and the parliament granted to him an extensive province in America, at that time a wilderness, in reward for the great services rendered by his father to the nation. Penn, who was a man of discernment, and also eloquent, conducted a colony, of his friends and associates into his new dominions, and there established a republic, in form, laws, and regulations, unlike any other in the known world, yet a peaceful and happy one, and which still flourishes in great prosperity. The Quakers there are predominant; yet all persons may become citizens, who acknowledge that there is a Supreme Being whose providence is over all human affairs, and who pay him homage, if not by outward signs, yet by uprightness of life and conduct. The province was named, from its proprietor, Pennsylvania ; and the principal city is called Philadelphia. § 5. While Fox was still alive, there were frequent dissensions and broils among the Quakers, (in the years 1656, 1661, 1683, and other years,) not indeed respecting religion itself, but respecting discipline, customs, and things of minor consequence. But these contests, for the most part, were soon adjusted. After the death of Fox, (which occurred in 1691,) among others, George Keith especially, the most learned man of the whole sect, gave occasion to greater commotions. For Keith was thought, by the other brethren in Pennsylvania, to entertain sentiments not accordant with the truth on several points, but especially in regard to the human nature of Christ. He maintained that our Saviour possessed a two-fold human nature, the one celestial and spiritual, the other terrene and corporeal. This and the other inventions of Keith would perhaps, with great moderation, have been tolerated by a people who place all religion in an indescribable sense or instinct, if he had not strongly reproved some strange opinions. of the American brethren, and in particular, had he not op 3 The charter, the laws, and other papers relating to the establishment of this new commonwealth, were published, [in Rapin's History, Penn's Works, and] not long since in the Bibliothèque Britannique, tom. xv. pt. ii. p. 310. tom. xvi. pt. i. p. 127. Penn himself acquired a high reputation by several productions of his pen and by other things. Sewel treats of him in places; and Burnet also, in his IIistory of his own Times. See Sewel's History of the Quakers, pp. 126, 132, 262, 429, 529, &c. 5 Cérémonies et Coûtumes du tous les Peuples du Monde, tom. iv. p. 141, &c. Gerh. Croesius, Historia Quakeriana, lib. iii. p. 446, &c. posed their turning the whole history of our Saviour into an allegory, or a symbolical representation of the duties that religion requires of man. In Europe, indeed, the Quakers dare not deny the truth of the history of Jesus Christ; but in America, where they have nothing to fear, they are said to utter what they think, and to deny any Christ who exists without us. This controversy between Keith and the other Quakers, which was discussed in several general meetings of the whole sect in England, and even brought before the British parliament, was at last decided in the year 1695, by the exclusion of Keith and his adherents from communion in worship. Touched with a sense of injury, after some years, Keith returned to the English church. His friends long held their 6 Gilb. Burnet's History of his own Times, vol. ii. p. 290. The commotions about Keith are treated of by William Sewel, Hist. of the Quakers, pp. 577, 592, 603. But either he did not understand the true nature of the controversy, (which might be, as he was not a man of learning,) or he designedly perverts and obscures it. More light is thrown on it in the German Life of Henry Bernh. Küster, published in Rahtlef's Gelehrten Europa, vol. iii. p. 484. For Küster, a man of probity, then lived in America, and was an eye witness of the transactions.-[Dr. Mosheim appears to have been misinformed respecting George Keith and his controversy with the American Quakers; and therefore, with many others, he has given us Keith's false and slanderous representations as being a true account.-Keith was a Scotchman, born and liberally educated in the Scotch church. How and when he became a Quaker is not known. But for more than five-andtwenty years he travelled, preached, wrote, and suffered among the Quakers of England and Scotland. During this period he was one of their most learned and efficient ministers, and was held by them in high estimation. In the year 1689 he removed to America, and settled in Philadelphia, where he was made master of the principal school among the Quakers. He now attempted to direct and reform the discipline of the society, and to assume a dictation which was offensive to his brethren. Mutual alienation took place; and Keith dealt out his censures both of men and measures with great freedom. A party adhered to him; but the great body of Quakers, whom he was continually assailing, thought proper to lay him under censure in the year 1692. Keith and his party still professed to be in communion with the English Quakers; but when the yearly meeting of Philadelphia sent an account of his case to the yearly meeting of London, in the spring of the year 1694, Keith thought