body of Protestant Dissenters, so named by the public at large, but styled by themselves, "The Society of Friends." This society was founded by George Fox, in the year 1647. The Friends are remarkable for differing from the community in religious doctrines, mode of worship, and social customs, more than any other body of Christians; and it may safely be asserted, that their character has been less understood, and more seriously misrepresented, than that of almost any other religious association of modern times. Mosheim, Neale, Formey, Voltaire, and Hume, have given us descriptions of the Society of Friends, of which it would be difficult to say which abounds most in ignorant mistakes or wilful distortions. Of late years a fairer estimate of these people has manifested itself in the public mind. Men of deep thinking and eminent genius have been led to examine their history and writings, and have pronounced decisions upon them very different from those of the authors just mentioned. Coleridge, in his Biographia Literaria, says, "One assertion I will venture to make, as suggested by my own experience, that there exist fallacies on the human understanding, and the nature of man, which would have a far juster claim to their high rank and celebrity, if in the whole huge volume there could be found as much fulness of heart and intellect, as bursts forth in many a simple page of George Fox." Thomas Carlyle, in his Sartor Resartus, pronounces George Fox "the greatest of modern reformers;" and Charles Lamb, in the Essays of Elia, declares, that "Sewel's History of the Quakers is worth all other ecclesiastical history put together."

We shall now proceed to give such an account of the rise, progress, and opinions of this society, as an intimate acquaintance with it and the writings of its members enables us to furnish, and as will be found amply borne out by a careful reference to the most authentic records, and to its existing condition.

It has commonly been stated, that this society was, at its commencement, termed the Family of Love, or Seekers. But this is a mistake. The Seekers were a people of prior origin, and of very different notions. From their peculiar extravagance they acquired the name of Ranters, and seem to have been the very people that Butler had in his eye when writing his Hudibras. They held that

Saints may do the same things by The spirit in sincerity Which other men are tempted to, And at the devil's instance do, And yet the actions be contrary, Just as the saints and sinners vary.

The attempt to confound the Quakers with this sect, was one of the first acts employed by the enemies of Quakerism to stamp it with opprobrium. Fox occasionally fell in with them in his travels, and sharply reproved them for their errors. The Friends, for some time after they had been gathered into a distinct body, were known only by the name of "the Professors of the Light," or "Children of the Light," from "their fundamental principle, which," to use the words of William Penn, "is as the corner-stone of their fabric; and, indeed, to speak eminently and properly, their characteristic, or main distinguishing point or principle, viz. the light of Christ within, as God's gift for man's salvation; the root of the goodly tree of doctrine that grew and branched out of it." They were known by no other name till 1650, three years after the commencement of their society, when George Fox being brought before the magistrates of Derby for preaching there, and telling them to "quake at the name of the Lord," one of them, Gervase Bennett, an independent, caught up the word, and called him and his friends Quakers. That was the real origin of the term Quaker; "a term which," says Sewel, their historian, "so caught the public fancy, and especially that of the priests, that they sounded it gladly abroad, never after that time giving any other name to the professors of the Light, so that it soon ran all over England, and making no stand there, it quickly reached the neighbouring countries; and that English name sounding very oddly in the ears of foreigners, hath given occasion to many silly stories."

Perhaps to no great reformer has so little justice been done as to George Fox. Beyond the pale of his own society his character has, in fact, never been understood. By some grave and even eminent writers, he has been denounced as a silly enthusiast; by others as a blasphemer; and others again, have denied that he was the founder of Quakerism at all. No statements can be more at variance with the truth. For three or four years after his first setting out, he was the sole preacher of the society. It was he, as may be abundantly seen in the histories of the society, and the writings of his most celebrated disciples, who gave its character and constitution to this religious association. They are his opinions, his feelings, his tone of mind, which stamped it with its peculiar form and spirit. That in the fervour of his enthusiasm, and the elation of brilliant success, he ran into some fanatical extravagances, and even absurdities, is what is perhaps inseparable from the career of a sanguine advocate of great moral and social changes; and we shall soon point to some of these, in tracing his exertions for the organization of his infant society. There have, indeed, been one or two documents, a letter to Cromwell, and a letter to himself from the wife and daughters of Judge Fell, raked up out of a vast mass of manuscripts left behind him, and eagerly and repeatedly pushed before the public by his enemies, and recently again by some seceders from the Quakers themselves, in order to stamp him as a blasphemer, and a man open to the silliest adulation. It is not by such a mode, however, that the genuine character of any man is to be decided, but by a careful examination and candid judgment of his whole life and works. Did we apply so one-sided and unphilosophical a test to that of any great reformer, what should we now think of Luther, Jerome of Prague, Calvin, Knox, Wesley, or many others? If we shut our eyes to the nobler points of their characters, and opened them only to their defects; if we estimated Jerome of Prague by his recantation, Luther by his notions of combats with the devil, Calvin by the burning of Servetus, Knox by his zeal in the demolition of cathedrals, or Wesley by his belief in omens and apparitions, what an absurd verdict should we pass upon these great men! Such, however, has generally been the mode of judging of George Fox; whilst his labours, and religious and moral doctrines recorded by himself and the historians of the society, mark him as one of the most extraordinary men of his age. We shall soon have to observe upon how many important points of morals and manners he called in question the received opinions of his time; for, whatever his sagacious mind had once embraced as truth, he had the integrity and boldness to proclaim everywhere. He advanced into the presence of princes, and proclaimed it there in the same fulness, and with the same case and freedom, as he did amongst his own peers. Yet with this daring and determined spirit, his contemporary disciples are unanimous in attesting his gentleness and unassuming modesty amongst them. The testimony of his eminent friend, William Penn, who had seen much of society in all its gradations, is that of all those who knew him best. "He was a man that God endued with a clear and wonderful depth; a discerner of others' spirits, and very much master of his own... He was of an innocent life, no busy-body, nor self-seeker; neither touchy, nor critical... So meek, contented, modest, easy, steady, tender, it was a pleasure to be in his company. He exercised no authority but over evil, and that everywhere and in all; but with love, compassion, and long-suffering. A most merciful man, as ready to forgive as unapt to take or give an offence. Thousands can truly say, he was of an excellent spirit and savour amongst them, and because thereof the most excellent spirits loved him with an unfeigned and unfading love."

George Fox was born of humble parents, at Drayton, in Leicestershire. In the quaint language of Sewel, "his father was Christopher Fox, a weaver by trade, an honest man, and of such a virtuous life that his neighbours used to call him righteous Christier. His mother was Mary Lago, an upright woman, and of the stock of the martyrs." George was put apprentice to "a shoemaker that dealt also in wool and in cattle;" but he became most attached to the agricultural part of his master's business. His humble origin and education have often been adverted to, as implying a stigma upon Quakerism; but it is unquestionably to this circumstance that Quakerism owes its most distinguishing features, and probably the greatest amount of good that it has done, or may yet do, in the world.

