it is to nothing like the extent to which it prevails in the Society of Friends. The fact is undeniable; and is it not of itself sufficient evidence of the comparatively little regard that is shown amongst you to religious sentiments, or the articles of a man's belief, provided there be a due adherence to what are emphatically called your Testimonies?—I have felt it a matter of no easy determination, how far I should regard the writings of the principal authors connected with the body in the light of accredited standards of its religious views:-then, in points on which such authors differ from each other, which is the authority I ought to prefer:-still further, from the unsatisfactory and sometimes contradictory manner in which the question-how far, and in what sense, the Scriptures are to be regarded as a test of truth-is treated by them, I have been puzzled what to think; this being affirmed by one, half affirmed by a second, and denied by a third,—and affirmed, and half affirmed, and denied, in succession, even by the same individual-and last of all, some of your principles have been involved by their expounders in such a mist of mysticism, or in themselves are so much characterized by that attribute, that it becomes difficult to discern them at all, or at least to distinguish, with any thing approaching to precision, their forms and dimensions.

There are, however, some leading points, which,

C

whether, in these our days,-(days which not a few of you, I believe, regard as days of degeneracy and defection from true primitive Quakerism,) they are definitely understood among yourselves or not, are yet, in common parlance, considered as Quaker tenets; and they are, at all events, points on which a correct understanding is a matter of supreme, I had almost said of infinite, importance :-and when the results connected with them are contemplated, I might use the term without incurring, even from Friends themselves, the exemplary patterns of correct and measured expression, the charge of going beyond "the words of truth and soberness."—I refer especially to the primary authority of the inward light, -and to the secondary authority of the Holy Scriptures. I do not, I presume, go too far, when I speak of the former of these, from which indeed the latter is but a corollary, and hardly different from itself,-as the foundation principle of Quakerism; by a general renunciation of which, the Society, even were it to keep together, would be divested entirely of its original and primitive character, and, though retaining its designation, would be disowned, with tears of shame and sorrow, as backsliding and apostate, by every one of its hitherto venerated founders and fathers. It is plain, that, until these points are settled, there is no common basis for the discussion and decision of any other. Nay, more than this,-you

cannot but be sensible, to what an extent the authority of some of your other peculiarities of sentiment and usage is involved in that of the "light within." In my apprehension, Quakerism and the inward light may be justly viewed as identically the same, and as standing or falling together. In reading the writings of Friends,—with the exception of some of their more modern leaders, who discover in their statements a much greater degree of rational and scriptural simplicity, there is an incessant recurrence of this light -this universal, saving, inward light; and in such a variety of forms does it present itself, that one is greatly at a loss what to make of it. It is reason,it is conscience, it is grace,—it is the Word of God, -it is Christ,-it is the Spirit,-it is God,-it is a principle,-a seed, a substance, in which the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, dwells:-it is natural, —it is supernatural,-it mediates,-it propitiates,-it justifies,-it sanctifies,-it is, in theory and in effect, the whole of salvation. These various representations of the "light within" might be substantiated from the writings of your accredited and most esteemed leaders. I cannot but feel, therefore, that, in taking up this subject, I am taking up the essence of Quakerism; and that no inconsiderable proportion of the points of difference, both in sentiment and in practice, by which your Society is distinguished from other denominations, may find a place for appropri

ate notice in the course of its illustration.

Not that

By no

it is my intention to touch upon all of these. means. This would require a large volume. I shall confine myself to two or three leading articles, of which the connexion with the inward light is the most immediate.

for

you

It is my wish to write freely and kindly. My respect is most sincere; but I should be unworthy of any return of that respect on your part, if my respect for truth were not still greater. We ought to cherish the conviction, and invariably to act upon it, that we cannot do each other a more valuable service, than that of displacing error from each other's minds, and substituting truth. In the controversies at present in agitation amongst you, and which have been chiefly kindled by the "Beacon" light, it has grieved me not a little to perceive so much solicitude about the question, whether this and the other publication contain what is according to Quakerism. The principal, nay, in one view, the sole inquiry ought to be, whether they contain what is according to truth? What is the one question, compared with the other? There is not a greater danger to the mind, in its investigation of truth, than an excessive veneration for names. We cannot bear to think of finding those whom we thus venerate to have been in the wrong; and especially, if they have evinced their own sincerity, and increased our reverential attachment, by sufferings endured

for their opinions and practices. But, my respected friends, ought we to be more solicitous to find them in the right, than to find God in the right? It is not the mind of Fox, or Penn, or Barclay, we should, on any subject be anxious to ascertain :-it is the mind of God. In the preface to Mr W. Newton's "Remonstrance to the Society of Friends," I find the following statement :—" In a meeting which was held "at the late annual conference of the Society of "Friends in London, and intended especially for the "instruction of the young, their attention was directed "to the example of Penn, Barclay, and other ancient "Friends; and it was said by one of their ministers, "that those who did not follow the principles laid "down by them, who found any thing in the

66 6

Scriptures which they had not found, were out of "the narrow way, and were going in a tract which "led to the same point with the broad way, and that 66 6 was destruction.' "This minister possibly might mean no more, than that he himself was so fully convinced of the sentiments of Penn and Barclay being the Gospel, that he regarded all who dissented from them as departing from the Gospel, and in consequent danger of perdition. But, assuming the correctness of the statement, I hope there are few amongst you who will not agree with me in thinking that he "spoke unadvisedly with his lips." Nothing could be more mischievous, than thus to throw the minds of either