputed by abody of men, who are insignificant as to numbers, when compared withothers, they have let loose their censure upon them, and this withoutany inquiry concerning the grounds of their dissent. They know perhapsnothing of the obstinate contentious; nothing of the difficulties whichhave occurred; and nothing of those which may still be started on thesesubjects. I shall state therefore a few considerations by way ofpreface, during which the reader will see, that objections both fair andforcible may be raised by the best disposed Christians, on the otherside of the question; that the path is not so plain and easy as he mayhave imagined it to be; and that if the Quakers have taken a roaddifferent from himself on this occasion, they are entitled to a fairhearing of all they have to say in their defence, and to expect the samecandour and indulgence which he himself would have claimed, if, with thebest intentions, he had not been able to come to the same conclusion, onany given point of importance, as had been adopted by others. Let me then ask, in the first place, what is the great characteristic ofthe religion we profess? If we look to divines for an answer to this question, we may easilyobtain it. We shall find some of them in their sermons speaking ofcircumcision, baptismal washings and purifications, new moons, feasts ofthe passover and unleavened bread, sacrifices, and other rites. We shallfind them dwelling on these as constituent parts of the religion of theJews. We shall find them immediately passing from thence to the religionof Jesus Christ. Here all is considered by them to be spiritual. Devotion of the heart is insisted upon as that alone which is acceptableto God. If God is to be worshipped, it is laid down as a position, thathe is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth. We shall find them also, in other of their sermons, but particularly in those preached after thereformation, stating the advantages obtained by that event. The RomanCatholic system is here considered by them to be as ceremonial as thatof the Jews. The Protestant is held out as of a more spiritual nature, and as more congenial therefore with the spirit of the gospel. But whatis this but a confession, in each case, that in proportion as men giveup ceremonies and become spiritual in their worship, their religion isthe best, or that spirituality is the grand characteristic of thereligion of Jesus Christ? Now there immediately arises a presumption, ifspirituality of feeling had been intended as the characteristic of anyreligion, that no ceremonious ordinances would have been introduced intoit. If, again, I were to make an assertion to divines, that Jesus Christcame to put an end to the ceremonial parts of the Jewish law, and to thetypes and shadows belonging to the Jewish dispensation, they would notdeny it. But baptism and the supper were both of them outward Jewishceremonies, connected with the Jewish religion. They were both of themtypes and shadows, of which the antetypes and substances had beenrealized at the death of Christ. And therefore a presumption arisesagain, that these were not intended to be continued. And that they were not intended to be continued, may be presumed fromanother consideration. For what was baptism to any but a Jew? What coulda Gentile have understood by it? What notion could he have formed, bymeans of it, of the necessity of the baptism of Christ? Unacquaintedwith purifications by water as symbols of purification of heart, hecould never have entered, like a Jew, into the spiritual life of such anordinance. And similar observations may be made with respect to thePassover-Supper. A Gentile could have known nothing, like a Jew, of themeaning of this ceremony. He could never have seen in the Paschal Lambany type of Christ, or in the deliverance of the Israelites fromEgyptian bondage, any type of his own deliverance from sin, so clearlyor so feelingly as if the facts and customs had related to his ownhistory, or as if he had been trained to the connexion by a long seriesof prophecies. In short, the passover could have had but little meaningto him. From these circumstances, therefore, there would be reason to conclude, that these ceremonies were not to be continued, at least to any butJews; because they were not fitted to the knowledge, the genius, or thecondition of the Gentile world. But, independently of these difficulties, which arise from a generalview of these ordinances as annexed to a religion which is confessed tobe spiritual, others arise from a particular view of each. On thesubject of baptism, there is ground for argument, as to the meaning ofthe word "baptize. " This word, in consequence of its representation of awatery ceremony, is usually connected with water in our minds. But itmay also, very consistently, be connected even with fire. Its generalmeaning is to purify. In this sense many understand it. And those whodo, and who apply it to the great command of Jesus to his disciples, think they give a better interpretation of it, than those who connect itwith water. For they think it more reasonable that the Apostles shouldhave been enjoined to go into all nations, and to endeavour to purifythe hearts of individuals by the spirit and power of their preaching, from the dross of Heathen notions, and to lead them to spirituality ofmind by the inculcation of Gospel principles, than to dip them underwater, as an essential part of their new religion. But on a supposition that the word baptize should signify to immerse, and not to purify, another difficulty occurs; for, if it was thoughtproper or necessary that persons should be initiated into Christianityby water-baptism, in order to distinguish their new state from that ofthe Jews or Heathens, who then surrounded them, it seems unnecessary forthe children of Christian parents, who were born in a Christiancommunity, and whose ancestors for centuries have professed theChristian name. Nor is it to be considered as any other than a difficulty that theChristian world have known so little about water-baptism, that they havebeen divided as to the right manner of performing it. The eastern andwestern churches differed early upon this point, and Christians continueto differ upon it to the present day; some thinking that none butadults; others, that none but infants should be baptised: some, that thefaces only of the baptized should be sprinkled with water; others, thattheir bodies should be immersed. On the subject of the sacrament of supper, similar difficulties haveoccurred. Jesus Christ unquestionably permitted his disciples to meet together inremembrance of their last supper with him. But it is not clear, thatthis was any other than a permission to those who were present, and whohad known and loved him. The disciples were not ordered to go into allnations, and to enjoin it to their converts to observe the sameceremony. Neither did the Apostles leave any command by which it wasenjoined as an ordinance of the Christian church. Another difficulty which has arisen on the subject of the supper, is, that Christians seem so little to have understood the nature of it, orin what it consisted, that they have had, in different ages, differentviews, and encouraged different doctrines concerning it. One has placedit in one thing, and another in another. Most of them, again, haveattempted in their explanation of it, to blend the enjoyment of thespiritual essence with that of the corporeal substance of the body andblood of Christ, and thus to unite a spiritual with a ceremonialexercise of religion. Grasping, therefore, at things apparentlyirreconcilable, they have conceived the strangest notions; and, bygiving these to the world, they have only afforded fuel for contentionamong themselves and others. In the time of the Apostles, it was the custom of converted persons, grounded on the circumstances that passed at the supper of the passover, to meet in religious communion. They used, on these occasions, to breaktheir bread, and take their refreshment and converse together. Theobject of these meetings was to imitate the last friendly supper ofJesus with his disciples, to bear a public memorial of his sufferingsand his death, and to promote their love for one another. But thiscustom was nothing more, as far as evidence can be had, than that of abrotherly breaking of bread together. It was no sacramental eating. Neither was the body of Jesus supposed to be enjoyed, nor the spiritualenjoyment, of it to consist in the partaking of this outward feast. In process of time, after the days of the Apostles, when this simplecustom had declined, we find another meeting of Christians, in imitationof that at the passover supper, at which both bread and wine wereintroduced. This different commemoration of the same event had a newname given to it; for it was distinguished from the other by the name ofEucharist. Alexander, the seventh bishop of Rome, who introduced holy water bothinto houses and churches for spiritual purposes, made some alterationsin the ingredients of the Eucharist, by mixing water with the wine, andby substituting unleavened for common bread. In the time of Irenaeus and Justin the Martyr, we find an account of theEucharist as it was then thought of and celebrated. Great stress wasthen laid upon the bread and wine as a holy and sacramental repast:prayers were made that the Holy Ghost would descend into each of thesesubstances. It was believed that it did so descend; and that as soon asthe bread and wine perceived it, the former operated virtually as thebody, and the latter as the blood of Jesus Christ. From this time thebread was considered to have great virtues; and on this latter account, not only children, but sucking infants, were admitted to this sacrament. It was also given to persons on the approach of death. And manyafterwards, who had great voyages to make at sea, carried it with themto preserve them both from temporal and spiritual dangers. In the twelfth century, another notion, a little modified from theformer, prevailed on this subject; which was, that consecration by aPriest had the power of abolishing the substance of the bread, and ofsubstituting the very body of Jesus Christ. This was called the doctrine of Transubstantiation. This doctrine appeared to Luther, at the dawn of the reformation, to beabsurd; and he was of opinion that the sacrament consisted of thesubstance of Christ's body and blood, together with the substance of thebread and wine; or, in other words, that the substance of the breadremained, but the body of Christ was inherent in it, so that both thesubstance of the bread and of the body and blood of Christ was therealso. This was called the doctrine of Consubstantiation, incontradiction to the former. Calvin again considered the latter opinion erroneous: he gave it outthat the bread was not actually the body of Jesus Christ, nor the winehis blood; but that both his body and blood were sacramentally receivedby the faithful, in the use of the bread and wine. Calvin, however, confessed himself unable to explain even this his own doctrine. For hesays, "if it be asked me how it is, that is, how believers sacramentallyreceive Christ's body and blood? I shall not be ashamed to confess, thatit is a secret too high for me to comprehend in my spirit, or explain inwords. " But independently of the difficulties which have arisen from thesedifferent notions concerning the nature and constitution of the Lord'ssupper, others have arisen concerning the time and the manner of thecelebration of it. The Christian churches of the east, in the early times, justifyingthemselves by tradition and the custom of the passover, maintained thatthe fourteenth day of the month Nissan ought to be observed as the dayof the celebration of this feast, because the Jews were commanded tokill the Paschal Lamb on that day. The western, on the other hand, maintained the authority of tradition and the primitive practice, thatit ought to be kept on no other day than that of the resurrection ofJesus Christ. Disputes again of a different complexion agitated theChristian world upon the same subject. One church contended that theleavened, another that unleavened bread only should be used upon thisoccasion: others contended, whether the administration of this sacramentshould be by the hands of the clergy only: others, whether it should notbe confined to the sick: others, whether it should be given to the youngand mature promiscuously: others, whether it should be received by thecommunicant standing, sitting, or kneeling, or as the Apostles receivedit: and others, whether it should be administered in the night time asby our Saviour, or whether in the day, or whether only once, as at thepassover, or whether oftener in the year. Another difficulty, but of a different nature, has occurred with respectto the Lord's supper. This has arisen from the circumstance, that otherceremonies were enjoined by our Saviour in terms equally positive asthis, but which most Christians, notwithstanding, have thoughtthemselves at liberty to reject. Among these the washing of feet isparticularly to be noticed. This custom was of an emblematic nature. Itwas enjoined at the same time as that of the Lord's supper, and on thesame occasion. But it was enjoined in a more forcible and strikingmanner. The Sandimanians, when they rose into a society, considered theinjunction for this ordinance to be so obligatory, that they dared notdispense with it; and therefore, when they determined to celebrate thesupper, they determined that the washing of feet should be an ordinanceof their church. Most other Christians, however, have dismissed thewashing of feet from their religious observance. The reason given hasprincipally been, that it was an eastern custom, and therefore local. Tothis the answer has been, that the passover, from whence the Lord'ssupper is taken, was an eastern custom also, but that it was much morelocal. Travellers of different nations had their feet washed for them inthe east. But none but those of the circumcision were admitted to thepassover-supper. If, therefore, the injunction relative to the washingof feet, be equally strong with that relative to the celebration of thesupper, it has been presumed, that both ought to have been retained;and, if one has been dispensed with on account of its