the flesh, or the benefit to fallen man by his propitiatory sacrifice.  “We believe that, in order to enable mankind to put in practice the precepts of the gospel, every man coming into the world is endued with a measure of the light, grace, or good Spirit of Christ, by which, as it is alluded to, he is enabled to distinguish good from evil, and to correct the disorderly passions and corrupt propensities of his fallen nature, which mere reason is altogether insufficient to overcome.  For all that belongs to man is fallible, and within the reach of temptation: but the divine grace, which comes by Him, i.e. Christ, who hath overcome the world, is, to those who humbly and sincerely seek it, an all-sufficient and present help in time of need . . . whereby the soul is translated out of the kingdom of darkness, and from under the power of Satan into the marvellous light and kingdom of the Son of God.  Now as we thus believe that the grace of God, which comes by Jesus Christ, is alone sufficient for salvation, we can neither admit that it is conferred upon a few only, while others are left without it; nor thus asserting its universality, can we limit its operation to a partial cleansing of the soul from sin even in this life.”

Baptism and the Lord’s supper are regarded by this sect as mere types or shadows, representing in a figurative manner certain great particulars of Christian Truths, but not intended to be of permanent obligation.  They consider the former to have been superseded by the baptism of the Spirit: of the latter they say, “the emblem may be either used or disused as Christians may consider most conducive to the real advantage of the church: the only needful supper of the Lord is altogether of a spiritual nature.”  They conceive that a reliance on the eucharist as a ‘viaticum or saving ordinance,’ is a dangerous tenet, as well as the connecting the rite of baptism with regeneration.  They think that “ordinances so liable to abuse, and the cause of so many divisions and persecutions, cannot truly appertain to the law of God.”

Quakers consider all holidays as “shadows” which ceased with the shadowy dispensations of the law, and that neither the first day of the week, nor any other, possesses any superior sanctity; [20] but as a society they have never objected to “a day of rest,” for the purpose of religious improvement.  They consider the Christian Dispensation to have superseded the use of oaths, and contend that our Lord’s precepts [21]extend even to the swearing of witnesses in courts of law.  War they hold to be altogether inconsistent with the spirit and precepts of the gospel, and urge that the primitive Christians during two centuries maintained its unlawfulness.  They object on the same principle to capital punishments, and the slave trade.

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

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

On points of minor difference it may be observed, that He who was the Prince of Peace, and came to establish it, never specifically forbad war, (for there may be cases where it is merely self defence,) but left it to the spirit of the gospel to remove the causes of war. [22]  We all know the appellation bestowed on the Centurion, Cornelius: and when soldiers came to John the Baptist saying, “What shall we do?” he merely sought to retrench the disorders and injustice which those who follow the profession of arms might be tempted to commit; but did not condemn their necessary employments.  We may therefore fairly conclude that the sweeping condemnation of all war by the Quakers, is not warranted by Scripture, although it is in many and indeed most instances, entered upon far too carelessly.

One of the main distinctions of the Quakers is the rejection of certain amusements and pursuits, which others on the contrary consider as innocent, believing that the religion of Christ rather encourages than forbids a cheerful spirit, and allows by the example of the Saviour, a participation in social pleasures: and that “an upright, religious man, by partaking in such pleasures, may be the means of restraining others within due bounds, and by his very presence may prevent their degenerating into extravagance, profligacy, and sin;” [24a] and such do not feel in their hearts that these [24b] are the “pomps and vanities of the world,” which by their baptismal vow they renounce.  But surely it is possible that different persons may regard the same pursuits and amusements in a very different light, and yet both may be conscientious in their views, and both, whether in abstaining or enjoying, be equally doing that which is lawful and right in the sight of God.  That very amusement or pursuit which is a snare to one, and therefore to be avoided by him, may be a source of innocent, and perhaps profitable recreation to another.  It is the intention, the animus with which an act is done, and not the act itself which constitutes the sin.  “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: to his own master he standeth or falleth.”

“Christianity,” says an excellent prelate of our church, “forbids no necessary occupation, no reasonable indulgences, no innocent relaxation.  It