/ V lVINDICATION \ OF THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS; BEING A REPLY TO A REVIEW OF COX ON QUAKERISM, PUBLISHED IN THE BIBLICAL REPERTORY. By ENOCH LEWIS. He thai snswereth a matter before he hearcth it, it is folly and shame tnito him. — Prov. xviii. 13. PHILADELPHIA : NATHAN KITE, No. 50 NORTH FOURTH STREET. Joseph & William Kite, Printers. 1834. 1 OBSERVATIONS ON A REVIEW OF COX ON QUAKERISM. In the fourth number of the fifth volume of " The Biblical Repertory and Theological Review," edited in Princeton, New Jersey, and published in Philadelphia, we find a review of a work recently published by S. H. Cox, entitled "Quakerism not Christianity," &c. The author of the review, under the appearance, and perhaps with the intention of candour and liberality, has held up the Society of Friends, and the doctrines they profess, in a very unfavourable light. To those who are acquainted with the general character of Friends, or have taken the pains to understand their doctrines, and compare them with the testimony of Scripture, very little need be said, to show the weakness as well as the injustice of the attack, both of the author and his reviewer. If we could be assured that the readers of those productions would follow the example of the noble Bereans, and examine diligently with unbiassed minds, whether these things are so, we should feel little solicitude for the result. The author particularly has manifested a spirit which must satisfy any pious mind, that whatever errors or defects may be attributed to the people whose character he pro- fesses to delineate, he is not the man from whom correct information is to be expected. It is therefore intended to leave him and his work to be judged by such as may choose to peruse it, and to take no further notice of either. \ 4 VINDICATION OF THE than what may appear needful to expose the errors of his reviewer. As the latter has professed to give to his readers not merely a criticism on the work of S. H. Cox, but a gen- eral account of the principles of Friends, and in this part of his labour has presented a view which may very possi- bly mislead those who are but little conversant with the subject ; it may not be amiss to correct a few of the errors into which, from ignorance or prejudice, he has certainly fallen. Believing, as I seriously do, that the doctrines held by the Society of Friends, are essentially the doctrines of the Gospel ; and that a practical conformity to them, leads to that godliness, which, as the apostle declares, has the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come, I cannot but consider an attempt to degrade them, as an effort, though possibly an unconscious one, to obstruct the progress of vital Christianity, and consequent- ly of sound morality in the world. The defence of this society, merely as a society, is com- parativeljs a matter of little importance. It is, however, of incalculable importance, that sound principles should be maintained ; especially when they lead directly to great practical results. Now% without arrogating to Friends an influence which does not belong to them, we must admit that many of the improvements of civil society for which these latter ages are remarkable, are the result of the principles which they, more conspicuously than any other people, have espoused and maintained. I do not inquire how far they, as a society, have been instrumental in the production of these improvements ; it is sufficient for my purpose, that their principles, by whomsoever adopted, have been the efficient cause. Why were Friends the early and unanimous opponents of the slave trade ; but because the traffic was repugnant to their religious SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 5 principles ? How has it happened, that for half a century, there has not been, on the American continent, a single slave retained by an acknowledged member of the society, but because their principles were friendly to the rights of man ? Why are wars less savage and sanguinary now than they formerly were ; but because the principles of peace, have been silently making their way in the world ? Why is religious toleration so generally admitted, but because the principles for which Friends have always contended, have, to a certain extent, been introduced into general legislation ? Why has Pennsylvania taken the lead in the improvement of her penal code, but because the general tenor of her institutions partook of the character and principles of her founder ? If then the principles of Friends have been found, so far as they have been adopted, productive of beneficial results, it appears that the community at large, no less than the members themselves, are deeply interested in their support. As an advocate therefore of the truth, and the friend of morality and religion, rather than the defender of my own particular society, the following observations are submitted to the serious perusal of the reader. The reviewer commences with the profession of a deep sense of his incompetency for the task he had undertaken. This, to some readers, may appear as mere common place. I however, give him credit for sincerity. In the first place his object evidently is to recommend to public favour, a ponderous volume, which according to his own account of it, is highly exceptionable, and much more likely to injure than promote the cause of religion. In the next place, he, in effect, acknowledges he does not understand the subject on which he is going to write. On this latter point I fully agree with him. Had he understood what the doctrines of the Society of Friends really are, he cer- tainly could not have held up such a distorted caricature 6 VINDICATION OF THE to the public gaze. With such a task, and such qualifi- cations, the wonder is, not that he should feel a sense of incompetency, but that he could reconcile his conscience to the undertaking. When he greets us at the threshold, with the declaration, that, were he " to