Light, as our fathers used to say. As we reflect upon the matter, I think we shall gradually resume the vacant places that are waiting for us; the gifted among us will gather courage to break the ignominious silence which their pride is imposing upon them; the fountains of love and truth will be opened in a remarkable way; in time the old book of Discipline will be tenderly laid aside; the government of each meeting will pass more

and more into the hands of the congregation; the Yearly meetings will change from legislative bodies, to meetings for conference; new meetings will be established; the claims of peace, temperance, equal justice, will be brought before the people with power and effect; and God will be glorified in the chastened spirit of his HICKS.

creatures.

1st mo. 17th, 1867.

[ROBERT FOSTER's thoughtful article, "The True Guide," published in the last number of THE FRIEND, has awakened, as we expected, a very lively interest. Our readers will find JOHN W. CHADWICK's reply on another page. Since Mr. CHADWICK's article was in hand we have received another paper on the same subject which we should like to present in full if space permitted. We subjoin a few paragraphs.-Editor.]

Ꭱ

THE TRUE GUIDE.

OBERT FOSTER, on page 17 of the second volume of THE FRIEND, with a spirit which is so excellent as to indicate his having yielded to a higher guidance than that which is being recommended by him unto others, points us unto what he claims to be "the True Guide." In much of what is said by him we can truthfully recognize our own experience, and yet it seems to us that at times he is attempting to maintain, and halt between, two adverse opinions, and that he may, perhaps, to some extent, after having himself emerged into the perfect day, be still turning to the lantern which has guided him amid its preceding dark

ness.

He owns that each prayerful soul is a safe expositor of Holy Writ. And as this needs an exposition, it must be the expositor, and not the writing to be interpreted, which must be our guide.

In contrast with a Bible religion, Foster has referred us to a belief in numberless deities, and to various absurd religious faiths, as debasing and degrading to those who have been, and are holding them, and claims that until men receive the Bible, and its elevating truths, they have ever failed to work out ennobling views of God, of man, of duty. We assent to much of this, and claim with him, that degredation ever results from degraded spiritual views, and as the philosophy of the Bible is mostly of an elevating character as compared with that of the religions referred to, we should expect to find advancement where this higher philosophy was substituted for that which our reason teaches us is inferior to it. This does not, however, prove the Bible to be "the True Guide," though it does prove that the acceptors of this advanced faith are more rational and nearer the True Guide than were those who were trusting in the less enlightened ones.

He further alludes to the absurdities and monstrosities of some of these faiths, and claims, not only sympathy, but acceptance, for a Bible faith because it is more rational than these. It is, and there is certainly an advancement in becoming converted to it from them. But still this does not prove that in adopting it we would have reached perfection, and that there is nothing beyond it. He whom Foster himself claims as being the final authority for this faith, declared of his disciples that they should do greater works than he did. Believing as we do in spiritual as in mental progression, we certainly cannot admit, as is claimed by Foster, that because a good man had a good mother who was acquainted with the Scriptures," it seems unphilosophical if not absurd" to appeal to him or to his testimony and appreciations of the truth as exhibiting "the tendencies and capabilities of the human soul in working out the great problems of the divine nature and the human, of God's will concerning man and man's duty towards God." Nor should we admit this though it could be shown that through such a mother's care his readings had ever been confined to the Scriptures themselves, or the sayings and teachings of Jesus. If such an one could feel that the sources of the truths which guided him and made him acquainted with his duty were spiritual and within himself, and not exclusively in these teachings which had been bestowed upon him, however excellent in themselves, we could not but feel that he would be an available witness for us.

And instead of surrendering to the advocates of the sufficiency of the Scriptures such men as Jesus and Paul, Matthew and Luke, Kant and Parker, as being indebted for their virtuous lives to the teachings of the Bible, we would, with much more reason claim that the excellency of the teachings of these writers of the Bible and of those who may perhaps have advanced beyond them, is to be ascribed to their devotion and to their attention to the inspiration which was alike the guide of each.

On this question of the authority of the scriptures in matters of Faith, Foster claims that "The anti supernaturalist" admits that the Bible is "the great fountain from which chiefly man has received spiritual truth." Our answer to this is that he ceased to be "The anti-supernaturalist" when he made this admission, as Foster ceases to be the advocate of the sufficiency of immediate inspiration when he claims the Bible to be the True Guide in matters of religious faith. Our experience of ourselves and of each other must bring us to a conclusion the reverse of what is here claimed for the scriptures, for it cannot but satisfy us if we give heed to it, that we have within ourselves, that which prompts us unto rightful duty-though often needing that our attention to these promptings should be stimulated and quickened by external aids and appliances-scriptures, exhortations, and especially sufferings. When these promptings are recognised we need not that other minds should interpret them for us.

To the Editor of The Friend:
OSSESS thy soul in peace and

Nation pats thee benignly on the shoulder, and-grudgingly enough, it may be forbears to strangle thy puny throat. For this touching act of mercy, I desire to express my individual thanks. It were worth while for THE FRIEND to have lived, if only to soften for an instant the Nation's flinty heart. It has been to this cold, dyspeptic, dreadfully conscientious mentor of the press a friend indeed; and if its life should be spared for yet another year who knows what amelioration it may work in the manners and temper of our high-minded critic? The Nation has been from the start my favorite weekly, though I have often wished that its editor, whoever he may be, were a paterfamilias blessed with children and a home, instead of the martyr-cœlebs thas his work proclaims him. Pray, keep sending him THE FRIEND. Possibly he will marry byand-by, and supplement his intellectual good-will toward the race, with something approaching philanthropy, though I don't suppose he is ready to tolerate the word yet.