As Fox grew up, pursuing his solitary occupations in the fields, his strong mind soon began to employ itself on the subject of the utmost moment to a mortal creature, the grounds of his hopes of a future existence, and the true understanding of the Scriptures. That which, at a first view, seemed to be a disadvantage to Fox, his want of learning, and his obscurity of station, have, through the native vigour of his intellect, become eminently advantageous. His mind was neither trammelled by creeds, nor directed by classical or other knowledge, nor misled by the glimmerings of school philosophy. He was thrown, by his absolute want of a higher education, on his Bible. The whole strength and earnestness of his understanding were concentrated on the inquiry into the doctrines it contained; and he seems, with a wonderful clearness and singleness of eye, to have at once comprehended the pure and simple system of the Christian faith. He embraced it heartily and for ever. No bias of selfishness, no hopes of honour or of gain, ever appeared to weigh with him for a moment; it was to Christianity for itself alone that he attached himself, and he set out to proclaim it in the face of the world, with that boldness which always distinguished him. At first his travels were principally through the midland counties, where he convinced great numbers of his principles. For four years he appears, as already stated, to have been the only preacher of those principles; and, what is singular, the second preacher of Quakerism was a woman, named Elizabeth Horton. In the fifth year of Quakerism there were, however, according to Sewel, no less than twenty-five preachers, and in the seventh year upwards of sixty. These, traversing the kingdom in all directions, excited an extraordinary commotion. But in order fully to understand the uproar which the preaching of Quakerism created, it is necessary to call to mind the features of that age, and to see what the doctrines of Fox really were.

George Fox made his appearance just as the struggle between the crown and the people was drawing to a close. Charles I. was already in the hands of the parliament. The monarchy had been destroyed, and the public mind was full of new schemes of liberty and legislation. Then came the struggle between the parliament and the military power. Not only the monarchy and the parliament, but the church establishment itself, fell. Men soon began to grow weary of alternate tyranny and lawlessness, both in ecclesiastical and in political matters. They were disgusted, too, with the greediness of priests of different denominations, struggling shamelessly for power and wealth. The diffusion of the Scriptures during the respective reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth, had now made them pretty common in the hands of the people. Thousands and tens of thousands were scattered throughout the country, who were become dissatisfied with the old institutions, and anxious to ally themselves with some body, the doctrines and practice of which were more consonant to their newly-awakened ideas. But they were not merely on the watch; they were in a state of high excitement. The novelty and animating nature of the doctrines of the gospel, and perhaps still more the splendour of eastern metaphor exhibited in the prophetic writings, had thrown them everywhere into a sort of spiritual intoxication. When, therefore, George Fox made his progress through the country, his voice was like a trumpet to collect around him hosts of inquirers. Priests, notwithstanding the opposition of their order, left their pulpits; officers in the army, judges, gentlemen, mechanics, and husbandmen; all classes, indeed, flocked round him, and found in his system of a free gospel, and renouncement of the vanities of the times, that which they had hitherto sought for in vain.

The doctrines which Fox taught, and which have been received and are still held as the true faith by the Society of Friends, are principally the following.

1st. The great foundation and corner-stone of Quakerism, as William Penn justly terms it, is the doctrine of the Inward Light, founded on various passages of Scripture, but especially on the words of the gospel according to St. John, that "Christ is the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." They believe in the words of a document, issued by themselves, that "every man coming into the world is endued with a measure of this light, grace, and spirit of Christ, by which, as it is attended to, he is enabled to distinguish good from evil, and to correct the disorderly passions and corrupt propensities of his nature; and that without the spirit inwardly revealed, man can do nothing to the glory of God, or to effect his own salvation."

2d. The spirituality of Christianity is a doctrine which flows directly from this root; and hence they believe in the non-essentiality of religious ceremonies. "We think," say they, "this influence (the influence of the Spirit of Christ) especially necessary to the performance of the highest act of which the human soul is capable, even the worship of the Father of lights and spirits, in spirit and in truth; therefore we consider as obstructions to pure worship all forms which divert the attention of the mind from the secret influence of this unction from the Holy One. (1 John, ii. 20-27.)" They cannot, therefore, admit of any fixed liturgy, any stated forms of prayer, or any regular preaching. "Yet, although true worship is not confined to time and place, we think it incumbent on Christians to meet often together,

---

1 Penn's Rise and Progress, pp. 53-56. 2 Sewell's History, i. 11. Quakers. (Heb. x. 25), in testimony of their dependence on the heavenly Father, and for a renewal of their spiritual strength; nevertheless, in the performance of worship, we dare not depend for our acceptance with him on a formal repetition of the words and experiences of others; but we believe it to be our duty to cease from the activity of the imagination, and to wait in silence to have a true sight of our condition bestowed upon us." On this ground the sole outward act of worship amongst the Friends consists in meeting together and sitting down in silence, without any singing or stated prayers or sermon.

3d. From the same great fundamental tenet of the society, it directly flows, that as this influence is absolutely necessary to the performance of individual worship, it is more especially so in the exercise of the ministry. There can be no preaching unless the preacher immediately feel himself moved to speak; therefore there can be no electing of particular individuals by the church, or education of them for the office of the ministry. It implies a ministry entirely of divine ordination, and without the participation of any human authority. According to this faith, there is and can be no paid priesthood. The gospel is a free gift to be freely exercised.

4th. The Friends do not hold the doctrine of the Trinity according to the common acceptation of the word. They think it safest in this mysterious subject to confine themselves to the terms of Scripture; and these are the words of their confession on this subject. "We agree with other professors of the Christian name in the belief in One Eternal God, the Creator and Preserver of the universe; and in Jesus Christ his Son, the Messiah and Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. xii. 24)."

5th. The belief in the entire spirituality of the gospel system has led the Friends to consider some rites received and practised by other bodies of Christians as non-essential. "There are two ceremonies in use amongst most professors of the Christian name; water baptism, and what is termed the Lord's Supper. The first of these is generally considered as the essential means of initiation into the church of Christ, and the latter of maintaining communion with Him. But as we have been convinced that nothing short of his redeeming power, inwardly revealed, can set the soul free from the thraldom of sin, by this power alone we believe salvation to be effected. We hold, that as there is one Lord and one faith (Eph. iv. 5), so his baptism is one in nature and operation; that nothing short of it can make us living members of his mystical body; and that the baptism of water, administered by his forerunner John, belonged, as the latter confessed, to an inferior and decreasing dispensation (John iii. 30). With respect to the other rite, we believe that communion between Christ and his church is not maintained by that nor by any other external performance, but only by a real participation in his divine nature (2 Pet. i. 4) through faith; that this is the supper alluded to in the Revelations (Rev. iii. 20). Behold I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with me: and that where the substance is attained, it is unnecessary to attend to the shadow, which doth not confer grace, and concerning which, opinions so different, and animosities so violent, have arisen."

