Inventory of the Estate and Effects belonging to the Institution, and of debts

owing by it, 1st of 1st Month, 1837.

BELONGING TO THE INSTITUTION.

N.B.-There is an error of 60l. in the items of the amount of Income as published, which I have not the means of correcting. ED.

J. LUCAS, PRINTER, MARKET-PLACE, PONTEFRACT.

ART I.-Dr. Edward Ash on the Profession of Friends.

1837.

The Author having been so kind as to present me with a copy of this work, I can do no less than notice it as a Reviewer. It is written like that of my Friend Robert Jowett, before noticed, in a very good spirit; and goes a good way, but not quite far enough, towards the somuch-needed reform of doctrine in the Society of Friends. The title at length is, "The Christian profession of the Society of Friends commended to its members: by Edward Ash.' London: Arch and Co. 1837.

Vital religion not being confined to any one section of the visible Church,' Dr. Ash says he can most cordially adopt the language of the Apostle, Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.' Joining heartily in which sentiment, let me ask, how came that body, which in the mind and purpose of its Great Head is one and indivisible, to be split thus into parts: and what is that which keeps it so? Is it not because of the determined purpose of every pharisee, to maintain every jot and tittle of the traditions received of the elders, that the field is thus parcelled out? Is it not from a habit thus acquired, that every sheep goes in the track which another has beat out before him?

So far as the influence of good example may extend-of a conduct agreeable to the principles of the gospel-there needs no objection be made to this Follow us,' let them say, as we follow Christ.' Beyond this, it is the sectarian principle and a mischievous thing in the churches. The Friends however are confessedly now a section of the great whole-not the peculiar people of God, as formerly by them

selves esteemed. And in this little book, of ninety-six pp. we have the beau ideal of their profession, as it is now intended to be held (if they can be prevailed on so to do), by our beloved younger Friends.' In it, terms and doctrine are somewhat rectified; and the inward work of the Holy Spirit, as we have it in the Gospel of John, substituted for the Platonic views of Geo. Keith, adopted by Barclay. Dr. Ash was presented, along with his colleagues of the committee of thirteen, at Manchester, with a copy of my paper on the Inward Light, (inserted at p. 57 of my fourth volume) and in time for it to have had some effect in arrest of judgment, had he been sole judge of this controversy. Whether influenced by this or other like offers of reason and argument, or previously better informed on this particular subject, the author has cer tainly here made an important step in advance of the Morning meeting: and we have the Light only twice adverted to, I think, in the whole piece, and that, not as from Barclay but according to George Fox, who gave forth this doctrine at first in Scripture terms. The introduction of new terms by the apologist undoubtedly made a new doctrine of it-and of this our esteemed Friend appears sensible. For, having said something about the essential distinction' to be made between the question of an author's real and obvious meaning, and the appropriateness of the terms in which he expresses himself' he proceeds thus:

"We have a prominent illustration of these general remarks in the copious use which, as is well known, many of the early Friends made of the word light. There may be diversities of opinion as to the various senses in which this word is used in scripture, and consequently as to the use which has been made of it in our own society; but this much is certain, that when George Fox spoke of "the light of Christ," and employed other similar expressions, he meant nothing else than the enlightening operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart of man; and so these terms have been always understood in the society down to the present time.* The same general remarks are applicable to the use which has been made of the terms word, gospel, seed, &c. by some of our writers."

I must beg leave, however, to differ from Dr. Ash in this place. I believe that, neither with our early Friends' nor with Friends of a later time, has the doctrine of an inward 'light,' 'seed,' &c., been thus restricted in its acceptation: seeing it is one thing to own God the Holy Spirit as our Reprover, Teacher and Sanctifier, by His influence on our hearts and minds, and as individually present with us,—and another, set forth an inward principle, in which as a vehiculum Dei, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are found-afforded to mankind universally, independ ent of all scripture, of all preaching and tradition of revealed truth-by which they may be saved. The jet of the present work, although the amiable author may not have perceived it, is to get rid quietly and without acknowledgment of error on our parts, of this Platonic doctrine, along with other crudities and unscriptural notions of our early

* "Like our early Friends, we believe in no principle whatsoever of spiritual light, life, or holiness, except the influence of the Holy Spirit of God, bestowed on mankind, in various measures and degrees, through Jesus Christ our Lord."— London Yearly Meeting's Epistle, 1836.

Friends.' For these it proceeds to substitute a something couched in scripture terms, but not based on the foundation assumed for their faith by the writers of the New Testament; not beginning where they begin, nor proceeding as they proceed-with the word preached by faithful witnesses, the reception of this by believing hearers, and the pouring out on these of the Holy Spirit in direct sequence of their belief in Christ. After this general character of the book, I may notice some particular subjects in the order in which I find them. Worship,' as set forth by Christ and his Apostles is said, p. 3, to consist in the communion of the soul with God, not necessarily including any external manifestation whatever, and rightly admitting of such only as, by virtue of the mixed constitution of man's nature, is the proper outward expression of his inward affections.'

