perceive no difference in the account here given of the doctrine, from the manner in which it is held by the followers of Mr. Wesley, and by nrost serious Christians on the Continent of Europe. Neither are we aware of any practical difference, that can result from the opposite views which are entertained on this subject both parties equally holding, that redemption is possible, and even certain, to every one who seeks it according to the promises of the Gospel. They who do not seek for the promised blessing, are, therefore, equally condemned on the principles of either party.

Still less, according to Mr. C.'s statement, do the Quakers differ from other pious people, on the proper qualifications of a minister of the Gospel, except in their total omission of human learning among the requisites; in which, however, several sects coincide with them, and nearly in their mode of admitting persons habitually to speak in public. In extending this privilege to the female sex, the Quakers, though not singular, deviate more from general usage.

The passage of Scripture, which is frequently objected to this practice, is quoted by Mr. C. and interpreted as only prohibiting women from asking questions in the church. But may it not be argued, that a fortiori it seems to exclude them from teaching? It is pleaded however that the word which is rendered, "I suffer not a woman to speak," applies not to preaching, but to common discourse; yet in the same passage they are commanded" to keep silence," which equally excludes both. And need we inform Mr. C. and his friends, that 1 Tim. ii. 12. is "I suffer not a woman to teach, didacxv. If what appear to others such positive prohibitions, be cashiered with so little ceremony, our female friends must not be surprised, if their scriptural right to preach be not admitted on the collateral evidence and historical texts which they adduce.

Concerning silent public worship, as Mr. C. has not spoken to much purpose, it may perhaps be wisdom for us to be silent. Little is any where said concerning the Quaker's views of the person of Christ, on the doctrine of atonement, on original sin, or the trinity. With regard to the last, we are informed that the Quakers rather object to the scholastic terms by which it has been expressed, than to the doctrine itself. Where this is the case, all contention must be mere logomachy. But had not one of the Friends* been more explicit on this subject than Mr. C., we should not have been so ready to acknowledge their orthodoxy. The ground on which Quakers expect acceptance or justification before God, whether as a reward for their obedience to the Spirit, or as pure grace for the sake of the Redeemer, is not stated. And when we consider the earnest

*See Bevans's Defence of the Christian Doctrine of the Friends. Ecl. Rev. Vol. II. p. 544.

ness and the anxiety with which the apostle labours to place this doctrine in the clearest light, as giving the colour and character to all our system of doctrines, we cannot but consider Mr. C. as guilty of a reprehensible neglect, in omitting to state this point distinctly, in a portraiture upon so large a scale as to occupy three considerable volumes.

It is well known that the Quakers reject both baptism and the Lord's supper. With regard to the former, Mr. C. makes the following remarks.

"It appears then that there are two baptisms recorded in Scripture, the one the baptism of John, the other that of Christ; that these are distinct from one another, and that one does not include the other, unless he, who baptizes with water, can baptize at the same time with the Holy Ghost. Now St. Paul speaks only of one* baptism as effectual; and St. Peter must mean the same, when he speaks of the baptism that saveth. The question therefore is, which of the two baptisms, that have been mentioned, is the one effectual or saving baptism; or which of these it is that Jesus Christ included in his commission to the Apostles, when he commanded them to go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." pp. 353. 354.'

66

This, and indeed the whole article, has the air of chicanery. Could our author be ignorant that a large proportion of those who practise baptism with water, are so far from substituting it for the baptism of the Spirit, that, on the contrary, they maintain the value of the outward ordinance to consist principally in a display of the necessity of the Spirit's influences. When we are told (p. 373, &c.) that the eyes of Peter were opened, by the conversion of Cornelius, to the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom, why is no notice taken of his saying after this illumination, 66 can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Here an apostle, whose eyes the Quakers allow to be open, represents the baptism of the Spirit, as the foundation, and not the substitute, for that of water.

The practice of Paul, who is allowed by the Quakers to have been, from the first, enlightened with spiritual knowledge, is by them imputed to his condescension to Jewish prejudices, and is compared with his circumcision of Timothy, pp. 378...380. Mr. C.'s statement of this argument betrays gross inattention to the conduct of Paul, and the principles on which he avowedly acted. It represents him not as "to the Jews becoming a Jew," but as imposing on the Gentiles a Jewish rite, in diametrical opposition to uniform and striking facts. The Jewish Christians practised the Levitical law equally after, as before, their faith in the Gospel: and the apostles never objected to

* Ephes. iv. 5.

It is on this great command that Christians found the duty of waterbaptism.

the practice, but merely warned them against a reliance on it for justification; while they agreed firmly to oppose the imposition of any Levitical ceremony on the Gentile believers. Paul, especially, with the utmost earnestness and constancy, reprobated such an imposition; although himself, as a Jew, sacrificed with Nazarites, and circumcised Timothy, as born of a Jewish mother. Had he considered Baptism as a Jewish ceremony, instead of a Christian ordinance, he would certainly have opposed the baptism of Gentile believers, as strenuously as their circumcision.

66

But it is not surprising that the tenor of St. Paul's conduct and arguments, respecting Baptisin, should be overlooked or misrepresented by Mr. C., when he can cite the revelation made to that apostle, of the institution of the Lord's Supper, as inducing the Quakers to believe that no new institution was intended to take place as a ceremonial to be observed by the Christian world !" p. 417. So extraordinary an interpre tation is by no means established in the following paragraph, which contains the substance of Mr. C.'s argument.

St. Paul, in his account of what occurred at the original Passover, reports that Jesus Christ made use of the words "this do in remembrance of me." By this the Quakers understand, that he permitted something to be done by those, who were present at this supper.' p. 118.

