ments of the orthodoxy of their belief; and says

"This document must be admitted as a valid refutation of the misconception which has led Mosheim and others to attribute to the early Friends a denial of the facts of the Gospel history, of the Deity of Christ, and of the resurrection and final judgment. Among the American colonists, however, at an early period, theological innovations, and errors of a serious kind, appear to have found advocates. After the death of Fox, which occurred in 1691, George Keith, one of the most learned members of the Society, who had settled in Pennsylvania, became involved in a controversy with his brethren upon the subject of the human nature of Christ, which terminated, in 1695, in his expulsion from the Society, togetherwith his adherents."

We must remark, that this latter paragraph would convey, to casual readers, an impression at variance with facts. G. Keith's controversy with the Friends, which led to his disownment, originated in his closer approximation to the general views of evangelical Protestants; and the Society, therefore, carefully guarded itself from the imputation of disowning him and his adherents, on account of the doctrines they held,-it was as schismatics and disturbers of unity that they fell under censure and excommunication. Mosheim appears, also, to have been misled on this subject; respecting which, as an historical question, any reader, who may feel interested, will find the fullest particulars in the works of the celebrated Leslie, author of the "Short and Easy Method with Deists ;" and the grounds of his opposition to the Society may also be seen in Sewel's History of Friends.

In this point we admit that Mosheim was misinformed; but we must say that he appears to us to have formed, on the whole, a very just estimate of Quakerism when he says, vol v., p. 478

"The religion of the sect called Quakers has an air of novelty that strikes at first sight; but when viewed closely, it will appear to be nothing more than a certain modification of that famous mystic theology which arose so early as the second century, was fostered and embellished by the luxuriant fancy of Origen, and, passing through various hands, assumed different aspects, until it was adopted by the Quakers, who set off the motley forms with new additions, of their own invention. Fox, indeed, is not chargeable with these inventions. His ignorant and inelegant simplicity places him beyond the reach of suspicion in this matter; but it is, at the same time, undoubtedly certain, that all his doctrine concerning the internal word, and the Divine light within, its operations and effects, was either borrowed from the writings of the mystics, which were at that time in the hands of many; or at least picked up from the conversations and writings of some persons of the mystic order....... The Quakers may therefore be deemed, with reason, the principal branch of the mystics; as they not only embraced the precepts of their hidden wisdom, but even saw its whole tendency, and adopted, without hesitation, all its consequences."

Mosheim, then, very fully describes the doctrine of " the light within ;" and says truly, that "all the singularities and wonderful fancies that are to be found in the religious system of the Quakers, are the immediate consequences of the fundamental principle now mentioned." In this view Mosheim at least agrees with W. Penn, who says, "the doctrine of the inward light is the root of all the goodly tree of practices which have branched from it." Mosheim is remarkably correct in his estimate of the difference in the degreeof adherence to the ancient doctrines of the Society between the English and American Quakers. This fact, when Mosheim wrote, was probably known to comparatively few in the Society; but the

collision produced by the diversity, and the consequent Hicksite separation, has now borne testimony to the generalaccuracy of Mosheim's statement.

To return to "The View of all Religions." In proportion as Mr. Conder enters into the subject of Quakerism, his conviction appears to increase of "the relation which the fundamental tenet of Quakerism bears to the opinions of the ancient mystic schools." He says

"The inward light, universal saving light, or seed, of the Quaker theology, does not appear very much to differ from the common grace of the Arminian and Jesuit schools," p. 504. "But while, as held and explained by some Friends, the Quaker tenet would seem to be only a mystical modification of the Arminian or semi-Pelagian doctrine

of grace, it is evident that, with this dogma of metaphysic theology were blended elements of a more imaginative creed, and sentiments more nearly allied to those of the ancient mystics. Thus, in Quakerism we find combined the discordant elements of a lofty Platonism, and a rude, illiterate fanaticism; the Romish metaphysics, and an ultra Protestant negation of all that is ritual and external in religion, a scholastic rationalism, and an enthusiastic belief in immediate inspiration and perceptible impulses.... ... ... All these elements were afloat and at work in society before they became fixed and embodied in the inward light of Fox, Penn, Keith, and Barclay."-p. 506.

"There is, indeed, the strongest internal evidence that Barclay derived his system from the Platonists,” p. 507 ; -a fact fully proved in Ball's "Holy Scripture the Test of Truth," and Wilkinson's Quakerism Examined;" to

66

which Mr. Conder refers.

