very nearly two hundred distinct sects of professing christians. They were as numerous as the towns and villages scattered about the island. But all these, as well as those who adhered to the established church, relied for guidance to salvation, on external forms, and ceremonies, and observances. There was not one of them that did not do this. They relied on them as proof of their religious opinions, and incorporated them with their religious opinions. They all did this. There were in all these sects a few, who were dissatisfied with this mode of external worship, and with making their religion to consist so much in forms and appearances, without the reality. In the distraction which prevailed in that age, a single individual, failing to find that peace and consolation which he sought for, and which true religion only could give, retired and withdrew from the sect with which he was connected, and in secret sought his God, and in secret examined his own heart. There were scattered over the nation, men who in the providence of God had been driven to this, and among them there arose a young man, George Fox, who having this feeling in relation to externals, of making religious rights and ceremonies part of the essence of religion, and seeking that inward consolation which he believed could only come by retiring within, and waiting for the openings of the spirit of God, sought in that country for those who were thus driven, and he found them. The spirit which governed him and them, collected them and formed the society, and this society was formed upon the great principle that the spirit was their bond, which united them and led them on to the truth. It was that which was to crown them with eternal life and glory.

It was at the age of twenty-five years that an incident occurred to him, which gave an energy to that society, and an interest to those who were looking at them, which at once established the character of the society as a separate and distinct class of christians,-and that fact was the imprisonment of George Fox, who was at that time their leader. I do not mean a man who was their spiritual guide or director, but a man, who under the influence of the spirit, was most active in carrying forward the great work to which he devoted himself. But he was not a leader or guide. They had no leader but one, and as quakers, can never, never admit any leader but one. The imprisonment of this young man arose from extraordinary circumstances, which I beg in this discussion you will not forget. I think it gives something of a character to this class of christians. He had gone to Nottingham, and there attended one of the churches at the time of public worship. The preacher there in the course of the administration of the services, declared in his sermon, or asserted that the more sure word of prophecy was the scriptures. Fox being in that assembly rose and stated, that it was not the scriptures, for the scriptures themselves declared that it was the spirit. And for that very offence he was imprisoned.

Now, take that as the first gathering of this society, and compare it with the arguments delivered here. Why that very same declaration

would not have been listened to from any of the pulpits of that day; the objection was not confined to Nottingham; there was not existing at that day, a sect of christians that would not have declared, that the more sure word of prophecy is the scriptures; and yet George Fox was imprisoned for the denial of it. Yet we are told that they think as other christians think. Sirs, we have at the very commencement of this society, a distinct feature of it, and one that is not to be borne down by any theological arguments. I care not what is said by witnesses on this subject, they may say that this man wrote one thing, and that man wrote another thing, but that original fact stands as matter of history, and is a land-mark to guide us in this investigation. Fox was imprisoned in the year 1649, and that for the faith of his society. Now, sirs, it was that spirit operating on their hearts immediately and directly, revealing to them the truth, which was the rule and guide of all their belief. The operation of the light and spirit with the true quaker, is not, as the argument has attempted to show, the same with them, as with all other denominations of christians. It was the immediate and direct revelation to the heart, and in the heart, which was their rule and guide, and in it they found their bond of union. It was the life of righteousness which was their bond, and that only. They had this then, and if they continued quakers they must have no other bond. It was, sirs, this light, thus immediately and directly revealing to their own hearts the truth, which they looked to, to guide them. They appealed to that principle which they insisted had been implanted in the heart by God himself, not as natural conscience, but as a portion of his own spirit to rule man, and to follow its teachings and its guidance they directed all their efforts and affections. It was that, and their looking to that, which most distinguished them. Their language was, "To your tents, O Israel! God your tent. To your God, O Israel!" It was their all, so far as religion was concerned, not because it denied the scriptures, but because it was their chief, their great and only guide, which could safely lead them; because it was from God; because it was God. It was the light of Christ. It was Christ himself, acting in them; it was their security, and their protection, and their hope.

is

Now, sirs, when they were "gathered up" into a society, they did not issue those expressions, they did not issue their terms in common with one another, nor did they establish doctrines as the bond of their society. If they did I ask for the proof of the fact. They did not do it.

When they united themselves together, they established no principle of that kind. They had a bond, which was as strong as the God that made them. It was God himself-his spirit operating on their hearts. It was not the feeble observances of men, or the ceremonies of other sects. None of these. They did not form their bond or connexion of these. Whether right or wrong, we are not to judge. That was their bond, and we must keep it in view if we will ask what their rights are, or we shall err, in applying principles to them, which can only be applied to others. It may seem strange that there was not

something like a form and bond in the early connexion of this society, but for thirty years, (until Barclay wrote that book, and since then it was the same, for all admit that he wrote nothing new,) you cannot find allusion to any one principle, save this one, as their guide. If there is any thing of the kind, I should like to see it. I have read with earnestness, and have endeavored to find out all that I could in relation to this society, and all that I have read of their works, for thirty years from their origin, proclaim that there is nothing like it. You must create a new society, with new objects and characteristics; but I entreat that in doing it, you will not tear away from my clients their characteristics. Sirs, it was that principle which gathered them as a people, by attending to the manifestations of truth, or the immediate revelation of God in the heart. This was their true and only bond of union. It was the inward, invisible life of righteousness, and according to the views of this society, embraced not only those within the society, but all of every age and people, from Adam down to the present moment; all of every age, who, regarding that principle, and governed by that principle, and attending to the openings of this spirit, of this light of Christ in their hearts, should be carried forward from a state of sin, of guilt, of misery, to a state of peace and happiness.