I am half afraid that when the editor wakes up some morning and recalls his lapse of tender feeling and the confusion it wrought with the logical faculty of which he is so proud-I say I am somewhat afraid he will grow ashamed of the affair, and become icier than ever. His befuddled state of mind is indeed rather shockingthough it is no matter for shame when the sight is dimmed for the moment by a sympathetic drop. Next time, he will be able to say a good-natured thing, without putting his reputation. for logic in jeopardy.

But how funny it sounds: "This publication, in abandoning the form of a newspaper for that of a magazine,

I.

When an organ changes its form it ceases to be an organ; THE FRIEND has changed its form: therefore it has ceased to be an organ.

2. All publications in abandoning the form of a newspaper for that of a magazine lose their originally distinctive character; THE FRIEND has thus changed its form: therefore THE FRIEND has lost, etc.

3. No organ of the liberal wing of the Society of Friends can be a magazine; THE FRIEND is a magazine: therefore THE FRIEND is no longer an organ, etc.

But as one claiming to be a member of the liberal wing of the Society of Friends, I deny that THE FRIEND ever was our organ. It has generally spoken our sentiments, but I cannot find in

We

the file of THE FRIEND which I have before me any pretense of speaking for any one besides itself. Indeed, I don't think we need an organ. mean to support THE FRIEND and The Nation and the other good papers that we have use for; but our mission is too vast and our future too momentous for us to trust them to the limitation of a human organ. Still, it will be a grievous disappointment to many of us, if THE FRIEND does not continue to be as much our organ as it ever was.

The notice goes on in this way: "In the number before us, strong religious convictions are prominent, and probably occupy more space than it is intended to allow them hereafter. * * * * Better writing and a greater variety of

66

THE FRIEND, many of us, who have little failings which we try to imagine are known only to ourselves, have been shocked to find some of our unpleasant secrets, publicly proclaimed. "Ah! ha!" says the author of the article "the cap fits, does it?"

No, sir, not at all; your cap was made for men, and our head belongs to the other sex. It is too large entirely, and I am astonished that you should have the audacity to make such a suggestion. Indeed I am the more inclined to believe, the longer I consider the matter, that the complaint you have described, belongs entirely to the lords of creation,' and they may rest assured that we shall not care to encroach upon their rights. Evidently the author has not many lady acquaintances or he would not have hinted, even in the distant way he does, that the epidemic was common to both sexes, lest a storm of righteous indignation should burst upon his head.

To be sure we have occasionally slight touches of the disease, mere scarlatina or chicken-pox, but it is all

over in a few hours and nobody is the As for myself, I know

I have not sufficient courage and pertinacity to carry me through such a siege as I imagine the "hyp" to be. I should very soon grow weary and want to take another view of things, for the sake of variety, if for no bet

ter reason.

We call our occasional visitations the dumps or the blues, though I am sure I don't know why we should give them the name of that heavenly color, unless it may be an illustration of the general rule that women go by contraries. It would be useless to deny that we have these times, when the needles break, and the sewingmachine won't work, and the coffee will be muddy, and the fire won't burn, and Biddy will be as stupid as a block and as cross as two sticks. But generally, when you come home, don't we rush full of smiles to greet you, having the cheeriest fire, the cosiest tea-table and the never-to-beforgotten warm slippers awaiting you?

Well, if we don't do these things always, we mean to,—that is if you will come home two days in succession at the same hour of the day.

You would not know how pleasant it is to have us bright and happy and beaming a welcome, if we did not sometimes give you the opposite as a foil.

Then do you not know that we have cares and vexations that seem like mountains in our little world, and we wait for you to come home with your fresh, strong love to cheer and comfort us, and I am sure you ought not to be selfish enough to want the benefit all on your own side.

Is it not possible that much of the domestic misery in the world is chargeable to the fact that we do not understand each other's hindrances? You, who have often great difficulties to grapple with, insurmountable obstacles to be removed or circumvented, cannot see how our pigmy troubles, could interfere with the comfort of a

musquito! Perhaps they would not worry a musquito in the least, but being women and not musquitoes, we magnify our little difficulties with the powerful lens of a woman's imagination; each feature growing more and more hideous and distinct until the dismal object obscures our whole field of vision, and of course it takes some time to scoff away the darkness.

I suppose our mistake in regard to you is, that seeing how easily you can clear the mist away from our eyes, and with what ridiculously little exertion you can remove our mountains of difficulty, we fancy you equally strong to overcome the obstructions that lie in your own pathway.

I would not seem to imply that we could not work these wonders ourselves, if we had had the training and discipline in which men have the advantage of us, for let me tell you in confidence I am a believer in "woman's rights," but as I am a recent convert, I pray you to keep the secret.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Author, for having claimed so much of your attention, but as one and another of my acquaintance have been anxiously trying on your cap, astonished at your apparent knowledge of their bumps and depressions, I hasten to warn you, that whatever skill you may have as a hatter, you are not yet qualified to be a milliner, and would find it advantageous to study our phrenological developments a little longer, before you attempt to cap our climax.

WIFE.