THE BRITISH Friend has been registered at the General THE BRITISH FRIEND. GLASGOW, 10TH MONTH, 1st, 1856. AN AUGUST OPPONENT.-We have thought it might interest our readers to learn, that an august opponent of our faith has appeared, in the person of RICHARD WHATELY, Archbishop of Dublin. In his Right Principle of the Interpretation of Scripture, considered in reference to the Eucharist, delivered and published in the form of "a charge, at the triennial visitation of the province of Dublin," we find the archbishop makes the following assertion respecting Friends:-" The paradoxical and revolting character of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the superstitions resulting from it, caused a well-known sect to reject the Eucharist altogether." On perusing this sentence, we at once set down the author as unacquainted with the standard writings of Friends; and, as having hazarded this assertion upon no better foundation than hearsay, or some other spurious authority. From a note, however, which we find appended to the "charge," it appears that the archbishop is no stranger to Barclay's Apology. Our readers do not require to be told, that the foregoing quotation contains a very inaccurate exposition of the faith of Friends, on the important doctrine of the Supper. Deferring further correction of the mistake for the present, we shall proceed to examine the contents of the note above alluded to. The archbishop here asserts, that "the same Divine authority which instituted the sacraments, may modify or annul them." Here lies the disputed point -the asserting of what, as Friends believe, 'cannot, and has not been proved from Scripture, so that it is premature to speak of modification or annulling. The archbishop, however, supposing himself correct, thus proceeds: "Accordingly, if any one declares that the sacraments are no longer to be literally celebrated, professing to be moved by the spirit to say so (which is precisely equivalent to the expression of the ancient prophets, thus saith the Lord'), he is to be obeyed, provided he gives the requisite proof of his Divine commission, by the display of these sensible miracles, which were the signs of an apostle. In the absence of such proofs, such a pretender and his followers must be accounted guilty of a most profane presump any tion." Here, again, we would remark that the archbishop's conclusion must be unsound, so long as his premises are inadmissible. Barclay, in his Apology," continues our author, "notices the demand made of such miraculous proofs from those of his persuasion; and the attempts to meet the objection founded on the want of these proofs, by alleging that there is no need of miracles to confirm their doctrines, since these," says Barclay, "are what were taught by the apostles, who did establish them by miraculous proofs." This reply of our apologist is not satisfactory to the archbishop, as he says it, "holds good only with respect to doctrines admitted by all Christians. When any interpretation is taught wherein Christians are not agreed, and is declared to be established by a direct Divine revelation, miraculous proof is needed of the truth of that interpretation. And to assume that a certain doctrine, contrary to what is generally received, is that of the apostles, and thence to infer that those who teach it are inspired, is a most palpable begging of the question." With all due deference to our estimable opponent, and without stopping to show how much this "begging of the question" could easily be made to attach to the apostles themselves, we are constrained to protest most decidedly against Richard Whately's conclusion; and most gravely to demur to his demand, when he says, "if any one declares that the sacraments are no longer to be literally celebrated, professing to be moved by the Spirit to say so," he must adduce miraculous proof of inspiration. We say that this his conclusion and demand, proceed from premises merely taken for granted, but which Friends can by no means admit to be proved. While all are not prepared to believe and acknowledge what are termed the sacraments to have been divinely instituted, Friends have as much right to demand miraculous proof of such supposed Divine institution from the archbishop and those of like belief, as these have to ask a miracle from Friends in support of an opposite belief. The demand made upon Friends for a miracle might be thought reasonable and just, were they inculcating any doctrine upon other than Scriptural authority. The archbishop's words in another sentence which we have quoted, display an additional fallacy. "When any interpretation," says he, "is taught wherein Christians are not agreed, and is declared to be established by a direct Divine revelation, miraculous proof is needed of the truth of that interpretation." Here the archbishop assumes that a given interpretation of Scripture must be the truth, provided only that it be universally agreed upon. For our part, we see no necessary connection whatever between numbers and truth-a majority, or even the whole, may be in error, while