This is, then, the author's salvo for the practice of sitting publicly in silence, and calling this worship: thus eviting all compliance with the forms exhibited by Christ and his Apostles, and in all ages by the Church. Whatever may be experienced, by devout persons, of real communion with God on such occasions-and which they might also find in the closet-certainly it is an abuse of terms to call it worship. The 'inward affection' of devotion truly felt by the individual should bring on the outward expression,' whether by his own lips or by those of another called to the office, with suitable reverent gestures attending? There is no worship' for the church assembled, or by it, without this expression-if language and terms are to have any precise meaning: the very thing is conceded as regards those met together, by the terms in which the author treats it himself. They are met, we will say, to 'wait upon God,' or 'in order to worship Him'-but it is not worship on the part of the church, until some 'outward manifestation' take place.

Let us examine, further, some parts of the following statement, occurring at the opening of the second part at p. 20, and see whether it conveys a true account of the matter-or whether it be not rather shaped to meet the exigency of a more modern cause.

"Among those things to which the early Friends bore witness in their ministry and writings, they taught that true religion implies a real change of heart, of which holiness of life and conversation is the necessary and inseparable fruit and evidence: that without this change, the profession of an orthodox belief, the knowledge of the contents of holy scripture, the punctual observance of the forms of worship, and the diligent attendance of public ministrations, are of no avail : that it is to no purpose to hear and admit all that Christ did and suffered for us, unless we so believe on him as that he dwells in us by the Spirit: that baptism with water, and the ceremonial partaking of bread and wine, are not only inefficacious in themselves, but were never enjoined as perpetual ordinances in the church of Christ, nor constitute any essential part of the new covenant dispensation: that God, by his Spirit, visits and strives with the children of men in order to their salvation: that in those who resist not, but give heed to this visitation, the Holy Spirit begets true repentance and living faith, and dwells in them, not only as their sanctifier, but also as their teacher, counsellor, and guide: that it is only by the revelation of the Spirit that the doctrines of Christ and his apostles, and the contents of holy scripture generally, can be rightly apprehended and made effectual to the conversion of the heart: that without his presence and influence, true worship cannot be

performed, nor prayer and praise acceptably offered: and, that as Christ is the supreme head and governor of his own church, being present with and presiding over it by the Spirit, it is only under the immediate guidance and authority of the Spirit, that the government and discipline of the church can be duly ordered and administered; and in an especial manner, that thus only can any be rightly called to the work of the ministry, be instructed as to the time, manner, and place of their particular services, or be qualified for their performance. As they taught that those only are rightly appointed ministers who are thus called and qualified, so they testified that the gift of the ministry is alike bestowed upon male and female, learned and unlearned, even as it was in the primitive church and as they recognized no exercise of the ministry but such as is under the immediate anointing of the Spirit, they taught that when the church came together for public worship, its members were not to engage in any outward exercise in their own will, and manner, and time, but were to wait in silence before the Lord, seeking for ability to worship him in spirit and in truth, and looking to him alone for instruction and help, whether he might be pleased to impart it immediately, or by the mouth of any of his servants.' ""

The early Friends did not merely teach that without a real change of heart, inducing personal holiness, the things here enumerated were of no avail. They might have done this and have met with no opposition, but rather approval and support from the best professors of the age. It is undeniable that they rejected (independently of all consideration of effects) the profession of an orthodox belief, the punctual observance of forms, the acquisition, and right use of scripture knowledge. They believed that men might be taught, independently of the revelation by the written word, all things necessary to salvation: and forgetting that they themselves had learned, by hearing and reading the word with meditation and prayer, the very truths they were enabled to teach, they renounced their literal knowledge, and used it still: and kept in great measure their old habit of kneeling down and uttering words in prayer, but taught not this to their successors. They exercised before companies of persons, on whom was enjoined an entire silence (the result of movings of the spirit to prophesy or prayer excepted) their gifts of ministry; but made no suitable provision for a succession of such ministers in the churches, when they should be no more. George Fox began with waiting in silence, but was not usually long without his sermon or prayer:* it was the Quietists of a later age that prevailed to bring in the practice of sitting (with ministers present who were qualified to have taught the people) altogether in silence.

* We have the following curious account, by himself, of the consequences of his once seeming to threaten the people with a silent public meeting. Journal, 1656.— On First-day morning, I went [on a first visit,] to the meeting in Broadmead, at Bristol, which was large and quiet. There was at Bristol a rude baptist, named Paul Gwin, who had used before to make great disturbance in our meetings: being encouraged by the Mayor, who, as was reported, would sometimes give him his dinner. Such multitudes of rude people would he gather after him, that it was thought there had been sometimes ten thousand people at our meetings in the orchard. When I was come into the orchard [in the afternoon,] I stood upon the stone, that Friends used to stand on when they spoke and was moved of the Lord