locality, thatboth ought to have been discarded. That the washing of feet was enjoined much more emphatically than thesupper, we may collect from Barclay, whose observations upon it I shalltranscribe on this occasion. "But to give a farther evidence, says he, how these consequences havenot any bottom from the practice of that ceremony, nor from the wordsfollowing, 'Do this in remembrance of me, ' let us consider another ofthe like nature, as it is at length expressed by John. [143] 'Jesusriseth from supper and laid aside his garments, and took a towel, andgirded himself: after that, he poureth water into a bason, and began towash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith hewas girded. Peter said unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesusanswered him. If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. So after hehad washed their feet, he said, Know ye what I have done to you? If Ithen, your Lord and master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to washone another's feet: for I have given you an example, that ye should doas I have done to you. ' As to which let it be observed, continuesBarclay, that John relates this passage to have been done at the sametime with the other of breaking bread; both being done the night of thepassover, after supper. If we regard the narration of this, and thecircumstances attending it, it was done with far more solemnity, andprescribed far more punctually and particularly, than the former. It issaid only, 'as he was eating he took bread;' so that this would seem tobe but an occasional business: but here 'he rose up, he laid by hisgarments, he girded himself, he poured out the water, he washed theirfeet, he wiped them with a towel. ' He did this to all of them; which arecircumstances surely far more observable than those noted in the other. The former was a practice common among the Jews, used by all masters offamilies, upon that occasion; but this, as to the manner, and personacting it, to wit, for the master to rise up, and wash the feet of hisservants and disciples, was more singular and observable. In thebreaking of bread and giving of wine, it is not pleaded by ouradversaries, nor yet mentioned in the text, that he particularly putthem into the hands of all; but breaking it, and blessing it, gave itthe nearest, and so they from hand to hand. But here it is mentioned, that he washed not the feet of one or two, but of many. He saith not inthe former, that if they do not eat of that bread, and drink of thatwine, that they shall be prejudiced by it; but here he says expressly toPeter, that 'if he wash him not, he hath no part with him;' which beingspoken upon Peter's refusing to let him wash his feet, would seem toimport no less, than not the continuance only, but even the necessity ofthis ceremony. In the former, he saith as it were passingly, 'Do this inremembrance of me:' but here he sitteth down again; he desires them toconsider what he hath done; tells them positively 'that as he hath doneto them, so ought they to do to one another:' and yet again he redoublesthat precept, by telling them, 'that he has given them an example, thatthey should do so likewise. ' If we respect the nature of the thing, ithath as much in it as either baptism or the breaking of the bread;seeing it is an outward element of a cleansing nature, applied to theoutward man, by the command and the example of Christ, to signify aninward purifying. I would willingly propose this seriously to men, thatwill be pleased to make use of that reason and understanding that Godhath given them, and not be imposed upon, nor abused by the custom ortradition of others, whether this ceremony, if we respect either thetime that it was appointed in, or the circumstances wherewith it wasperformed, or the command enjoining the use of it, hath not as much torecommend it for a standing ordinance of the Gospel, as eitherwater-baptism, or bread and wine, or any other of that kind? I wonderthen, what reason the Papists can give, why they have not numbered itamong their sacraments, except merely Voluntas Ecclesiae et TraditioPatrum, that is, the Tradition of the Fathers, and the Will of theChurch. " [Footnote 143: John 13. 3. &c. ] The reader will see by this time, that, on subjects which have givenrise to such controversies as baptism and the Lord's supper have nowbeen described to have done, people may be readily excused, if theyshould entertain their own opinions about them, though these may bedifferent from those which are generally received by the world. Thedifficulties indeed, which have occurred with respect to theseordinances, should make us tender of casting reproach upon others, whoshould differ from ourselves concerning them. For when we consider, thatthere is no one point connected with these ordinances, about which therehas not been some dispute; that those who have engaged in thesedisputes, have been men of equal learning and piety; that all of themhave pleaded primitive usage, in almost all cases, in behalf of theirown opinions; and that these disputes are not even now, all of them, settled; who will take upon him to censure his brother either for theomission or the observance of one or the other rite? And let theQuakers, among others, find indulgence from their countrymen for theiropinions on these subjects. This indulgence they have a right to claimfrom the consideration, that they themselves never censure others ofother denominations on account of their religion. With respect to thosewho belong to the society, as the rejection of these ceremonies is oneof the fundamentals of Quakerism, it is expected that they should beconsistent with what they are considered to profess. But with respect toothers, they have no unpleasant feelings towards those who observe them. If a man believes that baptism is an essential rite of the Christianchurch, the Quakers would not judge him if he were to go himself, or ifhe were to carry his children, to receive it. And if, at the communiontable, he should find his devotion to be so spiritualized, that, in thetaking of the bread and wine, he really and spiritually discerned thebody and blood of Christ, and was sure that his own conduct would heinfluenced morally by it, they would not censure him for becoming anattendant at the altar. In short, the Quakers do not condemn others fortheir attendances on these occasions. They only hope, that as they donot see these ordinances in the same light as others, they may escapecensure, if they should refuse to admit them among themselves. CHAP. XV. SECT. I. _Baptism--Two baptisms--That of John and of Christ--That of John was bywater, a Jewish ordinance, and used preparatory to religious conversionand worship--Hence John used it as preparatory to conversion toChristianity--Jesus submitted to it to fulfil all righteousness--Othersas to a baptism to repentance--But it was not initiative into theChristian church, but belonged to the Old Testament--Nor was John underthe Gospel, but under the law_. I come now to the arguments which the Quakers have to offer for therejection of the use of baptism and of the sacrament of the supper; andfirst for that of the use of the former rite. Two baptisms are recorded in scripture--the baptism of John, and thebaptism of Christ. The baptism of John was by water, and a Jewish ordinance. The washing ofgarments and of the body, which were called baptisms by the EllenisticJews, were enjoined to the Jewish nation, as modes of purification fromlegal pollutions, symbolical of that inward cleansing of the heart, which was necessary to persons before they could hold sacred offices, or pay their religions homage in the temple, or become the trueworshippers of God. The Jews, therefore, in after times, when they madeproselytes from the Heathen nations, enjoined these the same customs asthey observed themselves. They generally circumcised, at least theproselytes of the covenant, as a mark of their incorporation into theJewish church, and they afterwards washed them with water or baptizedthem, which was to be a sign to them of their having been cleansed fromthe filth of idolatry, and an emblem of their fitness, in case of a realcleansing, to receive the purer precepts of the Jewish religion, and towalk in newness of life. Baptism therefore was a Jewish ordinance, used on religious occasions:and therefore John, when he endeavoured by means of his preaching toprepare the Jews for the coming of the Messiah, and their minds for thereception of the new religion, used it as a symbol of the purificationof heart, that was necessary for the dispensation which was then athand. He knew that his hearers would understand the meaning of theceremony. He had reason also to believe, that on account of the natureof his mission, they would expect it. Hence the Sanhedrim, to whom thecognizance of the legal cleansings belonged, when they were informed ofthe baptism of John, never expressed any surprise at it, as a now, orunusual, or improper custom. They only found fault with him for theadministration of it, when he denied himself to be either Elias orChrist. It was partly upon one of the principles that have been mentioned, thatJesus received the baptism of John. He received it as it is recorded, because "thus it became him to fulfil all righteousness. " By thefulfilling of righteousness is meant the fulfilling of the ordinances ofthe law, or the customs required by the Mosaic dispensation inparticular cases. He had already undergone circumcision as a Jewishordinance, and he now submitted to baptism. For as Aaron and his Sonswere baptized previously to the taking upon them of the office of theJewish priesthood, so Jesus was baptized by John previously to hisentering upon his own ministry, or becoming the high priest of theChristian dispensation. But though Jesus Christ received the baptism of John, that he mightfulfil all righteousness, others received it as the baptism ofrepentance from sins, that they might be able to enter the kingdom thatwas at hand. This baptism, however, was not initiative into theChristian church. For the Apostles rebaptized some who had been baptizedby John. Those, again, who received the baptism of John, did not professfaith in Christ, John again, as well as his doctrines, belonged to theOld Testament. He was no minister under the new dispensation, but thelast prophet under the law. Hence Jesus said, that though none of theprophets "were greater than John the baptist, yet he that is least inthe kingdom of Heaven is greater than he. " Neither did he ever hear theGospel preached; for Jesus did not begin his ministry till John had beenput into prison, where he was beheaded by the orders of Herod. John, inshort, was with respect to Jesus, what Moses was with respect to Joshua. Moses, though he conducted to the promised land, and was permitted tosee it from Mount Nebo, yet never entered it, but gave place to Joshua, whose name, like that of Jesus, signifies a Saviour. In the same mannerJohn conducted to Jesus Christ. He saw him once with his own eyes, buthe was never permitted, while alive, to enter into his spiritualkingdom. SECT. II. _Second baptism, or that of Christ--This the baptism of the gospel--Thisdistinct from the former in point of time; and in nature and essence--Asthat of John was outward, so this was to be inward and spiritual--It wasto cleanse the heart--and was to be capable of making even the Gentilesthe seed of Abraham--This distinction of watery and spiritual baptismpointed out by Jesus Christ--by St. Peter--and by St. Paul. _ The second baptism, recorded in the scriptures, is that of Christ. Thismay be called the baptism of the Gospel, in contradistinction to theformer, which was that of the law. This baptism is totally distinct from the former. John himselfsaid, [144] "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he thatcometh after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy tobear. He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. " [Footnote 144: Matth. 3. 11. ] From these words it appears, that this baptism is distinct, in point oftime, from the former; for it was to follow the baptism of John: andsecondly, in nature and essence; for whereas that of John was by water, this was to be by the spirit. This latter distinction is insisted upon by John in other places. Forwhen he was questioned by the Pharisees [145] "why he baptized, if he wasnot that Christ, nor Ellas, nor that prophet, " he thought it asufficient excuse to say, "I baptize with water;" that is, I baptizewith water only; I use only an ancient Jewish custom; I do not intrudeupon the office of Christ, who is coming after me, or pretend to hisbaptism of the spirit. We find also, that no less than three times ineight verses, when he speaks of his own baptism, he takes care to add toit the word [146] "water, " to distinguish it from the baptism of Christ. [Footnote 145: John 1. 25] [Footnote 146: John 1 from 25 to 34. ] As the baptism of John cleansed the body from the filth of the flesh, sothat of Christ was really to cleanse the soul from the filth of sin. Thus John, speaking of Jesus Christ, in allusion to this baptism, says, [147] "whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge hisfloor, and gather his wheat into his garner, but he will burn up thechaff with unquenchable fire. " By this he insinuated, that in the samemanner as the farmer, with the fan in his hand, winnows the corn, andseparates the light and bad grains from the heavy and the good, and inthe same manner as the fire afterwards destroys the chaff, so thebaptism of Christ, for which he was preparing them, was of an inward andspiritual nature, and would effectually destroy the light and corruptaffections, and thoroughly cleanse the floor of the human heart. [Footnote 147: Mat. 3. 