the truth may rest with the few, even with the two, or the three. In maintaining that Friends were led to the rejection of what is called the Eucharist by the paradoxical and revolting character of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the superstitions resulting from it, the archbishop is further at fault. Had he paid any ordinary degree of attention in his perusal of Barclay's Apology, he would have seen that Friends were led into the disuse of all typical rites upon much more substantial grounds than those he has assigned-reasons based in great measure upon Christ's own words, as related in the sixth chapter of John's Gospel. To adduce these reasons at length is what our space precludes. We may, however, remark, that although Friends are satisfied that the doctrine which they hold in relation to the Supper is at once sound and consistent, they cannot be expected to force others to participate in their convictions; sufficient it is for Friends to believe that the reasons they assign for their views are not only scriptural, but in perfect harmony with the essentially spiritual character of the religion of Jesus Christ. At the same time, while Friends, as we have said, cannot force their convictions upon others, they can as little allow the fact of their so differing to be construed into a rejection of Scripture on their part, or that others are thence warranted to call upon them for a miracle in support of their particular interpretation of the sacred record. We would now respectfully and earnestly invite our esteemed opponent to the study of the distinguishing views of Friends, as the same are expounded in Barclay's Apology, believing this might be the means of inducing him to entertain a more charitable opinion of Friends than he has displayed in the "charge" now before us, wherein, as we have seen, he accounts them "guilty of a most profane presumption." Previous to taking our leave of our august opponent, we would inquire by what means does he arrive at the conclusion that his interpretation of Scripture is the true one? We feel assured he does not repudiate what his own church acknowledges, the doctrine understood by the phrase in her formularies "moved by the Holy Ghost." We say, therefore, the archbishop either thinks himself inspired, or he does not, Choose which he may, he has placed himself, unwittingly perhaps, in an unenviable dilemma. If he thinks himself inspired, ought he not, according to his own theory, to give miraculous proof of his being so, seeing the interpretation he contends for is not that upon which all are agreed? If, on the other hand, he disclaims being inspired, how can he have any reliable certainty or persuasion that he is not mistaking his own imagination for the truth of Scripture? Either way, we can see no escape for him from the accusation he has attempted to fasten upon Friends. Can he extricate himself from the dilemma? We wait to see. FRIENDS TRAVELLING IN THE MINISTRY.-PRISCILLA GREEN and MARY NICHOLSON sailed from Liverpool to New York, in the Asia, on Seventh-day, the 6th of 9th Month. They had the company of Dr. Thomas and William Cromwell, who were returning to America; also, Charles Wilson and family from Liverpool. MARY NICHOLSON attended Liverpool Meeting on the Fifth-day previous to sailing. OSWALD BAYNES, of Poynton, has been liberated by minute of his Monthly Meeting, on the 11th ult., to visit the Quarterly Meeting of Durham, and the meet ings constituting the same. He is likely, we under stand, to commence his service by attending the Quarterly Meeting for said county, to be held at Darlington, on the 7th of the present Month. SARAH SQUIRE has, since our last, attended Edinburgh Meeting, and visited the families of Friends and those who attend meetings. She was at Glasgow Meeting, on First-day the 7th ult.; visited Friends in their families, and those professing with them; had a public meeting in the Evangelical Union Chapel, at Bathgate, on the evening of Third-day the 9th; and after being again at Glasgow Meeting, on Fifth-day the 11th, proceeded by way of Belfast to Dublin, to resume her religious service in that meeting. After the conclusion of the Quarterly Meeting of Bristol and Somerset, held at Bridgewater, on the 17th ult., a public meeting was convened at the request of our Friend, WILLIAM TANNER, of Bristol. JOHN CANDLER, GROVER KEMP, and MARY LLOYD, were also at the Quarterly Meeting. SARAH DIRKIN, of Wigton, has received a minute from Holm Monthly Meeting, liberating her to visit the meetings comprising the Quarterly Meeting of Cumberland and Northumberland. GROVER KEMP continues his visits to the families of Friends at Bristol. ANNE GARDNER, of Aberdeen, returned to her Monthly Meeting on the 16th ult. the certificate given her last 7th Month, for religious service in Sussex, Surrey, &c. SOPHIA ALEXANDER, accompanied by RACHEL FORSTER, was at Lancaster on Seventh-day, the 6th of 9th Month, engaged in visiting Friends in their families. They attended Calder Bridge Meeting on First-day, the 7th; were at the Monthly Meeting at