its effects than the resort to argument, the author was summoned before the High Court of Commissions; and, after various threats, compelled to recant his sentiments. Another class of dissenters, which took its rise about this time, was the society of Independents, which grew out of the Brownists. Its name is derived from the system of church government, in which each congregation formed a distinct body, regulating its own affairs, judging of the fitness of persons applying for membership, and of the propriety of expelling such as walked disorderly, independent of all others. Their doctrines agreed in the main with those of the other dissenters. During the times of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, they were distinguished by their attachment to toleration, which the Presbyterians denounced as "an hideous monster, the great Diana of the Independents." They were not, however, constant to their own principles; for, when they subsequently acquired the power, they exercised considerable severity toward both Friends and Baptists. They received the patronage and support of Oliver Cromwell, and are often mentioned in connexion with the history of Friends. At a very early period of the Reformation, the subject of water baptism appears to have attracted the serious attention of pious men, and their researches into it, led some of them to differ from the generally received opinions respecting it. From Fuller's Church History it appears Wickliffe held "that wise men leave that as impertinent, which is not plainly expressed in Scripture that those are foolish and presumptuous, who affirm that infants are not saved if they die without baptism; and that baptism doth not confer [grace], but only signify grace which was given before. He also denied that all sins are abolished in baptism; asserted, that children may be saved without baptism, and that the baptism of water profiteth not, without the baptism of the Spirit." During the fifteenth century, there were a number of persons in England who denied the necessity of water baptism, and held "that Christian people were sufficiently baptized in the blood of Christ, and needed no water; and that the sacrament of baptism with water, used in the church, is but a light matter, and of small effect." Some of these suffered death by fire, for adherence to their principles; and for a long period afterwards, those who entertained similar views, were the objects of severe persecution. In the sixteenth century, the Society of Baptists or Anabaptists took its rise. They objected to infant baptism as unauthorized by Scripture, and rebaptized those adults whom they con sidered as believers and admitted to the privileges of their communion. Besides their peculiar views on this subject, some of them held war to be inconsistent with Christianity, and doubted the lawfulness of oaths under the gospel dispensation. They also insisted that the gospel ought to be free, and denied the right of tythes or other compulsory maintenance for its ministers. They were generally persons of great seriousness of mind and strictness of deportment, searching the Scriptures diligently; and being wearied with the ceremonies and impositions of men, were desirous to practice that form of religion only, which they believed to be sanctioned by our Lord and his apostles. Their views of the Christian ministry did not make it essential, that those who took part therein, should prepare for it by the acquisition of learning; but gave liberty for any to speak a word, either in doctrine or exhortation, who believed themselves called thereto and qualified by the gift of the Holy Spirit. Some were zealously opposed to a hireling ministry, declaiming against it in their preaching, by which they subjected themselves to severe sufferings. Many of this persuasion were imprisoned during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and patiently endured their confinement, showing by their steadfastness under suffering, that they were actuated by motives sincerely conscientious. Of this class was the pious John Bunyan, whose imprisonment lasted nearly twelve years. The first Presbyterian church established in England, was in 1572. It consisted of Puritans, (then so called) who, among other things, dissented from the government of the church by bishops, &c., conceiving that by pastors and presbyters or elders, to be more consistent with Holy Scripture. They agreed with the Independents, in denying the divine right of the bishops to order and direct the congregation; but instead of leaving each distinct, with absolute control over its own members and officers, they associated several churches in one synod, and a number of these again united in forming a general assembly, which is the supreme ecclesiastical body. This society comprised a much larger number of members than either of the others we have mentioned; and the part they acted in the revolution which drove Charles I. from the throne, and finally brought him to the scaffold, as well as in the affairs of government during the interregnum, rendered them sufficiently conspicuous. The persecutions they endured, while the reins of government were in the hands of the Church party, we should