~ 
1798.) 
or ability. to endure hardfhip. I am of 
opinion, therefore, that mufic would tend 
to civilize the poor; and with all the 
numerous evils of civilized fociety, I be- 
lieve its advantages outweigh them ; 
which brings me to conclude myiclf. 
your’s, &c. 
A Friend to the Civilization of the Poor. 
London, Sept. 24. 1798. 


To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine, 
SIR, 
WAS .in company, a few days ago, 
with a perfon who threw out fome 
farcaftic obfervations on the peculiarities 
of the Quakers ; exprefling, at the fame 
time, his approbation of fome remarks in 
your Magazine on a fimilar fubject. As 
he delivered, I doubt not, the fentiments 
ef many others, made many flourifhes 
without much reflection, and treated with 
levity what is of ferious moment, I re- 
queft the favour of you to infert in your 
repofitory the following hints. 
With the Quakers I have no connec- 
tion, nor think highly of their theological 
opinions. Many years ago I made a fe- 
rious and critical examination of them, 
and thougiit feveral of them erroneous; 
and I fpeak in reference to writings, re- 
ceived by the friends as facred: at the 
fame time, I think them more accurate 
in this refpect, and nearer truth in gene- 
ral, than many other fects; and in what 
are called chriftian morals, that they fur- 
pals them all. I {peak of focieties, not 
of individuals ; in reference to writings 
received as infpired, not to boaks, mak- 
ing no fuch pretenfions, but eftablifhing 
morals only on general principles. 
Nor.do I contend for the political fenti- 
ments of the Quakers; nor, indeed, am 
I at prefent fufficiently informed, to affert 
what they are. One writer they have ha 
among them, entitled to rank among the 
firft political writers in this country, who 
alfo, what few political theorifts have 
done, realized his fyftem. But if the 
modern Quakers retain all the political 
opinions of this writer, I differ from the 
modern Quakers in politics. 
Nor fhall I undertake to vindicate the 
literary character of. this people. It is 
unqueftionably to their honour, that no 
child ameng them is left deftitute of what 
they deem neceflary inftruction, and that 
the tunds raifed for the purpofe of edu- 
cation are confcientioufly applied. Can 
this be aflerted of what are called the 
Charity-Schools, or more properly the 
MontTeHiy Mac. No. xxxvill, 
Mr. Dyer on the Peculiarities of the Quakers. - 
341 
CHARITY-Funps, in England? Far, 
very far from it, There is great pro-. 
fligacy in this refpe&t throughout the 
country. In innumerable places falaries 
are received, and no inftruction is given ; 
but the poor people a&tually pay, if their 
children are inftructed at all, for what 
they ought to obtain treely. But this by 
the ‘bye. Tt as nok improbable, that the 
Quakers’ favourite notion-of IMMEDIATE 
REVELATION, and the fophiftical man- 
ner in which-they fee the literature of 
their opponents employed, may have 
proved unfavourable to the progrefs of 
polite letters among them: their com- 
mercial charaéter, alfo, confequent on a 
feparation from hierarchies, civil govern- 
ments, and univerfities, may have ftill 
further foftered this fpirit. Their two 
apologitts, however, were unqueftionably 
men of learning, as well as talents; and, 
if I am-not wrongly informed, the friends 
have among them fome perfons of con- 
fiderable learning. 
But with thele feveral points I inter- 
meddle-not : the points I have my eyeion 
will be reckoned of lets moment. 
‘This people ufe a different calendar 
from Chriftians in general. They have 
been called fuperftitious, if not trifiers, 
on this account. Let it be granted, that 
they are fuperftitions;—they are at leaft 
coniiftent in their fuperftitions ; even their 
trifling difplays oppofition to inconfiftency 
and felf-contradiction. 
The calendars of diferent nations have 
been ufually made to exprefs their reli-- 
gious belief, fo commemorate remarkable 
events, interpofitions, (whether true .or 
falfe) to exhibit their. feats and fafts, 
their rites and ceremon‘es, &c. But can 
any thing.be more inconfiftent, than for a 
nation receiving one fyftem of theology, 
to adopt a calendar expretfing a belief. in 
an oppofite fyfem? For a difciple. of 
Mofes to exhibit in his public calendar 
the docirines of Brahma? For a difciple 
of Confucius to exhibit the doGrines of 
Mahomet, or for a difciple of Jefus, who 
taught a doétrine deftruétive of idolatry, 
to exhibit a calendar ({uppofe Grecian, 
or Koman) exprefiive of a belief in ido- 
latrous worthip, in paganifm? | Yet fo 
it is! 
The year, according to Mofes, was 
left to his regulation by Jehovah: againf 
the firft day of the month Nifan is placed, 
a FAST—the death of the fons of Aaron, 
Would not a Jew reckon it even blaf- - 
phemous to place it thus—A Faft—the 
A.doneia—a folemnity in honour of A- 
donis, the beloved of Venus? They 
2X would, 