Lancaster on Fourth-day, the 10th; the day following they were engaged visiting families. On First-day, the 14th, attended the morning meeting at Lancaster, and had a public meeting at same place in the evening. On Second-day, the 15th, had a public meeting in the evening at Hest Bank, a small village three miles from Lancaster, and next day were at Wyresdale, and had a public meeting. On the 18th they attended the Quarterly Meeting at Liverpool; and on Sixth-day evening, the 19th, had a public meeting at Chester. First-day, the 21st, they were at Fleetwood Meeting in the morning; subsequently sat with Friends in their families, and had a public meeting in the Primitive Methodist Chapel in the evening; and on Second-day, the 22d, they met Friends of Thornton Marsh in the forenoon, and had a public meeting in the Independent Chapel at Poulten le Fylde in the evening. RACHEL and PRISCILLA RICKMAN have returned the minute granted them 7th Month last, for religious service in the Quarterly Meeting of Sussex, Surrey, Dorset, and Hants. JOHN FINCH MARSH, of Croydon, attended the Ulster Quarterly Meeting, held at Moyallon, on the 3d and 4th of 9th Month. He has since been en gaged in visiting the different meetings of Friends in the province, and in some places has sat with Friends in their families. GENERAL MEETING OF HEREFORD, WORCESTER, and WALES.-The Autumn Meeting will be held at Hereford, on Fifth-day, the 9th of 10th Month, at halfpast ten. REMARKABLE CASE OF CONVICTION ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Ir was late in a night in April, 1826, during the spring circuit or assizes in Glasgow, that a memorable scene was enacted in the court room there. The interior of the building was then in a very different position than that in which it is now. The judges sat on an elevated bench or apartment between colossal pillars, with the jury seats on their right. The prisoners' bar was on the front of a large table, beneath and around which sat young counsel, few of whom are now in life, or at least in the practice of the law. The public sat in an amphitheatre of raised benches. The hall, even in mid-day, was ill-lighted, and at night, with the aid of a few candles placed on the bench and table, was truly dismal. A lengthy trial had just terminated of a man and a boy for assault and robbery, perpetrated on the Old Bridge of Glasgow. The name of the man was James Dollan, an Irishman, that of the boy Robert Syme, a weaver, and native of Glasgow. The robbery had occurred on Saturday, the 12th February previous. The man robbed was one Andrew Jack, a carpenter. The facts appearing in evidence were, that Jack had that night been treating his fellowworkmen in a house in the High Street on the occasion of leaving his workshop, and was somewhat under the influence of strong drink. He resided in Tradeston, and crossed the Old Bridge to the Gorbals, on his way home about 12 o'clock at night. There were few persons then on the bridge, and when he came to the south end, he was all at once set on by two or three men, who knocked him down and rifled his pocket of about 10s. or 11s. Jack instantly seized one of the men, and firmly held him, until by his loud cries several of the night police came from the Gorbals side of the river, and found a man in his grip, who was the man Dollan. Jack had also seized another of the assailing party by a worsted comforter which he had around his neck, but this man to relieve himself, slipped it over his head, and on doing so, Jack saw that his hat fell over the bridge. So soon as Dollan was placed into the hands of the police, Jack discovered another person standing looking on and without a hat, and on this fact alone, he charged him to the police as being another of the guilty party. The police accordingly took him into custody, and this was the young man Syme. No evidence was offered in defence. So conscious was Syme and his friends of his innocence, and the certainty of acquittal, that, being all very poor, they had employed neither agent nor counsel, and made no effort to adduce evidence in exculpation. A young barrister, now a professor in one of our universities, volunteered the defence at the moment. The jury, after retiring for a while, brought in a unanimous verdict of guilty against Dollan, and by a plurality of voices the same against Syme. The depute-advocate, in moving for sentence, in those days when every circuit in Glasgow left a sad legacy to the gibbet, stated that, considering the prevalence of street robberies during the previous winter, and the daring nature of the offence in the case now in hand, at so public a place as the bridge, he had some hesitation in at all restricting the libel to an arbitrary sentence; and which he was only induced to do in the case of the younger prisoner, from the fact, that up to the night in question, the lad was wholly unknown to the police, whilst his companion in the bar was an old offender. The presiding judge then assumed the black hat, and in solemn tones, during which the crowded hall was in breathless silence, he addressed