12] This baptism, too, was to be so searching as to be able to penetrate thehardest heart, and to make even the Gentiles the real children ofAbraham. [148] "For think not, says John, in allusion to the samebaptism, to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our Father; for Isay unto, you, that God is able of these stones to raise up childrenunto Abraham. " As if he had said, I acknowledge that you Pharisees can, many of you, boast of relationship to Abraham by a strict and scrupulousattention to shadowy and figurative ordinances; that many of you canboast of relationship to him by blood; and all of you by circumcision. But it does not follow, therefore, that you are the children of Abraham. Those only will be able to boast of being his seed, to whom the fan andfire of Christ's baptism shall be applied. The baptism of him, who is tocome after me, and whose kingdom is at hand, is of that spiritual andpurifying nature, that it will produce effects very different from thoseof an observance of outward ordinances. It can so cleanse and purify thehearts of men, that if there are Gentiles in the most distant lands, ever so far removed from Abraham, and possessing hearts of the hardnessof stones, it can make them the real children of Abraham in the sight ofGod. [Footnote 148: Math. 3. 9. ] This distinction between the watery baptism of John, and the fiery andspiritual baptism of Christ, was pointed out by Jesus Christ himself;for, he is reported to have appeared to his disciples after hisresurrection, and to have commanded them [149] "that they should notdepart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, says he, ye have heard from me. For John truly baptized with water, butye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. " [Footnote 149: Acts 1. 4. ] Saint Luke also records a transaction which took place, in which Peterwas concerned, and on which occasion he first discerned the baptism ofChrist, as thus distinguished in the words which have been just given. [150] "And as I began to speak, says he, the Holy Ghost fell on them, ason us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how thathe said, John, indeed, baptised with water, but ye shall be baptized bythe Holy Spirit. " [Footnote 150: Acts II, 15, 16. ] A similar distinction is made also by St. Paul; for when he found thatcertain disciples had been baptized only with the baptism of John, [151]he laid his hand upon them, and baptized them again; but this was withthe baptism of the spirit. In his epistle also, to the Corinthians, wefind the following expression:[152] "For by one spirit are we allbaptized unto one body. " [Footnote 151: Acts 19. ] [Footnote 152: I Cor. 12, 13]. SECT. III. _Question is, which of these turn baptisms is included in the greatcommission given by Jesus to his Apostles, "of baptizing in the name ofthe Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?"--Quakers deny it to be thatof John, because contrary to the ideas of St. Peter and St. Paul--because the object of John's baptism had been completed--becauseit was a type under the law, and such types were to cease. _ It appears then that there are two baptisms recorded in Scripture; theone, the baptism of John, the other that of Christ; that these aredistinct from one another; and that the one does not include the other, except he who baptizes with water, can baptize at the same time with theHoly Ghost. Now St. Paul speaks only of[153] one baptism as effectual;and St. Peter must mean the same, when he speaks of the baptism thatsaveth. The question therefore is, which of the two baptisms that havebeen mentioned, is the one effectual, or saving baptism? or, which ofthese it is, that Jesus Christ included in his great commission to theApostles, when he commanded them "to go and teach all nations, baptizingthem in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. " [Footnote 153: Eph. 4. 5. ] The Quakers say, that the baptism, included in this commission, was notthe baptism of John. In the first place, St. Peter says it was not, in these words:[154] "Which sometimes were disobedient, when once the long suffering ofGod waited in the days of Noah while the Ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water;[155] whose antetype baptismdoth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God, ) by the resurrection ofJesus Christ. " [Footnote 154: 1 Peter 3. 20. 21] [Footnote 155: Antetype is the proper translation, and not "the figurewhereunto. "] The Apostle states here concerning the baptism that is effectual andsaving; first, that it is not the putting away of the filth of theflesh, which is effected by water. He carefully puts those upon theirguard, to whom he writes, lest they should consider John's baptism, orthat of water, to be the saving one, to which he alludes; for, havingmade a beautiful comparison between an outward salvation in an outwardark, by the outward water, with this inward salvation by inward andspiritual water, in the inward ark of the Testament, he is fearful thathis reader should connect these images, and fancy that water had anything to do with this baptism. Hence he puts his caution in aparenthesis, thus guarding his meaning in an extraordinary manner. He then shows what this baptism is, and calls it the answer of a goodconscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In fact, hestates it to be the baptism of Christ, which is by the Spirit. For hemaintains, that he only is truly baptized, whose conscience is madeclear by the resurrection of Christ in his heart. But who can make theanswer of such a conscience, except the Holy Spirit shall have firstpurified the floor of the heart; except the spiritual fan of Christshall have first separated the wheat from the chaff, and except hisspiritual fire shall have consumed the latter? St. Paul makes a similar declaration: "For as many of you as have beenbaptized into Christ, have put on Christ. "[156] But no man, the Quakerssay, merely by being dipped under water, can put on Christ, that is, hislife, his nature, his disposition, his love, meekness, and temperance, and all those virtues which should characterise a Christian. [Footnote 156: Galat 3. 27. ] To the same purport are those other words by the same Apostle:[157] "Knowye not, that so many of us as were baptized unto Jesus Christ, werebaptized into his death; that like as Christ was raised up from the deadby the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness oflife. " And again--[158] "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye arerisen with him, through the faith of the co-operation of God, who hathraised him from the dead. " By these passages the Apostle Paul testifiesthat he alone is truly baptized, who first dies unto sin, and is raisedup afterwards from sin unto righteousness, or who is raised up into lifewith Christ, or who so feels the inward resurrection and glory of Christin his soul, that he walks in newness of life. [Footnote 157: Rom. 6. 3. 4] [Footnote 158: Colos. 2. 12] The Quakers show again, that the baptism of John could not have beenincluded in the great commission, because the object of John's baptismhad been completed even before the preaching of Jesus Christ. The great object of John's baptism, was to make Jesus known to the Jews. John himself declared this to be the object of it. [159] "But that heshould be made manifest unto Israel, _therefore_ am I come baptizingwith water. " This object he accomplished two ways; first, by telling allwhom he baptized that Jesus was coming, and these were the Israel ofthat time; for he is reported to have baptized all Jerusalem, which wasthe metropolis, and all Judea, and all the country round about Jordan. Secondly, by pointing him out personally. [160] This he did to Andrew, sothat Andrew left John and followed Jesus. Andrew, again, made him knownto Simon, and these to Philip, and Philip to Nathaniel; so that by meansof John, an assurance was given that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. [Footnote 159: John 1. 31. ] [Footnote 160: John 1. 40. ] The Quakers believe again, that the baptism of John was not included inthe great commission, because it was a type under the law, and all typesand shadows under the law were to cease under the Gospel dispensation, or the law of Christ. The salvation of the Eight by water, and the baptism of John, were bothtypes of the baptism of Christ. John was sent expressly before Jesus, baptizing the bodies of men with water, as a lively image, as he himselfexplains it, of the latter baptizing their souls with the Holy Ghost andwith fire. The baptism of John, therefore, was both preparative andtypical of that of Christ. And it is remarked by the Quakers, that nosooner was Jesus baptized by John with water in the type, than he was, according to all the Evangelists, baptized by the [161] Holy Ghost inthe antetype. No sooner did he go up out of the water, than John saw theHeavens opened, and the spirit of God descending like a dove, andlighting upon him. It was this baptism of Jesus in the antetype whichoccasioned John to know him personally, and enabled him to discover himto others. The baptism of John, therefore, being a type or figure underthe law, was to give way, when the antetype or substance becameapparent. And that it was to give way in its due time, is evident fromthe confession of John himself. For on a question which arose betweensome of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying, and on a reportspread abroad, that Jesus had begun to baptize, John says, [162] "He(Jesus) must increase, but I must decrease. "--This confession of Johnaccords also with the following expressions of St. Paul: [163] "The HolyGhost this signifying, that the way into the Holiest of all was not yetmade manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing, whichwas a figure for the time then present, "--which stood only in meats anddrinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances imposed on them untilthe time of reformation. [Footnote 161: Mat. 3. 16. --Mark 1. 10. ] [Footnote 162: John 3. 30. ] [Footnote 163: Heb. 9. 8. 9. 10. ] SECT. IV. _Quakers show that the baptism, included in the great commission, whichappears not to be the baptism of John, is the baptism of Christ, from acritical examination of the words in that commission--Way in which theQuakers interpret these words--This interpretation confirmed bycitations from St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul_. Having attempted to show, according to the method of the Quakers, thatthe baptism of John is not the baptism included in the great commission, I shall now produce those arguments, by which they maintain that thatbaptism, which is included in it, is the baptism of Christ. These arguments will be found chiefly in a critical examination of thewords of that commission. To enable the reader to judge of the propriety of their observationsupon these words, I shall transcribe from St. Matthew the three versesthat relate to this subject. [164] "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is givenunto me in Heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of theHoly Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I havecommanded you. And lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of theworld. " [Footnote 164: Mat. 23. 18, 19, 20. ] The first observation, which the Quakers make, is upon the word"THEREFORE. " As all power is given unto _me_ both in Heaven and inearth; and as I can on that account, and as I will qualify you, go yetherefore, that is, having previously received from me the qualificationnecessary for your task, go ye. The next observation is, that the commission does not imply that theApostles were to teach and to baptize as two separate acts, but, as thewords intimate, that they were to teach baptizing. The Quakers say again, that the word "teach" is an improper translationof the original [165]Greek. The Greek word should have been rendered"make disciples or proselytes. " In several editions of our own Bibles, the word "teach" is explained in the margin opposite to it, "makedisciples or Christians of all nations, " or in the same manner as theQuakers explain it. [Footnote 165: [Greek: didasko] is the usual word for teach, but [Greek:word] is used in the commission; which latter word occurs but seldom inthe New Testament, and always signifies to "disciple. "] On the word "baptize, " they observe, that because its first meaning isto wash all over, and because baptism with Christians is always withwater, people cannot easily separate the image of water from the word, when it is read or pronounced. But if this image is never to beseparated from it, how will persons understand the words of St. Paul, "for by one spirit are we all baptized into one body?" Or those ofJesus, "Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of, or be baptized with thebaptism that I am baptized with?" Or, if this image is not to beseparated from it, how will they understand the Evangelists, whorepresent Jesus Christ as about to baptize, or wash all over, with fire?To baptize, in short, signifies to dip under water, but, in its moregeneral meaning, to purify. Fire and water have equally power in thisrespect, but on different objects. Water purifies surfaces. Firepurifies by actual and total separation, bringing those bodies into onemass which are homogeneous, or which have strong affinities to eachother, and leaving the dross and incombustible parts by themselves. The word "in" they also look upon as improperly translated. This wordshould have been rendered [166] "into. " If the word "in" were the righttranslation, the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, andof the Holy Ghost, " might be construed into a form of words to be usedat the time of baptism. [Footnote 166: The word in the original Greek is [Greek word] and not[Greek word]] But we have no evidence that such a formula was ever used, when any ofthe Apostles baptized. Indeed, the plain meaning of the word is "into, "and therefore all such formula is groundless. [167] "Jesus Christ didnot, says Zuinglius, by these words institute a form of baptism, whichwe should use, as divines have falsely taught. " [Footnote 167: Lib. De Bapt. P. 56, tom. 2. Oper. ] On the word "name, " the Quakers observe, that, when it relates to theLord, it frequently signifies in scripture, his life, or his spirit, orhis power. Thus, [168] "in my name, shall they cast out devils. " And, [169] "by what power, or by what name have ye done this?" [Footnote 168: Mark 16. 17. ] [Footnote 169: Acts 4. 