suppose would have taught them moderation and charity towards the conscientious dissent of others; but no sooner were they placed in the seat of power, than they began to contend for uniformity in faith and practice; the moloch of Christendom, to which many of her choicest sons have been wantonly sacrificed. rogant and arbitrary assumption, in virtue of their prerogative. However the exigency of the occasions may extenuate some of their acts, there are others, which deserve no milder appellations than tyranny and oppres sion. Against these, the dissenters inveighed with boldness and vehemence, and, as is usually the case, the cry of oppression rallied to their side a host of partisans, until at length the king had lost the affections of a large portion of his subjects. Instead of pacifying them by some concessions, and soothing their incensed feelings by gentleness and clemency, measures still more harsh and offensive were pursued toward them. So fierce was their opposition to toleration, that after a long conference of a Committee of Parliament, for the purpose of making some agreement, by which the Independents might be accommodated in their views of church government, the scheme was necessarily abandoned; because the Presbyterians refused to concede anything. They who but lately had contended against the divine right of the bishops, were now urgent to make all yield to the They were punished as factious schismatics divine right of presbytery. The ministers of -as enemies to the king and government, and Sion College pronounced toleration "a root of inciters of the people to rebellion-were fined, gall and bitterness;" others of the sect declaim- whipped, maimed, imprisoned and banished— ed against it, as contrary to godliness-open-enduring almost every species of hardship and ing a door to libertinism and profanity, and suffering which cruelty could suggest. It were that it ought to be rejected as "soul-poison." no wonder, if men who had felt so severely Liberty of conscience was declared to be the the abuses of regal power, should be in favour nourisher of all heresies and schisms, and most of the sermons preached before the House of Commons, while the question was under debate, breathed the spirit of persecution, and incited the ruling powers to draw the sword against such as would not conform. The Presbyterians little thought that their own arguments would quickly be used against themselves, and the severity they had exercised upon others, returned with full measure into their own bosoms. This was lamentably the case after the restoration, when the Church of England having regained her power, exercised it with so little mercy, in the vain attempt to force men's consciences into a conformity with her prescriptions. We have now noticed the principal sects which existed at the time our Society arose, and to whom the reader will find allusion made in the writings of Friends. They were all strenuously opposed to the Roman Catholic church; and while King James I. and his son, Charles I., were both suspected of favouring that religion, as well as some of the dignitaries of the Episcopal church; the dissenters availed themselves of every opportunity to show their dislike to it. This contributed not a little to alienate their affections from the throne, and to widen the breach to which their persecution had given rise. of a form of government, by which it could be restrained within more just and reasonable limits, and the rights of the subject be more effectually secured. The disputes between the Puritans and the Church party, which had been carried on with no little acrimony, during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I., increased in violence under Charles, and began to assume the most serious aspect, threatening to destroy the peace of the nation. The Puritans had augmented in numbers and importance, and the flagrant outrages committed upon them, produced commiseration in the minds of many, who yet were sincere in their attachment to the religion of the Church. So little regard was had to law or equity in the treatment of them, that their cause gradually became identified with the preservation of the constitution and laws of the country. To be a Puritan, was synonymous with an opponent of ecclesiastical domination; of the tyranny and encroachments of royalty, under the convenient plea of prerogative; and to be the advocate of the rights and liberties of the subject. In this way politics and religion became blended, and afterward it was the policy of each party to maintain the connexion. Beside the matters originally contested, new sources of dissatisfaction and other subjects of dispute, became involved in the controversy. The violation of their natural and civil Many of the clergy of the establishment had rights; the disregard of their often-repeated become corrupt and licentious-they seldom and respectful petions, and the frequent preached-neglected their congregations and breach of promises solemnly made, tended to places of worship, and were engaged in pracmake the Puritans suspicious of James, and tices, not only unbecoming the sacred characinduced them to watch with the most jeal-ter, but, in some cases, even scandalously