fore he moved in so important a step. He ascertained, that notwithstanding all the calumnies and reproach with which their enemies loaded them, this class of men were a sober, plain, selfdenying, religious people; that they never shunned suffering or persecution for their testimony; that they gave up their all for the sake of their religion; that they had beat their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, and neither taught nor exercised war any more, the certain mark of the gospel times, according to the language of the evangelical prophet, Isai. ii. 4. Further, that they loved one another, the infallible character our blessed Saviour hath given, of their being his disciples, John xiii. 35; in short, that their practice and principles were most agreeable to the primitive standard recorded in the New Testament. He therefore came to this fixed and certain conclusion-if Jesus Christ hath followers, disciples, or a visible church upon earth, these must be they. So, upon full conviction, he joined with them, and became eminent for his religious and exemplary life, resolving to suffer indignities and injuries for conscience sake,-a virtue he was before very much unacquainted with. It appears, that David Barclay resided at Edinburgh at the time of his convincement, which, as before remarked, took place in 1666. In the 4th month following, he sent his son Robert to reside on his estate of Ury, near Stonehaven, being accompanied by his agent, David Falconer, a worthy Friend, who had several times suffered imprisonment for conscience sake at Edinburgh. The first public meeting for the purpose of worship was kept at Ury, with some others in that neighbourhood, that same month and year; Robert being then not nineteen years of age, and having quite newly become united in faith and fellowship with this religious body. Such a fact is thought worthy to be pointed out; and it is affectionately recommended to the contemplation of the youthful reader, taken in connexion with the extensive religious growth and fruitfulness of "this blessed young man". in after life-it seems to have been as an early offering by way of earnest, and, doubtless, not merely indicated, but opened the way to further acts of dedication. His father soon after, settling with his family at Ury, meetings of the like kind continued from that time to be regularly held, in a building close to the family mansion, for the space of, probably, more than one hundred and twenty years. (To be continued.) PLAINNESS OF LANGUAGE AND BEHAVIOUR. This change in his resolutions, belief, and practice, made him suffer nothing in the esteem of the generous and better part of his acquaintances; but it had the contrary effect among the more mean and malicious; and the laws being then against all meetings for worship, not conducted after the prescribed national standard, Among the deviations from the usual habits these greedily laid hold of the occasion, to mo- of his cotemporaries, which George Fox believed lest so peaceable a people; although it was himself divinely required to exhibit, not the clearly the main intention of the government, in least remarkable were the disuse of the usual the enactment of these laws, to put down those modes of salutation, and the adoption of the corfield conventicles of armed men among the Presby-rect scriptural language, in the use of the perterians in the south and west of Scotland, where few of the Quakers ever were disturbed. In the north, on the other hand, chiefly at Aberdeen, they were often "mobbed by the dregs of the town, set on by the zealots of that day." It was remarked, that none bore these indignities with greater calmness than did David Barclay. One of his relations, upon an occasion of uncommon rudeness, lamenting that he should now be treated so differently from what formerly he had been; he answered, that he found more satisfaction as well as honour, in being thus insulted for his religious principles, than when, some years before, it was usual for the magistrates, as he passed the city of Aberdeen, to meet him several miles, and conduct him to a public entertainment in their town-house, and then convey him so far out again, in order to gain his favour. His humility and sincerity as to religion were "most remarkable in his whole conduct; but his deportment is said to have been particularly awful and striking, when engaged in public prayer. In his person, he is represented as one of the largest, strongest, and handsomest men that could be seen among many thousands.” 66 sonal pronouns, thee and thou. On this subject his own statement is clear and pointed:"When the Lord sent me into the world, he forbade me to put off my hat to any, high or low; and I was required to thee and thou all men and women, without respect to rich or poor, great or small. O, the rage that was in the all sorts, and especially in priests and propriests, magistrates, professors and people of fessors; for, though thou, to a single person, was To those who are not acquainted with the manners of that time, it may probably be difficult to conceive, why so inoffensive a practice as the adoption of Scriptural phraseology should excite such indignation as it did. But this may be readily understood, if we recollect, that this language was much used among those who had but little intercourse with the world; and feriors. And, although it was always used in prayer was often, if not generally, employed in addressing into the Almighty, and retained in the higher orders of composition, its adoption in common conversation appeared, in the eyes of the fashionable world, not only vulgar, but disrespectful. Hence we perceive the point of George Fox's remark, that he was required to use this language, without respect to rich or poor, great or small. according to their grammar rules, and according | sober rationality, a matter of little importance to the Bible, yet they could not bear to hear it." whether a man that approaches us, or enters a While George Fox was imprisoned in Scar- room where we are, carries his hat on his head borough Castle, during the year 1665, he had or in his hand; yet, we find even now, a degree numerous visitors, who came to dispute with of regard paid to the ceremony of the hat, which him. One of these was a priest, who inquired sufficiently proves the hold it has taken upon why he and his friends said thee and thou to the feelings of many among us. When we bepeople?