rom that
of the Churchmen of the age. It was said of Quakers that they were mere
Deists, except that they hated reason.[488] The imputation might not
unfrequently be true; for a Quaker consistently with his principles
might reject some very essential features of Christianity. Often, on
the other hand, such a charge would be entirely erroneous, for, no less
consistently, a Quaker might be in the strictest sense of the word a
thorough and earnest Christian. But in any case he was well armed
against that numerous class of Deistical objections which rested upon an
exclusively literal interpretation of Scripture. This is eminently
observable in regard of theories of inspiration. To Quakers, as to
mystical writers in general, biblical infallibility has never seemed to
be a doctrine worth contending for. They have always felt that an
admixture of human error is perfectly innocuous where there is a living
spirit present to interpret the teaching of Scripture to the hearts of
men. But elsewhere, the doctrine of unerring literal inspiration was
almost everywhere held in its straitest form. Leslie, for example,
quotes with horror a statement of Ellwood, one of his Quaker opponents,
that St. Paul expected the day of judgment to come in his time. 'If,'
answers Leslie, 'he thought it might, then it follows that he was
mistaken, and consequently that what he wrote was not truth; and so not
only the authority of this Epistle, but of all the Epistles, and of all
the rest of the New Testament, will fall to the ground.'[489] Such
specious, but false and dangerous reasoning is by no means uncommon
still; but when it represented the general language of orthodox
theologians, we cannot wonder that the difficulties started by Deistical
writers caused widespread disbelief, and raised a panic as if the very
foundations of Christianity were in danger of being overthrown.

There were other ways in which profound confidence in direct spiritual
guidance shielded Quakers from perplexities which shook the faith of
many. They had been among the first to turn with horror from those stern
views of predestination and reprobation which, until the middle of the
seventeenth century, had been accepted by the great majority of English
Protestants without misgiving. It was doctrine utterly repugnant to men
whose cardinal belief was in the light that lighteth every man. The same
principle kept even the most bigoted among them from falling into the
prevalent opin