335 DEFENCE OF THE QUAKERS. truth does not at once; and the first atten tion of the primitive Quakers, as was not very unlikely for a religious body, was to religious abufes, of which they thought they faw many in the minifters of that time, who were practifing the fame things which they had reprobated in their predeceffors of the Church of England. The quotation in the note marked §, Leftie, P. 103, is alfo, as he fays, taken from the fheet addreffed to the Council of Officers, &c. 1659, that is, from the fheet figned F. G. Now we come to Edward Burrough." The Son of God (I omit the blafphemous parenthefis introduced in the explanation of that term by your illuftrator) might command thousands and ten thousands of his faints at this day to fight in his caufe." Now, taking this literally, who dares fay that he cannot ? But Leflie, in his quotation, omits fome material words.-Burrough writes thus: "Yet are we dreadful unto the wicked, and muft be their fear; for we have chofen the Son of God to be our King, and he hath chosen us to be his people; and he might command thousands and tens of thousands of his faints at this day to fight in his caufe; he might lead them forth and bring them in, and give them victory over all their enemies, and turn his hand upon all their perfecutors; but yet his kingdom is not of this world, neither is his warfares with carnal weapons, neither is his victory by the murthering and killing of mens' perfons, neither hath he chofen us for that end, neither can we yet believe that he will make ufe of us in that way, though it be his only right to rule in nations, and our heir fhip to poffefs the uttermoft parts of the earth; but, for the fent, we are given up to bear and fuffer all things for his name fake, and our prefent glory and renown therein ftands till the appointed time of our deliverance without the arm of flesh, or any multitude of an hoft of men."-Our next Note leads us to a denunciation of Burrough against the Cavaliers, in which are the words mentioned in the note, or nearly fo; but it must be observed, that the cavaliers only come in for their share of cenfure, or curfe, with divers other deferiptions of people into which the country was then (1656) divided, viz. to Oliver Cromwell-to his council-to judges, lawyers, &c.-to all aftrologers, magicians, &c. to all generals, colonels, &c.-to the Cavaliers above mentioned-to priefts, prophets, and teachers -to Papifts-to Proteftants-to Prefbyterians and Independents-to Anabaptifts, &c. To most of which his addrefs begins, "The controverfy of the Lord is against you;" fo that this book of Burrough's was a general reprehenfion of what appeared to him the fin of each. As, however, Lellie has taken care to fingle out and preferve this ad. drefs to the Cavaliers, we may fee, by perufing it, whether the conftruction of your illuftrator be the right one: "You are," fays Burrough, "become curfed in your hatchings and endeavours," i, c. (fays vour illuftrator) the Cavaliers attempting to restore the 004 pre king. king. But let Burrough fpeak for himself-" and from time to time my hand hath been against you in battle, and you have been, and you are, given up to be a prey to your enemies, for the pur pole and intent of your hearts have been known always to be against the form of truth, and much against my powerful truth itself; and because you attempted to take my throne, confcience, therefore I rofe in fury against you, and will have war with all your followers herein forever." Here your illuftrator difmiffes Burrough and turns him to Howgill, whom he accufes of boafting that the Quakers had given intelligence to the Parliament of the infurrection of Booth. It would not follow from hence that those Quakers who did fo were difaffected to Charles II; for I find, by Clarendon's History and Whitelock's Memorial, that Booth, in his declaration, did not mention the King, but pretended to have taken arms in behalf of a free Parliament, and the liberties of the people. The Quakers, of 1660, having thus been charged with dif affection to monarchy, are next accufed of time-ferving on the reftoration of Charles II. Proof of this is taken from a declaration prefented to him foon after, wherein are the words, "that we do love, own, and honour the King and these present governors"but hear them go on a trifle farther, "fo far as they do rule for God and his truth, and do not impofe any thing upon people's confciences, but let the gofpel have free paffage through the confciences of men, which we do not know they have by any law as yet impofed; and if they grant liberty of confcience towards God and towards man, then we know that God will bless them.” It is remarkable, that had the Quakers, in 1660, been a body fo evidently anti-monarchical, that the fagacity of the returning foyalifs did not find it out, especially as the fources, from which Leflie takes his charges, were then more abundantly open; namely, their books printed before the restoration. Instead of which, in 1660, early