they do not lay stress upon the fashion of the raiment; that they leave every one to himself in the matter. This I beg leave to doubt. I remember too much to believe it. Why have Friends written such a quantity about it, if it were a thing comparatively indifferent with them? Does inspiration treat of trifles so voluminously? Do they wish to

provoke me to tell and to quote all I know on the subject? I hope not. Meanwhile, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS; as saith the proverb. I propose a test-Show me "a public Friend," approved and eminent in labors, with clothes decently and moderately similar to those of other gentlemen— not quakerized notoriously! Show me such an one with a comfortable double-breasted surtout, or with coat and under-dress of blue, or-black! Produce me such a sample, and I will believe that you state the subject authentically! Till then, I must really believe that such a rara avis in terris is a bird of Utopia only; and that, should such an one actually appear, and exercise his "openings" among you, it would mystify the light, and grieve the bowels, and incur the rebuke, of a whole society. To be plainer-it is all frivolous to aver that you care nothing for "plain" conformities; and you know it! Have I forgotten one of your periodical "queries," about "plainness of speech, behavior, and apparel?" and the "careful" observance of the same which it solemnly enjoins?

But, you say, our reasons are religious. Are they? Why then are they not christian too? Has the Captain of salvation appointed a religious uni

form for his soldiers? If not, how dare others do it in his name? How dare they misrepresent his mind and will on the point? How dare they caricature his religion along the streets? How dare they make their youth ridiculous in dress and address, distress their feelings, and subject them to wanton jeering, insult, outrage, from the brute mob? "Ah! how the cross is slighted! Is it? What cross? One of your own making, your own will-worship, and not at all the cross of redemption or of the Redeemer ! Why! did not he wear a garment without a seam?" Indeed he did :-but it differed as much from broad-skirts and buttonless drab, as reason differs from fanatical ignorance. He wore, beside his under-dress which the soldiers parted among them, John, 19:23, 24, a large flowing robe or over-garment, called by Dr. Campbell "a mantle:" this the soldiers would not rend, obviously because of its texture of excellence, curiously woven. They cast lots for it whose it should be. It was too valuable to be torn. It had probably been presented to him as an expression of esteem and reverence, or as an offering of pious gratitude. Its seamless character proves not its plainness, but rather its tastefulness, its worth and splendor. In short, we have no reason to think the Savior or his disciples were ordinarily distinguished by their costume. The fine rule of Dr. Watts, Dress so as to escape observation, avoiding singularity and extremes, seems to have been theirs. I would add-Dress moderately, modestly, comfortably, honestly. Peter was known by his speech as a Galilean; and perhaps the others.

I know of none but the Pharisees whose dress distinguished them. Matt. 23: 5. These put much of their religion in the shape and possibly the color and size of their clothes. It is a cheap mechanical sanctity, very ostentatious and rather spurious, to advertise one's religion in the appearance of his hat, coat, and equipage. There may be such a nondescript as a spiritual dandy! and such a quality as holy finesse. If a man has religion, and cares to have it, it will ordinarily appear in a proper way and at a proper time. And much more should we care for appearances in the sight of God than in the sight of men. We should take care of our reputation-in heaven! But how great, and "outward" truly, how over done and spiritually fantastical, is the pains-taking of men and women Friends to dress-precisely so!

Truth is truth, whoever says it: and on this principle I advert to the saying of a very worthless man ; conceding its bad origin, while I commend the sentiment it contains. "If the Maker of all had been a Friend, what a drab-colored creation we should have had!" Instead of this, the eternal architect and original of all things, has implanted the principles of taste, and the sense of beauty, as well as of universal harmony and elegance, in every human being: and stored the world with an exuberance of welladapted objects to attract and gratify so pure and innocent an endowment. God hath thus made man; and thus made all nature "beauty to his eye and music to his ear." How inimitable, how rich, how variegated, the hues of a flower-garden; an autum

nal forest! or the tints of glory that adorn the occident on a fine summer's evening. How grand and imposing a spectacle is old ocean, rolling in its own expanse. How ravishing and splendid the scene of the firmament, glowing with innumerable stars; "with living sapphires," as Milton calls them—at (as Barbauld gives it) "the dead of midnight and the noon of thought!" how gorgeous the counterpart of all these glories, peering as from an equal subterranean vault, seen thousands of leagues below the reflecting surface of some sylvan lake! How inspiring and symphonious the songsters of the wood! They praise the Creator, while man is mute and inconsiderate of him. But we speak of clothing, not minstrelsey. "Consider the lilies how they grow-Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothe the grass, which is to-day in the field, and to-morrow is cast in the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith." Thus all his works concur and speak his praise.

And all are under One. One spirit-His,

Who wore the platted thorns with bleeding brows,
Rules universal nature. Not a flower

But shows some touch, in freckle, streak, or stain
Of his unrivalled pencil. He inspires

Their balmy odours, and imparts their hues,
And bathes their eyes with nectar, and includes,
In grains as countless as the seaside sands,
The forms with which he sprinkles all the earth.
Happy who walks with him! whom what he finds
Of flavor or of scent in fruit or flower,
Or what he views of beautiful or grand

In nature, from the broad majestic oak
To the green blade that twinkles in the sun,
Prompts with remembrance of a present God.
His presence, who made all so fair, perceived,
Makes all still fairer.

COWPER.

The senses are not sin; nor is their regular and temperate gratification wrong. Is any man so stoically philosophical in his pseudo-christianity as to profess that he eats, for example, merely from a consideration of ulterior results, as the health and strength of his physical system; and counts it sin to relish his food in the process of mastication? It is the inordinate indulgence of the bodily appetites, or their irregular and iniquitous gratification, that constitutes sin in the sight of God. Christianity is intended to suit and discipline, to tutor and perfectionate our total manhood, in the best possible manner and to ends equally and superlatively good. We are to "use the world as not abusing it;" to enjoy without excess or waste or ingratitude, his bounties who so munificently furnishes us with good of every sort. "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer:" that is, the authority of "the word of God" hath set it apart for our use, and "prayer" concurring receives his blessing with the gift; and both constitute the appropriate "sanctifying" of these donations to their legitimate endthe use of man. Hence we are not to invent crosses that we may carry them, as if they were divinely commanded! especially to invent them for others;