proper to appear there, in vindication of his conduct. He asked and obtained a hearing; and the yearly meeting of London, after a full examination of the case, approved entirely of the proceedings of the American Quakers, and excluded Keith from all fellowship, for his factious and unchristian conduct, and his false criminations of the American brethren. A few, however, adhered to him in England, and he set up a separate meeting in London, and laboured much during several years to destroy that faith which he had spent so many years in defending and propagating. His misrepresentations of the views of the Quakers were abundant; and they were answered and confuted with no little success from his own former publications. Meeting with but little success in forming a new party, and gradually departing farther and farther separate meetings; but, if report may be credited, have now become reconciled with the brethren". § 6. The religion of the Quakers appears at first view to be a novel thing; but it is not so in fact. For it is the ancient mystic theology which arose in the second century, was fostered by Origen, and has been handed down to us by men of various characters and genius; but a little expanded, and enlarged by the addition of consequences before not well understood. The well meaning Fox, indeed, did not invent any thing; but all that he taught respecting the internal word or light and its power, he undoubtedly derived either from the books of the mystics, a multitude of which were then circulating in England, or from the discourses of some persons initiated in the mystic doctrines. But the doctrines which he brought forward confusedly and rudely, (for he was a man of uncultivated mind, and not adorned and polished with any literature or science,) the sagacity of Barclay, Keith, Fisher, and Penn polished, and reduced to such coherency, that they exhibit the appearance of a digested system or body of doctrine. The Quakers, therefore, may be justly pronounced the principal sect of mystics, who have not only embraced the precepts of that arcane wisdom, but have likewise seen whither those precepts lead, and have received also all the consequences that flow from them". from Quaker principles, he in the year 1700 wholly renounced Quakerism, and became an episcopal clergyman. In this capacity he visited America in the year 1702, hoping to draw many Quakers into the English church. But his former partisans in America, though not yet reconciled with the Quakers, would not follow him into the established church. Being entirely unsuccessful in America, Keith returned to England, became a parish minister, and died a few years after. See Gough's Hist. of the Quakers, vol. iii. pp. 317-350, 382-390, 442-455. Sewel's Hist. of the Quakers, vol. ii. pp. 493-495, 496, &c. 526-534, 574. Tr.] 7 See William Roger's Christian Quaker, Lond. 1699. 4to. and The Quakers a divided People, Lond. 1708. 4to. Unschuldige Nachrichten, a. D. 1744. p. 496, &c. 6 Most persons think that we are to learn what the Quakers believe and teach from Robert Barclay's Catechism, but especially from his Apology for the true Christian Dirinity, which was published, Lond. 1676, 4to. and translated into other languages. Nor shall I much object to this opinion, if it be understood to mean that this sect is exceedingly desirous that others should judge of the nature of their religion by these books. But if any would have us believe that these books contain every thing the Quakers regard as true, and that nothing more than these contain was formerly taught among them, or is now taught, he may be easily confuted from numerous publications. For Barclay assumed the § 7. Their fundamental doctrine, therefore, and that on which all their other doctrines depend, is that very ancient song of the mystic school: That there lurks in the minds of all men, a portion of the divine reason or nature, or a spark of that wisdom which is in God himself. That whoever is desirous of true happiness and eternal salvation must, by turning his thoughts inward, and away from external objects, (or by contemplation and weakening the empire of the senses,) draw forth, kindle, and inflame this hidden, divine spark, which is office of an advocate, not that of a teacher; and of course he explains the sentiments of his sect, just as those do who undertake to defend an odious cause. In the first place, he is silent on points of christianity of the utmost importance, concerning which it is very desirable to know the true sentiments of the Quakers; and he exhibits a really mutilated system of theology. For it is the practice of advocates to pass over the things that cannot easily be placed in an advantageous light, and to take up only such things as ingenuity and eloquence can make appear plausible and excellent. In the next place, he touches upon several things, the full exposition of which would bring much odium on the Quakers, only cursorily and slightly; which is also an indication of a bad cause. Lastly, and to go no farther, the things which he cannot deny or conceal he explains in the most delicate and cautious manner, in common, ordinary phraseology, not very definite, avoiding carefully all the