hands of the populace. At Derby he was, at one time, imprisoned in a loathsome dungeon for a year, and at another, in a still more disgusting cell at Carlisle, for half that period. To all this ill-treatment he submitted with meekness and resignation; and out of prison, also, he had abundant opportunities for the exercise of the same qualities.

Fox's followers becoming, in the course of a few years, very numerous, the sect which he formed attracted much opposition, both from the pulpit and the press. He therefore continued to travel through the kingdom, expounding his views, and answering objections both verbally and by the publication of controversial pamphlets. In the course of his various journeyings, he still suffered frequent imprisonments, sometimes as a disturber of the peace, and sometimes because he refused to uncover his head in the presence of magistrates, or to do violence to his principles by taking the oath of allegiance. Aided by some of his educated disciples, Fox reduced the doctrine and discipline of his sect to a systematic and permanent form, after which he visited Ireland and the American colonies, employing, in this country, nearly two years in confirming and increasing his followers. He afterwards returned to England, visited Holland and other parts of the continent, and finally died in London, in 1690, in the sixty-seventh year of his age.

That Fox sincerely believed in the doctrines which he preached, no rational doubt can be entertained; and that he was of a meek and forgiving disposition, is equally evident. His integrity, also, was so remarkable, that his word was regarded of equal value with his oath. Religious enthusiasm, however, amounting to madness in the earlier stages of his career, led him into many extravagancies, in which few members of the respectable society which he founded have partaken. The writings of Fox are comprised in three folio volumes, the first of which contains his Journal; the second, a collection of his Epistles; and the third, his Doctrinal Pieces.

During the Protectorate, Fox was, on one occasion, sent by Colonel Hacker to Cromwell, under the charge of Captain Drury. Of what followed his journal contains the subjoined particulars :

INTERVIEW WITH OLIVER CROMWELL.

After Captain Drury had lodged me at the Mermaid, over against the Mews at Charing Cross, he went to give the Protector an account of me. When he came to me again, he told me the Protector required that I should promise not to take up a carnal sword or weapon against him or the government, as it then was; and that I should write it in what words I saw good, and set my hand to it. I said little in reply to Captain Drury, but the next morning I was moved of the Lord to write a paper to the Protector, by the name of Oliver Cromwell, wherein I did, in the presence of the Lord God, declare, that I did deny the wearing or drawing of a 'carnal sword, or any other outward weapon, against him or any man; and that I was sent of God to stand a witness against all violence, and against the works of darkness and to turn people from darkness to light; to bring them from the occasion of war and fighting to the peaceable Gospel, and from being evil-doers, which the magistrates' sword should be a terror to.' When I had written what the Lord had given me to write, I set my name to it, and gave it to Captain Drury to hand to Oliver Cromwell,

which he did. After some time, Captain Drury brought me before the Protector himself at Whitehall. It was in a morning, before he was dressed; and one Harvey, who had come a little among friends, but was disobedient, waited upon him. When I came in, I was moved to say, 'Peace be in this house;' and I exhorted him to keep in the fear of God; that he might receive wisdom from him; that by it he might be ordered, and with it might order all things under his hands unto God's glory. I spoke much to him of truth; and a great deal of discourse I had with him about religion, wherein he carried himself very moderately. But he said we quarrelled with the priests, whom he called ministers. I told him, 'I did not quarrel with them, they quarrelled with me and my friends. But, said I, if we own the prophets, Christ, and the apostles, we can not hold up such teachers, prophets, and shepherds, as the prophets Christ and the apostles declared against; but we must declare against them by the same power and spirit.' Then I showed him that the prophets, Christ, and the apostles, declared freely; and declared against them that did not declare freely; such as preached for filthy lucre, divined for money, and preached for hire, and were covetous and greedy, like the dumb dogs that could never have enough; and that they who have the same spirit that Christ, and the prophets, and the apostles had, could not but declare against all such now, as they did then. As I spoke, he several times said it was very good, and it was truth. I told him, 'That all Christendom (so called) had the Scriptures, but they wanted the power and spirit that those had who gave forth the Scriptures, and that was the reason they were not in fellowship with the Son, nor with the Father, nor with the Scriptures, nor one with another.' Many more words I had with him, but people coming in, I drew a little back. As I was turning, he catched me by the hand, and with tears in his eyes said, 'Come again to my house, for if thou and I were but an hour of a day together, we should be nearer one to the other;' adding, that he wished me no more ill than he did to his own soul. I told him, if he did, he wronged his own soul, and admonished him to hearken to God's voice, that he might stand in his counsel, and obey it; and if he did so, that would keep him from hardness of heart; but if he did not hear God's voice, his heart would be hardened. He said it was true. Then I went out; and when Captain Drury came out after me, he told me the Lord Protector said I was at liberty, and might go whither I would. Then I was brought into a great hall, where the Protector's gentlemen were to dine. I asked them what they brought me thither for. They said it was by the Protector's order, that I might dine with them. I bid them let the Protector know I would not eat of his bread, nor drink of his drink. When he heard this, he said, 'Now I see there is a people risen that I can not win, either with gifts, honours, offices, or places; but all other sects and people I can.' It was told him again, That we had forsook our own, and were not like to look for such things from him.'