undertake to separate the chaff from the wheat, by rhetorical rule, he would, to a great extent, an- nihilate the originality and spirit" of his author's composi- tion, what is that but to acknowledga that the c/io/f con- stitutes the spirit and essence of the volume? A sorry account of a work, on religious subjects, written by a pro- fessed minister of the Gospel. It is asserted above, that according to the reviewer's account, the work in question, is more likely to injure than promote the cause of religion. Let any sober Christian examine the following passage, and decide for himself, whether the assertion is not fully sustained by it. " It is a most amusing buok. This might be easily enough infer- red from what we have said already. Besides the mul- tiplied instances of pseudo-English and of Latin quotation to which we have just referred, the book teems with genuine wit. This is evidently a prominent ingredient in the composition of the doctor's mind, and in the present work there is certainly no eftbrt to repress it. We doubt whether it would be possible, even for a Quaker, to read some parts of it, without finding his accustomed gravity dis- turbed, though he might hold in perfect abhorrence the sentiments inculcated. This characteristic certainly gives it one important advantage, inasmuch as it beguiles the reader of the tedium which might otherwise be occasioned by the perusal of so large a volume. We assure our readers, who may hesitate to encounter it, on account of its size, that from the beginning to the end of it, they will find nothing dry or prosing ; and we should not be sur- prised, if, when they have once ascertained its character, SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 7 instead of making haste to finish it, as if it were a task, they should lay it by to be taken in small potions as an antidote to low spirits. Nevertheless, we are not quite sure but that, considering the subjects on which the author writes, he has scattered through his volume an undue pro- portion of humour. The subject is a serious one, and involves the most momentous interests of man, and though the doctor has certainly intended on the whole to treat it seriously, yet we think the inveterate playfulness of his mind, has sometimes thrown around it a ludicrous air which his own better judgment would hardly approve. In reading some portions of it, we can hardly repress the fear that ice are laughing where we ought to be sober, and not merely at the expense of the Quakers, but, indirectly at least, at the expense of divine truth.'^ Is a work, osten- sibly designed to illustrate the doctrines of the Gospel, in which wit and humour are the " prominent ingredients" — a work which would excite a smile, even in those who should " abhor its sentiments" — a book to be taken up as a jest book, and read in detached portions when we might wish to laugh at serious things — such an one as any man, who pays even a decent respect to religion, could consci- entiously advise either young or old to read ? Is an author who treats the solemn subject of the soul's salvation with levity — who is so totally destitute of the feeling which such a subject demands, as to be unable, notwithstanding his efforts at seriousness, to give it any other than a ludicrous air, the kind of guide, whom the really awakened pilgrim would wish to consult in his inquiries after the right way of the Lord ? And what are we to think of the commentator who can recommend such a book, and for such reasons, to the favour of his reader? If he " could hardly repress the fear that he was laughing at the expense of divine truth," while reading some portions of this " most amusing book," did the thought never occur to him, that 8 VINDICATION OF THE some of his readers, who might be induced by his recom- mendation to read it, might possibly find their propensity to " laugh at the expense of divine truth," so far increased as to lose their relish for serious subjects, and become pre- pared to occupy the seat of the scornful ? If the work is actually such, as the above quotation represents it to be, we can hardly resist the conclusion, that it is even worse than the works of Voltaire and his infidel school. Those, who are content to laugh at the expense of divine truth, may be sufficiently gratified by this class of writers. Wit as sparkling as that of Dr. Cox, they unquestionably exhibit ; and perhaps vulgarity as coarse, may be found in some of them ; but the reader who ventures to peruse them, is more likely to be on his guard than in the case before us. They openly appear as the opponents, not the advocates, of the Christian religion. It is well known that ridicule is the weapon with which the cause of piety has, in all ages, been most successfully assailed; and that upon which the infidel chiefly relies. Wit and satire are often employed to supply the want of argument. But the writer on religious topics, whose aim is truth, and whose mind is deeply impressed with the awfulness of his subject, can hardly fail to maintain the gravity which the words of truth and soberness re- quire. The serious advocate of truth must be aware that the discussion of solemn subjects in a light and frivo- lous manner, must strike the mind of the sincere inquirer with disgust, and bring the cause of religion itself into contempt, in the view of the inconsiderate and unstable. Immediately following the passage above cited, our re- viewer informs us, that the book is a highly instructive one. For this two reasons are given. In the first place, his author is said to be thoroughly read in the standard works of the sect. What advantage this could be, sup- posing the fact to be correctly stated, is not altogether SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 9 obvious, if we are to admit the truth of the reviewer's previous assertion, that " there is so much of mysticism belonging to the system of the Quakers, and so much apparent contradiction in their standard