have again to observe, that while Christians of every denomination unite in condemning irreverent and conversational swearing, Friends decidedly object to any use of oaths whatsoever-that their objection is grounded on moral principles, as well as on the revealed will of God -that the introduction of swearing on particular occasions, plainly lowers the general standard of simple truth-that the self-imprecation essential to every oath is always presumptuous; and in juridical swearing, as practised among modern christians, peculiarly rash and dangerous-that the precept of Christ, and that of his apostle James, against oaths, are of the most comprehensive and explicit character-that the attempt to explain those precepts as relating exclusively to conversational swearing, is, by several plain critical considerations, evinced to be futile that the notion of our Lord's having been himself sworn in a court of justice, appears to be erroneous-that if it be true that Paul swore in his epistles, his example cannot be safely followed in opposition to the law of his divine Master; but that on examination he in no case appears to have employed expressions which really amount to an oath that true christians are far from being justified in breaking the law of Christ because oaths may be deemed expedient among persons who are accustomed to an inferior standard of morals—and that even this expediency is exceedingly doubtful."-Observations, p. 239.

Chapter XI. "On War." An enumeration of the acknowledged evils of warfare, and the reasons for which the "Friends" believe that neither offensive nor defensive operations of any kind are sanctioned by the Almighty, are thus compressed into a small compass.

"Such, then, are the grounds on which Friends consider it to be their duty to entirely abstain from the practice of war. On a review of the whole argument the reader will recollect, that the wars of the Israelites bore, in various respects, so peculiar a character, as to afford no real sanction to those of other nations, even on the supposition that the dispensation of the law is continued-also that the precept of John the Baptist to soldiers appears, in reference to the present question, to be negative-but that the opinion of Friends on that question rests principally on the moral law, as revealed under the christian dispensa-, tion that abstinence from warfare among the followers of the Messiah was predicted by the prophets, as one of the principal characteristics of that dispensation-that, in the code of christian morality, are fully unfolded the principles which are alone sufficiently powerful to produce this effect; namely, those of suffering wrong, returning good for evil, and loving our enemies-that since these principles were so clearly promulgated by Jesus and his apostles, the individual who engages in warfare and destroys his enemy, whether it be in aggression or defence, plainly infringes the divine law-that nations when they carry on war do also infringe that law-and that the Christian who fights by the command of his prince, and in behalf of his country, not only commits sin in his own person, but aids and abets the national transaction—

that on a consideration of the Jewish precepts, with which is compared the injunction of Christ to his followers respecting the love of their enemies, it appears that this injunction was specifically directed against national wars that when our Lord exhorted his disciples to sell their garments and buy swords, it is evident, from the circumstances which followed, that his expressions were to be understood figuratively-that the sentiments and practices of Friends, in reference to the present subject, are so far from being new and extraordinary, that they form a striking and prevalent feature in the early history of the christian church-lastly, that the practice of warfare is directly at variance with the full light enjoyed under the gospel dispensation respecting life, death, and eternity."—Observations, p. 265.

Chapter XII. "On the moral views of Friends, plainness of speech, behaviour, and apparel." After mentioning some instances in which Friends are strictly observant of moral principle, Mr. Gurney proceeds to consider their "plainness; " and he affirms, that their "practice in this respect is by no means adopted merely because it is considered expedient; but that, on the contrary, it is truly grounded on the law of God; that, in point of fact, it is one result, (perfectly consistent with others already mentioned,) of a complete view of Christian morality.' In pursuing this part of the subject with Mr. Gurney, we have been once or twice tempted to smile, but have repressed the inclination, rather than indulge in the least irreverence towards that which our guide will have us consider as necessary to the completeness of a religious system. Had he allowed of our regarding this class of "peculiarities" as matter of taste, of expediency, or of any thing but religion, we should assuredly have laughed out. In speaking, then, of the several varieties of "plainness of speech, behaviour, and apparel," as so many "religious testimonies" against the vices and follies of the world, we shall, to avoid all risk, use chiefly the author's own words, or at least take care that our reflections are grave, and suitable to the subject.

"On reverting to the principal heads of this essay on plainness, the reader will recollect that the subject has been treated in reference respectively to speech, manners, and dress. The plainness of speech which distinguishes Friends consists in the disuse of a complimentary phraseology-such phraseology being considered by them objectionable, first, because it is intended to flatter the pride of man, and, secondly, because it is made up of falsehoods. To the plainness of beha viour observed by all true Christians, Friends have added the peculiarity of avoiding bodily obeisances; first, because, like the phraseology already adverted to, they are merely complimentary; and secondly, because some of these obeisances are the known outward signs of the

10

worship of God himself. Plainness of apparel has been adopted by the Society, partly to prevent the undue engagement of time, but chiefly because ornament in dress is employed to gratify that personal vanity, which, with every other modification of the pride of the human heart, christians are forbidden to indulge, and enjoined to subdue. It will moreover be recollected that these peculiarities in our conversation, carriage, and appearance, grounded as they thus are on certain plain principles of the divine law, are severally supported by explicit injunctions contained in the New Testament."Observations, p. 311.

