Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

In May 1719, the assembly again met. Some of the violent party were for making new declarations. Mr. Peirce proposed that a fast should be appointed, and that all should unite in prayer to the Divine Being to conduct them into the path of truth; that all animositics should cease, and that the subjects of dispute should be discussed in a frank and friendly manner. So reasonable a suggestion was as a matter of course rejected. During the meeting, Mr. George Jacomb applied to be ordained, but he was refused, because he would not give his confession of faith in any other than Scripture language, and in consequence, the following singular record was proposed by the Moderator: "Whereas Mr. Jacomb, out of respect to the Scripture, has refused to declare his faith in other

than Scripture words; so the assembly, out of respect to the Scriptures, refuse to admit it." One individual said, that now-a-days Scripture was not plain enough without explanation; and another hoped that God would restore the ministerial and magisterial power to punish heretics. During the assembly, Mr. Samuel Carkeet preached a most striking Sermon, in which he says, he came forth from "unenvied, unmolested obscurity, to bear his testimony" against those encroaching anti-christian teachers, who presumed to erect their system as the standard of faith and holiness, excommunicating and anathematizing all who claimed for themselves "the liberty with which

Christ had made them free."

But the orthodox had determined How to effect their object, an' in consequence, forty-five ministers signed a declaration, that they could not consent to the preaching of any candidate, or recommend any minister to a congregation, who would not profess his faith in the Trinity; they say they heartily pity and pray for those who had fallen into dangerous errors, and warn their flocks against them, intimating that their sole hope of future blessedness must depend on the soundness of their opinions, which, to preserve unshaken, they recommend should be undisturbed by restless inquisitiveness into the "mysteries of religion."

Mr. Peirce subjoins, "May that good man's yoke sit easy on him! I cannot yet repent that I did not submit to the same."

[blocks in formation]

* Of Newton Abbott. He was deserted

by his congregation, calumniated and insulted, for having asserted (to a brother minister, who proclaimed Mr. G.'s heresy) his belief in the subordination of Christ. On another occasion, he said "he could not, and would not, believe the Trinity in Unity." At the September assembly, he refused to make any declaration of faith. quired by his congregation to subscribe to John Cox, of Kingsbridge, was rethe Fifth and Sixth Answers of the Assembly's Catechism: he refused, and was dismissed. He was a man of exemplary virtue, to which his enemies themselves bore testimony.

Mr. Huddy would make no declaration at the meeting in September; and in one of his Sermons he is said to have cautioned his hearers "against giving too much

honour to the Son."

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

honour.

Mr. Jacomb's account of the proceedings of the assembly in connexion with himself, is a very interesting pamphlet. When they objected to his proposal of making a declaration in Scripture language, that Arians and Socinians would quote Scripture, he quoted an interesting passage in Baxter's History: Some ministers endeavouring to draw up a list of the fundamentals of Christianity, Mr.Baxter made a more general proposal: they told him that a Papist or a Socinian might subscribe to his articles, and he answered, "So much the better, and the fitter to be the matter of concord."

Innocent Vindicated, p. 17.

making them the subjects of scurrilous ballads and drunken songs. In the very streets they were attacked by the brutal and the base, and there and thus "judiciously confuted."¶

J. B.

Dr. Walker on the Legality of the Affirmation of the People called Quakers.

Bond Court, Walbrook, 13, 8th. 1817. FRIEND!

ROM thy giving, from time to

FRO

time, so much place in the Repository to the consideration of the sect called Quakers, who, by the simplicity of their fundamental dogma (inward light) must always, consistently therewith, of necessity be Unitarians, I am induced to address to thee this paper.

In considering the condition of the Quakers not associated with their brethren under the organization of friends, overseers, elders, ministers and clerks, I have thought their lot often to resemble that of the Hindoo who has lost cast, who, deserted by his family and friends, can only console himself with the assurance that the shine" on the tent of the outcast. Supreme Being "causeth his sun to Their peculiar principles sometimes prevent their neighbours from uniting with them in some of the most important concerns of human life; and they are estranged from their fellow-professors. But, what I at present wish to offer to the consideration of thy readers, which include both these descriptions of Quakers, is the matter of giving legal evidence. I have conversed of late with some of both these descriptions of Quakers, on the subject of their affirmation being equivalent to an oath in our courts, in cases not criminal; and both entertain the idea that the law makes no distinction between them; that this was established by the Judge, Lord Mansfield (in a case where counsel attempted to invalidate the testimony of a Quaker, because of his being not associated), in his observing that the law, in recognising the people called Quakers, knew nothing of them as a body, society, or meeting, that he therefore must abide only by the profession of

Mr. Peirce's Animadversions, p. 31.

the evidence; he knew no other criterion of his being a Quaker than that of his own profession.

But does every judge and every magistrate so interpret the law of the land, with regard to the people called Quakers? I meddle not with the Unitas Fratrum, or people called Moravians, who also are favoured, in their religious scruples, against the taking of an oath.

"No."