6th. Their great doctrine of the Inward Light necessarily implies the doctrine of repentance and a new life; in the words of Penn, "Repentance from dead works to serve the living God, which comprehends three operations. First, a sight of sin; secondly, a sense and godly sorrow for sin; thirdly, an amendment for the time to come. This was the repentance they (the first Quakers) preached and pressed, and a natural result of the principle they turned all people unto."1

7th. "From hence sprung another doctrine which they were led to declare. Perfection from sin, according to the Scriptures of truth, which testify it to be the end of Christ's coming, and the nature of his kingdom, and for which his Spirit was and is given, viz. to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect, and holy because God is holy. . . . But they never held a perfection of wisdom and glory in this life, or from natural infirmities, or death, as some have, with a weak and ill mind, imagined and insinuated against them."2

Such are the great and strictly religious doctrines of the Society of Friends. There are others which they hold in common with other Christians, and which need not be enumerated here; but there are others, again, constituting a great system of philosophy, of morals, and manners, which distinguished the faith of George Fox from that of his predecessors and contemporaries, and which, if permitted to operate freely throughout society, would unquestionably produce the most amazing and beneficent changes. In the gospel declarations, that "God made of one blood all the nations of the earth," and that "he is no respecter of persons," he perceived nothing less than a charter of the most perfect freedom and equality of right to the whole human race. He carried out this idea so liberally, that he extended it to the female part of the community. He declared the equality of the sexes; that there is no sex in souls, but all are one in Christ Jesus; and on this ground he gave the female Friends a participation in the civil economy of the society. He extended this doctrine to all nations and colours; one right and one law for all men, whether white or black. In the declaration of Christ, the heathen lorded it over one another, but it should not be so amongst his disciples, where he saw the law of brotherhood, and not of subjection. This law once recognised, he could no longer recognise the contrary law of bloodshed and revenge; he was bound to pronounce the anti-Christianity of war. He pronounced the anti-Christianity of all oaths, on the clear and unequivocal command of Christ; "Swear not at all."3

He regarded Christianity as a heavenly dispensation, sent peculiarly to draw us from the follies and vanities of the world, customs and the very essence of which consisted in a renewed vitality and prudence of mind. This led him to resist, despise, and expose those assumptions of absurd titles, those demands of servile obedience and empty flatteries by mere wealth and fictitious rank, which degrade both givers and receivers, and fill the world with so much misery and heart-burnings, so much meanness and pride. On this principle he adopted the utmost simplicity of dress and manners. He resumed the original use of thee and thou to a single person, the more so as thou was then used to a rich person, and thou to a poor one. He abandoned the practice of what he called "hat-homage," taking off the hat, and bowing, as marks of obedience to superiors. He refused to address persons of rank by the titles of your Majesty, your Excellency, your Grace, &c., looking upon it as the basest flattery, where there happened to be neither majesty, excellency, nor grace. Believing in the authenticity of no ministry but such as depended alone upon the teaching of the Holy Ghost, he denied the right to tithes, church-rates, or any compulsory payments to the support of a priesthood. As he regarded the ceremony of marriage as requiring for its celebration no interference of a minister of the gospel, he refused the mode adopted at the altars of the Established Church, and introduced a simple form of marriage in the meetings of his own society. He rejected the common customs of mourning and burial, as not being in accordance with the simplicity of the Gospel. Regarding the names of the months and

---

1 Penn's Rise and Progress, p. 19. 2 Ibid. p. 19. Quakers days of the week as originating in mythological idolatry, he substituted a mere numerical nomenclature. Various practices and social indulgences, as singing, dancing, music, the frequenting of theatres and other places of public amusement, playing at games of chance for money, drinking of healths, horse-racing, and field-sports, were renounced and discouraged by him, as incurring waste of time, or inconsistent with the serious hopes and duties of Christians. These innovations were all adopted by the Society of Friends, and have become fixed rules of practice.

It is obvious that a system like this could not be promulgated without setting in array against it an innumerable host of enemies. There was scarcely a custom of society, or a profession in it, at which it did not aim a severe blow. The church, the army, the law, each felt that it was menaced with decay or change. Royalty saw, that if this doctrine succeeded, it would lop off the right arm of arbitrary power, for it could not flatter the divine right of kings. The clergy saw that it did not object to this or that dogma, this or that ceremony, like the Puritans, but it assailed, root and branch, state-religion itself. If Quakerism succeeded, where would be the soldier and the marine; where the gainful trade of litigation? It was a system which aimed a death-blow at the flatteries of the world, and the self-gratulation and self-indulgent spirit of human nature; and it was accordingly speedily saluted with one general and furious tempest of hatred and vengeance. But, before turning to the persecutions of the Quakers, we must first notice the singular zeal, and as singular enterprises, of their first ministers. It has been stated, that, in the seventh year of Quakerism, these ministers amounted to upwards of sixty. These numbers continued for some years to increase rapidly; and they were animated with a surprising spirit of proselytism. Of these, Francis Howgill, John Audland, Samuel Fisher, had been clergymen; George Bishop, Richard Hubberthorn, William Ames, officers in the army; Anthony Pearson, John Crook, justices of peace. Of the rest, Edward Burrough, Robert Farnsworth, James Nayler, William Dewsbury, John Camm, Thomas Lowe, William Catton, and James Parnel, were amongst the most eminent. William Penn and Robert Barelay, two of their most celebrated members, did not join the society till about twenty years after its formation. There were also a considerable number of women-preachers, who displayed a spirit as bold and zealous as the men.

Firmly persuaded that they were actuated by the immediate influence and revelation of the Divine Spirit, and ordained to restore the primitive form and simplicity of the Christian faith, the Quaker-preachers traversed every quarter of the united kingdom, entering the churches of the establishment, denouncing their ceremonies and doctrines, telling the people that they were come to call them off from such things, from "the beggary elements" of outward observances and outward teachers, to the great Inward Teacher; that the ground on which these churches stood was no more holy than any other ground; and that sprinkling with water, putting on of surplices, and repeating ready-made prayers, were but relics of Popery. As these clergy and churches were maintained by the nation, they conceived that they had the clearest right to call upon the nation to look into them. They did not stop here; they believed it their duty to address solemn warnings to magistrates, to parliament, to the protector or the king as it might be, on what they regarded as their duty to the public.

George Fox, Edward Burrough, Samuel Fisher, George Whitehead, and others of the Friends, had repeated interviews with Cromwell, Charles II., and other monarchs; and William Penn was a regular visitor at court during the short reign of James II. Many of the preachers extended their travels to France, Germany, Holland, and America. George Fox himself visited Holland, America, and the West Indies. Penn and Barclay visited Holland and Germany, and were received with the most cordial sympathy by Elizabeth, the princess of the palatinate, who entered into a religious correspondence with them.