7. ] From the interpretation, which has now been given of the meaning ofseveral of the words in the verses, that have been quoted from St. Matthew, the sense of the commission, according to the Quakers, willstand thus: "All power is given to me in Heaven and in earth. In virtueof the power which I have, I will give you power also. I will conferupon you the gift of the Holy Spirit. When you have received it, go intodifferent and distant lands; go to the Gentiles who live in ignorance, darkness, and idolatry, and make them proselytes to my new dispensation;so purifying their hearts, or burning the chaff of their corruptaffections by the active fire of the Holy Spirit, which shall accompanyyour preaching, that they may be made partakers of the divine nature, and walk in newness of life. And lest this should appear to be too greata work for your faith, I, who have the power, promise to be with youwith this my spirit in the work, till the end of the world. " The Quakers contend, that this is the true interpretation of thiscommission, because it exactly coincides with the meaning of the samecommission as described by St. Luke and St. Mark, and of that also whichwas given to St. Paul. St. Luke states the commission given to the Apostles to have been[170] "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in hisname among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. " The meaning thereforeof the commission, as stated by St. Luke, is precisely the same as thatstated by St. Matthew. For first, all nations are included in it. Secondly, purification of heart, or conversion from sin, is insistedupon to be the object of it. And thirdly, this object is to be effected, not by the baptism of water, (for baptism is no where mentioned, ) but bypreaching, in which is included the idea of the baptism of the spirit. [Footnote 170: Luke 24. 47] St. Mark also states the commission to be the same, in the followingwords: [171] "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preachthe Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shallbe saved. " Here all nations, and the preaching of the Gospel, arementioned again; but baptism is now added. But the baptism that was togo with this preaching, the Quakers contend to be the baptism of thespirit. For first, the baptism here mentioned is connected withsalvation. But the baptism, according to St. Peter, which doth also nowsave us, "is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answerof a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ;"or the baptism of the spirit. Secondly, the nature of the baptism herementioned is explained by the verse that follows it. Thus, "he thatbelieveth, and is baptized, shall be saved. And these signs shall followthem that believe: they shall speak with new tongues. " This therefore isthe same baptism as that which St. Paul conferred upon some of hisdisciples by the laying on of his hands. [172] "And when Paul had laidhis hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spake withtongues and prophesied. " Thus, again, it is demonstrated to be thebaptism of the spirit. [Footnote 171: Mark 16. 15. ] [Footnote 172: Acts 19. 6. ] The commission also, which has been handed down to us by St. Matthew, will be found, as it has been now explained, to coincide in its objectwith that which was given to Paul, as we find by his confession toAgrippa. For he declared[173] he was sent as a minister to the Gentiles"to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and fromthe power of Satan unto God, that they might receive forgiveness ofsins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith inChrist. " But what was this, the Quakers say, but to baptize them intothe life and spirit of a new and divine nature, or with the baptism ofChrist? [Footnote 173: Acts 26. 17. 18. ] And as we have thus obtained a knowledge from St. Paul of what his owncommission contained, so we have, from the same authority, a knowledgeof what it did not contain; for he positively declares, in his firstEpistle to the Corinthians, that "Christ sent him not to baptize(evidently alluding to the baptism by water) but to preach the Gospel. "It is clear therefore that St. Paul did not understand his commission torefer to water. And who was better qualified to understand it thanhimself? It is also stated by the Quakers, as another argument to the same point, that if the baptism in the commission had been that of water only, theApostles could easily have administered it of themselves, or withoutany supernatural assistance; but, in order that they might be enabled toexecute that baptism which the commission pointed to, they were desiredto wait for divine help. Jesus Christ said, [174] "I send the promise ofmy father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye beendued with the power from on high; for John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. " Now, the Quakers ask, if baptism by water had been the baptism contained inthe great commission, why could not the Apostles have performed it ofthemselves? What should have hindered them more than John from goingwith people into the rivers, and immersing them? Why were they first toreceive themselves the baptism of the spirit? But if it be allowed, onthe other hand, that when they executed the great commission, they wereto perform the baptism of Christ, the case is altered. It became themthen to wait for the divine help. For it required more than human powerto give that baptism, which should change the disposition and affectionsof men, and should be able to bring them from darkness unto light, andfrom the power of Satan unto God. And here the Quakers observe, that theApostles never attempted to execute the great commission, till the timefixed upon by our Saviour, in these words: "But tarry ye in the city ofJerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. " This was the dayof pentecost. After this "they preached, as St. Peter says, with theHoly Ghost sent down from Heaven, " and with such efficacy, that "theHoly Ghost fell upon many of them, who heard their words. " [Footnote 174: Luke 24. 49. ] SECT. V. _Objection to the foregoing arguments of the Quakers--namely, "If it benot the baptism of John that is included in the Great Commission, howcame the Apostles to baptize with water?"--Practice and opinions ofPeter considered--also of Paul--also of Jesus Christ--This practice, asexplained by these opinions, considered by the Quakers to turn out infavour of their own doctrine on this subject. _ I have now stated the arguments by which the Quakers have been inducedto believe that the baptism by the spirit, and not the baptism by water, was included by Jesus Christ in the great commission which he gave tohis Apostles, when he requested them "to go into all nations, and toteach them, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and ofthe Holy Ghost. " Against these arguments the following question has been usually started, as an objection: "If it be not included in the great commission, howcame the Apostles to baptize; or would they have baptised, if baptismhad not been considered by them as a Christian ordinance?" The Quakers, in answering this objection, have confined themselves tothe consideration of the conduct of the Apostles Peter and Paul. Forthough Philip is said to have baptized also, yet he left no writingsbehind him like the former; nor are so many circumstances recorded ofhim, by which they may be enabled to judge of his character, or to knowwhat his opinions ultimately were, upon that subject. The Quakers consider the Apostles as men of the like passions withthemselves. They find the ambition of James and John; the apostacy anddissimulation of Peter; the incredulity of Thomas; the dissentionbetween Paul and Barnabas; and the jealousies which some of thementertained towards one another, recorded in holy writ. They believethem also to have been mostly men of limited information, and to havehad their prejudices, like other people. Hence it was not to be expectedthat they should come all at once into the knowledge of Christ'skingdom; that, educated in a religion of types and ceremonials, theyshould all at once abandon these; that, expecting a temporal Messiah, they should lay aside at once temporal views; and that they should comeimmediately into the full purity of the gospel practice. With respect to the Apostle Peter, he gave early signs of the dulness ofhis comprehension with respect to the nature of the character andkingdom of the Messiah. [175]For when Jesus had given forth but a simpleparable, he was obliged to ask him the meaning of it. This occasionedJesus to say to him, "Are ye also yet without understanding?" [Footnote 175: Matt. 15. 16. ] In a short time afterwards, when our Saviour told him, [176] "that hehimself must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things, and be killed, andbe raised again the third day, Peter took him and rebuked him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord. This shall not be unto thee. " [Footnote 176: Matt. L6. 21. 22. ] At a subsequent time, namely, just after the transfiguration of Christ, he seems to have known so little about spiritual things, that heexpressed a wish to raise three earthly tabernacles, one to Moses, another to Elias, and a third to Jesus, for the retention of signs andshadows as a Gospel labour, at the very time when Jesus Christ wasopening the dismission of all but one, namely, "the tabernacle of God, that is with men. " Nor did he seem, at a more remote period, to have gained more large orspiritual ideas. He did not even know that the Gospel of Jesus Christwas to be universal. He considered it as limited; to the Jews, thoughthe words in the great commission, which he and the other Apostles hadheard, ordered them to teach all nations. He was unwilling to go andpreach to Cornelius on this very account, merely because he was a RomanCenturion, or in other words, a Gentile; so that a vision was necessaryto remove his scruples in this particular. It was not till after thisvision, and his conversation with Cornelius, that his mind began to beopened; and then he exclaimed, "Of a truth, I perceive that God is norespecter of persons; but in every nation, he that feareth him andworketh righteousness, is accepted with him. " The mind of Peter now began to be opened and to see things in a clearerlight, when a new occurrence that took place nearly at the same time, seems to have taken the film still more from his eyes: for while hepreached to Cornelius, and the others present, he perceived that "theHoly Ghost fell upon all of them that heard his words, as on himself andthe other Apostles at the beginning. " Then remembered Peter the words ofthe Lord, how that he said, "John indeed baptised with water, but yeshall be baptized with the Holy Ghost:" that is, Peter finding thatCornelius and his friends had received, by means of his own powerfulpreaching, the Holy Ghost, perceived then for the first time, to hisgreat surprise, that he had been executing the great commission of JesusChrist; or that he had taught a Gentile, and baptized him with the HolySpirit. Here it was that he first made the discrimination between thebaptism of John, and the baptism of Christ. From this time there is reason to think that his eyes became fully open;for in a few years afterwards, when we have an opportunity of viewinghis conduct again, we find him an altered man as to his knowledge ofspiritual things. Being called upon at the council of Jerusalem todeliberate on the propriety of circumcision to Gentile converts, hemaintains that God gives his Holy Spirit as well to the Gentiles as tothe Jews. He maintains again, that God _purifies_ by _faith_; and hedelivers it as his opinion, that circumcision is to be looked upon as ayoke. And here it may be remarked, that circumcision and baptismuniformly went together, when proselytes of the covenant were made, orwhen any of the Heathens were desirous of conforming to the whole of theJewish law. At a time, again, subsequent to this, or when he wrote his Epistleswhich were to go to the strangers all over Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, he discovers himself to be the same full grown manin spiritual things on the subject of baptism itself, in theseremarkable words, which have been quoted: "Whose antitype baptism dothalso now save us, (not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but theanswer of a good conscience towards God, ) by the resurrection of JesusChrist. " So that the last opinion of Peter on the subject ofwater-baptism contradicted his practice, when he was but a noviciate inChrist's kingdom. With respect to the Apostle Paul, whose practice I am to consider next, it is said of him, as of St. Peter, that he baptized. That Paul baptized is to be collected from his own writings. For itappears, by his own account, that there had been divisions among theCorinthians. Of those who had been converted to Christianity, somecalled themselves after the name of Cephas; others after the name ofApollos; others after the name of Paul; thus dividing themselvesnominally into sects, according to the name of him who had eitherbaptized or converted them. St. Paul mentions these circumstances, bywhich it comes to light, that he used water-baptism, and he regrets thatthe persons in question should have made such a bad use of this rite, asto call themselves after him who baptized them, instead of callingthemselves after Christ, and dwelling on him alone. [177] "I thank God, says he, that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius; lest anyshould say that I baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the houseof Stephanas. Besides I know not whether I baptized any other, forChrist sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. " Now thisconfession of the Apostle, which is usually brought against the Quakers, they consider to be entirely in their favour, and indeed decisive of thepoint in question. For they collect from hence, that St. Paul neverconsidered baptism by water as any Gospel ordinance, or as any riteindispensably necessary, when men were admitted as members into theChristian church. For if he had considered it in this light, he wouldnever have said that Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach theGospel. Neither would he have thanked God, on account of the mere abuseof it, that he had baptized so few, for doubtless there were many amongthe learned Greeks, who abused his preaching, and who called it_foolishness_, but yet he nowhere says, that he was sorry on thataccount that he ever preached to them; for