lected from the preponderant weight of religious character.

He introduced, also, into his system of discipline, privileges in favour of women, which marked his sense of justice, and the strength and liberality of his mind. The men he considered undoubtedly as the heads of the church, and from whom all laws concerning it ought to issue. But he did not deny women on that account any power, which he thought it would be proper for them to hold. He believed them to be capable of great usefulness, and therefore admitted them to the honour of being, in his own Society, of nearly equal importance with the men. In the general duty, imposed upon members, of watching over one another, he laid it upon the women to be particularly careful in observing the morals of those of their own sex. He gave them meetings for discipline of their own, with the power of recording their own transactions, so that women were to act among courts or meetings of women, as men among those of men. There was also to be no office in the Society belonging to the men but he advised there should be a corre

sponding

sponding one belonging to the women. By this new and impartial step he raised the women of his own community beyond the level of women in others, and laid the foundation of that improved strength of intellect, dignity of mind, capability of business, and habit of humane offices, which are so conspicuous among female Quakers at the present day.

With respect to the numerous offices, belonging to the discipline, he laid it down. as a principle, that the persons, who were to fill them, were to have no other emolument or reward, than that, which a faithful discharge of them would bring to their own consciences.

These are the general outlines of the system of discipline, as introduced by George Fox. This system was carried into execution, as he himself had formed it, in his own time. Additions, however, have been made to it since, as it seemed proper, by the Society at large. In the time of George Fox it was laid upon every member, as we have seen, to watch over his neighbour for his spiritual welfare. But, in 1698, the Society conceiving

conceiving that what was the business of every one might eventually become the bu→ siness of no one, they appointed officers, whose particular duty it should be to be overseers of the morals of individuals; thus hoping that by the general vigilance enjoined by George Fox, which was still to continue, and by the particular vigilance then appointed, sufficient care would be taken of the morals of the whole body. In the time, again, of George Fox, women had only their monthly and quarterly meetings for discipline, but it has since been determined that they should have their yearly meetings equally with the men. In the time, again, of George Fox, none but the grave members were admitted into the meetings of discipline; but it has since been agreed that young persons should have the privilege of attending them; and this, I believe, upon the notion, that while these meetings would qualify them for transacting the business of the Society, they might operate as schools for virtue.

This system of discipline, as thus introduced by George Fox, and thus enlarged by

the

the Society afterwards, has not escaped, notwithstanding the loveliness of its theory, the censure of the world.,

It has been considered, in the first place, as a system of espionage, by which one member is made a spy upon, or becomes an informer against, another. But against this charge it would be observed by the Quakers, that vigilance over morals is unquestionably a Christian duty. It would be observed, again, that the vigilance, which is exercised in this case, is not with the intention of mischief, as in the case of spies and informers, but with the intention of good. It is not to obtain money, but to preserve reputation and virtue. It is not to persecute, but to reclaim. It is not to make a man odious, but to make him more respectable. It is never an interference with innocence. The watchfulness begins to be offensive only where delinquency is begun.

The discipline, again, has been considered as too great an infringement of the liberty of those who are brought under it. Against this the Quakers would contend, that all persons, who live in civil society, must give up a portion of their freedom, that more happiness

happiness and security may be enjoyed. So, when men enter into Christian societies, they must part with a little of their liberty for their moral good.

But whatever may be the light in which persons, not of the Society, may view this institution, those, belonging to it, submit to, and respect it. It is possible there may be some, who may feel it a restraint upon their

conduct: and there is no doubt that it is a restraint upon those, who have irregular desires to gratify, or destructive pleasures to pursue. But, generally speaking, the youth of the Society, who receive a consistent education, approve of it. Genuine Quaker-parents, as I have had occasion to observe, insist upon the subjugation of the will. It is their object to make their children lowly, patient, and submissive. They, therefore, who are born in the Society, are born under the system, and are in general educated for it. They, who become converted to the religion of the Society, know beforehand the terms of their admission. And it will appear to all to be at least an equitable institution, because, in the administration of it, there is no exception of persons. The officers themselves,