Their success, and perhaps the very heat and opposition of the times, so stimulated their zeal and confirmed their opinions, that they now declared that they moved in the same spirit and power as the apostles. George Fox declared them little better than impostors who did not possess and act in that power and spirit. He believed, that by the Inward Light, not only the Scriptures, but both the intellectual and physical world, were opened to him. "He knew not only a renewing of the heart, and a restoration of the mind, but the virtues of the creatures were also opened to him;" so that he began to deliberate whether he should practise physic for the good of mankind....The three great professions in the world, physic, divinity, and law, were opened to him," &c. He worked miracles, according to his own testimony and that of his friends. He cured a woman of a distracted mind, by merely telling her, in the name of the Lord, to be quiet. He commanded a man at Arnside to stretch out his withered arm, and it was restored. But he believed himself not only endowed with the apostolic, but with the prophetic power. He foretold to Judge Fell, a fortnight before any body else dreamed of such a thing, the dissolution of the parliament by force. He had a vision of an angel with a fiery sword, prophetic of the great fire in London. Meeting Cromwell riding in Hampton-Court Park, as he drew near, "he perceived a shaft of death go forth from him." Cromwell invited him to come to the palace, but on going the next day he found him already on his death-bed. He exercised the same gift on many other occasions, foretelling judgments on his persecutors. His coadjutors laid claim to the same revelations. They were zealous to the last to address warnings to magistrates and to governments; as Francis Howgill to Cromwell; Samuel Fisher to the parliament; Edward Burrough to Cromwell and his council, &c. They foretold events. Thomas Aldam foretold the fall of Cromwell; George Bishop, the great plague in London; Thomas Ibbitt, Humphry Smith, George Fox the younger, and Thomas Briggs, the great fire of London; Edward Burrough, the death of Cromwell, his own death, and various other events. They exhibited signs, like the ancient prophets. A woman went into the parliament in 1658, with a pitcher in her hand, and breaking it, told them, so should they be broken to pieces. Thomas Aldam took off his cap before the Protector, and tearing it to pieces, said, "so shall the government be rent from thee and thy house." In 1660, Robert Huntingdon went into the church at Brough, near Carlisle, wrapped in a white sheet, and with a halter about his neck, to show the Independents and Presbyterians that the surplice would be introduced again, and that some of them would be hanged. A woman appeared in a Protestant church at Dieppe, in sackcloth and ashes. Thomas Ibbitt, two days

---

1 Sewell's History, i. 79. 2 Ibid. i. 273, 316-316; ii. 543, 550, 594, 613, 617. 3 George Fox's Journal, 6th edit. i. 106; Sewell, i. 29. 4 Ibid. i. 120; Ibid. i. 37. 5 Ibid. i. 219. 6 Sewell's History, i. 112, 113. 7 Ibid. ii. 101. 8 Sewell's History, i. 315, 316. 9 Ibid. i. 139. 10 Ibid. i. 226. 11 Ibid. i. 210, 276. 12 Ibid. i. 325. 13 Ibid. i. 260. 14 Ibid. i. 175, 199, 388. 15 Ibid. i. 315; ii. 50. 16 Ibid. i. 312. 17 Ibid. i. 313. 18 Ibid. i. 456. 19 Ibid. i. 191. before the fire of London, dismounted from his horse with his clothes hanging loosely about him, as though he had come in great haste, and went about the city denouncing judgment. Solomon Eccles went into a Catholic chapel at Galloway, in Ireland, and, when the people were on their knees, appeared naked above his waist, with a chafing-dish of coals and burning brimstone on his head, and, crying "Woe to these idolatrous worshippers," declared that God had sent him to show them their portion, unless they repented. The same man went into a church in Aldersbury in 1659, and, seating himself on the pulpit-cushion, in the face of the audience, began to say. In 1662, Daniel Baker, being in a ship becalmed opposite to Gibraltar, went ashore on Maunday Thursday, proceeded to the mass-house, and amid the people at high mass he rent his clothes, discovering sackcloth on his body; then taking his hat from his head, he threw it on the ground and stamped on it, and calling on them to repent, so passed away.

But the zeal of the first Quakers could not expend itself even in these extraordinary demonstrations; many of them set out to the very ends of the earth, with what they believed to be commissions from on high. One young woman, Mary Fisher, proceeded to Adrianople (although once stopped at Venice, and sent back by the British consul) to convert the Grand Turk, who received her in the most courteous manner. Two others, Catharine Evans and Sarah Cheevers, went to Malta to reclaim the Catholic inhabitants, but did not meet with so handsome a reception as their sister had done from the Sultan. They were clapped into the prison of the Inquisition, and only liberated after a four years' imprisonment, through the interference of Lord D'Aubigny. John Love, John Perrot, Samuel Fisher, and John Stubbs, went to Rome, to testify, in the presence of the pope and cardinals, against their superstitions. Love died in the Inquisition, but the others escaped. George Robinson travelled to Jerusalem to denounce the trade which the friars made of the holy sepulchre, and to convert the Mahommedans, and also returned safe. Others crossed to New England, where we shall have occasion to speak of them immediately. This is a portion of the Quaker history, which suggests serious ideas. All these things were done under the conviction of immediate revelation; but the result of these strange signs and journeys did not justify the singular anomaly of the actions; and, what is remarkable, they have never, at any subsequent period, found imitators in the society. In the sober judgment of this age, such things will no doubt be estimated at their true value; and, from the present practice and character of the Friends, we presume they would not differ much in opinion from their neighbours.

The persecutions which the Friends suffered forms another remarkable chapter in their history, and one in which they appear to great advantage. We have seen what were their doctrines, and that their promulgation was sure to plunge them into a sea of suffering. This was soon verified. Wherever they appeared, the clergy, who justly looked upon them as the most daring and determined enemies that ever appeared against them (for they everywhere declared to the people that their system was anti-Christian, and rotten to the very core), on all hands roused the civil and military powers against them. Wherever they preached they were hauled before the magistrates, fined or imprisoned; but though the persecution waxed hotter and fiercer every day, they never for a moment flinched, or remitted their activity in travelling and preaching all over the country. No persecution in modern times fell more heavily or savagely upon any people; and it must be said, to the honour of the society, that no people ever stood up more firmly for the rights of conscience and the liberty of the subject. The trials of the Friends, and especially that of John Crook in 1662, and that of William Penn and William Mead in 1670, at the Old Bailey, will for ever remain as noble monuments of their resistance to the arbitrary proceedings of the courts of judicature at that time, and their violent infringement of the privilege of jury. In the latter case there happened to be a noble jury, who, insensible to the most atrocious attempts made by the court to force a verdict, were shut up without meat, drink, fire, or tobacco, for two nights and a day, and, still remaining immovable, were conveyed with the prisoners to Newgate.