authors, as to render it nearly a hopeless task to arrive at any thing like certainty in respect to what really constitute their dis- tinguishing tenets." This passage aims a blow at the doctrines of Friends which recoils on its author. Though I am far from admitting the correctness of the statement, I think one important inference is clearly deducible from the passage. If a person should gravely assert that the writings of Euclid and Appolonius were unintelligible, or, as some ignorant critics have done, that Newton's exposi- tion of the tides was contradictory, the necessary conclu- sion would be, not that these fathers of science were chargeable with the defects attributed to them, but that the objector had never made himself master of their doc- trines. It must indeed appear, from the passage just quoted, as well as several others, that neither the perusal of our standard works, nor his author's exposition of them, has enabled the reviewer to understand the doctrines which he and his author have agreed to condemn. How then could he decide whether the latter understood them or not ? If he did not, the circumstance of his having reorf them would probably contribute as little to the edification of his readers as it had to himself. His second reason was copied from the title page of his author. He had been twenty years a member of the Society of Friends. If other parts of the essay did not exclude the supposition, we might readily imagine that this observation was designed as a burlesque on his author. From the prominence with which this circumstance is exhibited in the title page, an incautious reader, would almost necessarily conclude, that these twenty years must have been the years of manhood, or at least, the years of o 10 VINDICATION OF THE discretion. If this was not the impression intended to be made, ii is not easy to explain the apparent importance attached to it. The reviewer however does not appear to have been deceived by it. He seems to have understood the meaning of this momentous annunciation. His author had been allowed the privilege, which children whose pa- rents are Friends are always allowed, until forfeited or renounced by themselves. That privilege it appears, moreover, was possessed, however it may have been used, until he was within about one year of legal age. As it is generally understood that young men during their mi- nority are under the care of parents or guardians, the instances are very rare indeed, in which the discipline of the society is so far applied to them, as to exclude them from membership, until they attain the age of twenty-one. The case before us, however, is one of those rare on6s. S. H. Cox, it appears, was regularly disowned, about a year before he was competent to engage in the usual vocations of men. And from his own account, it appears highly probably that if the overseers, whose duty it is to bring the conduct of delinquent members into the view of their meetings, had been apprised of the course he was pursuing, he might have been testified against sooner than he was. His attendance of the theatre, had it been known, would very probably have led to that result. Yet we are told, as a matter of great importance, that he had been for about twenty years one of the sect ; was educated in all their peculiarities; was conversant with their most dis- tinguished preachers ; was a regular attendant upon their meetings, and had the best possible ojyportunilies of knowing both what they believe and practise. It is unquestionably true, that he was for a time educated in the peculiarities of Friends, but this must have been during childhood, as he is well known to have rejected those peculiarities at a very early age. That he was a wild, erratic youth, who SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. H never regarded the rules or principles of Friends, any longer than he was restrained, by parental or other au- thority, cannot be denied. Ilis acquaintance with the most distinguished preach- ers appears, from his own account, to have extended but little beyond Elias Hicks, and another who joined his stan- dard. If it was from these sources, he derived his know- ledge of the principles of Friends, his acquaintance was not likely to be very accurate. If a mere education in the society, and the attendance of our meetings, during a few of the earliest years of life, must necessarily have brought such a boy as he was, into an intimate knowledge of our practice and belief, there was little reason to complain of the great deficiency of religious instruction, which the re- viewer in a subsequent passage so pathetically deplores. The assertion that he had the best possible opportunity of knowing both what Friends believed and practised is too reckless to merit a reply. I would not willingly charge the reviewer with intentional misrepresentation, yet it is scarcely possible to avoid the apprehension that he de- signed to mislead his readers, or was grossly deceived him- self. A reader, unacquainted with the true state of the case, must suppose from the reviewer's account, that S. H. Cox had been a regular and consistent member, holding the principles of Friends, conforming to all their peculiari- ties, and associating upon equal terms with their most dis- tinguished ministers; and that after such a life, of about twenty years, he had been induced, from a full conviction of the errors of their system, reluctantly to abandon the profession. The single fact as stated by himself, that he was, during a portion of these twenty years, in the prac- tice of attending the theatre, is sufficient to show the dis- crepancy of the picture. That a young man who found the profession too great a restraint on his wayward pas- sions, who knew little of it except as a standard which he 12 VINDICATION OF THE resolved never to follow, should, upon being touched with compunction for his irreligious course, take refuge in a so- ciety which allowed greater liberty to its professors, is