-adding that he counted them fools and hold all the men, with a very few exceptions, idiots for speaking in that manner. George, who enter the halls of justice or legislation, mewe may observe, in reply, made no allusion to chanically take off their hats as they pass the the conviction of duty on which he acted, but door, we may reasonably inquire whether this defended his practice, and refuted his opponent, is an unmeaning ceremony. If it is destitute of on grammatical principles. He asked the priest meaning, why is it so generally followed? Why whether those who translated the Scriptures, does the man who avoids it appear singular? and those that formed their grammars, were fools If it has a meaning, what is it? Are we showand idiots? And if they were, why he, and such ing reverence to the place or to the people, from as he, who considered themselves wise men, whom the same indications of reverence are exhad not altered their grammars, and substituted pected in return? This usage, which custom you for thee and thou there and in the translation of seems to have riveted upon us, has evidently a But if the translators of the Scrip- degree of slavery in it, if nothing worse; and if tures, and the authors of their grammars were we ask what kind of feeling or propensity it is wise men, then he desired the priest to reflect that exacts it, we shall probably find ourselves whether they were not fools and idiots them- compelled to acknowledge that it is pride. selves, that did not speak as their Bibles and Would any man be punctiliously careful to doff grammars taught them, but were offended with his hat upon entering a room, if he knew that those who did, and reckoned them fools and every person in it but himself was blind? idiots for speaking so. This reply, we are told, Would this care prevail among those who can silenced the priest. see, if pride was entirely banished from among us? It would have been a singular circumstance in the life of George Fox, if, with the keen penetrating eye of a reformer, with which he examined the doctrines and practices of his cotemporaries, he had not found himself called to reform the customary language of the world. The application of the plural pronoun to a single person, having originated in flattery-for that mode of address was first used to persons.in authority-was not reconcilable with the pure language which he was engaged to maintain. The restoration of the Scriptural phraseology, appeared then, no doubt as it does now, to a majority of those who speak our language, a matter with which religion had but little connection. It was, however, with George Fox and his friends, not merely the restoration of a pure language, but an essential part of their testimony to the intrinsic equality of men. They did not, in conformity to the usages of the day, employ one phraseology for the poor and another for the rich. Uncovering the head was an indication of the reverence with which they engaged in the ministry of the word, or approached the Almighty in prayer; and therefore, they could not conscientiously indicate, in a similar manner, a real or spurious reverence to their fellow man. Hence, we may perceive, that if the use of the plain language, and abstinence from the practice of uncovering the head and bowing the body, were not parts of the same testimony, they were, at least, closely allied, and appear to have been almost equally offensive to the pride of professors and profane. It must appear, when viewed in the light of The history of William Penn exhibits several striking instances of the importance attached in his day to the ceremony of the hat. When his father found that he was adopting the principles of George Fox, he offered to tolerate his behavior towards others, on condition that he would appear bareheaded in the presence of the king, the duke of York, and himself. Had William Penn considered this as an unimportant ceremony, devoid of connection with religious duty, there can be no doubt that his filial regard for the wishes of his parent, would have procured an unhesitating compliance. But whatever respect he might be willing to accord to the royal or paternal relation, he well knew that the king, the duke and the admiral were only men, and consequently, if he should consent to manifest his reverence to them by the same indication as he did towards his Creator, he would be abandoning the principle which he felt himself called to support. He could not give to any man, whatever his rank or relation might be, the indications of reverence which he reserved for his Maker. This was more than the pride of habitual authority could patiently bear, and the promising young man was expelled from the paternal mansion. Now it must be admitted, that the conduct of many who have had the advantage of an education in the Society of Friends, too clearly proves the little importance which they attach to the testimony for