The enemies of the Quakers were furnished with abundant means of oppression, in the various acts which had been passed since the days of Henry VIII. till then, against the Popish recusants, and otherwise, to compel conformity to the established church. There was the 27th of Henry VIII., the 1st of Elizabeth, for twelvepence a day; the 5th of Eliz. De Excommunicato copiendo; the 35th of Elizabeth, for abjuring the realm, on pain of death; the 3d of James I. for praemunire, imprisonment for life, and confiscation of estate; the 13th and 14th of Charles II. for transporting Quakers; the 17th of Charles II. against non-conformists; the 22d of Charles II. against seditious conventicles. They were so surrounded with snares that there existed not a chance of escape if there were the slightest desire to punish them. If all charges against them failed on any occasion, there was the oath of allegiance and supremacy always ready to present to them; and the Quakers could not take any oath whatever. But by the last act against conventicles, passed in 1670, they were completely given up as a prey to the informers. Any five persons convicted of being present in one house, over and above the ordinary family, were to be fined five shillings for the first offence, ten for a second, twenty pounds for preaching, forty for a second offence, and twenty pounds for the building in which the meeting was held, the whole to be levied by distress; and if any one person could not pay his fine, it was to be levied on any one or more who could, the informer receiving one third of the amount. Under such temptations to low curiosity, loss of their property and imprisonment of their persons spread throughout the whole country. Cromwell and Charles II. both professed a desire to stay this persecution, but they took few measures to effect this object; on the contrary, during the whole reign of Charles, persecution raged more and more vehemently. Their sufferings lasted thirty years, and the simple matter-of-fact relation of them fills two large folio volumes of more than one thousand four hundred closely printed pages. The prisons were full of them, and these prisons were pestilential dungeons, of which we can now hardly credit the description. In them there were at one time 4200 Quakers. The prisons of London had suffocating crowds in them, and the celebrated hole in Newgate was the death of numbers. Ellwood, the friend of Milton, and who had the honour to suggest the composition of Paradise Regained, was in Newgate amongst these numbers, and has left us, in his Life, some curious sketches of those scenes. The majority of the first preachers of Quakerism died in prison. In 1662 twenty Friends died in the London jails; in 1664 twenty-five more; in 1665 fifty-two others, besides

---

1 Sewel's History, ii. 199. 2 Ibid. ii. 241; State Trials, vi. 998. 3 Ibid. i. 292. 4 Nothing is here said of the actions of James Nayler, because they were condemned by the Friends at the time, and, after his punishment, thoroughly condemned by himself. 5 Sewel, ii. 23; Gough, i. 518; Howell's State Trials, vi. 201. 6 Sewel's History, i. 541. 7 Ibid. i. 433. 8 Ibid. i. 433. 9 State Trials, vi. 951; Sewel, ii. 259; Gough, ii. 326. Quakers seven who died after liberation, in consequence of their treatment during confinement. According to Besse, the historian of their sufferings, the total number of Friends who perished in prison during this period was 369. In Bristol at one time every adult was in prison. In London in 1670 Charles issued an order, signed by the archbishop of Canterbury and thirteen others, commanding Mr Christopher Wren to pull down their meeting-houses at Ratcliffe and Horsleydown, which was done, and the materials sold. Peal meeting-house was ransacked, and stripped of doors and windows. Their other meeting-houses were nailed up; and the Friends, who met on the ruins, or in the street, were driven away by soldiers, mercilessly beaten with the butt-ends of their muskets, and some of them killed. Throughout the severe winter of 1683, these steadfast people collected in the streets to worship, in spite of all pains and penalties, and suffered incredible hardships and insults. The dead were disinterred from their graves; women and children were dragged by the hair along the streets; some were pricked with needles and bodkins, and others were sold to the sugar plantations. Meantime their property was at the mercy of constables and informers, who wrenched open their doors with sledge-hammers and screws, and carried off everything, to the very children's food, often leaving not a tool to work with, or a horse to plough the land. In many instances these fellows, where the men were in prison, carried the keys of their houses in their pockets, went in and out as they pleased, declaring that they would "eat of the best and drink of the sweetest, and these rogues of Quakers should pay for all." There was levied at one time on the Friends at Bristol, for fines, L16,400; and, from a careful examination of the records of the society, it clearly appears that property was taken or destroyed at that period to the amount of upwards of one million sterling.

This sketch of their persecutions would not be perfect if we omitted their treatment in New England. There, the colony of Independents, whose history is so well known from the circumstance of their having fled from persecution at home, and immediately become persecutors themselves, and whose cruelties to the Indians and to one another form so gloomy a passage in history, no sooner heard that two Quaker women were arrived in the harbour, than they seized on them before they could land, put them in prison, stripped them naked, and barbarously treated them: They ordered three other Quaker women to be stripped to the waist, and flogged through eleven towns, a distance of eighty miles, in all the severity of frost and snow. They then hanged three men and one woman, before a mandate from the king could arrest their bloody course.

The extent of persecution was much diminished by William Penn opening an asylum for his friends in his new state of Pennsylvania, whither great numbers emigrated; and a final stop was put to them by James II. He permitted the Friends to substitute an affirmation instead of an oath; then came the Toleration Act of William III., recognizing more fully the rights of conscience; and subsequent acts legalized their marriages, and placed them at ease amongst their fellow-citizens. They still continue their conscientious refusal to pay tithes and church-rates, and these are taken by distraint, to the average annual amount of about L11,900.

It would give an unfair view of the Society of Friends, if, after exhibiting the vehemence of their early zeal, we did not remind the reader of the peculiar spirit and circumstances of that age. Then all the elements of political and religious unrest were in a state of chaotic turbulence, and the whole style of language and of action amongst all denominations was such as would now be pronounced violent and fanatical. The Quakers, in this respect, only partook of the spirit of the age; and to understand them more truly, we must see them in their patient steadfastness under their dreadful misusage, in which they gave far higher evidence of the influence and support of the Divine Spirit, than by all their signs and wonders. It is to their everlasting honour that they never showed the least symptom of retaliation. Though often urged, when circumstances were in their favour, to denounce their enemies, they had on all such occasions but one answer, "We leave them to the Lord." They not only went on steadily, preaching and convincing thousands, but they set about and organized a system of discipline, or church-government, distinguished in a remarkable degree for its order and decorum. In the first place, they established a standing committee in London, called "The Meeting for Sufferings," for receiving the earliest accounts of the persecutions of their friends from all parts of the kingdom, and for taking the promptest measures for their mitigation. It was in this committee that George Fox was to be constantly found to the latest day of his life, whenever in London, anxiously engaged in endeavouring to alleviate the sufferings of the society. The system of discipline then organized, and which continues, in the main, as it was left by the first Quakers, we have now to describe.

Wherever the Friends have a meeting-house, they hold, Discipline once a month, after the meeting for worship is over, a meeting for discipline; or, in other words, for all the civil and ecclesiastical affairs of the body. Though they do not pay their ministers, they deem it right to defray their expenses when they travel in the ministry. They hold it a Christian duty to support their own poor, and to educate their children. For these purposes they raise the necessary funds by voluntary contribution at these meetings, which are called Preparative Meetings, that is, meetings preparatory to the monthly meetings, which include several preparative meetings. Each preparative meeting appoints representatives to attend the monthly meeting.