not indeed a subject of surprise. Nor is it wonderful, if, finding himself ill at ease in his new profession, he should labour to convince himself and others, that there were numerous radical errors in the doctrines or practice of the society which he had abandoned. That this was the case with S. H. Cox appears very probable, from the manner in which he has treated the subject. If he really believed the system of Quakerism as erroneous as he attempted to make it appear, why did he not expose the error by sober argument ? And if the standard authors contained the absurdities ascribed to them, where was the need of per- verting their meaning. It is observable, that although the reviewer appears fully sensible, that his author has treated the Society of Friends in a very harsh and abusive manner ; and has manifested through the whole course of his work, a spirit totally incompatible with the meekness of the Christian character ; yet instead of passing upon him and his book the censure, which, according to his own account, they justly deserve, an apology is industriously sought in the " peculiar character of his mind," as well as his circumstan- ces and situation. The apology, however, as well as the conduct it palliates, is sadly defective. His mind, it is true, appears strongly marked with some characteristics, if not peculiarities, which a little acquaintance with the Gospel spirit must have regulated or controlled. But we are told, " he had been twenty years in bondage to the errors" which he was endeavouring to expose. What ex- cuse that could furnish for treating with severity those who retain the profession, even supposing the profession erroneous, is not easily perceived. If we could believe that he had, for twenty years, sincerely and honestly held SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 13 the system and doctrines of Friends ; and, at the end of that period, had as honestly adopted the opinions of Calvin, we must still suppose that he had with his change of opinion, imbibed a spirit directly the reverse of that which the doctrines of Friends inculcate, or he could not possibly manifest or indulge a disposition, such as his reviewer describes. But what are we to think of the as- sertion, that he had been ticenty years in bondage to the errors of the society ? Did the reviewer suppose that he was in bondage to an erroneous system of doctrines before he knew his right hand from his left? Or does he wish his reader to forget in what manner these twenty years were computed ? The simple, unvarnished fact, that he was born within the pale of the society ; never had any other than a juvenile connexion with it; paid little or no regard to its principles and restraints, even while he remained in nominal membership ; and, finally renounced the profes- sion altogether, and was disowned in his twentieth year, does not appear to have suited either the doctor or his reviewer. The declaration that all this ridicule and severity are directed against the doctrines of the society and not against the people, is not only incorrect in fact, but impos- sible in the nature of things. Sober argument may apply to opinions, and these, if erroneous, may be exposed with the plainness of honest conviction ; but sarcasm and rid- ^_ ^ j^cul^ have no applic ation without a sens itive obiect._ ^ ^ The reviewer, indeed, sufficiently contradicts his own as- sertion by the declaration that he should not be surprised if some of Cox's quondam friends, " should be willing to encounter the doctor with weapons more carnal than logic or sarcasm." This certainly implies that the attack WAS personal, not merely doctrinal. It also appears, that the reviewer supposed the abuse too gross and offensive to be patiently borne^even by the pacific Society of Friends. 14 VINDICATION OF THE Did he in this case judge of others by himself? The per- sonal character of the attack is also excused by certain personal aftVonts, which his jyreacher of the gospel is said to have received. Friends, it is stated, have pursued him both with their written and oral communications. Are we to suppose that these personal affronts excited the doc- tor's zeal, and armed him with all the weapons of ridicule and sarcasm against the doctrines of his quondam breth- ren, but left him calm and placid towards \\\q persons who had given the affi'onts ? Or did the reviewer himself entertain, or wish others to adopt the opinion, that any member of the Society of Friends would be willing to re- sort to weapons more carnal than logic or sarcasm, to repel an attack which was aimed at their doctrines, and not at themselves ? It is not easy to determine exactly what is meant by the charge, that Friends have pursued his author, with their oral and written communications. From its being made the basis of an excuse for the harshness with which he has treated the society in general, as well as its juxtaposition with the act of excision, it would seem to imply that the society, in its collective capacity, had, subsequently to his disownment, made him the object of some official proceed- ing. The assertion, construed in that manner, may be confidently met by an unqualified denial. It is possible that some of his relatives or particular friends may have spoken and written to him on thesubiect of religion. But he may rest assured, that the space which he has occupied in the view of Friends, either since the publication of his book, or before it, was very small indeed. Nor is it very probable the case will be much changed in time to come. His ponderous volume will, in all probability, be left to find its way to oblivion, without any effort, on their part, to hasten its exit or prolong its date. It would appear like a work of supererogation for any of them to spend SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 15 their time in refuting it, when its avowed eulogist has found so much to condemn and so little to commend. As to the man himself, he is unquestionably