appropriate and almost consecrated terms adopted by the sect. Now it will not be very difficult for one who will take such a course, to give a specious appearance to any the most absurd doctrines. And it is well known that in this way the doctrine of Spinoza has been disguised and painted up by some of his disciples. There are other writers of this sect who express their sentiments much more clearly and freely; among whom William Penn and George Whitehead, very celebrated men, deserve to be read preferably to all others. Among their other works there is one entitled, The Christian Quaker and his Divine Testimony vindicated, by Scripture, Reason, and Au thorities, against the injurious attempts that have been lately made by several adversaries; Lond. 1674. small folio. Penn wrote the first part, and Whitehead the second. There is also extant, in Sewel's History, p. 578, a Confession of Faith, which the Quakers published in 1693, in the midst of the controversy with Keith. But it is very cautiously drawn up, and a great part of it ambiguous.-[Dr. Toulmin thinks that Dr. Mosheim is here uncandid and unjust towards Barclay; and that he has exposed himself to the just animadversions of Gough, in his History of the Quakers, vol. ii. pp. 401 -406. See Toulmin's note to Neal, vol. v. p. 253. ed. Boston, 1817. Not having Barclay's Apology before me, I will pass no judgment on the justice or injustice of Dr. Mosheim's statements. But I will say, that I do not understand him to charge Barclay with direct and wilful misrepresentations; but only with so far acting the advocate, that his book is not the best guide to a full and correct knowledge of the sentiments of the Quakers: and consequently, that it is necessary to consult other works, such as the writings of Penn and Whitehead, if we would fully and truly understand the Quaker system. Now this may be so, while still the Vindication of the Quakers by the Committee representing the yearly meeting of Friends in Philadel phia, A. D. 1799, may very honestly and truly say, "As to our tenets and history, we refer to Fox, Barclay, Penn, Sewel, Gough, &c. and declare that we never had, nor now have, any other doctrines to publish, and that there are no religious opinions or practices among us which have not been made known to the world." Tr.] oppressed and suffocated by the mass of the body and by the darkness of the flesh, with which our souls are surrounded. That whoever shall do so, will find a wonderful light rise upon him, or a celestial voice break upon him, out of the inmost recesses of his soul, which will instruct him in all divine truth, and be the surest pledge of union with the supreme God. This natural treasure of mankind is called by various names; very often by that of a divine light; sometimes, a ray of eternal wisdom; sometimes, celestial sophia; concerning whose nuptials, under a female garb, with man, some of this class of people speak in magnificent terms. The terms best known among us are, the internal Word, and Christ within us. For, as they hold the sentiment of the ancient mystics and of Origen, that Christ is the reason and wisdom of God, and suppose all men to be furnished with a particle of the divine wisdom, they are obliged to maintain that Christ, or the Word of God, resides, acts, and speaks in all persons". § 8. Whatever other singular and strange sentiments they may hold, all originated from this one principle, as their prolific source. Because Christ resides in every son of Adam, therefore; I. All religion consists in man's averting his mind from external objects, weakening the empire of the senses, turning himself inward upon himself, and listening with his whole attention to what the Christ in his breast, or the internal light dictates and enjoins.—II. The external word, that is, the holy Scriptures, does not enlighten and guide men to salvation; for words and syllables, being lifeless things, "cannot have power 9 Yet the modern Quakers, as appears from the writings of Josiah Martin and others, are ignorant of the true sentiments of their forefathers, and perpetually confound this inherent and innate light with that light of the Holy Spirit which is shed on the minds of the pious.-[This declaration of Dr. Mosheim clearly shows that he did not understand the fundamental principle of the Quakers, which is essentially different from that of the ancient mystics. The particle of the divine nature, which the mystics supposed to be a constituent part of man, at his first creation, or a natural principle in all men, and which was sufficient to en lighten, guide, and sanctify them, provided the influences of the body or of sense could be counteracted, was quite a different thing from the internal light of the Quakers. For the latter was supposed to be a revelation made to the soul by Christ, acting through the Holy Spirit. It was therefore grace, not nature; a divine communication to fallen men, and not an original principle in their natural constitutions: and its influences and operations' were moral, not physical. It is therefore not strange, that the Quakers should complain of this and the following sections, as totally misrepresenting their fundamental principles. Tr.] |