And this was not confined to the little circle about Nottingham and elsewhere, but embraced all from the commencement of time, and embraced all the ancient prophets and priests, who were obedient to this spirit; and not only those under the Jewish dispensation, but all in heathen lands, who might pay devotion to this Christ, though they never saw him with their outward eyes, but appearing inwardly in their hearts, being obedient to his teachings, are good, just and faithful, and are embraced within this church. Their church was not confined to the narrow sectarian views of other churches, but embraced all the children of God, as the children of God. You will find this principle running throughout their writings. It is manifested in a great variety of extracts. I shall be compelled to call your attention to these extracts, but will not read them now, but in another connexion.

Well, in consequence of this principle, they felt bound from time to time to bear their testimony to what it directed them to, and they had this strong feeling, and this strong language; that the testimonies, the acting out of that spirit, were to be sustained, and not let fall-set up and not let fall; and they applied these terms to their testimonies, just as they apply them to their meetings now. You will find in their history, that they were to hold up these testimonies, notwithstanding their persecutions, before the world. They were not to let them fall; and let the consequences be what they might, they could not fall because they were the emanations of the spirit of truth. Hence the language of setting up a meeting, and letting fall a meeting, alludes to the support and sustenance of that meeting; keeping it in the life and vigor and activity of the spirit, which is their guide. And when they speak of letting fall and setting up, they mean the same thing; they do not mean

that with a stroke of the pen they have power to say what shall be set up or put down: they mean this: that "you are not to let fall your testimonies, but bearing them through fire and sword, and through all difficulties, sustain and uphold them; and as one of their testimonies, to keep up meetings and not let them fall. It is a testimony of the light within, and as the effect of that light it binds you together. You are to act so as to maintain that meeting in its vigor and healthfulness, and not let it fall." And if we carry that idea to their meetings, you will find an explanation of those portions of this discipline which have been so often commented upon. You talk of a yearly meeting setting up and laying down a meeting: it means that they should be together under the influence of the spirit, so as to support and sustain the evidence or testimony of truth, that it is in them, and not to let it fall. And when they speak of laying down a meeting, they mean that this spirit, not being sufficiently manifested in their walk and conversation, the life of righteousness not being sufficiently manifest, they had better lay it down. And this is as full an explanation as I can give, as I understand them. It is with difficulty that I can get hold of their terms, but I rely on it as being correct; it is an explanation consistent with their principles of peace and love. The construction put by the opposite party is that of power and force; that is not consistent with the spirit of love, which anciently prevailed, but according to the views of modern times, the spirit of force and power should be applied. And where was it applied in the early institution of this society? nowhere sirs. The spirit of love ruled and governed their actions, and when that was not warm and ardent enough in friends to sustain these meetings, they then thought that these meetings could be continued no longer. Am I not more in accordance with the spirit of love in this explanation of that principle, which is the beginning and end of truth and peace and religion? I shall show you the operation of that spirit, presently, in their bearing the outward testimonies which they did from time to time, and in forming meetings for the care and encouragement of each other. They established those meetings which are since called meetings for discipline, the object of which was to aid each other.

In looking back to the origin of the society in which this discipline is founded, I challenge the production of a single fact which can show that there was a subordination of meetings in relation to any thing else, or that there was any kind of connexion, in respect to any thing, but the support of the outward testimonies of the society. What these outward testimonies are I shall show you presently. Let this challenge be met. No, sirs, they formed meetings for the care of each other, to aid and assist and sustain each other under suffering; taking care of each other, that they bore before the world, those testimonies which the spirit of truth dictated. It was for a watching superintending care over those whom they believed to be the children of God. From that, every thing connected with the discipline has sprung, and

had its beginning. I speak not of meetings for worship, but of meetings for discipline. These knew no power to bind them but God. Here was no creed, and they believed that God himself had bound them, and that while they lived and acted under his spirit, nothing could sunder them. But, sirs, they gave out their testimonies, and they were the emanations from the light which was within, and all these they regarded as the fruits and effects of that inward bond, of that light. It was so with regard to speech, and apparel, and war, and oaths, and a hireling ministry. They considered these testimonies as a revelation of that infallible spirit of truth, which was their guide. That was the great foundation of their testimonies and they believed it to be so. If you were to ask William Penn and George Fox (were they here), what they mean by their testimony against war, they would say, that it was a dictate of the spirit of truth, of the light within which they bare before the world, as the fruit and effect of that spirit and that light. That would be their answer. And when individuals let fall these testimonies, and did not sustain them before the world it was cause for disowning them. And why? Merely because they broke these testimonies, merely because they broke that bond? No such thing: when a man violated a testimony, for instance, in relation to war, it was not for the violation of the testimony, that he was considered as having rendered himself liable to be disowned, but it was because, by breaking that testimony, he showed that the inward bond and connexion was broken; that the effect and fruit being destroyed, he had fallen from the truth, and finding that the bond and the spirit which connected him with the society was gone, that the life giving principle was dead, they disowned him.

And with regard to doctrines, what are they? To speak in language the most intelligible, the word doctrines, means things that are taught; it means teachings. And what were the doctrines of friends? They were the teachings of that inward light. This life of righteousness, which is a doctrine which they held, was a direct emanation from that light. That light directed them to the scriptures, bid them to believe in the scriptures, and was their guide to salvation; and it told them to bear these testimonies. These were their doctrines. In a few words then, in corroboration of that view of the case, permit me to say that this inward light was the fundamental truth of the society. The opinions which they entertained in regard to religion were the doctrines, the teachings of that inward light, and fundamental truth. The testimonies which they bore before the world were the fruits of that light operating upon them, and carrying them forward into action. This fundamental truth was the great tree of their religion, and on that tree were those doctrines and testimonies given before the world as branches and fruits. And adhering to that tree and regarding it, and not permitting these branches and fruits to be borne off, they have, for a century and a-half, sustained their society, and if they continue to