considered as an object of pity rather than resentment. It is indeed a sub- ject of serious regret, that any professor of the religion of Christ, should so far forget, or fail to understand, the purity and dignity of his profession, as to substitute the bitterness of invective for persuasion and argument; and bis advo- cate may be assured that we have no wish to imbibe his spirit or imitate his example. We are told that the book is strongly marked by a desire to do good. With the motives of the author, I have little concern. To his own master let him answer for his motives. It is obvious, however, from the reviewer's own account, that the means which he has adopted, and the spirit which pervades the work, are unfavourable, in the highest degree, to the attainment of good. And we can rest satisfied that the attempt, thus strenuously made, to render the society and its principles odious, will be as inefficient in its result, as it is unjustifiable in its means. The conclusion deducible from this examination, is not a mere theoretical, but an important practical one — that the religion which the author in question, and his reviewer, are endeavouring to exalt on the ruins of Quakerism, is not the religion of Christ and his apostles. Their weapons were obtained from a different armoury. The reviewer, having devoted about half a dozen pages to Samuel H. Cox's book, proceeds to what he calls a " general view of the system which the Quakers hold." This, from the space allotted to it, would appear to be the principal business of the essay. In the examination of this part of his labour, four things are particularly striking. First. II is very great want of acquaintance with the subject which he proposes to explain. Second. His constant endeavour to establish, by some IQ VINDICATION OF THE kind of reasoning, a set of conclusions in direct opposition to the facts which he has expressly admitted. Third. His frequent assumption, not of facts known to be true, but of such as his theory required. Fourth. The vague and indefinite nature of the charges which he brings against the doctrines of Friends. His want of acquaintance with the subject might be fairlv inferred from his own repeated acknowledgment. He tells us in so many plain words, that his own " views are far from being settled in respect to what constituted the original doctrines of the society." And as he admits the correctness of the legal decision at Trenton, the ac- knowledgment must be equally applicable to the doctrines which they hold at the present day.* But we are not left to this testimony alone. The mists and mysticism of Quakerism seem to be the burden of his theme. What is this but a declaration that he cannot understand their doctrine. To discover that an opinion is really erroneous, it is necessary to penetrate the mists in which it is shroud- * It may be proper here, once for all, to apprise the reader, that the writer of this article claims no religious communion with the followers of Elias Hicks. He considers the Separation as an eflfect resulting from the adoption, on their part, of opin- ions totally incompatible with the doctrines of Friends. What those opinions are, is of little importance in the present discus- sion. No inquiry is here intended whether the reviewer has represented them correctly or not. It is the Society of Friends, not the adherents of Elias Hicks, whose doctrines and character he is endeavouring to vindicate. He is also wilHng to leave to the reviewer the task of explaining how it has happened, if " the Quakerism of the Hicksites is, in all its substantial cha- racteristics, tlie infidelity of David Hume," that his minister of the Gospel manifests the partiality to them, which he does. Is it from similarity of temper or congeniality of principle? SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 17 ed, and whatever ambiguity of language may be supposed to attend it, the doctrine of Friends, like every thing else, ceases to be mystical as soon as it is understood. A further evidence of want of acquaintance with his subject, is furnished by his numerous mistakes in point of fact. Not wishing to impeach his veracity, I adopt the only alternative, that of imputing to ignorance, the discrepancy between his statements and the sober truth. Who, that has a character to preserve or lose, would willingly haz- ard his reputation by giving publicity to misrepresenta- tions so easily exposed ? The assertion, that " in those points which relate imm diately to the economy of human salvation, the most orthodox Quakerism, so far as we are able to understand it, is thoroughly Arminian," or, as it is elsewhere expressed, that " the system is in its best form, a species of mystified Arminianism," manifests an ignorance of the'subject or a vagueness of expression, hardly excu- sable in a volunteer expositor of their doctrines. It is true that Friends agree with the Arminians in the denial of the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election and reproba- tion. Yet even on this point, the Arminian doctrine in- cludes some speculations which never appear in the writings of Friends. They also, with the Arminians, agree that the atonement was made, not as the Calvinists assert, for an elect few, but for all mankind. But they do not adopt the article of the Arminian creed, which fur- nishes the strongest argument to their Calvinistic oppo- nents, the absolute necessity of a knowledge of the history of the life and death of the Messiah, to render it availing to salvation. Friends do not adopt the opinions of Armin- ius, or any other writer ancient or modern, any further than they appear consistent with the testimony of the sacred writings. The history of George Fox's life, clearly shows that he was a diligent reader of the Holy Scriptures, and carefully attentive to the manifestations of divine truth 3 18 VINDICATION OF THE in his own mind ; but that the laboured productions of divinity professors had no part in the formation of his doc- trinal opinions. The num^-ous instances in which Robert Barclay points out the difference between the doctrines of Friends, and those held by the Arminian .