He then shows that J. J. Gurney endeavours to "identify the doctrine of inward light with the cardinal doctrine of regeneration and Divine grace,” and gives a concise view of " the contro

versy which has recently sprung up in the Society of Friends, known by the name of the Beacon Controversy ;" and inquires, p. 519

"But what is that spirit which the Quaker theory substitutes for the word of God, as the rule of faith and duty to each individual? We must recollect that it is a principle which is said to exist in the heathen as well as in Christian men; that it is wholly independent of the light of Scripture, or of a reception of the Christian doctrine. Is it, then, wholly without reason, that the tenets of Quakerism have been represented as tending to deistical conclusions ?"

"The doctrines of Elias Hicks, the American Quaker, which have been embraced by many thousands in the United States, are nothing better than mystical deism; yet the Hicksites find a shelter for their opinions under the authority of the standard writers of the Society."

On the subject of" perceptible guidance" our author remarks

"That watching of their own minds, that silent rumination which is substituted for searching the Scriptures and preaching the Gospel, is also made to serve instead of oral or actual prayer. In retreating from a religion of outward forms and ceremonies, Friends have involved themselves in a refined and self-pleasing mysticism, which, although allied, in some individuals, to a devotional spirit, is far more fatal to the piety of the many than any prescribed modes of expression. The neglect of both private and social prayer by the majority of Friends must be regarded as a principal cause of the spread of practical infidelity in the Society."

We have the following observations, p. 525:

"The third peculiarity of Quakerism relates to the universality of that saving light which is alleged to be inherent in

all men; a doctrine which not only strikes at the necessity of revelation, and therefore tends to deism, but is in direct opposition to the Scripture doctrine of regeneration.”

Mr. Conder concludes his observations on the fundamental doctrines of Quakerism by the following stringent remarks:

"It is matter of notoriety, that the extensive schism which has taken place in the Society has arisen from the incurable hostility' shown by the majority of its members to the preaching of the Gospel, and from the attempts made to silence those ministers who have declared the doctrines of Scripture with evangelical simplicity. The general unsoundness of the body on the cardinal doctrine of justification by faith, has, unhappily, been too unequivocally evinced by the crushing opposition' exercised towards those who have given prominence to it in their ministry; and the disclosures made by the many estimable members of the Society who have withdrawn from its communion, compel us to regard the Quakerism of Fox, Penn, Barclay, and Pennington, (to which the majority still blindly cleave,) as a system of pernicious delusion and anti-scriptural error."

Mr. Conder has shown great candour and diligence in the investigation of the views of the early and the modern Friends; and we commend the result of his researches to their attention and serious consideration, with sincere desires that the effect may be beneficial to many minds.

There is one little mistake, however, into which he has fallen, through inadvertence, or possibly from want of information, which it will be proper for us not to pass by unnoticed: we allude to his quoting for authority the work of Elisha Bates on "The Doctrines of Friends," published about thirteen years ago. Since that work was written, under the sanction and superintendence of the Society, this estimable man, on

a more close investigation of holy Scripture, has seen reason to change the views, on some important points of Christian doctrine, in which he was educated, these are, in regard to the great doctrine of justification by faith, and the perpetuity of water Baptism and the Lord's Supper in the Christian church. He is now convinced that the founders of the Society of Friends were mistaken on these subjects, and also erroneous and unscriptural in some others of their views. These his more recent sentiments are before the public; and for the honest and unflinching avowal of them, we regret to add, his brethren in America have thought it right to disown him as a member of the Society.

Individual Influence. By MARY ANN

KELTY, Author of "Sraightforwardness.”— Darton and Harvey, Gracechurch-street, 1838.

THE above little work has been sent

to us. We are unacquainted with the former production of the author's pen; but, judging from the present, she is one over whom feeling exerts abundant sway.

Characters of this class, we think, are prone to mix up Scripture with their feelings, in such a manner as to take them for special intimations of duty, and lay themselves under weights and burdens of conscience, from which a little more simplicity, and a little less idea of themselves, might spare them. Such would find, in a simple reception of the Gospel, and the strength it affords to the mind under every difficulty and trial, the healthiest stimulus to useful

ness.

In turning to page 22 our readers will see this exemplified; where our author labours to depict the trials of some individuals, whilst we think there is a little inclination to detract from others, who, perhaps, with greater simplicity and cheerfulness of mind, engage in the duties which their hands find to

do, without looking for those special internal directions.

are

There some hints scattered through it of a useful, practical character; at the same time, we must observe that its style is rather desultory. There are instances of the misapplication of Scripture; and individual suffering is raised to an eminence that we think savours of self-exaltation, inconsistent with the humility of the truly Christian character; while a mystical tendency pervades the whole that we cannot at all countenance. We give the following as an instance :

"Most persons, it is to be feared, live with scarcely any other definite purpose than to enjoy as much and suffer as little as possible; for the love of ease and indulgence is as congenial to the fleshly will of man as it is to the nature of any other animal, But even in minds thus darkened and debased, there exists a spark of something pure and heavenly, which, under the most oppressive weight of worldliness that can be laid upon it, is never wholly extinguished. It lives, though it be in the grave; and there is a voice appointed to arouse it, which ever and anon exclaims, Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.' Eph. v. 14.

