NOTES,*

PROPOSED TO BE ADDED TO THE REFUTATION OF MOSHEIM.

FOR a further historical correction of the account Mosheim has given of the Society, the inquiring reader may find in John Gough's History of the people called Quakers, London, printed 1789, a pretty full account of the difficulties occasioned by the defection and disownment of George Keith, by the Monthly Meeting of Philadelphia; also the doings of the Yearly Meeting of London, Vol. III. p. 333, 386, &c.

Also for the History of James Naylor's fall, treatment, recovery, and restoration to the Society, Vol. I. p. 236, &c. or to Joseph Gurney Beven's History of the Life of Naylor.

As Mosheim refers to the general, without saying what Dictionary, for the Life of Robert Barclay, the reader is referred to the account of that worthy man's life, published by William Penn and others, his contemporaries, at the beginning of the folio volume of his writings, 1692, comprized in about 40 pages.

As Mosheim refers to a German work for the Life of Samuel Fisher, the English reader is referred to an interesting account of him, written by William Penn, annexed to a folio volume of Fisher's Works, printed 1679.

As mention is likewise made of Voltaire's four Letters concerning the Quakers, which composes a part of a splendid French work, the reader is referred to "a Letter from one of the people called Quakers to Francis de Voltaire," written for their correction, by Josiah Martin, London, second edition, 1742, in which are added, Interesting Extracts from a number of learned Writers, both ancient and modern, in support of the Truth and Friends.

For a correct account of the Faith of the people called Quakers, in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the reader is referred to Henry Tuke's Collection from the writings of Friends, ancient and modern, and from the Society; London, printed 1801.

For a more correct and full account of the moral principles, &c. of the Society, than is given by Mosheim, the reader is referred to Thomas Clarkson's Portraiture of Quakerism, printed in London and New-York, 1806.

*The above additional notes and references were sent for publication after the preceding and following matter was put in type, and in part printed, which prevented their being placed where they would have appeared to more advantage.

REMARKS

ON

THE ARTICLE QUAKERS,

BY ANOTHER HAND.

THE writer of these remarks, on a careful perusal of the history of the sect called Quakers, by Dr. Mosheim, was surprised to find his account of their principles and practices, in several particulars, so illy accord with the true character and principles of that society. And the resuit of further examination into their ancient history, has been a conviction, that the learned author has not given the history of the Quakers, with his usual accuracy, if indeed, with his usual candour. An apprehension has hence arisen in the writer, that, as truth is the object of all genuine history, he would be wanting in his devotion thereto, and to the feelings of his own mind, without attempting to correct some of its errors.

The same principles oblige him to remark, in justice to the author, that having perused an exact and literal translation of this article from the original Latin, he is convinced that the translator has used that liberty, which in his preface, he says he has taken, of "adding a few sentences, to render an observation more striking, a fact more clear, a portrait more finished;" but in such a way, however, in respect to the Quakers, as highly to aggravate the unfavourable account which the author himself had given; and that many of the most odious epithets, given the soci

ety in the translation, are not to be found in the original. As, for instance, George Fox, and his friends, "strolling" and "running like bacchanals through the towns and villages," page 448, 450.

One cannot, without surprise and regret, observe our eminent author instancing, note, page 450, the conduct of Naylor; of the woman, who, he says, went naked into the chapel at Whitehall, and of the man, who "came to the door of the parliament house with a drawn sword, and wounded several, saying he was inspired by the Holy Spirit, to kill every man that sat in that house." Even admitting the facts correctly stated, and that they were all professed Quakers, as examples of the conduct of that society, without making one distinguishing or qualifying observation, more especially when we recur to the very judicious observations he makes, in respect to the reflections, by some cast upon the Lutheran church with "a view to render them ridiculous, or odious," for the conduct of some of its particular members, "in the happiest times," says he, sect. 38, p. 321, "and in the best modelled communities, there will always remain sufficient marks of human imperfection; at least, in the imprudence and mistakes of some, and the impatience and severity of others, but it must betray a great want of sound judgment, as well as candour and impartiality, to form a general estimate of the state and character of a whole church, upon such particular instances of imperfection and error." But our regret is increased under a strong apprehension that our author in this, as in some other particulars, by implicitly following some of the polemical writers of the day, most inimical and invidious toward this society, has been incorrect, as to facts and circumstances, as well as the application of them; how otherwise could he have stated the man with a drawn sword, if indeed such an event took place, to have been a Quaker? a people, whom he elsewhere rep

resents, as holding it a fundamental principle to reject the use of violence, and the sword, even in the most urgent cases of self defence; not only holding it speculatively, but as practically adhering to it in all their conduct. This consideration ought to have been sufficient to invalidate the charge, as against the society, even if it had not been publicly denied by them at the time; which circumstance, as well as those relating to the deviation of Naylor, never could have escaped the notice of our author, had he investigated with his usual accuracy, and with that candour and impartiality, he so highly recommends; he would then have satisfactorily discovered, that Naylor's misconduct, to which he alludes, and that of his followers, who were few, was openly disapproved by George Fox at the time, and by the society in general; that Naylor himself soon after repented of, and publicly condemned it. But we cannot impeach Dr. Mosheim's integrity and candour as an historian, so far as to suppose, that if he had investigated the circumstances with his usual industry and accuracy, he would have stained the character and memory of Naylor, who was, before and after that event to his death, esteemed a pious and religious man, and of no inferior talents, by recording that event only of his life, and that, without noticing his after condemnation of it, much less that he would have left it as a stain attached to the society which condemned it at the time.

The difficulty excited by George Keith, which is represented by our author, as the most serious discord among the Quakers, and as issuing in his excommunication and the reconciliation of his followers with their brethren, does not indicate a very unsound state of the religious body, or its being destitute of that principle of vitality, which most effectually facilitates the healing of wounds. And whilst our author prefers to connect their reconciliation with an "if we may believe public fame,"

when he might have rested on authentic history, it is remarkable that he useth no if, in asserting that Keith returned to the bosom of the English Church, which can hardly be truly said of a man that never went out from it; Keith having, previous to his joining the Quakers, been a presbyterian, and not a churchman. It is further remarkable, that neither our author, nor his translator, who, on the authority of Burnet, assigns a more worthy motive for his return, were able to mention a single Quaker; that Keith, "though by far the most learned member of the community," after labouring some years, and having prevailed as far as he saw any prospect of success, carried back with him to the bosom of the church. From this issue, then, of the "most serious discord among the Quakers," our author had no occasion to condole with them on the approaching "annihilation of their sect," however he might imagine he would have, "if reason gets in among them," note, page 451.

It may here pertinently be remarked, without pretending to decide whether Keith ever became a churchman in principle, or whether a country living was given him in his old age, as a reward for his indefatigable, though unsuccessful labours, to detach a portion of the Quakers from their religious communion; that it appears from the printed accounts of his disputations with the Quakers in London, after his disownment, that he held he had ever been orthodox in the christian faith whilst walking among them; hence it became an easy task for them both to vindicate the principles which they really held, and to exculpate themselves from others before falsely charged upon them by their adversaries, and which he now revived against them, by quoting his own writings during that period; to which circumstance, as a means, may be in part owing, that though a number had at first adhered to him, he carried none eventually away. Whether