world's customs; so it is that the commemoration of pagan deities, and of mighty warriors or emperors, is perpetuated in the names of days and months, which are of Divine creation and gift. The pure language of true Christianity contains not such admixtures of heathenism. But not to dwell tediously on these points, the following pen and ink sketch made by T. B. Macaulay, claims a careful comparison with the original, from which it is professedly taken; in collating the two, fresh data will be obtained for ascertaining the amount of credit due to the historian for candour and veracity. "A Christian was bound to face death itself rather than touch his hat to the greatest of mankind. When George Fox was challenged to produce any scriptural authority for this dogma, he cited the passage in which Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace with their hats on; and, if his own narrative may be trusted, the Chief Justice of England was altogether unable to answer this argument, except by crying out, "Take him away, jailer! What says George Fox, in the very passage to which T. B. Macaulay has referred as his authority for this assertion? It may here be premised that he and his friend, Edward Pyot, were brought before the Chief Justice, Glynne, at Launceston assizes, on a false charge of plotting against the government. Thus runs the narrative: "When we were brought into the court we stood some time with our hats on, and all was quiet, and I was moved to say, 'Peace be amongst you? Judge Glynne, a Welshman, then Chief Justice of England, said to the jailer, 'What be these you have brought here into the court? Prisoners, my lord,' said he. 'Why do you not put off your hats? said the judge to us. We said nothing. Put off your hats,' said the judge again. Still we said nothing. Then said the judge, The court commands you to put off your hats.' Then I spoke and said, Where did ever any magistrate, king, or judge, from Moses to Daniol, command any to pure nats when they came Defore them in their courts, either amongst the Jews, the people of God, or amongst the heathens? And if the law of England doth command any such thing, show me that law, either written or printed.' Then the judge grew very angry, and said, 'I do not carry my law-books on my back.' 'But,' said I, 'tell me where it is printed in any statute-book, that I may read it. Then said the judge, Take him away, prevaricator! I'll ferk him.' So they took us away and put us among the thieves. Presently after he calls to the jailer, Bring them up again.'Come,' said he,' where had they hats from Moses to Daniel? Come, answer me. I have you fast now,' said he. I replied, 'Thou mayst read in the third of Daniel, that the three children were cast into the fiery furnace by Nebuchadnezzar's command, with their coats, their hose, and their hats on.' This plain instance stopped him; so that, not having anything else to say to the point, he cried again, ‘Take them away, jailer.'" Throughout the transaction no mention is made of the dogma, that "a Christian was bound to face death itself rather than touch his hat to the greatest of mankind," consequently he was not challenged to bring any scriptural authority for the notion. George Fox it was who gave the challenge, and who requested the justiciary to bring forward some rule or precedent for the practice insisted upon, either from Scripture, Christian or heathen records, or from the statutes of England. Violence interfered to repel an arguinentative query, before which reason was compelled to silence, for a reply in the affirmative could not be given by the legal chief. In the absence of the prisoners it is probable that what he deemed a bright ray of thought gleamed athwart the high functionary's brain. The Friends were re-called, and the question was triumphantly asked, "Where had they hats from Moses to Daniel?" The reply and proof were quickly forthcoming; and so convincing, so pertinent to the matter was the passage quoted by George Fox, that we may well believe his testimony, "that not having anything else to say to the point," the chief justice "cried again, "Take them away, jailer!"" And what could he answer? The stronghold of defence and of attack, which had been so hastily set up, had been demolished in a few moments, and nought remained but, it may be, a sense of disappointment and defeat. The unlearned "founder of the sect of Quakers" had unanswerably proved that, in the presence of the most terrible and despotic of monarchs, the three children of Israel stood without paying him this mark of outward prostration, else would they not have been bound, in the fierce anger of the moment, Nebuchadnezzar himself being present, with their hats on, as well as their coats and "hosen." It would cause too great a digression from our subject to enter into all the arguments which might be adduced from ancient usages, in proof that "hathonour" is a modification of that debasing homage once paid to heathen deities, to