the older prisoner on the duty of improving his numbered hours, and appointed the fatal day for his execution. He pointed out to the younger prisoner -who, forming a contrast to the cool demeanour of the older prisoner, seemed to stand in a state of entire stupefaction-the narrow escape he had made from a death punishment, and announced to him the next severest penal award in the criminal code -namely, banishment for life. So soon as the dread sentence was ended with the ominous words, “and may the Lord have mercy on your soul," the death-condemned criminal, in a clear and dauntless voice, and with a strong Hibernian accent, addressed the judges in somewhat these words, "My lords, I acknowledge my guilt, and resign myself to my sentence, but as a dying man, I now declare that this lad who now stands beside me is wholly innocent of any blame in the crime for which I am to suffer, and I never saw him until that night when we first met together in the police office." This appeal startled all who heard it, but the criminals were speedily removed, and the court adjourned for the night. The remarkable appeal, however, was not lost on the hearers. Several gentlemen interested themselves in the poor lad's case, and especially a respected magistrate of the Gorbals, now deceased-Archibald Edmistone, Esq. An army of affidavits, both as to the excellence of the young man's character and his entire innocence of the crime, was got up, from which the following facts were clearly made evident. The lad Syme, the son of a respectable mason in Glasgow, was aged 18 years. He resided with his widowed mother and two sisters in Main Street, Gorbals, above the shop of Dr. Strang, and within 100 yards of the south end of the bridge. He had served four years' apprenticeship, as a weaver, to one Robert Whitehill, with whom he resided, and who, with his wife, attested to his good character, and that he had never been absent one day from their house. He subsequently, and at the time in question, was working to one Joseph Hogarth, a weaver, in Centre Street, Tradeston. On the night in question he had been attending a meeting of a Friendly Society in Glasgow, of which he was a member, and had been thus detained later than was his usual time of being home. Before going to bed for the night, he sat in conversation at the fireside with his mother and sisters. A cry got up of a scuffle on the street, and cries for police. With the thoughtlessness and curiosity incident to youth, Syme ran out to the mouth of the close without thinking it necessary to put on his hat. The affray in the street, which was a drunken squabble between a man and his wife, was speedily allayed, when loud cries of murder and police were heard from the bridge, to which Syme ran instantly and was first on the spot. The police followed, less swift in foot, and Jack having given up to the police a man he firmly held in grips, he pointed out Syme as another of the gang, and straightway he found himself in custody of the police, charged with robbery, solely on the fact of his being in the place at that time without a hat. It was established that Jack was very much under the influence of intoxication, and after the trial he gave an affidavit to the effect, that he "could not identify Syme as one of the men who robbed him, further than he was the man who was afterwards apprehended on the spot without his hat." Syme's aged mother and two sisters swore to the fact of his leaving the house at the very instant without his hat, and that he neither had on a worsted comforter nor a neckcloth at the time. The two policemen corroborated the facts as to the previous squabble near the place; and, strange to say, one of them who was not examined in the trial, had seen Syme standing on the street without his hat, and followed him to the bridge; and, more that that, he mentioned at the time to the other officer his conviction that he was innocent of the crime charged. With these, and numerous other affidavits and certificates, there was sent a solemn declaration, emitted before witnesses, by Dollan, a few days before he suffered death on the gibbet, declaring "as a dying man, and as I have to appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, I never saw Robert Syme until after the police had him in custody, and never spoke to him until I was in the police office in Glasgow, and in the most solemn manner I declare, that he was not directly nor indirectly concerned in the robbery of Jack, and is entirely innocent of that crime.” The keeper of the prison (James Watson), the chaplain (James Morrison), and a respected elder, lately deceased (Peter Ewing), who was in use to visit the prisoners, all bore the strongest testimony to Syme's good conduct whilst in confinement. The chaplain testified, "that he has behaved himself truly well; he is penitent, not on account of the crime for which he is sentenced to transportation, for of that he feels innocent, but humbled on account of his very humiliating situation. It is truly a pity," adds the chap lain, "that a young man such as he is should be