which William Penn was made willing to sacrifice all his worldly prospects, as well as to its kindred testimony, the restoration to inany, would, if universal, annihilate this distinction, and consequently diminish the clearness and force of our language. of the genuine Scripture language. To those | the indiscriminate application of you to one, and who believe as George Fox did, that they are divinely commanded to maintain these testimonies, arguments to prove their reasonableness would be of little importance. The duty of the Christian is not to reason upon the commands of his Lord, but to obey them. Yet, it may not be improper to remember, that every general practice into which the humbly devoted follower of Christ is led by the convictions of duty, how ever opposed to the prejudices and habits of the day, is found, when soberly examined, to be entirely and eminently rational. Thus, what the Saviour taught his disciples in secret, they were directed to proclaim on the housetop; and principles of action which are unfolded to pious individuals are eventually acknowledged as objects worthy of the attention of nations. With regard to the ceremony of the hat, and the use of correct Scripture language, it requires but few arguments to show the superior rationality of the practice of George Fox and his coadjutors. What custom could he more completely slavish than one which endangered the life of a man, because he happened, when walking the streets of a crowded city, not to observe another who saluted him by the cap and knee? Yet such, Wm. Penn informs us, was once his situation. And upon what principle of rationality can we defend the habit of using the same pronoun to designate a singular and plural, while the language we speak has furnished us with two? Yet irrational as the usages of the fashionable world must appear in these particulars, experience seems to warrant the conclusion, that nothing less than religious obligation is forcible enough to change them. That the language which George Fox was the instrument of bringing more conspicuously into use, is the genuine English idiom, is easily shown by several considerations. We observe, as George Fox remarked to the priest, this is the phraseology adopted in our translation of the Scriptures; and it is generally admitted that this translation, taken as a whole, is the best specimen extant of pure and correct English. In poetry, at least in the higher orders of composition, where style is a paramount object, this mode of expression is perhaps universal. It is the uniform language of Milton's great poems, as well as of all our best poets. In such prose compositions as are designed to exhibit our language in its utmost purity and perfection, we find the same style preserved. Hence, we fairly infer, that this is the established usage, and that the colloquial style, so generally adopted, is an anomaly. But considerations of a philological character, however clear, constitute a feeble barrier against the influence and slavery of custom. It is to the operation of religious conviction that we must look for a complete emancipation from the slavery of improper customs. In regard to the customary address, it is apprehended that those who have been educated in the religious Society of Friends, and who retain the profession, generally regard the use of the plain language as a part of that profession, and consequently as a religious duty. And we can fully avow the opinion, that if our young people would maintain this testimony in a firm and unflinching manner, they would find their strength in regard to other peculiarities of the society sensibly increased. Nothing that is likely to obstruct or to accelerate our progress in the way of a Christian life, is too small for serious consideration. And we would affectionately admonish such readers of the Review, of every age or condition in life, as feel an apprehension of duty in regard to the use of the plain language, never to permit themselves to be drawn aside, by any species of reasoning, from a faithful adherence to conscientious convictions. There is one aspect in which this subject may be viewed, which seems to merit more attention than it commonly receives. If we regard the use of the Scriptural language as a part of our religious duty, why is it not more fully and consistently maintained? If we attempt, as George Fox did, to defend the use of the plain language by pointing out its consistency with the rules of grammar, why are those rules so generally disregarded? As the use of you, instead of the singular, in common conversation, has led to its adoption in familiar writing, so the use of the objective thee, instead of the nominative thou, among Friends in their customary intercourse, has led to the occasional introduction of this anomaly into writing. In that case, custom not having made this phraseology familiar to the eye, whatever it may be to the ear, its awkwardness is obvious and offensive to correct taste. As it would be an evident waste of time to go into an elaborate argument to prove the propriety of endeavouring to support what we usually regard as one of our testimonies, in a thoroughly consistent manner, we will close our observations on the subject, by the insertion of a communication received not long ago from a consciantious correspondent, from which it will manifestly appear that the editor is not alone in assigning to the correct use of the plain language a more conspicuous position in the economy of Quakerism, than is usually accorded The perfection of a language consists in its capacity of expressing with clearness and facility the various shades of thought. Of course, a language