and the laws with contempt, under the pretence of conscience and a divine impulse, and greatly disturbed both the church and the state. It is therefore not strange that many of them often suffered severe punishments for their rashness and folly. Crom well, though otherwise not hostile to any sect, yet was afraid of this turbulent multitude, and at first he determined to suppress it. But when he perceived that all his promises and his threatenings could made no impression on them, he prudently refrained, and deemed it advisable merely to take care that they should not excite seditions among the people and weaken the foundations of his power.2 See Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. iv. p. 153, &c. [ed. 1817, p. 174, &c.] Sewel's Hist. of the Quakers, in various places. [Mr. Neal, in the passage just named, gives account of the offensive conduct of some of the first Quakers and of the punishments to which they were subjected. And Toulmin in his notes cor3. Gradually however the excessive arrects the statements of Neal, and vindicates the Quakers. dour of the rising sect subsided, as it was The story of James Nayler is there stated. This honest natural to expect, and that divine light to the Quakers, very improperly suffered some misguided which the Quakers made pretensions, by individuals to style him the everlasting Son of righte- decrees ceased to disturb the commonwealth. ness, the prince of peace, the only-begotten Son of God, the fairest among ten thousand. He likewise allowed In the reign of Charles II. both their relisome of them to kiss his feet when imprisoned at Exe-gion and their discipline assumed a more ter, and after his release to conduct him in triumph definite and fixed character. to Bristol, one man walking bareheaded before him, enthusiast, who had been an admired speaker among In this busianother, a woman, leading his horse, and others spread-ness, Fox was assisted especially by Robert ing their scarfs and handkerchiefs in the way, and cry- Barclay, a Scotch knight, [gentleman], George Keith, and Samuel Fisher, learned men who had connected themselves with his sect. For these three men digested and reduced to fixed principles, the loose ing, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Hosts, Hosanna in the highest, holy, holy, is the Lord God of Israel.' The magistrates of Bristol caused him to be apprehended and transmitted him to the parliament, which tried him for blasphemy. He alleged that these honours were not paid to him, but to Christ who dwelt in him, and said, "If they had it from the Lord, what had I to do to reprove them? If the Father has moved them to give these honours to Christ, I may not deny them; if they have given them to any other but to Christ, I disown them. I do abhor that any honours due to God should be given to me, as I am a creature; but it pleased the Lord to set me up as a sign of the coming of the righteous One, and what has been done to me passing through the town, I was commanded by the power of the Lord to suffer to be done to the outward man, as a sign, but I abhor any honour as a creature." Manifest as it was that the man was beside himself, and had no intention to allow divine honours to be paid to himself, he was condemned to be branded, have his tongue bored with a hot iron, sit in the pillory, be whipped through the streets of London and Bristol, and then to be imprisoned during the pleasure of parliament, and this cruel sentence was executed. But during his. imprisonment he came to his senses, and very fully and penitently acknowledged his fault. The great body of Quakers at the time expressly disapproved his conduct, and they promptly ejected him from their community, but afterwards upon his repentance restored him. Such in substance is the famous case of James Nayler, which though a solitary case and disapproved at the time by the mass of the Quakers, has continued to this day to occasion great censure to be cast upon the whole sect. That the early Quakers sometimes mistook the conclusions of their own minds for suggestions of the Spirit, and that they needlessly adopted odious singularities, or did not comply so far as they ought with the customs and usages of society, nor treat the religion of others with that respect and decorum which are necessary to the peace of a community in which various religions are tolerated, many will think to be very manifest. Yet, on the other hand, there was doubtless a great want of candour and forbearance towards them. Their errors were magnified, and their indiscretions punished as high-handed crimes. One of their own writers, (Gough, Hist. of the Quakers, vol. i. p. 139, &c.) says, "A Christian exhortation to an assembly after the priest had done and the worship was over, was denominated interrupting public worship and disturbing the priest in his office; an honest testimony against sin in the streets or markets, was styled a breach of the peace; and their appearing before the magistrates covered, a contempt of authority; hence proceeded fines, imprisonments, and spoiling of goods."