of the Quaker-language, how is this to be done, while the other part daily move in the fashions, and are taught as a right usage, to persist in the phrases of the world?  If, again, the Quaker-part of it are to be kept from the amusements prohibited by the society, how is this to be effected, while the other part of it speak of them from their own experience, with rapture or delight?  It would be impossible, therefore, in the opinion of the Quakers, in so mixed a family, to keep up that discipline, which they consider as the corner-stone of their constitutional fabric, and which may be said to have been an instrument in obtaining for them the character of a moral people.

SECT.  III.

But though persons are thus disowned, they may be restored to membership—­Generally understood, however, that they must previously express their repentance for their marriages—­This confession of repentance censured by the world—­But is admissible without the criminality supposed—­The word repentance misunderstood by the world.

But though the Quakers may disown such as marry out of their society, it does not follow that these may not be reinstated as members.  If these should conduct themselves after their disownment in an orderly manner, and, still retaining their attachment to the society, should bring up their children in the principles and customs of it, they may, if they apply for restoration, obtain it, with all their former privileges and rights.

The children also of such as marry out of the society, though they are never considered to be members of it, may yet become so in particular cases.  The society advises that the monthly meetings, should extend a tender care towards such children, and that they should be admitted into membership at the discretion of the said meetings, either in infancy or in maturer age.

But here I must stop to make a few observations, on an opinion which prevails upon this subject.  It is generally understood that the Quakers, in their restoration of disowned persons to membership, require them previously and publicly to acknowledge, that they have repented of their marriages.  This obligation to make this public confession of repentance, has given to many a handle for heavy charges against them.  Indeed I scarcely know, in any part of the Quaker-system, where people are louder in their censures, than upon this point.  “A man, they say, cannot express his penitence for his marriage without throwing a stigma upon his wife.  To do this is morally wrong, if he has no fault to find with her.  To do it, even if she has been in fault, is indelicate.  And not to do it, is to forego his restoration to membership.  This law therefore of the Quakers is considered to be immoral, because it may lead both to hypocrisy and falsehood.”

I shall not take up much time in correcting the notions that have gone abroad on this subject.