wife to afk a man "whether he is going to learn the moral "duties" when he is about to look at the reprefentation of the death of lord Nelfon, or of William Penn's treaty with the Indians, as to put fuch a queftion to one who is going to fee the tragedy of George Barnwell, or the comedy of the Weft Indian.

From a view of the Moral Education of the Quakers, as it is here called, our author proceeds to acquaint us with the difcipline of their sect, and this is divisible, he says, into two parts.

"The first may comprehend the regulation of the internal affairs, such as the management of the poor belonging to it; the granting of certificates of removal to its members; the hearing of their appeals upon various occasions; the taking cognizance of their proposals of marriage, and the like. The second may comprehend the notice or observance of the moral conduct of individuals, with a view of preserving the rules which the Quakers have thought it their duty to make, and the testimonials which they have thought it their duty to bear as a christian people."

The fyftem of difcipline was introduced by George Fo who pretended to be under the guidance of the divine aid in the formation of it; and it feems the Quakers ftill believe that his pretenfion was juft. The principle on which Fox acted was, the affumption of a right to watch over all the actions, and even sentiments too, as far as could be discerned, of his followers. He arrogated to himfelf what the pope had ufurped before him, "the power of the keys;" and this right or power Fox bequeathed to the elders of his congregation, by whom it has been continued to be rigidly exercised ever fince.

This it must be owned was a mafter-stroke of policy in Fox, for hereby he kept his people together and he ef tablished a fure method of perpetuating the fucceffion. Quakers are obliged to marry in their own tribe, and they are bound to abide by all the peculiar formalities of their fect under pain of cenfure and difownment, that is, of excommunication. In all this we fee clearly more of worldly policy than of Chriftian benevolence; and for the liberty of the Gospel we have here the narrow and feparating fpirit of the antient Pharifees.

Mr. Clarkfon gives us an accurate account of the govern ment of the Quakers, their monthly, quarterly, and yearly meetings, for which we must refer our readers to the work itfelf.

We

We now enter upon a view of the peculiar cuftoms of the Quakers, the most remarkable of which, are their drefs, language, and behaviour.

Mr. Clarkfon gives a defcription of the extravagant dress which was in vogue when Fox arofe, and he retails a whimsical anecdote concerning the famous Dr. John Owen from Wood, about which time, he fays, that Dr. Nathaniel Vincent incurred the displeasure of Charles II. for the foppery of his drefs, and commanded the duke of Monmouth, then chancellor of the univerfity of Cambridge, to cause the ftatutes concerning decency of apparel among the clergy to be put into execution; which was accordingly done.

1

Here are two blunders. Dr. Owen was dean of Chriftchurch, and vice-chancellor of Oxford, under Cromwell, and was deprived after the restoration; fo that it was not "about this time" that Dr. Vincent made fo ridiculous an appearance before Charles II. for this was above twenty years after. The duke of Monmouth might have had inftructions to regulate the drefs of the ftudents and other members of the univerfity of Cambridge, but he could have no authority over the clergy, neither were there any ftatutes concerning drefs which affected them.

But for what purpose did Mr. Clarkson bring forward these two remarkable instances? Does he wish to infinuate that this ridiculous foppery was general among the clergy in those times? if he does, his authorities will prove the direct contrary, for they exprefsly fhow that thefe two perfons were fingular, and differed in their appearance from the reft of their profeffion.

It is very true, that extravagance in drefs was carried to a foolish height both with regard to fashion and expenfe in those days; but does this furnish an apology for the "plain gray coat with alchymy buttons, and the leathern girdle" of Fox, or for the whimsical "green apron" of his female devotees ? We shall offer nothing in behalf of gay habiliments, no more than for frivolous amusements; but on the other hand, we shall always treat with contempt that proud and fecluding fuperftition which places much of the virtue and religion of a man in the shape of his hat, and the colour and cut of his

coat.

1

Mr. Clarkson enters very largely into this important subject of the Quaker-clothing, and were it not for his mentioning "the box of Pandora," the "pallium," and the "toga,"

U

Vol. XIII, Churchm. Mag. for August 1807.

we

we might have fancied ourselves attending to a folemn harangue in a meeting-house.

On the subject of the Quaker-language our author is equally diffuse, and he labours with a great parade of learning to vindicate the use of the word thou for you when applied to a fingle perfon. He tells a foolish ftory about a foolish book drawn up by fome of the first Quakers, and prefented by them to Charles II. "fhewing that in all languages thou was the proper and ufual form of fpeech to a fingle perfon, and you to more than one." This book it is faid puzzled the archbishop of Canterbury, and "spread conviction wherever it went."