Now we can hardly bring ourselves to believe that it has never come across the mind of Mr. Gurney, whose life has been spent in the busy haunts of men, and who has had both opportunity and faculties to discriminate between the real and the fictitious in the world, that all this may lead to much that is superficial semblance, but to little substantial virtue, or true piety. At least it requires no great sagacity to discover, that these last-mentioned "peculiarities" form part of a system of sound policy, by which the very existence of the sect is preserved. That were the "Friends" to sacrifice these protecting "peculiarities," they would not long continue to maintain, in other respects, their "particular and appropriate place in the Church of Christ." We wish, therefore, that expediency, and not the divine Law, were made the plea for running counter to so many of the most harmless customs of society; and this by no means implies any desire to see a respectable class of men follow a multitude to do evil. The appeal to Scripture on these points is, we think, weak, and perhaps, for that reason, long and laboured: we shall therefore pass it over. Here, however, we may take the liberty of observing, that even under the assumed sanction, the practice of the "Friends" does not always apear quite consistent with their theory. For instance, complimentary phraseology is abolished, because it is intended to flatter the pride of men. A Friend must not call his superior, Sir; yet the younger members of the Society are exhorted by Mr. Gurney to use both the names of an elder, when addressing him, as a mark of respect; and are warned of the danger of familiarity. The customary mode of speech is not to be used, because it is made up of falsehoods. How happens it, then, that the respectable editor of Moore's Almanac, who is yearly chargeable with the crime of asserting that the sun rises and sets, to say nothing of his astrological verities, is allowed to continue a member of the Society? George Fox gives a much stronger reason than Mr. Gurney, for his use of the singular pronouns instead of the vernacular plurals, and for his non-conformity in other respects. He says, in his Jour

nal, "When the Lord sent me forth into the world, he forbade me to put off my hat to any, and I was required to thee and thou all men and women."

No bodily mark of respect is to be shewn to man, because obeisance is proper to God; yet do the Friends wear their hats in the house of God, and suffer them to be taken from their heads when they enter the presence-chamber of the king. A style of clothes, unlike that worn by any other person, is adopted, or rather retained, because ornament in dress is employed to gratify personal vanity: yet it is forgotten that the principle on which vanity is gratified by dress, is distinction. The duchess puts on diamonds, or the country damsel flowers, not only because they are thought becoming, but because they render her more splendidly or smartly decorated than her compeers. And do the broad-brimmed hat, and neat mob-cap, never cover a head under the influence of this human failing, this love of distinction? Vanity feeds on comparison; and so long as eminence or distinction is gained, be it of what sort it may, the pride of man is gratified. Vanity is as likely to beset the plain quaker, when he walks along the street, and compares himself, inside and out, with the crowd around him, as the proudest personage in Christendom, (next to the Pope," the servant of servants,") the Lord Mayor of London, in his gilt coach, bag-wig, and lace. If there be any truth in the aphorism that "extremes meet," the bulk of the community, who take little pains about their dress, but to avoid singularity, and do credit to their station, are the least liable of any classes to the attacks of these insidious foes,-personal vanity and pride. We professed at the beginning that it was not our intention to controvert, but to abridge, Mr. Gurney's "Observations." As our labour, therefore, may now be pleasingly terminated by bearing willing testimony to the truly christian temper which pervades his work, we shall decline going further into an examination, which might induce us to break our resolution of selfrestraint.

By

The Ministerial Character of Christ, practically considered. CHARLES R. SUMNER, M.A. Domestic Chaplain and Librarian to

His Majesty, and Prebendary of Worcester. 8vo. 447 PP:

10s. 6d. Hatchard. 1824.

MR. SUMNER could not, we apprehend, have given to the public a more acceptable proof of his fitness for the important

station which he occupies, than the publication of this volume. We learn, from his dedication to the King, "that the doctrine and principles contained in it, form the ground-work of those Discourses, which he has had the honour of delivering from time to time in the presence of HIS MAJESTY." He thus enables us to judge of the manner in which the duty of the domestic chaplain to His Majesty is performed; he lays before us the substance of the Sermons, which, in the discharge of his official duty, he has been called upon to compose; and submits to the sentence which shall be pronounced upon his spiritual labours, by those who are necessarily excluded from any other opportunity of forming an opinion of them, than such as he himself may voluntarily furnish. For this candid and exemplary conduct, the public will not be ungrateful; and indeed, so far as a general expression of approbation may be considered valuable, he has already been rewarded. The meed of praise would not have been withholden from an author circumstanced as Mr. Sumner is, even if his work had much less intrinsic merit than the one before us; and, in the present instance, it has been liberally bestowed.

The precepts, " Fear God. Honour the King," are engraven on every true-born Briton's heart, in as close connection as that in which they stand in the sacred text: and those who regard the observance of the one no less than of the other, as a religious obligation, will naturally include in their reverence for the character of the sovereign, a pious wish that, together with every temporal good, he may eminently obtain the still more precious treasures of spiritual grace and heavenly benediction. It will be ardently desired by every faithful subject, that he for whom the prayers of the Church are continually offered up, may have free access to the appointed means of grace; that the ministration of those ambassadors of Christ, who are immediately about the royal person, may be blameless and earnest in proportion to the responsibility which rests upon them; that the pure doctrines of Christianity, undisguised by sophistry, unmitigated by servility, and unimpaired by ignorance, yet with judicious adaptation to persons, time, and place, should conscientiously be preached in the presence of Him who is the head of the Protestant Church within these dominions: that these inestimable advantages may ever attend his beloved sovereign, is, we do not hesitate to affirm, the sincere and constant prayer of every one who honours his King, even as he fears his God. To all such subjects it will afford great satisfaction to find, that there is not a parish-church in the united kingdom, in which the sanctifying and saving doctrines of the Gospel are delivered more plainly,