The monthly meeting receives the funds for the poor, and appropriates to each meeting what is necessary. It also receives the funds for the public schools, and for what is called "the National Stock," that is, a fund placed at the disposal of the society at large for general charges; and hands them in by its representatives to the quarterly meeting. In these monthly meetings is chiefly vested the real property of the society, as its meeting-houses, lands, &c. They judge of the fitness of persons applying for membership; excite due attention to religious and moral duties; and deal with disorderly members. They grant certificates of membership and conduct to those removing into other monthly meetings, without which they could not be received as members. They appoint two or more persons in each particular meeting, called overseers, to watch over the general conduct of the members, maintain the decorum of the meeting, and see the discipline enforced. They appoint also two or more persons, of high religious standing, as elders, to watch over the ministry, to judge of the fitness of such as offer themselves as preachers, and to sympathise with those already acknowledged. It is contrary to the rules of the society for any of its members to go to law with each other; all differences are to be settled by arbitration; and it is the duty of the monthly meetings to deal with such as violate this rule. Parties wishing to marry appear at these meetings and declare their intention; persons are appointed to inquire whether the parties are free from other engagements, and whether they have the consent of parents or guardians. These inquiries being answered in the affirmative, and the parties signifying to the following monthly meeting their continuance in the same mind, are permitted by it to proceed.

Several of these monthly meetings compose a quarterly meeting. A quarterly meeting, indeed, generally embraces one or two counties. At the quarterly meetings are produced, from the monthly meetings, written answers to cer- Quakers. tain standing queries respecting the conduct of the members, and the meetings' care over them. These accounts are digested into one, and sent on by representatives to the yearly meeting. The money contributions for the national stock, &c., are not forwarded by the representatives from the quarterly meetings to the yearly meeting directly, but by appointed correspondents in each quarterly meeting to the Meeting for Sufferings, which is the fiscal and executive organ of the yearly meeting. Ministers wishing to travel in the ministry in Great Britain, must obtain a certificate from their own monthly meeting; and if they extend their views to Ireland, they must take one from the quarterly meeting. The quarterly meetings assist their monthly meetings in difficult cases, and hear any appeals from their judgment.

From the quarterly meetings in spring, representatives are sent to the yearly meeting in London; thus the affairs of the society coming into operation in every meeting in the kingdom, gradually concentrating themselves into one focus, concerns of a local nature being dropped in their own proper sphere, and the monthly or quarterly meetings, and those of a more general interest being carried on to the great annual assembly. To understand, however, the mechanism of the society, it must be explained that these meetings of discipline, monthly, quarterly, and yearly, are not restricted to the representatives only. All members may, and great numbers do, attend them; for not only has every member a right to give an opinion on all public questions, but these meetings offer points of pleasant reunion and acquaintance. It must, too, be understood that the women, simultaneously with the men, but in a separate apartment, hold their own monthly, quarterly, and yearly meetings of discipline, in which they watch over the interests, the moral conduct, and the religious consistency of the female portion of the community. There is also, previous to any meeting of discipline, a meeting of ministers and elders, to strengthen each other's hands. To their meeting in London, more commonly called "the Morning Meeting," is intrusted the revision of manuscripts which concern the principles of the society, and the granting of certificates to ministers wishing to travel abroad during the intervals of the yearly meeting. These ministers and elders afterwards take their places in the general meetings of discipline. The ministers are also members of the Meeting for Sufferings, which, as already stated, is the standing committee of the society.

These subordinate and preliminary meetings, then, having been held, the yearly meeting comes on in London in the month of May. There is but one yearly meeting for these united kingdoms, to which come representatives from Scotland and Ireland. But in America, where the great body of the Quakers is now to be found, there are eight yearly meetings, which correspond with the English yearly meeting, and with one another; besides five yearly meetings of what are called Liberal or Hicksite Quakers, with whom neither the English nor the other American Quakers hold any communication. The discipline in all is pretty much the same, and therefore the description of that in London may represent the rest. It elects a clerk, who officiates at once as chairman and secretary, and an assistant-clerk, to relieve him by reading long documents, &c. The meeting is held by adjournment from day to day, and generally continues about ten days. It receives epistles from Friends in Ireland, and the orthodox yearly meetings in America, and appoints committees to draw up answers. It receives and considers the answers to the standing queries on the moral and religious condition of the society, from all the quarterly meetings. Accounts are laid before it by the Meeting for Sufferings, of all the seizures for tithes, church-rates, &c. It has committees sitting on the state of the public schools, on the subject of slavery, and on other questions, in which the Friends take great interest, and on which they frequently feel bound to address the crown, petition parliament, or call upon the public for its attention. It has a committee to receive all appeals against the decision of the quarterly meetings. It alone has power to alter any of the established rules of the society, or to make new ones. It sometimes appoints committees to visit such quarterly meetings as appear in need of help; and it always addresses a general epistle to the society, which is read in every meeting in the kingdom; the women Friends issuing an epistle from their meeting, addressed to the female community exclusively.

In their mode of worship the Friends differ from all other peculiar Christians. Believing all worship to depend upon the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit, and having, therefore, no paid ministers, no stated prayers, no singing even, they walk into their meeting-house, the men with their hats on, and sit down in silence. They keep on their hats because they do not believe that place to be holier than any other, or that worship is more acceptable at one time than another, but that it is enjoined on us, and is good for us, to assemble ourselves together before God. They have no separate pews, but all the men sit together on one row of benches, and all the women on another. They have no pulpit, because they have no fixed preacher; but as they may have several voluntary ones, they have a long raised gallery in front of the congregation, where the ministers sit, the men facing the men, and the women facing the women of the audience. The elders sit with them, or with the overseers, in a lower gallery, still facing the meeting. As the ministry is independent of human appointment, so is it of human choice in its distribution. There may be, and often are, half a dozen ministers or more resident, as in large towns, and there may be a succession of sermons and prayers, whilst in great numbers of other meetings there is no minister, nor a word spoken, for years together, except it be by travelling ministers, who occasionally visit, not only their meetings, but each family belonging to them.