There are two reasons alleged why the Quakers use the pronoun thou instead of you; the one is in compliance with the rules of grammar, and the other is, that is is contrary to their principles to flatter any perfon. Now all languages in their very nature are subject to the influence of custom, and if the Quakers will fcrupuloufly adhere to grammatical propriety, why do they not practise it alike in all inftances? Inftead of this, any one who is much in the company of Quakers will continually hear fuch barbarous phrafes as Friend, thee fayeft right;-Friend, thee art wrong, &c. &c. As to flattery, it is wonderful how any man of common fense could ever think that the word You is more indicative of it, than the application of Thou. But in reality the reason why the Quakers made the alteration was that they might stand alone. Singularity was their object; and the love of fingularity is affectation and pride. To the fame cause we may afcribe the other particulars in the Quaker-phrafeology, fuch as the omiffion of titles of civil honour, and the abolition of the ordinary names of the days and months. On these points Mr. Clarkson makes many obfervations, and he endeavours to strengthen the common reafons affigned by the Quakers for their peculiarities, by fomething like biblical criticism, but his attempts this way, are miserable efforts to evade the direct meaning of language, or to pervert paffages to a purpose for which they were never intended.

As Mr. Clarkson has had a great and general intimacy with the Quakers, he has thereby been enabled to give a more exact picture of their domeftic manners, than we remember to have met with. He praises them for their hofpitality and the freedom with which they treat ftrangers: Speaking of their converfations he relates the following remarkable circumstance.

· • It

"It sometimes happens that you observe a pause in the conversation. This pause continues. Surprised at the universal silence now prevailing, you look round and find all the members in the room apparently thoughtful. The history of the circumstance is this: In the course of the conversation, the mind of some one of the persons present, has been either so overcome with the weight or importance of it, or so overcome by inward suggestions on other subjects, as to have given himself up to meditation, or to passive obedience to impressions upon his mind. This person is soon discovered by the rest, on account of his peculiar silence and gravity. From this moment the Quakers in company cease to converse. They become habitually silent, and continue so, both old and young, to give the apparently meditating person an opportunity of pursuing uninterruptedly the train of his own thoughts. Perhaps in the course of his meditations, the subject that impressed his mind, gradually dies away, and expires in silence. In this case you find him resuming his natural position, and returning to conversation with the company as before. It sometimes happens however, that in the midst of his meditations, he feels an impulse to communicate to those present the subject of his thoughts, and breaks forth, seriously explaining, exhorting, and advising, as the nature of it permits and suggests. When he has finished his observations, the company remain silent for a short time; after which they converse again as before.

"Such a pause, whenever it occurs in the company of the Quakers, may be considered as a devotional act. For the subject which occasions it, is always of a serious or religious nature. The workings in the mind of the meditating person are considered either as the offspring of a solemn reflection upon that subject, suddenly, and almost involuntarily, as it were produced by duty, or as the immediate offspring of the agency of the Spirit. And an habitual silence is as much the consequence as if the persons had been at a place of worship."

This appears to be the very effence of the Quietism, broached by Molines, and refined by the celebrated vifionary Antoinette de Bourignon.

Mr. Clarkfon next introduces us to the tables of the Quakers, and here again, true to his office, as an advocate and apologist, he vindicates the filence obferved by them, before and after meals. We might have paffed over this chapter, had not the author moft unaccountably traced the origin of faying grace to the "Greeks in the heroic ages, who thought it unlawful to eat till they had firft offered part of their provifion to the gods."

But did our Saviour then copy these Greeks when "he took the five loaves and two fishes, and looking up to hea

ven, he bleffed [or gave thanks] and brake, and gave the loaves to his difciples, and the difciples to the multitude ?"

It appears by Mr. Clarkson's statement that fometimes the filence is broken by one of the company, who "gives utterance to his religious feelings." But if no fuch impreffion is felt, nothing is faid. Here again is the very quinteffence of enthufiafm; in looking for infpiration to utter a common thanksgiving on an ordinary occafion, The tendency of this delufion is to difmifs the duty of prayer and praise altogether; and for any thing that appears to the contrary in these three volumes, there is actually no fuch thing as family worship at all among the Quakers.

The marriages and funerals of the Quakers are minutely defcribed, and their inflexible rule of difowning any of their fociety who marry out of the community, is defended with more fophiftry than argument. But as we do not think it worth while to enter into a consideration of those peculiar cuftoms which merely affect the Quakers themfelves, and for which it would be unjust to pais any cenfure upon them, we shall follow Mr. Clarkfon no farther at prefent. Our principal concern with him and the Quakers is on the fubject of religion, to which he has now brought us, and which in our next number we propofe to discuss with calmnefs and candour.

EIGHT LECTURES ON THE OCCURRENCES OF THE PASSION WEEK, delivered in the Parish Church of All Saints, Southampton, in the Mornings of Palm Sunday and Good Friday, and in the Evenings of that Week, and of Eafter Day. BY RICHARD MANT, D. D. Rector of the Parish. Rivingtons, pp. 190, 12mo. 3s. 6 d.

E have perufed with peculiar fatisfaction.

thefe

WE to the

excellent Lectures. Dr. Mant has offered

public what has been long defired; "Some affistance in their Devout Meditations on the momentous Transactions of the Great and Holy Week, the folemnity of which it must be the earneft defire of every clergyman to preferve.” Dr. Mant's good intention is obvious, the manner in which be has fulfilled fuch intention, it is our province to confider.

" As