"Few are the persons who have not, at some time or another, been solemnised by the appeal of this internal speaker : and as Herod, who 'feared John, knowing that he was a just man and a holy, when he heard him, did many things,' so do the workings of the mind, when troubled and arrested by the call of a greater than John, usually tend to the doing many things; of some of which, as leading into outward and general, rather than to inward and individual reformation, it may be doubted whether they are not more likely to incur the reprimand of, Who hath required this at your hands? than to meet with the welcome acknowledgment of, Well done, thou good and faithful servant ;

The voice here mentioned is not an "internal speaker," but proceeds from the written word, and is quick and powerful in the conscience awakened to a sense of its fallen state by nature, and to its need of Christ to give it light. To turn the mind, then, from the Gospel, which, through the infinite mercy and goodness of God, is given to us, in the holy Scriptures, to any thing in ourselves of a pure and heavenly nature, must be fallacious and dangerous, as it is unscriptural.

ers.

One other reference, and we leave the book to the judgment of our readAt page 11, silent retirement of spirit is spoken of as foolishness in the eyes of some; and if so, the author remarks, that it is none other than that of which the apostle speaks when he says, "the foolishness of God is wiser than men," 1 Cor. i. 25. Now, on a reference to the passage, it will be seen that it has nothing to do with it; for the preaching of Christ crucified is what the apostle is there dwelling upon with so much force.

An Appeal to the Christian Public against a Sentence of Disownment, passed upon a Member by the Society of Friends, for absenting himself from their Silent Meeting, and submitting to the Ordinances of Christ. By LUKE HOWARD.-Ward and Co., 1838.

THE writer has, for a pretty long course of years, filled a conspicuous place in the Society of Friends; has been also a contributor in the scientific world, and a warm friend of the Bible Society, as well as many other benevolent undertakings.

That his attachment to the religious Society in which he was born was strong we can readily suppose, and the more are we therefore prepared to sympathise with him on the occasion of his

exclusion therefrom. Principle, and integrity of purpose, has, however, conspicuously marked his character; and, with an active, energetic, and original mind, he has, at times, taken some steps in advance, to the surprise of his coadjutors at the time, but of which further experience has shown the value. This is exemplified in the following remark, which will be striking to those who have latterly taken part in Bibleclasses :

"The attempt to introduce among the Friends the social reading and exposition of the Scriptures, had cost me, many years ago, in the Monthly Meeting of Tottenham, a mortifying disappointment; and in some service which I consented (rather than desired) to take in its stead among the 'youth,' I found myself watched over with all the jealousy of a Presbytery, determined to admit of no innovation on the settled practice of the sect; and, long before the Beacon Controversy' became the occasion of a crisis in our affairs, I perceived the storm to be gathering which was to burst on the heads of all among us who should be found presuming to search for themselves into scriptural truth."

Thus, it is observable that, as at Manchester, this very circumstance, of introducing the social reading and exposition of the Scriptures, led to uneasiness in the minds of a certain class, and to that jealous watchfulness over his proceedings which the writer describes, to prevent "any innovation on the settled practice of the sect."

66

We now refer our readers to the Appeal "itself, a small pamphlet, containing some interesting facts relative to the individual case, in which the discipline of the Monthly Meeting has certainly more of a negative than a positive character; the Friends evidently not wishing to come much into collision with one whom they found scripturally stronger than themselves.

There is a peculiarity of style and expression in the writer which we would not desire to see imitated, but in him perhaps uncensurable, proceeding, as we believe it does, from an utter aversion to hypocrisy, and an honest desire for the maintenance of truth.

His own experience and remarks, at page 8, on the solemn duty of prayer, are affectingly simple and clear, and will come home to the feelings, and be responded to, we doubt not, by a large

number of our readers.

YEARLY MEETING, 1838.

THE Yearly Meeting just past, we find, has exhibited few of those features of exciting interest which marked the conflict of opposite and irreconcilable opinions on some late occasions. There was little opposition to the general current of expression, the prevailing tone of which may be described as that of speaking well of the distinguishing views of Friends; dwelling on the advantages of silent worship, of plainness

of dress, behaviour, and apparel, &c. The impression which the Meeting has given is, therefore, a comfortable one to those who believe Quakerism the most perfect of all the known systems, and that it needs no change; while, among the mass, there are those whose countenances seem to say, "Let us alone, we are tired of controversy, and wish to be permitted to pursue our business, speculations, and hobbies, without these new-fangled annoyances."

But, in the midst of this state of