never objected to "a day of rest," for the purpose of religious improvement. They consider the Christian Dispensation to have superseded the use of oaths, and contend that our Lord's precepts extend even to the swearing of witnesses in courts of law. War they hold to be altogether inconsistent with the spirit and precepts of the Gospel, and urge that the primitive Christians, during two centuries, maintained its unlawfulness. They object, on the same principle, to capital punishments and the slave trade.

The members of the society are bound by their principles to abstain entirely "from profane and extravagant entertainments," from excess in eating and drinking; from public diversions; from the reading of useless, frivolous and pernicious books; from gaming of every description; and from vain and injurious sports (such as hunting or shooting for diversion); from unnecessary display in funerals, furniture, and style of living: from unprofitable, seductive, and dangerous amusements, among which are ranked dancing and music; and generally from all “such occupations of time and mind as plainly tend to levity, vanity, and forgetfulness of our God and Saviour," and they object to all complimentary intercourse.

In the sketch I have now given of the tenets of this sect, you cannot have failed to observe how closely their notions with regard to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity tally with those of the great body of the church; the differences being all on points of minor import, if we except the ceremonies of baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, being the appointment of Christ himself, we are not at liberty to reject. And yet, be it observed, the Quaker does not presumptuously reject them, but merely acts upon, as we suppose, an erroneous view of their nature.

On points of minor difference it may be observed, that He who was the PRINCE OF PEACE, and came to establish it, never specifically forbade war, (for there may be cases

verted from Luther's meaning; but it was uttered by him from a jealousy of Sabbatical superstition.

*Matt. v.

where it is merely self-defence,) but left it to the spirit of the Gospel to remove the causes of war.* We all know the appellation bestowed on the centurion, Cornelius: and when soldiers came to John the Baptist, saying, "What shall we do?" he merely sought to retrench the disorders and injustice which those who follow the profession of arms might be tempted to commit; but did not condemn their necessary employments. We may therefore fairly conclude that the sweeping condemnation of all war by the Quakers, is not warranted by Scripture, although it is in many, and indeed most instances, entered upon far too carelessly.

One of the main distinctions of the Quakers is the rejection of certain amusements and pursuits, which others, on the contrary, consider as innocent, believing that the religion of Christ rather encourages than forbids a cheerful spirit, and allows by the example of the Saviour, a participation in social pleasures: and that "an upright, religious man, by partaking in such pleasures, may be the means of restraining others within due bounds, and by his very presence may prevent their regenerating into extravagance, profligacy and sin;"† and such do not feel

"There is an unreasonable, uncharitable, and superstitious notion that a soldier, so far as his profession is concerned, isof the world; and that a man who dies in the field of battle is necessarily less prepared for his change than one who dies in his bed. These feelings, which have sadly tended to degrade and impoverish the mind of modern Europe...to make armies what they are told they must be; and therefore to make them dangerous by depriving them of any high restraining principles, have been greatly encouraged by the tone which religious men of our day have adopted from the Quakers."-Maurice's Kingdom of Christ.

"Moral education, in spite of all the labors of direct instruction, is really acquired in hours of recreation. Sports and amusements are, and must be the means by which the mind is insensibly trained: Men are but children of a larger growth;' they will have their pleasures; and unless care be taken, the sermon of the church or chapel will be neutralized by the association of the tavern and the raceground. There must be safetyvalves for the mind, i. e., there must be means for its pleasurable, profitable, and healthful exertion; those means it is in our power

in their hearts that these are the "pomps and vanities of the world,” which by their baptismal vow they renounce. But surely it is possible that different persons may regard the same pursuits and amusements in a very different light, and yet both may be conscientious in their views, and both, whether in abstaining or enjoying, be equally doing that which is lawful and right in the sight of God. That very amusement or pursuit which is a snare to one, and therefore to be avoided by him, may be a source of innocent, and perhaps profitable recreation to another. It is the intention, the animus with which an act is done, and not the act itself which constitutes the sin. "Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: to his own master he standeth or falleth."

"Christianity," says an excellent prelate of our church, "forbids no necessary occupation, no reasonable indulgences, no innocent relaxation. It allows us to 'use' the world, provided we do not 'abuse' it. It does not spread before us a delicious banquet, and then come with a 'Touch not, taste not, handle not:' all it requires is that our liberty degenerate not into licentiousness; our amusements into dissipation; our industry into incessant toil; our carefulness into extreme anxiety, and endless solicitude. When it requires us to be 'temperate in all things,' it plainly tells us that we may use all things temperately.†

to render safe and innocent; in too many instances they have been rendered dangerous and guilty."-Dr. Taylor.

* Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving. (1 Tim. iv. 4.) Extend this maxim, apply it to the several means of enjoyment, either supposed or real, that the world presents to us. Those pleasures from which we cannot unreservedly arise, and thank our Maker; those pursuits which mar our devotions, and render us unwilling or afraid to come before Him, cannot be innocent. It would be no easy matter to lay down, as applicable to all, a rule as to how far conformity with the world is admissible, and where the Christian must stop: for as the habits and tempers and propensities of men differ, so also do their temptations and their danger. Thus through the rule by which one would stand securely, another would as certainly fall.-Lectures on the Church Catechism. † See 1 Tim. iv. 4.

When it directs us to make our moderation known unto all men,' this evidently implies that within the bounds of moderation we may enjoy all the reasonable conveniences and comforts of this present life."

I have noticed this, in my opinion, erroneous practice of the Quakers at the more length, because it is not confined to them. Asceticism, of which this is one branch, has been the bane of the church, and of Christianity generally; and few sects are entirely free from the notion that holiness requires a withdrawal from amusements, and a certain degree of seclusion from the world. Yet, if the world is to be improved, the leaven must be placed in it: and a good man probably never does his Father's work more effectually than when he spreads the sanctifying influence of his example through all the relations of life; showing that there is no position in society where Christianity does not add a grace and a relish unknown without it: spreading refinement of manners and delicacy of thought, and insensibly rendering social intercourse more polished, and more delightful, by banishing from it all that can offend.

The Quakers adduce Matt. v. 33–37, James v. 12, &c., in support of their objection to all oaths, even judicial ones, and consider that the Christian dispensation abrogated their use. But in answer to this we may observe that even the Almighty is represented as confirming his promises by a solemn oath. "Because," says the apostle, "He could swear by no higher, he sware by Himself;" and St. Paul on particular occasions expresses himself thus, "As God is true:" "Before God I lie not:" "God is my record," &c., all which expressions undoubtedly contain the essence and formality of an oath; and the apostle upon some occasions mentions this solemn swearing with approbation, "an oath for confirmation is the end of all strife:" the swearing, therefore, which our Saviour absolutely forbids, is common or unnecessary swearing, and we are recommended to affirm or deny in common conversation without imprecations. "Let your conversation be yea, yea,-nay, nay."

The repugnance entertained by the Quakers against paying tithes appears to me to arise from an error in their

mode of viewing the question. The assertion made by them "that all the provision made for ministers of the Gospel in the first ages was made by the love of their flocks," is true, though that love very soon produced endowments, even before Christianity was established as the law of the empire. But allowing this, it does not follow, as they go on to assert, that "since we are under the same dispensation of love as the apostles were, the principles which governed the church then are to govern it now." Tithes were originally given to the church as a corporation, by the owners of the soil; and since that time estates have been transferred from hand to hand subject to that charge, till no man has any plea for refusing it. The question is not one of religion but of property. If my estate devolve toꞌme chargeable with an annuity payable either to a corporation or an individual, I have no right to set up his religious opinions in bar of his claim: for I have paid less for the purchase in consequence of the existence of that claim, which in common honesty, therefore, I am bound to satisfy, be the annuitant who he may.*

Having now noticed the points wherein I consider the peculiar tenets of the Quakers to be erroneous, I shall conclude with the more agreeable part of my task, and prove by extracts from one of their writers how much of true Christian feeling exists among them. The following is from a little book given me by a Quaker, from the pen of J. Gurney, entitled "An Essay on Love to God."

* "A reverend Doctor in Cambridge was troubled at his small living at Hoggenton (Oakington) with a peremptory Anabaptist, who plainly told him, 'It goes against my conscience to pay you tithes except you can show me a place of Scripture whereby they are due unto you.' The Dr. returned, 'Why should it not go as much against my conscience that you should enjoy your nine parts for which you can show no place in Scripture ?" To whom the other rejoined, 'But I have for my land deeds and evidences from my fathers, who purchased and were peaceably possessed thereof by the laws of the land. The same is my title,' said the Doctor, tithes being confirmed unto me by many statutes of the land, time out of mind."" Fuller's Church History, Book II.