Barclay, Penn, and Ellwood, being closely associated with Fox in establishing the sect which he had originated, and which we have just noticed, we shall here introduce them, though not exactly in the order of time.

ROBERT BARCLAY was born at Edinburgh, in 1648. The unsettled state of Scotland induced his father, Colonel Barclay, to send him to Paris, under the care of his uncle, to receive his education. The uncle was a rigid Catholic, and presided over a college in the French capital; and taking advantage of his nephew's youth, he brought him up in strict accordance with that faith. This so displeased his father that on receiving intelligence of it, he immediately brought his son home; and though Robert was, at that time, only sixteen years of age, yet such had been his devotion to his studies that

he was perfectly familiar with the French and Latin languages, and had also made very considerable proficiency in various other branches of knowledge. In 1666 his father became a convert to the faith of the Quakers, and Robert soon followed his example. In taking this step he may have acted chiefly under the dictates of his understanding; though it must be acknowledged that the following remarkable circumstance indicates the existence of a very considerable degree of enthusiasm in his disposition. Impelled, as he supposed, by a divine impulse, he passed through the streets of Aberdeen, clothed in sackcloth and ashes, and thus testified the sincerity of his profession. Having now publicly entered upon his career, he travelled extensively through England, Holland, and Germany, enforcing the doctrines of his sect, wherever he went; and finally returned to his own country, where he passed the remainder of his life in retirement, at Ury House, in Kincardineshire, and died on the third of October, 1690.

Barclay wrote voluminously in defence of the doctrines of the Quakers; but his most celebrated production is An Apology for the True Christian Divinity as the Same is held forth and Preached by the People in Scorn called Quakers. This work, which appeared in Latin, in 1676, and in English two years after, is a learned and methodical treatise, very different from what the world expected on such a subject; and it was therefore read with avidity both in Great Britain and on the continent. Its most remarkable theological feature is, the attempt to prove that there is an internal light in men which is better fitted to guide him aright in religious matters than even the Scriptures themselves; the genuine doctrines of which he asserts to be rendered uncertain by various readings in different manuscripts, and the fallibility of translators and interpreters. These circumstances,' says he, and much more which might be alleged, puts the mind, even of the learned, into infinite doubts, scruples, and inextricable difficulties; whence we may very safely conclude, that Jesus Christ, who promised to be always with his children to lead them into all truth, to guard them against the devices of the enemy, and to establish their faith upon an immovable rock, left them not to be principally ruled by that which was subject, in itself, to many uncertainties; and therefore he gave them his Spirit as their principal guide, which neither moths nor time can wear out, nor transcribers nor translators corrupt; which none are so young, none so illiterate, none in so remote a place, but they may come to be reached and rightly informed by it.' It would be erroneous, however, to regard this work of Barclay as an exposition of all the doctrines which have been, or are now, prevalent among the Quakers, or indeed to consider it as any thing more than the vehicle of such of his own views, as, in his character of an apologist, he thought it necessary to make. The dedication of the 'Apology' to Charles the Second has always been admired for its respectful yet manly freedom of style, and for the pathos of its free allusion to the king's own early troubles, as a reason for his extending mercy and favor to the persecuted Quakers. Thou hast tasted,' says he, ‘of prosperity and adversity; thou knowest what it is to be

banished thy native country, to be overruled, as well as to rule and sit upon a throne; and, being oppressed, thou hast reason to know how hateful the oppressor is to both God and man: if, after all these warnings and advertisements, thou dost not turn unto the Lord with all thy heart, but forget him who remembered thee in thy distress, and give up thyself to follow lust and vanity, surely great will be thy condemnation.' From the 'Apology' we extract the following passage:—

AGAINST TITLES OF HONOUR.

We affirm positively, that it is not lawful for Christians either to give or receive these titles of honour, as Your Holiness, Your Majesty, Your Excellency, Your Eminency, &c. First, because these titles are no part of that obedience which is due to magistrates or superiors, neither doth the giving them add to or diminish from that subjection we owe to them, which consists in obeying their just and lawful commands, not in titles and designations.

Secondly, we find not that in the Scripture any such titles are used, either under the law or the Gospel; but that in speaking to kings, princes, or nobles, they used only a simple compellation, as, ‘O king,' and that without any further designation, save, perhaps, the name of the person, as, O king Agrippa, &c.