imous eye, every encroachment of the crown. moral. They encouraged, rather than repressThe house of Stuart were remarkable for ar-ed the licentiousness of the times; and seemed much more addicted to mirth and amusements, than to the duties of the ministerial office. Their example, and that of the court, had a demoralizing effect on others, especially the lower orders of society. In order to counteract the opinion that the reformed religion was severe and strict in its requisitions, James published, in 1618, a royal declaration, drawn up by one of the Episcopal bishops, stating, that "for his good people's recreation, his majesty's pleasure was, that after the end of Divine service, they should not be disturbed, letted, or discouraged from any lawful recreations, such as dancing, either of men or women, archery for men, leaping, vaulting, or any such harmless recreations; nor having May games, whitsonales, or morrice dances, or setting up of May poles, or other sports therewith used, so as the same may be had in due and convenient time, without impediment or let of Divine service." This was a source of great offence to the Puritans; and when the declaration was republished by Charles, and directed to be read in all the churches, many of the ministers refused to comply. The license given by the indulgence, produced the results which might reasonably have been anticipated. The sports degenerated into noisy and tumultuous revels, with tippling, quarrels and sometimes even murder. These disorders grew to such a height, that the justices, in some counties, petitioned the judges of the courts to suppress them, which they did. But Archbishop Laud, then primate of England, summoned the judges before the king and council, for invading the Episcopal jurisdiction. A sharp reprimand and an order to revoke the prohibition, was the result. The archbishop taking the matter into his own hands, was informed by the bishop of Bath and Wells, within whose diocese the prohibition had been enforced, that the restoration of the wakes and revels, &c. would be very acceptable to the gentry, clergy and common people; in proof of which, he had procured the signatures of seventy-two clergymen ; and believed, if he had sent for an hundred more, he could have had the consent of them all. It was determined to continue them, and the king forbade the justices interfering with the people. It may readily be supposed, that such proceedings would have a powerful influence in promoting licentiousness; when, in addition to the command of their king, the ministers of religion joined in encouraging practices, to which the depraved inclinations of the human heart alone, furnish strong excitement. We may safely rank this among the causes, which contributed to promote the immorality and corruption which so lamentably overspread the nation, and gave rise to the close and sharp reproof, which our early Friends so often found it their duty to administer. The few parliaments which James and Charles assembled, evinced a disposition to apply some remedy to the religious dissensions and grievances which distracted the nation. This was an interference so little agreeable to the crown, that they were speedily prorogued, and a long period suffered to elapse before another was called, which gave rise to the suspicion, that the monarch intended to govern by prerogative only, and without the intervention of a parliament. The condition of the nation when Charles came to the throne, was melancholy indeed. It was torn by internal dissensions; and the affections of a large portion of the people alienated from the king, by oppression and injustice. The encroachments of the crown-the continued encouragement given to Papists, the unmitigated persecution of the Puritans, and of such as had the magnanimity and courage to resist the arbitrary measures of the court and its minions, together with the failure of some of his military enterprises, tended to increase the murmurs, and to rouse the spirit of those, who regarded the liberties and the religion of the country. Influenced by mistaken notions of royal prerogative, and misguided by his counsellors, Charles, instead of softening the spirits of the Puritans by some concessions, proceeded to still greater lengths, until the minds of many of his subjects were prepared for any change which promised to restore to them their civil and religious rights. From this state of things, it was but a short step to open warfare, and accordingly the nation was soon involved in a civil war, which resulted in bringing Charles to the scaffold, and setting up a new form of government. Numerous nego. tiations for a settlement of the religious differences took place, but neither the king nor the parliament being willing to accede to the terms proposed by the other, in 1642 they appealed to the sword to settle a controversy, which had hitherto been managed only by words. During the course of the war, which continued with various success for several years, the king was often reduced to great extremitics, and at last falling into the hands of the parliament, he was brought to trial before his avowed enemies, and condemned to be beheaded as a traitor. This cruel sentence was carried into