preaching was a gospelordinance enjoined him, by which many were to be converted to theChristian faith. Again--If he had considered water baptism, as anecessary mark of initiation into Christianity, he would uniformly haveadopted it, as men became proselytes to his doctrines. But among thethousands, whom in all probability he baptized with the Holy Spiritamong the Corinthians, it does not appear, that there were more than themembers of the three families of Crispus, Gaius, and Stephanus, whom bebaptized with water. [Footnote 177: 1 Cor. I. 14, 15, 16. ] But still it is contended, that Paul says of himself, that the baptized. The Quakers agree to this, but they say that he must have done it, inthese instances, on motives very different from those of anindispensable Christian rite. In endeavouring to account for these motives, the Quakers consider theApostle Paul as not in the situation of Peter and others, who were along time in acquiring their spiritual knowledge, during which theymight be in doubt as to the propriety of many customs; but as coming, onthe other hand, quickly and powerfully into the knowledge of Christ'skingdom. Hence, when he baptized, they impute no ignorance to him. Theybelieve he rejected water-baptism as a gospel ordinance, but that heconsidered it in itself as an harmless ceremony, and that, viewing it inthis light, he used it out of condescension to those ellenistic Jews, whose prejudices, on account of the washings of Moses and their customsrelative to proselytes, were so strong, that they could not separatepurification by water from conversion to a new religion. For St. Paulconfesses himself that "to the weak he became as weak, that he mightgain the weak, and was made all things to all men, that he might by allmeans save some. " Of this his condescension many instances are recordedin the New Testament, though it may be only necessary to advert to one. At the great council at Jerusalem, where Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James, and others, were present, it was[178] determined that circumcision wasnot necessary to the Gentiles. St. Paul himself with some others carriedthe very letter of the council, containing their determination upon thissubject, to Antioch to the brethren there. This letter was addressed tothe brethren of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. After having left Antioch, he went to Derbe and Lystra, where, notwithstanding the determination ofhimself and the rest of the council, that circumcision was not aChristian rite, he[179] circumcised Timotheus, in condescension to theweakness of the Jews, who were in those quarters. [Footnote 178: Acts 15. ] [Footnote 179: Acts 16. 3. ] In addition to these observations on the practice and opinions of theApostles, in the course of which the Quakers presume it will be foundthat the baptism of John is not an ordinance of the Gospel, they presumethe same conclusion will be adopted, if they take into consideration thepractice and opinions of Jesus Christ. That Jesus Christ never forbad water-baptism, the Quakers readily allow. But they conceive his silence on this subject to have arisen from hisknowledge of the internal state of the Jews. He knew how carnal theirminds were; how much they were attached to outward ordinances; and howdifficult it was to bring them all at once into his spiritual kingdom. Hence, he permitted many things for a time, on account of the weaknessof their spiritual vision. That Jesus submitted also to baptism himself, they allow. But hesubmitted to it, not because he intended to make it an ordinance underthe new dispensation, but to use his own words, "that he might fulfilall righteousness. " Hence, also he was circumcised. Hence he celebratedthe Passover. And hence, he was enabled to use these remarkable wordsupon the cross: "It is fulfilled. " But though Jesus Christ never forbad water-baptism, and, though he wasbaptized with water by John, yet he never baptized any one himself. Arumour had gone abroad among the Pharisees, that the Jesus had baptizedmore disciples than John the Baptist. But John, the beloved disciple ofJesus, who had leaned on his bosom, and who knew more of his sentimentsand practice than any other person is very careful, in correcting thishear-say report, as if unworthy of the spiritual mind of his master, and states positively; [180] "that Jesus-baptized not. " [Footnote 180: John 4. 2. ] The Quakers, lay a great stress upon this circumstance: for they say, that if Jesus never baptized with water himself, it is a proof that henever intended to erect water-baptism into a Gospel-rite. It isdifficult to conceive, they say, that he should have established aSacrament, and that he should never have administered it. Would he not, on the other hand, if his own baptism had been that of water, have begunhis ministry by baptizing his own disciples, notwithstanding they hadpreviously been, baptized by John? But he not only never baptized, _butit is no where_ recorded of him, that he ordered his disciples tobaptize "with water. "[181] He once ordered a leper to go to the priest, and to offer the gift for his cleansings. At another time[182], heordered a blind man to go and wash in the pool of Siloam; but he neverordered any one to go and be baptized with water. On the other hand, itis said by the Quakers, that he dearly intimated to three of hisdisciples, at the transfiguration, that the dispensations of Moses andJohn were to pass away; and that he taught himself, "that the kingdom ofGod cometh not with observation;" or, that it consisted not in thoseoutward and lifeless ordinances, in which many of those to whom headdressed himself placed the essence of their religion. [Footnote 181: Mat. 8. 4. ] [Footnote 182: John 9. 7] CHAP. XVI. SECT. I. _Supper of the Lord--Two such suppers, one enjoined by Moses, the otherby Jesus Christ--The former called the Passover--Original manner of itscelebration--The use of bread and wine added to it--Those long in usewhen Jews Christ celebrated it--Since his time, alterations made in thissupper by the Jews--But bread and wine still continued to be componentparts of it, and continue so to the present day--Modern manner of thecelebration of it. _ There are two suppers of the Lord recorded in the Scriptures; the firstenjoined by Moses, and the second by Jesus Christ. The first is called the Supper of the Lord, because it was the lastsupper which Jesus Christ participated with his disciples, or which theLord and master celebrated with them in commemoration of the passover. And it may not improperly be called the Supper of the Lord on anotheraccount, because it was the supper which the lord and master of everyJewish family celebrated, on the same festival, in his own house. This supper was distinguished, at the time alluded to, by the name ofthe Passover Supper. The object of the institution of it was tocommemorate the event of the Lord passing over the houses of theIsraelites in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered theformer from their hard and oppressive bondage. The directions of Moses concerning this festival were short, butprecise. On the fourteenth day of the first month, called Nissan, the Jews wereto kill a lamb in the evening. It was to be eaten in the same evening, roasted with fire, and the whole of it was to be eaten, or the remainsof it to be consumed with fire before morning. They were to eat it withloins girded, with their shoes on their feet, and with their staves intheir hands, and to eat it in haste. The bread which they were to eat, was to be unleavened, all of it, and for seven days. There was to be noleaven in their houses during that time. Bitter herbs also were to beused at this feast. And none who were uncircumcised were allowed topartake of it. This was the simple manner in which the passover, and the feast ofunleavened bread, which was included in it, were first celebrated. Butas the passover, in the age following its institution, was not to bekilled and eaten in any other place than where the Lord chose to fix hisname, which was afterwards at Jerusalem, it was suspended for a time. The Jews, however, retained the festival of unleavened bread, whereverthey dwelt. At this last feast, in process of time, they added the useof wine to the use of bread. The introduction of the wine was followedby the introduction of new customs. The Lord or master of the feast usedto break the bread, and to bless it, saying, "Blessed be thou, O Lord, who givest us the fruits of the earth. " He used to take the cup, whichcontained the wine, and bless it also: "Blessed be thou, O Lord, whogivest us the fruit of the vine. " The bread was twice blessed upon thisoccasion, and given once to every individual at the feast. But the cupwas handed round three times to the guests. During the intervals betweenthe blessing and the taking of the bread and of the wine, the companyacknowledged the deliverance of their ancestors from the Egyptianbondage; they lamented their present state; they confessed their senseof the justice of God in their punishment; and they expressed their hopeof his mercy from his former kind dealings and gracious promises. In process of time, when the Jews were fixed at Jerusalem, they revivedthe celebration of the passover, and as the feast of unleavened breadwas connected with it, they added the customs of the latter, and blendedthe eating of the lamb and the use of the bread and wine, and severalaccompaniments of consecration, into one ceremony. The bread thereforeand the wine had been long in use as constituent parts of thepassover-supper, and indeed of all the solemn feasts of the Jews, whenJesus Christ took upon himself, as master of his own family ofdisciples, to celebrate it. When he celebrated it, he did as the masterof every Jewish family did at that time. He took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to his disciples. He took the cup of wine, and gaveit to them also. But he conducted himself differently from others in onerespect, for he compared the bread of the passover to his own body, andthe wine to his own blood, and led the attention of his disciples fromthe old object of the passover, or deliverance from Egyptian bondage, toa new one, or deliverance from sin. Since the time of our Saviour, we find that the Jews, who have beendispersed in various parts of the world, have made alterations in thissupper: but all of them have concurred in retaining the bread and wineas component parts of it. This will be seen by describing the manner inwhich it is celebrated at the present day. On the fourteenth day of the month Nissan, the first-born son of everyfamily fasts, because the first-born in Egypt were smitten on thatnight. A table is then set out, and covered with a cloth. On the middleof it is placed a large dish, which is covered with a napkin. A largepassover cake of unleavened bread, distinguished by marks, anddenominated "_Israelite_, " is then laid upon this napkin. Another, withdifferent marks, but denominated "_Levite_, " is laid upon the first: anda third, differently marked, and denominated "_Priest_, " is laid uponthe second. Upon this again a large dish is placed, and in this dish isa shank bone of a shoulder of lamb, with a small matter of meat on it, which is burnt quite brown on the fire. This is instead of the lambroasted with fire. Near this is an egg, roasted hard in hot ashes, thatit may not be broken, to express the totality of the lamb. There is alsoplaced on the table a small quantity of raw charvil instead of thebitter herbs ordered; also a cup with salt water, in remembrance of thesea crossed over after that repast; also a stick of horse radish withits green top to it, to represent the bitter labour that made the eyesof their ancestors water in slavery; and a couple of round balls, madeof bitter almonds pounded with apples, to represent their labour in limeand brinks. The seat or couch of the master is prepared at the head ofthe table, and raised with pillows, to represent the masterly authorityof which the Jews were deprived in bondage. The meanest of the servantsare seated at the table for two nights with their masters, mistresses, and superiors, to denote that they were all equally slaves in Egypt, andthat all ought to give the same ceremonial thanks for their redemption. Cups also are prepared for the wine, of which each person must drinkfour in the course of the ceremony. One cup extraordinary is set on thetable for Elias, which is drank by the youngest in his stead. All things having been thus prepared, the guests wash their hands, andseat themselves at table. The master of the family, soon after this, _takes his cup of wine in his right hand_, and the rest at the tabledoing the same, he says, together with all the others, "Blessed artthou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who hast created the fruitof the vine. " This is followed by a. Thanksgiving for the institution ofthe passover. _Then the cup of wine is drank by all_. Afterwards themaster of the family says, "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King ofthe Universe, who hast sanctified us with thy commandments, andcommanded us to cleanse our hands. " Then the master of the family desires the guests to partake of thecharvil dipped in salt water, which he gives them with an appropriateblessing. He makes them touch also the dish, containing the egg andshank bone of the lamb, and repeat with him a formula of words suited tothe subject. He then takes _the second cup of wine_, and uses words inconjunction with the rest, expressive of the great difference betweenthis and any other night. After this, copious remarks follow on theinstitution of the passover. Then follow queries and answers of therabbis on this subject: then historical accounts of the Jews: then thefifteen acts of the goodness of God to the Jewish nation, which theymake out thus:--He led the Jews out of Egypt: he punished the Egyptians:he executed judgment on their gods: he slew their first-born: he gavethe Jews wealth: he divided the sea for them: he made them pass throughit as on dry land: he drowned the Egyptians in the same: he gave food tothe Jews for forty years in the wilderness; he fed them with manna: hegave them the sabbath: he brought them to Mount Sinai: he gave them thelaw: he brought them to the Laud of