[ocr errors]

I knew an Ex-quaker in Dublin subpœnaed as an evidence; the counsellor, Curran, (what is it that coun sellors may not be feed to do?) called out in court, "Hand him the book." "I am a Quaker-cannot take an oath." "You a Quaker, Sir! Pray do you attend their meetings of discipline?" 'Do they receive your collections?" "No." "What were you disowned for?" "I have no objection to tell that. I married my wife without consulting my friends." My Lord! here is a man whom the Quakers have turned out for a breach of their laws, and yet he claims the privilege of giving only his affirmation as a Quaker." "I appeal to the court," said the Quaker, "I avow myself not in membership with the society of Friends, but hold myself liable to all the pains and penalties incurred by taking a false oath, if I affirm what is untrue." "Let his affirmation be taken," said the judge.

Being once subpœnaed myself, in that city, I took the Act of Parliament in that behalf in my pocket. In Ireland it is required that such evidence shall solemnly, sincerely and truly declare, that he is and has been of the profession of the people called Quakers for a year and a day: I proposed to myself to make the declaration; but was not called upon for my testimony. But it has happened to me siuce, in this city, that on a trial which was to determine (the decision by show of hauds) on some points of professional competency,consequently on my bread, on the whole shape, probably, of my future life, one of the company called a public friend (Quaker speaker), a man skilled in the law, publicly declared I was no Quaker, whereby the number of hands in my favour was diminished; though still, happily for me (unheard), constituting the majority. Acknowledged in his society as a minister, I hold him as completely

ordained as any minister of Oxford, or Geneva; as fully consecrated as the Poutiff of Rome. I will say more: though I acknowledge not any man to be the Reverend; yet, I acknowledge it would be a breach of charity to assert that I may not sometimes have had reason to believe him the reverent Richard Phillips. I mean on the occasions of his changing his attitude and uncovering his head, on his letting his voice be heard aloud in meeting. Now, if an acknowledged minister of the Quakers of London could make so public a declaration that I was no Quaker, while I, mistaken man, in different countries abroad, on being interrogated on the subject of my Quakerian peculiarities, have always declared myself a Quaker, what might I not expect from the forensic acumen of the gentlemen of the long robe at Westminster Hall? Being lately subpœnaed to the Court of King's Bench, there, as an evidence on behalf of the Defendant, I had intended appealing, in limine, to the judge, on the validity of my evidence, and to have utterly withholden it, if he withheld his explanation, as completely as if his decision had accorded with the notions of Richard Phillips, and not with those of Lord Mansfield, or of his brother on the Bench in ireland. The Plaintiffs, however, withdrew the cause, and my evidence was consequently not required.

Will, then, any of thy readers, Quaker or other, inform me what is the law in the case of giving evidence, of a man professing himself a Quaker, but not being formally in any religious society of his fellow-professors? I am apprehensive the question will not be casily answered. In the answers 1 have yet obtained from Friends, I cannot come at any certainty; and, in thus soliciting further information, I will suppose, by way of illustration, a case of considerable complexity, or of the greatest difficulty.

The legitimate children of the members of the society of Friends are, in later times, members by inheritance. It is not necessary for them to make any confession of faith whatever. A young couple in this city lately seut in their resignation, as members of the society, on behalf of themselves and their children. The meeting received the resignation of the parents, but

retain the children in membership. If these children, unchristened, arrive at mature age, and be subpœnaed as evidence, in what form is their testimony to be taken? They generally, perhaps, make no profession of Quakerism. Is the book of the Evangelists handed to them? They never were baptized after the example of Jesus and the other primitive Christians. They were not christened, or sprinkled, like the babies of those Christians who have rejected baptism and adopted rantism. But they may say we are Quakers, and bring twenty Quakers, who pay scot and lot, to satisfy the court. Ce n'est pas l'embarras. Their affirmation will be received, The following is the supposed case: These said Quakers by inheritance, like others of the same description, beaux or belles of the fashion of the day, who help to make up the outwardly motley assembly, called a meeting of worship, may have absented themselves from such meetings of worship a certain number of times in succession (par parenthese, they may stay away as long as they please from meetings of business, where all the affairs of their society are transacted, and where attendance might, with some sort of decency, have been required), they may have been united in marriage by a priest, or they may have paid him tithes; on any of which considerations they may have been disowned to-day by the society. To morrow they appear in court, on a subpœna. Yesterday they were accredited Quakers; their affirmation would have been received. Now Richard Phillips might, perhaps, attempt to prevent their affirmation from being received: he might say they are no Quakers. Perhaps, however, the judge might have reason to conclude that they were, bonâ fide, Quakers, however little appearance of the sect might appear about their persons. The kissing of a book they might consider a piece of idolatry. This would be Quakerism. Not being the original record, they might doubt the accuracy of the transcription; must doubt the accuracy of the translation of the learned priests who interpreted it to the modern nations, tongues, &c. who now receive it; would not dare to say "It is the truth." This would be Quakerism. With all their gaiety

and levity of appearance, the charitable conclusion of the judge would be correct: but if the judge were in opposition to them, to prove as dogmatical, or as positive, as Richard Phillips; if he were to conclude they are no Quakers; would the litigant parties in the case, would the cause of justice be deprived of their evidence? Would they be still further degraded by the laws of their country than they were while in membership with the association of their sect, whose testimony in criminal cases is of no avail? Voila la question.