execution early in 1648. It was in 1646, during the prevalence of the civil and religious commotions, that GEORGE Fox commenced his labours as a minister of the Gospel, being then in the 23d year of his age. After the death of the king, the nation was without any legal form of government; but "That none be compelled to conform to the public religion, by penalties or otherwise; but that endeavours be used to win them by sound doctrine and the example of a good conversa. tion. the parliament, which had assumed the power, it. The articles of the constitution embracing and exercised it at the commencement of the that subject, contain the following, viz :— war, still continued to govern. The Presby- "That the Christian religion contained in terians had the control of affairs chiefly in the Scriptures, be held forth and recommendtheir hands, and proceeded to model the reli-ed as the public profession of these nations. gion of the nation to suit their peculiar views. Instead of the liturgy of the Church of England, they set up the Directory for Public Worship; and, forgetting the severity of their own sufferings for non-conformity, when others were in power, they now set about compelling all to comply with their established forms. The arguments they had used against persecution for religion, when smarting under the lash of the Episcopal Church, were urged upon them in vain. Having the power in their hands, they appeared to consider it as a sufficient authority for coercing others, to adopt that form of worship and system of doctrines, which they had determined to be the best. Never did religious toleration seem to be less understood, or the great right of liberty of conscience more wantonly disregarded. "That such as profess faith in God, by Jesus Christ, though differing in judgment from the doctrine, worship, and discipline publicly held forth, shall not be restrained from, but shall be protected in, the profession of their faith, and the exercise of their religion; so as they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury of others, and to the actual disturbance of the public peace on their parts; provided, this liberty be not extended to popery or prelacy, or to such as, under a profession of Christ, hold forth and practice licentiousness." Creditable as these provisions are to the enlightened views of religious toleration, enterBut while the parliament was acting in con- tained by those who framed them, they are formity with these narrow and bigoted opin- still defective, in making exceptions to two ions, principles of a contrary character were classes of professors. Had they been faithat work in the army, where the Independents fully carried out in practice, they would predominated, and carried with them their have saved much suffering for conscience wonted liberality toward the conscientious sake, both to Friends and the Baptists. For dissent of others. Against this latitude of however favourable the protector was to indulgence, the Presbyterians declared with granting liberty of conscience to all, it was great earnestness, as a source of innumerable evils, and tending to the destruction of all religion. A long conference took place between the two parties, for the purpose of making some arrangement, by which the Independent form of worship and discipline could be included; but such was the pertinacity of the Presbyterian faction, that they refused to yield anything, and the scheme was abandoned as hopeless. This arbitrary and oppressive course, rendered the sect unpopular; and the Independents finding they were not likely to obtain much from the parliament, and having the army on their side, with Oliver Cromwell at its head, he put an end to the Commonwealth and the parliament together, in the year 1653 -the former having continued a little more than four years, and the latter sat as a legislative body, with some short intermissions, for thirteen years. not the case with the magistrates, justices and others, in whose hands the execution of the laws was placed. From the cupidity or intolerance of these, Friends were often interrupted in the exercise of their religion, and punished, because they could not swear or pay tythes, though to a much less degree than was afterward the case. Toward the close of Cromwell's government, he was again declared protector, under new articles of government, in which an attempt was made to narrow the grounds of toleration, by a more close definition of the doctrines to be professed. In the opening of the second session of the parliament, in 1657, the Lord Commissioner Fiennes "warns the house of the rock on which many had split, which was a spirit of imposing upon men's consciences, in things wherein God leaves them a latitude, and would have them free."-" As God is no respecter of persons, so he is no respecter of forms; but in what form soever the spirit of imposi tion appears, he will testify against it. If men, though otherwise good, will turn ceremony into substance, and make the kingdom of Christ consist in circumstances, in discipline, in vain do they It was not long ere Cromwell and his officers struck out a new form of government; and in the latter end of 1653, he was declared Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland, &c. The principles of the new government, relative to religion, were more liberal and Christian, than any which preceded and in forms, VOL. I.