-Mosheim's representation of the modern Quakers as more moderate and decorous than their fathers in the days of Cromwell, seems to be in general correct. Yet the author of A Refutation of erroneous Statements relative to the Society of Quakers (in Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. vol. iv. p. 304, &c.), makes the following remarks, which are worthy of being inserted here. "Dr. Mosheim has, in several instances, endeavoured to impress the reader with the idea, that the ancient and modern Quakers were entirely different people, both in respect to their principles and conduct. This is the more worthy of notice, as it is an error not by any means peculiar to him, but which in a degree prevails very generally. We view the modern Quakers with our own proper vision, and through a medium cleared from the discolorations of that through which we view the ancient, and they appear to us a quiet, orderly, moral, and religious people. But in the accounts transmitted to us by their enemies, we view the ancient Quakers through a discoloured medium, a vision extremely acrimonious and tinged with bile, and they appear to us fanatic, turbulent, and riotous. If we were to imagine to ourselves the modern Quakers passing through our country, as they actually do, seek. ing and conversing with sober inquirers, appointing meetings for religious worship; and if at the same time we were to imagine a mob of dissolute and enraged rabble at their heels, scoffing, and beating them with sticks and stones to interrupt their meetings, without the least marks of violence or even of defensive resis. tance to any on their part; if we imagine some unworthy ministers and magistrates rather instigating their fury, the latter sending them to prison charged with the riots to which themselves had been accessory, the Quakers submitting to all with a patience unconquerable, yet pursuing their mission with undeviating perseverance, not to be paralleled in history since the days of the first promulgators of the Christian faith, we might then perhaps view a true picture of the ancient Quakers, their principles, their doctrine, and their manners being the same."-Mur. 2 Clarendon tells us in his History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, [French edition] vol. vi. p. 437, that the Quakers remained always violent enemies to Cromwell. See Sewel, ubi supra, book iii. p. 91, 113, 148, 149. &c. [ed. 1811, vol. i. p. 168, 209, 273, 275, &c.-Mur. 3 Respecting Barclay, see Nouveau Dictionnaire Hist. et Crit. tome i. p. 67, &c. Respecting Keith, see Sewel, Hist. of the Quakers, p. 429, 490, 544, 560. Respecting Fisher, see the Unschuldige Nachrichten, A.D. 1750, p. 333, &c. [Robert Barclay was descended from an honourable family, but he was not a knight. For his history the Quakers refer us to the account of him by William Penn and others, his contemporaries, prefixed to the edition of his works in folio, 1692. For the life of Fisher, they refer us to William Penn's account of him, annexed to Fisher's works, fol. 1679.Mur. Kkk and vague discipline of Fox, who was an their sentiments among foreign nations, and illiterate man.' Yet for a long time, these to establish for themselves more secure wiser and more quiet Quakers had to endure habitations. Attempts were made in Gereven more suffering and calamity in Eng- many, Prussia, France, Italy, Greece, Holland than the insane and turbulent had land, and Holstein, but generally without experienced, though not so much for their effect. Yet the Dutch at length were religion as for their manners and customs. prevailed upon to allow some families the For as they would not address magistrates liberty of residing among them, which they by their honorary title and pay them cus- enjoy to the present time. Many of these tomary respect, as they refused the oath of people, not long after the sect arose, proallegiance to the king, and as they would ceeded to America. And afterwards by a not pay tithes to the clergy, they were singular turn of things, the seat of its liberlooked upon as bad citizens and dangerous ties and fortunes was established, as it were, men, and were often severely punished.2 in that quarter of the world. William Under James II. and especially after the Penn, the son of the English vice-admiral, year 1685, they began to see better days; adopted the Quaker religion in 1668, and for which they were indebted to the cele- in the year 1680 Charles II. and the parbrated William Penn, who was employed liament granted to him an extensive proby the king in state affairs of the greatest vince in America, at that time a wilderness, importance. At length, William III. who in reward for the great services rendered gave peace to all sects of dissenters from by his father to the nation. Penn, who the reigning church, allowed these people also to enjoy public liberty and tranquillity. 