after Charles's return, he fingularly befriended Geo. Fox, and admitted another of them to a familiar converfation about their principles and fufferings. The fact feems to be, that the first Quakers were pretty plain with all the governments under which they lived, from the long parliament to the revolution; and foretold the downfall of most of the powers, that, during that period, fucceeded each other, as a thing that would be confequent on the perfecuting spirit which, more or lefs, pervaded them all. In that fhort period, lefs than forty years, fix or eight forms of Government arofe, abufed their authority, and fell. At length came the revolution and the fucceffion of the Crown to the House of Hanover. Perfecution ceated on the part of Government; one hundred and eighteen years have elapfed; and no convulfion has overturned the State. Thefe, if not confequences, muft be allowed to be remarkable coincidences. It is, however, as I have hinted, foreign to the purpofe to fhew that the early Quakers were loyal or not. I conceive that, had they been the means of the restoration itself, their fervices would not justify a turbulent conduct in their fucceffors of the present prefent day; neither alfo can any acts of the Quakers under Charles II, criminate the peaceable fubjects of a George the Third, who has been pleafed repeatedly to teftify his fatisfaction with their conduct, and whofe judgement, thus publicly given, is not over-decently contradicted by your illuftrator. I To the Editor of the Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine. SIR, Am one of those numerous readers of your peculiarly excel lent REVIEW, who experience confiderable fatisfaction in ob. ferving with what perfevering veracity you continue to expose the partial and pernicious recommendations, the infidious and deepdefigning mifreprefentations, the unjuft and illiberal criticifms, the unqualified affertions, the grofs falichoods of thofe opprobria of literature, the Critical and Monthly Reviewers. Could I characterize, in terms lefs harth and more appropriate, publications which affume and exercife a judiciary authority over the literary world, I would moft gladly do fo; because, Sir, I have always deemed Reviews and their Authors objects claiming an exclufive deference; and, as far as I dare rely upon my own incompetent judgement, have been led to conceive that Reviewers ought not only to be judges of letters, but also the patrons of religion, the cenfors of morals, the guardians of their country's weal. When, therefore, I turn my eyes towards the Monthly and Critical Reviewers, and behold these judges of letters paffing by, without one honeft acknowledgement, one tributary commendation, the most convincing truths eftablished on the profoundeft erudition, and fupported by the moft claffical ftyle, but militating against, and counteracting, their degenerate doctrines; when I fee them, on the other hand, lavishing indifcriminate praise upon the most barren fophiftries founded upon the lowest perverfions of learning, and clothed in the coarfeft irregularities of language, but countenancing and defending thofe doctrines; when, moreover, I obferve thefe patrons of religion, feated in the fcorner's chair, rafhly deciding against the Revelation, of Heaven; when I fee thefe cenfors of morals uniformly applauding, encouraging, enforcing the inebriate philofophy, the debauched reafonings of illuminati. Again, when I witness thefe guardians of their country's weal, difcipling and abetting the feditious; reviling and rudely repelling the truly patriot and loyal; when, Sir, I behold men who claim the eminent office of Reviewers, thus abufing the most interesting departments of their duty, thus regardless of its most imperative obligationsthen, and then moft juftly, do I apply to the vehicles of their apoftacy, their immorality, their democracy, the feverest terms of indignation, which the reproach they fo richly deserve can dictate. Superior intelligence, that noble gift of God to man, was bestowed, as were all the other munificent grants of the Divine Mercy, for the benefit of his creatures; how then ought the attempts of those men men to be execrated who labour to thwart the Almighty's goodness, and convert the inftruments of his bounty to their own baneful purpose, that they may blaft where He defigned to blefs? Of this faithlefs and ungrateful ftamp, I do not hesitate to affert, are the attempts of thele Reviews, attempts which have been detected and expofed by irrefragable evidence. As fuch, then, they ought to be condemned and rejected by every fincere friend of learning, who, in the proud purfuits of fcience, retains the humbler principles of Chriftian piety. From thofe literary focieties, therefore, where the fuperficial dogmas of infidelity, and the crude fyftems of republican philofophy, are over-ruled by pious conviction and found sense; thefe agents of the former will be caft out; and it feems to be a natural inference that, in the literary focieties of the