-No. 1. 2 protest against the persecution of God's people, when they make the definition of God's people so narrow, that their persecution is as broad as any other, and usually more fierce, because edged with a sharp temper of spirit." "It is good to hold forth a public profession of the truth, but not so as to exclude those that cannot come up to it in all points, from the privilege that belongs to them as Christians, much less to the privilege that belongs to them as men." These just sentiments, which appeared to be gaining ground in the minds of men, were soon to receive a check, by the change of rulers. In 1658, Oliver Cromwell died, and was succeeded by his son Richard; who, finding the difficulties and perplexities of balancing the power of rival parties, and conducting the affairs of state, little suited either to his capacity or his inclinations, resigned his high and responsible station, after having occupied it only eight months. A short interregnum ensued, and in 1660 the kingdom was restored to the house of Stuart, by proclaiming Charles II. These frequent changes in the government had a tendency to keep up the unsettlement which had long agitated the nation, as well as those violent party feelings and prejudices, which the political and religious struggles had engendered. Friends took no part in the revolutions of government-their principles forbade them from putting down or setting up, and taught them to live peaceably, as good citizens, under whatever power the Ruler of the universe permitted to be established over them. But though peaceable and non-resisting in their conduct, they were neither idle nor unconcerned spectators of the course of events. Believing that righteousness was the only security for a nation's stability and prosperity, they earnestly enforced on the parliament and protector, as well as the monarchs who succeeded, the suppression of vice and immorality, the equal administration of justice, and the removal of all oppression. The addresses made to those in authority by George Fox, Edward Burrough and others, are marked with innocent boldness, and good sense, delivered in a style of great frankness and honesty. Nor did they omit to warn them of the consequences which would ensue if they failed to perform the divine will, predicting with clearness the overthrow of Oliver's government, and some other changes which occurred. In his declaration issued from Breda, on the eve of his sailing for England to assume the crown, Charles held this conciliatory language, calculated to allay the fears of those who dreaded the restoration of the hierarchy. "We do also declare a liberty to tender con sciences, and that no man shall be disquieted or called in question for differences of opinion, in matters of religion, which do not disturb the peace of the kingdom." But plausible as are these promises, and sincere as the king might have been in making them, the event proved how little reliance was to be placed upon the royal word. Devoted to his own pleasures, and with too little application or industry to examine the opinions of his advisers, or inquire into the sufferings sustained by his subjects, he permitted the clergy to pursue their own measures for the promotion of the church, who took care to return the measure of persecution, meted to them under the commonwealth and protectorate, heaped up and running over into the bosoms of the dissenters. Conformity was rigidly enforced, and not satisfied with the existing statutes for punishing those who dared to differ in their consciences from the prescribed standard, new and more oppressive laws were procured. The persecution fell with peculiar severity on Friends, who were suspected of being unfriendly to the restoration of the king, from their refusal to take any oath, and consequently the oath of allegiance to the crown-though they repeatedly offered instead, their most solemn declarations to the same effect. The peaceable and unresisting spirit which governed the conduct of Friends, seemed to embolden their persecutors to oppress them without colour of law or justice, knowing they had nothing to fear from the law of retaliation, and that but few could be found to plead their cause or espouse the defence of their rights. To give some colour to the severities practised against them, pretexts were drawn from supposed violations of the regulations of civil policy-" 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 wickedness in the streets or market place, 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. Nay, so hot were some of the magistrates for persecution, even in Cromwell's time, that by an unparallelled and most unjust misconstruction of the law against vagrants, they tortured with cruel whippings and exposed in the stocks, the bodies both of men and women of good estate and reputation, merely because they went under the denomination of Quakers." Several obsolete statutes were brought to bear most heavily upon Friends, though originally enacted with a view of reaching the Papists, |