doomed to suffer such a hard fate for a crime of which there is every reason to think he is not guilty." The petition to the king was accompanied with a strong recommendation from the jury, of which the late Charles Stirling, of Cadder, was foreman. Copies of the petition and accompanying documents were sent to the then justice clerk (Boyle), who, moved with the truthfulness of them, at once, most humanely, went himself to the Calton-hill Prison, to which Syme had been removed, and having seen and examined him, he ordered his detention there, whilst the other criminals were removed to the hulks. The case was then thoroughly investigated by the authorities, and the innocence of the man was fully made manifest. He shortly afterwards returned to Glasgow with a free pardon, to thank the friends who had so successfully interested themselves on his behalf. The whole evidence of guilt was his presence at the scene without his hat. This affords another instance of the danger of convicting on any single fact of circumstan tial evidence without others strongly corroborative of guilt, and exclusive of innocence. Portfolio of a Lawyer, in Macphail's Journal. STATE AID TO RELIGION. IN the Liberator for last month, published by the The following interesting intelligence is extracted not Christians, though they contribute towards it, are excluded from sharing in it by the act. Some of those who take it oppose it. Many of the Church of England doubt its efficacy, and would rather depend on voluntary contributions. The Roman Catholics are almost unanimous in its favour, and I suspect that some zealots oppose it as a blow to the Roman Catholics. My own impression is that even the Roman Catholics, though numbering a greater proportion of the labouring classes than other sects, would do better without public aid. The distribution of the money is as follows:-Episcopalians, £26,614, 2s.; Roman Catholics, £10,837, 158.; the Kirk of Scotland, £4504, 38. 2d.—the Free Church, £3203, 3s. 7d. (total £7708, 6s. 9d.); Wesleyans, £3723, 17s. 3d.; Lutherans, £802, 68. 6d.; Unitarians, £314, 28. 68.-total, £50,000, 10s. The colony of New Zealand never had State aid; South Australia abolished it, and I believe all denominations there now approve of the change. Great efforts will be made here to make this question the great electioneering test, and the signal success of Thursday's meeting will help it." LETTER TO A FRIEND, EXHORTING TO FAITHFULNESS AND OBEDIENCE TO THE LORD'S DEAR FRIEND,-Ever since my understanding was We find that he obeyed the command of the Lord, not only to the leaving of his native country, but to the offering up of his son Isaac, of whom it was said, "That in Isaac shall thy seed be called." Abraham was given up by perfect resignation to the will of God, so as not to dispute or disobey what the Lord required of him. And if we would be Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise, we must transcribe his example in our own practice. Suppose now there were anything as near to us as our native country, or as an only son: if the Lord required it of us, we must give it up: yea, be it as a right eye or a right hand, it must be plucked out, and cut off, and cast from us. He that would enter into life must keep the commandments. For my own part, to tell thee a little of my experience, I have no peace with the Lord any longer than I am found in the obedience. If carelessness or I can give in my testimony, as one that hath obtained mercy to be faithful, that Truth, as it is minded and obeyed, leads out of sin, out of all false doctrine and worship, and out of all the vain customs, usages, and fashious that are in the world. When we come to love it, first for its own sake, and next for the work and operation of it in and upon our own hearts, O, what a tenderness will be in us! What a care of actremissness at any time come upon me, and way is ing in all things according to it, and what a fear of given to indifferency, I have no rest in my spirit till doing anything that is repugnant thereunto! We shall I am recovered again through judgment. Therefore, not plead for our own wills, or pleasures, or imaginaI feel a travail for continual watchfulness, that though tions, or say this is a small matter; religion doth not I am beset many times with great temptations, yet I lie in dresses, habits, or fashions; this is a strictness may not be overcome by them. And as I wait low in beyond what Truth requires; or, it is a peevish humy mind upon the Lord for his appearance, so he is mour of some rigid spirits, that would bring all into pleased to renew my strength, and to afford me suit-conformity to their fancies. But we shall deny our own able supports according to my day; praised be his ex- wills, pleasures, and imaginations, and be resigned up cellent name for ever! And being made a living entirely to the will of God, desiring that that may be witness in my measure of his Divine aid and assistance, done in earth, as it is in heaven. This will be our wherewith he strengthens and guides my soul in the travail, that we may be always