former I shall confine my attention in this chapter.

I have often heard persons of great respectability, and these even in the higher circles of life, express a wish that they had been brought up as Quakers. The steady and quiet deportment of the members of this Society, the ease with which they appear to get through life, the simplicity and morality of their character, were the causes, which produced the expression of such a wish. "But why then, I have observed, if you feel such a disposition as this wish indicates, do you not solicit membership? Because, it has been replied, we are too old to be singular. Dressing with sufficient simplicity ourselves, we see no good reason for adopting the dress of the Society. It would be as foolish in us to change the colour and fashion of our clothing, as it would be cri minal in its members, with their notions, to come to the use of that, which belongs to us. Endeavouring also to be chaste in our conversation, we see no reason to adopt their language. It would be as inconsistent in us to speak after the manner of the Quakers, as it would be inconsistent in them to leave

their own language for ours.

But still we

wish we had been born Quakers. And, if we had been born in the Society, we would never have deserted it.

Perhaps they, to whom I shall confine my remarks in this chapter, are not aware that such sentiments as these are floating in the minds of many. They are not aware, that it is considered as one of the strangest things for those, who have been born in the Society and been accustomed to its peculiarities, to leave it. And least of all are they aware of the worthless motives, which the world attributes to them for an intended separation from it.

There is, indeed, something seemingly irreconcilable in the thought of such a dereliction or change. To leave the society of a moral people, can it be a matter of any credit? To diminish the number of those, who protest against war, and who have none of the guilt upon their heads of the sanguinary progress of human destruction which is going on in the world, is it desirable, or rather ought it not to be a matter of regret? And to leave it at a time when its difficulties are over, is it a proof of a wise and a pru

dent

dent choice? If persons had ever had it in contemplation to leave the Society in its most difficult and trying times, or in the days of its persecution, when only for the adoption of innocent singularities its members were insulted, and beaten, and bruised, and put in danger of their lives, it had been no matter of surprise; but to leave it when all prejudices against them are gradually decreasing; when they are rising in respectability in the eyes of the government under which they live; and when, by the weight of their own usefulness and character, they are growing in the esteem of the world, is surely a matter of wonder, and for which it is difficult to account.

This brings me to the point in question, or to the examination of those arguments, which may at times have come into the heads of those, who have had thoughts of ceasing to be members of this Society.

In endeavouring to discover these, we can only suppose them to be actuated by one motive, for no other will be reasonable, namely, that they shall derive advantages from the change. Now all advantages are resolvable into two kinds; into such as are

religious,

religious, and into such as are temporal. The first question then is, what advantages do they gain in the former case? or do they actually come into the possession of a better religion?

I am aware that to enter into this subject, though but briefly, is an odious task. But I shall abstain from all comparisons, by which I might offend any. If I were to be asked which among the many systems of the Christian religion I should prefer, I would say, that I see in all of them much to admire, but that no one of them perhaps does wholly, or in every part of it, please me; that is, there is no one, in which I do not see some little difficulty, which I cannot solve, though this is no impediment to my faith. But if I were pressed more particularly upon this point, I would give the following answer: I would say that I should prefer that, which, first of all, would solve the greatest number of difficulties, as far as scriptural texts were concerned, in conformity with the divine attributes; which, secondly, would afford the most encouraging and consolatory creed, if it were equally well founded with any other; and which, thirdly, either by its own

operation,

operation, or by the administration of it, would produce the most perfect Christian character. Let us then judge of the religion of the Society by this standard.

That there are difficulties with respect to texts of Scripture must be admitted; for, if all men were to understand them alike, there would be but one profession of the Christian religion. One man endeavours to make his system comport wholly with human reason; and the consequence is, that texts constantly stare him in the face, which militate against it. Another discards reason, with a determination to abide literally by that which is revealed; and the consequence is, that, in his literal interpretation of some passages, he leaves others wholly irreconcilable with his scheme. Now the religion of the Society has been explained, and this extensively. In its doctrinal parts it is simple:-it is spiritual. It unites generally philosophy with revelation. It explains a great number of the difficult texts with clearness and consistency. That it explains all of them, I will not aver. But those, which it does explain, it explains in the strictest harmony with the love, goodness, justice, mercy, and wisdom of God.

As