Thirdly, it lays a necessity upon Christians most frequently to lie; because the persons obtaining these titles, either by election or hereditarily, may frequently be found to have nothing really in them deserving them, or answering to them: as some, to whom it is said, 'Your Excellency,' having nothing of excellency in them: and who is called 'Your Grace,' appears to be an enemy of grace; and he who is called 'Your Honour,' is known to be base and ignoble. I wonder what law of man, or what patent, ought to oblige me to make a lie, in calling good evil, and evil good. I wonder what law of man can secure me, in so doing, from the just judgment of God, that will make me count for every idle word. And to lie is something more. Surely Christians should be ashamed that such laws, manifestly crossing the law of God, should be among them.

*

Fourthly, as to those titles of 'Holiness,' 'Eminency,' and 'Excellency,' used among the Papists to the pope and cardinals, &c.; and 'Grace,' 'Lordship,' and 'Worship,' used to the clergy among the Protestants, it is a most blasphemous usurpation. For, if they use 'Holiness' and 'Grace' because these things ought to be in a pope or a bishop, how come they to usurp that peculiarly to themselves? Ought not holiness and grace to be in every Christian? And so every Christian should say 'Your Holiness,' and 'Your Grace,' one to another. Next, how can they in reason claim any more titles than were practiced and received by the apostles and primitive Christians, whose successors they pretend they are, and as whose successors (and no otherwise) themselves, I judge, will confess any honour they seek is due to them? Now, if they neither sought, received, nor admitted such honour nor titles, how came these by them? If they say they did, let them prove it if they can: we find no such thing in the Scripture. The Christians speak to the apostles without any such denomination, neither saying, 'If it please your Grace,' 'your Holiness,' nor 'your Worship; they are neither called My Lord Peter, nor My Lord Paul; nor yet Master Peter, nor Master Paul; nor Doctor Peter, nor Doctor Paul; but singly Peter and Paul; and that not only in the Scripture, but for some hundred of years after: so that this appears to be a manifest fruit of the apostasy. For if these titles arise either from the office or worth of persons, it will not be denied but the apostles deserved them better than any now that call for them. But the case is plain; the apostles had the holiness, the excellency, the grace, and because they were holy, excellent, and gracious, they neither used nor admitted such titles; but these having neither holiness, excellency, nor grace; and because they were holy, excellent and gracious, they neither used nor admitted such titles; but these having neither holi

ness, excellency, nor grace, will needs be so called to satisfy their ambitious and ostentatious minds, which is a manifest token of their hypocrisy.

Fifthly, as to that title Majesty,' usually ascribed to princes, we do not find it given to any such in the Holy Scripture, but that it is specially and peculiarly ascribed unto God. We find in the Scripture the proud king Nebuchadnezzar assuming this title to himself, who, at that time, received a sufficient reproof, by a sudden judgment which came upon him. Therefore, in all the compellations used to princes in the Old Testament, it is not to be found, nor yet in the New. Paul was very civil to Agrippa, yet he gives him no such title. Neither was this title used among Christians in the primitive times.

WILLIAM PENN, the son of Admiral Sir William Penn, and founder of the colony of Pennsylvania, was born in London on the fourteenth of October, 1644. He was educated at the school of Chigwell, in Essex, 'where, at the age of eleven,' says Wood, 'being retired in a chamber alone, he was so suddenly surprised with an inward comfort, and an external glory in the room, that he has many times said, how from that time he had the seal of divinity and immortality; that there was also a God, and that the soul of man was capable of enjoying his divine communications.' He afterwards went to a private school on Tower-Hill, and likewise enjoyed the advantages of a private tutor. In 1660, he entered Christ's Church College, Oxford, where, for two years, he devoted himself closely to his studies; but being at length influenced by the preaching of Thomas Loe, a Quaker, he and some other students withdrew from the form of worship of the established church, and held private meetings, where they prayed and preached among themselves. This conduct giving great offence to the officers of the university, Penn was first fined for nonconformity, but still persisting in these exercises, he was finally expelled from his college.

The principles which Penn thus early adopted gave such offence to his father, that he banished him from his house; but, at length, when it appeared evident that his son's opinions were unalterably fixed, a reconciliation took place between them. In 1668, he became a preacher amongst the Quakers, and, like many other members of that society, suffered much persecution, and was repeatedly thrown into prison. During one of his confinements in the Tower of London, he wrote the most celebrated of his works, entitled, No Cross, no Crown, in which the views of the Quakers are powerfully maintained, and which continues to be highly esteemed among persons of that denomination, even at the present day. After his liberation, he spent much time in defending his principles against various opponents, amongst whom was the celebrated Richard Baxter. In 1681, Penn obtained, from Charles the Second, in consideration of some unliquidated claims of the deceased Admiral Penn upon the crown, the grant of the district in America which was named Pennsylvania by the king, and of which Penn was constituted sole proprietor and governor. He immediately took measures for the settlement of the province, and drew up articles of government, among which the following is the most remarkable ::

"That all persons in this province, who confess and acknowledge the one