4. Oppressed and persecuted in their own country, the Quakers sought to propagate indeed, William Penn, who certainly knew Fox's charac was a man of discernment and also eloquent, conducted a colony of his friends and associates into his new dominions, and there established a republic in form, laws, and regulations, unlike any other in the known world, yet a peaceful and happy one, 1 The Quakers consider this statement of Mosheim and which still flourishes in great prospeas being unjust to the character of George Fox. And rity." The Quakers there are predominant, ter well, and was no incompetent judge of men, in his yet all persons may become citizens who preface to Fox's Journal, says, "He was a man that acknowledge that there is but one supreme God endowed with a clear and wonderful depth, a dis- God whose providence is over all human cerner of others' spirits, and very much a master of his own. In all things he acquitted himself like a man, a affairs, and who pay him homage, if not by new and heavenly-minded man, a divine and a natura- outward signs yet by uprightness of life list, and all of God Almighty's making. I have been surprised at his questions and answers in natural things, and conduct. The province was named that while he was ignorant of useless and sophistical from its proprietor, Pennsylvania, and the science, he had in him the foundation of useful and commendable knowledge, and cherished it everywhere." principal city is called Philadelphia. As to the Quaker discipline, their monthly meetings, &c. the records of the sect, they tell us, contain nothing 5. While Fox was still alive there were frequent dissensions and broils among the from which it may be inferred that Barclay, Keith, and Fisher, had any share in its formation; or that it was Quakers (in the years 1656, 1661, 1683, not chiefly, if not wholly, brought into form and opera- and in other years), not indeed respecting tion by Fox. He describes circumstantially his journeys through England to establish the monthly meetings. religion itself, but respecting discipline, This was in the year 1667, the very year that Barclay Customs, and things of minor consequence. joined the society, being then only 19 years old. Fisher But these contests for the most part were died two years before this time, after lying in prison. a year and a half. See Bevan's Refutation of some soon adjusted. After the death of Fox odern Misrepresentations of the Society of Friends, (which occurred in 1691), among others, London, 1800, 12mo, and the Vindication of the Quakers, subjoined to Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, published George Keith especially, the most learned at Philadelphia in 1800, and N. York, 1824.-Mur. man of the whole sect, gave occasion to [See especially Gurney's Observations on the Peculiarities of the Society of Friends, Lond. 1824.-R. greater commotions. For Keith was thought by the other brethren in Pennsylvania to entertain sentiments not accordant with the truth on several points, but especially in regard to the human nature of Christ. He See Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. iv. p. 313, 353, 396, 432, 510, 518, 552, 569; Burnet's History of His Own Times, vol. i. p. 271; Sewel, ubi supra, pas sim. [The Quakers were conscientious in all these singularities; and though we may consider them as scrupulous without good reason and contrary to the example of Christ and his apostles, who paid tribute to the priests, submitted to civil oaths, and addressed. magistrates by their usual titles, yet as they could not think so, they ought to have been indulged. The fact probably was, that many people of that age could not believe that they were actuated merely by scruples of conscience; and others who did suppose this might be the case, were not disposed to indulge the consolences of those who erred.-Mur. See Sewel's History of the Quakers, p. 538, 546, 552, 564, 591, 605, &c. 4 Euvres de M. de Voltaire, tome iv. p. 182. 5 The charter, the laws, and other papers relating to the establishment of this new commonwealth, were published [in Rapin's History, Penn's Works, and] not long since in the Bibliothèque Britannique, tome xv. part ii. p. 310, tome xvi. part 1. p. 127. Penn himself acquired a high reputation by several productions of his pen and by other things. Sewel treats of him in several places, and Burnet also, in his History of His Own Times. 