which could not readily distinguish whether an address was made to one or to more, would be defective in an essential element. But to it. For Friends' Review. PLAIN LANGUAGE. The observations found in number 11 of Friends' Review, on the plain language, interested me much, and I would gladly have seen ere this time, something corroborative of the views of that writer, from the pen of some more able advocate of propriety and consistency than myself. The noble, plain and appropriate manner in which he treats the subject, is such, that the reading of it both cheered and rejoiced my heart. My case was almost precisely similar to that of the person he alludes to, who "endured long and painful suffering for years, for want of full faithfulness in the CORRECT use of the plain language, while the fear of those older," and even plain, too," who used the erroneous mode, ope rated as an almost incredible barrier; and I have reason, with him, to believe, "there are many such, variously scattered." And, as the editor says, he "can assure his readers, from an experience of nearly fifty years, that the real difficulty in the case, is almost wholly in the commencement," I also can assure those who may read these brief remarks of mine, that when I became fully resigned to make the attempt, it was not only made tolerable, but easy-verifying the encouraging declaration of the dear Master, when he said, "my yoke is easy and my burden is light." "Let any man who understands the English language determine to speak grammatically, whenever he speaks at all, and the pronoun thou, will soon take its place as submissively as any member of the family." We find, that in the view of the considerate part of the community at large, it is a lowering of the dignity of our profession, for us to make use of the objective pronoun thee for the nominative B. F. thou. HUTCHINSON'S LETTERS. TO JOSEPH GURNEY.. I am sometimes struck with the chapter of beatitudes, on contrasting the characters on whom the blessings and woes are pronounced, finding as I do "the poor," "the meek," "the mourner," "the peace-maker," "the pure in heart,” among the first, and their opposites among the last; and this line of providential conduct towards the human race may, I think, be traced through much of the Scriptures, perhaps through the whole of the New Testament. I rejoice in the comfort thou hast been permitted to take in thy place and in thy God, believing as I do that there is a joy chastised, a satisfaction restrained in the way I have hinted at. It may be as evident to thee as it is to myself, that from difference of temperament-of our the opposite sides of a subject, and this appamental course-we are rather prone to lean to rently without any design; whilst thou keepest guard on the right hand, I would place one on the left. Thus whilst a leading position in thy letter is, (I speak with reverence,) that a gracious and merciful God is no hard task-master, and that therefore He ought to be cheerfully loved, I perhaps may be allowed to think that for the same reasons He should be solemnly feared; and I dare say we shall both agree, that in the due proportion and exercise of these two principles, fear and love combined, like heat and moisture in vegetation, consist our greatest security, and deepest if not most luxuriant growth. After all, it is to me a very pleasant circumstance in our acquaintance, that our aim being similar, whatever route we take, we mostly meet at last, and not unfrequently find, on comparing our thoughts, that they have been previously running Thus I was quite in nearly the same channel. prepared to join in thy belief, that an entire resignation of all that we are, and all that we possess, is the road to the purest and sweetest enjoyments; and further, that it is the only thing that can lead us to that most desirable, though too little desired state, of "having nothing, yet possessing all things," in the will and at the disposal of Him who thus really becomes our “all in all." I sincerely congratulate thee, in that on thy return to thy usual residence, after a pretty long absence from it, thou hast been enabled to rejoice and give thanks, on the very spot which, It seems that both thyself and thy dear comthough doubtless the former scene of thy highest panion (whom, though I have not yet named, I enjoyments, has also been that of recent and se- hope never to forget,) had become much united vere trials. And is not this, I have been ready in love to the friends you have lately left. I do to say, the humble triumph of faith? Is it not not wonder at this, and I think with thee, that the victory of a spirit measurably redeemed? thy last remark on the nature of this love was an Yet, whilst I thus infer from thy delight in the improvement or good addition to the first, by Lord, (for such, from thy" dissection" of thank- considering it, in kind at least, as universal and fulness, I think thy delight must have been,) I complete, rather than an individual and propordo not regret thy being so far no poet as to be tionate enjoyment. This I think must be the restrained or incapacitated from rapture, think-case when, in a collective body, this precious ing as I do that the Christian's joy should partake more of a certain old-fashioned, apostolic thing, called "trembling," and that the very zenith even of religious rejoicing, should never rise above the tranquil hope that our names are written in heaven." influence is felt to pervade the whole, and circulate freely, as from vessel to vessel a rare thing, of which I just know enough to believe in it; but may not even this sublimest spiritual sense with which we are endowed, perfect and