clergy, books fo hoftile to religion, virtue, and peace, will not be tolerated at this period of the year most of these focieties hold fome principal meeting; I have, therefore, to requeft that you, Sir, the Editor of fo valuable a substitute as the Anti-Jacobin Review, will permit me, through its medium, to call the attention of their members to the following confideration: Whether, after the well-fubftantiated proofs of the numerous falfehoods of thefe Reviews, the conftant expofure of their pernicious principles, the confutations of their partial and illiberal criticifms, which you, Sir, as a true friend to your country have developed, by evidence which every reader of attention and information will readily acknowledge and admit, whether, I fay, with fuch unanfwerable teftimony against their principles and party, it would not be, in every fhape, adviseable to exclude them from the literary collections of fuch focieties? I do not prefume to go farther in my fuggeftions; it is true, I have mentioned your Review as a fubftitute, but it requires not the commendatory aid of my pen to direct their choice, where the individual merits of the object challenge regard. I am aware, Sir, that this propofition of exclufion will meet with fome few objections: with your permiffion I will anticipate and endeavour to answer one or two of them. Perhaps I fhall be told that it is good to have an opportunity of feeing both fides of the queftion-if by seeing be here meant judging, I am content to allow that fuch an opportunity is an advantage, and muft eventually operate in favour of my propofition. For, Sir, it is com monly faid that the poffeffion of happiness conftitutes the chief end of the various purfuits of man; if fo the original and univerfal queflion must be, How are we to obtain and fecure it? The voice of God has dictated the means-" to do juftly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God." The voice of reason blends these requifites, and, in the following effentials, points out our happieft dependencies-religion, virtue, and good order; by fecuring which we cannot fail to preferve every comfort whence our felicity can ipring. This, then, is the important queflion which every good man will thus decide upon. And as to the existence of any other fide of this question, I know but of one other; and that is its reverfe Infidelity, Infidelity, vice, and confufion, and furely none will hefitate a moment which to choose and to attach himself to. Publications, therefore, which make ufe of their circulatory and authoritative nature, not only to diffeminate by recommendatory extracts, the atheiflical rhapfodies, the deliberate impurities, of a Godwin; the levelling anarchy and impious profanations of that foe to his God, and his fellow creatures, Paine; but which alfo apply their most strenuous exertions to distort and decry the genuine effufions of religious, moral, and political truth-let me afk any man, of the least reflection, whether fuch books, fo pofitively favourable to the reverfe of the question referred to, be not much less likely to promote and preferve the happinefs of mankind, than one which is framed and conducted upon principles, in every inftance, diametrically oppofite. Again, with refpect to what can be faid concerning the implicit confidence we must confequently place in the fentiments of one fet of perfons, if we reject every production of contrary principle; let but the preceding argument be admitted, and it will follow, of course, that we shall be acting more like wife and prudent men, by arranging our ideas, our principles, and our fentiments agreeably to the standard of that one fet of perfons, than by dividing them and allowing them to be weakened and corrupted by any evil influence whatsoever. The evil tendency of the Critical and Monthly Reviewers have been incontrovertibly proved; thus expofed, then, in their native deformity, they ought not to be fuffered to diffuse their evil-influence. As there can be but one path to virtue, every guide which betrays us into deviation from it is to be fufpected and abandoned. Laftly, in regard to thofe new-fangled ereeds of liberality and prejudice, which thefe Reviews, notwithstanding their avowed antipathy to creeds of every description, have established as tefts of the worth of their party, I have but this to add in conclufion, that nothing can be liberal which is not true, neither can there exist any prejudice too ftrong which is consequent of pious, honourable, and well-founded conviction. G. HEWIT. Feb. 20, 1799. SIR, H HENSHALL'S REPLY. (Continued from VOL. I. P. 733-) To the Editor of the Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine. ÁVING exhibited fpecimens from Hickes, Wilkins's Saxon Laws, and Alfred's Will, where the writer in the Gentleman's Magazine can convict me of "palpable inaccuracies," for this critic's fenfe of feeling is as acute as Butler's hero's fenfe, of feeing, ་་་་་ "Can fee where other folks are blind, As pigs are faid to fee the wind;". |