SIR,

J. W.

Aug. 9, 1817.

HAVE met with a MS. almost 90 years old, an extract from which will display the variety of conjectures, drawn from the prophecies, which, according to a common remark, were not designed to make their readers prophets.

The MS. is dated May the 8th, 1728, and is entitled, "Mr. Bedford's Computation of Prophetic Scriptures, guessing at Times of Fulfilment of, or a probable Conjecture of the same." This Computation extends to "Anno Christi, 3014, or thereabouts," when the rapt Conjecturer sees" errors, immoralities and disturbances arise, and those other particulars which are mentioned as forerunners of the end of the world." I shall confine my quotations to the Conjecturer's expectations respecting the period, which has now passed, from the date of the MS. I omit the profusion of texts which, as appears by the events, he so inaccu rately expounded.

"1729. This year are terrible battles, with much effusion of blood; all Europe in confusion, and dismal apprehensions. One of the ten kingdoms falls, and a reformation from Popery immediately follows, which is the fatal blow to the Antichristian hierarchy.

66

"1730. The first vial is poured out upon the enemies of the Church of God. Germany is reformed, not with much effusion of blood, but by a discovery of vile practices of the Romish Church.

"1731. The second vial is poured out. Spain is reformed with much effusion of blood, and probably by a revolution in those kingdoms.

"1733. The fourth vial is poured out. An utter end is put to the Papal hierarchy, of all sorts. Many towns in Italy are burnt with fire, and Rome herself is levelled with the ground. "1784. All the potentates in Europe throw off the Popish yoke.

"1735. Now Europe begins to enjoy a perfect and general peace; being the happy consequence of the destruction of Antichrist, and settling the kingdom of Christ in these parts.

"1748. The fifth vial is poured out. The Turkish empire is now afflicted with many and great calamities.

"1759. The idolatry of the Church of Rome being now removed, which was the great stumbling block that prejudiced others against Christianity, the Jews are now converted, and, assisted by the European Powers, recover the land of Canaan from the Turks, and are settled there. The Jews being now settled in the land of Canaan, place the several tribes in their order. They rebuild the city of Jerusalem, and a famous church for the worship of God.

"1778. The sixth vial is poured out upon the Turkish empire. The Mahometan superstition seems to decline. Three other vile and abominable heresies arise in that empire. These all encourage the Turks to make war with the Jews, and have frequent skirmishes; but the Turks are always beaten.

"1804. The seventh vial is poured out. The Turks bring their whole army against the Jews, and are most terribly beaten. Their empire is torn in pieces with wars and devastations, and bombarding of towns. It is divided into three kingdoms, and after that into six, and many kingdoms revolt entirely from them; so that their whole power is broken. Here is now a glorious state of the Jews, as converted to the Christian faith, and professing the true religion, and other countries continually coming into the same religion."

There is no mark on the MS. of its having been copied from a printed book, which may have been the case; nor any account besides the name of the Conjecturer, whose fancy favoured him with this vision through the ivory gate.

J. W. T.

Dr. Carpenter's Remarks on Dr. Stock's Letter.

[Dr. Stock's Letter, given pp. 481 -484, was copied into The Bristol Mirror, a newspaper in the same publication of the 27th ult. appeared the following letter by Dr. Carpenter, which we extract. We cannot help observing, that Dr. Stock's change of religion and his letter have been magnified by his new friends into ridi culous importance. Intelligent Calvinists must, we should think, be disgusted at the hubbub raised by this conversion, as if it gave the party something new in a man of education and respectable talents. In fact, we know that this sentiment has been strongly felt by persons who are distinguished amongst the Calvinists for the excellence of their understanding and character. We need not say that Dr. Stock must be the first to feel shame, at being used as an instrument to throw new reproaches upon those whom vulgar bigotry misnames "Socinians." ED.]

SIR,

N

[ocr errors]

To the Editor of the Bristol Mirror. Great George-street, Sept. 18, 1817. last your paper you inserted Dr. Stock's letter to the Rev. John Rowe, with the introductory letter of the person who communicated it to the New Evangelical Magazine of this month. As Dr. Stock's letter is now, for the first time, submitted to the Bristol public, I request the insertion of the following observations.

The anonymous writer is widely mistaken, if he imagine that the letter had been "confined to the private circle of the Doctor's friends." Copies of it had, long before, been handed about in distant parts of the kingdom. It had been shewn, with triumphant exultation, to the advocates of his former opinions: it had been circu lated by their opponents, to strengthen the faith of the wavering, or to recal those who had wandered.

Dr. Stock too well understands the nature of evidence, to imagine that his letter assigns a single reason why another should follow his example. Those who have so much extolled it, and have recently given it a species of celebrity, which his refined taste cannot relish, any more than his judgment can approve, shew that they consider the question as one which is to be

« ZurückWeiter »