found in the well-doing, way that is well-pleasing to him, I cannot eat my and taking up our daily cross to all that may present morsel alone, but would have all, and especially those itself, under any shape or likeness, to draw away our of my own house, partake with me, and taste and see minds from the purity and simplicity of the gospel of that the Lord our God is good. When Jacob was Christ. commanded by the Lord to arise and go up to Bethel, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies the house of God, and dwell there, he saith unto his household, and to all that were with him, "Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments; and let us arise and go up to Bethel, and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went " (Gen. xxxv. 1-3). My dear Friend! I know, by experience, that the wiles of the enemy are many, and that he works oftentimes in a mystery; but the care of all the faithful is to watch against him, and to wait for Divine wisdom, strength, and courage to discover him, and to resist him steadfastly, in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is nigh to us, by his Light and Spirit, to guide, help, and assist us, as we draw nigh to him in humility and sincerity of heart. In this frame and disposition of soul, our peace will flow in like a river, and our righteousness will rise as the waves of the sea. For our eye will be inward to our heavenly guide, leader, ard commander, that we may always follow his conduct and direction, not turning aside to the right hand or to the left, but mark, for the prize of the high calling of God in pressing in the strait and narrow path toward the Christ Jesus. Well, my dear Friend, as for me and my house, through the Lord's great mercy to me, I can truly say, it is my desire and endeavour that all may know the Lord, from the least unto the greatest-that all may love Him, serve Him, honour and obey Himhaving such conversations in language, action, and outward adorning, as becomes the gospel of Christ, wherein I have many that travail with me. for ever be the name of the Lord! saith my soul. Amen, Amen. Blessed and abides blessed for ever, See here an example of ready obedience to the command of God; Jacob had a sense of the Lord's goodness to him in the day of his distress, and the travail which he had known; and this begat a concern in him, not only for the manifesting his own obedience, but also for his household, that they might likewise give proof of theirs, which accordingly they did, as the 4th verse informs us, where it is said, That they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all the ear-rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem. And then it follows, verse 5, they journeyed. This holy reformer knew there could be no going up to the house of God while the strange gods remained, and while the household was unclean, and had not changed their garments. He saw the necessity of a reformation, in order to their journeying to Bethel and dwelling there. "Who shall ascend," said David, "into the hill of the Lord? and who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands and a pure heart, who hath not lift up his soul unto vanity; he shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation" (Psalm xxiv. 3-5). Now there are many strange gods among the people, that are to be put THE TRUE MINISTRY, AND ITS EFFECTS. away-many pollutions to be purged out, and garments to be changed. Is not Mammon a strange god? IN the solitary feelings which sometimes come over Is not pride and carnal pleasure a strange god? In- the mind from the circumstance of there seeming to deed, every creatue that man idolizes in his heart is a. be so few persons of much religious experience, with strange god, and must be put away. So for the pol- whom we can commune, and from whom we may delutions of the flesh and the spirit-that is, whatsoever rive strength and encouragement to hold on in our we are polluted by, whether it be an inward or an out- spiritual journey, we may often find a valuable subward thing, it must be purged ont. Lastly, our gar-stitute in reading the lives of such men and women, ments must be changed; the old man with his deeds must be put off, and the new man put on; and where this is known and witnessed, there will be a change, even in the outward conversation. A new heart will have a new tongue, and a new habit. Plainness of speech and plainness of dress are the plain and certain consequences of Truth, where it is received in the love of it. For when Truth hath got the possession of the heart, it will undoubtedly influence the life and practice. especially of those with whom we had personal ac quaintance, and whose memory as servants of the Lord is precious to us. Looking over the journal of William Savery and his labours in Europe, we meet with several of that character, who went from this country, and of some who had come from thence on the same errand, who were fervently engaged in preach ing the everlasting gospel, and whose meat and drink it was, in the putting forth of the Divine hand, and in |