6 See Sewel's History of the Quakers, p. 126, 132, 262 429, 529, &c. maintained that our Saviour possessed a twofold human nature the one celestial and spiritual, the other terrene and corporeal. This and the other inventions of Keith would perhaps have been tolerated with much moderation by a people who place all religion in an indescribable sense or instinct, if he had not strongly reproved some strange opinions of the American brethren, and in particular, had he not opposed their turning the whole history of our Saviour into an allegory, or a symbolical representation of the duties which religion requires of man. In Europe, indeed, the Quakers dare not deny the truth of the history of Jesus Christ; but in America, where they have nothing to fear, they are said to utter what they think and to deny any Christ who exists without us. This controversy between Keith and the other Quakers, which was discussed in several general meetings of the whole sect in England and even brought before the British parliament, was at last decided in the year 1695 by the exclusion of Keith and his adherents from communion in worship. Touched with a sense of injury, after some keriana, llb. iii. p. 446, &c. 2 But years Keith returned to the English church and died in its communion.3 His friends long held their separate meetings, but if report may be credited they have now become reconciled with the brethren.3 6. The religion of the Quakers appears at first view to be a novel thing, but it is not so in fact. For it is the ancient Mystic theology which arose in the second century, was fostered by Origen, and has been handed down to us by men of various characters and genius, now a little expanded and enlarged by the addition of consequences before not well understood. The well-meaning Fox indeed did not invent anything; but all that he taught respecting the internal word or light and its powers, he undoubtedly derived either from the books of the Mystics, a multitude of which were then circulating in England, or from the discourses of some persons initiated in the Mystic doctrines. But the doctrines which he brought forward confusedly and rudely (for he was a man of uncultivated mind and not adorned and polished with any literature or science) the sagacity of Barclay, Keith, Fisher, and Penn, embellished and reduced to such coherency, that 1 Cérémonies et Coutumes de tous les Peuples du they exhibit the appearance of a digested Monde, tome iv. p. 141, &c.; Croese's, Historia Quac system or body of doctrine. The Quakers 2 Burnet's History of His Own Times, vol. ii. p. 290. therefore may be justly pronounced the The commotions about Keith are treated of by William principal sect of [modern] Mystics, who Sewel, History of the Quakers, p. 577, 592, 603. either he did not understand the true nature of the have not only embraced the precepts of that controversy (which might be, as he was not a man of occult wisdom, but have likewise seen learning) or he designedly perverts and obscures it. More light is thrown on it in the German life of Henry whither those precepts lead, and have reBernhard Küster, published in Rahtlef's Gelehrten Euro-ceived at once all the consequences which pa, vol. iii. p. 484. For Küster, a man of probity, then flow from them.4 lived in America, and was an eyewitness of the transactions. [Mosheim appears to have been misinformed respecting George Keith and his controversy with the American Quakers; and therefore, with many others, he has given us Keith's false and slanderous representations as a true account. Keith was a Scotchman, born and liberally educated in the Scotch church. How and when he became a Quaker is not known. But for more than five-and-twenty years he travelled, preached, wrote, and suffered, among the Quakers of England and Scotland. During this period he was one of their most learned and efficient ministers, and was held by them in high estimation. In the year 1689, he removed to America and settled in Philadelphia, where he was made master of the principal school among the Quakers. He now attempted to direct and reform the discipline of the Society, and to assume a dictation which was offensive to his brethren. Mutual alionation took place, and Keith dealt out his censures both of men and measures with great freedom. A party adhered to him, but the great body of Quakers whom he was continually assailing, thought proper in the year 1692 to lay him under censure. Keith and his party still professed to be in communion with the English Quakers; but when the yearly meeting of Philadelphia sent an account of his case to the yearly meeting of London in the spring of the year 1694, Keith thought proper to appear there in vindication of his conduct. He asked and obtained a hearing; and the yearly meeting of London, after a full examination of the case, approved entirely of the proceedings of the American Quakers, and excluded Keith from all fellowship for his factious and unchristian conduct and his false criminations of the American brethren. A few however adhered to him in England, and he set up a separate meeting in London, and laboured much during several years to destroy that faith which he had spent so many years in defending and propagating. His misrepresentations of the views of the Quakers were abundant, and they were answered and confuted with no little success from his own former publications. Meeting with but little success in forming a new party, and gradually departing farther and farther from Quaker principles, he in the year 1700 wholly renounced Quakerism and became an Episcopal clergyman. In this capacity he visited America in the year 1702, hoping to draw many Quakers into the English church. But his former partisans in America, though not yet reconciled with the Quakers, would not follow him into the established church. Being entirely unsuccessful in America, Keith returned to England, became a parish minister, and died a few years after. See Gough's History of the Quakers, vol. iii. p. 317-350, 332-390, 442-455; Sewel's History of the Quakers, vol. ii. p. 493-495, 496, &c. 526-534, 574.