powerful chiefs, and to patriarchs, who, as amongst the Romans, held absolute sway, extending to life and death over their offspring. Of the stern control, the stately distance observed by parents towards their children, at so late a period as the Tudor and Stuart ages in England, we have many instances recorded. Human pride would be satisfied with nothing short of those external forms of reverence which are offered in addressing the Supreme Being-the uncovering of the head, and the bowing of the knee. In more modern days, the forms of worldly honour and of homage have become, in many cases, unmeaningly complimentary as well as flattering, the hat may be slightly raised by one fashionist to another who is his equal in worldly station, and the compliment is returned-an utterance, in dumb show, to this effect-"we are upon a level." But how is it with the poor man-with the employed-between whom and his employer there is a space more or less wide in earthly distinctions and in wealth? He is but too generally expected to stand bareheaded, cap in hand, before him who is considered the superior. This is a fancied mark of respect which, if unpractised by the poor on such occasions, causes the delinquent to be regarded as an ignorant untaught boor! Now what is this but homage?-and homage, too, which has a degrading influence on him who pays it-he feels his inferiority, and is scarcely likely to utter an honest sentiment which stands in opposition to the wishes or the interests of the fellowcreature thus bowed down to. There is an obedience to the laws, a noble regard and submission to those in influential positions (if worthy) which have their basis in higher sentiments, and which are shown, not in fulsome compliments, but in deeds of verity. Who can imagine that our beloved and honoured Queen has a lower place in the esteem of the Society of Friends, than in that of others, because they do not doff the hat nor bend the knee in her presence? Their loyalty is not the less deep, nor their attachment to her beneficent rule less earnest on that account. (To be continued.) the prejudices through which we are apt to view Our candour may be employed in driving away men's words and actions, when they happen to wound selves hurt, we are apt to aggravate the fault of the our pride, or oppose our pursuits. While we feel ouroffender, which, perhaps, if considered in its true light, and ascribed to its true motive, would appear to be no fault at all. A SLAVE MADE FREE IN PLYMOUTH CHURCH. (From the Anti-Slavery Standard.) THERE was never a more thrilling exemplification of gospel principles than last Sabbath morning, June 1, in Rev. Henry Ward Beecher's church, Brooklyn. Mr. Beecher preached from Luke x. 27: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength; and thy neighbour as thyself." He said that in these words the vail was drawn away from the heart of God, and we saw its very centre secret; and he dwelt upon the necessity of the union of piety and philanthropy, and of love, as the crowning grace and golden atmosphere of all. Just after announcing the last hymn, he stepped to the side of the platform and said, "I am about to do a thing which I am not wont to do; which I have never done before upon this day, and in order that you may have no scruples about it, I will preface it by reading what the Lord Jesus Christ says of the Sabbath and its duties. "And behold there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath-day. Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth, and it was restored whole, like as the other.' "Some two weeks since, I had a letter from Washington informing me that a young woman had been sold by her own father to go South, for what purposes you can imagine when you see her. She was purchased by a slave-trader for 1200 dols., and he, knowing her previous character and the circumstances of the case, was so moved with compassion that he offered to give her an opportunity to purchase her freedom. He himself gave towards it 100 dols., and persuaded a friend and another slave-trader to give each 100 dols. more. So much of good is there in the lowest of men! He allowed her to go to Washington to solicit aid from the Free State men there, and she succeeded in obtaining 400 dols. I was then applied to, to know if we would do anything to raise the remaining 500 dols. I answered that we would do nothing unless the woman could come here. After much hesitation on the part of her master, she was allowed to visit New York, giving her word of honour that she would return to Richmond if the money was not raised;" and going to the platform stairs-" Come up here, Sarah, and let us all see you," said he. A young woman rose from an adjacent seat, and, ascending the steps, sank down embarrassed and apparently overcome by her feelings, in the nearest chair. She was of medium size and neatly dressed. white blood of her father might be traced in her regular features, and high, thoughtful brow, while her complexion and