* are amply sufficient to prove the incorrectness of the reviewer's assertion. His brief historical view of the society, would have been somewhat more instructive, if he had followed more closely the best accounts of the time. Had he told us, as he certainly might, that the persecutions to which, in the early periods of the society. Friends were subjected, were principally excited by the clergy, he would have cast a strong light on the unpardonable sin of Quakerism. It might have appeared, that their unflinching testimony for a free gospel ministry, and their unqualified denunciation of the practice of preaching for hire and divining for money, aroused the indignation of the whole clerical body, and raised, through their means, the secular arm against them. This piece of historical information, would have been the more instructive and appropriate, as it would probably have explained, if it did not excuse, his author's severity towards their successors. In this part of his progress he has needlessly turned out of his way, to notice the persecutions in New England. While he admits that the conduct of the New England persecutors was totally irreconcilable with the spirit of the Gospel, and incapable of rational defence, he seems to forget that these barbarities were stimulated and encou- raged by the professed ministers of religion; and endea- vours to palliate those atrocities which the common sense of the present age has agreed to condemn. He conceives See pages 110. 129. 148. 177. 373, of his Apology. SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 19 that much allowance must be made on account of the spirit of the age, and the imperfect knowledge then possessed of the rights of man. Besides, he says, " it is not to be for- gotten that the conduct of the Quakers was, in many instances, exceedingly reprehensible. It is matter of his- torical record, that they frequently entered religious assem- blies of other denominations, loith a view to disturh their worship ; calling their preachers by the most approbrious epithets." Here one or two observations seem naturally to arise. If Friends were really guilty of disturbing the peace of the community, why did they not enact laws to prohibit or punish for the offensive acts, and not punish every one who bore the name of a Quaker, whether guilty of any misdemeanor or not. As their laws were enacted, not against disturbers of the public peace, but against the Quakers, simply as such, we have a strong negative evidence, that they really had no palpable misdemeanors to charge against them. The first individuals of this society who visited New England, were Mary Fisher and Ann Austin, who arrived in the Boston road in the summer of 1656. Though there was then, no law in the colony against the Quakers, these women were seized on board the vessels, stripped of their property, and committed to prison, where they were treat- ed with the greatest barbarity ; and after several weeks of close confinement, they were sent away without being charged with a crime, or allowed the opportunity of com- mitting an offence. Others who arrived soon afterwards were treated with equal barbarity, and expelled the coun- try in a similar manner. They were seized, confined and banished, without being charged with the violation of law, but simply because they were Quakers. Laws were soon enacted, to prevent their introduction, or to banish them when they came, upon the solitary ground of their reli- gious profession. 20 VINDICATION OF THE As it is generally understood that the people of the pres- ent day are possessed of much more liberal and tolerant principles, there is no disposition on the part of Friends, to reproach them with the conductof their ancestors. Far be it from us to insinuate, that there is any analogy be- tween the character of those persecutors, and that of their successors in religious profession of the present times, unless the latter should prove that they allow the deeds of their fathers, by attempting to palliate them. The reviewer appears anxious to persuade his readers, that there is some serious and radical error in the doc- trines of Friends, and that their evil tendency has been too much overlooked. What those evil tendencies are, he has not condescended to explain. He has, however, I admit, given a tolerably satisfactory reason, why they have been so generally overlooked. It seems indeed dif- ficult, even for a professed advocate, to find a better. It is in plain English, nothing else than this ; they are totally invisible. If the fact is, as he admits it to be, that the system has for the most part justly claimed a peculiarly inoflfensive character ; has been found zealously enlisted against great and acknowledged evils ; has been honest in its dealings, and exemplary in its morality ; what reason is there to suppose, that "a system which has led to so many good results," and is not shown to have led to any bad ones, " is materially at variance with the law and the testimony." Has the reviewer discovered a safer criterion than that selected by the lip of wMsdom, — The tree is known by its fruit ? Or does he suppose that grapes are now to be gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles ? To such an objector as this, we may reply in the language of the Apostle, " show me thy faith without works, and I will show thee my faith by my works." He pronounces a just, though limited eulogium, on the character of William Penn ; plainly showing that the prin- SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 21 ciples upon which he acted must have been excellent in practice, whatever they were in theory ; while the only objection which he makes to him or his writings, is the stale and hackneyed one, that they are shrouded in the mists of Quakerism. When we contemplate the