-Mur. 3 See Rogers Christian Quaker, London, 1699, 4to, and The Quakers a Divided People, Lond. 1708, 4to; Unschuldige Nachrichten, A.D. 1744, p. 496, &c. 4 Most persons think that we are to learn what the Quakers believe and teach, from Robert Barclay's Cachism, or still better, from his Apology for the True Christian Divinity, which was published, Lond. 1676, 4to, and translated into other languages. Nor shall I much object to this opinion, if it be understood to mean that this sect is exceedingly desirous that others should judge of the nature of their religion by these books. But if any would have us believe that these books contain everything the Quakers regard as true, and that nothing more than what these contain was formerly taught among them or is now taught, he may easily be confuted from numerous publications. For Barclay as 7. Their fundamental doctrine therefore, | him, or a celestial voice break upon him and that on which all their other doctrines out of the inmost recesses of the soul, which depend, is that very ancient maxim of the Mystic school: That there lurks in the minds of all men a portion of the divine reason or nature, or a spark of that wisdom which is in God himself. That whoever is desirous of true happiness and eternal salvation must, by turning his thoughts inward and away from external objects (or by contemplation and weakening the empire of the senses), elicit, kindle, and inflame this hidden, divine spark, which is oppressed and suffocated by the mass of the body and by the darkness of the flesh with which our souls are surrounded. That whoever shall do so will find a wonderful light rise upon sumed the office of an advocate, not that of a teacher; and of course he explains the sentiments of his sect, just as those do who undertake to defend an odious cause. In the first place, he is silent on points of Chris tianity of the utmost importance, concerning which it is very desirable to know the true sentiments of the Quakers; and he exhibits a really mutilated system of theology. For it is the practice of advocates to pass over the things which cannot easily be placed in an advantageous light, and to take up only such things as ingenuity and eloquence can make appear plausible and excellent. In the next place, he touches only cursorily and slightly upon several things, the full exposition of which would bring much odium on the Quakers, which is also an indication of a bad cause. Lastly, and to go no farther, the things which he cannot deny or conceal he explains in the most delicate and cautious manner, in common, ordinary phraseology, not very definite, avoiding carefully all the appropriate and almost consecrated terms adopted by the sect. Now it will not be very difficult for one who will take such a course, to give a specious appearance to any the most absurd doctrines. And it is well known that in this way the doctrine of Spinoza has been disguised and painted up by some of his disciples. There are other writers of this sect who express their sentiments much more clearly and freely; among whom, William Penn and George Whitehead, very celebrated men, deserve to be read preferably to all others. Among their other works there is one entitled, The Christian Quaker and his Divine Testimony vindicated by Scripture, Reason, and Authorities, against the injurious Attempts that have been lately made by several Adversaries, London, 1674, small folio. Penn wrote the first part and Whitehead the second. There is also extant in Sewel's History, p. 578, a Confession of Faith, which the Quakers pub lished in 1693, in the midst of the controversy with Keith. But it is very cautiously drawn up and a great part of it is ambiguous. [Toulmin thinks that Mosheim is here uncandid and unjust towards Barclay; and that he has exposed himself to the just animadversions of Gough, in his History of the Quakers, vol. ii. p. 401-406. See Toulmin's note to Neal, vol. v. p. 253, ed. Boston, 1817. Not having Barclay's Apology before me, I will pass no judgment on the justice or injustice of Mosheim's statements. But I will say that I do not understand him to charge Barclay with direct and wilful misrepresentations; but only with so far acting the advocate that his book is not the best guide to a full and correct knowledge of the sentiments of the Quakers; and consequently that it is necessary to consult other works, such as the writings of Penn and Whitehead, if we would fully and truly understand the Quaker system. Now this may be so, while still the vindication of the Quakers by the committee representing the yearly meeting of Friends in Philadelphia, A.D. 1799, may very honestly and truly say: "As to our tenets and history, we refer to Fox, Barclay, Penn, Sewel, Gough, &c. and declare that we never had, nor now have, any other doctrines to publish, and that there are no religious opinions or practices among us which have not been made known to the world."