wavy hair betrayed her slave mother. The "And this," continued Mr. Beecher, "is a marketable commodity. Such as she are put into one balance and silver into the other. She is now legally free, but she is bound by a moral obligation which is stronger than any law. I reverence woman. For the sake of the love I bore my mother, I hold her sacred, even in the lowest position, and will use every means in my power for her uplifting. What will you do now? May she read her liberty in your eyes? Shall she go out free? Christ stretched forth his hand and the sick were restored to health; will you stretch forth your hands and give her that without which life is of little worth? Let the plate be passed, and we will see." There was hardly a dry eye in the church; and amidst tears and earnest lookings at the poor woman who sat with downcast eyes, the plates went round Every purse was in requisition, and as the bills were thrown down, Mr. Beecher said: "I see the plates are heaping up. Remember that every dollar you give is the step of a weary pilgrim towards liberty, and that Christ has said, ' Inasmuch as ye did it to one of the least of these, ye did it unto me." At this Mr. Lewis Tappan rose, and said there need be no anxiety about the matter; some gentlemen had just now pledged themselves to make up the deficiency, whatever it might be. Then she was free! And when Mr. Beecher told her so, and announced it to the great congregation, there was an involuntary burst of applause. It was in the church, upon the Sabbath day, but it was no desecration-rather it was echoed by richer acclaim in heaven! As it subsided, Mr. Beecher said: "When the old Jews went up to their solemn feasts, they made the mountains round about Jerusalem ring with their shouts. I do not approve of an unholy clapping in the house of God, but when a good deed is well done, it is not wrong to give an outward expression of our joy." And the poor sorrowful one, for whom was all this. what thought she? Winter and spring were both gone, and it was the first day of summer. The sky was blue, and in at the window fell the golden sunlight and stole the soft air, bearing the music of birdnotes and rustling leaves. But O, how much brighter in her soul must have been the first summer day of liberty, after the long winter of oppression! As she sat there, bathed in tears, she must have felt that in so far as a moment of rapture can repay oue for years of trial, she was recompensed. Mr. Beecher now read the closing hymn, saying as he handed her the book, "We shall sing this hymn as we never sung a hymn before, and she will sing it too.' Tuls it was! "Do not I love Thee, O my Loru: Behold my heart and see; And turn the dearest idol out That dares to rival Thec. "Is not Thy name melodious still Doth not each pulse with pleasure bound "Iast Thou a lamb in all Thy flock Hast Thou a foe before whose face "Would not my heart pour forth its blood In honour of Thy name? And challenge the cold hand of death "Thou knowest I love Thee, dearest Lord, But I long to soar Far from the sphere of mortal joys, And learn to love Thee inore.' " It was doubtless sung with greater unanimity of feeling than any hymn ever was in the church before, and though she was too deeply moved to give any vocal expression to her joy, there must have been in her heart melody that was sweet to the ear of God! The blessing was pronounced, and the meeting was over; but many lingered to know the amount of the contribution, and when it was found that 783 dols. had been raised, so that not only she, but her child of two years old could be redeemed, the applause burst forth anew. In the plates were several articles of jewellery, thrown in by those who had no money with them, or were unable to give anything else. Thus may Plymouth Church be consecrated! Verily "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath-day." THE BRITISH FRIEND has been registered at the General THE BRITISH FRIEND. GLASGOW, 8TH MONTH, 1ST, 1856. INWARD LIGHT.—Continued reply to the Achill Herald. The second topic in our contemporary's controversy with Friends, is what he terms their "supposed Inward Light." From the epithet "supposed," he no doubt desires it to be understood, that he looks upon such a thing as an Inward Light to be a perfect nonentity--a groundless imagination. Now, to us it appears impossible for any one who has read with attention the writings of Friends, in explanation of what they mean by an Inward Light, to speak of this prominent gospel doctrine after the contemptuous style of our contemporary; and if he has not thus read their writings, he ought not to have spoken at all. The only conclusion, therefore, to which we can come, in accounting for this his choice of style, is that he either must have written in gross and inexcusable ignorance of his subject; or, what is worse, that he is guilty of wilful misconstruction, and desirous to misrepresent Friends, as well as to mislead his readers. But before noticing our