Promise: he built the Temple. When these acts of the goodness of God, with additional remarks on thepassover out of Rabbi Gamaliel, have been recited, all the guests touchthe dish which contains the three cakes of bread before mentioned, andsay: "This sort of unleavened bread, which we eat, is because there wasnot sufficient time for the dough of our ancestors to rise, until theblessed Lord, the King of Kings, did reveal himself to redeem them, asit is written. And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough, which theybrought forth out of Egypt; for it was not leavened, because they werethrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry; neither had they prepared forthemselves any victuals. " After this they touch the horse-radish andjoin in a narration on the subject of their bondage. Then they take_their third cup of wine_, and pronounce a formula of adoration andpraise, accompanied with blessings and thanksgivings, in allusion to thehistorical part of the passover. After this the master of the familywashes his hands and says, "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King ofthe Universe, who hast sanctified us with thy Commandments, andcommanded us to cleanse our hands. " He then breaks the _uppermost cakeof bread_ in the dish, and says, "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, Kingof the Universe, who hast brought forth bread from the earth. " Then hetakes _half of another cake of bread, and breaks it_, and says, "Blessedart thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who hast sanctified uswith thy commandments, and commanded us to eat the unleavened bread. "_Then he gives every one at the table of each of the two cakes of breadthat are broken_, and every one repeats audibly the two last blessings. He then takes the green top from the horse-radish, and puts on the ballsbefore mentioned, and pronounces a blessing. He then puts these into thehands of the guests, and they pronounce the same. After this, he cutsthe bottom cake, and puts a piece of it upon a piece of horse-radish, and pronounces a formula of words, in allusion to an historical fact. These ceremonies having been thus completed, the guests sup. After supper, a long grace is said. Then the _fourth cup_ is filled. Along prayer follows, on the subject of creation. This is again followedby a hymn, enumerating and specifying the twelve wonders which God didat midnight. Another hymn succeeds, specifying the fifteen great workswhich God did at different times, both on the night, and on the day, ofthe passover. Then follows a prayer in praise of God, in which a desireis expressed, that they may again he brought to Jerusalem. Then followsa blessing on the fourth cup which is taken; after which another hymn issung, in which the assistance of the Almighty is invoked for therebuilding of the temple. This hymn is followed by thirteen canticles, enumerating thirteen remarkable things belonging to the Jews, soon afterwhich the ceremony ends. This is the manner, or nearly the manner, in which the passover is nowcelebrated by the Jews. The bread is still continued to be blessed, andbroken, and divided, and the cup to be blessed and handed round amongthe guests. And this is done, whether they live in Asia, or in Europe, or in any other part of the known world. SECT. II. _Second Supper is that enjoined by Jesus at Capernaum--It consists ofbread from Heaven--or of the flesh and blood of Christ--But these not ofa material nature, like the passover-bread, or corporeal part ofJesus--but wholly of a spiritual--Those who receive it, are spirituallynourished by it, and may be said to sup with Christ--This suppersupported the Patriarchs--and must be taken by all Christians--Variousways in which this supper may be enjoyed_. The second supper recorded in the scriptures, in which bread, and thebody, and blood of Christ, are mentioned, is that which was enjoined byJesus, when he addressed the multitude at Capernaum. Of this supper, thefollowing account may be given: [183] "Labour not, says he to the multitude, for the meat whichperisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, whichthe Son of Man shall give unto you. " [Footnote 183: John 6. 27. ] A little farther on, in the same chapter, when the Jews required a signfrom heaven, (such as when Moses gave their ancestors manna in thewilderness, ) in order that they might believe on him, he addressed themthus: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that breadfrom heaven: but my father giveth you the true bread from heaven. Forthe bread of God is he that cometh down from heaven, and giveth lightunto the world. " Then said they unto him, "Lord, evermore give us this bread. " And Jesussaid unto them, "I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shallnever hunger; and he that believeth in me, shall never thirst. " It appears, that in the course of these and other words that were spokenupon this occasion, the Jews took offence at Jesus Christ, because hesaid, he was the bread that came down from heaven; for they knew he wasthe son of Joseph, and they knew both his father and his mother. Jesustherefore directed to them the following observations: "I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that aman may eat thereof and not die. I am the living bread, which came downfrom heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. Andthe bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the lifeof the world. " The Jews, therefore, strove among themselves, saying, Howcan this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son ofMan, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whosoever eateth myflesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him upat the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drinkindeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living father hath sent me, and I live by thefather, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is thatbread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, andare dead. He that eateth of this bread, shall live forever. " As the Jews were still unable to comprehend the meaning of his words, which they discovered by murmuring and pronouncing them to be hardsayings, Jesus Christ closes his address to them in the following words:"It is the spirit that quickeneth. The flesh profiteth nothing: thewords that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. " It appears from hence, according to the Quakers, that Jesus Christ, inmentioning the loaves, took occasion to spiritualize, as he did on allother fit occasions, and to direct the attention of his followers fromnatural to spiritual food, or from the food that perisheth, to thatwhich giveth eternal life. Jesus Christ calls himself upon this occasion the living bread. He saysthat this bread is his flesh, and that this flesh is meat indeed. Thefirst conclusion which the Quakers deduce on this subject, is, that thisbread, or this flesh and blood, or this meat, which he recommends to hisfollowers, and which he also declares to be himself, is not of amaterial nature. It is not, as he himself says, like the ordinary meatthat perisheth, nor like the outward manna, which the Jews ate in thewilderness for their bodily refreshment. It cannot therefore be commonbread, nor such bread as the jews ate at their passover, nor any breador meat ordered to be eaten on any public occasion. Neither can this flesh or this bread be, as some have imagined, thematerial flesh or body of Jesus. For first, this latter body was born ofthe virgin Mary; whereas the other is described as having come down fromheaven. Secondly, because, when the Jews said, "How can this man give ushis flesh?" Jesus replied, "It is the spirit that quickeneth. The fleshprofiteth nothing;" that is, material flesh and blood, such as mine is, cannot profit any thing in the way of quickening; or cannot so profit asto give life eternal. This is only the work of the spirit. And he adds, "the words I have spoken to you, they are spirit, and they are life. " This bread then, or this body, is of a spiritual nature. It is of aspiritual nature, because it not only giveth life, but preserveth fromdeath. Manna, on the other hand, supported the Israelites only for atime, and they died. Common bread and flesh nourish the body for a time, when it dies and perishes; but it is said of those who feed upon thisfood, that they shall never die. This bread, or body, must be spiritualagain, because the bodies of men, according to their presentorganization, cannot be kept for ever alive; but their souls may. Butthe souls of men can receive no nourishment from ordinary meat anddrink, that they should be kept alive, but from that which is spiritualonly. It must be spiritual again, because Jesus Christ describes it ashaving come down from heaven. The last conclusion which the Quakers draw from the words of our Saviouron this occasion, is, that a spiritual participation of the body andblood of Christ is such an essential of Christianity, that no person whodoes not partake of them, can be considered to be a Christian; "forexcept a man eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, he hasno life in him. " The Quakers therefore believe, that this address of Jesus Christ to hisfollowers near Capernaum, relates wholly to the necessity of the soulsof men being fed and nourished by that food, which it is alone capableof receiving, namely, that which is of a spiritual nature, and whichcomes from above. This food is the spirit of God; or, in the language ofthe Quakers, it is Christ. It is that celestial principle, which giveslife and light to as many as receive it and believe in it. It is thatspiritual principle, which was in the beginning of the world, and whichafterwards took flesh. And those who receive it, are spirituallynourished by it, and may be said to sup with Christ; for he himselfsays, [184] "Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear myvoice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. " [Footnote 184: Rev. 3. 20. ] This supper which Jesus Christ enjoins, is that heavenly manna on whichthe Patriarchs feasted, before his appearance in the flesh, and by whichtheir inward man became nourished; so that some of them were said tohave walked with God; for those, according to St. Paul, [185] "did alleat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink;for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rockwas Christ. " [Footnote 185: 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4. ] This supper is also that "daily bread, " since his appearance in theflesh; or, as the old Latin translation has it, it is thatsupersubstantial bread, which Christians are desired to pray for in theLord's prayer; that bread, which, according to good commentators, isabove all substance, and above all created things. For this bread fillsand satisfies. By extinguishing all carnal desires, it leaves neitherhunger nor thirst after worldly things. It redeems from the pollutionsof sin. It so quickens as to raise from death to life, and it givestherefore to man a sort of new and divine nature, so that he can dwellin Christ and Christ in him. This supper, which consists of this manna, or bread, or of this fleshand blood, may be enjoyed by Christians in various ways. It may beenjoyed by them in pious meditations on the Divine Being, in which thesoul of man may have communion with the spirit of God, so that everymeditation may afford it a salutary supper, or a celestial feast. It maybe enjoyed by them when they wait upon God in silence, or retire intothe light of the Lord, and receive those divine impressions whichquicken and spiritualize the internal man. It may be enjoyed by them inall their several acts of obedience to the words and doctrines of ourSaviour. Thus may men everyday, nay, every hour, keep a communion at theLord's table, or communicate, or sup, with Christ. SECT. III. _The question then is, whether Jesus Christ instituted any new supper, distinct from that of the passover, (and which was to render null andvoid that enjoined at Capernaum) to be observed as a ceremonial byChristians--Quakers say, that no such institution can be collected fromthe accounts of Matthew, or of Mark, or of John--The silence of thelatter peculiarly impressive in the present case. _ It appears then, that there are two suppers recorded in the scriptures, the one enjoined by Moses, and the other by Jesus Christ. The first of these was of a ceremonial nature, and was confinedexclusively to the Jews: for to Gentile converts who knew nothing ofMoses, or whose ancestors were not concerned in the deliverance fromEgyptian bondage, it could have had no meaning. The latter was of a spiritual nature. It was not limited to any nation. It had been enjoyed by many of the Patriarchs. Many of the Gentiles hadenjoyed it also. But it was essentially necessary for all Christians. Now the question is, whether Jesus Christ, when he celebrated thepassover, instituted any new supper, distinct from that of thepassover, and which was to render null, and void, (as it is the tendencyof ceremonies to do) that which he enjoined at Capernaum, to be observedas an ordinance by the Christian world. The Quakers are of opinion that no institution of this kind can becollected from Matthew, Mark, or John. [186]St. Matthew mentions thecelebration of the passover supper in the following manner: "And as theywere eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave tohis disciples, and said, take, eat, this is my body. " [Footnote 186: Mat. 26. 