Such were the early Quakers, and such are the forms of Great polity and worship which they have left behind them. Those who now see the Friends as they are, would scarcely believe them to be descended from so fiery and innovating a race. The old Quakers were vehement in the promulgation of their principles, and aggressive in their attacks on the principles of others. The present Friends neither assail the religious doctrines of others, nor seem anxious to diffuse their own. The virtue of the first Quakers was active, that of the present is passive to a miracle. They cling tenaciously to the outward forms of their system, and to their peculiarities of dress, speech, and renunciation of popular amusements; but the ancient fire which once lit up their body seems to have gone out. They profess to hold their great principles as sacred as their ancestors did, but they show little anxiety to make them known. Much of this remarkable change is plainly attributable to natural causes. The violence of a religious paroxysm determines the length of its duration. When persecution ceased, the Friends found themselves thrown, by their abandonment of the ordinary amusements and tastes of the world, on trade for occupation, and led home for relaxation. They became busy, domestic, and of consequence wealthy. These causes will explain much, but there is another cause which will explain more of the present circumstances of the society; their great tenet, and corner-stone of their faith, the Inward Light. Carrying this doctrine to the extent which they do, that it is the all-sufficient guide; that its guidance is to be sought

---

1 For all that relates to the civil and religious economy of the society, see its statute-book, The Book of the Rules of Discipline, &c. Quakers, and waited for; that we must put down before it our own imaginations and reason, and without its impulse we must make no religious movement; it has had this effect; it has acted as a blight upon the ministry. Those who might feel disposed to address their meetings from a simple feeling of love, and desire for the salvation of their fellows, and from a belief that every good motive must come from the source of all good, and would be blessed by Him; these, perhaps, the most able members of the body, have yet shrunk from the task, because they felt that they should be restrained by the elders, as persons running in their own strength, and in their own natural reason. Those who have not been so sensitive, and have been adopted as ministers, have entered upon a process of putting down every motion and faculty of their own minds, and of waiting for a direct and palpable revelation from heaven. The consequence need not be stated. It is a fact, that since the first days of Quakerism they have had few preachers of extraordinary eloquence or originality of mind. The ministry is now confessedly low, and the sermons heard in their meetings are most frequently common-place and rambling. The experiment of an unpaid ministry in their hands has been by no means a splendid one. No spread or prevalence of their doctrines has followed, at all answerable to the ground of inspiration assumed. With the exception of two preachers who have lately paid a visit to Australia and the South Sea Islands, they have sent out no missionaries, nor contributed to the funds of those societies which did, because they were not moved to it; as if the evidence of success were not sufficient warrant. In their meetings of discipline the same principle has produced the same effects. Though all profess to live under the influence of the spiritual guide, some are supposed to live under it more habitually. These have acquired the name of Weighty Friends, that is, Friends of weight of character and consequent influence. Instead, therefore, of deciding all questions in these meetings by the ordinary mode of voting, or by a show of hands, a mode, one would have imagined, particularly consonant to their views of natural right, they have adopted the singular one of deciding by weight; that is, by the dicta of the Weighty Friends, who, for the most part, are men of weighty purses too. These Friends have only to say, "I am of this or that opinion," without assigning any reason, and this is taken as the sense of the meeting, and decides the question. Thus is the government of the society thrown into the hands of an oligarchy of the most dangerous kind; for none can be more dangerous than that of an assumed sanctity; and thus are the advantages of their otherwise popular system curiously neutralized.

The same principle has operated still further. It has damped religious inquiry and discussion. In the common affairs of life and trade, where the Friends have used their understandings, they have shown themselves shrewd and successful; in matters of religion they thought it right to renounce their natural faculties, and wait. When the young have expressed to ministers, or any of their elder Friends, their doubts or uneasiness on any religious point, they have replied, "they did not feel free to discuss such matters;" they advised them to "centre down into their own minds, to turn inward to the infallible guide." The consequence became apparent in a dearth of religious intelligence. There was not the same inquiry into and clear recognition of religious doctrines amongst them as amongst other communities of Christians; and when the spirit of research burst upon them from without, they were startled. Many felt themselves like mere children in theology, and were scattered different ways.

These divisions first showed themselves in America in 1827. They originated in objections to the doctrines of a very popular and aged minister, Elias Hicks; but at the yearly meeting in Philadelphia that year, it was found that great numbers were of his opinions, and the parties came to an open rupture. The schism soon spread to New York, and the feud raged for some years with great violence, ending eventually in the total disruption of the society in America. It is difficult to state the numbers of the society, because there has always been a reluctance to take a regular census of the body. In the year 1659, from the number of females who signed petitions to parliament, it was calculated that the number altogether in England was about 30,000. At present, from calculations made by private individuals, there does not appear to be quite 20,000; but in America they have been variously estimated at from 100,000 to 160,000, and may very safely be rated at more than 100,000. The section of the American Quakers calling themselves orthodox state the numbers who avowed the opinions of Elias Hicks at 30,000; the Hicksites themselves claim 60,000. It may, therefore, be fairly taken for granted that the body there is pretty equally rent in two. The English Quakers denounced the Hicksite Quakers, though these people protested that they held, and had always held, the doctrines of the first Friends in their integrity. Scarcely was this schism effected when the Quakers in England found themselves assailed on the opposite side by a party which had been most urgent with them to disown the Hicksites. This attack appeared in the shape of a publication called "A Beacon to the Society of Friends," warning them against the errors of Hicks, and advocating water-baptism, the taking of the Lord's Supper, and other opinions which the Quakers from the first had abandoned. The heats and contentious incident to religious disputes have, on this ground, distracted the society here; some few have withdrawn from the body, and several individuals have been dismissed for adopting ceremonies which Quakerism rejects; but the body itself has hitherto remained entire. It is not necessary here to enter into the points in dispute. It may suffice to say, that the Hicksites are charged with setting the Inward Light above the Scriptures, and the Beaconites with setting the Scriptures above the Inward Light; the Hicksites with running too far into mysticism, and the Beaconites into the "beggarly elements" of outward form. Both parties appeal to Scripture against each other, and the English Friends appeal to it against them both. The circumstance to be regretted is, that this society, which has always boasted that it "has no creed," and which says, "We require no formal subscription to any articles, either as to the condition of membership, or to qualify for the services of the church; we prefer judging of men by their fruits;" should thus rend itself to pieces about "articles of faith," and the very stuff of which "creeds" are made.

If, however, the Society of Friends, having an "infallible guide," has not avoided wandering different ways; if, being a "Society of Friends," they have not avoided bickerings and divisions; they have the honour of being amongst the noblest and most unweared philanthropists which the world has ever seen. In this character they have proudly maintained their testimonies. If George Fox was not untouched with the extravagances of his age, he outstripped that age two hundred years in his clear perception of the highest requirements of Christianity. He was amongst the first, if not the first, to call public attention to the dreadful state of our prisons; to the injustice of capital punishments for mere stealing; and to the atrocious system of confining fresh prisoners with the most thoroughly debased. He declared the anti-christianity of war, oaths, and slavery. In the maintenance of all these great truths, to the recognition

---

1 Sewel, i. 67; Fox's Journal, i. 143. QUALITY is a word which, as used in philosophical disquisitions, cannot be explained by any periphrasis. That which is expressed by it must be brought into the immediate view of the senses or intellect, and the name properly applied, or he who is a stranger to the word will never be made to comprehend its meaning. Aristotle, who treated it as a general conception, second in order amongst the ten predicaments or categories, gives several characters of it; but though they are all in some respects just, no man could from them, without other assistance, learn what quality is.