character of that eminent legislator; when we behold the remark- able benevolence, conspicuous in every part of his political career ; his treatment of the simple aborigines, so widely different from that of most other settlers of colonies ; when we trace in the laws suggested by his wisdom, or enacted under his superintendence, the germs of many important improvements, which succeeding ages have matured ; and connect with these the reflection, that William Penn made religion the business of his life, and the great moving spring of all his actions; the conviction is forced upon us, that the world is more indebted to his religion, than to his talents, great as they certainly were, for the excellence of his institutions. The policy of his government grew out of his religious principles. A legislator of different prin- ciples could neither have established nor maintained such a government as his. And it is certainly a remarkable fact, that the only member of the Society of Friends, who ever possessed any very extensive political power, was able to establish a government which has commanded the applause of the world. That he planted a colony in the midst of savage tribes, whom he disarmed by his kindness, and preserved his people in peace, without the aid of for- tifications or arms. That his treaties with the natives were never infringed ; and that no evidence appears that a drop of English blood was ever shed by an Indian toma- hawk, on the land which he purchased of them. Do not these facts prove, if facts prove any thing, that the prin- ciples of Quakerism, so far from being of evil tendency, are not only inoffensive in private life, but highly con- ducive to national prosperity ? It is not easy to conjecture 22 VINDICATION OF THE from what article of their creed the reviewer or his author drew the conclusion, that it was from " the original great- ness of his mind, and the general benevolence of his feelings, rather than from any result of appropriate evangelical in- fluence," that William Penn, was enabled to maintain such strict integrity in every part of his conduct ; and to evince, amidst the trials of life, so great a degree of resignation to the divine will, and of trust in the government of God. The insinuation looks more like a desperate effort to attri- bute the acknowledged excellencies of the man to any cause but his religious principles, than a candid exhibition of character, or the deduction of a rational philosophy. The reviewer, it appears, has lately become acquainted with the character of John Woolman, and admits that his " piety deserves to be known and imitated by all denomi- nations." " His journal, and other writings," says he, "have been published; and though they certainly savour of the strange enthusiasm of the sect, and show that his mind was in bondage to some of their less exceptionable peculiarities, yet they exhibit in a high degree some of the loveliest features of Christian character; and we do not believe that any impartial reader of them, can resist the conviction, that they were dictated by a heart which con- sented fully to the leading peculiarities of the Gospel, and was used to intimate communion with the Saviour. In- stances of this kind show, that Quakerism does not, in all cases at least, neutralize the genuine influence of the Gos- pel; though we are to make a distinction between the legitimate influence of a system, and accidental results from other influences which do not appropriately belong to it." Hence it appears, that in the opinion of the reviewer, the piety of John Woolman was genuine. His errors would therefore appear to be those of the understanding and not of the heart. Quakerism, in this case at least, did SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 23 not neutralize the genuine influence of the gospel. The peculiarities to which he was in bondage, were not highly exceptionable. We are therefore to infer that he rejected all those peculiarities to which any important objections can be made. As the reviewer has not informed us in what particulars John Woolman differed from others of the society, we must look into his history, or his works, and make the discovery for ourselves. Such an examination will probably lead to the conclusion, that the conduct and opinions of John Woolman are obnoxious to every charge which the reviewer has advanced against the society ; those only excepted which rest upon palpable error or sheer misrepresentation. It is impossible to read attentively the works of John Woolman, without being convinced that he fully believed in the doctrine o( the inward light, and that this belief was not with him a mere speculative theory, but a practical principle ; the guide of his life, the regulator of his con- duct, and the moving cause of every religious engagement. And that, even in his worldly employments, he was careful to keep a steady eye to the leadings and restrictions of this divine principle. This doctrine is therefore not highly exceptionable. Upon another peculiarity, the opinions of John Wool- man were not less clear and decided than those of Friends in the present day : I allude to their testimony in favour of a free gospel ministry. There is not the smallest inti- mation of his having ever received or paid a pecuniary compensation for preaching. On that subject he appears to have been remarkably sensitive ; as must be evident to any one who reads, with attention, his own account of his visit to the south in 1757. He evidently construed the text strictly : " Freely ye have received, freely give." It would therefore appear that, in the opinion of the re- viewer, this peculiarity is not highly objectionable. 