26. ] "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it. " "For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many forthe remission of sins. " "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of thevine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my father'skingdom. " St. Mark gives an account so similar to the former, that it isunnecessary to transcribe it. Both mention the administration of thecup; both the breaking and giving of the bread; both the allusion ofJesus to his own body and blood; both the idea of his not drinking wineany more but in a new kingdom; but neither of them mention any command, nor even any insinuation by Jesus Christ to his disciples, that theyshould do as he did at the passover supper. St. John, who relates the circumstance of Jesus Christ washing the feetof his disciples on the passover night, mentions nothing even of thebreaking of bread, or of the drinking of the wine upon that occasion. As far therefore as the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and John, areconcerned, it is obvious, in the opinion of the Quakers, that Christianshave not the least pretence, either for the celebration of the passover, or of that which they usually call the Lord's Supper; for the commandfor such a supper is usually grounded on the words, "do this inremembrance of me. " But no such words occur in the accounts of any ofthe Evangelists now cited. This silence with respect to any command for any new institution isconsidered by the Quakers as a proof, as far as these Evangelists areconcerned, that none was ever intended. For if the sacrament of thesupper was to be such a great and essential rite as Christians make it, they would have been deficient in their duty, if they had failed torecord it. St. Matthew, who was at the supper, and St. Mark, who heardof what had passed there, both agree that Jesus used the ceremony of thebread and the wine, and also that he made an allusion from thence to hisown body and blood; but it is clear, the Quakers say, whatever theymight have heard as spoken by him, they did not understand him asenjoining a new thing. But the silence of John, upon this occasion, theQuakers consider as the most impressive in the present case. For St. John was the disciple, who leaned upon the bosom of Jesus at thisfestival, and who of course must have heard all that he said. He wasthe disciple again, whom Jesus loved, and who would have been anxious tohave perpetuated all that he required to be done. He was the discipleagain, who so particularly related the spiritual supper which Jesusenjoined at Capernaum, and in this strong language, that, "except a maneat his flesh, and drink his blood, he has no life in him. "Notwithstanding this, St. John does not even mention what took place onthe passover night, believing, as the Quakers suppose, that it was notnecessary to record the particulars of a Jewish ceremony, which, being atype, was to end when its antitype was realized, and which he consideredto be unnecessary for those of the Christian name. SECT. IV. _Account of St. Luke examined--According to him Jesus celebrated onlythe old Jewish passover--Signified all future passovers with him were tobe spiritual--Hence he turned the attention of those present from thetype to the antitype--He recommended them to take their mealsoccasionally together in remembrance of their last supper with him; orif, as Jews, they could not relinquish the passover, to celebrate itwith a new meaning. _ St. Luke, who speaks of the transactions which took place at thepassover-supper, is the only one of the Evangelists who records theremarkable words, "do this in remembrance of me. " St. Luke, however, was not himself at this supper. Whatever he has related concerning it, was from the report of others. But though the Quakers are aware of this circumstance, and that neitherMatthew, Mark, nor John, give an account of such words, yet they do notquestion the authority of St. Luke concerning them. They admit them, onthe other hand, to have been spoken; they believe however, on anexamination of the whole of the narrative of St. Luke upon thisoccasion, that no new institution of a religious nature was intended. They believe that Jesus Christ did nothing more than celebrate the oldpassover; that he intimated to his disciples, at the time he celebratedit, that it was to cease; that he advised them, however, to take theirmeals occasionally, in a friendly manner, together, in remembrance ofhim; or if, as Jews, they could not all at once relinquish the passover, he permitted them to celebrate it with a new meaning. In the first place St. Luke, and he is joined by all the otherEvangelists, calls the feast now spoken of the passover. Jesus Christalso gives it the same name; for he says, "with desire I have desired toeat this passover with you before I suffer. " Jesus Christ, according to St. Luke, took bread and broke it, anddivided it among his disciples. He also took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it among them. But this, the Quakers say, is no more than whatthe master of every Jewish family did on the passover night: nor, is itany more, as will have already appeared, than what the Jews of London, or of Paris, or of Amsterdam, or of any other place, where bread andwine are to be had, do on the same feast at the present day. But though Jesus Christ conducted himself so far as other masters offamilies did, yet he departed from the formula of words that wasgenerally used upon these occasions. For in the first place, he isdescribed to have said to his disciples, that "he would no more eat ofthe passover, until it should be fulfilled in the kingdom of God;" and alittle farther on, that "he would not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God should come; or, as St. Matthew has it, till heshould drink it new with them in his father's kingdom. " By these words the Quakers understand, that it was the intention ofJesus Christ to turn the attention of his disciples from the type to theantitype, or from the paschal lamb to the lamb of God, which was soon tobe offered for them. He declared, that all his passover suppers withthem were in future to be spiritual. Such spiritual passovers, theQuakers say, he afterwards ate with them on the day of pentecost, whenthe spirit of God came upon them; when their minds were opened, and whenthey discovered, for the first time, the nature of his kingdom. Andthese spiritual passovers he has since eaten, and continues to eat withall those whose minds, detached from worldly pursuits and connexions, are so purified and spiritualized, as to be able to hold communion withGod. It is reported of him next, that "he took bread, and gave thanks, andbrake it, and gave to his disciples, saying, this is my body which isgiven for you. " On these words the Quakers make the following observations:--The word"this" does not belong to the word "bread, " that is, it does not meanthat this bread is my body. For the word "bread" in the original Greekis of the masculine, and the word "this" is of the neuter gender. But italludes to the action of the breaking of the bread, from which thefollowing new meaning will result. "This breaking of the bread, whichyou now see me perform, is a symbol or representation of the giving, oras St. Paul has it, of the breaking of my body for you. " In the same manner, the Quakers say, that the giving of the wine in thecup is to be understood as a symbol or representation of the giving ofhis blood for them. The Quakers therefore are of opinion, when they consider the meaning ofthe sayings of Jesus Christ both with respect to the bread and to thewine, that he endeavoured again to turn the attention of his disciplesfrom the type to the antitype; from the bread and wine to his own bodyand blood; from the paschal lamb that had been slain and eaten, to thelamb that was going to be sacrificed; and as the blood of the latterwas, according to St. Matthew, for the remission of sins, to turn theirattention from the ancient object of the celebration of the passover, orsalvation from Egyptian bondage, to a new object, or the salvation ofthemselves and others by this new sacrifice of himself. It is reported of him again by St. Luke, after he had distributed thebread and said, "this is my body which is given for you, " that he added, "this do in remembrance of me. " These words the Quakers believe to have no reference to any newinstitution; but they contain a recommendation to his disciples to meetin a friendly manner, and break their bread together, in remembrance oftheir last supper with him, or if as Jews, they could not all at onceleave off the custom of the passover, in which they had been born andeducated as a religious ceremony, to celebrate it, as he had thenmodified and spiritualized it, with a new meaning. If they relate to the breaking of their bread together, then they do notrelate to any passover or sacramental eating, but only to that of theircommon meals; for all the passovers of Jesus Christ with his discipleswere in future to be spiritual. And in this sense the primitiveChristians seem to have understood the words in question. For in theirreligious zeal they sold all their goods, and, by means of the produceof their joint stock, they kept a common table, and lived together. Butin process of time, as this custom from various causes declined, theymet at each other's houses, or at their appointed places, to break theirbread together, in memorial of the passover-supper. This custom, it isremarkable, was denominated the custom of _breaking of bread_. Nor couldit have had any other name so proper, if the narration of St. Luke betrue. For the words "do this in remembrance of me, " relate solely, as hehas placed them, to the breaking of the bread. They were used after thedistribution of the bread, but were not repeated after the giving of thecup. If they relate, on the other hand, to the celebration of the passover, as it had been modified and spiritualized with a new meaning, then theinterpretation of them will stand thus: "As some of you, my disciples, for ye are all Jews, may not be able to get over all your prejudices atonce, but may celebrate the passover again, and as it is the last timethat I shall celebrate it with you, as a ceremonial, I desire you to doit in remembrance, or as a memorial of me. I wish the celebration of italways to bring to your recollection this our last public meeting, thelove I bear to you, and my sufferings and my death. I wish your minds tobe turned from carnal to spiritual benefits, and to be raised to moreimportant themes than the mere escape of your ancestors from Egyptianbondage. If it has been hitherto the object of the passover to preservein your memories the bodily salvation of your ancestors, let it be usedin future, if you cannot forsake it, as a memorial of your own spiritualsalvation; for my body, of which the bread is a representation, is to bebroken, and my blood, of which the wine is an emblem, is to be shed forthe remission of your sins. " But in whatever sense the words "do this in remembrance of me" are to betaken, the Quakers are of opinion, as far as St. Luke states thecircumstances, that they related solely to the disciples themselves. Jesus Christ recommends it to those who were present, and to those only, to do this in remembrance of him. But he no where tells them to order orcause it to be done by the whole Christian world, as he told them to"preach the Gospel to every creature. " To sum up the whole of what has been said in this chapter:--If weconsult St. Luke, and St. Luke only, all that we can collect on thissubject will be, that the future passover-suppers of Christ with hisdisciples were to be spiritual; that his disciples were desired to breaktheir bread together in remembrance of him; or if, as Jews, they couldnot relinquish the passover, to celebrate it with a new meaning; butthat this permission extended to those only who were present on thatoccasion. SECT. V. _Account of St. Paul--He states that the words "do this in remembranceof me" were used at the passover-supper--That they contained apermission for a custom, in which both the bread and the wine wereincluded--That this custom was the passover, spiritualised by JesusChrist--But that it was to last but for a time--Some conjecture thistime to be the destruction of Jerusalem--But the Quakers, till thedisciples had attained such a spiritual growth, that they felt Christ'skingdom substantially in their hearts--And as it was thus limited tothem, so it was limited to such Jewish converts as might have adopted itin their times. _ The last of the sacred writers, who mentions the celebration of thepassover-supper, is St. Paul, whose account is now to be examined. St. Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, reproves[187] thelatter for some irregularities committed by them in the course of theirreligious meetings. What these meetings were is uncertain. They mighthave been for the celebration of the passover-supper, for there was asynagogue of Jews at Corinth, of whom some had been converted. Or theymight have been for the celebration of the passover as spiritualized byJesus Christ, or for the breaking of bread, which customs both theJewish and Gentile converts might have adopted. The custom, however, atwhich these irregularities took place, is called by St. Paul, the Lord'sSupper. And this title was not inapplicable to it in either of the casessupposed, because it must have been, in either of them, incommemoration of the last supper, which Jesus Christ, or the Lord andMaster, ate with his disciples before he suffered. [Footnote 187: Chap. 11. ] But whichever ceremonial it was that St. Paul alluded to, thecircumstances of the irregularities of the Corinthians, obliged him toadvert to and explain what was said and done by Jesus on the night ofthe passover-supper. This explanation of the Apostle has thrown newlight upon the subject, and has induced the Quakers to believe, that nonew institution was intended to take place as a ceremonial to beobserved by the Christian world. St. Paul, in his account of what occurred at the original passover, reports that Jesus Christ made use of the words "this do in remembranceof me. " By this the Quakers understand that he permitted something to bedone by those who were present at this supper. He reports also, that Jesus Christ used these words, not only after thebreaking of the bread, but after the giving of the cup: from whence theyconclude, that St. Paul considered both the bread and the wine, asbelonging to that which had been permitted. St. Paul also says, "for as often as ye eat this bread and drink thiscup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. " By these words theybelieve they discover two things; first, the nature of the thingpermitted; and, secondly, that the thing permitted, whatever it was, wasto last but for a time. The thing then, which was permitted to those who were present at thepassover-supper, was to show or declare his death. The words "show ordeclare, " prove, in the first place, the connexion of the thingpermitted with