งา

The mode of arguing that is here adopted, appears to us of infinitely worse tendency, than that of the peculiar purpose to which it is here applied. If the words of our Lord, "DO THIS,' are, in such circumstances, to be understood merely as a permission to do something, there is not a command in the scriptures which may not equally be explained away. "Thou shalt do no murder," might, with as much justice, be represented, merely as a permission to abstain from the practice of murder, and not as a prohibition of it.

Mr.C.proceeds in his third volume to treat of four principles, which he distinguishes by the title of the great tenets of the Quakers, These relate to Civil government, Oaths, War, and maintenance of Christian Ministers. Of the first he says,

It is a tenet of the members of this society, on the subject of Government, that the civil magistrate has no right to interfere in religious matters, so as either to force any particular doctrines upon men, or to hinder them from worshipping God in their own way, provided that, by their creeds and worship, they do no detriment to others.' pp. 56.

To this tenet, as here expressed, we cordially agree; having no other objection to this division of our author's work, than that it is remote from being peculiar to Quakerism. On the next, we think it unnecessary to say more, than that we regret the depravity which renders an oath necessary to confirm civil testì

mony before a magistrate; that we deprecate too frequent administration of oaths, and the careless manner in which they are commonly administered; and that we utterly condemn all approximation to an oath in general conversation. On the subject of war, we wish every Christian diligently to examine the tenor of the sacred Scriptures, and conscientiously to direct his conduct by that infallible guide: but we think it incumbent on us, to object to the representation which Mr. C. has given of the conduct of early Christians in this respect. No person who is conversant with the most ancient ecclesiastical writers,except his mind be as strongly biased as our author's, will probably learn without astonishment, that Christians are represented never to have served in the Roman armies during the first two centuries. The evidence which Mr. C. has cited, garbled as it is, betrays the inaccuracy of his proposition; while facts which demonstrate its reverse, are so numerous and notorious, that his silence respecting them is difficult to be reconciled with that integrity for which we wish to give him credit.

When

War, we rank among the direst evils; and would with David choose the scourge of pestilence in preference to it. entered on, or persisted in, unnecessarily, we regard it as the most hainous of crimes. Revenge appears to us equally unlawful in communities, as in individuals; but the protection of subjects from foreign enemies, is equally the duty of civil goverument, as the punishment of native malefactors is; and unhappily, in the present depraved state of mankind, both these are inevitable. To a serious Christian, the infidelity and prophaneness, the lewdness and intemperance, the rapine and cruelty, which usually pervade armies, must render his situation in the military service truly deplorable: but in all ages, some of the best of men have spent, and have sacrificed, their lives, for the defence of their country, with consciences void of offence; and have been equally exemplary in their courage in the field of battle, as in their attention to discipline, and in the modesty, benevolence, and piety, of their general demeanor.

On a pecuniary maintenance for ministers of the gospel, Mr. C. affirms, that our Lord never received any payment for the doctrines he taught. This is ambiguous, if not equivocal. Mr. C. could not be ignorant that those who attended the Saviour's instructions, "ministered to him of their substance.” The rest of his arguments prove only, that loiterers in the vineyard have no right to the support of labourers; that ministers are intitled to maintenance from those only for whom they labour; and that Paul, while maintaining the right of ministers to be supported by Christians, declined to avail himself of that right, where it was likely to injure the cause of the Gospel. As to tithes, we believe the divine right is now pretty much aban

doned, and that the clergy claim upon the firmer ground of the law of the land. This species of property is also well known to have passed, since the reformation, in a great measure, into the hands of the laity.

the

After a large statement of particulars, Mr. C. casts up sum, in a section on the character of Quakers. He first gives the light, and then the shade, which he disposes like a skilful artist, who knows how to form an agreeable picture. Their character is described, generally, as moral, and particularly, as including the following traits, benevolence, complacency of mind and manners, conscientiousness, reasoning in political matters from principle and not from consequences, independence of mind, courage in life and death, punctuality.

But should the reader turn to Mr. C.'s chapter, to see what proofs are given that the Quakers die well, be will be struck to find nothing but an argumentative effort to prove that they have a right to die well. And what is worse, the strain of reasoning on this subject indicates an alarming ignorance of the only principles which can inspire a sinner with courage, in the prospect of immediate appearance before his Creator and Judge. The language of Mr. C. is a perfect contrast to that of the apostle; "that I may be found in Christ! not having on my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ." Their courage in life is much better established and illustrated, in the following passage, which affords a favourable specimen of Mr. C.'s manner.

They have the courage also to dare to do, as well as to say, what they consider to be right.

It is recorded of the early Quakers, that in the times of the hottest persecution they stood to their testimony in the places appointed for their worship. They never assembled in private rooms, or held private conventicles, employing persons to watch at the doors to keep out spies and informers, or to prevent surprise from the magistrates; but they worshipped always in public, and with their doors open: nor when armed men were sent to dissolve their meetings did they ever fly; but, on the summons to break up and depart, they sat notionless: and regardless of threats and blows, never left their devotions, but were obliged to be dragged out one by one from their places. And even when their meeting-houses were totally destroyed by the magistrates, they sometimes met the next meeting-day and wor shipped publicly on the ruins, notwithstanding they knew that they were subject by so doing to fines, and scourges, and confinements, and banishments, and that, like many others of their members, who had been persecuted, they might die in prison.

This courage of the primitive members has descended, as far as circumstances will allow us to judge, to their posterity, or to those who profess the same faith. For happily, on account of the superior knowledge, which has been diffused among us since those times, and on account of the progress of the benign influence of Christianity, both of which may be supposed to have produced among the members of our legislature a spirit of