24 VINDICATION OF THE In regard to plainness of dress, it is well known, that he was remarkable, even in the Society of Friends. No member of that society has ever been more strictly plain than he was; his language was also in consonance with that of his brethren in religious profession. Hence these peculiarities appear entitled to the reviewer's toleration. It is rather singular that the reviewer, while endeav- ouring to expose the doctrines of Friends, and exhibit the evil tendency of the system, should pass such an eulogium on the piety of one, who was, probably, as complete a specimen of genuine Quakerism as the eighteenth century could produce. To suppose that the character of John Woolman was formed by accidental influences in opposi- tion to the general tendency of the religious system which he embraced, is to suppose that all the great principles of his life were overborne and counteracted by some un- known and accidental influences. The reviewer, it appears, has but lately become ac- quainted with the life and character of John Woolman, and perhaps if, instead of accepting Dr. Cox's caricature for a portrait, he had taken the pains tobecome acquainted with the lives of a few more of the most consistent mem- bers (and from such specimens the tendency of the system ought to be tried), he might have discovered, that what he considers as exceptions, actually constitute the rule; and that the principles of Quakerism do not, in any in- stance, neutralize the influence of the Gospel. In the case of John Woolman, as well as that of William Penn, we are presented with an awkward attempt to elude the force of admitted and undeniable facts, and to arrive at a conclu- sion which the inductive philosophy does not warrant.* * It is one of Dr. Cox's charges against Robert Barclay, that, in his Apology, he no where quotes the philosophy of Ba- SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 25 The reviewer advances the opinion that " Quakerism is adapted to cramp the faculties and retard intellectual improvement." " This," says he, '* we might infer from the general fact, that it is at best an adulterated kind of Christianity ; and as Christianity in its genuine form is adapted, in various ways, to invigorate and exalt the in- tellectual powers, so just in proportion as it assumes a spurious character it loses its quickening power over the human intellect." Previous to inquiring into the philosophy of this passage, let us consider what must be the result of the theory, sup- posing it correct. If Quakerism tends to cramp the intel- lect, ought we not to find an undue proportion of the members, particularly the more strict and consistent ones engaged in the lowest employments ? Should we not meet with them in great numbers, in our cities, occupied as scavengers, hostlers, oystermen, wood-sawyers, &c. ; and in the country as day-labourers and servants in the fami- lies of other professors ? The case, however, turns out to be, that Friends are obliged to depend very much upon other persons for the performance of these menial services, from the impossibility of procuring any of their own pro- fession to perform them. The well known fact that very few of them are found in those situations which are usu- ally occupied by the lowest order of intellect, is of itself sufficient to prove the unsoundness of the theory before us. To return to his argument ; I should not dispute his con. If he does not quote it, be certainly maintains the spirit of it much better than the author before us. Bacon's plan ia to draw our conclusions, by well connected reasoning, from facts or principles clearly established, and not from vague hy- potheses or gratuitous assumptions. 4 2S VINDICATION OF THE inference if he had fairly established his premises. But when or where was it proved that Quakerism is an adul- terated kind of Christianity ? From what immediately fol- lows, it is obvious that one of the most offensive adultera- tions, and that one which probably comes nearest the re- viewer's heart, rela es to the ministry which Friends admit and approve. It is undoubtedly an important question, worthy of the serious consideration both of those who sup- port and of those who condemn it, whether the ministry advocated by Friends is, or is not, consistent with genuine Christianity. If we are to judge of this ministry by its effects, and of its effects by the general character of the members, the facts expressly admitted by the reviewer himself, must produce a verdict in its favour. If we are to examine the question as a theoretical one, we must take the theory which Friends have espous- ed, and compare it with the first and purest age of Christianity. " The ministry and ministers we plead for, are such as are immediately called and sent forth by Christ and his spirit unto the work of the ministry ; so were the holy apostles and prophets, as appears by these places. Matt. X. 1. 5. Eph. iv. II. Heb. v. 4. " The ministers we plead for, are such as are actuated and led by God's spirit, and by the power and operation of his grace in their hearts, are in some measure converted rnd regenerate, and so are good, holy and gracious men; such were the holy prophets and apostles, as appears from 1 Tim. iii, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Tit. i. 7, 8, 9. " The ministers we plead for, are such as act, move and labour in the work of the ministry, not from their own mere natural strength and ability, but as they are actuated, moved, supported, assisted and influenced by the Spirit of God, and minister according to the gift received, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God : such were the ho- SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 37 ly prophets and apostles. 1 Pet. iv. 10, 11. 1 Cor. i. 17. ii. 3, 4, 5. 13. Acts, ii. 4. Matt. x. 20. Mark, xiii. 11, Luke xii. 12. 1 Cor. xiii. 2. " The ministers we plead for, are such as, being holy and humble, contend not for precedency and priority, but rather strive to prefer one another, and serve one another in love ; neither desire to be distinguished from the rest by their garments and large phylacteries, nor seek greet- ings in the market-places, nor uppermost places at feasts, nor the chief seats in the synagogues ; nor yet to be called of men, master,