contemporary's arguments against a doctrine which he considers so very chimerical and delusive, we may first state, concisely and distinctly. what Fmnianda Laro utways understood by the phrase, “Inward Light." We say the phrase, apprehensive that our space precludes the statement, so explicitly as we could desire to give, of the doctrine itself. Among the points of doctrinal difference subsisting between Friends and other denominations, we believe it may safely be asserted, that this chiefly distinguishing feature in the profession of Friends, has been more copiously explained and defended than any other; and yet, strange to say, misunderstanding and misrepresentation continue extensively prevalent. This circumstance may be accounted for in a variety of ways; we may just allude to two of them. In comparison with others, Friends have always been rather insignificant in numbers, at the same time that they have been ignorantly supposed to hold certain fanatical, pharisaical, and antichristian opinions-a result for which they are mainly indebted to clerical bigotry and misrepresentation. Hence it is no cause of surprise, that the public should feel little interested to make inquiry, and therefore continue mistaken in regard to the Society's religious views, and the causes of their differing, in practice, in several respects from others. Another way in which we may account for the unpopularity of the profession of Friends is this-such a system of religion as theirs, which has the direct tendency to detach the people from a dependence upon the teaching of their fellow-men, must, of necessity, expect opposition from those who make a trade and gain of teaching. The voice of history is loud on this point in regard to Friends, the manifold persecutions and contemptuous reproaches which they underwent at their rise, as a Society, mostly originating with the clergy; and though now, happily, after a protracted ordeal of grievous suffering, the law of the land has made such provision for Friends, that they can "sit, every man under his vine and under his fig-tree, with none to make them afraid" on account of their religious belief or practice; still, the unjust reproach of their early days, the work of interested opponents, is perpetuated in the public mind from generation to generation-carefully cherished and handed down from sire to son, as inseparable from the profession, though over and over again shown to be undeserved and without foundation. Yes, a system which looks upon gospel ministry as a gift from the Head of the church, which, being freely bestowed, is to be freely given, cannot be otherwise than disagreeable to all who make a trade of preaching. Indeed, the views of Friends on this subject, can scarcely be expected to be other than a provocation to a state church clergy. Whilst the Society considers it altogether wrong to take pay for preaching, yet where payment is voluntary, much less can be said against it than when exacted from Dissenters, for the support of ministers of whose services they not only do not partake, but whom they consider teachers of error. How truly does the prophet write of such ministers, when he says that they prepare war against all that put not into their mouths! Here, we repeat, is to be found the secret why Friends have continued so unpopular; their creed is so diametrically adverse to the interests of the clergy, who from their possession of the public ear, have generally kept the truth regarding this people from entering it, and filled it instead with the most glaring perversions of the profession of Friends. But, returning from what may seem a digression, we come to our proposed task of explaining what Friends mean by the phrase "Inward Light.” In the gospel according to John, we read as follows: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . In Him (the Word) was life, and the life was the light of men. . . . That (Word, or the life in Him) was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." The apostle Paul asserts, that "a manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal," and that "the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." "What, know ye not that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost?" The apostle John, in his first general epistle, is equally explicit: “Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." And again, "These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth and is no lie," &c. Many other texts of precisely similar import could be adduced, but the foregoing may suffice. Now we should like to ask our contemporary, the Achill Herald, a question or two. Does not our first quotation expressly state that Christ is Himself the Light-"The true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world?" In what way can Christ be said to enlighten every man? Is it by means of the Scriptures? This is more than any one can venture to affirm. "Every man that cometh into the world," is not, as we all know, enlightened