When a man comprehends, by means of his senses and intellect, what it is that the word quality denotes, he will indeed perceive that the first of these characters is applicable to some qualities and not to others; that the second is more applicable to quantity than to quality; and that it is only the third which can with propriety be considered as the general characteristic of this predicament. Thus, when we have learned by our sense of sight that whiteness is a quality of snow, and blackness of coal; and, by means of observation and reflection, that wisdom is a quality of one man, and folly of another; we must admit that the sensible quality of the snow is contrary to that of the coal, and that the intellectual quality of wisdom is contrary to that of folly. There is, however, no contrariety between wisdom and whiteness or blackness, nor between hardness or softness and any particular colour; for sensible and intellectual qualities can never be compared, and it is not easy, if indeed it be possible, to make a comparison between qualities perceptible only by different senses. Nay, amongst qualities perceptible by the same sense, we often meet with a difference where there is no contrariety; for though the figure of a cube is different from that of a sphere, and the figure of a square from that of a circle, the sphere is not contrary to the cube, nor the circle to the square.

His second characteristic of this genus is still less proper than the first. It is indeed true that some qualities admit of intension and remission; for snow is whiter than paper, and one woman is handsomer than another; but of the species of quality called figure we cannot predicate either more or less. A crown-piece may have as much of the circular quality in it as the plane of the equator, and a musket-bullet as much of the spherical quality as the orb of the sun. It is indeed a property of all quantity to admit of intension and remission; and therefore this ought to have been given as the character, not of the second, but of the third category.

That it is only from a comparison of their qualities that things are denominated like or unlike, or that one thing cannot resemble another but in some quality, is indeed a just observation. We know nothing directly except qualities sensible and intellectual (see Metaphysics); and as these have no resemblance to each other, we conclude that body or matter, the subject of the former, is a being unlike mind, the subject of the latter. Even of bodies themselves we can say that one is like or unlike another only by virtue of their qualities. A ball of ivory resembles a ball of snow in its figure and colour, but not in its coldness or hardness; a ball of lead may resemble a ball of snow in its figure and coldness, but not in its colour; and a cube of ivory resembles not a ball of lead either in figure, colour, or coldness. The mind of a brute resembles that of a man in its powers of sensation and perception, but does not resemble it in the powers of volition and reasoning; or at least the resemblance, in this latter instance, is very slight. All bodies resemble one another in being solid and extended, and all minds in being more or less active. Likeness or unlikeness, therefore, is the universal characteristic of the category quality.

Aristotle has other speculations respecting quality which are worthy of notice. He distinguishes between qualities essential and those which are accidental, between qualities which are natural and those which are acquired; and he speaks of the qualities of capacity and those of completion. Extension and figure in general are qualities essential to all bodies; but a particular extension, such as an inch or an ell, and a particular figure, such as a cube or a sphere, are qualities accidental to bodies. Amongst the natural qualities of glass it is one to transmit objects of vision; but to enlarge those objects is an adventitious or acquired quality. The same quality may be natural in one substance, as attraction in the magnet; and acquired in Quality another, as the same attraction in the magnetic bar. Docility may be called a quality natural to the mind of man; science an acquired one. To understand what he means by qualities of capacity and completion, it may be sufficient to observe, that every piece of iron has the qualities of a razor in capacity, because it may be converted into steel, and formed into a razor; and when it is so formed, it has, in the language of this sage, the quality of a razor in completion. Amongst the qualities of capacity and completion, the most important, and what may lead to interesting speculations, is the reasoning faculty of man. A capacity of reasoning is essential to the human mind; but the completion of this capacity or actual reasoning is not, otherwise infants and persons asleep would be excluded from the human species.

Mr. Locke has puzzled his readers with a question respecting the species of an idiot or a changeling, whom he pronounces to be something between a man and a brute. It is not often that we feel ourselves inclined to regret Locke's ignorance of Aristotle's distinctions; but we cannot help thinking, that had the British philosopher attended to the Stagyrite's account of qualities in capacity and qualities in completion, this perplexing question would never have been started. It is justly observed in the Essay upon Human Understanding, that of real essences we know nothing, but that every man selects a certain number of qualities which he has always perceived united in certain beings, and, forming these into one complex conception, gives to this conception a specific name, which he applies to every being in which he finds those qualities united. This is undoubtedly the process of the mind in forming genera and species; and as the excellent author refuses the name of man to the changeling, it is obvious that the complex conception, to which he gives that name, must imply rationality, or the actual exercise of reason. But this limitation will exclude many beings from the species man, whom Mr. Locke certainly considered as men and women. Not to mention infants and persons in sound sleep, how shall we class those who, after having lived thirty or forty years in the full exercise of reason, have been suddenly or by degrees deprived of it by some disorder in the brain?

From Marlborough's eyes the streams of dotage flow, And Swift expires a driveller and a show.

But were the hero and the wit in these deplorable circumstances excluded from the human species, and clasped between men and brutes? No, surely; they were both acknowledged to be men, because they were known to have the quality of reason, in what Aristotle would have called capacity. Their dotage and drivelling originated from some disorder in their bodies, probably in the region of the brain; and Locke himself contends that no defect in body is sufficient to degrade a person from the rank of manhood. Again, lunatics have the exercise of reason, except at new and full moon. Are these unhappy beings sometimes men and sometimes a species by themselves between men and brutes?

It appears, therefore, that not the actual exercise of reason, but reason in capacity, ought to be included in the complex conception to which we give the specific name of man, as some of the greatest men that ever lived have been during parts of their lives deprived of the power of actual reasoning. This, however, it will be said, does not remove the difficulty; for the occasional exercise of reason in lunatics, and the great exertions of it in such men as Swift and Marlborough, show that they had it in capacity at all times; whereas we have no evidence that changelings have even a capacity of reasoning at any time, since they never do a rational action, nor ever utter a sentence to the purpose. That we have no direct and positive evidence of the minds of changelings being capable of reasoning, were they supplied with proper organs, must be granted; but the probabilities of their being so are many and great. We know by experience that the actual exercise of reason may be interrupted by an occasional and accidental pressure on the brain; and therefore we cannot doubt but that if this pressure were rendered permanent by any wrong configuration of the skull given to it in the womb, or in the act of being born into the world, an infant, with a mind capable of reasoning by means of proper organs, would by this accident be rendered, throughout the whole of life, an idiot or changeling. That idiotism is caused by such accidents, and is not the quality of an inferior mind occasionally given to a human body, will at least seem probable from the following considerations.

It does not appear that an animal body can live and move True doc except whilst it is actuated by some mind. Whence, then, time does the unborn infant derive its mind? It must be either immediately from God, or ex traduce from its parents; but if the mind of man be immaterial, it cannot be ex traduce. Now, as idiots are very few in number when compared with the rational part of the human species, and as God in the government of this world acts not by partial but by general laws, we must conclude that the law which he has established respecting the union of mind and matter is, that human bodies shall be animated with minds endowed with a capacity of reasoning, and that those who never exert this capacity are prevented by some such accident as we have assigned.