-Mur. will instruct him in all divine truth and be the surest pledge of union with the supreme God. This natural treasure of mankind is called by various names; very often by that of a divine light, sometimes a ray of eternal wisdom, sometimes celestial Sophia, concerning whose nuptials under a female garb with man, some of this class of people speak in magnificent terms. The names best known among us are the internal Word, and Christ within us. For as they hold the sentiment of the ancient Mystics and of Origen, that Christ is the reason and wisdom of God, and suppose all men to be furnished with a particle of the divine wisdom, they are obliged to maintain that Christ or the Word of God resides, acts, and speaks, in all persons.1 8. Whatever other singular and strange sentiments they may hold, all originated from this one principle as their prolific source. Because Christ resides in every son of Adam; therefore, I. All religion consists in man's averting his mind from external objects, weakening the empire of the senses, turning himself inward upon himself, and listening with his whole attention to what the Christ in his breast or the internal light dictates and enjoins. II. The external word, that is, the Holy Scriptures, does not enlighten and guide men to salvation; for words and syllables, being lifeless things, cannot have power to illumine the soul of man and to unite it to God. The only effect of the inspired books upon one who reads them, is to excite and stimulate him to attend to the internal Word, and to seek the school of Christ teaching within him. Or, to express the same thing in other words, the Bible is a mute guide, which by signs points and directs to the living master residing in the soul. III. 1 Yet the modern Quakers, as appears from the writings of Josiah Martin and others, are ignorant of the true sentiments of their forefathers, and perpetually confound this inherent and innate light with that light of the Holy Spirit which is shed on the minds of the pious. [This declaration of Mosheim clearly shows that he did not understand the fundamental principle of the Quakers, which is essentially different from that of the ancient Mystics. The particle of the divine nature, which the Mystics supposed to be a constituent part of man at his first creation, or a natural principle in all men, and which was sufficient to enlighten, guide, and sanctify them, provided the influences of the body or of sense could be counteracted, was quite a different thing from the internal light of the Quakers. For the latter is supposed to be a revelation made to the soul, by Christ acting through the Holy Spirit. It is therefore grace, not nature; a divine communication to fallen men, and not an original principle in their natural constitutions; and its influences and operations are moral not physical. It is therefore not strange that the Quakers should complain of this and the following sectious as totally misrepresenting their fundamental principles. -Mur. Those who are destitute of this written 9. These things show that the religion of word-pagans, Jews, Mohammedans, and the Quakers can conveniently dispense with the barbarous nations-want indeed some a Christ without, and with all that Chrisaid for obtaining salvation, but not the way tians believe on the authority of the Holy or the discipline of salvation itself. For if Scriptures concerning his divine origin, they would give heed to the internal teacher, life, merits, sufferings, and atonement. Bewho is never silent when the man listens to cause the whole ground of salvation lies in him, they might abundantly learn from him the Christ within. Not a few of them, whatever is necessary to be known and to therefore, as we learn from very credible be done. IV. The kingdom of Jesus Christ authors, once fell into the absurdity of therefore is of vast extent, and embraces maintaining that the whole narrative in the the whole human race. For all men carry Scriptures respecting Jesus Christ is not Christ in their souls; and by him, though the history of the Son of God clothed in living in the greatest barbarism and totally human nature, but the history of Christ ignorant of the Christian religion, they may within us decorated with poetic imagery become wise and happy both in this life and and allegory. This opinion, if we may give in that