Keith, during this period of labour in London, was converted to the principles of the church of England, and only feigned to hold his former principles as a Quaker, in order more effectually to succeed in carrying off some of them; or whether he really believed himself, as he said, to have been orthodox, and so was rewarded with a benefice, though a Quaker in principle, is not now material to inquire; yet one or the other of these we must believe to be true; unless we believe a sudden conversion took place at the period when these labours ceased, and the benefice was conferred.*

The limits of these remarks will not admit a correction of every error, but if the man and the woman, who predicted to the parliament and to Cromwell, their being broken to pieces, and the rending of the government from him and his house, with the emblematic breaking of the earthen vessel, and the tearing of the cap, really carried those messages under an apprehension of religious duty; there is nothing very objectionable in the manner; and if the other predictions of the Quakers in those days, which our author says were numerous, were as exactly and literally fulfilled, as those two he has selected, it might go far toward shaking the opinion of any candid and unprejudiced man, however strongly he might be fixed in the opinion, that all prophecy had ceased. There are however several misrepresentations of the principles and doctrine of this society so palpable and gross, and at the same time in points so important, it would be doing too great injustice to pass them unnoticed.

When the foregoing was penned, the writer had never seen J. G. Bevan's "Vindication" on this subject, he observes, page 9; "As to poor Keith, Mosheim and his translator, are at variance respecting the motives of what, Mosheim calls, his return to the bosom of the English church. His uniting with her, for it must be recollected that he had been a presbyterian, was more likely to have been occasioned, by the warmth of her bosom, to his declining years in a country living, than by exasperation at the disownment by the Friends, or reconciliation with a body, from which I apprehend he had never strayed."

In sect. vi. p. 458, of their religion in a general point of view, having adopted the opinion that their religion was merely a revival of that of the ancient mystics, it is very evident he has detailed his own ideas of their principles and doctrine for that of the Quakers; adhering so closely as scarcely ever to lose sight of their particular characteristic terms and phrases; whereas it is notorious to all acquainted with the style and writing of the Quakers, that they adhere with great strictness, in explaining their principles, to those of the holy scriptures; perhaps as considering them most intelligible to religious inquirers.

Whilst we consider some of his misrepresentations as resulting, it may be hoped innocently, from the above preconceived opinion, there is one thing which might escape an inattentive reader, yet tending greatly to mislead him, of which, if in the original, and not foisted into the later impressions by some other hand; it is scarcely possible to entertain a hope so favourable. In giving the Quaker principles, flowing from what he states to be their fundamental principle, the most he says is marked with the points of quotation, p. 462, & seq. and sometimes introduced with they say; thus conveying to the reader that he is using the language of the Quakers, or at least of their writers; which is entirely foreign from the truth. From the principles thus uncandidly introduced, he infers, sect. ix. p. 463, "that the existence of the man Christ Jesus, the account of his divine origin, &c. make no essential part of the theological system of the Quakers; that they reject the history of the life, mediation, and sufferings of Christ;" and that the American Quakers in particular, without ambiguity," maintain publicly that Christ never existed but in the hearts of the faithful;" insinuating, indeed, that the European Quakers somewhat disguise their real sentiments upon this important point.

When one recurs, with an unbiassed and candid frame of mind, to the works of their most eminent and approved writers upon this subject, or to their continual reference, in their public discourses, to this part of the gospel history, or to their confession of faith, published about the year 1693, signed by a large number of their principal members, and which it appears our author had seen; it is difficult to account for this important misrepresentation, otherwise than by presuming he was destitute of personal acquaintance with the members of this society (living in Germany, remote from them) and that he had unhappily received an impression that their opin ions upon this and some other important points were to be collected from the deductions and inferences drawn by their adversaries, with which he was more conversant, and not from their own approved authors, or even their public profession of their faith, by themselves as a religious body. Yet in the case of the arminians, (vol. v. p. 426,) he candidly gives their opinions as professed by themselves, in their famous five articles; well observing at the same time, that some others pretended to enter into the secret of their hearts, and to insinuate that they had not truly represented their own religious opinions.

