he will tread in the steps of his Lord, even if his judgment should sometimes have mistaken the true meaning of some of his words.

These two views of the Divine dispensations towards man were first arrayed in actual hostility at the Synod of Dort in 1618, where the doctrines of James Arminius, professor of divinity in the University of Leyden, who had followed the opinions of Luther and Melancthon, were condemned, and those of the Calvinistic church of Geneva affirmed.  From that time the various sects of the reformed church have generally been known as Arminian or Calvinistic, according as they embraced the peculiar tenets of either party on the subject of man’s salvation: I shall therefore thus distinguish the two classes into which I propose to arrange them, though they may not follow out either in the whole of their opinions.

I.  Arminian.

1.  Quakers.

2.  Socinians and Unitarians.

3.  Wesleyan Methodists.

4.  General Baptists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Plymouth Brethren.

II.  Calvinistic.

1.  Presbyterians, Independents.

2.  Particular Baptists, Sub and Supralapsarians, Sandemanians.

3.  Calvinistic Methodists.  Evangelical or Low Church.

LETTER II.
QUAKERS.

The sect which I have placed first upon my list, arose about the middle of the seventeenth century, when a number of individuals withdrew from the communion of every visible church “to seek,” [14] as they expressed it, “the Lord, in retirement:” and George Fox, their leader, or as they termed him, their “honourable elder,” went about preaching their opinions in fairs and markets, in courts of justice, and steeple houses, i.e. churches.  He denounced the state worship as “superstitious,” and warned all to obey the Holy Spirit, speaking by him.  He was in consequence brought before two justices of the peace in Derbyshire in 1650, one of whom, Mr. Bennet, called Fox, and his hearers “Quakers,” in derision of their frequent admonitions to “tremble at the Word of God;” and this appellation soon became general, though they themselves took then, and still preserve, the title of “the Society of Friends.”

The rigid peculiarities of phrase, &c. which Fox added to his religious sentiments; the regular discipline which he enforced; and the zeal with which he maintained and propagated his tenets gave consistency to this sect, although he was not, as has been supposed, the originator of their doctrines.  He conceived himself forbidden by divine command to pull off his hat to any one, or to address any one excepting in the singular number, or to “call any man master;” and for these peculiarities as well as for the refusal to give or accept titles of honour, or to take an oath, the “Friends” suffered the most cruel persecutions; for we are told that “they tortured with cruel whippings the bodies of both men and women of good estate and reputation;” [15a] and were further punished by impounding of their horses; by distress of goods; by fines, imprisonments, whipping, and setting in the stocks: [15b] yet, notwithstanding these severities, the sect increased and spread far and wide, and great numbers of people were drawn together, many out of animosity, to hear them.

The Declaration of Indulgence in 1663 stopped for a short time the persecution of the Quakers, but by the Conventicle Act of 1664, numbers of them were condemned to transportation: in 1666, however, their condition improved, when the celebrated William Penn, the son of Admiral Penn, joined them.

The discipline of this society is kept up by monthly meetings, composed of an aggregate of several particular congregations, whose business it is to provide for the maintenance of their poor, and the education of their children; also to judge of the sincerity and fitness of persons desirous of being admitted as members; to direct proper attention to religion and moral duty; and to deal with disorderly members.  At each monthly meeting persons are appointed to see that the rules of their discipline are put in practice.  It is usual when any member has misconducted himself, to appoint a small committee to visit the offender, to endeavour to convince him of his error and induce him to forsake it.  If they succeed, he is declared to have “made satisfaction for his offence,” otherwise he is dismissed from the society.  In disputes between individuals, it is enjoined that the members of this sect should not sue each other at law, but settle their differences by the rules of the society.

Marriage is regarded by the Quakers as a religious, not a mere civil compact.  Those who wish to enter into that state appear together, and state their intentions at one of the monthly meetings, and if not attended by parents or guardians must produce their consent in writing duly witnessed; and if no objections are raised at a subsequent meeting, they are allowed to solemnize their marriage, which is done at a public meeting for worship; towards the close of which the parties stand up and solemnly take each other for man and wife.  A certificate of the proceedings is then read publicly and signed by the parties, and afterwards by the relations as witnesses.  The monthly meeting keeps a register of the marriages as well as of the births and burials of the society.

Children are named without any attending ceremony; neither is it held needful that there should be any at burial, though the body followed by the relatives and friends is sometimes carried into a meeting house, and at the grave a pause is generally made to allow of a discourse from any friend attending if he be so inclined.

The women have monthly, quarterly, and yearly meetings of their own sex, but without the power of making rules.  “As we believe,” they say, “that women may be rightly called to the work of the ministry, we also think that to them belongs a share in the support of Christian discipline; and that some parts of it wherein their own sex is concerned devolve on them with peculiar propriety.”

But what, you will ask, are the religious tenets of this sect?  The question will perhaps best be answered by an extract from their “Rules of Discipline,” a work published under the sanction of the society.  “The original and immediate ground of the religious fellowship of the early Friends,” says the writer of this manual, “was union of sentiment in regard to Christ’s inward teaching.”  They were firm believers in all that is revealed in Holy Scripture respecting our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; nor would they have allowed that any one held the truth who denied his coming in