one as it is in its nature, vary in degree according to ance the receptive power of different vessels, so that, | labouring classes, both in this country and in like the state of which I consider it an earnest Europe, excites in all reflecting minds; the obviand a foretaste, whilst the capacity of receiving ous danger of leaving such masses of human this blessedness may vary, yet every measure is beings in close contact, without an effort for full both as to quantity and quality, so that "he their improvement, and the certainty that, in that has much has nothing over, and he that has this country, at least, they are exerting a powlittle has no lack." This, in short, is my viewerful influence in the government, give importof the happiness of heaven, a view which, whilst to any suggestion for their elevation in it admits of one star differing from another star morals and intelligence. 0. in glory, yet, like the beautiful order of the planetary system, allows of no jarring or discord. All harmonize, all run their appointed courses, and all without envying, perhaps without knowing, the different degrees of consciousness which each respectively possesses; all, all unite in their Creator's praise! For Friends' Review. POPULAR EDUCATION. "Never did a greater fallacy possess the world than that childhood is the principal time for education. Can ordinary childhood understand the laws and habits of mind-the philosophy of language the science of mathematics-the rules of taste and criticism-the economy and uses of history-the relative value of logic, geography, and drawing-the importance of moral knowledge the force of opinion, and the varieties of literature? The answer from all parts of the world would be, from all ages, if we could assemble them—No! It would be unreasonable to expect childhood under 15 or 16 years, to appreciate these subjects. Now these subjects are education. There can be no education, worthy the name, without them. And if childhood cannot appreciate them, it is clear that childhood, in the proper sense of the term, cannot be educated, and this is a most undoubted truth, which Without adopting every sentiment expressed, much less every conclusion which may be deduced from the following paragraphs, taken from "Bayley's Two Lectures on Education," as quoted in the Westminster Review, I think they contain matter for profitable reflection. The tendency, in too many of our schools, is to an excessive multiplication of studies. The resulting evils are manifold. The time for fastening elementary truths upon the still re-it behoves the nation to learn. Some of the tentive memory, is wasted in endeavouring to physical powers may be modified in children, cram the immature faculties with knowledge and many of its dispositions may be biassed, which they are wholly unable to appropriate but neither more than superficially. These can a lamentable ignorance of the rudiments of be done, because childhood is intensely imitalearning is not, perhaps, the result which is tive, facile of perception, and tenacious of memost to be deprecated. The proper train- mory. But in all that requires thought, reasoning of the mental powers is almost wholly ne-ing, self-discipline, and moral courage, it is not glected, and the boy's habit of slurring over the possible to make material progress with the daily lesson, with scarcely an attempt to compre-child-pupil. The imitative faculty is the mind'st hend it, begets in the adult an incapacity for tender, filled with the materials which the vast the investigation of truth-the blind adherence and complicated machine of thought will reto pre-conceived opinions, or an equally blind quire; but the tender will not move the train. rejection of the views which he has been taught It is wise and gracious in Providence that the to advocate; and, very probably, a thorough con- intellectual powers do not develope in childhood. tempt for that learning of which he has vainly It would be a lachrymose world if childhood endeavoured to discover the utility. Nothing is could reason and resolve like men-were conclearer to my mind, than that the benefits to be sumed with the same passions, or ridden by the derived from popular education, as at present same cares. Childhood's tears dry before they conducted, are greatly overrated. Nor is the have well fallen; its repose is rarely broken by management of our common schools liable to a the ruined fortune, or its appetite spoiled by the more dangerous mistake than the substitution of change of fare, from venison to porridge, or by a specious, superficial and useless course of in- the decay of the last fine garment; for the heart struction, in a variety of branches, having exclu- of childhood rapidly domiciliates itself to every sive reference to the intellect, for a thorough place; finds associates in the nearest sport-feldrilling in the rudiments of knowledge, with a lows; thinks more of a water-frolic than of the constant view to moral training. So far as the verdict of the world, or of a handful of roseate passages quoted below may serve to show the fruit than the rising funds or falling thrones. folly of overtasking the youthful intellect, the The war horse,' says Job, taunts the battle writer seems to me to promulgate unquestiona-array with his ha! ha!' and so does childhood. ble truths. How far the plan which he has The lightning rives the oak and smites down the suggested might go towards providing for those tower; the flood sweeps away banks, bridges, wants which he deems so imperative, I know and docks; revolution fills the streets, pestilence not. The interest which the condition of the the cemetery, and famine speeds its death |