The reader will not be less surprised at the motives assigned for the European Quakers thus disguising their opinions, than at the misrepresentation of the fact; that a religious body, whom our author represents, page 452, as braving the power of Cromwell, "treating with contempt, his promises and threats;" and who shrunk not from the severer persecutions of the following reign, should, after the revolution, when their religion, with that of other dissenters, was tolerated by statute, be left to disguise their real opinions through fear of the "civil and ecclesiastical powers," p. 457, is neither probable nor credible. Thus one error frequently begets another; having attributed to the Quakers an opinion they never held,

he is put to a conjecture equally erroneous and incredible for a cause why they should disguise it. As flowing from the same principles he asserts that, with other outward forms of devotion, they "reject the use of prayers," page 465, which would be too notoriously erroneous to require a correction here, were not this work likely to pass into the hands of many who have never had an opportunity personally to witness their frequent recourse to oral supplication in their meetings for divine worship, and which has ever been their practice from the beginning to the present day; not to mention their many publications, treating of the duty of prayer, and of the true and acceptable manner of performing the same.

The literary works of Barclay and Penn remain to speak for themselves; are durable monuments of their talents, as well as of their piety and religion; and even had they not received the encomiums of many of the first characters among other societies, would probably remain unshaken by the attacks of a host of enemies. It may be proper here, as an evidence of his prejudice, to point out an instance of the reluctance with which Maclaine partially accedes to the ingenious and candid testimony of Dr. Tillotson, in acquitting Penn of the imputation of popery, to the reports of which he had at one time listened; Maclaine says, "that the imputation of popery was groundless, appears from his correspondence with Dr. Tillotson;" but adds, "it is nevertheless certain, he was very intimate with father Peters, the hotheaded jesuit;" yet in the same correspondence Penn says to Dr. Tillotson, "for the Roman correspondence I will freely come to confession, I have not only no such thing with any jesuit at Rome, though a protestant may have without offence, but I hold none with any jesuit, priest, or regular in the world, of that communion, and that the doctor may see what a novice I am in that business, I know not one anywhere;" to which Dr. Tillotson replies, "and

I do now declare, with great joy that I am fully satisfied that there was no just grounds for that suspicion, and therefore I do heartily beg your pardon for it."* Thus have we the positive declaration of Penn, corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Tillotson, to weigh against the ipse dixit of the translator, who quotes no authority, and who elsewhere affords sorrowful and abundant evidence of his disposition to defame the Quakers.

Dr. Mosheim has in several instances endeavoured to impress the reader with the idea, that the ancient and modern Quakers were entirely different people, both in respect to their principles and conduct; this is the more worthy of notice, as it is an error not by any means peculiar to him; but which in degree prevails very generally.

We view the modern Quakers with our own proper vision, and through a medium cleared from the discolorations of that through which we view the ancient; and they appear to us a quiet, orderly, moral, and religious people; but in the accounts transmitted to us by their enemies, we view the ancient Quakers through a discoloured medium, a vision extremely acrimonious and tinged with bilè, and they appear to us fanatic, turbulent, and riotous.

If we were to imagine to ourselves the modern Quakers, passing through our country as they actually do; seeking and conversing with sober inquirers, appointing meetings for religious worship; and if at the same time we were to imagine a mob of dissolute and enraged rabble at their heels, scoffing and beating them with sticks and stones to interrupt their meetings, without the least marks of violence, or even defensive resistance to any on their part. If we imagine some unworthy ministers and magistrates rather instigating their fury, the latter sending them to prison, charged with the riots to which themselves had been accessory; the Qua. kers submitting to all with a patience unconquera

* Penn's Works, vol. i. folio, London edition, 1726, p. 128, 129.