by the Scriptures. The text, however, affirms that Christ enlightens "every man." How then does He enlighten them? There is no way of answering this satisfactorily but by Scripture itself. The prophet Joel, in allusion to the gospel day or dispensation, and speaking in the name of the Lord, has this declaration: "And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, upon servants and handmaids," &c. This prophecy we also find the apostle Peter, on the day of Pentecost, testifying as then fulfilled. The meaning of the prophet Joel, when he speaks of the Almighty pouring out his Spirit upon all flesh, is considered by Friends the same as that of Jeremiah, when, under similar authority, he proclaimed the terms of the new covenant, viz.: "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying. Know the Lord; for all shall know me from the least to the greatest." How, then, we again ask, or where is it that Chrise enlighteneth every man ? We reply, it is especially in the heart of man that he appears and fulfils the office of his appointment-"I am the light of the world." Is He not therefore denominated justly, emphatically, and truly, an "Inward Light?" "The Light within?" and they shall (thus) be my people, and I will be What now, we may ask, becomes of our contemporary, the Achill Herald's attempt to ridicule the doctrine of an "Inward Light" as something purely chimerical, and existing only in the imaginations of Friends?" their supposed Inward Light," quoth he, following the vagaries of their own fancy, &c. We might next proceed to examine the Herald's attempt to show, that what he terms the "supposed Inward Light" opens "a door to the wildest fanaticism. We have no hesitation," says he, "in asserting with unmistakeable plainness, that the supposed Inward Light does as virtually supersede the teaching of the Bible as do the ecclesiastical traditions of Romanism!" But as the proof of this, his assertion, is deferred till he takes up another question, in which Friends differ from other denominations, we must pass on to his subsequent remarks upon the said "supposed Inward Light." On further reference to our Scripture texts, it will be observed that they bear a twofold testimony-they not only prove that without the Spirit of Christ no man can be a Christian; but that He is "the light of the world," in all men, "except they be reprobates." In support of this latter position, we need only to refer to Christ's own words in speaking of the Comforter-"When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He shall convince the world of sin." It may be said that what has now been advanced, merely proves the indwelling or influence of the Holy Spirit, which all professing Christians, some in one degree, and some in another, are prepared to admit is their privilege; but where is the Scripture authority for what Friends call the "Inward Light?" We say in reply, that Christ and his Spirit cannot be divided-wherever He dwells, it is by His Spirit, and both Himself and His Spirit are Light; and that His manner of abiding with mankind is an internal one in their hearts; and there-ing through the true prophet. The Herald replies, fore most legitimately, correctly, and Scripturally, is he styled by Friends an Inward Light. Is not this the express promise of the Most High that in the gospel day, "I will dwell in them and walk in them, In our first reply to his animadversions, we referred to the case of Baal's prophets, for the purpose of inquiring if their pretensions rendered the Spirit of the Lord unworthy of being depended upon, when speak "Certainly not, because the prophet proved the truth of his mission, and the reality of his inspiration by a miracle." This may have been the case in one or two instances; but these are rather the exceptions than Quakers do differ from Friends, while both profess to be led by a Divine Inward Light, what can the most sceptical as to such a light make out of this diversity, but that one or other is mistaken? The Inward Light as a Scripture doctrine, is no more invalidated and rendered an imagination, by men mistaking its teachings, than the Bible itself is made unworthy of credit by similar mistakes concerning it, on the part of those who look upon it as the ultimate test and source of truth. Our information concerning White Quakers will not justify us in saying much about their views; we should imagine, however, that as well as Friends (or Drab Quakers, as the Achill Herald styles them), they have no objections to their belief being tested by Scripture. We say we cannot speak positively on this point the rule in the matter. The Herald proceeds: "Let the Friends prove the truth of their Inward Light against the pretensions of the White Quakers in the same manner; but not till then can they consistently refer to the case of God's prophet in justification of their assumption." It is not at all requisite that we should inquire into the "pretensions" of the White Quakers; we leave them