to come. They who live virtuously credit to very respectable witnesses, is so and restrain the cravings of lust, whether far from having become extinct among they are Jews, Mohammedans, or pagans, may become united to God through Christ residing in their souls in this world, and so be united to him for ever. V. The principal hindrance to men's perceiving and hearkening to Christ present within them, is the heavy, dark body, composed of vicious matter, with which they are enveloped. And hence all possible care must be taken that this connexion of soul and body do not blunt the mind, disturb its operations, and by means of the senses fill it with images of external things. And on this account it is not to be supposed that when the souls of men shall have escaped this prison, God will again thrust them into it; but what the Scriptures tell us of the resurrection of our bodies must either be understood figuratively or be referred to new and celestial bodies.1 1 These propositions all Quakers admit, or at least ought to admit if they would not entirely depart from the first principles of their system. The doctrines concerning which they disagree and dispute among them selves we here pass over, lest we should appear disposed to render the sect odious. [It is so far from being true, that "all Quakers admit these propositions," that they declare them to be mere fictions of Mosheim, or conseprinciple. And indeed they seem to be a philosophical creed, essentially diverse from the true belief of the quences which he and not they deduce from their first them, that on the contrary it still prevails and is taught in America. But the Europeans, either from the force of truth or compelled by fear, maintain that the divine wisdom or reason descended into the son of the Virgin Mary, and by him instructed mankind; and that this divine man actually did and suffered what he is recorded to have done and suffered. At the same time, they express themselves very ambiguously respecting many things pertaining to Christ; in particular, respecting the fruits of his sufferings and death, their statements are so loose and meagre that it is altogether uncertain and dubious what and how great they suppose those fruits to be. Besides, they have not renounced wholly the [figurative] interpretation of the history of Christ above mentioned; for they press us hard to grant, that the things which occurred in regard to our Saviour while resident among men are signs and emblems of the things which may occur and must occur in relation to the Christ within, in order to a man's partaking of salvation. And hence they are accustomed, with the Mystics their preceptors, to talk much in lofty terms and inflated style of Christ's being born, living, dying, and rising to life, in the hearts of saints.2 thians. In this chapter (verses 40, 42, 44, 50) is clearly laid down the resurrection of a body, though not of the same body that dies. Here we rest our belief in this mystery, without desiring to pry into it beyond what is revealed to us."-Mur. Quakers. See the preceding note. According to the belief of the Quakers, the conflicting principles in sinful men are not a particle of the divine nature opposed and weighed down by the material body, but they are divine grace or the gracious operations of the Holy Spirit conflicting with the corrupt nature of fallen man. This divine grace they hold indeed, as the Arminians also do, to be universal, or to be afforded to all mankind as soon as they become moral agents. They likewise believe, with the Arminians, that the teachings and influences 2 In answer to most of the allegations in this secof this grace are sufficient, if duly improved, to lead tion, the Quakers refer us triumphantly to the following those who have not the Scriptures to holiness and to extracts from their declaration or Confession of Faith, salvation. Neither is it true that they deny the resur- drawn up in the year 1693, and preserved by Sewel, rection of the body, though they seem to have an idea Hist. of the Quakers, vol. ii. p. 497, &c.: "We sincerely that the future spiritual body will so differ from the profess faith in God, by his only-begotten Son, Jesus present body that it cannot be called the same. Thus Christ, as being our only light and life, our only way to Henry Tuke (as quoted in Rees' Cyclopædia, article the Father, and our only Mediator and advocate with Quakers) says: "The doctrine of the resurrection of the Father:-That God created all things, and made the the dead is so connected with the Christian religion, worlds, by his Son, Jesus Christ, he being that powerthat it will he also proper to say something on this sub-ful and living Word of God by whom all things were ject. In explaining our belief of this doctrine, we refer to the fifteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corin made; and that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are One, in Divine Being inseparable; one true, |