the Jewish passover. For after certain ceremonies hadbeen performed on the passover night, "the showing forth ordeclaration, " as it was called, followed; or the object of the meetingwas declared aloud to the persons present, or it was declared to thempublicly in what particulars the passover feast differed from all theother feasts of the Jews. Secondly, the word "death" proves the thingpermitted to have been the passover, as spiritualized by Jesus Christ;for by the new modification of it, his disciples, if they were unable toovercome their prejudices, were to turn their attention from the type tothe antitype, or from the sacrifice of the paschal lamb to the sacrificeof himself, or to his own sufferings and death. In short, Jesus Christalways attempted to reform by spiritualizing. When the Jews followed himfor the loaves, and mentioned manna, he tried to turn their attentionfrom material to spiritual bread. When he sat upon Jacob's well, anddiscoursed with the woman of Samaria, he directed her attention fromordinary, or elementary to spiritual and living water. So he did uponthis occasion. He gave life to the dead letter of an old ceremony by anew meaning. His disciples were from henceforth to turn their attention, if they chose to celebrate the passover, from the paschal lamb tohimself, and from the deliverance of their ancestors out of Egyptianbondage to the deliverance of themselves and others, by the giving up ofhis own body and the shedding of his own blood for the remission ofsins. And as the thing permitted was the passover, spiritualized in thismanner, so it was only permitted for a time, or "until he come. " By the words "until he come, " it is usually understood, until Christcome. But though Christians have agreed upon this, they have disagreedas to the length of time which the words may mean. Some have understoodthat Jesus Christ intended this spiritualized passover to continue forever as an ordinance of his church, for that "till he come" must referto his coming to judge the world. But it has been replied to these, thatin this case no limitation had been necessary, or it would have beensaid at once, that it was to be a perpetual ordinance, or expressed inplainer terms, than in the words in question. Others have understood the words to mean the end of the typical world, which happened on the destruction of Jerusalem, when the Jews weredispersed, and their church, as a national one, done away. For thecoming of Christ and the end of the world have been considered astaking place at the same time. Thus the early Christians believed, thatJesus Christ, even after his death and resurrection, would come again, even in their own life time, and that the end of the world would thenbe. These events they coupled in their minds; "for[188] they asked himprivately, saying, tell us when these things shall be, and what shall bethe sign of thy coming and of the end of the world?" Jesus told them inreply, that the end of the world and his coming would be, when therewere wars, and rumours of wars, and earthquakes, and famine, andpestilence, and tribulations on the earth; and that these calamitieswould happen even before the generation, then alive, would pass away. Now all these things actually happened in the same generation; for theyhappened at the destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus Christ therefore meantby the end of the world, the end of the Jewish world, or of the world oftypes, figures, and ordinances: and he coupled naturally his own comingwith this event, because he could not come fully into the hearts of any, till these externals were done away. He alluded, in short, to the end ofthe Jewish dispensation and the beginning of his own spiritual kingdom, or to the end of the ceremonial and the beginning of the Gospel world. [Footnote 188: Matt. 24. ] Those therefore who interpret the words "till he come" to mean the endof the typical world, are of opinion that the passover, as spiritualizedby Jesus Christ, was allowed to the disciples, while they lived among apeople, so wedded to religious ceremonies as the Jews, with whom itwould have been a stumbling block in the way of their conversion, ifthey had seen the Apostles, who were their countrymen, rejecting it allat once; but that it was permitted, them, till the destruction ofJerusalem, after which event the Jews being annihilated as a nation, andbeing dispersed and mixed among the infinitely greater body of theGentiles, the custom was to be laid aside, as the disuse of it could notbe then prejudicial to the propagation of the Gospel among the communityat large. The Quakers, however, understand the words "till he come, " to meansimply the coming of Christ substantially in the heart. Giving the wordsthis meaning, they limit the duration of the spiritualized passover, butdo not specify the time. It might have ceased with some of them, theysay, on the day of pentecost, when they began to discover the nature ofChrist's kingdom; and they think it probable, that it ceased with all ofthem, when they found this kingdom realized in their hearts. For it isremarkable that those, who became Gospel writers, and it is to bepresumed that they had attained great spiritual growth when they wrotetheir respective works, give no instructions to others, whether Jews orGentiles, to observe the ceremonial permitted to the disciples by Jesus, as any ordinance of the Christian church. And in the same manner as theQuakers conceive the duration of the spiritualized passover to have beenlimited to the disciples, they conceive it to have been limited to allother Jewish converts, who might have adopted it in those times, thatis, till they should find by the substantial enjoyment of Christ intheir hearts, that ceremonial ordinances belonged to the old, but thatthey were not constituent parts of the new kingdom. SECT. VI. _Quakers believe, from the preceding evidence, that Jesus Christintended no ceremonial for the Christian church--for if the customenjoined was the passover spiritualized, it was more suitable for Jewsthan Gentiles--If intended as a ceremonial, it would have been commandedby Jesus to others besides his disciples, and by these to the Christianworld--and its duration would not have been limited--Quakers believe St. Paul thought it no Christian ordinance--three reasons taken from hisown writings on this subject. _ The Quakers then, on an examination of the preceding evidence, are ofopinion that Jesus Christ, at the passover-supper, never intended toinstitute any new supper, distinct from that of the passover, or fromthat enjoined at Capernaum, to be observed as a ceremonial byChristians. For, in the first place, St. Matthew, who was at the supper, makes nomention of the words "do this in remembrance of me. " Neither are these words, nor any of a similar import, recorded by St. Mark. It is true indeed that St. Mark was not at this supper. But it isclear he never understood from those who were, either that they werespoken, or that they bore this meaning, or he would have inserted themin his Gospel. Nor is any mention made of such words by St. John. This was the beloveddisciple who was more intimate with Jesus, and who knew more of the mindof his master, than any of the others. This was he who leaned upon hisbosom at the passover-supper, and who must have been so near him as tohave heard all that passed there. And. Yet this disciple did not thinkit worth his while, except manuscripts have been mutilated, to mentioneven the bread and wine that were used upon this occasion. Neither does St. Luke, who mentions the words "do this in remembrance ofme, " establish any thing, in the opinion of the Quakers, material onthis point. For it appears from him that Jesus, to make the most of hiswords, only spiritualized the old passover for his disciples, all ofwhom were Jews, but that he gave no command with respect to theobservance of it by others. Neither does St. Luke himself enjoin or callupon others to observe it. St. Paul speaks nearly the same language as St. Luke, but with thisdifference, that the supper, as thus spiritualised by Jesus, was to lastbut for a time. Now the Quakers are of opinion, that they have not sufficient ground tobelieve from these authorities, that Jesus intended to establish anyceremonial as an universal ordinance for the Christian church. For ifthe custom enjoined was the spiritualized passover, it was bettercalculated for Jews than for Gentiles, who were neither interested inthe motives nor acquainted with the customs of that feast. But it is oflittle importance, they contend, whether it was the spiritualizedpassover or not; for if Jesus Christ had intended it, whatever it was, as an essential of his new religion, he would have commanded hisdisciples to enjoin it as a Christian duty, and the disciples themselveswould have handed it down to their several converts in the same light. But no injunction to this effect, either of Jesus to others, or ofthemselves to others, is to be found in any of their writings. Add tothis, that the limitation of its duration for a time, seems a sufficientargument against it as a Christian ordinance, because whatever is once, most be for ever, an essential in the Christian church. The Quakers believe, as a farther argument in their favour, that thereis reason to presume that St. Paul never looked upon the spiritualisedpassover as any permanent and essential rite, which Christians wereenjoined to follow. For nothing can be more clear than that, whenspeaking of the guilt and hazard of judging one another by meats anddrinks, he states it as a general and fundamental doctrine ofChristianity, that [189] "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, butrighteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. " [Footnote 189: Romans 14. 17. ] It seems also by the mode of reasoning which the Apostle adopts in hisepistle to the Corinthians on this subject, that he had no other idea ofthe observance of this rite, than he had of the observance of particulardays, namely, that if men thought they were bound in conscience to keepthem, they ought to keep them religiously. "He that regardeth a day, says the Apostle, regardeth it to the Lord. " That is, "as he thatesteemed a day, says Barclay, and placed conscience in keeping it, wasto regard it to the Lord, (and so it was to him, in so far as heregarded it to the Lord, the Lord's day, ) he was to do it worthily: andif he were to do it unworthily, he would be guilty of the Lord's day, and so keep it to his own condemnation. " Just in the same manner St. Paul tells the Corinthian Jews, that if they observed the ceremonial ofthe passover, or rather, "as often as they observed it, " they were toobserve it worthily, and make it a religious act. They were not thencome together to make merry on the anniversary of the deliverance oftheir ancestors from Egyptian bondage, but to meet in memorial ofChrist's sufferings and death. And therefore, if they ate and drank thepassover, under its new and high allusions, unworthily, they profanedthe ceremony, and were guilty of the body and blood of Christ. It appears also from the Syriac, and other oriental versions of the NewTestament, such as the Arabic and Ethiopic, as if he only permitted thecelebration of the spiritualized passover for a time in condescension tothe weakness of some of his converts, who were probably from the Jewishsynagogue at Corinth. For in the seventeenth verse of the eleventhchapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians, the Syriac runs thus:[190] "As to that, concerning which I am now instructing you, I commendyou not, because you have not gone forward, but you have gone down intomatters of less importance. " "It appears from hence, says Barclay, that, the Apostle was grieved, that such was their condition that he wasforced to give them instruction concerning these outward things, anddoting upon which they showed that they were not gone forward in thelife of Christianity, but rather sticking in the beggarly elements; andtherefore the twentieth verse of the same version has it thus:[191]'When then ye meet together, ye do not do it as it is just yeshould in the day of the Lord; ye eat and drink. ' Therefore showing tothem, that to meet together to eat and drink outward bread and wine, wasnot the labour and work of that day of the Lord. " [Footnote 190: The Syriac is a very ancient version, and as respectableor of as high authority as any. Leusden and Schaaf translate the Syriacthus: "Hoc autem, quod praecipio, non tanquam laudo vos, quia nonprogressi estis, sed ad id, quod minus est, descendistis. " Compare thiswith the English edition. ] [Footnote 191: Quum igitur congregamini, non sicut justum est die domininostri, comeditis et bibites. Leusden et Schaaf lordoni butavorum. ] Upon the whole, in whatever light the Quakers view the subject beforeus, they cannot _persuade_ themselves that Jesus Christ intended toestablish any new _ceremonial_, distinct from the passover-supper, orwhich should render null and void, (as it would be the tendency of allceremonials to do) the supper which he had before commanded atCapernaum. The only supper which he ever enjoined to Christians, was thelatter. This spiritual supper was to be eternal and universal. For hewas always to be present with those "who would let him in, and they wereto sup with him, and he with them. " It was also to be obligatory, or anessential, with all Christians. "For except a man were to eat his flesh, and to drink his blood, he was to have no life in him. " The supper, onthe other hand, which our Saviour is supposed to have instituted on thecelebration of the passover, was not enjoined by him to any but thedisciples present. And it was, according to the confession of St. Paul, to last only for a time. This time is universally agreed upon to be thatof the coming of Christ. That is, the duration of the spiritualizedpassover was to be only till those to whom it had been recommended, hadarrived at a state of religious manhood, or till they could enjoy thesupper which Jesus Christ had commanded at Capernaum; after whichrepast, the Quakers believe they would consider all others as empty, andas not having the proper life and nourishment in them, and as of a kindnot to harmonize with the spiritual nature of the Christian religion. END OF THE SECOND VOLUME