to answer for themselves if they see fit. But we may inform the Achill Herald, and others who share the like ignorance respecting the doctrine of an Inward Divine Light, as professed by Friends, that they have never refused to have this doctrine tested by the teaching of the Bible, where it is written as with a sunbeam. "The Bible," says the Herald, "gives us a rule by which to try all such pretensions," meaning the pretensions of Friends. This rule he speaks of is that which he thinks Isaiah pre-regarding them; if it be the case, however, that they scribed when he thus writes: "When they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep and that mutter, should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Now, as we have already said Friends have not only never refused, but have ever earnestly courted such a test, and maintained that whatsoever any pretend to as Divine revelation which is contrary to Scripture, is to be reckoned a delusion. How, then, can the Herald assert that "the disciples of the Inward Light have no common standard?" We can account for his rash and unfounded assertion, only by supposing the Herald grossly and culpably ignorant respecting a subiect on which he yet presumes himself capable of enlightening others; or, if not ignorant, that he is justly liable to the charge of deliberate slander and misrepresentation. "It is true," says the Herald, "that those who admit the Bible to be the test of truth, may differ in their interpretation of it, but still they have a common standard to appeal to." Now, we would like to ask the Herald if the case among those who admit the Bible to be the test of truth is not exactly parallel with that of the "White and Drab Quakers?" The former, that is, those who make a sort of pre-eminent profession of the Bible being with them the test of truth, differ among themselves, as everybody knows, in their interpretation of it. Among other things which might be mentioned, one section makes it impossible for all men to be saved, because of some supposed eternal decree of the Almighty to that effect. Another section maintains the exact contrary. Wherein, then, do they differ with their dogma of the Bible for the test and alone source of truth, from those whom the Herald looks upon as such despicable fanatics, the White and Drab Quakers? Is the Bible, we ask, less worthy of reliance in its teachings because those who style it the source and test of truth are evidently grossly mistaken about its meaning? We answer unhesitatingly, No. Its Divine author cannot contradict Himself; but men mistake "the law and the testimony," as they take the Bible to be. And suppose we admit, which we do without the least reluctance, that those called White refuse such test, we cannot consent to their being placed on a parallel with Friends, whose just appreciation, and we may add, veneration for the inspired volume, it is now rather late for any journalist, whatever his pretensions, to be allowed to call in question. Be it known, then, beyond all possibility of mistake, that Friends hold no doctrine, and maintain no practice, which they do not believe sanctioned by Jesus Christ and his inspired apostles. Notwithstanding their reviled "pretension to an Inward Light," they do not shriuk from the scrutiny of Scripture test as the Herald falsely asserts; and therefore they do not as "truly set aside the Scriptures as the assumed infallibility of Romanism.” Should any hereupon object to this Divine Light as or no value, seeing it teaches nothing opposed to Holy Scripture, we reply by inquiring if the apostle Paul thought thus of the grace of God; since what he tells us it teaches may also be gathered from Scripture. In short, the "Inward Light" is but another term for this "Grace" of which the apostle speaks. Again, the same authority tells us (Eph. v. 15), that "All things that are reproved are made manifest by the Light; for whatsoever doth make manifest is Light." Nor doth it matter by which name it may be called-whether Light, Grace, Spirit, Word, or Truth; that changes not its nature-it remains the same Divine instructor, ever testifying for God and goodness, and against whatsoever is contrary thereunto; a guide which God, in the riches of His mercy through Christ Jesus, hath placed in the hearts of all men universally, in order that no portion of His rational creation may be without the means of salvation; for wherever they are situated, or however circumstanced, they are all favoured with this "unspeakable gift." Our contemporary's conclusion is this: "The Drab Quakers have their Inward Light, and the White have theirs; and while both, as we believe and can prove (?), are following the vagaries of their own fancy, it is impossible, in the nature of things, that the points disputed between them can ever be settled, because they have no common standard to which to appeal." We entirely differ here also with our contemporary. We have maintained on behalf of Friends that they have |